Emerging Markets are the engines of world growth. China, India and Brazil are the largest drivers of that growth. Boston has no non-stop flights to any of these countries. How are we going to do business, attract capital and have our companies expand in them if there are no direct flights.
Gov Patrick may have a lot on his plate but he needs to find away to expand Logan’s flights to emerging markets.
Please share widely!
so we can bow properly to our corporate masters.
Plane routes are decided by private companies, and short of some sort of subsidy, there’s not much the government can influence that.
<
p>If an international airline felt that it would be profitable to run a route from Boston to Mumbai or Guangzhou, I imagine they would. However, given the delay, capacity, and aircraft restrictions on Logan Airport, it makes a lot more sense to ferry people for 90 minutes to NYC.
A Deval controlled MassPort board could wave gate fees and probably find a few carriers…although I have no idea what the economic benefits would be.
<
p>But is a non stop flight to China or India even possible? (I would think Brazil is the max range for a non-stop flight). Wouldn’t a “non stop” flight entail stopping on the West Coast, Hawaii or Europe {for India} (or wouldn’t a traveler want that break)…if so, then we already have non-stops to these places…via major cities required for a lay over?
My understanding is that Logan Airport is pretty much at capacity, hence the endemic delays there. If we had excess capacity at the international terminal — the only option due to customs reasons — I’d be all for this idea.
<
p>There are some nonstops from the US Northeast to the Far East. I’m not even sure Logan runways could handle the planes needed to make such routes profitable for business.
The reason I ask is because maybe if they could get away with fewer, less frequent flights, then there would be room to add destinations.
a once-a-day nonstop flight from JFK to Beijing. I could never afford that one, so I always went by way of Chicago or Detroit. (Except for the time United pretended that weather meant my flight couldn’t land in Chicago. I had to reroute through SF by way of Newark. The flight to Newark went on to Chicago, and landed within 5 minutes of the ETA of the UA one canceled due to “weather.” Jerks.)
<
p>India is much farther. I didn’t look for one to Delhi, but I doubt it’s in range.
Now this is just silly. Does it really make that much of a difference whether a flight to China is non stop, or has a stop over at LAX? What’s 2 hours when it takes nearly 24 hours to get there? As Sabutai said, this would have happened by now if there’s the business need and capacity for this. What is the governor supposed to do about it?
<
p>Businesses already get enough subsidies, tax write-offs and incentives from the state and federal government. I don’t want Governor Patrick taking money away from cities and towns, especially in this fiscal crisis, to provide subsidies for this kind of service when only a handful of people will ever use it — most rarely the middle and working classes. No thanks. Business execs can wait at most the 2 extra hours at LAX like everyone else does (and probably be happy for it… I’ve made that kind of a flight before, it’s nearly unbearable… the stop over is well appreciated in that instance!)
<
p>—
<
p>For Bob: I completely agree that Massachusetts has fared better than most in this economic climate because of our globalized city, but nonstop flights to China, India and Brazil surely aren’t much of a factor. A much greater factor is the fact that we have the institutions (most of which aren’t going anyway, thankfully) that attract the research and innovation that’s put Boston on the map. Having Harvard, MIT and dozens of other colleges and even world-renowned research hospitals around is rather helpful in being an international city. While we also have relied on the financial sector within our city, having several important companies and/or divisions HQd in Boston, I really, really don’t think they’re all going to flee because it takes an extra hour or two to get from here to Hong Kong. I’m not sure if those institutions will always be here, but I am sure that nonstop flights to China and India aren’t going to be the reason why they leave.
<
p>—
<
p>FYI: I don’t think this is a bad long term goal and I’d applaud any airline at Logan if they were to do it; I just don’t want to see state money going to make it happen, when there’s a lot of other causes much more important to rank and file Massachusetts citizens.
Now, if tcook wanted to make a diary about improving the transportation infrastructure at Logan Airport, chief of which is the whole T to shuttle system, etc. I think that would be a great idea. We lose lots of riders to taxis because the system makes it that much more difficult for people to ride it. That would be state money improving Logan that’s well spent, helping not only the business folk traveling to whichever city they need to, domestically or internationally, but also people taking vacations and the thousands of (often working class) people who work at Logan. Plus, it would greatly improve the city’s actual infrastructure and T system, making it easier for the tens of thousands of international residents who reside, study and work in and around Boston: if anything keeps Boston from becoming a truly international city, it’s our lousy T system, especially when so many foreigners rely on public transportation back home.
The extra time is a big deal. But an even bigger deal is that if the competition, like New York, Philadelphia, Miami, etc. offers it and Boston doesn’t that’s one more argument for employers to move to those locations. If one is flying to Hong Kong frequently, for example, as quite a few people who create jobs in Massachusetts do, those extra hours can be an important reason to locate your HQ. As employers go, so go jobs, and that matters to everyone in the Commonwealth.
Why have we been recovering so well without it?
<
p>Sure, it makes a decent difference for a (select) few people, but not a whole heckuva lot. There are investments we could make that would help a whole lot more people, improving the infrastructure vastly (which would spur far more jobs in the long run) or improving education in cities (which, again, would spur far more jobs in the long run).
<
p>If I want to get to Hong Kong, it takes me X amount of hours to go from my door at home to my hotel bed in Hong Kong. Just getting to the airport can be arduous and time consuming. We could make it less arduous and time consuming either by creating nonstop flights there (assuming its even possible using civilian vehicles) or improving the transportation infrastructure to get to the airport. Either way, we’re probably talking tens of million or even hundreds of millions of dollars (for all we know, Logan can’t at present support the kind of planes necessary to do nonstop flights to China, India or Brazil).
<
p>One of the most common complaints by travelers using Logan is just getting there. Sometimes grief isn’t just caused by length of commute, but comfort and annoyances. Those commutes, comforts and annoyances effect everyone, not just the business execs heading to 3 particular cities out of the entire world.
<
p>I’m not saying we shouldn’t work towards it, I’m just saying it should come at the cost of a) already existing programs and b) programs that would be far more important to the people of Massachusetts. We already have too damn many tax breaks and “incentives” to private interests that never pay themselves off, this would be just another Hollywood East Tax Credit. Yeah, we like the business, but not if we’re the ones paying for it to happen.
I left out a few very important characters. They’re in bold, below.
<
p>”I’m just saying it shouldn’t come at the cost of”
Shouldn’t we be figuring out ways to reduce the amount of air travel that occurs?
Support Amtrak’s high speed rail initiatives.
<
p>A substantial number of flights from Boston to NYC, Newark, and Philly could be grounded if we made Amtrak that much faster. Same goes for local flights from NYC to DC, etc.
<
p>Logan is full. To add more flights, we’ve got to eliminate others. Which to eliminate? The ones where trains could get the job done just as easily — Acela.
<
p>So, want to make room for direct flights to Shanghai? Reduce the number of flights under 300 miles by dramatically improving the rail system.
<
p>
<
p>Besides — as for direct, you know there’s more than one important destination in each of China/HK, Brazil, and India. Unless the direct flight goes to the particular city in that particular country, it still requires another leg — be it stateside, in Japan, Europe, or inside that country. So what’s the difference if that layover is in ORD, LAX, NRT, AMS, or DFW, or if the layover is in the major airport in Brazil, China, or India that isn’t the particular destination of the traveler?
I couldn’t agree more. Chalk the first one up to “killing two birds with one stone.” (Actually, quite a few problems would be solved if we got more people out of Logan and into Amtrak.)
Engines of Growth.
<
p>The closer you are to economic growth the greater your chances of growth. Hong Kong is a rock with a big harbour, and not much more but place it on the belly of the fastest growing major economy ,China and it is NY on steriods. Direct flights to India, China and Brazil moves Mass closer to growth.
<
p>Gov. Patrick just went on a trade mission to Isreal. A Governor telling a company or airline that he will put his weight behind helping them, goes a long way. The Gov can direct Massport to solve problems that could be holding airlines back.