Talk:Logan International Airport/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

China Eastern Service to Boston

Hi all. I noticed that China Eastern Airlines said it was going to start Boston-Beijing service in June 2012. However, it obviously does not serve currently, but it wasn't terminated either. What happened to it? I found more than 5 online sources that announced the service commencement? Anyone with info, please reply. Thanks. -Connor (ConnorLax101| talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:49, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Have you found any sources that say the service actually commenced? I don't think it did. There's nothing bookable on their web site. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:42, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

On the google search https://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy-ab&q=china+eastern+starts+boston+service&oq=china+eastern+starts+bosto&gs_l=hp.1.2.33i29i30l3.1207.7329.0.9273.30.24.2.3.3.1.442.3652.8j9j1j2j2.22.0...0.0...1c.1.7.psy-ab.sI6If5uwZW4&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.44158598,d.dmQ&fp=3e3d88a3ec4b534b&biw=1600&bih=731 it shows many sources that indicate it will, but nothing that says it didn't. I just want to know why it isn't happening now. Thanks. -Connor (ConnorLax101 | talk) 01:06, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

United's move to Terminal B

Hi everyone. I am wondering for the Airlines and Destinations table, should I merge the mainline United operations in A with the mainline operations in C since they are all going to end up in the same place. Also, the Continental/United merger is completely done? I think we should since it is a) a minor edit and b) it will make it easier for everything else, too. Thanks. -Connor (WorldTraveller101 | talk | contribs) 13:03, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

Archiving

This talk page is getting massive. If no one objects, I'll ask User:MiszaBot III to automatically archive threads more than 365 days old. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 19:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I'd say do it for stuff that doesn't matter now. However, important ones should not be deleted. All others >365 days old should be. Thanks. (WorldTraveller101 | talk | contribs) 10:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Of course nothing from a talk page is ordinarily ever deleted; threads with no activity in 365 days will just be moved to an archive page. (Of course, this can break when users fail to put a timestamp on their talk page posts!) Set up now. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 08:27, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to bring up a conversation from a week or two ago, but it looks a lot better like this. Good job, ASHill. :) -Connor (WorldTraveller101 | talk | contribs) 21:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

footnote

Is the footnote "Although those airlines depart from the domestic terminals, they arrive at Terminal E for customs processing" really necessary? Do any of the other terminals have customs facilities beside Terminal E? 68.119.73.36 (talk) 03:53, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Nope it is not required. Wikipedia is not a travel guide. --JetBlast (talk) 11:03, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Cargo At Logan Airport

I am for now removing the Cargo Airlines and Destinations part of Airlines and Destinations. This is because there are a lack of sources and it is very incomplete and outdated. If you disagree or would like to revert it, reply on this talk page. Anything personal, post on my Talk Page. -Connor talk —Preceding undated comment added 01:56, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Other airport articles have a list of cargo carriers, so removing the section is out of the question. The better idea is to find the appropriate citations (and update if necessary). Pentawing^Talk 05:51, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

It's the problem I have. There are no sources. Some airport pages such as the San Francisco International Airport one don't have a cargo list. If we can't find anything soon, it'll be removed until further noticed. Thanks.-Connor (ConnorLax101|talk)

ConnorLax101, it will not be removed without a consensus. --JetBlast (talk) 22:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Oh, no no no I wouldn't do that! In fact, I just found a source for the cargo airlines serving Logan Airport.^[1]. Thanks.-Connor (ConnorLax101|talk)

Would you list the source (if it hadn't been used already) so that others might be able to use it? Thanks. Pentawing^Talk 03:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Absolutley. I'll add the source only for now. Later, I will add the destinations. Thanks.-Connor (ConnorLax101|talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

I've refrained from reverting the extensive modifications ConnorLax101 (now WorldTraveller101) has made because they're happening faster than I care to keep up with. However, it appears to me that essentially all of the changes are not an improvement. First, they are largely based on this source. That source doesn't seem like a reliable source to me; it's authorship is unclear and it's difficult to discern that they maintain accurate schedules for all the cargo carriers listed. Moreover, it doesn't state that the enormous list of cargo carriers that has been compiled actually fly aircraft to/from Logan, let alone to the indicated destinations. Instead, it claims only to be a list of advertisers. Thus, I believe it is essentially worthless as a source for cargo destinations from Logan.

Also, does anyone believe that (for example) Singapore Airlines flies their own cargo planes from Logan to Amsterdam, Chicago-O'Hare, Dallas/Fort Worth, Los Angeles, and Singapore? I don't think they actually fly to Logan at all, though I could be wrong.

There is also a larger question, which may be best answered at WP:Airports: what is the point of a list of cargo destinations anyway, particularly one this long? Cargo schedules are difficult to ascertain and not generally publicly available, and it's also unclear what they contribute to the article except as a directory (which is NOT the purpose of a Wikipedia article). If the table actually listed what it meant, then it would be better. As it stands now, there's no indication to a reader what it means.

I've also tagged several references that don't actually include the destinations that are listed in the article. I only checked a few, though; I suspect many more are questionable. For example, the Lufthansa cargo schedule (from the provided ref) lists cargo flights to the indicated destinations, but on a passenger widebody; should that be included in the cargo destinations? I don't think so. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:27, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

A few I recognized as "incorrect", I removed. However, a 'destination' according to several users can be a stopover or a continuing flight. Any cargo that gets Point A to Point B is considered a 'cargo destination', no matter how many stops are made, as long as goes to a point. For example, Singapore Cargo flies to Singapore and Amsterdam (which continues on to Singapore), and make a stopover in the other three. I know ABX is right. Cathay Cargo has Taipei as O & D, but uses the rest as stopovers. But this is based on 'cargo destinations'. This was a discussion that I brought up on other pages and most did not know. Only two said that for cargo, as long as it gets from Point A to Point B, no matter how many stopovers it has, it is destination, as well as those stopovers. It was also decided that these differ from passenger destinations, since passenger only transports people and their luggage. All are going to one airport. It's not the same for cargo. There are many different things, most not going to the same place or airport.

Also, as you can see, I got previous approval and consensus of all of this. I'm glad you recognize some inaccuracies, however some claimed inaccuracies are actually correct. I was wrong on a few of them, but most are right. Was EVA Cargo not working for you, for me, or something? It brought up Boston. Lets continue to discuss it further. Thanks. -Connor (WorldTraveller101 | talk | contribs)

I would like to add EVA again because once again, the schedule shows what I had originally. BTW, for a 'cargo destination', all of these end up in Taipei, so as long as it gets from Point A to Point B, its a destination (for cargo). If there isn't a reply, I would like to re-add it. Thanks. -Connor (WorldTraveller101 | talk | contribs) 01:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The EVA site you cite has a link to this PDF; I presume that's the schedule you refer to. The only EVA cargo flight to the Americas in that schedule serves TPE, ANC, LAX, ORD, ATL, SFO, DFW, and JFK; no BOS. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:15, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Re the larger point: it would be helpful if you referred to the discussion. Anyway, for the reasons I detailed above, I don't think that a cargo list like this serves a purpose other than cluttering the article, and the main source is not reliable. Certainly, its meaning (which is not obvious) needs to be explained in text in the article. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:19, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Alrighty, so what's the next best step to take? (WorldTraveller101 | talk | contribs) 11:09, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Connor/WorldTraveller have you totally bent my meaning? Why should cargo be MORE LIBERAL than passenger destinations? It can't be a destination if it isn't the same plane AND flight number, period/full stop. If it is, anywhere in the world is a destination, just like how UPS/Fedex/DHL advertising departments would want to tell you. To me, anything cargo that isn't non-stop should be excluded. To a piece of cargo, it's getting from Point A to Point B that matters, not whether the whole trip involves a plane change or flight number. Cargo doesn't get lost with a plane change like passenger baggage. Therefore there is no justification of including continuations. Now this gets into muddy waters as foreign carriers would fly domestic routes that passenger services would not. (For example, CX wouldn't fly from much anywhere in the US to HKG.) So to agree with Ashill, I think only carriers should be listed and destinations should be all but eliminated. HkCaGu (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I deleted the destinations. Now it is nothing more than a simple list of cargo airlines. Probably better. -Connor (WorldTraveller101 | talk | contribs) 01:36, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Several more cleanup items:

Do Aer Lingus, Air France, Alitalia, British Airways, Delta, Icelandair and Lufthansa operate separate cargo planes to Logan, or are they just selling cargo space in their passenger planes? If the latter (which I strongly suspect), they should all be removed from the cargo list.
Cathay Pacific and EVA Air keep getting re-added, even though their schedules (the purported source, at least before the destinations were removed) list only truck service to BOS (CX) and no service at all (EVA). Is there any evidence they should be on this list?
I remain skeptical of most of the passenger airlines which don't serve BOS that purportedly send cargo planes to BOS, and the main source for the list is questionable at best. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 21:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I believe it should be an Airline & Destination list. Almost every airport has one, so there needs to be one. On the other hand, believe it or not, the user WorldTraveller101 had about as a good of a list as can be. I think it should be changed back. According to all I found, the information he/she had was verifiable. Maybe I could find a better source. Thanks. AeroAddict (talk) 19:46, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

AeroAddict, please read discussion above. Sources were bad, and unverifiable. And WP:AIRPORT does NOT require a cargo destination table. And any flight that carries passengers absolutely cannot be "listed" or "included". All passengers flight carry cargo by default. Only cargo-only flights have encyclopedic value. Now do you understand the difficulty? HkCaGu (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I've brought up the larger issue at WT:AIRPORT, suggesting that a guideline there would be helpful. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 04:43, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

A number of references are being added now; thanks. However, nearly every one of these references (as of this version of the page) explicitly indicates that the airline does not fly cargo flights to BOS:

Air France: the cited schedule lists AF333, a passenger 744, as the only direct flight to Paris, plus two truck services to JFK.
China Airlines cargo: the source does not list any flights to BOS. BOS is an option in the pop-up menu, but there are no flights listed when you search for a flight. Moreover, their PDF timetable does not list any flights to BOS: the US destinations are ANC, SEA, LAX, DFW, ATL, and SFO.
Emirates: the PDF schedule from Emirates lists three flights to JFK, all of which are operated by partner airlines.
Korean: the link provided lists ATL, IAD, JFK, MIA, and ORD as the only origins in "USA - East".
LAN: the link lists a "Drop off station" at BOS, but doesn't explicitly say whether the service is a LAN-operated plane. The timing suggests that it is a truck to JFK (taking 5 hours from departing BOS to arriving JFK). Meanwhile, the freighter services link at that page ([1]) does not list BOS.
Lufthansa: the cargo schedule (which can be downloaded as a spreadsheet) lists only passenger services to BOS; no cargo-only flights.

All of these airlines should be removed from the cargo list based on the reference provided. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 02:19, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Exactly why I said "proof of actual flight" should be required. Either an online clearly-freight timetable, or a FlightAware link with a flight number that shows periodicity/repetitivity. "Service offer" just doesn't fly in a cargo listing. HkCaGu (talk) 12:20, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

A few things to add:

I would like to point out that there is nothing that says it can't say "Emirates SkyCargo operated by..." A lot of Cargo airlines say that at many airports. Also a few other pointers:
Would China Airlines Cargo show Boston if it was not a destination? It doesn't show smaller airports that aren't destinations.
A drop off station refers to the fact that cargo exists.
For Korean, it goes through JFK or Miami. It counts, as long as there is no plane change, which there isn't.

At this point, with what you're saying, we are back down to the list we had two months ago, which had zero citations and was <10% complete. Thanks. (WorldTraveller101 | What is up? | How do I help?) 14:43, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Connor, this is ridiculous. You are misrepresenting every source and need to stop it.

A drop off station does not indicate that the airline flies a cargo plane to the airport.
Emirates: I assume we're following a similar procedure as used by airlines in general: only cargo flights operated by the stated cargo airline should be listed. Emirates' cargo service is not same plane through JFK, since the BOS-JFK service is operated by a different airline than the JFK-DXB service!
China Airlines: I don't know, but you're getting far into original research. Why would China Airlines Cargo publish a timetable that lists the US destinations I listed above but not BOS if they fly to BOS?
Korean: show me the schedule! I listed the flights on the schedule in the link you provided, which don't include BOS. What is the Korean Airlines flight number for cargo-only service from BOS through JFK and MIA?
Cathay Pacific: The link you provided allows a schedule search. In doing a schedule search from BOS to HKG for 15 April 2013, the options listed from BOS all involve flight XH3633, which is a truck service from BOS to JFK (and then service on flights CX889, CX095, CX845, CX841, or CX831~~, all of which are passenger flights JFK-HKG)~~. Thus, Cathay Pacific doesn't provide cargo-only airplane service to BOS ~~(and you haven't provided any evidence that they do even to JFK!)~~.
British Airways: you provided a link indicating that BA has a cargo office in BOS. Their longhaul freighter service schedule doesn't list BOS.
Lufthansa here is the Lufthansa cargo schedule in a CSV format. The LH "cargo" flights from BOS are LH421 and LH 423, passenger service to FRA, and LH425, passenger service to MUC.

I'll give you some time to address these, but will revert all of your unsourced or mis-sourced changes unless you provide source that actually support your claims. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:56, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Very good and detailed explanation that I cannot afford the time to research and explain. Just one thing, CX095 (JFK) is within range of a CX cargo flight number. Everything else (800s) is regular passenger flights. Actually the HKG website can prove HKG-JFK service exists (if nonstop), but just as I said before, and I hope everyone understand by now, why an actual flight number is an absolute must. HkCaGu (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the catch re CX095. Indeed, CX's cargo site lists BOS-JFK-HKG flights that are on a freighter from JFK-HKG, but they're all trucks from BOS-JFK. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:41, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Now the bit of the cargo list that no one disputes (ie the cargo airlines that actually do serve BOS) has been removed. Why throw the baby out with the bathwater? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

You mentioned in your proposed guidelines that they aren't a must-have anyway. Thanks. (WorldTraveller101 | What is up? | How do I help?) 13:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Removal of 2nd JAL 787 Incident

A user recently removed the second Japan Airlines 787 incident from the A and I section. [2] Should this be included or not?

My Rationale/Reason: It was the final accident that led the FAA to ground the 787. I think it should stay, but some community consensus would be great. Thanks. World Traveller101 23:00, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I tweaked the one remaining point to mention that these incidents led to the grounding. I don't think the details (that there were two separate incidents) merit separate incidents on this article. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:06, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. World Traveller101 23:21, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Well thats wrong. The incident was not what caused the groundings. They where grounded because of battery problems, this aircraft had a fuel leak!! --JetBlast (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough. But is there an issue with the article as it currently stands, rather than my slightly inaccurate talk page comment? I think the fuel link pretty clearly doesn't meet the notability criteria on its own. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 09:36, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Looks ok. To me the way it is written gives the impression it was a big fire and destroyed the aircraft (although it doesn't say that). Might want to tone it down. But apart from that looks good. --JetBlast (talk) 09:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, we have our answer. Thanks for your inputs guys. World Traveller101 11:51, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Incorrect destination map

The destination map that was recently uploaded by Josh.avery21 is erroneous on several accounts and should be promptly removed.

1) The term 'direct' can refer to a flight that has interim stops but is ticketed to the final destination. If intending to show flights with 'nonstop' service from Logan Airport, the map should use the term 'nonstop' otherwise a large majority of Southwest Airlines destinations could be added if we're talking 'direct' i.e. Southwest Airlines Flight 413 offers 'direct' service to Orange County: Baltimore-Boston-Kansas City-Indianapolis-Denver-Orange County-San Francisco.

2) Istanbul service does not commence until May 2014 and should not be on the map until then.

3) Covington, Kentucky refers to the city in which CVG was named after when the airport first opened, however, the airport serves (and is referred to as) Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport.

4) Label the destinations by IATA code, not city (Houston listed twice could be confusing for some).

5) The map text is illegible and of poor quality - if you're going to showcase the commercial aviation network from a large US city, make it tasteful.

Overall, I think this page is in need of a map to showcase the nonstop destinations and I am glad someone attempted to do so and after a few changes, this could be a very useful exhibit.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.151.131.131 (talk) 13:24, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Cape Air/Nantucket Airlines

So I just realized that Nantucket Airlines was added to the list of airlines. This confused me slightly as I thought that Cape Air owned Nantucket Airlines and therefore was essentially the same airline.

Any clarification would be great.

Bbrsox (talk) 01:45, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, all of the routes out of KBOS are strictly Cape Air routes. Nantucket airlines only does Hyannis-Nantucket. If the ACK air planes are seen in Boston they are operating the Cape Air flights. Nantucket airlines (dba Cape Air) does not fly to Boston. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.206.239.78 (talk) 15:56, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Terminal B

Are the two buildings north/south or east/west? Google map says it's east and west, and here is a probably more reliable source:

https://www.massport.com/logan-airport/inside-the-airport/logan-interactive-maps/

18.53.0.88 (talk) 01:04, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

http://www.airport-technology.com/projects/boston-logan/
Triggered by \bairport-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 11:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 19:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Citation for A380 airlines

A user has twice removed a citation needed tag for the sentence "Air France, British Airways, and Lufthansa are also possible candidates [to fly an A380 to Logan] due to the volume of European traffic handled by those airlines." I thought this sentence was in the article a while (months or years?) ago with a citation, but I can't find it in the history. Without a citation, this sentence is original research, as far as I'm concerned. Is there any justification for including this sentence without a citation? —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I decided to remove the sentence in question until I or someone else can find sources for it in order to prevent any pointless edit wars. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 20:16, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

AirTran

Why is AirTran deleted? I believe the airline is still operating flights but will not cease until December 28, 2014. Did it convert to Southwest already?? Rzxz1980 (talk) 05:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

DL Hub or Focus City at BOS

Please do not add BOS as a focus city or hub for DL. We are currently reaching a consensus on the DL talk page, if you have opinions or sources, please post them there. For now we have agreed to not include DL as either, but when a decision is made, this page can be updated to reflect the decision. Stinger20 (talk) 23:24, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. 97.85.113.113 (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Boston-Cancun AA Year ROund

Boston-Cancun on American Airlines runs YEAR ROUND on American Airlines every week. Source: American Airlines flight listings shows the route operating every Saturday from 11/4 until September 2016.. where they finished scheduling to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.76.32 (talk) 18:30, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Totally agree here. BOS to CUN. Is a year round operation on American Airlines.runs 50 weeks a year — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1006:B16A:90F3:5179:6B70:EEA0:E33 (talk) 18:36, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

The whole November has no flights. If this isn't seasonal, I don't know what is. HkCaGu (talk) 03:34, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunatelya 'seasonal' flight, is one that operates during a particular season. BOS-CUN runs year round. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caulineire (talk • contribs) 04:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It is a 3:1 vote to keep AA's BOS-CUN at year round since it operates the route year round, just skips 2 weeks in November. Route DOES operate 2 weeks in November. Very much year round — Preceding unsigned comment added by Caulineire (talk • contribs) 04:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't "vote". Seasonal means anything less than year-round. HkCaGu (talk) 01:14, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Seasonal means it operates during a particular season.. if that was the case I can give you a list of AA routes that arent year round. skipping 2 weeks is just reduced frequency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.91.76.32 (talk) 05:01, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Logan International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:38, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Logan International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140110215449/http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/US%20International%20Air%20Passenger%20and%20Freight%20Statistics%20Report%20for%20June%202013.pdf to http://www.dot.gov/sites/dot.dev/files/docs/US%20International%20Air%20Passenger%20and%20Freight%20Statistics%20Report%20for%20June%202013.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:46, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of the "Expansion of International Service" section

I disagree with those contributors who axed the "Expansion of International Service" section. The suppositions left with the edits--that the section was "way out of control" or "not what Wikipedia is for" --are personal opinions, and its complete removal does not improve the entry other than to make it shorter.

The rapid increase from 2012-present in foreign airlines at Logan is unquestionably remarkable in recent commercial aviation history, as evidenced by the numerous media articles to the development (many of which were referenced in the section) which also note the economic benefits on the metropolitan area of these developments. The phenomenon merits more mention than the presence of a cell phone lot or other mundane details about Logan, which remain in the article.

Many other airport articles on Wikipedia have detailed discussions of the history of notable services to that airport, so the section is generally consistent with content in other airport pages. I'm not going to go back and forth with other editors reversing the deletion, but the suggestions that the section somehow detracted from the article are based on individual preferences. Dfiner (talk) 09:24, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The section was just a long random list of international services that had started since a random date. Wikipedia is not a list of random things. In this case the list was way out of control. If indeed such a trend was unusual enough to be notable (you use the word remarkable) which is unlikely it would need to have been something noticed and published as such for such a claim to be included. And if included would not simply be a list of such services but contain some analysis of the trend with maybe some salient examples and probably some statistics. This list had none of that. Just because other articles might have a similar lists (examples?) is not really a rationale for keeping this particular one.Andrewgprout (talk) 12:38, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

This description mis-characterizes the section as "random things." It is not. Noting a succession in new international services beginning from an identifiable, first event is not at all random, as the information included all shares very specific attributes. A continuing sequences of like events does indeed suggest the use of some sort of list, which I'm not aware is prohibited in Wikipedia articles. Also, the section did not consist entirely of a list, despite what you repeatedly say. If the list form was a problem, then it should be marked for editing, not deleted. The repeated supposition that the section was "random" and your assertion that it is unlikely that the trend was notable (even though multiple published sources referenced in the section itself, such as the Boston Globe, describe the phenomenon this way) suggest that you never read the section or its links, and are merely adding to the previous vague, subjective pronunciations rather than weighing the merits of the section. The burden shouldn't be on those in favor of its remaining to provide examples of similar content in other articles, if editors are not generally familiar with the wide variety of information often found in entries about commercial airports, then perhaps those contributors have less standing to judge content in such articles as relevant, or "out of control" --whatever that was supposed to mean. There need to be better reasons than those provided for expunging it entirely.Dfiner (talk) 14:13, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

@Dfiner: Did you read the referenced article? The whole section had only one reference - and all that reference said was that El Al were planning on 3 767s a week to Tel Aviv - nothing about the great increase in traffic nothing about how such a thing is remarkable (which it isn't - Nearly every airport in the world could have the same story). Everything else on the page is WP:SYNTHESIS. What I meant by out of control was that someone had originally entered a statement that may or may not have been true and supportable by a reference for that time, subsequently additions every example possible of a new service have been added. That is uncontrolled and unencyclopedic! it was a absolute mess and needed to be gone. Andrewgprout (talk) 19:54, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Logan International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

FLL/PBI on the destinations map are swapped

On the destinations map, FLL (Ft. Lauderdale, Florida) is located above PBI (Palm Beach, Florida). However, the actual North-South ordering of the airports is PBI then FLL.

RC Howe (talk) 01:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Logan International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 October 2017

This edit request to Logan International Airport has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Virgin Atlantic Clubhouse reference link (#77) needs to be updated following VS's website update - new URL: https://www.virginatlantic.com/gb/en/virgin-experience/clubhouses-and-treats/our-clubhouses/boston-clubhouse.html 185.46.212.64 (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Done —KuyaBriBri^Talk 14:17, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Unidirectional?

"Runway 14/32, which officially opened to air traffic on November 23, 2006, is unidirectional. Runway 32 is used for landings and 14 is used for takeoffs." So the runway operations go in two different directions; landings are flying westward and takeoffs are flying eastward. Since two different directions are used for operations on the runway, is "unidirectional" an appropriate word to describe it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.68.134.1 (talk) 15:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

"Unidirectional" appears to be the term used by the airport and the FAA; it means that a given operation happens in only one direction on a runway, not that airplanes move on it in only one direction. The object is to have no airplanes flying over the end of the runway that is near a dense residential area.209.6.73.78 (talk) 20:50, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

link fix request

The first External Link, "Official website", 404's. It goes to

    https://www.massport.com/logan/

A link that works is

    https://www.massport.com/logan-airport/

209.6.73.78 (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Control Tower Height

The height of the control tower is listed as "nearly a dozen stories high." This should actually say "nearly two dozen stories high." The tower is 22 stories (approx 270'-0" to the roof of the offices, excluding the ATC "cab" on the top, which pushes the height even higher to nearly 280'). "A dozen" is the wrong way to characterize the height.

50.195.28.73 (talk) 17:56, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Sao Paulo flights now bookable

Sao Paulo flights are now bookable on LATAM - This can now be officially added.

http://economia.estadao.com.br/noticias/geral,latam-brasil-lanca-voos-para-boston-e-duas-cidades-da-argentina,70002084258

2601:181:C380:5B10:5080:1E17:C13D:1B12 (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Logan International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:39, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Southwest Airlines to New Orleans (KMSY)

Fares to KMSY from KBOS on Southwest Airlines are now available on Southwest Airlines' website for the listed start date of March 10, 2018. The "dubious -- discuss" marker can now be removed.

Bbrsox (talk) 23:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

TACV service to Sal

Sal, Cape Verde was added as a non-stop destination from BOS with a reference to TACV's website booking page but no non-stop flights can be found on their website nor can any flights be found on any flight tracker website. I have added a "dubious -- discuss" marker to the relevant page.

Bbrsox (talk) 19:18, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

It is correct that Sal is only served via Praia. However Sal is listed here because TACV does not have traffic rights soley between Sal and Praia and therefore Sal is considered direct from Boston as per our guidelines for such situations. Best regards.

It seems dubious to me that TACV, as Cape Verde's national carrier, would not have rights between two Cape Verdean islands. I am not 100% familiar with these flights so you may be correct, but please add a reference if possible. Additionally, if your statement is true, would it be prudent to add a notation to the bottom of the destinations page saying that the flight from KBOS-GVNP continues on to GVAC but that TACV does not have traffic rights between GVNP and GVAC? (Similar to the note on the Los Angeles International Airport page regarding Qantas service between Australia and Kennedy Airport in New York.)

Bbrsox (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Caribbean Airlines BOS-Kingston/Port of Spain

Does anyone have a source for this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:181:C300:3750:5080:1E17:C13D:1B12 (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Korean Air

There were no sources stating that Korean Air service is a resumption. The source provided says that this is a new service. AddictedFlyer21 (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

"There are no sources stating that Korean Air service is a resumption" is an untrue statement. Here is a reliable source stating that exactly: https://www.routesonline.com/news/29/breaking-news/279981/why-korean-air-is-returning-to-boston-/ It is common knowledge that Korean Air served Boston until about 1999. This is precisely why the Boston Logan page is so annoying to try to edit.

Please note that ICN couldn’t possibly be a resumption because Incheon Airport did not open until 2001. If KE served Boston until 1999, then it flew to Gimpo Airport not Incheon. AddictedFlyer21 (talk) 15:47, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Line 68 "Logan will also commence a direct flight to Africa courtesy of Royal Air Maroc"

I am just as surprised and excited as anyone about the upcoming arrival of RAM at BOS and I'm also firmly in the camp that this article should adequately reference the remarkable growth in intercontinental traffic at Logan over the last decade. However, Boston has for many years had a non-stop flight to Africa with TACV/Cabo Verde Airline's non-stops to Praia or Sal, which (other than its brief move to and back from PVD) has been in existence since prior to the more recent connections to Asia and Latin America. Cabo Verde is an African country; the islands are part of the African continent. Just because they are not on the mainland of Africa does not make CMN Logan's first direct African flight. As historic as RAM's non-stop to Casablanca is, it is misleading to imply that this milestone represents the first direct flight from Logan to Africa.

I'm making a minor edit to Line 68 for now, (and keeping the previous line as is, which has long grouped Bermuda and the Azores into something termed "the Mid Atlantic region" —which I have never heard existed and question whether there is any actual geographic term that lumps these two distant island entities together), so others can weigh in but I don't think this recent edit improves this article. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dfiner (talk • contribs) 16:54, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

September 11 attacks

I believe the fact that two of the four flights highjacked as part of the 9/11 attacks originated at Logan bears more than a "see also" citation. Just sayin'.... PurpleChez (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Message from User:The Rambling Man

TRM has been in touch with me offwiki. He's taking a wikibreak at least and is considering retiring altogether. He asked me to let you know that unfortunately he won't be able to help you with your GA review as promised. I haven't done a GA review before but I'm experienced at FA and confident I can read up, so if you'd like me as an inadequate replacement for TRM's expertise, please do ask. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:52, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the update Dweller. Any help on gaining GA status is welcomed. I too am pretty inexperienced with GA reviews, so perhaps we can work together on this. Appreciate the message. Please give TRM my best - I do hope he doesn't retire altogether. ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 17:59, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Destinations lists

The lists of destinations should have the State or nation. Eg, instead of "San Juan," "San Juan, Puerto Rico." Instead of "Austin," "Austin, TX" This is helpful in at least three ways: lets users know where a destination is if they don't know; disambiguates among cities sharing a name; and allows users to search through the list for countries and states. Eg, one can see every German city in the list, or every Californian city, etc.

The other suggestion: to have another view of the destination lists organized by region, a la the one available in the article for Addis Ababa's Bole airport (see article for reference). Haithem Abdella (talk) 13:21, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Haithem, The way this page organizes it's destination table reflects the scheme outlined in the Airports project page. Suggestions for changes to the organization of airport destination tables can be made there and will need to gain consensus from the project. ✈ mike_gigs ^talk_contribs 19:04, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Question regarding American Airlines in Boston

So I noticed American Airlines is starting to have quite a presence in Boston. American is about to have 25 non stop destinations in May. Many of which are to non hub destinations such as Austin, London-Heathrow, Cancun, Grand Cauman, Montego Bay, Nassau, Providenciales, Punta Cana, Harrisburg, Indianapolis, Raleigh/Durham, Rochester, Syracuse, Key West and Wilmington. By definition of focus cities for airlines is an airline where an airline is not a hub but has a quite a bit of non stop destinations that serve non hub cities for that airline. Take Raleigh/Durham for DELTA Airlines for example. Correct me if I am wrong. So my question is would American Airlines be considered a focus city in Boston since American his going to have 25 nonstop destinations? If American Airlines would not fall under the category of focus city for Boston may I please ask why? I would like to know. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fantech0104 (talk • contribs) 00:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

No because their site doesn't claim Boston to be anything significant. It is just labeled as just another common city. Routes If not on there you'll need something in the stock report or something else like that to prove it is an important "Hub" or "Focus" city. Right now the evidence shows that AA is just another regular carrier at Logan. CaribDigita (talk) 03:15, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks! - Fantech0104

Delta Cancun and Charleston service not seasonal but will be year round

Hello,
Delta Mainline service to Cancun and DCI service to Charleston will be year round (albeit not daily for Cancun)not seasonal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.174.22.25 (talk) 21:13, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

^ "Boston Air Cargo Directory". Retrieved March 15th, 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[1] "Boston Air Cargo Directory". Retrieved March 15th, 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[1]