Talk:Logan International Airport/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Air Canada

Regarding Air Canada in Boston: I just collapsed AC and AC Jazz into one line. The two carriers routinely swap service between cities. So for instance, today there are only Air Canada flights from Toronto to Boston. On the weekends, it's a mix of AC and AC Jazz. Check the AC timetable if you don't believe me.

Also, Quebec City nonstop flights have been announced and come to Boston this June. Vancouver nonstop flights return on July 2.

There has also been confusion about Air Canada in Terminal E. Only flights from cities without U.S. Customs and Immigration Preclearance land at Terminal E. In terms of Canadian city, this means flights from Quebec and Halifax must land at E. Halifax just won the right to have preclearance facilities, but they are not yet up and running. When they are, these flights will arrive at Terminal C like the flights from Montreal, Toronto, Ottawa, and Vancouver.

Terminal Change

It has been made known to Terminal C Employees (I am a JetBlue Crewmember) that Continental will be moving out of Terminal C by the end of this year, and is probably going to be located in Terminal A (JetBlue will be taking their gates). The information has not been listed on the net yet, so I have no sources to cite, but I didn't know if you wanted to list the possible change. If MASSPORT comes up with any documents I'll post a link. User:neo16287 02:44 21 July 2006 (UTC)

9/11 Lady Suicide

Can we get a reference on the new fact that the lady who checked in the 9/11 hijackers ended up comitting suicide?

We really do need a reference here because this information, if verifiable, is newsworthy and deserves to be included in the article.

Terminated flights

What happened to the AirOne flight to Milan? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.82.92.15 (talk) 15:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Air One used to fly on behalf of Alitalia to Milan. But when Alitalia closed its Milan hub, Air One stopped flying to all U.S cities (Boston, New York-JFK, LAX, you name it). Hope this helps. -Connor (ConnorLax101) ConnorLax101 talk page

removal of 9/11 information

While I (and everyone else) sympathyze with the September 11 terrorist attack victims, and with the airline employees who lost their lives that day, removal of pertinent, encylopedic information regarding the fact that two of the planes from that day departed from Logan is 1) probably in violation of Wikipedia standards; 2) probably an act of censorship; and 3) highly un-encyclopedic at the least. Experts (editors), please comment. Thanks Trevormartin227 02:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

If you want to put it in, fine. Airline employees are just sick of their place of employment being referred to as a terrorist weak spot than their place of employment (the airport itself). I'll restore it. Snakes

I am certainly not a Snake, and I'll thank you to avoid personal attacks. This is an encyclopedia, not an advertising site, not an employee-morale sight, and certainly not a place for personal attacks. Thank you for maintaining civility. Wikipedia is a collaborative encylopedic project, and I'm happy to hear that you will restore the fact-based information. Trevormartin227 02:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Snakes is an internet handle. I was not referring to you with it. I should have put a hyphen in front of it. It was not meant as an attack. Sorry for the confusion. The information has been restored.

We're cool. I wiki linked your sentence that you restored, FYI. And again, sorry for your loss (personal or otherwise) that day. Trevormartin227 02:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Sorry I let my personal feelings interfere.

Why does Apple Island redirect here?

There is no mention of any Apple Island in the article. older ≠ wiser 02:47, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Apple island is the island on which the airport is located. --KPWM_Spotter 21:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Runway 15L - 33R

The article states that runway 15L-33R is 2557ft long. As this hardly justifies categorisation as a major runway (all Logan's other runways are 7000ft or more) I reduced the count of major runways to 4. Anonymous editor 209.6.182.19 reverted this with the comment The runway is only listed as 2,557 feet as that is the area with which it is normally used during normal operation. It is in total the same operational length as 15R/33L.

If this is correct then there is something seriously wrong with both the map and arial photo on this article. Both map and arial photgraph clearly show 15L-33R running from left to right just to the north of main runway 15R-33L. It barely stretches further than the gap between runways 4L-22R and 4R-22L. If it was indeed as long as 15R-33L, then the photograph shows that large portions of it would be under water. And of course there would be no need to build the proposed new 14-32 runway. I have changed the major runway count back to four. -- Chris j wood 00:26, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

What I think occured is the anon editor mistook 15R-33L for runway 4R/L. It could happen. Although MASSPORT has listed it as a major runway. Seeing as BOS is a commuter hub (also said by MASSPORT), this would constitute a major runway, if only for the large amount of commuter flights originating and terminating at BOS. Agree? -- User: neo16287 22:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Having reflected on this, I'm not sure why we need to make the distinction between major and minor at all, with its attendent POV risks. After all, we list all the runways with their principal characteristics. Probably best to let the reader make that distinction, if it is important to them. -- Chris j wood 08:54, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Back in 1988, Massport had proposed filling-in of land to extend Runway 15L/33R by 800 feet. This runway crosses a major clam bed and fishing area, which was one of the arguments invoked by opponents trying to shoot down the proposal. I would like to include this information on the main page but need the name or designation of the clam bed in question. Boston-area fishermen or mariners may know the answer to this. Thanks.

There's been a lot of discussion on this website lately about Runway 15L-33R. Some dispute the notion that it can be designated as a "major" runway. I think all airports, regardless of their size, are required by the FAA to make this classification regardless of the runway's length, width, and use. With 14-32 having already been constructed, the future of 15L-33R remains uncertain. It is virtually unused as it is, and will become virtually obsolete as a result of the new runway. I think Massport may elect at some point in the near future to eliminate this runway altogether and redesignate it as a taxiway, which is really the only purpose for which the runway is currently used. If nothing else, this would be a purely symbolic gesture of goodwill towards the local communities who despise any form of airport expansion. Logan is small enough in terms of land as it is so it seems pointless and confusing to have six runways in any event. Reducing the number to five would simplify the airport diagram and make things easier for pilots and ATC.

It could also provide greater access around Boston Harbor for boaters, who (I would imagine) have to abide by strict guidelines when crossing the approach paths of any runway. Why inconvenience them for the sake of a runway such as 15L-33R which is virtually unused by aircraft anyway?

I'm not sure what this would entail. You'll recall that back in 2003, the city of Chicago was fined by the FAA after Mayor Daley bulldozed the runway at Meigs Field. But remember that 15L-33R is a short VFR runway without any published approach procedures. Getting rid of it shouldn't be much of an issue.

Maybe somebody can weigh in on this? --Sean 2015 14:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

All I heard about such while I worked at BOS was that this runway was designated as a runway for secondary situations, such as use by smaller connection carriers during IROP (irregular operating) situations. THis could include a variety of situations from weather conditions to inflight emergencies. It wouldn't do much for a 747 with a case of appendicitis aboard, but a Cape Air Cessna with a case of such would be able to be granted primary clearance without disrupting normal operation.........unless it's around 5pm eastern and November taxiway is loaded with the Europe departures, which tend to clog the taxiway around that time of day. Other than that, there's not much use. As for reducing it to a taxiway, MASSPORT didn't tell us anything about it. But in the time I worked at the airport, I never saw any aircraft use 15L-33R as a poor-man's taxiway. could mean anything. Neo16287 14:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

If you go to the following link http://www.massport.com/logan/airpo_noise_runwy.html, you can view statistics on runway use by jet aircraft at Logan. For whatever reason, Massport doesn't even include statistics for Runway 15L/33R (the website only says that the runway is too short for use by jet aircraft). I would venture to guess that statistics on this runway are omitted because it is too seldom used to produce any worthwhile statistics.

15L/33R was constructed to accommodate the smallest aircraft and free up the larger Runway 33L for use by the heavier jets that require it. At 2,557 feet, 15L/33R represents one of the shortest (if not THE shortest) runway length that I know of at any major airport in the United States.

I don't agree with your point that it was constructed for emergency situations. Any aircraft in distress, regardless of size or weight, has priority over all other traffic and can land on any runway they choose. Also, regarding the point you made about Taxiway November interfering with aircraft rolling out off of 33R, this would not be an issue since 15L/33R would NEVER be in use during "south-flow operations" when Runways 27 and 22L are used for arrivals, 22R for (mostly domestic) departures and 22L for the Europe departures which require more take-off space. 15L/33R is ALWAYS closed whenever 22L and/or 22R are in use.

I think reducing it to a taxiway would be beneficial to Massport and the FAA insofar as it would allow them to blunt criticism from neighboring communities who are so vehemetly opposed to any form of airport expansion. The idea of reducing the number of runways would come as some relief to nearby residents--even if it means simply eliminating a runway which, for all intents and purposes, never gets used anyway. In addition, this would simplify the airfield layout and make the airport diagram easier to read for pilots.

In this scenario, Runway 15R/33L would lose its left-right designator and become, simply, Runway 15/33. This could also prevent possible confusion or misunderstanding once 14/32 goes into effect. Pilots of mid-size turboprop aircraft who, up until this point, have been accustomed to using Runway 33L for landings, are going to have to acquaint themselves with the new approach.

Those who are familiar with aviation terminology and pilot-ATC chatter know that oftentimes, when two paralell runways exist at an airport, controllers and pilots will refer to a runway by its left-right designator and omit its number. For example, if an aircraft is cleared to land on a given Runway 4L, the pilot may read back his landing instructions as something like: "Roger, cleared to the left side". Now consider this for a moment. In this case, Runway 33L is the right-sided of these two paralell runways yet it retains a "left" designator...you see where I'm going with this?

I should also point out that 15L/33R, unlike 14/32, is not unidirectional. Theoretically it could be used for departures and arrivals in either direction, but in reality this is not possible since the runway is too short as we've already mentioned, and Massport is barred by a 1988 court injunction that prevents filling in land to extend this runway any further.

What it all boils down to is that when you have something you don't use, you just get rid of it, whether it's an old coat hanging in your closet that you haven't worn for years, or a car that's parked in your driveway that's costing a fortune to insure.--206.252.74.40 20:53, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude. First, cool off and take a chill pill. I never said Massport constructed it for emergency situations. They said thats about the only use they have for it left. They can't remove it, nor can they reduce it to a taxiway. It is staying the way it is. How do I know this? I work at the damn place. I dont need civilians to tell me that "it is ALWAYS closed during this time." If you want to preach, then preach. But Massport can not get rid of it. The reason being it is not cost efficient. Would you spend millions to remove a runway and then put in a taxiway? As for the residents of Eastie who feel that they lived there before there was an airport (look on the anti sites, they actually say that), the airport will continue to expand. Massport's plan to build a new mid-field taxiway will go forward. It doesn't matter. Another reason why Massport won't remove 15L/33R. They won't spend the extra money when they have actual projects to do. Now, sit back and wait for Massport to remove the runway. I'll see you in 20 years in the same spot. --BOSton 17:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Look, you don't have to get snippy about this. I wasn't talking about "getting rid" of a runway and "putting in" a taxiway. All I suggested was redesignating it as a taxiway, which basically simply entails repainting it. We're not talking anything major here along the lines of a multi-million dollar construction project, are we? 15L/33R is a tiny VFR runway with no published instrument approach procedures; it doesn't take "millions" (as you're suggesting) to repaint it, does it?

I don't know what exactly I wrote that caused you to get so bent out of shape, but for your information I'm actually on "your" side as far as airport expansion. I'm a resident of Winthrop, and I actually "supported" the construction of Runway 14-32. I'm about the only permanent resident of the entire town of Winthrop that supported the new runway, even though I despise Massport for the evil empire that it is (just like everybody else does), and furthermore would have preferred to see Runway 14-32 built to a longer length than just 5,000 feet. Massport could've filled in additional land beyond Governor's Island flats and make 14-32 into a nice long runway (of 10,000 feet or so) to allow the heaviest transatlantic departures to take off over the open waters of Boston Harbor to the southeast of the airport, so that they wouldn't have to use Runways 4R and 9, which are two of the most noise-sensitive runways at Logan.

But of course, this will never happen, because Massport is too cheap and all the nearby NIMBYs who live around the airport are too stubborn to back any type of airport expansion proposal, even those which could possibly benefit them.

Yes, I agree with your point that people are idiots for saying that they were here before Logan was (which is a totally false thing for a person to say unless that person was living in Winthrop/East Boston prior to 1923 when the airport first opened, which most residents obviously weren't). I invoked this very same argument myself when I made my case for 14-32.

And contrary to what you're inferring, no, I'm not just some "civilian" who is "preaching" misinformation. I'm a licensed pilot and lifelong resident of Winthrop; I would think I know a thing or two about aviation and airport operations, especially when that particular airport happens to be only a few hundred feet from my house. What credentials do you have that make you any more of an expert on this subject than me or anyone else? Furthermore, the fact that you work for Massport does not (by definition) mean that you're not a civilian yourself (and on that note, how do you know whether I'm a 'civilian' anyway when I never specified this?)

I'd be happy to call you on my dime to discuss this further if you want to IM me your number at Massport where you can be reached, but I stand by what I said about Runway 15L/33R.

Doesn't sound like a Massport employee to me. Probably works for a BOS FBO. You know what I mean? But contrary to what he says, I think removing the runway markings would be smart, even so as to eliminate confusion. Sean, you said you made a case for 14-32? This interests me, how were you involved? I too was for the runway construction (I worked for JetBlue during its construction), and I'd like to learn more. Plus, I am interested in becoming a commercial pilot one day, so I'd like to start learning now (I'm currently at college, but hope to enroll in flight school shortly after). Neo16287 23:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Logan Airport expansion

Thanks Neo for backing me up on this. I'm not sure who this "Boston" fellow is though, or why he weighed in on our debate and responded directly to me since I wasn't even addressing him in the first place.

I've read some of your other contributions to this website and I'm impressed with your knowledge of the history and operations of Logan.

I was an active participant in my local town meetings beginning in the late 1990s when the airport runway controversy was just tarting to heat up again. I proposed what I thought were several viable alternatives to the building of 14/32, such as an extension of Runway 15L/33R to 8,000 feet or so, in order to create a higher percentage of approaches and departures to the southeast of the airfield (I was then made aware of the 1988 injunction which barrs Massport from filling in land along the area in question).

I also proposed the construction of a much longer, 10,000 foot runway 14/32 in order to provide the largest, noisiest jets with an alternative over more noise-sensitive runways such as 4R and 9. Local residents were in favor of increased flight paths over the southeast but were vehemently opposed to my suggestions and wouldn't budge. Even residents of Winthrop (which was one community that would actually see a reduction in noise as a result of 14/32) were opposed to the construction of the new runway. It seemed like people were only interested in saying "no this, no that" without offering any substantive solutions or alternatives themselves.

Attaining a career as a commercial pilot is certainly attainable as long as you're prepared for the hard work (and expense) that goes into it. I wish you luck on that. You said you were interested in obtaining additional information; what can I help you with? --206.252.74.40 18:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey. The main question I have is where did you train, and how much did it cost? I have heard many varying figures, but one flight school has really caught my eye, and that is Delta Connection Academy in FL. According to my contact, I'd be looking at $60-90,000 over the course of two years while I get my FAA quals and build time. Do you have any info about the academy? Thanks man. Neo16287 22:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a private pilot's license. I'm not an airline pilot so I can't give you an exact figure on what you're looking for, but I can give you a basic idea. To earn your private pilot's license, you can nowadays expect to spend anywhere between $7,000-$10,000 including airplane rentals, instructor/exam fees, books and supplies. The FAA requires a minimum of 40 hours to earn your license but in reality people don't get it until they have more like 60-70 hours. It would cost me an additional $5,000 or so to earn my instrument rating, which is the next step up. Most airlines would not consider you for a position unless you had a minimum of 1000 hours with a minimum of 500 or so in multi-engine aircraft. I'd say the figures you quoted ($60,000-$90,000) would be about enough to get you to that level. You're still young so you can always consider applying to the Air Force or Air National Guard (as long as your health--and particularly your eyesight--is good).

I did all of my training at Hanscom Field in Bedford. There are two flight schools at that location, East Coast Aero Club and Executive Flyers. You can google each one and visit their website for more details. I don't think it's necessary to relocate to Florida as this will create additional expenses for you. The key to successful flight training is to fly consistently (roughly one day a week); I had to interrupt my training a couple of times due to college studies and lack of money, and this resulted in longer training and even additional expenses. Flying in New England has advantages and disadvantages. The advantage is that you will learn how to fly in difficult weather, windy conditions and busy airspace. The disadvantage is that those same three factors may keep you grounded on some days, therefore prolonging your training. Any other questions just feel free to ask. --Sean 2015 14:30, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Runway 14-32

I recently called Massport to inquire about the status of the new runway. According to the Environmental Management Unit, construction on Runway 14-32 is now 100% complete and all necessary paintings and markings have been added. Construction lasted approximately two years. The new runway will be commissioned on Novmber 23, 2006. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sean 2015 (talk • contribs)

I hope that I am using this talk page correctly. My comment is on the above mentioned subject "Runway 14-32." As Sean 2015 has correctly stated, Runway 14-32 is currently active. The image shown on the right side of the 'page' that deals with the aforementioned runway is out-of-date. A new diagram is available at http://download.aopa.org/ustprocs/20070215/airport_diagrams/00058AD.PDF I would try to replace the old link to this new link but I was hesitant to do so because it is located on a website and I am unclear regarding its usage policy (i.e., copyright.) Njg123 01:22, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Njg- Me and Sean have been trying to replace the image, but have only run into trouble. For some reason it doesn't want to let us link it. We have no idea why. The new diagram has already been uploaded onto wikipedia, it's listed under "Image:BOS Airport New.png" Neo16287 01:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

New Diagram

Hey guys, I tried uploading the new FAA diagram showing runway 14-32, but hit dead ends. Can anybody here give it a try and maybe you'll have better luck? The image is called "Image:BOS Airport New.png" Neo16287 21:43, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Neo, I've been trying to do this exact same thing myself ever since the new runway opened up back in November. I haven't had any luck at it. Maybe we can get somebody else to take a crack at it? --Sean 2015 14:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I seconded that; the aiport diagarm is 17 years old and needs to be updated. I could not find any FAA maps of Logan

Again, we're working on it, but it doesn't want to link. The new article has already been uploaded, but it won't link when we try to make it. Neo16287 01:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

I think I got it. Pentawing^Talk 02:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

It lives! Good work Pentawing. Neo16287 02:21, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Terminal E/D Name Change

I called Massport and asked them about the Terminal designator change. The people who answered my call told me that they do not yet have an exact date for the change, but it will not be any time soon. Does anybody know when it was originally supposed to be? Neo16287 20:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Ground Handling?

Does anybody think listing ground handlers and FBOs would be a bad idea? I have the info, but I didn't want to post it without asking if there were any objections. Neo16287 18:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably FBO, but not really with ground handlers (I thought that each airline handles its own ground handling services). At the same time, information concerning cargo handling and general aviation are lacking. The way the article is currently set up, one gets the idea that Logan is strictly a commercial passenger airport, which it isn't. Pentawing^Talk 18:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Local FBOs include Swissport, GlobeGround (now Servisair), and Signature. Ground handling is handled by individual airlines, with the exception of international carriers: Swiss, Lufthansa, Finnair, and Virgin Atlantic are handled by Swissport, and Aer Lingus, Air France, SATA, Icelandair, British Airways, Alitalia, AeroMexico, and TACV are handled by Servisair. Cargo services and GA would be a good addition. I can add the information if you like, I work at BOS and am familiar with the carriers. Neo16287 20:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Go ahead, but also provide a source if possible (for citation purposes). Pentawing^Talk 02:24, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I added as much as I could remember. When I'm at work next I'll check again to see if I missed any. Neo16287 03:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section

I opened up a new trivia section within the article by mentioning that there was a scene from the film The Departed which was filmed on location at Logan. Should we keep this as a separate trivia section or should we move that statement to one of the existing sections? Perhaps there are other verifiable trivial "tidbits" about Logan that some of you out there can dig up, and which we can add to this section. Thanks. --Sean 2015 13:46, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

• I prefer that any trivia found be integrated within the article itself without the need for a separate trivia section. The reason is that such sections invite a lot of unsubstantiated material to be included with no context to the rest of the article's material (e.g. "each level of Logan Airport's central parking garage is labeled with a prominent Boston area landmark" - exactly why is that important as it relates to the airport as a whole? And why mention this fact when other airports might be doing something along similar lines?). After a while, such lists become so large and unwieldy that it becomes almost impossible to verify and sort through. Pentawing^Talk 02:39, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Inaccurate information about Terminals A and E

I never recognized this error until just now, but the article incorrectly states that Terminals A and E were "renovated", when in fact, both buildings were demolished in the early 2000s and two brand-new terminal buildings were built in their places. The article needs to be revised to reflect this. --Sean 2015 02:48, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I corrected the error concerning Terminal A. However, I believe that Terminal E was renovated in that a new addition was added to the curb front area while the original terminal remained standing but was renovated (the same piers between the jetways and the passenger lounge still exist in their original layout). Pentawing^Talk 03:03, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Concur. If you go into the domestic arrivals (NWA) section of the ground floor of Terminal E, the original building still exists. The new structure was built over it. You can also see the original building from the taxi stand, and from the offices behind the British Airways, Virgin Atlantic, and Northwest ticket counters. Neo16287 06:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

2007 Runway Incursion

I have heard nothing about this incident, and the lack of sources further questions its validity. Furthermore a possibly malfunctioning TCAS does not constitute a notable incident, and if that is the case, I propose the note be removed from the article, unless sources can confirm otherwise. Does anybody agree? Neo16287 18:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

• I would agree. I haven't read or seen anything in the Boston media about the incident in question. In fairness, let's leave it up there for another week or so to allow the contributor to find and cite a source; if not we'll have to delete it. --Sean 2015 19:11, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
• Is this actually the 2005 incident? I can't see sign of it in the article. [1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.244.194.130 (talk) 17:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Trolling User

I figured I'd warn users watching this page, User:movieman899327, and his sock puppet User:movieman8993 have been vandalizing the main page, and both accounts have been reported. However this user continues to vandalize the page. Would any users object to the page being recommended for protection, should the vandalism persist? Neo16287 04:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd object.

Mileage 07:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)mileage

Well Mileage, have you seen the edits? Semi protection only prevents the page from being edited by newly created accounts. It would not affect established users. PS. This has nothing to do with Winthrop vs. East Boston. Neo16287 04:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

What edits did they make? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Movieman899327 (talk • contribs) 17:53, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Movieman, you know what edits you made, but for those who haven't seen them, this is the user account which continuously added destinations to BOS including but not limited to Prague, Tokyo, Seoul, and Shanghai. All of which are false, despite his insistence that the destinations are factual. This user account was blocked, along with a sock puppet account, after making personal attacks following reverts and reporting of vandalism. Those are the edits I refer to. It appears the account has been unblocked, and the user is back, so hopefully the user has learned how things are done within WP. I'm not one to hold grudges, however I still disapprove of such vandalism, and will report any acts of such, as would any other user. Neo16287 06:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mbta-logo.svg

Image:Mbta-logo.svg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 15:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Future Hainan Airlines Boston-Beijing service

Many users have been deleting and adding Hainan Airlines to the list that they will be serving Boston from Beijing in 2009. According to this [2], no Hainan's BOS-PEK service is listed. Did they ever apply nonstop service from Beijing to Boston? Just wanted to make sure before people get into edit wars. Bucs2004 (talk) 05:17, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The more recent Boston Herald article (from 2007 Nov. 11) indicates that Hainan "agreed to seek regulatory approvals needed to begin direct service as soon as possible" and that the service could start as soon as summer 2009. That's all I know, but unless there's a contradictory, more recent reference, I would vote for continuing to list the future servce. Ashill (talk) 06:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I read the article when it was released on Today in the Sky, but the Boston Herald article is now archived, so while those who have read it feel it is a viable source (including myself), those who have not read it delete the listing. I am for keeping it, but I have seen edit wars get ugly before. Neo16287 (talk) 13:55, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Hainan will remain as a future airline serving Boston. Bucs2004 (talk) 19:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

The problem with the article is that it is all hearsay and it is more wishful thinking than anything else. It is absolutely impossible for Hainan Airlines to fly to Boston in 2009, because the Chinese government has already given out all US-China frequencies through 2009, just like the U.S. government has given out all U.S.-China route frequencies through 2009. Here are all international route allocations from China for 2008 and 2009 (http://www.caac.gov.cn/C1/200709/t20070910_7900.html (Official link in Chinese) / (http://airlineroute.blogspot.com/2007/09/caac-initial-intl-route-allocation-for.html (English translation)). It's just wishful PR thinking by folks in Boston, and not reality. The article doesn't cite any sources from Hainan, who plans to fly to Seattle, not Boston. There is absolutely no "pending government approval". Boston is simply not happening on Hainan anytime soon. Hainan has asked for, and has received, the rights to fly to Chicago, Seattle, and Newark. That's it. The article, rather than being based on recent developments, is based on news from 2006 in which Hainan was considering applying for Boston in the recent China-U.S. applications, but has since decided not to. Just because the folks in Boston didn't get the memo doesn't mean it's true. Hanian needs to be deleted from the list of airlines. Referencing it elsewhere would be more appropriate. They have not applied for anything! 65.10.152.111 (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

And have you any proof that this is wishful thinking? The link is in Chinese; can you read Chinese? Why does somebody in Georgia care about what goes on in Boston? Stop concerning yourself with things that do not affect you! RSW-red sox win (talk) 03:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I can read Chinese. I also linked to an English translation of the source, or can you not read English? I'm from Boston, not Georgia. 65.10.152.111 (talk) 03:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Well hey you don't have to get into a piss soup about the whole thing. Relax dude. You think you're smart because you can read Chinese? The English link is to a blog. I'd hardly call that legitimate. Ok, so you can "read" Chinese. Do you mean real Chinese? Or was that just shapes in your kindergarten finger paintings? RSW-red sox win (talk) 03:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Clam down there dude. Yes, I can read actual Chinese, thank you. The blog posting is a translation of the chart that links to the chart. Why is it difficult it for you to understand that it's a fact that the 2008 and 2009 China-USA routes have been allocated, and Boston didn't get any of them? Want more sources? Here is yet another link: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=ayKziNsynIMw&refer=canada. Hainan did not receive Boston-China in the latest rounds of US-China route allocations. Maybe they will in the 2010/2011 selection process, but until then it is a no-go. It's poor journalism on the Boston Herald's part to only investigate one side of the story. The problem with the Herald article is that, if you read the whole thing, it never cites new sources from Hainan. It cites back to Hainan's original plan to fly to Boston which has since been canceled. Hainan isn't coming. It's too bad because as a Boston resident I want to see this happen, but it's simply not happening. 65.10.152.111 (talk) 07:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The Bloomberg article makes no mention of any final route allocation, and it predates the Boston Herald article. I would never be shocked to hear of shoddy reporting by the Herald, but I'd prefer to see a more recent reference saying that Hainan failed to obtain the route. The Herald does cite Governor Patrick's staff, which lends credibility, and a similar story is in another source: Travel New England (Dec. 11, 2007). All of the sources mentioned regarding the Chinese route allocations say they're preliminary and subject to change. Has the final allocation been made? Until there's a source, nothing convinces me that this is definitive. Ashill (talk) 05:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Chill pill dude. Neo16287 (talk) 03:44, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Why hasn't Boston received any direct flights to Asian countries? It could very well serve passengers that wish to go to China and Japan,it serves plenty of European routes, so why not Asia? Can someone answer this???

220.81.164.38 (talk)The above question is addressed in one of the articles theat is linked. I will point out though, that the article is inaccurate in that it said in one spot that Korean Air went nonstop-- no they didn't. It was direct but had stops. Then the article says that the flight went through Dulles-- no it didn't, at least not in 1997 and 1998 when I took it-- it stopped at JFK and Anchorage going to Seoul and just at JFK returning.

AZ MXP vs. FCO

My only concern is the citation provided is to a blogspot account. It wasn't the kind of source I had in mind. Do you have any other sources? Neo16287 (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Simply go to www.alitaliausa.com. Try to book Boston-Milan past March 29th. Look at the Miami and O'Hare airport Wikipedia pages, already reflecting the changes. Alitalia is closing the Milan hub. Boston-Milan is discontinued. Miami-Milan, Chicago-Milan, Newark-Milan, Caracas-Milan, etc., etc. All discontinued. I understand that it is a blog posting link, but it is extremely reliable and obviously not fake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.152.111 (talk) 07:24, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

JetBlue/Santiago

E-mail from jetBlue regarding future of Santiago route:

Thank you for contacting JetBlue Airways. We are welcome your comments on our Santiago holiday shuttle route between Boston and Santiago. As you might know, this service was tentative and at this time we do not have plans to operate it next year. However, our plans are always changing, so keep an eye out for new service to the Boston area.

Sincerely,

JetBlue Customer Commitment Crew —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatthat (talk • contribs) 21:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the removal of Logan's International Status?

I wrote a tidbit on how Logan is the 7th busiest US International Gateway and someone improved it. now, it's gone, why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.234.250 (talk) 20:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't remove that info! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.234.250 (talk) 21:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Huh? The tidbit is still there, and the page hasn't been edited since I edited it a bit, as far as I can see. Ashill (talk) 05:25, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Someone keeps removing it and someone puts it back up, its a back and forth battle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.234.250 (talk) 11:33, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Any plans on Logan expansion?

Will they expand Logan airport after 14/32? I can see 15R/33L being expanded by filling in land on the water (maybe upto 13,000 ft), why don't they do it? After all, Logan doesn't have any direct to Asia surface due to short runways for fully loaded flights to Asia. So, has Massport thought up of anything? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.60.234.250 (talk) 23:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Suggest Removal of MHT Disambig

I don´t see a point in having a disambig for MHT. I can see having a disambig for Billings, as the airports have the same name. But how does one confuse Manchester with Logan Airport? It isn´t like the airport is called "Boston Airport", in which case a disambig would be helpful. Any takers? Neo16287 (talk) 15:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Logan Express

Shouldn't there be something about Logan Express in here? 68DANNY2 (talk) 20:49, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism Edit Correction

When undoing vandalism, I accidently attributed the edits in question to 67.183.156.64 when they actually were made by 67.183.156.84. Apologies for the typo. The link in my edit summary, however, is correct. M^Rasco 19:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cell Phone Lot

I suggest the Logan International Airport article can have an article regarding the cell phone lot. I was told the cell phone lot had approx. 30-40 striped spaces.

A couple blocks of information the new article I'm suggesting can have:

- A map of where the cell phone lot is, the map should include the locations and shapes of the terminals, A, B, C and E.

- An interior view image of the cell phone lot. I strongly recommend the image should be at least 2560x1920 or 2592x1944, so we can get decent resolution on 8x10 photo paper.

- Directions to the cell phone lot;

- And of course, general info.

Feel free to think of more yourself as a team.

Thank you for your attention to this proposal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MyReference (talk • contribs) 23:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Employee Counts in Summary

In the summary at the top of the article, there are two citations of the number of people the entire airport employs, both 12,000 and 16,000. One needs to be removed. 141.238.109.229 (talk) 05:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Boston John

One of the Air Traffic Controllers that works Boston, known to frequent internet ATC listeners as "Boston John," has grown quite a following on some sites. Would this be worthy of a mention? —Preceding unsigned comment added by PTPLauthor (talk • contribs) 04:02, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Delta Shuttle/US Airways Shuttle flights

How do we go on handling the Shuttle flights? Should we listed them as if they were seperate carriers from the mainline ops or list them as if they were mainline flights. Also, US Airways Shuttle no longer exist as all of its flights are now part of mainline. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 21:51, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Just plain Delta / USAir. Other airlines also have a “sub brand” – United’s PS, Iberia’s Puente Aereo, Air France’s La Navette, Lufthansa’s Italia... None of these have a separate listing. I think the only instances where we do an “operated by” is when one airline operates a route for another airline, eg Loganair for British Airways.

For the shuttle flights, that is not the case. It’s either Delta operating for Delta, or some other airline operating for Delta. None of this shuttle business! Jasepl (talk) 03:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Photo with North up???

Most people relate to aerial photos and sat images as North up.. Any chance to fix the head image??? If we are game to do so, I will take it rotate it correctly and crop it as necessary... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Odd1atrsa (talk • contribs) 20:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism by way of adding flights that are NOT non-stop

Someone keeps adding one-stop flights to "destinations," which are clearly not non-stop flights. Specifically, I'm talking about the person who keeps adding Brussels, Belgium as a non-stop flight on American Airlines and Orlando to begin as a non-stop on US Airways. There is no non-stop to Brussels from Logan currently. The flight referenced is a flight to London-Heathrow with continuing service to Brussels. Additionally, there will be no non-stop flight from Logan to Orlando on US Airways beginning in a few weeks. The flight referenced is a flight to Charlotte with continuing service to Orlando. NEITHER destination qualifies to be added to this page as neither is a non-stop flight. Please do not continue to add these erroneous flights!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bradnewengland (talk • contribs) 03:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, the BRU entry is valid. That is because we list destinations that can be reached direct from an airport in the dest table. Even if there is an intermediate stop, so long as there is no change of equipment along the way, it is a direct flight. BOS-LHR-BRU is a through flight, with the same flight number and the same equipment. Therefore, it is a valid entry here On the other hand, there is an exception when the stop is at the airline's hub - since this typically means a faux-direct flight, and the BOS-CLT-MCO flight you mention likely falls under that category. Thanks, Jasepl (talk) 05:40, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Heathrow is a One World alliance hub.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.46.104 (talk) 05:54, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

yes, but it is not a hub for American Airlines. 166.137.137.136 (talk) 06:24, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

What should be done about Southwest Airlines, then? They have NO hubs, yet many through, direct flights. Do we list all of their "direct" flights then, too? That would be insane and messy. Additionally, you're underestimating the growing influence of alliances over airlines given the passage of recent open skies agreements (i.e., between the US and the EU and Japan). Let's be consistent and continue to list only non-stop destinations on wiki airport pages. To do otherwise would be misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.46.104 (talk) 06:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to guidelines provided in WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. If you have really read articles of airports around the world, you'd find direct flights are listed in all airports. Established guidelines have already excluded Southwest's through flights because they are "timetable directs" which change frequently. If you have problems with long-time project consensus, please bring your case there. HkCaGu (talk) 08:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Of course I've "really" read articles of airports around the world and this is the first time I've seen a destination that isn't a non-stop added to a page. Direct flights are not listed in ALL airports, by any stretch of the imagination. Please provide ample examples of ones that you have not added yourself if they are so prevalent.

You not seeing "timetable directs", "equipment change directs" and other "faux directs" doesn't mean other genuine direct flights are not listed. HkCaGu (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Would appreciate seeing examples of direct flights that you haven't added yourself, then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.150.94 (talk) 19:24, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

All the Airport articles have them, you are either not looking hard enough and/or trolling. Look at Singapore Changi Airport for example, Qantas has "direct" flights from Sydney to London with the same aircraft and it stops through Singapore. Same for Air New Zealand Auckland to London via Los Angeles on the same aircraft (considered a Focus). If we applied your logic, London would be removed from Sydney and Auckland, and it wouldn't make any sense. If you disagree with the current "definitions" on direct/non-stop flights, please take it up on the WP:Airports discussion page. Sb617 (contribs) 22:29, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

ALL the airport articles do not have them. Look at Mitchell Int'l Airport in Milwaukee, or Manchester-Boston Regional Airport or just about every airport article. Please do not put out false information like "all" airport articles have them because they clearly do not. The vast majority of them do not, in fact. It is misleading to state that you can fly to Brussels from Boston when most of the general public assumes that it means it's a non-stop flight. No one expects to have to land somewhere else in between and go through customs and immigration all over again. Thank you for perpetuating confusion on wiki. Thanks a lot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.233.46.104 (talk) 01:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You clearly have not been reading a lot of airport articles. A vast majority of Airport articles around the world has "direct" and "non-stop" flights. The terms has simply been made clear and state which flights are not direct (eg flights would that pass through a major hub). If you simply disagree with it, take it up with WP:Airports. Until then, the definitions stay and any attempts to go against otherwise on Airport articles will simply be reverted. Sb617 (contribs) 06:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your not presuming how much or how little I've read airport articles, because you are absolutely wrong about that. I certainly don't presume I know how many or how few of them you've read, although I do know that you are adding "direct" flights that aren't non-stop to airport articles left and right. You are determined to do this no matter how confusing and misleading it is. You no doubt would've kept adding "direct" flights that stop at hubs had I not called you out and stopped you. You are also completely wrong by saying that the "vast majority airport articles around the world" have direct flights. It's actually the complete opposite. Further, I understand that, legitimately, English may not be your first language, but you may want to check what you write before you post as much of it is grammatically incoherent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.162.150.94 (talk) 15:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

English is my first language Tyvm, and from what I understand without breaching WP:NPA, to repeat in the simplest of terms from what HkCaGU and many others had said to you , "Please refer to guidelines provided in WP:AIRPORT-CONTENT. If you have really read articles of airports around the world, you'd find direct flights are listed in all airports. Established guidelines have already excluded Southwest's through flights because they are "timetable directs" which change frequently. If you have problems with long-time project consensus, please bring your case there."

That is all you need to know, and I'm not the only one reverting your edits, many others from the WP:Airports project is reverting your anonymous IP edits. If you had it your way, You would be saying for example Qantas doesn't fly to London from Sydney, which in the case it is false, since London to Sydney is "direct" flight with a stop in Singapore. Sb617 (contribs) 15:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Access - Ground Transport

And now for completely different, just out of curiosity and a vague idea. Is it possible to access Logan International in a not motorized manner - aka, bicycle or on foot? Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 16:53, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Information placement

While going through the article, I noticed that a lot of information (particularly in the "Facilities" section) that is not in the "History" section appears to focus on the history of those particular parts of Logan Airport, while I believe any section not entitled "History" should mention the current (and perhaps future) state of such facilities. Anything that happened in the past should be in the "History" section. Hence, I have rearranged the information so that anything that happened already are in the "History" section while the other sections focus on the current state of the airport. I hope nobody minds the changes. Pentawing^Talk 04:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

American Airlines

I think that AA should be removed from the list of focus cities mentioned in the introduction. In April 2011, AA will end service from Boston to San Juan and Santo Domingo only leaving only 3 point-to-point routes (BOS-LHR, BOS-CDG, and BOS-STI) and the rest to its hubs. I would put ending April 4, 2011 in parenthesis after the last departure to San Juan. Snoozlepet (talk) 05:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

New Satellite Image, please?

The image in the infobar is just a tad dated. Could we please get something up to date and of better quality? It omits a runway, numerous extensions, and various new taxiways. BostonUrbEx (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Mumbai

Ok. Since some anonymous IP trolls insist on continuing to vandalize the page, can we have a consensus on the following:

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject_Aviation/Style_guide#Airports_2 "List non-stop and direct flights only. That means the flight number and the aircraft, starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports." (Emphasis mine.) On the delta.com website, if one tries to book flight 604 BOS-BOM on 6/15, if one clicks "Details", under "PLANE" it says "Change Planes". This would seem to indicate that BOS-BOM is not on a single aircraft and is therefore not eligible for listing on this page. Agreed? BeIsKr (talk) 02:22, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

No, Both segments are on a Boeing 767....same goes for ATL and EWR. Eventhough it says "Change Planes" for those routes also but it is the same aircraft is still used. 68.113.122.83 (talk) 05:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Let me enlighten. When DL/NW were merging, planes/flight numbers on routes through NRT changed month after month, back and forth, and eventually we at WP:AIRPORT decided these were "timetable directs" that did not qualify for listing until they became stable (e.g. a year). I think the same principle should be applied toward DL's through-AMS routes. If BOS-AMS-BOM is not a direct now and won't be in the fall, it is simply timetable direct. For a nonstop we can label it "seasonal", but for directs we simply don't want to get into the mess. HkCaGu (talk) 06:10, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

As for ATL-AMS-BOM and EWR-AMS-BOM, i don't see those flights operating the same flight number for the winter season either so I have removed it as well since DL603/604 operates AMS-BOM all the way thru December 2012 at the latest (but does not originate either in ATL/EWR). Snoozlepet (talk) 06:27, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Qantas Service?

Something I'm a little confused by. I was taking the Silver Line to Logan last week, and the voice that announces what terminal you're at, said that Qantas operates out Terminal B (in the American Airlines half of the terminal). I have not seen a Qantas plane at Logan, and when trying to book a flight from Logan to Sydney, it says American Airlines operates the flight from Boston to Los Angeles, but yet it shows the call sign as QF### (instead of AA###). If it's just that then it seems a little strange that they would include Qantas in the announcement on the Silver Line when its just a codeshare. Maybe someone who has actually flown on Qantas out of Logan can shed some light on this situation. Xatticus

This means that Qantas codeshares on the route. Also, the Silver Line announcement thing is likely out of date. I hope this helps.

--ConnorLax101 (talk) 20:55, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Connor

KLM to Amsterdam

A user has repeatedly added Amsterdam as a KLM destination without (to date) citing a reliable source. Two messages left on User talk:ConnorLax101 have gone unanswered. KLM's timetable doesn't list any service operated by KLM; there is one daily flight operated by Delta. Before KLM gets added, we should have a reliable source citing its scheduled service to Amsterdam on KLM metal. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

My apologies for earlier stuff. However, it shows that KLM and Northwest (obviously pre-merger) flew separatley. Correct me if I'm wrong. If I am, should I go to the KLM destinations page and delete Boston? -Connor ConnorLax101 — Preceding unsigned comment added by ConnorLax101 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I think KLM flew to Boston before the Northwest joint venture began (two decades ago), but I don't know and don't have a source. It's going to be harder to find one; an old KLM timetable is the obvious place. A newspaper article from the time might mention the discontinuation of the service. I can't find anything on Google and don't have access to LexisNexis. "Northwest trims flights from Logan" from the Boston Globe Jan 5, 1995 (byline: Jerry Ackerman) might say something relevant, but I can only access the first two paragraphs. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Your probably right, Alex. However, the time it says the source needed tag is from November 2011. I don't think KLM truly ever flew its metal. It must've been a KLM flight flying Northwest equipment. Like I said, I'm not sure. I'm also having trouble finding anything about it. -Connor talk —Preceding undated comment added 01:59, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

A380 service at Logan Airport

I would like to add some information regarding the Airbus A380 superjumbo jet previously reverted. I would like to note the speculations of British Airways deploying the A380 in the next year or two. If I am allowed to re-add this information, it would contain two sources for this information.

I would also like to add that Air France and Lufthansa are candidates for A380 summer seasonal service due to their high-capacity on their 747 flights in thw past few summers and the prediction of high capacity this summer. This would actually be some helpful information to know. Thanks.-Connor (ConnorLax101| talk)

This is just speculation, as per policy this can't be added. Plus its been generally decided that articles do not have special A380 sections. Why have a special section? We dont have one for the 737 etc. Thanks --JetBlast (talk) 22:37, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

True. However many major airport pages such as Atlanta and San Francisco airport pages do. The information is also good information to know. I could say "No service has commenced as of early 2013. However, (whatever airline) has had high capacity and could (info here)." type of thing. Agree or disagree? Thanks.-Connor(ConnorLax101| talk)

If it has the word "Could" it doesn't belong to be honest. --JetBlast (talk) 22:53, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

I suppose. However, other articles have used speculations such as San Francisco saying Emirates could fly it (this was also an A380 thing, too) when it receives lighter range. Why can't other airports say the same thing? I understand why it's better not to. But, I think it might be good info to have? Thanks.-Connor(ConnorLax101| talk)

The major problem I have is that from what I have read (particularly on aviation message boards) the general outside opinion is that Logan is currently not equipped for scheduled A380 service (as opposed to a diversion flight that occurs once in a while) without major physical upgrades or a waiver from the FAA. Hence, to add passages speculating about A380 service to Boston would run afoul of this view. The article would be on firmer ground if there is a source that explicitly talks about A380 service to Logan.

As for the other airport articles such as Atlanta and San Francisco, there have been news articles (such as in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution and the San Francisco Chronicle) mentioning that these airports have upgraded their facilities for scheduled A380 flights. The speculations concerning future A380 flights to these airports thus would not be questioned as much as for Logan (though it would still be better to be skeptical of these speculations without an actual source, which leads to a citation needed tag). Pentawing^Talk 03:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Good photos to add for Logan Airport

Hey guys. Are there any photos that people think should be uploaded? Obviously, it will have to go through the copyright stuff, etc. I feel that some of the photos are a little outdated. Some other articles such as Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport, Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, and London Heathrow Airport got a whole new batch of photos about 3 weeks ago. I believe that certain aspects of this article, especially some of the photos, need to be replaced. Any photo suggestions or website ideas?

--ConnorLax101 (talk) 20:47, 10 March 2013 (UTC)Connor (ConnorLax101)

Several photos were just added. What do these add? None show anything about Logan; they're all generic pictures of airplanes taking off or landing against a blue sky. In fact, only one (File:C-FEKD (6544811125).jpg) source image even claims to have been taken at Logan, while two of the others explicitly list other locations. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 20:24, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

Photos at Logan Airport

I've added some photos recently, but people continue to remove them. The user JetBlast has removed them because he claims Logan has enough photos, already. I disagree. The pictures I had were good. I am reverting it so others can see. If others disagree with me, I will remove it. Thanks. -Connor (ConnorLax101| talk)

They should be removed and added based on the outcome. I am not disputing that the photos are good or not but please be considerate to users who have a slow internet connection. They have to render all these images, the article can do without them. Why are they needed? --JetBlast (talk) 14:16, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

You need to continue to discuss this matter.......you are on the verge of 3RR. 68.119.73.36 (talk) 19:38, 19 March 2013 (UTC)