Just read that Manchester NH airport, MHT, is thinking of changing it's name to Manchester-Boston Regional airport. The article said that because of it's proximity to BOS, just 50 miles away, it would attract more passengers that are not aware of the short drive. What do you think ?

Hmm I think this has nothing to do with Miles or Points :)

I'll move this to our "New England" section.

Regards,

Flipside

I think that many people who live around Boston already realize the distance and convenience. Many who live north and west of Boston travel to MHT, and many people south and west travel to PVD for flights - just to avoid flying from BOS. (And lower fares don't hurt either! :D )

What's next....The Greater Providence - Boston regional airport? ;) PVD is closer to Boston than MHT.

Worcester has a regional airport with one airline - Allegiant air- serving Orlando (not MCO, but the other airport) three times a week.

With dozens of studies done over the last 15 years, almost all include the recommendation to change the name to Boston/Worcester Regional. Time for a Nascar track instead, I think.

Idiotic if you ask me. Anyone too stupid to use the "search within 50 miles" feature will never figure it out, even with the name change.

Didn't Rockford, IL just change the name of their airport to Rockford/Chicago International (or some such name) - even though the airport is 90-100 miles from Chicago? :eek:

Where did it get them? :confused: They gained service from 2 airlines (UA and NW), but have since lost (or will lose) both!

If I didn't live in the area, and flew into Manchester/Boston, and then find out that I had to drive 50 miles to get to Boston - I'd be MAD! :mad:

If I didn't live in the area, and flew into Manchester/Boston, and then find out that I had to drive 50 miles to get to Boston - I'd be MAD! :mad:
I'd say this would be semi-okay, if there was a rail system that connected the T to the MHT airport; but seeing how that's not the case, I'd agree. Had I landed at MHT, being thrown off by the name, I'd be pretty piss'd that the airport is no where near the city...

Worcester has a regional airport with one airline - Allegiant air- serving Orlando (not MCO, but the other airport) three times a week.

With dozens of studies done over the last 15 years, almost all include the recommendation to change the name to Boston/Worcester Regional. Time for a Nascar track instead, I think.

ORH is pretty far off the beaten path in terms of highway access. The last thing I would want to do is inch down Chandler St. while trying to catch my flight (which is really too bad).

When I was going to school there US had full jet service to ORH.

You're talking airport to city-center here. Lots of travelers bound for Boston are actually going way outside Boston. The biomed corridor off I-95, the huge corporate development down in Dedham, etc.

So, while PVD and MHT may be 40-50 miles away from Back Bay, for many Boston travelers these airports may be closer to their final destination than Logan!

Stansted Airport (London) is also 40 miles away from the city center, but it's considered part of London.

One difference, however, is that there is rail service available.

You're talking airport to city-center here. Lots of travelers bound for Boston are actually going way outside Boston. The biomed corridor off I-95, the huge corporate development down in Dedham, etc.

So, while PVD and MHT may be 40-50 miles away from Back Bay, for many Boston travelers these airports may be closer to their final destination than Logan!

True, but if someone tells you "I live/work/am located in Taunton/Dedham/Brockton, which is located near Boston", and you fly into "Manchester/Boston" and then find out you have to drive 60-80 miles to get there, how happy will you be? :confused:

Actually PVD is closer, but it is not called Providence/Boston. (It is located in Warwick, just south of Providence - but it is not called Warwick/Providence!)

Idiotic if you ask me. Anyone too stupid to use the "search within 50 miles" feature will never figure it out, even with the name change.
I doubt it's aimed at people coming TO Boston. I suspect it's to increase the awareness of people IN the Boston area, plus for marketing to companies (as opposed to people).

Forget "search within 50 miles". A better question is, when is the last time you saw the official spelled-out full name of ANY airport in ANY search engine? I can't recall EVER seeing one of those airports with many-word names listed anywhere other than in the press. You want to fly into Atlanta, the search engine typically offers ATL or Atlanta, and if it goes further typically something like Atlanta (Hartsfield). On Southwest, the king of secondary airports (who fly to MHT and PVD but not BOS already), they already tout that both of those are in the general Boston area on their route map, but in their booking engine they still only say Manchester or Providence, and don't even have ROOM to add /Boston (which they could already now if they wanted to).

So I don't understand which booking engine will change if the official name changes.

An airport can change its name all it wants—but unless it changes location, it's just like putting lipstick on a pig...

...or 'marketing' ;)

As of last night, 05/18/06 MHT will be officially changed to Manchester- Boston Regional Airport. The article went on to say that few people west of the Mississippi River, 83 percent, were not aware that if their destination was north of Boston that they had an alternate airport available. Personally, I don't think this will change anything.

Link (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=Welcome+to+Manchester-Boston+Regional+Airport&articleId=a3a525e9-073b-40c5-8e81-83c6c9ecc185) to article on the name change.

The change was indeed due to a marketing study.

:td:

I'm against it; I see no good that can come from it. Anyone uninformed enough to think they are going to "Boston" when they fly to MHT is going to be sorely disappointed at the lack of quick, frequent public transportation to Boston and the high cost of the long taxi ride to Boston. And if it does manage to increase passenger volume, that means longer lines and less parking.

I fear the airport will use this change as an excuse to raise prices of services, increase security paranoia, or increase other big city airport flaws. And I fear the airlines will use it as another excuse to jack up ticket prices.

But in general I'm against renaming well-known landmarks for social, political, or marketing reasons. There seems to be a trend toward such renaming: DCA, BWI, and ATL are recent examples, and I still call them National, BWI, and Hartsfield.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/04/20/manchester_markets_bostons_good_name/


http://boards.boston.com/n/pfx/forum.aspx?nav=messages&tsn=1&tid=477&webtag=bc-general

Like Manchester, Worcester may add Boston to its airport name

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/20/like_manchester_worcester_may_add_boston_to_its_ai rport_name/

Like Manchester, Worcester may add Boston to its airport name

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/20/like_manchester_worcester_may_add_boston_to_its_ai rport_name/

I guess if WAAF can do it, the James D. O'Brien Field at Worcester Regional Airport can do it too. Doubt it will help much. Massport certainly hasn't.

Like Manchester, Worcester may add Boston to its airport name

http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/04/20/like_manchester_worcester_may_add_boston_to_its_ai rport_name/

Worcester airport joins the bandwagon (http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/05/11/worcester_officials_vote_to_add_boston_to_airport_ name_1147362552/) with Worcester-Metrowest-Boston Airport. This is what we pay consultants for in Worcester.

Worcester airport joins the bandwagon with Worcester-Metrowest-Boston Airport.

That name makes even less sense. At least, it has the word "west" in the name. But if someone from out of the area is thinking of a trip to Boston, are they going to request "Boston" or "Manchester" or "Worcester"? :confused:

Likewise, if someone is going to Chicago, are they going to request "Chicago" or "Rockford"? :confused: Or if they're going to Orlando, are they going to request "Orlando" or "Sanford"? :confused:

That name makes even less sense. At least, it has the word "west" in the name. But if someone from out of the area is thinking of a trip to Boston, are they going to request "Boston" or "Manchester" or "Worcester"? :confused:

Don't worry, soon you'll have the TF Green Providence-Boston-Cape Cod Airport down by you. :D

All it tells me is that the Worcester Airport commision doesn't know how airport search engines work. They keep saying that including Boston in the name will make Worcester pop up in the search results as if the airport code will be changed to orhbos. Now if ORH could move a little closer to Metrowest, like say to Grafton or Westboro, that may change things, but that ain't gonna happen.

One would think that to have the airport show up in the results, first it would have to have flights in or out.
http://dps1.travelocity.com/dreamMap.ctl?dep_arp_name=orh

But in general I'm against renaming well-known landmarks for social, political, or marketing reasons. There seems to be a trend toward such renaming: DCA, BWI, and ATL are recent examples, and I still call them National, BWI, and Hartsfield.

"Hartsfield" is a reference to William B. Hartsfield (former Mayor of Atlanta)... the airport was named in honor of him very shortly after his death in 1971.

Don't worry, soon you'll have the TF Green Providence-Boston-Cape Cod Airport down by you.

At least there are plans to bring the MBTA Commuter Rail to
PVD ...

Maybe BDL could rename itself "Metronorth New York Metrowest Boston Hartford Springfield Airport"

Maybe BDL could rename itself "Metronorth New York Metrowest Boston Hartford

... Connecticut Springfield Western Massachusetts Southeastern New York State Airport"

But you would have to somehow include "Bradley" and "International" in that name somewhere! :D (Maybe "Bradley" can stay out - don't want to make the name too long. :D )

Worcester airport joins the bandwagon with Worcester-Metrowest-Boston Airport. This is what we pay consultants for in Worcester.

I think what keeps people away from Worcester is they don't know how to pronounce it. Maybe they should start by changing the spelling to "Woostah." ;)

At least there are plans to bring the MBTA Commuter Rail to
PVD ...

Well the MBTA commuter rail already comes to Worcester, although it doesn't get you to the airport, and to think of it, it doesn't even get you to the rehabbed Union Station as it stops about 100 yards up the tracks.

I think what keeps people away from Worcester is they don't know how to pronounce it. Maybe they should start by changing the spelling to "Woostah." ;)

Well that is pretty close but used mosly by people who used to live in "Wista," like my in-laws who now live in Andova. :D But don't worry the debate will go on forever, I can live with your pronunciation. ;)

(So Duhey2 where did you go to school? WSC is on Chandler St, but Clark/WPI/Assumption/Becker/Anna Maria are all pretty close, and you are right driving down Chandler Street is a mess, people just walk out from between parked cars without looking or stopping all day and all night long and that doesn't count the school busses and potholes and potheads.)

Well the MBTA commuter rail already comes to Worcester, although it doesn't get you to the airport

"IF" and when MBTA comes farther south of Providence, it will stop near (1/4 mile away, connected by a walkway) TF Greene (PVD), and also have a new stop built at Wickford Junction.

But, I'll believe it when I see it! :rolleyes: I've lived in the area for 6 years, and came to the area for 8 years prior, and they were "talking about it" all that time! :rolleyes:

At least now they agreed to begin this expanded service "in a few years" :rolleyes:

Well the MBTA commuter rail already comes to Worcester, although it doesn't get you to the airport, and to think of it, it doesn't even get you to the rehabbed Union Station as it stops about 100 yards up the tracks.

Hmm. Any time I've seen a train stopped in Worcester station since the refurb, it's been in Union Station itself, not the skanky little Amtrak platform on the other side of I-290. Have things changed again?

(Plus the little platform is connected directly to Union Station anyway, so if your train stops there you can walk through the station and down the stairs to the street.)

From my point of view what really killed ORH as a viable airport was the Fort Point Tunnel. That cut literally half an hour off average travel times from Metrowest to Logan, and so made Logan much more appealing as an airport to fly out of.

Various people keep saying 'it's the lack of a fast road from the Pike to ORH that's the problem' -- but these days I'm not sure that would save ORH either. MHT manages on that score, although of course they have reasonably advanced plans to build a new fast road and it's only two miles from I-293.

OB one, YGPM

From my point of view what really killed ORH as a viable airport was the Fort Point Tunnel. That cut literally half an hour off average travel times from Metrowest to Logan, and so made Logan much more appealing as an airport to fly out of.

Various people keep saying 'it's the lack of a fast road from the Pike to ORH that's the problem' -- but these days I'm not sure that would save ORH either. MHT manages on that score, although of course they have reasonably advanced plans to build a new fast road and it's only two miles from I-293.

A couple years ago, I started this thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=341222&highlight=worcester) about ORH mostly to compare it to MHT, PVD, BDL, and BOS. Your comments are right on, taking the Ted williams tunnel, I can make it in 56 minutes from Worcester to Logan vs. 1.5 hours and the pain that used to come from sitting in the Callahan/Sumner tunnel and merging onto the Southeast expressway. PVD, BDL, and MHT are all just a little more than an hour -and mostly there is no traffic. ORH access does require driving city streets, few well marked, and if you have driven on Airport Blvd lately, it is like driving a minefield. You might be able to go 30 mph. Personally, I don't think the problem is the access road, there were 5 or 6 airlines in the late 80's and over 300,000 enplanements and the numbers dropped steadily throughout the 90's when BDL, MHT, PVD really took off.

Moreover, the limited number of flights per day meant havoc if your flight was cancelled/delayed as often happened in winter/early spring. Prices were ok at ORH for some flights but not all and Worcesterites are notoriously frugal (ok, cheap) when it comes to paying.

MHT has gained from the population growth in Southern NH and it still manages to have cheap parking like BDL. Worcester's population is pretty stagnant. MHT highway access is through neighborhoods but it is pretty direct and the recent entryway construction helped. I find PVD to be very expensive to park these days, almost like BOS levels and I think PVD's enplanements are flat.

I find PVD to be very expensive to park these days

I agree.

I had to pick up a friend @ PVD recently. Normally, I just pick them up at the door, but since I was in the area, and it was near the scheduled arrival time, I decided to park and go in to meet them. Wouldn't you know it - the flight was delayed, AND UA/US "misplaced" the luggage!

By the time I exited the lot, it was 1 hour and 6 minutes. They wouldn't forgive those 6 minutes, so just that time cost $2! The total parking fee was $6! :mad: