Other Asian, Australian and South Pacific Frequent Flyer Programs - April Fool's? China Eastern to launch PEK-BOS service on 6/1/2012

Have no idea whether this is an April Fool's joke or not... Any thoughts? HU did apply for the route a while back, but maybe MU is getting it?

Linky (http://www.wcarn.com/cache/news/18/18585.html)

The Civil Aviation Administration of China (CAAC) has given green light to China Eastern Airlines to open a scheduled passenger service from Beijing to Boston starting from June 1, 2012, operated seven times per week.

The Shanghai-based carrier started operating its Shanghai-Los Angles route in 1990s, which has gained a good reputation in the U.S. after two decades of operation and management. To enrich its products and increase its market shares in the U.S., the carrier successively opened Shanghai-New York service in 2006, and Shanghai-Hawaii service in 2011, preliminarily building a route network linking China with both the U.S. East Coast and West Coast. The to-be-opened Beijing-Boston service will undoubtedly further optimize China Eastern's route network in the U.S.

China Eastern formally joined the SkyTeam in June 2011. The carrier can rely on its U.S. partner -- Delta Air Lines, a company with a perfect network in the U.S. market -- to strengthen its own Sino-U.S. routes, thus to promote China's position in the international aviation market.

I think their only long-haul aircraft capable of doing PVG-BOS is their A340 - which has way too many seats for this type of 'leisure market'.

I think their only long-haul aircraft capable of doing PVG-BOS is their A340 - which has way too many seats for this type of 'leisure market'.

I think you meant to say "low demand market" rather than "leisure market", right? I have a soft spot for Boston because I grew up there, but when I think of "leisure", Boston is far down the list. I believe NRT-BOS will be an excellent trial balloon to determine if there is true demand for Asia service out of Boston.

I think you meant to say "low demand market" rather than "leisure market", right? I have a soft spot for Boston because I grew up there, but when I think of "leisure", Boston is far down the list. I believe NRT-BOS will be an excellent trial balloon to determine if there is true demand for Asia service out of Boston.
Same here.

Well by leisure, I generally think of those flying out of BOS to China/Hong Kong/Taiwan as the biannual leisure traveller (considering the relatively large Chinese and Asian population) who visit relatives back 'home'. Yes there are business travellers but I wouldn't assume that there are that many (thinking about it again, I think the word 'leisure' is a bit inappropriate - mostly applicable to resort destinations).

But an A340 anyhow is surely an overkill with 30-40 J seats and ~250 Y seats per flight. JL's 787 has a similar amount of J seats but about half the number of Y seats, and not sure if BOS can suffice two Asian airline widebodies all at once...

It would seem that this is only a reassigning of a route authority previously held by Hainan. Perhaps they commenced the approval process when they still had the 787 order on the books. The 787 would have been ideal for the route but there's nothing else in their stable that seems to fit the bill(an A332 couldn't do this, right?).

The 332s wouldn't make it all the way to Boston without a stop somewhere. If they were to operate the route at all, it'd have to be on a 346, unless they miraculously got something else that we didn't know...

The 332s wouldn't make it all the way to Boston without a stop somewhere. If they were to operate the route at all, it'd have to be on a 346, unless they miraculously got something else that we didn't know...
Why 332 couldn't do it? 333 would have problem, but 332 has much better range than 333... Even with ETOPS regulations...

Why 332 couldn't do it? 333 would have problem, but 332 has much better range than 333... Even with ETOPS regulations...

SFO-NRT is the longest 332 flight that I know of. BOS-PEK is much further than that.

SFO-NRT is the longest 332 flight that I know of. BOS-PEK is much further than that.
SFO-NRT = 5100 miles
PEK-BOS = 7000 miles
Range limit for 332 = 8400 miles

So a332 has 20% spare capacity for ETOPS and other operational purpose... 332 has much less pax capacity than other heavy aircraft, and suitable for thin pax route such as this one.

SFO-NRT = 5100 miles
PEK-BOS = 7000 miles
Range limit for 332 = 8400 miles

So a332 has 20% spare capacity for ETOPS and other operational purpose... 332 has much less pax capacity than other heavy aircraft, and suitable for thin pax route such as this one.

They would only be able to sell half the seats (I'm guessing) due to payload restrictions.

They would only be able to sell half the seats (I'm guessing) due to payload restrictions.
That range is "Maximum range, fully loaded". Thanks Wikipedia

That range is "Maximum range, fully loaded". Thanks Wikipedia

Okay, but the fact that no airlines use 332s on 6000 mile routes --let alone 7000 mile routes-- suggests to me that they are not especially economical over long distances. Whether or not the article that gave rise to this thread was an April fools joke, I don't see this route happening on a 330 or a 340 in the near future... 787, maybe.

I could actually use this flight....but I still don't think I'd take it over the JL flight or CX which is what I usually take.

The Shanghai-based carrier started operating its Shanghai-Los Angles route in 1990s, which has gained a good reputation in the U.S. after two decades of operation and management market.

This quote right here leads me to believe it's an April fools joke. MU in the US has a horrible reputation with the local Travel agents. Just last week, an MU aircraft went tech at LAX and I was told the airline did not accomindate everyone.

This being April. It is not realistic to believe they will start this route in two months time.

This quote right here leads me to believe it's an April fools joke. MU in the US has a horrible reputation with the local Travel agents. Just last week, an MU aircraft went tech at LAX and I was told the airline did not accomindate everyone.

This being April. It is not realistic to believe they will start this route in two months time.

I actually have heard from folks at MU that they did get the route, but they don't have the plane to fly it. So I don't think they'll be flying the route anytime soon, but we'll see... So far, it may seem a bit more promising than an April Fool's joke

This quote right here leads me to believe it's an April fools joke. MU in the US has a horrible reputation with the local Travel agents. Just last week, an MU aircraft went tech at LAX and I was told the airline did not accomindate everyone.

This being April. It is not realistic to believe they will start this route in two months time.

My favorite quote is this gem:

The carrier can rely on its U.S. partner -- Delta Air Lines, a company with a perfect network in the U.S. market

But, I've read enough pieces like this in the China Daily --and let's not forget CZ's epic press release about its 380s-- to refrain from calling "joke" based solely on sensationalistic quips.

I actually have heard from folks at MU that they did get the route, but they don't have the plane to fly it. So I don't think they'll be flying the route anytime soon, but we'll see... So far, it may seem a bit more promising than an April Fool's joke

Another thing to remember is that they may have CAAC approval but I do not see anything that DOT gave them approval.

Another thing to remember is that they may have CAAC approval but I do not see anything that DOT gave them approval.

DOT approval should be more or less automatic, given the terms of the bilateral agreement. Landing slots, on the other hand, are not, though BOS would surely play ball on this front if the flight actually had a chance of happening.

In rereading the headline of the article, it's since occurred to me that it merely claims that MU has been approved to launch this service, not that it actually will. This is really no different than USAir's PHL-PVG route authority that it never launched (like MU, they don't have right sized planes for that mission).

SFO-NRT = 5100 miles
PEK-BOS = 7000 miles
Range limit for 332 = 8400 miles

So a332 has 20% spare capacity for ETOPS and other operational purpose... 332 has much less pax capacity than other heavy aircraft, and suitable for thin pax route such as this one.

If you want to use 332 over a distance of 7000 miles, it can only carry around 20t of payload, whereas max payload is 50t. So you would have to leave some seats and cargo hold empty, that would hurt the profitability.

http://www.airbus.com/fileadmin/media_gallery/files/tech_data/AC/Airbus-AC_A330_Dec11.pdf

See page 107 for payload/range data

In rereading the headline of the article, it's since occurred to me that it merely claims that MU has been approved to launch this service, not that it actually will. This is really no different than USAir's PHL-PVG route authority that it never launched (like MU, they don't have right sized planes for that mission).


You are correct. CAAC has granted authority to CZ for PEK-EWR, HU for PEK-ORD, and many others routes that have not started years after approval. The only plane in MU's fleet that can do this route is 346, and they only have 5 which is not enough.

Same here.
But an A340 anyhow is surely an overkill with 30-40 J seats and ~250 Y seats per flight. JL's 787 has a similar amount of J seats but about half the number of Y seats, and not sure if BOS can suffice two Asian airline widebodies all at once...


Boston is the 10th largest Metropolitan area in the country,there's no reason why BOS couldnt' handle 2 wide bodies to asia. Seattle the 15th largest has non stop 5x a week by both Korean and Asiana, Daily to NRT, KIX, PEK on DL (some summers 2x daily), PEK 5x/wk on Hanian, NRT daily on UA, and soon to add ANA to NRT! IF Seattle can handle all that boston could easily handle 2 flts to asia

Boston is the 10th largest Metropolitan area in the country,there's no reason why BOS couldnt' handle 2 wide bodies to asia. Seattle the 15th largest has non stop 5x a week by both Korean and Asiana, Daily to NRT, KIX, PEK on DL (some summers 2x daily), PEK 5x/wk on Hanian, NRT daily on UA, and soon to add ANA to NRT! IF Seattle can handle all that boston could easily handle 2 flts to asia

SEA is a logical connection point between everywhere in the US and Asia. There has been chatter about BOS-NRT for as long as I can remember (AA even put it on its time table in 1998), but nobody has taken the plunge yet.

Boston is the 10th largest Metropolitan area in the country,there's no reason why BOS couldnt' handle 2 wide bodies to asia. Seattle the 15th largest has non stop 5x a week by both Korean and Asiana, Daily to NRT, KIX, PEK on DL (some summers 2x daily), PEK 5x/wk on Hanian, NRT daily on UA, and soon to add ANA to NRT! IF Seattle can handle all that boston could easily handle 2 flts to asia
Take a look at the distance. Just comparing the routing ex-PEK, to SEA it's 5407 miles while to BOS it's 6737 miles (25% longer). For an airline, they could put good alternative use of that additional flying time (not to mention extra weight in terms of additional fuel carried) to a more profitable destination. For BOS, you're pretty much looking at O&D traffic rather than O&D plus connecting pax at SEA (due to its geographical advantage in between as moondog has said).

And a nonstop to BOS would require an ULH aircraft with too many seats (300+), i.e. 77W or an A346. If an airline had a choice, they would probably use it for extra frequencies to their destinations on the East Coast (e.g. JFK, EWR) before considering a secondary market like BOS. It wasn't until recently that mid-sized ULH aircraft such as the 787 was unveiled, allowing JL to 'test' these secondary markets.

In contrast, BOS is well-served by nonstop European widebodies largely because routes are about half the distance of those to Asia. For ex-BOS passengers headed for Asia, most would prefer a quick hop to JFK, EWR or ORD and connect there.

Has anyone heard more about this? I've seen a few reports of this but nothing substantial.

MU does not have a appropriate aircrafts to fly this route. The only planes capable of flying is their A340-600s, which MU owns 5, and operates PVG-LAX/PVG-JFK daily. MU sold all their A340-300s earlier this year so that is not a option, and A330-200 simply cannot fly that range.( Don't believe what wikipedia says, when an airbus is fully loaded, it never reaches its max. range.) And of course, the wind over pacific will make A330-200 even more unavailable for this route

A project has been approved to extend the NW-SE runway at Boston's Logan airport, now 10083 ft., out over the water about 500 ft. Would that be enough to make a difference? Yeah, I didn't really think so, but does anyone know how much clearance the FAA likes to see beyond the posted MTOW takeoff run?

MU does not have a appropriate aircrafts to fly this route. The only planes capable of flying is their A340-600s, which MU owns 5, and operates PVG-LAX/PVG-JFK daily. MU sold all their A340-300s earlier this year so that is not a option, and A330-200 simply cannot fly that range.( Don't believe what wikipedia says, when an airbus is fully loaded, it never reaches its max. range.) And of course, the wind over pacific will make A330-200 even more unavailable for this route

MU is just signed a letter of intent to purchase up to 20 77W to replace their A346. Deliveries, pending China Gov't approval, won't be until 2014-2016.

If they ntend to start the BOS route, I think the 77W will be too much capacity, IMO.

MU is just signed a letter of intent to purchase up to 20 77W to replace their A346. Deliveries, pending China Gov't approval, won't be until 2014-2016.

If they ntend to start the BOS route, I think the 77W will be too much capacity, IMO.

Actually I think BOS could just about fill a 77W, maybe 3 times a week, given the JAL flight is apparently booked well into June. The problem again, though, is the takeoff. The 77W apparently has a MTOW run of 10,500 ft., and that would be the approximate length of BOSs longest runway (see my earlier post). Unless MassPort wants to work with them and extend the runway longer than now planned (I don't really see why they couldn't; there's no shipping in that area. Then again, money is tight and concrete pilings are expensive, I guess.), it can't happen.

You've misunderstood the article concerning the runway project, the runway itself will not be lengthened, only the safety area will be.

You've misunderstood the article concerning the runway project, the runway itself will not be lengthened, only the safety area will be.

Thank you; so explain: how long is the 15R/33L runway, not counting the present safety zone. And do you happen to know the answer to my previous question, about the required clearance? And why that cannot include the safety zone? Finally, why couldn't Logan simply have bit the bullet and added another 1000 ft., like other municipalities are doing to comply with the directive?

http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-22/news/29915532_1_runway-safety-longest-runway-eelgrass

After all, if they really want these longer-haul flights won't they have to work with the airlines to bring it about?

Thank you; so explain: how long is the 15R/33L runway, not counting the present safety zone. And do you happen to know the answer to my previous question, about the required clearance? And why that cannot include the safety zone? Finally, why couldn't Logan simply have bit the bullet and added another 1000 ft., like other municipalities are doing to comply with the directive?

http://articles.boston.com/2011-08-22/news/29915532_1_runway-safety-longest-runway-eelgrass

After all, if they really want these longer-haul flights won't they have to work with the airlines to bring it about?

They can want longer flights all they want, but they are a non starter in the absence of demand.

MU is just signed a letter of intent to purchase up to 20 77W to replace their A346. Deliveries, pending China Gov't approval, won't be until 2014-2016.

If they ntend to start the BOS route, I think the 77W will be too much capacity, IMO.

77W is a good choice for MU. But for BOS, 77W is obviously too big.

787 is the ideal choice for this long but thin(not too much capacity) route, but MU/FM cancel their order of 24 787, so IMO this route is not going to happen.