Logan Airport closing overnight due to expected storm conditions

Massport officials at Logan Airport have just announced that the airport will be closed to planes beginning at 8 PM tonight (2-Jan) and lasting until noon tomorrow (3-Jan) due to the blizzard conditions expected overnight.

Multiple airlines are already waiving flight change fees in order to allow customers to fly today instead of tomorrow. People are being asked to contact their airlines directly to determine if the closure effects their flights.



Free tagging: 


Kaz, are you totally sure about KBOS?

I ask because: (i) you typically provide a citations and I didn't see one; (ii) I don't see anything about an airport closure on Massport's site, and (iii) it would be extremely unusual for KBOS to close for long period of time (what you've suggested is a very long time) and even more unusual for that to be announced in advance.

I think you might have an airline friend (or that might be Swirly) - but if the info came from him/her, are you sure that it isn't that a particular airline is shutting down its KBOS station for that time?

The whole airport

Sorry, I would have cited, but this is one time where TV beat the interwebs. I watched the officials at their press conference state that this was the case even though there's nothing official online when I posted.

They specifically mentioned in response to a question that the lack of planes from closing will enable them to restore the entire airfield faster after the snowfall than they would have otherwise.

Thanks, Kaz/Adam

I have to say that this is a little depressing though - Logan was one of the last examples of the old Yankee stoicism. The might have closed for 10 minutes to do a run down the all-weather runway, but otherwise that runway would almost always be available. It was a real point of pride for Massport in general and MPA Airport Operations in particular (I'll be some of those guys are actually really pissed and, perhaps, insulted).

Now, it seems everyone has gone to, as the video at the bottom of the French Toast Alert System Says, "I gotta get the bread and milk! Oh my God! Snow!"

Oh well, yet another reason why we need real high-speed (or even regular speed) intercity rail in the Northeast Corridor (and by that, I mean the Inland Route).

Having been on the other side

Having been on the other side of this, i.e. in a flight from LHR scheduled to land at BOS during a blizzard, I think the preemptive closing makes sense. In my instance, Logan remained open until very late in the game but seriously slowed traffic, then it closed, forcing my flight to land in Bangor and sit on the runway for six hours. During this time, Logan would open just long enough for us to get deiced, and then close again when we were ready for takeoff. Rinse and repeat (literally) until the crew had to announce that they could no longer fly and we were being deplaned. We arrived at BOS the next day by bus.

Meanwhile, a couple of years ago we were flying back to JFK during that Christmas blizzard. No go. JFK, and the rest of the East Coast airports, shut down in preparation for the storm. Our flight never left FRA, which was an inconvenience (luckily we had a place to stay, so it was no problem to go back there for as long as we needed) but that meant we didn't get rerouted to ORD or STL or some other far-off place in North America just to get the plane down.

ETA: Agree with you 110% on the high-speed rail, though I'm not sure how reliable it would be during a blizzard. European high-speed trains normally have to slow down in bad weather.


Airport Safety is a National Concern

Also consider what happened once upon a time when Logan was always open: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Airways_Flight_30

While that is extreme, it is also very problematic for flights to divert once they are in the air. By announcing a closure instead of holding out as long as possible, many more problems are solved than are caused by the shut down. Those problems being diverting a jet that is already low on fuel to an airport that lacks the capacity to handle the diversion.


I knew someone would bring up World 30.

And I would have bet that it would be you, Swirly (and I'm not even a gambling man!). I will say only that World was in a different era with snow removal and friction-testing equipment that were totally inferior (or non-existent) to that which is available today and that both things would have mattered in that event (along with the presence of an EMAS system).

(Interesting side note, there are a lot of people around Logan who still believe, for various reasons, that the two people who were never found are very much alive.)

In any event, I am not necessarily criticizing Massport's decision today - my comments have been intended to remark upon what an unusual step this is.

Winter Travel

It is a good idea be aware of the predicted weather conditions both where you are and at your destination.

I was on the west coast a couple of years back when a winter storm was predicted for Boston. I checked on my flight two days in advance and found that the airline had already issued a "no fee to rebook". I checked the forecast, and then switched my flight well ahead of time (scoring better seats in the process, too!). This saved me a lot of hassle, as the plane for my original flight never made it out of Boston that day, and the flight was cancelled.

Airlines will now alert travelers by e-mail of potential weather messes up to several days ahead of time, and some will offer the fee-free rebooking well in advance of any actual announcement of airport closures.


This counterpoint always bothers me

Anonymous coward means absolutely nothing. Would a comment be more valid or correct if it was a pseudonym or a real name?

Giving a name does sometimes add to an argument if the name is some indication of authority (even authority of being a neighbor as one post showing a picture leaving a note and a name). But in this case, adding a name means nothing. So thus attacking for being anonymous and thus cowardice.

Welcome to the conversation

Having a username doesn't mean revealing your real-world identity, but it does mean establishing one here
on Uhub and becoming part of the community. People like to take swipes at Swirly, and she doesn't hide
from that by hiding that any given posting is done by her. She takes ownership of her comments by using
a consistent user name. Not doing so is childish and yes, perhaps even cowardly.


Not a matter of "authority"...

... but of "branding". Although a user registered via a pseudonym is anonymous, they have at least created a recognizable online persona. One can thus at least decide whether their contributions are generally valuable -- or generally not. On the other hand, one often can't even tell one unbranded anon from another. Unbranded anons are basically hit-and-run drivers -- and are much more likely to be trolls (or troll-like) than registered pseudonymous ones. I use my own real name -- because it reminds me to behave online (usually).

Branding is a form of

Branding is a form of authority. Authority, though as I write this I will note that it may have some negative connotations distracting the word, means giving that particular person more trust. Since an argument cannot always be empirically measured, trust in the person based on history of reliability comes in. That's a form of authority as much as announcing one to be an expert, scientist, or police officer. But I guess this is semantics.

My point (this part is my response to all the responders, replying to each comment would be a little redundant) is that saying "anonymous coward" is just dismissing by the name than the content. Now, not to say the comment in this case is a particularly have high merits, but truth or falsehood of an argument doesn't depend on the name. Even an anon name where many uses it to make quips.

Even if they haven't announced no fee

I was headed to a conference in Miami when a blizzard was predicted for the day I was supposed to leave. Given how much the conference was costing my company, I figured a change fee would be worth it so I didn't miss half the sessions by coming a day late. So I changed my flight to the day before and paid the fee. Sure enough, they cancelled my original flight. So when I got back, I called the airline and they cheerfully refunded my fee. YMMV

Logan will not close to passengers

Logan will not close to passengers.

Reports have been confusing. Comfirmed by the State press conference right now. Check with your airline for cancelled flights.

Statement from Logan:

Boston Logan International Airport
As winter weather approaches, airlines at Logan are expected to reduce service and cancel flights today. We expect the last departure to be at approximately 8:30 pm. Logan Airport will remain open throughout the duration of the storm and be clearing the runways and taxiways in anticipation of service resuming late Friday morning.

This is why I was asking earlier about a "closure".

If it was not previously clear to anyone why I was asking if Kaz was sure that the airport would be "closed", this is why. "Closed" has a very specific meaning with respect to airports (one which the msm could not care less about), and as I indicated previously, it is extremely rare for a major international airport to be "closed" (and particularly that far in advance).

In situation like this, the airport is often "open" but there are no flights because the airlines do not want to get their equipment trapped on the ground. I understand that this might be roughly equivalent to a "closure" to many people, but it matters because people need to know who to contact and where to assess blame (and it is almost always with the airlines in cases like this).

To add to the confusion

The inference from the official announcing the "closure" earlier today on TV was that by "closing" they would be able to better service the airfield because all of those planes wouldn't be in the way (or expected to be arriving and get in the way of snow/ice removal happening unhindered).

So, if the airport officials told the airlines "it's best if you don't come here, capice?" and the airlines all agreed, but they aren't "closing" the airport...well, they are the ones that need to come up with a new word for it.. "soft closure" or something.