Talk:Logan International Airport

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 Also, the Silver Line announcement thing is likely out of date.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

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 I feel that some of the photos are a little outdated.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)

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)

Cargo At Logan Airport

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 This is because there are a lack of sources and it is very incomplete and outdated.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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks. Several more cleanup items:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A few things to add:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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)

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)

China Eastern Service to Boston

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

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

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

United's move to Terminal B

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

Archiving

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

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

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

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

footnote

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

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

Removal of 2nd JAL 787 Incident

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incorrect destination map

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cape Air/Nantucket Airlines

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

Any clarification would be great.

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

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

Terminal B

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

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

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