YOUR COMMENTS

Companies like UA are dinosours and have been bleeding money for years. I think everyone who is blaming Southwest is very wrong on this subject. Thank you Southwest for keeping this airport relevant. Without SW this airport dies with the airline companies that fly out of it. I will say NH probably didnt need a bridge to nowhere... whose idea was that anyways??
- Paul, Manchester NH

Comair (Delta Connection) will be running MHT operations for UA... Thats two computer systems they need to know but at least they can move from counter to counter if things get messy.... poor UA.
- Juan, Wells, ME

the same jobs that were filled by ual personal will now be united express (mesa, go jet,west jet, etc) personal the same belt loader, bag carts ,tractors,lav truck that united had there will still be there just used by some one else who makes less money,has less training,experience etc, the smaller planes provide less seats hence ticket prices may rise...more than likely the same people will still work there but for less,...ya know the guys at the top need more $$ as their airline stock isnt going as well as they planned most of you wont care until your job is out sourced.........
- gseualordgq, ord

The 787 is a total embarrassment for Boeing, over two years behind schedule. The plane was 'promised' to fly for the first time before year-end, but even that is doubtful now as engineers STILL are 're-designing the wing.' Years ago, Boeing had a pipe-dream aircraft on the drawing board called the 'Sonic Cruiser' that I dare say would be flying around by now, even though it never left the drawing board. THAT is how embarrassing the 787 has been for Boeing.
- Chris, Brookline

Why don't the Manchester aldermen rename the airport Boston Regional Airport, that way, Logan can remain the name for the airport in East Boston.
- RLS, Hooksett

Bill, Bedford --How's Boeing doing with first flight of the 787? How long has it been delayed? How's Boeing's composite technology grasp?
- Texter, Newfields

Manchester Airport has outlived its usefulness, may as well close it down completely, not worth the noise and inconvenience it produces. Changing its name to include 'Boston' was the ultimate hypocracy ont he part of airport management. For years they wanted a totally separate identity until business got bad, now that it suits them / serves their own purposes they want to try to capitalize on the more well known 'Boston' name.
- Steve, Derry

If other regional airports aren't suffering the same deep cuts we are, I can only conclude that our airport management isn't fighting enough to keep service. Forget about getting new airlines or new routes from existing carriers; we can't even keep the service we have. Hiding behind excuses such as the 'bad economy' and '50 miles from Boston' only works as long as people don't sniff around to see how we're stacking up. The guy who used to run our airport is running Providence now, and they still have United mainline service. File under, 'Hmmmm.'
- Chris, Brookline

Sorry MHT. I love this airport and have been flying from it for 25 years. I remember when United first flew 757s into Manch. We were a big boy airport then. Now Southwest has chased all the large carriers away, and Logan is now cheaper and more convenient. I loved you while it lasted.
- Art, Portsmouth

This article should be entitled: United Airlines is leaving Manchester Airport.

So the UL finally noticed that United Airlines was "cutting back". This is a lot more than a cut back. The UL, the mayor, the governor and the DOT have failed to realize once again what's going on. The airline has left MHT and has sadly laid off its staff here. We are very unlikely to see the return of United mainline service again.

United Airlines used to boast they were the only domestic airline to serve all 50 states. After they leave MHT they will be down to serving 35 states. MHT's loss of this major airline is a symbolic loss.

It's difficult to comprehend the seemingly positive spin on this article. This is exceedingly bad news for Manchester and New Hampshire.

Recall that United was the first airline to take a risk at MHT. The growth that followed is well known. United at one time had a booming business here. Unfortunately, they have made some strange moves at this station. First they dismantled a booming business to Washington Dulles. A few years ago they had 5 flights a day to Chicago, many utilizing large 757 aircraft. Despite steady demand they continuously cut back the frequency of flights, cut down the size of aircraft, and raised fares at MHT to be higher than Boston.

Much of the service cutbacks were blamed on the financial weakness of United, and later the slow economy. But as time goes by, it seems more difficult to believe. I cannot help but feel that something else is at play here. The last time I checked United still had 10 daily flights on the Boston/O'Hare route. Clearly they are investing in Boston and other large cities, and our small city and state no longer fit in their plans.

The United spokesman's spin that we retained the same number of flights is outrageous. These are much smaller regional aircraft, too small for a route of this distance and duration. Also the regional aircraft usually arrive at inconvenient gates at hub airports. Providing only 2 daily flights makes it difficult to schedule return trips from the West.

At the very least, United Express should have added one more flight to help recover some of the lost capacity. Portland lost mainline United service recently as well, but they have managed to retain 3 flights per day to Chicago. One can only infer that United expects NH people to simply go to Boston Logan for service, since they are maintaining a bare minimum level of service here.

We are going back to the expensive transportation model of the 1980s, with Boston Logan Airport controlling all aspects of airline transportation in New England.

Under our current mayor and governor's watch, MHT has already lost mainline service from Continental and Delta. We are close to losing remaining mainline service from Northwest as that airline continues to merge into Delta. (Northwest is using very old aircraft here, but they too will likely switch to just regional jets.) Thankfully we still have a small number of mainline service flights provided by US Airways. Southwest is the only airline providing all mainline service, but their entry into Boston has MHT and PVD justifiably very, very nervous.

I wish Mayor Guinta, Governor Lynch and the head of the NH DOT would all tell us what they have been doing to get United Airlines and other airlines to reconsider these cutbacks. We are investing millions of dollars to improve highway access to MHT, yet the airlines are cutting back more than the economic slow down would seem to justify. Everyone in the state deserves answer.
- Bob, Hooksett

Funny, I don't remember hearing political speeches about this. Ooops.. I forgot .. the folks who are losing their jobs don't count, they don't work in the Public Sector. What was I thinking .. promise, I won't let that happen again.
- tom, manchester,nh

This news is worse than being made out to be in this article. I don't know who is counting flights or seats, but United is currently running two big jets with 126 and 150 seats and one small jet with 70 seats. That's three flights with about 350 seats each way to and from Chicago. The new schedule is just two 70 seat regional jets for a total of 140 seats. That is not the same number of flights and its more than a 50% reduction in seats. Compare the new level of service with what United offered about 3 years ago and we are down nearly 90% in seats to one of the most important airline hubs inthe world. This is very bad for Manchester airport and its travelers. Further, the jobs lost at MHT are being replaced with regional airline staff who make considerably less, taking money out of our economy.

Airport management make is sound like this is just a sign of the times, but I just checked other cities nearby and found, Providence, Hartford and Albany still have big jet sevice with more than 2 flights per day. Small cities such as Burlington VT and Portland ME have three of the same regional jets that we get only two of. I can only conclude we are being given the short end of the stick. If we are to get downsized, frequencies should at least stay the same and preferably go up. This is a big black eye for airport management. They need to fight hard to get at least a 3rd frequency back so we can keep up with the small cities that are jumping ahead of us.
- Jon, Bow

This is sad news. United was the main jet carrier, along with USAir, at Manchester prior to the current terminal being built in the early nineties. The move away from full-sized to regional jets is a big story in aviation. The RJ pilots are paid a fraction of the money, have a fraction of the experience, and hold a fraction of the passengers of a Boeing 737 or Airbus 319.

So we are getting less capacity, less experience and a less safe flying experience as we get more and more regional jet aircraft flown by inexperienced pilots in and out of Manchester. What hasn't been reduced? The cost of flying.

This will surely push more people to take the cheap shuttle to Boston when push comes to shove. I am far more willing to do that to avoid flying on a mickey mouse airline. Just look at the difference between the outcomes of the miracle on the Hudson and the DH* crash in Buffalo last year.

In flying, more than any other business, experience counts. Oh yeah, RJs are built in Brazil and Canada, Boeings are built in Seattle. So jump in with your pro-business anti-American bashing knee-jerkers (Spike in Raymond, I mean you.)

And for the record, I'm not a pilot. I don't work for the airlines. I am, however, an air traffic controller and I see the difference between professional air carrier pilots and newbie regional jet pilots everyday. If the flying public saw what we see they'd avoid RJs too.
- Bill, Bedford

It's Obama's fault!! Hey why not? It was GW's fault for 8 years!
- Margaret, Ga

What we have is the big lie about the success of MHT unravelling.

Manchester's EGO got in the way of logical thinking - they promoted MHT as competition to Logan, while promoting it as an alternative to Logan. They would not admit to that being a pipe dream - Logan handles 24 million passengers per year, MHT does 3-4 million - those are the statistics.

Southwest does fly to Chicago, to an airport with very few connections not unlike MHT itself. O'Hare has the connections, but people want direct flights and overseas connections. From Logan they can gt both - from MHT they can fly to another airport with those connections, and the fact that United is indicating that Chicago a major hub is not a popular or filled flight exposes the reality of MHT compared to Logan.

MHT can work, but it needs to stop trying to compete with Logan, and become a regional hub. Flights to Bangor, Albany, and Buffalo, the connections you can't even get by bus from MHT make sense.
- Howie Howe, Manchester

More layoffs in another large business?

I guess United didn't hear that the economy has turned around. I suggest they paint their planes green and claim they fly on flower power. It's the latest fad after all.
- Deb, Derry

Your local union brothers here at CVG are sorry to hear about your layoffs in MHT. We wish you well.
- Darrell Wood, Covington, Ky

Manchester isn't alone is losing United mainline service. Much larger cities such as Miami, Fort Lauderdale and St. Louis have also lost, or are slated to lose, UA service. The fault doesn't really lie with Manchester. Times are tough and airlines need to choose carefully where to optimize their planes and make a profit.
- Richard, Manchester

I hope this will eventually make room for another good, low cost, consumer friendly airline like Airtran and/or Jet Blue!!! United should just leave MHT, period. The sooner the better for all of us.
- gr chase, Exeter

As much as I prefer to use Manchester Airport, I am finding flights slim and cost high. It seems to me since the new director has taken over, things have been trending in the wrong direction.

I am forced to use Logan more, as prices are lower and flights more available. With the addition of Boston Express, don't have to drive and park anymore either.

Perfect example, I'm going to Toronto next week. Air Canada from Manchester cost is in the $600 r/t,n/s range, with limited flight choices.

Logan has multiple carriers available and cost is $250 r/t, n/s??

Add in the $29 r/t for Boston Express and I'm looking at less that $300 for air and transportation to and from Logan.
- Harry, Atkinson

Leo you sound like such an angry person, and it seems to be about a wide range of issues that don't pertain to the article. When they say the good news they are referring that we will be able to keep same number of flights and no loose them. Loosing those flights would be bad for the local economy on top of the people they had to let go.
- Ed, Bedford, NH

Gee, if they switched to Piper Cubs they'd need still more flights each day. The UL would consider that "good news" as well, I suppose. This is bad news. Just like Southwest flying out of Boston. How about admitting defeat and stopping that idiot construction at the Bedford tolls? Maybe the money could be used toward getting a good newspaper in NH.
- Leo, Canterbury