No Quincy Financing for ICE Flights at Hanscom, Massport Rules

(QUINCY, MASSACHUSETTS) — Massachusetts Port Authority (Massport) operates Hanscom Field and says it must accommodate ICE charter flights, but a separate question keeps surfacing: does Quincy financially benefit from those flights, and what records would prove it?

1) Overview: Quincy, Hanscom Field, and Massport

Quincy sits south of Boston on the coast. Hanscom Field is not in Quincy; it is in the Bedford/Lincoln area, roughly 20 miles northwest of Boston, and it functions as a regional aviation facility.

Massport, a quasi-public authority, runs Hanscom Field along with other Massachusetts airports. That governance detail matters. When people argue about “ICE flights” and local profit, they sometimes blur three different things: the city where they live (Quincy), the airport where flights depart (Hanscom Field), and the operator that manages the airport (Massport).

Most references to “ICE flights” mean charter aircraft used for detainee transfers and deportation operations. That topic draws scrutiny because it can involve rapid transfers out of state, limits on family contact, and questions about access to legal counsel. The core claim many readers want answered is simpler and narrower: whether Quincy’s municipal finances gain from these charters, and what evidence would be needed to show a financial link.

2) Public-use airports and the revenue framework

Public-use airports generally work like shared infrastructure. Many different operators can use the field, and the airport charges fees tied to aircraft activity. Think of it like a toll road that bills vehicles, not a private driveway that picks its visitors.

Massport has said it cannot discriminate against users of its public-use airports, including federal government flights and flights “by or on behalf of” the federal government. In plain terms, that means Hanscom Field typically cannot block a flight just because the purpose is controversial. Federal activity also limits local control in many situations, even when local officials object on policy grounds.

Airport charges usually fall into familiar buckets. Those include landing fees, parking or ramp fees, hangar fees, and services such as fueling and ground handling. Those are best described as Massport charges or airport charges. They are not automatically municipal revenue for Quincy.

For Quincy to “profit,” money would need to flow from Hanscom Field operations into Quincy’s city budget through a transfer, a revenue-sharing agreement, a dedicated payment, or some other documented mechanism.

3) Private airlines and ICE charter contracts

Private profit, when it exists in this system, most often sits with the private airlines that operate charters under ICE charter contracts. That is a common structure in federal aviation procurement. The federal government contracts with carriers that can supply aircraft and crews and can meet routing and security needs.

Routes can change quickly, and flights can be scheduled on short notice. Several carriers have been linked to ICE charter activity in public reporting and public statements by officials. Governor Maura Healey pressed GlobalX Airlines and Eastern Air Express to stop operating these missions, accusing them of “profiting off” practices she criticized.

Separately, Avelo Airlines had been connected to charter operations and confirmed it ended ties as of Early January 2026. Ending a relationship with one carrier can reduce capacity or shift where flights originate. It can change logistics. It does not, by itself, prove anything about Quincy’s municipal revenue.

Airline charter revenue is one stream. Airport charges are another. City budgets are a third.

4) ICE flights data and trends at Hanscom

Flight-monitoring counts can help the public measure activity. They are not a financial ledger. A monitoring figure usually represents observed or reported departures, and it may miss context like aircraft swaps, repositioning legs, or behind-the-scenes billing.

Human Rights First, through its ICE Flight Monitor, reported 114 ICE flights out of Hanscom through November 2025, describing that as more than double the prior year’s total. That signals an increase in operational tempo. It also fits a broader pattern seen during periods of stepped-up enforcement, when transfers can become time-sensitive.

Operationally, charters can move detainees out of state soon after arrest, which can complicate access to counsel and family support. Spikes can happen without much public notice. Volume can rise even if the underlying airport fee structure stays the same.

⚠️ Caution: A higher flight count does not equal financial gain for Quincy without supporting financial records. Counting departures measures activity, not who receives revenue.

5) Government responses and statements

Governor Maura Healey’s public criticism focused on treatment and due process concerns, including claims that a “significant majority” of Massachusetts detainees lack criminal convictions. Her letters sought two different outcomes: pressure on federal leadership to change practices, and pressure on airline executives to stop flying the missions.

Healey sent a letter dated December 12, 2025, addressed to DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, and she also contacted airline leadership. Letters like these can shape public scrutiny and corporate decisions. They can also support oversight requests for records.

Policy condemnation, however, is not the same thing as a documented financial pathway into Quincy’s municipal accounts. A moral argument can be persuasive on its own terms. It still does not answer the narrower profit allegation.

6) Official defenses of ICE flights and pauses

ICE commonly defends charter use as a logistics tool. Charters can move groups efficiently, coordinate transfers between facilities, and meet enforcement timelines. That rationale is often framed as operational necessity rather than punishment, even as advocates dispute the human impact.

Reports described a Summer 2025 pause and a resumption in September 2025. A “pause” can mean different things in aviation operations: flights may stop from one airport, shift to another, or resume under a different carrier. Timing still matters because it can make activity look like a surge when operations restart.

To capture the chronology and impact without a table (interactive tool will add visuals), note these key points: Summer 2025 saw a reported pause in ICE charter activity from Hanscom, which meant fewer or no reported departures for a period. In September 2025 reported resumption coincided with enforcement surges and departures resumed and may have risen quickly.

Through November 2025 Human Rights First’s count reached 114 flights, indicating higher observed activity compared with the prior year. In Early January 2026 Avelo Airlines ended ties with ICE, a change that could reduce or redistribute charter capacity. None of these operational changes, by themselves, identify who receives revenue.

7) Claims about Quincy finances: verification status

Quincy is repeatedly named in online claims about “financing” or “profiting from” ICE flights. No public evidence has been identified tying Quincy’s municipal finances or profits to Hanscom ICE charter activity.

That phrasing matters. “No public evidence found” is not the same as claiming profit is impossible. It means the usual forms of proof have not surfaced in public records that clearly connect Quincy’s city budget to these flights.

Evidence that could substantiate or refute a Quincy-profit claim would include audited financial statements showing revenue tied to Hanscom Field operations flowing into Quincy accounts, budget line items in Quincy documents describing payments or reimbursements related to ICE charter activity, intergovernmental agreements describing revenue sharing, or revenue transfer records showing money moving from Massport to Quincy tied to specific flight programs.

✅ What to look for: audited statements, city budget line items, or intergovernmental transfers linked to ICE charters. Without those, claims of municipal benefit remain unproven.

8) Gaps, data needs, and open questions

Transparency debates often stall because people argue from flight counts alone. Two separate datasets are needed: operational activity (how many flights, when, and by whom) and financial impact (who billed what, who paid, and where money ended up).

Key missing details that would clarify the financial picture include operator-by-operator airport charges assessed at Hanscom Field for charter missions, revenue allocation rules inside Massport including whether any airport revenue is transferred to municipalities, federal contracting records identifying which carriers flew which missions and under what contract terms, and lease and vendor arrangements at Hanscom Field that might capture indirect revenue linked to increased charter activity.

• Massport records. Airport charges, leases, and accounting held by Massport.
• Federal records. Contracting and mission summaries from DHS/ICE identifying carriers and terms.
• Quincy finance records. Audits and budget details showing any transfers or earmarked payments.

Residents and journalists seeking answers typically focus on those three record pathways. Asking precise questions matters, such as whether any payment stream is earmarked for Quincy, and if so, under what authority and in what amounts.

For readers trying to evaluate claims fairly, the standard should stay consistent: flight activity can be documented with monitors and logs, while municipal benefit requires financial records that show a transfer into municipal revenue.

This article discusses public-interest matters involving government operations and detainee treatment. Information should be understood in context of available public records; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Readers should consult official sources and records for audited financial details.