reasonable wrote:

Let's get back on track, or else the thread will be closed.

A fair question that the little klm and the reasonable people here would both be interested in is why DL chose MSP and SLC for KL service, but not DTW.

Personally, I couldn't care less about such small ball, but it is definitely a fair (and potentially interesting) question.

I think it's because both flights are less than daily and a less than daily flight from AMS is better serviced by a KLM aircraft than a Delta aircraft. Look at the second less than daily London flight it is serviced from LHR not state side as the non DTW days are served out of London to PDX and being Delta has no less than daily flights out of AMS it is served by KLM AMS based aircraft.

klm617 wrote:

reasonable wrote:

Let's get back on track, or else the thread will be closed.

A fair question that the little klm and the reasonable people here would both be interested in is why DL chose MSP and SLC for KL service, but not DTW.

Personally, I couldn't care less about such small ball, but it is definitely a fair (and potentially interesting) question.

I think it's because both flights are less than daily and a less than daily flight from AMS is better serviced by a KLM aircraft than a Delta aircraft. Look at the second less than daily London flight it is serviced from LHR not state side as the non DTW days are served out of London to PDX and being Delta has no less than daily flights out of AMS it is served by KLM AMS based aircraft.

I see no facts.
Both MSP and SLC see a daily KLM frequency, plus some DL service. Even if it was sub-daily, I fail to see any advantage in basing an aircraft in Europe vs the US.
Sidenote: what do you mean by servicing? Servicing is done at both ends of a leg, and the airplane flying LHR-PDX is based in Detroit.

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

klm617 wrote:

reasonable wrote:

Let's get back on track, or else the thread will be closed.

A fair question that the little klm and the reasonable people here would both be interested in is why DL chose MSP and SLC for KL service, but not DTW.

Personally, I couldn't care less about such small ball, but it is definitely a fair (and potentially interesting) question.

I think it's because both flights are less than daily and a less than daily flight from AMS is better serviced by a KLM aircraft than a Delta aircraft. Look at the second less than daily London flight it is serviced from LHR not state side as the non DTW days are served out of London to PDX and being Delta has no less than daily flights out of AMS it is served by KLM AMS based aircraft.

I see no facts.
Both MSP and SLC see a daily KLM frequency, plus some DL service. Even if it was sub-daily, I fail to see any advantage in basing an aircraft in Europe vs the US.
Sidenote: what do you mean by servicing? Servicing is done at both ends of a leg, and the airplane flying LHR-PDX is based in Detroit.

No one's going to have the answer to this question. DL's JV is extremely deep. It's both a revenue and cost sharing arrangement. There are countless factors that go into selecting which carrier flies a particular route. Unliike say the UA/LH alliance which is purely a revenue share, the cost sharing element introduces a bunch of extra factors to consider. For that matter, why does Air France fly the seasonal route from MSP instead of DL? AF barely does any seasonal routes and yet MSP is one of them. No one here is going to know why that's the case. Everything else is just speculation but then again speculating is most of the fun.

Klm does not serve SLC and MSP daily. Where is the evidence? MSP sees x4 weekly, and 3 weekly in the winter I believe at MSP. Also SLC is only served seasonally by KLM; and service is x3 times weekly. I don't think 2017 was an awful year for DTW either... the worst was Virgin Atlantic leaving.

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

klm617 wrote:

reasonable wrote:

Let's get back on track, or else the thread will be closed.

A fair question that the little klm and the reasonable people here would both be interested in is why DL chose MSP and SLC for KL service, but not DTW.

Personally, I couldn't care less about such small ball, but it is definitely a fair (and potentially interesting) question.

I think it's because both flights are less than daily and a less than daily flight from AMS is better serviced by a KLM aircraft than a Delta aircraft. Look at the second less than daily London flight it is serviced from LHR not state side as the non DTW days are served out of London to PDX and being Delta has no less than daily flights out of AMS it is served by KLM AMS based aircraft.

I see no facts.
Both MSP and SLC see a daily KLM frequency, plus some DL service. Even if it was sub-daily, I fail to see any advantage in basing an aircraft in Europe vs the US.
Sidenote: what do you mean by servicing? Servicing is done at both ends of a leg, and the airplane flying LHR-PDX is based in Detroit.

FACT both MSP and SLC are less than daily on KLM. No it's not the plane that flies the PDX and DTW less than daily is based out of LHR not DTW. If you are operating a flight less than daily and it's based at AMS you can have many other options to use it if you operate less than daily with a 767 operating out of SLC and it's 3 weekly what do you do with a 767 on the ground in SLC the other 4 days same with MSP.

klm617 wrote:

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

klm617 wrote:

I think it's because both flights are less than daily and a less than daily flight from AMS is better serviced by a KLM aircraft than a Delta aircraft. Look at the second less than daily London flight it is serviced from LHR not state side as the non DTW days are served out of London to PDX and being Delta has no less than daily flights out of AMS it is served by KLM AMS based aircraft.

I see no facts.
Both MSP and SLC see a daily KLM frequency, plus some DL service. Even if it was sub-daily, I fail to see any advantage in basing an aircraft in Europe vs the US.
Sidenote: what do you mean by servicing? Servicing is done at both ends of a leg, and the airplane flying LHR-PDX is based in Detroit.

FACT both MSP and SLC are less than daily on KLM. No it's not the plane that flies the PDX and DTW less than daily is based out of LHR not DTW. If you are operating a flight less than daily and it's based at AMS you can have many other options to use it if you operate less than daily with a 767 operating out of SLC and it's 3 weekly what do you do with a 767 on the ground in SLC the other 4 days same with MSP.

OK, that's an oversight on my end. As for what they could do with the plane, more routes out of MSP and SLC (both of which are hubs) come to mind.
The plane flying LHR-PDX does indeed rotate to DTW. Delta has no maintenance or crew bases in LHR, so it can't base a plane there.

klm617 wrote:

For the past year they have been many ATL adds.
ATL-ICN
ATL-PVG
ATL-HAV
ATL-PTP and FTF with skyteam partner AF
ATL to Mexico at least 6 adds via DL and skyteam partner AM
The Detroit adds.
DTW-SNA
DTW-MEX via AM
Quite a contrast wouldn't you say.
.

Between 2010 and 2016, Atlanta Metropolitan Area grew 9.5%

Between 2010 and 2016, Minneapolis Metropolitan Area grew 6.0%

Between 2010 and 2016, Detroit Metropolitan Area grew 0.0%

That is quite a contrast, too.

http://www.startribune.com/twin-cities- ... 417874533/

jordanh wrote:

Between 2010 and 2016, Atlanta Metropolitan Area grew 9.5%

Between 2010 and 2016, Minneapolis Metropolitan Area grew 6.0%

Between 2010 and 2016, Detroit Metropolitan Area grew 0.0%

That is quite a contrast, too.

http://www.startribune.com/twin-cities- ... 417874533/

Do you think population is the primary metric for measuring air service? How does Singapore's air service compare to other cities its size? What about larger ones?

The amount of capacity that DL and US/AA have dumped into ATL & CLT since 2010 far, far, far exceeds both the growth rate of the Southeast and the growth in local air traffic.

Among other trends, ATL has become DL's primary connection point for many NE - West communities over the past several years -- prior to the NW merger, ATL connected little traffic in that arena.

jordanh wrote:

klm617 wrote:

For the past year they have been many ATL adds.
ATL-ICN
ATL-PVG
ATL-HAV
ATL-PTP and FTF with skyteam partner AF
ATL to Mexico at least 6 adds via DL and skyteam partner AM
The Detroit adds.
DTW-SNA
DTW-MEX via AM
Quite a contrast wouldn't you say.
.

Between 2010 and 2016, Atlanta Metropolitan Area grew 9.5%

Between 2010 and 2016, Minneapolis Metropolitan Area grew 6.0%

Between 2010 and 2016, Detroit Metropolitan Area grew 0.0%

That is quite a contrast, too.

http://www.startribune.com/twin-cities- ... 417874533/

Again DTW in unique in a way as it is used more by people living outside the city limits than inside so you have to check thwe growth of the region as a whole. People are not moving into the city of Detroit in droves but they are in places like Ann Arbor, Royal Oak, Sterling Heights, Shelby Twp, Macomb, Birmingham and West Bloomfield so while most of these surveys take into account what happens within a cities limit it not a true indicator when it comes to the Detroit market.

I second that... no ones flies to Detroit to go to Detroit. The metropolitan area is where it's at.

klm617 wrote:

jordanh wrote:

klm617 wrote:

For the past year they have been many ATL adds.
ATL-ICN
ATL-PVG
ATL-HAV
ATL-PTP and FTF with skyteam partner AF
ATL to Mexico at least 6 adds via DL and skyteam partner AM
The Detroit adds.
DTW-SNA
DTW-MEX via AM
Quite a contrast wouldn't you say.
.

Between 2010 and 2016, Atlanta Metropolitan Area grew 9.5%

Between 2010 and 2016, Minneapolis Metropolitan Area grew 6.0%

Between 2010 and 2016, Detroit Metropolitan Area grew 0.0%

That is quite a contrast, too.

http://www.startribune.com/twin-cities- ... 417874533/

Again DTW in unique in a way as it is used more by people living outside the city limits than inside so you have to check thwe growth of the region as a whole. People are not moving into the city of Detroit in droves but they are in places like Ann Arbor, Royal Oak, Sterling Heights, Shelby Twp, Macomb, Birmingham and West Bloomfield so while most of these surveys take into account what happens within a cities limit it not a true indicator when it comes to the Detroit market.

He listed the metro area statistics, so your point is moot. No one's going to realistically argue that the DTW metro area is growing at the same rate as ATL.

Jeremy

SESGDL wrote:

klm617 wrote:

jordanh wrote:

Between 2010 and 2016, Atlanta Metropolitan Area grew 9.5%

Between 2010 and 2016, Minneapolis Metropolitan Area grew 6.0%

Between 2010 and 2016, Detroit Metropolitan Area grew 0.0%

That is quite a contrast, too.

http://www.startribune.com/twin-cities- ... 417874533/

Again DTW in unique in a way as it is used more by people living outside the city limits than inside so you have to check thwe growth of the region as a whole. People are not moving into the city of Detroit in droves but they are in places like Ann Arbor, Royal Oak, Sterling Heights, Shelby Twp, Macomb, Birmingham and West Bloomfield so while most of these surveys take into account what happens within a cities limit it not a true indicator when it comes to the Detroit market.

He listed the metro area statistics, so your point is moot. No one's going to realistically argue that the DTW metro area is growing at the same rate as ATL.

Jeremy

So what exactly do they consider the metropolitan area is Waterford included and Ann Arbor ?

klm617 wrote:

SESGDL wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Again DTW in unique in a way as it is used more by people living outside the city limits than inside so you have to check thwe growth of the region as a whole. People are not moving into the city of Detroit in droves but they are in places like Ann Arbor, Royal Oak, Sterling Heights, Shelby Twp, Macomb, Birmingham and West Bloomfield so while most of these surveys take into account what happens within a cities limit it not a true indicator when it comes to the Detroit market.

He listed the metro area statistics, so your point is moot. No one's going to realistically argue that the DTW metro area is growing at the same rate as ATL.

Jeremy

So what exactly do they consider the metropolitan area is Waterford included and Ann Arbor ?

Depends on whether you're citing MSA or CSA. CSA includes Ann Arbor and Washtenaw County, as well as Oakland County I think that's where the other city is on Google Earth. MSA is a smaller scope, either way the total population comes out to be 5.7 million.

If Amazon decided to choose Detroit as their 2nd HQ, which at this moment sounds extremely promising, what effect will it have on air travel in the region? Will Delta win the corporate contracts? Or will this prompt more flag carriers?

Some of my colleagues keep me pretty informed about the happenings in Detroit and I want to bring them up, this is mostly related to Amazon;

-I got a text from a colleague this morning that the Metro Detroit Area will receive a 3rd center on top of the currently planned Romulus and Livonia centers.
-Key Detroit business, universities and political people are involved, yes this includes Dan Gilbert.
-In the past few months several CEO's announced hub operations in Detroit, which speaks that the room is there for growth.
-An "Atlanta style" train system could connect DTW with several points to Detroit and use an old train station near Downtown.

I would love to see it down here in Central Florida but we're no longer accepting applications, can't shove people in even tighter quarters.

This is an interesting speculation. Real talk though, Detroit is not a likely candidate. The enthusiasm is great to see, and will be helpful to Detroit as a region to admit and face some of its blatant challenges (education, regional cooperation, transit), and to learn how to cooperate and sell its incredible assets and value going forward (design, engineering, logistics, clean water, urban innovation), but it's a pretty steep long shot for Detroit to win HQ2.

Else, if it did happen, perhaps BA would return, maybe one of the ME3, and more flights to the west coast.

More importantly, all the people who talk about Detroit like they're harbingers of unique insight yet have never been to the city or understand its complexity would have to be silent and stand aside, humbled. SE Michigan has so much going for it regardless of Amazon (its population of ignorant and dimwitted people *ahem, Macomb County* aside) that not winning HQ2 isn't a failure. But that's how ignorant people will read it. For that reason, if Detroit DOES win HQ2, they will have to eat their words.

flymco753 wrote:

If Amazon decided to choose Detroit as their 2nd HQ, which at this moment sounds extremely promising, what effect will it have on air travel in the region? Will Delta win the corporate contracts? Or will this prompt more flag carriers?

Some of my colleagues keep me pretty informed about the happenings in Detroit and I want to bring them up, this is mostly related to Amazon;

-I got a text from a colleague this morning that the Metro Detroit Area will receive a 3rd center on top of the currently planned Romulus and Livonia centers.
-Key Detroit business, universities and political people are involved, yes this includes Dan Gilbert.
-In the past few months several CEO's announced hub operations in Detroit, which speaks that the room is there for growth.
-An "Atlanta style" train system could connect DTW with several points to Detroit and use an old train station near Downtown.

I would love to see it down here in Central Florida but we're no longer accepting applications, can't shove people in even tighter quarters.

While the train is an amazing idea it think it's pretty far off. We still have the mentality in the burbs that if there is mass transit we will have to deal with to much of the Detroit riff raff and that's something the people in Oakland County and to a lesser extent in Macomb county don't want. It would be nice to have a train from the East side to the airport or at least a transit option that wouldn't take all day at a reasonable price but the DDOT and SMART systems are so mismanaged now it's hard to move forward. I would like to see the Amazon Headquarters built here to but I think it's a long shot really but one can hope. Where we really missed out is when Boeing was looking at YIP for an assembly site the Michigan government should have pulled all the stops to make that happen

flymco753 wrote:

If Amazon decided to choose Detroit as their 2nd HQ, which at this moment sounds extremely promising, what effect will it have on air travel in the region? Will Delta win the corporate contracts? Or will this prompt more flag carriers?

Some of my colleagues keep me pretty informed about the happenings in Detroit and I want to bring them up, this is mostly related to Amazon;

-I got a text from a colleague this morning that the Metro Detroit Area will receive a 3rd center on top of the currently planned Romulus and Livonia centers.
-Key Detroit business, universities and political people are involved, yes this includes Dan Gilbert.
-In the past few months several CEO's announced hub operations in Detroit, which speaks that the room is there for growth.
-An "Atlanta style" train system could connect DTW with several points to Detroit and use an old train station near Downtown.

I would love to see it down here in Central Florida but we're no longer accepting applications, can't shove people in even tighter quarters.

Even if we didn't score 2nd HQ, I would like to see Amazon IT division grow in Detroit.

Are you counting Brownstown in the 3 centers?

reasonable wrote:

A fair question that the little klm and the reasonable people here would both be interested in is why DL chose MSP and SLC for KL service, but not DTW.

Doesn't KL decide where they send their planes (with discussions with partners)?

dtw2hyd wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

If Amazon decided to choose Detroit as their 2nd HQ, which at this moment sounds extremely promising, what effect will it have on air travel in the region? Will Delta win the corporate contracts? Or will this prompt more flag carriers?

Some of my colleagues keep me pretty informed about the happenings in Detroit and I want to bring them up, this is mostly related to Amazon;

-I got a text from a colleague this morning that the Metro Detroit Area will receive a 3rd center on top of the currently planned Romulus and Livonia centers.
-Key Detroit business, universities and political people are involved, yes this includes Dan Gilbert.
-In the past few months several CEO's announced hub operations in Detroit, which speaks that the room is there for growth.
-An "Atlanta style" train system could connect DTW with several points to Detroit and use an old train station near Downtown.

I would love to see it down here in Central Florida but we're no longer accepting applications, can't shove people in even tighter quarters.

Even if we didn't score 2nd HQ, I would like to see Amazon IT division grow in Detroit.

Are you counting Brownstown in the 3 centers?

Sorry, I'm not too savvy on Metro Detroit cities, so that'd mean 4 centers in the area, and fairly large ones.

Did some homework on DTW-SJC and why I think this will be the next domestic add for DL.
The median one way fare is about $280 which is not a low yield, if DL prices tickets at a median of $200-250 one-way it would equate to around $400-450 round-trip which isn't bad as a median fare. A 737-800 has 160 seats, so there'd have to be feed. I feel like if DL can adjust some connections, primarily East Coast and do a 9:30 departure I don't see why it couldn't work. After all this is the largest domestic market from DTW without a nonstop. If DL had enough faith in doing SNA, I think the same can happen for SJC.

SJO is a different story. There's 3 daily flights from ATL, and 1 daily from LAX, so there's 4 daily flights in and out of SJO. The reason DTW may never get SJO is because why would DL take a 757 away from ATL and suffer less feed? It'd be a different story if they ran a shuttle from ATL but they don't and there probably wouldn't be as much profit as ATL.

flymco753 wrote:

Did some homework on DTW-SJC and why I think this will be the next domestic add for DL.
The median one way fare is about $280 which is not a low yield, if DL prices tickets at a median of $200-250 one-way it would equate to around $400-450 round-trip which isn't bad as a median fare. A 737-800 has 160 seats, so there'd have to be feed. I feel like if DL can adjust some connections, primarily East Coast and do a 9:30 departure I don't see why it couldn't work. After all this is the largest domestic market from DTW without a nonstop. If DL had enough faith in doing SNA, I think the same can happen for SJC.

SJO is a different story. There's 3 daily flights from ATL, and 1 daily from LAX, so there's 4 daily flights in and out of SJO. The reason DTW may never get SJO is because why would DL take a 757 away from ATL and suffer less feed? It'd be a different story if they ran a shuttle from ATL but they don't and there probably wouldn't be as much profit as ATL.

2 words - C Series I guess thats actually a letter and a word but you get the point. I think DTW will be the third base for the c series and although there will be a lot of upgauging current regional flights I believe some new routes will be tested. These are the routes I humbly predict the C Series will be on out of DTW
SJC, sna, dfw, aus, iah, sat, mty, gdl, leon, jax, tys, rdu
The C Series in my opinion is a perfect airplane for DTW - one that can upgrade service to a lot of current routes but also allow delta to test the waters with some new routes

dtwpilot225 wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

Did some homework on DTW-SJC and why I think this will be the next domestic add for DL.
The median one way fare is about $280 which is not a low yield, if DL prices tickets at a median of $200-250 one-way it would equate to around $400-450 round-trip which isn't bad as a median fare. A 737-800 has 160 seats, so there'd have to be feed. I feel like if DL can adjust some connections, primarily East Coast and do a 9:30 departure I don't see why it couldn't work. After all this is the largest domestic market from DTW without a nonstop. If DL had enough faith in doing SNA, I think the same can happen for SJC.

SJO is a different story. There's 3 daily flights from ATL, and 1 daily from LAX, so there's 4 daily flights in and out of SJO. The reason DTW may never get SJO is because why would DL take a 757 away from ATL and suffer less feed? It'd be a different story if they ran a shuttle from ATL but they don't and there probably wouldn't be as much profit as ATL.

2 words - C Series I guess thats actually a letter and a word but you get the point. I think DTW will be the third base for the c series and although there will be a lot of upgauging current regional flights I believe some new routes will be tested. These are the routes I humbly predict the C Series will be on out of DTW
SJC, sna, dfw, aus, iah, sat, mty, gdl, leon, jax, tys, rdu
The C Series in my opinion is a perfect airplane for DTW - one that can upgrade service to a lot of current routes but also allow delta to test the waters with some new routes

Well DL has the 757 on SNA next summer, the only reason I could think of why that'd happen is because of good bookings. In terms of the other destinations you mentioned, you're right about SJC, but I'd save the CS for DTW-ABQ and GEG, the long and thin routes, since SJC, ELP and TUS are all 100+ for the whole year. BJX and QRO would be better served on AM through the JV. SJC and TUS on a 73H and ELP on a 319.

I actually think that the Detroit metro area is the darkhorse favorite for Amazon HQ2 for a few reasons:

1) Amazon could build it's campus in downtown Detroit in a way that would be almost impossible to do in any other major American city (Pittsburgh has such a site, but lousy air service).
2) The state of Michigan will sell their own grandmothers into white slavery to land this thing.
3) The enormously positive press/PR Amazon would get for it's role in the redevelopment of Detroit.
4) The strength of air service from DTW to Asia and Europe is relatively good.
5) The presence and strength of the automotive and robotics tech cluster in Oakland County.
6) The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
7) Low cost of living compared to other competitor cities.

The biggest handicap for Detroit is the less than ideal public transit network. My guess of the list of finalists is: Chicago, Toronto, Detroit, Boston, Pittsburgh, Denver, Raleigh, Atlanta, and Austin.

Hard to believe that PIT can land a dedicated freighter flight but the airport that feeds one of the biggest manufacturing bases in the United States still has ZERO dedicated cargo flights. Somebody is sleeping on the job I'd say. With all the ties between the Detroit area with Korea and China because of the auto industry you'd think that Korean Cargo or Asiana Cargo would run one or two flights between DTW and the far east.

GSP psgr wrote:

I actually think that the Detroit metro area is the darkhorse favorite for Amazon HQ2 for a few reasons:

1) Amazon could build it's campus in downtown Detroit in a way that would be almost impossible to do in any other major American city (Pittsburgh has such a site, but lousy air service).
2) The state of Michigan will sell their own grandmothers into white slavery to land this thing.
3) The enormously positive press/PR Amazon would get for it's role in the redevelopment of Detroit.
4) The strength of air service from DTW to Asia and Europe is relatively good.
5) The presence and strength of the automotive and robotics tech cluster in Oakland County.
6) The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
7) Low cost of living compared to other competitor cities.

The biggest handicap for Detroit is the less than ideal public transit network. My guess of the list of finalists is: Chicago, Toronto, Detroit, Boston, Pittsburgh, Denver, Raleigh, Atlanta, and Austin.

Well I hope this state steps up to the plate and do whatever is needed to land this project. If we can fund lavish sports arenas we can get this for our local economy. The question from Michigan to Amazon should be what do you need from us to get this done.

klm617 wrote:

Hard to believe that PIT can land a dedicated freighter flight but the airport that feeds one of the biggest manufacturing bases in the United States still has ZERO dedicated cargo flights. Somebody is sleeping on the job I'd say. With all the ties between the Detroit area with Korea and China because of the auto industry you'd think that Korean Cargo or Asiana Cargo would run one or two flights between DTW and the far east.

Pittsburgh's air service patterns are totally bizarre. Service to CDG, KEF, and FRA on the one hand, but on the other SFO is a seasonal market on United and none of DL/UA/AA fly PIT-LAX (WN and Spirit do). No SEA service either, and yet they get PIT-DOH cargo service......as I said, bizarre.

GSP psgr wrote:

I actually think that the Detroit metro area is the darkhorse favorite for Amazon HQ2 for a few reasons:

1) Amazon could build it's campus in downtown Detroit in a way that would be almost impossible to do in any other major American city (Pittsburgh has such a site, but lousy air service).
2) The state of Michigan will sell their own grandmothers into white slavery to land this thing.
3) The enormously positive press/PR Amazon would get for it's role in the redevelopment of Detroit.
4) The strength of air service from DTW to Asia and Europe is relatively good.
5) The presence and strength of the automotive and robotics tech cluster in Oakland County.
6) The University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.
7) Low cost of living compared to other competitor cities.

The biggest handicap for Detroit is the less than ideal public transit network. My guess of the list of finalists is: Chicago, Toronto, Detroit, Boston, Pittsburgh, Denver, Raleigh, Atlanta, and Austin.

Absolutely correct! Michigan is moving pro-business, but Detroit has liberal leanings and an international airport hub. Best of both worlds fir Anazom, and blizzards are easier to handle than hurricanes.

Austin is my front runner (then Dallas) due to favorable business climate, affordability, and both are blue in a red state with no income tax (and willing to give the farm away)! Only negative for Austin is transportation while DFW rocks!

Chicago. Hmm. Not business friendly, but can and will buy anything at tax payers expense. Young, liberal, work force.

Boston: See Chicago, but Atlantic storms?

Raleigh, Atlanta, and Denver have their points, but Transportation favors ATL.

In the end, it boils down to money and which city is willing to whore itself out!

RE: Public Transit, an article said they WILL build transit if that's what it takes to get Amazon, huge plans have already gone underway with the abandoned train station. Light rail would start at the airport and travel to the train station.

It reminds me of the Benchwarmers, "if you build it, nerds will come."

nomorerjs wrote:

Absolutely correct! Michigan is moving pro-business, but Detroit has liberal leanings and an international airport hub. Best of both worlds fir Anazom, and blizzards are easier to handle than hurricanes.

Austin is my front runner (then Dallas) due to favorable business climate, affordability, and both are blue in a red state with no income tax (and willing to give the farm away)! Only negative for Austin is transportation while DFW rocks!

Chicago. Hmm. Not business friendly, but can and will buy anything at tax payers expense. Young, liberal, work force.

Boston: See Chicago, but Atlantic storms?

Raleigh, Atlanta, and Denver have their points, but Transportation favors ATL.

In the end, it boils down to money and which city is willing to whore itself out!

Austin and RDU have even worse transit systems; Dallas lacks top flight universities, Boston doesn't have a site where you could put 8 million sq ft of office space, Chicago/IL are broke (though they made Boeing happen, so who knows), Atlanta's traffic is a nightmare and MARTA is MARTA, Toronto's expensive and Canadian (that could work in their favor), Pittsburgh's air service isn't that great, DEN is soooooo far from downtown that it's halfway to Kansas plus Denver's on the wrong side of the country..

klm617 wrote:

Hard to believe that PIT can land a dedicated freighter flight but the airport that feeds one of the biggest manufacturing bases in the United States still has ZERO dedicated cargo flights. Somebody is sleeping on the job I'd say. With all the ties between the Detroit area with Korea and China because of the auto industry you'd think that Korean Cargo or Asiana Cargo would run one or two flights between DTW and the far east.

Are you familiar with belly cargo? The Delta hub has plenty of that, while our friends at PIT don't have a single nonstop to Asia.
And besides, there are several cargo airports in SE Michigan (like YIP). Pittsburgh doesn't have such airports around it.

GSP psgr wrote:

nomorerjs wrote:

Absolutely correct! Michigan is moving pro-business, but Detroit has liberal leanings and an international airport hub. Best of both worlds fir Anazom, and blizzards are easier to handle than hurricanes.

Austin is my front runner (then Dallas) due to favorable business climate, affordability, and both are blue in a red state with no income tax (and willing to give the farm away)! Only negative for Austin is transportation while DFW rocks!

Chicago. Hmm. Not business friendly, but can and will buy anything at tax payers expense. Young, liberal, work force.

Boston: See Chicago, but Atlantic storms?

Raleigh, Atlanta, and Denver have their points, but Transportation favors ATL.

In the end, it boils down to money and which city is willing to whore itself out!

Austin and RDU have even worse transit systems; Dallas lacks top flight universities, Boston doesn't have a site where you could put 8 million sq ft of office space, Chicago/IL are broke (though they made Boeing happen, so who knows), Atlanta's traffic is a nightmare and MARTA is MARTA, Toronto's expensive and Canadian (that could work in their favor), Pittsburgh's air service isn't that great, DEN is soooooo far from downtown that it's halfway to Kansas plus Denver's on the wrong side of the country..

HQ2 in Toronto is not a good idea and I doubt Amazon would pick Toronto over any other US state, regardless of the cost aspect I am sure the POTUS and US congress would be very "unsettled" if Amazon moved HQ2 moved outside of the US.

I don't get the whole love affair with DEN either, it is a western city, and Amazon doesn't need another western HQ.

Midwestindy wrote:

GSP psgr wrote:

nomorerjs wrote:

Absolutely correct! Michigan is moving pro-business, but Detroit has liberal leanings and an international airport hub. Best of both worlds fir Anazom, and blizzards are easier to handle than hurricanes.

Austin is my front runner (then Dallas) due to favorable business climate, affordability, and both are blue in a red state with no income tax (and willing to give the farm away)! Only negative for Austin is transportation while DFW rocks!

Chicago. Hmm. Not business friendly, but can and will buy anything at tax payers expense. Young, liberal, work force.

Boston: See Chicago, but Atlantic storms?

Raleigh, Atlanta, and Denver have their points, but Transportation favors ATL.

In the end, it boils down to money and which city is willing to whore itself out!

Austin and RDU have even worse transit systems; Dallas lacks top flight universities, Boston doesn't have a site where you could put 8 million sq ft of office space, Chicago/IL are broke (though they made Boeing happen, so who knows), Atlanta's traffic is a nightmare and MARTA is MARTA, Toronto's expensive and Canadian (that could work in their favor), Pittsburgh's air service isn't that great, DEN is soooooo far from downtown that it's halfway to Kansas plus Denver's on the wrong side of the country..

HQ2 in Toronto is not a good idea and I doubt Amazon would pick Toronto over any other US state, regardless of the cost aspect I am sure the POTUS and US congress would be very "unsettled" if Amazon moved HQ2 moved outside of the US.

I don't get the whole love affair with DEN either, it is a western city, and Amazon doesn't need another western HQ.

One of Toronto's main selling points is Canada's much more open immigration policy, which would make it easier for Amazon to recruit globally without the red tape that is inherent in the USA.

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Hard to believe that PIT can land a dedicated freighter flight but the airport that feeds one of the biggest manufacturing bases in the United States still has ZERO dedicated cargo flights. Somebody is sleeping on the job I'd say. With all the ties between the Detroit area with Korea and China because of the auto industry you'd think that Korean Cargo or Asiana Cargo would run one or two flights between DTW and the far east.

Are you familiar with belly cargo? The Delta hub has plenty of that, while our friends at PIT don't have a single nonstop to Asia.
And besides, there are several cargo airports in SE Michigan (like YIP). Pittsburgh doesn't have such airports around it.

You hit the nail on the head my friend more Delta protectionism again no option other than using Delta for your bulk cargo or trucking it from Chicago. More WCAA protection for their hub carrier and I could understand that if Delta was fully committed in expanding the Detroit market but they are not so why should the WCAA run interference for them keeping other carriers out to the best of their ability. There are ZERO scheduled cargo flights out of YIP.

klm617 wrote:

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Hard to believe that PIT can land a dedicated freighter flight but the airport that feeds one of the biggest manufacturing bases in the United States still has ZERO dedicated cargo flights. Somebody is sleeping on the job I'd say. With all the ties between the Detroit area with Korea and China because of the auto industry you'd think that Korean Cargo or Asiana Cargo would run one or two flights between DTW and the far east.

Are you familiar with belly cargo? The Delta hub has plenty of that, while our friends at PIT don't have a single nonstop to Asia.
And besides, there are several cargo airports in SE Michigan (like YIP). Pittsburgh doesn't have such airports around it.

You hit the nail on the head my friend more Delta protectionism again no option other than using Delta for your bulk cargo or trucking it from Chicago. More WCAA protection for their hub carrier and I could understand that if Delta was fully committed in expanding the Detroit market but they are not so why should the WCAA run interference for them keeping other carriers out to the best of their ability. There are ZERO scheduled cargo flights out of YIP.

I don't think you realize what I said. I said that Delta's belly cargo fulfills most of the need in the area, whereas PIT only has a measly 757 to Paris as its long-haul network.

compensateme wrote:

jordanh wrote:

Between 2010 and 2016, Atlanta Metropolitan Area grew 9.5%
Between 2010 and 2016, Minneapolis Metropolitan Area grew 6.0%
Between 2010 and 2016, Detroit Metropolitan Area grew 0.0%
That is quite a contrast, too.
http://www.startribune.com/twin-cities- ... 417874533/

Do you think population is the primary metric for measuring air service? How does Singapore's air service compare to other cities its size? What about larger ones? The amount of capacity that DL and US/AA have dumped into ATL & CLT since 2010 far, far, far exceeds both the growth rate of the Southeast and the growth in local air traffic. Among other trends, ATL has become DL's primary connection point for many NE - West communities over the past several years -- prior to the NW merger, ATL connected little traffic in that arena.

Airlines grow - often exponentially - in growing markets. Airlines stagnate in stagnant markets. Austin in a great example of the first statement; Detroit is a great example of the second.

GSP psgr wrote:

... Dallas lacks top flight universities...,.

Have you ever heard of SMU? University of Texas at Dallas? It is only the political climate in Texas (especially the far-right, discrimination-against-anyone-who-is-not-a-white-christian-attitude in Texas) that might kill their chances of getting Amazon.

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

klm617 wrote:

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

Are you familiar with belly cargo? The Delta hub has plenty of that, while our friends at PIT don't have a single nonstop to Asia.And besides, there are several cargo airports in SE Michigan (like YIP). Pittsburgh doesn't have such airports around it.

You hit the nail on the head my friend more Delta protectionism again no option other than using Delta for your bulk cargo or trucking it from Chicago. More WCAA protection for their hub carrier and I could understand that if Delta was fully committed in expanding the Detroit market but they are not so why should the WCAA run interference for them keeping other carriers out to the best of their ability. There are ZERO scheduled cargo flights out of YIP.

I don't think you realize what I said. I said that Delta's belly cargo fulfills most of the need in the area, whereas PIT only has a measly 757 to Paris as its long-haul network.

He doesn't care what you said. His mind is made up. Don't confuse him with facts.

jordanh wrote:

compensateme wrote:

jordanh wrote:

Between 2010 and 2016, Atlanta Metropolitan Area grew 9.5%
Between 2010 and 2016, Minneapolis Metropolitan Area grew 6.0%
Between 2010 and 2016, Detroit Metropolitan Area grew 0.0%
That is quite a contrast, too.
http://www.startribune.com/twin-cities- ... 417874533/

Do you think population is the primary metric for measuring air service? How does Singapore's air service compare to other cities its size? What about larger ones? The amount of capacity that DL and US/AA have dumped into ATL & CLT since 2010 far, far, far exceeds both the growth rate of the Southeast and the growth in local air traffic. Among other trends, ATL has become DL's primary connection point for many NE - West communities over the past several years -- prior to the NW merger, ATL connected little traffic in that arena.

Airlines grow - often exponentially - in growing markets. Airlines stagnate in stagnant markets. Austin in a great example of the first statement; Detroit is a great example of the second.

GSP psgr wrote:

... Dallas lacks top flight universities...,.

Have you ever heard of SMU? University of Texas at Dallas? It is only the political climate in Texas (especially the far-right, discrimination-against-anyone-who-is-not-a-white-christian-attitude in Texas) that might kill their chances of getting Amazon.

2Holer4Longhaul wrote:

klm617 wrote:

You hit the nail on the head my friend more Delta protectionism again no option other than using Delta for your bulk cargo or trucking it from Chicago. More WCAA protection for their hub carrier and I could understand that if Delta was fully committed in expanding the Detroit market but they are not so why should the WCAA run interference for them keeping other carriers out to the best of their ability. There are ZERO scheduled cargo flights out of YIP.

I don't think you realize what I said. I said that Delta's belly cargo fulfills most of the need in the area, whereas PIT only has a measly 757 to Paris as its long-haul network.

He doesn't care what you said. His mind is made up. Don't confuse him with facts.

He referred to me as his "friend". That's as confused as any human can be.

Every medium and large city is going to whore themselves out to attract Amazon HQ2. Every message board in every city and every city/region-specific thread on a.net is touting about how their city is the best for Amazon. Detroit is, far, far, far, from a sure bet from being where Amazon will go with this, but at least its in the conversation. Yes, there are many positives as to why it would make sense, but there there are also some major negative aspects in comparison to other cities that aren't likely to change in the short to medium term.

There are some unique things that could influence, such as if there are ideas about partnership or collaborations with the automotive industry in the future. We have a lot of develop-able land for supply-chain related facilities along major interstate corridors and in proximity of DTW.

DTW air service is a big positive when in comparison to other metros outside of the big coastal cities, and would give a nudge above places like IND, CLE, PIT, CHM. With TATL, TPAC, SA, Mexico, and numerous flights to SEA.

The downside are the lack of transit with no concrete plans to address in the short-to-medium term.
Demand for residential properties in the downtown/mid-town area far exceeds supply
While we have a lot of vacant land and develop-able potential properties in Detroit, much of them are brownfield and/or need remediation.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Every medium and large city is going to whore themselves out to attract Amazon HQ2. Every message board in every city and every city/region-specific thread on a.net is touting about how their city is the best for Amazon. Detroit is, far, far, far, from a sure bet from being where Amazon will go with this, but at least its in the conversation. Yes, there are many positives as to why it would make sense, but there there are also some major negative aspects in comparison to other cities that aren't likely to change in the short to medium term.

There are some unique things that could influence, such as if there are ideas about partnership or collaborations with the automotive industry in the future. We have a lot of develop-able land for supply-chain related facilities along major interstate corridors and in proximity of DTW.

DTW air service is a big positive when in comparison to other metros outside of the big coastal cities, and would give a nudge above places like IND, CLE, PIT, CHM. With TATL, TPAC, SA, Mexico, and numerous flights to SEA.

The downside are the lack of transit with no concrete plans to address in the short-to-medium term.
Demand for residential properties in the downtown/mid-town area far exceeds supply
While we have a lot of vacant land and develop-able potential properties in Detroit, much of them are brownfield and/or need remediation.

I agree with everything you say. I honestly think regionally for this area though with the availability of land and space. I believe Ann Arbor somewhere near I94/US23 area would be a great spot for them. This way they could easily draw commuters from places from Toledo to Flint to Kalamazoo. I could see building light rail from those areas into Ann Arbor as well as to places like downtown Detroit and DTW. I personally think if anywhere in the Midwest were to want to land HQ2, it needs to be looked at regionally and not just locally. The reason I say that is because this area will need to spend money to upgrade infrastructure to accommodate just HQ2 and then all of the incidental jobs to go with it. Then again, maybe this is what places like Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, Cincinnati should have done years ago to retain population and keep up with other places in the country. In order to do that, suburbs and big cities all need to be on board and be involved - can't be a "Detroit" effort, needs to be a "Southeast Michigan" effort. Just my thoughts.

jordanh wrote:

Airlines grow - often exponentially - in growing markets. Airlines stagnate in stagnant markets. Austin in a great example of the first statement; Detroit is a great example of the second.

Really? CLT has the least amount of local traffic of any major hub, yet it's developing into the second-largest hub -- by physical capacity -- in the country. While the Southeast is a growing market, the amount of capacity that has been dumped into ATL, CLT & MIA far, far, far exceeds the rate of collective traffic growth. This isn't about population or local traffic growth -- it's about DL & AA taking advantage of industry consolidation to leverage the lower costs of larger aircraft. You do realize that ATL's traffic has grown tremendously from people flying BWI-ATL-SEA, ROC-ATL-LAX? Status quo, the strategy has paid off for DL & AA financially. But megahubs aren't a good thing when things go wrong -- twice this summer I had connections via ATL that were impacted by weather-related groundstops and rebooking lines stretched the length of the concourses (in both direction). In both situations, I ended up paying hundreds of dollars to rent a car to make a 10-hour drive home.

Another point: compare the growth in population at MSP & DTW since 2000 against the growth in local traffic at each airport. The latter is pretty much even, which is staggering when you consider MSP had virtually no LCC competition in 2000.

Point is, that "wealth" and "population/population growth" are key indicators of air service is just an a.net myth, buried along the likes of MSP-NRT being NW's most profitable route, CVG-CDG being DL's, CLE being UA's most profitable hub and airlines make money flying empty widebodies across the world because it's all about cargo. There's a loose correlation, but it's exactly that. Put simply, the simple fact that CLT is becoming the second-largest hub in the country with the lowest local traffic -- over 90% depending on the quarter -- should end most of this discussion. But if you were to ask the a.net community to rank the hubs, they'd probably think CLT was one of the top in terms of OD.

How's this food for thought? With BA increasing AUS-LHR to a 744 next summer, on top of DY's 3x LGW on a 787, AUS will have more nonstop seats to London than Detroit's pathetic 10x weekly 76W service on DL. Do you think that DTW-LON is a complete pipedream for any other service? I don't see DY doing DTW because they're going after that "hip millennial" bs. BA supposedly has DTW dead last on their list well behind BUF, BDL, IND, STL and MSP (of course I disagree) and everyone flips a nut over AA doing it on a 757, so that leaves virtually no options for service to LON other than WW connecting you through KEF as a cheaper alternative.

"hip millennial" is a rugged and cynical characterization of something that has substantial economic weight (not to mention social, cultural, urban, and environmental weight too). even then, that's a small part of why BA is flying to AUS. the city is thriving economically. while Detroit's GDP blows AUS out of the water, it needs to experience growth in new sectors for BA to be interested in flying again.

some have argued, reasonably i think, including you, that WOW will release the death spiral hold that DL has on the LON market from Detroit.

reasonable wrote:

some have argued, reasonably i think, including you, that WOW will release the death spiral hold that DL has on the LON market from Detroit.

I did, and I do think that WW will positively impact Detroit's LON O&D. My forecast is an increase of 4.6% next year over this year.

GRU is actually performing quite well for DTW, as opposed to the flight making profit, I don't know.

LF averaging 77.7% with an average of 179 pax per flight on an A330-200. I suppose when the Brazilian economy turns around this flight could go back to daily.

flymco753 wrote:

How's this food for thought? With BA increasing AUS-LHR to a 744 next summer, on top of DY's 3x LGW on a 787, AUS will have more nonstop seats to London than Detroit's pathetic 10x weekly 76W service on DL. Do you think that DTW-LON is a complete pipedream for any other service? I don't see DY doing DTW because they're going after that "hip millennial" bs. BA supposedly has DTW dead last on their list well behind BUF, BDL, IND, STL and MSP (of course I disagree) and everyone flips a nut over AA doing it on a 757, so that leaves virtually no options for service to LON other than WW connecting you through KEF as a cheaper alternative.

1. Of course AA won't do it. The focus city strategy isn't something AA or UA are doing.
2. There's a logical reason for BA not to touch Detroit. O&D (DTW-LON) is filled by a 10x weekly 76W (which we can tell by the load factors), connecting feed on the European end would be competing with Delta itineraries via CDG/AMS/ATL/JFK, and of course connecting feed on the Detroit end is something BA doesn't have. Note that Delta has a large FF pool in DTW, which puts BA at a disadvantage on all traffic terminating there. Compare that to Austin, where flights to Europe are scarce, premium seats to Europe are even harder to come by, and the competitors have no feed on the American end either.
3. DY aren't going after "hip millennials"; LEVEL and Joon (the LCC airlines-within-airlines) are doing that. DY is going after leisure travelers. Given that Detroit doesn't attract European tourists, that puts it in an even worse position than BA, who at least cater to Business travelers.

flymco753 wrote:

How's this food for thought? With BA increasing AUS-LHR to a 744 next summer, on top of DY's 3x LGW on a 787, AUS will have more nonstop seats to London than Detroit's pathetic 10x weekly 76W service on DL. Do you think that DTW-LON is a complete pipedream for any other service? I don't see DY doing DTW because they're going after that "hip millennial" bs. BA supposedly has DTW dead last on their list well behind BUF, BDL, IND, STL and MSP (of course I disagree) and everyone flips a nut over AA doing it on a 757, so that leaves virtually no options for service to LON other than WW connecting you through KEF as a cheaper alternative.

How many of BA's passengers are connecting onward from LHR? You know, the kind that on DL would be going to either AMS or CDG.

I think here's what should be done:

DL starts DTW-HKG and DTW-HNL on A350s
DL makes DTW-PVG an A350 flight

Then DL focuses on growing from SEA from the Pacific (including tier 2 Chinese cities if possible) and JFK for the Atlantic (and perhaps in the future BOM as well) for a while.

I don't really see other places where DL can grow in DTW other than HKG and HNL - HKG is a matter of when not if, as for HNL, probably just a pipe dream.

GSP psgr wrote:

nomorerjs wrote:

Absolutely correct! Michigan is moving pro-business, but Detroit has liberal leanings and an international airport hub. Best of both worlds fir Anazom, and blizzards are easier to handle than hurricanes.

Austin is my front runner (then Dallas) due to favorable business climate, affordability, and both are blue in a red state with no income tax (and willing to give the farm away)! Only negative for Austin is transportation while DFW rocks!

Chicago. Hmm. Not business friendly, but can and will buy anything at tax payers expense. Young, liberal, work force.

Boston: See Chicago, but Atlantic storms?

Raleigh, Atlanta, and Denver have their points, but Transportation favors ATL.

In the end, it boils down to money and which city is willing to whore itself out!

Austin and RDU have even worse transit systems; Dallas lacks top flight universities, Boston doesn't have a site where you could put 8 million sq ft of office space, Chicago/IL are broke (though they made Boeing happen, so who knows), Atlanta's traffic is a nightmare and MARTA is MARTA, Toronto's expensive and Canadian (that could work in their favor), Pittsburgh's air service isn't that great, DEN is soooooo far from downtown that it's halfway to Kansas plus Denver's on the wrong side of the country..

Austin: Hip city that Amazon craves. Transportation issue.

Boston: Booming liberal city with a GOP governor to keep things in check.

Chicago: Money doesn't matter and "The Machine" will make it work. GOP governor, but machine and RINOs make it mute. Great transportation.

Dallas: Blue city in business friendly state. Does have SMU, TCU, UD, UTA, and UNT - not Harvard or Northwestern, but all highly regarded (UTA has higher CPA scores than UT-Austin).

DEN: Liberal city in liberal leaning state. Airport does seem to be in Nebraska, but plenty of nearby land and train would offset this.

Raleigh: See Austin

Toronto: See POTUS

jordanh wrote:

klm617 wrote:

For the past year they have been many ATL adds.
ATL-ICN
ATL-PVG
ATL-HAV
ATL-PTP and FTF with skyteam partner AF
ATL to Mexico at least 6 adds via DL and skyteam partner AM
The Detroit adds.
DTW-SNA
DTW-MEX via AM
Quite a contrast wouldn't you say.
.

Between 2010 and 2016, Atlanta Metropolitan Area grew 9.5%

Between 2010 and 2016, Minneapolis Metropolitan Area grew 6.0%

Between 2010 and 2016, Detroit Metropolitan Area grew 0.0%

That is quite a contrast, too.

http://www.startribune.com/twin-cities- ... 417874533/

The problem with your data is that you used BOTH Minneapolis and St. Paul numbers in your MSP figures, instead of just using Minneapolis figures and excluding the St. Paul numbers.

Minneapolis is the major city of the Metro, not St. Paul. So if you are going to compare Detroit to Minneapolis, you have to exclude St.Paul numbers also.

kavok wrote:

jordanh wrote:

klm617 wrote:

For the past year they have been many ATL adds.
ATL-ICN
ATL-PVG
ATL-HAV
ATL-PTP and FTF with skyteam partner AF
ATL to Mexico at least 6 adds via DL and skyteam partner AM
The Detroit adds.
DTW-SNA
DTW-MEX via AM
Quite a contrast wouldn't you say.
.

Between 2010 and 2016, Atlanta Metropolitan Area grew 9.5%
Between 2010 and 2016, Minneapolis Metropolitan Area grew 6.0%
Between 2010 and 2016, Detroit Metropolitan Area grew 0.0%
That is quite a contrast, too.
http://www.startribune.com/twin-cities- ... 417874533/

The problem with your data is that you used BOTH Minneapolis and St. Paul numbers in your MSP figures, instead of just using Minneapolis figures and excluding the St. Paul numbers. Minneapolis is the major city of the Metro, not St. Paul. So if you are going to compare Detroit to Minneapolis, you have to exclude St.Paul numbers also.

What? Maybe my English isn't as good as I thought. Minneapolis and St. Paul are in the same Metro area - and we are talking about Metro areas.All of the examples are for Metro areas, not for any single city.

That is why it is called "MSP". When we were considering more flights to the USA, we look at the Metro area, not just one city. If you limit the Detroit area to just Detroit, I am sure it fares much worse.