11725Flyer wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Delta is way stronger in Europe than iit is in Asia and the scope of the ICN hub will never be what AMS and CDG are.

Perhaps today. But you lack the vision to understand where DL is headed in the next few years with multiple hubs and the KE JV. I was hoping you'd stay on the DTW thread, but now you're churning out pretty silly arguments and statements on this thread, too.

11725Flyer wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Delta is way stronger in Europe than iit is in Asia and the scope of the ICN hub will never be what AMS and CDG are.

Perhaps today. But you lack the vision to understand where DL is headed in the next few years with multiple hubs and the KE JV. I was hoping you'd stay on the DTW thread, but now you're churning out pretty silly arguments and statements on this thread, too.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

I have seen the data. Given the size of the hub and the local markets, MSP could support a flight to TYO and ICN just fine. There is a hub on both sides with ICN and MSP. There is no reason with all the connections and the local market MSP couldnt support both.

I do think that MSP-TYO should have stayed at NRT. A daytime slot would have been better given to DTW because DTW-Japan is a much larger local market than MSP-Japan. But that isnt here or there. With connections, MSP-ICN would have no problem being a viable flight on a 787 or 777.

please post that data what is the O/D counts for DTW, SEA ,ATL and MSP to ICN

As you wish:

ATL-ICN: 257 PDEW
SEA-ICN: 205 PDEW
DTW-ICN: 78 PDEW
MSP-ICN: 30 PDEW

As an added bonus, here is O&D to Japan:

SEA-Japan: 225 PDEW
DTW-Japan: 188 PDEW
MSP-Japan: 92 PDEW
Atlanta-Japan: 74 PDEW

ILUVDC10S wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

Why are you people so butt-hurt over anything involving DL, NW, DTW, MSP, ATL, DC-10s, FNT, 744s, DC-9s?

This thread got stupid quick.

Let me answer this for you:
DL - Because they hate DTW.
NW - Representation of the good ol' days (coming from an NW fanboy no less)
DTW - Always getting shafted for ATL.
MSP - See NW and DTW responses.
ATL - Super-massive black word of the Delta network sucking up all the good route opportunities.
DC-10s - Not a twin, not a quad, just right.
FNT - Needs water and hourly service to every paved runway in the Detroit.
744s - Because 747.
DC-9s - Because when will Northwest retire them? Also because JT8 is bae.

LOVE IT !
Thing is between FNT & DTW for the next 15-20 years the entire stretches of i-75 and US-23 will be torn up and redone leaving you gridlock for the E Michigan arteries Unless you take 69 W to Fowlerville then cut across to I 96 then head back east to 696 to 275 to 94 you may as well fly out of LAN instead crikey !
DL take heed FNT needs DTW flights for 20 years so get with it DL buckle up and produce flights for FNT.
Otherwise you are going to have many people and crew missing flights then whatcha gonna do ?

klm617 wrote:

Flighty wrote:

klm617 wrote:

The places in Asia where MSP originating traffic needs to get to already have one-stop connections over SEA so a MSP-ICN link would really be redundant in the grand scheme of things.

SEA cannot replace what Korean offers at ICN. It replaces a piece of it, once per day. All major markets are "redundant in the grand scheme of things," quite true, but I would think MSP's unique network times ICN's unique network gives a certain amount of business that SEA doesn't serve well. This is why multiple hubs exist and why A380 is not so popular in USA.

You can't tell me with a straight face that there is that many MSP originating passengers that are traveling to MNL, TPE, SIN and BKK to warrant a nonstop from MSP to ICN to give these passenger one stop service. The KE JV killed any chance of MSP getting anymore Asia service as it killed the chance of DTW-HKG happening as KE can handle that traffic very effectively from all the major markets that Delta want's to target with quicker service to Asia

klm617 wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

please post that data what is the O/D counts for DTW, SEA ,ATL and MSP to ICN

As you wish:

ATL-ICN: 257 PDEW
SEA-ICN: 205 PDEW
DTW-ICN: 78 PDEW
MSP-ICN: 30 PDEW

As an added bonus, here is O&D to Japan:

SEA-Japan: 225 PDEW
DTW-Japan: 188 PDEW
MSP-Japan: 92 PDEW
Atlanta-Japan: 74 PDEW

Thank you so much for posting these numbers it is much appreciated. What really is mind boggling is with that kind of O/D between ATL-ICN why Delta never started that route before. Perhaps it was a very low yielding market.

Cubsrule wrote:

klm617 wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

As you wish:

ATL-ICN: 257 PDEW
SEA-ICN: 205 PDEW
DTW-ICN: 78 PDEW
MSP-ICN: 30 PDEW

As an added bonus, here is O&D to Japan:

SEA-Japan: 225 PDEW
DTW-Japan: 188 PDEW
MSP-Japan: 92 PDEW
Atlanta-Japan: 74 PDEW

Thank you so much for posting these numbers it is much appreciated. What really is mind boggling is with that kind of O/D between ATL-ICN why Delta never started that route before. Perhaps it was a very low yielding market.

I suspect the issue is more one of double ticketing at ATL. The Japan-Korea disparity is otherwise tough to explain. Merto Atlanta has a decent Korean population, but not that large.

klm617 wrote:

klakzky123 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

For the same reason MSP is not linked to MEX,FCO and FRA. AMS and CDG are way bigger players in the Delta system than ICN is.

CDG and AMS are hubs that provide connections to Europe in the same way that ICN would provide connections to much of Asia. I don't understand what MEX, FCO or FRA have to do with this. None of those are hubs like AMS, CDG (and eventually ICN).

MEX serves the same function as ICN does only for Central and South America so if ICN is a given in everybody's mind shouldn't MEX carry the same weight. FCO is an AZ hub that distributes traffic throughout Europe and FRA is a business powerhouse in Europe. ICN is no CDG or AMS either at this point it's a very secondary hub that to reach quite a bit of Asia it's out of the way. ICN is not feasible for connecting Japan or China to US markets and that traffic is flowing over DTW and SEA which makes a ICN link even less important. You guys are making ICN this hub that is going to connect all of Asia to the USA it is mainly going to be used to link BKK, HKG,SIN,MNL and TPE to the major markets in the USA AMS and CDG have a much broader scope than ICN will ever have in the Delta network.

usflyer msp wrote:

I suspect ATL-ICN has a larger catchment area than most flights from ATL. It draws Koreans from all over the Southeast; may of whom will pay extra money to fly KE and not have to transfer anywhere. It is the preferred route for the Koreans I know in BNA and BHM; they just drive to ATL, spend the night and leave their cars at a hotel.

MSPSXMFLIER wrote:

klakzky123 wrote:

Zidane wrote:

Would further expansion into the Caribbean from MSP make sense? I would think that Delta and Sun Country may as well give it a try.

I'm not sure how much more expansion they can do. SY announced a seasonal Aruba flight so they're already attempting destinations that are traditionally more European than American. MSP has a very comprehensive set of direct flights to the Caribbean and Mexico.

I respectfully disagree with the 'direct flights' portion of your last sentence. I started vacationing in various parts of Mexico and the Caribbean, almost 20 years ago. Up until NW's demise, I could fly them nonstop from MSP to Cancun and San Juan. Ever since Delta's purchase of NW, on those occasions where I've gone to DL's website and looked for direct flights to those cities (and others), I have only seen flights listed that require a stop in ATL. To be fair about this, DL may offer a limited number of nonstop flights, but I've never come across them.....perhaps they filled up quickly and first? I fly SY regularly to more Caribbean destinations now than were ever served by NW. I choose SY over DL because I know my flights will be nonstop from MSP. In the wintertime with unpredictable storms being a potential issue that can affect vast swaths of the country, flying nonstop out of MSP to Mexico or the Caribbean is of immeasurable value to me. United, American, Spirit and Southwest will all route me through one of their hubs. SY is a great airline that I enjoy flying and I'm very glad they have added Aruba to their destinations. Would I like to see a few more Caribbean destinations? Yeah, sure. Do I think it's going to happen? Probably not or very slowly, at best.

Cubsrule wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

I suspect ATL-ICN has a larger catchment area than most flights from ATL. It draws Koreans from all over the Southeast; may of whom will pay extra money to fly KE and not have to transfer anywhere. It is the preferred route for the Koreans I know in BNA and BHM; they just drive to ATL, spend the night and leave their cars at a hotel.

That's likely also part of it, but the Korean populations in Nashville and Birmingham are not large. I'm skeptical that we can explain the whole unusually large market that way. But, what you describe and what I describe are really two sides of the same coin: passengers without an Asia nonstop who find that the easiest way to Korea (or beyond) is driving to ATL (your folks) or flying to ATL (my folks) and then taking KE onward from there.

The evolution of the market as DL and KE integrate may help us understand how much double ticketing is or isn't going on, as the JV will likely reduce double ticketing.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

ATL-ICN is the fifth biggest US-ICN market after LAX, NYC, WAS, and Bay Area.

alfa164 wrote:

Churning out silly arguments is his/her/its role on A.net. I don't see how he/she/it can argue that Detroit should have two daily flights DTW-ICN, but Minneapolis can't support one MSP-ICN route. Both hubs rely on connections for a majority of their traffic, and the flexibility of one flight at each - rather than two at only one airport - make for a much more flexible operation.

But talking sense to a troll never works out.....

lavalampluva wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

Churning out silly arguments is his/her/its role on A.net. I don't see how he/she/it can argue that Detroit should have two daily flights DTW-ICN, but Minneapolis can't support one MSP-ICN route. Both hubs rely on connections for a majority of their traffic, and the flexibility of one flight at each - rather than two at only one airport - make for a much more flexible operation.
But talking sense to a troll never works out.....

Slightly off topic, but there are some, on a.net, who will never be happy until DL de-hubs JFK and shifts all international operations to DTW.

fsafsx wrote:

Another perfect MSP tread ruined by DTW people. I'm angry!

ASQ400 wrote:

fsafsx wrote:

Another perfect MSP tread ruined by DTW people. I'm angry!

Such a shame, since MSP is actually a really well-positioned hub. It needs more Asia and Europe connections, though.
Maybe as penance for their behavior, we can take away DTW's TPAC service and give it to MSP once the A359 enters service

LAXdude1023 wrote:

ASQ400 wrote:

fsafsx wrote:

Another perfect MSP tread ruined by DTW people. I'm angry!

Such a shame, since MSP is actually a really well-positioned hub. It needs more Asia and Europe connections, though.
Maybe as penance for their behavior, we can take away DTW's TPAC service and give it to MSP once the A359 enters service

I know you're joking but that would be monumentally stupid. DTW-Asia is both much larger and much higher yielding than MSP-Asia.

Cointrin330 wrote:

Just flew into and out of MSP for the first time in a long time and it got me wondering what the future lies for this airport, which has remained a key element in the Delta Air Lines network since the DL/NW merger. Believe MSP is Delta's third largest hub with around 420-440 daily departures (with ATL and DTW being #1 and #2).

Curious whether future international expansion is possible or likely (DL and other airlines) and what the biggest projects on the horizon are for the airport.

DTWLUVER wrote:

Maybe begin service at OSH to MSP I do believe there is enough demand to do 1-2 flights a day from OSH.. And yes even though there is service from ATW there is still need for OSH to have service.

Elementalism wrote:

MSP has a unique combination of high wages but lower cost of living. The weather sucks in the Winter but is great the other 8 months of the year. That article about Delta dropping the Rome route in favor of Honolulu is so Minnesotan. We nearly all go south\warm weather vacation once a winter. If we are lucky, we do it twice.

NeBaNi wrote:

Elementalism wrote:

MSP has a unique combination of high wages but lower cost of living. The weather sucks in the Winter but is great the other 8 months of the year. That article about Delta dropping the Rome route in favor of Honolulu is so Minnesotan. We nearly all go south\warm weather vacation once a winter. If we are lucky, we do it twice.

Make that "the weather sucks in the 8 months of winter but is great the other 4 months of the year" In all seriousness though, the Twin Cities are a great place to live, having lived there for a year. The winters are bad, but the cities are great!

lightningzap wrote:

What would be the future of long hauls at MSP then? I don't think that new TATL flight are will be feasible due to the massiveness of Air France-KLM and the massive amount of connections and I'm not sure about demand for TPAC.

lavalampluva wrote:

lightningzap wrote:

What would be the future of long hauls at MSP then? I don't think that new TATL flight are will be feasible due to the massiveness of Air France-KLM and the massive amount of connections and I'm not sure about demand for TPAC.

I think FRA would work, but DL would have to dump an AMS flight to do it.

lavalampluva wrote:

lightningzap wrote:

What would be the future of long hauls at MSP then? I don't think that new TATL flight are will be feasible due to the massiveness of Air France-KLM and the massive amount of connections and I'm not sure about demand for TPAC.

I think FRA would work, but DL would have to dump an AMS flight to do it.

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

lightningzap wrote:

What would be the future of long hauls at MSP then? I don't think that new TATL flight are will be feasible due to the massiveness of Air France-KLM and the massive amount of connections and I'm not sure about demand for TPAC.

I think FRA would work, but DL would have to dump an AMS flight to do it.

You have DE operating this flight. MSP-FRA is very low yielding hence why you have Condor only operating it during the summer this flight is most likely filled with VFR traffic not the sort of customer Delta targets when it comes to adding new flights. Even in the NWA days this flight when tried was only operated one day a week and lasted only one summer. If Delta thought they could make money operating MSP-FRA it would have added it by now. I think with the addition of the extra AMS flights the writing is on the wall as far as trans Atlantic expansion from MSP. Maybe a few extra LHR rotations but that's about it I'd say.

SteveXC500 wrote:

NeBaNi wrote:

Elementalism wrote:

MSP has a unique combination of high wages but lower cost of living. The weather sucks in the Winter but is great the other 8 months of the year. That article about Delta dropping the Rome route in favor of Honolulu is so Minnesotan. We nearly all go south\warm weather vacation once a winter. If we are lucky, we do it twice.

Make that "the weather sucks in the 8 months of winter but is great the other 4 months of the year" In all seriousness though, the Twin Cities are a great place to live, having lived there for a year. The winters are bad, but the cities are great!

Winter in MN is down to Nov-March, not quite 8 months.

lightningzap wrote:

What would be the future of long hauls at MSP then? I don't think that new TATL flight are will be feasible due to the massiveness of Air France-KLM and the massive amount of connections and I'm not sure about demand for TPAC.

flyfresno wrote:

lightningzap wrote:

What would be the future of long hauls at MSP then? I don't think that new TATL flight are will be feasible due to the massiveness of Air France-KLM and the massive amount of connections and I'm not sure about demand for TPAC.

I think AMS, CDG, LHR, and seasonal KEF are pretty good for TATL, especially with the number of AMS and CDG frequencies. Delta has tried a few other markets (FCO most recently), but nothing has seemed to work out. So I don't know how many more destinations you will see from them.

I didn't realize that MSP-ICN was as low as 30 PDEW. While a segment can certainly be "developed" as was mentioned above, an airline has to be willing to start that segment first, and absent the HND flight being dropped, I wonder whether Delta would take a risk on a route with that low O&D. Does anyone know what MSP-PVG PDEW is?

kavok wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

kavok wrote:

MCI, SLC, OMA, and DSM are all good sized cities... but truthfully MSP probably generates just as much European O-D on its own than those cities do combined.

lightningzap wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

lightningzap wrote:

What would be the future of long hauls at MSP then? I don't think that new TATL flight are will be feasible due to the massiveness of Air France-KLM and the massive amount of connections and I'm not sure about demand for TPAC.

I think AMS, CDG, LHR, and seasonal KEF are pretty good for TATL, especially with the number of AMS and CDG frequencies. Delta has tried a few other markets (FCO most recently), but nothing has seemed to work out. So I don't know how many more destinations you will see from them.

I didn't realize that MSP-ICN was as low as 30 PDEW. While a segment can certainly be "developed" as was mentioned above, an airline has to be willing to start that segment first, and absent the HND flight being dropped, I wonder whether Delta would take a risk on a route with that low O&D. Does anyone know what MSP-PVG PDEW is?

I never thought of RKSI being the preferred choice in TPAC, I was assuming that DAL would try expanding to ZSPD first with China Eastern.

jubguy3 wrote:

kavok wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

SLC has four flights to Europe (DL CDG, LHR, AMS, and KL AMS). I know this post is 4 months old, but this makes no sense. I understand connecting traffic but SLC still has much higher PDEW to europe than any of those cities.

SLC is a better DL hub than MSP. MSP is torn between DTW. SLC isn't threatened by Seattle or LAX because SLC is an omnidirectional hub and is very high yielding for DL; DL and its partners control 75% of traffic.

lightningzap wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

lightningzap wrote:

What would be the future of long hauls at MSP then? I don't think that new TATL flight are will be feasible due to the massiveness of Air France-KLM and the massive amount of connections and I'm not sure about demand for TPAC.

I think AMS, CDG, LHR, and seasonal KEF are pretty good for TATL, especially with the number of AMS and CDG frequencies. Delta has tried a few other markets (FCO most recently), but nothing has seemed to work out. So I don't know how many more destinations you will see from them.

I didn't realize that MSP-ICN was as low as 30 PDEW. While a segment can certainly be "developed" as was mentioned above, an airline has to be willing to start that segment first, and absent the HND flight being dropped, I wonder whether Delta would take a risk on a route with that low O&D. Does anyone know what MSP-PVG PDEW is?

I never thought of RKSI being the preferred choice in TPAC, I was assuming that DAL would try expanding to ZSPD first with China Eastern.

flyfresno wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

kavok wrote:

SLC has four flights to Europe (DL CDG, LHR, AMS, and KL AMS). I know this post is 4 months old, but this makes no sense. I understand connecting traffic but SLC still has much higher PDEW to europe than any of those cities.

SLC is a better DL hub than MSP. MSP is torn between DTW. SLC isn't threatened by Seattle or LAX because SLC is an omnidirectional hub and is very high yielding for DL; DL and its partners control 75% of traffic.

What do you mean by "better DL hub than MSP"? That's a very open-ended and subjective statement.

SLC has the advantage of carrying a large number of LDS missionaries/visitors to/from all over the world in addition to the rest of its traffic, so the airport certainly has a lot of O&D potential, but MSP has a larger CSA and MSA population than SLC, has more fortune 500 companies, and a *significantly* higher GDP (higher than DTW even, although just slightly). That's not to say that SLC isn't important, but one could argue that MSP is somewhere in the 2nd/3rd spot of most important hubs to Delta, depending on what criteria you use. I don't think you could make that same argument about SLC. Finally, Delta's mainline share in MSP is higher than in SLC, and while there are more "connection" flights in SLC, it doesn't look like the overall percentage share of seats is very different between the two markets.

SESGDL wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

SLC has four flights to Europe (DL CDG, LHR, AMS, and KL AMS). I know this post is 4 months old, but this makes no sense. I understand connecting traffic but SLC still has much higher PDEW to europe than any of those cities.

SLC is a better DL hub than MSP. MSP is torn between DTW. SLC isn't threatened by Seattle or LAX because SLC is an omnidirectional hub and is very high yielding for DL; DL and its partners control 75% of traffic.

What do you mean by "better DL hub than MSP"? That's a very open-ended and subjective statement.

SLC has the advantage of carrying a large number of LDS missionaries/visitors to/from all over the world in addition to the rest of its traffic, so the airport certainly has a lot of O&D potential, but MSP has a larger CSA and MSA population than SLC, has more fortune 500 companies, and a *significantly* higher GDP (higher than DTW even, although just slightly). That's not to say that SLC isn't important, but one could argue that MSP is somewhere in the 2nd/3rd spot of most important hubs to Delta, depending on what criteria you use. I don't think you could make that same argument about SLC. Finally, Delta's mainline share in MSP is higher than in SLC, and while there are more "connection" flights in SLC, it doesn't look like the overall percentage share of seats is very different between the two markets.

MSP is a significantly larger hub than SLC in every way, by seats, flights, destinations, etc. There's not really a metric where SLC is larger than MSP within the DL network.

Jeremy

SteveXC500 wrote:

If you want to see a comparison on DL hubs, check the link below from MSP's MAC board meeting. Page 4 gives an overview/comparison.

http://metroairports.granicus.com/MetaV ... a_id=31861

SteveXC500 wrote:

If you want to see a comparison on DL hubs, check the link below from MSP's MAC board meeting. Page 4 gives an overview/comparison.

http://metroairports.granicus.com/MetaV ... a_id=31861

flyfresno wrote:

SteveXC500 wrote:

If you want to see a comparison on DL hubs, check the link below from MSP's MAC board meeting. Page 4 gives an overview/comparison.

http://metroairports.granicus.com/MetaV ... a_id=31861

Great info, so really neck in neck with DTW...

BoeingGuy wrote:

SteveXC500 wrote:

If you want to see a comparison on DL hubs, check the link below from MSP's MAC board meeting. Page 4 gives an overview/comparison.

http://metroairports.granicus.com/MetaV ... a_id=31861

Interesting presentation. There are 28 international destinations served from MSP. I never would have expected it to be nearly that high. Impressive for a city that size.

BoeingGuy wrote:

SteveXC500 wrote:

If you want to see a comparison on DL hubs, check the link below from MSP's MAC board meeting. Page 4 gives an overview/comparison.

http://metroairports.granicus.com/MetaV ... a_id=31861

Interesting presentation. There are 28 international destinations served from MSP. I never would have expected it to be nearly that high. Impressive for a city that size.

flyfresno wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

kavok wrote:

SLC has four flights to Europe (DL CDG, LHR, AMS, and KL AMS). I know this post is 4 months old, but this makes no sense. I understand connecting traffic but SLC still has much higher PDEW to europe than any of those cities.

SLC is a better DL hub than MSP. MSP is torn between DTW. SLC isn't threatened by Seattle or LAX because SLC is an omnidirectional hub and is very high yielding for DL; DL and its partners control 75% of traffic.

What do you mean by "better DL hub than MSP"? That's a very open-ended and subjective statement.

SLC has the advantage of carrying a large number of LDS missionaries/visitors to/from all over the world in addition to the rest of its traffic, so the airport certainly has a lot of O&D potential, but MSP has a larger CSA and MSA population than SLC, has more fortune 500 companies, and a *significantly* higher GDP (higher than DTW even, although just slightly). That's not to say that SLC isn't important, but one could argue that MSP is somewhere in the 2nd/3rd spot of most important hubs to Delta, depending on what criteria you use. I don't think you could make that same argument about SLC. Finally, Delta's mainline share in MSP is higher than in SLC, and while there are more "connection" flights in SLC, it doesn't look like the overall percentage share of seats is very different between the two markets.

jubguy3 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

SLC has four flights to Europe (DL CDG, LHR, AMS, and KL AMS). I know this post is 4 months old, but this makes no sense. I understand connecting traffic but SLC still has much higher PDEW to europe than any of those cities.

SLC is a better DL hub than MSP. MSP is torn between DTW. SLC isn't threatened by Seattle or LAX because SLC is an omnidirectional hub and is very high yielding for DL; DL and its partners control 75% of traffic.

What do you mean by "better DL hub than MSP"? That's a very open-ended and subjective statement.

SLC has the advantage of carrying a large number of LDS missionaries/visitors to/from all over the world in addition to the rest of its traffic, so the airport certainly has a lot of O&D potential, but MSP has a larger CSA and MSA population than SLC, has more fortune 500 companies, and a *significantly* higher GDP (higher than DTW even, although just slightly). That's not to say that SLC isn't important, but one could argue that MSP is somewhere in the 2nd/3rd spot of most important hubs to Delta, depending on what criteria you use. I don't think you could make that same argument about SLC. Finally, Delta's mainline share in MSP is higher than in SLC, and while there are more "connection" flights in SLC, it doesn't look like the overall percentage share of seats is very different between the two markets.

I meant for DL. There is very little to no competition in SLC (see: sun country, spirit in DTW, AS in Seattle) which means SLC averages the third highest average ticket cost of any city in the US. Not necessarily good for passengers but SLC is consistently one of the most profitable hubs for DL, especially considering the relatively smaller amount of traffic.