Airliners.net

TransWorldOne wrote:

Wait, you mean Northwest actually had a route fail? All I ever seem to hear from the PMNW camp is how perfect the airline was. Anyways, you are correct. I can't see MSP supporting many additional flights to Europe either. KEF is a treat and I'm surprised DL has managed to make that work two summers in a row now. The vast majority of demand seems to be sufficiently covered by the multiple flights to AMS, CDG, and LHR. I could maybe see DL trying FRA but that's it. We all saw how successful FCO was. The smaller/secondary European markets seem better served from JFK.

At one point Northwest also flew a weekly MSP-FRA nonstop. The DL MSP-KEF link is in retaliation for the FI flight. You can bet your life if FI ever ends MSP-KEF Delta will never fly that route again. Do you not find it odd that MSP can sustain two dailies to KEF in the summer but yet there isn't enough traffic to warrant a daily FRA flight.

Detroit was hit hard by the sending of auto manufacturing jobs over seas. However, all the auto companies still have their execs down to middle management there. These people travel international very frequently. Thats why, despite Detroit's economic woes', it hasnt really hit the airport. Those J paying pax to places like Germany, Mexico, Brazil, China, Korea, and (especially) Nagoya/Tokyo are still going strong. I dont expect that to change.

Minneapolis/St Paul doesnt have as global of an economy despite have a much more healthy local economy.

klm617 wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

Wait, you mean Northwest actually had a route fail? All I ever seem to hear from the PMNW camp is how perfect the airline was. Anyways, you are correct. I can't see MSP supporting many additional flights to Europe either. KEF is a treat and I'm surprised DL has managed to make that work two summers in a row now. The vast majority of demand seems to be sufficiently covered by the multiple flights to AMS, CDG, and LHR. I could maybe see DL trying FRA but that's it. We all saw how successful FCO was. The smaller/secondary European markets seem better served from JFK.

At one point Northwest also flew a weekly MSP-FRA nonstop. The DL MSP-KEF link is in retaliation for the FI flight. You can bet your life if FI ever ends MSP-KEF Delta will never fly that route again. Do you not find it odd that MSP can sustain two dailies to KEF in the summer but yet there isn't enough traffic to warrant a daily FRA flight.

FI upgraded to daily 767s during the summer. When NW was flying to OSL, HKG, FRA from MSP it was around 30 years ago. Times have changed. I don't know of DE could fill a aircraft every day.

lavalampluva wrote:

klm617 wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

Wait, you mean Northwest actually had a route fail? All I ever seem to hear from the PMNW camp is how perfect the airline was. Anyways, you are correct. I can't see MSP supporting many additional flights to Europe either. KEF is a treat and I'm surprised DL has managed to make that work two summers in a row now. The vast majority of demand seems to be sufficiently covered by the multiple flights to AMS, CDG, and LHR. I could maybe see DL trying FRA but that's it. We all saw how successful FCO was. The smaller/secondary European markets seem better served from JFK.

At one point Northwest also flew a weekly MSP-FRA nonstop. The DL MSP-KEF link is in retaliation for the FI flight. You can bet your life if FI ever ends MSP-KEF Delta will never fly that route again. Do you not find it odd that MSP can sustain two dailies to KEF in the summer but yet there isn't enough traffic to warrant a daily FRA flight.

FI upgraded to daily 767s during the summer. When NW was flying to OSL, HKG, FRA from MSP it was around 30 years ago. Times have changed. I don't know of DE could fill a aircraft every day.

Yes when FI went to a 767 and flooded the MSP market with cheap seats to Europe and trashing Delta's yields Delta said enough is enough and started their daily 757 to try to run FI out of MSP let's see how long this war goes and who blinks first.

I really don't see DL winning, and if they did I pray the airport commission would provide incentives to bring FI back if/when DL axed MSP-KEF.

FI has the advantage of providing a low cost option to numerous European destinations with just a stopover at KEF. Almost every other option to Europe is expensive and sometimes involves a connection at a very large airport, not the simplicity of KEF.

af773atmsp wrote:

I really don't see DL winning, and if they did I pray the airport commission would provide incentives to bring FI back if/when DL axed MSP-KEF.

FI has the advantage of providing a low cost option to numerous European destinations with just a stopover at KEF. Almost every other option to Europe is expensive and sometimes involves a connection at a very large airport, not the simplicity of KEF.

I don't see how they win this fight. FI has been in MSP for ages. They're a known quantity and they're still the cheapest option to get to most European cities. DL (really Northwest) shouldve tried this years ago. FI started MSP flights in 1998. We're approaching 20 years of FI flights. I think its too late to try this. FI has built out a great hub in KEF that allows it to easily win on price.

And DL is doing just fine. They keep increasing the number of seats to CDG and AMS so I find it hard to believe that FI is ruining their yields. I know that I'm still paying 2000+ dollars to go to Europe for work. They can't be doing that badly.

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

klm617 wrote:

At one point Northwest also flew a weekly MSP-FRA nonstop. The DL MSP-KEF link is in retaliation for the FI flight. You can bet your life if FI ever ends MSP-KEF Delta will never fly that route again. Do you not find it odd that MSP can sustain two dailies to KEF in the summer but yet there isn't enough traffic to warrant a daily FRA flight.

FI upgraded to daily 767s during the summer. When NW was flying to OSL, HKG, FRA from MSP it was around 30 years ago. Times have changed. I don't know of DE could fill a aircraft every day.

Yes when FI went to a 767 and flooded the MSP market with cheap seats to Europe and trashing Delta's yields Delta said enough is enough and started their daily 757 to try to run FI out of MSP let's see how long this war goes and who blinks first.

Consider the o&d to Iceland is probably not that much and there is no connection out there for delta. I don't see how delta could fill their 757s even if they pick up 75 percent of Midwest traveler to Iceland. Delta just love trying to bully other airlines.

tphuang wrote:

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

FI upgraded to daily 767s during the summer. When NW was flying to OSL, HKG, FRA from MSP it was around 30 years ago. Times have changed. I don't know of DE could fill a aircraft every day.

Yes when FI went to a 767 and flooded the MSP market with cheap seats to Europe and trashing Delta's yields Delta said enough is enough and started their daily 757 to try to run FI out of MSP let's see how long this war goes and who blinks first.

Consider the o&d to Iceland is probably not that much and there is no connection out there for delta. I don't see how delta could fill their 757s even if they pick up 75 percent of Midwest traveler to Iceland. Delta just love trying to bully other airlines.

Bullying implies emotion. What you see here is just business. Delta is simply defending a fortress hub. Airlines do that all the time. I'm sure Icelandair will continue to do just fine in this market.

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

klm617 wrote:

At one point Northwest also flew a weekly MSP-FRA nonstop. The DL MSP-KEF link is in retaliation for the FI flight. You can bet your life if FI ever ends MSP-KEF Delta will never fly that route again. Do you not find it odd that MSP can sustain two dailies to KEF in the summer but yet there isn't enough traffic to warrant a daily FRA flight.

FI upgraded to daily 767s during the summer. When NW was flying to OSL, HKG, FRA from MSP it was around 30 years ago. Times have changed. I don't know of DE could fill a aircraft every day.

Yes when FI went to a 767 and flooded the MSP market with cheap seats to Europe and trashing Delta's yields Delta said enough is enough and started their daily 757 to try to run FI out of MSP let's see how long this war goes and who blinks first.

DL's flights to KEF are not hurting FI at all as 90% of FI pax are not headed to Iceland anyway...

Iceland is a great place to spend a few days. That being said, it's one of the few places that I've visited and enjoyed where I didn't, even for a minute, think "I'd like to live here". We flew FI CPH-KEF and DL KEF-JFK.

tphuang wrote:

Delta just love trying to bully other airlines.

So, when UA added RDU-LGA (non-hub to non-hub) in retaliation to DL's RDU focus city expansion with flights to EWR, who's the bully there?

You, along with some other posters, have an anti-Delta bias that borders on the irrational.

tphuang wrote:

klm617 wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

FI upgraded to daily 767s during the summer. When NW was flying to OSL, HKG, FRA from MSP it was around 30 years ago. Times have changed. I don't know of DE could fill a aircraft every day.

Yes when FI went to a 767 and flooded the MSP market with cheap seats to Europe and trashing Delta's yields Delta said enough is enough and started their daily 757 to try to run FI out of MSP let's see how long this war goes and who blinks first.

Consider the o&d to Iceland is probably not that much and there is no connection out there for delta. I don't see how delta could fill their 757s even if they pick up 75 percent of Midwest traveler to Iceland. Delta just love trying to bully other airlines.

This summer should be interesting. Iceland has become so very expensive because of the exchange rates which is bound to depress the O/D demand to Iceland. This hurts DL a lot more than it does FI.

11725Flyer wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Delta just love trying to bully other airlines.

So, when UA added RDU-LGA (non-hub to non-hub) in retaliation to DL's RDU focus city expansion with flights to EWR, who's the bully there?

You, along with some other posters, have an anti-Delta bias that borders on the irrational.

First of all I don't follow UA all that much because it's not my home town Airline but yes if they do the same thing they are just doing it out of spite. I think it's pretty petty myself that such educated men play such childish games.

I am crossing my fingers for MSP growth. Have good friends at MSP would be nice to see them get more flights.

To answer the original question, sure expansion is possible. The area is healthy and growing economically and adding population so I'd expect to see seat counts and flights grow at the same rate.

Fun fact, Minneapolis/St. Paul and Detroit have GDPs very, very close to each other and their flight totals and seat counts for their DL hubs are also very, very close to each other. Both are large enough to support a hub and each has a defined role. It seems both will likely grow as their local economies dictate.

I live in Madison, WI, and when I fly from MSN (home airport) and I choose delta its pretty much a tie between MSP and DTW. They're really nice airports, especially DTW, it's so modern and works amazingly well. DTW, I feel, offers more connections than MSP, but I may be wrong. MSP is a great connecting place, especially for flights to Europe.

As for expansion, I personally think there isn't much TATL to be added, maybe places like FCO or something. MSP could also benefit by more feeder traffic, it is in a good location to shoot people all over the United States as well as the world.

Overall, when it comes to DTW or MSP with delta, the only thing that really matters for me is timing, they are both outstanding airports, with a great airline serving them.

hvusslax wrote:

tphuang wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Yes when FI went to a 767 and flooded the MSP market with cheap seats to Europe and trashing Delta's yields Delta said enough is enough and started their daily 757 to try to run FI out of MSP let's see how long this war goes and who blinks first.

Consider the o&d to Iceland is probably not that much and there is no connection out there for delta. I don't see how delta could fill their 757s even if they pick up 75 percent of Midwest traveler to Iceland. Delta just love trying to bully other airlines.

This summer should be interesting. Iceland has become so very expensive because of the exchange rates which is bound to depress the O/D demand to Iceland. This hurts DL a lot more than it does FI.

Where have you been. Iceland, for the most part, has always been expensive.

DTWLUVER wrote:

I am crossing my fingers for MSP growth. Have good friends at MSP would be nice to see them get more flights.

What kind of growth would you like to see? Domestic? International? Certain markets?

KLM plans to operate 3x/weekly B789 AMS-MSP in Winter, but at a later time:

- AMS 17:00 - MSP 18:50 B789 Tue, Fri, Sun
- MSP 21:30 - AMS 12:15 B789 Tue, Fri, Sun

In addition to 2x daily DL, thus raising capacity to 3x daily on Tue, Fri, Sun for W17.

From the looks of it and unfortunately for CVG and Memphis, Delta Stragety paid off well by reducing Delta CVG hub and Memphis former Northwest hub and shift flight to Detroit and Minneapolis. The only question is can those hubs grow organically now? I think they will and can.

Atlwarrior wrote:

From the looks of it and unfortunately for CVG and Memphis, Delta Stragety paid off well by reducing Delta CVG hub and Memphis former Northwest hub and shift flight to Detroit and Minneapolis. The only question is can those hubs grow organically now? I think they will and can.

I think it's important to remember that the DL/NW merger coincided with the Great Recession and a post-merger spike in oil running to over $140 a barrel. There was no going-in strategy to dehub MEM or CVG, but economics and survival forced those decisions. CVG and MEM retain nonstop service to their most important O&D markets, and inefficient RJ flying has been trimmed through the network.

MSP is clearly here to stay.

TigerFlyer wrote:

Atlwarrior wrote:

From the looks of it and unfortunately for CVG and Memphis, Delta Stragety paid off well by reducing Delta CVG hub and Memphis former Northwest hub and shift flight to Detroit and Minneapolis. The only question is can those hubs grow organically now? I think they will and can.

I think it's important to remember that the DL/NW merger coincided with the Great Recession and a post-merger spike in oil running to over $140 a barrel. There was no going-in strategy to dehub MEM or CVG, but economics and survival forced those decisions. CVG and MEM retain nonstop service to their most important O&D markets, and inefficient RJ flying has been trimmed through the network.

MSP is clearly here to stay.

I agree that MSP isn't going anywhere. I hope we will see a few more TATL connections with a boatload of domestic service increase that makes it a good hub for connecting parts of the Midwest/Great Plains with Europe.

stlgph wrote:

hvusslax wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Consider the o&d to Iceland is probably not that much and there is no connection out there for delta. I don't see how delta could fill their 757s even if they pick up 75 percent of Midwest traveler to Iceland. Delta just love trying to bully other airlines.

This summer should be interesting. Iceland has become so very expensive because of the exchange rates which is bound to depress the O/D demand to Iceland. This hurts DL a lot more than it does FI.

Where have you been. Iceland, for the most part, has always been expensive.

I've been living in Iceland, getting paid a wage in ISK so I am well aware of the effects of the exchange rate for my purchasing power abroad and the effects on tourist purchasing power in Iceland. Iceland has never been cheap but if it was already expensive last summer then you can imagine what 20-30% increase in all local prices since then does to tourism demand.

planespotter20 wrote:

TigerFlyer wrote:

Atlwarrior wrote:

From the looks of it and unfortunately for CVG and Memphis, Delta Stragety paid off well by reducing Delta CVG hub and Memphis former Northwest hub and shift flight to Detroit and Minneapolis. The only question is can those hubs grow organically now? I think they will and can.

I think it's important to remember that the DL/NW merger coincided with the Great Recession and a post-merger spike in oil running to over $140 a barrel. There was no going-in strategy to dehub MEM or CVG, but economics and survival forced those decisions. CVG and MEM retain nonstop service to their most important O&D markets, and inefficient RJ flying has been trimmed through the network.

MSP is clearly here to stay.

I agree that MSP isn't going anywhere. I hope we will see a few more TATL connections with a boatload of domestic service increase that makes it a good hub for connecting parts of the Midwest/Great Plains with Europe.

My guess is that not much more will happen at MSP/DL with TATL/TPTL until after the 747 is withdrawn from service. This will decrease the load sizes at DTW. Right now service to Europe is holding steady. Maybe ICN will be the next one most likely.

davescj wrote:

MSP offers some great connectivity for both Europe and Asia. You can see that just glancing at a time table. MSP also seems to have a good role as a connecting airport into Western Canada. I live in Chicago, and I am often routed to Europe via MSP.



Also, I believe, part of the reason to keep MSP is the 'agreement' to keep jobs in MSP. That certainly doesn't hurt the airport.

I thought Delta already paid a fine, because it cut job at MSP and cancel the agreement.

lavalampluva wrote:

My guess is that not much more will happen at MSP/DL with TATL/TPTL until after the 747 is withdrawn from service. This will decrease the load sizes at DTW.

The 744s run completely full to their perspective Asia destinations. As of now, 2017 is showing a 777 for PEK so that's an increase in both seats and cargo from the 332, where NRT, PVG, and ICN will decrease only by a small amount.

Than after that I think DL could do MSP-ICN on a 332, nothing bigger and nothing smaller, it's the perfect size plane for the market and it'll offer connections on both the MSP and ICN side with the DL/KE JV. Even if DTW got a second ICN flight, on either KE or DL, I think that'll leave MSP unaffected and should still warrant service.

I agree that MSP-ICN is a matter of when, and not if.

To me, the big question is will MSP-ICN happen at the same time as MSP-HND. Basically, is there fear on DLs part that adding MSP-ICN would create too much TransPac supply from MSP? I think the answer is no, as the HND flight is made up almost 100% of O-D on the Tokyo side, that would prefer not to connect in ICN, but I still do wonder.

kavok wrote:

I agree that MSP-ICN is a matter of when, and not if.

To me, the big question is will MSP-ICN happen at the same time as MSP-HND. Basically, is there fear on DLs part that adding MSP-ICN would create too much TransPac supply from MSP? I think the answer is no, as the HND flight is made up almost 100% of O-D on the Tokyo side, that would prefer not to connect in ICN, but I still do wonder.

I feel like Delta will find a way to weasel out of the DOT mandates around the HND flight and move it to either DTW or SEA. I know the DOT was pretty explicit that they'd take the slot away and give it to AA but some how some way (especially now with a new administration), they'll find a way to get the slot moved. And once that happens, the ICN flight becomes a clear no brainer.

What I could see is more NE to MSP service such as PVD. 1-2 flights a day could work from PVD with a 717. 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. BGR could use a daily flight . PWM a daily flight or two BTV could use a flight or two MHT could use a flight HPN could use a flight YOW a flight CMX (Houghton Hancock MI could use a flight
PLN Could use one .It could be a milk run from DTW-APN-PLN-MSP kinda like what XJ did with 3175 Where it left DTW went to PLN then to ESC then to RHI then to MSP . and reverse was 3176 .
I could see MSP or DTW begin service to CYAM Sault Ste Marie Canada with a CRJ. thats a underserved Canadian market . who knows go bold and do a 320 to Godthab Greenland either from MSP or DTW . this is just a start I am sure some Mexican markets could use MSP flights How about a SJU flight ?

klakzky123 wrote:

I feel like Delta will find a way to weasel out of the DOT mandates around the HND flight and move it to either DTW or SEA. I know the DOT was pretty explicit that they'd take the slot away and give it to AA but some how some way (especially now with a new administration), they'll find a way to get the slot moved. And once that happens, the ICN flight becomes a clear no brainer.

I am not so sure, for three reasons:

1) I think DL will want to retain connectivity between all its major hubs (SLC excepted) to TYO; if MSP were to lose HND, that supposition means they would need to return to NRT. I don't see the advantage.

2). Outside of LAX and SFO, all flights to HND will struggle. I am guessing DL chose MSP over alternative hubs because of the percentage of O&D traffic there; they had the chance to name DTW or even JFK, for instance, but didn't. MSP has a very good mid-western-oriented network, and can draw from the eastern USA as well. Unless we see evidence that the numbers have changed, MSP remains just as viable as any other gateway.

3). With AA next in line if any changes were to be made, any attempt to circumvent the DOT ruling would put DL - and the politicos who allowed a change - in someone's bullseye. Maybe everyone's bullseye... they just don't need that distraction.

However when the CS100 comes, I think this openings up alot of markets for all of Delta hubs. Delta next quarterly report and remarks should reveal alot about the airline future and plans.

alfa164 wrote:

I am not so sure, for three reasons:

1) I think DL will want to retain connectivity between all its major hubs (SLC excepted) to TYO; if MSP were to lose HND, that supposition means they would need to return to NRT. I don't see the advantage.

I don't understand why they would want this. NRT has no value going forward. The hub is being shut down and Tokyo will only have value based on O&D traffic. If MSP doesn't have enough O&D, they'll funnel passengers through DTW, SEA or LAX. As for HND, again, its value is O&D. If there are better places for the slot, it will go there. But there's no actual inherit value in a Tokyo flight if there isn't enough originating traffic from MSP.

alfa164 wrote:

2). Outside of LAX and SFO, all flights to HND will struggle. I am guessing DL chose MSP over alternative hubs because of the percentage of O&D traffic there; they had the chance to name DTW or even JFK, for instance, but didn't. MSP has a very good mid-western-oriented network, and can draw from the eastern USA as well. Unless we see evidence that the numbers have changed, MSP remains just as viable as any other gateway.

Maybe so, but I dont see why MSP is better than SEA or DTW. SEA might struggle because it doesn't have enough feed but you can fly a 767 from SEA and do just fine. I'm not sure MSP has much if any O&D itself. The industries here have no ties to Japan. Everything is either purely domestic (and Canada) or has some ties to Europe but there isn't much in the way of ties to Japan. DTW and SEA would seemingly have more O&D. DTW is in the midwest as well and would seem like the natural spot for something like this. I could see DL killing the NRT flight from DTW once the hub shuts down and finding a way to move the HND flight there.

alfa164 wrote:

3). With AA next in line if any changes were to be made, any attempt to circumvent the DOT ruling would put DL - and the politicos who allowed a change - in someone's bullseye. Maybe everyone's bullseye... they just don't need that distraction.

And that's probably the only barrier. I dont think MSP keeps the flight without the DOT rules placed on the slot. DL chose MSP because the DOT signaled that it wanted regional diversity when handing out the slots. They even upped the ante and promised that they'd use a 777 on the flight. It was a calculated gamble that they won but administrations change and attitudes change in the DOT so at some point in the future, I can see DL moving the route. It just doesn't make any practical sense to keep that flight in a city with little O&D. I like having the flight here but it doesn't make any actual sense. DL presumably would promise the DOT that it would create an ICN flight in MSP to continue access to Asia and I doubt you'd find anyone in MSP that would oppose this as having full access to Asia via one stop flight is way better than a HND flight.

alfa164 wrote:

klakzky123 wrote:

I feel like Delta will find a way to weasel out of the DOT mandates around the HND flight and move it to either DTW or SEA. I know the DOT was pretty explicit that they'd take the slot away and give it to AA but some how some way (especially now with a new administration), they'll find a way to get the slot moved. And once that happens, the ICN flight becomes a clear no brainer.

I am not so sure, for three reasons:

1) I think DL will want to retain connectivity between all its major hubs (SLC excepted) to TYO; if MSP were to lose HND, that supposition means they would need to return to NRT. I don't see the advantage.

2). Outside of LAX and SFO, all flights to HND will struggle. I am guessing DL chose MSP over alternative hubs because of the percentage of O&D traffic there; they had the chance to name DTW or even JFK, for instance, but didn't. MSP has a very good mid-western-oriented network, and can draw from the eastern USA as well. Unless we see evidence that the numbers have changed, MSP remains just as viable as any other gateway.

3). With AA next in line if any changes were to be made, any attempt to circumvent the DOT ruling would put DL - and the politicos who allowed a change - in someone's bullseye. Maybe everyone's bullseye... they just don't need that distraction.

I have respectfully disagree with you Delta made it quite clear that if it was not granted a slot to operate MSP-HND that MSP-NRT was most likely going to get axed because it was no longer viable in the way it was structuring it's network. The main reason ATL-MSP were chosen is because they already tried SEA and DTW and failed at both. Mt guess is they really wanted a slot for SEA but were afraid it would not be granted because of it's past failure so it chose the two market that had not been attempted. So no there is not enough O/D to operate MSP-NRT as a stand alone route in Delta's eyes because it was going away anyway no matter what..

I really don't see MSP-ICN happening. With ATL, DTW, and SEA they have pretty much all the bases covered. I think before we see ICN-MSP we will see PDX-ICN but hey what do I know. As stated by many MSP just doesn't have the Asian O/D traffic to support such a flight something Delta looks for when adding something new.

klakzky123 wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

I am not so sure, for three reasons:
1) I think DL will want to retain connectivity between all its major hubs (SLC excepted) to TYO; if MSP were to lose HND, that supposition means they would need to return to NRT. I don't see the advantage.

I don't understand why they would want this. NRT has no value going forward. The hub is being shut down and Tokyo will only have value based on O&D traffic. If MSP doesn't have enough O&D, they'll funnel passengers through DTW, SEA or LAX. As for HND, again, its value is O&D. If there are better places for the slot, it will go there. But there's no actual inherit value in a Tokyo flight if there isn't enough originating traffic from MSP.

alfa164 wrote:

2). Outside of LAX and SFO, all flights to HND will struggle. I am guessing DL chose MSP over alternative hubs because of the percentage of O&D traffic there; they had the chance to name DTW or even JFK, for instance, but didn't. MSP has a very good mid-western-oriented network, and can draw from the eastern USA as well. Unless we see evidence that the numbers have changed, MSP remains just as viable as any other gateway.

Maybe so, but I dont see why MSP is better than SEA or DTW. SEA might struggle because it doesn't have enough feed but you can fly a 767 from SEA and do just fine. I'm not sure MSP has much if any O&D itself. The industries here have no ties to Japan. Everything is either purely domestic (and Canada) or has some ties to Europe but there isn't much in the way of ties to Japan. DTW and SEA would seemingly have more O&D. DTW is in the midwest as well and would seem like the natural spot for something like this. I could see DL killing the NRT flight from DTW once the hub shuts down and finding a way to move the HND flight there.

alfa164 wrote:

3). With AA next in line if any changes were to be made, any attempt to circumvent the DOT ruling would put DL - and the politicos who allowed a change - in someone's bullseye. Maybe everyone's bullseye... they just don't need that distraction.

And that's probably the only barrier. I dont think MSP keeps the flight without the DOT rules placed on the slot. DL chose MSP because the DOT signaled that it wanted regional diversity when handing out the slots. They even upped the ante and promised that they'd use a 777 on the flight. It was a calculated gamble that they won but administrations change and attitudes change in the DOT so at some point in the future, I can see DL moving the route. It just doesn't make any practical sense to keep that flight in a city with little O&D. I like having the flight here but it doesn't make any actual sense. DL presumably would promise the DOT that it would create an ICN flight in MSP to continue access to Asia and I doubt you'd find anyone in MSP that would oppose this as having full access to Asia via one stop flight is way better than a HND flight.

Is it your contention that MSP should be left with no flight to TYO? Regardless of further connectivity, Tokyo is the closest equivalent Asia has to London... and LHR is another market where DL offers flights from all its major hubs.

Is it also your contention that DTW-HND would be more viable than MSP-HND? Can you show us the numbers - and explain why DL didn't request that in the first place?

I wonder if any corporate contracts contributed to the MSP-HND choice; I am sure some of the local Fortune 500 companies (Target, Best Buy, and 3M, in particular) have some ties to Japan. Any of those should generate a modicum of traffic, albeit I can't see enough demand from any of those companies to justify a single route... but Delta must have had some good reasons to choose MSP, and I don't see any circumstances that have changed.

klm617 wrote:

I really don't see MSP-ICN happening. With ATL, DTW, and SEA they have pretty much all the bases covered. I think before we see ICN-MSP we will see PDX-ICN but hey what do I know. As stated by many MSP just doesn't have the Asian O/D traffic to support such a flight something Delta looks for when adding something new.

I really strongly disagree. What are you basing that statement on and what is your knowledge of the Twin Cities business community? Do you know about all the Fortune 500 businesses based here? If so, what are they? Target, Best Buy, Medtronic, St. Jude Medical, Wells Fargo Home Mortgage, United Healthcare, Carlson Companies, Cargill, General Mills, 3M, Caribou Coffee, Toro.....just a quick partial list of some companies who need to get their employees to Asia through ICN efficiently. There are many many more big employers here that also want the efficiency of the ICN Asian hub. It is only a matter of timing with the JV.

klm617 wrote:

I really don't see MSP-ICN happening. With ATL, DTW, and SEA they have pretty much all the bases covered. I think before we see ICN-MSP we will see PDX-ICN but hey what do I know. As stated by many MSP just doesn't have the Asian O/D traffic to support such a flight something Delta looks for when adding something new.

MSP-ICN is perfectly viable. I'm just questioning whether MSP-HND can work because there isn't enough O&D to Tokyo. But ICN covers all of Asia and MSP has always been able to support that. MSP was able to support the NRT flights with a much much smaller set of connections in comparison to ICN. Once the JV starts, there's no reason why MSP couldn't support an ICN flight.

klakzky123 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

I really don't see MSP-ICN happening. With ATL, DTW, and SEA they have pretty much all the bases covered. I think before we see ICN-MSP we will see PDX-ICN but hey what do I know. As stated by many MSP just doesn't have the Asian O/D traffic to support such a flight something Delta looks for when adding something new.

MSP-ICN is perfectly viable. I'm just questioning whether MSP-HND can work because there isn't enough O&D to Tokyo. But ICN covers all of Asia and MSP has always been able to support that. MSP was able to support the NRT flights with a much much smaller set of connections in comparison to ICN. Once the JV starts, there's no reason why MSP couldn't support an ICN flight.

Agreed on MSP-HND but as others have already pointed out, Delta will likely keep flying the route as a defensive move to keep it away from American Airlines and service to DFW.

klakzky123 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

I really don't see MSP-ICN happening. With ATL, DTW, and SEA they have pretty much all the bases covered. I think before we see ICN-MSP we will see PDX-ICN but hey what do I know. As stated by many MSP just doesn't have the Asian O/D traffic to support such a flight something Delta looks for when adding something new.

MSP-ICN is perfectly viable. I'm just questioning whether MSP-HND can work because there isn't enough O&D to Tokyo. But ICN covers all of Asia and MSP has always been able to support that. MSP was able to support the NRT flights with a much much smaller set of connections in comparison to ICN. Once the JV starts, there's no reason why MSP couldn't support an ICN flight.

At this point I am waiting for the announcement that MSP-HND ceases, and the launch announcement of MSP-ICN. There isn't a coherent case anymore to deny this. But I am open to someone making one. I think it will be made as one announcement.

klm617 wrote:

I really don't see MSP-ICN happening. With ATL, DTW, and SEA they have pretty much all the bases covered. I think before we see ICN-MSP we will see PDX-ICN but hey what do I know. As stated by many MSP just doesn't have the Asian O/D traffic to support such a flight something Delta looks for when adding something new.

I believe that when the Delta / Korean JV comes into effect, there will be a broad paradigm change with Delta's whole USA - Asia operation. I have to assume that any remaining USA - NRT - Asia operations will cease in the not too distant future, with this role being carried on via ICN within the JV. If the JV is able to capture any meaningful percentage of the traffic that connected through NRT, then there will need to be a considerable increase in capacity offered through ICN, such as increased gauge or increased frequency on flights such as SEA-ICN and DTW-ICN, and new markets, such as MSP-ICN.

Currently, ICN is served by SEA-ICN by 767, DTW-ICN by 747-400 and soon to start ATL-ICN by 777. Both SEA/DTW-ICN flights are already very full with passengers with destination ICN, with very few onward connections beyond ICN. All connections on these routes are in SEA / DTW, with passengers connecting to/from US destinations. There is little capacity available based on current flights for connections within Asia, so this is why such markets as MSP-ICN are likely to occur, even if operated by A330-200's.

Previous MSP-NRT flights carried many passengers connecting beyond NRT, as well as many passengers connecting at MSP to/from domestic US airports. The local MSP-Japan market may not by itself be able to sustain flights to/from Japan, but don't forget that the current MSP-HND flight continues to carry many passengers connecting at MSP to/from the midwest / central / southeast and eastern USA. MSP-HND carries loads comparable to LAX-HND. Based on all of this, I can see both MSP-HND and MSP-ICN happening in the foreseeable future.

Flighty wrote:

At this point I am waiting for the announcement that MSP-HND ceases, and the launch announcement of MSP-ICN. There isn't a coherent case anymore to deny this. But I am open to someone making one. I think it will be made as one announcement.

The coherent case is the threat of the DOT taking away the slot and giving it to AA. But if that threat goes away, then yes, there's AA reasonable chance that the slot goes to SEA or DTW.

redtailmsp wrote:

Previous MSP-NRT flights carried many passengers connecting beyond NRT, as well as many passengers connecting at MSP to/from domestic US airports. The local MSP-Japan market may not by itself be able to sustain flights to/from Japan, but don't forget that the current MSP-HND flight continues to carry many passengers connecting at MSP to/from the midwest / central / southeast and eastern USA. MSP-HND carries loads comparable to LAX-HND. Based on all of this, I can see both MSP-HND and MSP-ICN happening in the foreseeable future.

Ten years ago, you had a 744 full of passengers consisting of three groups of passengers: (1) MSP-Japan, (2) Outstation-MSP-Japan and (3) US-Beyond NRT. Cutting at NRT and building up ICN affects Group 3 and arguably Group 1. If 1+2+3 filled a 744, that really does not tell us one way or the other whether 1+2 can fill a 332. The left side of the equation is smaller, but people seem to forget that the right side is too because there are now smaller widebodies available.

Cubsrule wrote:

redtailmsp wrote:

Previous MSP-NRT flights carried many passengers connecting beyond NRT, as well as many passengers connecting at MSP to/from domestic US airports. The local MSP-Japan market may not by itself be able to sustain flights to/from Japan, but don't forget that the current MSP-HND flight continues to carry many passengers connecting at MSP to/from the midwest / central / southeast and eastern USA. MSP-HND carries loads comparable to LAX-HND. Based on all of this, I can see both MSP-HND and MSP-ICN happening in the foreseeable future.

Ten years ago, you had a 744 full of passengers consisting of three groups of passengers: (1) MSP-Japan, (2) Outstation-MSP-Japan and (3) US-Beyond NRT. Cutting at NRT and building up ICN affects Group 3 and arguably Group 1. If 1+2+3 filled a 744, that really does not tell us one way or the other whether 1+2 can fill a 332. The left side of the equation is smaller, but people seem to forget that the right side is too because there are now smaller widebodies available.

10 years ago NW was able to fill two 747-400s between on MSP-NRT on some days, so I highly doubt that MSP-ICN (which was a larger local market than MSP-TKO last I checked) and MSP-HND can't coexist, especially given that smaller aircraft will be operating these flights and that the markets have both grown since 2007. They would be serving different purposes:

MSP-HND: Service the local MSP-Tokyo (which was around 50-60 PDEW from the last stats I saw, not an incredibly small market for an international flight) market and Midwest/East passengers wanting to travel to Tokyo (and take advantage of the convenience of using HND) that are simply connecting in MSP.
MSP-ICN: Service the MSP-beyond Tokyo Asian market, the local MSP-Seoul market (also around 50-60 PDEW last I saw, although this could've since changed) as well as some double-connects (MSN-MSP-ICN-HKG/SIN/BKK,etc.) that are currently not an option.

Jeremy

klakzky123 wrote:

Flighty wrote:

At this point I am waiting for the announcement that MSP-HND ceases, and the launch announcement of MSP-ICN. There isn't a coherent case anymore to deny this. But I am open to someone making one. I think it will be made as one announcement.

The coherent case is the threat of the DOT taking away the slot and giving it to AA. But if that threat goes away, then yes, there's AA reasonable chance that the slot goes to SEA or DTW.

Why would Delta want that slot, given the onerous conditions? Of course DL is free to fly MSP-HND forever. But why? Is it a moneymaking route? Is it strategic? I cant quite picture why.

Flighty wrote:

klakzky123 wrote:

Flighty wrote:

At this point I am waiting for the announcement that MSP-HND ceases, and the launch announcement of MSP-ICN. There isn't a coherent case anymore to deny this. But I am open to someone making one. I think it will be made as one announcement.

The coherent case is the threat of the DOT taking away the slot and giving it to AA. But if that threat goes away, then yes, there's AA reasonable chance that the slot goes to SEA or DTW.

Why would Delta want that slot, given the onerous conditions? Of course DL is free to fly MSP-HND forever. But why? Is it a moneymaking route? Is it strategic? I cant quite picture why.

Then why doesn't DL just give the slot up now? It's almost definitely strategic: A) It gives DL access to an airport where there are limited slots, likely in hopes that it will one day open up and DL will have an advantage given it already has two flights B) It keeps the slot from AA, who would likely want the slot for the same purpose as I just listed. Whether or not it makes money is probably secondary to it giving DL HND access and keeping it away from competitors. Also, I don't understand why it's so hard for some to believe that DL can't possibly make work a flight between its 3rd largest hub (which has over 400 peak daily departures and around 50,000 daily seats) and the world's largest city as well as a market that has been served nonstop with no interruptions for many decades.

Jeremy

SESGDL wrote:

Also, I don't understand why it's so hard for some to believe that DL can't possibly make work a flight between its 3rd largest hub (which has over 400 peak daily departures and around 50,000 daily seats) and the world's largest city as well as a market that has been served nonstop with no interruptions for many decades.

Jeremy

This.

People are talking about HND like it is some sort of minor international market like CLT (no offense to CLT) not the primary airport of the world's 2nd largest metro area and 3rd largest economy. Irregardless of the ability to flow traffic over Tokyo, HND is still a crucial airport for Delta to maintain a presence at and MSP makes that happen for the Eastern half of the US.

SESGDL wrote:

Flighty wrote:

klakzky123 wrote:

The coherent case is the threat of the DOT taking away the slot and giving it to AA. But if that threat goes away, then yes, there's AA reasonable chance that the slot goes to SEA or DTW.

Why would Delta want that slot, given the onerous conditions? Of course DL is free to fly MSP-HND forever. But why? Is it a moneymaking route? Is it strategic? I cant quite picture why.

Then why doesn't DL just give the slot up now? It's almost definitely strategic: A) It gives DL access to an airport where there are limited slots, likely in hopes that it will one day open up and DL will have an advantage given it already has two flights B) It keeps the slot from AA, who would likely want the slot for the same purpose as I just listed. Whether or not it makes money is probably secondary to it giving DL HND access and keeping it away from competitors. Also, I don't understand why it's so hard for some to believe that DL can't possibly make work a flight between its 3rd largest hub (which has over 400 peak daily departures and around 50,000 daily seats) and the world's largest city as well as a market that has been served nonstop with no interruptions for many decades.

Jeremy

That isn't what I'm saying at all. Airlines don't operate flights under the paradigm of "it works." It might work just fine but the point is that is a valuable slot (especially since its a daytime slot) and DL will naturally want to maximize its value. My point is that the maximum value of that slot would be had in DTW or SEA. Right now, the DOT is the only thing keeping the flight in MSP.

Revenue management is built around the premise of maximizing revenue per flight. In order to do that, one thing you need to maximize O&D as that's where you generally get the biggest payoff on yields. Now I dont have any knowledge of Delta's yields and loads on the HND flight so who knows, maybe its working out perfectly and they can't do any better in any of the other hubs. But MSP has extremely low O&D to Tokyo so I'm inclined to believe that something like DTW might be a better fit. The business community in MSP doesn't have ties to Tokyo the way it does in say Detroit.

And of course, DL won't give away the slot. That would be nuts. AA would not only get a valuable daytime slot but they'd do so with a JV partner on the other end providing connections. DL would probably operate the flight at a loss over giving it away. And again, I'm not suggesting that the flight doesnt work. I was suggesting that DL might find a friendlier DOT willing to allow it to move the slot to another city and my point is that there are DL hubs that would make this a more profitable flight (even if it is profitable currently). Plus with an ICN flight eventually coming around once the JV goes into effect, MSP won't lose access to Asia (it'll actually gain tons of access in the process).

Lastly, DL put MSP as its preferred city because they'd royally screwed up with the DOT during the whole Seattle debacle when they were operating minimum flights in the winter and consequently violating the spirit of the rules on the night time HND slot. DTW's HND night time slot was dropped as well. It would look terrible to request a slot for hubs that DL dropped flights from previously so they settled on MSP instead. That doesn't mean that MSP was the optimal city for the daytime slot. It just was a calculated move to try and keep a slot away from AA and UA.

This is all a moot point if the DOT sticks to its guns and enforces the rules around the MSP slot. Those rules are there precisely because of what DL did with the previous nighttime HND slots but administrations change and as new regulators and civil servants enter the DOT, attitudes can change as well.

redtailmsp wrote:

Previous MSP-NRT flights carried many passengers connecting beyond NRT, as well as many passengers connecting at MSP to/from domestic US airports. The local MSP-Japan market may not by itself be able to sustain flights to/from Japan, but don't forget that the current MSP-HND flight continues to carry many passengers connecting at MSP to/from the midwest / central / southeast and eastern USA. MSP-HND carries loads comparable to LAX-HND. Based on all of this, I can see both MSP-HND and MSP-ICN happening in the foreseeable future.

I've never seen MSP-HND loads come close to LAX's. Loads for MSP-HND have been weak ever since it started. Not surprising since MSP-NRT was over half beyond-TYO traffic, and that's all gone. Clearly DL has a demand problem on MSP-HND, and if more HND slots open to other U.S airports, MSP's connecting demand weakens even more.

It's pretty clear the main purpose of MSP-HND existence is for HND slot-squatting. I fully expect DL to switch aircraft (A332) or airports if they ever get a chance to.

DL operates the largest number of seats per departure on its HND flights from mainland US flights. HA operates more seats on its HNL-HND flights. According to DOT data, DL carries more passengers on LAX-HND than any other mainland US to HND flight by either US or Japanese carriers. DL’s LAX-HND flight in November operated with an 88% load factor. Even though DL’s MSP-HND flight had one of the lower load factors at 65%, the flight still carried the third largest number of passengers from HND to the mainland (because of the configuration of DL's 777s) behind only DL’s HND-LAX and NH’s HND-LAX.
DL maintains a larger aircraft because they have little room to carry further traffic via LAX. MSP is their growth market and yet it still carries more passengers than any other current mainland HND route other than to/from LAX.
The percent of local traffic on MSP-HND is similar to other international routes by other airlines.

Slot-squatting is right. Check seat availability tomorrow, next week, next month... MSP/HND must have the lowest US/JP average LF in DL's network. SEA/HND had low LF (due to night slot ... if you aren't connecting, time of arrival becomes paramount), and DL killed it. IMO, the only way MSP/HND survives is with a downgauge, which will be much easier to finesse with USDOT.