MSP had flights to FCO last summer, but it just didn't pan out. I think loads were averaging around 65-70%. IMO it failed because it wasn't marketed well, and the USD$ didn't have the buying power to make traveling to Italy attractive.

TW870 wrote:

I'm curious what you or others think the alternative is. Do you want a weaker fortress hub or a stronger one? Obviously yes, without the fortress hub, Minneapolis would get British Airways and Lufthansa service to LHR and FRA respectively, and perhaps one Asian carrier such as a JL 788 to NRT. But for that to be possible, there would not be able to be a Skyteam fortress, because those international carriers would need a larger slice of local business markets than they can get with Skyteam here.

Is it that you want Delta to serve Madrid or Rome or Munich or all of them non-stop? But to do that you would need an even stronger fortress hub that could draw west coast connecting traffic away from JFK and DTW and other strong Skyteam hubs. Or is it that you want Delta to go away to allow others to step in? But if that were the case, then who do you think would or should serve routes such as MSP-GEG or FWA or ROC that would be very, very difficult to serve without the economies of a fortress hub? It would sure be cool to see an LH 346 at MSP, but I commute for work to DAY from MSP, and BA and LH and JL wouldn't be of any use to me because most of my work travel - and that of most other people in Minneapolis - is within the U.S.

A weaker hub would be beneficial to the the airport and local traffic. There comes a point when hubs become too strong. When airlines get that level of market power, capacity and networks are restricted, competitors are scared or forced off, and local passengers pay a high average price for reduced service. A healthy airport is a competitive airport with one or more viable hubs. This level of competition generally stimulates demand, adds to their capacity and networks, and offers lower prices to local traffic. Current examples include SEA, LAX, ORD, DEN, and SFO. A stronger fortress hub is not the answer to MSP's lack of international variety. In order for that to break, DL needs competition to force it out of its shell. Currently DL has no need to fly to other destinations because it can simply force local traffic over JV hubs. And because it's in a fortress position, other airlines are scared off from trying. It also doesn't help that the MSP airport commission is clueless about competition and has always sucked up to the hub carrier, whether it be NW or DL.

klm617 wrote:

While I agree with most of this post MSP does have FI and DE to compete against DL and MSP does have FRA service.

Yes, thanks. I know I didn't say that right, but I can't edit it now. What it should say is no LH service and no year-round or even daily seasonal FRA service.

DTW's LH service brings much more competition to the table than at MSP, so you can't complain about that.

While I am a MN resident and I admit I would rather (at least in winter) visit FL, Mall of America gets 40 million visitors annually. Disney World is at about 20 million. I'll grant there is not much else to see or do in MN outside of summer, but I wouldn't say there is a lack of tourism. I catch plenty of foreign languages being spoken in the mall every visit.

MSPNWA wrote:

TW870 wrote:

I'm curious what you or others think the alternative is. Do you want a weaker fortress hub or a stronger one? Obviously yes, without the fortress hub, Minneapolis would get British Airways and Lufthansa service to LHR and FRA respectively, and perhaps one Asian carrier such as a JL 788 to NRT. But for that to be possible, there would not be able to be a Skyteam fortress, because those international carriers would need a larger slice of local business markets than they can get with Skyteam here.

Is it that you want Delta to serve Madrid or Rome or Munich or all of them non-stop? But to do that you would need an even stronger fortress hub that could draw west coast connecting traffic away from JFK and DTW and other strong Skyteam hubs. Or is it that you want Delta to go away to allow others to step in? But if that were the case, then who do you think would or should serve routes such as MSP-GEG or FWA or ROC that would be very, very difficult to serve without the economies of a fortress hub? It would sure be cool to see an LH 346 at MSP, but I commute for work to DAY from MSP, and BA and LH and JL wouldn't be of any use to me because most of my work travel - and that of most other people in Minneapolis - is within the U.S.

A weaker hub would be beneficial to the the airport and local traffic. There comes a point when hubs become too strong. When airlines get that level of market power, capacity and networks are restricted, competitors are scared or forced off, and local passengers pay a high average price for reduced service. A healthy airport is a competitive airport with one or more viable hubs. This level of competition generally stimulates demand, adds to their capacity and networks, and offers lower prices to local traffic. Current examples include SEA, LAX, ORD, DEN, and SFO. A stronger fortress hub is not the answer to MSP's lack of international variety. In order for that to break, DL needs competition to force it out of its shell. Currently DL has no need to fly to other destinations because it can simply force local traffic over JV hubs. And because it's in a fortress position, other airlines are scared off from trying. It also doesn't help that the MSP airport commission is clueless about competition and has always sucked up to the hub carrier, whether it be NW or DL. .

Sometimes that is true. But FI doesn't seem to have any fear of DL, in fact quite the opposite. They switched up to a larger a/c.

SteveXC500 wrote:

While I am a MN resident and I admit I would rather (at least in winter) visit FL, Mall of America gets 40 million visitors annually. Disney World is at about 20 million. I'll grant there is not much else to see or do in MN outside of summer, but I wouldn't say there is a lack of tourism. I catch plenty of foreign languages being spoken in the mall every visit.

MoA tourism is way down from what it was. Those NW flights from NRT used to mint money in part because of Japanese tourists that came to the mall. There were tourists back in the day that would fly in, shop for 2 days and then leave back to Tokyo. That hasn't been true in years. Tourism to MoA is primarily regional now. All of the international tourism dried up and even US based tourism became much more regional. MoA was a destination in and of itself 20 years ago. That really isn't the case now. There are mega malls everywhere now and in comparison, the MoA is actually quite dated. And the luxury shopping that used to attract those high dollar travelers was destroyed in the 2009 recession. Japanese tourists are now more likely to go to Honolulu or the West Coast.

Also foreign languages at MoA are also a reflection of how much more diverse the MSP metro is now.

dfwjim1 wrote:

klakzky123 wrote:

Some of you are crazy. MSP has a 2nd hub carrier (Sun Country) that offers a fantastic selection of destinations and has a competitive product. Even on the TATL front, MSP has two LCC options. MSP's traffic is entirely one direction (US point of sale). You can't compare MSP to a city in Florida or San Diego. Those are tourism destinations. They get foreign point of sale travelers that create incentives foreign flagged carriers to serve those airports. As for DTW, they have the auto industry. MSP doesn't have an industry that comes close to that type of connection with Asia. DTW clearly deserves its selection of TPAC flights.

MSP is doing just fine and has a great selection of flights at reasonable prices (for a fortress hub). An ICN flight has a good chance of happening in the next 2 years as well and with that MSP will have better connectivity with Asia than ever.

I was just going to write the same thing about MSP. Minneapolis/St. Paul and the surrounding area is simply not a draw for international tourists due to a lack of attractions, severe winter climate and its geographical location. As you mentioned the lack of an international tourist market means that foreign flagged carriers have no reason to serve MSP. Even here in the United States I have yet to meet one person who would go to MSP for a vacation.

We do have attractions: MOA, Valleyfair, Sports games, the lakes, MN's largest candy store, Downtown. But I get that they are not world renown. But we do get tourists, just not as much from far off places. We get a ton of tourists from the midwest, and i have met people at the mall or at Twins games who are here for leisure. Our tourist market is just not as big as San Diego and Tampa because thise coties have coastlines. We do have a decent tourist market though, and I would urge you to visit sometime.

And the MN zoo. The zoo is awesome and draws a lot if tourists.

Plus, look at DEN. I am sure I will come under fire from this from DEN people, but they barely have any attractions, and the ones they do, like MSP, are merely regional. Yet they have a ton of international airlines, and a United hub.

MinnesotaPlanes wrote:

Plus, look at DEN. I am sure I will come under fire from this from DEN people, but they barely have any attractions, and the ones they do, like MSP, are merely regional. Yet they have a ton of international airlines, and a United hub.

DEN has a larger catchment to draw from. Sometimes being isolated isn't a bad thing. There is no real competition in the region. MSP as ORD right down the road.

SteveXC500 wrote:

While I am a MN resident and I admit I would rather (at least in winter) visit FL, Mall of America gets 40 million visitors annually. Disney World is at about 20 million. I'll grant there is not much else to see or do in MN outside of summer, but I wouldn't say there is a lack of tourism. I catch plenty of foreign languages being spoken in the mall every visit.

MOA is not a world known tourist attraction, I have even brought up the MOA with people who aren't from the midwest and they have no idea what I am talking about.

Just getting nitpicky here, but that 40 million number is not accurate, the only way that is possible is if they are counting the same people over and over again, the math on that just doesn't work. It says "the MOA generates 40 million annual visitors, one-third traveling from outside of 150 miles.(Just for reference MOA to La Crosse is 150 miles)" If only 1/3 travel from outside 150 miles, then that means 2/3 rds come from within 150 miles, which is laughable, because the number of people living within 150 miles of the MOA is not even close to 2/3rds of 40 million, and even if you combine the state populations of Wisconsin/Minnesota/North Dakota/South Dakota/Nebraska and Iowa you don't even get close to 27 million.

Sorry for the tangent, but the ultimate arguement I am making is that the MOA is really only a midwest/upper midwest tourist attraction, and for the most part mostly winter destination.

dfwjim1 wrote:

I was just going to write the same thing about MSP. Minneapolis/St. Paul and the surrounding area is simply not a draw for international tourists due to a lack of attractions, severe winter climate and its geographical location. As you mentioned the lack of an international tourist market means that foreign flagged carriers have no reason to serve MSP. Even here in the United States I have yet to meet one person who would go to MSP for a vacation.

Although MSP doesn't have the tourist demand from outside, that's only half the equation. Don't forget the other half which is the MSP market going out. The good local economy and propensity to travel means that the locals are the tourists, and that tourism usually starts or ends in MSP. If I had to guess, I'd say the two halves equal out at worst, making MSP somewhat average in total tourism demand.

Midwestindy wrote:

SteveXC500 wrote:

While I am a MN resident and I admit I would rather (at least in winter) visit FL, Mall of America gets 40 million visitors annually. Disney World is at about 20 million. I'll grant there is not much else to see or do in MN outside of summer, but I wouldn't say there is a lack of tourism. I catch plenty of foreign languages being spoken in the mall every visit.

MOA is not a world known tourist attraction, I have even brought up the MOA with people who aren't from the midwest and they have no idea what I am talking about.

Just getting nitpicky here, but that 40 million number is not accurate, the only way that is possible is if they are counting the same people over and over again, the math on that just doesn't work. It says "the MOA generates 40 million annual visitors, one-third traveling from outside of 150 miles." If only 1/3 travel from outside 150 miles, then that means 2/3 rds come from within 150 miles, which is laughable, because the number of people living within 150 miles of the MOA is not even close to 2/3rds of 40 million, and even if you combine the state populations of Wisconsin/Minnesota/North Dakota/South Dakota/Nebraska and Iowa you don't even get close to 27 million.

Sorry for the tangent, but the ultimate arguement I am making is that the MOA is really only a midwest/upper midwest tourist attraction, and for the most part mostly winter destination.

In the late 90s, it was a big deal. There were foreign vacation packages literally built around MoA tourism at that time. You'd see tourists in the winter that landed at MSP, took a shuttle to a hotel nearby and then just shuttled back and forth between the mall and the hotel. They literally didn't step onto the ground the entire trip. There were no other mega malls in the world. MoA was a wonder in and of itself. As I mentioned, Japanese tourism to MoA was a non-trivial number. And there was European point of sale traffic as well.

Today there are arguably better malls in the US and certainly internationally. MoA is now a regional thing at best and doesn't carry the cachet that it once had.

And, with the MSP 2035 plan, Terminal 1 will be exclusive to SkyTeam. New gates will be built, at least 20 of those gates for international arrivals, and at least 13 for wide-bodies. That means that since terminal 1 will be SkyTeam exclusive, we could see KE, AM, AR and like I said before,, maybe even MU flights. Probably a increased AF and KLM presence also.

Realistically, ICN is the only additional Asia long haul I could see MSP supporting. MSP-China is quite small in market size so I dont see a real reason for MSP-PVG.

MinnesotaPlanes wrote:

Plus, look at DEN. I am sure I will come under fire from this from DEN people, but they barely have any attractions, and the ones they do, like MSP, are merely regional. Yet they have a ton of international airlines, and a United hub.

You are completely discounting many aspects that cause DEN to be a significant draw for tourism, business travel, and higher propensity to travel
- Access to the Rocky Mountains
- Ski Industry and the world-class resorts throughout Colorado
- One of the fastest growing metro areas in the nation
- Significant amount of transplant residents from both the east and west coasts moving to Colorado for lifestyle, quality of life, and in the case of those from CA lower cost of living
- High-tech industries and knowledge-based economy
- Geographically isolated from other major metro areas

lavalampluva wrote:

MSP had flights to FCO last summer, but it just didn't pan out. I think loads were averaging around 65-70%. IMO it failed because it wasn't marketed well, and the USD$ didn't have the buying power to make traveling to Italy attractive.

Something was pretty strange with that flight.
When DL announced MSP-FCO in Oct15 for S16, it was supposed to be a 3 months daily service (Jun-Aug) onboard 763.
Then in Apr16 they decided to switch to a larger 764 and to extend the route by 1 month (Jun-Sep), there were no signs of a low performance.

I’d like to say yes, but from a realistic perspective I’d have to say no.

The fact is that for many reasons previously stated, there is not a lot of draw for international TATL/TPAC airlines to fly to MSP. The ones that do (with the exception of AC) tend to either be seasonal flights with for the purpose of seasonal leisure travel, or ‘shuttle’ flights for passengers with connections on one or both endpoints (or, if on FI, a stop in the middle).

However, if I were to make predictions...

TATL:
I really only see two paths for legitimate growth, exclusively with Europe as there’s really no demand for any other region currently.
Firstly, and most boringly, would be an increase in seat capacity on DL/KL/AF flights to LHR/AMS/CDG. While it could happen on KL and AF, as well as VS if it joined the party, it would be the most likely (and the most sense) if it happened on DL.
The second path sees overseas LCCs. With the right aircraft, destination, and price, these airlines could stand to have very profitable routes, although DL might fight them (price-wise) for it (either way customers stand to benefit).
Oh, and klakzky123:

klakzky123 wrote:

KEF is a retaliation route.

I actually believe MSP-KEF was originally a seasonal equipment rotation for JFK-KEF, but became successful enough that it became a stand alone flight.

Now on to TPAC:
Here, I see three options: KE, China, and “Door Number Three”.
With Anderson gone, DL can finally do what should have done years ago: grow a strong JV with KE. Among its Asian partners, KE has the most developed networks and reliable operations, and as the JV progresses, it’s very reasonable that one of them, preferably KE but most likely DL, begins an ICN route. However, should this happen, it could have ramifications for DL’s HND route, and it might end up dropping it or forfeiting the slot to another carrier.
As for China, there’s a lot of growth potential, and I would not rule out a future flight to PEK, CAN or (most preferably and likely) PVG. However, MU, and to a similar but less related point CZ, are not nearly as close to reaching a level of operational capability that DL’s other JVs are, and neither is the Chinese gov., esp. with the necessary open skies agreements. So yes, 我觉得中国是很好, but in the very distant future.
Now, Door Number Three. This is my “that bloke’s gotta be crazy” idea. I forsee a future where an airline flies from MSP to SE Asia. This may be to HAN, SGN, or CGK on either DL, VN, or GA. I think that SE-A will become a very strong market (not that it isn’t now) and there is potential for both ends, direct but mainly connecting. If this never came to fruition, I would not be surprised in the least, but I call MSP’s international wild card as one of a SE-A suit.

So that’s my say. Maybe one day DL resurrect NW’s short and ill-fated MSP-HKG and it’ll be an astounding success, but one can only dream...

Midwestindy wrote:

SteveXC500 wrote:

While I am a MN resident and I admit I would rather (at least in winter) visit FL, Mall of America gets 40 million visitors annually. Disney World is at about 20 million. I'll grant there is not much else to see or do in MN outside of summer, but I wouldn't say there is a lack of tourism. I catch plenty of foreign languages being spoken in the mall every visit.

MOA is not a world known tourist attraction, I have even brought up the MOA with people who aren't from the midwest and they have no idea what I am talking about.

Just getting nitpicky here, but that 40 million number is not accurate, the only way that is possible is if they are counting the same people over and over again, the math on that just doesn't work. It says "the MOA generates 40 million annual visitors, one-third traveling from outside of 150 miles.(Just for reference MOA to La Crosse is 150 miles)" If only 1/3 travel from outside 150 miles, then that means 2/3 rds come from within 150 miles, which is laughable, because the number of people living within 150 miles of the MOA is not even close to 2/3rds of 40 million, and even if you combine the state populations of Wisconsin/Minnesota/North Dakota/South Dakota/Nebraska and Iowa you don't even get close to 27 million.

Sorry for the tangent, but the ultimate arguement I am making is that the MOA is really only a midwest/upper midwest tourist attraction, and for the most part mostly winter destination.

Clearly if I visit the mall 1x per month, I am 12 visitors. It's about a body in the doors, not a different name/face. No worries on the tangent. It is quite regional, but I don't want the argument of no tourism/attractions slip by easily. Whenever we have international guests for work, they go there.

LIPZ wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

MSP had flights to FCO last summer, but it just didn't pan out. I think loads were averaging around 65-70%. IMO it failed because it wasn't marketed well, and the USD$ didn't have the buying power to make traveling to Italy attractive.

Something was pretty strange with that flight.
When DL announced MSP-FCO in Oct15 for S16, it was supposed to be a 3 months daily service (Jun-Aug) onboard 763.
Then in Apr16 they decided to switch to a larger 764 and to extend the route by 1 month (Jun-Sep), there were no signs of a low performance.

Personally I think they had an a/c sitting around and slipped that route into the rotation.

As someone who has flown out of MSP about 60 times this year, i feel MSP really holds its own well. As far as additions, i think Lufthansa will happen one day, i would have preferred them to Condor. DL tried and didn't succeed with FCO. I personally would love something to far Western Europe, like MAD, every trip there requires backtracking or connecting.

I don't see any South American destinations happening, its just to simply to connect in DFW/MIA. Maybe, big maybe, COPA.

For Asia/west coast, the growth of Seattle really limits that. I could see AC servicing MSP from YVR in the future for feed to their Asia/Australia flights. ICN will happen, as many have posted.

If i could wish for anything, it would be better CBP facilities at MSP. Having two undersized locations between T1/T2 is less than desirable. On my most recent inbound intl flight into T2 on Icelander, it took 1 hr 55 minutes to clear customs...

Adam

Maxvokia wrote:

I’d like to say yes, but from a realistic perspective I’d have to say no.

The fact is that for many reasons previously stated, there is not a lot of draw for international TATL/TPAC airlines to fly to MSP. The ones that do (with the exception of AC) tend to either be seasonal flights with for the purpose of seasonal leisure travel, or ‘shuttle’ flights for passengers with connections on one or both endpoints (or, if on FI, a stop in the middle).

However, if I were to make predictions...

TATL:
I really only see two paths for legitimate growth, exclusively with Europe as there’s really no demand for any other region currently.
Firstly, and most boringly, would be an increase in seat capacity on DL/KL/AF flights to LHR/AMS/CDG. While it could happen on KL and AF, as well as VS if it joined the party, it would be the most likely (and the most sense) if it happened on DL.
The second path sees overseas LCCs. With the right aircraft, destination, and price, these airlines could stand to have very profitable routes, although DL might fight them (price-wise) for it (either way customers stand to benefit).
Oh, and klakzky123:

klakzky123 wrote:

KEF is a retaliation route.

I actually believe MSP-KEF was originally a seasonal equipment rotation for JFK-KEF, but became successful enough that it became a stand alone flight.

Now on to TPAC:
Here, I see three options: KE, China, and “Door Number Three”.
With Anderson gone, DL can finally do what should have done years ago: grow a strong JV with KE. Among its Asian partners, KE has the most developed networks and reliable operations, and as the JV progresses, it’s very reasonable that one of them, preferably KE but most likely DL, begins an ICN route. However, should this happen, it could have ramifications for DL’s HND route, and it might end up dropping it or forfeiting the slot to another carrier.
As for China, there’s a lot of growth potential, and I would not rule out a future flight to PEK, CAN or (most preferably and likely) PVG. However, MU, and to a similar but less related point CZ, are not nearly as close to reaching a level of operational capability that DL’s other JVs are, and neither is the Chinese gov., esp. with the necessary open skies agreements. So yes, 我觉得中国是很好, but in the very distant future.
Now, Door Number Three. This is my “that bloke’s gotta be crazy” idea. I forsee a future where an airline flies from MSP to SE Asia. This may be to HAN, SGN, or CGK on either DL, VN, or GA. I think that SE-A will become a very strong market (not that it isn’t now) and there is potential for both ends, direct but mainly connecting. If this never came to fruition, I would not be surprised in the least, but I call MSP’s international wild card as one of a SE-A suit.

So that’s my say. Maybe one day DL resurrect NW’s short and ill-fated MSP-HKG and it’ll be an astounding success, but one can only dream...

That would be a good idea, espicially with MN's large Hmong, Vietnamese, and overall Asian population. I have friends who often visit their family in Vietnam and the Phillipines. It would be much more convinent for them and for many others to fly direct rather than connecting through HND, and DL or any other airline like MU, KE, ANA, or even VN or OZ could operate a long and skinny route with an A350 or 787.

When talking about Minneapolis long haul service, and especially the vast MSP-AMS operation, it is important to put it in historical context. MSP was a forerunner for the modern code share and later immunized joint venture system. Although you saw various forms of transnational cooperation, from TWA's work with Saudia in the 1970s to the short-lived United-BA partnership, Northwest-KLM solidified the long term, coordinated marketing and operational relationship that transformed both carriers' route systems, and that made MSP-AMS and DTW-AMS much more important global routes than they otherwise would have been. The MSP route saw far more service than this market would have gotten without the NW-KL deal, with 747-200B(SUD) service from KLM and with 747-100/-200B service from Northwest in the 1990s, and then multiple dailies with NW DC-10-30s in the 2000s. The partner hub system is obviously now standard at all carriers after the JV system blew up in the 2000s. But for MSP, the fortress hub and the code share alliance system has been standard for 30 years. Thus, this whole debate isn't really even about what DL is doing today, but rather about a system that Northwest engineered in the 1980s and 1990s, and that made Northwest an extremely successful company. It is a system that was also crucial to keeping British Airways and Lufthansa out of Minneapolis - simply because NW/KL controlled so much of the business market between the upper Midwest and Europe.

A MEX-MSP flight has been mooted in filings with the DOT as part of the AM-DL JV. So that should be just a matter of time.

An MSP-ICN flight seems likely once the DL-KE JV matures somewhat. A couple years probably, though the local market is still tiny (PDEW at the end of the post.)

Richard Anderson said MSP would have a PVG flight in the nearish future, but that's contingent on the US-China air service agreement getting more frequencies and further market development. And of course he's not Delta CEO any more. That said, in terms of unserved international destinations, PVG is the second-largest.

On the TATL, I'd actually guess DUB is the most likely to get a direct flight, if anything. It's fairly short, has more PDEW than KEF and it is likely high yielding, with Medtronic having moved its corporate HQ to Ireland.

PDEW by market (Source: Intervistas)
* = unserved

Long-haul
LHR: 118
AMS: 57
CDG: 57
FRA: 48
*PVG: 36
* DUB: 34
* FCO: 32
KEF: 30 (How both DL and FI make this work is beyond me...)
TYO: 30
*NBO: 28
*PEK: 26
*MUC: 24
*ICN: 22

Short-haul
CUN: 271
YYZ: 137
PVR: 92
PUJ: 85
YVR: 64
MBJ: 60
SJD: 55
YYC: 49
YUL: 45
*MEX: 41

MSPNWA wrote:

TW870 wrote:

I'm curious what you or others think the alternative is. Do you want a weaker fortress hub or a stronger one? Obviously yes, without the fortress hub, Minneapolis would get British Airways and Lufthansa service to LHR and FRA respectively, and perhaps one Asian carrier such as a JL 788 to NRT. But for that to be possible, there would not be able to be a Skyteam fortress, because those international carriers would need a larger slice of local business markets than they can get with Skyteam here.

Is it that you want Delta to serve Madrid or Rome or Munich or all of them non-stop? But to do that you would need an even stronger fortress hub that could draw west coast connecting traffic away from JFK and DTW and other strong Skyteam hubs. Or is it that you want Delta to go away to allow others to step in? But if that were the case, then who do you think would or should serve routes such as MSP-GEG or FWA or ROC that would be very, very difficult to serve without the economies of a fortress hub? It would sure be cool to see an LH 346 at MSP, but I commute for work to DAY from MSP, and BA and LH and JL wouldn't be of any use to me because most of my work travel - and that of most other people in Minneapolis - is within the U.S.

A weaker hub would be beneficial to the the airport and local traffic. There comes a point when hubs become too strong. When airlines get that level of market power, capacity and networks are restricted, competitors are scared or forced off, and local passengers pay a high average price for reduced service. A healthy airport is a competitive airport with one or more viable hubs. This level of competition generally stimulates demand, adds to their capacity and networks, and offers lower prices to local traffic. Current examples include SEA, LAX, ORD, DEN, and SFO. A stronger fortress hub is not the answer to MSP's lack of international variety. In order for that to break, DL needs competition to force it out of its shell. Currently DL has no need to fly to other destinations because it can simply force local traffic over JV hubs. And because it's in a fortress position, other airlines are scared off from trying. It also doesn't help that the MSP airport commission is clueless about competition and has always sucked up to the hub carrier, whether it be NW or DL.

klm617 wrote:

While I agree with most of this post MSP does have FI and DE to compete against DL and MSP does have FRA service.

Yes, thanks. I know I didn't say that right, but I can't edit it now. What it should say is no LH service and no year-round or even daily seasonal FRA service.

DTW's LH service brings much more competition to the table than at MSP, so you can't complain about that.

From a customer service stand point yes we have a choice between DL and LH but price wise they are both on the high end.

LIPZ wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

MSP had flights to FCO last summer, but it just didn't pan out. I think loads were averaging around 65-70%. IMO it failed because it wasn't marketed well, and the USD$ didn't have the buying power to make traveling to Italy attractive.

Something was pretty strange with that flight.
When DL announced MSP-FCO in Oct15 for S16, it was supposed to be a 3 months daily service (Jun-Aug) onboard 763.
Then in Apr16 they decided to switch to a larger 764 and to extend the route by 1 month (Jun-Sep), there were no signs of a low performance.

I actually think the MSP-FCO route was a bone thrown to MSP not to upset the powers that be in the Minnesota when DTW was given MUC. But in time Delta came up with a better plan to appease the Minnesota powers that be by upping MSP-AMS by adding 3 weekly KLM rotations at the expenses of DTW-AMS and adding HNL frequencies a much better profit yielding plan than operating FCO-MSP and no one gets upset.

MinnesotaPlanes wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

klakzky123 wrote:

Some of you are crazy. MSP has a 2nd hub carrier (Sun Country) that offers a fantastic selection of destinations and has a competitive product. Even on the TATL front, MSP has two LCC options. MSP's traffic is entirely one direction (US point of sale). You can't compare MSP to a city in Florida or San Diego. Those are tourism destinations. They get foreign point of sale travelers that create incentives foreign flagged carriers to serve those airports. As for DTW, they have the auto industry. MSP doesn't have an industry that comes close to that type of connection with Asia. DTW clearly deserves its selection of TPAC flights.

MSP is doing just fine and has a great selection of flights at reasonable prices (for a fortress hub). An ICN flight has a good chance of happening in the next 2 years as well and with that MSP will have better connectivity with Asia than ever.

I was just going to write the same thing about MSP. Minneapolis/St. Paul and the surrounding area is simply not a draw for international tourists due to a lack of attractions, severe winter climate and its geographical location. As you mentioned the lack of an international tourist market means that foreign flagged carriers have no reason to serve MSP. Even here in the United States I have yet to meet one person who would go to MSP for a vacation.

We do have attractions: MOA, Valleyfair, Sports games, the lakes, MN's largest candy store, Downtown. But I get that they are not world renown. But we do get tourists, just not as much from far off places. We get a ton of tourists from the midwest, and i have met people at the mall or at Twins games who are here for leisure. Our tourist market is just not as big as San Diego and Tampa because thise coties have coastlines. We do have a decent tourist market though, and I would urge you to visit sometime.

I hope I didn't offend you by what I wrote and I should have mentioned that I have visited MSP and really liked the area. However, except for people in your region, most people who are planning a vacation do not even consider MSP as an option. I lived in DFW for a number of years and most of the tourism into that area was regional just like MSP as people going on vacation do not consider the DFW as an option.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

MinnesotaPlanes wrote:

Plus, look at DEN. I am sure I will come under fire from this from DEN people, but they barely have any attractions, and the ones they do, like MSP, are merely regional. Yet they have a ton of international airlines, and a United hub.

You are completely discounting many aspects that cause DEN to be a significant draw for tourism, business travel, and higher propensity to travel
- Access to the Rocky Mountains
- Ski Industry and the world-class resorts throughout Colorado
- One of the fastest growing metro areas in the nation
- Significant amount of transplant residents from both the east and west coasts moving to Colorado for lifestyle, quality of life, and in the case of those from CA lower cost of living
- High-tech industries and knowledge-based economy
- Geographically isolated from other major metro areas

Denver and the metro area is awesome for the above reasons plus the weather is decent, Colorado Springs is close by and Denver International makes getting anywhere within the United States very easy.

Midwestindy wrote:

SteveXC500 wrote:

While I am a MN resident and I admit I would rather (at least in winter) visit FL, Mall of America gets 40 million visitors annually. Disney World is at about 20 million. I'll grant there is not much else to see or do in MN outside of summer, but I wouldn't say there is a lack of tourism. I catch plenty of foreign languages being spoken in the mall every visit.

MOA is not a world known tourist attraction, I have even brought up the MOA with people who aren't from the midwest and they have no idea what I am talking about.

Just getting nitpicky here, but that 40 million number is not accurate, the only way that is possible is if they are counting the same people over and over again, the math on that just doesn't work. It says "the MOA generates 40 million annual visitors, one-third traveling from outside of 150 miles.(Just for reference MOA to La Crosse is 150 miles)" If only 1/3 travel from outside 150 miles, then that means 2/3 rds come from within 150 miles, which is laughable, because the number of people living within 150 miles of the MOA is not even close to 2/3rds of 40 million, and even if you combine the state populations of Wisconsin/Minnesota/North Dakota/South Dakota/Nebraska and Iowa you don't even get close to 27 million.

Sorry for the tangent, but the ultimate arguement I am making is that the MOA is really only a midwest/upper midwest tourist attraction, and for the most part mostly winter destination.

I'm sure the 40 million number is roughly accurate. They're not counting 40 million unique individuals, they're counting visits. So, if 3 million residents of the metro area each visit MOA four times a year, that's counted as 12 million visitors right there.

klm617 wrote:

LIPZ wrote:

lavalampluva wrote:

MSP had flights to FCO last summer, but it just didn't pan out. I think loads were averaging around 65-70%. IMO it failed because it wasn't marketed well, and the USD$ didn't have the buying power to make traveling to Italy attractive.

Something was pretty strange with that flight.
When DL announced MSP-FCO in Oct15 for S16, it was supposed to be a 3 months daily service (Jun-Aug) onboard 763.
Then in Apr16 they decided to switch to a larger 764 and to extend the route by 1 month (Jun-Sep), there were no signs of a low performance.

I actually think the MSP-FCO route was a bone thrown to MSP not to upset the powers that be in the Minnesota when DTW was given MUC. But in time Delta came up with a better plan to appease the Minnesota powers that be by upping MSP-AMS by adding 3 weekly KLM rotations at the expenses of DTW-AMS and adding HNL frequencies a much better profit yielding plan than operating FCO-MSP and no one gets upset.

Actually FCO was never that big a deal. The HNL flight was a far more important thing. I think there were some incentives given to DL for that one. And everyone really wanted that one to come back. Consequently no one really protested all that much about the FCO flight since it resulted in a longer season for the HNL flight.

Don't much about the market in Minneapolis but how about Rome or Madrid as destinations in Europe.
Would they work?

TheGeordielad wrote:

Don't much about the market in Minneapolis but how about Rome or Madrid as destinations in Europe.
Would they work?

I think with the right airline they could. The fares DL was charging for MSP-FCO were pretty steep. A low cost carrier might be able to pull it off.

kimimm19 wrote:

From my understanding, MSP is a good business city, though not like the top tier US cities. I would think it's more about Delta and whether they concentrate more of their efforts to it or not.

It's actually in the top 10. Here is what I found for cities (urban areas) with the most Fortune 1000 companies

1. New York- 114
2. Chicago- 62
3. Houston- 46
4. Dallas/Ft. Worth- 38
5. Los Angeles- 32
6. San Jose- 31
7. Washington D.C.- 30
8. Atlanta- 27
9. Minneapolis- 26
10. Philadelphia- 26

lavalampluva wrote:

TheGeordielad wrote:

Don't much about the market in Minneapolis but how about Rome or Madrid as destinations in Europe.
Would they work?

I think with the right airline they could. The fares DL was charging for MSP-FCO were pretty steep. A low cost carrier might be able to pull it off.

To add Rome is such a leisure market, most flyers to Rome are leisure oriented with lower overall fares.

TheGeordielad wrote:

Don't much about the market in Minneapolis but how about Rome or Madrid as destinations in Europe.
Would they work?

Rome was attempted and didn't work out. Minnesotans tend to go to warm weather spots and generally go south. MSP connectivity to the Caribbean and Mexican vacation spots is as good as any city in the US for that reason.

Madrid generally requires some level of business traffic which MSP doesn't have (or if you happen to have an AA hub)

klakzky123 wrote:

TheGeordielad wrote:

Don't much about the market in Minneapolis but how about Rome or Madrid as destinations in Europe.
Would they work?

Rome was attempted and didn't work out. Minnesotans tend to go to warm weather spots and generally go south. MSP connectivity to the Caribbean and Mexican vacation spots is as good as any city in the US for that reason.

Madrid generally requires some level of business traffic which MSP doesn't have (or if you happen to have an AA hub)

MSP doesn't seems to have much flights to South America either?

[quote="jrkmsp"On the TATL, I'd actually guess DUB is the most likely to get a direct flight, if anything. It's fairly short, has more PDEW than KEF and it is likely high yielding, with Medtronic having moved its corporate HQ to Ireland.

PDEW by market (Source: Intervistas)
* = unserved

Long-haul
LHR: 118
AMS: 57
CDG: 57
FRA: 48
*PVG: 36
* DUB: 34
* FCO: 32
KEF: 30 (How both DL and FI make this work is beyond me...)[/quote]

Does anyone know the PDEW for DTW-DUB? If DL ever announced MSP-DUB over DTW-DUB this website would implode!

The answer to this is is a big, resounding, no. They already have enough DL flights to those destinations and what would be the point of adding more? As previously stated, there is not a huge international tourist draw to the area.

MSP should simply be thankful they are still a hub for DL and they have the amount of service they have. If I were DL, I would seriously consider closing (or at least significantly scaling back) either the MSP or DTW hub, whichever one is weaker. They both seem very redundant.

dfwjim1 wrote:

MinnesotaPlanes wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

I was just going to write the same thing about MSP. Minneapolis/St. Paul and the surrounding area is simply not a draw for international tourists due to a lack of attractions, severe winter climate and its geographical location. As you mentioned the lack of an international tourist market means that foreign flagged carriers have no reason to serve MSP. Even here in the United States I have yet to meet one person who would go to MSP for a vacation.

We do have attractions: MOA, Valleyfair, Sports games, the lakes, MN's largest candy store, Downtown. But I get that they are not world renown. But we do get tourists, just not as much from far off places. We get a ton of tourists from the midwest, and i have met people at the mall or at Twins games who are here for leisure. Our tourist market is just not as big as San Diego and Tampa because thise coties have coastlines. We do have a decent tourist market though, and I would urge you to visit sometime.

I hope I didn't offend you by what I wrote and I should have mentioned that I have visited MSP and really liked the area. However, except for people in your region, most people who are planning a vacation do not even consider MSP as an option. I lived in DFW for a number of years and most of the tourism into that area was regional just like MSP as people going on vacation do not consider the DFW as an option.

You never offended me. I was semi-angry that some people were counting out MSP as a tourist destanation because it does not have really anything world-renown like SAN, SEA, or MIA. MSP is really a lovely place and we should get much more visitors. Plus, people always think that we Minnesotans live in log cabins on lakes and there is nothing there except a frozen prarie. But we actually have so many businesses like Target, 3M, Medtronic, Thomson Reuters, Boston Scientific, Best Buy and much more. Also the MSP metro has more wealth then many people would expect.

Okay, look at PHL. It may be much bigger of a city (population wise),and some might even see it a NYC's 4th airport, but PHL is right in JFK's backyard, but they get a TON of international flights. Also, in another post someone stated on a list that MSP had as many Fortune 500 companies as PHL. Plus, IMO, MSP would be much more attractive to a business.

MinnesotaPlanes wrote:

Okay, look at PHL. It may be much bigger of a city (population wise),and some might even see it a NYC's 4th airport, but PHL is right in JFK's backyard, but they get a TON of international flights. Also, in another post someone stated on a list that MSP had as many Fortune 500 companies as PHL. Plus, IMO, MSP would be much more attractive to a business.

That's more due to PHL's favorable geography to Europe than anything else. MSP's location is great for domestic people moving, and can do great work for hub to hub international traffic. But it's not well suited geographically to funnel traffic to thinner long haul destinations.

blockski wrote:

MinnesotaPlanes wrote:

Okay, look at PHL. It may be much bigger of a city (population wise),and some might even see it a NYC's 4th airport, but PHL is right in JFK's backyard, but they get a TON of international flights. Also, in another post someone stated on a list that MSP had as many Fortune 500 companies as PHL. Plus, IMO, MSP would be much more attractive to a business.

That's more due to PHL's favorable geography to Europe than anything else. MSP's location is great for domestic people moving, and can do great work for hub to hub international traffic. But it's not well suited geographically to funnel traffic to thinner long haul destinations.

Has nothing to do with geography PHL was a huge international hub for USAIR and then American. The only real other Europen carriers that serve PHL are LH, BA and FI so not really a lot of diversity there either.

c933103 wrote:

klakzky123 wrote:

TheGeordielad wrote:

Don't much about the market in Minneapolis but how about Rome or Madrid as destinations in Europe.
Would they work?

Rome was attempted and didn't work out. Minnesotans tend to go to warm weather spots and generally go south. MSP connectivity to the Caribbean and Mexican vacation spots is as good as any city in the US for that reason.

Madrid generally requires some level of business traffic which MSP doesn't have (or if you happen to have an AA hub)

MSP doesn't seems to have much flights to South America either?

It doesnt. There's no business or leisure demand for South America. Generally, people in Minnesota go as far as the Caribbean for vacations. The closest you can get is Aruba (which SY started and DL quickly matched). DL has a strong tendency to match whatever SY tries so as a result, MSP seems to be overserved as far as Mexican and Caribbean travel goes but they both seem to make it work.

I'm not so sure Mexico and the Caribbean are overserved, especially during Spring Break. Flew to CUN last March on a packed A333 on DL. From what I heard from friends, SY was packed to CUN as well.

klm617 wrote:

blockski wrote:

MinnesotaPlanes wrote:

Okay, look at PHL. It may be much bigger of a city (population wise),and some might even see it a NYC's 4th airport, but PHL is right in JFK's backyard, but they get a TON of international flights. Also, in another post someone stated on a list that MSP had as many Fortune 500 companies as PHL. Plus, IMO, MSP would be much more attractive to a business.

That's more due to PHL's favorable geography to Europe than anything else. MSP's location is great for domestic people moving, and can do great work for hub to hub international traffic. But it's not well suited geographically to funnel traffic to thinner long haul destinations.

Has nothing to do with geography PHL was a huge international hub for USAIR and then American. The only real other Europen carriers that serve PHL are LH, BA and FI so not really a lot of diversity there either.

And why was PHL a big international hub for USAir? Because of the east coast location making it a good gateway to Europe.

The nature of the carriers (international or domestic) is mostly irrelevant. There's a reason the big east coast airports have lots of flights to a wide range of European destinations. Likewise, there's a reason the big west coast airports serve a more diverse set of Asian destinations. The geography matters.

ADrum23 wrote:

The answer to this is is a big, resounding, no. They already have enough DL flights to those destinations and what would be the point of adding more? As previously stated, there is not a huge international tourist draw to the area.

MSP should simply be thankful they are still a hub for DL and they have the amount of service they have. If I were DL, I would seriously consider closing (or at least significantly scaling back) either the MSP or DTW hub, whichever one is weaker. They both seem very redundant.

Shows what little you know.

MinnesotaPlanes wrote:

And the MN zoo. The zoo is awesome and draws a lot if tourists.

No one is packing their bags and flying to Minneapolis for the zoo.

blockski wrote:

klm617 wrote:

blockski wrote:

That's more due to PHL's favorable geography to Europe than anything else. MSP's location is great for domestic people moving, and can do great work for hub to hub international traffic. But it's not well suited geographically to funnel traffic to thinner long haul destinations.

Has nothing to do with geography PHL was a huge international hub for USAIR and then American. The only real other Europen carriers that serve PHL are LH, BA and FI so not really a lot of diversity there either.

And why was PHL a big international hub for USAir? Because of the east coast location making it a good gateway to Europe.

The nature of the carriers (international or domestic) is mostly irrelevant. There's a reason the big east coast airports have lots of flights to a wide range of European destinations. Likewise, there's a reason the big west coast airports serve a more diverse set of Asian destinations. The geography matters.

NO because PHL was the largest O/D hub it had in it's network not because it was near the east coast. Until Pittsburgh was dropped as their hub it had more international flights than the PHL hub. The reason the West Coast hubs have more service is because of the concentration of Asian people living there. If your theory was correct ANC would be a major hub to Asia.

klm617 wrote:

The reason the West Coast hubs have more service is because of the concentration of Asian people living there. If your theory was correct ANC would be a major hub to Asia.

You are a former NW employee, yes? You really are suggesting that Asian population of the west coast cities is much of a factor? How about the simple reality of shorter flights, better economics, most logical use of equipment and gateway cities? Feeding LAX, SFO, and especially SEA is plainly obvious to be relativity cheap and easy from the rest of the country and results in flexible connectivity to much of Asia.

The ANC comment isn't valid as it will never be a hub, but in the 707/closed Soviet/PRC airspace era, it often served as a tech stop, so same thing, really.
If Asian population were a major part of TPAC route drivers, JFK and IAD would both have more service than they do, but that extra distance and time does matter quite a bit.

stlgph wrote:

No one is packing their bags and flying to Minneapolis for the zoo.

Thank you for saying this. Minnesota is a great place to live, and there's a lot of stuff to do, but nobody wants to go to minnesota for vacation... and if they are, they're going to a cabin up north. Minneapolis, in and of itself, isn't a "tourist" destination. Other regions of the country (florida, san diego, NYC, rockies) are tourist draws but there's nothing about minneapolis that would attract another flight to Asia for that reason - if people are visiting Minneapolis, they're likely visiting other cities first (chicago, NYC, etc) and its usually easier to fly in that way anyways. That's why I think MSP is in a bad position... its easy to connect through DTW or SEA, and MSP in and of itself isn't a tourist attraction, and it doesn't have a ton of O/D business PAX. I don't really think the economics are quite there for yet another Asia flight.

MSP already has a lot of service to Europe, and MSP has a flight to Tokyo Haneda... I think MSP is in a good position right now.

jubguy3 wrote:

stlgph wrote:

No one is packing their bags and flying to Minneapolis for the zoo.

Thank you for saying this. Minnesota is a great place to live, and there's a lot of stuff to do, but nobody wants to go to minnesota for vacation... and if they are, they're going to a cabin up north. Minneapolis, in and of itself, isn't a "tourist" destination. Other regions of the country (florida, san diego, NYC, rockies) are tourist draws but there's nothing about minneapolis that would attract another flight to Asia for that reason - if people are visiting Minneapolis, they're likely visiting other cities first (chicago, NYC, etc) and its usually easier to fly in that way anyways. That's why I think MSP is in a bad position... its easy to connect through DTW or SEA, and MSP in and of itself isn't a tourist attraction, and it doesn't have a ton of O/D business PAX. I don't really think the economics are quite there for yet another Asia flight.

MSP already has a lot of service to Europe, and MSP has a flight to Tokyo Haneda... I think MSP is in a good position right now.

Never really thought of DTW being a tourist destination. DL could transfer most international flights from DTW to MSP and no one would notice.

Large West Coast cities have the advantage for TPAC flights due to location. East Coast cities have the same advantage for TATL flights. ORD has it's advantage because it's the 3rd largest city in the U.S.