usflyer msp wrote:

ILUVDC10S wrote:

NWAROOSTER wrote:

:old:

Having worked 37 years at Northwest I was fully aware of some of the shenanigans that was going on there. Richard being CEO of Northwest, resigns and goes to United Health whereby Doug Steenland takes charge of Northwest Airlines so as Richard will not get his name dirtied and run into the mud. Northwest forces a strike, actually a lock out with the mechanics represented by the useless association AMFA. Gets rid of the excess mechanics that Richard publicly stated he should never had hired along with many other employees as the purpose of the "strike" was to downsize Northwest for an already planned merger with Delta. Both Northwest and Delta file for bankruptcy on the same day as I previously gave the reasons for above. Both airlines shed debt and unwanted leases and aircraft that were not going to be needed. Northwest in particular, needed to shed obligations and debt that were put on due the acquisition of Northwest Airlines by Alfred E. Chechi, Fred Maleck and Gary Wilson. Delta Air Lines had been a take over target by U S Airways and possibly others. Delta and Northwest has planned there merger well before any bankruptcies. When Delta Air Lines exits bankruptcy Richard suddenly joins Delta's Board of Directors and shortly after resigns from United Health to become CEO of Delta Air Lines. The merger is announced and Richard appears before the Senate stating that the NEW Delta has NO intention of exiting Memphis. The merger is approved and Delta lives on. Memphis is downsized to the point of almost extinction. Almost looks like it could be made into a movie in Hollywood.

Well Thank you for confirming I was right after all ! And that I DO know alot about the airline business after all ! I owe ya one! think Crow s being served for Dinner in ATL & on Airliners.net right about now LOLOLOL. thank you for making my day !!!

That is basically the "urban legend" version. In reality, fuel prices were soaring in 2005 and part of bankruptcy law changes (under the BAPCPA of 2005) was that after companies filed for bankruptcy the essentially had to pre-pay utility (i.e. fuel) bills and that would have sucked up the majority of DL/NW's remaining cash and required them to get much more financing for their bankruptcy reorganization. The new law went into effect on 10/15/05 but the federal courts starting winding down cases under the old law on 9/15 so both carriers filed C11 on the very last possible day - 9/14/05. It wasn't some sort of conspiracy; it was so both carriers could save cash and more easily finance their inevitable trip through bankruptcy court...

Don't understand how you can say urban legend. The new Delta kept almost none of it's promises about enhanced service and no hub closures Detroit alone lost 100 daily flights CVG and MEM were gutted and guess what the former NWA CEO showed up being the CEO of Delta go figure I would even go as far as saying that this was also done to bust the NWA unions as Delta was a more nonunion airline. A lot of corporate crookedness right there one reason why I don't trust Delta one bit employees and customers mean nothing in the grand scheme of things only shareholders and profit matter and if they could generate those without employee's I guarantee you they would it would be interesting to see what the full time work force total of the combined airlines was before the merger and what it is now and then tell me no one lost their jobs.

SteveXC500 wrote:

MSPSXMFLIER wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

I know MSP's Air Service development director and he is hoping B6 will be here in 2018. MSP is now their largest unserved market and MSP has been making strong pitches to lure them.

I would like to see an SY/B6 partnership. Maybe B6 can codeshare on SY's MSP-JFK flights and operate BOS and FLL with their own metal.

Over the last couple years, I've sent more than a few emails to JetBlue, practically pleading for them to enter the MSP market. I had never thought about the idea of a code sharing arrangement with SY, but damn, if that isn't a great idea! JetBlue has such a strong presence in the Caribbean and it would be great to have a link between SY and B6 to get the wintertime vacationers from MSP to those Caribbean destinations not served by SY.

Curious what would SY need B6 for? They do well enough on their own to most of the country and the Carribean.

I agree that SY has held it's own, in a very crowded field for some years now, but if you look at Caribbean destinations served by SY and B6, you can clearly see that SY is no match for B6. Aruba is a nice addition for SY, but with B6 I can fly to Barbados and Grenada, among other islands. If B6 winds up not entering this market, I still think a code share agreement between the two would benefit both airlines. MSP passengers could fly from MSP-JFK on SY and then B6 can take them from JFK to wherever.

I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of how airlines operate and make their decisions, I'm just commenting on what I as a traveler would enjoy having as an option at my disposal during the winter months to get away for a week or two. I suppose it could be asked of me why I don't just take DL to where I want to go? I've flown DL a number of times since they acquired NW, but as nice as T1 is, T2 is even nicer to fly out of. T2 is compact with just 14 gates, TSA lines are never long, no switching between concourses. I can't think of a single DL flight that I was on, where even with a minimum of a 90 minute layover in ATL, I wasn't connecting between 2 of the 6 different concourses there. Yeah, I'm quite spoiled by SY and T2 and the simplicity of it all and I like that.

usflyer msp wrote:

[
That is basically the "urban legend" version. In reality, fuel prices were soaring in 2005 and part of bankruptcy law changes (under the BAPCPA of 2005) was that after companies filed for bankruptcy the essentially had to pre-pay utility (i.e. fuel) bills and that would have sucked up the majority of DL/NW's remaining cash and required them to get much more financing for their bankruptcy reorganization. The new law went into effect on 10/15/05 but the federal courts starting winding down cases under the old law on 9/15 so both carriers filed C11 on the very last possible day - 9/14/05. It wasn't some sort of conspiracy; it was so both carriers could save cash and more easily finance their inevitable trip through bankruptcy court...

That still doesn't answer how RA just happened to pop up in ATL right after.

klm617 wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

ILUVDC10S wrote:

Well Thank you for confirming I was right after all ! And that I DO know alot about the airline business after all ! I owe ya one! think Crow s being served for Dinner in ATL & on Airliners.net right about now LOLOLOL. thank you for making my day !!!

That is basically the "urban legend" version. In reality, fuel prices were soaring in 2005 and part of bankruptcy law changes (under the BAPCPA of 2005) was that after companies filed for bankruptcy the essentially had to pre-pay utility (i.e. fuel) bills and that would have sucked up the majority of DL/NW's remaining cash and required them to get much more financing for their bankruptcy reorganization. The new law went into effect on 10/15/05 but the federal courts starting winding down cases under the old law on 9/15 so both carriers filed C11 on the very last possible day - 9/14/05. It wasn't some sort of conspiracy; it was so both carriers could save cash and more easily finance their inevitable trip through bankruptcy court...

Don't understand how you can say urban legend. The new Delta kept almost none of it's promises about enhanced service and no hub closures Detroit alone lost 100 daily flights CVG and MEM were gutted and guess what the former NWA CEO showed up being the CEO of Delta go figure I would even go as far as saying that this was also done to bust the NWA unions as Delta was a more nonunion airline. A lot of corporate crookedness right there one reason why I don't trust Delta one bit employees and customers mean nothing in the grand scheme of things only shareholders and profit matter and if they could generate those without employee's I guarantee you they would it would be interesting to see what the full time work force total of the combined airlines was before the merger and what it is now and then tell me no one lost their jobs.

Elimination of FNT-DTW alone shed 8-9 flights alone!
NW Workforce 53,000 pre Merger
DL workforce 52,000 pre merger exit from BK
Total workforce 105,000 employees give or take a few thousand
Wiki & DL: says 80,000 current employees so more than 25,000 employees DID loose jobs That is a fricken H@&%l of a lot of employees to get rid of!

ILUVDC10S wrote:

klm617 wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

That is basically the "urban legend" version. In reality, fuel prices were soaring in 2005 and part of bankruptcy law changes (under the BAPCPA of 2005) was that after companies filed for bankruptcy the essentially had to pre-pay utility (i.e. fuel) bills and that would have sucked up the majority of DL/NW's remaining cash and required them to get much more financing for their bankruptcy reorganization. The new law went into effect on 10/15/05 but the federal courts starting winding down cases under the old law on 9/15 so both carriers filed C11 on the very last possible day - 9/14/05. It wasn't some sort of conspiracy; it was so both carriers could save cash and more easily finance their inevitable trip through bankruptcy court...

Don't understand how you can say urban legend. The new Delta kept almost none of it's promises about enhanced service and no hub closures Detroit alone lost 100 daily flights CVG and MEM were gutted and guess what the former NWA CEO showed up being the CEO of Delta go figure I would even go as far as saying that this was also done to bust the NWA unions as Delta was a more nonunion airline. A lot of corporate crookedness right there one reason why I don't trust Delta one bit employees and customers mean nothing in the grand scheme of things only shareholders and profit matter and if they could generate those without employee's I guarantee you they would it would be interesting to see what the full time work force total of the combined airlines was before the merger and what it is now and then tell me no one lost their jobs.

Elimination of FNT-DTW alone shed 8-9 flights alone!
NW Workforce 53,000 pre Merger
DL workforce 52,000 pre merger exit from BK
Total workforce 105,000 employees give or take a few thousand
Wiki & DL: says 80,000 current employees so more than 25,000 employees DID loose jobs That is a fricken H@&%l of a lot of employees to get rid of!

Actually, most of the decrease is due to the sale of Mesaba/Compas, the closure of Comair, and positions that were outsourced during bankruptcy...

usflyer msp wrote:

ILUVDC10S wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Don't understand how you can say urban legend. The new Delta kept almost none of it's promises about enhanced service and no hub closures Detroit alone lost 100 daily flights CVG and MEM were gutted and guess what the former NWA CEO showed up being the CEO of Delta go figure I would even go as far as saying that this was also done to bust the NWA unions as Delta was a more nonunion airline. A lot of corporate crookedness right there one reason why I don't trust Delta one bit employees and customers mean nothing in the grand scheme of things only shareholders and profit matter and if they could generate those without employee's I guarantee you they would it would be interesting to see what the full time work force total of the combined airlines was before the merger and what it is now and then tell me no one lost their jobs.

Elimination of FNT-DTW alone shed 8-9 flights alone!
NW Workforce 53,000 pre Merger
DL workforce 52,000 pre merger exit from BK
Total workforce 105,000 employees give or take a few thousand
Wiki & DL: says 80,000 current employees so more than 25,000 employees DID loose jobs That is a fricken H@&%l of a lot of employees to get rid of!

Actually, most of the decrease is due to the sale of Mesaba/Compas, the closure of Comair, and positions that were outsourced during bankruptcy...

Think those feeder carriers were independent just flying for NW thought and not counted in the core NW or DL staff numbers.

ILUVDC10S wrote:

Think those feeder carriers were independent just flying for NW thought and not counted in the core NW or DL staff numbers.

Since Compass & Comair were wholly owned by their parent airlines, their employees were probably counted in the total headcount for the parent airlines. When these entities got outsourced as well as other outsourcing -- a key part of the virtual airline strategy -- headcount inevitably went down. And considering Delta's ongoing outsourcing of ground handling, maintenance, etc., headcount will likely continue to go down.

ILUVDC10S wrote:

TheGeordielad wrote:

Could we see delta add Frankfurt to MSP list of destinations as well as PEK?

If they did add the FRA flight how much would that take away from the DTW flight? plus the hub to hub traffic from MSP-DTW to catch the DTW-FRA flight?

DTW has a lot of FRA passengers and it's actually the most popular international destination from DTW ahead of LHR so losing MSP pax wouldn't dent DTW-FRA, local automakers will fill those seats in both the US and Germany for both LH and DL.

flymco753 wrote:

ILUVDC10S wrote:

TheGeordielad wrote:

Could we see delta add Frankfurt to MSP list of destinations as well as PEK?

If they did add the FRA flight how much would that take away from the DTW flight? plus the hub to hub traffic from MSP-DTW to catch the DTW-FRA flight?

DTW has a lot of FRA passengers and it's actually the most popular international destination from DTW ahead of LHR so losing MSP pax wouldn't dent DTW-FRA, local automakers will fill those seats in both the US and Germany for both LH and DL.

Automakers aren't the only ones on those flights. Local industry doesn't do that much, maybe the Bay Area industries would. Ford, GM, Chrysler, and other auto vendors don't have that many employees flying to Germany every day.

MSPSXMFLIER wrote:

SteveXC500 wrote:

MSPSXMFLIER wrote:

Over the last couple years, I've sent more than a few emails to JetBlue, practically pleading for them to enter the MSP market. I had never thought about the idea of a code sharing arrangement with SY, but damn, if that isn't a great idea! JetBlue has such a strong presence in the Caribbean and it would be great to have a link between SY and B6 to get the wintertime vacationers from MSP to those Caribbean destinations not served by SY.

Curious what would SY need B6 for? They do well enough on their own to most of the country and the Carribean.

I agree that SY has held it's own, in a very crowded field for some years now, but if you look at Caribbean destinations served by SY and B6, you can clearly see that SY is no match for B6. Aruba is a nice addition for SY, but with B6 I can fly to Barbados and Grenada, among other islands. If B6 winds up not entering this market, I still think a code share agreement between the two would benefit both airlines. MSP passengers could fly from MSP-JFK on SY and then B6 can take them from JFK to wherever.

I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of how airlines operate and make their decisions, I'm just commenting on what I as a traveler would enjoy having as an option at my disposal during the winter months to get away for a week or two. I suppose it could be asked of me why I don't just take DL to where I want to go? I've flown DL a number of times since they acquired NW, but as nice as T1 is, T2 is even nicer to fly out of. T2 is compact with just 14 gates, TSA lines are never long, no switching between concourses. I can't think of a single DL flight that I was on, where even with a minimum of a 90 minute layover in ATL, I wasn't connecting between 2 of the 6 different concourses there. Yeah, I'm quite spoiled by SY and T2 and the simplicity of it all and I like that.

Sun Country concentrates on selling vacation packages to its destinations and in the Caribbean, and others like it, this is how they make their money.
So, no, this "codeshare" idea ....just....simply....no.

lavalampluva wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

ILUVDC10S wrote:

If they did add the FRA flight how much would that take away from the DTW flight? plus the hub to hub traffic from MSP-DTW to catch the DTW-FRA flight?

DTW has a lot of FRA passengers and it's actually the most popular international destination from DTW ahead of LHR so losing MSP pax wouldn't dent DTW-FRA, local automakers will fill those seats in both the US and Germany for both LH and DL.

Automakers aren't the only ones on those flights. Local industry doesn't do that much, maybe the Bay Area industries would. Ford, GM, Chrysler, and other auto vendors don't have that many employees flying to Germany every day.

You're right it has to do with more than that. Local demand is strong, which is why I think DL could easily add MSP-FRA on a 76W and it wouldn't negatively effect DTW. Even MSPs 2nd CDG flight doesn't even phase it, the only place I would be even slightly worried about would be Asia and with the 350 coming aboard it's going to be closer to local demand.

MSPSXMFLIER wrote:

EarlyLateORD wrote:

Sun Country, despite their inept management, continues to grow. Adding Aruba and Tucson.

Sun Country has inept management? Care to enlighten us on here with what evidence you have to support your assertion? Adding 5 new routes in less than a year hardly appears to be something that inept management would undertake. The airline is both stable and healthy. Granted, they did have a serious situation, back in 2015 during contract talks with the pilots and ultimately, cooler heads prevailed. Pilots got a 5 year deal that was ratified by 87%. I know more than a few employees of the airline and none of them trash the company, they are very glad SY is around, in business and has a fiercely loyal customer base, which includes me.

Of course they don't have inept management; their results speak for themselves. While employees may not trash the company, disgruntled former employees might. Which is very possibly the situation here.

Oh and food for thought is DL is actually owned by Warren Buffet Berkshire Hathaway Company holdings dug a bit into DL Ownership .

IPFreely wrote:

MSPSXMFLIER wrote:

EarlyLateORD wrote:

Sun Country, despite their inept management, continues to grow. Adding Aruba and Tucson.

Sun Country has inept management? Care to enlighten us on here with what evidence you have to support your assertion? Adding 5 new routes in less than a year hardly appears to be something that inept management would undertake. The airline is both stable and healthy. Granted, they did have a serious situation, back in 2015 during contract talks with the pilots and ultimately, cooler heads prevailed. Pilots got a 5 year deal that was ratified by 87%. I know more than a few employees of the airline and none of them trash the company, they are very glad SY is around, in business and has a fiercely loyal customer base, which includes me.

Of course they don't have inept management; their results speak for themselves. While employees may not trash the company, disgruntled former employees might. Which is very possibly the situation here.

I've had my contacts enough disgruntled former employees over my years in the workforce and 99% of them are truly not worth the time of day, but do create the most headaches. The 1% who truly did get a raw deal are smart enough to realize that it's better to move on, lest they dwell on it to the point that it eats away at them.

FlyHappy wrote:

mpdpilot wrote:

While I agree I think on the second part, you should look at delta.com because all of those routes are on their website today. And as I said, I would be really surprised if DL doesn't add ICN either on KE or DL metal, which would provide much better connections than they DL have ever had with their NRT operation.

actually, no. BKK and HKG are gone. Most of the others will be eliminated sooner than later (except HNL, I think) in favor of KE operated flights from ICN , or directly from SEA. Am I wrong about this part?

I don't understand, ICN offers much better connections for MSP-HKG and MSP-BKK. Especially with DL not operating HND-HKG or HND-BKK.

stlgph wrote:

MSPSXMFLIER wrote:

SteveXC500 wrote:

Curious what would SY need B6 for? They do well enough on their own to most of the country and the Carribean.

I agree that SY has held it's own, in a very crowded field for some years now, but if you look at Caribbean destinations served by SY and B6, you can clearly see that SY is no match for B6. Aruba is a nice addition for SY, but with B6 I can fly to Barbados and Grenada, among other islands. If B6 winds up not entering this market, I still think a code share agreement between the two would benefit both airlines. MSP passengers could fly from MSP-JFK on SY and then B6 can take them from JFK to wherever.

I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of how airlines operate and make their decisions, I'm just commenting on what I as a traveler would enjoy having as an option at my disposal during the winter months to get away for a week or two. I suppose it could be asked of me why I don't just take DL to where I want to go? I've flown DL a number of times since they acquired NW, but as nice as T1 is, T2 is even nicer to fly out of. T2 is compact with just 14 gates, TSA lines are never long, no switching between concourses. I can't think of a single DL flight that I was on, where even with a minimum of a 90 minute layover in ATL, I wasn't connecting between 2 of the 6 different concourses there. Yeah, I'm quite spoiled by SY and T2 and the simplicity of it all and I like that.

Sun Country concentrates on selling vacation packages to its destinations and in the Caribbean, and others like it, this is how they make their money.
So, no, this "codeshare" idea ....just....simply....no.

SY is very interested in drawing more MSP-based business passengers and addition of the B6 network via BOS/JFK/MCO/FLL would make them a much more viable option. Additionally, most of SY's Caribbean routes are seasonal and less than daily so a B6 codeshare would offer options during the off-season and additional frequency on days that SY does not operate.

B6 would benefit by actually offering MSP-JFK flights. B6 is out of slots at JFK that is why most of the growth has been at BOS/MCO/FLL. If they wanted to add JFK-MSP they would have to cut elsewhere or have all of the flights depart before 3 PM, which is not really a realistic option.

This is a MSP thread, so please keep the discussion focused on MSP.

The challenge with MSP-Europe, is that geographically MSP is not in the best location to feed European connections. Hence MSP must rely much more on local O-D for its European flights in comparison to other Delta hubs.

And yet despite that challenge, MSP still bats above its weight with 3.5 daily to
AMS, 2 daily to CDG, and also the KEF and LHR flights. Compare that to other Midwestern cities, and that shows you how strong the MSP economy is.

MSP has its market, the economically quite healthy West North Central census region as a catchment area. Geographically it pulls good East/West connections from many places that cannot maintain a nonstop, as well as north/south, like Omaha to London, Milwaukee to Tucson, Fargo to Memphis, Indy to Hawaii. And it is (as others noted) a captive market. That approximately doubles its value and power.

It is better to have all of MSP or Charlotte, than to have half of Chicago, Seattle or Denver, or 1/3 of JFK. If there are 2 under-appreciated themes on a.net in my view, they are the appeal of small, efficient aircraft with low trip cost versus larger low CASM machines, and the appeal of midsize fortress hubs compared to open markets.

So many inaccurate things on this thread, I'd imagine some of the posters' were hacked into by Kelly Anne Conway.

Firstly, the hub is nowhere near in danger of being closed. Ever. Period. The End.

Delta's fate at MEM was NOT something that took rational people by surprise. The reality was that the hub simply wasn't making money, and there was nothing that Delta could do to save it. The economy wasn't growing, local incomes were not rising, large businesses were not moving there and there wasn't anything unique to MEM that wasn't available in ATL or elsewhere. Plus, the 50-seat RJs that Delta was using to operate into MEM were being retired. It was a high-cost airport with high-cost of operations. Nobody in their right mind was blind-sided by this decision.

Let's put it to rest.

As far as MSP is concerned, Delta is pragmatic about the hub: if a route isn't profitable, it is canned. That is why MSP-FCO only lasted one summer (S16) and Delta was vocal about it when it wasn't resumed the following year. The Star Tribune even wrote about it:

http://www.startribune.com/from-msp-del ... 398259041/

Finally, MSP-HND is going to be an interesting watch item because Delta intentionally used it as a pawn to get more HND slots, but it backfired on them. They did present the scenario from a US - TYO O&D perspective rather than MSP to Asia. From MSP, they are indeed now having to add additional stops via DTW, PDX and SEA to reach markets like TPE, HKG and MNL, but even still, with the NRT hub essentially disappearing, this is less relevant. Expect KE or DL to start MSP-ICN soon to handle the MSP-ASIA O&D.

Cubsrule wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

TerminalD wrote:

MSP-HND is not sustainable when a bunch of hubs have HND.

Why not? Tokyo is still one of the largest and wealthiest cities in the world, even if DL is not flowing connecting traffic through NRT, MSP/HND local traffic and domestic connections on the MSP end should be able to support a Tokyo flight.

At least for now, there's likely also some interior Japan traffic interlining at HND because ICN, while a great China hub, is not a great Japan hub. I pay most attention to NGO, and on days DTW-NGO does not operate or if it's sold out, there is not a great Skyteam option.

I would argue that outside of HND, ITM, or NGO, ICN is the best Japan hub there is. If MSP isnt generating as much O&D to Tokyo itself, I can see it being a better option to have that flight sent to ICN instead.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

usflyer msp wrote:

Why not? Tokyo is still one of the largest and wealthiest cities in the world, even if DL is not flowing connecting traffic through NRT, MSP/HND local traffic and domestic connections on the MSP end should be able to support a Tokyo flight.

At least for now, there's likely also some interior Japan traffic interlining at HND because ICN, while a great China hub, is not a great Japan hub. I pay most attention to NGO, and on days DTW-NGO does not operate or if it's sold out, there is not a great Skyteam option.

I would argue that outside of HND, ITM, or NGO, ICN is the best Japan hub there is. If MSP isnt generating as much O&D to Tokyo itself, I can see it being a better option to have that flight sent to ICN instead.

Is there some reason that you suspect that MSP's Japan O&D would be less TYO-centric than most US cities' Japan O&D? My point was simply that MSP-HND probably carries some MSP-interior Japan traffic, but it may not even be double digit PDEW.

DL is a Truly a national carrier now, along with the other two. MSP Hub importance has changed but is in no less is a importance to the DL machine. The way a hub looked prior the mergers and now is different since there now a national hub airline verse a regional power house airline. Of the four big mergers DL/NW had the most challenging hub map. What They DL/NW did to get a equal footing is amazing. The JFK, LGA build up is pretty good by itself. Add SEA, LAX, MCO, BOS and I might be forgetting one, but that has given them Avery nice spread around the country.

kavok wrote:

The challenge with MSP-Europe, is that geographically MSP is not in the best location to feed European connections. Hence MSP must rely much more on local O-D for its European flights in comparison to other Delta hubs.

I don't know you think MSP is not geographically positioned. There is a large swath of the country where MSP is either in the best geographical position for Europe, or virtually the same position with other airports it has advantages over--like ORD and it's congestion. The area includes the cities of DFW, DEN, SAN, PHX, LAS, MCI, STL, SLC, OKC, TUL, OMA, BOI, DSM, and even Los Angeles, the Bay Area, IAH, MKE, and many more.

If DL wanted to flow traffic over MSP to Europe spokes, they would be. They simply don't want to. They'd much rather milk the market and force traffic over JV hubs.

Every Delta related thread de-evolves into pure anger and accusations about Delta's motives. Its impossible to have an actual discussion on this stuff. This thread turned out more absurd than the DTW thread (which I didn't think was possible).

MSPNWA wrote:

kavok wrote:

The challenge with MSP-Europe, is that geographically MSP is not in the best location to feed European connections. Hence MSP must rely much more on local O-D for its European flights in comparison to other Delta hubs.

I don't know you think MSP is not geographically positioned. There is a large swath of the country where MSP is either in the best geographical position for Europe, or virtually the same position with other airports it has advantages over--like ORD and it's congestion. The area includes the cities of DFW, DEN, SAN, PHX, LAS, MCI, STL, SLC, OKC, TUL, OMA, BOI, DSM, and even Los Angeles, the Bay Area, IAH, MKE, and many more.

If DL wanted to flow traffic over MSP to Europe spokes, they would be. They simply don't want to. They'd much rather milk the market and force traffic over JV hubs.

If people like that other member had their way all TATL flights would go out of BOS, JFK, IAD, EWR, ATL, MIA, CLT or PHL ONLY no TATL flights from west of IAD . same for TPAC flights no TPAC flights east of SEA, LAX, SFO. Kinda like you are going to fly where we tell to and you have no choice about it . This way they need no widebody aircraft anymore to appease those oil haters.

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

This thread got stupid quick.

ILUVDC10S wrote:

Oh and food for thought is DL is actually owned by Warren Buffet Berkshire Hathaway Company holdings dug a bit into DL Ownership .

?? I'm not sure that I follow you? BH owns about 8% of the DL stock.

MSP is a strong hub for DL. It will be well over 400 daily departures during peak summer, with 250 of them on mainline equipment (an increase of 70-80 daily mainline flights above the post-recession low). MSP will also be the only hub other than ATL to have 40+ daily 757 departures on DL this summer. That's not insignificant as the 757 is a 200 seat aircraft for DL.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

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

This thread got stupid quick.

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

I believe the Memphis pulldown was a conflagration of factors - poor margins, pull down of Saab and CRJ-200 flying, and airframes needed to grow LGA after the slot swap.

TWA772LR wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

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

This thread got stupid quick.

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

Hey, its not the MSP posters complaining that we are getting shafted; it usually the DTW posters rolling up and complaining that MSP is getting shafted just like DTW. Most of the MSP people live in reality...

Usually its the DTW posters complaining about how DTW got shafted to MSP since well hey MSP has an HNL flight. Then sooner or later the CVG posters will complain that DL shafted CVG due to DTW. Occasionally SLC gets thrown in the mix which the doomsdayers say is doomed due to SEA, which they've been saying for about 4 years now.

There must be some mathematical theorem that can explain all this and who was shafted by who.

usflyer msp wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

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

This thread got stupid quick.

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

Hey, its not the MSP posters complaining that we are getting shafted; it usually the DTW posters rolling up and complaining that MSP is getting shafted just like DTW. Most of the MSP people live in reality...

Lets be honest. All of this is about one person that has multiple screen names. There is some fantasy going on in the DTW thread, but most of them listen to alternate arguments.

TWA772LR wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

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

This thread got stupid quick.

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

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

ILUVDC10S wrote:

No matter how you slice the nit Warren Buffet can and will pull strings. AMR owns and is a parent company of American Airlines.

The "parent company" of American Airlines is the American Airlines Group, whose divisions and subsidiaries all roll up under the American Airlines brand. AMR has not existed for several years.

And citing Wikipedia as a source hurts more than helps any argument.

ILUVDC10S wrote:

Flighty wrote:

There won't be any gridlock in Michigan. The main threat in DTW and FNT's future will be, I think, wild bear attacks.

Tell ya what If I see a bear it will be on the dinner table tonight !
Love wild game meat ...Gotta love living in the Midwest huh ? MSP & DTW a hunters paradise .

There goes the "huh" word again. I'm sure those in the MSP region would disagree with you.

MSPNWA wrote:

kavok wrote:

The challenge with MSP-Europe, is that geographically MSP is not in the best location to feed European connections. Hence MSP must rely much more on local O-D for its European flights in comparison to other Delta hubs.

I don't know you think MSP is not geographically positioned. There is a large swath of the country where MSP is either in the best geographical position for Europe, or virtually the same position with other airports it has advantages over--like ORD and it's congestion. The area includes the cities of DFW, DEN, SAN, PHX, LAS, MCI, STL, SLC, OKC, TUL, OMA, BOI, DSM, and even Los Angeles, the Bay Area, IAH, MKE, and many more.

If DL wanted to flow traffic over MSP to Europe spokes, they would be. They simply don't want to. They'd much rather milk the market and force traffic over JV hubs.

First, if someone is indifferent between DL, UA, or AA, and their respective JVs... I am not sure MSP is a more desirable connection over ORD for transatlantic. Yes MSP is less congested and a nicer airport, but ORD has a lot more flight options to a lot more places. This means 1) better chance of landing in (or closer to) your European destination, as DL may not fly there from MSP, 2) more time of day options allowing you to pick a flight time that better matches your schedule, and 3) likely lower cost brought on by the increased competition of the various airlines flying out of ORD. I would argue those reasons make ORD win out over the MSP connection, especially to anyone who can avoid a short layover time.

Second, I will concede that there is a large swath of the USA that MSP does serve as the best European connection location. The problem is not many people live in that part of the country. (Dakotas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, etc.). Let me turn this question the other way: If you are committed to flying DL to Europe, geographically speaking, which locations would it make MORE geographic sense to connect in MSP than over ATL, DTW, JFK, LAX, SEA? ... And the answer is basically: northern Wisconsin, Iowa, NW Missouri (including KC), Nebraska, the Dakotas, Kansas, and then basically the Mountain Time Zone. Draw a great circle to Europe from DFW, IAH, and STL, and you will see it goes closer to DTW. Oklahoma is about halfway in between.

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

Keep the thread on topic otherwise it will be locked

kavok wrote:

I am not sure MSP is a more desirable connection over ORD for transatlantic. Yes MSP is less congested and a nicer airport, but ORD has a lot more flight options to a lot more places. This means 1) better chance of landing in (or closer to) your European destination, as DL may not fly there from MSP, 2) more time of day options allowing you to pick a flight time that better matches your schedule, and 3) likely lower cost brought on by the increased competition of the various airlines flying out of ORD. I would argue those reasons make ORD win out over the MSP connection, especially to anyone who can avoid a short layover time.

I think pretty much all reasonable people would agree that ORD is a far superior connection than MSP for trans-Atlantic for the reasons you mention.

MSP has service to Amsterdam, London, and Paris. Seasonal service to Frankfurt. And Iceland, if you want to count that. That's it.

ORD also has service to Amsterdam, London, and Paris. Year round service with multiple daily flights to Frankfurt. And Iceland, if you want to count that. With those flights alone, ORD is a superior connection to Europe than MSP. But wait, there's more! ORD also has flights to Berlin, Brussels, Copenhagen, Dublin, Istanbul, Krakow, Munich, Stockholm, Vienna, and Zurich and seasonal service to Barcelona and Rome. Not only does ORD have more flights and more time options, it has flights to 17 European cities compared to just 5 for MSP. It's not even close.

kavok wrote:

First, if someone is indifferent between DL, UA, or AA, and their respective JVs... I am not sure MSP is a more desirable connection over ORD for transatlantic. Yes MSP is less congested and a nicer airport, but ORD has a lot more flight options to a lot more places. This means 1) better chance of landing in (or closer to) your European destination, as DL may not fly there from MSP, 2) more time of day options allowing you to pick a flight time that better matches your schedule, and 3) likely lower cost brought on by the increased competition of the various airlines flying out of ORD. I would argue those reasons make ORD win out over the MSP connection, especially to anyone who can avoid a short layover time.

That's not the point you or I were making. The debate isn't current service. It's about potential service. MSP's geography, domestic service, and punctual operations make it a prime potential connecting gateway to Europe for a significant part of the country. Unfortunately the hub airline has shown no desire to take full advantage of it (DTW is a similar story)

kavok wrote:

Second, I will concede that there is a large swath of the USA that MSP does serve as the best European connection location. The problem is not many people live in that part of the country. (Dakotas, Nebraska, Wyoming, Montana, etc.). Let me turn this question the other way: If you are committed to flying DL to Europe, geographically speaking, which locations would it make MORE geographic sense to connect in MSP than over ATL, DTW, JFK, LAX, SEA? ... And the answer is basically: northern Wisconsin, Iowa, NW Missouri (including KC), Nebraska, the Dakotas, Kansas, and then basically the Mountain Time Zone. Draw a great circle to Europe from DFW, IAH, and STL, and you will see it goes closer to DTW. Oklahoma is about halfway in between.

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

Why are you mentioning SD, ND, WY, and MT when MSP's prime catchment for DL demand includes most of California, Texas, and cities such as PHX, DEN, and LAS? DFW, AUS, and SAT are all only about 100-150 miles closer via DTW. That's nothing. But clearly DL isn't interested in DTW being a European gateway either, with just one year-round flight to a non-JV city (FRA). Outside of JFK and ATL, if you fly DL to Europe, you're likely being funneled through a JV hub. It's too bad too since DL has the best network of hubs to connect to Europe.

P.S. Those four cities combined have a metro population about 50% larger than MSP. Easily their demand matches or is higher.

Looks like KL may be serving MSP year-round and with a 789 starting in October. Just from looking at booking MSP-AMS.

MSPNWA wrote:

MSP's geography, domestic service, and punctual operations make it a prime potential connecting gateway to Europe for a significant part of the country. Unfortunately the hub airline has shown no desire to take full advantage of it (DTW is a similar story).

MSP's international arrivals facilities seem pretty stretched at certain times of day as it is, just with a few arrivals from Europe coming in at the same time. There are no more than 5 gates in Terminal 1 that can be used simultaneously for widebody international arrivals (and that's with 2 other gates blocked), so it's not surprising to me that the service level is where it is. It also doesn't help that MSP seemingly hasn't proved it can support flights beyond LHR, CDG, and AMS, as FCO obviously wasn't meeting expectations for DL and OSL fell flat for NW. I could see DL starting MSP-FRA at some point in the future if DE proves it is doing well, but beyond that what additional service to Europe do you think MSP can support?

af773atmsp wrote:

Looks like KL may be serving MSP year-round and with a 789 starting in October. Just from looking at booking MSP-AMS.

Definitely looks like it. The dates shift from Mon, Wed, Sat to Tues, Fri, Sun but KLM is listing it with a 789. First time a 787 will fly to MSP. Hopefully, AF follows and gets rid of that A340.

MSP's international arrivals facilities seem pretty stretched at certain times of day as it is, just with a few arrivals from Europe coming in at the same time. There are no more than 5 gates in Terminal 1 that can be used simultaneously for widebody international arrivals (and that's with 2 other gates blocked), so it's not surprising to me that the service level is where it is. It also doesn't help that MSP seemingly hasn't proved it can support flights beyond LHR, CDG, and AMS, as FCO obviously wasn't meeting expectations for DL and OSL fell flat for NW. I could see DL starting MSP-FRA at some point in the future if DE proves it is doing well, but beyond that what additional service to Europe do you think MSP can support?[/quote]

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.

I am thinking that MSP has a stronger economy than Detroit...I am correct in assuming this?

dfwjim1 wrote:

I am thinking that MSP has a stronger economy than Detroit...I am correct in assuming this?

Yes but Detroit's economic base is truly a global set of companies. MSP's economic base (outside of the medical device industry) is really rooted in the US. There will never be the kind of international business O&D from MSP that DTW has. Now leisure O&D is a different story but that ultimately won't have nearly the impact that business travel has.

klakzky123 wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

I am thinking that MSP has a stronger economy than Detroit...I am correct in assuming this?

Yes but Detroit's economic base is truly a global set of companies. MSP's economic base (outside of the medical device industry) is really rooted in the US. There will never be the kind of international business O&D from MSP that DTW has. Now leisure O&D is a different story but that ultimately won't have nearly the impact that business travel has.

That's right with the automotive industry in Detroit that would make perfect sense. Is there much leisure O and D to MSP? I have been to MSP and I really liked the metro area but I can not see it as being a place for the leisure traveler.

dfwjim1 wrote:

klakzky123 wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

I am thinking that MSP has a stronger economy than Detroit...I am correct in assuming this?

Yes but Detroit's economic base is truly a global set of companies. MSP's economic base (outside of the medical device industry) is really rooted in the US. There will never be the kind of international business O&D from MSP that DTW has. Now leisure O&D is a different story but that ultimately won't have nearly the impact that business travel has.

That's right with the automotive industry in Detroit that would make perfect sense. Is there much leisure O and D to MSP? I have been to MSP and I really liked the metro area but I can not see it as being a place for the leisure traveler.

It's mostly people leaving Minnesota for vacations

SY exists because leisure O&D in MSP is that strong and that's with Delta's strong set of international warm weather flights. Plus Icelandair and Condor are able to supplement with international leisure options.

DTW has alot of international travel driven by the auto industry. Its not just the big three, tons of suppliers and other companies too.