Summer 2020, Delta will fly MSP-PVG if approved by both governments...

https://news.delta.com/delta-proposes-minneapolis-st-paul-shanghai-route-begin-2020

Delta is requesting US and Chinese approval to fly MSP-PVG starting 2020 on an A350-900.

I did forsee this route, but I thought it would it would come at a much later date, with other US-Asia routes taking precedence over this one and waiting for the Chinese govt. to loosen up on their JV/Open Skies policy.

Now if only DL was adding more domestic routes to MSP as well...

I wonder if DL is going after the AA slots.

So this would battle connection traffic to China with ua at ord?

I don’t see this capturing any connection traffic out of east or west coast where most of the demand to China are.

tphuang wrote:

So this would battle connection traffic to China with ua at ord?

I don’t see this capturing any connection traffic out of east or west coast where most of the demand to China are.

It would certainly overlap with Detroit a bit, but if there is enough demand for a second flight there, why not add it to MSP instead and capture markets that are closer and/or only have MSP non-stops. Cities like Columbus, Indy, Chicago, Nashville, and Cincy will not have that much more travel time through MSP vs DTW. Delta is not a “dart board” airline, I would imagine they’ve done their homework...

"... first-ever nonstop China service from Minnesota." Does HKG count as China? MSP had service to there for a brief period in 1999.

This is great news to see and hopefully it actually happens. NW considered this route when they ordered the 787, and now its finally gaining momentum but with a different airline and aircraft.

Assuming MSP-PVG and MSP-ICN happen, will DL hold on to MSP-HND?

flyfresno wrote:

tphuang wrote:

So this would battle connection traffic to China with ua at ord?

I don’t see this capturing any connection traffic out of east or west coast where most of the demand to China are.

It would certainly overlap with Detroit a bit, but if there is enough demand for a second flight there, why not add it to MSP instead and capture markets that are closer and/or only have MSP non-stops. Cities like Columbus, Indy, Chicago, Nashville, and Cincy will not have that much more travel time through MSP vs DTW. Delta is not a “dart board” airline, I would imagine they’ve done their homework...

The problem is that DTW can get a lot of feed from East Coast which simply doesn't work for MSP. Those middle of the country airport to PVG is not a large market. The yields to China is pretty poor as AA would tell you. And there is so much direct low cost flight from ORD to China, which would they go through MSP? Is DL looking to sell $500 R/T itinerary of ORD-MSP-PVG?

All of the middle of the country to China stuff is not only competing against DTW, but also AC's large TPAC operation at YYZ and UA's more dominant presence at ORD. They latter 2 airports have much great O&D to PVG than MSP.

Not that I mind more competition to China. Always great for consumers.

This is 100% aimed at AA.

AA is saying/asking that they want their dormant routes held until next fall 2019. This is Delta's way of saying, either fly them by the fall or 2019, or we want them. Nothing more!

af773atmsp wrote:

"... first-ever nonstop China service from Minnesota." Does HKG count as China? MSP had service to there for a brief period in 1999.

Haha that’s opening a can of worms...

AA is asking for dormancy for 14 China frequencies. Does anyone think that DL will also petition for a LAX-PEK route, in addition to this MSP-PVG request?

I was living in Minneapolis when NW tried MSP to HKG. It failed pretty quickly.

Hopefully DL has done their homework, but it is tough to see this one working.

I was living in Minneapolis when NW tried MSP to HKG. It failed pretty quickly.

Hopefully DL has done their homework, but it is tough to see this one working.

flyfresno wrote:

af773atmsp wrote:

"... first-ever nonstop China service from Minnesota." Does HKG count as China? MSP had service to there for a brief period in 1999.

Haha that’s opening a can of worms...

We can see this "proposal" will be rejected within minutes by the Chinese government. Hahaha.

This route makes more sense than ATL-PVG geographically. MSP has good connections to the necessary O&D centers in the USA. If you look at a map (the key geographic variable you need is being far north). MSP has that. The distance MSP routing from Eastern USA adds versus DTW is mostly negligible, around 100 mi, but the entirely new hub network would provide a yield boost versus a second DTW flight.

AA closing down ORD routes to China is probably a part of the timing, and the route makes some sense.

Recent development at MSP looks a lot like pressure testing DTW and MSP for long-term viability. The economic chess board for airlines changes significantly each decade, and the conditions that support two midwestern hubs today might not exist in ten years, or even less (probably less given Trump's proclivity for chaos). DL seems to be bringing MSP up to DTW's level, while investing incrementally to sustain DTW's performance and finely-tuned operation (extra flight to LHR, extra to CDG, cancelling some domestic routes, expanding others that fit with their strategy for deploying 321s, etc.), perhaps to see if one reveals better long-term prospects over the other, in case the market balances that sustain both hubs change. Just a thought, not a conspiracy.

For now though, MSP and DTW are both strong hubs, so it's smart for DL to capture that PVG traffic from Chicago and other inland markets with a premium product that might have otherwise routed through to DFW or ORD.

Ezra wrote:

AA is asking for dormancy for 14 China frequencies. Does anyone think that DL will also petition for a LAX-PEK route, in addition to this MSP-PVG request?

I anticipated the LAX-PEK route, but maybe DL wants to avoid the bloodbath. I would have thought they announced both at the same time, but time will tell.

yup 100% about AA. They are trying to make AAs dormancy request get rejected.

BroadwayLimited wrote:

This is 100% aimed at AA.

AA is saying/asking that they want their dormant routes held until next fall 2019. This is Delta's way of saying, either fly them by the fall or 2019, or we want them. Nothing more!

Yep. DL would be insane not to seize a dormant route from AA, even if DOT might readily reject it.

flyfresno wrote:

Summer 2020, Delta will fly MSP-PVG if approved by both governments...

Interesting that they choose a domestic airport that is within driving distance of ORD, where AA just dropped their China service. Does MSP have more corporate-driven business to China that many of us realized? Would Chicago-based travelers be interested in either flying or driving to MSP to take the trip? I would have expected an LAX-PEK request before this.

It is an interesting request... but I'll bet you can cue a real whine from someone in DTW in 3.... 2... 1...

This is going to bring MSP close to 15 transoceanic departures per day on peak days. Looks like summer 2020 could see 4X AMS, 3X KEF, 2X CDG, 1X LHR, FRA, DUB, HND, ICN, PVG, if there aren’t any cuts.

jbs2886 wrote:

I wonder if DL is going after the AA slots.

I think so I think this is directly linked to AA request to sit on their ORD-China slots till I believe November 2019. I think DL is trying to force AA's hand, they either have to fly the route or give up the slot. It also wouldn't surprise me to see UA try to jumping on this as well filing their own proposal for to add service to China from either DEN, IAH, or IAD-PVG. AA will have a difficult decision to make in the future, either they utilize the slots or they loose at least one of them DL and perhaps UA if UA chooses to link another one of our hubs to China.

tphuang wrote:

So this would battle connection traffic to China with ua at ord?

I don’t see this capturing any connection traffic out of east or west coast where most of the demand to China are.

Exactly UA offers a lot more connection opportunities at ORD than DL does at MSP, and so does AA and yet AA is choosing to exit the ORD-China market for now. I think this probably has a lot more to do with DL's network than UA. I'm going to guess that (east of the Mississippi River) DL's DTW and ATL-PVG routes are doing well and perhaps DL needs more capacity to/from PVG, instead of going daily double from LAX which is a blood bath, or SEA which is still growing connections east of the Mississippi DL has decided to connect a more established hub MSP to PVG which is a smart move.

alfa164 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

Summer 2020, Delta will fly MSP-PVG if approved by both governments...

Interesting that they choose a domestic airport that is within driving distance of ORD, where AA just dropped their China service. Does MSP have more corporate-driven business to China that many of us realized? Would Chicago-based travelers be interested in either flying or driving to MSP to take the trip? I would have expected an LAX-PEK request before this.

It is an interesting request... but I'll bet you can cue a real whine from someone in DTW in 3.... 2... 1...

Yeah, nothing like being in Chicago, hopping in a car and taking a nice, comfortable 7 hour drive to the Minneapolis airport for a flight to China.

it's all the rage these days.

stlgph wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

Summer 2020, Delta will fly MSP-PVG if approved by both governments...

Interesting that they choose a domestic airport that is within driving distance of ORD, where AA just dropped their China service. Does MSP have more corporate-driven business to China that many of us realized? Would Chicago-based travelers be interested in either flying or driving to MSP to take the trip? I would have expected an LAX-PEK request before this.

It is an interesting request... but I'll bet you can cue a real whine from someone in DTW in 3.... 2... 1...

Yeah, nothing like being in Chicago, hopping in a car and taking a nice, comfortable 7 hour drive to the Minneapolis airport for a flight to China.

it's all the rage these days.

Based on the ridiculous hoops I've seen people go through to save a few dollars (FAT-SFO-SNA and then drive to SAN for a flight to HNL is one, SAL-FLL-DTW-LAX over a period of 28 hours is another), I would say there will be people who will do this at some point, but yeah, it will definitely not be common.

tphuang wrote:

The problem is that DTW can get a lot of feed from East Coast which simply doesn't work for MSP. Those middle of the country airport to PVG is not a large market.

From what cities in the U.S. East with likely China-destination or origin passengers does MSP lack?

While the demand from the Midwest to China may not be quite as large as the coasts, it is not insignificant either.

And contrary to popular beliefs on the coasts, of the Midwesterners that are traveling internationally, they don’t all live in Chicago. Chicago is obviously the largest market, but Chicago alone is not even a quarter of the Midwest market as a whole. That means the majority of the Midwest traffic is actually coming from places that are not Chicago. Now granted the rest of that traffic is aggregated, coming from a whole bunch of different locations. And Chicago is the large central market in a good position to connect people. But....

I think people (even many on A.net) fail to realize that Delta dominates the Midwest outside of Chicago. Of the 3 large Midwest markets, Delta has Fortress hubs at the other two. And Delta also has very large corporate contacts with flyers near the midsize airport in CVG, IND, CMH, and even MKE (from the NW days). Even borderline midsize cities like MSN and GRR tend to favor flying DL. This leaves CLE and STL as the only significant pockets outside Chicago where DL isnt the carrier of choice. So again, outside of Chicago, Delta really does dominate the Midwest.

And after saying all that, it makes sense that a market as large as the Midwest excluding Chicago could support 2 China flights, especially with a connecting hub in PVG. And after DTW, MSP makes the most sense as the number 2 location for that flight.

MIflyer12 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

The problem is that DTW can get a lot of feed from East Coast which simply doesn't work for MSP. Those middle of the country airport to PVG is not a large market.

From what cities in the U.S. East with likely China-destination or origin passengers does MSP lack?

Obviously flight paths vary every day based on winds and other weather, but today's PVG-DTW flight is passing only about 150 miles north of MSP as I write this, and yesterday's took almost the same path. DTW-PVG, on the other hand, goes pretty much straight north most days. Still, I agree some Eastern Midwest and even East Coast destinations will have such a minute difference in travel time that it won't matter if they connect through MSP or DTW.

flyfresno wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

The problem is that DTW can get a lot of feed from East Coast which simply doesn't work for MSP. Those middle of the country airport to PVG is not a large market.

From what cities in the U.S. East with likely China-destination or origin passengers does MSP lack?

Obviously flight paths vary every day based on winds and other weather, but today's PVG-DTW flight is passing only about 150 miles north of MSP as I write this, and yesterday's took almost the same path. DTW-PVG, on the other hand, goes pretty much straight north most days. Still, I agree some Eastern Midwest and even East Coast destinations will have such a minute difference in travel time that it won't matter if they connect through MSP or DTW.

One point relative to DTW is that the retirement of the 747 decreased capacity in Midwest, so there is some decent growth if this flight happens, but it is also replacing some lost capacity.

alfa164 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

Summer 2020, Delta will fly MSP-PVG if approved by both governments...

Interesting that they choose a domestic airport that is within driving distance of ORD, where AA just dropped their China service. Does MSP have more corporate-driven business to China that many of us realized? Would Chicago-based travelers be interested in either flying or driving to MSP to take the trip? I would have expected an LAX-PEK request before this.

It is an interesting request... but I'll bet you can cue a real whine from someone in DTW in 3.... 2... 1...

Should this route be launched, there's actually a bit more local corporate MSP-PVG demand than I would have guessed between Medtronic, Target, and General Mills.

flyfresno wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

The problem is that DTW can get a lot of feed from East Coast which simply doesn't work for MSP. Those middle of the country airport to PVG is not a large market.

From what cities in the U.S. East with likely China-destination or origin passengers does MSP lack?

Obviously flight paths vary every day based on winds and other weather, but today's PVG-DTW flight is passing only about 150 miles north of MSP as I write this, and yesterday's took almost the same path. DTW-PVG, on the other hand, goes pretty much straight north most days. Still, I agree some Eastern Midwest and even East Coast destinations will have such a minute difference in travel time that it won't matter if they connect through MSP or DTW.

Looking at the top 50 U.S. MSAs, and among those every one in the Eastern or Central Time Zones (for many, DTW would be backtracking), only Providence and Birmingham lack non-stop Delta service to MSP. I will aver that it will be easier for Delta to get a slot award from the DOT for new service from MSP than for a doubling of service at DTW.

Just to correct misinformation, this has nothing to do with AA’s dormant frequencies. Delta is petitioning to use the 3 freqs returned by UA from GUM-PVG, and 3 freqs being returned by HA from HNL-PEK, plus one that was never allocated. So this nicely sidesteps the dormancy issue, which Delta can litigate another day.

reasonable wrote:

AA closing down ORD routes to China is probably a part of the timing, and the route makes some sense.

Recent development at MSP looks a lot like pressure testing DTW and MSP for long-term viability. The economic chess board for airlines changes significantly each decade, and the conditions that support two midwestern hubs today might not exist in ten years, or even less (probably less given Trump's proclivity for chaos). DL seems to be bringing MSP up to DTW's level, while investing incrementally to sustain DTW's performance and finely-tuned operation (extra flight to LHR, extra to CDG, cancelling some domestic routes, expanding others that fit with their strategy for deploying 321s, etc.), perhaps to see if one reveals better long-term prospects over the other, in case the market balances that sustain both hubs change. Just a thought, not a conspiracy.

For now though, MSP and DTW are both strong hubs, so it's smart for DL to capture that PVG traffic from Chicago and other inland markets with a premium product that might have otherwise routed through to DFW or ORD.

I think at some point in the future a decision will have to be made. Life is good now but new airlines will join the scene and existing airlines like Alaska, JetBlue, etc will continue to grow. Delta is in the weird position to have two large Midwest hubs. There is a lot of redundancy that could be cut. MSP has a much more diverse corporate presence as well as international companies with US offices in the Twin Cities. Not to mention that the people living in the Twin Cities have a lot more discretionary income. Detroit is dependent on the Auto industry. The next time they fail they may not get a handout. I would say MSP is the safer option for an airline hub.

flyfresno wrote:

stlgph wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

Interesting that they choose a domestic airport that is within driving distance of ORD, where AA just dropped their China service. Does MSP have more corporate-driven business to China that many of us realized? Would Chicago-based travelers be interested in either flying or driving to MSP to take the trip? I would have expected an LAX-PEK request before this.

It is an interesting request... but I'll bet you can cue a real whine from someone in DTW in 3.... 2... 1...

Yeah, nothing like being in Chicago, hopping in a car and taking a nice, comfortable 7 hour drive to the Minneapolis airport for a flight to China.

it's all the rage these days.

Based on the ridiculous hoops I've seen people go through to save a few dollars (FAT-SFO-SNA and then drive to SAN for a flight to HNL is one, SAL-FLL-DTW-LAX over a period of 28 hours is another), I would say there will be people who will do this at some point, but yeah, it will definitely not be common.

China yields are awful. No one is driving 7 hours. MSP-PVG will arguably cost more than any flights you can buy from ORD. The only people who drive 7 hours to MSP are from captive markets in places like North and South Dakota who can save hundreds per ticket.

MIflyer12 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

From what cities in the U.S. East with likely China-destination or origin passengers does MSP lack?

Obviously flight paths vary every day based on winds and other weather, but today's PVG-DTW flight is passing only about 150 miles north of MSP as I write this, and yesterday's took almost the same path. DTW-PVG, on the other hand, goes pretty much straight north most days. Still, I agree some Eastern Midwest and even East Coast destinations will have such a minute difference in travel time that it won't matter if they connect through MSP or DTW.

Looking at the top 50 U.S. MSAs, and among those every one in the Eastern or Central (for many, DTW would be backtracking), only Providence and Birmingham lack non-stop Delta service to MSP. I will aver that it will be easier for Delta to get a slot award from the DOT for new service from MSP than for a doubling of service at DTW.

Very good point. The DOT will certainly be more willing to add a gateway to China by taking frequencies from AA that it wants to be dormant than by allowing another flight to DTW.

Hopefully this comes to fruition, but this is a very far out route announcement, and a lot could change between now and summer of 2020. I suppose it's necessary to jump on it as soon as possible given the limited available frequencies to China.

Thanks to jrkmsp for pointing out that this request entirely utilizes frequencies other than those AA has let go dormant. So it would seem DL thinks this really is a market that could support the flight in the near term, as opposed to a simply defensive move.

MIflyer12 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

The problem is that DTW can get a lot of feed from East Coast which simply doesn't work for MSP. Those middle of the country airport to PVG is not a large market.

From what cities in the U.S. East with likely China-destination or origin passengers does MSP lack?

it's not about the connection but rather the additional time to get to MSP. DTW is already at a disadvantage vs YYZ/EWR/JFK/BOS as a connection point for the NorthEast to China traffic. MSP is even further out. Remember, NorthEast is where the vast majority of demand to China is out of East coast.

for example, if you are in DC. And you want to do DCA to PVG. You can do DCA->YYZ/JFK/BOS/EWR/MSP->MSP. If they are essentially the same fare, who is going to pick the MSP connection? Anyone in the Southeast could go through ATL or DTW. Both of which would be a more direct path than MSP. Even ORD would be a better connection point than MSP.

MSP is a terrible connection point of China unless you come from MSY or MCI or STL. All of could also go through ORD which have far more selection of flights to China. And those places don't have much demand to China.

TTailedTiger wrote:

reasonable wrote:

AA closing down ORD routes to China is probably a part of the timing, and the route makes some sense.

Recent development at MSP looks a lot like pressure testing DTW and MSP for long-term viability. The economic chess board for airlines changes significantly each decade, and the conditions that support two midwestern hubs today might not exist in ten years, or even less (probably less given Trump's proclivity for chaos). DL seems to be bringing MSP up to DTW's level, while investing incrementally to sustain DTW's performance and finely-tuned operation (extra flight to LHR, extra to CDG, cancelling some domestic routes, expanding others that fit with their strategy for deploying 321s, etc.), perhaps to see if one reveals better long-term prospects over the other, in case the market balances that sustain both hubs change. Just a thought, not a conspiracy.

For now though, MSP and DTW are both strong hubs, so it's smart for DL to capture that PVG traffic from Chicago and other inland markets with a premium product that might have otherwise routed through to DFW or ORD.

I think at some point in the future a decision will have to be made. Life is good now but new airlines will join the scene and existing airlines like Alaska, JetBlue, etc will continue to grow. Delta is in the weird position to have two large Midwest hubs. There is a lot of redundancy that could be cut. MSP has a much more diverse corporate presence as well as international companies with US offices in the Twin Cities. Not to mention that the people living in the Twin Cities have a lot more discretionary income. Detroit is dependent on the Auto industry. The next time they fail they may not get a handout. I would say MSP is the safer option for an airline hub.

So much misinformation in this post that I don’t know whether this a troll post or if people actually believe this.

The concept that the Midwest cannot have 4 large legacy hubs (ORD, MDW, MSP, DTW) is ludicrous. Meanwhile the Northeast, with less population and slower population growth than the Midwest, has 7 northeast legacy hubs (NYCx2, EWR, PHL, BWI, IAD, DCA) and ignoring Jet Blue. And even that is being conservative calling LGA/JFK as one NYC, and ignoring the future hub DL is building at BOS).

Further B6, AS, etc. have all shown no desire to build a presence in the Midwest. Finally, Delta figured out a long time ago they can make more money having both Midwest hubs to themselves as opposed to handing AA the other.

tphuang wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

The problem is that DTW can get a lot of feed from East Coast which simply doesn't work for MSP. Those middle of the country airport to PVG is not a large market.

From what cities in the U.S. East with likely China-destination or origin passengers does MSP lack?

it's not about the connection but rather the additional time to get to MSP. DTW is already at a disadvantage vs YYZ/EWR/JFK/BOS as a connection point for the NorthEast to China traffic. MSP is even further out. Remember, NorthEast is where the vast majority of demand to China is out of East coast.

for example, if you are in DC. And you want to do DCA to PVG. You can do DCA->YYZ/JFK/BOS/EWR/MSP->MSP. If they are essentially the same fare, who is going to pick the MSP connection? Anyone in the Southeast could go through ATL or DTW. Both of which would be a more direct path than MSP. Even ORD would be a better connection point than MSP.

MSP is a terrible connection point of China unless you come from MSY or MCI or STL. All of could also go through ORD which have far more selection of flights to China. And those places don't have much demand to China.

If that were the case then no one would be connecting in places like MSP or DTW, even though they do, and in droves. How do you think DL's able to fill its current roster of DTW-Asia flights?

Jeremy

tphuang wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

tphuang wrote:

The problem is that DTW can get a lot of feed from East Coast which simply doesn't work for MSP. Those middle of the country airport to PVG is not a large market.

From what cities in the U.S. East with likely China-destination or origin passengers does MSP lack?

it's not about the connection but rather the additional time to get to MSP. DTW is already at a disadvantage vs YYZ/EWR/JFK/BOS as a connection point for the NorthEast to China traffic. MSP is even further out. Remember, NorthEast is where the vast majority of demand to China is out of East coast.

for example, if you are in DC. And you want to do DCA to PVG. You can do DCA->YYZ/JFK/BOS/EWR/MSP->MSP. If they are essentially the same fare, who is going to pick the MSP connection? Anyone in the Southeast could go through ATL or DTW. Both of which would be a more direct path than MSP. Even ORD would be a better connection point than MSP.

MSP is a terrible connection point of China unless you come from MSY or MCI or STL. All of could also go through ORD which have far more selection of flights to China. And those places don't have much demand to China.

You say "terrible" when the flight time impact is maybe 16-18 minutes, and through less congested airspace, so the net impact is around zero. Not that bad. Anyway, perhaps surprisingly... the main financial backing for a MSP China route is probably not the East Coast; it is the Central USA... a fairly large region from Denver to DC, from MKE to New Orleans. Unique routings where yields would be higher. This route probably can be as successful as other China routes (mind you, that is, probably not at all successful).

jrkmsp wrote:

Just to correct misinformation, this has nothing to do with AA’s dormant frequencies. Delta is petitioning to use the 3 freqs returned by UA from GUM-PVG, and 3 freqs being returned by HA from HNL-PEK, plus one that was never allocated. So this nicely sidesteps the dormancy issue, which Delta can litigate another day.

Oh interesting. I guess I assumed DL was just messing around with AA. I guess there is more O&D in MSP for something like this than one would assume. Of the remaining hubs without a PVG flight, MSP would seem to be able to command the highest yields locally on this sort of flight.

klakzky123 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

stlgph wrote:

Yeah, nothing like being in Chicago, hopping in a car and taking a nice, comfortable 7 hour drive to the Minneapolis airport for a flight to China.

it's all the rage these days.

Based on the ridiculous hoops I've seen people go through to save a few dollars (FAT-SFO-SNA and then drive to SAN for a flight to HNL is one, SAL-FLL-DTW-LAX over a period of 28 hours is another), I would say there will be people who will do this at some point, but yeah, it will definitely not be common.

China yields are awful. No one is driving 7 hours. MSP-PVG will arguably cost more than any flights you can buy from ORD. The only people who drive 7 hours to MSP are from captive markets in places like North and South Dakota who can save hundreds per ticket.

Wait, are you saying that no one will *ever* drive from the Chicago region to MSP for a flight to PVG? That's a pretty high bar to set. I said it would not be common, basically agreeing with the person who said it's a non-issue, but I also think that proposing that no one will ever do it is unlikely.

I see UA asking for the AA slot and moving it to DEN. That would make the most sense for them. MSP is a recipe for disaster in that it will draw locals only, and how many of them will take this given other options?
Looks like the DL Route Planning boys are back to their dart board for new markets.

winginit wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

Summer 2020, Delta will fly MSP-PVG if approved by both governments...

Interesting that they choose a domestic airport that is within driving distance of ORD, where AA just dropped their China service. Does MSP have more corporate-driven business to China that many of us realized? Would Chicago-based travelers be interested in either flying or driving to MSP to take the trip? I would have expected an LAX-PEK request before this.

It is an interesting request... but I'll bet you can cue a real whine from someone in DTW in 3.... 2... 1...

Should this route be launched, there's actually a bit more local corporate MSP-PVG demand than I would have guessed between Medtronic, Target, and General Mills.

Ag giants CHS and Cargill as well

alfa164 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

Summer 2020, Delta will fly MSP-PVG if approved by both governments...

Interesting that they choose a domestic airport that is within driving distance of ORD, where AA just dropped their China service. Does MSP have more corporate-driven business to China that many of us realized? Would Chicago-based travelers be interested in either flying or driving to MSP to take the trip? I would have expected an LAX-PEK request before this.

It is an interesting request... but I'll bet you can cue a real whine from someone in DTW in 3.... 2... 1...

I don't think anyone from Chicago is going to be driving to fly this route. MSP is a 6 hour drive from Chicago, while DTW is a 4 hour drive. Also, there's inexpensive nonstops to PVG from ORD itself.

'902

SteveXC500 wrote:

winginit wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

Interesting that they choose a domestic airport that is within driving distance of ORD, where AA just dropped their China service. Does MSP have more corporate-driven business to China that many of us realized? Would Chicago-based travelers be interested in either flying or driving to MSP to take the trip? I would have expected an LAX-PEK request before this.

It is an interesting request... but I'll bet you can cue a real whine from someone in DTW in 3.... 2... 1...

Should this route be launched, there's actually a bit more local corporate MSP-PVG demand than I would have guessed between Medtronic, Target, and General Mills.

Ag giants CHS and Cargill as well

The Ag companies make total sense (especially if the tariff problems are resolved). This would be a big win for those companies. Maybe the Medical Device companies have major business in China. But other than that, I'm not sure if any of the other fortune 500s have serious business ties/opportunities.

727200 wrote:

I see UA asking for the AA slot and moving it to DEN. That would make the most sense for them. MSP is a recipe for disaster in that it will draw locals only, and how many of them will take this given other options?
Looks like the DL Route Planning boys are back to their dart board for new markets.

MSP is a massive hub with nearly 500 peak day departures and the service is to a global (and growing) business and tourist market. Why would it only draw the local market? You really think DL route planning is clueless? I'm endlessly dismayed at some of the posts on here...

Jeremy

jbs2886 wrote:

I wonder if DL is going after the AA slots.

I dont mean to be a jerk, but they arent slots, they are frequencies. I see this confusion all the time on Anet

Slots are a reservation at an airport for a specific arrival and departure time. Frequencies are the right to fly between two points for a given number of days per week and have nothing to do with arrival and departure time. Carriers dont apply with the DOT for slots at Chinese airports, an airline applies for frequencies, then once the frequencies are awarded, slots at the airports may or may not be needed.

TWA902fly wrote:

alfa164 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

Summer 2020, Delta will fly MSP-PVG if approved by both governments...

Interesting that they choose a domestic airport that is within driving distance of ORD, where AA just dropped their China service. Does MSP have more corporate-driven business to China that many of us realized? Would Chicago-based travelers be interested in either flying or driving to MSP to take the trip? I would have expected an LAX-PEK request before this.

It is an interesting request... but I'll bet you can cue a real whine from someone in DTW in 3.... 2... 1...

I don't think anyone from Chicago is going to be driving to fly this route. MSP is a 6 hour drive from Chicago, while DTW is a 4 hour drive. Also, there's inexpensive nonstops to PVG from ORD itself.

'902

I'll echo what I said above...it will be super uncommon. But there will be some random day or days that, for whatever reason, the flight from MSP will be way cheaper than anything out of ORD. And, some broke college student from the Chicago region will be heading to China to study abroad or teach English, or someone who lives in Wicker Park with 5 roommates that's always wanted to visit China will get an alert from one of those websites that monitors fares and see that there's an amazing deal out of MSP, or someone in Shanghai that goes to school at Northwestern or the U of Chicago will see a bargain fare to MSP for the week they want to travel back to school, or any other litany of people will see some great deal on that route, and at least a couple of them will make the drive, at some point. Again, I am no longer shocked at how creative (and time-wasting) the routes people figure out to save a few dollars are. But it won't be, in any way, impactful on the service as a whole.

This has nothing to do with the AA frequencies.

US side already has 4-weekly China Zone-1 frequencies vacant. DL seeks to additionally use the recently vacated 3-weekly PEK one used previously used by HA in order to make this new service happen.

Of course any other carrier is also free to apply for these 7 weekly vacant authorities at this time also, which then would cause the DOT to launch a full-blown route case.

The proposed sked is:

MSP-PVG 1530-1805
PVG-MSP 1140-1205

For what it's worth, MSP-PVG was 36 PDEW back in 2017, according to Intervistas. That compares to just 30 PDEW for Tokyo and 57 for Paris. I think when you get the inevitable stimulation from non-stop service, MSP-PVG will be in the 40s and, combined with connections will be very healthy. The only risk is a recession that keeps this from ever getting launched.

tphuang wrote:

it's not about the connection but rather the additional time to get to MSP. DTW is already at a disadvantage vs YYZ/EWR/JFK/BOS as a connection point for the NorthEast to China traffic. MSP is even further out. Remember, NorthEast is where the vast majority of demand to China is out of East coast.

for example, if you are in DC. And you want to do DCA to PVG. You can do DCA->YYZ/JFK/BOS/EWR/MSP->MSP. If they are essentially the same fare, who is going to pick the MSP connection? .

Nobody is looking at Great Circle mapper to decide what flights to take, most pax care about the total elapsed flying time. It all depends on the schedule that the airlines have in place. You could have a connecting point that is 'out of the way' but if you have a short 1 hr connection versus a 2 hr connection at another "on the way" point, it could take a shorter elapsed time to get there using the first option.

Looking at DCA-TYO (say in Dec 2018) or DCA-ICN (say June 2019) (I am using these and not PVG as DL has MSP-HND and MSP-ICN loaded), guess which connections came up when I sorted by duration (shortest)?

Delta DCA-DTW-NRT 16h 05m
Delta DCA-MSP-HND 16h 25m
AA DCA-ORD-NRT 16h 45m
AC DCA-YYZ-HND 17h 15m

Delta DCA-MSP-ICN 17h 10m
Delta DCA-JFK-ICN 17h 20m
AC DCA-YYZ-ICN 17h 45m
Delta DCA-DTW-ICN 18h 01m
UA/OZ DCA-ORD-ICN 18h 20m

Flighty wrote:

You say "terrible" when the flight time impact is maybe 16-18 minutes, and through less congested airspace, so the net impact is around zero. Not that bad. Anyway, perhaps surprisingly... the main financial backing for a MSP China route is probably not the East Coast; it is the Central USA... a fairly large region from Denver to DC, from MKE to New Orleans. Unique routings where yields would be higher. This route probably can be as successful as other China routes (mind you, that is, probably not at all successful).

More than that, most people prefer an hour flight and then connecting on a 14 hour flight vs 3 hour flights and then connecting on to 13 hour flight. That's just eh reality.

Unique routing? Have you checked some of the fares to PVG out of places with Chinese population? Try find something where you can even get $1000 R/T. If these "unique routing" were so high yielding, why could AA not make these high yield work out of ORD?