klm617
Posts: 4675
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:11 pm

luckyone wrote:
klm617 wrote:
jetblueguy22 wrote:
Why would there be a 3 hour connection? You keep saying this with nothing to back it up. I’ve never had more than a 1.5 hour connection in the 100+ flights I’ve been on out of MSP.

And even if you mean taking a 3 hour flight to connect to a 12 hour flight it’s ridiculous. If you can’t survive the 3 hour flight, you’re never going to survive the flight to China. It may be your preference to avoid it, but let’s not act like your preference is the only one that matters. This flight will draw from all over the east coast and from the small markets in the Midwest. Nobody cares about the west coast, it’s not who this is attracting.

I have coworkers that fly BDL-ATL-ICN often. Now tell me, which is more out of the way? And these are guys who spend 6 months a year on the road, they aren’t your save up and buy an international trip every decade kind of people.


My question is why would anyone accept a routing like BDL-ATL-ICN. As a customer I would not add at the very least 2 hours to already long trip. I would be concerned if these people were my employees and their thought resolution process they'd be better off driving to JFK and taking a nonstop then flying down to Atlanta . That's just ridicules to travel from the northeast to Atlanta to get to Seoul.

It could be several reasons.
1. KE may be more inclined to sell connections out of ATL than JFK, which in theory chases high dollar NYC passengers.
2. It takes less time to fly to ATL than to drive to JFK, and your flight to ATL is less likely to be delayed.
3. Assuming all costs are equal, it’s easier to connect in ATL (or most places really) than JFK. One will not need to re-clear security when doing domestic to international. And before you go there, yes an equally efficient or more routing could occur at DTW. BUT you didn’t ask that yet.


Well I'll tell you this if I lived in the Northeast I would NEVER take a routing over ATL to get to Asia there are just to many other logical options out there rather than wasting 4 hours of my valuable time flying out of my way and in my experience Delta is very prone to missed connections in Atlanta. Atlanta is not an easier place to connect it's a horrific hub to navigate through and most of the time you have to spirit to your connection because Delta is more than happy to leave without you even if the reason you may miss your connection is their own fault by being late on your inbound flight.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
luckyone
Posts: 2854
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:34 pm

klm617 wrote:
luckyone wrote:
klm617 wrote:

My question is why would anyone accept a routing like BDL-ATL-ICN. As a customer I would not add at the very least 2 hours to already long trip. I would be concerned if these people were my employees and their thought resolution process they'd be better off driving to JFK and taking a nonstop then flying down to Atlanta . That's just ridicules to travel from the northeast to Atlanta to get to Seoul.

It could be several reasons.
1. KE may be more inclined to sell connections out of ATL than JFK, which in theory chases high dollar NYC passengers.
2. It takes less time to fly to ATL than to drive to JFK, and your flight to ATL is less likely to be delayed.
3. Assuming all costs are equal, it’s easier to connect in ATL (or most places really) than JFK. One will not need to re-clear security when doing domestic to international. And before you go there, yes an equally efficient or more routing could occur at DTW. BUT you didn’t ask that yet.


Well I'll tell you this if I lived in the Northeast I would NEVER take a routing over ATL to get to Asia there are just to many other logical options out there rather than wasting 4 hours of my valuable time flying out of my way and in my experience Delta is very prone to missed connections in Atlanta. Atlanta is not an easier place to connect it's a horrific hub to navigate through and most of the time you have to spirit to your connection because Delta is more than happy to leave without you even if the reason you may miss your connection is their own fault by being late on your inbound flight.

Your opinion is certainly valid. About 70 million passengers a year say otherwise with regards to a connection in ATL. I'm not saying that those include millions of people from the Northeast to Asia, but it's only hard to navigate if you have difficulty walking in a straight line, and its design has been replicated in other airports. And as for leaving without you...no airline waits. I've had the same thing happen on United and American.
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 3442
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:39 pm

klm617 wrote:
luckyone wrote:
klm617 wrote:

My question is why would anyone accept a routing like BDL-ATL-ICN. As a customer I would not add at the very least 2 hours to already long trip. I would be concerned if these people were my employees and their thought resolution process they'd be better off driving to JFK and taking a nonstop then flying down to Atlanta . That's just ridicules to travel from the northeast to Atlanta to get to Seoul.

It could be several reasons.
1. KE may be more inclined to sell connections out of ATL than JFK, which in theory chases high dollar NYC passengers.
2. It takes less time to fly to ATL than to drive to JFK, and your flight to ATL is less likely to be delayed.
3. Assuming all costs are equal, it’s easier to connect in ATL (or most places really) than JFK. One will not need to re-clear security when doing domestic to international. And before you go there, yes an equally efficient or more routing could occur at DTW. BUT you didn’t ask that yet.


Well I'll tell you this if I lived in the Northeast I would NEVER take a routing over ATL to get to Asia there are just to many other logical options out there rather than wasting 4 hours of my valuable time flying out of my way and in my experience Delta is very prone to missed connections in Atlanta. Atlanta is not an easier place to connect it's a horrific hub to navigate through and most of the time you have to spirit to your connection because Delta is more than happy to leave without you even if the reason you may miss your connection is their own fault by being late on your inbound flight.


U will be surprised what people will do when the price and schedule work. For example, I just flew MSP-BOS-HKG-SGN on B6/CX. Not my preferred routing but the price was right and it let me get a full day of work in on my departure day.
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2956
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:51 pm

klm617 wrote:
[
Well I'll tell you this if I lived in the Northeast I would NEVER take a routing over ATL to get to Asia there are just to many other logical options out there rather than wasting 4 hours of my valuable time flying out of my way and in my experience Delta is very prone to missed connections in Atlanta. Atlanta is not an easier place to connect it's a horrific hub to navigate through and most of the time you have to spirit to your connection because Delta is more than happy to leave without you even if the reason you may miss your connection is their own fault by being late on your inbound flight.


You realize that you basically just described every major US airline.
 
hoons90
Posts: 3562
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 10:15 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:08 pm

klm617 wrote:

My question is why would anyone accept a routing like BDL-ATL-ICN. As a customer I would not add at the very least 2 hours to already long trip. I would be concerned if these people were my employees and their thought resolution process they'd be better off driving to JFK and taking a nonstop then flying down to Atlanta . That's just ridicules to travel from the northeast to Atlanta to get to Seoul.


DTW has a reputation amongst Korean travelers for having very rude and aggressive CBP officers (perhaps kind of like PDX back in the 90s, with the "Deportland" moniker?), so there are people in online Korean-language communities that suggest that Korean passport holders avoid passing through DTW. As such, other transit points may be preferred.
Maybe if you're an American citizen it's not really perceptible. I find that Koreans tend to follow online advice about travel rather seriously, and depend more on word-of-mouth as there are limited Korean-language resources compared to English ones.
The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
 
jetlanta
Posts: 1655
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 2:35 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:37 pm

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.


Oh goodness. Here we go again. Folks, DTW, along with ATL and MSP are Delta's cash cows. DTW survived the region's' worst economic shock since the Great Depression a decade ago. If that didn't do it in, nothing will.

But more importantly, I don't understand this concept that at some point air travel demand in this country is going to demand FEWER hubs. The reality is that demand for air travel growth is going to continue to rise. Existing hubs are the long-term winners and will remain hubs into the future due to that increased demand. DTW has infrastructure that few hubs can dream of and phenomenal geography. It does not play the same role as MSP. It actually complements MSP (and ATL). In fact, the design of the network is a feature, not a flaw, of Delta's business model. There will never be a day that Delta has to choose between DTW and MSP.
 
bkflyguy
Posts: 212
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:25 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:15 pm

jetlanta wrote:
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.


Oh goodness. Here we go again. Folks, DTW, along with ATL and MSP are Delta's cash cows. DTW survived the region's' worst economic shock since the Great Depression a decade ago. If that didn't do it in, nothing will.

But more importantly, I don't understand this concept that at some point air travel demand in this country is going to demand FEWER hubs. The reality is that demand for air travel growth is going to continue to rise. Existing hubs are the long-term winners and will remain hubs into the future due to that increased demand. DTW has infrastructure that few hubs can dream of and phenomenal geography. It does not play the same role as MSP. It actually complements MSP (and ATL). In fact, the design of the network is a feature, not a flaw, of Delta's business model. There will never be a day that Delta has to choose between DTW and MSP.


100% correct. And if anything, if Detroit even partially recovers and its population grows, DTW would be an even bigger cash cow.
 
TTailedTiger
Posts: 1573
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2018 5:19 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:26 pm

jetlanta wrote:
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.


Oh goodness. Here we go again. Folks, DTW, along with ATL and MSP are Delta's cash cows. DTW survived the region's' worst economic shock since the Great Depression a decade ago. If that didn't do it in, nothing will.

But more importantly, I don't understand this concept that at some point air travel demand in this country is going to demand FEWER hubs. The reality is that demand for air travel growth is going to continue to rise. Existing hubs are the long-term winners and will remain hubs into the future due to that increased demand. DTW has infrastructure that few hubs can dream of and phenomenal geography. It does not play the same role as MSP. It actually complements MSP (and ATL). In fact, the design of the network is a feature, not a flaw, of Delta's business model. There will never be a day that Delta has to choose between DTW and MSP.


Hmmm. What is the % of O/D passengers at DTW compared to MSP and ATL?
 
jetlanta
Posts: 1655
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 2:35 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:31 pm

ClearBlueYonder wrote:
klakzky123 wrote:
3M might have some manufacturing ties in China. Best Buy has very little outside of importing goods from China and Best Buy is shrinking its international presence now. Land O'Lakes and Hormel are in agriculture so they definitely might be doing serious business in China.

3M has something like 8,200+ employees in China with their regional HQ in Shanghai along with a major R&D center and multiple production centers. They have 27 branch offices and multiple production centers across China. I think having this flight will be of great interest to them. Ecolab has their headquarters in Shanghai, are expanding their food safety business and R&D facilities, and have 3,600+ employees across China. There are significant medical device/technology business ties to China with Medtronic and St. Jude.

But you (and others) are correct: the agricultural ties in the Upper Midwest and Central U.S. will be significant for this flight.

Minnesota has $3B in yearly exports with China, second only to Canada for the greatest international trade partner, over $1B of which is related to grains and oilseeds. This is on-par with the state of Georgia's economic relationship with China. And with all the lauded "auto industry" business between DTW and China, that market (~$1.4B/yr) is not dramatically larger than the agricultural market between Minnesota & China. Then, add in the surrounding markets from Iowa, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, etc. and you'll see there's a healthy amount of trade going on in the Midwest.

Delta has publicly said their future is in international growth. This seems right on par, and I see no reason why this route can't be successful. It's not always about the Chinese diasporas and VFR travel. That kind of travel helps fill seats and sell change fees & baggage fees, but it doesn't alone indicate long-term viability of a market or route.


This is exactly why routes like this work. The hidden nuances that you don't get from publically-available data. I'm not sure if it is the case today, but for a number of years DTW-PVG was the most profitable international route Delta operated in terms of margin. This performance is driven by local corporate travel that is unique to the DTW market. MSP will likely behave similarly.

Delta knows what its corporate customers want. Besides the interesting facts you point out above, people should understand that two of the nation's largest retailers are based in MSP and a significant amount of the products they sell are sourced from China. Buyers and vendors are flying back and forth all of the time. When you start out with as much front cabin traffic as MSP-PVG is likely to generate, the chances of success are pretty good.
 
jrkmsp
Posts: 165
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:33 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Nov 06, 2018 5:34 pm

Some (incomplete) PDEW figures from the Metropolitan Airports Commission, which recently increased the value of its incentive program for new international flights. MSP-PVG (and MSP-ICN/DUB as well) will likely be in line for $2M in incentives over their first two years each.

(With service on one carrier)
LHR: 131
FRA: 41
HND: 35

(With no current service)
FCO: 42
DUB: 40
MUC: 32
PVG: 32
NBO: 27
ICN: 24
BCN: 24
SGN: 23

And just for grins, the largest domestic markets without service are OGG: 71, ONT: 48, PVD: 46, GSP: 39 and BHM/LIH/PWM/KOA: 38.
 
MSP744
Posts: 22
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2017 6:38 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Nov 06, 2018 11:38 pm

DL should just sell it as a one night stopover to visit the Mall of America since Minneapolis is too far out of the way for a normal connection haha :duck: :eyepopping:
Flown on: PC12 CRJ9 E175 DC9 MD88 MD90 319 320 321 712 737 738 739 752 753 763 77E 77L 744
 
lavalampluva
Posts: 1396
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Wed Nov 07, 2018 2:05 am

MSP744 wrote:
DL should just sell it as a one night stopover to visit the Mall of America since Minneapolis is too far out of the way for a normal connection haha :duck: :eyepopping:

NW used to do that during the Christmas holidays. They did it for a number of years. But they were selling it as a fly shop for the day, and go back home. Fares were quite reasonable. Though I think it only applied to flights in the lower 48 states.
Remind me to send a thank you note to Mr. Boeing.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 23964
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Wed Feb 06, 2019 8:50 pm

DOT did not approve the proposed alternative MSP-PVG service as proposed by DL and instead opted to grant AA its request for dormancy waiver for ORD-PEK & PVG services.

DOT did leave the door open that it would reconsider alternative route proposals should AA not resume the service and if such alternative service was in the public benefit.

OST-2018-0161
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
FSDan
Posts: 2674
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Wed Feb 06, 2019 9:09 pm

LAXintl wrote:
DOT did not approve the proposed alternative MSP-PVG service as proposed by DL and instead opted to grant AA its request for dormancy waiver for ORD-PEK & PVG services.

DOT did leave the door open that it would reconsider alternative route proposals should AA not resume the service and if such alternative service was in the public benefit.

OST-2018-0161


I didn't think DL's request was contingent on getting any of AA's frequencies... Didn't they request to use the frequencies vacated when UA dropped GUM-PVG? So did DOT just reject DL's application outright and leave those frequencies unallocated, or what?
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
gsg013
Posts: 520
Joined: Wed Feb 15, 2017 4:03 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:47 pm

Flighty wrote:
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.


This is incorrect the first time I connected at MSP I did not really realize how out of the way it was going MCO-MSP-EWR on DL. That MSP-EWR flight is long (1008 miles long) I often connect on DL in DTW going EWR-DTW (that connection flight is often just a tad under 1 hour (488 miles) From the east coast this adds another 520 miles to the trip..

I now always try my best to connect in DTW (BNA-DTW-AMS/CDG) rather than BNA-MSP-AMS/CDG
 
jbs2886
Posts: 2182
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Wed Feb 06, 2019 10:48 pm

FSDan wrote:
LAXintl wrote:
DOT did not approve the proposed alternative MSP-PVG service as proposed by DL and instead opted to grant AA its request for dormancy waiver for ORD-PEK & PVG services.

DOT did leave the door open that it would reconsider alternative route proposals should AA not resume the service and if such alternative service was in the public benefit.

OST-2018-0161


I didn't think DL's request was contingent on getting any of AA's frequencies... Didn't they request to use the frequencies vacated when UA dropped GUM-PVG? So did DOT just reject DL's application outright and leave those frequencies unallocated, or what?


It was a different decision and DL's application was not (entirely) contingent on AA's frequencies. The DOT "deferred" action on DL's though, not sure I agree its appropriate since they did apply for already available slots, but I get that it is far in advance. Here is the decision: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0161-0010
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 6157
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Wed Feb 06, 2019 11:55 pm

From the link by jbs2886:

Decision: Having carefully considered the record in this case, we have decided to grant American’s request for a dormancy waiver for its Chicago-Beijing and Chicago-Shanghai services until June 28, 2019.9 American states that by this date it will provide a proposal for the resumption of its services. No carrier has presented firm plans to use the frequencies at issue during the period covered by American’s request, as Delta and United have each proposed service beginning the following year, in June 2020. In the circumstances presented, we do not believe that the public interest warrants reallocation of American’s authority now for alternative services that would not begin until June 2020. The Department will therefore grant American temporary relief until June 28, 2019, from the 90-day dormancy condition applicable to its Chicago-Beijing and Chicago-Shanghai frequency allocations.

So, there we have it.
 
B1168
Posts: 507
Joined: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:26 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:46 am

MIflyer12 wrote:
From the link by jbs2886:

Decision: Having carefully considered the record in this case, we have decided to grant American’s request for a dormancy waiver for its Chicago-Beijing and Chicago-Shanghai services until June 28, 2019.9 American states that by this date it will provide a proposal for the resumption of its services. No carrier has presented firm plans to use the frequencies at issue during the period covered by American’s request, as Delta and United have each proposed service beginning the following year, in June 2020. In the circumstances presented, we do not believe that the public interest warrants reallocation of American’s authority now for alternative services that would not begin until June 2020. The Department will therefore grant American temporary relief until June 28, 2019, from the 90-day dormancy condition applicable to its Chicago-Beijing and Chicago-Shanghai frequency allocations.

So, there we have it.


Hmm. American narrowly avoided the disaster (?) of having their already China market nearly bisected. After all, the Delta thing isn’t commencing until mid 2020, so granting the slots that early is indeed “unprecedented “ and therefore probably unrealistic.
Case closed (at least for now).
 
klm617
Posts: 4675
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Thu Feb 07, 2019 6:44 pm

So if Delta was serious about starting MSP-PVG why not amend the application and move up the starting date to ensure it got the slots it needed to start this service. Is it an equipment issues because I don't think the dynamics of the market are going to change in say 6 months.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
winginit
Posts: 2612
Joined: Sat Feb 23, 2013 9:23 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Thu Feb 07, 2019 7:06 pm

klm617 wrote:
So if Delta was serious about starting MSP-PVG why not amend the application and move up the starting date to ensure it got the slots it needed to start this service. Is it an equipment issues because I don't think the dynamics of the market are going to change in say 6 months.


Slots aren't an issue. Frequency authority is the issue.
 
airlineaddict
Posts: 358
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 12:37 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Thu Feb 07, 2019 11:13 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
FSDan wrote:
LAXintl wrote:
DOT did not approve the proposed alternative MSP-PVG service as proposed by DL and instead opted to grant AA its request for dormancy waiver for ORD-PEK & PVG services.

DOT did leave the door open that it would reconsider alternative route proposals should AA not resume the service and if such alternative service was in the public benefit.

OST-2018-0161


I didn't think DL's request was contingent on getting any of AA's frequencies... Didn't they request to use the frequencies vacated when UA dropped GUM-PVG? So did DOT just reject DL's application outright and leave those frequencies unallocated, or what?


It was a different decision and DL's application was not (entirely) contingent on AA's frequencies. The DOT "deferred" action on DL's though, not sure I agree its appropriate since they did apply for already available slots, but I get that it is far in advance. Here is the decision: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0161-0010


Thanks for the link. All eyes on June 28, 2019 - the deadline for AA to submit their plan. Also, will the other carriers accelerate their startup date??

Stay tuned... :box:
 
Elementalism
Posts: 495
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:03 am

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


And Hormel, Best Buy,3M, USBank, United Health Group ect.
 
Elementalism
Posts: 495
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 4:03 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:08 am

klakzky123 wrote:
bkflyguy wrote:
klakzky123 wrote:

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.


3M, BestBuy, Land O'lakes, Hormel,


3M might have some manufacturing ties in China. Best Buy has very little outside of importing goods from China and Best Buy is shrinking its international presence now. Land O'Lakes and Hormel are in agriculture so they definitely might be doing serious business in China.


I know for a fact Hormel recently built a factory in China. I know this because my buddy from school oversaw the project for 18 months. Him and his new wife lived there.
 
User avatar
FlightLevel360
Posts: 406
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 2:26 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Fri Feb 08, 2019 2:38 am

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.

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?


No. In the aviation world, Hong Kong is commonly regarded as separate from China.
To me, it will always be:
- Bombardier CSeries
- Airbus A321neoLR and A321neoXLR
- EMBRACER ERJ-170, ERJ-175, ERJ-190, and ERJ-195
- MITSUBUSHI MRJ

Anti narrowbody-long range-twinjet gang. Long live the A380 and 747!
 
Antoli0794
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2018 10:20 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Sun Mar 24, 2019 8:54 pm

Will DL retry with an earlier date or wait until June 29,2019 on AA to make a move?

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos