tphuang
Posts: 3736
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:08 pm

panamair wrote:
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

As I wrote below. Most people like a short first flight + a long flight. I know a lot of people that make these flights. My parents would kill me if I book them on a 3 hour connection to MSP first. But feel free to disregard me.
 
bkflyguy
Posts: 217
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2012 6:25 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:09 pm

klakzky123 wrote:
SteveXC500 wrote:
winginit wrote:

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.


3M, BestBuy, Land O'lakes, Hormel,
 
klakzky123
Posts: 676
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 4:05 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:20 pm

bkflyguy wrote:
klakzky123 wrote:
SteveXC500 wrote:

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.


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.
 
jbs2886
Posts: 2212
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:20 pm

Bobloblaw wrote:
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.


I love when someone starts with "I dont [sic] mean to be a jerk..." Of course, I could point out the three apostrophes you missed in your post. :spin: Regardless, you are correct that the rights sought by DL are frequencies, not slots, as I mistakenly posted.
 
SurfandSnow
Posts: 1480
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 7:09 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:24 pm

LAXintl wrote:
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


Interesting. I doubt AA or HA will have any desire to challenge DL on this, but could UA suddenly have reason to try something like IAH-PVG? :stirthepot:
Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
 
FSDan
Posts: 2782
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 5:27 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:28 pm

727200 wrote:
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.


Sorry, nothing about your statements makes any sense...
1) How would MSP-PVG be different than any other flight DL operates from MSP (an immensely successful hub by pretty much any measure) in the traffic it draws? The reality is that DL could sell logical connections from dozens of markets on this route.
2) This route would be connecting one of DL's largest hubs to a major strategic partner's hub in PVG. In the press release it also mentions that PVG is the largest unserved Asia market from MSP. If this seems like a "dartboard route" to you, I'm not sure what all you'd think is a logical route.
This is my signature until I think of a better one.
 
B752OS
Posts: 1215
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 4:05 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:30 pm

People are overstating how much air traffic Fortune 500 companies generate, especially on the international side of things. Companies like 3M, Best Buy and Land O'Lakes are not going to drive and fill a flight to Shanghai. If that were the case, then such a flight would have already existed.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:33 pm

tphuang wrote:
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?


Yes, I understand USA China has bad yields.

Unique itineraries are where better yields are earned. MOT, FAR, SDF, DSM, cities like these. They will not be $500 R/T like the PRC carrier nonstop markets are. Delta does very well serving secondary cities. So I would look there for the business model that supports MSP-HND, MSP-CDG etc. And would be expected to support MSP-ICN. When we sum the pricey secondary markets, and add volume from the main markets like DCA, PHL etc, this flight may work pretty well. But it is still probably a politics game with AA, not the best business idea.

Your point about people not wanting to fly 3 hours to get to their international flight, I think definitely contains some truth.
 
Bobloblaw
Posts: 2406
Joined: Fri Jan 13, 2012 1:15 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:39 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
Bobloblaw wrote:
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.


I love when someone starts with "I dont [sic] mean to be a jerk..." Of course, I could point out the three apostrophes you missed in your post. :spin: Regardless, you are correct that the rights sought by DL are frequencies, not slots, as I mistakenly posted.


alright, i mean to be a jerk.
 
jrkmsp
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:33 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 5:59 pm

Flighty wrote:
tphuang wrote:
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?


Yes, I understand USA China has bad yields.

Unique itineraries are where better yields are earned. MOT, FAR, SDF, DSM, cities like these. They will not be $500 R/T like the PRC carrier nonstop markets are. Delta does very well serving secondary cities. So I would look there for the business model that supports MSP-HND, MSP-CDG etc. And would be expected to support MSP-ICN. When we sum the pricey secondary markets, and add volume from the main markets like DCA, PHL etc, this flight may work pretty well. But it is still probably a politics game with AA, not the best business idea.

Your point about people not wanting to fly 3 hours to get to their international flight, I think definitely contains some truth.


This is it, in a nutshell. MSP is a machine that connects a thriving metro with a high amount of corporate travel AND a bunch of smaller, low-service markets around the middle part of the country, to the world. Here's Minneapolis metro's PDEW in international markets. Italics are unserved. Data is from 2017. Note that MEX is the only remaining unserved market that really seems to be calling out for service. And last time Ed Bastian was in town, he all but said it was coming in the next 12 months.

Cancun/CUN 271
Toronto/YYZ 137
London/LHR 118
Puerto Vallarta/PVR 92
Punta Cana/PUJ 85
Vancouver/YVR 64
Montego Bay/MBJ 60
Amsterdam/AMS 57
Paris/CDG 57
San Jose del Cabo/SJD 55
Calgary/YYC 49
Frankfurt/FRA 48
Montreal/YUL 45
Mexico City/MEX 41
Shanghai/PVG 36 (Announced, starting in 2020)
Dublin/DUB 34 (Announced, starting in 2019)
Rome/FCO 32
Reykjavik/KEF 30
Tokyo/NRT+HND 30
Nairobi/NBO 28
Beijing/PEK 26
Munich/MUC 24
Seoul/ICN 22 (Announced, starting in 2019)
 
EddieDude
Posts: 7020
Joined: Fri Nov 14, 2003 10:19 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:09 pm

jrkmsp wrote:
Note that MEX is the only remaining unserved market that really seems to be calling out for service. And last time Ed Bastian was in town, he all but said it was coming in the next 12 months.

DL tried MSP-MEX nonstop a few years ago. I think it was daily. The departure ex-MEX was something like 2 pm or so. It did not last long. Let's see if they attempt it again and make it work now that the joint venture with AM is in place.
Upcoming flights:
April/May: AM MEX-SCL 788 (J), AM EZE-MEX 789 (J).
 
jbs2886
Posts: 2212
Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2015 9:07 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:29 pm

jrkmsp wrote:
Flighty wrote:
tphuang wrote:

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?


Yes, I understand USA China has bad yields.

Unique itineraries are where better yields are earned. MOT, FAR, SDF, DSM, cities like these. They will not be $500 R/T like the PRC carrier nonstop markets are. Delta does very well serving secondary cities. So I would look there for the business model that supports MSP-HND, MSP-CDG etc. And would be expected to support MSP-ICN. When we sum the pricey secondary markets, and add volume from the main markets like DCA, PHL etc, this flight may work pretty well. But it is still probably a politics game with AA, not the best business idea.

Your point about people not wanting to fly 3 hours to get to their international flight, I think definitely contains some truth.


This is it, in a nutshell. MSP is a machine that connects a thriving metro with a high amount of corporate travel AND a bunch of smaller, low-service markets around the middle part of the country, to the world. Here's Minneapolis metro's PDEW in international markets. Italics are unserved. Data is from 2017. Note that MEX is the only remaining unserved market that really seems to be calling out for service. And last time Ed Bastian was in town, he all but said it was coming in the next 12 months.

Cancun/CUN 271
Toronto/YYZ 137
London/LHR 118
Puerto Vallarta/PVR 92
Punta Cana/PUJ 85
Vancouver/YVR 64
Montego Bay/MBJ 60
Amsterdam/AMS 57
Paris/CDG 57
San Jose del Cabo/SJD 55
Calgary/YYC 49
Frankfurt/FRA 48
Montreal/YUL 45
Mexico City/MEX 41
Shanghai/PVG 36 (Announced, starting in 2020)
Dublin/DUB 34 (Announced, starting in 2019)
Rome/FCO 32
Reykjavik/KEF 30
Tokyo/NRT+HND 30
Nairobi/NBO 28
Beijing/PEK 26
Munich/MUC 24
Seoul/ICN 22 (Announced, starting in 2019)


Interesting facts. When was Ed last in town, btw?
 
Varsity1
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 4:55 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:52 pm

AA should launch SEA-PVG to hold the slot and tell AS to fill the airplane.

Puts pressure on Delta, Holds the Slot and allows them to focus on other things.
"PPRuNe will no longer allow discussions regarding Etihad Airlines, its employees, executives, agents, or other representatives. Such threads will be deleted." - ME3 thug airlines suing anyone who brings negative information public..
 
burnsie28
Posts: 5279
Joined: Mon Aug 02, 2004 1:49 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:54 pm

Seems that a lot of these people commenting on this thread fail to recognize how many fortune 500 companies are in Minnesota. There are 19 Fortune 500 companies headquartered in MN compared to 17 in Georgia and 17 in Michigan.
Last edited by burnsie28 on Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
User avatar
spinotter
Posts: 675
Joined: Wed May 27, 2015 1:37 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 6:55 pm

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.


Agree from Chicago. But how about from Madison? LaCrosse? Milwaukee? Wausau? Big population centers. Well, you wouldn't have thought that MSP would now have four daily summer nonstops to AMS a while ago either. But MSP-PVG is still pushing the envelope for me!
 
flyfresno
Topic Author
Posts: 925
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 6:18 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:03 pm

jrkmsp wrote:
Flighty wrote:
tphuang wrote:

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?


Yes, I understand USA China has bad yields.

Unique itineraries are where better yields are earned. MOT, FAR, SDF, DSM, cities like these. They will not be $500 R/T like the PRC carrier nonstop markets are. Delta does very well serving secondary cities. So I would look there for the business model that supports MSP-HND, MSP-CDG etc. And would be expected to support MSP-ICN. When we sum the pricey secondary markets, and add volume from the main markets like DCA, PHL etc, this flight may work pretty well. But it is still probably a politics game with AA, not the best business idea.

Your point about people not wanting to fly 3 hours to get to their international flight, I think definitely contains some truth.


This is it, in a nutshell. MSP is a machine that connects a thriving metro with a high amount of corporate travel AND a bunch of smaller, low-service markets around the middle part of the country, to the world. Here's Minneapolis metro's PDEW in international markets. Italics are unserved. Data is from 2017. Note that MEX is the only remaining unserved market that really seems to be calling out for service. And last time Ed Bastian was in town, he all but said it was coming in the next 12 months.

Cancun/CUN 271
Toronto/YYZ 137
London/LHR 118
Puerto Vallarta/PVR 92
Punta Cana/PUJ 85
Vancouver/YVR 64
Montego Bay/MBJ 60
Amsterdam/AMS 57
Paris/CDG 57
San Jose del Cabo/SJD 55
Calgary/YYC 49
Frankfurt/FRA 48
Montreal/YUL 45
Mexico City/MEX 41
Shanghai/PVG 36 (Announced, starting in 2020)
Dublin/DUB 34 (Announced, starting in 2019)
Rome/FCO 32
Reykjavik/KEF 30
Tokyo/NRT+HND 30
Nairobi/NBO 28
Beijing/PEK 26
Munich/MUC 24
Seoul/ICN 22 (Announced, starting in 2019)


Is this average over 12 months? I would imagine that the caribbean (such as MBJ) and some other vacation cities have huge seasonal swings that drop dramatically in AUG/SEP/OCT. Also, not that it would ever happen from MSP, but out of curiosity, what are the corresponding PDEW numbers from JFK and ATL to Nairobi?
 
klakzky123
Posts: 676
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2016 4:05 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:06 pm

EddieDude wrote:
jrkmsp wrote:
Note that MEX is the only remaining unserved market that really seems to be calling out for service. And last time Ed Bastian was in town, he all but said it was coming in the next 12 months.

DL tried MSP-MEX nonstop a few years ago. I think it was daily. The departure ex-MEX was something like 2 pm or so. It did not last long. Let's see if they attempt it again and make it work now that the joint venture with AM is in place.


I think they announced that they would try it in a press release already. Or maybe Ed's speech was just leaked but I thought DL PR published it. I think they're counting on Aeromexico connections in MEX to help make the flight more successful this time.
 
Prost
Posts: 2501
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:23 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:06 pm

SurfandSnow wrote:
LAXintl wrote:
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


Interesting. I doubt AA or HA will have any desire to challenge DL on this, but could UA suddenly have reason to try something like IAH-PVG? :stirthepot:


UA and HA returned the frequencies. They no longer have a claim to them, any more than DL does. UA and HA can both apply for these just as DL is doing, but UA and HA don’t have a greater claim on them than any other carrier.
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 3482
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:29 pm

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.


I find it ironic that JetBlue's #1 fan on this site has no problem with B6 selling all manner of circuitous domestic routings via BOS but thinks an a 15 minute detour on a 16 hour journey makes MSP-PVG untenable.
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2909
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:29 pm

Being from Chicago, I wouldn't be happy to see us lose a flight to MSP but we technically already lost it.

But, I am not so sure that DL on MSP-PVG won't be more successful than AA on ORD-PVG for a couple of reasons:

1. DL just seems better equipped to compete than AA. DL seems to have more success than AA in general.
2. DL doesn't have any direct competition. AA had to compete directly with UA & MU. AA also had to indirectly compete with UA and HU on ORD-PEK and less so with UA and CX on ORD-HKG. There are also a plethora of flights from ORD to NRT and ICN to compete with. MSP is a business strong city with currently only one flight to Asia, HND. DL can pick up most of the MSP O&D where as AA could at best get a 1/3 of ORD's traffic but probably much less in reality.
3. Although AA is bigger at ORD (513 flights) than DL is at MSP (447 flights), I would bet DL has more connection traffic at MSP than AA does at ORD. AA is heavier O&D at ORD, from what A-Netters say. DL can probably capture more of the eastern US, plus a little more between Chicago and Minneapolis.
4. DL has two SkyTeam partners in PVG, FM and MU. A lot more thru traffic possibilities over AA.
Last edited by United787 on Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
peanuts
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:17 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:33 pm

Why is this route so far fetched? Beats me.
They have a partner on the other end.

The replies in this thread is a prime example of why some quality, helpful insight posters have left this site.
 
usflyer msp
Posts: 3482
Joined: Tue May 23, 2000 11:50 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:35 pm

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...


Have you looked at a map? It is a 7 hour drive from MSP to ORD. I do not know one person that ever driven from MSP to ORD or VV to catch a flight. We often take advantage of ORD's much cheaper international flights but that usually involves making two separate bookings not driving to ORD.
 
bfitzflyer
Posts: 302
Joined: Mon Nov 07, 2016 1:02 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:41 pm

jayunited wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
I 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.


Ok, UA definitely more connection opportunities at ORD. AA, I am pretty sure DL offers more connection opportunities at MSP as AA is a distant second these days at ORD.
 
User avatar
United787
Posts: 2909
Joined: Fri May 20, 2005 12:20 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 7:43 pm

peanuts wrote:
Why is this route so far fetched? Beats me.
They have a partner on the other end.

The replies in this thread is a prime example of why some quality, helpful insight posters have left this site.


A-Netters discussing their favorite airline has become similar to discussions about sport teams and politics. All three subjects have gotten more divisive and crazy. So many "fans" are way too emotional and have become "tribal" in their support for their "team". I love UA (hence my screen name) but I can talk about AA, UA and DL objectively and discuss the subject like a mature adult.

Here is a test: If you can't say 5 negative things about your "airline", "team" or "political party/candidate" AND 5 genuine positive things about each of your competing "airlines", "teams" or "political party/candidates"... then you need to get some self awareness and get a grip...
 
global1
Posts: 484
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2014 5:31 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:00 pm

Keep in mind, DL 'owns' Msp, unlike AA at Ord. Also, DL will have feed at both ends and their network and frequent flyer base is much larger than standalone NW ever was.
 
PSU.DTW.SCE
Posts: 7453
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2002 11:45 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:07 pm

United787 wrote:
peanuts wrote:
Why is this route so far fetched? Beats me.
They have a partner on the other end.

The replies in this thread is a prime example of why some quality, helpful insight posters have left this site.


A-Netters discussing their favorite airline has become similar to discussions about sport teams and politics. All three subjects have gotten more divisive and crazy. So many "fans" are way too emotional and have become "tribal" in their support for their "team". I love UA (hence my screen name) but I can talk about AA, UA and DL objectively and discuss the subject like a mature adult.

Here is a test: If you can't say 5 negative things about your "airline", "team" or "political party/candidate" AND 5 genuine positive things about each of your competing "airlines", "teams" or "political party/candidates"... then you need to get some self awareness and get a grip...

Post of the year here.

This thread has gotten out of hand and the ludicrous comments that some sides make are out of control on this site. A.net is worse than some of the college football sites/fan-board I follow.
 
tphuang
Posts: 3736
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:14 pm

usflyer msp wrote:
tphuang wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:

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.


I find it ironic that JetBlue's #1 fan on this site has no problem with B6 selling all manner of circuitous domestic routings via BOS but thinks an a 15 minute detour on a 16 hour journey makes MSP-PVG untenable.


I understand that it offends you that people on the east coast don't want to take 3 hour connection to MSP before a long flight to China vs 1 hour connection to one of the airports in northeast, but that's just the reality. And the reality is that fares to China is rock bottom compared domestic fares. So undercutting a more convenient one-stop option for a legacy airline on fares that are already rock bottom is different than undercutting domestic legacy fares. I'm sure if DL is willing to sell $500 R/T fares through MSP, it will be able to fill the cabin, how about that?

Here is something to think about. Ever since China started its anti-corruption drive, big companies are unable to allow most of its employees travel to America use business class. China Eastern connection J fares are routinely the lowest across TPAC, because it can't fill the business class cabin on its north American flights. How do US airlines generate the necessary demand for J cabin to China to pay for the cost of flights. And this applies to all airlines.
Last edited by tphuang on Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
jrkmsp
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:33 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:28 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
jrkmsp wrote:
Flighty wrote:

Yes, I understand USA China has bad yields.

Unique itineraries are where better yields are earned. MOT, FAR, SDF, DSM, cities like these. They will not be $500 R/T like the PRC carrier nonstop markets are. Delta does very well serving secondary cities. So I would look there for the business model that supports MSP-HND, MSP-CDG etc. And would be expected to support MSP-ICN. When we sum the pricey secondary markets, and add volume from the main markets like DCA, PHL etc, this flight may work pretty well. But it is still probably a politics game with AA, not the best business idea.

Your point about people not wanting to fly 3 hours to get to their international flight, I think definitely contains some truth.


This is it, in a nutshell. MSP is a machine that connects a thriving metro with a high amount of corporate travel AND a bunch of smaller, low-service markets around the middle part of the country, to the world. Here's Minneapolis metro's PDEW in international markets. Italics are unserved. Data is from 2017. Note that MEX is the only remaining unserved market that really seems to be calling out for service. And last time Ed Bastian was in town, he all but said it was coming in the next 12 months.

Cancun/CUN 271
Toronto/YYZ 137
London/LHR 118
Puerto Vallarta/PVR 92
Punta Cana/PUJ 85
Vancouver/YVR 64
Montego Bay/MBJ 60
Amsterdam/AMS 57
Paris/CDG 57
San Jose del Cabo/SJD 55
Calgary/YYC 49
Frankfurt/FRA 48
Montreal/YUL 45
Mexico City/MEX 41
Shanghai/PVG 36 (Announced, starting in 2020)
Dublin/DUB 34 (Announced, starting in 2019)
Rome/FCO 32
Reykjavik/KEF 30
Tokyo/NRT+HND 30
Nairobi/NBO 28
Beijing/PEK 26
Munich/MUC 24
Seoul/ICN 22 (Announced, starting in 2019)


Interesting facts. When was Ed last in town, btw?


Within the past couple months. Don't remember exactly in. And, truthfully, he may have been in town since, but on this trip he did a big media/business swing.
 
stlgph
Posts: 11038
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:19 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:29 pm

tphuang wrote:
usflyer msp wrote:
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? 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.


I find it ironic that JetBlue's #1 fan on this site has no problem with B6 selling all manner of circuitous domestic routings via BOS but thinks an a 15 minute detour on a 16 hour journey makes MSP-PVG untenable.


I understand that it offends you that people on the east coast don't want to take 3 hour connection to MSP before a long flight to China vs 1 hour connection to one of the airports in northeast, but that's just the reality. And the reality is that fares to China is rock bottom compared domestic fares. So undercutting a more convenient one-stop option for a legacy airline on fares that are already rock bottom is different than undercutting domestic legacy fares. I'm sure if DL is willing to sell $500 R/T fares through MSP, it will be able to fill the cabin, how about that?

Here is something to think about. Ever since China started its anti-corruption drive, big companies are unable to allow most of its employees travel to America use business class. China Eastern connection J fares are routinely the lowest across TPAC, because it can't fill the business class cabin on its north American flights. How do US airlines generate the necessary demand for J cabin to China to pay for the cost of flights. And this applies to all airlines.



so, to recap, as you say in a number of threads, everyone will *still* take those 3 hour flights on JetBlue into Boston to connect to another long haul international flight, but in this thread, they won't do it the other way when flying Delta and going through Minneapolis for an international flight?

:checkmark:
if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
 
jrkmsp
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:33 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:30 pm

flyfresno wrote:
jrkmsp wrote:
Flighty wrote:

Yes, I understand USA China has bad yields.

Unique itineraries are where better yields are earned. MOT, FAR, SDF, DSM, cities like these. They will not be $500 R/T like the PRC carrier nonstop markets are. Delta does very well serving secondary cities. So I would look there for the business model that supports MSP-HND, MSP-CDG etc. And would be expected to support MSP-ICN. When we sum the pricey secondary markets, and add volume from the main markets like DCA, PHL etc, this flight may work pretty well. But it is still probably a politics game with AA, not the best business idea.

Your point about people not wanting to fly 3 hours to get to their international flight, I think definitely contains some truth.


This is it, in a nutshell. MSP is a machine that connects a thriving metro with a high amount of corporate travel AND a bunch of smaller, low-service markets around the middle part of the country, to the world. Here's Minneapolis metro's PDEW in international markets. Italics are unserved. Data is from 2017. Note that MEX is the only remaining unserved market that really seems to be calling out for service. And last time Ed Bastian was in town, he all but said it was coming in the next 12 months.

Cancun/CUN 271
Toronto/YYZ 137
London/LHR 118
Puerto Vallarta/PVR 92
Punta Cana/PUJ 85
Vancouver/YVR 64
Montego Bay/MBJ 60
Amsterdam/AMS 57
Paris/CDG 57
San Jose del Cabo/SJD 55
Calgary/YYC 49
Frankfurt/FRA 48
Montreal/YUL 45
Mexico City/MEX 41
Shanghai/PVG 36 (Announced, starting in 2020)
Dublin/DUB 34 (Announced, starting in 2019)
Rome/FCO 32
Reykjavik/KEF 30
Tokyo/NRT+HND 30
Nairobi/NBO 28
Beijing/PEK 26
Munich/MUC 24
Seoul/ICN 22 (Announced, starting in 2019)


Is this average over 12 months? I would imagine that the caribbean (such as MBJ) and some other vacation cities have huge seasonal swings that drop dramatically in AUG/SEP/OCT. Also, not that it would ever happen from MSP, but out of curiosity, what are the corresponding PDEW numbers from JFK and ATL to Nairobi?


Yeah, this is 12 month average. FCO, for example, is almost entirely crammed into five months. Demand falls off a cliff the other months of the year. Same with the Mexico traffic. CUN is something like 6-7x a day in January, including on 300-seat widebodies. It stays year-round, but the frequency falls way off.
 
jrkmsp
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:33 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:30 pm

klakzky123 wrote:
EddieDude wrote:
jrkmsp wrote:
Note that MEX is the only remaining unserved market that really seems to be calling out for service. And last time Ed Bastian was in town, he all but said it was coming in the next 12 months.

DL tried MSP-MEX nonstop a few years ago. I think it was daily. The departure ex-MEX was something like 2 pm or so. It did not last long. Let's see if they attempt it again and make it work now that the joint venture with AM is in place.


I think they announced that they would try it in a press release already. Or maybe Ed's speech was just leaked but I thought DL PR published it. I think they're counting on Aeromexico connections in MEX to help make the flight more successful this time.


Yeah, I think it was in a press release as "we hope to have something to announce soon..." and I think Ed said as much in meetings with media and the corporate community.
 
tphuang
Posts: 3736
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2017 2:04 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:35 pm

stlgph wrote:
tphuang wrote:
usflyer msp wrote:

I find it ironic that JetBlue's #1 fan on this site has no problem with B6 selling all manner of circuitous domestic routings via BOS but thinks an a 15 minute detour on a 16 hour journey makes MSP-PVG untenable.


I understand that it offends you that people on the east coast don't want to take 3 hour connection to MSP before a long flight to China vs 1 hour connection to one of the airports in northeast, but that's just the reality. And the reality is that fares to China is rock bottom compared domestic fares. So undercutting a more convenient one-stop option for a legacy airline on fares that are already rock bottom is different than undercutting domestic legacy fares. I'm sure if DL is willing to sell $500 R/T fares through MSP, it will be able to fill the cabin, how about that?

Here is something to think about. Ever since China started its anti-corruption drive, big companies are unable to allow most of its employees travel to America use business class. China Eastern connection J fares are routinely the lowest across TPAC, because it can't fill the business class cabin on its north American flights. How do US airlines generate the necessary demand for J cabin to China to pay for the cost of flights. And this applies to all airlines.



so, to recap, as you say in a number of threads, everyone will *still* take those 3 hour flights on JetBlue into Boston to connect to another long haul international flight, but in this thread, they won't do it the other way when flying Delta and going through Minneapolis for an international flight?

:checkmark:

I have not said that anywhere. Please point to a post where I said something like this. There is no need to spread lies about me.

It should be pretty obvious that fares to China are really low and they are hard to profit. What's so hard to believe about that?
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 8:38 pm

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?

Starting two new routes to China seems very unlikely considering how conservative Delta, how bad LAX-PVG is doing for basically everyone, the blood bath LAX-PEK is and will be with even more capacity added and how tight the international fleet is right now.

Only way Delta goes after LAX-PEK right now is if they honestly believe it will be a while before the bilateral gets expanded again and that LAX-PEK is something their corporate and HVC accounts are pushing for.
tphuang wrote:
usflyer msp wrote:
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? 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.


I find it ironic that JetBlue's #1 fan on this site has no problem with B6 selling all manner of circuitous domestic routings via BOS but thinks an a 15 minute detour on a 16 hour journey makes MSP-PVG untenable.


I understand that it offends you that people on the east coast don't want to take 3 hour connection to MSP before a long flight to China vs 1 hour connection to one of the airports in northeast, but that's just the reality. And the reality is that fares to China is rock bottom compared domestic fares. So undercutting a more convenient one-stop option for a legacy airline on fares that are already rock bottom is different than undercutting domestic legacy fares. I'm sure if DL is willing to sell $500 R/T fares through MSP, it will be able to fill the cabin, how about that?

You saying and then saying it would piss your parents off if you booked them a trip like that doesn't make it reality.
If you have some actual data that shows this to be true, we'd love to see it. Till then you are just saying an opinion.

usflyer msp wrote:
tphuang wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:

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.


I find it ironic that JetBlue's #1 fan on this site has no problem with B6 selling all manner of circuitous domestic routings via BOS but thinks an a 15 minute detour on a 16 hour journey makes MSP-PVG untenable.

:checkmark: :checkmark: :checkmark:

Varsity1 wrote:
AA should launch SEA-PVG to hold the slot and tell AS to fill the airplane.

Puts pressure on Delta, Holds the Slot and allows them to focus on other things.

why not just set money on fire? seems like a lot less work for the same outcome

SurfandSnow wrote:
LAXintl wrote:
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


Interesting. I doubt AA or HA will have any desire to challenge DL on this, but could UA suddenly have reason to try something like IAH-PVG? :stirthepot:

then it'll become a route-case but it will also mean the loser of this route case will also be coming after the frequencies American is trying to sit on.
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.

I like how you say "Looks like the DL Route Planning boys are back to their dart board for new markets." but also say "I see UA asking for the AA slot and moving it to DEN. That would make the most sense for them."

There is someone tossing darts at terrible ideas but it isn't anyone at Delta. DEN-China on UA over IAH-China, LAX-PEK, IAD-PVG or even more frequencies from SFO makes about as much sense as the person saying American should start SEA-PVG.

jbs2886 wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:
flyfresno wrote:

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.

basically zero chance the DOT allows anything more than reduced service in the winter for American if Delta or United request any of those frequencies even if it is second daily flights to places like DTW or SFO.
I can't think of a time that the DOT has allowed a year+ dormancy when other carriers are requesting the frequencies now.

I honestly think if United requests 7 more frequencies it will be to take SFO-PEK double daily or IAD-PVG. I don't think they will start Houston right now.
 
ClearBlueYonder
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 1:21 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Mon Oct 22, 2018 9:14 pm

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.
 
MSPNWA
Posts: 3596
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 2:48 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:36 am

You don't announce a proposal 20 months in advance unless there's a political element to it. Let's see if this ever comes to fruition.
 
victoryuwu
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:29 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 12:37 am

Its actually a pretty good place for Chinese passengers to connect to cities that do not have direct route from China, considering MSP will be more easier for Chinese to pass customs than other major airports like ORD, LAX or NYC. If I want to go to NYC or DC, I will prefer PVG-MSP-JFK/LGA than PVG-JFK. The custom in JFK is a nightmare.
 
User avatar
CarlosSi
Posts: 617
Joined: Sat Jul 08, 2017 8:29 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 1:12 am

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...


Well at least he didn’t say “does Taiwan count as China?” :D
 
Atlwarrior
Posts: 447
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:42 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:03 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?


Hong Kong was not under China then, but Great Britain.
 
Atlwarrior
Posts: 447
Joined: Sun Jul 29, 2012 3:42 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:16 am

It just me or anyone else enjoying the sporadic, but well thought out international announcements by Delta lately. I wonder what else is in store?
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:24 am

Atlwarrior 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.

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?


Hong Kong was not under China then, but Great Britain.

The handover was in 1997. The nonstop MSP HKG flight was 1998. In other words, there was a MSP China nonstop in 1998. The press release is wrong. Or, Delta is being naughty, slyly trolling and lying to everyone. Which I would not put past Delta Air Lines at all. As others have said, a 2020 release right now is completely bogus. If Delta had this authority now, they would quickly lose it for not flying the route. Why not propose to start it in 2025, locking up the frequency and the slot.
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:36 am

Flighty wrote:
Atlwarrior 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.

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?


Hong Kong was not under China then, but Great Britain.

The handover was in 1997. The nonstop MSP HKG flight was 1998. In other words, there was a MSP China nonstop in 1998. The press release is wrong. Or, Delta is being naughty, slyly trolling and lying to everyone. Which I would not put past Delta Air Lines at all. As others have said, a 2020 release right now is completely bogus. If Delta had this authority now, they would quickly lose it for not flying the route. Why not propose to start it in 2025, locking up the frequency and the slot.

:roll: you do know that if someone else wants the frequencies they are more than welcome to bid on them now right?
 
jrkmsp
Posts: 179
Joined: Sun May 14, 2017 1:33 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:51 am

Flighty wrote:
Atlwarrior 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.

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?


Hong Kong was not under China then, but Great Britain.

The handover was in 1997. The nonstop MSP HKG flight was 1998. In other words, there was a MSP China nonstop in 1998. The press release is wrong. Or, Delta is being naughty, slyly trolling and lying to everyone. Which I would not put past Delta Air Lines at all. As others have said, a 2020 release right now is completely bogus. If Delta had this authority now, they would quickly lose it for not flying the route. Why not propose to start it in 2025, locking up the frequency and the slot.


Delta does address this in its filing, stating that the average time from application to route start for recent USA-China service has been 22-23 months. So, it's seeking frequency allocation from the US, and then will pursue slots and gates from China, which it hopes to have by next summer, at which time it'll have 10-11 months to market the route. I agree that it seemed extreme — and why I thought it was just an effort to screw with AA — but when you see that they're not going after AA's slots and you read their argument, it makes quite a bit of sense.
 
Prost
Posts: 2501
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:23 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 2:55 am

I also don’t understand why DL is requesting frequencies for a route they don’t intend to start for a year and a half. This doesn’t seem any different than AA requesting dormancy.
 
DarkKnight5
Posts: 199
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:36 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:31 am

Prost wrote:
I also don’t understand why DL is requesting frequencies for a route they don’t intend to start for a year and a half. This doesn’t seem any different than AA requesting dormancy.

Tough timing on this comment.
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 12771
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:38 am

Varsity1 wrote:
AA should launch SEA-PVG to hold the slot and tell AS to fill the airplane.

Limited O&D compared to larger rivals + SkyTeam hub on both ends + necessity to rotate the aircraft from an AA station + market that routinely sees heavily discounted fares for a 10hr+ flight....... is about the best way for AA to lose massive amounts of money that any AvGeek has come up with in a long time.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5332
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 3:45 am

jrkmsp wrote:
Flighty wrote:
Atlwarrior wrote:

Hong Kong was not under China then, but Great Britain.

The handover was in 1997. The nonstop MSP HKG flight was 1998. In other words, there was a MSP China nonstop in 1998. The press release is wrong. Or, Delta is being naughty, slyly trolling and lying to everyone. Which I would not put past Delta Air Lines at all. As others have said, a 2020 release right now is completely bogus. If Delta had this authority now, they would quickly lose it for not flying the route. Why not propose to start it in 2025, locking up the frequency and the slot.


Delta does address this in its filing, stating that the average time from application to route start for recent USA-China service has been 22-23 months. So, it's seeking frequency allocation from the US, and then will pursue slots and gates from China, which it hopes to have by next summer, at which time it'll have 10-11 months to market the route. I agree that it seemed extreme — and why I thought it was just an effort to screw with AA — but when you see that they're not going after AA's slots and you read their argument, it makes quite a bit of sense.

why would anyone actually read the application and pay attention to previous awards. Can't run the big mean Delta argument that way. :duck: :duck:

and on top of all you said.

IF United applies then we go to a route case. Lets say Delta loses to United (highly unlikely but still) then they still have time to go after the dormancy request from American and possibly get it launched.




But the most important thing here is that the DOT can, and has in the past, require a different start time for the route. Generally they wont force a winter start for a route but if they hurry this up they could in theory push for a summer 19 start.
 
jetblueguy22
Posts: 3299
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2007 12:26 am

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 4:38 am

tphuang wrote:
usflyer msp wrote:
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? 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.


I find it ironic that JetBlue's #1 fan on this site has no problem with B6 selling all manner of circuitous domestic routings via BOS but thinks an a 15 minute detour on a 16 hour journey makes MSP-PVG untenable.


I understand that it offends you that people on the east coast don't want to take 3 hour connection to MSP before a long flight to China vs 1 hour connection to one of the airports in northeast, but that's just the reality. And the reality is that fares to China is rock bottom compared domestic fares. So undercutting a more convenient one-stop option for a legacy airline on fares that are already rock bottom is different than undercutting domestic legacy fares. I'm sure if DL is willing to sell $500 R/T fares through MSP, it will be able to fill the cabin, how about that?

Here is something to think about. Ever since China started its anti-corruption drive, big companies are unable to allow most of its employees travel to America use business class. China Eastern connection J fares are routinely the lowest across TPAC, because it can't fill the business class cabin on its north American flights. How do US airlines generate the necessary demand for J cabin to China to pay for the cost of flights. And this applies to all airlines.

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.
Look at sweatpants guy. This is a 90 million dollar aircraft, not a Tallahassee strip club
 
klm617
Posts: 4676
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:46 am

jetblueguy22 wrote:
tphuang wrote:
usflyer msp wrote:

I find it ironic that JetBlue's #1 fan on this site has no problem with B6 selling all manner of circuitous domestic routings via BOS but thinks an a 15 minute detour on a 16 hour journey makes MSP-PVG untenable.


I understand that it offends you that people on the east coast don't want to take 3 hour connection to MSP before a long flight to China vs 1 hour connection to one of the airports in northeast, but that's just the reality. And the reality is that fares to China is rock bottom compared domestic fares. So undercutting a more convenient one-stop option for a legacy airline on fares that are already rock bottom is different than undercutting domestic legacy fares. I'm sure if DL is willing to sell $500 R/T fares through MSP, it will be able to fill the cabin, how about that?

Here is something to think about. Ever since China started its anti-corruption drive, big companies are unable to allow most of its employees travel to America use business class. China Eastern connection J fares are routinely the lowest across TPAC, because it can't fill the business class cabin on its north American flights. How do US airlines generate the necessary demand for J cabin to China to pay for the cost of flights. And this applies to all airlines.

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.
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: 2885
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 1:50 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:59 am

klm617 wrote:
jetblueguy22 wrote:
tphuang wrote:

I understand that it offends you that people on the east coast don't want to take 3 hour connection to MSP before a long flight to China vs 1 hour connection to one of the airports in northeast, but that's just the reality. And the reality is that fares to China is rock bottom compared domestic fares. So undercutting a more convenient one-stop option for a legacy airline on fares that are already rock bottom is different than undercutting domestic legacy fares. I'm sure if DL is willing to sell $500 R/T fares through MSP, it will be able to fill the cabin, how about that?

Here is something to think about. Ever since China started its anti-corruption drive, big companies are unable to allow most of its employees travel to America use business class. China Eastern connection J fares are routinely the lowest across TPAC, because it can't fill the business class cabin on its north American flights. How do US airlines generate the necessary demand for J cabin to China to pay for the cost of flights. And this applies to all airlines.

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.
 
twicearound
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2017 2:56 pm

Re: Delta proposes MSP-PVG

Tue Oct 23, 2018 11:03 am

usflyer msp wrote:
tphuang wrote:
MIflyer12 wrote:

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.


I find it ironic that JetBlue's #1 fan on this site has no problem with B6 selling all manner of circuitous domestic routings via BOS but thinks an a 15 minute detour on a 16 hour journey makes MSP-PVG untenable.



Thank you. He has turned into the DL troll. Besides his apparent blue tinted glasses, more times than not he is masquerading his opinions as facts. The BOS aviation page is a total buzzkill now.

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