Don't know where the previous thread went, but the last week has given more and more credence to the notion that AF is readying to pull the trigger on a scheduled CDG-MSY.
(See the #3 URL for confirmation on the study and launch date).



(photo by Cirstina Marisol)


There's been little clues here and there, such as public expense receipts for AF staff constantly meeting with MSY staff both pre-post Covid (pictured above, with BA, at MSY).

That doesn't mean much per se, as airlines talk to airports/cities all the time, but one would note the frequency with which it was AF (versus, say, any other airlines) doing the meetings.



But the three recent biggies have been:

(1) In December of last year, AF operated four scheduled roundtrip nonstops to MSY with a 77W in conjunction with a medical conference, with heavy European attendance. Unlike charters, these flights were also open to the public, and could even be booked in codeshare with DL via its own website.

Again, this happens all the time everywhere, but what was noteworthy is that Greater New Orleans Inc (the company most responsible for securing LHR-MSY) in their annual report, labeled those flights "a pilot program" ("pilot" as in initial, not as in aircraft driver!) and in other media "a successful test."

https://www.scribd.com/document/619549960/GNO-Inc-2022-Year-in-Review-2023-Annual-Luncheon

(2) Also in December last year, the French Foreign Minister, Minister of Ecology (which has absorbed Transportation), and President Macron himself, all came to MSY for an economic forum, whose goal among other things was deepening economic and transportation ties.

https://www.npr.org/2022/12/03/1140529071/french-president-macron-visits-new-orleans

(3) And perhaps the biggest kicker of them all, is that today, Gayle Benson, the richest woman in Louisiana (owner of both the NFL and NBA franchises in New Orleans) confirmed to the French Ambassador that Air France is studying the MSY market with an eye on a 2024 launch, and that she's held two private economic summits with French officials to see what her (many!) businesses can do to support the launch of such a nonstop flight.

https://www.nola.com/news/politics/gayle-benson-seeking-help-for-st-louis-cathedral/article_7f89ba58-9e92-11ed-87ef-b7faf633013f.html

Well AF just dropped MSP (with DL uping MSP-CDG to 2x daily) so…….

I can see it with the preponderance of distant French heritage in the area .. daily ? I don't think so though ..

crjflyboy wrote:

I can see it with the preponderance of distant French heritage in the area .. daily ? I don't think so though ..

What does distant French heritage implies, though ? There are no family ties across several centuries...

I think your missing a big thing here, politicians have no authority to make a private airline fly to a random destination, for the individual looking to help get the service, it’s kind of funny since they probably only fly private. I really think this is being read into to much. I deal with ambassadors frequently due to my job and cannot tell you how many times City officials from random cities meet with them for breakfast and it never amounts to anything, not trying to be a Debbie downer but come on guys

Unless the city is throwing LD-3's full of money at them, I do not see the logic. Minimal business travel since MSY is a party town with conventions.
And certainly not with a 77W to a leisure city.

AF could fly a 787 instead of a 77W.

As for ties, there are French owned chemical facilities in Louisiana, and the potential for turbines in the Gulf of Mexico could lead to additional business ties.

And the route would not just be about CDG. It would be about one stop connectivity to the rest of Europe, Northern Africa and the Middle East, which would position SkyTeam better against OneWorld.

The flight, if started, would prove to be quite popular with New Orleans area residents, potentially even more so than the current BA flight, which has been a success. This region loves France and all things French. But you’d have to live here to understand it. A nonstop flight opens up incredible opportunities for increased trade, both business and leisure oriented. I’d say a 3X weekly 789 or 332 would be a good, reasonable starting point. You know AF is taking note at how full BA has been lately. Expect the same or better considering the connections available at CDG plus the unique cultural ties between the two cities. Fingers crossed this comes to pass.

SunsetLimited wrote:

You know AF is taking note at how full BA has been lately.

BA's been bringing in the 787-10, and even that's been going out sold-out in premium cabins on most days.

Tomorrow's LHR-MSY is a 787-10, and completely sold out in F+C, and only 4 W seats showing available.

I didn't see a single fare bucket released for redemptions, so that's all ca$h money........... on a random weekend in January.
Can you IMAGINE what loads are gonna look like next month?

I like New Orleans. As a resident of Houston, I spend lots of time there on weekends and I have family there. NOLA is also one of our biggest contributor of residents.

There is nothing special about an airline studying a market. Airlines do it all the time. Maybe AF will see something special in MSY and want to have year round service a few times a week to mature the tourism market. It will have to depend on on that, but it is something that can be grown.

New Orleans is not really a magnet for immigrants so VFR won't be a factor.

The business economy depends largely on offshore oil and gas for which France isn't a large contributor but the UK is.

The one last factor is that New Orleans has a massive violent crime problem including a murder rate of 70 per 100,000 in 2022 but fortunately (in this case) it's also a very segregated city. The places where tourists would frequent are relatively safe. I don't know how much the perception crime affects tourist travel from France but maybe its not something they think about.

An A330, 3-4 times a week would be a rather low risk endeavour. They’d have the data with DL, and market demand is stimulated with direct flights. I can already see this being a resounding success quickly shifting to a 787-9!

Big win for MSY if they manage to score LHR, FRA, and CDG!

lesfalls wrote:

Well AF just dropped MSP (with DL uping MSP-CDG to 2x daily) so…….

With a planned 2024 return but...I have to wonder if this will mean no MSP lol.

DE and BA successfully operated together at least on a Summer seasonal basis for 3 straight years, and planned to increase capacity in 2020 before the pandemic ruined everything. If revenue guarantees come into play from the local business community, I would not be shocked to see AF announce Summer seasonal service at 3 to 4x weekly.

Business travel makes up about 45% of the New Orleans visitor market at least on a hotel revenue basis, and is the 23rd largest business market in terms of hotel revenue among the top 50 markets in the country. For the airlines, I would imagine a comparable split exists. There is a lot of business that is conducted here, but it's not the high flying sexy industries people think of like tech. Instead it's in the energy and trade industries. Also, conventions are considered business travel. The purpose of conventions is to not only network, but also to induce sales of products and services and work deals. These are typically funded through corporate travel accounts. This is why you see Orlando, Las Vegas, and New Orleans as top business markets in the country. https://www.ahla.com/sites/default/files/KALIBRI%20TOP%2050%20CITIES%20BUSINESS%20LEISURE%2010.14.22.pdf

Here are the top 25 markets in the country by total business visitor hotel revenue, business/leisure visitor hotel revenue split, and if they have more than one TATL carrier.

1. New York City, 35.8/64.2, yes
2. Orlando, 36.2/63.8, yes
3. Los Angeles, 42.0/58.0, yes
4. Chicago, 48.2/51.8, yes
5. Las Vegas, 45.2/54.8, yes
6. Washington D.C., 50/50, yes
7. San Diego, 46.2/53.8, yes
8. Dallas, 53.3/46.7, yes
9. Miami, 36.5/63.5, yes
10. Atlanta, 49.0/51.0, yes
11. Boston, 46.0/54.0, yes
12. Phoenix, 48.6/51.4, yes
13. San Francisco, 45.2/54.8, yes
14. Anaheim, 38.8/61.2, no
15. Houston, 50.2/48.8, yes
16. Nashville, 47.5/52.5, no (British Airways)
17. Denver, 51.2/48.8, yes
18. Seattle, 50.1/49.9, yes
19. Austin, 50.5/49.5, yes
20. San Jose, 51.8/48.2, no (British Airways)
21. Fort Lauderdale, 38.6/61.4, no (Norse Atlantic)
22. Philadelphia, 47.2/52.8, yes
23. New Orleans, 44.6/55.4, no (British Airways)
24. San Antonio,47.9/52.1, no
25. Charlotte, 49.7/50.3, yes

Nashville will definitely see another TATL carrier enter the market given their growth trajectory. New Orleans can easily sustain a second TATL carrier. San Jose is down significantly, but could likely support a 2nd carrier. San Antonio is the wild card. Austin has a ton of service 100 miles up the road, but I would not be shocked to see a carrier announce in the next few years. SNA is of course physically and politically constrained, and will likely never see a TATL flight. FLL could see another leisure focused carrier enter the market, but a lot of the business traffic likely flies into MIA and then stays in FLL.

MSY has a new airport, and BA has thrived at the airport both pre and post pandemic. In todays world, with the likes of cities such as AUS and DEN having multi-daily flights between the major big three TATL JVs, there’s no reason why places like MSY can’t aim to achieve the same.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

I don't know how much the perception crime affects tourist travel from France but maybe its not something they think about.

I have a feeling that, at least in the part of Europe I am from, it seems to be less of a concern that for US travelers. Here we have a common cliché about US travelers always asking about how safe it is to go to any place...
Concerning the US, the safety issue is not perceived to be about a specific city or part of city, it is more about the US in general (regarding guns, shootings, (police) violence) because this is the part that appears in European media.

Toinou wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

I don't know how much the perception crime affects tourist travel from France but maybe its not something they think about.

I have a feeling that, at least in the part of Europe I am from, it seems to be less of a concern that for US travelers. Here we have a common cliché about US travelers always asking about how safe it is to go to any place...
Concerning the US, the safety issue is not perceived to be about a specific city or part of city, it is more about the US in general (regarding guns, shootings, (police) violence) because this is the part that appears in European media.

Just like US travelers fear cartel violence in Mexico yet gun violence in their own cities are worse. It’s a weird perception driven by insular ignorance.

I think AF will do fantastic on CDG-MSY. Plus DL can flow pax to MSY to connect to AF to CDG vs through ATL.

IrishAyes wrote:

In todays world, with the likes of cities such as AUS and DEN having multi-daily flights between the major big three TATL JVs, there’s no reason why places like MSY can’t aim to achieve the same.

Completely agree with the overall sentiment, though I'm sure you meant to say AUS and BNA.

DEN is currently the 3rd busiest airport on the planet, is a hub to three different mainline carriers, and has nearly 200 feeder markets for connections-- it's an utterly different type of operation than the likes of AUS or MSY.

I don't think Americans quite see it. I used to work for a British/Australian tour operator and New Orleans was a very highly requested city and a base for us and other operators. It's got a good mix of culture and partying so appeals to virtually all in some way. Some Americans can't see past their parochial view that "Well, New Orleans isn't bigger than my city and has so much crime, how can it have so much demand?". No Brits or Aussies are asking to go to Minneapolis.

The murder rate really means little. Tourists aren't heading into the ninth ward. They're staying in the French Quarter and the Garden District or maybe doing swamp tours.

The other thing in its favour is the next nearest major airport is 350 miles away so its also a draw for lots of middling sized cities in the South and on the Gulf Coast.

gravytrain wrote:

I don't think Americans quite see it. I used to work for a British/Australian tour operator and New Orleans was a very highly requested city and a base for us and other operators. It's got a good mix of culture and partying so appeals to virtually all in some way. Some Americans can't see past their parochial view that "Well, New Orleans isn't bigger than my city and has so much crime, how can it have so much demand?". No Brits or Aussies are asking to go to Minneapolis.
.

I agree - to my mind this relies heavily on demand from the PAR end. The 'cultural ties' thing ended 200+ years ago, first when the British booted Acadians out of eastern Canada, and then with the Louisiana Purchase. Energy ties? TotalEnergies has already started to pivot to renewables.

As for convention business, it was a good effort to bring some data, but data really needed to be segregated into driving visitors, fly-in domestic visitors, and international visitors. It changes avg daily visitor spending A LOT.

Many on this forum argued over the years the whole Louisiana "French Connection" isn't relevant in modern times. I think the Louisiana government would beg to differ, and if anything, have done more to strengthen those ties in more recent times such as participating in the "La Francophonie" organization, and hosting French Mayors and Prime Ministers.

Given that the AMS slot reductions are now going permanent, I think this will give the DL/AF/KL JV some fleet slack to instead shift some spoke-to-JV hub services to CDG. I could see DL starting with a 767, and then potentially transitioning in the JV to AF's larger equipment if service takes off.

questions wrote:

Toinou wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

I don't know how much the perception crime affects tourist travel from France but maybe its not something they think about.

I have a feeling that, at least in the part of Europe I am from, it seems to be less of a concern that for US travelers. Here we have a common cliché about US travelers always asking about how safe it is to go to any place...
Concerning the US, the safety issue is not perceived to be about a specific city or part of city, it is more about the US in general (regarding guns, shootings, (police) violence) because this is the part that appears in European media.

Just like US travelers fear cartel violence in Mexico yet gun violence in their own cities are worse. It’s a weird perception driven by insular ignorance.

.

That isn't a good comparison.

Of the top 50 most dangerous cities in the world, 21 are in Mexico. 4 are in the United States (New Orleans, St. Louis, Baltimore, and Detroit). The US is a much larger country. They aren't really comparable. I get that a lot of places in Mexico aren't dangerous but a much larger portion of Mexico is dangerous than the US.

Back to the topic, this could be much to do about nothing or it could materialize. Airlines study cities literally all the time. This isn't news. But New Orleans is a very unique place with lots to do. If AF decides to fly it, maybe something similar to what they do in DEN would work (3x a week). The one thing about MSY is that its demand is going to come almost entirely from Europe and not from connections from Africa, India, the Middle East so they could do later in the day times and not worry too much about long haul connections via CDG.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Airlines study cities literally all the time. This isn't news.

As stated before, but for whatever reason disappeared: for those of us familiar with the functions of the market and who've witnessed its accumulation of longhauls over the past few years, by the time GNO pronounces that a pilot trial is successfully completed, that's their way of communicating that a deal is done, it's just a matter of particulars at that point.

We saw it with LHR-MSY, saw it with FRA-MSY, as well as YUL-MSY and several regional destinations; there's no reason to think them saying it for CDG is going to be different.

That's why it's news.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

New Orleans is not really a magnet for immigrants so VFR won't be a factor.

What do immigrants have to do with VFR?!

RDUDDJI wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

New Orleans is not really a magnet for immigrants so VFR won't be a factor.

What do immigrants have to do with VFR?!

Well, think of what the "R" in VFR means.....

(P.S. it's not a reference to flight rules)

RDUDDJI wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

New Orleans is not really a magnet for immigrants so VFR won't be a factor.

What do immigrants have to do with VFR?!

VFR stands for “visiting friends and relatives”. I think you’re thinking of the VFR in that is “visual flight rules”. Two different things in this case.

VFR is almost entirely defined by immigrant population. That’s not really in play for New Orleans here because they don’t have a very big immigrant population. There haven’t been many recent immigrant arrivals in New Orleans except for Hondurans and Mexicans. It’s not in the top 20 for recent arrivals of immigrants into the US.

This all said, I don’t see why MSY couldn’t support another flight to Europe. Not daily, but 3x a week would be a good match from AF.

Not sure if there is a void from Condor's suspension of MSY-FRA that they're trying to fill? If AF moves on this endeavor, I don't think we'll see a return of FRA. The Western Europe to New Orleans market can't be big enough for two 4x weekly operators, can it? I know MSY is a hot spot for domestic tourism but not really for international. Nowadays there's a lot more UK and German investment in Louisiana than there is from France.

Our good friend from the other website posted MSY-CDG O&D which is barely 24, in addition with MSY only ranking #23 I’m business traffic is another example on why the odds are against them

You have SAN, PHX and PDX who rank significantly higher in business traffic and demand

questions wrote:

I think AF will do fantastic on CDG-MSY. Plus DL can flow pax to MSY to connect to AF to CDG vs through ATL.

Given that DL only flies from MSY to its hubs, would there really be much connecting traffic? Unless it's notably cheaper than other options (which would thus depress yields on CDG-MSY), why would anyone fly SLC-MSY-CDG, LAX-MSY-CDG, MSP-MSY-CDG, etc. (not to mention the more backtracking routes)?

Cory6188 wrote:

questions wrote:

I think AF will do fantastic on CDG-MSY. Plus DL can flow pax to MSY to connect to AF to CDG vs through ATL.

Given that DL only flies from MSY to its hubs, would there really be much connecting traffic? Unless it's notably cheaper than other options (which would thus depress yields on CDG-MSY), why would anyone fly SLC-MSY-CDG, LAX-MSY-CDG, MSP-MSY-CDG, etc. (not to mention the more backtracking routes)?

There'd be a little of that, but I doubt very much at all, and mostly for redemptions.

DL will commonly route redemptions from LAX via SEA/SLC/MSP rather than place you on their limited LAX-CDG service or AF's, if you're redeeming miles. At least, not for the same "price."

Depresses yields on a per-route basis yes, but on a systemwide, it encourages strong O&D where it might be.

But again, doubt there'd be very much of this, especially if it's on AF metal.

BA744PHX wrote:

Our good friend from the other website posted MSY-CDG O&D which is barely 24, in addition with MSY only ranking #23 I’m business traffic is another example on why the odds are against them

I would encourage you to dig up the "BA to launch MSY" thread from 2017.

You'll realize that this is just recycling the EXACT same things said right before BA announced LHR-MSY.
"The O&D is only 43/day!"
"XXX and YYY markets have more of this and less of that!" etc.

Almost verbatim. And yet, that flight's going out with a 787-10 that's full in all premium classes today.

STL I believe has ~6 per flight that are transferring from United to Lufthansa, mostly driven by award traffic. Would envision similar would occur at MSY.

MSY’s low PPDEW before stimulation from a direct flight really makes me wonder how markets with multitudes more PPDEW would do if given a route.

LAX772LR wrote:

Cory6188 wrote:

questions wrote:

Almost verbatim. And yet, that flight's going out with a 787-10 that's full in all premium classes today.

It actually isn't per the GDS.

BA 224 MSY - NEW ORLEANS --> LHR - LONDON 781 8h 40min J9 C0 D0 R0 I0 W9 E1 T1 Y9 B9 H9 K8 M5 L5 V2 S0 N0 Q0 O0 G9
British Airways 28JAN, 20:20 29JAN, 11:00

There are 22 seats still for sale in business class on MSY-LHR tonight which is actually less than half full. It is full in premium economy and economy will probably go out 95% full.

By comparison the AUS-LHR flight tonight has almost the exact same LF in Business and Premium economy but is less full in economy. Neither is that bad for a Saturday night.

Looking to the next flights on MSY-LHR, January 31, business is wide open, Premium economy has a few seats left, and economy is about 75% full. LHR-MSY has similar loads. February 2 is similar.

According to Wikipedia, there are approximately 200,000 to 300,000 French speakers in Louisiana. Now even though many of these speak a creole dialect and any link to France is probably at least a few hundred years old at this stage, it certainly shows that ties with the 'motherland' are very much still intact and could potentially generate at least some traffic in both directions to help fill a few flights a week i.e. French people wanting to visit a Francophone region and Louisiana French wanting to visit the motherland. Certainly seems like the kind of market that could be stimulated with the introduction of a non-stop flight.

westgate wrote:

According to Wikipedia, there are approximately 200,000 to 300,000 French speakers in Louisiana. Now even though many of these speak a creole dialect and any link to France is probably at least a few hundred years old at this stage, it certainly shows that ties with the 'motherland' are very much still intact and could potentially generate at least some traffic in both directions to help fill a few flights a week i.e. French people wanting to visit a Francophone region and Louisiana French wanting to visit the motherland. Certainly seems like the kind of market that could be stimulated with the introduction of a non-stop flight.

It isn't nearly that high.

Per data.census.gov, the number of people who speak French as a primary language (which is the relevant number if were talking about potential ties to the homeland) is 49,661. Of those, the biggest concentration is in and around Lafayette, not New Orleans. Numbers are below per metro area:

Lafayette: 17,661
New Orleans: 6,149
Baton Rouge: 4,164

LAXdude1023 wrote:

westgate wrote:

According to Wikipedia, there are approximately 200,000 to 300,000 French speakers in Louisiana. Now even though many of these speak a creole dialect and any link to France is probably at least a few hundred years old at this stage, it certainly shows that ties with the 'motherland' are very much still intact and could potentially generate at least some traffic in both directions to help fill a few flights a week i.e. French people wanting to visit a Francophone region and Louisiana French wanting to visit the motherland. Certainly seems like the kind of market that could be stimulated with the introduction of a non-stop flight.

It isn't nearly that high.

Per data.census.gov, the number of people who speak French as a primary language (which is the relevant number if were talking about potential ties to the homeland) is 49,661. Of those, the biggest concentration is in and around Lafayette, not New Orleans. Numbers are below per metro area:

Lafayette: 17,661
New Orleans: 6,149
Baton Rouge: 4,164

Well MSY certainly is the largest airport closest to Lafayette. Additionaly, I don't see how speaking French as a second language because of actual cultural links with the homeland makes it any less significant. These are individuals who know French, not because it was some language they randomly decided to study in high school, but because their family and wider communities have an actual physical link to France that they have managed to sustain for hundred of years and tens of generations. Everyone knows that New Orleans/Louisiana has a French connection. People in Louisiana would definitely know it and so would those in Paris. Like I said, this 'link' might just help sell a few seats on a few weekly flights.

westgate wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

westgate wrote:

According to Wikipedia, there are approximately 200,000 to 300,000 French speakers in Louisiana. Now even though many of these speak a creole dialect and any link to France is probably at least a few hundred years old at this stage, it certainly shows that ties with the 'motherland' are very much still intact and could potentially generate at least some traffic in both directions to help fill a few flights a week i.e. French people wanting to visit a Francophone region and Louisiana French wanting to visit the motherland. Certainly seems like the kind of market that could be stimulated with the introduction of a non-stop flight.

It isn't nearly that high.

Per data.census.gov, the number of people who speak French as a primary language (which is the relevant number if were talking about potential ties to the homeland) is 49,661. Of those, the biggest concentration is in and around Lafayette, not New Orleans. Numbers are below per metro area:

Lafayette: 17,661
New Orleans: 6,149
Baton Rouge: 4,164

Well MSY certainly is the largest airport closest to Lafayette. Additionaly, I don't see how speaking French as a second language because of actual cultural links with the homeland makes it any less significant. These are individuals who know French, not because it was some language they randomly decided to study in high school, but because their family and wider communities have an actual physical link to France that they have managed to sustain for hundred of years and tens of generations. Everyone knows that New Orleans/Louisiana has a French connection. People in Louisiana would definitely know it and so would those in Paris. Like I said, this 'link' might just help sell a few seats on a few weekly flights.

I’m not arguing against AF going into MSY year round. I’m just saying what the stats are. Even if you count people who speak French as a 2nd language fluently, the number is closer to 90,000 than 200,000. Most of the people who speak French at home are also lower income and rural. They aren’t going to be contributing much.

The way this flight could be successful is promoting New Orleans as a great city to visit and explore (which it is). It’s not going to be supported by those that live in Louisiana but rather those who live in Europe.

westgate wrote:

According to Wikipedia, there are approximately 200,000 to 300,000 French speakers in Louisiana.

I'd be shocked if it's still that high.

westgate wrote:

it certainly shows that ties with the 'motherland' are very much still intact and could potentially generate at least some traffic in both directions to help fill a few flights a week i.e. French people wanting to visit a Francophone region and Louisiana French wanting to visit the motherland.

Not really. These are strains in southwest Louisiana that quite doubtfully could find France on a map.

Lafayette is one thing, but no one in Abbeville, Vermilion, Mamou, or Cow Island is going to be jetting off to France for a business meeting or leisurely getaway.

French people do get a kick out of going to places like Vermilionville, the self-entitled "most Cajun place on Earth," but usually leave making jokes along the lines of "This place makes Montreal sound like Sciences et Lettres!"

I will admit though, it is a fun place to hang out:
https://vermilion.org/

westgate wrote:

Certainly seems like the kind of market that could be stimulated with the introduction of a non-stop flight.

Yeah, but not for that reason.

I could actually see Delta giving this a shot. Given they've previously embarked upon CDG - IND, and CDG - PIT, a Delta 767 4x weekly between CDG and MSY doesn't seem too far fetched at all.
Historically, Delta's had a strong presence in MSY, not so much as of late, but it'd be nice to see some INTL service or at least more point-to-point service.

Capt.Fantastic wrote:

I could actually see Delta giving this a shot. Given they've previously embarked upon CDG - IND, and CDG - PIT, a Delta 767 4x weekly between CDG and MSY doesn't seem too far fetched at all.
Historically, Delta's had a strong presence in MSY, not so much as of late, but it'd be nice to see some INTL service or at least more point-to-point service.

Agreed.

While all the seeming info has pointed to AF being the ones to operate, they of course would only do so in conjunction with DL, and quite frankly, I'd be less concerned for sustainability to see DL be the one to start the route. Wouldn't have the sexy marketing appeal of a foreign flag, but only 25ish J seats to fill, and the ability to rotate the aircraft stateside or internationally are some decent advantages.

More than anything though, I'm hoping DL lengthens its SkyClub hours past 7pm, should this such flight commence on either carrier.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

westgate wrote:

According to Wikipedia, there are approximately 200,000 to 300,000 French speakers in Louisiana. Now even though many of these speak a creole dialect and any link to France is probably at least a few hundred years old at this stage, it certainly shows that ties with the 'motherland' are very much still intact and could potentially generate at least some traffic in both directions to help fill a few flights a week i.e. French people wanting to visit a Francophone region and Louisiana French wanting to visit the motherland. Certainly seems like the kind of market that could be stimulated with the introduction of a non-stop flight.

It isn't nearly that high.

Per data.census.gov, the number of people who speak French as a primary language (which is the relevant number if were talking about potential ties to the homeland) is 49,661. Of those, the biggest concentration is in and around Lafayette, not New Orleans. Numbers are below per metro area:

Lafayette: 17,661
New Orleans: 6,149
Baton Rouge: 4,164

I have no idea how much traffic this could lead to.
What I can tell you about is the other side: in french speaking Europe, New Orleans has a distinctive image. Many people are not really interested in visiting the US in general but may have an interest in some special places. Those are mostly New York, San Francisco and New Orleans.
Once again, I have no idea if that can support a year-round flight. But this is clearly a market that could behave a bit differently from other transatlantic links.

LAX772LR wrote:

IrishAyes wrote:

In todays world, with the likes of cities such as AUS and DEN having multi-daily flights between the major big three TATL JVs, there’s no reason why places like MSY can’t aim to achieve the same.

Completely agree with the overall sentiment, though I'm sure you meant to say AUS and BNA.

DEN is currently the 3rd busiest airport on the planet, is a hub to three different mainline carriers, and has nearly 200 feeder markets for connections-- it's an utterly different type of operation than the likes of AUS or MSY.

i meant what i wrote initially.

may i offer some advice? while i can appreciate a lot of what you have to say in general, it’s not always necessary, nor welcomed, for you to voiceover what others write on here.

it’s rarely ever cute to invalidate statements that people express. some things that may sound subjective are totally justifiable. so why feel the impulse to co-opt the narrative. it just sucks the air out of the room, dude.

IrishAyes wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

IrishAyes wrote:

In todays world, with the likes of cities such as AUS and DEN having multi-daily flights between the major big three TATL JVs, there’s no reason why places like MSY can’t aim to achieve the same.

Completely agree with the overall sentiment, though I'm sure you meant to say AUS and BNA.

DEN is currently the 3rd busiest airport on the planet, is a hub to three different mainline carriers, and has nearly 200 feeder markets for connections-- it's an utterly different type of operation than the likes of AUS or MSY.

i meant what i wrote initially.

may i offer some advice? while i can appreciate a lot of what you have to say in general, it’s not always necessary, nor welcomed, for you to voiceover what others write on here.

it’s rarely ever cute to invalidate statements that people express. some things that may sound subjective are totally justifiable. so why feel the impulse to co-opt the narrative. it just sucks the air out of the room, dude.

@IrishAyes - well said! Thank you.

IrishAyes wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

IrishAyes wrote:

In todays world, with the likes of cities such as AUS and DEN having multi-daily flights between the major big three TATL JVs, there’s no reason why places like MSY can’t aim to achieve the same.

Completely agree with the overall sentiment, though I'm sure you meant to say AUS and BNA.

DEN is currently the 3rd busiest airport on the planet, is a hub to three different mainline carriers, and has nearly 200 feeder markets for connections-- it's an utterly different type of operation than the likes of AUS or MSY.

i meant what i wrote initially.

may i offer some advice? while i can appreciate a lot of what you have to say in general, it’s not always necessary, nor welcomed, for you to voiceover what others write on here.

it’s rarely ever cute to invalidate statements that people express. some things that may sound subjective are totally justifiable. so why feel the impulse to co-opt the narrative. it just sucks the air out of the room, dude.

So the comparison of international acquisitions between a peak 14million pax tertiary airport versus a peak 69million pax triple-hub, was actually intentional?

I see.

But if you wish: apologies for assuming otherwise.

LAX772LR wrote:

IrishAyes wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Completely agree with the overall sentiment, though I'm sure you meant to say AUS and BNA.

DEN is currently the 3rd busiest airport on the planet, is a hub to three different mainline carriers, and has nearly 200 feeder markets for connections-- it's an utterly different type of operation than the likes of AUS or MSY.

i meant what i wrote initially.

may i offer some advice? while i can appreciate a lot of what you have to say in general, it’s not always necessary, nor welcomed, for you to voiceover what others write on here.

it’s rarely ever cute to invalidate statements that people express. some things that may sound subjective are totally justifiable. so why feel the impulse to co-opt the narrative. it just sucks the air out of the room, dude.

So the comparison of international acquisitions between a peak 14million pax tertiary airport versus a peak 69million pax triple-hub, was actually intentional?

I see.

But if you wish: apologies for assuming otherwise.

Why d’you always have to behave like a loon on here? You’re so overly opinionated and up yourself. It’s getting tiring man

TheLion wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

IrishAyes wrote:

i meant what i wrote initially.

may i offer some advice? while i can appreciate a lot of what you have to say in general, it’s not always necessary, nor welcomed, for you to voiceover what others write on here.

it’s rarely ever cute to invalidate statements that people express. some things that may sound subjective are totally justifiable. so why feel the impulse to co-opt the narrative. it just sucks the air out of the room, dude.

So the comparison of international acquisitions between a peak 14million pax tertiary airport versus a peak 69million pax triple-hub, was actually intentional?

I see.

But if you wish: apologies for assuming otherwise.

Why d’you always have to behave like a loon on here? You’re so overly opinionated and up yourself. It’s getting tiring man

I just apologized to the dude for cripes sake.

Wasn't MSY once a technical stop on an international service XXX - MSY - MEX?
I seem to remember something like that.
Also, back in the early 70s, did the PA/DL interchange to London originate in MSY? MSY-ATL-IAD-LHR?

Capt.Fantastic wrote:

Wasn't MSY once a technical stop on an international service XXX - MSY - MEX?

BA. LGW-MSY-MEX, L1011-500, 1982-1983.

Ended when they took on the 742Bs, which had the lift to get out of MEX's elevation to LON nonstop.

Capt.Fantastic wrote:

Also, back in the early 70s, did the PA/DL interchange to London originate in MSY? MSY-ATL-IAD-LHR?

Yes. Switched back and forth with DFW, and sometimes included both. But yes.

LAX772LR wrote:

TheLion wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

So the comparison of international acquisitions between a peak 14million pax tertiary airport versus a peak 69million pax triple-hub, was actually intentional?

I see.

But if you wish: apologies for assuming otherwise.

Why d’you always have to behave like a loon on here? You’re so overly opinionated and up yourself. It’s getting tiring man

I just apologized to the dude for cripes sake.

That makes a change

LAX772LR wrote:

What website is this from?

IrishAyes wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

IrishAyes wrote:

In todays world, with the likes of cities such as AUS and DEN having multi-daily flights between the major big three TATL JVs, there’s no reason why places like MSY can’t aim to achieve the same.

Completely agree with the overall sentiment, though I'm sure you meant to say AUS and BNA.

DEN is currently the 3rd busiest airport on the planet, is a hub to three different mainline carriers, and has nearly 200 feeder markets for connections-- it's an utterly different type of operation than the likes of AUS or MSY.

i meant what i wrote initially.

may i offer some advice? while i can appreciate a lot of what you have to say in general, it’s not always necessary, nor welcomed, for you to voiceover what others write on here.

it’s rarely ever cute to invalidate statements that people express. some things that may sound subjective are totally justifiable. so why feel the impulse to co-opt the narrative. it just sucks the air out of the room, dude.

I mean, he was completely right though. DEN is a completely different market from the MSY/AUS/BNA trifecta. DEN is a larger Metro and CSA and has a much larger drive in catchment, stretching halfway to Kansas City, and Salt Lake, along with the whole state of Colorado. The premium tourism market into Denver is also much larger than any of those places, especially from Europe.

NolaMD88fan wrote:

DSan Jose is down significantly, but could likely support a 2nd carrier.

Lufthansa tried it. Asian carriers tried transpac service. For most people in the Bay Area, SFO is either more accessible or almost as accessible, and offers significantly better amenities such as lounges.