Page 57 of 61

Re: MSP Airport

Posted: June 14th, 2017, 3:31 pm
by KML_1981
YAY! Regularly scheduled Dreamliner service from KLM:

http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/n ... d-787.html

Re: MSP Airport

Posted: July 18th, 2017, 1:09 pm
by SteveXC500
Frontier resuming Trenton service and adding Tampa and Islip (NY).

https://www.flyfrontier.com/news/posts/ ... obile=true

Re: MSP Airport

Posted: August 7th, 2017, 9:30 am
by billhelm

Re: MSP Airport

Posted: August 17th, 2017, 1:30 pm
by MSPtoMKE
*sigh*
Sun Country will change strategy and become a "No Frills" airline.
http://www.startribune.com/changing-dir ... 440782193/

There is talk of charging for things like carry on bags, adding seats to planes, and offering buy-outs to more senior employees to cut labor costs. They also want to become less focused on MSP. Whether that means expansion elsewhere or cuts here is not clear. I wonder if I didn't just fly Sun Country for the last time 2 weeks ago...

Re: MSP Airport

Posted: August 17th, 2017, 2:34 pm
by VacantLuxuries
That's a damn shame. I flew both them and Spirit on my last trip and they were the better airline by far. I was planning to fly with them whenever possible going forward, but this will probably change my plans now.

Re: MSP Airport

Posted: August 17th, 2017, 2:52 pm
by mnmike
I'm no strategist, but I feel like this is going to run them into the ground. We shall see...but the things they are eliminating are what set them apart...and apparently reduce their revenue. Couldn't they go in a more Southwest direction? Maybe they will still keep first class and some other things that will be enough to still set them apart?

Re: MSP Airport

Posted: August 17th, 2017, 3:21 pm
by MattW
Local travel blogger, Thrifty Traveler, has an interesting take.

https://www.thriftytraveler.com/sun-cou ... -acquired/

I'm hoping this creates an opportunity for JetBlue to enter our market.

Re: MSP Airport

Posted: August 19th, 2017, 8:45 am
by SteveXC500
Depending on what happens with Sun Country, I'd say a Jet Blue entrance is possible (always is anyway). I think if SY ever cuts routes like JFK, BOS, MCO for example, Jet Blue could jump right in here.

Re: MSP Airport

Posted: September 7th, 2017, 9:37 pm
by Tcmetro
Some more info about the changes at Sun Country: http://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News ... un-Country

In summary:
- Seat pitch down to 29-30 inches to add 18 seats. For comparison, seat pitch on Spirit is 28 and Delta is 30-35.
- Reduce first class to 6 seats.
- Charge for bags. Water/soda to remain free.
- Grow the fleet to 55 planes (up from 22) by 2022.
- Add new origin cities. Minneapolis market is more or less stretched thin.
- They're not really making much money now. This is their attempt to raise profits.

Re: MSP Airport

Posted: September 8th, 2017, 3:10 pm
by SteveXC500
Sun Country just announced Denver to Mazatlan, Wednesday only flight. Originates MSP.

Re: MSP Airport

Posted: September 28th, 2017, 9:46 am
by Ottergoose
Apologies for the blatant self-promotion, but, if you're interested in unusual flights in or out of MSP, I've just launched an alert service that will send you a text or email when something unusual is coming in. It's similar to the services offered by FlightAware and FlightRadar24, but doesn't require jumping through hoops to setup. https://jettip.net/

Re: MSP Airport

Posted: September 28th, 2017, 11:03 am
by HiawathaGuy
News headlines on the new parking ramp at Terminal 1 from this past week.

MSP airport picks PCL for $240M parking ramp, its biggest contract ever
https://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/ ... p-its.html

MAC approves new $240 million, 11-story parking ramp at airport
http://www.startribune.com/mac-approves ... 448045543/

Re: MSP Airport

Posted: October 3rd, 2017, 6:12 pm
by SteveXC500
I need some help understanding this parking ramp. $240m for 5,000 spaces. Isn’t that a bit much based on the average cost of a parking structure being around $10k-$15k per space?

Re: MSP Airport

Posted: October 3rd, 2017, 11:04 pm
by Tiller
$50k per parking space: The New Frontier

Because of the sheer size of the parking structure there's probably some significant additional costs included that most smaller/normal-sized parking ramps don't need.

Re: MSP Airport

Posted: October 4th, 2017, 7:59 am
by billhelm
it's a really nice parking lot?

I thought they were extending the tram but it doesn't look like it. They are moving the rental car center, probably some additional costs associated with that.

Re: MSP Airport

Posted: October 4th, 2017, 8:07 am
by HiawathaGuy
billhelm wrote:
October 4th, 2017, 7:59 am
it's a really nice parking lot?

I thought they were extending the tram but it doesn't look like it. They are moving the rental car center, probably some additional costs associated with that.
They are extending a tunnel under the new parking ramp, for future tram expansion. It will just be a pedestrian walking tunnel when it opens. I would think that there's a lot more to this ramp (in terms of needs) than most any of us would think about. Explosion requirements, several banks of elevators, plumbing, bathrooms, office space (rental companies), etc. I don't think most ramps have these components.

Re: MSP Airport

Posted: October 4th, 2017, 8:35 am
by RailBaronYarr
I was under the impression that ramps are more typically $30k per space, so the ~$50k per space doesn't surprise me too much given the details of this project... The rental car center mentioned above is one part of the whole "Customer Service Building" that'd be part of this project - including a new transit center (not sure if just for rental car/charter uses or if this would be a new MT spot), a huge bank of escalators, restrooms, a concession area, an underground walkway to a future expansion (!) of the ramp, and all the roadwork around it. All of which add considerable cost compared to a generic, self-contained parking ramp.

Here are some links from the MAC itself:
http://metroairports.granicus.com/MetaV ... a_id=32134
http://metroairports.granicus.com/MetaV ... a_id=31838

EDIT: What HiawathaGuy also said.

Re: MSP Airport

Posted: October 4th, 2017, 8:43 am
by Silophant
I'd like to imagine that the new ramp cost includes a solar array like the red and blue ramps have, but... they would probably be bragging about it if that was actually planned.

Re: MSP Airport

Posted: October 4th, 2017, 9:16 am
by HiawathaGuy
Silophant wrote:
October 4th, 2017, 8:43 am
I'd like to imagine that the new ramp cost includes a solar array like the red and blue ramps have, but... they would probably be bragging about it if that was actually planned.
The reason they opted for solar at Terminal 1 & Terminal 2 wasn't because they wanted solar, it's much broader than that. The plan came about from swapping out the old lighting with new LED lighting, which opened the door to have it be a combined job, that offered the lighting upgrades at a substantially lower cost. The oldest ramp at Terminal 1 does not, and likely will not have solar on top - as it must not have the ability for a covered array. I remember watching the MAC meetings when they were thinking about adding solar to Terminal 2's ramp and there was a lot of debate about the overall costs. So, if I had to guess, the new ramp will likely be capable of solar - but will likely not have it when built. I hope I'm wrong though - I love that they have such a large amount already. But it's more involved than just 'wanting solar'.

Re: MSP Airport

Posted: October 4th, 2017, 9:58 am
by RailBaronYarr
... I'm not sure the fact that they rolled lighting and solar into a combined performance contract made the lighting component any cheaper than it would have been as a standalone project. Reality is that they could have done the lighting portion all by itself and the energy savings would have paid back the capital cost in 4-5 years. Adding solar to the project stretched the financing term out to 20 years (IIRC). The MAC chose to add solar into the project to reduce long-term energy costs AND because it was good for PR (as a government entity they were strongly encouraged to meet the same Dayton administration requirement of state-owned buildings to achieve 20% reduction in energy use). So, it's certainly more complicated/involved, but I think it's fair to say the MAC "wanting solar" was a big motivator for including it.

As you say, the design of this ramp most likely will be solar-ready, but an extra ~$20m just wasn't in the cards for the project.