urbanMSP

Are they taking more international flights from MSP, or is something else causing the 747's to disappear?

Are they taking more international flights from MSP, or is something else causing the 747's to disappear?

Think they are just using 767 LR in their place. They have the similar range but more efficient, with better seat numbers for the MSP market. 767 are a wide body with 300+ seats depending on configuration.

Delta is retiring them from the fleet over the next year or two, also.

Are they taking more international flights from MSP, or is something else causing the 747's to disappear?

Think they are just using 767 LR in their place. They have the similar range but more efficient, with better seat numbers for the MSP market. 767 are a wide body with 300+ seats depending on configuration.

The 777-300ER is the closest replacement to a 747-400, I think, insofar as range and capacity go. The 747 MSP-NRT (Tokyo) flight was replaced by a 777-200ER in the summer, and A330-200 in the winter.

Delta plans to have all of its 747's retired by 2017.

Are they taking more international flights from MSP, or is something else causing the 747's to disappear?

Delta has not canceled any major international flights since the merger, and have recently announced Rome and Reykjavik for next summer. The 747s are just getting retired, as others have said.

Think they are just using 767 LR in their place. They have the similar range but more efficient, with better seat numbers for the MSP market. 767 are a wide body with 300+ seats depending on configuration.

A330s are more common at MSP than international configuration 767s. The larger A330-300 has just under 300 seats, while the 767-300ER (no LR) has between 208-226 seats, and the 767-400ER used to London has 246 seats.

The 767s Delta flies on some Europe routes (from MSP, they fly some Asian routes ex-SEA) seat closer to 200. The MSP-NRT flight is now a 777-200, which seats a little over 250.

Several big picture things going on here
1) long-term trend towards big twin jets for long haul. The A-380 is the giant exception, but it's a niche market. 777-300 and the A350 are great replacements for the mission of the 747.
2) related to above, with greater efficiency of twins comes the opportunity to reduce importance of some traditional hubs.
3) Prioritization of daily or near-daily service on key routes. DL could offer 4-5 times week service to NRT on 747 with same number of seats as daily 777.
4) DL building up the SEA hub with direct links to Asian cities, instead of US-NRT-other city.

Up until the last decade or so, Northwest had a huge advantage with its large scissor hub in Tokyo. But in addition to smaller long-haul twinjets filling in routes direct from North America via hubs like SEA/DTW (Delta), SFO/ORD/EWR (United), etc, joint ventures have had a big effect on the viability ofTokyo flying. United and American both have partners in Tokyo - Delta has none. And Delta has been burning bridges with SkyTeam partner Korean, since a MSP-ICN flight was always assumed to be next for us. At this point, the best chance seems to be a MSP-PVG flight to connect with China Eastern. I just hope we can keep the Tokyo flight if we end up getting a Shanghai flight.

Are they taking more international flights from MSP, or is something else causing the 747's to disappear?

Delta has not canceled any major international flights since the merger, and have recently announced Rome and Reykjavik for next summer. The 747s are just getting retired, as others have said.

Think they are just using 767 LR in their place. They have the similar range but more efficient, with better seat numbers for the MSP market. 767 are a wide body with 300+ seats depending on configuration.

A330s are more common at MSP than international configuration 767s. The larger A330-300 has just under 300 seats, while the 767-300ER (no LR) has between 208-226 seats, and the 767-400ER used to London has 246 seats.

My bad, thanks!

Spirit Airlines to begin nonstop service to Atlanta on April 14th.

Well I guess I know how I'm getting to my conference next September!

Any airline but Spirit or Frontier?

Southwest flies to ATL... Delta flies to ATL...

*shrug*
Depends how price competitive they are. I fly Spirit on occasion, I get their shtick.

But who am I joking, it's a work conference, it's not my money!

State's largest solar array now generating power at Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport

http://www.startribune.com/state-s-larg ... 360124441/
Switch was flipped on. Terminal 2 ramp is next to get LED light upgrade and solar array.

Construction to enable the new parking ramp at Terminal 1 is moving forward: http://www.metroairports.org/Utility/Ne ... edule.aspx

Did the airport Post Office get torn down as part of that, or am I just totally confused by some other area that got torn down to make way for this?

Did the airport Post Office get torn down as part of that, or am I just totally confused by some other area that got torn down to make way for this?

The Post office will remain. The phase 1 expansion ramp will only extend as far as the current outbound lane's curve, just west of the Post Office. Phase 2 will go where the Post Office is now - currently no timing on that.

Did the airport Post Office get torn down as part of that, or am I just totally confused by some other area that got torn down to make way for this?

Yes, the old Northwest maintenance hangar used to be where the new exit plaza for the garages are located.

Does the exit plaza really need 18 lanes? I've never seen more than a handful of cars on the plaza at any given time, but I'm not there very often.

Curious to how they plan to route the skyway from the hotel to the G concourse. As that I think is kind of the proposed new international terminal section. Lots of competing roadways and walkway up in the air there.

Some interesting history: Did you know that the reason why the "New" Terminal 1 (1962) is oriented to Hwy 5 rather than to Cedar/Crosstown (which would make more sense) is because of the legislation that planned/funded the terminal we know today? Before then, the airport was actually owned and operated by the City of Minneapolis, and the terminal was off of 28th Ave S. It would have made more sense to keep the terminal there northwest of the crosswind runway, but the legislature specified that the "new" terminal should be equidistant from St. Paul and Minneapolis.

I also remember a Strib image/map when the Dual Track process was going on (I was of single-digit age back then, so maybe I remember incorrectly) that showed future plans for the stay-in-place scenario where the terminal access would be oriented to a new interchange at 77/62. Obviously that never happened, and I wonder what happened to that plan. It seems so ridic that it's a 6 mile journey from Fat Lorenzo's (77/62) to the terminal doorstep.

Anyways, assuming we're keeping the current access configuration, I don't understand why they're intent to squish the landside for the International Terminal up against Concourse G. And I haven't seen any sort of bypass of the current T1 (Domestic) curbside to get to the T1 (International) Curbside proposed along G. Every other airport I've been to with long terminal curbsides or multiple terminals on one long road are a total CF.

Instead, I'd be curious as to the viability of a new landside terminal spanning the gap between the A concourse and the proposed G extension (basically mirroring the orientation of the existing T1 landside). This would fit well with some existing proposals: Extension of the landside tram to a third station, more parking ramps east of the C-G connector, and eventual remodeling of the A/B piers to support larger planes (the days of a zillion CRJs and Saabs came and went in a flash), and two crossfield taxiways that are already going to realign the entrance road and interchange with Hwy 5. It would also allow some of these reconfigured A gates to serve international passengers as well. I could imagine sterile connectivity to an arrivals hall on the top level of the new landside structure, where travelers can then filter back down to the terminal, directly to A/G gates, to airside trams to the other concourses, or to ground transport. It would work really well and be much more flexible than what is proposed.

Here's a crude sketch:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/edit?mid= ... sp=sharing