urbanMSP

I think the intent is people living in Eau Claire will get on a plane and transfer in MSP en route to sunny destinations, not people living in Eau Claire will come in to watch the game when the Packers are playing.

I think the intent is people living in Eau Claire will get on a plane and transfer in MSP en route to sunny destinations, not people living in Eau Claire will come in to watch the game when the Packers are playing.

Seems likely. Also suspect they wanted some money from a Essential Air Service contract, which is a can of worms I'm not sure has been talked about much here.

Like Mdcastle said, it's mostly so people can travel EAU-MSP-[insert city here]. Same reason why Delta flies MSP-Duluth and MSP-Rochester.

However, instead of 2 weekly flights with a 737, why not have Land Line bus service? Does MSP-EAU really deserve EAS funding?

In addition to Land Line for those accessing MSP Airport, in the long term it seems more sustainable and convenient to have the proposed West Central Wisconsin intercity service that would operate 3(?) roundtrips per day between Eau Claire and the Twin Cities with a few stops including Hudson in between. Also Amtrak is interested in adding a Chicago-Eau Claire-Twin Cities train, which I assume would operate daily.

Also Amtrak is interested in adding a Chicago-Eau Claire-Twin Cities train, which I assume would operate daily.

Something to look forward to in 25-30 years, then?

Well that route is in their 2035 plan, and assuming it would be one daily roundtrip entirely on existing track then the only possible major barrier I see is dealing with the freight railroads. Unless one or more levels of government require an unnecessarily long study process.

Imagine if airlines had to submit environmental impact statements and conduct meetings with communities surrounding an airport whenever they intended to start a new route or increase frequency on an existing route. Just one of many double standards in this country where airlines and bus companies get leniency while any form of passenger rail expansion has to deal with political, public, and private stringency.

I don't know a ton about Sun Country's operations, but it would be interesting to know at this point how many passengers are making connections at MSP. In the past, they were strictly a point-to-point operator, but they've built up their network enough now that I could see them starting to operate MSP as a functional hub. Nobody is going to fly from Eau Claire to MSP for a business trip, certainly not with their proposed twice weekly service.

As an aside, this proposed deal really seems to be skirting the rules of the EAS system, which was intended to provide regular airline service to support commerce and connectivity in cities that are distant from hub airports. Typical EAS agreements would try to target twice daily service, not twice weekly, and infrequent service to vacation destinations really don't pass the smell test for me.

People always freak out when they hear about those short flights, but clearly they're not intended for someone to go from Eau Claire to Minneapolis for the weekend.

I've flown into places like Eugene, Oregon (via Portland) and Colorado Springs (via Denver), which are roughly the equivalent of the Eau Claire flight. In both cases it was way easier and faster to take a short second flight as opposed to figuring out ground transportation from 90ish minutes away.

Yeah, but this one is weird if they’re getting EAS money. I did fly to Colorado Springs last fall, but that serves a bigger population. Crazy short flight, wow!

People always freak out when they hear about those short flights, but clearly they're not intended for someone to go from Eau Claire to Minneapolis for the weekend.

I've flown into places like Eugene, Oregon (via Portland) and Colorado Springs (via Denver), which are roughly the equivalent of the Eau Claire flight. In both cases it was way easier and faster to take a short second flight as opposed to figuring out ground transportation from 90ish minutes away.

I don't doubt very short flights are necessary for cities like Eugene and Colorado Springs and my examples of Duluth and Rochester, but for Eau Claire is there truly the demand for a bi-weekly 737 hopping to/from MSP? What makes this even more eyebrow raising is Sun Country receiving EAS funds so Eau Claire can also have some weekly flights to vacation destinations, which isn't exactly a need. Seems like EAS rules need to change so that a bus and/or rail service can be implemented instead of flights. If Sun Country is able to fill those 737s going between MSP and Eau Claire then great, but I have a hard time believing that when Land Line could operate at least daily roundtrips that would be far more efficient and cheaper. In terms of convenience Land Line is slightly less so since there's having to access ground transportation instead of connecting to another flight inside the terminal, but on the other hand if they can run at least daily bus service then it would be easier to schedule a flight around that than a connecting flight that only operates twice weekly.

People always freak out when they hear about those short flights, but clearly they're not intended for someone to go from Eau Claire to Minneapolis for the weekend.

I've flown into places like Eugene, Oregon (via Portland) and Colorado Springs (via Denver), which are roughly the equivalent of the Eau Claire flight. In both cases it was way easier and faster to take a short second flight as opposed to figuring out ground transportation from 90ish minutes away.

There's also the fun times where MSP - DEN - COS is cheaper than MSP - DEN. That happened to me this year - my ultimate destination is COS so it worked out well for me. It's a really dumb, short flight, and I'd rather there be a nice bus option as a connector instead of a flight where the flight time doubles if landing is from the north instead of the south, but right now the only direct connection is a $50/person/one way shuttle van that isn't terribly comfortable. Bustang serves Union Station but weekend frequencies are poor (and tbh the past couple times I've done it I went to the Ridgegate Station instead as Union Station can be a bit dicey.) Still, that isn't directly subsidized and so is a different case.

I don't doubt very short flights are necessary for cities like Eugene and Colorado Springs and my examples of Duluth and Rochester, but for Eau Claire is there truly the demand for a bi-weekly 737 hopping to/from MSP? What makes this even more eyebrow raising is Sun Country receiving EAS funds so Eau Claire can also have some weekly flights to vacation destinations, which isn't exactly a need. Seems like EAS rules need to change so that a bus and/or rail service can be implemented instead of flights.

Fully agree that direct bus/rail connections with a transfer guarantee, like how Landline operates, should be able to suffice for shorter distances (up to 2.5 hour drive time, perhaps?) However, I'm wondering if the MSP - EAU segment will simply be SY selling tickets on what would otherwise just be a positioning flight. Their main base is in MSP (although I thought I heard somewhere they had a small base in LAS) so the leisure flight to, say, MCO would likely need to come in from MSP anyways. If SY can make the application look better by selling tickets on that flight that they're going to operate anyways, why not do so? The additional cost to carry passengers is likely relatively small (ground crew and possibly some flight attendant duty pay if there's a difference in pay between a positioning flight and a flight with passengers) and it looks better than just selling 2/week flights to leisure destinations. However, a couple of leisure flights a week seems clearly not the intent of the EAS, and imo clearly points out that these markets don't desperately need air service connectivity to still be connected to the rest of the country.

Some interesting details about the Eau Claire EAS service towards the end of this article on Sun Country. Lots of other interesting tidbits.

Introductory fare for MSP-Eau Claire is $10 one-way.

Frontier adding a MSP-PHX flight. https://thepointsguy.com/news/frontier- ... l-airport/

Sun Country announced a huge expansion for next summer. From MSP there will be new service to Rapid City, Colorado Springs, Omaha, Kansas City, St. Louis, Wilmington, Charlotte, Louisville, Richmond, Columbus, Detroit, Traverse City, Milwaukee, Atlantic City, and New York JFK.

Long Term Plan updates are nearing a final recommendation. Here's a presentation from a few months back: https://www.mspairport.com/sites/defaul ... _FINAL.pdf

Likely changes include:
- Crossover taxiway between the north and south sides of T1 close to Hwy 5 across the access road
- Significant gate expansion at T2
- Reconstruction of E and F piers at T1, the original finger piers from 60+ years ago
- Possible consolidation of Immigration/FIS to either T1 or T2, whereas both terminals have FIS. One alternative maintains FIS at both terminals

My thoughts:

- If E/F will be reconstructed, have they considered an island pier parallel to Runway 4-22 closer to the headhouse? An island pier with gates on both sides would be more efficient for amenities per linear foot for passengers, and eliminate the inefficient dead-end for planes between the current finger piers.

- Since the pockets in mid-G are slowly getting filled in for more holdroom space, and there's discussion of F reconstruction, can they consider relocating FIS to a new 3rd floor of G? It takes up a lot of prime space right now and that connector hallway across the international G gates must be a pain at times for blocking access to other gates. Lots of other airports have international arrivals on a different floor, where the holdrooms can be beneath international arrivals/bag claim and both levels have access to the jetway. This would open up a bunch of room on the main level and would allow for easier expansion of international capable gates up and down F/G as need arises. International arrivals could exit onto the south end of the existing mezzanine for local arrivals/ground transportation, or down a floor for re-check/connections.

- The idea of an airside connector from T2 to T1 is appealing, but curious how they'd pull that off. It's almost a mile between the two.

Ok, got some questions about what that building labeled "Terminal" off of 28th Avenue and 62nd Street will be in Alt 2A. 2A also looks like they'll pave over Mother Lake completely.

- The idea of an airside connector from T2 to T1 is appealing, but curious how they'd pull that off. It's almost a mile between the two.

A shuttle? Or is there some other option?

Ok, got some questions about what that building labeled "Terminal" off of 28th Avenue and 62nd Street will be in Alt 2A. 2A also looks like they'll pave over Mother Lake completely.

FBO is just like private jet operators so they would tear down all the buildings on E 70th by terminal 2 and move them over there

Ok, got some questions about what that building labeled "Terminal" off of 28th Avenue and 62nd Street will be in Alt 2A. 2A also looks like they'll pave over Mother Lake completely.

That building is labeled "HANGAR" in 2A. As COLSLAWS mentioned above, that's what they call out in the slides as: Relocated Fixed-Base Operator (FBO). And if you look at Google Maps, the taxiway extension proposed would not come near the actual lake, just the marshland to its south.

Says "Terminal" on my copy. Off to the side with a very small arrow pointing to the building, but still.

And moving a taxiway that close to a lake means filling in the lake, at least about half of it. There is no standing water going to be that close to the pavement.