[SnyderBock]

Here's a rundown of the conversation about this very topic:

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

Being in the center of the US is not a good thing when it comes to international travel. A coastal location is far more favorable for connection reasons - nobody has to backtrack.

Southwest and Frontier having hubs in Denver also does not help. The competition is driving yields down and is putting pressure on United, which is Denvers best and pretty much only bet for new international service. Although I think I did hear something about ANA flying to DEN (from Tokyo) with the 787, which wouldn't surprise me since ANA is a Star Alliance partner of United.

So Denver will never be a big international gateway, which is a shame because of how modern and efficient it is. But it will remain a big player for the domestic market.

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

If you live in California, you have to backtrack to get to Denver in order to fly transpacific. If you live in Illinois, you have to backtrack to Denver in order to fly transatlantic. All of the major airlines have hubs on each coast. So westbound United would route them through SFO, eastbound United would route them through EWR. Denver is also not in a good position for South American flights either. That just leaves DEN as a domestic hub with few international routes.

Phoenix and Salt Lake City are in a similar situation.

I'm not bashing DEN or anything, just thought it was funny they were advertising DEN as being strategically located.

Originally Posted by bunt_q

You're putting lipstick on a pig. DIA's international offerings suck, plain and simple. Whether international route demand will outstrip available supply at coastal airports in 50 years, forcing airlines to DIA, is purely a matter of speculation. Personally, I think coastal airports will find a way to make it work long before they cede the intercontinental flights. Pretty sure Los Angeles will drop a daily flight or two to Spokane, Reno, or Tulsa long before they pass on Shanghai. Make the Fargo crowd fly through Denver, keep Beijing in San Fran; that's what I'd do if I was United.

Originally Posted by Octavian

I mostly agree with this, but I'd point out that AIRLINES make route decisions, not airports, and that they do so on the basis of dollars and cents, not prestige. Cities like NY and Los Angeles will always have plenty of international flights because of their strong O&D traffic, but there is an opportunity for Denver and other airports with lots of capacity to steal passengers than in the past might have connected through LA or NY on their way to Europe or Asia. The 787, a smaller, longer distance airplane makes the economics possible. Those flights Los Angeles drops and Denver takes to Spokane, Reno and Tulsa can help give Denver the volume to support more international flights.

Originally Posted by The Dirt

The only way I see Denver growing as an international hub is by connecting Asia-bound flights from the east coast or Europe-bound flights from the west coast. Perhaps, Latin American-bound Flights would make sense when connecting from the Pacific Northwest but, I don't see DFW, Houston, Atlanta, or Orlando having the same growth constrictions as LAX, SFO, or JFK. Still, this seems likely only if or when the current coastal hubs reach capacity or expand and pass on too much of the cost of expansion to the airlines.

Originally Posted by Kngkyle

I think when most of us here are referring to international destinations, we really mean excluding North America. Any second tier airport can get flights to Canada or Mexico. We're (or at least I) referring to long haul international flights. Currently, Denver only has 2 of those - London and Frankfurt.

Really the only new potential long haul international destinations are Tokyo and Dubai.

Tokyo is probably going to happen relatively soon when ANA get their hands on some more 787s. ANA is a Star Alliance member along with United so the connections will be there on both ends for the route to work.

Dubai is a long shot but Emirates has a gigantic backlog of widebody aircraft that they have to send somewhere. So maybe by 2020.

Anything more than those 2 would likely depend on United building up Denver more, which has about no chance of happening since they are getting killed by Southwest and Frontier. I actually suspect the opposite will happen, with United moving capacity from DEN to newly acquired IAH to escape the LCC bloodbath.

In the last ~6 months, airlines have announced/started non-stop international service to/from Denver International Airport to Iceland, Dominican Republic and now Japan. Denver to Jamaica-Montego Bay, is very likely to begin at some point, via Frontier Airlines, as well.

So, if we exclude all the Canadian (United serves Canada heavily from Denver) and Mexico (Frontier serves Mexico heavily from Denver), would Iceland, Japan, Dominican Republic and possibly Jamaica all count? The article below also mentions Denver companies pushing for non-stop service to Hong Kong and Abu Dhabi. Existing International non-stops from Denver also include Costa Rica, London and Frankfurt.

No, Denver International isn't likely to ever be a major International hub. But this is some rapid expansion into International service, after a decade of nothing. This is definitely positive.