Internationally there's BA and Potentially coming back of China Airlines. But Japan Airlines and Cathay are not here. Feels like a big hole for the map of OneWorld. Maybe alliances are things of the past. AS and HU seem to do fine without being part of the big three alliances.

You're not expecting Iberia or Qantas, are you?

Delta's TATL and TPAC build-ups at SEA crowd out some plausible carriers. So does the quantity of TPAC traffic (both AC and non-Canadian) at YVR.

SEA is served by ANA so JAL might not want to start it at this phase in their expansion. Cathay, on the other hand, is perfect for SEA. They probably could drive DL off the route if they partnered with AS
Also, China Airlines (ROC) is Skyteam.

It's already a de facto oneworld hub because AS feeds every oneworld partner from SEA. AA, BA, CX, JL, LA, QF, all codeshare with AS.

What more do you need if you have a fully obliging feeder airline?

I don't think JAL will try SEA. Previously There have been three airline on the route at once, and that never seemed to work out. DL and ANA are probably all the market can tolerate.

CX would be challenging and might not make money. CX won't drive DL out of the market because DL needs to serve HKG even if it is a measily A332 from SEA. DL cutback some on NRT-HKG. Even though DL is a tiny player in HKG, I think the city is too important to force passengers to fly KE via ICN.

QF could work with a 787-9 if the plane has enough range to get to SYD. I think that route might work.

LA is unlikely. If they can't make SFO work, there is no way SEA would ever work.

The question becomes what sort of relationship Level will have with OneWorld. If the premise holds, that DL crowds the premium yields (rightly so, it is their hub - and they have strong partners to serve) - then perhaps the goal should be to go at it, from a lower cost.

The AS code-share would be necessary (and likely, given their past with the topic); and IAG could tactfully employ two of the lower costing options here; EI and Level.

EI could provide access to secondary U.K. cities, and parts of North Western Europe that might prove enough to not harm yields to LHR (on BA). This would help 'level' the advantage that KLM holds (which is connecting many who would not want to fly on BA, and trek down to LHR - so connect from secondary UK to AMS). On an ideal level - EI's SEA-DUB-BCN is almost on the same flight path as SEA-BCN. As a natural connection, and with pre-clearance at DUB, the advantage here almost goes to EI.

Level provides an interesting tool. It would be interesting to have the first person advantage here, and having the 'in' with AS, first - might be a decent tool. Level should, and if logic prevails - should hammer out the initial, and expected teething issues (that usually accompany any launch) then grow to some strength on those routes - before launching another European base, before even committing to opening many more cities that it already has. There is a potent lesson learned, already at BCN, for IAG - in VY's last summer. To their benefit - there is also the established brand and IRROPS 'soft landing' in being an IAG member, and hopefully - a close (even if only, initial...) relationship will soothe some of the major issues. All that said, DY is expanding. Level, might have to rush, to grab capacity.

Do I think that SEA-BCN could work? Maybe medium-term. For IAG, though - and looking at DY - it might have to endure 'growing pains' to secure itself, if only to stave off a competitor.

We will see JL and CX serve SEA soon, and QR will serve SEA within 5 years.

SEAtown wrote:

We will see JL and CX serve SEA soon, and QR will serve SEA within 5 years.

Really?

- As others have said, JL already faces pressure from both NH and DL, both of which seem to dominate the market on either side of the pond.
- CX already has a lot of traffic in YVR, and it may not be profitable to fly HKG-SEA with a 77W considering how premium-heavy it is. The 359 might work, however there isn't a whole lot of demand for it considering DL, even with domestic feed from the US, still only sends a 332 on the route. If there really was a lot of demand for HKG-SEA, why doesn't DL send a 744 to cover the route?
- EK already serves all the connections that QR has well with the 77L it sends in -- and it's pretty much the only aircraft that either QR or EK has that can fly the route based on distance. A 359 might work with payload restrictions, but it's also premium-heavy and most likely doesn't have enough demand leftover from EK. If EK really had demand (or really wanted to), they could send an A380 on the route (the 77W would be payload-restricted).

N644US wrote:

SEAtown wrote:

We will see JL and CX serve SEA soon, and QR will serve SEA within 5 years.

Really?

- As others have said, JL already faces pressure from both NH and DL, both of which seem to dominate the market on either side of the pond.
- CX already has a lot of traffic in YVR, and it may not be profitable to fly HKG-SEA with a 77W considering how premium-heavy it is. The 359 might work, however there isn't a whole lot of demand for it considering DL, even with domestic feed from the US, still only sends a 332 on the route. If there really was a lot of demand for HKG-SEA, why doesn't DL send a 744 to cover the route?
- EK already serves all the connections that QR has well with the 77L it sends in -- and it's pretty much the only aircraft that either QR or EK has that can fly the route based on distance. A 359 might work with payload restrictions, but it's also premium-heavy and most likely doesn't have enough demand leftover from EK. If EK really had demand (or really wanted to), they could send an A380 on the route (the 77W would be payload-restricted).

Since when can SEA handle an a380?

Rajahdhani wrote:

The question becomes what sort of relationship Level will have with OneWorld. If the premise holds, that DL crowds the premium yields (rightly so, it is their hub - and they have strong partners to serve) - then perhaps the goal should be to go at it, from a lower cost.

The AS code-share would be necessary (and likely, given their past with the topic); and IAG could tactfully employ two of the lower costing options here; EI and Level.

EI could provide access to secondary U.K. cities, and parts of North Western Europe that might prove enough to not harm yields to LHR (on BA). This would help 'level' the advantage that KLM holds (which is connecting many who would not want to fly on BA, and trek down to LHR - so connect from secondary UK to AMS). On an ideal level - EI's SEA-DUB-BCN is almost on the same flight path as SEA-BCN. As a natural connection, and with pre-clearance at DUB, the advantage here almost goes to EI.

Level provides an interesting tool. It would be interesting to have the first person advantage here, and having the 'in' with AS, first - might be a decent tool. Level should, and if logic prevails - should hammer out the initial, and expected teething issues (that usually accompany any launch) then grow to some strength on those routes - before launching another European base, before even committing to opening many more cities that it already has. There is a potent lesson learned, already at BCN, for IAG - in VY's last summer. To their benefit - there is also the established brand and IRROPS 'soft landing' in being an IAG member, and hopefully - a close (even if only, initial...) relationship will soothe some of the major issues. All that said, DY is expanding. Level, might have to rush, to grab capacity.

Do I think that SEA-BCN could work? Maybe medium-term. For IAG, though - and looking at DY - it might have to endure 'growing pains' to secure itself, if only to stave off a competitor.

What does SEA have to do with Level? What?

keitherson wrote:

Rajahdhani wrote:

The question becomes what sort of relationship Level will have with OneWorld. If the premise holds, that DL crowds the premium yields (rightly so, it is their hub - and they have strong partners to serve) - then perhaps the goal should be to go at it, from a lower cost.

The AS code-share would be necessary (and likely, given their past with the topic); and IAG could tactfully employ two of the lower costing options here; EI and Level.

EI could provide access to secondary U.K. cities, and parts of North Western Europe that might prove enough to not harm yields to LHR (on BA). This would help 'level' the advantage that KLM holds (which is connecting many who would not want to fly on BA, and trek down to LHR - so connect from secondary UK to AMS). On an ideal level - EI's SEA-DUB-BCN is almost on the same flight path as SEA-BCN. As a natural connection, and with pre-clearance at DUB, the advantage here almost goes to EI.

Level provides an interesting tool. It would be interesting to have the first person advantage here, and having the 'in' with AS, first - might be a decent tool. Level should, and if logic prevails - should hammer out the initial, and expected teething issues (that usually accompany any launch) then grow to some strength on those routes - before launching another European base, before even committing to opening many more cities that it already has. There is a potent lesson learned, already at BCN, for IAG - in VY's last summer. To their benefit - there is also the established brand and IRROPS 'soft landing' in being an IAG member, and hopefully - a close (even if only, initial...) relationship will soothe some of the major issues. All that said, DY is expanding. Level, might have to rush, to grab capacity.

Do I think that SEA-BCN could work? Maybe medium-term. For IAG, though - and looking at DY - it might have to endure 'growing pains' to secure itself, if only to stave off a competitor.

What does SEA have to do with Level? What?

Level is part of OneWorld. Perhaps they will add BCN-SEA. I'm assuming that's the connection, and it's honestly something I thought of as well. My daughter would love a chance to get back to Barcelona but money will be a factor as she's a full time student. OneWorld would be a great option via Level.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

keitherson wrote:

Rajahdhani wrote:

The question becomes what sort of relationship Level will have with OneWorld. If the premise holds, that DL crowds the premium yields (rightly so, it is their hub - and they have strong partners to serve) - then perhaps the goal should be to go at it, from a lower cost.

The AS code-share would be necessary (and likely, given their past with the topic); and IAG could tactfully employ two of the lower costing options here; EI and Level.

EI could provide access to secondary U.K. cities, and parts of North Western Europe that might prove enough to not harm yields to LHR (on BA). This would help 'level' the advantage that KLM holds (which is connecting many who would not want to fly on BA, and trek down to LHR - so connect from secondary UK to AMS). On an ideal level - EI's SEA-DUB-BCN is almost on the same flight path as SEA-BCN. As a natural connection, and with pre-clearance at DUB, the advantage here almost goes to EI.

Level provides an interesting tool. It would be interesting to have the first person advantage here, and having the 'in' with AS, first - might be a decent tool. Level should, and if logic prevails - should hammer out the initial, and expected teething issues (that usually accompany any launch) then grow to some strength on those routes - before launching another European base, before even committing to opening many more cities that it already has. There is a potent lesson learned, already at BCN, for IAG - in VY's last summer. To their benefit - there is also the established brand and IRROPS 'soft landing' in being an IAG member, and hopefully - a close (even if only, initial...) relationship will soothe some of the major issues. All that said, DY is expanding. Level, might have to rush, to grab capacity.

Do I think that SEA-BCN could work? Maybe medium-term. For IAG, though - and looking at DY - it might have to endure 'growing pains' to secure itself, if only to stave off a competitor.

What does SEA have to do with Level? What?

Level is part of OneWorld. Perhaps they will add BCN-SEA. I'm assuming that's the connection, and it's honestly something I thought of as well. My daughter would love a chance to get back to Barcelona but money will be a factor as she's a full time student. OneWorld would be a great option via Level.

Level is not part of oneworld. They have nothing to do with oneworld. They're just owned by IAG, who also owns Iberia, who flies the planes right now.

They're about as oneworld as Vueling.

Good luck for BCN-SEA. But that's completely off-topic.

N644US wrote:

SEAtown wrote:

We will see JL and CX serve SEA soon, and QR will serve SEA within 5 years.

Really?

- As others have said, JL already faces pressure from both NH and DL, both of which seem to dominate the market on either side of the pond.
- CX already has a lot of traffic in YVR, and it may not be profitable to fly HKG-SEA with a 77W considering how premium-heavy it is. The 359 might work, however there isn't a whole lot of demand for it considering DL, even with domestic feed from the US, still only sends a 332 on the route. If there really was a lot of demand for HKG-SEA, why doesn't DL send a 744 to cover the route?
- EK already serves all the connections that QR has well with the 77L it sends in -- and it's pretty much the only aircraft that either QR or EK has that can fly the route based on distance. A 359 might work with payload restrictions, but it's also premium-heavy and most likely doesn't have enough demand leftover from EK. If EK really had demand (or really wanted to), they could send an A380 on the route (the 77W would be payload-restricted).

It wouldn't surprise me to see JL at SEA again, especially with the AS/DL official divorce as of 3/30/2017 and Alaska's network and partnership. But with JL's recovery and a bit gun-shy on expansion, I don't give it a huge chance for it in the near-future.

SEA airlines have surprised me with Eurowings to CGN, Condor to MUC and Xiamen to Shenzhen.

Based on CX's financial performance as of late, I have my doubts of CX will serve SEA anytime soon. I think an A359 would work...but we'll see.

With EK's 2X daily 77W flights through SEA, I give another ME3 very little chance of competing at SEA. The runways and gates at SEA are not A380 capable, at least a full capacity.

SEA is bursting at the seams when it comes to gate capacity. I think night-time and early mornings are best. However, you already have EVA arriving at 6am 3X weekly, EK's 6am arrival. And then at night-time you have EVA's daily arrival, BA and Icelandair evening arrivals. On March 27th, Virgin Atlantic will start LHR-SEA with 789 equipment.

So what's next? I'm a little surprised that DY hasn't tried. Maybe QF with their 789's? QF has mentioned (albeit over 10 years ago) that the 787 would be perfect for something like SYD-SEA. Not that it means they'll do it. There has been some mention of CI and TG returning to SEA.

keitherson wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

keitherson wrote:

What does SEA have to do with Level? What?

Level is part of OneWorld. Perhaps they will add BCN-SEA. I'm assuming that's the connection, and it's honestly something I thought of as well. My daughter would love a chance to get back to Barcelona but money will be a factor as she's a full time student. OneWorld would be a great option via Level.

Level is not part of oneworld. They have nothing to do with oneworld. They're just owned by IAG, who also owns Iberia, who flies the planes right now.

They're about as oneworld as Vueling.

Good luck for BCN-SEA. But that's completely off-topic.

Thanks for the clarification. I was conflating IAG and Oneworld in my mind.

keitherson wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

keitherson wrote:

What does SEA have to do with Level? What?

Level is part of OneWorld. Perhaps they will add BCN-SEA. I'm assuming that's the connection, and it's honestly something I thought of as well. My daughter would love a chance to get back to Barcelona but money will be a factor as she's a full time student. OneWorld would be a great option via Level.

Level is not part of oneworld. They have nothing to do with oneworld. They're just owned by IAG, who also owns Iberia, who flies the planes right now.

They're about as oneworld as Vueling.

Good luck for BCN-SEA. But that's completely off-topic.

That wasn't what the employees were told. They told us it is part of the JBA. Do you know for sure? Or are you just guessing?

Level is presumably part of AJB because Level is just Iberia with a different brand and product. Everything other than the aircraft and what's offered onboard is Iberia. AJB though does not, of itself, mean Oneworld member.

Vueling and Jetstar are two examples of carriers that are definitely not Oneworld despite their ownership.

RyanairGuru wrote:

Level is presumably part of AJB because Level is just Iberia with a different brand and product. Everything other than the aircraft and what's offered onboard is Iberia. AJB though does not, of itself, mean Oneworld member.

Vueling and Jetstar are two examples of carriers that are definitely not Oneworld despite their ownership.

Or indeed Aer Lingus !

Oneworld is an alliance and awards/benefits/bribes partnership - its NOT a virtual airline .

Sick and tired of this primarily US based view that these organisations somehow they are !

Just about all the European large carriers now have non aligned subsidiaries of one sort or another and one of the largest Oneworld partners on the planet major global partner is non other than Emirates !

As for the primary question of why xyz doesn't serve SEA , in the case of Cathay in particular look just above the 48th where a rather large Cantonese migrant population has settled before and after the UK handing Victoria Island back to Beijing two decades ago.

As for Level if they are operating on the IB AOC , they Iberia may be selling tickets on IB stock and code -these might accrue Oneworld status however those sold directly by Level may not !

As far as China and east Asia are concerned OneWorld is much weaker than *A and ST, with KE OZ BR NH DL MF operating large number of flights out of SEA. It's a gaping hold in the OW network.

Overthecascades wrote:

As far as China and east Asia are concerned OneWorld is much weaker than *A and ST, with KE OZ BR NH DL MF operating large number of flights out of SEA. It's a gaping hold in the OW network.

And again you fall into this virtual airline mind set, yet ignore much larger economical effects of Hub and Spoke operations have in some domains areas.

rutankrd wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

As for the primary question of why xyz doesn't serve SEA , in the case of Cathay in particular look just above the 48th where a rather large Cantonese migrant population has settled before and after the UK handing Victoria Island back to Beijing two decades ago.

I used to think that if an airline began service to YVR, then it wouldn't happen in SEA due its proximity. But nowadays, I don't think that theory holds true anymore. I think that CX could fly SEA-HKG with their A359's, but there's another reason why they would not...and that's their financial position. They apparently lost $74 million. That in itself is enough to halt expansion...not the fact that YVR has 3X daily YVR-HKG routes.

wedgetail737 wrote:

rutankrd wrote:

RyanairGuru wrote:

As for the primary question of why xyz doesn't serve SEA , in the case of Cathay in particular look just above the 48th where a rather large Cantonese migrant population has settled before and after the UK handing Victoria Island back to Beijing two decades ago.

I used to think that if an airline began service to YVR, then it wouldn't happen in SEA due its proximity. But nowadays, I don't think that theory holds true anymore. I think that CX could fly SEA-HKG with their A359's, but there's another reason why they would not...and that's their financial position. They apparently lost $74 million. That in itself is enough to halt expansion...not the fact that YVR has 3X daily YVR-HKG routes.

Cathay hedge (gambled) on fuel and LOST !

Operationally the group actually made a profit , but yes they have expanded rather to rapidly of late particularly in returning to a number of secondary markets across Europe defending core business including transfer traffic from the threats of the Chinese mainland onslaught.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Level is part of OneWorld. Perhaps they will add BCN-SEA. I'm assuming that's the connection, and it's honestly something I thought of as well. My daughter would love a chance to get back to Barcelona but money will be a factor as she's a full time student. OneWorld would be a great option via Level.

Here's precisely the issue - that level of 'confusion' is precisely what Iberia, IAG, and by association OneWorld is hoping that you will do. From a marketing perspective, consider it. Would you trust, this 'new' start up (or, would we have any as much faith in it) if it we truly independent?
Is it really feasible, for a truly independent long-haul LCC to establish itself, at BCN (sitting above VY, using IB planes/employees, and potentially harming yields/opportunities for IB) without assistance from IB/VY/IAG - and compete against DY's ambitions?
Moreover, how long will Level survive, without feed from VY? How much longer before we see an interline/code-share? Who would have to approve that?

If you're sitting in SEA, and have enough points to redeem on a OneWorld carrier to get to Europe - this thread helps to highlight the frustration. My thought was that a lower costing option would pair well with the AS relationship on the ground, and also be able to battle DL (if they wanted to compete). DUB on EI would have been the charge - and already being in OneWorld would have made point conversion/status recognition easier. Having the ability to connect passengers (thus, having something smaller than an A332) would provide EI the ability to connect the incoming to DUB to EI's network.
The totally 'independent' Level is surely going to be handicapped. I mean, all of those A332s are going to be filled with O/D. No alliance. It's not as if there is an LCC, at BCN, owned by IAG, that might be 'incentivized' to help them...

rutankrd wrote:

Overthecascades wrote:

As far as China and east Asia are concerned OneWorld is much weaker than *A and ST, with KE OZ BR NH DL MF operating large number of flights out of SEA. It's a gaping hold in the OW network.

And again you fall into this virtual airline mind set, yet ignore much larger economical effects of Hub and Spoke operations have in some domains areas.

And again don't let fact, or an interview with the current head of OneWorld - stop the truth from shining through...

https://skift.com/2017/02/10/oneworld-alliance-looking-at-low-cost-carriers-in-emerging-markets/Oneworld isn’t currently pursuing recruits in India, where Air India is a Star Alliance member, or mainland China, where China Eastern, China Southern and Xiamen Air have joined SkyTeam and Air China and Shenzhen Airlines are part of Star. It would nevertheless “absolutely like to be working with airlines domiciled in those countries” on the right terms, Gurney said.

Thus, regardless of how you consider it - OneWorld, as an entity - is weak in China, and in South East Asia. It has failed to attract membership from any of the large hub and spoke carriers in the region.

I can sympathize with your frustration - and I caution people about overly optimistic demands upon the capacities of an airline alliance. As an alliance, of airlines - they are the matter. That said, as a customer of AA, BA, IB, QR, or even LA sitting at home, and needing to head to China - the disparity is noted, compared to what Delta (and SkyTeam), or United (and Star) can provide over the same geographic range. Whatever the failure of OneWorld, whatever was at play on the ground - that lack of presence still exists today.

So, unless we attach your assumption, the original statement still holds true.

Rajahdhani wrote:

rutankrd wrote:

Overthecascades wrote:

As far as China and east Asia are concerned OneWorld is much weaker than *A and ST, with KE OZ BR NH DL MF operating large number of flights out of SEA. It's a gaping hold in the OW network.

And again you fall into this virtual airline mind set, yet ignore much larger economical effects of Hub and Spoke operations have in some domains areas.

And again don't let fact, or an interview with the current head of OneWorld - stop the truth from shining through...

https://skift.com/2017/02/10/oneworld-alliance-looking-at-low-cost-carriers-in-emerging-markets/Oneworld isn’t currently pursuing recruits in India, where Air India is a Star Alliance member, or mainland China, where China Eastern, China Southern and Xiamen Air have joined SkyTeam and Air China and Shenzhen Airlines are part of Star. It would nevertheless “absolutely like to be working with airlines domiciled in those countries” on the right terms, Gurney said.

Thus, regardless of how you consider it - OneWorld, as an entity - is weak in China, and in South East Asia. It has failed to attract membership from any of the large hub and spoke carriers in the region.

I can sympathize with your frustration - and I caution people about overly optimistic demands upon the capacities of an airline alliance. As an alliance, of airlines - they are the matter. That said, as a customer of AA, BA, IB, QR, or even LA sitting at home, and needing to head to China - the disparity is noted, compared to what Delta (and SkyTeam), or United (and Star) can provide over the same geographic range. Whatever the failure of OneWorld, whatever was at play on the ground - that lack of presence still exists today.

So, unless we attach your assumption, the original statement still holds true.

Cathay/Dragon Cathay, JAL provide extensive connections from two of the largest hubs across the region.

Within China much/most of the growth is domestic and the multitude of colours are just regional departments of the CAAC or regional governments in the main , Its far from a truly open and competitive market driven industry.

I concede that the Oneworld member international carriers don't appear to do so well in offering direct Chinese connections cepting through Hong Kong - BA has actually dumped their only attempt at a second city route , however looking at the raw numbers of BA, AA, QF, and even IB of late I contend that they are doing something right (focused) on core US domestic, TPAC and TALC operations rather than more risky markets.

You know what, if Japan Airlines starts SEA, or if Hainan Airlines joins OneWorld, we would have essentially filled this gaping hole and solved the problem many of us OW-ers feel frustrated about in this area.

Anyone thinks it's crazy for Hainan to join OW??

rutankrd wrote:

Cathay/Dragon Cathay, JAL provide extensive connections from two of the largest hubs across the region.

Rightly so, and I agree with you. If I downplayed their merit prior, I apologize for that - however, premium yields would prefer direct flights. CX is fantastic, in their service standards - but those standards come at a cost, in Hong Kong - where costs are higher than in Mainland China (to being with). It places them at an advantage (world renown service), as well as at a disadvantage (as most competitors will operate at lower costs). In so much, if I had a business meeting in Shanghai, and company was paying for it - I would fly non-stop. Both CX (currently) and JL (short/medium history) offer superb products - and their costs have been the focus of their respective management ever since. I am not even wholly convinced that Cathay Dragon - will be the savior for CX. Based at the same airport, using similar crew - almost identitical aircraft. Even at a lower cost, how much lower can it be?

rutankrd wrote:

Within China much/most of the growth is domestic and the multitude of colours are just regional departments of the CAAC or regional governments in the main , Its far from a truly open and competitive market driven industry.

Completely valid point!

rutankrd wrote:

I concede that the Oneworld member international carriers don't appear to do so well in offering direct Chinese connections cepting through Hong Kong - BA has actually dumped their only attempt at a second city route , however looking at the raw numbers of BA, AA, QF, and even IB of late I contend that they are doing something right (focused) on core US domestic, TPAC and TALC operations rather than more risky markets.

Rightly so. They are focusing in their backyards first (cleaning house et al). That said, the GDP growth in China and India is going to see business demand there. Perhaps the current carriers like it, the way that it is. Perhaps it is higher yeilding to carry on your own, rather than being 'helped' by a partner (and sharing profits), right now?