What Makes SEA Better Than NRT For Delta

Atlwarrior · Thu May 11, 2017 2:22 am

I think its obvious that Ed will follow Richard European J/V stragety. Many but not all nonstops were cut from Atlanta and funnel through Paris and Amsterdam. I can see Ed doing the same thing with Seoul with Korean Airlines, but keeping some nonstop through Seattle.

Overthecascades · Thu May 11, 2017 2:41 am

As the JV with KE doesn't cover China, we will likely see more flying from Seattle to Chinese destinations and to ICN but other Asian cities outside China beyond HKG, NRT are unlikely.

jbs2886 · Thu May 11, 2017 2:50 am

Overthecascades wrote:
As the JV with KE doesn't cover China, we will likely see more flying from Seattle to Chinese destinations and to ICN but other Asian cities outside China beyond HKG, NRT are unlikely.

Not necessarily, DL has been clear they intend to leverage China Eastern's PVG hub.

Overthecascades · Thu May 11, 2017 3:21 am

jbs2886 wrote:
Overthecascades wrote:
As the JV with KE doesn't cover China, we will likely see more flying from Seattle to Chinese destinations and to ICN but other Asian cities outside China beyond HKG, NRT are unlikely.

Not necessarily, DL has been clear they intend to leverage China Eastern's PVG hub.

True but maybe more frequencies to existing cities? I guess my point is: the KE JV is not the end of SEA at a DL hub.

alfa164 · Thu May 11, 2017 3:36 am

jbs2886 wrote:
Overthecascades wrote:
As the JV with KE doesn't cover China, we will likely see more flying from Seattle to Chinese destinations and to ICN but other Asian cities outside China beyond HKG, NRT are unlikely.

Not necessarily, DL has been clear they intend to leverage China Eastern's PVG hub.

They "made that clear" when they were trying to put the pressure on KE to agree to a JV. Now that agreement seems to be happening, and I will bet all talk about a hub in PVG will slowly ( and thankfully) disappear.

N644US · Thu May 11, 2017 4:04 am

Sightseer wrote:
maortega15 wrote:
Does anyone know what will happen to NRT-MNL? Will they still plan to keep it or ax it eventually? They already axed NGO-MNL and JFK-NRT which MNL relied upon. Now, they're down to a single 767.

NW used to have a great following on flights to MNL. With DL, not so much.

In my opinion, the best-case scenario for MNL is that it is again paired with DTW-NGO, ideally bringing that flight back to daily service. But I think the more likely outcome is that MNL is simply turned over to KE.

That seems unlikely as well. DTW-NGO is optimised for business travellers in the auto industry (DTW being the home of the US Big Three in automotive manufacturing, and NGO being close to the headquarters of Honda and Toyota), hence why the premium cabin is mostly sold out on the few flights that are offered (I really wanted that upgrade).

ILUVDC10S · Thu May 11, 2017 4:26 am

With the current and future political climate I think its wrong to do a JV with a Korean or Chinese Airline either way you are playing with fire. Better option should have been to partner with Japan Airlines with NRT as only hub in Asia. With NRT you have a more centralized hub system to Asia. Using SEA as a Asia hub internationally is dumb! Maybe a gateway city nothing more. Sure you may plan on serving BOS-Asia NYC-Asia or wherever to Asia you still need your core legacy routes to remain intact irregardless .

RWA380 · Thu May 11, 2017 4:38 am

LAXdude1023 wrote:
1) Cost. Operating a Seattle hub is much cheaper.
2) Delta serves more destinations from Seattle than Tokyo.
3) NRT hubs were more of an issue when airlines couldn't fly routes like NYC-HKG nonstop.

It takes until answer #34 to get the REAL reason, COST! This is the moving factor in SEA vs NRT. The rest is cause & effect, more like symptoms.

IPFreely · Thu May 11, 2017 4:51 am

ILUVDC10S wrote:
With the current and future political climate I think its wrong to do a JV with a Korean or Chinese Airline either way you are playing with fire. .

You do know that Korean Air is based in South Korea, not North Korea?

ILUVDC10S wrote:
Better option should have been to partner with Japan Airlines with NRT as only hub in Asia.

Japan Airlines is partnered with American/OneWorld; there is no chance they would leave that alliance for Delta/Sky Team. Ditto for ANA which is partnered with United/Star Alliance. There are no partner airlines for Delta in Japan.

ILUVDC10S wrote:
Sure you may plan on serving BOS-Asia NYC-Asia or wherever to Asia you still need your core legacy routes to remain intact irregardless .

Well it doesn't get much more core or legacy than JFK-NRT. So Delta disagrees with you.

c933103 · Thu May 11, 2017 5:03 am

btw, as Delta's problem in NRT is lack of local partner, and I think they were once going to acquire Skymark for that, would it be a good idea for them to establish a Japanese branch there with local partners? Although it would probably be much easier to cooperate witih KE and use ICN as a hub instead which also have its own advantage....

ITB · Thu May 11, 2017 7:16 am

RWA380 wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
1) Cost. Operating a Seattle hub is much cheaper.
2) Delta serves more destinations from Seattle than Tokyo.
3) NRT hubs were more of an issue when airlines couldn't fly routes like NYC-HKG nonstop.

It takes until answer #34 to get the REAL reason, COST! This is the moving factor in SEA vs NRT. The rest is cause & effect, more like symptoms.

Yup. Although I haven't been privy to any figures, I would say offhand the cost of operating a hub at NRT is much more expensive than a similar one at SEA.

IPFreely wrote:
ILUVDC10S wrote:
Better option should have been to partner with Japan Airlines with NRT as only hub in Asia.

Japan Airlines is partnered with American/OneWorld; there is no chance they would leave that alliance for Delta/Sky Team. Ditto for ANA which is partnered with United/Star Alliance. There are no partner airlines for Delta in Japan.

Having no partner in Japan is certainly a major problem, all the more so with the much smaller hub at NRT. If DL can find some way to keep flying NRT-SIN and NRT-MNL, as well as NRT-PVG, and bring back NRT-BKK, NRT-TPE, and JFK-NRT, they would once again, when coupled with the Asian gateway at SEA, have the core for a solid Asian network. For Delta to be remain relevant in Asia, it's vital they serve SIN, MNL, BKK, and TPE.

Delta's goal, of course, is to own as large a share of the transpacific market as possible. The hub at SEA will help them achieve this. Other airlines, however, aren't sitting still and are pushing hard to snag market share as well. As it all shakes out, there will be, of course, winners and losers. For DL to ultimately succeed in the transpacific market a strong Asian route network is required. They can't have huge network gaps. BKK, TPE, MNL, and SIN all must be served, with strong consideration given to CAN and SGN. The more Asian markets DL can serve, the stronger its network becomes, the more likely it will "win" in Asia.

intotheair · Thu May 11, 2017 7:57 am

c933103 wrote:
btw, as Delta's problem in NRT is lack of local partner, and I think they were once going to acquire Skymark for that,

This is important to remember that DL doesn't have a Japan partner for lack of trying. They offered to bailout JAL during bankruptcy, but their bid was not chosen; same with Skymark.

...would it be a good idea for them to establish a Japanese branch there with local partners? Although it would probably be much easier to cooperate witih KE and use ICN as a hub instead which also have its own advantage....

What other "local partners" are left for them to choose from in Japan? Every airline of significance is aligned with JAL/oneworld/AA or NH/Star/UA. DL has a Japanese branch of their own already by way of operating fifth freedom flights on their own metal...from an airport that has lost much of its appeal due to the opening up of HND. Given the circumstances with the business proposition of doing fifth freedoms from NRT and the JV tie-ups with NH/UA and JL/AA, a JV with KE at the very connection-friendly ICN seems like a great alternative.

And it's not like DL is going to exit the Japan market completely — it's just shifting to more of an O&D focus between TYO and DL's US hubs. I imagine we'll only continue to see DL try to push for more HND slots as time goes by.

ILUVDC10S · Thu May 11, 2017 8:20 am

IPFreely wrote:
ILUVDC10S wrote:
With the current and future political climate I think its wrong to do a JV with a Korean or Chinese Airline either way you are playing with fire. .

You do know that Korean Air is based in South Korea, not North Korea?

ILUVDC10S wrote:
Better option should have been to partner with Japan Airlines with NRT as only hub in Asia.

Japan Airlines is partnered with American/OneWorld; there is no chance they would leave that alliance for Delta/Sky Team. Ditto for ANA which is partnered with United/Star Alliance. There are no partner airlines for Delta in Japan.

ILUVDC10S wrote:
Sure you may plan on serving BOS-Asia NYC-Asia or wherever to Asia you still need your core legacy routes to remain intact irregardless .

Well it doesn't get much more core or legacy than JFK-NRT. So Delta disagrees with you.

I do yes. South Korea is a sneeze from reuniting with Kin Jong dufus! So Its Dumb to go with a S Korean Company. Does DL want to have to fight with a dictator to get its planes out of ICN huh ? How about all those Americans who would be victimized huh ? Thats why I say Japan is more stable than Korea or China !

Well lets see how hard of a negotiator and wheeler and dealer Bastain is to get Japan Airlines to leave One World for Skyteam let the metal fly as far as I am concerned. Lets see who can out maneuver who DL or AA get em to earn his keep in my opinion. Let the air bidding wars begin!

klakzky123 · Thu May 11, 2017 8:37 am

alfa164 wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
Overthecascades wrote:
As the JV with KE doesn't cover China, we will likely see more flying from Seattle to Chinese destinations and to ICN but other Asian cities outside China beyond HKG, NRT are unlikely.

Not necessarily, DL has been clear they intend to leverage China Eastern's PVG hub.

They "made that clear" when they were trying to put the pressure on KE to agree to a JV. Now that agreement seems to be happening, and I will bet all talk about a hub in PVG will slowly ( and thankfully) disappear.

PVG still has value. The JV doesn't cover secondary Chinese cities. The only way for DL to get to those is via China Eastern codeshare routes. As long as China continues to grow, demand for that sort of route access will increase.

With that said, it probably won't be a "hub" in the same way that ICN will but DL will still have to put some emphasis on PVG to get access to Chinese routes.

intotheair · Thu May 11, 2017 8:49 am

ILUVDC10S wrote:
South Korea is a sneeze from reuniting with Kin Jong dufus!

According to who?!?!?

RWA380 · Thu May 11, 2017 11:28 am

ILUVDC10S wrote:
IPFreely wrote:
ILUVDC10S wrote:
With the current and future political climate I think its wrong to do a JV with a Korean or Chinese Airline either way you are playing with fire. .

You do know that Korean Air is based in South Korea, not North Korea?

ILUVDC10S wrote:
Better option should have been to partner with Japan Airlines with NRT as only hub in Asia.

Japan Airlines is partnered with American/OneWorld; there is no chance they would leave that alliance for Delta/Sky Team. Ditto for ANA which is partnered with United/Star Alliance. There are no partner airlines for Delta in Japan.

ILUVDC10S wrote:
Sure you may plan on serving BOS-Asia NYC-Asia or wherever to Asia you still need your core legacy routes to remain intact irregardless .

Well it doesn't get much more core or legacy than JFK-NRT. So Delta disagrees with you.

I do yes. South Korea is a sneeze from reuniting with Kin Jong dufus! So Its Dumb to go with a S Korean Company. Does DL want to have to fight with a dictator to get its planes out of ICN huh ? How about all those Americans who would be victimized huh ? Thats why I say Japan is more stable than Korea or China !

Well lets see how hard of a negotiator and wheeler and dealer Bastain is to get Japan Airlines to leave One World for Skyteam let the metal fly as far as I am concerned. Lets see who can out maneuver who DL or AA get em to earn his keep in my opinion. Let the air bidding wars begin!

I am amazed that you were able to put all this together & I wouldn't try to pass it off as anything but your own personal opinion. I can't tell you how much is wrong with what you're trying to imply.

There is ZERO chance that the Southern & Northern parts of the Korean peninsula are going to "just get along" please read some history, you'll see that since the inception of the DPRK, it's a far more complicated issue than the 60 sec stort you see on T.V.

South Korea & Koreans offer a great hospitality experience, they have earned a real good reputation for the hospitality offered on both of their largest carriers, OZ & KE. Seoul is well along the traffic paths from N.A. to Asia & a world class airport facility.

JL isn't going to leave O/W they are a cornerstone carrier & enjoy a stronger trans pacific partnership with AA, then they would likely ever get with DL.

Lastly, Japan is almost as close to the DPRK as Seoul, when missiles are flying 100's of miles an hour, it's mere seconds or a few minutes tops difference. The DPRK has the ability to reach Tokyo & Seoul easily & they have the range to hit Hawaii & that is just what we know of for sure.

The bottom line is, the Korean Peninsula has been in limbo for decades upon decades already & only a manman who is out of options would rattle his sabre so loudly as to cause WW3. Both Kim Dung Un & Dick Tater don't want to die, I wouldn't read too much into the orange bluster blowing about U.S. led conflict.

c933103 · Thu May 11, 2017 11:36 am

intotheair wrote:
What other "local partners" are left for them to choose from in Japan? Every airline of significance is aligned with JAL/oneworld/AA or NH/Star/UA. DL has a Japanese branch of their own already by way of operating fifth freedom flights on their own metal...from an airport that has lost much of its appeal due to the opening up of HND. Given the circumstances with the business proposition of doing fifth freedoms from NRT and the JV tie-ups with NH/UA and JL/AA, a JV with KE at the very connection-friendly ICN seems like a great alternative.

Sorry, I wasn't being clear enough, I mean could it establish its own airline in Japan in cooperation with local non-airline partners that can develop their own network out of NRT&HND instead of reling on fifth freedom right, similar to how LATAM opening different subsidiaries across South America. (well, probably the Japanese domestic aviation market have already be fully taken by JAL and ANA and leaving no space for them to do so...)

jbs2886 · Thu May 11, 2017 12:42 pm

RWA380 wrote:
ILUVDC10S wrote:
IPFreely wrote:

You do know that Korean Air is based in South Korea, not North Korea?

Japan Airlines is partnered with American/OneWorld; there is no chance they would leave that alliance for Delta/Sky Team. Ditto for ANA which is partnered with United/Star Alliance. There are no partner airlines for Delta in Japan.

Well it doesn't get much more core or legacy than JFK-NRT. So Delta disagrees with you.

I do yes. South Korea is a sneeze from reuniting with Kin Jong dufus! So Its Dumb to go with a S Korean Company. Does DL want to have to fight with a dictator to get its planes out of ICN huh ? How about all those Americans who would be victimized huh ? Thats why I say Japan is more stable than Korea or China !

Well lets see how hard of a negotiator and wheeler and dealer Bastain is to get Japan Airlines to leave One World for Skyteam let the metal fly as far as I am concerned. Lets see who can out maneuver who DL or AA get em to earn his keep in my opinion. Let the air bidding wars begin!

I am amazed that you were able to put all this together & I wouldn't try to pass it off as anything but your own personal opinion. I can't tell you how much is wrong with what you're trying to imply.

There is ZERO chance that the Southern & Northern parts of the Korean peninsula are going to "just get along" please read some history, you'll see that since the inception of the DPRK, it's a far more complicated issue than the 60 sec stort you see on T.V.

South Korea & Koreans offer a great hospitality experience, they have earned a real good reputation for the hospitality offered on both of their largest carriers, OZ & KE. Seoul is well along the traffic paths from N.A. to Asia & a world class airport facility.

JL isn't going to leave O/W they are a cornerstone carrier & enjoy a stronger trans pacific partnership with AA, then they would likely ever get with DL.

Lastly, Japan is almost as close to the DPRK as Seoul, when missiles are flying 100's of miles an hour, it's mere seconds or a few minutes tops difference. The DPRK has the ability to reach Tokyo & Seoul easily & they have the range to hit Hawaii & that is just what we know of for sure.

The bottom line is, the Korean Peninsula has been in limbo for decades upon decades already & only a manman who is out of options would rattle his sabre so loudly as to cause WW3. Both Kim Dung Un & Dick Tater don't want to die, I wouldn't read too much into the orange bluster blowing about U.S. led conflict.

That has to be one of the craziest posts yet. South Korea is going to join North Korea and Bastian should "negotiate" JAL to leave OneWorld.

tlecam · Thu May 11, 2017 12:54 pm

I have a few thoughts, several of which smarter people above have already mentioned:

1. The Japanese economy
2. The lack of a JV partner in Tokyo
3. The emergence of Haneda requiring split ops in a sub-optimal way.
4. A bet on the market; DL can serve more of the US domestic market with more flights and connections than they can through Tokyo.

I think a good, related question to this, especially in light of the JV news with Korean, is why build Seattl einstead of moving the Asian Hub to ICN.

Some of the same points apply, but #2 obviously does not.

commavia · Thu May 11, 2017 1:21 pm

tlecam wrote:
I think a good, related question to this, especially in light of the JV news with Korean, is why build Seattle instead of moving the Asian Hub to ICN.

SEA and ICN compliment each other very well. ICN obviously has far deeper and broader penetration into East Asia than any U.S. hub, including SEA, will ever have, but the same is true in reverse - SEA will always have far more (domestic) connectivity into the U.S. than Korean would ever be able to support on a nonstop basis from ICN. Korean, for instance, is never going to fly ICN-BOI, and Delta is never going to fly SEA-HAN, but by leveraging both of these hubs, connections between all of these cities can be optimized for the maximum benefit of the broader network. SEA is useful for connections between big Asian cities and cities of all sizes in the U.S., ICN is useful for connections between big U.S. cities and cities of all sizes in Asia, and some connections between smaller cities in the U.S. and smaller cities in Asia may require a double-connection.

I continue to believe - as I have for quite some time - that the combination of ICN, DTW (for connections throughout the eastern U.S.) and SEA (for connections throughout the western U.S.) is extremely compelling. Once unified under a single transpacific JV, that is going to create an extremely impressive and competitively formidable network.

BoeingGuy · Thu May 11, 2017 1:40 pm

jbs2886 wrote:
RWA380 wrote:
ILUVDC10S wrote:

I do yes. South Korea is a sneeze from reuniting with Kin Jong dufus! So Its Dumb to go with a S Korean Company. Does DL want to have to fight with a dictator to get its planes out of ICN huh ? How about all those Americans who would be victimized huh ? Thats why I say Japan is more stable than Korea or China !

Well lets see how hard of a negotiator and wheeler and dealer Bastain is to get Japan Airlines to leave One World for Skyteam let the metal fly as far as I am concerned. Lets see who can out maneuver who DL or AA get em to earn his keep in my opinion. Let the air bidding wars begin!

I am amazed that you were able to put all this together & I wouldn't try to pass it off as anything but your own personal opinion. I can't tell you how much is wrong with what you're trying to imply.

There is ZERO chance that the Southern & Northern parts of the Korean peninsula are going to "just get along" please read some history, you'll see that since the inception of the DPRK, it's a far more complicated issue than the 60 sec stort you see on T.V.

South Korea & Koreans offer a great hospitality experience, they have earned a real good reputation for the hospitality offered on both of their largest carriers, OZ & KE. Seoul is well along the traffic paths from N.A. to Asia & a world class airport facility.

JL isn't going to leave O/W they are a cornerstone carrier & enjoy a stronger trans pacific partnership with AA, then they would likely ever get with DL.

Lastly, Japan is almost as close to the DPRK as Seoul, when missiles are flying 100's of miles an hour, it's mere seconds or a few minutes tops difference. The DPRK has the ability to reach Tokyo & Seoul easily & they have the range to hit Hawaii & that is just what we know of for sure.

The bottom line is, the Korean Peninsula has been in limbo for decades upon decades already & only a manman who is out of options would rattle his sabre so loudly as to cause WW3. Both Kim Dung Un & Dick Tater don't want to die, I wouldn't read too much into the orange bluster blowing about U.S. led conflict.

That has to be one of the craziest posts yet. South Korea is going to join North Korea and Bastian should "negotiate" JAL to leave OneWorld.

Remember this is the same A.net poster that spent an entire thread stating lots of misrepresentations about how dangerous ETOPS flights with twin engine airplanes are. For example, AF 447 wouldn't have happened if they'd had 4-engines, etc. This is just par for the course.

Let's ignore him and get back to an intelligent discussion about DL at SEA and NRT.

Interestingly, DL still hasn't cancelled PDX-NRT as many predict.

dmstorm22 · Thu May 11, 2017 1:47 pm

commavia wrote:
tlecam wrote:
I think a good, related question to this, especially in light of the JV news with Korean, is why build Seattle instead of moving the Asian Hub to ICN.

SEA and ICN compliment each other very well. ICN obviously has far deeper and broader penetration into East Asia than any U.S. hub, including SEA, will ever have, but the same is true in reverse - SEA will always have far more (domestic) connectivity into the U.S. than Korean would ever be able to support on a nonstop basis from ICN. Korean, for instance, is never going to fly ICN-BOI, and Delta is never going to fly SEA-HAN, but by leveraging both of these hubs, connections between all of these cities can be optimized for the maximum benefit of the broader network. SEA is useful for connections between big Asian cities and cities of all sizes in the U.S., ICN is useful for connections between big U.S. cities and cities of all sizes in Asia, and some connections between smaller cities in the U.S. and smaller cities in Asia may require a double-connection.

I continue to believe - as I have for quite some time - that the combination of ICN, DTW (for connections throughout the eastern U.S.) and SEA (for connections throughout the western U.S.) is extremely compelling. Once unified under a single transpacific JV, that is going to create an extremely impressive and competitively formidable network.

I agree, though as far as feed into SEA, that catchment area isn't the most populated in the country. But in practice there is nothing stopping DL/KE from replicating UA/NH or AA/JL. Only difference is somewhat cosmetic in that NRT seems more 'legacy' than ICN (at least to me).

KE has tremendous feed into the rest of Asia. The US side becomes interesting to note that they only have three current non-stops into ICN (SEA, DTW, soon to be ATL) and while there are more on KE metal, this is less than what UA has flying into NRT (every hub, basically).

I am interested to see if they can grow China through PVG also. It may have been a negotiating chip to use on KE, but with China secondary markets growing the way they are, having a partner to feed in ex-PVG traffic could be attractive. Certainly a different route than UA, for isntance, is taking with SFO.

intotheair · Thu May 11, 2017 1:53 pm

commavia wrote:
tlecam wrote:
I think a good, related question to this, especially in light of the JV news with Korean, is why build Seattle instead of moving the Asian Hub to ICN.

I continue to believe - as I have for quite some time - that the combination of ICN, DTW (for connections throughout the eastern U.S.) and SEA (for connections throughout the western U.S.) is extremely compelling. Once unified under a single transpacific JV, that is going to create an extremely impressive and competitively formidable network.

I agree. DL's buildup in one city/hub doesn't preclude any growth in another. SEA and ICN aren't mutually exclusive.

But let's put aside the examples of smallball PNW cities like EUG and BOI for a moment. Not that they aren't important or that they don't feed into the SEA hub, but let's look at a competitor hub — DEN. If you want to fly DEN-TYO, UA has a nonstop to NRT for you, and that's all very nice. The DEN-Asia market is clearly able to sustain one nonstop to NRT on a 788 everyday. But what about HKG, PVG, PEK, or ICN? You'll be connecting anyway, and now DL is just as competitive with one-stop itineraries through SEA compared to UA's one-stops through SFO (or I suppose NRT, though most itineraries on UAL.com seem to route me through SFO). Before the DL buildup at SEA, I don't think DL would have been able to effectively offer any one-stop solution to that passenger in DEN, but now, they're more or less on the same playing field as UA.

Obviously, DL's SEA operation doesn't penetrate deep Asia routes to the same extent as UA's SFO hub does. But it wasn't designed for that. For connecting western US cities with a handful of the largest destinations in Asia through SEA, DL is a much more appealing option to Asia than it ever was before.

IPFreely · Thu May 11, 2017 2:17 pm

ILUVDC10S wrote:
Well lets see how hard of a negotiator and wheeler and dealer Bastain is to get Japan Airlines to leave One World for Skyteam

Yes I can't wait to see this. If Bastian fails with JAL do you think he should be canned???

lightsaber · Thu May 11, 2017 2:37 pm

steex wrote:
klm617 wrote:
Not true my mind is not that closed but I was thinking as an Asia gateway Seattle only gives you one stop service to NRT,ICN,PVG,PEK and HKG where if you hub over NRT there are so many more one stop viable connections that can be made and you can still use the 767 from most of the west coast to NRT so what is the relevance of Seattle as a major hub to Asia in the Delta network when NRT can offer you better one stop service. Sure you could use Seattle as a focus city and again AA and UA are still for all intense purposes using NRT to flow the majority of their Asian connections over.

Don't forget that DL does not have unlimited rights to fly intra-Asia from NRT because they are not a Japanese airline. Fifth freedom requires that every beyond-NRT flight be paired up with a US-NRT flight number, so building a meaningful hub presence would require a tremendous amount of US-NRT lift (even taking Guam, Saipan, HNL, etc. into account). Even then, bilateral agreements make it such that not all routes are even eligible for fifth freedom rights via NRT (this was the problem with NRT-SGN, no fifth freedom).

Because of this, DL could obviously never offer the breadth or frequency of service on NRT-Asia routes that Japanese carriers are offering. This puts DL (and NW before it) at a tremendous disadvantage in attracting high-yield customers on intra-Asia flights ex-NRT, in turn making the intra-Asia network performance very shaky on a local basis. UA/NH (not just UA) and AA/JL (not just AA) flowing a lot of traffic over Tokyo is not an apples-to-apples comparison to what DL could do without a Japanese partner because NH and JL can easily offer a huge frequency on major destinations from Tokyo to capture the local market, then just serve the international-to-international connections as a bi-product of their robust schedule.

Given the inability to serve the local market in Tokyo competitively, even if one were to make the assumption that the TPAC performance would be equal between NRT and SEA (a spurious assumption), the overall contribution of SEA to the bottom line undoubtedly far outstrips NRT at this point.

That sums it up. DL is not allowed to have enough connectivity at NRT to serve anything but O&D traffic. This forces DL to:
1. Hub at SEA to retain as much revenue as possible.
2. Partner when required with Asian partners (KE at ICN) to connect passengers going further.

To others:
As already noted, bridge hubbing (XXX to US_hub-NRT-YYY) is no longer competitive. It must be XXX-SEA-YYY or direct XXX-ICN-YYY. The limited remaining bridge hubbing traffic (double hubbing) isn't enough to sustain NRT. In general, that is low premium traffic anyway. The 787 and A350 are enabling far more options. e.g., UA going deep into China's secondary cities.

Lightsaber

TheLion · Thu May 11, 2017 2:48 pm

Seattle's location in the North West and close to the great circle route provides more connection options, and thus better connectivity, which allows the airline to serve more markets at greater frequency.

ILUVDC10S · Thu May 11, 2017 3:20 pm

So do you think sending more smaller planes from SEA is better than sending a a couple larger planes from a a couple US Midwest hubs makes sense? Sure you may serve cities like SEA, BOS, SLC, LAX, SFO, and for that matter Marthas Vineyard to ICN ,NRT, PVG, MNL, HKG ETC ETC .with that mentality but at what long term cost ? Its short sighted to be sending more planes TPAC in congested airspace allready ? Again I bring up the labor costs..
2 747's VS what it sounds like a hodge podge of planes and inconsistent passenger service from timbuktu to Asia . It would be nice to have flights to every conceivable city on the planet from your home town airport is it feasible uh NO ! nor realistic to even think that! And why has the hub and spoke system worked so successfully for decades huh ? IT WORKS and if it aint broke dont fix it ! I truly wish people would stop using computer models and outlandish foolish international P2P operations and think they are actually in the long term going to offer a consistent product, and be economically feasible long term since your labor and FUEL costs will far surpass that of the Hub & Spoke system aint it all about the Fuel! & Labor?
You can show me the alphabet soup acronyms with skewed figures. I will still stand by the system that currently works perfectly ! Again you cannot realistically think you will be getting air service from your timbuktu town to points unknown its foolish !
SEA is a Gateway city ONLY not a HUB ! just like SFO, LAX, BOS, PDX, SLC, CVG,.
HUB is DTW, MSP, ORD, DEN, ATL, DFW, JFK, EWR, IAD, IAH, NRT, AMS,LHR, FRA ,CDG THOSE are HUBS !
No matter the economic equation you use it will always point to the Queen of the Skies 747 is your optimal choice hands down.
Thats the facts and I am sticking to it .

BoeingGuy · Thu May 11, 2017 4:57 pm

ILUVDC10S wrote:
So do you think sending more smaller planes from SEA is better than sending a a couple larger planes from a a couple US Midwest hubs makes sense? Sure you may serve cities like SEA, BOS, SLC, LAX, SFO, and for that matter Marthas Vineyard to ICN ,NRT, PVG, MNL, HKG ETC ETC .with that mentality but at what long term cost ? Its short sighted to be sending more planes TPAC in congested airspace allready ? Again I bring up the labor costs..
2 747's VS what it sounds like a hodge podge of planes and inconsistent passenger service from timbuktu to Asia . It would be nice to have flights to every conceivable city on the planet from your home town airport is it feasible uh NO ! nor realistic to even think that! And why has the hub and spoke system worked so successfully for decades huh ? IT WORKS and if it aint broke dont fix it ! I truly wish people would stop using computer models and outlandish foolish international P2P operations and think they are actually in the long term going to offer a consistent product, and be economically feasible long term since your labor and FUEL costs will far surpass that of the Hub & Spoke system aint it all about the Fuel! & Labor?
You can show me the alphabet soup acronyms with skewed figures. I will still stand by the system that currently works perfectly ! Again you cannot realistically think you will be getting air service from your timbuktu town to points unknown its foolish !
SEA is a Gateway city ONLY not a HUB ! just like SFO, LAX, BOS, PDX, SLC, CVG,.
HUB is DTW, MSP, ORD, DEN, ATL, DFW, JFK, EWR, IAD, IAH, NRT, AMS,LHR, FRA ,CDG THOSE are HUBS !
No matter the economic equation you use it will always point to the Queen of the Skies 747 is your optimal choice hands down.
Thats the facts and I am sticking to it .

I don't even know where to start with this. Pretty much everything stated is completely inaccurate. SLC and SFO are hubs. The 747 is a great plane but not the optimal choice in many markets. Passengers prefer "foolish international" point to point.

cvgComair · Thu May 11, 2017 5:36 pm

ILUVDC10S wrote:
SEA is a Gateway city ONLY not a HUB ! just like SFO, LAX, BOS, PDX, SLC, CVG,.

All of those are hubs for an airline, they may not be 60-70% connecting passengers like other lager hubs, but they are most certainly airline hubs. Obviously the 747 is not the best plane for all airlines, none of the US3 will operate the aircraft after 2017 and they are some of the largest airlines in the world.

Prost · Thu May 11, 2017 5:52 pm

Seattle may be a largeish city in an unpopulated portion of the country, but it does bat above its weight for international travel demands. A lot of the employers do send employees on international travel, so there is local demand here.

ScrantonUSC · Thu May 11, 2017 6:41 pm

I would believe airport incentives play a big part in this also.

EddieDude · Thu May 11, 2017 6:41 pm

IPFreely wrote:
Yes I can't wait to see this. If Bastian fails with JAL do you think he should be canned???

I don't understand why we are discussing something that happened in 2009-ish as if it were happening now. It is well known DL offered JL a very sweet deal if it dumped oneworld and switched to SkyTeam. As we all know, JL gave it serious consideration and eventually decided not to accept the offering, thus staying put in its alliance with its partners.

ILUVDC10S · Thu May 11, 2017 7:04 pm

cvgComair wrote:
ILUVDC10S wrote:
SEA is a Gateway city ONLY not a HUB ! just like SFO, LAX, BOS, PDX, SLC, CVG,.

All of those are hubs for an airline, they may not be 60-70% connecting passengers like other lager hubs, but they are most certainly airline hubs. Obviously the 747 is not the best plane for all airlines, none of the US3 will operate the aircraft after 2017 and they are some of the largest airlines in the world.

Information I have they are Gateway Cities
Gateway cities vastly different than a actual (HUB)

ITB · Thu May 11, 2017 7:14 pm

lightsaber wrote:
steex wrote:
klm617 wrote:
Not true my mind is not that closed but I was thinking as an Asia gateway Seattle only gives you one stop service to NRT,ICN,PVG,PEK and HKG where if you hub over NRT there are so many more one stop viable connections that can be made and you can still use the 767 from most of the west coast to NRT so what is the relevance of Seattle as a major hub to Asia in the Delta network when NRT can offer you better one stop service. Sure you could use Seattle as a focus city and again AA and UA are still for all intense purposes using NRT to flow the majority of their Asian connections over.

Don't forget that DL does not have unlimited rights to fly intra-Asia from NRT because they are not a Japanese airline. Fifth freedom requires that every beyond-NRT flight be paired up with a US-NRT flight number, so building a meaningful hub presence would require a tremendous amount of US-NRT lift (even taking Guam, Saipan, HNL, etc. into account). Even then, bilateral agreements make it such that not all routes are even eligible for fifth freedom rights via NRT (this was the problem with NRT-SGN, no fifth freedom).

Because of this, DL could obviously never offer the breadth or frequency of service on NRT-Asia routes that Japanese carriers are offering. This puts DL (and NW before it) at a tremendous disadvantage in attracting high-yield customers on intra-Asia flights ex-NRT, in turn making the intra-Asia network performance very shaky on a local basis. UA/NH (not just UA) and AA/JL (not just AA) flowing a lot of traffic over Tokyo is not an apples-to-apples comparison to what DL could do without a Japanese partner because NH and JL can easily offer a huge frequency on major destinations from Tokyo to capture the local market, then just serve the international-to-international connections as a bi-product of their robust schedule.

Given the inability to serve the local market in Tokyo competitively, even if one were to make the assumption that the TPAC performance would be equal between NRT and SEA (a spurious assumption), the overall contribution of SEA to the bottom line undoubtedly far outstrips NRT at this point.

That sums it up. DL is not allowed to have enough connectivity at NRT to serve anything but O&D traffic. This forces DL to:
1. Hub at SEA to retain as much revenue as possible.
2. Partner when required with Asian partners (KE at ICN) to connect passengers going further.

To others:
As already noted, bridge hubbing (XXX to US_hub-NRT-YYY) is no longer competitive. It must be XXX-SEA-YYY or direct XXX-ICN-YYY. The limited remaining bridge hubbing traffic (double hubbing) isn't enough to sustain NRT. In general, that is low premium traffic anyway. The 787 and A350 are enabling far more options. e.g., UA going deep into China's secondary cities.

Lightsaber

This analysis is the best I've seen. I wonder whether the bilateral with Japan could be relaxed so that DL could offer more international flights from NRT without corresponding flights from the U.S. The hub in SEA provides an excellent gateway to the principal cities of Asia, but beyond that, it's limited. What's next? How does DL expand in Asia?

It seems unlikely DL will pursue UA's strategy of developing long, thin routes to Asia. One might even go so far as to term UA's deep China flights—SFO-CTU, SFO-HGH, and SFO-XIY—as experimental. Whether this strategy is viable remains inconclusive.

crazyplane1234 · Thu May 11, 2017 11:56 pm

klm617 wrote:
I'm also thinking with the KE JV that SEA is done as far as more Nonstops to Asia and DTW-HKG is now pretty redundant as HKG can not be reached through ICN from most every major city in the USA they may even drop SEA-HKG now because it's more effective to use KE to get US based passengers to HKG as they are very weak in that market any way so their presence in HKG doesn't really matter as KE can provide better one stop connections over ICN

By your logic, UA should pull out of SFO.

RWA380 · Fri May 12, 2017 12:39 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
RWA380 wrote:

I am amazed that you were able to put all this together & I wouldn't try to pass it off as anything but your own personal opinion. I can't tell you how much is wrong with what you're trying to imply.

There is ZERO chance that the Southern & Northern parts of the Korean peninsula are going to "just get along" please read some history, you'll see that since the inception of the DPRK, it's a far more complicated issue than the 60 sec stort you see on T.V.

South Korea & Koreans offer a great hospitality experience, they have earned a real good reputation for the hospitality offered on both of their largest carriers, OZ & KE. Seoul is well along the traffic paths from N.A. to Asia & a world class airport facility.

JL isn't going to leave O/W they are a cornerstone carrier & enjoy a stronger trans pacific partnership with AA, then they would likely ever get with DL.

Lastly, Japan is almost as close to the DPRK as Seoul, when missiles are flying 100's of miles an hour, it's mere seconds or a few minutes tops difference. The DPRK has the ability to reach Tokyo & Seoul easily & they have the range to hit Hawaii & that is just what we know of for sure.

The bottom line is, the Korean Peninsula has been in limbo for decades upon decades already & only a manman who is out of options would rattle his sabre so loudly as to cause WW3. Both Kim Dung Un & Dick Tater don't want to die, I wouldn't read too much into the orange bluster blowing about U.S. led conflict.

That has to be one of the craziest posts yet. South Korea is going to join North Korea and Bastian should "negotiate" JAL to leave OneWorld.

Remember this is the same A.net poster that spent an entire thread stating lots of misrepresentations about how dangerous ETOPS flights with twin engine airplanes are. For example, AF 447 wouldn't have happened if they'd had 4-engines, etc. This is just par for the course.

Let's ignore him and get back to an intelligent discussion about DL at SEA and NRT.

Interestingly, DL still hasn't cancelled PDX-NRT as many predict.

I know, I know Sometimes it's just really, really hard not to try & impart some slice of wisdom in here, my bad indeed. LOL!.

Lots of folks keep thinking DL is leaving PDX-NRT, but the route stands on it's own merits. There is enough local O/D to support the route. I don't see many situations that would have DL leaving the route. But if they did, I fully expect it to be JL to pick up the route with AS & AA on the PDX side to transfer to.

But I also fully expect HU to start PEK-PDX with 3x weekly 787. The fact remains, the first Chinese carrier that grabs the route, gets to keep it. It may not be too far off, IMHO.

alfa164 · Fri May 12, 2017 5:06 am

crazyplane1234 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
I'm also thinking with the KE JV that SEA is done as far as more Nonstops to Asia and DTW-HKG is now pretty redundant as HKG can not be reached through ICN from most every major city in the USA they may even drop SEA-HKG now because it's more effective to use KE to get US based passengers to HKG as they are very weak in that market any way so their presence in HKG doesn't really matter as KE can provide better one stop connections over ICN

By your logic, UA should pull out of SFO.

By his/her/its logic,. every flight on every airline should fly out of Detroit... :banghead:

N644US · Fri May 12, 2017 9:57 pm

RWA380 wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:

That has to be one of the craziest posts yet. South Korea is going to join North Korea and Bastian should "negotiate" JAL to leave OneWorld.

Remember this is the same A.net poster that spent an entire thread stating lots of misrepresentations about how dangerous ETOPS flights with twin engine airplanes are. For example, AF 447 wouldn't have happened if they'd had 4-engines, etc. This is just par for the course.

Let's ignore him and get back to an intelligent discussion about DL at SEA and NRT.

Interestingly, DL still hasn't cancelled PDX-NRT as many predict.

I know, I know Sometimes it's just really, really hard not to try & impart some slice of wisdom in here, my bad indeed. LOL!.

Lots of folks keep thinking DL is leaving PDX-NRT, but the route stands on it's own merits. There is enough local O/D to support the route. I don't see many situations that would have DL leaving the route. But if they did, I fully expect it to be JL to pick up the route with AS & AA on the PDX side to transfer to.

But I also fully expect HU to start PEK-PDX with 3x weekly 787. The fact remains, the first Chinese carrier that grabs the route, gets to keep it. It may not be too far off, IMHO.

That's very interesting... I'd say quite the contrary. I flew DL 69 2 months ago, and due to windshear diverted to HND. As a result, all the baggage was offloaded and everyone was told to come back tomorrow for new travel plans if they needed to connect. Upon landing, the queue at HND for the now-weary HND agents was massive, and because every bag (including the connecting ones) were off-loaded, I saw every baggage tag. As the first one off the plane, I noticed I was one of 4 people who checked bags that actually had a final destination of NRT. Everyone else had their bags connecting to MNL, TPE, SIN, SPN, PUS, etc.

RWA380 · Fri May 12, 2017 11:10 pm

With it being low season, I could see that. This route makes it's own money, that is the only reason it still flies. I was being a bit loose with my terminology. So let's nit pick, the PDX-NRT flight has enough local PDX origin traffic to support it. Portland has many ties with Japan, not just trade related, but also culturally & historically.

When I was selling travel I can tell you from the inception of the DL service on the route, I've enjoyed a good connection with my DL sales department & can tell with with assured peace, that DL only keeps this route around because it supports itself. I can guarantee that PDEW from PDX to MNL, TPE, SIN, PUS etc is lower than the PDEW of PDX-TYO.

commavia · Fri May 12, 2017 11:20 pm

RWA380 wrote:
I can guarantee that PDEW from PDX to MNL, TPE, SIN, PUS etc is lower than the PDEW of PDX-TYO.

No question about that. I, too, am quite sure that TYO is the largest single O&D market carried on the PDX-NRT flight.

But that said, I, like others, remain skeptical about this route's continuing viability - not in general, but specifically for Delta. Delta's future on PDX-NRT is arguably facing more challenging economic dynamics at both ends of the route - connections at NRT are declining, and connections at PDX are also likely to decline with the end of the Alaska codeshare. That doesn't mean this flight can't and won't still cater to some connections at both ends, but I don't think that, plus the O&D, will be enough for Delta.

I don't doubt for a second that PDX can support at least one daily nonstop flight to Asia - the question for me, long-term, is whether that is going to be a Delta 767 or Korean 787 to ICN, or a JAL or ANA 787 to NRT. It may be a daily flight to both ICN and NRT, but at a minimum, I think PDX will continue to have nonstop access to an Northeast Asian hub. I just don't think it will be a Delta 767 to NRT much longer.

ILUVDC10S · Fri May 12, 2017 11:59 pm

alfa164 wrote:
crazyplane1234 wrote:
klm617 wrote:
I'm also thinking with the KE JV that SEA is done as far as more Nonstops to Asia and DTW-HKG is now pretty redundant as HKG can not be reached through ICN from most every major city in the USA they may even drop SEA-HKG now because it's more effective to use KE to get US based passengers to HKG as they are very weak in that market any way so their presence in HKG doesn't really matter as KE can provide better one stop connections over ICN

By your logic, UA should pull out of SFO.

By his/her/its logic,. every flight on every airline should fly out of Detroit...

Probably gonna get heat for this ...

Well NWA made it work quite successfully mind you that the majority of the TPAC flights left from DTW since it is the ideal centralized US location and world class hub of Mc Namara and a airport that refuses to close in winter weather when ORD or MSP or ATL closes DTW Laughs. We Michiganders wont let a snowstorm stop us ! In the Winter for sure you have better have DTW on your connecting schedule if if you desire to get anywhere period. .So as far as SEA remember it rains and is froggy as London and delays occur no matter the airline uh wait Not NWA LOL Follow the Red Tail they say sadly no more red tail to follow cannot say follow the blue tail can you heck you would say which one? UA/JB/AA/DL/BA??? scratches head .now I duck for cover ...

steex · Sat May 13, 2017 12:02 am

ILUVDC10S wrote:
when ORD or MSPor ATL closes DTW Laughs. We Michiganders wont let a snowstorm stop us ! In the Winter for sure you have better have DTW on your connecting schedule if if you desire to get anywhere period.

You lost me at "Detroit handles snow better than Minneapolis."

ILUVDC10S · Sat May 13, 2017 12:10 am

steex wrote:
ILUVDC10S wrote:
when ORD or MSPor ATL closes DTW Laughs. We Michiganders wont let a snowstorm stop us ! In the Winter for sure you have better have DTW on your connecting schedule if if you desire to get anywhere period.

You lost me at "Detroit handles snow better than Minneapolis."

Check PM

intotheair · Sat May 13, 2017 12:20 am

commavia wrote:
But that said, I, like others, remain skeptical about this route's continuing viability - not in general, but specifically for Delta. Delta's future on PDX-NRT is arguably facing more challenging economic dynamics at both ends of the route - connections at NRT are declining, and connections at PDX are also likely to decline with the end of the Alaska codeshare. That doesn't mean this flight can't and won't still cater to some connections at both ends, but I don't think that, plus the O&D, will be enough for Delta.

There at least can't really be any meaningful connections left on the PDX end. Of the DL domestic destinations from PDX, only ANC, SLC, and JFK (lol) don't have TYO flights on DL metal already. Obviously PDX in DL's network is only collateral to what's happening at SEA, but the fact that DL pulled the plug on the AS partnership indicates that DL must feel pretty comfortable about their position at SEA, and PDX probably isn't far off from that too. They must have enough of a local following at PDX with their longhaul portfolio to the point that they can comfortably fill plans to AMS, LHR, and NRT.

I don't doubt for a second that PDX can support at least one daily nonstop flight to Asia - the question for me, long-term, is whether that is going to be a Delta 767 or Korean 787 to ICN, or a JAL or ANA 787 to NRT. It may be a daily flight to both ICN and NRT, but at a minimum, I think PDX will continue to have nonstop access to an Northeast Asian hub. I just don't think it will be a Delta 767 to NRT much longer.

In a perfect world, DL would have unlimited daytime slots to replace all their NRT-US flights. Seeing as they don't, they'll have to rationalize resources and decide whether it's more important to serve PDX-TYO O&D, all of PDX-Asia traffic through ICN, or exiting the market completely. The current PDX-NRT must be doing well enough that I don't see them exiting the market unless if challenged by JL/NH, and even then, they'll probably just shift it to ICN by that point.

IPFreely · Sat May 13, 2017 12:40 am

ILUVDC10S wrote:
Well NWA made it work quite successfully mind you that the majority of the TPAC flights left from DTW since it is the ideal centralized US location and world class hub of Mc Namara and a airport that refuses to close in winter weather when ORD or MSP or ATL closes DTW Laughs.

Regardless of the snow nonsense, what was successful about NWA? According to multiple posters here, NWA's Pacific operations lost money for their last 6-7 years of existence. The fact that NWA went bankrupt adds some credibility to this. As does the fact that Delta has almost completely dismantled NWA's Pacific operation. Not something that should be called "successful".

ILUVDC10S · Sat May 13, 2017 1:26 am

IPFreely wrote:
ILUVDC10S wrote:
Well NWA made it work quite successfully mind you that the majority of the TPAC flights left from DTW since it is the ideal centralized US location and world class hub of Mc Namara and a airport that refuses to close in winter weather when ORD or MSP or ATL closes DTW Laughs.

Regardless of the snow nonsense, what was successful about NWA? According to multiple posters here, NWA's Pacific operations lost money for their last 6-7 years of existence. The fact that NWA went bankrupt adds some credibility to this. As does the fact that Delta has almost completely dismantled NWA's Pacific operation. Not something that should be called "successful".

See PM I do not want to derail the thread I am allready on thin ice

IPFreely · Sat May 13, 2017 1:33 am

ILUVDC10S wrote:
See PM I do not want to derail the thread I am allready on thin ice

I'm pulling for you to last longer this time. But don't get too excited -- I always pull for the underdog.

toobz · Sat May 13, 2017 1:38 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
jbs2886 wrote:
RWA380 wrote:

I am amazed that you were able to put all this together & I wouldn't try to pass it off as anything but your own personal opinion. I can't tell you how much is wrong with what you're trying to imply.

There is ZERO chance that the Southern & Northern parts of the Korean peninsula are going to "just get along" please read some history, you'll see that since the inception of the DPRK, it's a far more complicated issue than the 60 sec stort you see on T.V.

South Korea & Koreans offer a great hospitality experience, they have earned a real good reputation for the hospitality offered on both of their largest carriers, OZ & KE. Seoul is well along the traffic paths from N.A. to Asia & a world class airport facility.

JL isn't going to leave O/W they are a cornerstone carrier & enjoy a stronger trans pacific partnership with AA, then they would likely ever get with DL.

Lastly, Japan is almost as close to the DPRK as Seoul, when missiles are flying 100's of miles an hour, it's mere seconds or a few minutes tops difference. The DPRK has the ability to reach Tokyo & Seoul easily & they have the range to hit Hawaii & that is just what we know of for sure.

The bottom line is, the Korean Peninsula has been in limbo for decades upon decades already & only a manman who is out of options would rattle his sabre so loudly as to cause WW3. Both Kim Dung Un & Dick Tater don't want to die, I wouldn't read too much into the orange bluster blowing about U.S. led conflict.

That has to be one of the craziest posts yet. South Korea is going to join North Korea and Bastian should "negotiate" JAL to leave OneWorld.

Remember this is the same A.net poster that spent an entire thread stating lots of misrepresentations about how dangerous ETOPS flights with twin engine airplanes are. For example, AF 447 wouldn't have happened if they'd had 4-engines, etc. This is just par for the course.

Let's ignore him and get back to an intelligent discussion about DL at SEA and NRT.

Interestingly, DL still hasn't cancelled PDX-NRT as many predict.

johns624 · Sat May 13, 2017 1:48 am

IPFreely wrote:
[The fact that NWA went bankrupt adds some credibility to this.

Delta went bankrupt, also.

IPFreely · Sat May 13, 2017 1:49 am

johns624 wrote:
Delta went bankrupt, also.

Yes, they did. And how is that relevant to the topic at hand???

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net