Since Delta is slowly dismantling their hub at Narita and has been bulking up domestic flights feeding Seattle, it occurs to me there may be many more direct point-to-point opportunities for them in the Pacific basin from their Seattle hub.

This thought is counterbalanced with the argument that Delta has entered into a JV with KE, and it may make more business sense to allow KE to do the intra Pacific basin flights on their metal.

To my knowledge no U.S. airline has a direct flight to Jakarta (CGK)...which is an enormous population center and one of the busiest airports in the world. Could this flight make economic sense for Delta? Or what about flights to TPE...KUL....SIN.....MNL...or CAN?

I think UA made a bold move in starting flights to SIN from SFO and LAX. Is Delta missing an opportunity? After all...UA is Delta's biggest U.S. competitor in the Pacific. Is Delta's conservative nature allowing UA to supplant them Transpacific?

Finally, I think UA is brilliantly utilizing the capability of the 789 on these transpacific flights. Delta has ordered the A359 which I think will work fine for many of its existing Pacific flights....but if they were to expand transpacific would the smaller gauge 788 or 789 work as a nice compliment to the A359 on potentially thinner routes?

I really do not know the answers to these questions and I am curious as to what people think. Thanks.

To ICN yes. And then they can cherry pick a route or two has time shows that there is demand.

Id love a direct flight to CGK has I love Indonesia diving. But until airplanes become cheaper to operate most traffic needs to go through hub system to justifies. With the low airfares that are prevalent.

Of the places you mentioned, I think can is an obvious no, since the presence of China southern far outweighs the demand to the region. Singapore is a possibility but Seattle has much less o&d traffic there than sfo and lax.

As for why there is no direct flight to Jakarta, it's because Jakarta is really far away and is a total dump. You are never going to Jakarta for vacation and it's business center is nowhere near Singapore or Kuala Lumpur or Taipei. The kind of premium traffic requir d to make this kind of route work is just not there. For the same reason, I don't believe there is direct flight from continental us to kl either.

tphuang wrote:

Of the places you mentioned, I think can is an obvious no, since the presence of China southern far outweighs the demand to the region. Singapore is a possibility but Seattle has much less o&d traffic there than sfo and lax.

As for why there is no direct flight to Jakarta, it's because Jakarta is really far away and is a total dump. You are never going to Jakarta for vacation and it's business center is nowhere near Singapore or Kuala Lumpur or Taipei. The kind of premium traffic requir d to make this kind of route work is just not there. For the same reason, I don't believe there is direct flight from continental us to kl either.

Agree any traffic not for business is bouncing over to Bali for vacationing and diving. I take direct flights to Bali DPS rather then going to Jakarta. I only go to CGK if I have to for flight purposes and try to avoid it at all costs.

DL covers the major destinations to Asia from SEA.

The only one they might consider doing is SIN, but even that's a stretch, as it would be heavily reliant on connections... the same ones that the far more powerful LAX/SFO markets are pulling in as well.

MNL/BKK don't have the kind of yield to make a nonstop worthwhile for a US carrier even from the California gateways, much less a secondary gateway.

I am not sure Delta can support more Asia service from Seattle.

Look at large market like Taipei which also is a Skyteam hub, how DL opted to entirely withdraw from the market versus connected it to Seattle hub.

DL has said they will add more international flights from SEA once the international arrivals facility is improved. They are likely to add Asia flights from LAX until they can grow SEA.

CYVR is too close and does a better job.

Don't hold your breath on more TPAC out of SEA. All routes are now served on the smallest possible equipment that can be used and many of the routes operate less than daily certain times of the year. More lift to ICN may happen in the near future due to the impending KE JV, but I imagine that will be it. TPE is really the only route I can see happening but even that's a stretch. I have heard people throwing around MNL, SIN, and BKK as possible A350 routes but those are all pipe dreams in my opinion. Expect to see SEA maintain the five TPAC routes it has for the foreseeable future. No more and (hopefully) no less.

I heard somewhere that SEA-HKG was not doing so well. Am I correct or not?

Otherwise, Delta previously flew to HND, and KIX from SEA but it was cut at some time. Why?

To be honest, I don't think Delta would add another Asian destination from SEA. Routes to HND and KIX were cut and will not be resumed. China will not get any additional flights and I doubt secondary Chinese cities will be launched. TPE is the only market I can see a possibility but it will most likely never happen. Even CAN would seem like a good option, but it would never happen. Other routes like MNL, BKK, and SIN would never happen as well.

Delta uses small aircraft because the 767 can cross the Pacific and the international arrivals facilities cannot support larger aircraft.

The philosophy is similar to CO starting routes from EWR using 757s even though many are now on larger aircraft.

Pilots say that SEA-HKG is moving to the 777 next year with the premium economy cabin.

atl100million wrote:

Delta uses small aircraft because the 767 can cross the Pacific and the international arrivals facilities cannot support larger aircraft.

The philosophy is similar to CO starting routes from EWR using 757s even though many are now on larger aircraft.

Pilots say that SEA-HKG is moving to the 777 next year with the premium economy cabin.

I can guarantee you that the reason Delta uses 767's on TPAC routes out of SEA has nothing to do with the international arrivals facilities at SEA. If DL thought they could make money using larger aircraft they absolutely would. Last summer NRT was operated with a 747 and HKG was a 777 for a bit. I believe PVG was even an A330 at some point. All routes have since been downgauged to smaller aircraft. These routes will take time to mature, however, and I hope with expanded domestic feed at SEA we will soon see some of these flights upgraded to large aircraft. If HKG indeed gets upgauged to a 777 as you say, that would be a welcome change. The current A332 often struggles to make the trek across the Pacific profitably.

There is a large Chinese population in the greater Seattle area. Since NRT to TPE has been cancelled I could definitely see a SEA TPE flight with a decent amount of O & D traffic from SEA to make it worthwhile.

The other flights suggested I simply do not know.

787 is a no in the foreseeable future as they just cancelled their entire order for 787 not a while ago. Given that the order was inherited from NW as a launch order, the price must have been awesome. But it's well known that over-capacity is the problem for most carriers including DL. There might be no intention for them to place a widebody order. Just not the right time, although market changes from time to time. Plus for Seattle, A339 is capable enough for most if not all of the Asian destinations. No need to worry about it.

atl100million wrote:

Delta uses small aircraft because the 767 can cross the Pacific and the international arrivals facilities cannot support larger aircraft.

Huh? Not only has DL flown 747s and 777s out of Seattle in the past.... but the likes of BA, EK, etc still do.

One needs to only look back approximately 5 years ago when Delta basically had maybe a Narita NS out of SEA and maybe one other NS TPAC flight. Today, just going over the Pacific, they serve PVG, PEK, HKG, NRT, ICN for a total of 5. They serve most of the critical and important Pacific markets. That they do it on a 767 shouldn't matter. Those planes are perfect for the mission at hand and are a lot less cheaper to operate than brand new 787's and 330's not to mention most of the 76's are probably paid off. Unlike UA, if Delta could make a profit, they will fly a route no matter what the aircraft might be and, at least you get a consistent hard product. 1-2-1 flatbed seating, guaranteed.

Further, once the new international arrival hall is built and Delta has more gates at its disposal, there will be more TPAC coming to SEA. The greater Seattle area is a very vibrant and growing region. DL's footprint in SEA 5 years from now will look nothing like it is today, it will be more grand and expanse. Obviously nothing like what SFO is for UA but nonetheless, it will grow.

Look at the schedules into SEA tomorrow. There are 19 widebody international flights. DL operates 8 of them. 4 of DL's 8 arrive over 1.5 hours in the morning and they are all from the Pacific. 10 more arrive in just 2 hours and all of them are carriers other than DL except for the 1st one - DL's 330 from AMS. There is 30 minutes between the last of the big other airline arrivals and DL's next flight - the 767 from ICN. BA's 1st 744 is right after DL's first AMS. BA's second 744 is 1.5 hours after the flight before it. DL has said that peak time flights back up all the way to the jetway and that it takes an hour or more just to get to immigration.

DL does limit the size of its aircraft at SEA because of international arrivals facilities and times its flights to avoid the peak arrival times for other airlines. None of the other carriers operates a connecting international to domestic hub at SEA.

CO built EWR with 757s. Many of those routes are only now being upgraded to 767s by United.

DL is doing the same thing to Asia from SEA.

There will be some upgauges. I don't expect there to be any TPAC additions until at least 2020, assuming the IAF is built. Contrary to what's been posted on here, no work has started on the IAF yet. The port continues to drag its feet and play into AS's hand. DL didn't want to continue to wait, hence the LAX terminal swap. Expect to see LAX triple in size and SEA grow to mature its current service.

cessna2 wrote:

There will be some upgauges. I don't expect there to be any TPAC additions until at least 2020, assuming the IAF is built. Contrary to what's been posted on here, no work has started on the IAF yet. The port continues to drag its feet and play into AS's hand. DL didn't want to continue to wait, hence the LAX terminal swap. Expect to see LAX triple in size and SEA grow to mature its current service.

totally accurate

cessna2 wrote:

There will be some upgauges. I don't expect there to be any TPAC additions until at least 2020, assuming the IAF is built. Contrary to what's been posted on here, no work has started on the IAF yet. The port continues to drag its feet and play into AS's hand. DL didn't want to continue to wait, hence the LAX terminal swap. Expect to see LAX triple in size and SEA grow to mature its current service.

AS cant prevent the new IAF from being built. Its a windfall of money and new commerce for the greater SEA area. It will get built. AS is simply acting like school grade girls on the playground over the IAF. Grow up AS. SEA is home to more than just your own little beleaguered airline.

ElroyJetson wrote:

I think UA made a bold move in starting flights to SIN from SFO and LAX. Is Delta missing an opportunity? After all...UA is Delta's biggest U.S. competitor in the Pacific. Is Delta's conservative nature allowing UA to supplant them Transpacific?

I'd say that ship has sailed and DL has in essence squandered what they bought from NW and by that I don't mean the NRT hub but rather NWs market penetration in the Pacific. Looking at the numbers UA is as large as DL and AA are combined across the Pacific. Compare that to a few years ago when NW/DL was almost the same size as UA was and actually had passed them on and off for quite a while. While UA and AA have been growing across the Pacific DL has been contracting and at a fairly rapid pace (6.6% in 2016 and 10% ytd in 2017.) If AA keeps up their growth rate in a couple of years they will pass DL as number 2 across the Pacific. I don't think there is an easy path for DL as NRT is dying a slow death (it needs too and will at a faster clip with the Korean JV in place.) SEA, while the best option that DL has, is not as ideal a hub as SFO or even LAX is simply due to the traffic mix that CA has vs WA. LAX is an option but is incredibly competitive between UA, AA, DL and all of the foreign carriers.

I would not expect to see tons of new international flying out of SEA maybe a few new frequencies or increased gauge but launching flights to BKK, SIN, MNL ect are probably not on the table.

jumbojet wrote:

cessna2 wrote:

There will be some upgauges. I don't expect there to be any TPAC additions until at least 2020, assuming the IAF is built. Contrary to what's been posted on here, no work has started on the IAF yet. The port continues to drag its feet and play into AS's hand. DL didn't want to continue to wait, hence the LAX terminal swap. Expect to see LAX triple in size and SEA grow to mature its current service.

AS cant prevent the new IAF from being built. Its a windfall of money and new commerce for the greater SEA area. It will get built. AS is simply acting like school grade girls on the playground over the IAF. Grow up AS. SEA is home to more than just your own little beleaguered airline.

Prevent, no. Slow down, yes. Which is exactly what AS is doing. Not to mention the Port drags its feet on every issue. In this industry things are always changing. When a global carrier comes in and says we need xxx built and completed by this time to turn your airport into a pacific gateway, it's not going to sit around and hope and pray. The one thing about the Seattle area one must understand is, how blind people here are by loyalty.

Re: DL SEA/HKG LF. I've flown 3 RTs on those flights in the past year, 1 in spring, 2 in autumn. On each flight Y was about 95%+ full, Y+ was full, and J was full. IMO, that nonstop doesn't have to fear LAX.

jumbojet wrote:

AS is simply acting like school grade girls on the playground over the IAF. Grow up AS. SEA is home to more than just your own little beleaguered airline.

I'm dying to hear what makes AS "beleaguered," exactly. Please, enlighten us.

The KE deal headed off the need to expand SEA further. Unless the economics change markedly I think DL is done is SEA to the Pacific. I can even imagine a small rollback (maybe one route dropped-HKG) once the KE deal is fully in place.

dc10lover wrote:

CYVR is too close and does a better job.

This is simply not true, for most people in Seattle, besides those North of Everett, you can fly to SFO more quickly than you can get to YVR. And if you want to chance missing your flight with a border crossing, be my guest, but that's not a smart risk to take. Proximity really doesn't matter as much as you might think, they operate as almost entirely separate markets in reality.

PS - This is a point I have made time and time again in multiple past threads. The math just doesn't add up for most Seattle area consumers. Though obviously someone will provide an anecdote of themselves or someone they know frequently making the trip, the reality is that most people will not risk an unpredictable wait time at the border crossing (and 3 hour drive) to fly from YVR.

Revenue for all of the big 3 U.S. carriers internationally has suffered....but this is particularly true over the Pacific. Delta has cut capacity but appears to be improving profitability in the Pacific market. UA and American seem to be aggressively expanding from LAX, but that is a fiercely competitive market, and I doubt UA and AA are making a ton of money there.

Personally, I think Delta needs take a risk and continue to expand significantly from SEA and stay out of a knife fight at LAX. I also think JV's are nice but only as an adjunct to your business....not the whole enchilada.

ElroyJetson wrote:

There is a large Chinese population in the greater Seattle area. Since NRT to TPE has been cancelled I could definitely see a SEA TPE flight with a decent amount of O & D traffic from SEA to make it worthwhile.

The other flights suggested I simply do not know.

There's always the perennial rumor of China Airlines resuming passenger service on the route. EVA already serves it at least daily, if not more frequently.

However, re: Chinese expat community, I think routes catering to these folks will more likely be served by the regional Chinese airlines like we've seen in SFO, LAX, and YVR or more growth from Hainan. I doubt DL would begin service to secondary China from SEA, if at all considering the minimal business ties, not to mention the excess capacity coming from the previously mentioned regional carriers.

ElroyJetson wrote:

Personally, I think Delta needs take a risk and continue to expand significantly from SEA and stay out of a knife fight at LAX.

DL didn't just pay nearly $2billion to "stay out" of competing at LAX.

If nothing else, we'll probably see them FOCUS their fight on LAX, while SEA awaits expansion.

LAX772LR wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Personally, I think Delta needs take a risk and continue to expand significantly from SEA and stay out of a knife fight at LAX.

DL didn't just pay nearly $2billion to "stay out" of competing at LAX.

If nothing else, we'll probably see them FOCUS their fight on LAX, while SEA awaits expansion.

Which was either a visionary move or an idiotic one. Only time will tell.

ASQ400 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

ElroyJetson wrote:

Personally, I think Delta needs take a risk and continue to expand significantly from SEA and stay out of a knife fight at LAX.

DL didn't just pay nearly $2billion to "stay out" of competing at LAX.

If nothing else, we'll probably see them FOCUS their fight on LAX, while SEA awaits expansion.

Which was either a visionary move or an idiotic one. Only time will tell.

What choice did they have, other than to cede presence in the 2nd largest market on this side of the planet?

AA had already clearly cast its lot
WN expanding internationally
UA announcing that it'll come back in, in a big way
NK growing as well

...staying boxed in at 14 (mostly narrowbody) gates in their main terminal wasn't an option if they wanted to remain competitive.

LAX772LR wrote:

ASQ400 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

DL didn't just pay nearly $2billion to "stay out" of competing at LAX.

If nothing else, we'll probably see them FOCUS their fight on LAX, while SEA awaits expansion.

Which was either a visionary move or an idiotic one. Only time will tell.

What choice did they have, other than to cede presence in the 2nd largest market on this side of the planet?

AA had already clearly cast its lot
WN expanding internationally
UA announcing that it'll come back in, in a big way
NK growing as well

...staying boxed in at 14 (mostly narrowbody) gates in their main terminal wasn't an option if they wanted to remain competitive.

They did fine for themselves staying out of ORD, and perhaps it would have been wiser to let AA and UA rip out each other's throats here as well, but it is just as likely that there are profits to be made despite the intense competition.
Luckily for DL, they now have that JV with Korean and a decently-sized SEA hub to fall back on, if their LAX operation ends up bleeding money.
I'm not saying it will, I'm just saying it could. That's how economic risk works, after all.

ASQ400 wrote:

perhaps it would have been wiser to let AA and UA rip out each other's throats here as well, but it is just as likely that there are profits to be made despite the intense competition.

...is there an actual argument here?

ASQ400 wrote:

Luckily for DL, they now have that JV with Korean and a decently-sized SEA hub to fall back on, if their LAX operation ends up bleeding money.
I'm not saying it will, I'm just saying it could. That's how economic risk works, after all.

Sure, but the same applies to UA just as easily. AA is the only one who "needs" LAX, yet neither of the other two are interested in letting them domineer the market outright.

Hey guys,
My dream route would be nonstop Sydney-Seattle, flown by either Delta or Virgin Australia in some form of JV...
Like I said, my DREAM route ... and unlikely for a long time if ever. To give such a route any chance of success, I reckon that DL and/or VA would need one of the new generation smaller widebodies such as the 787 or A330neo (does it have the range?) rather than the 777-200LR (Delta) and 777-300ER (Virgin Australia) used transpac by those airlines to and from Australia.
Seattle is a North American destination that, as far as I know, has never been publicly canvassed by Qantas (nor Air New Zealand) as a potential route opportunity.
Cheers,
Bunumuring.

Of course airlines can allocate costs and revenues as they wish but why would UA show their main international network as barely profitable?

DL is a much more profitable airline overall. Their ability to make more money to Asia is not a fluke or different than in other parts of the world.

AA and UA both see the opportunity to get what they can from DL to Asia. That doesn't mean DL doesn't have the ability to ultimately get what it needs. AA and UA put their cards on the table and then DL moves.

atl100million wrote:

Delta uses small aircraft because the 767 can cross the Pacific and the international arrivals facilities cannot support larger aircraft.

The philosophy is similar to CO starting routes from EWR using 757s even though many are now on larger aircraft.

Pilots say that SEA-HKG is moving to the 777 next year with the premium economy cabin.

This has to be the funniest post I've read today on a.netters. DL flew 747's out of SEA, even UA flew 747's and 777's for a while out of SEA to NRT and there are plenty of international airlines arriving at SEA most are utilizing aircraft much larger than a 763.

The problem with SEA is the O&D market is not as strong as lets say the O&D market at LAX or even SFO the second problem is DL is not respond quickly enough to changing market demands instead they squandered the opportunity they inherited from NW, it has nothing to do with arrival facilities.

In my opinion the biggest mistake DL made was trying to make SEA their Pacific Gateway hub, I feel like if DL had chosen LAX as their gateway at the time that they chose SEA neither AA or UA would have been able to stop them because neither airline was in a financial position to fight back. AA was in bankruptcy and they no 787's in their fleet and UA was in full retraction at LAX dropping routes and cutting frequencies almost quarterly. I think if DL would have chosen LAX over SEA things would look a lot differently at LAX today in the LAX- Trans Pacific market and DL would have been the dominate player among the US3 in that market. DL had an opportunity to de-hub NRT and transition those flights to LAX they instead chose SEA, and they have struggle in the SEA - Trans Pacific region ever since.

With the advent of the DL/KE JV that pretty much kills any Asia expansion to the USA except for maybe some additional ICN links. SEA to Asia growth is pretty much DOA at this point as ICN is much more efficient in getting people from the USA to Asia.

tphuang wrote:

As for why there is no direct flight to Jakarta, it's because Jakarta is really far away and is a total dump. You are never going to Jakarta for vacation and it's business center is nowhere near Singapore or Kuala Lumpur or Taipei. The kind of premium traffic requir d to make this kind of route work is just not there. For the same reason, I don't believe there is direct flight from continental us to kl either.

Jakarta's a booming business center (though with the majority of the FDI originating from various Asian countries) with a growing art/music scene, huge variety of regional Indonesian restaurants, and (hopefully this time, for good) a metro/airport rail system under construction. It has its flaws, but which location doesn't?

Taibei's best attraction is a museum with exhibits NOT from Taiwan. Not to mention, they might as well rename their recent TPE airport rail "Brandenburg East," after it finally opened this year. (Give Berlin a little hope, why not?)

Realistically speaking, CGK's just too far/low on paid J pax/doesn't have a significant expat population in the US for a US-airline to attempt it from the Lower 48. There are a pockets in NY/Philly/California, and the seasonal college students are a small factor, but let's see if GA follows through with their one-stop California flight.

ASQ400 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

ASQ400 wrote:

Which was either a visionary move or an idiotic one. Only time will tell.

What choice did they have, other than to cede presence in the 2nd largest market on this side of the planet?

AA had already clearly cast its lot
WN expanding internationally
UA announcing that it'll come back in, in a big way
NK growing as well

...staying boxed in at 14 (mostly narrowbody) gates in their main terminal wasn't an option if they wanted to remain competitive.

They did fine for themselves staying out of ORD, and perhaps it would have been wiser to let AA and UA rip out each other's throats here as well, but it is just as likely that there are profits to be made despite the intense competition.
Luckily for DL, they now have that JV with Korean and a decently-sized SEA hub to fall back on, if their LAX operation ends up bleeding money.
I'm not saying it will, I'm just saying it could. That's how economic risk works, after all.

Seems to me American is the most vulnerable with most to lose as the LAX 3 way battle heats up.

jayunited wrote:

atl100million wrote:

Delta uses small aircraft because the 767 can cross the Pacific and the international arrivals facilities cannot support larger aircraft.

The philosophy is similar to CO starting routes from EWR using 757s even though many are now on larger aircraft.

Pilots say that SEA-HKG is moving to the 777 next year with the premium economy cabin.

This has to be the funniest post I've read today on a.netters. DL flew 747's out of SEA, even UA flew 747's and 777's for a while out of SEA to NRT and there are plenty of international airlines arriving at SEA most are utilizing aircraft much larger than a 763.

The problem with SEA is the O&D market is not as strong as lets say the O&D market at LAX or even SFO the second problem is DL is not respond quickly enough to changing market demands instead they squandered the opportunity they inherited from NW, it has nothing to do with arrival facilities.

In my opinion the biggest mistake DL made was trying to make SEA their Pacific Gateway hub, I feel like if DL had chosen LAX as their gateway at the time that they chose SEA neither AA or UA would have been able to stop them because neither airline was in a financial position to fight back. AA was in bankruptcy and they no 787's in their fleet and UA was in full retraction at LAX dropping routes and cutting frequencies almost quarterly. I think if DL would have chosen LAX over SEA things would look a lot differently at LAX today in the LAX- Trans Pacific market and DL would have been the dominate player among the US3 in that market. DL had an opportunity to de-hub NRT and transition those flights to LAX they instead chose SEA, and they have struggle in the SEA - Trans Pacific region ever since.

What data are you using in stating DL is struggling in SEA? For a new hub, it continues to grow and expand while waiting for the new IAF. Do you have data to back up your statement? So many on here have been predicting gloom and doom for DL's SEA hub and yet it has never materialized. DL is right on if not ahead of their previously announced expansion plans there. I still think the SEA hub will end up being one of the best new hub strategies we have seen in the airline industry in a long time. Especially when combined with an expanding DL hub at LAX with new competitive future facilities and the new very promising KE JV and ICN hub.

What DL realizes, and what many A.net posters don't, is that NOT every western USA pax going to Asia originates from LAX, SFO, or SEA. Sure LAX and SFO are huge markets generating a ton on traffic, but what about the rest of the western US?

Put simply, if you are a pax in the western USA flying to Asia, you will have to connect somewhere. If your options are connecting in SFO, LAX, or SEA... which do you choose? Which of those three are you least likely to miss your connection at? Which is the least succeptible to weather or congestion delays? Which is most likely to be geographically shorter? The answer to all three is probably Seattle.

Delta realizes this. They also realize there is minimal transPac competition at SEA. And that is why they will make more $$$ at SEA then they would have at the larger more competitive markets of LAX and SFO.

Doubtful, now that Delta signed the JV with KE it really has little incentive to enter an already competitive market. I suspect someday we will see them expand their TPAC operation out of SEA but for the near future I don't see it.

kavok wrote:

What DL realizes, and what many A.net posters don't, is that NOT every western USA pax going to Asia originates from LAX, SFO, or SEA. Sure LAX and SFO are huge markets generating a ton on traffic, but what about the rest of the western US?

Put simply, if you are a pax in the western USA flying to Asia, you will have to connect somewhere. If your options are connecting in SFO, LAX, or SEA... which do you choose? Which of those three are you least likely to miss your connection at? Which is the least succeptible to weather or congestion delays? Which is most likely to be geographically shorter? The answer to all three is probably Seattle.

Delta realizes this. They also realize there is minimal transPac competition at SEA. And that is why they will make more $$$ at SEA then they would have at the larger more competitive markets of LAX and SFO.

And 2-3 hours north of SEA lays YVR which is arguably the most competitive NA-Asia market on the west coast.

kavok wrote:

What DL realizes, and what many A.net posters don't, is that NOT every western USA pax going to Asia originates from LAX, SFO, or SEA. Sure LAX and SFO are huge markets generating a ton on traffic, but what about the rest of the western US?

Connecting traffic is a significant component of every hub but hubs can't thrive on connecting traffic alone...local O&D (and lots of it) make hubs go from good to great and fuel growth. Connecting traffic also is generally not as profitable for a carrier as O&D is.

RL777 wrote:

kavok wrote:

What DL realizes, and what many A.net posters don't, is that NOT every western USA pax going to Asia originates from LAX, SFO, or SEA. Sure LAX and SFO are huge markets generating a ton on traffic, but what about the rest of the western US?

Put simply, if you are a pax in the western USA flying to Asia, you will have to connect somewhere. If your options are connecting in SFO, LAX, or SEA... which do you choose? Which of those three are you least likely to miss your connection at? Which is the least succeptible to weather or congestion delays? Which is most likely to be geographically shorter? The answer to all three is probably Seattle.

Delta realizes this. They also realize there is minimal transPac competition at SEA. And that is why they will make more $$$ at SEA then they would have at the larger more competitive markets of LAX and SFO.

And 2-3 hours north of SEA lays YVR which is arguably the most competitive NA-Asia market on the west coast.

YVR is more competitive TransPac, but has a lot less flights to the second and third tier US cities compared to SEA. Factor in that, plus being able to avoid Canadian Immigration/Customs, and it becomes less competitive for connections.

Pacific division has been an ongoing challenge for Delta. Virtually every quarterly call, they have commentary about it - whether its weak Yen, China capacity, etc.
And historically things in Pacific were not much better - In the book Glory Lost and Found, Delta management says NW lost money in the Pacific for the 7-years leading up the merger.

But to put facts on the table here are the reported DOT Pacific regional P&L metric for US carriers in 2016

RASM / CASM / YIELD / PL MARGIN
AAL - 10.37 / 12.95 / 9.79 / (16.7)
DAL - 11.58 / 10.84 / 11.35 / 5.8
UAL - 12.69 / 11.54 / 12.42 / 9.3

=

United1 wrote:

kavok wrote:

What DL realizes, and what many A.net posters don't, is that NOT every western USA pax going to Asia originates from LAX, SFO, or SEA. Sure LAX and SFO are huge markets generating a ton on traffic, but what about the rest of the western US?

Connecting traffic is a significant component of every hub but hubs can't thrive on connecting traffic alone...local O&D (and lots of it) make hubs go from good to great and fuel growth. Connecting traffic also is generally not as profitable for a carrier as O&D is.

Without question. Local O&D is critical, particularly the D side of O&D in this case. But for comparison, look at the Midwest and who makes the most money. You have UA and AA both hubbed at the Midwest's primary city (ORD), but DL makes the most $ of the three airlines being hubbed at both of the region's two secondary cities (DTW and MSP). Obviously ORD generates more O&D then DTW and MSP, but DL still makes more $ because DTW and MSP are more desirable airports to connect in. The same could eventually be the case with SEA.

kavok wrote:

United1 wrote:

kavok wrote:

What DL realizes, and what many A.net posters don't, is that NOT every western USA pax going to Asia originates from LAX, SFO, or SEA. Sure LAX and SFO are huge markets generating a ton on traffic, but what about the rest of the western US?

Connecting traffic is a significant component of every hub but hubs can't thrive on connecting traffic alone...local O&D (and lots of it) make hubs go from good to great and fuel growth. Connecting traffic also is generally not as profitable for a carrier as O&D is.

Without question. Local O&D is critical, particularly the D side of O&D in this case. But for comparison, look at the Midwest and who makes the most money. You have UA and AA both hubbed at the Midwest's primary city (ORD), but DL makes the most $ of the three airlines being hubbed at both of the region's two secondary cities (DTW and MSP). Obviously ORD generates more O&D then DTW and MSP, but DL still makes more $ because DTW and MSP are more desirable airports to connect in. The same could eventually be the case with SEA.

I'm get what you are trying to say but I'm not sure if that is an apples to apples comparison. I'm sure DL does take in more revenue than UA or AA does at ORD when you combine DTW and MSP together but a better metric to look at might be average revenue per passenger at ORD vs DTW and MSP.

LAXInt’l,
DL’s Pacific division includes its intra-Asia flights as well as Hawaii, neither of which AA has and UA has less of which affects the RASM and CASM. The only accurate comparison between AA, DL and UA for RASM and CASM is mainland US to Asia.
Please show your math and data where you come up with the profit margin. It doesn’t match the DOT data I cited. UA does get higher Pacific yields than DL which gets higher yields than AA. Note how high AA's CASM is - and they don't even fly old 747s!

Nearly all of DL’s Pacific capacity cuts have been to/from NRT including by using smaller aircraft on existing routes. The 744 was THE NW/DL aircraft for NRT. There are mere months left on the one remaining DL NRT-mainland route. Unlike UA, DL did not replace the 744s with 777-300ERs that seat almost as many people as the 744.
It is a surprise to no one that DL is restructuring its Asia network. AA and UA have jumped in to one Asia market after another to try to get an advantage which is also not a surprise. New routes from HND have pushed forward DL’s need to rebuild its Asia network. DL has tried multiple strategies and some have not worked such as trying to get a Japanese partner and getting a JV with China Eastern.
AA and UA are not posting the profits that should be there if their Pacific expansion was successful even though Asia is UA’s biggest advantage over AA and DL. Asia yields have fallen for all carriers. DL said they would not run routes just to gain market share and their financial results show they are sticking to that commitment.
Of course LAX and SFO are bigger markets to Asia but not even UA has as high of a share of seats from SFO to Asia as DL does from SEA. SEA is a smaller market and DL uses aircraft sized for the local market plus what it can profitably connect. I am sure DL has no vision of making SEA as large as UA at SFO. With five flights/day, DL serves more cities in Asia from a west coast city than any other US carrier except UA at SFO.
Just five years ago, there were about 13 international widebody flights/day from SEA. Today there are about 19. Every carrier including DL has added flights and seats. The facility has not kept up with the growth. DL said it would not add flights until SEA builds better facilities. Most of DL’s Pacific flights arrive at a time when DL is the only carrier using the FIS. DL could increase capacity if it can spread out the flights to avoid crowding but it has to offset the longer connection times with more domestic flights. DL avoids using the FIS at the times when it is most heavily used by other carriers. DL also probably does not want to give SEA more flights until DL gets the space it wants or the construction is underway. If SEA wants a true international/domestic hub, they are going to have to build the facilities for it.
While DL waits for SEA to expand the FIS and extend the A concourse, DL is expanding at LAX and doing the KE JV. None of those things replaces the other.
AA and UA are putting their cards out for DL to see. DL still has more options than AA or UA.
It is way too early to count DL out or say that AA or UA have what it takes to succeed long-term or to draw conclusions based on the “subtraction” part of DL’s Asia restructuring. The “addition” side is yet to come and DL will do while very likely still being more profitable.

I bet we see Delta try a few more routes for sure. Maybe not in the too near future,but i think they will keep working on SEA. Is SEA loosing money right now, im sure it is ,but its a work in progress for Delta they are trying to create a hub from basically nothing this takes time. Will it work no one knows, but they are really giving it a full shot and i bet they try more routes to Asia. Their relationship with Korean seems to improving, that is an interesting development because it really helps add many import cities in China.