Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
ANA787 wrote:NRT-PVG will also be cut next year. How much longer will NRT-SIN/PDX/MNL hold on?
ANA787 wrote:NRT-PVG will also be cut next year. How much longer will NRT-SIN/PDX/MNL hold on?
777Mech wrote:Per internal memo, DL will terminate NRT-GUM service on January 8th, 2018.
Is this the last time NRT will see 757 service?
tphuang wrote:There are so many options from Tokyo to Singapore. I don't know how delta is able to keep it going there without local sky team partners
commavia wrote:As predicted. And I continue to expect further reductions in Japan beach capacity to come - these markets are simply no longer strategically important anymore to Delta in the way that they used to be, especially back in the Northwest NRT hub days.
Hawaii and Micronesia beach routes were central to maintaining a comprehensive and compelling offering for local Japanese customers to boost O&D yields in and out of NRT that complimenting the connecting traffic moving over that hub between the U.S. and East Asia. But today, that raison d'être is nearly entirely moot - Delta is moving steadily less connecting traffic over NRT, has already all but exited much of the nonstop regional flying that would have been relevant to local Japanese customers, and is today focusing (smartly) on building a JV with another partner in a different country.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if, within a few years, the entirety of Delta's Japan beach flying will be down to, maybe, a daily flight NRT-HNL.tphuang wrote:There are so many options from Tokyo to Singapore. I don't know how delta is able to keep it going there without local sky team partners
I think it is still very much an open question as to whether Delta will be doing its own branded flying to SIN much longer. I agree with the sentiment expressed by many others that, once a fully metal-neutral JV is in place with Korean, it may well make economic sense to exit SIN entirely and just hand off SIN-bound passengers at ICN.
mercure1 wrote:Guess this means Delta withdrawal from Guam entirely?
DeSpringbokke wrote:GUM is being axed while SPN and ROR aren't?
DeSpringbokke wrote:Raise your hand if you knew this was coming.
DeSpringbokke wrote:Which goes first HNL-Japan or NRT-MNL/SIN? I'd wager the latter, but not by much. I'd be shocked if Delta metal is still flying from HNL to Japan in 2020.
DeSpringbokke wrote:It was mentioned earlier the fate of PDX-NRT. I don't see Delta exiting the largest international market ex-PDX until ANA or JAL start PDX-NRT. Then Delta will conveniently use the excuse to axe it then. PDX-ICN and PDX-NRT can coexist as by now PDX-NRT is no longer relying much on connections at NRT.
c933103 wrote:Delta is now flying NRTGUM 12x weekly, compared to 1x daily on JAL and 3x daily on UA? That's a rather significant capacity cut on the route, will anyone step in or will JL/UA up their capacity/frequency?
727200 wrote:Sad, NW had a great hub in NRT and its on life support under DL.
airtechy wrote:Perhaps a route will be opened from ICN in the near future.
787fan8 wrote:Is this really surprising to anyone? I thought it was only a matter of time before this route got cut.
727200 wrote:Sad, NW had a great hub in NRT and its on life support under DL.
obelau24 wrote:As a Micronesian, this is especially bad news for GUM because this gives United a complete monopoly on US-GUM traffic. As a US territory, you cannot fly between the mainland or HI and GUM on a foreign carrier on a single ticket. That being said, can DL add a codeshare to KE's ICN-GUM route and sell connections via ICN?
stl07 wrote:787fan8 wrote:Is this really surprising to anyone? I thought it was only a matter of time before this route got cut.
No, but its disappointing nonetheless because it further enhances UA's monopoly.
77H wrote:Unfortunately traffic numbers don't seem to justify more than one carrier. Any other US carrier could easily begin services. HA would seem to be the logical choice. Perhaps when more 321N's come online.
As far as fears of monopolistic pricing, UA can only charge what the market can bear. If for instance they were charge $3K for a economy seat, people would stop buying tickets and would be forced to lower prices.
77H
787fan8 wrote:Is this really surprising to anyone? I thought it was only a matter of time before this route got cut.
c933103 wrote:77H wrote:Unfortunately traffic numbers don't seem to justify more than one carrier. Any other US carrier could easily begin services. HA would seem to be the logical choice. Perhaps when more 321N's come online.
As far as fears of monopolistic pricing, UA can only charge what the market can bear. If for instance they were charge $3K for a economy seat, people would stop buying tickets and would be forced to lower prices.
77H
HNL-GUM is 3300nm, longer than even some HNL-Japan routes. Almost as long as HNL-MCI, just slightly shorter than HNL-MSP. Doubtful about 321N capability especially with HA's typically more tourist oriented layout
deltal1011man wrote:commavia wrote:As predicted. And I continue to expect further reductions in Japan beach capacity to come - these markets are simply no longer strategically important anymore to Delta in the way that they used to be, especially back in the Northwest NRT hub days.
Hawaii and Micronesia beach routes were central to maintaining a comprehensive and compelling offering for local Japanese customers to boost O&D yields in and out of NRT that complimenting the connecting traffic moving over that hub between the U.S. and East Asia. But today, that raison d'être is nearly entirely moot - Delta is moving steadily less connecting traffic over NRT, has already all but exited much of the nonstop regional flying that would have been relevant to local Japanese customers, and is today focusing (smartly) on building a JV with another partner in a different country.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if, within a few years, the entirety of Delta's Japan beach flying will be down to, maybe, a daily flight NRT-HNL.tphuang wrote:There are so many options from Tokyo to Singapore. I don't know how delta is able to keep it going there without local sky team partners
I think it is still very much an open question as to whether Delta will be doing its own branded flying to SIN much longer. I agree with the sentiment expressed by many others that, once a fully metal-neutral JV is in place with Korean, it may well make economic sense to exit SIN entirely and just hand off SIN-bound passengers at ICN.
I'm not so sure UA and SQ aren't going to force DL and AA to fly SIN from the mainland, or lose basically any HVCs they have. While I'm not taking the non-stop in Y, I would in F/C
Also betting that is why UA is jumping into LAX-SIN, because if AA/DL fly non-stop to SIN it will be from LA. (just can't see SEA-SIN working for DL.)
LAX772LR wrote:727200 wrote:Sad, NW had a great hub in NRT and its on life support under DL.
Probably because nostalgia doesn't pay bills.
That "great hub" is a relic of a bygone era. With newer, more efficient, and longer ranged aircraft allowing the likes of LAX/SFO/etc nonstop to SIN; there's no need for a milk-run hub anymore.
The industry has moved on, and DL is simply responding.... just like NW would've been FORCED to do, were it still around today.
LAXintl wrote:Yes such a great hub that it lost NW money all 6-years prior to the merger. (source: interview with executives in the book "Glory Lost and Found")
LAX772LR wrote:That "great hub" is a relic of a bygone era. With newer, more efficient, and longer ranged aircraft allowing the likes of LAX/SFO/etc nonstop to SIN; there's no need for a milk-run hub anymore.
LAX772LR wrote:The industry has moved on, and DL is simply responding.... just like NW would've been FORCED to do, were it still around today.
N717TW wrote:Too bad Delta doesn't have any 787-8 aircraft coming given that it would be perfect for opening a J-heavy ULH route.
TigerFlyer wrote:That's not correct. Delta fought very hard to keep the NRT hub. It was a viable and healthy operation. The problem was that US government agreed to a rediculous bilateral agreement with Japan that allowed JAL and ANA to operate massive hubs at Haneda (15 mins from downtown Tokyo) and fly to the US. But left Delta's hub orphaned at NRT 90 minutes out of town. It simply wasn't viable under those conditions.
avi8 wrote:How many flights and destinations did DL/NW have during the peak of the NRT hub?
jfklganyc wrote:NW would have kept NRT intact as a standalone. They had nothing else.
You have to understand, mergers made hubs redundant. We see it in the US all the time.
No doubt STL was "marginal" for TW compared to UA at ORD, but it was all they had and it wasn't going anywhere.
No one on here can seriously believe that Northwest would've started a full-fledged hub on the West Coast flying nonstop all over Asia.
To say they would exit NRT would be saying they would exit Asia...and that is not a believable scenario to me.
that said this is fantasyland. Theyre long gone...and NRT will be too.
jfklganyc wrote:NW would have kept NRT intact as a standalone. They had nothing else.
You have to understand, mergers made hubs redundant. We see it in the US all the time.
No doubt STL was "marginal" for TW compared to UA at ORD, but it was all they had and it wasn't going anywhere.
No one on here can seriously believe that Northwest would've started a full-fledged hub on the West Coast flying nonstop all over Asia.
To say they would exit NRT would be saying they would exit Asia...and that is not a believable scenario to me.
that said this is fantasyland. Theyre long gone...and NRT will be too.
MIflyer12 wrote:Overflights of TYO from the US-48 non-stop to China marked the beginning of end for the NRT hub. 777ERs with range and 180 min ETOPS meant that 744s were obsolete. If you want to mark a date, call it 2001 when CO started EWR-HKG non-stop. After that, the route fragmentation that Boeing predicted (787) and Airbus denied (A380) did the rest.
BravoOne wrote:So what happens when and if North Korea and South Korea start mixing it up? Looks to me like DL is whistling in the wind and hoping one will notice.
commavia wrote:Absent the merger, I suspect Northwest would have ultimately tried to do at SEA just what Delta has done. In fact, I think that was already somewhat telegraphed with the advent of the A330s and then the 787 order. That 787 order was the giveaway clue - that plane's range and economics were built for transpacific, but not for NRT. Northwest saw the writing on the wall - they had to.
WPvsMW wrote:More probably, the 752s go to the desert.
WPvsMW wrote:More probably, the 752s go to the desert.
N717TW wrote:deltal1011man wrote:commavia wrote:As predicted. And I continue to expect further reductions in Japan beach capacity to come - these markets are simply no longer strategically important anymore to Delta in the way that they used to be, especially back in the Northwest NRT hub days.
Hawaii and Micronesia beach routes were central to maintaining a comprehensive and compelling offering for local Japanese customers to boost O&D yields in and out of NRT that complimenting the connecting traffic moving over that hub between the U.S. and East Asia. But today, that raison d'être is nearly entirely moot - Delta is moving steadily less connecting traffic over NRT, has already all but exited much of the nonstop regional flying that would have been relevant to local Japanese customers, and is today focusing (smartly) on building a JV with another partner in a different country.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if, within a few years, the entirety of Delta's Japan beach flying will be down to, maybe, a daily flight NRT-HNL.
I think it is still very much an open question as to whether Delta will be doing its own branded flying to SIN much longer. I agree with the sentiment expressed by many others that, once a fully metal-neutral JV is in place with Korean, it may well make economic sense to exit SIN entirely and just hand off SIN-bound passengers at ICN.
I'm not so sure UA and SQ aren't going to force DL and AA to fly SIN from the mainland, or lose basically any HVCs they have. While I'm not taking the non-stop in Y, I would in F/C
Also betting that is why UA is jumping into LAX-SIN, because if AA/DL fly non-stop to SIN it will be from LA. (just can't see SEA-SIN working for DL.)
Too bad Delta doesn't have any 787-8 aircraft coming given that it would be perfect for opening a J-heavy ULH route.
commavia wrote:jfklganyc wrote:NW would have kept NRT intact as a standalone. They had nothing else.
You have to understand, mergers made hubs redundant. We see it in the US all the time.
No doubt STL was "marginal" for TW compared to UA at ORD, but it was all they had and it wasn't going anywhere.
No one on here can seriously believe that Northwest would've started a full-fledged hub on the West Coast flying nonstop all over Asia.
To say they would exit NRT would be saying they would exit Asia...and that is not a believable scenario to me.
that said this is fantasyland. Theyre long gone...and NRT will be too.
I strongly disagree.
Absent the merger, I suspect Northwest would have ultimately tried to do at SEA just what Delta has done. In fact, I think that was already somewhat telegraphed with the advent of the A330s and then the 787 order. That 787 order was the giveaway clue - that plane's range and economics were built for transpacific, but not for NRT. Northwest saw the writing on the wall - they had to.
I agree that Northwest would never have voluntarily "exited" Asia without a fight, but I do think it would slowly but surely have had to accept the same competitive reality at NRT that Delta has grappled with. Namely, Northwest (or Delta) was always going to be - at best - in third place in a three-way race in Japan.
Cubsrule wrote:commavia wrote:Absent the merger, I suspect Northwest would have ultimately tried to do at SEA just what Delta has done. In fact, I think that was already somewhat telegraphed with the advent of the A330s and then the 787 order. That 787 order was the giveaway clue - that plane's range and economics were built for transpacific, but not for NRT. Northwest saw the writing on the wall - they had to.
There's no reason that NW couldn't have had DL's current Asia strategy, but I think the 787s by and large would have been DTW aircraft, just like the 777s are for DL. The 332 can do virtually everything worth doing ex-SEA.
commavia wrote:LAXintl wrote:Yes such a great hub that it lost NW money all 6-years prior to the merger. (source: interview with executives in the book "Glory Lost and Found")LAX772LR wrote:That "great hub" is a relic of a bygone era. With newer, more efficient, and longer ranged aircraft allowing the likes of LAX/SFO/etc nonstop to SIN; there's no need for a milk-run hub anymore.
Yep. In the era of 747s, restrictive bilaterals, and minimal competition, a hub at NRT made complete sense. In 2017, not so much.LAX772LR wrote:The industry has moved on, and DL is simply responding.... just like NW would've been FORCED to do, were it still around today.
Absolutely. As many of us have long said - the Japan presence was almost certainly perpetuated even longer under Delta than it would have been under Northwest. At least Delta was able to push a far larger and more diversified volume of traffic onto and over the old Northwest Asia network than Northwest would ever have been able to do itself. Absent the Delta merger, I suspect Northwest's NRT hub would have fallen even further, even faster.N717TW wrote:Too bad Delta doesn't have any 787-8 aircraft coming given that it would be perfect for opening a J-heavy ULH route.
I'm still not sure why Delta would "need" a 787 - at least in the context of Asia, specifically. Sure, it would probably be helpful in some of the longer and/or thinner markets, including perhaps some markets deeper into East Asia. But would it be sufficiently worthwhile to justify an entire additional fleet type? I'm not so sure. Especially since, if Delta really wanted to fly deeper into East Asia, it already has one airplane capable of doing that (777-200LR) and it's about to have a second type also capable of doing it (the A350).TigerFlyer wrote:That's not correct. Delta fought very hard to keep the NRT hub. It was a viable and healthy operation. The problem was that US government agreed to a rediculous bilateral agreement with Japan that allowed JAL and ANA to operate massive hubs at Haneda (15 mins from downtown Tokyo) and fly to the US. But left Delta's hub orphaned at NRT 90 minutes out of town. It simply wasn't viable under those conditions.
It's actually quite correct.
"The problem" was not that the U.S. government negotiated a new bilateral with Japan - that was merely what finally tipped the scales. The true problems were (1) the U.S. government progressively negotiating far less restrictive bilaterals, if not full Open Skies, with just about every other country in East Asia, and (2) the advent of the 777. Those two things, over the course of a decade, eroded away the entire economic and strategic rationale for Northwest's NRT hub.
As more and more flights overflew Japan, and more and more of the local Japanese market was naturally concentrated among local Japanese airlines, Delta was stuck in the middle. Delta held at at NRT longer than United because Delta had, and still has, less attractive alternatives. But the inevitable was inevitable, and entirely predictable, a decade ago - many of us did, in fact, predict pretty much exactly what we are now witnessing. It was just a matter of time - with or without slots at HND.
deltal1011man wrote:Cubsrule wrote:commavia wrote:Absent the merger, I suspect Northwest would have ultimately tried to do at SEA just what Delta has done. In fact, I think that was already somewhat telegraphed with the advent of the A330s and then the 787 order. That 787 order was the giveaway clue - that plane's range and economics were built for transpacific, but not for NRT. Northwest saw the writing on the wall - they had to.
There's no reason that NW couldn't have had DL's current Asia strategy, but I think the 787s by and large would have been DTW aircraft, just like the 777s are for DL. The 332 can do virtually everything worth doing ex-SEA.
HKG and TPE are really too long for the 332. PVG could also probably handle larger aircraft, DL just doesn't have them at the moment. I fully expect end game SEA-PVG will be a 777 or 359 route once the fleet gets settled and mods are done.
N717TW wrote:Too bad Delta doesn't have any 787-8 aircraft coming given that it would be perfect for opening a J-heavy ULH route.
TigerFlyer wrote:That's not correct. Delta fought very hard to keep the NRT hub.
TigerFlyer wrote:It was a viable and healthy operation.
TigerFlyer wrote:The problem was that US government agreed to a rediculous bilateral agreement with Japan
jfklganyc wrote:NW would have kept NRT intact as a standalone. They had nothing else.
c933103 wrote:And don't pretend like Boeing make 787 because they predicted something
c933103 wrote:If they really predicted route fragmentation then they won't make something called Sonic Cruiser
deltal1011man wrote:HKG and TPE are really too long for the 332.
deltal1011man wrote:PVG could also probably handle larger aircraft, DL just doesn't have them at the moment.