Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
trexel94 wrote:DEN should on their short list. It would be a sensible destination for Hainan with China currently being the largest in-demand country with no nonstop service to Denver.
pdxav8r wrote:trexel94 wrote:DEN should on their short list. It would be a sensible destination for Hainan with China currently being the largest in-demand country with no nonstop service to Denver.
Why DEN? The article mentions Codesharing with AS and B6, neither of which has significant service to DEN. What would those codeshares provide Hainan?
jetero wrote:pdxav8r wrote:trexel94 wrote:DEN should on their short list. It would be a sensible destination for Hainan with China currently being the largest in-demand country with no nonstop service to Denver.
Why DEN? The article mentions Codesharing with AS and B6, neither of which has significant service to DEN. What would those codeshares provide Hainan?
Better question is why FLL, but hey, I guess EK went there.
wedgetail737 wrote:jetero wrote:pdxav8r wrote:
Why DEN? The article mentions Codesharing with AS and B6, neither of which has significant service to DEN. What would those codeshares provide Hainan?
Better question is why FLL, but hey, I guess EK went there.
Well, B6 has a huge presence at FLL. But they could fly to MCO and get both B6 and Disney at the same time.
jetero wrote:On the heels of HNA financial crisis?!
There are probably many different “buckets” of money, but running a long-haul airline to China is surely not propping up those that are treading serious water.
mercure1 wrote:jetero wrote:On the heels of HNA financial crisis?!
There are probably many different “buckets” of money, but running a long-haul airline to China is surely not propping up those that are treading serious water.
Dont mistake HNA Group which is hundreds of companies as the same as Hainan Airlines
HU is profitable and has been for years. 2016 profit was about USD 452mil, with latest quarter Q3 2017 alone was USD 302mil.
The airline is publicly traded and even has major US investors like George Soros involved.
wedgetail737 wrote:Wait! Hainan already has a partnership with Alaska...at least with Mileage Plan. Do they not have codeshare destinations? Maybe with the strengthening partnership with AS, they will add PDX or SAN.
pdxav8r wrote:trexel94 wrote:DEN should on their short list. It would be a sensible destination for Hainan with China currently being the largest in-demand country with no nonstop service to Denver.
Why DEN? The article mentions Codesharing with AS and B6, neither of which has significant service to DEN. What would those codeshares provide Hainan?
trexel94 wrote:pdxav8r wrote:trexel94 wrote:DEN should on their short list. It would be a sensible destination for Hainan with China currently being the largest in-demand country with no nonstop service to Denver.
Why DEN? The article mentions Codesharing with AS and B6, neither of which has significant service to DEN. What would those codeshares provide Hainan?
Actually, according to the article, the codeshare would be in addition to seeking out new cities. Its two different initiatives. They wouldn't just limit themselves to the likes of PDX and FLL. DEN has been mentioned recently by Hainan executives as a possible destination. Smaller planes with long range and a growing market DEN seems like a good bet along with places like PHX, SAN and perhaps AUS.
Prost wrote:Before they plan on more PVG-USA flights there is going need to be a new PRC-USA bilateral.
amadorE175 wrote:Can Hainan fly to new US destinations from PEK/PVG/CAN? I thought the Zone 1 frequencies were all spoken for but I may be misunderstanding how the bilateral works and/or how the frequencies are currently allocated.
LAXintl wrote:raylee67 wrote:amadorE175 wrote:Can Hainan fly to new US destinations from PEK/PVG/CAN? I thought the Zone 1 frequencies were all spoken for but I may be misunderstanding how the bilateral works and/or how the frequencies are currently allocated.
No, but they can fly from places like Tianjin or Shenzhen or Hangzhou, which are each about 1 hr away from "Zone 1". And they would be willing to fly those at a loss.
Its codeshare relationship with AA has largely fizzled since carriers compete directly in markets like ORD-PEK which has caused "negative impact" on its ORD route.
BlatantEcho wrote:PDX-HGH would be super for me, been there twice this year already...
That said, it would lose money so fast it would be scary.
PDX-China needs a non-stop for sure. Agree above, it’s going to need to be to PEK or PVG (most reasonable) and hopefully the airline ties in with AS (or Delta does it themselves)
zakuivcustom wrote:(Reading through the thread)
There comes the S. Florida getting flights to China crowd again
mercure1 wrote:jetero wrote:On the heels of HNA financial crisis?!
There are probably many different “buckets” of money, but running a long-haul airline to China is surely not propping up those that are treading serious water.
Dont mistake HNA Group which is hundreds of companies as the same as Hainan Airlines
HU is profitable and has been for years. 2016 profit was about USD 452mil, with latest quarter Q3 2017 alone was USD 302mil.
The airline is publicly traded and even has major US investors like George Soros involved.
727LOVER wrote:zakuivcustom wrote:(Reading through the thread)
There comes the S. Florida getting flights to China crowd again
To be fair, it's not the RABID crowd.
I want to know how that's going to get off the ground @ FLL? That's a lot further than DXB.
MCO runway is 3,000 ft longer.
jetero wrote:On the heels of HNA financial crisis?!
There are probably many different “buckets” of money, but running a long-haul airline to China is surely not propping up those that are treading serious water.
Jonathanxxxx wrote:Could this lead to a possible Hainan PEK-FLL to connect with the B6 hub to South America?
CHI2DFW wrote:Never figured out why they went to ORD. BJS to ORD would be better served by a * or 1 partner.
If they go with AS and B6, BOS and SEA are safe. Possibly PDX and SAN?
zakuivcustom wrote:CHI2DFW wrote:Never figured out why they went to ORD. BJS to ORD would be better served by a * or 1 partner.
If they go with AS and B6, BOS and SEA are safe. Possibly PDX and SAN?
I would say they open that route just to not let CA open it with the one route one airline policy. Does it make 100% sense? Not necessarily. The market is there, but so is the competition.
CHI2DFW wrote:zakuivcustom wrote:CHI2DFW wrote:Never figured out why they went to ORD. BJS to ORD would be better served by a * or 1 partner.
If they go with AS and B6, BOS and SEA are safe. Possibly PDX and SAN?
I would say they open that route just to not let CA open it with the one route one airline policy. Does it make 100% sense? Not necessarily. The market is there, but so is the competition.
That’s exactly what it is. The same reason MU started PVG-ORD. Keep the competition out.
But MU is state run and can burn money. HU has less to burn.
theasianguy wrote:If China ever expands zone 1 frequencies, I can see HU start the following:
PEK-PHL: Large Chinese population comparable to Houston's, not a single daily transpacific, lots of universities nearby
PEK-SMF
PEK-SAN
PEK-ONT (We'll see how CI does first...)
PEK-PDX
There are large Chinese communities in all these metro areas. They remain underserved by transpacific flights being overshadowed by a larger, more important metro area nearby. However, since PEK-SFO/LAX/JFK/EWR are all taken by CA, HU can use this opportunity to provide more convenient service to large Chinese populations on the fringe of those catchment areas. Of the above, probably only PHL can support daily service, while the rest are 3-4x weekly.
Just because something's never been tried doesn't mean it won't succeed. BA took a risk and succeeded in AUS, ANA at SJC is doing well and others have followed.
tphuang wrote:theasianguy wrote:If China ever expands zone 1 frequencies, I can see HU start the following:
PEK-PHL: Large Chinese population comparable to Houston's, not a single daily transpacific, lots of universities nearby
PEK-SMF
PEK-SAN
PEK-ONT (We'll see how CI does first...)
PEK-PDX
There are large Chinese communities in all these metro areas. They remain underserved by transpacific flights being overshadowed by a larger, more important metro area nearby. However, since PEK-SFO/LAX/JFK/EWR are all taken by CA, HU can use this opportunity to provide more convenient service to large Chinese populations on the fringe of those catchment areas. Of the above, probably only PHL can support daily service, while the rest are 3-4x weekly.
Just because something's never been tried doesn't mean it won't succeed. BA took a risk and succeeded in AUS, ANA at SJC is doing well and others have followed.
goodness. There is no such thing as underserved US-China market at the moment. There is just too much capacity already. And the yields are atrocious.
PEK-PHL is the only one that might be able to work. And no, they don't have a large Chinese population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... opulations
82k in metro area is really not a lot. Especially when Newark is not that far away.
727LOVER wrote:I want to know how that's going to get off the ground @ FLL? That's a lot further than DXB.
Jonathanxxxx wrote:Could this lead to a possible Hainan PEK-FLL to connect with the B6 hub to South America?
rbavfan wrote:Jonathanxxxx wrote:Could this lead to a possible Hainan PEK-FLL to connect with the B6 hub to South America?
Where the did you get FLL from. It's not in the article.
FA9295 wrote:My predictions for PDX routes to China would be the following:
PDX-PEK (1x daily - Airbus A330-300)
PDX-PVG (4x weekly - Boeing 787-9)
The PVG one is a long-stretch, and I think that AS would need to add more routes to PDX for connecting options for passengers, since the O&D traffic may be a little short of sufficiency...
With that said though, I could see BOTH of these flights starting within the next few years...
tphuang wrote:theasianguy wrote:If China ever expands zone 1 frequencies, I can see HU start the following:
PEK-PHL: Large Chinese population comparable to Houston's, not a single daily transpacific, lots of universities nearby
PEK-SMF
PEK-SAN
PEK-ONT (We'll see how CI does first...)
PEK-PDX
There are large Chinese communities in all these metro areas. They remain underserved by transpacific flights being overshadowed by a larger, more important metro area nearby. However, since PEK-SFO/LAX/JFK/EWR are all taken by CA, HU can use this opportunity to provide more convenient service to large Chinese populations on the fringe of those catchment areas. Of the above, probably only PHL can support daily service, while the rest are 3-4x weekly.
Just because something's never been tried doesn't mean it won't succeed. BA took a risk and succeeded in AUS, ANA at SJC is doing well and others have followed.
goodness. There is no such thing as underserved US-China market at the moment. There is just too much capacity already. And the yields are atrocious.
PEK-PHL is the only one that might be able to work. And no, they don't have a large Chinese population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... opulations
82k in metro area is really not a lot. Especially when Newark is not that far away.
rbavfan wrote:Jonathanxxxx wrote:Could this lead to a possible Hainan PEK-FLL to connect with the B6 hub to South America?
Where the did you get FLL from. It's not in the article.
zakuivcustom wrote:rbavfan wrote:Jonathanxxxx wrote:Could this lead to a possible Hainan PEK-FLL to connect with the B6 hub to South America?
Where the did you get FLL from. It's not in the article.FA9295 wrote:My predictions for PDX routes to China would be the following:
PDX-PEK (1x daily - Airbus A330-300)
PDX-PVG (4x weekly - Boeing 787-9)
The PVG one is a long-stretch, and I think that AS would need to add more routes to PDX for connecting options for passengers, since the O&D traffic may be a little short of sufficiency...
With that said though, I could see BOTH of these flights starting within the next few years...
Have you seen HU's frequency in general? They don't even operate PEK-ORD nor (I believe)PEK-SEA daily. They are NOT going to waste valuable slots for a daily PDX flight. 2-3/wk sounds more normal even if they open the route.tphuang wrote:theasianguy wrote:If China ever expands zone 1 frequencies, I can see HU start the following:
There are large Chinese communities in all these metro areas. They remain underserved by transpacific flights being overshadowed by a larger, more important metro area nearby. However, since PEK-SFO/LAX/JFK/EWR are all taken by CA, HU can use this opportunity to provide more convenient service to large Chinese populations on the fringe of those catchment areas. Of the above, probably only PHL can support daily service, while the rest are 3-4x weekly.
Just because something's never been tried doesn't mean it won't succeed. BA took a risk and succeeded in AUS, ANA at SJC is doing well and others have followed.
goodness. There is no such thing as underserved US-China market at the moment. There is just too much capacity already. And the yields are atrocious.
PEK-PHL is the only one that might be able to work. And no, they don't have a large Chinese population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... opulations
82k in metro area is really not a lot. Especially when Newark is not that far away.
Yield can be atrocious especially with those secondary Chinese cities to US route. PEK and PVG origin flights tend to perform fairly well, however.
And at least PHL makes more sense than MIA or...well, AUS. AUS may have 20k Chinese but I always wonder how many of those are from Houston/DFW metro to begin with. Then you considered that IAH doesn't even have a PVG flight
tphuang wrote:theasianguy wrote:If China ever expands zone 1 frequencies, I can see HU start the following:
PEK-PHL: Large Chinese population comparable to Houston's, not a single daily transpacific, lots of universities nearby
PEK-SMF
PEK-SAN
PEK-ONT (We'll see how CI does first...)
PEK-PDX
There are large Chinese communities in all these metro areas. They remain underserved by transpacific flights being overshadowed by a larger, more important metro area nearby. However, since PEK-SFO/LAX/JFK/EWR are all taken by CA, HU can use this opportunity to provide more convenient service to large Chinese populations on the fringe of those catchment areas. Of the above, probably only PHL can support daily service, while the rest are 3-4x weekly.
Just because something's never been tried doesn't mean it won't succeed. BA took a risk and succeeded in AUS, ANA at SJC is doing well and others have followed.
goodness. There is no such thing as underserved US-China market at the moment. There is just too much capacity already. And the yields are atrocious.
PEK-PHL is the only one that might be able to work. And no, they don't have a large Chinese population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... opulations
82k in metro area is really not a lot. Especially when Newark is not that far away.
theasianguy wrote:tphuang wrote:theasianguy wrote:If China ever expands zone 1 frequencies, I can see HU start the following:
PEK-PHL: Large Chinese population comparable to Houston's, not a single daily transpacific, lots of universities nearby
PEK-SMF
PEK-SAN
PEK-ONT (We'll see how CI does first...)
PEK-PDX
There are large Chinese communities in all these metro areas. They remain underserved by transpacific flights being overshadowed by a larger, more important metro area nearby. However, since PEK-SFO/LAX/JFK/EWR are all taken by CA, HU can use this opportunity to provide more convenient service to large Chinese populations on the fringe of those catchment areas. Of the above, probably only PHL can support daily service, while the rest are 3-4x weekly.
Just because something's never been tried doesn't mean it won't succeed. BA took a risk and succeeded in AUS, ANA at SJC is doing well and others have followed.
goodness. There is no such thing as underserved US-China market at the moment. There is just too much capacity already. And the yields are atrocious.
PEK-PHL is the only one that might be able to work. And no, they don't have a large Chinese population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... opulations
82k in metro area is really not a lot. Especially when Newark is not that far away.
Hainan isn't known for chasing yields. They can bleed all the money they want and still keep a route for market presence. Their fares often go for $500 or less during the off season. How else do you think JFK/LAX-CTU/CKG 2x weekly or YYC/LAS-PEK can be maintained?
Philadelphia has by far the largest Chinese population without a single transpacific flight. I mean, DFW has 3 daily flights to China and only around 60k Chinese. Sure, much of it is connecting, but you can at least expect 25% to be DFW originating. Add in the 3x NRT and 2x ICN services, you have even more China bound pax on connections. Houston also has a comparable Chinese population and is able to sustain 2x NRT, 1x PEK, and 1x TPE. I'm sure that's enough China-bound pax between them to fill 1 787 a day. Anyways, the trek from Philadelphia to EWR is 84 miles and often congested, so if a direct China link existed, many will take that option.
theasianguy wrote:tphuang wrote:theasianguy wrote:If China ever expands zone 1 frequencies, I can see HU start the following:
PEK-PHL: Large Chinese population comparable to Houston's, not a single daily transpacific, lots of universities nearby
PEK-SMF
PEK-SAN
PEK-ONT (We'll see how CI does first...)
PEK-PDX
There are large Chinese communities in all these metro areas. They remain underserved by transpacific flights being overshadowed by a larger, more important metro area nearby. However, since PEK-SFO/LAX/JFK/EWR are all taken by CA, HU can use this opportunity to provide more convenient service to large Chinese populations on the fringe of those catchment areas. Of the above, probably only PHL can support daily service, while the rest are 3-4x weekly.
Just because something's never been tried doesn't mean it won't succeed. BA took a risk and succeeded in AUS, ANA at SJC is doing well and others have followed.
goodness. There is no such thing as underserved US-China market at the moment. There is just too much capacity already. And the yields are atrocious.
PEK-PHL is the only one that might be able to work. And no, they don't have a large Chinese population.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U ... opulations
82k in metro area is really not a lot. Especially when Newark is not that far away.
Hainan isn't known for chasing yields. They can bleed all the money they want and still keep a route for market presence. Their fares often go for $500 or less during the off season. How else do you think JFK/LAX-CTU/CKG 2x weekly or YYC/LAS-PEK can be maintained?
Philadelphia has by far the largest Chinese population without a single transpacific flight. I mean, DFW has 3 daily flights to China and only around 60k Chinese. Sure, much of it is connecting, but you can at least expect 25% to be DFW originating. Add in the 3x NRT and 2x ICN services, you have even more China bound pax on connections. Houston also has a comparable Chinese population and is able to sustain 2x NRT, 1x PEK, and 1x TPE. I'm sure that's enough China-bound pax between them to fill 1 787 a day. Anyways, the trek from Philadelphia to EWR is 84 miles and often congested, so if a direct China link existed, many will take that option.
Overthecascades wrote:CTU to SEA
CTU to BOS