Delta Air Lines currently has 6 nonstop services providing approximately 50 weekly flights from the US to China, codesharing over 1,000 flights across China with its Chinese alliance partners like CZ and MU.

DL has opted for a strategy of flying to China's top-tier cities only, i.e, Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong, rather than diversifying its network by adding any tier-two cities as UA has done, in the wake of increasingly more China-US city pairs flown by ever more Chinese carriers. In addition, DL will start ATL-PVG (green colored in the map) nonstop service from July

Statistics show over 5 million annual visits are made btwn the two countries, with each side taking half, but Chinese pax are expected to account for 70% of the total visits by 2020, which would be the reverse of what it was like about a decade ago when US passengers predominated on China-US routes

DL's capacity for China-US service increased by 3.5 folds from 2009 to 2017.

According to DL's director in charge of the Chinese market, the carrier is deeply committed to growing its business in China, as shown by its introduction of A350-900 on DTW-PEK, the first carrier to do so on China-US routes, as well as being the first American carrier to open a WeChat public account and adopt AliPay.

Any thoughts concerning the business strategy of DL in China? Any implications there for DL's operations in China now that DL has secured a grand JV with KE in neighboring South Korea?

glaring that JFK is missing.

cokepopper wrote:

glaring that JFK is missing.

Agreed.

Zoedyn wrote:

DL has opted for a strategy of flying to China's top-tier cities only, i.e, Beijing, Shanghai and Hong Kong, rather than diversifying its network by adding any tier-two cities as UA has done...

On how many of those 2nd tier cities has UA dropped frequencies, or dropped service entirely?

Delta's strategy is obvious with an equity stake in China Eastern and the KE JV. Fewer Delta frames are committed to TPAC service than was the case six years ago. Partners will do the flying to 2nd tier cities.

I know they wanted LAX-PEK, and would likely jump on it if they could get the route authority. You might see MSP and/or JFK to PVG at some point. CTU and other new secondary cities seem unlikely given what they’ve said publicly, also given that CTU’s not a China Eastern hub and hubs like Xi’an and Kunming are still very thin routes.

The model would seem to be what Delta have done with KLM at AMS. Fly widebodies from domestic hubs to their foreign partners hub and let them distribute the traffic in theatre on their (the partners) network. It's just taking a long time to roll out in Asia (PVG and ICN respectively).

A very different strategy than that espoused by Boeing (to UAL for example) with nonstop small narrow body (787) service from a US domestic hub to internal Asian destinations bypassing the Asian hub. "Fragmentation" they called it in Europe with the 767 25 years ago, and it pretty much failed. Count the destinations Delta gave up on or reduced/went seasonal on as nonstops in Europe: HAM, ARN, BUD, CPH, ATH, MAN, SNN, NCE, VCE, GVA. i know there are more.

Perhaps another reason for the strained relationship with Boeing?

Are you implying that DL is blaming Boeing for DL failure to make all of those routes work? If so, then DL needs to pull their 'training panties' up and take FULL responsibility for their mistakes. Boeing sold them the planes, DL picked where to fly them.

cokepopper wrote:

glaring that JFK is missing.

Much like JFK-NRT was it's likely not going to be that profitable compared to other cities, plus with the already enormous amount of capacity in the market DL is better off using other gateways.

SteelChair wrote:

The model would seem to be what Delta have done with KLM at AMS. Fly widebodies from domestic hubs to their foreign partners hub and let them distribute the traffic in theatre on their (the partners) network. It's just taking a long time to roll out in Asia (PVG and ICN respectively).

Not to totally derail things, but from a pax perspective, flying KL via AMS is a pretty seamless experience, whereas taking MU through PVG, well, isn't. I know that DL invested in MU, but they've got a long way to go before they can replicate what they've set up with KL at AMS.

Cory6188 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

The model would seem to be what Delta have done with KLM at AMS. Fly widebodies from domestic hubs to their foreign partners hub and let them distribute the traffic in theatre on their (the partners) network. It's just taking a long time to roll out in Asia (PVG and ICN respectively).

Not to totally derail things, but from a pax perspective, flying KL via AMS is a pretty seamless experience, whereas taking MU through PVG, well, isn't. I know that DL invested in MU, but they've got a long way to go before they can replicate what they've set up with KL at AMS.

This is a good point, and probably something DL's been working on with MU. It would likely be a lot cheaper in the long run (and a safer bet) to concentrate on making PVG an easy, AMS-style connecting point rather than going the UA route of trying out secondary markets and/or buying specific aircraft that will make them (more) profitable (ie the 787-8 vs the A350).

The Chinese market is very low yielding. Is there any wonder dl is not rushing in? Jfk to pvg is already covered by China eastern. Jfk to Beijing is dominated by air china. Dl isn’t going to crack that.

Also atl dtw are second tier American cities so why is it a surprise Chinese carriers can operate second tier Chinese cities to nyc when American carriers do the reverse?

tphuang wrote:

Is there any wonder dl is not rushing in? Jfk to pvg is already covered by China eastern. Jfk to Beijing is dominated by air china. Dl isn’t going to crack that.?

I'm not sure about the current state of the partnership and DL's ownership stake, but if DL and MU ever end up with a joint venture, you would likely see both operating on some bigger routes like this, at least during busy periods, the same way DL and other JV partners combine on routes like LAX-CDG and JFK-LHR.

DobboDobbo wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

The model would seem to be what Delta have done with KLM at AMS. Fly widebodies from domestic hubs to their foreign partners hub and let them distribute the traffic in theatre on their (the partners) network. It's just taking a long time to roll out in Asia (PVG and ICN respectively).

A very different strategy than that espoused by Boeing (to UAL for example) with nonstop small narrow body (787) service from a US domestic hub to internal Asian destinations bypassing the Asian hub. "Fragmentation" they called it in Europe with the 767 25 years ago, and it pretty much failed. Count the destinations Delta gave up on or reduced/went seasonal on as nonstops in Europe: HAM, ARN, BUD, CPH, ATH, MAN, SNN, NCE, VCE, GVA. i know there are more.

Perhaps another reason for the strained relationship with Boeing?

Regarding DL at MAN, DL have not given up. Rather, they have handed responsibility to their JV partner VS who have been expanding their network and overall capacity ex MAN. Just wanted to clarify.

Having flown JFK-MAN after it switched to VS, I would say DL did the right thing. The flight seemed to be almost 100% Brits (with maybe some Brits living in the US). Also premium Econ was full. Seems like the VS brand plus premium Econ all help to make that route work. The one negative is a DL diamond cannot use the lounge in MAN when flying VS which sucks. Otherwise all other premium services are given.

tphuang wrote:

The Chinese market is very low yielding. Is there any wonder dl is not rushing in? Jfk to pvg is already covered by China eastern. Jfk to Beijing is dominated by air china. Dl isn’t going to crack that.

Also atl dtw are second tier American cities so why is it a surprise Chinese carriers can operate second tier Chinese cities to nyc when American carriers do the reverse?

Few factors goes into this:
1. Chinese point of sale is larger than US Point of Sale, IIRC, in the China-US Aviation market
2. One carrier one route for long-haul foreign traffic in China, means (especially) the like of HU are more or less relegated to "secondary" cities (That are usually way larger than American "secondary" cities).
3. There are subsidary from Chinese secondary markets. I believe even UA got some incentive to start that seasonal flight to XIY (And of course, ends it once the subsidary ends ). Not so much for US "secondary" market
4. Chinese airports are definitely more slot restricted than US airports, especially major one like PEK and PVG (or even CAN, which is not all that well served anyway due to the HKG factor).
5. Lastly, some of those "secondary" China to US flights are not all that frequent anyway. For example, HU's CTU-LAX is twice weekly, so is their CTU-JFK flight. Something like TAO-LAX on MF is 3/wk. You get the point. Meanwhile, if DL operate a route like ATL-PVG, they are definitely looking for a daily flight, or, at a minimum, something like 5/wk.

I do agree about the depressed yield, though. There is definitely a capacity glut in TPAC market. Those low fares may be good for people like me as a passenger, but it's definitely not good news for airlines.

Delta is kind of restricted in options in China right now as the country has no open skies with the US. Not enough tier 1 frequencies available, and no JV permissible. DL doesn’t have a great hub for tier 2 cities, the yields of which are trash anyways due to all the TPAC action by Chinese carriers. What DL is doing now is how it’s going to be for the foreseeable future.

cokepopper wrote:

glaring that JFK is missing.

JFK part of the larger trend of foreign carriers establishing/increasing service and US3 shrinking/abandoning completely.

flyfresno wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Is there any wonder dl is not rushing in? Jfk to pvg is already covered by China eastern. Jfk to Beijing is dominated by air china. Dl isn’t going to crack that.?

I'm not sure about the current state of the partnership and DL's ownership stake, but if DL and MU ever end up with a joint venture, you would likely see both operating on some bigger routes like this, at least during busy periods, the same way DL and other JV partners combine on routes like LAX-CDG and JFK-LHR.

I dont think there will be a JV any time soon. A JV requires open skies and there's no way that is happening with the current administration. Plus with all the concerns of Chinese state owned airlines dumping capacity and trashing yields, there would be a lot of scrutiny around any Open Skies proposal.

Wouldn't be surprised to see Delta start up SEA-CAN (Seattle-Guangzhou) in the future.

zakuivcustom wrote:

tphuang wrote:

The Chinese market is very low yielding. Is there any wonder dl is not rushing in? Jfk to pvg is already covered by China eastern. Jfk to Beijing is dominated by air china. Dl isn’t going to crack that.

Also atl dtw are second tier American cities so why is it a surprise Chinese carriers can operate second tier Chinese cities to nyc when American carriers do the reverse?

Few factors goes into this:
1. Chinese point of sale is larger than US Point of Sale, IIRC, in the China-US Aviation market
2. One carrier one route for long-haul foreign traffic in China, means (especially) the like of HU are more or less relegated to "secondary" cities (That are usually way larger than American "secondary" cities).
3. There are subsidary from Chinese secondary markets. I believe even UA got some incentive to start that seasonal flight to XIY (And of course, ends it once the subsidary ends ). Not so much for US "secondary" market
4. Chinese airports are definitely more slot restricted than US airports, especially major one like PEK and PVG (or even CAN, which is not all that well served anyway due to the HKG factor).
5. Lastly, some of those "secondary" China to US flights are not all that frequent anyway. For example, HU's CTU-LAX is twice weekly, so is their CTU-JFK flight. Something like TAO-LAX on MF is 3/wk. You get the point. Meanwhile, if DL operate a route like ATL-PVG, they are definitely looking for a daily flight, or, at a minimum, something like 5/wk.

I do agree about the depressed yield, though. There is definitely a capacity glut in TPAC market. Those low fares may be good for people like me as a passenger, but it's definitely not good news for airlines.

Exactly, I agree with most of this. Also even the US point of sale are mostly VFR traffic that are just as likely if not more likely to buy a Chinese airline. I can't see any of my family members in North America picking US3 ahead of HU for a flight home.

My point about secondary chinese cities is that posters here are establishing double standards when calling Chinese cities secondary but forgetting to mention that DTW or ATL would be secondary for someone in China.

According to DL's director in charge of the Chinese market, the carrier is deeply committed to growing its business in China, as shown by its introduction of A350-900 on DTW-PEK, the first carrier to do so on China-US routes, as well as being the first American carrier to open a WeChat public account and adopt AliPay.

sorry to tell you this, but no amount of effort on wechat or alipay will make the VFR traffic living in US more likely to fly DL over a Chinese airline. UA does seem to do better. Maybe due to star alliance presence in Beijing or maybe they have been in the market longer.

Cory6188 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

The model would seem to be what Delta have done with KLM at AMS. Fly widebodies from domestic hubs to their foreign partners hub and let them distribute the traffic in theatre on their (the partners) network. It's just taking a long time to roll out in Asia (PVG and ICN respectively).

Not to totally derail things, but from a pax perspective, flying KL via AMS is a pretty seamless experience, whereas taking MU through PVG, well, isn't. I know that DL invested in MU, but they've got a long way to go before they can replicate what they've set up with KL at AMS.

flyfresno wrote:

Cory6188 wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

The model would seem to be what Delta have done with KLM at AMS. Fly widebodies from domestic hubs to their foreign partners hub and let them distribute the traffic in theatre on their (the partners) network. It's just taking a long time to roll out in Asia (PVG and ICN respectively).

Not to totally derail things, but from a pax perspective, flying KL via AMS is a pretty seamless experience, whereas taking MU through PVG, well, isn't. I know that DL invested in MU, but they've got a long way to go before they can replicate what they've set up with KL at AMS.

This is a good point, and probably something DL's been working on with MU. It would likely be a lot cheaper in the long run (and a safer bet) to concentrate on making PVG an easy, AMS-style connecting point rather than going the UA route of trying out secondary markets and/or buying specific aircraft that will make them (more) profitable (ie the 787-8 vs the A350).

I'm not sure of the exact details - but I just flew through PVG yesterday on my way back to JFK on MU and there's a huge new terminal that's being built and looks like it could be opened by end of year. Hoping this makes the connection experience easier. Though I must say I feel as if I've been extremely lucky as I've never had any issues connecting in PVG when flying MU. I think some of that has to do with the fact that my flights always arrive very early - 4am or 5am - so there's not many people at that time. What is frustrating is all the remote bus gates. Hopefully the new terminal will alleviate that.

tphuang wrote:

According to DL's director in charge of the Chinese market, the carrier is deeply committed to growing its business in China, as shown by its introduction of A350-900 on DTW-PEK, the first carrier to do so on China-US routes, as well as being the first American carrier to open a WeChat public account and adopt AliPay.

sorry to tell you this, but no amount of effort on wechat or alipay will make the VFR traffic living in US more likely to fly DL over a Chinese airline. UA does seem to do better. Maybe due to star alliance presence in Beijing or maybe they have been in the market longer.

I think UA is able to do better because they have stronger position in some of the key US markets for China traffic (NYC w/ EWR, SFO). But even there UAs approach to target secondary cities in China has struggled to gain traffic as well and were cut when subsidies they were receiving ran out.

727200 wrote:

Are you implying that DL is blaming Boeing for DL failure to make all of those routes work? If so, then DL needs to pull their 'training panties' up and take FULL responsibility for their mistakes. Boeing sold them the planes, DL picked where to fly them.

Not blaming, but Boeing definitely oversold the fragmentation concept imho. There has been some fragmentation, but mostly carriers are using long range twins to serve hubs and adjusting the capacity (dropping/adding frequecies) to meet demand (you can't split a VLA in half).

In the next 25 years, I expect only limited fragmentation in Asia also, (787 or no) though I admit I don't have data to support my hunch. Just mho.

The following charts culled from the article in the link below give a clue to the overall picture of China-US aviation market (HK, Taiwan not included) as well as where DL stood during Jan-Aug 2017



http://news.ifeng.com/a/20180227/56317409_0.shtml

Does Delta staff it’s US-China flights with bilingual cabin crew? Do cabin crew receive any cross-cultural training?

flyfresno wrote:

I know they wanted LAX-PEK, and would likely jump on it if they could get the route authority. You might see MSP and/or JFK to PVG at some point. CTU and other new secondary cities seem unlikely given what they’ve said publicly, also given that CTU’s not a China Eastern hub and hubs like Xi’an and Kunming are still very thin routes.

JFK seems possible, MSP doubtful. ICN with KE connections is probably the best the other DL hubs can hope for (and frankly, more sensible).

Zoedyn wrote:

the carrier is deeply committed to growing its business in China, as shown by its introduction of A350-900

The A350-900 has 66 seats less than the 747-400 it replaced on some of the China routes. Growth in investment perhaps.

CaliguyNYC wrote:

DobboDobbo wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

The model would seem to be what Delta have done with KLM at AMS. Fly widebodies from domestic hubs to their foreign partners hub and let them distribute the traffic in theatre on their (the partners) network. It's just taking a long time to roll out in Asia (PVG and ICN respectively).

A very different strategy than that espoused by Boeing (to UAL for example) with nonstop small narrow body (787) service from a US domestic hub to internal Asian destinations bypassing the Asian hub. "Fragmentation" they called it in Europe with the 767 25 years ago, and it pretty much failed. Count the destinations Delta gave up on or reduced/went seasonal on as nonstops in Europe: HAM, ARN, BUD, CPH, ATH, MAN, SNN, NCE, VCE, GVA. i know there are more.

Perhaps another reason for the strained relationship with Boeing?

Regarding DL at MAN, DL have not given up. Rather, they have handed responsibility to their JV partner VS who have been expanding their network and overall capacity ex MAN. Just wanted to clarify.

Having flown JFK-MAN after it switched to VS, I would say DL did the right thing. The flight seemed to be almost 100% Brits (with maybe some Brits living in the US). Also premium Econ was full. Seems like the VS brand plus premium Econ all help to make that route work. The one negative is a DL diamond cannot use the lounge in MAN when flying VS which sucks. Otherwise all other premium services are given.

They were able to do the right thing later, only as a result of the JV with VS. The power of the JVs are awesome. The DL-VS JV was a win win win, effectively saving VS and preserving a competitor in the marketplace, saving 9,000 jobs at VS, and giving Delta much greater presence in the UK, especially LHR, which it had unsuccessfully sought for 30 years.

The larger question is whether Delta can replicate this suuccess with a JV in China or Korea or both? Especially given geopolitics. Make no mistake, their first choice was to hookup with JAL or ANA, they had inherited long history in Japan from NWA, but they were unable to pry one of those carriers away from AA or UAL and were effectively run out of Japan....

enilria wrote:

Zoedyn wrote:

the carrier is deeply committed to growing its business in China, as shown by its introduction of A350-900

The A350-900 has 66 seats less than the 747-400 it replaced on some of the China routes. Growth in investment perhaps.

45% less block fuel and 37% less fuel per seat (give or take a % or 2) is a huge decrease in operating costs. To say nothing of the enhanced reliability of having an all-new airplane. A massive upgrade all the way around imho.

Zoedyn wrote:

Any thoughts concerning the business strategy of DL in China? Any implications there for DL's operations in China now that DL has secured a grand JV with KE in neighboring South Korea?

It's worth pointing out that the JV between DL and KE excludes China on account of there being no open skies agreement, and DL is unable to even codeshare on KE to and from China as US carriers are only permitted to codeshare to and from China on Chinese carriers.

cokepopper wrote:

glaring that JFK is missing.

From a P&L perspective, it's a glaringly wise choice to omit JFK

klakzky123 wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

tphuang wrote:

Is there any wonder dl is not rushing in? Jfk to pvg is already covered by China eastern. Jfk to Beijing is dominated by air china. Dl isn’t going to crack that.?

I'm not sure about the current state of the partnership and DL's ownership stake, but if DL and MU ever end up with a joint venture, you would likely see both operating on some bigger routes like this, at least during busy periods, the same way DL and other JV partners combine on routes like LAX-CDG and JFK-LHR.

I dont think there will be a JV any time soon. A JV requires open skies and there's no way that is happening with the current administration. Plus with all the concerns of Chinese state owned airlines dumping capacity and trashing yields, there would be a lot of scrutiny around any Open Skies proposal.

This. A thousand times this. On numerous occasions I've heard DL leadership tee up their MU equity stake as though they're using it to 'call dibs' on MU as a future JV partner, which is laughable. Think the ME3 are a threat? Even murmurs of Open Skies between the US and China would have all three state-backed and subsidized CN3 firing up widebodies to blanket every major US metropolitan area with multiple daily services. Markets like LAXPVG and LAXPEK are already losing buckets of money for all three of the US3, and additional CN3 capacity would firm them up as unsustainable. It would be an absolute disaster for the US3 unless they could truly negotiate a mandate whereby the CN3 are truly privatized by Western standards, which ain't happening anytime soon.

FlyHappy wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

I know they wanted LAX-PEK, and would likely jump on it if they could get the route authority. You might see MSP and/or JFK to PVG at some point. CTU and other new secondary cities seem unlikely given what they’ve said publicly, also given that CTU’s not a China Eastern hub and hubs like Xi’an and Kunming are still very thin routes.

JFK seems possible, MSP doubtful. ICN with KE connections is probably the best the other DL hubs can hope for (and frankly, more sensible).

It’s a bit old, but there has been talk from Delta of MSP-China (obviously PVG). So it’s not completely out of the question...

http://m.startribune.com/china-appears- ... 276855801/

flyfresno wrote:

FlyHappy wrote:

flyfresno wrote:

I know they wanted LAX-PEK, and would likely jump on it if they could get the route authority. You might see MSP and/or JFK to PVG at some point. CTU and other new secondary cities seem unlikely given what they’ve said publicly, also given that CTU’s not a China Eastern hub and hubs like Xi’an and Kunming are still very thin routes.

JFK seems possible, MSP doubtful. ICN with KE connections is probably the best the other DL hubs can hope for (and frankly, more sensible).

It’s a bit old, but there has been talk from Delta of MSP-China (obviously PVG). So it’s not completely out of the question...

http://m.startribune.com/china-appears- ... 276855801/

Oh, I'm aware, but that was little more than Richard Anderson buttering an MSP business audience. It was already long decided that DTW and ATL were to be the prime, non-west coast TPAC gateways.

Since then, the drawdown at NRT, build up at SEA, and the JV with KE changes everything.
I think its ICN or bust !

DL's hub network is much less conducive to experimenting in China than UA's is (or even AA). SFO and LAX are the premiere US gateways to Asia, and UA has even struggled out of its powerhouse SFO hub and with smaller planes. No way DL could be successful from SEA or DTW at this stage - the markets are too low yielding.

SteelChair wrote:

enilria wrote:

Zoedyn wrote:

the carrier is deeply committed to growing its business in China, as shown by its introduction of A350-900

The A350-900 has 66 seats less than the 747-400 it replaced on some of the China routes. Growth in investment perhaps.

45% less block fuel and 37% less fuel per seat (give or take a % or 2) is a huge decrease in operating costs. To say nothing of the enhanced reliability of having an all-new airplane. A massive upgrade all the way around imho.

The quote was "growing", not upgrading. 66 less seats is not growing. The airplane is cool, but still not growth.

questions wrote:

Does Delta staff it’s US-China flights with bilingual cabin crew?

Yes, at least they did a few years ago the one time I've flown DTW-PVG. Cabin announcements were in both English and Mandarin. I can't imagine that's changed since then.

Cory6188 wrote:

Not to totally derail things, but from a pax perspective, flying KL via AMS is a pretty seamless experience, whereas taking MU through PVG, well, isn't. I know that DL invested in MU, but they've got a long way to go before they can replicate what they've set up with KL at AMS.

Connecting between DL and MU likely won't be as seamless as connecting between DL and KL for a long time due to the lack of a DL-MU JV; and there won't be a JV until a US-China openskies agreement is in place.

TWA85 wrote:

Cory6188 wrote:

Not to totally derail things, but from a pax perspective, flying KL via AMS is a pretty seamless experience, whereas taking MU through PVG, well, isn't. I know that DL invested in MU, but they've got a long way to go before they can replicate what they've set up with KL at AMS.

Connecting between DL and MU likely won't be as seamless as connecting between DL and KL for a long time due to the lack of a DL-MU JV; and there won't be a JV until a US-China openskies agreement is in place.

The JV component is hardly the hindrance of connectivity from a passenger experience perspective. You don't need ATI to put the pieces in place for a seamless connecting experience obviously short of re-timing flights to capitalize on shorter MCTs.

However, connecting between DL and MU absolutely will not be as seamless as between DL and KE on account of the facility. PVG (and PEK) are simply not constructed for connecting traffic whereas the new ICN terminal is the most seamless international connecting experience in North Asia.

International flying except to Europe Australia Mexico and Canada is implemented through bilateral treaties. Delta can't fly where they want when they want in China. Partnerships get them wide coverage faster.

cokepopper wrote:

glaring that JFK is missing.

With JV and equity stakes they don't need to iss thier own metal on JFK flights. Why have 3 plane rotation when their parners fly that one and they can do more west coast with fewer frames.

rwsea wrote:

DL's hub network is much less conducive to experimenting in China than UA's is (or even AA).

You mean other than having the 2nd largest hub at the largest gateway to Asia?

There's nothing that AA is capable of doing from its network that DL couldn't replicate, given regulatory authority to do so. UA yes. AA, hardly.

enilria wrote:

SteelChair wrote:

enilria wrote:

The A350-900 has 66 seats less than the 747-400 it replaced on some of the China routes. Growth in investment perhaps.

45% less block fuel and 37% less fuel per seat (give or take a % or 2) is a huge decrease in operating costs. To say nothing of the enhanced reliability of having an all-new airplane. A massive upgrade all the way around imho.

The quote was "growing", not upgrading. 66 less seats is not growing. The airplane is cool, but still not growth.

as per the norm here you pick a single route and then say Delta isn't going in China.

Lets take a look at DL's seats to China with the 744 vs when they start ATL-PVG.

with 744
SEA-PEK 767-211 seats
SEA-PVG 767-211 seats
SEA-HKG 332-234 seats

LAX-PVG 777-291 seats

DTW-PEK 332-234 seats
DTW-PVG 744-378 seats

Total seats = 1,559 seats.

When ATL-PVG starts

SEA-PEK 767-211 seats
SEA-PVG 767-211 seats
SEA-HKG 777-291 seats

LAX-PVG 359-306 seats

DTW-PEK 359-306 seats
DTW-PVG 359-306 seats

ATL-PVG 777-291 seats
Total seats 1,922

now, maybe I am crazy but 363 seats being added to the market sure seems like growth to me.

FWIW PVG, the single 744 market in China with be up 200+ seats as well, on top of having more flights to more hubs offering more connection opportunities.

boeing737max wrote:

cokepopper wrote:

glaring that JFK is missing.

Agreed.

Honestly, I'm more shocked there wasn't a ATL-PEK...or isn't one at all!

FA9295 wrote:

Wouldn't be surprised to see Delta start up SEA-CAN (Seattle-Guangzhou) in the future.

I would. Long and thin route that would require a 777 or 350. UA can't even make SFO-CAN work. Perhaps if DL had 788's. With DL's fleet and DL's current route strategy of outsourcing as much flying as possible to partner airlines, I think the chances of SEA-CAN on DL metal is slim to none.

questions wrote:

Does Delta staff it’s US-China flights with bilingual cabin crew? Do cabin crew receive any cross-cultural training?

Yes and yes.

TransWorldOne wrote:

FA9295 wrote:

Wouldn't be surprised to see Delta start up SEA-CAN (Seattle-Guangzhou) in the future.

I would. Long and thin route that would require a 777 or 350.

Other than this route is flyable with the A332, I agree with the rest.
If CZ isn't starting this route (plus the fact that they've currently run out of zone 1 traffic rights), DL won't.

Delta should be stronger in China have very strong partners with super strong hubs I feel that they have little flights should increase more, United fly from PEK to ORD / EWR / SFO / IAD, from PVG to ORD / EWR / SFO / LAX, from HKG to ORD / EWR / SFO and finally CTU-SFO and that United has Air China which is the third largest airline in China, for its American Account it is bigger than without a partner in China AA flies from PEK to ORD / DFW / LAX, from PVG-ORD / DFW / LAX and HKG to LAX / DFW, and both United and American use Boeing 787 Dreamliner, Boeing 777-200ER / -300ER larger than Delta, PVG is an excellent HUB very strong Delta should add flights from JFK, MSP and PDX, and increase its presence in HKG add flights from LAX, JFK, DTW and ATL, I hope that with the arrival of the new A350 expand their routes more

Sightseer wrote:

questions wrote:

Does Delta staff it’s US-China flights with bilingual cabin crew?

Yes, at least they did a few years ago the one time I've flown DTW-PVG. Cabin announcements were in both English and Mandarin. I can't imagine that's changed since then.

Yes they still do. Flights to the PRC have English and Mandarin, while flights to the SAR have English, Mandarin, and Cantonese.

LAX772LR wrote:

rwsea wrote:

DL's hub network is much less conducive to experimenting in China than UA's is (or even AA).

You mean other than having the 2nd largest hub at the largest gateway to Asia?

There's nothing that AA is capable of doing from its network that DL couldn't replicate, given regulatory authority to do so. UA yes. AA, hardly.

LAX may be a large gateway to China but it has to be low yielding. I regularly see flights advertised to PEK and PVG for $400 roundtrip all-in during the summer travel season. AA had a sale on business class airfare one or two summers ago that put paid J fares to PVG at $1900 roundtrip all-in (I know because I booked one for a friend)--that's less than a paid J fare to NYC.

boilerla wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

rwsea wrote:

DL's hub network is much less conducive to experimenting in China than UA's is (or even AA).

You mean other than having the 2nd largest hub at the largest gateway to Asia?

There's nothing that AA is capable of doing from its network that DL couldn't replicate, given regulatory authority to do so. UA yes. AA, hardly.

LAX may be a large gateway to China but it has to be low yielding. I regularly see flights advertised to PEK and PVG for $400 roundtrip all-in during the summer travel season. AA had a sale on business class airfare one or two summers ago that put paid J fares to PVG at $1900 roundtrip all-in (I know because I booked one for a friend)--that's less than a paid J fare to NYC.

Indeed. But good luck getting corporate contracts out of here if you don't serve PVG.... which is why all three of them do.