Very sad. Quite surprised too. The HKG-SEA-HKG run I was on last month was superb. Excellent food, drinks, service. Also they were 100% full but again full flights are not necessarily profitable flights.

Surprised that Delta never worked well in HKG. Not nearly as good as AA and UA. Also HKG-SEA-HKG never did well. Not even for UA and NW in the 80s and the early 90s.

Are they cutting HKG altogether or will they start another HKG route? Let's say HKG-JFK-HKG? Or HKG-ATL-HKG? Or HKG-LAX-HKG? Last time when they axed Hong Kong-Detroit they replaced it with Hong Kong-Seattle.

seabosdca wrote:

SUNCTRY738 wrote:

Wouldn't the originally ordered 788's be having RR engine issues now if DL had not canceled that order?

No, they wouldn't have been delivered yet. DL deferred to 2020 in connection with the merger. They would have been Trent TEN equipped, but it's Trent 1000 Package C and B engines that are having the issues.

If they had kept the original NW order timing, then maybe, as they would have had Package B engines. But keeping that timing wouldn't have made any sense when DL had a ton of 763s and 764s that were midlife at the time. The original deferral was to start getting 788s on property as the 763s were leaving. Then they ordered HGW A330s and A330neos for that job instead, aircraft that are a bit short-legged for SEA-HKG.

Thanks!

tphuang wrote:

Maybe it's luck, but AA clearly got the best partners in TPAC with the dominant airline in HK and Australia, the largest airline in Japan.

For the record ANA is quite a bit bigger than JAL by every measure. Todays JAL is quite a bit smaller than its heyday.

Pax carried 2017
JL - Domestic 32.6mil + Interntaional 8.4mil
NH - Dom 42.9 + 9.3mil

ASK (mil)
JL - Dom 50.6 + Intl 40.6
NH -Dom 59.1 + Intl 60.1

Fleet(incl group subsidiaries)
JL - 230
NH - 279

Source - annual reports


Personally, to me Star has the best TPAC members with the largest markets like Japan and China covered with host of additional members in strategic markets like Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Singapore.

If someone starts the route, I think it'll be CX. HX is looking at higher tier cities. In fact, CX has used the arrival of their A359s, now in real volume, to launch routes like SEA (CPH, CPT, CHC, BRU, etc...), so it kind of makes sense. They can try to code share with AS on the SEA end.

Topic title should be corrected. The "replacement route" is Seattle/Kansai, not Seattle/Osaka. The Osaka airport is Itami, ITM (or city code, OSA), which has no international service. KIX is not "Osaka International" (which ITM was until 1994), it is Kansai International.

With that plea for accuracy lodged, IMO Glen and the guys think not only that they will lose less money on SEA/KIX than on SEA/HKG, but in a year or less, the city-pair should meet or surpass DL's profit targets, for the following reasons:
1) Kansai is the second largest premium market in Japan;
2) DL is better known in Japan now than when NW's SEA/KIX service failed; viewtopic.php?t=195853 and
3) The predominate Asian influence in Seattle is Japanese, but there are currently no nonstops SEA/KIX.

I think this is a very savvy move, and that we will see more DL nonstops to Japan from SEA, probably SEA/NGO next, before we see more DL nonstops to China from SEA.

wedgetail737 wrote:

I predict that an Asian airline will announce new service to SEA by the end of this year.

OK -- which one? PR, TG, and JL have been strong rumors, but no announcements yet. SQ had quite a bit of chatter on this board about a week ago. So, after years of teasing Seattle, will it finally be CX, now that the door appears to have opened?

SeaTacFan wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

I predict that an Asian airline will announce new service to SEA by the end of this year.

OK -- which one? PR, TG, and JL have been strong rumors, but no announcements yet. SQ had quite a bit of chatter on this board about a week ago. So, after years of teasing Seattle, will it finally be CX, now that the door appears to have opened?

If I were to take a stab at it, I would predict JL.

wedgetail737 wrote:

SeaTacFan wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

I predict that an Asian airline will announce new service to SEA by the end of this year.

OK -- which one? PR, TG, and JL have been strong rumors, but no announcements yet. SQ had quite a bit of chatter on this board about a week ago. So, after years of teasing Seattle, will it finally be CX, now that the door appears to have opened?

If I were to take a stab at it, I would predict JL.

I'm probably inclined to agree with you on that. Thank you for the reply.

I really hope DL can make SEA-KIX work this time. I flew the route in 2013 and had a great experience on that flight. Plane was full going both ways and pax were treated like kings on those flights.

WPvsMW wrote:

Topic title should be corrected. The "replacement route" is Seattle/Kansai, not Seattle/Osaka. The Osaka airport is Itami, ITM (or city code, OSA), which has no international service. KIX is not "Osaka International" (which ITM was until 1994), it is Kansai International.

Give it a rest. That's like saying LAX is "Southern California International" because it's not technically in Los Angeles.

Gonna go out on not much of a limb and say that the overwhelming majority of the reason anyone is flying longhaul into into the Kansai region, is due to business/visiting the greater Osaka metro.

jeffry747 wrote:

I really hope DL can make SEA-KIX work this time. I flew the route in 2013 and had a great experience on that flight. Plane was full going both ways and pax were treated like kings on those flights.

I'm not sure what links there are between the two areas, I know Panasonic has operations in Washington state.

I gather a lot of airlines are having trouble with Hong Kong which as an air market is no longer the gateway to mainland China it once was, not least Cathay Pacific. However something is badly wrong when one of the world's largest airlines is unable to hold service to a major world financial center that is one of only seven Alpha + cities, number 1 ranked for ease of doing business and competitiveness and World Economic Forum No1.

I can't help but feel Northwest's 787s would have avoided this.

WPvsMW wrote:

Topic title should be corrected. The "replacement route" is Seattle/Kansai, not Seattle/Osaka. The Osaka airport is Itami, ITM (or city code, OSA), which has no international service. KIX is not "Osaka International" (which ITM was until 1994), it is Kansai International.

With that plea for accuracy lodged, IMO Glen and the guys think not only that they will lose less money on SEA/KIX than on SEA/HKG, but in a year or less, the city-pair should meet or surpass DL's profit targets, for the following reasons:
1) Kansai is the second largest premium market in Japan;
2) DL is better known in Japan now than when NW's SEA/KIX service failed; viewtopic.php?t=195853 and
3) The predominate Asian influence in Seattle is Japanese, but there are currently no nonstops SEA/KIX.

I think this is a very savvy move, and that we will see more DL nonstops to Japan from SEA, probably SEA/NGO next, before we see more DL nonstops to China from SEA.

I agree with you. I predict more Japan non stops and maybe even a non stop to Pusan/Busan out of SEA when the IAF opens in SEA.

If HKG ever returns, it maybe out of LAX or DTW.

SUNCTRY738 wrote:

WPvsMW wrote:

Topic title should be corrected. The "replacement route" is Seattle/Kansai, not Seattle/Osaka. The Osaka airport is Itami, ITM (or city code, OSA), which has no international service. KIX is not "Osaka International" (which ITM was until 1994), it is Kansai International.

With that plea for accuracy lodged, IMO Glen and the guys think not only that they will lose less money on SEA/KIX than on SEA/HKG, but in a year or less, the city-pair should meet or surpass DL's profit targets, for the following reasons:
1) Kansai is the second largest premium market in Japan;
2) DL is better known in Japan now than when NW's SEA/KIX service failed; viewtopic.php?t=195853 and
3) The predominate Asian influence in Seattle is Japanese, but there are currently no nonstops SEA/KIX.

I think this is a very savvy move, and that we will see more DL nonstops to Japan from SEA, probably SEA/NGO next, before we see more DL nonstops to China from SEA.

I agree with you. I predict more Japan non stops and maybe even a non stop to Pusan/Busan out of SEA when the IAF opens in SEA.

If HKG ever returns, it maybe out of LAX or DTW.

UA couldn't even make NGO work from SFO and dropped it. Not sure it would work from the much smaller and less connnected SEA hub. Pusan/Busan--I don't believe there is any chance!

gwrudolph wrote:

SUNCTRY738 wrote:

WPvsMW wrote:

Topic title should be corrected. The "replacement route" is Seattle/Kansai, not Seattle/Osaka. The Osaka airport is Itami, ITM (or city code, OSA), which has no international service. KIX is not "Osaka International" (which ITM was until 1994), it is Kansai International.

With that plea for accuracy lodged, IMO Glen and the guys think not only that they will lose less money on SEA/KIX than on SEA/HKG, but in a year or less, the city-pair should meet or surpass DL's profit targets, for the following reasons:
1) Kansai is the second largest premium market in Japan;
2) DL is better known in Japan now than when NW's SEA/KIX service failed; viewtopic.php?t=195853 and
3) The predominate Asian influence in Seattle is Japanese, but there are currently no nonstops SEA/KIX.

I think this is a very savvy move, and that we will see more DL nonstops to Japan from SEA, probably SEA/NGO next, before we see more DL nonstops to China from SEA.

I agree with you. I predict more Japan non stops and maybe even a non stop to Pusan/Busan out of SEA when the IAF opens in SEA.

If HKG ever returns, it maybe out of LAX or DTW.

UA couldn't even make NGO work from SFO and dropped it. Not sure it would work from the much smaller and less connnected SEA hub. Pusan/Busan--I don't believe there is any chance!

Wouldn't be up to the Korean government to allow TPAC flights out of Busan?

gwrudolph wrote:

SUNCTRY738 wrote:

WPvsMW wrote:

Topic title should be corrected. The "replacement route" is Seattle/Kansai, not Seattle/Osaka. The Osaka airport is Itami, ITM (or city code, OSA), which has no international service. KIX is not "Osaka International" (which ITM was until 1994), it is Kansai International.

With that plea for accuracy lodged, IMO Glen and the guys think not only that they will lose less money on SEA/KIX than on SEA/HKG, but in a year or less, the city-pair should meet or surpass DL's profit targets, for the following reasons:
1) Kansai is the second largest premium market in Japan;
2) DL is better known in Japan now than when NW's SEA/KIX service failed; viewtopic.php?t=195853 and
3) The predominate Asian influence in Seattle is Japanese, but there are currently no nonstops SEA/KIX.

I think this is a very savvy move, and that we will see more DL nonstops to Japan from SEA, probably SEA/NGO next, before we see more DL nonstops to China from SEA.

I agree with you. I predict more Japan non stops and maybe even a non stop to Pusan/Busan out of SEA when the IAF opens in SEA.

If HKG ever returns, it maybe out of LAX or DTW.

UA couldn't even make NGO work from SFO and dropped it. Not sure it would work from the much smaller and less connnected SEA hub. Pusan/Busan--I don't believe there is any chance!

NGO might have the least west coast-centric O&D of any major city in East Asia because of the auto industry links, which are almost all to the south and midwest. I don’t see SEA-NGO but I don’t think that has much to do with whether KIX, which is much more “typical” in its geographic distribution of O&D to the US, will work.

LAX772LR wrote:

WPvsMW wrote:

Topic title should be corrected. The "replacement route" is Seattle/Kansai, not Seattle/Osaka. The Osaka airport is Itami, ITM (or city code, OSA), which has no international service. KIX is not "Osaka International" (which ITM was until 1994), it is Kansai International.

Give it a rest. That's like saying LAX is "Southern California International" because it's not technically in Los Angeles.

Gonna go out on not much of a limb and say that the overwhelming majority of the reason anyone is flying longhaul into into the Kansai region, is due to business/visiting the greater Osaka metro.

... LAX is literally within the city limits. See the city map.

I wonder if the cessation of SEA-HKG will help Xiamen Airlines' service on the SEA-SZX route? Maybe they will increase frequency.

LAX772LR wrote:

WPvsMW wrote:

Topic title should be corrected. The "replacement route" is Seattle/Kansai, not Seattle/Osaka. The Osaka airport is Itami, ITM (or city code, OSA), which has no international service. KIX is not "Osaka International" (which ITM was until 1994), it is Kansai International.

Give it a rest. That's like saying LAX is "Southern California International" because it's not technically in Los Angeles.

I beg to differ. IATA nomenclature should be observed, and I don't follow the analogy, since SoCal Intl has never been an airport, but Osaka was Osaka International until 1994. Correct nomenclature is probably a pedagogical trait from a stint teaching graduate courses ... a.net is a learning tool for many readers.

WPvsMW wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

WPvsMW wrote:

Topic title should be corrected. The "replacement route" is Seattle/Kansai, not Seattle/Osaka. The Osaka airport is Itami, ITM (or city code, OSA), which has no international service. KIX is not "Osaka International" (which ITM was until 1994), it is Kansai International.

Give it a rest. That's like saying LAX is "Southern California International" because it's not technically in Los Angeles.

I beg to differ. IATA nomenclature should be observed, and I don't follow the analogy, since SoCal Intl has never been an airport, but Osaka was Osaka International until 1994. Correct nomenclature is probably a pedagogical trait from a stint teaching graduate courses ... a.net is a learning tool for many readers.

The first result I get when I google for “Osaka airport” is KIX. Most people internationally are thinking KIX, not ITM.

jasoncrh wrote:

Their JV requires that they both put their own capacity/ metal into the market. If they were pull out then the JV would go away, as the JV is predicated on the notion of sharing risks and metal neutrality.

TransWorldOne wrote:

With a cut like this you've got to wonder: what keeps DL operating a route like LAX-SYD? Seems like it would be easier and much more profitable to hand the flying off to JV partner VA, no?

JV's can be wider than a single route, and not necessarily involve hardware contribution by both parties, though this is the traditional, and still US definition.

GoSharks wrote:

WPvsMW wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Give it a rest. That's like saying LAX is "Southern California International" because it's not technically in Los Angeles.

I beg to differ. IATA nomenclature should be observed, and I don't follow the analogy, since SoCal Intl has never been an airport, but Osaka was Osaka International until 1994. Correct nomenclature is probably a pedagogical trait from a stint teaching graduate courses ... a.net is a learning tool for many readers.

The first result I get when I google for “Osaka airport” is KIX. Most people internationally are thinking KIX, not ITM.

Google is smart. Search in English and you get KIX because Google knows gaijin probably wants KIX.
Google in Japanese and you get ITM.
https://www.google.co.jp/search?source= ... Oq9IhNOX0M

Use the city code of OSA and you get ITM, KIX, and UKB (Kobe airport).

Bottom line: starting a new Topic comes with a duty to be accurate.

Lets not get hooked up by the definition of Osaka airport.

Generally speaking, People in Osaka barely use the term “Osaka Airport”

It’s either Kansai Airport or Itami Airport. If you hop on a taxi and say Osaka airport I’m pretty sure they’ll ask you which one.

Nevertheless I do find addressing Kansai airport “Osaka airport” here reasonably fair given the context of the forum.

Also just to address one more problem for Kansai airport that it’s hardly a premium airport to fly in.

People of Osaka are extremely cost conscious so the yield is bad. (Also not many high end industries supporting the market)

If not for the generous subsidy from the airport, chance of it surviving is extremely low.

And it's also sinking.
The logical place for KIX was Awaji-shima... but a man-made island meant more public works votes, I mean, jobs.

Seems like history repeating itself with Delta using the wrong aircraft across the Pacific to HKG


I remember when they used the MD11 from LAX and often had to stop for fuel

questions wrote:

Why does Delta appear to be struggling so much to build TPAC market share? One of the advantages of the DL/NW merger was to gain NW’s TPAC routes and presence. Delta seems to be dismantling and squandering the opportunity.

BKK is out. JFK-Asia is out. US-HKG is out. (NRT makes sense.)

Was the profitability always questionable?
Has the profitability been on the decline because of DL’s inability to continue to develop business/penetrate the market?
Has the competitive landscape changed that much?
Does DL not have the right aircraft to serve the markets?
Are DL’s gateway hubs just too weak on the global stage, e.g., SEA, MSP, DTW?

The biggest issue with DL & TPAC is their weak hubs in the USA. While DL can connect thousands of passengers everyday between Asia & the USA, it doesn't have a large O/D on any given market DL flies, less their own LAX departures that are few by comparison to say AA & O/W partners.

Connecting hubs are great, but as in every airlines history those only work unless you have a strong O/D market. SEA, MSP & DTW are not on par with LAX, SFO or YVR. Until DL can grow into a larger market for an Asian hub, I suspect they'll pull MNL & SIN & focus on China, Japan & Korea.

WPvsMW wrote:

I beg to differ. IATA nomenclature should be observed, and I don't follow the analogy, since SoCal Intl has never been an airport, but Osaka was Osaka International until 1994. Correct nomenclature is probably a pedagogical trait from a stint teaching graduate courses ... a.net is a learning tool for many readers.

We stopped flying into RJOO a long time ago, I am not aware of any international carriers using it. There is absolutely no ambiguity is calling KIX Ōsaka as that is the international airport.

Max Q wrote:

Seems like history repeating itself with Delta using the wrong aircraft across the Pacific to HKG
I remember when they used the MD11 from LAX and often had to stop for fuel

What aircraft would you have suggested they use?

There were only three at the time that could do the route nonstop, and DL only had the M11 in its fleet.... doubt they were going to take on a whole new model just for a single route.

RWA380 wrote:

less their own LAX departures that are few by comparison to say AA & O/W partners.

Huh?? DL is barely behind AA at LAX (mostly because of being previously gate limited), and it's also the gateway where they offer the most partner connections... which they themselves have taken on as a marketing point.

seabosdca wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

What aircraft would you have suggested they use?

The A340 that they would have ordered instead of the MD-11, had they been paying closer attention to what was happening at MD.

In general every passenger MD-11 operator would have had a better time in the mid-'90s had they taken deliveries of A340-300s instead.

The first long* distance product of an OEM who, at the time, had even less longhaul production experience than Tupolev or Ilyushin? For an airline who was then so loyal to McDD that they barely even looked at Boeing?

Would've been an extremely tough sale, to the point of borderline impossibility.


*yes, stated with the A300/A310 in mind

RWA380 wrote:

less their own LAX departures that are few by comparison to say AA & O/W partners.

Huh?? DL is barely behind AA at LAX (mostly because of being previously gate limited), and it's also the gateway where they offer the most partner connections... which they themselves have taken on as a marketing point.[/quote]

RWA380: what on earth are you talking about? DL is a close 2nd to AA at LAX and they are building out a great facility for future growth. Both AA and DL will be growing and strongly competing at LAX for the foreseeable future.

I think DL's strategy of building SEA as an Asian hub while also not conceding LAX to AA is ingenious. DL may never pass AA up in LAX in size and/or departures but they will remain a close 2nd and provide tough competition.

SUNCTRY738 wrote:

RWA380 wrote:

less their own LAX departures that are few by comparison to say AA & O/W partners.

Huh?? DL is barely behind AA at LAX (mostly because of being previously gate limited), and it's also the gateway where they offer the most partner connections... which they themselves have taken on as a marketing point.

RWA380: what on earth are you talking about? DL is a close 2nd to AA at LAX and they are building out a great facility for future growth. Both AA and DL will be growing and strongly competing at LAX for the foreseeable future.

I think DL's strategy of building SEA as an Asian hub while also not conceding LAX to AA is ingenious. DL may never pass AA up in LAX in size and/or departures but they will remain a close 2nd and provide tough competition.[/quote]

So you both concede DL is behind AA ... Enough said. Secondly since AA also enjoys the benefit of ie ... JL's flights (as I did say O/W partners as well) I am still correct. So beyond the usual A.net trying to be right when you're not, what is your point? By comparison AA & O/W offers more TPAC flights a day than DL does.

DL behind AA at LAX??? ... depends upon the metric. If the metric is investment in LAX, DL is way ahead of AA. DL is mirroring on the west coast the pair of international hubs it has on the east coast. Moreover, DL is rapidly closing the PDEW gap ex-LAX. Take a look. https://www.lawa.org/en/lawa-investor-r ... statistics

Other metrics: Alliance TPAC annually ex-LAX.

IMO, the DL/KE JV's impact will be greatest at LAX.

zeke wrote:

WPvsMW wrote:

I beg to differ. IATA nomenclature should be observed, and I don't follow the analogy, since SoCal Intl has never been an airport, but Osaka was Osaka International until 1994. Correct nomenclature is probably a pedagogical trait from a stint teaching graduate courses ... a.net is a learning tool for many readers.

We stopped flying into RJOO a long time ago, I am not aware of any international carriers using it. There is absolutely no ambiguity is calling KIX Ōsaka as that is the international airport.

ITM has no international service today. My point is accuracy. Slang vs. IATA codes. In Japanese, no one means KIX when they say "Osaka". Agreed, the slang meaning in English of Osaka airport among pilots is KIX.

Are the terms of the KE JV similar to the Atlantic JVs?

Prost wrote:

Are the terms of the KE JV similar to the Atlantic JVs?

Sure? But its really a different partnership, since it excludes China, and DL has no ownership stake like it does in AF/KLM .

I see a distinct dissimilarity between Delta's new Asia strategy and their Europe strategy. While they offer excellent connectivity with the AF, KL, and AZ JVs to Europe, they continue to serve key business markets such as FRA, BRU, and ZRH non-stop to ensure 1-stop service from dozens of U.S. cities where they have important corporate accounts. This is simply not going to be true in Asia, for HKG, TPE, and SIN (presuming they just roll SIN into the JV from ICN) will only have 1-stop service from the big US-ICN gateways. Granted, this is a big chunk of the market. But IND, CMH, RDU, MCO, and a whole host of other places where Delta makes great money are left off the 1-stop map. This seems like a disadvantage that comes in part from aircraft purchasing strategy that has been driven by price rather than performance (although that strategy has been lucrative for most of the system).

The only way to mitigate this is to add even more service to ICN. Therefore, I see BOS, PDX, SAN and maybe others as obvious choices for ICN service. Added service from those markets will also help alleviate the pilot labor issues that are clearly going to arise from further outsourcing in Asia.

TW870 wrote:

I see a distinct dissimilarity between Delta's new Asia strategy and their Europe strategy. While they offer excellent connectivity with the AF, KL, and AZ JVs to Europe, they continue to serve key business markets such as FRA, BRU, and ZRH non-stop to ensure 1-stop service from dozens of U.S. cities where they have important corporate accounts. This is simply not going to be true in Asia, for HKG, TPE, and SIN (presuming they just roll SIN into the JV from ICN) will only have 1-stop service from the big US-ICN gateways. Granted, this is a big chunk of the market. But IND, CMH, RDU, MCO, and a whole host of other places where Delta makes great money are left off the 1-stop map. This seems like a disadvantage that comes in part from aircraft purchasing strategy that has been driven by price rather than performance (although that strategy has been lucrative for most of the system).

The only way to mitigate this is to add even more service to ICN. Therefore, I see BOS, PDX, SAN and maybe others as obvious choices for ICN service. Added service from those markets will also help alleviate the pilot labor issues that are clearly going to arise from further outsourcing in Asia.

I don't see more service to ICN unless DL can get their labor to agree to let KE do the flying while DL operates as a virtual airline. Besides the labor issue, DL has no appropriate aircraft available for routes like BOS-ICN, PDX-ICN, and SAN-ICN. With no partner in Japan and no 1-stop service from most of the US to HKG, TPE, SIN, etc., as you pointed out, DL will have enough code share flights to satisfy FF's who travel to Asia infrequently and that's about it. The dismantling of the NRT hub and ending of NW legacy routes has reduced DL to being a minor league player in the Pacific.

RWA380 wrote:

So you both concede DL is behind AA ... Enough said.

Uh, no.

The issue at hand was your utterly false exaggeration that "less their own LAX departures that are few by comparison to say AA," when in reality, DL is not only just barely behind AA, but growing at a faster rate.

This topic is about Delta ending its SEA-HKG service, not about United's business class fares to HKG. There is no need for flamebait to become part of this discussion.

✈️ atcsundevil

Wow, shocking that DL is unable to make a single HKG flight work.
Its a shame that DL has not taken advantage of NW's strong Asian presence and seems to be losing market share at a rapid pace.
The deferral/cancellations of the NW 787's, which have shown to be the ultimate US-Asia plane, is really hurting them at the moment. NW knew what they could do with the plane and its a shame we wont see it.

To have NW/DL not serve such a MAJOR global market city is a shocker indeed. Ouch.

seabosdca wrote:

Either existing HGW 333s or upcoming 339s will do fine on West Coast-ICN if needed. When more 359s arrive those could do East Coast-ICN.

Except putting those existing planes on West Coast - ICN means taking them off the routes they're currently flying. And Delta's existing airplane orders doesn't show that there's any plan for them to fly from all over the US to ICN.

TW870 wrote:

I see a distinct dissimilarity between Delta's new Asia strategy and their Europe strategy. While they offer excellent connectivity with the AF, KL, and AZ JVs to Europe, they continue to serve key business markets such as FRA, BRU, and ZRH non-stop to ensure 1-stop service from dozens of U.S. cities where they have important corporate accounts. This is simply not going to be true in Asia, for HKG, TPE, and SIN (presuming they just roll SIN into the JV from ICN) will only have 1-stop service from the big US-ICN gateways. Granted, this is a big chunk of the market. But IND, CMH, RDU, MCO, and a whole host of other places where Delta makes great money are left off the 1-stop map. This seems like a disadvantage that comes in part from aircraft purchasing strategy that has been driven by price rather than performance (although that strategy has been lucrative for most of the system).

The only way to mitigate this is to add even more service to ICN. Therefore, I see BOS, PDX, SAN and maybe others as obvious choices for ICN service. Added service from those markets will also help alleviate the pilot labor issues that are clearly going to arise from further outsourcing in Asia.

Excellent post and I agree with you entirely. I think the next few months will reveal a lot about DL's Asia strategy and I wouldn't be shocked to see several non-ICN cuts (HKG, SIN, MNL, PDX-NRT) in favor of more flights to Seoul from US hubs and focus cities.

WPvsMW wrote:

zeke wrote:

WPvsMW wrote:

I beg to differ. IATA nomenclature should be observed, and I don't follow the analogy, since SoCal Intl has never been an airport, but Osaka was Osaka International until 1994. Correct nomenclature is probably a pedagogical trait from a stint teaching graduate courses ... a.net is a learning tool for many readers.

We stopped flying into RJOO a long time ago, I am not aware of any international carriers using it. There is absolutely no ambiguity is calling KIX Ōsaka as that is the international airport.

ITM has no international service today. My point is accuracy. Slang vs. IATA codes. In Japanese, no one means KIX when they say "Osaka". Agreed, the slang meaning in English of Osaka airport among pilots is KIX.

Just when we were getting board of ‘EWR isn’t a New York airport’ we get to play a new game, ‘Kansai isn’t an Osaka airport!’

My personal attitude is exactly the same as EWR; IATA consider KIX to be part of the OSA city code so therefore it serves Osaka. Period. Any other conversation is rediculous.

The hyperbole in this thread is amazing. There is no real honor in serving one particular city or another with one's "own metal" when that flight is a huge money loser and a JV can basically fix the issue. Delta is not becoming a "minor league player" in the Asia market. DL/KE are a reasonably close #2 in market share, and that share is likely to increase as the JV gets into full swing. Just last week, DL announced the net growth of one new U.S.-Asia market.

I think it is clear that Delta flew SEA-HKG because it HAD to. Without a JV partner, it did indeed need to be able to offer it's corporate customers a link to HKG. But it is quite clear that it was not a successful route. Neither was DTW-HKG. The economics of nonstop service to HKG, as well as pretty much any point south of PVG, are simply very tough from the U.S. HKG is not geographically well-situated for U.S. carriers, especially without a HKG-based partner to provide onward connections. AA has been pretty clear that it's HKG service is more strategic than successful at this point. UA has mostly failed on its China secondary strategy. I've had communications with people that would know that indicate that UA's SIN services are a disaster. This is simply not a region that U.S. carriers are well-equipped to succeed in. And Delta's particular hub structure is less well-suited for it than United's is. That's just the way it is. There is no shame in admitting that, especially when you have a better alternative via a world-class ICN hub.

This doesn't mean Delta can't compete in Asia. It means that Delta's network, especially with the KE JV, needs to serve the region differently than in the past. It is a big mistake to look at the old network and think that Delta can't compete in Asia because it cannot serve all the same markets the way NW did via NRT. That network was already doomed a decade ago. What is important now is how the new network develops. The ATL/DTW/LAX/SEA gateways + ICN , give Delta excellent coverage across its core geographies. Which is more than enough to make Delta a major player, particularly in North Asia, where most of the demand is.

TransWorldOne wrote:

TW870 wrote:

I see a distinct dissimilarity between Delta's new Asia strategy and their Europe strategy. While they offer excellent connectivity with the AF, KL, and AZ JVs to Europe, they continue to serve key business markets such as FRA, BRU, and ZRH non-stop to ensure 1-stop service from dozens of U.S. cities where they have important corporate accounts. This is simply not going to be true in Asia, for HKG, TPE, and SIN (presuming they just roll SIN into the JV from ICN) will only have 1-stop service from the big US-ICN gateways. Granted, this is a big chunk of the market. But IND, CMH, RDU, MCO, and a whole host of other places where Delta makes great money are left off the 1-stop map. This seems like a disadvantage that comes in part from aircraft purchasing strategy that has been driven by price rather than performance (although that strategy has been lucrative for most of the system).

The only way to mitigate this is to add even more service to ICN. Therefore, I see BOS, PDX, SAN and maybe others as obvious choices for ICN service. Added service from those markets will also help alleviate the pilot labor issues that are clearly going to arise from further outsourcing in Asia.

Excellent post and I agree with you entirely. I think the next few months will reveal a lot about DL's Asia strategy and I wouldn't be shocked to see several non-ICN cuts (HKG, SIN, MNL, PDX-NRT) in favor of more flights to Seoul from US hubs and focus cities.

The question for me about the strategy, though, involves aircraft availability. Adding BOS, PDX, and SAN would easily work with existing aircraft, as they can move existing types around and serve the new offerings with DL 332s or KE 789s. But the bigger issue to me are these IND, CMH, and RDU type markets where really no aircraft works for ICN (even a 788 if either company had them), but where corporate clients will still be likely to pick Star or OneWorld because they can offer more 1-stop service to Asia. The only way for DL to fill the gap is to do what they do at JFK with FRA, BRU, and ZRH, etc., which is fly non-stop from the U.S. But right now it does not appear that they think the cost is worth the benefit.

Also, as discussions with the pilots evolve, I bet we are going to see LAX-ICN and JFK-ICN on Delta metal - and probably more - sooner rather than later. This will be especially true as we hear more pull downs of what is left of the interport operation. MSP-ICN and JFK (probably)-BOM fit this pattern.

jetlanta wrote:

The hyperbole in this thread is amazing. There is no real honor in serving one particular city or another with one's "own metal" when that flight is a huge money loser and a JV can basically fix the issue. Delta is not becoming a "minor league player" in the Asia market. DL/KE are a reasonably close #2 in market share, and that share is likely to increase as the JV gets into full swing. Just last week, DL announced the net growth of one new U.S.-Asia market.

I think it is clear that Delta flew SEA-HKG because it HAD to. Without a JV partner, it did indeed need to be able to offer it's corporate customers a link to HKG. But it is quite clear that it was not a successful route. Neither was DTW-HKG. The economics of nonstop service to HKG, as well as pretty much any point south of PVG, are simply very tough from the U.S. HKG is not geographically well-situated for U.S. carriers, especially without a HKG-based partner to provide onward connections. AA has been pretty clear that it's HKG service is more strategic than successful at this point. UA has mostly failed on its China secondary strategy. I've had communications with people that would know that indicate that UA's SIN services are a disaster. This is simply not a region that U.S. carriers are well-equipped to succeed in. And Delta's particular hub structure is less well-suited for it than United's is. That's just the way it is. There is no shame in admitting that, especially when you have a better alternative via a world-class ICN hub.

This doesn't mean Delta can't compete in Asia. It means that Delta's network, especially with the KE JV, needs to serve the region differently than in the past. It is a big mistake to look at the old network and think that Delta can't compete in Asia because it cannot serve all the same markets the way NW did via NRT. That network was already doomed a decade ago. What is important now is how the new network develops. The ATL/DTW/LAX/SEA gateways + ICN , give Delta excellent coverage across its core geographies. Which is more than enough to make Delta a major player, particularly in North Asia, where most of the demand is.

Look - I mostly agree with you, though DL's gateway locations and its legacy NW NRT result are all of their own doing, and wasn't just "fate". Regardless, that is water under the bridge.

But here's the problem - as DL goes to this JV everywhere model (AF, AM, KE) for int'l flying, its always easiest to abandon challenging routes to the JV partner - and while that may make for the best bottom line financial results, it gives substance to the notion that US3 cannot compete on the international stage with ME3, Asians, Chinese, even the EU3; not in service, amenities, price.

Running away from competition all the time because you have a cousin who can do it more cheaply, better, or both, is not a path (or return) to greatness. I have trouble accepting that DL has no possible means to compete with others internationally. It seems that UA and AA are still making more effort in this way.
I get that DL is super profitable and seems to be well run, but I am starting to agree with the anti-US cynics around here that having a US home market means you have to be incompetent to not make money at it.

Even as I am writing this, I'm realizing the axiom: airlines aren't in the business of flying, they're in the business of making money........

While we agree Hong Kong was likely a terrible performer for Delta, I am not sure routing via ICN is the best outcome for customers, especially those in non-US gateways looking to get to Hong Kong.

The via ICN routing creates an second additional connection stop, when there are so many US-HKG nonstops already. To many the ICN connection will result in double connections if they want to stay on the DL network (xxx-JV gateway-ICN-HKG) versus lets says on AA xxx-DFW-HKG or UA xxx-ORD-HKG or via any CX city in the US.

So while it might look best for DL financially to drop its own metal serving HKG, not sure its the best answer for customers at all.

mercure1 wrote:

While we agree Hong Kong was likely a terrible performer for Delta, I am not sure routing via ICN is the best outcome for customers, especially those in non-US gateways looking to get to Hong Kong.

The via ICN routing creates an second additional connection stop, when there are so many US-HKG nonstops already. To many the ICN connection will result in double connections if they want to stay on the DL network (xxx-JV gateway-ICN-HKG) versus lets says on AA xxx-DFW-HKG or UA xxx-ORD-HKG or via any CX city in the US.

So while it might look best for DL financially to drop its own metal serving HKG, not sure its the best answer for customers at all.

At the end of the day DL is a business and cannot be everything to everyone. No airline can. DL might lose some business out of this move, but I think they have weighed the pros and cons and decided the business wasnt worth keeping the route over.