I am quite disappointed/sad/surprised that Delta is cutting HKG-SEA-HKG. Seems that Delta never did well in HKG unlike AA and UA. Nor does HKG-SEA-HKG ever worked (not even for UA and NW in the 80s and the early 90s). Wonder if Delta will start another route to HKG. Maybe HKG-LAX-HKG or HKG-JFK-HKG? Last time when they cut Hong Kong-Detroit it was replaced by Hong Kong-Seattle.

With DL cutting HKG-SEA-HKG, will CX/HX/UA start HKG-SEA-HKG anytime soon? There are lots of Hong Kong people in Seattle though not as many as in Vancouver.

I think CX will enter the SEA-HKG market mainly because they have a codeshare agreement with AS. HX could, but all of their feed would O&D, with no partnership. It's not likely that UA would enter the market, since they really don't have a presence at SEA anymore. Once DL discontinues SEA-HKG and if no one else enters that market, then MF would be the only flight to the region (SZX).

Idk if CX has the slack in its long haul fleet (A359s/77Ws) to be able to announce SEA in the short term, their current A350s are busy flying other routes, while the remaining to be delivered are spoken for with route announcements. DL had trouble with their A332s to HKG, while few of CX's A333s can even match DL's A332s in range. It'd take some combination of more A35Ks on board as well as some route cuts for CX to have the slack to announce SEA.

HX meanwhile would have some fleet slack to take on SEA, they have a whole bunch of young A333s incoming, which can take a lot of the regional work done by A332s now. Leaving the still new A332s to do more long-hauls (HKG-YVR is already flown by an A332 for HX)

UA will not restart SEA-HKG.

SEA is just a spoke these days and they would add more flights from a hub. Unless there was a strong tie in with traffic in SEA (ie AS), a huge contract in SEA that demanded HKG service or maybe a metal neutral JV partner from HKG that demanded service I see no way UA would serve this route.

How many international flights does UA have that doesn't involve a hub? (besides island hopper out of Guam?)

If CX can find an extra 1.5 A350 hanging around, it seems like a good opportunity. The 77W is probably too big. I can’t see any other airline for which HKG-SEA would make sense (other than maybe Delta again once they have more A350s, and don’t have to use the comparatively guzzling 772).

seabosdca wrote:

If CX can find an extra 1.5 A350 hanging around, it seems like a good opportunity. The 77W is probably too big. I can’t see any other airline for which HKG-SEA would make sense (other than maybe Delta again once they have more A350s, and don’t have to use the comparatively guzzling 772).

Hong Kong Airlines might be interested.... though they might have to prove they can go a month without offering $350 roundtrips on LAX-HKG, before they try a smaller market.

lol HK airlines- will see how long it lasts...
I am shocked that they have not kicked CX out of most of the markets it operates on considering their ridiculous LCC fares...
I guess HK'ers don't trust mainland airlines.

Kashmon wrote:

lol HK airlines- will see how long it lasts...
I am shocked that they have not kicked CX out of most of the markets it operates on considering their ridiculous LCC fares...
I guess HK'ers don't trust mainland airlines.

Meh, like CX's reputation locally in HK is all that great

HX flying HKG-SEA with zero cooperation on the US side would be a suicide, though. But maybe if that's the case, I can find some USD300 tickets between SEA and HKG, meanwhile it'll take me USD300 to fly from where I live (IND) to SEA

P.S. Why in the world UA would fly SEA-HKG? If DL with connection on SEA end couldn't make it work, UA with zero feed (outside of hubs) at SEA would somehow make it work? Not exactly a ton of beyond connection for UA at HKG end, either.

I just flew that route last week on the "guzzling" 772 on 3-3-3 economy. It's a shocker that this is a goner, especially since I thought the flight was working out well, until I headed onboard. Lots of empty seats, and at boarding there were 17 seats open in Y+. Booked it one way from BOI for 35k Skymiles plus a couple dollars. I'll TR it later, anyway back to business as usual.

HX definitely has a presence now with their A350s and I hope I'll get a chance to fly there, despite the fact that I won't be heading to HKG or connecting through there anyway to the mainland, since it is quite a hassle. They operate A332s to YVR already, so I doubt they need a presence in Seattle unless they wan't to cut YVR in any way. CX also has two daily at YVR too, and I believe it is quite big bellied with competition with nearby AC. CX could in theory cut that second service for an A350 visit to SEA and hopefully grab traffic from AS or someone else.

bgboiflyer wrote:

I just flew that route last week on the "guzzling" 772 on 3-3-3 economy. It's a shocker that this is a goner, especially since I thought the flight was working out well, until I headed onboard. Lots of empty seats, and at boarding there were 17 seats open in Y+. Booked it one way from BOI for 35k Skymiles plus a couple dollars. I'll TR it later, anyway back to business as usual.

HX definitely has a presence now with their A350s and I hope I'll get a chance to fly there, despite the fact that I won't be heading to HKG or connecting through there anyway to the mainland, since it is quite a hassle. They operate A332s to YVR already, so I doubt they need a presence in Seattle unless they wan't to cut YVR in any way. CX also has two daily at YVR too, and I believe it is quite big bellied with competition with nearby AC. CX could in theory cut that second service for an A350 visit to SEA and hopefully grab traffic from AS or someone else.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat, YVR get that many flights to HKG (and also services from every single Chinese carriers that have a long-haul fleet) bc the local demand is huuuge. Why in the world HX should cut YVR? Or CX cutting YVR frequencies?

And being present in YVR means nothing for soembody in SEA. YVR also doesn't even have all that great of a connection network to the USA.

zakuivcustom wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

lol HK airlines- will see how long it lasts...
I am shocked that they have not kicked CX out of most of the markets it operates on considering their ridiculous LCC fares...
I guess HK'ers don't trust mainland airlines.

Meh, like CX's reputation locally in HK is all that great

HX flying HKG-SEA with zero cooperation on the US side would be a suicide, though. But maybe if that's the case, I can find some USD300 tickets between SEA and HKG, meanwhile it'll take me USD300 to fly from where I live (IND) to SEA

P.S. Why in the world UA would fly SEA-HKG? If DL with connection on SEA end couldn't make it work, UA with zero feed (outside of hubs) at SEA would somehow make it work? Not exactly a ton of beyond connection for UA at HKG end, either.

I think that is just typical HK attitude... whine and complain about the high end brands but still buy them....

I mean if CX rep is that bad and HX fares are that low... I don't see how HX is not killing CX.

zakuivcustom wrote:

bgboiflyer wrote:

I just flew that route last week on the "guzzling" 772 on 3-3-3 economy. It's a shocker that this is a goner, especially since I thought the flight was working out well, until I headed onboard. Lots of empty seats, and at boarding there were 17 seats open in Y+. Booked it one way from BOI for 35k Skymiles plus a couple dollars. I'll TR it later, anyway back to business as usual.

HX definitely has a presence now with their A350s and I hope I'll get a chance to fly there, despite the fact that I won't be heading to HKG or connecting through there anyway to the mainland, since it is quite a hassle. They operate A332s to YVR already, so I doubt they need a presence in Seattle unless they wan't to cut YVR in any way. CX also has two daily at YVR too, and I believe it is quite big bellied with competition with nearby AC. CX could in theory cut that second service for an A350 visit to SEA and hopefully grab traffic from AS or someone else.

I don't know how many times I have to repeat, YVR get that many flights to HKG (and also services from every single Chinese carriers that have a long-haul fleet) bc the local demand is huuuge. Why in the world HX should cut YVR? Or CX cutting YVR frequencies?

And being present in YVR means nothing for soembody in SEA. YVR also doesn't even have all that great of a connection network to the USA.

CX actually has nearly 3 daily to YYR....
and CX is not going to donate market share to other airlines
not at a city where it has its own lounge and its own catering....

ADent wrote:

UA will not restart SEA-HKG.

SEA is just a spoke these days and they would add more flights from a hub. Unless there was a strong tie in with traffic in SEA (ie AS), a huge contract in SEA that demanded HKG service or maybe a metal neutral JV partner from HKG that demanded service I see no way UA would serve this route.

How many international flights does UA have that doesn't involve a hub? (besides island hopper out of Guam?)

Other than a handful of Saturday-only seasonal sun routes, none.

Kashmon wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

lol HK airlines- will see how long it lasts...
I am shocked that they have not kicked CX out of most of the markets it operates on considering their ridiculous LCC fares...
I guess HK'ers don't trust mainland airlines.

Meh, like CX's reputation locally in HK is all that great

HX flying HKG-SEA with zero cooperation on the US side would be a suicide, though. But maybe if that's the case, I can find some USD300 tickets between SEA and HKG, meanwhile it'll take me USD300 to fly from where I live (IND) to SEA

P.S. Why in the world UA would fly SEA-HKG? If DL with connection on SEA end couldn't make it work, UA with zero feed (outside of hubs) at SEA would somehow make it work? Not exactly a ton of beyond connection for UA at HKG end, either.

I think that is just typical HK attitude... whine and complain about the high end brands but still buy them....

I mean if CX rep is that bad and HX fares are that low... I don't see how HX is not killing CX.

Lol I was joking about CX. Precisely bc how all these people are suppose to not fly on CX anymore or complain about every single stupid things (Typical HKer entitled attitude, makes a semi-HKer like me (since I live in US) shakes my head all the time).

Of course, HX is not killing CX yet bc HX rep is not all that great, either. All those "avoid CX" crowd seems to fly with ME3 or European carriers to Europe, although no clue who they will fly with TPAC since US3 is worse in general.

Don’t see CX doing it, if DL could not make the business case work with it’s protected domestic network, cannot see CX being able to do it. CX is based in one of the most expensive and competitive hubs with over 100 carriers, it has to be fiscally responsible. It does not have the luxury of a protected domestic network to fund international experiments.

Needs to have a solid business plan in place to be worthy of opening, only then would it be considered.

zakuivcustom wrote:

And being present in YVR means nothing for soembody in SEA. YVR also doesn't even have all that great of a connection network to the USA.

There were 18 flights SEA-YVR yesterday including several that made reasonable MCT onto the CX departure YVR-HKG.

SEA-HKG just isn't YVR-HKG or LAX-HKG.

zeke wrote:

Don’t see CX doing it, if DL could not make the business case work with it’s protected domestic network, cannot see CX being able to do it. CX is based in one of the most expensive and competitive hubs with over 100 carriers, it has to be fiscally responsible. It does not have the luxury of a protected domestic network to fund international experiments.

Needs to have a solid business plan in place to be worthy of opening, only then would it be considered.

Protected domestic network? DL competes in a long-deregulated environment with the largest and 3rd largest carriers in the world on thousands of flights a day in its 'protected domestic network.'

zakuivcustom wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

lol HK airlines- will see how long it lasts...
I am shocked that they have not kicked CX out of most of the markets it operates on considering their ridiculous LCC fares...
I guess HK'ers don't trust mainland airlines.

Meh, like CX's reputation locally in HK is all that great

HX flying HKG-SEA with zero cooperation on the US side would be a suicide, though. But maybe if that's the case, I can find some USD300 tickets between SEA and HKG, meanwhile it'll take me USD300 to fly from where I live (IND) to SEA

P.S. Why in the world UA would fly SEA-HKG? If DL with connection on SEA end couldn't make it work, UA with zero feed (outside of hubs) at SEA would somehow make it work? Not exactly a ton of beyond connection for UA at HKG end, either.

I don't know if that's completely true. Both Asiana and ANA fly to SEA with virtually no partnerships. They have been pretty successful here. But that might just be lucky and some good corporate recognition. I believe if any airline were to enter the SEA-HKG market would be CX. HX would be surprising, but probably not impossible. Of course, these flights would be additions and not sacrificing YVR. I don't think any SEA-HKG flights would affect YVR traffic. We'll just have to wait and see.

MIflyer12 wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

And being present in YVR means nothing for soembody in SEA. YVR also doesn't even have all that great of a connection network to the USA.

There were 18 flights SEA-YVR yesterday including several that made reasonable MCT onto the CX departure YVR-HKG.

SEA-HKG just isn't YVR-HKG or LAX-HKG.

I guess I should have clarified my point. The OP's statement make it seems like YVR and SEA flight to HKG are somehow fighting for customers with each other, that, let say, if CX start SEA-HKG, that would somehow pull customers away from CX's YVR-HKG. Neither are remotely true as mainly b/c YVR-HKG flight can relied on O&D alone to fill the flight.

For someone base in SEA. If CX start SEA-HKG in place of DL, great, they get the non-stop option back. If not, it doesn't mean YVR-HKG will all of a sudden lose so many of those SEA-YVR-HKG customers to the point where YVR-HKG has to be reduced.

wedgetail737 wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

Kashmon wrote:

lol HK airlines- will see how long it lasts...
I am shocked that they have not kicked CX out of most of the markets it operates on considering their ridiculous LCC fares...
I guess HK'ers don't trust mainland airlines.

Meh, like CX's reputation locally in HK is all that great

HX flying HKG-SEA with zero cooperation on the US side would be a suicide, though. But maybe if that's the case, I can find some USD300 tickets between SEA and HKG, meanwhile it'll take me USD300 to fly from where I live (IND) to SEA

P.S. Why in the world UA would fly SEA-HKG? If DL with connection on SEA end couldn't make it work, UA with zero feed (outside of hubs) at SEA would somehow make it work? Not exactly a ton of beyond connection for UA at HKG end, either.

I don't know if that's completely true. Both Asiana and ANA fly to SEA with virtually no partnerships. They have been pretty successful here. But that might just be lucky and some good corporate recognition. I believe if any airline were to enter the SEA-HKG market would be CX. HX would be surprising, but probably not impossible. Of course, these flights would be additions and not sacrificing YVR. I don't think any SEA-HKG flights would affect YVR traffic. We'll just have to wait and see.

Fair enough, although HX's beyond connection network@HKG is still somewhat of a joke with most of its capacity going to mainland China and Japan. Logical connection include BKK, SGN, and maybe HAN. There's the CGK codeshare. That's about it, though. No MNL (Although they're restarting it), no KUL/SIN, or beyond that, India. NH & OZ can also capture mainland China, Taiwan, and of course, their home market. Unless the fare is that cheap, backtracking from HKG to let say, S. Korea or Japan or even Northern China is just not that logical.

I cant see CX starting HKG-SEA anytime soon. if Delta could not do it with good connectivity to/from Seattle i really do not think CX will fair any better even with AS.
CX serves major points in NA which give them really good connecttivity all over the USA and with big Asian hubs such as ICN AND NRT acting as major gateway to N.A, the demand HKG-SEA is not there yet? CX had been considering SEA in the past but it was for freighter service, CX eventually chose PDX. Last i heard from CX is SEA was not on there radar? that was year or so ago and things may have changed and hope i am wrong.
.

CPA62 wrote:

I cant see CX starting HKG-SEA anytime soon. if Delta could not do it with good connectivity to/from Seattle i really do not think CX will fair any better even with AS.
CX serves major points in NA which give them really good connecttivity all over the USA and with big Asian hubs such as ICN AND NRT acting as major gateway to N.A, the demand HKG-SEA is not there yet? CX had been considering SEA in the past but it was for freighter service, CX eventually chose PDX. Last i heard from CX is SEA was not on there radar? that was year or so ago and things may have changed and hope i am wrong.
.

The major difference b/t CX on SEA-HKG vs. DL is that CX will be able to capture SEA-HKG-xxx traffic, something that DL can't. CX doesn't really need that many xxx-SEA-HKG traffic for the route to be successful, either (Look at BOS-HKG, how many connection is there at BOS?)

DL also doesn't have the right plane to fly SEA-HKG. 77E is too big while 332 is right on the edge. DL also doesn't have that many 332s (nor 77E/77L). Yes, the 359 would work, but DL doesn't have that many yet.

HX would not have the lack of plane problem (Tons of 359 coming in, and I'm pretty sure they can spared a 332 or two), nor CX (Most likely they'll operate the route with a 359, since 77W is way too big for the route).

zakuivcustom wrote:

CPA62 wrote:

I cant see CX starting HKG-SEA anytime soon. if Delta could not do it with good connectivity to/from Seattle i really do not think CX will fair any better even with AS.
CX serves major points in NA which give them really good connecttivity all over the USA and with big Asian hubs such as ICN AND NRT acting as major gateway to N.A, the demand HKG-SEA is not there yet? CX had been considering SEA in the past but it was for freighter service, CX eventually chose PDX. Last i heard from CX is SEA was not on there radar? that was year or so ago and things may have changed and hope i am wrong.
.

The major difference b/t CX on SEA-HKG vs. DL is that CX will be able to capture SEA-HKG-xxx traffic, something that DL can't. CX doesn't really need that many xxx-SEA-HKG traffic for the route to be successful, either (Look at BOS-HKG, how many connection is there at BOS?)

DL also doesn't have the right plane to fly SEA-HKG. 77E is too big while 332 is right on the edge. DL also doesn't have that many 332s (nor 77E/77L). Yes, the 359 would work, but DL doesn't have that many yet.

HX would not have the lack of plane problem (Tons of 359 coming in, and I'm pretty sure they can spared a 332 or two), nor CX (Most likely they'll operate the route with a 359, since 77W is way too big for the route).

I tend to agree. It would be somewhat surprising if some airline piped up to replace DL. I think MF could benefit some from DL's cancellation. I just think probability-wise, CX would have the highest probability of flying the SEA-HKG route.

However due to BC adding the 15% reality tax recent, the Chinese presence in the Seattle/Tacoma area is steadily rising. It may become more attractive for CX (or HX) to serve the SEA-HKG market. As I mentioned, we'll see what happens.

zakuivcustom wrote:

.. CX will be able to capture SEA-HKG-xxx traffic, something that DL can't.

???
Obviously, CX provides more connections at HKG, but saying "something that DL can't" is wrong. CZ, GA, and MU both provide connections for DL pax at HKG... and Skyteam, unlike OW, checks baggage through to the destination when the pax travels on multiple reservations. Perhaps CX is still checking bags through for such pax ... but they are not required to do so by OW. In ST, it is a requirement.

Check out the connections.
https://www.flightconnections.com/

WPvsMW wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

.. CX will be able to capture SEA-HKG-xxx traffic, something that DL can't.

???
Obviously, CX provides more connections at HKG, but saying "something that DL can't" is wrong. CZ and MU both provide connections for DL pax at HKG... and Skyteam, unlike OW, checks baggage through to the destination when the pax travels on multiple reservations. Perhaps CX is still checking bags through for such pax ... but they are not required to do so by OW. In ST, it is a requirement.

Wait! Does CZ and MU have a widespread connection opportunity at HKG. I thought those two airlines were more present at SZX and CAN.

MU has 8 routes from HKG, 13 from SZX, and a ton from CAN. CZ also serves all three airports (including SVO, MEL, and SYD from SZX).

Its a shame that DL is dropping SEA-HKG. Their flights were consistently pretty full, however it wasn't timed well for connections on the HKG side. I was encouraged when DL switched the flight from a 332 to a 777, but that is probably because the plane flying SEA-HKG flows in as CDG-SEA, so the 777 was to benefit the CDG side of the flow board instead of HKG. DL seems to also not have as deep of roots in HKG as UA does. I would say most of DL's HKG traffic came from the cheapest, basic economy fares, rather than the premium traffic. Good for filling planes, but not good for trying to make money.

I could see HX starting SEA-HKG. Their colleague HU loves SEA and does very well with PVG and PEK. SEA would seem like the perfect market for them.

CX is also a possibility, but I would say that they prefer YVR over SEA. The HKG market from YVR seems to be more of a premium market than SEA O&D wise in my opinion, so HX would benefit more than CX. Still, CX and AS have a codeshare so it could still work pretty well.

UA recently shut down its crew base in SEA. By and large, they are not looking at doing anything significant in SEA, besides their maintenance and new aircraft acceptance. If they don't fly LAX-HKG or SEA-NRT, then SEA-HKG would not be in the cards.

LAX772LR wrote:

seabosdca wrote:

If CX can find an extra 1.5 A350 hanging around, it seems like a good opportunity. The 77W is probably too big. I can’t see any other airline for which HKG-SEA would make sense (other than maybe Delta again once they have more A350s, and don’t have to use the comparatively guzzling 772).

Hong Kong Airlines might be interested.... though they might have to prove they can go a month without offering $350 roundtrips on LAX-HKG, before they try a smaller market.

Last time I checked, CX was pretty much matching HX with those fares. Stupid visa reasons, otherwise I'd have booked a weekend trip in a heartbeat!

WPvsMW wrote:

MU has 8 routes from HKG, 13 from SZX, and a ton from CAN. CZ also serves all three airports (including SVO, MEL, and SYD from SZX).

You seriously think people are going to fly SEA-HKG=>SZX-xxx? And why would anybody on Skyteam fly SEA-HKG-Mainland when there are a TON more option going DL SEA-PVG->MU PVG-xxx?

Yes, I'll give you credit that DL's connection oppotunity at HKG is not zero (VN to HAN/SGN or GA to CGK are both possible; or if one really love backtracking for no reason, fly MU back up to YRD region). How much of those traffic DL can capture at HKG, though, especially when DL's other SEA TPAC flights (to PEK/PVG/ICN/NRT) all provide much better connectivity (Yes, including NRT) compare to HKG on Skyteam.

No, I don't think think people are going to fly SEA-HKG=>SZX-xxx, but they can and do connect at HKG from DL to CZ, GA, and MU. The DL feed will end when DL metal no longer feeds HKG of course, but your original statement was wrong, and was corrected.

I'd expect both CX and HX to now prioritise SEA over other cities in the US now that DL is dropping out, thus losing the main competitor on this route. I see SEA is a niche destination but look at how BR manage to fly there so successfully with over 1 daily frequency which is pretty rare for BR amongst its North American destinations. HKG-SEA-HKG also have two key advantages for them 1) is a relatively short route (can be done with just over 1 frame) and 2) can be scheduled to really maximise connections if flown daylight both ways to connect to all of India and a lot of the China and SE Asia ports. For CX in particular, it can offer short and convenient routings into 6 ports in India matched only by EK. In fact, the HKG flight connections can be sold with plenty of connection time buffer to minimise misconnect rate in HKG because HKG-SEA is much shorter than say HKG-LAX and HKG-SFO that currently feeds the same connection bank. On the SEA side, CX can look to get some feeds from AS which is an existing codeshare partner.

mdavies06 wrote:

I'd expect both CX and HX to now prioritise SEA over other cities in the US now that DL is dropping out, thus losing the main competitor on this route. I see SEA is a niche destination but look at how BR manage to fly there so successfully with over 1 daily frequency which is pretty rare for BR amongst its North American destinations. HKG-SEA-HKG also have two key advantages for them 1) is a relatively short route (can be done with just over 1 frame) and 2) can be scheduled to really maximise connections if flown daylight both ways to connect to all of India and a lot of the China and SE Asia ports. For CX in particular, it can offer short and convenient routings into 6 ports in India matched only by EK. In fact, the HKG flight connections can be sold with plenty of connection time buffer to minimise misconnect rate in HKG because HKG-SEA is much shorter than say HKG-LAX and HKG-SFO that currently feeds the same connection bank. On the SEA side, CX can look to get some feeds from AS which is an existing codeshare partner.

I agree that the better connections offered at HKG and the extra feeds from AS are great reasons for this route. The extra connection at SEA could be another reason. I believe an AS codeshare would allow one of the most if not the most one stop destination to the US from HKG. Also with Delta vacating the space, there is probably more O+D demand from SEA than places like DUB or CPH. Finally, while not comparable to YVR, the Asian population is only growing and actually quite quickly

ADent wrote:

UA will not restart SEA-HKG.

SEA is just a spoke these days and they would add more flights from a hub. Unless there was a strong tie in with traffic in SEA (ie AS), a huge contract in SEA that demanded HKG service or maybe a metal neutral JV partner from HKG that demanded service I see no way UA would serve this route.

How many international flights does UA have that doesn't involve a hub? (besides island hopper out of Guam?)

UA flew HKG-SEA-HKG with the B747SP. Did they ever fly HKG-SEA-HKG with the B747-100/200/400? NW flew HKG-SEA-HKG with the B747-200. Did they fly the 400?

Why did they fly HKG-SEA-HKG at the first place?

While it is true that all of CX's A359 are busy with other routes now, if CX is serious with opening SEA using A359, there are plenty of routes that CX can take the A359 from, e.g. the Australia routes using A359 now can easily be switched back to A333. The SFO A359 flight can go back to 77W or go to A35K, so as the YVR A359 flight.

United Airline wrote:

ADent wrote:

UA will not restart SEA-HKG.

SEA is just a spoke these days and they would add more flights from a hub. Unless there was a strong tie in with traffic in SEA (ie AS), a huge contract in SEA that demanded HKG service or maybe a metal neutral JV partner from HKG that demanded service I see no way UA would serve this route.

How many international flights does UA have that doesn't involve a hub? (besides island hopper out of Guam?)

UA flew HKG-SEA-HKG with the B747SP. Did they ever fly HKG-SEA-HKG with the B747-100/200/400? NW flew HKG-SEA-HKG with the B747-200. Did they fly the 400?

Why did they fly HKG-SEA-HKG at the first place?

Did UA inherit the HKG-SEA-HKG route from PA? UA also had a much higher presence at SEA back then.

wedgetail737 wrote:

United Airline wrote:

ADent wrote:

UA will not restart SEA-HKG.

SEA is just a spoke these days and they would add more flights from a hub. Unless there was a strong tie in with traffic in SEA (ie AS), a huge contract in SEA that demanded HKG service or maybe a metal neutral JV partner from HKG that demanded service I see no way UA would serve this route.

How many international flights does UA have that doesn't involve a hub? (besides island hopper out of Guam?)

UA flew HKG-SEA-HKG with the B747SP. Did they ever fly HKG-SEA-HKG with the B747-100/200/400? NW flew HKG-SEA-HKG with the B747-200. Did they fly the 400?

Why did they fly HKG-SEA-HKG at the first place?

Did UA inherit the HKG-SEA-HKG route from PA? UA also had a much higher presence at SEA back then.

UA did not inherit SEA-HKG from PA. UA opened SEA-HKG as one of their first Asian routes, before they acquired PA's Pacific network. The service was started with DC10. I think they dropped SEA-HKG not long after they got PA's Pacific hub at SFO.

NW did SEA-HKG with 744, but then that was replaced by MSP-HKG.

MIflyer12 wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

And being present in YVR means nothing for soembody in SEA. YVR also doesn't even have all that great of a connection network to the USA.

There were 18 flights SEA-YVR yesterday including several that made reasonable MCT onto the CX departure YVR-HKG.

SEA-HKG just isn't YVR-HKG or LAX-HKG.

There were also 5 YVR-HKG flights yesterday in three airlines. SEA-HKG doesn’t have to be LAX or YVR to justify one daily flight.

Newbiepilot wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

And being present in YVR means nothing for soembody in SEA. YVR also doesn't even have all that great of a connection network to the USA.

There were 18 flights SEA-YVR yesterday including several that made reasonable MCT onto the CX departure YVR-HKG.

SEA-HKG just isn't YVR-HKG or LAX-HKG.

There were also 5 YVR-HKG flights yesterday in three airlines. SEA-HKG doesn’t have to be LAX or YVR to justify one daily flight.

That's true. But the discontinuation of SEA-HKG might create other opportunities.

I thought NW only used B747-200s on the HKG-SEA-HKG run. Why did they cut HKG-MSP-HKG?

Newbiepilot wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

And being present in YVR means nothing for soembody in SEA. YVR also doesn't even have all that great of a connection network to the USA.

There were 18 flights SEA-YVR yesterday including several that made reasonable MCT onto the CX departure YVR-HKG.

SEA-HKG just isn't YVR-HKG or LAX-HKG.

There were also 5 YVR-HKG flights yesterday in three airlines. SEA-HKG doesn’t have to be LAX or YVR to justify one daily flight.

It does seem crazy that YVR has five daily flights on three airlines and SFO has five or six dailies on four airlines and a world class Pacific Rim city like Seattle can’t sustain one less than daily...

keep in mind though that just over half those flights are CX which has an incredible regional network to feed it

SFOA380 wrote:

Newbiepilot wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

There were 18 flights SEA-YVR yesterday including several that made reasonable MCT onto the CX departure YVR-HKG.

SEA-HKG just isn't YVR-HKG or LAX-HKG.

There were also 5 YVR-HKG flights yesterday in three airlines. SEA-HKG doesn’t have to be LAX or YVR to justify one daily flight.

It does seem crazy that YVR has five daily flights on three airlines and SFO has five or six dailies on four airlines and a world class Pacific Rim city like Seattle can’t sustain one less than daily...

Well, YVR has the massive Chinese expatriate population that came over before the Commonwealth returned Hong Kong to PRC. SFO has a MUCH larger metro area to support the service and there is very large Cantonese population in the Bay Area. SEA is pretty small compared to the two, but I think it just needs the right airline to serve the market. Apparently, DL is not it.

Lots of Hong Kong people in Seattle but not nearly as many as in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Vancouver, Toronto, New York, Boston etc.

I think even though SEA is global city, great business area (Aviation, Tech, etc...), but notably not really a financial city like the ones mentioned. And there are probably not enough HKers in SEA like Vancouver to support a flight for familial ties. I think the best opportunity here is CX as they can offer onward connections to SIN, Vietnam, other points in ASEAN as well as have some feed support from AS on the US side. DL could not offer much other than O&D, and the closure of this route should demonstrate there is not a lot of O&D between HKG and SEA.

As for HX, I think they'll still target tier 1 cities in North America. They'll have some natural feed on the HKG side, but not much on the SEA side. Hainan Group may end up selling them and HKE because they are overleveraged elsewhere, and the change in management may change perspective. I flew HX last Christmas holidays with the family r/t to Vancouver. It's actually quite a nice experience and the prices cannot be beat.

Kind of a funny thing... About three years ago when the PNW actually had a warm and a very dry winter season, CX hinted at a real possible SEA-HKG route on their FB page. They had a question of "Guess where we are going next" and they had a picture Snoqualmie Summit on the page. Obviously, it never panned out.

United Airline wrote:

Lots of Hong Kong people in Seattle but not nearly as many as in Los Angeles, San Francisco, Vancouver, Toronto, New York, Boston etc.

Is Boston's HKer population (Or, at least Cantonese-speaking population) really that much larger than the one in Seattle? I've always thought they're about the same size.

wedgetail737 wrote:

Well, YVR has the massive Chinese expatriate population that came over before the Commonwealth returned Hong Kong to PRC. SFO has a MUCH larger metro area to support the service and there is very large Cantonese population in the Bay Area. SEA is pretty small compared to the two, but I think it just needs the right airline to serve the market. Apparently, DL is not it.

Add on a little bit, SF's Chinese is much more skewed towards Yue Chinese (Cantonese/Taishanese) speaking than Mandarin-speaking one. There's a reason why SFO doesn't have nearly as many flights to secondary China (Other than UA's CTU flight, but UA build that on its SFO hub rather than 100% O&D) compare to LAX, JFK, or even YVR.

I think the problem with HKG-SEA is that the competing Chinese airlines in the market have driven advanced purchase economy fares down to $500 round trip. SEA doesn’t have the strong financial sector to get last minute business class tickets. Amazon and Boeing are more frugal than financial companies. Amazon makes people fly in economy and Boeing has no problem with having people make connections to save money. When you combine that with the ridiculously cheap competition, profit is hard to come by. DL could Charge higher economy fares flying to Hawaii or New York with the A330 from Seattle.

Newbiepilot wrote:

I think the problem with HKG-SEA is that the competing Chinese airlines in the market have driven advanced purchase economy fares down to $500 round trip. SEA doesn’t have the strong financial sector to get last minute business class tickets. Amazon and Boeing are more frugal than financial companies. Amazon makes people fly in economy and Boeing has no problem with having people make connections to save money. When you combine that with the ridiculously cheap competition, profit is hard to come by. DL could Charge higher economy fares flying to Hawaii or New York with the A330 from Seattle.

Boeing does put up there overseas traveling employees in Business Class. But they are fairly price-conscious on the prices.

raylee67 wrote:

wedgetail737 wrote:

United Airline wrote:

UA flew HKG-SEA-HKG with the B747SP. Did they ever fly HKG-SEA-HKG with the B747-100/200/400? NW flew HKG-SEA-HKG with the B747-200. Did they fly the 400?

Why did they fly HKG-SEA-HKG at the first place?

Did UA inherit the HKG-SEA-HKG route from PA? UA also had a much higher presence at SEA back then.

UA did not inherit SEA-HKG from PA. UA opened SEA-HKG as one of their first Asian routes, before they acquired PA's Pacific network. The service was started with DC10. I think they dropped SEA-HKG not long after they got PA's Pacific hub at SFO.

NW did SEA-HKG with 744, but then that was replaced by MSP-HKG.

I think they ran it for a number of years after the PA acquisition, but eventually transferred the right to SFO and ran daily doubles SFO-HKG. As I recollect, some event in Asia (illness or something) caused them to drop the second flight and it never came back after that event settled down.

Is it possible that the cancellation of DL's HKG-SEA flight will open it up for other Asian flights not necessarily from/through HKG?