With the recent release of US DOT's annual air traffic statistics, we may well do some fact-filled reviewing with regard to China-US air connectivity in 2017, so as to flesh out some of our impressions concerning the market scenario of this country-pair, which has been discussed a lot on A.net here and is often likened to a "bloodbath" by many ppl. Let's take a cold hard look now

Route Passengers YOY PLF Carrier (involving Beijing)
1 PEK-LAX 527,160 +3.2% 81.8% AA CA
2 PEK-SFO 442,834 -7.3% 80.8% UA CA
3 PEK-ORD 352,729 -14.7% 80.8% UA AA HU
4 PEK-JFK 343,426 -1.0% 79.8% CA
5 PEK-SEA 277,115 +1.1% 82.0% DL HU
6 PEK-IAD 266,773 +12.7% 75.0% UA CA
7 PEK-EWR 265,450 -0.9% 83.1% UA CA
8 PEK-BOS 160,136 +23.5% 77.9% HU
9 PEK-DTW 137,754 -4.2% 86.7% DL
10 PEK-DFW 125,145 -4.0% 76.1% AA
11 PEK-IAH 113,752 -7.1% 83.7% CA
12 PEK-HNL 100,860 -4.4% 59.1% HA CA
13 PEK-SPN 85,530 -10.9% 88.5% MU
14 PEK-SJC 81,059 +2.1% 73.5% HU
15 PEK-LAS 36,290 +783.4% 62.7% HU
PEK Total 3,316,013 -0.7% 79.5%

Route Passengers YOY PLF Carrier (involving Shanghai)
1 PVG-LAX 800,200 +0.1% 81.6% UA AA DL MU
2 PVG-SFO 485,950 +19.2% 76.2% UA MU
3 PVG-ORD 386,861 -6.1% 78.7% UA AA MU
4 PVG-JFK 359,129 -3.5% 83.2% MU
5 PVG-DTW 211,800 -3.4% 89.2% DL
6 PVG-SEA 211,412 +10.3% 81.8% DL HU
7 PVG-EWR 166,469 -1.3% 86.2% UA
8 PVG-DFW 131,933 -0.3% 81.3% AA
9 PVG-SPN 115,238 0.0% 93.7% 3U
10 PVG-HNL 108,497 -7.1% 71.4% MU
11 PVG-BOS 61,083 +4.1% 74.7% HU
12 PVG-SJC 48,670 +251.9% 59.8% CA
13 PVG-GUM 14,647 -12.0% 56.5% UA
PVG Total 3,101,889 2.6% 80.4%

Route Passengers YOY PLF Carrier (involving Guangzhou)
1 CAN-LAX 413,126 -4.9% 90.2% CZ
2 CAN-JFK 320,907 +9.6% 88.5% CZ
3 CAN-SFO 126,919 50.7% 87.4% CZ
4 CAN-SPN 55,573 -2.3% 90.6% CZ
CAN Total 916,525 +5.6% 89.2%

Route Passengers YOY PLF Carrier (involving China's tier-2 cities)
1 WUH-SFO 68,644 +11.6% 74.3% CZ
2 FOC-JFK 63,122 — 80.2% MF
3 CTU-SFO 57,010 -8.0% 75.2% UA
4 SZX-SEA 43,449 +277.6% 67.3% MF
5 HGH-SFO* 41,093 +87.3% 66.1% UA
6 NKG-LAX 39,658 -5.2% 54.8% MU
7 TAO-SFO 35,463 +437.9% 50.1% MU
8 XMN-LAX 34,512 — 69.6% MF
9 CSX-LAX 34,023 +3.1% 69.7% HU
10 HGH-LAX 31,087 +691.8% 60.8% 3U
11 TNA-LAX 31,030 +1,320% 56.9% 3U
12 CTU-LAX 24,719 — 62.4% HU
13 CKG-LAX 22,996 — 61.4% HU
14 XIY-SFO* 22,937 -6.4% 69.7% UA
15 HGH-SPN 18,630 — 80.5% JD
16 CKG-JFK 5,826 — 48.2% HU
17 SZX-LAX 5,114 — 76.0% CA
18 CTU-JFK 4,251 — 36.9% HU
19 TAO-LAX 4,010 — 77.6% MF
20 NKG-SPN* 1,903 — 66.6% XP
Tier-2 Total 589,477 +119.2% 66.1%
Sino-US Total 7,923,904 +5.6% 79.7%

Top 10 US-China Routes by 2017 Pax Counts
Route Passengers YOY PLF Carrier
1 LAX-PVG 800,200 +0.1% 81.6% UA AA DL MU
2 LAX-PEK 527,160 +3.2% 81.8% AA CA
3 SFO-PVG 485,950 +19.2% 76.2% UA MU
4 SFO-PEK 442,834 -7.3% 80.8% UA CA
5 LAX-CAN 413,126 -4.9% 90.2% CZ
6 ORD-PVG 386,861 -6.1% 78.7% UA AA MU
7 JFK-PVG 359,129 -3.5% 83.2% MU
NYC (JFK+EWR)—PVG= 525,598
8 ORD-PEK 352,729 -14.7% 80.8 UA AA HU
9 JFK-PEK 343,426 -1.0% 79.8% CA
NYC (JFK+EWR)—PEK= 60,8876
10 JFK-CAN 320,907 +9.6% 88.5% CZ

Notes:
• All the numbers and lists presented above are based on my re-curation of what others have curated from raw data derived from US DOT's recently released T-100 Report for 2017. Credit to 中国商飞C919 @bbs.feeyo.com
• The stats include scheduled service only, both ways combined, excluding HKG/TPE
• Routes that were discontinued during 2017 are marked with an asterisk *
• Slight inaccuracy may exist somewhere, but overall stats reliability can be guaranteed

What do you think of these statistics and numbers? Any observations or thoughts? Or surprises?

How were you able to calculate the load factors, and would it be possible to do the same for HKG/TPE just for comparison? Thanks.

UA didn’t do so bad on the two routes they cut (relatively speaking!). I knew the loads to the 2nd tier cities was bad, but WOW! These are also routes that are only flown 2-3 times per week generally which makes it even worse. I would also expect the loads on WUH-SFO to be far lighter considering this is the only 77W route on the list. Also amazing that the entirety of service to 2nd tier cities is only slightly more than PEK-LAX. WOW!

It would be interesting to see what’s going on up in Vancouver...

SFOA380 wrote:

Also amazing that the entirety of service to 2nd tier cities is only slightly more than PEK-LAX. WOW!

Keep in mind most of these routes are 2-3 weekly with A330-200s

Good to see a healthy load factor on IAH-PEK

Based on this data, I'd advise CA to cut SJC-PVG, MU to drop flying to the U.S. from anywhere but PVG, HU to pull out of JFK, and 3U to pull out of the U.S. altogether!

If those routes were cut, I wonder how that would change the picture for the rest of these U.S.-China routes? LAX-CTU/CKG aren't looking too hot either, and HNL-PEK is surprisingly bad.

Another observation: DTW and EWR both have really good loads to PEK and PVG.

I do wonder if the numbers for 2018 will be as bad... A lot of the routes to secondary cities started last year.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

SFOA380 wrote:

Also amazing that the entirety of service to 2nd tier cities is only slightly more than PEK-LAX. WOW!

Keep in mind most of these routes are 2-3 weekly with A330-200s

Yep... that's the so called "point to point" fragmentation of the network changing the face of the transpacific...

JustSomeDood wrote:

How were you able to calculate the load factors, and would it be possible to do the same for HKG/TPE just for comparison? Thanks.

It's off T100 data. The original table was compiled by somebody in a Chinese Aviation forum anyway.

As for HKG & TPE (I haven't look at 2016 data, so I don't have YoY number)
TPE:
1. TPE-LAX 982,751 80.7% CI BR
2. TPE-SFO 879,392 81.2% CI BR UA
3. TPE-JFK 457,938 80.5% CI BR
4. TPE-SEA 260,863 77.9% BR
5. TPE-IAH 178,124 77.5% BR
6. TPE-ORD 121,023 70.1% BR
7. TPE-HNL 86,046 86.2% CI
8. TPE-GUM 69,973 72.0% CI
TPE TOTAL: 3,036,110 79.8%

HKG: (Remember, no HX yet as they only start flying to LAX and SFO this year)
1. HKG-SFO 874,328 81.5% CX UA SQ
2. HKG-LAX 801,462 83.5% CX AA
3. HKG-JFK 487,361 84.3% CX
4. HKG-EWR 331,036 79.4% CX UA
5. HKG-ORD 316,217 81.5% CX UA
6. HKG-DFW 189,305 84.7% AA
7. HKG-BOS 155,792 86.3% CX
8. HKG-SEA 127,184 84.4% DL (Ending in Oct 2018)
9. HKG-SPN 80,146 81.6% HX UO
10. HKG-GUM 50,559 69.1% UA UO (UO Ended the service sometimes in the middle of the year)
HKG TOTAL: 3,413,390 82.4%

GUM load is awful for both TPE and HKG. The NK threat (Seems like a long time ago now ) didn't help traffic to/from the island in 2017, though, although I don't have the YoY to really show whether that's really the case.

Otherwise, the only other route that's doing really bad is BR's TPE-ORD. Not very surprising as ORD is having a TPAC overcapacity right now. The only other note? DL's HKG-SEA is not even doing that bad in terms of load factor, despite all the reports of "empty flights".

As for mainland - all I'll say is, secondary China load is definitely god awful. UA's SFO-CTU is also getting hurt by the much increases in non-stop to/from CTU. The only "secondary China" route that's doing good is MF's FOC-JFK, and that's purely b/c of the insane amount of Fuzhouese people in NYC.

FSDan wrote:

HNL-PEK is surprisingly bad.

Poor performance for HNL-PEK isn't at all surprising. Business ties are very weak and it's a crummy tourism market because Chinese nationals must have a visa to enter the U.S. (the converse is also true but I expect tourism from Hawaii to China to be near-negligible). Two carriers on the route are too many.

zakuivcustom wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

TPE:
1. TPE-LAX 982,751 80.7% CI BR
2. TPE-SFO 879,392 81.2% CI BR UA
3. TPE-JFK 457,938 80.5% CI BR
4. TPE-SEA 260,863 77.9% BR
5. TPE-IAH 178,124 77.5% BR
6. TPE-ORD 121,023 70.1% BR
7. TPE-HNL 86,046 86.2% CI
8. TPE-GUM 69,973 72.0% CI
TPE TOTAL: 3,036,110 79.8%

As a regular SFO-TPE flyer, it's cool to see this data. CI and BR seem to do a great job managing these flights. Perfect flight times, and just the right blend of point-to-point and tourists heading to other destinations in Southeast Asia. UA's flight times are horrible and I can't understand why anyone would choose them (especially given the sad state of Mileage Plus and Economy Plus). I haven't subjected myself to the horrors of UA SFO-TPE, but I'll bet the load factor on UA is bringing down the overall number.

As for SJC to PEK/PVG (or even LH to Frankfurt)...why? I love seeing the A330s A340s and 787s banking for a landing, but the prices and times just don't come close to the options from SFO.

MRYapproach wrote:

As a regular SFO-TPE flyer, it's cool to see this data. CI and BR seem to do a great job managing these flights. Perfect flight times, and just the right blend of point-to-point and tourists heading to other destinations in Southeast Asia. UA's flight times are horrible and I can't understand why anyone would choose them (especially given the sad state of Mileage Plus and Economy Plus). I haven't subjected myself to the horrors of UA SFO-TPE, but I'll bet the load factor on UA is bringing down the overall number.

You have it backwards. Mileage Plus and Economy Plus are exactly the reasons why somebody would fly UA to TPE/HKG/etc. For a UA frequent flyer, the mileage earnings on a UA J ticket are untouched by BR (not to mention the PQMs,) and an economy plus seat is better than regular economy on another airline for many/most people.

Zoedyn, thanks for your work in adapting and posting the data. With more Chinese regional operators getting WBs, do you think the CN4 will match the regionals' routes to US destinations? There are traffic rights available under the current bilateral, but not slots ... except at non-Zone airports, airports that the regionals could use ... to LAX, NYC, etc.

MRYapproach wrote:

I haven't subjected myself to the horrors of UA SFO-TPE, but I'll bet the load factor on UA is bringing down the overall number.

Not really, at least according to T100 data, the load factor are even across all carriers (UA 81.15%, CI 81.16%, BR 81.25%).

MRYapproach wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

JustSomeDood wrote:

TPE:
1. TPE-LAX 982,751 80.7% CI BR
2. TPE-SFO 879,392 81.2% CI BR UA
3. TPE-JFK 457,938 80.5% CI BR
4. TPE-SEA 260,863 77.9% BR
5. TPE-IAH 178,124 77.5% BR
6. TPE-ORD 121,023 70.1% BR
7. TPE-HNL 86,046 86.2% CI
8. TPE-GUM 69,973 72.0% CI
TPE TOTAL: 3,036,110 79.8%

As a regular SFO-TPE flyer, it's cool to see this data. CI and BR seem to do a great job managing these flights. Perfect flight times, and just the right blend of point-to-point and tourists heading to other destinations in Southeast Asia. UA's flight times are horrible and I can't understand why anyone would choose them (especially given the sad state of Mileage Plus and Economy Plus). I haven't subjected myself to the horrors of UA SFO-TPE, but I'll bet the load factor on UA is bringing down the overall number.

As for SJC to PEK/PVG (or even LH to Frankfurt)...why? I love seeing the A330s A340s and 787s banking for a landing, but the prices and times just don't come close to the options from SFO.

So that people don't have to drive to freaking San Francisco for everything? SJC is close to many Silicon Valley companies?

GoSharks wrote:

MRYapproach wrote:

As a regular SFO-TPE flyer, it's cool to see this data. CI and BR seem to do a great job managing these flights. Perfect flight times, and just the right blend of point-to-point and tourists heading to other destinations in Southeast Asia. UA's flight times are horrible and I can't understand why anyone would choose them (especially given the sad state of Mileage Plus and Economy Plus). I haven't subjected myself to the horrors of UA SFO-TPE, but I'll bet the load factor on UA is bringing down the overall number.

You have it backwards. Mileage Plus and Economy Plus are exactly the reasons why somebody would fly UA to TPE/HKG/etc. For a UA frequent flyer, the mileage earnings on a UA J ticket are untouched by BR (not to mention the PQMs,) and an economy plus seat is better than regular economy on another airline for many/most people.

Isn’t/wasn’t TPE on UA a 77W route?

I flew W on BR and was tremendously disappointed. My experience on NH was so much better. If you’re flying Y, I’d think UA would be pretty competitive if you’re a UA FF. I won’t be doing BR again unless in J, which is absolutely outstanding.

jetero wrote:

GoSharks wrote:

MRYapproach wrote:

As a regular SFO-TPE flyer, it's cool to see this data. CI and BR seem to do a great job managing these flights. Perfect flight times, and just the right blend of point-to-point and tourists heading to other destinations in Southeast Asia. UA's flight times are horrible and I can't understand why anyone would choose them (especially given the sad state of Mileage Plus and Economy Plus). I haven't subjected myself to the horrors of UA SFO-TPE, but I'll bet the load factor on UA is bringing down the overall number.

You have it backwards. Mileage Plus and Economy Plus are exactly the reasons why somebody would fly UA to TPE/HKG/etc. For a UA frequent flyer, the mileage earnings on a UA J ticket are untouched by BR (not to mention the PQMs,) and an economy plus seat is better than regular economy on another airline for many/most people.

Isn’t/wasn’t TPE on UA a 77W route?

I flew W on BR and was tremendously disappointed. My experience on NH was so much better. If you’re flying Y, I’d think UA would be pretty competitive if you’re a UA FF. I won’t be doing BR again unless in J, which is absolutely outstanding.

Yes, it is a 77w route. The J seat is very competitive with any Asian airline.

Sorry to budge in but is it possible to get similar data for India-US routes/sctors anywhere? Thanks

ncflyer wrote:

Given that round trip airfares from much of the USA to China can be had for $600 or therabputs during much of the year I think these loads are horrible. So let’s see flights from ORD to China are 80% full, many of the pax also have a connecting flight which adds cost to the journey, and fares are cheaper—— much cheaper—— than Europe, Japan, S Am, or heck even the Caribbean for much of the year. Can’t be healthy.

YES...THIS. Somebody is losing money on many of these fares. It would be nice to turn an NRT layover into a Tokyo vacation with my SO but the economy faires SFO-NRT are near $1500 every time we look. But fly SFO to inland China for $600 non-stop? Neither situation seems like a smart long-term play. I'm more curious if BR and CI are profitable at the $900 economy fares they post for about 40 weeks per year.

It's all a house of cards in which we, the flying public...win! It's ironic that airlines are reliably profitable for the first time in my 43 year lfetime, but you never have to look far to find an airline willing to burn cash. Amen!

zakuivcustom wrote:

MRYapproach wrote:

I haven't subjected myself to the horrors of UA SFO-TPE, but I'll bet the load factor on UA is bringing down the overall number.

Not really, at least according to T100 data, the load factor are even across all carriers (UA 81.15%, CI 81.16%, BR 81.25%).

That's amazing! So UA/BR/CI ALL hit betwen 81.15% and 81.25% LF? That's some good artificial intelligence, plus a truly free economy...unlike the mainland stuff. Or it's collusion...another artifact of free markets.

Maybe a lot of Americans prefer to the "comfort" of a sh*tty American meal over the Pacific? GROSS.

GoSharks wrote:

MRYapproach wrote:

As a regular SFO-TPE flyer, it's cool to see this data. CI and BR seem to do a great job managing these flights. Perfect flight times, and just the right blend of point-to-point and tourists heading to other destinations in Southeast Asia. UA's flight times are horrible and I can't understand why anyone would choose them (especially given the sad state of Mileage Plus and Economy Plus). I haven't subjected myself to the horrors of UA SFO-TPE, but I'll bet the load factor on UA is bringing down the overall number.

You have it backwards. Mileage Plus and Economy Plus are exactly the reasons why somebody would fly UA to TPE/HKG/etc. For a UA frequent flyer, the mileage earnings on a UA J ticket are untouched by BR (not to mention the PQMs,) and an economy plus seat is better than regular economy on another airline for many/most people.

You have it backwards. I fly SFO-TPE so often, and United domestic Y miles are so tight-fisted, that I'm full-gas EVA InfinityLands. I'm up to Gold status in less than 24 months, and I just enjoyed my second F/J upgrade in a row. When you are enjoying the extra pitch of Economy Plus, I will be enjoying the 2-4-2 seating, separate cabin, and separate menu in BR Elite (W). Which qualifies me for an F/J upgrade every 3 flights. Which is shockingly awesome. Also, awesome lounge access on all SA partners.

AirFiero wrote:

MRYapproach wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

As a regular SFO-TPE flyer, it's cool to see this data. CI and BR seem to do a great job managing these flights. Perfect flight times, and just the right blend of point-to-point and tourists heading to other destinations in Southeast Asia. UA's flight times are horrible and I can't understand why anyone would choose them (especially given the sad state of Mileage Plus and Economy Plus). I haven't subjected myself to the horrors of UA SFO-TPE, but I'll bet the load factor on UA is bringing down the overall number.

As for SJC to PEK/PVG (or even LH to Frankfurt)...why? I love seeing the A330s A340s and 787s banking for a landing, but the prices and times just don't come close to the options from SFO.

So that people don't have to drive to freaking San Francisco for everything? SJC is close to many Silicon Valley companies?

Nah, once you are rolling on the freeway, SFO is only 25 minutes further. Since most Asia flights leave late at night, traffic isn't really a problem. Plus a huge % of the passengers are coming from the north including SF itself, it's a no-brainer for them. If it was noticeably cheaper, maybe then I would consider it. But better flight times and more way more options mean SFO will always win.

jetero wrote:

GoSharks wrote:

MRYapproach wrote:

As a regular SFO-TPE flyer, it's cool to see this data. CI and BR seem to do a great job managing these flights. Perfect flight times, and just the right blend of point-to-point and tourists heading to other destinations in Southeast Asia. UA's flight times are horrible and I can't understand why anyone would choose them (especially given the sad state of Mileage Plus and Economy Plus). I haven't subjected myself to the horrors of UA SFO-TPE, but I'll bet the load factor on UA is bringing down the overall number.

You have it backwards. Mileage Plus and Economy Plus are exactly the reasons why somebody would fly UA to TPE/HKG/etc. For a UA frequent flyer, the mileage earnings on a UA J ticket are untouched by BR (not to mention the PQMs,) and an economy plus seat is better than regular economy on another airline for many/most people.

Isn’t/wasn’t TPE on UA a 77W route?

I flew W on BR and was tremendously disappointed. My experience on NH was so much better. If you’re flying Y, I’d think UA would be pretty competitive if you’re a UA FF. I won’t be doing BR again unless in J, which is absolutely outstanding.

Really? BR W is my go-to. Perhaps my standards are not the same as yours. Big chair, lots of legroom, decent menu with nice drinks, separate cabin. For $500 more than Y, BR W is my lifeline.

MRYapproach wrote:

GoSharks wrote:

MRYapproach wrote:

As a regular SFO-TPE flyer, it's cool to see this data. CI and BR seem to do a great job managing these flights. Perfect flight times, and just the right blend of point-to-point and tourists heading to other destinations in Southeast Asia. UA's flight times are horrible and I can't understand why anyone would choose them (especially given the sad state of Mileage Plus and Economy Plus). I haven't subjected myself to the horrors of UA SFO-TPE, but I'll bet the load factor on UA is bringing down the overall number.

You have it backwards. Mileage Plus and Economy Plus are exactly the reasons why somebody would fly UA to TPE/HKG/etc. For a UA frequent flyer, the mileage earnings on a UA J ticket are untouched by BR (not to mention the PQMs,) and an economy plus seat is better than regular economy on another airline for many/most people.

You have it backwards. I fly SFO-TPE so often, and United domestic Y miles are so tight-fisted, that I'm full-gas EVA InfinityLands. I'm up to Gold status in less than 24 months, and I just enjoyed my second F/J upgrade in a row. When you are enjoying the extra pitch of Economy Plus, I will be enjoying the 2-4-2 seating, separate cabin, and separate menu in BR Elite (W). Which qualifies me for an F/J upgrade every 3 flights. Which is shockingly awesome. Also, awesome lounge access on all SA partners.

How do I have it backwards? I'm saying that the only reason you would fly United over BR is that UA actually has elite benefits on SFO-TPE. If a UA FF flies BR, they get basically nothing.

Unless you are dedicated to flying to TPE from the US, an elite FF is most likely building status on United if they fly *A. Thus, the United flight is attractive because of the MP benefits that are not realized on BR.

MP is exactly the reason I've flown SFO-HKG 4 times in the past year in J, over CX or SQ. As a 1k, I get well over double the redeemable miles on UA as compared to flying BR or SQ.

What about cargo - do many of these routes take a good amount of freight, reducing the reliance on passenger traffic?

Cheers,

C.

MRYapproach wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

MRYapproach wrote:

As a regular SFO-TPE flyer, it's cool to see this data. CI and BR seem to do a great job managing these flights. Perfect flight times, and just the right blend of point-to-point and tourists heading to other destinations in Southeast Asia. UA's flight times are horrible and I can't understand why anyone would choose them (especially given the sad state of Mileage Plus and Economy Plus). I haven't subjected myself to the horrors of UA SFO-TPE, but I'll bet the load factor on UA is bringing down the overall number.

As for SJC to PEK/PVG (or even LH to Frankfurt)...why? I love seeing the A330s A340s and 787s banking for a landing, but the prices and times just don't come close to the options from SFO.

So that people don't have to drive to freaking San Francisco for everything? SJC is close to many Silicon Valley companies?

Nah, once you are rolling on the freeway, SFO is only 25 minutes further. Since most Asia flights leave late at night, traffic isn't really a problem. Plus a huge % of the passengers are coming from the north including SF itself, it's a no-brainer for them. If it was noticeably cheaper, maybe then I would consider it. But better flight times and more way more options mean SFO will always win.

I've lived in the south bay for over 40 years. It SELDOM is only 25 minutes from SJC to SFO. And that assumes you live next to SJC. I live an hour south of there.

By your logic, we should close all airports but the biggest one in the region, since it has the most travel options.

planemanofnz wrote:

What about cargo - do many of these routes take a good amount of freight, reducing the reliance on passenger traffic?

Cheers,

C.

BR SFO is cargo heavy. Lots and lots of cargo on the flights(all 77W with full bellies). SFO is a cash cow for BR, who managed to push CI to just 1x daily. The J cabin loads are around 85-90% the whole year with lots of last minute purchases.

BR will be starting 3x daily tomorrow(24JUN18).