zkncj wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

?

winginit wrote:

Without feed from either AS or DL that sounds like a tall order. Is there any sort of robust local demand to speak of?

Nothing to stop NZ doing a codeshare with AS at SEA. They have gone outside of traditional alliance structures to get feed - e.g. AR at EZE.

Cheers,

C.

Adding to that NZ already uses AS for an domestic feeder, eg they already will sell you an ticket on AS (they aren’t just locked into UA.


They are partnered with CX, TN, VS etc who all aren’t *A, and in the past VA and JL.

NZ does have the feed at the Australian end that would help the flight.

Anything is possible...

ACCS300 wrote:

YYZORD wrote:

If YVR can have direct flights to SYD, MEL, & BNE, SEA can seem viable too and they're double pax compared to YVR. Also AS has partnership with QF which helps them start direct flights to SEA when possible as the possible connections at SEA will be good.

LondonXtreme wrote:

Will QF attempt nonstop flight to SEA?

SEA may have double the pax of YVR but they have a fraction of the international traffic of YVR. SYD, MEL and BNE nonstops have much to do with Whistler. Whistler is the most Australian city outside Australia, it's a massive draw, much of the semi-permanent population in Whistler is from Australia and it's also a massive winter destination for them. The "whistler effect' has also spilled over to much of Metro Vancouver, go to any restaurant or bar in Vancouver and much of the staff is from Australia, same goes for any of the local ski hills around Vancouver. Canada is a Commonwealth Nation and unlike the USA benefits from the 'working holiday' traffic where upon citizens of Australia and work in Canada for up to one year until they're 30. All of these factors fill planes, these flights are a huge success with high LF, AC is already increasing their MEL - YVR frequencies. SEA has none of these factors.

winginit wrote:

zkncj wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

?


Nothing to stop NZ doing a codeshare with AS at SEA. They have gone outside of traditional alliance structures to get feed - e.g. AR at EZE.

Cheers,

C.

Adding to that NZ already uses AS for an domestic feeder, eg they already will sell you an ticket on AS (they aren’t just locked into UA.


They are partnered with CX, TN, VS etc who all aren’t *A, and in the past VA and JL.

NZ does have the feed at the Australian end that would help the flight.

Anything is possible...

I don't disagree that they could strike a deal with AS for feed opportunities, but does that in any way change the demand side of the equation? I'm hard pressed to think of destinations over SEA that can't just as easily be covered over LAX/SFO.

YYZORD wrote:

Just like YVR, SEA would be a better airport to connect in vs SFO or LAX. YVR for example is the fastest way to get from Australia to New York City. SEA being near YVR would have the same effect but they serve destinations like PHL, MCO, FLL, AUS, etc. that YVR doesn't serve so it'll have a greater effect.

winginit wrote:

YYZORD wrote:

Just like YVR, SEA would be a better airport to connect in vs SFO or LAX. YVR for example is the fastest way to get from Australia to New York City. SEA being near YVR would have the same effect but they serve destinations like PHL, MCO, FLL, AUS, etc. that YVR doesn't serve so it'll have a greater effect.

I'm sorry but the NYC argument over SEA just doesn't hold water. Sure, you might save a little bit of time but connecting over LAX/SFO NYC originating/terminating passengers have a swath of lie-flat premium capacity to connect to whereas connecting on say AS over SEA would result in five hours on a 737. Apples to Oranges for the premium traffic that would sustain the long-haul route.

B1168 wrote:

jayunited wrote:

n7371f wrote:

Northwest was studying SEA-SYD with the 787-8 prior to the merger.

DL doesn't have an ideal aircraft for SYD. The 777ER is an awful lot of seats for a new market. The A350 right now is questionable on even doing LAX-SYD and again it's too large. The smaller aircraft in the fleet don't have the range.

What?? Why is the A350 questionable on LAX-SYD? Are you implying the A350 might be to large for DL's needs on this route?
If so I find that hard to believe even though LAX-SYD is extremely competitive, it is DL's only flight to Australia on their metal which means the route not only attracts O&D but DL's entire domestic network feeds this one route. How can the A350 which is more fuel efficient and has a lower operating cost than the 77E be questionable for this route?

If you are correct then that begs the question as to why is DL even flying this route? Also If you are correct then there is no way DL's launches SEA-SYD.

I suspect that DL’s current A359s have lower MTOW, thus less capacity than 77E. Routes this long are extremely demanding on takeoff weight—any lack of fuel, and you divert to NAD or BNE. If DL value cargo this much, their only option goes to 77E.

winginit wrote:

I don't disagree that they could strike a deal with AS for feed opportunities, but does that in any way change the demand side of the equation? I'm hard pressed to think of destinations over SEA that can't just as easily be covered over LAX/SFO.

zkncj wrote:

It's the same with saying do we really need flights from YVR,ORD,IAH,DFW to NZ/AU? LAX/SFO could cover it all technically.

MKIAZ wrote:

B1168 wrote:

jayunited wrote:

What?? Why is the A350 questionable on LAX-SYD? Are you implying the A350 might be to large for DL's needs on this route?
If so I find that hard to believe even though LAX-SYD is extremely competitive, it is DL's only flight to Australia on their metal which means the route not only attracts O&D but DL's entire domestic network feeds this one route. How can the A350 which is more fuel efficient and has a lower operating cost than the 77E be questionable for this route?

If you are correct then that begs the question as to why is DL even flying this route? Also If you are correct then there is no way DL's launches SEA-SYD.

I suspect that DL’s current A359s have lower MTOW, thus less capacity than 77E. Routes this long are extremely demanding on takeoff weight—any lack of fuel, and you divert to NAD or BNE. If DL value cargo this much, their only option goes to 77E.

But DL uses 77L's for SYD.

n7371f wrote:

I am discussing SEA-SYD. 77L is a fine plane for LAX-SYD. Not for SEA.

MKIAZ wrote:

B1168 wrote:

I suspect that DL’s current A359s have lower MTOW, thus less capacity than 77E. Routes this long are extremely demanding on takeoff weight—any lack of fuel, and you divert to NAD or BNE. If DL value cargo this much, their only option goes to 77E.

But DL uses 77L's for SYD.

compensateme wrote:

According to a.net, if DL had taken delivery of the 787, there’d be hundreds of additional routes they could add (or retain). Maybe we should start a new thread drafting DL a letter, because its professionals seemed to have dropped the ball.

compensateme wrote:

According to a.net, if DL had taken delivery of the 787, there’d be hundreds of additional routes they could add (or retain). Maybe we should start a new thread drafting DL a letter, because its professionals seemed to have dropped the ball.

FA9295 wrote:

https://www.routesonline.com/news/38/airlineroute/282874/alaska-airlines-expands-qantas-codeshare-to-australia-from-march-2019/

Alaska Airlines expands Qantas codeshare to Australia from March 2019

This could be something indicative of Qantas possibly launching SEA-Australia nonstop. If the codeshare network continues to strengthen overtime, then maybe it could happen!

KICT wrote:

compensateme wrote:

According to a.net, if DL had taken delivery of the 787, there’d be hundreds of additional routes they could add (or retain). Maybe we should start a new thread drafting DL a letter, because its professionals seemed to have dropped the ball.

It's a good thing they did cancel the order, because NWA selected the Trent 1000 as their engine type...
The "excuse" at the time was that they didn't want to be guinea pigs for "experimental aircraft"; well, so much for that given the introduction of the A350 and A220.
I still think we'll see the 787 in the Delta fleet.