Tpaewr From United States of America, joined May 2001, 440 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4239 times:
NW is much larger than CO in Asia, with daily widebody service across the region. CO offers mostly limited service on 738s. OTH CO offers more direct US-Asia service than NW, who focuses on Japan.
RwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3024 posts, RR: 2 Reply 2, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4183 times:
CO's service is just about worthless for most people living in the mainland US. Connections are possible, but with multiple stops, and haphazard frequencies. Plus the 737s have much less capacity.
NW's flights are mostly widebody, and there are multiple US gateways. There's no more than 2 connections for most pax in the US.
From HNL:
Chuuk, Guam, Kosrae, Kwajalein, Majuro, Nagoya-Centrair, Pohnpei
They also operate some point to point routes.
What about CO's flights from Houston to Tokyo, and from Newark to Tokyo, Hong Kong, Beijing, Delhi and Mumbai (and, technically, TLV)?
Quoting RwSEA (Reply 2): CO's service is just about worthless for most people living in the mainland US. Connections are possible, but with multiple stops, and haphazard frequencies. Plus the 737s have much less capacity
Worthless is a rather strong word.......firstly, the poster omitted the services out of EWR and IAH that I mentioned above and, secondly, the Micronesia services are designed to serve the populations of the Pacific Islands.
Of course, NW has a larger Asian route system and is "blessed" with its Tokyo hub, but NW competes head to head with other US plus Asian carriers on key routes across the Pacific; CO's Micronesia service is an entirely different type of niche operation with little or no competition. Its really comparing apples to oranges.
Tpaewr From United States of America, joined May 2001, 440 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4071 times:
Quoting RwSEA (Reply 2): CO's service is just about worthless for most people living in the mainland US. Connections are possible, but with multiple stops, and haphazard frequencies.
That is an absurd statement since the bulk of the populationof the US lives on the East coast and can make single conx over EWR or IAH to the collection of cities names by Dutchjet. Most of which NW would require 2 conx to reach, if they even service the market at all.
Burnsie28 From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 7421 posts, RR: 9 Reply 5, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 3899 times:
Most of Continental Micronesia service, which is still a seperate airline mind you, much like Copa, offers often non-daily service to many destinations. Finally those destinations out of Guam are next to impossible to make from the mainland, I have tried searching for flights to Cairns on Contienntal from the mainland and it doesnt ever come up with anything. Finally, CO doesn't really serve more non-stop destinations from EWR, sure PEK and HKG, plus Tokyo. Finally, NW serves from DTW, Nagoya, Osaka, and Tokyo, with soon added service to Shanghai.
"Some People Just Know How To Fly"- Best slogan ever, RIP NW 1926-2009
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 6, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 16 hours ago) and read 3715 times:
Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 5): Finally, CO doesn't really serve more non-stop destinations from EWR, sure PEK and HKG, plus Tokyo. Finally, NW serves from DTW, Nagoya, Osaka, and Tokyo, with soon added service to Shanghai
I not sure what you are trying to say here......but every day a CO 777 flies from EWR to NRT,HKG,PEK,DEL,BOM (and 2X EWR-TLV) and from IAH to NRT. And CO will be adding EWR-PVG at the same time that NW will add service on DTW-PVG.
No one is disputing that NW is bigger than CO to Asia, a simple question was asked by the original poster, who happened to forget that CO offers nonstops from IAH and EWR to several very key Asian cities, aside from flying the long standing AirMike services and the newer HNL-NGO route (a route that NW once flew, by the way). NW is the larger carrier to Asia, just as CO is the larger carrier to Europe and Latin America. And, as I mentioned before, NW is ""blessed"" with a hub at NRT which is a rather unique advantage.
Omitting key CO nonstops to Asian cities and dismissing CO's AirMike services as "worthless" really does not lead to fair comparisons, does it?
AlexPorter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 3686 times:
I did some research a couple of weeks ago on intercontinental routes of U.S. airlines. Just in terms of destination served only (not number of seats or number of routes), here are the top two (or one, in the case of Africa) airlines for intercontinental services for each continent:
Europe:
1. Delta
2. Continental
Africa:
1. Delta
South America:
1. American
2. Continental
Australia:
1. United
2. Hawaiian
Asia:
1. Northwest
2. Continental
Overall:
1. Continental
2. American
(side note: Back before Deregulation, Pan Am was the only U.S. airline serving several continents, while TWA also served Europe, Braniff also served South America, and Northwest also served Asia).
But to answer your question, yes Northwest is bigger. I think a better debate would be who is bigger between Continental and United. Continental serves more Asian destinations, but United most likely has more seats and has more direct mainland U.S. - Asia routes.
Just curious but where did these figures come from? I know NW has long been the leader to Asia, but UA should be #2 in pax. According to the October issue of ATW magazine, traffic for Jan-May 2007 from DOT numbers (it says all services) gives NW 2,224,000 pax. UA is second at 1,980,000 pax. CO comes in a very distant 4th at 260,000 pax. (behind AA at 354,000). I assume this includes CO's services from GUM. Even if it does not, no way would the GUM/Air Mike flights add an additional 1.7 million pax.
Avek00 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 4094 posts, RR: 18 Reply 9, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3485 times:
No need for A.netters to decide this question when NWA is the clear winner.
Sparkingwave From South Korea, joined Jun 2005, 668 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3466 times:
Why is UA missing from your thread? The question should be about UA and NW, excluding CO...
You can't simply judge larger just from the number destinations served. What if I don't always want to connect through Japan or Guam? If I judge your thread by the criteria of the most USA mainland to Asia nonstops, then the clear winner is UA.
[Edited 2007-10-27 07:31:48]
Flights to the moon and all major space stations. At Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit!
SkyyMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 11, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 3438 times:
Quoting Sparkingwave (Reply 10): You can't simply judge larger just from the number destinations served
The number of Air Mike (I know they don't call it that any more, but that's what it will always be to me) obviously inflate CO's total number of destinations. However many of those destinations, such as Kosrae, Majuro, Truk, and Yap get less than daily frequencies with 738's. Also as been posted, it's REALLY hard to book a reservation from the mainland to some destinations because it's going to take a minimum of two plane changes. Me personally, I'd love to take the old HNL-GUM route with multiple stops enroute. Still NW and UA are obviously the big two, and that's not likely to change for eons.
USAirALB From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2681 posts, RR: 1 Reply 12, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 3240 times:
Continental has a total of 30 Asian/Pacific destinations. NW has a total of 16 Asian/Pacific destinations.
Continental wins Asia.
For Europe:
Contiental has total of 28 Europe destinations. NWA has a total of 5.
The size of an airline is not measured in the number of cities it serves, it is measured in the number of RPK's an airline flies. So your logic is incorrect. Plain and simple.
Letsgetwet From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 609 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2997 times:
Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 13):
The size of an airline is not measured in the number of cities it serves, it is measured in the number of RPK's an airline flies. So your logic is incorrect. Plain and simple.
So with that logic , if airline A only only serves 2 destinations and carries 1000 pax/day .....and airline B serves 10 destinations and carries 999 pax/day.... airline A is bigger than B?
Dutchjet From Netherlands, joined Oct 2000, 7864 posts, RR: 58 Reply 15, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 2884 times:
What a silly discussion......while CO serves more destinations in Asia, NW clearly tranports more pax to/from and within Asia. Is that so hard to understand?
RwSEA From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3024 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2741 times:
Quoting Dutchjet (Reply 3): Worthless is a rather strong word.......firstly, the poster omitted the services out of EWR and IAH that I mentioned above and, secondly, the Micronesia services are designed to serve the populations of the Pacific Islands.
Quoting Tpaewr (Reply 4): That is an absurd statement since the bulk of the populationof the US lives on the East coast and can make single conx over EWR or IAH to the collection of cities names by Dutchjet. Most of which NW would require 2 conx to reach, if they even service the market at all.
Worthless might be a little harsh, but as others have pointed out, if you're coming from the US mainland then NRT, HKG, PEK, DEL, BOM, and TLV are really your only options on CO. NW has many more.
SkyyMaster From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 9 hours ago) and read 2728 times:
Quoting Letsgetwet (Reply 14): So with that logic , if airline A only only serves 2 destinations and carries 1000 pax/day .....and airline B serves 10 destinations and carries 999 pax/day.... airline A is bigger than B?
I am going by U.S. Department of Transportation numbers and stated in Air Transport World Magazine (and most other publications) and have been used universally for years as a measure of airline size. You can take numbers lots of ways, number of cities, RPK's, number of aircraft.
Let's take an example within the USA domestically. Based upon the argument that the number of cities served, WN would rank no higher than 7th, behind all the legacies (maybe even lower but I'm not going to count). However, domestically, Southwest flies more pax than anyone, including AA and DL. So who is bigger? Southwest wins in number of pax. In number of RPK's, they rank only 6th because they fly much shorter stage lengths on average.
So, take it for what you will. CO is not the largest airline in Asia, and it is not the largest US airline flying internationally. I'm not slamming them either, I'm a frequent customer, but I know the difference in how to measure. Look it up on a site other than Wiki, they are notorious for being wrong.
IADCA From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2007, 976 posts, RR: 7 Reply 18, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2450 times:
Quoting USAirALB (Thread starter): Which one of these carriers is larger in Asia? You decide!
That all depends on how you define "larger." It could be number of destinations, as you seem to favor, number of actual flights (which could be a lot different given that a lot of the CO flights you listed are less than daily), PAX transported (asses in seats regardless of destination or stage length), RPKs (accounts for length of flight), ASMs, revenue, etc.
I'd personally favor either revenue or ASMs.
Merely having destinations doesn't make you larger. An airline can fly a half-empty 737 to 7 different destinations once a week each and another airline can fly a full 744 to 1 destination 7 times while making more money and hauling more passengers over more miles. To say the first airline is "larger" is a heck of a stretch, especially when it's operating those flights with a subsidiary.
Quoting USAirALB (Reply 12): Continental has a total of 30 Asian/Pacific destinations. NW has a total of 16 Asian/Pacific destinations.
Continental wins Asia.
Of those 30, the vast majority have only 737 service to Guam or island-hops to Guam. Only 3 have service direct service to the mainland US. Only 6 have one-stop service to the US. I believe all of Northwest's have 1-stop to the US. So if what you're really asking is trans-pacific, it's definitely NW. Within Asia, even then it still might be NW based on pax flown, revenue, ASMs, RPKs, etc.
By your "destinations served" argument, Comair, which flies RJs to 96 destinations, is a larger airline worldwide than SQ, which only flies to 64 destinations. Frankly, I find that argument a tad unpersuasive.
SparkingWave From South Korea, joined Jun 2005, 668 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2410 times:
The largest airline to Asia would be UA for another reason - the largest aircraft.. They offer the most flights with 747s and 777s than any other American carrier.
UA wins Asia hands down.
Flights to the moon and all major space stations. At Pan Am, the sky is no longer the limit!
Zeke From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7767 posts, RR: 73 Reply 21, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 2250 times:
Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 17): I am going by U.S. Department of Transportation numbers and stated in Air Transport World Magazine (and most other publications) and have been used universally for years as a measure of airline size. You can take numbers lots of ways, number of cities, RPK's, number of aircraft.
RPK/RTK is the only sensible way to make a comparison, as it normalised to give a comparison on the capacity over the distance flown, and hence cost and yield potential.
More cities with lower RPK/RTKs, may give more options for passengers, but would generally be less profitable than fewer cities and higher RPK/RTKs.
We are addicted to our thoughts. We cannot change anything if we cannot change our thinking – Santosh Kalwar
AlexPorter From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2126 times:
Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 8): Just curious but where did these figures come from?
Quoting SkyyMaster (Reply 8): Again, I think you'd best check your source. ATW places in the following order, for all international services:
As I explicitly said:
Quoting AlexPorter (Reply 7): Just in terms of destination served only (not number of seats or number of routes),
Quoting USAirALB (Reply 12): Continental has a total of 30 Asian/Pacific destinations. NW has a total of 16 Asian/Pacific destinations.
Continental wins Asia.
I was talking about only those destinations not closer to Australia or part of the United States, including territories. However, I was going from memory and I miscounted before (forgot to include places like Marshall Islands, etc). To be more specific, Continental's true Asian destinations as I was counting them: PEK HKG NRT DEL BOM TLV HIJ FUK NGO KIJ OKJ KIX CTS SDJ ICN DPS MNL KWA MAJ TKK KSA PNI YAP ROR: 24 (excluding GUM, Saipan, Cairns)
Northwest: PEK CAN HKG PVG NGO KIX NRT PUS ICN TPE BOM MNL SIN BKK: 14 (excluding GUM, Saipan)
United: PEK HKG PVG NGO KIX NRT ICN TPE SIN BKK SGN KWI: 12
As stated above, even though nobody will read this line before they go criticizing the method I used, I understand that passenger counts or seat counts is probably more important. I was just saying that destinations is another way to measure a carrier's strength on a given continent. Continental has a larger network, but NW or UA may have more seats or more frequencies to the more popular destinations.
IADCA From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2007, 976 posts, RR: 7 Reply 23, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2050 times:
Quoting AlexPorter (Reply 22): I was just saying that destinations is another way to measure a carrier's strength on a given continent.
And according to that rubric, WN's 64 destinations and B6's 54 mean that they are both are less strong or significant (whichever you're claiming) in North America than Comair, which serves 96.
Jetdeltamsy From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 2984 posts, RR: 8 Reply 24, posted (5 years 7 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 2003 times:
Quoting Burnsie28 (Reply 5): Continental Micronesia service, which is still a seperate airline mind you
They operate on separate certificates but are pretty much fully integrated with one another. Ticketing, scheduling, and even staffing are co-mingled.
So while they may be "technically" separate operations, they market themselves and operate as one airline.
Worked for too many airlines to list. Banktupcy after bankruptcy after bankruptcy.
25 Viscount724: Deregulation at that time only affected US domestic routes. There was no general international deregulation as service to every country was regulated
26 Burnsie28: Perhaps you should read better, he clearly stated in terms of destinations
27 AlexPorter: I didn't say it was the only way or the best way. I just said it was a way. In fact, Comair by that measure has a better route network since you can
28 IADCA: And that's entirely fair and a valid reason for saying they have a "better route network," as you're contending. I agree with that. But to use destin
29 SkyyMaster: No, he LISTED the number of destinations flown to. I fail to see anything definitive in the thread starter paragraph that asks "by number of destinat
30 Jamincan: While I agree that the number of pax flown is a better measure of size in a specific market, AlexPorter did clearly state in the second sentence of t
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 2681 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jan 2005, 3024 posts, 
From South Korea, joined Jun 2005, 668 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2007, 976 posts, 
From Hong Kong, joined Dec 2006, 7767 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
