Flighty wrote:

These Asia routes are considered "speculative strategic business." So they are allowed to lose money. But JFK-NRT was around what, 40 years or something like that. Some routes are too competitive to make money. You either fly your flag, at your own cost, or admit it is a charade an get out of there.

I'm a bit surprised Delta didn't suck it up and decide to fly a 77L 5-6x weekly JFK-NRT until the 788s come. I expect that was the hope of the network planners and head of the NYC business. Important corporate accounts. Global image, and all that. But I'm not looking at the data to see how much they're losing on the route.

I've looked at annual reports and don't see representations - let alone consistent year-over-year representations - of profits or margin by IATA region or subregion. It leaves analysts -- professional or a.net armchair -- to speculate where carriers make money today. One could surmise that they're trying to grow in the relatively more profitable regions but that ignores strategic building - tolerating losses today in hopes of making it back and more tomorrow.

enilria wrote:

unlike Europe, DL has not demonstrated they have a superior Asia strategy to the other carriers. I'm sure KE looks at DL and sees them as going backward. I can see why they would not want to surrender management control of their Transpac ops to a carrier that seems in turmoil in the region.

The "superior strategy" is having immunized partners and working TOGETHER to ensure market synergies playing off each others' strengths. Nothing extraordinary.

And it's ridiculous to conclude that DL is the only one suffering in their dispute with KE.
KE was once the market leader between Asia and the USA by an incredible margin: now their growth has essentially ground to a halt, as competing carriers (JL, NH, even CX) continue to close the gap. Now you have the ultra-conservative Japanese doing routes like SAN and BOS, and the likes of CX talking about things like MIA!

KE on the other hand, is reduced to hooking up with outside-alliance carriers like AA, who will always treat them as second-fiddle to immunized partners like JL, as a solution to its connectivity issues.

IrishAyes wrote:

they've gotten virtually everything they've asked for!

Huh???

DL has asked to move its entire NRT operation to HND, and they certainly haven't gotten that.

I was looking up flights between MSP-BKK departing today. DL is crazy with how they route you. One option was to stop in ATL, LAX, NRT. It was going to take over 40 hours! That right there tells you the DL options between the US and Asia are weak.

lavalampluva wrote:

I was looking up flights between MSP-BKK departing today. DL is crazy with how they route you. One option was to stop in ATL, LAX, NRT. It was going to take over 40 hours! That right there tells you the DL options between the US and Asia are weak.

It's an excellent choice for people whose time isn't precious.

In November from MCO, Delta in business is charging ~$7,400 RT to BKK via DTW and ICN. MCO to ICN is ~$3,200 RT. I guess the code share segment ICN to BKK costing them a lot.

I will look at other alternatives.....maybe NOK AIR from Seoul!

jfklganyc wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

codc10 wrote:

I believe these cuts help DL completely absorb the impending retirement of the 747 fleet, too.

I know I just posted this in a few threads up but I cant believe that as much as Delta invests in the NYC markets, with the exception of Canada, South and Central America, they will only fly non-stop on their own metal to Europe. Pretty lame if you ask me. Living in NYC and flying Delta, its hard to believe I will now have to double connect to fly to places such as Singapore if I want to fly Delta metal. Not everyone is going to want to fly Chine Eastern. Speaking of which, that's a pretty big gamble for DL to take, China Eastern to the south pacific through PVG.

You just listed everywhere. Plus the Africa flights. Don't get me wrong, I find it disgraceful for Deltas NYC hub to end and Asia link (without even a codeshare in place) but other than Asia, Delta is pretty well rounded from NYC.

But this is a surprise move.

What's left NYC-TYO now?

NH 2 daily JFK
JL 2 daily JFK
UA 1 daily EWR


Pretty slim pickings for 2 of the largest and most important cities in the world

Maybe that means the fares will be higher then they would have otherwise, so may work out for those remaining.

jetlanta wrote:

This announcement is just one step in a transformation that you can be sure will have many more facets.

It's transformative alright!
Things may look a bit painful Japan wise for DL but it's all part of a changing Asia dynamics. NW was at NRT for decades when Japan was also a more important economic player as compared to China.
DL attempting to throw money at JAL was the Hail Mary. It failed.
Now DL is in the huddle looking at their options. MU/PVG, KE/ICN.
Taking a step back and eliminating JFK-NRT (for the time being maybe) may have some shock value for some but it also serves as a warning/reminder to consumers that a super strong duopoly between the US and Japan (OneWorld and Star) has been in the works and the results are: less competition.
DL must be thinking: if you can't beat them (DOT), join them! Go for the consumer angle all day long.

So TYO sorta becomes the FRA and LHR in Skyteam's network. And PVG and ICN could duke it out for the AMS and CDG role. Problem is, we're not in the 90's anymore. NW and KL were pioneers in a successful JV, supported by their respective governments. Now DL is playing catch up and completely revising Asia strategies.
The US will have to negotiate better with China and get better agreements in favor of US carriers.

KE is what it is. Both sides will have to make concessions if something were to ever come of it. For a country the size of South Korea it's amazing it has two well known international carriers, one of which doesn't seem to have an issue having NH/HND/NRT in the same alliance with them.
Knowing KE may never play ball DL must be leveraging China in spite of lack of open skies.

I'm not concerned about MU's lacklusterness. NW was lackluster. Nothing to write home about. But I do see great potential. DL has options. They see potential in average terminals, average airlines. They're not afraid to put money where their mouth is. Long road though. Gonna be a little bumpy.

MSPNWA wrote:

The loss of NRT's beyond-TYO connections may be what tips the scales for some.

That ship has sailed now.
Even the Beach markets are going to become more pointless for DL over time.
Stock performance and capacity control are key drivers for DL. Connecting a few more dots and key p2p where it makes sense is smart. Leaving other customers stranded is a price they're willing to pay.

In the end, merger mania was all about domestic consolidation and capacity stability and not about acquiring overseas territories.
AA has actually proven that! (growing Asia own metal organically)

lavalampluva wrote:

but DL isn't making it easy.

And you base this on what, exactly?

jumbojet wrote:

DTWPurserBoy wrote:

Ed Bastian has said repeatedly that the new hub for DL in the Pacific will be PVG. .

I hope Ed is confident that PVG will be successful as the new DL Pacific hub. I have flown DL exclusively since 2004, being PM/DM all that time. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I will not fly China Eastern through PVG to the South Pacific for a multitude of reasons and the primary reasons being reliability, service and the lack of an up to date business class product on intra Asia flying.

I have to call BS on this.

China eastern has all angled flat or full flat business class on the A330 fleet, and the narrow body are no worse than what DL offers. Chinese airlines service are not good. But in general its slightly better than US counter part.

The biggest issue with PVG and China aviation in general, its the un-godly delay due to weather and military.

jfklganyc wrote:

Let's not gloss it over, NRT isnt a secondary city in a secondary region of the world. Delta wants to be #1 in the NYC market and they can no longer get you to Asia without a connection. Period. That's a no go for being #1, go to airline.

I don't think that not being able to transport the 80 local PDEWs that Delta has been carrying on JFK-NRT all of the sudden makes Delta a 2nd class carrier in NYC. It may be symbolic, but it isn't extremely substantive. Delta will fly JFK-Asia again, when the opportunity is right.

lavalampluva wrote:

I was looking up flights between MSP-BKK departing today. DL is crazy with how they route you. One option was to stop in ATL, LAX, NRT. It was going to take over 40 hours! That right there tells you the DL options between the US and Asia are weak.

Because Delta's ultimate goal is to get as many people to route through ATL and it doesn't matter how inconvenient it is. Had it happen to me booked ANC-SEA-DTW and was sent an e mail my routing was changed to ANC-ATL-DTW not uncommon and added 3 hours to my journey which I was not happy about.

chiawei wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

DTWPurserBoy wrote:

Ed Bastian has said repeatedly that the new hub for DL in the Pacific will be PVG. .

I hope Ed is confident that PVG will be successful as the new DL Pacific hub. I have flown DL exclusively since 2004, being PM/DM all that time. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I will not fly China Eastern through PVG to the South Pacific for a multitude of reasons and the primary reasons being reliability, service and the lack of an up to date business class product on intra Asia flying.

I have to call BS on this.

China eastern has all angled flat or full flat business class on the A330 fleet, and the narrow body are no worse than what DL offers. Chinese airlines service are not good. But in general its slightly better than US counter part.

The biggest issue with PVG and China aviation in general, its the un-godly delay due to weather and military.

That says a lot right here why would you want to build a hub where the military can dictate delays. One word CHEAP it's probably more cost effective than convenient for the customer. But let's face it convince of travel hasn't been a priority at Delta for a while now. One thing I don't understand is why dismantle a hub at NRT just to build a more out of the way one at PVG it has to be about cot because it certainly defies logic.

This was asked upthread but I don't think it was answered. What becomes of the 777 on JFK-TLV? Will it sit at JFK all day or will it fly a JFK-ATL flight to rotate in and out of the DL 777 network? Or, will TLV ultimately go A330?

chiawei wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

DTWPurserBoy wrote:

Ed Bastian has said repeatedly that the new hub for DL in the Pacific will be PVG. .

I hope Ed is confident that PVG will be successful as the new DL Pacific hub. I have flown DL exclusively since 2004, being PM/DM all that time. I can tell you with 100% certainty that I will not fly China Eastern through PVG to the South Pacific for a multitude of reasons and the primary reasons being reliability, service and the lack of an up to date business class product on intra Asia flying.

I have to call BS on this.

China eastern has all angled flat or full flat business class on the A330 fleet, and the narrow body are no worse than what DL offers. Chinese airlines service are not good. But in general its slightly better than US counter part.

The biggest issue with PVG and China aviation in general, its the un-godly delay due to weather and military.

Not sure about other folks on here, but I certainly don't want to go from a guaranteed flat bed seat, direct aisle access cabin to an old and outdated angled flat bed 2-2-2 configured cabin. Not to mention, China Eastern reviews aren't that stellar. Even those reviews on the new 777-300's aren't that great. Sure, you might get a comfortable seat but the service is reportedly horrible. Also, I have flown through PVG and the airport is a dump. Horrible facilities, difficult to get around and difficult to get help, not very hospitable, absolutely atrocious skyteam lounge, and not that this is a big deal, but was forced to board the DL747 home via air stairs. I can easily see PVG backfiring on Delta and then what? PVG is a complete waste of time, resources and more importantly, money.

jetlanta wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

Let's not gloss it over, NRT isnt a secondary city in a secondary region of the world. Delta wants to be #1 in the NYC market and they can no longer get you to Asia without a connection. Period. That's a no go for being #1, go to airline.

I don't think that not being able to transport the 80 local PDEWs that Delta has been carrying on JFK-NRT all of the sudden makes Delta a 2nd class carrier in NYC. It may be symbolic, but it isn't extremely substantive. Delta will fly JFK-Asia again, when the opportunity is right.

But you are skewing the numbers to fit the point.

80 people starting in NYC to Tokyo. But both are hubs. And there were people from NYC making one stops thru Narita that no longer have a competitive one stop option on Delta to Asia.

And then there are the people up and down the east coast that connected via JFK to get to NRT. Some of that fills into other hubs, some of that is lost.


Point is, they just ceded the NYC Asia market (what little they had of it). And if they are trying to be #1 in NYC and their competitor is offering numerous Asia nonstops, they just showed up to the ballpark to play the big game without a bat.

As for China Eastern...what a joke! People go out of their way to not spend 15 hours in Y on them. Not a Delta substitute.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

MSPNWA wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Sure, but if you're in the twin cities then you are already likely a loyal DL flyer. If DL ends nonstop MSPNRT, do you just throw away your DL allegiance and fly someone else one-stop, or do you simply book DL MSP-SEA/PDX-NRT? I would imagine you'd do the latter. Why wouldn't you?

If flights to Asia are important, DL is steadily becoming less and less attractive. The loss of NRT's beyond-TYO connections may be what tips the scales for some. UA will have far more 1-stop options available via ORD and SFO than DL has via SEA and DTW. And if 2-stops are needed, NH can fill that in much better than DL's partners. At some point you have to feed the cow to milk it. DL isn't doing that to MSP-Asia. Very well might cost them some customers.

Of course it will cost them some customers. Will that cost be higher than retaining MSPNRT?

It won't cost them as much as you think. Since MSP is dominated by DL for domestic flying there isn't many options from MSP. A large percentage of those O&D MSP passengers will just one stop in SEA if they are destined for Asia. I know you hear the gripes about switching loyalties to another carrier. So in reality would YOU do multiple stops on a domestic flight on AA or UA instead of a domestic nonstop on DL because your upset over the TYO cut? Most people won't.

That's the problem with a hub like MSP. They are so dependent on DL and the airline knows it so DL does whatever it wants with minimal losses.

jfklganyc wrote:

And if they are trying to be #1 in NYC and their competitor is offering numerous Asia nonstops,

What competitor? AA doesn't offer anything to Asia on its own metal, and UA being at an airport miles away produces advantages/disadvantages/buffers for either carrier.

klm617 wrote:

Because Delta's ultimate goal is to get as many people to route through ATL and it doesn't matter how inconvenient it is.

Curious: do you consult a magic 8-ball of irrelevant nonsense, before posting?

jumbojet wrote:

was forced to board the DL747 home via air stairs.

*gasp!* ....the horror!

LAX772LR wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

And if they are trying to be #1 in NYC and their competitor is offering numerous Asia nonstops,

What competitor? AA doesn't offer anything to Asia on its own metal, and UA being at an airport miles away produces advantages/disadvantages/buffers for either carrier.

klm617 wrote:

Because Delta's ultimate goal is to get as many people to route through ATL and it doesn't matter how inconvenient it is.

Curious: do you consult a magic 8-ball of irrelevant nonsense, before posting?

jumbojet wrote:

was forced to board the DL747 home via air stairs.

*gasp!* ....the horror!

If you know anything about Manhattan geography you'll realize JFK is further from midtown Manhattan than EWR is, so your comment about UA being miles away is baseless when the actual fact is that UA flies the nonstops from somewhere even more convenient for travelers in midtown and Wall Street.

This just means DL needs to accept the 787s.

Seriously, there are much better options. DL will have to partner with China Eastern or China Southern. Or... fix the relationship with KE.

commavia wrote:

Flighty wrote:

Now, it's done, so their NRT hub is going to fall apart.

Again, the NRT hub was steadily falling apart anyway.

Delta is obviously trying to frame all of this as being a result of HND daytime slots but of course Delta (and before it even Northwest) have/had been steadily pulling capacity out of NRT for well over a decade before HND even opened up.

Sadly I must agree the hub was doomed. There are just too many better options and with UA/ANA having a JV... It is tough to compete without the added revenue of the connections. Even the JV partners at NRT often lacked connections timed when customers want to fly.

We're in a bit of a downturn where longhaul revenue has softened. The weaker hubs will suffer first.

Lightsaber

Good for DL. If it isn't profitable, then no reason to fly it. In addition, many Asian destinations would be better served by relying on a JV. Not necessarily talking about DL on that thought though. They don't really seem to have a great set up (yet) for Asia.

DL is going to have to increase aircraft size for flights to SEA from certain interior U.S. Cities if it wants to funnel the majority of Asia bound passengers thru SEA. Those flights are already packed as it is.

a380787 wrote:

so your comment about UA being miles away is baseless

You should probably pay closer attention before you (falsely, I might add) denounce something as baseless:

I said that the separation produces advantages, disadvantages, and buffers for both carriers.

That's a fact, not an opinion; and I would challenge you to produce evidence of equal patronage of Queens/Brooklyn/Long Island residents or businesspersons to EWR, or Hoboken/Bayonne/Elizabeth/Newark/Ft. Lee residents to JFK, if you believe otherwise.

Yes, well aware that Manhattan is fair game for either one, just that I'm aware that Manhattan is not the totality of metro NYC. Perhaps you should be as well.

a380787 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

And if they are trying to be #1 in NYC and their competitor is offering numerous Asia nonstops,

What competitor? AA doesn't offer anything to Asia on its own metal, and UA being at an airport miles away produces advantages/disadvantages/buffers for either carrier.

klm617 wrote:

Because Delta's ultimate goal is to get as many people to route through ATL and it doesn't matter how inconvenient it is.

Curious: do you consult a magic 8-ball of irrelevant nonsense, before posting?

jumbojet wrote:

was forced to board the DL747 home via air stairs.

*gasp!* ....the horror!

If you know anything about Manhattan geography you'll realize JFK is further from midtown Manhattan than EWR is, so your comment about UA being miles away is baseless when the actual fact is that UA flies the nonstops from somewhere even more convenient for travelers in midtown and Wall Street.

I'm not too knowledgeable about the public transit in NYC, but when I stayed in midtown Manhattan the subway station took us right to JFK. Does EWR have this same access?

Fastphilly wrote:

Does EWR have this same access?

You can take NJ Transit from NY Penn straight to EWR. That's my preferred method for accessing the city.

Fastphilly wrote:

I'm not too knowledgeable about the public transit in NYC, but when I stayed in midtown Manhattan the subway station took us right to JFK. Does EWR have this same access?

I live in Midtown Manhattan and can get to all three airports via mass transit.

LGA: E Train to Jackson Heights/Roosevelt Avenue, transfer to Q70 limited bus to LGA
JFK: E Train to Sutphin Blvd, connect to JFK Airtrain. (or subway to Penn Station - LIRR to Jamaica - Airtrain to JFK)
EWR: Subway to Penn Station - NJ Transit to Newark Airport Station - Airtrain to Newark

LGA is by far the easiest and most convenient, especially since the the Q70 limited replaced the Q33 to LGA. But of course LGA does not have long haul.

For long haul, I prefer JFK via mass transit, as I find the NJ Transit schedule to not be well spread out and it just seems to take me longer to get to EWR. But that could be in my head. In actually, JFK and EWR might take me about the same amount of time to get to. But I very rarely use EWR because it feels long and I just don't enjoy getting there (and because I NJ Transit doesn't run trains 24/7).

I realize others will have varied opinions. I offer this simply as my personal preference.

It's really sad to see DL dismantle their Asian network and slip farther behind with no visible strategy in sight that will reverse the trend. Think about it. Supposedly NRT, is the problem. PVG with the operational issues, so-so geography, and a sub-par, non-immunized partner is an answer? SEA, which appears to be already tapped out market-wise and airport-wise is another answer? The larger airplanes on order in the nearer future are an answer? If demand isn't there now, how in the world are 300-350 seat airplanes going to work without mass hubs to funnel traffic? All this in a "fast-growing" region where NW/DL had a lot of equity built up. You can tell that DL executives have no answers. They talk about how this is the place to be growing in down the road, yet their network is collapsing, and their strategy to fix it is filled with holes. DL is in major trouble in Asia without a partner, and the whole world knows it.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Of course it will cost them some customers. Will that cost be higher than retaining MSPNRT?

I guess that remains to be seen. Of course the flying public will never know for certain.

jetlanta wrote:

I don't think that not being able to transport the 80 local PDEWs that Delta has been carrying on JFK-NRT all of the sudden makes Delta a 2nd class carrier in NYC. It may be symbolic, but it isn't extremely substantive. Delta will fly JFK-Asia again, when the opportunity is right.

80 PDEW has to contend with the most of DL's NRT flights. Not too shabby.

But PDEW is beside the point. It could have a PDEW of zero. The fact that DL will have no nonstop link to East Asia and so-so 1-stop selections from NYC isn't a move that speaks of winning the market. That's not going to win over customers.

MSPNWA wrote:

It's really sad to see DL dismantle their Asian network and slip farther behind with no visible strategy in sight that will reverse the trend. Think about it. Supposedly NRT, is the problem. PVG with the operational issues, so-so geography, and a sub-par, non-immunized partner is an answer? SEA, which appears to be already tapped out market-wise and airport-wise is another answer? The larger airplanes on order in the nearer future are an answer?

NRT is the problem - not "supposedly," but in reality. And not only is NRT the problem, but NRT has long been the problem. Delta has no choice but to deal with the world as it is, not as it wishes the world were. And the reality in the world as it is is that a U.S. carrier having a hub at NRT was of declining viability and competitiveness long before Delta merged with Northwest. Indeed, absent that merger, a smaller, weaker Northwest would be even worse off now than Delta. I agree with you that PVG is no substitute for NRT, and that an antitrust-immunized JV is needed (particularly with Korean). But SEA - I have no doubt it was, is and will continue to be a smart play for Delta.

Lots of very interesting arguments, but I still don't fully get why JFK-NRT is being dropped. Without access to HND from JFK, DL should keep this route (perhaps with a smaller aircraft). It seems to me there are passengers flying JFK-NRT-XXX or XXX-NRT-JFK (or simply O&D NYC-TYO pax) who will be left without adequate options.

How likely is it that DL will receive soon authority to fly to HND from JFK?

MSPNWA wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Of course it will cost them some customers. Will that cost be higher than retaining MSPNRT?

I guess that remains to be seen. Of course the flying public will never know for certain.

Frankly, it's none of their business. Delta gets to make decisions on where they fly, and customers get to make decisions on who they fly. For the latter, a route's P&L isn't really going to matter (I'm sure you'd agree). If you want to address the community as a whole, then it might be that some people would grumble. DL still has a very strong network out of MSP even if TYO bites the dust. They don't have a lot to complain about.

a380787 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

jfklganyc wrote:

And if they are trying to be #1 in NYC and their competitor is offering numerous Asia nonstops,

What competitor? AA doesn't offer anything to Asia on its own metal, and UA being at an airport miles away produces advantages/disadvantages/buffers for either carrier.

klm617 wrote:

Because Delta's ultimate goal is to get as many people to route through ATL and it doesn't matter how inconvenient it is.

Curious: do you consult a magic 8-ball of irrelevant nonsense, before posting?

jumbojet wrote:

was forced to board the DL747 home via air stairs.

*gasp!* ....the horror!

If you know anything about Manhattan geography you'll realize JFK is further from midtown Manhattan than EWR is, so your comment about UA being miles away is baseless when the actual fact is that UA flies the nonstops from somewhere even more convenient for travelers in midtown and Wall Street.

If my memory of ancient history serves, the closeness to Manhattan was a major selling point for Continental, when it first started flying in to EWR.

EddieDude wrote:

Without access to HND from JFK, DL should keep this route (perhaps with a smaller aircraft).

What smaller aircraft?

JFK-NRT is far beyond a 763ER's range, and it would IINM be the longest scheduled A330 route flown-- not sure they'd want to push one to that extent, as the seat costs would likely be atrocious.

LAX772LR wrote:

What smaller aircraft?

Well I thought 77E instead of 744 (which is the aircraft I thought DL was using), and if that is not enough maybe go A332, but you mention it would not be cost-effective.

If UA at EWR wasn't THE competitor, Delta wouldn't have spent billions of dollars on terminals and slots at LGA and JFK to mimic what CO (later UA) already had at EWR.

AA at JFK isn't a threat Or competitor to either of them. Much smaller in scope and much more focused on NYC O and D to specific "important" destinations.

Quite clever by Delta and may be a way to gain more Haneda rights or build through Shanghai China Eastern hub or finally work something out with Korean air.

LAX772LR wrote:

a380787 wrote:

so your comment about UA being miles away is baseless

You should probably pay closer attention before you (falsely, I might add) denounce something as baseless:

I said that the separation produces advantages, disadvantages, and buffers for both carriers.

That's a fact, not an opinion; and I would challenge you to produce evidence of equal patronage of Queens/Brooklyn/Long Island residents or businesspersons to EWR, or Hoboken/Bayonne/Elizabeth/Newark/Ft. Lee residents to JFK, if you believe otherwise.

Yes, well aware that Manhattan is fair game for either one, just that I'm aware that Manhattan is not the totality of metro NYC. Perhaps you should be as well.

Because clearly airlines should be flying 14 hour flights with 8 F and 50+ J seats to cater to people in Bayonne NJ and Carnarsie Brooklyn ..... gotcha

if you know ANYTHING about wealth distribution in the NYC metro, you wouldn't be making any of those points.

I'm a self proclaimed Delta fan boy and I will tell you that if Delta wants to be #1 from the NYC market, the 'Gateway to the World' from JFK, NY's hometown airline and so much more, they or a partner need to have a non stop JFK - NRT/HND flight. Its that simple. Two of the biggest markets in the world and Delta/skyteam, after 10/31 will not have a non-stop. The ripple effect will be folks like me in the NY market that will now choose One World or Star Alliance for those non stops but will also switch allegiances entirely so all the other flights that would normally get booked with Delta, lets say JFK-CDG/LAX/SFO/FRA, will now go to the new alliance. Then, when Delta realizes in a few years what a mistake it was, it will be that much harder to get those customers back. Delta is being way to conservative.

Atlwarrior wrote:

Quite clever by Delta and may be a way to gain more Haneda rights or build through Shanghai China Eastern hub or finally work something out with Korean air.

Japan is not going to care at all about DL dropping JFK-NRT and release more HND slots; they hate DL's NRT hub and would prefer it was eliminated. The DOT is not going to strip slots from someone else and give them to DL for HND because poor old Delta can't make JFK-NRT work.

jumbojet wrote:

I'm a self proclaimed Delta fan boy and I will tell you that if Delta wants to be #1 from the NYC market, the 'Gateway to the World' from JFK, NY's hometown airline and so much more, they or a partner need to have a non stop JFK - NRT/HND flight. Its that simple. Two of the biggest markets in the world and Delta/skyteam, after 10/31 will not have a non-stop. The ripple effect will be folks like me in the NY market that will now choose One World or Star Alliance for those non stops but will also switch allegiances entirely so all the other flights that would normally get booked with Delta, lets say JFK-CDG/LAX/SFO/FRA, will now go to the new alliance. Then, when Delta realizes in a few years what a mistake it was, it will be that much harder to get those customers back. Delta is being way to conservative.

Both oneworld and Star Alliance are ready to welcome you with open arms

100% agreed with above. If DELTA wants to be NY's preferred airline and wants to maintain it's loyalty from DM, PM, GM skymiles members - they HAVE to have a non stop on their own metal to Asia with reasonable connections for flights onward. As a DM, I know that I'm PISSED about the elimination of JFK-NRT. I frequently was flying JFK-NRT-BKK and back, along with JFK-NRT-SIN and back. The elimination of BKK altogether is bad enough, but with cutting the nonstop between JFK and NRT, that means I will have to connect in DTW or SEA for NRT to SIN - and for BKK I suppose I no longer have the option of connecting in NRT at all. The issue here is simple. DL should have NEVER deferred the ULH planes that they had on order. The 788 would have been the perfect solution to the JFK-NRT issue - plane with capability of flying the segment, good economics and smaller size than the 77E. Now with the deferment of the A359, they probably had to eliminate JFK-NRT to free up the 77E for impending 744 retirements.
DL needs to invest in their ULH aircraft and start accepting them sooner than later. They're way behind the ball on this, and I don't know how they're supposed to compete without them. Not only that, but the 77E/L are getting really long in the tooth - the seats in J are like laying on a board at this point - and you can feel the bars in your back from all the wear. DL has invested tons in their domestic fleet and done a great job with the 332/333/763, but man - I actually try to avoid the 777s at this point if possible. That aside though, really disappointed with DL doing away with my one-stop option to SE Asia from NY. I think in the end, they will pay a higher price for this than they might initially expect.

jumbojet wrote:

I'm a self proclaimed Delta fan boy and I will tell you that if Delta wants to be #1 from the NYC market, the 'Gateway to the World' from JFK, NY's hometown airline and so much more, they or a partner need to have a non stop JFK - NRT/HND flight. Its that simple. Two of the biggest markets in the world and Delta/skyteam, after 10/31 will not have a non-stop. The ripple effect will be folks like me in the NY market that will now choose One World or Star Alliance for those non stops but will also switch allegiances entirely so all the other flights that would normally get booked with Delta, lets say JFK-CDG/LAX/SFO/FRA, will now go to the new alliance. Then, when Delta realizes in a few years what a mistake it was, it will be that much harder to get those customers back. Delta is being way to conservative.

Honestly I think people are reading too much into this. Delta has actually been pretty transparent since open-skies happened and the JAL deal fell apart that NRT was going away as a hub. As an Av-Geek I agree with a lot of the sentiment here that NRT is/was a really neat 5th freedom operation but frankly its the last of its kind and outside of a few limited exceptions they have all pretty much vanished. Does the lack of a NRT (or similar) transfer point mean its harder to get from XXX to SouthEast Asia? yes it does. Does DL care? probably less than many of us think. Plus, people are forgetting that Delta only offers the one-stop connection through NRT from seven mainland cities, down from a peak of nine. For NRT to be competitive today, DL would need to add TPAC service to a lot of cities for which they 1) don't have the aircraft and 2) would not be profitable operating.

As for BKK, its too bad to see the destination fall. I would have wished DL could had done a tag on from SEA-HKG, but I admit that it would probably not make financial sense. While there is business traffic there and I was one of those passengers, that is not the norm for the city. And its location is east enough to make connecting through Europe and the middle east reasonable (some European routings are shorter from the East Coast than going through Japan). So when you combine leisure-focused destination and competitive routings by carriers like Norwegian, Emirates, Qatar, etc you see how Delta was going to have a hard time being competitive.

Was asked a couple of times but where will the 777 for the TLV flight come from now? Or will the flight go to a 330 going forward?

a380787 wrote:

Because clearly airlines should be flying 14 hour flights with 8 F and 50+ J seats to cater to people in Bayonne NJ and Carnarsie Brooklyn ..... gotcha

Your ability to spin off into a tangent has never ceased to amaze me: in a freakshow sorta way.

DLLongIsland wrote:

The issue here is simple. DL should have NEVER deferred the ULH planes that they had on order. The 788 would have been the perfect solution to the JFK-NRT issue - plane with capability of flying the segment, good economics and smaller size than the 77E. Now with the deferment of the A359, they probably had to eliminate JFK-NRT to free up the 77E for impending 744 retirements.

DL needs to invest in their ULH aircraft and start accepting them sooner than later. They're way behind the ball on this, and I don't know how they're supposed to compete without them.

Wayyyy too much assumption in this.

First, you don't know that they would've used 787s for ULH; and if the suggestion that they plan to take 78Xs instead of 788s proves prescient, then that'll be proof to that effect.

Second, DL is not short on ULH aircraft. They only have one route that requires the 77L's capability. Most of the rest can be reshuffled through various gauges, if 77Ls need to be freed for route that requires their use.

Third, DL is still taking delivery of some A359 on the original time scale.

Lastly, DL chose to defer the 787s, chose to defer some A350s, and chose to accelerate the 744's retirement. Nothing forced them to do any of the above (and yes, that includes the inerting requirement). If lack of longhaul aircraft were an impeding issue, then that wouldn't be the case.

I hope that DL will soon realise that PVG is nowhere near NRT, HND and ICN as a good transit hub. There is a reason why DXB, DOH and AUH are better connecting hubs for India than DEL due to not only convenience and also reliability. In Spring and Summer PVG gets ATC hold at least once a week, sometimes multiple times a week due to weather and other unannounced reasons, and when it happens delay shoots through the roof. Some may say that customer service expectation can be adjusted down when moving from carriers like NH or KE to MU, and this is totally fine and down to individual taste, but no one likes getting a delay and having to endure it in PVG at a hotel (or worse, on the floor). I really hope that more people especially those from outside China realise this and try not to connect at PVG (and PEK) unless it is absolutely necessary during Spring and Summer. If people do chance it, make sure the connection time is not say 1 hour 5 mins, but leave open say a 4 or 6 hours gap.

mdavies06 wrote:

I hope that DL will soon realise that PVG is nowhere near NRT, HND and ICN as a good transit hub... In Spring and Summer PVG gets ATC hold at least once a week, sometimes multiple times a week due to weather and other unannounced reasons, and when it happens delay shoots through the roof.

In addition to the chronic ATC problems in eastern China, there is the problem of facilities - Terminal 1 is an appalling facility, way sub-par compared to competing hubs.

A bigger question I have: with the exception of UA ex-EWR, why is it that NYC-Asia is now completely dominated by Asian carriers? Is there a bigger point here, that US carriers can only operate profitably to Asia from their big hubs, with the possible exception of LAX and markets not served by Asian carriers, like PDX?

HKG212 wrote:

A bigger question I have: with the exception of UA ex-EWR, why is it that NYC-Asia is now completely dominated by Asian carriers? Is there a bigger point here, that US carriers can only operate profitably to Asia from their big hubs, with the possible exception of LAX and markets not served by Asian carriers, like PDX?

[/quote]

This is because there is no dominate US-based carrier at JFK. All the foreign carriers are flying from their HUB to JFK. An added layer is that US-based carriers have multiple hubs, which means traffic routing is more spread out (via DFW, DTW, SFO, etc.).

EWR is a much stronger fortress hub for UA than JFK for DL. Notice how KE and CI don't serve EWR, but they provide buses for NJ passengers to JFK. Only Chinese carrier to serve EWR is CA, as *A partner. And CX is only offering 3-class cabin flights to EWR.

But to your point, US-based carrier will probably only grow out of their stronger hubs to Asia, such as AA's organic growth at DFW and DL's attempt at SEA.

LAX772LR wrote:

What competitor? AA doesn't offer anything to Asia on its own metal, and UA being at an airport miles away produces advantages/disadvantages/buffers for either carrier.

Miles? Like 10 or 15 more miles away? Do you really think passengers booking high fare long haul trips are going to choose an extra connection, longer layovers, or poorer service because the airport is 20 minutes closer via ground transportation when we're talking about 15+ hour trips?

notconcerned wrote:

HKG212 wrote:

A bigger question I have: with the exception of UA ex-EWR, why is it that NYC-Asia is now completely dominated by Asian carriers? Is there a bigger point here, that US carriers can only operate profitably to Asia from their big hubs, with the possible exception of LAX and markets not served by Asian carriers, like PDX?

This is because there is no dominate US-based carrier at JFK. All the foreign carriers are flying from their HUB to JFK. An added layer is that US-based carriers have multiple hubs, which means traffic routing is more spread out (via DFW, DTW, SFO, etc.).

EWR is a much stronger fortress hub for UA than JFK for DL. Notice how KE and CI don't serve EWR, but they provide buses for NJ passengers to JFK. Only Chinese carrier to serve EWR is CA, as *A partner. And CX is only offering 3-class cabin flights to EWR.

But to your point, US-based carrier will probably only grow out of their stronger hubs to Asia, such as AA's organic growth at DFW and DL's attempt at SEA.[/quote]

EWR is about to get pounced on by slot elimination, plus it's a delay prone UA hub with sleazy staff. If you think people are going to switch up to UA because DL dropped JFK-NRT you'd be crazy. EWR has a different catchment area and Long Islanders aren't going to EWR

Lets put it this way - it wouldn't surprise me if EWR-NRT isn't doing well either, but UA keeps it around for "network" purposes

piedmont762 wrote:

EWR is about to get pounced on by slot elimination, plus it's a delay prone UA hub with sleazy staff. If you think people are going to switch up to UA because DL dropped JFK-NRT you'd be crazy. EWR has a different catchment area and Long Islanders aren't going to EWR.

Totally agree you with on that point. I believe the crux of this discussion is more about how the DL fliers will change their flying habits as a result of DL no longer having a non-stop link to Tokyo from any NYC area airport. I doubt that anyone who prefers JFK will trek over to EWR if NH is offering a non-stop to both close-in HND pus NRT. DL probably realized that even their non-stop to NRT wouldn't be able to effectively compete with any non-stop to HND, regardless of who is flying it.

IPFreely wrote:

Miles? Like 10 or 15 more miles away? Do you really think passengers booking high fare long haul trips are going to choose an extra connection, longer layovers, or poorer service because the airport is 20 minutes closer via ground transportation when we're talking about 15+ hour trips?

Again, Manhattan is not the totality of NYC metro... and you aren't getting from one airfield's clear catchment to the other in a difference factor of 20min.

piedmont762 wrote:

If you think people are going to switch up to UA because DL dropped JFK-NRT you'd be crazy. EWR has a different catchment area and Long Islanders aren't going to EWR

jetblastdubai wrote:

I believe the crux of this discussion is more about how the DL fliers will change their flying habits as a result of DL no longer having a non-stop link to Tokyo from any NYC area airport. I doubt that anyone who prefers JFK will trek over to EWR

Bingo.

I don't understand why an airline drops the route between arguably the two of the three most important cities in the world (the other being London).