Multiple media reporting as per travel agency advisory Delta will terminate service to Taipei. Last flight reported as May 24th.

Delta cited competition from "budget airlines" as the reason for decision to withdraw from the Taiwan market.

Northwest first launched service to Taiwan in 1950.

http://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/3068943
http://focustaiwan.tw/news/aeco/201701130003.aspx

Per Airlineroute.net reservations expected to close on January 15th for the route.

=

A bit surprising. Wonder if Delta will seek any closer relations with Skyteam partner China Airlines?

I'm sure United appreciates this as it further aid existing SFO.nonstop. Does this give AA any incentive to try a LAX-TPE??

Surprising reduction after announcing a $6B profit and given the desire to improve their Asia network. However, this feels more like a statement on the decline of NRT than a statement on TPE.

Well that is another Narita spoke which dies.

Has DL (or NW) done SEA-TPE or other US mainland-Taiwan nonstop service before?

The moderators will almost certainly give me a 30 day suspension, if not an outright ban, for daring to discuss the airline industry instead of politics, but here goes:

DL's decision to suspend TPE after 67 years of service by DL and NW is a reminder of how much of a setback it was to DL that JAL chose AA as their partner instead of Delta. If JAL had chosen DL, Delta would be able to operate this flight as a codeshare with JAL and have access to higher yielding JAL passengers. This would have enabled DL to maintain their presence in TPE while waiting to see if the 330 NEO's superb economics would make a nonstop from SEA or LAX viable.

Although I'm not a DL fanboy, I feel Delta has done almost everything right over the last few years. The toughest setback for DL, in my opinion, was their inability to get JAL to switch from AA to DL, which has made DL's Japan and Asia strategy much more complex than it would have been if DL had been able to have a full partnership with JAL.

SIN is next probably. With JFK and LAX to NRT gone, so is the feed.

WA707atMSP wrote:

The moderators will almost certainly give me a 30 day suspension, if not an outright ban, for daring to discuss the airline industry instead of politics, but here goes:

DL's decision to suspend TPE after 67 years of service by DL and NW is a reminder of how much of a setback it was to DL that JAL chose AA as their partner instead of Delta. If JAL had chosen DL, Delta would be able to operate this flight as a codeshare with JAL and have access to higher yielding JAL passengers. This would have enabled DL to maintain their presence in TPE while waiting to see if the 330 NEO's superb economics would make a nonstop from SEA or LAX viable.

Although I'm not a DL fanboy, I feel Delta has done almost everything right over the last few years. The toughest setback for DL, in my opinion, was their inability to get JAL to switch from AA to DL, which has made DL's Japan and Asia strategy much more complex than it would have been if DL had been able to have a full partnership with JAL.

Not just that, but the sour relationship with KE forces them to try to supposedly build a deeper partnership with none other than CZ at PVG — something that looks really suboptimal compared to the close partnership that UA and NH enjoy. Let's hope this thawing of relations with KE leads to something productive.

Aside from DL, AF/KL, and KE, Skyteam really is the Big Lots of airlines.

A reminder to all users to stay on topic and keep political comments out of the discussion

DL restructured their NRT operations a few years ago. For years, NW had structured their operations with two banks - one bank of arrivals from Asia and departures to America, and a second bank of arrivals from America and departures to Asia. This meant that any USA-NRT flight required two aircraft, and the NRT-Asia-NRT rotations were bundled into this requirement. Now, DL operates a single, omnidirectional bank.

One of the benefits to DL is that the NRT-Asia flights could be on more appropriately sized aircraft - FSDan's DL Summer 17 thread showed that NRT-PVG/SIN/TPE/MNL were all scheduled to be operated by a 763 this summer, while the 744 from DTW and 77L from ATL no longer rotate into Asia. The downside is that any NRT-Asia flight requires its own frame with very light utilization, as the flights must be timed around the single bank. The NRT-TPE flight is in the air for roughly four and a half hours and then remains on the ground for 15 hours before returning to to NRT.

As a result, the NRT-Asia flights are relatively costly to DL, in multiple ways. From an opportunity cost standpoint, every NRT-Asia flight keeps DL from using the aircraft on a longer route with higher utilization (like USA-Europe) without a revenue premium associated with markets like USA-Latin America, where a double red-eye schedule helps to generate revenue at the front of the cabin. From a CapEx standpoint, as DL refreshes its widebody fleet, does a CapEx adverse airline like DL decide to spend the money on four incremental widebodies so it can connect flyers from ATL, DTW, SEA, and PDX to TPE, PVG (already connected to two markets), MNL, and SIN?

I would expect DL to end NRT-PVG/SIN/MNL sooner rather than later.

intotheair wrote:

WA707atMSP wrote:

The moderators will almost certainly give me a 30 day suspension, if not an outright ban, for daring to discuss the airline industry instead of politics, but here goes:

DL's decision to suspend TPE after 67 years of service by DL and NW is a reminder of how much of a setback it was to DL that JAL chose AA as their partner instead of Delta. If JAL had chosen DL, Delta would be able to operate this flight as a codeshare with JAL and have access to higher yielding JAL passengers. This would have enabled DL to maintain their presence in TPE while waiting to see if the 330 NEO's superb economics would make a nonstop from SEA or LAX viable.

Although I'm not a DL fanboy, I feel Delta has done almost everything right over the last few years. The toughest setback for DL, in my opinion, was their inability to get JAL to switch from AA to DL, which has made DL's Japan and Asia strategy much more complex than it would have been if DL had been able to have a full partnership with JAL.

Not just that, but the sour relationship with KE forces them to try to supposedly build a deeper partnership with none other than CZ at PVG — something that looks really suboptimal compared to the close partnership that UA and NH enjoy. Let's hope this thawing of relations with KE leads to something productive.

Aside from DL, AF/KL, and KE, Skyteam really is the Big Lots of airlines.

For me, focusing on poaching JL rather than deepening the good but not great relationship with KE was one of Delta's biggest strategic blunders of the last decade. ICN is a great hub in a dynamic (and, unlike Japan, growing) market whose ease of transfer more than makes up for the slight geographic disadvantage.

About all that NRT and HND are better for is Tokyo. Much like how KL does well in many U.K. cities, US-interior Japan is much easier through ICN than through NRT or, particularly, HND.

mercure1 wrote:

Has DL (or NW) done SEA-TPE or other US mainland-Taiwan nonstop service before?

TPE was served by DL out of its once PDX Pacific hub.

Also NW back in early 90s tried a LAX-TPE on the 744.

Little know fact, but DL during the PDX hub days actually was working on concept of a scissor Asian hub operation in TPE due favorable traffic rights. Much of the legal ground work and schedules were planned but as Asian economies slowed and led to financial crisis the idea died, and shortly after so did most of the remaining PDX-Asia flights.

Sad if true, but not entirely surprising.

I will admit that I believed NRT-TPE could still work with a 767 long-term, but then I also thought the same about BKK, and I never though Delta would entirely cancel JFK-NRT. At this point, I guess I am a bit surprised that Delta is cancelling TPE but not MNL, but either way I think it reaffirms what many of us have long known - Delta's NRT hub, in its longstanding (both Northwest and Delta) form/s, was and is no longer viable.

I think this only further undermines PDX-NRT, and I do wonder what it means for NRT-SIN and NRT-MNL, to say nothing of the beach HNL/GUM/SPN/ROR flying. And I still think NRT-PVG is as good as gone, too, once Delta commits to what else it would like to do with this precious China frequencies (leading contenders obviously seeming to be LAX-PEK or ATL-PVG). On the flip side, as said elsewhere, I do still wonder if Delta couldn't make SEA-TPE nonstop work. I can think of multiple good reasons why it couldn't work, but for some reason I still keep thinking that maybe it would be worth a shot for Delta given its growing domestic feed in and out of SEA.

WA707atMSP wrote:

DL's decision to suspend TPE after 67 years of service by DL and NW is a reminder of how much of a setback it was to DL that JAL chose AA as their partner instead of Delta. If JAL had chosen DL, Delta would be able to operate this flight as a codeshare with JAL and have access to higher yielding JAL passengers. This would have enabled DL to maintain their presence in TPE while waiting to see if the 330 NEO's superb economics would make a nonstop from SEA or LAX viable.

Although I'm not a DL fanboy, I feel Delta has done almost everything right over the last few years. The toughest setback for DL, in my opinion, was their inability to get JAL to switch from AA to DL, which has made DL's Japan and Asia strategy much more complex than it would have been if DL had been able to have a full partnership with JAL.

Cubsrule wrote:

For me, focusing on poaching JL rather than deepening the good but not great relationship with KE was one of Delta's biggest strategic blunders of the last decade. ICN is a great hub in a dynamic (and, unlike Japan, growing) market whose ease of transfer more than makes up for the slight geographic disadvantage.

Indeed. As many here and elsewhere accurately assessed back in 2010 when it happened, I don't think any objective assessment could conclude anything other than that losing JAL was pretty much a body blow for Delta's strategy in Japan, and possible Asia/transpacific in general. Locking up Delta as a JV partner would have effectively "solved" virtually every "problem" Delta now has with NRT, and provided the perfect "soft landing" for Delta's own NRT fifth freedom flying. But I also agree that the failure - for whatever reason/s - in getting a deal with Korean has clearly hindered Delta's prospects in Asia. All that said, though, I also think Delta has been fairly brilliant in developing the SEA/DTW combo as excellent, highly complimentary, U.S. gateways to Asia - Delta now has two large Asia O&D markets where it is the largest/dominant longhaul player, with attendant domestic feed. The combination of SEA and DTW with ICN would be even more powerful and compelling - but SEA and DTW are pretty good to have.

LAXintl wrote:

mercure1 wrote:

Has DL (or NW) done SEA-TPE or other US mainland-Taiwan nonstop service before?

TPE was served by DL out of its once PDX Pacific hub.

Also NW back in early 90s tried a LAX-TPE on the 744.

Little know fact, but DL during the PDX hub days actually was working on concept of a scissor Asian hub operation in TPE due favorable traffic rights. Much of the legal ground work and schedules were planned but as Asian economies slowed and led to financial crisis the idea died, and shortly after so did most of the remaining PDX-Asia flights.

Another factor which doomed the TPE hub concept was that in the early 1990s, DL's ex-Pan Am European routes were very unprofitable, and other parts of the system (the DFW hub) were also losing money. Under Ron Allen, DL was forced to undergo its first major restructuring, and the airline could not afford the start up costs of an overseas hub.

I've never read anything about it, but I suspect that the range and performance shortfalls of the MD-11, which DL would have used on TPE-US routes, also made the TPE hub less attractive.

Cubsrule wrote:

For me, focusing on poaching JL rather than deepening the good but not great relationship with KE was one of Delta's biggest strategic blunders of the last decade. ICN is a great hub in a dynamic (and, unlike Japan, growing) market whose ease of transfer more than makes up for the slight geographic disadvantage.

About all that NRT and HND are better for is Tokyo. Much like how KL does well in many U.K. cities, US-interior Japan is much easier through ICN than through NRT or, particularly, HND.

I'm sure others will have more details than I do, but I don't think it wasn't a lack of trying on DL's end. I think DL pushed equally hard for a JV with KE, but KE just wasn't really all that interested until its recent financial woes.

intotheair wrote:

I'm sure others will have more details than I do, but I don't think it wasn't a lack of trying on DL's end. I think DL pushed equally hard for a JV with KE, but KE just wasn't really all that interested until its recent financial woes.

Well that's certainly how we've heard Delta (and Delta fans here) tell/imply it. But it takes two to tango. It may well be true that Korean has been unable or unwilling to conform to Delta's vision of a successful transpacific ATI/JV. But then, I'm sure Korean could say the same thing about Delta being unable or unwilling to conform to Korean's vision of a successful transpacific ATI/JV. And that underscores what may well be - and likely is - the issue: they have two different visions of a successful transpacific ATI/JV. In the end, which airline is "right" or "wrong" (if either fully is) doesn't matter - regardless of the reason it hasn't happened, the bottom line is still that Delta needs it to happen.

Things are warming up with KE no? A JV with KE to serve Southeast Asia, a JV with MU to serve China, and NRT (or preferably HND) as an O&D station would make DL a very strong player in Asia so kudos to them for taking some of the necessary steps already.

DolphinAir747 wrote:

Things are warming up with KE no? A JV with KE to serve Southeast Asia, a JV with MU to serve China, and NRT (or preferably HND) as an O&D station would make DL a very strong player in Asia so kudos to them for taking some of the necessary steps already.

Personally, I'd say it slightly differently. I don't those things would "make" Delta a "very strong player in Asia" - I think Delta already is a very strong player in Asia. I think, rather, that the intense focus that many have on the Korean relationship is due to the prospect of Delta's transpacific lead eroding relative to certain of its competitors, and in particular AA. A JV with Korean would have an immediate and dramatic effect on the economic viability of Delta's presence in East Asia. The same would be true of a JV with China Eastern, but that is unlikely to happen anytime soon and PVG, while in some ways an excellent gateway market around which to build a transpacific JV, also has significant drawbacks as well. Korean, and ICN, is the key.

commavia wrote:

I think this only further undermines PDX-NRT, and I do wonder what it means for NRT-SIN and NRT-MNL, to say nothing of the beach HNL/GUM/SPN/ROR flying. And I still think NRT-PVG is as good as gone, too, once Delta commits to what else it would like to do with this precious China frequencies (leading contenders obviously seeming to be LAX-PEK or ATL-PVG). On the flip side, as said elsewhere, I do still wonder if Delta couldn't make SEA-TPE nonstop work. I can think of multiple good reasons why it couldn't work, but for some reason I still keep thinking that maybe it would be worth a shot for Delta given its growing domestic feed in and out of SEA.

Agreed on NRT-PVG, but perhaps SIN and/or MNL are different because of the difficulty of serving those routes economically from the mainland. DL also has a lot of institutional knowledge of MNL's quirks; up until very close to the merger, for instance, they had separate checkin for MNL at select outstations like ORD. The closest analog I can think of is AA and Haiti. This cut teaches us that history isn't dispositive, but it certainly doesn't hurt.

DolphinAir747 wrote:

Things are warming up with KE no? A JV with KE to serve Southeast Asia, a JV with MU to serve China, and NRT (or preferably HND) as an O&D station would make DL a very strong player in Asia so kudos to them for taking some of the necessary steps already.

China has some great airport facilities - I'd count PVG among them - but I'm not sure that counting on a China hub makes sense until China at least moves into the second half of the Twentieth Century and flights can no longer be delayed by hours because the military does not feel like dealing with civilian flights.

Cubsrule wrote:

perhaps SIN and/or MNL are different because of the difficulty of serving those routes economically from the mainland.

Indeed - although, as said, I thought the same about BKK and TPE. My long-held expectation was that NRT would get down to the U.S. hubs plus HNL on one side, and SIN, BKK, MNL and TPE on the other. I was obviously wrong on multiple counts.

Cubsrule wrote:

DL also has a lot of institutional knowledge of MNL's quirks; up until very close to the merger, for instance, they had separate checkin for MNL at select outstations like ORD. The closest analog I can think of is AA and Haiti.

Good point. Delta also no doubt benefits from the fact that while MNL, like TPE, is high-volume but arguably lower-yielding than other regional, unlike TPE, MNL has far less intense nonstop U.S. competition. Philippine Airlines obviously does have nonstop U.S. flights, but nowhere near as many as China and EVA out of TPE, and those Taiwanese airlines also arguably offer and overall better product, too. All that is to say - perhaps MNL is a more viable/sustainable market for Delta going forward, at least as long as MNL-relevant feed can still be driven through NRT, and the nonstop MNL-U.S. market doesn't get more crowded.

Cubsrule wrote:

I'm not sure that counting on a China hub makes sense until China at least moves into the second half of the Twentieth Century and flights can no longer be delayed by hours because the military does not feel like dealing with civilian flights.

Yep. Shanghai as a city is clearly a massive draw - demographically and economically - and is unarguably one of the most important aviation markets in Asia, and the world. Unfortunately, PVG as an airport is suboptimal in multiple ways - ATC and congestion being just one of them - as a U.S.-Asia gateway hub.

commavia wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

DL also has a lot of institutional knowledge of MNL's quirks; up until very close to the merger, for instance, they had separate checkin for MNL at select outstations like ORD. The closest analog I can think of is AA and Haiti.

Good point. Delta also no doubt benefits from the fact that while MNL, like TPE, is high-volume but arguably lower-yielding than other regional, unlike TPE, MNL has far less intense nonstop U.S. competition. Philippine Airlines obviously does have nonstop U.S. flights, but nowhere near as many as China and EVA out of TPE, and those Taiwanese airlines also arguably offer and overall better product, too. All that is to say - perhaps MNL is a more viable/sustainable market for Delta going forward, at least as long as MNL-relevant feed can still be driven through NRT, and the nonstop MNL-U.S. market doesn't get more crowded.

The only other thing I'd point out on MNL is that there's at least some evidence that the hub is less important to it than some other markets. NW ran it through NGO on and off, which made a certain amount of sense given the much smaller but higher-yielding nature of NGO, but that also foreclosed connections from anywhere but DTW and perhaps a beach market or two.

Cubsrule wrote:

The only other thing I'd point out on MNL is that there's at least some evidence that the hub is less important to it than some other markets. NW ran it through NGO on and off, which made a certain amount of sense given the much smaller but higher-yielding nature of NGO, but that also foreclosed connections from anywhere but DTW and perhaps a beach market or two.

Sure, but on the flip side I would think that at this point MNL has to be hurting from losing 1-stop connectivity over NRT with some of the markets that I'd imagine generate the most O&D to/from the Philippines. In particular, I've got to think that LAX, SFO, NYC and HNL collectively generate a very large plurality (if not majority) of the U.S.-MNL O&D, and today the only one linked nonstop to NRT is HNL - LAX, SFO and NYC all now require two stops on Delta to/from MNL.

mercure1 wrote:

Well that is another Narita spoke which dies.

Has DL (or NW) done SEA-TPE or other US mainland-Taiwan nonstop service before?

LAXintl wrote:

TPE was served by DL out of its once PDX Pacific hub.

Yes - mid-90's ... initially one-stop via SEL on the L-1011-500 .... later nonstop with the MD11 ...
flights continued to BKK

WA707atMSP wrote:

DL's decision to suspend TPE after 67 years of service by DL and NW is a reminder of how much of a setback it was to DL that JAL chose AA as their partner instead of Delta. If JAL had chosen DL, Delta would be able to operate this flight as a codeshare with JAL and have access to higher yielding JAL passengers.

I wouldn't consider myself even an observer of Asian aviation, but I do not understand what would be JAL's benefits in entering into a code-share agreement with Delta for the latter's Asian network. Does JAL need the additional daily frequency that badly to hand over most of the revenue to Delta? I would think Delta would need to offer a revenue sharing agreement to "encourage" JAL to hand over some of its customers.

If all Delta offers is a code-share agreement, JAL and KAL's attitudes do not surprise me. They have little incentive to help Delta keep their Asian network.

VictorKilo wrote:

DL restructured their NRT operations a few years ago. For years, NW had structured their operations with two banks - one bank of arrivals from Asia and departures to America, and a second bank of arrivals from America and departures to Asia. This meant that any USA-NRT flight required two aircraft, and the NRT-Asia-NRT rotations were bundled into this requirement. Now, DL operates a single, omnidirectional bank.

Just wondering if you had the sort of flight times (departure and arrival) for the two banks, just kindof curious but could not find them anywhere.

I know the dynamics of the Asia market have changed with partnerships, the exponential growth of China and the ability of aircraft to overfly Japan, but this makes me sad. I know Delta is in the business to make money, so not criticizing the business decision, but they seem to slowly becoming a minor player in Asia. At it's peak, NWA was at least close to as large as United in Asia and possibly larger and one by one they seem to keep shrinking in my eyes, sure there have been some adds, like LAK-PVG and upcoming ATL-SEL, but mostly drops such as BKK, SGN, CAN, PUS and some other that were short lived like KUL and KHH or going back further even OKA. On the US side, SFO, JFK, SLC, ORD, LAS, ANC all at one time had service to Asia.I guess it is just a period where I don't see the end picture yet and they need the 359's to come on to add capacity probably. Hopefully the vision becomes more clear over the next couple of years.

Taipei have seen a graveyard before, Singapore Air gave up its LAX to TPE over 10 years ago. TPE has also doubled it home grown airlines with China Airlines being upstaged by EVA Air. EVA recently has been very expansionary with its 777-300ER fleet flying to every major North American and European city, especially Star alliance hubs.

jacobchoi wrote:

Just wondering if you had the sort of flight times (departure and arrival) for the two banks, just kindof curious but could not find them anywhere.

If I remember correctly, the banks were traditionally - both during the Northwest and then Delta eras - scheduled as roughly:

14:00-15:00 Asia & Hawaii arrivals
15:00-16:00 U.S. (ex-Hawaii) departures
16:30-17:30 U.S. (ex-Hawaii) arrivals
17:30-19:00 Asia departures
20:00-21:00 Hawaii departures

And the other poster's point is a good one - the switch to a single, unified, omni-directional bank has likely had a mixed impact on the economics of Delta's NRT fifth freedom flying. On the positive side, one bank has no doubt helped with asset utilization and efficiency at the NRT operation, and arguably facilitated more optimal aircraft (i.e., smaller 767) deployment. On the other hand, it has also reduced utilization of those aircraft - with ground times now ~12+ hours in MNL, TPE and PVG.

Given the intent to dismantle the NRT hub, it's not a surprise that TPE-NRT is dropped. What is a surprise is that it is not replaced by daily SEA-TPE. If BR can sustain double daily 77W SEA-TPE, one would think the route would be a no brainer for DL, given it can provide connection on both ends (i.e. code sharing with CI at TPE for onward travel to Southeast Asia). Is it because DL doesn't have sufficient aircraft? The route can be served with A330-200/-300 or 772ER/LR. Starting with A332 would be a safer bet but apparently DL did not even go for that.

raylee67 wrote:

Given the intent to dismantle the NRT hub, it's not a surprise that TPE-NRT is dropped. What is a surprise is that it is not replaced by daily SEA-TPE. If BR can sustain double daily 77W SEA-TPE, one would think the route would be a no brainer for DL, given it can provide connection on both ends (i.e. code sharing with CI at TPE for onward travel to Southeast Asia). Is it because DL doesn't have sufficient aircraft? The route can be served with A330-200/-300 or 772ER/LR. Starting with A332 would be a safer bet but apparently DL did not even go for that.

I think Delta's issue with starting SEA-TPE was mentioned in another thread, no gates in SEA to start another international flight. Perhaps in the future there will be a better opportunity, but Delta has said that until the terminal expansion in SEA, it is unlikely that they will add any international flying to SEA.

How long is the dormancy period before DL looses their 5th freedom rights?

This is bittersweet for me as I used to take that flight to get to and from TPE. Alas, the economics of the NRT hub are what they are in this day and age. This really makes me wonder how long SIN and MNL will be around. I'm sure the PVG slot will be allocated elsewhere once sufficient A350s come online.

blueflyer wrote:

If all Delta offers is a code-share agreement, JAL and KAL's attitudes do not surprise me. They have little incentive to help Delta keep their Asian network.

DL would be thrilled to have a joint venture agreement with KE (on the right terms, of course) and proposed one with JL as well.

raylee67 wrote:

Given the intent to dismantle the NRT hub, it's not a surprise that TPE-NRT is dropped. What is a surprise is that it is not replaced by daily SEA-TPE. If BR can sustain double daily 77W SEA-TPE, one would think the route would be a no brainer for DL, given it can provide connection on both ends (i.e. code sharing with CI at TPE for onward travel to Southeast Asia). Is it because DL doesn't have sufficient aircraft? The route can be served with A330-200/-300 or 772ER/LR. Starting with A332 would be a safer bet but apparently DL did not even go for that.

I'm also a little surprised that SEA-TPE hasn't happened yet. The A332 could certainly work, and the upcoming A339s may be able to also. The A350s, of course, will have no problem range-wise, although filling the plane might be an issue.

mpdpilot wrote:

I think Delta's issue with starting SEA-TPE was mentioned in another thread, no gates in SEA to start another international flight. Perhaps in the future there will be a better opportunity, but Delta has said that until the terminal expansion in SEA, it is unlikely that they will add any international flying to SEA.

That may well be the case; the SEA FIS is a zoo at peak times. However, if I'm not mistaken - and I very well could be mistaken - the busiest time of day is in the early afternoon, while a DL TPE flight would likely arrive in the morning or late afternoon/early evening. On the flip side, it would almost certainly depart for TPE in the early afternoon, when widebody gates are in short supply.

Sightseer wrote:

DL would be thrilled to have a joint venture agreement with KE (on the right terms, of course) and proposed one with JL as well.

Let's be honest: DL would be thrilled to become a virtual airline with the lowest bidder regional airlines flying domestic flights and joint ventures with other airlines flying international flights. That frees up resources that can then be focused on operating an oil refinery.

Like twa at JFK...death by a thousand cuts.

Dont blink...one day, with little fanfare, NRT will be gone

Sightseer wrote:

That may well be the case; the SEA FIS is a zoo at peak times. However, if I'm not mistaken - and I very well could be mistaken - the busiest time of day is in the early afternoon, while a DL TPE flight would likely arrive in the morning or late afternoon/early evening. On the flip side, it would almost certainly depart for TPE in the early afternoon, when widebody gates are in short supply.

Yes I agree, I think Delta could make the flight work if they wanted to, but their words not mine.

I also think Delta could make a very late night departure to TPE/HKG/SIN/BKK/MNL with an early morning arrival back in SEA work. Aircraft utilization wouldn't be ideal but the timings would work better for business travelers and connections.

This is just more evidence of Delta stomping their feet when they don't get their way. If they had been able to move all their operations to HND like they wanted to TPE would still be served by Delta but because they weren't allowed to do that they will show the powers that be by eliminating service to certain cities that are only connected through NRT. I am sure there are many unprofitable routes in the Delta network that are unprofitable and they aren't cutting those. So take it for what it's worth more of Delta flexing it's muscle when it don't get it's way but what really silly is that by every route they cut they are becoming less relevant in Asia until their name carries no weight any more in that region with customers. Sometime people cut of their noses to spite their face and I think this is a case of that.

mpdpilot wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

That may well be the case; the SEA FIS is a zoo at peak times. However, if I'm not mistaken - and I very well could be mistaken - the busiest time of day is in the early afternoon, while a DL TPE flight would likely arrive in the morning or late afternoon/early evening. On the flip side, it would almost certainly depart for TPE in the early afternoon, when widebody gates are in short supply.

Yes I agree, I think Delta could make the flight work if they wanted to, but their words not mine.

Right, of course. And that's all we have to go off of, really.

mpdpilot wrote:

I also think Delta could make a very late night departure to TPE/HKG/SIN/BKK/MNL with an early morning arrival back in SEA work. Aircraft utilization wouldn't be ideal but the timings would work better for business travelers and connections.

If SEA-SIN/BKK/MNL ever happen, they would likely follow that pattern. HKG and TPE may be too short of flights from SEA to make that worthwhile. BR makes it work on SEA-TPE, but I think that may be a reason why DL elects not to do it; departing at a different time of day will enable them to compete less directly and will better distinguish DL's offering in the market.

klm617 wrote:

This is just more evidence of Delta stomping their feet when they don't get their way.

You say that as if you know for a fact that NRT-TPE is a fundamentally solid market for an airline in DL's position, when I doubt that you actually do.

On that note, is there any way to see what percentage of DL's passengers on the route were local? It came up in the LAX-PEK route proceeding that DL carries 69% local traffic on NRT-PVG, so I'm sure that information exists somewhere for NRT-TPE. If it turns out they were carrying a high percentage of local traffic, I could perhaps see LCC issues being a contributing factor to DL's exit.

Sightseer wrote:

mpdpilot wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

That may well be the case; the SEA FIS is a zoo at peak times. However, if I'm not mistaken - and I very well could be mistaken - the busiest time of day is in the early afternoon, while a DL TPE flight would likely arrive in the morning or late afternoon/early evening. On the flip side, it would almost certainly depart for TPE in the early afternoon, when widebody gates are in short supply.

Yes I agree, I think Delta could make the flight work if they wanted to, but their words not mine.

Right, of course. And that's all we have to go off of, really.

mpdpilot wrote:

I also think Delta could make a very late night departure to TPE/HKG/SIN/BKK/MNL with an early morning arrival back in SEA work. Aircraft utilization wouldn't be ideal but the timings would work better for business travelers and connections.

If SEA-SIN/BKK/MNL ever happen, they would likely follow that pattern. HKG and TPE may be too short of flights from SEA to make that worthwhile. BR makes it work on SEA-TPE, but I think that may be a reason why DL elects not to do it; departing at a different time of day will enable them to compete less directly and will better distinguish DL's offering in the market.

klm617 wrote:

This is just more evidence of Delta stomping their feet when they don't get their way.

You say that as if you know for a fact that NRT-TPE is a fundamentally solid market for an airline in DL's position, when I doubt that you actually do.

On that note, is there any way to see what percentage of DL's passengers on the route were local? It came up in the LAX-PEK route proceeding that DL carries 69% local traffic on NRT-PVG, so I'm sure that information exists somewhere for NRT-TPE.

I never said it was fundamentally solid but you have to agree that if Delta were able to move all their operations to HND as they requested Delta would still be in the Tokyo-Taipei market. I am not doubting one bit that Delta is not making the yields it wants on this flight but I am sure there are many other routes in the network that are performing at the same level but those aren't being cut because Delta doesn't have a point to prove or an ax to grind in those markets. This airline is run on ego and it shows.

klm617 wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

mpdpilot wrote:

Yes I agree, I think Delta could make the flight work if they wanted to, but their words not mine.

Right, of course. And that's all we have to go off of, really.

mpdpilot wrote:

I also think Delta could make a very late night departure to TPE/HKG/SIN/BKK/MNL with an early morning arrival back in SEA work. Aircraft utilization wouldn't be ideal but the timings would work better for business travelers and connections.

If SEA-SIN/BKK/MNL ever happen, they would likely follow that pattern. HKG and TPE may be too short of flights from SEA to make that worthwhile. BR makes it work on SEA-TPE, but I think that may be a reason why DL elects not to do it; departing at a different time of day will enable them to compete less directly and will better distinguish DL's offering in the market.

klm617 wrote:

This is just more evidence of Delta stomping their feet when they don't get their way.

You say that as if you know for a fact that NRT-TPE is a fundamentally solid market for an airline in DL's position, when I doubt that you actually do.

On that note, is there any way to see what percentage of DL's passengers on the route were local? It came up in the LAX-PEK route proceeding that DL carries 69% local traffic on NRT-PVG, so I'm sure that information exists somewhere for NRT-TPE.

I never said it was fundamentally solid but you have to agree that if Delta were able to move all their operations to HND as they requested Delta would still be in the Tokyo-Taipei market. I am not doubting one bit that Delta is not making the yields it wants on this flight but I am sure there are many other routes in the network that are performing at the same level but those aren't being cut because Delta doesn't have a point to prove or an ax to grind in those markets. This airline is run on ego and it shows.

If it were an unprofitable route from Detroit they would definitely cut it!!

I would expect the most reliable source of high-yield traffic between the US and Taiwan is tech-industry related. UA is better positioned to capture this with their SFO-TPE non-stop, which has the benefit of Silicon Valley O&D, plus arguably better connections to other major US tech centers.

jbs2886 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

Right, of course. And that's all we have to go off of, really.
If SEA-SIN/BKK/MNL ever happen, they would likely follow that pattern. HKG and TPE may be too short of flights from SEA to make that worthwhile. BR makes it work on SEA-TPE, but I think that may be a reason why DL elects not to do it; departing at a different time of day will enable them to compete less directly and will better distinguish DL's offering in the market.
You say that as if you know for a fact that NRT-TPE is a fundamentally solid market for an airline in DL's position, when I doubt that you actually do.
On that note, is there any way to see what percentage of DL's passengers on the route were local? It came up in the LAX-PEK route proceeding that DL carries 69% local traffic on NRT-PVG, so I'm sure that information exists somewhere for NRT-TPE.

I never said it was fundamentally solid but you have to agree that if Delta were able to move all their operations to HND as they requested Delta would still be in the Tokyo-Taipei market. I am not doubting one bit that Delta is not making the yields it wants on this flight but I am sure there are many other routes in the network that are performing at the same level but those aren't being cut because Delta doesn't have a point to prove or an ax to grind in those markets. This airline is run on ego and it shows.

If it were an unprofitable route from Detroit they would definitely cut it!!

According to the poster-who-should-not-be-named, DL would cut it even if it were profitable. Didn't you know... the sky is falling in DTW?

klm617 wrote:

This is just more evidence of Delta stomping their feet when they don't get their way.

The mainland Chinese government certainly won't be stomping their feet over this decision.

commavia wrote:

Well that's certainly how we've heard Delta (and Delta fans here) tell/imply it. But it takes two to tango. It may well be true that Korean has been unable or unwilling to conform to Delta's vision of a successful transpacific ATI/JV. But then, I'm sure Korean could say the same thing about Delta being unable or unwilling to conform to Korean's vision of a successful transpacific ATI/JV.

Of course, the difference there is that DL has successfully cultivated and sustained J/Vs of various types (equity stakes, equal partner ventures, etc) with airlines from all over the world. They've been able to find what multiple other carriers need in a metal-neutral partner (investment, capacity, audit, etc), then provide and/or become that.

KE has not.

....granted, it's admittedly anecdotal, but I do think that's very telling as to who's likely the more unreasonably obstinate one (between DL and KE) in these attempts to tie up.

LAX772LR wrote:

Of course, the difference there is that DL has successfully cultivated and sustained J/Vs of various types (equity stakes, equal partner ventures, etc) with airlines from all over the world. They've been able to find what multiple other carriers need in a metal-neutral partner (investment, capacity, audit, etc), then provide and/or become that.

KE has not.

....granted, it's admittedly anecdotal, but I do think that's very telling as to who's the more unreasonably obstinate one (between DL and KE) in these attempts to tie up.

Okay, but I think the whole point is, frankly, just what's written above: Delta found what "other carriers need[ed]." Therein, I suppose, lies the problem - Delta has yet to be willing or able to provide what Korean "needs," and vice versa. The failure to find a mutually beneficial deal isn't necessarily the "fault" of either carrier - again, it seems clear that at least until now, they have just fundamentally viewed the market, and their interests, differently. The key question remains, though, how - if possible - to close the gap, because it's becoming increasingly obvious that Delta "needs," or at least could increasingly benefit from, a JV with Korean.

commavia wrote:

Okay, but I think the whole point is, frankly, just what's written above: Delta found what "other carriers need[ed]." Therein, I suppose, lies the problem - Delta has yet to be willing or able to provide what Korean "needs," and vice versa. The failure to find a mutually beneficial deal isn't necessarily the "fault" of either carrier - again, it seems clear that at least until now, they have just fundamentally viewed the market, and their interests, differently. The key question remains, though, how - if possible - to close the gap, because it's becoming increasingly obvious that Delta "needs," or at least could increasingly benefit from, a JV with Korean.

I'd argue that DL did find what Korean needed.... but (as any salesperson can attest), sometimes what entities need and what they want, don't always coincide.

It's rather difficult to envision how KE can avoid getting its lunch eaten over the next few years, with 2 empowered J/Vs attacking from above; and with Chinese carriers (dumping tons of subsidized capacity into the market) attacking from below. Even if KE stays profitable, what's the opportunity cost that it's leaving on the table?

I'd wager KE's going to come to the conclusion that they need assistance in some way. It's almost inconceivable that they won't. The question at this point, is will it be with DL, or will the strange interaction between these two send them somewhere else-- which is basically the course DL has already decided.

LAX772LR wrote:

I'd argue that DL did find what Korean needed.... but (as any salesperson can tell you), sometimes what entities need and what they want, don't always coincide.

And with respect, I'd argue that that is probably a very Delta-centric view. I'm sure I could find a few people walking the halls of Korean's HQ in Seoul who, from their perspective, would say the exact same thing about Delta.

LAX772LR wrote:

It's rather difficult to envision how KE can avoid getting its lunch eaten over the next few years, with 2 empowered J/Vs attacking from above; and with Chinese carriers (dumping tons of subsidized capacity into the market) attacking from below. Even if KE stays profitable, what's the opportunity cost that it's leaving on the table?

I don't necessarily disagree, but I'll just add that - as you likely already know - money, and profit, aren't necessarily always the ultimate goal in all cultures around the world they may be in the C-suite in ATL.

LAX772LR wrote:

I'd wager KE's going to come to the conclusion that they need assistance in some way. It's almost inconceivable that they won't. The question at this point, is will it be with DL, or will the strange interaction between these two send them somewhere else-- which is basically the course DL has already decided.

Well again, with respect, I think that characterization is very much a Delta-centric perspective. As far as going "somewhere else," I agree completely that Delta may well choose to pursue such a course if it truly loses all patience with Korean. But, as has been said many times before, Delta isn't the only party here that has that theoretical option to unilaterally "decide" on such an outcome - Korean can, and to a similar extent as Delta already has, done the same thing. Delta can knock themselves out trying to make PVG work, but so can Korean cut side deals with AA, Alaska or other partners when/if it suits Korean's needs. I think the bottom line is that anyone being objective would conclude that Delta arguably needs Korean just as much as Korean needs Delta - they need each other - much as some Delta fans may not want to accept it.

Not surprising as DAL is shifting as much as possible away from NRT (if they could get the slots at HND for all of their US hubs, they would probably pull out entirely).

Surprising as the newest schedule that came out today has modifications to flight numbers and times for flights NRT-TPE-NRT in November and December...seems like a waste to put effort into modifying schedules when you intend to pull out months before that.

Can someone explain in relative terms the contention thats so commonly described between KE and DL? Is there actual events that have taken place that serve as relationship constraints between the two? I'm not real up to date on JVs but perhaps the lack of one is the contention?

If Delta is to completely dismantle their NRT hub and beyond NRT flying how will their viability as an Asian player be affected? AA doesn't serve, on its own metal, the destinations Delta does, and instead connects them on, I presume, JAL. So if this is the case, why from a business perspective, should Delta not aim to duplicate a similar model as American, which might be more economical? United really is the stand out with more Non stop Asia penetration, but perhaps theres only room for one big US carrier to offer these types of flights, and the others (AA, DL) simply will resign to connecting most customers through partners?

flyboy80 wrote:

If Delta is to completely dismantle their NRT hub and beyond NRT flying how will their viability as an Asian player be affected? AA doesn't serve, on its own metal, the destinations Delta does, and instead connects them on, I presume, JAL. So if this is the case, why from a business perspective, should Delta not aim to duplicate a similar model as American, which might be more economical? United really is the stand out with more Non stop Asia penetration, but perhaps theres only room for one big US carrier to offer these types of flights, and the others (AA, DL) simply will resign to connecting most customers through partners?

PVG and ICN are in Asia what AMS and CDG are in Europe. There is already a ton of connecting traffic through those two hubs...it will likely only get larger.

flyfresno wrote:

flyboy80 wrote:

If Delta is to completely dismantle their NRT hub and beyond NRT flying how will their viability as an Asian player be affected? AA doesn't serve, on its own metal, the destinations Delta does, and instead connects them on, I presume, JAL. So if this is the case, why from a business perspective, should Delta not aim to duplicate a similar model as American, which might be more economical? United really is the stand out with more Non stop Asia penetration, but perhaps theres only room for one big US carrier to offer these types of flights, and the others (AA, DL) simply will resign to connecting most customers through partners?

PVG and ICN are in Asia what AMS and CDG are in Europe. There is already a ton of connecting traffic through those two hubs...it will likely only get larger.

Aside from PVG's congestion/airspace issues, the obvious key difference is that AMS and CDG are the hubs of immunized partners.

flyboy80 wrote:

If Delta is to completely dismantle their NRT hub and beyond NRT flying how will their viability as an Asian player be affected? AA doesn't serve, on its own metal, the destinations Delta does, and instead connects them on, I presume, JAL. So if this is the case, why from a business perspective, should Delta not aim to duplicate a similar model as American, which might be more economical? United really is the stand out with more Non stop Asia penetration, but perhaps theres only room for one big US carrier to offer these types of flights, and the others (AA, DL) simply will resign to connecting most customers through partners?

DL will still be viable competitor with SEA hub, DL will need to figure out the right mix of destinations with its current and future fleet plans. DL does not have a connection partner like AA/JL or UA/NH with their JVs. One can argue that MU is DL's connecting partner, but I leave that for others to explain the complexities.

Only way for DL to duplicate AA's model is develop MU and PVG into a connecting gateway, or as others have mentioned, team up with KE.

flyboy80 wrote:

Can someone explain in relative terms the contention thats so commonly described between KE and DL?

One of the commonly accepted (on a-net) sources of contention is the fact that DL pursued JL so aggressively, which resulted in KE feeling understandably slighted and unwanted. Another impediment to a JV is, in my opinion, the NW merger. Prior to that point, DL had a grand total of three trans-Pacific routes, a number which of course grew exponentially with the merger. With DL's lackluster pre-merger TPAC coverage, KE was in a position to accrue the majority of the benefits of a JV, since they flew a majority of DL/KE's combined routes. Post-merger, however, the disparity between the networks diminished greatly, to the point that KE felt it would have to surrender an unacceptable amount of control over the decision-making process.