Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Cointrin330
Topic Author
Posts: 2167
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:23 pm

Delta TPAC Future

Sun Jan 15, 2017 1:30 pm

Delta continues to make huge profits and remains in a class by itself when it comes to how it is run vs. the other 2 major US airlines, but what is to become of their Pacific network? Going into the merger with NW, it was a serious competitor, though perhaps not as large as UA, but in the last few years, several things have challenged DL. The NRT hub is being dismantled, largely because DL has no Japanese partner (with JL in Oneworld and NH in Star) and the HND/NRT split is still a large unknown so long as the slots at HND remain tied to late arrivals/departure time slots. Delta I thought was betting its future in Asia on a deeper partnership with China Eastern and a hub in PVG, but that seems to have slowed considerably (is the incoming Trump Administration part of the problem here) or is it that China's airlines really don't need a major US partner like that?

The SEA hub has the advantage of a strong local economy and geography, but Delta probably can't replicate what UA has at SFO or AA is building at LAX, so what happens there?
 
flyDTW1992
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 1:04 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Sun Jan 15, 2017 2:13 pm

Cointrin330 wrote:

The SEA hub has the advantage of a strong local economy and geography, but Delta probably can't replicate what UA has at SFO or AA is building at LAX, so what happens there?


I think as far as hub mix goes, they'll have to continue to carefully split their West Coast TPAC operations between SEA and LAX.

As for east of the Mississippi, I think the A350 affords them the chance to build on DTW's Asia gateway status, if only incrementally. The addition of the HGW A333s and the upcoming A339s also might allow for the legacy A332 fleet to be reshuffled if its smaller capacity is needed for that purpose. Perhaps if they can nail down a true JV with Korean or even one of the Chinese carriers, they can bring some of that into play as well. While just about everyone on this site agrees DTW won't be seeing any dramatic rises or falls in their level of service--Delta or otherwise--I don't see why a handful of new routes and/or frequencies can't be in the cards. It likely wouldn't take much to adjust feed into the hub to accommodate a few more TPAC departures on a given day.
Now you're flying smart
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:29 pm

Some of my inside sources tell me that as thye draw down the NRT hub they are planning to open a scissor hub at CDB. Apparently they did a proving run yesterday.
 
peanuts
Posts: 980
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 1:17 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Sun Jan 15, 2017 3:36 pm

Cointrin330 wrote:
Delta continues to make huge profits and remains in a class by itself when it comes to how it is run vs. the other 2 major US airlines, but what is to become of their Pacific network? Going into the merger with NW, it was a serious competitor, though perhaps not as large as UA, but in the last few years, several things have challenged DL. The NRT hub is being dismantled, largely because DL has no Japanese partner (with JL in Oneworld and NH in Star) and the HND/NRT split is still a large unknown so long as the slots at HND remain tied to late arrivals/departure time slots. Delta I thought was betting its future in Asia on a deeper partnership with China Eastern and a hub in PVG, but that seems to have slowed considerably (is the incoming Trump Administration part of the problem here) or is it that China's airlines really don't need a major US partner like that?

The SEA hub has the advantage of a strong local economy and geography, but Delta probably can't replicate what UA has at SFO or AA is building at LAX, so what happens there?


This has been discussed for well over 5 years now at least. The most reasonable/insightful opinion on this subject is probably from COMMAVIA.

Look up his posts and voilà.
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2630
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Sun Jan 15, 2017 4:57 pm

Cointrin330 wrote:
what is to become of their Pacific network?


Short answer: Virtual Airline.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4686
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Sun Jan 15, 2017 5:30 pm

I believe Chinese ministry have suspended any applications for new flight to PVG in most time over last year because of its poor on time performance so as to punish PVG?
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
(≧▽≦) Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
(≧▽≦) Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
User avatar
malaysia
Posts: 2667
Joined: Wed Nov 03, 1999 3:26 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:01 pm

I am not getting the original NW vibe in Asia anymore through DL recently.
There Are Those Who Believe That There May Yet Be Other Airlines Who Even Now Fight To Survive Beyond The Heavens
 
babastud
Posts: 274
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 1:38 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:18 pm

SFOtoORD wrote:
Some of my inside sources tell me that as thye draw down the NRT hub they are planning to open a scissor hub at CDB. Apparently they did a proving run yesterday.



Interesting Idea!! CDB offers a great opportunity for a scissor hub, and is not crowded so slots are a non-issue. Would passengers deplane and enplane through open air or closed terminals. I couldn't think of something nicer for the passenger than that fresh January Alaska air clearing your lungs.
 
b6sea
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:44 pm

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:29 pm

Y'know, everyone says SEA can't be what SFO is and I don't think that's necessarily true. I think it's certainly true as things are today, but as things continue to grow and expand, I don't think DL's operation at SEA will look all that different from UA's at SFO.

I think the big problem with SEA today is space, but as the airport expands terminal capacity, customs facilities, and DL is willing to try out new routes and provide feed through SEA, I think an SFO-like SEA is possible over time. This depends a lot on continued economic growth in the region, continued willingness on DL's part to expand at SEA, etc. But I do think the space issue is largely on the Port of Seattle's radar and they are committed to providing infrastructure to more than double the number of long-haul international flights from SEA (again, over time).

I don't really see any real structural reason why SEA isn't as suitable of a TPAC hub as SFO is, and it's quite a bit closer (great circle) to most asian destinations relative to SFO, meaning shorter flight times and less cost for the airline, so, to me, the whole SFO vs SEA thing seems like a lot of people imagining an unchanging world, which is a false premise. What SEA lacks in market size, it makes up for in location, and I think DL is very aware of that. For connections, SEA makes a whole ton of sense for a number of different markets.

As much as I rag on Delta, especially in regard to AS, I think their choice of SEA was a very strategic and intelligent decision and assuming they stick with their hub and invest in it over the next decade, which it seems like they will, then I think we'll see SEA and SFO begin to look much more alike than they do currently. How much, I don't know, but it seems like that's the direction things are going in, and fairly quickly.
 
BestWestern
Posts: 8358
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2000 8:46 pm

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:33 pm

The draw down of the Japanese hub is also due to considerable local competition that has driven yield down and quality up through both new LCCs and improvements in local flag carriers. Simply no need to fly DL within Asia anymore.
Greetings from Hong Kong.... a subsidiary of China Inc.
 
User avatar
flymco753
Posts: 3413
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 2:09 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:47 pm

This has been discussed in previous conversations on this but I'll post it again, DTW-HKG is highly likely and more than likely will be flown on an A350, SEA-TPE is highly likely. DTW-NGO will probably stay an A330 but they can probably get the A350 or 777 onto DTW-PEK. I also wonder if SEA-PVG, SEA-ICN, or SEA-NRT would switch to a larger a/c than a 76W.
...the carriage of liquids, gels, and aerosols are prohibited through the screening checkpoint except for travel size toiletries of 3 ounces or less...
 
yeginleduc
Posts: 77
Joined: Tue Mar 06, 2007 12:12 pm

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Sun Jan 15, 2017 9:48 pm

The rise of airlines such as Peach and JetStar as well as other regional LCCs such as HK Express and TigerAir the need for the UA and DL widebodies between NRT and HKG/MNL/TPE/BKK has greatly decreased. I remember taking DL/NW between HKG-NRT to get to Japan as it was basically the only cheap option. Now you can book JetStar or HK Express and get a choice in times and get a lower fare. With the amount of people HK Express can squeeze onto their A321s and with the frequency they operate some of the routes, its not surprising that DL and UA cant attract any of the travel agencies or leisure travelers anymore to fill the capacity on their single flight.
 
User avatar
OzarkD9S
Posts: 5734
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2001 2:31 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Sun Jan 15, 2017 10:13 pm

If DL and KE can get together and get a JV, HND/NRT/PVG will be quickly forgotten as hubs in the DL system. A SEA/LAX/DTW/ICN Asian hub structure would be almost everything DL would need for the market.
Next up: STL DEN PSP DEN STL
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Sun Jan 15, 2017 11:42 pm

peanuts wrote:
This has been discussed for well over 5 years now at least. The most reasonable/insightful opinion on this subject is probably from COMMAVIA.

Look up his posts and voilà.


Kind words - appreciate that. Thank you.

b6sea wrote:
I don't really see any real structural reason why SEA isn't as suitable of a TPAC hub as SFO is


I can - In fact, I can think of three reasons: (1) demographics, (2) economics and (3) culture.

Demographically, the San Francisco Bay Area is about double the population of Seattle/Tacoma metro (~8.7M people vs ~4.6M, as per the latest Census estimates according to Wiki). Similarly, the Bay Area's economy is over double that of Seattle/Tacoma (~$667B vs ~$313B in 2015, as per the latest BEA figures). And finally, and just as importantly, the cultural linkages between the Bay Area and Asia dwarf that between Seattle/Tacoma and Asia. So while there's no question that the Puget Sound economy is doing well right now, and the region is definitely adding population, it's equally beyond question that whether measured by people, money or culture, the Puget Sound region simply does not rival Northern California (let alone Southern California). There is a reason why SEA does not attract anywhere near as much capacity to Asia - or really longhaul in general - as compared to its coastal neighbors down in California. And personally, I don't see any of these dynamics changing anytime soon.

But all that said, none of that diminishes the fact that SEA is an excellent gateway to Asia. My personal opinion remains - as it has been for years - that Delta made a very smart decision to go after SEA and turn it into a viable replacement for ailing NRT and west coast compliment to DTW. SEA has come with costs for Delta, particularly in the form of having to organically build a domestic network overlaid on top of an established competitor that already operates a megahub in SEA. But even with that, it's definitely true that SEA's location and proximity to Asia, and relatively less intense competitive environment, makes it a great gateway hub. I am highly doubtful that Delta at SEA will ever come to resemble anything even remotely close to United at SFO - I'm not holding my breath for nonstops to XIY or SIN anytime soon, for instance - but then, it doesn't need to replicate United at SFO. SEA is serving exactly the purpose for Delta for which it was intended.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24823
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:55 am

b6sea wrote:
Y'know, everyone says SEA can't be what SFO is and I don't think that's necessarily true. I think it's certainly true as things are today, but as things continue to grow and expand, I don't think DL's operation at SEA will look all that different from UA's at SFO.


Seattle has a fraction of the local demand SFO has, and result DL would be woefully dependent on generating costly feed to fill ever more international capacity.

In general, successful hubs need a good chunk of local demand. As was posted in recent DOT route case exhibit, about 50% of UA SFO-Transpac enplanments today are local. Delta at SEA is barely 20%. The more SEA grows internationally, the lower the local percentage would be, and the higher need for more costly feed that DL would need to generate to feed the international flights.

Frankly, I'd argue that Seattle already has too much Transpac capacity for the size of its local market. Compare this to Portland which is not exactly a market that is so much smaller to only have a single flight!
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
jagraham
Posts: 1146
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:22 am

Delta's real "problem" is that they grabbed T2 and T3 at LAX. While SEA is closer to Asia, and flights from SEA can save money or be done on smaller planes (most of east Asia is reachable from SEA by 763s), LA is 4X as big as SEA and is the ultimate destination for a double digit percentage of Asian travelers. But no American carrier can get access everywhere like Emirates can. So Delta has to choose carefully to maximize it's (limited) routes.
 
babastud
Posts: 274
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 1:38 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:31 am

LAXintl wrote:
b6sea wrote:
Y'know, everyone says SEA can't be what SFO is and I don't think that's necessarily true. I think it's certainly true as things are today, but as things continue to grow and expand, I don't think DL's operation at SEA will look all that different from UA's at SFO.


Seattle has a fraction of the local demand SFO has, and result DL would be woefully dependent on generating costly feed to fill ever more international capacity.

In general, successful hubs need a good chunk of local demand. As was posted in recent DOT route case exhibit, about 50% of UA SFO-Transpac enplanments today are local. Delta at SEA is barely 20%. The more SEA grows internationally, the lower the local percentage would be, and the higher need for more costly feed that DL would need to generate to feed the international flights.

Frankly, I'd argue that Seattle already has too much Transpac capacity for the size of its local market. Compare this to Portland which is not exactly a market that is so much smaller to only have a single flight!




I'd agree, and also one thing to take into account is that cities like SF and LA are able to generate non-stops to major Asian destinations but also 2nd and 3rd tier cities in Asia. As traffic increases between Asia and the USA and more flights especially from subsidized cheap seat Chinese carriers, the margins may not be as good between the USA and ASIA thus carriers will be forced to depend more on premium seats (biz+first), Many of these premium travelers do not want to double connect through Seattle and will chose LA or SF and the flights will be their because the O+D is there to support the flights. Seattle lacks the O+D in the long run, and may have difficulty supporting some of these Trans Pac that currently exist. Don't get me wrong Sea will be a hub of sorts and have flights to many of the major Asian hub's, but I don't think we will see the explosive growth and or demand that SFO or LAX can bring.

Another point is that while Sea might be good geography for airlines, it may not be for passengers. Many people, especially Premium passengers don't want to fly 2-3 hrs and then change seats by jumping onto a new flight, they would rather fly an hour and then tuck into their biz seat and relax. A hub like SFO functions this way by providing alot of Western cities Las Vegas, PhX, San D, etc with close to 1 hour. Seattle has Portland but that's about it.
 
User avatar
klm617
Posts: 5254
Joined: Sat Jul 04, 2015 8:57 pm

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:38 am

SEA, LAX and ATL that's where the growth will be in the Delta network as far as trans pacific growth.
the truth does matter, guys. too bad it's often quite subjective. the truth is beyond the mere facts and figures. it's beyond good and bad, right and wrong...
 
b6sea
Posts: 569
Joined: Mon Aug 22, 2005 5:44 pm

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 3:58 am

LAXintl wrote:
b6sea wrote:
Y'know, everyone says SEA can't be what SFO is and I don't think that's necessarily true. I think it's certainly true as things are today, but as things continue to grow and expand, I don't think DL's operation at SEA will look all that different from UA's at SFO.


Seattle has a fraction of the local demand SFO has, and result DL would be woefully dependent on generating costly feed to fill ever more international capacity.

In general, successful hubs need a good chunk of local demand. As was posted in recent DOT route case exhibit, about 50% of UA SFO-Transpac enplanments today are local. Delta at SEA is barely 20%. The more SEA grows internationally, the lower the local percentage would be, and the higher need for more costly feed that DL would need to generate to feed the international flights.

Frankly, I'd argue that Seattle already has too much Transpac capacity for the size of its local market. Compare this to Portland which is not exactly a market that is so much smaller to only have a single flight!


I mean, I honestly don't understand what DL is doing in SEA if their goal wasn't to focus on generating "costly" feed to fill their international capacity. That's pretty much the stated plan...... So, on that one, you may be right, but that's also what's happening, which goes against the logic you've stated. Not trying to be nit-picky, just the reality of the situation looks different than you describe it. Or else there's a missing piece there.

As far as SEA-originated enplanements, DL is a very new player in SEA's transpac market with several of the asian carriers having served SEA much longer than DL has (although NW has a considerably longer history on select routes), I would venture to guess that the asian carriers capture more local traffic because they have name recognition with the businesses and communities that would be looking for such flights. My understanding is that building up a market or local loyalty takes time, especially when you're (perceived as being) openly hostile to a beloved local company with a loyal corporate and frequent flyer base. That leads me to believe that comparison, for the time-being, is apples to oranges, considering how entrenched UA is at SFO. Five years from now, if those numbers were the same, I would be inclined to agree with you conclusion, but as of now, I think a lot of things are still changing rather quickly.

As far as Portland goes, Portland's metro is about half the size of the Seattle area, and far less wealthy on a per-person basis and really lacks the major corporate presence Seattle has in addition to lacking any really significant cultural ties to Asia, that are present in Seattle. I would suggest that those factors, in addition to the proximity of Seattle to Portland is much more the reason why PDX lacks much transpac service.

I would counter all of the claims of people who say market size matters significantly with the example of YVR, where Vancouver's metro area is the same size as Portland's. And, while I'm aware that Vancouver acts as Canada's pacific gateway (and has significant ties to Hong Kong in particular), I still think if market size were the most critical factor, YVR wouldn't work. So that leads me to believe that market size is not actually the most important piece here, considering Vancouver's median household income is well below what Seattle or San Francisco's is and it really lacks the corporate traffic that would fill up the front cabins of these flights. Sure there are wealthy asian expats, but I highly doubt that's what's driving all of that traffic through YVR. I think that with a US market that's 10x the size of Canada's that having three pacific gateways is not all that unreasonable and that SEA makes a ton of sense through that lense. SEA is closer to Chicago and much of the Midwest as well as the Northeast than SFO or LAX are, so, again, this reduces travel times for connecting pax from those regions as well.

I'm not hell-bent on SEA becoming SFO, in fact, I'd personally prefer that it didn't, but the way things are going, I'm fairly convinced that's what DL envisions and I think there are counter points to the nay-sayers that support that being a viable, if difficult, plan.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1217
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:25 am

b6sea wrote:
I mean, I honestly don't understand what DL is doing in SEA if their goal wasn't to focus on generating "costly" feed to fill their international capacity. That's pretty much the stated plan...... So, on that one, you may be right, but that's also what's happening, which goes against the logic you've stated. Not trying to be nit-picky, just the reality of the situation looks different than you describe it. Or else there's a missing piece there.

As far as SEA-originated enplanements, DL is a very new player in SEA's transpac market with several of the asian carriers having served SEA much longer than DL has


His point was that the SEA O&D market is much smaller than SFO irrespective of carrier so inherently has a more challenging yield situation. If you look at NW's history in NRT they relied on loads of consolidators and connecting traffic that hurt yields there which is the exact situation DL doesn't want in SEA. I think longer term TPAC O&D in SEA will grow based on their economy, but just won't have the same strength as SFO anytime soon.
 
User avatar
mercure1
Posts: 4900
Joined: Sun Jul 13, 2008 5:13 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:34 am

b6sea wrote:
Y'know, everyone says SEA can't be what SFO is and I don't think that's necessarily true. I think it's certainly true as things are today, but as things continue to grow and expand, I don't think DL's operation at SEA will look all that different from UA's at SFO.

Your confidence in Seattle is admirable, but when SEA becomes like SFO, it means SFO has become like LAX, or other even larger city and local market demand.

The thing is SEA is a Tier-2 city when it comes to international markets, its not a LA, CHI, NYC, SF etc.

Delta has to make lemonade with the lemons it has (not saying is a lemon city, I like it), but from airline Pacific hub game it has the worst hand to play. SEA is simply not a LAX or SFO when it comes to local Asia demand.

b6sea wrote:
As far as SEA-originated enplanements, DL is a very new player in SEA's transpac market with several of the asian carriers having served SEA much longer than DL has (although NW has a considerably longer history on select routes), I would venture to guess that the asian carriers capture more local traffic because they have name recognition with the businesses and communities that would be looking for such flights. My understanding is that building up a market or local loyalty takes time, especially when you're (perceived as being) openly hostile to a beloved local company with a loyal corporate and frequent flyer base. That leads me to believe that comparison, for the time-being, is apples to oranges, considering how entrenched UA is at SFO. Five years from now, if those numbers were the same, I would be inclined to agree with you conclusion, but as of now, I think a lot of things are still changing rather quickly.


SEA is classic example of a longhaul hub that has too much capacity for city needs. Delta PDX Pacific hub was the same. Dont feel bad, ATL is the same for DL. It hardly needs the massive capacity DL throws to markets like Europe from ATL.

For your local enplanement percentage, its mathematically unlikely can really DL will grow its share much as it continues to add capacity unless city like SEA grows at a much faster rate. DL has added more seats to a market that does not require it and continued growth would further weaken local boarding percentage.

Also with SEA being a secondary market for international airlines in the US, foreign airlines are not serving SEA from their hub solely for local traffic needs. For example EVA Airlines in America does big business with traffic to Vietnam, Hong Kong and Thailand. So its SEA service is not about the SEA-TPE passenger but about the XXX-TPE-SEA passenger that transits the TPE hub. EVA could really never fill flights to SEA solely on local demand. Probably on US markets that need to much capacity to TPE are LA and maybe SF. Certainly not SEA.
mercure f-wtcc
 
notconcerned
Posts: 189
Joined: Sat Jun 18, 2016 3:39 pm

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:38 am

b6sea wrote:
I would counter all of the claims of people who say market size matters significantly with the example of YVR, where Vancouver's metro area is the same size as Portland's. And, while I'm aware that Vancouver acts as Canada's pacific gateway (and has significant ties to Hong Kong in particular), I still think if market size were the most critical factor, YVR wouldn't work. So that leads me to believe that market size is not actually the most important piece here, considering Vancouver's median household income is well below what Seattle or San Francisco's is and it really lacks the corporate traffic that would fill up the front cabins of these flights. Sure there are wealthy asian expats, but I highly doubt that's what's driving all of that traffic through YVR. I think that with a US market that's 10x the size of Canada's that having three pacific gateways is not all that unreasonable and that SEA makes a ton of sense through that lense. SEA is closer to Chicago and much of the Midwest as well as the Northeast than SFO or LAX are, so, again, this reduces travel times for connecting pax from those regions as well.


Well the demographic of Vancouver is around 50% Asian, which is a lot higher than Seattle at around 15%, which would account for the majority of the TPAC traffic. Moreover, YVR also funnels most of ex-Canada pacific traffic, as passengers in Eastern Canada prefer not to transit in the US. And lastly, YVR also competes and has been competing in the US-Asia connecting market a lot longer than SEA. To your point, the economics is not always favorable, as fares to/from YVR are usually lower, but nonetheless, YVR is well entrenched in the North America-Asia market and has the demographics to support the flights and destinations.
 
flyfresno
Posts: 1087
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 6:18 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:34 am

LAXintl wrote:
Frankly, I'd argue that Seattle already has too much Transpac capacity for the size of its local market. Compare this to Portland which is not exactly a market that is so much smaller to only have a single flight!


Portland isn't a small market by any means, but the market that SEA serves is also definitely much larger. While I could cerainly see PDX getting another flight to Asia, I would not try to equate the two.
 
simpv
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:02 am

Cointrin330 wrote:
The SEA hub has the advantage of a strong local economy and geography, but Delta probably can't replicate what UA has at SFO or AA is building at LAX, so what happens there?


In addition to what has already been said about the differences in economic size, I would also contend that SEA's geography is a only slight advantage at best. It's best advantage is everything north of SFO and west of CHI; this doesn't encompass many cities (and 2 of the three, SLC an MSP, are already DL hubs) to draw upon for feed. From the Northeast, Southeast, Texas, and Southwest it's frequently just as fast to fly through LAX or DTW. For instance, ATL-SEA-SIN is 10,716mi, and ATL-LAX-SIN is 10,252; that's less than 500mi difference. JFK-DTW-TPE is 8,052, while JFK-SEA-TPE is 8,496; that SEA connection is longer by 400mi.

I think the best argument that geography is not destiny is what has happened in BOS. Solid economy, solid passenger base, but greatly overshadowed by NYC and WAS. Even though it has the better location to Europe, no US3 has made it a true hub, all preferring to focus on NYC with higher premium O+D. Instead BOS has relied on international airlines to slowly add routes. I see a similar phenomenon playing out in SEA. Some TPAC growth from DL, maybe an add in TPE or HKG, but that's about it. Especially when you consider how aggressively AS has been. If they find more international partners to cut into DL's TPAC networking-building, then this might be an even slower process.
 
boilerla
Posts: 421
Joined: Wed Jul 28, 2010 5:30 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:37 am

notconcerned wrote:
b6sea wrote:
Well the demographic of Vancouver is around 50% Asian, which is a lot higher than Seattle at around 15%, which would account for the majority of the TPAC traffic. Moreover, YVR also funnels most of ex-Canada pacific traffic, as passengers in Eastern Canada prefer not to transit in the US. And lastly, YVR also competes and has been competing in the US-Asia connecting market a lot longer than SEA. To your point, the economics is not always favorable, as fares to/from YVR are usually lower, but nonetheless, YVR is well entrenched in the North America-Asia market and has the demographics to support the flights and destinations.

You don't build a hub based on ethnicities of the city. If that were true, BOS would have 15 flights a day to Ireland (just joking).

But to the point, you build a hub based on business ties. SEA is a nice city, but its business ties are limited to a couple of major companies. SFO is the financial center on the west coast with the Federal Reserve for the west coast as well as several banks calling it their west coast home; it's the tech center of the country with every major name (even that Redmond company) having offices in the Bay area; it has a lot of medical/health industry ties. Not to mention its business ties to the 2nd largest city in the nation. UA is relying on companies like Apple and Wells Fargo to fill the front of the plane with business class fliers, not people going to visit Asian family members.
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 1:39 pm

b6sea wrote:
I mean, I honestly don't understand what DL is doing in SEA if their goal wasn't to focus on generating "costly" feed to fill their international capacity. That's pretty much the stated plan...... So, on that one, you may be right, but that's also what's happening, which goes against the logic you've stated. Not trying to be nit-picky, just the reality of the situation looks different than you describe it. Or else there's a missing piece there.


Delta's goal was to build an Asian gateway that offered 1-stop connectivity between the western U.S. and Asia, and replaced NRT. SEA has done exactly what it's supposed to do. But the points above need not be mutually exclusive - connecting feed can be both more expensive than O&D, and still the objective. Delta has no choice, as SEA simply does not generate anywhere close to the O&D of SFO, but Delta needed the connecting potential of SEA so badly to replace NRT that it was willing to accept the higher incremental cost per passenger. In the end, it seems to me like a very smart move. Delta is rapidly drawing down NRT - as it needed to do - and in the meantime Delta today is offering vastly more 1-stop connections between more cities in the U.S. and more cities in Asia than Delta, or Northwest, ever have before.

b6sea wrote:
That leads me to believe that comparison, for the time-being, is apples to oranges, considering how entrenched UA is at SFO. Five years from now, if those numbers were the same, I would be inclined to agree with you conclusion, but as of now, I think a lot of things are still changing rather quickly.


And I think the point that many of us are making is that the comparison is, indeed, "apples to oranges," but not because United is entrenched at SFO and Delta is relatively new at SEA. It's "apples to oranges" because SFO as a market compared to SEA is "apples to oranges" - one is literally twice the size of the other, demographically and economically. That's the bottom line.

b6sea wrote:
I would counter all of the claims of people who say market size matters significantly with the example of YVR, where Vancouver's metro area is the same size as Portland's. And, while I'm aware that Vancouver acts as Canada's pacific gateway (and has significant ties to Hong Kong in particular), I still think if market size were the most critical factor, YVR wouldn't work. So that leads me to believe that market size is not actually the most important piece here, considering Vancouver's median household income is well below what Seattle or San Francisco's is and it really lacks the corporate traffic that would fill up the front cabins of these flights. Sure there are wealthy asian expats, but I highly doubt that's what's driving all of that traffic through YVR.


Nobody said market size was necessarily the "most" critical factor - but it's one of them. Again - I'd suggest that demographics, economics and culture are the three axes by which virtually any longhaul gateway can be evaluated. And, to the original point, on all three, SEA is nowhere close to SFO, let alone LAX.

b6sea wrote:
I'm not hell-bent on SEA becoming SFO, in fact, I'd personally prefer that it didn't, but the way things are going, I'm fairly convinced that's what DL envisions


I'm fairly certain that Delta doesn't envision that - because Delta's management is very smart and realistic, and acknowledges the realities that are being discussed here. I highly doubt that Delta's management has any illusions of grandeur of turning SEA into anything close to what United has at SFO - that's not going to happen. But, again, it doesn't need to - even in its present state today, without a single seat ever again being added to its nonstop Asia capacity, SEA has pretty much served exactly its intended purpose for Delta. It compliments DTW, provides 1-stop connectivity between the principle cities of the western U.S. and the principle cities of East Asia, and it provided the soft landing to exit the NRT hub. Check, check, check.

mercure1 wrote:
Your confidence in Seattle is admirable, but when SEA becomes like SFO, it means SFO has become like LAX, or other even larger city and local market demand.

The thing is SEA is a Tier-2 city when it comes to international markets, its not a LA, CHI, NYC, SF etc.

Delta has to make lemonade with the lemons it has (not saying is a lemon city, I like it), but from airline Pacific hub game it has the worst hand to play. SEA is simply not a LAX or SFO when it comes to local Asia demand.


Yep. This is the bottom line. SEA is simply not the equal of SFO or LAX - and it's not going to be anytime soon, if ever. That's just reality. Doesn't mean SEA isn't a great gateway to Asia, or a great air market in general, but it's not even close to its (far) larger competitor gateways down the coast.

flyfresno wrote:
Portland isn't a small market by any means, but the market that SEA serves is also definitely much larger. While I could cerainly see PDX getting another flight to Asia, I would not try to equate the two.


Personally, given the market and competitive dynamics involved, I still think the most likely outcome is Delta's daily 767 being replaced with one of the Japanese carriers' 787s. Beyond that, I agree that ICN is the next most likely Asian gateway. Considering that both have codesharing relationships with Alaska, I don't think it's at all inconceivable that within five years the PDX-Asia market could go from one daily Delta 767 PDX-NRT to one daily JAL 787 PDX-NRT plus one 5-7x weekly Korean A330 PDX-ICN.

simpv wrote:
I would also contend that SEA's geography is a only slight advantage at best. It's best advantage is everything north of SFO and west of CHI; this doesn't encompass many cities (and 2 of the three, SLC an MSP, are already DL hubs) to draw upon for feed. From the Northeast, Southeast, Texas, and Southwest it's frequently just as fast to fly through LAX or DTW. For instance, ATL-SEA-SIN is 10,716mi, and ATL-LAX-SIN is 10,252; that's less than 500mi difference. JFK-DTW-TPE is 8,052, while JFK-SEA-TPE is 8,496; that SEA connection is longer by 400mi.


Indeed - another important point. Geographical advantages really only matter significantly if they're really pronounced. It's certainly true that on a great circle map, SEA sits pretty much right at the nexus of air traffic between North America and East Asia. But most consumers don't think in terms of a great circle map. They look left on their flat projection and see the west coast, and look further left and see Asia, and perceive that the west coast - pretty much all of the west coast - in simply "on the way." And given the schedules they see when they pull up Kayak, they could be forgiven for thinking that. In many cases, in practice, SEA doesn't offer all that dramatic a schedule advantage over SFO, or even LAX. Sure, assuming the connections line up - an entire other issue, already well discussed, that Delta must contend with given its relatively lower-frequency domestic network out of SEA vs United at SFO or even AA at LAX - SEA may shave 60-90 minutes off of some routings. But is 60-90 minutes enough to significantly sway booking behavior? Doubtful. Purely hypothetical - if United's connection through SFO gets a passenger to PVG at 1900 and Delta's connection through SEA gets the passenger there at 1800, that's highly unlikely to create a massive share shift to Delta. If it was a difference of 5-6 hours, maybe. But in most cases it's not.
 
jumbojet
Posts: 2957
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:01 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:02 pm

Its inevitable that MSP to HND will get cut. Flights are routinely empty day in and day out. Having zero feed on the HND end is hurting DL. Just give it to AA and be done with it. I can see DL withdrawing entirely on Japan if HND doenst work, maybe with the sole exception of LAX-HND.
 
deltal1011man
Posts: 5365
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 9:17 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:24 pm

commavia wrote:

Delta's goal was to build an Asian gateway that offered 1-stop connectivity between the western U.S. and Asia, and replaced NRT. SEA has done exactly what it's supposed to do. But the points above need not be mutually exclusive - connecting feed can be both more expensive than O&D, and still the objective. Delta has no choice, as SEA simply does not generate anywhere close to the O&D of SFO, but Delta needed the connecting potential of SEA so badly to replace NRT that it was willing to accept the higher incremental cost per passenger. In the end, it seems to me like a very smart move. Delta is rapidly drawing down NRT - as it needed to do - and in the meantime Delta today is offering vastly more 1-stop connections between more cities in the U.S. and more cities in Asia than Delta, or Northwest, ever have before.

Exactly this.

I don't think DL's goal is, or has ever been to recreate what UA has at SFO. Domestically, over time, SEA will look at lot like SFO does. But to Asia DL is just about done expanding as far a destinations go. TPE is about the only city left that makes much sense. Once the new FIS is complete growth will come from capacity to existing destinations.

As far as secondary China flying, DL is going to depend on the likes of MU and KE for that.
 
User avatar
compensateme
Posts: 3279
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 2:31 pm

b6sea wrote:
I mean, I honestly don't understand what DL is doing in SEA if their goal wasn't to focus on generating "costly" feed to fill their international capacity. That's pretty much the stated plan...... So, on that one, you may be right, but that's also what's happening, which goes against the logic you've stated. Not trying to be nit-picky, just the reality of the situation looks different than you describe it. Or else there's a missing piece there.

I'm not hell-bent on SEA becoming SFO, in fact, I'd personally prefer that it didn't, but the way things are going, I'm fairly convinced that's what DL envisions and I think there are counter points to the nay-sayers that support that being a viable, if difficult, plan


I'd be curious as to where DL "stated [this] plan." Most of DL's recent adds are timed toward to local market, as opposed to connections to Asia.

And what convinces you that DL's trying to mimic UA's SFO operation? DL hasn't announced any long haul additions in nearly three years and just announced they planned to withdraw from TPE. Surely if DL intended to build the large operation you believe it to, it would've added SEA-TPE. (And let's stop this 'the FIS is overcrowded' nonsense -- other airlines have added long-haul services during peak times and DL itself has added Mexico flying during peak periods ... no way would DL cut loose its TPE management team if it intended to return to the market -- it's just not rational).

Reality is, SEA is an incredibly overserved market to Asia; while DL may add additional service in the future, it's not headed in the direction ("massive" buildup) that you or others want to believe. I'll maintain that LAX will probably be the focus of any future transpacific buildup, if any.
We don’t care what your next flight is.
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 8529
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:08 pm

b6sea wrote:
Y'know, everyone says SEA can't be what SFO is and I don't think that's necessarily true.


In addition to the oft-mentioned remark (true) that SEA market size won't equal SFO market size for international traffic, you're overlooking an important detail:

DL at SEA can't dominate domestic traffic the UA does at SFO while Alaska Airlines continues to exist.

Domination of the domestic traffic - O&D and connecting - adds to viable destination count (both domestically and in Asia) and allows UA to operate larger, more CASM-efficient aircraft: 777 vs. DL 767, etc.

That's not to say SEA can't be successful as an Asian gateway, nor that DL can't be successful at SEA with a 150-200/flight a day hub with flights to Asia and Europe.

The fact that DL (up about 120 flights a day) and AS (up ~70 a day?) both have added lots of flights in the past four years suggests that SEA was significantly underserved. The carriers don't talk too specifically about margins at SEA specifically, but they're not whining about low margins there, either. SEA flyers ought to be happy for new DL and AS destinations, frequencies, price competition, and service competition.
 
simpv
Posts: 167
Joined: Wed Sep 07, 2016 12:19 pm

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 4:27 pm

MIflyer12 wrote:
b6sea wrote:
DL at SEA can't dominate domestic traffic the UA does at SFO while Alaska Airlines continues to exist.


I think this is key. We've already seen AS and EK have a mutually beneficial partnership. If AS were to start a stronger partnership with unaffiliated Hainan, I assume that would significantly cut into DL's PVG and PEK service. A similar agreement could be made with PR as well, given AS's strengthening network at SFO and LAX.
 
flyfresno
Posts: 1087
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 6:18 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:35 pm

jumbojet wrote:
Its inevitable that MSP to HND will get cut. Flights are routinely empty day in and day out. Having zero feed on the HND end is hurting DL. Just give it to AA and be done with it. I can see DL withdrawing entirely on Japan if HND doenst work, maybe with the sole exception of LAX-HND.


Withdrawing entirely from Japan except for LAX? No way. Things aren't as dire as you think, and there is no way DL is giving HND to AA without getting something in return.
 
ericm2031
Posts: 1416
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 8:46 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:41 pm

Isn't part of their LAX agreement that if they expand to a certain number of long haul destinations, they get additional TBIT gates?
 
ldvaviation
Posts: 1259
Joined: Sun Dec 21, 2008 7:21 pm

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:43 pm

flyfresno wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
Withdrawing entirely from Japan except for LAX? No way. Things aren't as dire as you think, and there is no way DL is giving HND to AA without getting something in return.


See what the DOT has to say on the matter.
 
User avatar
Polot
Posts: 10905
Joined: Thu Jul 28, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:53 pm

flyfresno wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
Its inevitable that MSP to HND will get cut. Flights are routinely empty day in and day out. Having zero feed on the HND end is hurting DL. Just give it to AA and be done with it. I can see DL withdrawing entirely on Japan if HND doenst work, maybe with the sole exception of LAX-HND.


Withdrawing entirely from Japan except for LAX? No way. Things aren't as dire as you think, and there is no way DL is giving HND to AA without getting something in return.

Well in regards to MSP-HND DL has no choice about AA getting it. If DL cancels the route or doesn't maintain its current commitment (i.e. makes it seasonal) than that HND traffic right automatically gets transferred to AA for DFW-HND. This was one of the stipulations in the route award (DOT doesn't want to deal with DL HND drama again like with the nighttime slots).
Last edited by Polot on Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 5:53 pm

flyfresno wrote:
Withdrawing entirely from Japan except for LAX? No way. Things aren't as dire as you think, and there is no way DL is giving HND to AA without getting something in return.


Agree on all counts.

I have no doubt that MSP-HND is a suboptimal financial performer - it caters to minimal connectivity on the HND end, and yet it's the smallest O&D market Delta serves nonstop between the U.S. and TYO. But I agree that Delta will defend it to the end before it watches that precious HND daytime slot pair get released to a competitor - especially to AA at DFW (which, personally, I still believe is, from a financial standpoint, a far more viable market from HND than MSP).

And on Japan more broadly, Delta exiting Japan "entirely" except LAX? Please. No way. Let's keep some perspective. Japan is still among the largest economies, and wealthiest societies, on earth. And the Tokyo metropolitan region is the largest on earth - with over 36M people. Hub or no hub, HND or no HND, there is absoutely no way that Delta - the world's third largest airline - will drop down to one, or no, flights to the country. That will never happen. Personally, I think that regardless of what happens with beyond-NRT, Delta should definitely be able to maintain, at a minimum, a daily nonstop link to TYO from LAX, SEA, ATL, DTW, likely MSP - and NYC! - plus HNL.
 
lavalampluva
Posts: 1433
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:55 pm

commavia wrote:
flyfresno wrote:
Withdrawing entirely from Japan except for LAX? No way. Things aren't as dire as you think, and there is no way DL is giving HND to AA without getting something in return.


Agree on all counts.

I have no doubt that MSP-HND is a suboptimal financial performer - it caters to minimal connectivity on the HND end, and yet it's the smallest O&D market Delta serves nonstop between the U.S. and TYO. But I agree that Delta will defend it to the end before it watches that precious HND daytime slot pair get released to a competitor - especially to AA at DFW (which, personally, I still believe is, from a financial standpoint, a far more viable market from HND than MSP).

And on Japan more broadly, Delta exiting Japan "entirely" except LAX? Please. No way. Let's keep some perspective. Japan is still among the largest economies, and wealthiest societies, on earth. And the Tokyo metropolitan region is the largest on earth - with over 36M people. Hub or no hub, HND or no HND, there is absoutely no way that Delta - the world's third largest airline - will drop down to one, or no, flights to the country. That will never happen. Personally, I think that regardless of what happens with beyond-NRT, Delta should definitely be able to maintain, at a minimum, a daily nonstop link to TYO from LAX, SEA, ATL, DTW, likely MSP - and NYC! - plus HNL.

HND is an odd situation. I don't understand how it couldn't work out. It is close to the Tokyo City Center, by 46km, and it arrives early afternoon, so there are plenty of options to connect to other cities in Japan and Asia. The only downside is you can't connect to other DL flights unless you make the train trip to NRT.
Remind me to send a thank you note to Mr. Boeing.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3717
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:04 pm

deltal1011man wrote:
But to Asia DL is just about done expanding as far a destinations go. TPE is about the only city left that makes much sense. Once the new FIS is complete growth will come from capacity to existing destinations. .


As much as I think DL management has done about 99% of everything right, I personally feel they have bungled their Asian plans The rushed draw-down of NRT, without any viable options in place to substitute for it on routes to BKK and TPE... the on-again, off-again routes to HND... and now abandoning TPE after decades there... all that seems more like panic than planning. Maybe I am the only person here who thinks keeping at least a small hub at NRT is a good idea... but I do. I just don't see a better alternative.

And if they truly to plan to start SEA-TPE once the new FIS is in place in Seattle, why would they desert TPE now? Why would they choose to dismantle all the infrastructure - the people, and the equipment - they have there? That just doesn't make sense.
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 7:05 pm

lavalampluva wrote:
HND is an odd situation. I don't understand how it couldn't work out. It is close to the Tokyo City Center, by 46km, and it arrives early afternoon, so there are plenty of options to connect to other cities in Japan and Asia. The only downside is you can't connect to other DL flights unless you make the train trip to NRT.


The problem is two-fold.

With respect to HND's proximity to central Tokyo, there is no question that its location is far more convenient and accessible than NRT (at least during daytime hours when mass transit is running!), and that this naturally would tend to support Delta's pursuit of TYO O&D. Unfortunately, however, as said already, MSP is the smallest TYO O&D market of the routes Delta flies nonstop to TYO - so this is of relatively less benefit than it would be from, say, SEA or NYC. I'm sure it does help with pulling connections onto that MSP-HND flight, but enough to dramatically improve the overall economics of the flight? I doubt it - especially since many of the hypothetical MSP-HND connecting markets on the MSP end already have nonstops in their own right to TYO, including in several cases to HND also.

In terms of connections on the HND end, they're pretty minimal - at least in terms of those that are valuable to Delta. The vast majority of the onward connectivity out of HND in the afternoon/evening is on ANA and JAL - and while Delta interlines with both, those carriers' JVs with Delta competitors (to say nothing of the competition from Delta itself at NRT) provide a strong incentive for them to cooperate relatively less with Delta in terms of beyond-HND connections. Among ostensibly Delta-aligned "partner" carriers (i.e., SkyTeam), the two-way connectivity over HND is basically a handful of flights (most sub-optimally scheduled, to be generous) to Korea, China and Taiwan.
 
IADCA
Posts: 2194
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:03 pm

commavia wrote:
lavalampluva wrote:
HND is an odd situation. I don't understand how it couldn't work out. It is close to the Tokyo City Center, by 46km, and it arrives early afternoon, so there are plenty of options to connect to other cities in Japan and Asia. The only downside is you can't connect to other DL flights unless you make the train trip to NRT.


The problem is two-fold.

With respect to HND's proximity to central Tokyo, there is no question that its location is far more convenient and accessible than NRT (at least during daytime hours when mass transit is running!), and that this naturally would tend to support Delta's pursuit of TYO O&D.


I don't see a significant difference in terms of time of day - the Narita Express doesn't run late at night either, so HND is a lot easier pretty much all the time. NRT is just a hike regardless of timing. As you said very well, MSP-HND really is a bit of an oddball when compared to the other U.S. cities that do have HND service and also some of those that don't - it seems like it would be very heavily O&D on one end and very heavily connecting on the other - and that seems to me to be a very strange use of a Haneda slot.
 
lavalampluva
Posts: 1433
Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2014 7:33 pm

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:12 pm

IADCA wrote:
commavia wrote:
lavalampluva wrote:
HND is an odd situation. I don't understand how it couldn't work out. It is close to the Tokyo City Center, by 46km, and it arrives early afternoon, so there are plenty of options to connect to other cities in Japan and Asia. The only downside is you can't connect to other DL flights unless you make the train trip to NRT.


The problem is two-fold.

With respect to HND's proximity to central Tokyo, there is no question that its location is far more convenient and accessible than NRT (at least during daytime hours when mass transit is running!), and that this naturally would tend to support Delta's pursuit of TYO O&D.


I don't see a significant difference in terms of time of day - the Narita Express doesn't run late at night either, so HND is a lot easier pretty much all the time. NRT is just a hike regardless of timing. As you said very well, MSP-HND really is a bit of an oddball when compared to the other U.S. cities that do have HND service and also some of those that don't - it seems like it would be very heavily O&D on one end and very heavily connecting on the other - and that seems to me to be a very strange use of a Haneda slot.

You're correct in saying that flights between the US and HND are unique. Only cities with direct flights are Chicago, Honolulu, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York (K), San Francisco.
Remind me to send a thank you note to Mr. Boeing.
 
Prost
Posts: 2587
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:23 pm

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:13 pm

Interestingly, Facebook is going to have a 1000 employee operation in Seattle, Google is having some office buildings built here, and Apple is looking for 1 million square feet of space as well. The reason? The cost of living in the Bay Area has become a disincentive for many employees, and there's a large pool of tech workers in Seattle to draw from. Under no circumstances am I saying Seattle is a cheap City to live in, but it's a bargain compared to the Bay Area.

Seattle will probably always play second fiddle to the Bay Area for tech employment, but if I'm not mistaken, Seattle is now the leader in cloud computing. The Seattle market does have its strengths, and I think Delta can tap into them. They probably could have tapped into them better with a 787-8 order (kept the recently cancelled order) but that's water under the bridge.
 
IPFreely
Posts: 2630
Joined: Sun Dec 24, 2006 8:26 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:42 pm

commavia wrote:
Personally, given the market and competitive dynamics involved, I still think the most likely outcome is Delta's daily 767 being replaced with one of the Japanese carriers' 787s. Beyond that, I agree that ICN is the next most likely Asian gateway. Considering that both have codesharing relationships with Alaska, I don't think it's at all inconceivable that within five years the PDX-Asia market could go from one daily Delta 767 PDX-NRT to one daily JAL 787 PDX-NRT plus one 5-7x weekly Korean A330 PDX-ICN.


This makes the most sense regarding the TPAC future. Delta can offer service from the western half of the US to Asia by having Endeavor, ExpressJet, or Compass fly passengers from their origin to SEA (or in some cases PDX) where they connect to a Japanese or Korean 787 for the rest of their trip. It's win/win -- feed on the US end for JAL & Korean and Delta retains their commitment to Asia while progressing toward a virtual airline business model.
 
flyDTW1992
Posts: 1055
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 1:04 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 9:02 pm

IPFreely wrote:
commavia wrote:
Personally, given the market and competitive dynamics involved, I still think the most likely outcome is Delta's daily 767 being replaced with one of the Japanese carriers' 787s. Beyond that, I agree that ICN is the next most likely Asian gateway. Considering that both have codesharing relationships with Alaska, I don't think it's at all inconceivable that within five years the PDX-Asia market could go from one daily Delta 767 PDX-NRT to one daily JAL 787 PDX-NRT plus one 5-7x weekly Korean A330 PDX-ICN.


This makes the most sense regarding the TPAC future. Delta can offer service from the western half of the US to Asia by having Endeavor, ExpressJet, or Compass fly passengers from their origin to SEA (or in some cases PDX) where they connect to a Japanese or Korean 787 for the rest of their trip. It's win/win -- feed on the US end for JAL & Korean and Delta retains their commitment to Asia while progressing toward a virtual airline business model.


FYI Expressjet and Endeavor don't fly to the West Coast for DL.

But yes, you're right, I think it's clear DL will continue to feed Asia traffic thru SEA using their regional carriers, whether the TPAC is then on their own metal or a new JV partner like Korean.
Now you're flying smart
 
User avatar
LAX772LR
Posts: 13350
Joined: Sun Nov 09, 2014 11:06 pm

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Mon Jan 16, 2017 11:28 pm

commavia wrote:
Delta - the world's third largest airline

Second largest, for quite a while now IINM.


jumbojet wrote:
I can see DL withdrawing entirely on Japan if HND doenst work, maybe with the sole exception of LAX-HND.

Essentially zilch chance of that happening.
I myself, suspect a more prosaic motive... ~Thranduil
 
Prost
Posts: 2587
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2012 6:23 pm

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:09 am

I believe DL became the second largest carrier in the summer/fall of 2016? So it's a recen development.
 
steex
Posts: 1438
Joined: Wed Jun 27, 2007 8:45 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:27 am

IPFreely wrote:
commavia wrote:
Personally, given the market and competitive dynamics involved, I still think the most likely outcome is Delta's daily 767 being replaced with one of the Japanese carriers' 787s. Beyond that, I agree that ICN is the next most likely Asian gateway. Considering that both have codesharing relationships with Alaska, I don't think it's at all inconceivable that within five years the PDX-Asia market could go from one daily Delta 767 PDX-NRT to one daily JAL 787 PDX-NRT plus one 5-7x weekly Korean A330 PDX-ICN.


This makes the most sense regarding the TPAC future. Delta can offer service from the western half of the US to Asia by having Endeavor, ExpressJet, or Compass fly passengers from their origin to SEA (or in some cases PDX) where they connect to a Japanese or Korean 787 for the rest of their trip. It's win/win -- feed on the US end for JAL & Korean and Delta retains their commitment to Asia while progressing toward a virtual airline business model.


The reasoned evaluation you quoted was that DL may ultimately give up the PDX-Asia nonstop market entirely due to a lack of feed at Portland, being replaced by Asian carriers which are partnered with Alaska. That has nothing to do with DL's use of regional affiliates or joint ventures, but don't let that stand in the way of an opportunity to get a dig in anyhow.
 
alfa164
Posts: 3717
Joined: Sat Oct 06, 2012 2:47 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Tue Jan 17, 2017 2:29 am

steex wrote:
IPFreely wrote:
commavia wrote:
Personally, given the market and competitive dynamics involved, I still think the most likely outcome is Delta's daily 767 being replaced with one of the Japanese carriers' 787s. Beyond that, I agree that ICN is the next most likely Asian gateway. Considering that both have codesharing relationships with Alaska, I don't think it's at all inconceivable that within five years the PDX-Asia market could go from one daily Delta 767 PDX-NRT to one daily JAL 787 PDX-NRT plus one 5-7x weekly Korean A330 PDX-ICN.

This makes the most sense regarding the TPAC future. Delta can offer service from the western half of the US to Asia by having Endeavor, ExpressJet, or Compass fly passengers from their origin to SEA (or in some cases PDX) where they connect to a Japanese or Korean 787 for the rest of their trip. It's win/win -- feed on the US end for JAL & Korean and Delta retains their commitment to Asia while progressing toward a virtual airline business model.

The reasoned evaluation you quoted was that DL may ultimately give up the PDX-Asia nonstop market entirely due to a lack of feed at Portland, being replaced by Asian carriers which are partnered with Alaska. That has nothing to do with DL's use of regional affiliates or joint ventures, but don't let that stand in the way of an opportunity to get a dig in anyhow.


It is particularly ironic coming from a poster who works for AS - an airline that whores itself out to anyone who will hop in bed with it. According to their own website, those include:

Codeshare partners

AeroMexico
Air France
American Airlines
Cathay Pacific
Delta Air Lines
Emirates
Fiji Airways
Icelandair
KLM
Korean Air
LAN
PenAir
Qantas
Ravn Alaska
Virgin America


So who is the "virtual airline" now? ;)
I'm going to have a smokin' hot body again!
I have decided to be cremated....
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7170
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Tue Jan 17, 2017 5:21 am

simpv wrote:
A similar agreement could be made with PR as well, given AS's strengthening network at SFO and LAX.

Except that PR has enough demand at both. OTOH, there is no nonstop competition in SEA and PR had mentioned it as a potential future port-of-call and domestic feed by AS could augment the relatively thinner O&D at SEA to make the route viable. That is, if DL didn't want to do the nonstop themselves, given their existing ops at MNL (with DL withdrawing SEA-TPE and possibly NRT-MNL too(?), it might just be plausible.) Invariably, any talk of the Philippines as a destination quickly turns into a litany of how low-yielding it is. To improve the odds, how about DL codesharing with 5J and feeding a possible TPAC LCC sector to MNL on 5J metal? SEA could be a good alternative connecting hub for the dispersed VFR traffic once the new facility is complete...but ultimately the pie may only be enough for one partnership.....

Image

http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=MNL-SEA-IA ... /PHX&DU=nm


Hopefully, the idea would also put to rest questions about launching nonstop flights to every imaginable point in the U.S. where there is ethnic Filipino presence, no matter how small.
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield
 
SonOfABeech
Posts: 207
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2016 9:51 pm

Re: Delta TPAC Future

Tue Jan 17, 2017 12:02 pm

A related thing that got me curious: What could be the future of DL's Japan-Hawaii and Japan-Micronesia routes? They might do well by themselves, but are increasingly isolated from the rest of the network.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos