flymco753 wrote:

777Mech wrote:

klm617 wrote:

Yes but I would think that the criteria should be based on when the application was filed. Not sure that Delta didn't know this and quickly moved that capacity from DTW to ATL so it had flexibility on the aircraft it used in the Detroit market after all if they were held to the 744 capacity that could have been problematic for them.

Yes because DL is going to yank 2 744s out of the desert, put the NGS on them to satisfy the AD, just to put them back on the DTW-ICN route.

I'm so glad ICN is taking over the Asia flows from DTW, and this JV will let DL/KE add MSP/BOS-ICN.

The fact that ATL got an extra ICN flight is icing on the cake.

Where in the world are you getting this information about all of the Asia flows being taken over from DTW? You do realize this gives KE the opportunity to add a 2nd flight out of DTW to maximize flows right? Or are you going to continue spewing factless ignorance?

What is factless? There will be additions, just not at DTW. It's saturated as it is. There are bigger fish to fry than adding a second DTW flight, like launching BOS. There's no reason to "maximize flows" when you can command a premium by not having to force connections over DTW and launching new cities to ICN non-stop.

DTW becomes redundant as an Asian gateway with ICN now being the powerhouse. It's more passenger friendly for connections, and many more destinations than DTW has to offer.

With the JV, ATL/DTW will pretty much stay status quo TPAC wise, and you'll see BOS, MSP, and the long shot being SLC connected to ICN.

Changes in traffic HNL/ICN will be a by-product of the JV. I think we will see HNL/ICN go to daily double, following the shift to ICN as a connection point.
After the JV grows, maybe a KE A380 ICN/HNL will use expanded Gate 29 at HNL.

DL now sells (but doesn't codeshare) several flights a day to HNL/ICN using NH on one stops (NRT and HND). Skymilers on those flights will go to KE (and DL?) nonstops.

WPvsMW wrote:

Changes in traffic HNL/ICN will be a by-product of the JV. I think we will see HNL/ICN go to daily double, following the shift to ICN as a connection point.
After the JV grows, maybe a KE A380 ICN/HNL will use expanded Gate 29 at HNL.

DL now sells (but doesn't codeshare) several flights a day to HNL/ICN using NH on one stops (NRT and HND). Skymilers on those flights will go to KE (and DL?) nonstops.

HNL would probably never see the A380 in KE colors - too premium heavy. That being said, It was surprising to me that they replaced the 748 with the 77W because the 77W is premium heavy too.

Double-daily ICN is not far-fetched considering it was double daily for a few years up until 2016 (I believe). What will be interesting is to see how the NRT route shakes out if anything - will they continue to operate one flight each? KE2 hardly ever goes out full and even then it’s predominantly package tours like HIS and Jalpak - can’t be making much money, but then again it has been around for about 4 years.

I know there is another thread on this joint venture, but it is way too long. Now that this joint venture is approved, what are likely new routes that may be started. Two that come to mind for me are BOS - ICN on KE and MSP - ICN on DL. Thoughts on others?

777Mech wrote:

DTW becomes redundant as an Asian gateway with ICN now being the powerhouse. It's more passenger friendly for connections, and many more destinations than DTW has to offer.

With the JV, ATL/DTW will pretty much stay status quo TPAC wise

Not sure I see the point of keeping something status quo if it's also now redundant. Good thing, then, that DTW will not be redundant. For DL to remain competitive on routings like BUF-NRT, DTW must continue to exist as a US-Asia gateway. Forcing such routings to double-connect makes DL's network far less competitive compared to AA and UA, KE JV or no.

SLC-ICN
PDX-ICN

The only obvious one to me is MSP-ICN. If they are feeling adventurous, maybe SLC-ICN

Return of GRU-LAX ?

But really wouldn't hold my breath on this one...

Do not expect too much. Yield for transpacific routes are still under pressure. Delta stress for yield so I do not expect any significant increase for capacity.

Assuming DL/KE becomes like the DL/AF/KL joint venture, I think the following are possibilities, ranked approximately in order of likelihood (as I see them).
MSP-ICN
BOS-ICN
AUS-ICN
SLC-ICN
PDX-ICN
DTW-ICN (additional service)
LAX-ICN (additional service)
JFK-ICN (additional service)
SAN-ICN
SEA-KIX (not in Korea but the increased transpacific scale could support the return of a route like this)
Wildcards:
IND-ICN (weird but Asia service from IND is rumored)
MCO-ICN
MIA-ICN
ANC-ICN
SEA-secondary Korea
DTW-ICN (2x KE A380....just joking on that one)

DL will probably drop NRT-PDX, NRT-SIN, and NRT-MNL with the KE joint venture, but could possibly run a fifth freedom flight or two from ICN. I'd expect their intra-Asia service to continue to drop, however.
They may be careful on Korea capacity, its not like Europe, where Belgium isn't threatening the Netherlands (AMS) with nuclear war . I'd expect transit passengers may be a little hesitant to go through a potentially heating up conflict zone.

MSP-ICN seems inevitable to me. Not only cause im MSP based, but the MAC has been looking for another Asia flight due to the rapid expansion of The Mall of America and the growth of the Minneapolis-St. Paul area. Every time I go there im astounded by the incredible amount of Chinese, Japanese, and Korean speaking people wandering around. Thats mostly VFR type traffic but i'm sure the 19 fortune 500 companies in MN can provide some business traffic. Possibly 3x weekly on a KE 789 or DL 359 would do the trick and along with daily 772 MSP-HND for DL/KE to cover Asia out of Minneapolis.

BOS-ICN could work as well, big market on both ends with no skyteam presence on the route

Sightseer wrote:

777Mech wrote:

DTW becomes redundant as an Asian gateway with ICN now being the powerhouse. It's more passenger friendly for connections, and many more destinations than DTW has to offer.

With the JV, ATL/DTW will pretty much stay status quo TPAC wise

Not sure I see the point of keeping something status quo if it's also now redundant. Good thing, then, that DTW will not be redundant. For DL to remain competitive on routings like BUF-NRT, DTW must continue to exist as a US-Asia gateway. Forcing such routings to double-connect makes DL's network far less competitive compared to AA and UA, KE JV or no.

Redundant in the way that you'll have more options like instead of doing BUF-DTW-ICN you can do BUF-BOS/MSP-ICN instead of adding a second ICN flight to DTW.

jubguy3 wrote:

There is no market. Very little O/D to Asia in DTW

Except for DTW/NGO.

777Mech wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

777Mech wrote:

DTW becomes redundant as an Asian gateway with ICN now being the powerhouse. It's more passenger friendly for connections, and many more destinations than DTW has to offer.

With the JV, ATL/DTW will pretty much stay status quo TPAC wise

Not sure I see the point of keeping something status quo if it's also now redundant. Good thing, then, that DTW will not be redundant. For DL to remain competitive on routings like BUF-NRT, DTW must continue to exist as a US-Asia gateway. Forcing such routings to double-connect makes DL's network far less competitive compared to AA and UA, KE JV or no.

Redundant in the way that you'll have more options like instead of doing BUF-DTW-ICN you can do BUF-BOS/MSP-ICN instead of adding a second ICN flight to DTW.

I see. Yes, it's certainly plausible that DTW-ICN will comprise a smaller share of DL/KE US-ICN capacity going forward, simply due to other cities gaining ICN flights of their own - but, to placate certain DTW fans, not due to DTW losing capacity. And as a broader gateway to Asia, DTW isn't going anywhere.

jubguy3 wrote:

There is no market. Very little O/D to Asia in DTW

You want to put up some data on that, because I'm thinking of Toyota Tech Center in Ann Arbor and Denso + Aisin Seiki on the long-standing DTW-NGO route, plus Big 3 and supplier traffic to NRT.

MIflyer12 wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

There is no market. Very little O/D to Asia in DTW

You want to put up some data on that, because I'm thinking of Toyota Tech Center in Ann Arbor and Denso + Aisin Seiki on the long-standing DTW-NGO route, plus Big 3 and supplier traffic to NRT.

I should have rephrased. Detroit has Asia O/D but much of it is DTW-NGO (which is a special flight seeing as that Nagoya doesn't even have service to the west coast). It's almost all connecting traffic from the seaboard and great lakes.

The reason: frequency.

klm617 wrote:

777Mech wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

Not sure I see the point of keeping something status quo if it's also now redundant. Good thing, then, that DTW will not be redundant. For DL to remain competitive on routings like BUF-NRT, DTW must continue to exist as a US-Asia gateway. Forcing such routings to double-connect makes DL's network far less competitive compared to AA and UA, KE JV or no.

Redundant in the way that you'll have more options like instead of doing BUF-DTW-ICN you can do BUF-BOS/MSP-ICN instead of adding a second ICN flight to DTW.

So with that logic why did Delta add ATL-ICN instead of MSP-ICN when KE already had that route covered in the JV. And before you say there is a lot more traffic on the ATL-ICN KE could have put the A380 back on the route allowing Delta to operate MSP-ICN

Simple, it's replacing connectivity that was lost when KE dropped their second frequency. How are you arriving at the statement that one flight a day is considered "covered" on ATL-ICN?

JV or not, the fact the KE hasn't started BOS-ICN in the past few years when BOS was experiencing this growth is a little bit of a head-scratcher to me. I'd love to see one of their 789s there someday.

(Though for the record, I wouldn't mind an extra ICN flight out of my home airport as much as someone is strongly advocating for it.)

jubguy3 wrote:

MIflyer12 wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

There is no market. Very little O/D to Asia in DTW

You want to put up some data on that, because I'm thinking of Toyota Tech Center in Ann Arbor and Denso + Aisin Seiki on the long-standing DTW-NGO route, plus Big 3 and supplier traffic to NRT.

I should have rephrased. Detroit has Asia O/D but much of it is DTW-NGO (which is a special flight seeing as that Nagoya doesn't even have service to the west coast). It's almost all connecting traffic from the seaboard and great lakes.

You really don't know much about the auto industry, do you? This route wouldn't exist without the O/D demand from the automotive industry.

jubguy3 wrote:

michman wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

I should have rephrased. Detroit has Asia O/D but much of it is DTW-NGO (which is a special flight seeing as that Nagoya doesn't even have service to the west coast). It's almost all connecting traffic from the seaboard and great lakes.

You really don't know much about the auto industry, do you? This route wouldn't exist without the O/D demand from the automotive industry.

read my post again

Detroit-Japan overall is very large on O/D, which also includes Tokyo, not just NGO. However, Detroit-Korea is actually not that big O/D wise. Conversely, Atlanta-Korea is much bigger than Atlanta-Tokyo as far as O/D goes. Basically as far as the front cabin goes, Detroit pax favors Tokyo and Atlanta pax favors Seoul. This is why ATL has two ICN flights, but just one flight to Tokyo. This is also why, despite the NRT draw down by DL, Detroit will still retain their Japanese flights.. even if the Tokyo flight has to be at NRT.

However, I don't see a second flight DTW-ICN anytime soon. First, there is not enough O/D demand from Detroit alone to fill the first flight without connections, so why justify a second ICN flight? DL can make more money spreading the ICN flights around, rather than send all flights to DTW/SEA/ATL. Again, ATL has two ICN flights only because the ICN O/D is that large in Georgia. Thus the natural next addition would likely be MSP-ICN, which would also need connecting pax to make it work. BOS may also work, but it would have to rely almost entirely on BOS and New England O/D. But going back to DTW, I would think DTW-HKG is much more likely to happen than DTW-ICN x2, even with the JV.

kavok wrote:

jubguy3 wrote:

michman wrote:

You really don't know much about the auto industry, do you? This route wouldn't exist without the O/D demand from the automotive industry.

read my post again

Detroit-Japan overall is very large on O/D, which also includes Tokyo, not just NGO. However, Detroit-Korea is actually not that big O/D wise. Conversely, Atlanta-Korea is much bigger than Atlanta-Tokyo as far as O/D goes. Basically as far as the front cabin goes, Detroit pax favors Tokyo and Atlanta pax favors Seoul. This is why ATL has two ICN flights, but just one flight to Tokyo. This is also why, despite the NRT draw down by DL, Detroit will still retain their Japanese flights.. even if the Tokyo flight has to be at NRT.

However, I don't see a second flight DTW-ICN anytime soon. First, there is not enough O/D demand from Detroit alone to fill the first flight without connections, so why justify a second ICN flight? DL can make more money spreading the ICN flights around, rather than send all flights to DTW/SEA/ATL. Again, ATL has two ICN flights only because the ICN O/D is that large in Georgia. Thus the natural next addition would likely be MSP-ICN, which would also need connecting pax to make it work. BOS may also work, but it would have to rely almost entirely on BOS and New England O/D. But going back to DTW, I would think DTW-HKG is much more likely to happen than DTW-ICN x2, even with the JV.

The LF’s on DTW-China are spectacular among US Skyteam service to China. If I recall, in a previous thread both PEK and PVG are in the high 80s. A lot of that is O&D.

jbs2886 wrote:

I think I speak for most posters reading this thread (or who stopped reading this thread). Can the DTW-obsessed posters stop? Lets get this thread back on track.

Agreed 100%

flymco753 wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

flymco753 wrote:

As an Orlando based DTW fan, I think that’s exactly what the forum needs. I and several others on this forum speak on behalf of a lot of people in Detroit who are fed up with the mindset of others thinking that the metropolitan area is one of the worst metro areas in the US economically, with no job growth, no overall economical improvement, and no travel between ethnic groups and their country. It’s simply not true and that’s why DTW posters are revolting, and hopefully it will teach everyone a lesson of what the city is actually becoming. The message is clear, nobody should underestimate the potential.

This thread is about the DL-KE JV...not DTW's economy and potential.

I understand, but everyone on here is so quick to assume that DTW-HKG won't work because ATL has either more people or makes more sense economically. Once someone brings up something like ATL-ARN it's praised and given some kind of merit that doesn't exist, that's the problem. How does it hurt to simply comment that DTW-ICN would eventually see a 2nd flight to ICN on KE metal, to turn around and be criticized for not mentioning prior JFK, ATL, LAX and SEA expansion. It's even a curse to mention a potential MSP-ICN without being told "After a 10th LAX-ICN flight". This is where the argument stands.

Maybe you just shouldn't get so butt hurt when someone says something about your city/airport that you don't like. It really is like you guys have some sort of inferiority complex.

Anyways, moving on.

So, should the newly formed JV bring about new routes, when can we expect some of them to be announced? BOS-ICN, MSP-ICN and to a lesser extent SLC-ICN and PDX-ICN seem to be the most likely routes according to a.net users. Could these flights be operating a year from now? Sooner?

jbs2886 wrote:

I think I speak for most posters reading this thread (or who stopped reading this thread). Can the DTW-obsessed posters stop? Lets get this thread back on track.

I agree wholeheartedly. I am a former NWA fan, but guys, it has been more than ten years since NW was merged into DL, and it's well past time to stop the vituperative comments about ATL-centrism and DTW-betrayal. DTW punches above its weight in the current DL network. Be satisfied with what you have. Stop the stupid squabbling about DTW. It's boring and childish.

TransWorldOne wrote:

So, should the newly formed JV bring about new routes, when can we expect some of them to be announced? BOS-ICN, MSP-ICN and to a lesser extent SLC-ICN and PDX-ICN seem to be the most likely routes according to a.net users. Could these flights be operating a year from now? Sooner?

A problem DL might face for this is a limited number of planes that could fly profitably from the U.S. to Asia. The DL 77E/77L fleet is stretched very thin, so more A359s would have to arrive. And then, those planes might be too large in terms of pax capacity for launching new routes to Asia, so there would have to be some rejiggling of planes/routes so as to allocate the A359s with routes that truly need the capacity and the new premium cabins, and free up A332s for example (assuming the A332 can do PDX-ICN for example, although probably not SLC-ICN???). Yes, I know DL has sent some 763ERs from SEA to Japan, but seems those potential new routes you mention might prove to be challenging or altogether impossible for the 763ERs (of course I am happy to be proven wrong).

KE on the other hand might have more flexibility. I am not sure how many 77Es, A332s and 789s KE can move around within their current schedule in order to launch new routes. By the same token, I am not sure how many more 789s will arrive and whether they will be additions or replace older widebodies. I am purposefully ommiting the A380 and 747 from this discussion considering that those aircraft are too large for new routes (of course KE could also rejiggle its planes so as to free up smaller aircraft).

In any event, your question is very interesting and I hope more users could shed some light on this.

qf789 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

I think I speak for most posters reading this thread (or who stopped reading this thread). Can the DTW-obsessed posters stop? Lets get this thread back on track.

Agreed. The thread is so far off topic its not even funny. It would be nice if the mods could send out warnings to the violators and keep things on track. Maybe someone can start a separate thread about what cities have the best O&D between ICN and Delta hubs.

It would be nice if posters such as yourself reported the posts in question

I constantly report things, but it seems there's some type of DTW bias as none of the offenders are ever dealt with. They derail nearly every single thread talking about DTW.

Jeremy

qf789 wrote:

jumbojet wrote:

jbs2886 wrote:

I think I speak for most posters reading this thread (or who stopped reading this thread). Can the DTW-obsessed posters stop? Lets get this thread back on track.

Agreed. The thread is so far off topic its not even funny. It would be nice if the mods could send out warnings to the violators and keep things on track. Maybe someone can start a separate thread about what cities have the best O&D between ICN and Delta hubs.

It would be nice if posters such as yourself reported the posts in question

I will do that in the future, thank you.

winginit wrote:

Anyway, back on topic - would be surprised if, following the trend of DL's VS and AM JVs, DL didn't add or at least substitute DL metal in the ICN market. Also, I believe there's talk as to whether or not one or two key fifth freedoms can be moved from NRT to ICN (notably - SIN)

Would the JV cover a flight from ICN-SIN on KE for DL? Or would DL need to fly that route itself?

Back on topic - would be surprised if, following the trend of DL's VS and AM JVs, DL didn't add or at least substitute DL metal in the LAX-ICN market even as saturated as it is. Also, I believe there's talk as to whether or not one or two key fifth freedoms can be moved from NRT to ICN (notably - SIN)

EddieDude wrote:

A problem DL might face for this is a limited number of planes that could fly profitably from the U.S. to Asia. The DL 77E/77L fleet is stretched very thin, so more A359s would have to arrive. And then, those planes might be too large in terms of pax capacity for launching new routes to Asia, so there would have to be some rejiggling of planes/routes so as to allocate the A359s with routes that truly need the capacity and the new premium cabins, and free up A332s for example (assuming the A332 can do PDX-ICN for example, although probably not SLC-ICN???). Yes, I know DL has sent some 763ERs from SEA to Japan, but seems those potential new routes you mention might prove to be challenging or altogether impossible for the 763ERs (of course I am happy to be proven wrong).

KE on the other hand might have more flexibility. I am not sure how many 77Es, A332s and 789s KE can move around within their current schedule in order to launch new routes. By the same token, I am not sure how many more 789s will arrive and whether they will be additions or replace older widebodies. I am purposefully ommiting the A380 and 747 from this discussion considering that those aircraft are too large for new routes (of course KE could also rejiggle its planes so as to free up smaller aircraft).

DL does still have a handful of A350s to be delivered (5? 6?) that would open up some slack. They also have the 25 A330-900s that should start arriving late 2019/early 2020 and should be capable of Pacific routes. A pause after the JV goes into effect wouldn't be the worst thing from a network planning standpoint. It would give DL/KE time to assess demand after the JV commences and determine what moves to make, instead of adding the routes now and hoping the JV assumptions baked into the demand models play out correctly.

EddieDude wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

So, should the newly formed JV bring about new routes, when can we expect some of them to be announced? BOS-ICN, MSP-ICN and to a lesser extent SLC-ICN and PDX-ICN seem to be the most likely routes according to a.net users. Could these flights be operating a year from now? Sooner?

A problem DL might face for this is a limited number of planes that could fly profitably from the U.S. to Asia. The DL 77E/77L fleet is stretched very thin, so more A359s would have to arrive. And then, those planes might be too large in terms of pax capacity for launching new routes to Asia, so there would have to be some rejiggling of planes/routes so as to allocate the A359s with routes that truly need the capacity and the new premium cabins, and free up A332s for example (assuming the A332 can do PDX-ICN for example, although probably not SLC-ICN???). Yes, I know DL has sent some 763ERs from SEA to Japan, but seems those potential new routes you mention might prove to be challenging or altogether impossible for the 763ERs (of course I am happy to be proven wrong).

KE on the other hand might have more flexibility. I am not sure how many 77Es, A332s and 789s KE can move around within their current schedule in order to launch new routes. By the same token, I am not sure how many more 789s will arrive and whether they will be additions or replace older widebodies. I am purposefully ommiting the A380 and 747 from this discussion considering that those aircraft are too large for new routes (of course KE could also rejiggle its planes so as to free up smaller aircraft).

In any event, your question is very interesting and I hope more users could shed some light on this.

PDX-ICN could easily be flown with a 763 and I think that would be the ideal aircraft for the route. But you're right, SLC would require a 332, which would take a payload hit in the summer and MSP and BOS would probably require 777 or 359, which could be too large. Perhaps KE would operate these routes with a 787.

winginit wrote:

I believe there's talk as to whether or not one or two key fifth freedoms can be moved from NRT to ICN (notably - SIN)

The metal-neutral JV would naturally make DL fifth freedom flights ex-ICN unnecessary as long as KE flights are considered Tier One for DL SkyMiles purposes (which will be the case). Having said that, it would be quite interesting if DL did move one or two fifth freedom flights from NRT to ICN.

Alias1024 wrote:

DL does still have a handful of A350s to be delivered (5? 6?) that would open up some slack. They also have the 25 A330-900s that should start arriving late 2019/early 2020 and should be capable of Pacific routes.

I was not counting the A339s because of DL's announcement of their role as the backbone of their trans-Atlantic operations. But you are right; when the A339s arrive, some might also be allocated to Asian flights. When will deliveries commence? Those were deferred from the original delivery calendar, right?

Alias1024 wrote:

A pause after the JV goes into effect wouldn't be the worst thing from a network planning standpoint. It would give DL/KE time to assess demand after the JV commences and determine what moves to make, instead of adding the routes now and hoping the JV assumptions baked into the demand models play out correctly.

That is an excellent point. I agree. I still hope however there will be a couple of new routes that could be launched early on following the date of effectiveness of the JV.

jbs2886 wrote:

KE doesn't have a lot of smaller widebodies coming online soon unless they start leasing 787s

How many more will arrive? Will they replace older widebodies or are they for growth? I am not familiar with KE's fleet numbers and roles but I suppose they could move things around a bit in order to create some slack if need be.

jbs2886 wrote:

I think I speak for most posters reading this thread (or who stopped reading this thread). Can the DTW-obsessed posters stop? Lets get this thread back on track.

Amen!!!

Alias1024 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

So you can justify ICN-MSP with virtually zero O/D but you can't justify a second DTW-ICN flight with the huge amount of business that Detroit does with Korea because o the auto industry.

I think the reason most posters think MSP will see a flight to ICN before DTW sees a second is because MSP can offer better connecting options to a reasonably large geographic area of the US. It's a function of the two hubs in the DL network, with DTW having much more service to smaller communities in the northeast and mid-Atlantic, while MSP has more to offer into the plains states and even northern mountain west region (though a SLC route could take up this slack). It's not a slight against DTW, but just a fact of geography.

The Korean JV opens up a ton of secondary destination in Asia and it isn't unreasonable to think that there's room for a MSP flight. A second DTW isn't unreasonable either given the network DL now has access to in Asia. Just have to wait and see.

OK fair enough what cities would benefit from a MSP-ICN that can not be directly linked now from DTW and SEA and even with that critter that you state SLC is better positioned to field those connections from the great plains than MSP is.

It would be interesting to compare if someone could post the O/D numbers from ICN to DTW, ATL, SLC, SEA and MSP

Basically, there are X amount of pax traveling between East Asia and North America. And yes, that X number of pax will gradually grow over time, but it will grow slowly. What that means is that for DL/KE to increase capacity, they will have to “steal” pax that are currently flying other routes. It is not just a situation where DL/KE can add 10 more TransPac flights, and they magically fill themselves. The demand has to come from somewhere.

So the question becomes, how can DL/KE grow their market share? And of course the answer is either offer lower fares to entice pax (and cut into your profits), or offer better connections.

Also, if there was enough O/D demand to ICN from city XXX, they probably already have service today. Operating under that premice, any new service add is basically rerouting existing pax that are currently connecting somewhere else.

So let’s look at some of the options:
PDX-ICN: PROS: Would serve pax originating in PDX going to either ICN, or other Asian destinations not served from SEA. There could be enough pax in that category to fill a 763. I would also argue this ICN flight would be independent of the existing PDX-NRT which is basically almost all O/D on both sides. CONS: May pull away some existing pax from PDX-SEA-Asia flights, thus reducing profitability of said SEA-Asia flight.

BOS-ICN: PROS: Would serve well the pax O/D from New England that are heading to either ICN, or other Asian destinations not served from DTW. (The logic is that a BOS-PVG pax would be better off connecting in DTW over ICN). It would also “steal” pax that currently double connect on say a BOS-ORD-NRT-BKK flight, and bring that group into the DL network. CONS: Geography is poor for almost any USA-BOS-ICN routing.

MSP-ICN: PROS: Similar to BOS, it would open up some Asian destinations to single connections. Also, MSP opens up more smaller airports in its cachement area of the central USA. CONS: DL has the Twin Cities locked down already, so is (for example) a *Alliance double-connect, say MSP-ORD-NRT-BKK, really going to win out over a DL/KE double connect MSP-SEA-ICN-BKK if pricing is similar?

klm617 wrote:

Alias1024 wrote:

klm617 wrote:

So you can justify ICN-MSP with virtually zero O/D but you can't justify a second DTW-ICN flight with the huge amount of business that Detroit does with Korea because o the auto industry.

I think the reason most posters think MSP will see a flight to ICN before DTW sees a second is because MSP can offer better connecting options to a reasonably large geographic area of the US. It's a function of the two hubs in the DL network, with DTW having much more service to smaller communities in the northeast and mid-Atlantic, while MSP has more to offer into the plains states and even northern mountain west region (though a SLC route could take up this slack). It's not a slight against DTW, but just a fact of geography.

The Korean JV opens up a ton of secondary destination in Asia and it isn't unreasonable to think that there's room for a MSP flight. A second DTW isn't unreasonable either given the network DL now has access to in Asia. Just have to wait and see.

OK fair enough what cities would benefit from a MSP-ICN that can not be directly linked now from DTW and SEA and even with that critter that you state SLC is better positioned to field those connections from the great plains than MSP is.

It's as simple as DL not having access between its 2nd/3rd largest hub and its only JV connected Pacific hub (soon to be ICN). It would be outrageous for DL to not link these two cities as both are too vital within DL's network. DTW-ICN, not a significantly large O&D market, already has access to connections provided at ICN. It adds considerably less value to add to a city that already has nonstop service rather than one, which also happens to be their 2nd or 3rd largest hub, that currently does not. And you're kidding yourself if you think that MSP offers no unique connections that can't be better served over DTW. Is DL really going to route people BIS-MSP-DTW-ICN, for example?

Jeremy

TransWorldOne wrote:

But you're right, SLC would require a 332, which would take a payload hit in the summer and MSP and BOS would probably require 777 or 359, which could be too large.

I doubt SLC-ICN would be viable on an A332 due to the weight issues you mentioned. At 6,248 miles, though, MSP-ICN should be OK on an A332, albeit maybe not ideal.

klm617 wrote:

It would be interesting to compare if someone could post the O/D numbers from ICN to DTW, ATL, SLC, SEA and MSP

The most recent publicly available data I can find (the oft-cited 2011 Brookings report, which is of course several years out of date by now) had the following O&D traffic numbers that year:

ATL-ICN 188,207
DTW-ICN 54,313
MSP-ICN 19,830*
SLC-ICN 15,310*
SEA-ICN 136,718

I starred MSP and SLC since they didn't have any nonstop flights in 2011, and adding a flight would grow the market. As an example, I remember reading before DL started DTW-ICN that the local market had about 30,000 annual passengers (I've looked for that article but haven't found it yet), so in the 12-18 months after DTW-ICN launched the market grew by about 80%.

Sightseer wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

But you're right, SLC would require a 332, which would take a payload hit in the summer and MSP and BOS would probably require 777 or 359, which could be too large.

I doubt SLC-ICN would be viable on an A332 due to the weight issues you mentioned. At 6,248 miles, though, MSP-ICN should be OK on an A332, albeit maybe not ideal.

klm617 wrote:

It would be interesting to compare if someone could post the O/D numbers from ICN to DTW, ATL, SLC, SEA and MSP

The most recent publicly available data I can find (the oft-cited 2011 Brookings report, which is of course several years out of date by now) had the following O&D traffic numbers that year:

ATL-ICN 188,207
DTW-ICN 54,313
MSP-ICN 19,830*
SLC-ICN 15,310*
SEA-ICN 136,718

I starred MSP and SLC since they didn't have any nonstop flights in 2011, and adding a flight would grow the market. As an example, I remember reading before DL started DTW-ICN that the local market had about 30,000 annual passengers (I've looked for that article but haven't found it yet), so in the 12-18 months after DTW-ICN launched the market grew by about 80%.

Thank you. And this is why ATL has two ICN flights.
That being said, with the JV in place, the numbers that would be of real use for this discussion would be:

O/D volumes between North American city to all East Asian cities combined, excluding PVG/PEK/Japan. (Arguably it is still more beneficial to connect in SEA, DTW, ATL, etc. over ICN if going from USA to PVG/PEK/Japan).

ICN is basically the East Asian version of AMS. Great airport to connect in, but just like most of the people flying USA-AMS are connecting to somewhere else in Europe, a good portion now flying to ICN are connecting to somewhere else in Asia.

kavok wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

TransWorldOne wrote:

But you're right, SLC would require a 332, which would take a payload hit in the summer and MSP and BOS would probably require 777 or 359, which could be too large.

I doubt SLC-ICN would be viable on an A332 due to the weight issues you mentioned. At 6,248 miles, though, MSP-ICN should be OK on an A332, albeit maybe not ideal.

klm617 wrote:

It would be interesting to compare if someone could post the O/D numbers from ICN to DTW, ATL, SLC, SEA and MSP

The most recent publicly available data I can find (the oft-cited 2011 Brookings report, which is of course several years out of date by now) had the following O&D traffic numbers that year:

ATL-ICN 188,207
DTW-ICN 54,313
MSP-ICN 19,830*
SLC-ICN 15,310*
SEA-ICN 136,718

I starred MSP and SLC since they didn't have any nonstop flights in 2011, and adding a flight would grow the market. As an example, I remember reading before DL started DTW-ICN that the local market had about 30,000 annual passengers (I've looked for that article but haven't found it yet), so in the 12-18 months after DTW-ICN launched the market grew by about 80%.

Thank you. And this is why ATL has two ICN flights.
That being said, with the JV in place, the numbers that would be of real use for this discussion would be:

O/D volumes between North American city to all East Asian cities combined, excluding PVG/PEK/Japan. (Arguably it is still more beneficial to connect in SEA, DTW, ATL, etc. over ICN if going from USA to PVG/PEK/Japan).

ICN is basically the East Asian version of AMS. Great airport to connect in, but just like most of the people flying USA-AMS are connecting to somewhere else in Europe, a good portion now flying to ICN are connecting to somewhere else in Asia.

And this is why a second DTW-ICN should be added before a MSP-ICN should be added Detroit is triple what MSP is and KE flight would even bring that O/D up as I am sure there is leakage to ORD on this route for Korean nationals who want to fly their home land airline.

klm617 wrote:

And this is why a second DTW-ICN should be added before a MSP-ICN should be added Detroit is triple what MSP is and KE flight would even bring that O/D up as I am sure there is leakage to ORD on this route for Korean nationals who want to fly their home land airline.

As other posters have stated, ICN is a bit like AMS. Many USA-ICN pax will fly over ICN to reach their down-line destination.

But a significant volume of traffic is Korean returnee traffic. (Korean ethnic traffic) There is a LOT of this traffic.

This is very price sensitive traffic. Much of it is controlled and sold by Travel Agency Consolidators.

This traffic can be directed over any hub by the airline working with the consolidator.

For consolidator traffic, they don't care if the traffic goes over LAX, DTW, ATL, SEA, or potentially MSP.

Their Korean ethnic travelers don't worry about which hub they fly over. They are more interested in the price of the ticket.

If DL adds a new spoke from the US to ICN, they will use consolidators to build loads on any new flight by controlling the inventory level in the bucket used to book ethnic traffic.

So an ethnic traveler will fly CMH ICN over MSP for instance if the ethnic bucket over DTW is sold-out. Or they could fly over SEA if midwest ethnic booking buckets are sold out.

I believe DL will add MSP before a 2nd DTW is added.

1. An MSP ICN flight will add new routings for higher yield traffic, that cities like DTW and ATL don't offer good connections. Think cities like DSM, BIS, CID, and Rochester, MN for example.
2. An MSP flight will add new more ethnic seats between the midwest and ICN, which will allow DL to further fine-tune the number of ethnic seats offered each day, and further improve CASM.

Adding a second DTW flight doesn't help accomplish these positive traffic and yield building moves. MSP will.

While I am a SW Michigan native, and a supporter of DTW, I also spent many years in the ethnic asian market selling for a DL predecessor, I would be fired up to have both an MSP AND DTW gateway to ICN with the new JV. Less fired up for a 2nd DTW.

There's just too much opportunity to be exploited via a new MSP gateway.

I would certainly not view a new MSP ICN flight as any evidence of a DL move to de-emphasize DTW. In-fact I have gone on record as stating the A350 and A330-900 bring new non-stop service from DTW to markets like MNL and HKG. (not from MSP- or ATL for that matter)

cheers!

klm617 wrote:

kavok wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

I doubt SLC-ICN would be viable on an A332 due to the weight issues you mentioned. At 6,248 miles, though, MSP-ICN should be OK on an A332, albeit maybe not ideal.


The most recent publicly available data I can find (the oft-cited 2011 Brookings report, which is of course several years out of date by now) had the following O&D traffic numbers that year:

ATL-ICN 188,207
DTW-ICN 54,313
MSP-ICN 19,830*
SLC-ICN 15,310*
SEA-ICN 136,718

I starred MSP and SLC since they didn't have any nonstop flights in 2011, and adding a flight would grow the market. As an example, I remember reading before DL started DTW-ICN that the local market had about 30,000 annual passengers (I've looked for that article but haven't found it yet), so in the 12-18 months after DTW-ICN launched the market grew by about 80%.

Thank you. And this is why ATL has two ICN flights.
That being said, with the JV in place, the numbers that would be of real use for this discussion would be:

O/D volumes between North American city to all East Asian cities combined, excluding PVG/PEK/Japan. (Arguably it is still more beneficial to connect in SEA, DTW, ATL, etc. over ICN if going from USA to PVG/PEK/Japan).

ICN is basically the East Asian version of AMS. Great airport to connect in, but just like most of the people flying USA-AMS are connecting to somewhere else in Europe, a good portion now flying to ICN are connecting to somewhere else in Asia.

And this is why a second DTW-ICN should be added before a MSP-ICN should be added Detroit is triple what MSP is and KE flight would even bring that O/D up as I am sure there is leakage to ORD on this route for Korean nationals who want to fly their home land airline.

Using that logic I guess that ATL-ICN needs a 3rd or even a 4th flight to ICN since it's more than three times the size of the DTW market.

Jeremy

SESGDL wrote:

klm617 wrote:

kavok wrote:

Thank you. And this is why ATL has two ICN flights.
That being said, with the JV in place, the numbers that would be of real use for this discussion would be:

O/D volumes between North American city to all East Asian cities combined, excluding PVG/PEK/Japan. (Arguably it is still more beneficial to connect in SEA, DTW, ATL, etc. over ICN if going from USA to PVG/PEK/Japan).

ICN is basically the East Asian version of AMS. Great airport to connect in, but just like most of the people flying USA-AMS are connecting to somewhere else in Europe, a good portion now flying to ICN are connecting to somewhere else in Asia.

And this is why a second DTW-ICN should be added before a MSP-ICN should be added Detroit is triple what MSP is and KE flight would even bring that O/D up as I am sure there is leakage to ORD on this route for Korean nationals who want to fly their home land airline.

Using that logic I guess that ATL-ICN needs a 3rd or even a 4th flight to ICN since it's more than three times the size of the DTW market.

Jeremy

To say one hub deserves a second frequency over another hub on account of a local market is comical especially when the numbers are that low.

Lets not forget the US military and dependents traffic coming and going to ICN. I would split this traffic between VFR and business.

klm617 wrote:

And this is why a second DTW-ICN should be added before a MSP-ICN should be added Detroit is triple what MSP is and KE flight would even bring that O/D up as I am sure there is leakage to ORD on this route for Korean nationals who want to fly their home land airline.

We have yet to see any evidence suggesting DTW needs a second flight to ICN... The current DTW-Asia service is way better than it was at any point pre-merger, so I'd be happy with what you have if I were you. In my opinion the best prospective international carrier for DTW to land would be TK to IST, but that's getting off topic...

Add me to the long list of folks who think MSP-ICN needs to be one of the first additions post-JV. MSP doesn't have easy connections to anywhere in East Asia right now beyond the nonstop to HND and one stop options over SEA to Korea and China. An MSP-ICN flight would open up connecting markets that were lost when the Tokyo flight moved from NRT to HND, as well as a plethora of new one-stop options in Southeast Asia. When you add up MSP-ICN local traffic, beyond-ICN Asia traffic originating in MSP, and Upper Midwest-ICN traffic, I would expect there to be more than enough to make a MSP-ICN flight work well.

klm617 wrote:

And this is why a second DTW-ICN should be added before a MSP-ICN should be added Detroit is triple what MSP is and KE flight would even bring that O/D up as I am sure there is leakage to ORD on this route for Korean nationals who want to fly their home land airline.

In addition to all the reasons other posters have already said this logic is fallible, you are discounting the effect of adding a nonstop into the MSP-ICN marketplace. As I mentioned earlier, the DTW-ICN market grew considerably after DL began DTW-ICN service.

beerbus wrote:

As other posters have stated, ICN is a bit like AMS. Many USA-ICN pax will fly over ICN to reach their down-line destination.

Which further strengthens the viability of a MSP-ICN flight, not just for the Twin Cities area area but for cities with more convenient service to MSP. It doesn't have to rely solely on MSP-ICN O&D.

SESGDL wrote:

Using that logic I guess that ATL-ICN needs a 3rd or even a 4th flight to ICN since it's more than three times the size of the DTW market.

To more extremely illustrate this point, the 2011 number for LA-ICN was 767,050, four times the size of ATL-ICN and over twelve times the size of DTW-ICN. But don't hold your breath for 12x daily LAX-ICN.

FSDan wrote:

Add me to the long list of folks who think MSP-ICN needs to be one of the first additions post-JV. MSP doesn't have easy connections to anywhere in East Asia right now beyond the nonstop to HND and one stop options over SEA to Korea and China. An MSP-ICN flight would open up connecting markets that were lost when the Tokyo flight moved from NRT to HND, as well as a plethora of new one-stop options in Southeast Asia. When you add up MSP-ICN local traffic, beyond-ICN Asia traffic originating in MSP, and Upper Midwest-ICN traffic, I would expect there to be more than enough to make a MSP-ICN flight work well.

A second DTW-ICN before MSP-ICN, PDX-ICN makes no sense. As you see with AMS/CDG, ICN will function in a similar manner, which requires some more hub traffic. I think you'll see MSP-ICN, not as a A330-200 flight, but initially maybe a 777-200ER flight, scissoring with MSP-HND, and eventually becoming a A330-900neo flight. The A330-200s are likely staying as TATL planes due to the already occurring 767-300ER retirements. While some think it sounds ridiculous, there's not that much MSP-TYO traffic yet NWA was flying 747-400s daily and twice on Saturdays. ICN will function in a similar manner as NRT once did, hence the 777-200ER is the appropriate aircraft for MSP-ICN, albeit a bit on the large size. The A330-900neo should have slightly fewer seats, hence it being the right fit for MSP-ICN. While not particularly mentioned so far, some "right sizing" in JFK and LAX is more likely than not. I don't think its crazy to think that DL will be flying their metal on JFK/LAX-ICN within the next few years. PDX-ICN is also inevitable, but I think there's a good chance its flown by KE instead of DL. SLC-ICN is very unlikely due to the high altitude of SLC unless its flown by KE on a 787-9. Question I have is what to do about HNL-Japan. KE does fly HNL-NRT as does DL. With the HNL-Japan market about to become incredibly over-saturated in the next few years with ANA's A380s and continued expansion by Asian LCCs, DL will more likely than not pull out entirely or KE will exit the HNL-NRT in favour of Delta keeping the HNL-NRT flight. Definitely a possibility DL will fly a HNL-ICN frequency with their own metal.