Celebrating its 30th anniversary this week, the company unveiled an updated business plan.

Korea's second-biggest full-service has focused on domestic, regional and medium-haul routes mainly while having an undersized longhaul network. But with the proliferation of low-cost carriers in Asia, the carrier sees it can generate stronger profitability by focusing more in longhaul operations.

To this end the carrier says it seeks to further build its A350 fleet to 30 frames by 2025, and serve 25 long-haul routes up from 14 today. They already announced the launch of Barcelona and Venice for summer 2018.

http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/busines ... 00320.html
http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20180206000634
https://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news ... specialist

=

Good move imo. While OZ has built an admirable 89 destination network, its indeed very regionally focused where Korean and foreign LCCs are no doubt proliferating fast and nibbling into profits.

I feel like ICN-EWR is a gaping hole in the network that OZ ought to serve.

If they were really creative and managed to get a contract with Samsung, AUS would be another good one.

In Europe and South Asia, ZRH and BOM are also missing.

Probably smart move. Focus on area of strength.

I am sure also added longhaul will provide key feed for the regional network, something LCCs can generate.

IrishAyes wrote:

I feel like ICN-EWR is a gaping hole in the network that OZ ought to serve.
.

They already serve JFK, so not sure EWR would make sense. Also dont think UA-OZ do much together anyway.

Korean Airlines serves MAD, however, Asiana is missing serving MAD.

SAN

I prefer that Asiana Airlines have two daily flights, that a daily flight with the A380 would be ideal one flights to JFK and another to EWR with A350

ARN could be a good choice for Scandinavia for Asiana. SK already flies CPH-NRT so ICN-ARN could be a good complement.

A number of long-haul destinations ex-ICN have no service at all.

Many of these cities are Star Alliance hubs and/or high yielding:

- ARN (Star Alliance hub)
- BRU (Star Alliance hub)
- CPH (Star Alliance hub)
- DEN (Star Alliance hub)
- DUB
- EWR (Star Alliance hub)
- GVA (Star Alliance hub)
- IAH (Star Alliance hub)
- MAN
- MEL
- YUL (Star Alliance hub)

Given these, there will definitely be room for OZ long-haul growth.

I also see OZ being able to go up directly against KE on some of its established routes. ICN - AKL is a good example (on which KE flies its 748s) - not only is AKL a Star Alliance hub, but according to Auckland Airport, South Korea has the most un-met demand of any market for air travel to New Zealand.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

A number of long-haul destinations ex-ICN have no service at all.

BOS hello!
*A needs an Asian route from BOS and ICN is the most obvious hole from BOS.

Would OZ ever serve YVR? Given the explosion of Asian service to YVR, it seems like Asiana is the biggest missing Asian airline (along with SQ). Or, would that be saturation, given that KE and AC both already fly YVR-ICN?

On the other hand, SEA-ICN is served by 3 airlines (DL, KE and OZ) and SEA is a similarly sized and located city to YVR.

I've always enjoyed Asiana, so it would be nice to see them serve additional markets.

Though many ideas have been put forward here, does little details like Air Service Agreement allow for such proposed routes?

In my experience, Korea does not even have air service agreements with many European nations for example, and those it does have often have frequency or carrier designation limitations with KE technically holding the rights.

planemanofnz wrote:

ICN - AKL is a good example (on which KE flies its 748s) - not only is AKL a Star Alliance hub...

*A Hub where to ? WLG ? NAN ? EZE ?
OZ already has Oz covered

DWC wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

ICN - AKL is a good example (on which KE flies its 748s) - not only is AKL a Star Alliance hub...

*A Hub where to ? WLG ? NAN ? EZE ?
OZ already has Oz covered

Yes, mainly a hub to the rest of New Zealand:

- AKL has double the Korean population of BNE / MEL, and ~4-5x that of cities like PER
- Korean arrivals to New Zealand grew by more than 8% in the past year, and tourism by 9%
- Korea has the most unserved demand for travel to AKL of anywhere (as per AKL Airport)
- KE sustains the 748 to AKL during summer, without any New Zealand connections at all

Ultimately, AKL offers relevant Star Alliance connections to OZ (both domestic and international), such as CHC (OZ considered charter flights there in 2016), EZE (with one of the biggest Korea-towns in Latin America), and NAN (where many Koreans go, as per the continued success of KE's service there).



Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

DWC wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

ICN - AKL is a good example (on which KE flies its 748s) - not only is AKL a Star Alliance hub...

*A Hub where to ? WLG ? NAN ? EZE ?
OZ already has Oz covered

Yes, mainly a hub to the rest of New Zealand:

- AKL has double the Korean population of BNE / MEL, and ~4-5x that of cities like PER
- Korean arrivals to New Zealand grew by more than 8% in the past year, and tourism by 9%
- Korea has the most unserved demand for travel to AKL of anywhere (as per AKL Airport)
- KE sustains the 748 to AKL during summer, without any New Zealand connections at all

Ultimately, AKL offers relevant Star Alliance connections to OZ (both domestic and international), such as CHC (OZ considered charter flights there in 2016), EZE (with one of the biggest Korea-towns in Latin America), and NAN (where many Koreans go, as per the continued success of KE's service there).



Cheers,

C.

KE then drops to 4-5 weekly 77W in winter to AKL so a seasonal summer service might be a good start.

OZ ICN-LAS-ICN would be nice tho KE already serve that route.

airbazar wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

A number of long-haul destinations ex-ICN have no service at all.

BOS hello!
*A needs an Asian route from BOS and ICN is the most obvious hole from BOS.

Although I do agree that ICN is a huge hole for BOS I think KE will be the airline that will launch service. Oneworld dominates the BOS-Asia market and neither Skyteam or *A have BOS-Asia flights, but KE (Skyteam) will probably have the upper hand to launch BOS service, because of the recent JV with DL, which would allow for more connecting passengers, and Delta's presence in Boston. The only way I could see OZ launching BOS service is if they want to only count on O/D passengers or a possible partnership with B6, which is unlikely.

NickolayAv wrote:

airbazar wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

A number of long-haul destinations ex-ICN have no service at all.

BOS hello!
*A needs an Asian route from BOS and ICN is the most obvious hole from BOS.

Although I do agree that ICN is a huge hole for BOS I think KE will be the airline that will launch service. Oneworld dominates the BOS-Asia market and neither Skyteam or *A have BOS-Asia flights, but KE (Skyteam) will probably have the upper hand to launch BOS service, because of the recent JV with DL, which would allow for more connecting passengers, and Delta's presence in Boston. The only way I could see OZ launching BOS service is if they want to only count on O/D passengers or a possible partnership with B6, which is unlikely.

You all forget that KE once served BOS-ICN and dropped it. I think they would be a little gunshy to come back.

wedgetail737 wrote:

You all forget that KE once served BOS-ICN and dropped it. I think they would be a little gunshy to come back.

I know KE served BOS before, but that was under completely different circumstances back then were completely different. KE had to utilize a large, inefficient 747, the flight was also a one-stop flight. Additionally, Boston had a smaller population and wasn't as large of a business destination and it was the first attempt at a flight to Asia from Boston.
Today KE could utilize a smaller, more efficient aircraft such as the 787 and have a direct flight, something that is preferred by most consumers. Additionally, Boston has grown to have a larger, very affluent population with large business ties and also has numerous flights to Asia that have been huge successes with all of them adding frequency pretty quickly after entering the market. Also, there are quite a few airlines that relaunch flights to terminated destinations.
The Boston market has really changed from when KE tried flying to Boston, today the flight would probably have a very easy time filling up the seats, especially with the JV with DL. I think it is only a matter of time until KE announces the flight.

ZK-NBT wrote:

KE then drops to 4-5 weekly 77W in winter to AKL so a seasonal summer service might be a good start.

Seasonal to AKL (and/or MEL) might also be good for aircraft utilisation, if OZ decides to launch more charter and/or seasonal European services.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

KE then drops to 4-5 weekly 77W in winter to AKL so a seasonal summer service might be a good start.

Seasonal to AKL (and/or MEL) might also be good for aircraft utilisation, if OZ decides to launch more charter and/or seasonal European services.

Cheers,

C.

I agree, ICN is a significant hole for MEL- KE tried maybe 7-8 years ago 3 weekly. But they couldn’t get it to work, Victoria and the Korean market has grown since then, not to mention Melbourne Airport is far more keen to incentivise new carriers. Timed correctly I feel MEL could work. Especially with SYD supporting an A380 each from KE and OZ. 3-4 weekly 332 from OZ would be sustainable and allow connections to NZ freeing up seats to SYD for SYD bound Pax.

smi0006 wrote:

I agree, ICN is a significant hole for MEL- KE tried maybe 7-8 years ago 3 weekly. But they couldn’t get it to work, Victoria and the Korean market has grown since then, not to mention Melbourne Airport is far more keen to incentivise new carriers. Timed correctly I feel MEL could work. Especially with SYD supporting an A380 each from KE and OZ. 3-4 weekly 332 from OZ would be sustainable and allow connections to NZ freeing up seats to SYD for SYD bound Pax.

KE only dropped MEL in 2013, so it was not that long ago (certainly not 7-8 years ago, as you say).

Do also remember that Victoria's Korean population is smaller than Queensland's or New Zealand's.

Further, in terms of business and commerce:

- Most Korean companies have their regional HQ in SYD, not MEL (like Hyundai, LG and Samsung).
- Most Melbourne-based companies, like ANZ and BHP have a minimal presence within South Korea.

Victoria also lacks the tourism appeal of Queensland and New Zealand, for Korean package holidays.

That being said, a few factors could help OZ with a MEL service, which KE did not have or execute:

- Costs would be lower now, with oil lower than in 2013, and more fuel-efficient planes being available.
- The flight could be lower-risk, if served seasonally only, and/or served with a tag to the likes of CHC.

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

DWC wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

ICN - AKL is a good example (on which KE flies its 748s) - not only is AKL a Star Alliance hub...

*A Hub where to ? WLG ? NAN ? EZE ?
OZ already has Oz covered

Yes, mainly a hub to the rest of New Zealand:

- AKL has double the Korean population of BNE / MEL, and ~4-5x that of cities like PER
- Korean arrivals to New Zealand grew by more than 8% in the past year, and tourism by 9%
- Korea has the most unserved demand for travel to AKL of anywhere (as per AKL Airport)
- KE sustains the 748 to AKL during summer, without any New Zealand connections at all

Ultimately, AKL offers relevant Star Alliance connections to OZ (both domestic and international), such as CHC (OZ considered charter flights there in 2016), EZE (with one of the biggest Korea-towns in Latin America), and NAN (where many Koreans go, as per the continued success of KE's service there).



Cheers,

C.

This is misleading as it implies that MEL has a comparably sized Korean population as BNE, whereas Brisbane is significantly larger.

Given how much larger KE is overall I feel that they would be the obvious airline to relaunch ICN the market materialised. OZ would probably have more luck in BNE than trying to develop MEL. Really though the Korean population is highly weighted towards SYD which is why both airlines fly A380s for the Southern Summer.

RyanairGuru wrote:

This is misleading as it implies that MEL has a comparably sized Korean population as BNE, whereas Brisbane is significantly larger.

Korean-born populations in Australia rank as:

1. New South Wales (SYD) - ~42,000
2. Queensland (BNE) - ~12,000
3. Victoria (MEL) - ~10,000

See: https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/fi ... /korea.pdf.

This is as per the 2011 census, so the overall figures may have grown, but I doubt that the distributions would have.

Cheers,

C.

For hubbing and premium yields a year round service would work better with seasonal fluctuation. Say daily in summer and 3-4 weekly in off season. Much like Thai has done. With the Star link with NZ this is an opportunity. KE has no such links.

planemanofnz wrote:

smi0006 wrote:

I agree, ICN is a significant hole for MEL- KE tried maybe 7-8 years ago 3 weekly. But they couldn’t get it to work, Victoria and the Korean market has grown since then, not to mention Melbourne Airport is far more keen to incentivise new carriers. Timed correctly I feel MEL could work. Especially with SYD supporting an A380 each from KE and OZ. 3-4 weekly 332 from OZ would be sustainable and allow connections to NZ freeing up seats to SYD for SYD bound Pax.

KE only dropped MEL in 2013, so it was not that long ago (certainly not 7-8 years ago, as you say).

Do also remember that Victoria's Korean population is smaller than Queensland's or New Zealand's.

Further, in terms of business and commerce:

- Most Korean companies have their regional HQ in SYD, not MEL (like Hyundai, LG and Samsung).
- Most Melbourne-based companies, like ANZ and BHP have a minimal presence within South Korea.

Victoria also lacks the tourism appeal of Queensland and New Zealand, for Korean package holidays.

That being said, a few factors could help OZ with a MEL service, which KE did not have or execute:

- Costs would be lower now, with oil lower than in 2013, and more fuel-efficient planes being available.
- The flight could be lower-risk, if served seasonally only, and/or served with a tag to the likes of CHC.

Cheers,

C.

The one thing to think about is just how markets develop over time.

The main example I will raise is MEL-NRT, which went from QF service that was dropped nearly a decade ago (3 x weekly), then JQ restarted the route about 5 years after (usually 4 x weekly), through to QF taking over from JQ in December 2016 (daily) and finally JL joining the party and launching daily flights in September 2017. Now there are 2 x daily flights on premium airlines, which was a route that had nothing around 5 years ago.

Japanese businesses may have a broader presence in MEL to sustain service, but I wouldn’t be writing off an ICN service in the next couple of years.

NZ321 wrote:

For hubbing and premium yields a year round service would work better with seasonal fluctuation.

I agree, but the problem is that the market is highly seasonal - in response to your points:

- Hubbing: IMO, the service would be mainly O&D, with few onward international connections (Korea - New Zealand tourism is strong enough).
- Premium yield: NZ / OZ would still be able to charge a premium on ICN - AKL, given the non-stop offering, and Star Alliance FFP base loyalty.

In time, the route may come to be year-round, but a seasonal flight would be a good start.

IndianicWorld wrote:

MEL ... The one thing to think about is just how markets develop over time.

I totally agree - markets do change, and Korean - Australian tourism is growing - I do hope that KE and/or OZ can make MEL - ICN work.

For this route, what has actually changed though? All I can find is the opening of a Victorian Government Business Office in Seoul, in 2014.

Although tourism growth is strong, QLD (which only supports 4x flights pw part-year) has about 60% more Korean visitors than MEL / VIC.

See: http://www.tourism.australia.com/conten ... 002899.pdf.

I would love to be proven wrong - an option might be for KE / OZ to extend a MEL flight to New Zealand (CHC or WLG), as CI do / SQ will?

Cheers,

C.

planemanofnz wrote:

NZ321 wrote:

For hubbing and premium yields a year round service would work better with seasonal fluctuation.

I agree, but the problem is that the market is highly seasonal - in response to your points:

- Hubbing: IMO, the service would be mainly O&D, with few onward international connections (Korea - New Zealand tourism is strong enough).
- Premium yield: NZ / OZ would still be able to charge a premium on ICN - AKL, given the non-stop offering, and Star Alliance FFP base loyalty.

In time, the route may come to be year-round, but a seasonal flight would be a good start.

IndianicWorld wrote:

MEL ... The one thing to think about is just how markets develop over time.

I totally agree - markets do change, and Korean - Australian tourism is growing - I do hope that KE and/or OZ can make MEL - ICN work.

For this route, what has actually changed though? All I can find is the opening of a Victorian Government Business Office in Seoul, in 2014.

Although tourism growth is strong, QLD (which only supports 4x flights pw part-year) has about 60% more Korean visitors than MEL / VIC.

See: http://www.tourism.australia.com/conten ... 002899.pdf.

I would love to be proven wrong - an option might be for KE / OZ to extend a MEL flight to New Zealand (CHC or WLG), as CI do / SQ will?

Cheers,

C.

Without a non-stop option, it is harder to gain significant traction. That is why it is harder for Melbourne/Victoria to make more progress in that market currently.

From numbers I have seen though, tourism, the local Korean population and business links have all grown in the past few years. It is harder to get out of the shadow of SYD though when it has 2 x daily A380’s going in there seasonally and much of the tourism advertisement focus is on that city.

Many other markets have certainly grown significantly into MEL over the last decade which has been good to see, but this is a glaring omission from the network map at this time.

NickolayAv wrote:

airbazar wrote:

planemanofnz wrote:

A number of long-haul destinations ex-ICN have no service at all.

BOS hello!
*A needs an Asian route from BOS and ICN is the most obvious hole from BOS.

Although I do agree that ICN is a huge hole for BOS I think KE will be the airline that will launch service. Oneworld dominates the BOS-Asia market and neither Skyteam or *A have BOS-Asia flights, but KE (Skyteam) will probably have the upper hand to launch BOS service, because of the recent JV with DL, which would allow for more connecting passengers, and Delta's presence in Boston. The only way I could see OZ launching BOS service is if they want to only count on O/D passengers or a possible partnership with B6, which is unlikely.

I agree entirely with what you're saying but KE has had more than enough time to make a decision and for some reason they've stayed away. Even their low density A332 would work here, I think and they've had that in their fleet for 10 years. At this point I'm starting to think that KE will never return to BOS. Either way I think the traffic would be predominantly O&D on the BOS side so it's a toss up between KE and OZ. I happen to think that both *A and SkyT need and Asian connection from BOS. For how long can they leave it all to OW?

I sure would love to see them in Houston. They would have a higher shot at success vs. KE due to the Star Alliance loyalties here.

That said, the lions share of Korea-Texas O&D is in Dallas not Houston or Austin. Thats why KE and AA can both make DFW work whereas Houston struggled with KE. If OZ launched Houston, the target wouldnt be IAH-ICN traffic, it would be IAH-KUL/SIN/China which is higher yielding and larger.

While Asiana re-focus on long haul, it needs to improve its connectivity with Air Seoul. It has moved many short haul routes to Air Seoul, but it is not possible to buy a ticket on Asiana's website if I want to connect from an Asiana flight to an Air Seoul flight. This would become a problem if it wants to focus on the connection business.

Finally going daily to ORD would be nice

airbazar wrote:

NickolayAv wrote:

airbazar wrote:

BOS hello!
*A needs an Asian route from BOS and ICN is the most obvious hole from BOS.

Although I do agree that ICN is a huge hole for BOS I think KE will be the airline that will launch service. Oneworld dominates the BOS-Asia market and neither Skyteam or *A have BOS-Asia flights, but KE (Skyteam) will probably have the upper hand to launch BOS service, because of the recent JV with DL, which would allow for more connecting passengers, and Delta's presence in Boston. The only way I could see OZ launching BOS service is if they want to only count on O/D passengers or a possible partnership with B6, which is unlikely.

I agree entirely with what you're saying but KE has had more than enough time to make a decision and for some reason they've stayed away. Even their low density A332 would work here, I think and they've had that in their fleet for 10 years. At this point I'm starting to think that KE will never return to BOS. Either way I think the traffic would be predominantly O&D on the BOS side so it's a toss up between KE and OZ. I happen to think that both *A and SkyT need and Asian connection from BOS. For how long can they leave it all to OW?

I do agree that *A and SkyT need to enter the BOS-Asia market I do think that it will be KE rather than OZ. KE is a larger carrier and SkyT is more influential in Bos than *A. I can see why they would constantly delay the restarting of the route though. Keep in mind that BOS- Asia routes are relatively new, only started in 2012, so they would definitely avoid starting BOS until then even if they had the A332 because of how uncertain the market is, especially after failing in it once before. Now, I think the route is a no-brainer for KE, they just started receiving the 787, which is much more efficient than the A332, especially on long routes, so with the 787 it will be much easier to make a profit with the same amount of passengers. I am surprised how long it has taken them to relaunch the flight, but think KE will be the airline that will service the flight.

IndianicWorld wrote:

From numbers I have seen though, tourism, the local Korean population and business links have all grown in the past few years.

Really? Can you please share these numbers and your sources here?

Cheers,

C.

Having flown 4 flights with OZ recently (A380 and A330 services) one word sums them up - meh. Mediocre everything with an overwhelming presence of greige.

Terrible meals. Limited IFE. Characterless in every other way. Perhaps they could work on that first.

There are quite a few AUS/NZ enthusiasm here. AUS/NZ tourism was a boom to Koreans like 10-15 years ago, but the boom disappeared. Recent slow recoveries might not enough to justify launching additional routes. OZ used to fly AKL when down there was still popular but no more. KE used to fly more than 2 747s to AKL every day. Sadly, as long as TV news keeps talking about racism related incidents at AUS, the boom won't come back.

Longhaul tourism has been very trendy in Korea, and that's why we cannot predict where OZ will launch 3 or 5 years later. Greece/Turkey was popular a few years ago; now it's Italy/Spain. The trend simply follows popular TV shows. Recently there was a very emotional TV program shot in DUB, which will bring some tourism in the next few years. Apparently these mostly-group & some individual tourism based market brings more money than traditional VFR+business routes for OZ, partially because it's not easy to compete with Chinese airlines on TPAC routes and business demands take KE mostly. I bet we'll see a few more surprising European 'trendy' routes like VCE before one of those established star alliance hubs.

Asiana focusing on longhaul is because of LCC floods in Korea as OP mentioned. Asiana needs to work fast before a longhaul LCC is born.

aerokiwi wrote:

Having flown 4 flights with OZ recently (A380 and A330 services) one word sums them up - meh. Mediocre everything with an overwhelming presence of greige.

Terrible meals. Limited IFE. Characterless in every other way. Perhaps they could work on that first.

Totally agree for F or C class. But when it comes to Y, Asiana still wows me and that's because many other airlines have gone to the bottom.

HeeseokKoo wrote:

There are quite a few AUS/NZ enthusiasm here. AUS/NZ tourism was a boom to Koreans like 10-15 years ago, but the boom disappeared. Recent slow recoveries might not enough to justify launching additional routes. OZ used to fly AKL when down there was still popular but no more. KE used to fly more than 2 747s to AKL every day. Sadly, as long as TV news keeps talking about racism related incidents at AUS, the boom won't come back.

Longhaul tourism has been very trendy in Korea, and that's why we cannot predict where OZ will launch 3 or 5 years later. Greece/Turkey was popular a few years ago; now it's Italy/Spain. The trend simply follows popular TV shows. Recently there was a very emotional TV program shot in DUB, which will bring some tourism in the next few years. Apparently these mostly-group & some individual tourism based market brings more money than traditional VFR+business routes for OZ, partially because it's not easy to compete with Chinese airlines on TPAC routes and business demands take KE mostly. I bet we'll see a few more surprising European 'trendy' routes like VCE before one of those established star alliance hubs.

Asiana focusing on longhaul is because of LCC floods in Korea as OP mentioned. Asiana needs to work fast before a longhaul LCC is born.

aerokiwi wrote:

Having flown 4 flights with OZ recently (A380 and A330 services) one word sums them up - meh. Mediocre everything with an overwhelming presence of greige.

Terrible meals. Limited IFE. Characterless in every other way. Perhaps they could work on that first.

Totally agree for F or C class. But when it comes to Y, Asiana still wows me and that's because many other airlines have gone to the bottom.

Thank you. Interesting AKL airport noted Korea as the market to NZ needing more capacity the most. I feel KE is to dominant for OZ to compete with on some of the routes they fly, this is why I also don’t see NZ returning to ICN, KE is to dominant. OZ is more likely to return to AKL than NZ to ICN.

The market as you say was bigger 15 years ago.

I have to believe that IAD is on their radar. KE seems to do quite well with their daily 77W, and despite the minimal cooperation with UA, it would likely be successful for them, too. IAD is probably the largest intl market in the US they don't currently serve.

Asiana Airlines has had a considerable expansion increase its flights to Rome and Chicago with daily flights, Frankfurt is now operated by the A380 throughout the year, added Barcelona and Venicia as new destinations and changed their order of Airbus A350XWB, 21 of model -900 and nine units of the -1000 model, although some A359 will be used in regional operations, there is a considerable increase in its wide-body fleet, which are the expectations of new routes and the increase of existing ones

In Europe it has several hubs of its partners and partners of Star Alliance, Brussels, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Oslo, Zurich, Athens, Geneva, Munich, most destinations have an appreciative towards Seoul

In North America accounts with Vancouver (I am surprised that Asiana has no flights to this destination), Toronto, Newark, Washington DC, Denver, San Diego, San Jose (CA), Houston. I would like the ICN service to the NY sector to work with two daily flights using Airbus A350-900 for JFK as EWR, leaving room for the A380 to fly high-demand destinations such as San Francisco or London Heathrow

and other destinations such as Auckland, Cairo, Mumbai, Edinburgh and Manchester

The A350-1000 I see in a future flying to destinations like Rome, Chicago, Seattle, the second daily flights to Los Angeles and Sydney during the summer season

Asiana is an excellent airline! with the new Airbus A350 for its long-haul routes and Airbus A321neo for its regional and domestic routes have the best combination of a highly efficient aircraft family

I know SYD is where the Korean market is at, and whilst KE has tried Melbourne I still feel there is potential for a 3-5 weekly ICN service to MEL also. Perhaps in the next 5yrs or so.

smi0006 wrote:

I know SYD is where the Korean market is at, and whilst KE has tried Melbourne I still feel there is potential for a 3-5 weekly ICN service to MEL also. Perhaps in the next 5yrs or so.

Since KE dropped MEL, what has actually changed? All I can find is the opening of a Victorian Government Business Office in SEL, in '14.

Although tourism growth is strong, QLD (which only supports 4x flights pw part-year) has about 60% more Korean visitors than MEL / VIC.

See: http://www.tourism.australia.com/conten ... 002899.pdf.

Korean-born populations in Australia rank as:

1. New South Wales (SYD) - ~42,000
2. Queensland (BNE) - ~12,000
3. Victoria (MEL) - ~10,000
4. Western Australia (PER) - ~4,000

See: https://www.dss.gov.au/sites/default/fi ... /korea.pdf.

Further, in terms of business and commerce:

- Most Korean companies have their regional HQ in SYD, not MEL (like Hyundai, LG and Samsung)
- Most Melbourne-based companies, like ANZ and BHP have a minimal presence within South Korea

Victoria also lacks the tourism appeal of New Zealand and Queensland, for Korean package holidays. This is a vital segment for a service.

RainerBoeing777 wrote:

... other destinations such as Auckland

AKL is crying out for additional OZ or NZ services to/from Korea:

- Korea has the most unserved demand for travel to AKL of anywhere (as per AKL Airport)
- Korean arrivals to New Zealand grew by more than 8% in the past year, and tourism by 9%
- AKL has double the Korean population of BNE, and ~4-5x the Korean population of MEL

See:
- https://corporate.aucklandairport.co.nz ... sentations ('Investor day presentation').
- https://www.tourismnewzealand.com/marke ... uth-korea/.

Cheers,

C.

As much as I would like them to fly ICN-ARN, I have to admit that OSL is probably the first option for them.

Asiana will serve OSL with two weekly charters this summer. Korean Air flying charters since many years to Oslo and both Atlas Air, Korean Cargo and Asiana Cargo flying freighters.

Also the numbers of annual visitors to Norway from South Korea is apparently twice the number of visitors to Sweden and Denmark combined.

Asiana can definitely make it work with EWR and YYZ, with substantial O&D traffic and connection at both ends. Should be no problem filling a daily A359 on these two routes.

IAH would work too if they coordinate with UA on connection to South America at IAH and if they can also work out connection to the rest of Asia at ICN.

Flights to European destinations will not have much connection opportunities to Asian travelers so it will need to rely on Korean or some Japanese connection traffic.

There was speculation on A380 service to SFO a few years ago, as in it was close, but never materialized. The market may just be saturated with UA rarely flying anything larger then the 787-9. It's surprising KE is close, if not at, double daily with SFO being a StarA hub.

SJC I think was trying to lure KE for a while. I'd be surprised to see OZ service it with it being scene as a secondary city.

Asiana hosted event in LA for travel agents the other week and said they were planning a 3rd daily LAX service in addition to existing double daily A380.

Talk about lots of capacity in the market with KE also having its double daily A380 aervice.

Asiana is a spectacularly ordinary airline. It has a long way to go in terms of inflight offering, I'd argue it's on par with the Chienese carriers. Maybe they should focus on improving that first.

What is DEN going to give Asiana that SFO, IAH, ORD, EWR and IAD won't already give it? I am going to assume all of those markets are larger to/from Korean and Asia as a whole than DEN is, this is in addition to all of those stations having large domestic networks to feed flights to/from ICN.

aerokiwi wrote:

Asiana is a spectacularly ordinary airline. It has a long way to go in terms of inflight offering, I'd argue it's on par with the Chienese carriers. Maybe they should focus on improving that first.

Perhaps your bad experience with them was a one-off? They do have a 5-star rating from Skytrax (whatever that's worth), and have regularly won awards like 'World's Best Economy Class'.

See:
- https://www.tripadvisor.co.nz/Airline_R ... a-Airlines.
- http://www.airlinequality.com/airline-r ... -airlines/.

Cheers,

C.

janders wrote:

Asiana hosted event in LA for travel agents the other week and said they were planning a 3rd daily LAX service in addition to existing double daily A380.

Talk about lots of capacity in the market with KE also having its double daily A380 aervice.

I hope it's on the A350! Always a pleasure to catch OZ A380s here, and the A350 would be a welcome addition without compromising those!