The US3 seem to be having a rough time in India and China. You would think that there would be plenty of demand between the two countries but this is obviously not the case. Why?

My guess would be that India is a long way and China doesn’t wait till their airlines to go bankrupt before they subsidise them.

Fred


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The yields stink to India. In China their State airliners can undercut U.S. Airlines in price because they are subsidized. Pretty simple really.

neomax wrote:

The US3 seem to be having a rough time in India and China. You would think that there would be plenty of demand between the two countries but this is obviously not the case. Why?

They aren’t popular destinations with Americans.

Geoff

Maybe protectionism of national airlines

Geoff1947 wrote:

neomax wrote:

The US3 seem to be having a rough time in India and China. You would think that there would be plenty of demand between the two countries but this is obviously not the case. Why?

They aren’t popular destinations with Americans.

Geoff

Airlines open routes that they think would be profitable, regardless of the nationalities or the origins of the passengers. ME3 airlines fly to many countries that are not popular destinations for Emiratis and Qataris. Garuda flies from Bali to Mumbai not because there are many Balinese wants to go to India, but because there are many Indians from Mumbai wants to visit Bali.

neomax wrote:

You would think that there would be plenty of demand between the two countries but this is obviously not the case.

There *is* plenty of demand... but not at yields that generally support 12-14hr+ flights.
The explosion of highly-subsidized secondary and tertiary routes, is only making it worse for the few routes (e.g. HKG, PVG, etc) that can.

It's tough to make the case that even LAX/SFO really need or can sustain yearround service to the likes of Jinan/Qingdao/Kunming/etc in the current environment; but when local Chinese provincial governments are subsidizing those flights to the point where sub-$500 deals (roundtrip and including tax) are common, then it doesn't matter on a per-unit basis that they're going out with ridiculously low fares, so airlines will do them.

That has the effect however, of trashing yields throughout the rest of the market.

That is also the case for major European airlines. Their footprint is also quite tiny in India/China. Same reasons that would apply to US3 (yields, government backing).

The USA is too remote , too far away from most of the worlds population to make these kind of flights work .

SCQ83 wrote:

That is also the case for major European airlines. Their footprint is also quite tiny in India/China. Same reasons that would apply to US3 (yields, government backing).

The European airlines have handy networks to India, with at least daily if not multiple daily flights:

BA - DEL / BOM / HYD / BLR / MAA
LH - DEL / BOM / BLR / MAA / PNQ
AF - DEL / BOM / BLR

I'm sure this thread won't exist if one or more of the US3 consistently flew to the cities mentioned above.

Galwayman wrote:

The USA is too remote , too far away from most of the worlds population to make these kind of flights work .

That's the strangest thing I've heard in a while, and this is anet so that's saying something. You do realize the US is the aviation powerhouse of the world right? The three largest carriers in the world happen to be the US3 and the bulk of most foreign carriers international routes are to the US. Your statements are flippant and inaccurate at best

afterburner wrote:

Geoff1947 wrote:

neomax wrote:

The US3 seem to be having a rough time in India and China. You would think that there would be plenty of demand between the two countries but this is obviously not the case. Why?

They aren’t popular destinations with Americans.

Geoff

Airlines open routes that they think would be profitable, regardless of the nationalities or the origins of the passengers. ME3 airlines fly to many countries that are not popular destinations for Emiratis and Qataris. Garuda flies from Bali to Mumbai not because there are many Balinese wants to go to India, but because there are many Indians from Mumbai wants to visit Bali.

You were talking about the US3 which are different.

Geoff

Geoff1947 wrote:

afterburner wrote:

Geoff1947 wrote:

They aren’t popular destinations with Americans.

Geoff

Airlines open routes that they think would be profitable, regardless of the nationalities or the origins of the passengers. ME3 airlines fly to many countries that are not popular destinations for Emiratis and Qataris. Garuda flies from Bali to Mumbai not because there are many Balinese wants to go to India, but because there are many Indians from Mumbai wants to visit Bali.

You were talking about the US3 which are different.

Geoff

Nearly since a decade UA is flying to India both destinations BOM/DEL to EWR despite competition from AI and EU carriers .The yields are pretty good for those flights and going strongly.
AA/Delta failed due to ME3 Presence .
Delta is trying there handsback In India in 2019 with highly fuel efficient A350 to BOM.

Excluding US3,Air Canada is going strong after they started India again .
DEL-YYZ is a supersuccess and Recently DEL-YVR has been made daily.
BOM-YYZ is going strong too.
And there is no competition in these routes for AC.

twicearound wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

The USA is too remote , too far away from most of the worlds population to make these kind of flights work .

That's the strangest thing I've heard in a while, and this is anet so that's saying something. You do realize the US is the aviation powerhouse of the world right? The three largest carriers in the world happen to be the US3 and the bulk of most foreign carriers international routes are to the US. Your statements are flippant and inaccurate at best

Not odd at all. Take a look at a map. Why is LATAM so weak in Asia? Why are JL and NH so weak in Africa? Same principle.

Besides the fact that US is quite far away from China and India, these are 3 humongous countries and while there is a big market between them, it's too fragmented with multiple big cities and not enough traffic to sustains daily frequency other than a few pairs of metros. Connection works better to channel people in such a fragmented market.

It's not some Dubai, Singapore, Tokyo, Seoul or even London and Paris, these are one trick ponies and it is easier to serve the market if channeled to one hub on at least one end and multiple cities on the other.

One reason North American airlines are flying more to India is 787 and A350, before flights had to be by 777. The ME3 and EU3 also compete for USA to India making India to USA very competitive. Air India has historically been weak and India's private airlines are having issues, Jet Airways could be grounded in days. India to North America has to be one of the most competitive markets in the world.

Isn't the question "why are Delta and American so weak to India and China?"

UA has a very strong China Network and flies both BOM and DEL

twicearound wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

The USA is too remote , too far away from most of the worlds population to make these kind of flights work .

That's the strangest thing I've heard in a while, and this is anet so that's saying something. You do realize the US is the aviation powerhouse of the world right? The three largest carriers in the world happen to be the US3 and the bulk of most foreign carriers international routes are to the US. Your statements are flippant and inaccurate at best

Looking from the population mass I think the statement is spot on. They are long routes, with low yield. Those in India and China are not willing to pay the high yield that the US3 demand on long international. The US3 mostly send their planes to higher yield markets and only have a token presence with their own metal or through code shares.

Dalmd88 wrote:

twicearound wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

The USA is too remote , too far away from most of the worlds population to make these kind of flights work .

That's the strangest thing I've heard in a while, and this is anet so that's saying something. You do realize the US is the aviation powerhouse of the world right? The three largest carriers in the world happen to be the US3 and the bulk of most foreign carriers international routes are to the US. Your statements are flippant and inaccurate at best

Looking from the population mass I think the statement is spot on. They are long routes, with low yield. Those in India and China are not willing to pay the high yield that the US3 demand on long international. The US3 mostly send their planes to higher yield markets and only have a token presence with their own metal or through code shares.

UA is strong on both China and India and if they wouldn't have got the yields they would have ended right away.
UA could work out flying non stops where AA and DL couldnt sustain but now due to availability of fuel efficient 787/A350 they can try on it again.

UA is going 777-300ER on BOM sooner and DL is restart BOM with A350 .
We never know AA might tap India again with their 787 .

IMO the 3 big missing routes are JFK/ORD-BOM, and SFO-BLR. DL operates from JFK, UA from ORD/SFO.

The Chinese airlines racing to get market share have destroyed yields to China and beyond. It is sometimes cheaper to fly LAX-HKG (economy fares can be under $500) than it is to fly transcon.

Rdh3e wrote:

Isn't the question "why are Delta and American so weak to India and China?"

UA has a very strong China Network and flies both BOM and DEL

Exactly. United has 13 flights a day to China.

In the outbound market, US airlines have an advantage because they can fly people starting in places like Des Moines, Iowa to Delhi or Shanghai. However, going the other way, someone that wants to fly from places like Cochin in India or Changsha in China to New York is probably going to prefer an airline that can get them all the way to their destination from their local city. In India's case, QR and EY serve a lot more Indian cities than any American airline ever could.

Cubsrule wrote:

twicearound wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

The USA is too remote , too far away from most of the worlds population to make these kind of flights work .

That's the strangest thing I've heard in a while, and this is anet so that's saying something. You do realize the US is the aviation powerhouse of the world right? The three largest carriers in the world happen to be the US3 and the bulk of most foreign carriers international routes are to the US. Your statements are flippant and inaccurate at best

Not odd at all. Take a look at a map. Why is LATAM so weak in Asia? Why are JL and NH so weak in Africa? Same principle.

Let me clarify. His statement said the US was "to far away" from most of the world's population. Not China and India. While the US is many things the world remote is not one I've ever heard in relativity to the rest of the world. And his statement is incorrect because "those kinds" of flights DO in fact "work" the US3 fly over 25 flights a day between the US and China. And while India is the absolute polar opposite of the US geographically 2 of 3 of the US3 fly there.
So 1) We've established his claim was overgeneralizing and an exaggeration 2) Disproved his statement by reminding ourselves that the flights he claims don't work, in fact do.
It is odd to just throw a statement out there that is not based on fact or any realistic observation. And idiot can look at a map. let's pause for the cause and think for a minute.

twicearound wrote:

Let me clarify. His statement said the US was "to far away" from most of the world's population.

China and India are far away from the US, and have between them 2.8 billion people. It’s all relative, but the US’ 360 million people are not a lot in comparison.

fabian9 wrote:

twicearound wrote:

Let me clarify. His statement said the US was "to far away" from most of the world's population.

China and India are far away from the US, and have between them 2.8 billion people. It’s all relative, but the US’ 360 million people are not a lot in comparison.

I wonder how much of the world's population is within a 10 hour flight from a US city since that's the span of the US. Just for some perspective. Phrases like "too far" "wont work" and "weak in china" should be quantified.

US carriers are not weak to China.

Of 10.1 mil travelers between the nations for 12-months ending March 2018, US air carriers flew 38% of scheduled passengers. That is pretty strong considering nearly 2 million travelers between the countries flew via 3rd countries and their national carriers to start with.

Basically, on nonstop basis between the US and China, US carriers have 50/50 market share with Chinese peers.

adi00654 wrote:

Delta is trying there handsback In India in 2019 with highly fuel efficient A350 to BOM.

Where was it announced that eqp would be A350?

Rdh3e wrote:

Isn't the question "why are Delta and American so weak to India and China?"

UA has a very strong China Network and flies both BOM and DEL

Exactly.

However, DL through its extensive partnership with AF/KLM/VS/9W , funnels a lot of pax through to India. And they are attempting to restart non-stops to Mumbai. So they already indirectly, and soon will be directly present in India.

So now the question comes down to "why is American so weak in India and China?" .

A lot of IT work exists in India, and most of that can be done over computer. It’s not like the auto industry.

fabian9 wrote:

twicearound wrote:

Let me clarify. His statement said the US was "to far away" from most of the world's population.

China and India are far away from the US, and have between them 2.8 billion people. It’s all relative, but the US’ 360 million people are not a lot in comparison.

Wrong comparison; the percentage of those populations likely to have access to funds and need/desire to travel would make the number much closer. Probably half the US population has the ability to fly to China/India while maybe 10-20 of the Chinese/Indian population could fly to NA

GF

twicearound wrote:

fabian9 wrote:

twicearound wrote:

Let me clarify. His statement said the US was "to far away" from most of the world's population.

China and India are far away from the US, and have between them 2.8 billion people. It’s all relative, but the US’ 360 million people are not a lot in comparison.

I wonder how much of the world's population is within a 10 hour flight from a US city since that's the span of the US. Just for some perspective. Phrases like "too far" "wont work" and "weak in china" should be quantified.

It’s something like PER, most of the populations of Indonesia, Malaysia, and Singapore, the Arabian Penisula, most of India, and most of sub-Sarahan Africa. In fairness, though, it’s a significantly bigger number if we ask the same question about the continental US.

Dalmd88 wrote:

twicearound wrote:

Galwayman wrote:

The USA is too remote , too far away from most of the worlds population to make these kind of flights work .

That's the strangest thing I've heard in a while, and this is anet so that's saying something. You do realize the US is the aviation powerhouse of the world right? The three largest carriers in the world happen to be the US3 and the bulk of most foreign carriers international routes are to the US. Your statements are flippant and inaccurate at best

Looking from the population mass I think the statement is spot on. They are long routes, with low yield. Those in India and China are not willing to pay the high yield that the US3 demand on long international. The US3 mostly send their planes to higher yield markets and only have a token presence with their own metal or through code shares.

I disagree with your statement that those in India are unwilling to pay more. The India-US market has a long history. In the 60, 70, 80s US-India was very profitable for the likes of Pan Am. The issue is that the ME3 and others were allowed to essentially always have just enough seats to prevent fares to rise. People don’t go out of their way to spend morel. Also the ME3 literally built their global networks off of India traffic. So the money is there. Add to this, the EU carriers use India traffic to fill transatlantic seats (and charge US-EU fares more). This is a perfect storm of making US-India so competitive. India-Canada is better connected nonstop and is a tiny market relative to India-US. Other comments like India traffic is fragment between many cities on both sides are also correct. More Americans travel to India than Israel but the fragmentation an competition makes flights tough.

avier wrote:

Rdh3e wrote:

Isn't the question "why are Delta and American so weak to India and China?"

UA has a very strong China Network and flies both BOM and DEL

Exactly.

However, DL through its extensive partnership with AF/KLM/VS/9W , funnels a lot of pax through to India. And they are attempting to restart non-stops to Mumbai. So they already indirectly, and soon will be directly present in India.

So now the question comes down to "why is American so weak in India and China?" .

Add on about DL in China - are they really THAT weak when they have 6 flights to mainland daily, and also built up a nice partnership with MU at PVG? Skyteam literally dominates mainland Chinese traffic right now as-is.

So basically AA is the big loser. But they were never strong in TPAC or to India to begin with.

And for India, should people ask why is Air India themselves not even close to be the dominant player in that market instead of US3? ME3 then EU3 and even UA come ahead of AI

Ultimately, so I'm guessing since US3 no longer carry 70-80% of the traffic between US & PRC or US & India, and they're now "weak"?

Final note - point of sales matter a LOT in East Asia. The local carrier always win just b/c it simply feels more like "home" riding on a local carrier, and especially since the service on those local carriers are actually better, at a price point that's not that much different.

Spiderguy252 wrote:

SCQ83 wrote:

That is also the case for major European airlines. Their footprint is also quite tiny in India/China. Same reasons that would apply to US3 (yields, government backing).

The European airlines have handy networks to India, with at least daily if not multiple daily flights:

BA - DEL / BOM / HYD / BLR / MAA
LH - DEL / BOM / BLR / MAA / PNQ
AF - DEL / BOM / BLR

I'm sure this thread won't exist if one or more of the US3 consistently flew to the cities mentioned above.

North America basically doubles the distance of those destinations. DL/AA/UA all have JVs with your above mentioned airlines to get that traffic 1-stop into the US. One of the great things about the JV for the US3 (and their EU partners). The market is well served. If there was premium demand for the long non-stop, they would have them.

The US3 are, to me, the most sophisticated and advanced airlines in the world (there, stated my bias). They are “strong” to Asia in the sense that they understand the very limited business opportunity in flying tourists (the majority of which would be Chinese tour groups) in the market. Business travel has probably decreased over time. Finally there is the visiting friends and relative market, which is notoriously low priced. It’s just not the sort of high priced market that interests the US3. They mostly serve China and India as a long running experiment, in case business develops.

fabian9 wrote:

twicearound wrote:

Let me clarify. His statement said the US was "to far away" from most of the world's population.

China and India are far away from the US, and have between them 2.8 billion people. It’s all relative, but the US’ 360 million people are not a lot in comparison.

Not that This should surprise anyone, but for a long time, the USA had the majority of global civil aviation... until probably 1990... On an ASM basis it might still be bigger than Asia.

adi00654 wrote:

Dalmd88 wrote:

twicearound wrote:

That's the strangest thing I've heard in a while, and this is anet so that's saying something. You do realize the US is the aviation powerhouse of the world right? The three largest carriers in the world happen to be the US3 and the bulk of most foreign carriers international routes are to the US. Your statements are flippant and inaccurate at best

Looking from the population mass I think the statement is spot on. They are long routes, with low yield. Those in India and China are not willing to pay the high yield that the US3 demand on long international. The US3 mostly send their planes to higher yield markets and only have a token presence with their own metal or through code shares.

UA is strong on both China and India and if they wouldn't have got the yields they would have ended right away.
UA could work out flying non stops where AA and DL couldnt sustain but now due to availability of fuel efficient 787/A350 they can try on it again.

UA is going 777-300ER on BOM sooner and DL is restart BOM with A350 .
We never know AA might tap India again with their 787 .

Delta is going to be on a 77L. They already announced it many times.

not sure if you are living in 2018, but US and China are rivals now. Chinese tend to choose Chinese airlines over US airlines, and US airlines don't get much business traffic to China. India is just too far from US and the yield is just not there.

The partial reasons are chinese tour groups usually book with chinese airlines first as they think their clients will prefer to fly with a chinese airline. Travelers from USA to China are more likely to book with an Airline from USA. Plus US airlines don't have a better reputation than chinese airlines to attract chinese customers. Price is another reason. Flight attendants in China don't really have a union and pay is still much lower. China does not really subsidise airlines much. The airlines make most of their money from domestic flights inside China (which is a huge internal market)and so if international flights break even or lose some money the airline can usually suck it up.

Look at the competition such as EK which flies from 12 US airports (LAX, SFO, SEA, ORD, BOS, JFK, EWR, IAD, IAH, DFW, FLL and MCO) to nine Indian and seven Chinese destinations from its DXB hub.

gunnerman wrote:

Look at the competition such as EK which flies from 12 US airports (LAX, SFO, SEA, ORD, BOS, JFK, EWR, IAD, IAH, DFW, FLL and MCO) to nine Indian and seven Chinese destinations from its DXB hub.

Nobody in their right mind is going to fly ME3 from US to China via DXB, period. Takes twice as long and quite frankly, are not even cheaper.

tris06 wrote:

Flight attendants in China don't really have a union and pay is still much lower. China does not really subsidise airlines much.

Nothing to do with union quite frankly. Cost of living in China in general is still lower than US, and thus, pay simply doesn't have to be as high.

tris06 wrote:

The airlines make most of their money from domestic flights inside China (which is a huge internal market)and so if international flights break even or lose some money the airline can usually suck it up.

IIRC the price on Chinese domestic routes are actually regulated, at least on the busiest routes. And yes, those domestic routes do print money, even with HSR competitions.

tris06 wrote:

The partial reasons are chinese tour groups usually book with chinese airlines first as they think their clients will prefer to fly with a chinese airline. Travelers from USA to China are more likely to book with an Airline from USA.

tris06 wrote:

Chinese tend to choose Chinese airlines over US airlines, and US airlines don't get much business traffic to China. India is just too far from US and the yield is just not there.

Lagnuage barrier can be a key here. Yes, US carrier do have Chinese-speaking cabin crews, but majority of them are still, well, Americans. Meanwhile, I've seen many complaints on trip reports about how cabin crew on Chinese carriers simply doesn't know much English, thus making it hard to communicate. Plus, not all Americans can stand those pickled vegetables on CN3's meal

Not to mention, US-based crew may not be used to those at-times weird request from Chinese passengers, and thus, further reduce the reputation of US carriers among those Chinese travelers. This applied especially for those older generation (Travelers in 50s-60s) that only now have the money to travel aboard, but are used to things that they expect (Well, more like those pax treat cabin crews with zero respect and expect them to be their servant). Ultimately, those "troublesome" pax are the reason why East Asian carriers have better services - those crews are more used to those pax and can "deal" with them, and in turn, makes your regular pax (Especially somebody that are used to US carrier and the somewhat indifferent attitude of the cabin crew...ok, to be fair maybe just UA) feels that the "service is better".

neomax wrote:

The US3 seem to be having a rough time in India and China. You would think that there would be plenty of demand between the two countries but this is obviously not the case. Why?

There is PLENTY of demand. Why do you think that this is "obviously" not the case? Can you kindly elaborate?

SEAflyer97 wrote:

not sure if you are living in 2018, but US and China are rivals now. Chinese tend to choose Chinese airlines over US airlines, and US airlines don't get much business traffic to China. India is just too far from US and the yield is just not there.

I agree with what you are saying but I think your statement needs clarification. The US3 still carry quite a bit of Chinese traffic between the US and PEK/PVG. While AA has chosen to drop ORD-PEK/PVG both DL and UA still maintain the same number of nonstop flights and DL as you know has requested authority to commence MSP-PVG in 2020.
I think where the point you were making has the greatest validity is to those secondary cities in China. The secondary cities are seeing a lot of economy growth and a lot of Chinese citizens in these cities are now in the middle class, or moderately wealthy people, however they have never flown on and perhaps have never payed attention or given a second thought to Delta, American or United Airlines. So the places in China where we are seeing the most growth in the economy are the places Chinese carriers are the strongest and with aircraft like the Dreamliner and the A350 these airlines no longer need to push people to larger cities like PEK or PVG to get them to LAX, SFO, JFK, etc they can now offer them nonstop service. UA tried to tap into these growing markets but because of a lack of brand power in many if not all of these secondary cities Chinese citizens from these cities chose to stick with the airline they know and trust which is much different from Chinese citizens living in Beijing, or Shanghai. One thing we are seeing UA doing in Chengdu and this started late last year is UA is getting involved in and sponsoring many local events both big and small in and around the Province just to get our name out there. UA is trying to build connections to the community and trying to build trust. UA thought we could just go into these secondary markets and people would just trust us they would choose UA over the Chinese airline. What we found out is if they don't know you they won't trust you and if they don't trust you they will never fly with you. Once the subsidies and corporate contracts ran out our flights to Xi'an and Hangzhou were doomed because like you stated in these locations Chinese citizens were choosing Chinese airlines over UA. The US3 will not be able to easily penetrate the secondary cities in China because for those routes to work you can't need to have Chinese support you need Chinese citizens to fly on your metal and in that regard UA is learning the hard way you face an uphill battle. UA has stuck with the CTU flight and we are seeing progress but the other 2 flights wasn't worth the fight at this time.

They are weak in Southeast Asia, Middle East, Oceania, the whole continent of Africa, Eastern Europe and even South America. So they are weak all around, not just India or China.

ewt340 wrote:

They are weak in Southeast Asia, Middle East, Oceania, the whole continent of Africa, Eastern Europe and even South America. So they are weak all around, not just India or China.

Where do you propose they make money in these locations?

SE Asia: poor and far
Middle east: huge social divide, largely poor, 7000+ miles away
Oceania: sparse, poor
Africa: incredibly poor, 6000+ miles away
Eastern Europe: poor, good connections through western europe.
South America: good coverage, especially AA.

neomax wrote:

The US3 seem to be having a rough time in India and China. You would think that there would be plenty of demand between the two countries but this is obviously not the case. Why?

US-India and US-China, totally different circumstances; entirely different ball games.

US - India
1) Heavily fragmented - SQ,CX,EY,EK,QR,TK,AI, 9W, KE,OZ, CA, MU, BA, LH, AF, KL, OS, AZ, SU [18 options].
2) As others have pointed out; the yields are a challenge.
3) -AND....let's not forget AI with deep pockets and an unlimited line of credit without accountability to creditors or shareholders. The only reason why ME3 is even flying to the US is because of AIs inability to get their act together in spite of this. The seem to be sort of getting their act together given that they have 5 nonstops with SFO being twice daily!! on certain days. It beats me why US3 are not complaining about AI because AI directly impacts US3 not doing well on the sector and not expanding with more non stops.

So, the combination of the above 2 make it a blood bath on the US - India sector
- So, what UA has done is; cherry picked the non stops where they can make money EWR-DEL & EWR-BOM and left the remaining city pairs to a joint UA-LH partnership over MUC & FRA hubs.
- AA & DL tried ORD-DEL & JFK(ATL for some time)-BOM respectively and failed. American does not plan to fly to India any time soon - https://viewfromthewing.boardingarea.co ... time-soon/ (nice article which pretty much sums up the answer to your question, at least on the US-India sector). DL & AA for the time being seem to be content partnering with AF/KLM [CDG+AMS] & BA[LHR].
So, this actually brings up a question, are the US3 really that weak?

US - China
Someone else has rightly pointed out that the Chinese government is not going to sit by and watch competition build up against the subsidized Chinese carriers (can't remember the exact words that poster used but the content is the same). But, still, US3 has more non stops (in fact all 3 of the US3 have a Chinese presence) US - China than US - India for the obvious reason that the sector is NOT heavily fragmented among 18 carriers.

Forget the US-India and US-China sectors. A question (totally irrelevant to the topic of this thread) to be asked is why are 2 of the fastest growing and largest economies of the world linked only by 6 routes - https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... ple-249028 ? They are also the fastest growing and slated to be the largest aviation markets of the world. Go figure! It's something like US and Canada linked by only 6 or 7 routes which would make you raise eyebrows and scratch your head.

Varsity1 wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

They are weak in Southeast Asia, Middle East, Oceania, the whole continent of Africa, Eastern Europe and even South America. So they are weak all around, not just India or China.

Where do you propose they make money in these locations?

SE Asia: poor and far
Middle east: huge social divide, largely poor, 7000+ miles away
Oceania: sparse, poor
Africa: incredibly poor, 6000+ miles away
Eastern Europe: poor, good connections through western europe.
South America: good coverage, especially AA.

Bingo.

Interesting how many in this thread are throwing around the word weak. Is it weakness if you're not present in a market where you'd lose money to the detriment of your shareholders? Would it be strength if the US3 had sprawling networks to India and China that lost hundreds of millions of dollars every year? Is that how we're defining strength now?

The US3 are making the financially prudent decision to not deploy capacity in a marketplace where they'd lose money in order to maintain their financial superiority to just about every other carrier in existence. Sounds like maintained strength to me.

avier wrote:

And they are attempting to restart non-stops to Mumbai. So they already indirectly, and soon will be directly present in India.

The key words are "attempting to". We should believe it whenever we actually see it. And then, IF (and whenever) it does happen...let's see how long it sustains.

winginit wrote:

Interesting how many in this thread are throwing around the word weak. Is it weakness if you're not present in a market where you'd lose money to the detriment of your shareholders? Would it be strength if the US3 had sprawling networks to India and China that lost hundreds of millions of dollars every year? Is that how we're defining strength now?

The US3 are making the financially prudent decision to not deploy capacity in a marketplace where they'd lose money in order to maintain their financial superiority to just about every other carrier in existence. Sounds like maintained strength to me.

IMO, the title of the thread should have been "Why does US3 Metal have such a weak presence in India and China?". My earlier response pretty much sums up the answer along with a rhetorical question "Are they really weak?".

747megatop wrote:

Forget the US-India and US-China sectors. A question (totally irrelevant to the topic of this thread) to be asked is why are 2 of the fastest growing and largest economies of the world linked only by 6 routes - https://centreforaviation.com/analysis/ ... ple-249028 ? They are also the fastest growing and slated to be the largest aviation markets of the world. Go figure! It's something like US and Canada linked by only 6 or 7 routes which would make you raise eyebrows and scratch your head.

Had been answered many times on a.net actually. The bilateral is highly limited, and Chinese carriers actually already used up most (41 out of 42 last I count) of the allocated frequency between the two, but with Indian carriers not really flying to mainland China, Indian gov't has no intention to expand the bilateral.

There's also Hong Kong, which was, and still is, the center of trades for Indians with mainland China that was established back in British colonial days. Mainland PRC-India direct trades are still somewhat underdeveloped, and is hampered by both countries being somewhat of a rival (and certainly doesn't help that China is VERY friendly with Pakistan), the discrimation of Indians in general in PRC (even in Hong Kong, where some Indians had been around for generations, still face discrimations), etc. Well, all those and the Himalayas.

Side note, though, Indian actually looks to CZ (mainly) for cheap tickets to N. America also. Of course, Indian gov't and its protectionism way (especially with a certain airline that should have just go out of business for the betterment of Indian aviation) are not going to like that