TTailedTiger wrote:

c933103 wrote:

The MSP-HND was wasting the resource of HND and should probably be relocated immediately

Too bad. Delta should never have started it if it was going to lose money.

Honestly, we don't know if MSP-HND loses money, breaks even, or makes a small profit, since we don't have access to DL's data. We've heard from several sources that the flight has improved a lot since it started, but we also know DL has high standards for route profitability. This route could be getting a 5% margin and DL would likely still want to move it.

At the end of the day, I'd bet DL feels that they can make more money on MSP-PVG (with a similar-sized O&D market plus ample connections available via MU at PVG) with the same aircraft, while at the same time allowing for a new U.S.-HND connection from one of their hubs that has a larger O&D market to Tokyo (SEA, DTW, JFK, etc.). HND is an O&D operation for DL, so it makes sense for it to be connected to whichever of their hubs have the largest and/or highest yielding demand to Tokyo. That's not MSP.

SFOtoORD wrote:

You can’t hate Delta for trying to serve their own interests, but their abuse of the Haneda route authorities has been atrocious.

The system is broken that would allow Delta to act like this. Agreed you can't blame them in a way, but they have been atrocious.

Can't imagine this doesn't involve MSP. This was the plan all along, and they will say it's not performing "now", and this was not planned LOL

OzarkD9S wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

This has "Delta is looking to move MSP-HND somewhere (SEA? ATL?), but if they wish, they can fly that route again" all over it. MSP does stand out like a sore thumb compare to all the other destinations that has a HND flight anyway (The only smaller market, PDEW-wise, is probably VIE, and that flight is not even operating yet).

I might be missing something but what does VIE have to do with HND-USA? Typo?

Clearly, as stated, that VIE is the only non-stop operation out of HND that has fewer PDEW than MSP. Japan to the rest of the world, not just to the USA. To me that is an interesting perspective.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

You can’t hate Delta for trying to serve their own interests, but their abuse of the Haneda route authorities has been atrocious.

The system is broken that would allow Delta to act like this. Agreed you can't blame them in a way, but they have been atrocious.

Can't imagine this doesn't involve MSP. This was the plan all along, and they will say it's not performing "now", and this was not planned LOL

Their goal is not to operate a few HND flights, it is to either move everything from NRT or deny other carriers HND rights by operating something like MSP as a placeholder. They have been hamstrung by their former hub at NRT, although in retrospect that is a regulatory asset that should now be available to other carriers.

SFOtoORD wrote:

You can’t hate Delta for trying to serve their own interests, but their abuse of the Haneda route authorities has been atrocious.

Delete please

NCAD95 wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

You can’t hate Delta for trying to serve their own interests, but their abuse of the Haneda route authorities has been atrocious.

No but in the back of my mind Delta repeatedly doing this means it would use the same tactics against it's employees and customers given the chance and that's where the problem lies. They are practicing unethical business tactics to get the upper hand and that's how they run their business on all levels.

That is a big jump you are making there. Delta has not infringed upon any of the rules governing access to NRT or HND, as far as I know. Without a partner in Japan, they are doing their best to convert a hub to a spoke, and why shouldn't they move all their flights to HND if they can? As far as I can tell, DL employees are much happier than either UA's or AA's, and that is without a labor union for some portion of those DL employees. What unethical practices can you cite against DL in regard to their customers or employees? I am not a DL fanboy, by the way - just curious.

TTailedTiger wrote:

c933103 wrote:

The MSP-HND was wasting the resource of HND and should probably be relocated immediately

Too bad. Delta should never have started it if it was going to lose money. They can give the route authority back though. Delta doesn't deserve anymore HND flights with their cavalier approach to it.

The problem is not about what Delta want but what benefit Haneda and American travellers the most. Why would DoT's system award a route to MSP when there're only this limited amount of slot to HND?

c933103 wrote:

TTailedTiger wrote:

c933103 wrote:

The MSP-HND was wasting the resource of HND and should probably be relocated immediately

Too bad. Delta should never have started it if it was going to lose money. They can give the route authority back though. Delta doesn't deserve anymore HND flights with their cavalier approach to it.

The problem is not about what Delta want but what benefit Haneda and American travellers the most. Why would DoT's system award a route to MSP when there're only this limited amount of slot to HND?

Arguably the MSP route does in fact benefit US travelers the more. The reason Delta wants to move it is not because it serves travelers poorly, but because DL can make more money flying the HND slot from a different location. And it allows them to finally close down NRT.

For competition purposes, DL needs at a minimum 4 HND daytime slots. They already have 2, and probably will get 2 more in 2020.

1) The need a SEA slot to be competitive with JL, who is likely to launch SEA-HND with one of their new 2020 slots.

2) They need to retain the LAX slot, to be competitive with the multiple other airlines that also fly LAX-HND.

3) They need a DTW slot, because DTW-TYO has large O/D on its own, and also for DL to be competitive with other northeastern connecting pax who also have the option to connect on ORD/JFK-HND with other carriers.

4) They need an ATL slot because, in DL’s mind, all connections must go through ATL. It also is the gateway to the Southeast USA, which DL nearly dominates anyway.

Yes, DL also flies TYO from PDX and Pacific beach markets, but those flights serve a different purpose. More so, getting 4 HND slots is the end game to closing the NRT hub.

How can you fault DL for asking? They are of course looking out for their own interest just like any other airline. They are a very successful business and run extremely well. Some people are just too emotional.

HA would love to fly OGG-HND.

DL has been far more abusive then most are citing. Suggest that research will show that they flew extremely odd schedules at some points once every 90 days to avoid any other carrier getting the SEA-HND when AA wanted it for LAX. Eventually they lost and had to hand it over. It was nefarious by DL at best. Outright fraud and contempt for the public is more realistic. Frankly let AA try DFW-HND or HA OGG-HND. DL doesn't deserve any empathy or consideration for this request (Look at their objections on the AA HAV filings!)

toobz wrote:

How can you fault DL for asking? They are of course looking out for their own interest just like any other airline. They are a very successful business and run extremely well. Some people are just too emotional.

Delta knew the rules. Don't agree to something if you don't like the terms. Would anyone have any sympathy for me if I started a thread in Non-Av complaining about my credit card company not giving me a lower interest rate? I highly doubt it. I can either cancel the card or suck it up. Delta can drop MSP and give the authority back or suck it up.

acvitale wrote:

HA would love to fly OGG-HND.

DL has been far more abusive then most are citing. Suggest that research will show that they flew extremely odd schedules at some points once every 90 days to avoid any other carrier getting the SEA-HND when AA wanted it for LAX. Eventually they lost and had to hand it over. It was nefarious by DL at best. Outright fraud and contempt for the public is more realistic. Frankly let AA try DFW-HND or HA OGG-HND. DL doesn't deserve any empathy or consideration for this request (Look at their objections on the AA HAV filings!)

I am confused by your logic. Since 2016 (when the daytime slots were made available) all US airlines have continued to fly from their awarded HND slot locations, except one. HA switched their HND night slot from 7x weekly HNL to 3xKOA, 4xHNL. So basically, 1 airline switched the night slot, and everyone kept the day slots. Note the Japanese carriers have also switched their daytime slot locations, but that is a different matter.

Anyway, now you are arguing that 1) switching slot locations is “fraud and contempt”, and 2) the one US airline (HA) that has actually partially altered their HND slot location since 2016 is deserving of someone else’s slot to fly OGG?

I have a solution, but a bad one. If DOT allows AA to have a reserve/break/dormant on its PEK/PVG authority from ORD, then DOT should also allow DL to seek 'flexibility' on its HND slots/routes. Otherwise, do block both party and nobody would be unhappy.

Its a reasonable request and will benefit more U.S.-Tokyo passengers while HND is in transition. An expansion of daytime HND service is anticipated in advance of the 2020 Olympic Games, and in the meantime more passengers will have access to the preferred airport. This would enable DL to use its new, larger capacity 359 flagship aircraft from its larger DTW hub. Since slot times at HND remain sub optimal for US carriers, greater frequency and connectivity at DTW would help alleviate that. MSP is not in going to lose TYO service, but would have interim service via NRT until new slots become available to backfill MSP-HND. DL is at a comparative disadvantages to the AA/JL and UA/NH alliances, where the Japanese partners are free to shift their HND flights at any time. DL has already seen its NRT hub collapse in the wake of HND opening, and has had to refocus its Asia/Pacific network around SEL. Since TYO is now just a "spoke" albeit an important one, maximizing benefits in the local market is paramount. The analogies to LHR and LGW are very apt.

chonetsao wrote:

I have a solution, but a bad one. If DOT allows AA to have a reserve/break/dormant on its PEK/PVG authority from ORD, then DOT should also allow DL to seek 'flexibility' on its HND slots/routes. Otherwise, do block both party and nobody would be unhappy.

The major difference between those 2 cases is that both DL and UA will need significant time to secure slots at both the airports in China whereas a new HND pair could be opened with a minimum timeframe because the slot is already there.

Realistically you can't blame DL for trying but it's likely the DOT will say no. If DL wants to move one of its HND authorities it'll have to go through the proper process to do so. It'll also be interesting to see what UA and AA file in response. I'd say they'll both object but it'll be interesting to see how strenuously they do so because they might be seeking to tactically lay the ground work for saying DL shouldn't get a 2nd slot in the next round. Will be interesting but, as I said and as others have said, the likely answer from the DOT is no.

Sydscott wrote:

chonetsao wrote:

I have a solution, but a bad one. If DOT allows AA to have a reserve/break/dormant on its PEK/PVG authority from ORD, then DOT should also allow DL to seek 'flexibility' on its HND slots/routes. Otherwise, do block both party and nobody would be unhappy.

The major difference between those 2 cases is that both DL and UA will need significant time to secure slots at both the airports in China whereas a new HND pair could be opened with a minimum timeframe because the slot is already there.

Realistically you can't blame DL for trying but it's likely the DOT will say no. If DL wants to move one of its HND authorities it'll have to go through the proper process to do so. It'll also be interesting to see what UA and AA file in response. I'd say they'll both object but it'll be interesting to see how strenuously they do so because they might be seeking to tactically lay the ground work for saying DL shouldn't get a 2nd slot in the next round. Will be interesting but, as I said and as others have said, the likely answer from the DOT is no.

It's worth noting, again, since it got ignored last time, Delta isn't asking to move anything. It's urging DOT to make gateway flexibility part of its next route case, when new HND slots are made available.

toobz wrote:

How can you fault DL for asking? They are of course looking out for their own interest just like any other airline. They are a very successful business and run extremely well. Some people are just too emotional.

Yes, because it displays a lack of ethics, competency, or both. A carrier should not need to ask for flexibility. Authorities are granted for specific requests. If a carrier needs flexibility to deviate from their own thorough proposal, it means either they are incompetent at a route planning level for that proposal, and/or they are not being honest with their proposal and desire to execute a form of a bait-and-switch with a public asset. There are no other options. It is inexcusable that a carrier would have the need to ask for flexibility in advance. Some people are simply not accepting of the truth.

MSPNWA wrote:

Yes, because it displays a lack of ethics, competency, or both. A carrier should not need to ask for flexibility. Authorities are granted for specific requests. If a carrier needs flexibility to deviate from their own thorough proposal, it means either they are incompetent at a route planning level for that proposal, and/or they are not being honest with their proposal and desire to execute a form of a bait-and-switch with a public asset. There are no other options. It is inexcusable that a carrier would have the need to ask for flexibility in advance. Some people are simply not accepting of the truth.

Umm, let’s not forget that Japan is supposed to be open skies, where carriers and not the regulators get to decide where and what to fly. How many LHR route cases have been held after open skies with the EU? None. Carriers shift services around all the time.

In an ideal world, there would be no limits on Haneda service and no need for route cases. But, in current circumstances, locking carriers into rigid and inflexible scheduling just makes a bad situation worse.

MSPNWA wrote:

toobz wrote:

How can you fault DL for asking? They are of course looking out for their own interest just like any other airline. They are a very successful business and run extremely well. Some people are just too emotional.

Yes, because it displays a lack of ethics, competency, or both. A carrier should not need to ask for flexibility. Authorities are granted for specific requests. If a carrier needs flexibility to deviate from their own thorough proposal, it means either they are incompetent at a route planning level for that proposal, and/or they are not being honest with their proposal and desire to execute a form of a bait-and-switch with a public asset. There are no other options. It is inexcusable that a carrier would have the need to ask for flexibility in advance. Some people are simply not accepting of the truth.

Some people believe Delta should be granted any and everything that their heart desires. And it's always "Delta is so profitable so they must be doing something right!" as the excuse. When half of your competition was eliminated via mergers and liquidation it really isn't that hard to turn a profit. Delta isn't doing anything noteworthy in that regard. And of all the airlines Delta executives certainly run their mouths the most. You can't expect favors from government when you are constantly criticizing and openly opposing them.

TigerFlyer wrote:

Umm, let’s not forget that Japan is supposed to be open skies, where carriers and not the regulators get to decide where and what to fly. How many LHR route cases have been held after open skies with the EU? None. Carriers shift services around all the time.

In an ideal world, there would be no limits on Haneda service and no need for route cases. But, in current circumstances, locking carriers into rigid and inflexible scheduling just makes a bad situation worse.

DL and every other airline knows the situation. DL doesn't deserve special treatment any more than another U.S. carrier, which is zero.

HND slots should be freely traded like LHR slots. Problem solved, and then the US and Japan would have truly free skies. I’m sure there are carriers at HND who would gladly swap a few flights to NRT for money in the bank.

Prost wrote:

HND slots should be freely traded like LHR slots. Problem solved, and then the US and Japan would have truly free skies. I’m sure there are carriers at HND who would gladly swap a few flights to NRT for money in the bank.

If you really want change to happen then the only thing that will work is to give the Japanese airlines awful departure and arrival times at JFK and EWR.

TigerFlyer wrote:

Umm, let’s not forget that Japan is supposed to be open skies, where carriers and not the regulators get to decide where and what to fly. How many LHR route cases have been held after open skies with the EU? None. Carriers shift services around all the time.

In an ideal world, there would be no limits on Haneda service and no need for route cases. But, in current circumstances, locking carriers into rigid and inflexible scheduling just makes a bad situation worse.

Japan is entirely open-skies. Like the EU, airlines with underlying authority don't need to file for anything.
Airport slot situation is an entirely different thing, and its the U.S. DOT that has opted to decide who and how are these are parsed out to U.S operators.

Prost wrote:

HND slots should be freely traded like LHR slots. Problem solved, and then the US and Japan would have truly free skies. I’m sure there are carriers at HND who would gladly swap a few flights to NRT for money in the bank.

LHR style slot trading is quite an unusual practice among broader global marketplace.
Slots in most places do not belong to an airline but belong to the authority that issues them with airline simply the user.
Personally, I have always believed slot should reside with the respective authority, and not an assets on airlines financial statement.

Have any other airlines filed an objection to this? I would think AA and UA would love to have this option, as well.

LAXintl wrote:

TigerFlyer wrote:

Umm, let’s not forget that Japan is supposed to be open skies, where carriers and not the regulators get to decide where and what to fly. How many LHR route cases have been held after open skies with the EU? None. Carriers shift services around all the time.

In an ideal world, there would be no limits on Haneda service and no need for route cases. But, in current circumstances, locking carriers into rigid and inflexible scheduling just makes a bad situation worse.

Japan is entirely open-skies. Like the EU, airlines with underlying authority don't need to file for anything.
Airport slot situation is an entirely different thing, and its the U.S. DOT that has opted to decide who and how are these are parsed out to U.S operators.

Prost wrote:

HND slots should be freely traded like LHR slots. Problem solved, and then the US and Japan would have truly free skies. I’m sure there are carriers at HND who would gladly swap a few flights to NRT for money in the bank.

LHR style slot trading is quite an unusual practice among broader global marketplace.
Slots in most places do not belong to an airline but belong to the authority that issues them with airline simply the user.
Personally, I have always believed slot should reside with the respective authority, and not an assets on airlines financial statement.

That is not an accurate depiction of the U.S.-Japan bilateral situation, or slot trading at large.

"Slots" have simply replaced "frequencies" in the U.S.-Japan market as bilateral currency. There is no other U.S. international agreement that has slot limitations in the bilateral. See, 2016 U.S.-Japan Record of Discussions (limiting U.S. carriers to 5 daytime and 1 nighttime slots at Haneda). This is akin to a US-EU agreement limiting U.S. carriers to 6 LHR slots. Haneda is the most important airport in Japan, and the only thing that matters now. It is limited entry, by government agreement, unlike LHR where you can buy your way in.

LHR is not unique. FAA has long allowed buy/sell/trade of slots at US airports.

Japan-US is very much open skies and my airline has benefited greatly from to it.

Haneda is a constrained airport, with a limitation on movements, which must be rationed. Let's not mix two up.

Slots sales, or what is often referred to as the "gray market" as seen at Heathrow is a rarity. Matter of fact its illegal in most of the world as slots simply do not belong to airlines but belong to agencies that manage them.

There is also ample history that slot sales hurt competition by allowing incumbents or those with biggest pockets to buy their way and accumulate market share locking out competition and upstarts.

TigerFlyer wrote:

Haneda is the most important airport in Japan, and the only thing that matters now.

??? Overgeneralized. "...the only thing that matters now."? Hyperbole. More apt is, "HND has the highest slot value among airports in Japan."
HND is the most important domestic pax airport in Japan, but NRT is the most important international pax airport in Japan. NRT is ~2x larger than HND in cargo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... s_in_Japan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haneda_Airport
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narita_In ... al_Airport

If DL does not want to fly MSP-HND, AA has back up authority for DFW-HND and should be granted this authority.

AA has requested dormancy for ORD-China, if DL or UA want the rights, they should be given them.

DL had no intention of flying MSP-HND, it was a pure block of AA at DFW and UA at EWR. ATL probably would have won, but given politics, a blue state was guaranteed the winner, and DL knew that DTW and ATL had red governors, just like DFW. Not one red state was getting one of these routes and DL knew MSP was a lock.

acvitale wrote:

HA would love to fly OGG-HND.

DL has been far more abusive then most are citing. Suggest that research will show that they flew extremely odd schedules at some points once every 90 days to avoid any other carrier getting the SEA-HND when AA wanted it for LAX. Eventually they lost and had to hand it over. It was nefarious by DL at best. Outright fraud and contempt for the public is more realistic. Frankly let AA try DFW-HND or HA OGG-HND. DL doesn't deserve any empathy or consideration for this request (Look at their objections on the AA HAV filings!)

I’m not even sure OGG-HND is feasible, but more so it would be a colossal waste of a HND slot. Let the Japanese carriers burn their slots on Japanese leisure travelers. The US slots should be used for more valuable markets.

TTailedTiger wrote:

toobz wrote:

How can you fault DL for asking? They are of course looking out for their own interest just like any other airline. They are a very successful business and run extremely well. Some people are just too emotional.

Delta knew the rules. Don't agree to something if you don't like the terms. Would anyone have any sympathy for me if I started a thread in Non-Av complaining about my credit card company not giving me a lower interest rate? I highly doubt it. I can either cancel the card or suck it up. Delta can drop MSP and give the authority back or suck it up.

Actually, you're more than welcome to call your credit card company and ask for a lower interest rate. Depending upon the situation, whether with your finances, the overall economy, or the company's goals, they may or may not give it to you. Nobody should fault you for trying to improve your situation though.
In a real world example, I've gotten an "introductory" offer for an internet/WiFi offering, that was noted it was only valid for a year. After a year, they tried raising my rate, but I noted a competitor's offering that was the same price as my existing one, and they backed off.
Essentially...it never hurts to ask the question. There's money left on the table if you don't.

WPvsMW wrote:

TigerFlyer wrote:

Haneda is the most important airport in Japan, and the only thing that matters now.

??? Overgeneralized. "...the only thing that matters now."? Hyperbole. More apt is, "HND has the highest slot value among airports in Japan."
HND is the most important domestic pax airport in Japan, but NRT is the most important international pax airport in Japan. NRT is ~2x larger than HND in cargo.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_t ... s_in_Japan
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haneda_Airport
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Narita_In ... al_Airport

No, neither hyperbole nor overgeneralized. HND is the most convenient airport to Tokyo, and the only airport in Japan that is limited entry. The last fare data I reviewed is a bit dated, but HND commanded roughly a 30 percent fare premium vs NRT to commonly served points in Asia. No carrier would willingly serve NRT if HND is available. The reason it is not is because international service is restricted by Japan’s Government. Not exactly open skies. Further, all cargo operations to the US are exresssly prohibited.

So, yes, Haneda is the only thing that matters. Just as US-UK service was open back in the day, but for London. It was the only thing that mattered.

Our opinions differ. Occurs frequently on a.nut.

I will agree with "more convenient for pax for more of Kanto".

UPlog wrote:

Japan-US is very much open skies and my airline has benefited greatly from to it.

Haneda is a constrained airport, with a limitation on movements, which must be rationed. Let's not mix two up.

US-Japan was effectively open skies after the 1998 agreement which created more US-Japan frequencies and designations than were ever used. The only thing the “open skies” agreement created was addiinal beyond rights that are not used, and a special class of limited entry rights for Haneda that command a premium precisely because they are limited. Overall US carrier departures are down. The limited entry situation at Haneda is an anathema to open skies that needs to be corrected.

I love how bend out of shape everyone gets on this HND threads. Its actually pretty funny.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

I love how bend out of shape everyone gets on this HND threads. Its actually pretty funny.

Indeed! People are practically foaming at the mouth in each HND thread. It's also funny seeing so many avowed free-market, anti-regulation types get bent out of shape when a private corporation asks the government to essentially butt out, and allow it to fly the routes that make most sense for its network.

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

I love how bend out of shape everyone gets on this HND threads. Its actually pretty funny.

Indeed! People are practically foaming at the mouth in each HND thread. It's also funny seeing so many avowed free-market, anti-regulation types get bent out of shape when a private corporation asks the government to essentially butt out, and allow it to fly the routes that make most sense for its network.

Both AA and UA have filed notices with the DOT that they intend to submit responses to the DL motion by January 7th.

OA412 wrote:

PSU.DTW.SCE wrote:

I love how bend out of shape everyone gets on this HND threads. Its actually pretty funny.

Indeed! People are practically foaming at the mouth in each HND thread. It's also funny seeing so many avowed free-market, anti-regulation types get bent out of shape when a private corporation asks the government to essentially butt out, and allow it to fly the routes that make most sense for its network.

That would be fine except that wasn’t the premise under which these supposed free market corporations were awarded the slots. Delta has games this process too many times. If everyone hates the system then it should be changed, but don’t make everyone play by one set of rules then let Dwlta act like they shouldn’t be bound by them later.

OA412 wrote:

It's also funny seeing so many avowed free-market, anti-regulation types get bent out of shape when a private corporation asks the government to essentially butt out, and allow it to fly the routes that make most sense for its network.

I don't think people have a problem with Delta asking the government to butt-out. I think they have a problem with Delta's hypocrisy. On one hand, Delta wants the government to butt out and let Delta fly the routes that make the most sense for it's network. On the other hand, as SFOtoORD pointed out, Delta has a long history of slot-squatting and gaming the process so the government will butt-in and stop other airlines (most notably AA) from flying the routes that make the most sense for their networks.

SFOtoORD wrote:

Delta has games this process too many times.

What exactly has DL done regarding HND that, say, AA hasn't?

TTailedTiger wrote:

FSDan wrote:

If you toss out any history from before daytime flying to HND was allowed, how many times has DL actually moved slots around? Not more than once, IIRC. It seems unfair to me to fault DL for failing in DTW-HND previously or to fault AA for failing in JFK-HND since those flights were flown when the only available times at HND for U.S. flights were between 2300 and 0600 (or something like that). Of course those flights were bound to fail! A flight from the U.S. to LHR would probably fail too if the operating hours were restricted to a similar timeframe! So, while DL certainly did a lot of route shuffling in the early days of U.S.-HND flying, I see that as directly related to the fact that they had non-viable operating windows, and had to try whatever they could think of that might work (and only LAX-HND worked given those timings). That shouldn't count against DL (or AA) in any future award.

I agree with the posters speculating that DL wants to move MSP-HND to another gateway. I think three MSP-Asia flights (MSP-HND, MSP-ICN, planned MSP-PVG) would be too much. However, I'm not fully convinced yet that DL wants to 100% pull out of NRT. In addition to theoretically dropping MSP-HND and using that authority plus two new authorities to move SEA, DTW, and ATL flights to HND, DL would also need to drop HNL-NRT, NRT-MNL, NRT-SIN, and PDX-NRT. I could certainly see NRT-MNL and NRT-SIN falling by the wayside. But I don't see DL dropping HNL-NRT unless they decide they don't want to do Japan-Hawai'i flying anymore at all, and by all accounts PDX-NRT is important for corporate contracts with Nike and maybe some other big PDX-area clients. I think it's just as likely that DL wants to get back in the NYC-TYO market to have a better offering for corporate clients in New York, which wouldn't be competitive unless they could fly JFK-HND.

How often do Nike employees need to travel to Tokyo? Surely they can afford Netjets. That's got to be cheaper then the massive subsidy they pay Delta. With no feed on either end of PDX-NRT it would be an absolute dog without the subsidy.

DL has feed on both ends PDX-NRT to/from JFK, ATL, DTW, MSP, SLC, SEA, and LAX with good connections. I checked for June. I don't know how
many customers connect, but there must be some.

TTailedTiger wrote:

FSDan wrote:

If you toss out any history from before daytime flying to HND was allowed, how many times has DL actually moved slots around? Not more than once, IIRC. It seems unfair to me to fault DL for failing in DTW-HND previously or to fault AA for failing in JFK-HND since those flights were flown when the only available times at HND for U.S. flights were between 2300 and 0600 (or something like that). Of course those flights were bound to fail! A flight from the U.S. to LHR would probably fail too if the operating hours were restricted to a similar timeframe! So, while DL certainly did a lot of route shuffling in the early days of U.S.-HND flying, I see that as directly related to the fact that they had non-viable operating windows, and had to try whatever they could think of that might work (and only LAX-HND worked given those timings). That shouldn't count against DL (or AA) in any future award.

I agree with the posters speculating that DL wants to move MSP-HND to another gateway. I think three MSP-Asia flights (MSP-HND, MSP-ICN, planned MSP-PVG) would be too much. However, I'm not fully convinced yet that DL wants to 100% pull out of NRT. In addition to theoretically dropping MSP-HND and using that authority plus two new authorities to move SEA, DTW, and ATL flights to HND, DL would also need to drop HNL-NRT, NRT-MNL, NRT-SIN, and PDX-NRT. I could certainly see NRT-MNL and NRT-SIN falling by the wayside. But I don't see DL dropping HNL-NRT unless they decide they don't want to do Japan-Hawai'i flying anymore at all, and by all accounts PDX-NRT is important for corporate contracts with Nike and maybe some other big PDX-area clients. I think it's just as likely that DL wants to get back in the NYC-TYO market to have a better offering for corporate clients in New York, which wouldn't be competitive unless they could fly JFK-HND.

How often do Nike employees need to travel to Tokyo? Surely they can afford Netjets. That's got to be cheaper then the massive subsidy they pay Delta. With no feed on either end of PDX-NRT it would be an absolute dog without the subsidy.

DL has feed on both ends PDX-NRT to/from JFK, ATL, DTW, MSP, SLC, SEA, and LAX with good connections. I checked for June. I don't know how
many customers connect, but there must be some.

LAX772LR wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

Delta has games this process too many times.

What exactly has DL done regarding HND that, say, AA hasn't?

LAX772LR you do have a point Delta especially if you compare DL's HND frequency to AA's 2 China frequencies. However as it pertains to HND AA IIRC did return their JFK frequency which was then awarded to UA. Later on AA was awarded another frequency to operate LAX-HND. I think the issue some people have with DL's request is the fact that the frequency has been moved several times to accommodate DL and the DOT in the past has been extremely accommodating to DL allowing them to downguage the size of the equipment flown on this route. My position on this issue is this DL should leave their HND routes as they are, LAX/MSP-HND and drop this request for flexibility. In my personal opinion and i could be wrong I think this move only hurts DL's chances of getting what they ultimately want which is more frequencies when the next round becomes available. For the sake of argument lets say the DOT grants DL the flexibility to move their existing frequencies (LAX/MSP), I think it should come with this caveat; any future awarded frequencies to HND must either be flown from said gateway and with said equipment on the application or the frequencies must be returned immediately to the DOT. The DOT would then make available for other airlines to bid on, if no other airline submits a bid then and only then would the DOT return the frequency to the original airline and grant the airlines request to move the frequency to a different gateway.

It's time for the DOT for force AA, DL and UA to start submitting truthful bids and not a bid the airline knows will fail, but at the very least would secure a frequency. This game of getting the frequency at all cost then applying 1-3 years later to move the frequency needs to stop. The DOT can put an end to this behavior by the US3 real quick by putting rules in place that requires them to fly the frequency as awarded or return it. Any request to move frequencies awarded in the future to a different gateway will be denied and your authority to utilize the frequency is subject to revocation.

Yes, Delta moved their original HND route from DTW to SEA, but this was with the permission of the DOT. I don't see how people get upset at that.

The nighttime HND slots were clearly not working, and the DOT allowed them to find a way to make it work.

With SEA-HND, Delta definitely played games, operating the flight daily in the summer (when it was profitable), but at the minimum to keep the slot in the winter.

While you may not like what Delta did here, it was at the time within the rules. When AA objected to the rules, the DOT issued new guidance, which Delta followed until they determined it wasn't worth it to keep the route, returning the authority to the DOT.

Another bait and switch by DL was that stated its plans to serve all its applied for Haneda routes using 747-400s and made the argument it was offering the most seats competitors and the consumer benefit of such.
In reality, we know this was another empty promise and soon downgauged equipment was the norm. Even LAX was shrunk to the smallest plane possible the 767-300.

LAX772LR wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

Delta has games this process too many times.

What exactly has DL done regarding HND that, say, AA hasn't?

Has any carrier asked for as many changes? Requested as many slots due to their lack of JV and then screwed around with them as many times? Been ordered to maintain service levels or lose their slots?

SFOtoORD wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

SFOtoORD wrote:

Delta has games this process too many times.

What exactly has DL done regarding HND that, say, AA hasn't?

Has any carrier asked for as many changes? Requested as many slots due to their lack of JV and then screwed around with them as many times? Been ordered to maintain service levels or lose their slots?

....... you didn't answer the question.

You'll find that the answer is: nothing.