ronmk1986 wrote:

UA has been flying to Tokyo, Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong from its hubs (at least from SFO, ORD, EWR) for a long time, and it seems all of those transpacific routes are firmly established.

However, I found Seoul (about the similar size metropolitan area as Tokyo, Shanghai, or Beijing in Northeast Asia) only has single-daily UA flight to SFO (until 31st March, an additional five weekly flights will be in service from 1st April)

In my personal opinion, UA may do well on ORD-ICN if they focus on connecting traffics from US Midwest+East+Southeast to Seoul or vice versa besides O&D. That is the strategy what Delta has been doing on DTW-ICN routes.

Is that because codesharing on Asiana's other US-Seoul routes (e.g., ICN-ORD, ICN-JFK, and ICN-LAX) are more than enough for UA except for SFO? Or Seoul is not the high-yield destination for UA, compared to the other Northeast Asian cities I've mentioned above (again, except SFO)?

clrd4t8koff wrote:

ronmk1986 wrote:

UA has been flying to Tokyo, Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong from its hubs (at least from SFO, ORD, EWR) for a long time, and it seems all of those transpacific routes are firmly established.

However, I found Seoul (about the similar size metropolitan area as Tokyo, Shanghai, or Beijing in Northeast Asia) only has single-daily UA flight to SFO (until 31st March, an additional five weekly flights will be in service from 1st April)

In my personal opinion, UA may do well on ORD-ICN if they focus on connecting traffics from US Midwest+East+Southeast to Seoul or vice versa besides O&D. That is the strategy what Delta has been doing on DTW-ICN routes.

Is that because codesharing on Asiana's other US-Seoul routes (e.g., ICN-ORD, ICN-JFK, and ICN-LAX) are more than enough for UA except for SFO? Or Seoul is not the high-yield destination for UA, compared to the other Northeast Asian cities I've mentioned above (again, except SFO)?

Well considering ORD-ICN is a much smaller market than SFO-ORD it doesn't surprise me UA has focused on their SFO hub to serve the route. Starting ORD-ICN would be tough for UA as both KE and OZ are already on the route.

In terms of DL's DTW-ICN....that was inherited from NW who built up that route and market. DL has zero competition on it as well, which helps. Same thing for their soon to be launched MSP-ICN flight.

SeoulIncheon wrote:

KE and OZ both have strong presence to all of NYC, ORD and LAX. UA need not enter these markets by itself. However, given current financial situation of OZ, it seems likely that OZ cut some of North American routes, and UA might try to fill in by flying UA metal.

Also note that premium passengers on Korea-US route are mainly Korean, and they definitely pay premium to fly KE or OZ.

If UA tries to add one new route to ICN, I think it would be IAH - no KE presence(tried but not successful), and strong UA hub to South America.

ronmk1986 wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

ronmk1986 wrote:

UA has been flying to Tokyo, Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong from its hubs (at least from SFO, ORD, EWR) for a long time, and it seems all of those transpacific routes are firmly established.

However, I found Seoul (about the similar size metropolitan area as Tokyo, Shanghai, or Beijing in Northeast Asia) only has single-daily UA flight to SFO (until 31st March, an additional five weekly flights will be in service from 1st April)

In my personal opinion, UA may do well on ORD-ICN if they focus on connecting traffics from US Midwest+East+Southeast to Seoul or vice versa besides O&D. That is the strategy what Delta has been doing on DTW-ICN routes.

Is that because codesharing on Asiana's other US-Seoul routes (e.g., ICN-ORD, ICN-JFK, and ICN-LAX) are more than enough for UA except for SFO? Or Seoul is not the high-yield destination for UA, compared to the other Northeast Asian cities I've mentioned above (again, except SFO)?

Well considering ORD-ICN is a much smaller market than SFO-ORD it doesn't surprise me UA has focused on their SFO hub to serve the route. Starting ORD-ICN would be tough for UA as both KE and OZ are already on the route.

In terms of DL's DTW-ICN....that was inherited from NW who built up that route and market. DL has zero competition on it as well, which helps. Same thing for their soon to be launched MSP-ICN flight.

Did you mean SFO-ICN for SFO-ORD you mentioned above?

ronmk1986 wrote:

SeoulIncheon wrote:

KE and OZ both have strong presence to all of NYC, ORD and LAX. UA need not enter these markets by itself. However, given current financial situation of OZ, it seems likely that OZ cut some of North American routes, and UA might try to fill in by flying UA metal.

Also note that premium passengers on Korea-US route are mainly Korean, and they definitely pay premium to fly KE or OZ.

If UA tries to add one new route to ICN, I think it would be IAH - no KE presence(tried but not successful), and strong UA hub to South America.

Are ICN-US Routes more ethnic-focused market than PEK, PVG, HKG-US or TYO-US routes?
Plus, is ICN similar tier destination as TPE or CAN from North America?

Ionosphere wrote:

Didn't UA fly ORD-ICN in the past? I want to say about 15 years ago I saw a 777 boarding for ICN at ORD.

SeoulIncheon wrote:

ronmk1986 wrote:

SeoulIncheon wrote:

KE and OZ both have strong presence to all of NYC, ORD and LAX. UA need not enter these markets by itself. However, given current financial situation of OZ, it seems likely that OZ cut some of North American routes, and UA might try to fill in by flying UA metal.

Also note that premium passengers on Korea-US route are mainly Korean, and they definitely pay premium to fly KE or OZ.

If UA tries to add one new route to ICN, I think it would be IAH - no KE presence(tried but not successful), and strong UA hub to South America.

Are ICN-US Routes more ethnic-focused market than PEK, PVG, HKG-US or TYO-US routes?
Plus, is ICN similar tier destination as TPE or CAN from North America?

1. Yes. ICN-US routes are much more ethnic-focused than PEK, HKG, and TYO. Not sure about PVG though. Few global corporations (except those from Korea such as Samsu g) have large presence in Seoul, but there are some Korean parge companies that have large presence in the US. There aren't many Americans travelling to Seoul for business while there are a lot of Koreans from Korean companies (Samsung, Hyundai, etc.) travelling to USA for business. Therefore, premium traffic between Korea and USA is very Korean-centric.

2. I would classify ICN as larger destination than TPE or CAN. ICN is much closer to North America than TPE or CAN, and is a big transit point between US and Asia. TPE gets quite some O&D (both CI and BR have big presence in North America) but the location is not good for transit. CAN is more of large domestic market - internationally it is not as large as ICN or TPE - and also very far away from North America.

ronmk1986 wrote:

As a side story, when it comes to long-haul international routes, ICN looks like a very challenging market for the US 3 (lesser degree for DL), unlike Eurasian long-haul routes for Europeans and Gulf carriers in ICN. In fact, both KE and OZ have been struggling against gulf carries (especially EK and QR) and EU3 in some routes (MUC-ICN for LH).

clrd4t8koff wrote:

ronmk1986 wrote:

UA has been flying to Tokyo, Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong from its hubs (at least from SFO, ORD, EWR) for a long time, and it seems all of those transpacific routes are firmly established.

However, I found Seoul (about the similar size metropolitan area as Tokyo, Shanghai, or Beijing in Northeast Asia) only has single-daily UA flight to SFO (until 31st March, an additional five weekly flights will be in service from 1st April)

In my personal opinion, UA may do well on ORD-ICN if they focus on connecting traffics from US Midwest+East+Southeast to Seoul or vice versa besides O&D. That is the strategy what Delta has been doing on DTW-ICN routes.

Is that because codesharing on Asiana's other US-Seoul routes (e.g., ICN-ORD, ICN-JFK, and ICN-LAX) are more than enough for UA except for SFO? Or Seoul is not the high-yield destination for UA, compared to the other Northeast Asian cities I've mentioned above (again, except SFO)?

Well considering ORD-ICN is a much smaller market than SFO-ORD it doesn't surprise me UA has focused on their SFO hub to serve the route. Starting ORD-ICN would be tough for UA as both KE and OZ are already on the route.

In terms of DL's DTW-ICN....that was inherited from NW who built up that route and market. DL has zero competition on it as well, which helps. Same thing for their soon to be launched MSP-ICN flight.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Ever since OZ reduced JFK down from 2x A380 to 1x A380/A350 I thought there was an opening for UA to fly from EWR. Kind of disappointing that out of all the 747 routes from SFO only ICN didn't get the 77W treatment and ended up with a meager 787 whereas KE went 2x daily.

I wonder if there is room for UA to try IAH, KE was in the market for the longest time and presumably couldn't make it work. Maybe UA can?

ronmk1986 wrote:

As a side story, when it comes to long-haul international routes, ICN looks like a very challenging market for the US 3 (lesser degree for DL), unlike Eurasian long-haul routes for Europeans and Gulf carriers in ICN. In fact, both KE and OZ have been struggling against gulf carries (especially EK and QR) and EU3 in some routes (MUC-ICN for LH).

I reckon their Korea centric strength is also their weakness when it comes to Europe. Whilst big markets like Italy and France work well for them secondary markets they don't have high korean demand will always be a bit difficult because of the lack of feed on both sides. Thus like Venice, Zagreb and Prague work well. Helsinki, Munich and Manchester less.
Coming from the US ICN is a great connecting hub to all of Asia except Japan (and even then it's not that big of a detour).
However coming from Europe most places in SE Asia require significant backtracking and Oceania routes require overnight stays at ICN on the return sections making them less appealing.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Ever since OZ reduced JFK down from 2x A380 to 1x A380/A350 I thought there was an opening for UA to fly from EWR. Kind of disappointing that out of all the 747 routes from SFO only ICN didn't get the 77W treatment and ended up with a meager 787 whereas KE went 2x daily.

I wonder if there is room for UA to try IAH, KE was in the market for the longest time and presumably couldn't make it work. Maybe UA can?

ronmk1986 wrote:

As a side story, when it comes to long-haul international routes, ICN looks like a very challenging market for the US 3 (lesser degree for DL), unlike Eurasian long-haul routes for Europeans and Gulf carriers in ICN. In fact, both KE and OZ have been struggling against gulf carries (especially EK and QR) and EU3 in some routes (MUC-ICN for LH).

I reckon their Korea centric strength is also their weakness when it comes to Europe. Whilst big markets like Italy and France work well for them secondary markets they don't have high korean demand will always be a bit difficult because of the lack of feed on both sides. Thus like Venice, Zagreb and Prague work well. Helsinki, Munich and Manchester less.
Coming from the US ICN is a great connecting hub to all of Asia except Japan (and even then it's not that big of a detour).
However coming from Europe most places in SE Asia require significant backtracking and Oceania routes require overnight stays at ICN on the return sections making them less appealing.

Yossarian22 wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

ronmk1986 wrote:

UA has been flying to Tokyo, Beijing, Shanghai, and Hong Kong from its hubs (at least from SFO, ORD, EWR) for a long time, and it seems all of those transpacific routes are firmly established.

However, I found Seoul (about the similar size metropolitan area as Tokyo, Shanghai, or Beijing in Northeast Asia) only has single-daily UA flight to SFO (until 31st March, an additional five weekly flights will be in service from 1st April)

In my personal opinion, UA may do well on ORD-ICN if they focus on connecting traffics from US Midwest+East+Southeast to Seoul or vice versa besides O&D. That is the strategy what Delta has been doing on DTW-ICN routes.

Is that because codesharing on Asiana's other US-Seoul routes (e.g., ICN-ORD, ICN-JFK, and ICN-LAX) are more than enough for UA except for SFO? Or Seoul is not the high-yield destination for UA, compared to the other Northeast Asian cities I've mentioned above (again, except SFO)?

Well considering ORD-ICN is a much smaller market than SFO-ORD it doesn't surprise me UA has focused on their SFO hub to serve the route. Starting ORD-ICN would be tough for UA as both KE and OZ are already on the route.

In terms of DL's DTW-ICN....that was inherited from NW who built up that route and market. DL has zero competition on it as well, which helps. Same thing for their soon to be launched MSP-ICN flight.

The other thing to remember is that UA has a joint-venture with ANA while it is only a Star Alliance partner with Asiana. It makes more sense to send passengers through their joint venture partner’s hub in NRT than through ICN.

SeoulIncheon wrote:

ronmk1986 wrote:

SeoulIncheon wrote:

KE and OZ both have strong presence to all of NYC, ORD and LAX. UA need not enter these markets by itself. However, given current financial situation of OZ, it seems likely that OZ cut some of North American routes, and UA might try to fill in by flying UA metal.

Also note that premium passengers on Korea-US route are mainly Korean, and they definitely pay premium to fly KE or OZ.

If UA tries to add one new route to ICN, I think it would be IAH - no KE presence(tried but not successful), and strong UA hub to South America.

Are ICN-US Routes more ethnic-focused market than PEK, PVG, HKG-US or TYO-US routes?
Plus, is ICN similar tier destination as TPE or CAN from North America?

1. Yes. ICN-US routes are much more ethnic-focused than PEK, HKG, and TYO. Not sure about PVG though. Few global corporations (except those from Korea such as Samsu g) have large presence in Seoul, but there are some Korean parge companies that have large presence in the US. There aren't many Americans travelling to Seoul for business while there are a lot of Koreans from Korean companies (Samsung, Hyundai, etc.) travelling to USA for business. Therefore, premium traffic between Korea and USA is very Korean-centric.

2. I would classify ICN as larger destination than TPE or CAN. ICN is much closer to North America than TPE or CAN, and is a big transit point between US and Asia. TPE gets quite some O&D (both CI and BR have big presence in North America) but the location is not good for transit. CAN is more of large domestic market - internationally it is not as large as ICN or TPE - and also very far away from North America.

ronmk1986 wrote:

Yossarian22 wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

Well considering ORD-ICN is a much smaller market than SFO-ORD it doesn't surprise me UA has focused on their SFO hub to serve the route. Starting ORD-ICN would be tough for UA as both KE and OZ are already on the route.

In terms of DL's DTW-ICN....that was inherited from NW who built up that route and market. DL has zero competition on it as well, which helps. Same thing for their soon to be launched MSP-ICN flight.

The other thing to remember is that UA has a joint-venture with ANA while it is only a Star Alliance partner with Asiana. It makes more sense to send passengers through their joint venture partner’s hub in NRT than through ICN.

You're right. UA's relationship with OZ is definitely nowhere close as with ANA, even if UA is close enough to codeshare with OZ.

Which markets does UA-ANA joint-venture focus beyond US-Japan? (I'm pretty sure Mainland China is not, as UA works together closely with Air China between the US and Mainland China)

Yossarian22 wrote:

The other thing to remember is that UA has a joint-venture with ANA while it is only a Star Alliance partner with Asiana. It makes more sense to send passengers through their joint venture partner’s hub in NRT than through ICN.

ronmk1986 wrote:

From Europe, very few people would consider travelling to Southeast Asia or Oceania via ICN, especially after EK and QR (not so sure about EY) became behemoths in Europe-Southeast Asia+Oceania routes.

Regarding Oceanian routes, I guess CX and SQ (plus TG and CZ in a lesser degree) easily dwarf KE and OZ even in ICN-Oceania market (maybe except AKL due to its geography?)

notconcerned wrote:

Except NH doesn't fly NRT-ICN! So UA traffic will all have to funnel through SFO until future HND slots open up, then they can send passengers on NH HND-GMP.

notconcerned wrote:

Yossarian22 wrote:

The other thing to remember is that UA has a joint-venture with ANA while it is only a Star Alliance partner with Asiana. It makes more sense to send passengers through their joint venture partner’s hub in NRT than through ICN.

Except NH doesn't fly NRT-ICN! So UA traffic will all have to funnel through SFO until future HND slots open up, then they can send passengers on NH HND-GMP.

SeoulIncheon wrote:

KE and OZ both have strong presence to all of NYC, ORD and LAX. UA need not enter these markets by itself. However, given current financial situation of OZ, it seems likely that OZ cut some of North American routes, and UA might try to fill in by flying UA metal.

Also note that premium passengers on Korea-US route are mainly Korean, and they definitely pay premium to fly KE or OZ.

If UA tries to add one new route to ICN, I think it would be IAH - no KE presence(tried but not successful), and strong UA hub to South America.

ronmk1986 wrote:

Ionosphere wrote:

Didn't UA fly ORD-ICN in the past? I want to say about 15 years ago I saw a 777 boarding for ICN at ORD.

I guess you're referring the UA 881 (ORD-NRT-ICN) when NRT was a mini-hub for UA's Transpacific route except for Mainland China and Hong Kong.

TWA772LR wrote:

SeoulIncheon wrote:

KE and OZ both have strong presence to all of NYC, ORD and LAX. UA need not enter these markets by itself. However, given current financial situation of OZ, it seems likely that OZ cut some of North American routes, and UA might try to fill in by flying UA metal.

Also note that premium passengers on Korea-US route are mainly Korean, and they definitely pay premium to fly KE or OZ.

If UA tries to add one new route to ICN, I think it would be IAH - no KE presence(tried but not successful), and strong UA hub to South America.

While I would loooooovvvvvveeeeeee to see IAH-ICN on UA metal, EWR-ICN makes way more sense. When UA still had the flight from NRT-ICN, it was actually a tag of EWR-NRT. The board at the gate in EWR actually switched between 'Tokyo-Narita' and 'Seoul-Incheon', effectively making the flight EWR-NRT-ICN with a change of gauge in Tokyo to a 737 operated by a GUM-based crew.

InnsbruckFlyer wrote:

Wait, when did UA cancel their NRT-ICN-NRT rotation?!

ronmk1986 wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Ever since OZ reduced JFK down from 2x A380 to 1x A380/A350 I thought there was an opening for UA to fly from EWR. Kind of disappointing that out of all the 747 routes from SFO only ICN didn't get the 77W treatment and ended up with a meager 787 whereas KE went 2x daily.

I wonder if there is room for UA to try IAH, KE was in the market for the longest time and presumably couldn't make it work. Maybe UA can?

ronmk1986 wrote:

As a side story, when it comes to long-haul international routes, ICN looks like a very challenging market for the US 3 (lesser degree for DL), unlike Eurasian long-haul routes for Europeans and Gulf carriers in ICN. In fact, both KE and OZ have been struggling against gulf carries (especially EK and QR) and EU3 in some routes (MUC-ICN for LH).

I reckon their Korea centric strength is also their weakness when it comes to Europe. Whilst big markets like Italy and France work well for them secondary markets they don't have high korean demand will always be a bit difficult because of the lack of feed on both sides. Thus like Venice, Zagreb and Prague work well. Helsinki, Munich and Manchester less.
Coming from the US ICN is a great connecting hub to all of Asia except Japan (and even then it's not that big of a detour).
However coming from Europe most places in SE Asia require significant backtracking and Oceania routes require overnight stays at ICN on the return sections making them less appealing.

I guess PVG-SFO is another former UA B747 route that did not have UA’s B77W (although it may be a trade-off for UA’s double-daily B789 on PVG-SFO, thanks to Silicon Valley). Plus, UA may try EWR-ICN with the 788 (not sure whether UA has EWR-based B788 at the moment, though).

And, are LH’s ICN-MUC and AY’s ICN-HEL less ethnic-focused markets then ICN-US routes?

notconcerned wrote:

Yossarian22 wrote:

The other thing to remember is that UA has a joint-venture with ANA while it is only a Star Alliance partner with Asiana. It makes more sense to send passengers through their joint venture partner’s hub in NRT than through ICN.

Except NH doesn't fly NRT-ICN! So UA traffic will all have to funnel through SFO until future HND slots open up, then they can send passengers on NH HND-GMP.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

ronmk1986 wrote:

From Europe, very few people would consider travelling to Southeast Asia or Oceania via ICN, especially after EK and QR (not so sure about EY) became behemoths in Europe-Southeast Asia+Oceania routes.

Regarding Oceanian routes, I guess CX and SQ (plus TG and CZ in a lesser degree) easily dwarf KE and OZ even in ICN-Oceania market (maybe except AKL due to its geography?)

Whilst this is true, I can tell you from personal experience that you'd be surprised by the number of australians going home with KE on flights from Paris, Rome etc
I am not suggesting KE is even remotely a player on the kangaroo route (far from it). But they do sell connections.
Connections to Indonesia and the Philippines are relatively good though. Even if recently even the CN3 have been eating their lunch.

I must say, as I used to fly out of CDG, KE consistently came in as one of the most expensive options be it in Y or J. I don't know if this is because of the inelasticity of Korean demand for national carriers but it gets ridiculous sometimes.

ITSTours wrote:

Until recently I thought UA could launch ORD-ICN, but after looking at some statistics I've become more skeptical.
(It's in Korean, https://cafe.naver.com/dragoner/12356 - ICN Top 30 routes for number of pax transiting / % of pax transiting)
47% of ICN-ORD pax are connecting at ICN. So O&D is not very strong.
Unless UA forms JV with OZ and gets coordinated feeds (both fare and schedule) from another Asian countries, they're not going to fly ICN from ORD, I guess.

YYZORD wrote:

I'm curious as to why AC flies YVR and YYZ to ICN while OZ never added a Canadian destination while they are flying to all UA hubs where UA can only do a SFO-ICN 1x daily flight. I think YVR can support 3X daily to ICN as SQ used to fly YVR-ICN along w KE and AC, maybe OZ can think about serving YVR now replacing SQ's 3rd daily flight from YVR-ICN.

ITSTours wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

ronmk1986 wrote:

From Europe, very few people would consider travelling to Southeast Asia or Oceania via ICN, especially after EK and QR (not so sure about EY) became behemoths in Europe-Southeast Asia+Oceania routes.

Regarding Oceanian routes, I guess CX and SQ (plus TG and CZ in a lesser degree) easily dwarf KE and OZ even in ICN-Oceania market (maybe except AKL due to its geography?)

Whilst this is true, I can tell you from personal experience that you'd be surprised by the number of australians going home with KE on flights from Paris, Rome etc
I am not suggesting KE is even remotely a player on the kangaroo route (far from it). But they do sell connections.
Connections to Indonesia and the Philippines are relatively good though. Even if recently even the CN3 have been eating their lunch.

I must say, as I used to fly out of CDG, KE consistently came in as one of the most expensive options be it in Y or J. I don't know if this is because of the inelasticity of Korean demand for national carriers but it gets ridiculous sometimes.

Yes, KE and OZ do sell kangaroo route connections, and they even provide free stopover hotel. There are restrictions for some other routes, but kangaroo routes STPC are always free.

Also yes, Korean carriers' ICN-Europe/NA O&D fares are ridiculous. Ethnic Korean people including both Korean nationals and diasporas strongly prefer Korean carriers, especially KE.

InnsbruckFlyer wrote:

TWA772LR wrote:

SeoulIncheon wrote:

KE and OZ both have strong presence to all of NYC, ORD and LAX. UA need not enter these markets by itself. However, given current financial situation of OZ, it seems likely that OZ cut some of North American routes, and UA might try to fill in by flying UA metal.

Also note that premium passengers on Korea-US route are mainly Korean, and they definitely pay premium to fly KE or OZ.

If UA tries to add one new route to ICN, I think it would be IAH - no KE presence(tried but not successful), and strong UA hub to South America.

While I would loooooovvvvvveeeeeee to see IAH-ICN on UA metal, EWR-ICN makes way more sense. When UA still had the flight from NRT-ICN, it was actually a tag of EWR-NRT. The board at the gate in EWR actually switched between 'Tokyo-Narita' and 'Seoul-Incheon', effectively making the flight EWR-NRT-ICN with a change of gauge in Tokyo to a 737 operated by a GUM-based crew.

Wait, when did UA cancel their NRT-ICN-NRT rotation?!

LAXintl wrote:

Besides as some mentioned Korea-US tends to be much more ethnic in nature which gives Korean carriers point sale advantage, the yields to Korea are not very spectacular either.

notconcerned wrote:

Except NH doesn't fly NRT-ICN! So UA traffic will all have to funnel through SFO until future HND slots open up, then they can send passengers on NH HND-GMP.

Actually, UA feeds OZ's evening NRT-ICN flight specifically since NH does not offer the route.

ronmk1986 wrote:

If both Korean nationals and diasporas strongly prefer Korean carriers, what is the main demographic for UA’s SFO-ICN route? Ethnic Koreas as well, except the ethnic Korean passengers’ percentage is lower than Korean carriers’ US-ICN routes? Or Sillicon Valley bound traffics like UA’s SFO-PVG?

LAXintl wrote:

Another tidbit - of 6.8 mil travelers between Korea and US, 85 percent was carrier by KE/OZ which enjoy point of sale advantages on both sides of the Pacific.

ronmk1986 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Another tidbit - of 6.8 mil travelers between Korea and US, 85 percent was carrier by KE/OZ which enjoy point of sale advantages on both sides of the Pacific.

Wow! KE and OZ are literally dominating the Korea-US market, a stark contrast to their long-haul markets in Europe, the Middle East, and Oceania. Seems like both KE and OZ are the specialists in Transpacific routes, unlike CX or CA (as their long-distance routes are more balanced in other continents).

ronmk1986 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Another tidbit - of 6.8 mil travelers between Korea and US, 85 percent was carrier by KE/OZ which enjoy point of sale advantages on both sides of the Pacific.

Wow! KE and OZ are literally dominating the Korea-US market, a stark contrast to their long-haul markets in Europe, the Middle East, and Oceania. Seems like both KE and OZ are the specialists in Transpacific routes, unlike CX or CA (as their long-distance routes are more balanced in other continents).

ZK-NBT wrote:

ronmk1986 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Another tidbit - of 6.8 mil travelers between Korea and US, 85 percent was carrier by KE/OZ which enjoy point of sale advantages on both sides of the Pacific.

Wow! KE and OZ are literally dominating the Korea-US market, a stark contrast to their long-haul markets in Europe, the Middle East, and Oceania. Seems like both KE and OZ are the specialists in Transpacific routes, unlike CX or CA (as their long-distance routes are more balanced in other continents).

KE and OZ are the only carriers flying non stop ICN-Oceania so I’d say they are dominating there to. OZ only serve SYD while KE serve SYD/BNE/AKL/NAN.

ITSTours wrote:

ronmk1986 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Another tidbit - of 6.8 mil travelers between Korea and US, 85 percent was carrier by KE/OZ which enjoy point of sale advantages on both sides of the Pacific.

Wow! KE and OZ are literally dominating the Korea-US market, a stark contrast to their long-haul markets in Europe, the Middle East, and Oceania. Seems like both KE and OZ are the specialists in Transpacific routes, unlike CX or CA (as their long-distance routes are more balanced in other continents).

US has open skies with SK, while most European countries do not. Very limited traffic rights by restrictive bilaterals. Korean carriers and government always want more. For cities like Paris.
If the EU had open skies with SK then it would have been very different.
(A notable exception; Spain has open skies with SK and only Korean carriers fly there.)

ronmk1986 wrote:

Although KE and OZ are the only two carries flying non-stop ICN-Oceania, both of them only have up to a single daily (ICN-SYD) flight per city. Whereas SQ's 4-daily ICN-SIN service can easily connect to their expansive SIN-Oceania (especially for Australia) network. Likewise, CX's 5-daily non-stop flights in ICN-HKG (plus an additional daily ICN-TPE-HKG flight) feed their own massive Oceania network with little effort.
So I doubt KE and OZ are the dominant carriers in the overall ICN-Oceania market. I rather guess Korean carriers are struggling against SQ and CX even for catering Korea-bound passengers heading to Oceania or vice versa, except in ICN-SYD (possibly NAN due to geography).

ITSTours wrote:

ronmk1986 wrote:

Although KE and OZ are the only two carries flying non-stop ICN-Oceania, both of them only have up to a single daily (ICN-SYD) flight per city. Whereas SQ's 4-daily ICN-SIN service can easily connect to their expansive SIN-Oceania (especially for Australia) network. Likewise, CX's 5-daily non-stop flights in ICN-HKG (plus an additional daily ICN-TPE-HKG flight) feed their own massive Oceania network with little effort.
So I doubt KE and OZ are the dominant carriers in the overall ICN-Oceania market. I rather guess Korean carriers are struggling against SQ and CX even for catering Korea-bound passengers heading to Oceania or vice versa, except in ICN-SYD (possibly NAN due to geography).

That's also because SK-Australia bilaterals require traffic rights to be earned for SYD/MEL/BNE/PER. Both KE and OZ exhausted most (all?) of them.
Apparently it's not for certain route pairs, but for SK-Australia in general.
So as OZ used up all of the traffic rights (which is not by the number of frequencies but by the number of weekly seats), they can't launch additional flights to MEL or BNE.

While Cathay has (more than?) 70 weekly frequency rights between Hong Kong and Australia.

Aeropolitics all over the place.

ronmk1986 wrote:

ITSTours wrote:

ronmk1986 wrote:

Wow! KE and OZ are literally dominating the Korea-US market, a stark contrast to their long-haul markets in Europe, the Middle East, and Oceania. Seems like both KE and OZ are the specialists in Transpacific routes, unlike CX or CA (as their long-distance routes are more balanced in other continents).

US has open skies with SK, while most European countries do not. Very limited traffic rights by restrictive bilaterals. Korean carriers and government always want more. For cities like Paris.
If the EU had open skies with SK then it would have been very different.
(A notable exception; Spain has open skies with SK and only Korean carriers fly there.)

I did not know that most European countries do not have open skies with South Korea.

In my humble opinion, even if South Korea signs the open skies with Europe, I do not think both KE and OZ will command the ICN-Europe market as they do in ICN-US routes (except for the tier-1 destinations in Europe like CDG, FRA, or LHR), especially after the gulf 3 (possibly TK as well) already took quite a few portions of the Korean carriers' potential markets in Europe (not to mention Finnair in ICN-Europe market).

ronmk1986 wrote:

I personally suppose the ME3s are competent only in the US East Coast&Chicago-BKK&KUL&SIN, definitely not between the US West Coast and any place in SE Asia. Vietnamese and Filipinos simply do not need the ME3 for going any place in North America at all.

SeoulIncheon wrote:

Agreed. Between Europe and Korea there is strong competition going on - ME3 TK SU as well as Chinese carriers, not to mention almost all major EU based airlines(BA AF KL LH AY AZ OK LO). The fact that only AF LH comes close to offering VLA on the route tells the story.