J343
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:40 am

ICN Restrictions

Sat May 18, 2019 4:25 am

Just how restrictive and competitive is Seoul's ICN airport? I have been reading stuff on here saying that ICN is a highly competitive and least restrictive airport compared to HND/NRT/HKG/SIN.

Also, what opportunities are there for ICN? Could UA potentially make ICN their secondary hub given their strong partnership with OZ (not sure if they have a JV), what is going to happen to DL's presence in TYO?
 
hoons90
Posts: 3546
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2001 10:15 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sat May 18, 2019 4:59 am

ICN has the capacity to handle 72m pax per year as of now. Last year it handled 68m, which is a 10% growth compared to 2017. Once Phase 4 construction is complete (articles state 2020, but who knows) it will be able to handle up to 100m.

There are few if any restrictions for airlines from countries with open skies agreements or liberal air service agreements with S. Korea, such as the US and Canada. If UA wanted to add 20 flights to ICN, they could theoretically do so (keeping in mind that ICN is technically a Level 3 airport, so there might not be enough room at certain peak hours) . On the other hand, flights to Europe, the Middle East and certain Asian countries are restricted. Emirates, for example, cannot serve ICN more than 8x weekly. I believe SQ has also maxed out their frequencies to ICN.
The biggest mistake made by most human beings: Listening to only half, understanding just a quarter and telling double.
 
YYZORD
Posts: 330
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:26 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sat May 18, 2019 5:13 am

WS has mentioned that they want KE to be their trans-pacific JV partner someday to serve asian destinations similar to DL JV with transborder routes. I can see WS starting a YYC-ICN route with their 787-9 once the trans-pacific JV between KE and WS is finalized. KE already serves YVR and YYZ so there is no need for WS to add flights to ICN from their other hubs.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sat May 18, 2019 5:24 am

Slots are not abundant but are certainly available. Phase 4 construction is now scheduled to be finished in 2023. This includes T2 expansion and 4th runway.

Shorthaul competition is strong due to massive growths of Korean LCCs. Look at ICN-KIX/NRT/FUK/HKG/DAD.

Longhaul competition is relatively weaker due to the reason that hoons90 explained.
Also, US Mainland-Korea market is dominated by KE-DL JV. Their Nov 2018 seat share is 62% (KE 51%, DL 11%). OZ holds 26% and UA/AA holds mere 4%.

UA has an approved ATI with OZ but has not implemented JV.
 
ZK-NBT
Posts: 6941
Joined: Mon Oct 16, 2000 5:42 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sat May 18, 2019 6:37 am

I wondered why NZ will have a 1955 arrival, personally I thought it would be 1.5-2 hrs earlier, it could also be aircraft availability for them. I didn’t realise ICN handled so many pax, I’m guessing for NZ they took the earliest slot they could get?
 
MON
Posts: 102
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2012 8:54 am

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sat May 18, 2019 9:44 am

Last week when I last past through ICN the fourth runway appeared to be well on it’s way to completion.
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 2774
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sat May 18, 2019 2:07 pm

J343 wrote:
Could UA potentially make ICN their secondary hub given their strong partnership with OZ (not sure if they have a JV),


I'm not sure about this part. AFAIK UA and OZ doesn't really partner with each other all that much other than some codeshares. At a minimum, I'm pretty sure UA-NH relation is a lot more robust than UA-OZ. Keep in mind there's BR in Taiwan also being another *A airlines in the region.

ITSTours wrote:
Shorthaul competition is strong due to massive growths of Korean LCCs. Look at ICN-KIX/NRT/FUK/HKG/DAD.


And BKK and CEB and (to certain extent) CXR also. I've always been fascinated by the insane amount of leisure flights (and destination also...I mean, ICN used to have a flight to TAG also) anyway (Especailly DAD, can airlines really fill 17 daily flights out of ICN?)

In terms of competition:
https://www.oag.com/hubfs/Free_Reports/ ... 018-A4.pdf

The data has a few popular routes out of ICN in there (NRT, KIX, HKG). It's definitely a lot more competitive than HKG (Look at HKG-TPE/SIN/BKK). For SIN - routes like SIN-KUL and SIN-CGK (The two busiest routes, by far, out of SIN) are extremely competitive; SIN-BKK is also competitive (The data doesn't have SIN-DMK, if that's included the picture would change quite a bit). SIN-HKG, though, is basically a duopoly.
Free Hong Kong! Free China!
 
ITSTours
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sat May 18, 2019 8:53 pm

zakuivcustom wrote:
ITSTours wrote:
Shorthaul competition is strong due to massive growths of Korean LCCs. Look at ICN-KIX/NRT/FUK/HKG/DAD.


And BKK and CEB and (to certain extent) CXR also. I've always been fascinated by the insane amount of leisure flights (and destination also...I mean, ICN used to have a flight to TAG also) anyway (Especailly DAD, can airlines really fill 17 daily flights out of ICN?)

In terms of competition:
https://www.oag.com/hubfs/Free_Reports/ ... 018-A4.pdf

The data has a few popular routes out of ICN in there (NRT, KIX, HKG). It's definitely a lot more competitive than HKG (Look at HKG-TPE/SIN/BKK). For SIN - routes like SIN-KUL and SIN-CGK (The two busiest routes, by far, out of SIN) are extremely competitive; SIN-BKK is also competitive (The data doesn't have SIN-DMK, if that's included the picture would change quite a bit). SIN-HKG, though, is basically a duopoly.


ICN-DAD round trip load factor for January 2019 is... 92.1%. I know it's crazy. More than half of the S Korean population departed the country last year.

In order to see more competition, there need to be strong LCCs; it seems like there is certainly a protection against LCCs in Hong Kong and Singapore.
Also HK Express is being sold to CX and Scoot is under SQ. This doesn't help either.

S Korea now has the strongest LCC penetration in Northeast Asia, somehow. While China and Japan are lagging.
ICN being less restrictive and S Korea having open skies with Japan/Hong Kong and most of ASEAN (excl. Indonesia and Singapore, but it's out of range with A320/B737 anyway) helped.

One problem of Japanese LCCs is that they can't reach most of ASEAN with the narrowbodies. A320neo and 737MAX can, so we'll see more players here, like Peach. Other is that HND is so restricted.

And... this sounds weird but there is a sentiment of S Koreans which feel domestic travel is a ripoff.
Domestic travel in S Korea can sometimes be ridiculously expensive when the accommodation and food business owners try to increase the price severely during the peak season.
It is not a satisfying experience, and they call it bagaji.

Combined with the cheaper LCC fares and the lower cost of living in ASEAN, overseas travel can actually be cheaper for Koreans.
There's even a TV Show called Salty Tours, which focuses on overseas travel with the superior "cost-benefit".
(I mean the ripoff against tourists happens all over the place (not in Japan I guess), but it's still much cheaper in SE Asia.)

This recent trend of maximizing price-performance ratio among S Koreans boosted the interest in overseas travel, and thus the boon to the LCCs.
 
HeeseokKoo
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:54 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sat May 18, 2019 9:20 pm

The only restriction is that ICN is full. No slots between, say, 8am and 10pm. The airport still manages to arrange some slightly-less-perfect slots to new long-haul flights but no such privilege for intra-Asia or other short-distance flights.

Airspace, therefore slot, is full because of the military restriction. Current 3-runway config was supposed to offer 90 flights per hour, but only 63 (soon to be increased to 65) are allotted. The 4th runway will be ready by 2023 but that doesn't mean that the airspace will have more room (although they are working on it).
 
J343
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:40 am

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sat May 18, 2019 9:54 pm

ITSTours wrote:
Slots are not abundant but are certainly available. Phase 4 construction is now scheduled to be finished in 2023. This includes T2 expansion and 4th runway.

Shorthaul competition is strong due to massive growths of Korean LCCs. Look at ICN-KIX/NRT/FUK/HKG/DAD.

Longhaul competition is relatively weaker due to the reason that hoons90 explained.
Also, US Mainland-Korea market is dominated by KE-DL JV. Their Nov 2018 seat share is 62% (KE 51%, DL 11%). OZ holds 26% and UA/AA holds mere 4%.

UA has an approved ATI with OZ but has not implemented JV.



Very informative, thank you! What exactly is the difference between ATI and a JV? I'm no expert so excuse my stupidity.

Also, with the expansion of ICN, could UA potentially cozy up with OZ considering their dire finances? Or could UA potentially cozy up with BR instead?
 
J343
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:40 am

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sat May 18, 2019 9:56 pm

YYZORD wrote:
WS has mentioned that they want KE to be their trans-pacific JV partner someday to serve asian destinations similar to DL JV with transborder routes. I can see WS starting a YYC-ICN route with their 787-9 once the trans-pacific JV between KE and WS is finalized. KE already serves YVR and YYZ so there is no need for WS to add flights to ICN from their other hubs.



Could this potentially mean WS joining Skyteam? They've recently applied for a JV with DL if I'm not mistaken.
 
J343
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:40 am

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sat May 18, 2019 10:02 pm

zakuivcustom wrote:
J343 wrote:
Could UA potentially make ICN their secondary hub given their strong partnership with OZ (not sure if they have a JV),


I'm not sure about this part. AFAIK UA and OZ doesn't really partner with each other all that much other than some codeshares. At a minimum, I'm pretty sure UA-NH relation is a lot more robust than UA-OZ. Keep in mind there's BR in Taiwan also being another *A airlines in the region.

ITSTours wrote:
Shorthaul competition is strong due to massive growths of Korean LCCs. Look at ICN-KIX/NRT/FUK/HKG/DAD.


And BKK and CEB and (to certain extent) CXR also. I've always been fascinated by the insane amount of leisure flights (and destination also...I mean, ICN used to have a flight to TAG also) anyway (Especailly DAD, can airlines really fill 17 daily flights out of ICN?)

In terms of competition:
https://www.oag.com/hubfs/Free_Reports/ ... 018-A4.pdf

The data has a few popular routes out of ICN in there (NRT, KIX, HKG). It's definitely a lot more competitive than HKG (Look at HKG-TPE/SIN/BKK). For SIN - routes like SIN-KUL and SIN-CGK (The two busiest routes, by far, out of SIN) are extremely competitive; SIN-BKK is also competitive (The data doesn't have SIN-DMK, if that's included the picture would change quite a bit). SIN-HKG, though, is basically a duopoly.



Very informative again, thank you. A poster earlier said OZ and UA was granted ATI but not a JV. Not exactly sure what the difference is in all honesty. The Japanese carriers seem to be the preferred partners for US carriers with UA+NH and AA+JL, DL obviously losing out but partnered up with KE instead. What does NH and JL have that OZ and KE can't offer UA and DL? I'm sure if China or Hong Kong has open skies policy, AA+JL+CX could potentially form a TPAC JV given CX heavily codeshare with JL on all HKG-Japan routes and codeshare with AA on HKG-USA flights.

It does also make me wonder why S.Korea has had a lot of LCCs. CEB does not surprise me at all given that S.Koreans are one of the largest tourists to the Philippines.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sat May 18, 2019 10:10 pm

J343 wrote:
ITSTours wrote:
Slots are not abundant but are certainly available. Phase 4 construction is now scheduled to be finished in 2023. This includes T2 expansion and 4th runway.

Shorthaul competition is strong due to massive growths of Korean LCCs. Look at ICN-KIX/NRT/FUK/HKG/DAD.

Longhaul competition is relatively weaker due to the reason that hoons90 explained.
Also, US Mainland-Korea market is dominated by KE-DL JV. Their Nov 2018 seat share is 62% (KE 51%, DL 11%). OZ holds 26% and UA/AA holds mere 4%.

UA has an approved ATI with OZ but has not implemented JV.



Very informative, thank you! What exactly is the difference between ATI and a JV? I'm no expert so excuse my stupidity.

Also, with the expansion of ICN, could UA potentially cozy up with OZ considering their dire finances? Or could UA potentially cozy up with BR instead?


Antitrust Immunity (ATI), as the name suggests, provides immunity against antitrust laws.
Joint venture in the airline industry means that two or more airlines can jointly price and schedule, and share the revenue (most cases) or profit (Delta JVs).

ATI is required and a precursor to JV, as airline joint venture by definition is a cartel.
UA and OZ have an approved ATI since 2003. KE and DL have an approved ATI since 2002.

But having an ATI does not mean they also have a JV.
UA and OZ can implement JV, but they are not doing it. So they are not pricing and scheduling together, and they are not sharing revenues.
DL and KE have had an ATI for a long time but had not implemented JV for a long time, which they finally did in 2017.

I do see an opportunity for UA and OZ being together in a three-way JV between UA-NH-OZ (or a four-way between UA-NH-AC-OZ).
While UA and BR are getting closer than before (so as UA and OZ), I do not see a JV between UA and BR, because of the geopolitics/aeropolitics involving Mainland China.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sat May 18, 2019 10:28 pm

J343 wrote:
zakuivcustom wrote:
J343 wrote:
Could UA potentially make ICN their secondary hub given their strong partnership with OZ (not sure if they have a JV),


I'm not sure about this part. AFAIK UA and OZ doesn't really partner with each other all that much other than some codeshares. At a minimum, I'm pretty sure UA-NH relation is a lot more robust than UA-OZ. Keep in mind there's BR in Taiwan also being another *A airlines in the region.

ITSTours wrote:
Shorthaul competition is strong due to massive growths of Korean LCCs. Look at ICN-KIX/NRT/FUK/HKG/DAD.


And BKK and CEB and (to certain extent) CXR also. I've always been fascinated by the insane amount of leisure flights (and destination also...I mean, ICN used to have a flight to TAG also) anyway (Especailly DAD, can airlines really fill 17 daily flights out of ICN?)

In terms of competition:
https://www.oag.com/hubfs/Free_Reports/ ... 018-A4.pdf

The data has a few popular routes out of ICN in there (NRT, KIX, HKG). It's definitely a lot more competitive than HKG (Look at HKG-TPE/SIN/BKK). For SIN - routes like SIN-KUL and SIN-CGK (The two busiest routes, by far, out of SIN) are extremely competitive; SIN-BKK is also competitive (The data doesn't have SIN-DMK, if that's included the picture would change quite a bit). SIN-HKG, though, is basically a duopoly.



Very informative again, thank you. A poster earlier said OZ and UA was granted ATI but not a JV. Not exactly sure what the difference is in all honesty. The Japanese carriers seem to be the preferred partners for US carriers with UA+NH and AA+JL, DL obviously losing out but partnered up with KE instead. What does NH and JL have that OZ and KE can't offer UA and DL? I'm sure if China or Hong Kong has open skies policy, AA+JL+CX could potentially form a TPAC JV given CX heavily codeshare with JL on all HKG-Japan routes and codeshare with AA on HKG-USA flights.

It does also make me wonder why S.Korea has had a lot of LCCs. CEB does not surprise me at all given that S.Koreans are one of the largest tourists to the Philippines.


What does NH and JL have that OZ and KE can't offer UA and DL?
- Japan still has the third-biggest economy in the world w.r.t. GDP. And they have more than 100 million people.
South Korea, although has grown tremendously, is still three times smaller in terms of GDP, and 2.5 times smaller in terms of population.
Also, Japanese corporate travelers tend to pay much more for premium class.

DL obviously losing out but partnered up with KE instead
- You will have to Google it to read more about this, but DL and Skyteam tried to flirt with JL with a big financial support package when JL had a financial crisis.
JL chose to stay with AA and oneworld. So DL had to choose KE.
But in fact KE has even larger Transpacific market share compared to JL and NH, by the way.
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 2774
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sat May 18, 2019 10:50 pm

ITSTours wrote:
ICN-DAD round trip load factor for January 2019 is... 92.1%. I know it's crazy. More than half of the S Korean population departed the country last year.


I'm not surprised by the "half of the South Korean population departed the country last year" part at all. Korean tourists are everywhere :).

Nice to learn about "bagaji" also. But even then, those 100+ daily flights to Jeju still go out full from GMP :).

Between you and hoons90 and HeeseokKoo I definitely learn quite a bit about all the weird quirks behind South Korean market anyway.

ITSTours wrote:
In order to see more competition, there need to be strong LCCs; it seems like there is certainly a protection against LCCs in Hong Kong and Singapore.
Also HK Express is being sold to CX and Scoot is under SQ. This doesn't help either.


For HK I would definitely say yes - for the self-proclaim "free market capital of the world", they don't even allow Jetstar HK to start flights.

At least for "regional" routes, HX keeps CX somewhat honest. All UO really did is encourage a bunch of people that wouldn't travel to places like SK or Japan to go there otherwise, aka your "cheap" tourists who look for everything "jetso" (essentially means "bang for the buck" in Cantonese, including "freebies" and everything "advantageous to the consumer"); but HX truly compete on price on popular routes like HKG-ICN/TYO/OSA.

ITSTours wrote:
While UA and BR are getting closer than before (so as UA and OZ), I do not see a JV between UA and BR, because of the geopolitics/aeropolitics involving Mainland China.


At least UA wouldn't be heavily as affected with an expansion in Taiwan. Mainland China itself is not as big of a gold egg as it once was to/from US thanks to Chinese carrier greatly expanding, and there would not be any problem with overflying rights, either, unlike European carriers (Europe-Taiwan is probably most affected by the cross-strait relation anyway). On the other hand, BR themselves is also ambitious, and right now more or less control the Taiwan-US market anyway, which decrease the incentives for BR to form a JV with UA.

EDIT:
ITSTours wrote:
DL obviously losing out but partnered up with KE instead
- You will have to Google it to read more about this, but DL and Skyteam tried to flirt with JL with a big financial support package when JL had a financial crisis.
JL chose to stay with AA and oneworld. So DL had to choose KE.
But in fact KE has even larger Transpacific market share compared to JL and NH, by the way.


Adding on - DL also tried to "bail out" BC (Skymark) when Skymark ran into trouble after overexpanding (i.e. moving to "premium" A330, follow by a disastrous A380 purchase) also just to gain access to smaller Japanese market. They lose out to ANA in the last second, and rumor (Officially denied by ANA) is that ANA agrees to take 3x A380 that Skymark brought to win Airbus (the largest creditor of Skymark during their bankruptcies) over.

Essentially, you can't really blamed DL for not trying. They simply lose out twice (JL first, then BC).
Free Hong Kong! Free China!
 
J343
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:40 am

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sat May 18, 2019 11:34 pm

ITSTours wrote:
J343 wrote:
zakuivcustom wrote:

I'm not sure about this part. AFAIK UA and OZ doesn't really partner with each other all that much other than some codeshares. At a minimum, I'm pretty sure UA-NH relation is a lot more robust than UA-OZ. Keep in mind there's BR in Taiwan also being another *A airlines in the region.



And BKK and CEB and (to certain extent) CXR also. I've always been fascinated by the insane amount of leisure flights (and destination also...I mean, ICN used to have a flight to TAG also) anyway (Especailly DAD, can airlines really fill 17 daily flights out of ICN?)

In terms of competition:
https://www.oag.com/hubfs/Free_Reports/ ... 018-A4.pdf

The data has a few popular routes out of ICN in there (NRT, KIX, HKG). It's definitely a lot more competitive than HKG (Look at HKG-TPE/SIN/BKK). For SIN - routes like SIN-KUL and SIN-CGK (The two busiest routes, by far, out of SIN) are extremely competitive; SIN-BKK is also competitive (The data doesn't have SIN-DMK, if that's included the picture would change quite a bit). SIN-HKG, though, is basically a duopoly.



Very informative again, thank you. A poster earlier said OZ and UA was granted ATI but not a JV. Not exactly sure what the difference is in all honesty. The Japanese carriers seem to be the preferred partners for US carriers with UA+NH and AA+JL, DL obviously losing out but partnered up with KE instead. What does NH and JL have that OZ and KE can't offer UA and DL? I'm sure if China or Hong Kong has open skies policy, AA+JL+CX could potentially form a TPAC JV given CX heavily codeshare with JL on all HKG-Japan routes and codeshare with AA on HKG-USA flights.

It does also make me wonder why S.Korea has had a lot of LCCs. CEB does not surprise me at all given that S.Koreans are one of the largest tourists to the Philippines.


What does NH and JL have that OZ and KE can't offer UA and DL?
- Japan still has the third-biggest economy in the world w.r.t. GDP. And they have more than 100 million people.
South Korea, although has grown tremendously, is still three times smaller in terms of GDP, and 2.5 times smaller in terms of population.
Also, Japanese corporate travelers tend to pay much more for premium class.

DL obviously losing out but partnered up with KE instead
- You will have to Google it to read more about this, but DL and Skyteam tried to flirt with JL with a big financial support package when JL had a financial crisis.
JL chose to stay with AA and oneworld. So DL had to choose KE.
But in fact KE has even larger Transpacific market share compared to JL and NH, by the way.


Yes I remember when JL had a financial crisis, I was probably it my mid-teens LOL. If I remember correctly, AA and oneworld too offered JL an even bigger financial support and if I'm not mistaken again, had JL tied up with DL, it would mean JL giving up most of their routes and simply codeshare with DL rather than flying their own metal. Also, I think it was at this time when BA and JL formed their Europe-Japan JV.

I was not fully aware that KE had the biggest trans Pacific market share of any Asian carrier. I've always thought CX had a bigger market share with several forums and articles stating that CX is Asia's biggest international airline; though I'm pretty sure EK and QR has a much bigger international network as the Middle East is stil Asia.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sun May 19, 2019 12:27 am

J343 wrote:
ITSTours wrote:
J343 wrote:


Very informative again, thank you. A poster earlier said OZ and UA was granted ATI but not a JV. Not exactly sure what the difference is in all honesty. The Japanese carriers seem to be the preferred partners for US carriers with UA+NH and AA+JL, DL obviously losing out but partnered up with KE instead. What does NH and JL have that OZ and KE can't offer UA and DL? I'm sure if China or Hong Kong has open skies policy, AA+JL+CX could potentially form a TPAC JV given CX heavily codeshare with JL on all HKG-Japan routes and codeshare with AA on HKG-USA flights.

It does also make me wonder why S.Korea has had a lot of LCCs. CEB does not surprise me at all given that S.Koreans are one of the largest tourists to the Philippines.


What does NH and JL have that OZ and KE can't offer UA and DL?
- Japan still has the third-biggest economy in the world w.r.t. GDP. And they have more than 100 million people.
South Korea, although has grown tremendously, is still three times smaller in terms of GDP, and 2.5 times smaller in terms of population.
Also, Japanese corporate travelers tend to pay much more for premium class.

DL obviously losing out but partnered up with KE instead
- You will have to Google it to read more about this, but DL and Skyteam tried to flirt with JL with a big financial support package when JL had a financial crisis.
JL chose to stay with AA and oneworld. So DL had to choose KE.
But in fact KE has even larger Transpacific market share compared to JL and NH, by the way.


Yes I remember when JL had a financial crisis, I was probably it my mid-teens LOL. If I remember correctly, AA and oneworld too offered JL an even bigger financial support and if I'm not mistaken again, had JL tied up with DL, it would mean JL giving up most of their routes and simply codeshare with DL rather than flying their own metal. Also, I think it was at this time when BA and JL formed their Europe-Japan JV.

I was not fully aware that KE had the biggest trans Pacific market share of any Asian carrier. I've always thought CX had a bigger market share with several forums and articles stating that CX is Asia's biggest international airline; though I'm pretty sure EK and QR has a much bigger international network as the Middle East is stil Asia.


FYI, here are the 2018 Jan-Nov Transpacific seat capacity (excl. Oceania; only U.S. Mainland):

Row Labels Sum of SEATS
United Air Lines Inc. 2311078
Delta Air Lines Inc. 1359460
Korean Air Lines Co. Ltd. 1240742
American Airlines Inc. 1212120
Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. 1133895
Eva Airways Corporation 1082840
All Nippon Airways Co. 940326
Air China 912570
Japan Air Lines Co. Ltd. 665394
Asiana Airlines Inc. 653563
China Eastern Airlines 652688
Hainan Airlines Company Limited 506555
China Southern Airlines 474834
China Airlines Ltd. 387902
Philippine Airlines Inc. 374567
Singapore Airlines Ltd. 360440
Hong Kong Airlines Limited 306946
Xiamen Airlines Co., Ltd. 150262
Sichuan Airlines Co Ltd. 75898
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 2774
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sun May 19, 2019 12:51 am

ITSTours wrote:
FYI, here are the 2018 Jan-Nov Transpacific seat capacity (excl. Oceania; only U.S. Mainland):

Row Labels Sum of SEATS
United Air Lines Inc. 2311078
Delta Air Lines Inc. 1359460
Korean Air Lines Co. Ltd. 1240742
American Airlines Inc. 1212120
Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. 1133895
Eva Airways Corporation 1082840
All Nippon Airways Co. 940326
Air China 912570
Japan Air Lines Co. Ltd. 665394
Asiana Airlines Inc. 653563
China Eastern Airlines 652688
Hainan Airlines Company Limited 506555
China Southern Airlines 474834
China Airlines Ltd. 387902
Philippine Airlines Inc. 374567
Singapore Airlines Ltd. 360440
Hong Kong Airlines Limited 306946
Xiamen Airlines Co., Ltd. 150262
Sichuan Airlines Co Ltd. 75898


Umm...I wonder what the number would look like if Canada is also included. Wouldn't that push CX ahead of KE?

UA is definitely a lot larger in TPAC compare to AA and DL, though.

And it also show how big *A is in the TPAC market. UA >>> AA and DL, BR >>> CI, NH > DL, and CA > MU and CZ (and all the other Chinese carriers), and AC is not even included in the chart. The only exception would be KE >>> OZ :(.
Last edited by zakuivcustom on Sun May 19, 2019 12:54 am, edited 1 time in total.
Free Hong Kong! Free China!
 
FlyHappy
Posts: 1042
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 1:06 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sun May 19, 2019 12:51 am

J343 wrote:

I was not fully aware that KE had the biggest trans Pacific market share of any Asian carrier. I've always thought CX had a bigger market share with several forums and articles stating that CX is Asia's biggest international airline; though I'm pretty sure EK and QR has a much bigger international network as the Middle East is stil Asia.



trans Pacific, aka TPAC means just that, not "international". So for all practical purposes, this means East Asia/AusNZ to and from North America.
KE is better geographically suited for the TPAC market. CX has greater emphasis (and history) on EU flying.
Neither QR or EK do any TPAC flying, and neither (along with CX and SQ) have any domestic flying, so they are purely "international" airlines.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sun May 19, 2019 1:44 am

zakuivcustom wrote:
ITSTours wrote:
FYI, here are the 2018 Jan-Nov Transpacific seat capacity (excl. Oceania; only U.S. Mainland):

Row Labels Sum of SEATS
United Air Lines Inc. 2311078
Delta Air Lines Inc. 1359460
Korean Air Lines Co. Ltd. 1240742
American Airlines Inc. 1212120
Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. 1133895
Eva Airways Corporation 1082840
All Nippon Airways Co. 940326
Air China 912570
Japan Air Lines Co. Ltd. 665394
Asiana Airlines Inc. 653563
China Eastern Airlines 652688
Hainan Airlines Company Limited 506555
China Southern Airlines 474834
China Airlines Ltd. 387902
Philippine Airlines Inc. 374567
Singapore Airlines Ltd. 360440
Hong Kong Airlines Limited 306946
Xiamen Airlines Co., Ltd. 150262
Sichuan Airlines Co Ltd. 75898


Umm...I wonder what the number would look like if Canada is also included. Wouldn't that push CX ahead of KE?

UA is definitely a lot larger in TPAC compare to AA and DL, though.

And it also show how big *A is in the TPAC market. UA >>> AA and DL, BR >>> CI, NH > DL, and CA > MU and CZ (and all the other Chinese carriers), and AC is not even included in the chart. The only exception would be KE >>> OZ :(.


I would like to know the Canada number as well, but US BTS of course only provides US data.
I do not have an access to the private database like OAG unfortunately.
 
Yonderlust
Posts: 41
Joined: Sat Jun 02, 2018 8:32 am

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sun May 19, 2019 1:53 am

MON wrote:
Last week when I last past through ICN the fourth runway appeared to be well on it’s way to completion.

Yep, I was there yesterday and saw that as well.
 
FlyHappy
Posts: 1042
Joined: Sat May 13, 2017 1:06 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sun May 19, 2019 2:22 am

ITSTours wrote:
FYI, here are the 2018 Jan-Nov Transpacific seat capacity (excl. Oceania; only U.S. Mainland):



thank you, sincerely for the data. It's quite illuminating. I'm stunned just how much larger UA is than everyone else. Also surprised at EVA's huge number; didn't realize the scale of their operations.
 
J343
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:40 am

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sun May 19, 2019 3:53 am

ITSTours wrote:
J343 wrote:
ITSTours wrote:

What does NH and JL have that OZ and KE can't offer UA and DL?
- Japan still has the third-biggest economy in the world w.r.t. GDP. And they have more than 100 million people.
South Korea, although has grown tremendously, is still three times smaller in terms of GDP, and 2.5 times smaller in terms of population.
Also, Japanese corporate travelers tend to pay much more for premium class.

DL obviously losing out but partnered up with KE instead
- You will have to Google it to read more about this, but DL and Skyteam tried to flirt with JL with a big financial support package when JL had a financial crisis.
JL chose to stay with AA and oneworld. So DL had to choose KE.
But in fact KE has even larger Transpacific market share compared to JL and NH, by the way.


Yes I remember when JL had a financial crisis, I was probably it my mid-teens LOL. If I remember correctly, AA and oneworld too offered JL an even bigger financial support and if I'm not mistaken again, had JL tied up with DL, it would mean JL giving up most of their routes and simply codeshare with DL rather than flying their own metal. Also, I think it was at this time when BA and JL formed their Europe-Japan JV.

I was not fully aware that KE had the biggest trans Pacific market share of any Asian carrier. I've always thought CX had a bigger market share with several forums and articles stating that CX is Asia's biggest international airline; though I'm pretty sure EK and QR has a much bigger international network as the Middle East is stil Asia.


FYI, here are the 2018 Jan-Nov Transpacific seat capacity (excl. Oceania; only U.S. Mainland):

Row Labels Sum of SEATS
United Air Lines Inc. 2311078
Delta Air Lines Inc. 1359460
Korean Air Lines Co. Ltd. 1240742
American Airlines Inc. 1212120
Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. 1133895
Eva Airways Corporation 1082840
All Nippon Airways Co. 940326
Air China 912570
Japan Air Lines Co. Ltd. 665394
Asiana Airlines Inc. 653563
China Eastern Airlines 652688
Hainan Airlines Company Limited 506555
China Southern Airlines 474834
China Airlines Ltd. 387902
Philippine Airlines Inc. 374567
Singapore Airlines Ltd. 360440
Hong Kong Airlines Limited 306946
Xiamen Airlines Co., Ltd. 150262
Sichuan Airlines Co Ltd. 75898


THANK YOU! This is very very informative. I am honestly surprised to see UA leading. And also, surprised to see that BR is quickly catching up with CX and as previously stated in here, how big their operations are. Also, I did not expect PR to be ahead of SQ considering SQ serves more US destinations (JFK, EWR, IAH, LAX and SFO) than PR (LAX, SFO, JFK, HNL- if it counts as mainland)
 
J343
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:40 am

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sun May 19, 2019 3:57 am

FlyHappy wrote:
J343 wrote:

I was not fully aware that KE had the biggest trans Pacific market share of any Asian carrier. I've always thought CX had a bigger market share with several forums and articles stating that CX is Asia's biggest international airline; though I'm pretty sure EK and QR has a much bigger international network as the Middle East is stil Asia.



trans Pacific, aka TPAC means just that, not "international". So for all practical purposes, this means East Asia/AusNZ to and from North America.
KE is better geographically suited for the TPAC market. CX has greater emphasis (and history) on EU flying.
Neither QR or EK do any TPAC flying, and neither (along with CX and SQ) have any domestic flying, so they are purely "international" airlines.


Isn't CX one of the smaller player on the EU market with SQ, TG and CA serving more? Correct me if I am wrong though. CX has recently expanded their European operations quite aggressively since they took delivery of their A350s with them starting MAD, MAN, LGW, BCN, ZRH, DUB, BRU, CPH (ended) and added additional frequencies to FRA and CDG. Where else could CX expand in Europe?
 
YYZORD
Posts: 330
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2019 5:26 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sun May 19, 2019 5:11 am

Huge chance that they will, I'm positive. They also applied for a transatlantic JV with KL/AF and mentioning that they want KE to be their transpacific JV partner, it only makes sense to join Skyteam after creating all those JVs. AC doesn't even have that many JV's with their *alliance partners, hopefully AC starts a JV with NH along with their planned ones for NZ and UA, they need more JV's to compete with the amount of JV's that WS applied for and plan to apply for in the future.

J343 wrote:
YYZORD wrote:
WS has mentioned that they want KE to be their trans-pacific JV partner someday to serve asian destinations similar to DL JV with transborder routes. I can see WS starting a YYC-ICN route with their 787-9 once the trans-pacific JV between KE and WS is finalized. KE already serves YVR and YYZ so there is no need for WS to add flights to ICN from their other hubs.



Could this potentially mean WS joining Skyteam? They've recently applied for a JV with DL if I'm not mistaken.
 
J343
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:40 am

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sun May 19, 2019 5:47 am

YYZORD wrote:
Huge chance that they will, I'm positive. They also applied for a transatlantic JV with KL/AF and mentioning that they want KE to be their transpacific JV partner, it only makes sense to join Skyteam after creating all those JVs. AC doesn't even have that many JV's with their *alliance partners, hopefully AC starts a JV with NH along with their planned ones for NZ and UA, they need more JV's to compete with the amount of JV's that WS applied for and plan to apply for in the future.

J343 wrote:
YYZORD wrote:
WS has mentioned that they want KE to be their trans-pacific JV partner someday to serve asian destinations similar to DL JV with transborder routes. I can see WS starting a YYC-ICN route with their 787-9 once the trans-pacific JV between KE and WS is finalized. KE already serves YVR and YYZ so there is no need for WS to add flights to ICN from their other hubs.



Could this potentially mean WS joining Skyteam? They've recently applied for a JV with DL if I'm not mistaken.


I thought AC already have a JV with NH and CA in addition to their transatlantic JV with UA+LH Group. I've only really flown with a few Skyteam airlines (AF,KL and KE) but it would be great if WS does join Skyteam, this would leave oneworld a hole in the Canadian market. I'm not entirely sure if AC or OZ even serves ICN.
 
User avatar
thekorean
Posts: 1761
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2011 9:05 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sun May 19, 2019 7:18 am

J343 wrote:
YYZORD wrote:
Huge chance that they will, I'm positive. They also applied for a transatlantic JV with KL/AF and mentioning that they want KE to be their transpacific JV partner, it only makes sense to join Skyteam after creating all those JVs. AC doesn't even have that many JV's with their *alliance partners, hopefully AC starts a JV with NH along with their planned ones for NZ and UA, they need more JV's to compete with the amount of JV's that WS applied for and plan to apply for in the future.

J343 wrote:


Could this potentially mean WS joining Skyteam? They've recently applied for a JV with DL if I'm not mistaken.


I thought AC already have a JV with NH and CA in addition to their transatlantic JV with UA+LH Group. I've only really flown with a few Skyteam airlines (AF,KL and KE) but it would be great if WS does join Skyteam, this would leave oneworld a hole in the Canadian market. I'm not entirely sure if AC or OZ even serves ICN.

AC serves ICN from both YVR and YYZ. YVR is daily, not sure about YYZ.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sun May 19, 2019 8:50 am

J343 wrote:
ITSTours wrote:
J343 wrote:

Yes I remember when JL had a financial crisis, I was probably it my mid-teens LOL. If I remember correctly, AA and oneworld too offered JL an even bigger financial support and if I'm not mistaken again, had JL tied up with DL, it would mean JL giving up most of their routes and simply codeshare with DL rather than flying their own metal. Also, I think it was at this time when BA and JL formed their Europe-Japan JV.

I was not fully aware that KE had the biggest trans Pacific market share of any Asian carrier. I've always thought CX had a bigger market share with several forums and articles stating that CX is Asia's biggest international airline; though I'm pretty sure EK and QR has a much bigger international network as the Middle East is stil Asia.


FYI, here are the 2018 Jan-Nov Transpacific seat capacity (excl. Oceania; only U.S. Mainland):

Row Labels Sum of SEATS
United Air Lines Inc. 2311078
Delta Air Lines Inc. 1359460
Korean Air Lines Co. Ltd. 1240742
American Airlines Inc. 1212120
Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. 1133895
Eva Airways Corporation 1082840
All Nippon Airways Co. 940326
Air China 912570
Japan Air Lines Co. Ltd. 665394
Asiana Airlines Inc. 653563
China Eastern Airlines 652688
Hainan Airlines Company Limited 506555
China Southern Airlines 474834
China Airlines Ltd. 387902
Philippine Airlines Inc. 374567
Singapore Airlines Ltd. 360440
Hong Kong Airlines Limited 306946
Xiamen Airlines Co., Ltd. 150262
Sichuan Airlines Co Ltd. 75898


THANK YOU! This is very very informative. I am honestly surprised to see UA leading. And also, surprised to see that BR is quickly catching up with CX and as previously stated in here, how big their operations are. Also, I did not expect PR to be ahead of SQ considering SQ serves more US destinations (JFK, EWR, IAH, LAX and SFO) than PR (LAX, SFO, JFK, HNL- if it counts as mainland)


You are welcome.

Some of the SQ destinations are served on the other side of the ocean (IAH-MAN, JFK-FRA). That is why.
 
J343
Topic Author
Posts: 238
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 3:40 am

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sun May 19, 2019 11:32 am

ITSTours wrote:
J343 wrote:
ITSTours wrote:

FYI, here are the 2018 Jan-Nov Transpacific seat capacity (excl. Oceania; only U.S. Mainland):

Row Labels Sum of SEATS
United Air Lines Inc. 2311078
Delta Air Lines Inc. 1359460
Korean Air Lines Co. Ltd. 1240742
American Airlines Inc. 1212120
Cathay Pacific Airways Ltd. 1133895
Eva Airways Corporation 1082840
All Nippon Airways Co. 940326
Air China 912570
Japan Air Lines Co. Ltd. 665394
Asiana Airlines Inc. 653563
China Eastern Airlines 652688
Hainan Airlines Company Limited 506555
China Southern Airlines 474834
China Airlines Ltd. 387902
Philippine Airlines Inc. 374567
Singapore Airlines Ltd. 360440
Hong Kong Airlines Limited 306946
Xiamen Airlines Co., Ltd. 150262
Sichuan Airlines Co Ltd. 75898


THANK YOU! This is very very informative. I am honestly surprised to see UA leading. And also, surprised to see that BR is quickly catching up with CX and as previously stated in here, how big their operations are. Also, I did not expect PR to be ahead of SQ considering SQ serves more US destinations (JFK, EWR, IAH, LAX and SFO) than PR (LAX, SFO, JFK, HNL- if it counts as mainland)


You are welcome.

Some of the SQ destinations are served on the other side of the ocean (IAH-MAN, JFK-FRA). That is why.


Oh yes, of course! I forgot about SIN-FRA/MAN-JFK/IAH! Thank you again.

It clearly does look that ICN has tangible opportunities to be an alternative gateway for flights to and from N.America
 
PSAatSAN4Ever
Posts: 810
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2018 5:38 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sun May 19, 2019 3:35 pm

HeeseokKoo wrote:
The only restriction is that ICN is full. No slots between, say, 8am and 10pm. The airport still manages to arrange some slightly-less-perfect slots to new long-haul flights but no such privilege for intra-Asia or other short-distance flights.

Airspace, therefore slot, is full because of the military restriction. Current 3-runway config was supposed to offer 90 flights per hour, but only 63 (soon to be increased to 65) are allotted. The 4th runway will be ready by 2023 but that doesn't mean that the airspace will have more room (although they are working on it).


Question: Given the proximity of ICN to the Military Demarcation Line that runs west into the Yellow Sea, I would imagine that there have to be some very tight turns when taking off on the 33's/34 or landing on the 15's/16. How far is the MDL from the northern end of the runways at ICN?
 
jagraham
Posts: 880
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2016 11:10 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Sun May 19, 2019 7:34 pm

FlyHappy wrote:
J343 wrote:

I was not fully aware that KE had the biggest trans Pacific market share of any Asian carrier. I've always thought CX had a bigger market share with several forums and articles stating that CX is Asia's biggest international airline; though I'm pretty sure EK and QR has a much bigger international network as the Middle East is stil Asia.



trans Pacific, aka TPAC means just that, not "international". So for all practical purposes, this means East Asia/AusNZ to and from North America.
KE is better geographically suited for the TPAC market. CX has greater emphasis (and history) on EU flying.
Neither QR or EK do any TPAC flying, and neither (along with CX and SQ) have any domestic flying, so they are purely "international" airlines.


I think the TPAC emphasis is meant to exclude Hawaii, Including Hawaii would cause JL available seats to jump quite a bit, for one. UA too.
 
ITSTours
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Thu Sep 05, 2019 6:52 am

Now ICN slots are practically full during daytime.

Image
Source: http://www.slotkorea.kr/site_kaso/main10.jsp

Currently 63 movements per hour are allowed.

While the three runways allow up to 90 movements per hour, the lack of CIQ (Customs, Immigration, and Quarantine) and ATC workforce limit the actual slots.

It is rumored that Swiss wanted to fly ICN but they didn't get a slot so they instead decided to fly KIX.
 
zakuivcustom
Posts: 2774
Joined: Sat Jun 10, 2017 3:32 am

Re: ICN Restrictions

Thu Sep 05, 2019 11:44 am

ITSTours wrote:
Now ICN slots are practically full during daytime.

Image
Source: http://www.slotkorea.kr/site_kaso/main10.jsp

Currently 63 movements per hour are allowed.

While the three runways allow up to 90 movements per hour, the lack of CIQ (Customs, Immigration, and Quarantine) and ATC workforce limit the actual slots.

It is rumored that Swiss wanted to fly ICN but they didn't get a slot so they instead decided to fly KIX.


Although (hopefully) short term, wouldn’t all the cancellations of flights to/from Japan free up a fair amount of slots? The LCCs (mainly) can only increase flights to so many SE Asian destinations (and Taiwan or even mainland PRC).
Free Hong Kong! Free China!
 
ITSTours
Posts: 409
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 10:51 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Thu Sep 05, 2019 2:24 pm

zakuivcustom wrote:
ITSTours wrote:
Now ICN slots are practically full during daytime.

Image
Source: http://www.slotkorea.kr/site_kaso/main10.jsp

Currently 63 movements per hour are allowed.

While the three runways allow up to 90 movements per hour, the lack of CIQ (Customs, Immigration, and Quarantine) and ATC workforce limit the actual slots.

It is rumored that Swiss wanted to fly ICN but they didn't get a slot so they instead decided to fly KIX.


Although (hopefully) short term, wouldn’t all the cancellations of flights to/from Japan free up a fair amount of slots? The LCCs (mainly) can only increase flights to so many SE Asian destinations (and Taiwan or even mainland PRC).


True, but I do not expect those slots to be returned to the airport so no new entrant.
 
HeeseokKoo
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:54 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Wed Sep 11, 2019 3:55 am

ITSTours wrote:
Now ICN slots are practically full during daytime.

And yet DL could add MNL in the peak hours. In fact, slot situation has been like that for the number of years but DL added MSP also in the peak hours. How?

Other airlines had to squeeze among whatever available: LO is adding 730am departure, and NZ soon have 8pm arrival. UA's #2 SFO started with a day-to-day schedule variation due to the slot problem.
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1301
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: ICN Restrictions

Wed Sep 11, 2019 4:52 am

HeeseokKoo wrote:
ITSTours wrote:
Now ICN slots are practically full during daytime.

And yet DL could add MNL in the peak hours. In fact, slot situation has been like that for the number of years but DL added MSP also in the peak hours. How?

Other airlines had to squeeze among whatever available: LO is adding 730am departure, and NZ soon have 8pm arrival. UA's #2 SFO started with a day-to-day schedule variation due to the slot problem.

KE has one of the biggest portfolios of slots at ICN so they certainly can play around a bit - reduce a cargo flight or two, move around its regional flight schedule, etc. DL's MNL flight must have benefited from this as I bet KE borrowed/swapped the slot with DL.

Michael
 
HeeseokKoo
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:54 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Wed Sep 11, 2019 12:17 pm

eamondzhang wrote:
HeeseokKoo wrote:
Other airlines had to squeeze among whatever available: LO is adding 730am departure, and NZ soon have 8pm arrival. UA's #2 SFO started with a day-to-day schedule variation due to the slot problem.

KE has one of the biggest portfolios of slots at ICN so they certainly can play around a bit - reduce a cargo flight or two, move around its regional flight schedule, etc. DL's MNL flight must have benefited from this as I bet KE borrowed/swapped the slot with DL.

Michael

Makes sense but I wasn't sure if that's legal. Last year, Jin air and Air Seoul faced huge backlash for 'illegal' slot swap with KE and OZ. But it appears that what is illegal is between the same companies (parent-LCC) but probably allowed for any other pairs.
 
DavidByrne
Posts: 1421
Joined: Mon Sep 10, 2007 4:42 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Wed Sep 11, 2019 1:17 pm

Just read on the NZ Aviation thread that NZ has amended its planned schedule to have five different arrival times for five weekly flights when they start service next month. I guess that says something about the availability of slots at ICN.
This is not my beautiful house . . . This is not my beautiful wife
 
eamondzhang
Posts: 1301
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 8:23 am

Re: ICN Restrictions

Wed Sep 11, 2019 10:00 pm

HeeseokKoo wrote:
eamondzhang wrote:
HeeseokKoo wrote:
Other airlines had to squeeze among whatever available: LO is adding 730am departure, and NZ soon have 8pm arrival. UA's #2 SFO started with a day-to-day schedule variation due to the slot problem.

KE has one of the biggest portfolios of slots at ICN so they certainly can play around a bit - reduce a cargo flight or two, move around its regional flight schedule, etc. DL's MNL flight must have benefited from this as I bet KE borrowed/swapped the slot with DL.

Michael

Makes sense but I wasn't sure if that's legal. Last year, Jin air and Air Seoul faced huge backlash for 'illegal' slot swap with KE and OZ. But it appears that what is illegal is between the same companies (parent-LCC) but probably allowed for any other pairs.

If it's within the company itself it should be fine - unless the slot is awarded with condition (e.g. HND slots are awarded to a specific destination with a specific timeframe).

A lot of carriers does this especially at their homebase - LH at FRA and BA at LHR springs into my mind.

Borrowing slots to someone else is also common practice - MU swapped with QF for the slot at PEK, LH does this with CA/AC/UA at LHR, etc. Not sure if South Korea has specific law that prevents theses activities though.

Michael
 
HeeseokKoo
Posts: 816
Joined: Mon Jan 17, 2005 5:54 pm

Re: ICN Restrictions

Thu Sep 12, 2019 3:13 am

DavidByrne wrote:
Just read on the NZ Aviation thread that NZ has amended its planned schedule to have five different arrival times for five weekly flights when they start service next month. I guess that says something about the availability of slots at ICN.

Yes, it looks like a bad situation. Once a week, NZ flight will arrive ICN after 10pm.


eamondzhang wrote:
A lot of carriers does this especially at their homebase - LH at FRA and BA at LHR springs into my mind.

Borrowing slots to someone else is also common practice - MU swapped with QF for the slot at PEK, LH does this with CA/AC/UA at LHR, etc. Not sure if South Korea has specific law that prevents theses activities though.

Michael

Slot rule is all different between countries. For instance, some airports allow sell/purchase while many don't. ICN slot has been precious for the last few years, and since this is a new problem for the airport, slot swap has not been properly monitored and it has happened under the table. I don't think ICN has any written rule about slot swapping as of yet.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos