Page 2 of 3

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:57 am
by LAX772LR
STT757 wrote:
EWR-BOM 1 77W
EWR-DEL 1 77E
EWR-NRT 1 77W
EWR-HND 1 77E
EWR-PEK 1 77E
EWR-HKG 1 77W
EWR-PVG 2 77E

.....TLV

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 10:37 am
by United1
SpartanFlyZone wrote:
United1 wrote:
SpartanFlyZone wrote:

Sorry, hate to be me dismissive of your opinion, but that is not how public company business works. Profitability is not hidden with public companies. Your theory is known as securities fraud in the US.


BTS statistics are not reported to the SEC and don’t have to follow standard accounting principles.


Misrepresenting profitability is most definitely a securities law issue. Having been responsible for filing numerous SEC filings for public companies, no responsible reporting person would ever sign or agree to file any report or statistics that could mislead the public. Filing inconsistent reports with other public data (e.g., BTS statistics) is evidence of fraud. Your theory is asinine.


Do you even know what the BTS data people are referencing is or have even taken a look at it? I’m betting not....

Has nothing to do with the SEC, isn’t regulated or reported consistently between airlines. Doesn’t have to be so DL, AA and UA all use different formulas for calculating costs and allocating revenue.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 11:09 am
by jumbojet
questions wrote:
Delta was late to the game in forming SkyTeam and that didn’t help with Asia. They had to pick from the leftovers.

Not being competitive in bidding and losing out to AA for a stake in JL didn’t help either.

JL and CX would have been much better partners for DL and certainly would have helped JFK-Asia.

Instead Delta has:
- China Airlines
- China Eastern
- Garuda Indonesia
- Korean Air
- Vietnam Airlines
- XiamenAir

Like, seriously.

Lucrative, premium passengers do not want to connect in the US and then again in Asia. They want JFK to their Asian destination nonstop.


Is that how you feel or is that fact? Got any recent polls to back that up? I'd say just as important to lucrative, premium passengers is getting to where they are going with a reputable, on time airline and not roll the dice with the other US2 and their alliances. Connecting in ICN is a breeze, especially in ICN's brand new terminal 2. A million times nicer than the train wrecks that are just about any of the big US airports. Plus, its very fast, convenient and seamless. In fact, I would say thats now an advantage to DL/KL for passengers connecting into Asia from the states. ICN, very few delays. Cant say the same about UA at SFO and AA at DFW.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 4:59 pm
by questions
jumbojet wrote:
Is that how you feel or is that fact? Got any recent polls to back that up? I'd say just as important to lucrative, premium passengers is getting to where they are going with a reputable, on time airline and not roll the dice with the other US2 and their alliances. Connecting in ICN is a breeze, especially in ICN's brand new terminal 2. A million times nicer than the train wrecks that are just about any of the big US airports. Plus, its very fast, convenient and seamless. In fact, I would say thats now an advantage to DL/KL for passengers connecting into Asia from the states. ICN, very few delays. Cant say the same about UA at SFO and AA at DFW.


That’s how you feel and definitely not a fact. Do you have any polls to back that up? I seriously doubt it.

The vast majority of experienced travelers would say you’re wrong. KL passengers would NOT think its “an advantage” to fly from AMS, through the US and transit in ICN to get to their Asian destination just to experience a “very fast, convenient and seamless” “breeze” of a connection in the “million times nicer” ICN.

That’s just crazy talk. No research needed.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:02 pm
by WPvsMW
XRadar98 wrote:
One stop is direct. Do you actually mean non-stop, when you say Delta with a little d, no reason to fly direct?


To Europeans, "direct" often means nonstop.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:07 pm
by Pudelhund
jumbojet wrote:
questions wrote:
Delta was late to the game in forming SkyTeam and that didn’t help with Asia. They had to pick from the leftovers.

Not being competitive in bidding and losing out to AA for a stake in JL didn’t help either.

JL and CX would have been much better partners for DL and certainly would have helped JFK-Asia.

Instead Delta has:
- China Airlines
- China Eastern
- Garuda Indonesia
- Korean Air
- Vietnam Airlines
- XiamenAir

Like, seriously.

Lucrative, premium passengers do not want to connect in the US and then again in Asia. They want JFK to their Asian destination nonstop.


Is that how you feel or is that fact? Got any recent polls to back that up? I'd say just as important to lucrative, premium passengers is getting to where they are going with a reputable, on time airline and not roll the dice with the other US2 and their alliances. Connecting in ICN is a breeze, especially in ICN's brand new terminal 2. A million times nicer than the train wrecks that are just about any of the big US airports. Plus, its very fast, convenient and seamless. In fact, I would say thats now an advantage to DL/KL for passengers connecting into Asia from the states. ICN, very few delays. Cant say the same about UA at SFO and AA at DFW.


This is absolute nonsense. I'm a DL FF and would much prefer a nonstop to my Asian destination than connecting anywhere in Asia. Why do you think Perth-London is so successful at scooping up the premium traffic? Business travelers prefer nonstops because no matter how nice an airport may be, connecting still adds time and adds risk that the connecting flight may be delayed or cancelled.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Sat Jul 20, 2019 8:35 pm
by questions
Pudelhund wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
questions wrote:
Delta was late to the game in forming SkyTeam and that didn’t help with Asia. They had to pick from the leftovers.

Not being competitive in bidding and losing out to AA for a stake in JL didn’t help either.

JL and CX would have been much better partners for DL and certainly would have helped JFK-Asia.

Instead Delta has:
- China Airlines
- China Eastern
- Garuda Indonesia
- Korean Air
- Vietnam Airlines
- XiamenAir

Like, seriously.

Lucrative, premium passengers do not want to connect in the US and then again in Asia. They want JFK to their Asian destination nonstop.


Is that how you feel or is that fact? Got any recent polls to back that up? I'd say just as important to lucrative, premium passengers is getting to where they are going with a reputable, on time airline and not roll the dice with the other US2 and their alliances. Connecting in ICN is a breeze, especially in ICN's brand new terminal 2. A million times nicer than the train wrecks that are just about any of the big US airports. Plus, its very fast, convenient and seamless. In fact, I would say thats now an advantage to DL/KL for passengers connecting into Asia from the states. ICN, very few delays. Cant say the same about UA at SFO and AA at DFW.


This is absolute nonsense. I'm a DL FF and would much prefer a nonstop to my Asian destination than connecting anywhere in Asia. Why do you think Perth-London is so successful at scooping up the premium traffic? Business travelers prefer nonstops because no matter how nice an airport may be, connecting still adds time and adds risk that the connecting flight may be delayed or cancelled.


Like I said, “crazy talk.”

Nonstop is always preferred for the very reasons you stated.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 7:24 am
by strfyr51
jfklganyc wrote:
Reading the India start/restart threads got me thinking

These routes are supposedly very profitable for UA. Same market essentially, but DL isnt very interested in NRT HND China and is just starting to put its toe in India.

Historically, CO had to start these routes from EWR if they wanted to serve these cities. They had 3 hubs and EWR was best-suited for these long haul flights.

Historically, DL had several more hubs than Continental, and had more options for starting long haul Asia beyond NYC.

UA has kept these supposedly very profitable services, while DL has shrunk Asian service from JFK.

Why?

If these markets are so profitable, why isnt DL in them?

The Asian carriers at JFK? Maybe. But some of them are quite iffy. Im sure Delta Medallions would jump at DL vs Air China.

The hub size differential for connections? DL and UA are on parity in NYC, but DL has a split hub where UA doesnt. Nonetheless, One with think the profitability of these flights comes from the O and D. Surely, DL has enough feed at JFK to launch a morning bank of Asia flights to help O and D.

Lack of interest is serving the Asia NYC customer?
Maybe. But given the resources they have thrown at winning NYC in last 10 years, I find it odd that they would draw the line at Asia.

Perhaps these flights arent as profitable as we think on a.net?
This is the one that piques my interest.

come ON! You can figure OUT why Delta hasn't persued those routes. They weren't a priority to them!! Up to now has Delta done badly? NO! So they must know something the rest of us don't.. What that IS?? I can't tell you.. But if it were a priority t them? They'\d BE flying the route with Gusto!! Don't you think??
0

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Sun Jul 21, 2019 5:07 pm
by questions
strfyr51 wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Reading the India start/restart threads got me thinking

These routes are supposedly very profitable for UA. Same market essentially, but DL isnt very interested in NRT HND China and is just starting to put its toe in India.

Historically, CO had to start these routes from EWR if they wanted to serve these cities. They had 3 hubs and EWR was best-suited for these long haul flights.

Historically, DL had several more hubs than Continental, and had more options for starting long haul Asia beyond NYC.

UA has kept these supposedly very profitable services, while DL has shrunk Asian service from JFK.

Why?

If these markets are so profitable, why isnt DL in them?

The Asian carriers at JFK? Maybe. But some of them are quite iffy. Im sure Delta Medallions would jump at DL vs Air China.

The hub size differential for connections? DL and UA are on parity in NYC, but DL has a split hub where UA doesnt. Nonetheless, One with think the profitability of these flights comes from the O and D. Surely, DL has enough feed at JFK to launch a morning bank of Asia flights to help O and D.

Lack of interest is serving the Asia NYC customer?
Maybe. But given the resources they have thrown at winning NYC in last 10 years, I find it odd that they would draw the line at Asia.

Perhaps these flights arent as profitable as we think on a.net?
This is the one that piques my interest.

come ON! You can figure OUT why Delta hasn't persued those routes. They weren't a priority to them!! Up to now has Delta done badly? NO! So they must know something the rest of us don't.. What that IS?? I can't tell you.. But if it were a priority t them? They'\d BE flying the route with Gusto!! Don't you think??
0


I think the OP’s question is more sophisticated than what you read on the surface. Of course “they weren’t a priority.” The OP would agree with that statement. But why? The OP understands there’s a ton of data and complexity in network modeling. He’s looking to learn from someone who may understand the intricacies of the analytics that go into those decisions. It’s a really good question — the analysis that goes into modeling route planning to create a business case for new markets or market expansion — that most on here do not understand and were never exposed to in the business world — e.g., introducing a new product in the market place. While elements of Delta’s decision making are certainly non-public information, there may be someone on here with industry experience that could provide some insights. And from those insights the OP may learn something vs being chastised with obvious statements like, “They weren’t a priority” and “they must know something the rest of us don’t.”

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 11:05 am
by Polot
SpartanFlyZone wrote:
United1 wrote:
SpartanFlyZone wrote:

Sorry, hate to be me dismissive of your opinion, but that is not how public company business works. Profitability is not hidden with public companies. Your theory is known as securities fraud in the US.


BTS statistics are not reported to the SEC and don’t have to follow standard accounting principles.


Misrepresenting profitability is most definitely a securities law issue. Having been responsible for filing numerous SEC filings for public companies, no responsible reporting person would ever sign or agree to file any report or statistics that could mislead the public. Filing inconsistent reports with other public data (e.g., BTS statistics) is evidence of fraud. Your theory is asinine.

There is a difference between hiding profitability and obscuring where (in terms of geographical region) the bulk of it is coming from.

The whole pie is still the same size, it is just how it is sliced.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 12:27 pm
by 77H
jumbojet wrote:
questions wrote:
Delta was late to the game in forming SkyTeam and that didn’t help with Asia. They had to pick from the leftovers.

Not being competitive in bidding and losing out to AA for a stake in JL didn’t help either.

JL and CX would have been much better partners for DL and certainly would have helped JFK-Asia.

Instead Delta has:
- China Airlines
- China Eastern
- Garuda Indonesia
- Korean Air
- Vietnam Airlines
- XiamenAir

Like, seriously.

Lucrative, premium passengers do not want to connect in the US and then again in Asia. They want JFK to their Asian destination nonstop.


Is that how you feel or is that fact? Got any recent polls to back that up? I'd say just as important to lucrative, premium passengers is getting to where they are going with a reputable, on time airline and not roll the dice with the other US2 and their alliances. Connecting in ICN is a breeze, especially in ICN's brand new terminal 2. A million times nicer than the train wrecks that are just about any of the big US airports. Plus, its very fast, convenient and seamless. In fact, I would say thats now an advantage to DL/KL for passengers connecting into Asia from the states. ICN, very few delays. Cant say the same about UA at SFO and AA at DFW.


Wait a second.. you are calling the effiency of ICN, an Asia gateway, an advantage to DL/KE while comparing it to SFO and DFW which are US TPAC gateways. This comparison is apples to oranges, but not surprising as you will construct whatever narrative you have to shine DL in the best light. A more accurate comparison would be to compare ICN (DL/KE) with HND or NRT AA/JL, UA/NH) as Asian gateways while comparing DFW (AA), SFO (UA) with SEA or LAX (DL) as US3 TPAC gateways. Though comparing like gateways doesn’t really put DL ahead though....

77H

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 12:49 pm
by 77H
LAXdude1023 wrote:
Polot wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:

Maybe, but it would be pretty crazy to suggest that a region is actually very profitable but that the airline lists it as unprofitable in the BTS statistics.

Not super crazy. It is in an airline’s best interest to hide where their profitability comes from as much as possible.


Maybe, but that doesnt answer the OP's assertion. He asserted that UA's EWR-Asia network is profitable. There is no evidence that it is. So I ask again, what makes you think these routes are profitable?


You assert numerous times that the whole of UA’s EWR-Asia network is unprofitable... you say you have the insight to supporting your claim and that people here are mistaken. Despite these firm assertions that it is unprofitable and an intimation that you have better knowledge of this than others, you have yet to provide a shred of evidence to support yourself.

In reality we have seen UA upgauge numerous routes to Asia exEWR, won a slot award to operate EWR-HND that they will fly alongside EWR-NRT (making them 2x daily EWR-TYO) and have shown interest in increasing frequency on other routes.

While it is true that airlines will sometimes operate loss-leading flights for the sake of their greater network, logic dictates they are highly unlikely to upgauge or add frequencies on loss leading routes. If that network was truly unprofitable we should expect to see downgauges and cut frequencies, like their IAH/LAX-SYD flights.

While I’d be more than happy to admit I was wrong in the face of numerical evidence, absent that, I think the proof is in the gauge and frequency of service.

77H

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:19 pm
by LAXdude1023
77H wrote:
LAXdude1023 wrote:
Polot wrote:
Not super crazy. It is in an airline’s best interest to hide where their profitability comes from as much as possible.


Maybe, but that doesnt answer the OP's assertion. He asserted that UA's EWR-Asia network is profitable. There is no evidence that it is. So I ask again, what makes you think these routes are profitable?


You assert numerous times that the whole of UA’s EWR-Asia network is unprofitable... you say you have the insight to supporting your claim and that people here are mistaken. Despite these firm assertions that it is unprofitable and an intimation that you have better knowledge of this than others, you have yet to provide a shred of evidence to support yourself.

In reality we have seen UA upgauge numerous routes to Asia exEWR, won a slot award to operate EWR-HND that they will fly alongside EWR-NRT (making them 2x daily EWR-TYO) and have shown interest in increasing frequency on other routes.

While it is true that airlines will sometimes operate loss-leading flights for the sake of their greater network, logic dictates they are highly unlikely to upgauge or add frequencies on loss leading routes. If that network was truly unprofitable we should expect to see downgauges and cut frequencies, like their IAH/LAX-SYD flights.

While I’d be more than happy to admit I was wrong in the face of numerical evidence, absent that, I think the proof is in the gauge and frequency of service.

77H


Except that I didn’t make that assertion at all. The OP did make the assertion that it was profitable. I asked him what made him think it was. I pointed to the BTS information as evidence that the network as a whole may not be. Some of the other posters mentioned that the airlines post fraudulent number in BTS and that may be true, but it’s the only numerical evidence that exists.

Aircraft gage isn’t a good way to determine profitably. NYC-Asia is extremely competitive. Even if EWR-Asia wasn’t profitable, it would still be in UAs best interest to put the best product it has in that market to attract more customers. In this case it’s the 77W and 787-10.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 1:34 pm
by MIflyer12
Polot wrote:
SpartanFlyZone wrote:
United1 wrote:

BTS statistics are not reported to the SEC and don’t have to follow standard accounting principles.


Misrepresenting profitability is most definitely a securities law issue. Having been responsible for filing numerous SEC filings for public companies, no responsible reporting person would ever sign or agree to file any report or statistics that could mislead the public. Filing inconsistent reports with other public data (e.g., BTS statistics) is evidence of fraud. Your theory is asinine.

There is a difference between hiding profitability and obscuring where (in terms of geographical region) the bulk of it is coming from.

The whole pie is still the same size, it is just how it is sliced.


Misleading investors on geographic unprofitability could certainly be a problem for the SEC and mandatory disclosure of meaningful information to investors. Violating a CFR on reporting requirements would be an issue for the DOT. This thread is going in entirely nonsensical directions.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 3:28 pm
by jayunited
LAXdude1023 wrote:
Except that I didn’t make that assertion at all. The OP did make the assertion that it was profitable. I asked him what made him think it was. I pointed to the BTS information as evidence that the network as a whole may not be. Some of the other posters mentioned that the airlines post fraudulent number in BTS and that may be true, but it’s the only numerical evidence that exists.

Aircraft gage isn’t a good way to determine profitably. NYC-Asia is extremely competitive. Even if EWR-Asia wasn’t profitable, it would still be in UAs best interest to put the best product it has in that market to attract more customers. In this case it’s the 77W and 787-10.


You are absolutely correct aircraft gage isn't a good way to determine profitability and even an insider like myself I don't know if UA's EWR-Asia flights are profitable or not. UA has never given an indication one way or the other.
But the point that 77H brought up is if UA's EWR-Asia flights were loss-leaders would UA add EWR-HND to an already existing EWR-NRT flight and would UA have applied to go daily double EWR-PVG? Again I have no idea if UA's Asia flights from EWR are profitable or not, its just seems strange that UA would seek to add more flights and capacity in this market if they weren't at least breaking even in this market.
Look at the landscape at ORD, AA is out of the China market and operates ORD-NRT less than daily on their own metal, while UA in 2020 is replacing ORD-NRT with ORD-HND. To gain better performance on ORD-HKG instead of upguaging to the 77W, UA swapped the PW 77E with a GE 77E. That simple swap for the most part has gotten rid of the daily weight restriction that has plagued this flight as the GE 77E can handle ORD-HKG-ORD with no problem.

When I compare UA's ORD-Asia operation to EWR-Asia, it seems like UA wants to grow EWR-Asia (upguaged EWR-HKG, will add HND and wants to go 2X PVG) while they are looking to just maintain what they have at ORD-Asia.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 4:51 pm
by x1234
jayunited, any chance of Taipei or Seoul from EWR!? Both cities are more wealthy than Mainland China but with less population and have higher per capita incomes and are both in the VISA Waiver Program (allies). TPE probaby has more of a chance from EWR because there is overkill of capacity on JFK-ICN (KE 2x A380 OZ 1x A380). UA should code-share on BR/EVA Air's daily JFK-TPE 77W.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 7:53 pm
by dmstorm22
x1234 wrote:
jayunited, any chance of Taipei or Seoul from EWR!? Both cities are more wealthy than Mainland China but with less population and have higher per capita incomes and are both in the VISA Waiver Program (allies). TPE probaby has more of a chance from EWR because there is overkill of capacity on JFK-ICN (KE 2x A380 OZ 1x A380). UA should code-share on BR/EVA Air's daily JFK-TPE 77W.


I thought the BR flight is 2x daily (or maybe 10x weekly)? Or did they ax the second flight.

For NYC-TPE demand have to factor in the CI flight as well.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Mon Jul 22, 2019 8:40 pm
by AirKevin
x1234 wrote:
UA should code-share on BR/EVA Air's daily JFK-TPE 77W.

They don't already do this? Interesting.
dmstorm22 wrote:
x1234 wrote:
jayunited, any chance of Taipei or Seoul from EWR!? Both cities are more wealthy than Mainland China but with less population and have higher per capita incomes and are both in the VISA Waiver Program (allies). TPE probaby has more of a chance from EWR because there is overkill of capacity on JFK-ICN (KE 2x A380 OZ 1x A380). UA should code-share on BR/EVA Air's daily JFK-TPE 77W.

I thought the BR flight is 2x daily (or maybe 10x weekly)? Or did they ax the second flight.

The afternoon flight wasn't daily, and it got axed some time last year, I think in July. I know this because when my mom tried to book that flight last September, she couldn't.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 3:40 am
by ArchGuy1
A good route for Delta to Asia from New York JFK non-stop would be Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur as they have the 777-200LR which has the range to do those flights.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 11:08 am
by J343
ArchGuy1 wrote:
A good route for Delta to Asia from New York JFK non-stop would be Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur as they have the 777-200LR which has the range to do those flights.


JFK-BKK/KUL.. really? MH (EWR via ARN) and TG (non-stop on the A340-500) can barely make it work. So why should DL? DL is conservative and as others have said, DL is late in the game when it comes to JFK-Asia. You have UA+NH JV with antitrust immunity with OZ, not to mention codeshares with BR. And then you have AA+JL JV in addition to AA's extensive codesharing agreement with CX. It is probably best that DL leaves JFK-Asia to KE. Plus, KE is a big player on ICN-N.America.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:20 pm
by flybry
TWA772LR wrote:
Am I the only one that finds DL not being able to serve JFK-Tokyo hilarious?


I agree! It is rather hilarious, and quite sad at the same time actually.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 1:21 pm
by Ishrion
J343 wrote:
ArchGuy1 wrote:
A good route for Delta to Asia from New York JFK non-stop would be Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur as they have the 777-200LR which has the range to do those flights.


JFK-BKK/KUL.. really? MH (EWR via ARN) and TG (non-stop on the A340-500) can barely make it work. So why should DL? DL is conservative and as others have said, DL is late in the game when it comes to JFK-Asia. You have UA+NH JV with antitrust immunity with OZ, not to mention codeshares with BR. And then you have AA+JL JV in addition to AA's extensive codesharing agreement with CX. It is probably best that DL leaves JFK-Asia to KE. Plus, KE is a big player on ICN-N.America.


He trolls often. In another thread I believe he was said Norwegian or LEVEL should launch Dubrovnik and Krakow to New York...

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Sun Aug 18, 2019 2:39 pm
by IPFreely
flybry wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
Am I the only one that finds DL not being able to serve JFK-Tokyo hilarious?


I agree! It is rather hilarious, and quite sad at the same time actually.


Not sure why it's sad or funny. Airlines can't be all things to everyone. DL has no feed in Tokyo and DL customers in the eastern third of the US who want to go to Tokyo can connect in DTW just as easily as JFK.

The only customers "left behind" are NYC-based travellers. And they have plenty of options for Tokyo nonstops, with connections in Tokyo, on other carriers.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 3:50 pm
by TYWoolman
I think Delta's Asian network fundamentally shifted for three primary reasons:
1) Longer-range aircraft availability to the market (for non-stops).
2) Losing JAL as a partner.
3) Competing against a rising American Airlines in Asia whose strategy (at least for the short-term) must heavily rely upon their joint venture partners and the notion that customers most likely don't care what metal they fly on.

American can offer the same destination choices as Delta does without a lot of expenditure, relative to the Northwest purchase (even though Northwest brought more to Delta than Tokyo). Delta had to do the same quickly. Enter: Korean. In due time, I think we will see more Delta metal to Asia from JFK to Haneda, Shanghai and Beijing, and particularly from Seattle into secondary Japanese markets: Nagoya, Fukuoka, Sapporo.

Delta's strategy, IMO, is all about staying ahead of American, and then eventually catching United.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 7:12 pm
by flybry
IPFreely wrote:
flybry wrote:
TWA772LR wrote:
Am I the only one that finds DL not being able to serve JFK-Tokyo hilarious?


I agree! It is rather hilarious, and quite sad at the same time actually.


Not sure why it's sad or funny. Airlines can't be all things to everyone. DL has no feed in Tokyo and DL customers in the eastern third of the US who want to go to Tokyo can connect in DTW just as easily as JFK.

The only customers "left behind" are NYC-based travellers. And they have plenty of options for Tokyo nonstops, with connections in Tokyo, on other carriers.


I just don’t understand how Delta can claim to be NYC’s #1 airline when it cannot even sustain one flight to Asia nonstop. It’s a gaping hole.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:13 pm
by spinotter
flybry wrote:
IPFreely wrote:
flybry wrote:

I agree! It is rather hilarious, and quite sad at the same time actually.


Not sure why it's sad or funny. Airlines can't be all things to everyone. DL has no feed in Tokyo and DL customers in the eastern third of the US who want to go to Tokyo can connect in DTW just as easily as JFK.

The only customers "left behind" are NYC-based travellers. And they have plenty of options for Tokyo nonstops, with connections in Tokyo, on other carriers.


I just don’t understand how Delta can claim to be NYC’s #1 airline when it cannot even sustain one flight to Asia nonstop. It’s a gaping hole.


I tend to think of UA and DL as equal sharersin NYC air traffic. UA has not had one flight to Africa until now. Ditto AA. DL is in the middle of a huge TPAC transformation. Wait for a few years and see what happens. KE and MU have NYC flights, the former as a JV.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 8:20 pm
by mpdpilot
This is a really interesting question because of the breadth of options from New York. Now don't misrepresent my comments, Delta is definitely not what UA is to Asia, but that doesn't mean Delta is useless if you live in the NYC area. To really look at the destinations list, you have to include codeshares as the average passenger doesn't see much of a difference. Looking at that, it comes down to TYO, PEK, HKG, and SIN (and DEL too but lets limit our thoughts to East Asia for the moment) for non-stop flights.

If you live/work in the New York area and you want to go from NYC to TYO, PEK, HKG, or SIN you are probably flying UA (*A) or OW. But I also bet that DL knows how many people in the New York area are potential customers and there isn't enough to fill an A350. Because remember, connections can be made other places so XXX-JFK-Asia doesn't help Delta too much because they can already do XXX-DTW-Asia on Delta.

After looking at those 4 destinations from NYC on Delta, this is the predicament they are in:

SIN - out, they aren't going to fly this nonstop, but plenty of people still do this one stop so not a big deal.
HKG - CX is so dominant in this market, it would be tough.
TYO - No more HND slots, if there was another slot for Delta, maybe but they have struggled here for so long, Delta will know when the market has grown enough to try again, likely many years in the future.
PEK - No more China slots, sure they could have used their MSP-PVG ask on JFK-PEK, but they will probably get more out of PVG from anywhere than PEK, this might change once PKX opens, but I would guess that there are more pressing routes into PKX to fly than JFK, especially when MU might fly it.

Below are the non-stop flights from Delta.com that I found, it isn't so bad compared to UA, but I did leave off most of UA's *A partners so it isn't quite Apples to Oranges.

From JFK
CI - TPE
MU - PVG x2
CZ - CAN x2
KE - ICN x2
DL - BOM
DL - TLV x2

From EWR
UA - TYO x2
UA - PVG x2*
UA - PEK
UA - HKG
UA - BOM
UA - DEL
UA - TLV x2
SQ - SIN
OZ - ICN (JFK)

* UA still needs approval for its second flight I believe.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:25 pm
by IPFreely
flybry wrote:
I just don’t understand how Delta can claim to be NYC’s #1 airline when it cannot even sustain one flight to Asia nonstop. It’s a gaping hole.


spinotter wrote:
I tend to think of UA and DL as equal sharersin NYC air traffic.


Delta is not NYC's #1 airline. And UA and Delta are not equal sharers in NYC air traffic. United has long been #1 in NYC:

Total 2018 passengers (domestic & international) at JFK, LGA, and EWR combined:
United 32,734,720
Delta 30,804,043
JetBlue 17,677,527
American 16,672,712

Source: https://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/ATR2018.pdf

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 10:42 pm
by ArchGuy1
Does United have any aircraft that can fly non-stop from Newark to Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:02 pm
by flybry
IPFreely wrote:
flybry wrote:
I just don’t understand how Delta can claim to be NYC’s #1 airline when it cannot even sustain one flight to Asia nonstop. It’s a gaping hole.


spinotter wrote:
I tend to think of UA and DL as equal sharersin NYC air traffic.


Delta is not NYC's #1 airline. And UA and Delta are not equal sharers in NYC air traffic. United has long been #1 in NYC:

Total 2018 passengers (domestic & international) at JFK, LGA, and EWR combined:
United 32,734,720
Delta 30,804,043
JetBlue 17,677,527
American 16,672,712

Source: https://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/ATR2018.pdf


Good point. UA is still the leader in the NYC market overall. Thanks for the stats.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:22 pm
by jayunited
mpdpilot wrote:
TYO - No more HND slots, if there was another slot for Delta, maybe but they have struggled here for so long, Delta will know when the market has grown enough to try again, likely many years in the future.
PEK - No more China slots, sure they could have used their MSP-PVG ask on JFK-PEK, but they will probably get more out of PVG from anywhere than PEK, this might change once PKX opens, but I would guess that there are more pressing routes into PKX to fly than JFK, especially when MU might fly it.


I appreciate your entire post but these two lines really caught my attention.
First concerning HND I like that your explanation because when I first read your post the first thought that popped into my brain was there were 12 slots available to U.S. carriers for HND however DL did not apply for JFK-HND. But then I went back and reread what you wrote in its entirety as it pertains to DL potentially starting JFK-HND and I have to agree we are years away from seeing DL on this route.
As far as JFK-PEK/PVG right now there are 3 tier 1 slots available. There are the 2 slot AA return and there was already a single slot in the pot before AA canceled ORD-PEK/PVG. DL has already applied for MSP-PVG and UA has applied for a second daily EWR-PVG, so there is still one slot without no application attached to it. I think the explanation you gave to the lack of a DL JFK-HND route also applies to the lack of service to China on DL metal from JFK. Perhaps in time DL will apply to service China from JFK but for now they believe their network would be better served with the addition of MSP instead of JFK.

Equally as interesting is UA hasn't applied for the last tier 1 slot either and UA applied to 2x daily EWR-PVG service after DL applied for MSP. Which that the time there was only one tier 1 slot do to the fact AA had not yet returned their Chicago slots. Makes me wonder, if the these two airlines are awarded the slots they've already applied for how long will the last tier 1 slot go unused? If DL does make a move for the last slot will UA respond? Or vise versa if UA were to apply for the last slot would DL respond with another application perhaps a JFK flight? Both of these airlines have their eyes set on Asia but are going down different paths except for when it comes to China. China is where their DL and UA's paths cross and neither wants to yield an inch to the other in China.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Mon Aug 19, 2019 11:26 pm
by spinotter
flybry wrote:
IPFreely wrote:
flybry wrote:
I just don’t understand how Delta can claim to be NYC’s #1 airline when it cannot even sustain one flight to Asia nonstop. It’s a gaping hole.


spinotter wrote:
I tend to think of UA and DL as equal sharersin NYC air traffic.


Delta is not NYC's #1 airline. And UA and Delta are not equal sharers in NYC air traffic. United has long been #1 in NYC:

Total 2018 passengers (domestic & international) at JFK, LGA, and EWR combined:
United 32,734,720
Delta 30,804,043
JetBlue 17,677,527
American 16,672,712

Source: https://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/ATR2018.pdf


Good point. UA is still the leader in the NYC market overall. Thanks for the stats.


So UA had 106% of the 2018 passengers that DL had. Not much difference, really. They are both double the numbers for B6 and AA.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:19 am
by LAXdude1023
ArchGuy1 wrote:
Does United have any aircraft that can fly non-stop from Newark to Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur.


Technically. But they might as well just flush money down the toilet instead.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 12:33 am
by FSDan
IPFreely wrote:
flybry wrote:
I just don’t understand how Delta can claim to be NYC’s #1 airline when it cannot even sustain one flight to Asia nonstop. It’s a gaping hole.


spinotter wrote:
I tend to think of UA and DL as equal sharersin NYC air traffic.


Delta is not NYC's #1 airline. And UA and Delta are not equal sharers in NYC air traffic. United has long been #1 in NYC:

Total 2018 passengers (domestic & international) at JFK, LGA, and EWR combined:
United 32,734,720
Delta 30,804,043
JetBlue 17,677,527
American 16,672,712

Source: https://www.panynj.gov/airports/pdf-traffic/ATR2018.pdf


This summer, DL offered more daily flights and more daily seats from the NYC area than UA did. I'm not sure if UA will offer more flights/seats in the winter - both airlines' ops shrink some in the off season... UA is definitely still ahead of DL by ASMs since they have more ULH flights (and on larger aircraft) than DL does from NYC, but I'd be surprised if DL isn't solidly ahead of UA in the domestic market from NYC at this point. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see DL pass UA in # of passengers carried in the NYC area in the next few years, although if UA is able to keep upgauging flights at EWR they could stay ahead. Either way, it's close between these two.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 3:55 am
by LAX772LR
ArchGuy1 wrote:
A good route for Delta to Asia from New York JFK non-stop would be Bangkok or Kuala Lumpur as they have the 777-200LR which has the range to do those flights.

Curious, why do you think that would be a "good route?"

The economics of both of those destinations are so weak that no one flies them nonstop to any US gateway. Why would DL?


TYWoolman wrote:
Losing JAL as a partner.

More accurately: failing to gain JL as a partner.

JL and DL were not partners.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 4:54 am
by TYWoolman
TYWoolman wrote:
Losing JAL as a partner.

More accurately: failing to gain JL as a partner.

JL and DL were not partners.[/quote]



Correct! I didn't mean to imply they were partners, but losing the battle to take JAL away from American. Thanks for the clarification!

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 7:47 pm
by mpdpilot
jayunited wrote:
As far as JFK-PEK/PVG right now there are 3 tier 1 slots available. There are the 2 slot AA return and there was already a single slot in the pot before AA canceled ORD-PEK/PVG. DL has already applied for MSP-PVG and UA has applied for a second daily EWR-PVG, so there is still one slot without no application attached to it. I think the explanation you gave to the lack of a DL JFK-HND route also applies to the lack of service to China on DL metal from JFK. Perhaps in time DL will apply to service China from JFK but for now they believe their network would be better served with the addition of MSP instead of JFK.

Equally as interesting is UA hasn't applied for the last tier 1 slot either and UA applied to 2x daily EWR-PVG service after DL applied for MSP. Which that the time there was only one tier 1 slot do to the fact AA had not yet returned their Chicago slots. Makes me wonder, if the these two airlines are awarded the slots they've already applied for how long will the last tier 1 slot go unused? If DL does make a move for the last slot will UA respond? Or vise versa if UA were to apply for the last slot would DL respond with another application perhaps a JFK flight? Both of these airlines have their eyes set on Asia but are going down different paths except for when it comes to China. China is where their DL and UA's paths cross and neither wants to yield an inch to the other in China.


This is interesting, I didn't realize that there were 3 slots up for grabs at the moment. I wonder if DL is waiting to see what PKX brings to the mix because I could see DL not seeing the benefit to adding a 3rd JFK-PVG flight (being that they codeshare on MU). If PKX becomes the megahub that it is planned to be perhaps DL's only Asian destination from JFK will be Beijing.

I am guessing that DL has a pretty good idea of how many NYC Delta fliers take MUs PVG flights so the fact that they requested MSP-PVG over JFK-PVG is telling.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:07 pm
by strfyr51
jfklganyc wrote:
Reading the India start/restart threads got me thinking

These routes are supposedly very profitable for UA. Same market essentially, but DL isnt very interested in NRT HND China and is just starting to put its toe in India.

Historically, CO had to start these routes from EWR if they wanted to serve these cities. They had 3 hubs and EWR was best-suited for these long haul flights.

Historically, DL had several more hubs than Continental, and had more options for starting long haul Asia beyond NYC.

UA has kept these supposedly very profitable services, while DL has shrunk Asian service from JFK.

Why?

If these markets are so profitable, why isnt DL in them?

The Asian carriers at JFK? Maybe. But some of them are quite iffy. Im sure Delta Medallions would jump at DL vs Air China.

The hub size differential for connections? DL and UA are on parity in NYC, but DL has a split hub where UA doesnt. Nonetheless, One with think the profitability of these flights comes from the O and D. Surely, DL has enough feed at JFK to launch a morning bank of Asia flights to help O and D.

Lack of interest is serving the Asia NYC customer?
Maybe. But given the resources they have thrown at winning NYC in last 10 years, I find it odd that they would draw the line at Asia.

Perhaps these flights arent as profitable as we think on a.net?
This is the one that piques my interest.

I see some lost history Here. United closed JFK also had operations at EWR Long Before the UA/CO merger LONG before the merger we had 747's flying UA 34 and 35 out of EWR-SFO-HNL. And you can verify it. We had a full staff of mechanics there as well as JFK and LGA, After Bankruptcy we withered away at JFK as we didn't have our OWN terminal. So it was no surprise when we closed JFK. But EWR? We Never closed EWR. After the merger it got even Larger. CO had a larger operation there but it made sense to combine the operations. CO didn't give UA Anything in EWR except more flights. And? I'll make book we go Back into JFK!

NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:37 pm
by STT757
jfklganyc wrote:
Reading the India start/restart threads got me thinking

These routes are supposedly very profitable for UA. Same market essentially, but DL isnt very interested in NRT HND China and is just starting to put its toe in India.

Historically, CO had to start these routes from EWR if they wanted to serve these cities. They had 3 hubs and EWR was best-suited for these long haul flights.

Historically, DL had several more hubs than Continental, and had more options for starting long haul Asia beyond NYC.

UA has kept these supposedly very profitable services, while DL has shrunk Asian service from JFK.

Why?

If these markets are so profitable, why isnt DL in them?

The Asian carriers at JFK? Maybe. But some of them are quite iffy. Im sure Delta Medallions would jump at DL vs Air China.

The hub size differential for connections? DL and UA are on parity in NYC, but DL has a split hub where UA doesnt. Nonetheless, One with think the profitability of these flights comes from the O and D. Surely, DL has enough feed at JFK to launch a morning bank of Asia flights to help O and D.

Lack of interest is serving the Asia NYC customer?
Maybe. But given the resources they have thrown at winning NYC in last 10 years, I find it odd that they would draw the line at Asia.

Perhaps these flights arent as profitable as we think on a.net?
This is the one that piques my interest.


UA is now going double daily to Tokyo from EWR, keeping the 77W on the NRT flight. They upgraded Hong Kong to the 77W, they’re restoring the India flights with BOM also getting their largest aircraft the 77W and they’ve applied for a second daily frequency for EWR-Shanghai vs launching IAH-China or adding a second China frequency to LAX or IAD.

But the conspiracy is that the routes are not profitable ? Why can’t some folks just give credit where credit is due. If you include pre-merger United’s history combined with Continental they have been flying nonstop to Asia from EWR continuously since 1989 when UA launched EWR-NRT with a 747SP. That’s thirty years of combined service nonstop to Asia from EWR. Nearly twenty years of nonstop service to Hong Kong, fifteen years of flying nonstop to mainland China from EWR and fifteen years of flying nonstop to India from EWR.

But the conspiracy behind it all is that those routes operate at a loss. Otherwise AA and DL would certainly be following suit, has nothing to do with any shortcomings of those carriers or the operations from Kennedy.

Come on, give credit where credit is due. Leave the conspiracy theory stuff to the non-aviation forum.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 8:39 pm
by kiowa
questions wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
Is that how you feel or is that fact? Got any recent polls to back that up? I'd say just as important to lucrative, premium passengers is getting to where they are going with a reputable, on time airline and not roll the dice with the other US2 and their alliances. Connecting in ICN is a breeze, especially in ICN's brand new terminal 2. A million times nicer than the train wrecks that are just about any of the big US airports. Plus, its very fast, convenient and seamless. In fact, I would say thats now an advantage to DL/KL for passengers connecting into Asia from the states. ICN, very few delays. Cant say the same about UA at SFO and AA at DFW.


That’s how you feel and definitely not a fact. Do you have any polls to back that up? I seriously doubt it.

The vast majority of experienced travelers would say you’re wrong. KL passengers would NOT think its “an advantage” to fly from AMS, through the US and transit in ICN to get to their Asian destination just to experience a “very fast, convenient and seamless” “breeze” of a connection in the “million times nicer” ICN.

That’s just crazy talk. No research needed.


Got to agree with you. I would Much rather be on United or American than Delta and certainly not any connections on Korean. Just my opinion but I also have no desire to connect in ICN.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Tue Aug 20, 2019 9:25 pm
by flybry
slcdeltarumd11 wrote:
Delta has good access to Asia via SEA, ICN, and DTW. No reason delta needs to fly any routes direct. They can one-stop to all the major cities.


Um, tell that to people in NYC. I prefer nonstops to Asia any day over a “one-stop” to Asia. Delta is just simply not competitive in this market. Full stop.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Wed Aug 21, 2019 12:17 am
by IPFreely
flybry wrote:
Um, tell that to people in NYC. I prefer nonstops to Asia any day over a “one-stop” to Asia. Delta is just simply not competitive in this market. Full stop.


I don't think slcdeltarumd11 is referring to people in NYC. For travelers based in NYC, Delta is not competitive to Asia in general and definitely not a factor in the NYC-Japan market. Nobody doubts that. I think slcdeltarumcd11 is referring to travelers from places like rural Pennsylvania, Ohio, Kentucky, Indiana, etc., maybe even upstate New York. For those travelers, DL (thru DTW), UA (thru ORD), or AA (thru ORD) are all somewhat similarly competitive to Asia.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 1:00 am
by jfklganyc
STT757 wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Reading the India start/restart threads got me thinking

These routes are supposedly very profitable for UA. Same market essentially, but DL isnt very interested in NRT HND China and is just starting to put its toe in India.

Historically, CO had to start these routes from EWR if they wanted to serve these cities. They had 3 hubs and EWR was best-suited for these long haul flights.

Historically, DL had several more hubs than Continental, and had more options for starting long haul Asia beyond NYC.

UA has kept these supposedly very profitable services, while DL has shrunk Asian service from JFK.

Why?

If these markets are so profitable, why isnt DL in them?

The Asian carriers at JFK? Maybe. But some of them are quite iffy. Im sure Delta Medallions would jump at DL vs Air China.

The hub size differential for connections? DL and UA are on parity in NYC, but DL has a split hub where UA doesnt. Nonetheless, One with think the profitability of these flights comes from the O and D. Surely, DL has enough feed at JFK to launch a morning bank of Asia flights to help O and D.

Lack of interest is serving the Asia NYC customer?
Maybe. But given the resources they have thrown at winning NYC in last 10 years, I find it odd that they would draw the line at Asia.

Perhaps these flights arent as profitable as we think on a.net?
This is the one that piques my interest.


UA is now going double daily to Tokyo from EWR, keeping the 77W on the NRT flight. They upgraded Hong Kong to the 77W, they’re restoring the India flights with BOM also getting their largest aircraft the 77W and they’ve applied for a second daily frequency for EWR-Shanghai vs launching IAH-China or adding a second China frequency to LAX or IAD.

But the conspiracy is that the routes are not profitable ? Why can’t some folks just give credit where credit is due. If you include pre-merger United’s history combined with Continental they have been flying nonstop to Asia from EWR continuously since 1989 when UA launched EWR-NRT with a 747SP. That’s thirty years of combined service nonstop to Asia from EWR. Nearly twenty years of nonstop service to Hong Kong, fifteen years of flying nonstop to mainland China from EWR and fifteen years of flying nonstop to India from EWR.

But the conspiracy behind it all is that those routes operate at a loss. Otherwise AA and DL would certainly be following suit, has nothing to do with any shortcomings of those carriers or the operations from Kennedy.

Come on, give credit where credit is due. Leave the conspiracy theory stuff to the non-aviation forum.



What conspiracy did I talk about that you are quoting me STT?

If anything, I want to know why AA and DL cant do what UA is doing

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:20 am
by MIflyer12
We're not going to get reliable data on carrier profitability by route. We can infer that, in the presence of increasing frequency or increasing seat count, it's a good route for carrier XX. (Or that they have a bunch of shiny new aircraft and have no better place to put them. Think on that, after UA's failures to secondary China cities.)

In terms of TRASM (total revenue per available seat mile), UA lags both AA and DL. See the annual reports and quarterly filings. UA is about a penny a mile behind AA; about 1.8 cents per mile behind DL. Would you stop on the sidewalk to pick up 1.8 cents? Would you like to have 1.8 cents deposited to your bank account automatically 275 Billion times a year? That's the TRASM gap between UA and DL. Is DL way behind UA in TPAC flights out of NYC? They surely are. Is it a bad business decision? Nobody's offered proof.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:29 am
by STT757
jfklganyc wrote:
STT757 wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
Reading the India start/restart threads got me thinking

These routes are supposedly very profitable for UA. Same market essentially, but DL isnt very interested in NRT HND China and is just starting to put its toe in India.

Historically, CO had to start these routes from EWR if they wanted to serve these cities. They had 3 hubs and EWR was best-suited for these long haul flights.

Historically, DL had several more hubs than Continental, and had more options for starting long haul Asia beyond NYC.

UA has kept these supposedly very profitable services, while DL has shrunk Asian service from JFK.

Why?

If these markets are so profitable, why isnt DL in them?

The Asian carriers at JFK? Maybe. But some of them are quite iffy. Im sure Delta Medallions would jump at DL vs Air China.

The hub size differential for connections? DL and UA are on parity in NYC, but DL has a split hub where UA doesnt. Nonetheless, One with think the profitability of these flights comes from the O and D. Surely, DL has enough feed at JFK to launch a morning bank of Asia flights to help O and D.

Lack of interest is serving the Asia NYC customer?
Maybe. But given the resources they have thrown at winning NYC in last 10 years, I find it odd that they would draw the line at Asia.

Perhaps these flights arent as profitable as we think on a.net?
This is the one that piques my interest.


UA is now going double daily to Tokyo from EWR, keeping the 77W on the NRT flight. They upgraded Hong Kong to the 77W, they’re restoring the India flights with BOM also getting their largest aircraft the 77W and they’ve applied for a second daily frequency for EWR-Shanghai vs launching IAH-China or adding a second China frequency to LAX or IAD.

But the conspiracy is that the routes are not profitable ? Why can’t some folks just give credit where credit is due. If you include pre-merger United’s history combined with Continental they have been flying nonstop to Asia from EWR continuously since 1989 when UA launched EWR-NRT with a 747SP. That’s thirty years of combined service nonstop to Asia from EWR. Nearly twenty years of nonstop service to Hong Kong, fifteen years of flying nonstop to mainland China from EWR and fifteen years of flying nonstop to India from EWR.

But the conspiracy behind it all is that those routes operate at a loss. Otherwise AA and DL would certainly be following suit, has nothing to do with any shortcomings of those carriers or the operations from Kennedy.

Come on, give credit where credit is due. Leave the conspiracy theory stuff to the non-aviation forum.



What conspiracy did I talk about that you are quoting me STT?

If anything, I want to know why AA and DL cant do what UA is doing


The conspiracy is your implying that the problem is not just with NWA, AA, DL for their failure last at Kennedy. But it’s also UA, who are faking profits with their Asian routes from EWR?

A conspiracy 30 years in the making going back to those UA 74SPs from EWR-NRT in 1989.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:52 am
by jfklganyc
I actually listed several reasons why they could not work out of JFK vs EWR.

If you re read without EWR bias, you will see the question I am asking is quite simple...why can’t the hub carriers at JFK make this work?

No conspiracy

Very good thread that spurred a good discussion

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 10:54 am
by jfklganyc
I actually listed several reasons why they could not work out of JFK vs EWR.

If you re read without EWR bias, you will see the question I am asking is quite simple...why can’t the hub carriers at JFK make this work?

No conspiracy

Very good thread that spurred a good discussion

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 1:49 pm
by HP69
DL could easily make nonstops from JFK to NRT, PEK, PVG, HKG, TPE, MNL, andSGN work.

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:20 pm
by Nicknuzzii
What people don't realize is what DL is doing with two hubs in NYC, UA could do in one. That's what really sets the two airlines apart. As a matter of fact, UA doesn't even serve all 3 airports!

Re: NYC-Asia DL vs UA

Posted: Fri Aug 23, 2019 2:32 pm
by rjmf22
Nicknuzzii wrote:
What people don't realize is what DL is doing with two hubs in NYC, UA could do in one. That's what really sets the two airlines apart. As a matter of fact, UA doesn't even serve all 3 airports!


They don't need to. UA would like to have their JFK slots back, but theyre doing just fine in the NYC area without it, and better than Delta as the numbers prove.