I think this is another indication Delta is serious about overtaking Alaska to become the number one carrier in Seattle full stop.

LAXdude1023 wrote:

This makes the thread about what UA needs to do next answer more clear: nothing.

Let DL and AA get in a pissing match. UA can just focus on its own plans.

Haha I think you are right there! Although if I remember correctly, United is just embarking on a new round of transatlantic expansion from SFO, also LH to SEA against DE. An ineviable consequence would be a yield drop for the Star JV as well.

DL is a great airline, but AS will always be my first choice when flying to SEA, the PNW, or the State of Alaska. AS is a gem, and I would hate to see them get taken over or acquired. DL/AA/UA/WN control everything else. I want to see AS around for many years to come.

As for UA, they have SFO. UA does not need SEA to be anything other than what it is. Let AS/AA and DL fight it out in SEA.

I am assuming it will be on a 764ER to be consistent with them going to LHR?

Indy wrote:

SeanM1997 wrote:

London Heathrow - Delta Summer 2021, at present:
2x ATL
1x BOS
2x DTW
1x MSP
3x JFK
1x PDX
1x SLC
1x SEA

12 daily flights would be the highest number of flights Delta have ever had at Heathrow

Did DL have unused slots at LHR? Are they getting additional for the SEA flight, or is something else getting dropped?

Good question, and it wasn’t revealed. Can VS simply “sell” (give away) to DL another one of their LHR slots?

Any idea which aircraft will operate SEA-LHR?

I am willing to bet this is merely a reallocation of the PDX-LHR route to SEA. With BA year-round on PDX-LHR, the chances of that route returning in S21 were slim. By moving it to SEA-LHR, they feel it at least matches what AA/BA can offer.

N649DL wrote:

For some reason, I was already under the assumption that DL was flying SEA-LHR already? I had no idea the market was that saturated. NW actually tried SEA-LGW back in 2008 and that didn't stick around.

NW launched SEA/LHR not LGW. It was one of the first routes brought back after the DL/VS JV, originally on DL metal.

flybry wrote:

I think this is another indication Delta is serious about overtaking Alaska to become the number one carrier in Seattle full stop.

Which isn't going to happen

717atOGG wrote:

Interesting. It’s still not completely clear whether the new AA SEA-LHR flight is complementing or replacing BA’s 2 daily flights during peak season, but either way, by S21 we should have either 6 or 7 peak daily flights between SEA and LON: 2.5 from VS and DL, 2/3 from AA/BA, and DY 3x/week from LGW. I know SEA has been experiencing explosive growth lately, but I wonder if this will be sustainable long term...we shall see.

I can't imagine how Seattle-London could support 6 or 7 daily widebody flights even in the Summer, even if a large number are connecting to other destinations.

Tokyo and Seoul are I think three daily nonstops maximum, Beijing two, and Shanghai and Hong Kong and other cities in Asia just one.

Is there a publicly available source to look up O&D traffic between cities?

Jet-lagged wrote:

717atOGG wrote:

Interesting. It’s still not completely clear whether the new AA SEA-LHR flight is complementing or replacing BA’s 2 daily flights during peak season, but either way, by S21 we should have either 6 or 7 peak daily flights between SEA and LON: 2.5 from VS and DL, 2/3 from AA/BA, and DY 3x/week from LGW. I know SEA has been experiencing explosive growth lately, but I wonder if this will be sustainable long term...we shall see.

I can't imagine how Seattle-London could support 6 or 7 daily widebody flights even in the Summer, even if a large number are connecting to other destinations.

Tokyo and Seoul are I think three daily nonstops maximum, Beijing two, and Shanghai and Hong Kong and other cities in Asia just one.

Is there a publicly available source to look up O&D traffic between cities?

I tend to agree that is a lot of capacity, even with connections. My guess is AA replaces a BA flight and DL ends up replacing a VS flight (although the PR says in addition to).

onwFan wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

This makes the thread about what UA needs to do next answer more clear: nothing.

Let DL and AA get in a pissing match. UA can just focus on its own plans.

Haha I think you are right there! Although if I remember correctly, United is just embarking on a new round of transatlantic expansion from SFO, also LH to SEA against DE. An ineviable consequence would be a yield drop for the Star JV as well.

The only new international route announced for SFO this year is Dublin.

BNAMealer wrote:

flybry wrote:

I think this is another indication Delta is serious about overtaking Alaska to become the number one carrier in Seattle full stop.

Which isn't going to happen

Don't say never. Delta is gargantuan in comparison to Alaska.

Delta taking on British Airways and AA to London takes balls, Delta really should worry about Asia and not Europe in Seattle. Delta should leave the SEA to LHR market to Virgin Atlantic. Delta has better uses for an A330 than this.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

The daily DL SEA-LHR flight will compliment VS’ 2x daily SEA-LHR flight.

That's the important detail in an anti-trust immunized, revenue-sharing JV. It really doesn't matter which party operates it.

Seven or eight flights a day does sound like a lot of seats for a West Coast market the size of SEA to LON. Compare it to YVR, SFO (and DEN or ORD).

No way Seattle will be able to maintain 7x daily to London.

YVR-LON is 4x daily in the summer 1/ea AC,BA to LHR, TS,WS to LGW; and the BA flight is an A380

BNAMealer wrote:

flybry wrote:

I think this is another indication Delta is serious about overtaking Alaska to become the number one carrier in Seattle full stop.

Which isn't going to happen

I’d argue that DL will overtake AS in the PNW. Like what it did to AA in JFK.

DL has a massive operation that can subsidize growing SEA into its vision of a Asian gateway, and can even justify TPAC out of PDX. SEA is home to the newest DL jets with better product than either AS or AA offer, and the A220 is a weapon that can bust into fortress hubs profitably. JVs make a strong contender for TPAC and TATL flying with KE and VS respectively.

AS arguably made a mistake getting embroiled in the bloodbath that is intra-Californian flying and buying VX, with issues in SFO. They are struggling with MAX groundings and a questionable future for Airbus jets in their roster. Alliances are dead; AS can only do so much with alliances with JL/AA/BA versus joint ventures. Arguably AS frequent fliers had better choices pre-OW (SQ, EK, KE, LATAM).

Ishrion wrote:

717atOGG wrote:

Interesting. It’s still not completely clear whether the new AA SEA-LHR flight is complementing or replacing BA’s 2 daily flights during peak season, but either way, by S21 weshould have either 6 or 7 peak daily flights between SEA and LON: 2.5 from VS and DL, 2/3 from AA/BA, and DY 3x/week from LGW. I know SEA has been experiencing explosive growth lately, but I wonder if this will be sustainable long term...we shall see.

Not sure where I read it, but I believe they’re complementing BA’s existing flights.

Somehow? It seems Delta didn't think this through in trying to invade Alaska's hub without aligning With Alaska. But? Once United was forced into giving up the SEA-NRT & SEA-HKG routes? Nobody has of yet made them work on the US side. I do not understand why though. Those were premier routes to build on. Northwest made money on them and Delta should have as well. Maybe it was a lack of vision? Who Knows?

Aceskywalker wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

flybry wrote:

I think this is another indication Delta is serious about overtaking Alaska to become the number one carrier in Seattle full stop.

Which isn't going to happen

I’d argue that DL will overtake AS in the PNW. Like what it did to AA in JFK.

DL has a massive operation that can subsidize growing SEA into its vision of a Asian gateway, and can even justify TPAC out of PDX. SEA is home to the newest DL jets with better product than either AS or AA offer, and the A220 is a weapon that can bust into fortress hubs profitably. JVs make a strong contender for TPAC and TATL flying with KE and VS respectively.

AS arguably made a mistake getting embroiled in the bloodbath that is intra-Californian flying and buying VX, with issues in SFO. They are struggling with MAX groundings and a questionable future for Airbus jets in their roster. Alliances are dead; AS can only do so much with alliances with JL/AA/BA versus joint ventures. Arguably AS frequent fliers had better choices pre-OW (SQ, EK, KE, LATAM).

Exactly WHAT issues ARE YOU REFERRING TO at SFO?? I see "shots" like that a lot about SFO and nobody can ever fill in the picture.
Exactly What Issues do you refer TO?? I worked there 30 years and I didn't see any unless you refer to the bad weather issues. But that affects EVERYONE!! And it treats everybody Badly Alike, Either you "Man up" and face them? Or run screaming like some Sissy! So? Which is it because SFO isn't going anywhere in the near future and no new runway into the Bay will be built in the near Future. so it is what it is. Like it or not!!

Aceskywalker wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

flybry wrote:

I think this is another indication Delta is serious about overtaking Alaska to become the number one carrier in Seattle full stop.

Which isn't going to happen

I’d argue that DL will overtake AS in the PNW. Like what it did to AA in JFK.

DL has a massive operation that can subsidize growing SEA into its vision of a Asian gateway, and can even justify TPAC out of PDX. SEA is home to the newest DL jets with better product than either AS or AA offer, and the A220 is a weapon that can bust into fortress hubs profitably. JVs make a strong contender for TPAC and TATL flying with KE and VS respectively.

AS arguably made a mistake getting embroiled in the bloodbath that is intra-Californian flying and buying VX, with issues in SFO. They are struggling with MAX groundings and a questionable future for Airbus jets in their roster. Alliances are dead; AS can only do so much with alliances with JL/AA/BA versus joint ventures. Arguably AS frequent fliers had better choices pre-OW (SQ, EK, KE, LATAM).

AS made a tactical decision to buy VA. What appears to me? they were trying to recreate the PSA west coast model before PSA was bought by USAir. as that route structure has never been re-duplicated like it was then PSA and AirCal ran the Western Seaboard. American dismantled the AirCal routes and USAir dismantled the PSA Routes and to date? NOBODY has yet duplicated those routes, Not even Southwest. But AS wanted to push east and VA was also ready to push east to become an alternative to United out of both SFO and LAX. and with some larger airplanes? They might make it. However? Southwest beat them into Denver, and ORD is now under expansion and will be for some time to come and It doesn't look like American NOR United is going to make room for quite a while to come,, American has a pretty good hold on PHL So they can get in at IAD though BWI is WN. DCA is jammed tight. So? Where do they expand to and Not become the weak sister? JFK with American, BOS, RDU, and MIA, Not to mention CLT, and MCO. One thing for sure. Alaska is NOT done!! Though their move will have to be tactically flawless.

Aceskywalker wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

flybry wrote:

I think this is another indication Delta is serious about overtaking Alaska to become the number one carrier in Seattle full stop.

Which isn't going to happen

I’d argue that DL will overtake AS in the PNW. Like what it did to AA in JFK.

DL has a massive operation that can subsidize growing SEA into its vision of a Asian gateway, and can even justify TPAC out of PDX. SEA is home to the newest DL jets with better product than either AS or AA offer, and the A220 is a weapon that can bust into fortress hubs profitably. JVs make a strong contender for TPAC and TATL flying with KE and VS respectively.

AS arguably made a mistake getting embroiled in the bloodbath that is intra-Californian flying and buying VX, with issues in SFO. They are struggling with MAX groundings and a questionable future for Airbus jets in their roster. Alliances are dead; AS can only do so much with alliances with JL/AA/BA versus joint ventures. Arguably AS frequent fliers had better choices pre-OW (SQ, EK, KE, LATAM).

AS can't lose SEA to DL. Not if it still wants to survive.

SEAflyer97 wrote:

N649DL wrote:

For some reason, I was already under the assumption that DL was flying SEA-LHR already? I had no idea the market was that saturated. NW actually tried SEA-LGW back in 2008 and that didn't stick around.

DL's TATL JV--VS is flying 1x daily(2x peak season)

Meh, then DL really doesn't need to fly it. That is unless they're taking over the JV flight from VS.

NW wrote:

N649DL wrote:

For some reason, I was already under the assumption that DL was flying SEA-LHR already? I had no idea the market was that saturated. NW actually tried SEA-LGW back in 2008 and that didn't stick around.

NW launched SEA/LHR not LGW. It was one of the first routes brought back after the DL/VS JV, originally on DL metal.

Thanks, I forgot it's a decade or so lol. IIRC, NW operated the route on an A333 and (IIRC) dropped SEA-LHR before the merger was even completed with DL. At the time, it was a shot in the dark for NW to do well as they didn't have the feed for the route and relied mostly on O&D during the recession. NW had cut down it's presence at SEA well before the merger, so the launch of SEA-LHR was pretty random at the time.

SEA is a really weird market for International flights. Recall UA has entered and dumped SEA-NRT twice, and briefly flew SEA-LHR as well. AA even flew SEA-NRT until after 9/11 (which I think CO sold to AA) and that was a super random route for them considering they were already flying SJC-NRT and didn't have much of a presence at SEA to begin with.

Aceskywalker wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

flybry wrote:

I think this is another indication Delta is serious about overtaking Alaska to become the number one carrier in Seattle full stop.

Which isn't going to happen

I’d argue that DL will overtake AS in the PNW. Like what it did to AA in JFK.

DL has a massive operation that can subsidize growing SEA into its vision of a Asian gateway, and can even justify TPAC out of PDX. SEA is home to the newest DL jets with better product than either AS or AA offer, and the A220 is a weapon that can bust into fortress hubs profitably. JVs make a strong contender for TPAC and TATL flying with KE and VS respectively.

AS arguably made a mistake getting embroiled in the bloodbath that is intra-Californian flying and buying VX, with issues in SFO. They are struggling with MAX groundings and a questionable future for Airbus jets in their roster. Alliances are dead; AS can only do so much with alliances with JL/AA/BA versus joint ventures. Arguably AS frequent fliers had better choices pre-OW (SQ, EK, KE, LATAM).

I agree. Delta will eventually overtake Alaska in Seattle much like Delta has done to AA at JFK.

N649DL wrote:

SEAflyer97 wrote:

N649DL wrote:

For some reason, I was already under the assumption that DL was flying SEA-LHR already? I had no idea the market was that saturated. NW actually tried SEA-LGW back in 2008 and that didn't stick around.

DL's TATL JV--VS is flying 1x daily(2x peak season)

Meh, then DL really doesn't need to fly it. That is unless they're taking over the JV flight from VS.

Why? There are plenty of routes where both VS and DL fly. Same with AF/KLM JV flights.

spinotter wrote:

invertir wrote:

The SEA-DFW is hilariously petty, but that said, it's on a A220 so the unit economics will be incredible. Won't take too many people on the plane to pay for it.

If DL is serious about establishing a growing hub at SEA, they will need to fly nonstop to DFW, IAH, IAD, MIA or FLL, and so on, just like the flights from their other main hubs.

Delta needs another strong TPAC partner.

flybry wrote:

I agree. Delta will eventually overtake Alaska in Seattle much like Delta has done to AA at JFK.

Facility restraints make that physically impossible.

flybry wrote:

Delta will eventually overtake Alaska in Seattle much like Delta has done to AA at JFK.

Using what gates, exactly?

EA CO AS wrote:

flybry wrote:

Delta will eventually overtake Alaska in Seattle much like Delta has done to AA at JFK.

Using what gates, exactly?

Maybe Delta will make a deal with United? United has all but abandoned Seattle compared to the market share it used to have. Perhaps Delta can get some of United’s gates?

EA CO AS wrote:

Using what gates, exactly?

When the recession hits, either AS/AA or DL will blink, and there will be plenty of gates...

Will AS stop the code-share arrangements with Star and SkyTeam partners like KE/SQ etc? Might have missed that in the presser.

If that's the case, what options does AS have at SEA in terms of international flying? BA/AA/CX/JL?

flyinghippo wrote:

Will AS stop the code-share arrangements with Star and SkyTeam partners like KE/SQ etc? Might have missed that in the presser.

If that's the case, what options does AS have at SEA in terms of international flying? BA/AA/CX/JL?

AS is not expected to drop any relationships they currently have because of them joining OW.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

flybry wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

flybry wrote:

Delta will eventually overtake Alaska in Seattle much like Delta has done to AA at JFK.

Using what gates, exactly?

Maybe Delta will make a deal with United? United has all but abandoned Seattle compared to the market share it used to have. Perhaps Delta can get some of United’s gates?

Why would UA want to help DL out anywhere, think about that for a moment. UA does not benefit by letting DL grown in SEA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

WidebodyPTV wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Using what gates, exactly?

When the recession hits, either AS/AA or DL will blink, and there will be plenty of gates...

It's more likely to be Delta IMHO. They can "live" without Seattle, Alaska can't. If AS draw down SEA they're on a one-way trip to acquisition. They know this, and will fight tooth and nail. Delta is a smart company, and while potential losses in SEA are small in the scale of their business, if the market completely tanks they aren't going to continue throwing good money after bad just for the sheer hell of it.

But unless AS either draw down SEA, go into liquidation, or get purchased by DL (all of which are very unlikely) then DL will never be larger than them in SEA. Real estate makes it physically impossible, and that isn't going to change anytime soon, if ever.

chepos wrote:

flybry wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

Using what gates, exactly?

Maybe Delta will make a deal with United? United has all but abandoned Seattle compared to the market share it used to have. Perhaps Delta can get some of United’s gates?

Why would UA want to help DL out anywhere, think about that for a moment. UA does not benefit by letting DL grown in SEA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It wouldn’t be the first time. United sold its NYC to LON route authority to Delta. And then there was the EWR and JFK slots deal between the two. They have a history of these kinds of transactions.

flybry wrote:

chepos wrote:

flybry wrote:

Maybe Delta will make a deal with United? United has all but abandoned Seattle compared to the market share it used to have. Perhaps Delta can get some of United’s gates?

Why would UA want to help DL out anywhere, think about that for a moment. UA does not benefit by letting DL grown in SEA.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It wouldn’t be the first time. United sold its NYC to LON route authority to Delta. And then there was the EWR and JFK slots deal between the two. They have a history of these kinds of transactions.

United doesn't have anything to give DL in SEA. The gates they use are common use gates and if they were to become available it would be up to the port how they allocate those gates. AS could just as easily add more flights at SEA - probably even more easily - and end up with some of those common use gates. Heck, AS is already operating out of every single concourse at SEA AND the bus gates. AS uses S gates, N gates, A gates, B gates, C gates and D gates - in addition to the remote hard stands. I would say AS has a better case to snag any gate space UA would not be using.

Neither of them are going anywhere, so it's sort of a silly discussion. Cities can support two airlines hubbing at the same time.

I was a little surprised Delta retaliated. Shots across the bow and all that; I guess, but American is not a factor in Seattle and it won't be anytime soon. The AA/AS agreement added how many flights to SEA? 1?

Ishrion wrote:

In addition to SEA-CMH/DFW, Delta plans to launch a daily SEA-LHR in 2021, obviously in response to AA.

SEA-LHR on Delta is a resumption after dropping its flight for PDX-LHR.

The daily DL SEA-LHR flight will complement VS’ 2x daily SEA-LHR flight.

https://news.delta.com/delta-seattles-g ... ummer-ever

What is your source for Delta dropping its flight for PDX-LHR, as you say above? The news release from DL makes no reference to it, either. It sounds like you're just assuming that will happen? It might, but it might not. It wouldn't surprise me if VS moved one of its LHR segments down to PDX (supported with DL feed) and there would be a 787 rivalry between BA and VS.

Lot of capacity on this route for next year, and the falling yields will likely push someone out entirely, or make it a low-yield bloodbath for all who operate it.

DeltaPSCFlyer wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

In addition to SEA-CMH/DFW, Delta plans to launch a daily SEA-LHR in 2021, obviously in response to AA.

SEA-LHR on Delta is a resumption after dropping its flight for PDX-LHR.

The daily DL SEA-LHR flight will complement VS’ 2x daily SEA-LHR flight.

https://news.delta.com/delta-seattles-g ... ummer-ever

What is your source for Delta dropping its flight for PDX-LHR, as you say above? The news release from DL makes no reference to it, either.

I think he/she means DL dropped SEA-LHR (in favor of VS) and started PDX-LHR instead.

DeltaPSCFlyer wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

In addition to SEA-CMH/DFW, Delta plans to launch a daily SEA-LHR in 2021, obviously in response to AA.

SEA-LHR on Delta is a resumption after dropping its flight for PDX-LHR.

The daily DL SEA-LHR flight will complement VS’ 2x daily SEA-LHR flight.

https://news.delta.com/delta-seattles-g ... ummer-ever

What is your source for Delta dropping its flight for PDX-LHR, as you say above? The news release from DL makes no reference to it, either. It sounds like you're just assuming that will happen? It might, but it might not. It wouldn't surprise me if VS moved one of its LHR segments down to PDX (supported with DL feed) and there would be a 787 rivalry between BA and VS.

Lot of capacity on this route for next year, and the falling yields will likely push someone out entirely, or make it a low-yield bloodbath for all who operate it.

What DL feed at PDX? DL destinations from PDX include SEA, LAX, LAS, SLC (which would have made sense for connections) and MSP, DTW, JFK and ATL; all of which have non-stop flights to LHR on VS/DL.

Sightseer wrote:

DeltaPSCFlyer wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

In addition to SEA-CMH/DFW, Delta plans to launch a daily SEA-LHR in 2021, obviously in response to AA.

SEA-LHR on Delta is a resumption after dropping its flight for PDX-LHR.

The daily DL SEA-LHR flight will complement VS’ 2x daily SEA-LHR flight.

https://news.delta.com/delta-seattles-g ... ummer-ever

What is your source for Delta dropping its flight for PDX-LHR, as you say above? The news release from DL makes no reference to it, either.

I think he/she means DL dropped SEA-LHR (in favor of VS) and started PDX-LHR instead.

What Sightseer said. Sorry for bad phrasing, I should've added in the year SEA-LHR was dropped.

onwFan wrote:

DeltaPSCFlyer wrote:

Ishrion wrote:

In addition to SEA-CMH/DFW, Delta plans to launch a daily SEA-LHR in 2021, obviously in response to AA.

SEA-LHR on Delta is a resumption after dropping its flight for PDX-LHR.

The daily DL SEA-LHR flight will complement VS’ 2x daily SEA-LHR flight.

https://news.delta.com/delta-seattles-g ... ummer-ever

What is your source for Delta dropping its flight for PDX-LHR, as you say above? The news release from DL makes no reference to it, either. It sounds like you're just assuming that will happen? It might, but it might not. It wouldn't surprise me if VS moved one of its LHR segments down to PDX (supported with DL feed) and there would be a 787 rivalry between BA and VS.

Lot of capacity on this route for next year, and the falling yields will likely push someone out entirely, or make it a low-yield bloodbath for all who operate it.

What DL feed at PDX? DL destinations from PDX include SEA, LAX, LAS, SLC (which would have made sense for connections) and MSP, DTW, JFK and ATL; all of which have non-stop flights to LHR on VS/DL.

If DL does indeed drop the PDX-LHR flight, the DL passengers that used the DL flight regularly would still have an option to fly nonstop between PDX and LHR on VS, rather than switching to BA or connecting elsewhere.

Ishrion wrote:

Sightseer wrote:

DeltaPSCFlyer wrote:

What is your source for Delta dropping its flight for PDX-LHR, as you say above? The news release from DL makes no reference to it, either.

I think he/she means DL dropped SEA-LHR (in favor of VS) and started PDX-LHR instead.

What Sightseer said. Sorry for bad phrasing, I should've added in the year SEA-LHR was dropped.

Thank you both...that makes more sense to me now

WTH is this?

onwFan wrote:

Together with SEA-DFW, this screams desperation by DL. Looks like DL planning is having sleepless nights and weekends - I wouldn’t be surprised if PDX-LHR disappears soon and all eggs go into the SEA basket.

To the folks who make the decisions at DAL, SEA-DFW on the 220 has always been part of the expansion since the day the order presentation was made to the BoD. It was one of the featured routes presented where DAL believed it could enter a highly competitive market and using the 220, still fly it profitably. Not sure what's hilarious about that. Nor petty.

invertir wrote:

The SEA-DFW is hilariously petty, but that said, it's on a was A220 so the unit economics will be incredible. Won't take too many people on the plane to pay for it.

Delta's plan was never to come into SEA and throw AS out of business. When AS made the decision not to serve as a domestic feeder for DAL's SEA international plans, DL activated its plan B to build a domestic hub to feed its own flying. It had nothing to do with putting AS out of business. This kind of silly thinking is comical.

TTailedTiger wrote:

onwFan wrote:

Together with SEA-DFW, this screams desperation by DL. Looks like DL planning is having sleepless nights and weekends - I wouldn’t be surprised if PDX-LHR disappears soon and all eggs go into the SEA basket.

Agreed. I'd love to know if DL has made any money at all in SEA. They thought they could come in and throw AS out. They were extremely arrogant.

It likely can't. But DL is going to do everything it can to prevent AA from creating a foothold in the market and adding additional frequencies is how you do that. What business, of any kind, would just happily allow another competitor to enter their market? Some of this bellyaching from AS homers on here is comical.

Jet-lagged wrote:

717atOGG wrote:

Interesting. It’s still not completely clear whether the new AA SEA-LHR flight is complementing or replacing BA’s 2 daily flights during peak season, but either way, by S21 we should have either 6 or 7 peak daily flights between SEA and LON: 2.5 from VS and DL, 2/3 from AA/BA, and DY 3x/week from LGW. I know SEA has been experiencing explosive growth lately, but I wonder if this will be sustainable long term...we shall see.

I can't imagine how Seattle-London could support 6 or 7 daily widebody flights even in the Summer, even if a large number are connecting to other destinations.

Tokyo and Seoul are I think three daily nonstops maximum, Beijing two, and Shanghai and Hong Kong and other cities in Asia just one.

Is there a publicly available source to look up O&D traffic between cities?

Not going to happen. And not part of Delta's plan. They're happily profitable with SEA adding pieces here and there.

But once AS is swallowed up by JetBlue, then it's anyone's guess.

Aceskywalker wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

flybry wrote:

I think this is another indication Delta is serious about overtaking Alaska to become the number one carrier in Seattle full stop.

Which isn't going to happen

I’d argue that DL will overtake AS in the PNW. Like what it did to AA in JFK.

DL has a massive operation that can subsidize growing SEA into its vision of a Asian gateway, and can even justify TPAC out of PDX. SEA is home to the newest DL jets with better product than either AS or AA offer, and the A220 is a weapon that can bust into fortress hubs profitably. JVs make a strong contender for TPAC and TATL flying with KE and VS respectively.

AS arguably made a mistake getting embroiled in the bloodbath that is intra-Californian flying and buying VX, with issues in SFO. They are struggling with MAX groundings and a questionable future for Airbus jets in their roster. Alliances are dead; AS can only do so much with alliances with JL/AA/BA versus joint ventures. Arguably AS frequent fliers had better choices pre-OW (SQ, EK, KE, LATAM).

n7371f wrote:

Not going to happen. And not part of Delta's plan. They're happily profitable with SEA adding pieces here and there.

But once AS is swallowed up by JetBlue, then it's anyone's guess.

Aceskywalker wrote:

BNAMealer wrote:

Which isn't going to happen

I’d argue that DL will overtake AS in the PNW. Like what it did to AA in JFK.

DL has a massive operation that can subsidize growing SEA into its vision of a Asian gateway, and can even justify TPAC out of PDX. SEA is home to the newest DL jets with better product than either AS or AA offer, and the A220 is a weapon that can bust into fortress hubs profitably. JVs make a strong contender for TPAC and TATL flying with KE and VS respectively.

AS arguably made a mistake getting embroiled in the bloodbath that is intra-Californian flying and buying VX, with issues in SFO. They are struggling with MAX groundings and a questionable future for Airbus jets in their roster. Alliances are dead; AS can only do so much with alliances with JL/AA/BA versus joint ventures. Arguably AS frequent fliers had better choices pre-OW (SQ, EK, KE, LATAM).

AS has 30% greater market cap than JetBlue and has way more cash. JetBlue isn't close to be able to even make an offer for Alaska.

n7371f wrote:

Not going to happen. And not part of Delta's plan. They're happily profitable with SEA adding pieces here and there.

But once AS is swallowed up by JetBlue, then it's anyone's guess.

SEA is a long term investment for DL, I doubt the airline is making money there status quo. DL hinted at this during their YE when they said (paraphrasing) there were other markets they'd like to serve from SEA, but the expansion was stressing the P&L, so they were going to wait for the market matures and focus on building the core hubs. Obviously the AA/AS partnership forced DL's hand. (And yes, I know, some are Ed Bastian's golfing buddy on their ancient copy of MS FS.)

TTailedTiger wrote:

onwFan wrote:

Together with SEA-DFW, this screams desperation by DL. Looks like DL planning is having sleepless nights and weekends - I wouldn’t be surprised if PDX-LHR disappears soon and all eggs go into the SEA basket.

Agreed. I'd love to know if DL has made any money at all in SEA. They thought they could come in and throw AS out. They were extremely arrogant.

I get we have all our favorite airlines and alliances, and that's totally fine, but come on... I don't think DL came to SEA with the intention to kick AS out of Seattle. DL - like any businesses - came where the money was. Nothing personal, just business.

With this new AA/AS partnership, if you were in DL shoes right now, what would you have done may I ask?

Here is my take: SEA-LHR may be overkill (I wish they had added BLR instead, even if it means to copy AA), but I think they will do everything to defend what they have built so far. DL's weakness in its network, as you all know, is not having a hub in Texas. If DL ever gives up Seattle, it will have another big weakness by not having a hub in another corner of the U.S.
And LAX is already an ultra competitive market.

flybry wrote:

EA CO AS wrote:

flybry wrote:

Delta will eventually overtake Alaska in Seattle much like Delta has done to AA at JFK.

Using what gates, exactly?

Maybe Delta will make a deal with United? United has all but abandoned Seattle compared to the market share it used to have. Perhaps Delta can get some of United’s gates?

I cannot see for one minute UA entertaining such a deal. Why would they give a major competitor gates?? No sense in that.