FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

andrew1996 wrote:

SIN as a star hub probably decreased OZ's number as people have SQ option and there is a codeshare relation including some feed onto OZ's north American flights. If you look at SQ they had 4 daily flights to ICN and that likely is more seats than KE too. COmbine that with Scoot's own flights to ICN. I think OZ had never really focused on SIN as they were 1-2X daily, including plans to have made one of the flights a A321 to operate.

I think beyond the fact SQ serves it, KE probably has a stronger brand pull in attracting Korea point of sale than OZ and KE has a much wider North American network to feed in connections into SIN, which was expected to grow with DL's JV and DL exiting the SIN-NRT market that was served daily until last year. Out of Singapore, SQ probably leads for point of sale while for the leisure market out of SIN there is Scoot and a bunch of one-stop options on top of the SQ option.

Correct. OZ only ever sent their A330 + A321 whilst SQ would throw spanking new A350, 77W and 787-10 (I believe ? Or was it planned at least). KE OTOH was 2x 77W and 1x A330 (4 weekly I believe). During the peak season they would even send the 747-8. Having been on these flights I can tell you they were full in all cabins. DL funneling passengers helped too.

I believe KE would have added more flights but were being limited by traffic rights as they had been used up on both sides.

I think an open sky was signed between South Korea and Singapore but it was true that they were at their limits earlier - the treaty i believe was signed last year. I think what delayed the signing for so long was that SQ used to also want to use ICN as a springboard for more north American flights as it has served YVR, SFO, LAX out of ICN in the past but now are focusing on just ICN.

Its inserting OZ would use an A321 for a relatively long flight for a A321, especially in a market and region where wide bodies are common. SQ did send the 78X to ICN too! What's interesting is that ICN compared to HND, PEK, NRT, PVG, never really received airplanes with PE while the other North Eastern Cities did (the only exception was a 77W that was sometimes used to ICN). SQ uses the regional A359 for ICN too (but HND gets the long haul with PE A359). Not sure if this is a sign that SQ does not see yields out of ICN to be as good as other cities.

On a lighter note, they could call it Koreana.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

andrew1996 wrote:

SIN as a star hub probably decreased OZ's number as people have SQ option and there is a codeshare relation including some feed onto OZ's north American flights. If you look at SQ they had 4 daily flights to ICN and that likely is more seats than KE too. COmbine that with Scoot's own flights to ICN. I think OZ had never really focused on SIN as they were 1-2X daily, including plans to have made one of the flights a A321 to operate.

I think beyond the fact SQ serves it, KE probably has a stronger brand pull in attracting Korea point of sale than OZ and KE has a much wider North American network to feed in connections into SIN, which was expected to grow with DL's JV and DL exiting the SIN-NRT market that was served daily until last year. Out of Singapore, SQ probably leads for point of sale while for the leisure market out of SIN there is Scoot and a bunch of one-stop options on top of the SQ option.

Correct. OZ only ever sent their A330 + A321 whilst SQ would throw spanking new A350, 77W and 787-10 (I believe ? Or was it planned at least). KE OTOH was 2x 77W and 1x A330 (4 weekly I believe). During the peak season they would even send the 747-8. Having been on these flights I can tell you they were full in all cabins. DL funneling passengers helped too.

I believe KE would have added more flights but were being limited by traffic rights as they had been used up on both sides.

That being said, SQ once had a fifth freedom network from ICN to YVR, SFO, and LAX. If OZ does indeed get swallowed by KE, what are the chances that SQ will jump back in? Given the situation in Hong Kong, I can see them rerouting their SIN-HKG-SFO back to SIN-ICN-SFO....

Why not, I wouldn't be against it, if SQ thinks they can make money from it and it can keep KE's prices in check they I'm all for it.

Ideally I would have loved it if SQ could build a mini hub like CX had in TPE. This is just a dream obviously.

paulduwon wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

andrew1996 wrote:

SIN as a star hub probably decreased OZ's number as people have SQ option and there is a codeshare relation including some feed onto OZ's north American flights. If you look at SQ they had 4 daily flights to ICN and that likely is more seats than KE too. COmbine that with Scoot's own flights to ICN. I think OZ had never really focused on SIN as they were 1-2X daily, including plans to have made one of the flights a A321 to operate.

I think beyond the fact SQ serves it, KE probably has a stronger brand pull in attracting Korea point of sale than OZ and KE has a much wider North American network to feed in connections into SIN, which was expected to grow with DL's JV and DL exiting the SIN-NRT market that was served daily until last year. Out of Singapore, SQ probably leads for point of sale while for the leisure market out of SIN there is Scoot and a bunch of one-stop options on top of the SQ option.

Correct. OZ only ever sent their A330 + A321 whilst SQ would throw spanking new A350, 77W and 787-10 (I believe ? Or was it planned at least). KE OTOH was 2x 77W and 1x A330 (4 weekly I believe). During the peak season they would even send the 747-8. Having been on these flights I can tell you they were full in all cabins. DL funneling passengers helped too.

I believe KE would have added more flights but were being limited by traffic rights as they had been used up on both sides.

That being said, SQ once had a fifth freedom network from ICN to YVR, SFO, and LAX. If OZ does indeed get swallowed by KE, what are the chances that SQ will jump back in? Given the situation in Hong Kong, I can see them rerouting their SIN-HKG-SFO back to SIN-ICN-SFO....

The issue with YVR and serving USA was limitation in fifth freedom rights from Korea's side. YVR they were unable to get daily between ICN-YVR. USA 5th freedom I believe was constrained to to daily flight and there was a period of time SQ was looking to expand ICN to include another port of entry into USA. Also, in the past SIN-ICN was subject to bilateral limits too.

I don't really see LAX/SFO coming back since SQ's strategy with North America is non-stop. In fact, SEA was launched without any 5th freedom when they could have chosen to have it stop over some where like ICN. I think it will take a lot for SQ to shift SQ1 to ICN from HKG considering the historical significance of that flight for SQ and how long it has been running (hence Flight 001) and HKG was there before ICN. LAX is interesting since ever since they removed the A388 there isn't that many economy class seats offered to LAX now as the non-stop is J and PEY only so I guess if SQ wanted to increase LAX they may choose ICN but that is a lot of frequencies being devoted to LAX since it is currently (pre-COVID) daily SQ11/12 via NRT and 10X weekly non-stop.

WIth all that being said, if bilaterals allowed, ICN could be an easy way to reserve YVR or YYZ for SQ

paulduwon wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

andrew1996 wrote:

SIN as a star hub probably decreased OZ's number as people have SQ option and there is a codeshare relation including some feed onto OZ's north American flights. If you look at SQ they had 4 daily flights to ICN and that likely is more seats than KE too. COmbine that with Scoot's own flights to ICN. I think OZ had never really focused on SIN as they were 1-2X daily, including plans to have made one of the flights a A321 to operate.

I think beyond the fact SQ serves it, KE probably has a stronger brand pull in attracting Korea point of sale than OZ and KE has a much wider North American network to feed in connections into SIN, which was expected to grow with DL's JV and DL exiting the SIN-NRT market that was served daily until last year. Out of Singapore, SQ probably leads for point of sale while for the leisure market out of SIN there is Scoot and a bunch of one-stop options on top of the SQ option.

Correct. OZ only ever sent their A330 + A321 whilst SQ would throw spanking new A350, 77W and 787-10 (I believe ? Or was it planned at least). KE OTOH was 2x 77W and 1x A330 (4 weekly I believe). During the peak season they would even send the 747-8. Having been on these flights I can tell you they were full in all cabins. DL funneling passengers helped too.

I believe KE would have added more flights but were being limited by traffic rights as they had been used up on both sides.

That being said, SQ once had a fifth freedom network from ICN to YVR, SFO, and LAX. If OZ does indeed get swallowed by KE, what are the chances that SQ will jump back in? Given the situation in Hong Kong, I can see them rerouting their SIN-HKG-SFO back to SIN-ICN-SFO....

The issue with YVR and serving USA was limitation in fifth freedom rights from Korea's side. YVR they were unable to get daily between ICN-YVR. USA 5th freedom I believe was constrained to to daily flight and there was a period of time SQ was looking to expand ICN to include another port of entry into USA. Also, in the past SIN-ICN was subject to bilateral limits too.

I don't really see LAX/SFO coming back since SQ's strategy with North America is non-stop. In fact, SEA was launched without any 5th freedom when they could have chosen to have it stop over some where like ICN. I think it will take a lot for SQ to shift SQ1 to ICN from HKG considering the historical significance of that flight for SQ and how long it has been running (hence Flight 001) and HKG was there before ICN. LAX is interesting since ever since they removed the A388 there isn't that many economy class seats offered to LAX now as the non-stop is J and PEY only so I guess if SQ wanted to increase LAX they may choose ICN but that is a lot of frequencies being devoted to LAX since it is currently (pre-COVID) daily SQ11/12 via NRT and 10X weekly non-stop.

WIth all that being said, if bilaterals allowed, ICN could be an easy way to reserve YVR or YYZ for SQ

Why can't SQ do SIN-YVR nonstop with the A359 and then do SIN-ICN-YYZ instead? YVR can be served nonstop from SIN, its literally like flying to SEA.

andrew1996 wrote:

paulduwon wrote:

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Correct. OZ only ever sent their A330 + A321 whilst SQ would throw spanking new A350, 77W and 787-10 (I believe ? Or was it planned at least). KE OTOH was 2x 77W and 1x A330 (4 weekly I believe). During the peak season they would even send the 747-8. Having been on these flights I can tell you they were full in all cabins. DL funneling passengers helped too.

I believe KE would have added more flights but were being limited by traffic rights as they had been used up on both sides.

That being said, SQ once had a fifth freedom network from ICN to YVR, SFO, and LAX. If OZ does indeed get swallowed by KE, what are the chances that SQ will jump back in? Given the situation in Hong Kong, I can see them rerouting their SIN-HKG-SFO back to SIN-ICN-SFO....

The issue with YVR and serving USA was limitation in fifth freedom rights from Korea's side. YVR they were unable to get daily between ICN-YVR. USA 5th freedom I believe was constrained to to daily flight and there was a period of time SQ was looking to expand ICN to include another port of entry into USA. Also, in the past SIN-ICN was subject to bilateral limits too.

I don't really see LAX/SFO coming back since SQ's strategy with North America is non-stop. In fact, SEA was launched without any 5th freedom when they could have chosen to have it stop over some where like ICN. I think it will take a lot for SQ to shift SQ1 to ICN from HKG considering the historical significance of that flight for SQ and how long it has been running (hence Flight 001) and HKG was there before ICN. LAX is interesting since ever since they removed the A388 there isn't that many economy class seats offered to LAX now as the non-stop is J and PEY only so I guess if SQ wanted to increase LAX they may choose ICN but that is a lot of frequencies being devoted to LAX since it is currently (pre-COVID) daily SQ11/12 via NRT and 10X weekly non-stop.

WIth all that being said, if bilaterals allowed, ICN could be an easy way to reserve YVR or YYZ for SQ

YYZORD wrote:

Why can't SQ do SIN-YVR nonstop with the A359 and then do SIN-ICN-YYZ instead? YVR can be served nonstop from SIN, its literally like flying to SEA.

I highly doubt that ICN-YYZ can support three carriers, even if there would be some SIN-originating pax on that flight. Maybe in the peak summer months (July, August) but in the winter it can barely maintain 2x daily (it isn't even 2x daily on some days of the week.)

From what I recall, when SQ flew SIN-ICN-YVR, the majority of the pax originated at ICN and not SIN.

That probably is true but that still doesn't explain how SIN-YVR isn't possible for SQ with the A359 unless its flown thru ICN? I know AC wanted to launch YVR-SIN with the 777-200LR but I feel SQ's A359 is better config'd for this specific route if the idea is getting pax from not only YVR but most of Canada.

hoons90 wrote:

YYZORD wrote:

Why can't SQ do SIN-YVR nonstop with the A359 and then do SIN-ICN-YYZ instead? YVR can be served nonstop from SIN, its literally like flying to SEA.

I highly doubt that ICN-YYZ can support three carriers, even if there would be some SIN-originating pax on that flight. Maybe in the peak summer months (July, August) but in the winter it can barely maintain 2x daily (it isn't even 2x daily on some days of the week.)

From what I recall, when SQ flew SIN-ICN-YVR, the majority of the pax originated at ICN and not SIN.

YYZORD wrote:

That probably is true but that still doesn't explain how SIN-YVR isn't possible for SQ with the A359 unless its flown thru ICN? I know AC wanted to launch YVR-SIN with the 777-200LR but I feel SQ's A359 is better config'd for this specific route if the idea is getting pax from not only YVR but most of Canada.

hoons90 wrote:

YYZORD wrote:

Why can't SQ do SIN-YVR nonstop with the A359 and then do SIN-ICN-YYZ instead? YVR can be served nonstop from SIN, its literally like flying to SEA.

I highly doubt that ICN-YYZ can support three carriers, even if there would be some SIN-originating pax on that flight. Maybe in the peak summer months (July, August) but in the winter it can barely maintain 2x daily (it isn't even 2x daily on some days of the week.)

From what I recall, when SQ flew SIN-ICN-YVR, the majority of the pax originated at ICN and not SIN.

The a359 is possible SIN-YVR and probably with almost no payload restriction. I think the greater issue is demand to sustain 5-7 weekly flights. YVR-SIN is probably more likely a route that AC will start than SQ unless AC/SQ work closely together and each operate like 3-4X weekly similar to how SQ/NZ split SIN-AKL operations. AC can rely on the vast USA transfer market to feed and support the J demand for YVR-SIN. Potentially SQ could fly to YVR and use YVR to feed into AC's Canada and USA flight but I don't see AC allowing it in reducing yields on its otherwise higher yielding domestic/transborder flights which is why I think YVR-SIN will be launched by AC instead of SQ if any of them attempt to launch it.

The other factors making Canada-Singapore challenging are the following 1) Lack of Singaporean diaspora in Canada while airlines like CX, BR , KE etc can rely on a significant dispora population to fill the flight (at least for Y Class. 2) Although there is a nontrivial demand between Singapore and Canada and nontrivial business relations, it is nowhere as close to the type of trade/business relation you see Singapore has with USA/UK/AUS etc. 3)YVR is not a J heavy market and SQ relies on business demand to sustain itself and the only way to driveup J traffic and increase yield is to depend on traffic to/from USA --> and that is why AC has an advantage in my view. 4) The rise of non-stop flights between Canada and India further weakens SQ's ability to sustain flights to Canada as in the past SQ's YVR flight was heavily driven by pax going to/from India. However, SQ also serves many smaller Indian cities that do not have direct flights to YVR/YYZ.

That said the Changi Airport Group has said that YVR is a low hanging fruit for an airline to take up but I guess neither AC/SQ are that interested in launching it and working together. However, although there may be enough passenger volumes flying between SIN and YVR/YYZ each day, this is a very fragmented market where people are flying on various airlines like CX, BR, CI, UA, NH, CA, CZ, MU etc. For YYZ on top of the Asian carriers I mentioned, there is also EK, EY, and all the European carriers. QR and AC's codeshare relation probably also means another option too.

Regarding ICN-YYZ I agree that that route would be a challenge in adding another airline. If anything it should probably be done out of NRT since YYZ only has a single daily flight to HND by AC and seasonal NRT flights sometimes. SQ should jump in before NH does. I heard that Japan was once receptive to granting SQ fifth freedom rights but I believe it had to be out of KIX or a non-Tokoyo airport. YYZ in my view may be better served for SQ through an EU stop over, especially BRU, which they recently cancelled before it was ever launched.

andrew1996 wrote:

YYZORD wrote:

That probably is true but that still doesn't explain how SIN-YVR isn't possible for SQ with the A359 unless its flown thru ICN? I know AC wanted to launch YVR-SIN with the 777-200LR but I feel SQ's A359 is better config'd for this specific route if the idea is getting pax from not only YVR but most of Canada.

hoons90 wrote:

I highly doubt that ICN-YYZ can support three carriers, even if there would be some SIN-originating pax on that flight. Maybe in the peak summer months (July, August) but in the winter it can barely maintain 2x daily (it isn't even 2x daily on some days of the week.)

From what I recall, when SQ flew SIN-ICN-YVR, the majority of the pax originated at ICN and not SIN.

The a359 is possible SIN-YVR and probably with almost no payload restriction. I think the greater issue is demand to sustain 5-7 weekly flights. YVR-SIN is probably more likely a route that AC will start than SQ unless AC/SQ work closely together and each operate like 3-4X weekly similar to how SQ/NZ split SIN-AKL operations. AC can rely on the vast USA transfer market to feed and support the J demand for YVR-SIN. Potentially SQ could fly to YVR and use YVR to feed into AC's Canada and USA flight but I don't see AC allowing it in reducing yields on its otherwise higher yielding domestic/transborder flights which is why I think YVR-SIN will be launched by AC instead of SQ if any of them attempt to launch it.

The other factors making Canada-Singapore challenging are the following 1) Lack of Singaporean diaspora in Canada while airlines like CX, BR , KE etc can rely on a significant dispora population to fill the flight (at least for Y Class. 2) Although there is a nontrivial demand between Singapore and Canada and nontrivial business relations, it is nowhere as close to the type of trade/business relation you see Singapore has with USA/UK/AUS etc. 3)YVR is not a J heavy market and SQ relies on business demand to sustain itself and the only way to driveup J traffic and increase yield is to depend on traffic to/from USA --> and that is why AC has an advantage in my view. 4) The rise of non-stop flights between Canada and India further weakens SQ's ability to sustain flights to Canada as in the past SQ's YVR flight was heavily driven by pax going to/from India. However, SQ also serves many smaller Indian cities that do not have direct flights to YVR/YYZ.

That said the Changi Airport Group has said that YVR is a low hanging fruit for an airline to take up but I guess neither AC/SQ are that interested in launching it and working together. However, although there may be enough passenger volumes flying between SIN and YVR/YYZ each day, this is a very fragmented market where people are flying on various airlines like CX, BR, CI, UA, NH, CA, CZ, MU etc. For YYZ on top of the Asian carriers I mentioned, there is also EK, EY, and all the European carriers. QR and AC's codeshare relation probably also means another option too.

Regarding ICN-YYZ I agree that that route would be a challenge in adding another airline. If anything it should probably be done out of NRT since YYZ only has a single daily flight to HND by AC and seasonal NRT flights sometimes. SQ should jump in before NH does. I heard that Japan was once receptive to granting SQ fifth freedom rights but I believe it had to be out of KIX or a non-Tokoyo airport. YYZ in my view may be better served for SQ through an EU stop over, especially BRU, which they recently cancelled before it was ever launched.

I would say not enough premium traffic YVR-SIN? Particularly for SQ? The A359 has quite a large J cabin, makes more sense for AC to SIN to me but even then the 77L isn't the most efficient so would need high J loads, the 789 would take fairly heavy restrictions wouldn't it in AC configuration? Either way I agree how much demand is there for 5-7 weekly flights non stop.

SIN-AKL isn't a great example, it was 3x daily NZ/SQ for the record including an A380 in NW, quite a decent market in itself, then a major hub to Europe and India particularly from AKL. They also served CHC-SIN 12 weekly in NW and WLG-MEL-SIN 5 weekly, WLG isn't coming back.

The President of Korean Air Kee-Hong Woo gave German online aviation magazine aerotelegraph an interview and below some interesting passages are translated. Link of the interview below, unfortunately in German.

Q: And will they stay in different alliances - Skyteam and Star Alliance?
A: This will be discussed during the post-merger integration planning process. What I can say now is that it will certainly take time to discuss the alliance issue.

Q: The combined fleet of Asiana and Korean Air will also consist of 16 Airbus A380s and 35 Boeing 747s. These are big planes. Do you intend to retire some of them?
A: We will review the entire A380 operation and its routes. Since most Boeing 747s are freighters, plans will be developed for them as we assess the status of the cargo business.

Q: And what about the liquidity?
A: We have made operating profits over the past two quarters. We will also build more liquidity by maximizing freight revenue and selling non-core assets such as the on-board catering and duty-free businesses and shares in the tourism company Wangsan Leisure Development.


Q: You said it: Korean Air is one of the few airlines to have made a profit in the last two quarters. How was that possible?
A: Korean Air has always been one of the largest cargo airlines in the world, and the cargo market has been profitable that year. We have boosted our cargo operations and increased capacity by using passenger jets and converting some of the passenger planes into freighters. But that would not have been possible without our employees, and I am deeply grateful to them for their hard work and support.

Q: Do you think a profit for the whole year is possible?
A: We expect a profitable year because, among other things, we will continue to maximize revenues in our freight operations while reducing operating costs.

Q: How do you think aviation will change in the future?
A: The Korean aviation market suffered from excessive competition due to oversupply even before Covid-19. In 2019, nine airlines, including Korean Air, served 123 million passengers annually. The oversupply wasn't just a problem in Korea, but worldwide. Only airlines with strong infrastructure and global economies of scale will be able to survive post-Covid competition. Given this trend, Korean Air's acquisition of Asiana Airlines is likely to catalyze the mergers and acquisitions of other airlines in Asia and other regions.

I think when he refers to the employees he means taking unpaid leave, but unfortunately that was not further specified in this article.

I personally find the las answer interesting. I think the merger is a step in the right direction as that this will help KE to get a stronger grip on the market and thusly be more profitable as well as better prepared for future downturns in the aviation industry. Unfortunately that comes along with higher prices for the Korean consumer. It is really interesting to see how many airlines make it through the C19 crisis. LHG CEO Spohr not long ago before this whole C19 situation mentioned that there is only space for around 12 big global airlines. While at that time I viewed this sceptically, I nevertheless wonder if it will not turn out this way due to C19.

Source, in German, Free
https://www.aerotelegraph.com/interview ... berpruefen

Capricorn wrote:

Unfortunately that comes along with higher prices for the Korean consumer.

As an LA-based Korean-American, this is what concerns me. It has always been surprising to me that one could fly direct from LAX to [insert major Asian city] for sub-$700 most of the year, yet a non-stop flight to ICN on KE or OZ rarely dips below $1100 even in the off-peak season (often $1600+ during peak season). Now, more than ever, competition is sorely needed- Air Premia cannot come soon enough.

https://www.aviationwire.jp/archives/216875
Korean Air and Asiana will offer through check in on transfer flights across the two carriers

Capricorn wrote:

Q: The combined fleet of Asiana and Korean Air will also consist of 16 Airbus A380s and 35 Boeing 747s. These are big planes. Do you intend to retire some of them?
A: We will review the entire A380 operation and its routes. Since most Boeing 747s are freighters, plans will be developed for them as we assess the status of the cargo business.

Wow, the art of answering a question without answering the question!

Can it be translated from CEO-speak as "The A380s will go, the B748's will stay"?

workhorse wrote:

Capricorn wrote:

Q: The combined fleet of Asiana and Korean Air will also consist of 16 Airbus A380s and 35 Boeing 747s. These are big planes. Do you intend to retire some of them?
A: We will review the entire A380 operation and its routes. Since most Boeing 747s are freighters, plans will be developed for them as we assess the status of the cargo business.

Wow, the art of answering a question without answering the question!

Can it be translated from CEO-speak as "The A380s will go, the B748's will stay"?

Funny, I thought he answered the question, in fact…

Aircellist wrote:

workhorse wrote:

Capricorn wrote:

Q: The combined fleet of Asiana and Korean Air will also consist of 16 Airbus A380s and 35 Boeing 747s. These are big planes. Do you intend to retire some of them?
A: We will review the entire A380 operation and its routes. Since most Boeing 747s are freighters, plans will be developed for them as we assess the status of the cargo business.

Wow, the art of answering a question without answering the question!

Can it be translated from CEO-speak as "The A380s will go, the B748's will stay"?

Funny, I thought he answered the question, in fact…

Of course he did - while staying within the limits of what he is allowed to say as a CEO of a publicly traded company.

Look at his wording.

"Review the entire A380 operation" - we all know what it means when your boss calls you to "review the entire management strategy" of a project you are in charge of. It means you are in trouble. Same for A380 at KE, I am afraid. But writing off 10 (16?) A380 is going to have a huge impact on their financials so of course he cannot say "we are going to retire them" until everything is studied, prepared and approved by the board to the last comma.

When asked about 748i's, he talks about the freighters. Why? Because freighters are what gives a chance of survival to the passenger 748 fleet - because of parts commonality, pilot pool etc. So we can understand it as "Well, it's not that expensive to keep them, so we will probably stick to them for a while". But again, he says it without really saying it.

With such a highly consolidated "powerhouse" airline, could we see an expansion of service to smaller markets in China, Japan, Central, and SE Asia? Particularly, could we see markets that only operate a couple times per week on one of the two carriers, only operate seasonally, or are "charter" ops go to year round and/or more frequent?

workhorse wrote:

Aircellist wrote:

workhorse wrote:

Wow, the art of answering a question without answering the question!

Can it be translated from CEO-speak as "The A380s will go, the B748's will stay"?

Funny, I thought he answered the question, in fact…

Of course he did - while staying within the limits of what he is allowed to say as a CEO of a publicly traded company.

Look at his wording.

"Review the entire A380 operation" - we all know what it means when your boss calls you to "review the entire management strategy" of a project you are in charge of. It means you are in trouble. Same for A380 at KE, I am afraid. But writing off 10 (16?) A380 is going to have a huge impact on their financials so of course he cannot say "we are going to retire them" until everything is studied, prepared and approved by the board to the last comma.

When asked about 748i's, he talks about the freighters. Why? Because freighters are what gives a chance of survival to the passenger 748 fleet - because of parts commonality, pilot pool etc. So we can understand it as "Well, it's not that expensive to keep them, so we will probably stick to them for a while". But again, he says it without really saying it.

We read exactly the same thing

Korean Air clears another hurdle to the Asiana acquisition, securing approval from shareholders for stocks issue.

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20210106000804

"In a meeting at its headquarters in Seoul, nearly 70 percent of stockholders who were present voted to pass an amendment of an article, drastically lifting the cap on total outstanding stocks from 250 million to 700 million. With the amendment, the company can push ahead with its plan to issue 173.6 million new shares to raise capital and realign stockholding status necessary to bring the long-time rival Asiana under its roof."

"The airline also said a transition team consisting of experts from the fields of planning, finance, cargo and passenger transport is tasked to overlook the process. It is scheduled to seek a review by anti-trust authorities in other countries the airline operates in by mid-January, including the United States, the European Union and Japan."

As for review by the anti-trust authorities, I guess KE does not have JVs in Europe, so it should not be a huge issue? LHR-ICN will be a monopoly, but but ICN-CDG/AMS/FRA will have competition although in CDG/AMS from codeshare partners..

What are the chances it passes review in the US? Won't KE be the only carrier on literally every route to the US except ICN-SFO and ICN-DFW? Will the KE-DL JV hold, with literally no competition on trunk routes like LAX-ICN, and JFK-ICN?

onwFan wrote:

As for review by the anti-trust authorities, I guess KE does not have JVs in Europe, so it should not be a huge issue? LHR-ICN will be a monopoly, but but ICN-CDG/AMS/FRA will have competition although in CDG/AMS from codeshare partners..

SVO, BUD and IST will also have competition. There are also markets served from ICN by other airlines and not KE, such as HEL, WAW and MUC.

onwFan wrote:

What are the chances it passes review in the US? Won't KE be the only carrier on literally every route to the US except ICN-SFO and ICN-DFW? Will the KE-DL JV hold, with literally no competition on trunk routes like LAX-ICN, and JFK-ICN?

ICN-HNL will have competition from HA, and ICN-LAX will have competition from Air Premia (although they are not a network carrier, and IF they actually get off the ground.)
I'm not sure if any other airline would start NYC/LAX-ICN considering where most of the point-of-sale is. I do think that KE will keep 5x daily at LAX and 4x daily at JFK (after the merger) based on the sheer volume of pax that fly these routes.

AWACSooner wrote:

Curious as to how this will get past the Korean anti-monopoly laws...

This bid is made with the injection of about 1 trillion KRW from the Korean Development Bank, a part of the ROK Government. And there is a similar example which was made before in the automobile industry(the merger of Hyundai Motors and KIA Motors). It will probably overcome those obstacles.

hoons90 wrote:

onwFan wrote:

As for review by the anti-trust authorities, I guess KE does not have JVs in Europe, so it should not be a huge issue? LHR-ICN will be a monopoly, but but ICN-CDG/AMS/FRA will have competition although in CDG/AMS from codeshare partners..

SVO, BUD and IST will also have competition. There are also markets served from ICN by other airlines and not KE, such as HEL, WAW and MUC.

onwFan wrote:

What are the chances it passes review in the US? Won't KE be the only carrier on literally every route to the US except ICN-SFO and ICN-DFW? Will the KE-DL JV hold, with literally no competition on trunk routes like LAX-ICN, and JFK-ICN?

ICN-HNL will have competition from HA, and ICN-LAX will have competition from Air Premia (although they are not a network carrier, and IF they actually get off the ground.)
I'm not sure if any other airline would start NYC/LAX-ICN considering where most of the point-of-sale is. I do think that KE will keep 5x daily at LAX and 4x daily at JFK (after the merger) based on the sheer volume of pax that fly these routes.

Korea would still have another long haul airlines if the aviation department approved Air Premeia's application for aoc but it seems like they aren't paying much if any attention to that

workhorse wrote:

Aircellist wrote:

workhorse wrote:

Wow, the art of answering a question without answering the question!

Can it be translated from CEO-speak as "The A380s will go, the B748's will stay"?

Funny, I thought he answered the question, in fact…

Of course he did - while staying within the limits of what he is allowed to say as a CEO of a publicly traded company.

Look at his wording.

"Review the entire A380 operation" - we all know what it means when your boss calls you to "review the entire management strategy" of a project you are in charge of. It means you are in trouble. Same for A380 at KE, I am afraid. But writing off 10 (16?) A380 is going to have a huge impact on their financials so of course he cannot say "we are going to retire them" until everything is studied, prepared and approved by the board to the last comma.

When asked about 748i's, he talks about the freighters. Why? Because freighters are what gives a chance of survival to the passenger 748 fleet - because of parts commonality, pilot pool etc. So we can understand it as "Well, it's not that expensive to keep them, so we will probably stick to them for a while". But again, he says it without really saying it.

You also have to remember in Asian cultures, if you want to deliver negative news (in this case, retiring), you word it in a way which gives others a sense of hope even if it's a false sense of hope. For example, if someone asks you out to dinner, you never answer "no". You might say, "maybe another time".

onwFan wrote:

Korean Air clears another hurdle to the Asiana acquisition, securing approval from shareholders for stocks issue.

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20210106000804

"In a meeting at its headquarters in Seoul, nearly 70 percent of stockholders who were present voted to pass an amendment of an article, drastically lifting the cap on total outstanding stocks from 250 million to 700 million. With the amendment, the company can push ahead with its plan to issue 173.6 million new shares to raise capital and realign stockholding status necessary to bring the long-time rival Asiana under its roof."

"The airline also said a transition team consisting of experts from the fields of planning, finance, cargo and passenger transport is tasked to overlook the process. It is scheduled to seek a review by anti-trust authorities in other countries the airline operates in by mid-January, including the United States, the European Union and Japan."

As for review by the anti-trust authorities, I guess KE does not have JVs in Europe, so it should not be a huge issue? LHR-ICN will be a monopoly, but but ICN-CDG/AMS/FRA will have competition although in CDG/AMS from codeshare partners..

What are the chances it passes review in the US? Won't KE be the only carrier on literally every route to the US except ICN-SFO and ICN-DFW? Will the KE-DL JV hold, with literally no competition on trunk routes like LAX-ICN, and JFK-ICN?

BA doesn’t fly to ICN anymore?

[/quote]BA doesn’t fly to ICN anymore?[/quote]

They announced this as part of 13 or so long haul routes they will discontinue for the summer schedule 2021. Some routes might come back as traffic picks up, others might be gone for good.

Aircellist wrote:

workhorse wrote:

Aircellist wrote:

Funny, I thought he answered the question, in fact…

Of course he did - while staying within the limits of what he is allowed to say as a CEO of a publicly traded company.

Look at his wording.

"Review the entire A380 operation" - we all know what it means when your boss calls you to "review the entire management strategy" of a project you are in charge of. It means you are in trouble. Same for A380 at KE, I am afraid. But writing off 10 (16?) A380 is going to have a huge impact on their financials so of course he cannot say "we are going to retire them" until everything is studied, prepared and approved by the board to the last comma.

When asked about 748i's, he talks about the freighters. Why? Because freighters are what gives a chance of survival to the passenger 748 fleet - because of parts commonality, pilot pool etc. So we can understand it as "Well, it's not that expensive to keep them, so we will probably stick to them for a while". But again, he says it without really saying it.

We read exactly the same thing

While I personally agree to this "reading if the tea leaves," I wouldn't rule our a partial fleet opperating the A380 from say 2023 on. I could even see frames stored stopped clicked as replacements when the first need expensive work.

The above is playing devils advocate and accepting that a reasonably well done analysis on the A380 future should leave open that possibility.

I personally see, economically, a lost decade coming up, so think the A380s ate done. But I am an engineer, we tend to underestimate economic growth for some reason. So I really hope to be wrong, for as an aviation enthusiast, I love the A380.

As an amateur economists...

Lightsaber

KAL submits its business merger plan report to antitrust regulators

https://www.aerotime.aero/26954-Korean- ... -antitrust

Review by Korean Fair Trade Commission can last 30-90 days.

Korea’s FTC and other fair competition authorities across the globe could challenge the merger, citing a huge market share on the international market. Thus, it could be expected that Korean Air and Asiana Airlines would have to give up slots, traffic rights in ICN or other international airports.

KAL to issue 3.3 trillion won (US $3 bil) shares to help fund Asiana acquisition. Issuance should be completed by Feb 26.

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2 ... 02913.html

global1 wrote:

Quite the coup for DL and Skyteam.

I fly through ICN regularly. It's a spectacular facility and ideally positioned as a hub for US to North and East Asia and China traffic flows.

A powerhouse.

Makes total sense, but UA's nonstop flights from ORD to PEK, PVG and HKG are far more logical for U.S.-China traffic. If I'm going to PEK, why would I connect through ICN on KE?

Iloveboeing wrote:

global1 wrote:

Quite the coup for DL and Skyteam.

I fly through ICN regularly. It's a spectacular facility and ideally positioned as a hub for US to North and East Asia and China traffic flows.

A powerhouse.

Makes total sense, but UA's nonstop flights from ORD to PEK, PVG and HKG are far more logical for U.S.-China traffic. If I'm going to PEK, why would I connect through ICN on KE?

So connecting in US is superior? I'm not sure a lot agree, especially with perceived or real better service on KE. Its only "nonstop" for Chicago.

jbs2886 wrote:

Iloveboeing wrote:

global1 wrote:

Quite the coup for DL and Skyteam.

I fly through ICN regularly. It's a spectacular facility and ideally positioned as a hub for US to North and East Asia and China traffic flows.

A powerhouse.

Makes total sense, but UA's nonstop flights from ORD to PEK, PVG and HKG are far more logical for U.S.-China traffic. If I'm going to PEK, why would I connect through ICN on KE?

So connecting in US is superior? I'm not sure a lot agree, especially with perceived or real better service on KE. Its only "nonstop" for Chicago.

You do have a point. I flew UA ORD-HKG and ORD-PEK in 2005 and 2007, respectively and the service and aircraft (744) were subpar. I’ve heard over the years that KE has better service. UA was charging hefty premiums on their ORD-China flights, pushing their 744s to the maximum and not bothering to update their aircraft, particularly in Y.

Korean Air raised US$2.9 billion by issuing new shares, with close to half of the funds will be used to acquire Asiana Airlines.

http://www.koreaherald.com/view.php?ud=20210308000822

KAL submitted an integrated plan for the acquisition of Asiana Airlines detailing its plans for integration of the LCCs, synergies through routes, and ways to protect Asiana Airlines employment.

https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20210317008700320

LAXintl wrote:

KAL submitted an integrated plan for the acquisition of Asiana Airlines detailing its plans for integration of the LCCs, synergies through routes, and ways to protect Asiana Airlines employment.

https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20210317008700320

Article is interesting for two reasons:
(1) no layoffs....sure
(2) the picture of the old Russian jet lol

KAL says it hopes to close the deal by end of June.

They plan to streamline redundant routes and business units including merging budget units.
Committed to no forced layoffs, but redundant staff inevitably may have to go (sounds like via incentive packages/attrition)

https://www.flightglobal.com/strategy/k ... 70.article
https://pulsenews.co.kr/view.php?sc=308 ... &no=258119

Per news brief I get, Asiana subsidiaries Air Busan and Air Seoul jointly provided US $124mil funding to cover operations pending merger.

According to reports, Korean Air submitted merger integration plan shows it acquiring Asiana by 2022 and fully merging the companies by 2024. If the deal goes through Asiana will join KAL in becoming part the SkyTeam alliance,

The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport estimates 32 routes that Korean Air obtains from Asiana through the merger will lead to a combined market share of more than 50 percent.

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2 ... 06268.html

LAXintl wrote:

According to reports, Korean Air submitted merger integration plan shows it acquiring Asiana by 2022 and fully merging the companies by 2024. If the deal goes through Asiana will join KAL in becoming part the SkyTeam alliance,

The Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport estimates 32 routes that Korean Air obtains from Asiana through the merger will lead to a combined market share of more than 50 percent.

https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/tech/2 ... 06268.html

Hopefully it will merge soon to mitigate the loss of both companies. However, Korean Air seriously needs better service, it's customer service and flight entertainment are terrible compared to Asiana and other carriers

"Asiana Airlines brand to disappear after Korean Air take-over"

Also going: Asiana's fleet, with Korean Air President saying "it will be relatively easier for Asiana Airlines to phase out their aircraft, as they have many leased aircraft with contracts that will end within 5 years."

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... -take-over

Captaincurious wrote:

Hopefully it will merge soon to mitigate the loss of both companies. However, Korean Air seriously needs better service, it's customer service and flight entertainment are terrible compared to Asiana and other carriers

KE has slowly been transforming itself, probably in part due to the new DL tie up forcing some changes. But think about it, new safety video (the old one was getting reaaally old), new website/app, general rebranding, introduction of wifi (planned), new seats (planned), fleet rationalisation... and also the bad new FFP, introduction of add-ons (paid extra legroom seats), removal of KE staff at outstations and non hub domestic airports.

Having flown with KE for over 20 years I've seen the airline be one of the last bastions of the good old days but slowly even they've turned to bean counting.

I reckon the KE in 5 years will be a very different beast, much more in line with global counterparts. The question is, will it go down the JAL path and being contempt serving Koreans willing to travel or will it go down the SQ path and try to become a real powerhouse.

CraigAnderson wrote:

"Asiana Airlines brand to disappear after Korean Air take-over"

Also going: Asiana's fleet, with Korean Air President saying "it will be relatively easier for Asiana Airlines to phase out their aircraft, as they have many leased aircraft with contracts that will end within 5 years."

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... -take-over

Am I understanding this right: that despite the merger a lot of Asiana's planes won't be integrated into Korean Air and instead will be returned to lessors? And will this affect Asiana's A380 fleet or are they most likely joining KA's existing frames into service?

filipinoavgeek wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

"Asiana Airlines brand to disappear after Korean Air take-over"

Also going: Asiana's fleet, with Korean Air President saying "it will be relatively easier for Asiana Airlines to phase out their aircraft, as they have many leased aircraft with contracts that will end within 5 years."

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... -take-over

Am I understanding this right: that despite the merger a lot of Asiana's planes won't be integrated into Korean Air and instead will be returned to lessors? And will this affect Asiana's A380 fleet or are they most likely joining KA's existing frames into service?

I don’t think KE know what they will do with their own A380s yet? I would think there is a high chance they will keep their own ones but the OZ ones will be disposed of.

Does anyone know how Asiana employees will be integrated with KE? Will longevity be honored or will OZ furlough more employees?

While I think that the A380s are as good as toast, I would be more interested in the fate of the A350s. KE has none and if they plan to shut down the entire OZ fleet, that does not bode well for an introduction of A350s at KE. I think that this will influence fleet planing at KE in the long term. On the other hand, Boeing might soon find a new 777X customer.

ZK-NBT wrote:

filipinoavgeek wrote:

CraigAnderson wrote:

"Asiana Airlines brand to disappear after Korean Air take-over"

Also going: Asiana's fleet, with Korean Air President saying "it will be relatively easier for Asiana Airlines to phase out their aircraft, as they have many leased aircraft with contracts that will end within 5 years."

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... -take-over

Am I understanding this right: that despite the merger a lot of Asiana's planes won't be integrated into Korean Air and instead will be returned to lessors? And will this affect Asiana's A380 fleet or are they most likely joining KA's existing frames into service?

I don’t think KE know what they will do with their own A380s yet? I would think there is a high chance they will keep their own ones but the OZ ones will be disposed of.

It will even be easier for them to keep their own. They own their A380s but OZ doesn't. OZ barely owns anything really

Capricorn wrote:

While I think that the A380s are as good as toast, I would be more interested in the fate of the A350s. KE has none and if they plan to shut down the entire OZ fleet, that does not bode well for an introduction of A350s at KE. I think that this will influence fleet planing at KE in the long term. On the other hand, Boeing might soon find a new 777X customer.

A350s and A321neos will probably stay. I suspect KE is mostly talking about the A320ceo, A330, A380, 767, 777, and 747 leaving.

I’m not sure about KE keeping the A35K order though (can easily see them converting it down to A359).

Capricorn wrote:

While I think that the A380s are as good as toast, I would be more interested in the fate of the A350s. KE has none and if they plan to shut down the entire OZ fleet, that does not bode well for an introduction of A350s at KE. I think that this will influence fleet planing at KE in the long term. On the other hand, Boeing might soon find a new 777X customer.

I agree, i think KE will be a major 777X buyer. There's a lot going on there. 747-8s, A380s and 777-300ERs. Although it will happen over a long period of time. Maybe the replacement of the 380s and 747-8s will come first and then 777s much much later

Opus99 wrote:

ZK-NBT wrote:

filipinoavgeek wrote:

Am I understanding this right: that despite the merger a lot of Asiana's planes won't be integrated into Korean Air and instead will be returned to lessors? And will this affect Asiana's A380 fleet or are they most likely joining KA's existing frames into service?

I don’t think KE know what they will do with their own A380s yet? I would think there is a high chance they will keep their own ones but the OZ ones will be disposed of.

It will even be easier for them to keep their own. They own their A380s but OZ doesn't. OZ barely owns anything really

Has KE indicated they'll keep their A380s?

Opus99 wrote:

It will even be easier for them to keep their own. They own their A380s but OZ doesn't. OZ barely owns anything really

All of OZ A380s are in finance lease, meaning it would be extremely challenging to dispose. Not impossible, just costly.

All the other Airbus fleet OZ has are in operating lease along with 4 747F. All the other Boeing fleet are in finance lease or owned.

Meanwhile KE owns 2 A380s while the other 8 are in finance lease.