Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 47): HA already got more than it deserved when it was approved for HNL-HND without ever running HNL-NRT.

Ignoring the fact that ANA, JAL, UA, and DL (NW) have been running NRT-HNL flights for years?

Quoting us330 (Reply 50):

I'm not ignoring that fact ... That's why I said HA got more than they deserve

HA just wanted to jump in to take the fruits of other people's labor

HND will be hard for anyone to work due to the slot times until those are fixed I don't see anything East of Hawaii working

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 51): HA just wanted to jump in to take the fruits of other people's labor

This is nonsense. Until 2010 when the US and Japan signed an "open skies" agreement, access to Japan and especially NRT was limited.

The SEA slot should go to any airline that wants to serve HNL. Hawaii is the only market that can be consistently profitable w/ the current slot time restrictions. I'm not sure KOA can support a daily flight, but HA must have done it's market research. The economic benefits to the US from the slot being allocated to a Hawaii flight are far greater than any other city since JFK, SEA, and DTW have failed and I'm sure LAX and SFO are or will be just marginal.

Quoting BeachBoy (Reply 53):

NRT is hardly limited. airlines were opening Nrt services left and right. Just because it's not open skies doesn't mean it was LHR-level of difficulty for entrance.

U.S.-HKG is not open skies today either ... Did that prevent DL and AA from entering ?

Honestly, I would hope that Delta would apply for JFK-HND.

While AA could not make it work, I think Delta would have a better chance of making it work. With the change of a 747 to a 777 to NRT and with a better presence in Tokyo and a better feed than AA in JFK it might just work.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 54): NRT is hardly limited. airlines were opening Nrt services left and right.

Could you please give me examples of US airlines (other than UA and DL who were protected under the previous treaty) opening new services "left and right" in 2009-2010. NRT was slot controlled and any airline other than UA and DL/NW required special approval. I don't care about HKG, we are talking about Japan and specifically NRT/HND.

Back to the topic, I still think the reasoning that since HA didn't have service to NRT meant that it didn't deserve the slots is flawed. DL had service from DTW and SEA to NRT and AA JFK to NRT and all have failed. The bottom line is I feel the DOT should make its decision based on what provides the best economic benefit to the US and that in my opinion (which is biased and not based on market research) ends up being HA and it's proposed Hawaii service. If DL proposed HNL service I think that should be chosen over HA for the sake of competition.

AA couldn't make JFK-HND work with AA connections at JFK and JAL at HND I don't think DL will be able to either with just connections at JFK....HND is flawed because of slot times.

Quoting BeachBoy (Reply 56): Could you please give me examples of US airlines (other than UA and DL who were protected under the previous treaty) opening new services "left and right" in 2009-2010. NRT was slot controlled and any airline other than UA and DL/NW required special approval. I don't care about HKG, we are talking about Japan and specifically NRT/HND.

You chose the period RIGHT after the great recession where no one was launching anything. Good to pick such a time period to illustrate your point.

AA and PMDL both operated into NRT, so just because it required an approval process didn't mean it was that hard to enter. Did HA even BOTHER to apply at all ?

I'm fine with the latest HND slot going to HNL, but only to one of the existing HNL-NRT operators (UA or DL).

Quoting Mah4546 (Thread starter): AA will apply for LAXHND; Delta will obviously apply for SEAHND and Hawaiian will likely apply for KOAHND (or maybe a second HNLHND?). Maybe UA will throw something in, too.

I wonder what the Japanese government will prefer. Obviously they have little, if any say in this slot decision, but I'm guessing for practicality purposes they will want HA, since Hawaii is probably the biggest outside-of-asia tourist destination in Japan.

Quoting PHX787 (Reply 59): I wonder what the Japanese government will prefer. Obviously they have little, if any say in this slot decision, but I'm guessing for practicality purposes they will want HA, since Hawaii is probably the biggest outside-of-asia tourist destination in Japan.

HA already serves HND from HNL though (as do NH and JL), so that leaves only KOA... But KOA doesn't have the connections HNL does.
How comprehensive is HA's relations with NH?

I really think GUM could be a more fitting option based on the short range for low risk 738, and the connection potential there on UA to other destinations, as well as GUM being currently unserved overall from HND, but would the times allow for any GUM connections at all?

Quoting S75752 (Reply 60): HA already serves HND from HNL though (as do NH and JL), so that leaves only KOA... But KOA doesn't have the connections HNL does. How comprehensive is HA's relations with NH?

I think this flight would be a 767 flight for tourist purposes. Japanese people love all of hawaii, not just HNL.

NH doesn't serve KOA but serves HNL with 2 flights out of NRT operated by Air Japan, and one codeshared with UA.

KOA used to have a JL flight to NRT on a 747. It operated for many years on a 747 so the market is there. HA would probably do just fine using the smaller A330.

From KOA HA offers flights to HNL and OGG for anyone who wanted to island hop.

-Aloha!

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 54): NRT is hardly limited. airlines were opening Nrt services left and right. Just because it's not open skies doesn't mean it was LHR-level of difficulty for entrance.

NRT was highly constrained for many years. Slot availability was virtually nil for a couple of decades. They've managed to increase the number of slots in recent years which, along with slots freed up by service transfers to HND, makes NRT much easier to serve today. But history is certainly not on your side here. NRT used to have LHR-levels of access futility.

Quoting jetlanta (Reply 63): NRT was highly constrained for many years. Slot availability was virtually nil for a couple of decades. They've managed to increase the number of slots in recent years which, along with slots freed up by service transfers to HND, makes NRT much easier to serve today. But history is certainly not on your side here. NRT used to have LHR-levels of access futility.

You're talking about pre-2002 when there was only 1 runway. Once runway B opened, in 2002 a lot of shorter haul departures can go on that runway, leaving the original runway A for long-haul. AA announced both JFK-NRT and second DFW-NRT in 2002 (SEA-NRT was canned, but that's still a net gain)

But the other poster was claiming HA didn't serve NRT because they couldn't obtain the slots, but it seems to me that HA didn't even try to apply.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 64): AA announced both JFK-NRT and second DFW-NRT in 2002 (SEA-NRT was canned, but that's still a net gain)

AA also canned SJC-NRT in 2006. Interestingly the AA SEA-NRT flight was always 6 days a week (not Mondays) because they only had that slot for a 6x/week flight.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 64): But the other poster was claiming HA didn't serve NRT because they couldn't obtain the slots, but it seems to me that HA didn't even try to apply.

HA had rights for OGG-NRT in the early 1990s. The runway at OGG was not extended so they could never operate the route. I'm pretty sure they tried (unsuccessfully) to transfer the route award to HNL. You have to remember that back then HA was MUCH smaller than they are now. They flew a few mainland routes (HNL-SFO, LAX, SEA and PDX) in addition to limited South Pacific service (weekly HNL to PPG & PPT).

Also, until the 717s came AQ was outperforming HA in the interisland market. Back then HAL was "Hawaiian Always Late" while AQ had an on-time guarantee. The point being that the HA we know today is VERY different from the HA that was flying DC-9s & DC-10s in the 1990s. Back then it was a struggle to survive compared to the incredibly efficient, expansive and quality airline they are today (post-bankruptcy; Dunkerly as CEO).

-Aloha!

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 47): Apples and oranges. All previous routes have dealt with NRT before opting for HND application. HA never once bothered to run KOA-NRT. If KOA to Tokyo is so great, start NRT tomorrow, prove to us that it's full and profitable, then we'll support KOA-HND. HA already got more than it deserved when it was approved for HNL-HND without ever running HNL-NRT.

This rationale is absurd. Please share with us where there is a prerequisite for NRT service before serving HND.

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 67):

let me put it back to you : if Tokyo to KOA has such huge pent up demand, why not launch it with NRT while waiting for HND ? why is it HND or no deal ?

And if your argument is that KOA is so marginal a route itll fail at NRT, then chances are it's better to give another airport

Quoting S75752 (Reply 48): Because a 738 is a much smaller and plentiful craft for poking at HND-GUM as a litmus test with minimal risk to it. If it gets filled, then it too can get a 772. However, I'm still curious about what the timing slots are for, and how those would effect GUM timings. If it throws GUM timings off too far by being in the near time zone, then it could make it non-viable for a 772 anyways.

UA isn't the only carrier in the GUM/TYO market. DL could request the same authority as it flies up to 3x daily in the market at various times of the year.

WOW! Have I really been away from A.Net for almost a year!

Just thinking outside the box but it seems that the midwest and east coast specifically NYC area and Chicagoland could do well with an HND flight.

With the HND arrival restrictions, maybe the departure from the midwest or east coast is not conveneint. More over the arrival back in the US could not be good for connections. That said with ORD and NYC and the right-sized craft, you could have a good yield of business passengers and maybe a schedule could work.

DL could do East Coast (They failed with DTW-HND) but the rights could also go to UA or AA who could pull off either ORD or NYC area with ease.

HND is just so convenient. I'm sitting in my office in Toranomon and can see it planes coming in. Only 10 minutes away!

Quoting BeachBoy (Reply 53): The SEA slot should go to any airline that wants to serve HNL. Hawaii is the only market that can be consistently profitable w/ the current slot time restrictions.

Back when HND first became available for bidding, DL did put in a HNL-HND request. But the DOT, in deciding that each part of the country should get a HND flight, put DL on the DTW-HND route. When that failed, DL requested the move to SEA and/or the ability to park the DTW-HND flight in HNL, and operate HNL-HND until better times were acquired. The DOT moved that route to SEA. Now SEA has failed.

Maybe, if for some reason DL gets to keep this flight, the DOT will finally let DL have HNL-HND, a route they asked for twice now already?

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 64): You're talking about pre-2002 when there was only 1 runway. Once runway B opened, in 2002 a lot of shorter haul departures can go on that runway, leaving the original runway A for long-haul. AA announced both JFK-NRT and second DFW-NRT in 2002 (SEA-NRT was canned, but that's still a net gain)

HA's flight was scheduled to begin before the opening of the 2nd runway. The route authority originally required a start in January 2000 and was extended to January 2001. HA gave up the authority in 2000, which was then awarded to AA for their JFK-NRT flight.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 64): But the other poster was claiming HA didn't serve NRT because they couldn't obtain the slots, but it seems to me that HA didn't even try to apply.

HA did try to get slots to fly HNL-NRT after the OGG runway extension was cancelled. What was available was not optimal for service to Hawaii. The available slots would have meant arrivals and departures from Hawaii around midnight. That is not what any of the airlines flying between Japan and Hawaii want. The airlines want a night time departure from Japan to arrive in Hawaii in the morning and a mid-morning to early afternoon departure from Hawaii to arrive in Japan in the late afternoon to night time.

HA made a smart move to give up the route authority and wait rather than lose a ton of money with crappy slot times. With the Japanese economy doing poorly and the terrorist attacks in 2001, the Japan-Hawaii market dropped significantly. All the carriers with multiple daily flights dropped flights during this time. JAL alone went from 15-20 flights a day to 8 daily flights in less than 2 years.

Quoting centrair (Reply 70): WOW! Have I really been away from A.Net for almost a year!

Welcome back! We hardly knew ye  

Quoting centrair (Reply 70): DL could do East Coast (They failed with DTW-HND) but the rights could also go to UA or AA who could pull off either ORD or NYC area with ease.

I dont think they can. JFK-HND didn't seem to go well, did it?

Quoting centrair (Reply 70): HND is just so convenient. I'm sitting in my office in Toranomon and can see it planes coming in. Only 10 minutes away!

It's only convenient if you dont mind the extreme flight times.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 68): let me put it back to you : if Tokyo to KOA has such huge pent up demand, why not launch it with NRT while waiting for HND ? why is it HND or no deal ?

It likely comes down to this, HA wanted Japan, the applied and got OGG-NRT expecting the runway extension to go as planned, runway never was extended to this day, tried to get HNL-NRT, times didn't work, they gave up NRT slot. fast forward the better part of a decade, new management, another chance to get into Hawaii-Japan market and they get 1 of 4 HND slots. They expanded to different cities some successful, some not. If HA wants additional routes to Tokyo, it will have to be HND or bust. Why? An airline the size of HA will not (and should not) have two separate ground operations at two separate airports in one metro area for a total of 2 flights a day to said metro area. It makes no logical or business sense for any sized airline, let alone one the size of HA.

I am also personally skeptical that another HNL-HND city pair would be granted (though plausible I suppose). With three dailies already in place including an American flagged carrier, I see the only way to allow this would be with HA from HNL. If that happens you would then be faced with the problem of one airline with two flights departing and arriving at almost identical times, though a problem HA would likely welcome. That or face 4 flights leaving HNL for HND with at least 3 (if not all 4) leaving and arriving at about the same time on both ends. KOA makes sense as well, though a tough sell if the DoT keeps to it's original intent of slot distribution. I remember the tsurumaru was a normal site on the ground in KOA during my childhood (as was the UA tulip). KOA and HNL are the only airports to be able to send a non-stop to Japan from Hawaii.

Forgive me if I'm not sold on your slot authority entitlement argument. That's like saying, "I've been on this earth longer than you so I should be able to hoard all my toys from everyone else even if I never ever play with them again and if I can't keep them I will break them so no one else can have them. Wherever the city pair for this slot becomes reality whether it stays the same or is changed, 1) previous service to Tokyo won't be an issue. 2) The chances are slim at best it would duplicate a city pair already in service by an American flagged carrier's own metal. 3) I honestly don't believe GUM will be an option unless the DoT strays well off it's original intent in slot distribution. 4) Unless in Hawaii, the carrier will likely be looking to either losing some money on the route at least initially if not longer OR they will have to get terribly creative with flight timings and undesirable aircraft utilization as a way to maybe lose less money.

my two cents FWIW

Pohakuloa

Quoting Pohakuloa (Reply 74):

The previous service argument is to prove that demand already exists on such a route, so a migration to HND is a logical step. Eons ago KOA has Japanese service but today not a single airline flies KOA to Japan at all.

Quoting B737900ER (Reply 6): I would love to see GUM-HND. Would UA be able to turn its inbound SFO to GUM and it's inbound GUM to SFO?

What would you love about a GUM- HND route?

Quoting CV880 (Reply 69): UA isn't the only carrier in the GUM/TYO market. DL could request the same authority as it flies up to 3x daily in the market at various times of the year.

UA is the one with a hub in GUM though, so it'd make the most sense anyways regarding connections (That is of course if the timings would allow for them).

If Delta applied for JFK-HND i would think their chances of landing it are pretty close to a statistical zero. The route was a total bomb, granted it was another carrier but the same route, and Delta has gotten more chances and slots than is fair.

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 78): If Delta applied for JFK-HND i would think their chances of landing it are pretty close to a statistical zero.

Delta wouldn't. But based on this thread, DL will apply for HNL and probably will have a decent chance to regain the slot.

Quoting BeachBoy (Reply 53): The SEA slot should go to any airline that wants to serve HNL.

And Delta is hearing your opinion.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 68): et me put it back to you : if Tokyo to KOA has such huge pent up demand, why not launch it with NRT while waiting for HND ? why is it HND or no deal ? And if your argument is that KOA is so marginal a route itll fail at NRT, then chances are it's better to give another airport

Simple, as mentioned ad-nauseum around here, HAL has already said that having a split operation for two flights at NRT and HND wouldn't be financially feasible.

Quoting HeeseokKoo (Reply 79): Delta wouldn't. But based on this thread, DL will apply for HNL and probably will have a decent chance to regain the slot.

Again... how can DL seriously attempt to move their SEA slot? First, they didn't want these proceedings to take place and second, they're arguing that the SEA-HND opportunity is indeed viable. Everyone else is calling BS on that, not DL. So... based on that, how on earth could DL, with a straight face ask the DOT to move this slot, yet again? Unless DL is that arrogant and brazen, I predict DL reapplying for SEA-HND, to affirm what it believes.

[Edited 2014-12-18 09:16:05]

[Edited 2014-12-18 09:16:31]

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 80): I predict DL reapplying for SEA-HND, to affirm what it believes.

It'd be ironic if UA applied for SEA-HND. Bammmm!

Honestly, give it to HA. Hawaii seems to be the only market where nobody has struggled given the HND time restrictions.

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 80): HAL has already said that having a split operation for two flights at NRT and HND wouldn't be financially feasible.

That's a weak weasel argument not to launch KOA-NRT. Tons of airlines operate to multiple airports in the same city with ease.

Everyone continues to suffer at NRT while HA gets 100% of their Tokyo access at HND ? BS

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 83): Everyone continues to suffer at NRT while HA gets 100% of their Tokyo access at HND ? BS

HA is the only one that can really make it work with no problems. Even DL runs a 767 from LAX.

HA should be given the slot because they are the most sure fire to make it work now that UA has SFO-HND.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 84): HA is the only one that can really make it work with no problems. Even DL runs a 767 from LAX. HA should be given the slot because they are the most sure fire to make it work now that UA has SFO-HND.

HNL is what's making it work, not HA. AirIndia can make HND-HNL work.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 83): That's a weak weasel argument not to launch KOA-NRT. Tons of airlines operate to multiple airports in the same city with ease.

You think citing high costs is a weak argument? Gotcha, that explains a lot and how perhaps this is a futile discussion. Please share these "tons" of carriers that operate with "ease." Don't forget to compare apples to apples. An apples to apples comparison would be an airline of similar size and cost structure, operating two flights, from two different airports in the same city to perhaps the same single destination, maybe a different one. Please also, reference similar market conditions, currency conditions and the cost of doing business in said country.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 85): HNL is what's making it work, not HA. AirIndia can make HND-HNL work.

   Now THAT'S comedy.

[Edited 2014-12-18 11:04:46]

[Edited 2014-12-18 11:10:56]

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 85): HNL is what's making it work, not HA. AirIndia can make HND-HNL work.

Exactly. So if another carrier wants to fly Hawaii-HND, they should be given consideration. However, if UA/DL/AA tries for DFW/ORD/Wherever-HND vs. Hawaii-HND, it should be given to whoever flies Hawaii-HND because they have the best shot of making it work.

Quoting LAXdude1023 (Reply 87): Exactly. So if another carrier wants to fly Hawaii-HND, they should be given consideration. However, if UA/DL/AA tries for DFW/ORD/Wherever-HND vs. Hawaii-HND, it should be given to whoever flies Hawaii-HND because they have the best shot of making it work.

If AA/DL/UA applies for HND-HNL I'm fine.

Quoting commavia (Reply 1): So it appears Delta actually faces the real prospect of losing the authority. I must admit - I never actually thought this would get this far. Wow.

It was their own fault.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 38): The Japanese airlines have SFO, LAX, HNLx2, and they didn't require randomly shifting slots around. They have found success in all 4 slots.

The Japanese airlines get much better slots.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 38): Perhaps the US should just mirror that : SFO (UA), LAX (DL), HNL (HA), and this 4th slot to HNL, but operated by AA

AA or UA should be flying LAX.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 89): The Japanese airlines get much better slots.

No, they do not. They have the same exact slot restrictions.

Quoting N1120A (Reply 89): The Japanese airlines get much better slots.

Quoting Mah4546 (Reply 90): No, they do not. They have the same exact slot restrictions.

They get the same slots, but have a major advantage - land by 0700, turn the plane to do intra-Asia trip, then depart after 2200 back to US, ensuring passengers both arrive and leave at reasonable times with near guaranteed train access

surprisingly, not a single US airline attempted to leave the plane at HND the whole day to make a non-Hawaiian route work. US airlines routinely idle planes at GRU GIG EZE the whole day, but refuse to do the same for HND.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 91): surprisingly, not a single US airline attempted to leave the plane at HND the whole day to make a non-Hawaiian route work. US airlines routinely idle planes at GRU GIG EZE the whole day, but refuse to do the same for HND.

Delta's LAX-HND route originally did have a scheduled that mimicked the Japanese, as I believe the plane was scissored with the DTW-HND plane.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 91): surprisingly, not a single US airline attempted to leave the plane at HND the whole day to make a non-Hawaiian route work. US airlines routinely idle planes at GRU GIG EZE the whole day, but refuse to do the same for HND.

As mentioned, DL did in fact do what you have suggested. Having a plane that sits idle, does not come cheap, because there is loss in revenue generating potential as well as parking fees. DL obviously couldn't sustain the RON schedule, in addition to the financial issues that came with the DTW and LAX flights when they launched. There is a reason that US carriers have planes that sit around in deep South America. Demand has dictated an overnight return schedule to the USA and based on that demand, the carriers can charge a premium. In other words, it actually PAYS to have the planes sit idle, so that on the return, they can command fares that make the inefficiency feasible.

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 93): As mentioned, DL did in fact do what you have suggested. Having a plane that sits idle, does not come cheap, because there is loss in revenue generating potential as well as parking fees. DL obviously couldn't sustain the RON schedule, in addition to the financial issues that came with the DTW and LAX flights when they launched. There is a reason that US carriers have planes that sit around in deep South America. Demand has dictated an overnight return schedule to the USA and based on that demand, the carriers can charge a premium. In other words, it actually PAYS to have the planes sit idle, so that on the return, they can command fares that make the inefficiency feasible.

That's DL's own problem back then. JL to SFO and NH to LAX has proven far more successful than US counterparts. Key difference ? They don't land at god-awfully late hours just to save on pesky parking fees or opportunity costs. 85% load factor with plane idle has a much higher chance of success than 70% load factor of immediate turn around.

The very late HND landing hours is still one of the key reasons I continue to play it safe and opt for afternoon landings at NRT.

But all these discussions forget a hidden 800 lb gorilla - YVR and YYZ both have daytime HND flights, which strongly cannibalize US-HND traffic. JFK-SFO-HND landing at 2230 or LGA-YYZ-HND landing at 4pm ? Guess which one people will pick ?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 89): The Japanese airlines get much better slots.

Categorically false.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 91): land by 0700, turn the plane to do intra-Asia trip, then depart after 2200 back to US

Exactly, park up and then you have some perfect slot times.

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 93): Having a plane that sits idle, does not come cheap, because there is loss in revenue generating potential as well as parking fees

But surely there is an opportunity cost involved. It is very, very clear that the midnight turnarounds aren't making anyone any money, but a morning arrival and evening departure would make a very good business-friendly schedule that might actually stand a chance of driving a revenue premium.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 95): But surely there is an opportunity cost involved. It is very, very clear that the midnight turnarounds aren't making anyone any money, but a morning arrival and evening departure would make a very good business-friendly schedule that might actually stand a chance of driving a revenue premium.

Of course, it seems to only be working to Hawaii. The US carriers have obviously determined that it doesn't make financial sense to idle the plane in HND. If it could work, like it does in deep South America, don't you think they'd have done it already and stuck with it?

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 94): That's DL's own problem back then. JL to SFO and NH to LAX has proven far more successful than US counterparts. Key difference ? They don't land at god-awfully late hours just to save on pesky parking fees or opportunity costs.

Exactly. It was a problem for DL and they stopped, likely because it didn't make financial sense. You yourself said that the Japanese carriers are finding success because they can utilize their aircraft better.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 94): 85% load factor with plane idle has a much higher chance of success than 70% load factor of immediate turn around

Completely ignoring costs and fares, perhaps your can make that argument. But since operating costs and the fares that airlines can command are an integral part of the argument, they can't be ignored. Again, look at the explanation as to why the carriers make the deep South America flying work with their inefficient schedules. It's all about fare premiums.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 94): But all these discussions forget a hidden 800 lb gorilla - YVR and YYZ both have daytime HND flights, which strongly cannibalize US-HND traffic.

Turns out YYZ and YVR lie in Canada, which was able to take advantage of the day time slots offered. Of course, if the US could have access to daytime slots, they'd jump on them! So absolutely, the US carriers are at a disadvantage purely based on marketing times and are likely losing business to AC. It's already well established that the root of the failures in HND are based on the garbage slot times the US carriers have been dealt. It's not a demand issue, a seasonality issue or a marketing issue. It's a slot issue.

Quoting azjubilee (Reply 96): Completely ignoring costs and fares, perhaps your can make that argument. But since operating costs and the fares that airlines can command are an integral part of the argument, they can't be ignored. Again, look at the explanation as to why the carriers make the deep South America flying work with their inefficient schedules. It's all about fare premiums.

It's a chicken and egg problem you're talking about. If you don't offer the right flight times, how do you expect people to pony up a fare premium to land at 10:30pm ?

Quoting Mah4546 (Reply 90): No, they do not. They have the same exact slot restrictions.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 95): Categorically false.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 91): They get the same slots, but have a major advantage - land by 0700, turn the plane to do intra-Asia trip, then depart after 2200 back to US, ensuring passengers both arrive and leave at reasonable times with near guaranteed train access

So, not really false, eh?

Quoting N1120A (Reply 98): So, not really false, eh?

Well the US plane could park and operate the same time return flight. They are just not at their home base to be able to fit in another trip.