US - Japan Reach Deal On HND Daytime Slots

mercure1 · Wed Jan 20, 2016 11:25 pm

For an airline that has done incredibly well and developed very savvy ventures in other regions, the lack of Delta prowess to do something similar in Asia is a head scratcher.

Also it seems a little ironic that the strongest asset that NW brought to Delta merger its Pacific network might now be the one that is creating the most headaches in how to keep it strong versus competitors.

SFOA380 · Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:03 am

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 50):

For an airline that has done incredibly well and developed very savvy ventures in other regions, the lack of Delta prowess to do something similar in Asia is a head scratcher.

Also it seems a little ironic that the strongest asset that NW brought to Delta merger its Pacific network might now be the one that is creating the most headaches in how to keep it strong versus competitors.

Agree - just totally perplexing...

wedgetail737 · Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:11 am

I would like to hold out hope for the return of HND-SEA, maybe with NH or JL. JL could benefit at SEA if they could get a
partnership with AS.

N1120A · Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:48 am

Quoting a380787 (Reply 19):

Now they're landing back at HND past 10pm. There's definitely some utility in arriving back in Tokyo a bit earlier than that.

For Japan-based O&D, that isn't such a bad thing.

LAXintl · Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:49 am

I'll repost this as its pertinent to this discussion.

Airline Weekly January 4th cover page story was "Delta, still trying to solve its Asia dilemma."

The long analysis the story brought home fact that unlike other regions where Delta enjoys much success with its network and JV partnerships, it continues to strike out in one effort after another to reshape inherited Northwest Asia network.

The strikes against DL that the article brought up were:

o Open-skies with Japan the single most important market inherited from NW gave AA & UA green light to form JVs with alliance partners leaving DL without a bride and resulting major market handicap.
o Value of HND grew just as NRT importance as Pacific connecting hub was decreasing.
o Not being able to lure and out maneuver JAL away from OW during its BK rehabilitation
o Being rebuffed on multiple occasions to pursue deeper cooperation with Korean Air, arguably one of the best connection hubs in Asia for US service.
o Envisaged Seattle hub not being a joint AS-DL partnership but instead carriers locking horns forcing DL to construct costly US feeder network which reduces hubs profitability and scale of feed.
o Foiled by ANA and other creditors in trying to establish partnership with Skymark
o Without open-skies a prerequisite for JV, any cooperation with Chinese airlines is limited in use particularly for beyond markets.

Also makes point thay by doing things like accelerating retirement of the 744, and changing the banking structure at NRT, DL is signaling its continued reduced strength in the market, and as we've seen with one spoke being dropped after another, its remaining NRT ops likely will only continue weaken and result have to shrink even further.

=

Additional future bullet point which might act as another strike out against DL is the potential shift in daytime flights NRT services to HND now where AA and UA can greatly benefit thanks to their JV partners, while DL is weakened further.

Also longer term - what does DL do with markets like BKK, SIN - arguably too far to make economic sense nonstop from the US if the NRT hub is weakened further? Even MNL might be iffy nonstop basis from the US knowing the lower yield nature of the market.

Viscount724 · Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:22 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 42):
Also as side note, the split city ops of PVG/SHA further reduces PVGs utility particularly for inland China markets.

MU still serves over 70 cities in China from PVG, including all major cities. At a quick check, most of MU's roughly 55 destinations in China served from SHA are also served from PVG. Those served only from SHA tend to be smaller points. I doubt the percentage of US-China traffic to/from those points would be very high.

LAXintl · Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:44 am

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 55):
MU still serves over 70 cities in China from PVG, including all major cities. At a quick check, most of MU's roughly 55 destinations in China served from SHA are also served from PVG. Those served only from SHA tend to be smaller points. I doubt the percentage of US-China traffic to/from those points would be very high.

Need to actually look at the schedules and not just headline city pairs so see how they potentially connect or not.
Most points have lower frequency from PVG as SHA is the preferred in city airport for the local demand, so its utility for connections is reduced.
Dont take my word for it - China Eastern itself mentions this in its investor presentations and was one of the benefits with Shanghai Airlines purchase to give MU more strength at preferred SHA airport.

boilerla · Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:53 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 56):
Need to actually look at the schedules and not just headline city pairs so see how they potentially connect or not.
Most points have lower frequency from PVG as SHA is the preferred in city airport for the local demand, so its utility for connections is reduced.

Not to mention the timing of those frequencies; DL's LAX/SEA-PVG flights arrive past 5pm. Too late for connections out of PVG for most cities especially when they're only 1x daily to begin with.

Quoting commavia (Reply 43):
It is extremely difficult for me to imagine that the second largest airline in NYC metro, with 500 daily flights in and out of the region, would be unable to support a single daily nonstop flight to TYO - with or without the onward feed that is already down to just basically a few 767s/777s as it is.

Well, not to nitpick--but DL isn't that far ahead of AA in the NYC region and AA lacks a NYC-TYO flight. It's a flight that's more reliant on corporate contracts and O&D, so DL's ops in NYC aren't really relevant--more about the timing of the arrival, and therefore the airport. Especially since DL runs a split operation in NYC anyway--all those LGA flights don't matter to feed a JFK flight to TYO.

Viscount724 · Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:55 am

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 56):
Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 55):
MU still serves over 70 cities in China from PVG, including all major cities. At a quick check, most of MU's roughly 55 destinations in China served from SHA are also served from PVG. Those served only from SHA tend to be smaller points. I doubt the percentage of US-China traffic to/from those points would be very high.

Need to actually look at the schedules and not just headline city pairs so see how they potentially connect or not.
Most points have lower frequency from PVG as SHA is the preferred in city airport for the local demand, so its utility for connections is reduced.

Would assume MU schedules domestic flights at PVG to maximize connectivity with international flights, if there's little domestic O&D demand there.

Byrdluvs747 · Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:57 am

Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 52):
JL could benefit at SEA if they could get a partnership with AS.

I see absolutely no obstacle to that. Considering AS partners with five OW members already, adding JL should amount to little more than fililng the paperwork.

Aaron747 · Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:20 am

Mehopes JL or NH could convert their one of their overnighters HND-SFO to a daytime service. Yes, please.

commavia · Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:35 am

Quoting boilerla (Reply 57):
but DL isn't that far ahead of AA in the NYC region

Yes it is. In the twelve months through November 2015, Delta carried a grand total of 27.3M passengers on flight in NYC metro compared to 17.9M for AA - a difference of nearly 10M passengers. In fact, Delta is nipping at United's heals as #1 in the entire region overall.

I have said time and again - and still believe - that AA is quite a strong and competitive force in the NYC metro market with an impressive presence, particularly in important and high-yielding business O&D markets, but despite that, there's just no denying that Delta is substantially bigger than (indeed, "far ahead" of) AA in the region.

Quoting boilerla (Reply 57):
AA lacks a NYC-TYO flight

Through its antitrust immunized joint venture with JAL, AA actually has two daily flights JFK-NRT that it can jointly sell to corporate clients, frequent flyers, etc.

Quoting boilerla (Reply 57):
It's a flight that's more reliant on corporate contracts and O&D, so DL's ops in NYC aren't really relevant

How would "corporate contracts and O&D" not be relevant to Delta's operations in NYC, seeing as Delta is the second largest airline in the region, with lots of corporate contracts and carrying a great deal of O&D?

LAX772LR · Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:44 am

Quoting Rdh3e (Reply 22):
They are hypocrites. Not saying they don't know how to run an airline. They are just talking out of both sides of their mouths.

What Fortune500 doesn't "Talk out of both sides of its mouth" when it's to their benefit to do so?????

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 42):
KE is by far the best and most logical partner. The inability to come up with an attractive enough deal all these years is baffling.

Is it though? DL has a long history of successfully creating and working together in J/Vs with multiple airlines from multiple regions of the world. KE on the other hand.....

Quoting commavia (Reply 44):
the part that's most interesting to consider is that it seems with each passing year, the bargaining power and leverage between Delta and Korean shifts more and more towards the latter. At this point, given what Delta itself now readily acknowledges it is facing, the relationship with Korean just keeps getting more and more critical.

Not sure that's the case, especially as DL cozies with MU, in clear hopes of an acceleration in liberalization of the Chinese bilateral.

commavia · Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:17 am

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 62):
Is it though?

Yes. It is. No question about it. Korean is an incredible partner in terms of the breadth and depth of its network both across the Pacific, and penetrating deep into markets big and small throughout East Asia. And ICN is an absolutely incredible hub to connect through.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 62):
DL has a long history of successfully creating and working together in J/Vs with multiple airlines from multiple regions of the world.

Delta does have a proven track record of "successfully create[ing] and work[ing] together in [a] JV" with three partners with which it did not hold some type of equity stake - Air France, Alitalia and Virgin Australia. Beyond that, to my knowledge, every JV or "strategic partnership" of Delta's is with either (a) a partner for which the actual JV "creation" was done by Northwest (e.g., KLM) or (b) a partner for which Delta has dominated the relationship via a financial transaction/equity infusion (e.g., Aeromexico, Virgin, GOL and China Eastern).

I'm not minimizing the accomplishment - but I think it's worth noting that at least some of "success" of these JVs seems to have been facilitated as much if not more through Delta bring bags of cash and Delta being such a great partner.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 62):
especially as DL cozies with MU, in clear hopes of an acceleration in liberalization of the Chinese bilateral.

Well I guess they can "hope" that - just like how Mr Anderson can claim (apparently with a straight face) to "hope" that Delta will be given enough HND slots to relocate their entire TYO hub. The reality, in both cases, though, is that this is highly unlikely. And, even if Chinese liberalization advanced sufficiently to enable a true JV with China Eastern, the equally-inescapable reality is that China Eastern is - in many ways - a poor substitute for Korean. In terms of product and service, and reputation, China Eastern is no Korean. In terms of broad access through East Asia (beyond just China), China Eastern is no Korean and PVG is no ICN. In terms of ease of connectivity, transit formalities, etc., PVG is no ICN.

ScottB · Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:09 am

Quoting commavia (Reply 43):
Delta would fly just two flights to the largest metro area, and capital of the third largest economy, on earth?

No, DL would fly LAX/DTW/ATL-HND as they continue to have the rights for LAX-HND (assuming they were to pick up two slots). Maybe they'd keep ATL-NRT and/or DTW-NRT and offer JFK-HND and/or SEA-HND; they'd have the advantage of a monopoly to TYO at both ATL & DTW so the need to serve HND from those is somewhat less.

Quoting a380787 (Reply 6):
If based on competition alone, it would be HA AA UA then DLx2 to compensate lack of JV. But given the headache DL is giving everyone, the DOT might be pissed enough to award AAx2 or UAx2.

Agreed that DL has been a royal pain in the patootie, but consumers are poorly served if the two immunized alliances end up with a virtual monopoly in U.S.A.-HND markets (and by extension TYO given the preference for HND).

Quoting commavia (Reply 43):
It is extremely difficult for me to imagine that the second largest airline in NYC metro, with 500+ daily flights in and out of the region, would be unable to support a single daily nonstop flight to TYO - with or without the onward feed that is already down to just basically a few 767s/777s as it is.

The problem, of course, is that most of those 500+ daily DL flights to/from NYC aren't at JFK, so the feed is weak to begin with -- and most of the potential connections at JFK are better-handled via DTW anyway. And those flights beyond NRT are to important markets like SIN, TPE, PVG, BKK, etc. But if the NRT hub loses scale, which looks increasingly likely, the beyond-Japan flying fails.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 54):
Airline Weekly January 4th cover page story was "Delta, still trying to solve its Asia dilemma."

The long analysis the story brought home fact that unlike other regions where Delta enjoys much success with its network and JV partnerships, it continues to strike out in one effort after another to reshape inherited Northwest Asia network.

All excellent points -- but it doesn't seem as if DL has failed for lack of trying.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 48):
Neither of these airlines is perfect. I'm certain the truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle. Has DL bullied KE? Quite possibly. Has KE been pigheaded about wanting a JV on terms completely favorable to it? Also quite possible. I'm actually opposed to JV's and wish they'd never gone through, but since that appears to be the world we're living in, I don't think they're going anywhere. As I noted above, of the two, it's not DL who's been unwilling to sign a JV with any other airline company. I certainly think DL is partially to blame for the way the KE/DL relationship has gone, but I think it's simplistic to assume that it's all DL's fault.

It's not clear to me that DL is all that responsible for the lack of deeper cooperation with KE; it seems more as if KE has just decided to do its own thing in the transpacific market and simply does not need DL.

Trying to get a deal done to rehabilitate Skymark in bankruptcy just seems so much more risky than coming to an agreement with KE, even if that agreement is more favorable to KE. The same is true of dropping a few hundred million in an equity investment in MU.

Quoting commavia (Reply 63):
And, even if Chinese liberalization advanced sufficiently to enable a true JV with China Eastern, the equally-inescapable reality is that China Eastern is - in many ways - a poor substitute for Korean. In terms of product and service, and reputation, China Eastern is no Korean. In terms of broad access through East Asia (beyond just China), China Eastern is no Korean and PVG is no ICN. In terms of ease of connectivity, transit formalities, etc., PVG is no ICN.

All this is absolutely true -- but it also seems that MU has been much more willing to work with DL than KE has been.

Quoting boilerla (Reply 57):
Not to mention the timing of those frequencies; DL's LAX/SEA-PVG flights arrive past 5pm. Too late for connections out of PVG for most cities especially when they're only 1x daily to begin with.

Schedules can be changed, especially if a joint venture is (eventually) established.

commavia · Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:12 am

Quoting ScottB (Reply 64):
All this is absolutely true -- but it also seems that MU has been much more willing to work with DL than KE has been.

... which, again, likely has something to do with Delta writing China Eastern a check for $450M, among other things.

sparkingwave · Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:12 am

If Delta can't adapt its Northwest routes to an ever-changing Asia market by now, then just let it fail. Let them give up NRT-MSP and the route authority will just go to someone else. It's supposed to be open skies, after all. Delta can't ask the DOT to give it any preferential treatment. That would amount to something worse than a subsidy, unthinkable when they are complaining about the ME3 and especially after making $1.5 billion USD in profit.

[Edited 2016-01-20 23:04:16]

LAX772LR · Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:20 am

Quoting commavia (Reply 63):
Yes. It is. No question about it. Korean is an incredible partner in terms of the breadth and depth of its network both across the Pacific, and penetrating deep into markets big and small throughout East Asia. And ICN is an absolutely incredible hub to connect through.

Sure, but you missed what I was saying: that it's not really "baffling," not that KE would potentially be a (logistically) good partner.

Quoting commavia (Reply 63):
Delta does have a proven track record of "successfully create[ing] and work[ing] together in [a] JV" with three partners with which it did not hold some type of equity stake - Air France, Alitalia and Virgin Australia.

"a?" VA has nothing to do with the AF/KL/AZ j/v, so not sure why they're being compared in tandem.

Quoting commavia (Reply 63):
I'm not minimizing the accomplishment - but I think it's worth noting that at least some of "success" of these JVs seems to have been facilitated as much if not more through Delta bring bags of cash and Delta being such a great partner.

So? That is, they've proven they can go both routes, to significant mutual results.

Thus, the point remains: DL has, multiple times and multiple ways, proven itself to be a mutually beneficial immunized j/v partner.

Contrast this to KE.

Quoting commavia (Reply 63):
The reality, in both cases, though, is that this is highly unlikely.

That's what people were saying about both Mexico and Brazil not long ago... and while Mexico isn't 100% open skies, it's just a matter of time.

jfk777 · Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:14 am

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 60):
Mehopes JL or NH could convert their one of their overnighters HND-SFO to a daytime service. Yes, please

A "day time" flight from Tokyo to California is clock challenged. Its 7 time zones and 10 hours flying time from NRT to SFO or LAX. If a flight left NRT at 0600 it would arrive at LAX at 2300, too early and too late.

Many people love the daytime JFK to LHR flights but they leave at 0900 and arrive at 2100(9:00pm). Since the Atlantic is smaller it can work but the Pacific is too big and wide.

a380787 · Thu Jan 21, 2016 9:45 am

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 68):

"Daytime" doesn't mean the whole flight has to be during daylight. Look at existing NRT-SFO/LAX schedules : depart late afternoon arrive cali early morning

jayunited · Thu Jan 21, 2016 11:37 am

Quoting psa1011 (Reply 5):
UA would probably also be in favor of daytime slots for its SFO flight.

I doubt it UA's night time flight out of SFO works great looking at the history of the flight UA has seen strong load factors on this flight in both directions. I think UA would keep the SFO-HND flight a night time flight and launch ORD-HND as a daytime flight utilizing a 772ER at the same time I think UA881 ORD-NRT would go 772ER and perhaps be pushed back to a 3:30 pm departure. I think if UA were to launch a daytime ORD-HND flight they both UA and NH would probably sit down to talk about what happens to NH113 the late afternoon departure. Because I think 2 NH flights to NRT and a UA flight to NRT and a UA flight to HND might be to much capacity and then again maybe not. But I think UA would go for ORD-HND for the daytime slot.

AS far as DL is concerned their NRT hub is their problem and should be of no concern for the Japanese, or U.S. government and it surely is not AA, HA, or UA's problem. What I think would be a fair allocation of the slots is this each airline (AA, DL , HA, and UA) get one additional slot this way all airlines would now have two HND slots one daytime and one nighttime. Each airline should be require to submit a competitive bid for the 5 and final slot and the government decides who gets the slot based upon whatever criteria is used in determining slot allocations.

jfk777 · Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:19 pm

Quoting a380787 (Reply 69):
"Daytime" doesn't mean the whole flight has to be during daylight. Look at existing NRT-SFO/LAX schedules : depart late afternoon arrive cali early morning

That is an overnight flight.

Aaron747 · Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:22 pm

Quoting jfk777 (Reply 68):
A "day time" flight from Tokyo to California is clock challenged. Its 7 time zones and 10 hours flying time from NRT to SFO or LAX. If a flight left NRT at 0600 it would arrive at LAX at 2300, too early and too late.

No I'm saying currently it's a choice between out of KIX/NRT leaving 1600-1700 and arriving in SFO/LAX at 0900-1000 or leaving HND at 0000-0100 and arriving 1700-1800. Both schedules have their drawbacks but most everyone I know with family in the States prefers arriving in the AM.

jacobchoi · Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:23 pm

Quoting jayunited (Reply 70):
Because I think 2 NH flights to NRT and a UA flight to NRT and a UA flight to HND might be to much capacity and then again maybe not. But I think UA would go for ORD-HND for the daytime slot.

Maybe JL could do ORD-NRT and AA could move to HND

STT757 · Thu Jan 21, 2016 12:54 pm

Quoting jayunited (Reply 70):
I doubt it UA's night time flight out of SFO works great looking at the history of the flight UA has seen strong load factors on this flight in both directions

Wouldn't the evening arrivals at HND work better for O&D traffic, perhaps move the evening slot to launch GUM-HND for the local tourist traffic and add a new SFO-HND daytime flight better timed for connections.

a380787 · Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:08 pm

Quoting STT757 (Reply 74):

Only if you're heading to Tokyo proper, and only in a cab. If the local Japanese are heading home and relying on public transport, any delay in the flight it risks past the point of public transit shutdown and have to foot a very very pricey taxi bill, likely nullifying any advantage HND might give.

jfk777 · Thu Jan 21, 2016 1:45 pm

Quoting Aaron747 (Reply 72):

No I'm saying currently it's a choice between out of KIX/NRT leaving 1600-1700 and arriving in SFO/LAX at 0900-1000 or leaving HND at 0000-0100 and arriving 1700-1800. Both schedules have their drawbacks but most everyone I know with family in the States prefers arriving in the AM

You are absolutely right which is why the Japanese imposed the draconian scheduling conditions of 2200-0700 making arrival in SFO or LAX very late and unattractive to airlines.

jfklganyc · Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:06 pm

Quoting ScottB (Reply 64):

The problem, of course, is that most of those 500+ daily DL flights to/from NYC aren't at JFK, so the feed is weak to begin with -- and most of the potential connections at JFK are better-handled via DTW anyway. And those flights beyond NRT are to important markets like SIN, TPE, PVG, BKK, etc. But if the NRT hub loses scale, which looks increasingly likely, the beyond-Japan flying fails.

JFK is closing in on 240 flights. The hub stands on its own with plenty of feed.

commavia · Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:14 pm

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 67):
"a?"

I was altering the grammar of the original sense so that it made sense in the context of the statement I was making - nothing more, nothing less.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 67):
VA has nothing to do with the AF/KL/AZ j/v, so not sure why they're being compared in tandem.

Well actually I already made clear why they're being "compared" (or really grouped together) - because Virgin Australia, along with Air France and Alitalia, are the only JVs that Delta has successfully formed that didn't involve Delta writing a check.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 67):
Thus, the point remains: DL has, multiple times and multiple ways, proven itself to be a mutually beneficial immunized j/v partner.

Thus - exactly what I said. Delta certainly has proven successful at forming JVs and "strategic" partnerships, and in many cases this "mutual benefit" has seemingly been driven in no small part not by Delta's greatness or awfulness as a partner but rather by Delta's willingness to provide capital as an investor.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 67):
Contrast this to KE.

Contrast indeed.

Korean needs Delta far less than many of Delta's other "strategic" partners - both for feed (for which Korean has proven adept at finding workable alternatives, such as AA and Alaska), and for money. Perhaps that's the reason why Korean doesn't fit the same pattern as most of Delta's other JV partners?

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 67):
That's what people were saying about both Mexico and Brazil not long ago... and while Mexico isn't 100% open skies, it's just a matter of time.

Funny those are the two examples mentioned - seeing as both still don't have Open Skies! But in any event, Mexico and Brazil are not China. I'll stand by my earlier point - I do not see the Chinese fully liberalizing their civil aviation market with the U.S. anytime soon, and, again, even if they did, it would be no panacea for Delta in Asia as China Eastern is a suboptimal substitute for Korean and PVG is a suboptimal substitute for ICN.

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 77):
JFK is closing in on 240 flights. The hub stands on its own with plenty of feed.

Delta's dramatic hyperbole aside, I still find it difficult to imagine any plausible scenario in the future when Delta doesn't have at least six daily flights from the U.S. to TYO - from ATL, JFK, DTW, MSP, SEA and LAX.

[Edited 2016-01-21 06:15:38]

a380787 · Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:23 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 77):

JFK is closing in on 240 flights. The hub stands on its own with plenty of feed.

A lot of which is directed for WestCoast-JFK-Europe, which are irrelevant for the purposes of NRT/HND.

a380787 · Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:35 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 78):

Funny those are the two examples mentioned - seeing as both still don't have Open Skies! But in any event, Mexico and Brazil are not China. I'll stand by my earlier point - I do not see the Chinese fully liberalizing their civil aviation market with the U.S. anytime soon, and, again, even if they did, it would be no panacea for Delta in Asia as China Eastern is a suboptimal substitute for Korean and PVG is a suboptimal substitute for ICN.

I'll add to that - having MU as a partner is not a unique advantage at all. If China ever liberalize to a point of full Open Skies, UA would be ready to JV with CA from day one, while there's a large possibility that AA would cozy up with Hainan in a JV, even if HU stays outside oneworld.

Add to that, hypothetical UA/CA or AA/HU would be their supplemental backup type of JV specializing in just mainland China while for DL/MU it would be their primary.

jfklganyc · Thu Jan 21, 2016 2:50 pm

"http://www.jfkiat.com/flight.html"

Look through the T4 arrivals. Look how many flights (not including Deltas domestic ops at T2) arrive to connect to that NRT flight

Just at quick glance this morning:

Washington
Halifax
Toronto
Cleveland
Richmond
Jacksonville
Philly
Buffalo
Rochester
Pittsburgh
Syracuse
Charleston
Raleigh
Baltimore
OHare
Columbus
Lauderdale
Santo Domingo
Miami
Orlando
Atlanta
Detroit
Tampa
MSP
New Orleans
San Juan

All T4 Delta arrivals before 11:12 am. Again, doesn't include T2.

How much more feed do you want for a 12:03 flight to NRT or hypothetical HND?

travelin man · Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:02 pm

If DL is so concerned about their NRT hub (which basically is useful for SE Asia connections), why not enter into a JV with CI through TPE? I flew through there last year LAX-TPE-DPS and a huge number of travelers (over 50% in my estimation) were connecting to SIN, BKK, MNL, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc.

CI is already in Skyteam and is building a pretty good SE Asian hub.

DL seems to be hanging on to an era where you had to fly your own metal everywhere in Asia. They should just make Tokyo an O&D market from the US and find themselves a JV partner for the rest. IMO if they can't do anything with KE, CI would be a good choice.

Polot · Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:10 pm

Quoting travelin man (Reply 82):
If DL is so concerned about their NRT hub (which basically is useful for SE Asia connections), why not enter into a JV with CI through TPE?

Because TPE is a lower yielding market making it difficult to make nonstops from the US work. DL doesn't even fly to TPE from the US mainland, their service is via NRT.

anonms · Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:29 pm

Quoting polot (Reply 83):
Because TPE is a lower yielding market making it difficult to make nonstops from the US work.

Isn't the concern centered around connecting traffic, not O/D?

Polot · Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:32 pm

Quoting anonms (Reply 84):
Isn't the concern centered around connecting traffic, not O/D?

A successful hub has a good mix of high yielding O&D to go along with that lower yielding connecting traffic.

superjeff · Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:13 pm

and some kind of a JV with CI over TPE might generate additional traffic justifying nonstop service by DL to TPE from, at the minimum, Seattle, and possibly DTW as well.

a380787 · Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:23 pm

Quoting jfklganyc (Reply 81):

You're counting MSP now? Who's flying MSP-JFK-NRT ? Why not count DEN and PHX while you're at it ?

And if you look at your list, a very sizable chunk of that is much better served via existing services out of MSP DTW ATL.

DLPMMM · Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:31 pm

Quoting superjeff (Reply 86):
and some kind of a JV with CI over TPE might generate additional traffic justifying nonstop service by DL to TPE from, at the minimum, Seattle, and possibly DTW as well.

The problem is twofold.

TPE is in general a low yield VFR destination. There is not a lot of high yield O&D business traffic that a very profitable hub depends on (like HKG, TYO, JFK, LAX, SEL...)

The other problem is location, as all of northern Asia would require backtracking. DL needs a hub in Northern Asia to distribute traffic like TYO or ICN.

AA has JL in the North and CX in the south.

UA has ANA and Asiana in the north, and SQ and TG in the south (although TG has the same problem of low yield as TPE, but at least does have more Tourism appeal than TPE).

TPE cannot do the necessary for DL in Asia.

LAXintl · Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:37 pm

Another problem with TPE --- Chinese mainland passengers cannot transit TPE with exception of those that originate or end in Nanchang, Kunming and Chongqing.

In otherwords, TPE is not useful for 99% of Chinese customers cannot make use of the connection.

No such issue exist with ICN obviously.

a380787 · Thu Jan 21, 2016 4:50 pm

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 88):

UA has ANA and Asiana in the north, and SQ and TG in the south (although TG has the same problem of low yield as TPE, but at least does have more Tourism appeal than TPE).

UA also has CA at PEK and BR at TPE, and to a much smaller extent, ZH at SZX.

Even ignoring any feed possible at PVG, from mainland US, UA can have hypothetical nonstop access to feed at PEK, ICN, NRT/HND, TPE, SZX, and CTU. There's dinky amount of feed at XIY (ZH) and KIX (NH), but somewhat immaterial.

Out of these, only SZX isn't currently linked, which is why there's a greater than 10% chance that UA might have SFO-SZX on their 2016-2017 secondary China shortlist (ignoring all the usual arguments on how it's sandwiched by HKG+CAN).

a380787 · Thu Jan 21, 2016 5:04 pm

CAPA just posted an interesting article about HND :

centreforaviation.com/analysis/delta-air-lines-our-way-or-no-way-attitude-risks-subverting-us-japan-interests-on-haneda-flights-262177

Interesting quote from article to provide a data point perspective :

"Delta says its Detroit-Tokyo Narita flight has only 57 passengers going to/from Narita despite the service being operated on a 747-400. Delta says 24 passengers of its daily 250 between Minneapolis and Tokyo Narita originate in Minneapolis."

[Edited 2016-01-21 09:21:08]

travelin man · Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:09 pm

Quoting DLPMMM (Reply 88):
TPE is in general a low yield VFR destination. There is not a lot of high yield O&D business traffic that a very profitable hub depends on (like HKG, TYO, JFK, LAX, SEL...)

The other problem is location, as all of northern Asia would require backtracking. DL needs a hub in Northern Asia to distribute traffic like TYO or ICN.

Wait a minute, DL's online destinations from NRT are:
MNL
SIN
BKK
HKG
PVG
GUM
SPN
ROR

Of those destinations only PVG would not be feasible from TPE, and PVG is well-covered by the MU partnership as well as their non-stops from LAX, SEA, and DTW.

Delta doesn't need a northern Asia "hub", because they don't do that today -- DL doesn't fly to anywhere in northern Asia from NRT except for PVG (if you consider that Northern). They've axed PEK, ICN and others from NRT. SEA (and DTW and LAX) can serve the Northern Asian destinations fine.

The same "low-yielding" traffic to the other SE Asia/Pacific destinations could easily be routed via TPE vs NRT.

Unless what DL is REALLY complaining about would be their loss of revenue because they have traffic rights between NRT and those destinations. But that is a different argument, not a "hub" argument.

The China transit argument is also not a good one, since DL could continue to transfer passengers at NRT to MU (as they do today) for China pax (or route via ICN which I think we all agree would be a better solution).

mercure1 · Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:19 pm

Quoting travelin man (Reply 92):
The China transit argument is also not a good one, since DL could continue to transfer passengers at NRT to MU (as they do today) for China pax (or route via ICN which I think we all agree would be a better solution).

You expect a China domestic passenger to double connect and fly XXX-PVG-NRT-USA in order to utilize Delta

Sound like nonsense when they can certainly find another option without double connect.

travelin man · Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:32 pm

Quoting mercure1 (Reply 93):
You expect a China domestic passenger to double connect and fly XXX-PVG-NRT-USA in order to utilize Delta

Sound like nonsense when they can certainly find another option without double connect.

No, China domestic passengers have plenty of nonstop or 1-stop options to the USA. That is why the China transit passenger argument doesn't make sense when talking about DL at NRT.

Any feed from China that DL gets at NRT today comes from DL's partners (or other airlines), which would continue whether or not DL had a "hub" at NRT.

LAXintl · Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:37 pm

Quoting travelin man (Reply 94):
No, China domestic passengers have plenty of nonstop or 1-stop options to the USA. That is why the China transit passenger argument doesn't make sense when talking about DL at NRT.

I believe the China connection comment relates to TPE, as to why TPE would be essentially useless for China connections due to restrictions in place, not NRT.

Quoting travelin man (Reply 94):
Any feed from China that DL gets at NRT today comes from DL's partners (or other airlines), which would continue whether or not DL had a "hub" at NRT.

True that, though assuming NRT keeps shrinking who knows what capacity/schedule DL will eventually settle on at NRT.
Could be with a reduced schedule DL wont have much capacity to offer seats to connections at low interline fares.

ICN on the other hand is by far the best gateway to China. I recall reading ICN was only behind HKG in number of China markets it offered access to.

travelin man · Thu Jan 21, 2016 6:44 pm

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 95):
ICN on the other hand is by far the best gateway to China. I recall reading ICN was only behind HKG in number of China markets it offered access to.

Yeah I totally agree with ICN being by far the best option.

My comment about TPE was that it can cover basically every DL destination that is served from NRT today with no problem, so if ICN is off the table, and NRT is being supplanted by HND, then PERHAPS partnering with CI through TPE might not be a bad idea for DL.

jfk777 · Thu Jan 21, 2016 7:54 pm

Seoul is really the best place in Asia for a Delta hub, so make up with Korean Air. IT close enough to the USA it can be flown nonstop from about any city, even good for connections to secondary Japanese cities. ICN is also far enough east that cities like Shanghai, Taipei and Manila can be flown to in a direct route from the USA as well as those really far away like Singapore and Bangkok.

Delta wanting 14 HND slots has the odds of the recent billion dollar Powerball Jackpot, it isn't going to happen and staying at NRT 100 % is not viable. Its time for DL to adapt and fly to Tokyo as an end point and send the passengers beyond Japan over its Seattle hub or ICN hub with KAL.

LAX772LR · Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:04 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 78):
because Virgin Australia, along with Air France and Alitalia, are the only JVs that Delta has successfully formed that didn't involve Delta writing a check.

Incorrect. sDL's original JV partner (SR) did not either.

Quoting commavia (Reply 78):
and in many cases this "mutual benefit" has seemingly been driven in no small part not by Delta's greatness or awfulness as a partner but rather by Delta's willingness to provide capital as an investor.

And in many cases it's not.

It seems you're attempting to emphasize the equity purchases as if they were somehow a preferred method of j/v integration for DL to the point of scuttling a deal if they can't get it.... if so, that's sorta disingenuous, especially in terms of KE, where there's no public evidence (at least that I've seen, I'll happily stand corrected if such can be produced) that DL's desire for joint cooperation with them involves a stake.

panamair · Thu Jan 21, 2016 8:23 pm

Quoting commavia (Reply 78):
because Virgin Australia, along with Air France and Alitalia, are the only JVs that Delta has successfully formed that didn't involve Delta writing a check.

Technically, Delta is currently only in three separate JVs and only one of them involves a stake in the partner (the Virgin Atlantic JV). The AF/KL/AZ JV - no equity involved. The VA JV - no equity involved.

Quoting LAX772LR (Reply 98):
It seems you're attempting to emphasize the equity purchases as if they were somehow a preferred method of j/v integration for DL to the point of scuttling a deal if they can't get it.... if so, that's sorta disingenuous

Actually, I think what he is trying to imply is that DL can't get partners into a JV unless they agree to be a 'sugar daddy'. Which is why I pointed out above that the majority of DL's current JVs (i.e., two thirds) actually involve no equity stake whatsoever.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net