Will DL return to Hong Kong anytime soon?

BoeingGuy · Sun May 19, 2019 3:53 am

N809FR wrote:
Frankly DL has a pretty poor fleet mix as far as range/capacity goes. They need a smaller widebody with more range than the A332 or 763 offer.

They had some airplanes on order that fit that description, but unfortunately chose to cancel them.

zeke · Sun May 19, 2019 4:13 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
They had some airplanes on order that fit that description, but unfortunately chose to cancel them.

Airlines do not have unlimited funds, the need to deploy their cash and assets where they can get the greatest return.

A point obviously lost to many on this thread, a loss of 20 million on a route is totally unacceptable.

Rationalising fleets to fewer types is also a prudent fiduciary course.

qf789 · Sun May 19, 2019 4:25 am

Just a reminder to keep your posts on topic and not to engage in personal attacks against other users. Also a word of warning for the DTW posters, while DTW maybe a legitimate discussion point in this thread, keep it about the topic. From what has already been posted here, has once again reinforced why the DTW discussion thread was permanently locked, just debate the topic without all the side commentary. Those who can not follow those simple rules will find themselves either with a warning or a ban. Seriously it is getting rather old and frankly boring to read and ruining it for the rest. Again just debate the topic.

questions · Sun May 19, 2019 5:13 am

Despite a former CEO who called Delta a “glow bull ayer line” it is not. Basically Delta is a US airline with shuttle service to international partners’ hubs outside the US.

Delta’s international network strategy is:
A) fly DL hub or key US city to international partner hub
B) in select instances where DL can make money, fly DL hub to key international city*

HKG is not an international partner hub.
DL has been unable to make a profit flying DL hub or key US city to HKG.
Therefore, per the international network strategy, DL will not fly to HKG.

*PDX-NRT is somewhat the exception however, NRT is/was a DL hub. Are there any other examples of DL flying from a key US city (not a DL hub) to a key international city (not an international partner hub)?

UAUA · Sun May 19, 2019 5:46 am

They should have kept HKG-NRT-HKG which has been around for ages.

Wonder if they will get the A350-1000 for high capacity routes like the ones formerly flown by B747-400s.

UAUA · Sun May 19, 2019 5:47 am

The service onboard DL's HKG-SEA-HKG was very good

BoeingGuy wrote:
N809FR wrote:
Frankly DL has a pretty poor fleet mix as far as range/capacity goes. They need a smaller widebody with more range than the A332 or 763 offer.

They had some airplanes on order that fit that description, but unfortunately chose to cancel them.

For example?

SCFlyer · Sun May 19, 2019 5:53 am

UAUA wrote:
They should have kept HKG-NRT-HKG which has been around for ages.

Wonder if they will get the A350-1000 for high capacity routes like the ones formerly flown by B747-400s.

Having a route that's "around for ages" doesn't always equate into profit, or guarantee it'll be "around forever" for that matter. The market conditions and the airline's own yields decide that fate for the airlines.

FlyHappy · Sun May 19, 2019 6:11 am

UAUA wrote:
They should have kept HKG-NRT-HKG which has been around for ages.

perhaps you do not realize the cost and complexity of maintaining an overseas hub, operating fifth freedom flights. NRT was that for Northwest for decades, but market realities and Delta's focus on profitability make these routes impractical. You cannot keep a fifth freedom NRT-HKG flight around, when the NRT hub itself is closing; no feed... either side.

UAUA wrote:
Wonder if they will get the A350-1000 for high capacity routes like the ones formerly flown by B747-400s.

Delta didn't buy these. Again, you seem to harken to the Northwest days, and a very different time in US aviation. DL will never again fly routes with the kinds of load factors that NWA did with the 747. If they upsize from the 359, it will be under the most conservative possible circumstances.

twicearound · Sun May 19, 2019 6:51 am

questions wrote:
Despite a former CEO who called Delta a “glow bull ayer line” it is not. Basically Delta is a US airline with shuttle service to international partners’ hubs outside the US.

Delta’s international network strategy is:
A) fly DL hub or key US city to international partner hub
B) in select instances where DL can make money, fly DL hub to key international city*

HKG is not an international partner hub.
DL has been unable to make a profit flying DL hub or key US city to HKG.
Therefore, per the international network strategy, DL will not fly to HKG.

*PDX-NRT is somewhat the exception however, NRT is/was a DL hub. Are there any other examples of DL flying from a key US city (not a DL hub) to a key international city (not an international partner hub)?

Did you know DL serves more countries than United. 52 vs 48 respectively. So why exactly is DL a US domestic airline"?

J343 · Sun May 19, 2019 6:55 am

What are the chances of DL starting ATL-HKG using the B77L? If AA can make LAX/DFW-HKG work and UA make ORD/EWR/SFO-HKG work, then why cant DL make ATL-HKG work? AA and UA fly to HKG from their largest hubs and afterall, ATL is the largest hub of DL and could offer endless connections.

twicearound · Sun May 19, 2019 6:56 am

SierraPacific wrote:
Delta is a domestic airline that happens to have flights left over from when they actually cared about international flying.

It is a shame but I doubt we see Delta do any international expansion in the near term.

And yet they have one of the largest worldwide networks not just compared to US carriers, but in the world.

Countries served:
American: 55
Delta: 52
United:48

FlyHappy · Sun May 19, 2019 7:20 am

The "countries served" metric is a number that lacks context.
many countries are seasonal only.
many destinations are Caribbean/nearby beach destinations (also seasonal)

seasonality strongly suggests that point of sale is almost completely US focused, with little international clientele... and therein lies a distinction between being a "global" airline, and just a big one.

AA has large point of sale in Latin America, and UA the same in China. Delta, as a matter of strategy, has been walking away from the Northwest legacy of Asian point of sale (I'm not rendering judgement of the wisdom, its just a fact). They've walked away from fifth freedoms.

The relativity small long-haul/widebody fleet size of Delta does not lie - its notably smaller than some others.

[please don't attribute use of "domestic" to me - I never said it. but "global" is a big stretch]

GearShaft5 · Sun May 19, 2019 7:33 am

HKers in general doesn't like to connect unless they have to also, after being "spoiled" by CX for so many years.

We're not spoiled. We just demand to have the non-stop service to which we are accustomed, living in one of the world's major financial and fun cities. Thank God for CX.

US carriers...? I refuse to fly them. Given that Trump's "trade war" with China has dangerous implications for both countries, it would not be surprising to see China dropping "hints" to loyal "patriots" on the Mainland and in Hong Kong to ignore US carriers when booking flights. Never under-estimate the power of a centrally-ordered directive.

777Mech · Sun May 19, 2019 7:47 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:

Right, because DL has such a tiny international network to show how little they care. New markets like IND-CDG or SEA-KIX or MSP-ICN or TPA-AMS or RDU-CDG or SLC-AMS or SLC-LHR or PDX-LHR or the HND awards are just figments of our imagination that show how little they care.

The next markets I can see are PDX-ICN and SLC-ICN. A KE 787 might be the best equipment for each. Maybe PDX-CDG too.

All of those destinations go into JV/Skyteam partner hubs sans KIX. Name me the last time that Delta made a push into markets that were not hubs for JV partners.

Delta international flying is not increasing and it is a shame because the product has finally become competitive with international airlines.

All the HND flights.

The key word here is "increasing" HND flights are just a replacement for NRT 1 to 1

Guillaume787 · Sun May 19, 2019 9:54 am

twicearound wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:
Delta is a domestic airline that happens to have flights left over from when they actually cared about international flying.

It is a shame but I doubt we see Delta do any international expansion in the near term.

And yet they have one of the largest worldwide networks not just compared to US carriers, but in the world.

Countries served:
American: 55
Delta: 52
United:48

What is the source of these numbers/countries served by each carrier? I would have thought United served 50+ countries.. more than Delta?

twicearound · Sun May 19, 2019 12:08 pm

Guillaume787 wrote:
twicearound wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:
Delta is a domestic airline that happens to have flights left over from when they actually cared about international flying.

It is a shame but I doubt we see Delta do any international expansion in the near term.

And yet they have one of the largest worldwide networks not just compared to US carriers, but in the world.

Countries served:
American: 55
Delta: 52
United:48

What is the source of these numbers/countries served by each carrier? I would have thought United served 50+ countries.. more than Delta?

Per each of their corporate facts sheets
https://hub.united.com/corporate-fact-sheet/

klm617 · Sun May 19, 2019 12:17 pm

zeke wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
They had some airplanes on order that fit that description, but unfortunately chose to cancel them.

Airlines do not have unlimited funds, the need to deploy their cash and assets where they can get the greatest return.

A point obviously lost to many on this thread, a loss of 20 million on a route is totally unacceptable.

Rationalising fleets to fewer types is also a prudent fiduciary course.

I think the bigger question here is how did a well oiled machine like Delta lose 20 million on a flagship station like HKG when other carriers are making money serving multiple hubs from HKG. I still think the Delta approach for Asia lacks vision. They should have not tried to capture West coast to Asia traffic when their strength was East of the Mississippi. Delta is and has been very weak out west were as UA and AA have been strong there for eons.

klm617 · Sun May 19, 2019 12:22 pm

FlyBitcoin wrote:
Detroit313 wrote:
Crazy that they don't fly to the world's largest business center along with New York and London.

Then that world's largest business center should support that flight and not cause it to lose $20 million a year.

They will be out of all TPAC that does not terminate in a hub for KE, MU, or VA. Except for Tokyo which will be all operate out of HND by late Spring 2020.

I think PEK, SIN, MNL are all on the chopping block.

Flying to non-hubs in Europe and Africa is profitable.
Doing so to Asia is not. Fares are just too low if you cannot fill those flights with ongoing connections.

Exactly and hey if Delta can't make money in a market it must be a dog even though other carriers can.

3AWM · Sun May 19, 2019 1:48 pm

DL were struggling to be a competitor into London before they bought into VS and now they are a major player.

Strikes me that it might be a similar transaction if the bought Hong Kong Airlines. This would give them a local partner with their own FFer community and contracts to sell DL's US network in competition with CX/AA.

hz747300 · Sun May 19, 2019 1:53 pm

I'm not sure which route would work for DL to think it needs its own metal. I would speculate, west coast is probably better, though ATL certainly being the cat's meow in the DL network. That said, the only option I see working would be the already crowded LAX route. While ATL would be good for routing 2/3 (maybe 50%) of the country through the megahub to HKG, it would really only offer connections onward on Garuda or Vietnam Airlines. But how does that benefit anyone over connecting in ICN? It makes sense for DL to stay away in the near and mid terms.

zakuivcustom · Sun May 19, 2019 2:45 pm

3AWM wrote:
Strikes me that it might be a similar transaction if the bought Hong Kong Airlines. This would give them a local partner with their own FFer community and contracts to sell DL's US network in competition with CX/AA.

It was something that I throw out before (Way back when DL ended HKG). But if you look at HX and their financial mess lately, it's easy to see why nobody wants to touch them.

Plus HX's network is mainly in mainland PRC (Which DL already covered via MU) and Japan (Which is a huge backtrack). I guess it add HAN, SGN, MNL (Which was actually just recently restarted), BKK, and DPS; all of which are covered by KE better also.

GearShaft5 wrote:
We're not spoiled. We just demand to have the non-stop service to which we are accustomed, living in one of the world's major financial and fun cities. Thank God for CX.

US carriers...? I refuse to fly them. Given that Trump's "trade war" with China has dangerous implications for both countries, it would not be surprising to see China dropping "hints" to loyal "patriots" on the Mainland and in Hong Kong to ignore US carriers when booking flights. Never under-estimate the power of a centrally-ordered directive.

I just used the term "spoiled" b/c HKers in general doesn't realized how good they have it with CX flying to every single corner of the world. Yet all I hear is complaints about "how CX suck" and "Premium price for LCC service".

As for the trade war - the immediate implication would be a drop in cargo revenue for CX anyway, which is already happening.

J343 wrote:
What are the chances of DL starting ATL-HKG using the B77L? If AA can make LAX/DFW-HKG work and UA make ORD/EWR/SFO-HKG work, then why cant DL make ATL-HKG work? AA and UA fly to HKG from their largest hubs and afterall, ATL is the largest hub of DL and could offer endless connections.

ATL is a long, long flight. Granted, it's shorter than ATL-JNB, but the competition is 10x more. Remember, DL can barely make ATL-PVG work, and they have the whole mainland PRC that they can feed from PVG.

UAUA wrote:
They should have kept HKG-NRT-HKG which has been around for ages.

Just so HKers can buy bargain bin FSC tickets to vacation in Japan? I would welcome that myself

. HKers had lack a "cheap" FSC options since ET rerouted their NRT flight to ADD-ICN-NRT instead of ADD-HKG-NRT (For KIX there's still AI

)

Seriously, HKG-TYO market is well covered as-is. LCC is covered by GK and UO (and JW, although that's ending), "bargain" FSC market cover by HX, and "premium" FSC market by CX, JL and NH.

hongkongflyer · Sun May 19, 2019 2:58 pm

zakuivcustom wrote:
3AWM wrote:
I just used the term "spoiled" b/c HKers in general doesn't realized how good they have it with CX flying to every single corner of the world. Yet all I hear is complaints about "how CX suck" and "Premium price for LCC service".

Just because you guys can enjoy the fare that is not applicable to HKers.
I once had family emergency near xmas (i.e. one of the peak seasons for Western world) and some family members had to rush back to HK from US.
The last min fare during a peak seasons merely cost them a little more then HKD3000 for the return trips.

Where you can go by a CX flight from HKG for HKD3000? Basically nowhere further then Japan unless you book your tickets months in advance and not traveling during peak seasons.
So from HKers' view, they are really "suck" and "Premium price for LCC service".

zakuivcustom · Sun May 19, 2019 3:16 pm

hongkongflyer wrote:
Just because you guys can enjoy the fare that is not applicable to HKers.
I once had family emergency near xmas (i.e. one of the peak seasons for Western world) and some family members had to rush back to HK from US.
The last min fare during a peak seasons merely cost them a little more then HKD3000 for the return trips.

Where you can go by a CX flight from HKG for HKD3000? Basically nowhere further then Japan unless you book your tickets months in advance and not traveling during peak seasons.
So from HKers' view, they are really "suck" and "Premium price for LCC service".

Come on now...I'm just as price sensitive as you. I mean, I'm from HK afterall and only look for "jetso" 8-)

.

And HKD3000 to Japan on CX in December? Even UO would cost more than that

. (Last time around X'Mas it was closer to HKD6000 for a round trip...). But that is pure supply and demand, though, and has nothing to do with whether it's CX or not.

Guillaume787 · Sun May 19, 2019 3:33 pm

twicearound wrote:
Guillaume787 wrote:
twicearound wrote:
And yet they have one of the largest worldwide networks not just compared to US carriers, but in the world.

Countries served:
American: 55
Delta: 52
United:48

What is the source of these numbers/countries served by each carrier? I would have thought United served 50+ countries.. more than Delta?

Per each of their corporate facts sheets
https://hub.united.com/corporate-fact-sheet/

Thank you!

BoeingGuy · Sun May 19, 2019 5:08 pm

UAUA wrote:
The service onboard DL's HKG-SEA-HKG was very good

BoeingGuy wrote:
N809FR wrote:
Frankly DL has a pretty poor fleet mix as far as range/capacity goes. They need a smaller widebody with more range than the A332 or 763 offer.

They had some airplanes on order that fit that description, but unfortunately chose to cancel them.

For example?

787

DTWLAX · Sun May 19, 2019 5:21 pm

J343 wrote:
What are the chances of DL starting ATL-HKG using the B77L? If AA can make LAX/DFW-HKG work and UA make ORD/EWR/SFO-HKG work, then why cant DL make ATL-HKG work? AA and UA fly to HKG from their largest hubs and afterall, ATL is the largest hub of DL and could offer endless connections.

AA can make LAX/DFW-HKG work because there is feed on both ends. It is an alliance hub-to-hub route.
UA can make ORD/EWR/SFO work probably due to strong business ties, strong O&D, as well as less backtracking involved due to the location of those three airports in the northern half of the country.
ATL on the other hand does not have a strong O&D to HKG and connections work only if you are flying to the south-east or anywhere closer to ATL, otherwise it involves significant backtracking compared to the other airports mentioned above.

mattnrsa · Sun May 19, 2019 5:43 pm

twicearound wrote:
Guillaume787 wrote:
twicearound wrote:
And yet they have one of the largest worldwide networks not just compared to US carriers, but in the world.

Countries served:
American: 55
Delta: 52
United:48

What is the source of these numbers/countries served by each carrier? I would have thought United served 50+ countries.. more than Delta?

Per each of their corporate facts sheets
https://hub.united.com/corporate-fact-sheet/

https://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts

According to the Delta page, “52” includes countries served by alliance partners so it’s a bit misleading.

United’s page indicates 119 international cities served. That number seems like it would be higher than DL, though I couldn’t find the number served just by DL metal.

MastaHanky · Sun May 19, 2019 5:51 pm

I can buy LAX-HKG, leaving tomorrow, for $498 round trip. Why would Delta want to bother chasing that abysmal yield?

twicearound · Sun May 19, 2019 8:00 pm

mattnrsa wrote:
twicearound wrote:
Guillaume787 wrote:

What is the source of these numbers/countries served by each carrier? I would have thought United served 50+ countries.. more than Delta?

Per each of their corporate facts sheets
https://hub.united.com/corporate-fact-sheet/

https://news.delta.com/corporate-stats-and-facts

According to the Delta page, “52” includes countries served by alliance partners so it’s a bit misleading.

United’s page indicates 119 international cities served. That number seems like it would be higher than DL, though I couldn’t find the number served just by DL metal.

I just cross-checked the DL city list and DL metal does serve 52 countries.

CarlosSi · Sun May 19, 2019 8:12 pm

DL may not have Hong Kong, but realize AA doesn’t have Singapore. UA obviously is strong all-around in Asia.

Although the JV with KE is smart, it’s not “prestigious” as flying your own metal, but clearly DL just wants results, not glory, in this case and in Asia for the most part.

reggiet · Sun May 19, 2019 11:49 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
SierraPacific wrote:
Delta is a domestic airline that happens to have flights left over from when they actually cared about international flying.

It is a shame but I doubt we see Delta do any international expansion in the near term.

Right, because DL has such a tiny international network to show how little they care. New markets like IND-CDG or SEA-KIX or MSP-ICN or TPA-AMS or RDU-CDG or SLC-AMS or SLC-LHR or PDX-LHR or the HND awards are just figments of our imagination that show how little they care.

The next markets I can see are PDX-ICN and SLC-ICN. A KE 787 might be the best equipment for each. Maybe PDX-CDG too.

This.

FlyBitcoin · Mon May 20, 2019 2:00 am

Agree PEK/PKX will be heavily dependent on MU presence there. I was not really considering that as a partner hub market, so growth by MU will definitely help and DL will probably keep it around long enough to see how that works out.

FSDan · Mon May 20, 2019 2:56 am

questions wrote:
*PDX-NRT is somewhat the exception however, NRT is/was a DL hub. Are there any other examples of DL flying from a key US city (not a DL hub) to a key international city (not an international partner hub)?

What's the official definition of a "key international city"? Are there any examples of AA and UA flying from a key US city (not an AA or UA hub) to a key international city (not an international partner hub)?

FSDan · Mon May 20, 2019 3:15 am

FlyHappy wrote:
many countries are seasonal only.
many destinations are Caribbean/nearby beach destinations (also seasonal)

seasonality strongly suggests that point of sale is almost completely US focused, with little international clientele... and therein lies a distinction between being a "global" airline, and just a big one.

All of the US3 fly lots of seasonal routes. It's the smart thing to do, because people mostly want to travel to these destinations during certain peak times of year, and fleet resources are limited. AA, UA, and DL all make significant cuts to their transatlantic networks during the Northern winter. They all serve many more beach routes during that time. In addition to avoiding huge losses on unprofitable long haul flying during times of year when demand is down, the US3 are also able to accomplish a large amount of aircraft maintenance during the low season.

FlyHappy wrote:
[please don't attribute use of "domestic" to me - I never said it. but "global" is a big stretch]

Why don't you go ahead and define "global" for us? If you don't fly at all to a continent with 1.2 billion people (Africa), can you be considered a "global" airline (bye, AA...)? What if your only service to said continent is a seasonal leisure destination (bye, UA...)? Not serving HKG seems to knock DL out in many people's opinions... Are BA, EK, and QR the only truly global airlines? In my opinion, it takes lots of arbitrary gerrymandering to designate one of the US3 "not global" while considering the other two global...

I have an idea to clear all this up! So that they can be considered global airlines by a.net, I propose that the US3 should fly to every "key international city" in the world nonstop from the U.S. The service has to be year-round, or it doesn't count. I think the airlines will understand how important it is to be considered "global", so they'll probably be willing to lose any amount of money to make this happen. :lol:

FSDan · Mon May 20, 2019 3:26 am

klm617 wrote:
This is a thread about HKG and let's face it Delta has no desire to link Asia with New York it doesn't even fly to ICN with it's own metal so why would you come to the conclusion that JFK-HKG is the only viable link DTW is a better option it has the best aircraft for the market based at DTW the A359 so if Delta would try HKG again it most likely will be from DTW

DL's VP of Network Planning was recently referenced in another thread as having made a comment about JFK-HKG making more sense than SEA-HKG due to the financial industry ties. That's obviously far from a commitment to launch the route, but it does show they are considering the possibility of flying JFK-East Asia. DTW-HKG and SEA-HKG both failed in the past because they didn't have enough of a local business market to make money. DTW-HKG and JFK-HKG are both very long routes, but at least NYC has a lot of securities and banking traffic for DL to chase.

FlyHappy · Mon May 20, 2019 3:56 am

FSDan wrote:
All of the US3 fly lots of seasonal routes. It's the smart thing to do, because people mostly want to travel to these destinations during certain peak times of year, and fleet resources are limited. AA, UA, and DL all make significant cuts to their transatlantic networks during the Northern winter. They all serve many more beach routes during that time. In addition to avoiding huge losses on unprofitable long haul flying during times of year when demand is down, the US3 are also able to accomplish a large amount of aircraft maintenance during the low season.

I am 100% aware that seasonality to beach destinations is an across the board phenomena, for US3 and the smaller players. Though how much of the TATL fleet is sent to beach duty beyond the 757's? what do UA/AA do with their greater number of widebodies in the winter?

FlyHappy wrote:
[please don't attribute use of "domestic" to me - I never said it. but "global" is a big stretch]

FSDan wrote:
Why don't you go ahead and define "global" for us? If you don't fly at all to a continent with 1.2 billion people (Africa), can you be considered a "global" airline (bye, AA...)? What if your only service to said continent is a seasonal leisure destination (bye, UA...)? Not serving HKG seems to knock DL out in many people's opinions... Are BA, EK, and QR the only truly global airlines? In my opinion, it takes lots of arbitrary gerrymandering to designate one of the US3 "not global" while considering the other two global...

a) it is Delta leadership that loves to promote "Global", they seem to define it on their own special terms, while seeming to shrink presence in rising/competitive markets.
b) kudos to DL for serving JNB and what, Dakar? Really, I mean it.
c) where did I ever opine that AA or UA are "Global" ? I merely pointed out that UA has Asia point of sale (and legacy of Pan Am ops), and AA has Latin Am point of sale (and strong legacy there). In contrast, DL has backed away from the NWA Asia legacy (right or wrong).
d) BA/EK/QR - yes, they probably are "Global", and they have no real domestic ops to speak of, so by default, geography, aggressive tactics, and state backing, yes - they are global. I'm not glamorizing it, just seems factual.

FSDan wrote:
I have an idea to clear all this up! So that they can be considered global airlines by a.net, I propose that the US3 should fly to every "key international city" in the world nonstop from the U.S. The service has to be year-round, or it doesn't count. I think the airlines will understand how important it is to be considered "global", so they'll probably be willing to lose any amount of money to make this happen.

please don't attribute "key city" to me. I did not say that.

don't make me out to be a DL hater. I fly DL more than any other carrier. I think they consistently do a better job than their primary rivals. I like their choice of CS300, A339, A350. I think they are competitive internationally with most, aside from the non-PRC Asian lines.
Its not an insult to point out they don't have an aggressive international strategy, that they like to offload challenging markets to partners, that their long haul fleet is smaller than their US rivals; its just factual.
I completely get that DL is very focused on profitability - the results clearly show they are, and more so than their rivals. But this isn't about that.

n2dru · Mon May 20, 2019 4:05 am

FlyHappy wrote:
FSDan wrote:
All of the US3 fly lots of seasonal routes. It's the smart thing to do, because people mostly want to travel to these destinations during certain peak times of year, and fleet resources are limited. AA, UA, and DL all make significant cuts to their transatlantic networks during the Northern winter. They all serve many more beach routes during that time. In addition to avoiding huge losses on unprofitable long haul flying during times of year when demand is down, the US3 are also able to accomplish a large amount of aircraft maintenance during the low season.

I am 100% aware that seasonality to beach destinations is an across the board phenomena, for US3 and the smaller players. Though how much of the TATL fleet is sent to beach duty beyond the 757's? what do UA/AA do with their greater number of widebodies in the winter?

FlyHappy wrote:
[please don't attribute use of "domestic" to me - I never said it. but "global" is a big stretch]

FSDan wrote:
Why don't you go ahead and define "global" for us? If you don't fly at all to a continent with 1.2 billion people (Africa), can you be considered a "global" airline (bye, AA...)? What if your only service to said continent is a seasonal leisure destination (bye, UA...)? Not serving HKG seems to knock DL out in many people's opinions... Are BA, EK, and QR the only truly global airlines? In my opinion, it takes lots of arbitrary gerrymandering to designate one of the US3 "not global" while considering the other two global...

a) it is Delta leadership that loves to promote "Global", they seem to define it on their own special terms, while seeming to shrink presence in rising/competitive markets.
b) kudos to DL for serving JNB and what, Dakar? Really, I mean it.
c) where did I ever opine that AA or UA are "Global" ? I merely pointed out that UA has Asia point of sale (and legacy of Pan Am ops), and AA has Latin Am point of sale (and strong legacy there). In contrast, DL has backed away from the NWA Asia legacy (right or wrong).
d) BA/EK/QR - yes, they probably are "Global", and they have no real domestic ops to speak of, so by default, geography, aggressive tactics, and state backing, yes - they are global. I'm not glamorizing it, just seems factual.

FSDan wrote:
I have an idea to clear all this up! So that they can be considered global airlines by a.net, I propose that the US3 should fly to every "key international city" in the world nonstop from the U.S. The service has to be year-round, or it doesn't count. I think the airlines will understand how important it is to be considered "global", so they'll probably be willing to lose any amount of money to make this happen.

please don't attribute "key city" to me. I did not say that.

don't make me out to be a DL hater. I fly DL more than any other carrier. I think they consistently do a better job than their primary rivals. I like their choice of CS300, A339, A350. I think they are competitive internationally with most, aside from the non-PRC Asian lines.
Its not an insult to point out they don't have an aggressive international strategy, that they like to offload challenging markets to partners, that their long haul fleet is smaller than their US rivals; its just factual.
I completely get that DL is very focused on profitability - the results clearly show they are, and more so than their rivals. But this isn't about that.

Antarius · Mon May 20, 2019 4:44 am

FlyHappy wrote:
I am 100% aware that seasonality to beach destinations is an across the board phenomena, for US3 and the smaller players. Though how much of the TATL fleet is sent to beach duty beyond the 757's? what do UA/AA do with their greater number of widebodies in the winter?

AA sends some widebodies to the carribean. For example, CLT-AUA is on a 332 during the winter.

klm617 · Mon May 20, 2019 11:03 am

FlyHappy wrote:
FSDan wrote:
All of the US3 fly lots of seasonal routes. It's the smart thing to do, because people mostly want to travel to these destinations during certain peak times of year, and fleet resources are limited. AA, UA, and DL all make significant cuts to their transatlantic networks during the Northern winter. They all serve many more beach routes during that time. In addition to avoiding huge losses on unprofitable long haul flying during times of year when demand is down, the US3 are also able to accomplish a large amount of aircraft maintenance during the low season.

I am 100% aware that seasonality to beach destinations is an across the board phenomena, for US3 and the smaller players. Though how much of the TATL fleet is sent to beach duty beyond the 757's? what do UA/AA do with their greater number of widebodies in the winter?

FlyHappy wrote:
[please don't attribute use of "domestic" to me - I never said it. but "global" is a big stretch]

FSDan wrote:
Why don't you go ahead and define "global" for us? If you don't fly at all to a continent with 1.2 billion people (Africa), can you be considered a "global" airline (bye, AA...)? What if your only service to said continent is a seasonal leisure destination (bye, UA...)? Not serving HKG seems to knock DL out in many people's opinions... Are BA, EK, and QR the only truly global airlines? In my opinion, it takes lots of arbitrary gerrymandering to designate one of the US3 "not global" while considering the other two global...

a) it is Delta leadership that loves to promote "Global", they seem to define it on their own special terms, while seeming to shrink presence in rising/competitive markets.
b) kudos to DL for serving JNB and what, Dakar? Really, I mean it.
c) where did I ever opine that AA or UA are "Global" ? I merely pointed out that UA has Asia point of sale (and legacy of Pan Am ops), and AA has Latin Am point of sale (and strong legacy there). In contrast, DL has backed away from the NWA Asia legacy (right or wrong).
d) BA/EK/QR - yes, they probably are "Global", and they have no real domestic ops to speak of, so by default, geography, aggressive tactics, and state backing, yes - they are global. I'm not glamorizing it, just seems factual.

FSDan wrote:
I have an idea to clear all this up! So that they can be considered global airlines by a.net, I propose that the US3 should fly to every "key international city" in the world nonstop from the U.S. The service has to be year-round, or it doesn't count. I think the airlines will understand how important it is to be considered "global", so they'll probably be willing to lose any amount of money to make this happen.

please don't attribute "key city" to me. I did not say that.

don't make me out to be a DL hater. I fly DL more than any other carrier. I think they consistently do a better job than their primary rivals. I like their choice of CS300, A339, A350. I think they are competitive internationally with most, aside from the non-PRC Asian lines.
Its not an insult to point out they don't have an aggressive international strategy, that they like to offload challenging markets to partners, that their long haul fleet is smaller than their US rivals; its just factual.
I completely get that DL is very focused on profitability - the results clearly show they are, and more so than their rivals. But this isn't about that.

Thank you for pointing out these painful truths about Delta ones many a.net posters don't like to hear and get very offended when they read. HKG like LHR, FRA, and NYC are major markets and Delta falls short of the mark some where when it comes to serving HKG. Delta is very weak outside of South America and Europe.

twicearound · Mon May 20, 2019 11:48 am

FlyHappy wrote:
FSDan wrote:
All of the US3 fly lots of seasonal routes. It's the smart thing to do, because people mostly want to travel to these destinations during certain peak times of year, and fleet resources are limited. AA, UA, and DL all make significant cuts to their transatlantic networks during the Northern winter. They all serve many more beach routes during that time. In addition to avoiding huge losses on unprofitable long haul flying during times of year when demand is down, the US3 are also able to accomplish a large amount of aircraft maintenance during the low season.

I am 100% aware that seasonality to beach destinations is an across the board phenomena, for US3 and the smaller players. Though how much of the TATL fleet is sent to beach duty beyond the 757's? what do UA/AA do with their greater number of widebodies in the winter?

FlyHappy wrote:
[please don't attribute use of "domestic" to me - I never said it. but "global" is a big stretch]

FSDan wrote:
Why don't you go ahead and define "global" for us? If you don't fly at all to a continent with 1.2 billion people (Africa), can you be considered a "global" airline (bye, AA...)? What if your only service to said continent is a seasonal leisure destination (bye, UA...)? Not serving HKG seems to knock DL out in many people's opinions... Are BA, EK, and QR the only truly global airlines? In my opinion, it takes lots of arbitrary gerrymandering to designate one of the US3 "not global" while considering the other two global...

a) it is Delta leadership that loves to promote "Global", they seem to define it on their own special terms, while seeming to shrink presence in rising/competitive markets.
b) kudos to DL for serving JNB and what, Dakar? Really, I mean it.
c) where did I ever opine that AA or UA are "Global" ? I merely pointed out that UA has Asia point of sale (and legacy of Pan Am ops), and AA has Latin Am point of sale (and strong legacy there). In contrast, DL has backed away from the NWA Asia legacy (right or wrong).
d) BA/EK/QR - yes, they probably are "Global", and they have no real domestic ops to speak of, so by default, geography, aggressive tactics, and state backing, yes - they are global. I'm not glamorizing it, just seems factual.

FSDan wrote:
I have an idea to clear all this up! So that they can be considered global airlines by a.net, I propose that the US3 should fly to every "key international city" in the world nonstop from the U.S. The service has to be year-round, or it doesn't count. I think the airlines will understand how important it is to be considered "global", so they'll probably be willing to lose any amount of money to make this happen.

please don't attribute "key city" to me. I did not say that.

don't make me out to be a DL hater. I fly DL more than any other carrier. I think they consistently do a better job than their primary rivals. I like their choice of CS300, A339, A350. I think they are competitive internationally with most, aside from the non-PRC Asian lines.
Its not an insult to point out they don't have an aggressive international strategy, that they like to offload challenging markets to partners, that their long haul fleet is smaller than their US rivals; its just factual.
I completely get that DL is very focused on profitability - the results clearly show they are, and more so than their rivals. But this isn't about that.

''b) kudos to DL for serving JNB and what, Dakar? Really, I mean it.''

I think what we are trying to attribute to you that it is your habit of mistaking your opinions for facts. For someone that wants to rely on "the facts" you seem to know so little.
DL serves in Africa: JNB, DSS, ACC, and LOS. And since it's so important to you, yes they're all year round and that's 4 more Africa destinations than any other US carrier. If ANY US3 get's to us the word "GLOBAL" it would be Delta, since they are the ONLY US carrier serving 6 continents. And, oh my gosh, year round! United will have their own claim to fame when the start their announced seasonal CPT service, but that's the future not the present reality. On an aside, 5th freedom routes are a thing of the past. And DL's Asia strategy is SHIFTING, not disappearing. (so why do you say the losing the NWA strategy is right or wrong? for who, you?) The NRT hub system just doesn't work for DL anymore. Times have changed. DL sees that.

MIflyer12 · Mon May 20, 2019 12:35 pm

FlyHappy wrote:
The "countries served" metric is a number that lacks context.
many countries are seasonal only.
many destinations are Caribbean/nearby beach destinations (also seasonal)

seasonality strongly suggests that point of sale is almost completely US focused, with little international clientele... and therein lies a distinction between being a "global" airline, and just a big one.

AA has large point of sale in Latin America, and UA the same in China. Delta, as a matter of strategy, has been walking away from the Northwest legacy of Asian point of sale (I'm not rendering judgement of the wisdom, its just a fact). They've walked away from fifth freedoms.

The relativity small long-haul/widebody fleet size of Delta does not lie - its notably smaller than some others.

And yet DL had more international passenger revenue than AA did in 2018 - irrespective of your complaints about seasonality and gauge. (UA lists operating revenue rather than passenger revenue so the comparison can't be made.) Maybe if you spent some time with the data...

CityRail · Mon May 20, 2019 12:45 pm

Unless we see Hong Kong Airlines enters into a strategic relationship with Delta or into SkyTeam, it is going to be unlikely.

Reasons:
1. HKG is not a SkyTeam hub
2. It is going to be uneconomical to restart HKG-NRT/HND on DL provided the cost base will be high and fierce competition, both between HKG and Japan and HKG and USA.
3. If DL is starting a direct service to HKG from USA, it has no one to connect to. VN will launch its direct US service soon, GA connection to USA via HKG would be limited, one it would have gone via ICN, and the visa restrictions will not make it commercially profitable.

FlyHappy · Mon May 20, 2019 2:08 pm

twicearound wrote:
''b) kudos to DL for serving JNB and what, Dakar? Really, I mean it.''

I think what we are trying to attribute to you that it is your habit of mistaking your opinions for facts. For someone that wants to rely on "the facts" you seem to know so little.
DL serves in Africa: JNB, DSS, ACC, and LOS. And since it's so important to you, yes they're all year round and that's 4 more Africa destinations than any other US carrier. If ANY US3 get's to us the word "GLOBAL" it would be Delta, since they are the ONLY US carrier serving 6 continents. And, oh my gosh, year round! United will have their own claim to fame when the start their announced seasonal CPT service, but that's the future not the present reality. On an aside, 5th freedom routes are a thing of the past. And DL's Asia strategy is SHIFTING, not disappearing. (so why do you say the losing the NWA strategy is right or wrong? for who, you?) The NRT hub system just doesn't work for DL anymore. Times have changed. DL sees that.

man-oh-man, people sure are touchy about Delta.

nowhere did I say that service to HKG is the metric by which "global" is earned.
yet.... service to Africa is presented as proof that Delta is "global".

no where did I pronounce UA or AA as "global".

I gave respect to DL for serving Africa, and I'm big enough to acknowledge my errors, oversights and omissions. Thanks for pointing out their four Africa destinations. I think this thread is about Hong Kong, related Asia/TPAC strategy, and more broadly, International strategy. Yes - they serve Africa more so than UA/AA (at the risk of invoking more backlash, is there much competition on those routes?)

Yes, Delta's Asia strategy has shifted; did I say "disappear" ? Its not inaccurate to state that its abandon the NRT hub/5th freedoms (yes, I know why, economic realities, no need to rehash), shifted Asia flying to partner KE by funneling thru ICN, maintains modest direct services to PEK/PVG, has a few HND routes for the still premium Japan O/D . Do I have anything wrong there? Do I need to apologize for something?

Did I glorify AA or UA in there anywhere?
Is it okay if I legitimately pose a question about UA... do they not have brand recognition and point of sale in Asian countries? And AA... do they not have brand recognition and point of sale in Latin America? Does DL have brand recognition and point of sale in Africa? (I ask, I truly do not know)

Yes... my personal opinion on being "global" is that you've got to have a name, a brand and do some significant sales outside of your home turf, engendering some loyalty in other countries; you need ALL of these things (clearly visible with EK, even BA, CX, SQ - look at the loyal clientele they've cultivated in Australia, EU and elsewhere; its just an example, I'm not saying any US3 needs to be like EK).
This seems to me, a very reasonable bar. I don't know that UA/AA qualify, but it seems like they lean more in that direction, but as I acknowledge, perhaps DL has more going on with the African populace than I know?

spinotter · Mon May 20, 2019 2:56 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
N809FR wrote:
Frankly DL has a pretty poor fleet mix as far as range/capacity goes. They need a smaller widebody with more range than the A332 or 763 offer.

They had some airplanes on order that fit that description, but unfortunately chose to cancel them.

Maybe not unfortunately. They are running rings around UA and AA for passenger satisfaction and profit numbers, even without that ship starting with a B. Sounds as if you are prejudiced in B's favor. Time will tell.

spinotter · Mon May 20, 2019 3:05 pm

klm617 wrote:
zeke wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
They had some airplanes on order that fit that description, but unfortunately chose to cancel them.

Airlines do not have unlimited funds, the need to deploy their cash and assets where they can get the greatest return.

A point obviously lost to many on this thread, a loss of 20 million on a route is totally unacceptable.

Rationalising fleets to fewer types is also a prudent fiduciary course.

I think the bigger question here is how did a well oiled machine like Delta lose 20 million on a flagship station like HKG when other carriers are making money serving multiple hubs from HKG. I still think the Delta approach for Asia lacks vision. They should have not tried to capture West coast to Asia traffic when their strength was East of the Mississippi. Delta is and has been very weak out west were as UA and AA have been strong there for eons.

Delta is getting stronger on the West Coast, however. Both UA and AA were original transcontinental US airlines. DL was not. Hence why UA has SFO. Neither SEA nor DTW are ideal gateways to HKG. Perhaps ATL could work. But why for the moment? UA has not flown a single flight to Africa lately, although they will fly EWR-CPT soon. When will AA serve Africa, the Middle East, or India on its own metal. I see DL as a money-making machine. Not a flag bearer with pretensions of world domination.

FSDan · Mon May 20, 2019 3:28 pm

FlyHappy wrote:
FSDan wrote:
All of the US3 fly lots of seasonal routes. It's the smart thing to do, because people mostly want to travel to these destinations during certain peak times of year, and fleet resources are limited. AA, UA, and DL all make significant cuts to their transatlantic networks during the Northern winter. They all serve many more beach routes during that time. In addition to avoiding huge losses on unprofitable long haul flying during times of year when demand is down, the US3 are also able to accomplish a large amount of aircraft maintenance during the low season.

I am 100% aware that seasonality to beach destinations is an across the board phenomena, for US3 and the smaller players. Though how much of the TATL fleet is sent to beach duty beyond the 757's? what do UA/AA do with their greater number of widebodies in the winter?

For UA, many international widebodies have been sent through Polaris modifications during the winter. AA redeploys additional capacity to their South America network when transatlantic is down. DL and AA both have increased domestic and short haul beach market widebody flights in the winter season - UA not quite as much in my observations. Then there are the winter seasonal routes such as AA's LAX-AKL and JFK-GIG, UA's upcoming EWR-CPT and SFO-DEL, etc. etc.

FlyHappy wrote:
a) it is Delta leadership that loves to promote "Global", they seem to define it on their own special terms, while seeming to shrink presence in rising/competitive markets.
b) kudos to DL for serving JNB and what, Dakar? Really, I mean it.
c) where did I ever opine that AA or UA are "Global" ? I merely pointed out that UA has Asia point of sale (and legacy of Pan Am ops), and AA has Latin Am point of sale (and strong legacy there). In contrast, DL has backed away from the NWA Asia legacy (right or wrong).
d) BA/EK/QR - yes, they probably are "Global", and they have no real domestic ops to speak of, so by default, geography, aggressive tactics, and state backing, yes - they are global. I'm not glamorizing it, just seems factual.

a) I guess I still haven't heard a good reason why they shouldn't call themselves "Global"... They fly 200+ international routes and serve 50+ countries on all 6 populated continents. Seems "global" to me, at least until I hear further definitions of how many cities on each continent must be served, or how many U.S. hubs need to be connected to said cities in order for it to count as legitimate service.
b) To reiterate what another poster provided, DL serves JNB, LOS, ACC, and DSS in Africa. At various points over the last 10-15 years, they've also tried out service to CPT, ABV, ROB, and CAI, and had planned others such as LAD, NBO, and SSG. The four destinations they still fly to are the ones that proved stable and profitable. I expect DL does have significant point of sale traffic from Africa, as they've served the market continuously for over 10 years, and have been one of few nonstop options to the U.S.
c) My apologies if I've projected opinions from other posters onto you. My general impression in this thread has been that a decent number of posters consider UA and AA to be global while DL isn't, and that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

jeffrey0032j · Mon May 20, 2019 3:53 pm

FlyBitcoin wrote:
Detroit313 wrote:
Crazy that they don't fly to the world's largest business center along with New York and London.

Then that world's largest business center should support that flight and not cause it to lose $20 million a year.

They will be out of all TPAC that does not terminate in a hub for KE, MU, or VA. Except for Tokyo which will be all operate out of HND by late Spring 2020.

I think PEK, SIN, MNL are all on the chopping block.

Flying to non-hubs in Europe and Africa is profitable.
Doing so to Asia is not. Fares are just too low if you cannot fill those flights with ongoing connections.

SIN has higher yield than HKG had, partly because of lesser competition from the Chinese on US/JPN-SIN vs US-HKG/China.

klm617 · Mon May 20, 2019 3:55 pm

FSDan wrote:
FlyHappy wrote:
FSDan wrote:
All of the US3 fly lots of seasonal routes. It's the smart thing to do, because people mostly want to travel to these destinations during certain peak times of year, and fleet resources are limited. AA, UA, and DL all make significant cuts to their transatlantic networks during the Northern winter. They all serve many more beach routes during that time. In addition to avoiding huge losses on unprofitable long haul flying during times of year when demand is down, the US3 are also able to accomplish a large amount of aircraft maintenance during the low season.

I am 100% aware that seasonality to beach destinations is an across the board phenomena, for US3 and the smaller players. Though how much of the TATL fleet is sent to beach duty beyond the 757's? what do UA/AA do with their greater number of widebodies in the winter?

For UA, many international widebodies have been sent through Polaris modifications during the winter. AA redeploys additional capacity to their South America network when transatlantic is down. DL and AA both have increased domestic and short haul beach market widebody flights in the winter season - UA not quite as much in my observations. Then there are the winter seasonal routes such as AA's LAX-AKL and JFK-GIG, UA's upcoming EWR-CPT and SFO-DEL, etc. etc.

FlyHappy wrote:
a) it is Delta leadership that loves to promote "Global", they seem to define it on their own special terms, while seeming to shrink presence in rising/competitive markets.
b) kudos to DL for serving JNB and what, Dakar? Really, I mean it.
c) where did I ever opine that AA or UA are "Global" ? I merely pointed out that UA has Asia point of sale (and legacy of Pan Am ops), and AA has Latin Am point of sale (and strong legacy there). In contrast, DL has backed away from the NWA Asia legacy (right or wrong).
d) BA/EK/QR - yes, they probably are "Global", and they have no real domestic ops to speak of, so by default, geography, aggressive tactics, and state backing, yes - they are global. I'm not glamorizing it, just seems factual.

a) I guess I still haven't heard a good reason why they shouldn't call themselves "Global"... They fly 200+ international routes and serve 50+ countries on all 6 populated continents. Seems "global" to me, at least until I hear further definitions of how many cities on each continent must be served, or how many U.S. hubs need to be connected to said cities in order for it to count as legitimate service.
b) To reiterate what another poster provided, DL serves JNB, LOS, ACC, and DSS in Africa. At various points over the last 10-15 years, they've also tried out service to CPT, ABV, ROB, and CAI, and had planned others such as LAD, NBO, and SSG. The four destinations they still fly to are the ones that proved stable and profitable. I expect DL does have significant point of sale traffic from Africa, as they've served the market continuously for over 10 years, and have been one of few nonstop options to the U.S.
c) My apologies if I've projected opinions from other posters onto you. My general impression in this thread has been that a decent number of posters consider UA and AA to be global while DL isn't, and that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me.

Let's be honest here the only true global airlines are the airlines from Europe. They serve every corner of the universe unlike many Asian , South American and North American carriers and if we did tag any of the US3 as a global airline it would be UA not AA or DL. Through their partnerships they become more diverse but in no way global in the sense like Pan Am was in it's hayday

zeke · Mon May 20, 2019 4:28 pm

klm617 wrote:
Let's be honest here the only true global airlines are the airlines from Europe. They serve every corner of the universe

I always thought the people from Australia and New Zealand were from another universe

compensateme · Mon May 20, 2019 5:55 pm

Let's be objective here:

- DL continuously operated DTW-HKG alongside NRT-HKG. DTW-HKG operated during the recovery period following the Great Recession, when consumer confidence was low and domestic airlines were barely profitable and hesitant to add capacity.

- SEA-HKG was launched during a national economic boom, and SEA is arguably the community enjoying the most prosperity during the economic boom (and it's spilled over to air traffic, where SEA has gained nearly 7M local enplanements since 2010, #1 (as a %) in the country). Shortly after its launch, SEA replaced NRT as DL's sole link to HKG. In the years that followed, DL added more than 125 daily flights to support the SEA hub. And yet the flight struggled from day one, seeing constant changes in equipment and/or reductions in frequency throughout its tenure. The route lost so much money that DL -- now earning record profits, vs. barely breaking even during the era DTW operated in -- ended it, when it easily had the fiances to keep it going for the sake of the network.

Let's reiterate: SEA-HKG was a total dud during an economic boom period in which arguably no other community benefited as much as SEA has. Let's stop pretending that the reason SEA was pulled was because it printed so much money for DL, that DL didn't know what to do with it. It isn't coming back anytime soon - not tomorrow, not when the FIS opens. DL didn't let go dozens of professionals to rehire them next year when SEA-HKG 3.0 launches. Stop being ridiculous, and stop bringing this topic up quarterly.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net