GRALISTAIR

OK you win - you are correct - UA is obliterating DL. I just am not prepared to argue.

sfozrhfco

The addition of this and other non-stop routes from SFO to Asia also must be looked at in connection with the impending changes at NRT. ANA and JAL will automatically get some of the new daytime HND slots which will directly benefit UA and AA. Any additional slots obtained by AA or UA are icing on the cake. Much of their O/D traffic can be funneled directly to HND while still offering onward connections on partners. DL will be stuck with 1-2 day time flights at best with no onward connections. This puts them at a further disadvantage in Asia.

This will definitely require DL to figure out their future in Asia-especially as AA expands and if UA ever gets their operations in better shape.

matthew64832

2-4-2 in business, enough said. No one is leaving anyone in the dust with that kind of configuration.

And just to put my 2 cents out there, in general I agree that direct flights are better, but once they get up to 14-15 hours or more in some cases I'd actually prefer a connection to be able to get off, walk around, etc.

Obviously that doesn't work if you are just flying to SIN for a weekend or something, but if you are going for a week or two, the extra 5 hours isn't going to make a huge difference.

ATOBTTR

In fairness to the argument, UA will be using a 787 on the SFO-SIN route, which is 2-2-2 in Business. Not all-aisle access but not 2-4-2 either. I still feel that one nonstop which only actually benefits one city and a handful of other cities that will now have one-stop service available to SIN when they didn't have it in some way before is hardly "leaving anyone in the dust" or "obliterating" them.

Besides, this is FT and we all know nonstops mean fewer elite qualification miles than connections in most instances.

GRALISTAIR

Well that is true

davetravels

EVERYTHING in FlyerTalk is true!

DA201

UA will (probably) always have a bigger/better Asian/Pacific operation than DL for a few reasons.
1) It has a better hub city. San Francisco has a lot more O&D passengers to all of these Asian cities than Seattle.
2) It has better partnerships. UA has a JV with Japanese carrier ANA, and codeshares with Korean carrier Asiana Airlines and Chinese carrier Air China. For Oceania, United also has a JV with Air New Zealand. DL, on the other hand, has a failed partnership with Korean Air and just acquired a steak in China Eastern. Delta has no legitimate partners in Oceania.
3) UA has a head start. UA has had a hub at SFO for years, while DL is just now building up its hub at SEA.

With all of this in mind, UA will always have a superior Asian/Pacific operation. My guess would be that DL's next nonstops will be to XIY and KMG (China Eastern hubs).

Don't count on DL using an A350 for routes UA is flying with a 787. The 787 may have a slightly smaller range, but it holds less passengers, making it better for skinny routes, as it doesn't need as many passengers in order for the plane to breakeven.

SJC ORD LDR

I don't think there is a JV between NZ and UA. They are both *A, but I don't recall there being a JV. Otherwise, why would anyone fly UA from SFO-AKL when they start that route, if they can fly NZ instead?

OTOH, I agree with everything else you are saying.

I don't think there is really another carrier from Oceania to add to ST. NZ is *A, FJ partners with AA, NZ, and QF among other non-ST airlines.

besst

No love at all for VA around here.

SJC ORD LDR

Not from me. Why would I want to fly SJC-LAX-SYD-AKL or SFO-ICN-AKL, when I can fly SFO-AKL on NZ? VA is good for Australia, but not the rest of Oceania IMO.

besst

Fair enough. For you, SFO-AKL makes perfect sense, and that is what I would fly if I was in your situation. That said, VA is a reasonably large airline, and would seem to be a decent airline for ST to add service to Oceania.

pbarnette

Virgin Australia is 30% larger than NZ. More importantly, DL actually has a JV with VA, while UA does not with NZ. Your inability to grasp basic facts about this market causes me to dismiss pretty much everything you have to say.

SJC ORD LDR

Australia has more than 5 times the population as New Zealand, so it would make sense that VA is bigger than NZ. Plus if you are basing on revenue per distance, Australia is a much larger country than New Zealand. The biggest problem with using VA as the only partner in Oceania is that every other country in Oceania is a back-track from Australia. You have to go back north or go back east, or both.

Do you accept that UA for the most part has an advantage in the Pacific over both DL and AA? So, a route like SFO-SIN makes sense for UA, where I don't know how successful it would be for DL from SEA?

5khours

Just my $0.2.

1) I have flown over 1000 TPACs and only had six delays/cancellations. UA two mechanical and one on board illness, DL/NW - two mechanical, NH - one weather. (Probably a more statistically significant sample than Pa Kettle's recent trip to Asia.) So I don't really buy the arguments about reliability.

2) No F in DL makes it non-starter for a lot of business travelers who can UG from J on UA. I think UA will regret the decision to forego F in the 787. For a lot of people, it's the main reason to fly UA J.

3) UA J is a more comfortable sleep than DL J. If you're tall that's probably more important than direct aisle access.

4) In F/J, I probably prefer a non-stop. In Y, SFO<>SIN is a mighty long segment.

5) China<>NRT (not to mention ROA<>NRT) are getting to be huge markets. Both UA and DL ought to be going after these markets.

5) DL is a very provincial company. NW used to dominate the TPAC market because they understood the markets (and marketing) and were the preferred carrier (even over the national carriers) for a lot of the traffic originating in Asia. DL doesn't have a clue.

6) Comparing DL and UA is like comparing the grey donkey with brown donkey. NH/JL/CX/SQ beats the pants off both of them on both hard product and soft product.

pbarnette

I was just pointing out that DA201's statement was factually incorrect.

And the biggest problem with using NZ as your only partner in Oceania is that Australia is, by far, the biggest market in the region. Sure, you may have to backtrack to go to Vanuatu but, frankly, hardly anybody cares. As for having to "go back north", the same applies to NZ.

I don't dispute that SFO is probably the best location for a TPAC hub in the US.

Personally, I don't know whether this route makes sense for UA. The economics on ultra long-hauls are tough and I have questions about whether the 789 has the sort of configuration to drive yields sufficient to sustain the route over the long-term. It might make some sense with fuel as cheap as it is now, but I think this route will be problematic from a profit perspective when fuel prices inevitably rise. As for DL running the route ex-SEA... I think that, like UA ex-SFO, they could probably make the route work today, but that it would become marginal to negative over the long-term.