Originally Posted by
SJC ORD LDR
I don't get running all these new Asian routes via LAX. SEA is better geographically (less back tracking for most) and has less competition than LAX unless they think the O/D numbers are going to be really good. LAX is a competitive bloodbath. I would think that unless you are a SkyPesos junkie, you'd fly SQ to SIN and PR to MNL from LAX. UA usually runs their primary Asian routes form SFO and the LAX once they get a foothold in the market.
I think Richard Anderson was right to make SEA the Asian hub and not LAX. I also think that Richard was better at running an airline than Ed.
Maybe one day, they'll announce SEA/LAX - SGN and we can call SkyPesos SkyDong instead.
Three things:
1. Yes, LAX is a competitive bloodbath, but its marketshare is x00% bigger than that of Seattle. At the end of the day, LA is by far and large the best choice for east Asian routes like HKG, SIN, and MNL.
2. In regards to MNL, Philippine Airlines is going 3-4-3 on their a350-1000 (will be used for North American routes) for economy class. I have no doubt that DL will siphon some customers given their 3-3-3 MC on the a350. Also, it wasn't until 2019 (before COVID) that DL exited the MNL market. I'm not sure about brand awareness in SIN, but I know brand awareness in the Philippines is non-trivial due to the Northwest days and the hub in NRT.
3. Finally, I know I'm not the only one who doesn't care to time the exact distance of flights when booking connections. I think airlines and avgeeks put too much emphasis on how SEA is closer to Asia than LAX. It's probably less than 1% of the passenger population. I live in PHX, and I promise I see absolutely ZERO difference in connecting between LAX, SFO, and SEA when getting to China, Korea, Japan, or any other east-Asian country. And I know many, many others who are like me.