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.
Let's not make this a conversation about SkyPesos. If it was why fly Delta to begin with and yet why are they the most profitable airline in the country?
Uh, do you know what product PR has on LAX-MNL? There is a reason why UA finally was able to get their proper slots at MNL and they were successful at their SFO-MNL from the start. Also, for all the attention that SQ gets for their soft product, their hard product upfront has plenty of critics. UA doesn't seem to have a problem with SQ flying on SFO-SIN and SQ has even caved somewhat to UA in offering additional codeshares and ending their partnership with AS.
LAX is a bloodbath but have you seen SEA recently? SEA-TPE/HKG/MNL/SIN combined is too much capacity for the local market and TPE/HKG have to rely heavily on connections to work. CX is resuming HKG-SEA with timings most favourable to use connections at HKG for CX and connections at SEA for AS. PR's thrice weekly SEA-MNL with the 77W is enough for that market compared to how Delta could step in and fly daily LAX-MNL with PR already flying double daily on that route. The LA Basin and San Diego have over four times the amount of Filipinos than the entire state of Washington. Delta flying daily nonstop on SEA-MNL versus LAX-MNL, is likely to result in worse yields, thus LAX it is. Likely the same conclusion they came to when resuming HKG. SEA-HKG needs connections on both ends to work, hence CX's new times, and DL with no HKG partner wasn't going to be able to make it work. Thus the larger LAX-HKG market is where DL has landed up and rightfully so. Also, remember that LAX is about 10% larger than SEA and Delta is currently the largest carrier, which, given the work going on at LAX, likely won't change over the next few years.
Of course, your comment about SEA will have detractors saying that Delta is just bleeding cash there. While it is very likely, almost certain, that it is their worst performing hub, that does not translate into meaning it loses money. Has it been worth the investment long-term given AS is now with OW and acquired HAL, receiving their Dreamliners?
Since Bastian took over, DL has been able to expand their space at LAX to where they have 28 gates now at rebuilt T2/T3 with much easier TBIT access. We're at point still where INTL carriers are still lagging behind their 2019 presence at LAX, hence why AA was able to close down T5 to be torn down and rebuilt. This is the perfect opportunity for Delta to become noticeably larger at LAX over AA/UA. UA is absolutely maxed out, especially internationally with widebodies and AA is down to just JV Intercontinental flying.
UA will beat DL for a SGN nonstop from NA but LAX-SGN is a very large market but I am not sure the yields are there where it could work as a nonstop. SFO, just like with pretty much every other Intercontinental destination ex-LAX with the exception of TYO, has better yields. Yeah, I am sure if Delta were to fly LAX-SGN, SkyDong will catch on real fast here....