S.Korea Govt orders 45 days ICN-SFO suspension
Nov 13, 2014, 10:33 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane
Programs: *G
Posts: 497
S.Korea Govt orders 45 days ICN-SFO suspension
News according to press in Korea.
Ministry of Land and Transportation ordered OZ to suspend ICN-SFO route for 45 days but the effective date is yet to be determined as OZ is able to file for administration petition for reconsideration.
The ministry is in negotiation with KE to use 744 instead of 772 during those 45 days or put another temporary daily flight.
Ministry of Land and Transportation ordered OZ to suspend ICN-SFO route for 45 days but the effective date is yet to be determined as OZ is able to file for administration petition for reconsideration.
The ministry is in negotiation with KE to use 744 instead of 772 during those 45 days or put another temporary daily flight.
Nov 14, 2014, 2:06 am
#4
Join Date: May 2006
Location: SYD or GOT
Programs: OZ Lifetime-DMPL*G, AF*G, SPG Plat, Hertz PC
Posts: 803
Well on the other hand, perhaps there is an argument that the government should be tougher to avoid another KE.
Not good for OZ though, it must hit the bottom line significantly.
Not good for OZ though, it must hit the bottom line significantly.
Nov 14, 2014, 8:29 am
#6
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Brisbane
Programs: *G
Posts: 497
Korean Air says this punishment is not enough. It is understandable as KE couldn't fly to Guam for an year or two when KE 747-300 crashed back then.
I am pretty sure flights next week will continue as normal. Durely the government will give prior notice regarding suspension period.
I am pretty sure flights next week will continue as normal. Durely the government will give prior notice regarding suspension period.
Nov 14, 2014, 9:10 am
#7
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA 1MM, WN CP, Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Gold, IC Plat
Posts: 15,720
Nov 14, 2014, 9:47 am
#8
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: SG & SYD
Programs: OZ Diamond
Posts: 180
1. You are being sarcastic
OR
2. You just don't get what 45 days refering to
Last edited by DownUnderFlyer; Nov 14, 2014 at 12:58 pm Reason: Reported post
Nov 14, 2014, 3:33 pm
#9
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,187
I'd assume that OZ would re-route any passengers booked for ICN-SFO-XXX to connections at SEA and LAX.
For those destined to SFO, I'd assume that a number of OZ passengers (but, admittedly not all) would not want to fly KE unless OZ awards FF miles for those flights. ICN-SFO flights by UA and SQ will be quite full during this period. Likewise, a number might opt for ICN-SEA/LAX on OZ with connecting flights to SFO on UA.
Wonder if the order would prohibit OZ from offering ICN-SEA-SFO, ICN-LAX-SFO services (of course with no local traffic within the US). For that matter, is the Korean government swift enough to prohibit OZ from simply moving their ICN-SFO service to OAK or SJC?
If UA was smart - and certainly they aren't - they'd add capacity on ICN-SFO.
For those destined to SFO, I'd assume that a number of OZ passengers (but, admittedly not all) would not want to fly KE unless OZ awards FF miles for those flights. ICN-SFO flights by UA and SQ will be quite full during this period. Likewise, a number might opt for ICN-SEA/LAX on OZ with connecting flights to SFO on UA.
Wonder if the order would prohibit OZ from offering ICN-SEA-SFO, ICN-LAX-SFO services (of course with no local traffic within the US). For that matter, is the Korean government swift enough to prohibit OZ from simply moving their ICN-SFO service to OAK or SJC?
If UA was smart - and certainly they aren't - they'd add capacity on ICN-SFO.
Nov 14, 2014, 5:23 pm
#10
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Left Coast
Posts: 862
The Korean government is under pressure as a result of the sinking of the Sewol ferry. So IMO this was a no-brainer for them to sanction Asiana. The President, Park Geun-Hye, is unpopular with a sizable segment of the population, and she has found it difficult to shed an image of being soft on official corruption. If they had waived all sanctions against the airline, it wouldn't have played well.
I'm just glad I got all of our family's travel booked (out of LAX) before this news came out.
I'm just glad I got all of our family's travel booked (out of LAX) before this news came out.
Nov 15, 2014, 12:59 am
#13
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: ORD, HKG
Programs: UA*G, AA Emerald, HHonors Diamond, Hyatt globalist
Posts: 10,276
http://www.flyertalk.com/story/south...013-crash.html
If the suspension is upheld, it would go into effect within the next 6 months, during a time period of Asiana’s choosing.
Last edited by ORDnHKG; Nov 15, 2014 at 1:06 am
Nov 15, 2014, 1:20 am
#14
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: ORD, HKG
Programs: UA*G, AA Emerald, HHonors Diamond, Hyatt globalist
Posts: 10,276
I'd assume that OZ would re-route any passengers booked for ICN-SFO-XXX to connections at SEA and LAX.
For those destined to SFO, I'd assume that a number of OZ passengers (but, admittedly not all) would not want to fly KE unless OZ awards FF miles for those flights. ICN-SFO flights by UA and SQ will be quite full during this period. Likewise, a number might opt for ICN-SEA/LAX on OZ with connecting flights to SFO on UA.
Wonder if the order would prohibit OZ from offering ICN-SEA-SFO, ICN-LAX-SFO services (of course with no local traffic within the US). For that matter, is the Korean government swift enough to prohibit OZ from simply moving their ICN-SFO service to OAK or SJC?
If UA was smart - and certainly they aren't - they'd add capacity on ICN-SFO.
For those destined to SFO, I'd assume that a number of OZ passengers (but, admittedly not all) would not want to fly KE unless OZ awards FF miles for those flights. ICN-SFO flights by UA and SQ will be quite full during this period. Likewise, a number might opt for ICN-SEA/LAX on OZ with connecting flights to SFO on UA.
Wonder if the order would prohibit OZ from offering ICN-SEA-SFO, ICN-LAX-SFO services (of course with no local traffic within the US). For that matter, is the Korean government swift enough to prohibit OZ from simply moving their ICN-SFO service to OAK or SJC?
If UA was smart - and certainly they aren't - they'd add capacity on ICN-SFO.
UA had already upgauged from 772 to 744, SQ had already upgauged from 772 to 77W. Neither carriers upgauged their planes were because of the increase amount of pax for this route. UA on one hand is about for the standardize 744 flying int'l out of SFO, as SFO is their prime maintenance facility for 744. SQ is about their 772 are aging. (SQ's prime route out of SFO is always SQ 1 but not SQ 15 ! You can even judge the amount of pax in the SQ lounge in the noon hours for SQ 15 compare to the amount of pax for SQ 1 around midnight where they are forcing out non-SQ pax due to capacity issue.)
Endorsing the tickets the UA and SQ make most sense, if not reroute the pax for SFO-LAX-ICN, since LAX-ICN has two flights and one of them is 380, not to mention there are hourly flights for SFO-LAX on UA.
SFO-SEA-ICN doesn't work as SEA-ICN is just a 330, not to mention UA SFO-SEA flights are limited.
Last edited by ORDnHKG; Nov 15, 2014 at 1:26 am
Nov 15, 2014, 12:08 pm
#15
Join Date: May 2004
Location: US
Programs: UA Lifetime Gold, IHG Gold, Marriott Gold
Posts: 973
OZ may choose to do the suspension in the middle of the winter, late January to early March. During that period, they could route their passengers through SEA or LAX or via KE (if there is an agreement between the two during the temporary period).