FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Delta Air Lines | SkyMiles (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta-air-lines-skymiles-665/)
-   -   DL applies for Haneda slots: ATL/LAX/MSP (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta-air-lines-skymiles/1761085-dl-applies-haneda-slots-atl-lax-msp.html)

Duke787 Apr 25, 16 11:56 pm


Originally Posted by Fanjet (Post 26527178)
Hasn't it already been established that the Japanese authorities are going to award ANA four daytime slot pairs and JAL only two? And if that is the case, I doubt that JAL would sacrafice one of them on HNL.

Per @airlineroute the Japanese authorities have awarded the slots as follows.

ANA: 3 daytime, 1 nighttime
JL: 2 daytime

kjnangre Apr 26, 16 12:19 am


Originally Posted by Fanjet (Post 26533840)
That's like a teenager saying, "My parents didn't ground me for two weeks because I stayed out past my curfew. I grounded myself by staying out past my curfew."

No, it's not! If you want an analogy: it's like parents saying you can have a puppy, but you have to feed and walk it everyday! And the kid replying, that's a lot of responsibility, I think I'll pass. I'll just play with the neighbor's puppy instead

FireEmblemPride Apr 26, 16 12:54 am


Originally Posted by Duke787 (Post 26535675)
Per @airlineroute the Japanese authorities have awarded the slots as follows.

ANA: 3 daytime, 1 nighttime
JL: 2 daytime

Japanese news sites also saying that NH is looking to start ORD and NY service (likely JFK), as I suspected. That said, with this revelation, whether UA will get EWR seems to rest on what happens with JL, not necessarily NH.

JL ends up with the same amount of slots they began with, so the question is what they decide to fly. My bet is on SFO staying and JFK replacing HNL. I can't see JL putting the flagship JL01/02 back to NRT as it would be a very large step back in terms of prestige, and JFK is higher yielding than HNL. Since JL operates two NRT-JFK flights, not having one moved to HND would hurt the viability of both flights (NH also operates this 2x/day so they'll still have NRT-JFK in the network).

If it turns out as I predict (JL and NH doing JFK), then there's no way UA gets EWR. If JL decides not to do JFK, then there's a chance the DOT could award UA EWR on the basis of market size.

Fanjet Apr 26, 16 1:47 am


Originally Posted by kjnangre (Post 26535709)
No, it's not! If you want an analogy: it's like parents saying you can have a puppy, but you have to feed and walk it everyday! And the kid replying, that's a lot of responsibility, I think I'll pass. I'll just play with the neighbor's puppy instead

Actually, for your analogy to work, the parents would have already given their kid the puppy. @:-)

If Delta had their way, they would still be holding on to their SEA-HND route authority and only operating it a few months out of the year. But the DOT set the demands in order for Delta to continue keeping it. Delta did not volunteer to surrender the authority on their own initiative.

Fanjet Apr 26, 16 2:00 am


Originally Posted by Duke787 (Post 26535675)
Per @airlineroute the Japanese authorities have awarded the slots as follows.

ANA: 3 daytime, 1 nighttime
JL: 2 daytime

There is no way either carrier would waste a daytime slot pair on their HNL-HND service. My prediction for JAL is SFO (as their SFO-HND flight is the only one to Tokyo from there). And JFK (which is probably why AA did not request JFK-HND). As for ANA, I think ORD/IAH/JFK or IAD would be their choices. There is an argument for leaving LAX-HND on the nighttime service (late night LAX departure/early morning HND arrival). As it serves a certain preference for some business travelers. And having their base of operations at HND makes for better utilization of the aircraft than for a U.S. carrier doing the same service. Of course, this would mean both carriers switching over their HNL service to NRT.

dc9flyernwa Apr 26, 16 6:56 am


Originally Posted by MSPeconomist (Post 26520554)
MSP-HND on the 767 D1 seats? ick!

All the HND routes were applied for using the 777.

Duke787 Apr 26, 16 9:05 am


Originally Posted by Fanjet (Post 26535937)
There is no way either carrier would waste a daytime slot pair on their HNL-HND service. My prediction for JAL is SFO (as their SFO-HND flight is the only one to Tokyo from there). And JFK (which is probably why AA did not request JFK-HND). As for ANA, I think ORD/IAH/JFK or IAD would be their choices. There is an argument for leaving LAX-HND on the nighttime service (late night LAX departure/early morning HND arrival). As it serves a certain preference for some business travelers. And having their base of operations at HND makes for better utilization of the aircraft than for a U.S. carrier doing the same service. Of course, this would mean both carriers switching over their HNL service to NRT.

From a DL standpoint this might actually help there case since JL ended up with 2 daytime instead of just 1.

There's a pathway forward now where *A has 4 and everyone else gets 3 which doesn't seem that far fetched if DOT wants equity.

UA gets 1 plus NH's 3 daytime for 4
AA 1 plus JL's 2 for 3
And Delta gets 3

And then NH and HA get the nighttime

Longboater Apr 26, 16 9:14 am


Originally Posted by Duke787 (Post 26537279)
From a DL standpoint this might actually help there case since JL ended up with 2 daytime instead of just 1.

There's a pathway forward now where *A has 4 and everyone else gets 3 which doesn't seem that far fetched if DOT wants equity.

UA gets 1 plus NH's 3 daytime for 4
AA 1 plus JL's 2 for 3
And Delta gets 3

And then NH and HA get the nighttime

Even for the sake of equity, I doubt DL gets all three slots they've applied for. With their behaviour over this mess, they are certainly not worthy of receiving all three. With DOT's ruling with SEA-HND, DL should be fortunate to receive two daytime slots. I think the announcement makes DFW-HND more likely and pretty much kills UA's chance of EWR-HND. DL will probably end up with ATL/LAX-HND. And of course, DL will throw a fit over not being awarded MSP-HND and promptly cancel MSP/PDX-NRT, just as they promised over this mess.

mnbp Apr 26, 16 9:51 am


Originally Posted by Longboater (Post 26537323)
Even for the sake of equity, I doubt DL gets all three slots they've applied for. With their behaviour over this mess, they are certainly not worthy of receiving all three. With DOT's ruling with SEA-HND, DL should be fortunate to receive two daytime slots. I think the announcement makes DFW-HND more likely and pretty much kills UA's chance of EWR-HND. DL will probably end up with ATL/LAX-HND. And of course, DL will throw a fit over not being awarded MSP-HND and promptly cancel MSP/PDX-NRT, just as they promised over this mess.

DOT cares about the travelling public, not individual carriers. It seems clear that the travelling public would be better served by three viable carriers / joint venture partnerships serving HND vs two. For this reason the DL case for three slot pairs seems the only way DOT could balance the US48-HND market. If DOT doesn't award DL three slots, wouldn't that leave only two carriers / partnerships serving the vast majority of the US48-HND market? What would that do to prices? That would be DOTs main concern I believe.

ashill Apr 26, 16 9:53 am


Originally Posted by FireEmblemPride (Post 26535794)
Japanese news sites also saying that NH is looking to start ORD and NY service (likely JFK), as I suspected. That said, with this revelation, whether UA will get EWR seems to rest on what happens with JL, not necessarily NH.

JL ends up with the same amount of slots they began with, so the question is what they decide to fly. My bet is on SFO staying and JFK replacing HNL. I can't see JL putting the flagship JL01/02 back to NRT as it would be a very large step back in terms of prestige, and JFK is higher yielding than HNL. Since JL operates two NRT-JFK flights, not having one moved to HND would hurt the viability of both flights (NH also operates this 2x/day so they'll still have NRT-JFK in the network).

If it turns out as I predict (JL and NH doing JFK), then there's no way UA gets EWR. If JL decides not to do JFK, then there's a chance the DOT could award UA EWR on the basis of market size.

It is possible, but I disagree that NH and even JL doing NYC precludes UA getting EWR because I'm not convinced that the DOT cares directly about the JL- and ANA-operated flights in considering the geographic distribution of flights in these proceedings. They didn't mention the JL and NH routes in the 2010 allocation of the initial four HND slots. Now that is a very imperfect analogy, since the DOT explicitly did not prejudge the outcome of the then-pending antitrust immunity applications by AA/JL and CO/UA/NH, but I still think it's illustrative. I think that the DOT will want a US-carrier-operated flight to NYC. They'll certainly consider the joint ventures in terms of overall capacity (although DL's case there isn't as strong as DL makes it out to be; as AA notes, DL is larger in USA-TYO than AA and JL combined).

Even so, DL won two routes in that proceeding not because of any stated desire on the part of the DOT to give them more routes but for the specifics of their two routes: They won LAX because they promised to use a 747, which is much bigger than the 772 AA was going to use (but of course kept the route when they promptly downsized to a plane smaller than AA's 772). They won DTW because it was the only interior eastern hub proposed, and the DOT wanted an interior eastern hub to provide 1-stop service to HND for most of the eastern and central US.

In 2010, the DOT only considered alliances/avoiding concentration as a tiebreaker in deciding between CO's EWR and AA's JFK proposals. It was not a factor they said they considered in giving DL two slot pairs in 2010.

ashill Apr 26, 16 9:59 am


Originally Posted by mnbp (Post 26537528)
DOT cares about the travelling public, not individual carriers. It seems clear that the travelling public would be better served by three viable carriers / joint venture partnerships serving HND vs two. For this reason the DL case for three slot pairs seems the only way DOT could balance the US48-HND market. If DOT doesn't award DL three slots, wouldn't that leave only two carriers / partnerships serving the vast majority of the US48-HND market? What would that do to prices? That would be DOTs main concern I believe.

It depends whether they think primarily balancing the US48-HND or the US48-TYO market is most important for the traveling public. If they care about the US48-TYO market, DL is significantly larger than AA+JL and not much smaller than UA+NH.

Irrespective, I think the DOT will care more about geographic distribution of the flights operated by US airlines (which means I don't predict that both AA and DL will get/keep LAX), and perhaps DL's history of underutilizing and obstructing the utility of HND for the traveling public, than giving special consideration to DL to maximize their HND slots.

MSPeconomist Apr 26, 16 10:11 am

Beyond NH obviously being *A and JL oneworld, what are these carriers' relationships to UA and AA? JV? Codeshare arrangements? Or are they just partners through being members of the same alliances?

I'm thinking that having some TPAC flights into HND from the NYC and WAS areas available as a codeshare using a USA carrier's flight number would be a big advantage to government travelers, who otherwise would be required to take a connection by the Fly America act.

Of course, there's also the argument that Americans who want to fly USA airlines should be able to do so conveniently.

mAAine_flyer Apr 26, 16 10:37 am


Originally Posted by MSPeconomist (Post 26537658)
I'm thinking that having some TPAC flights into HND from the NYC and WAS areas available as a codeshare using a USA carrier's flight number would be a big advantage to government travelers, who otherwise would be required to take a connection by the Fly America act.

Not relevant in this case. The Fly America Act allows for travel on foreign air carriers (i.e., no code-share required) belonging to nations which have signed Open Skies agreements with the US (i.e., the EU, Switzerland, Australia and Japan).

jrkmsp Apr 26, 16 10:39 am


Originally Posted by MSPeconomist (Post 26537658)
Beyond NH obviously being *A and JL oneworld, what are these carriers' relationships to UA and AA? JV? Codeshare arrangements? Or are they just partners through being members of the same alliances?

I'm thinking that having some TPAC flights into HND from the NYC and WAS areas available as a codeshare using a USA carrier's flight number would be a big advantage to government travelers, who otherwise would be required to take a connection by the Fly America act.

Of course, there's also the argument that Americans who want to fly USA airlines should be able to do so conveniently.

JL and AA have an ATI/JV, UA and NH also have an ATI/JV. Both are fully inclusive of all trans-Pacific flights (i.e. US-China, but not US-Australia.) In other words, per DOT decision, an NH flight is considered a UA flight and a UA flight is considered an NH flight. That's the letter of the JV rules.

sbm12 Apr 26, 16 11:14 am


Originally Posted by mAAine_flyer (Post 26537832)
Not relevant in this case. The Fly America Act allows for travel on foreign air carriers (i.e., no code-share required) belonging to nations which have signed Open Skies agreements with the US (i.e., the EU, Switzerland, Australia and Japan).

There are other Open Skies agreements which exist but do not qualify for the exemption; it is not only about the Open Skies agreement.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:12 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.