DL applies for Haneda slots: ATL/LAX/MSP
Apr 26, 2016, 2:02 pm
#91
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: YYF/YLW
Programs: AA, DL, AS, VA, WS Silver
Posts: 5,951
(Replying separately to the non-political portion of this post.)
That's obviously why DL has the pipe dream of moving their entire TYO hub from NRT to HND. I don't think they have any expectation of connecting passengers involving inter-airport HND-NRT transfers. But even if they were able to move the entire hub to NRT, I don't think they really want to be flying intra-Asia connecting flights in large numbers themselves. That's why they've tried for so long to establish a joint venture with KE and why they've invested in MU, and also why they whine (somewhat fairly) about how nice it is for AA and UA to have local partners in TYO. A local partner will always make more sense than operating connecting flights on the far side of the Pacific.
Then, long term, you're flying the wrong airline. DL has a very clear goal of replacing the NRT connecting hub with nonstop flights from SEA and LAX to Asia and intra-Asia flights operated by Asian partners.
ADDED: In addition to my concern about the future of the nonstop flight to Tokyo from MSP (and potential consequences for down gauging of some domestic MSP routes), I'm wondering about the future of DL service on the intraAsia routes like SIN and BKK, to the extent that there are many flights remaining from NRT (R.I.P. HKG, ICN, PUS, CAN and others.) The idea of changing airports at Tokyo sounds horrible, as does being to connect through PVG on MU or other mainland China airports using Chinese partner flights.
In addition, I don't want to connect through SEA or LAX for Asian destinations.
Apr 26, 2016, 2:15 pm
#92
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SEA
Programs: UA Silver, BA Gold, DL Gold
Posts: 9,779
But MSP is a primary DL hub. Why should the DOT consider a hypothetical that doesn't exist? When and if MSP ceases to be a hub, what is stopping the DOT from simply re-allocating the frequency?
Apr 26, 2016, 2:27 pm
#93
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Back in Reds Country (DAY/CVG). Previously: SEA & SAT.
Programs: DL PM 1MM, AA PLAT, UA Silver, Marriott Bonvoy Titanium
Posts: 10,360
ADDED: In addition to my concern about the future of the nonstop flight to Tokyo from MSP (and potential consequences for down gauging of some domestic MSP routes), I'm wondering about the future of DL service on the intraAsia routes like SIN and BKK, to the extent that there are many flights remaining from NRT (R.I.P. HKG, ICN, PUS, CAN and others.) The idea of changing airports at Tokyo sounds horrible, as does being to connect through PVG on MU or other mainland China airports using Chinese partner flights. In addition, I don't want to connect through SEA or LAX for Asian destinations.
Example:
MSP-NRT: 5,950 miles
SEA-HKG: 6,500 miles
SEA-PVG: 5,722 miles
LAX-PVG: 6,485 miles
Are there other reasons for not wanting to go through LAX or SEA (I can get LAX with the separated terminals - but what's wrong with SEA, especially if it would actually mean a longer flight in D1?)
Apr 26, 2016, 2:37 pm
#94
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Alexandria, Longboat Key
Programs: UA Gold Marriott Gold AA Gold Choice Gold Wyndham PLAT IHG PLAT Avis President's Club Amtrak Select
Posts: 2,263
Why not? Are you saying that the DOT should ignore their role in ensuring competition because DL was mean to them?
MSP isn't a pawn. There will almost certainly be some negative impact to demand for DL's service to Tokyo if their competitors have better access to a more convenient airport. That may reduce demand sufficiently to make MSP-NRT unsustainable. That is a statement of fact, not a game.
They have a legitimate grievance. What would you have them do if not lobby for a resolution that works for them? More importantly, from the DOT's perspective, the resolution that works for DL also happens to maximize competition in the market.
MSP isn't a pawn. There will almost certainly be some negative impact to demand for DL's service to Tokyo if their competitors have better access to a more convenient airport. That may reduce demand sufficiently to make MSP-NRT unsustainable. That is a statement of fact, not a game.
They have a legitimate grievance. What would you have them do if not lobby for a resolution that works for them? More importantly, from the DOT's perspective, the resolution that works for DL also happens to maximize competition in the market.
But no, DL has for the past several years demanded Japan's MLIT to allow the carrier to transfer the outmoded NRT hub to HND, thus holding up this whole process for years. DL's actions, rather than being mean-spirited, have been petulant in trying to screw over the other airlines with access to HND.
DL's actions on HND aren't too different from their stance on the ME3 and the cancellation of ATL-DXB.
Yes, they have a legitimate grievance and could have made their application on HND slots to the greatest benefit of the traveling business public by applying for JFK-HND, ATL-HND, and LAX-HND. Instead of applying for JFK-HND, which was a slam dunk route application, they used a weak route application in MSP-HND, making this round of route applications a political play instead of applying for the routes that had strongest merit. I stand my prediction that due to DL's legitimate grievance, DL would receive a second daytime flight in ATL-HND but even with the JV of AA/JAL, MSP-HND is nowhere near the same application of DFW-HND.
DL has reduced service to TYO over the past several years, even during the interim time of AA suspending JFK-HND and UA starting up SFO-HND. The problem with DL's Japan operation was never about HND but the Yen devaluation killing their once strong yields.
Apr 26, 2016, 3:24 pm
#95
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: SJC/YUL
Programs: DL PM, Marriott Gold
Posts: 3,878
I don't get it. If you dislike DL's behavior so much, why do you spend so much time on the DL forum whining about it. Why not just find pick another airline that you do respect and go hang out on their forum?
Apr 26, 2016, 4:13 pm
#96
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Alexandria, Longboat Key
Programs: UA Gold Marriott Gold AA Gold Choice Gold Wyndham PLAT IHG PLAT Avis President's Club Amtrak Select
Posts: 2,263
Are you kidding? Delta has always been my favourite airline, none of the others come close. I just can't stand their behaviour with this whole HND slot proceeding, arguing why they are entitled to three slots, irrespective of those route applications because of their disadvantaged situation in Japan. I'm not whining here. Delta has been whining ever since HND flights began as all three US airlines vastly over-estimated the potential night time demand into HND. Just read their filings with DOT.
Apr 26, 2016, 4:19 pm
#97
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,417
DL has acted like a spoiled child ever since they received the two night time slots to HND and proceeded to have significant problems with those flights. In retrospect, they should have put up with losing cash on those flights, in comparison to billions they've made in the past five years, and wait for further liberalisation to day time flying.
But no, DL has for the past several years demanded Japan's MLIT to allow the carrier to transfer the outmoded NRT hub to HND, thus holding up this whole process for years. DL's actions, rather than being mean-spirited, have been petulant in trying to screw over the other airlines with access to HND.
DL's actions on HND aren't too different from their stance on the ME3 and the cancellation of ATL-DXB.
Yes, they have a legitimate grievance and could have made their application on HND slots to the greatest benefit of the traveling business public by applying for JFK-HND, ATL-HND, and LAX-HND. Instead of applying for JFK-HND, which was a slam dunk route application, they used a weak route application in MSP-HND, making this round of route applications a political play instead of applying for the routes that had strongest merit. I stand my prediction that due to DL's legitimate grievance, DL would receive a second daytime flight in ATL-HND but even with the JV of AA/JAL, MSP-HND is nowhere near the same application of DFW-HND.
DL has reduced service to TYO over the past several years, even during the interim time of AA suspending JFK-HND and UA starting up SFO-HND. The problem with DL's Japan operation was never about HND but the Yen devaluation killing their once strong yields.
But no, DL has for the past several years demanded Japan's MLIT to allow the carrier to transfer the outmoded NRT hub to HND, thus holding up this whole process for years. DL's actions, rather than being mean-spirited, have been petulant in trying to screw over the other airlines with access to HND.
DL's actions on HND aren't too different from their stance on the ME3 and the cancellation of ATL-DXB.
Yes, they have a legitimate grievance and could have made their application on HND slots to the greatest benefit of the traveling business public by applying for JFK-HND, ATL-HND, and LAX-HND. Instead of applying for JFK-HND, which was a slam dunk route application, they used a weak route application in MSP-HND, making this round of route applications a political play instead of applying for the routes that had strongest merit. I stand my prediction that due to DL's legitimate grievance, DL would receive a second daytime flight in ATL-HND but even with the JV of AA/JAL, MSP-HND is nowhere near the same application of DFW-HND.
DL has reduced service to TYO over the past several years, even during the interim time of AA suspending JFK-HND and UA starting up SFO-HND. The problem with DL's Japan operation was never about HND but the Yen devaluation killing their once strong yields.
In this case, DL should pick a strategy of route applications based on its assessment of success and the profitability of various of combinations of routes to maximize expected shareholder value. There's no evidence that this wasn't done.
ADDED: I've been trying to understand the apparent decrease in DL's capacity to NRT/Tokyo/Japan. They down gauged and then eliminated the longstanding SFO-NRT route, decreased the frequencies of MSP-NRT and DTW-NRT, eliminated DTW-HKG (not Japan but still TPAC), etc. while adding and keeping LAX-HND, plus adding (and keeping/expanding) nonstop flights to China. I understand that travel demand depends on the business cycle and that passenger volume is shifting from Japan to China as well as the importance of capacity discipline, but it still looks like a big decrease in not only capacity but also passenger numbers between the USA and Japan. Presumably yields are increasing as those who formerly used cheap tickets are being priced out of the market, but it looks like an amazing shrinking of the market. [I see the same thing on various USA routes, which makes me wonder what happened to the people who apparently used to fly, especially if you think about capacity decreases on routes that had full planes. In the past, were so many customers being carried who caused profits to decrease?]
Last edited by MSPeconomist; Apr 26, 2016 at 4:29 pm
Apr 26, 2016, 4:47 pm
#98
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: YYF/YLW
Programs: AA, DL, AS, VA, WS Silver
Posts: 5,951
it still looks like a big decrease in not only capacity but also passenger numbers between the USA and Japan. Presumably yields are increasing as those who formerly used cheap tickets are being priced out of the market, but it looks like an amazing shrinking of the market.
Apr 26, 2016, 4:55 pm
#99
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,417
Well, the DOT awards routes in competitive cases based on the greatest public good; that's the explicit legal standard. So if DL wants to win a route case, that's the standard by which they should make their case; the biggest part of making a compelling route case is choosing routes that maximize public good (while of course fitting within the airline's profitability and strategic objectives.) No matter how potentially-profitable is, if it serves the public good less than proposals by other airlines, it by law should not be awarded.
Apr 26, 2016, 5:01 pm
#100
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Alexandria, Longboat Key
Programs: UA Gold Marriott Gold AA Gold Choice Gold Wyndham PLAT IHG PLAT Avis President's Club Amtrak Select
Posts: 2,263
An airline shouldn't somehow be trying to provid the greatest good for the greatest number. It's only objective should be to maximize shareholder value, subject to government laws and regulations.
In this case, DL should pick a strategy of route applications based on its assessment of success and the profitability of various of combinations of routes to maximize expected shareholder value. There's no evidence that this wasn't done.
ADDED: I've been trying to understand the apparent decrease in DL's capacity to NRT/Tokyo/Japan. They down gauged and then eliminated the longstanding SFO-NRT route, decreased the frequencies of MSP-NRT and DTW-NRT, eliminated DTW-HKG (not Japan but still TPAC), etc. while adding and keeping LAX-HND, plus adding (and keeping/expanding) nonstop flights to China. I understand that travel demand depends on the business cycle and that passenger volume is shifting from Japan to China as well as the importance of capacity discipline, but it still looks like a big decrease in not only capacity but also passenger numbers between the USA and Japan. Presumably yields are increasing as those who formerly used cheap tickets are being priced out of the market, but it looks like an amazing shrinking of the market. [I see the same thing on various USA routes, which makes me wonder what happened to the people who apparently used to fly, especially if you think about capacity decreases on routes that had full planes. In the past, were so many customers being carried who caused profits to decrease?]
In this case, DL should pick a strategy of route applications based on its assessment of success and the profitability of various of combinations of routes to maximize expected shareholder value. There's no evidence that this wasn't done.
ADDED: I've been trying to understand the apparent decrease in DL's capacity to NRT/Tokyo/Japan. They down gauged and then eliminated the longstanding SFO-NRT route, decreased the frequencies of MSP-NRT and DTW-NRT, eliminated DTW-HKG (not Japan but still TPAC), etc. while adding and keeping LAX-HND, plus adding (and keeping/expanding) nonstop flights to China. I understand that travel demand depends on the business cycle and that passenger volume is shifting from Japan to China as well as the importance of capacity discipline, but it still looks like a big decrease in not only capacity but also passenger numbers between the USA and Japan. Presumably yields are increasing as those who formerly used cheap tickets are being priced out of the market, but it looks like an amazing shrinking of the market. [I see the same thing on various USA routes, which makes me wonder what happened to the people who apparently used to fly, especially if you think about capacity decreases on routes that had full planes. In the past, were so many customers being carried who caused profits to decrease?]
Since MSP is a goldmine for DL, applying for MSP-HND ensures higher fares due to the nonexistent competition on MSP-TYO, thus maximising return on investment to shareholders instead of say JFK-HND which absolutely would face competition from NH or JAL or both. However, why then would DL also apply for LAX-HND since they will definitely face competition from ANA and AA, thus launching a potential fare war between the three? Well, we all know that DL is trying to "win" LA just as they have successfully pushed out much of AA's former marketshare in NYC. If DL was only interested in these routes maximising market share, DTW-HND, rather than LAX-HND, would have received an application due to DL's strong yields in DTW. ATL-HND is a given and is all but assured of a daytime slot.
Apr 26, 2016, 5:02 pm
#101
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
https://www.regulations.gov/#!docume...2016-0048-0008
Moreover, on 11 April an additional filing was made:
In Order 2016-3-26, the Department noted that U.S. carriers face a deadline of May 20, 2016 (May 19, 2016 in the United States), to file applications with Japanese authorities for takeoff and landing slot times at Haneda airport for the forthcoming winter traffic season that begins October
30, 2016. The Department further stated that it does not anticipate reaching a final decision in the proceeding in time to meet that Japanese filing deadline, and the Department therefore found an immediate public need for the grant of temporary U.S.-Haneda daytime slot-pair authority. The Department expressed its tentative view that the public need is most efficiently met by a temporary allocation to each of the incumbent carriers currently holding U.S.-Haneda nighttime slot-pair allocations so that they can continue to serve Haneda during the pendency of this proceeding and through the forthcoming winter traffic season.
...
In view of the decisions above, the Department is revising the remaining procedural schedule for the proceeding as follows:
Applications: April 21, 2016
Answers: May 5, 2016
Replies: May 12, 2016
30, 2016. The Department further stated that it does not anticipate reaching a final decision in the proceeding in time to meet that Japanese filing deadline, and the Department therefore found an immediate public need for the grant of temporary U.S.-Haneda daytime slot-pair authority. The Department expressed its tentative view that the public need is most efficiently met by a temporary allocation to each of the incumbent carriers currently holding U.S.-Haneda nighttime slot-pair allocations so that they can continue to serve Haneda during the pendency of this proceeding and through the forthcoming winter traffic season.
...
In view of the decisions above, the Department is revising the remaining procedural schedule for the proceeding as follows:
Applications: April 21, 2016
Answers: May 5, 2016
Replies: May 12, 2016
Apr 26, 2016, 5:12 pm
#102
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: UA Million Mile, Mileage Plus Premier 1K, SkyMiles Gold Medallion, AAdvantage Gold
Posts: 875
Awarding a carrier three slots that has previously given up HND slots not once but twice? While HAL/UA should be commended for operating HND flights consistently since their respective start dates, HAL's HND flight fills the niche of Hawai'i-Japan traffic. The sole HNL-HND flight is sufficient for the market. UA will likely keep SFO-HND daytime but with NH receiving four slots, including three daytime, Star Alliance will have four daytime. JAL will want to keep SFO-HND and then either ORD-HND or JFK-HND.
And that leaves AA/DL to fight over the remainder. I don't see a valid reason why DL should be awarded all three daytime slots they applied for while they previously have abused their HND slots in the past and were responsible for holding up this entire deal in the first place. In fact, they were the only airline to call for all of the slots to be put up for allocation again, over the objections of UA/AA/HAL. Is DL at a competitive disadvantage? Yes, absolutely. Should they be properly compensated with THREE day time slots after this tomfoolery of the impossible goal of shifting their entire NRT operation to HND and threatening to further gut their NRT operation because they did not get what they want? No, not at all. MSP is unfortunate in that DL is using the Twin Cities as a pawn to prove to DOT that daytime slot restricted HND flying is bad for business as I mentioned earlier, MSP-NRT is toast if DL doesn't get want they want.
UA/AA/HAL have been the most serious and professional players since HND opened international operations to the US five years ago. DL has done nothing but whine and complain to DOT, demanding to both DOT and Japan's MLIT to allow the total transfer of DL's NRT operation to HND. DL could have made this slot allocation round far less political if instead of using MSP as a pawn, apply for JFK-HND. Had they applied for JFK-HND, in addition to LAX-HND and ATL-HND, I'd say there would be a decent chance DOT would give them the authority to operate all three routes.
In the end, I think UA receives SFO-HND daytime, HAL's HNL-HND remains as is, DL receives daytime LAX-HND and ATL-HND, and AA will receive LAX-HND and DFW-HND. While AA tried to make JFK-HND work several years ago, the night slots for the East coast, combined with using a high CASM 777 with an outmoded configuration and product, it never had a real chance of becoming profitable. AA's application for daytime LAX-HND and DFW-HND is very strong. AA's recent addition of LAX-HND has posted excellent load factors, especially considering they are competing with DL with very similar timings. Last month alone, AA recorded a near 95% load factor on the flight. While yes, the flight is utilising their smallest aircraft, the 787-8, they lobbied hard twice for this flight and just in the first two months of operation, its load factors beat EVERY SINGLE HND flights' load factors.
And that leaves AA/DL to fight over the remainder. I don't see a valid reason why DL should be awarded all three daytime slots they applied for while they previously have abused their HND slots in the past and were responsible for holding up this entire deal in the first place. In fact, they were the only airline to call for all of the slots to be put up for allocation again, over the objections of UA/AA/HAL. Is DL at a competitive disadvantage? Yes, absolutely. Should they be properly compensated with THREE day time slots after this tomfoolery of the impossible goal of shifting their entire NRT operation to HND and threatening to further gut their NRT operation because they did not get what they want? No, not at all. MSP is unfortunate in that DL is using the Twin Cities as a pawn to prove to DOT that daytime slot restricted HND flying is bad for business as I mentioned earlier, MSP-NRT is toast if DL doesn't get want they want.
UA/AA/HAL have been the most serious and professional players since HND opened international operations to the US five years ago. DL has done nothing but whine and complain to DOT, demanding to both DOT and Japan's MLIT to allow the total transfer of DL's NRT operation to HND. DL could have made this slot allocation round far less political if instead of using MSP as a pawn, apply for JFK-HND. Had they applied for JFK-HND, in addition to LAX-HND and ATL-HND, I'd say there would be a decent chance DOT would give them the authority to operate all three routes.
In the end, I think UA receives SFO-HND daytime, HAL's HNL-HND remains as is, DL receives daytime LAX-HND and ATL-HND, and AA will receive LAX-HND and DFW-HND. While AA tried to make JFK-HND work several years ago, the night slots for the East coast, combined with using a high CASM 777 with an outmoded configuration and product, it never had a real chance of becoming profitable. AA's application for daytime LAX-HND and DFW-HND is very strong. AA's recent addition of LAX-HND has posted excellent load factors, especially considering they are competing with DL with very similar timings. Last month alone, AA recorded a near 95% load factor on the flight. While yes, the flight is utilising their smallest aircraft, the 787-8, they lobbied hard twice for this flight and just in the first two months of operation, its load factors beat EVERY SINGLE HND flights' load factors.
Apr 26, 2016, 5:15 pm
#103
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Minneapolis: DL DM charter 2.3MM
Programs: A3*Gold, SPG Plat, HyattDiamond, MarriottPP, LHW exAccess, ICI, Raffles Amb, NW PE MM, TWA Gold MM
Posts: 100,417
Then, by this logic, all of the route applications, irrespective of alliances, should be put forward to DOT and DOT should approve the routes that have the greatest potential to maximise investment to the respective airlines.
Since MSP is a goldmine for DL, applying for MSP-HND ensures higher fares due to the nonexistent competition on MSP-TYO, thus maximising return on investment to shareholders instead of say JFK-HND which absolutely would face competition from NH or JAL or both. However, why then would DL also apply for LAX-HND since they will definitely face competition from ANA and AA, thus launching a potential fare war between the three? Well, we all know that DL is trying to "win" LA just as they have successfully pushed out much of AA's former marketshare in NYC. If DL was only interested in these routes maximising market share, DTW-HND, rather than LAX-HND, would have received an application due to DL's strong yields in DTW. ATL-HND is a given and is all but assured of a daytime slot.
Since MSP is a goldmine for DL, applying for MSP-HND ensures higher fares due to the nonexistent competition on MSP-TYO, thus maximising return on investment to shareholders instead of say JFK-HND which absolutely would face competition from NH or JAL or both. However, why then would DL also apply for LAX-HND since they will definitely face competition from ANA and AA, thus launching a potential fare war between the three? Well, we all know that DL is trying to "win" LA just as they have successfully pushed out much of AA's former marketshare in NYC. If DL was only interested in these routes maximising market share, DTW-HND, rather than LAX-HND, would have received an application due to DL's strong yields in DTW. ATL-HND is a given and is all but assured of a daytime slot.
Apr 26, 2016, 5:38 pm
#104
Join Date: Dec 2014
Location: Alexandria, Longboat Key
Programs: UA Gold Marriott Gold AA Gold Choice Gold Wyndham PLAT IHG PLAT Avis President's Club Amtrak Select
Posts: 2,263
I agree with most of what you say about DL. The biggest thing I disagree with in your post is AA getting DFW-HND over UA's EWR-HND. The DOT tried to split the slots up by giving every JV an almost equal number of flights, and it did not end up working out. UA originally had none, but it became (arguably) the strongest performer once it received the slot. The DOT also knows that NYC has more O&D than everywhere except LA (maybe SFO as well), and it should have at least one flight. It can't assume ANA/JAL will provide that flight, because it has not been announced and until it is announced, it is theoretically possible NYC does not receive a flight. Along with this, no other proposed flight is in the Northeast or within a 750 mi radius of NYC. This is partially why AA earned JFK-HND over UA's SFO-HND when slots were originally handed out. There is actually a pretty good chance ANA will operate the only flight to NYC should UA not get the EWR slot. It makes more sense for JAL to operate HND-ORD over JFK (assuming they keep SFO) because of AA's much larger hub at ORD. AA/JL currently operate the same number of daily seats between ORD-NRT and JFK-NRT, which demonstrates just how important ORD is (as it has much fewer O&D passengers). Because of all of this, I think the DOT will reluctantly give UA an EWR flight.
From what I understand, Japan's MLIT only award the number of slots rather than specific destinations. (If DOT did this, DL would definitely receive three slots.) JAL receives two daytime slots per condition of the bankruptcy agreement years ago. I doubt JAL will continue HND flying into HNL and they'll choose two mainland US destinations. Pretty safe to assume they'll keep SFO-HND. Second destination would either be JFK, where they operate twice a day since AA discontinued JFK-TYO flying or ORD. NH is strongly rumoured to favour JFK-HND, although IAD-HND is not out of the question. It could very well come down to what JAL/NH end up doing with their slots. If JAL/NH both operate out of JFK, then I'd figure EWR-HND has little chance. I'm not so sure DOT would want half of the HND slots operating out of NYC/LAX in addition to two slots out of HNL. I read AA's application and they have a very strong case in arguing DFW is underserved to TYO than say NYC, LAX, or ORD, hence why AA still has two nonstops to NRT, in addition to JAL's recently added DFW-NRT, despite adding DFW-ICN/PEK/PVG/HKG in the past three years.
Apr 26, 2016, 10:24 pm
#105
Join Date: Sep 2015
Programs: UA Million Mile, Mileage Plus Premier 1K, SkyMiles Gold Medallion, AAdvantage Gold
Posts: 875
Well at least someone on this thread agrees with me! LOL. I think in the end it will come down to DOT choosing between DFW-HND and either MSP-HND or EWR-HND. (Sorry HAL but unless HND opens up as DL desires, you're not receiving KOA-HND, despite how well you've done with HND flying and KOA-HND will likely be a successful route and a major boost to West Hawai'i's economy.)
From what I understand, Japan's MLIT only award the number of slots rather than specific destinations. (If DOT did this, DL would definitely receive three slots.) JAL receives two daytime slots per condition of the bankruptcy agreement years ago. I doubt JAL will continue HND flying into HNL and they'll choose two mainland US destinations. Pretty safe to assume they'll keep SFO-HND. Second destination would either be JFK, where they operate twice a day since AA discontinued JFK-TYO flying or ORD. NH is strongly rumoured to favour JFK-HND, although IAD-HND is not out of the question. It could very well come down to what JAL/NH end up doing with their slots. If JAL/NH both operate out of JFK, then I'd figure EWR-HND has little chance. I'm not so sure DOT would want half of the HND slots operating out of NYC/LAX in addition to two slots out of HNL. I read AA's application and they have a very strong case in arguing DFW is underserved to TYO than say NYC, LAX, or ORD, hence why AA still has two nonstops to NRT, in addition to JAL's recently added DFW-NRT, despite adding DFW-ICN/PEK/PVG/HKG in the past three years.
From what I understand, Japan's MLIT only award the number of slots rather than specific destinations. (If DOT did this, DL would definitely receive three slots.) JAL receives two daytime slots per condition of the bankruptcy agreement years ago. I doubt JAL will continue HND flying into HNL and they'll choose two mainland US destinations. Pretty safe to assume they'll keep SFO-HND. Second destination would either be JFK, where they operate twice a day since AA discontinued JFK-TYO flying or ORD. NH is strongly rumoured to favour JFK-HND, although IAD-HND is not out of the question. It could very well come down to what JAL/NH end up doing with their slots. If JAL/NH both operate out of JFK, then I'd figure EWR-HND has little chance. I'm not so sure DOT would want half of the HND slots operating out of NYC/LAX in addition to two slots out of HNL. I read AA's application and they have a very strong case in arguing DFW is underserved to TYO than say NYC, LAX, or ORD, hence why AA still has two nonstops to NRT, in addition to JAL's recently added DFW-NRT, despite adding DFW-ICN/PEK/PVG/HKG in the past three years.
DL is also apparently preparing for a scenario in which they are not awarded MSP-HND, and it seems they are not bluffing and will most likely cut MSP-NRT. KE, ANA, and a few Chinese airlines are exploring the possibility of entering MSP should DL cut MSP-Tokyo, and KE is said to be the most serious candidate. PDX-NRT is also expected to be cut in the near future, but Asian airlines are showing less interest in PDX.