hockeyinsider

Except you forget that Toronto can be a feeder for Detroit. The Asian population there is huge; Toronto itself is majority-minority.

Whenever I fly back to Detroit and clear customs and immigration, I always see lots of Canadian passports.

readywhenyouare

This is why Delta needs the 787. I think the 777 will be too big and the A350 would be way too big.

TheYoungerTravelerHere

I think DL starting ATL-PVG will be successful.

To connect people to PVG from all over America, DL has three core strategies:

For ATL, connect people from Latin America, Central America, Mexico, and southern United States

For DTW, connect people from eastern United States, Canada (everything east of Windsor), and the midwestern United States (a la what UA/AA do at ORD)

For SEA, connect people from the Rocky Mountain and West Coast areas of the United States, and Canada (everything west of Windsor)

It's not foolproof, but it has potential to be a massive moneyprinter if executed correctly.

pbarnette

I didn't forget anything. Though it should be pointed out that YYZ-PVG is served nonstop by two carriers, and that NYC and ORD would also compete quite naturally with DTW as a connection point.

But, at any rate, I was disputing the argument that it takes a large local Asian American population for a route to be successful, not actually saying they should pull TPAC service from DTW.

jfadool

The 772 and the 789 are almost the exact same size. Delta's 77L have 290 seats and AA's 789 have 285 seats.

pbarnette

Stop it with your facts.

Though, I suspect the OP was thinking of the 788. Not sure the economics really work with a 788, though.

FireEmblemPride

NRT-PVG was obviously a slot hoarding flight in every sense of the word, so it's great to see DL moving it over to something more substantial. If it doesn't work out commercially, I can see it being replaced by LAX-PEK.

Meanwhile, DL's downsizing of Japan is entirely down to its lack of Japanese partner. Any long haul route DL cancels out of Japan is almost guaranteed to be picked up by either NH or JL or one of their partners at some point. NH is beginning a 2nd NRT-LAX (which DL pulled out of last year) on top of HND-LAX, and I wouldn't be surprised to see NH start EWR-NRT or JL add a third JFK flight, on top of whatever new destinations they're willing to try out. With JL's government restrictions lifted now, who knows where their ambitions might take them - that 2:45AM 2nd HND-LHR flight might offer some hints.

deltaflyer08

With ATL-PVG starting next year with a 77L, I think there's a very high chance that DTW-PVG will switch to the A359 next summer.

I'm kind of surprised DL went with ATL-PVG again and not try something else such as MSP-PVG or JFK-PVG, but with the partnership with MU and a much better schedule for connecting flights, I think the route has a higher chance to succeed this time around.

ATOBTTR

My guess is because MSP-PVG would provide very little that DTW-PVG or even SEA-PVG can't provide where as ATL-PVG pulls from a bigger metro area for O&D, plus Delta's Caribbean and LatAm network and makes as much sense for much of the Southeast as going via DTW does.

With the new JV with KE, I think you'd see MSP-ICN before you ever see MSP-PVG, and that's if we even see MSP-ICN.

minnyfly

We'll see how it goes this time. MU will help now, but it's still PVG, ICN is building as the preferred Asian gateway, and it's still a loonnngggg flight.

They're only almost the "same size" when the comparison is to the 789 at a relatively higher density. At similar densities, the sizes aren't very close, and of course the 788 is in a totally different field.

And that's only half the story. Cost-wise the 787 blows the 77L out of the water. 787s would help DL greatly with routes such as this.

hockeyinsider

It certainly isn't big enough, at least in terms of the business-class cabin.

hockeyinsider

The 3 p.m. departure from Atlanta won't work that well with many of the incoming flights from the Caribbean and Latin American, as those don't arrive until late afternoon or early evening.

IndyHoosier

Curious, where do you get those PDEW numbers from?

pbarnette

If you look at carriers that operate both, such as BA, you are talking maybe 10 seats total difference, even accounting for variations in density.

In an environment of low fuel costs, I'm not convinced the difference in cost is that significant.

minnyfly

It also doesn't work well with the big deep South American routes, as most flights are red-eyes both ways. It appears to be U.S./China-based timing.

Look at AF for the best comparison. A carrier with both dense 9-across 789s (276 seats) and 10-across 772s with the same type of J/W seat. Their two 772 configurations compared to their 789 configuration yield either:

+10J
+3W
-9Y
(280 seats)

or

-2J
+3W
+35Y
(312 seats)

As you can see, not the same size. You're looking about a 10% difference in size at comparable densities. That would help with lower route demand requirements for good yields.

Low fuel helps no matter what the price. We're talking in the thousands of dollars saved every ATL-PVG flight even at today's low price.