CO-PLAT

Yes. I'm already taking advantage of this by spending a few days in Guangzhou at the end of January before my return CAN-YVR-SEA-PDX in J.

pbarnette

hockeyinsider

Since Delta isn't flying to Hong Kong anymore I don't think it would be unreasonable to say, where else can you re-route me to in Southeast Asia on Delta metal. Maybe Manila or Singapore, both of which have endless options to go elsewhere on local airlines.

flyerCO

Most likely DL will rebook with either KE/MU OR like when they axed BKK, ANA.

AntonS

As expected Cathay starts SEA - HKG.

The new service will commence in March 2019 on A350. Looks like also the first scheduled A350 in SEA?

https://news.cathaypacific.com/when-cathay-pacific-meets-seattle

Overall a huge blow to Delta strategy in Seattle given CX partnership with AS and tons of connectivity on both ends. Red eye flight timing in both directions give better connectivity in HKG , but even for nonstop I love red eye flights to Asia if I am in premium cabin and can sleep - best for jet lag IMHO.

PurdueFlyer

that didn't take long!

Longboater

As I stated earlier, Delta made a huge error in making SEA a West Coast Asia hub while they could have done so in LAX. (Richard wanted SEA, Ed wanted LAX, and we're seeing the results of that.) If Delta had really gone "all in" on LAX right after the merger in not just making it the hub it is today but as their West Coast-Pacific hub, it could have potentially come close to what UA is at SFO. (Yes, I am going that far.) I fully anticipated CX immediately dropping in on HKG-SEA as soon as Delta announced its cancellation. Unlike Delta, CX will be able to connect passengers on both ends.

garykung

Sounds like I am 2 for 2 again...

(Declaimer - I don't work for CX or DL.)

FireEmblemPride

Wow. With JL also apparently starting SEA-NRT at some point, oneworld now has two of Asia's most important cities covered from SEA.

SJC ORD LDR

LAX is too competitive. Most Asian carriers go there and AA and UA both have hubs there as well. I really don't think anyone can build much of a footing there. Besides, the terminals are dumps which makes for unpleasant connections. SEA is a growing metro area and has a decent Asian population. Granted, it's not like the Bay Area or LA, but it's sizeable.

You're right in that CX has AS for US connections and a huge network out of HKG. DL only had its network from SEA which isn't close to what AS can offer.

ATOBTTR

Quote:

Originally Posted by SJC ORD LDR

LAX is too competitive. Most Asian carriers go there and AA and UA both have hubs there as well. I really don't think anyone can build much of a footing there. Besides, the terminals are dumps which makes for unpleasant connections. SEA is a growing metro area and has a decent Asian population. Granted, it's not like the Bay Area or LA, but it's sizeable.

To further expand on what SJC ORD LDR posted, SEA also has a unique geographical position that LAX doesn't - SEA is within the economical range of the 767-300ERs for many of the destinations that are served from SEA (HKG was beyond the 767s range). LAX to Asia is right at the edge of the posted range or beyond the posted range of the 767-300s (of course there are many factors and influences in an aircraft's true range and the figures on an airlines website are just averages) but SEA provides a more economical launch-point for the 767-300s to Asia, hence part of the reason for using Seattle.

And in case someone thinks I'm making that up:

steveman518

Asiana will be bringing the A350 to SEA at the end of the month, replacing existing 777 service.

garykung

While I admit that LAX is competitive, it is not "too competitive" as most believe.

Just for the HKG market alone, AA and HX have introduced HKG-LAX not too long ago. Still, there is no sign that either AA or HX is having problems with the market.

Also - DL has experience in surviving competitive markets, such as JFK.

But I have to admit - LAX's infrastructure is simply too bad to build a good hub.

Also - if you really compare SEA and LAX, Los Angeles's population is 4 times more than Seattle. So even competitive, it does not mean DL can't profit from it.

Personally - I believe the main reason of DL's presence in SEA is to duplicate its experience in ATL - an exclusive West Coast hub.

While it is technically correct, most airlines do not usually 767 or A330 for TPAC routes. In fact, for YVR-Asia routes, which have even shorter distances, AC has only used widebodies like 747, 777, or A340.

Beside - if the demand is there in SEA, airlines will simply up-gauge to handle the demand.

Bottom line - it is a total failure for DL's SEA strategy.

ATOBTTR

There are a lot of factors that go into fleet decisions and route networks and such and these decisions are also made with considerations of the rest of the network. And YVR is the only other major city besides SEA on the North America side of the Pacific for which flights to Asia with 767s would really work, where you could have multiple 767s and send them to multiple destinations in Asia, not just Japan. For AC specifically, the other largest cities in Canada (Montreal and Toronto) are beyond the 767's economical range to Asia, so perhaps AC factored this into its fleet decisions, opting not to base a 767 fleet at YVR for Asian operations. AC has also chosen to send most of its 767s to AC Rogue - another factor, probably. On the Asian side of the Pacific, most of the large Asian cities that could sustain TPAC service to North American cities AC service are out of reach for a 767 from and the US East Coast is completely ruled out with 767s. Japan and maybe ICN would be the exception and even then, only the US West Coast is reachable with a 767.

In other words, you can position multiple 767s in SEA and reach multiple cities in Asia. You cannot position multiple 767s in LAX, SFO, PVG, PEK,, etc. and reach multiple major cities on the opposite side of the ocean, at least economically. You'd be able to reach only a couple and would still need larger aircraft with more range to do the other routes economically. I don't know if ANA or JAL used 767s to the US mainland at any point. SEA being within the 767's range to much of Asia though is part of why DL opted for SEA. They could use SEA as their gateway to Asia with the fleet they had.

garykung

Yes. But just for the HKG market, when DL is the only airline using the smallest widebodies, don't you see a problem at all?