DL SEA <-> KIX Cancelled after Nov
Feb 4, 2019, 6:37 am
#16
Join Date: Jul 2015
Location: MCO
Programs: DL PM, UA Silver, Marriott Titanium, Hertz Presidents Circle
Posts: 4,308
Yes, of course, but it's massively scaled down nowadays. Now it's only 1x daily and on a tiny 767, vs. the 2 x daily 747 and A330 how it used to be until not long ago..
DL marketing and sales is really poor and DL is down to less than 30% of its earlier capacity, thus having approximately four-fold having shrunk its Japan market share over the last few years.
Just recently (January) HNL-FUK was canceled as of after the end of golden week in May - with less than five months notice. Now SEA-KIX. DL seems to have effectively no marketing know-how or ability the last few years, given how rapidly it's shrinking and giving away market share to others in the TPAC market.
(I am not talking here LCCs like Air Asia X or Scoot who fly from from KIX to US (HNL), but airlines that are a few tiers above DL adding capacity, like NH 4x A380s dedicated to TYO-HNL, while DL has shrunk it more than six fold seat number wise to 1x daily tiny 767 vs 4x daily 747s/A330s of just a few years ago, for example. Whenever DL cuts capacity, others add. There is strong demand for premium travel (e.g. NH is adding F in addition to J in its A380s), yet DL's premium cabins in its 767s are tiny and sub-par to every other airline flying the same routes. Massive retreat is the best way to describe the state of DL [total lack of] marketing and sales.)
DL marketing and sales is really poor and DL is down to less than 30% of its earlier capacity, thus having approximately four-fold having shrunk its Japan market share over the last few years.
Just recently (January) HNL-FUK was canceled as of after the end of golden week in May - with less than five months notice. Now SEA-KIX. DL seems to have effectively no marketing know-how or ability the last few years, given how rapidly it's shrinking and giving away market share to others in the TPAC market.
(I am not talking here LCCs like Air Asia X or Scoot who fly from from KIX to US (HNL), but airlines that are a few tiers above DL adding capacity, like NH 4x A380s dedicated to TYO-HNL, while DL has shrunk it more than six fold seat number wise to 1x daily tiny 767 vs 4x daily 747s/A330s of just a few years ago, for example. Whenever DL cuts capacity, others add. There is strong demand for premium travel (e.g. NH is adding F in addition to J in its A380s), yet DL's premium cabins in its 767s are tiny and sub-par to every other airline flying the same routes. Massive retreat is the best way to describe the state of DL [total lack of] marketing and sales.)
Feb 4, 2019, 8:51 am
#17
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: TYO / WAS / NYC
Programs: American Express got a hit man lookin' for me
Posts: 4,596
I wouldn't necessarily blame DL for this one. KIX is a famously high-cost and low-margin destination despite having a huge regional GDP and a lot of big corporate headquarters (Panasonic, Sharp, Kawasaki, Nintendo, etc.) AA tried and failed to sustain a DFW-KIX route; UA managed to keep SFO-KIX running but had to cut ORD-KIX; even NW before the merger cut DTW-KIX, replacing it with a tag from NRT (despite the fact that they once served JFK, LAX and SYD from ITM).
Feb 4, 2019, 9:51 am
#18
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: 10,346
https://cpsearch.fas.gsa.gov/cpsearch/search.do
Feb 4, 2019, 9:52 am
#19
Join Date: Feb 2017
Programs: DL DM, UA Gold, Alaska MVP, Bonvoy (lol) Ambassador
Posts: 2,994
I wouldn't necessarily blame DL for this one. KIX is a famously high-cost and low-margin destination despite having a huge regional GDP and a lot of big corporate headquarters (Panasonic, Sharp, Kawasaki, Nintendo, etc.) AA tried and failed to sustain a DFW-KIX route; UA managed to keep SFO-KIX running but had to cut ORD-KIX; even NW before the merger cut DTW-KIX, replacing it with a tag from NRT (despite the fact that they once served JFK, LAX and SYD from ITM).
Delta needs to decide what they want to do with TPAC. If their strategy is to wait out the capacity glut / bloodbath then they should just do it - stop trying new weird secondary routes that likely won't be successful (e.g. SEA-KIX). The alternative (i.e., the United approach) is to actually invest in meaningful TPAC service and run losses in hope that they can retain market share when the glut subsides. Delta does not seem willing to do that (which is totally justifiable).
Delta is of course challenged by their lack of real TPAC hub (too much competition in LAX and not enough high value O/D relative to, e.g., SFO) which is why they made SEA. Unfortunately SEA is not exactly the best geographic location for a TPAC hub and Delta will always be playing second-fiddle to United on the west coast.
If Detroit wasn't dying, it would almost make more sense for Delta to try to re-invigorate DTW as a TPAC hub, but I don't see that happening with the current economic environment there.
Feb 4, 2019, 10:07 am
#20
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Mid Atlantic
Programs: Delta Plat, one-time United Plat, Amex Plat, Marriott Plat, Hertz Prez Circle, Bus Pass
Posts: 1,237
Feb 4, 2019, 10:13 am
#21
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: AMS
Programs: DL Plat, Marriott Gold
Posts: 276
I'd blame them for even trying to be honest.
Delta needs to decide what they want to do with TPAC. If their strategy is to wait out the capacity glut / bloodbath then they should just do it - stop trying new weird secondary routes that likely won't be successful (e.g. SEA-KIX). The alternative (i.e., the United approach) is to actually invest in meaningful TPAC service and run losses in hope that they can retain market share when the glut subsides. Delta does not seem willing to do that (which is totally justifiable).
Delta is of course challenged by their lack of real TPAC hub (too much competition in LAX and not enough high value O/D relative to, e.g., SFO) which is why they made SEA. Unfortunately SEA is not exactly the best geographic location for a TPAC hub and Delta will always be playing second-fiddle to United on the west coast.
If Detroit wasn't dying, it would almost make more sense for Delta to try to re-invigorate DTW as a TPAC hub, but I don't see that happening with the current economic environment there.
Delta needs to decide what they want to do with TPAC. If their strategy is to wait out the capacity glut / bloodbath then they should just do it - stop trying new weird secondary routes that likely won't be successful (e.g. SEA-KIX). The alternative (i.e., the United approach) is to actually invest in meaningful TPAC service and run losses in hope that they can retain market share when the glut subsides. Delta does not seem willing to do that (which is totally justifiable).
Delta is of course challenged by their lack of real TPAC hub (too much competition in LAX and not enough high value O/D relative to, e.g., SFO) which is why they made SEA. Unfortunately SEA is not exactly the best geographic location for a TPAC hub and Delta will always be playing second-fiddle to United on the west coast.
If Detroit wasn't dying, it would almost make more sense for Delta to try to re-invigorate DTW as a TPAC hub, but I don't see that happening with the current economic environment there.
Feb 4, 2019, 10:36 am
#22
Join Date: Feb 2017
Programs: DL DM, UA Gold, Alaska MVP, Bonvoy (lol) Ambassador
Posts: 2,994
Would you prefer stagnating? Population in the Detroit metro (much less city proper) is lower now than what it was in 1970. Sure, Oakland and Macomb do okay but they're more than offset by declines in Wayne.
There is certainly still demand from the big three in Detroit for O/D traffic, but nothing like other major cities. And the money just isn't there.
Looking at Detroit, real GDP per capita has increased by 1.6% since 2005 compared to...
- 14% across the rest of the US (US average per capita GDP 12% higher than Detroit's - and that includes all of the low income rural areas)
- 18% in San Francisco / Oakland (now 73% higher per capita)
- 19% in Seattle (53% higher per capita GDP than Detroit metro)
- 66% in San Jose metro (241% higher per capita GDP than Detroit metro)
Feb 4, 2019, 10:49 am
#23
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Seattle, WA
Programs: DL Diamond 1.7MM, Starlux Insighter, Bonvoy Titanium, Hilton Gold, Hertz PC
Posts: 3,947
I think KIX was just a short term slot hold for this year anyway. Delta has struggled to get the rights to operate more international flights out of Seattle, but Port of Seattle keeps allocating slots to new airlines over existing ones until the new International Arrivals Faciliry is done.
By switching an existing flight to KIX for a year, they can experiment a bit on a relatively short Asia route that doesn’t have a ton of competition while biding their time to see if either Cathay Pacific or Singapore blinks. To be certain, KIX was announced before either of those entered the market. But Delta doesn’t have the right airplane to do SIN profitably right now, and TPE would have required opening an entire station and competing with EVA...
By switching an existing flight to KIX for a year, they can experiment a bit on a relatively short Asia route that doesn’t have a ton of competition while biding their time to see if either Cathay Pacific or Singapore blinks. To be certain, KIX was announced before either of those entered the market. But Delta doesn’t have the right airplane to do SIN profitably right now, and TPE would have required opening an entire station and competing with EVA...
Feb 4, 2019, 11:24 am
#24
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: SEA
Programs: UA Silver, BA Gold, DL Gold
Posts: 9,779
I think KIX was just a short term slot hold for this year anyway. Delta has struggled to get the rights to operate more international flights out of Seattle, but Port of Seattle keeps allocating slots to new airlines over existing ones until the new International Arrivals Faciliry is done.
By switching an existing flight to KIX for a year, they can experiment a bit on a relatively short Asia route that doesn’t have a ton of competition while biding their time to see if either Cathay Pacific or Singapore blinks. To be certain, KIX was announced before either of those entered the market. But Delta doesn’t have the right airplane to do SIN profitably right now, and TPE would have required opening an entire station and competing with EVA...
By switching an existing flight to KIX for a year, they can experiment a bit on a relatively short Asia route that doesn’t have a ton of competition while biding their time to see if either Cathay Pacific or Singapore blinks. To be certain, KIX was announced before either of those entered the market. But Delta doesn’t have the right airplane to do SIN profitably right now, and TPE would have required opening an entire station and competing with EVA...
Feb 4, 2019, 11:33 am
#25
Join Date: Feb 2017
Programs: DL DM, UA Gold, Alaska MVP, Bonvoy (lol) Ambassador
Posts: 2,994
How is SEA not a good geographic location? It's the closest mainland US airport to Asia. From anywhere west of the Mississippi it's the best geographic connection point. With that said, it clearly doesn't have the same O&D demand as LAX/SFO and is less well-positioned for domestic connections.
In addition, SEA may be closest to Asia, but the pool for which it is the best connecting point is smaller than you would think. The broad swaths of the west-of-the-Mississippi US for which SEA is clearly the best connecting point is mostly barren. The majority of the West Coast population lives in the Southwest. For PHX, SAN, LAX, LAS, TUS, and all the small regional airports around those, SFO is technically a superior connecting point to SEA for, e.g., PVG - and anything south and west of that. Even for places like Texas, the connection penalty for SFO versus SEA is small (300 miles or less - with cities like San Antonio, Houston, and El Paso being <200 mi). The middle and northern Great Plains cities are tiny - and the next largest metros with major SEA vs. SFO connection penalties are... Detroit and Minneapolis - which are already Delta hubs.
Feb 4, 2019, 11:47 am
#26
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: 10,346
Yes - they are closest to Asia (with caveats - see below) but the last part on the less well-positioned for domestic connections is the issue. SFO is perfect because it is well positioned to service the 50 million people that live in cities along the West Coast. A TPAC hub cannot survive only on international connections - it needs domestic connections to support an expansive route network that then also allows connections to TPAC.
In addition, SEA may be closest to Asia, but the pool for which it is the best connecting point is smaller than you would think. The broad swaths of the west-of-the-Mississippi US for which SEA is clearly the best connecting point is mostly barren. The majority of the West Coast population lives in the Southwest. For PHX, SAN, LAX, LAS, TUS, and all the small regional airports around those, SFO is technically a superior connecting point to SEA for, e.g., PVG - and anything south and west of that. Even for places like Texas, the connection penalty for SFO versus SEA is small (300 miles or less - with cities like San Antonio, Houston, and El Paso being <200 mi). The middle and northern Great Plains cities are tiny - and the next largest metros with major SEA vs. SFO connection penalties are... Detroit and Minneapolis - which are already Delta hubs.
In addition, SEA may be closest to Asia, but the pool for which it is the best connecting point is smaller than you would think. The broad swaths of the west-of-the-Mississippi US for which SEA is clearly the best connecting point is mostly barren. The majority of the West Coast population lives in the Southwest. For PHX, SAN, LAX, LAS, TUS, and all the small regional airports around those, SFO is technically a superior connecting point to SEA for, e.g., PVG - and anything south and west of that. Even for places like Texas, the connection penalty for SFO versus SEA is small (300 miles or less - with cities like San Antonio, Houston, and El Paso being <200 mi). The middle and northern Great Plains cities are tiny - and the next largest metros with major SEA vs. SFO connection penalties are... Detroit and Minneapolis - which are already Delta hubs.
PHX-LAX-PVG: 6,855 miles
PHX-SFO-PVG: 6,802 miles
PHX-SEA-PVG: 6,829 miles
So from total distance flown, SFO is hardly any more superior than SEA or LAX even. These differences in total distance are insignificant.
What SEA has going for it is that due to its geographical location, SEA is within the 767's range for many Asia cities that are not within the 767's range from other hubs. This allows DL to use position a small fleet of 767s out of SEA for use on these routes and send them to ICN, PVG, PEK, NRT, and soon KIX as well as send these 767s to Europe, which is about the same flying distance as many Asian cities from SEA. Now whether O&D yields can help sustain these is a different manner entirely, but the geography of SEA is not the issue but rather actually helps SEA.
Feb 4, 2019, 12:07 pm
#27
Join Date: Feb 2017
Programs: DL DM, UA Gold, Alaska MVP, Bonvoy (lol) Ambassador
Posts: 2,994
Due to the GC Routes these flights take, the difference in total distances is minute. For example:
PHX-LAX-PVG: 6,855 miles
PHX-SFO-PVG: 6,802 miles
PHX-SEA-PVG: 6,829 miles
So from total distance flown, SFO is hardly any more superior than SEA or LAX even. These differences in total distance are insignificant.
What SEA has going for it is that due to its geographical location, SEA is within the 767's range for many Asia cities that are not within the 767's range from other hubs. This allows DL to use position a small fleet of 767s out of SEA for use on these routes and send them to ICN, PVG, PEK, NRT, and soon KIX as well as send these 767s to Europe, which is about the same flying distance as many Asian cities from SEA. Now whether O&D yields can help sustain these is a different manner entirely, but the geography of SEA is not the issue but rather actually helps SEA.
PHX-LAX-PVG: 6,855 miles
PHX-SFO-PVG: 6,802 miles
PHX-SEA-PVG: 6,829 miles
So from total distance flown, SFO is hardly any more superior than SEA or LAX even. These differences in total distance are insignificant.
What SEA has going for it is that due to its geographical location, SEA is within the 767's range for many Asia cities that are not within the 767's range from other hubs. This allows DL to use position a small fleet of 767s out of SEA for use on these routes and send them to ICN, PVG, PEK, NRT, and soon KIX as well as send these 767s to Europe, which is about the same flying distance as many Asian cities from SEA. Now whether O&D yields can help sustain these is a different manner entirely, but the geography of SEA is not the issue but rather actually helps SEA.
I'm not sure I buy the idea that being in-range of the 767 gives Delta a material competitive advantage - the economics of a 767 at a 3300 nmi stage length (e.g., East Coast-LHR) are excellent versus heavier, more range-capable alternatives (e.g., 788 or 789), but when you up the stage length to closer to 5000 nmi the economic advantage of the 767 disappears. Obviously the fact that Delta does not have any 788/789s means that they are forced into using 767s, but that was an investment choice predicated on where they planned to do business.
In short, I disagree that SEA's geographic position helps them in any real way.. and it definitely hurts them (due to lack of function as a domestic connection point).
Feb 4, 2019, 4:11 pm
#28
Join Date: Oct 2017
Programs: SPG, Marriott, UA, AA, CX, SQ
Posts: 165
No idea why folks think UA’s SFO TPAC is all that superior *just* because DL SEA has few links to the south ...
umm ... exactly what sizable links UA has from SFO to the southeast/secondary Midwest ? We’re talking about an airline that doesn’t fly SFO-CLT, and barely has token presences in SFO-ATL/MIA/RDU/IND/CVG/MCO etc.
besides, both DL and UA offer ample East Asian connections via the likes of MSP DTW ORD EWR IAD for folks in said regions, so unless they’re heading to a SFO/SEA-unique destination, the dynamic hardly comes into play here
Ps : the “lack of international servicing capacity at SEA” excuse is a straw man argument — out of the entire fleet of 763 332 333 77E 77L 359 (assuming 764 is too marginal here), they’re using the smallest plane by far for most routes (SEA-NRT 359?). You can argue it’s profit-driven, but then it also means extra INTL gates/slots would simply be sent to Europe, not Asia.
Not counting the NW legacy SEA NRT, the IIRC the most recent expansion of SEA TPAC began with summer 2009 announcement of SEA PEK, so we’re close to the 10 year mark. Exactly when can we stop coming up with excuses ?
umm ... exactly what sizable links UA has from SFO to the southeast/secondary Midwest ? We’re talking about an airline that doesn’t fly SFO-CLT, and barely has token presences in SFO-ATL/MIA/RDU/IND/CVG/MCO etc.
besides, both DL and UA offer ample East Asian connections via the likes of MSP DTW ORD EWR IAD for folks in said regions, so unless they’re heading to a SFO/SEA-unique destination, the dynamic hardly comes into play here
Ps : the “lack of international servicing capacity at SEA” excuse is a straw man argument — out of the entire fleet of 763 332 333 77E 77L 359 (assuming 764 is too marginal here), they’re using the smallest plane by far for most routes (SEA-NRT 359?). You can argue it’s profit-driven, but then it also means extra INTL gates/slots would simply be sent to Europe, not Asia.
Not counting the NW legacy SEA NRT, the IIRC the most recent expansion of SEA TPAC began with summer 2009 announcement of SEA PEK, so we’re close to the 10 year mark. Exactly when can we stop coming up with excuses ?
Feb 4, 2019, 4:27 pm
#29
Join Date: Feb 2017
Programs: DL DM, UA Gold, Alaska MVP, Bonvoy (lol) Ambassador
Posts: 2,994
No idea why folks think UA’s SFO TPAC is all that superior *just* because DL SEA has few links to the south ...
umm ... exactly what sizable links UA has from SFO to the southeast/secondary Midwest ? We’re talking about an airline that doesn’t fly SFO-CLT, and barely has token presences in SFO-ATL/MIA/RDU/IND/CVG/MCO etc.
umm ... exactly what sizable links UA has from SFO to the southeast/secondary Midwest ? We’re talking about an airline that doesn’t fly SFO-CLT, and barely has token presences in SFO-ATL/MIA/RDU/IND/CVG/MCO etc.
besides, both DL and UA offer ample East Asian connections via the likes of MSP DTW ORD EWR IAD for folks in said regions, so unless they’re heading to a SFO/SEA-unique destination, the dynamic hardly comes into play here
SEA and SFO are drawing from a West Coast pool for connections. SFO is a superior hub for that pool.
Feb 4, 2019, 4:34 pm
#30
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: HNL
Programs: DL PM/1MM, BW DE (lifetime), HH DE, Marriott PE (lifetime), National Emerald Executive
Posts: 7,205
I wouldn't necessarily blame DL for this one. KIX is a famously high-cost and low-margin destination despite having a huge regional GDP and a lot of big corporate headquarters (Panasonic, Sharp, Kawasaki, Nintendo, etc.) AA tried and failed to sustain a DFW-KIX route; UA managed to keep SFO-KIX running but had to cut ORD-KIX; even NW before the merger cut DTW-KIX, replacing it with a tag from NRT (despite the fact that they once served JFK, LAX and SYD from ITM).
As DL usually picks the cheapest gates, DL could go all the way there and go to the low-cost T2. It would make connections harder, but would save cost. Anyone know how much lower are the landing/slot fees at T2 vs T1? (T2 is actually pretty good. Among other things has more choice for food inside than T1. Just no lounges of course (then again T1 is also severely lacking on that), and need to take the bus to it from the train station/Aeroplaza.)