Traffic rights is for Germany, but if they do have rights to Germany I would think they would start Frankfurt over Munich any day if not restricted.

Taiwan does have slot difficulties for morning departures, but other than that I don't think there is a problem.

BOS/DFW/IAD will be in consideration and evaluated in 2020, but these routes will not start in 2020. The only changes are the ones I mentioned in the previous post, for ORD and SEA. To be honest I still find daily ORD very difficult for EVA, 2 daily SEA should be piece of cake.

With OZ cutting ICN-ORD, AA cutting NRT-ORD, and UA cutting HKG-ORD, there should be some room for BR to grow in ORD. At least this market is not as saturated as it used to be. Daily ORD should work for BR... The 2nd SEA would work as well this time given the better timing compared to last time (morning departure from TPE) they tried it 2 years ago.

I believe JL is adding Chicago back for OW and UA just added another flight from SFO? EVA is not going to get much feed off domestic UA and HKG in it's current state is probably not going to get much traffic.

SEA should work as they are both going to be evening flights. I think it worked 2 years ago, just not profitable enough.

I don't know how much they really care about Seattle. I've had Seattle flights canceled twice in the past half year. Once because of the strike and once because of the typhoon a couple weeks ago. I can see why they prioritized other cities for the strike, but I think only Seattle and Houston (in NA) were canceled for the typhoon. Seems like NA flights should be equally safe or unsafe to fly during the storm.

Anecdotally, loading in SEA doesn't seem that great (though I can only compare with JFK). Aside from what I see on the plane, the check-in counter told me there were only 75 pax in EY on a recent flight.

Last time I flew out of SEA boarding was fine once they got through the lineup of 20 wheelchairs

It may just be your particular flight since stats say otherwise.

SEA
2019/01 93.4
2019/02 88.3
2019/03 94.2
2019/04 89.7
2019/05 81.5
2019/06 81.9
2019/07 87.9
2019/08 89.1

If you want to talk about priority for North America routes, LAX will always be #1 on BR's list. SFO is next.

You may feel SEA is left behind IAH and JFK, but in reality it's more like there are cheaper alternatives to SEA in comparison to IAH/JFK.

BR's narrow body fleet lease is coming up in 2021. They are now exploring 737MAX (very doubtful) and A321NEOs.

Can't imagine any airlines (never mind an Asian one) getting into 737MAX at this stage

A lot of Asian airlines are interested in 737 MAX10 which is not affected by the grounding and doesn't have the problematic stall prevention system. First delivery for MAX10 is mid 2020 I believe. But BR works the belly cargo hold pretty hard so I think they will stick with A321 NEO.

The traffic right situation with Germany is really sticky... basically, each side is only allowed one airline and one airport. The Taiwan side rights are assigned to CI which use FRA. If Germany grants BR a waiver or special exemption to essentially use LH's unused right to service between the two countries, it may or may not lift the one airport rule. So I think BR has been strategically targeting MUC to increase the odds that its request will be granted.

789 would have been ideal plane for BR to launch BOS/DFW/IAH but for whatever reason, it only ordered 4 of them... I think they are kind of stuck with the 77W to North America for the foreseeable future so they won't add these new stations. They will just keep bulking up existing stations by filling out less than daily frequencies. That's why you see them going 2x daily in SEA and daily in ORD.

The big question for me is when the older 9 abreast Y 77W lease expires, will BR reduce LAX and replace it with 10 abreast 77W? Seems like they really like the 3x daily right now but doing 3x 10 abreast 77W maybe overkill, even for a large market like TPE-LAX. If BR wants to maintain 3x daily to LAX, it may have to use a 789 in the mix with 2x 10 abreast 77W. But again, not enough 789.

It is very strange they only got 4 789s. Can the 78J serve any continental US destinations other than SEA? Would Boeing let them switch to 789s?

Does it cost them extra to operate the 10-across 777s (other than the extra weight for the seats and maybe 1 more FA)?

Isn't the MAX10 yet another variant of the old 737 frame (with even more modifications). Wouldn't it need even more MCAS type of functionality? Given how BR tends to let others work out the kinks, it seems A321 would be more likely (especially they have some already), right?

UA is operating 78J on SFO-AKL, LAX-PVG, and IAD-PEK, which are comparable to SFO-TPE. Not sure about LAX-TPE. Probably everything else in the BR NA network wouldn't work.

Premium Economy market for US is too good for EVA to drop.

The only route in the entire North America network they have problem with selling Premium Economy is Vancouver.

Both 789 and 78K have no configurations of Premium Economy in the fleet so I doubt it will make it to any existing US routes.

Ordinary people don't understand the differences between a MAX9 and MAX10, but they do know MAX is bad. Highly doubt EVA will make any move for MAX at this stage.

I don't see Germany softening it's stance. Lufthansa needs to fly TPE first if we want to see any progress.

I am not so sure about that. I think BR is actually doing well in IAH even with the 77W. It's a long flight and the added Premium Economy seats are doing well there.

I think the study needs to be done on whether starting DFW will cannibal the current operation at IAH.

As for BOS, the 77W may be too big but if EVA can make ORD work with 77W 5 weekly I think they can make BOS work with 77W 5 weekly. 789 is an ideal option but it may not make it till BR is stable with the VIE loads. They need to be able to make VIE work with 78K before freeing up the 789.

20~30 extra seats are not going to be overkill. The problem for LAX is that it will lose it's competitive advantage of 3-3-3 9 seat abreast advantage in comparison to CI's 3-4-3. Passengers in the cattle cabin will opt for the best options they can get and whoever is cheaper with better products will win in this case (BR is cheaper and offers 9 abreast now). CI is returning LAX with 3 weekly CI 6/5 winter and they are going to start mixing the 359 in the rotation where BR does not have the option of doing so.

Could the lack of PE on 789/78K be addressed after loads/ranges are settled through a refit?

I would say it's better off to just buy more 789s and fit Premium Economy in them if necessary. The thing is many of the routes are so time sensitive there is no point operating a smaller cabin. It's cost effective to just have one flight at JFK utilizing the 77W and not bother with a smaller aircraft. All the North American routes are necessary to have late night departure flights. The day time flight at JFK and SEA in the past were not feasible enough for EVA. SEA is now copying LAX and SFO to have two late night flight and day time flight probably won't return unless there is really a demand.

789 with Premium Economy will be good for thin routes like BOS, IAD and maybe ORD. I am not so sure if it's necessary to start DFW. If EVA never bothered with ONT and SAN, I don't see DFW going.

Competitor like CI is doing pretty much the same. Late night at both LAX and ONT, and returning the 3rd flight in the afternoon. They axed the day time SFO flight and I won't be surprised if they return with an evening flight at SFO should they ever get enough aircraft (which isn't the case now).

Agree, the late night departures are good for aircraft utilization and gate slots. EVA doesn't seem interested in any feed from UA or other NA airlines... See the discussion about how it is impossible to book a Detroit to Taipei flight on EVA. It is also almost impossible to book RT J fares from BOS without getting stuck in Y for a TCON. In contrast, JL's 787 sits overnight in BOS for 18hrs for a 110pm departure (630pm arrival)...