EWR764

I would be extremely surprised to see the DOT take away any of the existing slot authorities unless the applicant sets forth a desire for the rights to be allocated elsewhere (which hasn't happened). It would be almost unprecedented, in this era, for such a thing to happen, even considering the unique nature of this proceeding and the requirement for all carriers to reapply for their in-service rights.

UA will not get SFO and EWR is if the DOT places a strong, even dispositive emphasis on 'leveling the playing field' among the alliances, and weighs NH's 4 slot pairs against United. The allocation would then most likely be DL (LAX/MSP), AA (LAX/DFW), UA (SFO), HA (HNL night). I think this is a likely outcome, but the point is well-taken that the DOT must still give consideration to the interests of the US-flagged carriers as well as US citizens, irrespective of joint ventures.

To this end, it would be hard to argue that an EWR service is less of a public benefit than MSP or DFW. The local market is orders of magnitude larger, and still provides strong theoretical connecting opportunities.

FWAAA

No worries.

I agree completely. Good points.

Recall that UA and AA argued against the re-application/re-allocation procedure employed by the DoT, while brown-nosing Delta applauded the DoT for requiring a complete do-over of the existing frequencies.

What none of the three mentioned a few weeks ago is that the DoT's "do-over" proceedings offered a convenient way to take away HA's daytime frequency, which nearly everyone except HA and HA's loyal supporters thinks is the right result. HA saw the writing on the wall and was the sole applicant for the one nighttime frequency, ensuring that it would win. The odds of HA winning a second (daytime) frequency? IMO, Zero.

I don't think that the DoT was seriously considering taking away the existing three mainland frequencies, but it was simply the expedient method to take away HA's daytime frequency.

Frankly, I don't know why DL didn't ask for all five. LAX, SEA, JFK, MSP and ATL. I think the odds of DL getting all five wouldn't have been much lower than DL getting three.

spin88

We don't actually disagree, I think UA will get to keep SFO (even with JAL also serving it). Note that ANA serves NHD-LAX already, but I don't think that will deter them from allowing AA and DL to also serve it. That way each of alliances has a LAX-HND flight, that is the best possible competitive outcome.

My only point is that since ANA has revenue sharing with UA, and will start HND-JFK, UA already has that market. That suggests that UA does not get that, but it goes to another carrier.

I agree with this logic, other than I find it hard to believe that having given joint venture immunity to ANA/UA, that DOT would allow UA to have HND-EWR when ANA is flying HND-JFK. This all said I don't know why Delta put MSP first (over ATL) other than just the extra range issues, or Delta did not ask for JFK-HND (perhaps the lack of 772 left for that range?)

EWR764

The likelihood is that the DOT will uphold continued DL and AA daytime LAX service, which is in addition to NH service. While the DOT has established new precedent in allocating service based on immunized alliances, it does not consider that factor to the exclusion of other, more traditional grounds, namely market access, public benefit, benefit to U.S. carriers, etc.

The local LA-Tokyo market is only about 20% larger than New York-Tokyo, and provides strong connectivity up and down the East Coast. Yet, if UA/EWR service is not granted, New York would have a single ANA flight to Haneda, putting it at parity with ATL, DFW or MSP, markets which combined are only about 1/4 of the local market to New York, with similar geographic limitations to EWR with respect to circuity.

All else being equal, NYC-HND is certainly a large enough local market to sustain two flights, one from each major international airport, and I believe there is a stronger business case for a 2nd NYC frequency to HND taking precedence over a first frequency to MSP, DFW or ATL, which would be dependent on flow traffic. The DOT's decision will give a great deal of insight on how heavily it now weighs JV alignment...

My understanding of the situation is that Delta is between a rock and a hard place w/r/t JFK-Asia service. While DL captures a strong share of the local NYC-TYO market, the JFK flight delivers a considerable amount of online flow to Delta's NRT interport operation. Adding JFK-HND (a dead end) would dilute the local market on the JFK-NRT flight, likely turning that unprofitable, while at the same time weakening the beyond-NRT portfolio, especially if DL were to simply eliminate JFK-NRT. The network effect of a JFK-HND would, therefore, be detrimental to DL absent a JV partner at NRT to lessen the blow. MSP-NRT is probably already DL's weakest transpacific hub service, and sacrificing it for HND would allow DL to attempt to consolidate HND traffic from the East Coast onto one flight, while LAX could continue to be an O&D/West Coast-focused operation.

Delta's MSP-NRT traffic is comprised of:

MSP-NRT local (good $$$ performance, small local market, DL retains this by moving to HND)
XXX-MSP-NRT (more price sensitive, larger market, DL retains this if it moves to HND)
MSP-NRT-XXX (small market, DL loses this by moving to HND and weakens NRT, but mitigated by small local volume. Can attempt to recapture via SEA)
XXX-MSP-NRT-XXX (most competitive, likely lowest-yielding and highest price sensitivity, DL probably would prefer to cede this segment even to the extent it weakens NRT)

When view through that lens, swapping MSP-NRT for MSP-HND makes more sense, as DL keeps the most valuable segments of the MSP-NRT service and can attempt to capture additional marginal high-yield HND-bound traffic from other markets east of the Mississippi without nonstop HND service. The traffic it would theoretically give up by dropping MSP-NRT, including the network effect of the loss of inbound MSP feed, is either insignificant or a low yield volume that DL is less interested in serving.

OTOH, for JFK

JFK-NRT local (big market, good share, high-yielding, and DL will retain in a move to HND)
XXX-JFK-NRT (DL retains with a JFK-HND, but hampered by a small inbound connecting complex at JFK, including several markets with nonstop Tokyo service)
JFK-NRT-XXX (huge market with high yielding segments connecting to interport NRT flying that DL would be unlikely to recapture via SEA due to circuity. This, in part, sustains the NRT house of cards and DL won't kill it)
XXX-JFK-NRT-XXX (again, junk traffic DL probably does not want to be in the business of hauling. NW-esque)

LAX is a different case for DL (and others) because one-stop LAX-originating connections to even secondary Asia markets are becoming 'junk' due to the proliferation of nonstop service beyond the typical NRT/PVG/PEK/HKG hubs. Thus, DL most likely would prefer to orient LAX-Tokyo to an O&D-focused operation because LAX-NRT-XXX is not nearly as lucrative as it once was. In fact, of Delta's interport destinations, only BKK/SIN lack nonstop LAX service (the tiny GUM/SPN/ROR markets do not connect to the mainland US, and are directed at the Japanese point of sale), and those one-stop markets are highly competitive. LAX-HND at the expense of LAX-NRT makes sense for DL as well.

At least that's my simplistic impression of the situation

spin88

Yes, it will be interesting to see how they rate the JV flights (which by definition don't provide price competition). I find your comments on JFK to make good sense, I do wonder though if the decission might be different if they could serve this route with a A350/787. Were I Delta I would want to capture the JFK-HND flows into my corporate portfolio, but you are probably right that this is hard to do with a 772 sized plane (at 6765 mi Delta can't fly with a smaller A330) and Delta in any event does not have any spare 772s that I know of.

Electing MSP over SEA though says a lot. Maybe they are gun-shy after failing with the night HND flight, but with day connections I find it hard to see why they don't apply for SEA. The distance/feed case is just so compelling. MSP can't have more O/D traffic than SEA to TYO (my guess is that SEA's is 2x at least) and Delta has a good connection operation ex-SEA.

FWAAA

Ahh, my bad.

I assume that UA wins SFO and that JAL keeps SFO, as JAL has served SFO for more than 60 years.

Connections between EWR and JFK are a pain (I've done it more than once), so I'm not sure that DoT would deny UA its EWR request just because its partner serves JFK, but stranger things have happened.

I assume that JAL will serve JFK (and abandon HND-HNL), as JAL currently flies double daily to JFK.

That means that LAX will likely have three flights (assuming that DL and AA keep their current LAX flights) and NYC will have three flights (assuming that UA wins EWR and JAL chooses JFK over HNL). SFO will have two; that leaves one frequency for either DFW or MSP or ATL.

mh3265a

I'd really love to see UA apply for a HND-GUM slot but I get that's not likely to happen until more slots open up for US airlines down the road. Nighttime or daytime flights from HND-GUM would absolutely fill up quickly.

I also agree with many posters that EWR-HND has a good shot of getting one of the slots. If it does I would think UA would give up the EWR-NRT slot and just shift more traffic down to the IAD-NRT or ORD-NRT flights.

FireEmblemPride

ANA has confirmed it will start "NYC" and ORD flights from HND by reallocating one of their double-daily NRT flights to each city. The president didn't confirm whether it'd be JFK, although it's pretty likely.

http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/AJ201603280052.html

So, that confirms NYC, ORD, LAX and HNL for NH. Against that backdrop, I find there is plenty of justification for SFO as well.

PsiFighter37

I did a quick scan of what is showing up on Google Flights because someone noted that HND-SFO was now being loaded with daytime slots. It looks like HND-SFO is now departing around 5 PM later on in the year, arriving at SFO in the 9 AM hour. AA, on the other hand, now has a night slot (1:30 AM) takeoff for HND-LAX. I don't see HND-EWR, so probably safe to assume that UA did not get it...?

Duke787

Not necessarily. All current route holders kept their slots for the winter schedule in the new daytime slots so you may just be seeing the reflection of that (where UA has updated but AA may not have yet)

AFAIK the Spring schedule and beyond allocations have been announced yet

sbm12

Correct.

HA, UA, AA & DL will all have their current night slots moved to day slots for 30OCT2016- 24MAR2017. The new applications and awards (i.e. what this round of filings is all about) will take effect on 25 Mar 2017.

Japan has moved more quickly in awarding its slots so ANA is announcing its new operations and those should stick.

FWAAA

The airlines filed their replies (responses to the answers filed last week); here is UA's reply:

https://www.regulations.gov/contentS...ontentType=pdf

Here is the docket if you want to read the other airlines' filings:

https://www.regulations.gov/#!docket...-OST-2016-0048

I would expect decisions from the DoT by the end of July.

Kmxu

HA got the night slot (http://www.usatoday.com/story/travel...port/84339760/). The remaining five slots will be awarded later. What is UA's chance getting two slots? HA is still competing for daytime slot.

EWR764

No surprise that HA got the night slot... nobody else was competing for it. I would be blown away if HA got one of the day slots; it'd be one of the most illogical decisions the DOT has made in quite some time, IMO.

UA is a lock to retain SFO-HND, and I would give a bit worse than 2:1 it gets EWR-HND. EWR is the best of the 'second choice' markets but there is a reasonable belief that the DOT may weigh ANA's announced HND-JFK against United.

UA has stated it will operate both EWR-NRT and EWR-HND if awarded, in contrast to DL, which now scrubbed its LAX-NRT and has threatened to drop MSP-NRT even if it does not receive MSP-HND authority. The NH hub makes this work.

DA201

I think this is very important. The DOT may look at this and say that DL needs the service because MSP will otherwise lose Tokyo service, or it may say that DL is trying to use the city as a pawn and give it to UA.

Not surprised UA would theoretically operate EWR-HND and NRT. I have flown EWR-NRT and there are always good load factors in all classes (I know this isn't the only metric of measuring how profitable a route is but...)