OskiBear

I tried searching but couldn't find a thread on this exactly. Does anyone know the history of the SEA-NRT service? Trying to arrange a trip with some friends recently, it turns out the SEA-NRT flight is quite pricier than SFO/LAX. This led me to wonder how this service started and why it continues.

Given that SEA is not a hub for UA, it doesn't really take feeds from other cities (except for hubs who, all except for DEN, have their own flights to NRT).

It seems like a bit of an oddity.

Any insight would be much appreciated. Always enjoy hearing about the history of some airline routes.

SFOTurtle

By the title, I thought you were going to say that the route was being cancelled, as in "this route is history!" That would have been a surprise.

This route has been operated by UA for as long as I can remember. I'm not sure if PA acquired the rights when UA bought Pan Am's Pacific routes, because I'm not sure Pan Am ever had the rights to this route. If Pan Am did, it didn't fly the route. But I have UA timetables dating back to 2000 that show UA operating this route.

joel67

I believe SEA-NRT dates from 1983 and was United's only route to Japan before the Pan Am deal. They also flew SEA-HKG. These routes might have been chosen because Seattle is the closest major city in the 48 states to those two cities, or maybe it was just the only one in range that wasn't already served by someone else.

mherdeg

There's a long, thoughtful existential discussion about UA SEA-NRT over on a.net at http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo....main/5065056/.

Some interesting discussion of the reasons why UA's first transpacific flight still continues to exist and how it might change.

One surprising part of the early conversation was:

QBK

This doesn't address your core question (history of the route), but I'll note that in 2010 and 2011, the SEA-NRT segment was equal to, or slightly cheaper than, the SFO/LAX-NRT segments. I flew to NRT via SEA for less than the California connections would have been, and almost booked a trip to SIN via SEA (delayed booking by two weeks, and SEA availability vanished).

I suspect that the pricing is heavily market driven -- where are they trying to fill seats at any given time of year -- rather than consistent. And, of course, if you're flying out of SEA, then it will probably be cheaper to connect through SFO/LAX because the airline can charge a premium for direct flights.

harryhood

May be business and demographics related. With Microsoft and a lot of other tech companies based in the SEA area, Boeing based there, and some Japanese companies (e.g. Nintendo) basing their US operation there, there may be good business need for the route. Also, I wonder if, culturally speaking, SEA (like SFO and LAX) has larger numbers of residents who are 1st or 2nd generation Japanese and who have a personal need to travel to Tokyo and beyond. May be a good niche to service from a pax traffic standpoint. YOu have strong business ties between SEA and NRT and strong non-business travel.

Plus it avoids ceding the route (with NRT a secondary UA hub) to DL.

uwr

+1

I am still worried that the new SEA-NRT flight announced by ANA will be the end of the UA flight.

ANA = better service but no E+

ual1960

United started the Seattle to Tokyo in 1983 after years of petitioning the Feds for rights to the route. It was the first int'l service for UA and was a new route authority in competition with old NW.

After UA snared Pan Am's Pacific Division in 1985, Continental (!) and American made efforts to win the authority from UA, arguing that United now had too many Pacific gateways. CO finally got the rights in 1989 and promptly did a big belly flop on the route. It sold the rights to SEA-NRT to AA in 1991, who also managed a big bellyflop. Neither had a route structure geared to feeding through SEA and neither made a huge effort to develop one.

Meanwhile old NW with its truly abhorrent service and JL kept flying it. And, a flock of SEA Mileage Plus members began a public campaign to get the route given back to UA by the Feds. (I always wondered what role UA played in this behind the scenes.)

UA got it back and relaunched in 1998 with 744s, which anybody who has read UA's Pacific route applications back in the days when these things were fought over and VERY hard to get are always the equipment promised to fend off non-744-flying competitors. The downgauge then happens six months later.

[Note: airfares aside, I am a huge fan of the route as I'm coming from PDX many times a year and my upgrades always clear routing SEA-NRT long in advance as opposed to being less carefree going SFO-NRT - knocking on wood as I type this…]

WWBGD

I have flown this route, connecting from ORD to Sea and then on to NRT. Almost always, the fare was cheaper than ORD-NRT or any other connection, but the best part was that there usually was confirmable upgrade space on the route, which usually was the determining factor for me.
The funny thing was that compared to ORD-NRT, the route is "too short"...ie, the flight is only 8-9 hours and doesn't allow as much time to sleep. But that is not necessarily a bad problem.

wwbgd

LAX

Not sure how much of a premium NH would expect by using its shiny, new B787s on this routes, but seat pitch in regular Y is supposed to be better standard 31". I know it's still not E+ (up to 36"), but for lower level elites on UA, E+ is no longer a tangible benefit (not when it's not available until T-24hrs).

LAX

Lori_Q

I've almost always found the SEA-NRT fares to be less expensive, although that seems to have changed in the last year or so. All of my upgrades have cleared on that route, and the SEA flight kitchen makes a great Zen Washoku meal for C / F.

andyh64000

I fly this route a lot and it is almost always the cheapest way for me to get to Asia so it seems strange to me that you find it to be much more expnsive. Maybe you just picked an unfortunate date.

I have also found the FAs that serve this route to be consistently outstanding .

FWAAA

AA flew SEA-NRT until 2001. Dunno whether that qualifies as a "big bellyflop." It was no secret that AA preferred to fly to NRT from ORD, JFK and LAX, but SEA was what was available. AA fed the flight from ORD, DFW, JFK and MIA.

Kurt

I know this very obscure fact because I was transiting Narita that day (BKK-NRT-LAX). This photo shows gate 36 decorated for the inaugural flight of UA876 NRT-SEA. Equipment was a 747-400:



I am not sure if service between these cities existed previously and was resumed in '98, but UA875/UA876 as we know them started on this date.

goodeats21

I just did this last month. ORD->SEA->NRT (and vv). I did this for the same reason, it had NC space on the TPAC leg. I don't think there was any price difference in my case.

And I also agree that the sleep schedule is not ideal, compared to the 12 hour flight ORD->NRT. The added connection also increases the total travel time.

On the plus side, the FAs were very good. I usually have good luck with FAs, but this group just was a step above.


To the OP: Thanks for starting this thread. I had wondered about this route as SEA is not a hub. Some curiosity is now satisfied.