MSP gains DL HNL flights

WorldTraveler said:
also, DL said it wants to re-add ATL-China service.
 
Couple questions:  to add service ATL-China, would DL have to drop some USA-China routes?  Or are there unused frequencies available?
 
there are plenty of unused US-China frequencies available for all carriers.

China and the US essentially agree on unlimited capacity for both sides and have talked about Open Skies but the US has concerns about whether China is able to provide all that is required by the US in order for Open Skies to exist.
 
There are currently 23 available weekly frequencies for PEK/PVG, etc. There were 30 but UA was just awarded a second daily SFO-PVG flght that it intends to fly seasonally.

Delta should proofread its press releases; here's a poorly-worded excerpt:

Delta is the only U.S. global carrier to offer full flat-bed seats with direct aisle access in BusinessElite on widebody oceanic flights.
I'm guessing that the writer of the press releases meant to include the word "all" between the words "on" and "widebody."
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
while your suggestions do improve the readability of the sentence, it is not grammatically or logically wrong as written.

There are still plenty of available frequencies and if DL further downsizes NRT-China flying, they could easily transfer those frequencies to US originating flights.
 
There may be unused frequencies for Zone 1. DL was awarded 7 weeklies for ATL-PVG, but returned them in 2012. Maybe those are the ones that AA used to launch DFW-PVG last year? Dunno.

It's one of the most confusing bilateral agreements left... there's no real list you can go to for the frequencies in use or dormant.

DMS Docket
 
eolesen said:
There may be unused frequencies for Zone 1. DL was awarded 7 weeklies for ATL-PVG, but returned them in 2012. Maybe those are the ones that AA used to launch DFW-PVG last year? Dunno.

It's one of the most confusing bilateral agreements left... there's no real list you can go to for the frequencies in use or dormant.

DMS Docket
For a while, during the contested route case era, the DOT provided summaries of who had what, but I haven't seen that in recent years now that there are more frequencies than requests. My numbers of 30 (now 23) came from UA and the DOT in the recent application and award:

http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=DOT-OST-2014-0196-0003

Don't know if the available total takes into account the rumoured (or announced?) AA request for DFW-PEK. I've long banged on the drum for JFK-PVG and LAX-PEK, so unless there are more frequencies opening up this year or next, AA should strike now and get those before they're gone. :D
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
FrugalFlyerv2.0 said:
Couple questions:  to add service ATL-China, would DL have to drop some USA-China routes?  Or are there unused frequencies available?
 no plenty of space. 
 
FWAAA said:
There are currently 23 available weekly frequencies for PEK/PVG, etc. There were 30 but UA was just awarded a second daily SFO-PVG flght that it intends to fly seasonally.

Delta should proofread its press releases; here's a poorly-worded excerpt:


I'm guessing that the writer of the press releases meant to include the word "all" between the words "on" and "widebody."
I don't believe your count has the 7 weekly frequencies Delta gave up for NRT-PEK. (assuming Delta isn't just sitting on them) 
 
Thanks to all for replying regarding the availability of frequencies for US-China service.
 
So I gotta ask a follow up:  why are there still unused frequencies?  I was under the impression that every carrier HAD to have flights to China because that's where the $$$ is.  Is the problem the availability of viable slot times at PVG and PEK?
 
More:
 
“We are offering to waive up to one year’s worth of landing fees, one year’s worth of gate fees and to provide a $100,000 marketing match to help defray the costs of marketing the new service to the community,” MAC spokesman Patrick Hogan wrote in an e-mail. “We make a pitch to airlines for this service — even if only on a seasonal basis — two to three times a year.
 
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
FrugalFlyerv2.0 said:
So I gotta ask a follow up:  why are there still unused frequencies?  I was under the impression that every carrier HAD to have flights to China because that's where the $$$ is.  Is the problem the availability of viable slot times at PVG and PEK?
That was the conventional wisdom 10 years ago, but the Chinese economy hasn't been doing too well for the past few years...

http://thediplomat.com/2014/12/chinas-economy-dont-bet-on-beijing/

When I was there last year, lots of great new buildings, and lots of them completely unoccupied.
 
and it should surprise no one that MSP and DL are doing the same thing that DL and NW both did very well with their hub airports for years - which is to keep costs at the lower end of comparable hubs while also looking for incentives to increase service from the airport.

MSP's transactions regarding the baggage system are much bigger for DL but possibly would not have happened if the HNL flight wasn't on the table.... still the economics of a winter seasonal flight to HNL using an aircraft that is not needed to fly to Europe makes a lot of sense for DL even on a standalone basis.

and specific to China, ANderson's recent comments about Dl wanting to add flights from MSP to Asia and saying the same thing to ATL indicates that the transition from 744s to 359s over the Pacific will provide opportunities for DL to add new flights and build hubs which have less Asia service.

HNL is a small "downpayment" on what DL is willing to do with the right incentives.

The China market is weaker now that it has been but it is still a long-term growth prospect for US carriers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
another consideration regarding the China aspect of the thread is that Anderson said that DL would add service from MSP to China and is hinting at the same from ATL based on the arrival of new technology aircraft.

since the 359s are supposed to start arriving in 2017 as the 744s head out the door based on current plans, DL apparently sees both a need to diversify the number of gateways from which it operates service to non-Japan Asia as well as sees the 359 as capable of providing the costs necessary to do so.

It is also worth noting that DL decided not to accept Boeing's proposal supposedly partly on the basis of 777-200LRs being part of the early deliveries under the proposal. It is also noteworthy that DL considered the 777-300ER but rejected it, apparently based on Airbus' willingness to discount their products down to the level that the ownership cost advantage of older technology aircraft is eliminated.

Given that DL has a pretty small 777 fleet and with the departure of the 744, DL could have a significant operational cost advantage across the Pacific compared to AA which will still have a large fleet of 777s and UA which also has a large fleet of 777s and 744s. while both AA and UA are receiving 787s and A350s, it isn't clear what their transition plan from older aircraft will be.

DL's int'l fleet restructuring might be an example where DL ends up with a cost advantage even with otherwise more expensive newer aircraft, in contrast to what DL is doing with the narrowbody domestic fleet where half of DL's narrowbody fleet additions are with older technology used aircraft.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
Really all the 787's etc UA is getting doesn't give them advantages

It's unbelievable that only DL once again has all the advantages

Let's see DL has the largest and oldest intl fleet and only ordered a small # of aircraft (wide bodies) compared to others orders
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person