Delta Air Lines has increasingly been announcing some ultra long haul flying in recent times, including plans to launch flights to Hong Kong (HKG), Riyadh (RUH), and more. A senior Delta executive has revealed internally what the carrier’s expansion plans for Asia are, and it’ll be interesting to see how this all plays out.
In this post:
Expect Delta to expand considerably in Asia
As Delta executives view it, the airline is pretty maxed out in terms of its European potential, and in the long run, the airline sees the most long haul growth potential in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. So, what kind of expansion should we expect?
- Delta plans to fly to both Singapore (SIN) and Manila (MNL), though hasn’t revealed out of which airports those services would operate
- Delta also wants to connect its Los Angeles (LAX) and New York (JFK) hubs to Seoul Incheon (ICN), which is the hub of joint venture partner Korean Air, as Delta loves routing most of its Asia traffic through there
We don’t have a specific timeline for these services launching, though it’s clear that these are all routes that are in the pipeline. Obviously this expansion relies on Delta taking delivery of more Airbus A350 aircraft, since those are the planes that Delta uses across the Pacific. Delta has six A350-900s still on order, in addition to 20 A350-1000s, which will be Delta’s new flagship aircraft.
My take on Delta’s Asia expansion plans
I don’t think any of these four potential new routes are terribly surprising. Obviously Delta is massively playing catch up with United when it comes to its Asia network, given that it’s an area where United dominates, among the “big three” carriers, in terms of the depth of its network.
With the new Singapore and Manila service, I’m curious if those routes will be operated out of Seattle or Los Angeles. Up until recently, I would’ve assumed they’d be operated out of Seattle, given that it’s a hub that Delta has been trying to build up, and there’s a geographical advantage across the Pacific. Furthermore, none of the “big three” US carriers have actually ever been able to “win” in Los Angeles.
However, Delta recently announced its return to Hong Kong would be out of Los Angeles rather than out of Seattle, so who knows, at this point.
Regarding the two additional hub routes to Seoul Incheon, those also make perfect sense. It’s kind of embarrassing that Delta doesn’t have any service from New York to Asia, despite having such a big presence there. Similarly, not being able to fly on Delta metal from Los Angeles to Seoul Incheon in order to connect to Korean Air has also been a gap in Delta’s network.
Admittedly Delta and Korean Air have a joint venture, so there’s supposed to be metal neutrality, in terms of placing Delta customers on Korean Air flights. However, there’s no denying that the experiences offered are quite different. I know many Delta flyers don’t want to take Korean Air on a long haul flight — I mean, the airline doesn’t even have Wi-Fi on a vast majority of its long haul fleet.
Now, it’ll be interesting to see how these Asia routes perform financially. Obviously the markets have the potential to be lucrative, but US airline labor costs are also really high, and Delta has historically shied away from ultra long haul flying (especially to non-joint venture hubs), unless there are obvious subsidies at play.
Bottom line
While we’ll see the timeline with which this happens, Delta sees a lot of growth potential in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. The airline has already announced flights to Hong Kong and Riyadh, and it sounds like Singapore and Manila will be among the two next destinations. On top of that, we’ll see new routes to Seoul Incheon, from Los Angeles and New York.
I don’t think any of those routes are terribly surprising, as Asia is the obvious area where Delta could grow. I’m curious if this flying proves lucrative, given Delta’s hesitation in this area, at least historically.
What do you make of Delta’s Asia expansion plans?
American?…
American??…
Wake up!….
Bueler?
Bueler?
As for KE and DL at JFK, I don't understand why KE stay at T1, not relocate to T4. T1 has the longest waiting line for immigration, and connecting between T4 and T1 is such a pain since there's no airside transportation.
Most Oneworld carriers have moved or are moving to T8, but Skyteam's not doing so. They're scattered between T4 and T1.
To build a stronger presence at JFK, I hope all...
As for KE and DL at JFK, I don't understand why KE stay at T1, not relocate to T4. T1 has the longest waiting line for immigration, and connecting between T4 and T1 is such a pain since there's no airside transportation.
Most Oneworld carriers have moved or are moving to T8, but Skyteam's not doing so. They're scattered between T4 and T1.
To build a stronger presence at JFK, I hope all the Skyteam carriers to either relocate to T4 or provide airside connection between T4 and T1.
JFK is still in transition and will be for several years.
Several of the T1 airlines are owners; rebuilding and expanding terminal 1 will include sorting out terminal assignments. The chances are high that SkyTeam airlines will increasingly move to T4 and other airlines will move out.
The new carriers at the New Terminal One have been announced:
AF, KLM, SAS, Korean, China Eastern, and China Airlines (Taiwan) being the only Skyteam carriers at the new terminal with the former 4 already have lounges planned. Virgin, Saudia, Kenya Airways remain at 4 and will probably remain at 4.
As ITA is now under Lufthansa, they'll move to the new Terminal 6.
And to answer your initial question, just like CX eventually moving to 6, my guess would be similar to CXs reasoning, they would want their own space and experience for their passengers than being in a bustling terminal. And while Korean was part of the initial consortium that consisted of AF, JAL, Lufthansa et.al, they figured they'd rather stay and be a partner airline under the new terminal while JAL thought it'd be better for...
And to answer your initial question, just like CX eventually moving to 6, my guess would be similar to CXs reasoning, they would want their own space and experience for their passengers than being in a bustling terminal. And while Korean was part of the initial consortium that consisted of AF, JAL, Lufthansa et.al, they figured they'd rather stay and be a partner airline under the new terminal while JAL thought it'd be better for them to move with American to 8.
CX will be moving to 6, while QR will move to 1 both with their own respective lounges with RAM remaining at 1.
And I'm guessing they get more O&D rather than connections. If connections are needed, they can easily route them to BOS, SEA, LAX and ATL.
At least one of the flights would be from Seattle, right? Otherwise, why would they open an A350 base in Seattle.
United moved their LAX-SIN to SFO before the pandemic. I don't see DL starting LAX-SIN before UA.
What do you think the two have to do with each other? United moved their flight, because they were blocking more than 40 seats in the worst of winter winds. Why would Delta care anything about that?
As for the SEA A350 base, SEA-HND, ICN and TPE all now are on the A350 and PVG will switch by the spring.
4TPAC flights seems like enough to justify a pilot base.
as others have noted, it is a combination of where the biggest local market is and where the rest of the US can be served.
As much as it may surprise some people, DL might have multiple flights to Asia from JFK...
As for the SEA A350 base, SEA-HND, ICN and TPE all now are on the A350 and PVG will switch by the spring.
4TPAC flights seems like enough to justify a pilot base.
as others have noted, it is a combination of where the biggest local market is and where the rest of the US can be served.
As much as it may surprise some people, DL might have multiple flights to Asia from JFK in 5 years.
Let's not forget that just 5 years ago, UA had the most flights from NYC and DL has comfortably passed UA in that metric.
DL has focused building Asia from the west coast; ATL and DTW haven't been given a new TPAC flight in years.
When DL is ready to shift its attention to building JFK and maybe BOS to Asia, they will do it fairly quickly.
Some sources - which are likely right - say that DL will receive its entire order of 20 A350-1000s in 2 years and they still have 20 Airbus widebody options that could give DL enormous TPAC capacity in a fairly short period of time.
If these aren't out of Seattle, that's going to be really telling, and will suggest that Delta may be drawing back from its weakest hub (as the LAX-HKG flight already suggests). Alaska is a formidable competitor with lower costs and more local loyalty in SEA, and with ten 787s soon to be based in Seattle, Delta's main advantage in Seattle (international reach) is about to be severely undermined. It'll be interesting if more Asia flying...
If these aren't out of Seattle, that's going to be really telling, and will suggest that Delta may be drawing back from its weakest hub (as the LAX-HKG flight already suggests). Alaska is a formidable competitor with lower costs and more local loyalty in SEA, and with ten 787s soon to be based in Seattle, Delta's main advantage in Seattle (international reach) is about to be severely undermined. It'll be interesting if more Asia flying ends up going out of LAX. Regardless, Delta won't be able to compete with what United has built at SFO any time soon as far reach to Asia.
I have a different take. I think these will launch from LAX (like the Hong Kong flight did) not because of Alaska or Seattle's hub strength, but more simply because LAX has the larger O/D. Also, LAX has domestic Delta One to JFK, BOS, and DCA. Seattle has no Domestic D1. For business travelers on the east coast, it makes much more sense to connect through LAX since they can have D1 continuity throughout their entire journey.
Eric is right. California is still a huge market to Asia. Delta is simply not going to cede both LA and SFO to UA. And the 787 can’t do LAX to Singapore without taking off a whole lot more seats. Delta’s 35Ks can easily do it with plenty of cargo
Domestic D1 is not a reason to add flights. If the market supports it, then it'll be there regardless. They can always just add domestic D1 to SEA if that's such a game-changer (it's not).
Furthermore, BOS/JFK/DC area already have many nonstop flights to these places or better one-stop options.
What are you talking about?
Delta has only been adding flights to SEA, many new domestic adds like PHL transcons and increased frequencies from many other more.
SEA is Delta's top performing international station in the US. Enilria did an analysis on this, but everyone chose to hyperfixate on the domestic weakness. LAX is a much weaker international station for Delta.
Yolo says, "SEA is Delta's top performing international station in the US."
Where did you see this?
@yoloswag420--I would love to see your source for SEA being DL's top performing international hub in the USA. It's usually hard to know how profitable any given hub is because airlines don't report the information that way. I am not familiar with the report you referenced but would love to see it. Can you provide a link?
Delta flies more passengers to/from LAX than SEA, it's a much bigger local market and destination, etc. Whether Delta "wins" at LAX doesn't really matter - it is clearly a critical hub for the airline and growing in importance (I would rank it third or fourth, behind ATL, JFK and either MSP/DTW). It would make sense for them to fly to both SIN and MNL from LAX, not from SEA. SEA's Asia traffic should be focused on corporate accounts (Mainland China, TPN, etc).
Wonder if the JFK/LAX to ICN flights are because of Korea's FTC requiring some routes to be redistributed due to the KE/OZ merger.
United start date of ewr-icn appears to align closely with Asiana Korean air integration date. The merged carrier wants 3 times for jfk-icn (morning, afternoon, evening) so that would likely be delta morning going afternoon back, Korean air afternoon and midnight going morning and evening back.
Delta is, once again, playing catch-up to United. We haven't had any interesting news from Delta in months. They are so boring that they need to crash planes while taxiing to make interesting headlines.
What a weird post.
Singapore via Manila makes sense on a map but not in real life.
Delta should try to build up both LAX and SEA. Manila is low yield so SEA might be better.
If Delta drops TPE, it shows that Delta is weak and uncompetitive
SFO supports 3x daily flights to MNL, and PR was doing a seasonal 3rd daily to LAX. DL will do fine on a hypothetical LAX-MNL.
I don't agree that if DL drops SEA-TPE it means they are weak or uncompetitive. The strength of that market is still being determined. It went from one carrier to 4 almost overnight. Currently, there are 5 daily flights across those 4 carriers many days of the week and 4 daily flights other days. DL flies once daily and is the only carrier flying at good times for O/D travelers, i.e., not trying to hit...
I don't agree that if DL drops SEA-TPE it means they are weak or uncompetitive. The strength of that market is still being determined. It went from one carrier to 4 almost overnight. Currently, there are 5 daily flights across those 4 carriers many days of the week and 4 daily flights other days. DL flies once daily and is the only carrier flying at good times for O/D travelers, i.e., not trying to hit connection banks at TPE. If they drop out, it might be an indication of O/D traffic but not of DL's weakness.
LAX would probably work better for Manila as the Filipino diaspora is pretty much the entire Southern California as well as Nevada and even Texas. So having another carrier would do just fine.
If PR didn't start Manila first, then DL would've been my first guess to start service while the former was looking at Chicago.
UA wins the Pacific because it has the best US gateway to Asia in SFO. They use that strength to leverage success across Asia from LAX and elsewhere. UA is bigger TPAC than DL & AA combined. UA is getting 29 more 787s (109 total) by the end of next year.
I take Delta Code Shares on Korean metal at every opportunity. In my opinion, the cabin crew service on Korean Air flights far exceed what you get on Delta. My experience is that the main cabin crew experience on the Asian carriers is far superior to any US flagged airline. I also find that the long haul Business Class service delivery on Korean, JAL, ANA, Singapore, EVA or China Airlines far exceeds what you get in Delta One.
Add Starlux to that list as well.
I would never pay for D1 TPAC. Premium Select is a good value proposition so unless I am using an upgrade certificate, not buying D1.
SIN on the 35X from LA will likely happen. They have the D1 lounge there as a distinguishing part, but I would not fly that route on DL.
You want to see a black hole. Try finding a Sky Team airline direct from USA to Dubai or Doha. It doesn't exist... Delta direct to Singapore would be amazing, but what Sky Team member do I connect to if that's not my final? Delta could count on $100k a year from me if it had a JFK or ATL direct to Dubai or Doha. Peanuts, I know, but maybe I'm not the only one.
Do you play trumpet in a band? Lot of tooting going on.
Interesting to watch DL copy UA in the Pacific and trying to replicate UA's success.
Once again, you do realize that Northwest was the largest carrier across the Pacific lawn before United figured it out. Northwest didn’t make money and then for years neither did United. Now that United is making money, it is inevitable that Delta will grow in the Pacific as well.
Delta should have kept the Northwest name and used Delta has the name instead of Nothwest Airlink.
True, NW is a region of America but Delta's name implies KKK to some.
"Delta should have kept the Northwest name and used Delta has the name instead of Nothwest Airlink."
Why on Earth would they do that, when Delta's market cap was nearly twice that of Northwest's?
"True, NW is a region of America but Delta's name implies KKK to some."
Sorry, but that's retarded.
TD says, "Once again, you do realize that Northwest was the largest carrier across the Pacific lawn before United figured it out."
Squandered opportunity. See UA SFO int'l hub.
UA had a 30 year headstart in building a US gateway to Asia; NW focused on Tokyo.
No one doubts that SFO is a great hub - but it is precisely because DL has both SEA and LAX and does not appear to be stopping growing either that DL has a very good likelihood to close the gap much faster than UA can.
and you also realize - doesn't matter if you do or not...
UA had a 30 year headstart in building a US gateway to Asia; NW focused on Tokyo.
No one doubts that SFO is a great hub - but it is precisely because DL has both SEA and LAX and does not appear to be stopping growing either that DL has a very good likelihood to close the gap much faster than UA can.
and you also realize - doesn't matter if you do or not - DL is larger to E. Asia from East of the Rockies than UA.
and, except for UA's most recently announced EWR-ICN flight, all of UA's flights east of the Rockies - in fact outside of CA - are only to Tokyo.
“It’s kind of embarrassing that Delta doesn’t have any service from New York to Asia, despite having such a big presence there.”
Yup. They’d need to start an a350 base to do that. So far, only ATL, DTW, LAX, (and supposedly planned for SEA).
I’d expect JFK would become more viable once older 763, 332, and 333 are phased out. For now, it’s mostly Europe outta here on DL, which doesn’t ‘need’ the range...
“It’s kind of embarrassing that Delta doesn’t have any service from New York to Asia, despite having such a big presence there.”
Yup. They’d need to start an a350 base to do that. So far, only ATL, DTW, LAX, (and supposedly planned for SEA).
I’d expect JFK would become more viable once older 763, 332, and 333 are phased out. For now, it’s mostly Europe outta here on DL, which doesn’t ‘need’ the range of a350; otherwise, I’d expect more 339 (or 787 and XLR) to be future primary TATL aircraft outta NYC. (Tim Dunn, am I wrong?)
Delta is very methodical about its expansion. That is why they have managed to build new hubs in both SEA and BOS over the past 10 years and is now building AUS as a new hub.
AA and UA have collectively built precisely ZERO new hubs.
Many people including Ben were convinced DL would not be able to challenge UA's dominance of LAX international and yet UA's advantage is quickly falling.
DL will very likely...
Delta is very methodical about its expansion. That is why they have managed to build new hubs in both SEA and BOS over the past 10 years and is now building AUS as a new hub.
AA and UA have collectively built precisely ZERO new hubs.
Many people including Ben were convinced DL would not be able to challenge UA's dominance of LAX international and yet UA's advantage is quickly falling.
DL will very likely end up w/ the largest US carrier position - both international and domestic at LAX and the 35K will be used to add ICN and SIN and perhaps MNL to destinations DL already serves. And, of course, DL is already the largest airline at LAX overall.
NYC to Asia will come and it will be a major expansion when it comes.
and let's not hold AA or UA up to any high standard about service from NYC to E. Asia.
AA serves precisely one destination - Tokyo - which is all UA has flown for about 4 years - and is only adding ICN now.
UA USED TO fly to HKG, PVG and PEK as well as BOM - all of which have been discontinued because of Russia airspace closures.
The 35K will be able to fly to all of those cities and more from JFK if DL chooses to operate them.
Wow, didn't know AA and UA have built zero new hubs.
"and let's not hold AA or UA up to any high standard about service from NYC to E. Asia"
Great analysis, as always! Especially the history of LAX & Delta.
Go ahead and list the hubs that united and American have built over the last 10 years. I’ll wait.
Nobody is saying anything about AA or UA building or not building hubs. Only you are. And the only reason delta has built 2 new hubs is because following the northeast merger they closed two hubs. So they had a lot of excess planes to play with. Sure- United closed Cleveland/ but they didn't use lots of planes in that small hub anyway and most of those planes were sent to strengthen other hubs.
...
Nobody is saying anything about AA or UA building or not building hubs. Only you are. And the only reason delta has built 2 new hubs is because following the northeast merger they closed two hubs. So they had a lot of excess planes to play with. Sure- United closed Cleveland/ but they didn't use lots of planes in that small hub anyway and most of those planes were sent to strengthen other hubs.
Really an argument that doesntt relate or have anything to do with anything.
there's a reason why delta is the 2nd most profitable airline in the world and the #1 profitable airline in the USA
TD says,"Delta is very methodical about its expansion. That is why they have managed to build new hubs in both SEA and BOS over the past 10 years and is now building AUS as a new hub."
AUS
Southwest: 42.32%
American: 16.55%
Delta: 14.99%
United: 12.18%
BOS
JetBlue: 27.46%
Delta: 21.30%
American: 13.38%
United: 10.87%
SEA
Alaska: 48.48%
Delta: 19.51%
What do you think those percentages show? Do you not understand that an airline doesn't have to be the biggest in any given market, in order to have a successful hub?
Take Boston for example. Delta and JetBlue have both held the "largest" title twice since 2022, but Delta has a significantly higher average-fare in that market than JetBlue does, as well as higher point of sale. I'm sure they'll take those, versus a marginally higher percentage of seats, any day.
the AUS numbers are not even current. DL passed AA quite some time ago.
and the numbers cited are for mainline only; DL is much larger than the stats above show for BOS.
When your thesis is to argue against what DL has accomplished, of course you don't get basic facts straight.
none of which changes that AA and UA have added precisely ZERO new hubs over the last 10 years while DL...
the AUS numbers are not even current. DL passed AA quite some time ago.
and the numbers cited are for mainline only; DL is much larger than the stats above show for BOS.
When your thesis is to argue against what DL has accomplished, of course you don't get basic facts straight.
none of which changes that AA and UA have added precisely ZERO new hubs over the last 10 years while DL has added 2 and is adding AUS now.
DL has methodically grown its network far more than any other US carrier has done .
Delta Airlines has been bragging about their "growth strategy" and "expansion" in the Asia-Pacific for years if not decades at this point
Instead they have continually shrunk over time, whilst every other airline (bar JAL) has grown significantly over the same time period. How embarrassing
For an airline that has continually struggled to make Asia work, I do not believe they will suddenly do so now, and they never will
Feel free to post the stats on DL’s TPAC network size over the past 10 years but, despite your assertion, DL’s size was pretty constant for the 5 years pre-covid as a result of beginning to pull down its NRT hub and then has been growing every year since covid.
In fact, DL is growing its Pacific network on a faster ratio than UA and AA is also growing faster than UA.
The part...
Feel free to post the stats on DL’s TPAC network size over the past 10 years but, despite your assertion, DL’s size was pretty constant for the 5 years pre-covid as a result of beginning to pull down its NRT hub and then has been growing every year since covid.
In fact, DL is growing its Pacific network on a faster ratio than UA and AA is also growing faster than UA.
The part you forgot or omitted is that Japan chose to reopen HND to US carrier flights which meant DL had to choose between being larger in the local Tokyo market – which heavily favors HND – or remain at NRT where it could operate beyond NRT flights as NW had done for years.
DL chose to become the largest US carrier by number of flights from HND to the US and also to have the largest Asian partner via Korean at ICN. ICN is already far larger than HND or NRT for connecting traffic.
And, as Ben notes, DL will keep adding flights from ICN which means it will grow even larger in NE Asia; right now, DL and UA in Japan and Korea combined are about the same size.
And don’t forget that UA’s Pacific growth is with 787s while even DL’s 359s carry more passengers – let alone the 35Ks.
And, again, NW did not make money on a consistent basis flying the Pacific. And UA grew so quickly in the late 2010s as DL pulled down that UA did not make money.
UA is making good money flying the Pacific now but it was always a given that DL would regrow its TPAC network more profitably and faster than UA; DL makes more money per seat mile flying the Pacific than UA.
And UA execs have said that its growth over the Pacific would be much smaller than it was in the past. and that will be true across the Atlantic as well.
UA is run by people that understand that airlines exist to make money; adding capacity at a faster rate than the market can absorb usually turns out bad - and that is precisely why UA's profits trail DL's by $1 billion year to date.
DL is now in a position to grow larger from a much stronger network and do it far more profitably.
Cant wait to see how many skypesos the J tickets cost.
Probably 1,200,000 SkyMiles for a $15,000 R/T, which is still slightly better than 1 cent per point, but not the 5-10x value you’d hope for in a maximized redemption, like back in the ‘good ole days.’
With United launching ewr-icn I think delta starts jfk-icn before lax-icn to better defend ground in New York. Manila I am guessing Seattle Singapore I am guessing Los Angeles once the a350-1000s arrive. Read somewhere on some forum delta does plan on flying the a350-1000 out of jfk once those arrive.
How did Ben Schlappig find out about this?
It's not an expansion. It's a return. Delta abandoned Asia after 2017 when Tokyo-Narita stopped being a hub. Delta used to fly to Singapore. I believe Delta even briefly resumed Manila service just before the pandemic from Seoul. There used to be lounges in Guam, Manila, etc.
Yes I remember! Northwest worked hard to develop a mini-hub in Tokyo back in the 80s/90s/00s that connected Asia with USA. Unfortunately Delta somewhat abandoned it. United recently started a second SFO-MNL daily flight so there is demand. Just a missed opportunity for Delta I guess and it now has to play catch up.
"I believe Delta even briefly resumed Manila service just before the pandemic from Seoul."
Correct. They flew the route because the Philippines and South Korea reached an impasse on an updated trade deal, including increased flight rights. But Delta could fly the route as a 5th freedom using its US bilateral allotments.
As soon as Philippines and Korea reached a deal, Delta dropped the flight and Korean added frequency.
I miss the ATL-NRT direct flight and DL service from there to ROR. I know service to Palau is not coming back, but I am hopeful the expansion will allow us to catch a partner airline from Manila or Seoul into Koror soon. The wife is fine with United, but I do not like the multiple stops including the mad dash in HNL to make the connection.
Delta has been nicely expanding their Asian network. Does it match United, no, but good to see the gradual continued expansion.
They have a good European network.
This is really showing how weak American is!!
I'm actually a little surprised that DL doesn't already serve LAX-ICN. It seems like a no brainer.
As for routing Asia traffic via SEA, there's a limit to that as the local O&D market is much smaller than the likes of LAX (or SFO for that matter). So, SEA is fine for connecting traffic to main Asian centers. But some other routes are not as good a fit. HKG maybe one of those, Manila is...
I'm actually a little surprised that DL doesn't already serve LAX-ICN. It seems like a no brainer.
As for routing Asia traffic via SEA, there's a limit to that as the local O&D market is much smaller than the likes of LAX (or SFO for that matter). So, SEA is fine for connecting traffic to main Asian centers. But some other routes are not as good a fit. HKG maybe one of those, Manila is another and I wouldn't be surprised if that service is out of LAX as well. Lots of demand in that region and it's a logical hub route.
Does DL still have NW’s dormant fifth freedom rights from Tokyo to Singapore? I didn’t think the 35Ks had the range for direct service to Singapore from the US with a standard passenger load.
They wouldn't be able to get slots from HND so this would be a non-starter.
SEA-SIN, factoring in airspace closures, would be about 8500 miles or so... just barely within the operational range of the 35K.
Of course, DL could take a page from UA's playbook and set up a scissor hub in Guam :)
I'm a bit confused as to how you came up with 8500 miles is that statute miles or nautical miles? SEA-SIN is 7013 NM which is in fact shorter than SFO-SIN which is 7340 NM. Meanwhile the A350-1000 limit is 9000 NM nearly 2000 NM more than SEA-SIN. Even with Russian Airspace being off limits to US airlines SEA-SIN is well within the range limits of the A350-1000 if Delta were to launch SIN from...
I'm a bit confused as to how you came up with 8500 miles is that statute miles or nautical miles? SEA-SIN is 7013 NM which is in fact shorter than SFO-SIN which is 7340 NM. Meanwhile the A350-1000 limit is 9000 NM nearly 2000 NM more than SEA-SIN. Even with Russian Airspace being off limits to US airlines SEA-SIN is well within the range limits of the A350-1000 if Delta were to launch SIN from SEA and put the A35K on the route.
And if the rumors are true about the layout on Delta's upcoming A35Ks supposedly they will have less than 320 total seats they will have one of the lowest densities of any A35K in the sky.
The reason for the delivery delay on Delta's 35Ks is because they will have the same fuel system as QF will have on their Sunrise 35Ks which are designed to fly 20 hours but with about 250 passengers.
DL will have about 60 more passengers but DL's 35Ks will still have 18+ hours of range which is more than enough to do any route from LAX or SEA to anywhere along the Pacific Rim w/...
The reason for the delivery delay on Delta's 35Ks is because they will have the same fuel system as QF will have on their Sunrise 35Ks which are designed to fly 20 hours but with about 250 passengers.
DL will have about 60 more passengers but DL's 35Ks will still have 18+ hours of range which is more than enough to do any route from LAX or SEA to anywhere along the Pacific Rim w/ a healthy amount of cargo.
DL's ATL-DEL route w/ Russian airspace restrictions will be over 17 hours.
The DL 35Ks will be the most capable in the US carrier fleet and some of the most capable and longest range in the world.
Thanks for letting us know about the ATL-DEL route & the capabilities of Delta's 35K.
Many people from the subcontinent East & West are excited for that route and fondly recall the Atlanta-Mumbai route and the New York JFK-Mumbai one as well.
I just wanted to ask, if you don't mind: did you used to work for Delta or something? You have the most amount of details and knowledge when it comes to it, I...
Thanks for letting us know about the ATL-DEL route & the capabilities of Delta's 35K.
Many people from the subcontinent East & West are excited for that route and fondly recall the Atlanta-Mumbai route and the New York JFK-Mumbai one as well.
I just wanted to ask, if you don't mind: did you used to work for Delta or something? You have the most amount of details and knowledge when it comes to it, I haven't found it anywhere else on these public forums, especially your dynamic comparisons with the other American carriers based on stats and data.
"The reason for the delivery delay on Delta's 35Ks is because they will have the same fuel system as QF will have on their Sunrise 35Ks which are designed to fly 20 hours but with about 250 passengers."
You're assuming that. You don't know that.
Mostly because Airbus themselves haven't clarified whether they intend to standardize A350-1000 production on the "Project Sunrise" aircraft, AND ALSO because Delta has not clarified which weight variant they plan...
"The reason for the delivery delay on Delta's 35Ks is because they will have the same fuel system as QF will have on their Sunrise 35Ks which are designed to fly 20 hours but with about 250 passengers."
You're assuming that. You don't know that.
Mostly because Airbus themselves haven't clarified whether they intend to standardize A350-1000 production on the "Project Sunrise" aircraft, AND ALSO because Delta has not clarified which weight variant they plan to select, with the sunrise build only being applicable to the 322 metric tonne variant.
Rajesh,
the performance capabilities of Airbus aircraft are fairly well known. Anyone with a decent knowledge of aircraft performance can read that data and see how the aircraft can be used.
DL's longest route in terms of flight time often runs over 17 hours in the northern hemisphere winter - JNB to ATL. Even early A350s have the range.
immortal,
And Airbus has been delivering 35Ks for 10 years; if you look at...
Rajesh,
the performance capabilities of Airbus aircraft are fairly well known. Anyone with a decent knowledge of aircraft performance can read that data and see how the aircraft can be used.
DL's longest route in terms of flight time often runs over 17 hours in the northern hemisphere winter - JNB to ATL. Even early A350s have the range.
immortal,
And Airbus has been delivering 35Ks for 10 years; if you look at the production line, most of the 35K deliveries have been deferred because Airbus is dramatically improving the range of the 35K and many airlines are waiting for the range enhancements before taking delivery of any more 35Ks. DL ordered its 35Ks after the Sunrise aircraft and knowing that Airbus would incorporate (either as standard or an option) the enhanced fuel system into non-Sunrise 35Ks just as the latest 359s are more capable than the 359ULH aircraft that SQ used (and still do) on JFK/EWR to SIN which are the world's longest routes.
It doesn't take any secret information to figure out what Airbus and DL are doing. Airbus simply would not have developed the Sunrise fuel system enhancements just for 20 hour airplanes and QF wouldn't have paid the price to have that "exclusivity" of an airplane.
DL will simply add about 60 more seats over Sunrise and cut the range that QF can get out of Sunrise by about 1 1/2 hours.
If DL wanted to fly ATL-DEL, they could do it now on a 359 but the 35K will have better economics and the ability to carry sufficient cargo which the 359 will struggle to do for a flight of that length.
Just wait a few more weeks and months and you will see that DL's 35Ks will be doing routes that no other US carrier can do.
Remember that DL was the only US carrier that operated the 777-200LR even though AA and UA both operate much larger 777 fleets.
DL isn't going to do ULH just because it can but there are many ULH routes that make sense and DL will do them with the best plane for that type of flying which is the latest 35K
"if you look at the production line, most of the 35K deliveries have been deferred because Airbus is dramatically improving the range of the 35K"
The range improvements primarily came from the N.P.S. build (for both models) where the -1000 saw far more physical changes than the -900, and the addition of the 319 metric tonne weight variant. That's now been available for years, and has nothing to do with any airline's specific current delays.
..."if you look at the production line, most of the 35K deliveries have been deferred because Airbus is dramatically improving the range of the 35K"
The range improvements primarily came from the N.P.S. build (for both models) where the -1000 saw far more physical changes than the -900, and the addition of the 319 metric tonne weight variant. That's now been available for years, and has nothing to do with any airline's specific current delays.
"DL ordered its 35Ks after the Sunrise aircraft and knowing that Airbus would incorporate (either as standard or an option) the enhanced fuel system into non-Sunrise 35Ks "
Sure, but once again: Airbus has in not indicated whether or not they will standardize A350-1000 production on the Sunrise aircraft or offer it as a separate sub-variant.
For you to attribute any delivery delay to Delta, to that, is nothing but PURE SPECULATION ON YOUR PART.
UAL utilizes B787-9 for non-stop SFO-SIN route. Delta can definitely operate a slightly shorter SEA-SIN route using an Airbus A350, a plane which has slightly longer range than B787-9.
Not just "slightly longer." DL is one of the few airlines who operates the A359 at 283t. At similar payload density and sea level, that gives it ~3hrs more flight time than UA's 789, even the low-density hi-J version they're rolling out.
DL could...
Not just "slightly longer." DL is one of the few airlines who operates the A359 at 283t. At similar payload density and sea level, that gives it ~3hrs more flight time than UA's 789, even the low-density hi-J version they're rolling out.
DL could use it from anywhere on the West coast to Singapore, and max out on passengers, and still have another 6-8 tonnes for cargo to spare. That variant's capabilities are leagues above anything UA currently has in its fleet.
Delta still has a large in-house contact center in Singapore.
Would be good news for the workers there who can then non-rev again from home on their “own” airline.
I thought they closed the Singapore call center?
It’s still there, at the 14th floor of Singpost centre near Paya Lebar.
I don't get a hat tip for constantly mentioning Manila all these years?! lol j/k
Manila will be from LAX with their new A35Ks and they still have the rights, they're just waiting for their desired slot time.
Hopefully I'll get a hap tip if/when they eventually start service lol :p
I have been saying this all and more would come.
DL was the largest carrier across the Pacific for years as a result of the NW acquisition.
But NW lost money and DL tried to restructure its network including moving its NRT-US services to HND and its connecting traffic to ICN.
UA took over as the largest airline across the Pacific but just broke even for the years pre covid.
Covid happened, KE has...
I have been saying this all and more would come.
DL was the largest carrier across the Pacific for years as a result of the NW acquisition.
But NW lost money and DL tried to restructure its network including moving its NRT-US services to HND and its connecting traffic to ICN.
UA took over as the largest airline across the Pacific but just broke even for the years pre covid.
Covid happened, KE has had to work through its merger and DL is waiting for its A350-1000s which will be the most capable and longest range aircraft in the US carrier fleet.
So, yes, DL fly these routes and more.
and DL has consistently been more profitable per ASM than UA even at TPAC half the size.
“But NW lost money.”
Both companies did a pretty great job losing money the year they merged. Northwest was in a stronger position than Delta when the merger closed (due to them coming out of bankruptcy earlier). Lastly, the Delta we all know today was shaped by an ex-Northwest CEO.
Just checked with my retired father who worked in NW Corp. Finance during the Nyrop era and later ones. He says NW consistently made high gross margins and profits on the Asian and intra-asia operations, enough to offset domestic operation's hiccups. NW "owned" that market and its customer base. DL pissed it all away and let UA take it all IMO.
Tim, any chance of some of these routes to be ATL based?
Despite the fixation some have with Northwest, they were pretty weak in the big coastal markets which is precisely where DL is strong. I expect most of DL’s TPAC growth will be from its coastal hubs over the next five years.
I mean United is more profitable than any US airline in the actual core business of flying airplanes. So it must be doing something right. Delta's superior profitability is overwhelmingly driven by the Amex deal, not flying airplanes.
As Miranda Priestly would say, “Groundbreaking.”
American falls further and further behind, unfortunately.
Would be even more interesting to see DL bring back the intra-Asia flights but that would be insane given how conservative DL is now.
Delta I bet will fly from Tokyo to Manila and Singapore.
Hahaha