Delta & Korean Air Joint Venture: Is It Getting Too Powerful?

Delta & Korean Air Joint Venture: Is It Getting Too Powerful?

17

Korean Air’s takeover of Asiana was recently finalized, creating a new mega-airline in South Korea. There’s no denying that Delta is a big winner with this development, since Delta owns a stake in Korean Air, and also has a transpacific joint venture with the airline.

With Korean Air getting even bigger across the Pacific, is the Delta and Korean Air joint venture becoming too powerful, though?

Delta & Korean Air joint venture will have 81% market share

Patreon account Enilria makes an interesting argument for the Delta and Korean Air joint venture becoming too powerful. He points out that with the acquisition of Asiana, the Delta and Korean Air joint venture will control 81% of the market between the United States and South Korea.

For those not familiar with the concept of a joint venture, the idea is that it grants airlines anti-trust immunity, and allows them to coordinate fares and schedules. It’s the equivalent of eliminating a competitor in a market. It’s worth emphasizing that all of the “big three” US carriers have transpacific joint ventures — American has Japan Airlines, United has All Nippon Airways, and Delta has Korean Air.

Delta & Korean Air have a joint venture

Enilria is shocked that the Department of Transportation (DOT) endorsed the Korean Air and Asiana merger without extracting any concessions, even though other regulatory bodies did negotiate concessions as part of the merger, in order to encourage competition.

Delta has of course hyped it plans to expand its options to and from Seoul Incheon, and how the Korean Air and Asiana merger will continue to push its margins across the Pacific up (in other words, the joint venture believes it can raise fares when it has more market dominance).

Enilria concludes that he doesn’t like the idea of joint ventures in general, that Delta has control of the US government through its lobbying, and that this is the most egregious example he has seen of a joint venture allowing monopolistic behavior:

“The DOJ has endorsed Delta and Korean being able to collude to 81% control the U.S. to South Korea market with no limitation, even in markets where Asiana and the Delta JV will no longer compete.”

Delta & Korean Air have a lot of pricing power in the market

Why I don’t see this joint venture as being a huge deal

I have a slightly different take than the above. Is one joint venture controlling 81% of market share between two countries ideal? Absolutely not, ideally no party would control that much market share. However, a few points…

First of all, this is hardly the only country pair where one joint venture controls a vast majority of the capacity. For example, how much of the US to Switzerland market is controlled by the Star Alliance transatlantic joint venture (United, SWISS, etc.)? How much of the US to New Zealand market is controlled by the United and Air New Zealand joint venture? It’s not ideal, no doubt, but it does happen.

Here’s the biggest issue, though. I’m not sure exactly what concessions the DOT should’ve asked for. The United States and South Korea have an Open Skies agreement, so there’s nothing preventing American or United (or other airlines) from adding more flights between the two countries. The way I view it:

  • If fares between the US and South Korea skyrocket, we’ll see more airlines add flights between the two countries, since obviously the economics would make sense
  • American and United both have an interline agreement with Korean Air, so it’s not like passengers can’t book connecting itineraries involving travel on Korean Air and Delta’s competitors
  • Passengers always have the option of connecting when traveling between the United States and South Korea, for lower fares; it’s not like nonstop flights between the United States and South Korea are the only way to travel between the countries
  • Ultimately a large part of the need for this strong joint venture is Delta’s weakness across the Pacific otherwise, especially in comparison to United; it’s not even about the US to South Korea market, but rather about the larger US to Asia market, as Delta wants to route everyone through Seoul Incheon

No matter how much Delta expands this, I just don’t find this to be a terribly compelling joint venture for travel beyond just the United States and South Korea. Most people don’t want to fly US airlines to Asia. Korean Air is a second-rate Asian carrier, and Seoul Incheon is just an okay hub.

In terms of the overall competitive landscape between the US and Asia, I’d still much rather be a United flyer, and be able to travel nonstop to so many more destinations.

Now, of course we can start a separate debate about whether joint ventures should be allowed at all. Do they sometimes get too powerful? Absolutely. But I also think they’ve done a lot for global connectivity. It’s also important to acknowledge that the airline industry is low margin and volatile, and ultimately mergers and joint ventures have contributed to the preservation of a lot of capacity, as we would’ve likely otherwise seen a lot more liquidation.

Delta wants to route everyone through Seoul Incheon

Bottom line

With Korean Air having acquired Asiana, the Delta and Korean Air joint venture has an even more dominant market position between the United States and South Korea. However, I’m not sure there’s anything that could’ve practically been done to prevent that. Delta otherwise isn’t very strong across the Pacific, so this allows Delta to continue to build a strategy there, routing everything through Seoul Incheon.

It’ll be interesting to see how this all evolves, and how the “new” Korean Air allocates capacity, especially with former Asiana jets.

What do you make of the Delta & Korean Air joint venture, and its power?

Conversations (17)
The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.
Type your response here.

If you'd like to participate in the discussion, please adhere to our commenting guidelines. Anyone can comment, and your email address will not be published. Register to save your unique username and earn special OMAAT reputation perks!

  1. Tim Dunn Diamond

    Enilria routinely flaps his gums about things he doesn’t understand or doesn’t have complete data on.
    Does he think the DOT didn’t look at DL and KE’s position in the S. Korea – US market as a part of the JV which has been in place for a number of years?
    Does he not know that the US and S. Korea were one of the earliest US-Asia Open Skies partners?
    Does he...

    Enilria routinely flaps his gums about things he doesn’t understand or doesn’t have complete data on.
    Does he think the DOT didn’t look at DL and KE’s position in the S. Korea – US market as a part of the JV which has been in place for a number of years?
    Does he not know that the US and S. Korea were one of the earliest US-Asia Open Skies partners?
    Does he not realize that the KE/OZ merger deal has been in process for years?

    Doesn’t really matter what he thinks. The DOJ not only approved the KE/OZ merger but added no restrictions on the DL-KE JV.
    The Biden DOJ just struck down Nippon Steel’s attempted acquisition of US Steel. They can and will act if there is a threat to consumers.

    Ben is right on this aspect of the deal. The issue comes down to whether there is pricing abuse of the local market. DL and KL control by far the majority of the US-Netherlands market as does AF/DL of France, UA/LH Group of every one of the LH Group home countries. If the DOJ sees abuse of the local market in a JV, they don’t renew the JV. Not a single US-foreign carrier JV has been ended because of pricing abuse of the local market.
    Not only has Air Premia added almost as many flights as OZ operates but AS is adding ICN. There is strong competition in the US-S. Korea local market.
    The real point of the DL-KE JV is to create an unmatched hub in Asia. Tokyo flight growth is capped because of Japan’s two airport policy which strictly limits HND capacity while NRT yields are so much lower than HND, providing no incentive for legacy carriers to grow – and they have not.
    The US does not have Open Skies with China or Hong Kong. No US carrier has a JV with a Taiwanese carrier even though the US has Open Skies with Taiwan.
    ICN is the largest TPAC hub and has enormous capacity to grow. AA and UA and every Asian airline would love to have what DL has with KE and now OZ. By freeing up the duplicate flights and routes which KE and OZ, KE will be able to grow ICN even further.
    Of course, enilria is going to squeal because DL has outstrategized its competitors again.

    And DL’s TPAC revenue is half the size of UA’s. and yet DL continues to make more profits per ASM than UA across the Pacific. UA has said aggressive growth across the Pacific is over. Only if Russia airspace restrictions end will UA restart the Eastern US to E. Asia routes it has cancelled – if it can get the aircraft.
    DL received more new widebody aircraft in 2024 than all of the other US airlines combined. AA and UA are scheduled to each receive at least a half dozen 787s in 2025 while DL should still see another dozen.
    Ben is right that DL is the big winner in the KE/OZ merger. Unlike many foreign mergers, S. Korea has made sure there is room for new competitors and they continue to add flights.
    This is a good merger and DL/KE will operate the largest and most expansive JV across the Pacific regardless of what "childish, uneducated and frankly extremely dumb" comments come from someone's computer.

  2. A220HubandSpoke Diamond

    Note that the DoT, who are pro-consumer by law, has a MONTHS long approval process for joint ventures, and that the airline's themselves write a healthily long explanation to the DoT on why they should have one.

    If you ever have the spare time, I highly recommend going through one of them.

    Ultimately, just spending 5 seconds looking at market share is a basic, childish, uneducated, and frankly extremely dumb way to "analyse" something. Rant over.

  3. A220HubandSpoke Diamond

    A reminder to everyone that South Korea has marginal to borderline trash yields.

    It really says a lot that such a large market doesn't already have more flights.

    1. Tim Dunn Diamond

      feel free to provide the average fares for US to Tokyo (both airports) and S. Korea.

      In fact, ICN to US commands higher average fares than NRT now.

    2. A220HubandSpoke Diamond

      There are many, many possible sources to back up that claim.

      That aside, United Airlines said that at an employee townhall back when OZ was still a partner.

    3. DaBluBoi Guest

      Isn't NRT supposed to be the 'low-cost' airport of Tokyo? Wouldn't it be fairer to compare against HND instead?

  4. D3Kingg Guest

    Yes this is too powerful. I am going to Seoul in 2 weeks. If my American flight is delayed on mechanical or canceled I will make them reroute me on KE. D1 as last resort.

  5. Mason Guest

    This article should've put a huge smile on the faces of Proximanova & ORD.

  6. Throwawayname Guest

    I agree with the thrust of the post, '81% of direct flights between the USA and South Korea doesn't mean anything when a good proportion of the passengers will have further connections on either/both ends of the long flights.

    However, are you seriously suggesting that KE is a 'second-rate' carrier on the basis of having taken one recent flight with them and not being enamoured with the service?

    Do you think that there's literally...

    I agree with the thrust of the post, '81% of direct flights between the USA and South Korea doesn't mean anything when a good proportion of the passengers will have further connections on either/both ends of the long flights.

    However, are you seriously suggesting that KE is a 'second-rate' carrier on the basis of having taken one recent flight with them and not being enamoured with the service?

    Do you think that there's literally anyone who would prioritise systemic things like hard product, operational reliability, or IROPS handling over the 'warmth' of the service which is dependent on one individual at a time (particularly when that person has to deliver it in a foreign language)?

    I've only flown a handful of short flights with KE in recent years, so I don't have a lot of experience with their products, but they got me there on time, didn't lose my luggage, offered me a personalised greeting as an E+ member, were very proactive about keeping me updated on a slight delay the one time there was one, had very orderly boarding processes in place, and generally oozed competence and professionalism throughout.

    Using the same logic as you, I could say that SQ is a worse airline than KE, as their lounge at SIN couldn't find a way to speak with the gate of my flight (on another *A member) about a delay. Of course, I don't think it works like that!

    1. Ben Schlappig OMAAT

      @ Throwawayname -- I don't think Korean Air is to the same level as Asia's top carriers, and that's not because my impression of the "warmth" of a single employee, or based on a single flight. Korean Air's hub lounges aren't good at all, and the carrier's premium soft product just doesn't compare to other top carriers in the region, in my opinion. That's just my opinion, and I'm not saying others should feel the...

      @ Throwawayname -- I don't think Korean Air is to the same level as Asia's top carriers, and that's not because my impression of the "warmth" of a single employee, or based on a single flight. Korean Air's hub lounges aren't good at all, and the carrier's premium soft product just doesn't compare to other top carriers in the region, in my opinion. That's just my opinion, and I'm not saying others should feel the same way I do. I've taken dozens of flights on the airlines over the years, and have always been left with a similar impression.

    2. NS Diamond

      I think more appropriate tier would be the 1.5th. KAL is too good to be the second tier, and not enough to be the top tier.

      I could agree that their premium class products aren't the greatest, but they actually are one of the greatest in the region when in comes to the economy class. And the focus of this JV should be on the economy class as well... in my opinion.

    3. Ben Schlappig OMAAT

      @ NS -- Totally fair, and when I said second tier, my intent was simply to say that it's not among the top carriers in the region. Yes, of course it's still a solid airline, it's just not quite to the same level as some others. You're also right that Korean Air's economy product is excellent.

    4. Throwawayname Guest

      That's fair enough, and I fully agree that their lounges aren't impressive- in fact, the domestic one at GMP must have the most spartan catering of any lounge I've ever visited (they only have still water, coffee machine, and packaged biscuits and crackers, I don't think they've even got soft drink cans). But I don't see a somewhat underwhelming soft product in premium classes as being sufficient to relegate an airline that does pretty much...

      That's fair enough, and I fully agree that their lounges aren't impressive- in fact, the domestic one at GMP must have the most spartan catering of any lounge I've ever visited (they only have still water, coffee machine, and packaged biscuits and crackers, I don't think they've even got soft drink cans). But I don't see a somewhat underwhelming soft product in premium classes as being sufficient to relegate an airline that does pretty much everything else right to 'second-rate'.

    5. Ace Guest

      “Second tier” doesn’t mean “second rate”. The items like poor lounges do move it down below the very best Asian carriers.

  7. Mike C Diamond

    Like you, Ben, while country to country joint ventures may be anti-competitive, I think most of them exist in larger regional markets where there is ample competition. So the country to country near-monopolies are less of an issue. Do Switzerland to the US, Aotearoa to the US or indeed the Korea market matter all that much? Or does the Qantas-American JV make any difference? I can find fares to the US on all three alliances...

    Like you, Ben, while country to country joint ventures may be anti-competitive, I think most of them exist in larger regional markets where there is ample competition. So the country to country near-monopolies are less of an issue. Do Switzerland to the US, Aotearoa to the US or indeed the Korea market matter all that much? Or does the Qantas-American JV make any difference? I can find fares to the US on all three alliances from Australia, some non-stop, some with connections. Qantas flies from Auckland to JFK.

    Much of the US premium market to Korea will be people who are tied to one of the Legacy 3 US carriers' FF programme so they will tend to choose flights with those airlines, even if there are connections en route. Destinations beyond Incheon, all bets are off. JAL, Cathay, United, ANA, EVA, Singapore, or Delta? Even if your Flying is Blue, there is also China Airlines.

  8. AeroB13a Guest

    Tim Dunn, will be absolutely delighted …. one thinks?

Featured Comments Most helpful comments ( as chosen by the OMAAT community ).

The comments on this page have not been provided, reviewed, approved or otherwise endorsed by any advertiser, and it is not an advertiser's responsibility to ensure posts and/or questions are answered.

Tim Dunn Diamond

feel free to provide the average fares for US to Tokyo (both airports) and S. Korea. In fact, ICN to US commands higher average fares than NRT now.

1
Tim Dunn Diamond

touché

1
Throwawayname Guest

I agree with the thrust of the post, '81% of direct flights between the USA and South Korea doesn't mean anything when a good proportion of the passengers will have further connections on either/both ends of the long flights. However, are you seriously suggesting that KE is a 'second-rate' carrier on the basis of having taken one recent flight with them and not being enamoured with the service? Do you think that there's literally anyone who would prioritise systemic things like hard product, operational reliability, or IROPS handling over the 'warmth' of the service which is dependent on one individual at a time (particularly when that person has to deliver it in a foreign language)? I've only flown a handful of short flights with KE in recent years, so I don't have a lot of experience with their products, but they got me there on time, didn't lose my luggage, offered me a personalised greeting as an E+ member, were very proactive about keeping me updated on a slight delay the one time there was one, had very orderly boarding processes in place, and generally oozed competence and professionalism throughout. Using the same logic as you, I could say that SQ is a worse airline than KE, as their lounge at SIN couldn't find a way to speak with the gate of my flight (on another *A member) about a delay. Of course, I don't think it works like that!

1
Meet Ben Schlappig, OMAAT Founder
5,163,247 Miles Traveled

32,614,600 Words Written

35,045 Posts Published

Keep Exploring OMAAT
  • February 2, 2024
  • Ben Schlappig
10
How To Access Delta Sky Clubs