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?
In this post:
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.
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.”
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.
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?
I know this blog hates ICN, but the vast majority of people on planes are flying economy, and the economy experience on KE and through ICN is just as good as SG/SIN. In general, DL and KE flights to ICN have an inch more of pitch and width in Y than AA or UA. Yes, people notice this. But, let's back up for a big-picture view: countries the size of Korea generally do not support...
I know this blog hates ICN, but the vast majority of people on planes are flying economy, and the economy experience on KE and through ICN is just as good as SG/SIN. In general, DL and KE flights to ICN have an inch more of pitch and width in Y than AA or UA. Yes, people notice this. But, let's back up for a big-picture view: countries the size of Korea generally do not support more than one full-service carrier. In the age of ULCCs, there just isn't enough market for both OZ and KE.
and the bottom line is that the best service in SE Asia or even Taiwan means nothing if there isn't the capacity or routes to support large scale connections throughout E. Asia.
Tokyo is not growing but is a hub for US carrier JVs.
There are no joint ventures involving airlines in any other E. Asia countries that can viably connect TPAC traffic.
ICN has growth potential and the market is now consolidated around...
and the bottom line is that the best service in SE Asia or even Taiwan means nothing if there isn't the capacity or routes to support large scale connections throughout E. Asia.
Tokyo is not growing but is a hub for US carrier JVs.
There are no joint ventures involving airlines in any other E. Asia countries that can viably connect TPAC traffic.
ICN has growth potential and the market is now consolidated around the DL-KE JV and the government on both sides believe there is adequate competition in the local market.
The next step is adding OZ capacity to the DL-KE JV during the two year transition when OZ is required to continue operating. Doing that will trigger requirements from DL to add more flights of its own in order to maintain balance in the DL-KE JV.
The fact that AA and UA have an interline agreement with KE does not mean KE will give AA and UA good connecting fares through a Special Prorate Agreement (SPA). In fact, even AA and UA have interline agreement with each other, but except for IRROPS, they will not generally ticket customers on the other airline, save for full-fare tickets. I don't think @Lucky has a valid argument here, though I agree with most of the rest of the article.
Look at other markets and regions and there is a JV that controls a large market share. ....
The Korean Air - Delta venture is just the Skyteam version of the JAL-American joint venture and ANA-United joint venture. There's no issue with it, Delta just couldn't find a Japanese Skyteam member.
There was a multi-year anti-trust review conducted by 13 nations plus the EU. As for Korea-US competition, the market isn't just Open Skies but fairly open for slots.
The way things are going politically in South Korea I could see a drop in travel there this year and next. Their current president has been impeached, and is awaiting trial. Depending on the outcome of the trial they may be facing martial law again. There is no telling what, if anything, North Korea might do if South Korea descends into chaos but it would certainly affect discretionary travel to the ROK. Japan and Vietnam...
The way things are going politically in South Korea I could see a drop in travel there this year and next. Their current president has been impeached, and is awaiting trial. Depending on the outcome of the trial they may be facing martial law again. There is no telling what, if anything, North Korea might do if South Korea descends into chaos but it would certainly affect discretionary travel to the ROK. Japan and Vietnam might see an increase in traffic if the problems in South Korea continue.
step back from the cliff. S. Korea has a functioning democracy.
More NK missiles have been pointed at Japan than SK
Now the wise TD, this is your area. Comparing irrelevant fluff.
How many missiles have been pointed at Russia compared to NK missiles pointing anywhere.
So if your fluff of missiles relate to democracy.
According to TD fluff, Russia, being a huge missile target, has the most functioning democracy.
Which we all know the facts, lol.
Maybe I should step back from the cliff, I wouldn’t want to fall into the pit of arrogance and ignorance.
Tim is a frail person, uses words without actual knowledge...I don't wish bad things for him...but he brings it upon himself. He won't change...but we can by ignoring his immaturity.
children, not mature, intelligent adults deal with facts and reality.
now, deal w/ what was stated about the fragility of S. Korea and provide actual evidence.
I am sure you aren't a S. Korean but there are unbiased CURRENT news sources that show that they have a functioning democracy.
and for someone changing planes at ICN, none of it matters.
when you have data to back up your statements, you can speak... otherwise you waste bandwidth
Their currency is at a 15 low against the dollar. Their forecasted GDP growth for 2025 has been reduced by half, to a little over 1%, their impeached president cannot attend his own trial for fear of being arrested or shot and our incoming president, in his prior term, threatened to pull our troops out of the country and they share a border with North Korea who has become emboldened due to its support for Russia in its war with Ukraine. Those are facts.
Agreed with Tim on this one, I think South Korea is going to be fine. Yoon and Han will both be held to account by the legislature, and Korea will elect a new president. Yoon has already been stripped of his powers, even if a handful of army and the Korean version of the Secret Service are still protecting him in his compound. He has no actual power anymore. Yoon's loons adopting all the American "stop the steal" BS isn't going to save his Presidency.
@Ben, speaking of Enilria, he did a post on Delta's poorest performing routes by RASM in 2024.
I think it's a very interesting analysis and most notably shows some interesting trends, lots of weak routes from not just SEA, but also BOS, MSP, and LAX.
Doesn't need to be a Delta specific article, but could be an interesting discussion piece!
enilira, just like CF, doesn't have access to international fare data. He can only "see" the domestic prorated fares even if part of an international itinerary. his complete failure was because he didn't know his limitations which at least CF knows.
And Ben doesn't do data. He is alot about qualitative comparisons. Fluff and that kind of stuff.
and even to your point, don't you miss "your airline" could lose all the money at SEA...
enilira, just like CF, doesn't have access to international fare data. He can only "see" the domestic prorated fares even if part of an international itinerary. his complete failure was because he didn't know his limitations which at least CF knows.
And Ben doesn't do data. He is alot about qualitative comparisons. Fluff and that kind of stuff.
and even to your point, don't you miss "your airline" could lose all the money at SEA and BOS and LAX and NYC that everyone thinks they lose and still be the most profitable airline in the USA.
When you and others deal with where every other airline actually loses money - not just by conjecture - then it MIGHT be time to talk about DL's supposed revenue underperformance at SEA.
btw, AS' average domestic fares will fall as they start NRT and ICN service and they prorate fares to domestic segments as DL has done.
you clearly have no clue about which you speak.
I didn't say anything about Delta's overall profitability, just that their lowest RASM routes are commonly from these competitive hubs as well as MSP.
You're the only one extrapolating from that analysis, not me.
you clearly are not capable of understanding that if you are carrying international prorated data when you don't have the international piece is not comparable to other carriers including AS, which up until this time does not have any joint ventures or international longhaul flights of its own.
And you stilll haven't answered the question as to how DL can supposedly lose so much money in its coastal hubs and still end up as the...
you clearly are not capable of understanding that if you are carrying international prorated data when you don't have the international piece is not comparable to other carriers including AS, which up until this time does not have any joint ventures or international longhaul flights of its own.
And you stilll haven't answered the question as to how DL can supposedly lose so much money in its coastal hubs and still end up as the most profitable US airline.
Just tell us where AA, UA, and all the rest lose money - which means their revenues far underperform DL - and then we can talk about DL's revenue underperformance.
and don't you dare use the lame excuse that DL gouges the ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC local markets given that those are heavily connecting markets - the UA fan kids tell us there is no local market there compared to UA's superior hubs - and DOT data actually shows that UA's local fares in ATL, DTW, MSP, SLC are in line with other airline hubs.
Why do I need to answer questions that I didn't make statements on?
you need to at least have some idea of the data and questions that need to be asked. You clearly don't.
This incessant assertion that DL has to have some flaw - or many flaws - in its networks comes from people that can't accept that ALL airlines have more profitable parts of their network but DL STILL manages to be the most profitable US airline.
When you and your ilk start dealing w/...
you need to at least have some idea of the data and questions that need to be asked. You clearly don't.
This incessant assertion that DL has to have some flaw - or many flaws - in its networks comes from people that can't accept that ALL airlines have more profitable parts of their network but DL STILL manages to be the most profitable US airline.
When you and your ilk start dealing w/ where AA, UA and the rest slip on the banana with their networks, then your discussion will make some sense.
Not Tim ignoring where Delta says its profits come from...
hint hint: it isn't Seattle. It's the four core monopoly hubs. Read your own dogma, tim
as usual, Julie, you manipulate the truth because you can't stand reality.
Delta has said that it gets the MAJORITY of its profits from ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC.
That does not mean any hub loses money and it also does not mean they have monopoly hubs any more than IAD, IAH, EWR, MIA, CLT etc are monopoly hubs for AA and UA.
And, using your logic, you can't or won't answer the question of...
as usual, Julie, you manipulate the truth because you can't stand reality.
Delta has said that it gets the MAJORITY of its profits from ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC.
That does not mean any hub loses money and it also does not mean they have monopoly hubs any more than IAD, IAH, EWR, MIA, CLT etc are monopoly hubs for AA and UA.
And, using your logic, you can't or won't answer the question of how DL managed to assembly a portfolio of 4 super profitable hubs that are capable of supporting 4 "dog hubs" as you and others think BOS, LGA/JFK, LAX and SEA are for DL but AA and UA weren't able to come up with something at least as good in the same 50 years of deregulation that DL has had.
As long as you and others make stupid statements, you will have to deal w/ the consequences of your failed logic - which is that, if you really believe what you write, then DL has simply outsmarted its competitors.
and, if DL has done that with ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC, then they are going to do the same w/ their international partners, including KE at ICN.
ICN for DL/KE just might well turn into an Asian version of ATL with its super size and profits.
Again, Tim. Read.
That's what Delta says. Not what I said. And per your tragically ignorant attempt to say the four laggard hubs aren't supported by the four monopoly hubs where the profits come from (per delta), why don't you find us something recent from Delta about the coastal hubs driving profits. You won't find that. And your attempts to find random ways to distract from the topic, are just that and obvious, distractions...
Again, Tim. Read.
That's what Delta says. Not what I said. And per your tragically ignorant attempt to say the four laggard hubs aren't supported by the four monopoly hubs where the profits come from (per delta), why don't you find us something recent from Delta about the coastal hubs driving profits. You won't find that. And your attempts to find random ways to distract from the topic, are just that and obvious, distractions when you don't know what to say.
You accuse others of saying stupid things when they're quoting Delta. Feel free to combat ANYTHING I wrote with something delta said, not something you want them to say.
Facts first, Tim. Not your opinions or dreams.
Delta NEVER has used the word monopoly.
You do.
Delta also has not said that any of its hubs lose money.
That doesn't mean that the MAJORITY of DL's profits don't come from ATL, DTW, MSP, and SLC.
what you can't stand to admit is that AA and UA haven't figured out how to make the profits DL does from 4 hubs so that they can keep opening new hubs.
Tell us how many all-new...
Delta NEVER has used the word monopoly.
You do.
Delta also has not said that any of its hubs lose money.
That doesn't mean that the MAJORITY of DL's profits don't come from ATL, DTW, MSP, and SLC.
what you can't stand to admit is that AA and UA haven't figured out how to make the profits DL does from 4 hubs so that they can keep opening new hubs.
Tell us how many all-new hubs AA and UA have opened since deregulation.
AA and UA have flat-out blown it in terms of their network strategies, AA esp.
DL has figured out how to build strong, profitable core hubs AND grow its network with new hubs, something UA and esp. AA hasn't figured out how to do.
THAT is really what has you looking for every opportunity to find fault w/ DL
Again
Delta says profits come from the four monopoly core hubs
Feel free to prove delta wrong, Timmy
I’m excited to see you quote delta in your nonsensical quest
Here ya go
This isn’t tough, tim
It just requires you to acknowledge what delta says
Not hard
But again, tim
Feel free to show where delta calls their coastal hubs as profit machines
They call their core monopoly hubs their source of profits even though you hate it
we can chase this subthread onto the 99th page if you want to.
Delta doesn't have monopoly hubs.
They, like AA, UA and WN have hubs where they have the majority of the market share.
DL has said that it gets the MAJORITY Of its profits from ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC. that doesn't mean its 4 coastal hubs lose money or that ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC are monopolies - a word or...
we can chase this subthread onto the 99th page if you want to.
Delta doesn't have monopoly hubs.
They, like AA, UA and WN have hubs where they have the majority of the market share.
DL has said that it gets the MAJORITY Of its profits from ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC. that doesn't mean its 4 coastal hubs lose money or that ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC are monopolies - a word or its singular that no airline will use.
the real question which you refuse to answer is how DL manages to generate such high profits with 4 super profitable hubs and 4 "dog" hubs, the ability to keep adding hubs (AUS is coming), and yet AA and WN doesn't generate profit margins on a system level as good as DL does even in DL's coastal hubs while UA does not generate margins in any global region as high as DL does and UA has not managed to build any new hubs, even though it trails DL and AA in domestic revenue by a pretty long shot.
Not powerful enough!
i thought we were putting an end to this
It was never about Tim in the first place. People just love to troll and these people are obsessed. They are arguably more of the problem rather than Tim himself.
Articles would be filled with these impersonators and trolls, and the dude hadn't even showed up.
it was also never about Ben following up on his mandates.
The frauds were going to test Ben.
When these types of threads get deleted. we will know Ben is serious.
Everything seems to show that Ben's New Years resolutions didn't make it to the end of week 2.
Yeah, I agree. I thought we're ending the fake Tim Dunn but the original Dim Tunn gets to stay.
The Swiss analogy is not at all persuasive. There are many reasonable 1-stop options for traveling to CH while avoiding the A* monopoly.
That is simply not true for New Zealand. It’s obvious that the JV is bilking consumers when you see the high fares despite how outdated NZ’s J product and FF program are.
Korea is somewhere in between. It would be a non-issue if China flights weren’t so restricted but currently economy flights are quite expensive, ex-West Coast
Also, Switzerland is less than 10 million people and South Korea has over 50. So, the nonstops from Switzerland to the US may be almost all Swiss/United (except for jfk), but if you're not flying to NY/Chicago/Miami/SF/LA/Vegas, then you'll have to connect somewhere. AF and BA fly to Geneva enough to operate their own lounge there (that's the only BA Lounge on the continent, AF also has lounges in Frankfurt and Munich). For that matter,...
Also, Switzerland is less than 10 million people and South Korea has over 50. So, the nonstops from Switzerland to the US may be almost all Swiss/United (except for jfk), but if you're not flying to NY/Chicago/Miami/SF/LA/Vegas, then you'll have to connect somewhere. AF and BA fly to Geneva enough to operate their own lounge there (that's the only BA Lounge on the continent, AF also has lounges in Frankfurt and Munich). For that matter, Geneva-ZRH is either a connecting flight, or a 3-hour train ride, and the only nonstop to the US from GVA is jfk. The Italian-speaking Swiss can just as easily fly out of Milan. So, it's not comparable.
New Zealand may be more of a monopoly, but is also about 5 million people, so it's also 1/10 the size of the Korean market.
Actually UA flies from GVA to both IAD and EWR.
Outside of ICN, DL/KE has no competitive advantage to any of the premium business destinations in Asia - TPE, HKG, SIN, TYO, PVG, PEK. Any US -> Asia pax are snapped up by UA via SFO, while any Asia -> US pax are snapped up by the local asian airline (CX, NH, JL, BR, CI, JX, SQ - all of which are generally considered better than KE). What's left is a bunch of secondary and...
Outside of ICN, DL/KE has no competitive advantage to any of the premium business destinations in Asia - TPE, HKG, SIN, TYO, PVG, PEK. Any US -> Asia pax are snapped up by UA via SFO, while any Asia -> US pax are snapped up by the local asian airline (CX, NH, JL, BR, CI, JX, SQ - all of which are generally considered better than KE). What's left is a bunch of secondary and tertiary cities in China and southeast asia, and the traffic there being low yield VFR or tourism.
So Tim, you can brag as much as you want about the expansion opps at ICN that arent available or attractive at NRT, but none of that really matters when it comes to the routes and pax that makes the most money. This is also not to mention DL/KE competing with the Taiwanese airlines and CX for that same traffic. I wouldn't be surprised if DL/KE eventually grows to have the lowest yield / margin with the highest traffic volume tpac - a consolation prize compared to UA's strength in Asia.
Btw - you love to bring up how UA's tpac margins are worse than DL's, but it's pretty obvious that this is because of their overexposure to the south pacific, and not weakness in their US-Asia routes. I would bet serious money that if you isolated just US-Asia, UA outperforms DL on profitability.
Feel free to compare UA's size in the S. Pacific to its N. Pacific routes for the summer.
UA is pretty small to the S. Pacific compared to its size over the N. Pacific.
And if the S. Pacific loses that much money, why do they fly it?
and if UA makes all of its money to HKG, SIN, TPE MNL and China, then it is because they subsidize NRT.
It is because...
Feel free to compare UA's size in the S. Pacific to its N. Pacific routes for the summer.
UA is pretty small to the S. Pacific compared to its size over the N. Pacific.
And if the S. Pacific loses that much money, why do they fly it?
and if UA makes all of its money to HKG, SIN, TPE MNL and China, then it is because they subsidize NRT.
It is because AA has an even higher percentage of its network at NRT than UA does that they lose money and will until they close the station and do not operate a JV with JL involving NRT.
and all of DL's TPAC flights except for HNL-HND operate on new generation aircraft while UA use the 777-200ER and -300ER on many flights with the added cost of tens of thousands of dollars in extra cost per flight segment.
DL's network and aircraft give it higher profitability including by not flying to airports that AA and UA used to get Open Skies and JVs at the expense of the local market.
You do realize that Delta is the largest foreign carrier at HND just like it was at NRT and then NW at HND before NRT opened?
there clearly aren't enough straws for you to grasp at today, Tim
"You do realize that Delta is the largest foreign carrier at HND"
Can you back that up? I don't have data newer than 2023, but back then, China Eastern was the largest foreign carrier at Haneda, not Delta.
Tim, with DL unable to make HND-PDX work, and not even attempting to fly HND-JFK, they have the same number of routes to the US as United.
UA operated flights to LAX, SFO, EWR, ORD, and IAD. They also have flights to GUM.
So UA is larger than DL in HND, and by far larger than DL in Tokyo, when factoring in NRT.
And before you say NRT doesn’t count, which of course it does, why does UA fly to both HND and NRT from three US mainland international gateways, plus GUM.
Mark,
Delta operates to 6 US gateways and has for months.
UA added GUM so now is tied in total number of flights even if GUM is not in the US - but a US territory.
and UA operates on HND-GUM while many of DL's mainline US flights operate on 350s that seat as many or more than UA's average aircraft size at HND.
feel free to provide the QUARTERLY number of seats on...
Mark,
Delta operates to 6 US gateways and has for months.
UA added GUM so now is tied in total number of flights even if GUM is not in the US - but a US territory.
and UA operates on HND-GUM while many of DL's mainline US flights operate on 350s that seat as many or more than UA's average aircraft size at HND.
feel free to provide the QUARTERLY number of seats on DL and UA at HND but I'm going to stick by my statement that DL is the largest foreign carrier at HND
and of course NRT counts... just for Tokyo as a low-fare local Tokyo market, connecting to the rest of Asia hub.
The difference is that DL chose to connect at ICN which has a real local market that is worth way more than NRT.
btw, how are the bookings on that new NRT-Mongolia flight? Am I right that schedules haven't even been loaded?
Was that flight just UA flatulence that was meant to convince Ben and the sheeple of UA's TPAC magnificence when, in fact, UA hasn't even figured out how to load schedules MONTHS after the route announcements?
This will be great for passengers when KA and DL finally get their new long haul models. It’s been took long.
Radio Moscow spokesman Tim Dunn loses her claim to respect when she refers to someone else flapping their gums.
Delta has no excuse for being weak across the Pacific. Northwest used to be the big guy across the Pacific. Delta was stupid to retire the great name and livery, in place of a silly name with no recognition over the Pacific.
JV should be mostly limited to frequent flyer cooperation, lounges, but not fares.
Korean is not first rate. Neither is Delta.
If I were to advise airlines, the big 3 airline names would be United, TWa, and Pan Am (Northwest, if Delta could not get naming rights for Pan Am). Delta did have rights to use Pan Am for 1 year for transatlantic flights
Not that I agree with Tim Dunn but this comment is just ridiculously exaggerated.
Here are the top airline brands by brand value and brand awareness:
Brand value
As of March 2024, the top five airline brands by brand value are:
Delta Air Lines: The most valuable airline brand in the world, with a brand value of $10.8 billion
American Airlines: With a brand value of $10.2 billion
United Airlines: With a brand value of $8.7 billion
Emirates: The only non-US brand in...
Here are the top airline brands by brand value and brand awareness:
Brand value
As of March 2024, the top five airline brands by brand value are:
Delta Air Lines: The most valuable airline brand in the world, with a brand value of $10.8 billion
American Airlines: With a brand value of $10.2 billion
United Airlines: With a brand value of $8.7 billion
Emirates: The only non-US brand in the top five, with a brand value of $6.6 billion
Southwest Airlines: With a brand value of $5.4 billion
nowhere in that list is PA, TW, or NW.
and AA has greater global brand equity than UA.
Brand value is a fluff, not a fact Tim.
Some company just doing some fluff math and come up with a number.
DL brand value according to Derek maybe a few million dollars.
DL brand value according to Tim Dunn is probably $30 decillon or $30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
Fluffy Tim likes to fluff.
It is absolutely no surprise that you and others don’t like the fact that Delta is in the industry leadership position.
It is precisely because so many can’t stand seeing Delta at the top and their company is not that there is a whole airline chat industry of which Ben gladly takes a piece
Hi Tim,
How much on the DL balance sheet is factored as "Goodwill"...that's measured on the actual balance sheet as part of the valuation and the only one that matters. The "brand value" is related, but at time of an acquisition? So can you verify that you're actually reporting Goodwill v Brand Value?
Meanwhile, yes, its good win for DL...
Okay Tim, I'll do you a favor... just looked it up...DL's Goodwill and Intangible valuation is much much higher than you quoted, and twice as high as UA, with AA trailing. Grrrr...you were wrong because you didn't reference their balance sheet high enough...but DL is miles ahead in this metric....hmmmphh!
short hair,
goodwill and brand value is far from the same thing.
the fact that you launch into a "told you so" when you don't even know what you are talking about shows why I have so much fun replying to people like you.
do a little research on brand value. It ain't a deep, dark secret.
and it ain't goodwill
@Tim who are you responding to? I thought you proclaim to be a financial analyst? If you're trying to say what it seems, you have no place to claim that title...
...and geez, I was even trying to support you.
Just wondering Tim, what premium airline bans its JV partner business passengers into their business class lounge over both oceans? What premium airline even refused to accrue elite qualifying points / miles when flying with their alliance cofounder and one of the most important JV partners? Just wondering.
Hi Tim,
"It is absolutely no surprise that you and others don’t like the fact that Delta is in the industry leadership position."
We actually don't care. We don't fly a particular airline because it's market share.
"It is precisely because so many can’t stand seeing Delta at the top and their company is not that there is a whole airline chat industry of which Ben gladly takes a piece"
We actually can't stand people...
Hi Tim,
"It is absolutely no surprise that you and others don’t like the fact that Delta is in the industry leadership position."
We actually don't care. We don't fly a particular airline because it's market share.
"It is precisely because so many can’t stand seeing Delta at the top and their company is not that there is a whole airline chat industry of which Ben gladly takes a piece"
We actually can't stand people telling us what airline should be 'premium' especially not based on profitability or earnings call.
And we don't need a narcissist full of fluff to repeat that to us everyday.
I’ve rarely seen such an example of “childish, uneducated and frankly extremely dumb comments” as this one about brand value. Absolutely hilarious.
again, UA comes in 3rd even among US carriers.
We didn't expect you to like it.
Doesn't matter.
UA is still #3 and DL is still #1.
If you don't like conversations like this, cut off people like derek that launched a discussion that was going to backfire if he had a clue in the world what he was talking about.
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.
Tim Dunn routinely flaps his gums about things he doesn’t understand or doesn’t have complete data on.
"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."
The threat to consumer is significant.
Consumers are people who can vote in the swing state of Pennsylvania, not actually the people who uses the material.
It's election year Tim.
They...
Tim Dunn routinely flaps his gums about things he doesn’t understand or doesn’t have complete data on.
"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."
The threat to consumer is significant.
Consumers are people who can vote in the swing state of Pennsylvania, not actually the people who uses the material.
It's election year Tim.
They do whatever it takes to get reelected not actually what's actually a threat to consumers.
No go back to flap your gums with fluff.
The US steel merger was blocked after the election which the Dems lost?
Explain that Dr poliSci
You are actually correct, the block was held up even after the election. However, fwiw, Trump also said he would block the merger. So it's not like the outcome is any different.
WOW Tim,
"blocked after the election"
When it isn't Delta, you seem to lose your magical power of fluff.
Biden has already made it clear to block the merger months before the elections. He was just waiting for the committee to make a recommendation (aka the political scapegoat). The committee knowing it's the scapegoat tries to distance itself from the election by releasing it's recommendation which is even expected before the election to say...
WOW Tim,
"blocked after the election"
When it isn't Delta, you seem to lose your magical power of fluff.
Biden has already made it clear to block the merger months before the elections. He was just waiting for the committee to make a recommendation (aka the political scapegoat). The committee knowing it's the scapegoat tries to distance itself from the election by releasing it's recommendation which is even expected before the election to say "no comment" anyways.
Ergo, Biden blocked the deal to win voters from Trump who is already against the deal. The whole "blocked after the election which the Dems lost?" was just a smart political cover up to distance the decision from political motivations to avoid lawsuits that is about to happen.
Tim, the 'after the election' fluff is just like how you fluff about Delta dominates HND.
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.
touché
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.
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.
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.
feel free, then, to tell us why DL got 85% of the TPAC profits that UA got across the Pacific even though UA flew 2X as much capacity in the most recent quarter.
My friend, NRT is the hub that has been reduced to low fares but AA and UA can't walk away from it because it is the basis of their TPAC JVs. and it is the only JV hub that has expansion capability,...
feel free, then, to tell us why DL got 85% of the TPAC profits that UA got across the Pacific even though UA flew 2X as much capacity in the most recent quarter.
My friend, NRT is the hub that has been reduced to low fares but AA and UA can't walk away from it because it is the basis of their TPAC JVs. and it is the only JV hub that has expansion capability, even if the local NRT market continues to be siphoned off by HND flights.
When the Japanese said that DL could not move its NRT hub to HND, DL outsmarted AA and UA by walking away from NRT, partnering with KE which already had a larger TPAC hub than JL or NH had at NRT, and then DL sat quietly while the Korean government orchestrated the merger of KE and OZ.
Isn't NRT supposed to be the 'low-cost' airport of Tokyo? Wouldn't it be fairer to compare against HND instead?
Yes, Timmy Deez is of course obfuscating the issue as usual
bluboi
no, because HND is not Open Skies and is not even designed to be a connecting airport for US-TPAC flights. NRT is designed to be a connecting airport and it is that- at the expense of the local market which uses HND.
S. Korea segregated longhaul international flights to ICN and left GMP with domestic and Japanese flights.
Japan made its choice and the JV partners pay the price not just in their...
bluboi
no, because HND is not Open Skies and is not even designed to be a connecting airport for US-TPAC flights. NRT is designed to be a connecting airport and it is that- at the expense of the local market which uses HND.
S. Korea segregated longhaul international flights to ICN and left GMP with domestic and Japanese flights.
Japan made its choice and the JV partners pay the price not just in their size across the Pacific under the JV but also in access to the local Tokyo market.
DL (and KE because Japan is part of the DL-KE JV) hub at an airport with a viable and valuable local market, unlike NRT.
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.
This article should've put a huge smile on the faces of Proximanova & ORD.
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!
@ 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.
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.
@ 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.
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'.
“Second tier” doesn’t mean “second rate”. The items like poor lounges do move it down below the very best Asian carriers.
But the post does say 'second-rate'
For Asian carriers.
KE economy, definitely among the top.
KR premium, definitely second tier.
The top East Asian carriers don't have that great of lounges either.
The ANA business class lounges are more packed than a Delta SkyClub, shower wait times are often several hours. BR's Infinity is a crowded mess with average food offerings.
I would not use lounges as a differentiating factor tbh.
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.
The Qantas JV actually is one of the most signficant.
UA had to grow capacity so much to match QF to the point where they bled money and it became unsustainable, so they shrank a lot this winter.
Australians don't have any other full service, home competitors across the Pacific for US travel. South Pacific fares are absurdly priced, especially when compared to Asia.
Tim Dunn, will be absolutely delighted …. one thinks?