In November 2020, plans were announced for a massive airline merger, between Korea’s two largest airlines. This has been one of the most drawn out airline mergers ever, though there’s finally a major update. Over four years after the deal was first announced, the transaction has been finalized, and it has major implications for aviation in Asia and beyond.
In this post:
Basics of Korean Air’s acquisition of Asiana Airlines
Shortly after the start of the pandemic, SkyTeam’s Korean Air announced plans to acquire Star Alliance’s Asiana Airlines, in a deal that’s valued at $1.6 billion. At the time, Korean Air was the world’s 18th largest airline, and the plan was for the combined airline to become the 10th largest in the world.
Here are the financial terms of the takeover that were announced at the time, which were complicated due to the ownership structures of the two companies:
- Korean Air planned to raise ~$2.25 billion via rights offerings
- Of that money, ~$1.35 billion would be spent to buy new shares to be sold to Asiana, and the balance would be spent on Asiana perpetual bonds
- Korean Development Bank, the main creditor of Asiana Airlines, would inject ~$722 million into Hanjin KAL, through a rights offering and convertible bonds; in other words, both former parent companies would still have a stake in the combined airline
In many ways, the merger at the time was inevitable due to the impacts of the pandemic. However, arguably there was long term merit to it beyond that.
The truth is that the financial situation at Korean Air and Asiana Airlines was problematic since long before the pandemic. South Korea has a population of around 50 million people, and the country has two full service airlines, making it one of the few countries of its size with two full service airlines.
That doesn’t even begin to address all the competition in South Korea from both foreign airlines and low cost carriers. The deal was probably particularly beneficial for Asiana, which had been on the brink of collapse following the start of the pandemic. In September 2020, the airline received a cash injection from creditors, after the previous largest shareholder pulled out of a sale.
This delayed merger now has regulatory approval
As you’d expect, airline mergers don’t get approved overnight. When the merger was first announced, the plan was for the deal to be finalized by the second half of 2021, so the expectation was that it would take around a year.
Everything ended up being way more drawn out than that. The reason is because the deal needed approval from 14 different regulatory authorities, and this was really slow to happen. In recent weeks there was finally some major progress on that front, as all 14 regulators have now signed off on the deal, allowing it to close. For what it’s worth, the United States was the last country that signed off on the deal.
In the process of getting approval from so many regulators, Korean Air and Asiana have had to make quite some concessions. This ranges from selling Asiana’s cargo business, to transferring routes to Europe to domestic competitor T’Way Air, and much more.
What to expect from the new Korean Air
With this merger now being complete, what should we expect from the combined airline? First of all, while the two brands will continue to operate separately for the time being, the long term plan is for Korean Air to be the surviving brand, and for Asiana to disappear.
For that matter, the two carriers also have low cost subsidiaries — Korean Air has Jin Air, while Asiana has Air Busan and Air Seoul. The plan is for Jin Air to absorb both Air Busan and Air Seoul, making that quite a large carrier. Jin Air will likely then be bigger than Korea’s two other major low cost carriers, Jeju Air and T’Way Air.
When it comes to commercial arrangements, Korean Air’s partnerships are expected to survive, and not Asiana’s. This means that the combined airline will be part of SkyTeam, and Asiana will leave Star Alliance. Keep in mind that Korean Air and Delta have a joint venture, and cooperate very closely.
So this merger is great news for Delta, given that Korean Air’s network out of Seoul Incheon will get even bigger, and Delta is big in funneling its Asia traffic through that airport.
When it comes to passenger fleets, Korean Air currently has a fleet of 135 aircraft, while Asiana has a fleet of 69 aircraft. Between the mainline fleets of the two airlines, there are currently A220-300s, A321s, A321neos, A330-300s, A350-900s, A380s, 737 MAX 8s, 737-800s, 737-900s, 747-8s, 777-200s, 777-300s, 787-9s, and 787-10s.
As you can see, there’s a lot of complexity there. A couple of thoughts:
- Korean Air is undergoing quite the fleet modernization, as it’s currently taking delivery of A321neos, 737 MAX 8s, and 787-10s, and has A350-900s, A350-1000s, and 777-9s, on order
- For those of us who are fans of A380s and 747-8s, Korean Air’s plan is to retire A380s in the coming years, and keep the 747-8s until the early 2030s
Bottom line
Over four years ago, Korean Air and Asiana Airlines announced plans to merge, creating a new mega-airline. While this was initially supposed to happen within a year, there were major delays due to regulatory approval. Fortunately progress was made in recent times, and the deal has now been finalized.
This is good news for SkyTeam and bad news for Star Alliance, and probably bad news for consumers on the whole, given that a competitor is being eliminated. Then again, for a country of Korea’s size, two full service airlines may be a bit of an overkill.
The plan is for the full integration between airlines to happen over the next two years. It’s going to be really interesting to see how that works out, as it’s quite a project. Since Korean Air has a major fleet modernization planned, I imagine we’ll see older aircraft retired pretty aggressively in the coming years.
What do you make of Korean Air’s acquisition of Asiana?
Meanwhile Taiwan has 3 airlines
as I said would be happening
aeroroutes
@aeroroutes
Delta intends to add A350 service between Seattle and Seoul, as well as Taipei from 29MAR25, replacing A330-900neo. Tokyo Haneda is also to be served by A350 from 23MAY25
5:00 PM · Dec 12, 2024
·
From SEA, the 359 can fly the entire Pacific Rim.
This was all in motion before AS made its announcement earlier this week
Are these the 40 seat D1 configurations?
until the schedules are loaded, it won't be known but DL is receiving enough new A359s this year and into early 2025 that they can do this without the modded ex-Latam aircraft.
between new delivery 359s in 2024 and 2025 and ex-Latam converted aircraft, DL will have half of the 359 fleet in the new configuration by the end of 2025 and their new deliveries are heavily weighted toward the first part of the...
until the schedules are loaded, it won't be known but DL is receiving enough new A359s this year and into early 2025 that they can do this without the modded ex-Latam aircraft.
between new delivery 359s in 2024 and 2025 and ex-Latam converted aircraft, DL will have half of the 359 fleet in the new configuration by the end of 2025 and their new deliveries are heavily weighted toward the first part of the year in 2025 which is why I have said DL has lots of long-range capacity coming online.
As usual, there is more interest in the incessant DL vs UA comparisons that anything else on OMAAT.
As for the discussions about ITA joining Star w/ LH’s acquisition, the appropriate comparison is with SK being partially acquired by AF/KL. CPH is simply a far better location as a secondary JV hub than Italy ever could be. Further, UA, like DL, is larger than ITA in Italy during the summer at least so there is...
As usual, there is more interest in the incessant DL vs UA comparisons that anything else on OMAAT.
As for the discussions about ITA joining Star w/ LH’s acquisition, the appropriate comparison is with SK being partially acquired by AF/KL. CPH is simply a far better location as a secondary JV hub than Italy ever could be. Further, UA, like DL, is larger than ITA in Italy during the summer at least so there is much less incentive to share that revenue while the opposite dynamic is true with SK which needs to have a year round US partner which DL has been to AZ.
And given that carriers on the Iberian peninsula remain in flux, AF/KL/DL/VS could end up with an even larger portion of European aviation if the Air Europa acquisition moves forward by AF/KL. The AF/DL/KL/VS JV is the largest TATL JV and that will likely be maintained regardless of what the other two JVs do.
As for the Pacific, Ben is absolutely right that the KE/OZ merger is a gamechanger that will shake up Asian aviation. As for the whole discussion about DL vs UA
1. There are far too many people that assume that DL is content to remain at its current size which has been about half the size of UA. DL was the largest carrier across the Pacific, a region which has been very difficult for US carriers for years, at the time of the NW merger. Shortly after DL acquired NW’s heavily Tokyo based Asian network, DL quickly started to try to turn the inconsistently profitable operation around. DL was thrown a curve ball w/ Japan’s decision to re-open HND to longhaul international flights again, a result of the inability to fully grow NRT because of the decision of a single farmer not to sell his property which was right where NRT needed to put another runway.
2. DL refocused HND on the local Tokyo market and shifted its connecting focus to ICN w/ KE which is a founding member of SkyTeam w/ DL.
3. OZ was not strong going into covid and with many things, covid doomed OZ. KE was essentially asked to take over OZ by the Korean development board and waited for years for the whole approval process, all of which required DL to move very slowly in regrowing the Pacific by adding very little to ICN that could disrupt the approval process as well as any markets that can be a part of the DL-KE JV; just as with the AA/JL and UA/NH JVs, there are some markets outside of the home countries that are part of the JVs.
4. Whether DL grows becomes larger than UA is not the point – and I’m not sure anyone has stated that will happen with certainty. DL/KE does have enormous growth potential at ICN but also in other markets along the Pacific Rim, as well as in a lot of cities that will best work w/ connections, including S. Asia which can’t be served nonstop from the west coast as long as Russian airspace restrictions remain in place. Removing all of the duplicate KE/OZ flights will allow aircraft to be deployed for new banks of flights as well as new flights on existing banks.
5. Continually touting the size of UA’s SFO hub doesn’t prove one thing about the growth rate of DL or UA’s network. The simple fact is that UA’s Pacific network is far more heavily centered in one state – and one city – than DL’s is over the Pacific and either DL or UA is across the Atlantic. UA doesn’t concentrate so much of its TATL network in one city as much as it does over the Pacific and the reason is clearly Russian airspace restrictions and the 787’s capabilities. UA had a far more geographically disbursed network pre-covid than it does now. DL has 4 gateways that have access to two or more cities in E. Asia out of 6 total hubs and that will grow to 5 as soon as LAX gets a DL operated ICN flight while SLC and JFK will make DL’s 7th and 8th and those two cities will come as gateways to Asia. UA has TWO gateways with two or more destinations in E. Asia. And before someone jumps in and tries to include S. Asia and the Middle East, DL will return to both of those regions and likely with more gateways than UA or any other US carrier.
6. Fleet is a big part of the reason why DL’s GROWTH RATE over the Pacific will be higher than UA’s. UA still flies 777-200ERs and -300ERs while nearly DL’s entire TPAC network is operated on new generation aircraft. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to realize that DL has a profit advantage given that it uses a much higher percentage of new generation aircraft on flights where the different in engine technology amounts to a $15,000 to $30,000 difference in costs. And the A350 in either version is longer range with the -1000 promising to do flights which no other US carrier can do. The larger size and efficiency of the A350 will simply provide greater profitability; UA knows full well that it cannot. add capacity which isn’t profitable and that is very much tied to costs.
7. DL/KE’s growth RATE will simply be higher than UA’s and the depth of DL’s JV network will be more extensive than UA/NH’s. People love to argue about JVs when it works in their favor but the KE JV IS what will make the difference in DL’s size across the Pacific.
In other words, Delta will continue to be smaller than UA TPAC and only primarily focus on ICN.
Exactly that. He wrote all that say United owns Delta and always will in Asia :)
no, Jake. DL is about half the size of UA and a little smaller than KE's pre-merger size.
DL/KE/OZ combined is about the same size as UA/NH.
and, since DL's TPAC profits are nearly 2X as high as UA's, the chances are pretty high that the DL JV will be more profitable than the UA JV once KE moves to cut OZ's losses. They have 2 years that they have to maintain the OZ...
no, Jake. DL is about half the size of UA and a little smaller than KE's pre-merger size.
DL/KE/OZ combined is about the same size as UA/NH.
and, since DL's TPAC profits are nearly 2X as high as UA's, the chances are pretty high that the DL JV will be more profitable than the UA JV once KE moves to cut OZ's losses. They have 2 years that they have to maintain the OZ brand but that doesn't mean that can't start making changes in their operations now which I am certain will be announced in weeks.
You and others cling to UA's size as if it is some God-ordained right that can never be challenged.
Those of you that cling to size seem incapable of understanding or accepting that DL was the largest carrier across the Pacific a little over a decade ago and gave it up in order to build a more profitable platform for growth.
As much as you and others want to stop talking about profitability, UA is a for profit company just as DL is and UA has committed to reaching and perhaps surpassing DL in profits (that too is as up in the air as DL's size in Asia).
If UA can make money flying to Asia, DL can as well and probably will be more profitable and have more potential to grow with more capable and more efficient aircraft, larger JV hubs, and more hubs in the US that can and do support wide-scale TPAC operations.
I commend what UA has accomplished but some of you are simply unable to accept that DL's decade of regrouping and its partnership with KE that has spent its own time in strategic purgatory waiting for the merger to be approved will end up with multiple strategic advantages that simply cannot be matched, let alone overcome by UA or its JV partners.
"since DL's TPAC profits are nearly 2X as high as UA's, the chances are pretty high that the DL JV will be more profitable than the UA JV once KE moves to cut OZ's losses."
You keep saying this with no proof. Happy to be proven wrong, but show me on earning statements, financial disclosure, or quotes directly from the mouth of the C-suite, that proves this.
"Those of you that cling to size...
"since DL's TPAC profits are nearly 2X as high as UA's, the chances are pretty high that the DL JV will be more profitable than the UA JV once KE moves to cut OZ's losses."
You keep saying this with no proof. Happy to be proven wrong, but show me on earning statements, financial disclosure, or quotes directly from the mouth of the C-suite, that proves this.
"Those of you that cling to size seem incapable of understanding or accepting that DL was the largest carrier across the Pacific a little over a decade ago and gave it up in order to build a more profitable platform for growth."
That's an optimistic way to look at the truth, the alternative was NW/DL relied too heavily on the NRT hub, failed to invest in TPAC nonstop markets from their hubs or develop a West Coast hub, flying big gas guzzlers, with no alternative options to TPAC operations, and got their ass handed to them. Tried desperately to keep what they has and solidify a JV with one of the preferred carriers in the region (JL) only to be rebuffed and took the boobie prize KE.
DTWNYC.
as for profitability by global region, you need only look at the DOT's profitability by global region report to see that DL has earned significantly more PER ASM on a consistent basis and at times has earned more than n UA on an absolute basis in many quarters, even though UA is roughly twice DLs size in the Pacific.
Of course, there are always people that argue that those numbers are all...
DTWNYC.
as for profitability by global region, you need only look at the DOT's profitability by global region report to see that DL has earned significantly more PER ASM on a consistent basis and at times has earned more than n UA on an absolute basis in many quarters, even though UA is roughly twice DLs size in the Pacific.
Of course, there are always people that argue that those numbers are all made up and accounting is fungible and yet not a single person has ever said how the profits should be distributed if the DOT's numbers are wrong. They also can't explain where AA or UA manages to make less money than DL or worse, lose money, given that DL makes more on the bottom line.
I have also repeatedly said that UA CAN generate profits as high as DL but hasn't reached that point because they are far more likely to engage in loss-making market share grabs. That is why DL managed to make money over the Pacific in the 2017-2019 while UA operated its larger TPAC system on a breakeven basis while AA lost money flying the Pacific and still does.
UA did poorly in 2023 and so far in 2024 because of its aggressive TPAC expansion during the past winter, of which large chunks didn't make money. Not surprisingly, UA has cut alot of what didn't work which is why they don't fly 2 routes from LAX that they flew last year.
and looking in the rearview mirror is not and will not be the point. DL and KE are both better positioned to grow than UA and NH - as I have laid out multiple times already.
Tim,
"as for profitability by global region, you need only look at the DOT's profitability by global region report to see that DL has earned significantly more PER ASM on a consistent basis and at times has earned more than n UA on an absolute basis in many quarters, even though UA is roughly twice DLs size in the Pacific."
Can you point me to this report? I can't seem to find a report that...
Tim,
"as for profitability by global region, you need only look at the DOT's profitability by global region report to see that DL has earned significantly more PER ASM on a consistent basis and at times has earned more than n UA on an absolute basis in many quarters, even though UA is roughly twice DLs size in the Pacific."
Can you point me to this report? I can't seem to find a report that breaks down profitability by carrier by region. I only see ones like this:
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/dot.gov/files/2024-10/2024q2_Quarterly_Financial_Report_Majors.pdf
DL MIGHT be larger or smaller than UA on a standalone basis but there is a very high likelihood that DL/KE as a JV will be larger than UA and its JV partners in Asia.
and it is certain that DL will add more cities to Asia.
As much as you and others love to talk about UA dominating cities, you do realize that DL is the largest US airline at both HND...
DL MIGHT be larger or smaller than UA on a standalone basis but there is a very high likelihood that DL/KE as a JV will be larger than UA and its JV partners in Asia.
and it is certain that DL will add more cities to Asia.
As much as you and others love to talk about UA dominating cities, you do realize that DL is the largest US airline at both HND and ICN? If some people think that DL makes so much money at its core hubs of ATL, DTW, MSP, and SLC, why would they not deploy the same strategy in E. Asia by adding some token flights to HKG, SIN and more even while dominating the largest markets?
and DL could very well be flying A350-1000s deep into the Pacific Rim - since DL execs have said that will happen, well beyond the range of any UA aircraft and also with far greater cost efficiency than anything in UA's fleet.
DL measures strategies in decades. UA seizes opportunities each quarter.
I think alot of people will be surprised at how different DL will look in 5 years in Asia and how little upside UA has been able to find.
The reason why discussions like this are interesting is so that they can be revisited and see what actually took place.
Loser.
Despite not addressing anything I asked, I'll keep going.
"but there is a very high likelihood that DL/KE as a JV will be larger than UA and its JV partners in Asia."
How? Let's get specific. Seoul cannot support service alone outside the top 3 markets in the US (NYC/LAX/SFO/maybe LAS) on O&D alone. KE's entire network is predicated on 5/6th freedom connections. Historically lower yielding, to secondary markets in China (we all know how...
Despite not addressing anything I asked, I'll keep going.
"but there is a very high likelihood that DL/KE as a JV will be larger than UA and its JV partners in Asia."
How? Let's get specific. Seoul cannot support service alone outside the top 3 markets in the US (NYC/LAX/SFO/maybe LAS) on O&D alone. KE's entire network is predicated on 5/6th freedom connections. Historically lower yielding, to secondary markets in China (we all know how that's going) and SE Asia (MNL, SGN, BKK). They pretty much already fly from ICN to the major Asian markets. Plus you're limited on adding additional frequency given the TPAC flight timings. So you must be speculating that the growth will come from secondary US markets to ICN? Nonstop flights from the US bypassing ICN? Where is this growth coming from?
"As much as you and others love to talk about UA dominating cities, you do realize that DL is the largest US airline at both HND and ICN?"
So you can't have it both ways. If you include the JVs (which you always do in regards to DL/KE), then I can too. I can assure you that both NH/UA and JL/AA are astronomically bigger at HND than DL. As for ICN, again, who cares? If it wasn't for the JV with KE, I doubt DL would even be flying there.
"and DL could very well be flying A350-1000s deep into the Pacific Rim - since DL execs have said that will happen, well beyond the range of any UA aircraft and also with far greater cost efficiency than anything in UA's fleet."
Please list all the city pairs that DL will be flying (a very large jet BTW), that UA can't serve today from their hubs with their existing fleet of 787s and 777/77Ws? Perth? Jakarta? Colombo? I'll wait.
"DL measures strategies in decades. UA seizes opportunities each quarter. "
Strange, because that's what your shareholders measure you on. This is what we call kids, hyberbole
"I think alot of people will be surprised at how different DL will look in 5 years in Asia and how little upside UA has been able to find."
I suspect the relative ratio between UA and DL will remain the same as today.
"The reason why discussions like this are interesting is so that they can be revisited and see what actually took place."
I'll make you the crow pie myself
I'm grateful for the discussion but it would be nice if you would have the humility to accept that someone else might possibly be right.
yes, I did address profitability... You, just like others, don't like the answer so you say I haven't addressed it. Feel free to tell us where the DOT's numbers are wrong - and they come from each airline anyway - and how they should be corrected, respecting the bottom line...
I'm grateful for the discussion but it would be nice if you would have the humility to accept that someone else might possibly be right.
yes, I did address profitability... You, just like others, don't like the answer so you say I haven't addressed it. Feel free to tell us where the DOT's numbers are wrong - and they come from each airline anyway - and how they should be corrected, respecting the bottom line profit numbers which each of the airlines has provided.
The size of the Tokyo O&D market does not matter any more because it is a no growth market in terms of numbers of flights.
feel free to provide data showing that DL/KE gets lower value flow traffic than other hubs including via Tokyo. It is simply not true and you are making it up because you want to believe there is no more growth that US carriers can participate in.
ATL is the perfect example of a city that could support far less service if it wasn't a hub. DL built the world's largest hub because of flow traffic. CLT has an even higher percentage of flow traffic.
ICN simply can handle a lot of flow traffic that other hubs cannot because of its sheer size.
Between US-ICN and US-ICN-beyond traffic, there is enormous unlocked potential. To argue that UA can grow at SFO to any number of destinations but DL and KE can't from all over the country is beyond ludicrous.
and ICN will be the hub that will support secondary (non-US hub) TPAC service just as BA has done to LHR and AF/DL has done to CDG from cities like RDU and other cities.
No other city in Asia can support non-hub flights as ICN can and that will be coming providing cities like AUS a crack at TPAC service.
As for the 35K, it is clear that UA can't fly the 787 from LAX to SIN or EWR to BOM or EWR to anywhere outside of EWR and I can assure that DL will fly 35Ks and even some 359s on routes that are longer than how UA or AA use their 787s.
and as hard as it is for you to accept, DL will grow faster than UA and UA will find it much more difficult to grow, in part because its TPAC network is much more developed but also because its fleet will mean that the cost of new flights will be much higher even as DL has access to more of the country to Asia than UA.
I'd love to carry on the discussion if you are willing to admit that there are facts that are very much true even if you don't want to admit them.
btw, you do realize that UA execs specifically said that UA's growth rate will be slowing both across the Atlantic and Pacific while DL's execs have said its international growth will be accelerating?
Tim,
You are very Trumpy in your responses. You denigrate and deflect. But once again, I asked for specific examples, you provide nothing.
I asked you to point me to the DOT reports you're referencing, and instead of showing me, you question me bashing the data, which I didn't do since, I HAVEN'T SEEN IT!
I asked you to give me examples of city pairs that UA can't fly today with the hubs and airplanes...
Tim,
You are very Trumpy in your responses. You denigrate and deflect. But once again, I asked for specific examples, you provide nothing.
I asked you to point me to the DOT reports you're referencing, and instead of showing me, you question me bashing the data, which I didn't do since, I HAVEN'T SEEN IT!
I asked you to give me examples of city pairs that UA can't fly today with the hubs and airplanes they have, and yet again, talk in hyperbole about the superiority of the A350-1000, but can't back up your supposition with a single example.
For the umpteenth time, UA would be flying to EWR-BOM, DEL-SFO, ORD-DEL, with 777s today if it wasn't for the Russian/Iran/Afghanistan, Israel, Ukraine, overflight restrictions. They have the planes that can do it on property today. Yet you are speculating that somehow, the A350 has some incredible advantage that UA can't realize. 1) DL doesn't even have the damn plane, 2) you are assuming that DL can command a price premium that UA can't to overcome the economics of deviated flying. Again prove it!
And are you honestly suggesting that DL is going to 'replicate' the BA style expansion in the US with nonstops from secondary markets like RDU/AUS to ICN? Not a chance in hell. 8 hour Europe flights with same plane turn arounds, vs 12-14 hour flights which need at least 3 planes, is not the same.
Lastly, I worked in airline pricing/sales in APAC for many years. 5/6th freedom traffic are junk yields. Unfortunately, I can't prove it since it's not publicly available, but you don't deal in facts anyway.
If you worked in airline networks, then you know about the DOT's profitability by global region data. I didn't say anything about what YOU thought of it but I did say what others have said. If you know about the data, then you can reply to what it shows and the rebuttals which I have made if you don't like it.
Second, I can tell you right now that SQ overflies India on the way...
If you worked in airline networks, then you know about the DOT's profitability by global region data. I didn't say anything about what YOU thought of it but I did say what others have said. If you know about the data, then you can reply to what it shows and the rebuttals which I have made if you don't like it.
Second, I can tell you right now that SQ overflies India on the way from NYC to SIN with an A350 - and not even the most updated models. The A350 is simply a more capable aircraft even in the -900 version than the 787-9.
All 3 US global airlines follow the same airspace restrictions. UA has simply dropped most of its eastern US to E. Asia flying and shifted it to CA while DL flies DTW-PVG and ATL-ICN as well as JNB-ATL, all of which regularly exceed 17 hours IN THE AIR in the winter. AA and UA's DEL-NYC flights and UA's SFO-SIN flights hit that mark so clearly UA could do it if they wanted to but AA is making an even less dense version of the 787 in order to make DFW to Australia work.
You desperately want to believe that UA can and has taken up all of the high value traffic and all that will be left for DL and KE is bottom feeder trash.
DL gets average fares as good as UA does (and vice versa) around the world. To somehow think that DL will only grow by carrying low yielding connecting passengers is the height of arrogance and ignorance.
If UA can't or won't fly from the eastern US nonstop to Asia, are you telling us that they just don't compete in those markets because they think they have to connect you on the west coast while DL and KE can carry passengers nonstop from the eastern US to ICN and make a connection WITH THE SAME TOTAL FARE as UA does via Tokyo or via the west coast.
DL/KE simply do a better job of connecting the eastern US to Asia than AA or UA or its JV partners.
But in a world where you and others are convinced that UA sits on the top of a mountain and can't be touched, it is impossible for you to admit that DL has clear network strengths that it will continue to grow - in part because of its aircraft choices and partly because DL has long been much stronger in the eastern US.
I did NOT say that DL/KE will serve non-hub destinations in the US to the degree that UA has but ICN and KE/DL is the only hub that will support non-hub US carrier JV flying as AA/BA and AF/DL have done at LHR and CDG.
DL/KE will grow faster than UA and its JV partners across the Pacific and the lead which UA has established will shrink.
You can argue all you want but that is what will happen
Where do you get that United is slowing?
If you paid attention you might have read they will be doubling the amount of international flying out of IAD.
Also with ITA expect them to add more international flying to Italy. Most people don’t give AF about SAS and most passengers care about Italy. SAS manages to be even more vanilla than Delta
I wouldn’t expect Delta to add much more international than what...
Where do you get that United is slowing?
If you paid attention you might have read they will be doubling the amount of international flying out of IAD.
Also with ITA expect them to add more international flying to Italy. Most people don’t give AF about SAS and most passengers care about Italy. SAS manages to be even more vanilla than Delta
I wouldn’t expect Delta to add much more international than what it has now with those bases. The only noteworthy bases they have for major international are Atlanta and JFK so they will continue to be mainly domestic and never truly compare to United.
UA's own executives said they would be slowing their growth over the Atlantic in 2024, and guess what, that is exactly what they did.
for the 3rd quarter, UA's transatlantic ASMs were down 4% driven by a 40% reduction in capacity to India/the Middle East and Africa.
I love how you all love to tell me what I am getting wrong only for me to provide the actual quotes from UAL execs of...
UA's own executives said they would be slowing their growth over the Atlantic in 2024, and guess what, that is exactly what they did.
for the 3rd quarter, UA's transatlantic ASMs were down 4% driven by a 40% reduction in capacity to India/the Middle East and Africa.
I love how you all love to tell me what I am getting wrong only for me to provide the actual quotes from UAL execs of their intentions and the data that proves they carried out what they said they would.
UA execs have said they would be slowing their growth to Asia. DL said it would be accelerating its international growth including to Asia and including using the A350-1000s to fly deeper into Asia.
and yet you and others come back that DL will use the 35Ks to fly to CDG and AMS and that they won't grow their Asia/Pacific network, won't return to India and the Middle East while UAL will keep growing despite the fact that those conclusions are completely contrary to what execs at both companies are saying.
it doesn't really matter what you expect or think when your conclusions and statements are contrary to what company execs are saying and doing.
As for Europe, CPH is simply better located for a JV hub than Italy and DL and UA already have large operations to Italy which they see no need to share with anyone.
And since DL managed to add WIDEBODY routes to Europe from 5 hubs, all east of the Rockies, something UA did not do, it is clear that DL's growth to Europe in 2025 will far exceed UA's.
But let's throw in TATL when you can't win the discussion about TPAC so you can be shown to be wrong over both oceans.
UA's massive growth post covid was because it held onto its fleet of old, fuel INEFFICIENT aircraft. There are fewer opportunities for UA to grow its international network, they will do whatever growth they do from a higher cost base, while DL will be growing more efficiently and has more opportunities to grow across the Atlantic and Pacific.
The obvious answer there is LAX-SIN, as by UA's own admission, their 789s didn't have the uplift they were looking for, for consistent yearround service... and that's the longest ranged aircraft type that they've got, until if/when they take up their A350s.
Those two things have nothing to do with each other.
The Narita farmer's family came to an agreement with the prefectural government in...
Those two things have nothing to do with each other.
The Narita farmer's family came to an agreement with the prefectural government in 2002. The decision to expand Haneda's international capability came with the authorization for the 4th runway, in April 2005.
Officials had already known/agreed on expanding on NRT's runway capacity, 3yrs before the decision to expand HND's international capacity was made.
and yet NRT has not and will not reach the ability to grow as large as other international airports on top of the fact that HND is the primary domestic airport for Tokyo and the split airport setup meant that NRT and HND would have served two different functions... could have been like JFK vs LGA but is now more like LHR vs LGW or CDG vs ORY
Two thoughts: (1) Now the Delta-KAL JV dominates travel between the US and ROK. Our primary hope to keep fares low appears to be ROK, whose government blocked the planned devaluation of its frequent flyer program. The US was last to approve, dithered only to not ask for anything? (2) Korean aviation industry has deep ties to Boeing and now Airbus; they ate their dog food even when it made fleets complex.
Despite people saying ITA not being a good addition to the Star Alliance I strongly disagree. It will help United grow in Italy is my prediction.
With SFO to Milan to come and I’m guessing the huge expansion in IAD will include more expansion to Italy. It would be nice if United added more flights to Italy out of Boston, IAH and Denver during the summer as well.
I find it interesting people thinking Delta will ever be as large as United in terms of Asia flying.
SFO will has a huge Asian population and the most Asia flying, GUAM, and LAX are doing well for them which is why they are expanding flying at those bases.
What does Delta have as a powerhouse for Asia flying? lol MSP, Detroit, Boston, Salt Lake City :( Seattle they are weak in. I don’t...
I find it interesting people thinking Delta will ever be as large as United in terms of Asia flying.
SFO will has a huge Asian population and the most Asia flying, GUAM, and LAX are doing well for them which is why they are expanding flying at those bases.
What does Delta have as a powerhouse for Asia flying? lol MSP, Detroit, Boston, Salt Lake City :( Seattle they are weak in. I don’t think they will make LA work. Literally what hubs or bases because I don’t see it and I’m sure Delta knows that which is why they give the flying to partners
UA alone is as big as KE and DL combined in terms of TPAC ASMs. Delta will never be as big. Especially not South Pacific, where they lack any partners.
But I don't think it's necessary for them to become #1 TPAC nor does it seem like they want to themselves. SEA as a city is still one of the fastest growing large cities and is a good place to build up for the long...
UA alone is as big as KE and DL combined in terms of TPAC ASMs. Delta will never be as big. Especially not South Pacific, where they lack any partners.
But I don't think it's necessary for them to become #1 TPAC nor does it seem like they want to themselves. SEA as a city is still one of the fastest growing large cities and is a good place to build up for the long term. It will never be an SFO or LAX. But it can certainly try and match YVR.
Whether people like it or not after many years of investment, they have finally turned JFK around into a strong TATL operation. These things take time.
DL does very well with Asia at DTW. Korea Japan and Shanghai daily with a359. And, They kept a slot at Beijing if Russian airspace opens up. They get a lot of New England flyers that don’t want to drive to the coast for BOS or JFK.
DL does very well with Asia at DTW. Korea Japan and Shanghai daily with a359. And, They kept a slot at Beijing if Russian airspace opens up. They get a lot of New England flyers that don’t want to drive to the coast for BOS or JFK.
Ben, what are the concessions for slots, routes, ect.? You kind of just recycled your post from last week & changed the headline.
the reason why Ben didn't list the concessions from the US is because there are none of substance.
South Korea was one of the first Open Skies agreements that the US had in Asia.
AA and UA each serve ICN while AS' announcement yesterday proves that it is possible to gain access to ICN.
This merger took a long time but it was financially necessary and is one of the last airline deals that is a result of the damage from covid shutdown.
And, yes, it will shake up Asian aviation. KE and OZ had duplicate banks of flights to the same destination often within an hour of each other. Those duplicate flights will be gotten rid of and further banks of flights may be created.
ICN is...
This merger took a long time but it was financially necessary and is one of the last airline deals that is a result of the damage from covid shutdown.
And, yes, it will shake up Asian aviation. KE and OZ had duplicate banks of flights to the same destination often within an hour of each other. Those duplicate flights will be gotten rid of and further banks of flights may be created.
ICN is already working on a terminal expansion of Terminal 2 - where KE operates - that can essentially operate the entirety of KE and OZ's current operations. They are also planning another runway, one of the few major airports in the world that will add a runway.
ICN already has displaced Tokyo as the largest airport for connecting international traffic and will continue to grow to become the largest hub in Asia. S. Korea's geography gives it an advantage over everything else along the Pacific Rim. While China has aspirations of returning to global grandeur, they can't do that as long as there is a stalemate with the US and Canada which isn't likely to change. Tokyo's role in TPAC aviation will continue to fall as the dual competing international airport strategy limits the growth of both including because HND has physical growth limits which make it impossible to fully replace NRT with HND for connections.
The DL pilot contract requires that DL pilots get an equal share of the growth that KE gets in absorbing OZ which means that DL has to grow its TPAC ops. Some of that could come from adding new flights to E. Asia other than to ICN but not all destinations such as China are not part of the DL-KE JV.
The KE-OZ merger is a very big deal in Asian aviation and it will create a powerhouse not just with KE but also at ICN.
DL will benefit far more than any other US airline will with any other strategy in Asia.
This comment aged very poorly" to no one's surprise.
"So exactly who is saying that the US will give approval by the end of the year? Right now, without any kind of a hint at a source, I think it's the pixies who live in Ben's head. I wouldn't have published this until some kind of official notice from Washington came out."
Someone that thinks they live at ORD isn't known for their accuracy on anything.
Lucky, somewhat related to the article. You mentioned that South Korea with a population of 50M is one of the few countries that have 2 full service airlines. Would you know how the economics work for Taiwan with a population of ~2M and with 2.5 full service airlines (count Starlux as half along with EVA and CI)
Sorry, had a typo. 20M population for Taiwan, not 2M.
I was about to make the same comment about Taiwan. Thanks you did it. Taiwan is much smaller than South Korea in terms of population. UAE with a population of less than 10 million people too has two airlines Emirates and Etihad but they are based in different cities.
Several factors. BR/CI don't really have any domestic flights to manage. Compared to KE/OZ which still need to handle various domestic networks with high frequencies like PUS, CJU, GMP, etc.
Second, BR/CI have much smaller networks, which in this case is a good thing. They don't try to do too much, which allows them to focus on the profitable routes. Overall, the airline size is much more proportionate to the size of their population. BR/CI...
Several factors. BR/CI don't really have any domestic flights to manage. Compared to KE/OZ which still need to handle various domestic networks with high frequencies like PUS, CJU, GMP, etc.
Second, BR/CI have much smaller networks, which in this case is a good thing. They don't try to do too much, which allows them to focus on the profitable routes. Overall, the airline size is much more proportionate to the size of their population. BR/CI don't try and be as big as KE or ANA.
Third, culturally and language wise most Taiwanese are still ethnically Chinese and the reduction of language barrier allows them to carry mainland Chinese pax, Hong Kongers, and various Southeast Asian countries with large % of Chinese speaking residents like Singapore, Malaysia, etc.
Finally, you can agree or disagree, as this is subjective, but they simply have better service. Certainly better than KE/OZ imo.
BR/CI do have some domestic operations to outlying islands, though mostly handled by their subsidiaries B7/AE and definitely not at the scale of GMP-CJU/PUS.
Agree that CI/BR have a smaller and focused network in general.
I think another factor to consider that Taiwan doesn’t have a significant LCC competitor (Tigerair Taiwan is wholly owned by CI and act more like a leisure-focused subsidiary, mostly staying out of CI’s high yielding business markets). Unlike Korea...
BR/CI do have some domestic operations to outlying islands, though mostly handled by their subsidiaries B7/AE and definitely not at the scale of GMP-CJU/PUS.
Agree that CI/BR have a smaller and focused network in general.
I think another factor to consider that Taiwan doesn’t have a significant LCC competitor (Tigerair Taiwan is wholly owned by CI and act more like a leisure-focused subsidiary, mostly staying out of CI’s high yielding business markets). Unlike Korea where there are half a dozen LCCs that has eaten into KE/OZ’s marketshare over the past decade, especially in leisure markets.
The result of this is that CI/BR are able to command a significant fare premium for O/D traffic (especially ex-Taiwan) that KE/OZ doesn’t seem to be able to
feel free to provide the data to support that....
and the real reason why Taiwan is interesting is that US carriers have a much smaller part of the traffic scene than for just about any other E. Asian country.
The Taiwan market is hypercompetitive and works because China capacity is down - which also favors other countries but Taiwan even more so.
Three global carriers in Taiwan is not sustainable and something will change before long.
Taiwan has had two global carriers for a very long time, well before Starlux. Even now, Starlux is still only about a half-sized competitor in terms of fleet/network.
The reality is that the language/cultural aspect is huge. Sharing a common language is very important for VFR flights, especially with older family members.
People trust CI/BR to take care of elderly folk that don't speak English as opposed to UA.
Taiwanese carriers ultimately have a very...
Taiwan has had two global carriers for a very long time, well before Starlux. Even now, Starlux is still only about a half-sized competitor in terms of fleet/network.
The reality is that the language/cultural aspect is huge. Sharing a common language is very important for VFR flights, especially with older family members.
People trust CI/BR to take care of elderly folk that don't speak English as opposed to UA.
Taiwanese carriers ultimately have a very strong point of sale in Asia.
Delta 1 Everyone Else 0
You 1
The rest of us 0
Now go hide in your troll cage
“Shaking up aviation in Asia.”
Hardly. This merger will have very little impact across most of Asia. Shaking up aviation in Korea would be more like it.
I am going to miss Asiana... I used them to book soooo many Star Alliance flights back and forth to Europe for half of the competitors' rates.
RIP to Asiana Club. Probably the best FFP for earning status that has ever existed. I've had Diamond status since I was 18 and as a young person who loves flying there was no way I could have spent/flown enough with other programs to earn status. I'd imagine the free checked bags and lounge access from Star Gold has saved me thousands of dollars over the years.
I wonder if you could make lifetime Diamond and lock in that status ince it teansitions to KE Skypass.
So exactly who is saying that the US will give approval by the end of the year? Right now, without any kind of a hint at a source, I think it's the pixies who live in Ben's head. I wouldn't have published this until some kind of official notice from Washington came out.
And as for your alliance freaks, with Star, you'll go far. With Sky, you'll probably die. With DL, you'll burn in hell.
Not a biased commenter with a one-eyed view of their team, terminally afraid that their choice will be outshone by some other airline. Any other airline. No, sir-ee!
whether you understand the process or not, the US DOJ has the opportunity to object for a certain period of time and, if they don't, the process moves forward. That is what happened with AS-HA.
S. Korea is a very important partner of the US but, specific to aviation, has been an Open Skies country for decades - was one of the first for the US in Asia. Even now, the US has Open Skies...
whether you understand the process or not, the US DOJ has the opportunity to object for a certain period of time and, if they don't, the process moves forward. That is what happened with AS-HA.
S. Korea is a very important partner of the US but, specific to aviation, has been an Open Skies country for decades - was one of the first for the US in Asia. Even now, the US has Open Skies with Japan but not at HND, the most valuable airport in Japan. Taiwan also has Open Skies. So the growth of US airlines will be in countries where the US has Open Skies.
Unlike in Tokyo where the Japanese government has changed its mind about the role of the two Tokyo airports and NRT is supposed to become the carrier for LCCs, S. Korea made ICN the primary international airport years ago and the airport has the capacity to grow.
OZ and KE overlap each other on many routes including to the US. Simply reallocating those OZ flights to other destinations and having DL add more routes including to LAX and NYC will create a powerhouse of a hub that will far exceed anything that any other airline or alliance/JV can offer.
We realize that you work for UA; no customer would call ORD their home. If an airline does their job, customers just pass through the airport.
As for who dies and who burns, we'll leave that to those that can make that decision but it certainly won't be you making the decision.
Given that KE and DL both have aircraft with much larger gauge over the Pacific than UA, it isn't hard to see that the facts favor their growth at the expense of UA.
AA has and will continue to have just a token position in Asia.
Tim and ORD share similar mental illnesses
At least I admit I have one, unlike Tim.
you don't have any mental illness.
you and others want to believe that I do so they can "find" a reason to not believe the truth that I speak.
and I DO dominate the conversation and take up residence in other people's minds....
Thank you Doctor Dunn for that diagnosis.
Some of us think you are being perfectly rational in defending your Delta stock portfolio of course.
I do enjoy your unfounded sense of omniscience, Tim. That's usually a telltale sign of a mental illness, but enjoy your life, or what little you have of one.
This from the guy that somehow believes Delta's pacific network is about to outgrow United's despite not having close to the current widebody fleet of United and NOTHING close to the United orderbook for transoceanic aircraft.
And from the guy that once told us the...
I do enjoy your unfounded sense of omniscience, Tim. That's usually a telltale sign of a mental illness, but enjoy your life, or what little you have of one.
This from the guy that somehow believes Delta's pacific network is about to outgrow United's despite not having close to the current widebody fleet of United and NOTHING close to the United orderbook for transoceanic aircraft.
And from the guy that once told us the A350 has outsold the 787.
Nice to see from the comment sections you're just as lonely during the holidays as one would expect.
I am not omniscient... .Just on a couple sites.
You don't understand growth if you think that the current size dictates the future. DL is getting more widebody aircraft delivered than UA and DL's aircraft are and will be larger.
Airbus IS DELIVERING more A350s than Boeing is of B787s, esp. to US carriers.
I'm far from lonely.... just want to make sure you have something to read in YOUR loneliness.
"I'm far from lonely.... just want to make sure you have something to read in YOUR loneliness."
Touching, but your nonstop posting Thanksgiving day and the last few days SCREAM otherwise. But you do have your inflated sense of ego to keep you company as well as your memories of Delta before they fired you. It really is amusing how you attempt to deny it when your days on a.net are so incredibly well-known with...
"I'm far from lonely.... just want to make sure you have something to read in YOUR loneliness."
Touching, but your nonstop posting Thanksgiving day and the last few days SCREAM otherwise. But you do have your inflated sense of ego to keep you company as well as your memories of Delta before they fired you. It really is amusing how you attempt to deny it when your days on a.net are so incredibly well-known with regard to who you actually are. Perhaps you should've been a smarter poster and gossiper back in the day.
But mental illness does keep one deranged, I suppose. Your replies are so utterly pathetic. wow.
The antidepressants and antipsychotic I take say otherwise. And one of the big reasons I do what I do is because of your pimping of an airline that has provided me with nothing but horrible flight and ground experiences over the years. So in response to you and those sick people who think DL is "premium" or even good, I'm going to relentlessly promote my airline and my alliance over your garbage ones.
I do wish you well in your treatment and recovery. Really.
It does color your view of life and other people.
As for premium, it is defined by what people pay for its services. and by that definition, Delta is most certainly premium.
When you fly less than other airlines but get more money, that is the definition of premium.
Premium is defined by the service provided. In my experience, that makes Delta as premium as a federal prison, only it's on guards are nicer than okra DAs.
Yuck. Auto-predict gone rogue. To rephrase, Delta is as premium as a federal prison, only federal prison guards are nicer and more helpful than Delta FAs.
yes, the district attorneys that smoke okra are exactly what you meant.
I’ve flown with both KE and OZ and neither has impressed me. KE were very meh on both the ground and in the air. OZ were fine in the air, even upgrading me to their “we don’t sell first class anymore” business suite seat, but their ground experience was worse than lackluster. The OZ lounges at ICN were grim.
Yeah, KE is definitely among the least compelling East Asian partners. They're fine, but not good. Would prefer ANA, JAL, CX, BR, among others on similar trips
there is no correlation between size and quality. In fact, typically the two are inversely related.
UA is certainly nowhere near competitive with its Asian competitors but it is the largest airline across the Pacific -for now.
DL simply intends to close the gap between its JV partners while UA is best matched with LH and their worn out cabins while UA will never be in the same league with NH.
DL and...
there is no correlation between size and quality. In fact, typically the two are inversely related.
UA is certainly nowhere near competitive with its Asian competitors but it is the largest airline across the Pacific -for now.
DL simply intends to close the gap between its JV partners while UA is best matched with LH and their worn out cabins while UA will never be in the same league with NH.
DL and KE can and will grow. UA/NH and AA/JL have no growth JVs because of Japanese airport policy. When was the last time a legacy carrier route was added between the US and Japan other than the additional routes to HND that were allowed during covid - and won't be repeated again for a long time if ever.
1. Size does not matter in this thread, this is a quality discussion. Ben reviews the quality of the product, not the number of flights per day, for a reason
2. All of this harping on about ‘Japanese airport policy will kill UA/AA’s opportunities for growth’ nonsense is just that: nonsense. Consider the launch of HKG-DFW recently — transpac growth will happen no matter what is going on at HND
3. DL’s offering...
1. Size does not matter in this thread, this is a quality discussion. Ben reviews the quality of the product, not the number of flights per day, for a reason
2. All of this harping on about ‘Japanese airport policy will kill UA/AA’s opportunities for growth’ nonsense is just that: nonsense. Consider the launch of HKG-DFW recently — transpac growth will happen no matter what is going on at HND
3. DL’s offering of two connections (one at ICN, one at a U.S. hub) is always going to fall behind UA’s offering of just one connection at SFO
size does matter... .UA loves to talk about its size... until it is not a factor any more.
HKG-DFW is precisely because there is no more room to grow at the primary hub... and Hong Kong is not part of a JV with US airlines so it is purely a foreign airline addition with US carrier codeshare, at best.
The notion that a large hub at SFO is superior to other hubs is a...
size does matter... .UA loves to talk about its size... until it is not a factor any more.
HKG-DFW is precisely because there is no more room to grow at the primary hub... and Hong Kong is not part of a JV with US airlines so it is purely a foreign airline addition with US carrier codeshare, at best.
The notion that a large hub at SFO is superior to other hubs is a narrative of UA fans that cannot accept that UA does in fact hub at NRT...and DL flies to Asia other than Japan from the eastern US. DTW has service to 3 countries on DL, partly a result of DL's dual role of Japan and S. Korea in its network and because of the role of DTW and the superior range of the A350-900.
UA has ONE large US hub to Asia and one Asian hub. Period. DL has multiple hubs to Asia from the US and will have a far larger JV hub in Asia PLUS will continue to add more point to point routes (or flights other than to Japan and S. Korea.) HKG, SIN and other cities will be re-added to DL's network on its own metal in the coming years just as MEL will be, giving DL no less of an advantage in the S. Pacific than UA has.
Wow you truly monitor this comment section like a hawk. Ben already said he wrote something nice about DL for you.... take the win & acknowledge DL got something good out of this but it doesn't kill the UA lead.
there's more to this than slots at HND. keep in mind very restricted China capacity -- as someone...
Wow you truly monitor this comment section like a hawk. Ben already said he wrote something nice about DL for you.... take the win & acknowledge DL got something good out of this but it doesn't kill the UA lead.
there's more to this than slots at HND. keep in mind very restricted China capacity -- as someone frequently traveling around China and Southeast Asia, HKG and to a lesser extent TPE are the only hubs with connections to a lot of the region. Heck, Kaohsiung, which UA will start the NRT-KHH flight to, can't be accessed by KE mainline.
yes, the large hub at SFO is superior, because it enables all kinds of one-stop connections that don't exist on any other U.S.-to-APAC network. is there some other airline that can do BOI-MNL on their own metal? No one is denying the hub at NRT, and in fact if you ask around a lot of people (myself included) are excited by some of the unique routes out of NRT. and I am far from a UA fan -- routes aside, they have numerous issues.
"HKG, SIN and other cities will be re-added to DL's network on its own metal in the coming years"
That's just supposition on your part, not fact.
Anything can happen, but as of now, Delta has not committed to (nor given any indication whatsoever of) returning to either one of those destinations, from anywhere.
So let me get this straight. Your somehow advocating that DL/KE is in a better shape to offer services to Asia than UA/NH? Ignoring the fact that UA serves the largest markets nonstop from the US to NRT and beyond. The fact that once the Russian airspace restrictions are lifted, that UA will re-enter their previously served non stop markets to TYO and beyond in Asia. And the fact that unless you live in MSP,...
So let me get this straight. Your somehow advocating that DL/KE is in a better shape to offer services to Asia than UA/NH? Ignoring the fact that UA serves the largest markets nonstop from the US to NRT and beyond. The fact that once the Russian airspace restrictions are lifted, that UA will re-enter their previously served non stop markets to TYO and beyond in Asia. And the fact that unless you live in MSP, SLC, DTW, ATL or SEA and are not going only to Seoul, that you're forcing a double connect to nearly everywhere in Asia, including major markets like HKG, SIN, PEK, MNL? Finally also ignoring the fact that 5/6th freedom traffic is WAY less profitable flying than local O&D, and Tokyo has a substantially larger market with better yields than anything you can collect to/from Seoul. KE is going to be filling their seats with garbage traffic, just like they always have.
and the growth of DL's TPAC system alongside KE is coming alongside the growth of what will move from a focus city to a hub in AUS over the next 5 years. Add on further int'l growth at BOS, SEA and LAX and DL has alot that will take place at it moves to its 100 year celebration and beyond.
pathetic lunatic
From a genuione place, do you have any idea how the US Asiana flights will be handled?
I can't imagine them all being axed, otherwise, what would Korean Air do with all those extra widebodies?
My guess work is that a lot of them are kept like SEA, SFO, etc. LAX might be replaced w/ a Delta metal flight though?
a 2 year transition during which KE will begin to put its code on OZ flights. In order for KE to put its codes on those flights, DL will have to add some of its own.
OZ and KE have widebodies that will be retired with fewer types but new aircraft.
DL wants its own metal in LAX and JFK to ICN. The 35Ks will be heavily used to ICN
Death to Delta and all who gladly fly her.
They won't have enough gates in AUS for anything but a focus city... and it's not even relevant to this post idiot
even 15-20 gates is way more than they have now but 1/4 of the gates will allow a sizeable operation that is up to 3X larger than what DL has now.
whether Ben tees up the conversation doesn't make it irrelevant including to this discussion.
While AA withdraws from even more cities, DL will grow. While UA tries to get Boeing to deliver plans to fuel the replacement of RJs, DL will be adding yet...
even 15-20 gates is way more than they have now but 1/4 of the gates will allow a sizeable operation that is up to 3X larger than what DL has now.
whether Ben tees up the conversation doesn't make it irrelevant including to this discussion.
While AA withdraws from even more cities, DL will grow. While UA tries to get Boeing to deliver plans to fuel the replacement of RJs, DL will be adding yet another hub.
and I do think that DL/KE will give AUS and other small or non-hub cities the TPAC service that they want.
Hi Tim, okay, I'm going to cede a point. As you know WN is the largest at AUS, and they do that with 7 of the 34 gates. With DL likely taking over of the 34 gates, then yes it's a game-changer...the only difference being the aircraft gauge, as DL likely to be more reliant on DL Connection, at least initially. DL will have about twice the destinations compared to AA as of the winter...
Hi Tim, okay, I'm going to cede a point. As you know WN is the largest at AUS, and they do that with 7 of the 34 gates. With DL likely taking over of the 34 gates, then yes it's a game-changer...the only difference being the aircraft gauge, as DL likely to be more reliant on DL Connection, at least initially. DL will have about twice the destinations compared to AA as of the winter schedule.
As for the KE/OZ reference, that could be true. I always thought JL would be the first to offer nonstop given the AA alliance, but KE could block them/oneworld by jumping in first...if, of course, supported by the financials...they could be for Asia what BA is for TATL ex AUS.
* over half
The implications of the US allowing the KE/OZ merger to go through without limitations would seem to say that the present size of KE plus OZ in the US plus the size of the JV with DL and any growth potential is not limited - or at least can be managed with very limited slot adjustments.
The combination of KE plus OZ across the Atlantic moves them far beyond the size of any other carrier...
The implications of the US allowing the KE/OZ merger to go through without limitations would seem to say that the present size of KE plus OZ in the US plus the size of the JV with DL and any growth potential is not limited - or at least can be managed with very limited slot adjustments.
The combination of KE plus OZ across the Atlantic moves them far beyond the size of any other carrier in their home country to the US; given how much DL is growing in ICN and will continue to do so both as new routes are added and as A350-1000s enter service will create a powerhouse that no other carrier or alliance can match.
Add in that DL will grow in E. Asia to other countries but as part of the JV and it is not at all unrealistic to think that DL could take the dominant position across the Pacific between its own metal and its JV
DL and KE could have an unforgettable Christmas of 2024.
they dont have any flights over the atlantic though
no but AF/KL/VS do
Yes they do, but that has nothing to do with your "The combination of KE plus OZ across the Atlantic" statement.
It's okay to just admit a mistake/typo for "Pacific" you know. ;)
Star Alliance lately has not done so well. First, it lost SAS and soon will lose Asiana to SkyTeam. Latety, there is not really any good news for Star customers. United does not cooperate well with Singapore or EVA. It depends on the JV with ANA, which does not serve many destinations in Southeast Asia. Short routes, like Ha Noi to HongKong or Ho Chi Minh to Kula Lumpur require long connection and 35,000 miles...
Star Alliance lately has not done so well. First, it lost SAS and soon will lose Asiana to SkyTeam. Latety, there is not really any good news for Star customers. United does not cooperate well with Singapore or EVA. It depends on the JV with ANA, which does not serve many destinations in Southeast Asia. Short routes, like Ha Noi to HongKong or Ho Chi Minh to Kula Lumpur require long connection and 35,000 miles for a one-way award ticket, which are ridiculous to customers. Star Alliance seems to lose Southeast Asia marketshare to others. And in the last few years, it has not added any new exciting members to the alliance.
I was just thinking the same.
@Ben any thoughts on Star Alliance and where they are headed?
On another note, a post on the value of alliances and how they have changed over time could be interesting as well.
You mean United loses Southeast Asia. Singapore Airlines dominates that market in terms of full service carriers.
My point is how many times one books a trip from US and see a codeshare or connecting involving Singapore, EVA, Air China? Rarely. One would see United/ANA most of the times.
Star Alliance is very strong in Asia. From my place in Indonesia we fly Star airlines almost exclusively, except domestic in Indonesia. For regional and long haul we have Sq, Nh, Tg, Tk, Eva and other choices, all quite good. For some shorter point to point we might use Air Asia or similar airlines who are not part of any alliance. But generally Star airlines are much more available for us than Sky or Oneworld.
Why the reflexive blame for United?
In the '90s-'10s, it was SQ who rebuffed UA's multiple attempts at a closer cooperation, in favor of US, AS, and even briefly DL.
Like who?
Star will gain ITA soon, stealing it from SkyTeam after LH purchase
ITA has very little value as part of a JV to N. America compared to even SK which switched alliances.
Italy is a large local market but there are and will be restrictions on what AZ and UA can do as part of a JV while that does not appear to be the case at least so far with KE/OZ and DL in the ICN market.
Hey, Timbits, your precious SAS wasn't a part of the Star joint venture across the Atlantic. alITAlia will be as part of LHG. Suck it up.
Korean Air and the Korean development bank have waited a long time to finalize this deal. It will rearrange the air service market in Asia and yes Delta will benefit. I expect we will see new routes announced by Korean and Delta in the next few weeks. ICN is simply the best positioned hub in Asia to grow.
Star Alliance loosing clout and size, bit by bit. Adding ITA does not help much, they need a strong middle east carrier (TK sucks due to poor ground service, IST being a super-long-taxi mess, stressfull boarding and very inconsistent onboard product)
I agree TK needs to get its act together. They are too much under political influence. It employs too many Erdoğa cronies, who are loyal to him but have no idea how to run an airline.
it's unfortunate because TK has so much promise now that they've moved to the new airport... such an upgrade over Ataturk
I hated the new mega terminal, makes me wonder how bad the old airport was.
What is wrong with the new terminal?
I just hope VS don’t put the awful B787 on the route when they get the green light to start services.
Yeah I don't understand why VS keeps bringing that terrible product everytime they launch a new route.
It's 2024, VS need to get w/ the program and update their seats.
RIP Asiana and their beautiful livery.
It appears that KE got a verbal notice from DOJ that they won't sue the merger. Hard to believe but KE said so according to news outlets. Still expecting some conditions from the US but the merger is basically done by now.
Someone mentioned ICN terminal situation. ICN just finished phase 4 expansion, opening something this week, with T2 being twice larger. The plan is to move Asiana and its LCCs into T2. The...
It appears that KE got a verbal notice from DOJ that they won't sue the merger. Hard to believe but KE said so according to news outlets. Still expecting some conditions from the US but the merger is basically done by now.
Someone mentioned ICN terminal situation. ICN just finished phase 4 expansion, opening something this week, with T2 being twice larger. The plan is to move Asiana and its LCCs into T2. The expanded terminal still 'merges' at the central part of T2, meaning crowded central area and people flow issue that Ben recently pointed out will be worse.
Not hard to believe at all, considering that even with the merged airline and the j/v with DL, you'll still have all three other US longhaul airlines serving ICN from at least 3 different gateways, with nothing stopping them from expanding to additional gateways if they chose.
USA-ROK have open skies, and ICN isn't particularly constrained, so there's little reason for competitive concern, in an antitrust context............... long as no...
Not hard to believe at all, considering that even with the merged airline and the j/v with DL, you'll still have all three other US longhaul airlines serving ICN from at least 3 different gateways, with nothing stopping them from expanding to additional gateways if they chose.
USA-ROK have open skies, and ICN isn't particularly constrained, so there's little reason for competitive concern, in an antitrust context............... long as no one brings up the topic of nonstops to Busan. ;)
Hard to believe in that such notice was communicated in private. Overall I’m with you that the merger will be approved with no big huddle by now. In fact, according to several news outlets, DOJ has approved the merger. I guess that means it’s DOT’s turn which shouldn’t be too difficult or time consuming.
I love how Ben bubble rapped the comment section for the resident Delta psycho after he threw a fit yesterday.
I have no opinion as to whether or not this should be approved, but I am confident in my opinion that this is terrible for those playing the frequent flyer game. Asiana has for years been one of the easiest and cheapest redemptions to Asia, even having excellent availability using Avianca miles. But I have never been able to redeem anything on Korean and they screwed Chase card holders by removing the ability to transfer...
I have no opinion as to whether or not this should be approved, but I am confident in my opinion that this is terrible for those playing the frequent flyer game. Asiana has for years been one of the easiest and cheapest redemptions to Asia, even having excellent availability using Avianca miles. But I have never been able to redeem anything on Korean and they screwed Chase card holders by removing the ability to transfer Chase miles into their system with little or no warning.
For those of us whose main interest in Korea-based airlines is about award redemption for flights to Asia, the merger isn't good news for two reasons:
1) OZ's US routes completely overlap with KE's, so they'll likely be cut.
2) Transferability of Mariott points to OZ will likely end (KE disallowed the transfer to its own program earlier this year).
I wonder what'll happen to people booked on Asiana's scheduled routes when the merger happens. Lots of 75k Aeroplan redemptions to be had on Asiana metal.
Would they really just axe all of the US routes? If so, where would they utilize their widebodies else on? I think there's a case to be made for there to be multiple ICN flights a day from certain hubs.
I can see KE maintaining the additional Asiana flights...
I wonder what'll happen to people booked on Asiana's scheduled routes when the merger happens. Lots of 75k Aeroplan redemptions to be had on Asiana metal.
Would they really just axe all of the US routes? If so, where would they utilize their widebodies else on? I think there's a case to be made for there to be multiple ICN flights a day from certain hubs.
I can see KE maintaining the additional Asiana flights along the West Coast, modelling how ANA/JAL have multiple daily flights along w/ their JV partners. SFO/SEA might remain, don't know about LAX maybe Delta launches their LAX-ICN flight to replace Asiana?
What I wonder is how the A321neos fit in all of this as they're equipped with 2 different engines. Since KE will be the operating carrier, do they operate the 2 engines simultaneously or slowly get rid of them? The 777s and A350s can easily be integrated as they use the same engines and they have plenty of life left in them in both carriers. The A350s can easily reconfigured to KE spec. Everything else...
What I wonder is how the A321neos fit in all of this as they're equipped with 2 different engines. Since KE will be the operating carrier, do they operate the 2 engines simultaneously or slowly get rid of them? The 777s and A350s can easily be integrated as they use the same engines and they have plenty of life left in them in both carriers. The A350s can easily reconfigured to KE spec. Everything else is on their way out.
Once they're fully integrated, would they be able to fit in Terminal 2 with its partners there as well or they'll have to move back to Terminal 1?
I’m wondering the same re: terminals. As of now freely flowing between the two terminals isn’t allowed - wonder if that will change as I don’t think T2 can support both without significant consolidation.
The combined carrier will downsize routes as they a lot of them overlap, but the amount of aircraft is another story. When JAL merged with JAS in '04, they held on to their 777s till 2020 (and they were delivered in '96).
Looking at both of their 777s age, majority of OZs 777s have been delivered between mid-07 to mid-2013 so plenty of life left in them while KEs 2ERs have been delivered between...
The combined carrier will downsize routes as they a lot of them overlap, but the amount of aircraft is another story. When JAL merged with JAS in '04, they held on to their 777s till 2020 (and they were delivered in '96).
Looking at both of their 777s age, majority of OZs 777s have been delivered between mid-07 to mid-2013 so plenty of life left in them while KEs 2ERs have been delivered between '07-'08. But with the 787s and A350s coming in, they can easily be retired.
KE and OZ's 777 and A350 do NOT use the same engines, A350 is RR, 772ER are PW4090, 77W are GE90
What I meant was that they can easily be integrated as the A350s use Rolls while the 777/A330 use Pratts. The neos use either CFMs (for OZ) or Pratts (for KE).
For the amount of neos coming in, it'll be interesting to watch what they decide to do.
In case if Proximanova spreads a false information again, I'll inform that OZ 777s all have a flatbed business class, with all seats having a direct aisle access. So don't worry about it, although Proximanova keeps faking that it features 2-3-2 angled seats.
Not a surprise, if you think about where is he coming from tho.
But KE 772s and some 77Ws have such seats inside.
Avoid those planes. And their A380s.
In case if Proximanova spreads a false information again, I'll inform that OZ 777s all have a flatbed business class, with all seats having a direct aisle access. So don't worry about it, although Proximanova keeps faking that it features 2-3-2 angled seats.
Not a surprise, if you think about where is he coming from tho.
But KE 772s and some 77Ws have such seats inside.
Avoid those planes. And their A380s.
How did they gain a five-star rating with such hardwares, maybe with some momey?
Happy travels.
Awaiting the comments
Why does the us have to give approval?
The airlines are not required to get U.S. approval, but if the merged entity wants to be able to serve the U.S., they needed to seek U.S. approval. Same as with the E.U. Or China for that matter.
It's not so much that they need it to serve the US, it's that the US (and other nations whom the merged airline would serve) may have competitive concerns that require concessions/divestments/etc.
Also, there's the issue of things such as slots, airport facilities, etc where the bilateral agreement may simply allow for inheritance by the surviving entity, or (as in some countries) require the surviving company to put some/all of them back into a pool...
It's not so much that they need it to serve the US, it's that the US (and other nations whom the merged airline would serve) may have competitive concerns that require concessions/divestments/etc.
Also, there's the issue of things such as slots, airport facilities, etc where the bilateral agreement may simply allow for inheritance by the surviving entity, or (as in some countries) require the surviving company to put some/all of them back into a pool to be re-bid or re-purchased.
Thus, it's better to just get all of this stuff out of the way BEFORE pushing through a merger; rather than have a hasty merger, but then get blindsided by such requirements.
P.S. btw, one of the main reasons that companies like Air France and KLM decided to remain separate operations held by a unified entity, is to avoid having to go through all of this.
Not every country has bilateral treaty with the single unified EU, and as such may still have French rights and Dutch rights for example, which would have to be renegotiated (and potentially lost) if AF/KL were to ever merge certificates into an actual single airline.
@Mather why just point out U.S. approval? You do not have an issue with the approval from 13 other regulators? They won’t need it if they just want to drop all of their operations to the U.S.
Really, this has been one of the longest-drawn-out mergers I’ve ever seen, and seems to drag on endlessly along with the process of Oman Air joining Oneworld. For comparison, it took just over 3 years between the Tata Group announcing its takeover of Air India (October 2021) and the cessation of the Vistara brand (November 2024) after being folded into AI.
Not only will Korean and Asiana merge as such, but so will their respective...
Really, this has been one of the longest-drawn-out mergers I’ve ever seen, and seems to drag on endlessly along with the process of Oman Air joining Oneworld. For comparison, it took just over 3 years between the Tata Group announcing its takeover of Air India (October 2021) and the cessation of the Vistara brand (November 2024) after being folded into AI.
Not only will Korean and Asiana merge as such, but so will their respective low-cost subsidiaries, Jin Air for KE and Air Busan and Air Seoul for OZ — in the same way that AirAsia India was merged into Air India Express. That will further delay the process, given that Busan’s municipal government will be far from pleased that its ‘hometown’ airline will no longer exist.
Moreover, I have to imagine that a new livery and logo will be unveiled at some point in 2025–26, just like Air India had done in 2023, and in fact a trademark for a new logo was revealed in January 2022. I also observed in Ben’s recent KE A321neo review that there’s a new font at the bottom of the moving map, in the ‘Distance Travelled’ section — exactly the same font as the new logo trademark — which hints at a new custom corporate font for KE.
Moreover South Korea has a large number of independent low-cost carriers, far more than Japan or Taiwan, aside from the ones owned by KE and OZ. While T’Way Air has so far been the main beneficiary, other players like Jeju Air, Eastar Jet and the all-787 operator Air Premia will also need to amp up their game with there being only one full-service carrier going forward. Meanwhile Taiwan shows no signs of having any of its three FSCs (BR, CI and JX) merging with any of the others any time soon, which is surprising to say the very least. I can hear the sound of masonry coming below, but I’ll pay no attention to it!
Disappointing, but expected. Asiana's branding is so much more exciting and I really enjoyed the flights I took with them over the summer, in anticipation of this news. They will be sorely missed.
@Proximanova
I don't need your or anyone's attention, how sad that you tried to act cool but turned out to be different.
Nice try.
You seem to not have any idea about the difference between a friendly and a hostile mergers.
AI-UK merger would take shorter time, because Tata owns both.
But because KE-OZ merger is between two separate parties and the majority of voices from in and out of the...
@Proximanova
I don't need your or anyone's attention, how sad that you tried to act cool but turned out to be different.
Nice try.
You seem to not have any idea about the difference between a friendly and a hostile mergers.
AI-UK merger would take shorter time, because Tata owns both.
But because KE-OZ merger is between two separate parties and the majority of voices from in and out of the nation were against it, it had to took so long.
But of course you didn't give a damn, because you thought it was a chance to denounce Korea once again.
Another nice try.
Verdict:
Nice try, you aren't fooling anyone here.
It's crazy that you do all of those in a good conscience.
If South Korea having 2 full service carriers is an overkill, how do you explain Taiwan having three?
@ Glen -- You're absolutely right that Taiwan is the one exception, and is able to have three carriers, despite having so much smaller of a population. The airlines do really well with connecting traffic, and manage to be profitable.
For whatever reason, it's something that most other markets just can't sustain, and that's also evident based on Korean Air and Asiana's historical financial results.
I don't think it's an exception. It's overkill and will eventually show.
Just a revenge business because papa can't be satisfied.
For now, it's good for customers.
i would imagine it has something to do with
1) TSMC. Its biggest customers are all on the US west coast, which probably explains why there are 13x daily flights to SFO/LAX/SEA between CI/BR/JX (and even a 1x daily flight to ONT on CI). There were already strong links between Taiwan and the US tech industry pre-AI boom, but the explosion in demand for advanced chips has probably turbocharged O/D business travel even more.
...i would imagine it has something to do with
1) TSMC. Its biggest customers are all on the US west coast, which probably explains why there are 13x daily flights to SFO/LAX/SEA between CI/BR/JX (and even a 1x daily flight to ONT on CI). There were already strong links between Taiwan and the US tech industry pre-AI boom, but the explosion in demand for advanced chips has probably turbocharged O/D business travel even more.
2) It also appears that the limited nonstop capacity between China and the US has been largely to the gain of the taiwanese airlines. I might attribute to this to the fact that Chinese pax prefer flying on airlines that speak Chinese. I will say, KE does serve a ton more second and third tier cities in China than BR or CI, but most of the profits being made is probably on lucrative long haul business traffic out of places like Shanghai, Beijing, Guangzhou.
3) TPE is also (IMO) a marginally better gateway to southeast Asia than ICN. For example, SFO -> TPE -> BKK is 14 hours on the first leg and 4 hours on the second, while SFO -> ICN -> BKK is 13 hours and 6 hours - a saving of 1 hour. Personally, if I need to connect, I usually prefer 1 long leg and 1 short leg, versus 1 medium-long leg and 1 medium-short leg.
It's a very important fact here. Taiwanese carriers speak Mandarin, therefore they can communicate natively with the many Chinese nationals that fly transpacific. There are well over a billion Chinese nationals in the world vs a sum total of 50M South Koreans.
Cathay Pacific is also seeing a huge resurgence. At the end of the day, for many of the elderly and foreigners, they are more comfortable with communicating in Mandarin, therefore, they end up...
It's a very important fact here. Taiwanese carriers speak Mandarin, therefore they can communicate natively with the many Chinese nationals that fly transpacific. There are well over a billion Chinese nationals in the world vs a sum total of 50M South Koreans.
Cathay Pacific is also seeing a huge resurgence. At the end of the day, for many of the elderly and foreigners, they are more comfortable with communicating in Mandarin, therefore, they end up being the preferred choice on both sides of the ocean.
Furthermore, I think it helps that CI/BR/JX, while all full service, are relatively smaller carriers than KE/ANA/JAL individually. And CI/BR/JX don't need to worry about domestic operations whatsover.
Finally, Taiwan has vastly higher PPP, around $77k vs Japan's $50k, South Korea at $63k. Which helps a lot for cost structures.
I thought Chinese transit traffic via TPE was severely limited, and most Chinese nationals or American VFR prefer CX? I do think TPE is well positioned to capture US-SEA traffic
Before the advent of efficient twins, Japan and South Korea were popular hubs for connections for the Asia-Pacific. You had JAL, Northwest, Asiana and Korean. I intentionally left out didn't ANA as they were a very small airline then and I think they only served HKG and SIN back in the day. EVA and China were much smaller then and had to refuel in ANC from East Coast destinations.
Now with efficient twins, TPE is...
Before the advent of efficient twins, Japan and South Korea were popular hubs for connections for the Asia-Pacific. You had JAL, Northwest, Asiana and Korean. I intentionally left out didn't ANA as they were a very small airline then and I think they only served HKG and SIN back in the day. EVA and China were much smaller then and had to refuel in ANC from East Coast destinations.
Now with efficient twins, TPE is in a much better position geographically for connections. Not everyone on those flights terminate in TPE. And as mentioned above, Mandarin is a huge factor not just spoken in Taiwan, but most if not all of SE Asia so it definitely helps. Cuisine and culture that you're familiar with also helps.