Cathay Pacific has announced that it’s resuming a route that was “permanently” cut several years back. The timing here is quite interesting, if you ask me.
In this post:
Cathay Pacific’s Hong Kong to Seattle route returns
As of March 30, 2026, Cathay Pacific plans to operate 5x weekly flights between Hong Kong (HKG) and Seattle (SEA), with the following schedule:
CX852 Hong Kong to Seattle departing 1:30PM arriving 10:10AM
CX853 Seattle to Hong Kong departing 11:50AM arriving 4:45PM (+1 day)
The flight will operate in both directions on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays, Thursdays, and Saturdays. The 6,500-mile flight is blocked at 11h40min eastbound and 13hr55min westbound.
Cathay Pacific will use an Airbus A350-900 for the service, featuring 280 seats. This includes 38 business class seats, 28 premium economy seats, and 214 economy class seats.
This new flight is already bookable, and surprisingly, there’s even partner business class award availability, so you can redeem American AAdvantage miles and Alaska Atmos Rewards points. This is quite rare for long haul Cathay Pacific flights nowadays, so if interested, I’d recommend booking ASAP.
Seattle will be Cathay Pacific’s ninth gateway in North America, complementing service to Boston (BOS), Chicago (ORD), Dallas (DFW), Los Angeles (LAX), New York (JFK), San Francisco (SFO), Toronto (YYZ), and Vancouver (YVR). In the summer of 2026, Cathay Pacific will operate more than 110 weekly flights to North America.
What makes Cathay Pacific’s return to Seattle interesting
Cathay Pacific’s route to Seattle marks a service resumption rather than a new route. Cathay Pacific first launched this route in March 2019, and it only lasted for around a year, as it was suspended at the start of the pandemic. Then in late 2020, Cathay Pacific revealed that this was one of seven stations that was being cut “permanently,” due to lack of profitability. Other “permanent” cuts in the United States included Newark (EWR) and Washington (IAD). As you’d expect, nothing in the airline industry is actually permanent.
So, why are we now seeing Cathay Pacific resuming flights to Seattle? Well, I have to imagine the airline thinks the economics will work out better than in the past. The airline notes growing demand particularly for the Chinese Mainland and India.
In theory, there’s no reason that Seattle service shouldn’t succeed — it’s the closest US mainland gateway from Hong Kong, Seattle is a large market, and Cathay Pacific has a ton of connectivity in Seattle thanks to its oneworld partner, Alaska.
However, bigger picture, I can’t help but find the timing of this route launching to be quite interesting, and imagine it’s primarily motivated by competitive reasons. The way I see it, there are a couple of interesting competitive dynamics.
First, Delta recently announced it would launch Hong Kong flights, but it’s doing so out of Los Angeles, rather than Seattle. Hong Kong to Los Angeles is a market dominated by Cathay Pacific, and I imagine Delta would be too conservative to also launch Hong Kong flights out of Seattle. Still, I imagine Cathay Pacific adding this service to a Delta hub is a bit of a “nudge” to the carrier, to remind the folks in Atlanta who dominates Hong Kong. 😉
Second, Alaska is currently expanding long haul, turning Seattle into a global gateway. We know that Alaska plans to add 12 long haul routes from Seattle by 2030, and so far we’ve seen Asia service launched to Tokyo Narita (NRT) and Seoul Incheon (ICN). I have to imagine that Hong Kong (HKG) is among the next cities under consideration, so Cathay Pacific probably wants to beat Alaska to the punch.
Some people assume “oh, partner airlines don’t play those kinds of games,” but that’s not the case. Keep in mind the airlines don’t have anti-trust immunity, so there’s zero coordinating in terms of routes, schedules, etc. They’re competitors in the market, just like any other airlines would be.
Bottom line
As of March 2026, Cathay Pacific plans to resume flights to Seattle, with 5x weekly Airbus A350 flights. This is a route that was previously operated in 2019, before being “permanently” cut at the start of the pandemic.
I’m not surprised to see Cathay Pacific resuming this route, both since the market overall has changed a bit in recent years, plus the competitive dynamics have evolved considerably. This comes at a time where Delta is returning to Hong Kong (but out of Los Angeles), while Alaska is turning Seattle into a global gateway.
What do you make of Cathay Pacific returning to Seattle? And competitively, do you think this is more aimed at Alaska or Delta?
@Ben--To answer your original question, I don't think CX's return to Seattle is aimed at DL or AS. I think it's just a realization that there is money to be made by resuming a currently unserved route.
As I recall, CX originally began flying to SEA the very next day after DL pulled out of the route. As a company, CX was put into dire financial straits by the pandemic. The HK government instituted draconian...
@Ben--To answer your original question, I don't think CX's return to Seattle is aimed at DL or AS. I think it's just a realization that there is money to be made by resuming a currently unserved route.
As I recall, CX originally began flying to SEA the very next day after DL pulled out of the route. As a company, CX was put into dire financial straits by the pandemic. The HK government instituted draconian quarantine regulations that essentially put their HKG hub out of business. It has taken them a while to recover and they wisely returned to larger markets first.
It has been pointed out that the announced flight times don't work well for connections at either end. I would point out that they are great for traffic originating in either HKG or SEA. Departures don't require getting up at zero dark thirty or extending hotel checkout times and arrivals aren't hours before one can check into a hotel. I view the schedule as evidence that CX expects a lot of O&D traffic at both ends of this route.
The timing of the flight is a bit odd... It will be hard ton connect to this flight from the East coast. Likewise, connecting to an East Coast flight on the return - that is not a redeye - will also be difficult.
I don't know how obvious a SEA-HKG play by Alaska would be, actually. Hong Kong's central role in East Asia has waned significantly, and nobody in Seattle would say HKG is pivotal to visiting Asia anymore. There are too many other options, and Alaska has been prioritizing leisure routes, not business ones.
I agree with most of your article, except one point not covered: Singapore
My calculus would also include the scaling back of the...
I don't know how obvious a SEA-HKG play by Alaska would be, actually. Hong Kong's central role in East Asia has waned significantly, and nobody in Seattle would say HKG is pivotal to visiting Asia anymore. There are too many other options, and Alaska has been prioritizing leisure routes, not business ones.
I agree with most of your article, except one point not covered: Singapore
My calculus would also include the scaling back of the Alaska-Singapore partnership you reported on recently. When the AS-SQ partnership was announced a few years ago, I was surprised there wasn't much of a reaction from Cathay. Sure, the AS-SQ downgrade is also because of AS's Asia expansion, but I somehow doubt that CX actually cares that much about staying competitive in Seattle or of Alaska, per se.
Hong Kong's biggest rival has been Singapore going back to the 19th century. As an extension, CX's biggest rival has been SQ for such a long time. Even though you could argue they aren't their mutual #1 rivals today, CX's leadership surely hasn't forgotten the days of Star Alliance vs. Oneworld or their vying for the premium segment of Asia through the 80s and 90s. SQ's retreat or retrenchment from its AS partnership seems like an opportunity for CX to reassert its partnership. Now that Alaska probably won't be feeding that much traffic on the SEA-SIN route in the future, CX can siphon any feeder traffic from Seattle. Even if the math might not be a slam dunk, the symbolism of CX beating SQ is absolutely there.
"nobody in Seattle would say HKG is pivotal to visiting Asia anymore."
Seattle was the largest unserved US market to HKG with over 57k passengers annually. Much larger than the next highest at 42k in Honolulu.
Fair, I didn't know the numbers. That is interesting.
Are these for final destinations in HKG, or as connecting traffic? For the purposes of my comment on SQ vs. CX, Southeast Asia connecting traffic would be the more important aspect.
How would there be any connecting traffic at HKG if there are no flights between SEA and HKG?
@Ben, "Hong Kong to Los Angeles is a market dominated by Cathay Pacific, "
Really? For the most part, United and Cathay are pretty evening matched in services offered in that market. And while UA isn't daily with their second flight, I think it's a bridge too far to say CX 'dominates' the market.
Cathay Pacific has a lock on most of the business travelers on the route. They are very loyal to CX on this route.
CX dominates the LAX market because they have much higher loads in the 90s, higher frequencies, and a fare premium over UA.
UA is sitting at 50s to 60s on 2x daily. CX likely carries at least twice as many passengers as UA does.
If we were talking SFO, that'd be a much more even playing field.
"CX dominates the LAX market because they have much higher loads in the 90s, higher frequencies, and a fare premium over UA."
Definition of dominate?
To have control or power over someone or something? Nope
To be the most important or noticeable feature of something? Nope
You get an "F" on this test.
Loads are meaningless and only marginally more frequency. For all we know, CX might be carrying VFR traffic to the Philippines and...
"CX dominates the LAX market because they have much higher loads in the 90s, higher frequencies, and a fare premium over UA."
Definition of dominate?
To have control or power over someone or something? Nope
To be the most important or noticeable feature of something? Nope
You get an "F" on this test.
Loads are meaningless and only marginally more frequency. For all we know, CX might be carrying VFR traffic to the Philippines and Vietnam to fill the flight which has historically pretty lousy fares. None of your anecdotes, prove that they dominate the market and you have no way of knowing if CX or UA has a fare premium over the other. And don't bother if you're going to throw published sector fare around. If it needs to be explained why those are meaningless, then I don't want to educate on airline economics 101.
"UA is sitting at 50s to 60s on 2x daily. CX likely carries at least twice as many passengers as UA does."
So what?
"If we were talking SFO, that'd be a much more even playing field."
So which is it? If they fly from LAX, they are belittled by CX with corporate fliers, higher LF, and a fare premiums. But the same isn't true at SFO? That doesn't make sense.
Finally, @PlanetAveGeek. I'm not sure how you would even know that, but, 1) Corporate traffic isn't what it once was, 2) United has historically taken the lion share of US based business contracts TPAC which is overwhelmingly US POS.
Yikes at the level of ignorance and lack of self-awareness.
I didn't make anecdotes, I stated objective metrics that I know, where CX is outperforming UA in every regard. And your response is basically "no, I don't think so".
I don't even know how this is a discussion right now. UA clearly does much better out of SFO than at LAX, what doesn't make sense about that to you?
Pointless to go back and forth with someone who isn't facts based.
YOLO, Time to climb down from the sanctimonious high horse.
You’ve given zero facts or evidence,
Nor your credentials.
But I guess just because you said it, we have to believe it.
Again, what’s the definition of dominate?
Re-read your comment, you are literally the one who is disagreeing about who dominates the LAX-HKG, not me.
It's important to note that SEA has rather poor India connectivity. Despite the growth in service, most people are opting to connect via Europe today as the Taiwanese carriers do not fly to India, meanwhile ANA/KE/JAL also have limited connectivity with their flights today. The same is true for mainland China
HKG is a strong gateway to both mainland China and India, and Seattle has a large concentration of foreign migrant tech workers from those regions.
You realize that exactly proves my point. The ME/TK carriers have been able to succeed at SEA because there is a such a lack of efficient India service.
The East Asian carriers simply don't offer good schedules for doing so.
Also you gotta chill with the block quotes.
On a separete note: a huge typhoon is hitting HKG and CX is essentially shutting down service from 6pm Tues to 6am Thurs.
One very interesting fact is CX actually is flying out and parking most of their planes away from HKG.
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/transport/article/3326434/hong-kongs-cathay-pacific-warns-significant-impact-operations-ragasa?module=perpetual_scroll_0&pgtype=article
"The airline said it had moved some of its aircraft away from Hong Kong, with a source saying the locations were at nearby ports, including in mainland China."
https://www.cathaypacific.com/cx/en_HK/inspiration/cathay-stories/how-airlines-plan-weather-problems.html
"In...
On a separete note: a huge typhoon is hitting HKG and CX is essentially shutting down service from 6pm Tues to 6am Thurs.
One very interesting fact is CX actually is flying out and parking most of their planes away from HKG.
https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/transport/article/3326434/hong-kongs-cathay-pacific-warns-significant-impact-operations-ragasa?module=perpetual_scroll_0&pgtype=article
"The airline said it had moved some of its aircraft away from Hong Kong, with a source saying the locations were at nearby ports, including in mainland China."
https://www.cathaypacific.com/cx/en_HK/inspiration/cathay-stories/how-airlines-plan-weather-problems.html
"In the very worst of circumstances, the decision may be taken to evacuate the fleet. ‘A few years ago, we had to do this and we flew all the aircraft we couldn’t fit into hangars to Clark in the Philippines,’ says Hoey. ‘It’s not a decision we take lightly and we’ve only come close to it once since.’"
Have never actually read anything on this or thought of it:
- Which city could they park planes? (assuming mainland China, it cannot be too close out SZX or CAN that are also impact by typhoon; if it's far enough then creates a lot of additional costs?)
- how are the pilots staffed for these "parking flights"?
Don't know if anyone has any insights into this, would been a fascinating behind the scene story to share
I think this schedule is much better than the one CX had in 2019 on this route, and because of that, especially for South Asian connections with their rebuilt schedule, I think this will help out a lot. Afterall, no Taiwanese carriers fly to India, so the real competition is SQ in that market.
It's not very clear whether or not AS wants to fly to HKG specifically. I think they may be more interested...
I think this schedule is much better than the one CX had in 2019 on this route, and because of that, especially for South Asian connections with their rebuilt schedule, I think this will help out a lot. Afterall, no Taiwanese carriers fly to India, so the real competition is SQ in that market.
It's not very clear whether or not AS wants to fly to HKG specifically. I think they may be more interested in flying into Mainland China (i.e. Shanghai, Beijing, maybe SZX if they are bold).
Possibly more of a reaction to Starlux expansion.
As for choosing DL over any one of the several high quality east Asian products? Yeah, no.
whether some people realize it or not, US carriers do not carry as much international traffic - including in premium cabins as they do - because of their service levels. They succeed in international markets because
1. The US is the world's largest air travel market and US airlines have well-developed hubs.
2. The US is also the world's largest economy which means that it has a higher percentage of corporate travel and...
whether some people realize it or not, US carriers do not carry as much international traffic - including in premium cabins as they do - because of their service levels. They succeed in international markets because
1. The US is the world's largest air travel market and US airlines have well-developed hubs.
2. The US is also the world's largest economy which means that it has a higher percentage of corporate travel and even many large foreign companies are heavily tied to US companies.
3. US credit card interchange practices favor US credit card rewards which is part of why US airline loyalty programs are the largest in the world.
OTOH, US airlines have the highest labor costs, Americans are generally far less inclined to give the most deferential customer service, and while US carriers can be competitive in hard product, they do not find that competing for the last dollar of soft product - usually F&B - matters to their ability to attract better fares. DL significantly upped the game with its Delta One lounges where the cost for premium service is cheaper on the ground than in the air.
DL carries the most corporate travel among US airlines - and probably among airlines in the world, DL has the most lucrative and largest loyalty program (by value), and more of DL's traffic is paid for by third parties - rather than individual travelers which completely changes the calculus of earning and burning miles.
SEA-HKG is yet another route for CX; AA is a fellow one world partner with CX but can't make HKG work. UA has long been the largest US airline at HKG since the Pan Am acquisition and yet they are down to SFO and LAX. DL has put UA on notice that DL will compete for LAX TPAC traffic.
So, no, Ralph, it is not about the soft quality of any US airline. It is about the ability of US carriers to win corporate business and to engage high value travelers in their loyalty programs.
whatever happens between US carriers at HKG over the next few years is about who will play at all.
CX' move is very likely a message to AS not to try to play in HKG. If CX isn't willing to help make any number of AA gateways work for AA to HKG, it is doubtful they want AS with its single gateway.
People can have their anecdotal personal preferences for a carrier. I certainly do, and it's clear many others here do too; but realize that that's the exception, not the rule.
The idea that no one in their right mind would ever choose a US/Western airline over an Asian one with "gOod sERvIcE!" (tm), is a concept that only...
People can have their anecdotal personal preferences for a carrier. I certainly do, and it's clear many others here do too; but realize that that's the exception, not the rule.
The idea that no one in their right mind would ever choose a US/Western airline over an Asian one with "gOod sERvIcE!" (tm), is a concept that only exists in online aviation geek circles.
There's dozens of reasons that people choose the carrier that they do, and both "amazing service!" and "young cute flight attendants who smile!" are way down at the bottom end of those.
I understand that it's heresy to say this, in the face of established AvGeek convention, but it's just a numerical fact.
There is however the idea that local populations choose local carriers because of brand familiarity and language barriers, which creates a perception of better service.
This is the main reason why Asian carriers dominate the Asia point of sale still. Any US carrier flies mostly American passengers, even with the JVs.
"The idea that no one in their right mind would ever choose a US/Western airline over an Asian one...is a concept that only exists in online aviation geek circles."
Nailed it! The same dorks who excitedly announce they are going to spend 10 hours at HKG lounge hopping CX business class lounges. Imagine being in a city like Hong Kong but then deliberately spending all day business class lounge hopping!
DL will cut and run from HKG soon enough
actually, UA's 60% Load factors and the tags it added to try to prop them up mean that UA is the loser here.
The Pacific is a cutthroat region of the world for air travel, NW lost money, DL cut back to refocus after HND reopened for TPAC flights, UA threw huge amounts of capacity into the Pacific and still lost money pre-covid, and DL still makes over 1.5X more per ASM than UA.
The...
actually, UA's 60% Load factors and the tags it added to try to prop them up mean that UA is the loser here.
The Pacific is a cutthroat region of the world for air travel, NW lost money, DL cut back to refocus after HND reopened for TPAC flights, UA threw huge amounts of capacity into the Pacific and still lost money pre-covid, and DL still makes over 1.5X more per ASM than UA.
The Pacific comes down to getting the best revenue and having the right plane. UA's 777s are inefficient and the 787s are too small.
DL gets far more corporate revenue and the A350 is simply more capable and efficient.
DL will take larger and larger shares of the Pacific.
AS is the loser along w/ an end to UA's attempts at dominating the Pacific
If UA is running 60% load factors on LAX-HKG, with overall longer term international success from LAX, an established success carrying tons and tons of cargo on the route, and much stronger brand awareness and point of sale strength in HKG, relative to DL, what kind of success do you think DL will have operating the sixth flight on the route?
It's also telling that DL is recognizing the weakness of SEA, when DL didn't...
If UA is running 60% load factors on LAX-HKG, with overall longer term international success from LAX, an established success carrying tons and tons of cargo on the route, and much stronger brand awareness and point of sale strength in HKG, relative to DL, what kind of success do you think DL will have operating the sixth flight on the route?
It's also telling that DL is recognizing the weakness of SEA, when DL didn't want to even try operating SEA-HKG as the only carrier on the route.
And DL running a flight from NYC-HKG since NYC is a financial powerhouse? Then why didn't they even apply for JFK-HND when they had the chance.
As Scott Kirby said, UA doesn't get involved in "strategic" flying, operating a route that will lose money just to be on the route. He said he sees that in DL's LAX-HKG flying, as well as the new SEA flying, with DL starting flights to Europe not because they'll be profitable but because they're a response to AS.
You also talk about revenue per ASM. That's not how profits are measured. It's by yield, measuring costs against revenue. But I know you know that. DL's TPAC yield dropped significantly in Q2 as a result of unprofitable additions, performing much worse than UA. But I know you also know that.
IF DL has endured the supposed bloodbath on SEA-TPE and they are still posting profits per ASM over the Pacific at least 50% higher than UA, then DL clearly sees that it has the financial bandwidth to assert its position in LAX.
DL is growing its TPAC system faster than UA which explains RASM movement for virtually any carrier in any region.
You can't accept that my statement years ago is valid - if...
IF DL has endured the supposed bloodbath on SEA-TPE and they are still posting profits per ASM over the Pacific at least 50% higher than UA, then DL clearly sees that it has the financial bandwidth to assert its position in LAX.
DL is growing its TPAC system faster than UA which explains RASM movement for virtually any carrier in any region.
You can't accept that my statement years ago is valid - if the Pacific is so profitable for UA, DL will aggressively grow and do so with much more efficient aircraft and better access to corporate travel.
The chances are high than UA will pull back to one flight/day.
Yield and revenue are not the same thing. Profit is revenue minus costs. definitional.
and the 359 can carry more cargo than the 789 so if cargo is what it is about, DL will be competitive.
and both DL and UA have to deal w/ CX to HKG. The question is how much DL and UA each get in the market
It would be interesting to see Tim defend DL without bringing UA into the conversation for once.
Which is 100% untrue, as according to Cirium fare data, United (like every major longhaul airline) very much does do that.
The fact that not a single US carrier is turning a profit on PRASM, should be the first clue to that effect, and it's even more pronounced on longhaul.
Granted,...
Which is 100% untrue, as according to Cirium fare data, United (like every major longhaul airline) very much does do that.
The fact that not a single US carrier is turning a profit on PRASM, should be the first clue to that effect, and it's even more pronounced on longhaul.
Granted, the concept that Kirby is likely hiding behind, to make his statement not-quite-a-lie, is that such routes can have a revenue-positive network benefit effect, which also includes intangibles such as client retention and goodwill.
But the idea of UA not losing money just to be on a route, is not in any way supported by data. Great soundbyte though.
thank you, ConcordeBoy.
The fact that AS and DL was discussed regarding CX's addition when neither of them fly SEA-HKG or has indicated any intention to do so raises the question of why UA is not also part of the equation.
UA is the only US carrier flying to HKG right now. DL is the only other carrier that has announced and it has announced to fly to HKG from LAX.
Second,...
thank you, ConcordeBoy.
The fact that AS and DL was discussed regarding CX's addition when neither of them fly SEA-HKG or has indicated any intention to do so raises the question of why UA is not also part of the equation.
UA is the only US carrier flying to HKG right now. DL is the only other carrier that has announced and it has announced to fly to HKG from LAX.
Second, UA was by far the largest airline across the Pacific in the late 90s and still managed to JUST breakeven.
DL was making more money on a much smaller TPAC network than UA was. Now, the post-covid profitability across the Pacific has boosted UA's profits, mainland China capacity has been significantly reduced, and yet DL still makes more per ASM across the Pacific than UA.
Every large airline has flights that are less profitable - perhaps even unprofitable at certain times of the year.
There are very few longhaul US carrier routes that operate below 70% LFs on a consistent basis but that is what UA is doing with LAX-HKG. They can't fly the eastern US and EWR to HKG so they are trying to maintain their capacity via LAX and SFO.
DL has clearly indicated they are not ceding LAX TPAC to Asia because UA has been forced to fly the vast majority of its TPAC network from two California hubs.
CX will do what they need to do. SEA didn't work for DL and probably won't work for AS short of a JV which cannot happen between HKG or mainland China and the US.
AA seems content to sit HKG out.
DL and UA will duke it out for LAX; if Russian airspace reopens, DL and will probably both try to operate NYC to HKG. DL might try NYC to HKG on its most capable A350s which can do the route w/ Russian airspace restrictions while the 787 would have to go down to less than 200 passengers to make it work - if it even works then.
Again, if there is money to be made either across the Atlantic, Pacific or to the Middle East or S. Asia, DL has indicated that it will take on UA and AA where the latter competes.
from a financial standpoint, DL has the financial strength to muscle its way into developmental markets better than any other US airline.
Though there is variance in the performance of UA's routes, UA, per Kirby only had a six point difference in the performance of best and worst performing hubs, also pointing out that DL and AA cannot make that claim.
DL, with their fortress hubs close to maxed out (no competing hub carrier and no competing cross-town airport), has been looking for other ways to improve performance.
Kirby says he especially sees "strategic" flying in SEA....
Though there is variance in the performance of UA's routes, UA, per Kirby only had a six point difference in the performance of best and worst performing hubs, also pointing out that DL and AA cannot make that claim.
DL, with their fortress hubs close to maxed out (no competing hub carrier and no competing cross-town airport), has been looking for other ways to improve performance.
Kirby says he especially sees "strategic" flying in SEA. There's no way DL would have launched SEA to FCO and BCN if AS hadn't also done it. Also, DL, at the time only flying to three cities in Asia, decided to make TPE their fourth, knowing they'd soon be one of four airlines on the route. And becoming the sixth flight on LAX-HKG?
DL retaliates on routes on a way UA doesn't. UA has said they will cut routes that don't work, as they did when they cut Bergen, Norway. When UA was asked if they would do retaliate against LAX-HKG and LAX-ORD on DL, Kirby said the UA plan is working so there's no need to add money-losing international routes or random flights to ATL or DFW to retaliate against DL's "strategic" flying, something that will lose money for them in spite of DL wanting it on the map.
Kirby can make any claim he wants about UA hubs but the simple reality is that UA's system profitability trails DL's by a significant margin EVEN CONSIDERING that UA has six unsettled labor contracts which saves UA hundreds of millions and perhaps up to a billion dollars per year in labor costs.
Nobody on the planet doubts that ATL is a phenomenally profitable hub for DL and every airline wishes they had one; UA's hubs...
Kirby can make any claim he wants about UA hubs but the simple reality is that UA's system profitability trails DL's by a significant margin EVEN CONSIDERING that UA has six unsettled labor contracts which saves UA hundreds of millions and perhaps up to a billion dollars per year in labor costs.
Nobody on the planet doubts that ATL is a phenomenally profitable hub for DL and every airline wishes they had one; UA's hubs don't generate profits on the order that ATL does.
You love to downplay profitability by global region data from the DOT but CF has an article citing it today - in order to figure out what is going on w/ Breeze.
DL's Pacific network made 76% of the profit that UA's Pacific network did despite flying about half of the capacity.
And as much as you want to argue that the DOT's numbers do not line up w/ reality, the profit by region totals for both DL and UA are very similar to the net income that both airlines reported for Q2 including the special charge that UA took for its FA settlement which ended up getting voted down by the membership.
The simple reality, as others have noted, is that UA flies alot of capacity for "strategic reasons" but which generates lower profitability - and that is true for both the Atlantic and Pacific.
DL stuck its foot into SEA-TPE before the last 2 carriers entered the market and has stayed in there. They have clearly decided the market is working and the other 3 Taiwanese carriers apparently agree that they are not going to bow out.
As much as you and others thought that UA had a lock on LAX to Asia and the S. Pacific, DL has added flights from LAX that has led to UA pulling back across the Pacific; UA did the same thing to DL to LHR and then UA pulled its own second flight. DL has not pulled back any of the flights it has added from LAX.
As hard as it is for you to accept, Mark, if UA can make money flying to Asia which they are, DL can likely make more money for reasons focused on both revenue and costs, with fleet being a big difference between DL and UA; DL simply has a better ability to get high value revenue.
You can argue and deflect all day long but real data clearly shows that DL is rebuilding its TPAC network and will chip away at UA's lead in size while generating higher profits just as is true across the Atlantic.
I’ve asked you before and you haven’t answered: which are the six contracts UA is currently negotiating?
You don’t answer because it’s not true. Pilots, Ramp, CS, Dispatchers all have a current contract.
Part two, which you also haven’t answered, which groups are paid less than DL counterparts? Flight attendants, that’s it.
As soon as any other UA group gets a raise, DL counterparts will also get a raise.
So the one...
I’ve asked you before and you haven’t answered: which are the six contracts UA is currently negotiating?
You don’t answer because it’s not true. Pilots, Ramp, CS, Dispatchers all have a current contract.
Part two, which you also haven’t answered, which groups are paid less than DL counterparts? Flight attendants, that’s it.
As soon as any other UA group gets a raise, DL counterparts will also get a raise.
So the one difference, and a relatively small one in the perspective of over $60 billion in annual revenue, is the flight attendant group.
So stop talking about six contracts when it’s not true.
DL employees are leading the big 3 in post-covid compensation increases, not the other way around as much as you want it to believe.
Given the FAs are the largest employee group at UA, that is a fairly significant group.
and let us know how the mechanics are coming w/ their new contract after 99%+ rejected the contract offer - more than 6 months ago.
There are 3 groups that have repeatedly shut...
DL employees are leading the big 3 in post-covid compensation increases, not the other way around as much as you want it to believe.
Given the FAs are the largest employee group at UA, that is a fairly significant group.
and let us know how the mechanics are coming w/ their new contract after 99%+ rejected the contract offer - more than 6 months ago.
There are 3 groups that have repeatedly shut down airlines - pilots, mechanics and FAs.
I'm glad you are arguing about employee groups w/o compensation instead of the Pacific.
We are making progress.
I just wanted you to stop spreading misinformation about there being six groups with open labor contracts. Hopefully I won’t be have to refute that any more going forward.
As far as DL making less revenue from airline operations, UA being more profitable than DL from airline operations, UA being more profitable than DL in NYC (as evidenced by UA’s revenue there without having to split an inefficient two-airport hub), UA having stronger and...
I just wanted you to stop spreading misinformation about there being six groups with open labor contracts. Hopefully I won’t be have to refute that any more going forward.
As far as DL making less revenue from airline operations, UA being more profitable than DL from airline operations, UA being more profitable than DL in NYC (as evidenced by UA’s revenue there without having to split an inefficient two-airport hub), UA having stronger and better-trending TPAC yields, all while continuing to upgauge and strengthen its already diverse and strong hubs, I can continue to point that out too. lol
regardless of what they pay you and whether you are worth it or not, UA has tens of thousands of employees that are not getting paid industry- comparable salaries and that most certainly does give them a financial benefit.
I just want you (since you love to tout your desires) to admit that UA's profits would not be anywhere near they are now if they were paying ALL of their employees industry-standard wages.
UA...
regardless of what they pay you and whether you are worth it or not, UA has tens of thousands of employees that are not getting paid industry- comparable salaries and that most certainly does give them a financial benefit.
I just want you (since you love to tout your desires) to admit that UA's profits would not be anywhere near they are now if they were paying ALL of their employees industry-standard wages.
UA signed up for the same line of business as AA and DL. Just because UA failed to develop non-transportation revenues better is not a sign of valor but failure; how many years did it take for Kirby to find out that flights to Mongolia add little to any value to a US-based credit card program.
UA has no large high margin hub anywhere close to what DL has at ATL. And DL does carry about 50% more domestic traffic from NYC than UA does. You can tout how much more international traffic UA carries but the point is that Nuuk and Malaga flights contribute next to nothing to the value of a loyalty program which allows DL and Amex to add so much more revenue to their bottom lines and lead in NYC in ALL revenue.
The "efficient" single airport hub is 25% smaller than DL's 2 airport NYC hub.
And, no, UA does not have higher TPAC yields. They aren't growing as much as DL and aren't going to challenge DL's taking back of its share of the Pacific because UA knows DL has the right ingredients to win.
none of which changes that UA's dominance of HKG among US carriers is ending. AS might or might not jump into the fray but DL certainly is.
now deal w/ your fragile inability to deal w/ the truth if you want to make any point.
Sociable flight times in both direction :)
how many times has CX started and stopped SEA? They can HOPE that finances work better this time but the real attack may be on their balance sheet.
DL said when they discontinued SEA-HKG pre-covid that, if they restarted HKG, it would be from NYC because of the finance connection where DL has a strong share of the market.
Covid, the Ukraine war, and the movement of E. Asia financial ties from HKG to...
how many times has CX started and stopped SEA? They can HOPE that finances work better this time but the real attack may be on their balance sheet.
DL said when they discontinued SEA-HKG pre-covid that, if they restarted HKG, it would be from NYC because of the finance connection where DL has a strong share of the market.
Covid, the Ukraine war, and the movement of E. Asia financial ties from HKG to SIN has made HKG a weaker market but DL decided it will fly LAX-HKG - which is an attack on UA.
If DL adds a second route to HKG, it will be NYC which UA flew pre-Ukraine war and the A350 could do now even respecting Russia airspace restrictions but DL chose LAX to take huge amounts of cargo.
The obvious answer is that this hurts AS the most; a weak potential growth route got much more difficult to do.
AS is going to battle it out at NRT for connecting traffic while the local Tokyo traffic flies ANA and DL to HND, AS will be knocked silly to ICN, TPE is overserved, and HKG just got a lot more dicey.
@Tim Dunn--you wrote "how many times has CX started and stopped SEA?". The answer is quite simple: once.
How many times has DL started and stopped SEA-HKG? Also once.
CX started the route originally after DL pulled out. CX's whole operation fell apart shortly thereafter when the Covid pandemic began and HK authorities imposed quarantine restrictions that made it impossible to operate a hub at HKG. It will be interesting to see how they do...
@Tim Dunn--you wrote "how many times has CX started and stopped SEA?". The answer is quite simple: once.
How many times has DL started and stopped SEA-HKG? Also once.
CX started the route originally after DL pulled out. CX's whole operation fell apart shortly thereafter when the Covid pandemic began and HK authorities imposed quarantine restrictions that made it impossible to operate a hub at HKG. It will be interesting to see how they do this time.
As for DL, their LAX-HKG flights may well go the way of their SEA-HKG flights. While it's true that LA is a huge market, it's equally true that LAX-HKG is very well served. In peak seasons, CX flies 3 times daily and UA twice daily. DL is well enough financed that it can occasionally try experiments like this but this is such a long flight that it will hemorrhage money if it doesn't work. DL is well enough run that it will cut and run if that happens.
As someone who has experienced both CX and innumerable A350 flights. One would find it hard to believe that discerning passengers will not chose CX over the other carriers on that route.
Sorry Tim …. :-)
CX complements AS's operation. DL will be run out of SEA within 5 years. The hub is deep in the red.
Gee, how about that? SEA seemed to work ok for NW back in the day.
I couldn’t disagree more. I don’t think they’re profitable in SEA, yet- but I doubt it’s deep in the red like you say. The Delta brand is well regarded in the US, and Delta is well positioned with many very lucrative hubs that can bankroll temporary losses at SEA.
They waited it out in NYC and won. They’ve waited it out in BOS and are on the cusp of winning it. They’ve waited it out...
I couldn’t disagree more. I don’t think they’re profitable in SEA, yet- but I doubt it’s deep in the red like you say. The Delta brand is well regarded in the US, and Delta is well positioned with many very lucrative hubs that can bankroll temporary losses at SEA.
They waited it out in NYC and won. They’ve waited it out in BOS and are on the cusp of winning it. They’ve waited it out in LAX, and are pulling ahead.
Are they perfect? No. But Delta plays the long game better than any airline flying these days. To say they are delusional and will just give up is foolhardy, and if Alaska executives think the way you do, then they will learn just as AA and JetBlue did how methodical the widget really is.
@shoeguy--Hey, I like shoes but I also like data. There seems to be a general sense in comments across multiple avgeek forums that DL is losing money at SEA. However, no one has provided any data (at least I haven't seen it) to back that up. I suspect that's because airlines don't report their finances in a way that makes it easy to get that kind of a breakdown. If you have (or anyone else...
@shoeguy--Hey, I like shoes but I also like data. There seems to be a general sense in comments across multiple avgeek forums that DL is losing money at SEA. However, no one has provided any data (at least I haven't seen it) to back that up. I suspect that's because airlines don't report their finances in a way that makes it easy to get that kind of a breakdown. If you have (or anyone else has) such data, I would love to see that information.
I suspect what's really going on is that DL's profit margins are thinner at SEA than at some of their other hubs. How could they not be if their market share at SEA is less than 30%?
I also think DL execs thought it would be easy to dominate SEA and were caught off guard when that didn't happen. They tried to bully AS into becoming a subsidiary of sorts. AS responded by hugely increasing the number of flights and nonstop destinations they offered from SEA. AS also bought Virgin America, for growth and as a poison pill to make a hostile takeover impossible from a regulatory standpoint. Now, AS is attempting to go global with its own long haul international nonstops. And AS has well over 50% market share at SEA. By now, a few people in Atlanta are wondering why they poked the bear.
All of that said, I don't expect DL to de- hub SEA. And, I am glad both carriers are here. As a consumer, it's great to have competition and more choices as a result. And, welcome back, CX!
Doubt Alaska sees it that way. They can use the aircraft that was destined for HK on another route and code share on CX's flight. Think it's a win for both Alaska and Cathay
@ Kmct111 -- That's not really how it works, though. A codeshare isn't terribly lucrative for Alaska, since it's not like a joint venture, where there's a high amount of revenue sharing. It's no different than how Alaska is also flying to London Heathrow, despite the route being served by British Airways as well.
Don’t they both benefit from onward connections though, on each carrier respectively?
@Philip
Both ends will benefit from connections with AS on one end now that they're in oneworld hence the schedule adjustment (Similar to DFW). On the other end, it's also perfectly time to connect with destinations in India/Sri Lanka.
Anyone who wants a premium product will fly Delta One from LAX. Delta is a much more premium airline than Cathay.
Good luck Cathay, you will need it.
Now that's a take I have never heard before, nor can I think of anyone that would agree.
With time you'll learn that as with comments from so many eerily similar variants of that user name, this should be read with a degree of scepticism as to its serious intent. Irony, sarcasm, misdirection, yes, accuracy and literal truth, not so much. The word 'premium' is almost invariably a punchline not a serious comment.
I actually think that Cathay wants to warn "Hong Kong Airlines", who is really desperate in trying to add Seattle. HX is negotiating some deals to get some 787-8/9 from their parent company and has even started to hire ground agents.
I love the daytime departure times and the flights will work well with their South Asia network, which will be the target of this flight. Redeye from South Asia will connect well to...
I actually think that Cathay wants to warn "Hong Kong Airlines", who is really desperate in trying to add Seattle. HX is negotiating some deals to get some 787-8/9 from their parent company and has even started to hire ground agents.
I love the daytime departure times and the flights will work well with their South Asia network, which will be the target of this flight. Redeye from South Asia will connect well to the early afternoon departure, and the 4/5pm arrival will connect well with CX's evening bank to South Asia. Singapore Airlines must not be too happy though!
75k business points redemption value isn't bad. But whenever you add a connection, it jumps up to 130k! I'd say this were a bug, but it's the same with other partners such as Japan Airlines and Starlux. Also, how do we know what is a bug vs what is working as intended when the Atmos program has very little transparency as far as written rules with regards to redemptions and inconsistency of value from one...
75k business points redemption value isn't bad. But whenever you add a connection, it jumps up to 130k! I'd say this were a bug, but it's the same with other partners such as Japan Airlines and Starlux. Also, how do we know what is a bug vs what is working as intended when the Atmos program has very little transparency as far as written rules with regards to redemptions and inconsistency of value from one partner to another.
Lucky, I know you've been super complimentary of Alaska recently, but would be much appreciated if you can continue pointing out these fairly broken parts of the Atmos program as well.
Good for CX I know who I’d rather fly on that route
They need to to go ATL or MIA. At least somewhere in the southeast. Emirates needs to start service to ATL also. It’s not that hard.
LOL at thinking the logistics of planning 16hr+ flights, is... "not that hard."
The things people write.
Oh please. There are plenty of flights out there that are 16+ hours in today’s world.
And you seem too ignorant to recognize "A" that some of those took YEARS of projection modeling before the airlines found them favorable to launch, and "B" just how many such flights have been modeled but -not- launched because they'd have no chance of making money in the current environment.
Cathay used to have a very vocal desire to serve Miami non-stop, but at the time, the lower-level A350 didn't have the legs nor capacity to do what Cathay wanted.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-06-01/cathay-interested-in-bigger-airbus-a350-to-reach-miami-non-stop
Now that the A350-1000 can easily hit anywhere in the USA nonstop from Hong Kong with significant payload, I wonder if Cathay is ready to revisit that idea?