Competition in Seattle is heating up across the Pacific, as Delta is upgrading several routes to its flagship aircraft.
In this post:
Delta replaces A330-900neos with A350-900s in Seattle
Delta has a hub in Seattle (SEA), whereby the airline flies both cross the Atlantic and Pacific. Transatlantic destinations include Amsterdam (AMS), London (LHR), and Paris (CDG), while transpacific destinations include Seoul (ICN), Shanghai (PVG), Taipei (TPE), and Tokyo (HND). Currently, these routes are generally operated by Airbus A330-900neos.
However, as of 2025, Delta will be upgrading three of its Seattle transpacific routes from Airbus A330-900neos to Airbus A350-900s, as reported by @aeroroutes:
- The Taipei Taoyuan route will be upgraded as of March 29, 2025
- The Seoul Incheon route will be upgraded as of March 29, 2025
- The Tokyo Haneda route will be upgraded as of May 23, 2025
The A350 is considered Delta’s flagship aircraft. So, how will these aircraft upgrades impact capacity?
- Delta’s A330-900neos feature 281 seats, including 29 business class seats, 28 premium economy seats, and 224 economy seats
- Delta’s standard A350-900s feature 306 seats, including 32 business class seats, 48 premium economy seats, and 226 economy seats
- Delta’s new premium A350-900s feature 275 seats, including 40 business class seats, 40 premium economy seats, and 195 economy seats
As you can see, across the board the A350 represents a significant increase in premium capacity, while it represents either a tiny increase in economy capacity, or even a reduction. While both aircraft types have Delta One Suites, the A350-900 has a better product than the A330-900neo.
Why is Delta adding Airbus A350 service in Seattle now?
Why is Delta suddenly upgrading some of its Seattle flights to A350s? I would imagine there are a couple of factors at play.
For one, I assume this is in response to the “battle in Seattle” between Alaska and Delta. Alaska recently announced plans to turn Seattle into a global gateway, starting with launching Tokyo Narita (NRT) flights as of May 2025. Alaska certainly has a very loyal following in Seattle, and also a massive network of connectivity.
Until now, Delta has been the dominant long haul carrier in Seattle, despite not having as loyal of a following in the Pacific Northwest, and also not having as extensive of a connecting network in the United States. Obviously Delta is going to try to compete, though it remains to be seen how this all plays out.
I assume there’s another factor at play here, though. Delta will be taking delivery of a number of A350-900s in the coming months. On top of that, Delta is reconfiguring its ex-LATAM A350s to have a more competitive product, so that they can start serving routes that are less leisure oriented.
Now, I am very curious to see how this equipment upgrade works out:
- Delta doesn’t need the incremental range of the A350-900 out of Seattle, unlike for long haul flights in some other markets
- Delta’s Taipei load factors have been abysmal over many months, and I can’t imagine the route is making any money; heck, Delta even keeps having award sales for business class on this route, which almost never happens in other markets
- So I wonder if this capacity upgrade reflects actual success for Delta in the market, or if the airline is essentially going “all-in” to try to gain market share in Seattle, as part of a competitive response
Bottom line
As of the spring of 2025, Delta will be upgrading three of its transpacific routes from the Airbus A330-900neo to the Airbus A350-900. This represents a significant increase in premium capacity. I imagine the timing here is no coincidence, given that Alaska is also launching long haul flights from Seattle. This is all great news for consumers, as more capacity will hopefully lead to lower fares.
What do you make of Delta upgrading some Seattle routes to the A350?
One key advantage for Alaska in the near-term is their marginal cost is very low. It doesn’t really matter if SEA-NRT is profitable, it just needs to do better than HNL-NRT. Same thing for SEA-ICN vs AUS-HNL. The A330s are much much cheaper cost of ownership than Delta dedicating brand new A350s.
One of the biggest reasons why AS has been so successful “playing defense” in Seattle is lower unit costs. AS can profitably...
One key advantage for Alaska in the near-term is their marginal cost is very low. It doesn’t really matter if SEA-NRT is profitable, it just needs to do better than HNL-NRT. Same thing for SEA-ICN vs AUS-HNL. The A330s are much much cheaper cost of ownership than Delta dedicating brand new A350s.
One of the biggest reasons why AS has been so successful “playing defense” in Seattle is lower unit costs. AS can profitably support service in markets that are unprofitably for Delta at a higher cost-base. The strategy has never been to beat Delta on revenues, it’s to beat them on costs and flood the market with enough seats that Delta makes little to no profit. I’d imagine TPAC Seattle service turns into a bit of a bloodbath over the coming years. Likely unprofitable for both carriers. But again that’s the strategy - if Alaska can take away Delta’s sole reason for staying in Seattle (profitable international service) then the marginal costs/benefit equation changes and SLC/LAX might look more attractive to FL.
you do a better job of trying to explain the dynamic and I think you did a far better job than alot of people but...
1. AS costs are going to go up. They will have to integrate labor which will not accept being lower paid. AS is going to operate a fleet that is as complex as any of the big 3. AS probably will have labor costs lower than the big 3 but...
you do a better job of trying to explain the dynamic and I think you did a far better job than alot of people but...
1. AS costs are going to go up. They will have to integrate labor which will not accept being lower paid. AS is going to operate a fleet that is as complex as any of the big 3. AS probably will have labor costs lower than the big 3 but they will be higher than where they are now.
2. the 332 is the most expensive widebody to operate among the US carrier fleet in an international configuration - which HA's are not. AS cannot compete with the current HA 332 configuration which means they will likely be more like DL's 332 configuration. The higher ownership cost of newer aircraft like the 787 and A350 bear fruit with lower operating costs.
3. AS and DL have both gotten into "flood the market with capacity" strategies and they both backfired just as was true w/ DL/B6 in BOS and JFK. DL can and does match its lower cost competitor fares and can fill its planes just as well even if DL still gets lower margins than it does in ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC - and not be predatory.
And DL does have the market advantage with Tokyo by being at HND and at ICN with a massive JV partnership - and DL/KE including its new subsidiary OZ operate 3 flights/day SEA-ICN
If yolo's characterization of DL getting good domestic yields in LAX but not great international but the opposite at SEA (and I'm not saying he is right but it is plausible), then AS will likely be in the strong domestic/weak international camp at SEA.
and you still get back to the "subsidy" model which so many argue... if DL really does subsidize SEA because of high profits in other parts of the country, why is DL going to back away from SEA now? AS is much smaller than DL and DL can and will continue to put the resources into SEA to make it work - just as has been the case for years.
DL doesn't have to make SEA lose money in order to "win" and AS isn't going to succeed at making DL bleed enough money that they walk away.
DL has become the largest airline at BOS, LGA, JFK, and LAX so SEA is their only "project."
AS sounds very much like B6 that also was and is a lower cost producer than DL and thought that by adding international flights, it would be able to compete with DL.
We can see how that has turned out w/ DL being stronger than B6 now than it was.
AS isn't as stupid as B6' former management was but the notion that AS is going to force DL out of SEA is a pipedream.
At worst, AS will add some international flights that will be low margin but will give them the ability to compete at some level w/ DL's domestic network -where DL does generate comparable yields to AS in the western US and higher yields than AS to the eastern US.
There won't be any dramatic rearranging of the market on either side. At best, AS will carry some international passengers that DL doesn't want to carry w/ its JV partners because they are lower yielding.
I’m somewhat skeptical of your argument that AS/HA costs will go up significantly. Yes labor will rise but some of the cost advantages just come from strategy choices like non seatback IFE. You can make a case that it hurts them on revenue, but it definitely saves money. Alaska’s domestic operation in Seattle absolutely prints money - even if international is unprofitable it’ll boost domestic further by allowing Alaska to compete more for lucrative corporate...
I’m somewhat skeptical of your argument that AS/HA costs will go up significantly. Yes labor will rise but some of the cost advantages just come from strategy choices like non seatback IFE. You can make a case that it hurts them on revenue, but it definitely saves money. Alaska’s domestic operation in Seattle absolutely prints money - even if international is unprofitable it’ll boost domestic further by allowing Alaska to compete more for lucrative corporate contracts, provide better connectivity, etc…
Again, the goal for AS isn’t necessarily to make Delta exit these markets but to make them reprioritize. Should SEA-AMS be double-daily or does it make sense to be single daily and add another SLC frequency?
At the end of the day, DL leadership needs to allocate capital in the wisest places possible. Continuing to pour money into an increasingly competitive Seattle market might not be as smart as investing elsewhere
again, you make more cogent arguments than most people but you miss some key points.
1. DL's return on invested capital metric is ALREADY at the top of the industry. They don't need to pour a whole lot of new capital into SEA; in fact, their capital will be going to grow AUS and add new flights to the Middle East and S. Asia as well as deeper into E. Asia. The marginal capex...
again, you make more cogent arguments than most people but you miss some key points.
1. DL's return on invested capital metric is ALREADY at the top of the industry. They don't need to pour a whole lot of new capital into SEA; in fact, their capital will be going to grow AUS and add new flights to the Middle East and S. Asia as well as deeper into E. Asia. The marginal capex to upgrade to better products at SEA - such as from the 339 to the 350 - is minimal.
2. AVOD cost is minimal. DL uses seatback WiFi tablets on many of its new aircraft and installations so the cost is simply the tablet.
3. The cost of labor is not just because rates will go up but because of operational complexity. AS stuck w/ one fleet type -as WN does - because costs increase dramatically w/ fleet complexity. With 2 mainland narrowbodies and 2 mainland widebodies - excluding the 717s - AS pilots will have the choice of 4 aircraft types which causes pilots to switch aircraft. US labor unions have not been willing to accept long "locks" in a particular aircraft and AS pilots won't either. Add in higher maintenance costs with a diverse fleet and AS' labor costs will look more like the big 3 in a couple years than AS of today - or AS will not retain high value customers.
and the biggest factor is that mergers are messy and SEA is already stretched. AS simply has to get their operation under control and do as good as DL - which they are not doing now.
Latest longhaul data for Delta’s SEA in August. Overall, it’s pretty solid, which is what I’ve been saying, which is SEA performs well internationally for Delta, even if domestically they don’t. This is why Delta keeps SEA around because they are unable to perform at this level with LAX. SEA does have routes that outperform interior hubs as well.
SEA-LHR: 91%
SEA-CDG: 94%
SEA-AMS: 93%
SEA-HND: 88.5%
SEA-ICN: 90%
SEA-PVG:...
Latest longhaul data for Delta’s SEA in August. Overall, it’s pretty solid, which is what I’ve been saying, which is SEA performs well internationally for Delta, even if domestically they don’t. This is why Delta keeps SEA around because they are unable to perform at this level with LAX. SEA does have routes that outperform interior hubs as well.
SEA-LHR: 91%
SEA-CDG: 94%
SEA-AMS: 93%
SEA-HND: 88.5%
SEA-ICN: 90%
SEA-PVG: 86%
SEA-TPE: 79%
LHR data was lagging, as LAX had only been recently cut, looks like the axeing of LAX has helped significantly. Virgin Atlantic will also be bringing its flagship A330neo products (finally) to SEA next October in NW 2025.
TPE is still weak, but has rebounded significantly, the 50 to 60% LFs were partially due to seasonality. But also Taiwanese carriers, especially BR are just way too strong. The retiming of the flight should also help US domestic connections both on the outbound and inbound. The shift to the A350 like the topic of this article will help with the premium leaning market base as well.
yolo
I am going to push back on your statements:
"SEA performs well internationally for Delta, even if domestically they don’t. This is why Delta keeps SEA around because they are unable to perform at this level with LAX."
How does DL manage to support at least 2 underperforming hubs at SEA and LAX - and other people throw in BOS and LGA and/or JFK and still end up with the highest profits...
yolo
I am going to push back on your statements:
"SEA performs well internationally for Delta, even if domestically they don’t. This is why Delta keeps SEA around because they are unable to perform at this level with LAX."
How does DL manage to support at least 2 underperforming hubs at SEA and LAX - and other people throw in BOS and LGA and/or JFK and still end up with the highest profits in the US airline industry?
The excuses that DL gouges its customers from ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC make no sense given that all of those hubs are predominantly connecting airports and DL's local market revenues in those hubs are known and they are not out of line with the industry.
And If DL really was able to support 2 or 3 or more medium sized money-losing hubs and still be the most profitable, how is that AA and UA haven't figured out how to the same and have larger networks - either internationally esp. for AA or domestically for UA?
You do realize that DL's total operation is about 30% larger than AA and UA at LAX?
and, more significantly, given that AA and UA post smaller profits than DL, where do AA and UA lose money on their networks since they, by your own belief, not lose money in whole regions of the country?
The biggest factor that will decide the future of AS and DL's competition vs. each other is labor costs. AS employees have accepted that AS could pay them lower because AS is not a nationwide global carrier as the big 3 are. That went out the window with AS' announcement of intending to turn SEA into a global hub... AS will have major international operations at HNL and SEA, both high cost cities.
There is no reason for AS employees (including the merged HA employees) to accept 2nd tier wages compared to the big 4 including WN.
We have consistently seen US airlines choke on high labor costs post covid, which, btw, DL largely set with the first major pilot contract settlement and the first increase - with boarding pay - for its FAs which was passed along to ground personnel.
is it possible, if not likely, that you and others simply don't want to accept the reality that DL has successfully expanded its network into highly competitive coastal markets even as AA and UA have not changed their network footprint since their mergers?
Is it possible that AS is going to see the same problem w/ labor costs that every other airline - including DL to an extent, is seeing which is squeezing the little guys?
Is it possible that, if there is a "subsidy" going on, it is that DL can afford to operate in highly congested airspace because of its revenue premium and so can keep the aircraft and crews on standby to fix the operational problems that are part of operating in SEA, NYC and BOS?
time will show that DL is going to keep growing in SEA and LAX and AS and DL can each do their own thing but the notion that one will win at the expense of the other is not only a stretch but is actually counter to what has happened in BOS, NYC and LAX.
I'm confused why you have to go on this kind of tirade.
It's a fact that Delta's domestic yields at SEA are amongst the worst in the US. Data does show their international performance is quite good.
The reality is that SEA is not a smashing success for Delta, but it's also probably also not bleeding money like so many others claim.
I've taken a very moderate stance on Delta's SEA hub, based on...
I'm confused why you have to go on this kind of tirade.
It's a fact that Delta's domestic yields at SEA are amongst the worst in the US. Data does show their international performance is quite good.
The reality is that SEA is not a smashing success for Delta, but it's also probably also not bleeding money like so many others claim.
I've taken a very moderate stance on Delta's SEA hub, based on factual evidence. I didn't make any claims about other hubs subsidizing SEA or its individual profitability, which we don't know. I also didn't mention BOS or NYC. Delta has turned JFK around and does do well from it. I'm not sure what the BOS situation is, but the current trajectory does look good for Delta.
Regardless, it is true that Delta runs far more successful long haul operations out of SEA than LAX, which is what I asserted. LAX does do better domestically. SEA performing well internationally is clearly a big reason why Delta continues to hold on to it. LAX has struggled to run bread and butter international routes for Delta, with only a single JV hub route that isn't even daily year-round (no ICN, AMS, or LHR), meanwhile Delta can afford to scale up AMS to double daily out of SEA.
first, it is not a fact that
"It's a fact that Delta's domestic yields at SEA are amongst the worst in the US."
It is a fact that someone took PARTS of DL's fare data and made broad statements and comparisons with partial data.
it really isn't too hard for any person that understands how the industry works to see that - which SHOULD include you - but you clearly are more...
first, it is not a fact that
"It's a fact that Delta's domestic yields at SEA are amongst the worst in the US."
It is a fact that someone took PARTS of DL's fare data and made broad statements and comparisons with partial data.
it really isn't too hard for any person that understands how the industry works to see that - which SHOULD include you - but you clearly are more interested in repeating hearsay than doing your own analysis and in logically thinking through the implications of what is suggested.
and, if your statement that DL can do well in LAX domestically but not internationally while the reverse is true about SEA, how can DL manage to support two "crippled" hubs and still generate the US industry's highest profits but AA and UA can't?
It's not a difficult question but it does involve logically thinking through what is being said and not just mindlessly repeating the same thing that other people say.
that's not a comment about you - you are fairly rational which is why I engaged you - but about the line of argument and logic, or lack thereof.
And if DL's advantage is JV's, then tell us how AS is going to succeed at expanding into the international marketplace without JVs - and if they do get them, tell us why AA esp. will want them since doing so WILL hurt AA as much if not more than it helps AS.
and then tell us where AA and UA lose money on their networks since they don't seem to have these money-losing hubs that everyone thinks DL has and yet still come up w/ lower profits.
and then don't forget to explain the labor cost issue.
and the question still remains how DL manages to
“ first, it is not a fact that
"It's a fact that Delta's domestic yields at SEA are amongst the worst in the US."”
Actually, tim
It is a fact. Just another one you don’t like and attempt to explain away.
once again, using cherrypicked data, you can come up w/ any statement.
No, Julie, it isn't a fact.
You of all people would be the last person to understand or admit it.
And since you are here, how about YOU tell us all how AA or UA haven't figured out how to grow their network and lose money in hubs and still end up as the most profitable US airline
AS WELL...
once again, using cherrypicked data, you can come up w/ any statement.
No, Julie, it isn't a fact.
You of all people would be the last person to understand or admit it.
And since you are here, how about YOU tell us all how AA or UA haven't figured out how to grow their network and lose money in hubs and still end up as the most profitable US airline
AS WELL AS
where AA and UA lose money since they generate lower profits than anyone else?
I'll be waiting just like I have been every time I post the question.
I’ve answered it many times directly from delta’s website and investor days
You just don’t like what delta says
And yes. It’s a fact delta does horribly in Seattle
Walk away, loser
Also
Your usual copy/paste of the same stupid dogma is tiring
Get some new material since you don’t seem Capable of thinking of anything new
Just your usual talking points that are debunked many times over
Julie,
you clearly are trying hard to make your point and are spending time on your Saturday to "win" the discussion but you haven't answered the questions and neither has anyone else.
You HAVE conceded that DL gets the MAJORITY of its profits from its core 4 hubs - ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC - which isn't a surprise since ATL alone is the world's largest hub and is very cost efficient. DL could...
Julie,
you clearly are trying hard to make your point and are spending time on your Saturday to "win" the discussion but you haven't answered the questions and neither has anyone else.
You HAVE conceded that DL gets the MAJORITY of its profits from its core 4 hubs - ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC - which isn't a surprise since ATL alone is the world's largest hub and is very cost efficient. DL could easily get 40-50% of its profits from ATL alone.
What DL has not said and what you and others cannot factually or logically state is that DL loses money at its 4 coastal hubs - any of them. Not only is there no data to support that but all of those hubs are very competitive which would mean it would be predatory for DL to undercut its competition in those hubs and lose money to gain market share.
Instead, DL could very well get a DISPROPORTIONATE share of its profits from ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC while BOS, LGA, JFK, LAX and SEA are profitable but at much lower margins.
but when you consider that AA, B6, NK and others including WN aren't profitable for parts or all of a year and generate less than 2% margins during much of the year, then it isn't hard to see how DL can generate low single digit margins in some of its hubs - which might include SEA -and still not be undercutting its competitors margins or losing money to drive competitors out of the market.
the questions you haven't answered are how DL has figured out how to do this but no other airline has to anywhere near the same degree and where AA and UA and others lose money.
In fact, AA and WN esp. have a lot of their networks that just perform "horribly" to use your term. that's alot of underperforming capacity in the US airline industry.
Is it possible that the reason why AS doesn't cry foul to the feds is because AS loses money on parts of its network - such as SFO - that it considers strategically important?
Is it possible that AA maintains hubs at ORD, PHX and PHL and may be others that don't make money?
Is it possible that UA doesn't make profits near as large as DL in ATL at any of its hubs but does consistently produce single digit margins - which is enough to come in 2nd?
Of course it is not only possible but it is pretty logical.
And the implications for AS in SEA is that DL has as much strategic reason to stay and grow in SEA and LAX while doing things to grow its margins - just as AS intends to do.
Taking over HA's money-losing operations aren't going to be fixed just by moving HNL-NRT to SEA.
DL is working to improve its margins by putting more capable and higher revenue generating aircraft on SEA TPAC flights just as AS is reshuffling flights -but at the end of this year and the next, AS and DL will likely still end up with very comparable profit margins.
AS can do what it wants. DL will keep growing.
AS will have to spend more on labor while DL is already doing it. DL will stay one step ahead with new generation aircraft and its JVs while AS will continue to try to be the niche carrier disruptor, a role that has worked for some airlines but not for others.
class dismissed.
yolo,
it is beyond ironic that you comment about DL's sole flight to Europe from LAX while ignoring the fact that UA serves just a single city in E. Asia (Tokyo) from every other hub outside of CA (IAH, DEN, ORD, EWR, IAD) while DL serves 2 or more E. Asian cities from ATL, DTW, and MSP. If the criteria for not successfully serving a region from a hub is having only one destination,...
yolo,
it is beyond ironic that you comment about DL's sole flight to Europe from LAX while ignoring the fact that UA serves just a single city in E. Asia (Tokyo) from every other hub outside of CA (IAH, DEN, ORD, EWR, IAD) while DL serves 2 or more E. Asian cities from ATL, DTW, and MSP. If the criteria for not successfully serving a region from a hub is having only one destination, then UA is in a world of hurt from the eastern US to East Asia.
Or your criteria is a hypocritically made up factor that is easy to debunk and which you really don't want to debate.
Why is it hypocritical? I didn't even mention UA's other hubs or Asia.
All of those UA hubs you just listed have multiple sustained year-round daily flights to JV hubs, something that Delta is incapable of doing at LAX. Which is reflective of UA's stronger international market position at all of its hubs.
yolo,
UA flies to precisely ONE city in E. Asia from IAD, EWR, IAH, DEN and ORD.
Yes, it is a JV city but that is exactly what CDG is for DL.
DL flies from ATL, DTW and MSP to at least two cities, one of which is a JV hub city.
So, yes, it is hypocritical to argue about DL's lack of service from LAX to Europe (please list the cities that...
yolo,
UA flies to precisely ONE city in E. Asia from IAD, EWR, IAH, DEN and ORD.
Yes, it is a JV city but that is exactly what CDG is for DL.
DL flies from ATL, DTW and MSP to at least two cities, one of which is a JV hub city.
So, yes, it is hypocritical to argue about DL's lack of service from LAX to Europe (please list the cities that UA serves from LAX to Europe anyway) but ignore that UA does the same thing for multiple hubs in the eastern US to Asia.
I'm not messing w/ you personally. You are one of the more rational people. But I absolutely love taking apart the cherrypicked arguments that so many make.
UA has unquestionably the largest US carrier hub to Asia from SFO -but it has very little presence to Asia outside of CA -unless you count 7 flights to Tokyo and only Tokyo.
and DL will grow LAX including to ICN.
and I doubt that you will ever see the day that AS becomes a larger international carrier from SEA than DL and esp. not larger than DL plus its JV partners.
first (sic), it is not a fact that "It's a fact"
Second, it is a fact "it is not a fact that "It's a fact""
Third, it is not a fact that "it is a fact "it is not a fact that "It's a fact"""
Fourth, "the reality is that **I** win."
Fifth, it is not a fact that "the reality is that **I** win."
A350 cruises faster?
Tim, you really run out of material to fluff?
We know you're losing it when you declared a few days ago "the reality is that **I** win."
I guess we'll be seeing Tim's fluff that the most profitable premium A350-1000 is going supersonic from ATL to dominate SEA based on DOT and earnings call soon?
I'm not sure what you're responding to (it's not showing in a thread for me,) but it is true that the A350 cruises a bit faster than the A330. It's not a big difference, but the A330 is a bit on the slower side as widebodies go (though faster than narrowbodies like the 737, A320, and 757.) The difference between an A330 and A350 wouldn't even be an hour over the course of a trans-Pac...
I'm not sure what you're responding to (it's not showing in a thread for me,) but it is true that the A350 cruises a bit faster than the A330. It's not a big difference, but the A330 is a bit on the slower side as widebodies go (though faster than narrowbodies like the 737, A320, and 757.) The difference between an A330 and A350 wouldn't even be an hour over the course of a trans-Pac flight, though. Probably more like 15-20 minutes, maybe 30 for the longer ones. It is a measurable difference, but most passengers probably won't notice.
Vb
Easy to find Tim’s stupid paragraphs
He’s reaching :)
Eskimo
I love it when people like you go full nuclear because you can't stand to admit that I bring an element to the discussion which you didn't see - or even know.
I didn't say an hour difference in flying time. I said 20-30 minutes and it matters in flight schedules.
The biggest factor is that the A350 can carry more cargo than the 339 which will help profitability.
I also didn't...
Eskimo
I love it when people like you go full nuclear because you can't stand to admit that I bring an element to the discussion which you didn't see - or even know.
I didn't say an hour difference in flying time. I said 20-30 minutes and it matters in flight schedules.
The biggest factor is that the A350 can carry more cargo than the 339 which will help profitability.
I also didn't say a thing about the A350-1000 which goes to show how traumatized you and others will be when DL announces routes with it that no aircraft in AA or UA's fleet can fly with any respectable amount of passengers.
It’s like tim has never heard of the 77w
Cute try though, tim
Your comebacks are useless, as usual
and which of AS or DL uses the 777W? Neither.
You can't stand to admit that DL has the better aircraft for longhaul international flights at least comparing the AS A330s to DL's 359s.
And even if AS uses the 787-9s for international flights - which is highly expected - the A350 is simply larger, more capable and more efficient. The 777 and 787 cruise at about the same speed as the A350 but are...
and which of AS or DL uses the 777W? Neither.
You can't stand to admit that DL has the better aircraft for longhaul international flights at least comparing the AS A330s to DL's 359s.
And even if AS uses the 787-9s for international flights - which is highly expected - the A350 is simply larger, more capable and more efficient. The 777 and 787 cruise at about the same speed as the A350 but are smaller and less capable.
and the 777W - which AA and UA will cling to for years - burns 25% more fuel than either version of the A350 while the 777 in any version except the LR has much less range.
At least you tried to argue a point rather than trash someone but your statement shows how badly you try to admit the truth that other people can see.
You should read your own dribble before trying to seem smart
“ when DL announces routes with it that no aircraft in AA or UA's fleet can fly with any respectable amount of passengers”
and, yes, Jane, there will be routes that DL will announce and fly that are beyond the capability of AA or UA aircraft without removing alot of seats.
AA specifically is creating a 244 seat 787-9 in order to serve ULH flights such as for DFW-BNE.
Yes Tim.
I've gone nuclear and I'm traumatized by the A350-1000. I wet myself everytime I see that plane.
What other element (fluff) which I didn't see - or even know you would bring next, speed was a good in a bad way.
I was flabbergasted when you bring up faster cruise speed.
It's almost like saying UberXL is more favorable than UberX because it's faster?
The abysmal load factor on TPE route can not reflect that front cabins (D1 & PS) are in general sold much better than economy. Not sure if that is due to coportate contracts. As long as DL can sell 80% of those premium seats up front regularly, they might endure ~50% load factor before peak season arrives.
Correct. Premium seats represent a disproportionate amount of revenue compared to economy, and that's true for any airline, not just Delta.
The shift to an A350 will increase premium seating by 40%, if they maintain a packed front cabin, the empty economy seats don't matter nearly as much.
Also, I have no idea if Tim's blurb about a potential for China Airlines partnership is real, but maintaining a TPE flight for that purpose is useful.
All this speculation is fine but nobody here has any indication of whether the front cabin is packed or not, and if it is packed, what it is packed with. There are lots of indications here that there are frequent business class sales and reduced mileage availability in the biz cabin. If that's the case, that's not good. But at the end of the day it's all speculation on our part.
"Those who know...
All this speculation is fine but nobody here has any indication of whether the front cabin is packed or not, and if it is packed, what it is packed with. There are lots of indications here that there are frequent business class sales and reduced mileage availability in the biz cabin. If that's the case, that's not good. But at the end of the day it's all speculation on our part.
"Those who know cannot say, those who say do not know". Pure speculation on our part for anything beyond the load factors.
As far as CI, they have no incentive to work with delta on connnectivith at tpe as of now. Their primary motivation is to ensure their planes from Seattle and those onward are full. The way to best align incentives is through a joint venture, but that is nowhere close to reality.
It is a response to Alaska…they read the tea leaves…faster 787s are coming to Seattle. Protect Tokyo and Seoul now. Taipai needs the 350 for performance…HND/ICN dont
I've flown both DL and JX out of TPE and JX has by far the better aircraft, food, and service. DL has better departure times from SEA, however.
Wishing good luck to DL. You're going to need it.
another factor besides the A350's greater cargo carrying capability is that the A350 cruises faster than the A330NEO. Not only will Delta reduce its crew costs (DL pilots and FAs are paid the same per hour on the 330 and 350) but their connecting flights will show up higher in competitive flight displays, taking advantage of Seattle's good geography.
DL is highly driven by numbers so you can bet they know what they will save...
another factor besides the A350's greater cargo carrying capability is that the A350 cruises faster than the A330NEO. Not only will Delta reduce its crew costs (DL pilots and FAs are paid the same per hour on the 330 and 350) but their connecting flights will show up higher in competitive flight displays, taking advantage of Seattle's good geography.
DL is highly driven by numbers so you can bet they know what they will save in costs as well as the additional revenue.
btw, in all of the discussions about SEA-TPE, DL retimed the flight sometime in the past couple months to maximize connections at SEA with a 3 pm dept from SEA and an 11 am dept from TPE. In fact, DL's SEA-TPE flight times are now at some of the most pleasant times other than DL's DTW ICN and HND flights.
And on another thread related to Delta, I was at a cocktail party in NYC not long ago and an executive from JetBlue was there and said Delta was interested in acquiring JetBlue but they had to put first class in their planes first before they moved forward. I thought that was an interesting comment. Any insight to that? Thanks!!
JetBlue just announced putting First in their cabins... but an exec talking about potential mergers that haven't been formally announced sounds extremely unlikely. If you want to make very unfriendly enemies at the SEC, that's how you do it.
there is zero chance that DL or UA - which is also hot on mergers - can acquire any other US airlines or their assets.
btw, WN said they will be announcing a sale of some of their aircraft in the next couple weeks and the interest was very high.
Let's see who ends up w/ some used 737s, probably -800s.
The Battle for Seattle is ON!
*gets popcorn*
You might want to keep an eye on the DOT's Air Travel Consumer Report.
The November edition came out today; it includes data for flights through September.
AS' on-time was 9 out of 10 carriers with only Frontier worse.
HA, as usual is at the top but DL is #2 as it usually is.
UA was only 1 point behind DL with WN only 1 point behind UA.
B6 moved up to...
You might want to keep an eye on the DOT's Air Travel Consumer Report.
The November edition came out today; it includes data for flights through September.
AS' on-time was 9 out of 10 carriers with only Frontier worse.
HA, as usual is at the top but DL is #2 as it usually is.
UA was only 1 point behind DL with WN only 1 point behind UA.
B6 moved up to 7th place.
Notably, DL's on-time was 10 points better than AS in SEA as well as in DL hubs. UA was 10 points better than AS in UA hubs.
On a year to date basis, AS is #5 out of 10, behind HA, DL, UA and WN.
in every metric the DOT tracks including cancellations, baggage and wheelchair mishandling, and invol oversales, AS is mid to lower tier.
I don't know what is going on at AS but B6 lost the battle for premium passengers with DL when its operation began to consistently lag DL's by significant margins.
10 points difference in on-time between AS and both DL and UA on the west coast matters alot.
When you are lagging WN, your operations are not where they need to be.
has SEA already become so congested that AS can't handle it? If so, adding widebodies and even more passengers might not be the formula for AS to turn things around.
What objective evidence do we have that TPE has "abysmal" load factors? Anecdotes that a couple people said their flight wasn't that full? An occasional award ticket that is not horrendously priced? When I do anecdotal spot checks of the seat map on SEA-TPE and compare it to SEA-HND and SEA-ICN, they look pretty similar in the next month or two. A little better than SEA-PVG. Tomorrow the flight is almost sold out.
I think...
What objective evidence do we have that TPE has "abysmal" load factors? Anecdotes that a couple people said their flight wasn't that full? An occasional award ticket that is not horrendously priced? When I do anecdotal spot checks of the seat map on SEA-TPE and compare it to SEA-HND and SEA-ICN, they look pretty similar in the next month or two. A little better than SEA-PVG. Tomorrow the flight is almost sold out.
I think the switch to the A350 has been in the works for a while. Patrick Shea has a video on Youtube about the inaugural flight, and when he talked to one of the Delta execs, they told him that sales were enough that they were planning to upgrade the aircraft in 2025.
Thank You. Who actually has data on how the load factors are unless you work for the airline?
Loads aren't that hard to decipher with a fair degree of accuracy, particularly with some of the modern tools/reporting out there.
Yields are something that absolutely no one in the public will know; and trying to surmise them off of the public fares being offered, is a fool's game.
The Port of Seattle publishes LF data for intl airlines and AviationDB does for US airlines w/ #'s that corroborate, so we have the actual data. These are the splits by month by carrier for SEA-TPE for 2024 YTD:
January:
- BR: 88.7%
February:
- BR: 86.9%
March:
- BR: 97.2%
April:
- BR: 96.5%
May:
- BR: 96.9%
June:
- BR: 97.8%
- DL: 88.9%
July:
...
The Port of Seattle publishes LF data for intl airlines and AviationDB does for US airlines w/ #'s that corroborate, so we have the actual data. These are the splits by month by carrier for SEA-TPE for 2024 YTD:
January:
- BR: 88.7%
February:
- BR: 86.9%
March:
- BR: 97.2%
April:
- BR: 96.5%
May:
- BR: 96.9%
June:
- BR: 97.8%
- DL: 88.9%
July:
- BR: 92.4%
- DL: 83.8%
- CI: 88.5%
August:
- BR: 93.0%
- DL: 82.2%
- CI: 87.8%
- JX: 87.7%
September:
- BR: 90.0%
- DL: 51.2%
- CI: 81.3%
- JX: 80.6%
October:
- BR: 90.4%
- DL: 59.2%
- CI: 71.4%
- JX: 76.1%
80% is considered break-even, and CI signed the big $$ cargo contracts in Taiwan. The data suggests 3/4 carriers are losing $$ in the offseason (Sept-Feb), but Delta's LFs are the lowest and the #s in September and October are horrific (and even in peak season, July & August were only 82 and 84% w/o Starlux). This is why there are constant SkyMile deals for economy and business for SEA-TPE.
As per the same datasets, Delta does quite well (pretty profitable) on SEA-ICN, SEA-CDG, and SEA-AMS as per LFs, does OK on SEA-HND (profitable esp. in summer but not a standout - however, if there is another SEA-HND flight that would likely change that), slightly above break-even on SEA-PVG (LFs range between 75-90%, and loses $ on SEA-LHR (LFs range between 60-85%) as well as likely SEA-TPE.
first, there is no way of knowing what kind of yields the Taiwanese airlines are getting in order to get higher LFs. They have the advantage of connections beyond TPE but DL has far better advantages for connections at SEA.
Remember that AS has no JVs with any carrier so they have to sell domestic seats to foreign carriers at a price they can make some money on. DL can carry domestic passengers for...
first, there is no way of knowing what kind of yields the Taiwanese airlines are getting in order to get higher LFs. They have the advantage of connections beyond TPE but DL has far better advantages for connections at SEA.
Remember that AS has no JVs with any carrier so they have to sell domestic seats to foreign carriers at a price they can make some money on. DL can carry domestic passengers for less than AS if they gain more revenue on the longhaul international flight.
It is precisely because of that principle that the statement about DL's yields in SEA are very likely wrong. International yield data is very protected.
second, there won't be another SEA-HND flight. AS will have to fly to NRT. There are no more HND flights available and the other US carriers will all object if just one more slot becomes available to let AS into HND.
and the biggest way for DL to cut off the Taiwanese carriers is to fly from SEA deeper into Asia - unless they and KE decide to get aggressive about pricing from SEA to SE Asia.
Look - Delta only has a few international longhaul flights from Seattle - HND/ICN/TPE/PVG/AMS/CDG/LHR - but DOZENS of domestic flights, many of which do not provide connectivity to the international banks or flights that are all just domestic only, for the most part. If you'r ereally saying that you cant make sense of ANY of DL's domestic yields at SEA becausxe of connectivity to a few international flights then how can you say that you...
Look - Delta only has a few international longhaul flights from Seattle - HND/ICN/TPE/PVG/AMS/CDG/LHR - but DOZENS of domestic flights, many of which do not provide connectivity to the international banks or flights that are all just domestic only, for the most part. If you'r ereally saying that you cant make sense of ANY of DL's domestic yields at SEA becausxe of connectivity to a few international flights then how can you say that you can look at yields at ANY hub for any airline that has any international flights? Many of Delta's and certainly other airlines' hubs have way more international flights than DL at SEA, so by your logic there is nowhere you can get accurate yield/ fare information on the domestic markets. Something doesnt add up.
Also, my understanding is that, while the international portions of a domestic to international itinterary might be blocked, usually the domestic portion is prorated onto the domestic portion, so that you can see the performance of all that is of that leg. At least that's how we saw it when I evaluated domestic flying opportunities in network planning at the various airlines I worked at.
Anyway, regardless of how the SE Asian airlines are filling their planes on SEA-TPE, and regardless of what is on Delta's planes, those load factors DL is dealing with on SEA-TPE outside of summer are atrocious and unsustainable, regardless of how you slice it.
Jason,
feel free to let us know the number of DL domestic passengers that connect on a prorated ticket to a DL international flight and then compare that to other DL hubs and I would strongly bet you will find out why the statement about DL's domestic yields come w/ a big *.
On a 6000 mile journey, the domestic portion of a 600 mile domestic segment connecting to a 5400 international segment (SEA-ICN...
Jason,
feel free to let us know the number of DL domestic passengers that connect on a prorated ticket to a DL international flight and then compare that to other DL hubs and I would strongly bet you will find out why the statement about DL's domestic yields come w/ a big *.
On a 6000 mile journey, the domestic portion of a 600 mile domestic segment connecting to a 5400 international segment (SEA-ICN is 5200 miles) with a $750 fare (not including taxes) gives the domestic segment only $75.
Taiwanese airlines have much lower labor costs than UA carriers so can and do chase low fares.
You do realize that UA's SFO-TPE LF was less than 10 points higher than DL's? spare us the grandstanding.
and the bottom line is that everyone is convinced that DL loses money in SEA anyway so why do you honestly worry?
How about instead of your non-sense you tell us how DL manages to generate the highest profits of any US airline and still manages to support SEA as a money-losing hub and how many others of the same you think.
If DL bails on SEA-TPE, then you might have a point.
I have a feeling that you are far more likely to see DL add more flights to more destinations from SEA than you are see DL get rid of TPE - unless DL signs a JV with CI and moves its TPE flight to another hub.
“Taiwanese airlines have much lower labor costs than UA carriers so can and do chase low fares”
How about instead of racing to be the winner of “most word salad on OMAAT” in a day, you proofread said salad?
Not sure what grandstanding you're accusing me of or why you mention United and SF. I didn't.
Anyway, I'm aware of the various proration methodologies and their pros and cons as I've worked in networking planning and network profitability for various domestic and international airlines. I'm just saying that international flying as a percentage of flights for delta's Seattle hub is low, that many of their domestic flights rely on local traffic or domestic...
Not sure what grandstanding you're accusing me of or why you mention United and SF. I didn't.
Anyway, I'm aware of the various proration methodologies and their pros and cons as I've worked in networking planning and network profitability for various domestic and international airlines. I'm just saying that international flying as a percentage of flights for delta's Seattle hub is low, that many of their domestic flights rely on local traffic or domestic connectivity primarily, so you should get a decent sense of the yields they're getting. I question your assumption that the domestic flights don't include the prorated portions of the international fares. Also, why do you have to be so NASTY and SNOTTY in your reply? Anyway, my only point is that the TPE load factors are low now it'll be interesting to see how Delta manages in what is arguably a competitive market. I don't care about how delta is profitable overall - wasn't the topic at hand and I didn't mention it. We will see how delta does, but that doesn't mean that you need to be so rude and condescending in your replies.
nobody is getting snotty.
I am asking you for data which you STILL did not provide.
How many domestic passengers does DL connect onto its international network? It's not a hard question to answer.
DL operates 6-8 widebody international flights per day.
There is data that shows that DL gets comparable domestic average fares to AS in the west and above average fares to AS in the eastern US and midwest.
Thus,...
nobody is getting snotty.
I am asking you for data which you STILL did not provide.
How many domestic passengers does DL connect onto its international network? It's not a hard question to answer.
DL operates 6-8 widebody international flights per day.
There is data that shows that DL gets comparable domestic average fares to AS in the west and above average fares to AS in the eastern US and midwest.
Thus, it is hard to reconcile when people say that DL gets so much lower fares other than the proration of the domestic portion of international segments in a hub that is not that large could very well impact the overall size of the domestic average fare.
If you have worked in network or airline passenger accounting you understand the principle or should.
It isn't you I am responding to but the argument which simply doesn't hold water.
You are snotty and condescending in all your responses.
I'm implying saying that I do not have all the data specific to this, but neither do you.
Having worked in network planning and network profitability at various airlines, I can say a few things:
1) those load factors cited above, which data from comparable sources I have access to aligns, are not encouraging, especially in the last two months cited. That's not...
You are snotty and condescending in all your responses.
I'm implying saying that I do not have all the data specific to this, but neither do you.
Having worked in network planning and network profitability at various airlines, I can say a few things:
1) those load factors cited above, which data from comparable sources I have access to aligns, are not encouraging, especially in the last two months cited. That's not to say how it will do in the future, it just does not look encouraging now;
2) all I'm offering is various ways that one can evaluate fares, proration methodology, and contribution to evaluate profitability. There are many ways to do so and apply it here.
How delta is profitable and from where it derives its profits, I couldn't care less. There are many ways to approach this analysis , and that's all I'm saying
September was the worst month for SEA-TPE; things have picked up loads-factor wise each month sequentially since then. The Taiwanese carriers maintained their load factors post-August primarily due to the connecting SE Asia feed; basically, if you were depending on Taiwan O&D traffic, that fell off quite significantly (as evidenced by United's LF on SFO-TPE in September as well, falling from the 80s to the 60s).
Delta's SEA-HND should continue to do fine. In fact, it's their HNL and MSP flights that are far weaker.
More Americans these days, especially the inbound Japanese tourists understand the benefit of flying into HND, for point to point than say a decade ago.
Delta skews premium heavy out of SEA, which is reflective of the higher GDP of that area. The A350 will provide a substantially better product than HA's A330s, which doesn't even...
Delta's SEA-HND should continue to do fine. In fact, it's their HNL and MSP flights that are far weaker.
More Americans these days, especially the inbound Japanese tourists understand the benefit of flying into HND, for point to point than say a decade ago.
Delta skews premium heavy out of SEA, which is reflective of the higher GDP of that area. The A350 will provide a substantially better product than HA's A330s, which doesn't even have a premium economy. And premium heavy travelers do differentiate based on hard product.
I totally agree today Delta's SEA-HND is fine and profitable - HNL LFs are bad & while MSP-HND data is harder to come by, as of early 2024 it was the by a distance the lowest performing mainland America - Tokyo route.
However, Delta lags ANA by ~7-12% on LF on SEA-HND on avg. and beats JAL on SEA-NRT by ~5% 2024 YTD. There are no slots at USA-HND slots - however, there will be...
I totally agree today Delta's SEA-HND is fine and profitable - HNL LFs are bad & while MSP-HND data is harder to come by, as of early 2024 it was the by a distance the lowest performing mainland America - Tokyo route.
However, Delta lags ANA by ~7-12% on LF on SEA-HND on avg. and beats JAL on SEA-NRT by ~5% 2024 YTD. There are no slots at USA-HND slots - however, there will be more assigned in 2028 and the US is likely to get 1-2 (Russia, China, & Korea the ones at risk to lose).
Things can change, but the last time slots were available in the mainland (ignoring United's Guam win), Delta did not apply while United asked for IAH-HND to replace IAH-NRT and complement ANA's IAH-HND.
So in 3 years, JAL and ANA will likely each add a US-HND route. JAL is missing SEA-HND while both are missing HRD (Las Vegas). On the US side, unless someone tries to serve HND from a currently unserved market, Alaska at SEA-HND will be the most competitive bid. Given Delta's POS issues in Japan, that's where I'm saying I see issues upcoming for SEA-HND. Not today, but in a few years.
In fairness, JAL’s numbers are boosted by Alaska’s feed, and I doubt there’s room for 2 carriers on SEA-NRT esp. considering Alaska will have no connects from NRT unless it’s new competitor JAL helps. Something will have to sort out there first.
ANA is really just too impressive. They dominate across almost all markets, UA benefits heavily from this since their own metal lags ANA signifcantly, even from strongholds like SFO.
On a nother note, JAL and Alaska are functionally competitors now, due to the JV, wouldn't JAL prefer to get SEA-HND over Alaska? Right now, Alaska is unable to sell connections out of NRT on its metal.
I think one NRT service is still critical for...
ANA is really just too impressive. They dominate across almost all markets, UA benefits heavily from this since their own metal lags ANA signifcantly, even from strongholds like SFO.
On a nother note, JAL and Alaska are functionally competitors now, due to the JV, wouldn't JAL prefer to get SEA-HND over Alaska? Right now, Alaska is unable to sell connections out of NRT on its metal.
I think one NRT service is still critical for SEA market as there are more unique connections out of NRT, like CGK, KUL, HAN, etc. SFO/LAX all maintain an extra set of NRT flights from the Japanese carriers and UA.
Totally agree - if I'm AA/JAL that should be the strategy. Get Alaska to add SEA-NRT and move JAL from SEA-NRT to SEA-HND in 2028 which likely makes OneWorld the dominant player for SEA-Tokyo.
Then I'd push Alaska to add PDX-NRT given their strong feed - PDX-Tokyo is a legacy route w/ decent O&D albeit not worth a HND slot but a direct flight likely beats connecting. It further feeds JAL at NRT too.
If...
Totally agree - if I'm AA/JAL that should be the strategy. Get Alaska to add SEA-NRT and move JAL from SEA-NRT to SEA-HND in 2028 which likely makes OneWorld the dominant player for SEA-Tokyo.
Then I'd push Alaska to add PDX-NRT given their strong feed - PDX-Tokyo is a legacy route w/ decent O&D albeit not worth a HND slot but a direct flight likely beats connecting. It further feeds JAL at NRT too.
If Alaska runs those 2 routes, that may make an AA-JAL-Alaska JV of interest if it can pass regulatory approval - if it does, the combined AA-Alaska share at LAS probably makes LAS-NRT viable and incentivizes Alaska to feed JAL's SAN-NRT, SFO-HND, SFO-NRT, etc. All of a sudden, you have a path to being the dominant West Coast player to Japan from LAX, SAN, LAS, SEA, and PDX w/ a strong presence at SFO.
PDX makes sense. I wonder if there's a case for Alaska to take over the SAN route, if they enter a JV together. Alaska probably would do better than JAL because of the stronger American point of sale and probably would be able to upgauge to daily eventually.
LAS is interesting since it is the largest unserved market, but it's also very leisure focused. LAS punches well below it's weight for international service for that...
PDX makes sense. I wonder if there's a case for Alaska to take over the SAN route, if they enter a JV together. Alaska probably would do better than JAL because of the stronger American point of sale and probably would be able to upgauge to daily eventually.
LAS is interesting since it is the largest unserved market, but it's also very leisure focused. LAS punches well below it's weight for international service for that reason. I know their government has been lobbying for it for quite some time. Perhaps Zipair will be the first.
@Yolo and Jeremy. Great intelligent discussion. What the comments section should be all about. Thanks!! Look forward to future comments from you both!
The last comment about Zipair also intriguing.
In the post, there is a photo of Delta economy in 2-4-2 saying that ex-LATAM A350s are going to be reconfigured. But I don't see any Delta A350 that has a 2-4-2 seat layout on Aerolopa. Could you please clarify for me whether any Delta A350s currently have a 2-4-2 seat configuration? Thank you.
As with all things Delta, which is 'premium' wanna be.
The 2-4-2 you see is 'premium' economy.
Delta zombie cockroaches...hasn't anyone sprayed this place for pests with marginal brainpower lately?
Truly an airline wasting an asset to compete in a p!ss|ng contest.
This is a huge disappointment for me, as I really enjoyed the 2-4-2 configuration on the A330 for SEA-HND. I just can't stand the 3-3-3 configuration. Looks like I won't be flying Delta on SEA-HND anymore.
If you done flying Delta because they are switching over to the A359 with 3-3-3 configuration then your only choice if HND is your preferred airport is ANA and they operate the route with 787s which have, wait for it.......... 3-3-3- configuration in coach as well.
The A350 have 18 inch width seats compared to the 787 with 3-3-3 which has 17 inch width seats.
If you want 2-4-2 seating in coach you'd have to...
If you done flying Delta because they are switching over to the A359 with 3-3-3 configuration then your only choice if HND is your preferred airport is ANA and they operate the route with 787s which have, wait for it.......... 3-3-3- configuration in coach as well.
The A350 have 18 inch width seats compared to the 787 with 3-3-3 which has 17 inch width seats.
If you want 2-4-2 seating in coach you'd have to go with JAL but JAL doesn't fly into HND out of SEA you'd have to fly into NRT. Hawaiian isn't flying into HND either they'll be going into NRT as well so if you want 2-4-2 you're flying into NRT. I don't know about you but I'd happily take either NH or DL 3-3-3 into HND any day over flying into NRT, if Tokyo is your final destination flying into HND is far more convent than NRT.
Always fun to see Tim’s fake profiles at work
jane,
further proof that you label anything that is counter to your narrative as from a single source.
as usual, you have nothing to contribute to the conversation itself.
Clutching my pearls, you fake POS
Use your real name.
While I generally agree with your sentiment as far as long-haul economy is concerned, the HA A330s probably won't be on this route for long. I'd guess they'll be replaced by 787s within a year or two, which is also 3-3-3 in the back. 3-3-3 on an A350 does have more space than 3-3-3 on a 787, as the 350's cabin is wider.
Airbus' recent talk of 3-4-3 configs on A350s does seem concerning, though....
While I generally agree with your sentiment as far as long-haul economy is concerned, the HA A330s probably won't be on this route for long. I'd guess they'll be replaced by 787s within a year or two, which is also 3-3-3 in the back. 3-3-3 on an A350 does have more space than 3-3-3 on a 787, as the 350's cabin is wider.
Airbus' recent talk of 3-4-3 configs on A350s does seem concerning, though. That sounds truly horrendous. Hopefully that's just for LCCs like Cebu Pacific and such that already have horrific 3-3-3 A330 configs. I find it very unlikely that DL would go to 3-4-3 on their A350s. They didn't even do that on their 777s.
BFD. Nothing much will come from this. Delta only pretends to give a shit about Seattle or anything west of Atlanta. They have never been committed to the Pacific region, never have been, never will be.
And BTW, of course Delta doesn't fly "across the Atlantic" from Seattle. Showing your geographic ignorance (and east coast-centric view of the world) there.
man what a stupid post
They often do literally cross the North Atlantic on the East-bound leg, depending on current winds (taking a long route on the East-bound with the jet stream is often faster and more fuel efficient than the shorter one across the Arctic.) Same often happens on East-bound trans-Pac routes for the same reason (even long before Russian airspace became unavailable.)
And, of course, the terms "trans-Pacific" and "trans-Atlantic" or "crossing the Pacific/Atlantic" are commonly used even...
They often do literally cross the North Atlantic on the East-bound leg, depending on current winds (taking a long route on the East-bound with the jet stream is often faster and more fuel efficient than the shorter one across the Arctic.) Same often happens on East-bound trans-Pac routes for the same reason (even long before Russian airspace became unavailable.)
And, of course, the terms "trans-Pacific" and "trans-Atlantic" or "crossing the Pacific/Atlantic" are commonly used even for flights that really take trans-polar routes.
Agree that DL upgrading TPE to an A359 is a bit of a head-scratcher considering their current load factors (and low fares / plentiful award space).
But more TPAC capacity out of TPE is always good news considering the consistently high fares on CI/BR/JX, especially during peak season. And DL’s configurations are marginally more comfortable than UA’s 77Ws.
I guess it’s also great news for consumers who are looking for reasonably priced TPAC redemptions...
Agree that DL upgrading TPE to an A359 is a bit of a head-scratcher considering their current load factors (and low fares / plentiful award space).
But more TPAC capacity out of TPE is always good news considering the consistently high fares on CI/BR/JX, especially during peak season. And DL’s configurations are marginally more comfortable than UA’s 77Ws.
I guess it’s also great news for consumers who are looking for reasonably priced TPAC redemptions using SkyPesos lol.
the new 359 configuration has fewer seats than the 339 - but more Delta One and Premium Select seats.
It is very possible that DL gets enough business revenue and can make the route work w/ alot more cargo which the 359 can carry far better than the 339. and let's see how well SEA-TPE does for all airlines during Christmas/New Years break and then in the summer.
Taiwanese airlines use consolidators to fill...
the new 359 configuration has fewer seats than the 339 - but more Delta One and Premium Select seats.
It is very possible that DL gets enough business revenue and can make the route work w/ alot more cargo which the 359 can carry far better than the 339. and let's see how well SEA-TPE does for all airlines during Christmas/New Years break and then in the summer.
Taiwanese airlines use consolidators to fill up empty seats so you really have no idea how little they are getting for much of their flight.
Also, it is still very possible that DL and China Airlines will strengthen their relationship now the KE relationship has been strengthened and the KE/OZ merger is approved.
DL and CI's schedules work well together on both ends if they choose to cooperate further.
Does anyone actually have proof of their “low load factors” on the TPE route ?
Yes, it was the in 50% range for August and September. You can look it up yourself.
I'm not sure that a two month period where all airlines took a seasonal hit is indicative. But they'll certainly need to do better overall to sustain the route.
The biggest impact has been to UA's SFO routes rather than the Taiwanese airlines to be totally honest, who also experienced a massive hit. Which goes to show you how important the point of sale is for US vs Asia.
The beauty about the A350 is it has a common type rating for operators which already have the A330 in their fleet. Common type ratings for pilots is far more efficient and cheaper than having to maintain two separate pilot rosters for the airlines as well as the extra expense this requires in the training department qualifying pilots to fly at the airlines.
It'll be fine. They can always back to A330neos if needed or even switch back-and-forth between A330neos and A350s dependent on seasonality.
The FAA does not allow US carriers to have multiple type ratings for their pilots unless pilots fly both types on a regular basis.
that is hard to do on a regular basis.
DL will have 65 A350s based on their current orders and fleet and even more 330s between the CEOs and NEOs which is pretty efficient.
the complexity comes from the number of bases but the chances are that DL will,...
The FAA does not allow US carriers to have multiple type ratings for their pilots unless pilots fly both types on a regular basis.
that is hard to do on a regular basis.
DL will have 65 A350s based on their current orders and fleet and even more 330s between the CEOs and NEOs which is pretty efficient.
the complexity comes from the number of bases but the chances are that DL will, in time, have 350 bases at LAX, SEA, JFK and ATL and 330 bases at 4 or 5 eastern US bases; they just opened a BOS 330 base.
That depends on jurisdiction. 330 and 350 do NOT share a type rating under the FAA, though EASA does have a common type rating program for them. Delta has separate pilots for their A350s vs. A330s.
They've clearly got to try something now, let's hope it works out for them and doesn't just end up exacerbating their major losses at SEA.
Major losses? There was some data months ago that Delta makes a lower profit flying domestically from SEA than its other hubs. That is only part of its business there. And the hub with the lowest returns for the most profitable US carrier may not be as bad as some make it out to be.
How do you take a report about a least-profitable (but never did it say "unprofitable") domestic hub, and extrapolate that into "major losses" for an operation whose primary purpose/focus is international connections?
Unless you know something that the rest of the public doesn't.....
Woah, calm down friends, I'm hoping this reaction helps them begin to recover as much as you are.
Perhaps to differentiate itself from the new Alaska/Hawaiian flights to Tokyo and Seoul which will fly A330
Initially, yes, though I expect those will ultimately shift to the 787 as HA gets more of them in the mix. It would be really weird to use the 787s for domestic routes and leave the much less desirable (up front, at least) A330s on these trans-Pac routes from SEA.
this is all about additional premium seats on the 359 and cargo capacity.
DL isn't just moving the 339s out of SEA on most routes but has already done the switch on LAX-HND and will do MSP-HND.
While the 339 can easily do 10-12 hour flights, there isn't much cargo capacity left on 12 hour flights. and the 359 has a higher thrust to weight ratio - more powerful engines - so has...
this is all about additional premium seats on the 359 and cargo capacity.
DL isn't just moving the 339s out of SEA on most routes but has already done the switch on LAX-HND and will do MSP-HND.
While the 339 can easily do 10-12 hour flights, there isn't much cargo capacity left on 12 hour flights. and the 359 has a higher thrust to weight ratio - more powerful engines - so has better takeoff performance.
And the 359 does have the range to do the entire Pacific rim not just from SEA but also from LAX.
Delta does not appear to have announced a SEA A350 pilot base but these announcements make it certain to come.
And the switch to the 359s out of SEA has nothing to do with AS but rather is part of DL's desire to compete more aggressively for premium traffic esp. to Asia.
Given that the 359 will have to be used for SLC-ICN and the 339 has performance limitations during summer afternoons to Europe from SLC the chances are high that the 359 will also do a couple of SLC-Europe flights.
All three slc-europe flights are in the afternoon - do you think they could all be upgraded and year round or just seasonal? They seem to rotate between A332/3 and A339 now on a seasonal basis, although last winter the Paris and AMS flights were A339 all winter, only LHR was downgraded to A332. This winter they are all A332/3.
I expect that SLC-AMS and CDG will be converted first but the current times for DL's ICN-SLC and SLC-AMS and CDG flights don't work to flow one aircraft through so they either will have to rework the schedules or will do a domestic leg such as to/from ATL to position the aircraft - or leave a 359 at SLC overnight for maintenance.
DL is getting a lot of A350s in 2024 and 2025 plus the...
I expect that SLC-AMS and CDG will be converted first but the current times for DL's ICN-SLC and SLC-AMS and CDG flights don't work to flow one aircraft through so they either will have to rework the schedules or will do a domestic leg such as to/from ATL to position the aircraft - or leave a 359 at SLC overnight for maintenance.
DL is getting a lot of A350s in 2024 and 2025 plus the converted ex-Latam so they will have the largest fleet of a single type of widebodies that DL has ever had other than 763s even before the 35Ks start arriving. DL 350s will be popping up in a lot of places.
The final 339s on the current order arrive next year so DL has alot of new generation widebody capacity coming online - ideal for growth and upgrading existing flights.
“DL is getting a lot of A359s in 2024”
How many are they getting in the last 17 days of this year, exactly?
they've received 6 so far this year and the last one is in flight testing in France for a total of 7.
You do realize that UA expects to receive 3 787s and I'm not sure if AA will receive any.
HA? maybe 2.
In other words, DL has received more A350s than the entire rest of the US industry has received 787s - and it was a strike at the 737 plant that...
they've received 6 so far this year and the last one is in flight testing in France for a total of 7.
You do realize that UA expects to receive 3 787s and I'm not sure if AA will receive any.
HA? maybe 2.
In other words, DL has received more A350s than the entire rest of the US industry has received 787s - and it was a strike at the 737 plant that shut down production.
And DL will receive 7 330NEOs in 2024.
Total Airbus widebodies slated for DL in 2025 is at least 11.
I didn’t ask about any other airlines. It was the way you phrased it above that made me puzzled as you said they were getting many in 2024, not that they “had” gotten many.
I don't think it's a response to Alaska. Delta president mentioned the upgrade 6 months ago at the Taipei flight launch event.
https://youtu.be/rBJVBNY9XrQ
He mentioned it at 1:25
Indeed, the rumor about bringing the A350s to SEA has been going on for a while now (pilots,etc) so it is not a direct result of the announcement of AS's NRT/ICN plans. Airlines don't just make such big changes in a few days as a knee-jerk reaction.
Also, the A339 does take penalties westbound currently on SEA-TPE; they block about 30+ seats in Main Cabin, especially now in the winter months.
The timing of the announcement may well be in response to Alaska's announcement (I'd guess that's more than likely,) but agreed that it a decision they'd have already made. They probably just decided to move up the announcement after AS's (widely expected) announcement this week.
And only 400k SkyPesos each way!
In basic economy, I assume? ;)
For which flight? SEA-TPE is only 22,000 miles each way from Jan thru Apr!
Wow, this is huge news for the PNW.
To put this in perspective, within a span of five years, DL SEA-LHR service will have gone from bottom of the barrel -300s to pretty darn nice -900s, and now the A350.
Sorry Virgin... we might finally be parting ways (although personally I'm still in the camp of people who has *never* found a good deal on DL flights with Virgin points...)
Where do you see the LHR flight going A350?
Not sure that Heathrow will go to the 350. The announcement was just about the trans-Pac flights, I think, not Europe.
Maybe they got a military contract and need the extra cargo capacity to fly defence equipment to Taiwan?
(Ahem…. sorry. I meant Chinese Taipei!)
> Delta’s new premium A350-900s feature 275 seats, including 40 business class seats, 40 premium economy seats, and 159 economy seats
40 + 40 + 159 = 239. Where'd the other 36 seats go?
@ Steven L. -- Whoops, fixed, thanks!
Sloppy writing as usual in trying to be the first with “breaking news”…the 159 are just Main Cabin seats, he’s missing 36 Comfort Plus seats…
"Sloppy writing as usual in trying to be the first with “breaking news”"
Oh f#ck off already. Start a blog, let's see YOU do it faster and more accurately.
Personally, I prefer the A330s over the A350s when flying with my wife. The 2-4-2 configuration in economy is nice when I can't justify paying extra to move towards the front of the plane.
It's been a good few days for me as someone based in the northwest who flies out to ICN pretty often