Delta Returns To Tokyo Narita Airport, With Seattle Flights: Why, Though?!

Tim Dunn is a metastatic cancer on this blog and community. Just putting it out there, as someone who has been on OMAAT for nearly 20 years now. Even DCS at his worst was never this bad - at least he had a PhD.

I am interested in the choice of serving NRT out of SEA instead of LAX where DL claimed they are trying to build up (with recent add of HKG and MNL soon) as the "largest global airline at LAX." Seems to me they can't stick to their strategy, or am I wrong?

It has not been discussed in this that there are two alliance related reasons that could be behind this announcement from DL. 1. Asiana will cease to exist late this year and its capacity will be folded into Korean which is a DL JV partner. DL has to add its own capacity to offset the addition of OZ capacity to the JV; it can be anywhere on DL's global network but it has been known for years - because the KE/OZ merger has been years in the making - that DL would have to aggressively grow over the Pacific in order for the OZ capacity to be merged into KE. 2. there is a very good possibility that AS will join one or more of the oneworld JVs and the JL and BA JVs are most likely. Neither AS or JL fly SEA-HND which DL and NH fly but both AS and JL fly SEA-NRT. DL's decision to add NRT could be as much about making sure it remains the primary choice in TATL and TPAC corporate travel choice from SEA including to Tokyo. While HND is higher yielding, as others have noted, there clearly is a market to NRT. DL is the ony US airline that flies to Tokyo that does not also serve NRT. and then consider that DL is re-adding the 330-900 which is most directly competitive with AS' 789s in total seats and yet AS' 789s do not yet have premium economy while the 789s do. DL has seen its cargo growth surge as it puts it has made the 350 its near exclusive TPAC aircraft and yet the 339 is very capable on SEA-Tokyo which is one of the shortest TPAC route and shorter than some TATL routes that DL uses the 339 for. and the 339 has fewer premium seats than the 359 so it is good for more leisure-oriented routes of which there are likely others that DL could add from SEA. the real issue comes down to the hypocrisy of some that have loved to tout AS' size advantage at SEA which is entirely driven by its larger domestic size. DL has been flying longhaul international from its SEA hub for over a decade and DL/NW for far longer than that. AS just jumped into the longhaul international game over the past couple years. It is beyond hypocritical to argue that AS has a size advantage at SEA while not acknowledging that DL has that advantage in longhaul international. both can and should use those advantages where they can. DL said it would grow its TPAC network and SEA is getting growth just as LAX has. DL is not just targeting UA including w/ new dots down the Pacific Rim. and AS is trying to build international at the same time that it is digesting loss-making Hawaiian and fighting w/ WN up and down the west coast including at SAN. AS has its hands more than full; it is to be expected that DL will flex its international size muscles at SEA just as WN is doing in other markets including SAN. If AS is really as good as many think they are, they should be just fine w/ more competiition - and DL might be the only airline or alliance that serves both Tokyo airports from SEA.

Classic Delta, eh? A very conservative, boring, tone deaf choice for a route, most likely inspired by Americans lacking basic skills in areas like geography. It says 'Tokyo' in the name, so doesn't matter if it's 60km east of the actual city proper (how much is that in bald eagles by national anthem singing flags anyway?). It doesn't really make sense otherwise, as the route is already well served by other airlines and there was a reason why they pulled out of this one some years ago. It also seems a bit contradicting with some of the strategic plans they announced, too. And their flight times do not indicate that this route intended for any connecting traffic at all, which is in a way surprising. In terms of operations and customer experience, I would choose any of the alternatives over Delta without giving it a second thought. Usually the rest has a better product overall, with Delta not being very consistent in its product delivery. I've ended up a bit too often in a flying garbage can that should have seen an overhaul or even basic cabin maintenance years prior. Plus that I don't want to put any money in the object of sexual desires of the local idiot here. I really miss the boldness and creativity of United when it comes to picking and opening new routes, like routes to Ulaanbaatar, Greenland and Madeira. Delta really is a company where anything slightly off the beaten path is taboo.

Where is the additional equipment coming from to run LAX-MNL and SEA-NRT