Delta Air Lines will be expanding service to Asia out of its Seattle hub, with an exciting new route.
In this post:
Delta returns to Taipei with new route out of Seattle
As of June 7, 2024, Delta will add a new daily, year-round flight between Seattle (SEA) and Taipei (TPE). The flight will operate with the following schedule:
DL69 Seattle to Taipei departing 11:15AM arriving 3:15PM (+1 day)
DL68 Taipei to Seattle departing 5:25PM arriving 2:05PM
The 6,074-mile flight is blocked at 13hr westbound and 11hr40min eastbound. Delta will use an Airbus A330-900neo for the route, featuring 281 seats. This includes 29 business class (Delta One) seats, 28 premium economy (Premium Select) seats, and 224 economy class (Main Cabin) seats.
If you’re looking to redeem SkyMiles for this flight, award flights start at 1,800,000 miles in Delta One, or 360,000 miles in Main Cabin. Just kidding. I mean, I’m kidding in the sense that I didn’t actually check, but I’m probably not that far off!
This new route is a pretty significant addition. Delta has never flown nonstop from the United States to Taipei. However, until 2017 the airline did operate a fifth freedom flight there, from Tokyo Narita.
Here’s how Delta’s Managing Director of Global Sales for Seattle describes this new route:
“This route not only opens new doors to Taipei’s captivating skyline, vibrant night markets, and rich cultural heritage, but it also marks a significant stride in enhancing Seattle’s global connectivity. This strategic addition to Delta’s trans-Pacific portfolio is poised to make a profound impact on the Seattle market, fostering increased business and leisure travel opportunities for our discerning customers.”
I have to give Delta executives credit for consistently putting out the loftiest quotes about new routes. This is a market that’s already well served (as I’ll talk about below), but Delta still claims this will make a “profound impact” on the market for “discerning customers” (because surely discerning customers wouldn’t want to fly with second rate airlines like EVA Air). 😉
This is an interesting route for Delta to add
Currently the only US airline flying to Taipei is United, which operates service out of San Francisco. So Delta will now be the second US airline to fly to Taiwan. The decision to launch a Seattle to Taipei route is an interesting one:
- EVA Air operates Seattle to Taipei flights with 7-10x weekly frequencies; EVA Air is in Star Alliance, so has fairly limited connectivity in Seattle, aside from United flights
- Starlux Airlines plans to launch a Seattle to Taipei route in 2024, and has a partnership with Alaska, so will have quite a bit of connectivity there
- I wouldn’t necessarily assume this is related, but Alaska Airlines is hoping to acquire Hawaiian Airlines, which means the airline will resume flights to Asia, assuming this all gets approved
I’m not sure whether to be surprised by this route or not. On the one hand, Delta is well positioned for this route in terms of demand and connecting traffic. The airline has a big domestic network in Seattle to feed into this, and also partners with SkyTeam carrier China Airlines in Taipei, so will have connectivity there as well.
Delta hasn’t added much creative Asia service recently, and has almost been entirely focused on flights to Seoul Incheon, and feeding into Korean Air’s network, given the joint venture between the airlines.
So while Delta is well positioned in Seattle in terms of connectivity, the airline also has a significant cost disadvantage. Delta has a much higher cost structure than carriers like EVA Air. While Taipei is a market with a ton of demand, it’s not necessarily the highest yield market.
This seems to me like an offensive move intended to send a message to Starlux, and to generally fight against Alaska. I feel like Delta probably wouldn’t launch this route if it weren’t for competitive reasons. I’m curious to see how the market evolves, and if three airlines can coexist…
Bottom line
As of June 2024, Delta will launch a new daily nonstop flight between Seattle and Taipei using an Airbus A330-900neo. This will be the first time that Delta flies nonstop from the United States to Taipei, and it comes at an interesting time.
This is a market that’s already served by EVA Air, and it’s one that Starlux plans to launch soon as well. Can this route sustain three carriers? Only time will tell…
What do you make of Delta launching Taipei flights? Do you think Delta, EVA, and Starlux, can all succeed in the market?
As a DL 2 Million Miler based in Seattle, I am tired of reading that SEA is a failed DL hub. Those comments show a huge lack of understanding of Seartle and the Pacific Northwest in general. Years ago, when no passport was required to fly to Canada or Mexico from the US, most Americans didn't have passports. The Seattle area was an exception to that rule. People here have always loved to travel and...
As a DL 2 Million Miler based in Seattle, I am tired of reading that SEA is a failed DL hub. Those comments show a huge lack of understanding of Seartle and the Pacific Northwest in general. Years ago, when no passport was required to fly to Canada or Mexico from the US, most Americans didn't have passports. The Seattle area was an exception to that rule. People here have always loved to travel and that has only increased over time as more immigrants have moved here. Our relatively tiny footprint airport served 50.8 million passengers in 2023, just a million shy of its all time high in pre-pandemic 2019.
I firmly believe that when DL, which previously had a cozy relationship with AS, decided to make SEA a hub, they thought they could either absorb AS or drive it out of business, thereby becoming the number one carrier here. It didn't work out that way but DL is solidly the #2 carrier here and #1 for international service. More importantly, DL's load factors in and out of SEA are high. If SEA isn't as profitable for them as fortress hubs where they face less competition, consider how much less they would make in the much more competitive hub of LAX. For consumers here, fares are still quite high, particularly as compared to SFO and LAX.
About AS...yes, they are a quirky carrier but from here, they offer nonstop service to almost every major city in the USA. DL has a much larger network overall but not in terms of nonstop service. If I want to fly nonstop to Cleveland, New Orleans, Omaha, or any suburban airport in California, AS has me covered. DL? Not so much.
About international service from SEA...this airport punches well above its weight class. DL faces competition from BA, LH (which has had Frankfort service for years and will soon add Munich), and a host of other carriers. Ditto for Asisn carriers, including Japan Airlines, ANA, Singapore, etc.
About the geographic location of SEA...SEA is the closest major airport in the lower 48 to any point in East Asia. That matters in terms of fuel costs, flight times, etc. I can see feeder traffic from across the country working via Seattle for Asian routes. Flight times and distances to SEA are roughly the same as to LAX from much of the USA.
I applaud DL for giving this a try. In the short term, I hope to take advantage of increased competition and/or introductory fares to visit Taiwan!
I see a lot of comments on the “failure” status of Delta’s Seattle hub because it isn’t profitable. And while that may be the case, this is a NEW hub for Delta. It takes many years to build a hub, and a profitable one at that. Give them a chance before writing it off- if Delta does one thing well, they play the long game. They see potential, they want a new west coast hub...
I see a lot of comments on the “failure” status of Delta’s Seattle hub because it isn’t profitable. And while that may be the case, this is a NEW hub for Delta. It takes many years to build a hub, and a profitable one at that. Give them a chance before writing it off- if Delta does one thing well, they play the long game. They see potential, they want a new west coast hub to Asia, and they are on the offensive. I find it very interesting. And we get to watch two giants, Delta and Alaska, fight it out.
Be clear / write clearly - “ Alaska Airlines is hoping to acquire Hawaiian Airlines, which means the airline will resume flights to Asia”
Alaska never flew to Asia, are you referring to Hawaiian? Did they ever fly to Asia?
https://www.hawaiianairlines.com/destinations/asia-and-south-pacific
Japan/Korea is in N. Asia
There is also S. Asia & SE Asia
Asia is huge. Be specific.
Hawaiian used to have a pretty extensive network of Japanese gateways and is still flying to HND/NRT, KIX, and FUK at the moment.
Alaska never flew to Asia
Not exactly true. They technically did: as they've offered scheduled flights to airports in Kamchatka in the (distant) past.
As someone who is not American, can someone please tell me why Seattle has so many international airlines, especially Asian ones, flying in and out of the city ? Does Seattle have a large Asian population and also some important industries ?
Thank you in advance.
Yes, and yes to both your questions above.
Large metropolitan population in general;
Of that, a large Asian population;
Huge tech (second only to San Francisco/Silicon Valley) industry hub;
18 Fortune 500 companies headquartered there;
And a vibrant seasonal tourism wave, shared with Portland and Vancouver.
.......Seattle is not L.A. nor San Francisco, and it likely never will be; but it nonetheless generates a GIGANTIC international demand, with fairly high yield on longhauls, so we see the carriers responding accordingly.
Large metropolitan population in general;
Of that, a large Asian population;
Huge tech (second only to San Francisco/Silicon Valley) industry hub;
18 Fortune 500 companies headquartered there;
And a vibrant seasonal tourism wave, shared with Portland and Vancouver.
.......Seattle is not L.A. nor San Francisco, and it likely never will be; but it nonetheless generates a GIGANTIC international demand, with fairly high yield on longhauls, so we see the carriers responding accordingly.
Closest continental US destination to Asia is the most likely reason. The rest are local puffery.
Closest continental US destination to Asia is the most likely reason
Right, because that totally explains the amount of flights to London, Paris, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Munich, Dublin, Helsinki, Dubai, Doha, Istanbul.....
Glad to see that DL is still faithful to its dartboard strategy! KIX, HKG, KIX #2, then now TPE. The only question is when will this be dropped? After 2 seasons or 3?
you do realize that the Japanese Yen has weakened considerably compared to the USD, which hinders tourism from a country where most tourism to the US flows from Japan?
Delta also correctly noted before covid that HKG was weakening and that should be obvious when American dropped service even though it Cathay Pacific is a oneworld (not JV) partner.
Maybe DL runs a better business than a lot of people are willing to...
you do realize that the Japanese Yen has weakened considerably compared to the USD, which hinders tourism from a country where most tourism to the US flows from Japan?
Delta also correctly noted before covid that HKG was weakening and that should be obvious when American dropped service even though it Cathay Pacific is a oneworld (not JV) partner.
Maybe DL runs a better business than a lot of people are willing to admit.
And DL did serve TPE for years via the Tokyo hub and then before than via the PDX hub. Market strengths come and go and there is no assurance any market will do in five years what it did in the past.
Lol. You are a funny one
“Delta also correctly noted before covid that HKG was weakening ”
Delta left because they couldn’t make HKG work while United and AA did. HKG wasn’t having the protests or covid bans when delta left. Aa didn’t come back after covid because the environment had changed in HKG post covid and they had fewer widebodies but they also lost nothing since all their pax probably prefer CX...
Lol. You are a funny one
“Delta also correctly noted before covid that HKG was weakening ”
Delta left because they couldn’t make HKG work while United and AA did. HKG wasn’t having the protests or covid bans when delta left. Aa didn’t come back after covid because the environment had changed in HKG post covid and they had fewer widebodies but they also lost nothing since all their pax probably prefer CX anyway. Delta just left because they couldn’t compete against United and OneWorld. Let’s skip your usual sugarcoating, tim
AA remained at HKG, noted it was one of its money-losing routes and then still has not returned. AA has consistently lost more money flying the Pacific than any other US airline.
UA also lost money flying the Pacific and has managed to turn it around only because their capacity to China and HKG has been cut significantly.
You can argue all you want but it is clear that DL sees the same...
AA remained at HKG, noted it was one of its money-losing routes and then still has not returned. AA has consistently lost more money flying the Pacific than any other US airline.
UA also lost money flying the Pacific and has managed to turn it around only because their capacity to China and HKG has been cut significantly.
You can argue all you want but it is clear that DL sees the same things that AA and UA see but DL acts when the profit picture deteriorates while AA and UA stick it for years longer on routes that don't work because of "strategic reasons"
AA noted that about one of their HKG routes. Not both.
and yet they have restarted neither
again, Max, let us know which of AA and UA's hubs are "dogs" and which ones are the superstars.
You, and they, have this remarkable ability to argue how great some of their hubs are - but never manage to admit that some aren't as strong.
DL's hubs in total are clearly generating higher profits even if the core 4 hubs are the biggest profit drivers.
...
and yet they have restarted neither
again, Max, let us know which of AA and UA's hubs are "dogs" and which ones are the superstars.
You, and they, have this remarkable ability to argue how great some of their hubs are - but never manage to admit that some aren't as strong.
DL's hubs in total are clearly generating higher profits even if the core 4 hubs are the biggest profit drivers.
But DL can't have 4 superstar hubs subsidizing 4 money-losing hubs which is what you and a whole bunch of other people on the internet want us to believe is the case.
If DL has 4 superstar hubs, why hasn't AA and UA been able to do that?
While it’s amusing the way you try to misdirect the conversation when you know you’ve lost, I’ve never once claimed all of AA or UA’s hubs are rockstars. Ever.
And yes. Delta does have four hubs subsidizing the rest. Delta literally says that in their presentations I posted. AA has also chatted about which of their hubs are most profitable.
We could have a long chat about why delta spends so much money,...
While it’s amusing the way you try to misdirect the conversation when you know you’ve lost, I’ve never once claimed all of AA or UA’s hubs are rockstars. Ever.
And yes. Delta does have four hubs subsidizing the rest. Delta literally says that in their presentations I posted. AA has also chatted about which of their hubs are most profitable.
We could have a long chat about why delta spends so much money, even has an SVP dedicated to it, on anti union efforts. They’re well aware how much it helps their costs.
You don’t seem to know much about that. Delta does or they wouldn’t have an svp in charge of it.
+ 1
United made SIN work extremely well, while DL withdrew :/
W Ho,
Since the NW merger, DL served all points in Asia via the Narita hub except for other Japanese cities, ICN and China.
It really isn't any surprise for anyone that is willing to rationally look at DL's network to see that DL's first priority is to secure its future at HND - which it has done to the extent it wants THEN build ICN - which is still in process because...
W Ho,
Since the NW merger, DL served all points in Asia via the Narita hub except for other Japanese cities, ICN and China.
It really isn't any surprise for anyone that is willing to rationally look at DL's network to see that DL's first priority is to secure its future at HND - which it has done to the extent it wants THEN build ICN - which is still in process because growing there is dependent on some sort of decision on the Korean/Asiana merger AND THEN build out the first of Asia nonstop from the US rather than via Tokyo.
Add in that DL will be gaining the first of its A350-900 orders that can easily do nonstop mainland US to deep SE Asia aircraft in 2024 - which will be used first to eliminate transpacific payload restrictions - and it is not a surprise how DL's transpacific network has evolved and still is evolving.
And MAX,
the point is precisely that AA and UA have stronger and weaker hubs from a financial standpoint. We never hear UA admit anything is wrong w/ anything - everything is always sunny and endless growth is coming - while AA talks about its strong hubs but never admits that its weaker hubs are very likely a bigger drag than DL's weakest hubs. AA just dropped international from its weakest hubs or never flew it so that their average fares don't look bad.
We know full well that AA and UA have weaker hubs but we always hear about how it is DL's weak hubs that are sucking wind.
SEA-TPE might not be the rock star like ATL-ICN in profits but it won't be a financial drag and, if UA can serve SFO-TPE 2X/day w/ 77Ws, DL can undoubtedly serve SEA-TPE daily w/ a smaller, more fuel efficient 339.
This isn't Delta's first nonstop flight from Taiwan to the US. They flew from Taipei to Portland in the 90s.
DL never flew nonstop to/from Portland to Taipei. The routing was via Seoul/Kimpo (now Gimpo).
It seems to me that all you do on this website is argue with people. You reply to virtually every comment with a sparky response that you think screams 'I'm better than you', but it actually screams 'I'm a spoiled brat without a properly functioning brain'.
Now provide some proof of this routing (I suspect you'll find this difficult, as I have records of my flight on Delta from SEA-TPE on June 3, 1992.
I personally flew PDX-Seoul - TPE on a flight that went on to BKK and, for a short time, DL did fly the MD11 nonstop from PDX to TPE and the flight still went on to BKK.
for a short time, DL did fly the MD11 nonstop from PDX to TPE and the flight still went on to BKK.
DL put it on the route map in 1994 for their 1995 timetables, and when N803DE and N806DE had the modifications (wing wedge, trailing edge, and larger ACT) added, they operated PDX-NRT under permission as a scheduled charter, but not all flights went that route, and they never got it granted for scheduled...
for a short time, DL did fly the MD11 nonstop from PDX to TPE and the flight still went on to BKK.
DL put it on the route map in 1994 for their 1995 timetables, and when N803DE and N806DE had the modifications (wing wedge, trailing edge, and larger ACT) added, they operated PDX-NRT under permission as a scheduled charter, but not all flights went that route, and they never got it granted for scheduled under the bilateral.
Did apply, but pulled the destination entirely before grant. Those two ships would later be used exclusively on LAX-HKG (Kai Tak) in 1995-1996, as the westbound also had to be operated with a stopover (no pax divestiture) in TPE if using any other aircraft.
Well Roberta, if you wish to accuse me of being that, then fine, I'll be that:
...by simply stating that you're probably too stupid to realize that it was SEL-TPE, not SEA-TPE.
This was Delta's international route map ex-PDX leading into 1992:
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5670f3c2d8af10cb3fd8db35/1512322550074-MN8F30VECK22SIQX14BO/DL-transpac-PDX-1991-map.png?format=2500w
Gonna go out on a limb, and suggest that they didn't change it in a few months, just for you; only to change it right back, seeing as it was still...
Well Roberta, if you wish to accuse me of being that, then fine, I'll be that:
...by simply stating that you're probably too stupid to realize that it was SEL-TPE, not SEA-TPE.
This was Delta's international route map ex-PDX leading into 1992:
https://images.squarespace-cdn.com/content/v1/5670f3c2d8af10cb3fd8db35/1512322550074-MN8F30VECK22SIQX14BO/DL-transpac-PDX-1991-map.png?format=2500w
Gonna go out on a limb, and suggest that they didn't change it in a few months, just for you; only to change it right back, seeing as it was still SEL-TPE through to 1997.
TPE not NRT.
for the above.
I always wondered what what a Low IQ Fool would say in an argument, and yes of course, "stupid" is always the word that gets used.
You use that word to try and make others feel insecure, however you fail to realize that you are actually the peabrain with the little tiny 4-inch pecker.
heh, fantastic development - when it inevitably fails, we'll hear nothing from DL's drooling sycophants (or, better still, flailing rationalizations for why it makes sense to lose money out of SEA), yet again solidifying their abject lack of industry comprehension/credibility. Honestly loving the entertainment value of current DL leadership.
What a weird post. You act as though the airline (to the exclusion of others) launches doomed long-hauls all the time, or as though there's more than one person here who posts in sycophantic support of anything it does.
hahah where exactly are you getting this "to the exclusion of others" invention? Of course the other airlines also routinely dartboard their route maps all the while convincing themselves that they're doing something more profound/dignified. The difference (as per my post) is that those other airlines don't have mouthbreathing cringekings sobbing about how they're just misunderstood and if only you would buy into the magic beans you'd see that losing money is a Premium Airline...
hahah where exactly are you getting this "to the exclusion of others" invention? Of course the other airlines also routinely dartboard their route maps all the while convincing themselves that they're doing something more profound/dignified. The difference (as per my post) is that those other airlines don't have mouthbreathing cringekings sobbing about how they're just misunderstood and if only you would buy into the magic beans you'd see that losing money is a Premium Airline move.
Agreed. This post is.... strange.
AS sells a lot of interline with BR. You don’t need to be alliance partners to interline.
That being said I imagine CI being a partner wouldn’t hurt DL…
Flight timings are weird. Landing at 2pm is too late for most connecting flights beyond Seattle (majority flights leave in the morning/afternoon), which means many will have to overnight if they want to connect.
And leaving Seattle at 11am is also a strange time because it means a whole wasted day (instead of flying in evening after work, or very early morning to maximize landing earlier)
DL has dozens of connections throughout its network that in both directions that fit this pattern - which is similar for its PVG flight.
Not every city connects in both directions but there is more than enough.
Their Shanghai and Seoul flights to Seattle land around 2pm as well so I'm sure they have connectivity at that time.
EVA 787 doesn’t have Premium Economy seats, and tight economy seats in 787. Not a fan for long haul flights
I am beginning to question WTF DL is doing lately. Seattle is a failed hub, they continue to dump money into it and now Taiwan? I think they have too many large widebodies and no where to fly them, and just making stuff up. Not a good move IMO.
I am beginning to question WTF DL is doing lately. Seattle is a failed hub
The issue isn't with DL, it's with your own analysis.
First, you extrapolate "worst performing DOMESTIC hub" headlines, into "failed hub." The two are not the same.
Second, you fail to consider the opportunity cost.
Third, you come up with "too many large widebodies" with absolutely no tangible corroboration, while ignoring that DL's ratio is far lower than its two...
I am beginning to question WTF DL is doing lately. Seattle is a failed hub
The issue isn't with DL, it's with your own analysis.
First, you extrapolate "worst performing DOMESTIC hub" headlines, into "failed hub." The two are not the same.
Second, you fail to consider the opportunity cost.
Third, you come up with "too many large widebodies" with absolutely no tangible corroboration, while ignoring that DL's ratio is far lower than its two peers, and that the airline itself intends to take more, despite having the option to delay/convert/cancel any of them if indeed "too many" were an accurate assessment.
Etc etc.
Cocorde Boy..brilliant response
This is likely launched to spite Alaska.
Still, it's good to see more flights to Asia.
Mmmm, gonna go with "no."
To the extent that launching spite-flights on longhaul intercontinental services is still a thing: that's something a US carrier would do to the likes of Paris/London/etc, where they already have large stations, multiple flights, can use a single aircraft, etc-- and the costs can be spread throughout.
No airline in its right mind is going to open an intercontinental station (even if contracted out) for a single 13hr flight, requiring...
Mmmm, gonna go with "no."
To the extent that launching spite-flights on longhaul intercontinental services is still a thing: that's something a US carrier would do to the likes of Paris/London/etc, where they already have large stations, multiple flights, can use a single aircraft, etc-- and the costs can be spread throughout.
No airline in its right mind is going to open an intercontinental station (even if contracted out) for a single 13hr flight, requiring multiple aircraft, just to spite another carrier.
Spite is a strong word… but cmon
Alaska has a new codeshare partner, Starlux.
Starlux states they’ll start seattle in 2024
LOTS of media in seattle about alaska potentially becoming a new international airline out of seattle with the HA widebody orders and current fleet.
Delta announces a SINGLE route, TPE just out of the blue of of cycle with their other route announcements and you’re going to suggest there’s no relation whatsoever?...
Spite is a strong word… but cmon
Alaska has a new codeshare partner, Starlux.
Starlux states they’ll start seattle in 2024
LOTS of media in seattle about alaska potentially becoming a new international airline out of seattle with the HA widebody orders and current fleet.
Delta announces a SINGLE route, TPE just out of the blue of of cycle with their other route announcements and you’re going to suggest there’s no relation whatsoever? Cmon now…
Delta has had months to plan TPe after hearing Starlux’ plans and found an opportune time to get some Seattle international attention again by reminding locals they’re the international airline there
You'd be a fool to take this over EVA. Far superior seats, food and service.
and terrible timings. Who wants to arrive at 5am
A lot of people do.
And a lot of people that fly economy would also prefer not being forced to take a red eye flight as their only option for direct flights.
Happy to see.
Wish DL would return LAX-HKG, or even SEA-HKG.... but that now seems like an even longer shot than ever before.
(DL in) SEA is the worst performing hub out of ALL US hubs of any airline. Clearly DL isn't pulling the plug yet.
Every time I hear that, I have to ask the question as to how Delta supposedly has so many underperforming hubs (according to internet lore) and yet still is the most profitable airline in the world.
And, no, it isn't because DL makes so much money in ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC or on Skymiles and DL Tech Ops.
even on the extreme, DL's worst performing hub on a revenue basis has got...
Every time I hear that, I have to ask the question as to how Delta supposedly has so many underperforming hubs (according to internet lore) and yet still is the most profitable airline in the world.
And, no, it isn't because DL makes so much money in ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC or on Skymiles and DL Tech Ops.
even on the extreme, DL's worst performing hub on a revenue basis has got to exceed the revenue performance of some of DL's competitors' average hubs.
DL really doesn't do as bad in its worst hubs or as good in its best hubs as some people think
AND
You have to ask why AA and UA haven't been able to do what DL has managed to do not just in SEA - invading a lower cost carrier's hometown hub - just as it did in BOS (which isn't B6' home but DL has managed to exceed not just B6' size for part of the year and also take the stop spot in local market revenue) but also on the bottom line.
DL at SEA will be ok. When DL gets more of those A350-900s configured plus new copies and the A339 engine issues are behind them, DL's west coast to Asia Pacific network will probably look a whole lot bigger than it is today.
<>
“ And, no, it isn't because DL makes so much money in ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC or on Skymiles and DL Tech Ops.”
Sorry you hate the truth, Tim. But assuming the profits come from the core hubs is straight out of delta investor day presentations.
I’d imagine they know a bit more about where their profits are than you do.
Sea-tpe is definitely a cool new route for delta though. No need...
“ And, no, it isn't because DL makes so much money in ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC or on Skymiles and DL Tech Ops.”
Sorry you hate the truth, Tim. But assuming the profits come from the core hubs is straight out of delta investor day presentations.
I’d imagine they know a bit more about where their profits are than you do.
Sea-tpe is definitely a cool new route for delta though. No need to diminish that. I won’t be surprised to see starlux start Seattle soon. They’ll have a better product, more feed in Seattle, and lower costs than delta on sea-tpe. Not a great position for delta if they do
Oh they even say, profits, with regard to their core hubs.
Slide 27
https://s2.q4cdn.com/181345880/files/doc_presentations/2021/12/CMD-Presentation-FINAL-12.15.21-For-Website-vF.pdf
They don’t even attempt to claim anything about profits with their coastal hubs. The verbiage is all around potential revenue and growth
Max
They do indeed say that their core 4 hubs drive their profits but you and others take the leap that their coastal hubs lose money or at vest are break even
The question which you and no one else will answer is how Delta has managed to build hubs that they are so profitable enough to support 4 loser hubs and still make more money at a system level than AA or...
Max
They do indeed say that their core 4 hubs drive their profits but you and others take the leap that their coastal hubs lose money or at vest are break even
The question which you and no one else will answer is how Delta has managed to build hubs that they are so profitable enough to support 4 loser hubs and still make more money at a system level than AA or UA. What is AA and UA doing that they can’t beat DL’s system profits if DL has so many financial basket case hubs?
THAT is the question
SEA-TPE will make money just like the entire SEA hub
Oh Tim…
No one asked that because delta says it in their own presentations. You just seem incapable of basic reading comprehension from delta when even they contradict you lol
Are you really asking how monopolistic pricing is possible at their core hubs? Ummm… because they act in a monopolistic way at their monopoly hubs Lol
You can just give up already. Your spiel is tiresome and ignorant when you can’t even agree with what delta writes themselves.
Max,
There is a big difference between the core 4 hubs being the most profitable and driving the most revenue. ATL by itself is the world's largest hub and by nearly all accounts the most profitable US airline hub solely because of its size and efficiency.
but that doesn't mean their other 4 hubs (the coastal ones) are loser hubs that are being subsidized by the core 4 hubs.
You haven't answered...
Max,
There is a big difference between the core 4 hubs being the most profitable and driving the most revenue. ATL by itself is the world's largest hub and by nearly all accounts the most profitable US airline hub solely because of its size and efficiency.
but that doesn't mean their other 4 hubs (the coastal ones) are loser hubs that are being subsidized by the core 4 hubs.
You haven't answered the question, to no surprise.
What is that DL is doing in its core 4 hubs to make them so much more profitable to be able to support 4 dud hubs that AA and UA hasn't been able to duplicate on its network?
DL is still the most profitable airline so, to have 4 dud hubs, they have to be generating massive profits in its core 4 hubs - so why can't AA and UA do that in their hubs?
Or do AA and UA themselves have some pretty bad hubs, even though AA and UA don't talk about their laggard hubs but only talk about their strongest hubs?
Just answer the question, Max, and dispense w/ trying to trash me.
And, no, it isn't because DL makes so much money in ATL, DTW, MSP
But wait, haven't they more or less said exactly that:
that the majority of their revenue is derived from their "core hubs"...??
Nobody thinks DL has “so many” underperforming hubs, in fact quite the opposite. DL is very profitable because so many of their hubs are very profitable. There’s just one ugly duckling up in the Pacific Northwest that hasn’t panned out the way they had hoped. Combination of bad luck (Covid) and Alaska putting up more of a fight than expected.
You can defend Delta without defending 100% of their strategic decisions, they’re still making the...
Nobody thinks DL has “so many” underperforming hubs, in fact quite the opposite. DL is very profitable because so many of their hubs are very profitable. There’s just one ugly duckling up in the Pacific Northwest that hasn’t panned out the way they had hoped. Combination of bad luck (Covid) and Alaska putting up more of a fight than expected.
You can defend Delta without defending 100% of their strategic decisions, they’re still making the right choice a heck of a lot more than United or American. Nobody gets it right 100% of the time.
and the point is that AA and UA clearly have their underperforming hubs as well or else DL has figured out how to make far more money in its core hubs - which begs the question of how DL turned its core 4 hubs into such profit centers, something AA and UA haven't figured out how to do from their strongest hubs.
And, yes, you can just read the responses above to see that there...
and the point is that AA and UA clearly have their underperforming hubs as well or else DL has figured out how to make far more money in its core hubs - which begs the question of how DL turned its core 4 hubs into such profit centers, something AA and UA haven't figured out how to do from their strongest hubs.
And, yes, you can just read the responses above to see that there are people that are convinced that Delta makes no money on its 4 coastal hubs and their profits all come from their core 4 hubs.
It is not counter to what Delta says that they make more of their profits - maybe even most of them - from its core 4 hubs but to somehow think that their 4 coastal hubs are loss-leaders is beyond ridiculous.
Right… because delta literally said that in the link I posted. Delta says their core hubs generate their profits lol
What planet do you live on, tim? When has delta ever claimed Seattle is profitable? Ever? They have no problem claiming that with other hubs like when nyc turned the corner in profitability
if someone told you the world is a ball, you would translate their statement into "the world is flat" because that is what you want to believe.
DL said their core 4 hubs deliver the majority of their profits, not that their other 4 hubs lose money and are subsidized by their core 4 hubs.
And why can't AA and UA do the same?
You must not watch the industry if you think aa and ua don’t talk about their profitable hubs
we have now doubt that AA and UA talk about their profitable hubs, MAX.
It is their weak hubs that AA and UA don't talk about.
and it is everyone and their brother that has a narrative about DL's weak hubs and how DL gouges passengers in their strongest hubs in order to subsidize their 4 coastal hubs
When the internet narrative addresses AA and UA's weakest hubs - which anyone w/ any brain knows is the case - then the world will all be at peace again.
None of your arguments are exclusive so your argument is illogical.
Delta can be the industry leader in profits, derive most of its profits from from its fortress hubs, have relatively better (but not super profitable) hubs in high competition areas like NYC and LAX, but also have the worst performing domestic hub for any of the Big 3 in the US in Seattle (like multiple sites have posted performance articles on).
All of this...
None of your arguments are exclusive so your argument is illogical.
Delta can be the industry leader in profits, derive most of its profits from from its fortress hubs, have relatively better (but not super profitable) hubs in high competition areas like NYC and LAX, but also have the worst performing domestic hub for any of the Big 3 in the US in Seattle (like multiple sites have posted performance articles on).
All of this can be true at the same time.
American and United have their lower performing hubs too, and Delta's Atlanta hub is the most profitable in the US, but as far as the data shows, the worst performing domestic hub (and likely overall since Delta isn't exactly killing it internationally in Seattle) is Delta in Seattle.
The question that isn’t clear is whether Delta is actually losing money in Seattle. Worst performing in relation to other hubs isn’t the same as losing money.
Seattle has a beautiful airport, but the city itself is an awful place. Surprising to see there is sufficient demand to support this flight.
I would argue the opposite Roberta. Seattle is a beautiful city with the best summer weather in North America and gorgeous scenery. But its airport is way too small for its passenger count (size constraints) and suffers in many ways as a result.
If you think Seattle is an awful place, don’t visit.
Why would you be surprised that a major N.American tech hub and Asian gateway...
....could support flights to a major Asian tech hub and N.American gateway?
Particularly when the two have already had/developed such a route for decades?
Roberta, you clearly have never lived in Seattle. Dan articulates why living here is amazing. The combination of urban amenities and outdoor opportunities is hard to beat.
This makes sense for business travel given the importance of the semiconductor market in Taiwan. For personal travel, China Airlines out of YVR is going to be ~50% of the price consistently.
Starlux Airlines plans to launch a Seattle to Taipei route in 2024
"2024" is imminent. Any update on exactly when in 2024 Starlux intends to inaugurate that TPE-SEA service?
Starlux said in September that they will start SFO 3/week in December 2023 then go to daily by March then add Seattle in 2024. That's it. Nothing more specific.
EVA has long had a single flight, now with a 787-10. Soon, there will be Delta, Starlux, EVA (10/week), and maybe even China Airlines. That's a lot of capacity. There is clearly more demand than one flight, though, because EVA recently started 3/week 777-300ER in addition...
Starlux said in September that they will start SFO 3/week in December 2023 then go to daily by March then add Seattle in 2024. That's it. Nothing more specific.
EVA has long had a single flight, now with a 787-10. Soon, there will be Delta, Starlux, EVA (10/week), and maybe even China Airlines. That's a lot of capacity. There is clearly more demand than one flight, though, because EVA recently started 3/week 777-300ER in addition to its daily 787-10. I am just not sure if there is demand for 24 weekly flights, even 31 from the baseline of 7 weekly flights.
I believe there are rooms for 24 weekly or more flight. The load factor between TPE to SEA on October is 95%. October is the off-season month to Taiwan. Even China Airlines last month (Nov) said they are planning to return Seattle Q1 2024 (double it).
BTW, Starlux planning to inaugural TPE-SEA service after August 2024. This was said by thr company's CEO
EVA’s had occasional Don el dailies for a while.
Delta is re-adding flights to TPE because it makes solid economic sense to do so.
For months, we've heard from UA about how strong international growth has been and many have believed erroneously that UA alone would enjoy that growth.
DL is able to start regrowing its Asia-Pacific network because it fits their network and fleet strategies.
The press released noted this is DL's return to TPE post-Narita hub. As much as...
Delta is re-adding flights to TPE because it makes solid economic sense to do so.
For months, we've heard from UA about how strong international growth has been and many have believed erroneously that UA alone would enjoy that growth.
DL is able to start regrowing its Asia-Pacific network because it fits their network and fleet strategies.
The press released noted this is DL's return to TPE post-Narita hub. As much as some want to think they know better, DL's Asia focus has been 1. securing whatever access to HND it thinks it needs (which for now means passing on JFK or another HND route because of the weak Yen) 2. Developing ICN via its KE joint venture to distribute traffic throughout Asia and 3. returning to other cities in Asia that are profit opportunities and strategically important.
DL's Asia growth has been slower than UA's because DL, like AA, chose to retire aircraft during the pandemic. Although DL has now replaced all of the widebodies it retired, the replacements are not comparable. The A330-900s still suffer from performance issues due to a bleed air problem which Rolls Royce will provide parts to DL to repair supposedly in 2024. The ex-Latam aircraft are not in Delta standard international configurations and so can only be used for high capacity, less business focused routes until they start to be converted to DL standard interiors which is supposed to start in 2024.
The original DL A350-900s are predominantly early build and less capable but DL will receive the first of 16 of the most capable A350-900s in 2024 as well as 9 of the 12 remaining A330-900s (some 339s from 2023 are still being delivered this year).
DL has also said there is more East and South Asia and Australia growth on tap, likely some of which is dependent on the long-expected new widebody order that will come eventually.
China Airlines is a Skyteam partner but there was no basis for much cooperation given that TPE was a stop beyond NRT even when DL did serve it. There is potential in Taiwan for DL and the 339 is well-suited for the route as well as others from SEA.
DL's focus on US connections rather than the Taiwanese airlines that are focused on TPE connections provides a different schedule.
My recollection is that the DL-KE JV excludes Greater China. Given ongoing limitations on flights to the PRC, this could be a way to add PRC capacity (via CI). But, I suspect the motive is defensive against JX as suggested.
What is Greater China? Is it the People's Republic of China / Hong Kong / Macau / Republic of China (Taiwan) / USA?
It doesn't exclude Greater China, just the PRC.
HKG, TPE, and MFM (Macau) are on separate bilaterals.
The Delta flight will be facing stiff competition. One advantage for the Delta flight is that it arrives in TPE in the afternoon, which is ideal for hotel check in. In contrast, both of EVA Air's flights arrive very early in the morning. That is ok if the passenger is staying at a private home but inconvenient if staying at a hotel.
If one is traveling on an award, possibly SEA-TPE on DL and...
The Delta flight will be facing stiff competition. One advantage for the Delta flight is that it arrives in TPE in the afternoon, which is ideal for hotel check in. In contrast, both of EVA Air's flights arrive very early in the morning. That is ok if the passenger is staying at a private home but inconvenient if staying at a hotel.
If one is traveling on an award, possibly SEA-TPE on DL and TPE-SEA on BR might be ideal.
TPE may not be a bad choice for DL. The alternatives, like HKG or FUK, are not clearly better. Manila, Clark, Busan, or Kaohsiung would be more risky choices for Delta.
EVAs arrival time works for connections.
There was talk of more US carriers serving MNL so DL could be a possibility. PR was ready to launch SEA pre-COVID, but DL could potentially pick up the slack while PR gets their affairs in order.
There was talk of more US carriers serving MNL so DL could be a possibility.
Never say never, but DL just pulled out of MNL, so they might not be so keen to return.
It was one of their few intra-Asia routes to survive the NRT hub closure... though part of that had to do with Korean airlines (as in, multiple carriers) being maxed out on their bilateral rights to the Philippines.
Unfortunately, PR is a mess right now especially with their lack of a/c. And like I've said above, there are other carriers that can possibly serve MNL, but who!? UA can add a flight from LAX. ORD - possible, but unlikely. EWR, IAD - no chance.
AA? No chance.
HA? Remote chance they return.
That leaves DL. I can see them return from either LAX or SEA. Non-stop would probably work if/when...
Unfortunately, PR is a mess right now especially with their lack of a/c. And like I've said above, there are other carriers that can possibly serve MNL, but who!? UA can add a flight from LAX. ORD - possible, but unlikely. EWR, IAD - no chance.
AA? No chance.
HA? Remote chance they return.
That leaves DL. I can see them return from either LAX or SEA. Non-stop would probably work if/when they decide to return. UA seems to be working with initially launching daily flights.
https://onemileatatime.com/philippine-airlines-seattle/
https://news.abs-cbn.com/business/10/30/23/more-us-airlines-may-fly-to-manila-says-envoy
Maybe this has something to do with the continued restrictions on direct US-China flights and thus outsized demand for flights that connect elsewhere in NE Asia. Could work in theory since flights areseem to be timed well for connections but Delta and China Airlines don't seem to be all that close in terms of working together however. Wish that would change.
I am very curious to see how this plays out for Delta.
EVA and China Airlines dominates the West Coast to TPE market so I am not sure why any traveler would choose to fly Delta out of Seattle.
Maybe they are looking to feed from their DTW, MSP and ATL hubs, but there isn't a huge Taiwanese population in any of those cities.
Business travelers who fly international from Seattle are all Delta people. This route is for them - and given how the AI boom is fueling semiconductor innovation and investment, the Taiwan trade route will only become larger.
China Airlines will return to SEA earlier than Starlux so there will be 4 airlines in the market.
The biggest advantage for DL/CI is that CI has rights (and used to) flying to New Delhi so Microsoft/Amazon Indian employees can make connection at TPE then fly to DEL.
Why would Microsoft and Amazon employees go to Delhi?
Because most of the Amazon and Microsoft employees are Indians lol
Literally half of the workers at Microsoft and Amazon are from India. Right now they need to pivot to YVR or elsewhere to get there.
What are you talking about? There are tons of existing one-stop options to India from SEA, including Singapore, Emirates, Turkish, Qatar, Air France, Lufthansa, Delta/KLM, BA, Virgin, etc.
Connecting in Taipei really isn't adding much.
That's a strategy that will fail badly unless the Taiwanese airlines are planning on significant price undercutting.
Eva Air: seasonal to Mumbai (5x a week)
Starlux Airlines: no flights to India
China Airlines: cargo-only routes to Delhi and Mumbai
In comparison, anyone flying to India via Seattle can go directly to:
- London: direct flights offered by Virgin Atlantic, British Airways, Air India, and Vistara (~20 daily flights)
- Frankfurt: Lufthansa offers ~8...
That's a strategy that will fail badly unless the Taiwanese airlines are planning on significant price undercutting.
Eva Air: seasonal to Mumbai (5x a week)
Starlux Airlines: no flights to India
China Airlines: cargo-only routes to Delhi and Mumbai
In comparison, anyone flying to India via Seattle can go directly to:
- London: direct flights offered by Virgin Atlantic, British Airways, Air India, and Vistara (~20 daily flights)
- Frankfurt: Lufthansa offers ~8 total fights daily to Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore, and starting winter Hyderabad
- Dubai: Emirates has a nonstop flight and offers 30+ daily flight options to India including numerous T2 cities outside the major metros
- Doha: Qatar has a nonstop flight and also has 15+ daily flights to India including many T2s
- Tokyo: both Ana and Jal offer a couple daily flights to India
- Singapore: long direct flight but many Indian Americans have family here / enjoy visiting and would prefer this much over Taipei
- Seoul: Asiana and Korean Air each offer ~2-3 daily flights total to India
Then add nonstop options within the US to the NYC area, eventually SFO again once Russian airspace opens up, or even Chicago and DC (Air India) there are a plethora of better options than Taipei.
The fact that none of the Indian airlines choose to fly to Seattle even when they don't face the Russian airspace issue is indicative that the demand isn't that strong compared to other destinations.
Microsoft and Amazon employees don't have to go to Delhi, connections over TPE would only be useful to them if they flew to BLR and HYD, where microsoft and amazon have offices and where a lot of the workers are from.
Given China Airlines' connectivity (and significant improvements in safety and reputation over the last several years), I don't think it's a surprise at all. Connecting traffic can be captured on both sides, and China Airlines opens up markets from Taipei that are either not or otherwise not as well served from Seoul.
Increasingly, it seems Delta has established itself in Seattle and is making decisions that are less about, e.g., competition with Alaska, and more...
Given China Airlines' connectivity (and significant improvements in safety and reputation over the last several years), I don't think it's a surprise at all. Connecting traffic can be captured on both sides, and China Airlines opens up markets from Taipei that are either not or otherwise not as well served from Seoul.
Increasingly, it seems Delta has established itself in Seattle and is making decisions that are less about, e.g., competition with Alaska, and more about what makes better sense for them. With more competition at LAX, Seattle seems like a natural choice especially for a flight between two alliance hubs.