Soon we’ll see the weekly flight cap between the United States and China double. This is a positive development, though we’re still a far cry from the pre-pandemic service we saw between the countries.
In this post:
US & China modify bilateral agreement to 24 weekly flights
China doesn’t participate in the Open Skies agreement, which allows airlines to more or less add unlimited service between countries that are part of the agreement, pending available landing slots (for example, both the United States and European Union participate in Open Skies, which is why US airlines can add as many routes to Europe as they want).
Instead, air service to China is based on bilateral agreements between countries. During the pandemic, China greatly restricted foreign carrier service to the country, and many countries retaliated by similarly restricting Chinese airlines from flying to their countries.
This wasn’t a big issue when China was in full lockdown mode, but with China having more or less lifted all coronavirus restrictions, suffice it to say that air service to the country is quite limited.
Under the current agreement between the United States and China, airlines from each country can collectively operate 12 weekly round trip flights between the two countries. That will soon be changing:
- As of September 1, 2023, that will increase to 18 weekly round trip flights
- As of October 29, 2023, that will increase to 24 weekly round trip flights
For context, up until May 2023, each country was restricted to eight weekly flights. This is why we’ve seen airlines operating once weekly service in popular markets, like Beijing to New York and Shanghai to Los Angeles.
It’s important to note that 24 weekly flights between each country is still only a small fraction of pre-pandemic service. Prior to the pandemic, the US and China bilateral agreement allowed for 150 weekly flights, so by late October, we’ll be back to 16% of pre-pandemic capacity.
Increased service is good for consumers
Obviously increased service between the United States and China is good for those looking to travel between the two countries, since it should open up more frequencies, leading to lower fares. But even if you have no interest in traveling to China, this could still positively impact you.
In the past couple of years, we’ve seen a massive increase in airfare between the United States and virtually all of Asia. That’s largely because of the situation between the United States and China:
- Most people traveling to and from China have been connecting through other countries for long haul travel, taking up seats and raising fares through Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Singapore, etc.
- Pre-pandemic, Chinese airlines did a lot of capacity dumping, so many people connected in China when traveling between the United States and other points in Asia, leading to much lower airfare
Increased service between the United States and China should lead to lower fares and more award availability in other markets. However, we still have a long way to go here. We’re now going from 8% of pre-pandemic capacity to 16% of pre-pandemic capacity.
United announces daily Beijing and Shanghai flights?!
Following the revelation that slots between the United States and China would be doubled, United Airlines has announced that it plans to resume daily flights to both Beijing and Shanghai:
- United has announced that it will fly daily between San Francisco and Shanghai as of October 2023
- United has announced that it will fly daily between San Francisco and Beijing as of November 2023
Now, I’m a little confused, and maybe that’s United’s goal. United is claiming it will operate 14 weekly flights between the United States and China, making up 59% of the total US airline allocation. The press release states authoritatively that these routes will be launched, and doesn’t suggest that United is merely applying for this service.
However, the bottom of the press release states “flights pending government approval.” So is United simply applying to operate this service and hopes it will get approved, or is there some agreement between the Department of Transportation and United that I missed, granting United the lion’s share of US airline service to China?
Bottom line
In the coming weeks, we’ll see weekly flight allotments between the United States and China double. With this, airlines from each country will collectively be able to operate 24 weekly flights. That’s better than the 12 that are currently allowed, but a far cry from the 150 that were allowed pre-pandemic.
With this change, capacity will be at 16% of pre-pandemic levels. It’s a step in the right direction, but don’t expect airfare between the United States and Asia to decrease meaningfully until we get closer to those numbers again.
What do you make of air service between the United States and China increasing?
Probably due to United’s massive travel contract with Apple.
Pre-pandemic, Apple was responsible for 50 business class seats to Asia DAILY on routes to Taiwan, China, India, Singapore, etc.
When you’re spending that kind of money, pretty sure a lot is possible behind closed doors.
Asia-Pacific flights as a whole are very profitable right now because of the reduced capacity from China.
Unlike many countries during the pandemic that granted slot or frequency use exemptions to keep airlines from losing their air service rights during reduced demand, China simply imposed its own caps that were below the levels that they previously agreed to.
As for United's delusions about taking 10 of the 12 new additional flights, their press...
Asia-Pacific flights as a whole are very profitable right now because of the reduced capacity from China.
Unlike many countries during the pandemic that granted slot or frequency use exemptions to keep airlines from losing their air service rights during reduced demand, China simply imposed its own caps that were below the levels that they previously agreed to.
As for United's delusions about taking 10 of the 12 new additional flights, their press release clearly says "Subject to government approval" which simply means they will not operate what they have scheduled and are selling.
Since they have had the highest cancellation rate across their system all summer long, they don't mean overcommitting and then cancelling down even though the DOT is investigating airlines for publishing unrealistic schedules.
“Subject to government approval” is at the bottom of every United press release announcing new routes and always has been, as it is for AA, DL, and any other carrier announcing a new international route. The Network team in Chicago isn’t stupid… despite your accusations, they wouldn’t load and start selling a flight they have no intention of flying to try to hold slots (a la Delta with PDXHND), especially if there was uncertainty about...
“Subject to government approval” is at the bottom of every United press release announcing new routes and always has been, as it is for AA, DL, and any other carrier announcing a new international route. The Network team in Chicago isn’t stupid… despite your accusations, they wouldn’t load and start selling a flight they have no intention of flying to try to hold slots (a la Delta with PDXHND), especially if there was uncertainty about them actually getting the slots. PR has a bigger hand in these decisions than you’d think and anyone could see how that would quickly devolve into a comms crisis. Talk about completion rates and hypothetical DOT investigations all you want but that’s not what’s at issue here and will not be factored into the decision.
Why not just get back to 150 flights a week?
If you have the ear of the Chinese leadership, ask them.
Definitely good news! Just flew to Seoul from LAX this summer and flights were $2500 in economy on Asiana... many people on my flight there and back were Chinese and Seoul wasn't their final destination. I looked at fares for August recently and economy round trip was $4000. Really really crazy. Definitely need capacity to China to go up and these fares to go down for the sake of everyone travelling to Asia from the US!
I am baffled by the lack of more flights between North America and China. How are all these people travelling between these two regions? For a friend in China wanting to travel to Vancouver, I had to suggest to him a flight via AMS or FRA, at over 3000 USD (in August) return. Transpacific connections were all practically fully booked. How is this possible? Is it really all down to a sort of cold war between the two? That's so sad.
There are several issues between the United States and China that are contributing to this.
At the start of the pandemic, the Chinese and American governments accused each other of playing games with pandemic policies. There's still bad blood between the two countries over that.
However, now it's the American government has been dragging its feet in agreeing to restore services and much of the reason has to do with US airlines wanting the U.S....
There are several issues between the United States and China that are contributing to this.
At the start of the pandemic, the Chinese and American governments accused each other of playing games with pandemic policies. There's still bad blood between the two countries over that.
However, now it's the American government has been dragging its feet in agreeing to restore services and much of the reason has to do with US airlines wanting the U.S. Department of Transportation to negotiate a new bilateral agreement to prevent the capacity dumping Ben mentioned in this article, not to mention other geopolitical issues such as Chinese airlines being able to use Russian airspace, while US airlines cannot.
IIRC, United holds the most tech contracts, making them especially eager to resume service to China.
That and all the cargo revenue from China
I get the sense that United already has gotten approval for their flights. In a different article that I read on this, someone from United says that the increased daily flights to Shanghai can already be booked and that the daily flights to Beijing should be available to be booked sometime next week.
no, United has not received approval from the DOT to launch any more flights than they current operate. No airline has.
They have consistently published schedules for more flights to/from/ China than they have been authorized and have been the last of the big 3 to cancel their schedules down to what they are actually authorized to fly.
The DOT must approve all US carrier flights to China. They just announced that additional flights...
no, United has not received approval from the DOT to launch any more flights than they current operate. No airline has.
They have consistently published schedules for more flights to/from/ China than they have been authorized and have been the last of the big 3 to cancel their schedules down to what they are actually authorized to fly.
The DOT must approve all US carrier flights to China. They just announced that additional flights would become available yesterday.
As is typically United, they think that by bullying their way to the front of the line, everyone else will just roll over for them.
The slow opening of US-PRC flights is interesting but it's not the same here. Checking flights from Sydney to Europe (at random) there were very cheap fares with connections in China, so seats are not at a premium. At Sydney airport today (Saturday) there were five arrivals (from Haikou, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Zhengzhou and Beijing). I didn't look at other cities. Arrangements here seem far less restrictive than to the US. I suspect the Australian government...
The slow opening of US-PRC flights is interesting but it's not the same here. Checking flights from Sydney to Europe (at random) there were very cheap fares with connections in China, so seats are not at a premium. At Sydney airport today (Saturday) there were five arrivals (from Haikou, Shenzhen, Guangzhou, Zhengzhou and Beijing). I didn't look at other cities. Arrangements here seem far less restrictive than to the US. I suspect the Australian government has more than enough irritations in its relations with China (that it is seeking to resolve) and has no desire to create new ones in aviation.
Beholden to the property industry, Australia's govt requires the population to move over and make room for 1 million migrants every 2 years or so. That's about a 4% increase in population. Of course there's no extra houses, schools, hospitals etc but that's another story. Half the people on these planes from China are migrants...
... and the other half? "Students". Australia's universities are funded by a dodgy visa-buying scheme, if an overseas "student" pays...
Beholden to the property industry, Australia's govt requires the population to move over and make room for 1 million migrants every 2 years or so. That's about a 4% increase in population. Of course there's no extra houses, schools, hospitals etc but that's another story. Half the people on these planes from China are migrants...
... and the other half? "Students". Australia's universities are funded by a dodgy visa-buying scheme, if an overseas "student" pays for 3 years of "education" they will automatically get a permanent visa. This means fewer places for locals of course, and the overseas 'students' don't actually do any studying. So it's always group-assignments with at least one local in the group to actually do the work. That way the overseas payers get the pass mark they need.
United is doing nothing more than its usual attempts at world domination.
The DOT has consistently applied the principle that all 3 US airlines can have 1/3 of the pot until their pre-covid allocations are reached.
Since AA dropped LAX to China, they will reach that level first but still are allocated for 14 weekly flights just from DFW.
DL was operating up to 6 daily flights and will undoubtedly pursue all...
United is doing nothing more than its usual attempts at world domination.
The DOT has consistently applied the principle that all 3 US airlines can have 1/3 of the pot until their pre-covid allocations are reached.
Since AA dropped LAX to China, they will reach that level first but still are allocated for 14 weekly flights just from DFW.
DL was operating up to 6 daily flights and will undoubtedly pursue all they can.
UA was the dominant airline to China and they want to regain that dominance but AA and DL will get their share of the latest flight allocations.
AA and DL have every reason to each seek their 1/3 of the available number of flights which is what they have now.
Since DFW is their only remaining gateway to China, AA is likely to increase DFW-PVG and might also restart DFW-Beijing (they were in the process of moving to the new Beijing airport).
DL might just add flights to SEA-PVG and DTW-PVG but they might also restart LAX-PVG a couple times per week since there is currently no passenger service between those two cities.
DL might also restart Beijing (they too were in the process of moving Beijing airports).
As for airplanes, since these new allocations will come as summer transatlantic season winds down, all have plenty of planes to add these routes.
If this process of increasing more flights is repeated for the spring or summer of 2024, some transatlantic capacity will likely have to be shifted to the Pacific esp. for AA and UA which have fewer widebodies coming next year than DL.
When will you STFU about Delta. Don’t nobody give af about PDX, MSP, DTW, and SEA. Lmao The only good base they have for lots of international really is Atlanta and Atlanta is ghettto!!!
...when United and its incessant fan club gets over the notion that they are the end all and be all of global aviation.
They aren't.
Oh yes Delta is clearing doing big thangs adding long haul International to Salt Lake City, Utah. Lmfao oh wait…
you do realize that Delta is the largest airline in NYC - where it had the forethought to serve all THREE airports, unlike United - and also the largest airline at LAX.
Your feeble efforts to denigrate Delta are PRECISELY because you - like United execs themselves - are petrified at what Delta can do.
Unlike United, Delta understands that the point of business is to make money and maximize revenue and the use...
you do realize that Delta is the largest airline in NYC - where it had the forethought to serve all THREE airports, unlike United - and also the largest airline at LAX.
Your feeble efforts to denigrate Delta are PRECISELY because you - like United execs themselves - are petrified at what Delta can do.
Unlike United, Delta understands that the point of business is to make money and maximize revenue and the use of resources. United - which is run by flunkies from America West that couldn't cut it at American - looks and acts more like Pan Am than an airline that should have 100 years of maturity and wisdom.
It is beyond hilarious that United earned the least amount of money in the 2nd quarter of 2023 - beyond Delta and American - and American's fortunes have only improved as each wave of America West execs have left, including Scott Kirby.
And Delta increased capacity by larger percentages than United in every global region plus domestic in the 2nd quarter and ALSO generated higher revenue and RASM increases in every region.
Delta is now 15% larger than United in NYC and UA is scared to death that Delta will start flying to Asia from JFK and will end the only advantage that remains for UA in NYC.
Talk all you want about how insignificant Delta's route system is but they have made all the right strategic moves while Kirby is increasingly having to face the reality that United cannot keep up with Delta when Delta when and where Delta wants to compete and UA cannot accomplish in reality the lofty dreams that Kirby has set out.
and Delta has already re-overtaken United to Europe as the largest carrier by revenue. And DL will overtake UA to Latin America before the winter is over.
UA can burn all the jet fuel and generate the most ASMs wherever it wants.
Delta is generating more revenue and growing faster globally AND domestically.
And doing it more efficiently and making more money.
Those are simple and verifiable facts.
Delta isn't the largest airline in NYC though - United carried more passengers in 2022, and in June of 2023 than Delta did out of NYC. They are very close, 24% for UA and 22% for DL.
That said, serving all 3 airports has always been a plus and a minus for Delta - they do get good revenue on their excellent LGA network, but that doesn't help them fill international flights out of JFK,...
Delta isn't the largest airline in NYC though - United carried more passengers in 2022, and in June of 2023 than Delta did out of NYC. They are very close, 24% for UA and 22% for DL.
That said, serving all 3 airports has always been a plus and a minus for Delta - they do get good revenue on their excellent LGA network, but that doesn't help them fill international flights out of JFK, and so they have to fly redundant flights from JFK to bring in connecting traffic.
I've never quite understood Delta's Pacific strategy - they always want to make non-stops work from smaller markets like Seattle and MSP, or connect in Detroit. United, and continental before, have consistently been the only US carriers to serve Asia from NYC.
Of course, now that Delta and Korean actually get along, maybe they'll be able to expand their Asian footprint, but United still have the benefit of having hubs that actually have plane-filling O&D demand for trans-pacific flights, and that will always give them an edge in the market as a whole.
I'd love to see Delta actually attempt to serve Asia from JFK, but I'm not going to hold my breath.
China Eastern has one weekly flight from LAX to PVG and that flight is always fully booked and all full Y fare for economy class.
thanks for that info.
The Chinese carriers will also get the double number of flights so it will be interesting to see what they go after.
Delta does have an equity position in China Eastern and they are commercial partners but not joint venture partners.
LAX to China is way underserved relative to what it was.
If flights are going out w/ full Y only, there will be more US carrier service and...
thanks for that info.
The Chinese carriers will also get the double number of flights so it will be interesting to see what they go after.
Delta does have an equity position in China Eastern and they are commercial partners but not joint venture partners.
LAX to China is way underserved relative to what it was.
If flights are going out w/ full Y only, there will be more US carrier service and AA and DL have every reason to get as much as they can - which in the DOT's eyes is 1/3 of total available flights.
The notion that the US-China market will be dominated by United as was the case in the past is not realistic.
United is free to be the largest US airline at Tokyo Narita, however.
Do you honestly think Delta will be the biggest carrier in the US-China market with bases likes like PDX, SLC, and MSP? You’re so far up Delta’s butt lmfao you’ve given me my laugh for the day though. Take care, you nut job
Demand for DTW-PEK and (especially) DTW-PVG is very strong, due to the auto market. DL has >95% of the DTW international market. In addition to DTW being DL's second-largest hub, DL also previously flew daily to China from PDX, SEA, SFO, and LAX. China travel from the East Coast/Midwest connecting through West Coast cities can be a nice break in the trip; especially now that the routes are even longer due to Russian airspace restrictions.
...Demand for DTW-PEK and (especially) DTW-PVG is very strong, due to the auto market. DL has >95% of the DTW international market. In addition to DTW being DL's second-largest hub, DL also previously flew daily to China from PDX, SEA, SFO, and LAX. China travel from the East Coast/Midwest connecting through West Coast cities can be a nice break in the trip; especially now that the routes are even longer due to Russian airspace restrictions.
No argument here that ATL is a madhouse. And, I also have questioned the demand for MSP-China, other than as a connection hub from the Chicago area.
No one’s care about China to Portland and Delta flies domestic out of SFO. They are definitely not flying long haul international there let’s do a fact check before we publish things Tim Delta worshipper fake account. K, thanks
Delta will never beat United in terms of flights to Asia. Are you writing this from Salt Lake City, Utah? Lmfao
It really doesn't matter what you think about Delta's route system. Seriously. No.one. GAS
What does matter is that Delta manages to make more money and generate more revenue.
Delta clearly knows how to use the assets and routes it does operate better than any other carrier - in the world.
THAT is what businesses are supposed to do.
The number of airplanes and the number of seat miles is immaterial to financial goals.
No...
It really doesn't matter what you think about Delta's route system. Seriously. No.one. GAS
What does matter is that Delta manages to make more money and generate more revenue.
Delta clearly knows how to use the assets and routes it does operate better than any other carrier - in the world.
THAT is what businesses are supposed to do.
The number of airplanes and the number of seat miles is immaterial to financial goals.
No one said that Delta will be the largest to China or to Asia.
What United is desperately afraid of and fighting hard to prevent is to continue to be **ONLY** the same size to China as Delta and American and that is exactly what the DOT has done so far and will very likely continue to do.
Despite United's fantasies, other airlines want to serve China and can make as much or more money doing so.
You should be more concerned about how United managed to let Delta overtake UA as the largest airline in NYC. For years we heard how great it was that United had a single massive hub at Newark - and then it all fell apart as many of us expected would happen. And UA's demise in NYC began when it failed to fully use its slots at EWR almost a decade ago which led the FAA to remove slot controls, allowing a flood of new flights from other carriers. EWR is the least capable airport in the US of supporting the amount of flights that UA WAS TRYING to operate their.
Mock Delta in SLC and everywhere else if it makes you feel better.
United's fall from dominance in NYC is far, far more significant.
Why are they being so slow to raise the flight cap though? If airlines want to operate more flights, let them??
UA AA and DL are concentrating the transatlantic routes and do not have enough wide body planes for the transpacific routes as they did pre-pandemic. If DOT lifted the restriction, Chinese airlines will do the capacity dump again, like they did at pre-pandemic, taking over all the market share. That is why now DOT does not want to lift the restriction and only agree to add the flights slowly.
the restrictions were imposed by the Chinese government and they alone are slowing the return of seats.
The Chinese government heavily subsidized their carriers' international operations pre-covid - which is part of why fares were so low - and they do not want to do that again.
Inbound tourism to China is the lowest it has been well before covid and westerners around the world have a reduced desire to visit China.
...
the restrictions were imposed by the Chinese government and they alone are slowing the return of seats.
The Chinese government heavily subsidized their carriers' international operations pre-covid - which is part of why fares were so low - and they do not want to do that again.
Inbound tourism to China is the lowest it has been well before covid and westerners around the world have a reduced desire to visit China.
Finally, the Chinese capacity cuts have eliminated the Chinese airports as viable connecting hubs to compete w/ other Asia-Pacific hubs for non-Chinese passengers which helps Korean and Japanese airlines and their US partners.
I recall multiple airlines at LAX pre pandemic with around 10 flights daily, if not more
From Europe there are significantly more flights now, however almost no Chinese tourists. It’s mostly business and student traffic.
Chinese tourist numbers are about to rebound, as the Chinese govt just unbanned group travel to a number of countries (including the US).
No Chinese tourists in Europe????? Where does that fact come from? Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, France - there have been so many Chinese tourist groups everywhere this summer!
United flying the bulk of these routes makes the most sense compared to the other big US carriers. Majority of their hubs have large Asian populations (SFO/LAX/IAH/EWR/ORD) so they can offer much better connectivity.
I'm confused by the UA announcement too. Doesn't UA already have daily flights between SFO and PVG?
Not yet, right now 4 weekly flights between SFO and PVG by United.
AA seems to have zero interest in China flights and Delta seems to want to wait & see if United can make ‘em work first
To be honest China flying better suits United clearly. Delta and AA have awkward hubs for China flying and some would argue Asia flying in general . Clearly United has SFO, Guam, and it appears they are rebuilding Asia flying out of LAX now
AA has never had the best of luck in China. I remember flying them 15 years ago from Chicago to Beijing which was scheduled to arrive after midnight, while United's flight arrived at a normal time of day, which indicated that AA got the short end of the stick.
I interpret UA's announcement as a "signaling" manoeuvre, essentially arguing that they are ready and able to increase service on the sector. Will they actually get 14/24? Not a chance. 8, maybe 10 at most, unless for whatever reason DL and AA pass on the opportunity. (And, to be fair, let's not put it past AA to miss something this big!)
As a point of comparison, a couple years ago, DL announced a 20-flight schedule...
I interpret UA's announcement as a "signaling" manoeuvre, essentially arguing that they are ready and able to increase service on the sector. Will they actually get 14/24? Not a chance. 8, maybe 10 at most, unless for whatever reason DL and AA pass on the opportunity. (And, to be fair, let's not put it past AA to miss something this big!)
As a point of comparison, a couple years ago, DL announced a 20-flight schedule out of DAL on the theoretical presupposition that they would get the two ex-AA gates (which ultimately went to VX). Realistically, there was near-zero chance that DL would get both of them. But had they just sat back & waited for the process to unfold, near-zero would have become exactly zero.
and DL is now operating 9 flights/day from Love Field from its own gate - 6 to ATL and 3 to LAX on A319s - more than doubling the number of seats it had before it won its own gate. It planned to add LGA service but is pushing that back until the NY ATC capacity issues are resolved.
Yes, but that's a much more recent (and unrelated) development.
you apparently thought it was worthy of a connection with the current topic
The connection is really one of the tortoise and the hare.
United never misses an opportunity to crow about its accomplishments and jumps first and fastest whenever any opportunity for growth arises but consistently takes 2nd place to Delta.
Delta moves methodically and patiently, carrying out its strategies over decades instead of months as United tries to do. Delta is...
you apparently thought it was worthy of a connection with the current topic
The connection is really one of the tortoise and the hare.
United never misses an opportunity to crow about its accomplishments and jumps first and fastest whenever any opportunity for growth arises but consistently takes 2nd place to Delta.
Delta moves methodically and patiently, carrying out its strategies over decades instead of months as United tries to do. Delta is now the largest airline in NYC, LAX and BOS (the latter by revenue but not flights), a far cry from the airline that was focused just on its interior US hubs which it dominated and still does.
Delta never indicated they were not interested in regrowing its presence in Asia post Narita; people just came to that conclusion out of their attempts to justify UA's growth.
The DOT has consistently divided up routes to China on an equal basis; pre-covid AA and DL got virtually every new route that was available as soon as they showed interest because UA had such a large headstart.
The DOT now will keep AA, DL and UA as equals to China to the extent possible.
UA has consistently posted schedules far in excess of what they knew they could fly, including to China and have consistently been the last to pull down schedules to reality.
And Delta waited 10 years to gain its own gate at Love Field but they have handedly inserted themself as the solid 2nd largest at both Dallas airports.
Agree re: DOT China allocations being even among the three.
The DAL parallel I was referencing is specifically that DL announced - and put on sale! - 20 flights a day that it didn't have the gate space to operate. I interpreted that as a signal to the authorities that they [DL] were ready & able to operate a full schedule immediately if given the gates. Of course, as we learned later, the authorities never...
Agree re: DOT China allocations being even among the three.
The DAL parallel I was referencing is specifically that DL announced - and put on sale! - 20 flights a day that it didn't have the gate space to operate. I interpreted that as a signal to the authorities that they [DL] were ready & able to operate a full schedule immediately if given the gates. Of course, as we learned later, the authorities never even entertained the idea, they told AA they had to sell them to VX and only VX.
The subsequent litigation and eventual settlement in which DL got an uncontested gate at DAL came later and isn't related to my drawing the parallel.
Though I wonder to what extent DL's announcement last spring of MCO-DCA, MIA-DCA, & BNA-DCA were on the presumption of getting more slots in the FAA reauth, as I notice they quietly puled them when it became apparent that wasn't gonna happen.
Anyways, I see UA's announcement as a declaration that, gosh, if AA or DL can't or won't use their allocations, they [UA] are ready to so. Presumptuous? Yes. But that's the modern commercial airline industry in a word.
You simply do not understand the facts - like a whole lot of other people - and then come to the wrong conclusions.
Delta PROPOSED a schedule to multiple hubs as part of its request to gain the two ex-AA gates at Dallas Love Field.
They never put the flights for sale because they did not have the gatespace.
It is perfectly fine for UA to ask for all available frequencies if other carriers don't...
You simply do not understand the facts - like a whole lot of other people - and then come to the wrong conclusions.
Delta PROPOSED a schedule to multiple hubs as part of its request to gain the two ex-AA gates at Dallas Love Field.
They never put the flights for sale because they did not have the gatespace.
It is perfectly fine for UA to ask for all available frequencies if other carriers don't want them - but that is not what they did.
They, not Delta, put flights for sale that it is not authorized to operate.
And the point still remains that United is doing all it can to try to insulate itself from any competition on the Pacific.
They know full well that American doesn't have a plan other than with JAL and AA's own service amounts to just a couple flights/day.
Delta retired its 777 fleet but has now replaced them with even more A350s and A330-900s and are receiving dozens more. UA knows that DL is not walking away from Asia and its relationship with KE which will be the largest joint venture across the Pacific including a much larger DL presence on its own metal in a couple years.
There is no universe in which AA and DL are not going to take every China frequency they can get.
United's fantasy that they alone will be able to serve markets that make money is disconnected from reality. Publishing schedules that they hope to operate but have no chance of getting approved doesn't increase their odds of winning anything.