United Airlines has by far the most impressive international route network of any US airline. That’s about to get even better, as United has announced its biggest ever expansion to the South Pacific.
In this post:
United Airlines’ South Pacific expansion
Next winter, United Airlines will have more flights and serve more destinations between the United States and Australia and New Zealand than any other airline in the world (yes, even more than Qantas and Air New Zealand). This comes as the airline is adding 40% more flights between the countries for the upcoming northern winter, for a total of 66 weekly flights.
Let’s go over the full details of what’s being added.
San Francisco to Christchurch route
As of December 1, 2023, United Airlines will add a new 3x weekly flight between San Francisco (SFO) and Christchurch (CHC). The route will be operated by a Boeing 787-8, and it will make United the only airline to fly between the United States and the South Island of New Zealand.
Los Angeles to Auckland route
As of October 28, 2023, United Airlines will add a new 4x weekly flight between Los Angeles (LAX) and Auckland (AKL). The route will be operated by a Boeing 787-9, and it will complement United’s existing service from San Francisco to Auckland. This route is also served by Air New Zealand and Delta, and American flies seasonally from Dallas to Auckland.
Los Angeles to Brisbane route
As of November 29, 2023, United Airlines will add a new 3x weekly flight between Los Angeles (LAX) and Brisbane (BNE). The route will be operated by a Boeing 787-9, and it will complement United’s existing service from San Francisco to Brisbane. United will be competing with Qantas in this market.
More frequencies in existing markets
In addition to adding new routes, United will also increase frequencies in existing markets:
- As of October 28, 2023, United will fly daily between San Francisco and Brisbane using a Boeing 787-9, up from 3x weekly service last winter
- As of October 28, 2023, United will fly twice daily between San Francisco and Sydney using a Boeing 777-300ER, up from once daily last winter
- As of October 28, 2023, United will fly daily between San Francisco and Melbourne using a Boeing 777-300ER, representing a capacity increase over the Boeing 787-9 used last winter
My take on United Airlines’ Australia & New Zealand expansion
United Airlines’ international route network is in a league of its own as far as US airlines go, and this is the latest example of that.
This is smart seasonal aircraft deployment, given the lack of demand in so many long haul markets during the northern winter. While airlines can fly endless planes to Europe in the northern summer, deploying wide body jets profitably in winter is a different story.
On some level this is probably partly possible thanks to the partnership between United and Virgin Australia, which provides domestic and regional feed in Australia, especially beyond Brisbane and Melbourne. Virgin Australia dumped Delta in favor of United, and that seems to have been a smart move.
Furthermore, it’s especially impressive to see how United is beating both American and Delta:
- On the surface American has the most potential in the South Pacific, given that the airline has a joint venture with Qantas; therefore it’s so disappointing the extent to which American barely even tries in the South Pacific
- At this point Delta is such a distant third in the South Pacific, as the airline doesn’t have any partnerships there, but rather just has interline agreements
Bottom line
United Airlines’ latest big international expansion is in the South Pacific, and next winter the airline will operate 66 weekly flights to Australia and New Zealand. United deserves a lot of credit for its growth in the region, and also for poaching Virgin Australia from Delta. I’m guessing that was a smart move for Virgin Australia as well, as United is actually willing to be aggressive with international expansion in the South Pacific, unlike Delta.
What do you make of United Airlines’ South Pacific expansion?
Think UA , AA , AC , NZ & QF on a Boeing to North America are very similar in Economy or Premium Economy . The QF & DL Airbus give a bit more shoulder room in Economy but otherwise are fairly similar .
Probably more important is where you land as San Francisco & Vancouver (& Dallas almost as good) are miles ahead of LAX which is still a mess (just a better decorated mess than before).
They should add a flight from Houston to Auckland. I was on their partner Air New Zealand in January 2023 and I will never fly ANZ again. It was uncomfortable and the food was awful. I have flown on many airlines over the years but never have I gotten of as miserable as I was on that flight. I am a loyal United customer but if I have to use the partner, I will look elsewhere.
It may seem like a lifetime ago but I remember after the incident where the United plane came apart from HNL to AUK. United, try as it could, was unable to get kiwis to fly their aircraft. Eventually they just gave up and pulled out of New Zealand.
It didn't come apart - and based on such an observation , Kiwi's wouldn't fly NZ as due to Mount Erebus.
We just flew LAX-MEL and SYD-LAX on UA this month. Half my group was in economy and it has to be the absolute worst way to get across the Pacific. Unfriendly service, hardly any bathrooms in coach on the 787 Dreamliner such that there was a constant line in the aisle, below average food (a flight attendant threw a packaged sandwich at me and when I asked what was in it she laughed and said...
We just flew LAX-MEL and SYD-LAX on UA this month. Half my group was in economy and it has to be the absolute worst way to get across the Pacific. Unfriendly service, hardly any bathrooms in coach on the 787 Dreamliner such that there was a constant line in the aisle, below average food (a flight attendant threw a packaged sandwich at me and when I asked what was in it she laughed and said "mostly bread") , the slimmest, flimsiest seats. Never again. My family in Polaris thought it was meh, fine. I’ve taken Air NZ and Qantas economy and even with the stopover in Auckland either of those routes is preferable. Virgin within the country was disappointing too - an hour late and no snacks, just tea, coffee or water. Someone in our group accidentally booked Qantas at the same time and she got free alcohol and a meat pie. United / Virgin has to be the worst.
VA and QF aren't a fair comparison in honesty. QF charge double, sometimes 3x the price of the same domestic routes flown by VA and are still considered a full-service airline. VA on the other hand are positioned a step below, between full-service and low-cost.
It is a shame that your VA flight was delayed, but their track record for on-time running is usually good, better than QF recently whom have been plagued with operational issues during the pandemic recovery.
I thought Air New Zealand is part of star alliance...
Ben,
You seem to suggest that these changes are seasonal, talking about how you've got to do something with the airplanes in northern winter. Did I miss something indicating that these changes weren't going to be year round?
Qantas, are you ever returning to MEL-SFO? Your arch-competitor across the Pacific are planning to throw a 77W at it, and you're still uncommitted.
Nobody wants to transfer at SYD, it's a nightmare, as is LAX. I wonder how many premium pax have decided to go non-stop with UA and discovered that it's actually bearable? And preferable to a transfer?
Think this is a smart move by UA to be the only airline flying non stop from the US to Christchurch, the gateway to the South Island. I'll be using those flights for sure!.
Totally agree on Delta being a distant 3rd. They are not even trying, especially in Asia/South East Asia (slightly off topic)
I’m a 2MM, Diamond and we keep losing benefits and routes. I’m still not over their joint venture with Korean which has been nothing short of a disaster. Traveling with Delta to anywhere in Asia is a chore. Lack of direct routes and going through ICN where Korean doesn’t have availability or good...
Totally agree on Delta being a distant 3rd. They are not even trying, especially in Asia/South East Asia (slightly off topic)
I’m a 2MM, Diamond and we keep losing benefits and routes. I’m still not over their joint venture with Korean which has been nothing short of a disaster. Traveling with Delta to anywhere in Asia is a chore. Lack of direct routes and going through ICN where Korean doesn’t have availability or good connections is making me rethink my Asia travel… if UA adds Singapore and BKK, I’m switching!
also false,
Delta is the 2nd largest US airline across the Pacific and has been since it gave up its title as the largest transpacific airline after it merged with NW.
Pre-covid, Delta and Korean were the #2 and #3 transpacific airlines.
In no universe has DL been the #2 transpacific airline in the past 15 years.
You seem nice. I’m not talking about transpacific, I’m talking about intra-Asia and I said off topic. With the old NRT hub, we had direct flights to diff destinations like SIN, MNL… Korean isn’t working for me and it might be just my personal experience.
United doesn’t fly intra Asia. If you prefer Japan and NH, that is valid.
Given that UA quickly returned to SIN, it is interesting that you have continued to fly DL and KE.
I would be surprised if a US carrier flies nonstop from the continental US to Bangkok
And I would say there are good chances that Delta will add LAX to SIN with one of its new A350s in 2024. SQ makes the flight work year round but UA couldn’t make it work on a 789
@ZTravel
How long did it take you to get to 2MM ? How did you do it ? Any advice ?
About 15 yrs, started with NWA in 2008 and I’m turning 40. Not super proud as I feel I missed on trying other airlines, especially with Star Alliance (only flown TK, and UA on occasions). Got stuck with Sky team because of regular trips to CDG, always with Air France. If you’re just starting, collect CC points and fly any airline that’s convenient and tries to earn your business. I think nowadays airline loyalty is for suckers (and old timers like me).
UA serves SIN double daily.
DL in general has a very conservative and lackluster international strategy in general. I don't know if it's the retirement of 772s and the interim gap between when they receive their new A350s, but reading their quarterly announcements too it just doesn't appear to be an area they seem to be either competent or ambitious about. It's incredible how United has been an outright winner in international expansion, reaching far and wide across the globe...
DL in general has a very conservative and lackluster international strategy in general. I don't know if it's the retirement of 772s and the interim gap between when they receive their new A350s, but reading their quarterly announcements too it just doesn't appear to be an area they seem to be either competent or ambitious about. It's incredible how United has been an outright winner in international expansion, reaching far and wide across the globe with exciting new additions. I doubt Delta would ever catch up at this rate. Congratulations to United.
Delta's international strategy is the same as its domestic strategy - to make money. And data that IT and AA and UA has reported to the DOT show that DL does a better job of making money.
I am an airline geek too and love seeing massive spaghetti route maps. But I also know business well enough that operating anything at a loss is not viable for long.
Do not agree that UA does not plan to operate these profitably - So if they can do that with 10X better route map vs Delta, it's a tastier spaghetti.
This is the same as saying that a company with no planes is better than one with 10 planes that make marginal profits on each segment because “my company makes 100% profit margin on all the flights they fly…never mind that they don’t fly anywhere”.
I didn't say that any airline intends to be unprofitable - but the test comes when profits evaporate or never materialize and airlines are forced to decide what they are going to do.
I cited DOT data for the Pacific as a whole - because that is as low as airlines report their profitability and the DOT releases it - and what I saw for years - which many denied - was that AA...
I didn't say that any airline intends to be unprofitable - but the test comes when profits evaporate or never materialize and airlines are forced to decide what they are going to do.
I cited DOT data for the Pacific as a whole - because that is as low as airlines report their profitability and the DOT releases it - and what I saw for years - which many denied - was that AA lost large amounts of money flying the Pacific while UA lost much less - but they still lost money which is pretty incredible since they were the largest airline. No company that is the leader in a segment should lose money unless they are solely focused on market share.
DL inherited the largest transpacific network from NW but it was sporadically profitable and DL spent ten years restructuring it followed by the Japanese government decision to open HND to more traffic but not allow DL to transfer its intra-Asia routes to HND followed by covid.
DL was pretty honest about why it was taking a pause in growing Asia/Pacific but UA has never said anything negative about their transpacific network (other than NH prorates) but still reported losses.
UA's best gift may be that the Chinese have put a lid on capacity but it comes at the cost of UA being the largest airline to China. I believe, and LHR vs LGW is ample evidence, that NRT will not be viable as a transpacific airport given more than adequate capacity at HND and the growth of LCC transpacific carriers from NRT. It's kinda hard to be the largest carrier across the North Pacific if you don't have an advantage in Japan and your competitor has a larger hub at Seoul - and yes, ICN had more intra-Asia traffic and will again, than HND or NRT.
and, again, Delta is taking delivery of 24 more new widebodies in the next 3 years than United. UA has capacity to grow now because it can't fly to China like it did but UA simply does not have the growth capacity in the coming years that DL has - even before a likely order for even more transpac capable aircraft.
Life is a marathon. UA is getting the attention for not retiring aircraft which they could have done in response to the closed markets in China. But UA will now have to spend much more on fleet and won't get many new aircraft for several years.
AA does not seem interested in growing much internationally.
It is between DL and UA among US airlines. DL has replaced all of the widebodies it retired and now has a much newer, more economical international fleet - and DL still has new aircraft coming online in the coming years.
If there is a party to be had flying internationally, DL and UA will share it among US airlines and US airlines are financially in a much better position than foreign carriers.
Thanks for the insight Tim. I guess my challenge is primarily with KE. Star Alliance has much stronger partners in Asia than Delta and Delta’s move from NRT made us dependent on KE which I think is beyond terrible. I’ve flown Vietnam and Garuda airlines , nice products but limited networks. Add to it cost… just booked a trip to BKK and was almost impossible justifying the fare difference of DL/SkyTeam vs what SA was...
Thanks for the insight Tim. I guess my challenge is primarily with KE. Star Alliance has much stronger partners in Asia than Delta and Delta’s move from NRT made us dependent on KE which I think is beyond terrible. I’ve flown Vietnam and Garuda airlines , nice products but limited networks. Add to it cost… just booked a trip to BKK and was almost impossible justifying the fare difference of DL/SkyTeam vs what SA was offering.
Thanks for everyone who pointed out the UA flies direct to SIN!
One last thing, to avoid KE, I’ve flown to Asia many times eastbound via AMS or CDG. Longer flights and only way to book is to structure as multi-city or book directly with AF, but to me, the overall experience is superior to KE and worth the hassle :)
I’m guessing that was a smart move for Virgin Australia as well, as United is actually willing to be aggressive with international expansion in the South Pacific, unlike Delta.
I'm not so sure that's a fair claim to DL at all.
The day Oz/NZ shut their borders, VA was flying multiple 773ERs to SYD, MEL, and BNE from LAX. Before either country reopened, or even had a set date for reopening, VA had sold...
I’m guessing that was a smart move for Virgin Australia as well, as United is actually willing to be aggressive with international expansion in the South Pacific, unlike Delta.
I'm not so sure that's a fair claim to DL at all.
The day Oz/NZ shut their borders, VA was flying multiple 773ERs to SYD, MEL, and BNE from LAX. Before either country reopened, or even had a set date for reopening, VA had sold off its entire widebody fleet, reverted its business model essentially back to "Blue", and switched to UA.
Perhaps the best move on their part, but considering the near 50% increase in their largest fleet model during the Covid years, one could reasonably suspect that had DL/VA remained in a joint venture, that we'd have seen DL deploy aircraft to at least MEL and additional SYD frequencies, and likely AKL (as they are now) as well.
They'd previously "never expanded" because they had a metal-neutral partner running 5daily+ flights on giant metal.
Please review the SFO/CHC route.
There is plenty to do in Christchurch and the South Island.
The South Island is amazing. Temperate rainforest & fjords on the west coast, magnificent scenery and wine country in Central Otago, the barren beauty of the highlands. It a small place, but surprisingly diverse.
As much as I have zero desire to fly United on an ultra long haul flight, adding capacity and competition will hopefully be a much needed relief to the absolute bonkers prices we've been seeing to travel between the US and Australia (I was looking recently at NYC to SYD, Qantas was charging roundtrip USD 3K in economy, 7k in premium economy (!!!!), and 15k business) and of course hopefully that will mean better award availability.
Why not? The seats are good and the bedding is excellent. Seems like a great place to sleep on the 10PM red eye to Auckland
Mostly because the food tends to be pathetic on United and the service is also usually more miss than hit. If I'm going to pay that much money or shell out a large amount of points, I'd very much like to eat well and get good service. I'd actually rather fly on an Asian carrier like Singapore Airlines or Cathay and have a connection rather than flying non stop on an american carrier (except maybe...
Mostly because the food tends to be pathetic on United and the service is also usually more miss than hit. If I'm going to pay that much money or shell out a large amount of points, I'd very much like to eat well and get good service. I'd actually rather fly on an Asian carrier like Singapore Airlines or Cathay and have a connection rather than flying non stop on an american carrier (except maybe Delta). But I do agree with you that the most important part is the seat and United is OK on that front.
Unfortunately you are right on the food. They have improved things with the fact that the Polaris lounges offer a great experience and quite good food compared to other US lounges but lounge food only gets you so far when you have to take a 15 hour flight :)
Is there any chance of the extortionist business class fares decreasing? I certainly would like that but won't hold my breath.
The minute demand falls, so will fares.
For us the business traveler , is fantastic to go from a domestic UA flight to both Virgin Australia & Air New Zealand.
Awesome new routes by United. A lot of growth in the South Pacific by them. Even more impressive since their Australia growth isn't supported by their ANZ JV but rather VA connectivity (and natural O&D, obviously) and their traditional long-held strength in Australia.
If Asia demand (specifically China+HKG) ever recovers to any pre-covid level, I wonder how many of these routes will stay vs these widebodies being redeployed to their Asia routes from SFO...
Awesome new routes by United. A lot of growth in the South Pacific by them. Even more impressive since their Australia growth isn't supported by their ANZ JV but rather VA connectivity (and natural O&D, obviously) and their traditional long-held strength in Australia.
If Asia demand (specifically China+HKG) ever recovers to any pre-covid level, I wonder how many of these routes will stay vs these widebodies being redeployed to their Asia routes from SFO and other UA hubs. But, it doesn't seem like pre-covid demand is returning to those pre-covid unique United Asia routes.
There will be no return of the level of demand to/from China that existed pre-covid in part because the Chinese government subsidized its airlines so they could carry Chinese citizens around the world. They aren't doing that any more and they, not the US, has cut the allowable number of flights dramatically. AA, DL and UA EACH operate just 4 flights/week between the US and China.
The same dynamic is likely to repeat itself...
There will be no return of the level of demand to/from China that existed pre-covid in part because the Chinese government subsidized its airlines so they could carry Chinese citizens around the world. They aren't doing that any more and they, not the US, has cut the allowable number of flights dramatically. AA, DL and UA EACH operate just 4 flights/week between the US and China.
The same dynamic is likely to repeat itself in HKG but w/o the forced capacity reductions. The DOT will allocate any increased number of flights equally to each of the big 3 on an equal basis until each carrier has reached its full pre-covid allocation. UA will not have a flight advantage in China again.
I said for years that AA and UA operated parts of their transpacific networks at losses for years and AA, first, and then UA later confirmed that they lost money flying some China/HKG capacity.
So, United should be happy that the Chinese side is limiting capacity and it is those decreased flights that allow AA, DL and UA to reallocate aircraft to other routes elsewhere including to the S. Pacific.
Incorrect on Delta. Not only Rex but also Virgin Australia when it comes to interline. Heck, if you want to get technical, they actually have interline with both QF and NZ (and AA and UA too)
If you mean codeshare, that is a different thing.
And FWIW, Virgin is bookable on Delta.com so not sure why you say “only Rex” which is incorrect in several ways.
This is interesting, but positive, news. It's nice to see the LAX-CHC option which will shave hours off connections.
Maybe UA is capitalizing on angry QF passengers who are no longer loyal to the Aussie carrier. Deservedly so.
Yes, have seen several social media posts recently where Aussies have praised United for maintaining certain Australia routes during COVID and they seem willing to give them their business over Qantas as a result.
first, this is not surprising. United has repeatedly demonstrated that it is all about market share and, given that American and Delta are growing (or regrowing) in the S. Pacific, it was a given that United would throw a bunch of capacity into the market.
second, Virgin Australia is out of the longhaul international market, Qantas has much less capacity along w/ Air New Zealand. US carriers are in some of the best shape...
first, this is not surprising. United has repeatedly demonstrated that it is all about market share and, given that American and Delta are growing (or regrowing) in the S. Pacific, it was a given that United would throw a bunch of capacity into the market.
second, Virgin Australia is out of the longhaul international market, Qantas has much less capacity along w/ Air New Zealand. US carriers are in some of the best shape globally because of the strength of the US market during covid and the massive amounts of government (taxpayer help) which other airlines worldwide received.
third, it is pure internet fables and nothing more that partnership make or break carriers' success in markets. Delta INCREASED capacity in the US-Australia market just by going from B777-200LRs to A350-900s and yet Delta added 3 weekly additional flights even after losing Virgin Australia as a partner.
Delta is adding LAX-AKL with more than 2X the amount of capacity as UA will add in that market because of the larger A350-900s (and even more on the ex-Latam birds).
fourth, American is the loser, having been reduced to 3rd place among US carriers on the west coast which is the largest market to the S. Pacific.
and, finally, Delta still has more widebodies coming in the next few years with a pending order for at least A350-1000s and possibly some B787s than either American or United, and Delta already has the best operating costs per seat mile of the big 3 - and lower than many other foreign carriers.
It is also worth noting that Delta is very likely to re-overtake United as the largest carrier to Northeast Asia. Delta has more access to Haneda - Narita is simply not economically viable predominantly as a connecting hub - while Delta has enormous potential to grow at Seoul and will grow there including with the A350-1000s.
United is trying to hold onto its relevance in the Pacific and it is the S. Pacific where they will focus their attention. They will do well but so will every other carrier just because there is so much less foreign carrier capacity.
You cannot be serious man.
I don't come here for fun and games.
feel free to let us know about which parts you disagree and we can have a discussion from there.
Don't feed the troll ;)
Is anyone surprised that his response to United growing, A LOT, in Oceania (with some great new routes) is "United is trying to hold on to its relevance in the Pacific" then "Delta rocks. There's a BUNCH of NOT-ordered widebodies that are really going to fuel this growth. And AA is the worst (just ignore JVs entirely since they only play a part in market share when it helps...
Don't feed the troll ;)
Is anyone surprised that his response to United growing, A LOT, in Oceania (with some great new routes) is "United is trying to hold on to its relevance in the Pacific" then "Delta rocks. There's a BUNCH of NOT-ordered widebodies that are really going to fuel this growth. And AA is the worst (just ignore JVs entirely since they only play a part in market share when it helps the Delta rah rah line)".
Truly is amazing how conveniently he ignores JVs when talking about the LAX-AKL market but, apparently, Delta is about to take over Asia with their KE JV. Meanwhile, Delta was doing everything they could to take JL from OneWorld 10+ years ago, but now the TYO airports aren't worth anything for connecting.
The only normal Tim Dunn bingo square he missed is hating the 77E.
Delta, good.
The other guys, bad.
Tim Dunn has entered the chat.
nope.
It just means that there are limits on what any carrier can do as long as the free market exists.
United has called itself "the US' flag carrier" when no such single carrier designation exists.
As long as there is demand, other carriers will also add service which they are.
And, in the case of Delta, they have run their business better than American or United for years. and that...
nope.
It just means that there are limits on what any carrier can do as long as the free market exists.
United has called itself "the US' flag carrier" when no such single carrier designation exists.
As long as there is demand, other carriers will also add service which they are.
And, in the case of Delta, they have run their business better than American or United for years. and that will be apparent once gain by this afternoon when United reports its earnings (Delta did last week) and AA follows - and other US airlines update their guidance.
UA is, after all, a for-profit company - and all those that would like to dismiss that as not relevant would do well to note how much UA execs gloated about their profits in the 3rd quarter - and now that AA and DL are re-adding capacity, they will generate profits as good as or better than UA.
The title that UA will hold is the most indebted, stealing that title from AA. UA can 't order $40 billion more in aircraft over the next 7 years and not end up w/ significantly more debt and balance sheet obligations.
You qualify that DL might be the largest to “NE” Asia as way of making an argument to support DL without realizing the notion actually hurts the notion that DL is superior in Asia.
DL will be large in Korea since they’ll be relying on KE for a large amount of their Asian travel since DL serves less destinations in Asia than UA. Never mind that UA has a huge amount of flights to...
You qualify that DL might be the largest to “NE” Asia as way of making an argument to support DL without realizing the notion actually hurts the notion that DL is superior in Asia.
DL will be large in Korea since they’ll be relying on KE for a large amount of their Asian travel since DL serves less destinations in Asia than UA. Never mind that UA has a huge amount of flights to Japan (as in currently has them, not taking advantage of slot waivers to avoid unprofitable Japan flying - yes, UA is not 100% back yet, but they have most flights operating), but they also have a JV with one of the most successful Asian airlines that doesn’t require them to overfly Japan, one of the largest countries for travel. The JV with NH makes HND and NRT successful in a way that wasn’t for DL, as shown by the significant amount of flying already brought back.
Also, UA is not 100% focused on NE Asia (a completely random qualifier you added) since UA has been successful in serving so much more of Asia when DL closed multiple stations. Double daily to SIN, TPE, HKG, KIX, the GUM hub, all in addition to this huge South Pacific expansion when they were already the largest airlines to the region.
And yet it’s UA that is trying to maintain relevance?
Please re-read almost any of your posts, but in particular this one, if you ever want to know why people think you are so biased.
I guarantee you that United and American will not maintain the level of service they had pre-covid at Narita. As much as they wanted otherwise as part of their JV agreements with JAL and ANA, Narita will not maintain a level of fares necessary to support the local market as long as there is abundant capacity to Haneda. Average fares are already double digit higher at Haneda than Narita and as demand returns that gap...
I guarantee you that United and American will not maintain the level of service they had pre-covid at Narita. As much as they wanted otherwise as part of their JV agreements with JAL and ANA, Narita will not maintain a level of fares necessary to support the local market as long as there is abundant capacity to Haneda. Average fares are already double digit higher at Haneda than Narita and as demand returns that gap will close.
Delta is also not limited to Japan and S. Korea. They are rebuilding their transpacific fleet after retiring their 777s during the pandemic but now have the same number of widebody aircraft as they had pre-covid. The highest performance A350-900s are longer range than the 787 or any 777 and that is before an A350-1000 order which will give DL an untouchable amount of range unless UA orders the 777-8 which won't even be in service for 5 years or more - at the earliest.
UA might have a larger international network now but DL is receiving more widebodies in the next 3 years than United so the gap will close. DL will have a more cost-effective and capable fleet of widebody aircraft as well.
If there are opportunities for growth, United alone won't be starting service. And remember that United specifically said that a chunk of its big 787 was to replace its 767 fleet.
Northwest was the largest carrier across the Pacific when Delta bought them and DL carried that title until it was tired of losing money - as NW frequently did across the Pacific. UA jumped in as the largest carrier, has itself lost money on several years, and may still end up as being #2 and less profitable than Delta in part because of fleet composition.
Stay tuned. The airline industry is a marathon, not a sprint
"I don't come here for fun and games."
Is this your job?
After being let go by Delta?
And speak for yourself, I'm *only* here for fun and games.
your comments SHOW your motivation.
The fact that you make claims which are false only highlight that you can't be taken seriously - and no one does.
Who cares about any of this? Why do you ALWAYS have to go there, instead of just enjoying things for what they are for now?
why do you and others get so upset when the whole story is told? it seems ok to you for some to tout whatever they want but not for a counterpoint to be made.
The US airline industry is highly competitive and also generates enormous amounts of data.
Because I know it and most here do not allows me to comment where others simply cannot. I make no apologies for contributing what others cannot.
Sometimes people just want to relax and enjoy something. Not sure why that is such a foreign concept to you. I've worked in the industry in network planning and profitablity analysis both domestically and internationally and I get how it all works. That doesnt mean that some times I cant just sit back and be excited for something rather than do whatever I can to prove/explain/scream at others who dont share your goal of explaining...
Sometimes people just want to relax and enjoy something. Not sure why that is such a foreign concept to you. I've worked in the industry in network planning and profitablity analysis both domestically and internationally and I get how it all works. That doesnt mean that some times I cant just sit back and be excited for something rather than do whatever I can to prove/explain/scream at others who dont share your goal of explaining how it will fail/ isnt really significant/important. Sometimes it's okay just to enjoy something, a concept that seems UTTERLY foreign to you.
Tim’s exactly right.
Who cares about United increasing to 66x weekly when Delta has gone from 17x weekly to 17 weekly. Don’t forget that United was the least profitable US carrier in 2022 over the Pacific. A huge part of that was United’s decision not to remove premium economy and reinstate their old product to command unit cost superiority. But UA’s domestic 777s don’t work for the airline as they depress fares instead. Partnerships and...
Tim’s exactly right.
Who cares about United increasing to 66x weekly when Delta has gone from 17x weekly to 17 weekly. Don’t forget that United was the least profitable US carrier in 2022 over the Pacific. A huge part of that was United’s decision not to remove premium economy and reinstate their old product to command unit cost superiority. But UA’s domestic 777s don’t work for the airline as they depress fares instead. Partnerships and JVs don’t really matter, you need to have an ownership stake for it be part of the discussion. Also a reminder that Seoul is the most premium market in Asia that commands the highest fares unlike Tokyo or Singapore. Two hubs in the same city simply doesn’t work. There’s a reason why Delta chooses not to fly Gatwick just like Narita. Finally, it’s clear that Delta retiring the 777s, especially the LR, was the right move as the A350 has been able to serve all routes without noticeable payload restrictions relative to the LR. Enough capacity in DLs network was also never an issue.
"Finally, it’s clear that Delta retiring the 777s, especially the LR, was the right move as the A350 has been able to serve all routes without noticeable payload restrictions relative to the LR."
Your trolling was doing well until that part... which itself is 99% ridiculous internet trope, by people who think a 77L was flying full payload for 16hrs out of JNB, by virtue of it being "a Boeing" or something.
People forget that...
"Finally, it’s clear that Delta retiring the 777s, especially the LR, was the right move as the A350 has been able to serve all routes without noticeable payload restrictions relative to the LR."
Your trolling was doing well until that part... which itself is 99% ridiculous internet trope, by people who think a 77L was flying full payload for 16hrs out of JNB, by virtue of it being "a Boeing" or something.
People forget that DL and Goodyear had a j/v to develop and pay to certify a custom tire for that aircraft on that route, yet still couldn't go out at MTOW on most days. Nor was that ever the plan or intention.
Spot on ConcordeBoy
This is why Delta had no hesitation or alternative plans in continuing the nonstop JNB route once the 777s retired. The A350 engines had all the thrust necessary to power theses flights and it’s exactly why Delta didn’t even bother consider anything other than Airbus for its future wide body aircraft order. The entirety of DL’s ultra long haul network including Australia or East Coast to North Asia has been served well...
Spot on ConcordeBoy
This is why Delta had no hesitation or alternative plans in continuing the nonstop JNB route once the 777s retired. The A350 engines had all the thrust necessary to power theses flights and it’s exactly why Delta didn’t even bother consider anything other than Airbus for its future wide body aircraft order. The entirety of DL’s ultra long haul network including Australia or East Coast to North Asia has been served well by even the initial A350 deliveries without issue.
UA has 100 more Dreamliners in order, with options for an additional 100 on top of that. I wouldn’t be surprised to most of these turned into firm orders. UA also didn’t retire any widebodies. They are in a much better position for international growth than their competitors.
I can guarantee DL will not run all seven flights to HND when the slot waivers end, especially with ICN becoming more important in their network....
UA has 100 more Dreamliners in order, with options for an additional 100 on top of that. I wouldn’t be surprised to most of these turned into firm orders. UA also didn’t retire any widebodies. They are in a much better position for international growth than their competitors.
I can guarantee DL will not run all seven flights to HND when the slot waivers end, especially with ICN becoming more important in their network. If you say they will due to TYO being such an important destination, then UA is even better set up with their large TYO presence and JV with NH.
Before even getting back to the point that UA doesn’t rely on TYO connections as much as DL does in ICN due to all of the destinations they already serve nonstop from the US (KIX, SIN, TPE, HKG, none of which are served by DL).
UA has enough 777-200/ERs to replace to use up most of the 100 787s on order; they also, like Delta, have scores of 767s to retire in the next 10 years, depending on how long they each keep them.
DL has 34 A330-900s and A350-900s on order just in the next 3 years - before any further orders - 1/3 of UA's confirmed orders.
And DL's existing orders like UA's 787 order is...
UA has enough 777-200/ERs to replace to use up most of the 100 787s on order; they also, like Delta, have scores of 767s to retire in the next 10 years, depending on how long they each keep them.
DL has 34 A330-900s and A350-900s on order just in the next 3 years - before any further orders - 1/3 of UA's confirmed orders.
And DL's existing orders like UA's 787 order is already in their finances. DL has less than $20 billion in aircraft on order, AA has even less than that, and UA has over $50 billion - far more than AA ever had which is part of why AA's balance sheet was such a mess for so long.
AA has now slowed its aircraft deliveries to a crawl while UA is accelerating theirs at breakneck speed. DL is right in the middle. I struggle to understand why people think that UA will not be afflicted by the same balance sheet and cost problems that AA had.
as for HND, let's see what happens when the slot waivers run out.
PDX continues to lose business across all industries at a breathtaking pace.
There can be no better case for moving that route to a city that is much more positive for business than Portland, OR
I'm guessing you will see a request to move it either to NYC or SLC
Would be even better if they buy a stake in VA and include it in their JV with NZ. I note that Bain Capital is preparing to list VA for investment...
it makes no sense to have a joint venture w/ a carrier that is only providing domestic or regional feed.
And United has no incentive to see Virgin Australia to return to the US-OZ market.
Agree, a JV doesn't make sense because JV revenue is shared by percentage of metal, which in this case would be 100% UA. But buying a share in VA would be a good way to keep Delta away.
United kept flying to Australia through Covid whilst Qantas shut down and abandoned Australians abroad. A company that didn’t refund customers and stole billions from the government.
I wonder how this will affect AA. Eventually the QF/AA JV will be up for renewal and they'll have nothing to show for the initiation of new routes that was a condition for approval, while UA did all of the expanding that AA had initially intended to do. We've still yet to see LAX-AKL and LAX-CHC; any rumors that AA was going to supplement QF on LAX-MEL and LAX-BNE can probably go out the window too.
Once AA gets more 787s I’d expect them to focus more on Oceania. They’re just so tight on aircraft right now due to Covid retirements and 787 delays that their fleet is stretched to the limit.
You’d think with the explosion in demand to the South Pacific, they’d prioritize a little more. NW is the perfect opportunity to draw down international flying in the northern hemisphere and focus on the southern hemisphere.
We've still yet to see LAX-AKL and LAX-CHC
AA operated LAX-AKL for nearly half a decade prior to Covid, 787-8.
They announced LAX-CHC, but never flew it.
They flew it for half of 2016, most of 2017, then seasonally in 2018, 2019, and the first three months of 2020. Not really a full half decade. They've now switched it to Dallas. TBD if they'll ever return to LAX.
UA expansion to AKL and CHC is also enabled by its joint venture with Air New Zealand... in that regard UA is not competing with NZ on these flights as it is a revenue sharing arrangement
This is good news to see more international routes.
Cool news! Very interesting to see United adding all this capacity and service to Christchurch. I hope these moves are all a success.
Adding a minor note that United flew 10 flights a week between San Francisco and Sydney for at least part of the most recent winter season.
What's your take on how this might affect award availability? Presumably more routes should be better for availability but Oz/New Zealand have been tough historically. thanks
SFO is my home airport and NZ, and CHC especially, has long been toward the top of my list -- so I just took a look. A single Biz seat RT is *600k* points all December, or $13K cash. As a 1K, I could maybe gamble on an upgrade, but no one else in my family has status, so I don't think I'll be flying this anytime soon.
Close in I expect a decent amount of availability to open on the NZ flights. There can't possibly be much business demand on these, and leisure travelers aren't forking over 10k per ticket any time soon.