first, it is VERY kind of you to apologize.
We could diffuse a lot of tension on this board if that type of response was more common.
You have gained a great deal of respect and I will do my best to respond with your kindness in mind.
Thank you.
People don't realize that the beyond NRT flying is precisely what gives DL the size it has over the Pacific to NRT. If DL pulled down its NRT hub, it would lose its size which is a big reason why NW before and DL now enjoys such a huge average fare advantage to NRT over its peers, including both AA and UA.
Thus, NW always treated the beyond NRT operation as "just keep it breakeven." DL appears to be more willing to say it has to be profitable which will probably mean using lower CASM aircraft like the 330s and shift the 747s to other parts of the network.
DL's focus on Haneda is because the more HND flights DL operates, the fewer competitors can operate. DL has apparently been successful at convincing the US government from agreeing to any improvements to HND flights between the US and Japan. DL would rather be stuck with 2 less than ideal HND flights than to allow JAL or ANA (by themselves or with AA or UA) to be able to fly better-timed flights to HND where ANA and JAL have much larger hubs.
DL has said NRT generates 10% of DL's revenue - or about $4 billion/year, probably the largest foreign city for any US airline.
DL will fight hard to protect that revenue and to not walk away from it. By cutting off the beyond-NRT flights, DL would automatically be cutting off a huge amount of its TPAC traffic to Japan.
Two US carriers can't agree not to add service to each other's domestic markets; they can't coordinate any schedules or fares.
The AS-DL contract according to what both have said on earnings conference calls contains minimum performance requirements in a long-term contract. IOW, AS and DL both have to deliver a certain number of connecting passengers to each other. Both have customer service, frequent flyer, and operational standards.
The contract is long-term and supposedly has substantial penalties.
Thus, if DL adds flights of its own to/from SEA to ensure DL's own feed to/from int'l flights, then AS will have to still provide the same number of seats... either meaning they will have to feed some of DL's own domestic flights from SEA or DL can add even more int'l flights and AS will have to feed them using the cities that DL does not serve from SEA.
AS' gets its feed for AS flights into DL's hubs... but apparently DL has already told AS that DL will not codeshare on AS flights that duplicate DL flights... IOW DL is not going to allow AS to add flights to DL hubs that duplicate DL flights.
DL wants to provide AS with feed into markets that DL does not serve... such as to the PNW to Alaska, Hawaii, and Mexico.
DL can very much build its own domestic mini-hub in SEA and force AS by the contract to either provide DL with feed or pay the penalties or breakup fees.
DL apparently has no problem providing AS with enough feed to meet DL's requirement but is trying to force AS to feed DL onto at SEA, a task that gets harder for AS to do if DL is also operating in some of those same routes that DL relied solely on AS.
I haven't heard DL make too many comments about specific hub profitability but for the latest quarter they said that NRT was the highest margin hub and that ATL's profit margin improved by 3 points because of WN's pullback.
The NRT comment seemed to be to quell ideas that DL's pulldown of SFO-NRT meant the NRT hub as a whole is in trouble... and I don't think it is. DL needs to regauage it but NRT is still a viable hub.