Plans have been revealed for Delta Air Lines to launch another route to the South Pacific, which is a region in which the carrier has historically been pretty weak (thanks to @xJonNYC for flagging this).
While this was initially supposed to be announced by Delta this past Friday, it seems the announcement was delayed due to the recent crash we saw here in the United States. Nonetheless, it appears the airline is in the process of loading the flight into the schedule, so we also have some more details.
In this post:
Delta will start flying to Melbourne, Australia
As of December 3, 2025, Delta will offer a new flight between Los Angeles (LAX) and Melbourne (MEL). The 7,921-mile journey will operate three times weekly, with the following schedule:
DL11 Los Angeles to Melbourne departing 9:25PM arriving 8:15AM (+2 days)
DL12 Melbourne to Los Angeles departing 10:25AM arriving 6:10AM
The westbound flight is blocked at 15hr50min and will operate on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, while the eastbound flight is blocked at 14hr45min and will operate on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Sundays.
Delta intends to use one of its premium configured Airbus A350-900 for the route, featuring 275 seats. This includes 40 business class seats, 40 premium economy seats, 36 extra legroom economy seats, and 159 economy seats.
Flights are expected to go on sale shortly, likely this weekend — the flights have now been loaded into the schedule, but inventory hasn’t yet been added.
Once launched, this will be Delta’s third longest route, after the carrier’s services from Atlanta (ATL) to both Cape Town (CPT) and Johannesburg (JNB). Meanwhile it will be Delta’s fifth destination in the South Pacific, after year-round service to Sydney (SYD), plus seasonal service to Auckland (AKL), Brisbane (BNE), and Papeete (PPT).
How this fits into the competitive landscape
Among the “big three” US carriers, Delta has the weakest network in the South Pacific, in terms of its own flights and overall connectivity:
- While American doesn’t have that much service to the South Pacific on its own metal, the airline has a joint venture with Qantas, offering considerable connectivity
- United operates the most flights of any of the “big three” US airlines on its own metal to the South Pacific, and also has a partnership with Virgin Australia
In the Los Angeles to Melbourne market, Delta will be competing directly with Qantas and United. Delta will have a disadvantage not just in terms of connectivity, but also in terms of frequency. While Qantas and United operate the route up to daily in peak season, Delta will only operate it three times per week.
So, why is Delta suddenly launching flights to Melbourne? Well, the world’s most profitable airline does love chasing subsidies. In 2024, we saw Delta launch subsidized service to Brisbane, and now the airline is doing the same in Melbourne. Hey, I can’t blame the airline for taking free and guaranteed money!
This deal is a partnership between the Allan Labor Government and Melbourne Airport, and this is being offered with part of the new funding program that was announced in the Labor Government’s Economic Growth Statement. The Industry Partnerships Program allows Visit Victoria to match funding from industry partners for destination marketing, and this is part of that.
So anyway, it’ll be interesting to see if the new service to Brisbane and Melbourne sticks around after the incentives run out, or if Delta is just using the opportunity to temporarily pad its bottom line.
Bottom line
As of December 2025, Delta will launch a new three times weekly route between Los Angeles and Melbourne using Airbus A350s. Delta has been growing nicely in the South Pacific, though the two most recent adds have both been routes with government incentives.
Ultimately this is probably as good of a “return” as Delta will get on its excess wide bodies outside of the peak summer season, so it seems logical enough.
What do you make of Delta launching Los Angeles to Melbourne flights?
Sadly the subsidy is very unlikely to continue for long unless it is a raging sales success. I say this because the state government paying the subsidy is very cash strapped and will almost certainly receive 2 credit agency downgrades
I wonder if after this for winter 25 UA will get rid of LAX-MEL and re up-gauge SFO-MEL to a 77W.
there is clearly a sub-theme in all of this that DL intends to build LAX as an international gateway while UA wants to keep DL small internationally even though even UA recognizes that DL is by far the largest domestic airline at LAX.
DL said months ago that they would be adding MEL in 2025 which was clearly a warning shot to UA to not get territorial.
DL and UA both do as well as...
there is clearly a sub-theme in all of this that DL intends to build LAX as an international gateway while UA wants to keep DL small internationally even though even UA recognizes that DL is by far the largest domestic airline at LAX.
DL said months ago that they would be adding MEL in 2025 which was clearly a warning shot to UA to not get territorial.
DL and UA both do as well as they do because they manage to stay out of each other's way.
UA can fly where it wants from LAX but DL does not appear to avoid any routes from LAX that it believes make sense for it to operate and where it believes it can make money.
The fact that Australia is subsidizing the route even though there are two other carriers operating on it says that they want DL.
Once again please stick to facts and not your wet dreams - DL is not the biggest domestic airline in LAX “by far”. For Pete’s sake they have 21.5% domestic market, the lowest for any major domestic airport. UA and AA have ~17.5% domestic market share.
UA is the largest international airline at LAX, 30% bigger than DL who is #3 by the way as you well know behind AA. They just eliminated most of...
Once again please stick to facts and not your wet dreams - DL is not the biggest domestic airline in LAX “by far”. For Pete’s sake they have 21.5% domestic market, the lowest for any major domestic airport. UA and AA have ~17.5% domestic market share.
UA is the largest international airline at LAX, 30% bigger than DL who is #3 by the way as you well know behind AA. They just eliminated most of Central America from LAX (cut SAN, GUA, and frequencies from SJO).
DL did add MEL but statistically the South Pacific is overcapacity and from the latest LF data we have, the only DL South Pacific route in the green is SYD, a route in which it underperforms AA slightly. So no DL isn’t proving anything - they simply don’t have an alternative place to send flights to MEL and are relying on subsidies to see if they can create a long-term market (unlikely). UA has little need to do that when they can dominate SFO at higher fares - DL has no such ability or options.
it's funny how you UA fans go nuts trying to argue how much bigger UA is in NYC when Port Authority stats show the difference is less than a half percent of market share.
DL is about 15% difference larger than AA or UA in LAX and as much as you want to think that larger international size makes up for domestic deficiencies, it is clear that it doesn't at LAX or anywhere else on...
it's funny how you UA fans go nuts trying to argue how much bigger UA is in NYC when Port Authority stats show the difference is less than a half percent of market share.
DL is about 15% difference larger than AA or UA in LAX and as much as you want to think that larger international size makes up for domestic deficiencies, it is clear that it doesn't at LAX or anywhere else on UA's system.
And the bigger theme which you can't stand to admit is that DL is not ceding LAX to UA; DL intends to grow LAX and it didn't matter than UA already flies to MEL even though the UA fan kiddos would tell us that UA and QF more than adequately serve the market.
Clearly Australia wants DL in MEL and they are willing to subsidize DL to get them there. Feel free to tell us why they want DL in MEL - but accept the reality that they do.
Yea, it's pretty obvious why they want DL: more capacity by more competitors = lower prices. They care about cheap fares, not if the airlines are making money on these routes - and given that UA has already seen questionable profitability to the South Pacific, even with VA and NZ on the other end, I find it hard to believe that DL has any chance of making money here.
DL doesn't really have any...
Yea, it's pretty obvious why they want DL: more capacity by more competitors = lower prices. They care about cheap fares, not if the airlines are making money on these routes - and given that UA has already seen questionable profitability to the South Pacific, even with VA and NZ on the other end, I find it hard to believe that DL has any chance of making money here.
DL doesn't really have any strategic advantages to the South Pacific at LAX given the lack of connectivity beyond SYD or MEL. We'll probably see this route get cut as soon as the subsidies run out, or maybe even sooner.
hello,
and yet the subsidies come nowhere near the cost of operating the flight so DL clearly sees the opportunity to use the subsidies to help it get established there long term.
And ultimately, the attitude still exists among many in aviation social media that a market's needs are defined by a certain level of service and once that level of service is met, everyone else will fail.
DL is not only one of...
hello,
and yet the subsidies come nowhere near the cost of operating the flight so DL clearly sees the opportunity to use the subsidies to help it get established there long term.
And ultimately, the attitude still exists among many in aviation social media that a market's needs are defined by a certain level of service and once that level of service is met, everyone else will fail.
DL is not only one of the highest cost airlines in the world but also one of the most profitable which simply means that they have a pretty good track record of winning over revenue.
A whole lot of people at AA/QF and UA have to be more than a little worried that DL, which had only a relatively short-term partnership with Virgin Australia has managed to grow its presence in the S. Pacific even though the internet pundits tell us how well served the markets are and how everyone except their "chosen instrument" gets trash fares.
Do you ever step back to ask yourself why the internet myths keep blowing up in real life?
Do you realize how ridiculous you sound when you say an airline is the largest at LAX "by far?" There is no leader in marketshare at LAX "by far."
15% larger than AA or UA is as a larger difference that between the 2 closest carriers at many US airports.
Again with the subsidies... Ugh. The Allan government has much better things to spend the money on than giving it to Delta, considering that they've almost bankrupted Victoria and are increasing state taxes and charges at a phenomenal rate to finish the half-done infrastructure projects that litter the Melbourne metropolitan area.
I'm always pleased to see new players in the Aussie market, but if United couldn't make MEL-LAX a going daily concern operating a 789,...
Again with the subsidies... Ugh. The Allan government has much better things to spend the money on than giving it to Delta, considering that they've almost bankrupted Victoria and are increasing state taxes and charges at a phenomenal rate to finish the half-done infrastructure projects that litter the Melbourne metropolitan area.
I'm always pleased to see new players in the Aussie market, but if United couldn't make MEL-LAX a going daily concern operating a 789, it doesn't bode well. Frankly the entire world; including the United States; would benefit from a 15-20% reduction in the value of the US dollar.
According to CommSec's State of the States Report for the quarter ending Dec 24, Victoria was the 4th best performing State/Territory
In terms of annual growth rates, Victoria was the most improved, moving from 7th to 3rd place
https://www.commbank.com.au/articles/newsroom/2025/01/state-of-the-states-january.html
Time to look at sources other than the Murdoch Press
Delta has been talking about growing in Australia for years. It is esp. noteworthy that MEL has been pursuing DL even though there are other airlines that operate there.
I live in inner Melbourne. I don't just read the Murdoch press. I know what's going on - the Allan government is on the nose, mired in debt, increasing taxes/charges, and has no idea about how to get themselves out of the hole. In fact, they're still digging. Melbourne still a wealthy, vibrant city full with millions of residents who can afford to travel, but the reality is that spending government money to subsidize a...
I live in inner Melbourne. I don't just read the Murdoch press. I know what's going on - the Allan government is on the nose, mired in debt, increasing taxes/charges, and has no idea about how to get themselves out of the hole. In fact, they're still digging. Melbourne still a wealthy, vibrant city full with millions of residents who can afford to travel, but the reality is that spending government money to subsidize a profitable airline's new route is a bad financial decision. If Delta wants in, then I'm really pleased, but it needs to be under their own steam and not at any expense to the taxpayer.
Deltas not having an issue charging 20% more than United or American on these routes for premium anything
A flight isn't even on sale yet but the Virginia Ave Revenue Analysts are here to tell us DL will get a premium on a flight with no strength on either end. What a predictable amount of delta hubris from "dave"
I'm not going to weigh in on premium revenue, but since DL is the largest airline at LAX based on its considerably larger domestic size, it is patently false to say that DL doesn't have any strength.
and to somehow think that greater domestic size doesn't matter even though it is 100% DL revenue but joint venture revenue on the other end that has to be split with a partner is the height of reality manipulation
Tim, go back to the day Delta fired you. Perhaps you were smarter. SoCal loyalty is bigger than LAX... or perhaps you never made it that far in Delta bootcamp?
Your talking point is so tired and lame at this point and stupid for anyone with the smallest degree of airline knowledge. The Loyalty in SoCal doesn't come from absolute metal size at LAX. It comes from presence at all the SoCal airports relevant to...
Tim, go back to the day Delta fired you. Perhaps you were smarter. SoCal loyalty is bigger than LAX... or perhaps you never made it that far in Delta bootcamp?
Your talking point is so tired and lame at this point and stupid for anyone with the smallest degree of airline knowledge. The Loyalty in SoCal doesn't come from absolute metal size at LAX. It comes from presence at all the SoCal airports relevant to LAX and value of loyalty programs across the alliance, something where Delta predictably fails at miserably as anyone knows. Delta's size is a fun fact, but not too relevant to the discussion given Delta's network size with partners at LAX and at nearby relevant airports
But I'm sure "dave" will appreciate your support at happy hour tonight in Atlanta as he contemplates whether he should've posted as a delta employee in RM
you once again prove that you miss the basic facts and then trash anyone that points out the obvious.
DL is the largest airline at LAX and it is because of their domestic system. You made the INCORRECT statement that DL has "no strength on either end"
quit doubling down on stupid and admit that DL does have a size advantage at LAX.
loyalty and all the other blabber you make about S. CA...
you once again prove that you miss the basic facts and then trash anyone that points out the obvious.
DL is the largest airline at LAX and it is because of their domestic system. You made the INCORRECT statement that DL has "no strength on either end"
quit doubling down on stupid and admit that DL does have a size advantage at LAX.
loyalty and all the other blabber you make about S. CA doesn't matter - DL has a larger domestic system at LAX than ANYONE.
And, most significantly, this route now makes the 5th or so destination for DL is the S. Pacific and they are going to continue to build their presence in LAX which is precisely what they said they would do.
"Your talking point is so tired and lame at this point and stupid for anyone with the smallest degree of airline knowledge."
No offense, but you aren't exactly demonstrating proficient industry knowledge yourself, with some of these comments. Seems your posts are more geared toward tossing piss at Tim Dunn (when deserved and when not), than making statements routed in objectivity or fact.
*rooted
Nobody cares, Tim.
Melbourne should do better than Brisbane. I was on the BNE flight recently and everyone was just connecting to SYD/MEL anyways.
MEL has way bigger population and demand than BNE. If anything Delta should just call it a day and move all their BNE airframes over to MEL. Daily MEL flights should do pretty good.
and why do you think that UA can succeed at BNE but DL can't. BNE might not be as large of a market but they want to play with the big boys and are adding subsidies just like MEL.
The fact that UA took some of those same subsidies in the past doesn't make it any less valid that DL is doing it now.
as others have noted, MEL has been courting DL for years. DL will have as many dots in the S. Pacific as its competitors.
UA has feed and partnership with Virgin at BNE. UA also has higher brand presence in Auz in general.
and yet UA dropped LAX-BNE while DL added it under subsidy.
see above regarding feed and size at both ends of the route as well as revenue sharing
You're so obsessed w/ UA. I didn't say anything about them, just what DL should do to optimize their network.
If anything, I think BNE is well overcapacity with the increase in service, which is why UA folded their LAX-BNE service. I think more carriers will give up on it sooner than later. AA is probably safe given the seasonal nature and JV however, so Delta is indeed the weakest link at BNE if you...
You're so obsessed w/ UA. I didn't say anything about them, just what DL should do to optimize their network.
If anything, I think BNE is well overcapacity with the increase in service, which is why UA folded their LAX-BNE service. I think more carriers will give up on it sooner than later. AA is probably safe given the seasonal nature and JV however, so Delta is indeed the weakest link at BNE if you want to go there.
Delta can anyways charge higher fares, get better schedule and more pax by shifting to LAX-MEL daily and scrap BNE, which is pretty useless. LAX-MEL can anyways interline over to BNE.
and maybe UA should optimize their network and not try to fly to the same parts of the world from LAX and SFO.
Your arguments cut both ways.
as for BNE, again, DL is being subsidized to operate there, UA has retreated to SFO, and cxld its LAX-BNE service.
Suppose DL has the same thing in mind for MEL?
UA cancelled BNE before Delta launched BNE?
This really has nothing to do w/ UA/DL, but rather the fact that BNE really can't support this level of service, when they have less than a 1/3 of international traffic that MEL has, along w/ 1/2 of the population.
Only thing BNE has going for it is better geography. I predict in a few years time, Delta consolidates into daily MEL, it's far more practical.
It doesn't matter if UA had dropped LAX-BNE or after.
they subsidized DL to be there.
As is true w/ every other place on the planet, if it makes sense for UA to fly there, DL can figure out a way to make money there as well.
Same thing is true for all of the other places in the US where DL - and AA and WN - are stronger than UA - but...
It doesn't matter if UA had dropped LAX-BNE or after.
they subsidized DL to be there.
As is true w/ every other place on the planet, if it makes sense for UA to fly there, DL can figure out a way to make money there as well.
Same thing is true for all of the other places in the US where DL - and AA and WN - are stronger than UA - but there are 3 large domestic airlines in the US compared to just one US airline that is larger than DL in the international marketplace (in total size).
You and others seem to think that there are some magic rings that get put around markets after someone has a certain size or position and no other carriers will succeed.
thankfully, real competition doesn't work that way including between DL and UA either domestically or internationally
I’m kinda glad Virgin ditched Delta, it kinda pushed them to launch more destinations across Australia and NZ other than just Sydney.
Delta execs said months ago that they would start MEL service
as for it being 3X/week, DL frequently starts new routes on that basis only to convert them
and DL could very likely use the A350-1000 on the route in time and that aircraft has by far the best economics of any aircraft on the market - US winter season is precisely when they will have less need for capacity to ICN -where the 35K will be used the most - as well as to DL's inevitable new LAX-SIN flight.
No idea why LAX-SIN is treated as a good idea here. SIN is not a good connection point from the US for basically everywhere for the average consumer
- Want to go to anywhere in East or Southeast Asia excl. Indonesia? Singapore is a backtrack -- you fly too far south and then fly north again. Punch in LAX to SIN to your choice of MNL or BKK or whatever onto a mapping site...
No idea why LAX-SIN is treated as a good idea here. SIN is not a good connection point from the US for basically everywhere for the average consumer
- Want to go to anywhere in East or Southeast Asia excl. Indonesia? Singapore is a backtrack -- you fly too far south and then fly north again. Punch in LAX to SIN to your choice of MNL or BKK or whatever onto a mapping site and it is very clear it doesn't make any sense
- Australia, SQ's bread and butter, doesn't work out of the US because Australia is substantially further east so a SIN stop adds thosuands of miles in flying distance
Out of Singapore, on the other hand, locals have a strong preference for SQ, and even beyond that there are tons of Asian carriers with large US networks that provide easy one-stop connections to US destinations, where Delta's soft product won't keep up
There is not going to be an A350-1000 worth of people to fly to Singapore unless Delta does what United has: sell tickets that are inefficient on the cheap to fill the seats. Have heard of lots of pax flying routes like SFO-SIN-HAN, SFO-SIN-BKK, and SFO-SIN-MNL (before the SFO-MNL launch)
Australia and SIN are two different subjects.
DL has said it will use the 35K to build its network further down the Pacific Rim.
They have been in Asia long enough including via NW that DL intends to slowly rebuild their presence but do so far more economically and cost efficiently than UA.
DL's TPAC fleet is expected to become almost 100% A350s. the 35K is the most efficient aircraft on the planet right now....
Australia and SIN are two different subjects.
DL has said it will use the 35K to build its network further down the Pacific Rim.
They have been in Asia long enough including via NW that DL intends to slowly rebuild their presence but do so far more economically and cost efficiently than UA.
DL's TPAC fleet is expected to become almost 100% A350s. the 35K is the most efficient aircraft on the planet right now. The 777-9 might challenge it but it cannot fly LAX-SIN.
UA flies SFO-SIN 2X/day in addition to SQ. LAX is a larger market than SFO.
DL has also said that it will add HKG and India at some point.
the advantage that UA has had in terms of the number of destinations will fall and UA's growth will come by adding more frequency to existing destinations and to add increasingly long and distant destinations.
DL's TPAC system will grow and likely at a faster rate than UA's. UA execs have said their TPAC system will grow at a slower rate than in the past and likely slower than DL's.
also, DL's TPAC system is half the size of UA but does not offset the larger domestic system DL has including to Florida where UA is about the 6th largest airline. Hard to understand how UA got so focused on adding 3x/week narrowbody seasonal flights to Mongolia and failed to grow larger in Florida.
This A350's are the new ones with 275?
yes, DL has a half dozen new delivery 359s in the 275 seat configuration which is also being used for the reconfiguration of the 9 ex-Latam 359s. It isn't clear if or when DL will reconfigure the remainder of the original delivery 359s to the 275 standard but that is expected
DL should also reveal its delivery schedule for the 35Ks as part of its 10K and likely a configuration in the next couple months.
@quorumcall: considering the number of folks of South East Asian heritage living in SoCal, LAX-SIN could make sense for a one-stop journey to Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other SEAsian destinations (LA has the largest Thai population in the world outside Thailand; there are nearly 300,000 Vietnamese heritage folks living in SoCal)....and this doesn't account for the tourist and business markets (SIN and HCMC are still massively under-tapped by American business, and Vietnam, if the Party...
@quorumcall: considering the number of folks of South East Asian heritage living in SoCal, LAX-SIN could make sense for a one-stop journey to Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia, and other SEAsian destinations (LA has the largest Thai population in the world outside Thailand; there are nearly 300,000 Vietnamese heritage folks living in SoCal)....and this doesn't account for the tourist and business markets (SIN and HCMC are still massively under-tapped by American business, and Vietnam, if the Party can get out of its own way, is poised to explode...). Currently, one-stop itineraries to SEAsia out of SoCal require connecting through TPE, HKG, MNL, or hubs further north like ICN, NRT, HND, or PVG - I wouldn't call these much more convenient to SIN, nor are they all necessarily pleasant...As someone who travels frequently between the States and SEAsia, I'd much prefer connecting through Chiangi with DL on my way to BKK, CNX, DPS, and HAN as opposed to connecting through MNL, ICN, NRT, HND, or PVG. Connectivity, though, would be a challenge: Delta already has a few partners serving SIN - Garuda, KLM (5th Freedom flight), and Vietnam Airways - but these don't head to Thailand, in particular...
If you mean constantly touted as "inevitable" for DL by a single user, with absolutely zero corroboration to substantiate such a claim, then sure.
That said, there is a sentiment that SQ artificially limits the market, as LAX is a close second to SFO for US PDEW to/from SIN, and has much higher PDEW to/from the ASEAN and regional locales that make up the...
If you mean constantly touted as "inevitable" for DL by a single user, with absolutely zero corroboration to substantiate such a claim, then sure.
That said, there is a sentiment that SQ artificially limits the market, as LAX is a close second to SFO for US PDEW to/from SIN, and has much higher PDEW to/from the ASEAN and regional locales that make up the bulk of SIN's top transit destinations.... yet LAX is restricted to 10x weekly nonstop flights to SIN, whereas SFO sustains 4x daily, across multiple carriers.
UA has made no bones about the fact that it'd love to fly LAX-SIN nonstop again, if it had an aircraft that could do the route reliably year-round. Based on 2023 numbers, LAX is the single largest domestic feeder market for both of UA's SIN nonstops.
Geographically, no. But airlines have no reason to care about geography when the money's there.
thank you
and more significantly, the 35K will be more efficient to operate than the 359s that SQ uses.
Since SQ does not operate the 35K but is going for the 777-9 and that plane will not have the ability in a standard configuration to fly LAX-SIN nonstop; the 777-8 will but that is years down the road.
Add in that the 787-9 will still have to be in a low density configuration to...
thank you
and more significantly, the 35K will be more efficient to operate than the 359s that SQ uses.
Since SQ does not operate the 35K but is going for the 777-9 and that plane will not have the ability in a standard configuration to fly LAX-SIN nonstop; the 777-8 will but that is years down the road.
Add in that the 787-9 will still have to be in a low density configuration to fly LAX-SIN and the 35K will be more efficient and even if UA does get a 787 on the route, the 35K will be more efficient.
there are times when having the most capable and efficient airplane in a market matters and that might very well be why DL will be in a position to add LAX-SIN and the best that UA can do is use a very low density 787 or SQ can flood the market with a bunch of 359s that will still be lower efficiency and with less freight capacity than the 35K.
"and more significantly, the 35K will be more efficient to operate than the 359s that SQ uses."
IF ONLY Delta commanded the rasm SQ does. SQ flies what they do because they COMMAND the J and F market. Delta commands neither at LAX nor does their pathetic alliance.
Aka. Tim, you're a joke, as usual.
feel free to provide us with the RASM numbers on a capacity-adjusted (similar configuration) basis, Jane.
You incessantly argue trivia because you can't accept the basic fact which is that the A350-1000 is already the most efficient widebody in the skies, it will be in DL's fleet, and neither UA or SQ have anything that will be as efficient, esp. that is capable of flying LAX-SIN.
If ever there was a market where success depends...
feel free to provide us with the RASM numbers on a capacity-adjusted (similar configuration) basis, Jane.
You incessantly argue trivia because you can't accept the basic fact which is that the A350-1000 is already the most efficient widebody in the skies, it will be in DL's fleet, and neither UA or SQ have anything that will be as efficient, esp. that is capable of flying LAX-SIN.
If ever there was a market where success depends on having the right aircraft, it is LAX-SIN and I would strongly bet we will see DL A350s - including 35Ks at least part of the year -flying to SIN and very likely from LAX for the market size reasons stated above.
Feel free to let us know Delta's plan to beat SQ on RASM over casm, Timmy. Don't ask for data you can't provide. Everyone knows Delta can't compete with SQ on casm. Are you suggesting DL can compete with SQ on RASM?
heads up. Delta has failed EVERY TIME. good luck, loser. DATA. not your thoughts. DATA. Tell us where SQ has lower RASM and higher CASM vs DL. Show us why DL suck...
Feel free to let us know Delta's plan to beat SQ on RASM over casm, Timmy. Don't ask for data you can't provide. Everyone knows Delta can't compete with SQ on casm. Are you suggesting DL can compete with SQ on RASM?
heads up. Delta has failed EVERY TIME. good luck, loser. DATA. not your thoughts. DATA. Tell us where SQ has lower RASM and higher CASM vs DL. Show us why DL suck TPAC and has no decent alliances because no one wants to partner with a carrier that only does JVs with sadly desperate carriers for a
JV. No one with knowledge finds you smart, you're stupid.
It's somewhat impressive that you continue on in this endeavor unless you truly think being regarded as "stupid" is a good thing or you're paid. Which is it?
seriously?
take a deep breath and walk away from the keyboard.
Delta is the US' most profitable and the world's highest revenue airline.
That is pretty easy to verify.
When you ignore basic facts like that and say that DL has failed EVERY TIME, you have no basis to make an assessment of anything.
You clearly are someone that is a severe vendetta.
Get help, woman.
Do they, though?
Singapore's longhaul A350-900s are some of the least densely-configured examples of that aircraft.
To say nothing of their A350-900 ULR aircraft, which are also on the LAX route through the end of this month, and are some of the highest CASM aircraft in scheduled service anywhere worldwide.
Speaking in systemwide generalizations is fine and dandy, but on a route-specific basis, it...
Do they, though?
Singapore's longhaul A350-900s are some of the least densely-configured examples of that aircraft.
To say nothing of their A350-900 ULR aircraft, which are also on the LAX route through the end of this month, and are some of the highest CASM aircraft in scheduled service anywhere worldwide.
Speaking in systemwide generalizations is fine and dandy, but on a route-specific basis, it likely wouldn't be difficult for Delta or any other carrier to keep up with Singapore on a CASM basis.
PRASM is another thing entirely.
and yet neither you or anyone else can tell us what SQ gets in revenue on LAX-SIN.
There are a couple routes in the world where DL and SQ do directly compete. How about you share revenue data for each airline on those routes.
DL is not a low cost airline. It is pretty high cost by global standards. and yet DL is the most profitable US airline and the highest revenue airline in...
and yet neither you or anyone else can tell us what SQ gets in revenue on LAX-SIN.
There are a couple routes in the world where DL and SQ do directly compete. How about you share revenue data for each airline on those routes.
DL is not a low cost airline. It is pretty high cost by global standards. and yet DL is the most profitable US airline and the highest revenue airline in the world. They clearly have figured out how to find opportunities even with their high costs.
There really is nothing magical about SQ or LAX-SIN that doesn't exist in the same form elsewhere on DL's route system.
A 35K would carry twice as many passengers as the ULRs do for SQ.
And, as noted, SQ limits capacity on LAX-SIN in order to keep fares up
With the most cost efficient aircraft in a market where the only competitor is artificially limiting capacity in order to keep fares, it should be more than possible for DL to do quite well.
Didn't UA postpone their teaser for a new announcement?
Meanwhile Delta uses this as an opportunity to publish a new flight. How disrespectful.
And no, don't tell me that a new flight announcement can't be postponed by a few days.
Delta didn’t announce this, in fact they probably did postpone the announcement. It’s the Victorian comms that released the document, probably didn’t get the memo on time or are absolutely incompetent (latter one is very likely).
Show us where Delta is announcing anything. This was leaked, not announced.
Why not check, before obnoxiously whining?
Melbourne is Australia's 2nd largest city in terms of population, so it is sensible for DL to commence services, especially given that MEL is almost 3 times larger than BNE.
The unmentioned challenge for DL however, will be to see how DL establishes a point of sale operation without the benefit of a local partner.
As mentioned, QF and AA have a joint partnership and UA has a similar partnership with VA. That leaves...
Melbourne is Australia's 2nd largest city in terms of population, so it is sensible for DL to commence services, especially given that MEL is almost 3 times larger than BNE.
The unmentioned challenge for DL however, will be to see how DL establishes a point of sale operation without the benefit of a local partner.
As mentioned, QF and AA have a joint partnership and UA has a similar partnership with VA. That leaves DL without a local Australian-based partner (their previously initial partner REX is now working through a bankruptcy process).
This would seem to present the option of 'going it alone' which could prove to be expensive in terms of advertising and marketing to establish a local presence. Another option might be for DL to harness the heft of their SkyTeam alliance partners of LATAM and Korean, both whom serve MEL. A joint co-operative marketing policy would possibly yield results. The problem however, would be the proposed seasonal nature of DL's schedule. Finally, the option of under-cutting competitor pricing could be undertaken, but this would have revenue consequences over a couple of years - and is not usually a ticket to success in crowded markets ~ especially, when you're seeking to promote a 'premium' image and following.
Will be fascinating to watch which strategies DL chooses with this launch. I suspect there will be a lot of work to be done.
Delta has been in Australia for over 15 years since they first launched LAX-SYD. They’ve developed sales relationships over the years and have created ties with sales teams via their old VA partnership.
They’ll definitely have a bit of demand on the Australian side. But you’re correct in that they’re overwhelmingly going to be shuttling US pax and bargain hunters in economy. At 3 weekly, they’ll be fine.
@Thomas, Here is Australia Delta don't have a connecting partner, I book with VA from Perth to NYC and they put only showed UA flights. On Delta's website they can seem to book you on JQ but you won't earn points on that leg. I would be interested to see what that is like if something goes wrong since they are not partners. On google flights from Adelaide/Perth they don't have any Delta flights. They...
@Thomas, Here is Australia Delta don't have a connecting partner, I book with VA from Perth to NYC and they put only showed UA flights. On Delta's website they can seem to book you on JQ but you won't earn points on that leg. I would be interested to see what that is like if something goes wrong since they are not partners. On google flights from Adelaide/Perth they don't have any Delta flights. They are really going to need to rely on US connects. Interested to see how this goes.
LATAM is not a SkyTeam partner.
Yet ...
UA locking up AirNZ and Virgin killed any chance of Delta gaining any ground in the Pacific, not to mention their mediocre West Coast presence to begin with.
except DL is the 2nd largest carrier over the Pacific and growing faster than UA.
DL will gain 9 more TPAC capable and configured 35Ls by the time this route launches on top of the 13 new delivery new 359s - and just before the 20 35Ks arrive.
DL will have the most fuel efficient TPAC fleets among US carriers and one of the best positioned among all TPAC carriers with plenty of growth potential.
Feeling the heat, maxie?
DL is 2nd largest by less that 50% of the number 1 (800k seats vs 1.9m seats in Q3 of 2024). DL would have to put every aircraft they receive across the Pacific and they would still be number 2. That doesn't include the lack of gates space and their need to replace other aircraft.
Fuel efficiency isn't everything, it can be great but also flying fully paid off aircraft that will print them...
DL is 2nd largest by less that 50% of the number 1 (800k seats vs 1.9m seats in Q3 of 2024). DL would have to put every aircraft they receive across the Pacific and they would still be number 2. That doesn't include the lack of gates space and their need to replace other aircraft.
Fuel efficiency isn't everything, it can be great but also flying fully paid off aircraft that will print them money is also nice. UA could put the 787-9s on all TPAC routes and then they would be more fuel efficient but they might make less money. The problem DL has is they have SEA and LAX, which are good hubs but they aren't SFO. SFO is the king of the TPAC hubs and if UA ever gets more LAX gates then they could build out LAX more. However that logic can apply to DL building out LAX.
Talking about feeling heat let's look at Africa where UA, who had 0 presence 5 years ago) is about to overtake DL by countries served and routes flown. Is DL going to let UA expand more or are they going to divert resources to expand there.
Regarding expansion, everyone knows UA has a huge order book which will either sink the company of push them to the #1 US airlines. However what they have that DL are AA are going to struggle with are good delivery slots, DL can do a top up order for more A350s if they want but they are going to risk having to wait. It's really any airlines (DL or UA) opportunity to claim the crown. Lookin at the past few years I think UA is on track to get it, but anything could change.
Great insights, Chris.
sorry, but fuel efficiency matters the most on longhaul international routes. DL is using the 350s most on the Pacific and shifting the 339s to the Atlantic.
DL's widebody fleet is more fuel efficient than UA's - both because DL has a higher percentage of new generation (339s and 350s) but also because DL is retiring 767s - which have the same fuel efficiency for DL and for UA.
UA ordered aircraft en masse...
sorry, but fuel efficiency matters the most on longhaul international routes. DL is using the 350s most on the Pacific and shifting the 339s to the Atlantic.
DL's widebody fleet is more fuel efficient than UA's - both because DL has a higher percentage of new generation (339s and 350s) but also because DL is retiring 767s - which have the same fuel efficiency for DL and for UA.
UA ordered aircraft en masse years ago while DL has consistently been able to place smaller orders but get more of them delivered. May I remind you that UA received just 3 new widebodies in 2024 while DL received 12, even accounting for Airbus delays (negotiated or unplanned) on the 339s due to Rolls Royce delivery delays.
DL will get more new widebody deliveries than AA or UA in 2025
what is done matters much more than what is said
and DL has 20 options which undoubtedly have time slots guaranteed.
Some people can't accept that if UA can make money flying international DL can as well. Unlike UA, DL doesn't need to grow its domestic network by adding hundreds of planes per year so DL has more capex available for international expansion if they choose to do that.
Again, actual 4th quarter data shows that DL is growing faster across the Pacific than UA and that is likely to continue based on guidance from both companies.
Fuel efficiency matter, but how much it matters can vary. For UA they feel like it is less important as they aircraft are paid off, DL doesn't have that option for TPAC flying since the 777s were sold off. Look at DL and UA vs AA with their Euro ops on the 767s. They print them money and AA doesn't have that option outside of the 777 which is too big for a lot of...
Fuel efficiency matter, but how much it matters can vary. For UA they feel like it is less important as they aircraft are paid off, DL doesn't have that option for TPAC flying since the 777s were sold off. Look at DL and UA vs AA with their Euro ops on the 767s. They print them money and AA doesn't have that option outside of the 777 which is too big for a lot of their markets.
As you said DL is retiring the 767s and they are going to have to replace them, which means DL won't be able to us all their order for expansion, just like UA when they start retiring aircraft.
UA only getting 3 aircraft was due to them not having orders start until this year.... While yes it was less than they wanted but comparing the deliveries last year doesn't make sense. Now this year is a big year for both UA and DL, it will be telling which airline grows more.
What is done does matter more, look at UA closing the domestic gap in both numbers and their perception as a airline. UA and DL consider each other as their main competitor and it makes sense as they are more alike than different. UA went from the bottom airline in the US to competing for #1.
We both agree on where DL and UA are focusing on different areas. UA's main focus is on domestic expansion for right now, in 2026 we will see UA add more Int'l flying. What was interesting with UAs last announcement is the fact most routes were on narrow body aircraft or frequency increases. It shows that they are playing it safe with the 787 delivery delays.
While I don't have the will to look for UAs and DLs TPAC growth I can say it makes sense DL is growing faster than UA. If they weren't it would be sad. Delta has 18 (I think) TPAC routes, United has roughly 30 routes with some more than daily. So math wise DL adding 1 flight increases their growth percentage almost 2x UAs. Plus DL having a higher gauge aircraft.
Why are you letting basic math get in the way of a hyperbolic argument?
Chris,
every airline has a certain amount of paid off aircraft. How they deploy their fleet matters.
UA might use older, paid off aircraft over the Pacific but that is where fuel efficiency matters the most because the flights are longer.
UA touted during covid that it would not retire older aircraft in order to grow. AA and DL retired older aircraft and DL esp. has now more than replaced the capacity from...
Chris,
every airline has a certain amount of paid off aircraft. How they deploy their fleet matters.
UA might use older, paid off aircraft over the Pacific but that is where fuel efficiency matters the most because the flights are longer.
UA touted during covid that it would not retire older aircraft in order to grow. AA and DL retired older aircraft and DL esp. has now more than replaced the capacity from the older 777s. They are now focusing on 767 retirements EVEN WHILE GROWING.
UA's international fuel efficiency is not only lower than DL's but also lower than many global airlines. They cannot expect to generate profits comparable to DL - which UA has said is a target - and hold onto older aircraft while competing with DL which has a newer and more fuel efficient widebody fleet, no matter where they are deployed.
As for domestic, DL's larger domestic size more than offsets UA's larger international size. It is and will be easier for DL to grow internationally than it will be for UA to grow domestically. There are many more domestic carriers but alot fewer carriers that have the financial and fleet ability to start new routes.
DL still generates more revenue and profits than UA and that isn't expected to change, esp. as UA has to increase pay rates for all of its employee rates and pay labor costs, including profit sharing, comparable to DL.
The DL/UA rivalry is fun to watch but a whole lot of people have excessively rose-colored glasses about UA's ability to grow domestically even while not believing that other carriers including DL will grow internationally.
As much as Ben talks about LAX, DL is continuing to add more international flights there and will continue to do so = building on its presence as LAX's largest airline because of DL's larger domestic size, something UA is nowhere close to likely to challenge.
a very distant 2nd
not unlike UA is the very distant 4th place carrier in the US domestic market.
All the incessant crowing about UA's size over the Pacific fails to address UA's real vulnerability which is its small domestic size relative to AA, DL AND WN including that UA is #6 in the Florida market.
any halfway intelligent person could realize that being #2 in a market and growing at a faster rate than #1 is a whole...
not unlike UA is the very distant 4th place carrier in the US domestic market.
All the incessant crowing about UA's size over the Pacific fails to address UA's real vulnerability which is its small domestic size relative to AA, DL AND WN including that UA is #6 in the Florida market.
any halfway intelligent person could realize that being #2 in a market and growing at a faster rate than #1 is a whole lot stronger position than #4 or #6, no matter what the growth rate is
but we're talking about UA fans where facts and rationality are secondary to their pom poms
Tim, why do you always talk about DL growing faster than UA?
We’ve covered this.
Airline A grows from one flight to two flights. That’s a 100% growth rate.
Airline B grows from 10 flights to 15 flights. That’s a 50% growth rate.
Which airline grew more?
Also, which airlines already has 50 more widebody planes than the other? Which airline has 150 787s on order, plus 50 A321XLRs? Which airline will...
Tim, why do you always talk about DL growing faster than UA?
We’ve covered this.
Airline A grows from one flight to two flights. That’s a 100% growth rate.
Airline B grows from 10 flights to 15 flights. That’s a 50% growth rate.
Which airline grew more?
Also, which airlines already has 50 more widebody planes than the other? Which airline has 150 787s on order, plus 50 A321XLRs? Which airline will soon be receiving the IGW version of the 787s, enabling even more range on top of the already-impressive performance?
Which airline has A350-1000s on order, which might have a slightly lower CASM but will also have more seats that will need to be filled at the risk of diluting yields.
Remember, if it was just about CASM, DL would be flying the A350s from ATL to TPA and FLL. You need the revenue to make it work.
No Brett Snyder-termed “argument loop” with you. You can have the last word. I will not engage more with you on this story.
DL is in 3rd place on the West Coast. Let no one convince anyone otherwise. Only Tim Dunn is stupid enough to think Delta has any kind of lead ANYWHERE on the Pacific coast. Just ignore him. He knows Delta is in a FINAL third place but he hates his own life because of it.
It's a seasonal.
Nothing more than a place to park the planes in winter, since DL can't fly them profitability elsewhere.
Similar to AKL, it won't be a great performer with avg fares under $500.
That's how the entire industry works, no? Just as most European flights are in the summer (nothern hemisphere), most Australia, South America, etc. flights are in the winter (summer in southern hemisphere). People prefer to travel when/where it's warm.
Congrats on your win!
I don’t think this route is a seasonal route, looks to be year round if you do the math as per the press release.
I agree. Was trying to do the rough math on it.
https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-01/250201-New-Direct-Los-Angeles-Flights-A-Win-For-The-Whole-State.pdf?utm_source=miragenews&utm_medium=miragenews&utm_campaign=news
86,000 new seats per year includes to and from so divide by 2 = 43,000 seats one way / 306 DL-standard A359 seats = ~140.5 Flights in the year / 3 per week = ~47 weeks of service. I guess they could increase frequency that would make this seasonal.
Good for DL. Seems like an unusual route for Delta given the...
I agree. Was trying to do the rough math on it.
https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/sites/default/files/2025-01/250201-New-Direct-Los-Angeles-Flights-A-Win-For-The-Whole-State.pdf?utm_source=miragenews&utm_medium=miragenews&utm_campaign=news
86,000 new seats per year includes to and from so divide by 2 = 43,000 seats one way / 306 DL-standard A359 seats = ~140.5 Flights in the year / 3 per week = ~47 weeks of service. I guess they could increase frequency that would make this seasonal.
Good for DL. Seems like an unusual route for Delta given the lack of an Australia JV and their weakness at LAX (Despite the fun delta metal stat thrown out by some without context, Delta still has the lowest loyalty penetration in SoCal of the major alliances, by far).
Really would seem to say a lot about their lack of better network options that their opportunity cost is this low... ~15 hour routes one-way on a route with very limited strength on each end with a brand new plane? Cool route. But this is the type of route that explains why UA is catching up on margin with DL. This isn't going to raise Delta margins.
Is there a metric to determine loyalty penetration in SoCal?
I'd be interested in knowing the source of it. Because at least from what I can see Delta serves the largest # of customers out of all US airlines in LAX.
Yolo
Those stats are proprietary. They’re real. And you’ll hear a lot of people called Tim
dunn yell into the wind about it but ignore that delta is in dead last, as he may or may not know.
But, to get to that reality, absent public info, you can also look at how one world is an easy first at lax.
How delta has the absolute worst lax partners
The other...
Yolo
Those stats are proprietary. They’re real. And you’ll hear a lot of people called Tim
dunn yell into the wind about it but ignore that delta is in dead last, as he may or may not know.
But, to get to that reality, absent public info, you can also look at how one world is an easy first at lax.
How delta has the absolute worst lax partners
The other thing to keep in mind is how little relevant service delta has at BUR/ONT/SNA vs star and one world.
Delta corporate knows they’re the weakest carrier on the west coast even if their fired employees don’t like it. AA and as are happy to sell each other’s service to corporate customers
Only The most desperate delta fans still cling to the stupidity of delta metal at lax mattering in the market, as it pertains to overall loyalty in the market. They’ve never had anything positive to say about delta’s lax share so spending money to lose money at lax seems like an appealing argument if you’re just sitting in your mom’s basement.
AA is remodeling their entire lax terminal
Complex and yet still offers more to corporate clients than delta out of lax alone, much less the rest of SoCal.
I ask this because the publicly available info doesn't seem to fit that claim.
All I know is that Delta carries 3.5M more mainline passengers than UA and AA. Delta has a fairly cohesive repetoire of partners, all of which service the many of top 10 destinations for LAX: Mexico (Aeromexico), LHR (VS), CDG (AF), TPE (CI), ICN (KE), YVR (WS).
A statement like Delta has the worst LAX partners is fairly subjective. If you...
I ask this because the publicly available info doesn't seem to fit that claim.
All I know is that Delta carries 3.5M more mainline passengers than UA and AA. Delta has a fairly cohesive repetoire of partners, all of which service the many of top 10 destinations for LAX: Mexico (Aeromexico), LHR (VS), CDG (AF), TPE (CI), ICN (KE), YVR (WS).
A statement like Delta has the worst LAX partners is fairly subjective. If you do have proprietary info to back that claim, then it's hard for me to argue against that.
I'd encourage you to read. It's pretty easy. Otherwise, "YOLO" get a real account or just go have a drink at Zocalo with Tim in Midtown. He's there every friday with Brad DiFiore wasted typing his responses to the rest of us. Drunk or not..
Tim has already made it clear he's an ex-lover of Glen Hauenstein and hates how Scott never invited him to the cool trips. I hope you can find out more.
"If you do have proprietary info to back that claim, then it's hard for me to argue against that."
But he doesn't.
Jerking off to the "quality" of OneWorld, does not equal corroboration. Seats are seats: and Delta had more of them into LAX than any other individual carrier, and does not have any comparative dearth of seats provided by its partners vs the OneWorld partners. They also have a substantial amount of elites...
"If you do have proprietary info to back that claim, then it's hard for me to argue against that."
But he doesn't.
Jerking off to the "quality" of OneWorld, does not equal corroboration. Seats are seats: and Delta had more of them into LAX than any other individual carrier, and does not have any comparative dearth of seats provided by its partners vs the OneWorld partners. They also have a substantial amount of elites in the area, as well as significant corporate capture of their own.
This is just someone attempting to present subjectivity as fact-- as you seem to clearly already realize.
@Geneva Karr, clearly you are in way too deep in this stuff. I have no idea who any of these people are.
@ImmortalSynn, so it sounds like it's just a made up piece of information then. Delta and its partners are fine out of LAX.
And yet DL still hasn’t cracked 20% of the market share in LAX.
Having a few percentage points more than other carriers at LAX doesn’t really matter when the airport is so divided.
The premier west coast hub for international and domestic is SFO, and UA has that locked down.
May I remind you, Max, that it was actually UA that dumped a lot of capacity into Pacific markets last winter, CF quickly identified that they were not doing well, DOT data shows that UA lost money flying the Pacific last winter, and UA has pulled back and not repeated what it did last winter, including pulling out of a couple LAX markets.
Save your “has nothing better to do with airplanes” for another...
May I remind you, Max, that it was actually UA that dumped a lot of capacity into Pacific markets last winter, CF quickly identified that they were not doing well, DOT data shows that UA lost money flying the Pacific last winter, and UA has pulled back and not repeated what it did last winter, including pulling out of a couple LAX markets.
Save your “has nothing better to do with airplanes” for another topic and airline. Whether you like it or not, it is clear that DL has managed to better find PROFITABLE opportunities to deploy its aircraft including for Pacific growth than AA or UA.
And let’s also note that, based on current schedules, DL is likely to regain the title of largest carrier to Europe which it held for years before UA took the title during covid – but earned much less profit than DL – and perhaps ever for transatlantic as a whole.
DL is using a disproportionate amount of its new capacity for TATL growth and, unlike AA, is getting the aircraft delivered to facilitate that growth.
DL has said it will return to India, will start Riyadh and has already announced TLV while UA has not, so all of these regions where you and others tout UA’s supremacy are coming down.
As much as everyone loves your rambling.
I’ll just remind you how stupid it is to talk about UA service pulls at lax when delta can’t even sustain LHR service despite trying it twice since Covid.
The number one destination out of lax and delta can’t sustain it. You do love to talk your way out of data but it doesn’t lie. Delta couldn’t compete against Ua or AA on the busiest route...
As much as everyone loves your rambling.
I’ll just remind you how stupid it is to talk about UA service pulls at lax when delta can’t even sustain LHR service despite trying it twice since Covid.
The number one destination out of lax and delta can’t sustain it. You do love to talk your way out of data but it doesn’t lie. Delta couldn’t compete against Ua or AA on the busiest route out of lax despite a JV but sure… convince us at 15hr flight with a new plane is a better idea on A route with two better competitors. This is why people don’t respect you. You pick fights where you look stupid and will never win based on data that you never ever produce. Delta will need that low a35k casm. They’re going to be transporting the lowest rasm customers to Melbourne
Or my fond memories of you telling us delta’s lax-dal service was somehow representative of how great they’re doing in dallas and LA… yeah. Did that last two weeks of negative losses?
And I’ll let you learn what opportunity cost means. The term may not have existed when delta fired you. But if you’re trying to convince me lax-Mel is the best business decision out there for delta on their network… :) good luck. You’re dumber than even I thought. You clearly know little about a P&L but why would you? Delta realized you didn’t either.
Sounds like DL has spare wide body capacity and needs to exploit incentive-driven opportunities. LAX to MEL is served by both QF and UA. Likely enough. DL has no feed on the Australia end that is meaningful and it will rely heavily on US POS. Good luck to them. They'll need it.