Historically, Delta Air Lines has shied away from ultra long haul flights, with a limited number of exceptions. However, that’s slowly starting to change, as Delta plans to launch flights to Hong Kong (HKG) and Riyadh (RUH). That’s only the beginning of the growth, though, and there’s an interesting update regarding a new destination the airline plans to add.
In this post:
Delta confirms 2027 launch for flights to Manila, Philippines
In late October 2025, a Delta executive revealed to employees internally that the airline plans to add flights to Singapore (SIN) and Manila (MNL), though stopped short of providing a timeline for the launch, or sharing out of which airport the airline will add this service.
Well, there’s an update on that front. Delta just submitted a filing to the Department of Transportation (DOT), in reference to Philippine Airlines’ request to fly to Chicago (ORD). In this filing, the airline reveals that starting in the summer of 2027, it plans to launch daily Manila flights out of Los Angeles (LAX), using an A350:
Delta respectfully urges the Department to defer action on PAL’s application until Delta’s entry is assured by the Philippine Government.
Delta does not oppose PAL’s requested authority in principle. Delta recognizes that expanded service between the United States and the Philippines can provide public benefits, including enhanced consumer choice and increased trade and tourism between the two countries.
Delta is likewise committed to advancing these same public interest objectives. In furtherance of that goal, Delta is pursuing plans to launch its own Manila service next summer (2027) with daily Airbus A350-900 service from Los Angeles. Delta’s service would provide additional competition, new routing options, and expanded connectivity for US and Philippine consumers alike.
Now, we’ll see if this actually comes to fruition with the timeline being promised, but that’s at least what’s being claimed.
I can’t really make sense of Delta’s Manila strategy
There are two things I find interesting about this announcement. First of all, I don’t really understand Delta’s West Coast strategy. Among the “big three” US carriers, United is the only one that has a mega long haul hub, in the form of San Francisco (SFO).
It’s hard to make sense of Delta’s strategy when it comes to Los Angeles (LAX) vs. Seattle (SEA). Los Angeles has historically been Delta’s bigger West Coast hub, but it’s also a market that seemingly no airline can actually “win,” as all of the “big three” US carriers have a sizable presence there.
So for close to a decade now, Delta has put effort into growing in Seattle, especially across the Pacific, but that’s no longer the case. Now we’re seeing the airline expand in Los Angeles, with flights to both Hong Kong and Manila.
Next, for an airline that’s just now getting around to expanding across the Pacific, I’m a bit surprised Manila ranks so high on the priority list. We’re talking about a 7,000+ mile flight here, in a high demand but fairly low yield market.
I guess Delta views itself as the “premium” option compared to Philippine Airlines, but still, this just doesn’t strike me as a great route for Delta, given its high operating costs. In fairness, United added San Francisco to Manila flights in late 2023, though United is also a lot further along when it comes to the size of its Asia route network, and San Francisco is also a much bigger hub for the airline.
So we’ll see how this plays out. Admittedly airline economics have changed over the years, and routes no longer need to be wildly profitable directly, but instead, loyalty programs are also a big consideration. But still, I’m not sold on this…
Bottom line
Delta has confirmed that in the summer of 2027, it plans to launch daily nonstop flights between Los Angeles and Manila. We knew that the airline was eyeing Manila (and Singapore) flights, though it’s interesting to see the new route be out of Los Angeles. Admittedly that’s the bigger market for the Philippines, but it’s a long journey, and it’s not exactly high yielding.
What do you make of Delta’s Manila plans?
Years ago, NW had a loyal following in the Philippines (even if Japan was your final destination) and even had a partnership with Cebu where you could also earn miles with the latter.
I wonder if that following still exists and transferred over to Delta after the merger or it's pretty much non-existent.
LAX is just a way bigger market for MNL than SEA is, plus SEA already has service. Given that DL wants to focus on building loyalty and AMEX spend (building their whole portfolio, rather than individual routes), it makes sense that they'd fly this from LAX. Maybe MNL is a borderline destination, but if they can breakeven flying it and boost their AMEX revenue at the same time, it's worth doing.
Reading the tea leaves...
LAX is just a way bigger market for MNL than SEA is, plus SEA already has service. Given that DL wants to focus on building loyalty and AMEX spend (building their whole portfolio, rather than individual routes), it makes sense that they'd fly this from LAX. Maybe MNL is a borderline destination, but if they can breakeven flying it and boost their AMEX revenue at the same time, it's worth doing.
Reading the tea leaves from Delta I suspect they'd also choose to fly SIN from LAX for the same reasons. Maybe if those routes are a hit they'll add SEA later, but LAX growth just seems much more sensible at this point.
I do note that DL's TPAC JV with KE apparently does not include the Philippines - so much so that they don't even *codeshare* on flights to Manila. That might explain why they're interested in it. The letter to USDOT mirrors one from United a few years ago, and is not surprising.
All of this boils down to whether DL will be able to dominate the premium traffic at LAX where others have failed in the future (similar story in SEA).
Most expected DL additions like SEA-TPE, LAX-AKL, LAX-MEL, LAX-BNE, LAX-LHR, etc. to fai, but outside of LAX-LHR none have been cut which would seem to illustrate that they are doing OK.
However, those with access to this information note that routes like LAX-AKL, SEA-TPE, and others...
All of this boils down to whether DL will be able to dominate the premium traffic at LAX where others have failed in the future (similar story in SEA).
Most expected DL additions like SEA-TPE, LAX-AKL, LAX-MEL, LAX-BNE, LAX-LHR, etc. to fai, but outside of LAX-LHR none have been cut which would seem to illustrate that they are doing OK.
However, those with access to this information note that routes like LAX-AKL, SEA-TPE, and others are still money losers for DL. For some of those routes like LAX-AKL, DL is only roughly break-even for ~2-3 months of the year even with margins really improving after cutting ~4-5 months of service (yet yields remain an issue).
DL has the finances and wherewithal to continue trying out routes like these and LAX-HKG (where UA does terribly), but the proof will be in the pudding on if it can make those routes viable.
So far that hasn't happened - we'll see how long this willingness to compete lasts especially if oil prices remain high. After all, this has been the exact same story at LAX over and over again once a player makes a move to dominate.
“ Most expected DL additions like SEA-TPE, LAX-AKL, LAX-MEL, LAX-BNE, LAX-LHR, etc. to fail, but outside of LAX-LHR none have been cut which would seem to illustrate that they are doing OK.”
Not really.
Lax-Lhr is the most premium route out of lax and delta failed twice on it — and recently
Lax-akl was announced as year-round (and trumpeted as such loudly here by a certain someone ;) )and very quickly cut to...
“ Most expected DL additions like SEA-TPE, LAX-AKL, LAX-MEL, LAX-BNE, LAX-LHR, etc. to fail, but outside of LAX-LHR none have been cut which would seem to illustrate that they are doing OK.”
Not really.
Lax-Lhr is the most premium route out of lax and delta failed twice on it — and recently
Lax-akl was announced as year-round (and trumpeted as such loudly here by a certain someone ;) )and very quickly cut to seasonal due to how badly it was doing. My mom could fly lax-akl in season profitably
Lax-bne is a subsidy and we’ll see if delta keeps it going once the subsidy is over
Sea-tpe is certainly going — good for delta but if anyone thinks that’s profitable, they need their heads checked. Every other airline on that route has a better soft and hard product on the route with a lower cost structure than delta. Delta employees on a.net constantly note how it is not profitable
Lax-Mel is new this year (really late late 2025) so we don’t really know whether it’s going to last
LAX-HKg? United has a real presence in hkg. Delta does not. AA is more than happy to put their passengers on the 3x/day Cathay flights and let them earn their loyalty points on a better product across the board than delta.
We do know that delta is in the worst strategic position in Oceania with no JV or real partner there like VA. As much as people pretend that sudden growth makes delta the biggest at anything in lax, they aren’t — loyalty penetration included. Their higher gate position is temporary while AA redoes their terminal and there’s really little to no advantage delta has on any major business route out of lax aside from Mex and that JV seems to be going away
It says a lot about delta in lax that delta has twice failed at flying lax-Lhr despite a JV partner in LHR. They don’t have a JV partner in any of these other cities you mention to hand off unprofitable flying to
Delta has plenty of money and is welcome to spend it in LA. Delta isn’t the first company to try and “win LA” and they won’t be the last. But they are in the worst strategic position of the US3 at lax. That’s not even debatable. They are. But they are certainly spending money to lower the entrenched disadvantage
Some truths, some misrepresentations in this.
LAX-LHR is a very different market than South Pacific and Asia flying, we can all agree to that. The failure of Delta to run a single daily year-round to Europe from LAX is significant. It's something that both AA and UA manage to do. But being weak for TATL on a West Coast hub is not indicative of if they can be successful TPAC.
Agreed, LAX-AKL likely performs...
Some truths, some misrepresentations in this.
LAX-LHR is a very different market than South Pacific and Asia flying, we can all agree to that. The failure of Delta to run a single daily year-round to Europe from LAX is significant. It's something that both AA and UA manage to do. But being weak for TATL on a West Coast hub is not indicative of if they can be successful TPAC.
Agreed, LAX-AKL likely performs very poorly, hence the massive cutbacks in schedule and the dirt cheap fares.
Broadly speaking, BNE is massively over capacity, the problem isn't even unique to Delta. BNE international traffic is 1/3 of SYD and 1/2 of MEL, the market simply just isn't there. LAX-BNE likely goes away over time, as MEL will be going daily soon.
Delta's "struggle" on SEA to TPE is largely overstated, I'm not sure I would trust random people on the internet to cite individual route profitability. Factually, all we can know is that Delta has kept up with the competition in terms of loadings, the same can be said for UA's SFO to TPE performance, yet it seemingly gets little to no scrutiny, despite the massively higher seat count that SFO to TPE sees compared to SEA to TPE. Delta's TPE flight serves US point of sale, hence being a daytime flight to TPE. The Taiwanese carriers are focused on East and Southeast Asia connections, both are seemingly coexisting just fine.
@yolo
“ Delta's "struggle" on SEA to TPE is largely overstated, I'm not sure I would trust random people on the internet to cite individual route profitability.”
I don’t trust randos like yourself. Plenty of delta employees constantly out what they do if you go far enough in their post history on a.net ;)
The difference is, you are the random person making claims about that route's profitability, I am not, I have said it's inconclusive, there's nothing to trust or not trust about my statement because it's factual.
It's pretty clear unless you can read their internal data, which you are not privy to, making assumptions about a route's profitability is just pure speculation.
@yolo
I’m not the one claiming it. I specifically said delta employees say it’s unprofitable and noted that they have outed what they do on other websites. Nice try to say I said it though. No. I did not.
However, you also don’t have to cover your eyes and hold your nose to consider a route’s profitability and pretend like “guess we’ll never know” and play dumb.
Delta easily has the worst product...
@yolo
I’m not the one claiming it. I specifically said delta employees say it’s unprofitable and noted that they have outed what they do on other websites. Nice try to say I said it though. No. I did not.
However, you also don’t have to cover your eyes and hold your nose to consider a route’s profitability and pretend like “guess we’ll never know” and play dumb.
Delta easily has the worst product on the route and the highest costs. Another carrier on that route with a much better product across the board happily codeshares with an airline twice delta’s size in Seattle and even more than twice the domestic capacity in Seattle than delta.
You’re welcome to pretend that “gee. We just will never know” but that’s just sticking your head in the sand to purposefully ignore reality and vetted posters on other websites that are happy to share internal delta data.
Your choice to ignore the world around you is your own. I’d recommend reevaluating your choices though. ;)
This is the paragraph that most matters
"DL has the finances and wherewithal to continue trying out routes like these and LAX-HKG (where UA does terribly), but the proof will be in the pudding on if it can make those routes viable."
Nowhere did DL ever said it intended to be a distant #2 to UA to Asia after it had to pull down its NRT hub.
As much as some people argue...
This is the paragraph that most matters
"DL has the finances and wherewithal to continue trying out routes like these and LAX-HKG (where UA does terribly), but the proof will be in the pudding on if it can make those routes viable."
Nowhere did DL ever said it intended to be a distant #2 to UA to Asia after it had to pull down its NRT hub.
As much as some people argue that financial data isn't public, the DOT DOES report profitability by global region and UA used DL's TPAC pullback to throw tons of capacity into the market while AA has basically become a niche TPAC carrier from DFW and to Japan.
UA cannot keep adding a bunch more TPAC capacity and the events of the past 2 weeks make it doubtful that UA can even continue with the market share grabbing strategies it is engaged in at the same time it has to bring tens of thousands of employees up to industry average wages.
DL said that it is increasing adding routes based on the total impact of routes to DL's revenue including Amex and SkyMiles revenue. LAX is a huge market and DL is already building on a very solid domestic position to add more international service.
DL played conservatively coming out of covid and is generating the profits to endure the current crisis better than competitors; given that the refinery, once again, will be a key determinant of the ability to survive and overcome this crisis, DL is very likely to use the next few years to focus on rebuiding its TPAC network as its primary strategic focus - and that might have been the case even before Feb 28.
SEA isn't going anywhere but winning LAX matters more than adding SEA routes that will largely be connections.
and let's also not forget that Asian jet fuel prices are much higher than in the US so the ability of Asian carriers to maintain what they have, let alone add, will be much less than for US carriers and esp. DL with its fuel advantage.
The age old question.
At what point does “strategic” flying become unprofitable flying? With much of delta tpac flying we’ll find out one day.
ask United.
There is no reason other than UA's overfocus on "strategic flying" that they fly 10% more ASMs than DL but get less revenue and 2/3 of DL's profits - despite a $1 billion labor cost advantage.
DL isn't fighting wiht any other legacy carrier for any domestic hub. DL isn't focused on size.
Let's also not forget that the vast majority of AA's network is "strategic flying" given its very low profit margins.
...ask United.
There is no reason other than UA's overfocus on "strategic flying" that they fly 10% more ASMs than DL but get less revenue and 2/3 of DL's profits - despite a $1 billion labor cost advantage.
DL isn't fighting wiht any other legacy carrier for any domestic hub. DL isn't focused on size.
Let's also not forget that the vast majority of AA's network is "strategic flying" given its very low profit margins.
DL can add lots of "strategic" flying and have nowhere near the financial risk as others.
and DL makes more per seat mile flying the Pacific than UA even after DL's addition of some of the routes that some have noted don't make money.
I wonder how much longer Delta is going to keep its unprofitable Seattle hub going. All of its new long haul routes have been in LAX recently, which seems like a sign. Plus with Alaska having a growing 787 base in the same airport, a bigger connecting network, and way better local loyalty, I suspect things are only going to get worse in SEA for Delta.
Given they just opened up multiple brand new lounges less than a year ago and added multiple new longhaul and domestic flights, I expect it to be for quite some time.
And somehow everyone fails to understand hub economics vs airline profitability. When the revenue is now primarily driven by loyalty spend, the profitability of individual routes and stations matters much less.
There are over 600000 Filipinos in the Los Angeles area and over 200000 Filipinos in the San Diego area, where drive in becomes a factor. Seattle is less than 150000. This market makes all sorts of sense for Delta
Pretty much the entire southern half of California and Nevada.
It seems obvious that Seattle will add flights to NE Asia and maybe India once airspace allows, and Los Angeles will serve destinations with high demand (HND, PVG) in NE Asia, plus SE Asia and Oceania. I'd expect PKX to eventually be added back to SEA but HKG or any further south seems unlikely. I wouldn't expect PKX to be added to LAX, but SIN, MNL and maybe SGN much further out seem reasonable. The...
It seems obvious that Seattle will add flights to NE Asia and maybe India once airspace allows, and Los Angeles will serve destinations with high demand (HND, PVG) in NE Asia, plus SE Asia and Oceania. I'd expect PKX to eventually be added back to SEA but HKG or any further south seems unlikely. I wouldn't expect PKX to be added to LAX, but SIN, MNL and maybe SGN much further out seem reasonable. The demand from LAX is likely that much bigger to warrant trying from there versus SEA.
I'm so lost, why does the addition of one route to LAX, automatically mean they are not growing another hub? For example, does BOS getting a flight mean Delta is no longer growing JFK?
Delta has invested substantially in SEA, adding new routes, investing in D1 facilities, all throughout last year.
SEA is a smaller station, I wouldn't expect Delta to funnel 100% of its flights to it, that's part of network planning. You anyways...
I'm so lost, why does the addition of one route to LAX, automatically mean they are not growing another hub? For example, does BOS getting a flight mean Delta is no longer growing JFK?
Delta has invested substantially in SEA, adding new routes, investing in D1 facilities, all throughout last year.
SEA is a smaller station, I wouldn't expect Delta to funnel 100% of its flights to it, that's part of network planning. You anyways saw the other notes and rumors that SEA is also slated for Asia expansion, things happen sequentially, not all at once.
DL is in the process of creating two TPAC W.Coast hubs, SEA and LAX, in a few years LAX will emerge as the leader.
LAX already is "the leader." It's not even close.
SEA - Delta serves Tokyo, Shanghai, Seoul, and Taipei, from Seattle.
LAX - Delta serves Tokyo, Shanghai, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Auckland; with Hong Kong and Manila announced publicly, and Seoul confirmed internally.
Singapore was also internally announced the same time as Manila, but not clarified from which gateway.
You have a massive stereotype of the Philippines. You come off as ignorant.
Manila and the Philippines have a booming economy.
More and more American tourists are going to the Philippines to enjoy the amazing beach islands which are much better then Hawaii. And a good amount of them are premium travelers.
Maybe you should go to the Philippines and check it out yourself since you have never been to the Philippines.
"Maybe you should go to the Philippines and check it out yourself since you have never been to the Philippines."
He has been. He even connected from T2 to T1 on a bus and has flown PR's A359 to Toronto!
I don't understand the confusion
1) In terms of LAX vs SEA, Delta flies more passengers to/from LAX than SEA. From what I can tell, Delta did about 14 million passengers to LAX in 2025 vs closer to 12 million at SEA. Delta also has newer facilities at LAX after the most recent renovations. LAX is a much larger city. Delta flies to most major markets from LAX, often with better/newer planes than it does...
I don't understand the confusion
1) In terms of LAX vs SEA, Delta flies more passengers to/from LAX than SEA. From what I can tell, Delta did about 14 million passengers to LAX in 2025 vs closer to 12 million at SEA. Delta also has newer facilities at LAX after the most recent renovations. LAX is a much larger city. Delta flies to most major markets from LAX, often with better/newer planes than it does to SEA. LAX is a clear hub for Delta. I would put it right below ATL, JFK/LGA, and I guess one of DTW/MSP. It's more important to the airline than SEA and SLC at this point, and has been for a while
2) The Philippines is a large country with a highly mobile population, and there probably is a lot of cargo involved as well. In terms of other Asia destinations, it seems like it is a better choice than places like Thailand and Vietnam in terms of consistent traffic.
Mike says, "UA has said MNL is a great success, it went to 2x daily very quickly, 2x 777-300 packed full with pax and cargo."
Best US to Asia hub/gateway, perfect plane (more seats & cargo), right times and incumbent advantages.
Not sure why you're confused. LAX is a huge market and DL's intention to maintain/grow its investment has been sufficiently demonstrated. One cannot compare the decisions made in an era of 767s deployed from SEA to one with more efficienet aircraft and changes in economic/demographic factors.
IMHO, LAX will be the primary gateway, where Asia growth will take place, particularly given its role as an Australasian gateway (LAX feed can serve multiple regions). Accordingly,...
Not sure why you're confused. LAX is a huge market and DL's intention to maintain/grow its investment has been sufficiently demonstrated. One cannot compare the decisions made in an era of 767s deployed from SEA to one with more efficienet aircraft and changes in economic/demographic factors.
IMHO, LAX will be the primary gateway, where Asia growth will take place, particularly given its role as an Australasian gateway (LAX feed can serve multiple regions). Accordingly, SEA will only see destinations demonstrably sustainable given the feed structure DL chooses to maintain and competition from AS/oneworld.
It would probably make more sense to fly Honolulu to Manila since there are so many Filipinos in Hawaii. But Delta served Manila via Tokyo until the pandemic. I believe they briefly pivoted to Seoul-Manila or at least announced it but never flew it.
That would make ZERO sense.
1. because the Filipino (first+second generation) population in Greater Los Angeles is more than 3x larger than metropolitan Honolulu (600,000 vs 214,000)
2. because DL would have to rotate the aircraft into HNL before they could send it to MNL (since the latter wouldn't be already served in a potential W-pattern), and there's no way they're going to do that with an A359
Hawaiian flew to Manila from 2008-2013, but were run out by PR due to the latter's aggressive pricing as well as high oil prices at the time. Oil prices being volatile right now doesn't help.
In the meantime, PR has applied to codeshare with AA with the latter's code on flights to LAX, SFO, SEA, JFK and upcoming ORD service while they already codeshare to HNL.
While Hawaii has a huge Filipino diaspora (multiple generations...
Hawaiian flew to Manila from 2008-2013, but were run out by PR due to the latter's aggressive pricing as well as high oil prices at the time. Oil prices being volatile right now doesn't help.
In the meantime, PR has applied to codeshare with AA with the latter's code on flights to LAX, SFO, SEA, JFK and upcoming ORD service while they already codeshare to HNL.
While Hawaii has a huge Filipino diaspora (multiple generations even), not many return back home hence PR using a mere A333.
I'll simply add ... corporate travel, cargo and Delta's loyalty base at LAX will make this a likely success. Unlike United (Kirby), Delta does not enter a market willy-nilly just for show. It is as calculated an airline as they get. I'm sure DL is forecasting success with HKG, MNL, and SIN long term with the A350 frames.
Did they forecast success on the Europe routes they cut? Anyone can forecast anything doesn’t mean it’s reality.
"Delta has put effort into growing in Seattle, especially across the Pacific, but that’s no longer the case." I would imagine Alaska and Delta have very limited options for the most part in Seattle given the space/gating constraints.
Morning, Ben,
feel free to post the data you used to come to the conclusion that MNL is trash yields. What you read on a.net isn't fact.
NW was the largest airline across the Pacific and at MNL for years. Their knowledge didn't just go away esp. since they have had access to MNL through their JV w/ KE.
As for the whole SEA vs. LAX hub, DL is the only carrier that has...
Morning, Ben,
feel free to post the data you used to come to the conclusion that MNL is trash yields. What you read on a.net isn't fact.
NW was the largest airline across the Pacific and at MNL for years. Their knowledge didn't just go away esp. since they have had access to MNL through their JV w/ KE.
As for the whole SEA vs. LAX hub, DL is the only carrier that has the potential to have two true west coast gateways to Asia at both LAX and SEA.
No one has ever doubted that UA has the TPAC superhub at SFO - but there is enormous opportunity to develop hubs elsewhere as well as to carry traffic from the interior US to E. Asia - something DL does better than any other US airline - and KE only builds on that for DL.
Even in UA's most recent leaked presentation, UA acknowledges that DL is the largest carrier at LAX. With ICN, DL would have become the largest int'l carrier at LAX. Adding MNL and/or SEA only adds icing to the cake.
The A350 is simply the better aircraft for LAX to deep into Asia and LAX will likely see a large share of the A350-1000s.
DL will do just fine in MNL, just as they will in HKG, and then keep adding.
oh, and DL will add whatever they do from SEA as soon as AS announces anything.
should be a fun day here....
So more BS and no facts, from dumbtim
"oh, and DL will add whatever they do from SEA as soon as AS announces anything."
If only Delta wasn't half the size with half the ability to match Alaska... facts are fun
"with half the ability to match Alaska... facts are fun"
Sure, but you're not doing yourself any favors either, with statements like that.
Delta actually has more access to widebody-capable gates at Seattle than Alaska does (they both can use C.U.T.E. gates in concourse-S, but Delta has several of its own at concourse-A that Alaska doesn't), in addition to more widebody aircraft. So how does that leave it with "half the ability to match Alaska"...
"with half the ability to match Alaska... facts are fun"
Sure, but you're not doing yourself any favors either, with statements like that.
Delta actually has more access to widebody-capable gates at Seattle than Alaska does (they both can use C.U.T.E. gates in concourse-S, but Delta has several of its own at concourse-A that Alaska doesn't), in addition to more widebody aircraft. So how does that leave it with "half the ability to match Alaska" in reference to long-haul?
So DL’s strategy in SEA is to copy whatever AS does, but less successfully? Got it.
How is DL copying Alaska if Delta has more longhaul flights already?
That doesn't make any sense. Does Alaska fly to BCN, PVG, TPE, CDG, or AMS?
UA fought forever to get MNL slots and only got them with DOT help when PAL wanted to start SEA. DL is wisely doing the same thing, if PAL wants to start ORD we get to start LAX. The whole MNL yields are trash thing is overblown, UA has said MNL is a great success, it went to 2x daily very quickly, 2x 777-300 packed full with pax and cargo. DL will do great on this route.
Agreed. Cargo (and bag fees) alone do not a success make, but that revenue will certainly offset any low yields.
Yep need to consider cargo in the yield discussion.
On the pax demand side, 40% of the US Filipino diaspora is in California, esp LA, SF and San Diego. LAX is therefore a better option for premium fares with OD tickets vs connecting flights through SEA.
Don't forget Nevada especially Las Vegas alone.
True but that's a connecting flight, there's no specific advantage to connect in LAX vs SFO or SEA.
I don't get a hat tip for saying this for months if not years?! lol j/k
Anyway, the Philippine economy and incomes are steadily rising, and with the abundance of the Filipino diaspora in Southern California, it's not surprising to see more flights being added. I wouldn't be surprised if they increase their frequency once they do get going.
Aside from the entire region of Southern California, DL can grab connections from Nevada along with...
I don't get a hat tip for saying this for months if not years?! lol j/k
Anyway, the Philippine economy and incomes are steadily rising, and with the abundance of the Filipino diaspora in Southern California, it's not surprising to see more flights being added. I wouldn't be surprised if they increase their frequency once they do get going.
Aside from the entire region of Southern California, DL can grab connections from Nevada along with Texas and Seattle even with PR in the market.
In similar news, apparently PR plans to codeshare with AA on all of its U.S. flights. While I doubt it will be a precursor to oneworld, one can certainly speculate.
Tim Dunn is not happy.
say what?
I've been saying for years that we would see DL rebuild its TPAC network pretty aggressively.
We're now at a new route announcement every 4-6 months.