As I see it, there are several big trends among the “big three” US carriers that I think will be interesting to watch over the coming months and years.
For me, the most interesting of those is whether American will be able to achieve any sort of a financial turnaround. But what I also think is interesting is how Delta is finally trying to grow its long haul network, particularly to Asia, and seeing how successful that is. While the airline is still early in this journey, we’re starting to get some data…
In this post:
Delta’s Pacific capacity growth outpaces yield growth
Historically, Delta has routed so much of its Asia traffic through Seoul Incheon (ICN), which is the hub of its joint venture partner, Korean Air. Now the airline is increasingly trying to serve more destinations nonstop. The airline has launched flights to Hong Kong (HKG), and we’ll see Manila (MNL) flights as of 2027, and Singapore (SIN) flights are also coming.
Delta executives have indicated that they want to beat United across the Pacific, and this also plays into Delta’s goals of trying to dominate Los Angeles (LAX), and become a bigger player there.
While we’re early in this journey, how are things going so far? Well, there’s some interesting data. In Q2 2026, US carriers generally saw huge revenue growth, given that they’ve been able to increase fares, passing on much of the increases in jet fuel cost.
So in Q2 2026, how did capacity growth and yield growth across the Pacific compare year-over-year?
- United saw 10.9% yield growth on 4.1% capacity growth
- Delta saw 7% yield growth on 8% capacity growth
- American saw 17.3% yield growth on 8.2% capacity growth
As you can see, there’s a negative outlier here, and it’s not American, for once. At American and United, yield growth greatly exceeded capacity growth in the Pacific region (more than double, in both cases), while at Delta, capacity growth exceeded yield growth.
In the coming quarters, one of the details I’m going to be most interested in seeing is how the relative Pacific performance shakes out, in terms of yield growth vs. capacity growth.
JonNYC reports how United Chief Commercial Officer Andrew Nocella reportedly said the following in an internal meeting for employees:
“The [UA] LA-HKG route is quite successful now as a result of [the BKK/SGN tags]. We face new competition now from another airline based in ATL, and I know they’re not going to do very well there. I can already tell from their pricing. They’re unable to fill up their airplanes.”
I think that’s especially interesting, because I know some people were suggesting that United would hemorrhage money flying to Bangkok (BKK) and Ho Chi Minh City (SGN), and that the airline was just obsessed with adding “sexy” dots to the map, rather than actually focusing on sustainable growth. However, year-over-year numbers seem to suggest that these “sexy” route additions are actually performing quite well.
I imagine these numbers will get worse before they get better
To Delta’s credit, I don’t think anyone expected that Delta adding new ultra long haul flying would be profitable overnight. Demand on new routes can take quite some time to build up, and on top of that, there’s always the loyalty element to trying to build a global route network, which isn’t directly reflected in yield growth. I can appreciate the concept of investing in the long term.
But I do think the fundamental question remains of whether Delta will have luck across the Pacific in the way that it’s hoping in the long run. We all know that Delta is the most profitable US carrier, but that doesn’t mean the airline is the best at everything, no matter what narrative some people may try to have.
Delta obviously faces some challenges across the Pacific:
- It doesn’t have a fortress hub on the West Coast, as operations are split between Los Angeles (LAX) and Seattle (SEA), vs. United’s San Francisco (SFO) hub
- Say what you will, but United has a very strong history of serving Asia, and is established in many markets; United flies four times per day to Hong Kong, twice per day to Singapore, etc., and Delta operating one daily flight out of one hub isn’t offering a competitive schedule
- Yes, we all know that Northwest was strong across the Pacific back in the day, but in terms of consumer sentiment and brand recognition, the average consumer in Asia isn’t going to associate those two brands with one another
Bottom line
Delta has lofty goals across the Pacific, as it wants to take on United, and even beat the carrier. It takes time to build up a network and make it profitable, so I’m not suggesting that anything here is terribly surprising.
However, in Q2 2026, Delta had by far the worst capacity growth vs. yield growth setup among the “big three” US carriers. American and United had capacity growth that was more than double yield growth, while Delta saw higher capacity growth than yield growth.
I’m not drawing any conclusions based on this one quarter, but this is what I’m excited to see in the results for Q3, Q4, etc.
What do you make of Delta’s Pacific performance numbers?
TD says, "not a single person can counter that DL is growing responsibly across the Pacific."
Not a single person said it was irresponsible probably because nobody describes new air service in that way.
TD, "Not only did it match UA's capacity additions but managed to grow revenue."
Only as a result of big fuel-price fare increases and at dramatically lower revenue growth rates than AA & UA in the Pacific. Yikes!
Q2 2026 Pacific
TD says, "not a single person can counter that DL is growing responsibly across the Pacific."
Not a single person said it was irresponsible probably because nobody describes new air service in that way.
TD, "Not only did it match UA's capacity additions but managed to grow revenue."
Only as a result of big fuel-price fare increases and at dramatically lower revenue growth rates than AA & UA in the Pacific. Yikes!
Q2 2026 Pacific
ASM/PRASM/Yield/Load factor (% growth YOY)
AAL: 8.2/15.0/17.3/?
UAL: 4.1/14.0/10.9/2.3
DAL: 8.0/7.0/7.0/-1.0
and yet DL managed to generate $800 million (double) more revenues than UA, its next closest competitor.
DL does have the financial strength and the strategic intentionality to grow its TPAC system where it ONCE was the largest.
DL now has the resources - including the largest corporate travel portfolio in the industry and a fleet advantage (the 350 is just a more capable and efficient aircraft than anything in UA (or AA's fleet now...
and yet DL managed to generate $800 million (double) more revenues than UA, its next closest competitor.
DL does have the financial strength and the strategic intentionality to grow its TPAC system where it ONCE was the largest.
DL now has the resources - including the largest corporate travel portfolio in the industry and a fleet advantage (the 350 is just a more capable and efficient aircraft than anything in UA (or AA's fleet now or in the future).
Yes, DL's growth is responsible - whether you call it that or not. It wasn't that long ago that UA dumped all kinds of capacity into its system and trashed its RASM across its network. UA RESPONSIBLY pulled back and has said that it will RESPONSIBLY not add the capacity that it intended to add because of high fuel prices.
Yes, DL is growing its TPAC system responsibly - by not only growing revenue metrics even w/ added capacity but not trashing other carrier revenue metrics.
I am more than capable of acknowledging that other carriers including UA can act responsibly.
You just need to be willing to admit that TPAC is large enough that DL can and will grow RESPONSIBLY and significantly close the size gap with UA - and perhaps even match or surpass UA in size
well done on dropping the L.
now when you can admit and tell us the reason for UA losing its earnings lead in 1Q2025....
"DL managed to generate $800 million (double) more revenues than UA, its next closest competitor."
UA managed to generate $700m (triple+) more revenues than UA, its next closest competitor in Q1.
'26 net income in $m
UA: 1,504
DL: 1,314
∆: 190/1,314 = 14.5% more net income for UA than DL in '26
and yet you can't bring yourself to admit that, even using GAAP net income, DL made more than double the amount of money that UA did in the 2nd quarter.
You LOVE to cherrypick data so you don't have to tell the real story which would be told by other metrics including that UA's NI in 1Q2026 and thus its 1H2026 NI are boosted by sale-leaseback transactions which also added debt - but heaven...
and yet you can't bring yourself to admit that, even using GAAP net income, DL made more than double the amount of money that UA did in the 2nd quarter.
You LOVE to cherrypick data so you don't have to tell the real story which would be told by other metrics including that UA's NI in 1Q2026 and thus its 1H2026 NI are boosted by sale-leaseback transactions which also added debt - but heaven forbid you would include that data.
what is really sad is that you think it is your job to defend UA when UA itself hasn't done a single thing to fight back against DL's pretty aggressive DIRECT attacks on UA strength markets.
Tell me what routes I missed UA adding now that DL has started LAX-ORD and HKG and announced LAX-EWR even before DL's addition of LAX-MNL which is no more of a direct attack than PR's ORD-MNL flight.
you can't admit that the TPAC market IS big enough for DL to grow, DL has strategic benefits that UA does not (just as is true in reverse), and DL has the financial strength and strategic intentionality to regrow to a comparable position to Asia as UA has.
DL isn't trashing the market or their own performance by adding new flights and is still generating US industry leading financials - they generated 2/3 of the US airline industry's profits in the 2nd quarter.
DL thought long and hard about what it intended to do and evaluated the entire competitive landscape before pushing "START"
The mere fact that UA itself has done absolutely nothing simply says that the noise which you and others make on the internet has absolutely no bearing in the outcome of what DL intends to do - any more than what I write.
The difference is that I, as usual, am supporting a winning strategy while you try desperately to pretend that #2 is winning when it is clear they are not.
"you can't bring yourself to admit that, even using GAAP net income, DL made more than double the amount of money that UA did in the 2nd quarter."
I just did and have in countless posts.
Q1 2026: Net Income/OCF/Capex/FCF in $b
DL: 1.6/1.6/1.4/0.2
UA: 0.8/1.6/1.3/0.3
1H 2026: Net Income/OCF/Capex/FCF in $b
UAL: 1.5/6.4/3.2/3.2
DAL: 1.3/4.1/2.7/1.4
you have clearly mislabeled some data but I am happy that you admit that DL has made more money in the 2nd quarter of 2026
and just like in FULL YEAR 2025, DL's higher profits are part of the reason why 1. DL is pretty comfortable it can do what it needs to do strategically to regrow its TPAC network 2. UA's lower net income and the fact that DL is not trashing the market...
you have clearly mislabeled some data but I am happy that you admit that DL has made more money in the 2nd quarter of 2026
and just like in FULL YEAR 2025, DL's higher profits are part of the reason why 1. DL is pretty comfortable it can do what it needs to do strategically to regrow its TPAC network 2. UA's lower net income and the fact that DL is not trashing the market but adding capacity which the market and all carriers can absorb is why UA is not punching back at DL.
Can you agree w/ those 2 statements?
This isn't true -- at all:
"Historically, Delta has routed so much of its Asia traffic through Seoul Incheon (ICN), which is the hub of its joint venture partner, Korean Air. Now the airline is increasingly trying to serve more destinations nonstop."
Historically, Delta and before them Northwest routed Asian traffic through Tokyo-Narita.
while Julia counts comments and rebel counts words, not a single person can counter that DL is growing responsibly across the Pacific. Not only did it match UA's capacity additions but managed to grow revenue.
DL has the most restrained system capacity growth of the big 3 and yet DL devoted its capacity growth entirely to the Pacific - as it said it would do weeks ago - which was very much a message to...
while Julia counts comments and rebel counts words, not a single person can counter that DL is growing responsibly across the Pacific. Not only did it match UA's capacity additions but managed to grow revenue.
DL has the most restrained system capacity growth of the big 3 and yet DL devoted its capacity growth entirely to the Pacific - as it said it would do weeks ago - which was very much a message to analysts that DL is committed to a very focused strategy of growth.
because they can't admit that DL's track record in other hubs makes it very likely that DL will achieve over the Pacific what neither AA or UA have demonstrated anywhere on their networks, they make illogical arguments over and over and simply prove that DL is, after all, growing responsibly in line where it told investors and analysts it would grow.
Since we all love facts, let's look at the top reply guys:
Tim Dunn: 22 comments
Rebel: 22 comments
1990: 16 comments
MaxPower: 10 comments
Together, they make up almost 50% of all comments on this article so far. And they'll continue sperging out and act like they're all normal and not deranged lunatics.
+1 ;)
I'm glad you own how obsessed you are now, instead of crashing out and accusing everyone of somehow being in a conspiracy ;)
Julia, it’s not a conspiracy, so much as a grand illusion… *raises eyebrows* +1
oh... it's just the usual weird 'obsessed with me' fake guest poster... I guess "Julie" was busy today?
ok Julia and whoever else you use...
Facts? No, but interesting that you would fudge the numbers. Perhaps MaxPower is right. BTW, ChatGPT says LTD uses 3x the words of the next closest poster.
and you post more cherrypicked data than anyone else on the planet.
You still haven't explained how UA managed to have an earnings lead last year in the first quarter and then end up $1.6 billion in the hole compared to DL by the end of the year.
You love to cling to the earnings advantage that UA had this quarter but don't bother to tell us the additional debt that UA has taken...
and you post more cherrypicked data than anyone else on the planet.
You still haven't explained how UA managed to have an earnings lead last year in the first quarter and then end up $1.6 billion in the hole compared to DL by the end of the year.
You love to cling to the earnings advantage that UA had this quarter but don't bother to tell us the additional debt that UA has taken on and the sale-leaseback transactions merely artificially increased their earnings at the expense of debt.
The real issue is that people like you and Mark and a few others treat United Airlines better than your mother; you can't stand if anyone - esp. me - dares say anything negative about UA even though I consistently post facts that you argue against by posting even more cherrypicked data.
Ben knows exactly what he is doing - and my goal WILL ALWAYS be to make sure that pathologically defective people like you will never enjoy the chest beating that you - just like your boss Scott Kirby - desperately desires.
and Max just can't stand that I have and post insights into the industry which he so much wishes he could make. He has posted over and over that his goal is to get me off of aviation chat sites.
and if you, rebel, were serious about dropping the temperature, you would drop the L that you use - but you aren't the least bit serious - and so I will beat the crap out of you every day and 16 times on Saturday to prove that you are nothing more than you are deluded and incapable of admitting the truth about a world that you don't want to admit.
Wow! A telling rant. Someone (TD/Julia) is understandably frustrated.
"You love to cling to the earnings advantage that UA had this quarter"
No, DL had the earnings advantage in Q2, UA in Q1. "Mav, we got a little problem up here. That data really screwed him/her up. I don't think he can make it back."
Its so funny how you guys are so wrapped up who's bigger, who's better, who makes more money, etc. As if any of this puts a dime in your pockets. Get a life or a hobby.
I think you found your own hobby, fellow commenter
Calm down
Jr, think of it this way, most readers of blogs like this, stumble upon an occasional article, find what they need, and don’t ever even look at comments, much less, contribute. Those that actively and regularly engage with others, debate, banter, even heated, are enjoying themselves. Let them. Have a nice weekend!
As Tim himself in another thread, we can attribute DL's profits to the refinery and credit card revenue. I'll throw in ATL and the other fortress hubs that have no meaningful competition, not even cross-town airports.
What he implies, without realizing it, is that DL profits are not because people will spend more to fly with them.
They do well in fortress hubs, but they don't do as well competing. This is evidenced with their...
As Tim himself in another thread, we can attribute DL's profits to the refinery and credit card revenue. I'll throw in ATL and the other fortress hubs that have no meaningful competition, not even cross-town airports.
What he implies, without realizing it, is that DL profits are not because people will spend more to fly with them.
They do well in fortress hubs, but they don't do as well competing. This is evidenced with their struggle in SEA, where they can barely break 20% share against what they thought would be a much a weaker AS. As pointed out most recently in The Air Show, SEA has SLA PRASM 15% below the rest of the system average and their dreams of TPAC gateway are quickly fizzling, as even TPE is rumored to move to another hub. They have been reduced to adding flights that copy AS, as shown by their recent SEA-Europe adds. No more vision of their own.
Additionally, look to NYC, where UA continues to grow larger than DL. DL has cut three flights to Europe. Yes they were to Star hubs, but these are flights from NYC, a business capital of the world. DL didn't even bother to apply for a HND slot out of JFK, and now UA is starting to fly NYC-ICN before DL, even with the power of a SkyTeam hub at the other end.
Look to all of the stations DL has closed over the years, dismantling the Asian network in the face of UA competition, taking their Asian network down to four cities.
Look at LAX, where in spite of all the energy and attention they've poured into the station, they have 2% advantage over UA, even though UA has SFO just up the road.
So yes, DL is profitable, thanks to AMEX, the refinery, and ATL, but not because they do well against competition.
Well put!
Incoming Timcel misinformation in 3, 2, 1…
Well done, fellas. Up to 120! Think we’ll break 150? 200?? Keep the dream alive. Keep… climbing? Tim?
all that keyboard banging and you can't admit that DL has the revenue to grow in the most competitive markets.
and you know what? they got all that revenue legally.
So WTH has UA (and AA) been doing for the past 48 years of deregulation that they can't figure out how to make as much money as DL does - and not fly as much?
And let us know what hubs UA (and AA)...
all that keyboard banging and you can't admit that DL has the revenue to grow in the most competitive markets.
and you know what? they got all that revenue legally.
So WTH has UA (and AA) been doing for the past 48 years of deregulation that they can't figure out how to make as much money as DL does - and not fly as much?
And let us know what hubs UA (and AA) have entered where another carrier- often a lower cost carrier - is larger and DL ended taking share?
and you incessant claims about UA's "supremacy" in NYC prove that you really don't get it.
UA flies 10% more ASMs than DL and gets half of the profits.
and the hypocrisy is stunning. You crow about the advantage that UA has in NYC - but it is a whole lot less than the 2% that DL has in LAX.
in complete contrast, UA execs have trash talked the competition - and yet DL has ended up "winning more" against NK and B6 while UA salivates about getting back into JFK; UA was convinced it could push AA out of ORD - and they failed at that.
What you really can't stand is that DL HAS FIGURED out a formula that works and UA's financial position relative to DL keeps getting worse.
and DL HAS COMPETED very successfully in some of the toughest markets in the US something that UA can only wish it could do as well as DL
Tim, I seem to have hit a nerve even though it doesn’t seem like you read or absorbed either of my comments.
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-unsettled-transpacific/id1735858856?i=1000778014432
This week's Air Show was perfectly timed and does a great job discussing how DL got to such a relatively weak situation over the Pacific, ending up in a position in where they like won't ever catch up to UA, as UA expands their lead.
With UA serving dozens of routes across the Pacific, Delta, until June, served *four*. HKG brings them to five. MNL in a year will make six, though the frequencies...
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-unsettled-transpacific/id1735858856?i=1000778014432
This week's Air Show was perfectly timed and does a great job discussing how DL got to such a relatively weak situation over the Pacific, ending up in a position in where they like won't ever catch up to UA, as UA expands their lead.
With UA serving dozens of routes across the Pacific, Delta, until June, served *four*. HKG brings them to five. MNL in a year will make six, though the frequencies in those markets is inferior to UA's, especially when UA offers two separate banks out of SFO.
They discuss how DL can’t decide whether SEA or LAX should be their TPAC gateway, though SEA, as by far their worst performing hub, with SLA PRASM trailing the DL average by 15%, tipping the scales to LAX, even though history shows how many challenges LAX itself has.
How the DL planes are so big they’re really suited for big trunk routes but not for opening stations, making many of the stations outside of MNL/ICN/TYO extremely difficult, as opposed to the 787s UA operates, which they said is the optimal aircraft type. As an example, DL would find a market like CTS, UA's upcoming new Asia destination, extremely challenging, almost guaranteed to lose money, while UA, especially out of SFO, could be profitable.
How DL spent too long focusing on transferring pax through ICN the same way they focused on transferring pax through NRT, putting them further behind UA.
How UA’s SFO hub is the crown jewel of TPAC hubs, putting DL at even more of a disadvantage.
How neither LAX nor SEA are big enough domestic operations to feed large international networks.
The podcast didn't even cite the lagging yield numbers discussed here, though they back up the point that DL has many challenges across the Pacific.
I'm sure I'm forgetting some details, but it's an interesting listen. Tim will love it. lol
We fly United to Asia every year, but this was our first time to do Delta because the prices just couldn't be beat. We had middle seats around us every time. But the flight options were very limited, just once a day and sometimes with absurd connections that could not have been made (especially at Seattle's super slow "smart" baggage carousel system) without global entry.
I welcome Delta's attempt and hope they give UA...
We fly United to Asia every year, but this was our first time to do Delta because the prices just couldn't be beat. We had middle seats around us every time. But the flight options were very limited, just once a day and sometimes with absurd connections that could not have been made (especially at Seattle's super slow "smart" baggage carousel system) without global entry.
I welcome Delta's attempt and hope they give UA a run for their money. UA trans Pacific flights have consistently over salted and inedible food especially coming from the US side, and their narrower seats and full capacity have made for some uncomfortable flights. The Delta flight experience was much better.
It’s good you’ve tried multiple options and found what you prefer. Have you ever considered any of the Asian carriers? If you prefer a more spacious seat and healthy, delicious good, I can’t recommend enough airlines like JAL, ANA, EVA, Korean, Singapore. Some are partners with DL and others with United (and American), so you can earn points with the US carrier by flying the foreign one. If routing from Seattle, quite a few are there. Safe travels!
I would much prefer the Asian airlines if the pocketbook would allow for it . This last year we've gotten to fly Starlux, Eva, and Korean Air but only interasia. I'm not flying out of a major hub, so I always need a connecting US airline which has worked in the past with United/Eva but with limited availability.
Oh, nice! I’m yet to try Starlux. Based in NYC, hoping they’ll start a service to/from here someday to TPE!
I think your interpretation of the yield growth vs capacity growth numbers is off. Typically yield growth is inverse to capacity growth (i.e., the greater the capacity growth, the smaller we'd expect the yield growth to be). In this case, I'd say UA and DL's numbers are indicative of similar performance - UA had less capacity growth so we'd expect higher yield growth, while DL had more capacity growth so we'd expect lower yield growth....
I think your interpretation of the yield growth vs capacity growth numbers is off. Typically yield growth is inverse to capacity growth (i.e., the greater the capacity growth, the smaller we'd expect the yield growth to be). In this case, I'd say UA and DL's numbers are indicative of similar performance - UA had less capacity growth so we'd expect higher yield growth, while DL had more capacity growth so we'd expect lower yield growth. Looking at those numbers, it looks like AA is the outlier there in that they had more capacity growth and also more yield growth.
thank you.
Someone will certainly be here to tell us all that you are a fake user name that I have created but any person with a basic understanding of network dynamics knows that your explanation - which I have also said below - is correct.
AA is seeing some success at getting its revenue numbers back up - but they also are not addressing the cost issue which is why Wall Street analysts do not see what they are doing as positive
No one will say that to Ahmad. Unlike your usual nonsensical Goebbels-esque Delta defenses that are grounded in bluster but reason or data, they made a rational point, made a case, and didn't use your normal "united idiots" or "I hope you're not a real pilot" type incendiary language. Your issue is that your fake profiles mirror your usual incendiary language and attack response vs using reason and data.
It's pretty obvious that Ahmad is not you, Tim.
of course he is not me but I said the exact same thing below. Want me to copy and past it for you?
Of course it is factual and data driven and yet you say it is "Goebbels-esque Delta defenses that are grounded in bluster" just because you can't admit that what I said is accurate.
Doesn't really matter if you are willing to admit it or not.
The carrier that adds the most...
of course he is not me but I said the exact same thing below. Want me to copy and past it for you?
Of course it is factual and data driven and yet you say it is "Goebbels-esque Delta defenses that are grounded in bluster" just because you can't admit that what I said is accurate.
Doesn't really matter if you are willing to admit it or not.
The carrier that adds the most capacity usually has the lowest yield GROWTH metric.
The difference is that AA and DL both knew that UA's capacity dumping exercise had to end - and it has and so both are adding capacity; DL is really only focused on TPAC markets because they clean house against UA in every other part of their network.
AA is getting back at UA and reinforcing what I said which is that none of AA, DL or WN is going to give up market share to UA in the domestic market while UA fixes its negligence of the domestic market while it chases Mongolia and Nuuk and other nonsense destinations, most of which are seasonal and often less than daily on domestic configured narrowbody aircraft.
UA's capacity growth has come crashing down. Their execs said last year they would be slowing their growth over the Pacific which was DL's green light to proceed. UA reported before AA this year and said they would cut their capacity in the 3rd and 4th quarters which was AA's green light to add capacity throughout the fall - and that is what they are doing.
AA can deal w/ the analysts and investors but they aren't ceding anything to UA which I said would be the case.
you know what they say about karma, Max. You should know it first hand.
As ever
Thanks for wasting 8 bluster paragraphs of your life on me
I’m flattered by your prose and impressed by your normal ignorance and ability to write so much without saying anything
Ahh Red team Timmy showing he is biased and can't be trusted with data again...
Invoking Goebbels? Ouch. Now, that IS spicy!!
and yet he hypocritically talks about how I trash talk several of the participants here.
Hypocrisy. Pure and simple.
As I have said - and I mean - I would be happy to have a cooler, calmer online presence but when it comes down to facts and data some people come unglued and start throwing personal attacks rather than admit I was right.
Did you find where I said below that the carrier that adds...
and yet he hypocritically talks about how I trash talk several of the participants here.
Hypocrisy. Pure and simple.
As I have said - and I mean - I would be happy to have a cooler, calmer online presence but when it comes down to facts and data some people come unglued and start throwing personal attacks rather than admit I was right.
Did you find where I said below that the carrier that adds the most capacity usually has the lowest revenue IMPROVEMENT metrics?
once again, DL managed to increase revenue metrics for itself EVEN WHILE ITS COMPETITORS did the same.
The only thing that is really notable is that UA's share decreased as AA AND DL both increased capacity.
It's all going as planned.
"DL managed to increase revenue metrics for itself EVEN WHILE ITS COMPETITORS did the same."
Only because of the large industry fare increases due to fuel prices. It's all relative and DL performed relatively poorly in the Pacific in Q2 2026.
Q2 2026 Pacific
ASM/PRASM/Yield/Load factor (% growth YOY)
AAL: 8.2/15.0/17.3/?
UAL: 4.1/14.0/10.9/2.3
DAL: 8.0/7.0/7.0/-1.0
"I would be happy to have a cooler, calmer online presence"
BS.
DL RESPONSIBLY grew in the Pacific by adding capacity and still increasing revenue metrics including yield.
As much as you and baby Scotty want to complain, DL is going to grow but will not trash the market to do so.
I have said for years that AA is the biggest dumper of below cost capacity; they are the carrier that UA should be targeting - but wait, wait, they threatened to buy them and also...
DL RESPONSIBLY grew in the Pacific by adding capacity and still increasing revenue metrics including yield.
As much as you and baby Scotty want to complain, DL is going to grow but will not trash the market to do so.
I have said for years that AA is the biggest dumper of below cost capacity; they are the carrier that UA should be targeting - but wait, wait, they threatened to buy them and also to run out of ORD and both of those things went up in smoke.
Yes, I do want a calmer online presence - but I am not giving up trash talking COMPANIES. You and others consistently turn discussions and facts and data you don't like into personal attacks.
“ and yet he hypocritically talks about how I trash talk several of the participants here.”
lol
Your reading comprehension is unbelievably low
I said it’s one of your tells for your various guest users and it is
I’m used to your insults despite your angelic “who me? (Bats eyelashes)” stance with Matthew on LALF. ;)
I find your insults quite amusing
But you should be proud
You and goebbels...
“ and yet he hypocritically talks about how I trash talk several of the participants here.”
lol
Your reading comprehension is unbelievably low
I said it’s one of your tells for your various guest users and it is
I’m used to your insults despite your angelic “who me? (Bats eyelashes)” stance with Matthew on LALF. ;)
I find your insults quite amusing
But you should be proud
You and goebbels are/were both great at taking garbage and spinning it into something anyone with common sense and ethics would laugh at
Honestly, Max, how could anyone not do the “who me? (Bats eyelashes)” with Matthew… (Kyle on the other hand…) Uh oh, it’s the weekend…
I think that if they were able to grow SEA more and not rely on LAX, they would be more successful with TPAC growth. I think there are a few reasons Delta is growing LAX-Asia at this time:
1. Alaska: Delta knows that with Alaska intending to use the HA widebodies to grow SEA long haul, DL will have to duke it out in a smaller market than LAX. Also, AS is the larger...
I think that if they were able to grow SEA more and not rely on LAX, they would be more successful with TPAC growth. I think there are a few reasons Delta is growing LAX-Asia at this time:
1. Alaska: Delta knows that with Alaska intending to use the HA widebodies to grow SEA long haul, DL will have to duke it out in a smaller market than LAX. Also, AS is the larger carrier in SEA and there are gate limitations in Seattle if I'm not mistaken. I think growth will be limited on DL ex-SEA
2. American: I think DL is doing this now at a time in which AA has an entire terminal in LAX closed to prevent them from gaining any traction when T5 and the rest of T4 reopen. I think its telling that much of their long-haul growth from LAX has been to overseas OW hubs, most of which AA doesn't serve on its own metal (MEL/BNE are QF hubs, HKG is Cathay's hub, and MNL is PR's hub and PR will soon join OneWorld).
"I think there are a few reasons Delta is growing LAX-Asia at this time"
1. '28 Olympics
2. LAX has more capacity and much better weather.
3. LAX has a much larger O&D market, meaning higher fares in the future once market is established.
Delta can’t win. “They only fly to ICN so stupid” and now “They are flying other places so stupid”
yes, you are right.
are you new to internet chat forums?
don't worry Justin, Tim shouldn't even be on online forums as a "red team" member - he can't comment without bias.
It seems to me that Delta is making enough money that it can afford to take a few risks on new routes. One advantage of flying from Los Angeles to Asia is that the routes tend to avoid Russian air space.
"And you've been CEO of how many airlines?" -- Original quote by DesertGhost.
And all routes flown by US carriers "avoid Russian airspace."
his first sentence is the one that matters.
DL has not wasted financial resources using domestic configured narrowbodies to fly seasonal routes to tertiary cities in Europe.
The SEA hub proves that DL can go into a competitor's hub and succeed and remain a thorn in their flesh.
and AS is a lower cost producer than DL; It is DL that has that advantage over the Pacific compared to UA.
All the signs...
his first sentence is the one that matters.
DL has not wasted financial resources using domestic configured narrowbodies to fly seasonal routes to tertiary cities in Europe.
The SEA hub proves that DL can go into a competitor's hub and succeed and remain a thorn in their flesh.
and AS is a lower cost producer than DL; It is DL that has that advantage over the Pacific compared to UA.
All the signs in the world - including DL execs own statements over the last couple years - and my prognostications for the past several years- have pointed to a significant DL TPAC expansion.
It is upon us and UA execs will wail and pound their breasts but DL is growing in UA's most valuable garden.
LAX is a bigger market than SFO to most Asian markets. He is absolutely right that it makes all kinds of sense for DL to focus on LAX as the foundation of its TPAC growth
Airlines love 'strategic' flying, by their competitors. ;)
Sounding like "Airlines hate this one weird trick..."
"his first sentence is the one that matters."
pick a lane Tim.
You normally tell us how delta is so smart strategically because they don't mindlessly go after market share. Now, apparently, you fully support market share grabs at the expense of profits.
Yes DL is offering 25000 Skymiles for basic economy ticket in LAX-HKG for the majority of summer time which is a strong indication of struggling; meanwhile they are also offering me $149 to upgrade from economy classic to Premium Select on my flight in late August which is another indication.
1. The route is 2 months old.
2. Summer is slow season. Who wants to go to Hong Kong when its 90° with 100% humidity? Especially August/September.
3. Locals will take CX when leaving for the summer.
4. Checking random dates in August shows me DL/UA/CX are all priced equally between all 3 cabins.
Soon to be offered on the hot KSA route too
Still can’t believe Riyadh is even a-thing. Oh, right… the annual comedy festival! Of course! (Quick! Forget JFK-DEL, send KSA the 35K!)
LTD says, "UA is also receiving new aircraft at a faster rate than they ever have - so the combination of new airplane deliveries and reduced capacity will mean that debt will grow as has been happening for the past 2 quarters."
UA got such great deals on their massive Covid aircraft orders that they are actually accretive, and in Q2 UA's net debt actually decreased $263m while DL's net debt increased $51m. Both airlines'...
LTD says, "UA is also receiving new aircraft at a faster rate than they ever have - so the combination of new airplane deliveries and reduced capacity will mean that debt will grow as has been happening for the past 2 quarters."
UA got such great deals on their massive Covid aircraft orders that they are actually accretive, and in Q2 UA's net debt actually decreased $263m while DL's net debt increased $51m. Both airlines' net leverage is about 2.0. UA also announced that they are retiring 80+ aircraft in '27 in addition to the 20 retirements in '26 which will make Delta's fleet the oldest by a wide margin and for years to come. Enjoy those wonderful 717s & 767s.
LTD says, "DL is growing responsibly to Asia/Pacific and they will continue to build on their US industry leading profits as a result. Poor UA is getting squeezed or is it smoked by DL over the Pacific"
All evidence to the contrary, but nice try. ;)
Q2 2026 Pacific
ASM/PRASM/Yield/Load factor (% growth YOY)
AAL: 8.2/15.0/17.3/?
UAL: 4.1/14.0/10.9/2.3
DAL: 8.0/7.0/7.0/-1.0
Yikes!!!
first, UA increased debt in the 1st and 2nd quarters and took out extra debt to increase their cash cushion.
I have said for years that their huge capex was not sustainable and their own actions - not your words - prove I was right regardless of whether you can admit it or not.
Cling to change metrics. AA and DL added TPAC capacity that was faster than UA so UA's share - which...
first, UA increased debt in the 1st and 2nd quarters and took out extra debt to increase their cash cushion.
I have said for years that their huge capex was not sustainable and their own actions - not your words - prove I was right regardless of whether you can admit it or not.
Cling to change metrics. AA and DL added TPAC capacity that was faster than UA so UA's share - which you love to talk about - shrunk.
Get used to it. That will be happening alot over the next few years.
Of course, UA could give up on its PW777s as I said they would have no choice to do and buy lemon 777Xs which will add more capacity and their RASM will fall (which you will ignore) and they will still not have aircraft as capable or fuel efficient as DL's A350s.
Yikes is the body blow that UA will take over the Pacific over the next few years.
and the best part is that DL will still be increasing its financial metrics and won't be called out by analysts as AAnother of its competitors is doing.
Don't worry Tim. Delta will do just fine even if it is just a matter of time.
"I have said for years that their huge capex was not sustainable"
And yet, for the last 10+ years - United's financials and balance sheet have only gotten better. Or as one might say, it HAS been sustainable.
Timcel regularly contradicting himself multiple times daily now, whatever is necessary to defend DL (yes, the company that fired him)
Paul, we get too caught up in Excel. Personally, I think it’s the Stroopwaffle.
Oh, 1990 - I think you're on to something!
I generally find United's coffee relatively meh... but add a Stroopwaffle, and suddenly United's coffee is pretty good.
I’m tellin’ ya… it’s the Stroop! (Biscoff ain’t too bad either. Pretty sure I just have a sweet tooth.)
the complete irony of discussing DL's TPAC expansion is that Wall Street analysts asked AA why it is adding capacity given its poor financial performance.
AA led the big 3 in capacity adds for the 2nd quarter with 5.4% more ASMs, compared to UA's 3.5%.
and yet DL grew system capacity just 1%. TPAC just happened to get an 8% capacity increase which is fully indicative of DL's strategy to grow its TPAC...
the complete irony of discussing DL's TPAC expansion is that Wall Street analysts asked AA why it is adding capacity given its poor financial performance.
AA led the big 3 in capacity adds for the 2nd quarter with 5.4% more ASMs, compared to UA's 3.5%.
and yet DL grew system capacity just 1%. TPAC just happened to get an 8% capacity increase which is fully indicative of DL's strategy to grow its TPAC presence.
DL doesn't give forward capacity guidance but UA has copied DL's strategy by saying that high fuel prices (no duh) and ORD FAA caps limit capacity growth.
In reality, it was UA that crowed for years about how fast it was growing.
it is now AA that is growing the fastest of the big 3 and UA execs are crying bloody murder that their share stealing strategy is coming apart at the seams. UA execs told analysts that they would moderate capacity growth which means that there is a good chance that AA will once again outgrow UA.
DL laid out very clearly its intentions to grow in the Pacific - and that is the only region where it is growing anywhere close to what other carriers are doing.
UA is also receiving new aircraft at a faster rate than they ever have - so the combination of new airplane deliveries and reduced capacity will mean that debt will grow as has been happening for the past 2 quarters.
DL is growing responsibly to Asia/Pacific and they will continue to build on their US industry leading profits as a result.
Poor UA is getting squeezed or is it smoked by DL over the Pacific and AA domestically and to Latin America
Sorry lets just breakdown what Tim said because he is often "creative" in his framing:
"the complete irony of discussing DL's TPAC expansion is that Wall Street analysts asked AA why it is adding capacity given its poor financial performance." - what is ironic about this Tim? Two different airlines with different strategies - clearly DL is also doing poorly in TPAC so its fine to also ask why they are expanding there (not saying...
Sorry lets just breakdown what Tim said because he is often "creative" in his framing:
"the complete irony of discussing DL's TPAC expansion is that Wall Street analysts asked AA why it is adding capacity given its poor financial performance." - what is ironic about this Tim? Two different airlines with different strategies - clearly DL is also doing poorly in TPAC so its fine to also ask why they are expanding there (not saying they shouldn't but asking the question is not ironic).
AA led the big 3 in capacity adds for the 2nd quarter with 5.4% more ASMs, compared to UA's 3.5%.
and yet DL grew system capacity just 1%. (Interesting choice of statistics to compare - Delta is growing the slowest of the Big 3).
"DL doesn't give forward capacity guidance but UA has copied DL's strategy by saying that high fuel prices (no duh) and ORD FAA caps limit capacity growth." - wild to call this UA copying DL, UA always reports after DL so you're basically saying that anytime they say something similar they are copying, but then you added that they said something different (so you're just dumb and don't know your own point) - unless ORD FAA Caps are also limiting DL's growth? But I just checked the transcript, Bastian and co did not say ORD caps are limiting growth so I think you're just wrong here. It is also wild that the airline with an oil refinery that has said for over a decade that they'd use that to insulate them from oil shocks so they can grow during periods of oil price volatility is the one airline not growing.
"In reality, it was UA that crowed for years about how fast it was growing." - This is true
"it is now AA that is growing the fastest of the big 3 and UA execs are crying bloody murder that their share stealing strategy is coming apart at the seams." This is not true - UA's RPMs grew at 5.4% vs AAs 3.6% vs Delta's measly 1%, UA didn't grow capacity as fast as AA (though ahead of DL by a mile) but they did grow share, in fact they were the only airline of the big 3 to have load factor growth. So they are growing share the fastest of the big 3 and their execs can still crowe about it because they are growing faster than their biggest competitor DL.
"UA execs told analysts that they would moderate capacity growth which means that there is a good chance that AA will once again outgrow UA." - in capacity not necessarily market share, revenue, profit or literally anything else. UA's delivery book is also stronger than AAs so who knows what will happen but they certainly have the option to grow faster than AA if the market supports it, if not they just keep retiring the old aircraft.
"DL laid out very clearly its intentions to grow in the Pacific - and that is the only region where it is growing anywhere close to what other carriers are doing." - yes so they are not growing as fast as the others in every other region (that is a bad thing Tim). As also shown by the stats they are growing less fast in TPAC than AA! SO really you're saying they are growing faster in one region than UA, because they launched a new route and increased capacity on one route YoY in Q2. Congrats.
"UA is also receiving new aircraft at a faster rate than they ever have - so the combination of new airplane deliveries and reduced capacity will mean that debt will grow as has been happening for the past 2 quarters." - You literally said it was moderate capacity growth in your line above, why is it now reduced capacity, you aren't even consistent with the facts with yourself within a single comment, how on earth is anyone supposed to have an educated debate with you. Anyway, the UA execs very clearly outlined what is happening here, they are retiring aircraft as well. Flying on the new aircraft is much nicer than flying DLs clapped out 767s Tim I assure you, and for sure the UA execs are betting that people feel that same way that I do - TBD if this happens though of course.
"DL is growing responsibly to Asia/Pacific and they will continue to build on their US industry leading profits as a result." - Yes launching LAX-HKG a route UA repeatedly called out as being an underperformer so much so they added two tag routes to it to boost demand. It is also flying to a major carrier hub of which neither UA or DL is partners with and Cathay dominates everything in and out of HKG. Yeah super responsible decision, can't see how this could possibly go wrong for DL...
"Poor UA is getting squeezed or is it smoked by DL over the Pacific and AA domestically and to Latin America" - of the big 3 in Q2 they had the most RPM growth, highest PRASM growth, highest passenger revenue, lowest CASM growth and lowest income decline YOY of the big 3. Yeah man they are being so squeezed, I have never seen an airline so smoked by an airline over the pacific DL is killing it with its capacity growing faster than its yield over the pacific and AA is destroying UA with its literally projected negative income this year. UA grew domestic revenue at 20.3% vs AA's 17.1% and DL's 15% (Notice how DL is 3rd again?). I've never seen an airline get so smoked domestically Tim, AA is just destroying UA domestically (all big 3 grew their domestic yield at 13% FYI, so the thinking that anyone is smoking anyone is just poor analysis).
Time for once in your life can you respond with facts?
Laughable stuff as always.
You have the conceptual understanding of this industry of a toddler.
if this was true Tim United wouldn't be closing the profit gap, having higher yield growth, having load factor growth and RPM growth than Delta who is basically stagnant. Once again Tim has failed to read real data properly...
You also claimed below to be in the "red team". As soon as you start picking teams it shows that you have bias in what you say so you can't be taken seriously.
the sad thing is that this was all so predictable, and all so pointless - even marginally competent leadership would have avoided ending up in this bind
Your comment makes absolutely zero sense.
DL's Asia service and reputation stem from its acquisition of NW. While in the U.S. domestic market DL was able to establish its premium reputation on the combined route network. it hasn't really been able to do the same for Asian service. NW had by far the worst reputation among transpacific carriers, below the reputation of Pan AM, and later United. In markets like China and Japan, travelers only picked NW for price and NW...
DL's Asia service and reputation stem from its acquisition of NW. While in the U.S. domestic market DL was able to establish its premium reputation on the combined route network. it hasn't really been able to do the same for Asian service. NW had by far the worst reputation among transpacific carriers, below the reputation of Pan AM, and later United. In markets like China and Japan, travelers only picked NW for price and NW had a poor reputation. Reputations last a long time. That reputation has hamstrung DL's service to Asia and resulted in lower yields.
DL's TPAC reputatio is not tied to NW any longer as much as you want to believe otherwise.
DL has the best profitability per seat mile among US carriers; that didn't happen w/ NW.
besides, there were at best a couple of routes that DL or NW flew at the time of the merger that weren't to Tokyo.
DL now flies more flights to S. Korea, Taiwan, China and Hong Kong than it does...
DL's TPAC reputatio is not tied to NW any longer as much as you want to believe otherwise.
DL has the best profitability per seat mile among US carriers; that didn't happen w/ NW.
besides, there were at best a couple of routes that DL or NW flew at the time of the merger that weren't to Tokyo.
DL now flies more flights to S. Korea, Taiwan, China and Hong Kong than it does to Tokyo - which at the time was to NRT.
DL's rebuilding didn't start because of covid and the KE-OZ merger for which approval dragged on for years. Because they are in a JV, DL had no choice but to wait for KE. As OZ is dissolved into KE later this year, DL's TPAC growth takes off.
It is all about timing and nothing about a predecessor's reputation in the region 18 years ago.
United bought SFO from Pan Am and capitalize on software tech boom of early-mid 2010s to grow it's Asian network. As VC money drying up and funding more allocated to hard and deep techs located in PNW and SoCal, Delta definitely would take advantage of this.
Hate to break it to you, but VC money is funding those hard techs from the Bay. As long as Berkeley and Stanford exist, the Bay will be the US’ tech hub for hardware, software, etc.
"As VC money drying up and funding more allocated to hard and deep techs located in PNW and SoCal, Delta definitely would take advantage of this."
I'm sure Delta will try to take advantage of this, but it doesn't change that Delta is a distant second place in the PNW and in third place in SoCal. That doesn't translate well for them though no one doubts they have money to spend.
One does have...
"As VC money drying up and funding more allocated to hard and deep techs located in PNW and SoCal, Delta definitely would take advantage of this."
I'm sure Delta will try to take advantage of this, but it doesn't change that Delta is a distant second place in the PNW and in third place in SoCal. That doesn't translate well for them though no one doubts they have money to spend.
One does have to wonder at what point their Board will actually act in the interest of their shareholders and say "we don't need to lose money for our owners just for sTD to have a talking point about size"
Max, do you really think Delta’s or United’s board even knows or cares about these blogs or the banter among us?
This was highly predictable.
1) There are costs associated with starting routes, which take time to mature and become profitable, often measured in years. Some routes eventually work out and last, while others don't. Anyone remember when United flew to Xi'an and Moscow, American flew to Doha and Beijing, or Delta flew to Mumbai and Cairo?
2) Not all routes are equally profitable. Most airlines already fly to the "low hanging" fruit across the Pacific...
This was highly predictable.
1) There are costs associated with starting routes, which take time to mature and become profitable, often measured in years. Some routes eventually work out and last, while others don't. Anyone remember when United flew to Xi'an and Moscow, American flew to Doha and Beijing, or Delta flew to Mumbai and Cairo?
2) Not all routes are equally profitable. Most airlines already fly to the "low hanging" fruit across the Pacific (Tokyo, Seoul, Hong Kong, Sydney) and yields are high on these routes. But start adding secondary destinations (Manila, Osaka, Bangkok, Melbourne) which produce lower margins, and the overall "Pacific Portfolio" gets diluted. Expect to see this happen to Delta, just like any other airline, as they expand to cities with lower-yield potential and the total margins go down.
3) New routes can cannibalize existing ones. Like any airline, they will pull their own traffic off flights to JV hubs which means they are effectively competing against themselves. IOW - if passengers were flying Delta to ICN to connect on Korean air to [other Pacific destinations]... now they can fly there directly... so the new route doesn't create new traffic, but just shifts passengers from one Delta flight to another. Delta might get a little more money by not sharing revenue with the JV partner, but this doesn't help the bottom-line as any actual "new" passengers would provide - further lowing the potential yields of the Pacific Portfolio, caused directly by the expansion.
Regardless - will be fun to watch certain supporters of certain airlines twist off as the data comes in...
you just argued more for why UA has tapped out growth potential on its TPAC network than that DL won't succeed at its growth.
DL is adding (or re-adding) cities in Asia to its network while it is UA that will have to add the 4th or 5th flight to some markets to keep DL from taking share. It is precisely those subsequent UA flights that will not generate the incremental revenue near as fast...
you just argued more for why UA has tapped out growth potential on its TPAC network than that DL won't succeed at its growth.
DL is adding (or re-adding) cities in Asia to its network while it is UA that will have to add the 4th or 5th flight to some markets to keep DL from taking share. It is precisely those subsequent UA flights that will not generate the incremental revenue near as fast as costs increase.
DL's profit per ASM over the Pacific is higher than UA's precisely because UA has alot of capacity that does not produce good yields but they fly it for size.
DL's fleet is also much more efficient. The A359, even in DL's 275 seat configuration, is larger and more capable than UA's 789s, not just for passengers but also for cargo.
Nobody bothered to note that DL's worldwide cargo revenue growth of 39% far outstrips UA's cargo growth of 22%. The 359 and even more so the 35K will carry cargo at costs that UA can never match - not even if they jump on these fabled reject 777Xs.
you simply don't under JVs. Like a lot of subjects, you would protect your reputation than to try to spin some stupid narrative that DL is at a disadvantage.
regardless, it will be fun to watch you double down when you did a better job of arguing why UA's incremental TPAC growth will be less valuable than DL's.
But that is precisely what DL execs realize and why they are growing. They have advantages that UA cannot match.
thank you for arguing for the red team.
Then why did DL Pacific yield and PRASM lag so far behind UAL & AAL?
Nice job actually offering almost accurate data on cargo revenue and making a valid point that DL had a good quarter. Keep it up.
We know you are incapable of accurately reading data but they were ALL positive.
DL also grew capacity at a faster rate than UA (AA did too) but since DL is half the size of UA TPAC, a double rate of growth means that DL added as much TPAC capacity as UAL did - and still managed to grow yield.
UA has had multiple times since covid where they grew capacity so fast that...
We know you are incapable of accurately reading data but they were ALL positive.
DL also grew capacity at a faster rate than UA (AA did too) but since DL is half the size of UA TPAC, a double rate of growth means that DL added as much TPAC capacity as UAL did - and still managed to grow yield.
UA has had multiple times since covid where they grew capacity so fast that they SUNK RASM but you didn't howl over that.
It is precisely because DL can continue to grow its TPAC network and increase revenue in the process that UA really has no choice but to watch DL continue to regrow into cities that DL hasn't served for a decade.
LTD says, "DL also grew capacity at a faster rate than UA (AA did too) but since DL is half the size of UA TPAC, a double rate of growth means that DL added as much TPAC capacity as UAL did - and still managed to grow yield."
True, but United grew Pacific yield 56% & PRASM 100% more than Delta in Q2 despite being twice the size in the region which is a bad...
LTD says, "DL also grew capacity at a faster rate than UA (AA did too) but since DL is half the size of UA TPAC, a double rate of growth means that DL added as much TPAC capacity as UAL did - and still managed to grow yield."
True, but United grew Pacific yield 56% & PRASM 100% more than Delta in Q2 despite being twice the size in the region which is a bad sign for DL and the WHOLE point of the article.
Q2 2026 % Yield growth YOY
UA: 10.9
DL: 7.0
∆: 3.9/7.0 = 56% higher yield gowth
@Tim: Diminished benefit of adding "secondary" markets vs. returns seen in "primary" markets is something every airline deals with. I didn't deny it's something United has to manage as well. I didn't claim they are immune from it. However - United does have something unique Delta and American don't have - a Guam hub that lets them offer a connection on their own metal to a new destination flown by a 737, meaning less exposure...
@Tim: Diminished benefit of adding "secondary" markets vs. returns seen in "primary" markets is something every airline deals with. I didn't deny it's something United has to manage as well. I didn't claim they are immune from it. However - United does have something unique Delta and American don't have - a Guam hub that lets them offer a connection on their own metal to a new destination flown by a 737, meaning less exposure if the new market doesn't work out. That's a lot less risk than throwing the brand-new, expensive A350-1000 at a market, hoping it works.
"Thank you for arguing for the red team"
Not that we didn't know it already - but you just exposed yourself. I see what I post as "team analyst" - I'm interested in where the data and facts point, regardless of what airline gets made to look good or bad as a result. There is data that shows Delta leads the industry with some parts of the business (particularly the financials). There are other metrics where Delta clearly lags, and other airlines do better instead.
The fact that you finally admit you're for the "red team" shows you know you're not an unbiased airline analyst - you're a Delta Propagandist.
red is not political. but nice try again. Yo udo realize that the FAA is currently run by the red team, though?
If you frequent airports and you can't figure out who the blue and red airlines are, then your pilot cert needs to be revoked for being colorblind - or dumb
and DL is adding primary cities and first flights to a number of those cities; the law of diminishing returns applies to...
red is not political. but nice try again. Yo udo realize that the FAA is currently run by the red team, though?
If you frequent airports and you can't figure out who the blue and red airlines are, then your pilot cert needs to be revoked for being colorblind - or dumb
and DL is adding primary cities and first flights to a number of those cities; the law of diminishing returns applies to secondary and tertiary cities - for UA.
Feel free to post traffic data on the GUM hub but, given that it isn't even connected nonstop to the continental US, tell us what connections UA carries over GUM that other carriers don't carry via other hubs?
and the GUM hub is doing so poorly that UA is having to come up with places to use those GUM based 737s which is why Mongolia exists on UA's route map.
I know it is hard for you to admit that you stepped into the poop which you spread but your argument is more against UA's expanded TPAC growth than DL's - which probably explains why UA is slowing its growth and its execs are pitching a fit that DL is growing.
I can assure you that DL will be a much more rational player over the Pacific than AA will be domestically.
Who ever said it was political when YOU brought it up, saying "thank you for arguing for the red team."
Obviously, you thought I was making an argument why Delta would make lots of money expanding in the pacific (the logo is red... get it?)
Jeez, Tim. Put down the bottle before you post.
You guys were drinkin’ earrrly. Probably should wait until at least after 5PM. Then again, maybe you are in Europe or wherever.
But what about UA’s baggage handling metrics?
Shhhh! Don't bring that up!
Because a 0.27% difference in baggage mishandling is HUGE!
But a 1.40% difference in cancellation rates is SMALL!
(that's the actual number, YTD, between Delta and Southwest)
your pilot's certificate is on the line.
Anyone that thinks a difference of 1% in cancellation rates - which equates to a RANKING difference of 1-2 places is more significant than a 5 or 6 point RANKING difference in baggage handling shouldn't be flying planes.
If the plate says FAF altitude is not less than XXX, you have failed if you are below.
You didn't fly that 764 into a lamp post at EWR did you?
DL's 2026 cancellation rate is 45% higher than UA's.
DL: 17,095
UA: 11,765
∆: 5,330/11,765 = 45%
as noted above, you have no clue about data.
UA's baggage handling is bottom the industry.
DL's cancellation rate most certainly is not
It's amazing to see someone who calls themself an 'analyst' who doesn't understand the concept of a percentage.
This is why he is a failed, fired, fraudulent “analyst” - can’t do basic math, can’t look at numbers objectively. VERY PATHETIC!
I’m confused; is that total number of cancelations? If so, you are missing the denominator (kinda important for a rate). Otherwise, that’s crazy that United and Delta are cancelling over 100% of their flights.
@Tim: Your lack of analytical skills is on display again.
"Ranking" is far less meaningful than differentials. I'll explain it to you like a child - see if you can follow along.
1) If everyone is lousy, and you still rank everyone, SOMEONE can still say, "We're #1!" - but they were still lousy.
2) If everyone is excellent, and you still rank everyone, SOMEONE is still last - even though they were excellent.
Get...
@Tim: Your lack of analytical skills is on display again.
"Ranking" is far less meaningful than differentials. I'll explain it to you like a child - see if you can follow along.
1) If everyone is lousy, and you still rank everyone, SOMEONE can still say, "We're #1!" - but they were still lousy.
2) If everyone is excellent, and you still rank everyone, SOMEONE is still last - even though they were excellent.
Get it?
That's why real statisticians, when doing actual statistical analysis, don't look at the rankings of data points. They analyze the differentials between them (and the trends in any changes in differentials). They want to know how far off the mean, mode, etc. a data point is, not "Who's #1!" ... Statistics 101.
With differential being so much more meaningful, look at the baggage mishandling rate differential between the worst (currently United) and it's peers. United is off Delta's rate (the best of the US "Big 4") by 0.27%. Now look at the differential between Delta's cancellation rate (3rd of the US "Big 4") and Southwest (the best) - it's 1.4%. That's statistically WAY MORE significantly off the industry's best rate than United's mishandled baggage rate is.
Delta's current performance is a bigger statistical outlier than United's mishandled baggage rate. And your childish analysis can't change that.
Earlier reply not showing up... so I'll risk having this posted twice. But maybe it will take two times for Tim to get it:
Tim, you said, "Anyone that thinks a difference of 1% in cancellation rates - which equates to a RANKING difference of 1-2 places is more significant than a 5 or 6 point RANKING difference in baggage handling shouldn't be flying planes."
Everyone thinks a greater than 1% difference is more significant...
Earlier reply not showing up... so I'll risk having this posted twice. But maybe it will take two times for Tim to get it:
Tim, you said, "Anyone that thinks a difference of 1% in cancellation rates - which equates to a RANKING difference of 1-2 places is more significant than a 5 or 6 point RANKING difference in baggage handling shouldn't be flying planes."
Everyone thinks a greater than 1% difference is more significant than a 0.27% difference - because statisticians don't use ranking as a way to compare data. Statisticians know that RANKING differences are not the way data is best compared, but rather DIFFERENTIAL differences are. I'll explain it so it's super easy to understand why:
1) If everyone you are comparing was absolutely horrible, someone would still be able to say, "We're #1!" - even though they are horrible. So the rank doesn't tell an accurate story about the data.
2) If everyone you are comparing was excellent, someone would still be last - even though they are all excellent. So once again, being "last" doesn't carry meaning.
Get it? Think about it, Tim. Pretend AA/DL/SW/UA had on-time arrival rates of 20%/18%/16%/14% (in that order - with AA at #1). Now, pretend they all improved to 90%/89%/88%/87% - in the same order. Under just "ranked" comparisons, there's no improvement - no change. Heck, if AA went to 90%, but DL/SW/UA stayed at 18%/16%/14%, there's STILL no difference when you only look at "ranks". But DIFFERENTIALS (variation from peer's performance, from mean/mode, etc) actually puts the data into perspective - and brings these changes out to light.
Statistics 101.
That is why the 1.4% difference between Delta's cancellation rate (behind the best of the "Big 4" - Southwest) is a greater outlier than United's 0.27% difference in baggage mishandling between United and Delta.
Get it now?
Whatever the reason, we have been enjoying some great dirt cheap award trips to Asia on Delta in 2025 and 2026. This can't be great news for Delta. It's not like Delta is offering low fares to be nice, but instead, out of desperation. Star Aliiance offers endless connectivity on excellent airlines in Asia, while Delta's SkyTeam is a bit of a joke. Anyone who wants to travel beyond ICN HND and HKG is not...
Whatever the reason, we have been enjoying some great dirt cheap award trips to Asia on Delta in 2025 and 2026. This can't be great news for Delta. It's not like Delta is offering low fares to be nice, but instead, out of desperation. Star Aliiance offers endless connectivity on excellent airlines in Asia, while Delta's SkyTeam is a bit of a joke. Anyone who wants to travel beyond ICN HND and HKG is not going to choose DL over UA. Delta is going to need to bleed massive amounts og money to make this Asian expansion succeed.
Yet Tim somehow failed to realize that.
SkyTeam KE MU can't compete with NH JL CX
and yet it all comes out on the bottom line, including by region.
DL still managed to grow its TPAC yield and also makes more money per seat mile than UA while AA looses money flying the Pacific and has for years.
and DL/KE/OZ is larger than either the AA/JL or UA/NH JVs. Even though OZ is not part of the JV, KE will add that capacity to its network so it will become part...
and yet it all comes out on the bottom line, including by region.
DL still managed to grow its TPAC yield and also makes more money per seat mile than UA while AA looses money flying the Pacific and has for years.
and DL/KE/OZ is larger than either the AA/JL or UA/NH JVs. Even though OZ is not part of the JV, KE will add that capacity to its network so it will become part of the JV. DL is adding capacity because it has to in order to keep capacity balanced between DL and KE.
and DL's Japan network is part of the DL/KE JV as will be a number of these new cities.
next?
"and yet it all comes out on the bottom line, including by region."
Q2 2026 Pacific
ASM/PRASM/Yield/Load factor (% growth YOY)
AAL: 8.2/15.0/17.3/?
UAL: 4.1/14.0/10.9/2.3
DAL: 8.0/7.0/7.0/-1.0
Delta miles? flying blue? virgina atlantic? Looking to get back from southeast asia in 2027, four people.
"United Executive Taunts Delta"... so that's what we're calling the 'comment sections' these days, huh? Max, rebel, UA-NYC, Tim, etc., you boys play nice, now, ya hear!
I'm mainly popcorn and cold brew today.
But golly-gee, imagine being so obsessed with an airline that you'd make up entire tomes about how a 14 hour flight with a brand new expensive plane on a competitive route where your airline has the worst frequency of the three US alliances, the least history in HKG of the three alliances and all out of the most competitive large airport in America where your preferred airline, delta,...
I'm mainly popcorn and cold brew today.
But golly-gee, imagine being so obsessed with an airline that you'd make up entire tomes about how a 14 hour flight with a brand new expensive plane on a competitive route where your airline has the worst frequency of the three US alliances, the least history in HKG of the three alliances and all out of the most competitive large airport in America where your preferred airline, delta, is also the least relevant in Southern California... imagine having the mental condition where you feel forced to constantly defend profitability and future domination against every common indicator in the industry.
but the popcorn is ready... actually, kidding... I'm going with some pitted olives today for the peanut gallery
I can go for all three--olives, popcorn, and cold brew. Speaking of 'future domination,' it is almost September... *cracks whip* (cowhide, no nylon). "Golly-gee" indeed!
Which is funny that it acquired Northwest which had a huge Asian presence including at large hub operation at NRT. I remember those days of 747s flying in and out of NRT between the US and other Asian destinations.
Shh, we're not supposed to remember that. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!"
(For real, I thoroughly enjoyed riding in NWA's 747-400 with Delta on ATL-NRT in the 2010s.)
Meanwhile, most major cities in East Asia are already served by airlines that people would actually want to fly with.
True, but from a consumers point of view competition can only be helpful for pricing/availability. China cut back transpacific routes post covid so we're nowhere near 2019 levels.
All Ben has to do to generate click traffic (when he is running low on other ideas) is to hang some red meat for Tim Dunn with a "story" like this. And that guy gets sucked in like a moth to fire.
Tim ... Any assertion can be opposed by merely turning the graph or chart upside down .
Great point, Alert.
Also, "I know you are but what am I?" is another way to use logic to refute assertions that lack evidence.
Q2 2026 Pacific
ASM/PRASM/Yield/Load factor (% growth YOY)
AAL: 8.2/15.0/17.3/?
UAL: 4.1/14.0/10.9/2.3
DAL: 8.0/7.0/7.0/-1.0
Adding PRASM & load factor shows it is even more stark. Yikes!
"Anecdotal"
Yeah, under a lot of the noise of Q2 earnings with fuel, and DL doing better on that and the refinery and what-not - UA did far better than DL did in actually getting people to pay for their more expensive fares that they increased due to the fuel rise.
Both airlines have made it clear they don't intend to reduce them if/when fuel falls back to a more normal level, which is an advantage to UA as there's more proof they were able to get customers to pay that premium.
Delta has definitely lost some of their sparkle and United has greatly improved but United executives arrogance has great surpassed Delta. They are obsessed with negatives or other airlines. Why don’t they just focus on their successes? It’s not a good look.
@Kyle, This was a second hand account of something the UAL CMO supposedly said at an internal meeting and it was hardly provocative especially given the data show it to be true.
Do 'average consumers in Asia' really have much to do with this? Do US carriers really carry a meaningful amount of people based in the likes of MNL and SGN?
Their European route strategies stay away from important affluent metropolitan areas like NRW or Greater Manchester and even massive countries like Poland, almost certainly because they don't seem to be very interested in marketing their flights outside of the USA point of sale. I'd...
Do 'average consumers in Asia' really have much to do with this? Do US carriers really carry a meaningful amount of people based in the likes of MNL and SGN?
Their European route strategies stay away from important affluent metropolitan areas like NRW or Greater Manchester and even massive countries like Poland, almost certainly because they don't seem to be very interested in marketing their flights outside of the USA point of sale. I'd be surprised if they were using a completely different approach for Asia.
Greater Manchester, the important metro region unable to support 2 daily NYC flights
It's as unable to support them as are those minor regional airports like LYS, OTP, DUS, MRS etc. On the other hand, the economic powerhouses of Bari, Santiago de Compostela, and Malta clearly generate unlimited amounts of demand to comfortably support US routes.
I think I'll just get my coffee and popcorn ready today... I can see below this already set someone off
Separate from that, interesting post, Ben. so much more "Cranky Flier" of you than usual
Heaven forfend!
first, a few factual corrections.
DL has never and still does not have the majority of its TPAC capacity to ICN, let alone used for connections. Up until the start of SLC-ICN, DL had more flights on its own metal to Tokyo than ICN; DL has served China continuously for decades and also added ICN. ICN connections are simply not the majority of DL's capacity
second, there are factual reports that DL is filling up...
first, a few factual corrections.
DL has never and still does not have the majority of its TPAC capacity to ICN, let alone used for connections. Up until the start of SLC-ICN, DL had more flights on its own metal to Tokyo than ICN; DL has served China continuously for decades and also added ICN. ICN connections are simply not the majority of DL's capacity
second, there are factual reports that DL is filling up its LAX-HKG flight. we don't know the yield they are getting but there is also information that UA's yields on its LAX-HKG flights were very low before they tagged a LAX and SFO HKG flight on to SE Asia. Tags might deliver some more revenue but they disproportionately increase costs.
It is not a surprise that UA execs will become increasingly on the attack against DL just as they have been w/ other carriers - but reality shows that they aren't the biggest winner against the LCCs and ULCCs as they said they would be and they have failed to drive AA out of ORD; it is very unlikely that UA exec chest thumping will be any more successful against DL than it has been against other airlines.
and if the rumored move of SEA-TPE to LAX and the start of another SEA flight to SE Asia takes place, on top of the start of LAX-MNL and the inevitable start of LAX-ICN on DL metal, UA's reign as the largest international carrier at LAX is over and there is nothing that UA can do about it.
And as much as some want to tout how great UA's SFO hub is - and it is - it is also their near exclusive focus to Asia from SFO that provides DL with huge opportunities. Every UA Asia market from SFO has LAX as one of its largest sources of traffic while DL already is the largest US carrier to East Asia from outside of CA and even the west coast (to also exclude SEA). DL has more capacity to E. Asia from ATL, DTW, MSP and SLC than UA has to E. Asia outside of CA. and DL hasn't even started adding JFK to Asia flights - which are coming - and potentially BOS to Asia as well.
Although there will be all kinds of squeels from the UA fan crowd, DL not only has a financial advantage to UA as DL builds up its Asia presence but DL also has a growing fleet advantage. The 359s are larger and more capable than UA's 789s and the 35Ks will only increase that advantage.
Of course UA execs are going to take pot shots at DL as they have against other airlines; their own track record of taking out competitors is actually pretty poor and their comments about DL's Pacific expansion will be equally as misplaced.
To sum it up for LTD, "Stop fixating on data." You all are ‘cherrypicking’.
I correct factually inaccurate statements regardless of who makes them.
DL's TPAC system is not majority ICN connecting.
DL will use its 35Ks heavily to increase gauge at ICN and KE will likely add new cities like AUS on their 789s which is the smallest TPAC plane in the JV joint fleet
but DL is growing its own network with cities other than to Tokyo and Seoul faster than it is growing ICN capacity...
I correct factually inaccurate statements regardless of who makes them.
DL's TPAC system is not majority ICN connecting.
DL will use its 35Ks heavily to increase gauge at ICN and KE will likely add new cities like AUS on their 789s which is the smallest TPAC plane in the JV joint fleet
but DL is growing its own network with cities other than to Tokyo and Seoul faster than it is growing ICN capacity (which I believe is the point Ben is trying to make) - and THAT is what UA is deathly afraid of because DL will be quite successful in those markets.
"DL's TPAC system is not majority ICN connecting."
it's funny how sometimes ICN is the best thing since sliced bread with you, Tim. Sometimes it's not.
But if ignore Delta's JV, sure... Delta is only ~45% flights through ICN. If you include what you actually said... Yes. Delta's TPAC system (which would include KE) is very much majority via ICN
to also sum up an actual LTD quote: "NOBODY HAS MORE FLIGHTS TO ASIA FROM MINNESOTA AND MICHIGAN THAN DELTA DOES!!! THIS IS AN ACTUAL POINT THAT I KEEP REPEATING THAT MEANS SOMETHING!!!!"
That's East Asia Mr.! ;)
Tim,
can you please provide facts for your ‘factual reports’ comment in paragraph 2 that LAX-HKG flight is filling up?
Ben provides charts and real data from airline reports. I’m trying to view all comments as neutral but you need to do a better job of backing up your ‘facts.’
@ Tim Dunn -- Do you have any thoughts on the actual topic of the post, which is the data presented? Why do you think Delta is the outlier here, compared to United and American? I see a lot of paragraphs about other things, and none about the actual topic.
Ben, Can you do anything about these obnoxious pop up ads or do you maximize profits like those big bad airlines? Two popped up while typing this.
@ rebel -- There shouldn't be pop-ups while you are typing, I'm sorry about that. Monetizing blogs is not easy, and I know the ad situation can be really annoying, and it's a tough balance. He's what I can say -- give me another week or two, and I promise there will be a change that you will really, really, really like. This isn't some BS promise, it's something we've been working on for a...
@ rebel -- There shouldn't be pop-ups while you are typing, I'm sorry about that. Monetizing blogs is not easy, and I know the ad situation can be really annoying, and it's a tough balance. He's what I can say -- give me another week or two, and I promise there will be a change that you will really, really, really like. This isn't some BS promise, it's something we've been working on for a really long time, and it's going to completely change the experience for the most engaged users (like you). We are *almost* there, and are just doing final testing before rolling it out.
Great. Thanks for the response.
As ever, you're the best Ben. thanks for the note to Rebel about this!
Ben,
first, somehow I manage to do just fine with the ads on your site. I know others complain about ads but your site is actually the least obnoxious of the sites I frequent. I think rebel is looking for excuses to back off of his endless defense of UA. Don't cater to him. Make him "suffer" through the horrors of participating in aviation social media. you deserve to get paid.
second, thank...
Ben,
first, somehow I manage to do just fine with the ads on your site. I know others complain about ads but your site is actually the least obnoxious of the sites I frequent. I think rebel is looking for excuses to back off of his endless defense of UA. Don't cater to him. Make him "suffer" through the horrors of participating in aviation social media. you deserve to get paid.
second, thank you for acnowledging that finances matter - since there are so many of your readers that don't want to hear about finances - esp. when it shows that "their" carrier is not spoken of in good light.
but when you resort to cherrypicking data so argue, you do the same dumb tricks many of your readers do. Focusing on only one piece of data to the exclusion of others is cherrypicking and for one period of time, then you stoop to the same level as your readers - and prove you are interested in doing nothing more than creating conflict than presenting well-supported data.
Unlike rebel, I don't need to argue against your data regarding 2Q2026 Pacific yield and capacity data because it is correct and I don't need to tell you to fix it because I don't like it because it is accurate.
I do have to ask you, Ben, if you don't see the problem that DL and AA are adding capacity faster than UA in UA's key region?
and do you also not see that DL managed to get yields up even with a rate of growth twice as high as UA?
In fact, DL's growth was good for DL and also good for UA.
The carrier that adds the most capacity USUALLY gets lower GROWTH rates - but DL still managed to grow yield and RASM.
The very data that you think reflects poorly on DL's Pacific growth validates that they are responsibly adding capacity.
and you - and I - don't know the other part of the equation which is cost. No business - including yours - adds revenue in a vacuum.
DL's Pacific CASM is less than UA's precisely because it uses more labor and fuel-efficient aircraft and at least on the US side benefits from the refinery benefits to get lower fuel costs.
thank you for highlighting that DL is not only responsibly growing its Pacific network but that it is doing it more cost efficiently than AA or UA - even though you didn't present that data.
It is precisely UA execs' fear that DL will succeed at chipping away at UA's crown, or family, jewels and your data confirms that they are well on the way to doing it.
LTD says. "Focusing on only one piece of data to the exclusion of others is cherrypicking and for one period of time, then you stoop to the same level as your readers - and prove you are interested in doing nothing more than creating conflict than presenting well-supported data."
Say Mr. Q2 2026 Net Income. The projection/hypocrisy is friggin hilarious.
2Q2026 income data aligns with full year 2025.
You still haven't explained how UA had a net income earnings advantage in 1Q2025 and ended up $1.6 billion in the hole to DL by the end of the year.
Of course you won't explain it because, just like Ben's data, it is real - and you don't like it.
I've said it repeatedly, but you choose to ignore the obvious.
UA is a high growth phase in which net income isn't the primary concern. UA management has said as this growth slows margins will expand to double digits. Simple concepts especially for an 'analyst'.
DL gonna get smoked across the Pacific. Of course one dogmatic failed “analyst” will soon show up saying he knows better than the UA execs with all their data and industry visibility.
you do realize that DL has made more money per seat mile flying the Pacific than UA for almost a decade - as soon as DL started to dismantle the NRT hub?
UA rushed into add capacity and take the title of largest TPAC airline which it handedly is regardless of nationality - but it operated its TPAC network at breakeven for 3 years pre-covid.
UA still has lots of dead wood in its...
you do realize that DL has made more money per seat mile flying the Pacific than UA for almost a decade - as soon as DL started to dismantle the NRT hub?
UA rushed into add capacity and take the title of largest TPAC airline which it handedly is regardless of nationality - but it operated its TPAC network at breakeven for 3 years pre-covid.
UA still has lots of dead wood in its TPAC network as evidenced the lower profitability per seat mile; seasonal narrowbody routes to Mongolia and holding onto NRT flights only hurts UA's profitability even as UA touts its size.
As I noted in the AA article, UA suffers from the same TPAC disease that AA suffers in the domestic arena - a "need" to be larger than anybody else which leads to an inability to monetize that size - and in fact generates lower profitability per seat mile than DL which has a far more balanced global network.
There are opportunities for DL to grow its TPAC network and UA's higher profits post covid prove that DL can grow. Even apart from its financial strength, DL has a fleet and corporate travel advantage that it will increasingly use to win against UA in the Pacific.
You do realize that UA is over twice the size of DL in the Pacific, right? The cherrypicking is over.
nobody has doubted that for a decade.
The point is simply whether UA's size is large enough to keep DL from winning over traffic on new routes, esp. from LAX where DL is actually the larger in the domestic market and has more corporate contracts there and nationwide.
for TPAC as a whole, UA's size at SFO is also its vulnerability. DL has used its stronger position to E. Asia outside of CA to generate...
nobody has doubted that for a decade.
The point is simply whether UA's size is large enough to keep DL from winning over traffic on new routes, esp. from LAX where DL is actually the larger in the domestic market and has more corporate contracts there and nationwide.
for TPAC as a whole, UA's size at SFO is also its vulnerability. DL has used its stronger position to E. Asia outside of CA to generate revenue that UA cannot carry over SFO and likely will not win over even if it tries.
SFO is a great asset but DL has figured out how to work around the rest of the US market including LAX which is a bigger market for most E. Asia countries than SFO - even before considering the rest of the US which DL carries quite effectively via SLC, MSP, DTW and ATL and soon JFK
Nothing but wishful thinking.
LTD, "Stop fixating on data." You all are ‘cherrypicking’.
"for TPAC as a whole, UA's size at SFO is also its vulnerability. DL has used its stronger position to E. Asia outside of CA to generate revenue that UA cannot carry over SFO and likely will not win over even if it tries.
SFO is a great asset but DL has figured out how to work around the rest of the US market including LAX which is a bigger market for most E. Asia...
"for TPAC as a whole, UA's size at SFO is also its vulnerability. DL has used its stronger position to E. Asia outside of CA to generate revenue that UA cannot carry over SFO and likely will not win over even if it tries.
SFO is a great asset but DL has figured out how to work around the rest of the US market including LAX which is a bigger market for most E. Asia countries than SFO - even before considering the rest of the US which DL carries quite effectively via SLC, MSP, DTW and ATL and soon JFK"
Lol just...entirely made up. Plausible? Yes. Actual determinable fact...no. It's plausible wishful thinking presented as fact.
"Lol just...entirely made up."
Not really. Hate to say it, but he's right.
Until recently, United didn't fly to a single east Asian destination other than Tokyo, from east of the Mississippi; ya know, where the majority US population lives? Delta flew to 3, even with its weaker hubs, and without utilizing New York.
The West Coast is where United (due to fleet limitations and Russian restrictions) has the overwhelming majority of its Asian...
"Lol just...entirely made up."
Not really. Hate to say it, but he's right.
Until recently, United didn't fly to a single east Asian destination other than Tokyo, from east of the Mississippi; ya know, where the majority US population lives? Delta flew to 3, even with its weaker hubs, and without utilizing New York.
The West Coast is where United (due to fleet limitations and Russian restrictions) has the overwhelming majority of its Asian capacity concentrated. Delta actually HAS shown itself to be slightly more proficient in moving non-Tokyo Asian traffic to/from the interior and east of the country, than United has in the last 4yrs.
Stay off the weed wacko.
Delta is a credit card company with a refinery. Their app is the worst, wifi is dial up and IT is from the 60s. They’ll get killed in the TPAC.
Red team Tim is at it again! struggling to read data and adding a nice delta twist because he is part of the red team! If Delta is so good, why did its profit fall more than UAs? why did it grow less than UA, with less yield growth lower load factors and honestly just lower Pax revenue than UA? DL's strategy is falling apart Tim, I hope your bonus doesn't rest on it.
It’s just going to be a matter of time when United criticizes delta for not flying to Asia out of JFK. It would be something like “delta doesn’t even fly to Asia out of New York while we do and even meager 3rd place American does.” Can already imagine Scott Kirby predicting that delta would lose money on JFK-DXB if it decides to start service on that route a few years from now.
Hey now... no need to wait for United to do that; I regularly mention it to Tim on here all the time, and he assures us that JFK will have an a350 base by 2030-ish. Emphasis on the '-ish.' Also, Saudi counts as 'Asia,' right?
https://www.airlinepilotforums.com/delta/151528-network-rumors-facts-68.html
Someone on here claims delta will bid for jfk/bos-hnd if slots open up. Don’t know how accurate this is.
Remember, it is "only a matter of time" before DL absolutely DOMINATES the JFK-Asia market. Siphoning the majority of traffic and revenue from ANA and JL to HND, sending CX and its 3x daily running home crying to her mom. Lol.
Does the 'DM' in 'DMNYC' stand for what I think it does? "DOMINATES."
To be fair, that just opens the door for Delta (or anyone) to point out that United only flies from NYC to 2 east Asian destinations, due to their fleet limitations. Limitations that Delta doesn't have, if it chooses to pursue them (doubtful, any time soon).
It's not the outright W that some position it as.
"They’re unable to fill up their airplanes" didn't United run a 67.2% on LAXHKG in 2025? I think they need to worry about their own problems instead of constantly trying to be Delta.
Can't be Delta where it's not
Pretty sure UA already has talked about their solution to the LF issue on LAX-HKG -- it was called the tags and it's even addressed in this article.
Keep up with the news if you want to make snarky comments.
"Pretty sure UA already has talked about their solution to the LF issue on LAX-HKG -- it was called the tags and it's even addressed in this article."
"addressed" with no data at all, just an exec claiming that its "successful" with no quantification of what that actually means.
Yet someone on another forum, posted the Cirium numbers per airline from 2Q26, and it shows that LAX-HKG is still the 2nd lowest yielding route in...
"Pretty sure UA already has talked about their solution to the LF issue on LAX-HKG -- it was called the tags and it's even addressed in this article."
"addressed" with no data at all, just an exec claiming that its "successful" with no quantification of what that actually means.
Yet someone on another forum, posted the Cirium numbers per airline from 2Q26, and it shows that LAX-HKG is still the 2nd lowest yielding route in United's entire longhaul system, after only IAH-SYD; despite the tags having been on it for 8 months.
So, yeah. Maybe not take this at quite the face value its presented; especially if you want to admonish anyone else?