At the moment, Delta Air Lines is growing across the Pacific, as the airline tries to catch up with United Airlines a bit when it comes to long haul flying. Delta is increasingly leaning into Los Angeles (LAX) as a long haul hub, and we’ve seen the airline add flights to Hong Kong (HKG), with Manila (MNL) service launching soon.
Executives at the Atlanta-based carrier claim the goal is to beat United across the Pacific. So, how does United CEO Scott Kirby, one of the industry’s most outspoken people, feel about that? Apparently he’s not losing any sleep over it (presumably neither his 8.5 hours per night of sleep, nor his daily nap!).
Scott Kirby trash talks Delta’s Pacific expansion
JonNYC shares how United’s CEO had a Q&A with pilots in Denver, and Kirby was asked if he has any concerns about Delta’s growth in Asia and across the Pacific. His answer?
“No. We have the best Pacific hubs. We are 5x bigger than DAL in the Pacific. Markets DAL is opening in Pacific are low yield and half empty, like HKG. They don’t have the right aircraft for the Pacific. SFO is the best Pacific gateway to have. We’ll be #1 across both oceans.”
Kirby certainly didn’t mince words here. In the past when asked about Delta’s Pacific aspirations, he said he has “a lot of respect for Delta, and what they have done, and I take it as a huge compliment that Delta is beginning to acknowledge that they have an equal that they’re worried about and trying to compete with us.” When asked what he wants to beat Delta on, Kirby replied “everything.”
Meanwhile around the same time, Delta President Peter Carter commented on United, saying “we always have to be hungry to win, and I say that because I know United is out there competing against us and replicating the playbook a little bit.” He continued by saying “bring ’em on.”
Several weeks ago, United Chief Commercial Officer Andrew Nocella said the following in an internal meeting for employees, echoing the comments about Delta’s challenges across the Pacific:
“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.”
Delta is the underdog, let’s see how it all plays out
Delta is unarguably a very well run business — the carrier has long been the most profitable US carrier, and that’s because they do some things really well. However, there’s no denying that the airline is also the underdog when it comes to its Pacific expansion, and has a lot of catch-up to play.
Historically, some people have tried to argue that United’s Pacific flying wasn’t actually that profitable. Well, if that’s the case, then you can bet that Delta’s Pacific growth won’t be profitable any time soon either. There’s simply no denying that United is better positioned for Asia with its San Francisco fortress hub, compared to Delta’s split hub strategy (in terms of the number of connecting flights, corporate contracts, depth of network, and local market pricing power).
Am I happy to see Delta expanding to Asia? Absolutely, competition is good for consumers. Will this growth be profitable any time soon? Almost certainly not. Will it be profitable in the long run, by some metric? Well, we’ll see…
With current oil prices, I can’t help but think that some of Delta’s long haul growth will start to negatively impact profitability. There are already starting to be signs of this based on Q2 2026 financial results, when comparing year-over-year capacity growth to yield growth across the Pacific:
- 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 was a negative outlier, and it wasn’t 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. I don’t think that will get any better when Delta launches Manila flights.
And fortunately for Delta, the new Riyadh (RUH) route isn’t considered part of the Pacific, but that route will probably have some hilariously bad economics, at least before you add in whatever subsidies Saudi Arabia is offering. Assuming it does launch in the coming weeks, I think this might be a contender for the “emptiest new long haul route ever launched by a US carrier” award.
Bottom line
Delta is currently growing across the Pacific, and wants to not only take on United, but beat the carrier in long haul flying. That’s a very lofty goal, and Delta is massively the underdog here.
United CEO Scott Kirby is laughing off this growth, claiming Delta’s expansion is low yield and planes are half empty. He argues that Delta doesn’t have the right planes or hubs for the Pacific, and insists United will remain number one across both oceans.
What do you make of Kirby’s comments about Delta’s Pacific growth?
What Kirby is doing is imitating and metaphorically(?) fellating the fat orange Nazi by adopting some of his more unfortunate habits, such as screeching shrilly at those he doesn't like, only to diminish himself.
The masters of this game were Herb Kelleher at SW and Robert Crandall at AA (both brilliant aviation nerds who had it in their blood), and Kirby doesn't seem to realize that he has neither the brains nor the respect to...
What Kirby is doing is imitating and metaphorically(?) fellating the fat orange Nazi by adopting some of his more unfortunate habits, such as screeching shrilly at those he doesn't like, only to diminish himself.
The masters of this game were Herb Kelleher at SW and Robert Crandall at AA (both brilliant aviation nerds who had it in their blood), and Kirby doesn't seem to realize that he has neither the brains nor the respect to pull off this sh!t behavior himself. He's embarrassing. Yogi Berra he ain't.
Perhaps for Christmas, Santa will give him some dignity.
Self admitted I don’t know a lot about how much airlines make on flights/routes but I just flew Delta to Hong Kong and back. From all the news about how poorly this route will do for them I was expecting the flights to be empty but was shocked when both there completely full… (they were selling cheap upgrades however 1k for delta one and $199 for premium select)
Regardless of how right or wrong Kirby is, this is the same guy who was making noise about a likely-legally-impossible merger with AA not too long ago. I only hope Ed responds with "Well, Scott has been talking out of his [tush] a lot lately, hasn't he?"
As a Delta Platinum I’m supposed to be offended by this, but unfortunately Kirby has a point. United has spent years building a Pacific network around probably the best US hub for the job, while Delta is now trying to catch up from LAX and SEA. I’m all for Delta giving it a go (more competition is good for passengers, apparently), but announcing you want to beat United across the Pacific and actually building a...
As a Delta Platinum I’m supposed to be offended by this, but unfortunately Kirby has a point. United has spent years building a Pacific network around probably the best US hub for the job, while Delta is now trying to catch up from LAX and SEA. I’m all for Delta giving it a go (more competition is good for passengers, apparently), but announcing you want to beat United across the Pacific and actually building a network that can do it are two very different things. Kirby could perhaps enjoy being right a little more quietly, though.
If status matters, I'll add, as a current Delta Platinum (formerly Diamond), United Premier Platinum (formerly 1K), and American Platinum Pro (formerly EP), I am not 'offended' by any of those jokers' (Ed, Scott, or Robert) mere 'statements,' whatsoever. However, I'm certainly not 'pleased' when their companies try to deceive us as consumers with deceptive practices and/or fail to operate reliably. I wish they'd stop the noise, just focus on the fundamentals.
This is tabloid drama.
Does Scott Kirby saying negative or positive things about Delta's Asia expansion even matter?
If the quality of growth is good or bad, it doesn't matter what people say about it. The objective metrics like yields and profits are what will tell the story.
This era of 'Celebrity CEO' is so freaking lame. Please stop the pettiness and fake brawling with rivals; just focus on leading reliable, comfortable, reasonably profitable airlines that deliver for passengers (not deceive them with micro-targeted algorithmic unbundled fares, or rely on cop-outs like blaming 'the weather' when you don't properly maintain or staff your aircraft). None of us should have to know or care who Scott, Ed, or any of these jokers even are.
@1990
Agreed. it is so childish and tiresome.
It's really odd how coy Delta is being about their intended Singapore flight, and where they plan to fly it from.
Most bloggers and enthusiasts are assuming Seattle, but Delta's never actually said that. All they've ever officially said is "not likely Los Angeles," in Esposito's interview.
Sure that makes Seattle likely (and yes, I saw JonNYC's tweet), but then when pressed twice for confirmation, Esposito refused to just say "Seattle." Weird, since they didn't...
It's really odd how coy Delta is being about their intended Singapore flight, and where they plan to fly it from.
Most bloggers and enthusiasts are assuming Seattle, but Delta's never actually said that. All they've ever officially said is "not likely Los Angeles," in Esposito's interview.
Sure that makes Seattle likely (and yes, I saw JonNYC's tweet), but then when pressed twice for confirmation, Esposito refused to just say "Seattle." Weird, since they didn't do that with Hong Kong nor Manila, so why this?
I really wonder if that's a hint that they might try something wild like Singapore from New York (their 283 tonne A350-900s can do it with no problem). Unlikely, since they don't even bother doing Tokyo or Seoul.
Detroit's also possible. But then again, they could just as easily do something lame, like fly it from Narita (again) now that they're back at that gateway.
I think they could do any hub except ATL (which is like 9900 miles). Honestly, I could see them doing this from SLC...so put me on that square in the betting pool?
Still...who would they feed from/to at SIN?
"I could see them doing this from SLC"
You're bad at comedy.
"who would they feed from/to at SIN?"
Plenty of options. Delta interlines with Singapore, Thai, Vietnam, Garuda, PAL, and several other southeast Asian carriers with decent ops at SIN. Codeshares with several of them too.
Delta has shown indications of wanting to fly jfk-Seoul at some point was waiting for the Asiana Korean merger to finalize and I suspect now it is waiting for the finalized post integration schedules and future aircraft deliveries.
Delta's TPAC strategy is not going to work. Centered around LAX, where it has so much competition and yields are trash, is one reason. The other challenge for DL is the SEA gateway, which isn't working well for Delta, and is stagnant in its growth.
Delta assumes arrogantly that its growth plans will work because folks will pay a premium to fly it. That's absurd.
Delta's bread and butter long haul is to Europe,...
Delta's TPAC strategy is not going to work. Centered around LAX, where it has so much competition and yields are trash, is one reason. The other challenge for DL is the SEA gateway, which isn't working well for Delta, and is stagnant in its growth.
Delta assumes arrogantly that its growth plans will work because folks will pay a premium to fly it. That's absurd.
Delta's bread and butter long haul is to Europe, not to Asia. It's network across the Pacific isn't small, but it is never going to reach the size and scale of UA's and it cannot, because it has no viable gateway to make that work.
"the SEA gateway, which isn't working well for Delta,"
Based on what, other than your speculation. You don't have the numbers to substantiate that.