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. [...]
This discussion thread is connected to our post: How Costly Will Delta’s Asia Growth Be? United Executive Taunts Delta, And The Numbers Aren’t Pretty.
"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.
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.
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?
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 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 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 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.
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.
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!!!!"
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Meanwhile, most major cities in East Asia are already served by airlines that people would actually want to fly with.
Meanwhile, most major cities in East Asia are already served by airlines that people would actually want to fly with.
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.)
"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, 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!
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.
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)
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 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.
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.