Competition in Seattle is heating up when it comes to long haul service, as Delta increasingly plans to operate routes from the airport with its flagship Airbus A350.
In this post:
Delta’s Seattle transpacific routes upgraded to A350
Delta has a hub in Seattle (SEA), whereby the airline flies across both the Atlantic and Pacific. Transatlantic destinations include Amsterdam (AMS), London (LHR), and Paris (CDG), while transpacific destinations include Seoul (ICN), Shanghai (PVG), Taipei (TPE), and Tokyo (HND).
Historically, these routes have primarily been operated by Airbus A330-900neos. However, in recent weeks, we’ve seen the airline shift these routes to Airbus A350-900s:
- The Taipei Taoyuan route has been upgraded as of March 29, 2025
- The Seoul Incheon route has been upgraded as of March 29, 2025
- The Tokyo Haneda route has been upgraded as of May 23, 2025
Delta is increasingly shifting all of its mainland US to Asia routes to being operated by A350s, so it was open to debate whether this decision was specific to Seattle, or more about a cohesive transpacific strategy.
The A350 is considered Delta’s flagship aircraft. So, how have these aircraft upgrades impact capacity?
- Delta’s A330-900neos feature 281 seats, including 29 business class seats, 28 premium economy seats, and 224 economy seats
- Delta’s standard A350-900s feature 306 seats, including 32 business class seats, 48 premium economy seats, and 226 economy seats
- Delta’s new premium A350-900s feature 275 seats, including 40 business class seats, 40 premium economy seats, and 195 economy seats
As you can see, across the board the A350 represents a significant increase in premium capacity, while it represents either a tiny increase in economy capacity, or even a reduction. While both aircraft types have Delta One Suites, the A350-900 has a better product than the A330-900neo.
Delta plans A350 pilot base in Seattle, more growth
JonNYC reports that Delta is planning on opening an Airbus A350 pilot base in Seattle, probably in the spring of 2026. The timing is purely due to the upcoming pilot hiring cycle, since switching opening bases can be logistically complicated, and airlines are strategic about that.
Now, with three long haul routes from Seattle already served by A350s, there’s perhaps merit to a pilot base there, even without additional capacity. However, reading the tea leaves, it sure seems likely that this also means that Delta will expand its A350 service from the airport. Don’t be surprised to see some of Delta’s Europe routes eventually operated by the A350, especially with the airline taking delivery of more of these planes.
DL seems to be looking to make SEA an A350 base it waits on new hire cycle, fall of this year to spring of '26 seems to be the hiring time-frame.
— JonNYC (@xjonnyc.bsky.social) June 3, 2025 at 8:47 PM
This is obviously an Alaska competitive response
Why is Delta suddenly upgrading some of its Seattle flights to A350s, and opening a pilot base there? I suspect the answer is pretty obvious.
Primarily, I assume this is in response to the “battle in Seattle” between Alaska and Delta. Alaska is turning Seattle into a global gateway. The airline has already launched flights to Tokyo Narita (NRT), plans to launch flights to Seoul Incheon (ICN) as of September 2025, and plans to launch flights to Rome (FCO) as of May 2026. Alaska certainly has a very loyal following in Seattle, and also a massive network of connectivity.
Until now, Delta has been the dominant long haul carrier in Seattle, despite not having as loyal of a following in the Pacific Northwest, and also not having as extensive of a connecting network in the United States. Obviously Delta is going to try to compete, though it remains to be seen how this all plays out.
I assume there’s another factor at play here, though. Delta is taking delivery of a number of A350-900s in the coming months. On top of that, Delta is reconfiguring its ex-LATAM A350s to have a more competitive product, so that they can start serving routes that are less leisure oriented.
Now, I am very curious to see how these equipment upgrades work out:
- Delta doesn’t need the incremental range of the A350-900 out of Seattle, unlike for long haul flights in some other markets
- Delta’s Taipei load factors have been abysmal over many months, and I can’t imagine the route is making any money; heck, Delta even keeps having award sales for business class on this route, which almost never happens in other markets
- So I wonder if this capacity upgrade reflects actual success for Delta in the market, or if the airline is essentially going “all-in” to try to gain market share in Seattle, as part of a competitive response
It goes without saying that Delta is a highly successful airline. However, Delta’s biggest success has historically been in fortress hubs, which the airline dominates. Seattle is Delta’s only hub where the carrier is the underdog.
Yes, Delta has the advantage of transatlantic and transpacific joint ventures, an existing long haul network from the airport, and a competitive product. However, Alaska has the advantage in terms of a loyal following, a larger connecting network, and a better cost structure. Furthermore, we know that Alaska is 100% committed to its strategy, and won’t give up in Seattle.
So will there be room for both airlines to compete in the long run, or could we see Delta eventually retreat, and instead focus more on long haul service from Salt Lake City (SLC)?
Bottom line
In recent times, Delta has upgraded its three transpacific routes from Seattle to the Airbus A350-900. Not only that, but the airline reportedly plans to soon open an A350 pilot base in Seattle, suggesting we could see even more A350 operations at the airport.
While this partly reflects that Delta is continuing to grow its A350 fleet, I’d argue that it primarily reflects the carrier trying to become as competitive as possible with Alaska, as the airline increasingly operates long haul flights. Delta is obviously going all-in in defending its long haul network in Seattle. How this plays out in the long run is anyone’s guess.
What do you make of Delta going all-in with the A350 in Seattle?
I will sit the DL back and forth out with the two people who have VERY similar written language do their thing….or is that my imagination
Dear Delta, why is it you never put the 350 on routes I want to fly?
Does anyone know what happened to the disagreement from DL pilots when DL management made the move to have a base at ICN? IIRC, the DL pilots were not happy about that and accused management of wanting to give pilots less hours by shifting everything over to KE pilots on the transpacific route including just having KE operating these routes and DL just on the sales front. Any updates? I do not remember if there was any progress made. Thx.
maybe because it didn't happen the way you describe?
DL's strategic shift has been from operating a hub without beyond rights from Tokyo Narita to operating a hub at Seoul Incheon which is part of a joint venture and Tokyo flights from Haneda where US carriers are not permitted to fly beyond Tokyo.
DL operates as much if not more capacity from the US to HND and ICN than other US airlines do from...
maybe because it didn't happen the way you describe?
DL's strategic shift has been from operating a hub without beyond rights from Tokyo Narita to operating a hub at Seoul Incheon which is part of a joint venture and Tokyo flights from Haneda where US carriers are not permitted to fly beyond Tokyo.
DL operates as much if not more capacity from the US to HND and ICN than other US airlines do from those two countries.
DL pilots want growth on DL metal. Over the past year, DL has added SEA-TPE and this year it is SLC-ICN. DL will add LAX-MEL service later this year after adding BNE last year. Their TPAC network continues to grow.
@Tim Dunn It did happened the way I remembered it but I was asking for an update about it. You can see Ben wrote an article about it. Not sure about what happened later.
https://onemileatatime.com/delta-pilots-jobs-outsourced/
Stanley,
the simple answer is that DL agreed with its pilot union on a new contract just days after Ben wrote that article 2 1/2 years ago. That contract not only far exceeded what AA and UA had both offered their pilots post covid but also added global scope provisions - which basically says that DL has to grow its widebody international operations in line with the total of the growth of all of...
Stanley,
the simple answer is that DL agreed with its pilot union on a new contract just days after Ben wrote that article 2 1/2 years ago. That contract not only far exceeded what AA and UA had both offered their pilots post covid but also added global scope provisions - which basically says that DL has to grow its widebody international operations in line with the total of the growth of all of DL's JV partners. In other words, if the greatest growth potential for DL is to Africa and India, DL's pilots accept that it is ok for DL to grow there than to try to match the growth of DL's JV partners.
Still, DL is adding flights to ICN and is expected to continue to do so.
Also, there is a huge internet myth that DL only flies to its JV partner hubs. DL, as of right now, flies more flights to HND than to ICN. HND is part of the DL-KE JV but there are no connections beyond HND.
AA, DL and UA all have very similar percentages of their TATL and TPAC capacity to JV hubs vs. to non-JV hubs.
@Tim Dunn. Okay. Thanks. That was all I was asking about. So, the simple answer is DL pilots got what they wanted then in the new contract at that time?
yes... sorry for the duplicate response.
Ben's article then came out about the time DL and ALPA agreed to a new contract.
Part of the contract includes shifting from a balance with each JV partner to a global balance that involves all of DL's JV partners.
Stanley,
the simple answer is that DL agreed with its pilot union on a new contract just days after Ben wrote that article 2 1/2 years ago. That contract not only far exceeded what AA and UA had both offered their pilots post covid but also added global scope provisions - which basically says that DL has to grow its widebody international operations in line with the total of the growth of all of...
Stanley,
the simple answer is that DL agreed with its pilot union on a new contract just days after Ben wrote that article 2 1/2 years ago. That contract not only far exceeded what AA and UA had both offered their pilots post covid but also added global scope provisions - which basically says that DL has to grow its widebody international operations in line with the total of the growth of all of DL's JV partners. In other words, if the greatest growth potential for DL is to Africa and India, DL's pilots accept that it is ok for DL to grow there than to try to match the growth of DL's JV partners.
Still, DL is adding flights to ICN and is expected to continue to do so.
Also, there is a huge internet myth that DL only flies to its JV partner hubs. DL, as of right now, flies more flights to HND than to ICN. HND is part of the DL-KE JV but there are no connections beyond HND.
AA, DL and UA all have very similar percentages of their TATL and TPAC capacity to JV hubs vs. to non-JV hubs.
DL also plans to convert SEA-PVG to A350 in NS26. I am expecting to see big changes to DL network at SEA after their gates are re-arranged at SEA this year.
Sometimes AVgeeks overthink it. Step back and look at it from the perspective of the average passenger.
If I'm in a catchment north of the Bay Area and west of the midwestern major metropolitan areas, I'm content to connect through SEA.
If the fare difference is $25+ lower than even a superior Asian carrier ex-SFO or LAX, I will take it. There are plenty of studies on price elasticity and consumer perception for...
Sometimes AVgeeks overthink it. Step back and look at it from the perspective of the average passenger.
If I'm in a catchment north of the Bay Area and west of the midwestern major metropolitan areas, I'm content to connect through SEA.
If the fare difference is $25+ lower than even a superior Asian carrier ex-SFO or LAX, I will take it. There are plenty of studies on price elasticity and consumer perception for both planned and impulse purchases.
And as noted below, it's DL's responsibility as an industry leader (God. I am starting to sound like Tim.) to expand the route network globally, even if it means taking on some rotating loss leaders. That is the nature of a global brand.
Wouldn't this also be a strategy to maximize fleet utilization in a key region?
Instead of the schedule structured to fly a A359 SEA-ICN-SEA, for example, the return equipment could fly a route such as SEA-ICN-ATL to maximize timing to demand and connectivity, and any number of factors. The SEA based crew would still fly back ICN-SEA, but with a different A359 that could have originated from a different hub. Can't do the same...
Wouldn't this also be a strategy to maximize fleet utilization in a key region?
Instead of the schedule structured to fly a A359 SEA-ICN-SEA, for example, the return equipment could fly a route such as SEA-ICN-ATL to maximize timing to demand and connectivity, and any number of factors. The SEA based crew would still fly back ICN-SEA, but with a different A359 that could have originated from a different hub. Can't do the same if you have a mixed fleet in the market. They can do that on TATL, but that's a different market strategy and volume of flights.
I don't think has much to do with AS. DL is too smart to use $300m ish equipment with that kind of silly strategy.
Exactly delta does this a lot in Europe.
They will have a flight fly in from Boston to let’s say Rome, then that flight will fly to Atlanta. The Atlanta inbound will revert to Boston.
Airlines typically do this less so with NYC connected routes to isolate the network from delays.
Delta will likely axe TPE. It's TPAC network out of SEA is not very successful and never has been. DL's operation at SEA is a necessary must have, funded by profits from other hubs. HA has a subpar product on the A330-200s but AS has a massive feed at SEA and a loyal following there.
feel free to provide data to support your claims,
again, DL made more profit per ASM on its TPAC network than UA.
While SEA-TPE might not do as well as other routes, other airlines clearly have weak routes as well or DL could not overperform.
AA loses money flying the Pacific and has for years.
And you do realize that HA not just as an airline but across the Pacific has been losing...
feel free to provide data to support your claims,
again, DL made more profit per ASM on its TPAC network than UA.
While SEA-TPE might not do as well as other routes, other airlines clearly have weak routes as well or DL could not overperform.
AA loses money flying the Pacific and has for years.
And you do realize that HA not just as an airline but across the Pacific has been losing money for years? AS bought a money losing airline so AS can grow its footprint by redeploying assets to other parts of the combined network.
THAT is the definition of not very successful.
and AS does not serve many more cities from SEA that connect to can connect to its international network than DL does.
AS serves SEA-LAX, SFO, ANC etc more often each day than DL but only one flight ideally connects to each international flight.
This is great for Seattle customers - cheaper fares are always welcome. Would love if SFO could get a little competition (or SJC/OAK); prices are usually a good 20% more than LAX/SEA for the same route.
Having lived in Seattle for the last 17 years, I have to say the whole narrative of "Alaska has a local loyal fanbase and Delta does not" is really, really overblown. Are there Alaska fanboys in Seattle? Sure. But there are similar people for Delta. And then there are the majority of people that book the carrier that has the best combination of price, convenience and comfort. Most of the people I know end up...
Having lived in Seattle for the last 17 years, I have to say the whole narrative of "Alaska has a local loyal fanbase and Delta does not" is really, really overblown. Are there Alaska fanboys in Seattle? Sure. But there are similar people for Delta. And then there are the majority of people that book the carrier that has the best combination of price, convenience and comfort. Most of the people I know end up flying Alaska a little more than Delta because they have more flights, not because they love the company. I have been going to a work conference in DC for years. In the past, most of my colleagues took AS because they had a direct flight to DCA, while I tended to take connecting flights to stay with Delta. This year Delta started a direct flight, and half the people switched to DL immediately. A few others did not know it existed and said they would switch next year. If Delta continues to grow their network out of SEA, they will get people to fill those seats.
I'm not sure I'd be super comfortable flying into DCA whatsoever (as a side note). Too many near-misses and the infamous American Eagle crash from a few months ago.
Couple months ago, I snapped a deal, 24k points in Y for this Sept, SEA-TPE on DL.
The 350s are almost certainly a fleet renewal/timing thing but I’m sure DL isn’t feeling warm and fuzzy about Alaska’s adds either. Yes DL doesn’t serve FCO from SEA, but that’s a massive market they’re currently flowing pax over CDG or AMS to connect to.
And yes the Hawaiian A330s aren’t super competitive but that’s also a short-term plan and they’ll be replaced by Dreamliners which are spectacular on the inside.
Alaska plans a...
The 350s are almost certainly a fleet renewal/timing thing but I’m sure DL isn’t feeling warm and fuzzy about Alaska’s adds either. Yes DL doesn’t serve FCO from SEA, but that’s a massive market they’re currently flowing pax over CDG or AMS to connect to.
And yes the Hawaiian A330s aren’t super competitive but that’s also a short-term plan and they’ll be replaced by Dreamliners which are spectacular on the inside.
Alaska plans a dozen long-haul markets by the end of the decade - all on 787 - there’s no way that AS/DL can avoid overlap in that case. Time will tell who comes out on top
here's another DL-related story that's bound to attract interest:
CrowdStrike (NASDAQ:CRWD) noted that it received requests for information from the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission related to the company's recognition of revenue and reporting of annual recurring revenue for transactions with certain customers, the IT outage in July Incident and related matters.
In May, a Georgia superior court ruled that Delta Air Lines (DAL) can proceed with a...
here's another DL-related story that's bound to attract interest:
CrowdStrike (NASDAQ:CRWD) noted that it received requests for information from the U.S. Department of Justice and the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission related to the company's recognition of revenue and reporting of annual recurring revenue for transactions with certain customers, the IT outage in July Incident and related matters.
In May, a Georgia superior court ruled that Delta Air Lines (DAL) can proceed with a lawsuit against CrowdStrike for damages over a July 2024 outage that resulted in 7,000 canceled flights and brought the carrier’s operations to a standstill at its major hubs. The outage had caused global disruption to Microsoft’s (MSFT) Windows operating systems.
(excerpts from Seeking Alpha)
Wow, shilling your own blog on Ben's? Pathetic.
Get your self some help.
It is a news story. doesn't matter the source.
and the story highlights that even the SEC and DOJ think that CrowdStroke might have engaged in inappropriate conduct - and are asking questions.
Go rant on your own blog weirdo
Two points which no one has mentioned or may even be aware of:
- DL was taking penalties on SEA-TPE with the A339 especially during the winter, to the tune of blocking 30-40 Y seats per flight.
- DL’s load factors on SEA-TPE are no longer the lowest; that honor now belongs to Starlux ever since they went from 3x weekly to daily service.
SEA-TPE is only 5300nm, 2000nm short of full range of a330-900 ( Delta got 251T MTOW planes). Why would Delta need to block seats even west ward in winter ? They should be doing this even with cargo and full passengers.
Why would they be blocking that many Y seats?
@Anywhere Yes, but the question is whether DL will keep this route. Historically, DL will reduce or even pull out of the market if it does not make money. Their load factors still cannot compare to the other carriers operating this route. Would you or anyone deliberately choose DL over CI for leisure for example?
All the speculation about Delta “retreating” or “walking away” from Seattle make no sense, regardless of Delta’s profitability or the competitive situation there.
1) Delta needs a certain amount of transpacific flights in order to support its status as a global airline
2) SFO is too dominated by United
3) Delta is already pretty established at LAX, but it is a competitive airport
4) Seattle, where Delta has a bit of a...
All the speculation about Delta “retreating” or “walking away” from Seattle make no sense, regardless of Delta’s profitability or the competitive situation there.
1) Delta needs a certain amount of transpacific flights in order to support its status as a global airline
2) SFO is too dominated by United
3) Delta is already pretty established at LAX, but it is a competitive airport
4) Seattle, where Delta has a bit of a unique presence, makes the most sense for most of these flights
5) I believe Delta has a good amount of corporate business in Seattle
Shifting Transpacific flights to SLC or something won’t work. People actually on the west coast won’t want to backtrack, and there are other options in the east (DTW) for those originating further east.
SEA is fine - Delta has invested a lot in the region, they have great infrastructure at the airport, and they can add new premium planes. Not every hub needs to be a profit cash cow - SEA is strategic enough for Delta to keep it
You make an excellent point regarding SLC.
To get to much of Asia through Seattle on Delta and partner Korean requires a double connection. First, Seattle and then Seoul. The Taiwan flight is timed horrible for any connections from "back east." At this point, flying Sky Team to Singapore, it's better and cheaper to fly through Europe with a single connection.
Which is why Delta is likely to add more TPAC flights from Seattle, eventually. Once Hong Kong recovers enough (and I hear it is close), SEA to HKG will make a return. SEA to SIN won’t be too far behind. Delta will need to fly to both of those cities at some point, and no other hub makes sense. Obviously Korea/Tokyo will provide the bulk of connections to other cities. Maybe one day, Delta will launch Vietnam flights to connect with Vietnam Airlines.
@Anthony Connecting via Tokyo on which airline?
DJT, fair point on Tokyo, there is some muscle memory from when Delta had the NRT hub. Right now, Seoul pulls the weight for Asia connections, but I think longer term, Vietnam Airways could help play that role for Southeast Asia. I am not knowledgeable enough about Taiwan / China Airways to really know what is going on there, but that should also be some kind of gateway as well.
1. DL serves the majority of cities that contribute to Asia traffic from SEA; all of the extra cities that AS serves contribute very little to Asia traffic - which AS will find out.
2. DL and KE serve more cities in the US to ICN than any other carrier or JV does to their Asian hub - which means single connections. SLC-ICN starts next week.
3. UA's SFO hub provides the best...
1. DL serves the majority of cities that contribute to Asia traffic from SEA; all of the extra cities that AS serves contribute very little to Asia traffic - which AS will find out.
2. DL and KE serve more cities in the US to ICN than any other carrier or JV does to their Asian hub - which means single connections. SLC-ICN starts next week.
3. UA's SFO hub provides the best connectivity between the most US cities and the most Asia cities. No one denies that.
4. DL serves more of E. Asia from the eastern US than any other carrier. UA doesn't serve any city besides Tokyo except from California while AA is the only other carrier that serves 3 or more E. Asian cities from a single US city - DFW - but that is half of their entire TPAC system.
5. TPE is being retimed to an afternoon departure in the fall and PVG will get the same pattern next year. It is all possible w/ the arrival of more A350s since the pattern leaves an airplane in each Asian city overnight.
6. LAX-PVG has restarted so DL serves PVG from 3 cities, more than any other US carrier.
7. SIN is widely expected to be DL's next E. Asia add - the question is whether it will be LAX or SEA and with the 359 or 35K.
For the countries it serves in E. Asia, DL is very much competitive with UA. UA"s larger size comes from its larger presence in MNL, HKG and south along the Pacific rim
I’m sure this has something to do with Alaska, but also Delta’s fleet renewal - which is removing the almost 40 767-300ers within the next 4 and a half years. Those A330neos are popping up on more old 767-300er routes out of JFK to Europe. What confuses me is that Delta doesn’t have a lot of 767-300er replacements on order (3 A330neos) so I suspect we will see a new order soon too.
I hope you meant to say "it has nothing to do with Alaska" because it doesn't.
It is simply a byproduct of the age of the 767 fleet and DL's decision to pushback Airbus widebody deliveries during the pandemic.
DL is set to receive two dozen new A339s and 359s in 2024 and 25 alone which allows them to grow and retire 767s - and they still have those 9 ex-Latam 359s which will...
I hope you meant to say "it has nothing to do with Alaska" because it doesn't.
It is simply a byproduct of the age of the 767 fleet and DL's decision to pushback Airbus widebody deliveries during the pandemic.
DL is set to receive two dozen new A339s and 359s in 2024 and 25 alone which allows them to grow and retire 767s - and they still have those 9 ex-Latam 359s which will be available for "premium" int'l flights since they have been used as TATL summer high capacity haulers with SCL and AKL thrown in there.
DL's last 339s have all been built and the last 3 are awaiting delivery.
DL has 4 of its remaining 359 orders due for delivery next year and then the first of the 35Ks which are coming, so far at the rate of 4 year year but also has 20 options for any Airbus widebodies. It is very likely that DL will convert some of those options to more orders and could well accelerate the 35K deliveries esp. in 2027 and beyond.
Tim Dunn on overtime damage control. How much are they paying you?
Oh nothing?
No, I meant what I said. Also your logic about the incoming planes doesn't really answer/fill their capacity gap. The A359 and 35k are significantly more larger than the 767-300ers that are retiring.
(also I am a delta person so this isn't any attack on them)
Things people need to contend with:
1.) Delta doesn't make money on flying, neither do AA/UA. They make up their profits from the co-branded credit cards, Delta does the best at it with Amex.
2.) SEA network is probably not very profitable, but doesn't need to if it's offset with the Amex partnership, which is growing quickly in SEA both from the lounges, but also economic growth.
3.) People in Seattle aren't that attached to...
Things people need to contend with:
1.) Delta doesn't make money on flying, neither do AA/UA. They make up their profits from the co-branded credit cards, Delta does the best at it with Amex.
2.) SEA network is probably not very profitable, but doesn't need to if it's offset with the Amex partnership, which is growing quickly in SEA both from the lounges, but also economic growth.
3.) People in Seattle aren't that attached to Alaska as an airline. It's simply the fact Delta has the worst FF programme in the US with its 500k dynamically priced awards, and Alaska has among the best with lots of sweet spots.
4.) The 50% of people that like Alaska's MileagePlan program will continue to fly Alaska and OW. And the 20 to 25% of people that like the SkyClubs and Delta experience more will continue to fly Delta. Delta in SEA was nowhere near this size a decade a go, the 8 to 9M flyers they have in SEA came from somewhere.
pretty well said.
AS is as large as it is because of it has many more flights to the same top destinations that DL largely flies.
SEA' is AS' only large domestic hub and they connect most of their domestic traffic through SEA; DL has the SLC-SEA-LAX triangle of hubs while UA has DEN-SFO-LAX.
Despite what some people say, we don't know the profitability of ANY airline hubs - but it still...
pretty well said.
AS is as large as it is because of it has many more flights to the same top destinations that DL largely flies.
SEA' is AS' only large domestic hub and they connect most of their domestic traffic through SEA; DL has the SLC-SEA-LAX triangle of hubs while UA has DEN-SFO-LAX.
Despite what some people say, we don't know the profitability of ANY airline hubs - but it still comes down to the fact that DL still generates higher profits and doesn't have any higher share in its "core hubs" which many say support their growth in competitive markets as other airlines have in other hubs and metros, many of which are larger than DL's "core" hubs.
SEA was created as a hub by DL as a replacement for NRT and DL has development SEA into one of the largest US carrier hubs to Asia with the geographic advantage that SEA provides as a TPAC hub.
DOT data shows that DL's TPAC system - which is half the size of UA's in terms of revenue and about on par with the TPAC system of a number of Asian airlines - earned DL $184 million in profits in 2024 compared to a $293 million profit for UA's TPAC system which is twice as large. AA lost money flying the Pacific as it has done for decades.
as for TPAC growth, DL will use its fleet to its advantage - it by far has a more efficient TPAC fleet than UA even now and that will only grow as the 350-1000s come online although they will likely be used from LAX, ATL, and JFK. But the 359 - like the 789 - can fly the entire Pacific Rim and more from SEA so, if anything, DL is committed to doing what it has to do to continue to grow its TPAC hub at SEA - just as it will do from LAX and then add TPAC flights from JFK.
DL has the advantage of well-developed alliance relationships and international product and sales while AS is starting at a much earlier place except for to Hawaii.
Neither AS or DL is going to back off their growth from SEA but I expect that the two will stay much more out of each other's way and leave just enough overlap - which is exactly the way it has worked in the US with DL being far larger to the eastern US.
and if AS picks int'l markets based on family heritage, DL will undoubtedly win on financial metrics.
are you actually this lame to use my username like that, yolo? that's pretty pathetic below.
Somebody is obsessed with me. You only live once, YOLO, you're living this one in a pretty pathetic way.
--The Real Julie
You really need help for your levels of unhinged insanity.
That you'll make up lies about other people to defend your Tim Dunn obsession. I have no idea what you're talking about.
You're completely embarrassing.
You are really really pathetic. And you know exactly what I'm referring to along with your post from "julie" last night in the other article.
This is one of the dumbest and truly pathetic things I've seen. But to be expected by someone that defends Tim Dunn or probably just is him since he has a long history of fake names.
Self-reports continue from Julie. You can't fathom that normal people don't spend their time obsessing over internet strangers like you do, so you accuse everyone else of the same thing.
No one would be liking your crazy comments in real-time except for yourself. It's not that hard to figure out you are the own w/ fake accounts that you've registered to signal boost your delusions.
Mostly good news out of SEA these days, the notable exception being VS' reprehensive decision to revert to Dreamliners less than a year after starting A330-900 service. Two thumbs down.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand... Delta One lounge plus A350 to Asia sounds nice but the point redemption opportunities are still mediocre. I guess Flying Blue promotions is the only somewhat-okay-ish option now?
I don’t remember the last time I saw Flying Blue redemption options for D1 flights to Asia.
@DJT, same here... but I also never saw them for European flights and ultimately gave up on the program, discarding all my remaining points on silly regional flights to SEA. That being said, Flying Blue still seems to have quite the fanbase here and on Reddit, etc. so I might just be doing something wrong.
Delta is not gonna retreat now when Sea-tac is almost full and Seattle is still growing. None of the international gates is on Alaska's side of the terminal. The 'battle' will continue.
Are you implying that DL has an advantage since the A terminal is closer to the International Satellite than the N terminal?
Flew TPE-SEA in October and had over 170 open seats. Flight attendants told me it’s been like that most of the time. SEA now has several flights to Taipei a day now, too. The amount of money Delta must be losing on this route is probably astounding.
Should mention too that FAs told me all but like 5 or 6 passengers in premium seating were friend and family non-rev benefits.
If this is the case, why are their prices still so high almost every day of the calendar?
Delta pilots have known for at least a year that SEA will get an A350 base and have been actively discussing it on other forums. This is no revelation.
and replacing the A339s to Asia from SEA with A350s is simply about a consistent strategy of using A350s from the mainland to all Asia Pacific routes. SEA-PVG will be converted next year. SEA-HND and LAX-HND were also converted to the 359.
DL has no...
Delta pilots have known for at least a year that SEA will get an A350 base and have been actively discussing it on other forums. This is no revelation.
and replacing the A339s to Asia from SEA with A350s is simply about a consistent strategy of using A350s from the mainland to all Asia Pacific routes. SEA-PVG will be converted next year. SEA-HND and LAX-HND were also converted to the 359.
DL has no 330 pilot base in LAX so that part made sense but they do have a 330 base in MSP but not a 350 base.
DL's switch to 350s across the Pacific is about getting more premium traffic because of the 350's larger premium cabins (premium select is also larger) but also because the 359s have better cargo-carrying capability. DL did not opt for the highest takeoff weight versions of its 339s.
And the ex-Latam 350s are nearing full conversion to the new DL 40 D1 / 40 PS - 275 total seat configuration which essentially adds 9 TPAC capable A350s to DL's fleet.
Sometimes the most obvious answer seems too easy so a bunch of manufactured theories are thrown in.
The only remaining non A350 route across the Pacific will be HNL-HND which DL would love to swap with something on the east coast (BOS or JFK) but they won't drop a route without the certainty they can replace it.
Since all 4 US airlines want to move or add HND routes, there might be real pressure to change that provision on an equal basis for all US airlines since Japanese airlines can move HND flights but they won't because there is no more space available at peak afternoon times at HND.
Good post. And yet most people here whine that Delta only flies dated 767s internationally... it's ridiculous.
@TD, what's your source for this comment "ex-Latam 350s are nearing full conversion to the new DL 40 D1 / 40 PS - 275 total seat configuration"? If that's true, do you think there is a chance we might finally get a nice A350 flying from ATL to DUB? We had the ex-LATAMs for a while a couple years ago on daily service but now we're back with the old dogs.
@Redacted
Check planesPotter.net
I think it's currently remaining 5 yet to be converted.
there are a couple in mod right now. only 3 or 4 are actually flying.
and the A350 is ideally a TPAC plane but will be used for some TATL flying to fill out the schedule between TPAC flights.
A number of the ex-Latam 350 flights from last year have been upgraded to 339s with extra flights - keeping total seats the same but more premium seats.
I wouldn't expect to see too many 350s...
there are a couple in mod right now. only 3 or 4 are actually flying.
and the A350 is ideally a TPAC plane but will be used for some TATL flying to fill out the schedule between TPAC flights.
A number of the ex-Latam 350 flights from last year have been upgraded to 339s with extra flights - keeping total seats the same but more premium seats.
I wouldn't expect to see too many 350s to Europe but there will be some routes that work - as DTW-AMS has fit well with a DTW-Asia flight for years.
Yeah i don't understand the Taipei route change of equipment its not doing well and now they put the A350 a larger more difficult plane to fill.
Reading the comments I genuinely wonder if DL flies that route for the cargo. Five flights a day from Seattle to Taipei feels…overkill. Especially when the 3 other carriers will probably beat delta out on VFR name brand recognition and premium product quality
Readers, please be assured that this is a genuine question and not a wind-up. As I really know very little about the U.S. - Asia business one question comes to mind: Why do passengers choose a U.S. carrier if there is a much better Asian carrier on the same route?
because airlines around the world tend to outperform with people from their own country and that esp. includes corporate travel contract business of which DL leads the US industry in serving.
as for the incessant comments about DL's profitability in SEA, below, the question still remains as to why no other airline has figured out how to build new hubs like DL has and still generate profitability as good as DL has. The US domestic...
because airlines around the world tend to outperform with people from their own country and that esp. includes corporate travel contract business of which DL leads the US industry in serving.
as for the incessant comments about DL's profitability in SEA, below, the question still remains as to why no other airline has figured out how to build new hubs like DL has and still generate profitability as good as DL has. The US domestic airline industry was deregulated almost 50 years ago, DL was the 6th largest airline then and the largest now by revenue, and has built far more new hubs and grown its own hubs in competitive markets than any other US airline.
and, DL has led the industry in paying its people industry-leading wages, esp. post covid.
Tim, once again I thank you for aiding my efforts to understand your world. I am sure that Ben could not have explained it better himself.
@AeroB13a, Delta One on A350 and access to the upcoming Delta One lounge is pretty compelling, no?
I guess it all depends on whether you're paying cash or using points. If paying cash, I'd probably swing Delta. Points? Finnair JAL is currently reigning supreme for SEA pacific flights.
From a non-avgeek POV, though, @Tim Dunn is 100% correct about this statement: "airlines around the world tend to outperform with people from their own country" Honestly,...
@AeroB13a, Delta One on A350 and access to the upcoming Delta One lounge is pretty compelling, no?
I guess it all depends on whether you're paying cash or using points. If paying cash, I'd probably swing Delta. Points? Finnair JAL is currently reigning supreme for SEA pacific flights.
From a non-avgeek POV, though, @Tim Dunn is 100% correct about this statement: "airlines around the world tend to outperform with people from their own country" Honestly, the number of family/friends even within my own social circle who will fly Delta/United *with* layover versus non-American non-stop international service is shocking to me, but I guess it makes sense when you consider that if you fly infrequently it's maybe seen as safer to keep with US airlines and deal with "easier" customer service.
You have made some very interesting points there Redacted, thank you for your contribution. Every day is a school day and I for one have learned a lot from you and Tim this evening.
it is also a function of loyalty programs. If you fly a US airline domestically - which you have to do since no foreign airline serves domestic US markets - then there is a greater chance of flying that airline for international flights.
and DL gets an outsized benefit from corporate travel even on its international network. It didn't use to get a revenue premium from its international network but says it does now which...
it is also a function of loyalty programs. If you fly a US airline domestically - which you have to do since no foreign airline serves domestic US markets - then there is a greater chance of flying that airline for international flights.
and DL gets an outsized benefit from corporate travel even on its international network. It didn't use to get a revenue premium from its international network but says it does now which means they are very likely outperforming UA in a number of markets. Solely based on size, DL could not have a revenue premium to the industry just based on AA because AA is smaller than DL in international markets. DL is getting a revenue premium on international markets competitive with UA
also, note that HA lost a couple hundred million on its international network so AS has a lot of ship to turn around and reach DL's level of profitability. They just won't be taking moon shots.
Alter ego talking and blowing each other, or actually to yourself.
Eskimo, you are posting like that PJ character used to bro, are you missing Mason so much?
Time, language, upgrade coupons - GUC, SWU, PP; and even if minor - some Asian airlines' cabin temperature is simply too warm. For public sector business travelers, Fly America Act.
@Jason, Fly America Act really does not really require people to fly US based carriers. There are more exceptions than holes in a Swiss emmentaler. Including most airlines from a long list of open skies agreement countries.
The A350 makes a ton of sense for DL on SEA-CDG, SEA-AMS, SEA-ICN, and SEA-HND to make it less lucrative for AS to add those routes (or compete on SEA-NRT).
Outside of that I’m not sure - DL does poorly on SEA-TPE and SEA-LHR outside of 4 months so they could increase capacity but they already struggle with less. SEA-PVG does fine and likely above break-even but not by much, and DL finally added LAX-PVG...
The A350 makes a ton of sense for DL on SEA-CDG, SEA-AMS, SEA-ICN, and SEA-HND to make it less lucrative for AS to add those routes (or compete on SEA-NRT).
Outside of that I’m not sure - DL does poorly on SEA-TPE and SEA-LHR outside of 4 months so they could increase capacity but they already struggle with less. SEA-PVG does fine and likely above break-even but not by much, and DL finally added LAX-PVG so not sure it needs more capacity.
I guess for expansions they can potentially look at SIN and DEL to get there before AS although AS could still hop on those routes and likely take good share if it joined?
Oh, puh-lease. Delta is NOT the dominant ANYTHING in Seattle. Never has been, never will be. Seattle has always been seen and treated by Delta as some third-rate backwater nothingburger, despite all their pretensions and hand-waving. Delta is all about ATLANTA and the US east coast. There is no "battle in Seattle" stop with the fake drama nonsense and marketing BS.
Lots of valid points above about Delta's feints and pretensions that Seattle is somehow...
Oh, puh-lease. Delta is NOT the dominant ANYTHING in Seattle. Never has been, never will be. Seattle has always been seen and treated by Delta as some third-rate backwater nothingburger, despite all their pretensions and hand-waving. Delta is all about ATLANTA and the US east coast. There is no "battle in Seattle" stop with the fake drama nonsense and marketing BS.
Lots of valid points above about Delta's feints and pretensions that Seattle is somehow important to them. Delta doesn't give chit about this part of the country. Seattle has a favorite airline and it sure ain't Delta.
Your post makes zero sense.
Yes, Delta is the dominant longhaul operator in Seattle, both by frequency and seat count. Yes, Alaska and Delta compete significantly to most major cities, as anyone would expect from a dual hub.
Those aren't opinions, they're measurable quantities.
pre-empting TD: just because delta is the most profitable airline overall, doesn't mean that every single strategic decision they make is profitable or even supported by basic first principles
on SEA-TPE: DL is simply not competitive here. TPE -> SEA O/D and Asia -> SEA connecting traffic is dominated by the taiwanese airlines, while US -> TPE has a strong competitor in UA via SFO (esp. given that it has 2 frequencies, one of which...
pre-empting TD: just because delta is the most profitable airline overall, doesn't mean that every single strategic decision they make is profitable or even supported by basic first principles
on SEA-TPE: DL is simply not competitive here. TPE -> SEA O/D and Asia -> SEA connecting traffic is dominated by the taiwanese airlines, while US -> TPE has a strong competitor in UA via SFO (esp. given that it has 2 frequencies, one of which is timed excellently for onward connections in Asia via BR). the only use case that DL is remotely competitive on this route is SEA -> TPE O/D traffic (and the timing of that flight reflects this - 8pm arrival in TPE / 9:40am departure - terrible for connections to/from Asia) but that's a very small chunk of the overall pie on this route (and probably doesn't justify upgauging to the A350). and they STILL have to contend with the taiwanese airlines' excellent reputations, even if they have homefield advantage
i imagine if / when AS launches their TPE flights, they will be partnering very closely with JX. I even wouldnt be surprised if their existing partnership evolves into a JV.
heh Seattle may be a money pit for DL but they'll make up for it in volume!
Stop trying to make Seattle happen. It’s a weird hub. Not large enough to support point to point but it’s much larger pacific neighbors sfo and lax will not have passengers wanting to transit through here as they will want to fly their own nonstops and cut down on time, or fly on more premium carriers from lax and sfo and transfer in Europe or Asia to smaller destinations there.
Seattle is happening whether you like it or not. The Seattle MSA has the 4th highest per capita GDP in the nation and is one of the few West Coast metros to continue growing at a reasonably fast pace in both population and economy.
And Alaska, Delta, or both want to be there for the pickings. Keep in mind Delta's co-branded Amex generates most of its profits, which obviously synergizes well with an upmarket demographic.
...Seattle is happening whether you like it or not. The Seattle MSA has the 4th highest per capita GDP in the nation and is one of the few West Coast metros to continue growing at a reasonably fast pace in both population and economy.
And Alaska, Delta, or both want to be there for the pickings. Keep in mind Delta's co-branded Amex generates most of its profits, which obviously synergizes well with an upmarket demographic.
As long as their SEA network supports people opening Delta Amexes, I don't see an issue with them continuing to stay, they're anyways opening up more lounges this month to further this push.
Where will the new 350-1000’s be used?
Atlanta to Seoul or Tokyo?
Atlanta to India …very likely.
The real question is will JFK also receive it?
Only way I can see JFK getting the -1000s is if Delta launches flights to India (JFK-DEL/BOM) or if they launch flights to Sudia Arabia (JFK-RUH via their Riyadh Air partnership). Otherwise I don't believe anything out of JFK needs the range of a -1000
They plan to return to MNL from LAX from what I hear as they've already applied for slots. That'll give PR a run for their money.
My guess is a lot of ex 744 routes will get it
I can't wait for Timmy to show up because I'm obsessed!
I was crying in my sleep at night when he got banned since it means I couldn't see his comments anymore!
Hi there Yolo, aren't you bored today trying to use my username.
Are you this lame?
--The Real Julie (easy for Ben to see your email is not mine)
Delta just doesn't give off Seattle vibes, ya know?
Delta's Asian-Pacific problem is it doesn't fly to enough destinations and few people want to make a connection in Seoul when they can fly nonstop on United or an Asian airline.
Delta probably needs to admit defeat and walk away from Seattle. Focus on Salt Lake City and Los Angeles. Maybe even add some flights in San Francisco, where Delta has a big premium focus with transcontinental Delta One.
That what they *should* do but being blinded by hubris leads you to make strange decisions...
SLC has miniscule demand to Asia, the new ICN flight is already being reduced from daily in the winter. You don't make money by double connecting 70% of your flight to Asia.
But yes, the Delta network planners should just listen to "FNT Delta Diamond", who cries about lounges not having good enough airport alcohol for their taste buds.
You already have double-connecting customers. Try flying to Taiwan or elsewhere in Asia on Delta through Seattle from east of the Mississippi. Two connections, Seattle and Seoul. It's not an ideal schedule at all. Frankly, if I need to get to Singapore it's almost easier (and cheaper) to fly through Europe with a single connection than to fly Delta.