Delta Air Lines claims that it’s bringing back a transpacific flight in 2025, though I wouldn’t necessarily count on it. I first wrote about this a couple of days ago, but wanted to provide an update, as this flight is now on sale, so the schedule is also published.
In this post:
Delta’s LAX to PVG route to resume in June 2025
Before the pandemic, Delta operated a flight between Los Angeles (LAX) and Shanghai (PVG). That was of course cut at the start of the pandemic.
Flights between the United States and China have been slow to return. Initially that was due to the huge limitations on frequencies between the countries. However, the bigger issue is that demand just hasn’t returned, so even the available slots haven’t been fully utilized. Traffic between the two countries is just a fraction of what it was pre-pandemic.
In 2023, Delta announced plans to resume flights between Los Angeles and Shanghai as of March 2024. The launch date for that was postponed multiple times, with the eventual plan being a route resumption in October 2024. However, prior to the route resuming, Delta fully removed the flight from the schedule, suggesting there was no imminent return for the service.
There’s now an update — Delta claims that as of June 2025, it will resume 3x weekly service between Los Angeles and Shanghai, using the Airbus A350-900. According to what’s now bookable, the 6,485-mile flight will launch on June 1, and will operate with the following schedule:
DL39 Los Angeles to Shanghai departing 11:25AM arriving 4:05PM (+1 day)
DL38 Shanghai to Los Angeles departing 6:20PM arriving 3:45PM
The westbound flight is scheduled to operate on Sundays, Wednesdays, and Fridays, and is blocked at 13hr40min, while the eastbound flight is scheduled to operate on Mondays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, and is blocked at 12hr25min.
So is it possible the route resumes in June 2025? Absolutely. Would I bet on it? Absolutely not, given that Delta has made a similar announcement in the past, but backtracked.
For what it’s worth, Delta currently serves Shanghai out of both Detroit (DTW) and Seattle (SEA), with up to daily frequencies in each market.
With the current schedule, United offers the most capacity between the United States and Shanghai, as the airline flies one daily flight from San Francisco (SFO) and one daily flight from Los Angeles (LAX), on higher capacity jets than Delta.
United resumed the Los Angeles to Shanghai route as of August 2024. Based on current schedule filings, United also plans to resume a second daily Shanghai flight out of San Francisco as of March 2025. Meanwhile American is of course in last place, with daily flights from Dallas (DFW).
LAX is a tricky international market for US airlines
Los Angeles is a market where all of the “big three” US carriers have a significant network, yet no airline has a dominant presence. We’ve seen all three US carriers try their hand at expanding service there, with limited success, with routes constantly being added and removed again.
Based on where things currently stand, I do think United has the dominant position, but even United has canceled some service there.
United’s long haul international destinations out of Los Angeles include Hong Kong (HKG), London (LHR), Melbourne (MEL), Shanghai (PVG), Sydney (SYD), and Tokyo (HND & NRT), on a year-round basis. The airline also used to fly to Auckland (AKL) and Brisbane (BNE), but has axed those routes.
Meanwhile Delta’s long haul international destinations out of Los Angeles include Paris (CDG), Sydney (SYD), and Tokyo (HND), on a year-round basis, as well as Auckland (AKL), Brisbane (BNE), and Tahiti (PPT), on a seasonal basis. We’ve seen Delta handed its London (LHR) service to Virgin Atlantic, while the Auckland service has gone from year-round to seasonal. Personally I’d be surprised if both the Auckland and Brisbane service stick around in the long run.
Bottom line
Delta claims that it will resume its Los Angeles to Shanghai route as of June 2025, though the airline hasn’t yet given an exact launch date, or announced a schedule. If the route does resume, it’s expected to be operated by an A350 with 3x weekly frequencies. Delta otherwise flies to Shanghai out of both Detroit and Seattle.
I’m curious to see if this route actually ends up launching, since it’s not the first time that Delta has made such an announcement, only to delay the launch. The market between the United States and China is tricky nowadays, and I don’t blame airlines for not bringing back more capacity.
What do you make of Delta’s Shanghai flight updates?
Even if US demand is still not there it should work well, there is a lot of demand from South America that is currently taking the long way around through Europe (CVG) and the Middle East (DXB). With the Delta-LATAM JV, there is a lot of potential for S.A.-LAX-PVG traffic.
Still no lax Buenos Aires flight.
That would be great to See a flight from Los Angeles to Buenos Aires
My suggestion if it does happen is could use a 4 time weekly service with Delta airlines ( Monday, Wednesday, Thursday and Sunday)
Aircraft Delta Airlines could use will be aAirbus A350 and An Airbus A330-300
The only one who would know demand is competitor singapore, korean or japanese airlines or cathay pacific.
Singapore for example have 5 daily flights between Sin and PVG. 3 daily flights with PEK and then there’s secondary cities and tertiary served by scoot.
Or how about cathay who had so many a321 serving chinese small cities
demand between the US and China is not the same as demand within Asia.
The Chinese want a smaller aviation footprint between themselves and much of the world.
They subsidized their flag carriers to operate longhaul international traffic which is part of why AA's LAX-Asia operation failed.
DL and UA consistently had very similar total onboard revenue on LAX-PVG pre-covid so the two should co-exist.
If UA is really out of widebody capacity to...
demand between the US and China is not the same as demand within Asia.
The Chinese want a smaller aviation footprint between themselves and much of the world.
They subsidized their flag carriers to operate longhaul international traffic which is part of why AA's LAX-Asia operation failed.
DL and UA consistently had very similar total onboard revenue on LAX-PVG pre-covid so the two should co-exist.
If UA is really out of widebody capacity to grow, then DL's addition of even 3X/week LAX-PVG will not be matched and DL will have two gateways to China from the west coast matching UA's 2 gateways - while DL also has DTW. UA also has PEK so the difference between the two in total China service would be cut to just 4X/week.
China fares are high now but that is true of much of the Pacific. Not having Chinese airlines dumping capacity is good for the entire Asia/Pacific industry.
DL just happens to have the widebody aircraft coming including with the first A350-1000 which could be in the fleet a year from now which would give DL a cost, size and range advantage in adding new service.
It probably didn't help that China was waaaaay slower to open up for foreigners in the aftermath of the pandemic than most other countries. That, and Russian (and North Korean) airspace not being accessible to airlines from the US, causing extra challenges. On top of that, the Chinese economy cooling down and China-American relations cooling down. A nice cocktail for not seeing an increased demand for flights between the two since the Covid pandemic struck.
Delta should’ve started this route daily a long time ago. With its partnership with China Eastern, it can sell many connection flights within Mainland China and surrounding countries. China Eastern was the only airline flight direct ( before United started in August). The airfares are so expensive and most likely sold out. I would love to see some competitions to bring the fare down!
I believe United has not confirmed that the second daily SFO-PVG will be brought back. The UA891/890 on sale is a placeholder, as are all their EWR/ORD/IAD flights to China.
of course they haven't. That's the point.
UA has been selling far more flights to India and China than it actually operates and then pulls all of the excess flights down.
Do you suppose that DL is playing cat and mouse with UA. DL has the widebodies and is just adding flights to elicit a response from UA and then DL turns around and launches yet other routes?
United has significantly more widebodies than Delta, and UA’s lead will increase as the 150 new Dreamliners begin joining the fleet soon.
yes, we know.
Would you like to tell us how many times UA has revised DOWN both its widebody and narrowbody delivery schedules?
And UA's fleet is OLD. They will have to start retiring aircraft - and that may be why they aren't growing now.
BNE is definitely unlikely to last. Route hasn't even launched and they were deeply discounting it on SkyMiles including Delta One seats.
I can see them holding onto AKL seasonally from a coverage perspective. They had alright LFs in the peak season, but it fell off massively with 30 to 50% LFs in the off season.
Delta's lack of a partner in South Pacific really hurts its position there. They were a pretty reasonable competitor...
BNE is definitely unlikely to last. Route hasn't even launched and they were deeply discounting it on SkyMiles including Delta One seats.
I can see them holding onto AKL seasonally from a coverage perspective. They had alright LFs in the peak season, but it fell off massively with 30 to 50% LFs in the off season.
Delta's lack of a partner in South Pacific really hurts its position there. They were a pretty reasonable competitor back in the day when they had their JV with Virgin Australia.
United is also deeply discounting flights to AKL and BNE using Mileage Plus mile you can get to AKL for only 55K miles in coach and 200K in Polaris. Flights to BNE will cost a few more miles but are still heavily discounted and that's during December which is the South Pacific busy season. However I do think DL's LAX-BNE may not stick around long term but I think LAX-AKL will and they already announced they were extended LAX-AKL's season beyond March to May in 2025.
That's not deeply discounted at all by UA. That's their standard award pricing on all routes in Polaris. They charge this all the time on many routes and will get a reasonable revenue with it.
Delta normally charges 500k for these kinds of routes and it was going for 100k to 120k SkyMiles.
Delta is in a rough spot since they'll be left with no South Pacific coverage if they give up. AA is lucky...
That's not deeply discounted at all by UA. That's their standard award pricing on all routes in Polaris. They charge this all the time on many routes and will get a reasonable revenue with it.
Delta normally charges 500k for these kinds of routes and it was going for 100k to 120k SkyMiles.
Delta is in a rough spot since they'll be left with no South Pacific coverage if they give up. AA is lucky to have strong JV partners to cover its lack of network. UA definitely sent too much capacity last winter, but they've rightsized this schedule and will continue to remain dominant with two strong West Coast hubs in LAX and SFO, supplemented by seasonal IAH service.
there is not a single passenger flight between india and china either. their reputattion and traffic took such a big hit after covid nobody wants to go there
No, it's because India is not issuing visa to Chinese nationals. Has nothing to do with covid.
Most routes to China have recovered, except for ones affected by the Russian Ukrainian war.
"nobody wants to go there" - maybe try getting out of your rock and traveling around a bit
"maybe try getting out of your rock and traveling around a bit"
Considering that mainland traffic has dropped between 60-80% for multiple countries on multiple continents, it isn't much of a stretch to say "nobody wants to go there."
The comparatively few that do, are paying through the nose to do so, as I did last may. Traffic is decimated.
"Most routes to China have recovered"
That's not even close to being true.
Like, planetary distance between that and true.
Even net of 767 retirements, DL has more new widebodies to deploy. This route will use at most 1 of the new widebodies DL is receiving.
This isn't the last new route announcement for 2025 and isn't the last for LAX.
With this route, DL could end up with the most US carrier flights to PVG unless UA decides to add something.
DL still will have 3 gateways and the only gateway to China east of the Mississippi River.
If they actually follow through. They've already announced this flight's resumption multiple times, then canceled.
you do realize that UA has repeatedly sold its full India and China schedules for years after covid only to pull it back.
Help me understand what is different about DL adding LAX-PVG and getting wet feet while UA has been blatantly selling flights it knows it cannot operate.
Since you asked, this is the difference: https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/UAL199/history/20241011/1220Z/ZSPD/KLAX
United is flying LAX-PVG. Delta said they would and they are not.
we get that...
the question is what difference there is between UA selling EWR-PVG and EWR-PEK which they are doing for the spring of 2025 even though they have repeatedly sold far more of their schedule than they can operate only to cancel it and DL which has added a single route only to get wet feet.
The difference is simply the hypocrisy of those that want to criticize DL while turning a blind eye...
we get that...
the question is what difference there is between UA selling EWR-PVG and EWR-PEK which they are doing for the spring of 2025 even though they have repeatedly sold far more of their schedule than they can operate only to cancel it and DL which has added a single route only to get wet feet.
The difference is simply the hypocrisy of those that want to criticize DL while turning a blind eye to UA's repeated practices.
Something about getting a log out of your own eye before trying to remove the speck in someone else's.
In case you forgot, the topic is lax-pvg.
Yes. Delta has sold MILLIONS of people flights that never happened or that were schedule changes and so has United. It’s very commonplace to sell schedules 9 months out that no airline intends to operate on that specific schedule.
Of course other airlines have sold seats on routes/flights that have never flown.
But again. Your attempts to broaden the discussion rather than stay on topic are...
In case you forgot, the topic is lax-pvg.
Yes. Delta has sold MILLIONS of people flights that never happened or that were schedule changes and so has United. It’s very commonplace to sell schedules 9 months out that no airline intends to operate on that specific schedule.
Of course other airlines have sold seats on routes/flights that have never flown.
But again. Your attempts to broaden the discussion rather than stay on topic are noted, as usual, it’s your telltale sign to show you don’t know how to respond: change the topic and misdirect the topic.
But lax-pvg is a big route to fly that both United and Delta said they’d be flying for nearly years. United is flying it today. Delta is not.
Delta is also the carrier that was supposedly growing at lax and has the pvg partner
But, to no surprise, delta “grew” only to retreat quickly at lax and United is the carrier flying lax-pvg
we know exactly what the topic is.
Hypocrites never are capable of seeing their own hypocrisy and it is beyond priceless that you are the one that wants to keep beating the issue about DL and LAX-PVG when UA has sold a half dozen routes for months on end that it never started.
So, one more time, what makes what DL is doing with LAX-PVG any different than what UA has done with multiple China...
we know exactly what the topic is.
Hypocrites never are capable of seeing their own hypocrisy and it is beyond priceless that you are the one that wants to keep beating the issue about DL and LAX-PVG when UA has sold a half dozen routes for months on end that it never started.
So, one more time, what makes what DL is doing with LAX-PVG any different than what UA has done with multiple China and India routes for years?
The answer is that Delta got cold feet based on market dynamics while UA has blatantly sold something that it knew it never intended to operate.
The difference is that United never publicly stated they would actually operate any of those flights they were selling, as Delta did by putting out a press release in Aug. 2023 saying they would start flying LAX-PVG in March 2024.
so UA's website is secret and doesn't count?
the depths to which some of you go is astounding
United "blatantly sold something that it knew it never intended to operate" about as much as Delta's did for PDX-HND in Spring 2023 when they asked to make two HND slots flexible.
See page 9 of https://downloads.regulations.gov/DOT-OST-2019-0014-0094/attachment_1.pdf
It is common practice to set inventory on flights to only the highest fare buckets when there is uncertainty regarding whether they will be operated, which is what United is doing with EWR-PVG and what Delta was...
United "blatantly sold something that it knew it never intended to operate" about as much as Delta's did for PDX-HND in Spring 2023 when they asked to make two HND slots flexible.
See page 9 of https://downloads.regulations.gov/DOT-OST-2019-0014-0094/attachment_1.pdf
It is common practice to set inventory on flights to only the highest fare buckets when there is uncertainty regarding whether they will be operated, which is what United is doing with EWR-PVG and what Delta was doing with PDX-HND.
This is in contrast to Delta having a public announcement about resuming LAX-PVG and then backing out.
just stop w/ the hypocrisy.
I can easily find press releases in which UA cited the routes which it hasn't operated.
Selling seats for extended periods of time on routes that do not operate is blatant bait and switch.
Please do find me a press release from UA after March 2020 that states an intention to operate any of the routes it is currently selling but not operating:
SFO-PVG UA890/891
EWR-PVG UA86/87
EWR-PEK UA88/89
IAD-PEK UA807/808
ORD-PVG UA835/836
ORD-PEK UA851/850
SFO-CTU UA8/9
Delta's actually quite weak out of LAX tbh.
I looked at their Pacific LFs for this past year and surprisingly SEA outperforms LAX on many routes, given how everyone writes off SEA as a failed hub. This is perhaps why Delta keeps announcing and then immediately slashing international service from LAX. They grossly overestimate their position in LAX.
In contrast, I can understand why Delta holds onto its SEA operation despite the weak domestic performance....
Delta's actually quite weak out of LAX tbh.
I looked at their Pacific LFs for this past year and surprisingly SEA outperforms LAX on many routes, given how everyone writes off SEA as a failed hub. This is perhaps why Delta keeps announcing and then immediately slashing international service from LAX. They grossly overestimate their position in LAX.
In contrast, I can understand why Delta holds onto its SEA operation despite the weak domestic performance. There are many months where SEA outperforms even interior captive hubs like DTW.
and yet DL has managed to become the largest airline at LAX. how DOES DL manage to support all of these hubs that the internet things DL does poorly at and still manage to generate the most profit among US airlines?
DL reiterated that they will generate 50% of the profits of the US airline industry this year - and, no, the other half won't be from UA.
We also know how well UA did...
and yet DL has managed to become the largest airline at LAX. how DOES DL manage to support all of these hubs that the internet things DL does poorly at and still manage to generate the most profit among US airlines?
DL reiterated that they will generate 50% of the profits of the US airline industry this year - and, no, the other half won't be from UA.
We also know how well UA did with LAX this winter - CF even showed us the charts - which is why they dropped 2 routes from LAX to the S. Pacific this winter.
DL’s lead is a few percentage points? Total share is in the low 20% range? You think that makes them dominant, especially with the international competition?
Yes UA canceled two international routes from LAX, but they still have more international routes than DL, and they have a massive hub just a few hundred miles north, with not one but two large international departure banks.
mark,
I didn't use the word "dominant" but you did... and it is classic "if I don't like the argument someone else is making, then I will change the subject or the facts.
DL IS the largest airline at LAX; as many say, there is no dominant airline at LAX.
UA is considerably smaller than DL domestically not just in LAX but across their system.
You and others are fixated on the notion...
mark,
I didn't use the word "dominant" but you did... and it is classic "if I don't like the argument someone else is making, then I will change the subject or the facts.
DL IS the largest airline at LAX; as many say, there is no dominant airline at LAX.
UA is considerably smaller than DL domestically not just in LAX but across their system.
You and others are fixated on the notion that flying a bunch of longhaul routes is sexier and superior - and yet UA earned less money than DL in 2023 and will do so in 2024 based on current guidance. And let's not forget that UA has yet to agree to a new contract wiht its FAs which will add hundreds of millions of dollars in annual costs if the union is doing its job - on top of a half billion or more in retro.
UA tried to "pee all over the fire hydrant" at LAX and was unable to succeed at some of the same routes that DL is now flying. Who knows if DL will succeed but UA can't afford to keep adding routes just to keep competitors out of markets.
UA had a substantial headstart over the Pacific but it does not and will not have an impenetrable hold on the market that other carriers cannot break.
In the case of LAX-PVG, DL chose not to start it earlier but then added DTW-PVG on a daily basis giving DL a presence to China from the eastern US - and Texas is not included in the eastern US. UA's presence to E. Asia from the eastern US is entirely to Tokyo and every destination is from California. UA has clear strengths but DL does as well and DL will continue to hammer away at markets in the west where it can grow while also developing its eastern US to Asia markets which UA is not doing = likely because the 787 cannot do them.
Instead of repeatedly touting what UA might do IF it gets all of the planes it has ordered before it has to start retiring scores of its old 767s and 777s, face the music that UA has advantages but DL thought hard about what it needed to do to rebuild its presence in Asia post NRT hub and is moving rationally and profitably to do so.
If UA can make money flying to Asia, DL most certainly can as well - and will.
Still such a long way to go, for LAX's China service.
Previously, it was 13 destinations, flown by 9 airlines.
Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Chengdu, Xiamen, Nanjing, Shenzhen, Hangzhou, Jinan, Shenyang, Wuhan, Changsha, and Chongqing.
* Shanghai had China Eastern x2, Delta, American, and United.
* Beijing had Air China x3 and America.
Other airlines were China Southern, Hainan, Xiamen, Sichuan.
SFO also had the first four listed destinations, as well as its own unique few:
Qingdao, Kunming, and Xi'an.
FYI, they have extended the LAX-AKL season again for 2025; it now runs into May instead of ending in March.
China is currently injecting trillions of stimulus into their economy. So it’s speculative as to see if there is any business demand returning next year. Will also depend on US - China relations. This could be a boom or bust.
Otherwise Without business traffic you’re only getting seasonal demand with students studying in the U.S. and the lunar new year.
Pre Covid LAX had a huge number of flights to China. Off the top of my head there must have been over 12 daily on about 8 airlines. Now the entire US -China market is a shadow of what it was.
Chinese airlines are pressuring to increase the route caps and filling every slot, it’s the US airlines lobbying to prevent that. For a long while it’s kept TPAC fares and loads very high.
"it’s the US airlines lobbying to prevent that. For a long while it’s kept TPAC fares and loads very high."
Bingo. Had to pay $4600 for premium economy to Beijing last May. Pre-Covid, I could've gotten business for that, and probably still kept $1500+ in my pocket.
US airlines don't want to go back to those days.
Is it reAAlly the gate renovation at T4 that hinders the recovery, or the lack of planes, or Team Tempe's fear of competition in general?
I think the bigger news at LAX is that UA has actually passed AA in passenger numbers to #2. (DL is #1 in overall passengers numbers, but as you point out, UA has the most international flights and is indeed #1 for international passengers.)
This is what, the fourth announced attempt to bring this flight back?
Glad to see that they haven't given up, but it's getting almost as bad as their "We're still going back to India, honest, we are!" claims.