Ordinarily I don’t cover individual domestic route additions, but this one from Delta Air Lines is interesting and even a bit puzzling, given the competitive implications (yes, it’s another route that JonNYC predicted, of course).
In this post:
Delta entering crowded Los Angeles to Chicago market
As of June 7, 2026, Delta will launch a new 3x daily service between Los Angeles (LAX) and Chicago (ORD). The schedule for the route hasn’t yet been published, but the expectation is that the 1,744-mile route will be operated by Boeing 737-800s.
I’ve gotta say, I find it mighty strange to announce a new domestic route nearly 11 months in advance, as that’s not something you often see. If Delta saw merit to operating in this market, you’d think the service would start sooner than that, no?
The anticipated launch date is just one day after Delta is expected to start its new route from Los Angeles to Hong Kong (HKG), so perhaps long haul connectivity is one thing being factored in here.
Delta describes the Chicago and Hong Kong routes as deepening the carrier’s investment in LAX. According to Paul Baldoni, Delta’s SVP of Network Planning:
“Launching service to Hong Kong and Chicago from LAX strengthens our presence in two of the world’s most dynamic markets. As the largest global carrier at LAX, we’re continuing to invest in routes that matter to our customers and deliver the premium travel experience that they’ve come to expect from Delta.”
Should American and United be worried?
Los Angeles and Chicago are of course both major markets, so on the one hand, it’s not surprising to see Delta wanting to fly between them.
However, the competitive dynamics here are interesting, as American and United both operate this flight roughly 10x daily, so obviously Delta won’t be able to compete in terms of schedule. The route is also served by Frontier and Spirit, though I don’t think that’s of much concern to the “big three.” In terms of relative hub sizes:
- American, Delta, and United, all have hubs in Los Angeles, though neither airline is really dominant
- American and United have hubs in Chicago, and United has been gaining market share, while American has been losing market share
So, what’s Delta trying to accomplish by launching this route, and especially, by announcing it nearly a year out?
- Is this about Delta growing its presence in Los Angeles more broadly, when that seemingly hasn’t been a major focus for some time?
- Is this just some sort of a flexing competition, and Delta wants to give American and United a bit of a headache?
- Is this about adding connectivity for the transpacific network from Los Angeles, including flights to the South Pacific?
I would think that American would be more impacted by this than United. United is in a stronger financial position, has a more robust global network, and has a significant advantage in Chicago. So I don’t think Delta will be poaching too many United flyers here.
Anyway, I’m curious to see how this all plays out. I just can’t help but scratch my head at how far out this announcement is being made, and wonder if there might be some other strategic play here.
Bottom line
As of June 2026, Delta plans to launch 3x daily flights between Los Angeles and Chicago. This is a market dominated by American and United, with each airline offering roughly 10x daily flights.
I’m curious to see how this plays out, and what the real motive here is, since it’s not apparent to me. Does Delta suddenly have a renewed push in Los Angeles, does it just want to annoy its competitors a bit, or what?
What do you make of Delta launching Los Angeles to Chicago flights?
Count me as one of the Chicago flyers who has been waiting for this! That said, I do wish one of these dailies was out of MDW. Given the lounge at ORD, though, ORD makes more sense...but hoping one day that they have a West Coast option out of MDW.
Delta likely has corporate contracts in LA that want Chicago and Hong Kong. It's similar logic to why United is trying to get back into JFK despite the fact that they aren't going to beat AA or DL there.
first part, correct.
difference between JFK and LAX is that UA needs to acquire B6 in order to gain even a second place position while in LAX DL is already number 1 and it is only UA fans that seem to think that international routes carry much more weight than domestic.
DL carries about 25% more passengers from LAX than UA. In NYC, DL carries 25% more passengers and twice as many domestic passengers.
first part, correct.
difference between JFK and LAX is that UA needs to acquire B6 in order to gain even a second place position while in LAX DL is already number 1 and it is only UA fans that seem to think that international routes carry much more weight than domestic.
DL carries about 25% more passengers from LAX than UA. In NYC, DL carries 25% more passengers and twice as many domestic passengers.
The notion that UA has an advantage in either NYC or LAX is the result of people that can't accept reality - that DL has decided that both NYC and LAX matter and DL has been building so that it is now the largest carrier in both markets.
and is chipping away at Chicago.
I've been at work all day and late to the comments (which I have quickly scanned) but ORD-LAX makes good sense. DL flies to other competitor hubs from LAX such as DEN, IAH, MIA and (former hub) DFW. They even fly to my base, SAT, among other secondary cities. ORD is a major hole in the LAX network. As far as the far advance announcement, I can not say. Does DL have resources allocated already until launch?
What this announcement has shown me is that other airlines have insane fans, not just Delta.
UA just released their earnings and, as I said would be the case, their EWR operational meltdown cost it several hundred millions of dollars already and will keep impacting UA's earnings into the 3rd quarter. Even though they say loads have returned at EWR, yields are clearly down.
UA's results also show that its plan of adding so much capacity is hurting its domestic revenue performance which I also have said over and over...
UA just released their earnings and, as I said would be the case, their EWR operational meltdown cost it several hundred millions of dollars already and will keep impacting UA's earnings into the 3rd quarter. Even though they say loads have returned at EWR, yields are clearly down.
UA's results also show that its plan of adding so much capacity is hurting its domestic revenue performance which I also have said over and over would be the case. UA can't decide to quickly grow itself out of its years-long neglect of the domestic market. and given that UA has repeatedly said it is trying to pressure low cost carriers, UA is trying to chase too many objectives at one time - including trying to deliver margins comparable to DL.
Part of the reason DL is becoming more aggressive w/ UA including with LAX-ORD and LAX-HKG is because DL is trying to fight fewer battles because it has been slowly growing its network in competitive markets over years.
Add in that UA's loads to HKG have been weak, DL knows it, and this is as good of a time as any to start taking back territory that UA thought was its own and which DL never was willing to cede.
Yawns.
Get a life
Probably worth another reminder that UA’s passenger revenue growth continues to outpace DL in 2025, and the gap between UA and DL in international remains larger than the gap between DL and UA.
Funny you mentioned the decline in domestic yield, b/c DL has similar results. Both have hurt their yields with capacity growth, and TRASM declined for both with declines in fuel costs limiting the overall impact.
DL outpaced UA in profits this quarter,...
Probably worth another reminder that UA’s passenger revenue growth continues to outpace DL in 2025, and the gap between UA and DL in international remains larger than the gap between DL and UA.
Funny you mentioned the decline in domestic yield, b/c DL has similar results. Both have hurt their yields with capacity growth, and TRASM declined for both with declines in fuel costs limiting the overall impact.
DL outpaced UA in profits this quarter, but the gap is driven by ancillary and loyalty revenue which credit to them. If you look at Cranky’s revenue analysis for SLA-adjusted PRASM, but UA and DL domestically are damaging yields - it’s not just a main cabin issue as carriers are claiming as WN, AS, and F9 all had yield improvements.
Meant to say the UA-DL international gap remains larger than the DL-UA domestic gap (and that’s with the EWR impact).
So DL returned ahead of UA for this quarter, but the gap continues to narrow. And I wouldn’t attack any airline for blindly adding capacity - DL has mentioned plans to cut domestic capacity again (despite increasing it and not really cutting it after their call in Q1). Both are adding and waiting for the other to blink first.
and the bottom line is that on an apples to apples comparison which includes ALL sources of revenue and COMPARABLE costs - which including UA settling ALL labor agreements, DL handedly leads UA.
I'm not interested in a childish pis78ong contest. I am simply pointing out real facts.
UA's domestic RASM decline is deeper than DL's and may end up being worse than other carriers. UA is simply trying too hard to drive other carriers...
and the bottom line is that on an apples to apples comparison which includes ALL sources of revenue and COMPARABLE costs - which including UA settling ALL labor agreements, DL handedly leads UA.
I'm not interested in a childish pis78ong contest. I am simply pointing out real facts.
UA's domestic RASM decline is deeper than DL's and may end up being worse than other carriers. UA is simply trying too hard to drive other carriers out of the marketplace even as it tries to build the domestic network it didn't pay attention to for years.
capacity cuts for BOTH carriers as well as others in the industry HAVE ALWAYS been planned for mid-August and beyond and are not reflective in current financial reports.
EWR continues to be a huge drag on UA's finances on top of DL taking a commanding share lead in NYC which will continue.
and UA took a $561 million charge to settle w/ its FAs which partly explains its financial underperformance. They borrowed earnings from the FAs for years and have to pay it back now.
They have FIVE MORE unions to settle with EVEN IF the FAs agreed to their contract proposal - which is viewed very negatively by many UA FAs - which will absolutely affect morale and performance.
and with all of the new route announcements DL has made or expects to make, the international route advantage that UA has is shrinking rapidly even though UA is not coming anywhere close to closing the gap w/ AA or DL in the domestic market.
As others have stated, this is about filling a large hole in its LAX network and has nothing to do with ORD.
Having said that, ORD gave DL and Skyteam there own global terminal (T5) with seamless connections and they have reciprocated by adding exactly zero service (looking at you Virgin, Saudia and DL)...
Virgin, in particular, seems like the big void at ORD, though I suspect that between all the service to LHR from BA, AA, and UA, they don't see it as a financially viable option (though Tampa gets a VS flight...)?
I mean. . .DL should hub to 3rd largest US city, why didn't they have that route to begin with. But UA and AA will mainly crush them. Most Chicagoans don't fly DL so it will feed some business contracts but not much else. I will be surprised if it actually happens, isn't flown with a ERJ or cancelled before it takes off. It also might be part of the Olympic sponsorship and after 2028 it goes away.
and yet DL has successfully grown to the largest airline in both NYC and LA, both larger markets than Chicago.
If DL manages to operate a route for 2 years, it will be staying.
And yet is the smallest long haul player at LAX..
incorrect. that would be AA.
and your fixation on longhaul to the exclusion of domestic sounds just like Pan Am's defenders.
You do know where Pan Am ended up, don't you?
in case you haven't figure it out, DL intends to cede nothing in the domestic market to anyone and is growing in the international market - as I said they would.
HKG makes 3 E. Asia destinations for UA just as it is for...
incorrect. that would be AA.
and your fixation on longhaul to the exclusion of domestic sounds just like Pan Am's defenders.
You do know where Pan Am ended up, don't you?
in case you haven't figure it out, DL intends to cede nothing in the domestic market to anyone and is growing in the international market - as I said they would.
HKG makes 3 E. Asia destinations for UA just as it is for DL. Both serve one city in Europe on their own metal. DL serves more cities in the S. Pacific than UA - all on their own metal.
And DL hasn't added its own service to ICN and hasn't added SIN which it will undoubtedly do. UA's tiny little 789 will simply be no match for DL's A350 - in either version.
The notion that UA has an advantage in LAX is already
“Tiny little 789”? Huh? If the size of the plane is all that matters, why doesn’t DL fly A380s on every route. Because we all know the yield and ability to fill the plane with good fares is equally important.
We could talk about DL’s “tiny little” premium cabins, compared to the 64 Polaris seats in the new 789s. UA’s hubs can support that much premium demand. DL’s can’t.
Everything UA has out...
“Tiny little 789”? Huh? If the size of the plane is all that matters, why doesn’t DL fly A380s on every route. Because we all know the yield and ability to fill the plane with good fares is equally important.
We could talk about DL’s “tiny little” premium cabins, compared to the 64 Polaris seats in the new 789s. UA’s hubs can support that much premium demand. DL’s can’t.
Everything UA has out of LAX is in addition to what it has just a few hundred miles north in SFO, the best west coast hub.
DL is already deemphasizing SEA, not even adding HKG from SEA where they would have been the only carrier on the route. They’d rather offer the sixth flight out of LAX, which says all we need to know about the potential of SEA as an international hub.
The AS expansion in SEA has been a gut punch to DL’s plans, which is why you have to cling to DL’s 20% share in LAX and make it sound like complete domination. Same thing with a percentage point more in NYC, in spite of DL’s split hub requiring two airports to equal UA’s one.
World Cup and Olympics?
I think you’ve got it. Might explain the long lead time too.
international routes need long lead times to get slots etc.
Pairing the two announcements together adds to the "heft" of what DL is doing at LAX.
DL has made a number of other int'l route announcements and "coming soon" announcements but these two logically go together.
Paul Baldoni, Delta’s SVP of Network Planning is just trolling Tim Dunn by giving JonNYC more street cred.
Tim, your "source" better be right about the 787-10 or this is going on your bingo card permanently.
the chances that DL will buy 100% Airbus widebodies "forever" is precisely ZERO.
Boeing is nowhere near the position to sell a new widebody model in at least 10 years.
I'm pretty comfortable I will be A-OK without getting word about route announcements at a DL employee rally.
C'mon Tim. Are you really playing the "forever" card?
You know JonNYC can predict that too.
But only in your head that predicts Delta will be "premium" "forever".
The only thing forever now is your bingo card.
We don't need more of the low-class crop dusters. It just goes to show that UA provides 10 dailies, AA provides 9, and the crop dusters none. Well, to hell with them.
and the world doesn't need AA and UA regional jets on major routes such as Houston and Washington DC to the world's largest airline hub but they are there anyway.
you are really frightened that DL might come from not just the world's largest airline by revenue to world's largest by ASMs. Adding a bunch of longhaul routes like ATL-DEL, ATL-TLV, ATL-RUH and LAX-HKG in a pretty short period of time - on top...
and the world doesn't need AA and UA regional jets on major routes such as Houston and Washington DC to the world's largest airline hub but they are there anyway.
you are really frightened that DL might come from not just the world's largest airline by revenue to world's largest by ASMs. Adding a bunch of longhaul routes like ATL-DEL, ATL-TLV, ATL-RUH and LAX-HKG in a pretty short period of time - on top of domestic growth such as LAX-ORD - could move DL's ASM count up by more than a few notches.
I'm not afraid of anything involving the redneck crop dusters. They are irrelevant at my hometown airports and thus are irrelevant to my travel planning. The reason I hate them is because of the poor service I've received on them, along with you and the other fanboys. Mostly you, Timbits.
I agree with a lot of the comments here that it is connecting two very important dots on the map for Delta, potentially opening up connections, and fulfilling contract business.
The thing I might add is that Delta is losing preferential use gates as part of the Chicago Department of Aviation Airline Use and Lease Agreement (AULA). The more gate utilization they can add at O'Hare the better as it helps to retain their preferential...
I agree with a lot of the comments here that it is connecting two very important dots on the map for Delta, potentially opening up connections, and fulfilling contract business.
The thing I might add is that Delta is losing preferential use gates as part of the Chicago Department of Aviation Airline Use and Lease Agreement (AULA). The more gate utilization they can add at O'Hare the better as it helps to retain their preferential use gates.
The other thing at play is what happens if American de-hubs O'Hare? Seems unlikely but it is possible, especially as a result of United's ramping up and taking gates via the AULA. American had overtaken United post-SFH. It has gotten weaker and weaker under Team Tempe.
The entire rest of terminal 5 at ORD is available to DL other than WN's gates which are/will be in the middle of DL's operation.
Losing preferential gates at ORD matters to AA, not DL, and DL isn't making any route decisions driven by the number of gates it can have in a terminal that is almost entirely common use.
and I think AA is well aware of the strategic implications needed to make...
The entire rest of terminal 5 at ORD is available to DL other than WN's gates which are/will be in the middle of DL's operation.
Losing preferential gates at ORD matters to AA, not DL, and DL isn't making any route decisions driven by the number of gates it can have in a terminal that is almost entirely common use.
and I think AA is well aware of the strategic implications needed to make ORD work. It remains to be seen whether they can win back the corporate share and traffic they have lost not just in Chicago to UA but also in NYC and LAX to DL but AA has a remarkable ability to fly just above the surface of the water.
and it is very possible that DL might be winking at UA and letting them know DL will take a piece of AA's hide in ORD-LAX which can only help UA on the Chicago side.
You mean, how they tried to take a piece of AA’s hide in MIA with LATAM? MIA-MCO? MIA-TPA? MIA-NAS? Right? Oh wait… none of them are flying now!
You fail to realize - to no surprise - that the JV in volves ALL of the US to virtually ALL of Latin America - with Argentina now as part of the JV.
DL has LONG carried just as much revenue from TPA and MCO to S. America via ATL as AA carries via MIA.
Latam carries as much traffic in the same markets from MIA as AA.
Yes, the DL/LA JV is...
You fail to realize - to no surprise - that the JV in volves ALL of the US to virtually ALL of Latin America - with Argentina now as part of the JV.
DL has LONG carried just as much revenue from TPA and MCO to S. America via ATL as AA carries via MIA.
Latam carries as much traffic in the same markets from MIA as AA.
Yes, the DL/LA JV is a major size for size competitor to AA in Florida.
And you will be in sackcloth and ashes when DL starts announcing MIA to Central America on its own metal. The day is coming.
As a UA loyalist who "sometimes" dips my feet into the DL waters, I want to add to all the comments about the DL Club in T5...I believe what makes this Club so "nice/superior" whatever adjective you prefer, is that it is not overrun...I have only been in it 2x and both times I thought, "no fighting for seats, this is amazing", everything else was secondary...And I should add that my sentiments were shared by...
As a UA loyalist who "sometimes" dips my feet into the DL waters, I want to add to all the comments about the DL Club in T5...I believe what makes this Club so "nice/superior" whatever adjective you prefer, is that it is not overrun...I have only been in it 2x and both times I thought, "no fighting for seats, this is amazing", everything else was secondary...And I should add that my sentiments were shared by others in the Club who were already talking about dreading their Club visit on their connection to various DL hubs [mainly ATL of course]...
It is nice, and I do not mean to take away from that, but the UA clubs that are new or renovated are nice too, when they are not full...
The best part of that club is gate M11 and M14.
The SkyClub in T5 can and does get overrun - I've been there a few times when the only seats available were those at the bar in the very back of the club, next to the hot dog cart. And yet, it still felt much "nicer/superior" to any of the AA clubs I've been in at ORD...haven't been to any of the UA clubs at ORD.
It makes sense to link the 2nd and 3rd largest cities, however it’s only competitive if they operate a similar frequency to UA and AA, of around 10 flights daily which I doubt will be the case. One or two a day ? Hmm
uh, no. DL doesn't have to operate the same number of frequencies. They just need to get the corporate revenue which is what the whole point of this is.
and DL did say it was going to use the 737-800 which, right there, should be indications that they will fail. I mean, why would you use an airplane with dirty interiors and antiquated non-working plugs as Ben found out?
oh wait, DL is...
uh, no. DL doesn't have to operate the same number of frequencies. They just need to get the corporate revenue which is what the whole point of this is.
and DL did say it was going to use the 737-800 which, right there, should be indications that they will fail. I mean, why would you use an airplane with dirty interiors and antiquated non-working plugs as Ben found out?
oh wait, DL is just about through with interior mods on its 737-800s and - surprisingly - were doing them at the time of Ben's "grungy plug" flight.
I still think they should use the A220 if they want to do some serious tailbone kicking. 737s are a dime a dozen.
Your airline, just like you, isn't wanted here. That's why we shoved them into Terminal 5, away from the real airlines and alongside the LCCs and the non-Americans.
Last I check, corporate clients want flexibility of schedule.
With little frequency how will they get corporate clients?
But people like Tim probably never have a real job (being fired by Delta on your first day doesn't count as a job) so he never understands the benefit of finishing early and trying catch an earlier flight home, saves hours.
Can't do that with only 3 flights a day.
you need only look at the schedule that DL started markets like ORD-LGA and ORD-BOS to know that schedule superiority IS NOT the only factor. DL was outclassed in schedule but still managed to grow to get the corporate travel it needs.
UA has about as many flights from ORD to LGA as AA and DL combined and yet average fare data says DL and AA still keep decent fares.
and in the US...
you need only look at the schedule that DL started markets like ORD-LGA and ORD-BOS to know that schedule superiority IS NOT the only factor. DL was outclassed in schedule but still managed to grow to get the corporate travel it needs.
UA has about as many flights from ORD to LGA as AA and DL combined and yet average fare data says DL and AA still keep decent fares.
and in the US domestic market, AA and DL are far more likely to win in direct size competitions than UA is - solely because of AA and DL's larger size - and yet UA does carry decent revenue even in markets where they are far down the list in size.
There are very few markets where another carrier operates more flights than DL to/from ATL -and yet those carriers hang in there.
Should they just throw in the towel?
and don't even start in markets from NYC where DL has far more service than AA and UA have to many cities that DL serves from both LGA and JFK.
the evidence is not in your favor, either of you two
I actually checked ORD-LGA earlier. For September 15th, the Big Three combined had 34 daily services. DL had nine of those. So it isn't UA = DL+AA to LGA. How about checking your data for once instead of relying on anecdotes?
and if you actually knew local passenger data, DL compares very favorably.
AA and UA connect a huge amount of traffic at ORD.
DL connects via little on that leg at ORD.
and if you actually counted, UA has by far the most segments. AA is indeed underperforming both at LGA and ORD.
Delta carries more corporate travel than any other US airline. They know what their corporate clients want and it certainly includes LAX-ORD, one of the top industry segments that DL didn't serve, and HKG - which DL has not been in for 8 years.
Yes, there are competitive implications. For UA, this eliminates the notion that UA has an advantage at LAX. And while no carrier is "dominant" at LAX, DL consistently carries 20% more...
Delta carries more corporate travel than any other US airline. They know what their corporate clients want and it certainly includes LAX-ORD, one of the top industry segments that DL didn't serve, and HKG - which DL has not been in for 8 years.
Yes, there are competitive implications. For UA, this eliminates the notion that UA has an advantage at LAX. And while no carrier is "dominant" at LAX, DL consistently carries 20% more passengers which is more than enough to make UA's larger international network generate more revenue. DL plays the long game and is willing to invest in routes that make sense - and both of these make good strategic sense.
DL entered LGA-ORD and then BOS-ORD and carries high quality revenue at comparable percentages to capacity as AA and UA - so the notion that DL can't break into key industry markets doesn't bear fruit in reality.
As for AA specifically, they used to be larger than UA from ORD to the east but they don't hold that distinction and DL more than holds its own from ORD while UA was larger to the west. DL has never tried to chase market share and won't operate ORD-LAX as often as AA or UA might. But dumping capacity likely will only hurt AA and UA and take away resources they can use in other markets.
When you factor in that DL has solidly taken the lead as the largest airline in NYC with flying 2X as many domestic passengers as either AA or UA in the latest data and is the largest carrier at LAX, growing its presence at ORD had to a given.
and it is very possible that DL will use the A220 for ORD-LAX; it is a huge competitive advantage economically and from a passenger comfort and amenities standpoint which AA and UA can't match
Tim strikes again!!!!
A220 has its advantages alright. They'll fly it because they can't even fill a 737-800 and thinks corporate clients want to pee while looking outside.
And high quality revenue is all in your head. Regardless of your fluff, what does NYC or BOS even have to do with this. It's a different market.
You do just love peddling nonsense, don't you?
That same PANYNJ dashboard you love so much that you can decipher at a quicker pace that no mere mortal can hope to attain shows Delta up about 43% on UA in May in terms of Domestic passengers (so not close to 2x).
and you think that having a competitor even with a 43% advantage is sustainable?
Tell us the difference between AA and UA in ORD and esp. in major markets.
UA's ENTIRE campaign about winning in Chicago is EXACTLY the same thing that is happening TO UA in NYC.
And the proof that Delta carries more corporate travel is....
Little fact checking.
Ever since Delta moved to T5 and opened the beautiful new Skyclub in ORD, I have wondered if they don't have bigger plans there. Are we focusing on the wrong end of this new route?
OTOH, with UA and AA both having hubs at ORD it doesn't seem too likely that Delta would try too hard to get more than flights to their existing hubs. Plus, MSP and DTW, both major Delta hubs, are close to ORD.
I could see a small strategic focus on ORD by Delta as American shrinks there - more so pulling from corporate travelers who were American flyers than going after United - which is harder to poach given the network they offer out of ORD.
Certainly if you usually fly to major cities (NYC, LA, etc.) and international - Delta could serve you well out of ORD with 1 stop connectivity to many places globally.
I think it's largely the consensus that the Delta Skyclub at ORD T5 is superior to the United and Admirals clubs. I wonder if that played a partial role in DL's confidence in this route's success. If I were a UA flyer (maybe not loyalist, idk) I'd certainly be looking at the lounge offerings for a domestic flight.
I prefer United Clubs and Admirals' Clubs at ORD to Delta's Die Club. United's LAX club is far better than anything the redneck crop dusters have to offer. Haven't tried the Admirals' Club at LAX yet, so I make no claims. The point is, anything is better on UA and AA than on DL.
"ORD_is_my_second_home"
Well i see why your opinion is the way it is now. Keep moving
Who cares about lounge offerings for a domestic flight? Honestly though...
If you're originating in Chicago, ideally you are not planning a long stay at the airport for a domestic flight... They should matter more in the case of delays but not as a matter of intention...
If DL is serious about LAX they need to serve all major markets. ORD was an enormous gap, and I'm surprised they didn't start service a long time ago. UA and AA also have holes in their LAX networks no doubt. I'm guessing DL didn't want to fly ORD because it's likely a money-loser for them, but it's entirely possible that the network benefit of growing LAX more broadly would offset the ORD losses.
I'm...
If DL is serious about LAX they need to serve all major markets. ORD was an enormous gap, and I'm surprised they didn't start service a long time ago. UA and AA also have holes in their LAX networks no doubt. I'm guessing DL didn't want to fly ORD because it's likely a money-loser for them, but it's entirely possible that the network benefit of growing LAX more broadly would offset the ORD losses.
I'm still very curious to see how the LAX/SEA thing plays out. SEA seemed like a way more obvious choice for HKG service. Maybe Delta is trying to hedge their bets a little bit on TPAC with Alaska likely to add routes like HKG in the near future. Adding a 6th daily flight in the LAX-HKG market (UA has 2x, Cathay has 3x) is probably less risky than SEA going from 0x to 2x if both Delta and Alaska add it. Depending on how things play out, I wouldn't at all be surprised to see Delta try to shift some of their SEA flying (like TPE) down to LAX in the next few years
This is about serving the DL corporate contracts in LAX. No ORD is a major gap.
This must be focused on connecting customers to pacific destinations and LA based customers.
In Chicago, it is much more preferable to take United the hometown carrier due to the schedule.
I’m sure Delta is reducing another LA route to make this work, it’s not like Delta has unlimited space in LA.
I am based in Chicago - hard pass on United and AA. Between MDW (which DL serves while UA and AA do not) and ORD, DL has gotten me where I want to get to with one comfortable stop over the last 6 years; their SkyTeam partners serving ORD do the same - all with well-timed schedules. I much prefer flying DL and their partners than AA or UA - for various reasons - so...
I am based in Chicago - hard pass on United and AA. Between MDW (which DL serves while UA and AA do not) and ORD, DL has gotten me where I want to get to with one comfortable stop over the last 6 years; their SkyTeam partners serving ORD do the same - all with well-timed schedules. I much prefer flying DL and their partners than AA or UA - for various reasons - so unless the fare for F/J is significantly lower on AA/UA/their partners, I am perfectly happy skipping my "hometown carrier[s]."
Today I learned Delta was not already flying LAX-ORD. LAX is a DL hub and ORD is a top business market. I can't believe it's taken them this long to enter. I'm not overthinking it from the perspective of it being a connecting opportunity, but just filling a massive hole in the network.
Likely there's quite a big demand for that route among DL FFs that would prefer not to do a connection. I was surprised DL didn't already service that route.
Delta has a pax base in Chicago, even without a hub. As Chicago is a critical business market, they'll fly to all the top non-Delta cities without building an ORD hub themselves. There's enough pax in ORD for Delta to skim to the biggest markets.
Have you looked at a schedule for the redneck crop dusters at ORD? It's all hubs, JFK, and LGA. Nothing else. You're too busy licking Delta butt to consult a schedule.
If this is a trend, it's good.
Similarly, United should fly LAX-ATL and even SEA-JFK if it can get JFK slots. American should fly LAX-IAD and AUS-DTW (city with more AA service to a big city that is another airline's hub).
The short of it is that the 3 major airlines should try for fortress hubs and fly a few flights from other airline's fortress hubs to cities other than it's own hubs.
typo but cannot edit above.
God what I wouldn't give for some meaningful competition out of ATL. Southwest alone just doesn't cut it.
Sure looks like a feeder route. Back when dinosaurs ruled the earth a lot of airlines like Pan Am, TWA, Northwest Orient, etc had these. If Delta has their international flights leaving at a similar time and this flight arrives in LAX 2-3 hours before that then it’s the only thing that makes sense.
Route needed for a big corporate contract?
"Is this about Delta growing its presence in Los Angeles more broadly, when that seemingly hasn’t been a major focus for some time?"
Why do you claim this hasn't been their focus?
They've been continually growing the hub. They've invested into D1 check-in and lounge facilities. They've launched various longhaul flights like BNE, MEL, and PVG.
You can debate how successful these routes have been individually, but they've definitely been working on adding to the...
"Is this about Delta growing its presence in Los Angeles more broadly, when that seemingly hasn’t been a major focus for some time?"
Why do you claim this hasn't been their focus?
They've been continually growing the hub. They've invested into D1 check-in and lounge facilities. They've launched various longhaul flights like BNE, MEL, and PVG.
You can debate how successful these routes have been individually, but they've definitely been working on adding to the LAX hub.
It feels like you just toss in a bunch a backhanded jabs that aren't necessary a lot of the time and use that as fuel for engagement baiting. The first half of that question was reasonable enough to stand on its own.
Yeah, yoloswag is right here - Delta has invested a ton in LAX in recent years, more than most of their hubs. They certainly have put more money into LAX than Detroit or Minneapolis, and even Atlanta in terms of infrastructure recently.
@ yoloswag420 -- It's not at all intended to be engagement baiting. Yes, there's the new South Pacific service (as all US carriers have added from their West Coast hubs, largely subsidized), but aside from that, Delta has added very little additional domestic capacity from LAX... or have I missed something?
Again, I'm not saying there's not merit to this, but what I'm saying is that it's odd to announce a new domestic route 11 months in advance. Do you disagree?
I think people are just touchy about the Delta subject because of the inevitable fallout that it will entail in the comments.
For me, I just see this as Delta consolidating two route announcements. It doesn't seem that a domestic route would warrant a huge announcement on its own, they very rarely get standalone PR tbh.
So if Delta network planning has already decided on ORD, feels innocuous enough to just toss it in with the larger HKG one.
90% of that fallout usually is the result of one person…
...that's dozens of you can't seem to help yourselves from piling onto...
LA is a hub for Delta. They fly to Chicago, a major destination, from all of their other hubs. If they are strengthening their commitment to LA, Chicago seems like a must. Delta’s Chicago club is also one of their best.