Historically, Delta Air Lines has shied away from ultra long haul flights, with a limited number of exceptions. However, that’s slowly starting to change, as Delta plans to launch flights to Hong Kong (HKG) and Riyadh (RUH). That’s only the beginning of the growth, though, and there’s an interesting update regarding a new destination the airline plans to add.
In this post:
Delta confirms 2027 launch for flights to Manila, Philippines
In late October 2025, a Delta executive revealed to employees internally that the airline plans to add flights to Singapore (SIN) and Manila (MNL), though stopped short of providing a timeline for the launch, or sharing out of which airport the airline will add this service.
Well, there’s an update on that front. Delta just submitted a filing to the Department of Transportation (DOT), in reference to Philippine Airlines’ request to fly to Chicago (ORD). In this filing, the airline reveals that starting in the summer of 2027, it plans to launch daily Manila flights out of Los Angeles (LAX), using an A350:
Delta respectfully urges the Department to defer action on PAL’s application until Delta’s entry is assured by the Philippine Government.
Delta does not oppose PAL’s requested authority in principle. Delta recognizes that expanded service between the United States and the Philippines can provide public benefits, including enhanced consumer choice and increased trade and tourism between the two countries.
Delta is likewise committed to advancing these same public interest objectives. In furtherance of that goal, Delta is pursuing plans to launch its own Manila service next summer (2027) with daily Airbus A350-900 service from Los Angeles. Delta’s service would provide additional competition, new routing options, and expanded connectivity for US and Philippine consumers alike.
Now, we’ll see if this actually comes to fruition with the timeline being promised, but that’s at least what’s being claimed.
I can’t really make sense of Delta’s Manila strategy
There are two things I find interesting about this announcement. First of all, I don’t really understand Delta’s West Coast strategy. Among the “big three” US carriers, United is the only one that has a mega long haul hub, in the form of San Francisco (SFO).
It’s hard to make sense of Delta’s strategy when it comes to Los Angeles (LAX) vs. Seattle (SEA). Los Angeles has historically been Delta’s bigger West Coast hub, but it’s also a market that seemingly no airline can actually “win,” as all of the “big three” US carriers have a sizable presence there.
So for close to a decade now, Delta has put effort into growing in Seattle, especially across the Pacific, but that’s no longer the case. Now we’re seeing the airline expand in Los Angeles, with flights to both Hong Kong and Manila.
Next, for an airline that’s just now getting around to expanding across the Pacific, I’m a bit surprised Manila ranks so high on the priority list. We’re talking about a 7,000+ mile flight here, in a high demand but fairly low yield market.
I guess Delta views itself as the “premium” option compared to Philippine Airlines, but still, this just doesn’t strike me as a great route for Delta, given its high operating costs. In fairness, United added San Francisco to Manila flights in late 2023, though United is also a lot further along when it comes to the size of its Asia route network, and San Francisco is also a much bigger hub for the airline.
So we’ll see how this plays out. Admittedly airline economics have changed over the years, and routes no longer need to be wildly profitable directly, but instead, loyalty programs are also a big consideration. But still, I’m not sold on this…
Bottom line
Delta has confirmed that in the summer of 2027, it plans to launch daily nonstop flights between Los Angeles and Manila. We knew that the airline was eyeing Manila (and Singapore) flights, though it’s interesting to see the new route be out of Los Angeles. Admittedly that’s the bigger market for the Philippines, but it’s a long journey, and it’s not exactly high yielding.
What do you make of Delta’s Manila plans?
Because we the legacy northwest crowd with million milers and the hundreds of Fortune 500 travelers in Manila are sick and tired of going to Korea and people thinking I can’t get your strategy why we would want to decrease excess 4 hours travel into high temperature Korean airport that doesn’t like anything below 75F.
We don’t need a winning airline at LAX. Better that all three compete annd succeed. Especially if you happen to live in SoCal. Likewise at ORD. UA winning and AA losing isn’t beneficial to the majority of fliers. Further, those that wish AA would disappear altogether will rue the day.
Haha Not exactly High yielding? In what way, there are a lots of filipinos residing in LA, so not high yielding? Are you joking?
DL is not a total novice in Asia. Once upon a time, Northwest Orient had a huge presence in Asia, even flying many intra Asia routes in competition with the local carriers. So to see them come back to their old playground isn't something totally out of left field at all
This feels more like a political play for Delta. Since they can't get slots at MNL, they will appeal to the government to intervene to force their way into the market. That's the only reason to bring up PR's ORD request. Even though airport slots and bi-lateral open skies agreements are entirely separate entities, Delta realizes it has a friendly, protectionist government willing to hear the argument. If we can't fly, nobody can fly.
Huuuuuge and upwardly mobile Filipino population in Los Angeles and Orange Counties
That plane will smell worse than an Air India flight. Lol
Bring on the Balikbayan boxes!
"I can’t really make sense of Delta’s Manila strategy"
California is home to about 1.7 million Filipino residents. That is roughly 4–5 % of the state’s total population (given California’s ~39 million residents), and about 38 % of all Filipino Americans in the U.S. live in California
Years ago, NW had a loyal following in the Philippines (even if Japan was your final destination) and even had a partnership with Cebu where you could also earn miles with the latter.
I wonder if that following still exists and transferred over to Delta after the merger or it's pretty much non-existent.
LAX is just a way bigger market for MNL than SEA is, plus SEA already has service. Given that DL wants to focus on building loyalty and AMEX spend (building their whole portfolio, rather than individual routes), it makes sense that they'd fly this from LAX. Maybe MNL is a borderline destination, but if they can breakeven flying it and boost their AMEX revenue at the same time, it's worth doing.
Reading the tea leaves...
LAX is just a way bigger market for MNL than SEA is, plus SEA already has service. Given that DL wants to focus on building loyalty and AMEX spend (building their whole portfolio, rather than individual routes), it makes sense that they'd fly this from LAX. Maybe MNL is a borderline destination, but if they can breakeven flying it and boost their AMEX revenue at the same time, it's worth doing.
Reading the tea leaves from Delta I suspect they'd also choose to fly SIN from LAX for the same reasons. Maybe if those routes are a hit they'll add SEA later, but LAX growth just seems much more sensible at this point.
let's not forget that LAX is a major feeder market for UA's SFO hub.
Providing nonstop service from LAX not only taps into a generally larger local market but also cuts off other carriers from hubs further north up the coast including UA at SFO as well as what AS might do at SEA
I do note that DL's TPAC JV with KE apparently does not include the Philippines - so much so that they don't even *codeshare* on flights to Manila. That might explain why they're interested in it. The letter to USDOT mirrors one from United a few years ago, and is not surprising.
That has more to do with the limitations of the South Korea - Philippines bilateral agreement, than anything to do with Delta and Korean. Same thing with their flights into mainland China. They WANT TO, but can't.
All of this boils down to whether DL will be able to dominate the premium traffic at LAX where others have failed in the future (similar story in SEA).
Most expected DL additions like SEA-TPE, LAX-AKL, LAX-MEL, LAX-BNE, LAX-LHR, etc. to fai, but outside of LAX-LHR none have been cut which would seem to illustrate that they are doing OK.
However, those with access to this information note that routes like LAX-AKL, SEA-TPE, and others...
All of this boils down to whether DL will be able to dominate the premium traffic at LAX where others have failed in the future (similar story in SEA).
Most expected DL additions like SEA-TPE, LAX-AKL, LAX-MEL, LAX-BNE, LAX-LHR, etc. to fai, but outside of LAX-LHR none have been cut which would seem to illustrate that they are doing OK.
However, those with access to this information note that routes like LAX-AKL, SEA-TPE, and others are still money losers for DL. For some of those routes like LAX-AKL, DL is only roughly break-even for ~2-3 months of the year even with margins really improving after cutting ~4-5 months of service (yet yields remain an issue).
DL has the finances and wherewithal to continue trying out routes like these and LAX-HKG (where UA does terribly), but the proof will be in the pudding on if it can make those routes viable.
So far that hasn't happened - we'll see how long this willingness to compete lasts especially if oil prices remain high. After all, this has been the exact same story at LAX over and over again once a player makes a move to dominate.
“ Most expected DL additions like SEA-TPE, LAX-AKL, LAX-MEL, LAX-BNE, LAX-LHR, etc. to fail, but outside of LAX-LHR none have been cut which would seem to illustrate that they are doing OK.”
Not really.
Lax-Lhr is the most premium route out of lax and delta failed twice on it — and recently
Lax-akl was announced as year-round (and trumpeted as such loudly here by a certain someone ;) )and very quickly cut to...
“ Most expected DL additions like SEA-TPE, LAX-AKL, LAX-MEL, LAX-BNE, LAX-LHR, etc. to fail, but outside of LAX-LHR none have been cut which would seem to illustrate that they are doing OK.”
Not really.
Lax-Lhr is the most premium route out of lax and delta failed twice on it — and recently
Lax-akl was announced as year-round (and trumpeted as such loudly here by a certain someone ;) )and very quickly cut to seasonal due to how badly it was doing. My mom could fly lax-akl in season profitably
Lax-bne is a subsidy and we’ll see if delta keeps it going once the subsidy is over
Sea-tpe is certainly going — good for delta but if anyone thinks that’s profitable, they need their heads checked. Every other airline on that route has a better soft and hard product on the route with a lower cost structure than delta. Delta employees on a.net constantly note how it is not profitable
Lax-Mel is new this year (really late late 2025) so we don’t really know whether it’s going to last
LAX-HKg? United has a real presence in hkg. Delta does not. AA is more than happy to put their passengers on the 3x/day Cathay flights and let them earn their loyalty points on a better product across the board than delta.
We do know that delta is in the worst strategic position in Oceania with no JV or real partner there like VA. As much as people pretend that sudden growth makes delta the biggest at anything in lax, they aren’t — loyalty penetration included. Their higher gate position is temporary while AA redoes their terminal and there’s really little to no advantage delta has on any major business route out of lax aside from Mex and that JV seems to be going away
It says a lot about delta in lax that delta has twice failed at flying lax-Lhr despite a JV partner in LHR. They don’t have a JV partner in any of these other cities you mention to hand off unprofitable flying to
Delta has plenty of money and is welcome to spend it in LA. Delta isn’t the first company to try and “win LA” and they won’t be the last. But they are in the worst strategic position of the US3 at lax. That’s not even debatable. They are. But they are certainly spending money to lower the entrenched disadvantage
Some truths, some misrepresentations in this.
LAX-LHR is a very different market than South Pacific and Asia flying, we can all agree to that. The failure of Delta to run a single daily year-round to Europe from LAX is significant. It's something that both AA and UA manage to do. But being weak for TATL on a West Coast hub is not indicative of if they can be successful TPAC.
Agreed, LAX-AKL likely performs...
Some truths, some misrepresentations in this.
LAX-LHR is a very different market than South Pacific and Asia flying, we can all agree to that. The failure of Delta to run a single daily year-round to Europe from LAX is significant. It's something that both AA and UA manage to do. But being weak for TATL on a West Coast hub is not indicative of if they can be successful TPAC.
Agreed, LAX-AKL likely performs very poorly, hence the massive cutbacks in schedule and the dirt cheap fares.
Broadly speaking, BNE is massively over capacity, the problem isn't even unique to Delta. BNE international traffic is 1/3 of SYD and 1/2 of MEL, the market simply just isn't there. LAX-BNE likely goes away over time, as MEL will be going daily soon.
Delta's "struggle" on SEA to TPE is largely overstated, I'm not sure I would trust random people on the internet to cite individual route profitability. Factually, all we can know is that Delta has kept up with the competition in terms of loadings, the same can be said for UA's SFO to TPE performance, yet it seemingly gets little to no scrutiny, despite the massively higher seat count that SFO to TPE sees compared to SEA to TPE. Delta's TPE flight serves US point of sale, hence being a daytime flight to TPE. The Taiwanese carriers are focused on East and Southeast Asia connections, both are seemingly coexisting just fine.
@yolo
“ Delta's "struggle" on SEA to TPE is largely overstated, I'm not sure I would trust random people on the internet to cite individual route profitability.”
I don’t trust randos like yourself. Plenty of delta employees constantly out what they do if you go far enough in their post history on a.net ;)
The difference is, you are the random person making claims about that route's profitability, I am not, I have said it's inconclusive, there's nothing to trust or not trust about my statement because it's factual.
It's pretty clear unless you can read their internal data, which you are not privy to, making assumptions about a route's profitability is just pure speculation.
@yolo
I’m not the one claiming it. I specifically said delta employees say it’s unprofitable and noted that they have outed what they do on other websites. Nice try to say I said it though. No. I did not.
However, you also don’t have to cover your eyes and hold your nose to consider a route’s profitability and pretend like “guess we’ll never know” and play dumb.
Delta easily has the worst product...
@yolo
I’m not the one claiming it. I specifically said delta employees say it’s unprofitable and noted that they have outed what they do on other websites. Nice try to say I said it though. No. I did not.
However, you also don’t have to cover your eyes and hold your nose to consider a route’s profitability and pretend like “guess we’ll never know” and play dumb.
Delta easily has the worst product on the route and the highest costs. Another carrier on that route with a much better product across the board happily codeshares with an airline twice delta’s size in Seattle and even more than twice the domestic capacity in Seattle than delta.
You’re welcome to pretend that “gee. We just will never know” but that’s just sticking your head in the sand to purposefully ignore reality and vetted posters on other websites that are happy to share internal delta data.
Your choice to ignore the world around you is your own. I’d recommend reevaluating your choices though. ;)
You try and hedge, but you're still literally making claims about the profitability in this response.
If you need to write that much to pretend you're not citing unverifiable sources, but that you still agree with them, then you've lost the plot.
"Lax-Lhr is the most premium route out of lax"
Based on what?
I don't have numbers beyond 2023 (Cirium 4Q23), but it was the single lowest yielding longhaul route in both Delta, Virgin, AND United's entire long-haul system. For BA, the only North American route for them with lower average fare and yield over distance, was San Jose (CA), which they ended that year.
LAX to Heathrow has limitless aggregate demand, and plenty of First...
"Lax-Lhr is the most premium route out of lax"
Based on what?
I don't have numbers beyond 2023 (Cirium 4Q23), but it was the single lowest yielding longhaul route in both Delta, Virgin, AND United's entire long-haul system. For BA, the only North American route for them with lower average fare and yield over distance, was San Jose (CA), which they ended that year.
LAX to Heathrow has limitless aggregate demand, and plenty of First Class demand, but the yields in all 3 other cabins are actually pretty terrible for every airline flying it.
Very interesting.
Any theories as to why LAX-LHR is such a low yield route for all of these airlines?
This is the paragraph that most matters
"DL has the finances and wherewithal to continue trying out routes like these and LAX-HKG (where UA does terribly), but the proof will be in the pudding on if it can make those routes viable."
Nowhere did DL ever said it intended to be a distant #2 to UA to Asia after it had to pull down its NRT hub.
As much as some people argue...
This is the paragraph that most matters
"DL has the finances and wherewithal to continue trying out routes like these and LAX-HKG (where UA does terribly), but the proof will be in the pudding on if it can make those routes viable."
Nowhere did DL ever said it intended to be a distant #2 to UA to Asia after it had to pull down its NRT hub.
As much as some people argue that financial data isn't public, the DOT DOES report profitability by global region and UA used DL's TPAC pullback to throw tons of capacity into the market while AA has basically become a niche TPAC carrier from DFW and to Japan.
UA cannot keep adding a bunch more TPAC capacity and the events of the past 2 weeks make it doubtful that UA can even continue with the market share grabbing strategies it is engaged in at the same time it has to bring tens of thousands of employees up to industry average wages.
DL said that it is increasing adding routes based on the total impact of routes to DL's revenue including Amex and SkyMiles revenue. LAX is a huge market and DL is already building on a very solid domestic position to add more international service.
DL played conservatively coming out of covid and is generating the profits to endure the current crisis better than competitors; given that the refinery, once again, will be a key determinant of the ability to survive and overcome this crisis, DL is very likely to use the next few years to focus on rebuiding its TPAC network as its primary strategic focus - and that might have been the case even before Feb 28.
SEA isn't going anywhere but winning LAX matters more than adding SEA routes that will largely be connections.
and let's also not forget that Asian jet fuel prices are much higher than in the US so the ability of Asian carriers to maintain what they have, let alone add, will be much less than for US carriers and esp. DL with its fuel advantage.
The age old question.
At what point does “strategic” flying become unprofitable flying? With much of delta tpac flying we’ll find out one day.
ask United.
There is no reason other than UA's overfocus on "strategic flying" that they fly 10% more ASMs than DL but get less revenue and 2/3 of DL's profits - despite a $1 billion labor cost advantage.
DL isn't fighting wiht any other legacy carrier for any domestic hub. DL isn't focused on size.
Let's also not forget that the vast majority of AA's network is "strategic flying" given its very low profit margins.
...ask United.
There is no reason other than UA's overfocus on "strategic flying" that they fly 10% more ASMs than DL but get less revenue and 2/3 of DL's profits - despite a $1 billion labor cost advantage.
DL isn't fighting wiht any other legacy carrier for any domestic hub. DL isn't focused on size.
Let's also not forget that the vast majority of AA's network is "strategic flying" given its very low profit margins.
DL can add lots of "strategic" flying and have nowhere near the financial risk as others.
and DL makes more per seat mile flying the Pacific than UA even after DL's addition of some of the routes that some have noted don't make money.
@tim
Predictable response
Deflect deflect deflect
Change topic. Bring up other airlines to obfuscate the conversation
All on a topic where no one cares what you think because you only have about four things you ever say and repeat like a broken record player
“Strategic” flying is fun until your shareholders start asking when it becomes “unprofitable” like much of it is
Since you’re both so worried about delta’s finances in...
@tim
Predictable response
Deflect deflect deflect
Change topic. Bring up other airlines to obfuscate the conversation
All on a topic where no one cares what you think because you only have about four things you ever say and repeat like a broken record player
“Strategic” flying is fun until your shareholders start asking when it becomes “unprofitable” like much of it is
Since you’re both so worried about delta’s finances in lax and sea. It’s worth saying I do think delta has mostly if not all Profitable flying to Asia from east of the Mississippi River.
But there’s no reason for anyone to pretend that new longhaul flying from cities with no natural delta advantage are profitable
Sydney probably is but the rest outside of lax-hnd… debatable
But then again. By the Kirby standard of “credit cards pay for it all and make us profitable everywhere”, it may be
and yet, you are certain DL is losing money in so many places but can't reconcile that DL generates more revenue and makes more profit on a system basis.
You, max, and a whole lot of other people are all over anything where you think DL underperforms but never asks the real questions as to where OTHER CARRIERS underperform - and yet that clearly happens.
Other people can see your hypocrisy, Max.
UA and...
and yet, you are certain DL is losing money in so many places but can't reconcile that DL generates more revenue and makes more profit on a system basis.
You, max, and a whole lot of other people are all over anything where you think DL underperforms but never asks the real questions as to where OTHER CARRIERS underperform - and yet that clearly happens.
Other people can see your hypocrisy, Max.
UA and AA clearly have managed to convince their boards and shareholders of the validity of strategic flying - and yet miss profits.
Maybe it is all about credit cards - but UA and AA can't seem to offset their direct operational losses.
DL is not moved by your babbling.
and the rest of us laugh at what pours off your keyboard.
"Lax-Lhr is the most premium route out of lax"
Based on what?
I don't have numbers beyond 2023 (Cirium 4Q23), but it was the single lowest yielding longhaul route in both Delta, Virgin, AND United's entire long-haul system. For BA, the only North American route for them with lower average fare and yield over distance, was San Jose (CA), which they ended that year.
LAX to Heathrow has limitless aggregate demand, and plenty of First...
"Lax-Lhr is the most premium route out of lax"
Based on what?
I don't have numbers beyond 2023 (Cirium 4Q23), but it was the single lowest yielding longhaul route in both Delta, Virgin, AND United's entire long-haul system. For BA, the only North American route for them with lower average fare and yield over distance, was San Jose (CA), which they ended that year.
LAX to Heathrow has limitless aggregate demand, and plenty of First Class demand, but the yields in all 3 other cabins are actually pretty terrible for every airline flying it.
Max's MO is to make unsubstantiated claims like that, and deflect to other sources to pretend he's not in the wrong.
and, more significantly, he can't reconcile all of his "but, but they can't" statements w/ the bottom line which clearly shows that DL can put it all together in a successful package better than anyone else.
and the incessant LAX-LHR example always forgets to note that UA doubled their capacity when DL started on its own metal and then UA dropped back to single daily as soon as DL went back to solely relying...
and, more significantly, he can't reconcile all of his "but, but they can't" statements w/ the bottom line which clearly shows that DL can put it all together in a successful package better than anyone else.
and the incessant LAX-LHR example always forgets to note that UA doubled their capacity when DL started on its own metal and then UA dropped back to single daily as soon as DL went back to solely relying on the VS JV.
and yet UA has dropped LAX-AKL on its own metal, LAX-BNE, and hasn't fought back to DL's adding LAX-MEL on a year round basis or adding LAX-HKG.
Perhaps DL knows that UA really has stretched itself too thin fighting too many battles while also knowing that UA will never win in any market against a DL 35K which many of these routes will see in time.
So much hate and vitriol lol
Fellas, it’s a comment section lol
Enjoy a lack of critical thinking. I really don’t care if you agree with me and I don’t need to repeat what I did and did not say nor explain what is a reasonable assumption vs stating as fact from other sources. It’s a comment section.
Everyone knows Tim’s credibility. Fired by delta.
Yolo. I know nothing of your background but...
So much hate and vitriol lol
Fellas, it’s a comment section lol
Enjoy a lack of critical thinking. I really don’t care if you agree with me and I don’t need to repeat what I did and did not say nor explain what is a reasonable assumption vs stating as fact from other sources. It’s a comment section.
Everyone knows Tim’s credibility. Fired by delta.
Yolo. I know nothing of your background but given how much you’re trying to deflect and deny simple reasoning on a discussion around route profitability, it doesn’t seem to be related to anything on this topic
Immortal. Welcome. I’ll really enjoy you trying to convince the aviation community that lax-lhr is not a premium route. What an unusual a weird place to take a stand. Yes. It’s widely regarded as a premium route ;)
All the best to everyone. I’m thrilled you all found common cause and comfort in complaining about me to each other. It truly warms my heart
if there is hate, it is from you.
We got through this just about every time DL announces anything.
You are convinced that DL can't do anything right while other airlines walk on water and yet you can't explain how DL manages to generate more revenue, more profits and run an operationally better airline.
and you prove you can't win the debate every time you resort to personal attacks.
You are a loud, obnoxious, low...
if there is hate, it is from you.
We got through this just about every time DL announces anything.
You are convinced that DL can't do anything right while other airlines walk on water and yet you can't explain how DL manages to generate more revenue, more profits and run an operationally better airline.
and you prove you can't win the debate every time you resort to personal attacks.
You are a loud, obnoxious, low quality participant in social media. Anyone with a halfway objective perspective can see that.
Personal attacks, huh?
It’s a personal attack to remind others of your credibility?
1. Fired by delta
2. Banned under multiple usernames on a.net
3. Banned here for a time as well
If mentioning that delta’s biggest fanboy was fired by delta and banned on other websites than I raise my hand agreeing with you
But I’d regard calling you a loser and idiot as more of a personal attack. Your...
Personal attacks, huh?
It’s a personal attack to remind others of your credibility?
1. Fired by delta
2. Banned under multiple usernames on a.net
3. Banned here for a time as well
If mentioning that delta’s biggest fanboy was fired by delta and banned on other websites than I raise my hand agreeing with you
But I’d regard calling you a loser and idiot as more of a personal attack. Your credibility, work history, and internet background is what you’ve done with your own life and your own life choices. You should celebrate it ;)
Happy Thursday everyone
Really is funny how bent out of shape the delta fanboys get about their claims of eternal greatness when challenged
It’s a great airline as I’ve said many many times. But it is not starting profitable routes on day 1 from every hub and there are many things that are just a marketing sheen, not reality
Seriously. Get out of Atlanta one day. It’s a big world out there!
You can't compete in the marketplace of ideas so you attack other people.
We get it.
I don't live in Atlanta. Have told you that for years but you are convinced I am not telling the truth.
You believe what you want. Everyone can see that.
You lost the plot a long time ago, max.
I feel like such a bad navigator losing the plot so often.
Or am I bad story writer losing the plot to my own carefully crafted story line? Oh wait… it’s a comment section, not my short story for the New Yorker
“Bad Max!!!”
Be more proud of your background, tim. There’s no reason to run from your own life choices unless you think it destroys your own credibility?
Max, you simply seem to be unable to reflect or engage in reasonable discourse. In fact, I started off by agreeing with most of your points, and shared what was flawed reasoning for one of them.
You decided to double down and lash out and make ad hominem attacks. You could've simply said "I do trust the unverified Delta employee's claims on a.net" and agreed to disagree.
You have a continual pattern of behavior where...
Max, you simply seem to be unable to reflect or engage in reasonable discourse. In fact, I started off by agreeing with most of your points, and shared what was flawed reasoning for one of them.
You decided to double down and lash out and make ad hominem attacks. You could've simply said "I do trust the unverified Delta employee's claims on a.net" and agreed to disagree.
You have a continual pattern of behavior where you do this, where you are unable to contend with people having different perspectives.
Oh Yolo…
You’re right. I don’t care if you agree with me on a comment section or whether you think I’m reasonable
It’s a comment section. It’s just fun banter until I’m busy again. I think it’s plenty obvious how serious I take this unlike others.
Per tpe, your counter was “well, load factor…”
I’m just noting as I’ve now said several times what others that do work for delta have said...
Oh Yolo…
You’re right. I don’t care if you agree with me on a comment section or whether you think I’m reasonable
It’s a comment section. It’s just fun banter until I’m busy again. I think it’s plenty obvious how serious I take this unlike others.
Per tpe, your counter was “well, load factor…”
I’m just noting as I’ve now said several times what others that do work for delta have said about the route. If you don’t like that… ok? I never said it was my data but I then did note that having the costs and worse product on a route normally isn’t a great combo for profitability. You haven’t replied to either comment with anything factual aside from Load factor.
I’m glad you and tim can commiserate together about me now 22-23 comments down from the original comment
I hope it provides you comfort.
This really is a waste of both our time. You don’t go to a bar and introduce yourself as “hey, my name is YOLOSwagPotDude” and I don’t introduce myself as “MaxPower”
I don’t think I’m a click getter for Ben but I sure hope he got some clicks from our silly banter. He works hard on this website and great material. Glad we could both minimally boost his article click numbers today
Let’s stop taking everything so personally.
You are the one taking it personally it seems, based on this response.
I don't even know what you're talking about this point, with going to bars and introducing yourself. Deeply unwell behavior.
“ I don't even know what you're talking about this point, ”
You should probably lay off the 420 for a bit then. That lack of normal brain function is pretty typical from someone doing too much weed. But hey, you only live once, right? (I hope that wasn’t too tough for you to comprehend)
Also. Thank you for the 4th reply without any substantive response to what I actually said about TPE. Noted.
All the best
Might need to turn your brain up to Max Power, if you can't figure it out. You've gotten very substantive responses already.
seems not since we're up to the 5th response now where all you've said is "but the load factors..."
but enjoy your evening and the weed.
I wonder how much longer Delta is going to keep its unprofitable Seattle hub going. All of its new long haul routes have been in LAX recently, which seems like a sign. Plus with Alaska having a growing 787 base in the same airport, a bigger connecting network, and way better local loyalty, I suspect things are only going to get worse in SEA for Delta.
Given they just opened up multiple brand new lounges less than a year ago and added multiple new longhaul and domestic flights, I expect it to be for quite some time.
And somehow everyone fails to understand hub economics vs airline profitability. When the revenue is now primarily driven by loyalty spend, the profitability of individual routes and stations matters much less.
"Given they just opened up multiple brand new lounges less than a year ago..."
And still no D1 lounge in ATL, and AUS is getting new lounges too. Which hub do you think is more profitable? Too funny
"I wonder how much longer Delta is going to keep its unprofitable Seattle hub going."
Why do you people persist with this trope?
Delta has formally stated (multiple times) as a fiduciary to investors, that Seattle is profitable for them. If they aren't telling the truth, then that's both a felony and massive tort.
YOLO and immortal
It must bother you so much that you can’t just try to have mods delete a comment about delta like you and your ilk do on a.net lol
wait, what? you come to OMAAT because a.net won't let you push your non-sense there?
I come to omaat and a.net because I’m not banned on one those sites, unlike you.
You’re stupid. Stop showing it off with your comments
Despite your differences, can the lot of you at least agree 1990 is the most annoying commenter on OMAAT?
no
@ dave
I'm rather shocked he hasn't tried to jump in, I'll give you that.
There are over 600000 Filipinos in the Los Angeles area and over 200000 Filipinos in the San Diego area, where drive in becomes a factor. Seattle is less than 150000. This market makes all sorts of sense for Delta
Pretty much the entire southern half of California and Nevada.
Yes, but most of that will be low yielding VFR traffic. I don't think there's much business or corporate traffic between the two, although there might be cargo.
I recognize that these days, even VFR customers are buying up to higher classes and more expensive fares, but I don't think any airline is yet at the point of planning routes based purely on O&D VFR traffic, especially on ULH routes like this (business O&D yes;...
Yes, but most of that will be low yielding VFR traffic. I don't think there's much business or corporate traffic between the two, although there might be cargo.
I recognize that these days, even VFR customers are buying up to higher classes and more expensive fares, but I don't think any airline is yet at the point of planning routes based purely on O&D VFR traffic, especially on ULH routes like this (business O&D yes; VFR connecting yes; but VFR O&D? I don't think so. Happy to be proven otherwise if there are indeed examples of this).
LAX has tons of great 1-stop connections (not to mention a direct flight with PR itself), whether that's through Asia hubs, ME hubs, or even a short hop up to SFO and SEA for direct flights from there. All of them will have better CASM economics than a nonstop from LAX, just based on pure geography. Which means Delta will need to compete on convenience and/or loyalty, both of which are less of a factor for VFR traffic than it is for frequent business travelers.
That said, Delta's approach has always been more opportunistic than the other big airlines, adding flights away from their hubs when they feel it might be profitable. So we'll have to see. But to me, it seems like this route will not be sustainable long term.
There's a significant and growing presence of business now. Aside from BPO of course, you have tech, finance, and manufacturing. Certainly a much bigger presence now and still growing compared to years past with the country being more business friendly.
It seems obvious that Seattle will add flights to NE Asia and maybe India once airspace allows, and Los Angeles will serve destinations with high demand (HND, PVG) in NE Asia, plus SE Asia and Oceania. I'd expect PKX to eventually be added back to SEA but HKG or any further south seems unlikely. I wouldn't expect PKX to be added to LAX, but SIN, MNL and maybe SGN much further out seem reasonable. The...
It seems obvious that Seattle will add flights to NE Asia and maybe India once airspace allows, and Los Angeles will serve destinations with high demand (HND, PVG) in NE Asia, plus SE Asia and Oceania. I'd expect PKX to eventually be added back to SEA but HKG or any further south seems unlikely. I wouldn't expect PKX to be added to LAX, but SIN, MNL and maybe SGN much further out seem reasonable. The demand from LAX is likely that much bigger to warrant trying from there versus SEA.
I'm so lost, why does the addition of one route to LAX, automatically mean they are not growing another hub? For example, does BOS getting a flight mean Delta is no longer growing JFK?
Delta has invested substantially in SEA, adding new routes, investing in D1 facilities, all throughout last year.
SEA is a smaller station, I wouldn't expect Delta to funnel 100% of its flights to it, that's part of network planning. You anyways...
I'm so lost, why does the addition of one route to LAX, automatically mean they are not growing another hub? For example, does BOS getting a flight mean Delta is no longer growing JFK?
Delta has invested substantially in SEA, adding new routes, investing in D1 facilities, all throughout last year.
SEA is a smaller station, I wouldn't expect Delta to funnel 100% of its flights to it, that's part of network planning. You anyways saw the other notes and rumors that SEA is also slated for Asia expansion, things happen sequentially, not all at once.
DL is in the process of creating two TPAC W.Coast hubs, SEA and LAX, in a few years LAX will emerge as the leader.
LAX already is "the leader." It's not even close.
SEA - Delta serves Tokyo, Shanghai, Seoul, and Taipei, from Seattle.
LAX - Delta serves Tokyo, Shanghai, Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Auckland; with Hong Kong and Manila announced publicly, and Seoul confirmed internally.
Singapore was also internally announced the same time as Manila, but not clarified from which gateway.
“ and Seoul confirmed internally.”
And we have another delta employee!
No wonder you didn’t refute my comment about sea-tpe profitability though it does explain why you have the expensive subscription to cirium ;)
You have a massive stereotype of the Philippines. You come off as ignorant.
Manila and the Philippines have a booming economy.
More and more American tourists are going to the Philippines to enjoy the amazing beach islands which are much better then Hawaii. And a good amount of them are premium travelers.
Maybe you should go to the Philippines and check it out yourself since you have never been to the Philippines.
"Maybe you should go to the Philippines and check it out yourself since you have never been to the Philippines."
He has been. He even connected from T2 to T1 on a bus and has flown PR's A359 to Toronto!
If you go to the Philippines, and all you see is parts of downtown Manila and the airport terminal (s), you've kind of missed the point.
I don't understand the confusion
1) In terms of LAX vs SEA, Delta flies more passengers to/from LAX than SEA. From what I can tell, Delta did about 14 million passengers to LAX in 2025 vs closer to 12 million at SEA. Delta also has newer facilities at LAX after the most recent renovations. LAX is a much larger city. Delta flies to most major markets from LAX, often with better/newer planes than it does...
I don't understand the confusion
1) In terms of LAX vs SEA, Delta flies more passengers to/from LAX than SEA. From what I can tell, Delta did about 14 million passengers to LAX in 2025 vs closer to 12 million at SEA. Delta also has newer facilities at LAX after the most recent renovations. LAX is a much larger city. Delta flies to most major markets from LAX, often with better/newer planes than it does to SEA. LAX is a clear hub for Delta. I would put it right below ATL, JFK/LGA, and I guess one of DTW/MSP. It's more important to the airline than SEA and SLC at this point, and has been for a while
2) The Philippines is a large country with a highly mobile population, and there probably is a lot of cargo involved as well. In terms of other Asia destinations, it seems like it is a better choice than places like Thailand and Vietnam in terms of consistent traffic.
Mike says, "UA has said MNL is a great success, it went to 2x daily very quickly, 2x 777-300 packed full with pax and cargo."
Best US to Asia hub/gateway, perfect plane (more seats & cargo), right times and incumbent advantages.
Not sure why you're confused. LAX is a huge market and DL's intention to maintain/grow its investment has been sufficiently demonstrated. One cannot compare the decisions made in an era of 767s deployed from SEA to one with more efficienet aircraft and changes in economic/demographic factors.
IMHO, LAX will be the primary gateway, where Asia growth will take place, particularly given its role as an Australasian gateway (LAX feed can serve multiple regions). Accordingly,...
Not sure why you're confused. LAX is a huge market and DL's intention to maintain/grow its investment has been sufficiently demonstrated. One cannot compare the decisions made in an era of 767s deployed from SEA to one with more efficienet aircraft and changes in economic/demographic factors.
IMHO, LAX will be the primary gateway, where Asia growth will take place, particularly given its role as an Australasian gateway (LAX feed can serve multiple regions). Accordingly, SEA will only see destinations demonstrably sustainable given the feed structure DL chooses to maintain and competition from AS/oneworld.
It would probably make more sense to fly Honolulu to Manila since there are so many Filipinos in Hawaii. But Delta served Manila via Tokyo until the pandemic. I believe they briefly pivoted to Seoul-Manila or at least announced it but never flew it.
That would make ZERO sense.
1. because the Filipino (first+second generation) population in Greater Los Angeles is more than 3x larger than metropolitan Honolulu (600,000 vs 214,000)
2. because DL would have to rotate the aircraft into HNL before they could send it to MNL (since the latter wouldn't be already served in a potential W-pattern), and there's no way they're going to do that with an A359
Hawaiian flew to Manila from 2008-2013, but were run out by PR due to the latter's aggressive pricing as well as high oil prices at the time. Oil prices being volatile right now doesn't help.
In the meantime, PR has applied to codeshare with AA with the latter's code on flights to LAX, SFO, SEA, JFK and upcoming ORD service while they already codeshare to HNL.
While Hawaii has a huge Filipino diaspora (multiple generations...
Hawaiian flew to Manila from 2008-2013, but were run out by PR due to the latter's aggressive pricing as well as high oil prices at the time. Oil prices being volatile right now doesn't help.
In the meantime, PR has applied to codeshare with AA with the latter's code on flights to LAX, SFO, SEA, JFK and upcoming ORD service while they already codeshare to HNL.
While Hawaii has a huge Filipino diaspora (multiple generations even), not many return back home hence PR using a mere A333.
I'll simply add ... corporate travel, cargo and Delta's loyalty base at LAX will make this a likely success. Unlike United (Kirby), Delta does not enter a market willy-nilly just for show. It is as calculated an airline as they get. I'm sure DL is forecasting success with HKG, MNL, and SIN long term with the A350 frames.
Did they forecast success on the Europe routes they cut? Anyone can forecast anything doesn’t mean it’s reality.
"Delta has put effort into growing in Seattle, especially across the Pacific, but that’s no longer the case." I would imagine Alaska and Delta have very limited options for the most part in Seattle given the space/gating constraints.
Morning, Ben,
feel free to post the data you used to come to the conclusion that MNL is trash yields. What you read on a.net isn't fact.
NW was the largest airline across the Pacific and at MNL for years. Their knowledge didn't just go away esp. since they have had access to MNL through their JV w/ KE.
As for the whole SEA vs. LAX hub, DL is the only carrier that has...
Morning, Ben,
feel free to post the data you used to come to the conclusion that MNL is trash yields. What you read on a.net isn't fact.
NW was the largest airline across the Pacific and at MNL for years. Their knowledge didn't just go away esp. since they have had access to MNL through their JV w/ KE.
As for the whole SEA vs. LAX hub, DL is the only carrier that has the potential to have two true west coast gateways to Asia at both LAX and SEA.
No one has ever doubted that UA has the TPAC superhub at SFO - but there is enormous opportunity to develop hubs elsewhere as well as to carry traffic from the interior US to E. Asia - something DL does better than any other US airline - and KE only builds on that for DL.
Even in UA's most recent leaked presentation, UA acknowledges that DL is the largest carrier at LAX. With ICN, DL would have become the largest int'l carrier at LAX. Adding MNL and/or SEA only adds icing to the cake.
The A350 is simply the better aircraft for LAX to deep into Asia and LAX will likely see a large share of the A350-1000s.
DL will do just fine in MNL, just as they will in HKG, and then keep adding.
oh, and DL will add whatever they do from SEA as soon as AS announces anything.
should be a fun day here....
So more BS and no facts, from dumbtim
"oh, and DL will add whatever they do from SEA as soon as AS announces anything."
If only Delta wasn't half the size with half the ability to match Alaska... facts are fun
"with half the ability to match Alaska... facts are fun"
Sure, but you're not doing yourself any favors either, with statements like that.
Delta actually has more access to widebody-capable gates at Seattle than Alaska does (they both can use C.U.T.E. gates in concourse-S, but Delta has several of its own at concourse-A that Alaska doesn't), in addition to more widebody aircraft. So how does that leave it with "half the ability to match Alaska"...
"with half the ability to match Alaska... facts are fun"
Sure, but you're not doing yourself any favors either, with statements like that.
Delta actually has more access to widebody-capable gates at Seattle than Alaska does (they both can use C.U.T.E. gates in concourse-S, but Delta has several of its own at concourse-A that Alaska doesn't), in addition to more widebody aircraft. So how does that leave it with "half the ability to match Alaska" in reference to long-haul?
Oh immortal
you are entertaining that you think AS won't have access to wide body gates when they want them as, by far, the largest tenant at SEA and already having coordinated with SEATAC about their longhaul expansion (with widebodies)
"Delta actually has more access to widebody-capable gates at Seattle than Alaska does "
seriously. Where do you delta fanboys/employees come up with this type of thing? Of course Delta has more access...
Oh immortal
you are entertaining that you think AS won't have access to wide body gates when they want them as, by far, the largest tenant at SEA and already having coordinated with SEATAC about their longhaul expansion (with widebodies)
"Delta actually has more access to widebody-capable gates at Seattle than Alaska does "
seriously. Where do you delta fanboys/employees come up with this type of thing? Of course Delta has more access today to wide body gates lol. They fly more widebodies than AS out of SEA today. That means nothing for next year.
So DL’s strategy in SEA is to copy whatever AS does, but less successfully? Got it.
How is DL copying Alaska if Delta has more longhaul flights already?
That doesn't make any sense. Does Alaska fly to BCN, PVG, TPE, CDG, or AMS?
"oh, and DL will add whatever they do from SEA as soon as AS announces anything." -- Tim Dunn
Yolo, you and Tim really need to coordinate your responses. These replies about who is copying who...? They started because Tim Dunn
1. Believes Delta has the ability to match anything Alaska does in Seattle. They just do not which is also why they're half the size and why AS is bigger in market share...
"oh, and DL will add whatever they do from SEA as soon as AS announces anything." -- Tim Dunn
Yolo, you and Tim really need to coordinate your responses. These replies about who is copying who...? They started because Tim Dunn
1. Believes Delta has the ability to match anything Alaska does in Seattle. They just do not which is also why they're half the size and why AS is bigger in market share in SEA than before DL started their hub there
2. the entire premise from your buddy, Tim, that you've weirdly latched on to (good luck with that strategy) is that Delta can and will just copy anything Alaska does. Even your reply is ironic since one of the destinations you even mentioned was started by DL out of SEA because of the rumor of Alaska starting it lol -- but I noticed you were careful enough to exclude FCO from you list. Good thinking ;)
UA fought forever to get MNL slots and only got them with DOT help when PAL wanted to start SEA. DL is wisely doing the same thing, if PAL wants to start ORD we get to start LAX. The whole MNL yields are trash thing is overblown, UA has said MNL is a great success, it went to 2x daily very quickly, 2x 777-300 packed full with pax and cargo. DL will do great on this route.
Agreed. Cargo (and bag fees) alone do not a success make, but that revenue will certainly offset any low yields.
Yep need to consider cargo in the yield discussion.
On the pax demand side, 40% of the US Filipino diaspora is in California, esp LA, SF and San Diego. LAX is therefore a better option for premium fares with OD tickets vs connecting flights through SEA.
Don't forget Nevada especially Las Vegas alone.
True but that's a connecting flight, there's no specific advantage to connect in LAX vs SFO or SEA.
I don't get a hat tip for saying this for months if not years?! lol j/k
Anyway, the Philippine economy and incomes are steadily rising, and with the abundance of the Filipino diaspora in Southern California, it's not surprising to see more flights being added. I wouldn't be surprised if they increase their frequency once they do get going.
Aside from the entire region of Southern California, DL can grab connections from Nevada along with...
I don't get a hat tip for saying this for months if not years?! lol j/k
Anyway, the Philippine economy and incomes are steadily rising, and with the abundance of the Filipino diaspora in Southern California, it's not surprising to see more flights being added. I wouldn't be surprised if they increase their frequency once they do get going.
Aside from the entire region of Southern California, DL can grab connections from Nevada along with Texas and Seattle even with PR in the market.
In similar news, apparently PR plans to codeshare with AA on all of its U.S. flights. While I doubt it will be a precursor to oneworld, one can certainly speculate.
Tim Dunn is not happy.
say what?
I've been saying for years that we would see DL rebuild its TPAC network pretty aggressively.
We're now at a new route announcement every 4-6 months.