We know that Delta has huge growth aspirations across the Pacific, particularly to Asia. It’s an area where Delta has increasingly fallen behind United in recent years, but Delta now hopes to not only catch up, but even beat United. We’ll see what comes of that, and in particular, find out just how costly that growth is.
While this shouldn’t come as much of a surprise, Delta executives are now publicly confirming plans to return to Singapore, a destination that hasn’t been served by the airline since 2019, when that was an intra-Asia tag flight from Japan. We’re also learning out of which airport that service will likely operate…
In this post:
Delta is eyeing Singapore for further Asia expansion
As Delta executives view it, the airline is pretty maxed out in terms of its European potential, and in the long run, they see the most long haul growth potential in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. So, what kind of expansion should we expect?
- So far, Delta has launched flights to Hong Kong (HKG), and has announced plans to fly to Manila (MNL) and Tokyo Narita (NRT); Riyadh (RUH) flights are also launching soon (we’ll see how that goes), and that’s technically Asia, but not a Pacific flight
- Delta also wants to connect its Los Angeles (LAX) and New York (JFK) hubs to Seoul Incheon (ICN), which is the hub of joint venture partner Korean Air, as Delta loves routing Asia traffic through there
- We’ve also known that Delta plans to once again fly to Singapore (SIN), and we’re learning more about what that will look like
Sean Cudahy reports that Delta Chief Commercial Officer Joe Esposito has just explicitly confirmed that the airline is returning to Singapore. That’s not really a surprise, since we’ve known that was in the cards.
But what’s perhaps most interesting is the hub out of which the service will operate — Esposito ruled out that the service could operate out of Los Angeles, so it’s pretty clear that the airline will operate this service out of Seattle (SEA). That also matches previous reporting from JonNYC.
Now, we’ll see with what timeline this service actually launches. My guess is that we’re looking at a fall 2027 service start, at best. At 8,070 miles, this will be Delta’s third longest flight, after its routes to South Africa, which are from Atlanta (ATL) to Cape Town (CPT) and Johannesburg (JNB).
One certainly wonders if this Singapore route could be operated by Delta’s new Airbus A350-1000s, which will feature an all-new passenger experience. While the plane has great range and per seat economics, the only thing I’d say is that it’s “a lot of plane” for a new market, in terms of the overall capacity (even with the very premium layout).
In both the Seattle and Los Angeles to Singapore market, Singapore Airlines is the only other carrier operating. So competitively there’s not a huge difference in that regard, though Singapore Airlines does have significantly more service out of Los Angeles.
My take on Delta’s Asia expansion plans
It’s fantastic to see Delta looking to grow its presence in Asia. Point-to-point flying to Asia is a market that United has basically had cornered in recent years, and competition is good for consumers.
It’s amazing to think for how many years Delta basically squandered its Asia advantage. Keep in mind that back in the day, Northwest had a robust Asia network, and after the merger with Delta, we saw that network decreased slowly but steadily, as Delta instead focused on routing everything through Seoul Incheon, and into the Korean Air network. So I’m happy to see a reversal of that strategy.
I also have to say that given Delta’s hubris, it’s kind of fun to see the airline having to increasingly play “catch up,” rather than coming in as the dominant carrier. And I think that very much sums up what’s going on in Asia.
The most basic structural disadvantage that Delta has is that United has a fortress hub in San Francisco (SFO), which is where a large part of its Asia network flies from. That’s fantastic for connectivity, not to mention San Francisco is a very strong market for Asia traffic.
Delta, meanwhile, is taking a split hub approach, flying out of both Los Angeles and Seattle. Obviously Delta is trying to make the best of its situation, but there’s no denying that this is an uphill battle:
- Both Delta’s Los Angeles and Seattle hubs are roughly half the size of United’s San Francisco hub, so the connectivity and local loyalty just aren’t there in the same way
- Delta is in second place in Seattle, which isn’t great from a loyalty revenue perspective, given that Alaska continues to be the dominant carrier for the local community
- Los Angeles is a market that’s really hard to win, and if Delta can actually turn it into a profitable hub where it has a significant market share advantage, it’ll be the first airline to succeed at that in the long run
- Compared to United, Delta just doesn’t have the breadth or depth of network that United has; for example, one flight a day to Hong Kong is great, but United’s four flights per day are better
It also has to be emphasized that in terms of actually transporting passengers profitably (or at less of a loss), United does a better job at that than Delta, despite its lower overall profitability. Comparing passenger revenue per air seat mile to cost per air seat mile, United is at 16.18 cents vs. 16.46 cents, while Delta is at 17.37 cents vs. 19.31 cents.
Bottom line
Delta is growing quite a bit in Asia at the moment. The airline has already launched flights to Hong Kong, with flights now on sale to Manila and Tokyo Narita. On top of that, Delta has officially confirmed it plans to fly to Singapore in the near future, with the service likely to be out of Seattle rather than Los Angeles.
It’s great for passengers to see more competition across the Pacific, as Delta sure is making up for a lack of effort for years. However, the airline will also have quite the disadvantage compared to United for a long time…
What do you make of Delta’s plans to fly to Singapore?
Re comment about SIN completing a return to all major East Asian cities served by NWA: Let's not forget that Delta also served Bangkok, Busan, and Guangzhou (plus little but important Guam). If Delta is serious about being a major player in Asia and a truly global airline, it needs to return to these cities and add more Asian destinations like Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta. Convincing China Southern to repartner and perhaps join Skyteam (big...
Re comment about SIN completing a return to all major East Asian cities served by NWA: Let's not forget that Delta also served Bangkok, Busan, and Guangzhou (plus little but important Guam). If Delta is serious about being a major player in Asia and a truly global airline, it needs to return to these cities and add more Asian destinations like Kuala Lumpur and Jakarta. Convincing China Southern to repartner and perhaps join Skyteam (big ask) would be wonderful. China Southern is a 4-star airline but it's planes and service are better than Korean Air, in my experience.
I'm not so sure on the "most americans would book their flight" bit; I think it cuts both ways. My wife is like this. She prefers DL and all things equal she will choose DL out of familiarity, much as your Asians choose Asian carriers for the same reasons, even if she has to connect. I have only recently been able to get her on Asian carriers, and she sees the quality difference - yet...
I'm not so sure on the "most americans would book their flight" bit; I think it cuts both ways. My wife is like this. She prefers DL and all things equal she will choose DL out of familiarity, much as your Asians choose Asian carriers for the same reasons, even if she has to connect. I have only recently been able to get her on Asian carriers, and she sees the quality difference - yet it only matters about so much to her. When I am with her she will take the asian carrier because she lets me navigate any bumps - but when I am not, she'd rather fly DL because she knows what she'll get. Most US people have no idea the joys of J on CX or SG. I did a RTW jaunt last year to NZ on CX/SG/ANA. It blew her away. (first time on ANA/CX for me too, even got The Room and in The Pier, wow. SG Suites, well, I fly SG JFK-FRA a lot so at least I had an inkling.) But again, you have to read these boards to know any better; DL marketing makes their J look great too, you have to get stuck on their 767 and get their indifferent crew to know any better, and if you choose DL first, you'll never have a chance to know.Not to mention the hordes of uninformed people who still seem to think SkyMiles are worth something; they aren't on boards like these to know any better, and even then, the world of miles is just too complicated for them to want to spend attention on it. They go with the flow and that flow for them is on a US carrier.I would agree with your doubt the corporate aspects are drivers, for the reasons you say. It's all the premium leisure travelers. You see all the time in WSJ and others how Americans are traveling more and willing to spend on it and they want a piece of it. Will it be enough to make huge profits? Perhaps not, but it might be enough to pay for itself, and then they get the marketing aspects. And if you want to expand, you have to take these kinds of gambles, or you end up like AA. It's not like they can't afford the risk.
I don't think SpiceJet flies to JFK or even have suites. Plus, they're nothing worthy to talk about besides old planes and frequent delays. So much for joys of flying SG.
The real question that has not been discussed is how soon DL intends to start SIN, presumably from SEA as Ben surmises. Given that DL execs have said that DL will return to SIN, completing a return to all of the major E. Asia cities DL served prior to the NRT hub pulldown except for Beijing, it would seem that DL’s return to SIN will be within 18 months and likely sooner; even a winter...
The real question that has not been discussed is how soon DL intends to start SIN, presumably from SEA as Ben surmises. Given that DL execs have said that DL will return to SIN, completing a return to all of the major E. Asia cities DL served prior to the NRT hub pulldown except for Beijing, it would seem that DL’s return to SIN will be within 18 months and likely sooner; even a winter 2027 SIN start would support a route announcement within the next couple months. A start in mid-summer 2026 would support an announcement within weeks.
The A350-1000s are supposedly on track for delivery in the early spring of 2027 and likely will enter service in early summer. 35K deliveries for 2027 are still heavily loaded in the back half of 2027 but the first 20 of what will certainly be a fleet larger than 20 will be coming pretty quickly so DL’s route growth will accelerate in the latter half of 2027, into 2028 and into 2029 when the next wave of 359s and 339s start coming.
Even w/ DL’s stated intent to return to SIN on top of MNL and HKG, DL has not given firm plans for starting LAX-ICN and JFK-ICN, both of which DL is certain to fly on its own metal. DL execs also just said that they want to fly AJS-ICN on their own metal which means that there will be non-hub or focus city routes from ICN to the US flown by both DL and/or KE.
DL execs said their TPAC expansion would be aggressive and they are proving that they intend to add new routes quickly.
Am I the only one who thinks SQ is vastly overrated? Well trained flight attendants but mediocre food and outdated BC seats. Also, their contract lounge in SEA is forgettable. I think Delta’s newer planes are competitive.
Nah....you're just hard to please. SQ is great all round. Except for some of the BC seats which are being phased out soon. Also. why are you judging SQ on a lounge you admit is a contract lounge??
Nah, you just see through the marketing BS and fanboy influencers because it used to be a good redemption.
SQ is solid, but it's not going to blow DL away like many here thinks. (see Tim, I also say nice things about DL, when it's actually TRUE)
With D1 lounge in SEA and their A350s, all they need is a bit better catering to give SQ a tight race.
and DL does have a hub it controls at SEA which is far more valuable to feed a SEA-SIN flight than on the SIN end.
AS and SQ do not have a close relationship any more and that is probably why DL is moving forward w/ SEA over LAX, if that is indeed what they appear to be doing.
Imagine being forced to fly Delta instead of SQ on this ultra long haul seated in economy with Dim Sum, TravelinPenis, and 0000 for company...pure Hell.
imagine being so consumed w/ social media that you even consider fictional characters on the internet when doing travel planning.
Tim Dunn hopes people don't know SQ beats DL's socks off
I really did hope Tim Dunn would be in bed by now given his 80 year old mental comprehension.
I guess he's still awake to carry the candle on SEA-SIN and how awesome Delta is vs the Alaska-codeshare SQ flight.
Tim, I salute you.
No one gives more of their personality credit to an airline that fired them than you. Hands down. You win on that angle.
I am just finishing watching a baseball game.
But of course you want me to just disappear - that is what you have wanted for years.
I simply understand the airlilne industry far better than you could ever dream.
I said years ago that DL would come after UA's TPAC network while UA would never succeed at making a dent in the domestic market; even your little bud rebel confirms that UA is still in...
I am just finishing watching a baseball game.
But of course you want me to just disappear - that is what you have wanted for years.
I simply understand the airlilne industry far better than you could ever dream.
I said years ago that DL would come after UA's TPAC network while UA would never succeed at making a dent in the domestic market; even your little bud rebel confirms that UA is still in 4th place among 4 US carriers int he domestic market - not a very great place for an airline that loves to brag about how great it is.
of course you resort to personal attacks because you can't win in the marketplace of ideas
and you still can't explain how someone that was supposedly fired from a cmopany becomes their best online resource.
But of course nothing you post makes any logical sense.
and DL is still coming for UA's crown jewels - just as I said years ago that they would
If you say 10 paragraphs each time making a million statements over the years you'll statistically get a few right. But a few right from a million wrong doesn't make you credible at all.
Did you see the latest Cranky Flier post? Brett managed to get a dig in at Tim, pointing out how verbose he is.
By far the most words written in the comments section, writing more than War and Peace and Moby Dick combined.
In the past, Brett has pointed out he ignores Tim due to the endless argument loops he creates. lol
I have a lot of respect for Brett and have said so on his site as well as others, including citing his data-driven work which is, IMHO, the best analytical work regarding the airline industry on the internet.
He has shared his history which included revenue management at America West and United and then ultimately creating his only agency and blog; I respect people that can pivot and do multiple things within a given...
I have a lot of respect for Brett and have said so on his site as well as others, including citing his data-driven work which is, IMHO, the best analytical work regarding the airline industry on the internet.
He has shared his history which included revenue management at America West and United and then ultimately creating his only agency and blog; I respect people that can pivot and do multiple things within a given industry.
But let’s also be clear that Brett is not an unbiased observer to the industry. He has been given non-public access to information that other industry journalists/bloggers don’t get including at AA and UA events. He has also noted that DL doesn’t provide him with any preferential treatment – which is in line w/ DL’s practice with other analysts or journalists. DL doesn’t give media pre-releases of news as he gets and has gotten at other airlines. He also has accurately noted that he does not have access to the most protected international fare data which is highly restricted by US law even if he had that access as an employee at HP or UA; he has to make just as many assumptions which may or may not be correct as any other commenter in the blogosphere.
No one has any reason to reply to anything I write and yet there are a handful of people loyal to United that are completely incapable of admitting that United is not the best and/or that someone (something else) does things, even a lot of things better than United.
I have figured out how to use technology to accurately highlight all of the issues involved in a discussion instead of pithy comments that fail to accurately or completely discuss an issue.
But let’s also be clear that you and your ilk desperately want me to just go away so you can sing your biased praise of UA and that will not happen as long as I have a heartbeat. I will say what I want about what I want and yet there is something odd that UA has such a “faithful” (read paid) group of people that incessantly rush to UA’s defense and will do anything possible to avoid admitting that UA can and does make mistakes just like any other organization or person.
You really are quite an easy target.
None of which changes that DL is aggressively going after UA’s position as the largest airline across the Pacific, a role DL briefly held after the NW merger, as well as UA’s position of strength on the west coast.
DL doesn’t trash talk any other airline as UA execs have repeatedly done under Kirby's leadership but DL made abundantly clear that they were going after UA over the Pacific and on the west coast and that is exactly what they are doing.
Brett Snyder is right.
LOPA's
SQ 359: 253 (58% limit) SEA-SIN
UA 789: 257 (62% limit)
UA 789E: 222 (53% limit)
DL 359: 306 (70% limit)
DL 359: 275 (63% limit)
DL 35X: 314? (65% limit)
HE SAID that the 789 is a good plane to start new routes. It isn't the best plane to be your only new generation widebody for TPAC use.
We're still waiting for you to tell us what major TPAC airlines have 787s on order or in service as their only new generation widebodies.
the answer is that precious few large global airlines rely solely on the 787 as their only new generation widebody for good...
HE SAID that the 789 is a good plane to start new routes. It isn't the best plane to be your only new generation widebody for TPAC use.
We're still waiting for you to tell us what major TPAC airlines have 787s on order or in service as their only new generation widebodies.
the answer is that precious few large global airlines rely solely on the 787 as their only new generation widebody for good reason. It is smaller and far less capable than other aircraft.
but since you are incapable of admitting that UA made a strategic mistake by repeatedly deferring delivery of the A350s that they have had on order for decades, DL will have an advantage that UA simply will not be able to overcome.
and since UA has said it won't take delivery of early build 777Xs, then UA's only possible outcome will be to wait years for Boeing to work off the backlog of other airlines for the 777X because, you know, United won't be cutting the line in front of Emirates, Singapore etc
"UA has said it won't take delivery of early build 777Xs"
Because they don't need them and you are misrepresenting what Snyder said. He said the 35Xs and even the 359s are too big for the vast majority of the long thin TPAC routes especially for an airline without the crown jewel of SFO and that is trying to reenter the markets from which it has been absent for years. Nice try though.
TPAC destinations...
"UA has said it won't take delivery of early build 777Xs"
Because they don't need them and you are misrepresenting what Snyder said. He said the 35Xs and even the 359s are too big for the vast majority of the long thin TPAC routes especially for an airline without the crown jewel of SFO and that is trying to reenter the markets from which it has been absent for years. Nice try though.
TPAC destinations 2016/2025:
UA: 23/32
DL: 15/8
AA: 8/7
DOT’s 2025 Pacific data: UAL TPAC Op profit: $735M Rev: $6.9B ≈10.7% op margin, 1.51c/ASM DAL TPAC Op profit: $327M Rev: $3.4B ≈ 9.3% op margin, 1.47c/ASM
2025/1H26 Pacific rev $m
UA: 6,878/4,013
DL: 3,364/1,959
∆: 3,514/2,054 > DL
∆: 105%/105% > DL
Q2 ’26 TPAC PRASM YOY UAL/DAL: +14.0%/+7.0%
Brett doesn't incessantly regurgitate data that argues nothing about the 787.
He and the other commentators said that the 787 is the best aircraft to grow UA's network compared to the 359 - but that is only true if you are taking about markets that can't fill a 359 - which DL clearly is more than capable of doing.
He never said that the 787 alone is the best new generation aircraft for a large...
Brett doesn't incessantly regurgitate data that argues nothing about the 787.
He and the other commentators said that the 787 is the best aircraft to grow UA's network compared to the 359 - but that is only true if you are taking about markets that can't fill a 359 - which DL clearly is more than capable of doing.
He never said that the 787 alone is the best new generation aircraft for a large and comprehensive TPAC network - which UA operates as well as DL and a number of Asian carriers do.
The mere fact that you can't list a single other TPAC airline that has the 787 as their only new generation aircraft on order or in service is precisely why you lost the argument years ago.
The A350 and coming 777X are much more suited to the large routes that exist over the Pacific far more so than over the Atlantic. High costs esp. for US carriers favors larger gauge over frequency.
It doesn't matter how badly you want to refuse to admit that reality but it will increasingly be seen that DL has a fleet advantage that it will use to grow revenue faster at lower cost than UA.
Timmy! so much word salad to ignore the reason some might book SQ over Delta on SEA-SIN -- Alaska's codeshare with SQ ;)
If you can get the points on Alaska -- the biggest, by far, carrier in sea (2x) on SQ with a significantly better carrier in every cabin vs Delta. Why would you choose Delta? but sure. Connections will be there for Delta, no doubt.
Delta certainly has their minions.
oh. and Delta will certainly get the discount customers, no doubt.
the butthurt is real.
DL makes more per seat mile than UA.
your focus should be on why UA is the bottom feeder.
at least they make money flying to Asia which is more than can be said for AA.
thank you for highlighting how little you understand about the US airline industry, Max.
isn't it past your bedtime old man?
If you think DL will be getting a revenue premium to SQ, I have some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you
"at least they make money flying to Asia which is more than can be said for AA."
You sure to love to admit when you have no idea what to say so you bring up some random unrelated topic. Am I here defending AA? lol
Geez. I hope you'll get that joke given your fake southern personality...?
I'm not going anywhere.
I will dance on your grave telling the world what a fool you were for hoping I would go anywhere.
Not a joke. AA hasn't made money flying the Pacific for years.
Funny that you shoul get worked up in hearing that reality. I have a remarakble ability to touch on raw nerves
LTD "I will dance on your grave"
Yikes!
actually comical to imagine.
LTD says, "actually comical to imagine."
Yikes!
we can try it and see how it looks. :-)
Why would anyone want to fly Delta instead of Singapore Airlines, provided they want to go to SIN nonstop?
If somehow you don't want Singapore Airlines, you literally have 7 other East Asian one-stop flights with superior products.
How is Delta going to make money on this?
the same question can and should be asked about United which is the largest airline across the Pacific, regardless of nationality.
DL consistently ranks higher in customer service rankings than United.
and the reason why people choose US carriers is that carriers around the world carry an outsized proportion of passengers from their own country. US carriers benefit from strong corporate contracts (which DL is undoubtedly going after) as well as strong loyalty programs and...
the same question can and should be asked about United which is the largest airline across the Pacific, regardless of nationality.
DL consistently ranks higher in customer service rankings than United.
and the reason why people choose US carriers is that carriers around the world carry an outsized proportion of passengers from their own country. US carriers benefit from strong corporate contracts (which DL is undoubtedly going after) as well as strong loyalty programs and credit card programs; in each of those categories, DL is stronger than UA.
If UA can manage to survive in the Pacific - and make money, which they do, DL should be able to continue its streak of making more money per seat mile than UA, even considering the new routes that DL has added such as SEA-TPE that are in highly competitive markets.
Oil refinery, profits, A350, suites with DOORS, AmEx, ATL hub, KE JV or something, DOTS ON THE MAP, Shake Shack, LAX/SEA!!!
(Aka Tiny Tim bingo card word salad)
DL is coming for UA's crown jewels.
that is all you need to worry about.
"DL is coming for UA's crown jewels."
SFO & EWR? Good luck with that.
nope. any more than UA will ever succeed at JFK.
UA's TPAC network and its larger position as the largest of the big 3 on the west coast
That won't happen either.
DOT’s 2025 Pacific data:
UAL TPAC Op profit: $735M Rev: $6.9B ≈10.7% op margin, 1.51c/ASM
DAL TPAC Op profit: $327M Rev: $3.4B ≈ 9.3% op margin, 1.47c/ASM
2025/1H26 Pacific rev $m
UA: 6,878/4,013
DL: 3,364/1,959
∆: 3,514/2,054 > DL
∆: 105%/105% > DL
Q2 ’26 TPAC PRASM YOY UAL/DAL: +14.0%/+7.0%
which says nothing about the ton of bricks that UA will get hit with over the next few years.
The naysayers about profitability are probably right. That said, as someone who flies from the East Coast to SIN fairly frequently—I'm in Singapore right now!—I am personally overjoyed. Now: Vasu Raja, how can AA connect Singapore to the world?
except we have listened to naysayers about DL's Pacific strategy for a decade.
From a profitability standpoint, DL became far more profitable than UA after DL closed its NRT hub and UA dumped tons of capacity - including w/ old generation aircraft including the 777 - to try to replace DL as the largest TPAC airline.
AA hasn't been profitable flying the Pacific for a decade. They clearly see it as strategically necessary...
except we have listened to naysayers about DL's Pacific strategy for a decade.
From a profitability standpoint, DL became far more profitable than UA after DL closed its NRT hub and UA dumped tons of capacity - including w/ old generation aircraft including the 777 - to try to replace DL as the largest TPAC airline.
AA hasn't been profitable flying the Pacific for a decade. They clearly see it as strategically necessary but can't figure out how to do it profitably.
the chances of moonshots including AA presence in SIN are very low. There are far more things that AA needs to do domestically, TATL and to Latin America that have far greater chances of improving their market position and profitability.
For the past 5 plus years, we have heard how great UA's TPAC system is and yet verifiable data shows that DL makes more per ASM on a system that is half the size.
Now, DL is operating its entire TPAC network except one flight on the A350-900 which is larger, more capable and/or more efficient than anything in UA or AA's TPAC fleet and the revenue growth continues to accelerate esp. w/ cargo revenue.
and SQ proves that it is possible to use early generation A359s to fly some of the longest flights in the world and still dodge Russian airspace restrictions. They just don't carry much cargo and below average numbers of passengers on those flights.
DL will end up w/ a TPAC system that will be much closer to UA in size, will operate on aircraft which are much more efficient to UA's average size but will do so carrying much more cargo.
DL has every reason to be optimistic about its TPAC expansion and it will use its network, fleet and, yes, loyalty and credit card advantages to do things that UA simply cannot do.
"we have listened to naysayers about DL's Pacific strategy for a decade."
What strategy? Until recently it was shrinking and cherrypicking.
TPAC destinations 2016/2025:
UA: 23/32
DL: 15/8
AA: 8/7
DOT’s 2025 Pacific data:
UAL TPAC Op profit: $735M Rev: $6.9B ≈10.7% op margin, 1.51c/ASM
DAL TPAC Op profit: $327M Rev: $3.4B ≈ 9.3% op margin, 1.47c/ASM
2025/1H26 Pacific rev $m
UA: 6,878/4,013
DL:...
"we have listened to naysayers about DL's Pacific strategy for a decade."
What strategy? Until recently it was shrinking and cherrypicking.
TPAC destinations 2016/2025:
UA: 23/32
DL: 15/8
AA: 8/7
DOT’s 2025 Pacific data:
UAL TPAC Op profit: $735M Rev: $6.9B ≈10.7% op margin, 1.51c/ASM
DAL TPAC Op profit: $327M Rev: $3.4B ≈ 9.3% op margin, 1.47c/ASM
2025/1H26 Pacific rev $m
UA: 6,878/4,013
DL: 3,364/1,959
∆: 3,514/2,054 > DL
∆: 105%/105% > DL
Q2 ’26 TPAC PRASM YOY UAL/DAL: +14.0%/+7.0%
yes, we get it.
You incessantly brag about size because that is how UA defines itself- except you can't tell us how UA turns that size into actually higher financial metrics including profitability which is why UA and every other US airline exists.
none of which changes that the speed of DL's TPAC growth is breathtaking and it targets, AS I SAID WOULD HAPPEN, the very advantages that UA has had.
It is not...
yes, we get it.
You incessantly brag about size because that is how UA defines itself- except you can't tell us how UA turns that size into actually higher financial metrics including profitability which is why UA and every other US airline exists.
none of which changes that the speed of DL's TPAC growth is breathtaking and it targets, AS I SAID WOULD HAPPEN, the very advantages that UA has had.
It is not a mistake that DL has started LAX-ORD and HKG, has announced LAX-EWR and has announced plans to fly to MNL, return to NRT and says it will fly to SIN which I HAVE SAID would be coming.
UA is clearly in DL's bullseye after years of UA execs trash talking everyone else in the industry.
UA failed to kick AA out of ORD, is still working w/ far less flights from EWR than it had a couple years ago - and far less total flights than DL from all 3 airports, and DL, not UA, has benefitted more from the failure of cdertain ULCCs and LCCs in the US
DL is now aggressively moving to act on its intentions to close the gap with UA over the Pacific and will do it with a number of advantages that UA simply cannot overcome including fleet, interior US hubs, and gate space at LAX.
We realize you are just the paid puppet but there have got to be some serious conversations at UA headquarters about DL's ambitions esp. since UA has done precisely nothing about any of DL's aggressive moves.
"yes, we get it."
You definitely don't when you say, "we have listened to naysayers about DL's Pacific strategy for a decade."
Parking 10 (11 year old) 772LRs & 8 772ERs and closing NRT was a strategic blunder not a "Pacific strategy."
Wow Tiny Tim really on a defensive tilt tonight! He’s been roundly spanked all day, this is hilarious.
there's no defense... this is all offense.
DL is coming for UA's crown jewels and you folks are melting down trying to defend how great UA is doing - and yet a holistic analysis of the data shows that DL is very well positioned to take a big bite out of UA's backside
Poor LTD.
DL is the king of the very hypothetical dots on the map route expansion!
UA-NYC, "Wow Tiny Tim really on a defensive tilt tonight! He’s been roundly spanked all day, this is hilarious."
As they say, he is a glutton for punishment. ;)
so sad to think that you really think that rallying a bunch of your friends (equally paid internet influencers) matters one iota in the real world
DL is coming after UA's crown jewels and is going to build on DL's own significant strength and advantages and succeed because of UA's vulnerabilities.
Did you get that Prozac prescription refilled?
Do you think Tim Dunn matters half iota in the real world?
And we all know who missed his meds today.
I certainly don't think I have any influence whatsoever in any of the decisions that are made by any exec team in the airline industry and have never said otherwise.
My reason for participation in aviation social media is the same as most people - there are topics that interest them and they want to share their perspective.
The only bizarre part is that some people work so hard to shut down somebody else even...
I certainly don't think I have any influence whatsoever in any of the decisions that are made by any exec team in the airline industry and have never said otherwise.
My reason for participation in aviation social media is the same as most people - there are topics that interest them and they want to share their perspective.
The only bizarre part is that some people work so hard to shut down somebody else even when they state that person makes no difference in how the airline industry operates.
Even more bizarre is the huge and forceful social media following that UA has in doing everything possible to avoid admitting that someone else does something -in fact a lot of things - better than UA.
If someone is as good as they think they are, they don't need to tell the world; but sadly, that is the way Scott Kirby operates and his need to tout his greatness permeates throughout UA
Part of the reason DL's TPAC expansion is so fun to watch is because it hits UA at its heart and soul
quorumcall, excellent 'Daily Discussion' comment. You gotta admire his passion.
How many intra-Asia flights on United and how many intra-Asia flights on Delta?
you don't give up because you can't admit the reality that a domestic beyond flight on a narrowbody contributes next to nothing to a US based loyalty program and that is precisely what UA needs to close the gap with DL.
TPAC daily flights/1H 2026 revenue
UA: ≈40-50/$4.0b
DL: ≈20-25/$2.0b
you still can't accept that size is not what generates the most revenue or profits.
UA hasn't had more profit per ASM across the Pacific since the mid 2010s.
The same thing is true when comparing DL and UA's system level financials.
I know it is hard for you to accept but UA has been chasing the wrong things for decades while DL has not only figured out what matters the most but is now coming after the few advantages that UA has had.
I was providing requested data, something you apparently are incapable of providing or interpreting.
It's just a matter of time.
You and your talk of “profit per ASM”, a measurement that doesn’t exist. It’s yield.
UA’s is significantly outperforming DL’s in large part to the best TPAC hub in SFO and a huge number of 787s, the aircraft best suited to the market, as evidenced by their unparalleled network across the Pacific, both in number of destinations and number of frequencies to those destinations.
well, yes, mark. profit per ASM most certainly does exist. You just don't like any data that doesn't show UA to be in a great position.
you and rebel are fixated on the notion that size is the sole determinant of success when it has been proven over and over again - and is every time that DL and UA release financial results - that DL's decision to be smaller but get better revenue leads...
well, yes, mark. profit per ASM most certainly does exist. You just don't like any data that doesn't show UA to be in a great position.
you and rebel are fixated on the notion that size is the sole determinant of success when it has been proven over and over again - and is every time that DL and UA release financial results - that DL's decision to be smaller but get better revenue leads to more total revenue and profit.
btw, DL has higher yield than UA, even on a stage length adjusted basis.
and you still can't admit that the 787 is simply too small of an aircraft to be the primary new generation aircraft over the Pacific.
It is precisely for that reason that UA uses 777-300ERs which, while relatively young, burn 20-25% more fuel per seat than the A350 - which also carries as much or more cargo, esp. in the A350-1000 variant.
You are part of the same paid UA internet squad that is incapable of admitting that UA made some incredibly bad strategic decisions including ticking off Rolls Royce with the repercussions now coming due as DL takes delivery of the first 20 A350-1000s even as they carry far more revenue and cargo per flight and more profit per flight on their currently near all A359 TPAC fleet.
"UA made some incredibly bad strategic decisions"
More obvious demonstrable projection from the resident DL cheerleader.
DL prematurely retired 10 772LRs, 8 772ERs, 76 narrow body aircraft and closed their NRT hub. UA didn't.
TPAC destinations 2016/2025:
UA: 23/32
DL: 15/8
AA: 8/7
2025/1H26 Pacific rev $m
UA: 6,878/4,013
DL: 3,364/1,959
∆: 3,514/2,054 > DL
∆: 105%/105% > DL
Q2 ’26 TPAC PRASM YOY UAL/DAL:...
"UA made some incredibly bad strategic decisions"
More obvious demonstrable projection from the resident DL cheerleader.
DL prematurely retired 10 772LRs, 8 772ERs, 76 narrow body aircraft and closed their NRT hub. UA didn't.
TPAC destinations 2016/2025:
UA: 23/32
DL: 15/8
AA: 8/7
2025/1H26 Pacific rev $m
UA: 6,878/4,013
DL: 3,364/1,959
∆: 3,514/2,054 > DL
∆: 105%/105% > DL
Q2 ’26 TPAC PRASM YOY UAL/DAL: +14.0%/+7.0%
While DL and other airlines were retrenching during Covid UA ordered over 600 aircraft including 150 787s at bargain prices. This deal was so good and aircraft prices have risen so much since that the UA aircraft deliveries are now financially accretive.
Fleet size 2016/2026:
UA: 737/1,122 +385/52%
AA: 930/1,030 +100/11%
DL: 832/1,004 +172/21%
US domestic mainline market share (passengers) 2016/2025
UA: +28%, 13.0%/16.6%
DL: +9% , 16.4%/17.8%
AA: +1% , 17.2%/17.3%
SW: -7%, 18.2%/16.9%
Int’l destinations 2016/2025: UA overtook DL in TATL & TLAT, > TPAC than DL & AA combined
UA: 102/140
AA: 121/124
DL: 105/94
UA: 1,132 aircraft, (240 WB), Orders: 175 WB/421 NB 15.0 average fleet age)
AA: 1,030 aircraft, (137 WB), Orders: 19 WB/267 NB (14.7 average fleet age)
DL: 987 aircraft, (180 WB), Orders: 84 WB/248 NB (15.0 average fleet age)
UA is installing Starlink. Delta hopes to start installing LEO in up to 500 A/C in 2028 or so. UA has already installed Starlink into 518 aircraft and will install it in 1,000 aircraft by the end of the year and all UA's international widebodies before next summer.
Respected analysts from the community, most recently Brett Snyder, while discussing DL’s TPAC struggles, have said DL’s choice of the A350-1000 will further hamper them since it is too large and exacerbate their yield issues while limiting the markets they can profitably service.
They specifically mentioned UA’s 787 fleet as being the most appropriate for TPAC, the best combination of size and range.
Do you think the clunkers of LAX-HKG and SEA-TPE are...
Respected analysts from the community, most recently Brett Snyder, while discussing DL’s TPAC struggles, have said DL’s choice of the A350-1000 will further hamper them since it is too large and exacerbate their yield issues while limiting the markets they can profitably service.
They specifically mentioned UA’s 787 fleet as being the most appropriate for TPAC, the best combination of size and range.
Do you think the clunkers of LAX-HKG and SEA-TPE are improving the made up metric of profit per ASM, or is something else that’s hurting their TPAC yields?
first, you didn't even accurately quote what he said and two, Brett Snyder formerly worked for UA in Revenue management.
and the biggest piece of evidence that counters their point is that United is one of the very few large global airlines that does not have either the A350 in its fleet or on order or the 777X. The 789 is simply too small to be the only new generation aircraft in a global carrier's...
first, you didn't even accurately quote what he said and two, Brett Snyder formerly worked for UA in Revenue management.
and the biggest piece of evidence that counters their point is that United is one of the very few large global airlines that does not have either the A350 in its fleet or on order or the 777X. The 789 is simply too small to be the only new generation aircraft in a global carrier's fleet esp. across the Pacific.
Even if UA fixes that problem by ordering the 777-9, it will be years after DL has a fleet of A350-1000s in service across the Pacific.
The A350-1000, no matter what you or anyone else says, is the most efficient and capable longrange aircraft available right now.
Thank you for ensuring that Ben will have plenty of pageviews everytime an article about DL's TPAC growth comes out. You have arrogantly boasted for years about how great UA is because of its size but it has never consistently surpassed DL in financial metrics despite flying 10% more ASMs than DL.
UA has failed to focus on the things that matter in financial terms until it now will cost them way too much to grow their domestic network which is the only way UA can get in the same ballpark as DL and AA in terms of loyalty program/credit card revenue.
We have heard people like you say with every addition that route X would not work and yet DL's international profits have consistently been far higher than UA's.
You clearly are incapable of admitting that UA blew it while DL is taking advantage of UA's weaknesses - including its repeated deferrals of ordering the A350 - to allow DL to succeed in the huge holes that UA has left for competitors.
You two and and more will be howling for years to come as DL comes after the key advantages that UA has had and doing it at a rate of new route additions that rivals what UA did, without the lists on Cranky of underperforming UA flights across the Atlantic and Pacific.
"the biggest piece of evidence that counters their point is that United is one of the very few large global airlines that does not have either the A350 in its fleet or on order or the 777X."
No airline has the 777X and US airlines have very different needs than foreign airlines so that is evidence of nothing. Brett Snyder is right.
plenty of airlines have the 777X on order; UA doesn't even have that going for it. Even when the 777X is delivered, UA will be well down the list of customers.
and plenty of Asian airlines do operate one of the two versions of the A350 and there are plenty of them on order; the A350 is simply a better aircraft for the Pacific than the 787. The 787 was designed as a replacement for...
plenty of airlines have the 777X on order; UA doesn't even have that going for it. Even when the 777X is delivered, UA will be well down the list of customers.
and plenty of Asian airlines do operate one of the two versions of the A350 and there are plenty of them on order; the A350 is simply a better aircraft for the Pacific than the 787. The 787 was designed as a replacement for the 767.
It does not have the range or capability of either version of the A350. The higher weight version of the 789 doesn't even address that problem because the 789 is fuel volume limited on very long flights.
DL's 359s can fly 17+ hours with 275 passengers and cargo while UA's premium configured aircraft can only carry 225 passengers to go the same distance.
and, as usual, you didn't even quote Brett correctly. He said that the 787 is the best aircraft FOR DEVELOPING NEW MARKETS.
The 787 is smaller but it is far less capable; and DL is simply not interested at this point in adding service to secondary or tertiary Asian cities.
If that is what UA wants to do, let them go for it.
But DL is going for the primary cities and SIN will pretty well complete DL's return to most of those cities except for Beijing.
and DL will assuredly add more flights to the cities it is returning to with their first flight with service to other hubs in the next few years including from the eastern US.
UA's 789s will simply not make it deep into E. Asia from the central or eastern US.
It is not a surprise that DL has far more service just from MSP and DTW to E. Asia than UA has from its ORD and IAH hubs.
"It is not a surprise that DL has far more service just from MSP and DTW to E. Asia than UA has from its ORD and IAH hubs"
4 flights v 3 flights (including the restarting ORD-NRT) is "far more service"?
Hell, if you throw in the NH JV, UA has more service to East Asia from ORD and IAH than DL does from MSP and DTW.
"UA's 789s will simply not make it deep into E. Asia from the central or eastern US."
Wrong again. UA EWR-ICN coming and 789 IGWs just added another 10,000 lbs and 300 nm of range. But even before the 789 IGWs check out UA's much longer flights. No problem. Still waiting on that list of city pairs. Your silence is deafening.
Longest UA routes by block time
17:40 SFO-SIN 2x/day
17:35 IAH-SYD 1x/day
"UA's 789s will simply not make it deep into E. Asia from the central or eastern US."
Wrong again. UA EWR-ICN coming and 789 IGWs just added another 10,000 lbs and 300 nm of range. But even before the 789 IGWs check out UA's much longer flights. No problem. Still waiting on that list of city pairs. Your silence is deafening.
Longest UA routes by block time
17:40 SFO-SIN 2x/day
17:35 IAH-SYD 1x/day
17:10 DEL-EWR 1x/day
16:20 JNB-EWR 1x/day
16:10 CPT-EWR 3-4x/week
16:05 LAX-HKG 2x/day
15:55 LAX-MEL, SFO-ADL 3x/week
15:55 SFO-MEL 1x/day
15:40 SFO-HKG 2x/day
Sorry, your very tired dog still don't hunt.
and UA can't come close to carrying 275 passengers on those flights, let alone any cargo
We're still waiting for the list of major TPAC airlines that don't fly or have the the A350 or 777X on order.
UA is in rare air in thinking that the itsy bitsy little 787 is all they need to fly the Pacific with new generation aircraft.
LTD says, "UA can't come close to carrying 275 passengers on those flights"
For once you're right because UA 789s only have 257 seats, but they are flying full loads and now with 222 seats full on the Elevated 789s with 10,000 more pounds of fuel and payload. Poor misinformed LTD.
UA's 789s wouldn't go for 17 hours with 275 seats on them; that is why UA doesn't have 275 seats on them but the 789 could easily hold that many seats.
All we are waiting for is for you to tell us what major TPAC carriers rely solely on the 787 as their new generation aircraft.
No self-respecting airline thinks that a 787 is enough for the vast and huge TPAC market.
"UA's 789s wouldn't go for 17 hours with 275 seats on them; that is why UA doesn't have 275 seats on them but the 789 could easily hold that many seats."
Now let's think about that.
UA chose its standard 257 seat Polaris LOPA (62% of limit) prior to 2016, but that actually added five seats from the initial 48/204 LOPA in 2004. DL is following UA's lead with their new 359 LOPA of...
"UA's 789s wouldn't go for 17 hours with 275 seats on them; that is why UA doesn't have 275 seats on them but the 789 could easily hold that many seats."
Now let's think about that.
UA chose its standard 257 seat Polaris LOPA (62% of limit) prior to 2016, but that actually added five seats from the initial 48/204 LOPA in 2004. DL is following UA's lead with their new 359 LOPA of 275 seats (62% of limit) & their current 339 LOPA is 281 seats (61% of limit). Now DL is considering an even lower 339 LOPA like UA has already done with their 789s.
Sorry, the facts simply don't support your assertions.
2014 that is.
again, plenty of airlines including DL in the past, have had lower density configurations.
The point, which you are desperately trying to avoid making is that the 789 simply CANNOT carry anywhere as close to as many passengers over the same distance as an A350-900, let alone the A350-1000
UA and AA have both chosen - just like QF and NZ - to equp their longest range 789s with far less than a "standard" number...
again, plenty of airlines including DL in the past, have had lower density configurations.
The point, which you are desperately trying to avoid making is that the 789 simply CANNOT carry anywhere as close to as many passengers over the same distance as an A350-900, let alone the A350-1000
UA and AA have both chosen - just like QF and NZ - to equp their longest range 789s with far less than a "standard" number of seats because no airline can carry as many passengers on a 789 at the same distance as the larger A359 can.
It's really simple for anyone that can admit reality instead of obuscate to avoid admitting that UA is one of the few large global airlines that doesn't have the A350 or 777X on order or in service.
"789 simply CANNOT carry anywhere as close to as many passengers over the same distance as an A350-900, let alone the A350-1000."
No kidding? Next you'll tell us the A35X carries more passengers farther than the A359, and yet the 359 has 3x the orders and 2x the backlog because there are only so many routes for the largest aircraft. That is especially true for US carriers that, as you have said, serve the Pacific...
"789 simply CANNOT carry anywhere as close to as many passengers over the same distance as an A350-900, let alone the A350-1000."
No kidding? Next you'll tell us the A35X carries more passengers farther than the A359, and yet the 359 has 3x the orders and 2x the backlog because there are only so many routes for the largest aircraft. That is especially true for US carriers that, as you have said, serve the Pacific from multiple hubs, far more than foreign carriers so US routes are thinner, necessitating less capacity. The 789 better fits the TPAC markets for US airlines as Brett Snyder said, even more so for an airline with sub-optimal, competitive gateways and against the market leader who has twice the share and the premier TPAC gateway. Sorry about that.
wrong, again.
UA, not the industry, uses smaller planes because they made the decision to buy end of production line 777-300ERs and then made the decision that 789s were good enough to go further than the 77Ws.
Other carriers simply did not make that calcuation or mistake. The A350 has been on sale for more than 15 years; UA has had it on order and deferred for a decade.
No, the 789 does not...
wrong, again.
UA, not the industry, uses smaller planes because they made the decision to buy end of production line 777-300ERs and then made the decision that 789s were good enough to go further than the 77Ws.
Other carriers simply did not make that calcuation or mistake. The A350 has been on sale for more than 15 years; UA has had it on order and deferred for a decade.
No, the 789 does not fit the TPAC market better than other aircraft - because UA's TPAC network significantly includes both 777-200ERs and -300ERs.
and your argument is esp. wrong given that UA concentrates so much of its TPAC traffic at SFO so it has a comparable TPAC network structure to foreign carriers.
It is actually DL that serves more of its TPAC network from multiple hubs than any other US carrier and DL uses the largest new generation aircraft.
Just admit that UA is as bad at fleet planning as AA.
and that Airbus used its position of coming second in the new generation widebody market to build a more capable and larger aircraft - just as it with compared with the 737 and 767.
UA will be at a fleet disadvantage to DL esp. over the next five years when UA also has a west coast gate space disadvantage.
If UA wants to use 789s to start a bunch of new secondary cities in Asia, then the 789 might be the right plane - but it is far from the best plane to defend its network against a competitor that does a better job of getting good revenue and also operates across its system more efficiently than UA
US airlines TPAC routes are long and mostly thin. Snyder is right.
you didn't even quote him accurately.
DL's average TPAC stage length is longer than UA's and DL uses larger aircraft.
and you still haven't told us the list of major TPAC airlines that only have 787s and no A350s or 777X on order or in service.
UA made a calculation that the 787/777 combo would be enough.
DL's TPAC fleet is much more capable and cost efficient and you will see that DL's growth...
you didn't even quote him accurately.
DL's average TPAC stage length is longer than UA's and DL uses larger aircraft.
and you still haven't told us the list of major TPAC airlines that only have 787s and no A350s or 777X on order or in service.
UA made a calculation that the 787/777 combo would be enough.
DL's TPAC fleet is much more capable and cost efficient and you will see that DL's growth over the next few years will be driven in part because of its fleet advantage - on top of its gate space advantage on the west coast (LAX, specifically) and its proven ability to operate its TPAC network out of more hubs than AA or UA.
did you get that prozac rx filled?
it's gonna be a tough few years for you.
might want throw in some BP meds too
It won't be easy against Singapore Airlines but I think Delta can do it.
I think it'll work. While SEA isn't SFO, Delta has significantly improved on the TPE route in terms of loads. I'm not sure why people are expecting a massive success from the get go.
All expansions and strategies take time to settle. SEA to SIN will probably not be immediately a smashing success, but if Delta continues investing, I don't see why it can't.
Delta has the new Delta One lounge, and only continues to...
I think it'll work. While SEA isn't SFO, Delta has significantly improved on the TPE route in terms of loads. I'm not sure why people are expecting a massive success from the get go.
All expansions and strategies take time to settle. SEA to SIN will probably not be immediately a smashing success, but if Delta continues investing, I don't see why it can't.
Delta has the new Delta One lounge, and only continues to add new routes to SEA. People also forget that SEA is one of the wealthiest metros in the US just like SF is, lots of co-branded spend to be earned.
@Supposedly Julie Yeah and you basically said it yourself DL makes more of its profits from its relationship with AMEX. In a way, it can be viewed as AMEX is the parent company of Delta or another way to look at this is that Delta is a subsidiary of AMEX. HAH!
The only whiny loser is you @Tim Dunn. Did you just finish the first or second of your thrice daily worshipping of Ed Bastian?
Tim, you forgot to logout.
You're supposed to play Julie here.
you and your kind can't stand that multiple other people can see the same truth that I see and have said for years.
Hello below is absolutely correct. To no surprise, the UA internet squad loves to cherrypick data to avoid the obvious reality. If you want to compare DL's PRASM to CASM then take out the refinery costs. To no surprise, DL's profit per ASM for airline operations is larger than UA's.
yes,...
you and your kind can't stand that multiple other people can see the same truth that I see and have said for years.
Hello below is absolutely correct. To no surprise, the UA internet squad loves to cherrypick data to avoid the obvious reality. If you want to compare DL's PRASM to CASM then take out the refinery costs. To no surprise, DL's profit per ASM for airline operations is larger than UA's.
yes, it is whining of the highest order and also factually incorrect to try to argue that DL is less profitable than UA on its airline operations -which most certainly does include the loyalty program.
Not only could UA have figured out over a decade ago that domestic size matters if you want to maximize loyalty program revenue but they now find themselves in the very uncomfortable position that domestic growth will be much, much more costly than it ever has been for any other airline and there is no sign that AA, DL or WN are giving up domestic share to UA.
on top of that, DL IS coming after UA's key strategic advantage which is its west coast and TPAC positions.
the cold reality is that UA has made a number of strategic mistakes over years - including from CO - and DL is simply taking advantage of its own strengths and UA's weaknesses to cut the advantage that UA has
It's gonna be a rough couple years for a lot of people
In 2026 United:
$200m > DL in net income
$2.3b > DL in cash flow
$1.8b > DL in free cash flow
+ 56 net aircraft vs +15 for DL
– $263m net debt vs + $51m net debt for DL in Q2
UA & DL both around 2x net leverage
UA & DL average fleet age both 15.0 years
Fleet size 2016/2026:
UA: 737/1,122 +385/52%
...
In 2026 United:
$200m > DL in net income
$2.3b > DL in cash flow
$1.8b > DL in free cash flow
+ 56 net aircraft vs +15 for DL
– $263m net debt vs + $51m net debt for DL in Q2
UA & DL both around 2x net leverage
UA & DL average fleet age both 15.0 years
Fleet size 2016/2026:
UA: 737/1,122 +385/52%
AA: 930/1,030 +100/11%
DL: 832/1,004 +172/21%
UA: 1,132 aircraft, (240 WB), Orders: 175 WB/421 NB
AA: 1,030 aircraft, (137 WB), Orders: 19 WB/267 NB
DL: 987 aircraft, (180 WB), Orders: 84 WB/248 NB
1H 2026: Net Income/OCF/Capex/FCF in $b
UAL: 1.5/6.4/3.2/3.2
DAL: 1.3/4.1/2.7/1.4
Since 1/1/22 Rev/Net Inc (in $b)
DAL: 249.5/14.1
UAL: 229.5/10.5
AAL: 224.5/1.4
Since 1/1/22: OCF/Capex/FCF in $b (net aircraft added)
UAL: 35.7/25.3/10.4 (+296 aircraft)
DAL: 31.6/22.2/9.4 (+188 aircraft)
AAL: 17.3/12.4/4.9
SWA: 9.5/12.7/-3.2
now tell us about debt. not net debt. but full long term debt.
And UAL's market cap relative to DAL's continues to fall. Real investors know what you can't stand to admit which is that DL runs a better business and airline.
and DL is coming after UA's key strategic assets after gaining more from the failure of the LCC/ULCC which UA execs claimed that they would make obsolete.
We get that you are running scared.
It's amazing that an 'analyst' seems incapable of providing basic data. Interesting how UA and even AA have significantly more of a decrease in net debt in the last 12 months than DAL. I thought you said the aircraft deliveries would increase UA debt. Wrong again.
It's just a matter of time.
TTM Net Debt: UAL/DAL/AAL in $b
Q3 ’25: 22.4/15.6/31.2
Q4 ’25: 19.2/14.3/30.7
Q1 ’26: 18.8/13.5/27.5
Q2 ’26: 17.7/13.6/27.0
...
It's amazing that an 'analyst' seems incapable of providing basic data. Interesting how UA and even AA have significantly more of a decrease in net debt in the last 12 months than DAL. I thought you said the aircraft deliveries would increase UA debt. Wrong again.
It's just a matter of time.
TTM Net Debt: UAL/DAL/AAL in $b
Q3 ’25: 22.4/15.6/31.2
Q4 ’25: 19.2/14.3/30.7
Q1 ’26: 18.8/13.5/27.5
Q2 ’26: 17.7/13.6/27.0
TTM ∆: 4.7/2.0/4.2 = UA 2.7b/AA 2.2b > net debt reduction than DL (TTM)
Market Cap $b
DL: 59
UA: 41
SW: 22
AA: 10
Tim, why do you keep pointing out that DL is the largest domestic carrier in NYC, ignoring that UA is larger overall, thanks not only to a robust domestic network but also a huge international advantage?
NYC is one of the most international cities in the world. You think they prefer DL because of RJs within the LGA perimeter rule and service to DTW and SLC?
UA’s well-rounded network in NYC is why they make...
Tim, why do you keep pointing out that DL is the largest domestic carrier in NYC, ignoring that UA is larger overall, thanks not only to a robust domestic network but also a huge international advantage?
NYC is one of the most international cities in the world. You think they prefer DL because of RJs within the LGA perimeter rule and service to DTW and SLC?
UA’s well-rounded network in NYC is why they make more revenue than DL there, and why you cling to an overwhelming number of RJs out of perimeter-restricted LGA as DL’s “advantage”.
It’s also why DL has recently cut service to seven markets out of JFK.
I keep bringing up DL's larger domestic size in NYC because you refuse to admit that the reason why UA lags DL in total revenue is because UA doesn't compete near as effectively in the domestic market; there are dozens of domestic cities that UA doesn't serve from NYC or where DL is larger.
You love to tout UA"s size but cannot accept - or admit - that international size contributes far less value to...
I keep bringing up DL's larger domestic size in NYC because you refuse to admit that the reason why UA lags DL in total revenue is because UA doesn't compete near as effectively in the domestic market; there are dozens of domestic cities that UA doesn't serve from NYC or where DL is larger.
You love to tout UA"s size but cannot accept - or admit - that international size contributes far less value to a US based credit card partnership than a large domestic network.
Sadly for you, Kirby understands that reality and has said that UA's intention is to grow its domestic network.
Problem is that he just has much less capacity to grow domestically in NYC or LAX, he failed at trying to run AA out of ORD, and adding domestic capacity at other hubs such as IAD will be exponentially higher than what any other airline has to spend to grow their domestic networks.
I'm sorry for you that you continue to fail to accept the reality which even your boss understands about the value of a domestic network.
and it is precisely because DL got the domestic part right first that it is now in a position to go after UA's crown jewels with DL's TPAC expansion that will also be more efficient and better connected to DL's larger domestic network w/ a stronger primary TPAC JV partner than anything UA can hope to have.
US domestic mainline market share (passengers) 2016/2025
UA: +28%, 13.0%/16.6%
DL: +9%, 16.4%/17.8%
AA: +1%, 17.2%/17.3%
SW: -7%, 18.2%/16.9%
From 2026 through April 2028 it will take delivery of about 260 new aircraft (47 of them 787s) while retiring over 100 older jets and this year adding 22 gates at IAH and 14 at IAD. Meanwhile you are ecstatic about 5 AUS gates becoming 15 gates sometime in the 2030s. Too funny.
thank you for confirming that UA is handledly in last place among the big 4.
Have you paid the bill for those new IAD concourses?
Still having trouble with that rate information, aren't you?
Maybe give this a shot.
https://en.khanacademy.org/math/mappers/operations-and-algebraic-thinking-231/x261c2cc7:average-rate-of-change-word-problems/e/average-rate-of-change-word-problems
Yowzers! on that DL RASM/CASM gap.
Shows they are great at credit card partnerships and refining oil. Not so good and profitable at the actual flying part of the biz.
I mean, if the cards and oil are going well for them, why bother even flying. There's no penalty (in the US at least) for just completely failing your passengers. Save money on labor, too. Win-win-win. Just don't fly. /s
and yet AA and UA use the same business model; DL just happened to have figured out how to get the best mix of all revenue sources to maximize profit which DL does far better than any other US airline.
Apparently, throwing a bunch of capacity into the marketplace isn't the best formula for maximizing revenue or profits.
Tim, you made UA’s point for them.
As previous articles and data in this post show, UA makes more from airline operations. They fly where people want to go and make more from yields and fares. So the network decisions UA has made serve them better then DL’s network decisions serve them.
Yes DL makes more, in large part due to the agreement with AMEX. But UA has said they are about to...
Tim, you made UA’s point for them.
As previous articles and data in this post show, UA makes more from airline operations. They fly where people want to go and make more from yields and fares. So the network decisions UA has made serve them better then DL’s network decisions serve them.
Yes DL makes more, in large part due to the agreement with AMEX. But UA has said they are about to start the negotiation with Chase so DL’s biggest advantage will not be around much longer.
Helpful comment @UA-NYC as that button is still not fixed
Oh, so it's not just me. Yeah, "helpful" ain't workin'
RASM/CASM cap is not apples-to-apples. The CASM he used for Delta includes the Refinery expenses. If you strip out the Refinery, Q2 2026 numbers look like this:
Delta PRASM: 19.83 cents
Delta CASM: 20.08 cents
United PRASM: 18.45 cents
United CASM: 18.99 cents
If you want to include the Refinery, then you need to compare TRASM, not PRASM to CASM.
in lieu of the non-working "Helpful" button, I will add that you are spot on.
The UA crowd loves to cherrypick and manipulate reality so it is refreshing to have yet another person tell them their math doesn't math
“Technically Asia”.. as if Saudi Arabia is exploiting some obscure geographic loophole. It’s just Asia. Another day, another geography fact exposing the American education system.
@ PJOC -- I'm not sure how this is "exposing the American education system" when I'm literally acknowledging it's Asia? My point is that Saudi Arabia is absolutely technically in Asia, but culturally and geographically most people think of the Middle East as being its own region.
For example, all the time I hear people in Miami talk about how we have no nonstop flights to Asia. That's not true, because we have flights to...
@ PJOC -- I'm not sure how this is "exposing the American education system" when I'm literally acknowledging it's Asia? My point is that Saudi Arabia is absolutely technically in Asia, but culturally and geographically most people think of the Middle East as being its own region.
For example, all the time I hear people in Miami talk about how we have no nonstop flights to Asia. That's not true, because we have flights to Doha and Dubai, but I understand what they mean, because we don't have flights to destinations that people associate with what people typically think of as Asia (the Far East, North Asia, Southeast Asia, etc.).
@Ben I think PJOC is mentioning how your wording is questionable. There is nothing technical about it. I think strictly in geographical terms, there are only seven continents and the Middle East is in Asia. Yeah, you mention about the culture but what about the Caribbean. Should that be differentiated as well such as technically it is a part of North America or should we say Mexico is technically in North America but culturally it...
@Ben I think PJOC is mentioning how your wording is questionable. There is nothing technical about it. I think strictly in geographical terms, there are only seven continents and the Middle East is in Asia. Yeah, you mention about the culture but what about the Caribbean. Should that be differentiated as well such as technically it is a part of North America or should we say Mexico is technically in North America but culturally it is more closely associated with the continent of South America? And I am seriously not joking about that. I have spoken to a couple of people from Europe who believe that Mexico and Central America are part of the continent of South America though geographically that is not correct. And your statement about what those Miamians said really shows how the education system in certain places are not up to par.
Agree with Ben. Technically, Israel is Asia, yet people going there don't say "I'm going for vacation to Asia"...
@Voian: Technically, Israel is Asia, yet people going there don't say "I'm going for vacation to Asia"...
So, yeah your analogy can work with so many other examples.
Technically, Costa Rica is in North America but people going there won’t say “I’m going for a vacation to North America.
"people associate with what people typically think of"
"Technically, Israel is Asia, yet people going there don't say "I'm going for vacation to Asia"..."
Exactly what @PJOC is saying about the education system.
Having most people believe doesn't make it correct.
Just look at me trying explain how we can save lives by removing humans from the cockpit and ATC.
"Just look at me trying explain how we can save lives by removing humans from the cockpit and ATC."
Indeed, look at you. Constantly repeating something that you believe, despite no actual empirical data to back it up.
That was the point.
Is there any reason why Delta couldn't fly Singapore from San Francisco? Delta has a fairly large number of domestic flights to/from San Francisco, allowing for connections. Including routes with transcontinental Delta One business class. XXX in Asia to Seattle is great if Seattle is your O&D but who wants to connect through Seattle to fly down to San Francisco and San Jose/Silicon Valley? Or connect to a domestic first-class flight with recliners from Seattle...
Is there any reason why Delta couldn't fly Singapore from San Francisco? Delta has a fairly large number of domestic flights to/from San Francisco, allowing for connections. Including routes with transcontinental Delta One business class. XXX in Asia to Seattle is great if Seattle is your O&D but who wants to connect through Seattle to fly down to San Francisco and San Jose/Silicon Valley? Or connect to a domestic first-class flight with recliners from Seattle to somewhere east of the Mississippi?
SFO is UA's hub and DL is not going to fly its metal out of there any more than UA would succeed at flying international flights out of JFK.
It is UA's hyperdependence on SFO that leaves DL with plenty of opportunities to grow DL's own network.
- LAX is a larger local market to just about everywhere than SFO
- SEA is just as well connected on DL to the major feeder...
SFO is UA's hub and DL is not going to fly its metal out of there any more than UA would succeed at flying international flights out of JFK.
It is UA's hyperdependence on SFO that leaves DL with plenty of opportunities to grow DL's own network.
- LAX is a larger local market to just about everywhere than SFO
- SEA is just as well connected on DL to the major feeder markets to Asia as SFO is and the flight is shorter to the Pacific Rim
- DL is the largest airline outside of CA (actually outside of SFO) to E. Asia and gets very good revenue from its interior US hubs of MSP, DTW and ATL, all of which have 2 or more destinations in E. Asia. UA only has two destinations from EWR and only started ICN because of Air Premia which ironically only boosted the case that the NYC-ICN is very competitive, allowing DL to add its own metal to the consolidated KE/OZ schedule from JFK.
Tokyo, Seoul and Shanghai are the only cities in E. Asia served by US carriers outside of the west coast so you are going to take a domestic configured aircraft other than from NYC and a few BOS and IAD flights where there are nonstops to much of E. Asia, even if on foreign carriers and esp. from JFK.
and using your own example, there probably are a few people that will make a connecting flight form SJC to SEA to E. Asia rather than fly nonstop from SFO; there are people that fly LGA-BOS-Europe rather than fly nonstop from JFK. not a lot but it happens and DL via OO already flies SJC to SEA
Sure, it's a United hub. But DFW and MIA are American hubs. Denver is another United hub. Delta has a fairly large operation at MIA, SFO, DFW and DEN for not being hubs. A large number of elite customers too.
... and remind me, how many international longhaul flights does Delta do from MIA, SFO, DFW and DEN?
Oh, right, that would be zero. Nada. Nil.
I didn't say they did any. My original post was asking what is stopping Delta from doing it. Unless there is some kind of gate restriction imposed by the airport authority, it's just a commercial decision. I suspect Delta would have a much easier time filling planes flying from San Francisco to Singapore than Seattle to Singapore.
"what is stopping Delta from doing it"
Google says:
Why don't airlines fly to international routes out of other airlines' hubs?
Airlines generally do not fly international routes out of competing airlines' hubs due to strict international legal frameworks, high operational costs, and the fundamental economics of the hub-and-spoke business model.
No domestic connection feed: If United Airlines tried to fly a route out of Delta's hub in Atlanta, United would have no...
"what is stopping Delta from doing it"
Google says:
Why don't airlines fly to international routes out of other airlines' hubs?
Airlines generally do not fly international routes out of competing airlines' hubs due to strict international legal frameworks, high operational costs, and the fundamental economics of the hub-and-spoke business model.
No domestic connection feed: If United Airlines tried to fly a route out of Delta's hub in Atlanta, United would have no regional domestic flights bringing passengers into Atlanta to fill that large international plane.
Inefficient "point-to-point" risk: United would have to rely purely on travelers living in Atlanta. If local demand drops, the route immediately loses money. It is far safer to funnel passengers from dozens of smaller cities through their own hubs.
Home Turf Disadvantages
Operating at a rival's hub means fighting an uphill battle against structural disadvantages.
Airport real estate: The dominant airline controls the best terminals, gates, and lounges. A competing airline will likely be relegated to worse gates with higher operational fees.
Frequent flyer loyalty: Local travelers living in a hub city are usually loyal to the dominant airline because it offers the most flight options, better credit card perks, and localized marketing.
The Alliance Alternative
Instead of launching risky routes from a competitor's base, airlines use global alliances (like Star Alliance, SkyTeam, or Oneworld). This allows them to seamlessly sell tickets on their partners' flights out of those hubs, splitting the revenue without taking on the massive financial risk.
And once again TD is wrong and he continues to just ignore facts or direct questions to which he cannot truthfully answer and his iconic cherry picking: DL is the largest airline outside of CA (actually outside of SFO) to E. Asia and gets very good revenue from its interior US hubs of MSP, DTW and ATL, all of which have 2 or more destinations in E. Asia. UA only has two destinations from EWR
...And once again TD is wrong and he continues to just ignore facts or direct questions to which he cannot truthfully answer and his iconic cherry picking: DL is the largest airline outside of CA (actually outside of SFO) to E. Asia and gets very good revenue from its interior US hubs of MSP, DTW and ATL, all of which have 2 or more destinations in E. Asia. UA only has two destinations from EWR
United is actually the largest airline from the U.S. in terms of seats to Asia. And they definitely still have more of their own metal to Asia unlike DL which still at the moment relies on other airlines to get their passengers across the Pacific. Also, don’t United Airlines fly to East Asia/Asia from Denver, Houston and Chicago besides Newark?
no, you just can't admit that UA has put all of its TPAC eggs into SFO and it is factually accurate that DL is the largest TPAC airline outside of both SFO and CA.
DL's SEA hub is on the verge - if this flight is added ontop of NRT - to being as large or larger than UA is from LAX.
UA has precisely ONE hub not in CA w/ a flight...
no, you just can't admit that UA has put all of its TPAC eggs into SFO and it is factually accurate that DL is the largest TPAC airline outside of both SFO and CA.
DL's SEA hub is on the verge - if this flight is added ontop of NRT - to being as large or larger than UA is from LAX.
UA has precisely ONE hub not in CA w/ a flight to a city other than Tokyo while DL has 3 hubs with 2 TPAC destinations not on the west coast and 1 with 3 destinations.
DL has 4 hubs outside of the west coast with service to E. Asia. UA has 5 (you forgot IAD) but DL has more flights and more of it not to the same destination.
it is you that are factually incorrect that DL relies on other airlines -including KE - to get passengers across the Pacific. ICN is not the majority of DL's capacity and there are limits on how much traffic DL can put on KE metal.
It's gonna be a rough couple years for some people to watch DL rapidly cut the TPAC lead that UA has had and do it by building from all of DL's network - which surrounds SFO
SFO is the most beautiful TPAC basket and in combination with UA's LAX operation it's smoking hot.
TPAC daily flights/1H 2026 revenue
UA: ≈40-50/$4.0b
DL: ≈20-25/$2.0b
How much premium traffic will connect via DTW, MSP, ATL when they can take nonstops from NYC, IAD, ORD, IAH on UA.
And of course the west coast has by far the most demand to Asia, which is why UA has the crown jewel TPAC hub with two separate international banks in SFO.
It’s also why DL is desperate to play such a big game of catch up, relative to UA by adding...
How much premium traffic will connect via DTW, MSP, ATL when they can take nonstops from NYC, IAD, ORD, IAH on UA.
And of course the west coast has by far the most demand to Asia, which is why UA has the crown jewel TPAC hub with two separate international banks in SFO.
It’s also why DL is desperate to play such a big game of catch up, relative to UA by adding these flights. Otherwise why isn’t DL adding these flights from the eastern hubs?
It’s also why UA TPAC yields are better than DL’s, and it’s why DL yields are trending so much worse than UA’s thanks to the clunkers of routes like SEA-TPE and LAX-HKG.
Since Tim brought up NYC and LAX.
@ Tim Dunn -- We're waiting to learn which EWR-LAX frequencies UA operates with 737-900ERs, please!! These are the important details!
They should just fly it out of SLC. Sure not much O/D traffic but a well connected domestic hub that is easier to access from a lot of the country compared to SEA.
I’m not an expert on range but I’d think the 350-1000 could do it?
Fun fact, the planet we fly planes on is actually spherical and SEA is actually closer to SIN than SLC (and thus a lot of itineraries like ATL/JFK-SEA-SIN are shorter than ATL/JFK-SLC-SIN).
Or do you think Delta still does covered wagons on the Oregon Trail to get to the Pacific Northwest?
"I’m not an expert on range but I’d think the 350-1000 could do it?"
Range isn't the issue. SLC's altitude, and total lack of an origin market: are.
Yes and no. Range and takeoff weight are very interconnected. So can it take off at higher altitude and have enough fuel? Idk.
And I never said Slc was closer than Sea lol. But I’d rather a 4 hour flight in first and a 17 hour flight in D1 over a 6 hour flight in first and a 16 hour flight in D1…
Delta used to have a reservations call center in Singapore!
They still do. During off hours, some of the Diamond lines are handled by Singapore.
as I have said, the number of dots that DL is adding up and down the Pacific Rim is growing by the hour.
SIN has always been a given.
DL's choice of SEA over LAX is very likely that they can carry a whole lot more cargo to/from SEA than LAX. DL's cargo revenue is growing faster than you know who and the A350 in either version has far more cargo capability at lower...
as I have said, the number of dots that DL is adding up and down the Pacific Rim is growing by the hour.
SIN has always been a given.
DL's choice of SEA over LAX is very likely that they can carry a whole lot more cargo to/from SEA than LAX. DL's cargo revenue is growing faster than you know who and the A350 in either version has far more cargo capability at lower costs than any aircraft in the US carrier fleet.
AA or UA might try to use their "premium configured" 787s to fly LAX-SIN but they will lose money hand over fist against SQ and every other carrier because that plane can carry virtually no cargo on a flight of that length.
SEA is better located than LAX to distribute traffic to all of the US while AS and SQ are not near as close partners as they once were.
DL "squandered" the past 8 years over the Pacific because
1. The Japanese government decided that HND would become available again for TPAC flights but 5th freedom rights beyond Japan to the rest of Asia - the way NW built its NRT hub - could not be used at HND.
2. DL strengthened its relationship w/ KE, a founding member w/ DL of Skyteam but they decided to buy Asiana - which will be eliminated this fall after a very lengthy approval process. DL and KE will have by far the largest JV across the Pacific.
3. The Chinese carriers dumped capacity across the Pacific and forced profitability down for everyone - including themselves. AA pulled back its LAX TPAC network while UA operated its TPAC network - which dramatically grew after DL pulled back at NRT - at just breakeven for over 3 years pre-covid. It made no sense for anyone to add much TPAC capacity until the market stabilizied as it has now.
UA's hyperfocus on SFO is precisely why DL can grow LAX and SEA as well as to Asia from other hubs including in the eastern US where DL already is the largest carrier to E. Asia. JFK to E. Asia will be next but DL is (re)adding new cities in Asia from the west coast before it adds more eastern US to Asia routes.
it is clear that the post-covid heyday of incessant route announcements at UA is over and DL is now the carrier to watch grow.
"A350 in either version has far more cargo capability at lower costs than any aircraft in the US carrier fleet."
-FedEx disagrees with you Tim.
"because that plane can carry virtually no cargo on a flight of that length."
-So 787 is the reason UA and AA keeps mishandling bags according to you? They can't carry passenger bags you say.
"SEA is better located than LAX to distribute traffic to all of the...
"A350 in either version has far more cargo capability at lower costs than any aircraft in the US carrier fleet."
-FedEx disagrees with you Tim.
"because that plane can carry virtually no cargo on a flight of that length."
-So 787 is the reason UA and AA keeps mishandling bags according to you? They can't carry passenger bags you say.
"SEA is better located than LAX to distribute traffic to all of the US"
-According to Tim and no source.
"DL "squandered" the past 8 years over the Pacific because"
Because Delta chooses to do so and decides to back track 8 years later.
1. Japan government
2. KE
3. China
None of them forced Delta.
I'll let other people have a shot at poking holes on your fluff.
"DL "squandered" the past 8 years over the Pacific because"
Oops. You missed one.
Delta Air Lines retired 10 772LRs & 772ERs and shut down NRT in 2020 during Covid. The 772LRs were only 11 years old.
In retrospect, that was a big mistake.
Tim, if SEA is so great why isn’t all DL TPAC service from there?
If SEA is better since it’s a shorter flight, are you saying all UA service from SFO is better than all DL service from LAX for the same reason?
You also talk about DL adding dots in Asia as a good thing, though it’s bad for UA when they add dots. You don’t mention the depth of service. Will DL have...
Tim, if SEA is so great why isn’t all DL TPAC service from there?
If SEA is better since it’s a shorter flight, are you saying all UA service from SFO is better than all DL service from LAX for the same reason?
You also talk about DL adding dots in Asia as a good thing, though it’s bad for UA when they add dots. You don’t mention the depth of service. Will DL have 4 flights to HKG like UA, 2 flights to SIN like UA, 12 TPAC flights to Japan, 2 to TPE, 3 to SYD? Will they bring back KIX, PPT, PEK?
I could go on but we all get the point.
In other words, Delta couldn't compete against Singapore Airlines out of Los Angeles. So it's flying from Seattle. Will it have better flight times than the Taipei flight, which is very difficult to connect to if coming from the East Coast? I just don't know who would fly paid business-class on Delta to Singapore if Singapore Airlines was at all an option.
say what?
DL's SEA-TPE flight easily connects w/ every point in the continental US on a nonstop basis and even allow a connection from many cities - such as smaller cities behind DTW and ATL including S. America.
TPE-SEA arrives first thing in the morning which also allows connections to all of DL's network in the Americas.
as noted, DL will be able to carry far more cargo to/from SEA and SEA is simply better...
say what?
DL's SEA-TPE flight easily connects w/ every point in the continental US on a nonstop basis and even allow a connection from many cities - such as smaller cities behind DTW and ATL including S. America.
TPE-SEA arrives first thing in the morning which also allows connections to all of DL's network in the Americas.
as noted, DL will be able to carry far more cargo to/from SEA and SEA is simply better located to connect traffic.
AA and UA are simply not going to carry any cargo if they try to fly LAX-SIN on a 787 so their economics will always be poor - if not money-losing compared to DL at SEA or SQ which also uses A350s.
SEA is better located to "siphon off" demand from UA at SFO by being north of SFO
2025 Cargo rev $m
UA:1,779
DL: 900
∆: 879 > DL
∆: 98% > DL
I guess if you want a 5-7 hour connection in SEA on your way to TPE from Chicago, "DL's SEA-TPE easily connects w/every point in the continental US..."
Will this flight offer sewage spills and shop vac clean-up too?
"Meanwhile in the Los Angeles to Singapore market, Delta would’ve had competition from both Singapore Airlines and United Airlines."
Has United recently announced plans to resume LAX-SIN?
They haven't flown that for years.
@ ImmortalSynn -- You're of course correct, no clue what I was thinking (didn't have enough coffee, I guess). Post updated. Thanks!
Ben, you forgot to mention, Air Canada is flying SIN from YVR, and they rely heavily on SEA traffic.
However Air Canada realistically is a budget carrier.
There's no other logical place for DL to fly to SIN than SEA given the limits of its West Coast hub structure. Will this flight work? It is going up against SQ, and whether the market can bear a second service remains to be seen. A lot of what DL has attempted TPAC out of SEA hasn't worked. Time will tell. I doubt the new focus on TPAC is going to be a huge profit...
There's no other logical place for DL to fly to SIN than SEA given the limits of its West Coast hub structure. Will this flight work? It is going up against SQ, and whether the market can bear a second service remains to be seen. A lot of what DL has attempted TPAC out of SEA hasn't worked. Time will tell. I doubt the new focus on TPAC is going to be a huge profit machine for Delta. The gateways (LAX, SEA) simply don't lend themselves to replicate what UA has at SFO.
The LAX market is saturated, which exerts downward pressure on yields.
"A lot of what DL has attempted TPAC out of SEA hasn't worked."
If by "a lot" you mean two routes (Osaka, Hong Kong), then I guess so.
Delta cannot return to Beijing within the current frequency limitations (50 weekly departures on each side) between the USA and PRC, which is a third of what was allowed pre-Covid, so that one can't exactly count as "not working" when they do wish to fly it.
From SEA, Delta will also compete, with Air Canada for some traffic. Air Canada is obviously a budget carrier these days, but if Delta is flying an A350-1000 they have a lot of economy seats to fill.
It will be a blood bath and Air Canada has the advantage of govt bailouts.
AC is not in a JV w/ UA and they use their weaker currency to siphon off TPAC traffic just as they do over the Atlantic. They are just as much of a threat to UA as they are to DL.
The fact that they have higher density and lower J configurations on many of their aircraft shows how they are dependent on price sensitive Americans to fill flights.
"The fact that they have higher density and lower J configurations on many of their aircraft shows how they are dependent on price sensitive Americans to fill flights."
So then what does that show about Singapore, Qatar, Emirates, Cathay, EVA, Air Canada, BA, Air France, and.... Delta (on 763ER previously, and the A339 soon)?
All of whom also have hi-J and low-J configurations for the same aircraft model.
With multiple flights a day between ORD and SEA/LAX now, it seems like DL is trying to siphon off so traffic to Asia from UA/AA. Given how annoying the DL/KE partnership is (the coordination between the two leaves a lot to be desired for passengers...), I'd be happy to fly to SIN through SEA or MNL through LAX out of ORD as a Chicago-based flyer (at least when I'm in the states).