I can’t say that I’m terribly surprised, but Delta Air Lines will be canceling one of its long haul routes as of late 2025, as flagged by @xJonNYC.
In this post:
Delta will stop flying to French Polynesia
In December 2022, Delta launched a seasonal, 3x weekly flight between Los Angeles (LAX) and Papeete (PPT), in French Polynesia. The flight has been operating with the following schedule:
DL119 Los Angeles to Tahiti departing 11:40AM arriving 6:40PM
DL118 Tahiti to Los Angeles departing 8:40PM arriving 7:20AM (+1 day)
The 4,095-mile route has been operated by a Boeing 767-300ER, and has been blocked at 9hr westbound and 8hr40min eastbound. While the service has operated for three seasons, it’s soon coming to an end.
Currently the route is scheduled to be available through June 7, 2025, and then it was supposed to resume again as of October 7, 2025. However, Delta has just pulled all inventory for the route, so it’s no longer on sale, suggesting that this route is being cut.
With this reduction, Delta’s long haul destinations out of Los Angeles include Paris (CDG), Sydney (SYD), and Tokyo (HND), on a year-round basis, plus Auckland (AKL) and Brisbane (BNE), on a seasonal basis. Furthermore, Delta plans to add flights to Shanghai (PVG) as of June 2025, and flights to Melbourne (MEL) as of December 2025.
Why didn’t Delta’s service to Tahiti work out?
For context on the competitive landscape between the United States and Tahiti:
- Delta’s SkyTeam partner Air France flies between Los Angeles and Tahiti, as part of a “direct” flight from Paris
- Air Tahiti Nui flies from Tahiti to both Los Angeles and Seattle; the airline isn’t part of an alliance, but has partnerships with Alaska and American
- United flies between San Francisco and Tahiti
- Ultra low cost carrier French Bee flies between San Francisco and Tahiti, as part of a “direct” flight from Paris
I was surprised back when this service was added, so I can’t say that I’m surprised that it’s now being cut. For one, Delta partner Air France already operates the route, and offers a superior passenger experience, plus connectivity from Paris. So the incremental value of Delta adding service was limited.
Beyond that, though, Delta’s fundamental issue is that it lacks a West Coast fortress hub. For example, United has been operating service to Tahiti out of San Francisco on a year-round basis, and the ability to make that work comes down to how much connectivity the airline has there. Delta (and United, for that matter) does’t have that same level of service in Los Angeles.
Bottom line
In late 2022, Delta launched a 3x weekly, seasonal flight between Los Angeles and Tahiti. Unfortunately after a few seasons, this route will be canceled. As of October 2025, Delta will no longer fly to French Polynesia. On the plus side, Air France is a Delta partner, and continues to offer service in the market, so it’s not a huge loss. But that also makes you wonder why Delta added this service in the first place.
What do you make of Delta cutting its Tahiti flights?
one has to wonder how DL management keeps finding itself in this position, over and over...
you seriously mean the situation of cancelling routes?
Airlines add and cancel routes all the time. would you like to start a list of routes that have been cancelled just from LAX?
There is a pretty long list just of longhaul international routes.
and, as has been noted about a dozen times, DL added LAX-PPT when Air France, a DL joint venture partner, already served the route. Who knows why they felt a need to...
you seriously mean the situation of cancelling routes?
Airlines add and cancel routes all the time. would you like to start a list of routes that have been cancelled just from LAX?
There is a pretty long list just of longhaul international routes.
and, as has been noted about a dozen times, DL added LAX-PPT when Air France, a DL joint venture partner, already served the route. Who knows why they felt a need to do that but the market never absorbed the DL capacity and DL was never able to use a plane bigger than the 767 because of limits on capacity by the Tahiti government.
the only remaining 767 route over the Pacific is HNL-HND which has its own set of issues but DL is moving to an all A350 transpacific fleet. For many reasons, this flight just wasn't worth fighting for according to DL.
One of the loyal commentators on this site consistently, but indirectly, implies that his beloved Delta is the world's only PERFECT airline. While Delta is, indeed, an excellent airline, the objective evidence shows it isn't quite as perfect as its loyal apologist claims.
Why do I write this?
.) PERFECT airlines wouldn't have to cancel routes because they weren't as profitable as their perfect analysts projected. And 2.) PERFECT airlines would always have...
One of the loyal commentators on this site consistently, but indirectly, implies that his beloved Delta is the world's only PERFECT airline. While Delta is, indeed, an excellent airline, the objective evidence shows it isn't quite as perfect as its loyal apologist claims.
Why do I write this?
.) PERFECT airlines wouldn't have to cancel routes because they weren't as profitable as their perfect analysts projected. And 2.) PERFECT airlines would always have exactly the right aircraft for every possible mission readily available.
After all, PERFECT airlines can never make mistakes - or else they wouldn't be PERFECT.
the fact that you continually come to the conclusion that anyone says that Delta is perfect says the problem is with you, not Delta, and not with any person.
You clearly have a severe complex if anything is said about AA so you transfer that to anything positive that is said about DL, the most successful airline in the US on many metrics, and also the one that has benefitted the most from AA's downfall.
...the fact that you continually come to the conclusion that anyone says that Delta is perfect says the problem is with you, not Delta, and not with any person.
You clearly have a severe complex if anything is said about AA so you transfer that to anything positive that is said about DL, the most successful airline in the US on many metrics, and also the one that has benefitted the most from AA's downfall.
We all know AA was a great airline 20 years ago. The world moved on and AA didn't.
Why would pax want to schlep out there on a geriatric 767 with Delta One pods that are narrowed to fit the fuselage width, when they could travel on an Air France A350? Much the same can be said of the economy class experiences, too.
Other than 99% of them having no idea what the difference between a 767 or an A350 is? Why can't aviation geeks get this through their heads?
There's a million reasons that the majority of travelers would choose one over the other. That one's ranked at about 999,998.
IYKYK.
@Pete:
.... @ImmortalSynn is just NOT thinking square, but in a "NORMAL" average way as M O S T travelers do! Most don't even know what AC they are flying on or what the difference is, they see a plane, 2 engines and it flies, that's it, rest is maybe there choice on booking, by connection, price and schedule.
YES, such people do exist!
That's all @ImmortalSynn was trying to say, . . . and i think, HE IS RIGHT.
@ImmortalSynn
i love it, . . . and even if i am a lot into aviation interests and the miles game, but you are 100% RIGHT!
Some are so far away from the REAL life, that they can't even imagine anything else or the "brutal, normal" traveling crowds!
To be totally honest, economy passengers would prefer a 767, much better than the 3-3-3 economy on an A350
You're correct - it took three decades of hard work to separate ourselves from what you call "real life", and there's no intention of going back.
I think there is another reason why this is happening and it’s a very simple one that Delta should have known when they decided to launch the flight. There just isn’t enough traffic to warrant so many flights. Bora bora only has a few large and upscale hotels. The main island and Moorea also has very few hotels so too many flights for such few hotel beds. Add the fact that delta doesn’t have a...
I think there is another reason why this is happening and it’s a very simple one that Delta should have known when they decided to launch the flight. There just isn’t enough traffic to warrant so many flights. Bora bora only has a few large and upscale hotels. The main island and Moorea also has very few hotels so too many flights for such few hotel beds. Add the fact that delta doesn’t have a massive presence in lax or sfo for timely connections and you can see why.
maybe true too, and just because you get to Papeete, does not account for an added fare of US$ 400,-+ to get to Bora Bora from there, not everybody wants to stay on the close by Islands to PPT.
Plus, all the Cruisers there, they depart max. once a week if not less, so Tahiti is NOT to be compared with the Maldives! Maybe Fiji would have been the better choice instead for DELTA?
No US carrier is proving all that successful on LAX long hauls. American gave up on everything that's not a joint-venture partner hub. Delta is struggling. And anyone who thinks that United is going to maintain even half of the current capacity it's sending through here now, is in for a rude awakening the second that Russian airspace reopens, allowing that funneled capacity can return back to NYC/Chicago/Washington.
of course.
UA pulled all of its eastern US to E. Asia flights except for Tokyo, all of their India flights except for a single EWR-DEL flight, and all of their TLV flights which they are restarting with a single EWR-TLV.
UA doesn't have anywhere near the amount of new aircraft coming in order to restart even half of the flights they have pulled w/o decimating their west coast network.
and let's not forget...
of course.
UA pulled all of its eastern US to E. Asia flights except for Tokyo, all of their India flights except for a single EWR-DEL flight, and all of their TLV flights which they are restarting with a single EWR-TLV.
UA doesn't have anywhere near the amount of new aircraft coming in order to restart even half of the flights they have pulled w/o decimating their west coast network.
and let's not forget that UA did drop LAX-AKL and LAX-BNE. The notion that UA will expand at will on international routes from LAX but DL will be handicapped is pure internet fiction.
UA will have a second EWR-TLV in a few weeks.
Yes, UA dropped LAX-AKL and LAX-BNE but both routes are operated from their primary west coast hub in SFO.
which just simply makes the point that DL wants UA to hear.... you (UA) are free to fly whatever you want from SFO but don't act like you are going to keep us from growing LAX.
AKL is proof that DL will stay in the market and keep the capacity up to get its place in LAX.
DL waited to restart LAX-PVG but it looks like it is a go.
ICN will eventually be...
which just simply makes the point that DL wants UA to hear.... you (UA) are free to fly whatever you want from SFO but don't act like you are going to keep us from growing LAX.
AKL is proof that DL will stay in the market and keep the capacity up to get its place in LAX.
DL waited to restart LAX-PVG but it looks like it is a go.
ICN will eventually be started from LAX on DL metal.
DL can have SIN if it wants; UA cannot fly it and the 35K will be more efficient than anything in UA or SQ's fleet.
DL will likely have an Asia/Pacific network from LAX of at least HND, ICN, PVG, and SIN.
I think they will not go for LAX-HKG but will start it from JFK.
In the S. Pacific, it will be AKL, BNE, SYD and MEL. All will be daily and year round if yields support it. If they don't, they UA probably is losing money in the offpeak seasons.
There could be more of Asia/Pacific on both DL from SEA and LAX and more from UA from SFO but I don't think UA will succeed at much beyond what they have from LAX.
and, as noted, if UA gets the opportunity to re-add some of their India and TLV flights from "opposite coasts" they will be thinning their west coast network; they simply won't get enough new widebodies to re-add even half of what they had to drop w/ Russian airspace restrictions plus continue to grow their Asia/Pacific network
I note your prediction of DL flying daily from LAX to major Australian Est Coast and NZ airport + SIN. I note also all of them are deemed to become true if traffic rises which does not paint any victory. So we'll be watching market share.
I think you are mistaken for SIN, DL does not have much partnerships over there to ensure onward connectivity, especially compared to what they can get from ICN North...
I note your prediction of DL flying daily from LAX to major Australian Est Coast and NZ airport + SIN. I note also all of them are deemed to become true if traffic rises which does not paint any victory. So we'll be watching market share.
I think you are mistaken for SIN, DL does not have much partnerships over there to ensure onward connectivity, especially compared to what they can get from ICN North of SIN. The only traffic they can hope to capture is either connecting through LAX with final destination SIN or cheaping out on SQ fares. I don't see that as neither massive to fill up a daily 35K nor high yielding.
I don't see daily Oceania flights either especially year round. In terms of numbers both UA and AA are better situated in terms of having a partner on the other side (NZ and QF respectively) so DL will have to rely on OD traffic and whatever they can have connect through LAX. Again not great numbers nor yields especially without a fortress hub on the west coast.
The truth is Skyteam is not strong south of Taipei. The partners operate in low yield markets which makes their hubs unattractive. Delta would be in a much better position were Virgin and Etihad part of the alliance, along with either Thai or Singapore.
Thus, an uphill battle.
The main unknown is linked to Chinese demand IMO.
Curious why you say United can't fly to SIN from LAX with their more premium 787-9 (78P).
It's a shorter flight than NYC-AKL that is flown by Air New Zealand with 787-9s in a denser configuration than UA's 78P.
I think they are just not stupid enough to think they can be competitive on product and have better uses for the planes elsewhere where the market is not better served by a partner....
Curious why you say United can't fly to SIN from LAX with their more premium 787-9 (78P).
It's a shorter flight than NYC-AKL that is flown by Air New Zealand with 787-9s in a denser configuration than UA's 78P.
I think they are just not stupid enough to think they can be competitive on product and have better uses for the planes elsewhere where the market is not better served by a partner. A situation in which DL would be if they elected to try to compete, but they are probably smarter than that. Theyll just try to mop what they can from ICN thanks to the low comparable offered by the KR products. Theyll never be big south of TPE. At best they'll achieve chip damage.
..... and what's YOUR point @Timm Dunn? UA is still MORE successful out of LAX, compared to DL. NOW.
It's not hoping for the future, what "might" happen, it's an actual thing RIGHT NOW, unless you're Trump and know MUCH better, what the future brings and then get it all wrong but still pretend and make a Nation to believe, that all will be good, YOU can't so stay with the present thing and...
..... and what's YOUR point @Timm Dunn? UA is still MORE successful out of LAX, compared to DL. NOW.
It's not hoping for the future, what "might" happen, it's an actual thing RIGHT NOW, unless you're Trump and know MUCH better, what the future brings and then get it all wrong but still pretend and make a Nation to believe, that all will be good, YOU can't so stay with the present thing and see what is already there, and UA has the bigger footprint.
No need to defend DL, just simply stay with the fact.
To SQ, IF it was Aviation guys, they probably would prefer SQ over DL too. ;-)
I DON'T, unless the deal is really good $$$$, yes, i think SQ is a lousy airline, prefer DL very much, but does NOT change the present facts of DL lacking at LAX.
No need to built Trump like storytelling or pretend all will be fine.
Hahahahahaha. Crybaby Dunn strikes again. Ben obviously wrote this article to trash Delta and generate clicks. Duh.
the only one having a temper tantrum, unable to contribute to the discussion, is you.
see above. Others can see through UA's west coast buildup.... sorry that you aren't one of them.
;-) ;-) . . . and it always works, when DL is mentioned! @Roberto . . . good point, BRAVO!
I am beginning to think that "MaxPower" is more obsessed about Tim Dunn than Tim is about Delta.
he runs around the internet looking to pick an argument.
Strangely he can post reasonable stuff on other subjects and w/ other people.
HE IS obsessed - glad you and others notice
Tim definitely ghostwrote this. I've seen him randomly obsess over Max's username in the same way this is written.
there's all kinds of "obsession" about all kinds of things on social media.
All I care about is the truth and a whole lot of people including Max are more focused on trying to denigrate and prove me wrong.
All I am here is for the facts.
I put the facts in my first post on this topic. Anyone is willing to deal w/ the facts in that thread - which will likely end up as the longest set of replies to this article, as is often the case.
(Takes a bow to Tim/Tom as thanks for using guest names to flatter me)
You have no reason for self gratification MP, flattery is not on offer old bean.
;)
Happy st Patrick’s day. I truly hope your day is more fun than defending tim Dunn in the comment section
On the Emerald Isle, the residents observe Paddies Day on the 17th.
In England we have other pastimes to entertain ourselves, one of which is winding up the colonials herein.
Obviously my mischief is having the desired effect upon some contributors.
We drink on Saturday in the colonies
All the best :)
Just breathe Tim. It is perfectly acceptable for Delta to cancel flights. Let it go. Stop defending everything that is Delta. Stop. Stop. Breathe. Stop. Stop.
of course it is ok.
It is also ok for UA to do the same at LAX.
Ben knows what he is doing and through a couple of pieces of red meat into the ring.
none of which changes that, if having fortress hubs is part of success, then UA will fail miserably at growing its domestic connecting network which is precisely the point I made
threw
It’s more impactful when DL cuts LAX routes since it’s their primary west coast hub where they face the most competition.
Anything UA drops is already covered by SFO, just a few hundred miles away.
Delta doesn't have a primary west coast hub. They use Seattle for the northern Pacific + Europe, and LAX for the southern Pacific + Europe. LAX previously had the advantage of Mexico and Central America as well, but much of that's been recently cut.
Stop blaming Ben for your sick weird delusional fetish obsession with Delta.
Whenever Ben writes the word Delta, you say that he is “throwing meat in the ring”. This just proves how sick and weird your obsession is. Any mentally healthy person would read this article and think: “oh, Delta cancelled a route”, and that’s it. When it comes to you, you read as “throwing meat in the ring” and then you start your...
Stop blaming Ben for your sick weird delusional fetish obsession with Delta.
Whenever Ben writes the word Delta, you say that he is “throwing meat in the ring”. This just proves how sick and weird your obsession is. Any mentally healthy person would read this article and think: “oh, Delta cancelled a route”, and that’s it. When it comes to you, you read as “throwing meat in the ring” and then you start your mental meltdown.
It’s a fact that everyone except for yourself is remotely interested in the 20+ paragraphs that your meltdowns generate. You even created fake accounts to compliment yourself. You want to keep doing that, it’s fine. As free entertainment it’s gold. But stop blaming Ben. That’s the same thing as saying that someone was abused because they were wearing a short skirt. Newsflash: the mentally sick one is the abuser, not the person wearing the short skirt.
No one except for yourself*
I think everyone wants to have a fortress hub in LAX, but it's clear UA has the least existential need there due to their SFO presence. Still it's strategic to all alliances not to drop the fight, esp. UA considering the situation in JFK.
I wonder when one of the big 3 will start playing outside the box and start operating long haul from ONT.
We wanted to fly BNA to PPT with Delta. The connections were terrible with 16+ hour layovers on the west coast (I think it was LAX?). We ended up flying United, BNA to SFO to PPT. Reasonable layover time. Delta can't make it work it they don't want it to.
DL tried several times including from the launch of the flight to use a plane other than the 763 but capacity is limited.
As much as people want to talk about the business class product on the 763, its real limitation is that it, like the 777-200/ER is a high CASM aircraft which is not ideal for leisure routes.
and AF is and will continue to fly LAX-PPT.
and DL is certain...
DL tried several times including from the launch of the flight to use a plane other than the 763 but capacity is limited.
As much as people want to talk about the business class product on the 763, its real limitation is that it, like the 777-200/ER is a high CASM aircraft which is not ideal for leisure routes.
and AF is and will continue to fly LAX-PPT.
and DL is certain to add more LAX-Asia flying when the 35Ks arrive, surpassing the number of international destinations that UA serves from LAX.
and DL at SEA is the 2nd largest US carrier gateway to SEA based on destinations served.
As for the "Delta doesn't have a fortress hub on the west coast" - that is precisely why UA will fail at its domestic expansion. It has no interior US hubs other than IAH which can be remotely close to being fortress hubs
That must be why United's margins have been closing the gap with Delta... their failure in DEN and ORD domestic build up ...
(insert heavy sarcasm and heavy eye rolls)
Dude, just take a day off from defending Delta. Your brain needs it.
You've been saying Delta is going to go nuts on LAX-Asia for years now once the A35k arrives but they can't even make it on lower gauge aircraft. A35k are more...
That must be why United's margins have been closing the gap with Delta... their failure in DEN and ORD domestic build up ...
(insert heavy sarcasm and heavy eye rolls)
Dude, just take a day off from defending Delta. Your brain needs it.
You've been saying Delta is going to go nuts on LAX-Asia for years now once the A35k arrives but they can't even make it on lower gauge aircraft. A35k are more efficient on a CASM basis, but Delta still has to fill the "available seat" portion of the CASM equation to spread the cost. They have yet to show they can fill any meaningful Y capacity out of LAX and Delta certainly will NOT have the best J product out of LAX to Asia even with the A35K.
As evidenced with current and dropped Delta longhaul LAX routes, to date, anywhere without a JV partner on the other end, Delta will be competing on price in all cabins, not premium product. And delta seems too scared to fly to most of their JV partner hubs out of LAX as it is.
Is it twice now they've dropped the biggest market out of LAX, LHR?
for someone that needs to argue incessantly against DL, your logic, once again, fails.
first, don't forget that UA actually dropped a couple of LAX routes. Wanna remind us of which ones?
second, DL has a JV partner that flies LAX and PPT - DL still has a presence in the market.
third, HND is not a JV partner route on the other end and yet DL does quite well on that route.
fourth,...
for someone that needs to argue incessantly against DL, your logic, once again, fails.
first, don't forget that UA actually dropped a couple of LAX routes. Wanna remind us of which ones?
second, DL has a JV partner that flies LAX and PPT - DL still has a presence in the market.
third, HND is not a JV partner route on the other end and yet DL does quite well on that route.
fourth, DL's 35Ks will seat less than UA's 77Ws and it will be far more fuel efficient. Yes, DL will expand across the Pacific not just from LAX but from other gateways.
fifth, you also realize that UA dropped one of its 2 LAX-LHR flights after DL dropped its own flight. UA is all about market share and trying to bully competitors out of the market which is why UA underperforms DL in profits across both the Atlantic and Pacific and Latin America.
sixth, let us know how well UA's profits are when it decides to pay its employees post covid wage rates. Add at least a half billion per year off of annual rates and then another half billion in profit sharing and maybe UA employees would care about their jobs. Suppose it is because they are so underpaid that UA's cancellation rate and baggage handling is at the bottom of the industry - worse than AA's - which nobody seems to think is a premium airline.
yeah, max, let's argue all day based on your cherrypicked reality.
lol. Oh tim. You're so predictable.
The mental insanity that must go through your mind to say i'm the one that cherrypicks data. I gave examples of Delta and all you can do is talk about United in response. And then go off on your usual ignorant knowledge of revenue accounting that you spout just about every day.
Obsessed much?
Delta is in the smallest alliance at LAX and Southern California and has...
lol. Oh tim. You're so predictable.
The mental insanity that must go through your mind to say i'm the one that cherrypicks data. I gave examples of Delta and all you can do is talk about United in response. And then go off on your usual ignorant knowledge of revenue accounting that you spout just about every day.
Obsessed much?
Delta is in the smallest alliance at LAX and Southern California and has the worst JV partners out of LAX for demand out of LAX.
Aka. Everything I said about Delta is correct and you have no idea about Delta's LAX-HND profitability. Don't pretend you do. What we do know is HND is slot controlled and Delta has to fly it or lose it. That doesn't equate to profits or anything.
Go have some fun with your ChatGPT on the Expedia article. It's all you're good at.
You're somehow worse than arguing with a brick wall. At least brick walls don't make up things or obsess over Scott kirby.
Try getting out of your house today and make some friends away from your computer.
Where in the world is it written that Delta and Air France are JV partners for the US-French Polynesia market ??
AFAIK the JV is only for the TATL market. There's another JV with KR on TPAC.
I have to agree and laugh at these delusional people that think some massive Asia expansion like LAX-SIN is going to happen for Delta, when SQ has dominated this route and drove everyone else out of the market already.
I didn't say LAX-SIN but it is a very likely route.
You do realize that, if DL launches LAX-SIN with the 35K, it will have far better aircraft economics than SQ but worse labor economics. The greater revenue - pax and cargo - on a DL 35K could easily put DL and SQ on equal playing terms
and LAX has far less service on all carriers to SIN than SFO does.
who has...
I didn't say LAX-SIN but it is a very likely route.
You do realize that, if DL launches LAX-SIN with the 35K, it will have far better aircraft economics than SQ but worse labor economics. The greater revenue - pax and cargo - on a DL 35K could easily put DL and SQ on equal playing terms
and LAX has far less service on all carriers to SIN than SFO does.
who has SQ driven out of the LAX-SIN market that has an aircraft that can fly the route?
and DL could fly JFK-SIN w/ the 35K or 359 if it wanted to.
this isn't just about LAX-SIN, though. Let's talk about LAX-BNE which UA dropped and DL picked up.
And LAX-MEL which DL said publicly it would start well before it announced it - because it wasn't interested in pis88ng match w/ UA. DL announced it and UA hasn't done anything.
DL is going to grow LAX as well as SEA to Asia/Pacific. The 35Ks are part of DL's strategy to have an aircraft that can compete against anything across the Pacific both in terms of performance and cost.
"when SQ has dominated this route and drove everyone else out of the market already."
SQ didn't "drive everyone else out of the market." United just tried to use a barely-capable (and the only capable aircraft that it had) that was leaving 20+ seats open in winter winds. But all they did was shift the exact same capacity to SFO.
You're one of the most pedantic commenters on here.
If United tried and failed, and SQ is the only one left standing, then yes, by definition, they successfully drove them out. It's not that crazy to say.
WOW DOUBLE BINGO in just 15 paragraphs.
That's a new Tim Dunn record.
35Ks
DL at SEA
fortress hub
JV partner
premium airline
UA underperforms DL
DL does quite well on HND.
profit sharing
cherrypicked
I'll take it that means I overwhelmed your ability to respond.
Go ahead... pick 3 and let it rip
TD, please be assured that there are thousands of DL passengers who are extremely happy with the airline. Far fewer are enamoured with UA, as for poor old AA languishing at only 71st in the World Rankings …. tut, tut, Oh dear, never mind.
Oh Aero
Calm down
Everyone knows delta is a well run company. I’ve said it many times in between tim telling me I wish for delta’s Downfall.
But the manifest Destiny mentality of the most ardent ex and current delta employees fleeing their decaying mobile homes in Atlanta with a blindfolded Tim Dunn in the front wagon…
Is far too easy to satirize.
@Max
Aero is Tim's European alter ego for BA.
Tim you do overwhelmed everyone's ability to respond. And that's not a compliment.
@eskimo
He got me :)
Stay warm, Chester ;)
If every route Delta tried was profitable I’d say they’re not taking enough risk. This is a natural part of the process. PPT is a niche market with a surprising amount of competition. Maybe DL could have made it work from SEA before Air Tahiti started service there, LAX was always going to be tough with Air France and French Bee. I don’t think this cancel is a referendum on anyone’s long-haul strategy, it just didn’t work. On to the next.
Awww.. Hurt that dear DL cannot make yet another route out of LAX? The funniest thing of all is you keep pushing how DL will expand left and right from LAX when the reality is that they cannot even make the largest and most important market they need to be in - LHR. Yes, you got it right - London. Delta cannot even make Los Angeles to London work!! Why not take some time and let that first sink in you before going on with the usual tirade?
and yet you will be one of the first to argue that UA dropping LAX-AKL doesn't matter because they have a JV partner on the route.
You do realize that Air France is a DL JV partner and they also fly to PPT from LAX?
same thing for LAX-LHR on VS.
It is UA that has to lose money flying routes that don't work because they don't have a JV partner flying US-LHR. AA and DL do have JV partners at LHR.
VS doesn't count as the usual JV partner and while DL dropping LAX-ppt doesn't really matter all that much, LAX-LHR does matter.
All the nonsense about "Metal neutrality" is just that, nonsense.
The revenue is coordinated and planned as are the routes, but point of sale plays a huge role in who operates which routes.
Delta's inability to operate LAX-LHR and giving it to VS speaks volumes about Delta's position in LAX....
VS doesn't count as the usual JV partner and while DL dropping LAX-ppt doesn't really matter all that much, LAX-LHR does matter.
All the nonsense about "Metal neutrality" is just that, nonsense.
The revenue is coordinated and planned as are the routes, but point of sale plays a huge role in who operates which routes.
Delta's inability to operate LAX-LHR and giving it to VS speaks volumes about Delta's position in LAX. It means the point of sale for Delta in LAX is very WEAK and that the JV doesn't see any reason or draw for local customers in LA to choose DL like they do AA and UA. Anyone in the US is more likely to pick the US carrier over their JV partner; it's how they plan who flies what. JVs allow coordination, but "metal neutrality" isn't a real thing in terms of "it doesn't matter who flies what". It does matter and it shows how weak Delta is in LA, that they can't operation a longhaul to London on their own metal based on their own SoCal loyalty. They rely on VS which also isn't saying much given their london position.
Delta just can't compete in a big, non-fortress hub airport that is serviced by literally every airline, including foreign-flagged airlines. The 767s are awful. The service is mediocre as is the food. Delta's product just isn't appealing against Air Tahiti Nui or Air France. And you could even fly Hawaiian through Honolulu to Tahiti.
And let's be honest: Tahiti is such a niche market.
I wouldn't say Air Tahiti Nui is better in all aspects, but they're certainly cheaper and have a vastly lower cost structure, along with the stronger point of sale on both ends of PPT and CDG.
But there's the novelty or romanticism of flying the country's flag-carrier to that country. Hence why Hawaiian exists and does the business it does. Or Icelandic.
That effect is probably offset by Delta's large membership in their loyalty having a more useful FF program in the US compared to that of TN. I don't think LAX or US travelers are going to be swarming en masse to fly TN exclusively because they're the flag carrier of French Polynesia. Delta's familiarity in America would still win out on the point of sale for most US originating itineraries.
The reality is TN has...
That effect is probably offset by Delta's large membership in their loyalty having a more useful FF program in the US compared to that of TN. I don't think LAX or US travelers are going to be swarming en masse to fly TN exclusively because they're the flag carrier of French Polynesia. Delta's familiarity in America would still win out on the point of sale for most US originating itineraries.
The reality is TN has lower cost structures and fares, stronger POS and connectivity in PPT/CDG, which allows them to easily win on this market.
Such a shame that the A350-1000 hasn't been delivered yet. Would have saved this route.
The suite doors alone would have driven a 10 point load factor increase! Suites…with *doors*!
Also worth noting that, bizzarely, DK's 3x weekly flights were on the same days as AF. Would presumably make a lot more sense to do alternate days.
I will add despite Delta also failing at this. UA's own PPT route is their worst performing APAC flight by loads.
I think there is simply an oversaturation of service for what is a very leisure focused destination for the US point of sale. On the French side, there's more direct need for it for a variety of purposes, which is why TN, AF, and Bee can make it work better.
I suspect PPT will get downgauged or reduced by UA eventually.
Not a surprise. Delta defenders were thinking it being extended by a few months was some sort of indicator it wouldn't go away, when the reality was that their yields were trash and the 767 product just wasn't it. The reality was that they just needed somewhere to use their frame. The irony is their Delta One lounge has a signature PPT cocktail in LAX.
LAX continues to be a rotating dartboard for Delta longhaul,...
Not a surprise. Delta defenders were thinking it being extended by a few months was some sort of indicator it wouldn't go away, when the reality was that their yields were trash and the 767 product just wasn't it. The reality was that they just needed somewhere to use their frame. The irony is their Delta One lounge has a signature PPT cocktail in LAX.
LAX continues to be a rotating dartboard for Delta longhaul, where they cannot even operate a single daily flight to Europe year-round. Maybe NAN next for a season?
I predict BNE is next to go once the subsidies disappear. Everyone on that flight just connects to SYD or MEL anyways. Slash BNE and make MEL daily.
Other than a business traveler stuck on a corporate contract, who with their own money would pay for business-class to Europe from Los Angeles on Delta? I would much rather fly Air France or Virgin Atlantic.
It really depends on the aircraft for me. I would take Delta's 764, 339, or 359 over any Virgin offering. I haven't been that impressed with their 350-100, 339, or 333 product. The flight attendants are marginally better than Delta's, but Delta wins in lounges, seat/IFE, catering, and amenities in my opinion. Air France and KLM are great choices though, depending on pricing.
Surprising this vanity route lasted as long as it did. Premium leisure is slowing very quickly as the US economy heads into a recession or likely worse. The decision by Delta to cut LAX-PPT is further evidence that its LAX hub and specifically its long haul intercontinental network there doesn't work.
Yeah everyone is always up in arms about SEA, but the reality is that SEA longhaul is one of their top performers, even getting double dailies for AMS in summer.
Meanwhile, LAX-LHR had 40% LFs and Delta can't even run CDG year-round. Keep in mind, even UA can operate LAX-LHR despite not having a partner at LHR like VS does.
Even with their stronger domestic feed, Delta just doesn't have an appeal for longhaul in...
Yeah everyone is always up in arms about SEA, but the reality is that SEA longhaul is one of their top performers, even getting double dailies for AMS in summer.
Meanwhile, LAX-LHR had 40% LFs and Delta can't even run CDG year-round. Keep in mind, even UA can operate LAX-LHR despite not having a partner at LHR like VS does.
Even with their stronger domestic feed, Delta just doesn't have an appeal for longhaul in the highly competitive landscape of LAX, where so many superior foreign carriers compete.
UA has the entire star alliance connectivity at LHR.
now tell us the cities that Star JV partners serve beyond LHR that do not have nonstop service from LAX and that is the market on which UA MIGHT have an advantage - but those markets also are up for grabs but other alliances and carriers.
and, unlike UA, AA and DL have JV partners that actually FLY US to LHR. UA desperately needs to hold onto its position at LHR because it has no...
now tell us the cities that Star JV partners serve beyond LHR that do not have nonstop service from LAX and that is the market on which UA MIGHT have an advantage - but those markets also are up for grabs but other alliances and carriers.
and, unlike UA, AA and DL have JV partners that actually FLY US to LHR. UA desperately needs to hold onto its position at LHR because it has no JV partner. UA execs have said that LHR is weaker than other major markets in Europe.
And that explains why they pulled 1 of their 2 LAX LHR flights after DL dropped its own
and adding onto the whole discussion about DL at SEA when it is AA and WN that had net income margins that were 1/3 of DL and UA's
Most of AA and WN's networks are at just breakeven margins and the chances are that there are significant parts that likely don't make money. it is AA and WN that fly the majority of the US' unprofitable capacity.
And even given Kirby's statement that UA's margin...
and adding onto the whole discussion about DL at SEA when it is AA and WN that had net income margins that were 1/3 of DL and UA's
Most of AA and WN's networks are at just breakeven margins and the chances are that there are significant parts that likely don't make money. it is AA and WN that fly the majority of the US' unprofitable capacity.
And even given Kirby's statement that UA's margin spread between its best and most profitable hubs is just six percent, UA likely operates at least one hub at barely breakeven. Their net income margins was less than 6% in 2024; even if you use their operating margin and the same 6% range, at least one of their hubs was barely breakeven.
The real gist of Kirby's brag is that he doesn't have super profitable hubs like AA and DL have. ATL is the profit machine for DL while AA has CLT and DFW with other hubs likely in the red. DCA probably was profitable for AA before the accident, the cuts in capacity because of congestion and now government cutbacks - which probably also knock more off of UA's IAD hub than any AA or DL hub other than DCA.
You do realize that none of the US3 make money off of pure flying. UA is the closest to having a PRASM that exceeds CASM, but even there it's only close to breakeven which does benefit from the lack of the new labor agreement.
While loyalty, cargo, and other factors bridge the gap and make the airline profitable, your claim that a large chunk of AA and WN's networks lose money also applies to DL...
You do realize that none of the US3 make money off of pure flying. UA is the closest to having a PRASM that exceeds CASM, but even there it's only close to breakeven which does benefit from the lack of the new labor agreement.
While loyalty, cargo, and other factors bridge the gap and make the airline profitable, your claim that a large chunk of AA and WN's networks lose money also applies to DL and UA and a big chunk of their networks. Scott Kirby once said in an interview 7-8 years ago that he thinks 30-40% of the US3's networks lose money if not for the accounting of the miscellaneous revenue streams to balance that, so your claims really weren't insightful at all.
Delta should give up all international flying, book their international passengers via AF/KLM and Korean, retire their 767's and put their A350's on transcontinental routes.
guess what?
DL has already retired plenty of 767s from the fleet's peak and continues to do so.
DL is also moving its TPAC operation entirely on the A350-900 except for HNL-HND, the shortest TPAC route in DL's network and also clearly there just as a slot holder until Japan opens up enough HND flights for the rest of the industry including DL to get all of the HND flights they want and the...
guess what?
DL has already retired plenty of 767s from the fleet's peak and continues to do so.
DL is also moving its TPAC operation entirely on the A350-900 except for HNL-HND, the shortest TPAC route in DL's network and also clearly there just as a slot holder until Japan opens up enough HND flights for the rest of the industry including DL to get all of the HND flights they want and the use to allow AA, DL and UA to move their HND flights where they want.
UA has not retired any 767s and in fact put a couple of 767s back together that were badly damaged in landing accidents.
And all of the talk about DL's 763s fails to note that UA operates 757s on intercontinental routes which have a far worse business and coach product than DL's 763s.
"Keep in mind, even UA can operate LAX-LHR despite not having a partner at LHR like VS does."
United has been in that market consistently for 4 decades plus, it clearly has been able to establish and maintain the contracts and yield that it needs. Delta is a much newer (and inconsistent) entrant, and has a partner with, what, about 5 onward connecting routes from LHR?
The two situations aren't analogous. United is and...
"Keep in mind, even UA can operate LAX-LHR despite not having a partner at LHR like VS does."
United has been in that market consistently for 4 decades plus, it clearly has been able to establish and maintain the contracts and yield that it needs. Delta is a much newer (and inconsistent) entrant, and has a partner with, what, about 5 onward connecting routes from LHR?
The two situations aren't analogous. United is and has always been in a far stronger position for L.A. - London.