Sometimes you can’t help but laugh at the competitive dynamics in the airline industry. Here’s a funny example of that, obviously reflecting the rivalry between Delta Air Lines and United Airlines.
In this post:
Scott Kirby is flattered by Delta’s Hong Kong flight
Yesterday, United announced its Q2 2025 financial results, and during the earnings call, United CEO Scott Kirby was asked about a couple of new routes that Delta recently revealed. Specifically, the airline will fly from Los Angeles (LAX) to both Hong Kong (HKG) and Chicago (ORD), both of which are markets in which United is strong.
As flagged by JonNYC, Leslie Josephs from CNBC asked Kirby how he feels about Delta entering these markets, and his answer was interesting:
“We fly 6,000 flights a day. So a couple of new routes aren’t that big of an issue for us. But I guess I feel complimented when other airlines feel like they’re worried about us getting ahead and have to fly routes that are going to lose money for them.”
You’ve gotta love the sass here. Not only does he feel complimented, but he threw in a comment about how he thinks Delta will lose money in these markets.
It’s anyone’s guess how Delta’s Hong Kong service performs
I commend Delta for returning to Hong Hong Kong after eight years, and I’m delighted to see the airline adding Asia service that isn’t to Seoul Incheon (ICN), a hub of joint venture partner Korean Air.
I am a bit surprised to see the service out of Los Angeles, since it’s not exactly Delta’s strongest hub for domestic connectivity, and it’s also a competitive market, where Delta will trail both Cathay Pacific and United. The airline needs to operate the service out of a West Coast hub, though the choice to fly out of Los Angeles rather than Seattle (SEA) is not necessarily what I would’ve expected.
Obviously United has a major advantage in terms of nonstop service to Asia, as the airline flies twice daily to Hong Kong from both Los Angeles and San Francisco (SFO). For that matter, looking at the Q2 2025 earnings of the two carriers, there’s no denying that United’s Pacific performance has been improving more than Delta’s:
- Delta increased capacity to Asia by 11%, and saw a 6% reduction in yields, and overall 1% reduction in unit revenue
- United increased capacity to Asia by 6%, and saw a 3% increase in yields, and overall 9% increase in unit revenue
Now, of course United has a much bigger network across the Pacific, and the Pacific also includes a lot more than just Hong Kong. But still, there’s no denying that this is a rare region in which the two carriers have trended in very different directions in the past quarter.
Okay, I take back saying that “there’s no denying,” because, well, I guarantee it will be denied, and will be spun differently. Anyway, I digress…
The truth is that Kirby might be right, but that might not even be a surprise to anyone. It’s not unusual for long haul routes to lose money for some amount of time. For that matter, often routes are added as part of an overall attempt to offer a comprehensive and competitive route network. Still, I think the question is whether Delta can make the math work internally in the long run…
Bottom line
United CEO Scott Kirby had some comments about Delta’s new service out of Los Angeles, including to Hong Kong and Chicago. He claims he feels complimented by Delta adding these routes, even saying that he thinks Delta will lose money flying them. It’s anyone’s guess how this plays out, but the commentary can’t help but make me chuckle.
Other interesting topics were addressed on the earnings call as well, like the introduction of a basic Polaris business class, and United’s ability to overtake Delta financially.
What do you make of Kirby’s comments about Delta?
The structure of this article is strange.. I can't quite articulate why but it's a confusing read. Its not up to your usual writing style. Seems disjointed somehow. Also it seems like you're saying delta is flying from lax to both Hong Kong and ORD.
Delta announced LAX-ORD and LAX-HKG
Is it possible that UA are barely breaking even - if not losing money - on 4x HKG flights now. Hence, the easy prediction of DL's fate? I've seen solid LFs on those flights but the fares are not commanding enough, with more VFR than corporate travel iirc.
how dare you make that suggestion.
55% load factors on a passenger airline flight even with lots of cargo is likely not enough.
and maybe DL has lapped the underperformance of SEA-TPE and is still generating TPAC comparable performance to UA so is willing to take on another "fixer upper" and in the process push on UA's perceived need to be the largest international carrier at LAX.
Anyone taking bets on which route will be discontinued first ?
SEA-TPE or LAX-HKG ?
Same press release, Friday evening bad news dump.
Miss the old days of DTW being the predominant Asia gateway during Northwest days pre-merger. Sigh.
It's even worse to see the dismantling of the 'fugu' operation @ NRT among other route eliminations. Hard to believe there was a time when NWA was the predominant US trans-pac carrier.
Just a sad result of UA competition and commercial airliner technology capability among other factors I guess. Seems like the handwriting was on the wall when UA bought PA's transpacific operation & aircraft... I miss those red tails as well as a former employee...
Don't forget Minneapolis as well.
I've done plenty of Northwest flights from JFK to Asia.
Aside from Narita, they had hubs in Nagoya and Kansai IIRC.
They even flew to P(B)usan (random destination lol), Guam, Koror, and Saipan.
The "bowling shoe" livery was simply gorgeous.
NW also never made money on a consistent basis across the Pacific. They ran their operation better than Pan Am but still didn't have a viable operation in part because they had a very small position on the west coast.
and when DL has re-added the cities in Asia that are viable from its hubs including Asia, it will have a far more viable TPAC network than UA ever had and will be a viable competitor to UA even if DL remains smaller.
“A far more viable TPAC network than UA ever had”?
Honestly curious, but without SFO, what would that look like? Where would DL be more viable than UA? Yes bigger in ICN, but that’s due to the JV with KE and not due to stronger US hubs suited for Asia and South Pacific.
UA is currently bigger TPAC than DL and AA combined and is the largest TPAC carrier, larger than the rest of the industry. That would be a big hill for DL to climb.
Hi Ben, I’ve followed your blog for many years and thoroughly enjoy it. Quick question, why doesn’t Delta fly from Atlanta to Hong Kong?
Probably because the great circle distance on that route is 7300nm, and THAT route is unavailable.
Actual distance would be significantly longer, because of the need to avoid Russian airspace.
They can't physically fly ATL-HKG without a MASSIVE payload restriction (no cargo, fewer passengers, hauling full fuel tanks (not profitable)), or a refueling stop in ANC (at that point, you're better off flying to ICN (connecting your passengers to KE) or to the West Coast...
Probably because the great circle distance on that route is 7300nm, and THAT route is unavailable.
Actual distance would be significantly longer, because of the need to avoid Russian airspace.
They can't physically fly ATL-HKG without a MASSIVE payload restriction (no cargo, fewer passengers, hauling full fuel tanks (not profitable)), or a refueling stop in ANC (at that point, you're better off flying to ICN (connecting your passengers to KE) or to the West Coast (connecting to your shorter trans-pac flight)).
DL did say when it dropped SEA-HKG that it wanted to fly JFK-HKG but that is clearly not viable as long as Russian airspace restrictions are in place.
In fact, UA dropped all of its east coast to E. Asia routes except for to Tokyo and I will guarantee you that DL and UA's next shootout will be from NYC if Russia airspace reopens. and if it doesn't, DL's most capable A350s can do some routes that UA can't touch with anything in its fleet
And yet somehow DL can't fly NYC-DEL even with an A359 while AA and UA both do with a 789.
Delta doesn't have much interest in east Asia from NYC. They didn't even bid on JFK-HND (after their failure on PDX-HND) and let AA have it.
-- two of the biggest financial centers on the planet and Delta didn't see it working for them with their NYC position.
These posts, comments from airline executives and such are interesting, but at this point - I guess I don't get the point.
- Delta, given its corporate customer base in the US and its attempts to be a global airline, has to fly to Hong Kong
- We went over a lot of reasons why Los Angeles will likely be a better choice than Seattle in the other thread - namely the much larger...
These posts, comments from airline executives and such are interesting, but at this point - I guess I don't get the point.
- Delta, given its corporate customer base in the US and its attempts to be a global airline, has to fly to Hong Kong
- We went over a lot of reasons why Los Angeles will likely be a better choice than Seattle in the other thread - namely the much larger local market
So what if the Hong Kong route "loses money?" They still have to fly there. Maybe they make it up via credit card revenue, retained or grown corporate money that can't directly be allocated to the HKG route. etc.
Same thing with the ORD to LAX add - ORD was a huge gap in their LAX operations. You have to fly it.
Yes, the LAX market is much larger, but that doesn't matter, if it's overcapacity already. There is not a need for a 6th flight on this route. If there was, UA wouldn't be running half empty planes.
Every other large metro already has direct or one-stop service. There is nothing this LAX-HKG can uniquely provide.
Ok - so where else should Delta fly to HKG from instead? They tried Seattle, so let’s rule that out. ATL? JFK? DTW?
Delta is going to fly to HKG, and probably eventually SIN. It is what is. LAX makes more sense than the other options to me.
@ Anthony -- Why would we rule out SEA, though? That was eight years ago. Don't you think the industry has changed in that time, in a variety of ways (including DL's presence in SEA)? It just seems smarter to serve HKG from a market where DL has a bigger Asia presence, and where the airline would have the market to itself, rather than competing against five daily flights from well established players.
thank you, Ben, for rationality.
DL didn't RULE OUT SEA and may or may not add more SEA to E. Asia - but for now, DL chose LAX- E. Asia and specifically HKG.
None of us know all of the numbers DL used and it is pointless to try to argue w/o data.
and China/HKG and TPE all overlap to a certain degree. DL was actually the 2nd to add SEA-TPE and then there were...
thank you, Ben, for rationality.
DL didn't RULE OUT SEA and may or may not add more SEA to E. Asia - but for now, DL chose LAX- E. Asia and specifically HKG.
None of us know all of the numbers DL used and it is pointless to try to argue w/o data.
and China/HKG and TPE all overlap to a certain degree. DL was actually the 2nd to add SEA-TPE and then there were 4 carriers on that route. CX doesn't fly SEA-HKG and could have jumped back in.
All of the Taiwanese carriers fly to LAX, everyone flies LAX-HKG that likely will (AA Is not likely to return esp. now) and China is already served or restricted.
If only from a competition standpoint, LAX-HKG is probably more stable which gives DL a better ability to forecast how it will do.
Ben, it’s a fair question. I am not an airline analyst - but my thoughts (some of which went into the original post)
1) Delta has completed a multibillion investment in its LAX terminal, and may feel it is more premium than SEA at this time
2) Delta may have not been happy with the SEA results versus what they are modeling at LAX
3) Delta has better connectivity from east coast business...
Ben, it’s a fair question. I am not an airline analyst - but my thoughts (some of which went into the original post)
1) Delta has completed a multibillion investment in its LAX terminal, and may feel it is more premium than SEA at this time
2) Delta may have not been happy with the SEA results versus what they are modeling at LAX
3) Delta has better connectivity from east coast business centers (NYC, BOS, DC) to LAX than they do to SEA
4) Delta is adding connectivity to a Midwest business center (CHI)
5) Delta’s connectivity to Asia from SEA seems to benefit from technology (and maybe manufacturing?) corporate demand. Maybe the thought finance and leisure demand would be better driven out of LAX, especially given points 3 and 4
To me, Hong Kong is about finance and tourism. LAX seems to be a better hub for that that SEA.
ben i will personally take care of the new baby boy and guard him with my life just so you can get back on the road to do reviews again so we can move on from "one tim dunn article at a time"
@ Harold -- Hah! You'll be happy to hear that I have travel coming up very, very soon. Stay tuned, I'll share the details in the coming days.
Thank god!
@Harold this made me literally LOL. Nice one.
But guys, you can't expect the site to avoid news involving a big 3 carrier just because of one person's obsession. And hey it's free entertainment while I'm stuck at home sick all weekend. Where's the teenage pretend lawyer at? Time out again?
Tim, let me ask you specifically -- why do you think Delta's year-over-year Pacific performance worsened, while United's improved? Not a "gotcha," I'm just curious how you process the 9-10% spread in yields and unit revenue. No distractions, please!
it's pretty easy to see... you posted UA's revenue metrics by global region and presumably could (and hopefully did) at least look at the same chart for DL.
DL added 11% more capacity to the Pacific - considerably more in a percentage basis than UA - and DL increased revenue by, wait, wait, 11%. RASM went down by 1% but that is a win in the passenger revenue dept. esp. since it came w/ using...
it's pretty easy to see... you posted UA's revenue metrics by global region and presumably could (and hopefully did) at least look at the same chart for DL.
DL added 11% more capacity to the Pacific - considerably more in a percentage basis than UA - and DL increased revenue by, wait, wait, 11%. RASM went down by 1% but that is a win in the passenger revenue dept. esp. since it came w/ using many more A350s which is part of why drove DL's 7% increase in cargo revenue.
as I have said for years, it will be easier for DL to grow into the regions of the world where UA has been stronger than it is for UA to grow into the domestic marketplace where DL mirrored UA's capacity additions and domestic revenue results and where there are a half dozen other carriers.
and that is exactly what we are seeing.
Tim, why do you always confuse percentage growth with absolute growth?
As an example:
Airline A goes from one flight to two for 100% growth.
Airline B goes from 30 flights to 45 for 50% growth.
Which airline grew more?
And of course all of this ignores that SEA is not a very strong TPAC hub. TPE was only added as a competitive response (as was FCO across the Atlantic), but AS has...
Tim, why do you always confuse percentage growth with absolute growth?
As an example:
Airline A goes from one flight to two for 100% growth.
Airline B goes from 30 flights to 45 for 50% growth.
Which airline grew more?
And of course all of this ignores that SEA is not a very strong TPAC hub. TPE was only added as a competitive response (as was FCO across the Atlantic), but AS has made it very tough for DL and will only make it harder for them to make SEA successful.
The fact that they won’t even attempt SEA-HKG again, as the only carrier on the route, shows the inherent weakness of the hub, especially compared to UA’s powerhouse hub in SFO.
UA in LAX is all gravy on top of the crown jewel in SFO. DL in LAX/SEA is make or break. With only 20% share in LAX against some of the strongest competitors in the world and no chance of being #1 in SEA, I think we all know where the story will end.
Mark,
as usual, YOU are the one that is desperate to argue and prove me and DL so distort what I (and clearly here DL) says and does because you can't win the discussion on facts.
if you were as good at math as you are at arguing you would see that DL and UA added about the same ABSOLUTE amount of capacity over the Pacific. DL is about half the size but added...
Mark,
as usual, YOU are the one that is desperate to argue and prove me and DL so distort what I (and clearly here DL) says and does because you can't win the discussion on facts.
if you were as good at math as you are at arguing you would see that DL and UA added about the same ABSOLUTE amount of capacity over the Pacific. DL is about half the size but added twice as much capacity in percent- so they added about the same absolute amount of capacity.
and if you looked at the domestic comparisons, DL added slightly MORE domestic capacity despite being a larger percentage - because DL's domestic system is double digit percentages larger than UA's.
DL and UA really are moving in very similar directions and amounts on the ADDITIONS of capacity they are adding worldwide. They are getting similar amounts of revenue.
The difference is that DL gets a much higher percentage of its revenue from non-transportation sources and have a more stable cost structure - both from a labor cost standpoint but also from a fleet efficiency standpoint. DL has just one route with non-new generation aircraft flying the Pacific (other than Hawaii) while UA has tons of 777s.
and, in your arrogance you can't get that DL understands full well that UA has a very powerful franchise at SFO - they have said so - but that doesn't mean that they are going to allow UA to dominate the west coast. LAX is very much in play.
and your reason for them choosing LAX-HKG is about as much deflection as you could put in one sentence. DL chose LAX-HKG because it is a far larger market and strategically fits what DL wants to do in LAX.
and tell us how many Asia-Pacific routes UA is not operating from the eastern US while you also tell us how much more capacity DL flies from the eastern US - 2 or 3 routes to Asia from each of ATL, DTW and MSP.
UA had no choice but to consolidate its TPAC network to the west coast w/ Russia airspace restrictions while DL still has a robust network to both Tokyo and Seoul and, because of that, DL has handedly overtaken UA as the largest US carrier from the eastern US to E. Asia.
If you and others would take the blinders off your eyes, you would be able to see truth as it actually exists.
and you would also give me nothing to correct.
The largest from “the eastern” US? You mean MSP, ATL, and DTW?
UA has two nonstops to Asia from NYC and also has a nonstop from Washington DC, by far much more premium markets than the DL gateways. UA gets the passengers who pay a premium for nonstops. DL gets the passengers who are willing to connect for a discounted fare, explaining DL’s drop in TPAC yields.
UA has also operated nonstops from NYC...
The largest from “the eastern” US? You mean MSP, ATL, and DTW?
UA has two nonstops to Asia from NYC and also has a nonstop from Washington DC, by far much more premium markets than the DL gateways. UA gets the passengers who pay a premium for nonstops. DL gets the passengers who are willing to connect for a discounted fare, explaining DL’s drop in TPAC yields.
UA has also operated nonstops from NYC to HKG, PVG, PEK, and BOM. All stopped because of Russian airspace closures. They were successful routes and DL didn’t offer competing service on any of them. They will come back when the airspace opens and UA has even more 787s delivered.
DL’s “robust” network to Tokyo is half the size of UA’s even more robust network to Tokyo. DL is large to ICN since they choose to make their customers connect or even double-connect on their itineraries from the US to Asia.
UA offers more nonstops to more cities in Asia, which might explain why DL’s TPAC yields dipped, as premium customers don’t want to make extra connections.
And why do you keep bringing up UA 777s? Yes they’ll be retired, but UA has hundreds of 787s on order. DL also has to retire widebodies, but they don’t have the replacements coming into the fleet like UA does.
This is somewhat revisionist and not accurate. DL was the first to announce their TPE flight. Starlux and China Airlines came after. It was the Taiwanese airlines defending their turf rather than the other way around. Midway last year EVA increased their frequencies from 7x to 10x. JX also upgauged from 3x to daily flights.
Also, I'm not sure HKG not working is a stain on DL, if CX operated it and also closed shop....
This is somewhat revisionist and not accurate. DL was the first to announce their TPE flight. Starlux and China Airlines came after. It was the Taiwanese airlines defending their turf rather than the other way around. Midway last year EVA increased their frequencies from 7x to 10x. JX also upgauged from 3x to daily flights.
Also, I'm not sure HKG not working is a stain on DL, if CX operated it and also closed shop. There simply aren't as many HK diaspora in SEA. Market demographics and PDEW matter a lot. The much smaller neighbor in Vancouver sees 3x daily CX service to HKG and up to 5x total flights a day when you add in AC and HX because Vancouver specifically has that many Hong Kong visitors and immigrants. That's nearly as much service as LAX or SFO, despite being a fraction of their population.
yolo,
I believe Eva was already in SEA-TPE when DL announced their route which is why they have gone beyond daily.
And, yes, if SEA-HKG hasn't worked for CX, then it is a stretch for some to argue that it is because of DL.
and Mark.
UA doesn't serve two cities in E. Asia from any point outside of California. That's a fact. That you think that service to HND and...
yolo,
I believe Eva was already in SEA-TPE when DL announced their route which is why they have gone beyond daily.
And, yes, if SEA-HKG hasn't worked for CX, then it is a stretch for some to argue that it is because of DL.
and Mark.
UA doesn't serve two cities in E. Asia from any point outside of California. That's a fact. That you think that service to HND and NRT is on par w/ service to two countries and cities shows how desperate you are to admit that DL really has a better strategy.
of course, UA used to operate to multiple destinations in E. Asia from multiple hubs east of the Mississippi - but what happened in the past doesn't really matter with the competition now.
DL, whether you want to admit it or not, carries more traffic from the eastern US to E. Asia than UA does.
Because you are incapable of admitting that UA isn't first in anything, of course you won't and don't admit that DL's two city NE Asia strategy works better than UA's single city NE Asia strategy - just as DL's twin Midwest hub gives it higher market share of the Midwest than any other airline.
and the 777Ws aren't going anywhere anytime soon.
and you still can't accept that all of the 787s ON ORDER mean nothing. What matters is what each carrier is operating now and will receive in each of the next few years.
DL has a far more capable and fuel efficient fleet across the Pacific now and that will only grow as the A350-1000s enter service, which even Jon says will be over a pretty short period of time, allowing ample time for DL to exercise the 20 widebody options from Airbus - and as that winds down, DL will start taking delivery of 787-10s.
again, put down your love for UA long enough to accept facts and reality as they exist and not as you wish.
@Mark - lil Timmy D very poor at the maths, thus his 1 man RIF by DL years ago
“carries more traffic from the eastern US to E. Asia than UA does.”
Where is the data to support that? You make so many claims with no data, and then argue tooth and nail against anyone who provides evidence against what you say.
Either way, they carry lower yielding connection traffic through DTW and MSP. UA will carry the premium customers that will pay for nonstops from NYC, WAS, CHI. It’s why DL’s TPAC...
“carries more traffic from the eastern US to E. Asia than UA does.”
Where is the data to support that? You make so many claims with no data, and then argue tooth and nail against anyone who provides evidence against what you say.
Either way, they carry lower yielding connection traffic through DTW and MSP. UA will carry the premium customers that will pay for nonstops from NYC, WAS, CHI. It’s why DL’s TPAC yields have declined.
And you keep talking like the UA route suspensions from NYC to PEK, PVG, HKG, and BOM are strategies. When DL dropped all their Asia routes, those were strategic decisions because they could not profitably compete.
UA had the necessary airspace close. When it reopens, UA will resume the routes. Meanwhile DL didn’t even apply for a flight from the Northeast to Tokyo, one of the biggest air markets in the world. All while UA operates three daily flights from the Northeast to Tokyo, in addition to what their JV partner also flies.
Order books don’t matter, just what they’ll get in the next few years? Huh? It’s the order books that determine what the airlines will receive in the next few years. lol UA will receive several dozen 787s over the next few years. And they have the strongest international gateways where they can route them.
who cares about hong kong anymore
Huh!? In 2024, HKG had 44 million visitors. HKG is one of the world's major financial hubs and millions of tourists visit there every year for just for the food and shopping. Most importantly, it's a gateway into mainland China and super close to Shenzhen, home to China's largest tech companies. Just because you don't care doesn't mean millions of others don't. Here's a news flash for you......The world doesn't revolve around your little bubble.
I think it's undeniable that HKG's best days are behind it with Mainland China's actions there over the recent years ...
He doesn't realize Cathay has a better service than both United and Delta lol
But CX is usually more expensive though. Also, with UA especially I like the flexibility of changing my seat all the way till boarding time. You can't do that with CX when they airport lock in 24 hours before departure.
Not just more expensive. CX is substantially more expensive. I am continually amused by the prices airlines sometimes charge.
as I just said in the other thread, UA is run by a bunch of insecure people that have a compulsive need to to compare themselves to everyone else instead of just do what they do and let the market and customers figure it out.
UA has clearly done a remarkable turnaround but UA has an incessant need to trash talk everyone except DL and then put itself in a group of 2 with DL...
as I just said in the other thread, UA is run by a bunch of insecure people that have a compulsive need to to compare themselves to everyone else instead of just do what they do and let the market and customers figure it out.
UA has clearly done a remarkable turnaround but UA has an incessant need to trash talk everyone except DL and then put itself in a group of 2 with DL - even while failing to close the gap w/ DL.
And the simple fact is that UA has retreated from several LAX markets when DL started including AKL and BNE. DL said months in advance that it would start MEL and is doing so later this year.
plenty of people say that DL's choice of HKG is "ballsy" but it is an enormous cargo market - UA and CX carry over 50K pounds of cargo per day out of HKG. The A350 is simply more capable than the B787.
UA's LFs cratered on its HKG flights when it added its 3rd and 4d flights including LAX#2, DL knows that, and is pushing on UA on LAX-HKG just as it did to the S. Pacific.
UA simply cannot meet the profit goals it has said it is shooting for by continuing to underperform DL.
DL's first flight to HKG in almost a decade will carry more than enough premium passengers and cargo to be profitable.
DL is undoubtedly hoping that UA will pull back to a single LAX-HKG flight and then use the remaining aircraft time to start SFO-SGN and/or BKK nonstop.
either way, DL is already the largest domestic carrier at LAX by a factor of 20% plus and continues to start LAX international markets that UA serves with a pretty strong track record of UA reductions or withdrawals from those markets.
Why don't you talk about Delta retreating from LAX-LHR? Or the fact they can't even sustain a daily year-round flight to Europe.
Delta reduced LAX to AKL as well, so are you going to call that a success? They offer $400 fares on this route.
why don't WE talk about UA's 2nd LAX-LHR flight that was dropped as soon as DL turned LAX-LHR back over completely to VS?
Do you think that maybe DL decided it wasn't going to invite another retaliatory move by UA so went after a market where UA was already performing poorly in passengers and where the A350 will give DL an advantage even in cargo?
and DL clearly does have the new widebodies coming...
why don't WE talk about UA's 2nd LAX-LHR flight that was dropped as soon as DL turned LAX-LHR back over completely to VS?
Do you think that maybe DL decided it wasn't going to invite another retaliatory move by UA so went after a market where UA was already performing poorly in passengers and where the A350 will give DL an advantage even in cargo?
and DL clearly does have the new widebodies coming in to announce the number of "coming new longhaul routes" including ATL-DEL, ATL-RUH, ATL-TLV and LAX-HKG while UA execs - maybe Kirby - just said that Boeing is still not delivering 787s close to on schedule - which could mean that 2026 could be the 3rd year in a row where DL gets the most new widebodies among US airlines.
and why announcing a major global expansion makes sense now.
Or LAX-PPT, LAX-SAN, and LAX-GUA which DL all cut this year. Or LAX-SYD where their LFs are 8% below AA and 5% below QF while also carrying less cargo (they cut 3 frequencies of the second daily to shift to the subsidized LAX-BNE which also operates at a 50-60% LF avg.
Lots of selective memory when it comes to LAX intl expansions - none of the US3 including DL and UA have shown any capability...
Or LAX-PPT, LAX-SAN, and LAX-GUA which DL all cut this year. Or LAX-SYD where their LFs are 8% below AA and 5% below QF while also carrying less cargo (they cut 3 frequencies of the second daily to shift to the subsidized LAX-BNE which also operates at a 50-60% LF avg.
Lots of selective memory when it comes to LAX intl expansions - none of the US3 including DL and UA have shown any capability to dominate LAX long-haul and built a strong intl operation. There are zero indications right now showing that is changing - all of the increased frequencies and new intl routes at LAX by UA and DL are showing sub-75% LFs and at least when released middling yields, i.e., the same old story.
and, again, you manipulate what I say in order to push a narrative which I never said.
I never said that DL would DOMINATE LAX.
I have said that DL is already the largest domestic airline at LAX and clearly appears to not be accepting UA's assertion that it will be the largest international carrier at LAX.
you still think that a few international routes - even longhaul international routes where UA carries 55%...
and, again, you manipulate what I say in order to push a narrative which I never said.
I never said that DL would DOMINATE LAX.
I have said that DL is already the largest domestic airline at LAX and clearly appears to not be accepting UA's assertion that it will be the largest international carrier at LAX.
you still think that a few international routes - even longhaul international routes where UA carries 55% load factors - offsets DL's 20% plus larger domestic size. It simply does not.
competition is good. when people like you can't accept that DL is really the largest not just at LAX but also in NYC and is chipping away at AA and UA's advantages at ORD while AA and UA are simply not doing the same in DL's strength markets, the onus is on you to correct your faulty interpretations and cherrypicked data.
Tim,
"I never said that DL would DOMINATE LAX."
You really should go back and reread what you post when you're black out drunk. You post all kinds of nonsense exactly like this.
lol dude I hope delta is paying you to be such a simp for them
The only insecure person it you. Lol I knew you would post drivel immediately after this posted
“insecure people that have a compulsive need to to compare themselves to everyone else”
Pot, kettle, black.
UA has exceptional and motivating leaders. It is their job to celebrate the success of the airline and ensure the employees are all aware of the message and strategy. Why would they not talk about their strengths, of which there are many?
You saying they’re “insecure” is more of a reflection on you than them.
And out of LAX, DL is subsidized to BNE and reduced AKL to seasonal. DL does not fly to...
UA has exceptional and motivating leaders. It is their job to celebrate the success of the airline and ensure the employees are all aware of the message and strategy. Why would they not talk about their strengths, of which there are many?
You saying they’re “insecure” is more of a reflection on you than them.
And out of LAX, DL is subsidized to BNE and reduced AKL to seasonal. DL does not fly to those destinations from other stations, not even their “powerhouse” hub in SEA which appears to be faltering.
UA flies to BNE and AKL from SFO, as well as PPT, CHC, MEL (from both LAX and SFO), and will soon become the first TPAC carrier to ADL. Of course SYD will still be covered by three hubs in the US.
North Pacific has ten UA flights each day Tokyo, with four HKG flights and double daily to TPE, ICN, SIN, and MNL (with SIN and MNL not even served by DL). There is also service to KIX, SGN, BKK, PEK, KHH, and UBN, all cities DL doesn’t even serve. Of course there are plenty of flights to PVG, GUM, and all of the islands in the area.
But yes, continue telling us how UA should be threatened by DL in Asia and the South Pacific, even as UA will receive almost 200 more 787s in the next few years, with premium cabins significantly larger than what DL has, all with the crown jewel of TPAC hubs, 32 destinations in the Pacific, and more very likely to be added.
it is your own insecurity that makes you write that either DL or UA are
threatened by each other. They are competitors and both pretty capable of taking pieces OUT OF EACH OTHER.
and you also can't grasp that the size of the order book doesn't matter. All that matters is what gets delivered and when. DL led all US airlines in receiving new widebodies in 2024, will do so in 2025, and based...
it is your own insecurity that makes you write that either DL or UA are
threatened by each other. They are competitors and both pretty capable of taking pieces OUT OF EACH OTHER.
and you also can't grasp that the size of the order book doesn't matter. All that matters is what gets delivered and when. DL led all US airlines in receiving new widebodies in 2024, will do so in 2025, and based on Kirby's comments on the earnings call, DL might lead US carriers in 2026 and beyond - esp. based on Jon's comments about how aggressively DL will take the 35Ks.
and DL continues to retire 767s while UA has scores of older 767s and 777s that have to be retired in the next few years even as DL's cost advantage continues to grow the longer UA keeps older widebodies in service to compete against DL's fleet which has a growing and higher percentage of new generation widebodies esp. on the Pacific
Yawns.
It doesn't take a genius to predict this... UA is clearly already seeing LAX-HKG is over capacity by operating 2x daily flights.
CX: 90% loads on up to 3x daily flights
UA: 55% loads on 2x daily flights
CX dominates all of the Asian point of sale and offers a superior product with their world class HKG hub.
The demand for HKG has shrunk immensely, the LAX-HKG market is simply just not that large....
It doesn't take a genius to predict this... UA is clearly already seeing LAX-HKG is over capacity by operating 2x daily flights.
CX: 90% loads on up to 3x daily flights
UA: 55% loads on 2x daily flights
CX dominates all of the Asian point of sale and offers a superior product with their world class HKG hub.
The demand for HKG has shrunk immensely, the LAX-HKG market is simply just not that large. And there's nowhere else that's relevant that isn't already served nonstop or with a one-stop that this DL LAX-HKG can't uniquely provide.
Careful, careful...load data matters, but so do yields. It's entirely possible (perhaps, even likely) UA commands higher yields on the route than Cathay. True, HKG is a relatively higher yield longhaul market, but CX has to use some of its capacity to connect people onto lower yield destinations elsewhere in Asia, while UA's Hong Kong flights overwhelmingly take people to...Hong Kong.
I guarantee you that CX is equal or higher yielding than UA on yields across all cabins on point to point.
And they can also easily compensate the lower yielding Asian originating flights with lower structure and operating costs from their one HKG hub.
Keep in mind that CX has a substantial fare premium on the HKG originating itineraries too that UA does not have from the LAX side.
"while UA's Hong Kong flights overwhelmingly take people to...Hong Kong"
UA tickets pax to HKG on connections with *A carriers all over Asia. What am I missing here?
Santos, not a large amount of connections though. Connections to other parts of Asia overwhelmingly connect via HND/NRT on NH flights, or just take a UA nonstop from the US to other Asian destinations.
Anything via HKG is just an interline connection, no revenue sharing.
DL doesn’t need to compete with CX, as Asia point of sales will be dominated by CX. DL only needs to compete with UA and my prediction is that UA will be forced to drop to 1x daily on LAX-HKG.
DL is very unsatisfied with SEA in terms of Delta One performance, so they won’t do SEA-HKG anymore. LAX is their only option. HKG and SIN are big holes on their network that they have to fix, strategically.