Silly: United CEO Scott Kirby Argues US Airline “Trade Deficit” Is A Problem

In my over 18 years of writing about the airline industry, this has to be one of the strangest periods in time, and I’m not just talking about the Trump administration considering taking an ownership stake in Spirit Airlines.

Among executives in the US airline industry, United Airlines CEO Scott Kirby is probably the most outspoken and consequential figure. He’s a super smart guy, and I have a ton of respect for him. However, I think he’s also maybe drinking his own Kool-Aid a little too much, because he’s making a lot of comments that are leaving me scratching my head.

In this post, I’d like to focus on a consistent claim he has been making as of late, which I just can’t make sense of.

Scott Kirby keeps touting US airline trade deficits

We recently learned how in February 2026, United CEO Scott Kirby floated the concept of United merging with American, to form a mega airline. This seems absolutely wild and bad for competition, but Kirby has a way that he’s trying to frame this, to make it sound like it’s in the best interest of the public.

Perhaps his perspective is best summed up in an interview he gave with CNBC on April 22, 2026. The way Kirby frames this, he wants to build “a truly competitive global airline,” but there’s a major issue — the US has a big airline “trade deficit,” as Kirby describes it:

“Today, we have a big trade deficit with international carriers. Many of them are effectively state-owned and state-subsidized. They fly 65% of the long-haul seats into the US, and only about 40% of the customers are from those countries. That’s bad for US aviation, that’s bad for US workers.”

“How can we solve that and create a great US airline that all citizens can be proud of, that competes on every facet around the globe?”

“The aspiration we have is to be a great, globally competitive airline. I’m not saying what is required to make that happen today, I don’t actually have all the answers today.”

Of course this is a smart way for Kirby to frame things, if the goal is to appeal to Trump. Trump loves to tout his “America First” agenda, and the whole basis of his early 2025 tariff policy was to address trade deficits.

Kirby is proposing a bad solution to a non-issue

As I see it, Kirby’s argument doesn’t make much sense both in terms of a trade imbalance being bad, and in terms of the solution to a trade imbalance being to form a mega airline.

On the topic of the trade imbalance:

• The reality is that US airlines are at a huge cost disadvantage to foreign competitors, and that’s partly good news for airline employees; that’s not even primarily about other airlines being subsidized, but instead, it’s because costs are just in a different level, like wide body captains making $400K+ per year, among other factors
• US airlines just can’t compete on product with so many foreign carriers, and that’s largely just cultural, since the US isn’t exactly known for great service
• Over the years we’ve seen US airlines intentionally “outsource” a lot of flying to their foreign partners, since it’s a win-win for them (just look at all the complaints from Delta pilots about increasing flying from equity partners Aeromexico, LATAM, Virgin Atlantic, etc.); thanks to joint ventures there’s revenue sharing, and ultimately airlines can still generate huge profits from loyalty programs through their partnerships with foreign airlines
• The argument that only 40% of customers on foreign airlines to the US are from those countries fails to take into account the relative size of countries; yes, most Lufthansa passengers connecting through Frankfurt are coming from other countries, but is that an issue, as Germany is so much smaller than the US?

On the topic of a mega airline being the solution:

• Americans don’t want one airline to be “proud” of; they want competition, as that’s what drives lower fares, a better product, etc.
• The US is a huge country with a big population, a lot of wealth, and a lot of people traveling; it’s not like Singapore or New Zealand, in terms of one global airline being sufficient
• Ultimately what enables a lot of the competition in long haul markets is having three joint venture alliances in most long haul regions, since that creates healthy competition; if anything, consolidating US service with one or two airlines would increase market share by foreign airlines not belonging to that same joint venture
• It’s not clear how any form of consolidation that would create a “mega” US carrier would address that trade deficit; to be completely ridiculous, let’s say American, Delta, and United all merged, as I don’t think that would lead to an overall increase in capacity compared to what each airline would offer individually

Lately so much of Kirby’s narrative seems to be along the lines of “United is God’s gift to the world, and it needs to be at the center of everything in aviation.” Now, I suppose as CEO, that’s the narrative you want to be pushing, so kudos to him. But for those of us who are objective, it’s much harder to make sense of.

Bottom line

United CEO Scott Kirby’s narrative as of late is how the US has an airline trade deficit, and that’s a big issue. He thinks the solution is to create a mega airline that everyone in the United States can be proud of. There’s so much about this argument that doesn’t make sense, and so little that does…

What do you make of Kirby’s airline trade deficit concerns?