Delta Air Lines wants to become the leading U.S. carrier across the Pacific, taking direct aim at United Airlines. That is an ambitious goal, and while Delta has some real advantages, United’s Pacific network remains in a different league.
Delta Wants To Beat United Across The Pacific
Delta Air Lines is not being subtle about its Pacific ambitions. Speaking to CNBC at the IATA Annual General Meeting in Rio de Janeiro, Delta President Peter Carter said Delta wants to become the leading U.S. carrier across the Pacific:
“We want to become stronger, better, faster in the trans-Pacific, and we want to become the leading U.S. carrier” across the Pacific.
He added:
“Ultimately … the real goal is to become the leading global carrier, which is a pretty audacious goal.”
That is certainly audacious indeed.
For years, United Airlines has had the most comprehensive Pacific network among U.S. carriers, built largely around its San Francisco hub and its joint venture with All Nippon Airways. Delta, by contrast, dismantled its old Tokyo Narita hub, retreated from several Asian markets, and became far more dependent on partners, especially Korean Air.
Now Delta wants back in and we are already seeing signs of that.
Delta has just launched Los Angeles – Hong Kong service, Manila is expected in 2027, and Delta has been increasingly open about its desire to build Los Angeles into a larger premium gateway. Last week, I wrote about how Delta sees an opening at LAX as rivals pull back, but also noted that Los Angeles has humbled many airlines before.
That caveat applies even more strongly across the Pacific.
United Has A Huge Head Start
United has something Delta does not: a true Pacific fortress hub in San Francisco.
SFO is not perfect, but it is the best U.S. gateway to Asia. United has local premium demand, corporate contracts, connectivity, Star Alliance feed, and a long-established Pacific network that includes Japan, South Korea, China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Australia, New Zealand, the Philippines, Taiwan, Thailand, and beyond.
Delta can grow from Los Angeles and Seattle, but splitting its West Coast Pacific strategy between two hubs creates complexity. LAX is a massive market, but it is also fragmented and brutally competitive. SEA gives Delta a better domestic hub structure, but it is not San Francisco and now faces greater pressure from Alaska Airlines.
United CEO Scott Kirby, never one to avoid a fight, seemed to enjoy Delta’s newfound willingness to name United as a competitor:
“I take it as a huge compliment that Delta is beginning to acknowledge that they have an equal that they’re worried about and trying to compete with us.”
When asked what United wants to beat Delta on, Kirby answered:
“Everything.”
Carter fired back:
“We always have to be hungry to win, and I say that because I know United is out there competing against us and replicating the playbook a little bit. Bring ’em on.”
Well, okay then. Hopefully consumers would be the winners in a ramp up of transpacific services by Delta…
Can Delta Really Catch United?
Delta is a very good airline, and it should not be content to let United “own” the Pacific, but his will be hard.
United’s Pacific revenue is far larger than Delta’s, and the gap is not something Delta closes with a couple of splashy route announcements or even a handful of new Airbus A350-1000 deliveries. Hong Kong helps. Manila helps. More Seoul, Shanghai, Auckland, or even Singapore might help. But United’s network is broad, mature, and structurally supported by San Francisco in a way Delta cannot simply recreate at LAX.
Delta does have a powerful weapon: Korean Air. If Delta defines “leading” through the Delta-Korean Air joint venture, the claim becomes more plausible. Seoul Incheon is an excellent connecting hub, and Korean Air gives Delta tremendous reach across Asia without Delta having to operate every route itself.
But if we are talking about Delta metal, Delta has a very long way to go.
I suppose that “leading” can mean many things to different people…
CONCLUSION
Delta wants to become the leading U.S. carrier across the Pacific, and Peter Carter is openly challenging United with a “bring ’em on” posture with Scott Kirby taunting Delta to try. I love the rivalry. U.S. carriers should compete aggressively on international networks, and Delta has the brand, product, balance sheet, and partners to grow across the Pacific in a way that American Airlines simply cannot.
But United is far ahead. Its San Francisco hub, Star Alliance position, ANA joint venture, and mature route network give it structural advantages that Delta cannot quickly replicate. Beating United will take far more than rhetoric and a few new routes…
Hat Tip: One Mile At A Time
Yeah, they’ll need those 35Ks and probably ULRs to get it done. Agreed, I also love the rivalry; as a consumer, I want to see more competition, more options, lower fares, better seats, meals, lounges, service, etc.
glad you covered this but just a few factual notes.
UA has the largest TPAC hub at SFO, true, but DL is the largest US carrier to E. Asia outside of CA precisely because DL has a TPAC operation at SEA that is larger than any other UA station outside of CA plus DL has service to E. Asia from 3 hubs (ATL, DTW and MSP) that have 2 destinations (HND and ICN) while UA has that distinction just from EWR and DTW has service to 3 cities in E. Asia.
Routing nearly all of UA’s TPAC traffic through SFO has left DL with the opportunity to serve E Asia better than UA from the eastern UA.
and, yet, DL is clearly gunning for UA’s position on the west coast to Asia with its LAX growth which will be accompanied by more eastern US flights and KE flights to non-hub cities that have no service to E. Asia.
DL has a number of advantages from which they will build and are using them to go directly after the one advantage that UA does have which is a strong position from CA to E. Asia.
This should be a fun couple years of industry watching
Pointing out factual notes while making errors of your own is peak online behavior.
– The article is about the pacific *not just e. Asia*
– UA services Tokyo (where ANA is) from EWR, IAD, DEN, ORD and LAX, not just SFO. They only do ICN from EWR and SFO because they don’t have a partner there. You can’t compare the two.
– You have to compare UA + ANA to DL + KA
– Korea vs Tokyo isn’t an advantage – Tokyo has the larger economy and more US ties
– UA has better partners in Asia and Oceania with Singapore, EVA, Thai, New Zealand, etc.
LAX will be hard to compete from due to the other international airlines with presence there. SEA will be a challenge due to Alaska and One world partners.
Classic example of picking and choosing highly specific metrics—like the number of hubs with exactly two specific destinations—to obscure a massive structural reality.
United’s hubs in SFO, EWR, and ORD are massive local markets where people are actually paying a premium to originate their travel. Flying to Asia out of MSP or DTW relies heavily on lower-yield connecting traffic from smaller US cities. The Premium Demand is in NYC, not DTW/MSP. Still don’t understand how Delta has failed to add more JFK flights to Asia rather than rely on partners. Same with SFO vs SEA. SEA may be more geographically advantaged, but SFO is king in terms of premium demand. LAX while with premium demand, is diluted with a million and 1 competitors so no airline has an advantage there.
East Asia is also very selective, but I’ll play with you here. United alone has more flights and seats to East Asia than Delta+JV KAL. This is a fact.
You mention about KE flights to non hub cities in the US that have no service to E Asia… Why can’t ANA do the same? there is no structural advantage or disadvantage on this point.
Competition is good and will enjoy to see the Delta build up, but it’s going to be a long and hard road ahead for them
Oof. Mit and Kip takin’ you for a ride, Tim! You gonna take their bait? Thought you were a master-bait-er yourself!
Love a good Tim Dunn illogical argument:
1. Excluding CA – California exists, it is in fact the largest state by population in the US, has a massive economy in itself and yes magically if you choose to exclude 2 hubs of a competitor, the competitor appears smaller. If you exclude Georgia, Minnesota, Utah, California, Washington, Michigan, New York and Massachussets. Delta barely exists! What a dumb point Tim.
2. If you are looking to exclude west coast hubs and look to services from East Asia to the US – also a stupid choice given the airlines design their routes around their whole network not just each city. But you still look stupid because you have A excluded Australia (which you clearly did intentionally because UA dominates the US-AUS market and B, UA serves East Asia from more US cities outside of their west coast hubs
3. “Routing nearly all of their TPAC traffic through SFO has left the opportunity for Delta” – um LAX: PVG, PEK, HKG, BKK, SGN, MEL, SYD, HND, NRT. IAH: SYD, NRT DEN: HND, NRT, ORD: HND, NRT EWR: HND, NRT, ICN IAD: NRT, HND – most of these have a daily widebody (some more, some less and seasonal adjustments) – but this is a massive amount of TPAC capacity running outside of SFO.
4. You also neglected to mention UA literally has a hub on the other side of the pacific in Guam – sure not the most profitable thing but it is vital to the communities in the pacific and for a lot of defense movement. It also has a focus city in Tokyo so they have even more connecting activity there.
5. You also didn’t mention how Delta’s west coast TPAC hub of SEA is getting cooked from the inside – you have alaska getting widebodies and chasing Delta routes – already flying to ICN and Tokyo – rumors of Australia too – DL doesn’t even serve Australia from SEA. Delta serves how many E. Asia destinations from SEA? 4 – yes you can count it on one hand and have your thumb to spare – laughable. How many does it serve from LAX? 3 – it doesn’t even fly to ICN from LAX, its core JV hub.
Delta is so far behind that Tim has to narrow down the market to E.Asia served by airports outside of california, but excluding SEA because DL is losing there too and has the gall to say UA has left the door open.
to no surprise, a whole lot of people are and will be screamoing at the reality that DL is going to hone in on UA’s single TPAC advantage. California.
Southern California is a larger market than the Bay Area. DL is taking on the larger market where it is already the largest domestic market.
DL plus KE have a larger operation in the two largest NE Asia markets than UA and NH have.
UA’s larger size to Asia – some of which is part of the NH JV – is mostly due to UA’s larger size to MNL, HKG and SIN.
It is precisely DL’s strategy to go after CA to E. Asia and to grow further south down the Pacific Rim along w/ further growth of DL/KE at ICN that will allow DL to grow to parity and potentially overtake UA.
and there just simply will be no new legacy carrier flights from Tokyo to the US as long as HND remains a highly restricted access airport.
Not only can DL/KE grow ICN and DL can add new flights elsewhere in Asia but HND picks off the best Tokyo local market revenue which means no new NRT flights will be viable. UA is trying to switch over its existing NRT flights to HND.
as for Pacific vs. E. Asia, DL has said it will grow the S. Pacific as well.
UA’s single TPAC advantage – no we mentioned multiple advantages they have – Australia, the rest of their hubs connected to Asia (more than DL) and having a Guam/Tokyo presence. Did you not read Tim?
Southern California vs Bay Area – yes population wise it might be bigger, but premium traffic wise and competition wise its a worse market. Some examples – Air China flies to 2 destinations from LAX, vs 1 from SFO, Same with China Southern, Xiamen Air also flies there and most of these also fly larger aircraft to LAX. For Aus you also compete with Qantas to 3 cities instead of 1 and AA to 2 cities. So you have a worse market, that is more competitive and UA is already beating Delta in it. Great point Tim.
No new legacy carriers to Tokyo – Well UA just announced ORD to NRT – so congrats on forgetting about their second major international airport.
So 3 terrible arguments again Tim, well done!
You’ve also forgotten the biggest problem of all. Basic maths: Delta doesn’t have enough widebodies to beat UA here. UA already has way more, has more on order than Delta and has better options for fleet renewal – the XLRs will replace some 767 routes as well as the 757s.
Also JV with more potential? Isn’t Alaska going to partner with KE lol? Yay a JV where your partner partners with your biggest rival in one of your hubs – just amazing. What an amazing JV, so much potential. You also cite DL’s growth on its own metal – its mainline fleet is now 100 aircraft smaller than UAs and growing slower than UA – I remember when you said DL would beat AA and UA to 1000 aircraft – it lost to both of them and still hadn’t reached 1,000 in its latest results. DL is so behind on fleet its a joke.
feel free to cling to the notion that DL doesn’t have enough widebodies, Andy.
DL simply did not get screwed by Airbus with late deliveries like UA did on 787s so UA has a long line of deferred deliveries, not one of which can match ANY A350 in range, capacity and efficiency.
DL has abundant options on top of its orders
Guam is not much of a TPAC asset, Andy. It is a local market primarily is a vacation destnation that UA itself has had to shift capacity away from.
DL’s plan includings increasing capacity in the S. Pacific including to AKL where UA has year round service.
UA is flying ORD-NRT on a 788, their smallest TPAC capable aircraft. Impressive. really impressive.
UA still doesn’t fly to anything in E. Asia other than Tokyo while DL serves Tokyo and Seoul from Atlanta, Detroit and Minneapolis and Shanghai from Detroit.
thank you for proving my point that DL is indeed larger to E. Asia than UA from outside of CA.
pilot paul,
UA is as likely to get A350s – esp. for delivery in the next 5 years – as UA is likely to pull its baggage handling rate to top tier.
Kirby is publically trashing Rolls Royce – as if his public trash talking has gotten him what he wanted in other situations.
UA said it would push AA’s hub out of ORD… and that didn’t happen.
UA said it would buy AA… and that didn’t happen.
and now UA says that it is only interested in acquiring assets of bankrupt airlines – and the feds are telling carriers that only low cost and ultra low cost carriers can have NK’s LGA slots…. so the notion that UA can acquire ANY slots is far from a done deal.
This should indeed be a great next 3-5 years as the airline industry’s biggest competitive advantage is rearranged and UA’s reign over the Pacific is ended.
UA has never said it would buy AA – it just said it wanted to. Just like Delta never said it would beat United on TPAC – it just wants to. I wish you could read Timmy because then you’d be able to understand such differences.
I agree Guam isn’t much of an asset. But it is an asset. An asset they fly a daily 777-300ER to service – so can’t be that small.
Also on the deliveries of aircraft – United has ~50 more widebodies than delta. Explain to me how Delta is going to fly to all of these destinations that UA serves with 50 fewer planes, while they have to replace a massive number of planes – the math ain’t mathing Timmy.
Ahh yes, Timmy’s favorite line – United is only flying a 788 on ORD to NRT – that is still more capacity than Delta is flying to NRT from anywhere hahahahaha.
Also why are you bringing up LGA Timmy? UA is already beating Delta in New York – I also didn’t know LGA could do TPAC flying? If it can’t I don’t see how that is remotely relevant. Same for kicking AA out of ORD.
Also all of this “Delta plans to go to the S.Pacific…” – where are the flights Timmy? They can plan to do whatever they want, UA is already doing it.
It’s interesting that they’re not aiming to be the best transpacific airline and/or beat ANA, SQ, Cathay Pacific or whatever. They’re exclusively interested in outcompeting another mediocre carrier which can also barely break even without the subsidies from the credit card oligopoly rentierism.
DL and UA are very similarly sized in NE Asia – Japan, Korea, and China.
UA’s larger size comes from its larger presence in HKG, MNL SIN and SE Asia, areas DL will readd over the next couple years.
The DL-KE JV will be far larger than UA solely because of DL’s growth on its own metal and KE’s absorption of OZ which is currently not part of the DL-KE JV.
There will not be any growth from Tokyo to the US as long as HND remains a highly restricted access market. HND pulls off the best local revenue and flights from the US to NRT don’t work unless new business revenue can be added – which is not happening.
DL has enormous advantages which far too many discount including its larger size outside of CA to E. Asia, a JV with more potential and its growing fleet of A350s including the 35K which is simply a far larger and more efficient aircraft than anything UA has or likely ever will have.
TD: “and its growing fleet of A350s including the 35K which is simply a far larger and more efficient aircraft than anything UA has or likely ever will have.”
UA is still sitting on an order for 45 A350s and has ongoing lawsuits over the engine contract. You think if it turned out the plane was really that good – and provided that significant an economic advantage over anything else – that UA couldn’t convert those orders into 35Ks to settle it? Besides, as you have said on other posts regarding DL paying catch-up with lie-flat seats, quote: ” DL won’t lose anything by a couple year delay.”
I don’t think UA would, either – if they have to take a couple-year delay to get 35Ks in response. They have such a huge presence in the Asia/Pacific market compared to DL now (from ALL their hubs – not just with qualifiers like “outside California” to make DLlook bigger and UA appear smaller) that 20 planes at DL – basically 10 routes, if they are ALL focused in the Pacific – won’t catch UA.
For aviation enthusiasts → The DL jetliner in the article’s photo is an A350-900 (age: 1.9 years). It is currently parked at ATL.
DL can theoretically catch up to UA across the Pacific, but it faces a massive multi-billion dollar deficit and structural layout disadvantages that make overtaking UA highly unlikely anytime soon. While DL reigns as the most profitable overall U.S. airline, UA remains the undisputed king/queen of trans-Pacific travel.
Oof. Good doctor, you’re gonna make Tim’s day!
Best of good luck to DL President Peter Carter!
“Becoming number one is easier than remaining number one.” – Bill Bradley –