United Adds 10 New International Cities to the Route Map


United loves a big summer announcement, and sometimes it doesn’t live up to the very high levels of hype. But this year? It not only lives up to the hype, but it exceeds it. United is putting its XLRs to good use, but it’s doing a whole lot more than that as it continues to try to push to find gold in new cities that others haven’t tried.

Overall, the airline will add 10 new cities, six of which aren’t served from anywhere in the US today. It will have a total of 14 new routes that touch five of its hubs, though most of them are at Newark. This also isn’t just about Transatlantic flying, with two of them heading over the Pacific. Enough of the numbers. Let’s go through these, starting with those Pacific routes.

United Leans Into the ANA Joint Venture

  • Los Angeles – Osaka/Kansai 1x daily on a B787-9 year-round starting March 27
  • San Francisco – Naha (Okinawa) 3x weekly on a B777-200ER from March 27 to October 28

I start with the Pacific routes, because I like these the most. First, there’s the LA to Osaka flight, but that one is straightforward. Osaka may be enormous with nearly 20 million people in the metro area, but the only flights from the US mainland are a single daily from SFO on United and one from LAX on Japan Airlines. And even those are only daily in summer; in winter they lose one or two weekly.

JAL’s presence in that LAX market must drive ANA crazy, but it either doesn’t have the aircraft to devote to the route or it just hasn’t found it worth doing on its own. So United will do it. Alone, I don’t love this, but with ANA as a joint venture partner, this is a good flight.

Then there’s Okinawa which will get 3x weekly during the summer. Again, the ANA joint venture will help to put people on this from the Japan side. But remember, the US military still has a very important strategic position in Okinawa, not to mention that California has a sizable Okinawan diaspora which will help boost the visiting friends and relatives (VFR) market. This is a creative flight that I think should do well.

The A321XLR Expands United’s Options

  • Newark – Ibiza 4x weekly from May 31 to October 7
  • Newark – Luxembourg 1x daily year-round from April 2
  • Newark – Marseilles 1x daily from June 4 to October 29
  • Newark – Valencia 3x weekly from June 2 to October 6
  • Washington/Dulles – Toulouse 1x daily year-round from April 26

We’ve been hearing promises about how the A321XLR was going to open up all these new opportunities, but we haven’t really seen much yet. (It’s actually the A321LR that has been doing some fun, new flying at other airlines.) But now this is changing with the addition of five new routes that can’t be reached reliably with a B737 MAX, are probably too much of a gamble on an expensive B757, and are too small for a widebody.

It looks like United is starting off with nothing over 3,500 nautical miles; the Toulouse route is longest at 3,438nm. But that Toulouse route is also going to connect Airbus’s North American headquarters which is right near Dulles to its global management headquarters in Toulouse. I have to imagine that Airbus will do just about whatever is needed to make sure this route sticks around.

I put that flight in the same category as the Luxembourg run. The Grand Duchy of Luxembourg is a tiny country, but it’s a rich one. And the XLR is a premium-heavy aircraft. I expect all sorts of Dukes and Duchesses along with bankers and other executives to fill those flat beds. But uh… if you’re looking for an empty cabin in winter, look at the back of those airplanes. If the beds are full, that’s perfectly fine.

The other three are pure leisure routes for the summer, and not one of them is served from the US today. Sure, Air Transat flies to Marseilles and Valencia from Canada (on the A321LR, mostly), but there aren’t a lot of Americans doing that. This just dramatically improves connectivity from the US to places where people with money want to go.

Oh, and not mentioned yet, but if you want to try out that A321XLR, you can do it starting December 1 from Dulles to Amsterdam and Dublin. It’ll work existing routes until the big summer splash.

Blanket the Region With Leisure

  • Newark – Catania 4x weekly on a premium-heavy B767-300ER from May 28 to September 20
  • Newark – Ljubljana 4x weekly on a B767-400ER from May 12 to October 29
  • Newark – Olbia 3x weekly on a premium-heavy B767-300ER from May 27 to September 21
  • Newark – Terceira 3x weekly on a B737-8 MAX from June 9 to September 5

That photo is of a MUCH younger me in Ljubljana, Slovenia. And how did I get there? I went in and out of Venice and drove. Slovenia is a remarkable country with wine regions in the east, alpine lakes just outside the capital, beautiful glacial valleys in the west, and a small sliver touching the Adriatic Sea. It is an understatement to say it’s worth a visit, but it is a real pain to get there.

Sure, you can get through some other hubs, but even BA only flies seasonally to London. Ryanair isn’t there at all, and the flag carrier Adria failed in 2019. This is going to open up some real opportunity. Beyond that, United is starting to blanket the Adriatic with service to Dubrovnik and Split in addition to Venice, so travelers can start at one and end at the other. Ljubljana is a risk. That’s a big airplane, but it’s a risk that might just work out considering the other flights it runs in the region.

Olbia and Catania are in a similar vein. Fly into one, fly out of the other. (Just as long as you don’t fly Delta.) And Terceira complements the Ponta Delgada flight which is 100 miles away on a different island. The more presence you can have in a region, the better all the flights should do.

Connecting the Dots

  • Denver – Paris/CDG 1x daily on a B787-9 year-round from May 27
  • San Francisco – Tel Aviv 3x weekly on a B787-9 year-round from March 28
  • Washington/Dulles – Milan/Malpensa 3x weekly on a B767-300ER year-round from May 28

And then there are these three. They aren’t nearly as exciting, so they don’t even get an image. But they do have real value in that they make it easier for United’s customers to get to these cities. SFO – Tel Aviv last flew in October 2023, abrubtly ending when Hamas kidnapped the Israelis to kick off the latest installment of a never-ending war. Now it returns. Paris and Milan have service from other hubs, but now the options grow bigger.


This is an ambitious plan for next summer. Of course it is not without risk, but that’s how it should be. If everything works, United isn’t trying hard enough. And that tells me that in the last few years… United hasn’t been trying hard enough. The only Transatlantic routes that failed in recent memory were Newark – Bergen and Tenerife, and those were from previous years. United did confirm that every route that flew last year will be back again this coming year.

With a success rate that high, I’d be pushing harder as well. Of course, the XLR opens up some new doors, but I figured we’d see more of those replacing B757s to start. That may very well happen — depending upon how many they get from Airbus before summer — but these first shells are about growth and building the network. This is all about building the network, and so far, the strategy is paying dividends.

Get Cranky in Your Inbox for Free

How often do you want to receive emails?
Brett Avatar

76 responses to “United Adds 10 New International Cities to the Route Map”

  1. Kilroy Avatar
    Kilroy

    Somewhat off topic, but any idea how well the flight to Nuuk is doing for United, or if United is still planning to bring it back for next summer?

    For the “outdoorsy types” in the US (especially those on the East Coast and Northeast; BOS-KEF is only a little over a 5 hour flight), Iceland is a pretty common leisure destination and everyone who visits there absolutely raves about it, despite the fact that food etc are a little more expensive than in parts of Europe.

    While I’m not very familiar with Greenland or the Atlantic Canada & the Maritime Provinces, they are short flights from the northern half of the East Coast and may have some untapped potential for tourism with the right flights.

    1. Vasukiv Avatar
      Vasukiv

      The Live and Let’s Fly site said that United confirmed it will continue to fly to Nuuk next year.

    2. Brett Avatar

      Kilroy – As mentioned in the post, everything that flew last summer will fly this summer. We don’t know anything about frequencies on that, but Nuuk will still be in the network.

      1. Kilroy Avatar
        Kilroy

        Thanks, Brett. Appreciate the patience with my reading comprehension today.

  2. Angry Bob Crandall Avatar
    Angry Bob Crandall

    Cranky,
    Any issues with headwinds on any of these routes?

    1. Brett Avatar

      Angry Bob – I can’t imagine so. These are not very long for what the XLR is supposed to be able to do. Summer headwinds aren’t much trouble anyway, so maybe the IAD-TLS is the most susceptible during winter. Still, it shouldn’t be a problem.

    2. southbay flier Avatar
      southbay flier

      What’s wrong with a stop in Gander?

  3. SEAN Avatar
    SEAN

    Imagine what United could do if Boom were to become a thing? All those new route possibilities & only a few of them work, well it’s still worth the effort.

    To quote a friend of my mother who saw an expensive sweater that was made in Slovenia, “where the hell in the world is Slovenia!”

    1. SEAN Avatar
      SEAN

      Should have read… if only a few of them work.

    2. Dave at LEX Avatar
      Dave at LEX

      I spent 25 days traveling for leisure in Slovenia in 2019. It’s an amazing country. Think Italian friendliness with German efficiency. Plus gorgeous nature.

      1. SEAN Avatar
        SEAN

        I did look up where Slovenia was & yes, it’s sounds quite nice. It was just a very funny remark my mother told me after it happened as the woman who said it would just drop lines like that from time to time.

  4. Mark Avatar
    Mark

    When you’re stated objective is to become the de facto US international flag carrier, this is what you do….

  5. Hajime Sano Avatar
    Hajime Sano

    I’m glad to see LAX-Osaka/Kansai (KIX) returning. I flew it a few times in the 90s when I was visiting Grandpa once/twice a year. Then United cancelled the route. it sure beat connecting through SFO.

  6. Alan Z Avatar
    Alan Z

    Can’t wait for Tim’s response.

    1. SEAN Avatar
      SEAN

      Something about blah, blah, Delta having the best metrics in the industry & fuel pricing blah, blah, blah.

  7. Arubaman Avatar
    Arubaman

    With well over 225 widebodies and nearly as many 737s as Southwest (625+), not to mention the 757s, 319/320s, and now the international-capable 321s, we are witnessing the early stages of the greatest flex in U.S. aviation history. This is like a combination of Pan Am and TWA with the domestic network of Delta.
    And United has been smart about it. They focused on strengthening their domestic network initially. Denver being the prime example. Yes, United is taking on a lot of debt. But if American can hobble along all these years, United can survive the next downturn or black swan event.
    If I am United, I’m running simulations in the Southeast. Do I acquire JetBlue? Do I wait for MIA to become available (via AA)? Or do I do it from scratch at MCO? This allows the build-out of the Carribean, Latin and South America while simultaneously firing a shot across Delta’s domestic bow.
    MIA is the best gateway, but they’d have to pry it from AA’s cold dead hands. MCO has the concrete, a progressive mindset, and a brand new international terminal. But the move that makes the most sense to me is acquiring JetBlue. Sufficient runways in FLL. The old Spirit terminal is available and can be extended. It puts United back into JFK in a big way. Consolation prizes are BOS and SJU. Maybe wait and see if JetBlue goes under first. If they don’t, pull the trigger anyway. Sure, it’s a lot of debt, but United is already playing “Go big or go Home” anyway.
    Let’s watch all the egos at play!!!

    1. SEAN Avatar
      SEAN

      Not sure how JetBlue could be acquired by United, Delta or American as all of them already have large hubs in NYC & why would you want a hub at both EWR & JFK. It’s not like Delta’s split hub operation between JFK & LGA. I still contend that if anyone were to by JetBlue it would be Alaska so that way they would operate on both coasts & then just fill in the middle as needed.

      1. Arubaman Avatar
        Arubaman

        Certainly, Alaska could buy JetBlue. Acquisition has absolutely been their growth model in recent years. In terms of New York overlap between United and JetBlue, I think the regulators would look at the very limited overlap at EWR and the fact that Delta maintains both a domestic and international hub in NYC in their decision-making. It would be interesting to see if United got back into JFK in a big way would they start an international fare war with Delta. There is certainly a competitive animus between them.

        1. SEAN Avatar
          SEAN

          What you say is true, but I do see one issue, Star members are scattered throughout JFK Vs at EWR. Most Sky teem members are housed with Delta at JFK as are most One world with American.

          1. Arubaman Avatar
            Arubaman

            Yes sir, the various Alliances must be taken into account. I genuinely wish Mr. Snyder would write his greatest article of all time, concerning how the Alliances are really the first step in true Open Skies. It would be a real eye-opener and very likely picked up by the mainstream media.

            1. Steve Avatar
              Steve

              It would be eye-opening, but it would also be totally wrong. The deregulated EU market is the closest thing to true open skies. Alliances are, if anything, anti-competitive.

            2. SEAN Avatar
              SEAN

              Second it.

      2. TDF Avatar
        TDF

        My thought on how United could make EWR and JFK coexist is to make EWR more primary origin and destination at to cut down on connections and boost IAD as the primary east coast international gateway.

    2. Tim Dunn Avatar
      Tim Dunn

      It is most interesting that Kirby has recently said they are still considering every possible option to get slots at JFK which either means the supposed promise from B6 for slots isn’t delivering or B6 isn’t giving UA enough slots to give it a large enough position to be able to compete with AA and DL at JFK in addition to whatever remains of B6; if B6 continues to exist, the transcons are certain to be part of their network.

      and B6 is still deeply in debt and largely for aircraft; even if they enter chapter 11, debtors will expect to be paid as part of a reorganization of B6 rather than a sale of the airline and its assets, of which JFK slots are some of its most valuable assets. UA is simply not in a position to take on billions more in debt to acquire B6 on top of the massive aircraft deliveries that UA has coming in the next few years.

      and both the feds and the states could easily block further growth of the big 3 in NYC; if the feds blocked the big 3 from acquiring NK’s slots at LGA, it is very doubtful that they will suddenly be disposed to allow UA or AA or DL to acquire B6 assets at JFK.

      as to the comment below, many seem to miss that UA’s addition of LAX-KIX is a route that JL operates as part of the AA/JL JV. DL has shown no interest in adding anything outside of Tokyo in Japan; and Japan is part of the DL-Korean JV. Just like with KLM’s service to secondary UK cities via AMS, KE carries alot of traffic to secondary Japan cities via ICN.

      1. Jim LeJeune Avatar
        Jim LeJeune

        So complete non-sequitur this time SB; that is a stretch even for you. We at least wanted to hear about baggage handling or how SkyPesos,even those least valuable and smallest of the big three US, is tops in getting folks from Augusta to Albany or whatnot. Tad disspointed really SB

  8. See_Bee Avatar
    See_Bee

    Super impressive list of cities! Even if some don’t work, I love that they are trying new ideas

    I find the Pacific adds most interesting as airlines can make most EU markets work for at least the summer. It feels like UA smells DL starting to get desperate in the region with some of their recent adds and is trying to lock things down before DL gets too much momentum

  9. 1990 Avatar
    1990

    United is leveraging the XLR wisely. This is what it was meant for. TATL, secondary (or even tertiary) cities.

    Generally, I am pleased with these options from EWR (based in NYC). Though, half-jokingly, I would’ve appreciated a nonstop EWR-MLE… (https://onemileatatime.com/community-stories/male-velana-airport-new-terminal-1-international-arrivals/) Ya know, just restrict payload on the 789, and uh, lose a lotta money on that one. (Think of the ‘heck ya, we fly there’ posters, though! Just do it once a week over Christmas. Got’em!)

  10. Daniel Avatar
    Daniel

    I don’t know how much the ANA joint venture helps with Kansai. Looking at the route map, they have 4 domestic (ISG, OKA, CTS, HND) and 2 international routes (PEK, PVG) out of Kansai. I think it’s just an underserved market and United might be expecting the Japanese economy to turn around.

    I also wonder if Okinawa will have a lot of military bookings. Not sure if it’s enough to move the needle between success and failure for the route but might be a boost of sales.

    1. Jason H Avatar
      Jason H

      If you’re in Los Angeles, it would be great. But if you’re connecting anyway it’s not so clear cut. There are so many UA/NH flights (or JL/AA/DL) from other cities and hubs to HND, then either the shinkansen or a short flight to ITM is comparable if not easier to get to the Kansai area.

      On the Japan side, KIX is a destination, not a hub. There’s no reason to connect there over HND, or even NRT. ITM is the domestic hub for JL and NH.

      Having a joint venture helps here for marketing and sales channels, but does nothing for connections.

    2. Brett Avatar

      Daniel – I’m not saying the joint venture helps with connectivity. The joint venture helps with Osaka-origin traffic since they will have much more loyalty to ANA and can earn their points, etc.

    3. driller1 Avatar
      driller1

      They may not need a whole lot of passengers…. if they can fill the belly with cargo. And who needs more stuff than the US military.

  11. Carl Stork Avatar
    Carl Stork

    Can UA grow its total flight schedule at EWR or do they need to cut other (presumably domestic) flying in order to free up slots and gates for new international service?

    1. Brett Avatar

      Carl – We will have to see where this all lands, but presumably to add new flights, they’ll have to cut elsewhere. The thing is, this isn’t really that many flights. We’re talking 5x daily at Newark, so they can easily move things around.

  12. SEASFO Avatar
    SEASFO

    KIX is a very interesting market that has seen a lot of changes over the years. United’s SFO-KIX flight has seen everything from a 747-400 to a 787-8 over the years and Delta has come and gone from SEA. The European carriers seem to have a bit more success with AF flying from CDG and LH from MUC. It’ll be interesting to see how the LAX flight does.

    The non-Paris France destinations are long overdue for United to give a shot IMHO. It could be an effective niche against DL/AF who have to worry about cannibalization of CDG, and AA whose vision of a major international expansion is adding DFW-ATH and doesn’t have the scale of airplanes or the right hubs to try something like this even if they wanted to. And, as someone who has spent a full 3 hours before departure time trying to fly out of CDG because their exit immigration staff move like the real-life DMV employees in the movie Zootopia, I am among the market who will pay a premium to not have to fly out of Roissy. I didn’t see IAD-TLS coming vs EWR, but makes sense given the Airbus headquarters.

  13. LT_DT Avatar
    LT_DT

    What’s it going to take for IAH to get Paris back?

    Rumor is that it was taken away as “punishment” for Southwest being allowed to fly international from Hobby, but shouldn’t we be past that by now?

    1. driller1 Avatar
      driller1

      Denver chuckles at IAH….

    2. emac Avatar
      emac

      Still remember that Houston City Council hearing where WN sent one guy (maybe Gary) and UA sent like five dudes. The WN guy is sitting there chilling, the UA (former CO) guys are crowded around the table, trying to get their story straight between themselves. Then WN won and Smisek cut 10% of IAH capacity (haven’t checked the data, that was the claim) to retaliate… but really he just loved shrinking.

      And then Jeff Smisom became AA’s CEO.

    3. SEASFO Avatar
      SEASFO

      The Smisek team’s IAH tantrum over Southwest’s international flights out of HOU was stupid but the fact that a hole in the network as big as IAH-CDG has been allowed to remain under Kirby and Quayle suggests something about its O&D performance IMO.

      I remember reading a rumor somewhere that Air France had most of the big corporate contracts on the route and connected a lot of Houston O&D energy sector traffic to points beyond CDG. IAH is also probably their worst hub for connecting traffic to Europe due to how far south and west it is, with a lot of potential East-West connecting flows better flowed over SFO or DEN. For example, someone flying CDG-IAH-SNA would have to deal with 10.5 hours from CDG-IAH followed by another 3 hours from IAH-SNA whereas CDG-SFO and SFO-SNA could be accomplished in 11.5 hours followed by a 1 hour hop.

      1. driller1 Avatar
        driller1

        Agree with your point about connectivity combined with O&D is not enough to overcome IAH’s geographical disadvantage. No reason Denver should have gotten Rome and Paris in the last 2 years while IAH is shut out other than to conclude that the superior connectivity of Denver helps justify TATL flights more than IAH. At least Houstonians have a Polaris Club to enjoy…

  14. Tim Dunn Avatar
    Tim Dunn

    The big picture takeaway is that UA continues to priortize adding dots to its route map even on a seasonal, less than daily basis to the exclusion of domestic growth esp. at EWR where every international add comes at the expense of domestic flights since EWR is at capacity from the FAA’s perspective.

    and, over the Pacific, UA’s addition of secondary Japan routes says that the hopes that UA will add more non-Japan routes to challenge DL’s TPAC growth esp. at LAX is not going to happen.

    1. MaxPower Avatar
      MaxPower

      “The big picture takeaway is that UA continues to ‘prior(i)tize’ adding dots to its route map even on a seasonal, less than daily basis to the exclusion of domestic growth”

      UA is also growing US-only capacity more than 6% 2q26 to 2q27 in case you wondered. But, of course, that schedule could change over the coming months. For now though, UA certainly isn’t excluding any domestic capacity growth.

      1. Arubaman Avatar
        Arubaman

        This domestic expansion cannot be overlooked. These new flights are very important, but the bread and butter will be all the revenue generated by the new MAX aircraft, and the market share they take.

    2. Jeremy Avatar
      Jeremy

      PANYNJ has released its June monthly figures now, so we have data for 1H ’26:

      EWR – Jan-June 2025:

      UA: 10.4M (domestic) + 4.6M (intl)

      EWR: Jan-June 2026:

      UA: 11.4M (domestic) + 4.6M (intl)

      YTD UA’s growth at EWR has come domestically – intl will follow shortly. You made a lot of comments on how DL was cementing gains in NYC at UA’s expense last year / early this year. As EWR restrictions ease, UA is #1 in NYC again that lead is going to grow much further as UA gets JFK slots and can rebuild more EWR (I would expect UA will pass DL in NYC domestic as well by late 2027/ early 2028). DL is actually down in NYC in both FY25 and FY26. You also made a lot of comments on DL’s growth to #2 at EWR – they’re #3 again now behind AA:

      NYC (EWR, JFK, LGA) – Jan – June 2025:

      1: DL: 13.6M (domestic) + 3.1M (intl) = 16.8M (total) i.e., 24.6% share
      2. UA: 11.7M (domestic) + 4.6M (intl) = 16.3M (total) i.e., 24.0% share
      3. B6: 5.5M (domestic) + 3.0M (intl) = 8.5M (total) i.e., 12.5% share
      4. AA: 6.9M (domestic) + 1.6M (intl) = 8.5M (total) i.e., 12.4% share

      NYC (EWR, JFK, LGA) – Jan – June 2026:

      1. UA: 12.7M (domestic) + 4.5M (intl) = 17.2M (total) i.e., 26.4% share
      2. DL: 13.5M (domestic) + 3.0M (intl) = 16.6M (total) i.e., 25.4% share
      3. AA: 7.2M (domestic) + 1.4M (intl) = 8.6M (total) i.e., 13.1% share
      4. B6: 5.3M (domestic) + 2.8M (intl) = 8.0M (total) i.e., 12.3% share

      Source: https://www.panynj.gov/airports/en/statistics-general-info.html

      1. Tim Dunn Avatar
        Tim Dunn

        again, thank you for confirming that UA prioritizes international growth including to secondary and tertiary destinations in Europe to the exclusion of closing the domestic advantage that DL has including from NYC. All of the NYC airports are at capacity according to the FAA which means there is an opportunity cost for every flight that is added. UA’s EWR growth has largely come from gauge growth while it has shifted its RJs to other hubs.

        let us know when UA publishes schedules at JFK as well as what other carriers do including growth at EWR which is schedule coordinated but not slot restricted.

        and systemwide, AA will lead the big 4 in domestic growth this year according to guidance each airline has provided as well as data compiled by Airlines for America

        and all of the discussion about size raises the question about why UA can’t translate its larger size into greater profits than DL. Perhaps DL like WN recognizes that not adding capacity is precisely what provides pricing control and improves yields.

        1. Jeremy Avatar
          Jeremy

          That’s verbatim not at all what the data says lol – UA has substantially grown EWR domestically in 2026 so far and is now targeting intl. growth.

          FYI that DL-UA profitability growth is expected to decline further in FY26 – as per their forecasts, DL expects ~$4.5B in FY26 profit while UA expects ~$3.3B.

          In FY25, DL had ~$5.0B in profit while UA had ~$3.4B.

          That trend is not in DL’s favor (and this overall shift has continued since 2022). Past performance doesn’t indicate future success, but UA’s strategy is clearly playing dividends and continues to reduce that relative gap, so not sure it’s fair to ask why UA can’t translate that growing size to greater profits like DL. It’s absolutely catching up.

          1. Tim Dunn Avatar
            Tim Dunn

            first, UA has grown EWR through gauge because there is very limited opportunity to add flights; and, again, as much as some want to continue to see intense rivalry between DL and UA, they operate much more complimentary networks in NYC than alot of people want to believe. DL is larger in the domestic market and serves a number of markets that UA does not serve precisely because DL has more flights overall including the largest operation at LGA where the perimeter restriction (as at DCA) forces more RJs and thus more service in the eastern US.

            As for profitability, let’s see what each carrier actually reports. That guidance was made before jet fuel took another spike up and with the realization that the crack spread for diesel and jet fuel is not likely to come down anytime soon. DL’s refinery is benefitting along w/ all other refinery operators and DL is likely to continue to enjoy a substantial cost benefit as soon as the refinery comes fully back online in the near future.

            and, in the second quarter, DL’s net income was twice UA’s even with sale-leaseback transactions which benefit the income statement at the expense of the balance sheet.

            1. Andy Avatar
              Andy

              Tim can finally do math just with terrible conclusions! Yes UA has chosen to grow internationally at EWR – knowing they have 7 daily slots coming to JFK next year as well. Now for the rest of their network which they can grow domestically and use to close the domestic gap against DL. I’m not sure that you’re aware but they can grow domestically at SFO, LAX, IAH, DEN and IAD all are not constrained. United has clearly been growing domestically, like they just announced flights from SFO to Cincinnati and PBI. They are also doing non-hub routes like CLE to MIA and LAS. So really your comment that they are choosing to grow internationally over domestically makes no sense at all. In fact there was only one route today that uses an aircraft that they’d use for domestic flights anyway (A 3x Weekly on a Max) – so they are hardly diverting the one 737 Max every 3 weeks they are getting or the monthly A321NEOs they are getting to international – what do you think they are doing with those planes? If they are using the MAXs to replace A319s (some of them are doing this) then it is a massive upgauge and still shows domestic growth. If they are just using them for fleet growth then it is massive domestic growth.

              Also if NYC is constrained – DL is also constrained in NYC! And United has the larger market share! So you’re really not arguing your case well here.

              As we often have to say Timmy, make it make sense!

            2. Tim Dunn Avatar
              Tim Dunn

              Andy,
              The obvious difference between DL and UA is that each is optimizing for different outcomes; DL is focused on profit maximization and does it with tighter capacity esp. in its strength markets and hubs while UA is focused on size and reach of its network. DL clealry has a higher margin non-transportation revenue advantage that is likely to continue to grow.

              Even regarding network, DL is growing slower but in more high profile markets including competitive domestic routes like LAX-EWR and ORD and in developing hubs/focus cities like AUS while UA’s growth is in its own hubs, some of which like ORD are competitive (and yet ORD came up short in this announcement).

              AA and DL have yet to make their full international route announcements for 2027 but DL made the decision to not fly narrowbodies across the Atlantic beyond Iceland so you won’t see some of these types of cities ever served by DL.

              DL is growing its TPAC network into more large markets while UA is adding secondary destinations just as it is doing on TATL.

              The DL-KE JV will be much stronger when OZ is dissolved and as OZ is removed from Star.

              It’s also notable how few widebody flights UA has announced for 2027 considering how many 787s they are supposed to be getting this year and next. At some point, UA has to start retiring 777s and 767s, which DL is already retiring. DL’s TPAC fleet is nearly all new generation; the difference in fuel costs for a 777-200ER vs. a new generation widebody is currently about $25,000 each direction on a TPAC flight; that adds up very quickly.

              As much as there seems to be a constant comparison between DL and UA, both clearly have different goals and both are achieving them. In financial metrics and on an apples to apples basis, which should be primary for a for-profit company, DL is a more profitable company.

            3. Andy Avatar
              Andy

              I agree that DL and UA are pursuing different network strategies and that DL currently has the superior margin profile, particularly with the enormous contribution from its Amex relationship. Where I disagree is translating that into “DL maximizes profit while UA maximizes size.” UA generated $8.4B of operating cash flow in 2025 versus DL’s $8.3B while growing faster, with premium and loyalty revenue both rising strongly. That’s not evidence of growth for growth’s sake.
              The route comparisons also ignore starting positions. DL adding a large TPAC market that UA already serves doesn’t demonstrate that DL targets better markets while UA settles for secondary ones. UA already has more U.S.-Pacific flying than anyone else, so logically its next layer of expansion increasingly consists of destinations such as Okinawa. DL is filling major-market holes; UA is extending an already much broader network.
              Likewise, “UA grows at its hubs” isn’t inherently negative. Hub growth can have better economics because of feed, schedule depth and customer concentration. And saying ORD “came up short” because it didn’t receive a route in one August 2026 announcement is reading far too much into an incomplete 2027 schedule.
              On fleet, UA absolutely has an older 767/777 replacement burden, but that is precisely why it has such a large 787 pipeline. New 787s don’t all need to produce new route announcements; many can replace older aircraft, increase gauge/frequency or improve fleet utilization. And the claimed $25,000 777 fuel penalty needs a route, fuel price, payload and comparison aircraft before it means much.
              So yes, DL currently wins on margins and has the better co-brand monetization machine. UA wins on international breadth and is growing faster. Those are observable facts. Saying one therefore “optimizes profit” while the other “optimizes size” is just not supported by literally anything thats being said.

            4. Tim Dunn Avatar
              Tim Dunn

              Andy,
              Fuel burn for commercial aircraft is known; the 772ER doesn’t fly flights as long as UA’s TPAC average flight length but the 777-300ER flies longer flights than average.

              DL paid 53 cents/gal less than UA for fuel in the second quarter on average for its system; 13% lower for such a major cost is huge. West coast fuel is more expensive than in the eastern US. The refinery might not help DL much in the 3rd quarter- which might provide a good opportunity to see a “true” comparison between DL and other airlines – but elevated crack spreads will be in DL’s favor.

              DL’s tight capacity esp. in its hubs is part of why it gets a revenue advantage.

              and, yes, I expect that UA will have to start using a good portion of its 787 order book for 777 and 767 replacements. the XLRs might replace some of the TATL 763s.

              we are in agreement that UA is a larger airline by airline metrics; DL is a larger and more profitable airline by financial metrics.

            5. Andy Avatar
              Andy

              The fuel advantage is real, but the 53-cent figure needs qualification. DL’s reported $3.66/gal included hedge MTM/settlement effects; DL’s own adjusted fuel price was $3.93, versus UA’s $4.19. The refinery benefit was 11 cents/gal. So the recurring fuel-price gap was meaningful, but nowhere near the full 53 cents being implied.
              And that still doesn’t establish the claimed 777 trip-cost penalty, because systemwide fuel price and aircraft fuel burn are separate variables.
              I also agree UA will use a meaningful portion of the 787 order book for 767/777 replacement. That is hardly controversial—and replacing old widebodies with 787s is an economic benefit, not evidence of a failed growth strategy.
              Where I disagree most is “DL is larger by financial metrics.” More profitable, yes. But larger depends entirely on the metric. In Q2 DL reported $19.8B of GAAP revenue, but $2.1B of that was third-party refinery sales. DL’s own adjusted airline revenue was $17.666B; UA’s was $17.672B. In other words, the actual airline businesses were essentially the same size by revenue that quarter. Calling DL financially “larger” because the refinery sells billions of dollars of fuel to third parties is not an apples-to-apples airline comparison. In fact UA is a larger AIRLINE, DL is a Larger BUSINESS – you really love to make this claim but the numbers speak for themselves, UA is plainly a bigger airline (and more profitable airline), DL is a more profitable business.

            6. Tim Dunn Avatar
              Tim Dunn

              first, Andy, DL considers the core airline operation to include passenger and cargo revenue and loyalty partner revenue; all US airlines operate loyalty programs and have credit card partnerships.
              in the 2nd quarter, DL had $1 billion more loyalty/credit card revenue than UA which made DL’s core airline revenue higher than UA’s.

              The 53 cent/gallon advantage is real and it is evident in the reality that DL’s fuel costs went up 67% year over year while UA’s increase was 84%; UA spent $1 billion or 24% more on jet fuel to fly 10% more ASMs than DL.
              The refinery is not an unfair strategy esp. since UA also considered buying one on the Gulf coast shortly after DL bought its refinery. DL has used it multiple times including after the beginning of the Ukraine war to keep its fuel costs down; we are very likely in an extended period where the refinery will once again benefit DL.

              DL does separate out refinery operations including revenue and costs; DL’s adjusted pre-tax margin was 7.7% compared to UA’s adjusted pre-tax margin of 4.8%.

              DL does have consistently higher revenue on a comparable basis even though the refinery is part of DL’s business. DL also has higher margins and profits as well as less gross debt and a market cap that is 46% higher than UA. All of those are the marks of a financially stronger company.

              as for the TPAC fleet, DL not only has a fuel efficiency advantage but also a fuel cost per gallon advantage and that is before the A350-1000s start rapidly coming next year.
              UA has no choice but to start using 787 deiveries for widebody replacement in order remain cost competitive; fleet replacement limits UA’s ability to grow and will add debt to the balance sheet through sale leaseback transactions just as has happened both quarters of 2026 because UA’s capex is going to be very high for the next two years.

            7. Andy Avatar
              Andy

              I agree with a lot of this, but I think some of the conclusions are being pushed too far.

              DL’s fuel-cost advantage in Q2 was real, and the refinery can absolutely be a strategic advantage when crack spreads are elevated. I also agree DL currently has the better margin profile and the stronger loyalty/co-brand monetization engine.

              Where I disagree is using the 53-cent systemwide fuel-price gap as if it directly proves the aircraft-efficiency argument. Fuel burn and fuel price are separate issues. DL can have both a newer TPAC fleet and a lower average fuel price, but you still need route length, payload and aircraft type to quantify the trip-cost gap between a UA 777 and a newer-generation widebody.

              On revenue, I think the better Delta argument is profitability, not “size.” In Q2 the two airlines were essentially the same size on adjusted operating revenue, but DL converted that revenue into a materially higher pre-tax margin. That is a genuine financial advantage. Market cap is also higher for DL, but that is a valuation metric, not an airline-size metric.

              On fleet replacement, I agree UA has the larger widebody replacement burden. It has a lot of old 767s and 777s, and a meaningful share of the 787 order book will eventually go to replacing them.

              But that is not unique to UA, and it is misleading to talk as if DL’s incoming aircraft are all available for growth. DL still has 58 767s, 92 757s, older A330s and a substantial aging narrowbody fleet that also have to be replaced. DL’s TPAC fleet is newer, yes, but its overall fleet-replacement burden is still very large.

              The difference is where the burden sits: UA has the larger old-widebody problem, while DL has a broader aging-fleet problem across 767s, 757s and older narrowbodies.

              And replacement is not economically equivalent to “lost growth.” Replacing a 767 or 777 with a 787 can lower fuel burn, maintenance expense and operating cost without adding a single ASM. That can improve earnings even if network growth slows.

              So I’d summarize it this way: DL is financially stronger today on margins and loyalty economics, and its TPAC fleet is newer. UA has the larger widebody replacement task. But the idea that UA’s replacement cycle uniquely constrains growth while DL can devote its new aircraft almost entirely to expansion is simply not true. Both carriers have major replacement needs; UA just has the larger 787 pipeline to deal with its own.

        2. AlanZ Avatar
          AlanZ

          Well, I waited all day for it. Tim did not disappoint

          1. Bill from DCA Avatar
            Bill from DCA

            so many words just to say that United’s growth is stupid and, our, I mean, Delta’s growth is better.

          2. CallingFatigued Avatar
            CallingFatigued

            Yeah I’m not reading all of that lol. Bro can’t just let UA have a day, can he. Just don’t feed the troll, people!

      2. MaxPower Avatar
        MaxPower

        Rebel? Is that you?

  15. SandyCreek Avatar
    SandyCreek

    Is AA on track to using XLRs to patch its Europe service levels? UA has demonstrated the upper bound of creativity on XLR’s use and the likes of IB have also pushed the envelope flying XLR to places like SDQ (this is 6698km / 4164mi). It seems like AA’s XLR is mostly on transcon besides the seasonal EDI.

    1. Brett Avatar

      SandyCreek – AA has always said that the priority was to replace the A321Ts on transcon first. Yes it’s doing a little Europe, but they need more planes before they can really put them to use. I don’t know the delivery schedule, but maybe we will see something more interesting next summer.

      1. Mark Avatar
        Mark

        AA currently has 5 XLRs and will have 5 more by January (deliveries September 2026 – January 2027). In addition to EDI, they will operate to AMS, LIS, and BCN internationally to offer year-round flying that would otherwise have been seasonal on the 787. EDI is moving to PHL from JFK.

      2. SandyCreek Avatar
        SandyCreek

        Thanks Brett – we’ll see how AA’s XLR delivery schedule goes.

  16. stogieguy7 Avatar
    stogieguy7

    I’ll tell you a great route that UA has is ORD-SNN and I hope it goes year round at some point, perhaps with the A321XLR. Shannon is a fantastic exit point from any trip to the British Isles in that there’s US CBP pre-clearance and, unlike Canadian airports, it’s quick, efiicient and friendly. Not to mention that you save $$ by avoiding the UK’s confiscatory departures tax. One of the few international airports on that side of the pond that’s not a total cluster filled with masses of humanity waiting in endless lines for everything. Flew through there a couple of weeks ago and it was a pleasure. And, of course, avoiding ORD’s horrid Terminal 5 is another plus.

  17. Robert Avatar
    Robert

    United seems to be having so much fun with these route reveals and picking new routes, I love it! I saw on another site that the Dulles to Toulouse flight is UA222… so you get to fly on flight #222 to Toulouse. Well done!

  18. Eric R Avatar
    Eric R

    These destinations speak a lot about where demand is (or predicted to be). The sunny leisure / resort / beach destinations.

    I assumed some of the larger cities in central / northern Europe would have been on this list such as Prague, Warsaw/Krakow/Gdansk, Scandinavia.

    1. Brett Avatar

      Eric R – The Scandinavia bit was addressed on the call the airline had yesterday with media. United says it just doesn’t do well going north of Lufthansa Group hubs. Bergen failed, and when United was in Stockholm, it didn’t do well either. That doesn’t mean it won’t go in there, but it’s just not high on the list.

      As for going east, it’s a similar thing. LH Group provides good connectivity, so it hasn’t needed to go into those markets. I imagine it would also piss off LH Group if United did so. But going south is different. It’s either very out of the way (like Ibiza) or its scheduled for the European leisure market which means morning south and afternoon return which often doesn’t connect back to the US. So those markets matter much more than one like Prague which has mulitiple daily flights into several LH Group hubs.

  19. southbay flier Avatar
    southbay flier

    Not that I plan on flying any of these new routes, but it is fun to see what United is doing. I do have Nuuk on my bucket list. My grandfather was stationed in Greenland in WWII.

    They really differentiate themselves from Delta by taking these long-haul routes and seeing if they work. Delta is a lot more conservative.

  20. emac Avatar
    emac

    Pretty clear how the 321XLR replaces the 752 (though you lose 26 seats), still don’t quite understand how the 788/789 replaces the 767, adding 40-60 seats and a whole lot of capital cost per departure. But maybe it’s easier than it looks.

    The Denver expansion is impressive, from zero UA EU flights a decade ago to five routes next summer (in the other direction NRT started in 2013). Taking advantage of connectivity, differentiating from WN.

    1. SandyCreek Avatar
      SandyCreek

      There isn’t really a perfect replacement for the 767 – nobody makes planes with 7 seats per row anymore (barely 8, plus A338/9 isn’t exactly more efficient than 788/9). Airlines, UA or not, will have to make do with the reality where 767s is aging out.

    2. SEASFO Avatar
      SEASFO

      My suspicion is it’s either a deliberate upgauging strategy or the operating economics of the 787 are that much better. They also don’t exactly have a great alternative available in the near future from either Boeing or Airbus.

      For example, the 787-10 has been put on a lot of former shorter 777-200ER flights and seems to be doing well even with a loss of 6 Polaris seats, 3 Premium Plus seats and a gain of 51 Economy seats.

  21. Great crested grebe Avatar
    Great crested grebe

    What’s up with all these new summertime routes (not just in this announcement, but over the last few years as well) to southern Europe? If somebody from the US wants to sit on the beach there are much closer and cheaper options. For tourism and sightseeing, surely the winter is the season to visit the south — and in the summer everybody should want to go north! It seems perplexing that United offers nearly twenty destinations in Iberia, Italy, the Adriatic, and Greece (many of them summer-only!) with not a single one in Scandinavia.

    In a comment above Brett makes the point that Eastern Europe is already well-connected by Lufthansa from Frankfurt and Munich; but surely Scandinavia at least is far enough in the ‘wrong’ direction that people would prefer a more direct flight from a hub in the US.

    1. Brett Avatar

      Great crested grebe – I think that’s right. The way it was described is that north of LH hubs just doesn’t perform well. That may have nothing to do with LH connectivity. I don’t know. I just know that it’s not doing well, so there are other routes that go higher on the list. I would imagine United will return some day, but this year, it’s those sweltering summer spots that are expected to do better.

      1. Great crested grebe Avatar
        Great crested grebe

        Hah, OK — all I can say is that I’d love to visit all those nifty places someday in April or October!

        1. Aaron Avatar
          Aaron

          UA has a history of expanding these flights into more of the shoulder season, so if they do well I would guess you’ll see those months in years 2 or 3.

  22. David C Avatar
    David C

    CF-
    Can you get any scoop on IAH B north opening and the expected impact on schedules/frequencies/destinations there?
    We know you have the juice!

    1. Brett Avatar

      David C – I actually haven’t heard a thing about it. If I can get info, I will write it up.

      1. David C Avatar
        David C

        Thank you much.
        If I read things right, United will be adding more gates at IAH than DL has gates at their entire SEA hublet. That’s got specific growth in mind…and not casual either.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.