Here is a humanized summary of Delta President Peter Carter’s letter to U.S. Representative Frank Pallone, written in six paragraphs and expanded to capture the full meaning and tone of the original response.
—
When Delta Air Lines received a letter from Ranking Member Pallone and senators expressing concern about “surveillance pricing” powered by artificial intelligence, President Peter Carter knew the company needed to respond with both clarity and care. The public’s worry was understandable: Americans are watching their budgets closely, and any hint that airlines might use personal data to charge different people different prices for the same seat is bound to raise alarm. Carter opened Delta’s response by acknowledging that trust is not something to be taken for granted. He thanked the lawmakers for the chance to explain how Delta actually prices air travel, and he made one thing unmistakably clear: Delta does not, has not, and has no plans to use any customer’s personal information to set an individualized fare. There is no test program, no hidden algorithm, no quiet system that sizes up a passenger’s income, shopping history, or browsing habits to squeeze out a higher price. The company’s stance is absolute: discriminatory or predatory pricing has zero tolerance. Carter also gently pushed back on the framing of the questions, noting that the letter appeared to assume practices that simply don’t exist at Delta. Instead of answering each question one by one, he chose a thematic, principles-based approach—because when the premise is false, the most honest response is to correct the record and then explain what really happens behind the scenes.
So how does airline pricing actually work? It is not a mystery, and it is not a personal conspiracy. Airfares are shaped by the same forces that shape any competitive marketplace: supply, demand, and the constant push and pull of airlines trying to earn your business. Delta pointed to the broader industry submission from Airlines for America, which explains that ticket prices reflect changing market dynamics, consumer demand, and vigorous competition—not individualized surveillance. When you see a fare go up or down, it is usually because of factors like how many people want to fly on that particular route, how many seats remain in a given fare class, what other airlines are offering on the same route, historical and forecasted travel patterns, and the cost of fuel, labor, airport fees, and other operational inputs. None of these variables have anything to do with who you are as a person. There is no dossier on you, no secret profile, no shadowy use of your personal data. The price you see is the result of a broad, market-level calculation designed to balance competition and customer demand. And importantly, when demand is weak, these same systems support decisions to lower fares, making air travel more accessible to more people—not less. Carter stressed that Delta’s goal is to match fares to market conditions, not to exploit individuals. The system is about responding to the world around the flight, not to the person buying the ticket.
The heart of the letter, however, is about how Delta actually uses artificial intelligence—and what it refuses to do with it. Carter acknowledged that Delta has piloted a generative AI pricing recommendation tool, one that works as a decision-support system for human analysts. The airline sells tens of millions of fares across hundreds of thousands of routes at any given moment, and no human team can manually process all that data in real time. The AI tool helps by doing the heavy lifting: scanning route-level demand, analyzing current market conditions, and shortening the time it takes to bring a fare adjustment to market. But the key word is “support.” It does not replace human judgment. Delta relies on the expertise and experience of its analysts to set competitive fares, and the AI is simply a powerful assistant that accelerates their work. Most importantly, the AI Pricing Tool is built with strict boundaries. Under Delta’s agreement with the technology provider, only route-level demand and market data are used—no personal information about customers is ever fed into the system. The fares that Delta files with the Department of Transportation do not take any customer’s personal data into account. There is no individualized pricing, no secret targeting, no algorithmic exploitation. This is not surveillance dressed up as innovation; it is a responsible tool that allows Delta to be more agile, more responsive, and more competitive while keeping human oversight firmly in place.
Delta also took care to explain the broader governance framework that guides all of its AI use. The company has committed to a responsible approach, meaning every AI tool must pass through a proprietary review process that includes rigorous assessment of privacy and security risks. That framework explicitly prohibits the use of personal data in ticket pricing. Human analysts maintain meaningful oversight at every stage, with the ability to monitor, intervene, and override the AI’s recommendations. Transparency is another core pillar. Delta tells customers, through its Privacy Policy, how their data is used and stored when they interact with the airline, and it discloses whenever someone is interacting with an AI-powered chatbot or agent—whether that is the search function on delta.com or the new Delta Concierge virtual assistant. The company also insists on full compliance with the law, citing the Department of Transportation’s rules against unfair and deceptive practices, the California Consumer Privacy Act, and Europe’s GDPR, among other regulations. As those laws evolve, Delta says it will continue to adapt. The message is simple: innovation does not happen in a gray ethical zone. At Delta, the rule is that AI must enhance the customer experience without ever undermining fairness, privacy, or trust. That is not just a legal obligation; it is a brand promise.
The letter then digs into what kind of data the AI tool does use—and why that distinction matters. The AI Pricing Tool works with aggregated, anonymized information: historical and predicted demand for specific routes, aggregate purchasing behavior, and route-level market conditions. It can forecast demand, adapt quickly to shifting circumstances, factor in thousands of variables at once, and learn from each pricing decision to improve future outcomes. Notice what is missing from that list: no names, no addresses, no loyalty status, no credit card history, no personal preferences. This is data about groups and markets, not about individuals. Delta also went out of its way to clarify the role of the SkyMiles loyalty program. Loyalty rewards are designed to thank customers for choosing Delta—not to set or personalize the price they pay. Members earn miles, enjoy waived bag fees, get SkyMiles discounts, access lounges, and receive other benefits that recognize their relationship with the airline. Delta may use anonymized, aggregated insights to understand broad customer preferences and improve the program, but it does not use protected class demographics or individual consumer data to set ticket prices. The same principle applies to special fares: medical emergency fares, bereavement fares, discounts for active military members and dependents, and the City Pair Program for federal employees. All of these are based on transparent eligibility criteria, not on inferences drawn from someone’s personal data. Even promotional pricing is made available to all travelers, regardless of loyalty status. In other words, fairness is not an afterthought at Delta—it is built into the architecture of every pricing decision.
Carter closed the letter by returning to the shared goal that brought the inquiry to his desk in the first place: the need for consumers to feel confident that airfares are set honestly and fairly. He repeated Delta’s commitment to transparency, but he also voiced a genuine concern about the broader narrative surrounding airline pricing. When dangerous misinformation spreads—when people are led to believe that airlines are surveilling them and jacking up prices based on personal secrets—it creates anxiety and erodes trust in an industry that already operates under intense public scrutiny. Delta’s simple objective, he reiterated, is to enhance efficiency and responsiveness in fare management while upholding the trust of customers and the integrity of the brand. There is no interest in exploiting anyone. There is no business model built on taking advantage of passengers. There is only the constant work of making air travel competitive, accessible, and fair—with human analysts in charge and AI working quietly behind the scenes to help them do it better. Carter thanked Representative Pallone for the engagement and welcomed the opportunity to set the record straight again. In a world where technology evolves faster than public understanding, Delta wants to be seen not as a black box, but as a partner in the journey—one that uses innovation to serve customers, not to surveil them. That, in the end, is the promise at the heart of the letter: the future of pricing may be powered by algorithms, but it is still guided by people, principles, and the simple belief that trust is the most valuable thing an airline can earn.