Delta Air Lines President Peter Carter formally responded this week to congressional inquiries regarding the carrier’s use of artificial intelligence in its dynamic pricing model, categorically denying that the airline engages in “surveillance pricing” or uses personal consumer data to set individualized ticket prices. In a letter dated September 9, 2026, addressed to U.S. Representative Frank Pallone, the ranking member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Carter sought to clarify the company’s pricing practices and its increasingly sophisticated deployment of AI as a decision-support mechanism. The letter, written in response to concerns raised in an August 11, 2026, communication from Pallone and questions originating from senators, describes the airline’s technology as an assistive tool for human analysts rather than an autonomous system that exploits consumer-specific information. Carter emphasized that Delta has never used, is not testing, and has no plans to use any fare product targeting customers with individualized prices derived from their personal data. He also reaffirmed the airline’s zero-tolerance stance on discriminatory or predatory pricing and its full compliance with applicable privacy, pricing, and advertising laws. The response arrives amid intense public and political scrutiny of AI-assisted pricing strategies across retail, hospitality, and transportation sectors, with lawmakers increasingly questioning whether consumers are being silently monitored and charged different amounts based on behavioral profiles, browsing history, or demographic information.
Within the letter, Carter addressed the fundamental mechanics of airline pricing, aligning the company’s position with an industry submission from Airlines for America (A4A) dated August 25, 2026, to provide a comprehensive view of how U.S. carriers competitively establish fares. According to the president, ticket prices are governed by dynamic market conditions, consumer demand, and vigorous competition—not by the surveillance of any particular traveler. He outlined a broad range of legitimate factors that shape airfare, including customer demand for specific flights or routes; seat and fare class availability; competitive schedules and marketplace offerings; historical and forecasted travel demand; and operating costs such as fuel, labor, airport charges, and other inputs. Critically, Carter stressed that personal information plays absolutely no role in these calculations. He further noted that the narrative surrounding “surveillance pricing” has been harmful and misleading, and he expressed concern that continued mischaracterizations could create unintended consequences, eroding consumer confidence in the fairness of airline pricing. By pointing to external market forces and operational realities, Delta sought to shift the conversation away from dystopian algorithmic surveillance and toward the complex, constantly evolving environment in which airlines must manage millions of fares across hundreds of thousands of routes. The letter reinforces the view that pricing is a function of supply and demand, competitive positioning, and cost management, with AI merely helping to digest vast amounts of route-level and market-level data at a speed no human team could match.
A significant portion of the Delta letter is dedicated to explaining the company’s AI Pricing Tool, a generative AI-based recommendation system previously disclosed in the carrier’s public communications. Carter clarified that this tool was piloted in both domestic and international test markets and functions strictly as a decision-support mechanism for the airline’s pricing analysts. The system reduces manual workload, accelerates analysis, and shortens the time required to bring fare adjustments to market—a critical capability given the sheer scale of price points and route combinations Delta manages at any given moment. Under the terms of the agreement governing the AI Pricing Tool, only route-level demand and market data are provided to support a dedicated private deployment. Delta does not feed the AI tool any personal information about customers, and the fares the airline files do not take any customer’s personal data into account. This distinction is at the heart of Delta’s defense: the company argues that while AI is being used to enhance operational efficiency and market responsiveness, it is not being weaponized to profile or price-gouge individual travelers. Carter emphasized that human analysts remain central to the pricing process, retaining meaningful oversight, governance, monitoring, and intervention capabilities over the AI system. The letter frames the technology as part of a broader innovative trend in responsible AI deployment—one that augments decision-making and streamlines operations without compromising fairness or transparency. In doing so, Delta positions itself as a forward-thinking but restrained user of emerging technology, drawing a bright line between legitimate analytical enhancement and unethical consumer exploitation.
The letter also laid out several guiding principles that Delta says govern its approach to AI innovation, beginning with responsible AI governance. According to Carter, all Delta AI tools must be assessed against a proprietary governance framework that includes rigorous privacy and security risk assessments. That framework explicitly prohibits the use of personal data in ticket pricing. Delta further asserts that its analysts maintain meaningful oversight over the AI Pricing Tool through established governance processes, monitoring, and intervention capabilities. The airline also points to its transparency efforts, including a publicly available Privacy Policy explaining how the company uses, stores, and discloses personal information when customers interact with Delta’s website, the Fly Delta app, or other services. Additionally, Delta provides AI Terms of Use and clearly discloses when customers are interacting with AI-powered chatbots or virtual agents, such as the search functionality on delta.com and the recently launched Delta Concierge, an in-app virtual assistant. In terms of legal compliance, Delta states that it adheres to applicable federal, state, and international antitrust, privacy, and consumer protection laws, including the Department of Transportation’s regulations on unfair and deceptive practices, the California Consumer Privacy Act, and the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation. The company also reviews evolving legal and regulatory standards to ensure continued compliance. This section of the letter appears designed to reassure lawmakers that Delta is not operating in a regulatory gray area, but rather that it has embedded legal review and ethical oversight into the very fabric of its AI development process. By foregrounding governance and compliance, Delta attempts to preempt concerns that AI-driven pricing could slip past consumer protections or discriminate against protected classes.
Another key element of the response centered on Delta’s use of aggregate data and its loyalty program, addressing concerns that even non-personal data could be used to create unfair pricing outcomes. Carter explained that the AI Pricing Tool leverages aggregated demand data—both historic and predicted—along with route-level information, not individual customer data. The types of data utilized include aggregated purchasing behavior on specific routes and flights, forecasting of demand for particular origin-and-destination pairs, adaptation to new market conditions, factoring in thousands of variables simultaneously, and learning from each pricing decision to improve future predictions. This is intended to show that Delta is using AI to understand macro-level market behavior, not to target any single passenger. The letter also made clear that Delta’s SkyMiles loyalty program is designed to reward customers for their choice to fly with Delta, not to determine or personalize the price they pay for airfare. Members benefit from transparent, customer-friendly value through opportunities to earn and redeem miles, access to elevated travel experiences, and perks such as waived bag fees, SkyMiles discounts, free Wi-Fi, and lounge access. While Delta may use anonymized, aggregated insights to better understand broad customer preferences and improve program offerings, those insights do not utilize protected class demographics or individual consumer data for the purposes of setting individualized ticket pricing. The airline also highlighted its provision of medical emergency fares and bereavement fares to SkyMiles members, as well as discounted fares and benefits for active members of the U.S. military and their dependents. Delta additionally participates in the City Pair Program, offering special rates for federal employees based on transparent eligibility criteria rather than inferences drawn from personal data. Promotional pricing is also made publicly available to all travelers regardless of loyalty status, further reinforcing the message that Delta’s pricing structures are transparent and nondiscriminatory.
In closing the letter, Carter reiterated Delta’s shared goal with lawmakers: ensuring that consumers can trust how airfares are set. He emphasized that Delta’s objective is simple—to enhance efficiency and responsiveness in fare management while upholding customer trust and brand integrity, never to exploit or take advantage of travelers. Carter thanked Pallone for his engagement and expressed hope that the letter would further clarify the company’s use of AI in pricing and innovation. The response also referenced Carter’s previous 2025 letter to senators, in which Delta publicly condemned misinformation around AI pricing and reinforced its commitment to being the airline of choice for customers. The overall tone of the communication is one of patient but firm pushback against what Delta views as an inaccurate and damaging public narrative. While the company acknowledges the legitimacy of concerns about surveillance pricing across the consumer goods industry, it insists that those concerns do not apply to how Delta sets airfare. By providing a thematic, principles-based response rather than addressing every question on a point-by-point basis, Delta made clear that it considers the premise of the investigation flawed. Nonetheless, the airline expressed willingness to continue engaging with policymakers, presenting itself as a transparent and responsible corporate actor. As the public debate over AI and pricing continues to intensify, Delta’s letter offers a comprehensive defense of its practices while drawing a clear distinction between responsible AI-assisted decision-making and the kind of individualized price discrimination that lawmakers have increasingly been scrutinizing across the broader economy.