Originally Posted by
FlyingHigh20
I think you are looking at DL's role at LAX in the wrong way. On it's own, strictly looking at DL metal; it falls short. But considering they have quite a bit of strong partnerships with multiple airlines at LAX that UA, AA, and WN dont have...they are far stronger than you think. Keep in mind, that with their JV - essentially the KL/AF/Alitalia flights are their own, along with the multiple Virgin Australia flights, and all the code-shared Alaska flights. You add those up, and they have quite a presence at LAX.
AA, other than its JV with BA, doesnt have that kind of strength, neither does UA (albeit, their combination with CO makes them a larger domestic player), and WN falls behind there as well.
AA does also have JVs with IB, QF, and JL (plus BA, as mentioned above), in addition to having non-immunized partner access to all the AS flights that DL does (and DL's advantage in terms of reciprocal elite recognition with AS relative to AA got much smaller last month, with the introduction of mutual checked bag fee waivers, preferred seats, and preferred check-in and security for AA and AS elites) and a non-immunized partner relationship with CX. I don't know exactly how the numbers stack up, but I'd wager that AA+partners are still significantly larger than DL+partners at LAX.
All that said, I've recently switched from AA to DL because AAdvantage just isn't viable for a short term SYD-based discount economy traveler, but that has a lot more to do with QF earning on AAdvantage than it does with AA's and DL's respective networks out of LAX.
At the end of the day, DL has a near-monopoly on SLC, whereas LAX is AA's only viable option for a beyond-perimeter DCA flight. AA taking DCA-LAX and DL taking a second DCA-SLC slot pair is probably a win for both airlines as well as for consumers in general -- the only "losers" are LAX-based DL loyalists.