Yes, high-cost pre-bankruptcy AA made numerous cuts, and thus it logically follows that lower-cost post-bankruptcy AA will continue to make the same sort of cuts it made before it bit the bullet and filed for bankruptcy.

Pre-bankruptcy AA's recalcitrant pilots refused to permit AA to fly more than 47 2-class large RJs, while UA and DL had permission from their pilots to fly hundreds of them. Now that bankruptcy has forced the AA pilots to get on board, AA has added numerous 76-seaters on many routes from ORD. AA may not be adding routes at ORD, but it's adding seats to take even more O&D traffic.

AA dominates the higher-fare O&D traffic at ORD, while UA is larger in the lower-fare connecting traffic market.

UA "shows no signs of giving up ORD?" UA lost almost half a billion dollars in the first quarter, while AA earned almost half a billion dollars. UA doesn't have to give up its business - its stronger competitors can simply waltz in and take it away. If AA doesn't move in and take away revenue from UA, I'm certain that Delta will.

Yes, US dominates the very small O&D market at CLT, which causes high O&D fares. The hub that AA said recently featured the lowest unit revenues of any of its hubs. Now that CLT's pilots and FAs make significantly more money (now that they're on AA's much higher post-bankruptcy payscales), it's unlikely that CLT will produce any profits.

It's unlikely that US has ever made any money flying to Europe from PHL and CLT, and with the much higher payscales in effect now, it's a certainty that AA will not profit from the pmUS flights to Europe this year. The US yields and unit revenues across the Atlantic have always lagged the rest of the industry, generally by large margins. Changing the name on the planes to "AA" from "US" isn't going to magically produce profitable amounts of European O&D in CLT or PHL. More connecting traffic is the answer? That will just lower the yields and unit revenues even further.

New flights added to CLT? Oh, yes, the once or twice a day CRJs to GRR, FWA and a couple other mid-size cities that pmUS could have added at will at any time prior to the merger? The seasonal money-losing flights to secondary European vacation destinations that were announced in October, after the DoJ threatened to derail the merger? They've already been trimmed, as will other international flights at CLT once the three year maintain historic levels of service "promises" expire.

Yes, Parker lusted after his former employer so that he could abandon AA's large positions in the three largest aviation markets in the country: NYC, CHI and LAX.

Yes, the world's largest airline will refuse to feature enough service from NYC, CHI or LAX to attract or retain the so-important corporate contracts, relegating new AA to second-tier status (sort of like a giant US Air).

If you're correct, and Parker is afraid (or too smart) to compete where the money is (NYC, CHI and LAX), then which airline will he buy that gives him the confidence to make money in those markets? IIRC, this acquisition was the last one, as AA is unlikely to be permitted to buy UA. Delta is on target to earn over $3 billion this year, and it's not running away from NYC or DTW or MSP.

CLT will not be de-hubbed. It will not get the PIT or STL treatments.

But it will never resemble ATL, and it is likely to be smaller in the future. Last week, CLT featured the same number of mainline US departures as AA at MIA. Strip out the Dash8 and CRJ flights, and CLT isn't as large as its fan base constantly repeats.