I don't see AS going to e500's, and giving the finger to their low/midlevel elites by snatching their free upgrade benefits away. That's the only way an AA/AS elite reciprocity relationship works if the upgrade model is the same.

I also don't think an e500-style of upgrading (where only fliers with 100K BIS miles get unlimited upgrades) works to enhance revenue on AS's route network. AS is already pretty aggressive in their F pricing. Booting elites out of seats only works if you get more revenue out of it than the goodwill you burn from elites. This isn't JFK-LAX/SFO we're talking about. AS's network is heavy on north-south and Hawaii, which are not elite-heavy routes. Their upgrade model isn't broken... so why fix it?

I also don't buy that AA is going to invest heavily in SEA longhaul routes. Why fight DL over a second-tier city with routes like SEA-PEK/ICN/HND when you don't fly LAX-PEK/ICN/HND? There isn't a suitable AS hub AA could use other than SEA (PDX and ANC would be a bad joke). So that's why I don't take a SEA expansion for AA seriously. They have their own knitting to take care of in LAX.

Maybe there's more tie up with AA on the margins, but staying out of the alliance wars has worked for AS so far.

Nice to think that, but AS's management has been pretty disinterested in a hookup. Given their track record (no bankruptcies, no hosing over employees by breaking contracts, good customer service reputation), there's no reason to be otherwise. They've done a good job providing return for their investors, so why should they succumb to a siren's lure? What's in it for AS's management (they'd lose jobs) or investors (they lose a stock that's done well)?

Let me know when AA has a track record for investors that shows they can run the business as it currently stands well for over a decade, that includes lots of non-merger based growth, and then we'll talk. DL's probably the closest to showing that kind of track record, but even they don't have a full decade past their merger under their belt.