Originally Posted by
eponymous_coward
Like I said, there's a difference between an RJ or two to SEA/PDX and, say, LAX-SJO, which is a very new AS route and not by any means "a nearby major city", or horning in on AS's existing Mexico routes like LAX-PVR.
AS has had a LAX-Mexico presence for 20+ years. If AA is saying "we want your southbound from LAX operations out of here and we're going to try and squash them like a grape because LAX is ours and we need to expand here, good luck with DL up in SEA, but let's compete hard at LAX"... well... that's a middle finger no matter how you want to dress it up as being "nicer" than what DL is doing in SEA.
If MAH's guess about Mexico routes proves correct, one factor is that the bilateral agreement between the US and Mexico is opening up considerably. (I can't remember when.) It used to be that only 2 US carriers could serve any given US-Mexico city pair (with a handful of exceptions), but that restriction is going away. (LAX-PVR is currently served by AS and UA.)
And again, an airline starting a route from its own hub is rarely considered to be poking a middle finger at another carrier, partner or not. But going on about this based on one poster's guess seems pointless.
Which is fine, but I'd expect AS to decide that being "nice" about LAX-HNL/OGG/LIH/KOA to be somewhat less of a priority. It's a pretty obvious place where they haven't added service to Hawaii, and the reason's pretty obvious- it's sticking a finger in a partner's eye as opposed to SJC, SAN, SMF or OAK. But if your partner's gotta do what they gotta do...
It's pretty obvious that AS's Hawaii strategy outside of SEA and PDX is to fly routes that have little or no competition; being 'nice' to partners has nothing to do with it. AS doesn't fly SFO-Hawaii either, and there are no partners to avoid there.