Originally Posted by
ashill
I agree that AS being a larger player at LAX and a competitor in the premium JFK-LAX/SFO transcon market (with the VX product, which customers already know and like) probably concerns AA more, but AA probably stands as much to gain from a partner that provides decent SFO service (not really challenging UA there, but at least keeping them honest) as they do to lose in Dallas and LAX.
I think AS would gut a lot of the VX service out of LAX. Why would they still need to fly to places like LAS, MCO, FLL, or IAD? Or even JFK? VX is only making money when oil is trading below $40 a barrel. So I doubt that AS would want to incorporate that into their business model. AS is better off focusing on SFO and building up operations there. Moreover, shedding a lot of the VX routes from LAX allows then to also get rid of more 320s while they still have a good lease/resale value. And probably not have to have split terminal operations (T3/T6). Plus, they can still put their AS code on those same AA flights out of LAX.
Having a large operation set up at SEA/SFO/LAX (in addition to the operations at PDX and SAN) is somewhat duplicitous. And could lead to one station inadvertently "cannibalizing" from one (or more) of the other stations.