I just don't know. I think we all agree that UA has been shrinking, WN has added a bit (they are also doing interesting things at SNA and LGB). But between AA and DL, it is hard to tell. Admittedly, the US/AA combination makes it a bit difficult to distinguish, but you have the combined AA in four different places: T6, remote terminal, T4 and TBIT.
AA LAX map:
https://www.aa.com/i18n/aboutUs/wher...rminal_LAX.jsp
At
http://aa.com/morelax you will notice a number of historically DL and AS destinations added. Based on PR from AA execs, it appears the biggest growth will be international flights (even bringing FIS back to T4), but AA (and DL) are aggressively going after even more corporate business which will push domestic route offerings.
Without neglecting the ATL/GA filming connection (AA added a n/s to ATL last year I believe) that would be useful to DL, AA has played very strongly in the entertainment business contracts in LA.
The bottom line is DL and AA are in the ring fighting this out. From the dropped interline arrangement (including the rather interesting commentary of one-sided use of the rebooking needs), the DL terminal movement plan and the ongoing LAX-JFK battles, the customer will benefit from perhaps improved premium services at LAX and also lower fare options (addressing both ends of the market).
However, I think everyone agrees that the DL terminal move will be rather disruptive for a few years until they get T3 looking like T2 on the inside (which I think would be perfectly acceptable). Further, it explains why DL wants to get this done sooner than later because delaying any terminal movement just moves out even longer the timings of when it would be done. We already addressed that the T5 refurb cost to DL was rather minimal with LAWA paying most of the bill. DL doesn't own T5, any tenant who gets moved to T5 will benefit from those improvements. I think we tend to compare JFK to LAX in terms of terminal management (and the separate building concepts), but it really is not similar.
Rasheed