Originally Posted by
MIDWESTERNFLYER
It isn't that simple, not every American needs to fly to TLV, NAP, e.t.c. Don't get me wrong, UA's international presence is a very very strong asset, but having hubs in DCA and LGA is a unique aadvantage(sorry couldn't help myself) that should not be overlooked either.
AA wouldn't trade MIA for SFO, and DL wouldn't trade DTW for SFO for a whole host of reasons. If DL still had a hub in MEM I could see the argument for why DL would trade hubs, but in today's age each of the US3s hubs are in strategically important areas that serve a robust O&D market.
AA’s RJ-oriented DCA and LGA networks are nice for the respective local markets but I hesitate to consider them hubs in the true sense of the word because very little about those operations are structured to facilitate connections. I’m not saying connections aren’t possible there, but they are far from ideal. The mix of passengers (I would wager) exceeds 80% local as a rule.
Outside of the megahubs, which serve a different network purpose, EWR and SFO are “crown jewels” and don’t underestimate what AA/DL would give up to step into United’s shoes at both locations. No other hubs in the country have the same high-value traffic and service mix. DL would drop any of its Pacific gateways (except ATL, to the extent it can be considered such) in less than a heartbeat if UA were actually willing to trade SFO.
MIA *was* in that category and remains of paramount strategic importance to AA, but doesn’t generate the same returns today it did a few years ago .
AA's position in New York is anything but "aadvantageous", and my view is that this management team isn't particularly committed to it, but at the same time, doesn't really know what to do with it. Unloading JFK/LGA slots or gates would undoubtedly further strengthen competitors, and AA doesn't want UA to regain a toehold in the JFK transcons.