Seems a curious move. What exactly is AA's strategy here?
They've outsourced the Northeast and coast-to-coast flying to B6/Mint. They've outsourced West Coast and Hawaii flying to Alaska. So now they are going to fight with DL for the South and fight with UA for the Midwest?? And they think that their international network be the thing that gives them a leg up against UA and DL in this model?
Please. UA has a dominant position for international travel from SFO and EWR, one that DL and AA can't match. DL has a strong corporate roster and has established themselves as the business traveler airlines with a focus on passenger experience (compared with AA who has been focused on Oasis and other projects that rip out IFE, cram more seats in the plane, and make the bathrooms the size of a small pantry). Plus B6 still isn't an international competitor for NYC so AA continues to cede NYC to DL/UA and are mostly reliant on JFK - LHR rev share with BA.
Plus AA is saddled with debt -- the international market, while lucrative, is going to take far longer to return than the domestic market yet AA seems intent on moving to a strategy driven by international revenue and outsourced domestic travel which means they'll have to share domestic revenue on these routes (including the lucrative JFK - LAX and JFK - SFO routes) at a time when they desperately need positive cash flow.
I don't think UA or DL have anything to worry about here. If anything they may actually benefit from this combination -- in the short-term it takes an AS/B6 merger off the table and instead keeps them with split portfolios spread among AS/AA/B6. I think UA/DL would be much more concerned if AS/B6 tied up to become a premium domestic carrier with limited short-term international exposure but the flexibility in their fleet to expand as travel comes back (and take advantage of potential slots opening up through bankruptcy).