Originally Posted by
flyer703
Which seems contradictory, right? I mean you can't have both unless two or more apply for the same new destination.
I had SEA as a backup for DL, so no argument there. They might apply for both.
I don't see UA wanting to enter the already crowded DCA-LAX market, further cannibalizing their IAD operations. I think it will be DEN or nothing. But we'll see...
Remember that the 5 incumbent unlimited carriers (AA, B6, DL, UA, and WN) have a lot of leverage here. Four are going to get one each. So, if -say- DL applies for SLC and UA applies for DEN, at least one (and possibly both) has to get it.
there’s no contradiction at all. There are two priorities, either apply for a new city, or apply to add competition to an existing city.
DL might apply for both in the sense that they list multiple cities they’d be ok with, but they’re going to have to prioritize. And there’s no way SLC will be their top choice.
For UA, anything would hurt their IAD hub, but far better for them to be flying it rather than a competitor. Which is why I’ll bet they will put LAX first as their best chance, but would gladly take DEN and SFO.
LAX is huge market, it’s by far the biggest O&D market from DCA that’s beyond the perimeter.