Unless there is a massive draw down, AS can still claim that AS has the most that AS has ever had. Everything is relative

yes. But the point I was making was that probably all airlines decide based on whatever data they have to try a new route. Then after a while they might discover that for whatever reason it doesn’t work (maybe their data was bad/insufficient, maybe something changed, ...), and so they conclude that it is best to reverse the decision.

Or are you saying that UA always intended to hand that LAX-SIN route to Singapore Airlines and just wanted to keep its planes and crew “busy” while they figured out a way to put a second flight into SFO?

If so, how about SFO-XIY (Xi’an) then. United’s own statement:

via https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea....airlines-xian/

“In every market we serve, we continuously review and measure demand and performance. Corporate traffic between SFO and XIY has not increased as fast as originally forecast. After careful analysis, we determined this route is not currently meeting our expectations and is no longer sustainable.”

Pretty much what i said

VX fanboys should look at all the routes that VX tried and abandoned in its short history.

yes. That doesn’t change the reality that AS probably doesn’t have a better crystal ball than the other airlines (the throw spaghetti at a wall and see what sticks complaint). And that they have to make decisions based on the situation they are in.

The fact that they no longer have DL and to a large extend AA to fall back on isn’t going to change. I am not smart enough to decide if they would have been in a better situation today if they had let B6 buy VX. I am smart enough to know that me spending time thinking/debating about that won’t be a good investment of my time.

Also, did anyone seriously expect that AS would be able to out-network UA at SFO?

And for me personally, if AS or one of its partners isn’t flying where I need to go, I will just fly someone else. Or if AS is too expensive. Or the flight isn’t conveniently scheduled. #FreeAgentForTheWin

This is exactly right. They are between a rock and a hard place. Their option is to offer a competitive schedule and likely lose money at a time when their investors are getting antsy or have an uncompetive schedule. Offering a flight a day is great if you are the only option but when competitors all have multiple options, you are in a very weak position. Then when a few routes like to MEX fail, the whole station becomes unprofitable.

Outside of SEA, they have lots of things stacked against them unless they can show Wall Street they are reversing the slide they have been in for more than a year. Even in SEA they are forced into flights they don’t really need to prevent the airport from reallocating the gate space.

both ... I was thru LAX probably twice a month for the past year-plus; it seemed like one of the four runways was almost always out of service for some reason or other, and it was a rare poin in time that I couldn’t see half a dozen landing lights out to the east and half a dozen departing jets lined up on both the north and south taxiways

When I was living near SFO, I always had trouble getting to/fro southern Florida on my preferred airline (United). I just checked and it appears UA has one daily nonstop to MIA. And another one to FLL (I think at one time they were only flying to FLL). AA appears to have four flights to MIA. With a one way fare of $121 three weeks out, it may just not be a very profitable market.