:box: Quick, someone give BA a call.
I think they already noticed.
I wish they would start BWI-Europe service.
So, I've said this in other threads, but we are really at a seminal moment for DY's U.S. strategy. They have a few strategic options:
Best to Worst IMHO...
1) START ADDING SERVED MARKETS. With few exceptions they have avoided head to head competition, preferring to fly from a nearby airport or to markets like Oslo with limited options. They could instead add markets like ATL/IAH/MSP/PHL/DTW/DFW with the thought that if they are going to be chased into markets like OAK and FLL, they might as well go for the jugular where most of the traffic is located, rather than risk splitting traffic at an alternate airport. This is essentially the very successful NK domestic strategy of 2013-2014 or so that F9 duplicated.
2) IGNORE BA. Keep doing what they have been doing. Add more secondary gateways (like OAK/FLL i.e. MKE, ONT, PIT, PVD, RSW, etc.) in unserved Europe O&Ds, avoiding head-to-head competition at the onset, and if somebody retaliates by adding one of their routes they stand by their strategy and keep punching.
3) REVERSE RETALIATE. Signal their displeasure by adding BWI/MSY-LGW in order to erode BA performance in their routes as way of showing BA they won't go away and it will be costly for BA to challenge them.
4) ADD EVEN MORE RISKY ALTERNATES. They could add flights to markets like Sanford, Gary, Punta Gorda, Rockford, Phoenix Mesa, Newburgh, Islip, etc. The G4 strategy. It's just very risky because if they are matched at the primary airport by the legacies, nobody will drive out to these airports to fly. It is unlikely, however, BA would add any of these markets. I think this is a VERY risky strategy.
5) DROP LGW EXPANSION. I think this is the worst idea because if they signal they can be pushed out of LGW by BA then IB will push them out of Spain, etc. I think they can't just run, particularly from a market as large as LON.