SUNCTRY738 wrote:enilria wrote:Midwestindy wrote:Key takeaways here are less int'l from LAX, and decreasing long-thin routes
Should be interesting to watch, especially SEA-PVG
CLT down to 3 int'l routes it looks like
http://news.aa.com/news/news-details/20 ... fault.aspx
I don't understand why two carriers flying SEA-PVG is a good idea, particularly when it is a double connect from most of AA's network.
I don't get adding SEA to PVG either for AA. I think AA may have really lost its way deciding to go up against DL at SEA.
The key point here is that DL is not some behemoth at SEA. They have struggled sustaining long haul to Asia to even large markets like HKG and KIX. Except for ICN and possibly PVG, AA/AS will have a huge advantage over DL from SEA, and double the market share (and number of routes?).
As others have pointed put, AA/AS are clearly testing DL’s commitment to SEA. With there not going to be much Asia traffic in the near future, DL is certainly going to have to craft its plan for Asia. Having both LAX and SEA is certainly not the answer.