except there is no cherry picking involved and what is involved is consistent hypersensitivity by the AA fan club that posts on here and other sites about AA's invincibility when it is clear - and as Kev has noted - that every carrier has its strengths and weaknesses.
Problem is that neither AA or its fan club can honestly admit their weaknesses. AA so far as I know has never admitted they lose buckets of money flying the Pacific and yet they do.
DL admits that NYC driven by JFK is on the verge of profitability and we have waves of comments from people on here who want to point to DL's lack of profitability while failing to admit that profitable airlines don't cut routes that are profitable, which is exactly what AA has done for years from NYC including to Asia and the Caribbean and now on the transcons.
Instead of admitting that AA has decided that their strategy allows someone else to pick up the passengers that AA no longer wants and that other carriers might well be able to succeed, we have endless attempts to defy the obvious truth.
AA in BK surrendered enormous market strength in NYC and DL because of its successful restructuring, merger, and strategic initiatives has made it all but impossible for AA to ever grow to be on parity at NYC with DL again.
AA, recognizing that they have been relegated to the #3 network carrier position in NYC and will struggle to grow to parity with UA from ORD has no choice but to hold onto LAX. AA has long been very strong at LAX but the level of dominance of AA over other carriers is far smaller than what DL and UA have over AA at NYC. LAX' value for any carrier involves Asia where AA has an abysmal track record of financial success. Further, even if AA succeeds at building LAX to Asia, they are still in the 3rd place position in the entire west coast market because DL and UA both have larger and multiple strengths on the west coast which AA does not.
LAX is quite simply a strategic do or die proposition for AA and they have enormous obstacles far beyond a couple gates to overcome in order to say they succeed at LAX on the same basis that DL and UA succeed.
I congratulated AA on their strategic success in gaining access to more gates at LAX but that success was rooted in agreements that go back long before DL began its current buildup on the west coast or UA decided to reduce its presence.
If AA succeeds at LAX, great. But those who are as certain of AA's success at LAX with a few more gates would do well to consider the entire picture.