The impact of both of these on competition are grossly overstated....
More accurately, your post should say,
“I am praying five times per day to each of Mecca, Jerusalem, and Machu Picchu that the impact of just these two factors on AA are grossly overstated.”
And yet the evidence is overwhelming that both of these factors really will be some of the most significant strategic challenges AA has faced – and AA is certain to lose key revenue and share because of them.
Let’s try with WN and the Wright Amendment which will fall in a tad over a year.
AA controls almost 2/3 of the domestic market at DFW and the same 2/3 of the market from the combined DFW/DAL market to cities beyond the perimeter. AA's share of markets in which WN can compete in from DAL are far, far lower with WN carrying the vast majority of the traffic in the shorthaul markets inside the Wright perimeter. More significantly, AA’s average fares in AA’s top DFW domestic US markets are 33% higher than they are from ORD where WN has a strong hub at MDW which absolutely influences fares at ORD. Despite the limited size of MDW compared to ORD and its less favorable location relative to the largest/richest business areas, WN still manages to get 25% of the domestic ORD market. IN the Metroplex, WN gets virtually nothing outside of the Wright perimeter today. As has been noted, Love Field is closer located to the top regions of the Metroplex than any other secondary airport that is a WN base in a multiple airport city to the primary airport that is a network carrier hub in that city. Further, DFW and DAL are far CLOSER making it far easier to get to DAL from regions of the Metroplex than it is to reach BWI from downtown Washington, Hobby from corporate travel rich west Houston and the Galleria area, and Midway from the northwest suburbs of Chicago.
You need only look at what happened to the combined DFW/DAL share in the exception (longer haul) markets outside of the Wright Amendment that have been added over the past ten years, including STL and MCI. WN entered the markets with deep discounts and in less than six months ended up with half of the share; even after fares began to rise while AA’s actual revenue fell by half or more because of their reduced share and the lower fares.
Further, increased low fare competition has repeatedly allowed other network and low fare carriers to grow their presence by riding WN’s coattails into the market which will likely lead to increased presence of lower fare carriers in markets even from DFW.
Add in that WN’s international operations at HOU will allow them to funnel enormous amounts of traffic to Latin America from the Metroplex via HOU and the impact is not going to be limited to just domestic markets.
The evidence is OVERWHELMING that AA will lose significant revenue and share in its largest north Texas domestic markets in a little over a year followed by erosion of its key Latin markets shortly thereafter.
As for the DL and VS joint venture, the evidence is again overwhelming that joint ventures do work to allow competitors to grow their presence and increase their market share. You can’t both argue that AA’s JV with BA is effective while also arguing that DL’s won’t be. When you consider that the DL-VS joint venture is providing DL domestic feed to VS in markets where VS has never had a presence and DL is now pushing passengers onto VS flights in key markets like SFO, LAX, MIA, and ORD where DL has never been a viable competitor to LHR and DL will gain share in those markets while VS will grow its presence in markets beyond their gateways because of DL’s domestic feed. The same principle will happen in the UK because of VS’ beyond LHR flights.
Add in that DL has repeatedly demonstrated its ability to grow its presence in NYC and take share from AA, then the DL-VS JV has the greatest potential to take share in a market which is highly dependent on corporate revenue and where AA-BA’s combined size have allowed AA to retain corporate revenue which could well be at risk now. Note that DL has consistently said its fastest rate of corporate growth has been in the financial sector which is heavily concentrated in NYC, which disproportionately uses JFK-LHR, and which pays fares well above average.
For years we’ve heard here that Crandall said that AA didn’t need to build a network to serve all of the cities that DL and UA (even pre-merger) flew to because AA could dominate the top and richest markets. They did that with LHR and with Latin America and had a strongly advantaged position in markets where other carriers could not enter. With the DL-VS JV and the advent of Open Skies in Latin America, AA will be losing it grip on its largest and richest int’l markets.
No one can honestly believe that AA will not be deeply affected by the same type of competitive changes that will be occurring in both the Dallas-Ft. Metroplex and AA’s LHR and Latin America markets all at the same time.
I suppose they can keep praying that won’t be the case, though.
No airline has successfully navigated the number of strategic challenges that AA will face over just the next two years without significant financial impact.
The longer the merger is delayed, the closer AA's emergence and the merger comes to these key strategic events. Even on a standalone basis, AA's emergence was deadly close to the implementation of these key strategic challenges; the fall of the Wright Amendment has been known for years.
Considering that AA's CASM isn't even the lowest among network carriers - and still considerably higher than WN's based on the most recent quarterly data, AA is still HIGHLY vulnerable to the same competitive incursions that have resulted in far larger revenue losses for AA than for any other carrier.
Further, we still haven't seen the impact of any divestitures at places like DCA that will be necessary to get the merger thru.
You might want to hold off on your bold pronouncements about how immune AA will be to new competitors until there is actual data to show what has really happened.