I've never bought into that logic. It just reeks of smoke and mirrors. Maybe its valid on a ticket purchase only on said codeshare with zero connections, but anytime a connection is made, the two companies can divvy up the revenue however they want with the net effect being the exact same as if revenue was shared in the first place, because it is. So DL gets the feed and still gets the revenue; maybe not as much revenue, but overhead for the connection is almost zero, which is a manager's dream. Sell your logo across your network while someone else runs a pretend airline for you.

I'm not against the AK codeshare in its entirety. Some of it does strengthen our overall network with feed and routes we wouldn't otherwise be doing. But going 0-fer eight on hub to hub (LAX-SEA) is unacceptable. No excuse. Heck, going 0-fer 2 BOS-SEA is pretty weaksauce. 0-fer 22 to outsourced RJ's? Please. That clearly proves we could be doing some of that. We need to use them to augment the thin routes and banks, but once you reach a certain seat/frequency volume that clearly justifies a mainline aircraft (not to mention 70-76 seaters should be C12K mainline aircraft anyway) we need to start weening them off the benevolence of our global network and politely inform them that we will be doing at least a sizeable minority of that flying. Not to mention all that revenue we would be getting that we are supposedly losing because we "can't share it" even though we all know that's exactly what goes on.

Add in them growing (and possibly using that against us, hard, in a future SLI) because of the code share while we stagnate/shrink and it only makes it twice as unacceptable.