Originally Posted by gooddeal

I used the generality "so many things" because there are "so many things" that have to go correctly for any airline to succeed. Rather than specifically list each detail I will say that just because you have a strategy doesn't guarantee it will work though...right? (Think PanAm, Eastern, or any other too big to fail carrier while also consideration of externalities like SARS, 9/11 or global recessions) I don't know who I am being lumped into with "folks like me" rationale but whatever pundits you are referring to were talking about NYC market strategy which, aside from just gates and jets, requires a different strategy than SEA. In referring back to NYC for a minute, "so many things" had to work out with partnerships, timing, costs and infrastructure...to hear you say it, four corners strategy just has guarantees. So, yeah, Delta has a large gamble to try and replicate that in a different market space like SEA and Asian markets. And "folks like me" agree that if they hit the right groove, it will work.

Specifically back to Alaska, they lose an established partner with feed and profit sharing into most everything east of SLC and that's not an easy loss. I don't think anybody at Alaska thinks starting to compete heavier in SLC is going to cripple Delta in SEA. I would say that despite Delta's carrier alliances in China, the competition in the Asian market is substantial and Alaska can find a new way to be a part of it other than only Delta. Either way, "so many things" need to go correctly for either to succeed but Alaska really deals in domestic exposure while Delta also has to manage its international (and the most profitable) exposure. Generally speaking, and without any hatred or ill will, Delta has a larger gamble to add their own domestic infrastructure along with the competition of Asian carriers than being in a relationship with Alaska as it existed previously. If it were that easy, Delta would have been here long ago.