Of course. That's one component of every legacy's strategy. I'm merely pointing out that yield trashing fare wars are inevitable and necessary. They cannot be avoided to preserve expected yields and "capacity dicipline" went out the window when this was announced. IMO it will require an agressive and incredibly expensive competitive response. In no way can legacies allow a truly comparable product to gut fares in the most lucrative portions of the market by more than half, growing on their terms, by hoping to appease the crocodile so it eats them last. This is one of the biggest threats to legacy business models in concept, even if the scale seems manageable at the moment.

Charging over double and hoping it works out due to existing corporate accounts, the percieved comfort of widebodies, past performance or current inertia, or even just the denial of how agressive of a threat this actually is will prove to be a mistake down the road for any airline that underemphasizes how critical this is. Tens of thousands of lay-flat seats a year will be added at the very least, in addition to further negative yield pressure in economy and yes, even some cargo. They don't have to dominate marketshare to cause significant damage to revenue going forward.

I don't know if legacies will need to use the same AC or not, or if the much less efficient 757 can be effective, or if widebodies are the best defense. But this is a focused fare war that needs to be taken very seriously. They add capacity and undercut us by half, we should all respond in the same way.