I think the concern over NB across the Atlantic misses a couple of things:

First, airport capacity and slots favor WB flying because you just can’t park, unload and load NBs with the frequency at LHR (as the easiest example) needed to eclipse the WB seats. If we (or our JVs) are going to trade a WB slot across the Atlantic for a NB and go from 240(ish) seats (32 of D1), plus belly cargo (I know, I know, there’s no money in that) in exchange for a NB with 140(ish) seats (the extra range comes at a cost in seats), no belly cargo (hurray, we’re saved from that loss), then we are truly doomed by management that probably can’t feed themselves without assistance.

But what about secondary airports like Gatwick or London City you say?

Second, hub efficiencies favor WB flying. The ability to tap into our JV’s extended network when going through a hub means we need to continue to concentrate traffic into that airport. London or Paris might have the strongest case for hitting secondary airports because of the amount of originating and terminating traffic, but that doesn’t work if passengers are connecting into a JV network, and it gives away the economies of scale that go with efficient hubs (our own numbers show that we make a ton on flights that go through our hubs). RDU-CDG sounds reasonable on NB metal until you realize that you’re giving away the opportunity to land a WB in that slot and giving up the significantly higher revenue that goes with it.

Third, the real danger isn’t JB or a JV cutting our throats BOS-LHR on NB metal, it’s a JV adding LHR/FRA/CDG/RCO to AUS/SJC/CLT on a WB while we hemorrhage traffic and withdraw from secondary European destinations instead of growing as well. The BH measurement probably means we eventually max out slots to AMS/CDG/LHR and add new WBs that replace our ERs to all of those secondary places in Europe with greater frequency.