Unless I'm missing something, this article talks about the lack of competition in CLT, giving AA 90% of the business. Not sure how this implies anything about cuts. Isn't a lack of competition a good thing, instead of battling it out on a route with 2 other airlines?
Ted Reed makes the same mistake as many others - by stating AA's CLT market share as 90%. AA carries 90+% of the total passengers at CLT, but market share is generally considered to be the share of the O&D traffic, of which AA has about 64%, 75% of the total passengers at CLT are connecting, and AA has a 100% share of that (obviously, since no other airline connects passengers at CLT). Of the O&D traffic, there is competition from DL, UA, WN, B6 and some others.
AA will undoubtedly shrink the CLT hub some, but CLT will not get the PIT, BNA, STL, CVG, MEM or CLE treatment. Some of the CLT connections are better served by AA nonstops or connections at ORD/DFW or MIA. Yes, CLT has low airport costs, which helps. The former US (now AA) employees have much higher labor costs than pre-merger, and those higher costs are much higher than the airport costs at the other AA hubs. CLT's low O&D makes it the lowest unit revenue hub in the East (according to AA execs). For premerger US, the CLT hub was cheap, both labor and airport costs, and permitted US to undercut AA with the Advantage Fare program. Now that merged AA+US no longer has any motivation to undercut AA fares from MIA/DFW/ORD, those low CLT connecting fares no longer make sense. CLT will be downsized, especially if the economy tanks or fuel prices spike.
At LAX, AA has far more O&D than at CLT (or PHX), and while some of that local traffic pays low fares, some of it pays plenty (like the front cabins on the LAX-JFK transcons). With Chicago circling the drain, and southern California's economy booming, fighting for high value traffic at LAX makes sense.