Right. Now that you've lost the argument you brought up, you conveniently change it.
Time to lock.
the topic left LAX to ATL a long time ago.
funny you want a lock now.
if you are correct that DL and NW were the only two legacies that were merger partners that had legacy mainframe systems and that mainframe systems inherently provide greater compatibility, then DL had an advantage by choosing a merger partner with whom it could obtain revenue benefits far faster.
while you and I might get it, the vast majority of people on here likely don't realize that harmonizing the network, pricing, and O&D systems are all driven by commonality in the res system.
If AA has to wait 2 or 3 times what DL waited to get those revenue benefits, not only will the value of the merger be less but also the cost increases that came from AA's merger came much faster than the revenue benefits.
that is exactly what happened to UA.
the only reason why WN didn't see much of the same thing is because WN"s fares were so much higher than FL's so WN offset much of the cost of delaying integration by fare increases.
when you talk about adding routes like ATL-LAX, there will be no integration of the networks that AA and US operate on either end of that route. there may not need to be but when you look at routes like CLT-MIA or PHL-DFW, the inability to gain revenue benefits because of a joint res system is very significant.