Well, no, it isn't fabricated, except perhaps at AA's headquarters in Ft. Worth.
Since you clearly didn't read the LENGTHY filings in this case or chose to selectively ignore what AA itself wrote, let me post a few tidbits.
While American’s top priority on theWest Coast has been expanding Los Angeles service,
Delta consistently has favored Seattle over Los Angeles, and has executed on its publicly disclosed
strategy to make Seattle its premier West Coast gateway to Asia. When Delta’s application for
LAX-PEK authority is viewed in light of its avowed corporate strategy and demonstrated corporate
actions, the inescapable conclusion is that Delta fears, and now is scrambling to avert, the
development of a third West Coast gateway to Asia. Delta is more interested in stymying
competition from American to its West Coast-Beijing service and its U.S.-Asia service than it is
interested in benefiting passengers who would fly on those routes.
Delta’s prioritization of and growth at Seattle shows that its requested LAX-PEK
frequencies are not a core component of Delta’s international plans. Instead, Delta’s bid for
frequencies to Beijing from LAX is calculated to protect from competition its existing SEA-PEK
service and to deprive American of the ability to both strengthen its onlyWest Coast gateway and
compete more vigorously against Delta and United on theWest Coast, for the benefit of passengers
throughout the United States. This bid for LAX-PEK frequencies is just the latest gambit by Delta
to stifle American’s competitive potential at LAX.
This went on for months of filings... AA playing the victim and DL the bully that was out to block AA despite the fact that DL initiated the route request before AA even gave it a thought.
AA made it clear that SEA is DL's part of the west coast to Asia, SFO is UA's, and LAX is ours.
Whether you see that or not is immaterial.
The DOT awarded the current frequencies to AA but that doesn't in the least stop DL or UA or anyone else from starting any other new service that the treaties allow - and DL has made it clear that they are going to start LAX-Beijing with or without the current award.https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0076-0002
Neither the DOT or DL bought AA's arguments that SEA is DL's hub... if you think otherwise, feel free to post the link and text.
Ironically, you got it right a page or so ago.... AA really didn't want to fly LAX-PEK right now (because they are losing too much money on their Pacific network right now) so they had LAX-PEK on their to-do list. But they sure don't want DL to be able to get the route.
Now that AA realizes that DL is going to fly the route, AA decided to buy its way into the market - which is perfectly fine as long as the contracts that exist between DL and CZ are settled - and AA is able to obtain a slot which it can swap with CZ.
So, let me rephrase what I said before.
No US airline wanted to make LAX a major gateway to LAX - until AA realized it had no choice. Problem is that neither DL or UA decided they were going to walk away from the LAX domestic or international market.
AA did initiate a land grab at LAX which they now have to play in.
AA could have had a significant startup advantage if it had tried to get a Chinese partner FIRST but it is now wasting time that it could be using to cement itself in the market and even if AA starts the route in 2018 (let alone later this year) it will have very little headstart before the new Beijing airport is open and slots will be available for multiple carriers - even if AA is permitted to move.
You are free to see it as you wish. The facts are pretty clear. AA realized it had no west coast to Asia strategy, has dumped capacity into the market and grabbed every route it can, but it hasn't reached market parity with DL and UA even in markets where AA has joint ventures and a multi-year headstart such as in LAX-PVG.
Competition IS good. The DOT affirmed it with the route award... which isn't exclusive.
AA, whether they wanted it or not, is not going to keep UA in SFO and DL in SEA.