I can understand why Branson might feel a bit miffed about his brand being dumped. I think he is even more miffed because Alaska doesn't see any value even though they have purchased the brand and locked it up in the US market for a while. I suspect they will do the minimal needed to hold onto it so that no one else can use it. It was a pure get rid of a competitor move together with getting an enhancement to their route structure. OTOH I also fully understand why Alaska did what it did.
Seemed like they were afraid B6 wanted it, so they had to pay any price to avoid that.
Things are not always going To Branson's liking...A few years ago he campaigned heavily against a BA-AA alliance ("BA+AA=No Way")...But it happened anyway....
Prior to the open skies bilateral the BA+AA alliance required special government approval on both sides of the pond, mainly because it was blatantly anti-consumer and anti-competitive. As with the lopsided interference in the DFW vs DAL dispute only AA/BA loyalists and sympathizers genuinely supported it. To this day AA's sloppy soft product remains a sad joke and BA's premium services are hopelessly overpriced relative to competitors. Meanwhile VS' Upper Class service has gone from being an also-ran to a sleek and sexy trend setter. VS/UC remains a full fledged bucket list item for me while AA's and BA's products have fallen completely off my radar.
Can't see your image, but AAs biz product JFK/LAX-LHR isn't that bad. The 777-300ER is a good product. I also am a big fan of the much less popular 767 refurb seats. I have spent around 10 nights in that seat and have gotten some of my best sleep in J in those seats. Soft product wise they can surprise you.A recent trip in J from MAN-JFK on the 767 even had duck on the menu I was shocked. Yeah I guess I can't get my haircut in the lounge preflight, but I don't think I would partake in that anyway.
Edited by Long Train Runnin', 28 March 2017 - 02:50 PM.