JetBlue has put itself on the market — unofficially.

In the past few weeks, Semafor published an article suggesting JetBlue had reached out to advisors to consider potential acquisition partners. This did not come as a surprise to many for the airline that has grown into New York, Boston, and Florida, but little else.

There are three likely candidates, all mentioned in the article, but as easy to deduce as the crossword puzzle on the back of the kids’ menu: United, Alaska, and Southwest.

There has been plenty of discussion of who has the appetite to take a bite as big as JetBlue. Answer: all three could do it, to varying levels of pain. Frankly, that’s not interesting.

Typically, we look at fleet composition. United is the only one of the three airlines that has V or GTF-powered A320s, so it’s a silly comparison (we’re not counting the Alaska A321neos, since Alaska has appears to not be interested in growing the fleet, and said if they don’t grow it, it will eventually be removed. Besides, it’s only the GTF and a very small fleet in the grand scheme of things.)

By our last count, Southwest had zero Airbus airplanes — though we haven’t counted as of this morning. Something tells me that’s still very zero.

Point being, United is the only viable operator with the appropriate fleet mix, and that still doesn’t mean anything.

So what next? Credit cards?

Yes, credit cards matter. All three candidates have good programs. But I really don’t like the idea of two very complex airline operations combining to increase credit card sign-ups. If that were the case, I’d recommend Alaska consider a merger with Target.

That leaves network.

And here is where JetBlue becomes very interesting. Correction: New York is where JetBlue becomes very interesting.

First, the easy one: Alaska. JetBlue and Alaska have very little route overlap. Makes sense; the West Coast airline and the East Coast airline only compete on transcon flying. But, we can’t just look at the direct overlap between airports, particularly when New York has three considered to be the same market — EWR, LGA, and JFK. For Alaska, that doesn’t matter much (or at all, really).

But this brings us back to the original challenges we had with a JetBlue / Alaska merger. Why, exactly? Networks either compete with one another, are complementary in adding connectivity, or don’t interact. Alaska and JetBlue’s networks don’t interact. They barely touch each other.

Sure, Alaska could slowly bring its Seattle model to New York, improve the operation, and add a customer base, but there is another problem with that: JetBlue isn’t a poorly run airline - not to mention New York is not Seattle.

These two networks are what we in the pilot world would call a staple. You just staple one onto the other: 1+1=2, and that’s it. No network value created, merger costs paid, and you end up with increased complexity costs. (Granted, there is some expensive real estate in Long Island City that, I’m sure, would save some real cash.) Sure, Alaska could add widebody service, but again, New York is not Seattle.

Corporate deals matter, and Alaska would certainly avail itself of access to the largest market in the country. But again (say it with me), New York is not Seattle. Rather than dominating the market, Alaska would still be a distant fourth, bringing marginal leverage in attracting new corporate clients.

And yet Alaska does offer a very big advantage in the race for JetBlue — almost certainty that the deal would be approved by the DOJ. But again, we are forced to ask ourselves, why would the deal be so easily approved? Because it doesn’t do much. From JetBlue’s perspective, it sounds great. From Alaska’s perspective… there’s always Target. (I’m only half joking.)

For the second candidate, the distinction between airport overlap and market overlap starts to become a factor:

Southwest doesn’t do a whole lot of flying to the New York area. Limited to LGA, Southwest departs fewer seats from the big three New York airports than Spirit… still.

But while the fleet mix doesn’t work for Southwest, the network does - in a way.

The addition of the large New York market fills a gap for Southwest. It’s not really a complementary network in terms of adding connectivity, but it does fill the Northeast domestic gaps for the airline. Unlike Alaska, with the limited crossover, Southwest could compete for some serious corporate contracts with an appropriate presence in New York. Florida would become gravy for the airline, benefiting from overlap in both Orlando and Fort Lauderdale, two markets almost entirely irrelevant to Alaska. Almost.

Which leads us to the best dance partner for JetBlue, United… If only it weren’t for those pesky chaperones.

Look, United is the obvious candidate for best fleet and network mix. JetBlue and United don’t actually compete on many routes. Despite the limited snowbird flying from JetBlue out of EWR, the only overlap is to United hubs. United doesn’t even fly to JFK, JetBlue’s primary hub.

Of course, we’re omitting the obvious - the U.S. Department of Justice.

The irony of airline mergers is that what works for the airlines usually doesn’t work for the DOJ. New York and Washington DC tend to bring out the claws of the DOJ more than most markets. Even though some who have looked at the price of a $160 Uber from Midtown Manhattan to EWR would not consider it in the same market as LaGuardia or JFK, the DOJ certainly will.

But this isn’t a reason to discount United outright. If the overall New York domestic presence is a concern, the combined airline would represent just over 39% of domestic seats from New York. Assuming JetBlue drops the incremental EWR flying, that’s down to 38%. Delta’s currently at almost 32%. Also, the DOJ isn’t exactly hawkish when it comes to corporations right now. I’m assuming divestitures would need to be made, but the idea that this potential is DOA is not a safe assumption.

And yet, it would be a major risk for United. Remember the Northeast Alliance between American and JetBlue that was quickly objected to and eventually rejected by the DOJ? There was less overlap and concentration in that agreement than would be with United and JetBlue.

Still, this DOJ acts kind of funny. If United feels it has a good chance of passing DOJ in the next three years, it could be a home run. That would make United the best candidate by far…

Except for Delta.

It’s an interesting question to ponder. If United is considered a candidate for JetBlue, why isn’t Delta? The fleet fit is better, and the network fit is even better yet (if you can believe it).

It’s because nobody (ourselves included) believes that Delta would ever get permission to take on JetBlue from the DOJ. That means the DOJ remains relevant. If we collectively think Delta is a step too far for the DOJ to consider, that means we all subconsciously expect market concentration to still matter to the DOJ. If market concentration matters to this DOJ, why still consider United as a candidate? Put another way, if United could get this past the DOJ when American couldn’t, why wouldn’t Delta try? It’s just a matter of how far a “flexible” DOJ could be pushed on the market concentration spectrum.

We think this paradox results in United not ending up with JetBlue. It’s a risk, and an expensive one at that. If we don’t think Delta stands a chance of walking away with JetBlue, we have to apply the same logic to United. That makes it difficult (though not impossible) to consider.

By process of elimination, this brings us back to our most likely candidate — Southwest. If Alaska would see limited benefit but almost certain approval, and United would see massive benefit but likely rejection, Southwest just kind of works. Good benefit and a very strong likelihood of approval.

Of course, this creates the fleet problem, though Southwest has been vocal about its willingness to consider other aircraft types, particularly after the 737 MAX snafus. We don’t think fleet is the obstacle it once was.

Probably the greatest obstacle to Southwest walking away with JetBlue is the appetite for such a major acquisition. Who knows, the board may just say “no,” and that’s it. Southwest is also just now digesting the benefit from its new pricing strategies. Rocking the boat again may not be in the cards - or it might be.

That doesn’t mean we expect Southwest to walk away with this. Companies make bad decisions all the time(Ahem, Microsoft and Nokia, AT&T and Time Warner). If United considers it too risky and Southwest doesn’t want to jump in just yet, then Alaska could walk away with it (hopefully at a steep discount).

Of course, this is all assuming David Neeleman doesn’t pull some weird, mutated rabbit out of his hat — a dark-horse scenario so unlikely that we only add it at the very end…

… and yet we still added it.

We like to create valuable charts. But it’s not easy to come up with new ideas amid the endless hours spent delivering data-driven edge to our customers. In our quest to provide a valuable weekly newsletter, we can keep guessing what you find most valuable, or you could just tell us.

If you have an idea for data visualization, reply to this email and let us know what analysis you’d find most valuable. We’d love to hear from you and will happily name-drop.

As valuable as it is, don't worry; it's entirely free. If you would like to receive analyses like this regularly, subscribe below.

Then...

You can pay it forward by sending it to your colleagues. They gain valuable insights, and you get credit for finding new ideas!

Win-win!

Subscribe here