I certainly hope the plan will work, if not there will be an LHGroup monopoly on even more routes. And what a monopoly means you can look up in any microeconomics textbook. So in that sense I wish AB all the success.
But I'm sceptical, I must admit. AB deficits are NOT because of being successless on the market or more generally the revenue side. Payloads are very high, on average in the high 80s, which means many flights sold out. Fares are not paricularly low, neither. So revenue is may be not great, but quite ok.
The trouble is on the cost side, in particular poor lease terms, high pension liabilies in some parts (not Belair and NIki, but legacy LTU and AB), poorly timed fuel hedges, poor fleet strategy (mixed A320 and 737 on a permanent basis), etc.
Now does the new strategy address the cost side? Well, the network carrier part doesn't. The holiday flight business line might, if it can be sold at a reasonable price (that's the plan, in negotiations with TUI). The wet lease to LHGroup is sort of a "take the loss at one" deal. LH is unlikely to pay the high AB lease terms, but at least the will pay a fixed amount of money which will allow AB to realize the write off at once under the new IFRS 16. So bottom line, we are likely to see a huge write off in 2016 and then a slightly improved expense situation in the future. But, at least the lease of their long haul flight and ex-LTU staf cost will remain.
So it might work, if TATL traffic will develop ok and so does the network traffic in Europe. But neither one is certain.