Wet Racoon wrote:
However, when your network is made up of mostly such connecting itineraries,
it is one reason why your airline cannot compete with the ilks of Southwest.

Southwest has lots of connecting itineraries. I think they only have one
non-stop coast-to-coast route, for example, and an awful lot of people fly
them coast-to-coast.

There is no way that it costs the airline less to fly you via chicago
versus putting you on a non-stop flight. Consider the additional
landing/takeoff costs, gate costs, luggage transfer costs, extra staff at
gates, and the costs when flights are delayed/cancelled and you have a
bunch of stranded people at the connecting city (hotels, meals etc).

On the other hand, consider the decreased fuel costs for shorter flights,
the ability to consolidate passengers on larger planes, greater chance of
filling those planes, and so on. I don't think it's clear-cut at all.

I also find it unlikely that they would all be working so hard to lose
money.

miguel
--
See the world from your web browser: http://travel.u.nu/