Well, first of all, you're looking at the wrong statistic (i.e. passenger counts). When you look at aircraft movements, the top ten in the USA are:
is a substantial portion of the movements at LAX
, and LAS
already; any presence at an airport like DFW
would only add to the congestion there. In reality, congestion at DFW
is down in the past couple of years due to AA
's decision to depeak its hub, but taxi times are still quite high, especially, say, for an arrival on 17L where you can spend 15 minutes or longer taxiing to the terminal. Moreover, though the airfield has a lot of capacity, the terminal layout with respect to the runways is inefficient, since the runways on the west side of the complex are only useful to aircraft using Terminal B (and in future, Terminal D), unless you're willing to spend an extra 5-10 minutes taxiing all the way over to the 18-36 pair.
has a far more balanced terminal layout for its runways, and WN
's position at Terminal 1 lends itself to very short taxi-out times. Moreover, they are somewhat insulated from UA
's hub operation and AA
's focus operation which are both on the opposite side of the airport, and the peak time at LAX
for international departures to Asia (after about 10 PM
or so) is after WN
's operation has begun to wind down for the night.
of the airports you list as being served by WN
are of comparable size in land area to DFW