727LOVER wrote:

SurfandSnow wrote:

I think many people forget just how close many cities with their own airports lacking WN are to airports that WN does serve. ; Sarasota via RSW or TPA; Smaller markets with little to no tourist appeal really seem to be struggling, so I just can't see WN venturing into the likes of GSO or SYR...

No tourism in Sarasota/Bradenton?

Sure lets just put everyone on the road, driving is safer than flying, right??? Can't wait to see a story of someone getting into an accident on the interstate while driving to catch a WN flight, even though there's an airport closer with a decent population base.

Cold day in hell before I fly them again.

Let's be real, the Bradenton/Sarasota area is very well served by TPA/{IE, and to a lesser extent RSW. I would argue that the SRQ metro and TPA metro are essentially one, and I'm not alone in that thinking. Makes sense that SRQ serves as a niche airport. What tourism that *must* go to SRQ is high end and can afford that service. Everyone else makes do.

diverdave wrote:

TYSflyer wrote:

TYS supposedly loses 20% passengers to primarily BNA. A good percentage of these passengers fly WN. I am not sure what would entice WN to come to TYS and spend money to open the market when they are already serving many of these passengers via BNA. Maybe the extra business passengers that are less likely to drive?

That still leaves the 80% of the market that is not driving to BNA, plus the bleed that TYS would pick up from TRI and CHA.

I could see TYS over CHA, but realistically don't see either happening. CHA is likely too close to ATL, though navigating Atlanta traffic makes it seem longer than it is. TYS is funny. People in Nashville drive there to catch G4, especially to Punta Gorda. As for traffic the other way, I see quite a few Knox County plates in the lots at BNA. One advantage of driving from Knoxville is that BNA is on the east side of the city, so the traffic nightmare of Nashville doesn't play a huge role.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

OzarkD9S wrote:

gregn21 wrote:

I could see WN in PSP sometime soon. That's one of the largest markets unserved by them in the continental US I think. Maybe daily ops to 2 or 3 of OAK, PHX, DEN, DAL, and MDW??

The problem with PSP is seasonality. October through April would be great, but "nobody" wants to go there during the summer.

Perhaps flex the seasonality with ANC? Not really their modus operandi but would be efficient.

Now THERE'S an idea!

I live not too far from PSP, it's my closest airport (Twentynine Palms, or the Stumps to all you Marines out there). Traffic there is so very seasonal. It's convenient for us to drive down when we fly, connecting to SLC, DEN, or PHX depending on which airline we fly. Traffic on the freeway to ONT is the main reason we don't connect through there too often. Interesting to watch the snowbird traffic start to peak in April when the northerners leave, lots of business jet traffic then too. Now it's a relative ghost town, been 117 degrees F there for a few days straight. Tee times are available!

axiom wrote:

727LOVER wrote:

SurfandSnow wrote:

I think many people forget just how close many cities with their own airports lacking WN are to airports that WN does serve. ; Sarasota via RSW or TPA; Smaller markets with little to no tourist appeal really seem to be struggling, so I just can't see WN venturing into the likes of GSO or SYR...

No tourism in Sarasota/Bradenton?

Sure lets just put everyone on the road, driving is safer than flying, right??? Can't wait to see a story of someone getting into an accident on the interstate while driving to catch a WN flight, even though there's an airport closer with a decent population base.

Cold day in hell before I fly them again.

Let's be real, the Bradenton/Sarasota area is very well served by TPA/{IE, and to a lesser extent RSW. I would argue that the SRQ metro and TPA metro are essentially one, and I'm not alone in that thinking. Makes sense that SRQ serves as a niche airport. What tourism that *must* go to SRQ is high end and can afford that service. Everyone else makes do.

If driving 60 miles is a problem, good luck in life. The Seattle metro population looks significantly larger and they have SEA. Tampa Bay-area folks have TPA, PIE, SRQ, RSW, MCO, SFB, and who knows what other commercial airports in a closer proximity than SEA has PDX and to a degree BLI. Seems pretty well covered, and not every airline is going to serve every airport.

phxsanslcpdx wrote:

SAC-EGE likely profitable too.

Are you hinting that WN is interested in moving their operations over to SAC from SMF sort of the way they pursued BFI? I do know SMF has one of the highest PFCs in the US, and WN *hates* high PFCs...

PlanesNTrains wrote:

axiom wrote:

727LOVER wrote:

No tourism in Sarasota/Bradenton?

Sure lets just put everyone on the road, driving is safer than flying, right??? Can't wait to see a story of someone getting into an accident on the interstate while driving to catch a WN flight, even though there's an airport closer with a decent population base.

Cold day in hell before I fly them again.

Let's be real, the Bradenton/Sarasota area is very well served by TPA/{IE, and to a lesser extent RSW. I would argue that the SRQ metro and TPA metro are essentially one, and I'm not alone in that thinking. Makes sense that SRQ serves as a niche airport. What tourism that *must* go to SRQ is high end and can afford that service. Everyone else makes do.

If driving 60 miles is a problem, good luck in life. The Seattle metro population looks significantly larger and they have SEA. Tampa Bay-area folks have TPA, PIE, SRQ, RSW, MCO, SFB, and who knows what other commercial airports in a closer proximity than SEA has PDX and to a degree BLI. Seems pretty well covered, and not every airline is going to serve every airport.

For the record, I agree with you. Central Florida is exceptionally well connected to the world through its major airports.

I don't think WN will come to ANC now that B6 has come in and trashed the low end seasonal market. DL was selling WALK UP F/C for under 300 yesterday ANCSEA

jfklganyc wrote:

JFK has to be biggest city unserved. One could argue LGA serves this purpose

Last I checked, JFK was not a city.

I know the populations are small, and I understand economics. I simply noted, contrary to what some said, that WN does not have excellent coverage throughout the US. And that an independent regional with interlining might be able to improve that coverage.

Second largest city in New England, ORH

What about the possibility to start some smaller markets with less than daily service, ala F9 and G4? I thought I had heard that rumor around on here a while ago. I do think it would be nice if they look into a smaller aircraft like the E175 or E190

As a former resident of Fresno, I have scratched my head as to why WN does not serve FAT with flights to LAS, PHX, DAL, OAK and LAX.

dfwjim1 wrote:

As a former resident of Fresno, I have scratched my head as to why WN does not serve FAT with flights to LAS, PHX, DAL, OAK and LAX.

FAT was on my list of cities I was thinking about. Maybe not that much service, but I could imagine starting with flights to DEN and LAS and building something.

Some others that jumped out at me SYR, MSN, and COS. Perhaps try DAB or SAV on a seasonal basis. ANC doesn't seem like a good use of their (currently) limited equipment, but perhaps 3-4 years down the line.

International expansion seems more likely. STI, SXM, BOG, SDQ, or BDA all seem like possibilities.

MalevTU134 wrote:

Tokyo, hands down.
Mexico City and Chongqing are up there as well. As is Mumbai, Lagos and São Paulo.
...unless we assume the World begins in San Francisco and ends in Boston, of course..

It would help if you confine it to cities their aircraft can reach & stop being silly.

KSAD in Arizona does not have WN service, or any service, haha. I would be surprised if WN doesn't make some of the 737s ETOPS and launch Hawaii. Everyday Low Fares seems just the crowd for that type of service and it would keep the majors in check on their fares.

hz747300 wrote:

KSAD in Arizona does not have WN service, or any service, haha. I would be surprised if WN doesn't make some of the 737s ETOPS and launch Hawaii. Everyday Low Fares seems just the crowd for that type of service and it would keep the majors in check on their fares.

Hawaii is inundated with service. When the HA 321's enter service, it'll be a head-to-head battle with AS on smaller cities to HI. WN may start a couple of token routes, but it isn't necessary for their overall business plan

flyfresno wrote:

phxsanslcpdx wrote:

SAC-EGE likely profitable too.

Are you hinting that WN is interested in moving their operations over to SAC from SMF sort of the way they pursued BFI? I do know SMF has one of the highest PFCs in the US, and WN *hates* high PFCs...

Nah, just forgetful. But now that you mention it, the Central Valley's so decentralized... maybe an alternative to SMF/FAT would make sense. SCK? MOD? MCE? Probably not... but as this thread is showing, WN's already in most of the most obvious spots.

DfwAussie wrote:

diverdave wrote:

TYSflyer wrote:

TYS supposedly loses 20% passengers to primarily BNA. A good percentage of these passengers fly WN. I am not sure what would entice WN to come to TYS and spend money to open the market when they are already serving many of these passengers via BNA. Maybe the extra business passengers that are less likely to drive?

That still leaves the 80% of the market that is not driving to BNA, plus the bleed that TYS would pick up from TRI and CHA.

I could see TYS over CHA, but realistically don't see either happening. CHA is likely too close to ATL, though navigating Atlanta traffic makes it seem longer than it is. TYS is funny. People in Nashville drive there to catch G4, especially to Punta Gorda. As for traffic the other way, I see quite a few Knox County plates in the lots at BNA. One advantage of driving from Knoxville is that BNA is on the east side of the city, so the traffic nightmare of Nashville doesn't play a huge role.

Yes, that is a very important point. The drive is a very easy and fairly scenic one. Further, many of the wealthy live on the west side of Knoxville shaving off a few more minutes off the drive. BNA has had so much growth recently making it hard for smaller airports to compete with all the increased nonstop destinations.

For SYR service, it's not a question of if...but when

WN does not serve CRW, in fact the whole state of WV is not served by WN.

SyracuseAvGeek wrote:

For SYR service, it's not a question of if...but when

SW should have been in SYR years ago. The airport has the location, the infrastructure, and the catchment area, reaching from the Northern Tier of PA and Southern Tier of NY, across Central and Northern NY, and into SE Ontario. I blame clueless local leadership, in both the public and private sectors, as well as high landing fees, for the lack of SW service at SYR. The CEO of B6 publicly stated SYR could easily handle significantly more traffic if the cost of landing at SYR were not so unreasonable. Now that the airport is run by a regional authority, as opposed to being owned and operated exclusively by the city, maybe things will change.

rbavfan wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

Tokyo, hands down.
Mexico City and Chongqing are up there as well. As is Mumbai, Lagos and São Paulo.
...unless we assume the World begins in San Francisco and ends in Boston, of course..

It would help if you confine it to cities their aircraft can reach & stop being silly.

You are a bit touchy today - calm down!

The thread title is "Largest cities not served by WN". No talk about non-stop, or otherwise No geographic limits (although it seems some have in-built limits that limit their perspective to the USA, not even North America!)

So "Tokyo" is absolutely one of the right answers.

If you don't like the answer, have a look and maybe revise the question!! Don't be careless with your specifications, you need to explicitly include all the things you implicitly understand, and don't assume anyone else understands the same implicit specifications! Your initial criticisms were made against your incomplete implicit specification!

There are many nostalgic people around here for whom a multi-stop from a WN current station to Tokyo would be an irresistible offer. Of course their aircraft can reach Tokyo - just not direct!

TucsonDave wrote:

SyracuseAvGeek wrote:

For SYR service, it's not a question of if...but when

SW should have been in SYR years ago. The airport has the location, the infrastructure, and the catchment area, reaching from the Northern Tier of PA and Southern Tier of NY, across Central and Northern NY, and into SE Ontario. I blame clueless local leadership, in both the public and private sectors, as well as high landing fees, for the lack of SW service at SYR. The CEO of B6 publicly stated SYR could easily handle significantly more traffic if the cost of landing at SYR were not so unreasonable. Now that the airport is run by a regional authority, as opposed to being owned and operated exclusively by the city, maybe things will change.

I hope they change, I talked to someone at the airport and they said they have been constantly trying to get SW here. Maybe they would start DAL service, although if BUF doesn't have it then neither will we.

SyracuseAvGeek wrote:

TucsonDave wrote:

SyracuseAvGeek wrote:

For SYR service, it's not a question of if...but when

SW should have been in SYR years ago. The airport has the location, the infrastructure, and the catchment area, reaching from the Northern Tier of PA and Southern Tier of NY, across Central and Northern NY, and into SE Ontario. I blame clueless local leadership, in both the public and private sectors, as well as high landing fees, for the lack of SW service at SYR. The CEO of B6 publicly stated SYR could easily handle significantly more traffic if the cost of landing at SYR were not so unreasonable. Now that the airport is run by a regional authority, as opposed to being owned and operated exclusively by the city, maybe things will change.

I hope they change, I talked to someone at the airport and they said they have been constantly trying to get SW here. Maybe they would start DAL service, although if BUF doesn't have it then neither will we.

I would speculate that if SYR is fortunate enough to attract WN service, it would be as a small station with 3 to BWI for most of the year. Maybe one of those frequencies would switch to MCO during the winter months. I just don't see more with ROC struggling for WN service just 80 miles away, and it's a larger metropolitan area. If WN added 100 seaters to their fleet, the math of possibilities at SYR changes significantly.

LotsaRunway wrote:

SyracuseAvGeek wrote:

TucsonDave wrote:

SW should have been in SYR years ago. The airport has the location, the infrastructure, and the catchment area, reaching from the Northern Tier of PA and Southern Tier of NY, across Central and Northern NY, and into SE Ontario. I blame clueless local leadership, in both the public and private sectors, as well as high landing fees, for the lack of SW service at SYR. The CEO of B6 publicly stated SYR could easily handle significantly more traffic if the cost of landing at SYR were not so unreasonable. Now that the airport is run by a regional authority, as opposed to being owned and operated exclusively by the city, maybe things will change.

I hope they change, I talked to someone at the airport and they said they have been constantly trying to get SW here. Maybe they would start DAL service, although if BUF doesn't have it then neither will we.

I would speculate that if SYR is fortunate enough to attract WN service, it would be as a small station with 3 to BWI for most of the year. Maybe one of those frequencies would switch to MCO during the winter months. I just don't see more with ROC struggling for WN service just 80 miles away, and it's a larger metropolitan area. If WN added 100 seaters to their fleet, the math of possibilities at SYR changes significantly.

That's true, especially because B6 and G4 have Florida covered with service to FLL, MCO, and PIE.

sassiciai wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

Tokyo, hands down.
Mexico City and Chongqing are up there as well. As is Mumbai, Lagos and São Paulo.
...unless we assume the World begins in San Francisco and ends in Boston, of course..

It would help if you confine it to cities their aircraft can reach & stop being silly.

You are a bit touchy today - calm down!

The thread title is "Largest cities not served by WN". No talk about non-stop, or otherwise No geographic limits (although it seems some have in-built limits that limit their perspective to the USA, not even North America!)

So "Tokyo" is absolutely one of the right answers.

If you don't like the answer, have a look and maybe revise the question!! Don't be careless with your specifications, you need to explicitly include all the things you implicitly understand, and don't assume anyone else understands the same implicit specifications! Your initial criticisms were made against your incomplete implicit specification!

There are many nostalgic people around here for whom a multi-stop from a WN current station to Tokyo would be an irresistible offer. Of course their aircraft can reach Tokyo - just not direct!

Perhaps, but there's a lot to be said for being forgiving and understanding in a thread like this rather than preachy and pedantic. I'm sure DeltaXNA wasn't trying to throw shade at Asia or anything - for the vast majority of people on this forum, we could figure out what he meant or otherwise ask in a polite manner.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

sassiciai wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

It would help if you confine it to cities their aircraft can reach & stop being silly.

You are a bit touchy today - calm down!

The thread title is "Largest cities not served by WN". No talk about non-stop, or otherwise No geographic limits (although it seems some have in-built limits that limit their perspective to the USA, not even North America!)

So "Tokyo" is absolutely one of the right answers.

If you don't like the answer, have a look and maybe revise the question!! Don't be careless with your specifications, you need to explicitly include all the things you implicitly understand, and don't assume anyone else understands the same implicit specifications! Your initial criticisms were made against your incomplete implicit specification!

There are many nostalgic people around here for whom a multi-stop from a WN current station to Tokyo would be an irresistible offer. Of course their aircraft can reach Tokyo - just not direct!

Perhaps, but there's a lot to be said for being forgiving and understanding in a thread like this rather than preachy and pedantic. I'm sure DeltaXNA wasn't trying to throw shade at Asia or anything - for the vast majority of people on this forum, we could figure out what he meant or otherwise ask in a polite manner.

Eeeeh...where was I being rude by answering - correctly - that Tokyo is the answer to the OP's question?

MalevTU134 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

sassiciai wrote:

You are a bit touchy today - calm down!

The thread title is "Largest cities not served by WN". No talk about non-stop, or otherwise No geographic limits (although it seems some have in-built limits that limit their perspective to the USA, not even North America!)

So "Tokyo" is absolutely one of the right answers.

If you don't like the answer, have a look and maybe revise the question!! Don't be careless with your specifications, you need to explicitly include all the things you implicitly understand, and don't assume anyone else understands the same implicit specifications! Your initial criticisms were made against your incomplete implicit specification!

There are many nostalgic people around here for whom a multi-stop from a WN current station to Tokyo would be an irresistible offer. Of course their aircraft can reach Tokyo - just not direct!

Perhaps, but there's a lot to be said for being forgiving and understanding in a thread like this rather than preachy and pedantic. I'm sure DeltaXNA wasn't trying to throw shade at Asia or anything - for the vast majority of people on this forum, we could figure out what he meant or otherwise ask in a polite manner.

Eeeeh...where was I being rude by answering - correctly - that Tokyo is the answer to the OP's question?

I don't remember saying it was you.

Fresno is the largest city proper in the U.S. that is not served by Southwest Airlines, and the Fresno metropolitan area is the largest metropolitan area in the contiguous U.S. that is not served by Southwest Airlines.

The Honolulu metropolitan area is the largest metropolitan area in the U.S. that is not served by Southwest Airlines.

Adipocere wrote:

WN does not serve CRW, in fact the whole state of WV is not served by WN.

No offense, but CRW and HTS have never had much mainline service in the RJ era. The population is just to small to attract carriers like WN. Even NK is just 2x weekly to MYR. I was a little surprised that G4 is in HTS and CKB and not CRW.

DfwAussie wrote:

Adipocere wrote:

WN does not serve CRW, in fact the whole state of WV is not served by WN.

No offense, but CRW and HTS have never had much mainline service in the RJ era. The population is just to small to attract carriers like WN. Even NK is just 2x weekly to MYR. I was a little surprised that G4 is in HTS and CKB and not CRW.

Southwest actually does serve parts of West Virginia out of airports located in other states, including the Northern Panhandle of West Virginia out of PIT (which is located in PA) and including the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia out of IAD and DCA (which are located in VA) and out of BWI (which is located in MD).

Southwest also serves southern Vermont out of ALB, which is located in New York, even though it does not serve any airport located within the state of Vermont.

Southwest also serves northern Delaware out of PHL, which is located in Pennsylvania, even though Southwest does not serve any airport within the state of Delaware.

Southwest no longer serves any airport located within the state of Mississippi, but does serve northern Mississippi out of MEM and the Mississippi Gulf Coast out of MSY and PNS.

Southwest does not serve any airport located within the state of Wyoming, but serves the southwestern corner of Wyoming out of SLC and serves the southeastern corner of Wyoming out of DEN.

Southwest does not serve any airport located in the state of South Dakota, but serves the southeastern corner of South Dakota out of OMA.

Southwest does not serve any airport located in the state of Montana, but serves the westernmost part of Montana out of GEG.

Additionally to WV talk, the population certainly isn't getting bigger. CRW really didn't have much back when it was over 70,000 people in early 80s. At just clinging to over 50,000, prospects won't improve much IMO.

For Fresno, what percentage of population is well off enough to travel enough to make it a viable location? Having lived, visited and read about the San Joaquin Valley as a whole, having 1,000,000 people does no good if they cant afford to travel.

I think SYR area is covered well enough by ROC to west. Don't believe enough would travel the distance from north of the border considering easier to get to other locations. But I know some that would appreciate SYR service.

The only US city that I would like to see WN start is ANC. I really couldn't care less about Hawai'i, Caribbean, or any other international destination for that matter.

jplatts wrote:

Fresno is the largest city proper in the U.S. that is not served by Southwest Airlines, and the Fresno metropolitan area is the largest metropolitan area in the contiguous U.S. that is not served by Southwest Airlines.

Yes, among the 48 contiguous states, Fresno is the largest. HNL would be for all 50 states.

Using the 2016 Census Bureau Estimates:
City of Fresno population - 522,053
Fresno MSA population - 979,915
Fresno-Madera CSA population - 1,134,612

Additionally most, if not all, of the residents of the Visalia-Porterville MSA, Merced MSA, and Hanford-Corcoran MSA live within 60 to 90 minute drives of FAT. That is potentially up to another 879,000 people in the airport service area.

jplatts wrote:

DfwAussie wrote:

Adipocere wrote:

WN does not serve CRW, in fact the whole state of WV is not served by WN.

No offense, but CRW and HTS have never had much mainline service in the RJ era. The population is just to small to attract carriers like WN. Even NK is just 2x weekly to MYR. I was a little surprised that G4 is in HTS and CKB and not CRW.

Southwest actually does serve parts of West Virginia out of airports located in other states, including the Northern Panhandle of West Virginia out of PIT (which is located in PA) and including the Eastern Panhandle of West Virginia out of IAD and DCA (which are located in VA) and out of BWI (which is located in MD).

Southwest also serves southern Vermont out of ALB, which is located in New York, even though it does not serve any airport located within the state of Vermont.

Southwest also serves northern Delaware out of PHL, which is located in Pennsylvania, even though Southwest does not serve any airport within the state of Delaware.

Southwest no longer serves any airport located within the state of Mississippi, but does serve northern Mississippi out of MEM and the Mississippi Gulf Coast out of MSY and PNS.

Southwest does not serve any airport located within the state of Wyoming, but serves the southwestern corner of Wyoming out of SLC and serves the southeastern corner of Wyoming out of DEN.

Southwest does not serve any airport located in the state of South Dakota, but serves the southeastern corner of South Dakota out of OMA.

Southwest does not serve any airport located in the state of Montana, but serves the westernmost part of Montana out of GEG.

Well, this is an odd post. This logic can be applied to basically every airline and ever city in the US> I was specifically replying to the question about CRW.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

Perhaps, but there's a lot to be said for being forgiving and understanding in a thread like this rather than preachy and pedantic. I'm sure DeltaXNA wasn't trying to throw shade at Asia or anything - for the vast majority of people on this forum, we could figure out what he meant or otherwise ask in a polite manner.

Eeeeh...where was I being rude by answering - correctly - that Tokyo is the answer to the OP's question?

I don't remember saying it was you.

Seems to me that irony used to understood on this forum, but it seems it is out of favour, maybe it's been "trumped" by regional politics somewhere. Here is a typical debate caused by someone postulating a thread that assumes the world is a tenth of its actual size!

When some people then join in to make that comment, resulting comments about "being silly" are just childish and poorly thought through. I don't know who poor old DeltaXNA is, but I could find no trace of him in the last posts in the above thread, so I think he must be an innocent victim caught in some crossfire! Let's all agree that this low cost US airline is unlikely to serve Tokyo any time soon, but that Tokyo is one of the largest cities not served by this airline!

mtnwest1979 wrote:

For Fresno, what percentage of population is well off enough to travel enough to make it a viable location? Having lived, visited and read about the San Joaquin Valley as a whole, having 1,000,000 people does no good if they cant afford to travel.

Yes the area has had past economic weakness. But Fresno's economy is rapidly changing.

2016 was only the 4th year in the last 25 years when the annual unemployment rate for the MSA was under 10%. Amazon and Ulta already have e-commerce distribution centers under construction to open next year employing enough people to reduce the annual unemployment rate by almost another 1%. Nordstrom and GreenChef.com are looking to open their west coast e-commerce distribution centers here while others that can't currently be mentioned are also looking in the area.

The local tech scene is growing. It has caught the eye of some of the Silicon Valley companies as a potential office area for some functions. They are interested in the proximity and future quick connection via high-speed rail. Although politically controversial, high-speed rail is under construction and Fresno is the front-runner for the main maintenance site (and its several thousand high-paying jobs).

Then you have to look at some of the investment currently going on in the area to pursue discretionary spending. For example, an investment group has put up the multi-million fee for a USL soccer franchise. As part of the investment they also have to spend millions more for a soccer-specific stadium similar to Sacramento's.

From the travel side, the total number of passengers at FAT has increased over 35% since 2010.

While the population size was offset by economic weakness in the past, over the next few years I think that offset will shrink.

sassiciai wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

Eeeeh...where was I being rude by answering - correctly - that Tokyo is the answer to the OP's question?

I don't remember saying it was you.

Seems to me that irony used to understood on this forum, but it seems it is out of favour, maybe it's been "trumped" by regional politics somewhere. Here is a typical debate caused by someone postulating a thread that assumes the world is a tenth of its actual size!

When some people then join in to make that comment, resulting comments about "being silly" are just childish and poorly thought through. I don't know who poor old DeltaXNA is, but I could find no trace of him in the last posts in the above thread, so I think he must be an innocent victim caught in some crossfire! Let's all agree that this low cost US airline is unlikely to serve Tokyo any time soon, but that Tokyo is one of the largest cities not served by this airline!

Well said, agree completely with you. Irony takes intelligence and some worldliness, by the way. That could be a clue...
And DeltaXNA is no other than the OP.

With ORD being the only major airport/city not being served WN. WN could use T5 at ORD.

MDW22L31C wrote:

With ORD being the only major airport/city not being served WN. WN could use T5 at ORD.

I guess with your username, you are aware that they use MDW occasionally?...

In the US i would think ANC, HNL, OGG, BTV, SYR, ACY are all good options for the larger airports they don't serve. Overall they the USA really well i think they are the largest domestic carrier, right?

MalevTU134 wrote:

MDW22L31C wrote:

With ORD being the only major airport/city not being served WN. WN could use T5 at ORD.

I guess with your username, you are aware that they use MDW occasionally?...

In a similar fashion, no WN at JFK either, but NYC is certainly well served by WN the same way CHI is...

In my old home state of Indiana, the only city served by WN is IND. Indiana's second largest city, Fort Wayne (FWA), which is my old hometown, is not served by WN--it's served only by regional affiliates of UA, DL, and AA, as well as G4. Perhaps FWA is considered too small for WN service? My last trip to Indiana, to visit Indianapolis and Fort Wayne, I flew WN nonstop from DEN to IND. I really appreciated the lower fares on WN to IND than on any airline to FWA, plus the lack of baggage fees and change fees. Even with my rental car I had for a whole week to visit both Indianapolis and Fort Wayne and the gas I used in it, the trip was cheaper all around than it would have been to fly to Fort Wayne (airfare alone, to FWA, is sky-high for what little service you get). I'm going home again for the 4th of July holiday to Fort Wayne, and during that trip, going to NYC--using WN to fly to IND to get to Fort Wayne, then using WN again from IND-LGA roundtrip, then back to DEN. Still, that's much cheaper than the new UA nonstop FWA-EWR.

MalevTU134 wrote:

sassiciai wrote:

PlanesNTrains wrote:

I don't remember saying it was you.

Seems to me that irony used to understood on this forum, but it seems it is out of favour, maybe it's been "trumped" by regional politics somewhere. Here is a typical debate caused by someone postulating a thread that assumes the world is a tenth of its actual size!

When some people then join in to make that comment, resulting comments about "being silly" are just childish and poorly thought through. I don't know who poor old DeltaXNA is, but I could find no trace of him in the last posts in the above thread, so I think he must be an innocent victim caught in some crossfire! Let's all agree that this low cost US airline is unlikely to serve Tokyo any time soon, but that Tokyo is one of the largest cities not served by this airline!

Well said, agree completely with you. Irony takes intelligence and some worldliness, by the way. That could be a clue...
And DeltaXNA is no other than the OP.

Insults aside, it would be very simple to just ask for clarification from someone rather than turn it into a sideshow in an otherwise interesting thread.

PlanesNTrains wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

sassiciai wrote:

Seems to me that irony used to understood on this forum, but it seems it is out of favour, maybe it's been "trumped" by regional politics somewhere. Here is a typical debate caused by someone postulating a thread that assumes the world is a tenth of its actual size!

When some people then join in to make that comment, resulting comments about "being silly" are just childish and poorly thought through. I don't know who poor old DeltaXNA is, but I could find no trace of him in the last posts in the above thread, so I think he must be an innocent victim caught in some crossfire! Let's all agree that this low cost US airline is unlikely to serve Tokyo any time soon, but that Tokyo is one of the largest cities not served by this airline!

Well said, agree completely with you. Irony takes intelligence and some worldliness, by the way. That could be a clue...
And DeltaXNA is no other than the OP.

Insults aside, it would be very simple to just ask for clarification from someone rather than turn it into a sideshow in an otherwise interesting thread.

I don't think any clarification was necessary, the OP's question was quite clear, and I answered it in the first post. And almost 100 posts later, the OP hasn't been back to clarify or narrow his question, so I guess he, too, is happy with tbe replies he is getting.
I can't see any insults having been made (except maybe for the "silly" comment, but I've been called worse), just facts being stated.

allegiantflyer wrote:

so in the range of North America I would say Toronto.

Given the massive hub and feed BWI provides, I wonder if it could do BWI-YYZ. If it's fees and costs on the YYZ side, WN can likely charge high on BWI-YYZ. Short haul fares (even out of BWI) generally are high anyways, so it would match expectation. e.g. it's common that BWI-PIT is more expensive than BWI/DCA-DAL.

XNA is a nice little airport with growing population and business , namely the University of Arkansas,Walmart, Tyson, etc. it's nothing like stereotypical Arkansas. Newly built terminal too..

SmithAir747 wrote:

In my old home state of Indiana, the only city served by WN is IND.

Southwest also serves the state of Indiana through MDW, which is located in Illinois, and through SDF and CVG, which are located in Kentucky.

FATFlyer wrote:

Then you have to look at some of the investment currently going on in the area to pursue discretionary spending. For example, an investment group has put up the multi-million fee for a USL soccer franchise. As part of the investment they also have to spend millions more for a soccer-specific stadium similar to Sacramento's.

Partially true: the *franchise fee* was way more than Sac's, but there is no clear (publicly released) plan for a permanant stadium (the temporary location will likely be at FSU), so it's possible that the stadium could not cost much more than Papa John's Park (hopefully it has a better name though). All I can say about that stadium, as a proud Fire Squad member, is it best be downtown!