I've seen the articles and quotes by Gary Kelly, etc., saying "No new cities in 2007", and others with lists of cities that WN hopes to grow next year, e.g., MDW, RNO, LAS, MSY, PHL, DEN, BWI, etc. What are your opinions out there about where the growth will happen? Which dots will be connected?

I would imagine as soon as the WA repeal is final, there will be a whole new flight schedule released (I'm sure it's being created at this moment.) It will include reworked DAL to XXX connections over ABQ , STL, ELP, MSY, HOU, etc. I assume this will probably not involve any new a/c for now.

(BTW, can someone clarify for me when DIRECT service to non-neighboring-state stations may begin, e.g., DAL-ELP-SAN without a plane change; is it 8 years, the same as when NONSTOP DAL-SAN could begin?)

As we get into 2007 and the new a/c (35 or so?) arrive, where will they end up flying? Needless to say, I hope to see some new flights from SAN, perhaps to RNO, DEN and HOU for starters...

What do you folks think?

bb

[Edited 2006-10-16 01:58:58]

MSP wouldn't surprise me with some type of service to some of the above.

FYI,

The bill has already been signed by President Bush. If WN wanted to, they could start flights today. What the law states is that a pax can fly from DAL to SAN, using your example, but they MUST stop in a state that is not bound by the Wright Amendment. Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri and I think Mississippi is also included.

So you could fly DAL-ELP-SAN or DAL-OKC-SAN, DAL-ABQ-SAN or even do a routing of DAL-LBB(my hometown !!)-SAN (possibly??)

Would a DAL-LBB-SAN be okay with the new law?

The 8 year rule is for non-stops.

Finally, how many people think that the former Legend Terminal will be torn down? I think the City of Dallas is in for a loooong legal fight over that terminal, personally. FYI, The City of Dallas was to claim eminent domain over that terminal and tear it down to comply with the gate limit imposed by the new law.

I believe any new growth will come from existing routes by adding more frequencies... but I think they could do better by adding bigger jets.

I'm surprised that WN will not pursue -800 or -900. I really hope they revaluate this as the cost of getting an additional 737 types for an airline this large is almost meaningless.

Cheers,

Ric

Quoting JayDavis (Reply 2): The bill has already been signed by President Bush. If WN wanted to, they could start flights today.

Not yet, the FAA has to approve one final thing before WN can start offering this.

Quoting JayDavis (Reply 2): but they MUST stop in a state that is not bound by the Wright Amendment. Oklahoma, New Mexico, Arkansas, Louisiana, Missouri and I think Mississippi is also included.

These are the states--Texas, Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, New Mexico, Mississippi, Missouri, Kansas, and Alabama.

Quoting JayDavis (Reply 2): Would a DAL-LBB-SAN be okay with the new law?

Yes because LBB is in a state under the law-Texas.

Quoting JayDavis (Reply 2): The 8 year rule is for non-stops.

Correct, once FAA approves this, WN can offer any flights to anywhere out fo DAL through the states mentioned, then after 8 yrs WN can offer non stop flights out of DAL to anywhere in the country.

Ric,

If you get bigger 737's, you're going to have to add a 4th flight attendant which will cause their unit costs to increase. This has been discussed many times over on other WN threads. FYI.

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 3): I'm surprised that WN will not pursue -800 or -900. I really hope they revaluate this as the cost of getting an additional 737 types for an airline this large is almost meaningless.

In a way the -800 IS meaningless because the -700 can do everything the -800 can do minus a few passengers.

-800 requires an extra F/A and WN can't see the cost of adding another F/A yet.

Alex

Jay, thanks for the quick reply but I still am unclear after your response. I know I will be able to buy a ticket from DAL to SAN but can WN operate a DIRECT flight from DAL to ELP and SAN -- same plane, same flight #? Or do they still have to end the flight from DAL in ELP (the current restriction?)

bb

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 3): I'm surprised that WN will not pursue -800 or -900. I really hope they revaluate this as the cost of getting an additional 737 types for an airline this large is almost meaningless.

I think there is a chance WN may buy the 737-800 for use primarily on transcontinental routes, especially from Los Angeles (LAX) to the US East Coast and from the US Northeast down to Florida.

Quoting SANFan (Reply 7): Jay, thanks for the quick reply but I still am unclear after your response. I know I will be able to buy a ticket from DAL to SAN but can WN operate a DIRECT flight from DAL to ELP and SAN -- same plane, same flight #? Or do they still have to end the flight from DAL in ELP (the current restriction?)

Nope they can use same flight numbers, they currently use the same plane already, just couldn't use the same flight number.

Now they can do everything.

Example, Aircraft N315SW is assigned to fly DAL-ELP-SAN, as flight number 234. This is what would happen in the new law.

Before it was N315SW would do flight 234 DAL-ELP, then the flight NUMBER would change for ELP-SAN but not the aircraft.

Alex

Ray,

As I said above, don't look for WN to get the 800 as it would require another flight attendant. They are not going to increase their unit cost, plus, adding another F/A would cause another whole set of schedule problems, I'm guessing.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 8): I think there is a chance WN may buy the 737-800 for use primarily on transcontinental routes, especially from Los Angeles (LAX) to the US East Coast and from the US Northeast down to Florida.

It is not going to happen.

Quoting JayDavis (Reply 5): If you get bigger 737's, you're going to have to add a 4th flight attendant which will cause their unit costs to increase. This has been discussed many times over on other WN threads. FYI.

So every other airline who opts for -800 is wrong? WN is not the holy grail and whatever they do is perfect. IMHO, I think this is flaw, they continually sell out on many flights on a daily basis. They could quickly add capacity on those flights. Yes, it will add an addition FA but they can also sell at least another 30, if not 60+ with 739.

738 has outsold the 737 for a VERY GOOD reason.

Bring us some 737's to ABE!!!!

I don't know how big the market would be from ABE to LAS or other popular tourist destinations, but I know I'd love to see the 73G's here.

TIS

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 12): IMHO, I think this is flaw, they continually sell out on many flights on a daily basis.

Sold out flights or more seats to fill and an extra crew member added to the mix, what choice would you make!

Quoting Atrude777 (Reply 4): Not yet, the FAA has to approve one final thing before WN can start offering this.

Only thing they have to do is say the airspace can accomodate the additional flights which the FAA has already said will not be a problem.

LUV2FLY, I would choose the following:

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 14): more seats to fill and an extra crew member added to the mix

WN will find no issue selling 30-60 more seats during a prime time slots. so more seats equals more revenue. More revenue equals to high share prices. Yippee for me!!!!

Now, my question to you is if you have the option to either either add more frequencies with -700 jets or upgrade current frequencies with larger -800 or -900.

Which do you think has a higher risk of failure? -800 is not a new Boeing creation... most airlines purchase the -800 including the highly successful Ryanair...

Quoting SANFan (Thread starter): (BTW, can someone clarify for me when DIRECT service to non-neighboring-state stations may begin, e.g., DAL-ELP-SAN without a plane change; is it 8 years, the same as when NONSTOP DAL-SAN could begin?)

Part of the confusion is over what "direct" means, and many erroneously equate "direct" with "non-stop". In the context to new service, DAL-SAN is non-stop (and we cant't do that for 8 years. DAL-ELP-SAN with the same flight number (and no change of planes in ELP) is a direct flight, and we'll be able to legally do those any day now, once FAA notifies Congress that the new law won't adversely affect the North Texas airspace.

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 16): WN will find no issue selling 30-60 more seats during a prime time slots. so more seats equals more revenue.

Not if you now have to discount the seats in order to fill them, more seats = more risks.

Quoting Luv2fly (Reply 18): Not if you now have to discount the seats in order to fill them, more seats = more risks.

So buying a new jet, and adding a frequency on a route is no risk at all? Adding 137 additional seats compared to a modest 30 seats is no risk? you responses are nonsensical.

Companies don't make money if they dont take on risk.

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 19): Companies don't make money if they dont take on risk.

WN being a great example at that.

Cheers,
Cameron

Quoting Longhornmaniac (Reply 20): WN being a great example at that.

I think they have been rather conservative, if you ask me.

JetBlue on the other hand takes on riskier propositions. But maybe WN will be around in 10 years and JetBlue will not. who knows... or maybe JetBlue will be the #1 carrier in the US flying globally and WN will stick with low revenue routes flying the -700.... anyone have a crystal ball?

With regards to WN adding more frequencies vs new Cities I think the biggest beneficiaries of this strategy would be PHL, ISP, HOU and Denver.

I could see new routes from PHL to St.Louis, Kansas City, Denver, Buffalo, Indianapolis, New Orleans, Norfolk.

From HOU to San Diego, Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Salt Lake City, Sacramento, Reno, Seattle, Washington Dulles, Raleigh, Islip.

From ISP to Pittsburgh, Washington Dulles, Houston Hobby, Phoenix.

From DEN to Oakland, San Jose, Reno, Sacramento, Ontario, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, St.Louis, Albuquerque, Boise, Portland, Seattle, Spokane.

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 21): JetBlue on the other hand takes on riskier propositions. But maybe WN will be around in 10 years and JetBlue will not. who knows... or maybe JetBlue will be the #1 carrier in the US flying globally and WN will stick with low revenue routes flying the -700.... anyone have a crystal ball?

I think those of us (myself included) that are fans of WN always want them to go faster, add new destinations, fly internationally, fly bigger planes, etc. It is only natural. However, WN is where they are for a simple reason - methodical patience in growth. They have NO problems if they were to remain the size they are now, making the profit they make now with a bit of improvement every year. It is not about how big they get, it is about hos consistently profitable they can be. Why would they gamble big? For a shot of claiming 5 years from now that they serve xx new cities and have yy new planes? No.

It may be frustrating to some observers, but the boom/bust, add-retire planes, add-retire cities of other airlines is even more messy. Let them grow slowly with the 73G. That is a plane that is small enough to start a new route or a new frequency, but large enough to make money once it is started.

An E190 is a good size to start a new route/frequency, but has a bigger limitation on how much money it can make (vs 73G). An A320 or 738 is great to make money on a developed route, but is a bit too big to start a new route/frequency.

Jetblue chose an E190/A320 combination. WN chose an all 73G fleet (leaving out the older aicraft for now). I like WN's hand here. And when 737RS comes out, they'll start rotating in the new 150 seater version into the fleet. Let them continue to grow slowly with a single a/c size. There is nothing broken in that formula.

Quoting RayChuang (Reply 8): I think there is a chance WN may buy the 737-800 for use primarily on transcontinental routes, especially from Los Angeles (LAX) to the US East Coast and from the US Northeast down to Florida.

If and i mean If WN was to get a larger plane (say because they can't get 73Gs fast enough) they would go with the 739er. I has the comparably range to the -700 and enough extra lift to make the pax and cargo potential great enough to make a good profit and i'm pretty sure Boeing would give them to WN for the same if not very close to the price of the -700

One of the reasones why WN is so successful is their frequencies in some markets. They would rather add additional flights then buy a different plane type (per company press releases). All of their planes need 2 pilots and 3 flight attendants and when a plane goes tech, they can plug one of 400+ planes in it and have the current crew operate it. I know the 735's offer fewer seats, so that's not a good comparison, but they pride themselves on the flexibility that they currently have.

I think that it will be some time before they add an additional aircraft type, either being a -800 or a completely different make and model. Why mess with a formula that when it isn't broke and WN has done the analysis and the way things are now work the best for them at present.

And for the current topic...I think they have so many opportunities to increase their flights from current cities with additional frequencies and additional pairs. They opened what 3 or 4 new cities in 2006 and they have grown relatively slow in addition to rebuilding their schedule from New Orleanes.

Give them time, WN knows that can not be everything to everyone and they don't want to be. Gary Kelly has stated that the best avg LF is in the mid to upper 70's as they believe that above that you start to lose passengers because of costs. They will continue on as they have done for so many years.

Just my thoughts.

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 12): So every other airline who opts for -800 is wrong? WN is not the holy grail and whatever they do is perfect. IMHO, I think this is flaw, they continually sell out on many flights on a daily basis. They could quickly add capacity on those flights. Yes, it will add an addition FA but they can also sell at least another 30, if not 60+ with 739. 738 has outsold the 737 for a VERY GOOD reason.

I think you mean to say that the 738 has outsold the 73G.  

The 73G fits WN's model very well. Adding the extra F/A will really mess up their crew scheduling. WN has tailored itself and its operations to the 733, 735 and 73G. Adding the 738 or 739 would signifigantly change the crew scheduling process. It may not seem like much, but given the size of WN, this could become quite a burden.

I am sure that WN has performed extensive analysis on exactly what this might cost and how they would overcome it. But, at the present time, WN doesn't feel like they can justify the cost of it. You say in your post that WN should add capacity to "prime" flights.

Ok, let's say we do that.... You have flights that come in with 73G's and those that come in with 738's. What does that extra F/A do? He/she can't turn back with the A/C everytime. Does that F/A non-rev out on the next flight? Or RON until the next day? What do you do in irregular ops? Will you be able to find an extra F/A to staff the 738? What happens to the other flights if you "pull" a F/A from somewhere?

Other airlines have found solutions to these problems. WN probably has thought about it as well, but they just feel that this would complicate their current staffing and scheduling model. And, the cost of these complications most likely has been determined to outweight the potential benefits.

Currently, WN chooses to add frequency to routes when the demand warrants it.

Additonally, there is the issue of the turn times with adding the extra capacity of the 738. It may not seem like much, but WN's turn times are the quickest in the industry. It takes awhile for pax to load and unload. A few minutes' difference between the 73G and 738 may not seem like much, but given that WN's planes may perform 5 or 6 turns in a day that starts to add up. A few late turns and it starts to muck with the flight schedules.

Now, I'm not saying that every carrier that orders the 738 is wrong. The bottom line is that EACH 737 model is unique and each airline is unique. There always exists the best solution to a unique problem. In this case, the 73G fits with WN's model best.

The 738 is a GREAT plane, and so is the 73G. Now, don't be saying that the 73G sucks because its larger sibling outsells it.  

[Edited 2006-10-16 07:07:59]

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 21): I think they have been rather conservative, if you ask me.

I was more referring to their foray into the LCC market, which, 30 years ago, was risky, especially with big boys American and Braniff in town.

Cheers,
Cameron

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 23): Let them grow slowly with the 73G. That is a plane that is small enough to start a new route or a new frequency, but large enough to make money once it is started.

I agree completely with your post, Baron. The smaller 737s are the perfect a/c for WN's business model: it can be used to introduce a new route without haveing to fill 150+ from the get-go but, as the route matures, you can keep cranking up the frequency gradually. This not only provides additional capacity on the route as a whole, but also gives travelers more choice of departure (and arrival) times.

I can speak specifics out of SAN. OAK flights now number 20/day; that's about 2,700 seats a day but spread out over 20 separate planes between 6:30 am and 9:30 pm; the departures are compressed to about every 30 minutes at peak times and still very frequent the rest of the day. If LF are in the 75-80% range with that kind of frequency, that's a win-win situation for the pax and the airline!

Then there's SAN-SAT. One flight, a fairly light market, but still apparently enough traffic for one nonstop that no other carrier bothers offering, yet still makes a profit for WN. At a 78% LF, that would mean about 105 pax a day fly that city pair, plus additional pax headed for MCO on the same plane. (FareMeasure shows 251 pax/day SAN-SAT.) As the route matures, more 135-pax sections of capacity can be added. (That happened earlier this year when SAN-AUS and SAN-MCI flights were doubled up.)

I look forward to 2007 as we will see about 35 new planes used just to add new P-T-P routes (between existing cities) or to increase capacity on current city-pairs.

I noticed SAN-DEN Saturday-only service is re-appearing on a future schedule; I wish I knew if that was a good thing or a bad thing. We've seen it before and so far, it has not turned into permenant, daily service. I keep expecting one of these days, WN is going to throw about 5 planes at DEN-California (OAK, SAN, LAX, SMF, BUR, etc.) and cause a few ripples in the aviation industry.

I also can now hope to see DIRECT service soon between SAN and Love Field. Good to see AA's 9 or 10 daily Mad Dogs may finally have some sort of competition to Texas!

Thanks to those of you who threw out some ideas about where we might see some WN expansion next year.

bb

WN will be Adding Flights out of PIT in 2007

Quoting B6WNQX (Reply 25): One of the reasons why WN is so successful is their frequencies in some markets. They would rather add additional flights then buy a different plane type (per company press releases). All of their planes need 2 pilots and 3 flight attendants and when a plane goes tech, they can plug one of 400+ planes in it and have the current crew operate it. I know the 735's offer fewer seats, so that's not a good comparison, but they pride themselves on the flexibility that they currently have.

Not only would there be problems with F/As for staffing if a -800 has a mechanical but also with paxs. Right now if a -700 has a mechanical you can replace it with another -700 or a -300 and still carry 137 paxs. If you replace a -700 with a -500 you would have to bump only 15 paxs. If SWA got -800 it would be configured for about 187 paxs. If that plane had a mechanical it could only be replaced by another -800 as replacing it with a -700 would mean bumping about 50 paxs. SWA prides itself on simplicity and flexibility. Getting the -800 would reduce that simplicity and flexibility.

Traditional network carriers have integrated multiple 737 models and the 738 because many of their flights are out and back because of their predominate hub and spoke networks. In the case of WN, they operate in the point to point model with many through flights with multiple legs.

For this reason flexibility is important for WN. If they have a mechanical issue on the first leg of a 5 leg trip the rest of the segments would be off because of a 738 substitution for a 735, 733, or 73G. I don't know how WN maintains reserve aircraft, but I would wager that they are only at larger cities ie DAL, MDW, LAX, LAS, BWI. So a mechanical in BNA on the way to MCI might take multiple legs to fix. Most network carriers would only be a leg away from a large hub where they could swap out a replacement plane.

As for the Legend Terminal:

I saw the SW Regional Marketing Manager for WN speak at a luncheon a few months ago where they discussed the repeal of the Wright Amendment in detail. It seems that the Legend terminal MUST be torn down as it's gates are counted in the total count of available gates at DAL. And as part of the repeal DAL is gate restricted and the Legend building would put DAL over the limit.

IMHO, that's a nice building that I am sure that someone could find a use for. It would make one hell of an FBO. Take the jetways out and make it an Exxon Aviat or similar.

Has anyone else ever used the Legend building for anything since the demise of Legend? Everytime I ever looked at it, it was vacant.

Quoting BoeingBus (Reply 21): JetBlue on the other hand takes on riskier propositions. But maybe WN will be around in 10 years and JetBlue will not. who knows... or maybe JetBlue will be the #1 carrier in the US flying globally and WN will stick with low revenue routes flying the -700.... anyone have a crystal ball?

My crystal ball: JetBlue will not be around... But that's another thread..

Quoting Baron95 (Reply 23): I think those of us (myself included) that are fans of WN always want them to go faster, add new destinations, fly internationally, fly bigger planes, etc. It is only natural. However, WN is where they are for a simple reason - methodical patience in growth

Exactly. Growth should not be a prime business objective in itself. Profitability should. Many other airlines could learn from this.

Quoting 737tanker (Reply 30): If you replace a -700 with a -500 you would have to bump only 15 paxs. If SWA got -800 it would be configured for about 187 paxs

Would WN really put in 187 seats in a 738? That's the maximum config, FR has 188 and I'm pretty sure that WN offers more legroom than FR.. or?

Kevin777

How about some flights to NYC?

Honestly not one New Yorker goes to ISP

As a resident of North Jersey I can tell you that nwih am I driving down to PHL or ISP as two hours + traffic just isn't worth it. ABE could serve a decent portion of Northern Jersey, as well as Newburgh which can be a NY alternative as well.

What's with the same old- try something new WN- there's a huge demand up here and B6's "Low Fares" dont cut it. -dont get me wrong I love Jetblue

MSP MSP MSP!!!!

I hope for some MSP service.

Quoting Jbmitt (Reply 31): For this reason flexibility is important for WN. If they have a mechanical issue on the first leg of a 5 leg trip the rest of the segments would be off because of a 738 substitution for a 735, 733, or 73G. I don't know how WN maintains reserve aircraft, but I would wager that they are only at larger cities ie DAL, MDW, LAX, LAS, BWI.

WN (as do most carriers) doesn't have reserve aircraft sitting around waiting for some other aircraft to have a mechanical. What WN does is what we call "musical airplanes". That is the crew with the broken airplane takes a good aircraft from another crew. The 2nd crew then waits and take the aircraft from a 3rd crew. That keeps going until the original aircraft is fixed. It is a lot cheaper to do that than have a $37M aircraft sitting around and not earning money.

Quoting Jbmitt (Reply 31): I don't know how WN maintains reserve aircraft, but I would wager that they are only at larger cities ie DAL, MDW, LAX, LAS, BWI.

No reserve aircraft here.

Quoting Jbmitt (Reply 31): If they have a mechanical issue on the first leg of a 5 leg trip the rest of the segments would be off because of a 738 substitution for a 735, 733, or 73G.

Not necessarily, in fact, rarely is that the case. If something breaks, we start swapping aircraft to spread the delay (for getting the busted aircraft back in service) and maintain the schedule.

Neither is having a large capacity aircraft breakdown and only having smaller capacity to replace it with all that big a concern. There are several options by which this can be handled, including re-routing some passengers on different routings, or even flag-stopping another aircraft into the city with the busted aircraft to "rescue" the passengers. Neither is staffing a theoretical -800 with a 4th F/A--our computer systems are robust enough where I really don't see this as the insurmountable obstacle some people seem to think it is...

Quoting WN57787 (Reply 29): WN will be Adding Flights out of PIT in 2007

Honestly it is about time! Do you know Pittsburgh is on the agenda for sure?

Quoting STT757 (Reply 22): From ISP to Pittsburgh, Washington Dulles, Houston Hobby, Phoenix. From DEN to Oakland, San Jose, Reno, Sacramento, Ontario, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, St.Louis, Albuquerque, Boise, Portland, Seattle, Spokane.

Be nice if WN could add a DEN-ISP flight in there. Going back to Long Island each year would be a lot easier and cheaper to do.

signed,
Matthew

Looks like there will be a press conference at 10:00 central time on Tuesday to announce the new services that will be available for sale on Thursday....

MSY growth is a no-brainer.....return of the LAX, SAN, and PHL nonstops are to be expected, along with greater frequencies to PHX, FLL, MCO, BNA.....and a return to BHM would be nice.

Tom at MSY

We were notified a short time that the FAA has signed off on the WA repeal, everything is now a go and the 8 year countdown has begun.

wnsocal

Quoting CentPIT (Reply 38): Honestly it is about time! Do you know Pittsburgh is on the agenda for sure?

ya will see the new service early in 2007

I for one am looking forward to that press conference tomorrow morning and the new schedule on Thursday; sure didn't take the folks in Dallas long! (I have a feeling they've been working on this for a while, with big smiles.)

Exciting times for WN and Love Field, as well as the rest of us. Thanks for the news OPNL.

bb

Got a glimpse of our base sked for TPA starting sometime in January, had two new non-stops to an unknown city that were about an hour and a half flight time. Not sure if it's definetly a new city, but since it wasn't listed, I'm bound to believe that it may be.

The news release is up on WN's website!: "Wright Amendment Reform Act of 2006 Enacted Into Law; Southwest Airlines Offers Customers $99 One-Way Fares and Increased Travel Options From Dallas Love Field".

Included is the following:
"By Thursday, Oct. 19, Southwest Airlines Customers can take full advantage of 25 new destinations from Dallas Love Field Airport: Baltimore/Washington, Chicago Midway, Cleveland, Columbus, Denver, Detroit, Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Louisville, Nashville, Oakland, Omaha, Orlando, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Portland, Sacramento, Salt Lake City, San Diego, Seattle/Tacoma, Tampa Bay, and Tucson." Apparently the $99 fares will be offered to all of these destinations for travel thru March 9, 2007.

Sounds like these will be the cities most likely to receive a direct flight or two or at least 1-stop connections to DAL. (These are the cities that pretty much have nonstop service to at least one of the current 18 DAL nonstop destinations such as ELP, ABQ, MCI, STL, HOU, etc.)

No schedules are in sight yet nor even any idea of when flights will begin altho they do indicate schedules will be available for sale by Oct 19... I have noticed that the WN downloadable flight sked's that used to go into March of next year currently stop on 11-04-06. I wonder if Nov 5 will be the start date for at least some of the new DAL service?

I bet things are hopping in the big "D" today!!! Congrat's WN.

bb

Quoting WN57787 (Reply 43): ya will see the new service early in 2007

What destinations can I expect to see from WN in Pittsburgh?

Quoting CentPIT (Reply 47): What destinations can I expect to see from WN in Pittsburgh?

will have to Wait UN-tell its officially announced... What i can say is thare is more flts out of pit on the way

Quoting WN57787 (Reply 48): What i can say is thare is more flts out of pit on the way

Are these going to be announced Thursday (if you can say)? Also, do you know of any new ones out of OMA (unlikely) or LAS?