You forgot something - the 727 is the sexiest looking jet around, bar none. It looks like it was meant to fly, unlike the most of the jets flying today. To have them wasted on carrying cargo should be a capital offense. As far as MKE being a hub. My opinion is that a hub could be just about any place if an airline is going to use for transferring cattle, er, people from one spoke to another. ICT (Wichita) or GRI (Grand Island, NE) would make good hubs. Low traffic, centrally located. David R. http://home.attbi.com/~damiross http://www.secure-skies.org/ ----- Original Message ----- From: "Alireza Alivandivafa" <DEmocrat2n@xxxxxxx> To: <AIRLINE@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 4:02 PM Subject: Re: [AIRLINE] Northwest adding nonstop flights from Milwaukee to major cities > I don't think the 727 is good for much of anything but Cargo. It was a good > plane in the regulated era but burns to damn much gas, has too many crew and > too many engines to be good for an efficient opperation. I agree that the > DC-9 series is good for YX's opperation, but except for the 717, they look > old. Only AS and AA have good color schemes for the plane (well JetsGo > maybe), and only really AS's planes look really good. I think if Boeing were > to build the 300, like AirTran said they want, LH is interested in, and YX > would certainly buy, then it would be really good, but as it is, people see > them as old. This is especially true in LA, where we get AeroCalifornia -15s > that have curtains instead of shades on the windows. > As far as MKE, it has many problems. It has very little O&D traffic, it > is too close to ORD, and more importantly the other low fares at MDW, is > prone to snow problems, and is not somewhere people think of when flying > places. MCI is a good idea, as they seem to think as well, IND is not bad > but ATA and WN already have a lot of traffic there. I think MSY would be a > good place to set up a hub. Relatively central (if a bit South), big town, > both business and tourist traffic.