>Hubs, in my opinion, suck. While it may be good for the airline, in many >cases it makes no sense for the passenger. Come on - look at a map. The >LA area is nearly due south of SEA. Yet, if you want to fly Delta, you >need to go hundreds of miles out of the way and connect in SLC! Except >for airline nuts like myself, that makes no sense whatsoever. >David R That's your personal opinion David. On the other hand hubs work. Why? They do make sense from economics perspective. They also work from pax perspective. Thanks to hubs, small to mid size cities get more destinations. For instance, a ROA-DSM market may not be economical no matter what kind of aircraft you use. On the other hand, if you route the pax through a hub <IAD, DTW, CLE, ORD, CLT, PIT> then you can pick enough pax from ROA to any of these hubs, and then route them to the other places. On the small city to hub flight you can put enough pax to justify the cost of operating from ROA to hub, and then distribute them to the various destinations. Let us not forget that airlines that are profitable have successful hub-spoke operations. AirTran in ATL, BWI; JetBlue in JFK; Alaska in SEA/PDX; etc. Yes , it may suck to transfer through a hub and wait few hours (like my flight today RIC-CVG-YUL), but I am sure if a non-stop RIC-YUL would be profitable, would already be served by now.. BAHA Fan of ComAir CRJs having leather seats compared to ACA's