Actually, the 190 was a good order decision relative to what B6 wanted to do. Its CASM is so much lower than that of the A318, it made sense for them to go that route, particularly since it was for a fleet over 50. Also, if you look at WN's first year of major growth (1982), you will see that they added a significant number of cities. But back then, there was lots of room for growth. B6's problem is that it isn't 1982 and markets need to be refined, not flooded. They have done things backward. They have started out as a medium-long haul airline, the only way their CASM numbers can go is up. WN on the other hand focused on making money on shorter hauls and now reduces their CASM numbers constantly through longer haul expansion. Beyond this, like I said before, B6 should have a booking system similar to WN's where people can choose their fare based on what they want, not just based on how many seats B6 has sold on the aircraft (which is what Open Skies does). Neelman (who developed the Open Skies system) needs to redesign it to allow them to show the full range of fares, including a higher level completely refundable fare (which they don't sell for any price) like WN does. In a message dated 2/22/2006 2:25:36 PM Central Standard Time, damiross3@xxxxxxxxxxx writes: The number one difference between WN and B6 when it comes to growth is the rate of growth. WN adds no more than 3 cities a year while B6 is adding twice as many. A high rate of growth is dangerous to an airline. Look at the original Braniff. They expanded rapidly after deregulation in 1978. They are no longer with us. B6 made a major blunder when it ordered so many aircraft for delivery in a relativley short period of time. Also made a bad decision in order the 190.