On the left it shows you're "from" NW PLat, but it does show where you're from geographically. If you think NW has nailed direct flights instead, you must live in MSP or DTW or MEM or such, no?

We who live here on the west coast think NW is a total joke for direct flights to anywhere BUT MSP or DTW or a couple other places. In particular, if you want to fly on NW from Los Angeles to the Bay Area, you have to go through MSP halfway across the country, but you can do it direct on WN. Same for Los Angeles to Silicon Vallye, to Phoenix, to Las Vegas, to Reno, to Albuquerque, to Tuscon, to Sacramento, to Albuquerque, to Salt Lake City, etc. Ie, I think what NSX meant is that Southwest has nailed direct flights on rasonably short distances where they make a lot of sense, whereas the networked carriers insist on routing everyone through one of their hubs, no matter how much sense (for a nonnetworked carrier like Southwest) it would make to fly directly.

(And while I realize that Continental or Delta may have other hubs, which of them have hubs at Los Angeles that make direct flights to all those cities I listed of possible?)

And lest you think that I picked Los Angeles because it's a Southwest hub, no it's not even close. Although Southwest has no true hubs, the closest things they have to hubs in the West are Las Vegas and Phoneix. Most all cities in the Southwest network have a much bigger variety of direct destinations than just about any non-hub city in Northwest's system or the systems of most of the networked airlines.

The networked airlines only offer an illusion of great direct service: It's only great if you live near the hub airport of one of them, and then it's only great on that one (perhaps along with its partners). But Southwest's direct service (at least to many regional destinations) is great at dozens of airports around the country, and I don't think any of the networked airlines have that many hubs, do they?