No, I think the point is being missed. And that is that the major difference between WN and the others is the hub and spoke system.

The hub system has two big advantages:
1) it offers an airline a way to build a very large network of city pairs served, and

2) it offers an airline a virtual monopoly on non-stop flights in the hub city

It also has big DISADVANTAGES:
1) It is operationally very difficult. Flights have to land and take off in cycles that must be carefully orchestrated. People say WN has difficulties because of its quick turn, but this is nothing compared to the difficulty of scheduling and operating a hub

2) It introduces lots more fixed costs, e.g. those of frequent routes from feeder cities into the hubs and out again. Without very high yields, the airlines will quickly drown in these fixed costs. And if they discontinue these routes, they lose a great deal of incremental business.


Now, let me address the profitability of AS and even CO. AS serves one area very well, and has a virtual monopoly in that area. Through very careful cultivation of alliances, they become an extension of other airlines (such as CO, AA etc.) instead of a threat to them. CO has done the same thing in a sense with its alliance with NW and HP. Both airlines have a virtually seamless FF program with their alliance partners.

Airlines can be very successful as virtual monopolies in a geography. And they can extend their success through alliances so other airlines feed their pax into them. But the hub system is always going to be a tough way to make a buck.