Yes, Southwest's logical fare structure is a definite draw to the business traveller tired of paying 10x the cheapest fare just because he booked 3 days out instead of 30.

As for the "linear route structure", it is somewhat debatable if it "makes more sense" than a hub-and-spoke system.

The disadvantage of a point-to-point system is that the two markets have to be able to have sustained traffic between them.

How many people want to fly between Bend, OR and Binghampton, NY? One a week? If that? But maybe 300 people a week each in Bend and Binghampton want to fly to 50 different destinations?

By flying folks from Bend into PDX and then ORD or SFO, they can then branch out to their destination. And Binghampton folks can fly into ORD and IAD and then spread out to their destination.

The problem with a hub-and-spoke system is "feast or famine syndrome". There are "surge times" when maybe one hundred flights come in and go out in a 2-3 hour period, then large "slack times" where maybe a dozen flights are in action. So you need to have maximum staff on hand all the time to serve the "surge" periods, while they hang around during the "slack" times.

Also, this type of H&S system often requires multiple flights within a few minute period from destinations. A few years ago, UA ran something like three SEA-ORD and SEA-DEN flights each morning, often within five minutes of each other, to "sync up" with connections going East, TransAtlantic, or TransPacific.

American has moved to a "rolling" hub system (at least at ORD and maybe other hubs), where aircraft arrivals and departures are "spread out" to allow a smaller ground staff to be stationed, moving from plane to plane. This has evidently saved them tens of millions in labor and airport charges (being able to use less gates).