I think I hear Spirit that they will relocate to Miami. I can't figure it out why they want move to MIA. FLL has no gates. They don't have enough gates space available. MIA has a lots gates. It won't be any problem.

Hawaii is going to be delayed until WN is ready to run a loss leader of a route. Most airlines only offer it as a way to burn miles out of frequent flyer programs. Maybe after all the standard awards are flushed out or eliminated they can consider it. Set all the fares to anytime and start cleaning out the liability RR is carrying.

Yeah Spirit is talking about picking up and moving to MIA since there is more room for them. Would help WN since it would open up some gates then to allow for the international expansion planned for that station.

Only if you take a much longer route up over Greenland and Iceland. ETOPS 120/138 is needed for any flight from US to Europe.

Whatever. IMO, 50 brand new destinations is not happening. Sounds to me like bluster designed to tickle analyst's ears.

Hawaii service should start up any day now!

50 new would be what , 30% overall increase? They have ~ 100 now

Are there even say 30 in the lower 48 that do have mainline service but not WN today ? CVG being an example.

There certainly are fifty new destinations within reach of a 737 (and easier, a MAX 8) from WN strongholds in LAX/PHX/HOU/FLL (and more). Just look at a JetBlue route map of the Caribbean - most anywhere B6 can afford to use an A320 or E90, WN can take a 737. http://www.jetblue.com/WhereWeJet/



Look at every airport in Mexico that gets mainline AA/US/UA.

Look at every airport in Canada that gets year-round service on WestJet to the Southwest or Florida.

HNL/OGG/LIH/KOA.

The problem isn't lack of opportunities - the issues are boldness to try and the ability to carry it out it foreign markets. As my examples show, they've been beaten to market time and time again.

All that's besides the point. I'm merely asking for consistent use of the word/term destination. If Southwest wants to announce they will be offering new non-stop service from DAL to 15 existing destinations, then don't say this:

"Dallas-based Southwest (NYSE: LUV) will add 15 new domestic destinations from Love Field in October and November but the opportunity exists for many more, he said."

Say this:

"Dallas-based Southwest (NYSE: LUV) will add non-stop service to 15 domestic destinations from Love Field in October and November but the opportunity exists for many more, he said."

It's not what you say, but how you say it. Even the reporter had to contact GK to get clarification on the 50 new destinations remark.

Figures don't lie, but.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lies,_d...and_statistics

You weren't asking for consistent use. You asked what the word destination meant in relation to the 15 destination from DAL comment.

When GK was talking about 50 new destinations, he was talking about the WN network ("compared to 96 today"). In order to add a new destination to the WN network, it must be a new dot.

When GK was talking about adding 15 new destinations from DAL in Oct./Nov., he was talking about DAL. These could be either new dots or new lines, but as WN had already announced the 15 new Oct./Nov. DAL destinations, it is clear what "destinations from DAL" is defined as. Lines on a map.

I have no idea what you're trying to accomplish here other than to try to be insufferable. I *am* asking for a consistent use of the term by asking just what WN's definition that word is. It seems to have two meanings: one meaning being new dots and the other new, non-stop service from DAL.

You can assume all you want what GK was talking about - you may be correct. But a new destination to me and just about everyone else is an actual new dot/city - not a line on a map representing a non-stop city pair. If you're fine with WN or GK using the same term to imply two different things, that's your prerogative. I'm not. So be it.

I get where you're coming from even if someone else doesn't. The language seems to suggest they see the new n/s destinations from DAL as new destinations.

But in the end, I just don't see it happening. I'm sure they'll end up adding some; but 50? Yeah, right. IMO, that's simply a pipe dream.

Yeah, I didn't think my asking for Southwest to use consistent terms would stir up such a big pot...

I, too, don't believe Southwest is going to be adding 50 new dots, at least not any time soon. How long did it take to add there last 50? I think this is just a broad proclamation by GK to investors and the competition that WN has no plans to slow growth/expansion.

Talk about confusing doublespeak. Corporate Executives are masters at it.

Could he possibly mean that international destinations will eventually be opened to connecting flights rather than the handful of possibilities that exist today? I can't go ISP to anywhere today. That would consuming 50 in a hurry.

You were wondering what "destination" meant in the context of "Dallas-based Southwest (NYSE: LUV) will add 15 new domestic destinations from Love Field in October and November but the opportunity exists for many more, he said."

As a courtesy, I supplied you with the definition of "destination" in the context of the quote, along with a list of the specific destinations being referred to.

You responded with "All that's besides the point." No, really, it's not beside the point. It IS the point. If instead of saying, "Still wondering what the definition of 'destination' is", you said "I know what WN is saying, but I wish they would've said non-stop destinations from DAL instead of destinations from DAL." then it would be clear that you're not wondering, you're just complaining.

I'm not assuming a single thing. The 15 new DAL destinations in Oct. and Nov., the time frame that GK was speaking of, were announced a long time ago. I gave you a list because you were "wondering." WN wasn't using this to, as you say in your complaint, "announce they will be offering new non-stop service from DAL to 15 existing destinations."

Additionally, news articles announce new lines on the map as "new destinations from ABC" all of the time, because they are new destinations from ABC!

Perhaps you should take your own advice:

That would not add to the number of destinations as stated in the context of the 50 destinations sentence. The 50 new WN destinations must be in addition to the 96 current WN destinations.