The truth of the matter is...if a small community suffers a significant economic hardship from the loss of an airline, then they were far too reliant on it to begin with.

It's the community that should be subsidizing the airline to continue some level of service. Asking the federal government to step in because the 20 people/week that need to fly from Podunk to BigCity for a connection flight isn't fair to the other 300 million American taxpayers. If Podunk needs that service so badly, then they can a.) pay to keep it or b.) buy a few shuttle buses and give their residents free rides to the gateway airport.

Would echo comments by others that it's not just US Airways. Have been checking fares from ATL for some time on NW and don't like what I'm seeing. If AirTran is having a sale they'll nominally match it around $300, but there WON'T BE ANY SEATS if you check on ITA, so the match is pretty useless. Things *might* get a little better in the fall, but clearly airlines want to reduce flying to LAS.

The problem, of course, is LAS being seen as leisure-only, and only the most price-resistant vacationers want to go there at $200 RT. UA, for one, used it as a dumping ground for Ted flights.

It might be that carriers like Allegiant and, of course, Southwest really dominate. With WN, though, do people really want to have to connect and go through multiple cattle-car processes?

Ironically, LAS is not a bad deal from the leisure traveler's perspective if you can stay away from the tables. I'll usually go there for 4 weekdays, stay either downtown or at a cheapie big-pool place like the Sahara (big-pool places are nice in summer), and use the CAT buses for 3 of the four days, renting a car only on the last one.

Honolulu has also taken some hits, what with Aloha and ATA going away. At least LAS isn't 100% dependent on air travel like Hawaii is.

And destroying Las Vegas's tourism industry is a bad thing because....?

Each to their own I guess. I've been there twice, driving through, and thought it a fairly good approximation of what hell will be like for me.

Exactly.

Any entity in LAS that fears a reduction in flights will cause a decrease in business is more than welcome to subsidize air travel to get people to come and play.

Better yet, they can send me a check or blackjack vouchers and cut out the middle airline.

I'm sure WN will be more than happy to fill in the gaps at Las Vegas, just like they did at San Jose, Oakland, Baltimore, and other airports that US or its predecessor carriers abandoned.

As opposed to the comfortable, convenient, premium service that US offered?

I am not a fan of WN's, but their coach offering (and connection process) are both vastly superior to US today. And they've got a far better FF program for domestic travelers to boot.

If SW allowed "rapid rewards" redemptions with a major European and a major Asian carrier, I'd be flying them out of Philly instead of US.

So don't knock 'em too hard. If they got smart, they'd pick up a few dozen extra 737s and some 767s for European service and knock US out of Philadelphia entirely. Literally the only thing US has going for it now is its hub monopoly here.

It'll be a new era when we see orange and blue 737's parked at LGW, CDG, etc. And yes, WN can fly 737's(NGs) to europe. They'll just have to make it an all biz cabin. I wouldn't put it past them.....

I haven't read anything that says WN is rushing to add service at LAS. They certainly aren't going to take over the red-eye bank. WN is smart about such things - they aren't going add capacity just for the sake of adding capacity.

Right now WN is more than happy to concentrate on building up DEN and they added SFO service - they're waiting for UA's demise so they can become the dominant carrier at those airports.

WN has a discipline in what they do that most other airlines lack. It's why they didn't rush in and add 100 flights to PIT, despite the predictions of online armchair critics. It's why they won't rush in to add tons of flights to LAS. IF there's a need they'll add them.

And that's the difference - legacies will add the routes hoping to build the need; WN waits until there's a perceived need and then adds the routes chasing off any weak competitors.

Took the words right out of my mouth. Add PIT to your list of dead airports now served by WN.

Is fuel really the only reason that WN can run these routes effectively and other carriers cannot? Because it seems to me US Airways destroyed PIT long before oil was $130 a barrel.....

And let's not forget AMERICAN AIRLINES and what THEY did to
San Jose, Nashvile, and Raleigh, CONTINENTAL and what THEY did to Denver and Greensboro, AWA and what THEY did to Columbus, SKYBUS and what they did to Greensboro and Columbus...it goes on and on and is not centered around US Airways.

America West started with the concept of dual hubs in PHX and LAS. The goal was to increase aircraft utilization by operating a normal, daytime hub in PHX. Then, rather than sitting on the ground all night long, the early evening arrival in the spoke city turns to a "night flight" to LAS (which connected to one of two banks of nighttime flights at LAS).

When fuel was cheaper and fares (inflation-adjusted) were higher about 10 years ago, this concept worked well. The LAS traffic just had to cover the marginal cost of operating the flight (fuel plus staffing) because the aircraft was already paid for by the daytime flights.

At $135 fuel, it just doesn't make good business sense anymore. If fuel goes back down, you may see a re-opened nighttime hub at LAS for US.

Rusty, I guess you have not flown WN or experienced their new boarding system. It beats 100 elites fighting to board first. Also since LAS is WN largest city there are few connections to LAS. Thirdly, I would rather connect in a non hub city than ORD, DTW, MSP etc

Vegas is more worried about what may happen if National Airlines doesn't work out. If National Airlines doesn't work out, Vegas is DOOMED! Or not.

Certainly very interesting. Me and the lads go to Veags at least twice a year because you cant go wrong paying anything from �350-�450 for a flight (hotel is generally free). However, if the prices start to go up to �600+....that won�t be happening.

The problem Vegas is having, is what our low cost airlines in Europe are facing. Ryanair and easyjet are taking a bashing with the oil prices. The last few years we have taken �lads weekends� to loads of places Ryanair travel, because it only cost �20-�35 round trip. However, looking at prices, what was once say �35, is now �95.....we won�t go for that price.....and this is the problem, where as people would go for such a cheap flight, they simply won�t any more!

What I would like to know is what is going to happen to the airlines? Surely if oil keeps going up, prices go up, people fly less....that tells me a lot of airlines are going bust???

That's supply and demand, the free market economy at work.

US (and other airlines) had many opportunities to save cash during good times and come up with solutions that did not alienate loyal passengers when times got tough.

Instead, US chose to screw the pooch with their gross incompetence and their weak attempt to look like a LCC that charges full whack for services.