Airlines....

As we all know flying today is just horrible.

If you believe flying is horrible, it will be horrible. If you assume a "it is what it is" attitude, you'll probably find it much more enjoyable. The key is realistic expectations. Expect no crowds, no delays, no overzealous security agents etc. and when you are met with the very, very likely crowds, delays, overzealous security agents etc. you will be sorely disappointed and decide that it's all a horrible experience. But if you go into it knowing all the possible things that can happen and plan for those possibilities, I find it's really not that bad.

Anyway, to the OP, I'm kind of ambivalent toward Southwest. They entered my home market a few years ago to much fanfare, with everyone raving about how much flight prices would thus drop since "Southwest is always cheaper." Ha! I frequently find them more expensive than Delta. It is closer to evening out when you factor in bag fees/no bag fees, but frequently they are still more expensive. I have flown them a few times, but generally prefer Delta. DL has a much more extensive presence at my home airport, which means easier and more logical connections for my typical travel patterns, especially for international travel, I have the possibility of 1st class upgrades, I can choose my seat, and I can kill time during a layover with time in a DL Sky Club. Oh, and I get free checked bags with Delta thanks to status, so that "perk" of Southwest is irrelevant to me. YMMV :)

I'm not a fan, but admit I fly them on a very rare basis. Lately their flights have usually been late for me (which makes sense since they're one of the most delayed airlines in the country, and the most delayed mainline carrier in the country). Also, despite my traveling for a living and racking up more than a million BIS miles in the last 9 years, they're the only airline to have destroyed a bag of mine. Twice.

But they're also the largest airline at my home airport; though I'm usually willing to connect to avoid them.

I rarely find them cheaper.

Past two cruises and hopefully next one this December we have flown SW. Each time we do the early bird option for all flights. What is nice is when you get off the cruise, you have been checked in technically by SW and assigned a spot at 36 hours ahead vs 24 hrs ahead. It's worked great so far for us. If we have to fly another airline, we would have an assigned seat so no problem.

We liked them. Their planes are nice and clean and we liked the free luggage.

What I don't like is that they don't release their rates as early as other carriers. I mean I know that's part of their marketing strategy so you just have to go with it.

What we usually do is look at delta or american first and if there's something that we know we are willing to book and pay for, then we book that. I generally get an idea of what Southwest charges by looking at the route I want to book, just a different weekend. Their wanna get away fares are all relatively similar for the same routes. They really don't fluctuate too much.

I agree with setting an alarm and checking in 24 hours in advance to get a good boarding pass. If you are on a cruise for your return flight and really must sit next to your partner they offer the service where they will check you in and you don't have to worry about it. That is really nice when you are on a cruise and the internet is spotty. We used that last time and got an A boarding pass each flight.

I can't really say I prefer Southwest, I guess I do if the price is right. I really prefer Delta. But, free luggage is quite nice. If they get me there cheaper I'll happily use them!

I'm not a big fan of WN and haven't flown them in 15+ years. The main reason is their fares out of SoCal to the places I travel are higher than other airlines. I always check and compare WN fares, and if I buy tickets before WN releases their fares, I check back later out of curiosity and have never found an example where I would have saved by waiting.

That said, I'm flying WN several times SNA-SJC over the next several months. They're the only remaining airline with nonstops; AA, UA, DL, VX, and B6 require using another airport on one or both ends, or the fare is far higher. Hardly makes sense to add 1-3 hours of travel time to a 45-minute flight! (SNA and SJC are both 10 minutes from the start and end of the trip). Finally an exception (after many years) where WN makes sense.

Hardly makes sense to add 1-3 hours of travel time to a 45-minute flight!

Ha! Reminds me of an Expedia search I did recently for Kansas City to Chicago that offered me a very, very reasonable routing on United...via San Francisco.

Ha! Reminds me of an Expedia search I did recently for Kansas City to Chicago that offered me a very, very reasonable routing on United...via San Francisco.

Mileage run??

Ha...considering how few miles I have with United, I would need to go via San Francisco, Los Angeles, Shanghai, Mumbai, Singapore, Perth, Johannesburg, Addis Ababa, Dubai, Paris, London, Rio, Nassau and Washington DC to get any worthwhile mileage ;)

Ha! Reminds me of an Expedia search I did recently for Kansas City to Chicago that offered me a very, very reasonable routing on United...via San Francisco.

My comment about 1-3 hours of added travel time was mainly about ground travel to alternate airports at either or both ends, if I wanted a nonstop. But good point that connecting flights also have the same issue (and much higher fares).

Reminds me of JetBlue; they first started flying exclusively out of LGB. In the past 3-5 years they've shifted almost all transcon flights to LAX, leaving regional flights and a few transcons (mostly redeyes) at LGB. People south of LA wanting to fly to Vegas, the Bay Area, etc. don't want the extra drive and hassle of LAX when LGB and SNA are nearby. At the same time, a lot of the full-fare / premium class market live and work in the western part of LA and don't want to drive down to LGB with a lot of nonstop choices at LAX. JetBlue's realignment of routes (and the Mint concept) have a lot to do with LA-area ground travel.

Waterbug123,

Yes, flying today is about maintaining a positive attitude, I agree. maybe, I should have specifically targeted customer service, which is at most times non-existent on today major airlines. Additionally, changing policies which are to the airlines distinct advantage. After over 30 years of travel for business and pleasure, I an entitled to my opinion, as well as you are.

I am not here to debate airlines. Some years I averaged over 300000 miles, some not so many. I am glad I no longer have to fly for business anymore. My time flying with Delta became progressively less enjoyable. When they did significant changes to the sky pesos, changing mileage calculations, changing cost, and admission policy to their sky clubs, I was retired. My last status on Delta was Platinum, after many years being a Diamond Apparently, CEO Anderson was targeting flyers who traveled transcontinental business and first class, when he stated they provided 80% in his airlines income. 95% of my flying was in North America in either business class or first class.

My last status on Delta was Platinum, after many years being a Diamond

Interesting, considering that the Diamond Medallion level was only begun a few years ago.

It's like the Eskimo tribes, where their entire numbering system consists of "one", "two", "three" and "many".