You can also be a contract airline that fills up routes for other airlines. Lots of the "operated by xyz airline" on weird routes are run by airlines that nobody has ever heard of outside of that notice on their ticket.

I mostly fly with, and credit my miles to, US Airways, but I end up on more United flights than I'd care to in order to fill some gaps (riding a turboprop direct MCI-DEN is better than flying on A319s and connecting in Phoenix). For some time now the joke about United has been that the only mainline flights left are the international routes and the hub-to-hub connections.

And then the other day I saw someone point out that there are now hub-to-hubs on United Express regional jets.

"We're Mesa Airlines, and we're ready to provide you with the nonexistent service you deserve as the bottom-feeding low-budget traveler you are!"

I mean, it's hard to say that getting terminal real estate is any easier than building an airport would be :-)

Good point. Which is evidenced by the fact that many airports aren't really 'in' the cities they are named for. Example: Cincinnati's CVG airport is actually in rural Kentucky. Cheaper land.

Not just "cheaper land" - also NIMBY because of the noise.

> it's hard to say that getting terminal real estate is any easier than building an airport would be :-)

A budget of "tens of millions" would be eaten by a small airport alone (estimates for extending and overhauling Plymouth's airport to link to international traffic and handle up to 115-seaters are 30m GBP)