AA from Watertown use to go to ORD, and now goes to Philly.Both were and are very expensive.
Adding Chicago to the mix (except in Winter) swings my vote to Chicago and Boston, with Baltimore being a close 3rd.
Don’t forget, if we want to go to ALB and/or on to Boston, we can go via Ogdensburg.
Or go to SLK for a direct flight to Boston Logan.
So I think the choice comes down to a regional one. It would be nice if we could get our legislators to begin to think that way.
We don’t need all three airports flying to the same place. Note that it is 25 mi to the Massena airport, maybe 30 to Ogdensburg, and 50 to Saranac Lake.
As opposed to 85 to Ottawa (my main egress, great roads), 150 to SYR (impossible in winter), 120 to BVT (with a ferry ride), and 95-100 to YUL in Montreal (heavy traffic, but mainly interstate-grade highways).
I have used them all!
-Charlie R.
According to an article in today's North Country This Week, the list of potential destinations is Boston, Albany, Buffalo, Baltimore, or Chicago.
My two-cents worth: Chicago opens up improved connections across the country. The article is not clear on exactly how many providers (two involved) or how many destinations can be chosen. If I had to choose only one, I'd go with Chicago. I know it's not the way to Europe and points east but it can get us just about everywhere else. If they can arrange for two destinations, then Chicago and either Boston or Baltimore would offer us the most options. (And as nice as direct flights to JFK would be, that's not on the table.)
Steve Farina