Here are onboard loads for July 2009 for Midwest and select MKE competitors. As always, remember that load is only half the picture when trying to estimate financial returns, because it suggests little or nothing about fare and traffic composition.
Obviously this is among the strongest months of the year, especially west, and several city pairs neared their functional capacity.
As I pointed out with May and June stats, Midwest's year-over-year traffic compares favorably with AirTran's year-over-year results in spite of their competitive push here. The exception is MKE-DCA where AirTran flew only 1x/day last year but this year has 2x/day.
MKE-BOS
Frequencies for both Midwest and AirTran essentially the same in 2009 as 2008
Midwest
2008.....22,414 passengers on 283 flights
2009.....23,707 passengers on 284 flights
+5.8% year over year traffic
AirTran
2008.....13,896 passengers on 124 flights
2009.....11,725 passengers on 122 flights
-15.6% year over year traffic
MKE-LGA
Midwest's frequency year over year was the same. AirTran increased from 3x/day to 4x/day but still carried fewer total passengers than last year.
Midwest
2008.....21,555 passengers on 275 flights
2009.....21,966 passengers on 278 flights
+1.9% year over year traffic
AirTran
2008.....19,710 passengers on 183 flights
2009.....18.645 passengers on 232 flights (+26.8% more trips)
-5.4% year over year traffic
MKE-DCA
Midwest made small reductions in flights and capacity (E170 versus 717). AirTran doubled flights from 1x to 2x.
Midwest
2008.....19.345 passengers on 289 flights
2009.....17,957 passengers on 276 flights (-4.5% fewer trips...one less weekend round-trip each week)
-9.9% year over year traffic
AirTran
2008.......6,092 passengers on 60 flights
2009.....10,712 passengers on 121 flights (+101.7% more trips)
+75.8% year over year traffic
These loads say nothing about fare or traffic composition, of course. So remember they are only half the picture. Yet with the addition of feed from MSP and STL in 2009 one might have expected more onboard passengers to BOS and LGA. Both Midwest and AirTran have the ability to feed their Milwaukee flights with connecting passengers, and so these onboard loads are not necessarily perfectly representative of how well the two airlines are winning local Milwaukee traffic. That details comes with quarterly DoT stats, usually a couple of quarters behind.
knope2001
Oct 18, 09, 12:04 pm
(additional parts I didn't get completed to include with the earlier posting)
Although we don't have a way to know how much traffic was connecting versus local from the monthly T100 stats, we can in some circumstances get a snapshot. That's because these stats give us a way to derrive how many "thru" passengers there are in some circumstances. For those not familiar, here's what I mean by this.
LGA-MSP on AirTran
6:30am.....10:40am....connection in MKE
1:22pm.......5:05pm....1 stop (no change of plane) in MKE
4:59pm.......8:55pm....connection in MKE
(Plus other connections available via ATL)
These quarterly stats have a section to show how many passengers flew a particular airline between XXX and YYY on nonstop and thru flights (no change of plane). The stats show AirTran with 864 passengers flying from LGA to MSP with no change of plane in July, and since they have no nonstops, those are all through passengers. The only thru flight from LGA to MSP was that 1:22pm flight stopping in Milwaukee, and that flight operated 25 days. So just that 1:22pm flight MKE-LGA averaged 34.6 passengers continuing on to MKE-MSP. We can't know how many LGA-MSP passengers were funneled through Milwaukee o the 6:30am or 4:59pm flights, but the 1:22pm flight carried 34-35 people per day bound for MSP.
This suggests that a signfiicant number of thru and connecting passengers are being run through Milwaukee. That westbound LGA-MSP is the largest example, but westbound from MSP there was a single MSP-LGA thru flight which averaged 26.4 thru passengers per flight, and a single MSP-DCA thru flight which averaged 14.4 passengers per flight.
So what does this matter, and matter to Midwest? It gives us some idea of how well or not so well that the competition (AirTran) is doing in penetrating the local MKE market versus Midwest. The total onboard loads for AirTran on MKE-MSP (70.9%) and MKE-LGA (65.8%) are the fullest we've seen (best ever on MSP and best since last October on MKE-LGA) but they are still comparably light for AirTran and have a lot more room to serve local traffic. Out of 134 nonstop AirTran city pairs ranked by onboard load in July, MKE-MSP was #125 and MKE-LGA was #130.
We don't know how much Midwest is relying on connecting traffic at this point to fill seats because they don't run many flights as "thru flights" at Milwaukee. But the comparably weak loads, significant reliance on connecting traffic, and year-over-year decreases to LGA and BOS, it does not appear that Midwest's base traffic is being gutted.
I'll post more detailed stuff in the AirTran section of this site, hopefully later today, for those interested in more detail specifically about their results.
BlueHorseShoe2000
Oct 18, 09, 5:46 pm
These loads say nothing about fare or traffic composition, of course. So remember they are only half the picture.
First of all, thanks for the great analysis.
There's no doubt that Midwest took a hit yield wise on many of the routes where they compete head-to-head with AirTran. Yet, despite the competition Bryan Bedford has publicly stated Midwest was profitable this past spring/summer.
I'm assuming AirTran's overall MKE operations were profitable during July. However, I do wonder if this trend will continue now that we're moving into winter and there are no signs (so far) of any capacity reductions. Based on some of the anecdotal evidence I've seen and heard, many of the traditional business oriented routes appear to be struggling mightily.
In the meantime, there are some great fares to the East Coast, PIT, IND, MSP, and STL available.
knope2001
Oct 18, 09, 7:16 pm
I'm assuming AirTran's overall MKE operations were profitable during July. However, I do wonder if this trend will continue now that we're moving into winter and there are no signs (so far) of any capacity reductions. Based on some of the anecdotal evidence I've seen and heard, many of the traditional business oriented routes appear to be struggling mightily
The large leisure routes where AirTran had new monopolies or faced very subdued competition should have been solidly profitable for them, probably enough (I would guess) to overshadow lackluster routes elsewhere. But this winter when even the usually-bottomless leisure routes might be overserved, things will likely be different. It is hard to picture anything but largely-empty planes in other routes this winter. As much as I'm not a fan of seeing virtually all E170 in the dead-of-winter Midwest schedule this winter until more E190s come, it might be the right size aircraft.
If nothing else, Milwaukee is interesting to watch these days...
newsmanhoss
Oct 18, 09, 7:43 pm
First of all, thanks for the great analysis.
There's no doubt that Midwest took a hit yield wise on many of the routes where they compete head-to-head with AirTran. Yet, despite the competition Bryan Bedford has publicly stated Midwest was profitable this past spring/summer.
I'm assuming AirTran's overall MKE operations were profitable during July. However, I do wonder if this trend will continue now that we're moving into winter and there are no signs (so far) of any capacity reductions. Based on some of the anecdotal evidence I've seen and heard, many of the traditional business oriented routes appear to be struggling mightily.
In the meantime, there are some great fares to the East Coast, PIT, IND, MSP, and STL available.
FL's PIT and IND nonstops were just launched less than two weeks ago. The fares have dropped considerable...down to $49 each way for travel any day of the week. Midwest has traditionally charged much higher fares on these particular routes, so it will change the dynamics for them on these routes for the short term.
BlueHorseShoe2000
Oct 18, 09, 8:01 pm
FL's PIT and IND nonstops were just launched less than two weeks ago. The fares have dropped considerable...down to $49 each way for travel any day of the week. Midwest has traditionally charged much higher fares on these particular routes, so it will change the dynamics for them on these routes for the short term.
Indeed. I'm sure Midwest will selectively match AirTran fares on the MKE-IND/PIT routes. However, Midwest has a big advantage with their schedule (4x daily vs. 1x daily on AirTran) and will likely still be able to maintain a decent fare premium.
FWIW, I've heard that loads on AirTran's MKE-IND route have been horrendous. Of course, the route is still very new but early signs are not promising at all. PIT has been doing marginally better but still flies with a lot of empty seats day-after-day
Tim34
Oct 19, 09, 9:24 am
Airtran should drop MKE-IND, PIT and STL then add MKE-DFW, MKE-PHL Those are more important business destinations. I wonder how their west coast flights are doing. I just flew MKE-SEA over the weekend and both flights were completely full. I had a friend on MKE-SFO recently and those flights were completely full as well.
mke9499
Oct 19, 09, 9:39 am
Airtran should drop MKE-IND, PIT and STL then add MKE-DFW, MKE-PHL Those are more important business destinations.
I agree. Both markets deserve mainline service from MKE.
BlueHorseShoe2000
Oct 19, 09, 10:32 am
Airtran should drop MKE-IND, PIT and STL then add MKE-DFW, MKE-PHL Those are more important business destinations. I wonder how their west coast flights are doing. I just flew MKE-SEA over the weekend and both flights were completely full. I had a friend on MKE-SFO recently and those flights were completely full as well.
It wouldn't be terribly shocking to see AirTran add DFW and PHL to their MKE flight schedule next spring (assuming they still see MKE as an attractive second hub). I do know that PHL is high on the list for up-gauge to a larger aircraft for Midwest and suspect DFW may be as well. Both routes could use a comination of E170/E190 equipment.
It will be interesting to see how AirTran does on MKE-SEA/SFO this winter. Traditionally, both routes have had fairly weak traffic during the off-season. Like LAX, I suspect there will be a big battle here as well since Midwest will almost certainly be reinstating MKE-SEA/SFO. It will be interesting to watch things shake out.
newsmanhoss
Oct 19, 09, 10:37 am
Airtran should drop MKE-IND, PIT and STL then add MKE-DFW, MKE-PHL Those are more important business destinations.
The argument could be made that none of those cities would do well for AirTran in Milwaukee. It appears that their leisure routes are doing much better (at least from a load standpoint) than their business routes.
Of course, loads are only half of the story. But, just as you have seen and hard with FL's SEA and SFO routes, leisure routes fill up very will with leisure passengers looking to save a few dollars. Plus, those routes are not currently served nonstop by Midwest.
DFW and PHL, however, are different stories. Those are business markets that already have service from Midwest (and American and US Airways, respectively). I don't know if those markets can handle a third carrier on the route, especially with less leisure traffic than Florida, and the west coast.
Having said all this, however, I support any possible decision from FL to continue its MKE buildup to create even more competition, at least in the short term.
Indy
Oct 19, 09, 2:31 pm
Having said all this, however, I support any possible decision from FL to continue its MKE buildup to create even more competition, at least in the short term.
Competition is great especially when it involves a LCC. I look at what they mean out of IND. NW/DL is the largest carrier here. I checked a month out to some of the hubs. One way to MSP is $461.59. $383.60 to DTW. $532.60 to MEM. But the hub with LCC competition (FL in ATL) the fare is only $122.60.
The more competition the better.... for us :-)
Tim34
Oct 19, 09, 2:49 pm
The argument could be made that none of those cities would do well for AirTran in Milwaukee. It appears that their leisure routes are doing much better (at least from a load standpoint) than their business routes.
Of course, loads are only half of the story. But, just as you have seen and hard with FL's SEA and SFO routes, leisure routes fill up very will with leisure passengers looking to save a few dollars. Plus, those routes are not currently served nonstop by Midwest.
DFW and PHL, however, are different stories. Those are business markets that already have service from Midwest (and American and US Airways, respectively). I don't know if those markets can handle a third carrier on the route, especially with less leisure traffic than Florida, and the west coast.
Having said all this, however, I support any possible decision from FL to continue its MKE buildup to create even more competition, at least in the short term.
Denver seems to be working. How is Denver different from DFW?
newsmanhoss
Oct 19, 09, 3:30 pm
Denver seems to be working. How is Denver different from DFW?
Others may have more information on this, but I believe that MKE-DEN is more of a leisure route than a business route.
BlueHorseShoe2000
Oct 19, 09, 3:58 pm
Others may have more information on this, but I believe that MKE-DEN is more of a leisure route than a business route.
Yields on the MKE-DEN route have never been spectacular and I suspect they're even worse now with four airlines (three if you count Midwest/Frontier as one) competing for traffic.
MKE-DEN was the very first route to get Saver Service when that was still around (seems like forever since the MD80s were parked given everything that has happened within the last year).
knope2001
Oct 19, 09, 8:15 pm
The problem with adding more east coast spokes like PHL is that already the hub is already lopsided.
Flights to/from the west coast are high volume and have little competition.
Flights to/from the east coast have significant competition and rely on connections to fill seats.
The July loads are a good illustration of the problem. All the westbound markets averged more than 90% full, and in summer those markets to/from MKE are big enough to pretty much fill planes even without connections. Flights from the east coast designed to feed the western markets don't have many open seats to fill.
Every additional flight from the east puts more stress on those west coast flights which are already full and makes their hub more functionally lopsided.
This was a huge concern I had about what AirTran's public pronouncements for a post-merger MKE showed. Flights to the west with capacity that MKE-local boardings could support, yet all sorts of feeder flights from places like Akron, White Plains, Richmond, Buffalo, Montreal and others which clearly were designed for connections.
newsmanhoss
Oct 19, 09, 8:52 pm
The July loads are a good illustration of the problem. All the westbound markets averged more than 90% full, and in summer those markets to/from MKE are big enough to pretty much fill planes even without connections. Flights from the east coast designed to feed the western markets don't have many open seats to fill.
Perhaps that's why FL waited until fall to start MKE-IND and MKE-PIT. Maybe that's why they're (at least for now) keeping MKE to LAX, SFO and SEA through this winter. Do you think it will be better balanced in the dead of winter?
Indy
Oct 19, 09, 9:59 pm
Every additional flight from the east puts more stress on those west coast flights which are already full and makes their hub more functionally lopsided.
I was thinking with YX/F9 adding capacity to the west it could take some pressure off of those west coast flights for FL and give some opportunity for connections to the east. But the fares FL is charging to the west are horrible. I don't see how they could be profitable right now when the plane is loaded with O/D traffic. How profitable or unprofitable is that going to become when the flight gets more feed?
I'm looking at fares for next spring from MKE and I'm finding things like $59 to RSW, $84 to LAS, $81 to SFO and $89 to SEA. You are going to put butts in chairs with those fares but how can you make money? They've got to bring that up to a reasonable level. Is this a response to YX/F9?
knope2001
Oct 20, 09, 6:10 am
Perhaps that's why FL waited until fall to start MKE-IND and MKE-PIT. Maybe that's why they're (at least for now) keeping MKE to LAX, SFO and SEA through this winter. Do you think it will be better balanced in the dead of winter?
It will help, but only to a certain extent. The problem is twofold.
(1) "Also-ran" airlines in long-haul connecting markets rely largely on leisure spill traffic. In lower-demand times, it's easier for travelers to get good fares on airlines with nonstop flights, or with more flight options, or with better-known names.
(2) The west coast flights, LAX in particular, have large peaks and valleys even in the dead of winter. And those are the very same peaks and valleys that routes like LAX-IND and LAX-BOS have. On a mid-January Sunday they might well have 130+ LAX-MKE passengers, a day when LAX-IND would also have strong demand. Two days later...a Tuesday in January...LAX-MKE might have only 70 passengers, but LAX-IND demand is also much ligher.
LAX doesn't have quite the seasonal dropoff that some markets do, and checking Midwest's averages in January and February of 2008 (the last time anybody flew MKE-LAX in winter) they still averaged 105-115 passengers per flight...and that's very likely indicative of rather full on peak days and somewhat anemic on off-peak days.
SFO is not as strong, and I'm curious to see how it turns out.
Finally, MKE-SEA this winter is AirTran's only flight to Seattle, it operates as a thru flight to/from ATL, and it is not timed with the main west coast banks. PIT, IND, BOS and DCA can't connect in MKE either westbound or eastbound with SEA, so MKE-SEA will be a different situation.