Midwest Airlines Midwest Miles - What routes will Midwest reinstate?

For fun, I thought it might be interesting to speculate on what routes Midwest (Republic) might reinstate and when.

Republic has publicly stated that they plan on restoring the Midwest route structure to where it was in January 2008. However, we don't know if this is exclusively for Milwaukee or if Kansas City will see any increased flight activity as well.

Additionally, Bryan Bedford stated that some Midwest routes need more frequency and/or larger aircraft (hello A319 or Q400???).

Frankly, I would be surprised if every dropped route was brought back. In particular, I think the possibility of COS or CLT returning are remote.

For fun, I thought it might be interesting to speculate on what routes Midwest (Republic) might reinstate and when.

Republic has publicly stated that they plan on restoring the Midwest route structure to where it was in January 2008. However, we don't know if this is exclusively for Milwaukee or if Kansas City will see any increased flight activity as well.

It appears that demand is there for MKE-SEA n/s, as well as perhaps seasonal demand for MKE-FLL. Blue, I know that you are looking for MKE-SAN; I think that MKE-SFO could also support nonstop service. Realizing that AirTran picked up where YX left off, I can see head-to-head competition to increase, should YX reinstate some of the previous routes. With WN's arrival in MKE in November, this could be become a real horse race, with the customers being the real winners.

Will DL be able to maintain their loyal MKE customer base, if the other carriers step up their schedules?

The increased activity at MKE is going to start to hurt traffic at ORD.

Next year should prove to be quite interesting for all concerned.

I'd put all of these city pairs pretty high on the list:

MKE-FLL
MKE-SFO
MKE-SEA
MKE-BDL
MKE-CWA
MKE-RDU

Kansas City is such a wild card. I suspect SAN will return, but will it be from MKE, MCI or both? If MCI is going to see some restoration and growth, then at least a few markets ilke SAT, MSY, AUS, CMH, PIT and JAX are likely to show up.

I agree that Colorado Springs is very unlikely to return, especally since Frontier is now in the family and there is plentiful MCI-DEN nonstop service.

If AirTran eventually drops MKE-STL, or if Republic is willing to lose money in the market with RJ's in an effort to make AirTran blink, then MKE-STL could well be back. But not before one or the other of those events.

I don't look for Baltimore, Charlotte, Toronto, or Dulles to return anytime in the near future -- perhaps never, but only after Midwest's condition and the economy improve significantly. With both AirTran and Southwest selling MKE-BWI this fall, it's clearly noplace for Midwest in the near term. But if/when they reach a point where they can afford to add a route they know will probably break even at best, it could have benefits by making it less easy for both competitors in Milwaukee. Midwest's costs will very likely rival both FL and WN's by that point. And with a wider variety in aircraft size, Midwest will be better to match varying demand through the year.

Obviously all this is speculation, and the idea of Midwest entering MKE-BWI versus FL and WN anytime soon is highly unlikely. But we know that some growth/restoration is coming, and the markets mentioned earlier in the post seem pretty likely.

I think Wausau/Mosinee will be added soon, probably this fall. In early 2010 all the previous West Coast cities will be added back from MKE. MKE - SAN maybe added as new in 2010 too. I also wonder if YX will try MKE - SLC since DL dropped that route again. I also wonder about RDU. Will that route return?

I'd put all of these city pairs pretty high on the list:

MKE-FLL
MKE-SFO
MKE-SEA
MKE-BDL
MKE-CWA
MKE-RDU

Kansas City is such a wild card. I suspect SAN will return, but will it be from MKE, MCI or both? If MCI is going to see some restoration and growth, then at least a few markets ilke SAT, MSY, AUS, CMH, PIT and JAX are likely to show up.



I agree with your list above.

It wouldn't surprise me at all to see FLL restored later this year or early 2010 with additional frequency to other warm weather destinations as well. Perhaps we might even see RSW go year round with an E170 in the off-season?

Both BDL and RDU will both benefit a great deal from DEN feed. Neither of these destinations is currently served non-stop from DEN at the moment.

As it relates to SEA and SFO, I'm wondering if Midwest will run these routes year round or will they be served seasonally as in the past? Depending on how quickly larger aircraft arrive in MKE, I wouldn't be shocked to see these routes restored this winter if for no other reason than to take a slap at AirTran and make their efforts to build a viable year-round hub in MKE difficult.

Frankly, I'm still surprised SAN got axed last fall. The yields to SAN were higher than SEA, SFO, and LAX yet it got yanked. I'm wondering if this had more to due with lack of lift than anything else?

Republic has said not to look for any surprises as far as new routes go. However, within the next couple of years (assuming Midwest still exists of course) I wonder if we might see SNA return from MCI? I believe that is one of the largest unserved markets from MCI at the momemnt. When Midwest dropped it to 1x daily in the fall of 2004, the route actually did pretty good load wise. If it weren't for the requirement that Midwest having to restore that 2nd frequency by May 2005 would this route still exist? With Frontier already established in SNA, this might be a real possibility.

There might also be some interesting opportunities at San Jose, Birmingham, and Miami as well.

Lots of pieces to this puzzle are still missing of course. Republic does seem very serious about regaining lost ground in MKE. I wonder how aggressive they will be and what their tolerance for losses will be over the next year or so at they battle both AirTran and Southwest.

Frankly, I'm still surprised SAN got axed last fall. The yields to SAN were higher than SEA, SFO, and LAX yet it got yanked. I'm wondering if this had more to due with lack of lift than anything else?

I think there's a lot to be said for the ideal that last fall's cuts were not uniquely about specific market peformance.

The number of aircraft they had to work with was a result of (a) the drastic decision to park the M80s, (b) negotiations with Boeing to return some 717's (c) negotiations with Republic to gain some E170's, and (d) negotiations with Skywest to reduce the CRJ fleet.

What they ended up with was not necessarily the "right" number of aircraft at the time, nor the right distribution of aircraft. But it's what they had to work with.

Then, working with what they had, they had to figure out how to stretch those aircraft to cover as much of the route system with at least the minimal number of flights necessary to serve the market and be competitive . Because longer flights burn the most aircraft time, those tended to be cut more sharply. So places like San Diego and Hartford in particular could easily have good profit potential but simply been too costly in resource consumption.

Ponder this.

US Airways is actively shopping their 25 plane E-190 fleet.

US has a relationship with Republic

Republic flew either E-170' or 190's for Frontier.

Scenario: US sells E-190's to Midwest/Republic which effectively replaces the 717's and all the sudden you have a growing expanding airline with a good cost structure. Republic augments the E-190's with their existing E-170's and "code share" with Frontier and you have a rebirth at Midwest and a formidable competitor for the legacy & LCC carriers.

I guess that I am still confused as to what Midwest's fleet is, E-Jets or AirBus? Why have a fleet of rjs, ejets and A319 and A320s? I don't get it.
Most non legacy carriers don't dly that many different types of Aircraft. Alaska and Southwest fly the 737. Jetblue flies the A320 and E190. Airtran flies the 717 and 737. For an airline as small as Midwest is that is a vary varied fleet

Ponder this.

US Airways is actively shopping their 25 plane E-190 fleet.

US has a relationship with Republic

Republic flew either E-170' or 190's for Frontier.

Scenario: US sells E-190's to Midwest/Republic which effectively replaces the 717's and all the sudden you have a growing expanding airline with a good cost structure. Republic augments the E-190's with their existing E-170's and "code share" with Frontier and you have a rebirth at Midwest and a formidable competitor for the legacy & LCC carriers.

I heard rumors that Republic wants about 40 E190's. Some would be used and others would be fresh off the production line from Embraer. It would not be out of the question that Republic would pickup the USAir E190's. I doubt all 40 would be YX painted aircraft. Some would probably end up in the Frontier Fleet. JetBlue has the same type of setup... a mix of E190's and Airbus. It makes me wonder if JetBlue will be part of the future mix here. Together, a JetBlue/Frontier/Midwest consolidation would make for a stronger airline. Just my 2 cents.

I guess that I am still confused as to what Midwest's fleet is, E-Jets or AirBus? Why have a fleet of rjs, ejets and A319 and A320s? I don't get it.
Most non legacy carriers don't dly that many different types of Aircraft. Alaska and Southwest fly the 737. Jetblue flies the A320 and E190. Airtran flies the 717 and 737. For an airline as small as Midwest is that is a vary varied fleet

At the moment, Midwest is not a LCC. However, their cost structure will be greatly improved once the restructuring is finalized and more efficient aircraft are in service.

Having the regional jets plus a mix of E190s and Airbus jets will give Midwest an enormous amount of flexability from a route planning persceptive and will improve the financial performance of many routes going forward. There will be no need to send 717s with all premium seating to places like FLL or MCO in the off-peak months and lose buckets of money.

As for the addition of Airbus jets (essentially confirmed by Bryan Bedford this past weekend) there are a number of routes where the demand exists for an aircraft with more than 99 seats. You've seen the T100 stats knope has posted showing how full many of the 717 routes have been. Midwest was no doubt turning away passengers so the need for more capacity is definately there.

Plus, the Airbus jets will allow Midwest to potentially undertake some other opportunities, such as flights to Mexico or the Caribbean :)

Here are my best guesses:

From MKE: RDU, SAT, SEA, SFO, FLL, CWA

From MCI: SAN, DEN, PIT, CMH

I wonder if Republic would want to try MKE - DLH once again? If they build up MKE with better connections to more destinations, DLH might be worth another try. With their lower cost structure they maybe able to better compete with NWA. I know it sounds far fetched, but places like DLH are hungry for competition and an alternative to NWA. Hazelrah has stressed this a lot on these captive markets that NWA will defend to no end. But someone should try to chip away at these markets. An E135 on the route would do just fine to start with.

I never included my guesses, but I agree with knope that BDL, RDU, and FLL are the most likely additions from MKE this year (either announced or actual resumption prior to year-end). CWA should also be included since Midwest was hiring for a station manager recently.

SFO and SEA will also return, but I'm unsure as to the timing.

SAN will also likely be reinstated, but from where?

If MCI is included in the expansion plans, I'd say MCO, PIT, RDU, AUS, and SAT are pretty safe bets. Others have mentioned CMH, but I'm not so sure about that one. The route never really performed all that well, even if you discount the SkyBus factor.

Bryan Bedford has stated that they want to return the Midwest route network back to where it was in January 2008. If that's the case, that would exclude routes such as MKE-DLH and OMA-LAX. As it relates to DLH, that route was a loser and I don't think it's very high on Midwest's list for reinstatement. The loyalty to Northwest/Delta is just too strong (Midwest offered lower fares than NWA on many routes and still wasn't able to get much traction in the market).

I think there will be a lot to discuss on this board within the next 3-6 months :)

I wonder if Republic would want to try MKE - DLH once again? If they build up MKE with better connections to more destinations, DLH might be worth another try. With their lower cost structure they maybe able to better compete with NWA. I know it sounds far fetched, but places like DLH are hungry for competition and an alternative to NWA. Hazelrah has stressed this a lot on these captive markets that NWA will defend to no end. But someone should try to chip away at these markets. An E135 on the route would do just fine to start with.

That thought entered my mind when I was compiling my list of guesses. DLH was last served with the now-gone Fairchild 328 jet, which seated 32 passengers I believe. So, I agree that the smallest Midwest plane would have to be used on the route...and the CASM for a Republic E135 would certainly be lower than the FRJ was, but it's probably still a long shot.

Does anyone think Midwest will get back into the charter business?

Does anyone think Midwest will get back into the charter business?

I have been thinking about the same matter, over the past few days.

With the E190s entering the fleet, nonstop, long haul flights are no longer an issue, as they were after the dropping of the MD80s.

Last year, after the Bucks had to find a new charter carrier, they ended up switching to Air Canada. However, I remember reading about a problem with Air Canada operating charters strictly within the US; they are only authorized to either originate or terminate within the States, not both. This season, the Brewers are flying a CO 737-800 on their charters.

My understanding is that the charter business produces some nice revenue for the carriers. Who knows?

Does anyone think Midwest will get back into the charter business?

I don't think that it will be YX per se. RAH's charter business crosses all three certificates and will more than likely bridge into F9/YX later. I believe that we will just add the other equipment to the list.

I heard rumors that Republic wants about 40 E190's. Some would be used and others would be fresh off the production line from Embraer. It would not be out of the question that Republic would pickup the USAir E190's.

I don't know that Republic "wants" 40 E190's. They have options for forty E190's.

Keep in mind, Midwest had an option for an additional 25 717's. Did they ever utilize that option?

Keep in mind, Midwest had an option for an additional 25 717's. Did they ever utilize that option?

You're talking about the old Midwest here and I have come to realize the 717's were a big mistake. A deadend aircraft that Midwest should have never leased IMHO.

As it relates to DLH, that route was a loser and I don't think it's very high on Midwest's list for reinstatement. The loyalty to Northwest/Delta is just too strong (Midwest offered lower fares than NWA on many routes and still wasn't able to get much traction in the market).

Okay, so who am I suppose to believe? DLH officials have said that the Midwest route was doing well. They were lead to believe this because Midwest told them so. Then Midwest does an about face and says the MKE - DLH route was horrible. That in turn suprised the hell out of the DLH officials.

You're talking about the old Midwest here and I have come to realize the 717's were a big mistake. A deadend aircraft that Midwest should have never leased IMHO.

I'm not so sure it was a big mistake. AirTran seems to be doing quite well with its fleet of 117 717's.

What looked good in 2002 doesn't look as attractive in 2008-2009.

Okay, so who am I suppose to believe? DLH officials have said that the Midwest route was doing well. They were lead to believe this because Midwest told them so. Then Midwest does an about face and says the MKE - DLH route was horrible. That in turn suprised the hell out of the DLH officials.

"Doing well" is a very subjective term. If one is referring to just overall loads, then DLH did fine during the peak summer months. However, loads really declined beginning in late August/early September 2007 (some months DLH didn't even crack 40% load factors).

The biggest issue with DLH was the passenger composition and fare levels. In an attempt to gain traction in the market, Midwest had to under-cut Northwest's fares, sometimes by pretty big amounts. There isn't much O&D traffic between Milwaukee and Duluth, so most of the passengers were low yield connecting traffic.

Some other issues working against DLH were the higher operating costs of the FRJ, the longer stage length of the flight (most feeder routes for Midwest aren't that long), weak advance booking is the off-season, and the rapidly increasing price of fuel.

Depending on how and when the DLH airport officials looked at the route, it probably looked fine from a load standpoint. Midwest officials may have even confirmed this at one point in time (I believe media accounts attributed the Midwest confirmation being made during the summer months when loads had picked-up).

From a financial point of view, the route was a dog with fleas. The route wasn't showing much promise and Midwest rightfully pulled it. Perhaps if Midwest had been solidely profitable at the time they could have kept the route and tried to nurse it to profitability. However, they didn't have that luxury, especially with TPG entering the picture.

Is it possible that YX could make in-roads in to markets like DLH with one-stop service (possibly through CWA)? I realize the benefits would have to outweigh the cost of a station in DLH and the extra fuel. Also, I understand that YX would be at a disadvantage offering direct service to its hub as opposed to NW/DL's nonstop service to their hubs. I know the past struggles of second airlines in DLH, but with 8 NW/DL flights, it makes sense there is some room for competition.


Am I crazy or does this idea make sense?

Is it possible that YX could make in-roads in to markets like DLH with one-stop service (possibly through CWA)? I realize the benefits would have to outweigh the cost of a station in DLH and the extra fuel. Also, I understand that YX would be at a disadvantage offering direct service to its hub as opposed to NW/DL's nonstop service to their hubs. I know the past struggles of second airlines in DLH, but with 8 NW/DL flights, it makes sense there is some room for competition.


Am I crazy or does this idea make sense?

Welcome to Flyertalk, MarqKarp.

I don't think it is crazy to suggest competition at airports like DLH. Will Midwest or Frontier consider serving DLH? I doubt it but I thought it was worth arguing for it.

Blue's information on Duluth is right on the money. Here are some details about yield. Duluth is a high-fare market, and although the distance is long for a feeder market (about 3x the length of MKE to GRB/ATW/MSN/GRR), the higher fares and solid amount of local traffic should have supported it.

Unfortunately, the fares Midwest averaged were frequenty 15-20%, sometimes more than 40%, less than Northwest's average fare.

This was prior to the code share and FF program reciprocity, which could make a very big difference. But on the other hand, DL/NW might not take kindly to Midwest entering such a high-fare captive market of theirs.

This information is from the 3rd quarter of 2007, the strongest quarter for YX in Duluth. Come October, traffic started to trail off significantly. But in this quarter their loads were decent...in the 72% range.

These are the top ten destinations for YX from DLH. For the connecting markets, I show NW's average fare, YX's average fare, the fare from a comparable YX feeder market, and the $$ allocated for the DLH-MKE segement. This is only a crude allocation (allocating 1/3 of the total fare DLH-MKE-XXX to the DLH-MKE segment) but from what I've heard over the years it is not terribly out of line.

1. Milwaukee -- 16.6% of Duluth YX traffic
$187.02 per passenger revenue for DLH-MKE


2. Orlando – 11.6% of Duluth YX traffic
$189.91 NW
$155.49 YX (22.1% less)
$160.01 YX CWA-MCO
$51.82 per passenger revenue for DLH-MKE


3. Dallas/Fort Worth – 6.5% of Duluth YX traffic
$220.74 NW
$198.49 YX (11.2% less)
$254.64 YX ATW-DFW
$66.16 per passenger revenue for DLH-MKE


4. Boston – 5.7% of Duluth YX traffic
$241.61 NW
$169.58 YX (42.2% less)
$198.43 YX CWA-BOS
$56.52 per passenger revenue for DLH-MKE


5. Denver – 4.5% of Duluth YX traffic
$220.64 NW
$179.30 YX (23.1% less)
$199.31 YX ATW-DEN
$59.76 per passenger revenue for DLH-MKE


6. Washington – 3.7% of Duluth YX traffic
$213.42 NW
$176.66 YX (20.8% less)
$178.25 YX GRB-DCA
$58.88 per passenger revenue for DLH-MKE


7. Atlanta – 3.2% of Duluth YX traffic
$235.69 NW
$166.29 YX (41.7% less)
$278.09 YX GRB-ATW
$55.42 per passenger revenue for DLH-MKE


8. Kansas City – 3.2% of Duluth YX traffic
$241.92 NW
$219.21 YX (10.4% less)
$176.51 YX ATW-MCI
$73.06 per passenger revenue for DLH-MKE


9. Tampa – 2.3% of Duluth YX traffic
$200.64 NW
$174.00 YX (15.3% less)
$191.84 YX CWA-TPA
$57.99 per passenger revenue for DLH-MKE


10. New York – 2.2% of Duluth YX traffic
$197.52 NW
$171.12 YX (15.4% less)
$206.54 YX CWA-LGA
$57.03 per passenger revenue for DLH-MKE

Note that the YX fare is always significantly less than the NW fare. And in most cases, the DLH-XXX fare on YX was less than CWA-XXX, or ATW-XXX, or GRB-XXX. Yet to fly MKE-DLH-MKE to pick up that DLH-originating connecting traffic, compared to flying MKE-GRB-MKE, is 2 - 3 times farther, and correspondingly more expensive.

It's telling that by far the largest connecting market was Orlando, also by far the lowest-yielding market.

There are two things which hammer Duluth's air service. The first is well-lamented, that DL/NW is dominant, business travelers are too loyal to them, and new entrants get mostly leisure travelers who pay low fares. The second, which I think is as important, is that Duluth is so remote that it is expensive to bring connecting traffic to most hubs. Were Duluth geographically where Grand Rapids MI is, for example, it would probably have service by at least 2 or 3 airlines to at least 3 or 4 hubs. Unfortunately, there's nothing Duluth can do about that.

1. Milwaukee -- 16.6% of Duluth YX traffic
$187.02 per passenger revenue for DLH-MKE

Note that the YX fare is always significantly less than the NW fare. And in most cases, the DLH-XXX fare on YX was less than CWA-XXX, or ATW-XXX, or GRB-XXX. Yet to fly MKE-DLH-MKE to pick up that DLH-originating connecting traffic, compared to flying MKE-GRB-MKE, is 2 - 3 times farther, and correspondingly more expensive.

It's telling that by far the largest connecting market was Orlando, also by far the lowest-yielding market.

There are two things which hammer Duluth's air service. The first is well-lamented, that DL/NW is dominant, business travelers are too loyal to them, and new entrants get mostly leisure travelers who pay low fares. The second, which I think is as important, is that Duluth is so remote that it is expensive to bring connecting traffic to most hubs. Were Duluth geographically where Grand Rapids MI is, for example, it would probably have service by at least 2 or 3 airlines to at least 3 or 4 hubs. Unfortunately, there's nothing Duluth can do about that.

These are some great points, knope. If it were a stronger O&D market, it might be more worthwhile, but with only 16% O&D, it's tough for a connecting route of that distance.

Even though Minnesota borders Wisconsin, some folks don't realize just how far Duluth is from Milwaukee. To put it into perspective, both Cleveland and Louisville are closer to MKE than Duluth, and those markets have a much higher O&D percentage, which helps make them more viable.

Would like to see MCI-AUS come back. Took it often and it was always packed.

These are some great points, knope. If it were a stronger O&D market, it might be more worthwhile, but with only 16% O&D, it's tough for a connecting route of that distance.

Even though Minnesota borders Wisconsin, some folks don't realize just how far Duluth is from Milwaukee. To put it into perspective, both Cleveland and Louisville are closer to MKE than Duluth, and those markets have a much higher O&D percentage, which helps make them more viable.

Here's some comparison. The data is Q3 2008 (except for Duluth which is Q3 2007. The Skywest stats are screwy for Q3 2007, so some info is not valid, hence using 2008)

% local local pax/fl . local fare ….. miles …... city
73.1% ……. 16.2 ……. $185.62 ……. 342 ……. Louisville
57.2% ……. 13.2 ……. $219.58 ……. 317 ……. St Louis
56.0% ……. 12.8 ……. $218.80 ……. 284 ……. Dayton
52.5% ……. 11.8 ……. $213.58 ……. 328 ……. Cleveland
51.9% ……. 16.2 ……. $208.21 ……. 331 ……. Columbus
16.3% ……... 3.8 ……. $187.02 ……. 348 ……. Duluth

See these stats, I find it interesting that Dayton was kept, St Louis and Louisville were dropped, and now Louisville is back. (This is just one quarter and doesn't tell us about trends or connecting yield, of course.)

Also, these kinds of local passenger levels and fares show how the relatively-high-cost RJ's may make decent economic sense, even when loads are relatively light.

Duluth could be stronger today with the FF hookup with Delta/Northwest. And if MKE were better promoted as giving decent nonstop-flight access to Chicago, that could help with the local traffic. But at least in the near term I don't expect DLH to return.

I find it interesting that Dayton was kept, St Louis and Louisville were dropped, and now Louisville is back. (This is just one quarter and doesn't tell us about trends or connecting yield, of course.)



While Louisville is a high fare market, I always wondered if the reason it was brought back had more to due with it being a Republic base and they had another option for rotating aircraft/crew in and out of MKE.

Now that it's back, this is another market that could benefit from DEN feed with the Frontier codeshare.

I wonder what Republics plans are for MCI. With a 2 million population, I think there's a lot of markets they could pick up with non stops and some markets that are underserved they could do I think. It's a shame that Midwest never had the resources to build MCI up to more than what they did.

It seems a little fishy how the MKE-LAX route dropped for delta around the same time Midwest added the route. If those two airlines were not working together you would think that delta would fight it out for the route which was not doing that bad. I doubt that they would add Duluth. That would anger delta

It seems a little fishy how the MKE-LAX route dropped for delta around the same time Midwest added the route. If those two airlines were not working together you would think that delta would fight it out for the route which was not doing that bad.

When Midwest dropped MKE-LAX, Northwest picked it up quickly, knowing that nobody else was serving the market (not even AirTran) and that ther was a decent amount of traffic looking for a nonstop.

Northwest discontinued MKE-LAX nonstop for several weeks during the dead of winter, this in spite of nobody else (neither Midwest nor AirTran) flying MKE-LAX nonstop.

When Northwest restored the MKE-LAX nonstop in February after several weeks of no service, they changed the route to a red-eye. They still had a monopoly, but still choose not to burn daytime-aircraft time on MKE-LAX.

When AirTran finally did restore MKE-LAX in mid-may it was a daytime flight. We've only seen one full month of loads for Northwest's MKE-LAX red-eye competing against AirTran's daytime nonstop, but NW's loads were only about 2/3 full...not especially good for a long-haul market in May.

Fast forward to this summer, Midwest announces MKE-LAX nonstop, and a couple weeks later NW/DL announce MKE-LAX is ending.

Coincidence?

No...there's a relationship. But not necessarily any sort of inside information or gentleman's agreement. If there were some sort of agreement for NW to be a placeholder for Midwest on MKE-LAX, then why would NW drop it during the middle of winter for several weeks in spite of zero competition? And why would they switch to a red-eye, which pretty much wrecked code-share connections at MKE?

Sepetmeber is almost as weak as the dead of January, so NW/DL might have cut MKE-LAX during fall even if neither AirTran nor Midwest flew MKE-LAX. But they now both do, and NW/DL is the odd man out with no feed and a less-attractive red-eye flight.

So it's not coincidence by any means. But neither do I think it is anything fishy.

Coincidence?

No...there's a relationship. But not necessarily any sort of inside information or gentleman's agreement.

So it's not coincidence by any means....

Midwest= Delta Lite

It's very convenient that Delta has it's pilots locked into a multi-year contract as Midwest ramps up its E-190. Meanwhile, Delta the new owner of NW hurredly gets rid of the DC-9s. I know the DC-9s were going to be gone eventually, but it seems like Delta is accelarating the departure.

coincidence?

It's very convenient that Delta has it's pilots locked into a multi-year contract as Midwest ramps up its E-190. Meanwhile, Delta the new owner of NW hurredly gets rid of the DC-9s. I know the DC-9s were going to be gone eventually, but it seems like Delta is accelarating the departure.

coincidence?

Yes.

coincidence?

Not coincidence. Economics.

Yes.

Gee whiz shucks sure are a lot of random convergences.

Not coincidence. Economics.

@:-)

Hmmm...let's see.

The hulking mass which is Delta, is making fleet decisions based on Midwest's nine 717's being replaced by E190s. Who knew Midwest had so much power.

Gee whiz shucks sure are a lot of random convergences.

Only in your world where the evil Northwest/Delta seems to be pulling all the strings.

In case you haven't heard, Delta doesn't have an ownership stake in Midwest anymore.

Also, I believe scope clauses prevent Delta from outsourcing the flying of an aircraft as big as the E190 to a third party. Unless the union agreements have been amended recently, Delta can't have a third party fly any aircraft with more than 76 seats.

Hmmm...let's see.

The hulking mass which is Delta, is making fleet decisions based on Midwest's nine 717's being replaced by E190s. Who knew Midwest had so much power.

Hazelrah knew when NW teamed up to consummate the TPG deal. :D:D

Hazelrah knew when NW teamed up to consummate the TPG deal. :D:D

I agree with Hazelrah. There were/are too many influential parties that could have stopped the dismantling of YX but did not. Namely, Lee Moak and DALPA, ALPA itself, and Northwest/Delta management. Who benefits from the dismantling of YX and the emergence of a "super regional?"

I believe NW had every intention of eventually integrating YX into their system. However, the DL merger occurred quickly, before the departure of the Bush administration, to ensure DOJ approval. Delta didn't care about YX, except the market share. They owned 47% of a competitor that had little to offer except another pilot group (YX CAs, I believe, were making more than DL MD-88 CAs) that would cause labor problems at DL. YX was a good acquisition for NW, but not DL.

DL may not own or have control of YX, but DL owns Bedford. How much flying does Republic do for DL? WHat if that goes away? I know UA is also a big customer. Let's wait and see what becaomes of the DL/RAH relationship. That will say a lot as to what influence DL has over YX/RAH.

Here's a breakdown of Republic's flying by aircraft capacity.

This includes Midwest but does not include Frontier. When that is added, obviously these percentages will all drop significantly.

28.8% ….. USAirways
19.7% ….. United
18.7% ….. Midwest
18.0% …. Delta
10.3% ….. Continental
3.0% ……. Amercian
1.5% ……. Mokulele


Here a breakdown of the fleet capacity of Delta Connection, including NW.

22.7% ….. ASA
20.4% ….. Comair
18.4% ….. Pinnacle
16.3% ….. Skywest
7.4% ……. Mesaba
6.6% ……. Compass
5.6% ….. Republic (Chautauqua & Shuttle America)
2.7% ……. Freedom

Here's a breakdown of Republic's flying by aircraft capacity.

This includes Midwest but does not include Frontier. When that is added, obviously these percentages will all drop significantly.

28.8% ….. USAirways
19.7% ….. United
18.7% ….. Midwest
18.0% …. Delta
10.3% ….. Continental
3.0% ……. Amercian
1.5% ……. Mokulele


Here a breakdown of the fleet capacity of Delta Connection, including NW.

22.7% ….. ASA
20.4% ….. Comair
18.4% ….. Pinnacle
16.3% ….. Skywest
7.4% ……. Mesaba
6.6% ……. Compass
5.6% ….. Republic (Chautauqua & Shuttle America)
2.7% ……. Freedom

So 36.7% of RAH's flying is between DL and YX. Considering DL is looking to get rid of Comair and DALPA let the scope issue at Midwest go unchallenged, it seems to me that a likely scenario, based on the Compass model and heavy dependence Republic has on DL/YX flying, that DL is interested sloughing most of its domestic flying to Republic, who has lower labor costs and the right economies of scale to challenge Southwest. The two big hats that I'm waiting to drop are the expiration of DL's "no furlough" clause what becomes of the relationship between DL and RAH in terms of scope. My guess is that DALPA will offer to sacrifice junior DL pilots to furlough in order to prevent bankruptcy, then relax the scope clause to allow Compass and Republic (in Frontier and YX colors), to do most of DL's domestic flying with a service culture and cost structure similar to that of Southwest and JetBlue. For the senior guys, that option is better than bankruptcy where they can be assured of lower compensation and relaxation of scope, but strictly on the company's terms.

The question is, can Bedofrd pull it off? Right now, I don't think we're seeing a lot of action from him not because of union negotiations, but because he's waiting for other pieces to fall into place. He overtook the YX operation without the YX employees, so why does he need them to move ahead? He doesn't, so IMO, he's waiting for something else. Look for an integration of YX and Frontier (not sure which livery, but I'd love to see a return of the green duck) to operate a JetBlue type of operation, but with fresh baked cookies and a Skyteam symbol next to the main boarding door. Bedford wants unlimted scope relaxation at Frontier and after the F9 pilots realize that he will do to them what he did to YX, they will agree. YX and F( will merge (A320 family and E190s) and the rest of RAH will go back to flying E145s.

Only in your world where the evil Northwest/Delta seems to be pulling all the strings.

In case you haven't heard, Delta doesn't have an ownership stake in Midwest anymore.

Also, I believe scope clauses prevent Delta from outsourcing the flying of an aircraft as big as the E190 to a third party. Unless the union agreements have been amended recently, Delta can't have a third party fly any aircraft with more than 76 seats.

Blue - you don't get it.

Blue - you don't get it.

Is there something factually incorrect about what he has posted?

So 36.7% of RAH's flying is between DL and YX. Considering DL is looking to get rid of Comair and DALPA let the scope issue at Midwest go unchallenged, it seems to me that a likely scenario, based on the Compass model and heavy dependence Republic has on DL/YX flying, that DL is interested sloughing most of its domestic flying to Republic, who has lower labor costs and the right economies of scale to challenge Southwest.

Brilliant @:-) I could not have said it better myself. Comair has long been a thorn in Delta's side. Midwest will be the new bleeder/feeder against the LCCs. Delta is ceding this market to Midwest.

Is there something factually incorrect about what he has posted?

Maybe not. We don't know all the behind-the-scenes politicking. Facts are only one part of the equation. Delta still has a lot of interest in this situation, based on the numbers you provided, regardless of the overt relationship between DL and YX.

In other words, there's more to the story and all of us are speculating. Rejecting/accepting different theories requires an understanding of perspective. Without perspective, it's reasonable to say that a person "doesn't get it." How do we gain perspective? Experience. And we're not going to individually gain much experience on a forum board...

So 36.7% of RAH's flying is between DL and YX.

Am I missing something here? They own YX. YX is not DL. What does combining those numbers show?

DALPA let the scope issue at Midwest go unchallenged

Can you elaborate further on this?

If Delta were to put it's code on YX flights, that would violate the scope clause, correct? DL does not put its code on YX flights, and the code share with Midwest expressly prohibits this.

YX puts its code on DL flights. Are you saying this viloates the DL scope clause, but DALPA has decided to let this go?

Am I missing something here? They own YX. YX is not DL. What does combining those numbers show?

I assume that 18.7% represented RAH's capacity for YX before the sale to RAH in which DL was a 47% owner of YX. Therefore, 36.7% of RAH's capacity went to DL or a DL owned airline before the sale. My opinion is that because RAH depended so heavily on DL or DL-owned flying, before DL authorized the sale of YX to RAH, a deal was made between DL and RAH allowing RAH to continue operating as an DL* carrier in exchange for something... What that "something" is, I don't know, but why else would DL allow RAH to continue operating mainline aircraft, owned by RAH, on routes that directly compete with NW or DL? Would DALPA allow one of their contracted carriers to operate mainline aircraft on the side, even if they do not fly DL* routes? My opinion is no, especially considering the upcoming furloughs DL is facing.

Can you elaborate further on this?

If Delta were to put it's code on YX flights, that would violate the scope clause, correct? DL does not put its code on YX flights, and the code share with Midwest expressly prohibits this.

YX puts its code on DL flights. Are you saying this viloates the DL scope clause, but DALPA has decided to let this go?

I'm saying that DL owned 47% of an airline where mainline flying was being replaced by regional flying. Sure, YX had a weak contract, but that fact that Delta-controlled ALPA and DALPA itself did little to intervene in the outsourcing of mainline flying to a regional tells me that DALPA was motivated by other details we're not aware of. Otherwise, the Brotherhood of ALPA is just a sham. IMO, DALPA sold out YXALPA for a development we have not yet seen.

It's naive, IMO, to think that Bedford is just collecting airlines without the help of other interested parties. To me, an RAH with 50 A320s, 9 717s and up to 50 E-190s is a threat to all the majors, yet all the majors keep funding him with their continued regional contracts. Follow the money and you will see who's funding Bedford's operation: DL and UA. Therefore, I believe DL still has a dog in this fight.

Blue - you don't get it.

Apparently you're one of the very few who does get it. It's always a pleasure getting educated by you on how any event that transpires at Midwest can either directly or indirectly be tied back to Northwest/Delta.

It was rather amusing to see you rehash the theory that Midwest is becoming a feeder airline for Delta. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to resurrect this theory. How do you come to this conclusion when there are no facts to support this view?

Since you're so enlightened as to what is transpiring at Midwest these days, perhaps you can tell us how Delta plans to get around the scope clauses in place in order to funnel more traffic onto Midwest's plans? You previously stated that Delta wants to put most of its domestic passengers on Midwest jets. When can we expect Republic to place their large aircraft order? When will Delta announce their plans to dump the DC9s, MD88s, etc.?

Republic has been forced to pull several E170s from Delta Connect flying as they were no longer needed. Is this because Midwest (now a Republic company) will be taking all of Delta's domestic traffic?

Also, I'd be curious on how Frontier fits into this picture. Bryan Bedford recently stated that Airbus jets would be coming to MKE within the next six months, presumably flown by Frontier pilots. How does this fit into Delta's plans?

Please educate me since I just don't get it. Some actual facts besides Northwest's 47% minority ownership in Midwest to support your views might be helpful.

I'm saying that DL owned 47% of an airline where mainline flying was being replaced by regional flying. Sure, YX had a weak contract, but that fact that Delta-controlled ALPA and DALPA itself did little to intervene in the outsourcing of mainline flying to a regional tells me that DALPA was motivated by other details we're not aware of. Otherwise, the Brotherhood of ALPA is just a sham. IMO, DALPA sold out YXALPA for a development we have not yet seen.



As I recall, Republic had 12 E170 jets in storage in Pittsburgh that needed to find a home quickly. To help entice Midwest to take these planes, Republic offered a much needed cash infusion and the promise of additional financing if certain financial benchmarks were achieved.

The Midwest pilots apparently weren't willing to entertain the possibility of any concessions and fought the descion to outsource flying to Republic but losts. Why would DALPA really care what was happening up in Milwaukee? Remember, Delta inherited Northwest's 47% minority interest in Midwest. They never seemed to have much interest in what was happening at Midwest or in Milwaukee, unlike Northwest. Milwaukee isn't nearly as important in the new Delta world as it was for Northwest. Frankly, Delta was probably glad to get rid of its stake (previously written down to zero from a GAAP standpoint) in Midwest.

I assume that 18.7% represented RAH's capacity for YX before the sale to RAH in which DL was a 47% owner of YX. Therefore, 36.7% of RAH's capacity went to DL or a DL owned airline before the sale.

Actually, the 18.7% of RAH capacity which is YX is based on what is planned by this coming January…9 E190, 11 E170, 9 E145’s and 2 E135’s. (That’s approximately the same capacity Midwest flies today, only some of the work (today) is still outsourced to Skywest.)

Prior to the sale, when DL still owned the 47% stake in Midwest, the sub-contracted E170 flying which Republic did for Midwest was about 7% of its flying.

Of course Delta is a large customer of Republic’s, and as such Delta’s decisions related to their contract affect Republic. But USAirways and United are both significantly larger customers. And with the addition of Midwest and Frontier, the percentage of total RAH revenues which come from the Delta RJ contract becomes smaller.

My opinion is that because RAH depended so heavily on DL or DL-owned flying, before DL authorized the sale of YX to RAH, a deal was made between DL and RAH allowing RAH to continue operating as an DL* carrier in exchange for something... What that "something" is, I don't know, but why else would DL allow RAH to continue operating mainline aircraft, owned by RAH, on routes that directly compete with NW or DL?

Ahh, I see what you’re saying. Thanks for clarifying…I understand better where you’re coming from.

I think you’re suggesting that Delta allowed Republic to keep their DL* flying (in spite of buying Midwest, now a DL competitor) in exchange for something. And whatever this “something” is, it benefits Delta greatly, like having low-cost RAH take over mainline flying for Delta. There must be something like this going on because it would be do dangerous for Republic to risk ticking Delta off and losing that DL* business.

Here’s how I view this stuff.

(1) I don’t think that Republic is in near-term danger of losing the Delta Connection flying in spite of buying Midwest and Frontier:

--Delta can’t early-terminate the Republic DL* contract.
I don’t think Delta could simply pull their flying from Republic just because they didn’t like Republic flying mainline-sized aircraft elsewhere. When the contract expires they can award it elsewhere, but they can’t just pull it because they are unhappy. (See Delta + Mesa, for example.)

--Republic’s purchase of MEH does not appear to be a scope violation.
I also don’t think Delta could pull the DL* flying because RAH is in violation of scope. Where this comes into play (for those who don’t know) is that many mainline pilot contracts have a clause where it’s okay if airline XYZ flies code-share RJ flying, but XYZ can’t fly aircraft larger than 76 seats for them *or any other airline*. So Skywest (for example) can fly 50 and 70 seat RJ’s for United, but if they fly 137-seat 737’s anywhere it is in violation of United’s scope, no matter of Skywest flies them as United Express, Delta Connection, or as Skywest Airlines.

This details of this varies from airline to airline, but it’s not limited to just Delta. The reason I don’t think RAH is in violation of this is that several airlines have this sort of clause, and RAH does code-share contract flying for all the network majors…DL, UA, AA, CO, and US. Republic gets around this by technically operating different subsidiaries. (Not saying this is admirable, but it’s why they are a multi-airline entity.) If this was a back-room deal where Delta looked the other way on this (potential) scope violation, why would the Delta *pilots* agree…it’s their contract which would potentially be violated. And why would no other airline pilot groups object on violation of scope? I don’t think it violates scope, technically, in a way which would allow Delta to scrap the existing DL* with Republic.

Therefore, even if Delta was not happy with Republic over this and ultimately pulled the DL* flying, (a) they couldn’t stop it until the contract expired, and (b) Republic’s reliance on the Delta revenue is plummeting because of the purchase of Midwest and now Frontier.

(2) I don’t think Delta allowing Republic to buy Midwest proves that there is a separate, unspoken deal between Delta and Republic. There are other reasons to explain why things turned out as they have to this point:

--Delta was not the controlling owner…TPG was.
It wasn’t Delta’s decision to allow or block the Midwest sale. The fact that Republic was allowed to buy Midwest doesn’t necessarily mean that Delta did or did not like this.

--Delta still has a vested interest in keeping Midwest intact to fight AirTran.
The key reason NW invested in keeping Midwest afloat was to keep AirTran from trashing yields in the entire great lakes region. Their investment kept AirTran from inheriting Madison, Des Moines, Wausau, Grand Rapids, etc. Now Milwaukee still got big increases in service from AirTran (and soon southwest), however AirTran did not and probably is not likely to invade secondary high-fare markets in the great lakes region where NW/DL dominates. And as long as Midwest still exists in Milwaukee, someone else (not Delta) is primarily battling AirTran. Keeping Midwest intact by selling it to another entity who plans to maintain and enhancements keeps AirTran busy, and this benefits Delta.

--An intact Midwest keeps Delta’s base among Milwaukee travelers strong.
NW (then subsequently Delta) chose to partner with Midwest in frequent flyer and code-share deals. Why would they do this, even though Midwest was a competitor? First, to keep and expand their strong presence in MKE, among their largest frequent flyer bases outside of hub cities. And second, to a lesser extent, to sell more tickets on NW/Delta planes. Keeping Midwest intact preserves these benefits for Delta.

For these reasons, I don’t think the events so far indicate a secret agreement between Republic and Delta. From Republic’s side, they are not in looming danger of losing the DL* flying in the near future. From the Delta side, they benefit from an intact Midwest more than letting Midwest die. That may have been the eventual alternative to the Republic sale.

It's naive, IMO, to think that Bedford is just collecting airlines without the help of other interested parties. To me, an RAH with 50 A320s, 9 717s and up to 50 E-190s is a threat to all the majors, yet all the majors keep funding him with their continued regional contracts. Follow the money and you will see who's funding Bedford's operation: DL and UA. Therefore, I believe DL still has a dog in this fight.

Bedford has the money to do it without anyone else’s help. And I see reasons for Republic to do this without the ulterior motive implied in your theories.

(a) It diversifies Republic’s business. The era of guaranteed big profits for code-share airlines has passed, and when contracts come up there’s a lot of pressure to award flying to whoever is cheapest. Flying a brand is obviously not a profit guarantee, either. But it gives them more control and spreads around the risk.

(b) It gives Republic control of two customers for their small-aircraft flying. ERJ and E170s flown as Midwest and Frontier won’t be awarded to competitors when the contracts come due.

(c) It satisfies the ego of Republic leadership. I’ve heard the leadership of large code-share regionals described as being like big, muscle-bound eunuchs. Buying Midwest, and then Frontier, satisfies the desire to run a “real” airline.

Here and elsewhere I’ve heard expressed the idea that Republic is in cahoots with Delta, or United, or others to set up a low-cost airline to replace narrowbody flying for the majors. Proof offered for this is that Delta, or United, or others have not pulled their contract flying with Republic.

(a) I’m not convinced that any of Republic’s partners could readily cancel their code-share contracts early because of this. Republic is a master at avoiding scope clause issues.

(b) Even if the majors could cancel Republic’s contracts readily, it still doesn’t quite work. Let’s say they are in fact colluding with Delta on this, and thus Delta is not threatening to pull the DL* contract with Republic. So far so good. But then it must follow that they are also colluding with USAirways because US* is not being pulled, they are also colluding with American because AA* is not being pulled, they are also colluding with United because UA* is not being pulled, and they are also colluding with Continental because CO* is not being pulled. The new Frontier Midwest looks to become a significant low-cost airline which will compete with every single one of Republic’s existing code-share partners. Unless they have masterfully worked this so the new Frontier Midwest is colluding to push out narrobody flying at *every* major network airline, then some of their partners are potentially unhappy about this. But nobody has pulled or taken action to pull their RAH contracts. So the absence of Delta pulling their contract does not indicate collusion in my opinion.

It’s important to remember, at least in my opinion, how early it is in the game. Republic owning Midwest, well, Midwest is miniscule in the scope of things, and if airline execs believe some of the shoddy trade press and analyst articles, Midwest is nothing. Now that they won Frontier…only several days ago…perhaps the big airline partners of Republic will take greater notice. But still, as long as Republic has worked around scope clause issues (as they have before again and again) then the RAH contracts likely stand, at least for now. Republic may be betting that even if some major partners don’t renew the RJ contracts with them, their Frontier Midwest division will more than make up for the lost revenue, perhaps even putting displaced RJ’s into in-house service.

It was rather amusing to see you rehash the theory that Midwest is becoming a feeder airline for Delta. I was wondering how long it would take for someone to resurrect this theory. How do you come to this conclusion when there are no facts to support this view?

I don't think Hazalrah believes YX will become a feeder for DL, rather, more of a codeshare partner/hired gun to go after Southwest/Airtran. Delta can't do that without radically changing their service and structure. However, with a fleet of Airbuses and E-190s, and drastically lower costs, Republic can. Remember as well, DL is still paying RAH lots of money. Can RAH survive without DL? DL sort of has Bedford by the balls, IMO. Bedford can't do much without getting their permission, otherwise, DL will just say "so long." They're looking to cut Comair loose, so why not just get rid of RAH instead?

Since you're so enlightened as to what is transpiring at Midwest these days, perhaps you can tell us how Delta plans to get around the scope clauses in place in order to funnel more traffic onto Midwest's plans?

The same one they used with Northwest. Keep the Midwest/Frontier certificates, and they circumvent the scope issue through codeshares, especially if YX/F9 become Skyteam members, which I think we have already seen the beginnings of. I also expect DALPA to make concessions sometime next year as the "no furlough" clause draws closer to expiring.

You previously stated that Delta wants to put most of its domestic passengers on Midwest jets. When can we expect Republic to place their large aircraft order? When will Delta announce their plans to dump the DC9s, MD88s, etc.?

When the pieces fall into place. Lots of variables... fuel, the economy, terrorism, etc... DL is definitely looking to streamline its fleet and get rid of expensive labor (offered early retirement to senior pilots).

Republic has been forced to pull several E170s from Delta Connect flying as they were no longer needed. Is this because Midwest (now a Republic company) will be taking all of Delta's domestic traffic?

What else would DL do with all the pilots it has? Expect upwards of 800 to 1000 DL pilots on the street next year. Then, DL will keep RAH very busy.

Also, I'd be curious on how Frontier fits into this picture. Bryan Bedford recently stated that Airbus jets would be coming to MKE within the next six months, presumably flown by Frontier pilots. How does this fit into Delta's plans?

Bedford also asked for unlimited scope concessions. The RAH Teamsters, IMO, aren't going to allow F9 pilots to work on a separate seniority list. I'm not in the know on that issue, but I think Bedford is bluffing-he won't give up majority ownership of F9 to avoid merging seniority lists. First, who else would buy in and where were they during the RAH/WN fight for F9? Second, how else is he going to provide greater capacity without the F9 jets? There are murmurs that up to 13 MD-83s are in line as the back up to the Airbuses... Wouldn't that be irony?

Please educate me since I just don't get it. Some actual facts besides Northwest's 47% minority ownership in Midwest to support your views might be helpful.

I don't think any of us have all the facts. Some might know more from the inside, but even then, how much of that is true? Other than Knope's numbers, there are very few facts on this board. While Knope's numbers are fun to analyze, we're all really interested in the future of YX. And that... is all speculation.

The Midwest pilots apparently weren't willing to entertain the possibility of any concessions and fought the descion to outsource flying to Republic but losts.

Not true. The union offered concessions, just not the 63% concessions TH asked for. Please don't make the YX pilots out to be greedy monsters. They are not. But they are also not going to work for less than industry standard wages on the 717. Check out what FL pilots make on "the airline pilot's central website."

Why would DALPA really care what was happening up in Milwaukee? Remember, Delta inherited Northwest's 47% minority interest in Midwest. They never seemed to have much interest in what was happening at Midwest or in Milwaukee, unlike Northwest. Milwaukee isn't nearly as important in the new Delta world as it was for Northwest. Frankly, Delta was probably glad to get rid of its stake (previously written down to zero from a GAAP standpoint) in Midwest.

Please don't be so narrow minded to think that YX can and will only operate out of MKE. I know your world is bigger than Packerland. YX is no longer MKE's hometown airline. Same goes for F9 and DEN. Bedford will use that gimmick as long as it's useful, then strategically expand the airline(s)... With DL's permission, of course...

First, great post...

Of course Delta is a large customer of Republic’s, and as such Delta’s decisions related to their contract affect Republic. But USAirways and United are both significantly larger customers. And with the addition of Midwest and Frontier, the percentage of total RAH revenues which come from the Delta RJ contract becomes smaller.

US/UA/DL... Who's going to be left standing the next time oil shoots up, a terrorist attack occurs or the economy takes another dump?

I think you’re suggesting that Delta allowed Republic to keep their DL* flying (in spite of buying Midwest, now a DL competitor) in exchange for something. And whatever this “something” is, it benefits Delta greatly, like having low-cost RAH take over mainline flying for Delta. There must be something like this going on because it would be do dangerous for Republic to risk ticking Delta off and losing that DL* business.

Maybe not owe, but Bedford knows where to put his allegiance.

(1) I don’t think that Republic is in near-term danger of losing the Delta Connection flying in spite of buying Midwest and Frontier:

What if Delta goes into Ch. 11?

--Delta can’t early-terminate the Republic DL* contract.
I don’t think Delta could simply pull their flying from Republic just because they didn’t like Republic flying mainline-sized aircraft elsewhere. When the contract expires they can award it elsewhere, but they can’t just pull it because they are unhappy. (See Delta + Mesa, for example.)

Again, what of DL goes into Ch. 11?

--Republic’s purchase of MEH does not appear to be a scope violation.

I also don’t think Delta could pull the DL* flying because RAH is in violation of scope. Where this comes into play (for those who don’t know) is that many mainline pilot contracts have a clause where it’s okay if airline XYZ flies code-share RJ flying, but XYZ can’t fly aircraft larger than 76 seats for them *or any other airline*. So Skywest (for example) can fly 50 and 70 seat RJ’s for United, but if they fly 137-seat 737’s anywhere it is in violation of United’s scope, no matter of Skywest flies them as United Express, Delta Connection, or as Skywest Airlines.

This details of this varies from airline to airline, but it’s not limited to just Delta. The reason I don’t think RAH is in violation of this is that several airlines have this sort of clause, and RAH does code-share contract flying for all the network majors…DL, UA, AA, CO, and US. Republic gets around this by technically operating different subsidiaries. (Not saying this is admirable, but it’s why they are a multi-airline entity.) If this was a back-room deal where Delta looked the other way on this (potential) scope violation, why would the Delta *pilots* agree…it’s their contract which would potentially be violated. And why would no other airline pilot groups object on violation of scope? I don’t think it violates scope, technically, in a way which would allow Delta to scrap the existing DL* with Republic.

Therefore, even if Delta was not happy with Republic over this and ultimately pulled the DL* flying, (a) they couldn’t stop it until the contract expired, and (b) Republic’s reliance on the Delta revenue is plummeting because of the purchase of Midwest and now Frontier.

So, how does DALPA allow RAH to operate as DL* when RAH technically owns the leases on 9 717s? E-190s? DALPA is choosing its fights carefully, in anticipation of the big one (IMO) next year when the no-furlough clause expires. Bedford is building what he can between now and then to compensate for the loss in contracted flying he's going to experience.

(2) I don’t think Delta allowing Republic to buy Midwest proves that there is a separate, unspoken deal between Delta and Republic. There are other reasons to explain why things turned out as they have to this point:

--Delta was not the controlling owner…TPG was.
It wasn’t Delta’s decision to allow or block the Midwest sale. The fact that Republic was allowed to buy Midwest doesn’t necessarily mean that Delta did or did not like this.

DL may have passively acquired a large interest in YX, but even with YX as less than a blip on the screen, would DL alternatively just ignore YX, or salvage something strategic from the deal? I don't know, but pennies are so tight in today's economy, that I'm sure any CEO would look to squeeze all the juice out of his turnips.

--Delta still has a vested interest in keeping Midwest intact to fight AirTran.
The key reason NW invested in keeping Midwest afloat was to keep AirTran from trashing yields in the entire great lakes region. Their investment kept AirTran from inheriting Madison, Des Moines, Wausau, Grand Rapids, etc. Now Milwaukee still got big increases in service from AirTran (and soon southwest), however AirTran did not and probably is not likely to invade secondary high-fare markets in the great lakes region where NW/DL dominates. And as long as Midwest still exists in Milwaukee, someone else (not Delta) is primarily battling AirTran. Keeping Midwest intact by selling it to another entity who plans to maintain and enhancements keeps AirTran busy, and this benefits Delta.

The YX/F9 deal is bigger than MKE. I explained it in another post. Also, imagine the ramifications to the industry if Bedford is successful at creating a new major airline. Finally, scope creep is a reality, otherwise Bombardier and Embraer wouldn't be making larger versions of their RJs.

--An intact Midwest keeps Delta’s base among Milwaukee travelers strong.
NW (then subsequently Delta) chose to partner with Midwest in frequent flyer and code-share deals. Why would they do this, even though Midwest was a competitor? First, to keep and expand their strong presence in MKE, among their largest frequent flyer bases outside of hub cities. And second, to a lesser extent, to sell more tickets on NW/Delta planes. Keeping Midwest intact preserves these benefits for Delta.

Exactly, there's more to come in this story. A combined F9/YX will become a Skyteam member. Does that require Int'l service? Even if it does, that does not mean MKE will see it. Look for potential expansion to near Central American cities, under four hours. Just a guess...

MKE is also nothing in the grand scheme of things. Let's not think we're too important here... MKE is about as important to the industry as COS, PIT or TUS. DL FFs are loyal and will go through DTW, MSP or CVG if they have to. They did it for years with NW.

Enough for now... bedtime...

Not true. The union offered concessions, just not the 63% concessions TH asked for. Please don't make the YX pilots out to be greedy monsters. They are not. But they are also not going to work for less than industry standard wages on the 717. Check out what FL pilots make on "the airline pilot's central website."

Please don't make assumptions about things I've never said. If you go back and read all of my posts, I've never once made a comment that the YX pilots are overpaid.

I've heard from several different sources whom I consider very reliable that the YX pilots union wasn't really interested in entertaining the idea of concessions at all. Whether that's true or not is an open question that really doesn't matter anymore because TPG/Hoeksema are gone and the airline is under new ownership. It's debatable whether the YX certificate will even be kept much longer, especially if YX/F9 co-mingle assets while keeping the individual brands alive (for the time being anyway).

The pilots had every right to reject YX's proposed concessions just as Republic/Midwest has every right to move on with or without these individuals.


Please don't be so narrow minded to think that YX can and will only operate out of MKE. I know your world is bigger than Packerland. YX is no longer MKE's hometown airline. Same goes for F9 and DEN. Bedford will use that gimmick as long as it's useful, then strategically expand the airline(s)... With DL's permission, of course...

Apparently, you're not familiar with many of my posts. I've speculated for awhile now whether Midwest would continue to grow outside of MKE and where.

Bedford doesn't need Delta's permission to grow Midwest. In fact, part of the reason for purchasing Frontier and Midwest was to help diversify Republic's business in the likelihood that their contracted flying is reduced or the profit margins are slashed. It's a big gamble but Bedford is a pretty sharp guy. I'm sure he's thought through the ramifications and potential loss of revenue from one or more carriers.

I do see where you're coming from in that Delta must be getting something in exchange for their blessing on the YX deal. You might be proven right, but at this point I just haven't seen anything credible that would suggest this is true. I think we'll see Republic model Midwest/Frontier after Alaska Airlines (multiple codeshares and frequent flier agreements with a variety of carriers but no membership in any alliance).

Even though I don't agree with all your points, I'd be very interested in what role you think United plays in all of this.

A combined F9/YX will become a Skyteam member. Does that require Int'l service? Even if it does, that does not mean MKE will see it. Look for potential expansion to near Central American cities, under four hours. Just a guess...



While I don't think we'll be seeing YX/F9 joing SkyTeam anytime soon, I do think you're correct about some international expansion occurring within the next couple of years.

F9 already has a Mexico foot print (although reduced in recent years) and I suspect Republic will leverage this as much as possible.

I wouldn't be terribly shocked to see YX/F9 operate less than daily seasonal flights from MKE to places like CUN, CZM, PVR, MBJ, SJD, AUA, or SXM. With the right aircraft and a strong partner like Funjet/Apple these types of routes have a lot of potential. This is one area where I think Midwest missed the boat with Saver Service (I think they operated PVR only for one winter as a charter for Funjet).

Throw MCI into the mix, and some more opportunities open up. For a real wildcard, I think YX/F9 could make MCI-MEX work with less than daily service (4 or 5 times per week) with feed from DEN and MKE (I'm not saying I expect to see that route added...)

DLH won't be coming back. They are trying to get service to O'Hare right now, according to a few newspapers.

Part of the problem with the DLH service was that they eliminated the morning flight, which caused the loads to tank.

So, how does DALPA allow RAH to operate as DL* when RAH technically owns the leases on 9 717s? E-190s? DALPA is choosing its fights carefully, in anticipation of the big one (IMO) next year when the no-furlough clause expires. Bedford is building what he can between now and then to compensate for the loss in contracted flying he's going to experience...

The precident has already been established by AA pilots union. Four or so years ago when Bedford started expanding Chautauqua Airlines (witch was majority owned by Wexford Capital Holdings) he placed the United Express E170's on the certificate. At the same time Shuttle America was purchased from Wexford Capital. AA pilots union filed a grievance because it violated their scope. They won and Chautauqua was fined over $60million. In court it was agreed that placing the E170's with Shuttle America wouldn't violate the scope. So by keeping all of the cetificates seperate It doesn't vilolate the scope clauses of each airline...

DL is going to have to come up with a very good excuse to try to get rid of RAH's contracts. It would be hippocritical for DL to say anything about competition when their wholly owned subsidiaries working for UA, US, and CO. Not to mention the fact that they would have to give up the Shuttle between DCA and LGA. Those slots are owned by RAH. RAH transfered them form US operation to the DL operation to get the shuttle and since DL has given up all its other slots at DCA to US they won't be able to take that back without a severe cut to other flights. We bought those slots from US in bankruptcy.

DLH won't be coming back. They are trying to get service to O'Hare right now, according to a few newspapers.

Part of the problem with the DLH service was that they eliminated the morning flight, which caused the loads to tank.

Thanks DLHFLYER it is out of my system now. After hearing alternate points of view on DLH - MKE I have resigned to the fact it won't happen anytime soon if ever. ;)

The crux of the very interesting argument taking place here is how much coordination is there between Republic and Delta during and after the sale of Midwest. Can anyone comment on whether or not such an unspoken or secret agreement would 1) require disclosure on either RAH or DL's SEC filings or 2) violate anti-collusion or anti-trust laws?

Even though I don't agree with all your points, I'd be very interested in what role you think United plays in all of this.

Interesting posts so far.
I understood what Pigeye 01 has been saying. My thoughts are mostly inline with Knoope but Pigeye brings up some good points as well. I will try and add some stuff.

I started thinking more on Republics relationship after I read this post on airliners.net:
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4525494/

United put a RFP in for more express flying. Will United choose to let one of Republics subs fly more for them? Would it be more of a 'thank you for saving us in Denver' reaction for winning Frontiers bid. Or could it be the start of something more?
Remember United agreed to code sharing with Mokulele Airlines (89% owned by Republic) a few months ago. There may be more interesting agreements, changes and what have ya to come.

I understood what Pigeye 01 has been saying. My thoughts are mostly inline with Knoope but Pigeye brings up some good points as well.

Pigeye has brought up some valid points that are definately worthy of discussion. Even though I disagree with some of the conclusions, I do think Pigeye's posts have been interesting and well thought out. He or she has been a good contributor to this board.

As it relates to United's involvement, I asked that question in all seriousness because I wanted to see what Pigeye's (or others) views on this were.

Like you, I find it interested that United has not only codeshared with Mokulele but also gave its apparent blessing to the Frontier/Republic marriage as well. There are have also been rumors that United has expressed some interest in having Lynx do some contracted flying under the United Express banner.

I wouldn't be surprised to see quite a few routes open up out of MCI/KC, with the move to terminal c, only a few airlines in that terminal, if Midwest/Republic wanted, they could have the whole terminal which is I think about 26 gates, with some moves of the other airlines to Terminal A & B, C would be Midwest's.

I'd put all of these city pairs pretty high on the list:

If MCI is going to see some restoration and growth, then at least a few markets ilke SAT, MSY, AUS, CMH, PIT and JAX are likely to show up.




If your referring to YX...I don't really see any MCI-JAX service in the near future...

:o