Each month the DoT releases onboard load information by airline and city pair, with June 2009 just coming out. I usually post this information each month for Midwest and key competitors on that board, and this month I decided to do the same for AirTran.
A couple of things to know about these numbers:
(1) They are the number of people onboard nonstop lights leaving ABC and arriving XYZ. For example ATL-BOS means the people onboard nonstop flights departing Atlanta and arriving Boston. This is *different than* the number of passengers who originate in Atlanta and end in Boston. Some people on ATL-BOS may actually be flying Dallas-Boston via Atlanta, for example. Or some people who originate in Atlanta and end in Boston may actually fly ATL-BWI-BOS. So...these are numbers are essentially "how full the planes are" on a nonstop city pair.
(2) Onboard load is only half the picture when trying to guess the financial results of a market. The other half is yield fare and traffic composition. In theory, a flight could have just a single passenger onboard and still make money if the fare was high enough. In the real world, however, relatively empty flights would need unusually strong yields to do well. On the other end of the scale, although full planes are generally a positive, if it's a market with heavy downward pricing pressure, a load of 100% could still lose money.
So it's important to not simply take this information and read it as an exact correlation to profit and loss. It is not. But on the other hand, it can give some general guidance, especially knowing some other information. For example:
(a) Except in extreme circumstances, all airlines have some routes in the black and some in the red. AirTran was profitable in the quarter which included June, so we know that profits from the stronger routes surpassed losses from the weaker routes. In very general terms the stronger the overall profits at the airline, the more routes in the black.
(b) When we know of markets with unusually high fares or excessive discounting, we can adjust general ranges accordingly. A mature, monopoly route with lower than average loads might be doing better financially than load would suggest. Conversely, a highly competitive route with excessive fare pressure or with mostly junk yield connecting traffic might not be profitable even at 100% loads.
(c) Onboard loads can be fairly useful in comparing relative performance of similar routes. If MCO-MDW, TPA-MDW, MCO-IND and MCO-CMH are all pretty similar in character and composition, and if theyre all in the low 80s except MCO-IND is 65%, its probably underperforming.
So...here are AirTran's onboard loads for June 2009. These are nonstop city pairs with at least 10 flights each way during the month, so routes that only operated once or twice per week are no included.
So now for the Milwaukee stuff. AirTran has been expanding at Milwaukee, essentially restoring their hub of last summer plus adding some additional routes and frequencies to strengthen the hub. A lot of their expansion fills some of the void left when Midwest cut back significantly in MKE last year, and AirTran is bidding to become the leading airline in Milwaukee.
June is the first of the heavy summer months at Milwaukee, and the fullest loads of the year are generally from early June until late August. Although a few of Milwaukee's routes were fuller than average (and each of those was a market where Midwest dropped or sharply curtailed service), MKE is well-represented at the bottom of the list, with five of the eight emptiest markets. Some of those eight are new:
DCA-MCO new to daily during summer (saturday-only last June)
ATL-MDT (Harrisburg) new
ATL-ACY (Atlantic City) new
MKE-MSP new
MKE-BKG (Branson) new, since discontinued
MKE-STL new
But these two were launched in spring of 2008:
MKE-BOS
MKE-LGA
Not only are those markets near the bottom, but they are significantly emptier and carried significantly fewer passengers than last year:
MKE-LGA 2009 compared to prior year
-11% passengers
+15% flights
-9.6 point reduction in load factor
Although one might attribute these drops to the recessionary drop in traffic, Midwest, the incumbant nonstop competitor in the market, flew nearly the same schedule in 2009 as 2008, but did not see similar large traffic drops... -2.7% to BOS and +0.2% to LGA.
These results seem quite unexpected since (a) AirTran has a larger hub with more feed and more spokes this year versus last, and (b) AirTran seems to have or claim the momentum in Milwaukee. The relatively light loads on MKE-MSP and MKE-STL could be attributed to their newness, with both markets starting in May 2009. But the significant dropoff in MKE-BOS and MKE-LGA, at a time when AirTran is trying hard to build Milwaukee and build a base here is surprising.
Tim34
Sep 13, 09, 4:38 pm
Airtran neither has the needed planes nor gate space to ever be MKE's number one airline. I doubt that is their goal. They just want a small secondary hub in Milwaukee. The numbers do not surprise me at all. Breaking into business markets in a traditionally non competitive environment (MKE prior to airtran and soon to come WN) is not easy. Midwest has the overwhelming majority of the corporate contracts and is much more well known in the area than is Airtran. NWA tried and failed in MKE for years. To think that it would be easy for Airtran to break into the MKE business markets is not wise. I give them credit for trying. At least someone is trying to keep fairs low in MKE. If it was not for Airtran MKE would be like Cincinnati (a smaller version).
knope2001
Sep 13, 09, 5:29 pm
I don't disagree that it's a difficult nut to crack to wrestle traffic away from Midwest in business markets, but have you any thoughts why AirTran did so much better last year than this year at doing that on MKE-LGA and MKE-BOS?
Had both AirTran and Midwest seen similar drops in traffic from last year to this year on LaGuardia and Boston, it would make more sense. But AirTran saw a big drop and Midwest didn't, whch I can't readily explain.
Tim34
Sep 13, 09, 6:15 pm
Easy, the economy lead to a decline in leisure travelers.
Also this is only one month. We will see what the rest of the summer is like. Also didn't Airtran add more seats on the MKE-LGA route this year than last year? if so you would need to equate for the diff before you make within group comparisons
newsmanhoss
Sep 13, 09, 6:19 pm
Airtran neither has the needed planes nor gate space to ever be MKE's number one airline.
I see where you are going with this, but gate space is not a problem. So far, AirTran has been accomodated in all of its requests for gate space. In fact, with some shuffling, AirTran could probably have all of the gates on the C Concourse if it wanted to, but it hasn't formally asked for more as of yet. When I flew out of C on FL the other day, they had 7 planes on the ground parked at gates. They could probably have a couple more if they need them.
Tim34
Sep 13, 09, 6:37 pm
I see where you are going with this, but gate space is not a problem. So far, AirTran has been accomodated in all of its requests for gate space. In fact, with some shuffling, AirTran could probably have all of the gates on the C Concourse if it wanted to, but it hasn't formally asked for more as of yet. When I flew out of C on FL the other day, they had 7 planes on the ground parked at gates. They could probably have a couple more if they need them.
True but they do not have a ton of free planes. They are now expanding to the Bahamas and other Caribbean nations. They need planes for that expansion as well. They must balance out their expansion. They can't put all their eggs in one basket like Midwest (MKE) and Denver (Frontier) that is just plain bad business.
On a side note I wish Airtran would add some South America routes. ATL to Bogota, Columbia would be a nice addition to the route network.
]
Indy
Sep 13, 09, 7:01 pm
People should look at this realistically. June is a great travel month and with all the potential feed AirTran couldn't hit a 70% load in 6 of the MKE routes. Nine total destinations couldn't hit 80% and 12 total destinations fell below the system average.
Realistically MKE cannot support 2 hubs. Who goes? YX or FL? Also there isn't enough room for growth. The MKE market is a slow growth market as well. Is this the kind of place you want to build a hub? Not likely. Where is the room for expansion for the next 20 years? Where is the local market growth to accommodate that growth? There is the hope that AirTran will pull from north Chicago. It isn't going to happen on a level greater than what it is happening at today and has happened at over the last 10 years. MKE is pulling all it is going to get.
Look at it from the perspective of a business owner. Is the MKE market worth jeopardizing your financials? You've banked on YX folding but that hasn't happened. Now they have a stronger backer that also owns Frontier. An already marginal market has now been compromised even more. As a business owner I would have to recognize that my plan did not work out as hoped and I would move on. It is still easy for AirTran to pull out. They don't have a great deal invested and I believe 2 of their gate leases expire sometime next summer.
Barring a merger or buyout involving Republic I would bet MKE loses either YX or FL. My bet is on FL leaving.
This is just my opinion.
knope2001
Sep 13, 09, 7:30 pm
Easy, the economy lead to a decline in leisure travelers.
This recession has hit business travel quite a bit harder than leisure travel. If the traditional traffic focus of AirTran and Midwest were the culprit, then business-heavy Midwest should have seen the big traffic drop and leisure-heavy AirTran should have been mostly steady.
The U.S. Travel Association notes that while leisure travel is holding up relatively well in the downturn, business trips are taking a harder hit.
From "Tought times ahead for business travel" http://www.travelagentcentral.com/business-travel/tough-times-still-ahead-corporate-travel
Also this is only one month. We will see what the rest of the summer is like.
The rest of the summer could be different, but these June 2009 results mirror May 2009 results, too, so it's two months running. Becuase these routes just started in May of 2008, there are no year-over-year comparisons possible any further back than these two months. However MKE-LGA has been among the emptiest in the entire AirTran system month after month since last fall.
Also didn't Airtran add more seats on the MKE-LGA route this year than last year? if so you would need to equate for the diff before you make within group comparisons
AirTran added a 4th MKE-LGA trip on June 11th, which ran until last week (it's back to 3x/day now). So the drop in AirTran actual passengers carried is even more stunning on MKE-LGA...15% more flights but 11% fewer total passengers. Having more flights this year over last could be an explaination for a lower load factor, but the 11% drop in total passengers is the opposite of what one would expect.
3Cforme
Sep 13, 09, 7:31 pm
On a side note I wish Airtran would add some South America routes. ATL to Bogota, Columbia would be a nice addition to the route network.
People should look at this realistically. June is a great travel month and with all the potential feed AirTran couldn't hit a 70% load in 6 of the MKE routes. Nine total destinations couldn't hit 80% and 12 total destinations fell below the system average.
Realistically MKE cannot support 2 hubs. Who goes? YX or FL? Also there isn't enough room for growth. The MKE market is a slow growth market as well. Is this the kind of place you want to build a hub? Not likely. Where is the room for expansion for the next 20 years? Where is the local market growth to accommodate that growth? There is the hope that AirTran will pull from north Chicago. It isn't going to happen on a level greater than what it is happening at today and has happened at over the last 10 years. MKE is pulling all it is going to get.
Look at it from the perspective of a business owner. Is the MKE market worth jeopardizing your financials? You've banked on YX folding but that hasn't happened. Now they have a stronger backer that also owns Frontier. An already marginal market has now been compromised even more. As a business owner I would have to recognize that my plan did not work out as hoped and I would move on. It is still easy for AirTran to pull out. They don't have a great deal invested and I believe 2 of their gate leases expire sometime next summer.
Barring a merger or buyout involving Republic I would bet MKE loses either YX or FL. My bet is on FL leaving.
This is just my opinion.
It remains to be seen whether MKE can support two small hubs. After all, these aren't massive fortress hubs we're talking about here. Who's to say that YX and FL can't coexist? If one does ultimately retreat and scale back, I agree with your assessment that FL will be the most likely, but no one really knows what will ultimately happen. After all, this is Republic's first attempt at running full-fledged airlines, so they might not be as effective as some think.
AirTran is making a good run at the Milwaukee market, and they can't be faulted for that. After FL tried to take over YX, many said that FL should just go away or try to build their own MKE hub organically. Well, the latter is indeed what they have chosen to do. We all know that to infiltrate a market, airlines sometimes have to take several years of losses on certain routes to build loyalty and generate traffic, both locally and with connecting pax. Again, that is exactly what FL is doing. FL is actually doing what most people said they should do to make MKE their hub. They are serving a good mix of business and leisure destinations from Milwaukee.
In the meantime, the flying public wins. More flights and lower fares are always a good thing for travelers. From my standpoint as a customer, I'd like to see this battle wage on as long as it can. It's now up to the people of Milwaukee and northern Illinois to step up to the plate and use the service being offered by both carriers. Otherwise, yes, some of it could go away.
I do have to disagree with your assessment of the MKE passenger growth. MKE has grown from just 3 million passengers in 1985 to nearly 8 million in 2008. It has trended upward almost every year. 2009 may be different due to the economy, but 2010 will likely see a return to growth. Don't underestimate how many passengers WN will generate at MKE over time. There are a good number of northern IL folks who are loyal to WN and will drive to MKE to use the new service. They would have never considered MKE before.
knope2001
Sep 13, 09, 9:21 pm
In the meantime, the flying public wins. More flights and lower fares are always a good thing for travelers. From my standpoint as a customer, I'd like to see this battle wage on as long as it can.
Very true. The best case scenario is for all involved to be growing and profitable while keeping competitive fare pressure on.
Don't underestimate how many passengers WN will generate at MKE over time. There are a good number of northern IL folks who are loyal to WN and will drive to MKE to use the new service. They would have never considered MKE before.
Southwest is such an interesting wild card. The low-fare credibility Southwest's presence brings to Milwaukee is almost impossible to overestimate. Although Southwest will (at least to start) be a distant 4th in Milwaukee with just a dozen flights to a handful of cities, people checking fares out of MKE will find every competitive fares to dozens of cities. As much as MKE, Midwest and AirTran have pushed their benefits to residents of northern Illinois for years, WN brings a whole 'nuther dynamic.
BlueHorseShoe2000
Sep 13, 09, 9:35 pm
It remains to be seen whether MKE can support two small hubs.
If history is any indication, then the answer would be no. Northwest had a small hub in MKE during the late 1980s/early 1990s in part to retaliate against a growing and profitable Midwest.
Northwest also had a large focus city in MKE from 2003-2007 and funneled a lot of connecting traffic in the later years, especially when much of the flying was done with regional jets.
Of course, that was then and this is now. We'll see how things go, but so far the results aren't too spectacular in some of the key MKE markets.
Indy
Sep 13, 09, 11:29 pm
I do have to disagree with your assessment of the MKE passenger growth. MKE has grown from just 3 million passengers in 1985 to nearly 8 million in 2008. It has trended upward almost every year. 2009 may be different due to the economy, but 2010 will likely see a return to growth. Don't underestimate how many passengers WN will generate at MKE over time. There are a good number of northern IL folks who are loyal to WN and will drive to MKE to use the new service. They would have never considered MKE before.
I'm sorry but 8 million with a hub isn't exactly an exciting number. Heck IND generated 8.5 million with only a focus city. Adding nonstop service will stimulate some demand. Added competition can lower rates and stimulate some demand. But it isn't going to result in this incredible growth that perhaps some have hoped for. The problem isn't service or the lack of it. The problem is the relatively flat population growth in the region going back 40 years. Don't look at going from 3 to 8 million as a sign there is something special about the market. There isn't. I think you'd find growth along those lines pretty much everywhere as the airline industry has evolved.
You can look at your metro size and multiply that number by around 4.5 and get a good idea how many passengers you are going to have pass through your airport without a fortress hub. At least that is the way it seems around the midwest. Check this link out. It should give you a good idea why MKE isn't an ideal location.
http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/popm/pm5080.htm
And the estimated population for 2020 is 1,562,447. Compare that to competing cities in the midwest that are expected to see significant growth by 2020.
http://proximityone.com/metros.htm#msa2020
If AirTran wants to have a hub that offers no more than 40 or 50 flights between now and 2020 then maybe MKE works for them. That just doesn't show much vision. It will be better for them if Midwest fails. But that doesn't seem likely. Look at the loads again that Knope posted. These are nothing exciting especially when you consider there is going to be quite a bit of feed. You need to fill those seats with o/d. Feed should just be gravy.
I'm sorry but MKE cannot support 2 hubs of any size. One is the limit. Look at MEM. They are lucky to have one hub. Does anyone here think they can support 2? Not a chance.
gsupstate
Sep 14, 09, 8:57 am
Although Southwest will (at least to start) be a distant 4th in Milwaukee with just a dozen flights to a handful of cities, people checking fares out of MKE will find every competitive fares to dozens of cities. As much as MKE, Midwest and AirTran have pushed their benefits to residents of northern Illinois for years, WN brings a whole 'nuther dynamic.
What makes WN so special in this case? There's already ample LCC service to be had, with low fares to lots of nonstop destinations, as well as more to connecting cities. I'm quite sure other airlines are matching fares on competitive city pairs. How would WN change things significantly?
newsmanhoss
Sep 14, 09, 9:32 am
What makes WN so special in this case? There's already ample LCC service to be had, with low fares to lots of nonstop destinations, as well as more to connecting cities. I'm quite sure other airlines are matching fares on competitive city pairs. How would WN change things significantly?
Because for people who live in Chicago's northern suburbs, MKE is a better alternative than MDW. Traffic to MKE is usually much faster, it's cheaper to park, there are fewer flight delays, and it's an easier airport to navigate. AirTran has tried to tap in to this traffic, but doesn't appear to have been wildly successful.
Southwest might be different. I think a lot of folks might be shocked at how many Illinois travelers they will draw. There are a ton of Southwest flyers in the Chicago area in general. Some of those that live in the northern suburbs have the mentality of "well, I'd be willing to drive to Milwaukee instead of Midway, but Southwest doesn't go there." I might be wrong, but, as Knope said, it's going to be interesting to see the kind of impact WN has after the start service in November.
On top of that, there may be additional Wisconsin travelers that drive longer distances to use Southwest. After all, other than MDW and MSP, southwest really doesn't offer any service at all in the upper Midwest zone. Southwest is a well-known brand, and Wisconsinites have been waiting for this. They know a bargain when they see it. The $35 introductory fares won't hurt traffic counts either, but that's short-term only.
gsupstate
Sep 14, 09, 1:25 pm
Because for people who live in Chicago's northern suburbs, MKE is a better alternative than MDW. Traffic to MKE is usually much faster, it's cheaper to park, there are fewer flight delays, and it's an easier airport to navigate. AirTran has tried to tap in to this traffic, but doesn't appear to have been wildly successful.
Southwest might be different. I think a lot of folks might be shocked at how many Illinois travelers they will draw. There are a ton of Southwest flyers in the Chicago area in general. Some of those that live in the northern suburbs have the mentality of "well, I'd be willing to drive to Milwaukee instead of Midway, but Southwest doesn't go there." I might be wrong, but, as Knope said, it's going to be interesting to see the kind of impact WN has after the start service in November.
On top of that, there may be additional Wisconsin travelers that drive longer distances to use Southwest. After all, other than MDW and MSP, southwest really doesn't offer any service at all in the upper Midwest zone. Southwest is a well-known brand, and Wisconsinites have been waiting for this. They know a bargain when they see it. The $35 introductory fares won't hurt traffic counts either, but that's short-term only.
I totally understand what you're saying, but that could apply to anyone who comes into town and provides low fares to a great number of nonstop and/or connecting destinations, eh? I mean, a dollah's a dollah, to Joe Consumer, right?
newsmanhoss
Sep 14, 09, 3:07 pm
I totally understand what you're saying, but that could apply to anyone who comes into town and provides low fares to a great number of nonstop and/or connecting destinations, eh? I mean, a dollah's a dollah, to Joe Consumer, right?
Yes, you're right. In this case, though, Southwest already has a frequent flyer base established in northern IL. I don't think AirTran has nearly as many A+ members down there. So, who do you think these folks will favor?
rumorboy
Sep 15, 09, 7:01 pm
according to there 2nd qtr conference call to wall street, they said MKE "is profitable". Airtran had the best operating margins of any major carrier last qtr. So overall the network is profitable. Are there some weak spots? sure. I bet there are some weak spots in ATL too. But overall the airline is doing well financially over the last few months. same goes with midwest. I bet they have some weak spots also in MKE. Airtran has invested millions in MKE. A mx base, a crew lounge for the pilots and F/A's(rumor to be a base soon) and local sponsor ships. There is even a rumor about getting a feeder service up in MKE sometime in 2011. So far according to management they are satisfied with there MKE expansion and are planning more in the future. I could be totally wrong but I think Airtran is in MKE for the long run. Ten percent of there total capacity will be in MKE by the end of the year.
There is no dobut in my mind that their highly competitive fares and increased number of direct non-stops is stealing customers from Midwest. Their only failed route was the direct non-stop to Branson, Missouri.
Cookies don't cut it. Low fares and direct non-stops on full size jets do.
wahooflyer
Sep 16, 09, 3:29 pm
I do have to disagree with your assessment of the MKE passenger growth. MKE has grown from just 3 million passengers in 1985 to nearly 8 million in 2008. It has trended upward almost every year. 2009 may be different due to the economy, but 2010 will likely see a return to growth. Don't underestimate how many passengers WN will generate at MKE over time. There are a good number of northern IL folks who are loyal to WN and will drive to MKE to use the new service. They would have never considered MKE before.
I think a sizable number of AirTran passengers out of MKE are leisure travelers from northern/central/western Wisconsin and even the UP of Michigan, more so than Illinois. Fares out of MKE to Florida are often much cheaper than fares from MSN, GRB, ATW, CWA, RHI or ESC...and a nonstop AirTran flight combined with one of the many "park and fly" deals available at MKE airport hotels is still relatively convenient for those who live up north.
MKE has got to draw from a very large area because there's no other LCC flying out of any of the other Wisconsin airports. And having lived in Wisconsin myself for a couple of years in the past, it seems like just about everybody takes a vacation to somewhere sunny in the winter (unlike where I'm from in VA, where our winters are just a tad bit milder and there aren't as many snowbirds! ;) ) , so MKE and the entire state of Wisconsin are a huge leisure market for AirTran to serve.
kannon99
Sep 16, 09, 5:09 pm
With F9 leaving the C concourse here at MKE I think it is a safe bet that FL will be taking over this gate. With the speed this switch is happening I think FL had a roll to play to getting the ball rolling. Over the past few days FL has been remote parking 2-3 extra planes a night, so some extra gate space would be nice.
Tim34
Sep 16, 09, 7:16 pm
With F9 leaving the C concourse here at MKE I think it is a safe bet that FL will be taking over this gate. With the speed this switch is happening I think FL had a roll to play to getting the ball rolling. Over the past few days FL has been remote parking 2-3 extra planes a night, so some extra gate space would be nice.
I think that it makes more since to move US Air to the gates that are available near the kids play area on the C concourse and leave the entire back part of the concourse for FL. That will make it easier for FL to do connections. It doesn't make since for them to use Frontier's old gate as it is far away from Aitran's other gates.
As for FL additions
MKE-DFW 2X Daily
MKE- Charlotte 2X Daily
MKE- PHL 2 X daily
MKE-PDX- 1 X daily summer seasonal
MKE- Santa Ana/Orange County 1 X daily summer seasonal
Am I missing anything?
newsmanhoss
Sep 16, 09, 8:43 pm
As for FL additions
MKE-DFW 2X Daily
MKE- Charlotte 2X Daily
MKE- PHL 2 X daily
MKE-PDX- 1 X daily summer seasonal
MKE- Santa Ana/Orange County 1 X daily summer seasonal
Am I missing anything?
I assume these are predictions and not fact. Has AirTran made an announcement that I missed?
Tim34
Sep 16, 09, 8:52 pm
I assume these are predictions and not fact. Has AirTran made an announcement that I missed?
Correct. These are what I believe are the best next steps for airtran to solidify their MKE secondary hub
flyYX
Sep 17, 09, 8:01 am
Correct. These are what I believe are the best next steps for airtran to solidify their MKE secondary hub
I think Midwest will do PDX before AirTran. AirTran doesn't have a station at PDX but Frontier does. As I said in another thread, I think it is time for MKE - PDX to start seasonally at least. It will be much easier for Midwest to start it since they don't have to spend the money to open a new station at PDX.
Indy
Sep 17, 09, 9:54 pm
Don't be shocked to see AirTran cutting back service out of MKE. There are at least 5 routes in jeopardy right now. I'd say 6 but they'd already cut one of the routes. Any route with a load under 70% is at risk. I feel confident that MKE-IND will not do well either. There is so little O/D between the markets. I wouldn't be surprised to see those flights leaving with 50 people or less on them. This is the situation right now before Midwest rebuilds their MKE service. What happens then? It is just too much capacity for a market that size.
BlueHorseShoe2000
Sep 18, 09, 9:39 am
Don't be shocked to see AirTran cutting back service out of MKE. There are at least 5 routes in jeopardy right now. I'd say 6 but they'd already cut one of the routes. Any route with a load under 70% is at risk. I feel confident that MKE-IND will not do well either. There is so little O/D between the markets. I wouldn't be surprised to see those flights leaving with 50 people or less on them. This is the situation right now before Midwest rebuilds their MKE service. What happens then? It is just too much capacity for a market that size.
I tend to agree with you Indy. AirTran has done well in leisure markets and on routes where they have a monopoly. Therefore, it's not surprising that their overall MKE operations were profitable during the second quarter (Midwest was profitable during this same period).
However, a number of the key business markets are very weak and will likely fly with many empty seats come this fall.
I give them credit for plugging away at MKE for the last two years, but with Midwest planning aggressive expansion and Southwest swooping into Wisconsin this fall, I think AirTran will have no choice but to reconsider its plans for establishing a hub at Mitchell. STL might prove to be a better alternative for AirTran in the long-run. We shall see.
Indy
Sep 18, 09, 10:45 am
STL might prove to be a better alternative for AirTran in the long-run. We shall see.
Especially with the AA hub gone. It is sad to see what happened to STL. They certainly have the space for AirTran to operate and a much larger market (relatively speaking). STL would make 10x more sense than MKE. The industry today isn't what it was one year ago. AirTran must realize that and adjust accordingly if they hope to remain successful. If they attempt to grow based on 2008 and how they hoped things would evolve the future of the company will be grim.