Programs: United 1k, Midwest Miles, VX eleVAte, Hilton Diamond VIP
Posts: 1,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by RSVP
WTMJ TV reported the cities with service eliminations will be released on Friday. New schedules are due out next week.
So the real question is whether Midwest will be eliminating service to any cities or if we'll just be seeing a combination of reduced frequency in existing markets, a more seasonal approach to the warm weather flying, and/or the reduction of select routes (e.g. MCI-MCO).
Depending on what you read or hear in the media, the above is certainly open to speculation. Michael Brophy has made comments all over the board, saying early on that Midwest would not eliminate any destinations to more recent hints that leisure travelers wouldn't be happy with the new schedules.
__________________ If you don't know where you are going, you might end up someplace else.
Flew the remaining segment I planned to use, on Monday. SEA-MCI-LGA. Quite a decent trip About 85% full to KC, but the KC to NYC leg only had 36 people onboard.
I'm glad you had a better experience on this trip.
Drawing conclusions from the number of passengers aboard a single flight or two is like evaluating a city by picking a random name out of the phone book and calling that person. Nothing suggests that this is really representative of the average.
If you're looking for a more representative number, we can see the average number of passengers on MCI-LGA and LGA-MCI over time in online stats. For all of 2007, this route filled 73.9% of available seats for Midwest.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deelmakur
AirTran had a SEA-MKE-LGA flight scheduled right on top of them. That kind of competition, coupled with the uncertainty they are projecting, seems to be killing them.
You must not be very familiar with what Midwest's market is. It is decidedly not SEA-LGA. Kansas City - LaGuardia is almost all local traffic between the two cities and very few connecting or thru passengers flying beyond.
Loads on MCI-LGA are unaffected by competition in a market like SEA-LGA because almost no passengers on MCI-LGA for Midwest originate in SEA. MCI-LGA is nearly all local traffic. Here are stats to support that:
2007 4th quarter stats (both directions)
49,167 MCI-LGA local passengers served
50.544 MCI-LGA total onboard passengers
In other words, on the average MCI-LGA flight only 2.7% of passengers...about two out of every 70 onboard...actually originated in a connection city like SEA, SFO, SAN or LAX.
Here's one more item of proof on the unimportance of SEA-LGA traffic to Midwest. As you're probably aware, the SEA-MCI flight continues on to LGA as the same flight number (often called a "thru" or a "direct" flight.) The DoT stats show us how many people acutally flew "thru" from SEA to MCI on that flight each month. Midwest started flying this "thru" flight back in May of 2007. From May through December of 2007, Midwest carried exactly 60 passengers from SEA to LGA. Fewer than eight per month.
Why is this? Why wouldn't Midwest go after this market? It is generally very low yield. And with only one flight per day amid a large host of airlines trying to serve this market, Midwest wouldn't get many passengers even if they expended a lot of effort unless they were the cheapest fare.
AirTran's thru service between SEA and LGA has virtually no affect on Midwest's SEA-MCI flights or MCI-LGA flights.
With so many airlines in the SEA-LGA market, why would you think AirTran was creating light loads for Midwest on LGA-MCI-SEA and SEA-MCI-LGA? Those are not even the segements you flew on.
Location: NYC (CT suburbs), Gulf Stream, FL, and Seattle
Programs: CO Infinite Plat, AirTran Elite, AS MVPG, Delta GM, US PLat.
Posts: 2,918
Knope, I bow to your superior grasp of the industry. You are right on two counts. I know little about the operations of Midwest, and there were only two of us on that through flight to LGA that continued on to New York. My observations are anecdotal. You strike me as analytical, which is probably why you seem to project a belief that TPG is in this for the long haul. Curiously, they say nothing. The Midwest CEO says they have said things, but I haven't noticed anything put out by TPG. While this is going on, an airline wth fewer than 40 mainline aircraft announces it is parking nearly a third of them, all of which have the range for nonstop to the west coast from its primary hub. The remaining aircraft can't do it. They then proceed to tell people that their schedule is no longer reliable, but if you wait for a month, they'll let you know. In the midst of this rather curioius business model, two shareholders, who own the place, and invested a half billlion in cash, say nothing. On the subject of inefficient aircraft, one of them, NWA, still flies DC-9's that are older than you. As it happens, I went to Midwest because I commute to Seattle, and the primary carriers have put the cost of a First Class seat to nearly $1700, and removed advance upgrade opportunities, which allowed top tier members of their respective FF progams to buy them for around $800. The trip I just completed, for $360, was as good as any I have had in First, lately, on Alaska, for 4 to 5 times less in cost. Perhaps Midwest should have looked for that business. As a proactive flyer, I knew about their 2+2 seating, and by using uncrowded hubs, their travel time wasn't that much longer. The loads are light on coast to coast because nobody in those east coast cities they serve,knows they exist, unless they are going to KC or MKE, and nearby points. Unfortunately, I got there too late. The new ownership certainly has no interest in that kind of thing being available. The model is broken. Configured for business customers, they carry mostly junk (it's an industry term, not a socio-economic comment). Case in point. On both trips, I asked for, and got, at departure, within 20 minutes of boarding, exit rows. They were all available. You won't see much of that when a line is carrying a lot of road warriors. AirTran was stupid. Piling those flights into MKE was pure petulance, but it is clear that the schedules reflect those of the YX flights they are on top of. It can't help, certainly with pricing. And if NW, which has a substantial investment in Midwest, wanted to send a message to AirTran, they could apply pressure somewhere else, where it would make an impression on them. Here again, nada. So, Knope, while you are charting how many sheets of toilet paper are used monthly between Madsion and Milwaukee, try opening your eyes. These "investors" have only 2 goals. Eliminate competiton, and remove Midwest as a "back door" opportunity in their bread and butter markets, for a competitor. The company is toast.
On both trips, I asked for, and got, at departure, within 20 minutes of boarding, exit rows. They were all available. You won't see much of that when a line is carrying a lot of road warriors.
Why, exactly, would an exit row help on Midwest's 717s? The reason I try to get exit rows on other airlines is because it gets me a better seat. On Midwest, the difference in seat quality and legroom. Also, according to seatguru, the Row 13 exit row doesn't recline and has shorter armrests, making it a worse seat. So... you're making an argument for an exit row where you have a 50% chance of getting a worse seat.
Programs: Delta Gold Medallion,AA,USairways,Midwest Airlines, National Emerald Club
Posts: 1,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by deelmakur
The new ownership certainly has no interest in that kind of thing being available. The model is broken. Configured for business customers, they carry mostly junk (it's an industry term, not a socio-economic comment).
Hear, Hear. This is the point I have been trying to make. No airline survives on a business traveler only model. Business travelers are wh**es; they want perks, upgrades, FF miles, and corporate discounts. It was amusing to hear the whining when airlines reimplemented Saturday night overstay restrictions (yes business travelers this is aimed at you using low liesure fares). Midwest is a dinosauer, an evolutionary dead-end trapped in its Kimberly-Clark roots.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deelmakur
AirTran was stupid. Piling those flights into MKE was pure petulance, but it is clear that the schedules reflect those of the YX flights they are on top of. It can't help, certainly with pricing.)
You may well be right, but by all accounts the loads have at least been pretty good on FL out of MKE. Of course loads are only part of the story, but by some accounts Midwest is spooked. Word is Midwest has been paying counters to monitor FL loads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deelmakur
And if NW, which has a substantial investment in Midwest, wanted to send a message to AirTran, they could apply pressure somewhere else, where it would make an impression on them. Here again, nada.
I don't blame NW. NW said they were a passive investor, and they have code-shared with YX. All NW has done is be true to its word. Tim Hoeksaema insisted that YX was viable as a standalone carrier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deelmakur
These "investors" have only 2 goals. Eliminate competiton, and remove Midwest as a "back door" opportunity in their bread and butter markets, for a competitor. The company is toast.
Good Summary. I think that the tactical plan at this point is to try to get the pilots and FAs to sign up to their own haircut. Chapter 11 is messy you know, all those lawyers fees, judges, and isn't it fairly public?
So, Knope, while you are charting how many sheets of toilet paper are used monthly between Madsion and Milwaukee, try opening your eyes. These "investors" have only 2 goals. Eliminate competiton, and remove Midwest as a "back door" opportunity in their bread and butter markets, for a competitor. The company is toast.
LOL...spoken like someone who has his conclusions all mapped out and is getting frustrated that he can't support them. Conclusions are supposed to come last, aren't they?
You reach virtually the same conclusion at the end of most of your posts, but you have repeatedly tried to support your conclusion with facts that have been disproven. Repeatedly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deelmakur
I know little about the operations of Midwest
That certainly hasn't stopped you from making broad claims and generalizations, now has it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by deelmakur
You strike me as analytical, which is probably why you seem to project a belief that TPG is in this for the long haul.
What strikes me as curious is what makes you so sure that the analytical perspective is incorrect? What do you have to counter that and support your assertions?
Quote:
Originally Posted by deelmakur
Curiously, they say nothing. The Midwest CEO says they have said things, but I haven't noticed anything put out by TPG.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deelmakur
In the midst of this rather curioius business model, two shareholders, who own the place, and invested a half billlion in cash, say nothing.
Why would TPG air the dirty laundry associated with this in the media? If you think that TPG is being eerlily quiet in this matter, you're fooling yourself. They are simply not running to the media. As a matter of fact, were the pilots union not trying to whip up a frenzy (to pressure the company and aid in their negotiations), this would not be the public issue it is. Midwest is not doing a very good job at getting the spin to go in their direction, but TPG is wise to not stir things up further in the media. But make no mistake...they are the impeutus behind changes being made, not sitting silently by.
It seems increasingly clear to me...and an insider I talk to regularly supported this...than the details of the fall and winter schedule relied signficantly on the outcome of pilot negotiations. How fast to park the M80's and how many lines of 717 flying would be scheduled for the fall and winter were not set in stone and would vary based on what could be hammered out with the pilots. The pilots chose to go public with this right out of the chute and forced Midwest's hand to discuss it in the media even before pilot negotiations started.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deelmakur
Case in point. On both trips, I asked for, and got, at departure, within 20 minutes of boarding, exit rows. They were all available. You won't see much of that when a line is carrying a lot of road warriors.
See my point again in the earlier example about being so foolhardy as to draw sweeping conclusions from exceptionally limited anecdotal experience. You have taken a single round trip flight on Midwest, is that correct?
Quote:
Originally Posted by deelmakur
The loads are light on coast to coast because nobody in those east coast cities they serve,kknows te exist, unless they are going to KC or MKE, and nearby points. Unfortunately, I got there too late. The new ownership certainly has no interest in that kind of thing being available. The model is broken. Configured for business customers, they carry mostly junk
The contrast between the minimal knowedge of you have of the Midwest Airlines business model and the massive self-assurance you hold in your conclusions is remarkable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by deelmakur
On the subject of inefficient aircraft, one of them, NWA, still flies DC-9's that are older than you.
Not so good at math, either? I assume you are guessing my age based on my earlier item which spoke of being 19 in 1986 when I first flew YX. That makes me 41, going on 42 actually. Even older than Northwest's 9' fleet.
Hear, Hear. This is the point I have been trying to make. No airline survives on a business traveler only model. Business travelers are wh**es; they want perks, upgrades, FF miles, and corporate discounts.
And they also want frequent nonstop flights, decent reliable year-round service, and the ability to concentrate their business on a carrier or two for maximum benefit.
That is what Midwest has sharply focused on for Milwaukee (and more recently Kansas City) travelers, and what has earned them a loyal following. Far more than the seats. That's why Midwest's edge has still been consistant and apparent in most markets with YX* and with Saver.
The true whores are leisure travelers. And airlines which try to live on a diet of leisure travelers have learned that the hard way over the years.
I do agree that no airline survives on a business traveler only model. However Midwest has not relied on only business travelers since 1985 when they started offering leisure travel fares as well to supplement the business traffic. Midwest focusing on their business markets does not mean they will not serve leisure travelers. With the mix-seating configuration they'll offer more leisure-priced seats than they have in the past. But the real money is in the business traveler. But because business travel demand is uneven, you need leisure as well to bring in revenue for days and times when business demand is less.
I know I have flip flopped on my opinion of Midwest Airlines recently but I really do hope they are able to survive this economic downturn. If they must contract by half to survive I only hope that they do have a comprehensive plan to grow in the future. That means expanding the fleet, more destinations and maybe even another focus city. Midwest has never really been agressive in the growth department. Also if this mean becoming more like an LCC, so be it. As long as they have the seating choice, good BOB meals and great customer service, I will still fly them. I don't care about the cookie either.
Last edited by flyYX; Jul 17, 08 at 11:44 am.
Reason: removed redundant comment
Programs: Delta Gold Medallion,AA,USairways,Midwest Airlines, National Emerald Club
Posts: 1,446
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyYX
Midwest has never really been agressive in the growth department. Also if this mean becoming more like an LCC, so be it.
Yes, I love it, and at this point it is appropriate to trot out the immortal quote by, I think IAPHX, "If Midwest wants to be like Air Tran, why don't they just be Air Tran"?
'course it's water over the dam now, but those 737s sure would have been a great replacement for the MD-80s
Programs: United 1k, Midwest Miles, VX eleVAte, Hilton Diamond VIP
Posts: 1,229
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyYX
Midwest has never really been agressive in the growth department.
Aggressive growth has led to the demise of many airlines. It takes big bucks to launch major expansion and most new routes take months to start generating profits, assuming they are worth keeping in the first place.
Midwest has had controlled, steady growth ever since they began flying back in 1984. They've achieved the goal of providing non-stop service to all major business and leisure destinations from MKE and that's why focus has shifted to MCI in recent years. The problem is there are few destinations left from MKE screaming for non-stop service.
Perhaps one of the biggest business destination from MKE not served by Midwest is Detroit and I doubt they'd take another stab at the market (especially with Northwest already flying it 5x daily). If conditions improve and Midwest returns to profitability, I could see the following markets being opened from MKE:
1) Washington Dulles
2) Miami
3) Houston
4) San Diego
5) San Antonio
The first four have been flown by Midwest non-stop from MKE in the past. With the exception of Houston, these are the biggest markets not served non-stop (SAN is debatable because we don't know if AirTran will be back in that market next year). Some of these routes could be flown with the CRJ.
I'm putting the cart before the horse here. Before any of the above would happen, Midwest has to get its house in order. Given the turmoil in the industry at the moment, I don't see much, if any, expansion on the horizon.
__________________ If you don't know where you are going, you might end up someplace else.
Price of oil today closed out at just under $130. Midwest's restructuring plan was based on oil cost up to $135.
Oil consumption way down...supposed reason for cost dropping. If oil cost can hold or drop further, there might still be a chance for YX and the industry.
It should be an interesting day tomorrow. Supposedly, dropped YX markets to be announced and maybe update on labor negotiations.
Are they old statistics? Are they statistics without revenue? You know that Milwaukee having some bona fide competition has killed yields, don't you?
There are of course no statistics out yet for the current summer period with AirTran's Milwaukee seasonal expansion. However we can look at some markets where Midwest and AirTran have been nonstop competitors. These are for the most recent stats out there, the 4th quarter of 2007.
MKE-ATL
Midwest 33.3% fare premium over AirTran
MKE-MCO
Midwest 26.5.% fare premium over AirTran
MCI-MCO
Midwest 32.7% fare premium over AirTran
I don't doubt that Midwest's yields have been diminished by AirTran's moves this summer at Milwaukee. However in markets where they have competed nonstop Midwest still sees a very substantial fare premium. That's because AirTran has to discount mightily to fill seats. Who would suggest that their $69 MKE-DCA fare...a fare you can even get for connecting MKE-ATL-DCA flights...is making them money in the current environment?
