It’s true that BDL and RDU didn’t tie in well to the broad western Frontier network, but that wouldn’t have made much difference. If they believed that BDL/RDU markets to the west were worth pursuing, they needed to link those cities nonstop to Denver. Something like BDL-MKE-DEN-SLC is an absolute nonstarter. Even reworking BDL and RDU schedules to better link to Denver would actually have made things worse. Those BDL and RDU flights needed to survive off of local Milwaukee traffic and be bolstered by connections from MKE’s feeder markets. Based on geography and time zones, making the Hartford and Raleigh schedules work well for optimal traffic to-from Denver would have meant poorer schedules for Milwaukee-based traffic and worse connectivity for markets like MSN-RDU and MCI-BDL. The loyal F9 flyers in Denver can be used to help bolster certain Milwaukee markets, but they can’t be a primary concern because the yield for something like DEN-MKE-RDU is nowhere near enough to justify MKE-RDU flying. It has to be the local market first and foremost.

Agreed that they need to be more aggressive against WN…their costs are better than WN’s. The immediate problem is that aggression costs money, and they needed to make changes to stop bleeding so much. I do look for them to be more aggressive in the near-moderate future, based in part on some comments I’ve heard, but that’s obviously a vague statement.

I’d be more concerned if this was really significant capacity.

BKG-AUS: In the current situation, no, there is likely not a better place for that RJ lift this fall. And I say that because they already park some excess RJ capacity. That RJ situation may change, especially if fares solidify in a few more markets like PIT where capacity is falling dramatically.

PHX-BKG: As a single weekly Airbus flight from mid September to early December, it’s less “useful” capacity used than non-hub flying like SLC-CUN or STL-PVR operating weekly during the winter/spring peak.

That Austin flight is not hurting anything, and in a small way by adding 1-stop MKE-AUS is it helping improve presence in the MKE market (though certainly in a small, coincidental way.) One could argue that the autumn weekly PHX-BKG Airbus flight is capacity which, small though it is, be used to build something in DEN, MKE, MCI or OMA. True, but think about specifics. Let’s say instead that instead of flying to Branson they used that plane to fly a weekly Saturday morning PHX-MCI-PHX flight. That would help increase their footprint in Kansas City. But to what end, if it’s only going to run September until early December? Unless they are planning to enter the PHX-MCI market with a year-round daily presence, it’s probably a money-losing waste to fly a Saturday morning PHX-MCI-PHX flight in fall. Now at some point they probably need to challenge Southwest more in Kansas City and Milwaukee if they want to increase their foothold. But is this winter the right time to jump into PHX-MCI, based primarily on the decision that they have enough slack during the slow fall season to send a Saturday-only flight in the market? Not in my book…if/when they deicide to enter PHX-MCI it had better be on something more solid than that.

I guess I just don’t buy the charge that Frontier is subsidy-chasing to the point of neglecting their core focus markets at this point. Beyond these two non-hub markets, the other areas where Frontier has benefitted from things like revenue guarantees, waived fees, etc, have all been markets to their hubs with a decent shot at succeeding without the economic boost. All new markets have risk of failing, and most new markets lose money at first. Instead of flying Provo-Denver, should they have used that plane to fly 1x Reno-Denver? One could make that argument, but do they have a better shot at succeeding in RNO? Not necessarily. Reno is pretty much a known entity, with heavy competition and low fares. If Provo works (and it is getting off to a slower start than they’d want, although not in the 15-20% load factor range some claim) they will have a monopoly market with higher fares than they’d likely get out of Reno. And if Provo doesn’t work, they won’t have lost money trying it – the same can’t be said for them trying Reno.

All this is not to say that they should never try Reno, nor that they should onlyadd markets where there’s a financial cushion. They need to choose battles where they press into new territory or challenge an entrenched carrier. But they can and should only do that in measured ways, especially when they are working to shore up financial results.

This is quite true. Fare and capacity rationalization is what Frontier needs in Milwaukee. Obviously we can’t know exactly what Southwest will do, but if fare and capacity rationalization come to Milwaukee, it will benefit both top carriers significantly. The dismal fare levels (dismal from the air carrier’s perspective) continues to be driven home with each new quarter’s data. Here are freshly-released Q4 local fares from Milwaukee for AirTran, compared to Southwest’s average fare for the same destinations from Midway.

FL MKE ….. WN MDW ….. WN higher by %
$ 141 ….. $ 157 ….. 11% RSW
$ 98 ….. $ 109 ….. 12% IND (Skywest)
$ 126 ….. $ 148 ….. 18% MCO
$ 149 ….. $ 181 ….. 21% FLL
$ 99 ….. $ 123 ….. 24% OMA (Skywest)
$ 169 ….. $ 210 ….. 24% SEA
$ 117 ….. $ 153 ….. 31% WAS
$ 93 ….. $ 122 ….. 31% STL (Skywest)
$ 125 ….. $ 165 ….. 32% TPA
$ 97 ….. $ 128 ….. 32% PIT (Skywest)
$ 164 ….. $ 217 ….. 32% SFO
$ 147 ….. $ 197 ….. 34% LAS
$ 116 ….. $ 158 ….. 36% NYC
$ 115 ….. $ 158 ….. 37% BOS
$ 150 ….. $ 208 ….. 39% LAX
$ 103 ….. $ 166 ….. 62% MSY

The fares for Southwest at Midway were often in the range of 1/4 to 1/3 higher than AirTran at Milwaukee, and that’s a massive gap. And it’s not just a matter of markets where they fought Frontier – look at the gaps in markets like SEA, SFO, LAX and MSY where they had a 4th quarter monopoly – FL fares were still in the dumpster to fill seats. I, too, have heard MKE created massive losses for FL this past winter on their east-west operation. Southwest certainly has deeper pockets to endure losses, but merger costs will put their profitability string in jeopardy this winter. Of course some would suggest Southwest will keep the pressure on in Milwaukee to ultimately kill Frontier and reduce Denver competition, but they have been around long enough to recognize how excessively long it takes for an airline to shut down. Southwest would be better off, strategically, to let Frontier succeed in Milwaukee and make them less desperately reliant on Denver, where they could drag Southwest earnings down for years.

All that speculation aside, I suspect Southwest is less concerned that many might think about what it wants to “do” to Frontier. More likely, at least in my book, is that they will fly in Milwaukee what is determined to be a good, profitable use of resources…nothing more and nothing less. But….of course….time will tell.

Getting back to Frontier, if they are at some point going go back to rebuilding in Milwaukee, that first needs to be based on making money in core routes. That is what supports added spokes, which in turn improves connectivity and increases the viability of more routes. If they lose money on every MKE-LAX passenger, they can’t afford to sell marginal XXX-LAX tickets over Milwaukee. If they make money on local MKE-LAX passengers, then XXX-LAX traffic served over Milwaukee is gravy, and that gravy can help justify something like BDL-MKE if local traffic alone isn’t enough to support it.

That all is predicated on improved health of core markets.


Although the lack of FF alliance is a significant problem, and the lack of success so far in remedying this is a disappointment, they have stated they are working to change this.

That’s quite a stretch, to put it in very charitable terms. The vast majority of business travelers in Frontier markets probably have very little knowledge (and in many cases zero knowledge) about BB. BB hasn’t even been at the reins very long. The average consumer knows crap about the leadership of the companies they patronize – especially the personal attributes of the top brass – except for a tiny handful of high-profile giants. BB is not in that category.

As for them being repelled by the “persona” of Frontier itself, look who has had made the biggest inroads against Frontier. It’s not stoic old-guard carriers like United or Delta, it’s carriers like Southwest and AirTran, neither of which has a “persona” so much different than Frontier. And neither of them are members of a FF alliance.

Business travel decisions are primarily based on schedule, fare, corporate contracts and policy, and frequent traveler affinity programs. “Persona” of the airline is not among those key factors, and is only an intangible influence and probably ranks lower than other lesser factors like perceived “service” and onboard amenities.

I do think that Frontier needs to be more focused in their actions to attract business traveler loyalty, and gaining membership in a FF alliance would be a big benefit. Improving points of differentiation – especially compared to Southwest – is key.

How many quarters did Midwest turn a profit with the 88-seat 717’s? I think you can count them on one hand…and if memory serves me correctly, on one hand after an unfortunate industrial accident. Midwest did make good money for years, even after being spun off from Kimberly Clark…it was not an accounting trick…but it was based on a heavy diet of high business fares and low oil prices. As both those things disappeared, the model didn’t work anymore.

Thanks for quoting me out of context – I said they were a bottom-feeder specifically in their role of seasonal 3x/week GRB-DEN flying.

Little or no business traveler revenue? Care to support that assertion? And with no FF alliance, does that also mean Southwest has little or no business traveler revenue?