January 2012 T100's
Here are the onboard loads for Frontier's eastern division for January 2012, as well as some select competitors. Remember, as always, that loads are only half the picture when it comes to judging relative performance as they say lnothing about fare or traffic composition.
Markets primarily served by Airbus or EJet 92.0% ….. MKE ….. BOS (ended early January) 90.3% ….. MKE ….. MCO 88.8% ….. MKE ….. LAS 85.3% ….. MKE ….. DEN 85.1% ….. OMA ….. MCO 84.1% ….. MSN ….. MCO 82.9% ….. MKE ….. FLL 81.0% ….. MKE ….. RSW 75.6% ….. MKE ….. PHX 75.5% ….. MCI ….. LAS 71.8% ….. MKE ….. LGA 70.4% ….. MKE ….. DFW 70.2% ….. MCI ….. MCO 69.9% ….. MCI ….. RSW 68.8% ….. MKE ….. DCA 67.1% ….. OMA ….. TPA 67.1% ….. DSM ….. MCO 66.5% ….. MKE ….. PHL 63.0% ….. MCI ….. SEA 61.1% ….. MCI ….. LAX 60.4% ….. MKE ….. MCI 59.5% ….. MCI ….. MSY 57.4% ….. MCI ….. HOU 55.8% ….. MCI ….. AUS 55.4% ….. OMA ….. DCA 53.5% ….. MCI ….. DCA 51.9% ….. MCI ….. SFO 49.3% ….. MCI ….. LGA 43.6% ….. MCI ….. BOS 43.5% ….. DSM ….. TPA 34.0% ….. MSN ….. DCA 24.7% ….. GRR ….. DCA Markets primarily served by RJ 79.1% ….. MKE ….. PIT (ended earily January) 75.6% ….. MKE ….. BNA 72.1% ….. MKE ….. IND 71.6% ….. MKE ….. EWR 64.6% ….. MKE ….. GRR 60.9% ….. MKE ….. RHI 60.8% ….. MKE ….. OMA 57.4% ….. MKE ….. CMH 53.7% ….. MKE ….. FNT 24.1% ….. MKE ….. MBL AirTran Milwaukee 93.1% ….. MKE ….. FLL 87.8% ….. MKE ….. MCO 85.7% ….. MKE ….. LAS 81.4% ….. MKE ….. RSW 78.5% ….. MKE ….. MSP 74.2% ….. MKE ….. SFO 73.3% ….. MKE ….. PHX 71.5% ….. MKE ….. SEA 71.3% ….. MKE ….. TPA 68.7% ….. MKE ….. LAX 68.6% ….. MKE ….. MSY 66.0% ….. MKE ….. LGA 63.3% ….. MKE ….. SRQ 61.4% ….. MKE ….. ATL 60.9% ….. MKE ….. BOS 51.5% ….. MKE ….. DCA 47.2% ….. MKE ….. CAK 42.2% ….. MKE ….. DSM 41.1% ….. MKE ….. DEN 38.4% ….. MKE ….. BWI Southwest Milwaukee 69.3% ….. MKE ….. PHX 68.8% ….. MKE ….. LAS 56.5% ….. MKE ….. DEN 55.8% ….. MKE ….. MCO 55.1% ….. MKE ….. BWI 54.6% ….. MKE ….. MCI 54.0% ….. MKE ….. TPA 45.4% ….. MKE ….. STL 40.7% ….. MKE ….. FLL Delta Kansas City 67.8% ….. MCI …… LAX 66.7% ….. MCI …… MSY 49.1% ….. MCI …… BOS 47.6% ….. MCI …… LGA 38.2% ….. MCI …… AUS Denver hopefully later... |
Originally Posted by knope2001
(Post 18474069)
75.5% ….. MCI ….. LAS
63.0% ….. MCI ….. SEA 61.1% ….. MCI ….. LAX 51.9% ….. MCI ….. SFO
Originally Posted by knope2001
(Post 18474069)
49.3% ….. MCI ….. LGA
43.6% ….. MCI ….. BOS BOS-MCI 54.1% (arrived early afternoon, allowing connections west) The one MCI-LGA-MCI trip upgraded to Airbus ran a similar schedule: MCI-LGA 29.2% (left about 7:30am -- no feed) LGA-MCI 54.5% (arrived early afternoon, allowing connections west)
Originally Posted by knope2001
(Post 18474069)
34.0% ….. MSN ….. DCA
24.7% ….. GRR ….. DCA DCA-GRR and GRR-DEN segments 34.1 onboard passengers 14.5 local pax to/from GRR 19.6 thru passengers to/from DEN DCA-MSN and MSN-DCA 46.8 onboard passengers 32.8 local pax to/from MSN 14.0 thru passengers to/from DEN
Originally Posted by knope2001
(Post 18474069)
Markets primarily served by RJ
79.1% ….. MKE ….. PIT (ended earily January) 75.6% ….. MKE ….. BNA 72.1% ….. MKE ….. IND 71.6% ….. MKE ….. EWR 64.6% ….. MKE ….. GRR 60.9% ….. MKE ….. RHI 60.8% ….. MKE ….. OMA 57.4% ….. MKE ….. CMH 53.7% ….. MKE ….. FNT 24.1% ….. MKE ….. MBL In case anyone happens to go back to the source data, you may notice that Chautauqua reported nearly everything at MKE as 37-seat RJ's (except Omaha, for some reason). In fact the ER3 flew MBL and RHI-IWD, plus a single daily FNT flight. I adjusted these for the real 50-seat capacity actually flown.
Originally Posted by knope2001
(Post 18474069)
AirTran Milwaukee
93.1% ….. MKE ….. FLL 87.8% ….. MKE ….. MCO 85.7% ….. MKE ….. LAS 71.3% ….. MKE ….. TPA Southwest Milwaukee 68.8% ….. MKE ….. LAS 55.8% ….. MKE ….. MCO 54.0% ….. MKE ….. TPA 40.7% ….. MKE ….. FLL
Originally Posted by knope2001
(Post 18474069)
AirTran Milwaukee
60.9% ….. MKE ….. BOS
Originally Posted by knope2001
(Post 18474069)
AirTran Milwaukee
41.1% ….. MKE ….. DEN ----- January is a weak month, and it's important to take that grain of salt with these numbers. But it's hard to imagine anyone happy with routes barely half full...or emptier...even in January. |
Here's Denver...
93.0% ….. DEN ….. PHL 92.7% ….. DEN ….. PHX 91.8% ….. DEN ….. RSW 91.1% ….. DEN ….. LGA 91.0% ….. DEN ….. LAS 90.7% ….. DEN ….. DTW 89.9% ….. DEN ….. MSP 89.4% ….. DEN ….. MCO 88.7% ….. DEN ….. SAN 88.5% ….. DEN ….. SLC 88.1% ….. DEN ….. SAT 87.9% ….. DEN ….. AUS 87.5% ….. DEN ….. DCA 87.3% ….. DEN ….. OMA 86.9% ….. DEN ….. IND 86.9% ….. DEN ….. SEA 86.6% ….. DEN ….. SMF 86.5% ….. DEN ….. LAX 86.2% ….. DEN ….. PDX 86.1% ….. DEN ….. ATL 85.6% ….. DEN ….. MSY 85.3% ….. DEN ….. MKE 85.2% ….. DEN ….. MSN 84.7% ….. DEN ….. FLL 84.4% ….. DEN ….. HOU 84.2% ….. DEN ….. SFO 81.8% ….. DEN ….. BNA 81.7% ….. DEN ….. MDW 81.2% ….. DEN ….. MCI 80.9% ….. DEN ….. CAK 79.0% ….. DEN ….. SNA 78.7% ….. DEN ….. BZN 78.5% ….. DEN ….. FSD 78.0% ….. DEN ….. DFW 77.8% ….. DEN ….. GRR 76.3% ….. DEN ….. PSP 75.6% ….. DEN ….. DAY 75.5% ….. DEN ….. GEG 72.8% ….. DEN ….. ABQ 72.0% ….. DEN ….. ICT 71.5% ….. DEN ….. TUS 70.7% ….. DEN ….. OKC 70.6% ….. DEN ….. DSM 70.5% ….. DEN ….. STL 70.2% ….. DEN ….. SBA 67.1% ….. DEN ….. BIL 65.8% ….. DEN ….. SDF 65.6% ….. DEN ….. BOS (1x/week) 62.8% ….. DEN ….. LIT 60.5% ….. DEN ….. ASE 57.2% ….. DEN ….. RFD (new) 56.9% ….. DEN ….. PVU 54.1% ….. DEN ….. TYS 50.0% ….. DEN ….. DRO 49.7% ….. DEN ….. BKG 47.6% ….. DEN ….. COS 46.2% ….. DEN ….. HDN |
Some of the WN/FL numbers are definitely on the ugly side, but if you go by the comments that the WN CEO made a few days ago about MKE it doesn't seem like they're concerned. It still makes me uneasy, though.
|
newbie questions
Thank you for posting this.
A couple of questions from a newbie to these numbers... Are these the loads for just one way, e.g. DEN-SEA, or both there and back, e.g. DEN-SEA and SEA-DEN? I also noticed that most of these are below their load reported in the Q1 results, 84.7%. I would guess from some of the ones at the bottom of the list that that is because of more flights with larger planes on the highly loaded routes. Is that correct? I expect that some of the lower loads are to subsidized airports. Absent subsidies, what is a reasonable load to be profitable? Or does it depend too much on "fare or traffic composition"? |
Originally Posted by CreditMadeEZ
(Post 18485433)
Thank you for posting this.
A couple of questions from a newbie to these numbers...
Originally Posted by CreditMadeEZ
(Post 18485433)
Thank you for posting this.
A couple of questions from a newbie to these numbers... Are these the loads for just one way, e.g. DEN-SEA, or both there and back, e.g. DEN-SEA and SEA-DEN? They are average of both directions…often the numbers are relatively close both directions, but not always.
Originally Posted by CreditMadeEZ
(Post 18485433)
I also noticed that most of these are below their load reported in the Q1 results, 84.7%. I would guess from some of the ones at the bottom of the list that that is because of more flights with larger planes on the highly loaded routes. Is that correct?
(1) The overall reported Load Factor is a weighted average The stats I show are simply the percentage of seats occupied on each route. The overall load factor they report is based on total revenue passenger miles divided by total available seat miles. Let’s say they only flew two markets: Denver to San Francisco and Sioux Falls. Let’s say DEN-SFO was 80% and DEN-FSD was 60%. One might think the overall load factor would be 70% since that’s the average of 60% and 80%. But DEN-SFO is twice as long as DEN-FSD. So if you factor that in, the overall load factor would be about 73.3%. Then remember than DEN-FSD is only once daily with a 99-seat plane, while DEN-SFO might be 5x/day with 138-seat planes for 690 daily seats. That also makes DEN-SFO “weigh” much more than DEN-FSD – factoring that in, the load factor for our simple airline would be 78.7%. (2) The overall reported Load Factor includes international flights, which are not reported here. (3) These numbers don’t differentiate between mainline and EJet, and I’m not positive if the reported “Frontier” numbers for load factor include the Republic EJets or not. (4) These numbers may or may not include non-revenue passengers onboard. (I’ve tried to nail that fact down over the years with stats from various airlines and have never found it clear and consistent.) Usually the load factor reported by airlines in press releases is (supposed to be) for revenue passengers only.
Originally Posted by CreditMadeEZ
(Post 18485433)
I expect that some of the lower loads are to subsidized airports. Absent subsidies, what is a reasonable load to be profitable? Or does it depend too much on "fare or traffic composition"?
It really does rely a great deal on fare and traffic composition. Really that boils down to “yield”, but I like to point out both fare and traffic composition because both are highly important, and people tend to think of “yield” as fare…perhaps the fare the see advertised, or the anecdotal fare information they happen to get from shopping. Traffic composition is important because it tells us not to just rely on what we (think) we know about the local fare. Let me illustrate it this way. Okay, so you see a $79 DEN-PHX fare advertised and you think “yield is horrible”. Or conversely you remember paying less than $100 for DEN-PHX in prior years, and this year the best fare you find for your upcoming vacation is $169, so “yields are strong”. Well, that kind of anecdotal stuff is always dangerous to draw conclusions from. But these days you can sometimes find better data showing *average* fare, which is a lot better than just hunt-and-peck price tallying. Average fare is a much better yardstick, but it’s still missing a big component. Let’s say average fare DEN-PHX is $150 this year, and the average DEN-PHX Airbus has 110 people onboard. Some of those people flew DEN-PHX locally, while others were connecting in on trips like MDW-DEN-PHX, MSP-DEN-PHX, etc. A connecting passenger usually brings quite a bit less revenue than a local passenger (for a few different reasons) and so the financial performance of a DEN-PHX flight booked to 110 with ten local passengers @ $150 is far, far worse than an identical DEN-PHX flight booked to 110 with ninety local passengers @ $150. That’s traffic composition. So what are profitable load factors? Well, in theory a flight with one person aboard could be profitable if the fare was high enough. Heck, once in awhile I’ve heard people claim that completely empty flights make money because of the high cargo revenue, but I’m not inclined to believe either of those cases happen in the real world on any meaningful basis. In the real world, many (not all) markets have relatively depressed fares because of heavy competition, and that’s certainly true for Frontier. Markets which *may* have stronger yields include: --Those with no nonstop competitors --Those without much low-cost-carrier presence --Those with mostly local traffic Markets which *may* have weaker yields include: --Those which are new --Those with heavy LCC competition --Those which rely heavily on connecting traffic Years back I would have put business markets in the strong section and leisure markets in the weaker section. But the distinction is far less than it once was, especially for an airline like Frontier. Yes, someone like Delta might get $300 average fares for DTW-ROC but $122 average fares for DTW-MCO (those are real Q3 numbers) because Rochester is a mostly-business monopoly route and Orlando is a high volume leisure route with LCC competition. But those distinctions are less than they once were, and much less for an airline like Frontier who can only dream of $300 average fares. And….as I pointed out earlier…the traffic composition is key here as well. If Delta only sells a few seats a day to local Detroit-Rochester passengers at that golden $300 average fare, but they fill the rest of the plane with $99 LAS-DTW-ROC passengers, it’s a bloodbath in spite of that remarkable fare. Because of fare depression and unknown traffic composition, it’s very hard to tell if a full flight is making money or not. Undoubtedly some of the fullest markets still lost money, and sometimes a high-load market can be a *bad* sign for profitability. Sometimes it signifies that the airline can’t get any pricing traction whatsoever, and is using the $50-is-better-than-$0 theory of revenue management. So it’s no shoe-in that the top markets in loads are the most profitable. On the other end of the spectrum, however, it’s difficult to see how airlines can make money on the low end of the scale. Yes, in theory somebody could be breaking even with 50% or even fewer of their capacity filled. But there definitely need to be special circumstances for that to be plausible – circumstances that are rare, and perhaps nonexistent with an LCC like Frontier. So there’s a bias to the downside with onboard load stats like this when it comes to guessing financial results. Loads in the 30’s, 40’s, 50’s…you can probably be pretty sure they are money losers. But it’s hard to be sure that *any* route is profitable just from load factor, even at 95% load or higher. The best you can do from these sorts of numbers is say that when they get higher, you can be less confident that they lost money. To me, loads of about 75% and up are less interesting and meaningful when it comes to guessing profits because they are in the broad “maybe / maybe not” range. Loads lower than that are more interesting because you can somewhat more confidently judge a loss when a market is only flying half full or worse. Loads are not meaningless, but they mean more in context than in simply applying a pass/fail threshold for profitability because you just can’t do that with any confidence. I enjoy playing with these sorts of stats when I have the time. But they key reason I don’t post these more than I do (especially to more busy boards like airliners.net) is that it’s very easy to draw unsupported conclusions from them, and there are throngs of people willing and able to do just that if given the chance. The discussions tend to devolve pretty quickly. On FT there are fewer participants who hold strong orthodoxy and ax-grinding tendencies, especially on a slower board like F9. So it’s a more manageable discussion. |
knope, I thank you for your efforts.
|
Thank you knope2001
Originally Posted by traveller001
(Post 18489514)
knope, I thank you for your efforts.
And thank you for the detailed explanation! I had some vague feelings about some of these and it is good to have a more expert explanation. |
No doubt about it... he is THE Man. We all appreciate his insights. I just hope he stays interested in this forum considering how F9 continues to whittle down at his hometown airport.
Originally Posted by traveller001
(Post 18489514)
knope, I thank you for your efforts.
Originally Posted by CreditMadeEZ
(Post 18491971)
+1(000)
And thank you for the detailed explanation! I had some vague feelings about some of these and it is good to have a more expert explanation. |
Kind of you guys to say...
I suppose if nothing else inertia will keep me here awhile, and maybe long term. Unfortunately I'll be on Frontier rarely, so I won't be able to offer experience or insight I get from being a frequent flyer. I have 17 segments so far this year and have three more booked, but those might well be my last for a long time. Between my SO and I we have about 225k miles banked, and we'll likely use them for vacations west over time. But we so rarely head west for work or family... just the occasional vacation. Hitting 20 segments will get me to Ascent for 2013, but that will likely be it for status. Frontier's lower elite tier was wonderful, and I've been at the top level of FF at YX/F9 for quite a few years. Even if we focus travel on one airline (probably Delta) it will be tough to hit their silver status -- which is only moderately useful anyway. So it goes... |
Originally Posted by Stumblefoot
(Post 18492368)
No doubt about it... he is THE Man. We all appreciate his insights.
I offer my gratitude and thanks to knope for all of his efforts, as well. |
The one silver lining, I say sarcastically, is that knope's T-100 posts will be shorter and take much less of his time, at least for the MKE part.
I used to post more freqently here as well, but lost interest when Midwest started to fade away. I just haven't had as much to say recently. |
I echo the sentiments.. always great stuff from knope.
|
Originally Posted by Stumblefoot
(Post 18492368)
I just hope he stays interested in this forum considering how F9 continues to whittle down at his hometown airport.
Originally Posted by knope2001
(Post 18493432)
I suppose if nothing else inertia will keep me here awhile, and maybe long term. Unfortunately I'll be on Frontier rarely, so I won't be able to offer experience or insight I get from being a frequent flyer.
Originally Posted by newsmanhoss
(Post 18495520)
I used to post more freqently here as well, but lost interest when Midwest started to fade away. I just haven't had as much to say recently.
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:28 pm. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.