August T100's (onboard loads)
 

Here are the August onboard load (T100) stats for YX/F9 in the legacy Midwest system, new Frontier DEN markets, and some select MKE competitors. As always, remember that onboard loads are only half the picture when estimating relative results because they do not tell us much about fare or traffic composition:

Routes primarily served by Airbus or EJets
96.5% ….. MCI ….. LAX (81.2%)*
95.5% ….. MKE ….. SEA
95.0% ….. MCI ….. SFO (80.8%)*
93.9% ….. MCI ….. BOS
93.9% ….. MKE ….. LAX
93.9% ….. MKE ….. SAN
93.8% ….. MKE ….. LAS
93.5% ….. MKE ….. SFO
92.3% ….. MKE ….. LGA
91.9% ….. MKE ….. DEN
91.5% ….. MKE ….. TPA
89.8% ….. MKE ….. PHX
89.4% ….. MKE ….. BOS*
89.4% ….. MCI ….. SEA
88.8% ….. MKE ….. MCO
83.0% ….. MCI ….. LGA*
82.2% ….. MCI ….. DCA
81.9% ….. MKE ….. DCA
78.8% ….. MKE ….. RDU
77.7% ….. MKE ….. DFW
75.5% ….. MCI ….. CMH*
73.6% ….. OMA ….. DCA
73.3% ….. MKE ….. BKG
68.0% ….. MKE ….. MCI*
63.5% ….. MCI ….. MSY*

*As in prior months, thru passengers do not appear to be counted, which especially affects results on certain MCI markets and MKE-BOS where there are significant thru traffic flows. MCI-LAX and MCI-SFO loads show are one way, with the other direction reported roughly 30 points lower. Other markets show exactly what was reported because it is less clear what the approximate actual onboard load was...actual load is likely somewhat higher than reported.

Routes primarily served by RJ
88.7% ….. MKE ….. PHL
86.8% ….. MKE ….. MSP
85.5% ….. MKE ….. ATL
84.2% ….. MKE ….. EWR
79.4% ….. MKE ….. PIT
77.3% ….. MKE ….. MSN
74.4% ….. MKE ….. OMA
72.8% ….. MKE ….. DSM
70.6% ….. MKE ….. CMH
70.3% ….. MKE ….. STL
67.4% ….. MKE ….. IND
63.2% ….. MKE ….. BNA
63.0% ….. MKE ….. CLE
62.7% ….. MKE ….. FNT
59.5% ….. MKE ….. GRR
55.7% ….. MKE ….. SDF
55.1% ….. MKE ….. DAY
53.6% ….. MKE ….. GRB
51.8% ….. MKE ….. ATW

New Frontier DEN markets
93.9% ….. DEN ….. GRR
90.8% ….. DEN ….. MSN
90.6% ….. DEN ….. PHF
89.8% ….. DEN ….. LGB
88.8% ….. DEN ….. FAI
86.4% ….. DEN ….. GRB
86.1% ….. DEN ….. SDF
84.7% ….. DEN ….. BKG
80.2% ….. DEN ….. SBA

AirTran
95.8% ….. MKE ….. LGA
95.6% ….. MKE ….. SFO
95.5% ….. MKE ….. LAX
95.1% ….. MKE ….. SEA
95.1% ….. MKE ….. SAN
94.0% ….. MKE ….. LAS
92.8% ….. MKE ….. BOS
89.2% ….. MKE ….. MSP
88.5% ….. MKE ….. MCO
88.0% ….. MKE ….. DEN
87.2% ….. MKE ….. FLL
86.6% ….. MKE ….. TPA
84.7% ….. MKE ….. DCA
83.9% ….. MKE ….. BWI
78.5% ….. MKE ….. ATL
76.4% ….. MKE ….. RSW
73.0% ….. MKE ….. DFW

Skywest (FL*)
87.1% ….. MKE ….. CAK
82.9% ….. MKE ….. PIT
67.8% ….. MKE ….. STL
67.8% ….. MKE ….. IND
64.5% ….. MKE ….. OMA
58.5% ….. MKE ….. DSM

Southwest
97.0% ….. MKE ….. PHX
95.0% ….. MKE ….. LAS
87.1% ….. MKE ….. TPA
85.0% ….. MKE ….. BWI
78.6% ….. MKE ….. MCO
68.2% ….. MKE ….. MCI


Obviously another month of high mainline east-west loads. Just for fun I tallied up the total traffic for the month to nonstop west coast destinations of SEA, SFO, LAX, and SAN. Each day, on average, there were 23.3 nonstops to+from Milwaukee and the west coast, flying at just a hair under 95% load factor with about 2985 passengers onboard. Day after day. Remarkable. 'Course we don't know about local versus connections nor about profitability, but just those simple numbers are pretty amazing considering we're talking about MKE.

Thanks for always posting these, knope. These are some of my favorite posts, but I don't often have productive thoughts to share in a response.

You are right about the west coast flights. For a time, MKE had next to nothing for nonstop traffic. These results show the west coast markets can be stimulated and there is some demand there, especially in the summer.

Personally, I prefer the west coast in the winter, and I'd like to see someone, anyone, get the guts to try MKE-SAN in the winter. There has always been a tendency for carriers to switch their aircraft to Florida routes during the winter and largely abandon the west.

MKE-LGA is extremely strong for both F9 and FL in this data. I'm sure $69 fares are party responsible for this, but if a lot of folks are paying to check bags, the yields might not be as bad. What kind of loads is WN getting for MDW-LGA these days, and I wonder how much is connecting? Just wondering if, based on these numbers, if there's even a glimmer of hope that WN would keep MKE-LGA. I'm guessing the winter loads make it a non-starter for them.

Of the three major East Coast business destinations AirTran currently serves from MKE (BOS, LGA, DCA), I think LGA has the best chance of remaining, although at a significantly reduced frequency (likely one or two flights per day).

New York is one of the top destinations from MKE overall and carries a lot of business traffic.

With that said, the route itself is probably not strong enough to live on local traffic alone (especially with Frontier being a long time incumbent on the route). If a lot of the existing feeder routes get the axe, LGA is probably a goner as well.

As for the West Coast, it's hard for anyone to make money on those routes outside of peak periods given the very poor yields. If Southwest pulls back in MKE, I wouldn't be too surprised to see Frontier resume year-round service using the E190 during slower months (something Bedford has talked about doing in the past).

Knope, I too enjoy the information in these posts. But, I am a metrics kinda guy. Keep 'em coming. You may not get much reaction, but rest assured we are reading and enjoying them.

MKE - BKG did better than I thought it would load wise, but I bet yeilds were low because Frontier did some heavy discounts on that route. Also I think if Southwest is successfully merged with AirTran they will drop MKE - CAK. I think Frontier should pick up that route and maybe even close CLE altogether. CAK has to be a cheaper airport to operate out of.

MKE-CAK will be dropped.

The Southwest pilots contract does not allow for the SkyWest flying. There's no way that route will see a 717 or 737.

+1

We are fortunate to have our very own analyst on board.

Thanks, knope.

But the merger is not a slam dunk IMHO. There are rumblings out there that shareholders are not happy with the Southwest offer to buy AirTran. Plus the DoJ has to approve it too. Usually the DoJ doesn't see a problem but there is always an outside chance they will not approve it. Just my two cents.

Anythings possible. However, if the DOJ and DOT approved the United/Continental and Delta/Northwest mergers they likely won't stand in the way of a Southwest/Airtran marriage.

There might be a few unhappy shareholders and customers (there always are in mergers) but it's likely not enough to derail the merger.

Why would the shareholders be unhappy? Southwest is offering a handsome premium for their shares.

LaGuardia is definitely the strongest of the eastern markets in traffic and local-to-connections ratio. Here are MKE-BOS/LGA/DCA for AirTran compared to MDW-BOS/LGA/BWI for Southwest from Q2, the most recent stats I see:

Boston
45.1% FL local traffic
59.2% WN local traffic

$126.48 average FL fare
$153.08 average WN fare


New York
59.5% FL local traffic
57.4% WN local traffic

$117.65 average fare on FL
$152.27 average fare on WN


Washington/Baltimore
44.9% FL local traffic
64.3% WN local traffic

$127.66 FL local fare
$159.93 WN local fare



Recall that recently AirTran spoke out how MKE yields were showing large increases year over year? That's true for BOS and DCA, but not so much

BOS Q2 AirTran fare
2009 $97.38
2010 $126.48
+29.9%

LGA Q2 AirTran fare
2009 $113.27
2010 $117.65
+3.9%

DCA AirTran fare
2009 $103.47
2010 $127.66
+23.4%

It seems that at BOS and DCA they didn't press fare as heavily and saw a nice average rise, but relied more on connections. At LGA they grew local passengers but fare barely budged year-over-year.


The fare gap between FL and WN may be somewhat smaller than this since many FL customers pay for bags, some for seat assignment, and some for business class upgrades. Still, in Q2 this "other" revenue per passenger was $10.17, which doesn't come close to bridging the gap. And when Southwest takes over and stops charging for bags and seat assignments (and has no more business class to sell) that won't make MKE results any stronger.

It's certainly possible Southwest could keep some coveted LGA slots for MKE service. Depends on what their plans are and how they view things. They are getting a MKE operation from AirTran which does serve quite a bit of local traffic, and could see that share as something to work to retain.

Or they might look at it this way: Forget AirTran for the moment...if Southwest got slots for 10 more departures at LGA they might be eager to add something like this:

3 new STL
2 new MCO
2 new BNA
1 new DEN
2 more MDW

Okay, now merge the AirTran system into the Southwest network and look at the whole. Is Milwaukee more profitable, more important to the network, more filled with long-term potential, and more unique-connection-enabling than those markets? If they look at the LGA slots in tht way, flights to IND, CAK, PHF, and MKE are not going to last.

Any rumblings would be an attempt to get a better price.

I hope you're not holding your breath.

I would have to agree, The SWA offer is more than adequate.

I'm not for or against the AirTran merger with Southwest. I am just watching and waiting to see how this all pans out. As for the stockholders not happy with the offer... I read somewhere there might be a lawsuit. I'm not sure why since the online story was vague. Also there was a story posted that several routes now served by AirTran and Southwest will become "monoply" routes. So the DoJ might have concerns that Southwest may have to come up with a solution before a merger is possible.

If this merger happens, I think Frontier will be able to capitalize on new opportunities at MKE. So as the old Midwest Seat Commercial goes "Sit back, relax and stretch out." That is what I am doing. :)