May T-100s (onboard loads)
 

Here are onboard loads for markets in the eastern division of the Frontier system, plus for select MKE competitors. Remember, as always, that onboard load is only half the picture when trying to guess relative finanical performance, as they say little if anything about traffic composition or fare.

Note that the problem of thru passengers is less than in many prior months because the MCI east-west hub (where the problem largely manifested itself) has been reworked with less thru-flight scheduling.

Markets primarily served with Airbus or EJet aircraft
95.3% …… MKE …… LAS
93.7% …… MCI …… BOS
93.2% …… MKE …… LAX
92.3% …… MKE …… SAN
90.3% …… MCI …… SEA
90.0% …… MKE …… DEN
89.9% …… MKE …… MCO
89.4% …… MCI …… SFO
88.9% …… MCI …… LAX
88.1% …… MKE …… DFW
88.1% …… OMA …… MCO
87.9% …… MKE …… SEA
87.9% …… OMA …… DCA
87.7% …… MKE …… SFO
84.0% …… MCI …… DCA
83.3% …… MKE …… LGA
82.8% …… MKE …… DCA
82.7% …… MKE …… PHX
82.0% …… MKE …… MSP
80.0% …… MKE …… BOS
78.0% …… OMA …… LAX
76.8% …… MCI …… MSY
76.5% …… MKE …… MCI
73.5% …… MKE …… PIE
72.4% …… MCI …… CMH …..79.4% one direction, 65.3% the other direction
72.0% …… MCI …… AUS …..81.5% one direction, 62.5% the other direction
70.9% …… MKE …… SAT
70.8% …… MCI …… LGA
70.7% …… MKE …… FLL
62.4% …… OMA …… SAN

Markets primarily served by RJs
89.9% …… MKE …… BDL
89.2% …… MKE …… BNA
85.9% …… MKE …… EWR
85.2% …… MKE …… PHL
84.8% …… MKE …… FNT
84.5% …… MKE …… OMA
84.3% …… MKE …… DSM
83.5% …… MKE …… CMH
82.1% …… MKE …… PIT
81.3% …… MKE …… IND
80.8% …… MKE …… RDU
80.4% …… MKE …… STL
80.4% …… MKE …… CLE
79.8% …… MKE …… GRR
79.3% …… MKE …… SDF
77.5% …… MKE …… MSN
69.8% …… MKE …… MBL
67.0% …… MKE …… DAY
65.0% …… MKE …… RHI
63.7% …… MKE …… GRB
62.8% …… MKE …… ATW

AirTran
90.7% …… MKE …… MSP
90.5% …… MKE …… MCO
89.3% …… MKE …… FLL
88.5% …… MKE …… LAX
88.4% …… MKE …… RSW
88.4% …… MKE …… SFO
87.9% …… MKE …… TPA
87.5% …… MKE …… LAS
87.1% …… MKE …… LGA
86.1% …… MKE …… PHX
85.3% …… MKE …… SEA
82.4% …… MKE …… DCA
79.5% …… MKE …… BOS
76.2% …… MKE …… ATL
73.3% …… MKE …… BWI
71.8% …… MKE …… MSY
71.6% …… MKE …… SRQ
68.5% …… MKE …… DEN

FL* operated by Skywest
78.1% …… MKE …… IND
75.8% …… MKE …… PIT
72.7% …… MKE …… OMA
70.7% …… MKE …… CAK
70.4% …… MKE …… DSM
60.1% …… MKE …… STL

Southwest
94.4% …… MKE …… LAS
89.4% …… MKE …… PHX
87.4% …… MKE …… MCO
79.0% …… MKE …… TPA
69.2% …… MKE …… BWI
61.8% …… MKE …… MCI

American
80.6% …… MKE …… DFW

A participant here sent me a PM asking how to get these numbers, but their profile is (apparently) not set up to receive PM's, so my direct reply was rejected. But I thought I might as well post it here for anyone else who might want to play with the stats.

This is where the domestic onboard load raw data is

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/DL_Sele...Short_Name=Air Carriers

Best bet is to pick a single state and month at a time, because the tables get very large if you don't narrow it down...often moer than the 65k or so records than older versions of Excel can handle. For each month, there's a separate entry for each city pair, each airline, and each operating airline. Simple math formulas in Excel come up with total load factor fairly easily.

One can see some of the rationale for many of the route cuts over the summer in these numbers. What I find obvious is the need for the ATW cut. With GRB and ATW both very close together and with both being at the bottom of the list, it is obvious something needed to be done. With even the EAS routes having higher LF, clearly GRB and ATW were/are having some challenges. However since they are so close together, by cutting either ATW or GRB likely half of the affected area could still use F9 by choosing the other nearby airport. Given that F9 has more invested in GRB with the seasonal DEN service, it becomes clear why ATW was cut.

Both ATW and GRB have a lot of competition for relatively small stations. With DL, UA and AA in each, there wasn't a lot of room for F9. How did these stations do historically for YX? Even if they did very well for the "home state" based YX, I think the branding change from YX to F9 is taking longer to be accepted by the flying public than many on these boards realize. From many perspectives to the typical Wisconsinite, F9 and YX are two completely different airlines. Different levels of service, different focuses (leisure vs business; LCC vs Premium). It takes more than just slapping a new name on the gate to entice people to try out the new guy in town. Realistically it has only been about a year since many aspects of the brand merge were put into place. And for these cities in particular it still isn't complete since the 135's still say Midwest Express on them. All this with the backdrop of well established competition from DL, UA and AA it is no wonder F9 has struggled with these two cities. I think the decision to drop one of the two was wise. Focus limited resources on one, while continuing to build the brand in the region. Who knows, someday after F9 is successful at GRB, ATW may again make sense.

Thanks knope2001 for sharing.

Charlie.