I would hope that you realize that the CEO of AirTran might not know what he is talking about when it comes to other airlines In fact, this is the very attitude of AirTran's business plan that makes me oppose their efforts to buy out Midwest: they think NO Airline can survive unless they offer the cheapest fares and bottom of the barrel service They can't seem to comprehend that some (not all, but some) customers might want something different, and that "something" is what is offered by Midwest!

You know Tim, I'm a bit confused by your comments of late. In some discussions you have stated that all you want is nonstop routes from MKE, that you could care less about the service on Midwest or any other airline. Now, you're all upset about Midwest "killing Signature Service..." and making broad statements about how the new planes they are acquiring won't have Signature Service when Midwest has promised to grow Signature Service, and even add a section of Signature Service on planes with Saver service.

I want YX to grow, and I want YX to offer more routes in Signature Service, and I have to tell you that I'm pretty impressed with Midwest's strategic moves over the past 18 months. I think they balance what people expect from YX, and what people are willing to pay for. They have launched new cities that make sense - and have hinted that more new cities are to come this year. They are phasing out their smallest planes, the B1900, and adding planes with over twice the seating capacity. They are adding the routes that Signature Service will be offered on, even if that means a cabin with two classes of seating.

Nitpicking but you meant to type revenue, not profits. The DOT declares a carrier a "major" carrier with an annual revenue of 1 billion.

When you are flying to places like MCI and DEN on saver service that should tell you something. Signature service is on it’s way out.


I agree with Airtran's CEO when he states that Midwest is putting up a front about signature service.

I do not like when Midwest board members talk about the MKE airport not being underserved.

I don't care if I am on signature service. I was just letting people know (that do like it) that it will not be around much longer.

Midwest's growth plan is too slow. I would like for them to say that they are ordering 60 A320s or 737s and plan to plan to increase their daily departures out of MKE to well over 220 flights per day. I would like to see more frequency to west coast destinations. I would like to see a larger hub.

Althought, I loved the SEA move, SFO move and the North Carolina move, I thought the LA move was stupid though, it is only for a month or two. More and more mainline destinations out of MKE are becoming saver service.

If you read some of my recent posts on the Airtran bidding for Midwest thread you will note that industry analysts (independent of Airtran) have stated that Airtran’s growth plan was conservative at best.

My position has never changed. If Midwest wants to become a larger company I am all for that. But if they want to stay small and put their fate in the hands of outside factors, I find that problematic.

Good point^ ^ ^ ^

That is what Airtran and Northwest already have. It is called first class.^

The 717s will be around for a long time. Midwest took delivery of the last one less than a year ago, so those planes have a lot of life left in them. The 717s do not have the range to fly routes like MKE-SEA, MKE-SFO, MKE-LAX, etc. There's no need to start speculating about potential 717 replacements because that time is a ways off.

As for Saver Service on select routes, there are several reasons for this. Midwest operates 1 MKE-MCI flight with Saver Service (out of a total of 8 daily flights) because that plane continues on to SFO. During the summer months, MKE-DEN carries very heavy loads. By making this route all MD80s, Midwest can add extra capacity without having to use additional aircraft. I don't like the switching back-and-forth anymore than you do, but DEN has never been a high yielding route from MKE. The 717s will return on the route this fall when traffic falls off.

Regarding Midwest's business plan and no competition, that's not accurate. First, they have 90% of their estimated fuel consumption locked-in for 2007, so any huge spikes in the price of oil will only have a marginal impact on their bottom line. Second, Midwest competes against Southwest in MCI quite well (Southwest threw extra capacity at Midwest on MCI-SAN, MCI-MCO, and MCI-TPA and Midwest did just fine). Southwest and JetBlue can come to Milwaukee and start flights and Midwest will compete aggressively with them.

From 1987 until 2000, Midwest WAS consistently profitable. The only other airline to have a streak like that was Southwest. For the last three quarters, Midwest has been profitable.

Growing very rapidly has caused major problems for other airlines. New routes can take a very long time to start generating profits. If an airline doesn't have a profitable core to begin with, they're asking for trouble with massive expansion.

I think you keep forgetting that Midwest doesn't want to be a major carrier, either.

I wouldn't read too much into what any analyst says. They've been wrong too many times in the past. Just because some of these analysts aren't connected to AirTran directly doesn't mean they're independent, either. If you read some of their quotes, they seem to parrott all of AirTran's talking points verbatim.

Outside of the airline industry, there were analysts back in the fall of 2001 pumping-up Enron, stating what a great investment it would be. A month later the company collapsed.

Fortunately, though, Midwest's won't suck.

First off, we should move this discussion to the Airtran bidding for Midwest thread. Profitably maybe put not at the level of other airlines because they are not a major carrier.


While Midwest may not want to become a major carrier the question becomes is that good for MKE?

Would MKE be better served by a major carrier than by a small carrier?

Can Midwest with its growth model grow the flight activity in MKE significantly?

I disagree with your assessment of Midwest. I think that their future is reliant on others. Their fuel costs maybe locked in for this year but bidding for fuel prices will occur in the future and the MD-80's are not fuel efficient.

While you may like Midwest because it is "different" from the other carriers. I am concerned with Milwaukee and growing the airport. We have different priorities. There is nothing wrong with your position. I disagree.

I did not say that I wanted Midwest to grow extremely fast. I want a more detailed five year plan from them though. Like what Airtran did. Their plan was easy to understand and well planned. I expect the same from MKE's hometown airline if they expect us to support them.


I absolutely hate when Midwest board members talk about routes that MKE cannot support. With their network they may not be able to support those routes. Airtran is different and it should not be compared to Airtran.

MKE has not been a MAJOR hub (the NW hub days were smaller and less important than DTW and MSP) for a major airline before so we do not know what will happen if Airtran takes over.

I am not saying that I think that Airtran is perfect. They have trust issues as well (i.e. DFW) but a change needs to happen at MKE. I could care less who does it. I prefer Virgin America (I really like their planes). They will have onboard meals (TV�s in headrests and leather seats.
^ ^

How would it be different?

Maybe but the point is that Airtran wants to put a lot of planes (=more jobs) in MKE. The question becomes can the pull it off?

Differences from Airtran . . .

1. The seats will actually be comfortable
2. The beverage service will be performed more than once, by people that appear to actually be interested in customer service
3. There will be food (perhaps not free, but at least quite edible)

Differences from Northwest . . .

1. The F cabin will be clean, well maintained and modern
2. See Airtran #2
3. See Airtran #3

I agree with Tim that we should try and stay on topic for this thread (Interview request if anyone has forgotten ) and discuss Midwest vs. Airtran in the other established thread.

Midwest seats are nice but other leather first class seats are the same. I never liked the concept of first class anyway. It just seems wrong.

I never eat airplane food. It is all nasty. I bring my own.

Airtran people are cool. I have got no problems with them.

NW is NW need I say more.

Look I could careless how i get to where I need to go. All I care about is non stop flights.

AirTran F (actually, they call it "Business Class") seats are terrible. They're designed for hunchbacked dwarves.
Ahh. A socialist

YX's BOB meal offerings are anything but "nasty."
If by "cool" you mean surly and inattentive, even to the passengers paying for their premium product, then I agree wholeheartedly.
Nope. I think we're in agreement there.
OK, then I'm not sure why you asked . . .