Mkeflyer717 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 431 posts, RR: 13 Posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 1351 times:
I noticed a while back that this once saver service flight which was supposed to resume service in may has actually not and I would like to know why? The Midwest route map still shows MKE-SFO. Details anyone?
Mlsrar From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 1417 posts, RR: 9 Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 1208 times:
Quoting N77014 (Reply 2): Is this not a seasonal searvice?
It was originally season service with a 1900 MKE Departure, and a red-eye return. It was not reinstated this past April, as they had sufficient connecting traffic through MCI.
MCI still uses the Signature-80s, so it is a bit of an improvement over what the n/s offered.
I wish the n/s would return, as it was timed well for transpac departures
I mean, for the right price I’ll fight a lion. - Mike Tyson
Knope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2555 posts, RR: 31 Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 1134 times:
Last summer Midwest few MKE-SFO with Saver (2x3) aircraft. It carried very light loads:
Westbound (roughly 7:25pm departure)
May 48.9%
Jun 49.8%
Jul 62.6%
Aug 57.0%
Sep 45.0%
Eastbound (redeye flight)
May 37.3%
Jun 42.1%
Jul 49.0%
Aug 43.1%
Sep 32.4%
Why so dismal?
(1) The flights were at unattractive off-peak times. This MKE-SFO-MKE was essentially an overnight "utilization" flight. The evening departure isn't particularly desirable, and the redeye return is generally to be avoided. The eastbound redeye carried on average 22% fewer passengers that the evening westbound.
(2) Daytime flight (via MCI) is Signature, while this was Saver. Not a positive.
(3) Too many seats for a relative thin market. Before Saver, Midwest used to fly MKE-SFO nonstop with 112-seat M88's from April through December. Loads were usually strong during summer, but yield was comparably weak. Last year's Saver flights were with 143-seat M88's, and for an off-peak flight like this one it was simply too many seats. They averaged 67.3 pax per flight, but that's just not going to cut it.
Loads on MKE-MCI-SFO have been very heavy, particularly this summer. So I wouldn't be too surprised to find next summer either:
(a) a daytime MKE-SFO nonstop with a Saver aircraft, or
(b) added MCI-SFO service (Signature) to give both MCI and MKE more access to San Francisco.
If they can comfortably send the 717 on MCI-SFO instead of the M80, then option B seems more likely.
N659AA From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 132 posts, RR: 0 Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 1089 times:
I think this is as much a (suitable) aircraft availability issue as it is a low traffic issue as Knope2001 mentions. YX only has two aircraft capable of reaching the westcoast from MKE without severe weight restrictions and they are deployed on MKE-LAX and MKE-LAS.
I have heard from people at YX that they are on the lookout for M88 or M83 aircraft to do more longhaul flying from MKE. I think MKE-SEA is high on the wish list once suitable aircraft can be located. Summer MKE-SFO service at decent times would also fall into this category perhaps
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 431 posts, 
From South Africa, joined Apr 2000, 261 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
Printer friendly format 
