Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Midwest Air Group Outlines Strategy  
User currently offlinePVD757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3406 posts, RR: 17
Posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 3096 times:

Midwest Air Group Outlines Strategy to Maximize Value as Stand-Alone Company

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070110/nyw056.html?.v=83

2 more MD80's and 1 more FRJ by mid-2007.
15 Skywest CRJ's be the end of 2007 and up to 25 within the first year.

AT LEAST 6 new markets: DLH announced (SEA and MSY rumored which would leave at least 3 more in 2007)

UP TO 12 new routes: MKE-DLH is 1 (rumored SEA and MSY would be at least 2 more which would leave up to 9 more new routes)

I'm interested in watching the new service roll out in 2007!!!

[Edited 2007-01-10 15:14:05]

40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineVivavegas From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 505 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3065 times:

Quoting PVD757 (Thread starter):
Midwest Air Group Outlines Strategy to Maximize Value as Stand-Alone Company

Call me cynical, but why would YX think they would be more successful with this expansion then say Airtran?

According to certain posters on this board Airtran would flame out in a year, while YX could successfully add 25 CRJ's and SIX new cities?

Wake me up at the end of the year when YX launches service to the sixth city this year. Hell, YX have they even added six new cities in the past 5 years???

Hmmm...

Craig
MKE



MKE / EYW / LAS - The true trifecta of aviation!
User currently offlineIsitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 24
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3058 times:

Quoting PVD757 (Thread starter):
2 more MD80's

Excuse the stupid q but about six months ago didn't Midwest announce
they are pulling some MD 80's from service?
safe  scratchchin 



If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offlineN917ME From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 726 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3060 times:

Look at some existing YX cities that offer NS service MKE but not MCI to be some of the new routes.

SEA and MSY are good bets. RDU, SLC are good possibilities.


User currently offlinePVD757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3406 posts, RR: 17
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3039 times:

Quoting N917ME (Reply 3):
Look at some existing YX cities that offer NS service MKE but not MCI to be some of the new routes.

BDL-MCI??
YYZ-MCI??
ATL-MCI??

I'e left out any routes that WN is already doing figuring that YX will choose not to compete on those with CRJ's???


User currently offlineQuickmover From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 2486 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3032 times:

How are these CRJ200s going to be configured? If they are going to be like United or Delta's, I certainly don't see their addition as a plus. They are crampt and you can't see out the windows without breaking your neck. These aircraft don't strike me as a business class jet.

I do like the CRJ700 though. Much more comfortable.


User currently offlineSideflare75 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 613 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3014 times:

Quoting Isitsafenow (Reply 2):
Excuse the stupid q but about six months ago didn't Midwest announce
they are pulling some MD 80's from service?

Yes you are correct last year YX sold 2 MD-81's that were in the Signature configuration. They are adding 2 MD-88's. Big difference in payload and range. The -81's just don't have enough of either to work well in the Saver configuration.


User currently offlineKnope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2817 posts, RR: 30
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3014 times:

Quoting Isitsafenow (Reply 2):
Quoting PVD757 (Thread starter):
2 more MD80's

Excuse the stupid q but about six months ago didn't Midwest announce
they are pulling some MD 80's from service?

In later 1995 they announced they were pulling the last Signature (2x2) M80's out of scheduled service. Those aircraft were M80 versions without the weight capacity and range to work on Midwest's Saver network with a full load of 147 passengers. The M80's being acquired are capable of flying pretty much anywhere in the US from MKE or MCI with a full load.


User currently offlineAirTran737 From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3689 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 3014 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Quickmover (Reply 5):
How are these CRJ200s going to be configured? If they are going to be like United or Delta's, I certainly don't see their addition as a plus. They are crampt and you can't see out the windows without breaking your neck. These aircraft don't strike me as a business class jet.

Same shitty CRJ-200's as everyone else. Nothing special, break your neck to look out the window, and be way too cramped for comfort.

[Edited 2007-01-10 16:14:35]


Nice Trip Report!!! Great Pics, thanks for posting!!!! B747Forever
User currently offlineN917ME From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 726 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2994 times:

Quoting Isitsafenow (Reply 2):
Excuse the stupid q but about six months ago didn't Midwest announce
they are pulling some MD 80's from service?
safe

The two "new MD-80's" are short term leases used until the replacement aircraft deliveries start.

Quoting Vivavegas (Reply 1):
Call me cynical, but why would YX think they would be more successful with this expansion then say Airtran?

Maybe because we will be using a regional jet instead of a 717 or 737. Also, YX is usually slower at expanding than say, Airtran. YX takes it time and researches the market, where say an AirTran want to just add another city on their map. YX has selected "duds" that have not worked well, adn have admitted to it. (HOU was the latetest...an unusually bad hurricane season did not help).

Quoting PVD757 (Reply 4):
I'e left out any routes that WN is already doing figuring that YX will choose not to compete on those with CRJ's???

not all new routes/city pairs will be operated by a CRJ. Some new cities will be a 717 or MD 80.

Quoting Quickmover (Reply 5):
How are these CRJ200s going to be configured?

As far as I know, the standard 50 seat set up with brown leather seats. I am not a fan of the CRJ, I would have preferred the ERJ-45.


User currently offlineBH From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 525 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2984 times:

Quoting N917ME (Reply 9):
Quoting Vivavegas (Reply 1):
Call me cynical, but why would YX think they would be more successful with this expansion then say Airtran?

Maybe because we will be using a regional jet instead of a 717 or 737

I can see this argument for the 737, but FL continues to state that they can run a 717 more profitable than a 50 seater rj.


User currently offlineKnope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2817 posts, RR: 30
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2979 times:

Quoting Vivavegas (Reply 1):
Call me cynical, but why would YX think they would be more successful with this expansion then say Airtran?

According to certain posters on this board Airtran would flame out in a year, while YX could successfully add 25 CRJ's and SIX new cities?

Midwest's plans are to add 15 (not 25) CRJ's from MKE and MCI this year, plus two M80's and one FRJ. Up to ten additional CRJ's may come in 2008 or later if they choose to excercise those options.

Compare that to AirTran's public proposal to quickly grow to 150-200 flights per day out of Milwaukee only. Since it's very clear that AirTran's fare structure can't come close to making money with the small Midwest Connect aircraft, we're looking at 150-200 large aircraft per day at the MKE hub. That's overexpansion surpassing even the most fanciful growth in the early days of regulation. And note as well that AirTran's plans have never mentioned Kansas City, frankly because they don't see a future for themselves there because of the huge presence of Southwest at MCI. AirTran's growth is all for MKE, while Midwest's much more resonable level of growth is split between both places.

Which one has a better chance of succeeding?

As for doubting six new cities in 2007, that's not so tough to imagine. They already have DLH, and they have said a new one would be announced later this month to start this summer outside of CRJ program. That's likely to be SEA with some of the added M80 lift.

That only leaves four more to add, and it's pretty likely most will come at Kansas City. Places like Austin, New Orleans, Salt Lake City, Colroado Springs, Albuquerque, Raleigh, Houston, Charlotte, and Washington Dulles all come to mind as serious contenders. Then throw in a few new connect-the-dots nonstop markets like possibly MCI-EWR, MKE-SAT, MCI-CMH, MCI-MSP, etc and Midwest's plans are not so far fetched.


User currently offlineCRJ900X From Canada, joined Dec 2006, 196 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2928 times:

Are the CRJ-200's coming from the current fleet of SkyWest? Or will they have to acquire some that are currently stored?

Cheers,

CRJ900X


User currently offlinePVD757 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 3406 posts, RR: 17
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2907 times:

Quoting Knope2001 (Reply 11):
Midwest's plans are to add 15 (not 25) CRJ's from MKE and MCI this year, plus two M80's and one FRJ

thanks for clarify what I already wrote:

Quoting PVD757 (Thread starter):
15 Skywest CRJ's be the end of 2007 and up to 25 within the first year.

"...within the first year."

the article says "after the first year" - so perhaps there is room for misinterpretation...

[Edited 2007-01-10 16:52:46]

User currently offlineVivavegas From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 505 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2869 times:

Quoting N917ME (Reply 9):
YX takes it time and researches the market, where say an AirTran want to just add another city on their map.

HORSEPUCKEY!

Frankly I see the PR flurry coming from YX as desperate move to further distance themselves from Airtran. From the CRJ hook-up (I know as coming, but think was expedited to fend off Airtran) to this sudden surge in adding new cities (still waiting for someone to confirm to me how long it took to add that last 6 cities).

The final decision of desperation will be the announcement of adding A319/A320 to the fleet. This in YX's eyes will be the final dagger in this proposed merger.

This all while refusing to meet with Airtran and really performing a disservice to shareholders.

 stirthepot  stirthepot 

Craig
MKE



MKE / EYW / LAS - The true trifecta of aviation!
User currently offlineSkyexramper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2798 times:

I love how they have this mega plan to generate another $350,000,000 (highest projected) in revenue in one year's time. Now all they need to do is fill every seat, every day and we'll be set.

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 8):
Same shitty CRJ-200's as everyone else. Nothing special, break your neck to look out the window, and be way too cramped for comfort.

HEHEHE..couldn't say it any better.  Silly At least they are underpowered above FL250, so that'll make up for everything. Personally I'm an ERJ/EMB person.

Quoting PVD757 (Reply 13):
"...within the first year."

the article says "after the first year" - so perhaps there is room for misinterpretation...

You have to remember that this program doesn't start until April so that'll give you the first 4 months of 2008 to add jets. Although we were told 25 jets by October/November.


User currently offlineN917ME From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 726 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2799 times:

Quoting Vivavegas (Reply 14):
Frankly I see the PR flurry coming from YX as desperate move to further distance themselves from Airtran. From the CRJ hook-up (I know as coming, but think was expedited to fend off Airtran) to this sudden surge in adding new cities (still waiting for someone to confirm to me how long it took to add that last 6 cities).

It has been in the works for a lot longer than you think.. at least since June 2006, that is when I was was privvy to the project (RJ and new cities) A project of this scope is not done overnight or in 3 months time.


User currently offlineSkyexRamper From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2787 times:

Look how long it took for everyone to drag their feet and not look for investors so that they could buy their own bigger RJs. That took years! Big grin

User currently offlineKnope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2817 posts, RR: 30
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2746 times:

Quoting BH (Reply 10):
I can see this argument for the 737, but FL continues to state that they can run a 717 more profitable than a 50 seater rj.

That doesn't mean a 50-seat RJ costs less to run than a 717. The truth behind AirTran's experience with 50-seat RJ's is that their pricing structure and traffic composition can't make money with 50-seat RJ's. That's a very different thing.

Larger aircraft are generally more efficient *per seat* but if too many of the seats are open, you'll still lose money.


User currently offlineN353SK From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 792 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2740 times:

I think DLH will be a good market for YX. Ever since AA pulled out of the market DLH has been served only by NW (and I think occasionally allegiant, but that doesn't really count) and fares have been sky high. Any word on whether DLH will be served with FRJ or CRJ?

User currently offlineN917ME From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 726 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2736 times:

Quoting N353SK (Reply 19):
DLH will be served with FRJ or CRJ?

FRJ.


User currently offlineMikey711MN From United States of America, joined Nov 2003, 1395 posts, RR: 8
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2722 times:

Quoting Knope2001 (Reply 11):
AirTran's public proposal to quickly grow to 150-200 flights per day out of Milwaukee only.

Knope2001, I always find your thoughtful analyses very much worth reading, but IIRC, I believe that the proposal you are referring to is really the one that you speculated on based solely on the public quote by Joe that there is potential for that many flights through MKE.

To my knowledge, AirTran has offered no formal proposal--public or otherwise--of how precisely they intend to use MKE, so I'm not sure if it's exactly fair to use that as a fact. Yet.

For the while, what we know is this:

  • YX's growth plan is predicated on using 50-seat RJ's (15 confirmed, 5 in MKE & 10 in MCI) and the occasional added FRJ and MD88 with an anticipated future [replacement] fleet of 737s or 320s
  • FL's growth plan is predicated on using 717s and 737s (both rec'd and on order) and potentially a new order for 170s for thinner routes

The former suggests that MKE has very little growth potential, the latter suggests that MKE is underserved. The former is established with known O&D figures for a given premium price point, the latter is speculative based on how much traffic can be stimulated by lower fares.

IMHO, as a native Milwaukeean, while the locals are very loyal customers to YX, Midwesterners as a general rule tend to be very frugal. Their loyalty stems from a perceived value and a pride in the local business who provides it. Many have claimed that Milwaukee passengers demand the high quality product that YX offers...I think that's only part of the story. I believe that they are loyal to the YX brand for the perceived value of sitting in a first-class-like seat while paying a reasonable coach fare for it.

Therefore, this last point is most concerning: if Milwaukeeans perceive that the 50-seat RJ is not up to par with what they "know" is the YX brand and/or believe that the value isn't there, they may look elsewhere. The erosion of the Midwest brand is imbedded in this growth strategy, and thusly I fail to see where the value-added is for either FL to bump their offer or for Milwaukeeans to continue supporting them as their hometown airline.

-Mike



I plan on living forever. So far, so good...
User currently offlinePHLBOS From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 7482 posts, RR: 24
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2684 times:

Quoting Mikey711MN (Reply 21):
FL's growth plan is predicated on using 717s and 737s (both rec'd and on order) and potentially a new order for 170s for thinner routes

Where and when did you hear about FL possibly ordering E170s? This alone could be a whole new thread in and of itself.



"TransEastern! You'll feel like you've never left the ground because we treat you like dirt!" SNL Parady ad circa 1981
User currently offlineKnope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2817 posts, RR: 30
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 2607 times:

Quoting Mikey711MN (Reply 21):
believe that the proposal you are referring to is really the one that you speculated on based solely on the public quote by Joe that there is potential for that many flights through MKE.

Yup, that's where it comes from. But given that they have 60 more 737 deliveries, are pretty much saturated in ATL and Florida, and have had almost zero success finding a home elsewhere in the past few years, I don't think he just made up the figure out of thin air. A serious number of 737's are bound for Milwaukee.

Quoting Mikey711MN (Reply 21):
If Milwaukeeans perceive that the 50-seat RJ is not up to par with what they "know" is the YX brand and/or believe that the value isn't there, they may look elsewhere.



Quoting Mikey711MN (Reply 21):
I believe that they are loyal to the YX brand for the perceived value of sitting in a first-class-like seat while paying a reasonable coach fare for it.

I see your point, however this is a similar argument made when the brought in the Beechcraft in 1989, and then again when the FRJ's came in 1999. Every plane that Midwest adds which is not premium seating reduces that part of their appeal, and the CRJ's are not particularly wonderful aircraft. However the premium seating alone isn't the only thing that makes people book Midwest. Frequent nonstop flights are just as important, and that's why the BE1 and FRJ didn't destroy Midwest's reputation, and the CRJ won't either. There will probably be a few 717's downgraded here and there to CRJ, but for the most part they will open up new nonstop city pairs or upgrade FRJ markets.

If they were to replace MKE-ATL and MKE-PHL and MKE-EWR with all-CRJ's, then I'd be more concerned. If it's just spotty replacement of 717 and FRJ in a few existing places and the rest of the CRJ fleet adds new nonstop destinations from Milwaukee like SAT and RDU, that's generally a net positive.


User currently offlineMainland From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 3 months 1 week 1 day ago) and read 2548 times:

Quoting Mikey711MN (Reply 21):
To my knowledge, AirTran has offered no formal proposal--public or otherwise--of how precisely they intend to use MKE, so I'm not sure if it's exactly fair to use that as a fact. Yet.

The best they've done, outside of PRs about MKE "potential" is from Leonard's initial proposal letter:

"Most of the growth of the combined Midwest-AirTran occurs through 1) the expansion of the MKE hub, approximately 12 new nonstop markets and more than 40 additional mainline departures, 2) continue building the focus city in MCI with 11 new nonstop markets and about 20 more departures and 3) continued expansion of the ATL hub, both into markets served by Midwest and with the addition of new cities. "

They peg the current FL/YX operations at MKE to be 151 departures to 41 destinations. Their 2 year growth plan takes it up to 183 departures/55 destinations.

Same figures for MCI:

Currently: 32 departures/13 destinations
Two year projection: 50 departures/26 destinations



You don't need a passport to know what state you're in...
25 Access-Air : In my opinion in case anyone cares, the use of the CRJ-200 vs the EMB-145 is probably a big mistake. YX flyers are used to spacious seats and the CRJ-
26 Quickmover : I wonder if a crj200 configured 2x1 with wide seats would be economical? Probably not, but the comfort factor would improve.
27 N353SK : Get concerned, then. MKE-PHL will most likely see at least some CRJs on the route. It probably won't go all CRJ but either certain flights will be on
28 Post contains links Idaboy : For those of you interested in where the CRJs are coming from i found this interesting: http://www.skywest.com/media/fleet_sched.php looking at the nu
29 Knope2001 : They key word was *all*. All three of these markets have varied between 2 and 4 717's in the past few years, depending on season, although EWR and PH
30 Post contains links and images Mikey711MN : Perusing through some of the articles of threads past, this assertion of larger regional jets comes from this article. (emphasis added) I'm sorry tha
31 N917ME : I am certain that some mainline cities will get a mix of CRJ/717. Especially on "odd" times when there is demand, but not for a 717. (mid afternoon, e
32 Steeler83 : like how FL went into PIT in 2000 and launched service to 3 US strongholds: New York (LGA), PHL, Chicago (MDW, although US uses ORD) on top of its re
33 ERJ170 : That's a lot better than AirTran coming into RDU (as well as other destiantions) and launching service to ATL and ATL and ATL and.. well ATL.. don't
34 Post contains images N917ME : [quote=Steeler83,reply=32]like how FL went into PIT in 2000 and launched service to 3 US strongholds: New York (LGA), PHL, Chicago (MDW, although US u
35 SANFan : Or, how about "some existing YX cities that offer NS service to MCI but not MKE to be some of the new routes", like, oh, SAN-MKE? (FAREMEASURE shows
36 COERJ145 : Maybe they could serve places like EGE, SLC, or JAC from MCI or MKE.
37 Knope2001 : Overexpansion was the death of many, many upstart airlines including some who were formerly successful. Look at People Express. They were highly prof
38 Mke717spotter : Do you think there is any thing in the future plans concerning OMA? I know they used to fly from there to multiple places but now its only MKE & DCA.
39 Knope2001 : I doubt Omaha will see anything except possible OMA-MCI RJ flights at this time. I do think it's also possible that OMA-MKE will go all-RJ, but that'
40 Post contains links SkyexRamper : Quoting Idaboy (Reply 28): For those of you interested in where the CRJs are coming from i found this interesting: They can't even spell Midwest corre
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Airtran Proposes Merger With Midwest Air posted Wed Dec 13 2006 03:00:54 by Travatl
Mesa Air Group Employee Donates Kidney posted Sun Mar 5 2006 18:57:04 by IADCRJ
Alaska Air Group Posts 4Q05, FY05 Profits posted Thu Jan 26 2006 17:46:07 by EA CO AS
Air Tran Growth Strategy Article posted Tue Jan 10 2006 19:59:21 by MSYtristar
Alaska Air Group Posts 3Q Profit $90.2M posted Thu Oct 20 2005 17:36:20 by EA CO AS
Did Alaska Air Group Ever Invest In HP/US? posted Thu Aug 18 2005 00:46:30 by Birdbrainz
IAM: Alaska Air Group Copping Out posted Sat Jun 25 2005 08:58:00 by SHUPirate1
Alaska Air Group Posts Q4 Loss posted Fri Jan 28 2005 14:28:07 by SHUPirate1
Global Air Group 747 SP posted Wed Jan 19 2005 22:33:25 by Sbe727
PDX-ONT Alaska Air Group Freq/capacity Change posted Mon Nov 22 2004 21:14:33 by As739x