knope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2555 posts, RR: 31 Posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2105 times:
Remember a few months back when people lamented that MKE's January capacity was going to be up a whopping 34.9% year over year? January actually traffic growth far outstripped that capacity increase, with total passengers up 43.1% in January. That's an increase of over 200k passengers from 2009.
Obviously last January saw serious pullbacks due to the recession and the cuts which Midwest rolled out the fall before. The year-over-year comparison benefits from that. However even if you go back two years to 2008, this January's traffic was up nearly 17%...over 100k more than 2008.
Another way in which MKE's January traffic was remarkable is that they served more passengers than Kansas City, Memphis, or Cincinnati.
697,495 ….. Milwaukee
689,084 ….. Memphis
676,702 ….. Kansas City
656,364 ….. Cincinnati
647,707 ….. Houston Hobby
635,931 ….. Nashville
628,979 ….. Raleigh
610,026 ….. Austin
581,733 ….. San Jose
576,677 ….. Pittsburgh
574,032 ….. Dallas Love
533,134 ….. Indianapolis
472,710 ….. Albuquerque
449,827 ….. Columbus
Only a couple of years ago, MKE strived to reach the size of Columbus and Albuquerque, and Indy was a full notch above. Obviously we'll see if all this lasts, but so far the traffic is surpassing just about anybody's expectations.
Republic's Q4 conference call said that their MKE operation load factor was up about 10 points year-over-year for January. Not sure if everyone saw loads as strong (perhaps they did) but we do know that overall traffic certainly responded well to the increassed capacity.
legacytravel From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1067 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2093 times:
Knope,
Do those numbers include passengers connecting from say a BOS or BWI or are the passenger numbers strictly originating tickets from MKE.
RL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4537 posts, RR: 13 Reply 2, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2064 times:
There's a bubble waiting to burst. MKE is a good sized market, but not big enough to profitably support all of these flights. I wonder what will give....
Experience is what you get when what you thought would work out didn't!
knope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2555 posts, RR: 31 Reply 3, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 3 hours ago) and read 2016 times:
They include both locally-boarding and connecting passengers, which is the industry standard.
It's not readily clear to figure out how much traffic is local-boarding and how much is connecting from stats like these. Even at airports like MIlwaukee which try to show connections in their stats, the accuracy and reporting of airlines varies widely. For example, Skywest's FL* flying was reported with zero connection passengers...neither online connections nor interline to AirTran...which is clearly not accruate.
So...it's almost certain that MKE's growth consists of more connecting passenges and more local passengers. But it's not easy to tell (this early) how much is which .
And the comparisons to other airports are valid ones because all airports include connections and local passengers in their totals.
knope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2555 posts, RR: 31 Reply 4, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1977 times:
Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 2): There's a bubble waiting to burst. MKE is a good sized market, but not big enough to profitably support all of these flights. I wonder what will give....
Remains to be seen. I don't think we'll see a whole lot of *additional* capacity increase for quite some time. If a lot of MKE's growth is coming from drawing more Chicago-area flyers, and if some of that growth is finding ways to break-even service connecting traffic left on the table by the downsizing of CVG, STL, PIT, etc, it might not be so dire. If it's all about fire-sale-seat-filling local fares and junk connections, no so much.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 5, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1959 times:
Quoting knope2001 (Thread starter): Remember a few months back when people lamented that MKE's January capacity was going to be up a whopping 34.9% year over year? January actually traffic growth far outstripped that capacity increase, with total passengers up 43.1% in January. That's an increase of over 200k passengers from 2009.
I'm glad my wife and I were able to add to the statistic.... ..
It wasn't actually bad going from north Chicago suburbs to MKE......shorter drive than I thought and the AA/MQ check-in was very quick. Going through the terminal was a breeze. Its a nice airport...we'll definitely try using it again..
legacytravel From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1067 posts, RR: 2 Reply 6, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1923 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 5): It wasn't actually bad going from north Chicago suburbs to MKE......shorter drive than I thought and the AA/MQ check-in was very quick. Going through the terminal was a breeze. Its a nice airport...we'll definitely try using it again
MKE is a nice well kept secret. I think more and more North Chicago people will find that this much easier to use and more economical as well. ORD parking is extremely high, MKE not that bad yet.
Jacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 61 Reply 7, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1886 times:
I certainly is a nice quaint airport. My only "beef" would be the lack of more eateries and IIRC there wasn't free wi-fi, which I think would have been nice.
surfandsnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2588 posts, RR: 31 Reply 8, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1870 times:
Quoting legacytravel (Reply 6): more and more North Chicago people will find that this much easier to use and more economical as well.
Northern Chicago area might be a better way to put it. The city of North Chicago probably isn't home to too many fliers
Flying in the middle seat of coach is much better than not flying at all!
YXwatcherMkE From United States of America, joined May 2007, 800 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 1694 times:
Quoting RL757PVD (Reply 2): There's a bubble waiting to burst. MKE is a good sized market, but not big enough to profitably support all of these flights. I wonder what will give....
I would bet that a good 40% of this traffic is connecting to other flights. And from what I've seen from dropping off my daughter at the Amtrack station at MKE a good number of people are using the train to get to Downtown Chicago. So when the train gets up graded to the high speed tracks in two years I think we will see even more Chicago pax. using MKE. As it is the train from MKE to Downtown Chicago is faster that using the El line from downtown to ORD, I know I tried it once It was a very long ride from the Loop to ORD.
I miss the 60's & 70's when you felt like a guest on the plane not cattle like today
Davescj From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 2244 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1514 times:
I notice that DL has lots of RJs making MIKE - hub connections. I wonder if some of them will be ramped up? MKE is a great airport to change planes in, so long as you stay in the same terminal.
SlcDeltaRUmd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2456 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1368 times:
Good for MKE but i agree it cant keep supporting much more service with two large focus cities. MKE is certainly not large enough to support two full hubs. The growth will be limited how much more if they both stay and overlap so much
Personally if i lived there i would want one real hub and not two focus cities so i had the most destinations possible non-stop. The two focus city thing keeps them fighting and competing over fares though so its a toss up
I'm sure beyond connections the low fares have sure helped the numbers as two airlines are competing
2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8950 posts, RR: 62 Reply 13, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 4 days 2 hours ago) and read 1357 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 5): It wasn't actually bad going from north Chicago suburbs to MKE......shorter drive than I thought
Same here, except I'm in the MSN area. Instead of paying $100-$200 for a ticket from MSN-MKE, I just make the hour-long drive to MKE and save the money. I suspect MKE is pulling a lot of people from the MSN area who also feel an hour of their time is worth $100-$200.
In addition, MKE is a $20, 2-hour Badger Bus ride from downtown MSN.
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 7): My only "beef" would be the lack of more eateries and IIRC there wasn't free wi-fi, which I think would have been nice.
Agreed. I like the airport as well, and those happen to be my only two gripes.
And as an amateur aviation photographer, part of me enjoys flying out of MKE simply to spite MSN for not having a viewing area.
legacytravel From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1067 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1257 times:
Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 7): certainly is a nice quaint airport. My only "beef" would be the lack of more eateries and IIRC there wasn't free wi-fi, which I think would have been nice.
They are changing the food court around now. I am not sure what is going in there, but I do agree MKE needs some new eats..
FL787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1499 posts, RR: 12 Reply 15, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 1238 times:
Quoting legacytravel (Reply 14): They are changing the food court around now. I am not sure what is going in there, but I do agree MKE needs some new eats..
There will be a Famous Famiglia, a Pizza Hut, and a Quizno's in the main terminal when construction's completed.
mtnwest1979 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 2123 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 1195 times:
Quoting scutfarcus (Reply 9): Just get that Amtrak upgraded to proper high speed to the Chicago Loop and you'll see another nice bump in these numbers!
So how much time would high speed rail cut off? Couldn't be that much of a difference. Heck, if it took off 20 min, even that wouldn't seem that big of a deal.
Seeing as its 90 miles (or so) downtown to downtown, and train surely wouldn't hit 'high speed' til well out of Union Station, time saved even at twice speed of Amtrak trains now would only save 35 min between Chi U.Station and Mil Airport sta. And that is double speed from the get go out of the station.
Davescj From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 2244 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 1114 times:
Two things that would be of great help to MKE:
Express rail to downtown MKE and downtown Chicago. It would make the airport even more competitive against ORD.
Another nice feature would be to go from E to D (DL/CO terminal to Midwest Express terminal) w/o having to re clear security. This would allow DL to more use the code shares with Midwest more effectively. Not only that, you'd have w lounges (SC members get the Midwest lounge also).
If you didn't have to reclear security, the plane change times would also be shorter, and easier connections to many midwest cities.
legacytravel From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1067 posts, RR: 2 Reply 18, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1025 times:
Quoting Davescj (Reply 17): Another nice feature would be to go from E to D (DL/CO terminal to Midwest Express terminal) w/o having to re clear security.
If MKE ever builds the additional terminal by E concourse you might get your wish. It is in or was in the master plan for MKE although that might have changed when they built the hammerhead on C gates that FL so promptly snapped up.
Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3725 posts, RR: 31 Reply 19, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1001 times:
Interpret the huge increase in traffic at MKE and whether it is sustainable however you will... bottom line that the figure "shouts" is that MKE was a grossly underserved market prior to capacity being increased by one-third of the level offered one year earlier. Get over the notion that some here seem to have that there is overcapacity in whatever market until every flight is overbooked every day.
Since there's no way the MKE market has grown by 43.1% in just one year, the number tells me that pax residing in the greater MKE area are now actually departing from MKE...rather than making the drive to MDW/ORD and perhaps other cities within 2-4 hours driving time.
FlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6050 posts, RR: 25 Reply 20, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 982 times:
Quoting Tango-Bravo (Reply 19): Interpret the huge increase in traffic at MKE and whether it is sustainable however you will... bottom line that the figure "shouts" is that MKE was a grossly underserved market prior to capacity being increased by one-third of the level offered one year earlier. Get over the notion that some here seem to have that there is overcapacity in whatever market until every flight is overbooked every day.
Since there's no way the MKE market has grown by 43.1% in just one year, the number tells me that pax residing in the greater MKE area are now actually departing from MKE...rather than making the drive to MDW/ORD and perhaps other cities within 2-4 hours driving time.
To some extent you are probably right in that MKE was a little underserved. However, you cannot ignore that a chunk of this growth is simply connecting traffic and has nothing to do with MKE as a market. Both FL and RAH have been working to pump up connecting flows through MKE.
Tango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3725 posts, RR: 31 Reply 21, posted (3 years 2 months 2 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 938 times:
Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 20): However, you cannot ignore that a chunk of this growth is simply connecting traffic and has nothing to do with MKE as a market.
True...although let's say that 75% of traffic growth at MKE is attributable to pax making connections...even then O&D growth at MKE is better than a still-impressive 10% rate in just one year... and 75% (of growth due to connecting pax) is a figure that is almost certainly on the high side....in reality I'm guessing it's probably more like ~50%
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2555 posts, 
..
Printer friendly format 
