Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Milwaukee January Traffic Up 43.1%  
User currently onlineknope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2875 posts, RR: 30
Posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2688 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.

http://milwaukee.bizjournals.com/mil...passenger_record.html?ana=e_du_pub

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.

21 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinelegacytravel From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1067 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2676 times:

Knope,

Do those numbers include passengers connecting from say a BOS or BWI or are the passenger numbers strictly originating tickets from MKE.

Mark in MKE



I love the smell of Jet fuel in the Morning
User currently offlineRL757PVD From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 4646 posts, RR: 11
Reply 2, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2647 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!
User currently onlineknope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2875 posts, RR: 30
Reply 3, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 2599 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.


User currently onlineknope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2875 posts, RR: 30
Reply 4, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2560 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.


User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 5, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2542 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..  



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlinelegacytravel From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1067 posts, RR: 2
Reply 6, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2506 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.

Glad you enjoied it.

Mark in MKE



I love the smell of Jet fuel in the Morning
User currently offlineJacobin777 From United States of America, joined Sep 2004, 14968 posts, RR: 60
Reply 7, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2469 times:

Quoting legacytravel (Reply 6):

Glad you enjoied it.

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.

Other than that, I liked the airport..  



"Up the Irons!"
User currently offlinesurfandsnow From United States of America, joined Jan 2009, 2856 posts, RR: 30
Reply 8, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2453 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!
User currently offlinescutfarcus From United States of America, joined May 2000, 392 posts, RR: 1
Reply 9, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 2395 times:

Just get that Amtrak upgraded to proper high speed to the Chicago Loop and you'll see another nice bump in these numbers!

User currently offlineYXwatcherMkE From United States of America, joined May 2007, 971 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 2277 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
User currently offlineDavescj From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 2305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2097 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.

Dave



Can I have a mojito on this flight?
User currently offlineSlcDeltaRUmd11 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 3360 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1951 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


User currently offline2H4 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8955 posts, RR: 60
Reply 13, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 1940 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
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.  



Intentionally Left Blank
User currently offlinelegacytravel From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1067 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1840 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..

Mark in MKE



I love the smell of Jet fuel in the Morning
User currently onlineFL787 From United States of America, joined Aug 2007, 1540 posts, RR: 12
Reply 15, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 1821 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.



717,72S,732/3/4/5/G/8/9,744,752/3,763/4,772/3,D9S/5,M8/90,D10,319/20/21,332/3,388,CR2/7/9,EM2,ER4,E70/75/90,SF3,AR8
User currently offlinemtnwest1979 From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 2431 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1778 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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.



"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"
User currently offlineDavescj From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 2305 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 1697 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.

Dave



Can I have a mojito on this flight?
User currently offlinelegacytravel From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 1067 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 1608 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.

Mark in MKE



I love the smell of Jet fuel in the Morning
User currently offlineTango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3803 posts, RR: 29
Reply 19, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1584 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.


User currently offlineFlyPNS1 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 6579 posts, RR: 24
Reply 20, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 1565 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.


User currently offlineTango-Bravo From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 3803 posts, RR: 29
Reply 21, posted (4 years 4 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1521 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%


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...
Yawn....AirTran January Traffic Up 41% posted Mon Feb 3 2003 22:17:40 by Travatl
EasyJet Traffic Up 43% | Go Traffic Up 89% posted Tue Jun 11 2002 14:25:59 by Singapore_Air
UA's January Traffic, Revenue Per Pax Up posted Tue Feb 9 2010 04:06:41 by 777fan
WN Traffic Up 19% In January posted Thu Feb 2 2006 17:10:22 by DALNeighbor
EasyJet Passenger Numbers Up 43.5% For January posted Fri Feb 7 2003 09:19:32 by Singapore_Air
MKE November Traffic Up 38.0% posted Sat Dec 26 2009 19:38:02 by Knope2001
MDT Traffic Up 5.6% For August posted Thu Sep 24 2009 17:41:39 by Buddys747
PEK Passenger Traffic Up 28% In February posted Thu Mar 26 2009 21:04:40 by CityAirline
MSY Traffic Up In 2008 posted Thu Feb 12 2009 06:45:58 by MSYtristar
Turkish Airlines November Traffic Up 19% posted Fri Dec 19 2008 08:23:33 by TKfan