Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
jreuschl
Topic Author
Posts: 412
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2009 3:04 am

MKE to close E, new international terminal

Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:38 pm

http://fox6now.com/2016/07/15/mitchell- ... -terminal/

Wonder if they would be able to get a low cost Euro carrier to come over and get some ORD traffic.
 
phxtravelboy
Posts: 338
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2005 7:42 am

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:45 pm

This has been rumored for a while so I'm glad to see it finally coming true. I was just in MKE on Wednesday and as I drove by that pathetic excuse for an "international terminal" I was thinking "hopefully soon you'll be destroyed and be replaced by something SO much better". Hopefully this moves quickly.
 
commavia
Posts: 11489
Joined: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:30 am

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:47 pm

Seems like a logical, efficient move to consolidate United/Air Canada at C - C has the room to accommodate those two carriers, and E is underutilized and superfluous at this point long after the Midwest Express and AirTran "hubs" are gone.
 
User avatar
piedmontf284000
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:00 pm

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:54 pm

jreuschl wrote:
http://fox6now.com/2016/07/15/mitchell-airports-concourse-e-to-become-state-of-the-art-international-terminal/

Wonder if they would be able to get a low cost Euro carrier to come over and get some ORD traffic.


I can totally see WOW or DY coming in to Milwaukee and serving it once the Terminal is finished. Their landing fees and rent would probably be half that of ORD. They would be an alternative for cost conscious travelers from ORD. The Amtrak train out of downtown Chicago stops at MKE and only cost around $26 one way. People trying to get to Europe on the cheap would have no problem sidetracking to MKE if it could save them hundreds of dollars.
 
User avatar
TVNWZ
Posts: 2274
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:28 am

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:56 pm

Glad to see this and, yes, long overdue.
 
WA707atMSP
Posts: 1926
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:16 pm

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Fri Jul 15, 2016 5:59 pm

piedmontf284000 wrote:
jreuschl wrote:
http://fox6now.com/2016/07/15/mitchell-airports-concourse-e-to-become-state-of-the-art-international-terminal/

Wonder if they would be able to get a low cost Euro carrier to come over and get some ORD traffic.


I can totally see WOW or DY coming in to Milwaukee and serving it once the Terminal is finished. Their landing fees and rent would probably be half that of ORD. They would be an alternative for cost conscious travelers from ORD. The Amtrak train out of downtown Chicago stops at MKE and only cost around $26 one way. People trying to get to Europe on the cheap would have no problem sidetracking to MKE if it could save them hundreds of dollars.


Condor would be another possibility.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14636
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Fri Jul 15, 2016 6:06 pm

WA707atMSP wrote:
Condor would be another possibility.


With an effective LH hub just down the road, what's the business case for DE?
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
CO777-200ER
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2001 6:57 am

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Fri Jul 15, 2016 6:08 pm

Don't forget that earlier this year Volaris applied for GDL-MKE service.

DY is also doing charters from MKE to Mexico and the Caribbean for the winter season using the 738. So maybe this is the start of something for TATL service down the road.
 
User avatar
dabpit
Posts: 849
Joined: Tue May 01, 2012 10:19 am

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Fri Jul 15, 2016 7:06 pm

CO777-200ER wrote:
DY is also doing charters from MKE to Mexico and the Caribbean for the winter season using the 738. So maybe this is the start of something for TATL service down the road.


They are also doing charters from Rockford (RFD). This would be a good test for DY, see which airport works better for them since rumor has it they are not happy with the prices at ORD.
Carpe Diem
 
User avatar
mke717spotter
Posts: 2168
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:32 am

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Fri Jul 15, 2016 7:55 pm

Wow, a "state-of-the-art" international terminal huh? Sounds like a pretty big investment, so they must be fairly confident about adding international flights down the road. I wonder if it will be a completely new building or if they're just going to renovate E as is.

CO777-200ER wrote:
Don't forget that earlier this year Volaris applied for GDL-MKE service.

Does anyone know what the status of this is? As in when there might be an announcement about it being approved or service starting?
Will you watch the Cleveland Browns and the Detroit Lions on Sunday? Only if coach Eric Mangini resigned after a loss.
 
User avatar
knope2001
Posts: 3032
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:54 am

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Fri Jul 15, 2016 7:56 pm

Though I don’t think the existing international arrivals terminal has held MKE back when it comes to attracting more service, a new arrivals facility may portray Mitchell as a more aggressive player. Shiny new stuff is always more impressive to visiting airline reps. Passengers don’t actually spend that much time in International arrivals terminal (other than standing and waiting) so it’s not like they’re longing for flashy amenities. But a fresh facility that connects to the the main terminal is a nicer greeting than a dated one which sends you onto a shuttle bus at the curb. As I've posted in the past I suspect turning E into International Arrivals will take a lot more work than some would guess. It’s just not laid out for the sort of holding and flow needed for customs without some serious reconstruction. Hopefully we don’t spend a boatload of money on something which functions and looks like a patch job and a facelift.

I am quite happy to see United and Air Canada move to civilization. A couple times now I’ve had first-time visitors use E and I was a little embarrassed. C really does have a nice set of amenities and D isn’t too far behind, but E is like going back in time to 1990 when it comes to services. Ultimately if we can connect C and D it will open everything up to all, but for the time being having everybody on C or D helps avoid the Welcome to 1980 impression.

Attracting transatlantic service is of course a dream of Milwaukee and countless peers, and I’m sure they all court representatives of potential TATL airlines. For what it’s worth I noticed something that might suggest headway with Norwegian. Back in May the MKE Airport Director sent a letter of support on behalf of Norwegian Air's international foreign air carrier permit. Now that doesn’t mean much -- you sometimes see letters of support like this from places not specifically involved. If Delta applies for Minneapolis-Beijing authority among the supporting mail sent to the DoT may be letters from the Cedar Rapids airport director and the Grand Forks city council. But this letter from MKE seems to specifically reference linking MKE to Europe, not just the generic benefit of competition, open skies, low fares, etc. (Bold is my emphasis)

Milwaukee County’s General Mitchell International Airport (MKE) wishes to express its full support of the Department of Transportation’s (“DOT”) tentative approval granting a foreign air carrier permit to Norwegian Air International Limited (“Norwegian”).1 MKE fully supports the competition, increased tourism, and new service fostered by open skies policy.

In addition to giving our consumers the choice to fly to Europe on a low-cost carrier, the operations proposed by Norwegian will bring substantial economic benefit to the Milwaukee / Chicago region through increased levels of tourism and job creation in the aviation and tourism industries.


https://www.regulations.gov/document?D= ... -0204-6462

That sounds like a plan for Norwegian to link MKE to Europe to me. Not DY MKE to Mexico, or ORD to Europe, or DY in general. This could of course only be aspirational on MKE's part. And even if DY has all the plans drawn up to launch transatlantic Milwaukee service it means nothing until the trigger is actually pulled. But I still thought it was of note. I don’t recall similar letters from MKE support service at another airport, and I’m certain they wouldn’t be doing this for DY at ORD.

Milwaukee already has significantly more annual international arrivals than most peers, and if Volaris makes good on their intentions that will increase further. Even if TATL isn’t on the horizon there’s a decent amount of activity for the new arrivals facility whenever it does come on line.
 
User avatar
knope2001
Posts: 3032
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:54 am

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Fri Jul 15, 2016 8:43 pm

knope2001 wrote:
Milwaukee already has significantly more annual international arrivals than most peers, and if Volaris makes good on their intentions that will increase further. Even if TATL isn’t on the horizon there’s a decent amount of activity for the new arrivals facility whenever it does come on line.



***Corrected Numbers***
For what it's worth here are 2015 international arrivals for some approximate peers without TATL service. Cleveland maintained more off-season Mexico flying which put them ahead of MKE.

386 cle
356 mke
163 mci
87 ind
67 bna
59 cmh
45 bdl
40 mem
4 buf

FWIW including TATL (Paris) service, CVG had 468 international arrivals in 2016 and PIT had 426. If Volaris does make good on their MKE service (2x or 3x/week) MKE's international arrivals will be in the CVG and PIT range. .
Last edited by knope2001 on Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.
 
WA707atMSP
Posts: 1926
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:16 pm

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Sat Jul 16, 2016 6:56 am

knope2001 wrote:
knope2001 wrote:
Milwaukee already has significantly more annual international arrivals than most peers, and if Volaris makes good on their intentions that will increase further. Even if TATL isn’t on the horizon there’s a decent amount of activity for the new arrivals facility whenever it does come on line.


For what it's worth here are 2015 international arrivals for some approximate peers without TATL service. Cleveland maintained more off-season Mexico flying which put them ahead of MKE. If Volaris does make good with 2x or 3x it will boost MKE to a fairly similar level.

386 cle
228 mke
124 mci
69 ind
67 bna
59 cmh
51 bdl
39 mem
7 buf

FWIW including TATL (Paris) service, CVG had 512 international arrivals in 2016 and PIT had 429.


Does this data differentiate between scheduled international flights and diversions? If diversions are included, I'm sure MKE's data would be skewed upward because of flights diverting from ORD.
 
WA707atMSP
Posts: 1926
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:16 pm

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Sat Jul 16, 2016 6:59 am

Cubsrule wrote:
WA707atMSP wrote:
Condor would be another possibility.


With an effective LH hub just down the road, what's the business case for DE?


DE and LH serve much different segments of the market. The difference between DE and LH is like the difference between Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge. DE's costs and fares are lower than LH's are, so DE can serve more leisure / ethnic oriented markets like MSP that aren't options for LH.
 
midexjet
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2000 11:18 pm

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Sat Jul 16, 2016 8:54 am

WA707atMSP wrote:
Does this data differentiate between scheduled international flights and diversions? If diversions are included, I'm sure MKE's data would be skewed upward because of flights diverting from ORD.


Most of the diversions now go to Rockford, not Milwaukee
 
User avatar
knope2001
Posts: 3032
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:54 am

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Sat Jul 16, 2016 12:55 pm

WA707atMSP wrote:
Does this data differentiate between scheduled international flights and diversions? If diversions are included, I'm sure MKE's data would be skewed upward because of flights diverting from ORD.


Diversions were pulled out, but I went back to double check and realized I had screwed up my table, the primary issue being omitted international carriers. Shouldn't have posted hastily from work. Here are corrected numbers (plus I fixed the original post) for 2015 international arrivals not including Canada.

386 cle
356 mke
163 mci
87 ind
67 bna
59 cmh
45 bdl
40 mem
4 buf

FWIW including TATL (Paris) service, CVG had 468 international arrivals in 2016 and PIT had 426. If Volaris makes good on MKE (2x or 3x / week) MKE will have a similar volume to CVG and PIT.
 
WA707atMSP
Posts: 1926
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 8:16 pm

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Sat Jul 16, 2016 11:25 pm

knope2001 wrote:
WA707atMSP wrote:
Does this data differentiate between scheduled international flights and diversions? If diversions are included, I'm sure MKE's data would be skewed upward because of flights diverting from ORD.


Diversions were pulled out, but I went back to double check and realized I had screwed up my table, the primary issue being omitted international carriers. Shouldn't have posted hastily from work. Here are corrected numbers (plus I fixed the original post) for 2015 international arrivals not including Canada.

386 cle
356 mke
163 mci
87 ind
67 bna
59 cmh
45 bdl
40 mem
4 buf

FWIW including TATL (Paris) service, CVG had 468 international arrivals in 2016 and PIT had 426. If Volaris makes good on MKE (2x or 3x / week) MKE will have a similar volume to CVG and PIT.


Thanks for the clarification.....and thanks for your hard work to compile the data. Very interesting!
 
YXwatcherMKE
Posts: 384
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 3:06 pm

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Sun Jul 17, 2016 12:34 am

I very excited that MKE is going ahead with plans to turn the "E" concourse into a international arrivals terminal. It is long over do. I had traveled out and back from MKE in June and overheard conversation by some staff that they were getting ready to make an announcement and it sounded like they were talking in terms of the old 19968 building coming down next year and a new terminal in 2018 with a early 2019 opening if I heard them correctly.
I miss the 60's & 70's when you felt like a guest on the plane not cattle like today
 
User avatar
bluefltspecial
Posts: 566
Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 6:27 pm

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Sun Jul 17, 2016 6:19 am

Maybe I missed someone else pointing this out, but what about Southwest?

With their consumption of AirTran, they now have access to a number of international routes such as the Caribbean and Mexico which a 737 can easily do from MKE and need an FIS facility. With WN still holding a strong presence in MKE I could easily see this being a win win on both sides for WN and the airport. I believe - I could be wrong - that Apple vacations was the one that hired Aero Mexico to fly to MKE in the first place, no? Regardless, once completed I think we can see an increase in international passenger traffic from a few carriers but I would put my money on Southwest.
Save a horse, ride a Fly-boy....
 
User avatar
knope2001
Posts: 3032
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:54 am

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Sun Jul 17, 2016 3:16 pm

bluefltspecial wrote:
Maybe I missed someone else pointing this out, but what about Southwest?

With their consumption of AirTran, they now have access to a number of international routes such as the Caribbean and Mexico which a 737 can easily do from MKE and need an FIS facility. With WN still holding a strong presence in MKE I could easily see this being a win win on both sides for WN and the airport. I believe - I could be wrong - that Apple vacations was the one that hired Aero Mexico to fly to MKE in the first place, no? Regardless, once completed I think we can see an increase in international passenger traffic from a few carriers but I would put my money on Southwest.


Actually I think it's more the other direction. Southwest cut their chops on international flying by inheriting AirTran's contracts, but this sort of seasonal contract-based flying isn't their focus. Now that they have the know-how they have been adding scheduled service from their larger hub markets where they can leverage connections and big traffic pools. The spring 2017 schedule Southwest has out currently only has Saturday-only MKE-CUN. Not only is Southwest seemingly not so interested in chasing the conract flying, but I believe (don't quote me) there's something in the pilot contract which makes charter flying more costly than scheduled services.

From the 2015 to 2016 to 2017 spring scheduled Southwest's participation in the MKE international beach flying market has decreased. The slack has been picked up by other carriers -- AeroMexico, Sunwing and now Norwegian -- so the overall service level is has been pretty stable. But I don't expect Southwest to add more international flying at Milwaukee any time soon.
 
User avatar
illinoisman
Posts: 225
Joined: Tue Feb 14, 2012 2:07 am

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Mon Jul 18, 2016 6:17 am

CO777-200ER wrote:
DY is also doing charters from MKE to Mexico and the Caribbean for the winter season using the 738.

Are they taking over all of the flying or just the routes that Sunwing flew this past winter? From what I heard Sunwing's on-time performance was pretty poor, so I'm not surprised they only lasted one season.
 
User avatar
posti
Posts: 116
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 9:51 am

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Mon Jul 18, 2016 9:49 am

Good news, hopefully this indicates that MKE is serious and ready for more international service. Hailing from SE Wisconsin and currently living near LGW, I am selfishly hopefull that DY chooses MKE as a future destination. I think low cost transatlantic service from MKE would do quite well, it could draw folks up from Northern Illinois and attract Wisconsinites who don't want to deal with ORD. Statements like, "Norwegian already flies to California, Florida, New York and Boston and is looking to expand by serving U.S. airports that have low fees and little or no international service" give me hope.

http://www.reuters.com/article/norwegia ... NJ20151022
MKE via RAC, LAF, VRN, SEA, and LGW
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14636
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Mon Jul 18, 2016 1:05 pm

WA707atMSP wrote:
Cubsrule wrote:
WA707atMSP wrote:
Condor would be another possibility.


With an effective LH hub just down the road, what's the business case for DE?


DE and LH serve much different segments of the market. The difference between DE and LH is like the difference between Air Canada and Air Canada Rouge. DE's costs and fares are lower than LH's are, so DE can serve more leisure / ethnic oriented markets like MSP that aren't options for LH.


Right. DE and LH don't generally serve the same markets. I'm not sure whether MKE is sufficiently distinctive from CHI (for purposes of TATL service) that it would make sense. DE did fly to ORD for a few years in the mid-00s, but by and large DE and LH do not overlap.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
bjorn14
Posts: 3595
Joined: Sat Feb 27, 2010 2:11 pm

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Mon Jul 18, 2016 5:10 pm

Are they tearing down E or just remodeling it?
"I want to know the voice of God the rest is just details" --A. Einstein
 
HermansCVR580
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 1999 5:29 am

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Mon Jul 18, 2016 6:52 pm

bjorn14 wrote:
Are they tearing down E or just remodeling it?


I was wondering the same thing myself I have read conflicting reports, one says that a new terminal will be built another says that E will be configured to handle both incoming and outgoing international traffic along with shared gates for new entrants.
The right decision at the wrong time, is still a wrong decision. "Hal Carr"
 
User avatar
knope2001
Posts: 3032
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:54 am

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Mon Jul 18, 2016 11:16 pm

Best I can tell, plans for E are very preliminary. Vacating E is a first step, and the intent is to move forward to convert it for international arrivals. However I don’t think there’s an RFP (request for proposals) at this point. When the RFP is issued I’d anticipate it will indicate if they’re looking for bids to remodel, rebuild and remodel, or raise and build new. Or the RFP may not specify and be open to any option. I’m skeptical that the goal can be accomplished with anything as simple as a “remodel”.

International departures at E is a non-starter. Arrivals and departures are completely different animals and at an airport with excess gate space it’s not worth any serious consideration. Arrivals alone will be a struggle to fit into the E footprint. It needs a couple of jetways and deplaning area, baggage claim, holding areas with restrooms, customs facilities, backroom office areas, segregated screening space, separate holding areas for detained passengers, etc. That leaves little room for departures, and amenities for departing passengers will be minimal. And the TSA screening and (minimal) amenities you do have for departing passengers would only be open for departing flights – at best a few dozen hours per week in the best case scenario. Except for massive international airports like Atlanta everybody runs international departures out of regular terminal domestic gates. I very much hope it was an off-the-cuff comment versus a lack of understanding.

As for Norwegian’s winter flying I don’t think we’ll know for sure who else will operate until Apple and Funjet release schedules. Part of the question is what “Milwaukee / Chicago” means, as Norwegian will have three 737-800's dedicated to Milwaukee and Chicago.. If they mean Milwaukee and Chicago O’Hare there’s no way three planes comes close to covering it, and you can expect some combination of AeroMexico, Sunwing or somebody else on the scene in Milwaukee. If they mean Milwaukee and Chicago/Rockford international it’s possible they’ll cover both MKE and RFD, though even that could be a stretch and require somebody else. It depends on specifics. It’s noteworthy that (currently) Southwest has less contract flying than last winter. Last winter there were Saturday nonstops to CUN, MBJ and PUJ, but this coming winter CUN only on WN. Unless there are some cutbacks or day-of-week shuffles it may be difficult for three Norwegian 738’s to cover all of MKE flying plus the charters RFD sees. We'll find out more when schedules for 2017 are released.
 
Cubsrule
Posts: 14636
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 12:13 pm

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Tue Jul 19, 2016 1:44 am

knope2001 wrote:
International departures at E is a non-starter. Arrivals and departures are completely different animals and at an airport with excess gate space it’s not worth any serious consideration. Arrivals alone will be a struggle to fit into the E footprint. It needs a couple of jetways and deplaning area, baggage claim, holding areas with restrooms, customs facilities, backroom office areas, segregated screening space, separate holding areas for detained passengers, etc. That leaves little room for departures, and amenities for departing passengers will be minimal.


Why couldn't/wouldn't they use the lower level for arrivals, permitting a "normal" departure concourse upstairs? Assuming a complete loss of E, MKE won't exactly be awash with empty gates.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
 
User avatar
piedmontf284000
Posts: 470
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 12:00 pm

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Tue Jul 19, 2016 3:10 am

knope2001 wrote:
Best I can tell, plans for E are very preliminary. Vacating E is a first step, and the intent is to move forward to convert it for international arrivals. However I don’t think there’s an RFP (request for proposals) at this point. When the RFP is issued I’d anticipate it will indicate if they’re looking for bids to remodel, rebuild and remodel, or raise and build new. Or the RFP may not specify and be open to any option. I’m skeptical that the goal can be accomplished with anything as simple as a “remodel”.

International departures at E is a non-starter. Arrivals and departures are completely different animals and at an airport with excess gate space it’s not worth any serious consideration. Arrivals alone will be a struggle to fit into the E footprint. It needs a couple of jetways and deplaning area, baggage claim, holding areas with restrooms, customs facilities, backroom office areas, segregated screening space, separate holding areas for detained passengers, etc. That leaves little room for departures, and amenities for departing passengers will be minimal. And the TSA screening and (minimal) amenities you do have for departing passengers would only be open for departing flights – at best a few dozen hours per week in the best case scenario. Except for massive international airports like Atlanta everybody runs international departures out of regular terminal domestic gates. I very much hope it was an off-the-cuff comment versus a lack of understanding.

As for Norwegian’s winter flying I don’t think we’ll know for sure who else will operate until Apple and Funjet release schedules. Part of the question is what “Milwaukee / Chicago” means, as Norwegian will have three 737-800's dedicated to Milwaukee and Chicago.. If they mean Milwaukee and Chicago O’Hare there’s no way three planes comes close to covering it, and you can expect some combination of AeroMexico, Sunwing or somebody else on the scene in Milwaukee. If they mean Milwaukee and Chicago/Rockford international it’s possible they’ll cover both MKE and RFD, though even that could be a stretch and require somebody else. It depends on specifics. It’s noteworthy that (currently) Southwest has less contract flying than last winter. Last winter there were Saturday nonstops to CUN, MBJ and PUJ, but this coming winter CUN only on WN. Unless there are some cutbacks or day-of-week shuffles it may be difficult for three Norwegian 738’s to cover all of MKE flying plus the charters RFD sees. We'll find out more when schedules for 2017 are released.



E currently has 10 gates. Is it possible that They cut that in half to 5 which would basically double their space and give them the ability to install FIS near the front of the terminal and allow for it to be fed into by hallways next to the gates? Also if i had to guess, I would say that the New international terminal will be able to handle domestic operations during off peak times. A total gut of the interior while keeping the outer shell seems like the most plausible and cost effective scenario for the New international terminal
 
User avatar
mke717spotter
Posts: 2168
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:32 am

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Tue Jul 19, 2016 4:06 am

knope2001 wrote:
Part of the question is what “Milwaukee / Chicago” means, as Norwegian will have three 737-800's dedicated to Milwaukee and Chicago. If they mean Milwaukee and Chicago O’Hare there’s no way three planes comes close to covering it, and you can expect some combination of AeroMexico, Sunwing or somebody else on the scene in Milwaukee. If they mean Milwaukee and Chicago/Rockford international it’s possible they’ll cover both MKE and RFD, though even that could be a stretch and require somebody else.

It does appear to be RFD:

http://www.routesonline.com/airports/24 ... greement-/

"Under the terms of the agreement, Norwegian will base three Boeing 737-800 aircraft between Chicago Rockford and Milwaukee General Mitchell airports."

piedmontf284000 wrote:
Also if I had to guess, I would say that the New international terminal will be able to handle domestic operations during off peak times.

That would make the most sense, maybe make something like at PHX or IAH. Right now the bulk of MKE's international flights are from December-April, so a otherwise a brand new terminal with multiple gates would be empty and unused for half of the year.
Will you watch the Cleveland Browns and the Detroit Lions on Sunday? Only if coach Eric Mangini resigned after a loss.
 
User avatar
knope2001
Posts: 3032
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:54 am

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Tue Jul 19, 2016 6:51 am

MKE would be best off not clouding the IA facility design with departure gates.

Milwaukee has no need of additional gates in the foreseeable future even with E out of the picture:
Six empty gates (D39, D34, D36, D38, D42, D53)
Two more gates are currently “striped out of existence” (C17 and D49) with equipment parking.
Three ground-level gates could be converted to jetway again (D27, D28, D29) at a cost.
Four other gates now in use (D39, D41, D51 and AC’s new C gate) have a combined 7 turns per day.

What are the prospects of that not being enough? Even in the unlikely scenario that JetBlue, Spirit and Allegiant all come, plus a few international carriers, I don’t see gates running out. Southwest has tons of slack to grow and nobody else existing seems likely to need more space anytime soon.


The current E footprint is just not that large. What’s the point of creating an international concourse that is undersized on the day it opens because a good chunk of the limited space was carved out to serve departing flights? Currently in the spring peak there are commonly two and occasionally three international flights arriving about the same time. I’m not saying the new IA should be built to handle six simultaneous widebodies, but what a mistake to build something that can’t handle the existing traffic any better than the current IAB.

Departing passengers out of the new E would have very few amenities, both because of tight space and because of the limited passenger volume that the departing gates would serve. Why does E suck today? Because there’s not a lot of room to add more restaurants, bars and shops, and because the passenger volume isn’t there. That’s exactly what the new E would offer departing flights. You need passengers to support amenities, and the few departure gates you could cram into the new E couldn’t serve enough passengers to support much.

Why would you spend a great deal of money to create an international arrival facility, but then stunt its size (and future expansion potential) to cram in a few unneeded new departure gates with crappy amenities?

It's a struggle to see how the existing E can be retrofitted for IA without half-assed results. So you have two 738’s pull up to the rotunda and deplane. Those 350 passengers need a place to wait, to claim their bags and to use the restroom. No room in the stem for all that so it's the rotunda. Adding bathrooms and a baggage carousel to the rotunda is awkward and kills a lot of space -- the rondunda a big round room surrounded by glass walls and jetways. Customs needs to happen in the stem,and it's not exactly a generous, well-configured space for that. The lower level is pretty much worthless for passenger processing because (a) much of the lower rotunda is shot by adding baggage loading for the carousel (b) FIS needs backroom space and below is the only place for it, and (c) the lower level is only partial because there's a pass through cutout in the stem.

You know how after 9/11 when security screening expanded and many airports struggled with space? And you had crowded, awkward, jury-rigged security queues and screening areas -- some of which still exist today? That's how I envision E handling IA with the existing footprint -- awkward when slow, crammed and miserable when busy. And that's *without* trying to keep some departure gates on E.

A more likely option is a significant build-out or a total demo/new construction of E. That would allow for much more space by encroaching on what is currently ramp space. No need for ten parking spots at the new E. Something new like that could be designed to better handle both IA and some departing gates. But the question of why remains. Why build more gates when you’ve got ample slack? And why create a few orphan gates with no prospect of decent passenger services?

I’m all for the design incorporatingn foresight for potential expansion should the need arise, be that expanded IA capacity and/or expanded departure gate capacity. But I don't think either will happen. Instead focus on an attractive, well-designed facility that can reasonably handle the rosy but not impossible scenario of a couple TATL flights on top of existing beach flying and looming Mexico flights. That could be several years away but it's not totaly implausible. Don't waste money on unneeded departure gates,and don't compromise the design and efficiency of the IA terminal to include departures. Let international departures use the full-amenity domestic gates like they do at most airports.
 
HermansCVR580
Posts: 417
Joined: Sun Jul 04, 1999 5:29 am

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Tue Jul 19, 2016 1:34 pm

Now its been a few years since I have been in the E concourse, however back when the terminal was built for North Central back in 68 there was a baggage conveyor system installed in under the stem of the terminal that at the time was used, now I never really thought to look at the time to see if that conveyor system was tore out when the rotunda was remodeled in 1987 when Northwest came over from D after the Republic merger, but its something that was there and could be considered would probably have to be totally upgraded but if the infrastructure is there in the current foot print that is something.

Also there is/was talk about redoing the main terminal to allow for a single security checkpoint for all terminals, I would think if they did that it really would not matter what amenities you have to offer in each terminal for say.

I think its great that MKE wants to expand in the international market I wish them all the best but like the PanAm World Port fans of JFK I will miss my circle where I spent many years watching Convair's and DC-9's come and go. Onward and upward.
The right decision at the wrong time, is still a wrong decision. "Hal Carr"
 
User avatar
knope2001
Posts: 3032
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:54 am

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Tue Jul 19, 2016 9:24 pm

I don’t know if anything remains of previous baggage handling belts beneath the rotunda from the 1970 build or 1986 rebuilt, but (a) it’s not designed to bring bags to the upper level and (b) it would be at best 30 years old and likely inoperable from years of disuse. I’m guessing it wouldn’t help much and needing the infrastructure to deliver bags up to the rotunda is part of the reason the ground level isn’t of much use to process passengers.

As for a single security checkpoint, it’s just not much of a solution to lack of amenities on E. Let’s say he central checkpoint is where D’s is and you’re departing from one of these new E gates in the remodeled rotunda. You clear central security where D is and then walk through some new corridors (likely with escalators because there’s not terminal-level real estate to get you over there) to get to E. Then you snake past the walled-off sections of E used for international arrivals processing to your gate. You went to your gate first to see where it is, if there’s a delay posted, if your plane is here, if anything is out of the ordinary, etc. Now you’ve got some time to kill and you’re hungry. How likely will you be to retrace the trek back to security and then head down C or D in search of food? Many people don’t like straying too far from their gate, and having food on other concourses is not much different than suggesting people use the restroom before they clear security as a solution for lack of bathrooms. It’s technically workable and some wouldn’t care, but it’s just not up to reasonably expected standards.

There are a lot workarounds and potential solutions to individual roadblocks, but it comes down to (a) why spend a lot of money to get something which is a constrained, jury-rigged solution, and (b) why make any expenditures or design compromises to add something not needed (more departure gates) to the determent of what is needed (international arrivals facility). A significant build-out of E or teardown/rebuild should allow something impressive and functional for decades. A make-due remodel, especially one which tries to incorporate departure gates, is throwing good money after bad. And building something new/newish which includes departure gates is just not necessary.
 
User avatar
atypical
Posts: 797
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 12:28 am

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Sun Jul 24, 2016 6:42 am

knope2001 wrote:
***Corrected Numbers***
For what it's worth here are 2015 international arrivals for some approximate peers without TATL service. Cleveland maintained more off-season Mexico flying which put them ahead of MKE.

386 cle
356 mke
163 mci
87 ind
67 bna
59 cmh
45 bdl
40 mem
4 buf

FWIW including TATL (Paris) service, CVG had 468 international arrivals in 2016 and PIT had 426. If Volaris does make good on their MKE service (2x or 3x/week) MKE's international arrivals will be in the CVG and PIT range. .


Numbers like this tend to skew the closer the airport is to an international border. I like Brookings because it gives actual O&D international numbers even if the passengers make a connection elsewhere. This is a better (but not perfect) way of assessing demand:

http://www.brookings.edu/research/interactives/aviation
 
User avatar
mke717spotter
Posts: 2168
Joined: Thu Dec 01, 2005 9:32 am

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Mon Jul 25, 2016 4:13 am

midexjet wrote:
Most of the diversions now go to Rockford, not Milwaukee

That wasn't the case today! We got a Cargolux 748, Finnair A333, Lufthansa A346, Turkish 773, as well as numerous American, United, and Southwest flights. It was pretty neat listening in on the MKE Ground feed while they were trying to sort everything out. The Lufthansa crew ended up timing out but for some reason they deplaned in front of the Air Wisconsin hanger and not at the international arrivals building.
Image

Image
Will you watch the Cleveland Browns and the Detroit Lions on Sunday? Only if coach Eric Mangini resigned after a loss.
 
CO777-200ER
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2001 6:57 am

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Mon Jul 25, 2016 12:49 pm

I was down at the lakefront yesterday evening and it was quite a surprise to see the Lufthansa and Cargolux fly over us. Looked at flightaware and noticed all the other diversions coming in plus the Diamondbacks came in around the same time. Everyone at the airport had to be quite busy last night.
 
midexjet
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2000 11:18 pm

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Thu Jul 28, 2016 5:59 am

there has been a move over the past several years by many of the international carriers to designate RFD the diversion airport ( LH and BA the main ones that use somewhere else, DTW since it is an online station) and to avoid MKE. That is not to say that MKE has not gotten some diversion flights, and hopefully, the move to designate RFD may be changing.. We shall see, and hope... NICE to see TY here!

mke717spotter wrote:
midexjet wrote:
Most of the diversions now go to Rockford, not Milwaukee

That wasn't the case today! We got a Cargolux 748, Finnair A333, Lufthansa A346, Turkish 773, as well as numerous American, United, and Southwest flights. It was pretty neat listening in on the MKE Ground feed while they were trying to sort everything out. The Lufthansa crew ended up timing out but for some reason they deplaned in front of the Air Wisconsin hanger and not at the international arrivals building.
Image

Image
 
midexjet
Posts: 82
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2000 11:18 pm

Re: MKE to close E, new international terminal

Fri Jul 29, 2016 12:13 am

Well, with todays diversions of Cathay, United, and AS, it might appear that the Rockford strangle hold had been somewhat loosened..

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: airplaneboy, Armadillo1, B747forever, Baidu [Spider], crazyplane1234, dbo861, eaa3, FluidFlow, FromCDGtoSYD, itisi, JFKalumni, Jonne1184, maiYYZ, PJ01, PM, QF41, seb76, StTim, TWAGuy and 171 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos