What are the chances of seeing any international traffic (besides Air Canada) at KMKE? I would think, with the population being over 600,000, it could support a couple international carriers from Europe at least, even if it is right next door to Chicago. It works in New York. Kennedy and Newark both have an awesome array of international traffic. Has anyone considered it?

I think the only way that MKE would get International traffic is as a low cost change, the only problem is that there is Midway also so I doubt it in the near future.

he said international...and Midway would be the equivalent of La Guardia anyways...

I was just about to post the same thing. MDW is the equivalent of La Guardia.

I know that all three have international service to another country. Canada and Mexico for Milwaukee. They get charters there but no scheduled service like at MDW with Mexicana and ORD. Icelandair would be good for this. Mabye they could try going to MKE like they go to BWI for anyone who goes from the DC area.

MDW gets more international service than LGA or MKE.

I doubt Milwaukee would get anything soon. The only two airlines outside North America I see as possible 10 years down the road could be BA or LH.

600,000 and close to ORD? why?

I thought one time a couple years ago there was a rumor going on with Lufthansa or Lufthansa Cargo looking at MKE. But I guess nothing really happening with that. I could see MKE getting international cargo service before any big european scheduled passenger service. Maybe there send some of the cargo flights to ORD and switch them to MKE. I would say if MKE wants any international service they need a better terminal, I live in MKE and they only have one gate for the international terminal but thats all they need now. Right now MKE gets quite a few Mexico flights and Jamaica flights for charters.


JOEY

MKE, it seems to me, is not likely to see scheduled transatlantic service. The local population and business base simply isn't big enough, and ORD is much closer to the north side suburbs and downtown Chicago. The only possibility I could think of, and it's still remote, is LTU.

Wisconsin of course has a large German population. I'm surprised that no one has mentioned Lufthansa's recent decision to enter PDX. But that's not a parallel situation. PDX has several corporations with large operations in Germany, and thus high-yield traffic. Milwaukee's connection to Germany is mostly cultural, which means mostly low-yield leisure traffic.

LTU would the candidate in that case. They fly to Ft. Myers of course, which is like Milwaukee a medium-size metropolitan area; but Ft. Myers has palm trees and year-round beaches, which Milwaukee does not.  

Does anyone here have the book "General Mitchell International Airport: A record of progress" by George Hardie? I picked it up at the MKE bookstore when I was up there this past summer. That's quite a book--I wish every airport had a diligent local historian, funding, and piles of pictures (including great aerial terminal and field shots) going back 60 years. Good to see that someone got pictures of the NW 747s at MKE in the mid-1970's, that's something not likely to be repeated.

In a world where my priorities could allow it, I'd love to do a book like that about ROC.

Jim

I would also point out that PDX also has UAX feed and is a larger city with only seattle 3 hours away as an alternate.

I would think, with the population being over 600,000, it could support a couple international carriers from Europe at least

Colorado Springs has a population of a little over 500,000. That's close to MKE.

Does that mean it could support a couple international flights to Europe?

Denver has a population of a little over 2,700,000 and it only has 2 daily flights to Europe and 1 daily to Mexico.

It takes a lot to get a flight to anywhere off of this continent.

Techincally, the Milwaukee metro is at 1.7M, probably enough to support an international carrier. However, the problem is that MKE is just too close to ORD. Also, Milwaukee is not exactly booming economically and has plateaued population-wise. Honestly, with the economy the way it is, I can't imagine seeing any new international markets opened up in the U.S., especially in mid-sized cities.

I remember as a child seeing those NWA 747s in Milwaukee...I also saw EAL L-1011s and UAL DC-10s in Omaha, TWA L-1011s in Albuquerque, TWA 747s in Kansas City, etc, etc...Those days will never be back, unfortunately.

CclR "I know that all three have international service to another country. Canada and Mexico for Milwaukee. They get charters there but no scheduled service like at MDW with Mexicana and ORD. Icelandair would be good for this. Mabye they could try going to MKE like they go to BWI for anyone who goes from the DC area."

I def. could see Icelandair come to MDW or ORD. I think that once FI gets more planes they might just serve ORD or MDW. Funny thing is that i went looking for flights to KEF just for fun and the flights from the US all arrive 10-15 after the first ones and then after they unload, the go to Europe. They run on a hub and spoke system.

Leo/ORD

I def. could see Icelandair come to MDW or ORD. I think that once FI gets more planes they might just serve ORD or MDW. Funny thing is that i went looking for flights to KEF just for fun and the flights from the US all arrive 10-15 after the first ones and then after they unload, the go to Europe. They run on a hub and spoke system.

Well, since there is not that much US-Iceland traffic (though Iceland is a magnificent place to visit!), that's why Icelandair is so popular. They have a modern fleet and excellent service, but most important undercut the compietition in price. A large amount of thier US traffic is connecting to Europe.

As for expansion of Icelandair in the US. I would look for them to add Philadelphia and/or Ft. Lauderdale before anything else. Though I think adding a city is at least 2-3 years away.

5280AGL,

Techincally, the Milwaukee metro is at 1.7M

I think it depends on the city itself. There are VERY few cities with a population between 1.5 and 2 million that could support a flight to Europe. Like you said, Milwaukee is not exactly a booming city which is why I don't think it will see a flight to Europe anytime soon.

Like you also mentioned, it's too close to Chicago. I think an excelent example to compare it with is Detroit (DTW), a simply huge city with nearly 10 million people.

For it's size, Detroit has very little Europe service. Most of it is with Northwest, and those flights mostly rely on connections.

British Airways and Lufthansa are the only 2 European carriers that serve DTW and that's because of it's close proximity to Chicago.

If Detroit was farther out, then it could very well possibly have 3 to 5 more European carriers, and nearly doubled the Europe service it currently gets. It could be close to what ORD has.

Regarding Icelandair. Chicago seems to be the most logical destination for them to serve next. Not only is Chicago an extremely large city, but it has a good Icelandic population as well.

Regards

*Hypothetical Question*

If Midwest Express were to go under, and Northwest were to build the flights back up to mid-late 80's levels at MKE, would Northwest try to compete with some of the ORD intl flights? Maybe routes to FRA,LGW,CDG, or any asian routes?

MKE, would Northwest try to compete with some of the ORD intl flights? Maybe routes to FRA,LGW,CDG, or any asian routes?

You're hoping too much for MKE, Maiznblu_757......

Northwest would never try add flights to Europe or Asia as they would be competing with themselves.

Northwest's international gateway is Detroit, and a good number of international flights from Minneapolis.

It's the same reason why United doesn't have international flights from Denver. Because they're done from Chicago, Washington D.C., San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

Milwaukee is not a large city. Nor is it a booming city, nor is it a large air travel market.

It wouldn't be able to support a large airline hub. The only way to make international flights from MK work out is if you had enough connections. You would need more than 150 flights do accomplish this.

Not only is it large enough, but it's too close to Chicago. Many consider Milwaukee Airport Chicago's 3rd Airport.

They are simply too close. MKE is not a large air travel market and over the years has been shrinking.

Not even the beer????????????????????????????????????????  


Im not hoping for them to get this service. It was just a question. I thought it would be a good discussion.

BA- most frequent high yield buisness travellers I've met from DTW (admitadley, less than 10) are NWA super platnum elite whatever types, who almostalways fly NW and are afraid to even set foot in the unholy dump of a terminal UAL and AA fly from. I would doubt much DTW O&D traffic goes though ORD, except maybe for the occasional lower yield deal seeker.

Doug_or,

My point being is Northwest has several Europe and Asia flights from DTW because it's there largest hub. Not because they feel a city of it's size doesn't have enough service.

I'm sure Northwest has many O&D passengers in DTW, but what is the point of a hub? To connect people.

Now in order for a hub to work out, there obviously needs to be a strong O&D base. But at the same time, a viable place to do connections.

That's my point.

Hubs always have a lot of O&D. For example, 55% of the passengers United carries through Denver are O&D which is a strong figure considering there are nearly 400 flights.

Regards

BA--

I think the comparison with Detroit is a good one. However, I think a big reason why Detroit or Minneapolis for the matter lacks international carriers is because of NWA, plain and simple. NWA flies a lot of international routes out of both cities and they control the market, thus, they have the power to basically block entry. There is no way that a city like Minneapolis (not so much Detroit anymore, because the city is declining in population every year) would be overlooked by international carriers. I would bet without the presence of NWA, Minneapolis would be flocking with international carriers, both Asian and European.

As far as NWA building up in MKE, nah...They could now if they really wanted to, but why? Adding another international port between DTW and MSP wouldn't make much sense.

I agree, i was just responding to

For it's size, Detroit has very little Europe service. Most of it is with Northwest, and those flights mostly rely on connections.

British Airways and Lufthansa are the only 2 European carriers that serve DTW and that's because of it's close proximity to Chicago

5280agl- right on, i itnhk iwas saying they do have a lot of international serivce, thoguh NWA, and that the proximity to ORD had little or no effect on service levels.

I assume BA was refering to the number of international carriers, which DTW certinaly does lack

Username: 5280AGL
Respect Rating: 12
Posted 2003-01-08 05:14:29 and read 1 times

I would bet without the presence of NWA, Minneapolis would be flocking with international carriers, both Asian and European.

I will agree. There is a STRONG asian base in Minny. I could see ANA,JAL, or even CX there without NWA.

5280AGL,

I agree that NWA is the biggest reason as well. As is with all major airline hubs really with the exception of a few.

However even if NWA wasn't there, I still don't think Detroit would have the amount of international service that it deserves. It would still be "way down".

Minneapolis is quite an interesting issue. From what I've heard, NWA has an agreement with the city to limit (or completely stop, I don't know the details) European carriers from coming to Minneapolis. Northwest has a monopoly over the market.

Both British Airways and Lufthansa applied to fly to MSP several years ago but were rejected by the city. Again, it was because Minneapolis wants to protect Northwest at all costs.

If you ask me, that's really limiting economic potential as international airlines tend to boost a city's economy quite considerably more so than a US hubbed carrier operating the international flight.

I'm not sure the exact figures, but I think I read that both Lufthansa and British Airway's flights add $200 million a year to Denver's economy which is quite significant.

And it greatly increased how much Denver stands out in the international community.

Northwest's international flights from MSP would be attracting quite a few who are connecting.

That wouldn't be the case of if Lufthansa or British Airways were operating the flight.

Oh well, it's there loss.

Denver and Minneapolis are very similar in many ways. They're both about the same size. Minneapolis has just 200,000 more people than Denver does (Denver metro is 2.7 million, Minneapolis is 2.9 million). At the rate Denver is growing, it was predicted that Denver's population would surpass Minneapolis in about 6 years, although the economic slowdown may have changed the figures a little bit.

I assume BA was refering to the number of international carriers, which DTW certinaly does lack

That's exactly what I was referring to. Definately, if NWA was not hubbed in DTW, I could see a few more international carriers and even a couple Asian carriers. But it would still not be at it's full potential. Geography is a big issue when it comes to air markets.

One of the reasons why Denver is a large air travel market (overall that is) is because of it's isolation. It's not close to any major city with comparable air traffic. The closest is Dallas/Ft. Worth (DFW) which is a 9 hour drive. Don't think they'll be attracting too many Denver passengers.  

I think I read somewhere that Denver is the most isolated city in the US. No comparable city in a 600-mile radius. Quite shocking.

Regards

Both British Airways and Lufthansa applied to fly to MSP several years ago but were rejected by the city.

That's not exactly true on the BA part.... Bermuda 2 specifically limits MSP (among others) as one of the few USA cities which can serve LON utilizing only 1 carrier despite passenger yield generated.

I know all about the Bermuda II, ConcordeBoy....

Here is the Bermuda II for you:

---

a) Only two US and two UK airlines may operate to the US from LHR. Currently these are UA, AA, BA and VS.

b) ONLY the following cities may be served by US airlines from London : ANC, ATL, BOS, CLT, CHI, CVG, CLE, DFW, DTT, HOU, LAX, MIA, MSP, NYC(%), PHL, PIT(*), SFO(%), SEA, STL, WAS(%)

c) ONLY the following cities may be served by UK airlines from London : ATL, BOS, CLT, CHI, DFW, DEN, DTT, HOU, LAS(*), LAX, MIA, NYC(%), ORL, PHL, PHX, PIT, SAN, SFO(%), SEA, TPA, WAS(%)

d) ONLY the following cities may be served from Heathrow : ANC, BWI, BOS, CHI, DTT, LAX, MIA, MSP(@), NYC, PHL, SFO, SEA, WAS(%)

e) Some destinations are switchable with unused destinations. The other approved gateways without current service are FLL, HNL, MKC, PDX, MSY

f) No service to any cities mentioned in (e) may be introduced without dropping an existing route on either side.

g) Any US city may be served from any other UK airport (including STN) with no restrictions.

h) Each country may designate only TWO routes on which TWO of its carriers may compete. Every remaining route must have only one carrier from each side. However, if the number of passengers carried TOTALLY on the route (including traffic carried by fifth freedom carriers Air India, Air New Zealand and Kuwait Airways) exceeds 600,000 in two consecutive years, or if the number of passengers carried by any single airline exceeds 450,000 for two consecutive years, then each side may designate an additional airline to serve the route.

i) US carriers may operate fifth freedom services between LHR and BER, FRA, HAM and MUC only(&). UK carriers may not operate cabotage within the United States. Air India (#) and Kuwait Airways may operate fifth freedom service between LHR and NYC. Air New Zealand may operate fifth freedom service between LHR and LAX.

j) US and UK carriers operating indirect flights between the US and London may not offer fares lower than the lowest published fare offered by a carrier offering nonstop service in the same market.


* - LAS was approved as an additional service destination in an April 2000 modification to the agreement in exchange for PIT being approved as a US carrier gateway.

# - Air India was granted additional fifth freedom rights for LHR-ORD in 1998 and are currently seeking rights for LHR-LAX. Air India's fifth freedom awards predate the Bermuda 2 agreement and AI has been serving the LHR-JFK route continuously since 1962, making them the longest serving airline in the UK-US market with longer tenure than any carrier from either the UK or the US.

@ - Service on LHR-MSP may be operated by a US carrier only. UK carriers may not service MSP.

% - NYC includes JFK/EWR. WAS includes IAD/BWI. SFO includes SFO/OAK/SJC.

& - UA's fifth freedom service LHR-DEL on their RTW flight was extra-bilateral in nature and subject to additional restrictions on traffic. UA was not permitted to provide for fifth freedom sale capacity in excess of 38% of that offered by BA/AI on the LHR-DEL route. The service by VS on the LHR-DEL route is done utilizing unused AI frequencies as an Indian carrier and hence counts towards the Indian figures rather than the British figures.

---

Supposidly MSP generated enough traffic to add a 2nd carrier, and British Airways applied for the service but was rejected by the city just like Lufthansa.

The British Airways flight would have been from LGW also, not LHR.

British Airways and Lufthansa are the only 2 European carriers that serve DTW and that's because of it's close proximity to Chicago.

Uhhh...Last time I checked KLM flies there too.

Technically, Royal Jordanian flies to Europe from DTW also.... Albeit, its a conditional stopover.

BA:

I would be curious to know more information on any limit that the City of Minneapolis or State of Minnesota has on international carriers. MSP is not in the city's jurisdiction, but is controlled, rather, by the MAC (Metropolitan Airports Comission) a group of members appointed by the governor of the State of Minnesota.

Current international carriers serving MSP are: KL (seasonal) FI and AC.

Regarding international service at MDW... TZ's largest hub is MDW and we currently offer service (internationally) to: MBJ, GCM, AUA, GDL, CUN, and PVR. TZ may open service MDW-YYZ in 2004, depending on gate space.

  tzMSP

I think that MKE will get service to europe eventually

MKE is not that big, and it would be ran mainly off of O & D. Unless a bigger airline than Midwest moves in and spokes it out it probably wont happen. I think if anyone who lacks a European carrier it is my airport STL. More businesses, more people, and its not within reasonable driving distance to an airport with several major foreign carriers( rougly 5 1/2 hours). I would also say that MSY could stand one too.
Thx,
TWA4EVER

They could now if they really wanted to, but why?

Well, NW might really want to, but they legally couldn't. Contractually, around the contraction of the mini-hub service, there were dictatorial stipulations and a binding agreement signed between NW and YX.

Certain clauses of the contract had expirations (like the number of MKE carriers able to service MSP), and others had no time limits (like YX's ability to serve DTW). Until SY collapsed, YX/Skyway legally could not servce MSP.

If you'll notice, a majority of the flights NW serves from MKE are direct to rather popular destinations, such as:

-MCO
-LAS
-LAX
-PHX
-SFO

NW doesn't have ultimate dominance at MKE. It's more of a David-Goliath analogy between YX and NW. NW's presence and schedule probably facilitates no need for Euro-service at MKE.

Before Northwest got big at DTW- other airlines flew to DTW from Europe- I recall seeing Sabena 742s and DC-10s, Alitalia 742s, JAT DC-10s and LOT Il-62s and I remember seeing Icelandair fly DC-8s and Condor DC-10s and 767s.

The reason not a lot of other European airlines didn't serve DTW after NW grew was because NW international, foreign carriers and all charter carriers used the six gate Berry Terminal.

Now DTW has a 10 gate international terminal with Concourse A being extended to 12 in the near future without ATA and other charter companies using those gates so look for some future international carriers at DTW in the next couple years... The most talked about possibly coming to DTW are Air France and Emirates.

Back to the original topic...

I think there are 3 scenerios that could lead to international (transcontinental that is) service from Milwaukee. None of them are likely for at least 10 years:

1) Most likely:The successful promotion of MKE as chicago's 3rd airport. In order to do this, MKE would need to a) market itself southward b) provide some improved transportation, ideally high-speed rail, straight to Chicago with a stop in the northern suburbs. Even without that, there are at least 2 million people within a 60 minute drive of MKE, granted, the southern half of those tend to choose O'Hare, but a recent survey at the MKE parking lot showed something like 20% of the cars were from Illinois (lost the article, sorry), so there is clearly a draw from the south to capitalize upon.

2) Less likely: Some kind of summer charter. There are not very many transatlantic charter operators from Europe, except to Florida. With Europe, and London in particular, being a pretty popular holiday destination for Americans, some kind of once or twice a week service in the summer might be a possibility.

3) Least likely: Eventual expansion of Midwest Airlines. Would require a 767, or something similar. This is basically a fantasy, but would be pretty darn cool!

Here in Milwaukee, they just completed the new parking structure and now are adding a couple gate to Concourse C. So it seems like there is a small demand to MKE.
I have heard rumors here about a high speed or just a train station maybe could start up and stop at the airport from ORD. So that could work out if that was built.
Holiday or summer charters to MKE with at least 1 flight a week or whatever would be cool.
With YX expanding with larger aircraft that would be an awesome thing to happen. But what i would like to see happen to MKE is larger aircraft to MKE. Now at MKE we don't get any heavies except Fed Ex, Ups thats about it NW used to send a DC-10 but there gone.

JOEY from Milwaukee

MKE is like 40-60 miles from ORD right? That's like adding an intl' flight to Duluth, when MSP is so close. I think MSP should get more traffic!   I know some say "NWA won't allow that", but WHY NOT? If Lufthansa flew here, what would NWA do to them??? Not allow them? They don't OWN MSP literally! I don't care is LH came here and pulled, just as long as there's some more flights even if they are on NWA to Europe!!!!!

Continental

Mlsrar:

Now that SY is once again running both chartered and scheduled service from MSP, how does this affect YX? (They are still serving MSP daily from MKE via Skyway Airlines/Astral Aviation.)

I'm curious about this 'limit' of airlines you speak of, and am seeking more information. What are the legal limits for MSP?

  tzMSP

Yow,

KLM is partnered with Northwest Airlines and DTW is Northwest's largest hub.

Of course KLM is going to fly there. I'm talking about other European carriers that have nothing to do with the Wings Alliance (KLM/NWA alliance).

TzMSP,

The limit applies to European carriers and Asian carriers only I think. Canada doesn't count.

KLM flies to MSP obviously because they are partnered with Northwest. That's a different case.

Air Canada is obviously from Canada which is excluded from the limit.

Icelandair is an exception. Possibly because Northwest doesn't fly to anywhere in Iceland which is why the rule doesn't apply to them.

But where are British Airways and Lufthansa?

See where I'm coming from?  

Regards

Lufthansa, and KLM fly to MKE. Well atleast there was a KLM A320 or A319 idling at one of NWA's gates at MKE.

Daniel

HlywdCatft said:
Before Northwest got big at DTW- other airlines flew to DTW from Europe- I recall seeing Sabena 742s and DC-10s, Alitalia 742s, JAT DC-10s and LOT Il-62s and I remember seeing Icelandair fly DC-8s and Condor DC-10s and 767s.

Detroit was still very much a boom-town at the time. Now they are a rather depressed area, with the exception of the obvious safety-net provided by the automotive industry and a smattering of other non-auto related major businesses.