Quoting Gr8SlvrFlt (Reply 198): I don't see MKE being scaled back.

A scale back for YX would mean eliminating Signature Service. This is what you people don't get, and what FL just proposed.

Quoting Mainland (Reply 199): I think in terms of transition costs in the first year we have estimated in a range of $35 million to $40 million. And that would include reconfiguring the 717 aircraft to the 117 seats, as well as rationalizing the facilities, etc"

Quoting Mainland (Reply 199): Are we planning to pull out of any cities? No, the plan for the new combined airline would be to continue to serve all of the existing U.S. destinations served today by both AirTran Airways and Midwest and to add additional service points as the combined fleet expands."

There's a difference between continuing to serve cities and scaling back cities where passengers will reject AirTran. Buy away clowns. I can't wait for the implosion. It'll be fan-freakin-tastic to watch these ignorant fools explain why they are closing hubs when they find that their "merger" wasn't the "fit" they thought. Then maybe NW and DL will buy 'em up and spit out the rejects. Southwest can then pick up the 737's they've been after.

Quoting Mainland (Reply 199): Bob here. Again, another great question. And we’re certainly — we have not had a chance to do due diligence.

Then why exactly are you proposing the takeover Billy Bob??? If you haven't considered the regional flight support aspect of the network, then you don't understand why MKE and MCI work and you have no business making such a proposal. You're after the 717 aircraft and nothing else. But hey, lie away to investors to make it sound all nice a spiffy. We know bullshit when we see it there Billy Bob and you're carrying a big old bag of it.

[Edited 2006-12-14 17:25:07]

Quoting Mlsrar (Reply 190): I don't see NW again trying to make mainline non-hub service work. Their model of high-capacity hub service has proven successful time and time again.

But the expansion into IND was exactly what an expansion into post-YX MKE would be: it would fill the void left by the disappearance of a popular hub carrier (TZ in IND's case). I agree that NW has gotten away from p2p flying. But IND works for them, and in the same way, I think MKE without YX would too.

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 188): You're missing the point.

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 188): I'm not badmouthing it at all - it's a great strategy. But like every strategy, it has its limitations. In the United States, at least, WN's running out of profitable places to expand to.

No, I see the point,and I agree completely. I don't think MKE would be successful for them. Would MKE and MDW be their two geographically closest stations? It's 80 miles in the air, and a couple of hours on the ground. That's why I think that MKE is not a viable destination for WN, and not one that fits in whatever growth plans they may have.

Quoting Gr8SlvrFlt (Reply 198): I don't see MKE being scaled back. AirTran has stated it will grow MKE. We will likely be adding nonstops from MKE to current AirTran cities and from Atlanta to YX cities (SAN, SAT, OMA).

FL's plans are irrelevant. Milwaukee will reject FL.

I encourage all to read the transcript and judge for yourself, FL management just does not come off well, IMO. An almost, "Well, everybody else is merging, so why aren't we?", kind of mentality.....which is no way to run a business.

http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/da...8846/000119312506252967/dex991.htm

"Helane Becker - Benchmark - Analyst

Then I think just to follow-up one thing that Mike asked about in terms of the product, the business traveler really liked their two by two seating. Do you think, or have your synergies included anything for them maybe not liking the two by three seating?

Joe Leonard - AirTran Holdings, Inc. - Chairman, CEO

What they are providing right now is a mixed bag. They have two by two seating on some of their airplanes, but they have all coach on other airplanes. We believe that we already provide what they provide, and that we have two by two seating on every single airplane that we operate, and we have a coach section on every single airplane that we operate. So to the extent that the customers want two by two seating, they can get it on every single airplane. We think that while they offer the products in different tubes, we offer both of the products that they do in one tube."

Emphasis added

You're totally right B7E7 -- Midwest's name of the game is product differentiation and Leonard & Co. just don't seem to get that.

Quoting Mainland (Reply 203): What they are providing right now is a mixed bag. They have two by two seating on some of their airplanes, but they have all coach on other airplanes. We believe that we already provide what they provide, and that we have two by two seating on every single airplane that we operate, and we have a coach section on every single airplane that we operate. So to the extent that the customers want two by two seating, they can get it on every single airplane. We think that while they offer the products in different tubes, we offer both of the products that they do in one tube."

In addition to just two-by-two seating, they seem to forget that YX offers hot meals (BOB, but they're still there, and they're of higher quality than those fond on any other carrier). YX offers a best-care club at MKE, is introducing some extraordinary benefits through their MM-Executive program. That makes MKE probably the smallest airport in the country to have two airline lounges (BCC needs free booze and the Douwe-Egberts machine though  )

They're starting to take note of the benefits provided to business/full-fare/elite passengers on other carriers, and are offering them. There is NO comparison to FL's business class and signature service. Having flown both recently, on identical routes, (ATL) I can comment.

I almost think this quote has to have been paraphrased, as I can't imagine Leonard is that short-sighted and uninformed.

[Edited 2006-12-14 18:12:11]

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 185): You're company has other options. Shut up.

You're sure acting like an idiot.

[Edited 2006-12-14 18:29:36]

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 202): But the expansion into IND was exactly what an expansion into post-YX MKE would be: it would fill the void left by the disappearance of a popular hub carrier (TZ in IND's case). I agree that NW has gotten away from p2p flying. But IND works for them, and in the same way, I think MKE without YX would too.

In the absence of YX, NW should own MKE inasmuch as they have such a large following there. However, we've been down this road before, and you have to wonder how many times they'll try. One thing is certain, and that is that without the Midwest brand, NW will have a better shot. I don't think they'll "kill" AirTran, but they will steal some business traffic, that's for sure.

Quoting Mainland (Reply 203): You're totally right B7E7 -- Midwest's name of the game is product differentiation and Leonard & Co. just don't seem to get that.

In fairness, what do you expect them to say, "We are a pale comparison to Midwest and their service. Please support our hostile takeover"?

-Dave

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 193): What's a cubicle? Is that where AirTran employees dream up ideas about a future that doesn't take into consideration market realities?

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 193): No. Might stick with something like stupid, ignorant, or out of touch though. Not having a cubical I can be a bit more to the point. Something more in line with the notion of this proposed takeover and the suggestions of the uninformed posting all the gibberish on this thread about how grand such a merger would be.

In all my years in this forum, I have never seen so many ill-informed and BS comments from one poster. Your lack of knowledge of the airline industry is clear.

Quoting Mainland (Reply 203): We believe that we already provide what they provide, and that we have two by two seating on every single airplane that we operate, and we have a coach section on every single airplane that we operate. So to the extent that the customers want two by two seating, they can get it on every single airplane. We think that while they offer the products in different tubes, we offer both of the products that they do in one tube."

Clearly they don't get it. Yes, you have a business section. A whole 12 seats vs. the 88 on Midwest. Yes, you have coach. 30" pitch vs 34" on Midwest. Yeah.. Thats the same.... If they beleive they provide what Midwest provides, they're smoking some incredible dope. Maybe they've even been shooting up or dropping acid. Not sure smoking dope is enough to create this delousion.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 207): Clearly they don't get it. Yes, you have a business section. A whole 12 seats vs. the 88 on Midwest. Yes, you have coach. 30" pitch vs 34" on Midwest. Yeah.. Thats the same.... If they beleive they provide what Midwest provides, they're smoking some incredible dope. Maybe they've even been shooting up or dropping acid. Not sure smoking dope is enough to create this delousion.

And your true colors continue ... Keep up the BS rant. Unbelievable!

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 209): Your ignorance flows like a river. If people were investing in Midwest for a healthy return, they'd have divested themselves years ago. They are investing in a product, and this is what you and AirTran don't understand.

Sir, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Many of the comments you have made are just factually incorrect.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 210): Sir, you are entitled to your own opinion, but you are not entitled to your own facts. Many of the comments you have made are just factually incorrect.

I don't care what your misguided opinion is on the matter, nor do I care if I hurt your little feelings. If you have something to back up your complete mis-read of this issue, then present them. Otherwise, go back to whatever hole you crawled out of.

This is nothing more than an aircraft asset grab that provides no benefit to the system headed up by ignorant leadership at AirTran because they didn't properly plan and take more 717's when Boeing offered them up. There will be no Milwaukee hub - AirTran will fail, there will be no Kansas City hub - Southwest will destroy them. If you are so naive to assume this is not "factually accurate", then I have some swamp land to sell you. Cheap prices too!!!

Quoting BH (Reply 212): MKE will make their own future, if they all act like you and shun FL, I hope they pull out, it wil serve all the arrogant people like you right when you are left with diminished airservice and high fare/low service from NW.

While I agree with you on Mr. 7e7, we had low fares before FL, and we will have decent fares after them.

Quoting BH (Reply 212): I hope they pull out, it wil serve all the arrogant people like you right when you are left with diminished airservice and high fare/low service from NW.

NW fares from MKE are extradorinarily reasonable now, and at least in F, NW's service blows FL out of the water.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 211): I don't care what your misguided opinion is on the matter, nor do I care if I hurt your little feelings. If you have something to back up your complete mis-read of this issue, then present them. Otherwise, go back to whatever hole you crawled out of.

Your biggest mistake earlier was saying that the London security incident had only a minor impact on the U.S. domestic carriers. You were completely wrong on that issue and when I presented you with the facts you ignored them.

Secondly, you say AirTran is doing this for an aircraft grab, which is completely wrong. The 737 is more cost-effective than the 717, and AirTran has delayed deliveries. Do you know why? Because they need to find new places to grow. Midwest is the second largest operator of 717s behing AirTran so there is fleet commonality there, which everyone knows keeps costs down. In addition, AirTran needs a hub/focus city farther west. They already operate focus cities in Baltimore, Boston, and Philadelphia. They are doing as much as they can in space-limited MDW. They have done a little in IND, and DFW has been difficult because of AA's fortress hub. What are the other options. A merger with Frontier isn't completely out of the question, but Midwest and MKE is a good option.

AirTran needs MKE to grow, so they will not be downsizing service there, they will be increasing service. I understand how many Midwest employees and loyal flyers love the Signature service and that's fine, but it doesn't mean that what AirTran is trying to do doesn't make sense. In the end, it could be extremely successful for everyone.

If it doesn't happen, Midwest will have to live or die depending on when Southwest decides that MKE is their next best option. I give it two years.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 214): NW fares from MKE are extradorinarily reasonable now, and at least in F, NW's service blows FL out of the water.

Yes, and upgrades are complimentary to elites. The seats are nothing to write home about, and FL would have a slight edge in terms of offering SOME form of IFE.

Otherwise, NW provides hot meals (in F anyway), strong alliance partners, and a worldwide network for FF redemption.

Quoting Mlsrar (Reply 213): we had low fares before FL, and we will have decent fares after them.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 214): NW fares from MKE are extradorinarily reasonable now, and at least in F, NW's service blows FL out of the water.

That is my point to an extent, If FL was forced out due to travelers rejection, that would leave the door open for NW to spill in big time and take over the almost 50% market share left open.

In this case I doubt NW would keep their fares low for to long when they would basically controll MKE at this point. They would then surely raise fares with out any competition.

I am not saying this will happen, it is just one possiblity if a merger goes haywire.

Quoting BH (Reply 212): And where are any of your facts to back up what you are saying. There are not any publictions to go with what you are saying. You can keep on dreaming up what you think will happen.

If you understood anything about market dynamics you'd know why my assertions are factually accurate. You make assumptions about this issue based on the commentary of a talking head from AirTran wanting to spin a deal. Not exactly the most reliable source now is it?

1. Load Factors, nationwide - highest ever = capacity shortfall.
2. MKE as a hub will fail. Why? Two reasons:
A. An inferior product from AirTran and hub rading by other carriers guarantee it.
B. MKE as a Chicago LCC alternative is a temporary market dynamic as ORD works on Modernization.
4. MCI will also fail. Why? Southwest will slaughter an LCC competitor at MCI.

End result... Nothing more than an aircraft grab and substantial financial damage to AirTran if not complete failure coupled with the loss of one of the best airlines out there in Midwest, a further reduction in system capacity, reduced competition and further elimination of product differentation.

But hey... It's all about value to the shareholders...

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 215): Your biggest mistake earlier was saying that the London security incident had only a minor impact on the U.S. domestic carriers. You were completely wrong on that issue and when I presented you with the facts you ignored them.

My biggest mistake? Oh boy... Goodie Goodie... I'll say it again. The affect on AirTran was insignificant to its other operating cost problesm that are affecting profitability. That is not the result of the London issue.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 215): Secondly, you say AirTran is doing this for an aircraft grab, which is completely wrong.

Patently false. They have no hope of survival at MKE or MCI.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 215): What are the other options. A merger with Frontier isn't completely out of the question, but Midwest and MKE is a good option.

Says the armchair CEO.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 215): AirTran needs MKE to grow, so they will not be downsizing service there, they will be increasing service.

Did you not read the regional product commments by your visonary leader? The regional product supports the mainline product. Without the regional feed, the mainline capacity needs are substantially reduced. But hey, they considered this right? WRONG!

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 215): If it doesn't happen, Midwest will have to live or die depending on when Southwest decides that MKE is their next best option. I give it two years.

Midwest will do fine in MKE as they always have as a niche product and maintain the route structure. WN is focused on MDW which has ample capacity. MDW can easily accomodate about 20 more gates and that will follow O'Hare modernization allowing Southwest to grow. Even if they enter MKE, there is still product differentation and the issue will be no more of a concern than it is at MCI because they compliment eachother.

[Edited 2006-12-14 20:24:28]

Quoting BH (Reply 217): In this case I doubt NW would keep their fares low for to long when they would basically controll MKE at this point. They would then surely raise fares with out any competition.

Thing is, NW fares are reasonable even when there's not another game in town. On MKE-CLT, a route I fly a lot, they're frequently $50-$100 less than US and cheaper than flying to Chicago. Even to places like RDU and GSO where there's no non-stop competition, they're frequently the cheapest option.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 201): Would MKE and MDW be their two geographically closest stations? It's 80 miles in the air, and a couple of hours on the ground. That's why I think that MKE is not a viable destination for WN, and not one that fits in whatever growth plans they may have.

No, they wouldn't even be close to their two closest stations. WN has no compunction about serving multiple airports in major metro areas. MKE is an entirely different airport from MDW serving an entirely different market - especially given that MDW is on the other side of the city from ORD.

LAX-BUR: 18 miles.
OAK-SJC: 29 miles.
SNA-ONT: 30 miles.
LAX-SNA: 36 miles.
BUR-ONT: 45 miles.
LAX-ONT: 47 miles.
OAK-SMF: 75 miles.

Quoting Mlsrar (Reply 215): Otherwise, NW provides hot meals (in F anyway), strong alliance partners, and a worldwide network for FF redemption.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 218): Thing is, NW fares are reasonable even when there's not another game in town. On MKE-CLT, a route I fly a lot, they're frequently $50-$100 less than US and cheaper than flying to Chicago. Even to places like RDU and GSO where there's no non-stop competition, they're frequently the cheapest option.

To clarify, though, doesn't NW currently serve only their hubs from MKE? Maybe there is additional service that I'm not aware of. The reason I ask is because any traveler out of MKE on NW would therefore be going to a hub first. That's not a problem in and of itself, but if FL is offering nonstops, I would imagine that will influence some peoples choices.

What NW DOES offer is, of course, worldwide connections, clubs, etc. Folks who care about those things will likely switch to them. Obviously, though, there are people who don't care about or need those things. Maybe FL will be some folks' cup of tea. Will it be enough? (That was a rhetorical question, Boeing7E7).

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 217): Midwest will do fine in MKE as they always have as a niche product and maintain the route structure.

Crystal ball? Clairvoyant? Prophet? Time traveler? It looked a little grim back in 2003/2004. Market forces change. I certainly don't predict doom for YX on a standalone basis, but I don't have a crystal ball either.

-Dave

If AirTran expects to actually hub through MCI, as opposed to using it for an O&D-based focus city, they're in for a rude awakening. Because of the terminal configuration there, it's virtually the worst possible place to put a hub. Every four or so gates has its own security line - changing planes from A1 to A6? Ooh, guess what? You get to enjoy the TSA strip-search again!

If AAI tries to funnel any sort of connecting traffic through MCI, they're going to quickly find out that passengers do not want to deal with that sort of crap.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 216): My biggest mistake? Oh boy... Goodie Goodie... I'll say it again. The affect on AirTran was insignificant to its other operating cost problesm that are affecting profitability. That is not the result of the London issue.

Once again, you are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. I provided the numbers above of the primarily-domestic carriers, and the loss in revenue was signficant. You have been unable to provide any facts except to say it was minor. You have no leg to stand on, which brings in your credibility about all the othe BS you are spewing.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 216): Patently false. They have no hope of survival at MKE or MCI.

There is nothing so unique about MKE that suggests AirTran or Southwest or any other carrier could not succeed there. Midwest is a unique airline, but when they go, people will find alternatives. The most important factors for passengers are nonstop flights at affordable fares. AirTran would offer more destinations than Midwest currently does.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 216): Says the armchair CEO.

Verus the armchair clown full of misinformed comments and rage.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 216): Did you not read the regional product commments by your visonary leader? The regional product supports the mainline product. Without the regional feed, the mainline capacity needs are substantially reduced. But hey, they considered this right? WRONG!

Not with cheaper fares and more destinations. Tell me how Southwest makes smaller cities work with express feed?? And, by the way, I do not work for AirTran. I'm an objective observer who has been affiliated with the airline industry my entire career.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 216): Midwest will do fine in MKE as they always have as a niche product and maintain the route structure. WN is focused on MDW which has ample capacity. MDW can easily accomodate about 20 more gates and that will follow O'Hare modernization allowing Southwest to grow. Even if they enter MKE, there is still product differentation and the issue will be no more of a concern than it is at MCI because they compliment eachother.

In your dreams. Product differentiation is only worth so much. All Southwest has to do in MKE is drain 5-10% of Midwest's revenue and the game is over. Because Southwest can pretty much offer the entire country. As far as MDW goes, how you think it can accommodate 20 more gates is beyond me - another ridiculous comment. And as far as ORD modernization, it's been going on for years, and it's going to be years and years before there is additional capacity. MKE will come on Southwest's radar far sooner than that.

So, you continue to spew your BS, which just indicates to the informed people on this post, how ridiculous and bias you are on this issue. You don't have to like AirTran, you don't have to be in favor of the merger. There are reasons for both, but at least come up with some you can substantiate rather than the "Bill O'Reilly style" of "if I say it enough times people will start to believe it even though it's not true."

I'm done wasting my time with you.

[Edited 2006-12-14 20:47:48]

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 219): What NW DOES offer is, of course, worldwide connections, clubs, etc.

Actually, not many people know this, but YX has its own club at MKE - the Best Care Club. I assume that it will be another AAI casualty should this merger happen.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 221): Not with cheaper fares and more destinations. Tell me how Southwest makes smaller cities work with express feed??

They don't. WN doesn't serve anywhere as small as some of the YX 328JET markets. Nor is WN opening any service to new small cities, nor are they likely to do so in the future.

If the merger happens, expect MKE service to places like Appleton, Dayton, Flint, Green Bay, Wausau, Marquette, Madison, Louisville, Grand Rapids, etc. to completely disappear. There simply isn't enough traffic on those routes to sustain YX's 717s, let alone 717s with 117 seats.

Absent that regional feed, it's hard to see how MKE's O&D level can sustain hub flights, especially with capacity increased by 29 on every 717. There just isn't that much there, there.

[Edited 2006-12-14 21:00:32]

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 221): I provided the numbers above of the primarily-domestic carriers, and the loss in revenue was signficant.

For Southwest. Period.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 221): There is nothing so unique about MKE that suggests AirTran or Southwest or any other carrier could not succeed there.

Absent a Midwest hub, it is a medium hub facility and ranks below the top 50 airports. Connectivity is what drives the ME pax count, not O&D. There are an insifficient number of markets large enough for this to be viable for AirTran. Midwest service is unique which is why passengers pass through the hub. Get it? Without it, passengers will pass through another hub.

I know this is an incredibly challenging issue for you to grasp so I'll put it in simpler terms. You cannot supplant a unique service in a small market and expect it to work with another type of service and hope for the same results. It is uterly impossible for the AirTran model to work at MKE and furthermore, MCI as a hub and spoke structure. It will absolutely fail and this is a 100% certainty.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 221): Not with cheaper fares and more destinations. Tell me how Southwest makes smaller cities work with express feed??

They don't. They just don't serve them. If there is an insuffiicent level of O&D between the two points, Southwest will not serve the market. MKE is not some big giant O&D market that will allow AirTran to survive. Nor will it support a substantial level of service for Southwest. If you can't understand that, then I can't help you.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 221): Product differentiation is only worth so much.

And it's gold in MKE.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 221): As far as MDW goes, how you think it can accommodate 20 more gates is beyond me - another ridiculous comment.

MDW has an IFR operational throughput of 60 operations per hour. This yields runway capacity to support 72 gates. The airport has 43 gates. Do the math.

[Edited 2006-12-14 21:09:41]

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 221): As far as MDW goes, how you think it can accommodate 20 more gates is beyond me - another ridiculous comment

One thing I never do - and this is just me - is argue with him about airports/airways. That seems to be his area of knowledge, and will kill me with his kindness every time.

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 223): They don't. WN doesn't serve anywhere as small as some of the YX 328JET markets. Nor is WN opening any service to new small cities, nor are they likely to do so in the future.

I think he meant MKE as the smaller market, but I might be mistaken. I believe the point was that AirTran could make a smaller market like MKE work for them in the same manner that WN might make a smaller market work for them. The one thing I'd say is that WN is not 100+ flights at it's smaller markets. If they were in MKE, I'd doubt they'd be over 50-60/day.

-Dave

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 219): To clarify, though, doesn't NW currently serve only their hubs from MKE?

Well, the MCO and LAS services run for a little while longer... Point is, NW does not and has not gouged the Milwaukee market, and there's no reason to think that they would have exorbitant fares out of MKE with an expanded presence there. Look at IND again. Their fares are, for the most part, competitve there.

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 218): WN has no compunction about serving multiple airports in major metro areas.

How about outside of Southern California? They've closed IAH. They refuse to open DFW. Southern California is huge, and it's spread out. No comparison. Again, if MKE is such a compelling destination for WN, why don't they start it now?

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 220): If AirTran expects to actually hub through MCI, as opposed to using it for an O&D-based focus city, they're in for a rude awakening. Because of the terminal configuration there, it's virtually the worst possible place to put a hub. Every four or so gates has its own security line - changing planes from A1 to A6? Ooh, guess what? You get to enjoy the TSA strip-search again!

I think that has changed since the remodel. I believe every airline has it's own security entry point. If you had to change carriers, it would indeed be a nightmare. Much better than before.

Quoting PlanesNTrains (Reply 225): I think he meant MKE as the smaller market, but I might be mistaken. I believe the point was that AirTran could make a smaller market like MKE work for them in the same manner that WN might make a smaller market work for them. The one thing I'd say is that WN is not 100+ flights at it's smaller markets. If they were in MKE, I'd doubt they'd be over 50-60/day.

Look, just say it - if FL takes over YX, the MKE hub will be unraveled.

Assuming the 328JET regional feed goes away (and I can't see FL keeping it), you lose service to more than half the destinations offered by YX to begin with. Bye-bye YYZ, DSM, IND, BDL, CMH, STL, BNA, etc. There aren't enough 717s in the system to operate all that service, and 117-seat 717s are far too big for most of those markets anyway. Without the feed offered by the RJs in those markets, there isn't close to enough O&D at MKE to sustain most of the rest of the hub flights.

So what MKE will be left with is a daily to SFO, a daily to LAX, a couple to BWI, a few leisure flights to Florida and 7-10 dailies to ATL.

My guess is that Omaha can kiss its DCA non-stop goodbye, too.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 226): Again, if MKE is such a compelling destination for WN, why don't they start it now?

Where did I say MKE was "a compelling destination?" Nowhere, that's where. It would be a marginal city for WN, but WN is having to consider more and more "marginal" cities as they run out of better markets to enter.

Oh, and doesn't anyone remember that WN just opened IAD right next door (45 miles) from BWI? Clearly, WN doesn't care - they see a market and they're going to take it.

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 229): It would be a marginal city for WN, but WN is having to consider more and more "marginal" cities as they run out of better markets to enter.

What "marginal" cities has WN entered in the past 5 years?

sincerely hope this acquisition doesn't happen.

I absolutely loathe the Airtran product and service level. The thought of them acquiring an airline like Midwest is nauseating to those of us who fly regularly for a living.

Airtran's in-flight product is inferior by virtually every measure imaginable.

[Edited 2006-12-14 21:25:18]

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 226): They refuse to open DFW.

That's on principle. They were never going to give in to AA. As it turns out, they didn't have to.

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 232): That's on principle.

I'm not so sure. Why DFW but not IAH?

And I still want to know...

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 230): What "marginal" cities has WN entered in the past 5 years?

The "conventional wisdom" was that WN avoided overcrowded Northeast airports. Oh, hello PHL.

The "conventional wisdom" was that DEN's high landing fees meant WN was gone for good. Been there once, pulled out, bye bye. Oh, never mind... DEN's back.

IAD is almost proof of my point. WN has a major operation in BWI - but they now have no compunctions about going 45 miles down the road and opening up service to Dulles.

I didn't say they'd open it up tomorrow, but if you think WN is never going to serve a market like MKE just because "it's too close to MDW," you're wrong.

[Edited 2006-12-14 21:32:05]

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 234): They will hub MKE....for now.

The prospects of a dehubbed MKE has dominated this thread as of late, to which I must ask:

With all of FL's planes coming on line in addition to the 25 717's from YX, how would they be able to put all of them in the air without a second hub? ATL has only so much room, and they're nowhere near building more gates in the relative near term.

If the answer is with point-to-point service, then why haven't they expanded that more to this point? (i.e. it seems to me that most new service on FL primarily connects a new destination to ATL)

Anyway, if Boeing7E7's assertion of a revenue drop (based on current YX addicts abandoning a YX-FL merged airline in MKE) is correct, surely this would create a vacuum effect in MKE where other airlines would expand their current offerings, e.g. reintroduction of mainline services currently served with Express planes, greater frequencies, etc. I have no doubt that NW would jump in and provide some point-to-point flying ala "Focus City Attempt III".

Would that create significant opportunity for new entrants like B6 and WN? I would certainly think so. Would all travelers abandon FL like the plague? As a native Milwaukeean, I say not likely; if anything, midwesterners are as frugal as they are brand loyal, and FL offers a product that caters certainly to the former that can't/won't be completely ignored. But this just addresses MKE as a market.

A passing glance at route maps of the LCC's show a clear void in the US market for LCC service: the upper midwest. I believe--and speculated in a thread about FL's pursuit of TZ's MDW ops--that FL sees this and heavily invested their future to provide LCC service in this region. They must do so with a BIG splash, however, as history shows that small amounts of new service into places like MSP and MKE make only small dents in market share. So they feel that they must buy in.

As a final comment, if the Signature Service is such a prospering product for YX, why the expansion of Saver Service? why the investigation of a two-class layout for a maddog replacement? To me, it seems as though the Signature Service is a niche that's topped out, and the rest of the money to be made requires a low-cost structure to cater to those who simply want transport at a perceivable value.

-Mike

Quoting Mikey711MN (Reply 236): With all of FL's planes coming on line in addition to the 25 717's from YX, how would they be able to put all of them in the air without a second hub? ATL has only so much room, and they're nowhere near building more gates in the relative near term.

MKE, sir, is no ATL. There's not nearly enough O&D there to support a full-blown major hub.

Many flights are offered with 32-seat Do328JETs - what's FL going to do, fly 117-seat 717s between MKE and FNT? Do you really think the O&D market's there? No, they'll just drop the market. Same with MKE-DSM, MKE-BNA, etc. That is, unless they just start selling $99 transcons to fill seats... that'll make for some great yields.

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 237): MKE, sir, is no ATL. There's not nearly enough O&D there to support a full-blown major hub. Many flights are offered with 32-seat Do328JETs - what's FL going to do, fly 117-seat 717s between MKE and FNT? Do you really think the O&D market's there? No, they'll just drop the market. Same with MKE-DSM, MKE-BNA, etc. That is, unless they just start selling $99 transcons to fill seats... that'll make for some great yields.

Of course MKE and ATL are different airports. Nor did I allude that MKE would grow on the order of ATL or even speculate on its size.

What I am saying is that FL will acquire 25 more 717s in addition to the 737s on order. With their space in ATL topping out and their ability to "connect the dots" somewhat limited (using indirect reasoning here as the assumption is that they would be much more actively doing so if it were economically feasible), again, I ask where FL will be flying their jets if MKE would be dehubbed?

Anyone who believes MKE will be disassembled in short order must also believe that the "assets grabbed" have lucrative homes for other routes. If that were the case, why didn't FL take their options on the 717 order? Indirect reasoning again suggests that the current fleet of 717s is sufficient for a primarily ATL-based operation. 25 more need a place to fly.

To your second point, no, as a matter of fact I do not believe that the RJ's have any role in this proposed merger. So some of these cities would, in fact, lose service as they are uneconomical with 717s.

-Mike

Joe is such a blatent liar!! How can you keep all the Midwest and AirTran cities. Is FL going to operate both CAK and CLE with about 30 miles or so between the two? I think not. Are they going to keep the YX employees at cities that the two overlap?? Yeah right..bye bye Yx'ers! He can lie all he wants to the state of WI, MKE and all the shareholders/employees, most of us have seen the damage that Joe has caused with Eastern and know what he can do to damage an airline.
Is the takeover is successful, Most of the YX staff, and overlapping routes will be gone. MKE will be torn apart, no longer a hub, especially without Skyway.

KEEP YX the HOMETOWN AIRLINE!

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 210): I don't care what your misguided opinion is on the matter, nor do I care if I hurt your little feelings.

If you don't care about other peoples opinions, then why should we care about yours. You have had some great opinions, BTW.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 213): Midwest is the second largest operator of 717s behing AirTran so there is fleet commonality there,

That's one reason that FL and YX would work. It's really the only two airlines that could merge if they wanted to. The fleet commonality helps that out. Not that I'm saying it's going to happen.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 216): Patently false. They have no hope of survival at MKE or MCI.

This is one opinion I disagree with. You keep MKE. You keep ATL. You can keep MCI. It will still survive. The frequent fliers won't go away. Also, having either MCI or MKE will completely open up the United States to this product of service you keep mentioning. It WILL get new passengers to try it. That is, this merged airline would have to keep the same service level as YX has now.

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 223): They don't. WN doesn't serve anywhere as small as some of the YX 328JET markets. Nor is WN opening any service to new small cities, nor are they likely to do so in the future.

I was talking about MKE being a small city, not the Express service on YX from MKE. In other words, WN can make MKE work with multiple frequencies to multiple cities in their system. It would destroy Midwest.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 224): For Southwest. Period.

WRONG AGAIN. Are you sure you're not Bill O'Reilly. See post 139:

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 138): Here are the revenue loss estimates by the primarily domestic carriers due to the added security in the wake of the London incident: AirTran - $8 to $12 million Frontier - $3 to $4 million JetBlue - $9 to $10 million Southwest - $40 million The impact was not minor, and it was not a Wall Street scapegoat. You are uninformed.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 224): I know this is an incredibly challenging issue for you to grasp so I'll put it in simpler terms. You cannot supplant a unique service in a small market and expect it to work with another type of service and hope for the same results. It is uterly impossible for the AirTran model to work at MKE and furthermore, MCI as a hub and spoke structure. It will absolutely fail and this is a 100% certainty.

Southwest has made many markets smaller than MKE work. And those markets are not within 80 miles of the third largest metropolitan in the U.S.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 224): MDW has an IFR operational throughput of 60 operations per hour. This yields runway capacity to support 72 gates. The airport has 43 gates. Do the math.

Think NIMBYs.

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 228): Look, just say it - if FL takes over YX, the MKE hub will be unraveled.

Jesus, get it through your head people. AirTran will fly from MKE to everywhere from BOS, EWR, PHL, BWI, ATL, MCO, FLL, TPA, MIA, LGA, MCI, DEN, PHX, DFW, LAX, LAS, SFO, SEA and then some ...

[Edited 2006-12-14 22:37:27]

Quoting KstateinALB (Reply 240): That is, this merged airline would have to keep the same service level as YX has now.

But it won't, so that point is moot. They've already stated intentions to convert the 88-seat Signature Service 717s into 117-seat mixed-class aircraft. That's not keeping the same service level at all.

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 242): But it won't, so that point is moot.

Alright then, that is why I put the "that is" in my post. But thanks for letting me know quick.

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 242): But it won't, so that point is moot. They've already stated intentions to convert the 88-seat Signature Service 717s into 117-seat mixed-class aircraft. That's not keeping the same service level at all.

AirTran might keep the cookies, but not the 88 seats. Those planes would definitely go to 117 seats.

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 241): Jesus, get it through your head people. AirTran will fly from MKE to everywhere from BOS, EWR, PHL, BWI, ATL, MCO, FLL, TPA, MIA, LGA, MCI, DEN, PHX, DFW, LAX, LAS, SFO, SEA and then some ...

Why should I "get it through my head" when it's not at all clear that it's what AirTran intends to do? You also conveniently ignored about half the cities that YX currently serves, mainly with regional aircraft - CMH, STL, DAY, CLE, BNA, OMA, PIT, YYZ, BDL, IND, GRR, DSM, etc. You're admitting that MKE would lose a substantial amount of service in the merger. That is, as I said, unraveling the hub.

[Edited 2006-12-14 22:48:17]

Quoting SeeTheWorld (Reply 241): Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 224): MDW has an IFR operational throughput of 60 operations per hour. This yields runway capacity to support 72 gates. The airport has 43 gates. Do the math. Think NIMBYs.

Think space. There's nowhere to put 30 more gates. Have you ever been to MDW?

Quoting FCYTravis (Reply 235): IAD is almost proof of my point. WN has a major operation in BWI - but they now have no compunctions about going 45 miles down the road and opening up service to Dulles.

O&D (and yields, I would imagine) at IAD blow MKE out of the water. WN knew the traffic was there from DH. Other suggestions?

Another issue for which we are failing to account here is the ability of YX to draw from the northern Chicago suburbs because of the ease of using MKE and its reputation for fantastic service. Will FL be able to do the same? If not, they lose passengers even before we account for the possible alienation of those in Milwaukee proper.

Courtesy: The Business Journal of Milwaukee

AirTran CEO Pledges More Jobs, Expansion For Midwest

http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee.../daily43.html?b=1165813200^1390805

Quoting KarlB737 (Reply 248): AirTran CEO Pledges More Jobs, Expansion For Midwest

What a crock!!!! More jobs in MKE..Joe is great at BSing people and saying what people want hear... then turn his back on those same people, saying, we need be competitive, we must cut back on flights, staff, etc..