FL Plans MKE Expansion

MUWarriors · Sat Oct 13, 2007 5:29 am

Well it looks like FL is in fact still interested in doing a rather large expansion here:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=674191

Clearly not a hub operation, but 4 gates = 22+ departures a day, more than double their current 9. I don't see why the airport board would deny this, with new, and empty, decently located gates setting there vs. FL's current situation in E with their poorly located gates. I am very curious to see where they want to fly to from MKE.

SANFan · Sat Oct 13, 2007 7:07 am

The west coast was mentioned in the article so I would love to see SAN as one of the additions; as long as YX doesn't want to or can't add SAN to their hub operation there, someone ought to as it's an unserved route. Also, YX already flies from MKE to SEA, SFO, LAX (as well as PHX and LAS); SAN is the only other west coast city currently served by FL that does not have n/s service to MKE. (BTW, the latest DOT O&D figure -- for 1Q2007 -- is 175 pax/day.)

bb

Mikey711MN · Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:09 am

Very interesting, and not terribly unexpected given that FL probably learned a ton about MKE in their due diligence during the buyout attempt.

While this is true...

Quoting SANFan (Reply 1):
YX already flies from MKE to SEA, SFO, LAX

...this flights are operated with relatively costly and unreliable aircraft (YX's MD-80s) with few frequencies. Tack on SAN to the list, and I think FL's 737s will be a good fit for daily, year-round service to these destinations.

Somewhat secondarily, I think YX has some cost exposure on midwest regional routes, e.g. MKE-STL, MKE-IND, etc. that are operated with RJ equipment. A few well-timed frequencies on low-cost 717s on these routes IMHO would be successful; the only other option for MKE travelers would be to drive, which requires a rather long trip through Chicagoland, so low-fare stimulation seems highly possible.

I don't think, however, that FL will try to take on YX on their bread-and-butter routes, e.g. MKE-DCA, MKE-LGA, MKE-BOS, etc. in light of this lower-hanging fruit.

Just my opinion/speculation,
-Mike

Mikey711MN · Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:14 am

Sidenote: I wonder why FL didn't pick up Gate C17... scratchchin

Indy · Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:22 am

Quoting Mikey711MN (Reply 2):
Somewhat secondarily, I think YX has some cost exposure on midwest regional routes, e.g. MKE-STL, MKE-IND, etc. that are operated with RJ equipment. A few well-timed frequencies on low-cost 717s on these routes IMHO would be successful; the only other option for MKE travelers would be to drive, which requires a rather long trip through Chicagoland, so low-fare stimulation seems highly possible.

NW/YX codeshare tickets go on sale starting in November I believe on MKE-IND. I'm not sure if connections can be made on this tickets at either MKE or IND but it could help YX out a bit.

mke717spotter · Sat Oct 13, 2007 2:59 pm

If you think about it, its not that surprising. Obviously FL wasn't going to do much with only 2 gates so getting 2 more will let them be more flexible at MKE. I'm thinking they will try some of routes that NW tried before - LGA, BOS, DCA, LAX. The article says that would leave 3 gates open at MKE, still hoping on B6!!!

EXAAUADL · Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:25 pm

Not surprising at all.....FL is going to build up MKE regardless if they bought YX or not. The only difference is this will probably be cheaper for FL and more expensive for YX investors.......more and more YX refusal to be purchased by FL was nothing more than YX mgmt covering their own behinds.

quickmover · Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:33 pm

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 6):
The only difference is this will probably be cheaper for FL and more expensive for YX investors.......more and more YX refusal to be purchased by FL was nothing more than YX mgmt covering their own behinds.

RIGHT. RIGHT. RIGHT.
Especially the last few words.

SpencerII · Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:35 pm

According to the data bases available to most of us in market expansion arenas at airlines, the following markets in the WEST carry the highest yields and largest amounts of non-leisure pax from/to MKE (that FL doesn't currently serve)
(non leisure doesn't neccissarily mean business pax--it has to do with classes of services sold.)

LAX, SFO, SEA, BUR, DEN, SLC, SMF, SAN, YVR, PDX

Keep in mind this is MKE O&D reportings & not HubCX or thru pax.

EXAAUADL · Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:39 pm

Quoting Quickmover (Reply 7):
RIGHT. RIGHT. RIGHT.
Especially the last few words.

I dont know if youre being sarcastic or not, if so perhaps you missed the recent story on how YX mgmt gave themselves giant bonuses.....fact is FL has too many planes coming..they need to put them somewhere..FL's own presentation showed tha tMKE was ripe for LCC growth, whether it be B6, WN or FL...and then ultimately YX was doomed.

FWAERJ · Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:48 pm

Basically, this is "Joe Leonard's Revenge" at work here, and I knew this was going to happen.

We all know that AirTran wants a Midwestern hub to relieve ATL pressure. Badly. Now that Plans A (buy ATA MDW assets) and B (buy YX) were sidetracked, Plan C (try to kill YX) is next. They learned a lot about the MKE market from their hostile takeover attempt, and now they want to apply that experience. IMO, AirTran has a cost structure that's low enough to start a prolonged bloody fare war with YX... but will it work? Wisconsinites are very brand-loyal to their home-state brands, so it could backfire. For example, try finding a Milwaukee bathroom that doesn't have a Kohler toilet (Kohler is based near Sheboygan, 1 hour north of MKE).

Don't get me wrong: I really have wanted to fly YX for years. And I'm also rooting for SkyWest to start Midwest Connect service from FWA to MKE to complement their United Express service to ORD. Hey, SkyWest just posted a bunch of jobs on their website for rampers/CSAs at FWA today... is FWA-MKE or UA Express FWA-DEN imminent?

quickmover · Sat Oct 13, 2007 3:52 pm

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 9):
I dont know if youre being sarcastic or not

No sarcasim at all. Glad we agree. You are hitting the nail right on the head and you are RIGHT RIGHT RIGHT.

I've just been tired of hearing Tim's B.S. as well and some of the crazy claims against FL. Like they are only going after Midwest's leased 717s while forgeting to mention that FL has 60 new 737s already on the way. Or the one that they were buying YX for $400 mil. to close it down. Really smart stuff Where did people come up with this?

SpencerII · Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:05 pm

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 10):
Basically, this is "Joe Leonard's Revenge" at work here, and I knew this was going to happen.

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 10):
We all know that AirTran wants a Midwestern hub to relieve ATL pressure

I'm at a loss as to why you would construe this as revenge, when you say FL wants a Midwestern Hub badly. They apparantly had considered MKE before the talks had even started - in fact I believe right after the ATA thing fell through at MDW.
As for Wisconsinites being brand sensitive, all it would take to blow MKE and your statement into the Kohler toilet would be for WN to announce 12 flights a day in MKE. (& that is what YX and NW fear the most)

EXAAUADL · Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:20 pm

Quoting Quickmover (Reply 11):
No sarcasim at all. Glad we agree

ok..thanks

MKENut · Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:21 pm

I like the idea of added competition at MKE. FL needs to add new destinations, not just go head to head with YX on current routes in order to succeed. West coast destinations need to be proven as viable year around routes, not seasonal. This will make YX improve their current fleet faster. MKE will also accelerate their plans for improvements and expansion.

airtran737 · Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:34 pm

It's good to see that FL plans on expanding MKE and that they will try to show a commitment to the Milwaukee community. I hope they launch service to LGA, BOS and DCA (pending slots), these are big money makers for YX, and FL could definately make money on them as well.

Indy · Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:40 pm

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 15):
DCA (pending slots)

Last time they attempted to get DCA slots they were denied. Are any new slots opening up?

airtran737 · Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:45 pm

Quoting Indy (Reply 16):
Last time they attempted to get DCA slots they were denied. Are any new slots opening up?

TZ just announced that they are dropping both DCA and LGA service. FL could plead their case for the LGA slot saying that MKE needs the low cost competition. The DCA slot IIRC was created especially for MDW, so I don;t know if it can be reallocated to MKE.

SkyexRamper · Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:49 pm

I say bring it on AirTran...come make MKE interesting again. Can't wait until Skybus adds some color to the MKE scene. Blue just gets old with the little grey and red trim that is around.

MKENut · Sat Oct 13, 2007 11:57 pm

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 17):
TZ just announced that they are dropping both DCA and LGA service. FL could plead their case for the LGA slot saying that MKE needs the low cost competition. The DCA slot IIRC was created especially for MDW, so I don;t know if it can be reallocated to MKE.

FL just won a DCA slot back in May. I'm no so sure they can get another so easy. Other airlines will want that slot in a big way.

sideflare75 · Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:00 am

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 9):
I dont know if youre being sarcastic or not, if so perhaps you missed the recent story on how YX mgmt gave themselves giant bonuses.....

Obviously you too missed the article or never read it to understand that the money they will receive is stock options that they have had for a long time or others that become exercizeable when the buyout takes place. They would have received even more had AirTran won and sent them packing since they would have also gotten their severance packages. Sometimes I wonder where you people get this stuff.

This should be interesting to see what AirTran does though. This is what people said all along. If Midwest is so weak and vulnerable then just come on in and take them on. So now we will see who wins at the airport and not in some boardroom somewhere. I think it is great.

quickmover · Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:36 am

Maybe FL just wants to get a decent foot in the door, just in case there are regulatory issues with the proposed buyout. Perhaps TPG would have second thoughts about spending cash on a long regulatory fight, with FL ready to step it up in MKE.

Wouldn't be the first time a deal didn't go through.

Crewchief · Sun Oct 14, 2007 11:45 am

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 6):
more and more YX refusal to be purchased by FL was nothing more than YX mgmt covering their own behinds.

Wow, this logic is totally devoid of reality. It ignores the bidding process. TPG simply outbid FL. YX management simply got the most they could for the company. That was their job. If they hadn't sold to the highest bidder the litigation bar would be very happy and rich.

As to the other statements about FL getting revenge, I thought FL was well-managed. A well-managed company chooses it's battles for business and not emotional reasons. I guess all the "revenge" posters are saying Joe Leonard isn't the first-class CEO depicted in the bidding process.

I choose to think FL is well-managed. They are trying to put their excess aircraft where they can earn the most money. Only time will tell if their judgements are correct.

Indy · Sun Oct 14, 2007 12:51 pm

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 17):
The DCA slot IIRC was created especially for MDW, so I don;t know if it can be reallocated to MKE.

FL wanted MDW-DCA anyway so I'm not sure they'd try and transfer it to MKE. Of course this was before FL started cutting routes out of MDW.

FlyPNS1 · Sun Oct 14, 2007 1:10 pm

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 17):
The DCA slot IIRC was created especially for MDW, so I don;t know if it can be reallocated to MKE.

The DCA slots are not specific to MDW or any city pair. The DOT does not regulate these slots to that level. The only restrictions put on these slots was that the route must be in-perimeter.

In some cases, the DOT also awards slots to be used for small/non-hub markets only. The slots ATA has are not restricted to that as clearly MDW is not a small market. However, whoever applies to take ATA's slots could use them for a small market and potentially improve their chances.

If FL wanted to apply for DCA-MKE, they can. I think FL will have a decent shot of picking up some of the DCA slots as the DOT created these slots to improve competition which favors the LCC's. However, I wouldn't be surprised if at least one slot pair goes to a legacy carrier to serve some small market.

sunking737 · Sun Oct 14, 2007 3:59 pm

I have said ti once before, and I will say it again...It doesn't get any better then with the airlines. A Soap Opera.

You know the RED Tailed Shark will fight any intrusion by any other carrier into their back yard. They are going to help YX any way they can.

The unions at NW should fight this investment in YX.

YXwatcherMKE · Sun Oct 14, 2007 7:41 pm

FL will have some success at MKE, they had the ability to learn alot about YX and the MKE market. They will fill seats, however, YX has a great following in Milwaukee and most of Wisconsin. We are very loyal to our "Hometown airline" and it will be very hard for FL to break that Loyalty. I have watched Midwest grow from the first day of operations and I was one of the first week passengers of YX. Tim Knows what will work for their company and what will not. That's why it has been a profitable company for as long as it has been. Yes YX does need more a/c 738's or A320's ASAP to do more market growth, but as to...

Quoting Mikey711MN (Reply 2):

...this flights are operated with relatively costly and unreliable aircraft (YX's MD-80s) with few frequencies

I will Question why you think that way. I was on one of those MD-80's not to long ago and outside of the old rumble of the older engines at take-off I felt that A/C was in fine condition and could not tell the difference between that plane to a newer 717. In fact we were at our destination 11 minutes early in a head wind.

Quoting MKENut (Reply 14):

I like the idea of added competition at MKE. FL needs to add new destinations, not just go head to head with YX on current routes in order to succeed. West coast destinations need to be proven as viable year around routes, not seasonal. This will make YX improve their current fleet faster. MKE will also accelerate their plans for improvements and expansion.

I COULD NOT AGREE MORE!!! The management of MKE needs a good hard kick in the you know what to make improvements to the Terminal and expansion to bring in more carriers. To keep one step ahead of FL, YX should expand it's fleet and network faster to locations such as, SAN, SLC, PDX, SMF, TUS. They should maybe look at north and south of the boarder too. Oh I Hope so.

Cubsrule · Sun Oct 14, 2007 8:27 pm

Quoting EXAAUADL (Reply 9):
FL's own presentation showed tha tMKE was ripe for LCC growth, whether it be B6, WN or FL...and then ultimately YX was doomed.

The problem with this logic is that WN has a lovely presence at MCI and YX and WN coexist without any trouble at all (and, significantly, YX still enjoys a substantial fare premium). Why would MKE be any different? Heck, FL views itself as inferior to WN. If WN cannot destroy YX, why should FL be able to?

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 10):
AirTran has a cost structure that's low enough to start a prolonged bloody fare war with YX... but will it work?

No. YX will enjoy a fare premium. If FL plans to stimulate the market enough that it has enough volume to make these flights work with YX there too, FL will do fine. If that does not happen, MKE will go the way of DFW and MDW. FL has shown that they are not willing to bleed money on routes short-term in order to succeed longer term. I think they could succeed at MKE, but history indicates that they will not permit the markets to mature sufficiently to realize these benefits.

YXwatcherMKE · Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:18 am

Curbside has hit the bullseye in reply 27. highfive

The difference between FL and YX is FL was the route/city to be a instant success, if it is not making a profit within 3 months or so they kill the route. YX is willing to work the route into profit over a period of time and take the hit if need be. Sometime it does not work but for the most part it does work out in YX's favor. That's the difference between Tim and Joe. (' Smile

')

CitrusCritter · Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:24 am

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 27):
The problem with this logic is that WN has a lovely presence at MCI and YX and WN coexist without any trouble at all

I don't think MKE and MCI are perfectly analogous. MCI was a WN stronghold before YX came in. YX came in and offered a niche on some business routes including some that WN did not fly (e.g. DCA). A WN entry to MKE would, presumably, be designed to establish a large market share. To that end, WN would certainly be a competitor to YX and WN would be on "offense" so to speak. Now if the WN presence at MKE was very minor and limited to just a few base destinations, they might co-exist there as well. The key is determining what size station WN would seek to create at MKE. Certainly YX's intent at MCI has not been to attempt to gain market share from WN, which would probably not be the case if WN entered MKE.

airtran737 · Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:28 am

Quoting YXwatcherMKE (Reply 28):
YX is willing to work the route into profit over a period of time and take the hit if need be. Sometime it does not work but for the most part it does work out in YX's favor. That's the difference between Tim and Joe. (' ')

YX wasn;t very patient with their HOU service no were they? When a route bleeds cash you yank the chocks and get out, that's why FL make more money than YX does.

SkyexRamper · Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:34 am

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 30):
YX wasn;t very patient with their HOU service no were they? When a route bleeds cash you yank the chocks and get out, that's why FL make more money than YX does.

Max loads of about 40 to HOU. It was very dump, though had they gone to IAH, they probably would have had better luck since people could connect on to Continental.

Also AT737, it helps to have a management that knows what it wants and has the balls to grow a company instead of just sitting on it for 10 years while it keeps putting out a steady pay check.

Indy · Mon Oct 15, 2007 3:36 am

Quoting YXwatcherMKE (Reply 28):
Curbside has hit the bullseye in reply 27.

Agreed. I think that also rubs the customers the wrong way. I'd be pretty pissed if I booked a nonstop flight to a destination just to have the airline turn around and kill the nonstop route and make me go through their hub. And if I'm not mistaken I would not be able to get a refund on the ticket. If you start a route you better stick with it. Customers will get tired of the route games and just go somewhere else where they can at least get a dependable schedule.

Quit playing the seasonal game on non seasonal route and quit picking up routes and dropping them like habits. If you don't have the equipment to run a route as it should be then don't start it to begin with. You are just going to run off your customers.

Mikey711MN · Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:30 pm

Quoting YXwatcherMKE (Reply 26):
I will Question why you think that way. I was on one of those MD-80's not to long ago and outside of the old rumble of the older engines at take-off I felt that A/C was in fine condition and could not tell the difference between that plane to a newer 717. In fact we were at our destination 11 minutes early in a head wind.

Well, first, to be clear, I was comparing the MD80's to 737's, as shown in my original statement comparing...

Quoting Mikey711MN (Reply 2):
relatively costly and unreliable aircraft (YX's MD-80s) [to] FL's 737s

As the originally posted article indicates, the 717 couldn't make those missions.

Anyway, that old rumble you were hearing during your flight was the otherwise delightful sound of unfortunately relatively inefficient engine technology that does at least two things to YX's cost side of the balance sheet: adds fuel and adds maintenance. While I have no specs to compare the two nor trip completion figures for YX MD-80 routes vis-a-vis FL 737 routes, the [at least implied, if not well explicitly quantitatively proven] point was that YX's MD-80's are relative gas hogs and ergo cost more on a per-mile basis.

And in an intense revenue environment, having the higher cost equipment to run those routes will require a hefty premium to offset them. Conversely, given FL's track record of abandoning non-ATL routes, this will certainly be an interesting development to watch. Or, as someone else put it...

Quoting Sunking737 (Reply 25):
A Soap Opera.

-Mike

DAYflyer · Mon Oct 15, 2007 2:56 pm

Quoting AirTran737 (Reply 15):
It's good to see that FL plans on expanding MKE and that they will try to show a commitment to the Milwaukee community. I hope they launch service to LGA, BOS and DCA (pending slots), these are big money makers for YX, and FL could definately make money on them as well.

Agreed, but I thnk the long term strategy should be to kill off YX, not just compete on these routes.

Mikey711MN · Mon Oct 15, 2007 3:16 pm

Quoting DAYflyer (Reply 34):
I thnk the long term strategy should be to kill off YX, not just compete on these routes.

Unfortunately, they'd need to do the former to accomplish the latter. Two things that YX has well established on these routes are (1) frequency that caters well to premium-paying business travelers and (2) relatively fuel lean 717s. Certainly a much more difficult competitive climate for them.

That's not to say that FL will never compete on these routes, but they'd have to be much more well-established in MKE first IMHO.

-Mike

vivavegas · Mon Oct 15, 2007 3:25 pm

Who is moving to "E"?

Delta?

Craig
MKE

Mikey711MN · Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:21 pm

Quoting Vivavegas (Reply 36):
Who is moving to "E"?

That would certainly make a lot of sense by grouping the SkyTeam alliance in one place, but the article actually suggested that Skybus would be using at least one of the two vacated gates there.

Quote:
It would move from gates 60 and 61 on the E concourse, which it shares with Northwest and Continental Express. Airport Director Barry Bateman said that when Skybus Airlines begins flying to Milwaukee Dec. 5 with service to Columbus, Ohio, it also will use a gate on the E concourse.

If FL becomes successful at MKE, I can see them approaching the airport management about expanding into DL's current gates in C. First thing's first though.

-Mike

SkyexRamper · Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:40 pm

Quoting Vivavegas (Reply 36):
Who is moving to "E"?

Delta?

Skybus

qqflyboy · Mon Oct 15, 2007 6:56 pm

Quoting FWAERJ (Reply 10):
Wisconsinites are very brand-loyal to their home-state brands, so it could backfire.

This may be true, but Wisconsinites also hate NW, and are likely to see the buyout of YX by TPG as a buyout by NW. To Wisconsinites, YX may already be dead. They may be afraid of FL to start. They'll want to make sure FL doesn't move in and then abandon them, much like NW. I still can't believe YX went with the TPG deal. I think there is a lot of merit in the claim YX went with TPG to save management. That deal, IMHO, is not beneficial to the employees, the local economy or to competition. I am glad to hear the deal is getting a second look by regulators. It's too bad YX couldn't stand alone, but I think they are much better off with FL than TPG/NW.

JetBlueAUS · Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:11 pm

As long as AirTran doesn't add a whole bunch of Saturday-only service, I say go for it.

Cubsrule · Mon Oct 15, 2007 9:47 pm

Quoting CitrusCritter (Reply 29):
I don't think MKE and MCI are perfectly analogous.

I agree. My point was simply that FL will not be able to quickly run YX off of any routes, and I'm not sure they'll have the fortitude to stick along long enough to grow the markets to a point that they can make money.

Quoting CitrusCritter (Reply 29):
Certainly YX's intent at MCI has not been to attempt to gain market share from WN, which would probably not be the case if WN entered MKE.

I would argue that there is a good reason that WN hasn't tried MKE yet...

Quoting QQflyboy (Reply 39):
This may be true, but Wisconsinites also hate NW,

They do? NW's dominance at most (all?) Wisconsin airports would suggest otherwise. At MKE...

NW is the only legacy with a club

NW is the only legacy with exclusively mainline service (some legacies have no mainline service).

NW has far more elites than any other legacy.

Similar facts are true at every other airport with commercial service in Wisconsin.

Indy · Mon Oct 15, 2007 10:22 pm

Whatever happens with FL I think they need to figure out what kind of airline they are. Are they a focus city type airline like WN or are they a hub & spoke type airline. They talked about how they wanted a hub in this region of the country and tried hard to get YX. Yet they have focus cities all over the place. Is FL going to try and make MKE into another one of its many focus cities? Or will it try and build a hub. If they try and build a hub where will all the jets come from? Would they kill their other focus cities? They need to establish an identity in my opinion.

vivavegas · Thu Oct 18, 2007 12:55 am

Quote:
WEDNESDAY, Oct. 17, 2007, 4:31 p.m.
By Steve Schultze
Committee backs extra gates for AirTran

AirTran Airways won backing Wednesday from a Milwaukee County Board committee for doubling its number of gates to four at Milwaukee Mitchell International Airport, a move that's tied to AirTran's expected expansion here after losing its bid to buy Midwest Airlines.

The board's Transportation, Public Works and Transit Committee approved the change on a 7-0 vote, with little discussion. AirTran would pay an additional $72,000 in yearly rent for the extra two gates, doubling its current rent charge.

Airport Director Barry Bateman said AirTran plans to increase its number of daily flights from nine to 12 per day, beginning Dec. 20. Bateman said AirTran had not yet notified the airport of its flight volume next year when it has two more gates.

However, he said the four gates would each accommodate seven or eight flights a day, or a maximum of 32 flights.

The full County Board will consider the expansion Oct. 29.

AirTran is a unit of AirTran Holdings Inc. (AAI) of Orlando. Midwest Airlines is owned by Midwest Air Group Inc. (MEH) of Oak Creek.

Craig
MKE

MKENut · Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:11 am

Quoting Vivavegas (Reply 43):
The full County Board will consider the expansion Oct. 29.

It will pass in the full County Board on 10/29. The Milwaukee County Board wants expansion and more revenue. I think this is better than a merger with YX.

Indy · Thu Oct 18, 2007 1:41 am

Quoting Vivavegas (Reply 43):
AirTran would pay an additional $72,000 in yearly rent for the extra two gates, doubling its current rent charge.

Holy hell. They'd be crazy not to make the most of those gates. Now I understand why they are using two gates at IND as common use. I believe IND is charging twice as much per gate as MKE is. That probably explains why 3 of the 10 gates in the C concourse are not leased. This is a quote from the November 2005 board meeting at IND regarding an FL contract.

Quote:
APPROVAL OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT AND LEASE OF PREMISES WITH AIRTRAN AIRWAYS: Upon a motion by Mr. Voorhies, seconded by Mr. Callahan and unanimously passed, approval was given to the First Amendment to Agreement and Lease of Premises with AirTran Airways. The Amendment provides for the addition of a Baggage Service Office, Gate C2, and associated areas for an annual revenue increase of $419,677.02.

I think the rental fees speak loudly when people around IND wonder why FL hasn't done more here. Given the price differences I wouldn't do more at IND either.

gr8slvrflt · Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:29 am

Anyone know the outcome of the above-referenced meeting on the 29th?

airtran737 · Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:46 am

Quoting Gr8SlvrFlt (Reply 46):
Anyone know the outcome of the above-referenced meeting on the 29th?

It's approved. FL move's to the new gates on the 14th.

B757capt · Wed Oct 31, 2007 1:48 am

2 additional gates on an airtran schedule can be up to 16 flights.

The max gate plots in ATL used to have 8 turns a day at most.

SkyexRamper · Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:40 pm

Quoting B757capt (Reply 48):
2 additional gates on an airtran schedule can be up to 16 flights.

The max gate plots in ATL used to have 8 turns a day at most.

I hope they will start running the routes that YX is too under funded to start. Also MKE-SEA non stop would do well since YX pulled it due to aircraft down for maintenance. FL should do Cancun and San Juan too, they would be top rate performers during the MKE winter season.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net