https://www.mitchellairport.com/airport-guide

Check the airport guide, check MKE's Wiki page and MKE flight status, there are no more flights operating out of Concourse E. The interactive terminal guide on the airport web site shows E with no airlines, so there it is.

It has been Airport Director Ismael Bonilla's goal, along with Milwaukee County to turn Concourse E into the new International Terminal for MKE. For anyone that has been through the International Arrivals Building at MKE recently, it is easy to tell that it is outdated (see the below article from last July, makes it clear that the timeline for this really did get stretched out and Bonilla references that).

http://www.wisn.com/article/milwaukee-a ... al/6333691

It remains unclear how long it will take to convert E into a new International Terminal, or when MKE will act to start this process. This might only be a cost cutting measure for now, but MKE has made an effort to attract new International service in recent years (evidenced by Y4 starting MKE-GDL). For now, all we really can do is speculate, reminisce about the lost rotunda and pool info together. I looked for an updated piece of info on this process and haven't been able to find anything.

Does MKE generate enough intl traffic to warrant a Int'l concourse of it's own? If it's only operating a flight to GDL I would think that it would be a waste of money, especially with ORD so close.

airtrantpa wrote:

Does MKE generate enough intl traffic to warrant a Int'l concourse of it's own? If it's only operating a flight to GDL I would think that it would be a waste of money, especially with ORD so close.

Definitely a valid thought, but I think MKE officials are hoping that by doing this that they can attract more service. Probably would get the most use during spring, but that's why we speculate!

IMO an airline that uses a base in Europe and could provide connections could work. Low cost carriers like Norwegian come to mind, but there could be more opportunities to be had to the Caribbean or Mexico as well.

airtrantpa wrote:

Does MKE generate enough intl traffic to warrant a Int'l concourse of it's own? If it's only operating a flight to GDL I would think that it would be a waste of money, especially with ORD so close.

MKE has service to CUN (on three carriers!), CZM, GDL, MBJ, PVR, YYZ, and ZIH.

Initial plans for the international concourse at MKE involve knocking down E and building a new facility with three gates which can handle both domestic and international flights (arrivals and departures). The facility would be constructed so international arrivals are funneled securely to customs/FIS. This avoids towing and makes for a more flexible facility. The facility can be built out for additional spots in the future if needed. I don’t believe things are set in stone and (assuming it comes to pass) what is constructed may be somewhat different.

The existing E is approaching 50 years old and is just not readily turned into something which can handle FIS without complete rebuilding.

Even without the coveted transatlantic carrier, Milwaukee has a comparably-busy volume of international arriving passengers and flights.

These are full-year 2015 international arrivals for selective medium-hub airports:

pax …….. flts
83713 ….. 583 ….. cvg
73830 ….. 538 ….. stl
54214 ….. 364 ….. rdu
54192 ….. 443 ….. pit
52951 ….. 388 ….. cle
43377 ….. 360 ….. mke
23181 ….. 289 ….. msy
19119 ….. 171 ….. mci
12733 ……. 95 ….. ind
11598 ……. 87 ….. bna
10215 ……. 76 ….. cmh
07400 ……. 53 ….. bdl
03846 ……. 40 ….. mem

Milwaukee’s service is largely concentrated in 5 months Dec-Apr with peak Saturdays often having 6-8 arrivals. Depending on schedule there are often two arrivals close together, and occasionally three. This past winter Norwegian (which had the bulk of the international vacation contract) based three 737-800's here from December through April.

In recent months Volaris has begun year-round Guadalajara flights, and (at current schedule) that adds around 104 more arrivals and another 12,000-15,000 passengers. That’s without getting the hoped-for TATL carrier.

knope2001 wrote:

This past winter Norwegian (which had the bulk of the international vacation contract) based three 737-800's here from December through April.

Where could Norwegian fly from Milwaukee on a 737? They cannot reach Europe, and American law would not let them fly domestic. Do they have some strange rights to fly to Caribbean destinations?

kitplane01 wrote:

knope2001 wrote:

This past winter Norwegian (which had the bulk of the international vacation contract) based three 737-800's here from December through April.

Where could Norwegian fly from Milwaukee on a 737? They cannot reach Europe, and American law would not let them fly domestic. Do they have some strange rights to fly to Caribbean destinations?

Charters operated on behalf of another airline.

Also, there are no "strange rights" to fly to FDF and PTP (which Norwegian does from FLL and JFK), because those two airports are within the EU.

knope2001 wrote:

Initial plans for the international concourse at MKE involve knocking down E and building a new facility with three gates which can handle both domestic and international flights (arrivals and departures). The facility would be constructed so international arrivals are funneled securely to customs/FIS. This avoids towing and makes for a more flexible facility. The facility can be built out for additional spots in the future if needed. I don’t believe things are set in stone and (assuming it comes to pass) what is constructed may be somewhat different.

The existing E is approaching 50 years old and is just not readily turned into something which can handle FIS without complete rebuilding.

Even without the coveted transatlantic carrier, Milwaukee has a comparably-busy volume of international arriving passengers and flights.

These are full-year 2015 international arrivals for selective medium-hub airports:

pax …….. flts
83713 ….. 583 ….. cvg
73830 ….. 538 ….. stl
54214 ….. 364 ….. rdu
54192 ….. 443 ….. pit
52951 ….. 388 ….. cle
43377 ….. 360 ….. mke
23181 ….. 289 ….. msy
19119 ….. 171 ….. mci
12733 ……. 95 ….. ind
11598 ……. 87 ….. bna
10215 ……. 76 ….. cmh
07400 ……. 53 ….. bdl
03846 ……. 40 ….. mem

Milwaukee’s service is largely concentrated in 5 months Dec-Apr with peak Saturdays often having 6-8 arrivals. Depending on schedule there are often two arrivals close together, and occasionally three. This past winter Norwegian (which had the bulk of the international vacation contract) based three 737-800's here from December through April.

In recent months Volaris has begun year-round Guadalajara flights, and (at current schedule) that adds around 104 more arrivals and another 12,000-15,000 passengers. That’s without getting the hoped-for TATL carrier.

Thanks for your info Knope.

[/quote]

Where could Norwegian fly from Milwaukee on a 737? They cannot reach Europe, and American law would not let them fly domestic. Do they have some strange rights to fly to Caribbean destinations? [/quote]

Norwegian flew charters for Funjet Vacations and Apple Vacations, see Knope's comment. Not sure about the range of the current 737s, but their Long Haul brand has the 787 for potentially a few weekly flights across the pond, just speculation here. I wonder if their MAX 8s could do anything MKE-Europe range wise?

http://www.hartfordbusiness.com/article ... ir-service

http://wuwm.com/post/mitchell-airport-r ... s#stream/0

These efforts are well documented and have been going on for some time.

MKE22 wrote:

https://www.mitchellairport.com/airport-guide

Check the airport guide, check MKE's Wiki page and MKE flight status, there are no more flights operating out of Concourse E. The interactive terminal guide on the airport web site shows E with no airlines, so there it is.

It has been Airport Director Ismael Bonilla's goal, along with Milwaukee County to turn Concourse E into the new International Terminal for MKE. For anyone that has been through the International Arrivals Building at MKE recently, it is easy to tell that it is outdated (see the below article from last July, makes it clear that the timeline for this really did get stretched out and Bonilla references that).

http://www.wisn.com/article/milwaukee-a ... al/6333691

It remains unclear how long it will take to convert E into a new International Terminal, or when MKE will act to start this process. This might only be a cost cutting measure for now, but MKE has made an effort to attract new International service in recent years (evidenced by Y4 starting MKE-GDL). For now, all we really can do is speculate, reminisce about the lost rotunda and pool info together. I looked for an updated piece of info on this process and haven't been able to find anything.

I just flew into Terminal E on May 12th on UA. Certainly not the shiniest terminal but far from the worst. Best of luck to MKE on whatever materializes from the rubble of Term E.

77H

knope2001 wrote:

These are full-year 2015 international arrivals for selective medium-hub airports:

pax …….. flts
83713 ….. 583 ….. cvg
73830 ….. 538 ….. stl
54214 ….. 364 ….. rdu
54192 ….. 443 ….. pit
52951 ….. 388 ….. cle
43377 ….. 360 ….. mke
23181 ….. 289 ….. msy

What is the source for these numbers?

They seem rather off, even for 2015. Do they exclude Canada?
That's the only explanation as to why MSY wouldn't be showing 365+ flights.

Also, how does STL, with only seasonal charters to Mexico and Caribbean vacation spots, show significantly more int'l pax than RDU with a daily transatlantic + similar seasonal leisure departures back then?

CVG had 116,000 international enplanements in 2014, so these numbers seem a little low. The numbers of flights a day seems low too becuase DL operates around 330 CVG-CDG flights/year, 500 CVG-YYZ, and 30 CVG-CUN while AC operates around 900 flights to YYZ a year.

LAX772LR wrote:

knope2001 wrote:

These are full-year 2015 international arrivals for selective medium-hub airports:

pax …….. flts
83713 ….. 583 ….. cvg
73830 ….. 538 ….. stl
54214 ….. 364 ….. rdu
54192 ….. 443 ….. pit
52951 ….. 388 ….. cle
43377 ….. 360 ….. mke
23181 ….. 289 ….. msy

What is the source for these numbers?

They seem rather off, even for 2015. Do they exclude Canada?
That's the only explanation as to why MSY wouldn't be showing 365+ flights.

Also, how does STL, with only seasonal charters to Mexico and Caribbean vacation spots, show significantly more int'l pax than RDU with a daily transatlantic + similar seasonal leisure departures back then?

They come from the all-carrier stats in the T100's (Form 41) for 2015.

https://www.transtats.bts.gov/databases ... ject_ID2=0

I excluded flights from Canadian as (at least the flights to these cities) they have pre-clearance and they don't use FIS. In re-checking my numbers I realized in my haste to uncheck the Y's I accidentally unchecked ZIH Ixtapa/Zihuatanejo. That bumps Milwaukee's number up to

Though RDU has a daily London nonstop they have very little international resort flying. St Louis sticks out because they have considerable year-round international beach flying while other airports (including MKE) only a few flights per month in the off-season.

New Orleans
134 CUN
110 PTY
18 NAS
9 PVR
18 otherr

Raleigh
322 LHR
39 CUN
3 other

The reason St Louis is so high is that their international flying is largely year-round. FIS arrivals for 2015:

St Louis
219 Jan,Feb, Mar, Apr, Dec
319 other 7 months

Milwaukee
302 Jan,Feb, Mar, Apr, Dec
58 other 7 months

With Volaris running year round that is giving FIS more business in the off season in MKE.

cvgComair wrote:

CVG had 116,000 international enplanements in 2014, so these numbers seem a little low. The numbers of flights a day seems low too becuase DL operates around 330 CVG-CDG flights/year, 500 CVG-YYZ, and 30 CVG-CUN while AC operates around 900 flights to YYZ a year.

I should have made it clearer that Canada is not included because this is a discussion of FIS (MKE turning E into an international arrival facility), and Canadian flights pre-clear before leaving and arrive in the US as domestic. Sorry for the confusion!

knope2001 wrote:

cvgComair wrote:

CVG had 116,000 international enplanements in 2014, so these numbers seem a little low. The numbers of flights a day seems low too becuase DL operates around 330 CVG-CDG flights/year, 500 CVG-YYZ, and 30 CVG-CUN while AC operates around 900 flights to YYZ a year.

I should have made it clearer that Canada is not included because this is a discussion of FIS (MKE turning E into an international arrival facility), and Canadian flights pre-clear before leaving and arrive in the US as domestic. Sorry for the confusion!

Thanks, that makes sense!

Sigh. Have all sorts of memories from my RC, NW, DL days on that concourse. Must have flown out of E thousands of times over the years. I always thought it was the most convenient concourse to get in and out of. Time marches...

knope2001 wrote:

I excluded flights from Canadian as (at least the flights to these cities) they have pre-clearance and they don't use FIS.

Which is both incorrect and fallacious as (1) not all transborder Canadian flights (even from airports WITH pre-clearance) are pre-cleared; and (2) pre-clearance still requires active and available FIS at the inbound airfield before the outbound can depart.

This is why it's a good idea to not manipulate numbers, even if done with innocent intention.

Which BTW are woefully outdated, and no longer representative of anything. I realize that they might be the last publicly available, but still: since then, MSY has gained two scheduled European flights, increased service to Mexico, holiday scheduled service to Honduras, and additional capacity to Canada and Panama. RDU has also gained a second European flight.

Not really much to go on here.

LAX772LR wrote:

knope2001 wrote:

I excluded flights from Canadian as (at least the flights to these cities) they have pre-clearance and they don't use FIS.

Which is both incorrect and fallacious as (1) not all transborder Canadian flights, even from airports WITH pre-clearance, are pre-cleared; and (2) pre-clearance still requires active and available FIS at the arrivals airfield before the outbound can depart.

How many non-precleared Canada flights do the airports we are discussing see? How often do precleared flights take up FIS capacity?

Your date criticism is fair. The Canada one, however, is not.

Cubsrule wrote:

The Canada one, however, is not.

The FAA would beg to differ... the requirement for FIS availability is their concern for pre-cleared flights, the actual use thereof is immaterial.

Just ask AS, if you'd rather not hear it from me:
They quite publicly had a flight to SNA turned around, despite perfectly operational pre-clearance on the Canadian side, as the former's FIS wasn't yet operational; then were forced to discontinue that schedule and provide refunds until further notice.

knope2001 wrote:

Initial plans for the international concourse at MKE involve knocking down E and building a new facility with three gates which can handle both domestic and international flights (arrivals and departures). The facility would be constructed so international arrivals are funneled securely to customs/FIS. This avoids towing and makes for a more flexible facility. The facility can be built out for additional spots in the future if needed. I don’t believe things are set in stone and (assuming it comes to pass) what is constructed may be somewhat different.

The existing E is approaching 50 years old and is just not readily turned into something which can handle FIS without complete rebuilding.

Even without the coveted transatlantic carrier, Milwaukee has a comparably-busy volume of international arriving passengers and flights.

These are full-year 2015 international arrivals for selective medium-hub airports:

pax …….. flts
83713 ….. 583 ….. cvg
73830 ….. 538 ….. stl
54214 ….. 364 ….. rdu
54192 ….. 443 ….. pit
52951 ….. 388 ….. cle
43377 ….. 360 ….. mke
23181 ….. 289 ….. msy
19119 ….. 171 ….. mci
12733 ……. 95 ….. ind
11598 ……. 87 ….. bna
10215 ……. 76 ….. cmh
07400 ……. 53 ….. bdl
03846 ……. 40 ….. mem

Milwaukee’s service is largely concentrated in 5 months Dec-Apr with peak Saturdays often having 6-8 arrivals. Depending on schedule there are often two arrivals close together, and occasionally three. This past winter Norwegian (which had the bulk of the international vacation contract) based three 737-800's here from December through April.

In recent months Volaris has begun year-round Guadalajara flights, and (at current schedule) that adds around 104 more arrivals and another 12,000-15,000 passengers. That’s without getting the hoped-for TATL carrier.

I don't know. Everyone always wants a brand spanking new thing using other peoples money. But from the looks of it, it's an old fashioned banjo that could be upgraded. If the goal is to rip it down only to build 3 gates, that's pointless. Keep the rotunda and trim the gates to 4. Remove the gates from the stem. Build a new FIS on the side from where 60 and 69 are (FIS upstairs, TSA at concourse level). Build a boarding/deplaning ring of two stories around the rotunda so international arrivals can be directed up on level and walk to the FIS. Then you simply renovate the existing terminal, which will now be roomier due to 1/2 the gates, with room for more concessions.

Edit: thinking further I guess you could keep 1 or 2 gates on the left side of the stem as "Canada" gates. And you still have FIS available from the other 4 gates should a Canada flight need it for some reason. Park there, then move to the Canada gate for departure.

TVNWZ wrote:

Sigh. Have all sorts of memories from my RC, NW, DL days on that concourse. Must have flown out of E thousands of times over the years. I always thought it was the most convenient concourse to get in and out of. Time marches...

Yeah, sad to see it go in some ways. A lot of MKE history over the years, and I had one last chance to see the underbelly and ground level offices including a 1970-era spiral staircase. Being down there really showed how dramatically the space was increased when they built out the rotunda in 1986 or so, and how useless the lower level would be in a theoretical effort to turn the existing E into an international arrivals facility. E would essentially need to be rebuilt, and you run the risk of throwing money after bad.

I do think the current E got a bad rap in some ways -- the rotunda was very roomy after the build-out and in recent years when only United and Air Canada used it security was virtually always a breeze. The most recent face lift helped as well. But it just didn't have the space...and in recent years the activity...to offer modern levels of amentiies. For those not familiar it had a single food/drink option which was a smallish combined restaurant-bar, and a single news stand. And with only 20-ish departures per day it didn't exactly give a bustling impression to visitors.

With E closed and its ten gates now closed I believe MKE has 33 jetways (plus #34 at the International Arrivals Building), and I come up with 35 aircraft which overnight at MKE. So the jetway glut is over. To be sure many spoke airports have a few more planes overnight than gates. And there are a few unused gates which new carriers can use and a few more which get light usage. So I'm certainly not saying there is a gate shortage -- not at all. But if the new E does ultimately add a few new gates it's not like the airport is drowning in excess capacity.

knope2001 wrote:

I do think the current E got a bad rap in some ways -- the rotunda was very roomy after the build-out and in recent years when only United and Air Canada used it security was virtually always a breeze. The most recent face lift helped as well. But it just didn't have the space...and in recent years the activity...to offer modern levels of amentiies. For those not familiar it had a single food/drink option which was a smallish combined restaurant-bar, and a single news stand. And with only 20-ish departures per day it didn't exactly give a bustling impression to visitors.

I never care much for food and drink options at arrival and departure airports. I, maybe, ate at the small restaurant on E 10 times in 20 years. The same for my other destination airports including TPA which has a robust variety of offerings. I hardly ever think, "hey, I'll just get something at the airport." And if I do it's a coffee and muffin. Food and drink are more important at the hubs. There you may have a layover around a meal time and want to get something. I have eaten often in MSP, DTW, ATL and MEM (back in the day.)

But, these days airport, and particularly airport directors, want nice showy palaces for their resumes to they can show a bigger airport what they are capable of. Restaurants are a part of that.

LAX772LR wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

The Canada one, however, is not.

The FAA would beg to differ... the requirement for FIS availability is their concern for pre-cleared flights, the actual use thereof is immaterial.

Just ask AS, if you'd rather not hear it from me:
They quite publicly had a flight to SNA turned around, despite perfectly operational pre-clearance on the Canadian side, as the former's FIS wasn't yet operational; then were forced to discontinue that schedule and provide refunds until further notice.

You don't need much, not even an FIS set up for air carrier flights, to accept precleared flights. Look at DCA and LGA. If talking about how and how much to build new FIS, Canada really does not matter.

I had one last chance to see the underbelly and ground level offices including a 1970-era spiral staircase

I hope someone is able to go and get some pictures of the terminal and ops area before its tore down. I knew I should have taken pictures when I worked there.

LAX772LR wrote:

knope2001 wrote:

I excluded flights from Canadian as (at least the flights to these cities) they have pre-clearance and they don't use FIS.

Which is both incorrect and fallacious as (1) not all transborder Canadian flights (even from airports WITH pre-clearance) are pre-cleared; and (2) pre-clearance still requires active and available FIS at the inbound airfield before the outbound can depart.

Somebody raised the question if there was volume at MKE to justify constructing a new facility to primarily serve international arrivals. The numbers I pulled were in that context to show comparable volume of select other mid-sized airports.

For the practical purpose of how many commercial flights and passengers used the international arrival infrastructure at these airports, the exclusion of Canadian arrivals is necessary. I believe all the 2015 arrivals at these particular airports came from Canadian airports whose US flights are routinely pre-screeed. To count them in a justification of an international arrivals facility would be wrong.

My error was in assuming people would recognize that in this discussion of an international arrivals facility I pulled all flights which one would reasonable expect to utilize such a facility. I should have been more explicit.

LAX772LR wrote:

Which BTW are woefully outdated, and no longer representative of anything. I realize that they might be the last publicly available, but still: since then, MSY has gained two scheduled European flights, increased service to Mexico, holiday scheduled service to Honduras, and additional capacity to Canada and Panama. RDU has also gained a second European flight.

This is the most recently-available full-year of data. The challenge with using anything other than this sort of data is that charters make up a large portion of international arrivals at these airports which must clear customs. And with quite a bit of seasonality in these charter flights, what operates in any particular portion of a year is not representative. Certainly anything more creative to try to reflect more recent (and upcoming) service changes would require "manipulation".

The information I posted in the context of this discussion was simply a quick illustration of the sort of flight and passenger volume seen in the past, with several other medium airports for comparison.

You are of course more than welcome to compile your own numbers and share them with the community.

LAX772LR wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

The Canada one, however, is not.

The FAA would beg to differ... the requirement for FIS availability is their concern for pre-cleared flights, the actual use thereof is immaterial.

Just ask AS, if you'd rather not hear it from me:
They quite publicly had a flight to SNA turned around, despite perfectly operational pre-clearance on the Canadian side, as the former's FIS wasn't yet operational; then were forced to discontinue that schedule and provide refunds until further notice.

The larger discussion is not about the necessity of FIS itself. It's about justification for a new international arrivals terminal, and pretty much zero passengers coming from airports like Toronto YYZ ever set foot in such a facility. Every passenger from places like Cancun, London, and Guadalajara does.

knope2001 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

knope2001 wrote:

I excluded flights from Canadian as (at least the flights to these cities) they have pre-clearance and they don't use FIS.

Which is both incorrect and fallacious as (1) not all transborder Canadian flights (even from airports WITH pre-clearance) are pre-cleared; and (2) pre-clearance still requires active and available FIS at the inbound airfield before the outbound can depart.

Somebody raised the question if there was volume at MKE to justify constructing a new facility to primarily serve international arrivals. The numbers I pulled were in that context to show comparable volume of select other mid-sized airports.

For the practical purpose of how many commercial flights and passengers used the international arrival infrastructure at these airports, the exclusion of Canadian arrivals is necessary. I believe all the 2015 arrivals at these particular airports came from Canadian airports whose US flights are routinely pre-screeed. To count them in a justification of an international arrivals facility would be wrong.

My error was in assuming people would recognize that in this discussion of an international arrivals facility I pulled all flights which one would reasonable expect to utilize such a facility. I should have been more explicit.

LAX772LR wrote:

Which BTW are woefully outdated, and no longer representative of anything. I realize that they might be the last publicly available, but still: since then, MSY has gained two scheduled European flights, increased service to Mexico, holiday scheduled service to Honduras, and additional capacity to Canada and Panama. RDU has also gained a second European flight.

This is the most recently-available full-year of data. The challenge with using anything other than this sort of data is that charters make up a large portion of international arrivals at these airports which must clear customs. And with quite a bit of seasonality in these charter flights, what operates in any particular portion of a year is not representative. Certainly anything more creative to try to reflect more recent (and upcoming) service changes would require "manipulation".

The information I posted in the context of this discussion was simply a quick illustration of the sort of flight and passenger volume seen in the past, with several other medium airports for comparison.

You are of course more than welcome to compile your own numbers and share them with the community.

Lack of updated figures doesn't help us, but they still provide historical precedent and trend of service.

In response to the RDU and MSY comment: RDU is the only airport within 160 miles of CLT to have nonstop, Trans-Atlantic service and their AA LHR service is/was partially subsidized by a few companies in the area, (If my memory serves correctly). As for the MSY area, 348 miles to IAH.

Point being: MSY and RDU are two airports that don't have the likes of ORD to compete with for international traffic and have a big surrounding market to grab pax from, with no competition for nonstop service. ORD is no more than 2ish hours from downtown Milwaukee depending on traffic (not to mention less time from most Southern WI suburbs). Yet, MKE still has demand for international service. This isn't to poo-poo MSY or RDU, but the market factors are not the same for MKE, MSY or RDU.

TVNWZ wrote:

knope2001 wrote:

I do think the current E got a bad rap in some ways -- the rotunda was very roomy after the build-out and in recent years when only United and Air Canada used it security was virtually always a breeze. The most recent face lift helped as well. But it just didn't have the space...and in recent years the activity...to offer modern levels of amentiies. For those not familiar it had a single food/drink option which was a smallish combined restaurant-bar, and a single news stand. And with only 20-ish departures per day it didn't exactly give a bustling impression to visitors.

I never care much for food and drink options at arrival and departure airports. I, maybe, ate at the small restaurant on E 10 times in 20 years. The same for my other destination airports including TPA which has a robust variety of offerings. I hardly ever think, "hey, I'll just get something at the airport." And if I do it's a coffee and muffin. Food and drink are more important at the hubs. There you may have a layover around a meal time and want to get something. I have eaten often in MSP, DTW, ATL and MEM (back in the day.)

But, these days airport, and particularly airport directors, want nice showy palaces for their resumes to they can show a bigger airport what they are capable of. Restaurants are a part of that.

The restaurant by the bookstore in MKE was decent. Speaking about bookstores that one in MKE is a GEM!!!! I love it !
Gotta love the old Cheers in the old DTW Between E & F concourses. The Biscuits & Gravy was awesome.
In the new Mc Namara Fuddruckers at end of C awesome Chili fries and the free lettuce and tomatoes and condiments. Online cafe for awesome Breakfasts cheap too. Chilis for a decent meal also.
MEM Who can go wrong with Corky's and Interstate BBQ.
MSP uh all I had time to do is go to the Burger King and get a grilled chicken sandwich and salad and get my arse to my connecting flight

MKE22 wrote:

In response to the RDU and MSY comment: RDU is the only airport within 160 miles of CLT to have nonstop, Trans-Atlantic service and their AA LHR service is/was partially subsidized by a few companies in the area, (If my memory serves correctly). As for the MSY area, 348 miles to IAH.

Point being: MSY and RDU are two airports that don't have the likes of ORD to compete with for international traffic and have a big surrounding market to grab pax from, with no competition for nonstop service.

Which, as presented, doesn't mean much. Using distance doesn't paint the picture you might be thinking, because it fails to take density into account.

Sure there's 305mi between MSY and IAH, but in 13 parishes (counties) separating the two metros, you have less than 1.5 million people, and 1 Fortune500. Would have to look up specific density to be sure, but I'd wager that there's more of both within the 67mi between MKE and ORD.

MKE22 wrote:

but the market factors are not the same for MKE, MSY or RDU.

....did anyone ever claim they were?

DTWLUVER wrote:

TVNWZ wrote:

knope2001 wrote:

I do think the current E got a bad rap in some ways -- the rotunda was very roomy after the build-out and in recent years when only United and Air Canada used it security was virtually always a breeze. The most recent face lift helped as well. But it just didn't have the space...and in recent years the activity...to offer modern levels of amentiies. For those not familiar it had a single food/drink option which was a smallish combined restaurant-bar, and a single news stand. And with only 20-ish departures per day it didn't exactly give a bustling impression to visitors.

Airport directors, want nice showy palaces for their resumes to they can show a bigger airport what they are capable of. Restaurants are a part of that.

MEM Who can go wrong with Corky's and Interstate BBQ.

That place is awesome, wish I could connect in MEM still!!

LAX772LR wrote:

MKE22 wrote:

but the market factors are not the same for MKE, MSY or RDU.

....did anyone ever claim they were?

Knope's data brought up MSY and RDU, amongst others as a similar market comparison. You mentioned both gained more international service since 2015, when you also called the most recent data available "no longer representative of anything"? Not sure what else Knope would have meant by "comparable volume of select other mid-sized airports". Did you have newer data to share??

MKE22 wrote:

DTWLUVER wrote:

TVNWZ wrote:

Airport directors, want nice showy palaces for their resumes to they can show a bigger airport what they are capable of. Restaurants are a part of that.

MEM Who can go wrong with Corky's and Interstate BBQ.

That place is awesome, wish I could connect in MEM still!!

LAX772LR wrote:

....did anyone ever claim they were?

Knope's data brought up MSY and RDU, amongst others as a similar market comparison. You mentioned both gained more international service since 2015, when you also called the most recent data available "no longer representative of anything"? Not sure what else Knope would have meant by "comparable volume of select other mid-sized airports". Did you have newer data to share??

I would do a Mileage run on NW Just for some Corky's and Interstate BBQ . Was the envy of the plane a Corky's in one hand and a interstate BBQ in the other . F/A;s said I hope you brought enough for the whole plane. I said uh no sorry . As I am sitting there enjoying my 35,000 feet picnic in the skies ! Hey wanna meet in MEM for a BBQ?

MKE22 wrote:

Did you have newer data to share??

For MSY, yes.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0

Int'l stats are the last tab along the bottom. Even discounting Canada, total int'l for 2016 was nearly double the stat posted above.

Foreign traffic grew a lot in 2015 (in fact, IINM, MSY was the highest growing medium-Hub for international that year, and that's not even counting the addition of MSY-LHR, MSY-FRA, MSY-SAP, and extra traffic to YYZ and CUN).... but it didn't grow THAT much faster than 2015.

Those Interested can bother with the others.

LAX772LR wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

The Canada one, however, is not.

The FAA would beg to differ... the requirement for FIS availability is their concern for pre-cleared flights, the actual use thereof is immaterial.

Just ask AS, if you'd rather not hear it from me:
They quite publicly had a flight to SNA turned around, despite perfectly operational pre-clearance on the Canadian side, as the former's FIS wasn't yet operational; then were forced to discontinue that schedule and provide refunds until further notice.

How are things done at OGG? Both AC and WS fly daily into OGG which doesn't have an international arrivals area. They may have on-call customs agents but no dedicated on-site staff to my knowledge.

I believe LIH is the same way.

When I worked at an FBO in HNL a few years back international arrivals (excl. Canada) would fly into HNL to clear customs then make the short hope to OGG. I used to meet the aircraft out on the ramp.

77H

77H wrote:

How are things done at OGG? Both AC and WS fly daily into OGG which doesn't have an international arrivals area. They may have on-call customs agents but no dedicated on-site staff to my knowledge.

You don't need a specifically-purposed building per se, nor permanent staff; just the proven ability to segregate and process the expectant amount of arriving/diverting traffic.

I cannot speak for OGG, as I don't know what their procedures are.... but BTR is an example of this:



The blue area housing gate B2 can be fenced off with a portable metal-fence barrier, that has a small door on the right.

Customs officers and mobile processing units at the nearby Port of Baton Rouge, are on-call and can respond in 30min or less; processing the arrivals and monitoring who goes in and out of the temporarily-sterile area. Therefore, BTR, which doesn't have an actual int'l arrivals area, can still process even mainline-sized int'l flights, precleared or otherwise.

Not that it gets any, but it can. This setup was created with the long-term goal of securing seasonal CUN service. I was working as an intern there in 2001 when it first went into effect.

DTWLUVER wrote:

MKE22 wrote:

DTWLUVER wrote:

That place is awesome, wish I could connect in MEM still!!

Knope's data brought up MSY and RDU, amongst others as a similar market comparison. You mentioned both gained more international service since 2015, when you also called the most recent data available "no longer representative of anything"? Not sure what else Knope would have meant by "comparable volume of select other mid-sized airports". Did you have newer data to share??

I would do a Mileage run on NW Just for some Corky's and Interstate BBQ . Was the envy of the plane a Corky's in one hand and a interstate BBQ in the other . F/A;s said I hope you brought enough for the whole plane. I said uh no sorry . As I am sitting there enjoying my 35,000 feet picnic in the skies ! Hey wanna meet in MEM for a BBQ?

I think Corky's is gone, but Interstate is still there. With all the construction in MEM things are changing fast. I do not get to MEM anymore. And if I get a hankering for Q, I just mail order it! Also, in Memphis, the most popular place always appeared to be Lenny's Sub Shop. Who knew?

LAX772LR wrote:

For MSY, yes.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... edit#gid=0

Int'l stats are the last tab along the bottom. Even discounting Canada, total int'l for 2016 was nearly double the stat posted above.

Foreign traffic grew a lot in 2015 (in fact, IINM, MSY was the highest growing medium-Hub for international that year, and that's not even counting the addition of MSY-LHR, MSY-FRA, MSY-SAP, and extra traffic to YYZ and CUN).... but it didn't grow THAT much faster than 2015.

Those Interested can bother with the others.

For RDU (through April):

44336 (Arrivals from all Int'l flights)
32684 (minus Canada)

If we annualize that for all of 2017 it comes out to:

133008 (all Int'l arrivals)*
98052 (minus Canada)*

*The actual numbers will likely be higher as DL has upgauged CDG from 752 -> 763 effective this week and AA upgauged LHR to the 777 in March I think.

Source: RDUAA

LAX772LR wrote:

77H wrote:

How are things done at OGG? Both AC and WS fly daily into OGG which doesn't have an international arrivals area. They may have on-call customs agents but no dedicated on-site staff to my knowledge.

You don't need a specifically-purposed building per se, nor permanent staff; just the proven ability to segregate and process the expectant amount of arriving/diverting traffic.

I cannot speak for OGG, as I don't know what their procedures are.... but BTR is an example of this:



The blue area housing gate B2 can be fenced off with a portable metal-fence barrier, that has a small door on the right.

Customs officers and mobile processing units at the nearby Port of Baton Rouge, are on-call and can respond in 30min or less; processing the arrivals and monitoring who goes in and out of the temporarily-sterile area. Therefore, BTR, which doesn't have an actual int'l arrivals area, can still process even mainline-sized int'l flights, precleared or otherwise.

Not that it gets any, but it can. This setup was created with the long-term goal of securing seasonal CUN service. I was working as an intern there in 2001 when it first went into effect.

For that setup at BTR, how would baggage/customs be handled? Would there also be barriers put around one of the baggage claims and everyone walking out with a bag have to hand their form to the officer or would all baggage be collected on the jetway and customs done right after immigration (which then causes a checked baggage in the sterile hallway problem).

drdisque wrote:

For that setup at BTR, how would baggage/customs be handled? Would there also be barriers put around one of the baggage claims and everyone walking out with a bag have to hand their form to the officer or would all baggage be collected on the jetway and customs done right after immigration (which then causes a checked baggage in the sterile hallway problem).

In the time to set up the segregated sterile area barriers and processing eqp (keeping in mind that this gate does see scheduled service, so it can't be erected too far ahead of time), baggage would be unloaded, brought into the sterilized area for pickup, and pax with something to declare can be addressed there.

That's the plan anyway. Can't speak as to how efficient it is/isn't, as I've never gotten to see it in action.

DTWLUVER wrote:

MKE22 wrote:

DTWLUVER wrote:

That place is awesome, wish I could connect in MEM still!!

Knope's data brought up MSY and RDU, amongst others as a similar market comparison. You mentioned both gained more international service since 2015, when you also called the most recent data available "no longer representative of anything"? Not sure what else Knope would have meant by "comparable volume of select other mid-sized airports". Did you have newer data to share??

I would do a Mileage run on NW Just for some Corky's and Interstate BBQ . Was the envy of the plane a Corky's in one hand and a interstate BBQ in the other . F/A;s said I hope you brought enough for the whole plane. I said uh no sorry . As I am sitting there enjoying my 35,000 feet picnic in the skies ! Hey wanna meet in MEM for a BBQ?

Haha wish I had the time and miles. For now, I "settle" for Smoke Shack in Milwaukee, amazing food and live music there.

Wonder if they're going to eventually go forward with the consolidated security checkpoint/terminal connector at MKE?

rj777 wrote:

Wonder if they're going to eventually go forward with the consolidated security checkpoint/terminal connector at MKE?

They put out an RFP (request for proposal) back in January for this and bids were due earlier this month: "Request For Proposals: Lease, Develop, And Manage Or Operate Food And Beverage, News/Convenience, Retail, And Sevices Concessions At General Mitchell International Airport" A combined security checkpoint is part of the project.

https://www.mitchellairport.com/business-opportunities

A recent story in the Milwaukee Business Times gives some update on both the checkpoint and international concourse projects.

https://www.biztimes.com/2017/magazines ... y-is-busy/

knope2001 wrote:

rj777 wrote:

Wonder if they're going to eventually go forward with the consolidated security checkpoint/terminal connector at MKE?

They put out an RFP (request for proposal) back in January for this and bids were due earlier this month: "Request For Proposals: Lease, Develop, And Manage Or Operate Food And Beverage, News/Convenience, Retail, And Sevices Concessions At General Mitchell International Airport" A combined security checkpoint is part of the project.

https://www.mitchellairport.com/business-opportunities

A recent story in the Milwaukee Business Times gives some update on both the checkpoint and international concourse projects.

https://www.biztimes.com/2017/magazines ... y-is-busy/[/quote
==================================================================================================


As long as they do not touch that Bookstore at MKE it is the best bookstore in a airport worldwide.

DTWLUVER wrote:

They put out an RFP (request for proposal) back in January for this and bids were due earlier this month: "Request For Proposals: Lease, Develop, And Manage Or Operate Food And Beverage, News/Convenience, Retail, And Sevices Concessions At General Mitchell International Airport" A combined security checkpoint is part of the project.

https://www.mitchellairport.com/business-opportunities

A recent story in the Milwaukee Business Times gives some update on both the checkpoint and international concourse projects.

https://www.biztimes.com/2017/magazines ... y-is-busy/[/quote
==================================================================================================


As long as they do not touch that Bookstore at MKE it is the best bookstore in a airport worldwide.

This is the article I was looking for, thank you! So looks like they are going ahead with the potential redesign of E, but I also remember hearing rumors of the mentioned centralized security checkpoint for some time as well. Plus they are targeting MKE-MIA, MKE-RDU and foreshadowed WN's new MKE-BNA service. I will be very eager to see how MKE differs in service level and design a few years from now.

I just flew out of MKE on DL out of D today and there are enough gates available to bring back Midwest.

The former NWA people I talked with say there are some asbestos issues over in E. We'll see.

But really...to me the airport, at least D and E, is a step-back to a decade ago when I lived there. I walk the all the way out to D and it's nothing but empty boarding areas with former Midwest boarding podiums and 3 inches of dust and permanent jet bridges peeling paint. Sad look.

Canadian flights are not relevant as you clear customs & immigration on the Canada side, especially since there is no exit immigration checking in the US.