Milwaukee is an interesting conundrum. As far as a transcon hub, it's geographically in the right place, much like Detroit and Chicago and to a lesser degree Minneapolis. Though most Mercator map projections may lead to folks thinking that St. Louis, Kansas City or even Dallas are better 'half-way' points, this is not the case. Clearly, it's proximity to O'Hare is a problem for any airline trying to compete with AA or UA. The additional O&D traffic in Chicago allows frequent service to numerous destinations that Milwaukee can't support even as a pure hub. What I think Midwest has tried to do (in MKE at least), not so successfully, is service the numerous smaller communities to the west and north throughout Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa as an alternative to O'Hare by connecting them to bigger cities in the east and mid-west. Places like Green Bay, Appleton, OshKosh and Madison. As an airport, it's quite nice. Bright, recently built, and functional. A traveller can get in and out very rapidly. It's got a fantastic second hand book store (of all things!) right across from a Burger King where you can have a beer instead of a "King Size" pail of Coke. Matthew On Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 05:51 AM, Nick Laflamme wrote: > At 12:19 PM 5/13/2003 -0400, Alireza Alivandivafa wrote: >> I think Midwest's one problem was flying out of Milwauke. If they had >> that kind of service, at those prices, out of a better airport and >> more >> illustrious city, they would be making a killing. > > What airport do you suggest as a better hub? IND? I'm not sure it > counts as > either a more illustrious city or a better airport, but that's the best > candidate I can think of. DAY was once a hub, but it's even less > illustrious as a city, and, like IND, is close to an established hub, > DL's > CVG hub. > > What are MKE's faults as a hub, anyway? Weather? Age of the terminal? > Too > close to ORD? >