View Full Version : Will Rogers Airport Master Plan Update



venture
07-22-2009, 02:13 PM
Heads up From: OKC Airport Master Plan Revision/Update — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4492288/)

----

Link in the original post seems to die, here is the link to everything covered today:

http://okc.gov/AgendaPub/pubmtgframe.aspx?meetid=670&doctype=AGENDA

Comments:
Okay going through the report...

New Runway the Future 17R/35L which would be west of the current one, will be initially for visual flight guidelines and used by military and general aviation. It won't be upgraded to be used for air carrier use (for precision approaches anyway) until later. It will eventually over Cat I approach abilities.

Runway 18/36 a smaller one that is part of Taxiway Bravo will be left open until they relocate the taxiway and then it will be done away with.

Other Runway Details - 2019 through 2028
- New 17R/13L is estimated at just under $30M
- 17L/35R extension at $17M
- Current 17R/35L extension at $14M
- Extend 13/31 at $16M
- The airport is roughly running at 60% of airfield capacity right now with existing facilities and runways.

Terminal Details
- 9 Gate east concourse
- Additional of "architecturally significant" structures on the north side of the terminal.
- Prelim Engineering for expansion will start in 2010 and cost around $600K.
- Bag Inspection System upgraded in 2010 as well - $19M in costs
- East concourse for 2011 & 2012 at a cost of $24.7M each year...so just under $50M for the concourse.
- 20 year forecasts call for need for 22-24 gates, compared to the current 17. The east concourse would offer 25-27 gates depending on configuration.
- Airline check in positions meets long term needs, no additional spots required.
- Third south concourse is a very long term option should things grow fast.

OKCisOK4me
07-23-2009, 10:12 AM
Nice to see they have it in their future to build that east concourse!

Patrick
07-23-2009, 10:48 AM
I just don't see where we're going to be needing that many gates. We're not using all of the gates we have now, and airlines are cutting back.

venture
07-23-2009, 11:15 AM
Master plan is just that...something to guide them in the future should the need arrive. Looking at the comments, the only reason for additional gates is the morning push where they don't have enough right now. I would expect the construction start to be pushed back much later than 2011.

sgray
07-23-2009, 11:53 AM
I just don't see where we're going to be needing that many gates. We're not using all of the gates we have now, and airlines are cutting back.

Ahhh, yes. Right now, we are using 13 gates total for all the carriers and have 4 gates open! While airlines may be cutting back now, you have to look at the fact that they are also flying lots of little RJs now. Some, if not most, of the major carriers are doing away with 50 seaters and using the 70 seaters as their small RJ. I know Delta's current plan is total elimination of the 50-seater.

Take Delta for example. We needed 3 gates when we had mainline, charters, and lots of RJs. Just for Delta alone, right now, we have no mainline service at all (although a crappy NW DC9 is on the way), no charters for the most part (just occasional, not scheduled service anymore), and 18 RJ flights a day to six hubs ! Now think about what is going to happen when Delta finishes dismantling Northwest... 18 RJs a day is nuts for a station our size. Sure, it is very convenient for the customers, but there is no need for such frequent service to so many hubs in such close proximity to each other. Without a doubt, as Delta starts refining the schedule and equipment, and closing or downsizing hubs (you know they've got to), we should see less gate utilization there.

I just don't foresee any existing carriers trying to acquire more gates, especially at a station this size. Even if they did, 9 more gates just for the east concourse??? In addition to the 4 we have open now. That makes 13 more gates...DOUBLE what we are using now. Then there's this south concourse idea...I mean, really...what influx of carriers do you see coming in the next 20 years??? Or 30, 40, 50 years??? Is OKC secretly planning to be a small hub or focus city for a carrier??? The skies are so crowded that they are gonna have to start using less planes with more capacity on each just to get to a decent level of service. If anything, I could see carriers operating multiple flights on each gate should the need arise. United does this on gate 3 occasionally (notice multiple J-lines) mainly for irregular operations. ExpressJet did it with all their flights on Gate 12! Remember that, xjet ran all their flights (2 at a time) on ONE GATE!The hubs do it with most regional flights. A downside is pax have to board planeside on the ramp...but they're used to it in hubs, so does it really matter? The airlines see the $$$ savings on buying more gates.

I think building the east structure is okay, but be realistic with it. Why not just install gates on the south side of it for now, or something like that. Make it so that more gates can be installed in a short period if need be, but no gates on the north side of the new structure...I dunno...something a little more realistic, since we still have FOUR GATES to offer on the opposite end! You know?

venture
07-23-2009, 12:36 PM
Calm down a bit SGray. Again go back to the comment of what a master plan is. These are "for sure" things that will happen...these are things they would like to do in the long term. If they proceed with any project, they need to make sure it isn't interfere with any long term possibilities. So they create this long term land use plan to show the layout of what they would like the airport to look like if they proceed with all of the projects - which they wont.

The south concourse idea falls right in line with that. It is a land use plan in case there is ever a need for it - they want to have to worry about rebuilding the taxiways again that they plan on doing in the next few years. Will it ever be needed? Probably not - and they even state as such if you read the report. It is all about being prepared *IF* the need would come up. If you are wanting to see what influx of passengers they are expecting, I would recommend actually reading the report as they do have passengers forecasts in there for about next 30-40 years - which really don't mean much, but provides insight in why they are looking at several options.

Do we need 9 more gates right now? Not at all. I would be shocked if we need them in the next 20 years. However, I still would like to see the concourse built. I would also rather they take an initiative and reduce the number of gates by including an FIS facility so we can get some nonstop charter work to Mexico again (this time without the stop in Dallas coming back).

I would definitely expect consolidation to come from Delta, mainly in the form of completely dismantling the Cincinnati hub. ATL, DTW, MSP, and SLC are all safe. MEM is up in the air, but so far as been rather untouched.

Jesseda
07-23-2009, 12:39 PM
at one point this past 12 months all the gates in okc where rented out with none available, now that was at one point..i hope we get more direct flight to pick back up again..

venture
07-23-2009, 12:59 PM
at one point this past 12 months all the gates in okc where rented out with none available, now that was at one point..i hope we get more direct flight to pick back up again..

There was mention in the report of going to Common Use gates, but i think these may be from the 2007 version which this report originated from. For those that aren't familiar, essentially no airline would be assigned to a specific gate. Any airline could use any gate depending on the situation or flow of traffic at that time. The monitors at the gate would simply just display that airline's logo and flight info. Considering we have customized gate counters for most airlines - the policy isn't in effect as of yet.

sgray
07-23-2009, 01:51 PM
Again go back to the comment of what a master plan is.

That's exactly my point. The master plan is whack and represents nothing that is actually hurting us, either now, or in the future (like remote pad space or facility space for ops just to name a couple...ah hem..ah hem). The master plan only represents things that look cool to the planners--the very same reason we have to work in the same amount of space now that we had before the construction. But hey, now we've got a tall ceiling in the terminal...yay! Don't get me wrong. The terminal has a nice, appealing look for the passengers, but we need to push these folks to address operational needs as well as looks.


These are "for sure" things that will happen...these are things they would like to do in the long term.

That's what I am getting at... the "why" of it... I showed this to some of my co-workers at the airport and they were like, "huh?...oh yeah, this is okc...makes sense now" And quite a few of these folks have been in the industry a looong time and have worked at hubs in addition to other stations.


So they create this long term land use plan to show the layout of what they would like the airport to look like if they proceed with all of the projects - which they wont.

What they need to make a high priority is figuring out how to get the terminal pad out of the crunch it is in space-wise. You can buy 18 million acres on the outside of the property, but they've got the taxiways crammed in so tight to the terminal pad that they'd have to tear out multiple taxiways (and they have no room to move them) just to keep the same over-crunched pad they have now if they build either or both concourses. This comment is also very much true for the terminal itself...we have the most over-crowed bag room in existence. Even smaller airports have larger areas to work in (originally they hadn't planned on all of the tsa space needs, so they just robbed space to cover it (which hadn't grown with the new, larger terminal I might add)

So, the point is, you can plan whatever you like, but you have to make sure that you don't screw yourself by not thinking things through. Kind of like our facility having no potable water services in the master plan. What airport in existence has no potable water services plane-side? Inexperienced architects planned and built our facility without these services and had to come back and tear into walls and stuff to add it after the fact.


The south concourse idea falls right in line with that. It is a land use plan in case there is ever a need for it - they want to have to worry about rebuilding the taxiways again that they plan on doing in the next few years. Will it ever be needed? Probably not - and they even state as such if you read the report. It is all about being prepared *IF* the need would come up.

I read the report, but I didn't need to read the report. It was what I expected it to be.


If you are wanting to see what influx of passengers they are expecting, I would recommend actually reading the report as they do have passengers forecasts in there for about next 30-40 years - which really don't mean much, but provides insight in why they are looking at several options.

Several years ago, they had passenger forecasts showing last year and this year to be even busier than it was then. Need I say more?


Do we need 9 more gates right now? Not at all. I would be shocked if we need them in the next 20 years. However, I still would like to see the concourse built.

I'd like to see a copy of DIA built right here just so I could give tours of the grand facility. But why? That's the question man, I'm not getting worked up, I'm just simply asking the question...why? The east concourse is not really a long-term project, and that would leave us with 26 gates in the short-term IF built as-planned. We are only using 13 gates with all carriers now...none have plans to add in the short-term at all. If we somehow got some vacation charters back, that would only take a gate or two (max).

You also have to acknowledge my point on gate utilization. What happens if we build the east concourse with all the 9 gates and then carriers start running multiple ops on each gate? Then what? Who's paying for all that expansion then? Like I said, I'd love to build a superhub here with a denver-style runway layout and give tours of the facility all day long. I would buy planes from the boneyard to fill all the gates, install animatronic workers above and below-wing to make the operation appear active and place air-up passengers in all the seats prior to my tours. Totally.

I just want to see some options on the table for handling the east concourse. I think we should build the shell so we have the infrastructure in-place. I would love to see the old cargo building gone. That thing looks like a pile of trash behind a mansion with a perfect lawn.


I would also rather they take an initiative and reduce the number of gates by including an FIS facility so we can get some nonstop charter work to Mexico again (this time without the stop in Dallas coming back).

I'd like that too, man. So would most folks. But if we only have one flight a day using it (or two, let's say two just for the heck of it), then who is paying for the facility and personnel, equipment, etc??? I can tell you right now that the charter carriers won't be. Part of the reason Allegiant flies to airports out in the middle of BFE is because it's cheap. No additional terminal, gate, special checkpoint expenses, etc... And they can't pass those fees to the pax because then it makes the whole idea of discount vacation charters pointless. You bring up a great idea that is shared by many, we just have to justify it's existence.


I would definitely expect consolidation to come from Delta, mainly in the form of completely dismantling the Cincinnati hub. ATL, DTW, MSP, and SLC are all safe. MEM is up in the air, but so far as been rather untouched.

Umm... you may be right or wrong, but I work for them and I will only go as far as to say ATL is protected because 1) it is WHQ, and 2) DL is a 'southern company' and will not be headquartered any where north<--dont ask me, the internal mentality of the company is whack. SLC is protected (unless another airport gives away space for less $ or free) because it is the only west hub they have. I think MEM will go because I don't see the airport upgrading from the 800-year-old facilities just to please Delta...and doing so in a timely manner. Besides, they've already got Fedex on the grounds, so they don't lose everything.

sgray
07-23-2009, 01:56 PM
at one point this past 12 months all the gates in okc where rented out with none available, now that was at one point..i hope we get more direct flight to pick back up again..

Jesseda, where are you getting this information from?

Because I work out there and this is simply not the case. Other than an occasional 'by the hour' rental from a carrier for irrops, gate 1/11 hasn't been leased since Delta vacated it in early '07 (expressjet was going to use 11 but didn't ever do anything with it); gate 12 hasn't been leased since XJet vacated it; and gate 8 has been sitting since NW ops moved down to DL.


There was mention in the report of going to Common Use gates, but i think these may be from the 2007 version which this report originated from. For those that aren't familiar, essentially no airline would be assigned to a specific gate. Any airline could use any gate depending on the situation or flow of traffic at that time. The monitors at the gate would simply just display that airline's logo and flight info. Considering we have customized gate counters for most airlines - the policy isn't in effect as of yet.

This cannot work (as it is now) because every airline has their own computer res system (running on their own terminals and printers, etc) and you'd have to have one of every carrier's terminals/printers at the podium at each gate for boarding/ticketing purposes (not a pretty sight). Only exception would be this: some carriers that are in the same alliance program (or whatever the term is for it) have been slowly working towards using the same res/ops systems, so they'd probably be more open to sharing hardware within the alliance. But, not all carriers are on-board with this. Obviously, technology exists for them to login to a common workstation and open up a vpn link or other secure method of getting to the company's system. Many charter and regional carriers are embracing this...we've had carriers in here that ran vnc or citrix on a terminal (which could have easily been a common workstation because it was just connected to a standard DSL internet connection).

But that only addresses the usability factor--who is paying for the hardware, maintenance, printer supplies, etc...think about this real-world hurdle-->each carrier uses different ticket stock and each has their own logo on it, so they'd have to print everything on common, blank media like the kiosks do.


Dude, these airlines are not completely out of the stone-age...in fact they still have a complete leg in the stone-age.

venture
07-23-2009, 03:59 PM
That's exactly my point. The master plan is whack and represents nothing that is actually hurting us, either now, or in the future (like remote pad space or facility space for ops just to name a couple...ah hem..ah hem).

From the sounds of it, the ramp expansion for the terminal is happening no matter what. That should solve most of the remote pad parking issues for the airport. The relocation of the taxiways is part of the upgrades to the air side portion of the field.


What they need to make a high priority is figuring out how to get the terminal pad out of the crunch it is in space-wise. You can buy 18 million acres on the outside of the property, but they've got the taxiways crammed in so tight to the terminal pad that they'd have to tear out multiple taxiways (and they have no room to move them) just to keep the same over-crunched pad they have now if they build either or both concourses. This comment is also very much true for the terminal itself...we have the most over-crowed bag room in existence. Even smaller airports have larger areas to work in (originally they hadn't planned on all of the tsa space needs, so they just robbed space to cover it (which hadn't grown with the new, larger terminal I might add)

Ramp space is being addressed. The airline ops rooms and bag room...that is something the station managers needs to press on. If they aren't stressing to the Airport Trust the problems with the restrictions on the room space, then things will never be fixed. I didn't thoroughly read through the portion on the TSA baggage screening upgrades, but I would hope that the $19M being spent there will go towards improving the quality of the facility and the size.


So, the point is, you can plan whatever you like, but you have to make sure that you don't screw yourself by not thinking things through. Kind of like our facility having no potable water services in the master plan. What airport in existence has no potable water services plane-side? Inexperienced architects planned and built our facility without these services and had to come back and tear into walls and stuff to add it after the fact.

Sometimes simple things get overlooked. It costs them more to go back and fix, but that is why these master plans are public and why they hold meetings to receive feedback on them. I'm sure there are a lot of people that say "well I don't get paid to provide feedback" or "that's not my job to tell them"...anyone with a vested interest on the facility should be providing feedback.


Several years ago, they had passenger forecasts showing last year and this year to be even busier than it was then. Need I say more?

I don't think in 2007 we expected the full brunt of the recession we had, and no idea how it would play on the airlines. Regardless forecasts are as good as the data is at the time. Would you hold the same thing against the airline for passenger projections issued in 2000 when events unforeseen occurred the following year? Of course not.


You also have to acknowledge my point on gate utilization. What happens if we build the east concourse with all the 9 gates and then carriers start running multiple ops on each gate? Then what? Who's paying for all that expansion then?

I just want to see some options on the table for handling the east concourse. I think we should build the shell so we have the infrastructure in-place. I would love to see the old cargo building gone. That thing looks like a pile of trash behind a mansion with a perfect lawn.

The old belly cargo building will be removed and sounds like they'll be moving most to a newer building for all air cargo facilities.


I'd like that too, man. So would most folks. But if we only have one flight a day using it (or two, let's say two just for the heck of it), then who is paying for the facility and personnel, equipment, etc??? I can tell you right now that the charter carriers won't be. Part of the reason Allegiant flies to airports out in the middle of BFE is because it's cheap. No additional terminal, gate, special checkpoint expenses, etc... And they can't pass those fees to the pax because then it makes the whole idea of discount vacation charters pointless. You bring up a great idea that is shared by many, we just have to justify it's existence.

I would highly recommend you google and research the FIS facilities put in at Rockford and Lansing. Lansing is fairly new, cost only $20K to upgrade one of the gates, and since the announcement Apple Vacations announced new service to Cancun (I think maybe another place as well). Apple did the same thing in Rockford, and RFD has even gone as far as to talking to Mexican airlines to provide service there. An FIS facility to allow for international arrivals isn't as costly as many think - especially if it is worked into the East Concourse to allow 1-2 gates to be configured that way. Now just because a gate is FIS configured, doesn't mean that is all it can be used for. STL was an great example of international gates used for domestic services depending on the need.

Allegiant's strategy really doesn't rely on BFE airports Allentown, Greensboro, Columbia, Toledo, Fort Wayne, South Bend, Lexington, Colorado Springs, etc...these aren't middle of the corn field airports. Now Grand Ilse, NE is. : ) Their business is flying on routes that are under served, a few times per week, where they can fill 90% of an MD-80 and sell a ton of vacation packages as a SCHEDULED airline - they offer charters like every airline but the vast majority of flights they operate are schedule (Route Map | Airfare & Hotel Packages from Allegiant Air (http://www.allegiantair.com/aaRouteMap.php)). They save their money though at airports by outsourcing below and above wing services.


Umm... you may be right or wrong, but I work for them and I will only go as far as to say ATL is protected because 1) it is WHQ, and 2) DL is a 'southern company' and will not be headquartered any where north<--dont ask me, the internal mentality of the company is whack. SLC is protected (unless another airport gives away space for less $ or free) because it is the only west hub they have. I think MEM will go because I don't see the airport upgrading from the 800-year-old facilities just to please Delta...and doing so in a timely manner. Besides, they've already got Fedex on the grounds, so they don't lose everything.

If I remember right you came to DL from the NW side. What goes on in Fort Widget is always going to rule everything else. Yes they are a southern company with different ways of doing business, which hasn't been too bad for them. Granted they have a former NW CEO running the show now, but that is besides the point. DL will probably keep MEM a 3 bank hub since it seems to work well. CVG was just too close to DTW to make work. MEM has some spacing from ATL to help, and is a good reliever. Though, they've been a DL hub before...so we'll see how long it lasts this time (that is going way back in DL history too fyi).


This cannot work (as it is now) because every airline has their own computer res system (running on their own terminals and printers, etc) and you'd have to have one of every carrier's terminals/printers at the podium at each gate for boarding/ticketing purposes (not a pretty sight). Only exception would be this: some carriers that are in the same alliance program (or whatever the term is for it) have been slowly working towards using the same res/ops systems, so they'd probably be more open to sharing hardware within the alliance. But, not all carriers are on-board with this.

Oh it would take some money to convert things. Yeah I'm aware airlines are no out of the stone age yet - I've been in plenty of ops rooms to know hat. Its about the only place you can still find the good ol dot matrix printers. Some airports have done the common use thing with some success...Washington National being a prime one. Though I will say there some airlines are still assigned to specific concourses based on the size of their operation. US Airways of course has one concourse to themselves and then shares another with AA, UA, and F9.

sgray
07-23-2009, 05:44 PM
From the sounds of it, the ramp expansion for the terminal is happening no matter what. That should solve most of the remote pad parking issues for the airport. The relocation of the taxiways is part of the upgrades to the air side portion of the field.

Well one would hope...it's just that's what they said "last time". They need to "show" where and how they are going to do this.



Ramp space is being addressed. The airline ops rooms and bag room...that is something the station managers needs to press on.

In OKC, Station managers do not carry any weight whatsoever when it comes to getting the facility right. It takes the upper management at the airline making direct challenges to the airport to get things right. Why do you think Southwest has completely different, and higher quality, bag room equipment than most other carriers in OKC? Southwest is good at getting what they want and they put up a good fight, I'll give 'em that.

Hell, my station manager at DL couldn't get the airport to come paint the right markers on the J-lines and it took me bringing an FAA inspector down from the Washington office and them threatening the airport with fines before they would fix anything. That is just one example of the airport management's mentality here in OKC.



I didn't thoroughly read through the portion on the TSA baggage screening upgrades, but I would hope that the $19M being spent there will go towards improving the quality of the facility and the size.

Ha ha...



Sometimes simple things get overlooked. It costs them more to go back and fix, but that is why these master plans are public and why they hold meetings to receive feedback on them. I'm sure there are a lot of people that say "well I don't get paid to provide feedback" or "that's not my job to tell them"...anyone with a vested interest on the facility should be providing feedback.

Who the hell designs an airport without potable water servicing equipment??? Apparently, OKC won and holds that record.



I don't think in 2007 we expected the full brunt of the recession we had, and no idea how it would play on the airlines. Regardless forecasts are as good as the data is at the time. Would you hold the same thing against the airline for passenger projections issued in 2000 when events unforeseen occurred the following year? Of course not.

I'm not holding anything against them because they are just projections. This industry, just like everything else, has its ups and downs.

I support getting a structure in-place to build-out gates, but I think it should be on an "as-needed" basis. What would be so bad about setting the basic structure, placing some gates to start with, and have the option to fit a bunch more should the need arise? Then, if things stay the same, get worse, or get better, we're not hanging so much out on the line. We would be ready to handle any expansion needs and wouldn't be out so much cash if things didn't expand as fast as we hoped. You know?



I would highly recommend you google and research the FIS facilities put in at Rockford and Lansing. Lansing is fairly new, cost only $20K to upgrade one of the gates, and since the announcement Apple Vacations announced new service to Cancun (I think maybe another place as well). Apple did the same thing in Rockford, and RFD has even gone as far as to talking to Mexican airlines to provide service there. An FIS facility to allow for international arrivals isn't as costly as many think - especially if it is worked into the East Concourse to allow 1-2 gates to be configured that way. Now just because a gate is FIS configured, doesn't mean that is all it can be used for. STL was an great example of international gates used for domestic services depending on the need.

I'll say it again, I think (as do many others) that having the set-up for it would be great. What is the cost to us given the realistic loads we could expect?



Allegiant's strategy really doesn't rely on BFE airports Allentown, Greensboro, Columbia, Toledo, Fort Wayne, South Bend, Lexington, Colorado Springs, etc...these aren't middle of the corn field airports. Now Grand Ilse, NE is. : ) Their business is flying on routes that are under served, a few times per week, where they can fill 90% of an MD-80 and sell a ton of vacation packages as a SCHEDULED airline - they offer charters like every airline but the vast majority of flights they operate are schedule (Route Map | Airfare & Hotel Packages from Allegiant Air (http://www.allegiantair.com/aaRouteMap.php)). They save their money though at airports by outsourcing below and above wing services.

Nobody said our charters carriers weren't operating scheduled service here. I've worked Allegiant for quite some time, as well as the period they took over from Champion, flying MLTs runs. I would encourage you to research our rates and fees here at OKC airport versus some of the others they fly to. We are not all that cheap.


If I remember right you came to DL from the NW side. What goes on in Fort Widget is always going to rule everything else. Yes they are a southern company with different ways of doing business, which hasn't been too bad for them. Granted they have a former NW CEO running the show now, but that is besides the point. DL will probably keep MEM a 3 bank hub since it seems to work well. CVG was just too close to DTW to make work. MEM has some spacing from ATL to help, and is a good reliever. Though, they've been a DL hub before...so we'll see how long it lasts this time (that is going way back in DL history too fyi).

Yeah, but I used to work for DL back when we had the Champion charters, and mainline service, and both before and after the move to the new gates. I've worked for four carriers and not just in OKC...I've worked in a hub as well.




Oh it would take some money to convert things. Yeah I'm aware airlines are no out of the stone age yet - I've been in plenty of ops rooms to know hat. Its about the only place you can still find the good ol dot matrix printers. Some airports have done the common use thing with some success...Washington National being a prime one. Though I will say there some airlines are still assigned to specific concourses based on the size of their operation. US Airways of course has one concourse to themselves and then shares another with AA, UA, and F9.

Well, the question is...who takes over that part of the infrastructure? Obviously the airport or some other entity set-up by the airlines or whatever. The airlines themselves have a pretty up-to-date network infrastructure...they are just hard-headed on the most elementary of all problems. For exmaple, they spend tons of $$$ on writing software and rolling out scanners to track baggage, but they dont include cargo tracking in that software!!!??? So we have to do that by hand...That's stupid. Their mainframes are already running terminal sessions over their IP network, so setting up vpn's and terminal sessions should be a piece of cake, right? Or even vnc/rdp/citrix...anything! Other large companies have perfected this process for years and years...you know that as well as I do. The regional and charter carriers are already doing it.

OUman
07-23-2009, 09:55 PM
Sounds like our airport is not as well-managed as I once thought...

I did read some stuff though about taxiway edge lights on taxiways Alpha, Echo and Hotel being upgraded on the OKC Airport trust meetings page.

On another note, yeah, most of the new stuff won't be required for at least the next ten years barring a major development (like a cargo hub, unlikely with the mega-monster DFW sucking away any potential cargo growth here). Or if Oklahoma City's population experiences a growth spurt and approaches 2 million or goes above, also very unlikely. I also don't see why a runway extension of the east runway to 12,000 feet is required, the largest aircraft OKC handles today is Fedex's 300/310 on a regular basis, which the current runway length can easily handle. Now ARINC does have some maintainence contracts which it handles at its new facility and there's some potential of expansion of its ops there so that might be a possibility. With the recession in place, and looking at the latest passenger traffic numbers (anyone see those?) showing large decreases this year, it will be a while before the magic 5 million/yr mark is reached, supposedly that's when the bigger jets start showing up. So yes, it's always good to have a plan in place but these are things that will likely not be needed anytime in the forseeable future.

venture
07-24-2009, 12:35 AM
RITA | BTS | Transtats (http://www.transtats.bts.gov/airports.asp?pn=1&Airport=OKC&Airport_Name=Oklahoma) City, OK: Will Rogers World&carrier=FACTS

Last 12 months ending in April, we are down almost 11% in total pax for the same period ending April 08. Schedule flights are down 16%.

I would be interested in knowing if any outbound flights are weight restricted, like CO to EWR or even United Express to IAD or LAX. That could be a good reason for the extension of the runway. Could also argue that this impacts air cargo development as well. Though the major air cargo companies in the US aren't looking at expanding. FedEx and UPS are good with the hubs they have. DHL is shutting down Wilmington and moving everything to Cincinnati as well as moving some through BAX's hub in TOL.

OUman
07-24-2009, 07:33 AM
^A fully-loaded ERJ/CRJ at max MTOW (maximum takeoff weight) will not need an 8,000ft runway much less a 12,000ft one, unless I'm really off on something. Fully loaded RJs routinely takeoff from runways at airports like those in Lexington, Knoxville, Erie, etc. all of which have relatively short runways. Cargo flights, yes, the "heavies" like the 744F would require a longer runway takeoff length, especially during our hot summer months, but as the Master Plan itself states, OKC has experienced a large fall in cargo traffic since 2000, and I'm sure you've heard about air cargo having huge declines worldwide (which why airlines like Cathay Pacific Cargo and others are parking planes). DHL essentially shut down its U.S. air operations (or will be soon) and BAX Global only has a handful of planes that are run between major world hubs. So unless OKC gets a regional cargo hub, that runway extension won't be required. Fedex currently has its 310s and 300s but those may get replaced with the 757BCFs at OKC.

Jesseda
07-24-2009, 07:46 AM
11 percent same with parking believe it or not here at the airport .. the new garage is planned to open ina couple months, but that doesnt really help because the old garage is going to close for about a year to update and fix some problems. So parking will be just the same, garage closes almost every morning before 8 a.m then the cover shuttle, and recelently these past 3 weeks our large shuttle lot has been closing, so for july the traffic seems to up compared to last year

venture
07-24-2009, 09:32 AM
^A fully-loaded ERJ/CRJ at max MTOW (maximum takeoff weight) will not need an 8,000ft runway much less a 12,000ft one, unless I'm really off on something. Fully loaded RJs routinely takeoff from runways at airports like those in Lexington, Knoxville, Erie, etc. all of which have relatively short runways. Cargo flights, yes, the "heavies" like the 744F would require a longer runway takeoff length, especially during our hot summer months, but as the Master Plan itself states, OKC has experienced a large fall in cargo traffic since 2000, and I'm sure you've heard about air cargo having huge declines worldwide (which why airlines like Cathay Pacific Cargo and others are parking planes). DHL essentially shut down its U.S. air operations (or will be soon) and BAX Global only has a handful of planes that are run between major world hubs. So unless OKC gets a regional cargo hub, that runway extension won't be required. Fedex currently has its 310s and 300s but those may get replaced with the 757BCFs at OKC.

You also have consider the summer conditions in OKC that Erie, Knoxville, etc don't have. Knoxville actually has two parallel 9000' runways...so they are only 800' shorter than OKC. : ) There are going to be days in the summer when airlines have to run with their "hot & high" procedures and will end up taking up a lot of the runway. While we don't have the high altitude problem here, a stretch of 100F+ days is going to push things a bit.

As far as air cargo goes, heavy can include more than just the typical widebody. Have you every seen a fully loaded DC-8 on take off? But yeah, I understand the part where cargo has fallen off the map here in OKC, so it isn't a big deal. DHL shuts down Wilmington air operations today, but is relocating flights to Cincinnati this weekend. They are not shutting down all air service despite what a lot of people believe. Astar, ATI, and CCI are still going to be flying for them out of Cincy. BAX Global right now has roughly 20-30 flights a night at their TOL hub...all are operated by contract carriers (ATI, CCI, CargoJet Canada, Astar, and Atlas) since they are owned by a German company now.

If anything, only one runway should be extend out to 12,000'. That will allow any aircraft that is going to need the extra space on hot days to be able to go with all the bags loaded or without bumping pax.

okcpulse
07-24-2009, 09:45 AM
In all reality, management in most operations and companies in most cities are not good managers. The come out of college with a MBA, or some crap like that, pretending they know everything there is to know about how to run a company or facility. I've seen this many times before. I watched a guy run a glass plant into the ground here in Houston because he has no f-ing clue about how a plant runs. Thankfully, I left before they starting axing people.

If management at WWRA is running the airport like that, their ass needs to be fired, plain and simple.

sgray, since you work out there I have a question for you. Okay, now this is only hypothetical. Say Oklahoma City starts growing unexpectedly between 2010 and 2020, adding 600,000 new people to the MSA. How would that effect airport usage? Would airlines simply add flights to meet the demands or would there be a new hub created?

Jesseda
07-24-2009, 09:48 AM
now i usually dont talk all grat about tulsa, but for some reason i like there airport a lot better then ours,, i guess the layout, does anyone agree or disagree with me on this?

venture
07-24-2009, 10:50 AM
sgray, since you work out there I have a question for you. Okay, now this is only hypothetical. Say Oklahoma City starts growing unexpectedly between 2010 and 2020, adding 600,000 new people to the MSA. How would that effect airport usage? Would airlines simply add flights to meet the demands or would there be a new hub created?

Even though this was directed at sgray, I'll take a stab as well. If the 600,000 people are low yield travelers, then they mean nothing to the airlines. However, if there are a good mix of well paying jobs with those that increase the income level to allow for travel...air service will increase as needed. However if you just do basic figures and say the population is going up by what...50%...and then increase the air service by the same. All that would happen would be replacing RJs with 120-140 seat mainline aircraft in the market and that would be enough. An airline may try a focus city, but the days of new hubs in the country are over. The focus city also may not be anything that you would think either...don't expect an airline to drop 30-50 flights into this market. It'll kill it completely.

Existing service levels will probably remain and maybe increase slightly going forward...but don't expect anything else.

OKCisOK4me
07-24-2009, 01:30 PM
now i usually dont talk all grat about tulsa, but for some reason i like there airport a lot better then ours,, i guess the layout, does anyone agree or disagree with me on this?

Yes. I like their drop off/pick up area. I mean, I did before ours was redone.

chrisok
08-02-2009, 10:09 PM
(although a crappy NW DC9 is on the way),



Don't knock the old warhorse. Mainline is mainline. I know I'll probably be taking more Northwelta flights because of the DC-9 and the CR-900's. (At least until Oct. 24 when CO bolts from Skyteam.)

I'll take all the free upgrades I can get.