View Full Version : Commercial Airports



Pages : [1] 2

mranderson
05-13-2005, 07:58 AM
I have taken the time to search for the number of terminals of commercial airports in cities that are around the size of Oklahoma City. I used metro populations, not proper.

Here they are.

Nashville-Population: 1.3 million. Gates: Unknown

Hartford, CT-Population: 1.148 Million. Gates: 40

Louisville, KY- Population: 1.16 Million. Gates: 24

Richmond, VA-Population: 1.1 Million. Gates: 22

Memphis, TN-Population: 1.249 Million. Gates: 51

Sacramento, CA-Population: 1.8 Million. Gates: 27

Raleigh-Durham-Population: minimum of 1.2 million. Gates: 34

San Antonio-Population: 1.73 Million. Gates: 28

Orlando-Population 1.63 Million. Gates: 94

Columbus, OH-Population 1.61 Million. Gates: 37

Jacksonville, FL-Population 1.12 Million. Gates: 23 (expanding to 29)

Oklahoma City-Population 1.3 Million. Gates: 17

Humm. No wonder Oklahoma City has a commercial airport that is a joke which does not attract business.

JOHNINSOKC
05-13-2005, 08:16 AM
Nashville has 50 at least.

Decious
05-13-2005, 10:20 AM
Great post!

These are very telling numbers. Also, they are not skewed because I only see one major tourist destination, (Orlando), which has an airport the size of a city with three times it's population. San Antonio is a mid level tourist getaway that mainly attracts regional vacation enthusiasts. The remaining cities are no more of a tourist hotspot than OKC but clearly have much better developed air transit infrastructure. This is kinda embarrassing.

mranderson
05-13-2005, 10:24 AM
Great post!

These are very telling numbers. Also, they are not skewed because I only see one major tourist destination, (Orlando), which has an airport the size of a city with three times it's population. San Antonio is a mid level tourist getaway that mainly attracts regional vacation enthusiasts. The remaining cities are no more of a tourist hotspot than OKC but clearly have much better developed air transit infrastructure. This is kinda embarrassing.

My point exactly. They were taken somewhat at random after I saw populations.

FYI. I said number of terminals. I meant gates.

metro
05-13-2005, 11:18 AM
Yes, but also keep in mind Memphis is a transporation Mecca for goods and Nashville also has alot of tourism and alot of people flying in and out for business. Hartford gets alot of east coast traffic that can't fly into NYC directly.

mranderson
05-13-2005, 11:25 AM
Yes, but also keep in mind Memphis is a transporation Mecca for goods and Nashville also has alot of tourism and alot of people flying in and out for business. Hartford gets alot of east coast traffic that can't fly into NYC directly.

The gates are strictly passenger gates. I did not include numbers of flights. Yes. Nashville does have a fair tourist trade, and yes, Hartford is an alternant landing point for the New York City area. However, the point is simple. Oklahoma City has less gates than any city our size in the nation. What a shame. And, yes. VERY embarrasing.

ErnieBall
05-13-2005, 12:13 PM
Actually, for all the reasons pointed out previously, it's completely reasonable that we would have fewer gates. Less traffic means fewer gates, period. Now, that doesn't mean I think we're not dropping the ball in terms of attracting new airlines to our airport, but it's hardly embarrassing that we have fewer gates than Orlando or Memphis, etc.

mranderson
05-13-2005, 12:27 PM
Actually, for all the reasons pointed out previously, it's completely reasonable that we would have fewer gates. Less traffic means fewer gates, period. Now, that doesn't mean I think we're not dropping the ball in terms of attracting new airlines to our airport, but it's hardly embarrassing that we have fewer gates than Orlando or Memphis, etc.

No. The point is we are the same size as these cities and they have more gates. More gates means more traffic. More traffic means more revenue. More revenue means a nicer city. A nicer city means more business. More business means more residents. More residents means more tourists.

We need to build now. Not be a laughing stock like Will Rogers is now. I bet the reason some of these airlines are saying no is because WIll Rogers is too small.

Midtowner
05-13-2005, 12:45 PM
Nashville has 50 at least.

47

http://www.flynashville.com/about/history_bna.cfm

mranderson
05-13-2005, 12:47 PM
47

http://www.flynashville.com/about/history_bna.cfm

I searched all over that site, and could not find the gate count. That is why I reported it the way I did.

Midtowner
05-13-2005, 12:59 PM
I did some spot checking, San Antonio has 12 gates, at least at San Antonio International Airport

http://www.internationalairportguide.com/san_antonio_sat.html

Bradley International in Hartford has 28 gates

***

Spot checking these things, I'm calling your numbers into question. Where did you get them?

mranderson
05-13-2005, 01:02 PM
I did some spot checking, San Antonio has 12 gates, at least at San Antonio International Airport

http://www.internationalairportguide.com/san_antonio_sat.html

Bradley International in Hartford has 28 gates

***

Spot checking these things, I'm calling your numbers into question. Where did you get them?

Straight from the airport websites. I hand counted every gate in all of their terminals.

Your link is terminal two only. If you searched further, you would see the other gates are in terminal one, thus creating a count of 28. Hartford, in terminal two bringing the count to 40.

Midtowner
05-13-2005, 02:45 PM
Very good.. I guess that must be right. I couldn't find anything listing the total number of gates, except for with Bradley, I'm pretty sure it only has 28 gates, I forgot to cut/paste the site I found that for.

Even so, interesting information.

I think OKC is effected a lot by the fact that we're so close to DFW or St. Louis that direct flights are inefficient for many carriers.

I hope the US Airway/America West thing pans out though. It seems that may have a major impact.

mranderson
05-13-2005, 02:56 PM
Very good.. I guess that must be right. I couldn't find anything listing the total number of gates, except for with Bradley, I'm pretty sure it only has 28 gates, I forgot to cut/paste the site I found that for.

Even so, interesting information.

I think OKC is effected a lot by the fact that we're so close to DFW or St. Louis that direct flights are inefficient for many carriers.

I hope the US Airway/America West thing pans out though. It seems that may have a major impact.

Below the compass is a link that takes you to a popup. Click terminal one and let it load. You will find the rest of the gates. Total: 40

ErnieBall
05-13-2005, 02:57 PM
No. The point is we are the same size as these cities and they have more gates. More gates means more traffic. More traffic means more revenue. More revenue means a nicer city. A nicer city means more business. More business means more residents. More residents means more tourists.

We need to build now. Not be a laughing stock like Will Rogers is now. I bet the reason some of these airlines are saying no is because WIll Rogers is too small.

I agree that we need to build now. I just think your reasoning behind it is illogical.

More gates do not automatically mean more traffic. More gates could just mean wasted money. You can't put the cart before the horse. If we're going to continue with construction on the airport and double its capacity, as we should, we also need to be developing compelling arguments for why airlines should increase their usage of Will Rogers and why tourists should make OKC a destination. I think the city is working very hard to accomplish the latter, hence the reason I think we should be proceeding with the planned construction on the new east concourse at the airport, which can then be used to entice airlines to make Will Rogers a hub (maybe). Simply saying it's 'embarrassing' that we have less gates than cities of equal population with already established significant tourist attractions and existing airline hubs and that we should therefore build more gates is a non-sequitur. You donít invest millions of dollars in construction because you have ***** envy, you do it because there is a compelling business case for investing.

mranderson
05-13-2005, 03:00 PM
"I agree that we need to build now. I just think your reasoning behind it is illogical."

Let me guess. You would crowd a flightline while more gates are built. Have you ever heard of speculation? Investors do it all the time. That is what Will Rogers is... An investment.

Many business people have lost a lot of money by not taking a risk, and a city or any government is a business.

ErnieBall
05-13-2005, 03:11 PM
"I agree that we need to build now. I just think your reasoning behind it is illogical."

Let me guess. You would crowd a flightline while more gates are built. Have you ever heard of speculation? Investors do it all the time. That is what Will Rogers is... An investment.

Many business people have lost a lot of money by not taking a risk, and a city or any government is a business.

There is a big difference between calculated risk and speculation. Take a finance course and educate yourself.

BG918
05-13-2005, 03:36 PM
I think the only way OKC would build the new east concourse (and thus add new gates) is if America West or a similar airline made the announcement to make Will Rogers a small hub. Otherwise I highly doubt it will happen. I think OKC's chances of getting a small hub are fairly good though because of central location, plenty of expansion space at the airport, and a metro population nearing 1.5 million.

Pete
05-13-2005, 04:46 PM
MrAnderson and ErnieBall,

I think you both are saying the same thing, just in different ways.


And considering we all want what's best of OKC, I don't see any reason to snipe at one another.

Karried
05-13-2005, 05:44 PM
Amen MalibuSooner

Midtowner
05-13-2005, 06:06 PM
I don't think a couple of people disagreeing on an internet message board is going to effect what is "best for OKC". It is okay to disagree.

We musn't get our panties in a wad when two people don't see eye to eye.

Keith
05-13-2005, 08:02 PM
There is a big difference between calculated risk and speculation. Take a finance course and educate yourself.
Yes, there may be a disagreement on an issue, however, telling someone to take a finance course and educate themself is just about the same as saying they are stupid, which isn't a very nice thing to say. No panties in a wad here...just insinuations.

"I think you both are saying the same thing, just in different ways.

And considering we all want what's best of OKC, I don't see any reason to snipe at one another."
Agreed. So, let's get on with the thread, without the insinuations:wink: .

Midtowner
05-14-2005, 09:25 AM
Yes, there may be a disagreement on an issue, however, telling someone to take a finance course and educate themself is just about the same as saying they are stupid, which isn't a very nice thing to say. No panties in a wad here...just insinuations.

"I think you both are saying the same thing, just in different ways.

And considering we all want what's best of OKC, I don't see any reason to snipe at one another."
Agreed. So, let's get on with the thread, without the insinuations:wink: .

Ernie has a valid point. There is certainly a difference between building a bigger airport just to say we have one and building a bigger airport because we have reason to believe that "If we build it, they will come".

I don't know that either is the case, but to insinuate that anyone's insinuating something is missing the forest for the trees. There is a valid point being dismissed by an individual because it clashes with his preconceived notions. That's fair game and doesn't violate the TOS in any way.

HKG_Flyer1
05-14-2005, 11:02 AM
The Nashville, Memphis and Raleigh-Durham gate counts require some additional explanation.

Nashville served as an American Airlines hub for a period of time. Prior to its selection as a hub city, it had relatively few gates (can't remember the exact number). The new gates were only built after AA chose it as hub city. Today, many parts of the airport stand empty.

The exact same holds true for Raleigh/Durham.

Memphis was (and still is) a hub for Northwest Airlines. It, too, was relatively small prior to its selection as a hub city.

In none of these cases did the cities pre-build capacity in the hope that it would cause an airline to choose it as a hub city. Rather, the individual airlines decided which city was most optimal, then worked with the relevant airport authority to strike a mutually agreeable financial arrangement to fund the construction.

I would love to see WRWA fully developed, but don't think it would necessarily cause America West (the only remotely possible candidate in the present environment) to move in. As an aside, St. Louis has tremendous excess gate capacity, substantially more O&D traffic, and a soon-to-be-completed major runway expansion.

Pete
05-14-2005, 05:22 PM
Disagreement and healthy debate are vital to any message board and I haven't seen anyone on this thread say differently.

However, there is never any need to get personal when debating/discussing and doing so is not only rude but detracts greatly from the discourse and discourages interaction.

Keith
05-14-2005, 06:34 PM
Ernie has a valid point. There is certainly a difference between building a bigger airport just to say we have one and building a bigger airport because we have reason to believe that "If we build it, they will come".

I don't know that either is the case, but to insinuate that anyone's insinuating something is missing the forest for the trees. There is a valid point being dismissed by an individual because it clashes with his preconceived notions. That's fair game and doesn't violate the TOS in any way.
You are incorrect. Yes, it is fair game to disagree with someone on the forum, however, it does not give them the right to insinuate that another poster needs to "take a finance course to educate yourself." As I said in my other post.....it is implying that someone is stupid, and that, sir, violates the TOS.

A reminder: Next time you have a question about a post I make, please use the PM feature.

Keith
05-15-2005, 06:52 AM
You are incorrect. Yes, it is fair game to disagree with someone on the forum, however, it does not give them the right to insinuate that another poster needs to "take a finance course to educate yourself." As I said in my other post.....it is implying that someone is stupid, and that, sir, violates the TOS.

A reminder: Next time you have a question about a post I make, please use the PM feature.
Ok, let us now get back on the subject at hand. As you may have noticed, posts containing rude and direspectful content will be deleted, no questions asked.

Part of the TOS:
We take the "Be Polite" rule very seriously! We do not tolerate any rudeness. Personal attacks directed against other members of this forum will not be tolerated. Any member who is intentionally unpleasant or disruptive may be banned without warning.

Midtowner
05-15-2005, 12:00 PM
Ok, let us now get back on the subject at hand. As you may have noticed, posts containing rude and direspectful content will be deleted, no questions asked.

Part of the TOS:
We take the "Be Polite" rule very seriously! We do not tolerate any rudeness. Personal attacks directed against other members of this forum will not be tolerated. Any member who is intentionally unpleasant or disruptive may be banned without warning.

Please, pretty please back to topic. I would request that you stop hijacking threads to talk about being polite. I thought that a goal of OKCTalk was not to be overly censored? I humbly request that you keep that in mind the next time you delete things just because you disagree with them. You left your own posts that were off topic, so it's a bit of do as I say, not as I do, eh?

We were discussing how building airport infrastructure due to large-scale ***** envy was not so smart, and how building if you have strong reason to believe that it will be utilized is smart.

Decious
05-15-2005, 01:27 PM
I don't get it. ErnieBall said that he AGREED that we should build now. He simply said that he disagreed with the reasoning behind that notion. Mr. Anderson asked him if he had ever heard of speculation, which of course he has. I don't think Mr. Anderson was calling him stupid, the question was rhetorical.

Ernie suggested that Mr. Anderson take a finance class and educate himself. That too was rhetorical and strictly referred to business/financial matters and not his overall intelligence.

They both agreed on building now but have philosophical differences as to their reasoning behind said building.

I don't see what was so offensive to anyone and why the "ban" word is being thrown about. Interpreting tone is at best an inexact science, especially when there is no audible or visual aid. The use of puns does not a jerk make. They're big boys.

HKG_Flyer1
05-15-2005, 01:32 PM
Trying to get things back on topic... I don't think that building gates is a magic bullet.

DFW, Kansas City and St. Louis all face real problems associated with excess gate capacity, as further detailed below:

DFW.

Delta effectively shut down their DFW hub at the beginning of 2005. As a result, DFW's airport authority has 22 unused gates which they have been struggling to lease.

At present, they are offering prospective lessees $21 million in cash incentives plus one year free rent (airlines could sign up for fewer gates and still get incentives). No takers, as of yet. DFW is a special case, of course, since many airlines are afraid of confronting American Airlines head on at their fortress hub.

Kansas City

Kansas City has been plagued with excess gate capacity for years. At present, they have 18 gates (nearly 30% of the airport) sitting vacant.

St. Louis

At the end of 2004, American Airlines radically scaled back their operations in St. Louis. As a result, nearly half the airport terminal (well over 20 gates) is now unused.

There is a real cost associated with all of this excess capacity. Airport authorities typically pass the cost of running an airport (including all the "dead" space) on to the airlines. The airlines, in turn, recoup these facility charges from passengers flying in and out of airports through increases in ticket prices.

In the case of Oklahoma City, if the Airport Trust decides to go ahead with the expansion and finds no takers for the extra space, the airlines which actually do operate out of OKC will end up picking up the tab for the white elephant. This, in turn, will "raise the bar" when airlines contemplate providing additional service to OKC, since their operating costs will be that much higher. This should be of particular relevance to the OKC market, since average pax fares are relatively low and the ability of pax to pay the higher fares which would result from subsidizing empty gate space is uncertain.

mranderson
05-16-2005, 08:42 AM
Granted. Kansas City was a hub. DFW and St. Louis suffered from losses. It happens.

Imagine if Oklahoma City did build that east concourse, then built the second terminal for America West. There is always a chance the airline could reduce flights, no matter what happens.

I think, if I am not mistaken, Will Rogers will only have one empty gate, which is way too thin. We need the east concouse to compete no matter what. If two airlines add Oklahoma City it will be to capacity, and other airlines will be in a position to wait up to two years until the east concourse is complete. That is nuts. Those airlines are just libel to refuse service because they do not want to wait the two years to complete a concourse that could have been completed before they agreed to serve the city.

I know the difference between "calculated risk" and "speculation." Building the concurse we were promised is NOT a calculated risk. It is speculation.

The second terminal could be designed now and construction stated as soon as the contract is awarded after the airline agrees to use Oklahoma City as their new hub. The airline would phase the flights in over the time it would take to build the terminal.

Then, at the same time, Will Rogers would need a third major runway, which should be a minimum of 15,000 feet to acomodate the new A380. America West, although not planning on using this aircraft, may in the future. Plus they would need their own runway.

ErnieBall
05-16-2005, 08:57 AM
Then, at the same time, Will Rogers would need a third major runway, which should be a minimum of 15,000 feet to acomodate the new A380. America West, although not planning on using this aircraft, may in the future. Plus they would need their own runway.

Are any of the major carriers actually committed to using that aircraft. I read that Boeing is gaining a lot of business because airlines are not ordering the A380. Also, do we actually have any super-jumbos flying into OKC? I can't recall ever seeing anything so large at our airport.

mranderson
05-16-2005, 09:07 AM
Are any of the major carriers actually committed to using that aircraft. I read that Boeing is gaining a lot of business because airlines are not ordering the A380. Also, do we actually have any super-jumbos flying into OKC? I can't recall ever seeing anything so large at our airport.

Yes. I do not recall the airlines, however, there are some that have bought the 380. None are US airlines.

And your other question. American use to have a DC-10 flight in and out of Will Rogers daily. Plus, United is starting 757 service (This is not widebody, however). The FAA and AAR fly widebodies in all the time. Mainly for maintanence.

If you look around, you will see a 747 near the aeronautical center.

OUman
05-16-2005, 09:57 PM
Granted. Kansas City was a hub. DFW and St. Louis suffered from losses. It happens.

Imagine if Oklahoma City did build that east concourse, then built the second terminal for America West. There is always a chance the airline could reduce flights, no matter what happens.

I think, if I am not mistaken, Will Rogers will only have one empty gate, which is way too thin. We need the east concouse to compete no matter what. If two airlines add Oklahoma City it will be to capacity, and other airlines will be in a position to wait up to two years until the east concourse is complete. That is nuts. Those airlines are just libel to refuse service because they do not want to wait the two years to complete a concourse that could have been completed before they agreed to serve the city.

I know the difference between "calculated risk" and "speculation." Building the concurse we were promised is NOT a calculated risk. It is speculation.

The second terminal could be designed now and construction stated as soon as the contract is awarded after the airline agrees to use Oklahoma City as their new hub. The airline would phase the flights in over the time it would take to build the terminal.

Then, at the same time, Will Rogers would need a third major runway, which should be a minimum of 15,000 feet to acomodate the new A380. America West, although not planning on using this aircraft, may in the future. Plus they would need their own runway.

Mr. Anderson,

w/ all due respect, and you do make some good arguments, your analysis doesn't make sense in some areas.

First, about the gates. I think Karen Carney herself said that three remaining empty gates could accomodate several new carriers. Yes, you'll say then what happens when those three gates are operating at capacity? Well, that won't be happening anytime soon. Not unless OKC's pax count shoots up dramatically.

Case in point: Austin-Bergstrom International. (Keep in mind Austin's total population is about the same as Oklahoma City's). When the new terminal was originally designed, it was designed for only 20 gates. However, during actual construction, pax counts started to rise at a higher rate than expected. They weren't planning on extending the terminal before, but only when the pax counts started going up, they decided to extend it. A lot of airports around the country do the same exact thing, I've read the same thing over and over. It's not just Oklahoma City, it's happened in Buffalo, Austin, Colorado Springs, Milwaukee, etc. The list goes on. Most airports don't want to take the risk, especially when major carriers are in the red. They gradually phase in gates as needed. And those that are expanding like you say are doing so only because the terminals there have reached or are on the verge of saturation. Austin Bergstrom's terminal has 23 of the 25 gates leased, but they aren't thinking about expanding the terminal just yet. At Indianapolis International, NW and NW Airlink have added 50 departures or so, true. But then the concourse they now fully occupy is not gonna be expanded. That's all they'll have, just eight gates. See what I mean?

Airlines will increase service when there's demand, when they get people saying that they want new flights to more destinations. The OKC market is definitely not a high-demand market, considering that, I think we've made great improvements getting n/s's to Detroit, Newark, Las Vegas, etc. Goes to show that our market can indeed support n/s's, be it w/ regional jets, but that's better than nothing.

Next, the second terminal. I hate to be so blunt about it, but forget it. It's not gonna happen. The new terminal, once fully completed, is designed in such a way that it will be easily expanded to double the gate capacity. The east concourse could be extended, new rotundas or rectangular extensions could also be added to the concourses, etc. There's a variety of options that could be done, and a second terminal won't be needed anytime soon. Like I've mentioned, an airline just doesn't announce a hub all of a sudden. It sees how things are in a market, then if it decides to, upgrades the market to a "focus city", (or focus operation) where it builds the customer base and keeps adding flights as demand rises. If passenger levels rise to a satisfactory amount, only then will the airline announce the beginnings of a hub. It's a long process.

Third, the 380. Trust me, that plane won't be flown in regular commercial service to/from WRA. First, America West doesn't need a plane that big, the North American market isn't suited to that plane. It's more fitting in markets of the Far East and Asia, where you have load factors around 80-85% most of the time. Which is why you won't be seeing any U.S. passenger carriers buying it either. Unless they want to go six feet under, which I doubt they want. The price tag's too high. Only Fedex has placed an order for 10 of the jets. And WRA most certainly doesn't need a 15,000 feet runway. It already has three, and can handle 300+ flights daily if it comes to that. A 747 can easily land there. There are airports which handle that many w/ just one runway. Besides, if you want to see a 380 here, let alone a 380, if you want to see 747's here, add atleast 30 million pax to our traffic count. Not gonna happen, atleast in the next 10-15 years. Many airports which are busy hubs are not planning to accomodate the 380, including Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson Int'l.
As for widebodies, OKC doesn't get them at all these days. The 747 you see at the aeronautical center is only used for safety training, it doesn't fly. Sun Country used to fly in DC 10's, but that stopped long ago. And the only times a 747 has landed there is when the military chartered those.

It's not that I don't want the east concourse to be built, it's that I want it to be built and at the same time, want to see the airport being marketed better. If we can get Air Tran here, our pax traffic will go up, and the airport will get the attention of more airlines. It will be hard though, but it just might give us the boost we need. What still amazes me is that we don't have any service to Florida, not even one n/s. Hopefully, w/ the opening of Allegiant's Orlando Sanford hub, we'll get flights back to Orlando.

Just to make it clear, my intention is only to point out some things, not insult you or anything. I would be really excited to see the east concourse being built, but for the time being, let's just see what happens. The airline industry is a dynamic market, who knows, maybe we'll get a big influx of new flights.

I have to say though that the new terminal really is a huge improvement over the old one, in terms of visual appeal and decor. Kudos to the trust for bringing it up to standards and adding new stuff which wasn't there before.

OUman

metro
05-16-2005, 10:54 PM
Thanks for the insight OUman. Great points

mranderson
05-17-2005, 07:59 AM
One of many problems with this city is the pessimistic attitude of the citizens. I hear a lot of people say "it won't work," "It'll never happen," and similar comments. Well, people. Frankly, I am sick of the negative attitude.

Karen Carney is paid by the airport distrust to say what they make her say. Of course she is going to try and brainwash the citizens into believing the east concourse does not need to be built. The distrust just sits on their hands and does nothing real to improve air service. By telling people what they want them to hear instead of accepting the fact they are not approaching the air service properly, it makes the people believe them. If they told the truth, I bet that east concourse would be in place, and nearly full.

My point is simple, and I have taken great care to choose cities that compete with Oklahoma City, and HAND COUNT the gates in each of those airports. This proves out of the cities our size, Will Rogers is the smallest airport. We should have 30 gates minimum to achieve the status and gain the airline traffic we need. We can not afford to wait until these airlines either add flights or add Oklahoma City as a destination. Many airlines will say "if you can not find us the gates we need, then we pass." Three empty gates. So what? They can be filled easily.

Three gates will not allow America West or any other airline to establish a hub, nor will eight gates. They will need an entire terminal. Hense plan the second terminal now and be ready to bid as soon as the airline agrees to hub here.

No matter the size of aircraft, America West or another airline will need an additional runway to move 300 flights a day. Plus, in all liklihood, Oklahoma City would be a maintanace base as well. The establishment of a hub can bring thousands of jobs to the city. (Anything 2,000 or more is thousands)

Granted, the 380 may not land here in the forseen future, however, there is a chance the 747, 767, and 777 will land here. America West and the other airlines we could have do not use these planes, however, who knows. They may add them. We need to be ready. Most major cities have at least one 15,000 foot runway. Why? They know they need to be prepared.

Why is Air Tran cited in particular to increase passenger count? There are other airlines that can do that as well.

Here are the airlines we could attract other than Air Tran. JetBlue, Alaska, US Air (yes, I know about the merger), Hooters, Song (low cost carrier of Delta), Ted (United's low cost carrier), Alhoa, Hawaiian (we could get non stops to Hawaii), and others.

The only other airlines I can think of that could establish a hub here are US and Alaska. Alaska uses AAR for maintainace.

You can be negitiave until you are syanotic. However, I will not accept negitave attitudes when this city can grow by investing in itself. In addition. A government body is a business. They are just like any other business. They invest, make a profit, and reinvest in themselves in order to expand. I just can not figure something. Why do you argue the cities need to invest in speculation but do not argue, say, a real estate developers need to speculate or even your own. There is no difference.

OUman
05-17-2005, 08:31 AM
As far as I know, the only commercial runway which is 15,000 feet or longer is at Denver International Airport. It's the newest 16,000 ft runway, and was built only to accomodate the heaviest jets that wouldn't otherwise be able to land in the thin air. The next longest ones are at DFW, at nearly 13,500 feet. And new runways which are being built are on the order of 9,000 to 10,000 feet.

All other major hubs have runways which are less than 13,000 feet. If I'm missing anything though, please post it here.

And as far as the 747 and 767 are concerned, Boeing is coming close to making a decision soon on whether or not to keep them in production. Orders have dried up big time in recent years, and if the 747-400 Advanced doesn't get good support, the 747 line will be gone for good.

OUman

mranderson
05-17-2005, 08:54 AM
Then we would be ahead of the game. In otherwords prepared for the 380 and other aircraft in the future.

I am aware of the status of the aircraft as I watch programs on the subject plus read the business section and watch business reports. However. There is a chance those planes may not be discontinued. Plus, an airline may start using them here... We need to be ready for anything. Even space shuttles one day. (it could happen)

JOHNINSOKC
05-17-2005, 10:38 AM
I couldn't agree with you more mranderson! Why is it that this city can't be proactive enough when it comes to the airport and airline service?? I mean, if we can turn downtown around, why not the airport?? I just read on the DFW forum that ANOTHER Fortune 500 company is relocating to the DFW area. We have NO chance to compete with that region if our leaders accept the status quo with regards to airline service. Who knows how many companies have passed OKC up because it's difficult to get in and out of here in a day. We should not be the METROPLEX'S stepchild anymore. It makes no sense with all that has come from MAPS.

Pete
05-17-2005, 10:51 AM
Although I do agree that it's very risky to build another concourse when we already have several empty gates, the city has to do something to improve airline service, as the lack of such is a real hinderence to economic growth.


OKC is in a far different boat than St. Louis or KC... They have plenty of flights in and out of town, even with the recent cutbacks.


Air service to OKC is a big problem recognized by all and has been for quite some time. Nothing is going to change in this regard until change is forced. This is the very definition of "progressive".

chrisok
05-17-2005, 11:43 AM
It seems to me that we are debating two different points. There's a big difference between improving air service and establishing a hub. Everyone on this board would probably agree that we need better air service in Oklahoma City. It has improved, but not nearly enough. In my opinion, we don't need an additional terminal to improve service. I do think the east concourse should be built. That would give us additional gate capacity if carriers decided to increase flights, or if new carriers come into the market.

As far as an additional terminal is concerned, if an airline decided to create a hub or mini hub here, there would be time to do whatever is neccessary to accomodate them. It doesn't happen overnight. I think Oklahoma City is the perfect place for an airline to use as hub. However, I have a hard time making the leap from filling three puddle jumpers a day to becoming an America West hub anytime soon. (And I pimp this city and state as much as anyone.) I think we are more likely to achieve what Indianapolis and Milwaukee have achieved. Northwest has increased the number of fights to and from those cities, bypassing hubs altogther. With the increased flights people are able to fly non stop to most any major destination. I think this is a much more realistic goal, for at least the short term.

mranderson
05-17-2005, 11:58 AM
"It seems to me that we are debating two different points. There's a big difference between improving air service and establishing a hub. Everyone on this board would probably agree that we need better air service in Oklahoma City."

Actually, they are related. Oklahoma City has about 100 flights a day now. Just with the addition of a hub, that would increase the traffic three fold.

Plus. Three puddle jumpers. 50 people each. That is only about 300 people a day. Not much to ask to be considered for hub status. Plus, it is over an 18 month to two year period.

I am a big supporter of a hub for Oklahoma City. Just imagine. Some of these people, while waiting for their connection, might just take some infor on our city and come back to visit. If they had not connected here, they may not visit.

Pete
05-17-2005, 12:01 PM
chris, enticing an airline to use WRWA as a hub is by far the fastest and most efficient means of improving air service to OKC, especially given the current climate of the industry.


And I disagree that air service has been improved, especially since a good chunk of people arriving at WRWA do so in an AA puddle jumper. It's not only inconvenient, it conveys a decided small-town image, one we all are trying very hard to overcome.

OUman
05-17-2005, 12:02 PM
Yes, focusing on improving air service, it's a definite must. There are still cities to which we can support nonstops. Orlando, Charlotte, Seattle-Tacoma, Los Angeles and San Francisco come to mind. Then the regional cities: Nashville, Colorado Springs, San Antonio, Austin, Omaha and New Orleans. Just my take on it. If we get non-stops to most of these cities, we're in business. And a little more international service, to Mexico City (would be w/ RJ's, unfortunately, but better than nothing). And maybe to Toronto, if Air Canada Jazz came in. Sorry to go off-topic, just felt like mentioning this.

OUman

chrisok
05-17-2005, 12:51 PM
Malibu,

While air service has improved, (Non Stop to Newark, Detroit, Las Vegas) I agree it's still bad.

It could get worse. I know that Continental is thinking about ditching the 737's in lieu of using only those Embraer Jets....Brutal

I would jump for joy if we're selected for a hub. I just think the fastest and most efficient way to improve air service is to entice more low cost carriers here and increasing destinations for existing carriers.

venture
05-18-2005, 12:37 AM
Just ran across this thread and though I would chime in a bit.

First - Anyone who seriously thinks that any of the main legacies airlines are going to be setting up new classic hubs are just stuck in the 80s. Focus cities are the key and unfortunately they require a large amount of O&D to work - something OKC doesn't really have. Would OKC make a nice hub? Sure. However, as been pointed out with STL and DFW sitting with excess capacity - an airline is going to go there first. Also if a new terminal has to be built, they'll do MCI before OKC and just build a new one there.

Second - Comparing OKC to other cities of similar size won't work unless you include the overall area that the airports pull their passengers from. Look at PVD or MHT. The cities aren't that big, but they pull passengers from Boston. OKC only has TUL and LAW to pull passengers from - not that big of an area. Yes OKC is growing, but the home market isn't there yet. Saying OKC is a failure due to the number of gates is foolish. MEM has been a hub for decades - they started out with Delta, Southern, Republic and finally Northwest. I echo what someone else said about RDU and BNA. American hubbed them up and then pulled the hub. Midway tried to rehub in RDU and failed. Southwest has filled the void to some extent.

Third - As far as growing the airport, they are doing the smart thing right now. Attracting several different niche carriers is what you need to do. They should be targeting JetBlue, AirTran, Alaska, etc...to help add addtional destinations to the route map. I agree that it is very shocking that there isn't any nonstop service to Florida, but I expect that to change with the new Allegiant operation in Sanford and also American duplicating the DFW build up in Miami.

As far as America West/US Airways goes. I would expect additional nonstops to start to CLT and PHL should the merger go through. There has been some speculation on a mid-continent focus city as part of their "midwest focus"...but there won't be a hub. The most I would ever expect out of HP/US would be flights to LAS, PHX, PHL, CLT, DCA, LGA, BOS, and FLL.

Also with this chat of the A380 and such...its foolish to think ANY passenger airline in the US will order these for the time being - let alone fly it into OKC. With HP/US...the 767s and A330s (and the 350s) will not come close to OKC. They would stay in their international gateways...CLT, PHL, and PHX. I'm sorry...no nonstops to Frankfurt anytime soon.

Sit back and relax...OKC is doing a much better job than other smaller airports. Just have to let things happen as they will as this industry will not be the same in 5 years if merger mania starts. The only chance of OKC seeing a substantial passenger operation will be if a new niche carrier (like Vanguard, Midway, AccessAir, Kiwi, etc) starts operations after industry consolidation.

mranderson
05-18-2005, 04:57 AM
"Also with this chat of the A380 and such...its foolish to think ANY passenger airline in the US will order these for the time being - let alone fly it into OKC. With HP/US...the 767s and A330s (and the 350s) will not come close to OKC. They would stay in their international gateways...CLT, PHL, and PHX. I'm sorry...no nonstops to Frankfurt anytime soon.

Sit back and relax...OKC is doing a much better job than other smaller airports. Just have to let things happen as they will as this industry will not be the same in 5 years if merger mania starts. The only chance of OKC seeing a substantial passenger operation will be if a new niche carrier (like Vanguard, Midway, AccessAir, Kiwi, etc) starts operations after industry consolidation."

The mention of the A380 is speculation. It is way too early to tell what cities will have 380 service. Here is another tidbit. When the 777 was launched, a lot of people said "the 777 will never be used for US traffic. Only international routes." Well. Guess what. Never arrived. The 777 is used on some short routes. The 380 could be as well. (A request. I mentioned this plane as a possibility only. If you want to debate this plane, start a thread on it. If not, then please drop it).

Oklahoma City doing better than other "smaller" airports? I think not. The competing cities have more flights and more gates. That is NOT doing better. The lack of air srervice from a city with a popluation nearing 1.5 million is an embarrasment. It is not a good job.

venture
05-18-2005, 09:48 AM
"Oklahoma City doing better than other "smaller" airports? I think not. The competing cities have more flights and more gates. That is NOT doing better. The lack of air srervice from a city with a popluation nearing 1.5 million is an embarrasment. It is not a good job.

Air service meets demand. If the passengers were there, Delta wouldn't have downgraded flights to Atlanta and Salt Lake City to just RJs (yes two flights to ATL are still M88s). As passenger demand increases, we'll see larger aircraft on these routes and eventually more direct flights. You have to look at more than flights and gates to measure the success of an airport. You have to go further into it - is the operation profitable, are passenger numbers growing, are yeilds strong in the city, is the facility flexible to airline needs, etc. I would have to assume yeilds in OKC are actually pretty good considering the fact we have Southwest here. Northwest has grown the market to 8 daily flights to 3 hubs - instead of just 3 and 1 a few years ago. Allegiant, Frontier, and America West have all entered the market. By all accounts...OKC seems to be doing okay for itself. That doesn't mean there isn't further room to grow. However, I feel the root of the biggest gripe is the lack of nonstop service to more cities - which will come over time. I think it is completely reasonable that we'll see Miami, Charlotte, Philadelphia, and a few other markets get added over the next 2-4 years.

chrisok
05-18-2005, 10:08 AM
Not to dwell on the past, but it is really a shame Great Plains Airlines didn't work out. While it's not certain that the airline would have made it even without 9/11 happening, it is pretty obvious the timing for this airline could not have been worse. (No fault of their own, of course.)

mranderson
05-18-2005, 10:08 AM
No. Demand IS here for more flights. Many businesses need or want non stop service to a plethera of destinations not served by Will Rogers. This is something vertually all Oklahoma City residents know.

By adding these destinations, more people will fly. Mostly business, which means more revenue for the airlines because business people rarely book far in advance and they waste money on business class or first class instead of booking coach. So, the revenue skyrockets with these people.

You may say the airport trust would see this. Well. No. They will not. They wear blinders. The trust will not work to improve service or on an expansion for Will Rogers. Although the construction being done is larger by square footage, it is NOT an expansion. Only one gate was added.

The airlines have started using these uncomfortable puddle jumpers to lower fuel costs. They think fuel costs is more important than comfort.

Will other markets be added in your time frame? They could be. Most likely it will be the America West hub establishment.

venture
05-18-2005, 11:12 AM
No. Demand IS here for more flights. Many businesses need or want non stop service to a plethera of destinations not served by Will Rogers. This is something vertually all Oklahoma City residents know.

By adding these destinations, more people will fly. Mostly business, which means more revenue for the airlines because business people rarely book far in advance and they waste money on business class or first class instead of booking coach. So, the revenue skyrockets with these people.

You may say the airport trust would see this. Well. No. They will not. They wear blinders. The trust will not work to improve service or on an expansion for Will Rogers. Although the construction being done is larger by square footage, it is NOT an expansion. Only one gate was added.

The airlines have started using these uncomfortable puddle jumpers to lower fuel costs. They think fuel costs is more important than comfort.

Will other markets be added in your time frame? They could be. Most likely it will be the America West hub establishment.

Ugh.

1) Yes it is an expansion. The facilities are more favorable for the airlines to operate in. Have you ever been to an airline's ops area? They were quite pathetic before. Also keep in mind that Southwest has found a way to operate - at most stations - 12 flights per gate. They have 3 gates in OKC and yet just around 20 flights a day. Southwest of all airlines could be offering nonstop service to Florida, BNA, BWI, MDW, LAX, SLC, etc...but do they? Nope. Wonder why.

2) If you HONESTLY believe the regional jets (props were puddle jumpers, but it seems consumers will never be happy) help reduce fuel costs you have NO CLUE about the operational costs of the RJ. I would suggest doing some significant research on the operation costs per block hour on a CRJ versus a Dash 8 or 737. It also screams loudly clear on why LCC have a CASM down around 6 to 8 cents a mile and when Independence Air (before introducing larger 319s) operated a fleet of only CRJs their CASM was well over 15 cents a mile. The RJ is not meant to save fuel costs...they were meant to fill a gap between a prop and a 100-seat jet. Unfortunately their mission has changed. I would highly recommend you check out Mike Boyd's article this week on the RJ - just do a search for the Boyd Group's Hot Flash or I can send you the link.

3) Is fuel costs more important than comfort? Yes. Considering nearly every airline would be making money if fuel costs weren't so high...that is the main concern. Southwest is only profitable right now due to their success at hedging fuel at a cost under or around $30. The airlines must survive. Unless you are willing to pay the actual break even cost of a ticket at a fare for them to make money, no complaining.

4) Again with the HP hub. Its not going to happen. I'm not say we couldn't see a focus city...but we will not see a hub here by HP. Statements to the contrary clearly point out the disconnect with the realities of the industry you have.

mranderson
05-18-2005, 11:34 AM
You can call it an expansion if you wish, however, just adding space to the front and rebuilding one concourse is nto an expansion. Adding gates is an espansion.

Plus. I was on a telephone listening to an executive from America West tell about their plans for this city.

I DO have a clue. A plane about 1/3 smaller than a 737. It is logical that it will burn fuel. That is like saying a Austin Mini will burn the same amount as a Crown Vic.

And Venture. What area are you an expert in fuel economy? Mine. School of logic. Plus, I am an extreemly experienced flier.
One more thing. To me, a small, cramped regional jet IS a puddle jumper.

venture
05-18-2005, 12:21 PM
You can call it an expansion if you wish, however, just adding space to the front and rebuilding one concourse is nto an expansion. Adding gates is an espansion.

Plus. I was on a telephone listening to an executive from America West tell about their plans for this city.

I DO have a clue. A plane about 1/3 smaller than a 737. It is logical that it will burn fuel. That is like saying a Austin Mini will burn the same amount as a Crown Vic.

And Venture. What area are you an expert in fuel economy? Mine. School of logic. Plus, I am an extreemly experienced flier.
One more thing. To me, a small, cramped regional jet IS a puddle jumper.

1) You need to keep in mind that the terminal was completely renovated. This includes the airline ops areas that you will never see nor appreciate it. Terminals are more than ticket counters and boarding gates.

2) What type of phone call was this? A quarterly investor relations type call or one you probably shouldn't have been on in the first place? When did this take place? If it was more than 2 months ago, I think you can throw it out the window as the US/HP deal has changed things quite a bit.

3) Now lets get into aircraft operating costs. This is from the DOT, so if you wanna look it up - be my guest. These do not take into account stage lengths, but give a general idea of cost per mile. If the aircraft are flown on shorter legs, the CASM will go up...longer, they go down.

CRJ-200 is around 8 cents a mile.
ERJ is around 9 to 10 cents a mile.
737-NG (700,800,900) is around 3 to 4 cents a mile.
757-200 is around 3 cents a mile.
A320 Family ranges from 3 to 5 cents a mile.
MD80 is around 6 cents a mile.

The RJs are not cheap to operate. The CEO of Delta has stated this to the public before - consider Delta has the largest exposure to RJs than any other carrier. Indepedence Air is trying to dump CRJs for the largest A319s - there are 8 of them sitting in OKC actually waiting for a buyer. AirTran got out of the RJ business since it was more cost effective to run the 717-200s on the routes that had RJs. The 717-200 has an operating cost around 5.6 cents a mile.

mranderson
05-18-2005, 12:31 PM
"What type of phone call was this? A quarterly investor relations type call or one you probably shouldn't have been on in the first place? When did this take place? If it was more than 2 months ago, I think you can throw it out the window as the US/HP deal has changed things quite a bit."

The way I heard the call is not the issue. I heard it. Also. I could be a stockholder in the company. Plus. Maybe I was told about the merger, but asked not to reveal details.

I suggest we move on. This is going nowhere.

venture
05-18-2005, 12:35 PM
"What type of phone call was this? A quarterly investor relations type call or one you probably shouldn't have been on in the first place? When did this take place? If it was more than 2 months ago, I think you can throw it out the window as the US/HP deal has changed things quite a bit."

The way I heard the call is not the issue. I heard it. Also. I could be a stockholder in the company. Plus. Maybe I was told about the merger, but asked not to reveal details.

I suggest we move on. This is going nowhere.

I agree - there appears to be a large lack of any credible information. I also find it interesting that information would be released about the merger and other company plans - to a potential stockholder - that would be in direct violation of SEC regulations. Interesting.

HOT ROD
05-20-2005, 02:45 AM
Not to stop the tag team going on here :)

But I can tell you the reason Will Rogers is in the situation it is in. We are too close to DFW!

Plane and simple (and yes, I used the wrong plain). Business people would rather drive down to DFW and catch a nonstop flight than to bother with the huge delay of connecting to DFW from OKC! This IS the reason OKC has limited flight options!!!

We have the business to support the city selection Anderson has mentioned. We have the potential market of our state. We even have people that drive down to OKC from Kansas, given that we have more options than them! But, Will Roger's lack of flights to business destinations is causing business people to go down to DFW!

Its like a repeating cycle, OKC does not serve the coastal business cities so business
people here drive to DFW for nonstop flights, while people drive to Dallas for nonstop flights because OKC does not have as much and the delay of connecting via Dallas is greater than just driving down.

Here is what we need to do.

1) encourage our business community to support WRWA. Were are the commercials advertising our new airport? Where are the ads in the paper? Where is the Chamber announcement? We need to stop the perpetual cycle of DFW scavenging off our business travelers, that alone would increase our pax revenue miles which would add flights.

2) encourage airlines to improve air service at WRWA. I have an excellent idea to do this. We could offer substantially reduced gate and landing fees to the airlines if they in turn expand their service to OKC. We get funds from oil and ranching on the airport grounds, plus we have major tenants that make the airport profitable. Besides, there is little to no debt so why couldnt WRWA offer incentives to airlines who expand here!?

3) encourage surrounding communities to fly OKC! we should advertise WRWA (especially if we do 2) above) to fly OKC for cheaper more plentiful flights! This will increase our market which in turn will justify the additional flights!

4) we need to go after nearly every business opportunity/expansion that is on the table. You guys laughed off WAMU when in fact that would have been 5000 jobs to OKC. WAMU is a financial institution, so the jobs are not the same as Farmer's Insurance Call centre or even DELL's. WAMU financial service agents would be dealing with financial portfolios - which typically necessitates an advanced degree of sorts - Meaning the jobs would be commensurate and not at all like the "call centre" jobs you all are used to. That also could have been somewhat of a population increase for OKC, all of these reasons are why we should not scoff at corporate relocations/expansion. We need a wide variety of jobs here to support a wide demographic we WANT here. That in-turn also translates into flights, because OKC would be BIGGER - hence more personal travel. Especially from people who would have relocated here! Often times, the best opportunities for a city come disguised as something less - which Im sure why SAT went head strong for WAMU and OKC did NOT!

Honestly, I think we need to do all four of the above - but we need to do one to get the ball rolling. Personally, I think if we built the airport as promised, we could offer reduced gate fees and let airlines have two gates to themselves. We dont need the gate fees for revenue for the airport ops. What airline would not jump at a terminal with ready space with an incentive such as lower fees for expanded service!!@!

Luther, Caren, Mayer Cornett - are you listening???

I think if you build it (and you market yourself correctly), THEY WILL COME!!!!!

OUman
05-20-2005, 07:09 AM
Hotrod, I've said this before and I'll say it again. Airlines dictate terms to the airport, it's not the other way around. If airlines want more gate space, they'll request the airport for more gate space, it's as simple as that. Why? Because airlines know exactly how they want to use their gate space, and if they need more they'll ask for it. Not every airline at WRA needs or even wants two gates, if it can do w/ one, it will do w/ just one. These days, airlines are trying hard to save every penny they can, adding more gates to a certain operation when the need isn't justified is like buying two cars when you only have money for one.

And where do you think the airport gets its revenue? Landing fees is one area, but gate leasing fees are just as important. Gate leasing fees are required by all airports, and no way is any airport going to tell its tenants that it doesn't require them to pay for the gates.

mranderson
05-20-2005, 07:24 AM
"And where do you think the airport gets its revenue? Landing fees is one area, but gate leasing fees are just as important. Gate leasing fees are required by all airports, and no way is any airport going to tell its tenants that it doesn't require them to pay for the gates."

An additional answer is as follows. Will Rogers owns a cattle ranch and also has numerous working oil and natural gas wells. I am not sure if it is still true, however, at one time, Will Rogers was the only commercial airport in the country that earned enough money from these investments, that they did not need federal grants. Granted (no pun intended), they have taken them, however, they did not need them.

Regardless of who "dictates" terms, we need to prepare by building the east concourse and having plans ready for the south terminal.

venture
05-20-2005, 12:24 PM
I would be very interested in seeing if there is a report on how much leakage to DFW or TUL there is for OKC. There are some extreme cases out there that Hot Rod is speaking of. One that comes to mind is Toledo, OH (city of around 300,000)...which has a 70% leakage factor to Detroit Metro that is only 50 miles to the north. I would be shocked to see if OKC has a leakage factor over 30% to DFW...would expect TUL, ICT and LAW to pick up some. LAW isn't that big of a deal now, but it will be should their Small Community Air grant application get approved. It will help fund nonstop RJ service to Atlanta on Delta/ASA. That could very well help take traffic away from cities such as Chickasha and Pauls Valley. I wouldn't expect much effect in Norman, but you could very well see one or two decide to take the quick drive down to Lawton.

However, with my experience in attracting airline service it is more than just gate fees and other airport fees. Successful attempts these days require local business involvement, media/advertising packages, etc. Considering the success in attracting Frontier, America West, and Allegiant to the market - they are doing something right that other cities have a hard time with. OKC is a rare market with FOUR low cost carriers.

As far as expansion goes...I don't see where we are anywhere near capacity yet. If we take the average legacy usage of 10 flights per gate and 12 flights per gate for Southwest...well this is what we have -

American has 19 daily flights - they need 2 gates.
United has 9 daily flights - they need 1 gate.
Frontier has 3 daily flights - they can share 1 gate.
Delta has 15 daily flights - they need 2 gates.
Conitnental has 8 daily flights - they need 1 gate.
America West has 3 daily flights - they can share 1 gate.
Northwest has 8 daily flights - they need 1 gate.
Allegiant has 4 weekly flights - they can share a gate.
Southwest has 20-21 daily flights - they need 2 gates.

So this takes us to roughly 10 to 11 gates that are required to handle existing traffic right now. We currently have 14 functional gates...that is a lot of room for growth. There are occasions when additional flow over gates are needed due to flights operating at the same time, but this math isn't perfect it is meant to just give you an idea. Is the east concourse needed? I would say yes if they can lure AirTran here. I would also expect the new US Airways (HP/US) to use one gate full time for additional flights to CLT & PHL. However, do we need a satellite terminal yet? Not for a long time.

The only reason why that would be built would be because of a focus city/hub operation which just isn't likely in an era of consolidation with the network carriers. As far the America West fanatasy hub idea...there were a couple news reports that come out today pointing at St. Louis as a likely choice for a midwest focus operation. STL has LONG been desired by US Airways and America West and has a ton of open space. Not to mention it has an O&D market far superior to OKC.

HKG_Flyer1
05-20-2005, 12:30 PM
Although there may be some leakage to DFW, there is also some which runs the opposite direction. Due to DFW's position as a "fortress hub" for AA, I know more than a few travellers from North Dallas who frequently drive to Oklahoma City to save what can at times be several hundred dollars roundtrip.

On one occasion, I even saw a guy come off an AA flight from DFW, walk directly to the gate agent, and obtain a boarding pass for the return flight. I overheard the conversation in which he explained that by flying to OKC, then flying back to DFW before continuing on to OMA (Omaha), he was saving over $500.