View Full Version : Tulsa loses for a change



mranderson
05-27-2005, 08:21 AM
Delta Airlines announced this morning that they are converting the Tulsa-Atlanta route to puddle jumper jets. Oklahoma City keeps the 737 service.

We win that one!

JOHNINSOKC
05-27-2005, 09:39 AM
I wonder if they are talking about that on the Tulsa forum. Probably not, based on what I've read before. Although, their airport is making strides with increased passenger counts.

brianinok
05-27-2005, 10:53 AM
That's good new for us. I suppose the reason for the change in Tulsa is part of Delta's plan to cut costs to stay in business. Apparently, OKC has higher traffic count to Atlanta than Tulsa. Actually, OKC has about 30% more traffic through the airport than TUL, I think. Unfortunately, American flies mainline jets to Chicago from TUL, but still uses stupid Embraer and Canadiar from OKC. I hate those things! Stick me on a MD-80 or 737!

venture
05-27-2005, 12:33 PM
OKC-ATL service is actually 2 MD-88 and 2 CRJ-700 jets. The 737-200 jets were removed from the right awhile ago. I would not be shocked to see a mainline plane through back into TUL every now and then. Delta is trying to get the 737-200s out of the fleet completely (AGAIN)...and any market that currently has this aircraft on a route will be (likely) converted to a CRJ-200/700 until market conditions warrant an upgrade.

As far as the American comment in TUL. There will always be mainline traffic in TUL...one due to passengers levels, but also because it offers an effective way for American to route aircraft into the maintenance (mx) facility. This isn't any different than what RenoAir did in OKC before the American buyout. AAR performed all the mx on their aircraft and RenoAir had to send them to OKC anyway...so they figured they would try to make some extra cash by selling seats on the route. So it wasn't a shock to anyone when American axed the service roughly a year after the buyout of Reno.

BDP
05-27-2005, 12:40 PM
OKC-ATL service is actually 2 MD-88 and 2 CRJ-700 jets.

I flew to Atlanta two weeks ago. Flew there on an MD-88 and back on a CRJ. Honestly, I don't mind the CRJs. They fly as high and as fast, and there's no middle seat! I'd certianly rather fly on a CRJ than stop in some stupid hub, doubling my travel time.

mranderson
05-27-2005, 12:44 PM
I flew to Atlanta two weeks ago. Flew there on an MD-88 and back on a CRJ. Honestly, I don't mind the CRJs. They fly as high and as fast, and there's no middle seat! I'd certianly rather fly on a CRJ than stop in some stupid hub, doubling my travel time.

The CRJ's are cramped and uncomfortable. In fact, I am flying one tomorrow to Sacramento. Not by choice. America West only has that one here for now. Delta does primarily use large jets.

If I think of it I may snap a picture of the inside of that sardine can.

venture
05-27-2005, 02:01 PM
The CRJ's are cramped and uncomfortable. In fact, I am flying one tomorrow to Sacramento. Not by choice. America West only has that one here for now. Delta does primarily use large jets.

If I think of it I may snap a picture of the inside of that sardine can.

Delta primarily uses large jets? Where? Not OKC. Salt Lake City - 4 CRJ-700s, Cincinnati - 4 CRJ-200s, Atlanta 2 CRJ-700s and the two MD-88s. Honestly, OKC is most RJ and that is all the market can support right now. American - 13 of 19 flights are RJs, United - 5 of 9 are RJs, Frontier is all RJ, Delta - 10 of 12 are RJs, Continental - 6 of 8 are RJs, America West is all RJ, and Northwest is all RJ. Allegiant and Southwest are the only all full size jet airlines here.

Is this a bad thing? Not at all. Without them you wouldn't see American to St. Louis, United wouldn't have started flights to Chicago a few years back, Frontier wouldn't be in OKC, Delta may have scaled back even more to Cincinnati and Salt Lake instead of increasing flight choices (CVG use to be 2 732s back until 2000), Continental wouldn't have started flights to Newark, America West wouldn't be here, and Northwest may never have started flights to Minneapolis or Detroit.

Yes they are cramped for those Americans that have larger builds, but we heard the puddle jumper complaints with the turboprops. Then the RJ revolution came in 1993 and everyone was excited cause they will be off those "unsafe and noisy" props. The honeymoon lasted a few years and now people are complaining on the new "puddle jumpers". Its like...no one can win, people will complain on just about anything. The point...without the RJs we would still 1) have turboprops connecting spokes to hubs and 2) fewer flight options on longer range thin routes. The benefits far outweigh the negatives of a RJ when they are used to open new routes that otherwise wouldn't be connected (Oklahoma City-Newark or Fayetteville AR-Los Angeles). Unfortunately the main negative now is their extreme high CASM which isn't good in an environment of decreasing RASM figures.

swake
05-27-2005, 05:00 PM
Delta also added a flight to Salt Lake City to bring the daily total there to five and the total lost seats to about 60 to 70. So Tulsa now has five daily flights on Delta to SLC, four to ATL and I think four to Cinci. Delta may well want rid of the 737s, but they also look like they want to defend thier turf going west against Frontier which just came into the Tulsa market. I wonder if Air Tran will now think about TUL-ATL and maybe Orlando.

Big planes are nice, but as long as they are jets I prefer more airlines, flights and destinations.

venture
05-27-2005, 11:52 PM
Delta also added a flight to Salt Lake City to bring the daily total there to five and the total lost seats to about 60 to 70. So Tulsa now has five daily flights on Delta to SLC, four to ATL and I think four to Cinci. Delta may well want rid of the 737s, but they also look like they want to defend thier turf going west against Frontier which just came into the Tulsa market. I wonder if Air Tran will now think about TUL-ATL and maybe Orlando.

Big planes are nice, but as long as they are jets I prefer more airlines, flights and destinations.

That last part makes up the significant majority of air travelers. Two big things they want right now 1) Low price and 2) several flight options. Delta has improved this in both OKC and TUL - as well as other cities - over the last few years.

Remember OKC use to just have 2 flights to Cincy, 2 to Salt Lake, 3 to Atlanta, 1 to Tulsa (direct from SLC to ATL) and then the 6-7 props to Dallas. I remember flying through Cincy use to be a pain...flights left at 7am and 1055am...nothing in the afternoon. The RJs have been able to expand flight options on thin routes that are too long for turboprops to operate - though the new age turboprops such as the Dash 8-Q400 has proving to be significant improvements even over RJs. In many situations they are quieter, roomier, and just as fast as the RJ.

BDP
05-28-2005, 08:16 AM
Big planes are nice, but as long as they are jets I prefer more airlines, flights and destinations.

I agree. and, really when your sitting down in one of those planes, it not that much diferent than most coach seats. Sure, it's cramped when you move around, but, to me, it's not that much different as far as 90% of the travel goes. But I guess I don't bring all my crap onto the plane, either.