View Full Version : What's wrong at the Airport Authority?



Pages : [1] 2

HKG_Flyer1
01-07-2006, 04:26 PM
I was surprised recently to hear from someone at United that they are planning to begin non-stops from OKC to both San Antonio and New Orleans.

Searching here, I can find that other OKC Talk members have found out about this, somehow.

My question: why does the Will Rogers World Airport website contain absolutely no mention of this news?

Although the new airport buildings are looking great, sometimes I feel if there is no one in charge out there that has a clue.

Issuing press releases when carriers introduce new service is just common sense (and done by nearly all other airports). Moreover, it would only take a few minutes of time (just copy and paste from United's own press release, add in a couple of quotes from local figures, and send it out).

BG918
01-07-2006, 05:57 PM
It seems strange to me that OKC has a nonstop to New Orleans. How many people around OKC are going to New Orleans except to help with the cleanup? How many businesses are even operating at full capacity down there? The San Antonio flight makes perfect sense though, I am surprised it is just now starting.

mranderson
01-07-2006, 06:06 PM
Why does a non stop from Oklahoma City to San Antonio make sense? There is nothing there to attract a great number of people.

jbrown84
01-07-2006, 06:56 PM
I heard about this 6 weeks ago or so. I'm pretty sure it was mentioned on the board here, although it may not have had its own topic.

HKG_Flyer1
01-08-2006, 09:31 AM
I heard about this 6 weeks ago or so. I'm pretty sure it was mentioned on the board here, although it may not have had its own topic.

I saw it mentioned here, as well. My concern is that the Airport Authority doesn't appear to be performing basic, routine activities such as updating its website, issuing press releases relating to new service, etc.

Pete
01-08-2006, 10:22 AM
This topic is huge pet peave of mine...


About a year ago, I got tired of waiting for the airport website to be updated and wrote Karen Carney (full-time marketing director for WRWA) an email. She stated she had been "out of pocket" and would be updating the site soon. After more months passed, I posted this info. here and several others sent her messages.

Finally, the site was updated and reformated and Karen claimed the new format would now make it easier for her to post more current information.

Many here thought the design was a good step forward but I think it's terrible. You'd never know the airport was in the middle of huge $100+ million expansion and improvement program, apart from a bunch of tiny little pictures and none that show the new facade, garden (apart from one statue), tunnel, approach drives, etc.

The "airport guide" is really only a terminal guide... There is nothing that shows the parking lots, drives, transportation plaza, tunnel, etc. Almost all the pictures are close ups of the gate numbers! And why are they all so bloody small??

Worse yet, now the site hasn't been updated for over 3 months!!! This is at least the third time in the last year the site has not been updated for months at a time, despite assurances and supposedly fixed problems.

This, in the middle of a huge expansion... Talk about not taking advantage of a massive investment.


I sent Karen another email about a month ago with no response.


That a full-time public employee could be so irresponsible in a high-profile job is completely unacceptable.


Honestly, what could this person be doing all day long?


It makes me furious, not only as someone that is very interested in seeing pictures and receiving updates on the construction and airport news, but as a concerned civic booster that knows we are doing a terrible job of marketing this asset and in fact are embarrassing the entire city by having a lame and out of date website.


If Karen Carney and the airport trust can't get something so simple right, what does that tell you about the overall operation???



Has the new aiport director started his job? I assume so as he was appointed a while ago... Anybody know how to get in touch with him?

Pete
01-08-2006, 10:48 AM
BTW, the new Airport Director is Mark Kraneburg and he was scheduled to begin in mid-November.



And regarding the Aiport Guide, looks like they are trying to add parking information but now the terminal map isn't working.

HKG_Flyer1
01-08-2006, 11:09 AM
I'm glad my complaint is finally getting some traction here.

I have a long memory, and remember how terribly the airport was run in decades past:
- one of the last airports in the country to get baggage belts (remember when they just used to open those sliding doors and just shove the bags onto a rack);
- one of the last airports in the country to get video flight information screens;
- the filthy restaurant featuring terrible, over-priced food and trays stacked with trash the entire day.

I was never able to determine precisely why Will Rogers was run in such an incompetent manner, but it appears that things are changing for the better.

However, I continue to harbor deep suspicions that the "culture of incompetence" which used to permeate WRWA still has some lingering impacts.

I wonder if calling the Chamber of Commerce or some other party might help us to keep the pressure up at Will Rogers to run a professional operation?

We now have a terrific transportation asset on which we've spent millions of dollars, it's a shame to not see it marketed properly.

Pete
01-08-2006, 01:18 PM
I continue to harbor deep suspicions that the "culture of incompetence" which used to permeate WRWA still has some lingering impacts.

Especially since the new airport director is someone that had worked in the organization for nine years previously and was most recently managing an airport with no commerical flights, less than 10 employees and a total budget of $1 million.

One of the main reasons given for his selection was his "familiarity with our system", as if it's so complex and unique that someone with real experience from elsewhere couldn't possibly hope to figure it out.


I had grave concerns when they announced his hiring and he's been on the job for two months and the website hasn't been updated once.



And yes, I'm old enough to remember the horrific "shove it out and scramble" baggage claim system. :)

HKG_Flyer1
01-08-2006, 02:39 PM
Especially since the new airport director is someone that had worked in the organization for nine years previously and was most recently managing an airport with no commerical flights, less than 10 employees and a total budget of $1 million.

One of the main reasons given for his selection was his "familiarity with our system", as if it's so complex and unique that someone with real experience from elsewhere couldn't possibly hope to figure it out.

Geez... that doesn't sound good. Why in the heck did he get the job?

Pete
01-08-2006, 05:32 PM
There was a whole thread about that hiring a few months ago:

http://www.okctalk.com/t4295-new-airport-director.html

HKG_Flyer1
01-08-2006, 05:52 PM
There was a whole thread about that hiring a few months ago:

http://www.okctalk.com/t4295-new-airport-director.html

Just read through the entire thread and pulled up info on the City of Riverside's airport.

Yikes, this is kind of scary.... best I can tell, the airport is now being led by a guy with apparently zero experience managing a facility with scheduled commercial air service. Nor does he appear to have any experience with facilities of this size (excluding his first position with Will Rogers 12 years ago).

Hard to believe that he was the best qualified of the 60+ applicants who applied.

Most days (recently), I'm pretty encouraged by the positive changes in City government. However, when I see things like this, I shake my head in bewilderment.

WRWA serves as the City's front door for prospective residents, employers, etc. ... I sure hope (for everyone's sake) this guy is a quick learner.

jbrown84
01-09-2006, 01:29 AM
I have some airport pictures I took about a week ago. I will try to post them.

Pete
01-09-2006, 08:49 AM
Please do... Thanks!

venture
01-09-2006, 03:43 PM
Ooops...I missed this thread, my bad.

About the United service. This is actually being flown by Trans States Airlines as "At-Risk" flying. Meaning...TSA is funding the entire thing, UA just happens to be code-sharing the routes and selling them as United Express. TSA is trying a new focus city operation out of San Antonio (SAT) and doing some more point-to-point out of New Orleans (MSY). Will this work? I think it will get a decent amount of local traffic.

The MSY market is still soft. Southwest has halted a lot of service there and JetBlue haulted a pre-Katrina expansion. This could just be a move to prevent these guys from getting in there. SAT will steal passengers that normally use AA or Southwest on the runs. Should do decent on the routes...but we'll see.

This is the type of flying to expect over the next several years. Airlines have a glut of high cost RJs with no where to put them, so they are going to try point-to-point routes.

We'll see how things progress. Definitely a lot of potential still available for RJs out of OKC. This will be a fast changing year in aviation with Northwest and Delta continuing down the Chapter 11 road, with labor relations getting really ugly at Northwest. Southwest will start having costs increase, and US Airways will continue to integrate the operations of America West. The America West livery will be completely gone by the end of 2006, with the repainting of the old US Airways fleet to be done next year.

Fun times ahead.

As far as the local WRWA website. Does it shock anyone?

Also the new airport director...don't worry too much. I've seen people come from running non-commercial airports into airports in the ranking of small hub or medium hub (OKC)...and be very successful. Patience. :)

HKG_Flyer1
01-09-2006, 04:05 PM
Ooops...I missed this thread, my bad.

About the United service. This is actually being flown by Trans States Airlines as "At-Risk" flying. Meaning...TSA is funding the entire thing, UA just happens to be code-sharing the routes and selling them as United Express. TSA is trying a new focus city operation out of San Antonio (SAT) and doing some more point-to-point out of New Orleans (MSY). Will this work? I think it will get a decent amount of local traffic.

The MSY market is still soft. Southwest has halted a lot of service there and JetBlue haulted a pre-Katrina expansion. This could just be a move to prevent these guys from getting in there. SAT will steal passengers that normally use AA or Southwest on the runs. Should do decent on the routes...but we'll see.

This is the type of flying to expect over the next several years. Airlines have a glut of high cost RJs with no where to put them, so they are going to try point-to-point routes.

We'll see how things progress. Definitely a lot of potential still available for RJs out of OKC. This will be a fast changing year in aviation with Northwest and Delta continuing down the Chapter 11 road, with labor relations getting really ugly at Northwest. Southwest will start having costs increase, and US Airways will continue to integrate the operations of America West. The America West livery will be completely gone by the end of 2006, with the repainting of the old US Airways fleet to be done next year.

Fun times ahead.

As far as the local WRWA website. Does it shock anyone?

Also the new airport director...don't worry too much. I've seen people come from running non-commercial airports into airports in the ranking of small hub or medium hub (OKC)...and be very successful. Patience. :)

I was wondering when you would chime in. :welcome5:

Interesting data about the TSA/United Express service... irrespective of its long-term viability, it seems like the airport should be doing more cheerleading. This is an easy way for them to look good. Heck, in Dallas, the announcement that Spirit Airlines was going to add one flight per day to Ft. Lauderdale triggered self-congratulatory P.R. by the DFW Airport Board, followed by stories in both the Dallas Morning News and Star-Telegram.

It would only take 5 minutes to update the website with this info. :numchucks

Oh, thanks for the words of advice on the new Airport Director. Hopefully, it will all work out for the best.

metro
01-10-2006, 09:30 AM
Shouldn't this thread be titled "What's right at the airport Authority?"

Patrick
01-10-2006, 12:33 PM
Shouldn't this thread be titled "What's right at the airport Authority?"

That would be a misnomer.

jbrown84
01-11-2006, 12:57 PM
Okay. Airport pictures especially for you, Malibu. I took these about a week ago.


http://photos-727.facebook.com/n9/6865/100/79800335/n79800335_30040727_45.jpg

http://photos-728.facebook.com/n9/6865/100/79800335/n79800335_30040728_545.jpg

http://photos-729.facebook.com/n9/6865/100/79800335/n79800335_30040729_717.jpg

http://photos-730.facebook.com/n9/6865/100/79800335/n79800335_30040730_910.jpg

http://photos-731.facebook.com/n9/6865/100/79800335/n79800335_30040731_1075.jpg

http://photos-732.facebook.com/n9/6865/100/79800335/n79800335_30040732_1256.jpg

http://photos-733.facebook.com/n9/6865/100/79800335/n79800335_30040733_1448.jpg

http://photos-740.facebook.com/n9/6865/100/79800335/n79800335_30040740_2763.jpg

http://photos-734.facebook.com/n9/6865/100/79800335/n79800335_30040734_1621.jpg

http://photos-735.facebook.com/n9/6865/100/79800335/n79800335_30040735_1894.jpg

http://photos-736.facebook.com/n9/6865/100/79800335/n79800335_30040736_2083.jpg

http://photos-737.facebook.com/n9/6865/100/79800335/n79800335_30040737_2252.jpg

http://photos-738.facebook.com/n9/6865/100/79800335/n79800335_30040738_2423.jpg

http://photos-739.facebook.com/n9/6865/100/79800335/n79800335_30040739_2593.jpg

Pete
01-11-2006, 01:15 PM
Thanks, jbrown!

Those are excellent and provide a much better feeling for the facility than what's on their website.


It's truly sad the posters on this board do a better job of keeping up on this stuff than the paid staff of the airport.

HKG_Flyer1
01-11-2006, 02:23 PM
Thanks, jbrown!

Those are excellent and provide a much better feeling for the facility than what's on their website.


It's truly sad the posters on this board do a better job of keeping up on this stuff than the paid staff of the airport.

I second that. I wonder if there's a way that the citizens could mount a hostile takeover of the Airport Trust (or, at the very least, hack into the website and start managing it in a professional manner)?

John
01-11-2006, 02:24 PM
Nice pics, thanks!

One question, though. Is the tree in some of those pictures of the Christmas or Holiday variety? ;)

jbrown84
01-11-2006, 05:32 PM
Nice pics, thanks!

One question, though. Is the tree in some of those pictures of the Christmas or Holiday variety? ;)

Yes. This was not long after New Years and it had not been taken down, I guess.


Glad you guys like the pics. Some of them are a little blurry. I'm still getting used to my new camera.

Pete
01-11-2006, 06:06 PM
I guess it's a good sign that this country's paranoia has subsided to the point where someone can take pictures of an airport and not have a SWAT unleashed on him. :)


I have to say I really like the design elements of the renovations, especially that they decided to be pretty bold with all the stainless steel, stonework and the like. And bumping up all the ceiling heights and allowing for lots of natural light is a great feature as well.


Thanks again, jb!

venture
01-12-2006, 12:52 AM
Great pics...if you'd like, email me and we can get them added over on USAFlying.com to the OKC photo gallery there. http://gallery.usaflying.com:8383/main.php?g2_view=core:ShowItem&g2_itemId=1485 is the link for those that want it.

One comment though. Be EXTREMELY careful of what you photograph around the security check points. Always try to make sure you cannot see or make out the checkpoint and cannot make out any screening in progress. Otherwise you'll have the TSA all over your rump...and thats not pleasant.

BDP
01-12-2006, 07:51 AM
jbrown84, you are now on the NSA's "list". :)

J/k. Great pictures. I think the checkpoint is the only thing I don't like about the new airport. Its location creates a lot of congestion, especially with people waiting to pick people up. Airports should have a special "receiving" area for people to wait. It'd probably be more secure, too, without all those people just loitering around security.

Pete
01-12-2006, 09:20 AM
I agree about the checkpoint and ideally incoming passengers should be funneled down to the baggage claim area (even if they don't have checked bags) which should include a waiting area for visitors. They have to end up down there eventually anyway, because that's how you get to the curb and parking garage.

The whole idea is to seperate incoming from departing passengers, otherwise you get a massive bottleneck, which is what seems to be happening now.


Also, when the new section is complete there will be a second security check point, which should help.

venture
01-12-2006, 10:38 AM
The additional check point will likely improve the situation greatly. I agree that congestion is an issue, as I've had to roll over people with my bags before after getting off a flight - annoying.

BDP
01-12-2006, 11:13 AM
Also, when the new section is complete there will be a second security check point, which should help.

Good point.


I've had to roll over people with my bags before after getting off a flight - annoying.

No doubt. Flying always reminds me of how unconcious people are of other people (especially if you're on Southwest) and that always seems to be a nice little reinforcement of that sentiment just when you thought you were finished with it for the day.

Pete
01-12-2006, 02:08 PM
There seems to be a fundamental design flaw in that the incoming passangers all have to pass though the same relatively narrow passageway that contains the security checkpoint, then the escalator down to baggage claim and ground transportation just beyond, so everyone congregates there to meet their parties while outbound passangers are trying to get through with their bags.

What they should have done is put the down escalator before the security area so incoming passangers would have to go down to the 1st level to meet their party.


In the old design, there was a relatively large area between where incoming passangers passed out of the secure area and the down escalator. So, everybody congregated there and then went downstairs.

Now, people should be made to wait near baggage claim, not up on the ticket / gate level.

Pete
01-12-2006, 02:28 PM
Here's what I'm talking about:


http://mysite.verizon.net/res17zef/wrwa2.jpg

The area shaded in red has become a bottleneck because that's where the security checkpoint is located (the star in the diagram) and then the down escalator is just behind that.

People seem to be waiting in the ticketing area then pushing forward into that passageway to meet incoming passangers, which clogs up the same area where ticketed passangers are trying to pass to get through security.

jbrown84
01-12-2006, 08:10 PM
Great pics...if you'd like, email me and we can get them added over on USAFlying.com to the OKC photo gallery there. http://gallery.usaflying.com:8383/main.php?g2_view=core:ShowItem&g2_itemId=1485 is the link for those that want it.

One comment though. Be EXTREMELY careful of what you photograph around the security check points. Always try to make sure you cannot see or make out the checkpoint and cannot make out any screening in progress. Otherwise you'll have the TSA all over your rump...and thats not pleasant.

Yeah, if you look at the pictures you may notice that I avoided that area. I didn't even go near it, much less point my camera in that direction. I was actually surprised that no one from security or TSA approached me. I was taking pictures for at least 30 minutes.

What email did you want that to? Actually, if it's easier for you, you're welcome to just save the pics to your computer and upload them that way. I give you permission. :)

venture
01-12-2006, 10:48 PM
I can do that, or you can always email any you have to me at david@usaflying.com and I'll get them uploaded. :)

Kerry
01-20-2006, 07:58 PM
I gave up on the airport trust years ago. I have also emailed numerous times in the past to update the site. At one point several new airlines had started operations in the City but the airport didn't list them on the site.

It is my opinon that the airport trust doesn't share the same vision of OKC that the average person does. How else can you explain a 6 year expansion project that only meets demand through 2012? As for the "familiar with our operation" excuse. I hear this all the time in my line of work and it is code for "he is just as incompetint as us".

brianinok
01-20-2006, 08:19 PM
I see that the airport's website has been updated..... if that is what you call it. It is still not all completely correct. They updated some of the WORDING IN ALL CAPS BUT LEFT OTHER AREAS as a Mix Of Caps And Lower-case. Go Figure.... :doh:

Pete
01-21-2006, 08:03 AM
Hooray!

Took four bloody months, which has become typical.

I would be less angry about this if the airport didn't employ a full-time marketing director.


Also, the site does not begin to give you the impression that the airport has already undergone a massive renovation and they've been terrible about providing reports about the progress.

Patrick
01-22-2006, 12:51 PM
Why does a non stop from Oklahoma City to San Antonio make sense? There is nothing there to attract a great number of people.

It makes a lot of sense to me. Tons of people from our city go to San Antonio every year, me included. Tourism is a big business in San Antonio.

I flew to SA a few years back and it was a hassle. But, I didn't want to drive 8-10 hours to SA. A non stop flight will be nice.

Patrick
01-22-2006, 12:56 PM
If it wasn't for us bugging them, the airport's website would never get updated. And when you email Karen Carney, she's completely clueless most of the time. That's not to say she isn't a nice lady, it's just apparent that there's a real lack of concern for some areas involving the airport. Or possibly there's a lack of employees to handle these matters.

OUman
01-23-2006, 05:25 PM
I flew from OKC just recently (Dec. 17th). The security checkpoint is just one of two, the other one will be opening before summer. I can tell you, it didn't take longer than 7 minutes to start from one end of the checkpoint and pass through to the other. And I was flying out in the morning, during the mid-morning rush hour. We really don't have a problem as far as crowding goes.

While we're at it, let me just say that the new terminal looks awesome. The workers who have expanded the old one and created the new one have really done a good job. Me being an aviation freak, I love the view out the terminal and west concourse, very neat.

OUman

Patrick
01-23-2006, 06:06 PM
I agree. But, I wish for once we'd complete something. We need to finish the east concourse.

brianinok
01-24-2006, 04:50 PM
FYI: The Airport Trust is meeting tomorrow.


Airport Trust Meeting
Date: 1/25/2006
Time: 10:30 a.m.

The Airport Trust meeting will be held at 10:30 a.m. Wednesday, Jan. 25, at the Council Chamber, 200 N. Walker, 3rd Floor.

For more information contact: Echo Thierjung

If you would like to contact Echo, just go to okcbusiness dot com and you will see the Airport Trust Meeting listed under Events over on the right side.

brianinok
01-26-2006, 06:18 PM
Does anyone know anything that happened at the Airport Authority's meeting? I guess the following article could have been the result of it?






OKC airport may add nonstop flights


By Julie Bisbee
The Oklahoman

Oklahoma City's Will Rogers World Airport could be well-positioned to get more nonstop flights to popular destinations in the next few years, according to industry consultants.

Hired by the airport trust to work on increasing nonstop service to Will Rogers, the Campbell-Hill Aviation Group found that travelers flying out of Oklahoma City are paying more for their tickets and traveling farther. When passengers fly a greater distance at higher fares, an airline's per mile revenue increases.

"An airline doesn't want to come to a market where they can't make money," said Kevin Schorr, vice president of Campbell-Hill Aviation Group. "Traffic is up, fares are up, the average distance people travel is up. People are responding to the new service and paying higher fares to do so."

And that's the message the Alexandria, Va.-based consulting group will take to airline executives in presentations to try to persuade them to add service in Oklahoma City.

The company has a two-year contract -- not to exceed $120,000 -- to help the airport increase air service to markets that are in demand but not adequately served by airlines.

One market airport officials are targeting is the Los Angeles area. Roughly 218 people a day fly from Oklahoma City to the Los Angeles area, and the same number fly into Oklahoma City from Los Angeles.

Adding flights heading east also would make sense at Will Rogers, the study found. About 185 passengers are traveling between Oklahoma City and the Baltimore and Washington area each way every day, the aviation group's study found. Flights from Oklahoma City to the San Francisco Bay area also are seeing passenger interest at both ends. The study showed that 106 passengers are coming and going each way per day.

Airport spokeswoman Karen Carney said Oklahoma City also is an underserved market in Los Angeles and the Washington area, which could help the case to get nonstop service to those locations.

Oklahoma City is sixth on a list of popular destinations without adequate service from airports in Los Angeles. In the Washington area, Oklahoma City is fourth on the list of underserved markets.

"It helps us because it shows there is need on both ends," Carney said.

But as airlines struggle in bankruptcy or fight to keep profits while facing high fuel prices, adding jet service may not be a priority, Schorr said.

"There's no question that several of the largest carriers are now bankrupt. They have greater things to focus on than adding service," Schorr said. "Then there are others out there like Jet Blue, Air Tran and Virgin that are being courted by every airport out there, and I think we can make a great case."

Will Rogers' $110 million makeover and increasing passenger counts are selling points for airlines looking to come to Oklahoma City. Increased business and developments in downtown Oklahoma City also help, Schorr said.

In the last year, new service has been added from Oklahoma City to Las Vegas, Orlando and Phoenix. Will Rogers World Airport has 76 daily flights to 18 destinations, and service to New Orleans and San Antonio is expected to begin in February.

Campbell-Hill has done work to increase air service in Reno, Nev.; Portland, Ore.; Austin, Texas; San Jose, Calif.; Milwaukee, Wis.; and Hartford, Conn.

OUman
01-29-2006, 09:04 PM
I think this is very positive for the city. However, like the article mentions, the majors' struggle is far from over, so new nonstop flights might not come so soon. Until then we need to be agressive with the LCC's-Jetblue, Air Tran (this airline might start n/s service between OKC and ATL-not in the news, just my opinion, since DL/DL Connection have a monopoly on this route), Southwest and others. By the way, the number of total departures from OKC is currently at 83, not 76.

OUman

venture
01-29-2006, 11:46 PM
Well here we go. The two targets are pretty public...LAX and WAS (either DCA, BWI, or IAD). First LAX...

A couple routes they can go. If they want an international connection opportunity...United. If they want a quality carrier to get Okies to the coast...Alaska. I would push them for AS much more than UA since AS already does some maintenance work at the AAR facility here. They will also provide very good connections up and down the WestPac coast that would rival US Airways out of PHX.

http://www.alaskaair.com/www2/destinations/RouteMap_FullSize.asp

Washington...

Well DCA is pretty much out of the question unless we an sweet talk US Airways. BWI would be a lock for Southwest or AirTran. However, AirTran is only an option if they do Atlanta as well, but they won't do BWI until ATL is running full and they are content that they can make more money off of nonstops to BWI versus connections through ATL. Got all that? :) So Southwest is really the only option, but they really have no desire to grow OKC beyond the crud we see today. Which moves us on to IAD. Well Indy Air is gone, finally, so no LCC hope here. United would be the only option...and I think the more likely. This would connect OKC with the nation's capital, but also the international connection opportunities.

I would also look for some sort of announcement in the short term for US Airways to Charlotte. Philadelphia seems like a no-go for no due to capacity concerns at the airport. Pittsburgh would be a viable alternative, if only they maintained the fortress hub there. Overall opinions are the CLT flights will be CRJ-200s (50-seaters), but I feel they would take the opportunity to route CRJ-900s to connect the two networks. Also, we may finally see a US Airways painted bird soon, as they starting to repaint the CRJ-900s. If we get one, it will be luck, as these are moving over to the US East network pretty quickly.

Other airline tidbits...

American - No major changes coming.

Allegiant - No changes. Prelim plans to service Orlando-Sanford are gone for now.

Continental - No changes.

Delta - No changes.

Frontier - Steady at 3 CR7s a day.

Northwest - One Avro RJ85 remaining to MSP, but all other flights are 50-seat CRJs.

United - No major changes...SAT and MSY service still on track to start.

US Airways - No changes. See above.

Southwest...blah, my back hurts. :)

OUman
01-30-2006, 07:56 AM
As always, if n/s's to LAX are started, it will most likely be CR2's (UAX), or CR7's (Horizon Air). I dunno, but Horizon seems less likely just because it already has three dd's to DEN, and probably many Oklahoma City pax take connecting flights to the western U.S. Filling a 737-400 (smallest in ths AS fleet) would be pretty hard to do.

By the way venture, why does WN not want to expand any at OKC? It's really puzzling, since its flights (most of them anyway) go out packed and come in packed. Strange, really. The only service it has added has been the new daily nonstop between OKC and LAS.

OUman

HOT ROD
01-30-2006, 02:17 PM
I'd love to see:

United to DC, SFO, and LAX
Southwest to BWI
Alaska to SEA
US Airways to CLT and PHL

OKC needs to work on getting nonstops to every hub airline's hub cities. .. that alone would give us nonstop flights to every major city! And the coasts.

United: ORD, DEN, SFO, IAD, LAX (gateway). SAT, MSY already added. IAD, SFO and LAX needed.
American: DFW, ORD, STL, MIA (gateway). MIA needed.
Delta: ATL, SLC, CIN, DFW. ORL already added
Continental: IAH, EWR.
Northwest: MSP, DTW, MEM, SEA (gateway). SEA needed.
Southwest: DAL, PHX, MCI, STL, LAS. CHI, BWI, MSY, AUSTIN needed
US AIRWAYS: PHX, LAS, PHL, CLT. PHL, CLT, BWI needed.
Frontier: DEN
Allegient: ORL, LAS

So you see, we only need a handful of flights to have access to every major city (save Boston). We'd have great presence from United (who has the most hubs/gateway cities by the way) which is a great plus. Especially since United hubs/gateways ARE the largest and most business presence cities in the nation. I dont know how we could get Boston but it would be great if we could get them as well, then we'd have all of the majors.

I'd also get with the international carriers, which dont have to be nonstop but should be the international carrier with presence in the city (ie not just code share, but actual planes):

Air Canada: YYZ - Toronto, YVR - Vancouver
Mexicana: MEX, Cancun

I think OKC CAN win most if not all of these, especially with the new open skies agreement. You will see a lot more Canadian cities (especially YVR Vancouver) representing hub and gateway ops with flights originating in the US. Vancouver is the closest major hub in NA to Asia, has great capacity (and existing intl presence already), and is expanding the terminal even as we speak [can accomodate the A380 also] - so it only makes sense for airlines to shift flights there. OKC needs to get AC to get a flight a day doing a YYZ - OKC - YVR route, then reverse on an Air Canada flight (or AC Jazz).

OUman
01-30-2006, 02:58 PM
You can forget about daily, year-round nonstop international flights to/from OKC. There have been no plans for a customs/immigration facility for international flights, and so accordingly, that hasn't been part of the expansion either. A separate facility like that exists at the airport, but not one in the terminal, and that doesn't appear likely either. We'll have to settle for domestic service only. Of course, we have only one international flight to Cancun but only in the summer, and it has to make a stop at DFW or SAT before coming back here.

OUman

HOT ROD
01-31-2006, 10:59 PM
dont need to have customs in okc. Vancouver and Toronto have them and US-Canada have a very open skies agreement. pax can go thru customs there.

Never say never - i mean, there were those just last year who said "okc could not support a major league team" or "okc could never land or support the nba with ou around"

and, like you said, there is a customs facility just not at the terminal. Pax could arrive en route to/from that facility.

Never count OKC out!

jbrown84
02-03-2006, 11:12 PM
There's no reason why we can't add an outer international terminal that connects by train and/or tunnel. Something like the way Atlanta's terminals are.

brianinok
02-04-2006, 08:17 AM
Maybe we should be more concerned with a few other things before we start talking about adding an international terminal separate from the current one:

1. Finishing the currect expansion project. The finished product calls for 25-27 gates, not the 17 it will have at the end of this year.
2. Adding flights to major coastal cities (especially hubs) Washington, Los Angeles, San Fransisco, Seattle, etc.

jbrown84
02-04-2006, 11:49 AM
I only said that because people were saying that we can never have international flights because we don't have an international terminal. Like HOT ROD said, that's a pretty close-minded statement.

But I do agree, those are higher priorities.

venture
02-05-2006, 07:05 PM
As always, if n/s's to LAX are started, it will most likely be CR2's (UAX), or CR7's (Horizon Air). I dunno, but Horizon seems less likely just because it already has three dd's to DEN, and probably many Oklahoma City pax take connecting flights to the western U.S. Filling a 737-400 (smallest in ths AS fleet) would be pretty hard to do.

By the way venture, why does WN not want to expand any at OKC? It's really puzzling, since its flights (most of them anyway) go out packed and come in packed. Strange, really. The only service it has added has been the new daily nonstop between OKC and LAS.

OUman

I'm gonna go through each post, so here are a ton of replies coming...first this one.

Horizon Air is pretty well done with CR7 deliveries, they are focusing on Dash 8 Q400s now. As far as Alaska...the 73G with Winglets and the MD-80s they have are smaller than the 734s. I would expect probably an MD-80 if anything, though they tend to cycle a 737 into OKC once a week to visit AAR for maintenance.

Southwest's position in OKC is very, perplexing. I think they are statisfied with the yeilds they have now and don't feel like stretching the passengers anymore. Plus they have this moronic idea of going into Denver right now and taking on UA and F9.

venture
02-05-2006, 07:20 PM
Next set of replies. :)


I'd love to see:

United to DC, SFO, and LAX
Southwest to BWI
Alaska to SEA
US Airways to CLT and PHL



Agree with all those. We could probably intercharge LAX on either UA or AS.



United: ORD, DEN, SFO, IAD, LAX (gateway). SAT, MSY already added. IAD, SFO and LAX needed.
American: DFW, ORD, STL, MIA (gateway). MIA needed.
Delta: ATL, SLC, CIN, DFW. ORL already added
Continental: IAH, EWR.
Northwest: MSP, DTW, MEM, SEA (gateway). SEA needed.
Southwest: DAL, PHX, MCI, STL, LAS. CHI, BWI, MSY, AUSTIN needed
US AIRWAYS: PHX, LAS, PHL, CLT. PHL, CLT, BWI needed.
Frontier: DEN
Allegient: ORL, LAS


UA - agree, IAD would be my next target...then LAX.
AA - MIA definitely on the radar screen.
DL - DFW hub has been closed for a while now. They are also in a situation of downsizing, so expect no growth here. CVG is down to just 3 flights, though the MCO addition was nice.
CO - CLE is their third hub, though that won't happen.
NW - What you see is what you get. SEA isn't a major domestic gateway for them, they have some international traffic but most is local O&D or connections from AS.
WN - MDW should be a given, next with BWI. MSY and AUS will not happen as they are easily done through IAH or DAL now. Also it will be interesting to see how UA does on MSY and SAT.
US - BWI hasn't been a hub for years. DCA is out of the questions. CLT most likely this year, with PHL after their issues get sorted out.
F9 - May be an option for some weekly stuff to Mexico, but not now.
G4 - SFB (Sanford/Orlando) was planned, but later scrapped when DL announced the MCO run. LAS is what we have for now.



I'd also get with the international carriers, which dont have to be nonstop but should be the international carrier with presence in the city (ie not just code share, but actual planes):

Air Canada: YYZ - Toronto, YVR - Vancouver
Mexicana: MEX, Cancun


Don't hold your breath on any of these. Air Canada may be an option, especially with their close ties to US Airways now, but it is still a few years off. Plus the O&D market would need to be studied to see if there is much traffic to sustain the route - connecting traffic only goes so far. I could see opportunities open up more at Mexican cities should they do more pre-clearance at the departure city.

OKC really needs to work in at least one customs compatible gate, perhaps in the east concourse when it is completed. Some airports have these just incase they are ever needed for charters, like Ft. Wayne, IN. Of course, keep in mind, pre-clearance is very widespread right now...so that will limit new routes. However, getting a customs gate would open up charter opportunities to other places in Mexico, the Caribbean, etc.

OUman
02-05-2006, 07:51 PM
I only said that because people were saying that we can never have international flights because we don't have an international terminal. Like HOT ROD said, that's a pretty close-minded statement.

But I do agree, those are higher priorities.

You can say it's a close-minded statement, but wasn't it just recently that the "Open Skies" agreement just lost a little of its open-ness, if you will. The U.S. Govt now requires you to have your passport, etc etc, just as if you were flying to Europe, and requires people coming in from Canada and Mexico to go through the same process that people from other countries have to go through when they're entering the U.S? Correct me if I'm wrong though.

Btw, on another note, WN had one of its experimental Sat-only n/s's between BWI and OKC, and apparently, it either wasn't satisfied with the pax loads, or the loads were fine but the cost of flying a 737 was too much for the loads it got on that flight. Anyway, WN stopped that Sat-only flight and hasn't put it back since.

OUman

venture
02-05-2006, 07:59 PM
You can say it's a close-minded statement, but wasn't it just recently that the "Open Skies" agreement just lost a little of its open-ness, if you will. The U.S. Govt now requires you to have your passport, etc etc, just as if you were flying to Europe, and requires people coming in from Canada and Mexico to go through the same process that people from other countries have to go through when they're entering the U.S? Correct me if I'm wrong though.

OUman

Up until about a year or so ago, you could transit the Canadian border with just your drivers license and birth certificate. A couple years or so back, you didn't even need the birth certificate. Being originally from Ohio, it wasn't out of the ordinary to cross the bridge in Detroit to Windsor to go to the casino there. Mind you this has nothing to do with Open Skies. These agreements simple allow an airline to apply for overall authority to fly between the two countries with out being tied down to specific routes.

Hopefully we'll start to see some more movement on the US/Canada airspace consolidation. Air Canada mentioned when its parent, ACE, acquired a percentage of US Airways Group that they wanted to work Toronto in as a connecting option in the two networks. Custom restrictions of course prohibit this right now, but it is something to work towards. I think anyone would be hard pressed to find two countries that are as close as the US and Canada.

OUman
02-05-2006, 08:08 PM
Ahh, ok. So OKC does need a customs facility in the terminal for year-round international ops, right?

OUman

venture
02-05-2006, 08:32 PM
Ahh, ok. So OKC does need a customs facility in the terminal for year-round international ops, right?

OUman

Yes, unless that city has US Pre-Clearance. Toronto is one of the few that does.

HOT ROD
02-06-2006, 09:29 PM
Up until about a year or so ago, you could transit the Canadian border with just your drivers license and birth certificate. A couple years or so back, you didn't even need the birth certificate. Being originally from Ohio, it wasn't out of the ordinary to cross the bridge in Detroit to Windsor to go to the casino there. Mind you this has nothing to do with Open Skies. These agreements simple allow an airline to apply for overall authority to fly between the two countries with out being tied down to specific routes.

Hopefully we'll start to see some more movement on the US/Canada airspace consolidation. Air Canada mentioned when its parent, ACE, acquired a percentage of US Airways Group that they wanted to work Toronto in as a connecting option in the two networks. Custom restrictions of course prohibit this right now, but it is something to work towards. I think anyone would be hard pressed to find two countries that are as close as the US and Canada.

I still use a DL and Birth Cert to go to Vancouver (from Seattle). And the last two times I went (both in January), they didnt even check my documents (either border). They just asked questions.

Anyways, I dont see what border enforcement has to do with air agreements. I thought the "new" agreement loosened the requirement that airliners HAD to go through US customs on international flights. You could go through a canadian customs airport as gateway to an international destination (and vice versa). - was in the Vancouver newspaper, as they expect a huge boom in flights now.

In other words, instead of flying from OKC to say SFO to go to HKG, you could instead go OKC to YVR (vancouver) to HKG and save yourself 2 hours (since vancouver is closer to HKG and asia in general). That is why I said earlier that it isnt necessary for OKC to have onboard customs at the terminal, just as long as the flight connects at a customs terminal in the US (or Canada now) then it could happen.

Venture/OUman, correct me if I misinterpreted the New Open Skies Act.

venture
02-08-2006, 09:40 AM
Open Skies is simply an agreement between countries that loosens the restrictions for awarding route authorities. It has nothing to do with customs or connecting. Yes you could fly OKC-YVR-HKG...but you'll have to go through Canadian customs in YVR and then Chinese in HKG.

HOT ROD
02-25-2006, 01:18 PM
United to use city in strategy to raise presence in South

By Julie Bisbee
The Oklahoman (http://newsok.com/print.php?article=1768138)

United Airlines (http://www.united.com)' new nonstop service in Oklahoma City is breaking the traditional business model as the Illinois-based carrier looks to use Oklahoma City as part of its strategy to increase its presence in southern markets.

The airline emerged from bankruptcy earlier this month after nearly three years under protection. Thursday the airline will begin nonstop service to New Orleans from Oklahoma City, and March 3 service between Oklahoma City and San Antonio will begin.

The point-to-point service is part of a plan to increase United's presence in the south and establish it in the San Antonio market. In March, United will begin service between San Antonio and a handful of midsize cities, including Tulsa and Kansas City, Mo. Once in San Antonio, travelers can catch international flights on United to several different cities including Amsterdam and Nagoya, Japan.

A new Toyota plant in San Antonio and the promise of additional business growth makes the south Texas city attractive for United to enhance its southern service, said Bill Mishk, spokesman for United Express.

Missouri-based Trans States Airlines will operate the 50-seat regional jets that will make the short-haul flights out of Oklahoma City.

"United traditionally has not done as much nonhub flying," Mishk said. "We saw the opportunity to essentially capture nonhub traffic in this part of the country."

Oklahoma City's healthy economy and growing passenger counts made it a likely choice for additional nonstop service, Mishk said. The city's financial and marketing incentives may have tipped the scales in Oklahoma City's favor.

The airport, partnering with the Oklahoma City Chamber of Commerce, has been able to offer the airline $175,000 in marketing assistance. The chamber will coordinate an advertising campaign for the new service.

"That definitely helped separate Will Rogers Airport from other facilities we were looking at," Mishk said. "The economic revitalization in the community gives us confidence, and there's potential here."

In addition to adding service, the new United service also is making Oklahoma City a connection for some passengers. Travelers in Chicago wanting to get to New Orleans on United are sometimes catching a connecting flight in Oklahoma City. Travelers heading west to Denver also could make stops in Oklahoma City, which has daily United flights to Chicago and Denver.

"It's great for the community," Mishk said. "You're getting people through here who wouldn't normally see Oklahoma City."

The concept also is great for the airline, said Terry Trippler, an analyst for cheaptickets.com.

"It's a different strategy, but it's less expensive for the airlines," Trippler said. "It gets them out of congested airports, and all they have to worry about is getting out of O'Hare on time. It improves their on-time performance, and they aren't continually adding capacity at these hubs. I think it's a wise move."

In Oklahoma City, the new service also means that major destinations for passengers now are being served, said Karen Carney, spokeswoman for Will Rogers World Airport.

San Antonio is 15th on a list of popular destinations for Will Rogers travelers. New Orleans is 22 on the list, according to an consultant's report.

"This now means 12 of the top 15 destinations are being served," Carney said. "It's a growing market, and when we see airlines adding nonstop service, that's a positive."

Hopefully we can see more of these type of announcements, as well as additional United service to their other hubs in San Fran, Los Angeles, and Washington Dulles soon! I like the fact that UAL is breaking the hub/spoke mode and giving OKC a chance to possibly become a focus city! :tweeted:

Now just only if we had that United Maintenance facility, this would surely be a no-brainer operation!

Continue the Renaissance