Phoenix romances Southwest

By The Associated Press
DALLAS - Phoenix officials have met with executives from Southwest Airlines Co. to discuss the low-cost carrier moving its headquarters from Dallas and may soon make a formal offer, officials for the city and the airline said.

Southwest officials say several other cities also have approached the airline, which is locked in a dispute about expanding at its home, Dallas Love Field. Southwest has declined to identify the other bidding cities.

The airline also was miffed last week when Dallas increased landing fees at Love Field by 57 percent beginning in April to raise an extra $1 million a year.

Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon spoke with Southwest Chief Executive Officer Gary Kelly by phone about a possible move two weeks ago, and he dropped in last week when city airport officials were having lunch with Southwest representatives.

Oklahoma City needs to be one of these cities vying for the headquarters and primary ops site! I hope we can put together a package for them; I mean consider the obvious: :phone:

1) OKC central location
2) New terminal at OKC with expansion capabilities (need to start expanding NOW!!!)
3) Close to Dallas, therefore not a huge move for most execs/families
4) Already significant ops in OKC, with plenty of space/land
5) Landing rights/fees in check, with no sign of increasing
6) A pro-business culture in OKC
7) A growing economy in OKC
8) An excellent "quality of life" in OKC
9) OKC is not a hub airport, therefore the airline could accomplish its mission of high frequency point-to-point ops with OKC being the nucleus! - only makes sense given its central location and lack of restrictions on air ops (no Wright Agreement)
10) The city/state has the $$ to make the deal happen

Look at the ten reasons I came up with that OKC should be chosen for the new hq and ops for SW. All of these are doable and legitimate!

Phoenix (and probably most other cities) are already hubs for other airlines and not centrally located, so that goes against them - big time.

In fact, the only city that could compete with OKC in this regard is KCMO; so OKC - JUMP ON IT!!! :k-bunny:

I hope the city/chamber/state jumps all over this, if they have not already! OKC is a shoe in for this!

What do you all think?

I think this would be great for OKC. Has no one from the city contacted Southwest yet?

You make some excellent points HOT ROD! I hope the airport trust is looking at this, perhaps we need to email it to Karen Carney, after all they are supposed to look after our best interests right?

Inhoffe may have blown our chance here.

I hope the airport trust is looking at this, perhaps we need to email it to Karen Carney, after all they are supposed to look after our best interests right?

I don't have faith that the people at the airport can lure Southwest here themselves. The mayor and city must get involved as well.

You forgot that we already have some major WN employee prescence here-one of its reservations centers. ;) But yes, I agree with Hot rod, he makes some very good points. Only thing is whether the city has contacted WN about this, and if so is WN convinced about Oklahoma City being the best location for its HQ.

Although you must realize that just getting WN's HQ is not a guarantee of more flights to/from OKC by WN. As venture has already mentioned, WN's not interested in expanding its ops at OKC for now atleast.

OUman

Wait... who is WN?

Wait... who is WN?

Southwest's airline code.

The new airport director, Mark Kranenburg, started last fall and I've yet to hear a peep out of him.

What is his vision for the future of the aiport? What are his strategies to work towards growth? What efforts are underway to expand air service?

I had my reservations about this hire at the time (former WRWA employee and most recent job was at a small, non-commercial airport) and I've seen nothing in his first 6 months to change my opinion.

1) OKC central location

Definitely a plus, but not a requirement.

2) New terminal at OKC with expansion capabilities (need to start expanding NOW!!!)

Meaningless.

3) Close to Dallas, therefore not a huge move for most execs/families

Huge plus.

4) Already significant ops in OKC, with plenty of space/land

It does help that they have a facility here with plenty of room to grow.

5) Landing rights/fees in check, with no sign of increasing

Again, meaningless.

6) A pro-business culture in OKC

Check.

7) A growing economy in OKC

Good as well. Southwest being an NBA sponsor is a good thing too.

8) An excellent "quality of life" in OKC

This goes with #3 I think. You can't expect a bunch of execs, some that are the best in the industry, to move to a city that is crap for their families or lifestyles. OKC maintains what they have in Dallas for the most part.

9) OKC is not a hub airport, therefore the airline could accomplish its mission of high frequency point-to-point ops with OKC being the nucleus! - only makes sense given its central location and lack of restrictions on air ops (no Wright Agreement)

Meaningless again. The only key to location, that I didn't put above, is the ease of getting their employees to the HQ city. PHX would accomplish this along with HOU, LAS, STL, MCI, Chicago, etc. However, that doesn't discount OKC as they do have one stop service from most of the network.

10) The city/state has the $$ to make the deal happen

The Hornets and GM deals displayed this wonderfully. Now the city needs to step in and make a full fledge bid for this.

The new airport director, Mark Kranenburg, started last fall and I've yet to hear a peep out of him.

What is his vision for the future of the aiport? What are his strategies to work towards growth? What efforts are underway to expand air service?

I had my reservations about this hire at the time (former WRWA employee and most recent job was at a small, non-commercial airport) and I've seen nothing in his first 6 months to change my opinion.

Airport Directors are not meant to be public officials. They will only be in press releases here and there, but that is it. Their job is to manage the logistics of the facility and carry out the business plan. Air service growth is always key, the new mx hanger is a huge plus...but don't expect them to tip their hat to a lot. People in the industry know everyone...as soon as you mention you are going to grow by talking to a couple discount airlines or by getting a mx facility - everyone else is going to put the pieces together and spoil the party.

There is nothing wrong with a guy coming in who doesn't have a commercial airport background, it is just one of the small portions of an airport. WRWA is very diverse with the ANG base, US Marshalls FTC, the overhaul facilities, Metrotech, etc. Yes the commercial side is what we see more of, but overall cannot be the sole focus. The airport makes its money on landing fees, leases, etc...yes the airline flights help, but if their is an ability to increase movements through the airfield thanks to a MRO facility - you can bet that is what they are going to focus on.

That's exactly what's going on right now-how to develop the airport's land surrounding the perimeter taxiways. Work on a new hangar on the airport's east side will be starting soon and it'll be ready by fall. The hangar can accomodate an Airbus 340 (if it arrives here, that'll be a sight in and of itself). The facility is for ARINC of Maryland.

OUman

Landing Southwest would be absolutely huge for OKC, the city/state need to take the GM package funds and lure Southwest. Will Rogers is one of the most expandable airports in the country.

Airport Directors are not meant to be public officials. They will only be in press releases here and there, but that is it. Their job is to manage the logistics of the facility and carry out the business plan.

His predessesor, Luther Trent, was in the media plenty even when the airport was much smaller.

The airport director is one of the highest-paid civil servants in all of the city and is first and foremost to be a leader: Set a course and marshall the resources and support to make it happen.



There is nothing wrong with a guy coming in who doesn't have a commercial airport background, it is just one of the small portions of an airport.

It may be a small portion but it's the only thing that the huge majority of the public care about, as is clearly guaged by the airport topics on this board.

Landing Southwest would be absolutely huge for OKC, the city/state need to take the GM package funds and lure Southwest. Will Rogers is one of the most expandable airports in the country.

HQ does NOT equal hub. If they move their HQ here, it doesn't mean they will increase their flights by a ton.

His predessesor, Luther Trent, was in the media plenty even when the airport was much smaller.

The airport director is one of the highest-paid civil servants in all of the city and is first and foremost to be a leader: Set a course and marshall the resources and support to make it happen.

It may be a small portion but it's the only thing that the huge majority of the public care about, as is clearly guaged by the airport topics on this board.

Thats great the guy before him was out in the public, everyone is different and does their job in a different manner; i'm also glad you can provide the definition for a leader.

Publically the air service is the more visual part of it, but I can guarantee you that the revenues generated by JPATS, Okla ANG, and AAR help fund any programs/projects that impact air service.

i'm also glad you can provide the definition for a leader.

Antagonistic condescension aside, highly-paid employees holding important positions of civic leadership should be held accountable by first clearly communicating their plan of action then keeping the public updated on progress.

I'm not willing to just assume Kranenburg and the airport trust know what they're doing, especially given the poor historical track record.

HQ does NOT equal hub. If they move their HQ here, it doesn't mean they will increase their flights by a ton.

Venture/OUman (our two aviation experts and advisors!!)

Im looking at this from this prospective,

SW is looking to move due to increasing fees at LUV and a lack of commitment from Dallas to WN's business plan. Since LUV is a major hub and hq for WN, it seems more or less logical that if the HQ moved to OKC then the hub would as well.

Also, I stand by my list elements that Venture deemed meaningless (no offense taken though). In that,

a) WN is leaving DAL because of the landing fees primarily, OKC does not have high landing fees and if it does - a major restructure could ensue to appeal to WN and other airlines (with the increase in volume/traffic, you could still come ahead with reduced fees at OKC)

b) I think Central Location is a huge advantage for WN. I know they currently do a point-to-point system, but it is also advantageous for them to point thru a central hub. That way, they can capture the leisure market (ask anyone who ever traveled WN from Seattle to OKC how much hassle it is). With a central hub *which is what they would like to do at LUV by the way, they can significantly increase market share. And because OKC is not currently a hub op, NO COMPETITION! = HUGE PROFITS!!

c)I think the new "expandable" terminal IS a good plus for OKC. Given the fact that it is state of the art, it could prove to be a nice selling point. Im sure it looks/operates better than LUV. Again, we are selling ourselves to WN, currently based out of LUV.

Im glad we all agree on the rest!

I think my list alone (and Im sure there are others that could be added) sets us ahead of every other major city. The only competition I could see is MCI-Kansas City, but then again - that is quite a bit further from Dallas than OKC is (therefore OKC would be much easier to swallow for execs and their families, as we all agree). In addition, we have $$ available for relocation from the GM deal and the Hornet's success!!!

:congrats:

I'd like to start an email campaign to get the city/state/chamber to jump on this. Does anyone have the addresses of the aformentioned?

Let us all submit to them, and I will provide my list as well as an offer for them to visit this forum for some interesting, progressive ideas and feedback.

We are truly an asset to this city and I definitely hope OKC can land this. In fact, we should!!!

Using the GM funds is actually a good idea. I'll have to go back and check that the details but wasn't the state going to give you a tax brake if you bought a car made in Oklahoma. Why not get a tax brake for flying on southwest if they locate in oklahoma.

As for more fligts to OKC. I guess that would depend on the percentage of passengers changing planes at Love. If that percentage is near 50% then that might persuade them to move connecting flights to OKC.

One advantge Phoenix might have is an experienced talent pool of airline personnel. America West just merged with USAir which might lead to layoffs in Phoenix.

SW is looking to move due to increasing fees at LUV and a lack of commitment from Dallas to WN's business plan. Since LUV is a major hub and hq for WN, it seems more or less logical that if the HQ moved to OKC then the hub would as well.

Okay, I figured this was the basis for some of the ideas presented. The main sticking point is that Southwest employees have to do the Love-Two-Step in order to get from any city outside the W.A. area. OKC could prevent this by allowing employees to get here a lot easier without re-checking in. I will bend that we could see some flight increases...say a nonstop (singular) to Chicago, Baltimore, Orlando, or Salt Lake City. Just don't expect a huge increase...we don't have the O&D market like Dallas.

One advantge Phoenix might have is an experienced talent pool of airline personnel. America West just merged with USAir which might lead to layoffs in Phoenix.

Most of the layoffs came at the Crystal Palace with the pull down of the old US HQ there. The Tempe HQ is actually being expanded to hold the growing number of people it will have there, so there won't be many - if any - layoffs there.

As Hot Rod mentioned, WN has a point-to-point system. Yes, it does have airports around the country where it has a large prescence, which can be very easily confused as hubs, but they are no more a hub than OKC is. One of the main reasons that LAS has 200+ daily WN departures is because WN has huge O&D demand there, same for PHX, DAL etc. If OKC's demand was worthy of 100+ WN departures, we would definitely have that many from Southwest, only thing is, our pax traffic doesn't support a big operation. WN's large operations differ from the main airlines in the fact that they have a larger O&D market base than the larger carriers' hubs do, a.k.a. they're not dominated by connecting passengers. At DAL, you have loads of passengers flying to Austin, San Antonio and Houston (30-31 flights between Hobby and Love Field alone, and a good chunk of that is O&D traffic).

Also, note that there has been no mention of the ops at DAL being completely shut down, just talk of the HQ being moved. WN probably won't shut down DAL ops completely, and there are a lot of loyal WN customers in the Dallas area who wouldn't want to see WN's DAL ops go w/ the HQ.

OUman

OK everyone.

We are in agreement. We could do this, we could land southwest.

Could someone post the following (or PM me):

Mayor Cornet's email (that he will actually look at)
The new airport director's email
Whomever to contact at the OKC Chamber/S. OKC Chambers (who deal with air expansion/tourism)
The state Chamber
The state Dept of Commerce
The state Dept of (anything you can think that is interested in increased aviation/tourism/jobs etc to OKC to get the ball rolling)
The governer
Large/Influential OKC business's CEO's

I hope the post will be public, so you all can join me in the emails. We need to let our public (and private) officials work to better our city. They banded together for the Hornets and GM. Now, we can take that momentum (and dollars) and put together "an offer WN can't refuse," to land the HQ and/or a hub of sorts.

Either OR doesnt matter to me, as Im sure if the HQ was in OKC they would increase flights. Even if it is as bleak (sp) as Venture said "a flight to Midway, Salt Lake, Baltimore, so on" - well, thats more than what we have now. We have NO FLIGHTS to Midway!!!! Unbelievable!!!!! None to Baltimore. And only one airline to SLC.

One additional flight alone could make a difference, to business people and tourists alike who might consider doing business in OKC (or being based out of OKC - which is what we really want!!!).

Lets get the word out ..... about OKC!!!!!!

I think the obvious location for a Southwest move, if it happens and this really seems more like a political threat than anything, is for Southwest to move the HQ and even more major flight operations to Chicago and Midway. More than moving Southwest wants the laws limiting Love done away with.

Either OR doesnt matter to me, as Im sure if the HQ was in OKC they would increase flights.

WN's not going to fly half-empty or less than half-empty planes to/from OKC if its HQ were here. Both venture and I mentioned it in our posts. Besides, WN tried an experimental Sat-only n/s between BWI and OKC, for whatever reason, it didn't work.


if it happens and this really seems more like a political threat than anything

IMO, I do not think this is a political gimmick by Southwest. There's a chance WN could be doing it for that purpose, but talk about moving HQ and the CEO of WN talking w/ Phoenix officials is pretty serious stuff. That and WN is going to look after its costs (the reason why it hedges about 80% of jet fuel it buys) and take necessary action to keep them as low as possible. An increase of 54% in landing fees at DAL will most certainly eat into its profits.

OUman

The state hosed General Motors when the plant opened, so, they pulld out when they had a realistic chance. Those funds are free to lure someone else. So, yes. Why not pay Southwest to come to Oklahoma City. They could take the GM plant and convert it into their headquarters and flight attendant training facility as well as dorms for trainees.

The other thing could be to take the investment income from the oil royalties and the cattle on Will Rogers land and invest in a hub terminal on the south edge of the airport grounds plus a third runway for Southwest flights only.

The investment by the airline would be almost nothing but relocation costs and hriing locals to replace those who choose not to relocate from the Dallas area.

It would be a win-win. Oklahoma City gets a major corporate headquarters plus a couple hundred flights a day, and Southwest gets a low cost new headquarters. After that, Congress can repeal that blackmail law called the Wright amendment.

The other thing could be to take the investment income from the oil royalties and the cattle on Will Rogers land and invest in a hub terminal on the south edge of the airport grounds plus a third runway for Southwest flights only.

The investment by the airline would be almost nothing but relocation costs and hriing locals to replace those who choose not to relocate from the Dallas area.

It would be a win-win. Oklahoma City gets a major corporate headquarters plus a couple hundred flights a day, and Southwest gets a low cost new headquarters. After that, Congress can repeal that blackmail law called the Wright amendment.

Do you even understand the concept of O&D?

Or the Wright Amendment? It's not anti Southwest, it's to protect DFW, it was a compromise when DFW opened, because the plan was for Love to be closed like Stapleton was.

If the amendment goes, American might be hurt, a little, but air service on Southwest to Tulsa and OKC on Southest would drop, probably a lot.

Personally, I think they should've closed LUV from the beginning.

OKC Contact anyone??!! Venture, OUman, Patrick???

They could take the GM plant and convert it into their headquarters and flight attendant training facility as well as dorms for trainees.

I don't think a giant factory is the right place for a headquarters or training facility. Dorms?

This is most likely the single largest major corporation that OKC has a real chance to land in the city's history. Currently, the city is home to three Fortune 500 companies. It would be great to have a fourth. Southwest Airlines could be another major corporate sponsor for the Hornets or any other possible major league team that calls OKC home. I am a bit concerned about Chicago being interested though. I read today in the Dallas Morning News that so far it's Phoenix, Chicago and Baltimore that have expressed interest in the HQ. Las Vegas apparently doesn't want the headquarters because they want the space for expansion of the terminal. Southwest supposedly wants the new headquarters to be on airport property at or very near a terminal. I can't imagine a better place to relocate a HQ than OKC. We are right smack in the middle of the Southwest system. We have the money, land and vision to make it happen. This city has waited too long for an opportunity like this.

Sure would be wierd for SOUTHWEST Airlines to be based in Baltimore or Chicago. Would they change the name?

Sure would be wierd for SOUTHWEST Airlines to be based in Baltimore or Chicago. Would they change the name?

Under that theory, they would have to change names if they move to Oklahoma City also. We are in the midwest as well as Chicago. (yes. Midwest Airlines is taken)

Under that theory, they would have to change names if they move to Oklahoma City also. We are in the midwest as well as Chicago. (yes. Midwest Airlines is taken)

We've been through this discussion before. Regardless of what type of city you feel we are, OKC is geographically located in the south central.

Besides, I'd have to say OKC is more similar to Dallas, a SW city. In contrast, Tulsa is more comparable to most midwestern cities.

Could someone PLEASE post or PM me the email to the KEY OKC leadership???

I would love to share my list/ideas with them so we can get in on this.

I'd like the following reps; mayor, dokc, chamber, state chamber, governor, commerce, WRWA airport, large businesses in the city with clout

Please post so others can join as well. Let's email the OKC leaders so we can get this HQ. NO other city is a match for us and it definitely would seal our renaissance as a forth-coming big city!

The state hosed General Motors when the plant opened, so, they pulld out when they had a realistic chance. Those funds are free to lure someone else. So, yes. Why not pay Southwest to come to Oklahoma City. They could take the GM plant and convert it into their headquarters and flight attendant training facility as well as dorms for trainees.

The other thing could be to take the investment income from the oil royalties and the cattle on Will Rogers land and invest in a hub terminal on the south edge of the airport grounds plus a third runway for Southwest flights only.

The investment by the airline would be almost nothing but relocation costs and hriing locals to replace those who choose not to relocate from the Dallas area.

It would be a win-win. Oklahoma City gets a major corporate headquarters plus a couple hundred flights a day, and Southwest gets a low cost new headquarters. After that, Congress can repeal that blackmail law called the Wright amendment.

A. No airport builds a runway for the sole use by an airline, doesn't work that way, and most likely never will. Besides, OKC already has three major runways, and doesn't need a fourth one for a good while.

B. HQ does not equal "a couple hundred flights a day."

OUman

Sure would be wierd for SOUTHWEST Airlines to be based in Baltimore or Chicago. Would they change the name?

Maybe, but not necessarily. Northwest Airlines is based is Minneapolis. Western Pacific had its HQ in Colorado Springs, not Los Angeles or San Francisco. Alaska Airlines is headquartered in Seattle.

OUman

A. No airport builds a runway for the sole use by an airline, doesn't work that way, and most likely never will. Besides, OKC already has three major runways, and doesn't need a fourth one for a good while.

B. HQ does not equal "a couple hundred flights a day."

OUman

Actually, I have flown into airports that had a dedicated runway for their hub airline(s). Plus, maybe HQ in general does not mean more flights, however, name me one airline that does not hub in their headquarters city.

Actually, I have flown into airports that had a dedicated runway for their hub airline(s). Plus, maybe HQ in general does not mean more flights, however, name me one airline that does not hub in their headquarters city.

I've never seen that at any airport. Name me one airport that has a dedicated runway for an airline, and give me some facts.

Actually, I have flown into airports that had a dedicated runway for their hub airline(s). Plus, maybe HQ in general does not mean more flights, however, name me one airline that does not hub in their headquarters city.

Ok, which airports are those? I'm fairly sure that there's no airport which has a dedicated runway just for the use of one airline. Yes, sometimes, some airlines do get preferential treatment, but that is highly dependent on air traffic control. Southwest's ops at PHL (Philadelphia Int'l) and LAX are good examples of this. At LAX, WN pilots sometimes ask for the north side of the field for either takeoff or landing, but there's no guarantee that all Southwest flights will get to use the north side's runways, ultimately, it's up to the controllers. Same goes for PHL. I've also listened to controllers at DFW asking pilots which side of the field they want, but that was only when traffic was light.

As for an airline which doesn't have a hub in its HQ city, Air Tran. It is headquartered in Orlando, doesn't have a hub there. Just a focus operation.

OUman

If someone knows the emails that Hotrod is asking for come on... He's already asked like 3 times. After reading this thread I'm pretty happy with OKC's ability to land the company. If our state/city leaders aren't already looking into this then they need to know everything that has just been said here.

As for an airline which doesn't have a hub in its HQ city, Air Tran. It is headquartered in Orlando, doesn't have a hub there. Just a focus operation.

OUman

Thank you. I figured you would be the first to throw AirTran out. :) Great example. Before their fall, TransMerdian was another - Atlanta based with a Sanford hub. I couple dig up a few more, but point proven and claim dismissed.

As far as the dedicated runways. Umm, I think the FAA may have an issue with that. LOL Granted if you are talking of places like Wilimington, OH...well sure the runways will be dedicated to ABX Air (DHL/Airborne Express)...since they own the joint. :)

Everywhere else, it all depends on terminal layout. I can assure that when Atlanta gets the new south terminal built, AirTran and the other airlines will start using the nearest runways instead of going to the opposite side of the field - making it seem Delta has sole use of a runway.

I'll agree w/ that, but again, there will be plenty of DL/DL Conn planes which are vectored to the north side. Now I don't want to keep this thread off topic (I know we've gone off on tangents here again), but the new runway at Amsterdam Schiphol requires a really long taxi to the terminal complex, and KLM isn't getting preferential treatment. Same at DFW, any AA plane coming in on the western-most runway (13R-31L) has to cross two runways, go over a bridge, then get to either terminal A or C. Really long and winding.

OUman

All the e-mails you are looking for can usually be found on the websites representing each entity. Such as OKC's web site or the one for the State of Oklahoma.