OKC/Will Rogers Air Service Discussion

[ljbab728]

ljbab, thanks for that information - but my point was if OKC had a lower price point due to competition/availability of service, then OKC could become attractive to the regional market and siphon off some passengers from those cities. Just as has been reported that those cities have siphoned off OKC pax due to their lower price points and (to a lesser but still valid extent) to having direct air routes to markets OKC doesnt.

Also, when I read the Orlando article, I thought it said OKC service would be reinstated; along with denver, san fran and so on.

Hot Rod, there is little that OKC can do to get lower price points unless they can convince the airlines that the business is there. That is strictly an airline decision to determine availability and they aren't likely to decide to increase competion in some markets in order to get lower prices. They might introduce some market at a lower price to attract riders but eventually will want to make money since that's why they are in business.

[HOT ROD]

I think we need to think out of the box. How can Omaha and other smaller and less significant cities do what OKC hasn't?

Omaha has Warren, who Im sure does things to make sure OMA has routes. Couldn't OKC's business community do the same (particularly since it is larger)?

Couldn't OKC offer incentives to airlines (such as zero landing fees) who expand routes in key market pairs? or the same to airlines who set up hub and/or focus city operations?

Im not fully buying the argument that the city itself needs to have the passengers for flights to work. I have seen other cities, where airlines funnel passengers into that airport in order to make flights work - why couldn't the same be done here, with added incentive (no landing fees and a PLAN from the OKC business/leadership community) as the catalyst.

I think there is many things OKC could try. These other cities started somewhere - while OKC sat on it's laurels for so long. There was one point, not too long ago - that OKC was so smug (and stupid) that they posted on the airport website that they refused to accept federal funds for projects. HOW STUPID.

Look at the results. ......

[SkyWestOKC]

OKC just doesn't have the same air travel mentality as other cities. In Oklahoma, and this is not a bad thing, people decide for vacation to head down to the lake, do some fishing. Not fly out of state for a trip.

Second and most importantly, OKC's business base does not use commercial aviation to the extent of other cities. We need strong business travel, because it remains steady all year and through all days of the week.

WN is the only airline "funneling" passengers through OKC. This is a small number per day (100-200 at most that get off the plane, and change to a different plane). You are talking about building a focus city -- those, alongside hubs, are built off of O/D, not connections. The connections are thrown in later.

The airport has used and continues to use federal funding for projects. The taxiway makeover is currently an ARRA funded project, as well as the taxiway edge lights and H, G, and H2 extensions.

In order to become a 4m/yr airport, we will need to see an extra 2,500 people flying out or in to OKC every day. Currently, OKC sees about 7,000 passengers per day. (3.5ish in and 3.5ish out). That is equivalent to adding about 10 more mainline departures and arrivals. Doesn't sound like much, but considering most of our seats are RJ's as it is, those would get upgrades to mainline first. So, in order to add the extra 2,500 seats on our current flights. We would need somewhere around 15 or 16 Regional Jets to be upgraded to mainline, the flight would also need to go out full. The numbers are too hard to justify when you run them.

Just by running passenger numbers per day (averaged) based on how many seats are available each day, OKC provides about a 60-70% load factor average. Some flights go out full everyday, some flight fly empty.

OKC: Let's fill the seats we have now, let's not beg for service that will perform poorly.

With all that said, I am the most eager person to see OKC grow, but at the same time, I look at the stats and see we need to be realistic. Let's get the service we need. San Diego, Bay Area of San Fran, Seattle, and Chicago Midway looks promising to get nonstops. Let's see what happens.

[MikeOKC]

OKC just doesn't have the same air travel mentality as other cities. In Oklahoma, and this is not a bad thing, people decide for vacation to head down to the lake, do some fishing. Not fly out of state for a trip.

Second and most importantly, OKC's business base does not use commercial aviation to the extent of other cities. We need strong business travel, because it remains steady all year and through all days of the week.

WN is the only airline "funneling" passengers through OKC. This is a small number per day (100-200 at most that get off the plane, and change to a different plane). You are talking about building a focus city -- those, alongside hubs, are built off of O/D, not connections. The connections are thrown in later.

The airport has used and continues to use federal funding for projects. The taxiway makeover is currently an ARRA funded project, as well as the taxiway edge lights and H, G, and H2 extensions.

In order to become a 4m/yr airport, we will need to see an extra 2,500 people flying out or in to OKC every day. Currently, OKC sees about 7,000 passengers per day. (3.5ish in and 3.5ish out). That is equivalent to adding about 10 more mainline departures and arrivals. Doesn't sound like much, but considering most of our seats are RJ's as it is, those would get upgrades to mainline first. So, in order to add the extra 2,500 seats on our current flights. We would need somewhere around 15 or 16 Regional Jets to be upgraded to mainline, the flight would also need to go out full. The numbers are too hard to justify when you run them.

Just by running passenger numbers per day (averaged) based on how many seats are available each day, OKC provides about a 60-70% load factor average. Some flights go out full everyday, some flight fly empty.

OKC: Let's fill the seats we have now, let's not beg for service that will perform poorly.

With all that said, I am the most eager person to see OKC grow, but at the same time, I look at the stats and see we need to be realistic. Let's get the service we need. San Diego, Bay Area of San Fran, Seattle, and Chicago Midway looks promising to get nonstops. Let's see what happens.

This is very well said. Another thing that I saw on TV in January was one of those, "How things will change this decade," reports and it said many analysts are expecting an emphasis from airlines to shift to volume travel models with heavy marketing of recreational travel versus business travel. The bread and butter "gotta go now" business flyer may become a thing of the past this decade. They pointed out that fewer and fewer business deals need to be done in person; they'll never completely go away, but with virtual conferencing, meetings, etc. it's just a natural change in how we conduct business. New realities.

[venture]

Skywest hit it on the head. It is a use it or lose it notion with air service. A market that is struggling to break 70% overall load factor is not going to attract more service. If anything, airlines will start reverting to see how much they can cut back to trim the low yield "junk" traffic from their flights.

Also we don't have the O&D required to support a focus city operation now, especially in an environment where hubs and focus cities are being pulled down. Like SW mentioned, we have some connecting traffic here in OKC - mainly thanks to the Texas "Two Step"...where people are wanting to fly to Dallas from a non-Wright Amendment permitted state. I would highly expect these folks to vanish once the WA is completely removed here soon.

[HOT ROD]

more doom and gloom from OKC's airline experts. ....

[venture]

more doom and gloom from OKC's airline experts. ....

No, just a realistic approach to things. I will be the first one out there to wish we had a focus city or hub operation here, but the industry conditions just won't warrant it. We also have to look at the relatively small business market here and number of high income jobs. If people can't afford to fill the front of the tube or pay a higher fare, no pun intended...additional service isn't going to fly.

I know everyone loves their cheap air fares and such, but honestly that is the worst thing to buy for an airline. However I think we may see an eventual shift in prices to the higher to get away from these unsustainable levels. Delta has already done this at Detroit. They are decided to completely ignore the LCC's there, especially Spirit, and raised fares. What use to be a money losing $150 or lower one way trip to New York, is now costing people around $450 or more.

Until we see the shift here, I don't expect a lot to happen. I, and others, mention AirTran as a good target for the city. However, they'll drop a city in a heart beat if the business class cabin isn't getting filled. As the cities in the Carolinas, Gulf Coast, and Midwest they've dumped over the last several years have all found out. "Yes we've been running load factors well over 70-80%, but we aren't selling any business class tickets - so we are done"...has been their typical PR statement, just more kindly worded.

Going to wrap this up, but I do agree that the Airport Authority needs to improve its public image some. The website is a disgrace. Air service advertisements are scarce. Very little news of additional air service every gets to the news broadcasts. Not to mention, the participation on this forum by - whoever it was - has vanished and apparently public input isn't welcome by them anymore.

[HOT ROD]

I do appreciate your sense of reality (and other airline enthusiasts/experts on here). But my point was - if OKC wants to grow in airline traffic, maybe we should 'think-out-of-the-box' and take approaches that aren't mainstream. .....

I understand and can appreciate the airline business (I worked 10+ years at Boeing and also United) but those business models aren't necessarily the best nor are they in the best interest of OKC. Those models look for ways to capitalize rather than economize.

But anyways - I think we are on similar pages, I just wanted to point out that OKC needs to think out of the box and dont just relegate itself to what others think OKC should be.

[ljbab728]

I do appreciate your sense of reality (and other airline enthusiasts/experts on here). But my point was - if OKC wants to grow in airline traffic, maybe we should 'think-out-of-the-box' and take approaches that aren't mainstream. .....

I understand and can appreciate the airline business (I worked 10+ years at Boeing and also United) but those business models aren't necessarily the best nor are they in the best interest of OKC. Those models look for ways to capitalize rather than economize.

But anyways - I think we are on similar pages, I just wanted to point out that OKC needs to think out of the box and dont just relegate itself to what others think OKC should be.

Hot Rod, I'm not sure I understand what you're referring to concerning how the airline business models aren't in our interest because we aren't going to change how they perceive their agendas. We are in agreement that more could be done but the focus of that needs to be in developing more passengers for the airlines first. New routes and capacity will follow. Occasionally we can get an airline to take chances on routes like Continental did from here to Newark and United did from here to LAX and Washington but that will be rare. Just offering lower landing fees isn't enought to accomplish something like that.

[HOT ROD]

maybe there's more that can be done then.

we need to think out of the box, and dont get to worried about traditional airline models. they aren't in OKC's best interest because those models depends upon things OKC is weak in.

[SkyWestOKC]

What airline will add flights to a city whose claims for justifying the service is, "It doesn't fit your model, but we are looking outside the box, and we think the flights can work, maybe not on this sheet of paper, but give it a chance."

The airlines toss around real dollar bills, the days of "Monopoly Money" are over. They have to be careful about losses, the guesswork on a route will not happen, they need to be sure, by hell and brimstone, that a flight has a good chance of making money before they will even think about it.

[ljbab728]

What airline will add flights to a city whose claims for justifying the service is, "It doesn't fit your model, but we are looking outside the box, and we think the flights can work, maybe not on this sheet of paper, but give it a chance."

The airlines toss around real dollar bills, the days of "Monopoly Money" are over. They have to be careful about losses, the guesswork on a route will not happen, they need to be sure, by hell and brimstone, that a flight has a good chance of making money before they will even think about it.

You're exactly right SkyWest. I deal with the airlines every day and it's kind of like dealing with the government. If things don't fit with their preconceived ideas of the way things should work there is no point talking with them. I had a problem that needed to be solved yesterday and after getting passed to 5 different departments at an airline was told to call back the first department. I finally got a sympathetic person who was able to help by doing what should have been done to start with.

[HOT ROD]

I give up

[brianinok]

I've read in the past about cities that have guaranteed airlines slightly above break-even on flights to get them and keep them. How much money does the airport trust have? Do they have enough money to do something like this? Perhaps they could incorporate mainlines into this strategy (i.e. Delta, we'll guarantee 105% of cost for you to fly at least 2 mainline jets per day to Atlanta).

I've said it before but I think it is completely ridiculous that airlines fly so many RJs. RJs are the main reason hub airports have consistent delays. It takes the same amount of time for a RJ with 50-70 seats to land, taxi, park and to push back, taxi, take off as it does a 120 seat 737. Loading/unloading only takes slightly longer for the larger jet, but is definitely more efficient at gate usage overall. Continental should not be flying 8 RJs and 1 mainline between OKC and Houston; American and United should not each be flying 5 RJs and 0 mainlines between OKC and Chicago; Delta should not be flying 5 RJs and 0 mainlines between OKC and Atlanta. It makes perfect sense right now for RJs to be used on routes like OKC-LAX and OKC-IAD by United and OKC-EWR by Continental.

OKC travelers should have the ability to take a one-layover trip to places like Rome, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt on mainline jets. You can't do that now. American has a pitiful international network from DFW; Continental does not have an afternoon mainline to Houston (afternoon flights are necessary to catch Europe flights); United only has mainline service to Denver (where there is no or very little Europe service); Delta has no mainline service in OKC. The traffic is there for these airlines to offer mainline service-- they just need to adjust their schedules.

[venture]

I've read in the past about cities that have guaranteed airlines slightly above break-even on flights to get them and keep them. How much money does the airport trust have? Do they have enough money to do something like this? Perhaps they could incorporate mainlines into this strategy (i.e. Delta, we'll guarantee 105% of cost for you to fly at least 2 mainline jets per day to Atlanta).

Put it in perspective. AirTran I think offers 2 daily mainline flights from Wichita to Atlanta. The city has been paying just under $7 million per year for the last several years to retain that service. Travel banks and other revenue guarantees usually don't work. The government gives out roughly $10-12 million in small community air grants every year to help non-EAS (essential air service) cities draw in new service. Lawton to Atlanta was an example of a city that got the grant, landed Delta service to Atlanta, and lost the service once the grant ran out. Though their are some success stories...AirTran at Akron/Canton, OH is probably the biggest and best example of this. However, I don't see OKC coughing up the amount of cash needed for such a project right now. They could try to get a travel bank setup, but I would guess most local businesses are already utilizing OKC for nearly all of their travel. The effectiveness of such a project is only in cities that experience a significant amount of leakage...Rockford to Chicago (about 50-60%), Fort Wayne to Indiananpolis (about 50%), and Toledo to Detroit (about 90%). Yes all examples from the Great Lakes, but that is where you see a lot of overlap with major hubs near by.

I've said it before but I think it is completely ridiculous that airlines fly so many RJs. RJs are the main reason hub airports have consistent delays. It takes the same amount of time for a RJ with 50-70 seats to land, taxi, park and to push back, taxi, take off as it does a 120 seat 737. Loading/unloading only takes slightly longer for the larger jet, but is definitely more efficient at gate usage overall. Continental should not be flying 8 RJs and 1 mainline between OKC and Houston; American and United should not each be flying 5 RJs and 0 mainlines between OKC and Chicago; Delta should not be flying 5 RJs and 0 mainlines between OKC and Atlanta. It makes perfect sense right now for RJs to be used on routes like OKC-LAX and OKC-IAD by United and OKC-EWR by Continental.

The RJ experience is one that did completely the opposite of what was intended. In the early 90s people were sick of props, even large 60-70 passenger ones, and felt "safer" with ducted fans instead of external ones (yes I know they aren't exactly just ducted fans, but just play along here LOL). So Canadair (Bombardier) said "well lets stretch our Challenger business jet and fit 50 seats in it...viola...regional jets were reborn. I say reborn because the first crop was already out there...BAe-146, Bac-111, DC-9-10, Fokker 28, etc. So the first part of the job for the RJ was to get rid of those nasty props. Comair, with Delta, led the way and cities that were primarily doing props were seeing jets out the rear. The other part of the RJ plan was to start flying "thin" routes that couldn't support mainline but were too long for props to fly efficiently. So we saw some of that - Delta/Comair at Orlando to a gazillion cities is an example. So we have this huge revolution take place and push props out for these new small jets. Then things started to turn into "hey this older narrowbody jets are costing too much, lets use RJs to replace them"...and then you start down the road of choking airports. Even though this already started when props were being phased out. Props could use shorter runways at major airports and traveled in different air ways. With the change, all those flights that use to not really be a major issue, were now pushed into mainline airways. I'm rambling here, but anyways. Then fuel shot up and RJs became completely unprofitable to run on most markets. The old upgraded prop cities saw their service slashed. More mainline routes that had traditionally good yields started seeing the RJs on their routes to ensure higher profits with less empty seats. Hence why we have OKC-ATL, IAH, ORD the way it is now.

However...LAX, IAD, EWR, and the like are PERFECT examples of what the RJs were meant for. Longer thin routes that can't support mainline, but have enough traffic to at least fill 50 seats or so per day. But we still have the problem of the RJs choking airports like New York, Philadelphia, etc. I'm hoping we see something take place that will push airlines back to using large equipment, which will mean less flight choices and also a higher utilization of prop aircraft. The next generation Dash 8s from Bombardier are amazingly quiet and fly nearly the same speed as an RJ. ATR is also continuing on with their -42 and -72 models, though we don't see many of them anymore in this country, except in Florida and Puerto Rico.

I also think a reason why we don't see mainline anymore on ATL, IAH, ORD...lack of premium business traffic. I'm hoping this changes with first class cabins showing up in more RJ cabins. Filling those cabins with PAYING passengers is going to be key to getting mainline back.

OKC travelers should have the ability to take a one-layover trip to places like Rome, Amsterdam, and Frankfurt on mainline jets. You can't do that now. American has a pitiful international network from DFW; Continental does not have an afternoon mainline to Houston (afternoon flights are necessary to catch Europe flights); United only has mainline service to Denver (where there is no or very little Europe service); Delta has no mainline service in OKC. The traffic is there for these airlines to offer mainline service-- they just need to adjust their schedules.

We can always dream for at least an ERJ-190 US Airways flight to Philadelphia to connect to their network - the 190 is flown as mainline for them. I do agree though, the connectivity to major international markets on a mainline product is very limited here.

[bluedogok]

I've been in the travel business in OKC for over 20 years and check prices and schedules for customers daily. I'm all in favor of OKC getting better flight schedules that we can support but I can tell you that it's rare that I have customers wanting to leave from DFW, ICT or TUL to save money. Tulsa flights are almost always identical or very close in pricing. Dallas and Wichita have some routes that are higher and some that are lower so it's a wash. In fact I have at times had customers who wanted to leave from DFW take a flight to OKC first and then back to DFW for a connection to save money. That's an unusual situation but it has happened.

I know many who rarely fly out of OKC almost always flying out of DFW, mostly on American. About the only time they do that is when they are flying to a non-American hub or O'Hare. If they are having to fly through DFW on a connection they just drive.

I still think OKC should court JetBlue, we try to fly them as much as possible out of Austin, mainly to JFK or Boston-Logan which have direct flights from here. We flew a direct to Denver last fall on Frontier, not as nice as JetBlue but the package deal we got was a good price.

[ljbab728]

I know many who rarely fly out of OKC almost always flying out of DFW, mostly on American. About the only time they do that is when they are flying to a non-American hub or O'Hare. If they are having to fly through DFW on a connection they just drive.

I still think OKC should court JetBlue, we try to fly them as much as possible out of Austin, mainly to JFK or Boston-Logan which have direct flights from here. We flew a direct to Denver last fall on Frontier, not as nice as JetBlue but the package deal we got was a good price.

Bluedog, I'm well aware that there are some who only want nonstop flights and might drive to DFW. But I emphasize again, that I deal with this every day. Business travelers absolutely won't take the time or effort to drive to DFW unless they happen to live closer to DFW than OKC. There was a time for the leisure travelers that it might have been much cheaper from DFW. That is rarely the case anymore. Generally with flights to vacation destinations the savings from DFW is around $100.00 or less and on some occasions it is cheaper from OKC. Most of my customers don't think it's worth that to drive.

[bluedogok]

Bluedog, I'm well aware that there are some who only want nonstop flights and might drive to DFW. But I emphasize again, that I deal with this every day. Business travelers absolutely won't take the time or effort to drive to DFW unless they happen to live closer to DFW than OKC. There was a time for the leisure travelers that it might have been much cheaper from DFW. That is rarely the case anymore. Generally with flights to vacation destinations the savings from DFW is around $100.00 or less and on some occasions it is cheaper from OKC. Most of my customers don't think it's worth that to drive.

This is usually for their personal travel, one does travel extensively for business and they fly out of OKC on those trips. For most of them it is something that they have done for 20 or so years so it may be something more out of habit than anything else. I also think they do some shopping Dallas before heading back so there are probably other influences rather than just price.

I never considered it my self but then I don't fly all that often for vacation, usually only when heading to the coasts or time is an issue, I prefer driving for the most part if I have the time. I worked for a firm in Dallas for awhile living here in Austin and I had to drive to DFW to fly out way too many times, I know flying out of Austin was quite a bit more expensive as I was reminded every time that I tried to get them to book me out of Austin. The only time that I did was a direct flight to Cleveland and that was because it was about the same price.

[ljbab728]

This is usually for their personal travel, one does travel extensively for business and they fly out of OKC on those trips. For most of them it is something that they have done for 20 or so years so it may be something more out of habit than anything else. I also think they do some shopping Dallas before heading back so there are probably other influences rather than just price.

I never considered it my self but then I don't fly all that often for vacation, usually only when heading to the coasts or time is an issue, I prefer driving for the most part if I have the time. I worked for a firm in Dallas for awhile living here in Austin and I had to drive to DFW to fly out way too many times, I know flying out of Austin was quite a bit more expensive as I was reminded every time that I tried to get them to book me out of Austin. The only time that I did was a direct flight to Cleveland and that was because it was about the same price.

I know that trying to decipher airline prices, rules, and schedules can be a nightmare, especially for infrequent flyers. Things change with the airlines almost by the minute and many of their decisions are made by their computers which sometimes defy logic. I can't tell you how many times an airline has had a schedule change for one of my customers and the computer reassigned flights that made a connection impossible. Having insider contacts like I do with the airlines can help but problems still arise that can't be solved.

[SkyWestOKC]

OKC to Atlanta goes from 5 daily to 6 daily on Delta, starting in September.

[venture]

OKC to Atlanta goes from 5 daily to 6 daily on Delta, starting in September.

You beat me by 15 seconds. :-P

[SkyWestOKC]

LOL...

BTW, I love the new avatar man!

[chrisok]

You know one way a direct/through flight like TUL-OKC-XXX may still work is with an international flight. Now I'm not talking a TPAC or TATL flight, but somewhere to Canada, Mexico, or the Caribbean. I'm sure both OKC and TUL are relatively close to justifying regional jet service to maybe a Toronto or Mexico City. Perhaps by combining the two cities it may be feasible. I know there are costs involved with making multiple stops, but I think people would be more apt to fly that route if they knew they didn't have to change planes and the stop would be short. (Other than the return flight where you have to clear customs/immigration.) Still it'd be nice to know that you won't miss your connection if you get held up in customs) I know Champion did something similar to this for Cancun. I think the routing was OKC-CUN outbound and CUN-DFW-OKC inbound.

Maybe something like an Air Canada flight OKC-TUL-YYZ (Toronto) and a return of YYZ-OKC-TUL on an E-175 (nice) or CRJ-700 (not so nice).

Another good thing about this is that only one city would need a customs/immigration area.

[brianinok]

OKC to Atlanta goes from 5 daily to 6 daily on Delta, starting in September.

Are any of them on a mainline?

[chrisok]

Are any of them on a mainline?

It's the standard mix of CR7s and CR9s as of now.