Commercial Airports

[venture]

No. Demand IS here for more flights. Many businesses need or want non stop service to a plethera of destinations not served by Will Rogers. This is something vertually all Oklahoma City residents know.

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

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

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

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

Ugh.

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

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

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

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

[mranderson]

You can call it an expansion if you wish, however, just adding space to the front and rebuilding one concourse is nto an expansion. Adding gates is an espansion.

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

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

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

[venture]

You can call it an expansion if you wish, however, just adding space to the front and rebuilding one concourse is nto an expansion. Adding gates is an espansion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[mranderson]

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

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

I suggest we move on. This is going nowhere.

[venture]

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

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

I suggest we move on. This is going nowhere.

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

[HOT ROD]

Not to stop the tag team going on here

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

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

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

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

Here is what we need to do.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[OUman]

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

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

[mranderson]

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

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

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

[venture]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[HKG_Flyer1]

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

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

[venture]

Over on airlines they started talking about market size rank based on passengers and compared them to city & MSA rankings. Needless to say OKC came in at 69 on the O&D list while the city pop ranks 29th and MSA 49th. Below OKC on the list there aren't any cities that have a significant hub or focus city operation. The nearest contenders would be Long Beach, CA with JetBlue - but they are slot controlled so that keeps pax numbers down...they came in 93rd O&D, 34th City, and 2nd MSA; also Sanford (Orlando), FL which was 98th O&D, 107th city, and 78th MSA. Sanford has proven to be a great relief airport for MCO and caters to mainly international charters from the UK and a couple niche airlines in the US - TransMeridian and Allegiant.

So lets go larger than OKC...the cities who have hubs/focus city ops (in order): ATL, ORD, LAX, DFW, PHX, DEN, LAS, IAH, MSP, DTW, SFO, EWR, JFK, MIA, SEA, MCO, STL, PHL, CLT, BOS, LGA, CVG, HNL, BWI, SLC, PIT, FLL, MDW and IAD at 29th. Then back up with DCA (32), MEM (36), CLE (38), SJU (39), HOU (45/4/10), IND (46/12/29), DAL (53/8/9), MKE (54/19/27), and ANC (60/66/140).

Cities that don't have either (in order/rank is O&D/City/MSA): SAN (31/7/17), OAK (33/42/5), PDX (34/28/23), SJC (35/11/5), MCI (37/36/26), MSY (40/31/35), SMF (41/41/25), RDU (42/63/41), BNA (43/22/39), SNA (44/56/2), CMH (47/15/33), SAT (48/9/30), BDL (49/135/42), AUS (50/16/38), ONT (51/131/2), ABQ (52/35/62), PBI (55/na/45), OGG (56), PVD (57/121/40), RSW (58/na/95), JAX (59/14/46), BUR (61/243/2), RNO (62/114/121), BUF (63/59/43), OMA (64/45/61), SDF (65/67/50), ORF (66/38/31), TUS (67/30/58), and MHT (68/218/7).

A few of the cities in the second list may be considered focus cities, especially ones with significant Southwest service. However, the point of this is to show there are plenty of cities that have a stronger market than OKC for any type of significant operation.

[mranderson]

Here is the scoop. As I write this, I am in Manteca, California, a suburb or Stockton. I flew out of Will Rogers Saturday morning, and before I left, I took a close look around the new terminal.

Not ONE gate was unassigned. All 17 had at least one airline assigned to it. So, that means we have 17 full gates and no empty gates. The additional concourse is needed now. Not later.

I will post pictures of the terminals in Oklahoma City, Phoenix and Sacramento when I return.

[HKG_Flyer1]

Here is the scoop. As I write this, I am in Manteca, California, a suburb or Stockton. I flew out of Will Rogers Saturday morning, and before I left, I took a close look around the new terminal.

Not ONE gate was unassigned. All 17 had at least one airline assigned to it. So, that means we have 17 full gates and no empty gates. The additional concourse is needed now. Not later.

I will post pictures of the terminals in Oklahoma City, Phoenix and Sacramento when I return.

I'm confused, www.flyokc.com only indicates 14 assigned gates, where are the three additional gates and who is using them?

[mranderson]

I'm confused, www.flyokc.com only indicates 14 assigned gates, where are the three additional gates and who is using them?

Seeing is believing. I walked the entire area several times and saw every single gate with an airline assigned. We are out of gates. I saw it for myself. Do I need to shoot a picture of every single gate when I land next Monday?

[Patrick]

Actually, this is somewhat of a misnomer. The airport supposedly has 18 gates, but there are no gates # 7, 13, 15, 17. So really, there are only 14 gates at our airport. Strange the way they numbered them. Good question for Karen Carney. I know the gates on the main terminal are numbered, 14, 16, 18, without odd numbers, because odd numbers are placed on the north side of the terminal/concourse and there is no north side for airports to dock on the MAIN terminal, like there is on the concourse. So that explains the absence of 13, 15, 17. But, I don't know why there isn't a gate 7 on the north side of the west concourse. Maybe it's for future expansion, who knows.

Personally, I think we need to build the East Concourse and reserve it just for regional jets. A lot of the larger airports have separate secitions just for regional and commuter jets. Look at the American Eagle Satellite Terminal at DFW.

[Patrick]

Seeing is believing. I walked the entire area several times and saw every single gate with an airline assigned. We are out of gates. I saw it for myself. Do I need to shoot a picture of every single gate when I land next Monday?

I'm curious if there is a gate #7. Take a pic if you see one. Maybe it's new.

[mranderson]

I'm curious if there is a gate #7. Take a pic if you see one. Maybe it's new.

One thing I forgot. Will Rogers has no gate 13. So, I think there is a gate 7. I left from gate 9, and it should have been next door.

[Patrick]

They didn't have a gate 7 in the beginning, so if there's one there, they added it recently. Please check when you come back! If there is a gate 7, that brings us up to 15 gates, as there are no 13, 15, and 17 gates, for the reason I mentioned.

Just looking at our airport from the plane coming in, it still looks small, especially compared to most other airports. Even looks smaller than the little airport we landed at in Lihue, Kauai, Hawaii. But, I'll admit, it does look better now than it used to before the "expansion" project! The whole term expansion is actually a misnomer in my opinion. We have fewer gates than when we started, or I suppose the same number if there are 15 gates with Gate 7. One of the other old concourses was also missing a gate. Can't remember which one.

By the way, the new stone and rock facade on the building and the new arrival area looks superb. I love the new modern look of our airport. Looks very contemporary and bright.

[Pete]

Here's the aiport guide from their website... Looks like no gate 7, 13, 15 or 17 so currently 14 gates.

However, maybe they are planning to add three gates to the east side of the concourse, shown as under construction on the left side of the drawing:

[chrisok]

There wasn't a gate 7 when I was there 3 weeks ago. Gate 7 would be where the restrooms and bookstore are located on the west side. Gate 5 is United and Gate 9 is reserved for Continental and apparently America West is using it too.

I don't think Delta (and perhaps Champion) have moved into their new gates yet. The ones they are using now are temporarily assigned. They will have 3 gates on the other side of Southwest. That will leave gates 1, 11, & 12 unassigned.

[chrisok]

Or you could look at the map malibu posted.................

[venture]

Couple things...

It is correct, there isn't a gate 7 in the new concourse. I just reviewed a photo I had taken 2 weeks ago when I was out getting some shots of the parked Indy Air CRJs.

Mranderson stated: "Not ONE gate was unassigned. All 17 had at least one airline assigned to it. So, that means we have 17 full gates and no empty gates. The additional concourse is needed now. Not later. "

You do understand the vast difference between gate assignment and gate utilization right? Please go back to the information I had posted which clearly shows we still have 2-3 gates of growth before there is a major capacity crunch. You also have to look at it from the perspective...you don't need to have an aircraft at the gate unless it is loading or unloading. Many airports such as Long Beach, Washington Dulles, the various airports in Hawaii, St. Petersburg, etc...all board from the ramp for some or all flights. Again, look at the gate utilization from the airline schedules first before going by the signage posted on the walls.

Patrick:

You stated that the east concourse should or could be dedicated to RJ flying. This really is irrelevant at this point. The Eagle satellite terminal at DFW was built to meet a gate crunch for not just RJs but also for their turboprop fleet in general. You also need to keep in mind the majority of flights in OKC are flown with RJs. There really isn't any point to dedicating one side of the airport to a certain aircraft type anymore. Thankfully with the new bridge designs from DEW and other manufacturers, you can use the same boarding bridge on aircraft from a Saab 340 to 757.

[Patrick]

There wasn't a gate 7 when I was there 3 weeks ago. Gate 7 would be where the restrooms and bookstore are located on the west side. Gate 5 is United and Gate 9 is reserved for Continental and apparently America West is using it too.

I don't think Delta (and perhaps Champion) have moved into their new gates yet. The ones they are using now are temporarily assigned. They will have 3 gates on the other side of Southwest. That will leave gates 1, 11, & 12 unassigned.

I guess the 3 new Delta gates on the east side will bring us up to the 17 gates being discussed at the end of construction. And 1, 11, and 12 would explain the unassigned gates you mentioned, although I'd like to see America West grow and take on al of those.

[OUman]

Ok, I've been following the airport's changes way before the whole expansion began, and here's a brief run-down:

When the terminal had the two concourses, B and C, each concourse had eight gates. Yes, there was a gate C9, but that was because there wasn't any gate C5. Southwest only had gates C1, C3 and C7. When TWA went out of business in '01, AA dropped one of its gates in Concourse B, and thus used only three gates.

But there was one unused gate-B1. Now there are 17 gates, one more than before (yes, it's still an expansion, not a just a remodelling-an expansion is a significant increase in floor space, not just more gates). And there will be three unused gates.

As for the numbering of the gates, a lot of airports, not only in this country, but around the world do the same thing. I don't know why, but they number the gates so you think that thee are more gates than the terminal actually has. Look at the Tulsa Int'l terminal map-same thing.

Personally, I think the new terminal is MILES better than the old one. I still recall heading out from OKC on a cloudy day and the concourses looking somewhat dimly-lit. No more. Even on a dull, cloudy day, the new concourse and terminal will have ample light. The outdoor plaza garden should also be great.

OUman

[Omaha Cowboy]

I posted this in another thread and thought it might be of interest here..

Some additinal information of interest..The following is a ranking for the top 176 airports in 2004 according to total passengers..

Omaha-#68: 3,868,217
OKC-#74: 3,379,883
Tulsa-#79: 2,943,919..

The link to the complete list:

http://www.aci-na.org/docs/2004%20P...%20Rankings.xls

..Ciao..LiO....Peace