Widgets Magazine
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 85

Thread: Commercial Airports

  1. Default Commercial Airports

    I have taken the time to search for the number of terminals of commercial airports in cities that are around the size of Oklahoma City. I used metro populations, not proper.

    Here they are.

    Nashville-Population: 1.3 million. Gates: Unknown

    Hartford, CT-Population: 1.148 Million. Gates: 40

    Louisville, KY- Population: 1.16 Million. Gates: 24

    Richmond, VA-Population: 1.1 Million. Gates: 22

    Memphis, TN-Population: 1.249 Million. Gates: 51

    Sacramento, CA-Population: 1.8 Million. Gates: 27

    Raleigh-Durham-Population: minimum of 1.2 million. Gates: 34

    San Antonio-Population: 1.73 Million. Gates: 28

    Orlando-Population 1.63 Million. Gates: 94

    Columbus, OH-Population 1.61 Million. Gates: 37

    Jacksonville, FL-Population 1.12 Million. Gates: 23 (expanding to 29)

    Oklahoma City-Population 1.3 Million. Gates: 17

    Humm. No wonder Oklahoma City has a commercial airport that is a joke which does not attract business.

  2. Default Re: Commercial Airports

    Nashville has 50 at least.

  3. Default Re: Commercial Airports

    Great post!

    These are very telling numbers. Also, they are not skewed because I only see one major tourist destination, (Orlando), which has an airport the size of a city with three times it's population. San Antonio is a mid level tourist getaway that mainly attracts regional vacation enthusiasts. The remaining cities are no more of a tourist hotspot than OKC but clearly have much better developed air transit infrastructure. This is kinda embarrassing.

  4. Default Re: Commercial Airports

    Quote Originally Posted by Decious
    Great post!

    These are very telling numbers. Also, they are not skewed because I only see one major tourist destination, (Orlando), which has an airport the size of a city with three times it's population. San Antonio is a mid level tourist getaway that mainly attracts regional vacation enthusiasts. The remaining cities are no more of a tourist hotspot than OKC but clearly have much better developed air transit infrastructure. This is kinda embarrassing.
    My point exactly. They were taken somewhat at random after I saw populations.

    FYI. I said number of terminals. I meant gates.

  5. #5

    Default Re: Commercial Airports

    Yes, but also keep in mind Memphis is a transporation Mecca for goods and Nashville also has alot of tourism and alot of people flying in and out for business. Hartford gets alot of east coast traffic that can't fly into NYC directly.

  6. Default Re: Commercial Airports

    Quote Originally Posted by metro
    Yes, but also keep in mind Memphis is a transporation Mecca for goods and Nashville also has alot of tourism and alot of people flying in and out for business. Hartford gets alot of east coast traffic that can't fly into NYC directly.
    The gates are strictly passenger gates. I did not include numbers of flights. Yes. Nashville does have a fair tourist trade, and yes, Hartford is an alternant landing point for the New York City area. However, the point is simple. Oklahoma City has less gates than any city our size in the nation. What a shame. And, yes. VERY embarrasing.

  7. #7
    ErnieBall Guest

    Default Re: Commercial Airports

    Actually, for all the reasons pointed out previously, it's completely reasonable that we would have fewer gates. Less traffic means fewer gates, period. Now, that doesn't mean I think we're not dropping the ball in terms of attracting new airlines to our airport, but it's hardly embarrassing that we have fewer gates than Orlando or Memphis, etc.

  8. Default Re: Commercial Airports

    Quote Originally Posted by ErnieBall
    Actually, for all the reasons pointed out previously, it's completely reasonable that we would have fewer gates. Less traffic means fewer gates, period. Now, that doesn't mean I think we're not dropping the ball in terms of attracting new airlines to our airport, but it's hardly embarrassing that we have fewer gates than Orlando or Memphis, etc.
    No. The point is we are the same size as these cities and they have more gates. More gates means more traffic. More traffic means more revenue. More revenue means a nicer city. A nicer city means more business. More business means more residents. More residents means more tourists.

    We need to build now. Not be a laughing stock like Will Rogers is now. I bet the reason some of these airlines are saying no is because WIll Rogers is too small.

  9. #9

    Default Re: Commercial Airports

    Quote Originally Posted by JOHNINSOKC
    Nashville has 50 at least.
    47

    http://www.flynashville.com/about/history_bna.cfm

  10. Default Re: Commercial Airports

    Quote Originally Posted by Midtowner
    I searched all over that site, and could not find the gate count. That is why I reported it the way I did.

  11. #11

    Default Re: Commercial Airports

    I did some spot checking, San Antonio has 12 gates, at least at San Antonio International Airport

    http://www.internationalairportguide...tonio_sat.html

    Bradley International in Hartford has 28 gates

    ***

    Spot checking these things, I'm calling your numbers into question. Where did you get them?

  12. Default Re: Commercial Airports

    Quote Originally Posted by Midtowner
    I did some spot checking, San Antonio has 12 gates, at least at San Antonio International Airport

    http://www.internationalairportguide...tonio_sat.html

    Bradley International in Hartford has 28 gates

    ***

    Spot checking these things, I'm calling your numbers into question. Where did you get them?
    Straight from the airport websites. I hand counted every gate in all of their terminals.

    Your link is terminal two only. If you searched further, you would see the other gates are in terminal one, thus creating a count of 28. Hartford, in terminal two bringing the count to 40.

  13. #13

    Default Re: Commercial Airports

    Very good.. I guess that must be right. I couldn't find anything listing the total number of gates, except for with Bradley, I'm pretty sure it only has 28 gates, I forgot to cut/paste the site I found that for.

    Even so, interesting information.

    I think OKC is effected a lot by the fact that we're so close to DFW or St. Louis that direct flights are inefficient for many carriers.

    I hope the US Airway/America West thing pans out though. It seems that may have a major impact.

  14. Default Re: Commercial Airports

    Quote Originally Posted by Midtowner
    Very good.. I guess that must be right. I couldn't find anything listing the total number of gates, except for with Bradley, I'm pretty sure it only has 28 gates, I forgot to cut/paste the site I found that for.

    Even so, interesting information.

    I think OKC is effected a lot by the fact that we're so close to DFW or St. Louis that direct flights are inefficient for many carriers.

    I hope the US Airway/America West thing pans out though. It seems that may have a major impact.
    Below the compass is a link that takes you to a popup. Click terminal one and let it load. You will find the rest of the gates. Total: 40

  15. #15
    ErnieBall Guest

    Default Re: Commercial Airports

    Quote Originally Posted by mranderson
    No. The point is we are the same size as these cities and they have more gates. More gates means more traffic. More traffic means more revenue. More revenue means a nicer city. A nicer city means more business. More business means more residents. More residents means more tourists.

    We need to build now. Not be a laughing stock like Will Rogers is now. I bet the reason some of these airlines are saying no is because WIll Rogers is too small.
    I agree that we need to build now. I just think your reasoning behind it is illogical.

    More gates do not automatically mean more traffic. More gates could just mean wasted money. You can't put the cart before the horse. If we're going to continue with construction on the airport and double its capacity, as we should, we also need to be developing compelling arguments for why airlines should increase their usage of Will Rogers and why tourists should make OKC a destination. I think the city is working very hard to accomplish the latter, hence the reason I think we should be proceeding with the planned construction on the new east concourse at the airport, which can then be used to entice airlines to make Will Rogers a hub (maybe). Simply saying it's 'embarrassing' that we have less gates than cities of equal population with already established significant tourist attractions and existing airline hubs and that we should therefore build more gates is a non-sequitur. You donít invest millions of dollars in construction because you have ***** envy, you do it because there is a compelling business case for investing.

  16. Default Re: Commercial Airports

    "I agree that we need to build now. I just think your reasoning behind it is illogical."

    Let me guess. You would crowd a flightline while more gates are built. Have you ever heard of speculation? Investors do it all the time. That is what Will Rogers is... An investment.

    Many business people have lost a lot of money by not taking a risk, and a city or any government is a business.

  17. #17
    ErnieBall Guest

    Default Re: Commercial Airports

    Quote Originally Posted by mranderson
    "I agree that we need to build now. I just think your reasoning behind it is illogical."

    Let me guess. You would crowd a flightline while more gates are built. Have you ever heard of speculation? Investors do it all the time. That is what Will Rogers is... An investment.

    Many business people have lost a lot of money by not taking a risk, and a city or any government is a business.
    There is a big difference between calculated risk and speculation. Take a finance course and educate yourself.

  18. #18

    Default Re: Commercial Airports

    I think the only way OKC would build the new east concourse (and thus add new gates) is if America West or a similar airline made the announcement to make Will Rogers a small hub. Otherwise I highly doubt it will happen. I think OKC's chances of getting a small hub are fairly good though because of central location, plenty of expansion space at the airport, and a metro population nearing 1.5 million.

  19. #19

    Default Re: Commercial Airports

    MrAnderson and ErnieBall,

    I think you both are saying the same thing, just in different ways.


    And considering we all want what's best of OKC, I don't see any reason to snipe at one another.

  20. Default Re: Commercial Airports

    Amen MalibuSooner
    " You've Been Thunder Struck ! "

  21. #21

    Default Re: Commercial Airports

    I don't think a couple of people disagreeing on an internet message board is going to effect what is "best for OKC". It is okay to disagree.

    We musn't get our panties in a wad when two people don't see eye to eye.

  22. #22
    Keith Guest

    Default Re: Commercial Airports

    Quote Originally Posted by ErnieBall
    There is a big difference between calculated risk and speculation. Take a finance course and educate yourself.
    Yes, there may be a disagreement on an issue, however, telling someone to take a finance course and educate themself is just about the same as saying they are stupid, which isn't a very nice thing to say. No panties in a wad here...just insinuations.

    "I think you both are saying the same thing, just in different ways.

    And considering we all want what's best of OKC, I don't see any reason to snipe at one another."
    Agreed. So, let's get on with the thread, without the insinuations .

  23. #23

    Default Re: Commercial Airports

    Quote Originally Posted by Keith
    Yes, there may be a disagreement on an issue, however, telling someone to take a finance course and educate themself is just about the same as saying they are stupid, which isn't a very nice thing to say. No panties in a wad here...just insinuations.

    "I think you both are saying the same thing, just in different ways.

    And considering we all want what's best of OKC, I don't see any reason to snipe at one another."
    Agreed. So, let's get on with the thread, without the insinuations .
    Ernie has a valid point. There is certainly a difference between building a bigger airport just to say we have one and building a bigger airport because we have reason to believe that "If we build it, they will come".

    I don't know that either is the case, but to insinuate that anyone's insinuating something is missing the forest for the trees. There is a valid point being dismissed by an individual because it clashes with his preconceived notions. That's fair game and doesn't violate the TOS in any way.

  24. #24
    HKG_Flyer1 Guest

    Default Re: Commercial Airports

    The Nashville, Memphis and Raleigh-Durham gate counts require some additional explanation.

    Nashville served as an American Airlines hub for a period of time. Prior to its selection as a hub city, it had relatively few gates (can't remember the exact number). The new gates were only built after AA chose it as hub city. Today, many parts of the airport stand empty.

    The exact same holds true for Raleigh/Durham.

    Memphis was (and still is) a hub for Northwest Airlines. It, too, was relatively small prior to its selection as a hub city.

    In none of these cases did the cities pre-build capacity in the hope that it would cause an airline to choose it as a hub city. Rather, the individual airlines decided which city was most optimal, then worked with the relevant airport authority to strike a mutually agreeable financial arrangement to fund the construction.

    I would love to see WRWA fully developed, but don't think it would necessarily cause America West (the only remotely possible candidate in the present environment) to move in. As an aside, St. Louis has tremendous excess gate capacity, substantially more O&D traffic, and a soon-to-be-completed major runway expansion.

  25. #25

    Default Re: Commercial Airports

    Disagreement and healthy debate are vital to any message board and I haven't seen anyone on this thread say differently.

    However, there is never any need to get personal when debating/discussing and doing so is not only rude but detracts greatly from the discourse and discourages interaction.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Real cool commercial
    By Keith in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 11-18-2004, 11:34 AM
  2. OKC Banking in Mandarin and Farsi
    By floater in forum General Civic Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-22-2004, 09:32 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO