The January 2010 statistics are available.

For the month (JAN 2010 versus JAN 2009):
OKC [Will Rogers]
*Aircraft Operations were down 29.48% (4,094 from 4,462)
*Enplaned Passengers were down 3.80% (110,225 from 114,576)
*Deplaned Passengers were down 2.18% (131,121 from 133,794)
... Resulting in a net Passenger decrease of 2.97% (226,677 from 233,620)
*Enplaned Freight was down 19.75% (2,457,336 lbs from 3,062,013 lbs)
*Deplaned Freight was down 17.34% (2,744,114 lbs from 3,319,748 lbs)
... Resulting in a net Freight decrease of 18.50% (5,201,450 lbs from 6,381,761 lbs)

PWA [Wiley Post]
*Aircraft Operations were down 29.13% (4,200 from 5,926)


Since it is January, Year To Date stats are the same as for the month of January.

All statistics are based on the year before, not the month before. For example: The January monthly statistics are compared to January 2009, not December 2009.

Source: FlyOKC.com http://flyokc.com/releases%5CJanuary%2010%20Activity.pdf

--Unrelated,
For those interested, this is the current taxiway and runway closures at OKC as of 19 FEB 2010:
http://img691.imageshack.us/img691/3503/00301ad1.jpg

Darker red is Runway 13/31. Brighter red are taxiways.
I know:
*Runway 13/31 is closed for PAPI installation
*Taxiways F, J, K, G (where red) are closed for complete reconstruction and widening.

Southwest Airlines is restructuring some of their schedules to allow for better connections.

Currently, I can find a few connections that will be in OKC now. Dallas Love to Denver is one of them, through May. Flight lands in OKC at 1:35 and allows a 1 hour connection to the Denver flight.

Austin to Denver is also connecting in OKC through May, as the above flight originates in Austin. So you stop in Dallas and board passengers and fly to OKC, where you will connect on to Denver. Also, lands at 1:35 and departs to Denver at about 2:30pm.

Don't read into this, we are not the next Southwest focus city or hub. This is starting to show up at many small airports now because they decide the opportunity for a connection is there, they might as well sell it. This is not an increase in flights or what have you. They are just restructuring the booking system to allow connections on the flights that already exist but didn't have bookable connections.

As time progresses we may get more bookable connections in here as flight times are adjusted to allow for them. This will a) help our loads in and out of OKC b) help our overall passenger numbers at OKC c) help our airport businesses as more people will be in the airport and may want to buy food during the connection or a souvenir d) allow people from other cities to get familiar with our city, even if that means just the name.

Hopefully more connections will be created from the current flights and we will get some transient passengers.

i hope there is more of this, and perhaps this could be the proof that some airline needs to establish OKC as a hub, mini-hub, or focus city for some of their flights.

hint hint - USAirways, Jet Blue, Midwest Airlines, AirTran, new startups. ......

Southwest's 'connectivity' action should definitely help OKC's numbers, as it will give us some 'hub-like' inflation where we can also 'double-count' people who fly into OKC to connect. .... If everyone else is doing it, by all means - OKC should too. We don't need to ONLY be an O&D airport.

I also hope Frontier (and others) can adjust their flights (particularly East Coast) so that the outbound flight could be in the morning or afternoon, and the inbound be at night. It might be a while before OKC could really work as an inbound morning business destination, as this only works for only a few current routes. ...

I found a few more flights: Dallas, Houston to places like Denver, Phoenix, and Las Vegas.

@hot rod. The only airlines with even a remote chance of setting up shop here as a potential focus city are Southwest and Frontier. I say that with great reservation because our local traffic numbers still are very weak for a focus city type setup. That is what airlines look at when starting new flights. Connecting traffic does not show up on our local numbers. (O/D) But with that said, I think we may have a possibility of getting additional flights or possibly even new flights from this, later on. It would be a reverse domino effect: Flight 123 might be selling full out of OKC anyway, but connections are sold onto it, the additional demand might warrant them to add Flight 456. It is hard to tell, but if Southwest shows the same interest in OKC as they have been for the past few years, this is really a no big deal and their increased numbers at OKC will be moot.

The more streamlined connections on Southwest are nice, but they'll eventually fade away once the remaining Wright restrictions at Love Field are gone. I'm not sure how many connections are already done in OKC with people flying to Dallas, but some have speculated once Wright is gone - we are inline to lose a flight or two to Dallas.

I flew to new york city on southwest and the flight starts in dallas and stops through okc on the way to baltimore. same thing on the way back, bal-okc-dallas. the airport was hoppin yesterday too for some reason. people everywhere

Anyone wanting to see even a remote chance of a focus operation of even one airline needs to take a look at airports like ABQ, AUS, etc. Our passenger traffic needs to get above 5 million/yr. Albuquerque International handled close to 6 million last year, Austin Bergstrom handled more than 9 million in '08, and even with the bad economy last year, handled more than 8 million. AUS has two airlines that have large operations-Southwest and American. Southwest has six gates, American and American Eagle have five. Recently, Jetblue has become a big player in the Austin market, with nonstops to Orlando, Ft. Lauderdale, Boston, NYC-JFK and San Francisco. Alaska Airlines has also started nonstops to San Jose and Seattle-Tacoma. As they say, if the demand is there, the airlines will add flights. And Austinites continue to show strong support for these flights, yes, maybe airlines have reduced capacity or even cut down some flights, but Austin has lost very few destinations altogether, those being nonstops to Toronto which Air Canada Jazz operated with CRJ 705s for a while, and Aeromexico and Viva Aerobus, when the H1N1 scare took a toll on demand to Mexico. Use it or lose it.

So, does anybody know how the Frontier flights to Florida are doing? All the news had been bad until that story a week or two back stating they are nearly selling out. Has anyone verified that?

I won't be able to check this week, I won't be at work until a week or two. I'll do a headcount if I can get to that gate while I am on break and they are boarding/deplaning the Florida flight.

Based on what I hear it seems to be doing okay now. We might see it go year round, we'll see how good of a negotiator Mark Kranenburg, the Director of Airport, is.

I was extremely bored last night so I got on photoshop and toyed around.

Yeah, won't ever happen in my lifetime but still kinda fun. I originally built the "tri-concourse" to see what it would look like because that is what the master plan calls for in the case a third concourse was necessary in the future. After that I wanted to add some more spice.

The end result:

http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/8185/okcm.jpg

Pretty bad photoshop job because I did it in a few minutes so the pavement, shadows, colors, planes etc. look mickey mouse and such. Would look cool professionally photoshopped though,

Pretty cool! I think we'll have to attract a couple of dozen fortune 500 HQ's to grow our airport that large.

It would be a nightmare trying to push out that ERJ 145 next to the Southwest 737 on the inside part of the main ramp. I would drop that one, and the one just like that over on the other side. Fun to imagine though, a 48-gate WRA.

Delta will go from 7 to 6 daily to Atlanta for teh summer.

I have heard through the grapevine out here that the YMCA/Military Welcome center is moving to the belly cargo, office, and storage building. (Brown/gray building east of the terminal)

Pretty cool! I think we'll have to attract a couple of dozen fortune 500 HQ's to grow our airport that large.

... or a western hub operation for AirTran.

AirTran Airways - Route Map (http://www.airtran.com/route-map/city_information.aspx)

I have heard through the grapevine out here that the YMCA/Military Welcome center is moving to the belly cargo, office, and storage building. (Brown/gray building east of the terminal)

I hope not! Hell of a "welcome" for those who served - make 'em walk out to another building? I sure hope the PTB will re-think that one - what image does that portray of OKC? Really?

I hope not! Hell of a "welcome" for those who served - make 'em walk out to another building? I sure hope the PTB will re-think that one - what image does that portray of OKC? Really?
The guy I talked to who works there is not happy at all. He says they won't have enough room for overflow (for example, when a troop charter comes in with 200 troops and about 600 family members are there to greet them). Normally, overflow just spills into the baggage claim area. Now, it will overflow into the parking lot.

You may want to send some emails or phone calls to the YMCA Military greeting center or the Airport Trust:

Airport Trust: 405 680-3200 *9
mark.kranenburg@okc.gov Director of Airports
karen.carney@okc.gov PR

I emailed Karen a few months ago about the antique website we have, she told me they were receiving bids "next month" -- which would have been February -- for a new website. Maybe she is telling us the truth.

Ughhh.. 430am shift tomorrow.

I hope not! Hell of a "welcome" for those who served - make 'em walk out to another building? I sure hope the PTB will re-think that one - what image does that portray of OKC? Really?

Hope it isn't true. Back in Jan we were eating at Sonic waiting for our plane to Vegas. About 30 or uniformed troops were in line. Whomever was in charge barked that their transport was ready to leave and to get a move on. Immediately and without hesitation EVERY civilian in line stepped aside and insisted that our men & women in uniform be allowed to be served first and in no uncertain terms, a couple told the commanding officer that they would allow them to get their meals. Saw a few bills being pressed into uniformed hands too. Still chokes me up a bit.

Couldn't help but wonder if the same scene would have played out the same way on the east or west coasts. I would hope so, but made me proud to be an Okie and an American.

As a side note, a few minutes later, the same troops were back...turns out their transport wasn't ready after all.

Here's my email to Ms. Carney and Mr. Kranenburg. I hope others will also contact them and get this stopped!


Dear Mr. Kranenburg and Ms. Carney,

I am a proud Army mom and member of Blue Star moms. I have been reading some posts in OKCTalk.com that the WWWA authority is considering moving the Military Welcome Center to a building east of the main terminal.

I sincerely hope these rumors have absolutely no validity! There are times during holidays when we have had 200-300 troops coming into or through Will Rogers and the Military Welcome Center has provided valuable services to those who serve us as well as the families.

Right now, troops from all over are appreciative of the welcome they get in Oklahoma. What kind of message would that send, not only to our troops but to all other states, to move our troop welcome center out of sight and mind?

To shuffle our heroes to another building says "you don't matter". Surely this isn't the intention of the Airport Authority? And - if this a decision already made, please tell me who made this unilateral choice? I think Oklahomans in general will be appalled once they hear this.

Sincerely,

Lauri
Proud Army Mom
OKC

Here is response I received today. It sounds reasonable, but still concerned that our military members won't be able to find or get to the welcome center if the signs are the usual non-informational signs found at WRWA.



Ms. GXXX,

The current Military Welcome Center was placed in a 750 sq ft area designed and built for an airline baggage claim office. The area is not large enough evidenced by the (4) 60 inch round plastic card tables, (5) 7 foot rectangular tables and (40+) chairs used every day outside the Welcome Center to handle the overflow of the large numbers of military personnel transitioning from Lawton/Ft. Sill Army Training Base each day. In fact, the Welcome Center also uses two additional airline baggage claim offices and uses the office areas in back of two rental car counters which were constructed when the Terminal Building was renovated in 2006. This overflow from the Welcome Center prohibits the use of the rental car counters which will be used beginning April 1, 2010. The overflow also occasionally conflicts with passengers retrieving their bags from the baggage claim area leased by an airline at that end of the building.



A couple of years ago, Airport staff started communicating with the Greater Oklahoma City YMCA; who leases the airport space on behalf of the Military Welcome Center and who manages its operations; about coming up with a long-term plan to provide adequate space for the Military Welcome Center. The Welcome Center needs to have all its operations consolidated in one area. The long-term plan is to construct a new, large Military Welcome Center as part of the Airport’s Terminal Expansion Plan called Phase III. Phase III will be a phased project that will include improvements in the central Terminal Building as well as constructing an east concourse that mirror’s the existing west concourse.



The first step was to temporarily relocate the Welcome Center from its present location in time for the rental car companies to begin using their new space April 1st. However, there was no temporary location large enough in the Terminal Building to accommodate all the Military Welcome Center’s needs. The Airport coordinated with the YMCA, which agreed to take over 3500 sq foot of space east of the Terminal Building that actually will make it easier for military busses to pickup and drop-off military personnel. The YMCA has budgeted up to $50,000 to renovate the temporary location and the renovation will soon be complete. The accommodations will be superb and offer amenities the Welcome Center does not have today such as extra electrical outlets to charge cell phones and laptops, games tables, more televisions, shelving units for storage of gear (duffel bags), a separate area for more, comfortable sofa seating, ceiling fans, an area within the new space for 70+ persons to eat or play games, cards, etc., and a separate room for six computers with internet access.



The Airport and the YMCA believe that this move, although temporary, will improve operations and accommodations for our military.



Mark Kranenburg, A.A.E.

Director of Airports

(405) 680-3200

Perhaps I am a cynic. Sounds a tad 'out of sight, out of mind' approach.

maybe it's just me though

Perhaps I am a cynic. Sounds a tad 'out of sight, out of mind' approach.

maybe it's just me though

Kevin, yes you are a cynic as is Lauri. There is certainly no reason to suspect a conspiracy to hide the troops. As a temporary solution, their plan sounds as good as any and will probably make the troops more comfortable than they are now. While I welcome seeing the military at the airport there is no reason to put them on display while they are trying to relax.

Kevin, yes you are a cynic as is Lauri. There is certainly no reason to suspect a conspiracy to hide the troops. As a temporary solution, their plan sounds as good as any and will probably make the troops more comfortable than they are now. While I welcome seeing the military at the airport there is no reason to put them on display while they are trying to relax.

Easy to take that perspective following reading the response. Hindsight is 20/20. Maybe there is a note of cynicism, that comes out in stories like these, but that is only because we somehow find ourselves living in a time where all of the sudden the very soldiers who risk their lives for us, are marginalized and treated as second class citizens all too often. When I was growing up, I was raised to appreciate and recognize the blessings that this country affords us and the price by which the liberties and freedoms come. I never thought I would have to endure the blatant disrespect for the very ones who lay it all on the line by members of congress, much less the president himself. When you hear and see enough of these type of slights and open disrespect for those serving and even those who have fallen, and it becomes easy to jump to those kind of conclusions, just to make sure that they do not happen where those who care can do something about it.

So I for one appreciate the fact Lauri took the initiative and showed that she cared enough to write a letter, expressing her concerns with the changes. She expressed her support and gave the officials the chance to explain themselves. Accountability is a key thing that if required could prevent a lot of ills in this country. Based on the changes reported and the explanation of why, it might be a good temporary solution leading to a better permanent solution. No harm done.

Thank you, OKC@Heart!

My intentions were certainly honorable and my "cynicism" (I prefer the term realist) is caused by many years of observation.

I have heard my daughter talk about trying to find a military welcome center in the various airports she's been in. The best ones are the shortest distance to walk and drag their 80 lb duffels.

The amenities planned are excellent, but will do no good if they don't have time to go or can't find the facility. Since the signage at WRWA is notoriously non-helpful, I think my concerns (and Kevin's) are valid.

At least it's a better reception than those of us serving in Vietnam era got!

That is exactly what I was thinking Lauri. I may be wrong, but I would be surprised if a serviceman ever has to pay for a meal or drink in an airport. I know when my husband and I are traveling we have sat next to many a soldier in uniform and struck up conversations and showed our appreciation for their service by buying them a drink. It is the least we can do.

Thank you, OKC@Heart!

My intentions were certainly honorable and my "cynicism" (I prefer the term realist) is caused by many years of observation.

I have heard my daughter talk about trying to find a military welcome center in the various airports she's been in. The best ones are the shortest distance to walk and drag their 80 lb duffels.

The amenities planned are excellent, but will do no good if they don't have time to go or can't find the facility. Since the signage at WRWA is notoriously non-helpful, I think my concerns (and Kevin's) are valid.

At least it's a better reception than those of us serving in Vietnam era got!

Lauri, perhaps I was harsh in combining you with Kevin as being cynical. You do have legitimate concerns which need to be addressed, however, I don't think the airport is going to do something to cause inconvenience to the troops if a better short term solution is available. Kevin didn't really address a specific concern though. He just emplied that the airport was trying to hide the troops which is ridiculous.

The Military Welcome Center is in Bay O in the belly cargo building. It is open and running.

After early April, I will no longer be employed at the airport :-(, so over time, my updates on the airport projects, etc. will be limited to what is available to the public on the web.

The Military Welcome Center is in Bay O in the belly cargo building. It is open and running.

After early April, I will no longer be employed at the airport :-(, so over time, my updates on the airport projects, etc. will be limited to what is available to the public on the web.

This was in the paper recently

NewsOK (http://newsok.com/military-hub-wont-wear-out-welcome/article/3447367?custom_click=columnist)

...
After early April, I will no longer be employed at the airport :-(, so over time, my updates on the airport projects, etc. will be limited to what is available to the public on the web.

Aww...SkyWestOKC - sorry to hear of job loss - hope it was your choice and not someone else's!

yeah, sorry to hear SkyWest.

Aww...SkyWestOKC - sorry to hear of job loss - hope it was your choice and not someone else's!
Now he/she can find a job in Texas. This one apparently loves Texas sooo much.

I love Oklahoma. I also like Texas. Big deal. I already am working to establish a job with a different company out here. But that can fall through like anything else can.

Now, onto the stuff that matters. This discussion is not about me.

Passenger numbers are down ~3% for the month of February, and around the same for the entire year to date. I am saying by the end of the year, we will be in the black again.

I can confirm now that Orlando and Tampa will end next month -- whether or not they get picked up again next year is anyone's guess.

Our air travel has been up from what I could tell over spring break - spring break traffic plus NCAA travel has helped our passenger numbers for March. We will see if that is enough to bring us out of the red for March 2010 YTD. The March data will be available mid-late April.

^Good luck on your future endeavours SkywestOKC, wish you the best.

Sucks to hear about TPA and MCO, but really, not a shock by any means.

I am shocked about MCO. Why didn't the city/airport/airline make the flight times better suited for OKC pax? Im sure there would be enough to fill the planes (if Omaha of all places can do it) - if the times were appropriate AND with proper marketing.

Maybe it was stupid to do both MCO and TPA, they should have just done MCO and made the OKC departure in the mid morning.

Hopefully this will at least be seasonal service.

The way Froniter/Republic had the aircraft scheduled, it was originating in Omaha heading to Florida up to OKC and back to Florida and back to Omaha. Had it been reversed, we probably would have seen it perform better. Airlines tend to do this a lot though and it ends up shooting themselves in the feet. Friend of mine works for American up in Ohio and his station had a round trip to Dallas added a few years back. Instead of doing an early originator on either end, it was a mid day flight. The market, at that time, supported around 100-200 pax per day and very attractive. However, they picked a poor time slot to operate the flight. This hurt things dramatically. Granted, it didn't help they were operating the long route with an ERJ-145 weight restricted down to only 40-43 pax instead of using a CRJ-700 that wouldn't have been restricted. Loads on the flight were strong, for what they could accommodate, but the mix of time and aircraft type killed the route off pretty fast.

Back to OKC, this brings up the argument again...can Florida work from Oklahoma. So far it hasn't. It would be great if Frontier was able to offer more flexibility with the times on the route, but we didn't get the chance. The other part, Frontier needs to do more to build the brand in OKC. More commercials and possibly add in a flight up to Milwaukee. I also would like to see a Mexican route, but that's for another time and we've been down that road already.

I checked out the tampa connection with frontiers 99 leadon.... that fare was pretty much not existant. Times were strange to fly and could get as good of deals on other lines. thus not much to base going with frontier... too bad

Back to OKC, this brings up the argument again...can Florida work from Oklahoma. So far it hasn't.

If we are depending on air traffic to Florida only for people going to instate vacation destinations it won't work yet. The traffic isn't there and it is too seasonal. The only possibility I see that would work currently is Miami which, besides being a vacation destination provides a large connecting flight network.

I checked out the tampa connection with frontiers 99 leadon.... that fare was pretty much not existant. Times were strange to fly and could get as good of deals on other lines. thus not much to base going with frontier... too bad

The lowest fare is always going to sell out first, so not a shock there. If it had been available all the time then things would have been even worse. And yes, the times sucked.


If we are depending on air traffic to Florida only for people going to instate vacation destinations it won't work yet. The traffic isn't there and it is too seasonal. The only possibility I see that would work currently is Miami which, besides being a vacation destination provides a large connecting flight network.

Yeah I agree. I think Allegiant may be the only one to make it work because they can run it only 2-3 times a week and the majority of their revenue comes from the hotel packages, not the flying. However, it is extremely seasonal. I think Miami may work as well when you tie it into the American hub there and all the other international carriers. The problem is most of the connecting traffic may opt for Dallas if the service is offered there (which a lot isn't, but some is).

It might be interesting to see the loads American gets on the Tulsa-Miami flight they are going to be running. Yes it is only there for aircraft repositioning/maintenance, but there might be a surprisingly high turn out for the route.

why dont we have at least one non-stop flight to miami?

the Tulsa-Miami flight could be restructured with a stop in OKC first?

I think OKC needs to take better advantage of having Tulsa as American's mtc base. Surely OKC would have higher numbers than TUL and together both cities might fill a 757 aircraft at least once a week - to/from Miami.

I think we need to become more creative in getting flights. They dont all need to start off as daily non-stops or even route-specific, but if we could augment on runs that are being made - then OKC could benefit with the flights and the airline could benefit with butts in the seats of planes on an otherwise non-revenue operation.

The one I simply can not for the life of me understand, is Alaska Airline's not offering their OKC flights to revenue pax. Like I said, it doesn't need to be daily, maybe 1 or 2 or 3 times a week. .... ANYTHING to give OKC pax some options while putting butts in the seats of those flights. ...

maybe the city could offer free landing rights to otherwise non-revenue flights that become revenue options - in order to encourage airlines to augment their mtc segments and include a stop at OKC AND get revenue pax into flights already coming to OKC for mtc?

Why isn't Kraneburg and the city/chamber all over this?

I am shocked about MCO. Why didn't the city/airport/airline make the flight times better suited for OKC pax? Im sure there would be enough to fill the planes (if Omaha of all places can do it) - if the times were appropriate AND with proper marketing.


Better times would have beneficial, but remember Omaha has higher passenger counts than OKC.

That airport has a huge regional draw that ours doesn't.

why dont we have at least one non-stop flight to miami?

Latest date is Q3 2009, which of course isn't all that strong to begin with. Miami had 50.5 passengers per day on average. American carried 36% of the market at an average fare of $191 one way. Northwest/Delta offered the lowest fare of $142 one way but only carried 12% of the market. Looking at the prelim Q4 data, Miami wasn't over 50 passengers per day during that time. It is going to be hard for anyone to justify flying the route with those numbers. Now if Ft Lauderdale is added in, thats another 86 passengers a day, West Palm only gives 18 more. American has 31% of the FLL market, but that still only gives us right around 40 people a day. There just isn't the demand right now for AA to dedicate any resources to it.


the Tulsa-Miami flight could be restructured with a stop in OKC first?

The aircraft are going to Tulsa for maintenance, why bother making a stop in OKC first? Not only that, we've been down this road before and airlines are getting away from it. Delta for years did a ATL-TUL-OKC-SLC or SLC-TUL-OKC-ATL like rotation. Eventually it comes down to you are wasting too much fuel putting in another stop - especially with zero O&D traffic between TUL and OKC.


I think OKC needs to take better advantage of having Tulsa as American's mtc base. Surely OKC would have higher numbers than TUL and together both cities might fill a 757 aircraft at least once a week - to/from Miami.

The Mx base is good for TUL, not OKC. Again, there are the added costs of putting on such a short leg that it doesn't make sense.


I think we need to become more creative in getting flights. They dont all need to start off as daily non-stops or even route-specific, but if we could augment on runs that are being made - then OKC could benefit with the flights and the airline could benefit with butts in the seats of planes on an otherwise non-revenue operation.

AirTran, JetBlue, and Allegiant should all be targets right now. AirTran and Allegiant have showing willingness to throw just a couple flights at a city and go from there.


The one I simply can not for the life of me understand, is Alaska Airline's not offering their OKC flights to revenue pax. Like I said, it doesn't need to be daily, maybe 1 or 2 or 3 times a week. .... ANYTHING to give OKC pax some options while putting butts in the seats of those flights. ...

Seattle should be close to be able to support nonstop service. Currently 182 passengers take the route every day. This may be one to look at.

The one thing people need to understand, and it took me a while to fully realize this. At cities like Oklahoma City, this is seen in a very big way. There are only X amount of people flying out of OKC each day. By adding flights to other cities, all you are doing is shifting your numbers. You will have lower numbers to the connection cities, in order to have the nonstop. And then people will complain about having a regional jet to a nonstop destination and an RJ to the connection city. Whereas, if you did not add the nonstop, you could have a mainline aircraft on to the connection city.

Until our city grows even more, we will have to live with that. Do we want nonstops everywhere on RJ's, or enjoy bigger planes and take a stop between?

Also, Mark Kranenburg and the OKC Trust knows better than to try and court AA onto this route. (Miami). OKC has a good track record with attracting service that works. If they begin to get over excited and talk about routes no one [airline] thinks will work -- our airport will lose credibility, and we will begin to see airlines say "Thanks but no thanks." Our United OKC-LAX service was courted by our OKC Airport team, and it is successful - in fact, going to 2x daily soon. This helps build credibility to Mark's arguments and will help airlines trust us.

OKC to Las Vegas goes to 2x daily in Aug 2010. Southwest.

Some updates:

* Trust awarded an advertising contract to ClearChannel. Advertising would be what you would normally see in airports on walls and such. I am perfectly fine with this, I hope they put some advertising in the tunnels between the garages and the terminal. The walls are too bland and it's a boring walk.

* General Aviation terminal on the west side of Meridian Ave. is almost complete. The building itself is done, the parking lot needs to be painted, landscaping to be finished. Expected to be finished by the end of the month. AAR signed the lease, or is in the process of doing so, once AAR moves in, then the terminal will be open.

* YMCA center is operational in Bay O.

* Southwest met with the Trust 16FEB2010, and took a tour of the airport. Discussions went on about upgrading current service, as well as adding new destinations. How far those discussions went is beyond me, but OKC-LAS did get a bump up, as seen in the above post.

* Terminal Expansion Phase 3 Study is expected to be completed by the end of this month. Doesn't mean dirt will be kicked up anytime soon, just the study on what services will be needed inside it so as to allow plans to go forward when the airport is ready to expand.

That's about it....

Trust meeting 10:30am tomorrow if anyone wants to go. It's at City Hall, Room 200.

Just noticed this in the Orlando Sentinel:
Southwest Airlines trims: Southwest is dropping some flights to and from Orlando - OrlandoSentinel.com (http://www.orlandosentinel.com/business/fl-southwest-airline-changes-20100324,0,2142119.story)
WN trying again on MCO-OKC?

No, it was pointing out that Orlando along with other cities had a schedule trim. While OKC (among others) gained flights (our LAS flight) during the most recent schedule on Southwest.

Beginning in August, our Las Vegas schedule will be:
OKC-LAS
Flight Number; Departure Time; Arrival Time; Days of Week
926;0810a;0850a;M,T,W,Th,F
965;0655p;0735p;M,T,W,Th,F,Sun
2318;1025a;1100a;Sat
1351;1245p;0120p;Sat

LAS-OKC
Flight Number; Departure Time; Arrival Time; Days of Week
176;0750a;1225p;M,T,W,Th,F
1771;0605p;1040p;M,T,W,Th,F,Sun
2160;1100a;0330p;Sat
1980;0355p;0825p;Sat

those are fine, and needed - but we also need new markets.

I would assume, if there was an OKC-MIA, OKC-SFO, OKC-MDW, OKC-SEA nonstop flight at least ONCE A WEEK, we would have the numbers to justify at least a regional jet for the service - just as OKC has shown on the OKC-EWR, OKC-LAX, OKC-IAD, OKC-MSP, OKC-DTW, and OKC-BWI routes.

And Im not buying the short haul argument, sorry. Tul is a maintenance depot for AA and Im sure it is better to make revenue on a flight you are going to run than run an empty plane. If stopping in OKC first makes this more palatable - then they should be pushing for it.

Delta doesn't have a mtc depot in OKC or Tulsa, so Im not sure why the SLC-OKC-TUL and ATL-OKC-TUL arguments were brought up.

Also, if an airline wanted to do such a rotation they would need to offset that with non-stop flights to (say TUL) to really make it work. I really would see this rotation as a way to 1) get flights to TUL that they don't already have 2) add flights to OKC that they don't already have and 3) add flights between OKC and TUL provided they are in the prime business travel spots (say am and pm rush hours).

I think out of the box, and I suggest OKC get used to it. Because while OKC isn't yet an established Tier 2 business city YET, there is no reason why Omaha should be a larger pax airport. They have a larger catchment, sure - but OKC is a MUCH LARGER CITY and METRO. If OKC offered destinations and times, then Im sure the OKC/OK populous would stop driving to DFW, DAL, TUL, and even ICT to get flights and keep them at WRWA.

Again, to me - there's no reason why OKC shouldn't be a solid 4M pax a year airport. We're not because we lose pax to other airports due to no flights or cheaper flights offered at those airports.

This is something Kraneburg should be focusing on, instead of just adding flights to already established routes - added a flight to Vegas, DUH!!!! I will get excited when United or Alaska adds a direct and non-stop (respectively) daily or 5X weekly flight to Seattle, United adds a direct or non-stop daily flight to SFO, Southwest adds a daily nonstop to Chicago MDW, American adds a 5X or even 3X weekly flight to MIA, Delta adds a mainliner direct flight PDX-SLC-OKC-ATL and back, and United maybe boost IAD (and LAX/ORD) to an at least 3X weekly mainliner. I will fall out of my seat when Kraneburg lands US Air to Charlotte, with PHX and LAS-OKC-CLT daily or 5X weekly service.

These are new routes we should be going after and routes which are to business cities that OKC has a presence or need to go (and would therefore probably be successful if the routes existed). Only then, can we 'rest' on our laurels somewhat and claim success in access to all of the top 30 cities coast to coast (save Boston, but hey - not much going there). And surely such a destination profile would get passengers driving to OKC (from regional cities), especially if the city and airlines marketed the routes and the airlines undercut competitors (instead of just coming in with profit ONLY intentions).

One other thing airlines could do, is route established city pairs through OKC in order to make new OKC routes successful. For example, DEN-OKC is a well established market, as is the newly established LAX-OKC. Why not do an LAX-OKC-DEN then back mainliner routing, in addition to or maybe in reduction to some of the established service?

This creative routing could gather passengers (turning OKC into somewhat of a small hub) particularly for vacationing/families if the price was right. Also, it would at the same time grow passenger traffic in OKC by having the routes available. It could be a good way to get mainliner service for (say) ORD-IAD, by putting OKC in the middle of one of (or a new one of) those runs: say IAD-OKC-ORD in the am and ORD-OKC-IAD at night in one leg and IAD-OKC-ORD(am) and ORD-OKC-IAD(pm) in the other leg. This would give OKC 2 daily departures to IAD and ORD, morning and night, and should almost ensure traffic with a lower price point from the hub airports since they would "connect/direct" through OKC. Surely families and lower budget might opt for this and these options should be appealing to OKC's business community; thus filling the flights.

Again, you would still have the nonstop ORD-IAD routes, but by being creative, United could GROW OKC-ORD and OKC-IAD by sending lower cost pax twice a day through OKC.

Pick your airport in place of ORD/IAD one coast to the other, I see it as working.

It is nice to see WN doing the MCO-OKC run again (and I am happy about LAS-OKC and the reinstatement of the 2nd daily OKC-LAX run). dont get me wrong, I just think we should focus on adding newer pairs in addition to increased capacity in existing routes.

those are fine, and needed - but we also need new markets.

I would assume, if there was an OKC-MIA, OKC-SFO, OKC-MDW, OKC-SEA nonstop flight at least ONCE A WEEK, we would have the numbers to justify at least a regional jet for the service - just as OKC has shown on the OKC-EWR, OKC-LAX, OKC-IAD, OKC-MSP, OKC-DTW, and OKC-BWI routes.

All the routes you listed, that are currently flown, are being fed into connecting hubs, so that has to be taken into account. I could probably work up the O&D share on those flights, but its pretty late. The other 4 markets you listed would all be good candidates for new service, but the market doesn't have the higher yielding O&D volume right now.


And Im not buying the short haul argument, sorry. Tul is a maintenance depot for AA and Im sure it is better to make revenue on a flight you are going to run than run an empty plane. If stopping in OKC first makes this more palatable - then they should be pushing for it.

Delta doesn't have a mtc depot in OKC or Tulsa, so Im not sure why the SLC-OKC-TUL and ATL-OKC-TUL arguments were brought up.

Well I brought in the old Delta routes for a reason. If an airline is going to tag another city on a route, they are also going to want to see what type of revenue they can generate on it. Very rarely will airlines do tag flights anymore. From American's point of view, they probably feel they can draw OKC passengers up the turnpike anyway so there isn't any need to fly the hop. Many don't expect the TUL-MIA route to last, but its an empty plane flying now...so any additional revenue will help.


I think out of the box, and I suggest OKC get used to it. Because while OKC isn't yet an established Tier 2 business city YET, there is no reason why Omaha should be a larger pax airport. They have a larger catchment, sure - but OKC is a MUCH LARGER CITY and METRO. If OKC offered destinations and times, then Im sure the OKC/OK populous would stop driving to DFW, DAL, TUL, and even ICT to get flights and keep them at WRWA.

Again, to me - there's no reason why OKC shouldn't be a solid 4M pax a year airport. We're not because we lose pax to other airports due to no flights or cheaper flights offered at those airports.

Catchment area is king though, regardless of the metro area. Omaha is able to draw from much longer distances than OKC. OKC has to compete with TUL, Wichita, and to a point Dallas. Lawton also pulls some pax away from OKC, but not many. Omaha also has the history of providing higher levels of service. These two factors will always push OMA ahead until the population of the OKC catchment area catches up or we get a major LCC in here to grab more traffic.

I see where you are coming from in all your points, but the reality is the current market isn't going to support it. We also need to see more people filling the seats out of here first so we can get upgrades to mainline on the routes we already have.

I understand Lawton is mostly military related passengers from what I heard, is this airport really profitable enough to stay open, or do they get a lot of government help to stay open? I just don't see the larger demographic to support the commuter ticket price tag of what 120-140 bucks a flight?

I would like to remind you, Southwest is NOT restarting OKC-MCO (Orlando). The article was comparing the fact the Orlando saw a decrease in service for the new schedule, while OKC and others saw an increase.

I understand Lawton is mostly military related passengers from what I heard, is this airport really profitable enough to stay open, or do they get a lot of government help to stay open? I just don't see the larger demographic to support the commuter ticket price tag of what 120-140 bucks a flight?

Well I would argue it is mostly military passengers thanks to the fact that is the largest employer in the Lawton area. Just like the new Northwest Arkansas Airport is mostly Walmart related traffic. Are the flights profitable? You'd have to work for American to know that. The airport also has other revenue streams instead of just commercial flights - well nearly every airport for that matter. As far as government help...just because government jobs in the area cause demand for traffic doesn't mean it is a direct subsidy. On the other hand however, every airport in the nation gets a subsidy of some sort from the Fed. So it is impractical to tie an airport's ability to stay open to the situation you are suggesting.

As far as the ticket prices. If the current market supports the fares set by the airline, then so be it. If the airline is losing money, they need to raise fares. This charity mentality that some people have when it comes to the airlines' ability to charge a profitable fare is appalling. They all want cheap cheap cheap, but don't realize that your $39 air fare actually cost the airline about $150 to haul you to your destination.

If OKC offered destinations and times, then Im sure the OKC/OK populous would stop driving to DFW, DAL, TUL, and even ICT to get flights and keep them at WRWA.



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.

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.

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.

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. ......

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.

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.

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.