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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

maybe there's more that can be done then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I give up

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

I've been in the travel business in OKC for over 20 years and check prices and schedules for customers daily. I'm all in favor of OKC getting better flight schedules that we can support but I can tell you that it's rare that I have customers wanting to leave from DFW, ICT or TUL to save money. Tulsa flights are almost always identical or very close in pricing. Dallas and Wichita have some routes that are higher and some that are lower so it's a wash. In fact I have at times had customers who wanted to leave from DFW take a flight to OKC first and then back to DFW for a connection to save money. That's an unusual situation but it has happened.
I know many who rarely fly out of OKC almost always flying out of DFW, mostly on American. About the only time they do that is when they are flying to a non-American hub or O'Hare. If they are having to fly through DFW on a connection they just drive.

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

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

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

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

Bluedog, I'm well aware that there are some who only want nonstop flights and might drive to DFW. But I emphasize again, that I deal with this every day. Business travelers absolutely won't take the time or effort to drive to DFW unless they happen to live closer to DFW than OKC. There was a time for the leisure travelers that it might have been much cheaper from DFW. That is rarely the case anymore. Generally with flights to vacation destinations the savings from DFW is around $100.00 or less and on some occasions it is cheaper from OKC. Most of my customers don't think it's worth that to drive.
This is usually for their personal travel, one does travel extensively for business and they fly out of OKC on those trips. For most of them it is something that they have done for 20 or so years so it may be something more out of habit than anything else. I also think they do some shopping Dallas before heading back so there are probably other influences rather than just price.

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

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

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

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

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

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

You beat me by 15 seconds. :-P

LOL...

BTW, I love the new avatar man!

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

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

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

OKC to Atlanta goes from 5 daily to 6 daily on Delta, starting in September.Are any of them on a mainline?

Are any of them on a mainline?

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

Are any of them on a mainline?

Pardon the code....

08SEP OKCATL DL4340 0530 0847 CR9
08SEP OKCATL DL5448 0710 1010 CR7
08SEP OKCATL DL5317 1055 1410 CR7
08SEP OKCATL DL4940 1235 1543 CR7
08SEP OKCATL DL5208 1525 1832 CR7
08SEP OKCATL DL4380 1753 2107 CR9

Date, routing (OKC to Atlanta), code and flight number, departure time, arrival time, aircraft type.

CR7 = CRJ-700, Regional Jet
CR9 = CRJ-900, Regional Jet, slightly larger than the -700.

LOL...

BTW, I love the new avatar man!

Haha thanks. There was just something about the old US livery on the 757 that just made it look so good.

About the new Delta schedule, probably good to note that all CR7s and CR9s will have a first class cabin here soon. So we'll have a first class product back on Delta.

The beauty of Canadian flights is that US Customs is located inside the Canadian airport. For a flight from Toronto (YYZ) to OKC, you'll clear customs in YYZ. The flight is then treated the same as a domestic flight when it gets to its US destination - no need for customs at the termination of the flight. The same is true of Vancouver, and possibly all the major Canadian airports.

Personally, I believe a daily OKC-Calgary would be awesome. It seems the traffic from energy companies alone would be enough to support this route.

The beauty of Canadian flights is that US Customs is located inside the Canadian airport. For a flight from Toronto (YYZ) to OKC, you'll clear customs in YYZ. The flight is then treated the same as a domestic flight when it gets to its US destination - no need for customs at the termination of the flight. The same is true of Vancouver, and possibly all the major Canadian airports.

Personally, I believe a daily OKC-Calgary would be awesome. It seems the traffic from energy companies alone would be enough to support this route.

I forgot about that. I think all the major airports have US Preclearance Facilities.

About the new Delta schedule, probably good to note that all CR7s and CR9s will have a first class cabin here soon. So we'll have a first class product back on Delta.That's good news. That's one benefit of United that I like. While all of their OKC flights to O'Hare, LAX, and Washington Dulles are on regional jets, nearly all of them have first and economy plus seats. If Delta starts doing that to Atlanta and Detroit that will be an improvement-- but still not as a good as mainline service to Atlanta.

Come on, Delta! Replace a couple of those RJs with mainlines!

I actually could see OKC to Calgary sometime in the future...whether that is next year or 10 years from now.

Right now, Devon flies one of their airplanes roundtrip at least 3 times a week between the two cities. I understand those are mostly higher ups, but I imagine there is some who fly commercial, added on to some existing traffic between the cities. It's hard to tell since international O&D data is not made available to the general public (unless I don't know where to look).

On a side note, I will be purchasing webspace and a domain name next week or the week after to begin an OKC Aviation website.

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

I hope this isn't just a precursor to scaling back service to the Northwest hubs they took over. (Memphis, Minneapolis, and Detroit)

All of the Northwest hubs have seen neutral or increases in capacity. Detroit, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, Memphis will all be 3x daily on CRJ's of some sort, ATL has the coming 6X daily. I believe under Northwest control, Detroit and Minneapolis only had 70 seats a day each way, now upwards of 150 each way.

All of the Northwest hubs have seen neutral or increases in capacity. Detroit, Minneapolis, Salt Lake City, Memphis will all be 3x daily on CRJ's of some sort, ATL has the coming 6X daily. I believe under Northwest control, Detroit and Minneapolis only had 70 seats a day each way, now upwards of 150 each way.

I understand what it is now but I've seen this happen before when American took over TWA and the St. Louis hub got phased out. I'm just hoping this won't happen. I think they may eventually consider Memphis to be in competition with Atlanta and Minneapolis to be in competition with either Cincinnati or Detroit and cut some routes to save money.

I understand what it is now but I've seen this happen before when American took over TWA and the St. Louis hub got phased out. I'm just hoping this won't happen. I think they may eventually consider Memphis to be in competition with Atlanta and Minneapolis to be in competition with either Cincinnati or Detroit and cut some routes to save money.

Cincinnati is already on the way out. Detroit is massive and won't be touched. Minneapolis they also hold a strong position there. Memphis seems to be in a good place right now and they are happy with it. At the end of the day though...ATL and DTW are the two most secure hubs in the Delta system.

The situation with American and St. Louis was totally different. For one, AA likes buying airlines and throwing it away. LOL However, the down turn in air travel killed the reason for the STL hub - reliever for Chicago. Not to mention the economy in STL went in the crapper so local O&D traffic suffered as well.

Delta has grown the Memphis hub slightly, I believe a few weeks ago they added flights to AMA (Amarillo, TX), and a few other smaller cities in the region. I think Delta might realize that there is some potential to using Memphis as a regional hub (geographical, not regional jet, although that is already what it is for the most part). The stage length (distance from A to B) is too long to all of it's hubs from the plains region, and on Regional Jets, a long stage length is very costly. Having Memphis there to funnel the passengers into the system without risking a very high cost to Atlanta or the other hubs is a good resource and hopefully will allow them to improve their presence in the Plains.

Cincinnati (which was a Delta hub) is the one that appears to be getting the axe - as venture said. I think Delta will keep the current hubs minus Cincy and might try to expand their presence in LAX and JFK (L.A. and NYC) - as has been demonstrated a few weeks ago.

I've noticed Frontier and Southwest expanding their flights like crazy out of Denver again. Wonder if SW may bid Dallas a fond farewell one of these days as their HQ?

I've noticed Frontier and Southwest expanding their flights like crazy out of Denver again. Wonder if SW may bid Dallas a fond farewell one of these days as their HQ?

Nah they are a Texas company through and through. If they move anywhere it will be to Houston. Southwest is just trying to take Frontier out and so far have been unable to do it. General rule, when an airline just comes out of Chapter 11 a year ago, has costs significantly below yours, and provides a superior product...don't throw capacity for the sake of gaining market share. Eventually you have to make money on routes and this will eventually bite Southwest. Of course United is pretty weak still, so they don't have the ability to go after Southwest aggressively and probably have the most to lose at this point.

The Southwest vs. Frontier and Southwest vs. AirTran situation may become a bit more inflamed here in a few weeks. We should have the announcement regarding the merged branding of Frontier and Midwest (who are both owned by Republic) and, if rumors are right, should have the initial announcement of a significant alliance between Frontier and AirTran. Some are speculating Alaska might join the duo to cover the entire country with a wide reaching alliance.

The playing field is changing and Southwest is going to find itself in an awkward spot soon. It was going to hook up with Westjet out of Canada, but they are now courting Delta instead and may join Sky Team. JetBlue is hooking up with American and will probably join One World. Star already has 3 domestic US airlines, so I doubt they'll add in a LCC (low cost carrier). Eventually Southwest is going to find itself without a partner and will start feeling the pressure in many of its markets. However, it always finds a way to survive and we may see some shocking (for them) moves in the near future.

Speaking of AirTran....
I'm sure you all have seen Southwest's latest "Bags Fly Free" commercial. You know the one where the ramp rats lift up their shirts at the plane (An AirTran plane).

Here's a pretty funny response...YouTube - InsideAirTran's Channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/InsideAirTran?feature=mhw4)

Speaking of AirTran....
I'm sure you all have seen Southwest's latest "Bags Fly Free" commercial. You know the one where the ramp rats lift up their shirts at the plane (An AirTran plane).

Here's a pretty funny response...YouTube - InsideAirTran's Channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/InsideAirTran?feature=mhw4)

The "Bags Fly Free" commercials are a brilliant strategy. It is something that is especially important to people going on vacations. For business travelers it's not really that relevant.

The situation with American and St. Louis was totally different. For one, AA likes buying airlines and throwing it away. LOL However, the down turn in air travel killed the reason for the STL hub - reliever for Chicago. Not to mention the economy in STL went in the crapper so local O&D traffic suffered as well.

You're right about that. I knew as soon as American took over TWA that St. Louis would soon be gone. They also got rid of their Nashville hub. That was something I could never understand to start with. It never seemed to make sense.

The "Bags Fly Free" commercials are a brilliant strategy. It is something that is especially important to people going on vacations. For business travelers it's not really that relevant.

Absolutely. Many are so stuck in the mindset that Southwest is the cheapest airline in the air, they think they are getting a better deal with this. However, if they would actually research prices they would end up finding out that those other guys with the bag fees are most of the time still cheaper.

As far as AA...don't forget their hubs at Raleigh/Durham and San Jose, CA. They close RDU and Midway starts a hub there and AA code-shares with them. Reno Air starts up out west, AA goes and buys them to reclaim the network they tossed out (after buying Air Cal) and ending up eliminating most of the network again a few years later.

TWA...Totally Wasted by American. : )

The firm that I worked for in OKC flew TWA all the time since we had a corporate deal with them, with offices in St. Louis, St. Paul, Detroit and job sites in that region we always seemed to have the Monday 5:50 AM flight fairly full of employees.

I think that I have only flown SWA once, OKC-KC, everywhere else it never seemed be the best option for everywhere else that I have flown. My wife takes them quite often since the majority of their work is in Texas but with the flights they have cut in recent years she finds herself driving more because they can't seem to get flights to "time up" right with their work. Like I previously stated, if I can get a direct flight I will choose that one most of the time even if it is more, I just wish JetBlue had more coverage.

Absolutely. Many are so stuck in the mindset that Southwest is the cheapest airline in the air, they think they are getting a better deal with this. However, if they would actually research prices they would end up finding out that those other guys with the bag fees are most of the time still cheaper.



Actually I research air prices everyday and it's usually a wash between Southwest being cheaper or more expensive. Normal advertised fares are almost alway identical and it boils down to which airline still has the lowest fares available or whether there are some city specific specials being offered for a limited time.

Looks like the TUL --> MIA flights begin June 12 and will operate on Saturdays and Sundays. Tulsa International Airport - April 04, 2010 (http://www.tulsaairports.com/index.cfm?id=48&newsid=81)

Interestingly it seems like they'll be run using AA's 737-800s, many of which are based at the MIA hub. Most of AA's 738s are in 16/144 configuration, which will make load factors a big issue on this route. But, as others have written, if this is only about maintenance/aircraft repositioning, I guess it makes sense. Why not swap out the daily MD-80 run to ORD with the 738 and reintroduce it into the network from there?

Also, if you're interested in taking the inaugural TUL --> MIA round trip on 6/12, it'll cost you about $380 with taxes.

Today is the last day for the American Connection St. Louis, MO service. Tomorrow is the beginning of the second daily flight to Los Angeles on United Express.

On a side note, what's causing the older 40 and 50-seat CRJs/ERJs to be costly to operate on longer routes are the jet fuel prices that went up in '08 and have stayed relatively expensive. It's cheaper to operate a half-full 737 between say, Albuquerque and LAX than it is to operate even a full CRJ 200, because the Cost per Available Seat Mile (CASM-what it takes to pay for flying one seat one mile) of a 737 is lower than for a CRJ 100/200; larger the aircraft, more the cost spread across more seats. Of course, the larger aircraft has to be more fuel efficient, which the 737 is is most cases. It's for the same reason that a lot of Asian airlines are dumping their 747-400 and 340-600 fleets for the larger and more fuel-efficient 380-800. Nothing comes without caveats though, and with larger aircraft, it's reduced frequency of flights, so two 744 flights get replcaed with one 388-again, it's all about reducing costs to the airline. That's why you see more 70 and 90-seat jets these days in place of 40- and 50-seaters.

Anyway, going back on topic... DL Conx will go to three-daily between OKC and DTW this summer with CRJ 900s. I'm guessing this has to do with the elimination of CVG flights.

That stinks about the OKC to STL flight on American, is Southwest the only connection to the decaying Lambert?

I have family in Southwest, Iowa so we fly to the BRL airport. I found out today that the BRL airport who used to have Great Lakes airlines from MCI to BRL now has Air Choice One STL to BRL. Anyone ever used Air Choice One before? Flights look cheaper and the planes look like corporate jets.

^I've actually never heard of this airlines before. I did some research, Air Choice One is a feeder airline that services small towns under the Essential Air Service (EAS) program, in the midwest. It uses 9-seat Cessna Caravans and Piper Navajos. The Caravans are powered by turboprops while the Navajos are piston-powered.

As far as St. Louis flights from Oklahoma City, yep, they're the only ones left. I think Southwest added another daily STL flight last year though (for a total of 2).

Saw this on the Southwest site a little while ago:

http://img696.imageshack.us/img696/4792/okcwn.jpg

It's also rumored that a new special livery/logo jet is on the way - whether or not these two are related, no clue.

0_0 A Sooner/Oklahoma One? That would be awesome.

0_0 A Sooner/Oklahoma One? That would be awesome.

Even though I hate Southwest...it would be about time for an Oklahoma One aircraft.

Some talk on a.net from Mariner, probably the most connected person involved Frontier, that there is some talk of Frontier expanding a bit in the middle of the country from Omaha, Kansas City and Oklahoma City - possibly. Not sure exactly, but Republic will announce this coming week what they intend to do with Frontier and Midwest and how they'll merge the operations. Apparently any changes would come with the fall schedule.

If they were to do anything in OKC, I would probably guessing something like...
- New 2x daily service to Milwaukee
- Resumption of seasonal service to Orlando and Tampa
- New seasonal service to Cancun

Not sure if they really have any ability to do more than that. DCA would be nice (if they get more slots from the DL/US deal), LGA would be as well (same deal), LAX won't happen because of UA, SFO probably doesn't have the demand right now, BOS probably won't work either because of low demand.

Some talk on a.net from Mariner, probably the most connected person involved Frontier, that there is some talk of Frontier expanding a bit in the middle of the country from Omaha, Kansas City and Oklahoma City - possibly. Not sure exactly, but Republic will announce this coming week what they intend to do with Frontier and Midwest and how they'll merge the operations. Apparently any changes would come with the fall schedule.

If they were to do anything in OKC, I would probably guessing something like...
- New 2x daily service to Milwaukee
- Resumption of seasonal service to Orlando and Tampa
- New seasonal service to Cancun

Not sure if they really have any ability to do more than that. DCA would be nice (if they get more slots from the DL/US deal), LGA would be as well (same deal), LAX won't happen because of UA, SFO probably doesn't have the demand right now, BOS probably won't work either because of low demand.

I agree that the first two options you mentions are the most likely. Cancun is still questionable until we get permanent immigration and customs facilites at Will Rogers. With the UA nonstops to IAD, DCA isn't too likely for now and for the same reasons the CO nonstops to EWR make LGA unlikely.

I agree that the first two options you mentions are the most likely. Cancun is still questionable until we get permanent immigration and customs facilites at Will Rogers. With the UA nonstops to IAD, DCA isn't too likely for now and for the same reasons the CO nonstops to EWR make LGA unlikely.

Yeah, the lack of customs here and pre-clearance in Cancun will hurt that. The only option would be to just have nonstop service going one way, or bring the flight back through Dallas, Austin, San Antonio or New Orleans...or simply require people to fly back through Denver. I think DCA service could work, as you can't get much closer in than National. If they would do LGA, CO would ax Newark service as there simply wouldn't be enough O&D to support their flights. I also doubt they get much connecting traffic on it...and its only 1 flight. However, who knows...maybe having a low fare carrier on those routes would generate new traffic.

I think the Orlando and Tampa flights were trial runs to test the waters in the middle of the country to see how our city (and Omaha) deals with point to point flights to non-hub, no connection cities.

I think Omaha might get more than we'll get from Frontier - Omaha put butts in the seats at a profit. Not sure OKC did the same, there was too much conflicting data: Frontier employees have told me the flights are doing poorly most of the time, yet NewsOK comes out and states the flights are going out full everyday. Now, here will be a shocker: I have heard from a few employees out at the airport that Frontier might acquire Gate 1, currently they only have Gate 2. Personally, I think this rumor is bogus -- unless we're expecting to get more flights. I don't think a Milwaukee nonstop would be too far-fetched, Cancun wouldn't be too far off either. Other than that, I think our Florida performance, as reported by Frontier front-line employees directly involved, might have hurt expansion beyond that.

Venture, get my PM?

Omaha already has the benefit of being a focus operation for Midwest too, so they'll be a step ahead of us...like Kansas City.

^Interesting stuff. Should be something to follow for sure.

Btw, going off-topic for a bit, I don't see Jetblue joining OneWorld anytime soon, just because it has teamed up with AA on a handful of north east flights doesn't mean anything much other than a smart move on B6's part. Remember that Lufthansa still has that 19% stake in B6, and has some code-sharing agreements as well. After all, LH didn't spend $300 million for nothing ;) ;);-)

Tomorrow is the big Frontier/Midwest/Republic announcement. I am on the edge of my seat....

Delta is putting an Embraer 175 on Atlanta-OKC for July-Aug. The Embraer 175 is a 70 seat regional jet, but most people say it feels roomier like a mainline.

Just flew back on a United flight from LAX-OKC and it was packed with with 4-6 on standby, but on the way to LAX it was half full.

Just flew back on a United flight from LAX-OKC and it was packed with with 4-6 on standby, but on the way to LAX it was half full.

I guess that means that everyone in LA is moving to OKC then. LOL, you can't tell too much from that. I've been on those flights when it was full in both directions. It can certainly vary from day to day though.

Tomorrow is the big Frontier/Midwest/Republic announcement. I am on the edge of my seat....

Delta is putting an Embraer 175 on Atlanta-OKC for July-Aug. The Embraer 175 is a 70 seat regional jet, but most people say it feels roomier like a mainline.

I agree with most people - the E175 really does feel a bit bigger. Flew into/out of OKC once or twice when NWA was still operating apart from Delta.

About the LA flights, United has doubled capacity on the route effective last week, so some of the people will be split between the two flights. As the flights mature the flight back to LAX should begin to fill, especially with summer coming up.

Well I liked that canadair jet I flew on, it was a regional but it was a step up from the American RJ's in a consumers opinion.

The Embraer 170/175/190/195 are amazing jets.

Interior on the Compass versions which fly for Delta.
http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/5/9/0/1630095.jpg

Cabin is definitely more roomie than the CRJs and ERJ-135/140/145.

ERJ-145 of American Eagle.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/6/7/7/1664776.jpg

CRJ-700 on Skyway flying for United.

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/5/7/6/1385675.jpg