people in western OK can drive to Lawton. I believe they have 6 flights a day to DFW on American.

My relatives in Duncan and Altus use Lawton's airport. They say it's really easy to get in and out of and the non-stop to DFW provides all the connections they need. Did Lawton not also have a Delta non-stop to Atlanta? I also thought Enid had non-stop service to Dallas. I know Liberal/Guymon has a non-stop to Denver on United that serves the Panhandle/SW Kansas.

Enid and Ponca City lost air service in August 2006, and have had none since.
Article: Enid, Ponca City flights to end. | AccessMyLibrary - Promoting library advocacy (http://www.accessmylibrary.com/article-1G1-150703258/enid-ponca-city-flights.html)

Lawton did have service to Atlanta for a short time. They won a grant from the Small Community Air Service Development program a few years back and attracted Delta to operate the route. Once the funds ran out though, Delta was still in the red and dropped it.

United and Continental are rumored to announce a merger on Monday.

The combined brand would be United, being run by Continental execs, based in Chicago -- Houston, TX Continental HQ would be closed.

What this means for OKC:

Note, this is my speculation:

United would have the opportunity of having the most gates in OKC of any airline currently here: 4. Gates 3, 5, 9, and 10. This is assuming, however, that United would choose to obtain both of Continental's gates. At minimum, they will probably obtain 1 of CO's gates, but I think the combined operation would require 4 gates (morning departure push, evening arrival rush - mid day would work on 2-3 gates).

Routes:
LAX - Los Angeles, CA
DEN - Denver, CO
IAD - Washington Dulles, VA
IAH - Houston Intercontinental, TX
EWR - Newark, NJ (New York)
ORD - Chicago O'Hare, IL


I expect the Cleveland hub (which we do not have service to anymore) to be closed, the IAD hub is still iffy - but I think it will stick around.

This would also bring out a good chance for an SFO (San Fransisco) nonstop to take place, as more resources would be available.

Anyway, those are my thoughts on the subject. I have a friend who works for CO at OKC, I will see if he knows anything good after Monday.

yep, United (my fav) will become the world's largest airline again.

Unlike AA, United doesn't just swallow up an airline and downsize. I agree with you that IAH and EWR would just get absorbed into the new United network, since there was little overlap to begin with. The only thing i hate about the deal is Glenn Tilton would remain as Chairman (uggh - he doesn't really care that much about the airline business - but on that note, I guess it is nice he will not be CEO anymore).

But I could see some shifting in responsibility between EWR and IAD with regard to Europe; just like United does on the west coast with SF and LA. On the west, SF is the hub but LA is the international gateway; I suspect IAD would be the hub with EWR as the international gateway (then, what about JFK. ....?).

I agree that this opens up the opp for OKC to get at least 1 non-stop flight daily to each hub and probably more mainliners since IAH traffic would likely shift to less domestic almost immediately.

I do agree that CLE is gone. But Im not really sure why it was a hub to begin with. I see ORD as the biggest winner though, because there likely would be some strengthening there to take advantage of Ohare's Modernization plan - to better compete with Delta.

Maybe in the future we might see reductions at IAH (at least from it's current configuration, but IAH would definitely be the latin american gateway), EWR (assuming IAD remains UAL's primary European/African hub), and DEN; but all three should still remain important.

I do have a question though, what happens to Continental Micronesia?

I think this pair up makes sense with IAD/EWR being the big question mark. UAL hasn't shown much interest in IAD until after the 23rd merger attempt with US failed. Congestion wise, IAD has little compared to EWR - so that is a huge plus. EWR though has the more vast network currently. They can probably make them both work for now. Heck, US had PIT, PHL, DCA, BWI, LGA, and BOS with large focus city to hub sized operations going all at the same time for awhile. Then of course oil prices went crazy and yeah...anyway.

The one thing I'm waiting for is what US is going to do. The most likely, and expected, movement for them to do is announce a switch to One World and rekindle the code-share relationship with AA. I don't think they would ever consider merger, but I guess it isn't out of the realm of possibility. In that scenario though PHL and PHX hubs are drawn into question while CLT has a nice future ahead. PHL would probably see some right sizing or balancing with the operation at JFK. PHX...would probably be on the way out and America West falls into the history books much like PSA did (I guess AirCal too since we are talking AA being involved here).

So that takes care of the original Top 6 legacy carriers...pairing them down to 3. That leaves Southwest, AirTran, JetBlue, and Alaska for the top 10. JetBlue is linking with American, but not merging...so that takes care of them. Alaska is everyones friend, so they won't really do much. Southwest seems to be the odd man out right now, but we'll probably see continued evolution of their model over the next 10 years (read: smaller aircraft type for more cities). AirTran is the interesting one left.

I have this feeling that there is something brewing between AirTran and Republic. It could be when Frontier goes public, that AirTran moves to picks them up and they merge or at least a more extensive code-share with anti-trust immunity could be in the works. Republic is also a wild card of their own, because they could easily pull an Atlantic Coast/Independence Air switch since they already have their own branded operation (Frontier). The dominate the E-Jet feed market for the majors right now and could easily redeploy those on many new markets under the Frontier brand. One last off the wall thought would be Republic acquires US Airways next and merges all their brands together as well as stops flying for other majors. However, I think the US unions have that place pretty well screwed up for the next 20 years...so doubt that'll happen. Unless they find a way to get US to lose about $2 billion so they can do another Ch11 filing and acquire that way.

Although the writing has been on the wall with this merger for some time now, the fact it looks like it is going to happen disappoints me. As a loyal Continental flyer, I hate to see the name go away, even though most reports say CO management will be running the airline. Personal feelings aside, it will be interesting to see the effect the merger has on OKC.

I agree that CLE hublet is the most vulnerable. Traffic there is heavily O/D, with some overflow from EWR. IAD would appear the logical choice as reliever for EWR, which isn't going anywhere. As annoying as that airport can be, it is massively important for the Star Alliance.

It'll also be interesting to see what happens regarding the two pilots contracts. CO has a VERY strict scope clause which limits regional jet seating to 50 seats (ergo the ERJ 145s) United can fly bigger regional jets (ERJ 170 and the CRJ 700). This resolution could have a fairly significant impact on OKC.

Continental Mike is a wholly owned subsidiary of CO, so I'd guess it's part of the merger.

how many seats is offered from Lincoln?

Not sure how many seats are offered at Lincoln, but they just had a study done that told them they are losing roughly 900,000 passengers a year, mostly to Omaha. That is more than the difference between Omaha's traffic and OKC's.

The consultants also made the point that ""People are driving from Hastings and Kearney right past this [Lincoln's] airport to [Omaha]." So, to the extent you are adding western OK to OKC's market, you also have to add a good deal of Nebraska to Omaha's (plus parts of Iowa and possibly South Dakota.)

A couple of points:

Lawton-Ft. Sill is serviced by American Eagle, not American, and with a combination of ERJs and ATR turboprops. I'm sure those who have to connect through DFW anyway and want to avoid flying in either of those planes would prefer going to OKC and taking an MD 80 instead.

I think Cleveland Hopkins International will become to the United/Continental merger what Memphis Shelby County Int'l has becme to DL/NW, with its regional hub status intact. The City of Cleveland and Continental/Express have already invested heavily in Hopkins.

Calling IAD's status as iffy is like saying DL will shut down the ATL hub-not gonna happen. The hub is one of UA's strongest, many international dignitaries use it, not to mention thousands of local travellers, connecting passengers and tourists. There is no way BWI and DCA (Reagan National) can handle the 40+ million/yr passenger traffic that IAD handles today. The airport has invested heavily in new concourses, renovation of existing ones, a new underground people mover and a new extension to the international arrivals building.

Just some clarification since facts seem to be out of whack a bit...

1) LAW-DFW is all 64-seat ATR-72s now to provide some extra lift and operate the route with a lower cost aircraft. About time if you ask me. Granted over the next 5 years, we'll probably see far fewer 50-seat jets and more of the efficient turboprops again...finally.

2) CLE is a tough one, but you aren't win this on the investment argument. Pittsburgh and Cincinnati all invested a TON of money into their hubs and that didn't save anything. UA/CO doesn't need a reliever airport in between EWR/IAD/ORD. That's almost going back to the old US hub setup and people blasted them about it. CLE is the odd man out here and will get scaled down to a focus city if anything.

3) IAD =! ATL. I have no idea where you pulled the 40 million number from besides the air. Only one airport in the US pushes out 40+ million a year...Atlanta (BTS | Summary 2009 Traffic Data for U.S and Foreign Airlines: Total Passengers Down 5.3 Percent from 2008 (http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2010/bts015_10/html/bts015_10.html#table_04)). Dulles last year put through 16.3 million passengers, 6.2M of those on United. To compare...Reagan National had 16.7M and Baltimore (BWI) around 20.7M.

IAD has never been a strong hub for United. To compare...Chicago they put out 16.9M, Denver 14.8M, LAX 6.9M, and San Francisco 10.1M. Again, airport investment means nothing. Other hubs have been scrapped after such revitalization programs. Plus we are also talking about a merger here...Newark will become it's second gateway in the Northeast. A hub that Continental now puts through 11.4M people a year.

Wow, we have seen some major shifts in airline industry in the past 15 years. First TWA merges with AA, then Northwest merges with Delta, now Continental with United. That leaves those three as the major player in domestic/international traffic with Southwest the lone major low-cost domestic. I see Jetblue, Frontier, and Airtran getting bigger in the near future. What happens to US Airways?

Wow, we have seen some major shifts in airline industry in the past 15 years. First TWA merges with AA, then Northwest merges with Delta, now Continental with United. That leaves those three as the major player in domestic/international traffic with Southwest the lone major low-cost domestic. I see Jetblue, Frontier, and Airtran getting bigger in the near future. What happens to US Airways?

Southwest isn't even low cost anymore. Their Q1 2010 CASM (cost per available seat mile) was 11.39 cents. Continental's was 11.44 cents, JetBlue's came in at 9.62 cents, and US Airways was 12.13 cents...to give some examples.

Consolidation will continue as costs continue to go up but passengers expect to pay less. Also because how you use to the word "major" when it comes to the airline industry. The official definition is an airline that has more then $1B in revenue is a major...which includes more than you think. For passenger airlines that includes AirTran, Alaska, American, American Eagle, Atlantic Southeast, Comair, Continental, Delta, Frontier, Hawaiian, JetBlue, SkyWest, Southwest, United, and US Airways.

US Airways is going to be the interesting play in this. Doug Parker (US CEO) is a guy that likes consolidation. However, the primary partner United is no longer possible. I still think US bolts to One World and does a domestic code-share with American. JetBlue will continue to grow with the ERJ-190s. AirTran and Frontier I think will integrate more than is known now and become a strong domestic low fare power house. Of course that all comes down to what Brian Bedford (Republic's CEO) and Republic want to do.

Just some clarification since facts seem to be out of whack a bit...

3) IAD =! ATL. I have no idea where you pulled the 40 million number from besides the air. Only one airport in the US pushes out 40+ million a year...Atlanta (BTS | Summary 2009 Traffic Data for U.S and Foreign Airlines: Total Passengers Down 5.3 Percent from 2008 (http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2010/bts015_10/html/bts015_10.html#table_04)). Dulles last year put through 16.3 million passengers, 6.2M of those on United. To compare...Reagan National had 16.7M and Baltimore (BWI) around 20.7M.



Yeah, the 40M number for Dulles is clearly wrong, but I'm pretty sure it was meant as total passenger, not just departing passenger. But even then, it was way wrong.

Now, as to your numbers, not sure where you pulled them from, besides the air... Dulles last year served a TOTAL of 23.2 million passengers, down 2.8% from 2008. Reagan served 17.6 million, down 2.5%. Passengers at Reagan, Dulles airports decline for 2nd year - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/02/09/AR2010020903630.html)

http://www.metwashairports.com/file/pr2010_02_03.pdf

Of course, contrary to OUMan's assertion, there is no reason Reagan and BWI would have to absorb 40 million passengers from Dulles. (1) as already mentioned, Dulles does not serve anywhere near 40 Million per year. (2) It's not as if Dulles would be shut down, or even all of United's flights eliminated. (3) A good number of the passengers at Dulles are merely connecting to another flight (that's the function of a hub). Those passengers will not need to be accommodated at any Washington area airport, Dulles or otherwise.

Now, as to your numbers, not sure where you pulled them from, besides the air...

RITA | BTS | Transtats (http://www.transtats.bts.gov/airports.asp)

All the numbers were pulled from the DOT, which I would imagine doesn't include international passenger numbers considering the discrepancy and the numbers state "US Flights".

Just some clarification since facts seem to be out of whack a bit...

1) LAW-DFW is all 64-seat ATR-72s now to provide some extra lift and operate the route with a lower cost aircraft. About time if you ask me. Granted over the next 5 years, we'll probably see far fewer 50-seat jets and more of the efficient turboprops again...finally.

Ok, so it's all ATRs now. Back as recently as January Eagle actually did have a few ERJ 135s, but it does seem more of the tertiary cities like Lawton will get all ATRs in the future.


2) CLE is a tough one, but you aren't win this on the investment argument. Pittsburgh and Cincinnati all invested a TON of money into their hubs and that didn't save anything. UA/CO doesn't need a reliever airport in between EWR/IAD/ORD. That's almost going back to the old US hub setup and people blasted them about it. CLE is the odd man out here and will get scaled down to a focus city if anything.

Focus operation, which is what MEM will soon become as well.


3) IAD =! ATL. I have no idea where you pulled the 40 million number from besides the air. Only one airport in the US pushes out 40+ million a year...Atlanta (BTS | Summary 2009 Traffic Data for U.S and Foreign Airlines: Total Passengers Down 5.3 Percent from 2008 (http://www.bts.gov/press_releases/2010/bts015_10/html/bts015_10.html#table_04)). Dulles last year put through 16.3 million passengers, 6.2M of those on United. To compare...Reagan National had 16.7M and Baltimore (BWI) around 20.7M.

I stand corrected on the total IAD passenger traffic, you are right, it's not 40+ million/yr, I read it incorrectly on the Metro Wahsington D.C. airports page site for IAD traffic as outbound only, when they were giving it as the total. Although United had 9.4 + million last year at IAD: http://www.metwashairports.com/file/dpsp1209ye.pdf


IAD has never been a strong hub for United. To compare...Chicago they put out 16.9M, Denver 14.8M, LAX 6.9M, and San Francisco 10.1M. Again, airport investment means nothing. Other hubs have been scrapped after such revitalization programs. Plus we are also talking about a merger here...Newark will become it's second gateway in the Northeast. A hub that Continental now puts through 11.4M people a year.

Well, United is expanding nonetheless at IAD; Kuwait City, Bahrain (via direct service through Kuwait City), Moscow, Geneva are all destinations United has recently added. Plus Ghana, Accra was launched yesterday from IAD. Does that mean nothing also? We'll see.

As far as DCA and BWI being able to handle Dulles' passengers, that may be done through significant enhancements to terminal facilities at both airports, but the types of aircraft that Dulles handles daily, without significant airfield enhancements, nope. I'm talking about the plethora of international widebodies that descend to IAD daily. Plus, DCA has no room for expansion of its airfield. It's done as far as runway lengthening goes.

Ok, so it's all ATRs now. Back as recently as January Eagle actually did have a few ERJ 135s, but it does seem more of the tertiary cities like Lawton will get all ATRs in the future.

There are plenty of Eagle stations that really wouldn't mind getting the ATRs back. Especially when it means a net gain in seats per day, lower operating costs for that station, and an overall improvement in profitability of the station.


Focus operation, which is what MEM will soon become as well.

There hasn't been any indication of further reductions at MEM. They are very happy with the way the hub is setup. MEM has seen an overall increase in service since the DL took over.


I stand corrected on the total IAD passenger traffic, you are right, it's not 40+ million/yr, I read it incorrectly on the Metro Wahsington D.C. airports page site for IAD traffic as outbound only, when they were giving it as the total. Although United had 9.4 + million last year at IAD: http://www.metwashairports.com/file/dpsp1209ye.pdf

Well, United is expanding nonetheless at IAD; Kuwait City, Bahrain (via direct service through Kuwait City), Moscow, Geneva are all destinations United has recently added. Plus Ghana, Accra was launched yesterday from IAD. Does that mean nothing also? We'll see.

As far as DCA and BWI being able to handle Dulles' passengers, that may be done through significant enhancements to terminal facilities at both airports, but the types of aircraft that Dulles handles daily, without significant airfield enhancements, nope. I'm talking about the plethora of international widebodies that descend to IAD daily. Plus, DCA has no room for expansion of its airfield. It's done as far as runway lengthening goes.

Yeah the BTS/DOT stats don't include any international traffic in their numbers, so it kept everything pretty even when comparing.

United really has had much of a choice but to add the additional international lift there. It is all going to come down to what they do post merger. Continental execs are running the show, so they may see another path be more viable. I think you are also missing the point here. IAD is a hub...with a lot of transiting traffic. DCA by more accounts is mostly O&D with some connecting through the US "hub" they have there. BWI more connecting that DCA and a little closer to IAD. There will still be use for IAD when it comes to having an international entry point for the capital area. However, UA/CO will be able to divert a significant amount of traffic back up to EWR should they desire.

Was glad to see the CO livery sticking around.........
http://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=471&d=1272932400

Here's the new website.
Let's Fly Together (http://www.unitedcontinentalmerger.com/)

I personally don't think the CO livery will last much past merger. It is a bone to throw to the CO employees that they are still the ones running the show. However, the United name just looks awkward on the fuselage. It is about time for something a bit more updated and fresh for CO...maybe it'll happen eventually.

Just keep the Death Star on the tail......

it is NOT United unless it has the tulip on the tail. I personally like and prefer United's livery moreso than Continental's rather boring "corporate" design. United is really the airline of the United States. In fact, many people I meet/talk to during my international travels think United is the flag carrier of the US.

United is quite the ambassador for the United States when those fluffy blue/white tulips are seen around the globe. I often see non-North American people actually taking pictures of United planes as they are walking/connecting.

I like United's blue/white tulip tails, I hope their livery continues and lives on.

it is NOT United unless it has the tulip on the tail. I personally like and prefer United's livery moreso than Continental's rather boring "corporate" design. United is really the airline of the United States. In fact, many people I meet/talk to during my international travels think United is the flag carrier of the US.

United is quite the ambassador for the United States when those fluffy blue/white tulips are seen around the globe. I often see non-North American people actually taking pictures of United planes as they are walking/connecting.

I like United's blue/white tulip tails, I hope their livery continues and lives on.

Sorry, that ship has sailed.

If anything maybe they'll spend the money with Landor or some other marketing firm to design a new scheme over time. I can see where they would be able to bring various elements of both CO and UA's scheme together...but it does look like the tulip is dead. However, if they go down this road at least it won't be a rush internal job of mashing schemes together like they did with US and America West.

March 2010 stats:

http://flyokc.com/releases%5CMarch%2010%20Activity.pdf

Analysis: Through July I expect passenger numbers similar to this, with us in consecutive break even or positive territory (0+% MTD for at least 2 months in a row) by the end of this year.

Wiley Post broke positive ground on airport operations, seeing an increase of 0.51% over March 2009 totals.

April statistics should be available mid-later this month.

Sorry, that ship has sailed.

...but it does look like the tulip is dead.

I don't see how you dismiss the issue. Unlike most folks here, I have actually worked for United, so I know a little bit about the culture within the company.

This issue WILL be up-front and center should United settle for the combined branding as it is now. United has strong, current, and simple branding. While Continental's is not bad, it is outdated, unappealing, and has no life to it (read: color). LOOK AT THAT FONT!!! BLEH!!


I saw the current proposed logo in the press conference the other day and it made me want to puke!


I predict they will settle for something that involves more than Continental's current logo and United's name.

See this? The New United-Contintental Logo: Flying a Little Too Close Together | Fast Company (http://www.fastcompany.com/1638794/the-new-united-contintental-logo-flying-a-little-too-close-together)

See this? The New United-Contintental Logo: Flying a Little Too Close Together | Fast Company (http://www.fastcompany.com/1638794/the-new-united-contintental-logo-flying-a-little-too-close-together)

This is a great article Mike! Food-for-thought: remember how Delta tilted their logo (on plane tails mostly) to combine the Northwest "compass pointer" and the Delta "widget"?

I was thinking, they could come up with a modern form of a globe and the tulip, somehow meshed together on the branding. PERHAPS only the outline of a globe, with no inner lines and the double "U" set partially inside of the globe???

Then they would have to work on that BLAH FONT! Certainly you all must agree that United has got the better font here?

I personally prefer United's plane colors to Continental's.

Not sure how much I buy into the new Widget tail as a tip to Northwest. Granted Delta is ran by the old Northwest execs (before the set that was in place prior to and through the merger). However, that paint scheme was announced and in place prior to the merger agreement. I think deep down Northwest folks would like to think it was a salute to them, but really it is probably just an update to the Widget and a reversal of taking it off the tail. Now if they could just add some more paint to the Euro-trash white body. Eeesh. Of course, I also wouldn't mind seeing the big black noses back either. : )

This is a great article Mike! Food-for-thought: remember how Delta tilted their logo (on plane tails mostly) to combine the Northwest "compass pointer" and the Delta "widget"?

I was thinking, they could come up with a modern form of a globe and the tulip, somehow meshed together on the branding. PERHAPS only the outline of a globe, with no inner lines and the double "U" set partially inside of the globe???

Then they would have to work on that BLAH FONT! Certainly you all must agree that United has got the better font here?

I personally prefer United's plane colors to Continental's.

I second. here here!

Not sure how much I buy into the new Widget tail as a tip to Northwest.

For those who still have their doubts, see below...and the merger was internally expected to happen before they even went public with it. When I worked there several years ago, we knew about it then and that was before the exit from bankruptcy, which is when the new branding took place.

http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/pp9/sgrayddsgav/dalnwa.jpg

for those who know the innerworkings of airline industry...
What prevents OKC from actively seeking to be a Hub for an airline. What prevents airlines from choosing OKC?
Is it location? Proximity? Hazzards? Current facilities? Taxes?
Some Airlines prefer DFW for a centralized location, some choose Houston and Minneapolis for the same. Would you say that is true?
Conversely, would you say some airlines feel a 5 hr flight direct from LA to NY should have no lay-overs because of the time zones differential?
What plays into a decision to: A) be a hub city B) choose a city as a hub?

For those who still have their doubts, see below...and the merger was internally expected to happen before they even went public with it. When I worked there several years ago, we knew about it then and that was before the exit from bankruptcy, which is when the new branding took place.

http://i392.photobucket.com/albums/pp9/sgrayddsgav/dalnwa.jpg

This should end roughly any thought that DL was tossing NW a bone in the new Widget design. Any Chance For A Return Of The "Red Tail"? — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4805427/#25)

for those who know the innerworkings of airline industry...
What prevents OKC from actively seeking to be a Hub for an airline. What prevents airlines from choosing OKC?
Is it location? Proximity? Hazzards? Current facilities? Taxes?
Some Airlines prefer DFW for a centralized location, some choose Houston and Minneapolis for the same. Would you say that is true?
Conversely, would you say some airlines feel a 5 hr flight direct from LA to NY should have no lay-overs because of the time zones differential?
What plays into a decision to: A) be a hub city B) choose a city as a hub?

For one the airline industry is broke and has been. Hubs require a large amount of investment and originating traffic. OKC barely breaks 3M people a year. Cities like Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, and St. Louis put through more than that and are being de-hubbed (by Delta, US Airways, and American respectively).

Location is probably the one thing OKC has going for it. Hazards? No more than Dallas or Kansas City or Denver. Current facilities of course can't handle a hub, but that would be addressed should the need arise. The terminal is no where near capacity right now.

I don't think it is the airline that says there should be stops en route. It is the passenger. This is why we see someone like Southwest continue to get away from their short hop network and do more long range flights (when they can).

The whole situation comes down to...OKC doesn't have the population to support a hub right now. The facilities can't support a hub. The economy can't support a hub. We are in the middle of some pretty extensive airline consolidation right now. AA started when they got TWA...now the St. Louis hub is going away. US Airways and America West were mashed together...Pittsburgh and Las Vegas hubs are gone. Delta picked up Northwest...Cincinnati hub is on the way out. Now Continental is essentially taking over United and we'll likely see some sort of consolidation there (Cleveland hub?).

We can't even fully support the service we have now, hence why the majority of everything is flown by an aircraft under 100 seats...where even 5-10 years ago it was the opposite. We need to support what we have now, get behind any new service we are offered, and do whatever we can to retain and grow.

At least they didn't do something stupid like Continental-United Airlines.

Exxon + Mobile = ExxonMobile

Locheed + Martin Marietta = Lockheed Martin

Conoco and Phillips = ConocoPhillips

Colgate + Palmolive = Colgate Palmolive

Anheuser-Busch + InBev = Anheuser-Busch InBev

venture hit the nail on the head. Location is a factor, but passenger numbers, with an emphasis on yield, is the driving factor.

Most successful hubs weren't built on a dime. They started out as profitable cities, the flights sold good. The airline added a few more flights, those flights began to fill and make money, more cities and flights were added, then it begins to grow exponentially because of connections.

Hubs aren't built off of connections, but local traffic. The Delta powerhouse of Atlanta is a testament to this. It's not the biggest city, but they had good traffic counts. With every added flight came more connections and more passengers. Any flights they add now should work (in watered down basic theory). But, all that started from local traffic.

venture hit the nail on the head. Location is a factor, but passenger numbers, with an emphasis on yield, is the driving factor.

Most successful hubs weren't built on a dime. They started out as profitable cities, the flights sold good. The airline added a few more flights, those flights began to fill and make money, more cities and flights were added, then it begins to grow exponentially because of connections.

Hubs aren't built off of connections, but local traffic. The delta powerhouse of atlanta is a testament to this. It's not the biggest city, but they had good traffic counts. With every added flight came more connections and more passengers. Any flights they add now should work (in watered down basic theory). But, all that started from local traffic.

10-4

This should end roughly any thought that DL was tossing NW a bone in the new Widget design. Any Chance For A Return Of The "Red Tail"? — Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/4805427/#25)

How so? I don't see how the argument about printed company material proves anything. Who says the tilted widget could not and did not serve more than one purpose? Fact is, we already knew the merger was coming before the exit from bankruptcy, so there lies the possibility. Remember the STRONG internal/external "Keep Delta My Delta" campaign when another carrier tried to buy 'em out before the merger? I still have some of the free swag they dumped on us. They already had plans for the merger prior to the new branding and they kept NWA's exact same tail design, down to the angle and all, therefore it is possible and the printed material argument doesn't prove this not to be the case.

At least they didn't do something stupid like Continental-United Airlines.

While I see "stupid" embedded all over mergers today, what specifically are you referring to? The name being United and not ContinentalUnited?

The main thing I can;t digest so far is that nasty logo and crap font!

The main thing I can;t digest so far is that nasty logo and crap font!

I think it looks good. (Although it'd look better if it said Continental)

Im not so sure I buy into you guy's explanations.

I would like to see O&D numbers for these hub airports as that is the true guage as to whether pax are actually flying into those cities en mass OR if airlines are forcing people into those cities.

I'd say cities like NY, Chicago, LA, DC, and SF [in that order] will have the highest O&D, with Houston and other "Industry-Leader cities" coming next.

Im not saying ATL doesnt have the numbers, but does STL? does DIA?

I am certain MIA is purposedly built on being the latin american hub, SEA gets it's biggest numbers being Alaska and Hawaii's connection to the continental US, and PHX and SLC was purposedly set up as desert hubs and NOT based on O&D. MKE is essentially Chicago's 3rd airport and reliever to ORD.

Using your argument, then OMA should be next as a hub city - having relatively large O&D numbers despite having KC MCI so close.

I do agree, however, that OKC needs to put butts in the seats. Hopefully, as the city continues to grow and add, we can pick up from the loss of 'internet/conferencing' business, 9-11 industry conditions, and airline inefficiencies that have sent OKC's numbers plummeting.

Im also hopeful, that we could get 1000+ traveling OKC Thunder fanatics who fly to AWAY cities in support of the team. Don't laugh, but that could easily add 82,000+ to OKC's numbers and might justify 'special' large mainliners (ie 777, MD-11, 787) get moved into OKC for at least these occasions. If other cities' clubs also used their AWAY games against OKC for an excuse of their fans to travel to OKC, it could really add up as a nice contributor. Ditto that for conventions. .....

I must say I am a bit perplexed as to why there are no non-stop flights between OKC and ICT, OKC and TUL, and OKC and LIT. You would think this might represent an opportunity for someone using regional jets or props, as it is popular in other areas of the country having a number of close (but far enough) small airports. This is also one HUGE reason for SEA being quite large, as it is a feeder for many little airports in WA state, ID, and MT [Bellingham, Pasco, Spokane, even Ellingsburg in WA alone have flights] despite SEA being a small regional airline hub. SEA also gets a LOT of traffic from Vancouver, since it is cheaper to fly from SEA to US destinations than YVR (by contrast, it's cheaper to fly international from YVR than SEA, lol) - but that is an aside

Personally...the United name is trash compared to Continental. The last bad press Continental had was when Frank Lorenzo was screwing over the airline world. Gordon Bethune rebuilt it and made it a brand to be proud. United...not so much.

yes, the 'new' United logo is horrendous!

They should have kept (or move back) to the global icon that the United U tulip IS! United had done very well with branding and that should not have changed.

If anything, they could have kept the new blue/white tulip thing, but superimposed on it a greyed outline of continental's globe. The end result would look like United's tulip that is more BOLD than the original 'soft' design.

Im not so sure I buy into you guy's explanations.

I would like to see O&D numbers for these hub airports as that is the true guage as to whether pax are actually flying into those cities en mass OR if airlines are forcing people into those cities.

I'd say cities like NY, Chicago, LA, DC, and SF [in that order] will have the highest O&D, with Houston and other "Industry-Leader cities" coming next.

Im not saying ATL doesnt have the numbers, but does STL? does DIA?

I guess it depends on how you want to look at it. Highest percentage of total passengers that are O&D (originating/terminating there) or higher number of pax overall.

New York (6 airports) has 23M pax or 44.6% of their overall total.
LA is next (4 airports) with 18.9M and 54.5%.
Chicago (2 airports) with 15.7M and 40%.
Miami (3 airports) with 14.4M and 46%.
Las Vegas with 13M and 65.5% - note how high they are in O&D, but yeild can't support a hub unless it is a low yield based hub with Allegiant or Southwest.

The rest of the order is SFO (12.4M, 56%), MCO (12.3M, 67%), DFW (10.7M, 34%), ATL (10.2M, 23.8%), PHX (9.7M, 52%), DEN (9.7M, 40%), WAS (IAD & DCA - 9.5M, 48%), BOS (8M, 67%), SEA (7.8M, 53%), PHL (7.5M, 51%), TPA (7M, 75%), HOU/IAH (7M, 30%), BWI (7M, 70%), SAN (6.5M, 80%), MSP (6.2M, 39%), DTW (6M, 38%), SLC (4M, 41%), STL (4M, 65%)....other hubs...CLT (3.5M, 20%), BNA (3M, 70%), MKE (2.2M, 64%), CLE (2M, 45%), CVG (1.4M, 27%), and MEM (1.3M, 27%).

So specifically...ATL has a lower percentage of O&D pax but it has one of the most extensive connecting hubs in the nation. CLT is there as well. STL...vast majority of its traffic is O&D. DEN...about 40%.


I am certain MIA is purposedly built on being the latin american hub, SEA gets it's biggest numbers being Alaska and Hawaii's connection to the continental US, and PHX and SLC was purposedly set up as desert hubs and NOT based on O&D. MKE is essentially Chicago's 3rd airport and reliever to ORD.

MIA is roughly half O&D and half connecting through the three regional airports. SEA is favored by local O&D, PHX the same, and SLC is a bit weaker. However, all have decent O&D numbers. MKE in and of itself has a strong O&D base with almost 2/3rds of the traffic there as O&D and not connecting.


Using your argument, then OMA should be next as a hub city - having relatively large O&D numbers despite having KC MCI so close.

You are completely missing the point. O&D is an important and critical factor...it is not THE ONLY factor that you are making it out to be.


Im also hopeful, that we could get 1000+ traveling OKC Thunder fanatics who fly to AWAY cities in support of the team. Don't laugh, but that could easily add 82,000+ to OKC's numbers and might justify 'special' large mainliners (ie 777, MD-11, 787) get moved into OKC for at least these occasions. If other cities' clubs also used their AWAY games against OKC for an excuse of their fans to travel to OKC, it could really add up as a nice contributor. Ditto that for conventions. .....

About the only time we'll see widebody metal in OKC is 1) diversions from DFW, 2) OU bowl game traffic, or 3) cargo. I'm not sure NBA teams have a large traveling fan base due to tickets probably not being set aside for the visiting team.


I must say I am a bit perplexed as to why there are no non-stop flights between OKC and ICT, OKC and TUL, and OKC and LIT. You would think this might represent an opportunity for someone using regional jets or props, as it is popular in other areas of the country having a number of close (but far enough) small airports. This is also one HUGE reason for SEA being quite large, as it is a feeder for many little airports in WA state, ID, and MT [Bellingham, Pasco, Spokane, even Ellingsburg in WA alone have flights] despite SEA being a small regional airline hub. SEA also gets a LOT of traffic from Vancouver, since it is cheaper to fly from SEA to US destinations than YVR (by contrast, it's cheaper to fly international from YVR than SEA, lol) - but that is an aside

I think we could see a regional network like what Horizon has done in the Pacific Northwest work here. However, it would have to be properly managed. Great Plains was the last attempt and they got stupid. I doubt Delta carried much traffic between OKC and TUL when they had the daily flight, but I could probably research that. I can see a regional working here though using a 30-50 seat prop to cities around the southern plains to feed into OKC...at provide connections between business markets. RJs won't work right now due to fuel costs...but Dork 328s, Dash 8s, Saabs, etc...could all make it work. I would also think that pushing to get EAS cities like Enid, Ponca, etc service directed here (even though I think it is all dead right now) could work.

I've started researching such a setup, but not here in Oklahoma. However, if something every comes of it with the people I'm working on it with...I definitely would look to OKC for some opportunity.

thanks for that synopsis Venture, it is just as I figured.

also, let's get one thing straight, I am NOT the one advocating that Hubs were established due to significant O&D - on the contrary, I am arguing that hubs established due to civic progress and/or airlines wanting those hubs to be there. I also argued that the ONLY cities that had significant O&D that has led to hub status have been Chicago, New York area, SF and DC areas - mainly because those cities always have O&D traffic, so it only made sence to start connections. ATL and DFW/DEN, those are connecting airports who were established as such. SEA is a regional connecting airport.

Your numbers more or less substantiate this.

I guess Hot Rod is skirting my question:

Let's say OKC aquires a little more of a corporate presence in the next couple of years. Naturally the demand will rise...not nearly as much as a Houston or Dallas, but demand enough to schedule current gates to a high percentage. Could OKC literally pursue a small airline outfit (for instance Sun Country Airlines) and include plans in a modified Maps program, to lure the airlines to OKC. The Maps program would generate revenue for the new wing addition and an agreement for 10 years min established with the airline. The benefits to the airline would be:
Since it is largely to bring traffic to the carribean, the planes will not have to travel all the way up to Minnesota. They would not have to spend what they would at say a DFW or Atlanta and the delays would be minimized since they would not have to fly out of a large hub.
I guess i'm curious...why Minnesota? Did the airline seek THEM out? Or did the city pursue them? Why would they go so far north? Why not further south, closer to the Carribean? I would think this would be a HUGE advantage for OKC if the commitment was there and they actively advertised this advantage.

Just trying to work it out in my mind. Sorry.

Just a side note. Sun Country has their roots in Minneapolis. They were founded originally to serve MLT Vacations which was based in the Twin Cities. They were a charter airline that evolved into offering a limited number of schedule destinations. They didn't do the full transformation like ATA did, but pretty close. A lot of airline hubs/bases stem from past history with that city or the leadership of the company having connections there. Unfortunately OKC's last real connection to any airline (not including Great Plains) died with Braniff.

April 2010 stats are out. This compares April 2010 to April 2009. Not the month before.

Operations (landing, takeoff, pass through the Tower airspace, touch and go, etc.) were up 11.02%.

Passengers were up 6.39%

Freight was up 1.91%

Wiley Post Operations were up 15.64%.

For the year, passengers were up 0.05%.

Overall, a good month, hopefully when May's stats become available in the coming month, we will begin to see a trend of upward movement.

http://flyokc.com/releases%5CApril%2010%20Activity.pdf

Wiley Post will probably see a bit of a decline coming up in July when the State moves all operations to Westheimer Airport in Norman. Not sure how much of the traffic they account for there, but might make a bit of a dent.

why is this happening?

Isn't Wiley more convenient?

^To reduce costs. $4,000/month at OUN compared to $15,300/month at PWA (and more space at OUN) was the deciding factor. This is a savings of taxpayer dollars after all.

Source: State planes to call Norman skies home University The Norman Transcript (http://normantranscript.com/university-beat/x433567442/State-planes-to-call-Norman-skies-home)

OUN has been getting more business jets/turbprops lately. I've seen some Citations taking off and landing there this week. Although the biggest plane ever to land there that I know of has been a Dornier 328 turboprop that came in and out a few years back. That's a 32-seat high-winged plane.

On the subject of OKC, good news. Hope the trend does indeed continue. I'll be flying to Houston next month, flying out in the evning hours for the first time, should be interesting to see how busy the terminal is then.

I think OUN actually had in an Embraer Legacy (ERJ-135) before.

Yeah, the state is going to see some pretty huge savings from this move. It will be interesting to see how much more traffic makes the move to OUN from OKC or PWA. Plenty of room to grow at OUN yet and they can probably extend 17/35 further south if they want to try to get some of the larger business jet traffic. It would probably also be a nice thing for OU (at least the basketball team) to have their chartered aircraft go into OUN instead of OKC. Foobtball charters won't be able to happen because the runway widths are too narrow...and i'm sure the foundation of the runway and taxiways can't support the weight of a 757/737 size aircraft.

Though I think people at OKC would get a little steamed if another airport was viable for commercial traffic at a lower costs. :-P

^That's correct, but the DO 328 prop beats it size-wise.

Both runways were recently re-surfaced, and IIRC, RWY 03-21 was to have new edge lighting installed as well. A 100-ft wide runway though will not support aircraft larger than those mentioned above anyway, so larger airliners are out of question.

RWY 17-35 cannot be extended further south, unless they extend it as a displaced threshold. But then that means the probable intersection of it with 03-21 and the associated costs of tearing that up and rebuilding it again, so on and so forth. Probably not going to happen.

Actually ERJ-135 has a wingspan about 1ft wider and the fuselage is about 9 feet longer (more if you count the tail). Either way, they both look(ed) pretty out of place at OUN. : )

Right. The runways and other infrastructure would need to be redone to accommodate anything larger as I stated. Obviously going south would get rid of the displaced threshold in place and intersect with 3/21. Should the need every arise, that would probably be the more cost effective approach. The other more costly option would be extending 3/21 and re-routing (or tunneling) North Flood under it. Of course the railroad tracks would also be in the way as would 12th NW.

Just stating options. Will never happen, but still.

Per FAA:

Runway 3/21 and 17/35
Single wheel: 30,000 lbs
Double wheel: 50,000 lbs
Double Tandem: 100,000 lbs

The Boeing 737, which uses a Double wheel landing gear system, has an empty weight well above the maximum rating for double wheel weight bearing at KOUN.

The Boeing 757, has a Double tandem landing gear, and it's empty weight is also well above the maximum rating for double tandem. As David has said, the weights alone would be a disqualifier.

Can't believe I missed this from last month's Airport Trust meeting, this is big news.

Atlantic Aviation is going to build an FBO on the east side of the airport between Taxiway H-1 and G. (East side of airport south of ARINC)

Atlantic is leasing 15 Acres of land for a 25 year period. will construct a 26,000 square foot hangar (no less than 25,000 sq ft.) with 9,000 feet of office space, 2 10,000 gallon fuel tanks, and 246,500 sq feet of ramp/apron space.

Map:

(North at Top)

http://img208.imageshack.us/img208/3428/atlantic.jpg

Construction dates yet to be announced.

To the novice aviation people could you further explain, how this is big news?

I am not disagreeing with you, but rather would like to know more?

A large tenant is not "huge" news, but it is big enough news that I am surprised I missed it. This is also good news for the East Side Airport Development Strategy, which has yet to have been given to the public. (Is available through the 28 APR meeting)

The East Side Development plan is trying to get the land east of the airport (up to I-44) ready for use by tenants, which includes a new Portland Ave. that runs as a Frontage road to I-44. Having an anchor tenant such as an FBO will help attract other tenants, such as corporate aviation hangars, maintenance facilities, etc. to the new east side development.

An FBO provides fuel, parking, car rentals, maintenance, etc. for general aviation and business jets, they also can handle some commercial sized aircraft charters (such as the NBA charters, which use the AAR FBO on the other side of the field). This is good news for the airport, this shows two things: a) general aviation and business jet traffic demand is increasing for the area and b) diversifying and increasing revenue sources and employment opportunities for the airport.

However, there is a chance the Wiley Post location for this FBO may close. So, it may end up being a double-sided sword.

I was at the airport today, Garage B was full (the old 5-story), and Garage C (new 5-story) was full except the top floor. They might need to start entertaining the idea of the addition of the 3rd 5-story within the next 5-10 years.

More about the garage, last month (around the 10th or 11th), a concrete wall panel fell over in Garage B, no damage to any private property reported. The Airport Trust has approved an emergency Garage B structural analysis and refurbishment, to go along with the planned renovations of that garage.

SkyWest, I flew out of the airport on 5/8 and both garages were full. I had to parking in covered shuttle parking. I was NOT happy. Last time I had to do that a storm came threw and blew the covers off the "covered" shuttle parking. Of course they still made me pay for covered parking even though my car wasn't covered.....

This time at least the storms didn't blow the covers off. But I did not return until 5/23 and did not like my car not being in the garage the whole time. Why is the airport trust so bad at planning things like this? The new garage doesn't have enough capacity 6 months after it's finished?!? That is beyond ridiculous. I NEVER see that kind of problem in other cities. They always have plenty of parking in their garages.

It does make you wonder....

I'd recommend to email the airport manager, make sure he's aware of what's going on.

If I can meet up with him after the trust meeting tomorrow I will bring it up off the record. (I don't like addressing the trust directly)

Mind you, this garage was supposed to fill capacity for the next 10 years. It looks like demand was already 190% above capacity when they started this garage. So right now we'd be at, what 95% capacity?

It seems they are bad at planning traffic. But I am impressed with their east side ground usage and rental car facility plans -- very long term thinking.

Unfortunately, this parking structure plan is very bad. The master plan only foresees the need for a third 5-story. When development planning firms have suggested building higher than 5 stories, the trust says no because it will "hide the terminal building." What are we going to do in 20 years? Have 6 or 7 5-story lots going all the way out to Amelia Earhart Drive?

Airport Trust meeting tomorrow at 1030am, City Council Chambers, 3rd Floor, City Hall.

SkyWest, I flew out of the airport on 5/8 and both garages were full. I had to parking in covered shuttle parking. I was NOT happy. Last time I had to do that a storm came threw and blew the covers off the "covered" shuttle parking. Of course they still made me pay for covered parking even though my car wasn't covered.....

This time at least the storms didn't blow the covers off. But I did not return until 5/23 and did not like my car not being in the garage the whole time. Why is the airport trust so bad at planning things like this? The new garage doesn't have enough capacity 6 months after it's finished?!? That is beyond ridiculous. I NEVER see that kind of problem in other cities. They always have plenty of parking in their garages.

Brian, I'm not sure what other airports you have parked at but I have definitely seen similar problems if not worse at others. I'm not saying ours is sufficient but it's hardly the worst.