My question is this - when we hear that HQ opportunities have passed on Oklahoma City due to shortcomings in our air service, what service are we lacking that would help us land these deals? Are they wanting increased domestic service or the start of international service? Do they want increased frequency to cities we already have? Fewer regional jets, more mainline service? If it's service to new cities - which cities do we need service to? We've heard that better flight service would help us land some of these HQs, but I've yet to see information that expands on what better service means.

Those are certainly great questions that I personally cannot answer but only assume. I do know people on here have stated that they were aware of us losing a company or two because of the lack of direct flights (I'm not sure if it was to somewhere domestic or international). It makes sense, so hopefully with this terminal expansion we'll see the willingness to try and make it work here.

The lack of international flights doesn't bother me. You can get to almost any place in the world in two flights with connections at Houston Bush, Atlanta, DFW, ect.

I just wish we had more direct flights to regional draws. Cities like New Orleans, San Antonio, and Albuquerque

I like it overall. It seems to me that when they expand to 9 gates we will temporarily lose 1 of those new gates. Correct? Also, is the new security checkpoint in the plans the only one going forward?

Our architects believe that the gate on the far east end can be temporarily located to the north side during phase 2 construction. The new security checkpoint would be the only one going over to the air side. Both of the current checkpoints would be converted to meeter/greeter lounges for arrivals. The consolidated checkpoint will meet TSA standards and improve efficiency. It will be expandable from 8 to 10 lanes.

As explained in the video, in the second, third and fourth pictures from the top of Pete's last post, you see a silhouette of a larger jet over a smaller one. If I understood correctly, the one far gate will have the ability to accommodate larger planes from international diversions. Seems like new laws were being mentioned about passengers can only be on a plane for so many hours, and this gate could accept diversions to avoid that scenario.

Apparently William Crum hasn't heard of American.

My question is this - when we hear that HQ opportunities have passed on Oklahoma City due to shortcomings in our air service, what service are we lacking that would help us land these deals? Are they wanting increased domestic service or the start of international service? Do they want increased frequency to cities we already have? Fewer regional jets, more mainline service? If it's service to new cities - which cities do we need service to? We've heard that better flight service would help us land some of these HQs, but I've yet to see information that expands on what better service means.

We are at the whims of an mature industry with razor thin profit margins. The only thing that will trigger more flights is more demand, not more capacity, which the city can't really do anything about. I am glad they are expanding the terminal and planning for the future, but if we were to be honest, its not like WRWA needs this now. There are still several unused and/or underutilized gates.

I'm going to go against conventional wisdom and say the "bad air service is costing us business" thing is way overplayed. I think Steve said once that a company decided to pass on OKC, but we will never know the whole reasons behind that. IMO a company that must have access to good air service nationwide would probably not be looking at a market the size of OKC to begin with, as few to none would be a vast improvement over what we have.

More flights are always good, but OKC is better served than most people give credit for. In the past year, I have flown into Norfolk VA and Greenville SC. Both of these areas have metros at or slightly larger than OKC depending on how you measure it. In both cases I found air service to be much more limited than WRWA, with smaller passenger counts as well. In Greenville's case, however, they still were able to nab the US Ops for BMW. Probably helps that they are close to ATL, which has several nonstops to Munich. But it goes to show you what is important to company A may not be the case with others.

We are at the whims of an mature industry with razor thin profit margins. The only thing that will trigger more flights is more demand, not more capacity, which the city can't really do anything about. I am glad they are expanding the terminal and planning for the future, but if we were to be honest, its not like WRWA needs this now. There are still several unused and/or underutilized gates.

I'm going to go against conventional wisdom and say the "bad air service is costing us business" thing is way overplayed. I think Steve said once that a company decided to pass on OKC, but we will never know the whole reasons behind that. IMO a company that must have access to good air service nationwide would probably not be looking at a market the size of OKC to begin with, as few to none would be a vast improvement over what we have.

More flights are always good, but OKC is better served than most people give credit for. In the past year, I have flown into Norfolk VA and Greenville SC. Both of these areas have metros at or slightly larger than OKC depending on how you measure it. In both cases I found air service to be much more limited than WRWA, with smaller passenger counts as well. In Greenville's case, however, they still were able to nab the US Ops for BMW. Probably helps that they are close to ATL, which has several nonstops to Munich. But it goes to show you what is important to company A may not be the case with others.

While there certainly is under use due to most being assigned to individual carriers for whatever level of service they provide, I though the last of the ones that could be assigned to sole use by a carrier was recently, leaving only the one or two reserved by the city things like charter or diverted flights.

"We aren't as bad as City X", is no way to run a railroad, nor an airport.

Yeah I doubt that. Are you seriously suggesting that F9 pulled out because their gate was too far away? Surely you're not serious.

Yes. I was dead serious but perhaps wrong, Mr. Snark. Frontier was an entirely Denver-OKC airline. With United and SW (whose gates are directly by security) they may have lost a lot of business. I enjoyed Frontier prior to their Spiritization going to many destinations. The gates at both Denver and OKC were always at the end of the terminal. SW never is. I hope you are a little more friendly to real people, dude.

There is no way that's the case. I fly AA mostly out of the gate right beside Frontier's old gate (A4 I think) and that literally has never been a thought of mine when booking.

Sorry but Frontier wasnt by AA. I dont know the gate#s there but it was on the end on the north corner. I dont believe AA is down there. Again, forgive me if I am wrong since certain people seem pretty passionate about the subject.

Alaska is using Frontier's old gate, and has no issues filling their flights, and as AP says, AA has a gate adjacent to Gate 2 and they have never had problems.

People don't book flights based on where the departure gate is, and if someone does they are in a very small minority of near zero effect to the bottom line of the ticketing carrier.

I respectfully disagree. The business flyers may not but the retired elderly absolutely do if the ticket prices are similar. I'm done. Back to subject..

I respectfully disagree. The business flyers may not but the retired elderly absolutely do if the ticket prices are similar. I'm done. Back to subject..

I interact with potential flyers every day and, while that may sound logical, it's just not correct. I have never once in my 30 years in the travel business had a traveler express any concern about the location of a gate in making a decision about purchasing a ticket.

Yes. I was dead serious but perhaps wrong, Mr. Snark. Frontier was an entirely Denver-OKC airline. With United and SW (whose gates are directly by security) they may have lost a lot of business. I enjoyed Frontier prior to their Spiritization going to many destinations. The gates at both Denver and OKC were always at the end of the terminal. SW never is. I hope you are a little more friendly to real people, dude.

First off, F9 wasn't entirely Denver-OKC. Prior to switching to an ULCC model, they had a sizeable hub at DEN and provided stiff competition for UA and WN by connecting pax throughout the country via DEN, including Alaska and Mexico.

And as others have mentioned, F9 used Gate 2 (IIRC). AA for example uses 4 and 6 and seems to do fairly well here (well according to William Crum, AA isn't even one of the main airlines at OKC but I digress).

So are you suggesting that if a pax bought an F9 or AA ticket, got to the airport, checked in, made their way through security, then realized "oh no, AA is a 5 minute walk away! what to do!" - that they would just stop at Gate 20 and board a WN or DL flight instead? That's not how it really works...

And what do you mean "The gates at both Denver and OKC were always at the end of the terminal?" That statement just doesn't make logical sense. Again F9 had a large hub operation at DEN. DEN's terminals are big, far better than we'll ever have at OKC.

F9 pulled out of OKC because OKC no longer fit their business model as they transitioned to a point-to-point ULCC, not because their gate was a 5 minute walk from security. And I understand that walking 5 minutes to get anywhere is a pretty un-Oklahoman concept, but that's another topic for another day. And all airlines provide wheelchair assistance to get through security and to the gate (and even during the boarding process) to those that need it, so that's a moot point.

And I really wasn't trying to be snarky - I was just trying to confirm that that's what you were saying, because it's just kind of far-fetched to say the least.

I interact with potential flyers every day and, while that may sound logical, it's just not correct. I have never once in my 30 years in the travel business had a traveler express any concern about the location of a gate in making a decision about purchasing a ticket.

No problem. Clearly you have the background. I fly to OKC several times a year and have heard comments from from some folks but, as you say, it may not be enough to matter. Curious they left OKC but still fly to multiple smaller cities with far smaller potential but as long as they stay Spirit Airlines Lite, I won't fly them anymore.

I interact with potential flyers every day and, while that may sound logical, it's just not correct. I have never once in my 30 years in the travel business had a traveler express any concern about the location of a gate in making a decision about purchasing a ticket.
Especially considering that Will Rogers is a small airport with short concourses. I have had to walk from one end of a concourse to another concourse and walk to the end of that one many times, and the length of those concourses are twice as long as WR.

No problem. Clearly you have the background. I fly to OKC several times a year and have heard comments from from some folks but, as you say, it may not be enough to matter. Curious they left OKC but still fly to multiple smaller cities with far smaller potential but as long as they stay Spirit Airlines Lite, I won't fly them anymore.

I miss DEN-OKC on Frontier. Always the cheapest option on that route, and kept fares on SW and United lower. Frontier has significantly downsized their ops in Denver but still has a lot of flights. SW has picked up a lot of those flights and increased frequency to a lot of cities out of DEN.

For West Coast connections out of OKC you can't beat Denver (unless you fly nonstop to LA, SF and Seattle though there is not much frequency from OKC, only 1x to SF and Seattle and 2x to LA daily)

3x to LAX, but your point is still valid.

Not as expensive to expand the airport now; expect a boost in air traffic as soon as we get over this current oil slump.

Better to have the capacity to put the gates in place--stay ahead on expansion. You're close enough where in may be economical to attract passenger traffic from Tulsa & Wichita. Will OKC International Flights be attractive to those two major cities.



Yet Tulsa International Airport still faces plenty of challenges.

Officials estimate that they lose the business of 25 percent of area air travelers to other airports in the region such as Dallas-Fort Worth International, Kansas City and Oklahoma City. Gaining those customers is important to the future of the airport and the metro area.


Passenger traffic up at Tulsa airport, but many opt to fly out of other cities - Tulsa World: Aerospace (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/aerospace/passenger-traffic-up-at-tulsa-airport-but-many-opt-to/article_ff5013e6-ac90-5b29-b733-63311eae0af9.html)

Oklahoma City may be able to re-established international flights into Mexico.

Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National Airport - Passenger count N/A - 1,923 acres

(former Wichita Mid Continent Airport)


To Tulsa 133 miles
To OKC 153 miles
To Kansas City 181 miles To Dallas 339 miles

Tulsa International Airport - 2,840,324 - 4,360 acres


To Oklahoma City 101 miles
To Wichita 133 miles
To Kansas City 220 miles To Dallas 236

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World Airport - 3,834,009 - 8,100 acres


To Tulsa 101 miles
To Wichita 153 miles
To Kansas City 300 miles To Dallas 182 miles

2014 passenger counts (arrivals/departures)

Not as expensive to expand the airport now; expect a boost in air traffic as soon as we get over this current oil slump.

Better to have the capacity to put the gates in place--stay ahead on expansion. You're close enough where in may be economical to attract passenger traffic from Tulsa & Wichita. Will OKC International Flights be attractive to those two major cities.



Passenger traffic up at Tulsa airport, but many opt to fly out of other cities - Tulsa World: Aerospace (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/aerospace/passenger-traffic-up-at-tulsa-airport-but-many-opt-to/article_ff5013e6-ac90-5b29-b733-63311eae0af9.html)

Oklahoma City may be able to re-established international flights into Mexico.

Wichita Dwight D. Eisenhower National Airport - Passenger count N/A - 1,923 acres

(former Wichita Mid Continent Airport)


To Tulsa 133 miles
To OKC 153 miles
To Kansas City 181 miles To Dallas 339 miles

Tulsa International Airport - 2,840,324 - 4,360 acres


To Oklahoma City 101 miles
To Wichita 133 miles
To Kansas City 220 miles To Dallas 236

Oklahoma City Will Rogers World Airport - 3,834,009 - 8,100 acres


To Tulsa 101 miles
To Wichita 153 miles
To Kansas City 300 miles To Dallas 182 miles

2014 passenger counts (arrivals/departures)

What is covered under acres? The actual building?

3x to LAX, but your point is still valid.

Isn't the United Express flight only 3 or 4 times a week though? Is it a seasonal daily non-stop ?

Isn't the United Express flight only 3 or 4 times a week though? Is it a seasonal daily non-stop ?

Daily year round.

What is covered under acres? The actual building?

At those sizes it is the entire airport grounds and other property owned plausible for expansion or related services, like how ours is creating the new development east of the runways for more industrial/commercial/retail activity.

At those sizes it is the entire airport grounds and other property owned plausible for expansion or related services, like how ours is creating the new development east of the runways for more industrial/commercial/retail activity.

LOL. I should have had better glasses on. I was seeing the comma as a period. Thus, OKC being 8.1 acres....not 8100 acres. I live on 6 acres so was confused as building not near as big as my property and there was no way you are landing a big plane here.

For West Coast connections out of OKC you can't beat Denver (unless you fly nonstop to LA, SF and Seattle though there is not much frequency from OKC, only 1x to SF and Seattle and 2x to LA daily)

Plenty of west coast connections (heck, both coasts) via DFW (AA) and IAH (UA) also.

Why doesn't the city give out subsidies to help airlines establish routes? Once they're established and profitable use the subsidy money to get another route established. Abq did this successfully with jet blue to ny

Why doesn't the city give out subsidies to help airlines establish routes? Once they're established and profitable use the subsidy money to get another route established. Abq did this successfully with jet blue to ny

Most airlines won't make that kind of decision based on a potential subsidy. They look more long term than that.

Why doesn't the city give out subsidies to help airlines establish routes? Once they're established and profitable use the subsidy money to get another route established. Abq did this successfully with jet blue to ny

There are cities with millions being thrown at airlines right now, and airlines aren't biting. Subsidies are turning into a thing of the past.

Airlines used to look at that stuff because it meant they could get a reduced operating expense for a term. But what they realized over time, was that if the route didn't justify operation without a subsidy, then they were going to lose money regardless or make so little profit that it wasn't worth it. That's when you see other cost savings taking place and quality starts to suffer. You get a crappier airplane, crappier flight schedule, etc. With all the mergers that have happened in the industry, look at the airports like PIT that lost their hub status as well....so much empty gate space and the city is left having to pay to maintain that extra space too....can't just lock off a terminal at an airport like a space at the mall.

Not as expensive to expand the airport now; expect a boost in air traffic as soon as we get over this current oil slump.

Better to have the capacity to put the gates in place--stay ahead on expansion. You're close enough where in may be economical to attract passenger traffic from Tulsa & Wichita. Will OKC International Flights be attractive to those two major cities.

Yet Tulsa International Airport still faces plenty of challenges.

Officials estimate that they lose the business of 25 percent of area air travelers to other airports in the region such as Dallas-Fort Worth International, Kansas City and Oklahoma City. Gaining those customers is important to the future of the airport and the metro area.

Passenger traffic up at Tulsa airport, but many opt to fly out of other cities - Tulsa World: Aerospace (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/aerospace/passenger-traffic-up-at-tulsa-airport-but-many-opt-to/article_ff5013e6-ac90-5b29-b733-63311eae0af9.html)


Kind of blows the whole argument that OKC isn't losing a tremendous number of passengers to DFW out of the water doesn't it. Where is my thread of Great Plains International?

Kind of blows the whole argument that OKC isn't losing a tremendous number of passengers to DFW out of the water doesn't it. Where is my thread of Great Plains International?

Great Plains was a good concept. You (JTF) said that Great Plains Airlines would have been a good idea if they were flying somewhere.


http://www.okctalk.com/businesses-employers/1811-great-plains-costing-tulsa-big-bucks.html

http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/1309-great-plains-article.html

We never lost passengers to DFW or Love Field for that matter because we never had them to begin with; however we have managed to stop the bleeding that fed those mega Metroplex airports. It's time we took a page from their (DFW/Love Field) playbook.

Oklahoma City is geographically positioned where it could someday be considered for mini-hub status. Continue to build on our flight menu to make it attractive where we pull passengers from neighboring cities like Tulsa, Wichita, Fort Smith, Wichita Falls & Lawton. Although it will take time, work to get International flights to Mexico; then a few other international destinations--OKC is a closer to those neighboring cities than DFW or Love Field.

Great Plains was a victim of bad timing trying to get established during the aerospace downturn after 9/11 and the early 2000's recession (which hit Tulsa particularly hard in the telecom sector). I think the same service today would have had more of a chance at success with a fleet of DASH-8's or something similar. I flew TUL-COS a couple times to go skiing as an alternate to DEN (before SW competed with United on that route).

I think there would be enough demand on smaller planes for flights to regional airports that GPA served like Colorado Springs (maybe just seasonal), Albuquerque and Nashville; also Austin, San Antonio, Little Rock and New Orleans with a resumption of service to Kansas City (previously served by SW) and Memphis (previously served by NW/Delta).

Great Plain Airlines and Great Plains International Airport are two different subjects.

http://www.okctalk.com/transportation/40540-great-plains-international-airport.html

They had good doughnuts, too. :)

Great Plain Airlines and Great Plains International Airport are two different subjects.

http://www.okctalk.com/transportation/40540-great-plains-international-airport.html

And that airport would never see any support from anyone in the state. TUL and OKC both are too well established and make their immediate customer base happy. We don't gain anything by combining the two. We get more gates, but you absolutely would not get to the status of some major airport. You WOULD piss everyone off that went from having a 20 minute drive, to an hour. Right now DFW is close enough that driving/flying to DFW takes about the same amount of time. If you added more time to the drive for OKC folks, you ABSOLUTELY would lose traffic to DFW. Why would I drive an extra 45 minutes in the wrong direction if I could drive to DFW with the same amount of total travel time, but save several hundred dollars? Right now, we pay for the convenience of time.

If you want to talk about GPI we can do so in that thread. I'll copy your comment and respond over there.

IM so glad you're willing to be the forum police.....especially given your tendency to go off-topic.

IM so glad you're willing to be the forum police.....especially given your tendency to go off-topic.

Bazinga.

Plans for expansion take off at Will Rogers World Airport
By: Brian Brus The Journal Record October 2, 2015

OKLAHOMA CITY – An $86 million terminal expansion planned at Will Rogers World Airport will keep pace with growing passenger traffic and airline interest in the city, Oklahoma City Department of Airports Director Mark Kranenburg said.

The airport has only one leasable gate now, which limits its ability to attract new airlines and provide expansion room for existing carriers, Kranenburg said.

Even if airlines hadn’t already been asking about space, he said, the city’s growth patterns suggest it’s going to be needed soon anyway.

“It’s a capacity-driven project,” he said. “We need to look forward to accommodate increases in air service. We’ve been successful in recruiting services over the last few years – Alaska Airlines with a route to Seattle, for example … and our enplanements are the highest we’ve ever had. We know this trend will only continue.”

Kranenburg said the airport is funding the terminal from the same sources used for past expansions, the first of which is $4.5 million in grants annually via the Federal Aviation Administration’s airport improvement program. The majority of funds will come from passenger facility charges, the $4.50 per ticket allowed by federal law that must be dedicated to capital expansions related to the movement of passengers and luggage.

“The last source is airport revenues that we’ll be projecting over the next few years,” he said. “The project will obviously require that bonds be sold, which will be paid back with airport revenues and PFCs (passenger facility charges).

“From a debt perspective, this is probably as good a time to pull the trigger on a project of this nature because we’ve had a lot of our debt drop off over the last few years and we project more debt to resolve in the next couple of years,” he said. “From a debt-level ratio perspective of management, it’s absolutely clear that we can handle this.”

The expansion was approved by the Oklahoma City Airport Trust, chaired by Councilman Larry McAtee. McAtee praised Kranenburg’s financial management and planning.

“The funding seems to be good and we’re trying to keep up with demand, both present and future; I look forward to that continuing,” McAtee said.

The project designed by Oklahoma City-based Frankfurt-Short-Bruza Associates with Hellmuth Obata & Kassabaum, includes four gates for now, with space set aside for more if needed, a streamlined security checkpoint, public observation gallery and shopping and dining amenities just a few steps away from the gates, which travelers are accustomed at other major airports. The design also calls for public art installations and for expansive windows and skylights for natural lighting.

Assuming no delays, the project will be finished by 2018.

My question is which airline will move to those gates?

They will be brand new, and be in the most modern area of the concourse, and I doubt they sit empty.

I predict Delta will vacate 20, 22, 24 and move to 3 of these new ones.

On a different subject, this is an email that I received today from Karen Carney. This is not a new situation but gives an update on what they do and don't know about it. I have no doubt this will be resolved before it actually becomes a problem.


Hello all,

Well, just when we thought the Real ID issue was settled for a few years, it is back -- with no definite answers.

Two months ago, TSA provided us with a Federal Register ruling that stated the deadline for Real ID was October 2020. But alas, the Department of Homeland Security interprets the ruling differently.

The airport staff has been struggling to get a clear answer about the deadline for quite some time. The only consistent answer we have been able to get is that DHS will not enforce anything prior to January, 2016 (could be later in the year) and that DHS promises the public will receive ample notice prior to any implementation.

The airport has spent quite a bit of time over the last several months trying to get a definitive answer. We have posed the question to our local and regional TSA, the DHS director of State Issued Support in Washington, D.C., the national media relations for DHS, and the state of Oklahoma.

We are not the only ones who are confused and lack confidence in the “ample notice” promise. Today we learned that all five members of Oklahoma’s House delegation have asked Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson to clarify the enforcement deadlines.

The expiration date of Oklahoma’s exemption status is unclear to us as well. We do know that Oklahoma has filed for another exemption but DHS has not announced if it has been granted.

The airport staff is very frustrated in our inability to provide a clear answer to this . More than likely, Oklahoma will receive another exemption, but we cannot guarantee it.

I feel as if you will be able to travel next year with your driver’s license, but I cannot 100% guarantee it.

Anyway, just wanted to update you all with what I know. We will continue to press DHS for concrete dates and will pass along when we know.

Thanks,

Karen

Karen Carney
Public Information and Marketing Manager
City of Oklahoma City Department of Airports
7100 Terminal Drive, Unit 937
Oklahoma City, OK 73159-0937

405.316.3262 O
405.249.5209 C
Karen.carney@okc.gov
WELCOME TO WILL ROGERS WORLD AIRPORT WEBSITE (http://www.flyokc.com)

Is there anything in the airport plans about shared lounge that members of the DL, AA, and UA clubs could access? IMO that would significantly enhance the appeal of WRWA for business travelers. Shared lounges aren't really a thing in the US though, so I doubt it.

Is there anything in the airport plans about shared lounge that members of the DL, AA, and UA clubs could access? IMO that would significantly enhance the appeal of WRWA for business travelers. Shared lounges aren't really a thing in the US though, so I doubt it.

I've not seen any proposals for anything like that.

Not sure how much something like that makes sense in OKC, which is the beginning or endpoint for nearly every passenger in the terminal, with very, very few layovers/transfers. Basically you'll only catch the few people who show excessively early for a departure.

Not sure how much something like that makes sense in OKC, which is the beginning or endpoint for nearly every passenger in the terminal, with very, very few layovers/transfers. Basically you'll only catch the few people who show excessively early for a departure.

Yea, the proposed meet & greet areas seem like they have a much higher chance of being used, and should be an upgrade for the people waiting to pickup passengers verse waiting in the lower lever.

Not sure how much something like that makes sense in OKC, which is the beginning or endpoint for nearly every passenger in the terminal, with very, very few layovers/transfers. Basically you'll only catch the few people who show excessively early for a departure.

At one time before the current terminal configuration, Delta had a lounge in OKC. I used it a few times and saw almost nobody in there.

If you fight for your limitations you get to keep them.
https://www.delta.com/skyclub/viewSkyClub_performRequest.action

LOL did you even look at that list before posting? Nearly every one is a major hub, or at least a hub, or an international airport. You're making my case for me, thanks. But by all means, let's spend a crapton of money on something that will rarely be used...

I think what we need at our airport more than a lounge would be more/better food options. Overall, WRWA is a very nice airport for the size out our community but it would be nice to expand breakfast potions especially. I do a fair amount of earlier-in-day flights and it would be nice to grab something other than Sonic.

Not sure how much something like that makes sense in OKC, which is the beginning or endpoint for nearly every passenger in the terminal, with very, very few layovers/transfers. Basically you'll only catch the few people who show excessively early for a departure.

Nah I agree. Some very large spokes (many, actually) have airline specific lounges (i.e. AA at AUS), but I agree that a shared lounge would be the only way to make it worth it here, and those don't exist in the US. I will say though that they're probably more useful than you think, even if just for half an hour (free wifi, free coffee/snacks/beer, etc). You certainly don't have to arrive 2 hours before your flight to make use of one. I know it won't happen here, but just thought I'd throw the concept out there. If and when GPI gets built though I'd think there would definitely be a space for airline clubs there, especially when GPI attracts service from BA, JL, LH, etc.

I think what we need at our airport more than a lounge would be more/better food options. Overall, WRWA is a very nice airport for the size out our community but it would be nice to expand breakfast potions especially. I do a fair amount of earlier-in-day flights and it would be nice to grab something other than Sonic.

Agreed - our food options are mostly horrible. Even Starbucks (which I can't stand anymore) would be a step up from the current coffee options.

LOL did you even look at that list before posting? Nearly every one is a major hub, or at least a hub, or an international airport. You're making my case for me, thanks. But by all means, let's spend a crapton of money on something that will rarely be used...

Well to be fair - the only ones that are DL hubs on that list are DTW, MSP, ATL. SLC, and NRT. MEM and CVG aren't hubs anymore for all practical purposes. It would probably cost a lot less than you think while only enhancing the airport experience here, so let's bash it into oblivion!

Restricted access lounges are for people with long layovers between connecting flights. We don't have that here. Need here is nil. No airline we have will pay rent for a lounge they will never use.

The only thing we could maybe get is an Amex Centurion Lounge Studio like Seattle has, an even that is a long shot. Amex uses all kinds of analytics to figure out where their card members fly in and out of and they are super expensive to operate. Basically a bunch of Platinum and Centurion cardholders would have to call and request it + free rent from WRWA.

They are nice though.

Seattle-Tacoma (http://thecenturionlounge.com/locations/SEA)

If you fight for your limitations you get to keep them.
https://www.delta.com/skyclub/viewSkyClub_performRequest.action

Will adding a lounge bring us up to a large hub status where people will actually have to layover here and use it?

Agreed - our food options are mostly horrible. Even Starbucks (which I can't stand anymore) would be a step up from the current coffee options.

They aren't that bad outside of extremely early morning. The new Crossgrain bar has pretty good food from breakfast to dinner as does the bar on the other end of the terminal. Could always use more options though.

Restricted access lounges are for people with long layovers between connecting flights. We don't have that here. Need here is nil. No airline we have will pay rent for a lounge they will never use.

More misinformation. Lounges aren't just for long layovers. This is just incorrect.

I do agree that no airline would pay for such a facility here (yet) and we probably just don't have the premium traffic to justify it. Plus the big three aren't exactly friends these days so there's no way they would go in on a shared facility.

Will adding a lounge bring us up to a large hub status where people will actually have to layover here and use it?

This again. We could build 20 lounges and we still won't become a hub. Austin has lounges and isn't a hub either.

What a lounge would do is enhance the airport experience for those with access, making it more appealing to mostly business travelers (and frequent leisure travelers too).

This again. We could build 20 lounges and we still won't become a hub. Austin has lounges and isn't a hub either.

What a lounge would do is enhance the airport experience for those with access, making it more appealing to mostly business travelers (and frequent leisure travelers too).

I was actually being sarcastic in response to another one of JTFs posts insinuating that we are fine with the "mediocrity" of our airport(which again, I think is far better than mediocre, especially for compared to most similar airports). I'm not stupid. Who the heck would actually think an airline lounge would make OKC a hub?

Though I disagree that we need private, airline specific lounges due to the fact that we are not a major hub with layovers and transfers, etc. Sure, smaller airports have them, but I think it would be better to dedicate extra space to additional restaurants, bars, and lounges that everyone could use.

It looks like they are close to finishing the renovations on the concourse area. Not a major renovation, but a pretty big improvement., especially with regard to signage.
http://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11583&stc=1http://www.okctalk.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=11584&stc=1

I'm wondering about one thing - that article mentioned a "public observation gallery." If that is true, that's the most exciting news I've heard in a long time.