You've never had a great experience connecting in any TX airport? I find that hard to believe. How many times have you connected through DFW or IAH (just as examples) and what happened? Was there a weather/mechanical delay? Could you not find your connecting gate? I'm sorry but I find such a blanket statement somewhat bizarre, especially given that DFW and IAH are two of the best connected airports in the entire USA.

Chicago is a cluster? Sure, any airport can be a cluster on any given day. Look what happened at DEN last week. Look what happens to the entire NYC area anytime a thunderstorm or blizzard rolls through. I've connected through ORD multiple times and not had more than an hour or two layover, even flying internationally. I've connected through ORD countless times and the vast majority of flights are on time. Is it a cluster when there are IRROPs? Of course, but which hub isn't?

2-4 days - how? An extra flight from OKC to whichever hub you use doesn't add 2 days to your trip. That's not mathematically possible. Flying to Europe and back takes two days of travel regardless of if you have a nonstop or not.

If you said you'd fly to Europe more if Wow Air or Icelandair brought their low fares to OKC, that would be one thing - certainly lower fares incentivize price-conscious flyers to fly when they otherwise wouldn't. But to say that you don't fly to Europe more because it takes an extra 2-4 days to make one connection doesn't make any sense.

I am fine with saying that my experiences with connections in TX, either way, have been unlucky. The past 7 or 8 connections in the past 3 years or so have each been affected by weather, with 3 or 4 also adding in mechanical issues. I just don't have great luck flying through any TX airport, with the excepting of AUS. I have not flown to or through AUS.

As far as the travel days, the 2-4 time frame is when there are delays and considering both the out trip and return trip.

I should disclose that the past 2 times I have flown to Europe, once to London and once to Barcelona have both been great experiences with no issues. Point being, both times I flew SWA non-stop to BWI. Stayed a day with family and then flew out of EWR/JFK.

I know the likelihood of WRWA ever getting European service is practically zero. I know that I will always need to plan for a layover somewhere in the U.S. before getting to Europe. All I was saying is that I would more often choose to fly to Europe if all I had to do was drive to WRWA, get on a plane, and in roughly 12 hours or so I am in Europe. I agree that the current way of getting to Europe is not terrible. I even agree that when all things go well, that the trip is smooth. But I am only speaking to the idea of making international travel from OKC simpler and quicker.

When my wife and I went to Belize last October it only took us 4 hours from OKC, including the layover in IAH. We left OKC at 8am and by noon we were walking on the beach on Ambergris Caye. However, it was a different story coming back due to massive weather delays around IAH and then mechanical issues when the plane finally got to BZE. Throw in the well overbooked flights between IAH and OKC on a Sunday and Monday and we were stuck waiting on stand-by, we waited on 4 different flights and finally made it on the 5th flight. All of this despite flying first class, we took the first two available seats, which were not together and in coach. However, if we had a flight directly to and from BZE, we wouldn't have had to deal with IAH.

Very glad to see that OKC's slowest-moving commission has decided the time is right to proceed with the expansion. With the consolidated security checkpoint, the journey from the current United and Alaska ticket counters...all the way to the far east end of the building...then back all the way to the west end of the building to board, will be quite long. Travelers with small children will particularly hate it. Might those airlines have the opportunity to move east after the construction is complete? Segments of moving sidewalks down the middle of the west concourse might be a nice addition, though it will never happen.

In theory there'd be more room in the middle for ticket counters once the existing security checkpoints were gone...

I am fine with saying that my experiences with connections in TX, either way, have been unlucky. The past 7 or 8 connections in the past 3 years or so have each been affected by weather, with 3 or 4 also adding in mechanical issues. I just don't have great luck flying through any TX airport, with the excepting of AUS. I have not flown to or through AUS.

As far as the travel days, the 2-4 time frame is when there are delays and considering both the out trip and return trip.

I should disclose that the past 2 times I have flown to Europe, once to London and once to Barcelona have both been great experiences with no issues. Point being, both times I flew SWA non-stop to BWI. Stayed a day with family and then flew out of EWR/JFK.

I know the likelihood of WRWA ever getting European service is practically zero. I know that I will always need to plan for a layover somewhere in the U.S. before getting to Europe. All I was saying is that I would more often choose to fly to Europe if all I had to do was drive to WRWA, get on a plane, and in roughly 12 hours or so I am in Europe. I agree that the current way of getting to Europe is not terrible. I even agree that when all things go well, that the trip is smooth. But I am only speaking to the idea of making international travel from OKC simpler and quicker.

When my wife and I went to Belize last October it only took us 4 hours from OKC, including the layover in IAH. We left OKC at 8am and by noon we were walking on the beach on Ambergris Caye. However, it was a different story coming back due to massive weather delays around IAH and then mechanical issues when the plane finally got to BZE. Throw in the well overbooked flights between IAH and OKC on a Sunday and Monday and we were stuck waiting on stand-by, we waited on 4 different flights and finally made it on the 5th flight. All of this despite flying first class, we took the first two available seats, which were not together and in coach. However, if we had a flight directly to and from BZE, we wouldn't have had to deal with IAH.

I don't get it - on one hand you don't want to spend an extra 2-4 days going to/from Europe (which again is not mathematically true), but OTOH you'd rather spend an extra day flying to BWI first, before going to Europe? That's great if you want to visit family first, but it's simply inaccurate to say that you don't go to Europe more often because you can't get there in 12 hours. Look at Saturday August 11th as an example. There are at least 5 itineraries that will get you to London in less than 12 hours total travel time.

And I understand you've been hit with weather at DFW and IAH. It happens. Literally every airport in the country other than LAX deals with weather at some point (maybe SAN is also exempt). Even SNA deals with excessive heat and a short runway, which results in flights being delayed/overbooked.

And come on, you really expect OKC to have a nonstop flight to Belize?

We can just agree to disagree at the end of the day. My wife and I have been to Europe pretty much every year for the last 4 and it's never ever taken us an extra 2-4 days, just because we live in OKC.

Very glad to see that OKC's slowest-moving commission has decided the time is right to proceed with the expansion. With the consolidated security checkpoint, the journey from the current United and Alaska ticket counters...all the way to the far east end of the building...then back all the way to the west end of the building to board, will be quite long. Travelers with small children will particularly hate it. Might those airlines have the opportunity to move east after the construction is complete? Segments of moving sidewalks down the middle of the west concourse might be a nice addition, though it will never happen.

This was my concern when I looked at these plans yesterday. LOTS of walking will be required now. Surely they have thought about this for UA, AA, AS and G4 customers in the west concourse.

This was my concern when I looked at these plans yesterday. LOTS of walking will be required now. Surely they have thought about this for UA, AA, AS and G4 customers in the west concourse.

the distance for walking here is still so much better than most airports i have been to... if this discourages people from our airport because they have to walk a distance to get to the security checkpoint, then they won't be happy at any airport

the distance for walking here is still so much better than most airports i have been to... if this discourages people from our airport because they have to walk a distance to get to the security checkpoint, then they won't be happy at any airport

This reminds me of BOS when walking from a SWA flight to baggage claim. It just kept going and going... I only remember taking escalators down, don't remember many moving sidewalks... It was the last flight in, so nothing was open and we were practically the only passengers in there.

This was my concern when I looked at these plans yesterday. LOTS of walking will be required now. Surely they have thought about this for UA, AA, AS and G4 customers in the west concourse.

God forbid the fattest state in the nation has to walk somewhere

God forbid the fattest state in the nation has to walk somewhere

I thought we were #8... Mississippi is in 1st in that race.

Lol! People are concerned about walking long distances at WRWA? You must not travel much. I've literally had to run to catch a connecting flight in Atlanta.

I thought we were #8... Mississippi is in 1st in that race.

God forbid the Oklahoma fats have to walk more than 75 feet

better?

God forbid the Oklahoma fats have to walk more than 75 feet

better?

Haha, I was just making the issue more ridiculous...

As to the topic, I see no problem walking further if that means having a less congested checkpoint that keeps passengers flowing. Plus the new space does seem to be more visually pleasing!

This was my concern when I looked at these plans yesterday. LOTS of walking will be required now. Surely they have thought about this for UA, AA, AS and G4 customers in the west concourse.

Not sure what the problem is? If you have a medical condition of some sort that precludes you from walking, the airlines will be more than happy to get you wheelchair assistance. If not, try it sometime, it's good for you.

Lol! People are concerned about walking long distances at WRWA? You must not travel much. I've literally had to run to catch a connecting flight in Atlanta.

No joke. Hell, my wife and I will go out of our way to walk between concourses at DFW - great way to get a few thousand steps in! Plus then I don't feel as bad about pigging out in the Admirals Club.

Not sure what the problem is? If you have a medical condition of some sort that precludes you from walking, the airlines will be more than happy to get you wheelchair assistance. If not, try it sometime, it's good for you.

Dude, I was thinking of others. I walk a few miles every night, but thanks. I have several friends and family members who don't want to use a wheel chair and find it rather tough to walk long distances because of particular challenges they have. Or perhaps there's someone traveling alone with little kids and there's all the gear you have to haul! And since there is no alternative to getting a wheelchair at OKC for the time being (moving sidewalks, cart shuttles, etc.), I was concerned for folks I know, with whom I have traveled and seen how hard it can be for them. Have a bit of compassion before you pounce. No need to be rude, man.

Forget the wheelchair. I get them to drive me around between gates.

14796

Club Cars!

God forbid the fattest state in the nation has to walk somewhere

I understand that. See post 1396, please.

I understand that. See post 1396, please.

I would tell your friends life’s tough and we aren’t redesigning an airport so they don’t have to walk as far. Traveling with kids is a pain no matter what you do. In any situation, no matter what, traveling with kids is hard.

$89 million expansion set to move forward at Will Rogers Airport (http://www.okctalk.com/content.php?r=528-89-million-expansion-set-to-move-forward-at-Will-Rogers-Airport)

After setting all-time traveler records in 2017 and with summer numbers up more than 10% from the previous year, Will Rogers World Airport is set to move forward with an ambitious and sweeping expansion.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/airport072518a.jpg


OKCTalk was first to report the plans back in 2015 and after a delay, the $89-million project is once again moving forward.

This week, the OKC Airport Trust will vote on a resolution to endorse pursuing $115 million in revenue bonds which will help fund a 5-year capital plan.

Airport spokesperson Karen Carney told OKCTalk that this was in aid of the terminal project which should start construction in early 2019 and last approximately 30 months.

Construction will involve expanding the terminal to the east on three levels and adding 4 new gates. A second expansion phase with an undetermined timeline would ultimately add 7 more gates as the airport continues to explore opportunities to increase the number of carriers and flights.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/airport072518b.jpg


In addition to the new space and gates, a new single security checkpoint is to be constructed and the existing two security areas will be abandoned and the space reallocated in the 2nd level check-in and ticketing area.

The last major airport renovation was well underway when the tragedy of 9/11 struck, causing the airport to hurriedly accommodate new security that has proven to be less than optimum, especially with the continuing rise of passenger traffic.

The new consolidated screening area will be much larger and built to TSA specifications, with the resulting streamlining greatly increasing efficiency, Carney said.


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/airport072518f.jpg


The new construction would add also baggage claims on the lower level and a 3rd level observation gallery, which will be a suspended viewing deck in the heart of the terminal providing public access to airfield views and incorporating additional lounge space and exhibits.

OKC-based Frankfurt-Short-Bruza is partnering with Hellmuth Obata & Kassabaum on design, architecture and engineering work.

In a press release, the design calls for “The intergration of public art installations and expansive windows and skylights allowing for more natural light. Interior enhancements of some existing spaces are also plannned included expanded greeter areas and more seating in baggage claim.”



http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/airport072518c.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/airport072518d.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/airport072518h.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/airport072518i.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/airport072518e.jpg


http://www.okctalk.com/images/pete/airport072518g.jpg

As a very frequent traveler out of WRWA, this seems like a monumental waste of money. IMO, an observation tower and a new security checkpoint have to be number 100 and 101 on the list of improvements needed at WRWA.

As a very frequent traveler out of WRWA, this seems like a monumental waste of money. IMO, an observation tower and a new security checkpoint have to be number 100 and 101 on the list of improvements needed at WRWA.

If you don't think a new security checkpoint is needed at WRWA, then you aren't a frequent traveler. Every time I go, there is always an ignorant line to get through the 2 security lines...so yes, it is needed.

If you don't think a new security checkpoint is needed at WRWA, then you aren't a frequent traveler. Every time I go, there is always an ignorant line to get through the 2 security lines...so yes, it is needed.

I always go through the TSA pre-check line. I hit all hours of the day including the rush hours and the non-precheck line security is never terrible. It's not like these are Phoenix, Denver, or Newark security lines.

As a very frequent traveler out of WRWA, this seems like a monumental waste of money. IMO, an observation tower and a new security checkpoint have to be number 100 and 101 on the list of improvements needed at WRWA.

What would you improve? I am also a frequent traveler and a new security and recomposure area are very much needed here. The 9-11 fit tsa areas are awful here.

What would you improve? I am also a frequent traveler and a new security and recomposure area are very much needed here. The 9-11 fit tsa areas are awful here.

Pretty much the whole airport could use a refresh IMO. The security and gate areas are cramped. Baggage claim is incredibly unpleasant and claustrophobic. The elevators in the parking garages are well past their prime - they belong in an industrial complex, not an airport. Not to mention the atrocious food options.

Thankfully the precheck line is usually always open and short - otherwise flying out of OKC would be much more unpleasant.

I always go through the TSA pre-check line. I hit all hours of the day including the rush hours and the non-precheck line security is never terrible. It's not like these are Phoenix, Denver, or Newark security lines.

That's why you don't seem to notice a problem. You use the pre-check lane. For us who think it is only a money grab fro TSA, we must line up with the rest of the cattle.

If TSA can do pre-check just fine, why can't they make pre-check the norm?

Pretty much the whole airport could use a refresh IMO. The security and gate areas are cramped. Baggage claim is incredibly unpleasant and claustrophobic. The elevators in the parking garages are well past their prime - they belong in an industrial complex, not an airport. Not to mention the atrocious food options.

Thankfully the precheck line is usually always open and short - otherwise flying out of OKC would be much more unpleasant.

Completely agree. The main terminal still has the 1960s designed bones. The airport should have been rebuilt from the ground up with more open space in the terminal. The west concourse should have been built about 25 feet wider to allow for larger gate hold rooms and more restroom space. It’s amazing to me that more than half of the airports passengers use the west concourse and there is only 1 restroom that has 6 urinals and 4 stalls. Not sure of the capacity of the women’s room.

Will the new space have smooth floors instead of tile with grout lines? Not a huge deal, but I have noticed that the tiled floors seems old and creates a lot of noise compared to newer airport floors that are smooth. Is it a type of epoxy or something similar?

Completely agree. The main terminal still has the 1960s designed bones. The airport should have been rebuilt from the ground up with more open space in the terminal. The west concourse should have been built about 25 feet wider to allow for larger gate hold rooms and more restroom space. It’s amazing to me that more than half of the airports passengers use the west concourse and there is only 1 restroom that has 6 urinals and 4 stalls. Not sure of the capacity of the women’s room.

I travel quite a bit and I feel like Will Rogers is comparable if not slightly better than most airports across the country. I guess I'm just not seeing what you all are seeing. If Will Rogers has tons to improve then pretty much every domestic airport does too because I have seen a lot worse than Will Rogers across the country. Now of course I haven't been to every single airport so what are some out there that have a huge edge on Will Rogers? I mean I think PDX is a pretty great airport but you have to deal with a whole lot more people, so to me that doesn't necessarily make it better than Will Rogers which often delivers an overall better experience for me because of its size and fewer crowds. Is PDX nicer? Probably so. But my overall experience there is less pleasant because its just so much more crowded. MCO comes to mind as another good one.

So which airport is the model for WRWA?

I always go through the TSA pre-check line. I hit all hours of the day including the rush hours and the non-precheck line security is never terrible. It's not like these are Phoenix, Denver, or Newark security lines.

the line itself may not be terrible... but the time it takes to get through often is... if there are 100 people infront of me in Denver, i can get through TSA checkpoint quicker than if there are only 25 total in OKC... and trust me, i've timed it. It needs to be completely redesigned...

Completely agree. The main terminal still has the 1960s designed bones. The airport should have been rebuilt from the ground up with more open space in the terminal. The west concourse should have been built about 25 feet wider to allow for larger gate hold rooms and more restroom space. It’s amazing to me that more than half of the airports passengers use the west concourse and there is only 1 restroom that has 6 urinals and 4 stalls. Not sure of the capacity of the women’s room.

While that may be true, is that even realistic at this point? I feel like that ship sailed the second the remodel was completed. It seems like the costs to completely overhaul it would be astronomical when the new additions will solve a lot of the main issues with the airport as it’s currently configured.

the line itself may not be terrible... but the time it takes to get through often is... if there are 100 people infront of me in Denver, i can get through TSA checkpoint quicker than if there are only 25 total in OKC... and trust me, i've timed it. It needs to be completely redesigned...

Apprently he isn’t traveling between 5AM and 8AM on a weekday because it is a complete mess compared to any other airport I’ve flown out of at those times. The lines back up into the checkin areas, neither the precheck nor regular lines have enough space between the ID checker and the security station causing the lines to back up more, add in anyone waiting to greet arriving passengers exiting in the same space and the whole process and space usuage is just completely inefficient here. The new security area and repurposing of the current areas for use solely as greater lobbies is the biggest need at the airport right now.

Will the new space have smooth floors instead of tile with grout lines? Not a huge deal, but I have noticed that the tiled floors seems old and creates a lot of noise compared to newer airport floors that are smooth. Is it a type of epoxy or something similar?

It was mentioned somewhere upthread that there would be terrazzo floors instead of tiles for just this reason. Can’t remember for sure but I think it also might have been mentioned that the existing tile floors would also at some point be replaced with terrazzo.

Strange to think that travel has changed so much in just a few years, but the current terminal - which I think of as a pretty recent remodel - was done before both the 9/11-dictated security measures AND the wide usage of rolling luggage.

I remember well easily going back and forth through a security checkpoint with no boarding pass in order to see people off or meet them at their gate, and even before that going all the way to the gate and getting on a plane without clearing any security checkpoint whatsoever. Those were the days...especially if you were a hijacker!

Completely agree. The main terminal still has the 1960s designed bones. The airport should have been rebuilt from the ground up with more open space in the terminal. The west concourse should have been built about 25 feet wider to allow for larger gate hold rooms and more restroom space. It’s amazing to me that more than half of the airports passengers use the west concourse and there is only 1 restroom that has 6 urinals and 4 stalls. Not sure of the capacity of the women’s room.

Great point about the tiny lav on that side of the airport. One of the grimier airport bathrooms we use on a regular basis for sure.

I travel quite a bit and I feel like Will Rogers is comparable if not slightly better than most airports across the country. I guess I'm just not seeing what you all are seeing. If Will Rogers has tons to improve then pretty much every domestic airport does too because I have seen a lot worse than Will Rogers across the country. Now of course I haven't been to every single airport so what are some out there that have a huge edge on Will Rogers? I mean I think PDX is a pretty great airport but you have to deal with a whole lot more people, so to me that doesn't necessarily make it better than Will Rogers which often delivers an overall better experience for me because of its size and fewer crowds. Is PDX nicer? Probably so. But my overall experience there is less pleasant because its just so much more crowded. MCO comes to mind as another good one.

So which airport is the model for WRWA?

You cannot even begin to compare the comfort and amenities of PDX to OKC. PDX has literally infinitely more dining/drinking options dotted all throughout the airport. No matter where you are there, you'll be close to multiple dining/drinking options, all of which are far superior to anything we have. Granted PDX is also much busier (and I'm sure will get only busier) and has international flights (such as to NRT) which we'll never have, but you can't even mention OKC in the same breath as PDX IMO.

It was mentioned somewhere upthread that there would be terrazzo floors instead of tiles for just this reason. Can’t remember for sure but I think it also might have been mentioned that the existing tile floors would also at some point be replaced with terrazzo.


TUL has terrazzo floors and it is still somewhat loud but you don't have the sound of luggage hitting the grout lines. I actually prefer carpet in airport terminals like what they have at DEN, it's much quieter. Speaking of DEN they are starting several large projects at the main terminal and concourses that will really change that airport over the next 2-3 years. Just a heads up if you are heading that way there is some major construction that will be happening.

While that may be true, is that even realistic at this point? I feel like that ship sailed the second the remodel was completed. It seems like the costs to completely overhaul it would be astronomical when the new additions will solve a lot of the main issues with the airport as it’s currently configured.

No, it's not hence I said "should have been" :D

All in all, we have a very nice looking airport, but functionally it is becoming more and more obsolete. The east concourse "stub" and terminal expansion on the east side will make things better; but there is still a lot of room for improvement. There really just isn't an easy way to improve the west concourse with its existing footprint. The busier the airport gets the more noticeable it will be that the 1 restroom and 2 very small restaurants will not be sufficient.

Baggage claim really needs to be more "open". It feels so cramped down there. But there aren't many ways to make that happen without a major, costly rebuild. That ship has sailed, you are right.

You cannot even begin to compare the comfort and amenities of PDX to OKC. PDX has literally infinitely more dining/drinking options dotted all throughout the airport. No matter where you are there, you'll be close to multiple dining/drinking options, all of which are far superior to anything we have. Granted PDX is also much busier (and I'm sure will get only busier) and has international flights (such as to NRT) which we'll never have, but you can't even mention OKC in the same breath as PDX IMO.

I'll never do it again.

You cannot even begin to compare the comfort and amenities of PDX to OKC. PDX has literally infinitely more dining/drinking options dotted all throughout the airport. No matter where you are there, you'll be close to multiple dining/drinking options, all of which are far superior to anything we have. Granted PDX is also much busier (and I'm sure will get only busier) and has international flights (such as to NRT) which we'll never have, but you can't even mention OKC in the same breath as PDX IMO.

PDX is a hub, OKC is the end of the line. So no, there isn't a comparison to be made here. The size difference makes a HUGE difference in what you see too. As we've said here before, the dining options are limited because there is a lack of captive audience at WRWA. Amenities for layovers dont exist here because we dont have layovers. The more direct flights, the better, but those just solidify the UN-need for those amenities. Now, if you start making OKC a jump point from other airports, then you will have a need for more dining or entertainment. Until then...meh.

And if you think our security or airport is bad or feels "old" (which i would strongly disagree with), check out places like NOLA or John Wayne. Holy crap. Wanna see what not to do? PIT. Or for the prize winners of how crappy the whole experience can be (especially for international transfers? O'hare, Bush, how bout Heathrow? On all scales and sizes, i think you'll find places that do things far worse than our little engine that could.

the line itself may not be terrible... but the time it takes to get through often is... if there are 100 people infront of me in Denver, i can get through TSA checkpoint quicker than if there are only 25 total in OKC... and trust me, i've timed it. It needs to be completely redesigned...

I don't doubt this at all . . . but don't you feel super safe? :tongue:

^^^^^^^^
Agree with all of this 100%. Catch has made some excellent point here over the years regarding behind-the-scenes configuration issues that make it difficult for the airport to perform well in the long term, and obviously the security area and such are bad for the current state of travel, and the latter is being corrected in this remodel.

But as for the look and feel of the airport , the most recent remodel at least made it feel a part of the 21st century, unlike many other cramped, dingy airports around the country. The new remodel will go much further in this direction and fix some of the glaring problems.

But I think we need to be realistic regarding what we will ever see (or need) behind the security checkpoint in the gate areas. Hubs are just an apples and oranges comparison. Passengers using WRWA are either just about to get on a plane or they are disembarking and headed for the exit. There is precious little linger time without connections, so investing a lot in food/beverage/retail options beyond a quick snack, coffee, newspaper etc is really a huge, unneeded gamble which would be doomed to underperform.

I’d much rather see us invest in making the corridors, restrooms and gates less cramped and more comfortable, and this remodel and expansion is a great step in the right direction.

Someone asked for a model of what OKC could/should be and Terminal 2 at Raleigh/Durham is exactly what I wish OKC would emulate. It's a great terminal with lots of amenities and seems to function well for the airlines.

MSY is bad but they are within a year or so from opening the new terminal on the North side of the airfield. If you turn 3D Off you can see it here https://goo.gl/maps/oEPLkygZm9P2

Also, I came in on the late flight from LAS last night, and a woman commented how nice ours looked and felt compared the LAS Terminal 1 (which is in serious need of an overhaul) on our way to baggage claim

^^^^^^^^
Agree with all of this 100%. Catch has made some excellent point here over the years regarding behind-the-scenes configuration issues that make it difficult for the airport to perform well in the long term, and obviously the security area and such are bad for the current state of travel, and the latter is being corrected in this remodel.

But as for the look and feel of the airport , the most recent remodel at least made it feel a part of the 21st century, unlike many other cramped, dingy airports around the country. The new remodel will go much further in this direction and fix some of the glaring problems.

But I think we need to be realistic regarding what we will ever see (or need) behind the security checkpoint in the gate areas. Hubs are just an apples and oranges comparison. Passengers using WRWA are either just about to get on a plane or they are disembarking and headed for the exit. There is precious little linger time without connections, so investing a lot in food/beverage/retail options beyond a quick snack, coffee, newspaper etc is really a huge, unneeded gamble which would be doomed to underperform.

I’d much rather see us invest in making the corridors, restrooms and gates less cramped and more comfortable, and this remodel and expansion is a great step in the right direction.

I agree with your thoughts. OKC is an end point. People come in and they go out. Any effort should be to focus on 1) more direct flights, and 2) make it easier to get in and out.

If we are an end point, the focus of any change should be to make it easier for people utilizing the airport to get in and get out. It should start with better and closer parking. Elevators in a parking garage that work more frequently, people movers (which are great) that work all of the time, maybe designate a shuttle for Lot 3 rather than making Lot 3 people sit through drop-offs in multiple lots.

Sure, reconfigure security. My experience is that it's not bad. But, I'm not going to argue that it can be improved. I have no idea how more space will help if TSA maintains the same amount of personnel. Does some of the $89m pay for more TSA to move the lines faster?

My chief issue (and why I feel like the expansion as designed is a monumental waste of money) is the Observation Deck. There are dozens of low cost ideas that have been floated on this board that seem way more important than an Observation Deck. That thing seems like a solution looking for a problem.

Most of the relatively low cost (compared to $89 freaking million) recommendations are from people who actually use the airport frequently. The Observation Deck would be for people who rarely use it. Why spend so much money on those people rather than the people you should be serving? Makes no sense to me.

Can some of the $89m go towards subsidizing more direct flights? ( I know it can't...just expressing a little frustration.)

TSA may eliminate security screening from 150 medium and small airports:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/01/politics/tsa-considering-eliminating-screening-at-smaller-airports/index.html

Not to derail the conversation but is PDX really a hub? I can't think of what airline hubs there besides the mini-hub Alaska Airlines does with its Horizon unit.

PDX used to be an international gateway hub for Northwest Airlines (mainly to Japan iirc) which became Delta. This was cut and now I don't think there's ANY international out of PDX anymore. Perhaps Catch can educate us since he lived there but I think the reason PDX is so nice is because it USED to be a gateway (along with they probably just wanted a nice airport to compete) but no longer is.

I just think prospective is important, especially when we compare OKC to other airports/markets.

I believe Alaska + Horizon operate about 150 daily departures out of PDX to about 20 or so destinations. Definitely a hub.

My chief issue (and why I feel like the expansion as designed is a monumental waste of money) is the Observation Deck. There are dozens of low cost ideas that have been floated on this board that seem way more important than an Observation Deck. That thing seems like a solution looking for a problem.

Most of the relatively low cost (compared to $89 freaking million) recommendations are from people who actually use the airport frequently. The Observation Deck would be for people who rarely use it. Why spend so much money on those people rather than the people you should be serving? Makes no sense to me.

I respectfully disagree with what you have said about the observation deck. Being an avid aviation enthusiast (and aviation photographer), I definitely plan on going there to watch planes. May not be a big deal to you, but sure is a source of excitement for me. And many others are out there like myself, wanting to watch planes but not having a dedicated facility to do so. The last thing I want to do is get in trouble for watching planes from a road near the airport. If there's a dedicated spot in the terminal, it's a 100% guarantee I'm going to be there on a frequent basis.

And when we had the old observation tower in the original terminal (just before Concourse B), I used to go there also. Never was it empty. There were always others there enjoying the view of the airfield and aircraft.

Airports across the world have observation decks or outdoor spotting areas. Here in the U.S.: AUS, HOU, IAH, MSP, DFW, MIA, and many smaller airports either have an observation area indoors or a facility outdoors. Heck, even the small terminal at Tri-Cities Airport in Tennessee has an observation deck.

All major airports in Japan, Europe, all have dedicated aircraft spotting areas. Heck, in Japan, they roll out the red carpet for aviation spotters. I believe at Nagoya Chubu Centrair, there's a stadium-like outdoor arena next to the airport for people who want to watch planes!

I'm not quite sure why you think it's a "monumental waste of money", especially when the deck itself is not costing like 90% of the $89 million. Of course I don't have the exact figures, but I'm very sure the core costs of the project are going to be for the main body of the expansion (windows, glass, hold room chairs, electronic signs, concrete, steel etc). One observation deck isn't driving the cost all the way to $89 million.

For an airport of our size and traffic figures, we have a pretty impressive array of destinations. We could definitely use higher frequency for many routes at OKC. As for getting more carriers to launch nonstop routes, the airport trust has an Air Service Initiative that gives incentives for airlines to start new nonstop flights or add more frequency. But only if the flights get used will the airlines keep adding destinations and flights. If this year keeps up the pace the chance of that happening is definitely good.

I believe Alaska + Horizon operate about 150 daily departures out of PDX to about 20 or so destinations. Definitely a hub.

And while Southwest doesn't use "hubs", it is a major transfer station (whatever you want to call it) for their west coast flights.

I agree with your thoughts. OKC is an end point. People come in and they go out. Any effort should be to focus on 1) more direct flights, and 2) make it easier to get in and out.

If we are an end point, the focus of any change should be to make it easier for people utilizing the airport to get in and get out. It should start with better and closer parking. Elevators in a parking garage that work more frequently, people movers (which are great) that work all of the time, maybe designate a shuttle for Lot 3 rather than making Lot 3 people sit through drop-offs in multiple lots.

Sure, reconfigure security. My experience is that it's not bad. But, I'm not going to argue that it can be improved. I have no idea how more space will help if TSA maintains the same amount of personnel. Does some of the $89m pay for more TSA to move the lines faster?

My chief issue (and why I feel like the expansion as designed is a monumental waste of money) is the Observation Deck. There are dozens of low cost ideas that have been floated on this board that seem way more important than an Observation Deck. That thing seems like a solution looking for a problem.

Most of the relatively low cost (compared to $89 freaking million) recommendations are from people who actually use the airport frequently. The Observation Deck would be for people who rarely use it. Why spend so much money on those people rather than the people you should be serving? Makes no sense to me.

Can some of the $89m go towards subsidizing more direct flights? ( I know it can't...just expressing a little frustration.)

I don't think the observation deck is even that large of percentage, so I don't really understand why this one small part of the expansion makes you think the whole thing is a waste of money. It is fixing a problem at the airport as part of the reason they are adding it is to create additional waiting areas for people greeting arriving passengers. It isn't just a runway observation area (like the one that they had there prior to the 90s renovation), part of the observation area looks down into the terminal below allowing people to wait up there until they see arriving passengers or to see off departing passengers. There isn't much in the way of greeting space at Will Rogers compared to other airports of our size, so the observation area IS addressing a problem that they have identified, even several people on OKCTalk have identified that as an issue.

I don't think the observation deck is even that large of percentage, so I don't really understand why this one small part of the expansion makes you think the whole thing is a waste of money. It is fixing a problem at the airport as part of the reason they are adding it is to create additional waiting areas for people greeting arriving passengers. It isn't just a runway observation area (like the one that they had there prior to the 90s renovation), part of the observation area looks down into the terminal below allowing people to wait up there until they see arriving passengers or to see off departing passengers. There isn't much in the way of greeting space at Will Rogers compared to other airports of our size, so the observation area IS addressing a problem that they have identified, even several people on OKCTalk have identified that as an issue.

Right. I have used this as an example before, but Manchester, NH (MHT) has an observation area that looks over the security checkpoints on the interior, and the apron and runways on the exterior. It is climate controlled and they have these great rocking chairs up there making it a nice place to wait for folks arriving or watching folks depart.

Albuquerque has one too.

There is also one at BZE in Belize.

TSA may eliminate security screening from 150 medium and small airports:

https://www.cnn.com/2018/08/01/politics/tsa-considering-eliminating-screening-at-smaller-airports/index.html

Well that seems like a bad idea...

Well that seems like a bad idea...

Let s remove the seat belts from cars to save few $ too...

Well that seems like a bad idea...

well... if you keep cutting taxes... you have to save money somewhere to prevent massive cuts in services

Doesn't TSA have a bad failure rate during their tests? I believe they improved but I still don't know that it was all that good. We might be just about as well off if we had our own security with metal detectors and bomb sniffing dogs.

And OKC used to have an observation tower. I don't see anything wrong with OKC allocating funds for an observation area, in fact, I think it adds to the amenities of the facility in such a way that it modernizes it at a very low comparative cost.

Just because a business person traveling frequently during rush hour may not use it doesn't mean OKC shouldn't have modern facilities that WOW others. I honestly wish they didn't remove the past observation tower as it was unique and I recall countless trips to the airport to watch the action as a youngster. Just imagine if OKC had the tower and this new observation. ..

Doesn't TSA have a bad failure rate during their tests? I believe they improved but I still don't know that it was all that good. We might be just about as well off if we had our own security with metal detectors and bomb sniffing dogs.

they are worse than I thought. it was 95% in 2015
in 2017 they wouldn't say the failure rates but it was more than half. When ABC news asked the source if it was 80% the source said "you're in the ballpark"

It's reactive prevention so it doesn't do anything. the shoe bombing attempt the guy made it through security (in France)
Then you read about a test through Minneapolis and they missed 17 out of 18 weapons being brought on by agents.
quote from the article
The TSA “red team” attempted to smuggle 18 different items past airport security that should easily be detected but prevailed almost every time, the Fox affiliate reported.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/6/tsa-failed-detect-95-percent-prohibited-items-minn/

It's just not accomplishing anything. It's just preventing people from bringing breast milk or making old ladies get full pat downs.

they are worse than I thought. it was 95% in 2015
in 2017 they wouldn't say the failure rates but it was more than half. When ABC news asked the source if it was 80% the source said "you're in the ballpark"

It's reactive prevention so it doesn't do anything. the shoe bombing attempt the guy made it through security (in France)
Then you read about a test through Minneapolis and they missed 17 out of 18 weapons being brought on by agents.
quote from the article
The TSA “red team” attempted to smuggle 18 different items past airport security that should easily be detected but prevailed almost every time, the Fox affiliate reported.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jul/6/tsa-failed-detect-95-percent-prohibited-items-minn/

It's just not accomplishing anything. It's just preventing people from bringing breast milk or making old ladies get full pat downs.

Yeah that 95% one was the one I was thinking. I thought they got it down to half, but even if they did, IMO that's horrible.

Something else that is done now that would have made a huge difference is locking the cockpit doors. Had they not been able to gain access would have changed that outcome. Of course using some sort of explosive would still take out a plane, but again the dogs should be able to sniff that out.

At one point I had watched a documentary on how Israel does their airport security and how they US should model ours off theirs. I don't remember specifics, but I remember it being interesting and a way to save money. I really don't think getting rid of TSA is as big of a deal as some may thing, as long as we still have some security at airports.

Yeah that 95% one was the one I was thinking. I thought they got it down to half, but even if they did, IMO that's horrible.

Something else that is done now that would have made a huge difference is locking the cockpit doors. Had they not been able to gain access would have changed that outcome. Of course using some sort of explosive would still take out a plane, but again the dogs should be able to sniff that out.

At one point I had watched a documentary on how Israel does their airport security and how they US should model ours off theirs. I don't remember specifics, but I remember it being interesting and a way to save money. I really don't think getting rid of TSA is as big of a deal as some may thing, as long as we still have some security at airports.

Don’t know if it’s changed in the last couple of years, but in Tel Avi, the screening was WAY more than here. I went through scanners separate from my bags which were scanned and waiting on the other side of my screening. I then had to unpack and repack my bag in front of two agents who occasionally also picked up and inspected items. Then the bags were taken out to the tarmac by the plane. When we went out to board, we had to go identify which bags were ours and then we boarded and our bag loaded. If everyone was boarded and there was a bag or more left, we would have to de-board and start the identification over.