On the money trail: Oklahoma City airport expansion plans progress | News OK (http://newsok.com/on-the-money-trail-oklahoma-city-airport-expansion-plans-progress/article/5390257)

Three gates costs 72 million?

Three gates costs 72 million?

They are extending the terminal building by 3 bays, and have to build a small stub concourse to the east.

The gates themselves are cheap, but the building still costs money to build.

They are extending the terminal building by 3 bays, and have to build a small stub concourse to the east.

The gates themselves are cheap, but the building still costs money to build.

I was speaking more towards the fact that each gate is costing an average of $24 million, seems pretty high. Or would 6 cost 144 million? In other words seems like we aren't getting good economies of scale on the project. Especially since gate 2 is for lease.

Each gate does not cost $24 million. Expanding the terminal building (counter, baggage claim) by 20%, building an East Concourse connector, the initial infrastructure for the East Concourse, and 3 gates cost $75 million.

Have you heard anything about the new signage? I haven't seen any movement on them.

Also, any updates on the tunnel?

I was speaking more towards the fact that each gate is costing an average of $24 million, seems pretty high. Or would 6 cost 144 million? In other words seems like we aren't getting good economies of scale on the project. Especially since gate 2 is for lease.

At this point those gates are as much making it easier to extend it to roughly the same number as the west wing as it is having the three gates, the main driver for building it is the other work to the terminal and cargo handling areas not the gates themselves.

And isn't the expansion going to be set up for an easy six gate expansion?

There are some renderings and pictures of construction photos on the MOT Facebook page.
Facebook - Minot International Airport (https://www.facebook.com/whyflyminot)

Very nice.

How many gates will the new east concourse be able to hold? I know they are building 3 right now, but do they have plans for increasing it to say 10-12 in the future?

I think one of our biggest issues is how close we are to Dallas which has nonstop flights to most major cities in the world. Then, you have Houston which is the same way. So, from basically anywhere in the world, you can have a connecting flight of hour away to get to OKC. Why would an airline expand into OKC when they can increase their number of flights to larger cities?

I disagree. I don't think distance between airports has as much to do with it as market size and demand.

Charlotte is roughly the same distance from Atlanta as OKC is from Dallas and CLT has a significant hub. It's also a major banking capital with 2.4 million in the metro area now so there is demand for the flights that are there. I agree with hoyasooner that the flights will come as the city grows and diversifies. In today's day and age, a major airline isn't going to be putting a hub in OKC. To increase the availability of flights here there will have to be an increase in real demand for them.

If anything hurts OKC's airport, its the fact regional cities such as Tulsa and Wichita all have their own service and virtually none of the smaller regional airports (Lawton, Ft Smith, XNA) feed into OKC at all. Virtually nobody from or doing business outside the metro area has any reason to use WRWA.

How many gates will the new east concourse be able to hold? I know they are building 3 right now, but do they have plans for increasing it to say 10-12 in the future?

This will give you complete details about current and future expansion plans.

http://www.flyokc.com/projects/041814-WRWA-Terminal%20Expansion-info%20packet-rev3.pdf

10090

I disagree. I don't think distance between airports has as much to do with it as market size and demand.

Charlotte is roughly the same distance from Atlanta as OKC is from Dallas and CLT has a significant hub. It's also a major banking capital with 2.4 million in the metro area now so there is demand for the flights that are there. I agree with hoyasooner that the flights will come as the city grows and diversifies. In today's day and age, a major airline isn't going to be putting a hub in OKC. To increase the availability of flights here there will have to be an increase in real demand for them.

Exactly. O&D has to increase for more flights to come here.


If anything hurts OKC's airport, its the fact regional cities such as Tulsa and Wichita all have their own service and virtually none of the smaller regional airports (Lawton, Ft Smith, XNA) feed into OKC at all. Virtually nobody from or doing business outside the metro area has any reason to use WRWA.

Tulsa really isn't that much smaller Chris. I wouldn't call them a "regional" market in the same light as Lawton. Their impact on OKC's service isn't really that great. We are still talking 2-3 hour drives to those airports, at the most you are losing fair weather flyers chasing low fares. And now...none of LAW, FSM, SPS, or XNA feed into OKC and they shouldn't. There is probably near zero O&D on any of those routes. However, if you think people from Lawton and Wichita Falls don't drive here to fly - you are mistaken. OKC probably pulls from a much larger area geographically than airports back east. Of course east of Mississippi the population density increases some, but you still have plenty of cities smaller than OKC with service all while being much closer to other airports with service.

Tulsa really isn't that much smaller Chris. I wouldn't call them a "regional" market in the same light as Lawton. Their impact on OKC's service isn't really that great. We are still talking 2-3 hour drives to those airports, at the most you are losing fair weather flyers chasing low fares. And now...none of LAW, FSM, SPS, or XNA feed into OKC and they shouldn't. There is probably near zero O&D on any of those routes. However, if you think people from Lawton and Wichita Falls don't drive here to fly - you are mistaken. OKC probably pulls from a much larger area geographically than airports back east. Of course east of Mississippi the population density increases some, but you still have plenty of cities smaller than OKC with service all while being much closer to other airports with service.

A lot of smaller cities back east have regional airports that are much smaller than a similar-sized city in this part of the country. Augusta, GA for instance has two flights, one to Atlanta and one to Charlotte. If you fly out of Augusta you have to connect through one of those cities. Augusta is the same size as Little Rock, which has Clinton National Airport. That airport is almost as large as WRWA.

Why couldn't smaller regional airports in places like Ft Smith, NW Arkansas, Amarillo, etc connect through OKC as an alternative to going through DFW? That would increase demand here for more flights to more places.

A lot of smaller cities back east have regional airports that are much smaller than a similar-sized city in this part of the country. Augusta, GA for instance has two flights, one to Atlanta and one to Charlotte. If you fly out of Augusta you have to connect through one of those cities. Augusta is the same size as Little Rock, which has Clinton National Airport. That airport is almost as large as WRWA.

Why couldn't smaller regional airports in places like Ft Smith, NW Arkansas, Amarillo, etc connect through OKC as an alternative to going through DFW? That would increase demand here for more flights to more places.

Why would the airlines want to do that when they already have most of the flights connecting through DFW?

A lot of smaller cities back east have regional airports that are much smaller than a similar-sized city in this part of the country. Augusta, GA for instance has two flights, one to Atlanta and one to Charlotte. If you fly out of Augusta you have to connect through one of those cities. Augusta is the same size as Little Rock, which has Clinton National Airport. That airport is almost as large as WRWA.

Why couldn't smaller regional airports in places like Ft Smith, NW Arkansas, Amarillo, etc connect through OKC as an alternative to going through DFW? That would increase demand here for more flights to more places.

Yeah that last part makes no sense. Connect through OKC? OKC isn't a hub - DFW just a 30 minute hop from us is one of the airline industry's most formidable megahubs. For better or worse, OKC will never come close to being a DFW, ATL, or ORD.

And isn't the expansion going to be set up for an easy six gate expansion?

Like jibjab showed with the drawing, the FINAL version is for 9 gates. It's a phased approach as the gates are leased out. The first three are so much more expensive because of all of the infrastructure work required to get them built (including demo of the existing cargo area...and it's move). Then, it's a much more simple task to just stick a few more gates on the end, so the remaining 6 gates will be far less expensive to add than the first 3.

Remember, this is about LEASED space, not traffic in/out of a gate at any time. Some gates might sit empty most of the day, but it doesn't mean the airport isn't making money off of them.


bchris - if you lived in TUL or Witchita, would you want to give up a 20 minute drive to an airport for a 2 hour drive? TUL is really about the same size as OKC and connects to a lot of the same places. You can't really count them out like that. And Lawton is 90% Ft Sill traffic....and mostly to DFW. Like JN said, if they're already going to DFW, why would they want to go to OKC? Lawton, for example, is basically all AA flights, going to DFW as the hub. It wouldn't make any sense to go to OKC and then have to hop to DFW....and don't think for a minute that OKC is going to have the options directly out of OKC that DFW has....ever. We lost that hub bid decades ago, and I'm not really that sad about that.

I think another reason OKC has limited direct flights is because the major industry in Oklahoma is oil - and when those people fly for business their destinations are Denver, Dallas, and Houston, which also happen to be hubs. That is a win-win for the airlines because their leisure and business travels are going to the same place.

I disagree. I don't think distance between airports has as much to do with it as market size and demand.

Charlotte is roughly the same distance from Atlanta as OKC is from Dallas and CLT has a significant hub. It's also a major banking capital with 2.4 million in the metro area now so there is demand for the flights that are there. I agree with hoyasooner that the flights will come as the city grows and diversifies. In today's day and age, a major airline isn't going to be putting a hub in OKC. To increase the availability of flights here there will have to be an increase in real demand for them.

If anything hurts OKC's airport, its the fact regional cities such as Tulsa and Wichita all have their own service and virtually none of the smaller regional airports (Lawton, Ft Smith, XNA) feed into OKC at all. Virtually nobody from or doing business outside the metro area has any reason to use WRWA.

Fair enough. You are a lot closer to this than I am, so you should know. Do you think we will see more direct flights or possibly become a place where we aren't just the end or the beginning destination if we keep growing? I don't think we will get to hub status for a long time and I am ok with that. I would just like to see more direct flights than we already have.

Fair enough. You are a lot closer to this than I am, so you should know. Do you think we will see more direct flights or possibly become a place where we aren't just the end or the beginning destination if we keep growing? I don't think we will get to hub status for a long time and I am ok with that. I would just like to see more direct flights than we already have.

I'm not really sure you are addressing the question to the right person, I wouldn't really considering bchris close to this at all based on past comments.

With that said, you won't see OKC used as a connecting point for much more than what currently happens with Southwest flights and some of the other airlines. Airlines still demand some O&D pax on a route segment with a large percentage of connecting traffic. Once some newer market data comes out, I'll start revisiting it and bringing those numbers up for discussion.

Market growth will come from increasing aircraft size and frequency to the hubs. There may be Point to point via Southwest at some point, but likely we will just see better service to the hubs.

You won't see United start OKC-SAN, you won't see AA start OKC-AUS, you won't see DL start OKC-PDX, you won't see WN start OKC-BOS. Southwest is moving away from point to point, slowly.

However, you will see multi-daily flights to existing hubs that are single daily, you will see larger aircraft, and we may see growth into a few new markets. OKC-MIA and OKC-PHL seem like likely mid range candidates for service. OKC-Aus or SAT on WN could happen someday. Someone may enter the LGA-OKC market some day. JetBlue or Spirit may enter the market if we keep growing and they keep growing.

But we will never have a huge connecting operation. We will never have point to point service on legacy carriers to non hub airports. Even large stations such as AUS don't have legacy carriers running point to point service. It's all through the hubs.

Even large stations such as AUS don't have legacy carriers running point to point service. It's all through the hubs.

Except that now AUS has over 150 daily flights to 41 cities, not to mention carriers like WN and UA providing near-daily/daily nonstops to Cancun and Cabo San Lucas, and BA's daily to Heathrow (and coming soon, Air Canada Express daily to Toronto). And having over 10.7 million passengers in 2014 pass throgh your terminal helps in a big way too. AUS keeps scoring new cities and more flights on existing routes. It definitely helps to have a big business traveller base (and large functions that bring in thousands of visitors each year). Would be nice to have half that here.

Except that now AUS has over 150 daily flights to 41 cities, not to mention carriers like WN and UA providing near-daily/daily nonstops to Cancun and Cabo San Lucas, and BA's daily to Heathrow (and coming soon, Air Canada Express daily to Toronto). And having over 10.7 million passengers in 2014 pass throgh your terminal helps in a big way too. AUS keeps scoring new cities and more flights on existing routes. It definitely helps to have a big business traveller base (and large functions that bring in thousands of visitors each year). Would be nice to have half that here.

I'm not sure what you are attempting to argue... Legacy carriers are still not running point to point out of AUS other than some Mexico leisure routes. Most of AUS service is hourly or twice-hourly service to Dallas and Houston, a ton of flights to Atlanta and Chicago, a ton of flights to LAX and SFO.

Have you heard anything about the new signage? I haven't seen any movement on them.

Also, any updates on the tunnel?

Pete mentioned a few pages ago that the tunnel has a lot of behind the scenes work to be done first before you see any work done inside the tunnel. That stuff will be done last.

I'm not sure what you are attempting to argue... Legacy carriers are still not running point to point out of AUS other than some Mexico leisure routes. Most of AUS service is hourly or twice-hourly service to Dallas and Houston, a ton of flights to Atlanta and Chicago, a ton of flights to LAX and SFO.

Not arguing anything, just making a general point. And Austin certainly has multiple daily flights to the New York City/Newark airports as well, plus fairly decent service to multiple cities on both coasts.

As for legacy cariers running point-to-point, I don't think they do that any longer in any market, big or small, save for a few oddball routes like United's Micronesia island hopper flights.

Add another airport to the list I prefer OKC over -- MCO.

Add another airport to the list I prefer OKC over -- MCO.

I was just there today and I really dont like it. Having to ride the shuttle out to the gates, IMO, is a horrible design.

I was just there today and I really dont like it. Having to ride the shuttle out to the gates, IMO, is a horrible design.

Was my "home airport" for 8 years and I loved it. I really like how light and open it is and I love the shuttle ride to the air side terminals...gives you a view at the nicely landscaped surroundings and continues the "ride" theme of Orlando's attractions...it is your first and then your last ride of your vacation. I also appreciate the classical music they always have had playing as background music throughout...very calming. But I love WRWA as well...probably for more important reasons that one should love an airport...convenience being #1. Love it.

I was just there today and I really dont like it. Having to ride the shuttle out to the gates, IMO, is a horrible design.

Not to mention the massing of people in the gate areas due to the clustering of so many gates in close proximity to one another (with no separation).

3/10/2015

Stuff going on here.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7632/16775311342_4e2a914b64_c.jpg

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7602/16156457633_44b44507b6_c.jpg

https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8652/16156457453_52cc1b3534_c.jpg

not sure if this has been covered already (if it has, sorry), but where's the best place to park for a week-long trip out of town?

i know the airport itself has different levels of parking, but not sure of the different off-site parking lots.

the only place right now is USA Park, https://www.usaparkokc.com/, the property has had many, many names over the years. I've never used them, always have parked at the airport myself just for the better sense of security and location.

I am frequently gone on week long to two week long trips (currently am) and always park in the garage. Of course I can expense the parking, but at $7/day it is very reasonable, IMO.

thanks all!

If you live in the metro, why not use Uber or other cab service? Can be well worth it especially for long trips.

I used USAPark last month for the first time and will continue to use it. $4.50 a day for covered parking and much safer than a parking garage since USA Park is staffed 24 hours a day.

I used USAPark last month for the first time and will continue to use it. $4.50 a day for covered parking and much safer than a parking garage since USA Park is staffed 24 hours a day.

Much safer?

Yeah is someone standing at your car 24/7?

I agree with Kerry about safety. I don't know anything about the safety statistics but personally I feel much better leaving my car at a manned lot. That is from the standpoint of both my car's safety and my safety when dropping it off and picking it up.

If you live in the metro, why not use Uber or other cab service? Can be well worth it especially for long trips.

I looked up a fare estimate with Uber from West Norman to the airport once, it was $40 each way and that wasn't at a peak time.

Been parking at the airport for about 35 years. Never had a safety or security issue.

The airport parking garage has 24/7 CCTV security monitoring (and the feed goes directly to the airport police office which DOES always have someone watching).

The airport parking operator also has someone who drives thru the parking garage every 30 minutes 24/7.

If you are worried about your car being broken into, the airport parking garage is probably the most secure place to leave your car for any length of time.

They also recently revamped all of the lighting fixtures, the garage is now very well lit at all times.

I wish WRWA's airport website displayed real-time parking availability. I'm flying out tomorrow and would prefer to park in the garage, but yesterday when I dropped my wife off, the garage was full. If I can't park in the airport garage I would prefer to Uber rather than park there at all.

I don't feel that the airport parking is necessarily unsafe but, as I said, I just personally feel more comfortable at the off airport site. The garage at the airport is always the best option. I've only parked in one of the out lots once and I never want to do that again.

I wish WRWA's airport website displayed real-time parking availability. I'm flying out tomorrow and would prefer to park in the garage, but yesterday when I dropped my wife off, the garage was full. If I can't park in the airport garage I would prefer to Uber rather than park there at all.

I also wish they would build a canopy over the rooftop level. And since it's likely to not happen, I wish they would warn you earlier that the rooftop is the only parking available, as it often is. As it is, they have a little sign in front of the ticket dispenser, by the time you get there it is impossible to get out without entering the garage. As long as you go straight to the exit they won't charge you, but still a hassle.

Parking at the airport is safe. You will not believe how many cameras are around. The garage not to long ago updated their camera systems plus a lot of people don't know is a police station ( airport police station ) is in the underground tunnel which is connect to the garages and monitored by them along with 24 courtesy patrol provided by abm ( the ones who operate and manage the parking facility). All lots are monitored 24/7 lot#1 is the home base for all the shuttle employees so that area has employees around it 24/7, lot #3 has employees in that lot 24/7 as well. All lots have 24/7 surveillance monitored by airport police., and management of the parking provides courtesy patrol 24/7 at all lots, you should see the recent updates especially at the main toll booths, lots of security cameras for you vehicles safety

catch 22 you can always call 24/7 405-316-3250 they will be able to update you on the status of what parking lots are closed and opened and if the garage is only roof top at that time

I usually leave on Sundays so I've only been relegated to the top of the garage once. During this season, the garage is a blessing as I don't have covered parking at my apartment.

I found a garage spot two weekends ago even when the sign saying garage full was up. I've said for years that the garage parking at WRWA is too cheap and the airport is missing out on extra revenue. They would still fill it at $10/day.

Don't give them any ideas!!!!

I wish WRWA's airport website displayed real-time parking availability. I'm flying out tomorrow and would prefer to park in the garage, but yesterday when I dropped my wife off, the garage was full. If I can't park in the airport garage I would prefer to Uber rather than park there at all.

Or something like DFW Terminal A has now: http://www.texasparking.org/2014%20Conference/Awards%20Presentation/EPS%20DFW%20Terminal%20A.pdf

Lights above each space and directional assistance to open spots. And an app that notes space availability.

Don't give them any ideas!!!!

don't worry, i've posted that on here before and it's still the same $7/day :)

Or something like DFW Terminal A has now: http://www.texasparking.org/2014%20Conference/Awards%20Presentation/EPS%20DFW%20Terminal%20A.pdf

Lights above each space and directional assistance to open spots. And an app that notes space availability.

I would love this technology it would make the parking employees along with customers so much easier but if the parking at will rogers had that type of expensive technology then I believe the price would be a bit higher then the cheap 7 dollar a day that it is now. You will not believe how many Oklahoma people complain about the price now at will rogers parking, I love when out of state people park they love our cheap prices. I noticed that this technology you are talking about is westfield (?) it is $25 bucks for only 7 hours. I doubt oklahomans would pay that price to park

Speaking of which, garage is full (or so it says) so I circled back and parked at usapark. Figured I'd try them out! No covered parking was available though so for $2.95/day, there better not be any hail this weekend!

Also, no tide pens available at any of the shops here! Or maybe I should know better than to drink my coffee while driving in :)

I would love this technology it would make the parking employees along with customers so much easier but if the parking at will rogers had that type of expensive technology then I believe the price would be a bit higher then the cheap 7 dollar a day that it is now. You will not believe how many Oklahoma people complain about the price now at will rogers parking, I love when out of state people park they love our cheap prices. I noticed that this technology you are talking about is westfield (?) it is $25 bucks for only 7 hours. I doubt oklahomans would pay that price to park

WRWA has some of the least expensive covered parking of airports I visited. It is often less expensive to park than it is to take the Airport Shuttle. Although it isn't a comparison of similar facilities, I once paid nearly $60 to park for three hours in Manhattan.

Jax has the parking assist system and parking there doesn't cost much more than OKC.

I've never had any issues with security at the airport parking garage, but a friend recently had his tailgate stolen off his truck that was parked at the airport parking garage. Upon researching he learned this was a frequent thing because those tailgates can be sold on eBay for $2K each. The guys who did it were eventually caught, but I believe he said they were stealing 5 tailgates per month. From the airport.

2 accused of stealing vehicle tailgates at Will Rogers Airport | Oklahoma City - OKC - KOCO.com (http://www.koco.com/crime/2-accused-of-stealing-vehicle-tailgates-at-will-rogers-airport/32098544)


According to court documents, Logan Dunn and Kaytlen Pomeroy were seen numerous times on airport surveillance video stealing tailgates from trucks parked in the long-term parking area of the airport. They are both facing a number of grand larceny charges.

thanks for the clarification. clearly my account was not first hand and based on limited recollection of his account. my friend gave me the indication it had been going on for months.

Mark Kranenburg mentioned in a meeting I was at yesterday that the new car rental facility should be opening in February.