I saw a thread several years ago discussing OKC's chances of getting a hub and would like to discuss further. It is now apparent that several if not many companies are setting up shop here and we need many more flights. I think the airport is nice and a huge improvement from what it once was but it is so "minor" league and we need a major league airport. I really think it's important from a business standpoint to draw business here. It is our first impression to make on people here and where they form their first opinion of our city. Who do we need to contact and who can get this done to bring us up to big city status in that area and give us more options on flights as well.

On another note, I have always wondered why someone doesn't make a monster appoach to get FedEx to move some of their head quarters here. Memphis is an awful, violent city and I think OKC could make a deal that they could not match. I wish OKC would build it and make it such a sweet offer they can't refuse. It makes sense logistically because we are so centered to both coasts and it could be even more lucrative for the company. Ok, lets discuss and see if any of this is possible. Hey, I am a dreamer and want OKC become big time!

Mid sized cities that have hubs are a dying breed.

Cleveland, Salt Lake City, and St. Louis are about the only survivors of the many former airline hubs. Delta-Memphis will be exiting the picture very soon, getting smaller by the day-- literally. St Louis is a shadow of it's former self. And Salt Lake City is hanging around just because Delta needs it to make the West coast work.

If anything happens we could become a small focus city for an airline. Possibly Southwest adding some more flights to points instead of their hubs. But we can not expect an airline to establish a hub here overnight -- just will not happen.

Mid sized cities that have hubs are a dying breed.

Cleveland, Salt Lake City, and St. Louis are about the only survivors of the many former airline hubs. Delta-Memphis will be exiting the picture very soon, getting smaller by the day-- literally. St Louis is a shadow of it's former self. And Salt Lake City is hanging around just because Delta needs it to make the West coast work.

If anything happens we could become a small focus city for an airline. Possibly Southwest adding some more flights to points instead of their hubs. But we can not expect an airline to establish a hub here overnight -- just will not happen.

Quite right. Except that, as a hub, STL is less than a shadow of its former self. It was de-hubbed some time around 2004.

Quite right. Except that, as a hub, STL is less than a shadow of its former self. It was de-hubbed some time around 2004.

2008. I mention that it is a shadow, because Southwest does operate quite a large number of flights. Around 85 a day if I remember right.

There nothing wrong with discussing this even though it's been discussed here several times in the past. It might be better to consolidate it into one of the past Will Rogers threads, though, instead of starting a totally new one.

http://www.okctalk.com/transportation/26061-will-rogers-development-discussion-2011-a-4.html

As far as who to approach about this, you need to start with the airlines. They just won't consider it unless it makes economic sense for them and at this time it absolutely won't happen. I seriously doubt that even major economic incentives from the city could entice one of them to put a hub here.

For a mid-sized city, Charlotte probably has the best and busiest airport because they are a US Airways hub. If there is a merger with American Airlines I wonder how long that will last. OKC getting a hub would be next to impossible because this city has pretty much arrived at the party after everybody is starting to leave. The airline industry of the future will be consolidated with hubs in only a few major cities with regional flights to the surrounding midsized and small cities. For OKC to have a hub, this city would have needed to go after it 40 years ago when the airline industry was booming.

I saw a thread several years ago discussing OKC's chances of getting a hub and would like to discuss further. It is now apparent that several if not many companies are setting up shop here and we need many more flights. I think the airport is nice and a huge improvement from what it once was but it is so "minor" league and we need a major league airport. I really think it's important from a business standpoint to draw business here. It is our first impression to make on people here and where they form their first opinion of our city. Who do we need to contact and who can get this done to bring us up to big city status in that area and give us more options on flights as well.

People need to get over this "big city" or "major league" complex that OKC seems to have. We are never going to be LA, NYC, Houston, etc. You say we need many more flights? Why? Passengers levels are still below where we were in 2006. Flights are not routinely going out at 85% or greater load factors. Our airport terminal is quite amazing for the city. It is not a minor league facility - there are plenty of smaller airports out there that more accurately fit that term. The current terminal as well also is not at capacity yet and still has room for additional service before an expansion would be needed.

The demand has to be there to increase air service. The demand is increasing, but only about 3-4% per year. That is easily handled by existing capacity or slight upgauging of aircraft on existing flights.


On another note, I have always wondered why someone doesn't make a monster appoach to get FedEx to move some of their head quarters here. Memphis is an awful, violent city and I think OKC could make a deal that they could not match. I wish OKC would build it and make it such a sweet offer they can't refuse. It makes sense logistically because we are so centered to both coasts and it could be even more lucrative for the company. Ok, lets discuss and see if any of this is possible. Hey, I am a dreamer and want OKC become big time!

FedEx is too invested in Memphis. Memphis would do everything in their power to match it. Plus you forget all of the additional contractors and associated facilities that support that mega hub. That is like asking UPS to leave Louisville...not going to happen. Air cargo in this country is very volatile and cargo hubs are closing instead of expanding. How is OKC any better logistically located than Memphis? They have similar major interstate connections - if not more. They have rail facilities right next to the airport. Don't forget the ability for barge traffic on the Mississippi which would be huge to freight forwarders to get to the ports on the Gulf and also upstream in MO, IL, IN, OH, IA, etc.

Hey I'm all for OKC growing, but we don't need a deserted massive big city airport that will leave the city in billions of dollars of debt.


2008. I mention that it is a shadow, because Southwest does operate quite a large number of flights. Around 85 a day if I remember right.

Looks like 91 departures as of September, which will go up with DCA coming online for them.


For a mid-sized city, Charlotte probably has the best and busiest airport because they are a US Airways hub. If there is a merger with American Airlines I wonder how long that will last. OKC getting a hub would be next to impossible because this city has pretty much arrived at the party after everybody is starting to leave. The airline industry of the future will be consolidated with hubs in only a few major cities with regional flights to the surrounding midsized and small cities. For OKC to have a hub, this city would have needed to go after it 40 years ago when the airline industry was booming.

CLT has the benefits of a massive banking presence. Should the US merger actually happen, I don't see CLT going away. It is a massive hub, nearly 600 daily departures and one of the biggest cash cows for US right now. It is also the only viable alternative to ATL in the Southeast (MIA is waaaay down there). There might be some cuts backs, but CLT will probably stay one of the larger hubs for US/AA going forward.

As far as OKC goes, I think our best bet for any enhancements to service will probably come from Southwest. We just picked up MDW which is doing very good. If the demand continues to increase there are other markets which could come into play. ATL, BNA, OAK, LAX, SAN, EWR, and SLC. Not saying those are likely markets, but most probable when you look at the WN network and cities similar to OKC (like AUS). Having a current offering of 23 daily flights and 9 nonstop markets isn't anything to sneeze at either. I don't see DL or UA doing anything more from OKC. AA/US if the merger happens could give us PHL and/or CLT. F9 is still on shaky ground so we could lose them. JetBlue has shown zero interest in coming to OKC.

Hey I'm all for OKC growing, but we don't need a deserted massive big city airport that will leave the city in billions of dollars of debt.

See Indianapolis.

Why does our airport growth rate remain so low? I see plenty of other cities with passenger count percentages increases in the double digits, but ours remains stubbornly low. Is it because people drive to Dallas or Tulsa? Is it because we don't have a lot of corporate travel? Perhaps we just don't fly much?

I do wish JetBlue would come here if only so I could finally fly to JFK and Boston nonstop. How likely do you think it is that Southwest starts to expand their presence here? I've read where a lot of people think that once Dallas is free of Wright in 2014 that OKC's service will be reduced significantly.

The biggest downfall to WRWA is that its so close to DFW which is one the busiest and largest airports in the nation. Moreover, WRWA does not serve any international flights which also deters traffic and growth. Finally, Oklahoma City is not a "destination city" therefore incoming air traffic is not that great. With that being said, as OKC continues to grow in population and popularity, the already planned new East Concourse adding 9 gates, is likely to come to fruition. I wouldn't be surprised if the new East Concourse started construction within the next 5 years. People tend to forget that WRWA has undergone major renovations and expansions over last 10 years.

I honestly do not understand why so many people seem to have a problem with WRWA. It is compares favorably to other airports I have seen. (St Louis, Memphis, Louisville, Nashville, SLC, Orange County, etc.....) There are always a few things that could be improved but overall it is not too bad for a city our size. Service will follow demand - have we demonstrated sufficient demand yet? Doesn't appear to be the case with the prevalence of small regional jets instead of larger RJ's or 737/717/MD80's. When the MD80's and 737 become the "small" planes, I think that is an indicator of demand - from a layman's perspective at least. But G. Walker may be right - have we already forgotten the 5+ years of construction at WRWA?

Why does our airport growth rate remain so low? I see plenty of other cities with passenger count percentages increases in the double digits, but ours remains stubbornly low. Is it because people drive to Dallas or Tulsa? Is it because we don't have a lot of corporate travel? Perhaps we just don't fly much?

I do wish JetBlue would come here if only so I could finally fly to JFK and Boston nonstop. How likely do you think it is that Southwest starts to expand their presence here? I've read where a lot of people think that once Dallas is free of Wright in 2014 that OKC's service will be reduced significantly.We go to St Louis at least a couple of times a year. We used to fly but started driving last year. From door to door it takes about the same time to drive. And driving there's no baggage checking, no delayed flights, no super-size guy in the seat next to me or my wife and my knees don't hit the seat in front of me. So pretty much anywhere that distance or closer we'd rather drive.

Demand is pretty strong right now. This year will likely be the record year for passenger traffic at WRWA. Any additional expansion will come from increased frequency to current markets and/or more mainline. United is already in the process of increasing mainline in OKC. Expect more of that in the coming months. United will have around 26 daily flights this coming summer and service to every domestic hub. There are not many airports in the United system that have this network access. I wouldn't be surprised to see more United flights to existing markets and increased mainline to Denver Houston and Chicago.

I can see Southwest expanding their presence also. I bet we will also see more Delta mainline in 2013. Year over year since 2009 they have added one mainline flight. Went from 1 to 2 to 3 and if that trend continues we will get 4 this coming year.

I don't see the doom and gloom venture does because really after United takes gate 8, there will only be 2 unleaded gates. (Gate 1 will not be leased; that is the city's gate)
I could see within 5 years the 3 gate extension of the East concourse would be necessary.

Why does our airport growth rate remain so low? I see plenty of other cities with passenger count percentages increases in the double digits, but ours remains stubbornly low. Is it because people drive to Dallas or Tulsa? Is it because we don't have a lot of corporate travel? Perhaps we just don't fly much?

I do wish JetBlue would come here if only so I could finally fly to JFK and Boston nonstop. How likely do you think it is that Southwest starts to expand their presence here? I've read where a lot of people think that once Dallas is free of Wright in 2014 that OKC's service will be reduced significantly.

Tulsa hasn't really been exploding in growth, so I doubt there is much pull there. DFW maybe some, but probably not a ton. When people talk about leakage in OKC to DFW sometimes I have to chuckle. Leakage from OKC is probably nothing compared to what cities like RFD, FWA, LAN, TOL, FNT, YNG, MDT, ABE, and such experience to the near by hubs of ORD, DTW, CLE, PHL, and EWR.

I don't see JetBlue coming, but it would be nice. WN is dedicated the market with around 800 employees here. Will there be an impact on local traffic after Wright is gone? Probably. I could see WN cutting back a bit on DAL nonstops which could impact other services, mainly Denver. However most of the markets, including Denver, are pretty self sufficient right now. WN has 3 gates here right now which gives them room to go up probably another 10 flights easily. We'll just have to wait and see how things work out once the AirTran cities are brought into the network completely.


The biggest downfall to WRWA is that its so close to DFW which is one the busiest and largest airports in the nation. Moreover, WRWA does not serve any international flights which also deters traffic and growth. Finally, Oklahoma City is not a "destination city" therefore incoming air traffic is not that great. With that being said, as OKC continues to grow in population and popularity, the already planned new East Concourse adding 9 gates, is likely to come to fruition. I wouldn't be surprised if the new East Concourse started construction within the next 5 years. People tend to forget that WRWA has undergone major renovations and expansions over last 10 years.

International traffic is not going to be the main driver for an airport to do exceptionally well. The problem is what business, high yield international traffic exists in OKC? Not really enough to warrant anyone to drop a plane in here. The new East Concourse would add a lot of capacity and probably meet any demands for the next 20-30 years the city will need. Anything international will probably be something like Volaris to Mexico.


I honestly do not understand why so many people seem to have a problem with WRWA. It is compares favorably to other airports I have seen. (St Louis, Memphis, Louisville, Nashville, SLC, Orange County, etc.....) There are always a few things that could be improved but overall it is not too bad for a city our size. Service will follow demand - have we demonstrated sufficient demand yet? Doesn't appear to be the case with the prevalence of small regional jets instead of larger RJ's or 737/717/MD80's. When the MD80's and 737 become the "small" planes, I think that is an indicator of demand - from a layman's perspective at least. But G. Walker may be right - have we already forgotten the 5+ years of construction at WRWA?

Yeah the amount of small jets here gives a lot of opportunity for up-gauging flights instead of adding more frequency.


Demand is pretty strong right now. This year will likely be the record year for passenger traffic at WRWA. Any additional expansion will come from increased frequency to current markets and/or more mainline. United is already in the process of increasing mainline in OKC. Expect more of that in the coming months. United will have around 26 daily flights this coming summer and service to every domestic hub. There are not many airports in the United system that have this network access. I wouldn't be surprised to see more United flights to existing markets and increased mainline to Denver Houston and Chicago.

I agree with the part I bolded. I'm not sure if more frequency is really in cards right now.


I can see Southwest expanding their presence also. I bet we will also see more Delta mainline in 2013. Year over year since 2009 they have added one mainline flight. Went from 1 to 2 to 3 and if that trend continues we will get 4 this coming year.

I don't see the doom and gloom venture does because really after United takes gate 8, there will only be 2 unleaded gates. (Gate 1 will not be leased; that is the city's gate)

I could see within 5 years the 3 gate extension of the East concourse would be necessary.

I'm not all gloom and doom. :) I just don't see OKC being a viable large scale air travel market that some are wanting. OKC really is not a major destination. It is benefited by being only 1 of 3 commercial airports in Oklahoma with existing service. Could there be more service in the cards? Sure. I just don't see the demand for a big expansion right now.

You are correct some cities are maxed out on frequency. But I would bet some of our 1x and 2x daily routes could see some more flights. SFO especially as it is performing quite well.

I doubt we will be a huge market anytime soon, but there are still many routes that will be viable for increased service as the city grows over the next 5 years. If you look at a still snapshot, there doesn't appear to be much room for growth. But if you take into account the city's growth and extrapolate it over several years you will see some expansion opportunities that could be viable.

I honestly do not understand why so many people seem to have a problem with WRWA. It is compares favorably to other airports I have seen. (St Louis, Memphis, Louisville, Nashville, SLC, Orange County, etc.....) There are always a few things that could be improved but overall it is not too bad for a city our size. Service will follow demand - have we demonstrated sufficient demand yet? Doesn't appear to be the case with the prevalence of small regional jets instead of larger RJ's or 737/717/MD80's. When the MD80's and 737 become the "small" planes, I think that is an indicator of demand - from a layman's perspective at least. But G. Walker may be right - have we already forgotten the 5+ years of construction at WRWA?

I really don't get the hate for Will Rogers either. The way some people describe it you would think the place is a dump. The airport is one of the nicer small airports in the country and our passenger counts are pretty consistent with non-tourist non-hub airports for cities of our size. Also, passenger counts are growing (http://examiner-enterprise.com/sections/news/state/passenger-traffic-increasing-okc-airport.html) and have been for some time; Tulsa's airport hit a 10 year low (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=45&articleid=20120119_45_E2_Airlin922058) in traffic this past year even though it is supposed to be so much cheaper and easier to fly out of. I have never seen any sort of official study done, but I don't think "leakage" to DFW is as near the problem it is advertised. I honestly know of two people who have driven to Dallas to fly out (both were international destinations) in the entire time I've lived in OK.

I definitely think more West Coast destinations are possible, especially if in-migration from CA to OKC continues at its current pace. But with a lot of things its just going need some time. If we can keep up the growth I'm sure more service will come. But like the IKEA rumor that likes to surface on here, this hub talk really needs to be put to rest. That ship sailed a long time ago (about the time the Gipper deregulated the industry) and we can achieve more flights without hub status anyway.

Would have to agree;

-we missed the hub-bus many moons ago but even if we had caught it then we also could be losing it now.

-WRWA if a dandy fine airport, have been in 125 U.S. airports and would vote ours in the Top 10 for in it’s size class.

-future growth for WRWA will be organically grown.


Question for the insider experts?

How is the OKC - CLE route doing?

It has not begun. It will begin Feb 14.

I really don't get the hate for Will Rogers either. The way some people describe it you would think the place is a dump. The airport is one of the nicer small airports in the country and our passenger counts are pretty consistent with non-tourist non-hub airports for cities of our size. Also, passenger counts are growing (http://examiner-enterprise.com/sections/news/state/passenger-traffic-increasing-okc-airport.html) and have been for some time; Tulsa's airport hit a 10 year low (http://www.tulsaworld.com/business/article.aspx?subjectid=45&articleid=20120119_45_E2_Airlin922058) in traffic this past year even though it is supposed to be so much cheaper and easier to fly out of. I have never seen any sort of official study done, but I don't think "leakage" to DFW is as near the problem it is advertised. I honestly know of two people who have driven to Dallas to fly out (both were international destinations) in the entire time I've lived in OK.

I definitely think more West Coast destinations are possible, especially if in-migration from CA to OKC continues at its current pace. But with a lot of things its just going need some time. If we can keep up the growth I'm sure more service will come. But like the IKEA rumor that likes to surface on here, this hub talk really needs to be put to rest. That ship sailed a long time ago (about the time the Gipper deregulated the industry) and we can achieve more flights without hub status anyway.

I think the perception here needs to change a bit, OKC is not a small airport. The rest I agree with you.

However get away from OKC and go to the medium cities in the Great Lakes and Northeast. Most of those airports are going to have between 5 and 10 gates and that is it. Some are lucky to have more than a couple jet bridges.

WRWA's size is great for OKC and surrounding areas, and I believe it will expand within the next few years, adding the East Concourse. However, people tend to get a complex after being to DFW International, which is a city in itself. Though I know we will never have a Skylink, a 152 gates, and mid-rise hotels embedded in the airport, I think we need to grow on what we have. Simple things that WRWA needs to have is free Wi-Fi all the time (not just for 20 minutes), at most airports free Wi-Fi is a given. It also wouldn't hurt for them to go through a branding overhaul, with a new logo, tag-line, and color scheme, and brand that throughout the website and airport. Before the NBA came here, OKC really didn't have a modern identity. However, now it seems that the OKC's color is Thunder blue, and industry rides of energy and aerospace. They should take those characteristics from the city and build a brand from it. A city's airport is the first impression for people visiting the city for the first time, so why not make a good first impression? I would also like to see a nice mid sized hotel attached to the airport, that would work wonders for the airport. Finally, one thing they definitely need to change is not having security check-in in the same area as passengers exiting the terminal, it can be very confusing and crowded at times.

Charlotte is a prime expample of good universal branding for the city, coincidence? no, branding?, yes:

http://www.baseload.com/basesloaded/DesktopModules/Images/panthers_logojet_reduced_1.jpg


http://www.visitingdc.com/images/charlotte-airport-address.jpg


http://dilemmaxdotnet.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/new-charlotte-bobcats-logo.jpg?w=540


http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8310/8031129089_6d4caebf88_z.jpg

Finally, one thing they definitely need to change is not having security check-in in the same area as passengers exiting the terminal, it can be very confusing and crowded at times.

That is already going to be fixed and is discussed in the Commercial Aviation thread.

I agree with the fact that we have a nice airport. It is true that the first impression people have of our city is our airport. We need to make it first class and have an identity because lets get serious about getting more companies relocated here. If they think negatively right off the bat or that we are some rinky dink place, it can and will make a difference. They DO also consider travel options and flights to other areas of the country. If OKC can offer that it can be a deal breaker. If we can't get a hub, we need to expand the terminal, get more flights and give the appearance of a bustling airport to match our now bustling city. I really do believe that symbiotic relationship can make a difference in a company wanting to locate here. It is time to stop think small and shoot for the stars. It is our time to shine because we were stagnant for way too many years.

I agree with the fact that we have a nice airport. It is true that the first impression people have of our city is our airport. We need to make it first class and have an identity because lets get serious about getting more companies relocated here. If they think negatively right off the bat or that we are some rinky dink place, it can and will make a difference. They DO also consider travel options and flights to other areas of the country. If OKC can offer that it can be a deal breaker. If we can't get a hub, we need to expand the terminal, get more flights and give the appearance of a bustling airport to match our now bustling city. I really do believe that symbiotic relationship can make a difference in a company wanting to locate here. It is time to stop think small and shoot for the stars. It is our time to shine because we were stagnant for way too many years.

Have you even read all the other posts here and in the Air Service thread? I'll address you post point by point.

1) Airport is great and much nicer than many medium sized cities.
2) The airport, I feel, gives a great first impression. More improvements are coming to make it even better.
3) How has the city not been serious about getting more businesses here? Continental Resources, Boeing, etc.
4) There is going to be a stigma with the appearance of Oklahoma and Oklahoma City. The NBA I think is helping a ton with that as well as the strong energy sector.
5) Travel options to other cities? We have 22 nonstop markets from OKC. (http://www.gcmap.com/mapui?P=OKC-EWR%2C+OKC-BWI%2C+OKC-IAD%2C+OKC-ATL%2C+OKC-DTW%2C+OKC-CLE%2C+OKC-STL%2C+OKC-MDW%2C+OKC-ORD%2C+OKC-MEM%2C+OKC-MCI%2C+OKC-MSP%2C+OKC-DAL%2C+OKC-DFW%2C+OKC-HOU%2C+OKC-IAH%2C+OKC-DEN%2C+OKC-SLC%2C+OKC-LAS%2C+OKC-PHX%2C+OKC-LAX%2C+OKC-SFO&MS=wls&DU=mi) That is pretty damn good.
6) The city already connections most major metro areas and hubs. We do have some growth options when it comes to California, the Pac Northwest, and the Southeast. However, Florida has always had dreadful performance from OKC through the years.
7) We aren't going to get a hub. Airlines aren't building new hubs. They are too expensive and the industry is still in consolidation mode (WN/FL and AA/US). The terminal has expansion plans to add another 4-9 gates in the East Concourse. Which is good considering we have essentially 2 gates unleased right now, even though existing airlines could definitely cram more flights into the ones they do have. A bigger terminal does not equal more flights. We aren't turning away flights right now due to no room. You have to keep in mind that Oklahoma itself isn't an extremely wealthy state with a lot of high needs for air travel. The airport traffic is growing and airlines have been adding capacity that is appropriate. If you add a ton of capacity in over night you risk trashing yields and weakening the strength airlines have here.
8) Don't disagree...I think that is needed anywhere.
9) OKC isn't really a dull bulb right now. The job market is excellent. The city isn't in a financial crisis. The city is shining and will continue to do so as long as it plays smart and doesn't try to grow up too fast.

I guess at the end of the day, I'm still a little unclear on what exactly it is you think OKC should have right now. Keeping this focused on the airport and air service, the level of service is adequate for what we need right now. As new opportunities arise, the airlines will follow. Much like United bringing back service to Cleveland next year due to the oil/gas productions in Eastern Ohio.

I think OKC gets a Charlotte nonstop if AA merges with USAir since Charlotte would likely be their new southeast hub. AA would maintain current nonstops to DFW, LAX and ORD. If a combined AA/USAir builds up its Philadelphia base that could be a future route as well.

Southwest could add a nonstop to Atlanta to compete directly with Delta there where they are expanding since they merged with AirTran.

I could maybe see Delta starting service to JFK supplementing the only existing service to New York via one daily nonstop to Newark on United. Or jetBlue starting the same service.

Outside of that not sure where else really makes sense as a new route. Longshots include Seattle on Alaska, San Diego/Austin/Nashville on Southwest and Orlando on Delta.

^PHL is much more limited in expansion than CLT is, PHL is already landlocked and one of the most congested hubs in the country, I think it ranked among the top 10 airports for most delays last year. The terminal and runway layout there also doesn't allow for much expansion. CLT on the other hand already has four runways and can accomodate a terminal expansion. Plenty of ramp space there too to go around for additional expansion.

Though I know we will never have a Skylink, a 152 gates, and mid-rise hotels embedded in the airport, I think we need to grow on what we have.

-----Agree with you completely. OKC is a fine airport and serves our metro area quite nicely. It's just ludicrous to compare to DFW which has been a fortress hub for decades.

Simple things that WRWA needs to have is free Wi-Fi all the time (not just for 20 minutes), at most airports free Wi-Fi is a given.

-------Kind of agree - although I don't think "most airports" have Wi-Fi for free. DFW is the only major hub I've seen with free internet stations, but even there wi-fi is not free. It definitely isn't at other hubs like ORD and DTW. In any case free wi-fi shouldn't be considered a "need" at airports - since so many passengers who will use it are on expense accounts anyway.

Finally, one thing they definitely need to change is not having security check-in in the same area as passengers exiting the terminal, it can be very confusing and crowded at times.

---------I don't quite understand this comment - it's like this a numerous other airports and is simply part of building an efficient terminal layout. Why is it confusing? Just follow the signs to "exit" and it's not confusing. And while it can get crowded, that's probably more on TSA - there are two checkpoints at OKC but they're not always being optimized.

From an organic growth standpoint it is going to be interesting to see how the OKC - CLE route performs.

If it does well perhaps could we also see similar routes added to Bismarck, Pittsburgh and Seattle?

Bismarck; Continental Resources have already announced plans to triple their production in the Bakken play. Could that be enough to make Bismarck - OKC feasible? Bismarck is currently served by Delta, Frontier and United.

Pittsburgh: Has the Utica shale directly to its west and the Marcellus shale to its east, north and south. Plus is the closest airport to new Big 12 member WVU.

Seattle; Boeing is adding a thousand employees in OKC.

If WRWA added the above routes one can see it getting interesting with regards to which airlines are serving OKC.

Demand has to be growing for a link to the banking center of Charlotte. Plus US Airways is the leading carrier at Pittsburgh. The number 8 destination from Pittsburgh is DFW, the number 10 destination is Phoenix. ( carrier and destination are from March 2012 numbers on Wikipedia.)

If WRWA was to get OKC - Seattle service and the SFO route is doing well enough for a second daily flight could those 2 routes be enough to entice Alaska Air to dip their toe into the OKC market.

and the SFO route is doing well enough for a second daily flight

I don't know about the OKC to SFO flight (cause i usually take the OKC to Den, then Den to SFO), but i know that the few times i have taken the SFO to OKC flight, it has always been full.

Well, as venture79 posted a link in the weather thread I came across this on the Will Rodgers website. This is the first I've heard of it and think it's pretty cool. :)

WRWA > CURRENT PROJECTS (http://www.flyokc.com/CurrentProjectDetails.aspx?ID=6c985a55-f59e-4af4-9e39-f536f23505b3)

Well, as venture79 posted a link in the weather thread I came across this on the Will Rodgers website. This is the first I've heard of it and think it's pretty cool. :)

WRWA > CURRENT PROJECTS (http://www.flyokc.com/CurrentProjectDetails.aspx?ID=6c985a55-f59e-4af4-9e39-f536f23505b3)

That project was completed around January 2012.

That project was completed around January 2012.Wow. I guess I haven't been inside the airport longer than I've thought. I also just ran across the thread for this. Sorry for the trouble. :/

Does anyone have some old pictures of WRWA before it was renovated. I vaguely remember it, but I didn't fly that much when I was younger and it's been awhile.

Kind of hard for me to remember the old way, the only feature I don't think I will ever forget was the old security checkpoint

http://airchive.com/galleries/1428.jpg

Several parts were featured in this old video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhXaPSz8Sto

Does anyone have some old pictures of WRWA before it was renovated. I vaguely remember it, but I didn't fly that much when I was younger and it's been awhile.

For some reason, this is what I first thought of when I saw your question. This is what I used when I first started flying.

http://www.ubbthreads.com/store/item/img-large/old-1963-will-rogers-field-airport-oklahoma-city-ok-postcard_231135642361.jpg

Husband investigates airplane crashes and has been to every large airport in the United States and many, many in smaller cities. Part of his job is to evaluate airports where crashes take place so he has lots of experience comparing them. He absolutely loves Will Rogers. It's a jewel.

There have been many good points why OKC has not, and will most likey never be a hub. The argument for a hub in the past was it has superior runways - uncommon for a smaller market airport. Perhaps I have missed it, but besides its nearness to other regional hubs - The FAA national center is located here. It's presence elseware is just offices. What airlines would want the federal regulating and training facility to be 'next door'? There are a couple of good reasons to locate a hub here - but I suspect there are equally good reasons not to, and as long as there are other options, they will persuade anyone looking to 'look elseware'. What everyone is really talking about are direct flight options, and that will always have to do with population and demand. Currently, with other options nearby, there isn't enough of either in OKC ... period.

The FAA has nothing to do with not having a hub here. The FAA very rarely even does audits in OKC with the airlines. Maybe once a year.

There have been many good points why OKC has not, and will most likey never be a hub. The argument for a hub in the past was it has superior runways - uncommon for a smaller market airport. Perhaps I have missed it, but besides its nearness to other regional hubs - The FAA national center is located here. It's presence elseware is just offices. What airlines would want the federal regulating and training facility to be 'next door'? There are a couple of good reasons to locate a hub here - but I suspect there are equally good reasons not to, and as long as there are other options, they will persuade anyone looking to 'look elseware'. What everyone is really talking about are direct flight options, and that will always have to do with population and demand. Currently, with other options nearby, there isn't enough of either in OKC ... period.

1) OKC really isn't a small market at all. The DOT ranks airports as Large Hub, Medium Hub, Small Hub, Non Hub, and Non-Primary. OKC is literally right on the cutoff from Medium Hub to Small Hub (its rated a small hub). What are examples of Medium Hubs? Omaha, Buffalo, and Burbank. OKC isn't more than a couple hundred thousand pax behind those cities.

2) The FAA training center located on field means nothing. To think that is a reason OKC hasn't seen more substantial service is just foolish.

3) Geography is really the only thing OKC has for it in the hub making department. The local market though isn't big enough for the size of operation some dream about.

When it comes to direct flight options...21 destinations have nonstop flights. We've been through the O&D numbers before and pretty much all the markets that can warrant nonstop service has it today. If we look at the latest information from the DOT on market size there aren't many opportunities left with the current air service out there.

Largest market not served: Seattle. 171 pax per day. That's total per day...so 85 each way. You could maybe convince Alaska to drop one 737 in per day if they are able to get all of the O&D. However, what good is it for a new airline - who is a hub and spoke carrier - to bring just one flight a day?

The rest of the batch of cities are those without service that have more pax than the city with the lowest O&D numbers from OKC - Cleveland.

San Diego, CA150San Antonio, TX144Boston, MA (Metro Area)125Miami, FL (Metro Area)124Kansas City, MO110Austin, TX110Nashville, TN93Sacramento, CA90New Orleans, LA87Tampa, FL (Metro Area)87Charlotte, NC72

San Diego's primary airlines are WN and AS. If AS won't do SEA, they really won't do SAN. WN has no problem feeding pax through PHX, LAS, and DEN.
BOS's primary airline is JetBlue and even then the Embraer 190 is still going to be too much airplane for the route.
MIA has an AA hub but the most it could reasonably be would be a high cost RJ.
MCI just got axed by Southwest and they are the only substantial airline there.
AUS is like OKC, just more grown up with a few extra airlines but no one that would jump at offering the route.
BNA has WN as the dominant airline and it might work as a connecting option, but they won't compete with the new ATL route.
SMF doesn't have a large dominant airline and the route would only support an RJ.
MSY has WN as the larger one, but there aren't enough pax for a 737.
TPA we'll probably see PIE (St. Petersburg) added by Allegiant at some point with a couple flights a week.
CLT we'll probably see AA/US add as the hub integration progresses to offer more options, but not because of a strong local market.

I've said it before and will say it again, much of the routes are not feasible with the current airlines out there. The most logical option would be to find a regional operator to offer a point to point service to airports like MCI, AUS, BNA, MSY, etc. using the Dash 8 Q400 or ATR 72-600s. They seat plenty and have lower costs than the full size jets. It might also be possible to look at the ERJ 170/190 family for a couple of the others. However, this would all be based on local demand on the routes with limited, if any, connecting traffic opportunity.

I'm not really sure what people expect. The market is what it is. It isn't the smallest, but it isn't the largest. It is a good and healthy mid-sized market.

Husband investigates airplane crashes and has been to every large airport in the United States and many, many in smaller cities. Part of his job is to evaluate airports where crashes take place so he has lots of experience comparing them. He absolutely loves Will Rogers. It's a jewel.

I'd be interested to know why he thinks that. As a frequent passenger or for technical (crash-related?) reasons such as large runout areas?

I'm not really sure what people expect. The market is what it is. It isn't the smallest, but it isn't the largest. It is a good and healthy mid-sized market.

Excellent thorough analysis. But you won't stop the magical thinking. You know that.

http://www.mysmiley.net/imgs/smile/mad/mad0235.gif (http://www.mysmiley.net)

Venture:

One quick question - do any passengers actually transfer between flights in OKC? I suppose that would be separate to WN direct flights.

p.s. - any luck on analyzing the international PDEW's?

In the summer time United handles about 10 connecting passengers a day on average, about half that in the winter.

In the summer time United handles about 10 connecting passengers a day on average, about half that in the winter.

Interesting - why would they be doing that - just to get segments?

If hub to hub flights are oversold, or a flight cancels between them, the computer system will automatically protect passengers on to the next best routing. That often ends up being OKC because we have nonstop service to every domestic hub.

Some are online:
IAH-OKC-ORD
ORD-OKC-LAX
CLE-OKC-IAH

some are interline:
DEN-OKC-DFW(AA)

Etc.

I'd be interested to know why he thinks that. As a frequent passenger or for technical (crash-related?) reasons such as large runout areas?

Runways (wide and long with the crosswind); easy access off and on; easy to get around in the terminal; infrastructure seems well maintained; not landlocked - good runway safety areas which he loves; lots of money/source of income compared to other places (less need for federal subsidies); seems like a good operations department; great capacity above and beyond what is needed; ability to expand gates; from what he can tell, the firefighting arrangement is in good shape. He says he likes that they have a smoking section (or used to).

As for me, I love our smaller airport because I hate like poison losing an air traffic slot the way you do in big airports on the east coast.

Also some of those are last minute walk up fares at the hub. And An OKC connection could be cheaper on that walk up fare.

Venture:

One quick question - do any passengers actually transfer between flights in OKC? I suppose that would be separate to WN direct flights.

p.s. - any luck on analyzing the international PDEW's?

International stuff, this is the most I could come up with so far. This is the raw data, but I doubt the actual market numbers are this low. Reporting isn't as great as it is for domestic service.

PASSENGERSCARRIER_NAMEORIGINDESTYEARMONTH37Delta Air Lines Inc.OKCYYZ201314United Air Lines Inc.OKCYYC201315United Air Lines Inc.OKCBZE2013116United Air Lines Inc.OKCCUN201327American Airlines Inc.OKCMEX201346American Airlines Inc.OKCMEX201357American Airlines Inc.OKCMEX2013618United Air Lines Inc.CUNOKC201321American Airlines Inc.YVROKC2013317American Airlines Inc.YYZOKC20137

Thanks. So I guess no chance on that BA 787 to LHR, right?

Oops - that would be magical thinking!

Runways (wide and long with the crosswind); easy access off and on; easy to get around in the terminal; infrastructure seems well maintained; not landlocked - good runway safety areas which he loves; lots of money/source of income compared to other places (less need for federal subsidies); seems like a good operations department; great capacity above and beyond what is needed; ability to expand gates; from what he can tell, the firefighting arrangement is in good shape. He says he likes that they have a smoking section (or used to).

As for me, I love our smaller airport because I hate like poison losing an air traffic slot the way you do in big airports on the east coast.

Thanks - Kai Tak it ain't!

If hub to hub flights are oversold, or a flight cancels between them, the computer system will automatically protect passengers on to the next best routing. That often ends up being OKC because we have nonstop service to every domestic hub.

Some are online:
IAH-OKC-ORD
ORD-OKC-LAX
CLE-OKC-IAH

some are interline:
DEN-OKC-DFW(AA)

Etc.

Yup, and between that and Dallas, we can get most places in a reasonable period of time. That's one of the reasons headquarters in DC let my husband work from OKC.

Thanks - Kai Tak it ain't!

True - WRWA is nice and open. Short of a significant malfunction - like a wing falling off or bad bird strike - crashing at Will Rogers would be pretty darn embarrassing. Even if an air trafficker died of boredom there'd rarely be an excuse to mess up. :)

In response to the comment about an airport not wanting to be next door to the FAA, I personally think that would be a plus. The big hubs are heavily regulated and the last thing they want to do is cut corners. By virtue of being a hub they are under constant scrutiny and having seminars and training sessions right next door would give them easy access and opportunity to keep up to date. Husband regularly deals with airports in mid sized cities and some of them are woefully ignorant of FAA regulations. Very embarrassing when something happens to put a spotlight on it. A lot of GA airports (or rather pilots/charter might try to skirt inspections or maintenance requirements but the airports are usually more ignorant than doing something intentional. At least that's what I gather from listening to my husband. He might disagree.

1) OKC really isn't a small market at all. The DOT ranks airports as Large Hub, Medium Hub, Small Hub, Non Hub, and Non-Primary. OKC is literally right on the cutoff from Medium Hub to Small Hub (its rated a small hub). What are examples of Medium Hubs? Omaha, Buffalo, and Burbank. OKC isn't more than a couple hundred thousand pax behind those cities.

2) The FAA training center located on field means nothing. To think that is a reason OKC hasn't seen more substantial service is just foolish.

3) Geography is really the only thing OKC has for it in the hub making department. The local market though isn't big enough for the size of operation some dream about.

When it comes to direct flight options...21 destinations have nonstop flights. We've been through the O&D numbers before and pretty much all the markets that can warrant nonstop service has it today. If we look at the latest information from the DOT on market size there aren't many opportunities left with the current air service out there.

Largest market not served: Seattle. 171 pax per day. That's total per day...so 85 each way. You could maybe convince Alaska to drop one 737 in per day if they are able to get all of the O&D. However, what good is it for a new airline - who is a hub and spoke carrier - to bring just one flight a day?

The rest of the batch of cities are those without service that have more pax than the city with the lowest O&D numbers from OKC - Cleveland.

San Diego, CA150San Antonio, TX144Boston, MA (Metro Area)125Miami, FL (Metro Area)124Kansas City, MO110Austin, TX110Nashville, TN93Sacramento, CA90New Orleans, LA87Tampa, FL (Metro Area)87Charlotte, NC72

San Diego's primary airlines are WN and AS. If AS won't do SEA, they really won't do SAN. WN has no problem feeding pax through PHX, LAS, and DEN.
BOS's primary airline is JetBlue and even then the Embraer 190 is still going to be too much airplane for the route.
MIA has an AA hub but the most it could reasonably be would be a high cost RJ.
MCI just got axed by Southwest and they are the only substantial airline there.
AUS is like OKC, just more grown up with a few extra airlines but no one that would jump at offering the route.
BNA has WN as the dominant airline and it might work as a connecting option, but they won't compete with the new ATL route.
SMF doesn't have a large dominant airline and the route would only support an RJ.
MSY has WN as the larger one, but there aren't enough pax for a 737.
TPA we'll probably see PIE (St. Petersburg) added by Allegiant at some point with a couple flights a week.
CLT we'll probably see AA/US add as the hub integration progresses to offer more options, but not because of a strong local market.

I've said it before and will say it again, much of the routes are not feasible with the current airlines out there. The most logical option would be to find a regional operator to offer a point to point service to airports like MCI, AUS, BNA, MSY, etc. using the Dash 8 Q400 or ATR 72-600s. They seat plenty and have lower costs than the full size jets. It might also be possible to look at the ERJ 170/190 family for a couple of the others. However, this would all be based on local demand on the routes with limited, if any, connecting traffic opportunity.

I'm not really sure what people expect. The market is what it is. It isn't the smallest, but it isn't the largest. It is a good and healthy mid-sized market.

The market is not the size of the metro-but the surrounding rural/smaller cities as well. OKC is about 1/3 of state population, but besides that, covers very little else. Family in southern OK (Davis area) would always go to DFW first - more options/cheaper. Not to mention Tulsa, and Witchita. As these other cities have different options, so they are viable alternatives instead of going to OKC - evern Amarillo for western OK. The 'hinterland' is very small for OKC - Tulsa serves an area just as large because population density is greater in the eastern part of the state. Though the growth of the airport in NW Arkansas has decreased this.

As to the FAA. I use to fly with the ANG C-130's out of OKC. Some of the pilots came from around the country. We had one who communted from Boston, as an example. Most were also airline pilots. To a man, they were under the opinion that the FAA presence was the issue - beginning and end, nothing else was (besides being a major destination) as important. Technically, I don't think it really matters ... but perception is what these pilots dealt with (I guess heard from their airlines). Perhaps that is changing ... it has been at least 10 years, but they were pretty convinced.

Direct flights ... for buisness there has to be at least 2 a day. Since 911 this has not been as much a issue as it takes to long to process at the terminals. But in the past, flying out in the morning and back late at night was not uncommon for buisness. With the increase in processing time, I will drive if it is under 600 miles (and I currently live in the Atlanta area).

No offense to pilots but they really do not know what they are talking about. I get asked by pilots once or twice a week how horrible it is to work at OKC because how close the FAA is.

My answer is the same: we very rarely get audited or observed by the FAA, and when they do it's a typical pencil whipping like everything else is in this industry.

The market is not the size of the metro-but the surrounding rural/smaller cities as well.

This is what we in the industry call catchment area and we've discussed many times over in the commercial aviation thread.


OKC is about 1/3 of state population, but besides that, covers very little else. Family in southern OK (Davis area) would always go to DFW first - more options/cheaper. Not to mention Tulsa, and Witchita. As these other cities have different options, so they are viable alternatives instead of going to OKC - evern Amarillo for western OK. The 'hinterland' is very small for OKC - Tulsa serves an area just as large because population density is greater in the eastern part of the state. Though the growth of the airport in NW Arkansas has decreased this.

Every airport is going to have a restricted geographic area they can serve. The OKC catchment area is not terrible by any means, so I really don't know what is being argued here. The market is being served to the extent airlines are comfortable with right now. Loads aren't completely full and growth is flat. I don't know what more, people expect. As far as different options...that is debatable.

Excluding DFW, because lets be real - you can't compare second tier markets with major connecting hubs that have artificially inflated levels of service due to the connecting traffic. If someone in the OKC area is going to gripe because they can fly nonstop from Dallas to Des Moines but not from OKC, they are a moron. So looking at the others:

Wichita
Allegiant - LAS, IWA, and LAX.
American/American Eagle - DFW, ORD
Delta - ATL and MSP.
Southwest - MDW, DAL, LAS.
United - DEN, IAH, LAX, ORD.

So there, there is individual different service offered by G4 to markets west but you can still get to them nonstop from OKC. The other airlines all offer the same markets from OKC (plus some) so there is no real advantage destination wise. It'll come down to drive time and ticket value.

Amarillo
American Eagle - DFW
Southwest - DAL, DEN, LAS
United - DEN, IAH

No advantage over OKC unless they are closer and the fares are cheaper.

Tulsa
Allegiant - SFB
American - ORD, DAL, MIA
Delta - ATL, DTW, MSP, SLC
Southwest - MDW, DAL, DEN, HOU, LAS, PHX, STL
United - DEN, IAH, ORD, EWR, IAD

Tulsa has only one market not served from OKC and that's MIA which is seasonal.

The main point I'm showing with all of this, the core OKC catchment area is going to have more advantage over competing regional airports based on service hands down. The statement that they have "different options" is probably grossly exaggerated due to lack of knowledge of what's available here. With that, drive distance and fare will also play into a decision. Do I expect people north of Ponca City to go to OKC over ICT? Not really. I think its going to be a pretty even trade off. Just like I don't expect people near the Arkansas boarder to go to TUL over XNA which has a very respectable level of service (thanks Walmart).


Direct flights ... for buisness there has to be at least 2 a day. Since 911 this has not been as much a issue as it takes to long to process at the terminals. But in the past, flying out in the morning and back late at night was not uncommon for buisness. With the increase in processing time, I will drive if it is under 600 miles (and I currently live in the Atlanta area).

Processing times depend on the airport. I won't drive if I can fly to a destination. OKC's security line is never a major issue for me, not saying it never backs up. I can't imagine deciding to drive if it is under 600 miles. That's essentially saying "if I have to go to Detroit from Atlanta, I'll drive instead of taking a flight." I just can't think of any rational reason for that even with delays associated with a large hub. If you are traveling on a budget that is one thing, but for time reasons - you are wasting a day just driving one way.

Processing times depend on the airport. I won't drive if I can fly to a destination. OKC's security line is never a major issue for me, not saying it never backs up. I can't imagine deciding to drive if it is under 600 miles. That's essentially saying "if I have to go to Detroit from Atlanta, I'll drive instead of taking a flight." I just can't think of any rational reason for that even with delays associated with a large hub. If you are traveling on a budget that is one thing, but for time reasons - you are wasting a day just driving one way.[/QUOTE]

Company pays for flights if I want, they also pay for my car payments and gas. Working from home, lot of time on the phone - really hard to have conference calls on plane. Airports expect you to be at check-in 1 hour prior, instead I schedule my day the way I want it. And I don't have to pay for car when I get to destination. Save my budget for more travel, and can make several site stops on the way in my district if I feel like it. Win, win, win. Depends on what you do with your time. Population density in the east makes this a much easier choice. Doing it for years, took me a while to realize, when I did life got a lot easier.

... - really hard to have conference calls on plane. ...

I hope this does not imply you are on conference calls while driving

I hope this does not imply you are on conference calls while driving

Serious ... you can't drive and talk?

Serious ... you can't drive and talk?

Most studies show people tend not to be great at doing both at the same time