Sure no one ever wants to pay more for anything, but I think $7 per day for garage parking at the terminal is a steal and the airport itself is missing out on lost revenue by not increasing the prices. I came from DFW where it was $17 per day for garage parking, and $7 for remote parking.

Every time we fly, we use the garage, if there are even spaces available. I venture to say a $2 increase would bring in more money and people wouldn't even bat an eye.

So the increase would be just to make money money when there is no other real need? No thanks.

So the increase would be just to make money money when there is no other real need? No thanks.

I guess if I was running the parking out there and saw this, I'd see it as a way to make more money. That's the way I was looking at it. It was more of a "I'm surprised that they haven't upped the price..." post, because many times we fly the lot is full, which leads me to believe the price is too cheap.

The airport receives the revenue. They contract out the ticketing and cashier roles to AMPCO. I think AMPCO is also responsible for cleaning, but not for certain.

The only way parking prices will go up would be to fund a capital expense (renovation, expansion, etc)

And if they do that for the next round of expansion I'm for it.

Also, I apologize for posting this again, I had forgotten I posted it in the other airport thread.

The airport claims they don't have enough room in the garages for the rental cars and will be tacking on all types of surcharges for a new remote facility.

So, it's the classic taxation without representation situation, whereby the people who rent cars (like me and other visitors) get hit for something because we don't live locally, while the locals get the benefit of extremely cheap long-term parking fees.

I published it earlier, but OKC already charges more add-ons for it's rental cars than most big airports and that is only going higher. And soon, we'll all have to board a shuttle bus rather than just strolling across the street, again, to aid local parkers.

I'm actually quite surprised the airport didn't take the garage closest to the terminal and turn that into the rental car facility. Then they could have taken the second garage and made it larger and used it for parking and shuttled the locals back and forth. Anyway, the garages are a cluster anyway so just add this to the list.

The airport claims they don't have enough room in the garages for the rental cars and will be tacking on all types of surcharges for a new remote facility.

So, it's the classic taxation without representation situation, whereby the people who rent cars (like me and other visitors) get hit for something because we don't live locally, while the locals get the benefit of extremely cheap long-term parking fees.

I published it earlier, but OKC already charges more add-ons for it's rental cars than most big airports and that is only going higher. And soon, we'll all have to board a shuttle bus rather than just strolling across the street, again, to aid local parkers.


The remote facility is the trend nationwide it seems now. If there aren't surcharges on your bill for that, there are surcharges to pay for stadiums and other public funded improvements (this is what I pay for when I go back home to Houston).

I understand your frustration, but I think the airports do right by making the rental car facility remote, and having close access covered parking for their own home residences.

So, it's the classic taxation without representation situation, whereby the people who rent cars (like me and other visitors) get hit for something because we don't live locally, while the locals get the benefit of extremely cheap long-term parking fees.

I see NOTHING wrong with charging out of towners more to subsidize a benefit for locals. It happens in EVERY CITY in the USA and probably the world. It is the way it is.

I wouldn't have a problem with an increase in parking fees - if they would take the additional revenue and apply it to towards providing rail service to the remote rental car facility.

I see NOTHING wrong with charging out of towners more to subsidize a benefit for locals. It happens in EVERY CITY in the USA and probably the world. It is the way it is.

The issue is that OKC already charges more than most places and it's going up again.

Just did a quick search and for a rental car reservation I have in OKC for August, taxes and fees are an additional 46% (!!) percent.

Comparison: Los Angeles 28%, Denver 33%.


So, OKC will soon be adding more than 50% in taxes and fees. Completely outrageous.

The airport claims they don't have enough room in the garages for the rental cars and will be tacking on all types of surcharges for a new remote facility.

So, it's the classic taxation without representation situation, whereby the people who rent cars (like me and other visitors) get hit for something because we don't live locally, while the locals get the benefit of extremely cheap long-term parking fees.

I published it earlier, but OKC already charges more add-ons for it's rental cars than most big airports and that is only going higher. And soon, we'll all have to board a shuttle bus rather than just strolling across the street, again, to aid local parkers.Do you think it's a possibility that we'll get a sky-link(or something similar) for our airport if they expand the terminal and build a new parking garage off site? Could this be integrated with a future light-rail possibly?

Absolutely no way the rental car facility will ever be served by anything other than buses.

Do you think it's a possibility that we'll get a sky-link(or something similar) for our airport if they expand the terminal and build a new parking garage off site? Could this be integrated with a future light-rail possibly?

What would be the point? You are talking a system that cost DFW over $30,000 per FOOT...or $800 million total. Granted OKC's cost would be well under that, but still it won't be cheap. The more likely option would just be continued expansion of the underground tunnel.

However, IMO...I would like to see a true intermodal facility established moving Amtrak and light rain to the airport, but everyone is going to want it downtown in a cramped old shack. :-P

Absolutely no way the rental car facility will ever be served by anything other than buses.

ever is a really long time ..

What would be the point? You are talking a system that cost DFW over $30,000 per FOOT...or $800 million total. Granted OKC's cost would be well under that, but still it won't be cheap. The more likely option would just be continued expansion of the underground tunnel.

However, IMO...I would like to see a true intermodal facility established moving Amtrak and light rain to the airport, but everyone is going to want it downtown in a cramped old shack. :-P

rail to the airport is a very real possibility in the future

ever is a really long time ..

How about "in our lifetimes"? I'd bet hard money on it.

The facility will be more than a mile and a half removed from the airport with nothing else around it. I can't envision any possibility where millions would be spent on rail along a desolate, low-traffic road.

The issue is that OKC already charges more than most places and it's going up again.

Just did a quick search and for a rental car reservation I have in OKC for August, taxes and fees are an additional 46% (!!) percent.

Comparison: Los Angeles 28%, Denver 33%.


So, OKC will soon be adding more than 50% in taxes and fees. Completely outrageous.

I know that the Hertz HLE location just a mile or two up Meridian does not have the airport tax charges.....now getting there would be a long walk dragging a bag....lol

I understand the logic of those taxes and while it is common practice in most cities.

Based on Pete's figures it would appear that OKC is a somewhat excessive with their fees. Not the type of reputation a city wants to have.
It has been proven that is possible to kill the golden goose.

It's 46% taxes & fees NOW without the add-ons for this facility.

And if parking is at such a premium, why not just add another multi-level garage to the north?? There is an absolute sea of surface parking and a structure would mean that those parking in the surface lot would actually have less of a walk.

Take the $35 million and put it into a huge parking structure and everybody wins.

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

What would be the point? You are talking a system that cost DFW over $30,000 per FOOT...or $800 million total. Granted OKC's cost would be well under that, but still it won't be cheap. The more likely option would just be continued expansion of the underground tunnel.

However, IMO...I would like to see a true intermodal facility established moving Amtrak and light rain to the airport, but everyone is going to want it downtown in a cramped old shack. :-PIt would make it easier to get around for tourists and would add an awesome amenity to the airport. I know it wouldn't be cheap, but nothing world class ever is.

It would make it easier to get around for tourists and would add an awesome amenity to the airport. I know it wouldn't be cheap, but nothing world class ever is.

It would be much more economical to build an additional parking structure and extend the tunnel.

While its great to have nice things, you need a way to pay for it. So you are looking at either extensive parking rate increases (which can force people away from on site parking) or raising fees for the airport itself. End of the day it might be nice, but it'll be an expensive frill that isn't needed.

It would be much more economical to build an additional parking structure and extend the tunnel.

While its great to have nice things, you need a way to pay for it. So you are looking at either extensive parking rate increases (which can force people away from on site parking) or raising fees for the airport itself. End of the day it might be nice, but it'll be an expensive frill that isn't needed.Wait a minute, I thought this new garage was going to be located way off site??? Is that not the case?

I agree we should try and live within our means, but if we can find a way to something nice, I say do it.

No garage is being built off site. The airport is building a rental car lot and pickup/drop off location a mile north of the airport terminal. (But still technically on site as it is part of the airport boundary. 54th and Meridian.

I don't see what the problem is in having buses serve the new rental car facility. Most anywhere I've flown that's the case (PHX, IAH, DFW, DEN even though it's not a consolidated facility).

Wait a minute, I thought this new garage was going to be located way off site??? Is that not the case?

I agree we should try and live within our means, but if we can find a way to something nice, I say do it.

What Catch said...no new garage, just a new surface lot by the Southwest Airlines offices on Meridian.

My comment was incorporating Pete's idea of a new larger garage that would just be connected by an extension to the tunnel.

I don't see what the problem is in having buses serve the new rental car facility. Most anywhere I've flown that's the case (PHX, IAH, DFW, DEN even though it's not a consolidated facility).I don't have any problem with it, it's fine. I just thought it'd be cooler if they built rail out to it, even though it probably won't ever happen. When I went to L.A., we took a bus from LAX, and that is a much bigger airport.

What Catch said...no new garage, just a new surface lot by the Southwest Airlines offices on Meridian.

My comment was incorporating Pete's idea of a new larger garage that would just be connected by an extension to the tunnel.Ohhhhh, okay then yeah. I see that does make more sense lol

No garage is being built off site. The airport is building a rental car lot and pickup/drop off location a mile north of the airport terminal. (But still technically on site as it is part of the airport boundary. 54th and Meridian.

This is the facility I was referring to when I made my original post.



I wouldn't have a problem with an increase in parking fees - if they would take the additional revenue and apply it to towards providing rail service to the remote rental car facility.

Agreed, there is nothing wrong with taking a bus to the remote rental car site, there is nothing wrong with wanting to jump rail service in the direction.

I don't see what the problem is in having buses serve the new rental car facility. Most anywhere I've flown that's the case (PHX, IAH, DFW, DEN even though it's not a consolidated facility).

I'm speaking only for myself, but I don't have a problem with buses serving a rental car facility. My problem lies with the never-ending addition of fees associated with a facility that OKC doesn't really need.

Pete's picture from earlier is a perfect example. OKC has tremendous amounts of land. Why couldn't they have torn down the existing garage and built a really nice one to serve locals and then a rental car facility just north of that on that center strip of land? Then you could just shuttle those that don't want to walk to the facility.

No garage is being built off site. The airport is building a rental car lot and pickup/drop off location a mile north of the airport terminal. (But still technically on site as it is part of the airport boundary. 54th and Meridian.Somehow I missed this post, I didn't know that. I thought there was a thread somewhere that said a new garage was being built for a rental car facility and some pointed out that this would give room to a possible future terminal expansion.

Here is Pete's original post on it: http://www.okctalk.com/general-civic-issues/20217-separate-rental-car-facility-proposed-will-rogers-airport.html

I'm not sure anything changed, but this is the location we are talking about...

http://www.weatherspotlight.com/screencap/jun13/airport.png

However, IMO...I would like to see a true intermodal facility established moving Amtrak and light rain to the airport, but everyone is going to want it downtown in a cramped old shack. :-P

So you want the airport to stay wet? Sorry, Venture. I just couldn't resist. LOL

The issue is that OKC already charges more than most places and it's going up again.

Just did a quick search and for a rental car reservation I have in OKC for August, taxes and fees are an additional 46% (!!) percent.

Comparison: Los Angeles 28%, Denver 33%.


So, OKC will soon be adding more than 50% in taxes and fees. Completely outrageous.

Pete, I did a similar comparison with the booking system I use on a daily basis. It gives me the basic rates for all car rental companies and then the estimated total including all taxes and fees. I used a pick up date of October 1st renting a midsize car for one week. To make it less complicated I used the same car rental company, Dollar.

In OKC the base rate was $219.49 and the estimated total was $314.97. In LAX the base rate was $232.06 and the estimated total was $297.66. In Denver the base rate was $267.75 and the estimated total was $367.56. Just for fun, I also looked at DFW, IAH, and AUS. The base rate at DFW was $261.58 and the estimated total was $395.01. At IAH the base rate was $214.38 and the estimated total was $328.77. At AUS the base rate was $398.07 and the estimated total was $592.33.

I will give you the savings at LAX but obviously OKC is not out of line from most airports.

Sure no one ever wants to pay more for anything, but I think $7 per day for garage parking at the terminal is a steal and the airport itself is missing out on lost revenue by not increasing the prices. I came from DFW where it was $17 per day for garage parking, and $7 for remote parking.

Every time we fly, we use the garage, if there are even spaces available. I venture to say a $2 increase would bring in more money and people wouldn't even bat an eye.
I think I pay $22 a day at DIA, it and other fees just went up recently at DIA to help pay Calatrava for his conceptual design of the hotel and train station for the South Terminal Redevelopment Project and to pay Gensler and AndersonMasonDale to finish the project. The new CONRAC QTA facility at Louisville that I have been working on is being paid for entirely from RAC fees, they avoid incurring debt for these projects but the future CONRAC garage will probably have to be financed by the LRAA when they decide to build it.

The off-site CONRAC at WRWA makes sense with some of the other long term projects the airport trust is considering for the parking area. I have no issue with taking a bus to the RAC facility, I guess I am just used to it.

I see NOTHING wrong with charging out of towners more to subsidize a benefit for locals. It happens in EVERY CITY in the USA and probably the world. It is the way it is.
So just because everyone else does it, that makes it right? if I was the Chamber, I would try to promote how we DON'T nickel and dime (or with inflation $5 & $10) you like other places. Especially with the economy still struggling and folks looking for a nice place to go without it breaking the budget.

So just because everyone else does it, that makes it right? if I was the Chamber, I would try to promote how we DON'T nickel and dime (or with inflation $5 & $10) you like other places. Especially with the economy still struggling and folks looking for a nice place to go without it breaking the budget.

Sounds like a nice idea, but the thought that vacationers might decide to come to OKC because the taxes on rental cars were lower than other cities is just silly. If you notice in my last post, the base price of cars in OKC is lower than a lot of other cities as well.

Picked up a colleague at the airport today, and both garages were marked full.

Every single rental car was also rented out today as well, from every company.

Every single rental car was also rented out today as well, from every company.

that has more to do with the storms though, i believe

PGAL: Will Rogers World Airport (OKC) Consolidated Rental Car Facility (ConRAC) (http://www.pgal.com/portfolio/will-rogers-world-airport-okc-consolidated-rental/)

It's true from what I know working at Avis at the airport that a lot of rentals are from in/out of state people using them to help in tornado relief or for people who lost their vehicles.

ljbab728; I respectfully disagree. For the budget conscious folks may make the decision as to the value for the dollar as to what they consider. And one can't look at base prices alone but what the total cost is going to be. A place might have a lower base price but when you add all of the taxes & fees, you are paying more. Doesn't just apply to Car Rentals, but hotels and everything else that goes along with a vacation expense (airfare, restaurants, attractions etc).

PGAL: Will Rogers World Airport (OKC) Consolidated Rental Car Facility (ConRAC) (http://www.pgal.com/portfolio/will-rogers-world-airport-okc-consolidated-rental/)

It's true from what I know working at Avis at the airport that a lot of rentals are from in/out of state people using them to help in tornado relief or for people who lost their vehicles.That's cool man! My father owns America Auto Rentals and Sales and I bring pizzas for guys at the rentals who refer us. Don't know if I've seen you though haha. . . I also know that this has happened during spring break this year, which was strange, I assume it might have been Thunder as well.

ljbab728; I respectfully disagree. For the budget conscious folks may make the decision as to the value for the dollar as to what they consider. And one can't look at base prices alone but what the total cost is going to be. A place might have a lower base price but when you add all of the taxes & fees, you are paying more. Doesn't just apply to Car Rentals, but hotels and everything else that goes along with a vacation expense (airfare, restaurants, attractions etc).
Larry, I also respectfully disagree. I deal with people planning vacations every day and I have never heard anyone make a decision on a destination based on the cost of a car rental which is what we are discussing here. In fact, the cost of a car is rarely even mentioned.

ljbab: it is all part of the equation

In the broad scheme of things aka the reality is that the cost features being discussed here are so low in comparision to the total cost of travel that it really is silly to think somebody is really going to cancel travel due to these rental costs. I travel frequently for business and pleasure and I have NEVER changed my plans due to the cost being discused here. Likewise I have NEVER heard anyone complain in my travels about rental car costs and or fees..

We obviously don't travel in the same circles, as it comes up often with the folks I talk to.

I would tend to agree with Mustang, but from a different side.

a - OKC is not a huge vacation destination. You're more likely to see people come here to meet family than fly in for Frontier City and White Water. With that being on the table, they're also just as likely to have someone pick them up at the airport than get a car.

b - Business travelers make up a HUGE massive majority of rental car users. So not only is the individual removed from caring about the price, but those same corporations (more often than not) have corporate rates with the rental companies anyway. Without public transportation, there isn't an alternative, so they'll still rent the car anyway.

c - Comparing the total at the end of the receipt, OKC is still cheaper than larger cities anyway. My trips to either coast and a lot of places in-between, have all shown that even with this increase, with various rental companies, OKC is still cheap. And compare parking at Will Rogers to other airports, and you can shut-up on the complaining about parking costs too. Go park at ORD for a few days some time and then come back and pay a week at Will Rogers.

Perspective makes a big difference, and those that have the opportunity to see a broad stretch of the U.S. in this way can tell you....it's not going to impact business didly squat.