Allegiant contact me back today. The seasonal suspension for OKC-SFB will start August 10th and end in late October. It will be reflected in the next schedule update later this Spring.

That's disappointing. The wife and I are taking that in early May and were trying to plan a return trip in early October. I guess we will have to look elsewhere for cheap flights then.

That's disappointing. The wife and I are taking that in early May and were trying to plan a return trip in early October. I guess we will have to look elsewhere for cheap flights then.

This is very typical of Allegiant though. Sept/Oct are the slowest months for air travel and gives them a good period when to get heavy maintenance and such out of the way.

This is very typical of Allegiant though. Sept/Oct are the slowest months for air travel and gives them a good period when to get heavy maintenance and such out of the way.

Good to know. I saw the Tulsa trip's last day is August 11 but they already have October 3rd available for booking and OKC does not.

Good to know. I saw the Tulsa trip's last day is August 11 but they already have October 3rd available for booking and OKC does not.

Yeah, I reached out to them to make sure it was coming back.

Not sure how G4's scheduling department works, but mine uses a base schedule, and then as maintenance schedules and capacity guidance reports come in, they will finish up the schedule.

For example, OKC-AAA may be scheduled with 4 flights a day. They know generally they will have the number of airplanes to do the route 4 times a day. They want 5, but for now they are guaranteed to have the airplanes to do 4, so they post the schedule with 4. Later on, maybe a couple of months, maintenance and regional partners report with how many airplanes they have available, and are planned to be available for that month. Scheduling can now get that 5th daily trip in, so they add it in to the schedule.

This might be the same thing at G4, right now they know they have enough airplanes at their disposal to put in the routes they have put in for the Oct/Nov schedule, but are waiting for guidance (on the number of airplanes that will be up and running and when they anticipate them to be available) and reports from other departments before they can officially commit in the schedule OKC flights, or other cities that haven't been reflected.

Is United/Continental still flying prop planes into OKC?

Yes Denver. They seem to come and go in the schedule.

Yes Denver. They seem to come and go in the schedule.

Didn't realize it was to Denver. I thought I saw one tonight and figured they were just using them to shuttle to Houston. Denver is too long of a flight to be in a prop when there are other options that include two jet engines.

Effective in the June schedule;

To IAH:

2 mainline (737-800), 2 E170's, 6 ERJs Monday Wednesday Thursday Friday
3 mainline (2 737-800 1 737-900), 2 E170's, 5 ERJs Tuesday
1 mainline (737-800), 2 E170's, 5 ERJs Saturday
1 mainline (A319), 1 E170, 1 CRJ7, 6 ERJs Sunday

Represents a good capacity gain and a huge improvement for passenger comfort and reliability. The E145s are getting old and maintenance intensive, and are just plain unprofitable and unreliable.

Didn't realize it was to Denver. I thought I saw one tonight and figured they were just using them to shuttle to Houston. Denver is too long of a flight to be in a prop when there are other options that include two jet engines.

DEN is about 100 miles longer than IAH, but yeah it does push it a bit. However you can't compare the Q400 to the props that were used more extensively until the RJ infatuation began and the airlines turned stupid and married themselves to them.

^Fuel-efficiency-wise it is a great plane on sectors around 400 miles or less. But that's pretty much where the good of the plane ends for me.

I was not impressed by the Dash 8-Q400. It is the one of the loudest turboprops I have experienced, I will not fly in it again. And that's coming from an aviation enthusiast. I flew in it to/from IAH back in 2011 (when Colgan had 2-3 daily). The takeoff was loud but that's acceptable, but once the props were throttled back there was a continuous loud drone for the entire cruise. In fact it did not die down until the plane was on short final. Pretty hard on the ears on a 1hr + flight. The entire cabin was vibrating the whole time too (in that you could actually see the bins moving in rapid motion back and forth - I've never seen that before or since in any other plane). I have also flown in the ATR 72-500. I'll take it any day over the "Q"400; much quieter, it sounds and feels more like a jet than a turboprop and there is no in-flight drone. It also feels roomier than the Q400 and I'm not that tall. I'll even take a Brasilia given the choice.

^Fuel-efficiency-wise it is a great plane on sectors around 400 miles or less. But that's pretty much where the good of the plane ends for me.

I was not impressed by the Dash 8-Q400. It is the one of the loudest turboprops I have experienced, I will not fly in it again. And that's coming from an aviation enthusiast. I flew in it to/from IAH back in 2011 (when Colgan had 2-3 daily). The takeoff was loud but that's acceptable, but once the props were throttled back there was a continuous loud drone for the entire cruise. In fact it did not die down until the plane was on short final. Pretty hard on the ears on a 1hr + flight. The entire cabin was vibrating the whole time too (in that you could actually see the bins moving in rapid motion back and forth - I've never seen that before or since in any other plane). I have also flown in the ATR 72-500. I'll take it any day over the "Q"400; much quieter, it sounds and feels more like a jet than a turboprop and there is no in-flight drone. It also feels roomier than the Q400 and I'm not that tall. I'll even take a Brasilia given the choice.

I wonder if the sound dampeners were broke? To take an EM2 over a Q400 because of noise isn't a good thing. LOL

I'm holding out hope we'll see the new AA place a large order for the 600 series of the ATR-42 and -72.

Exciting to see all the E170 service to IAH. One of the most comfortable a/c you can fly.

In June one of those 170's routes ORD-OKC(Ron overnight)-IAH

So it is slowly entering our network from multiple places, will increase as we get more of them delivered.

I am looking forward to eventually getting the E75 to ORD on AA.

I wonder if the sound dampeners were broke? To take an EM2 over a Q400 because of noise isn't a good thing. LOL

I'm holding out hope we'll see the new AA place a large order for the 600 series of the ATR-42 and -72.

Maybe, I'm not sure what it was. The return flight was just as bad. I should clarify that in the Brasilia I was in the very last row, but the noise/vibration levels were still acceptable than in the Q400 (and I was sitting in the second-last row in that one, and it was still pretty bad). Then again my Brasilia flights were only to/from DFW.

One thing that did make the return Colgan Air flight from IAH fun was that strong winds were back in town that day and the Q400 was getting bounced around pretty good (from the south sustained 25 mph gusting to 35 mph). It really got jolted around as we turned left on base for a Runway 17L approach, then smoothed out as we turned onto final and the flaps/gear were deployed. Which is another cool thing about the Q400 - you see the gear in action.

An order for the ATR 42/72-600 variant for "Envoy" - Eagle's new name - would be pretty cool, but I guess the props will be only at Miami International and San Juan Int'l for now.

An order for the ATR 42/72-600 variant for "Envoy" - Eagle's new name - would be pretty cool, but I guess the props will be only at Miami International and San Juan Int'l for now.

Now if AA orders the newer ATRs, I don't think it is for Envoy at all - which is why I avoided saying them. :) I would expect them to go to Piedmont to replace the Dash 8s initially - since that is the only carrier with props operating for either American Eagle or US Airways Express brands. There haven't been any in MIA or SJU for awhile now, especially SJU since that hub/focus city is gone.

Another month, flat still.

http://www.flyokc.com/statistics/February%202014%20Enplanement.pdf

Now if AA orders the newer ATRs, I don't think it is for Envoy at all - which is why I avoided saying them. :) I would expect them to go to Piedmont to replace the Dash 8s initially - since that is the only carrier with props operating for either American Eagle or US Airways Express brands. There haven't been any in MIA or SJU for awhile now, especially SJU since that hub/focus city is gone.

Hmm, I thought AA kept the ATR bases at SJU and MIA. Guess I was unaware about both of them gone. I knew about AA mainline getting de-hubbed at SJU but I figured the ATRs would be kept for island-hopper feeding whatever's was left of the SJU mainline. But yeah I guess the Dash 8's of Piedmont would be good candidates for the new ATR's. I said Envoy because the DFW hub is a great fit for both the 42 and the 72, especially fuel-cost wise and all the intra-Texas and Texas border-state traffic. I guess public perception is the biggest hurdle to getting props back here though.

Speaking of DFW, heard about the new 10-gate "stinger" being built on the north side of Terminal B? I think they redesigned it to accomodate the larger RJs.

Hmm, I thought AA kept the ATR bases at SJU and MIA. Guess I was unaware about both of them gone. I knew about AA mainline getting de-hubbed at SJU but I figured the ATRs would be kept for island-hopper feeding whatever's was left of the SJU mainline. But yeah I guess the Dash 8's of Piedmont would be good candidates for the new ATR's. I said Envoy because the DFW hub is a great fit for both the 42 and the 72, especially fuel-cost wise and all the intra-Texas and Texas border-state traffic. I guess public perception is the biggest hurdle to getting props back here though.

Speaking of DFW, heard about the new 10-gate "stinger" being built on the north side of Terminal B? I think they redesigned it to accomodate the larger RJs.

Yeah the props has been gone for awhile now. I agree that DFW would be a great hub for a new deployment of ATRs. I think the one thing that could help get props back into wider usage is push the cost savings to the ticket prices. Also there has to be some openness to them otherwise Horizon wouldn't be as large as they are.

DFW has a lot of growth coming. American is getting the new Eagle extension as you mentioned and they are also going to build another terminal - from what I'm told. Also expect AA to make big waves in Chicago soon as word of a new terminal is starting to come around.

^Yeah, Terminal F is proposed. There haven't even been any bids for it however, so it's still a ways away from getting constructed. If DFW's traffic continues growing at the rate it currently is at though it may be needed in the next years or so. I think it will likely come up directly across Terminal E where that parking lot is right now. I did read about how the south side gates of D are getting full at times with all of the Eagle ERJs to/from Mexico mixing in with the heavies, so now the airport is considering using the hardstands directly across from the gates and using buses for any flight that does not have a gate open.

O'Hare did have that west terminal complex proposed but there's no word on when it will be constructed, or if it's been postponed for now. I think it has its hands full with the runway re-alignment and airfield re-construction project in the short-term.

I would imagine a terminal F would go right across from E, where the old GA terminal was. Maybe the reason why they moved the GA terminal?

Terminal F will likely come up directly across from Terminal E, where there is a big parking lot right now.

The parking lot has been there for quite a while now, not sure if there was a GA terminal there before. I think all GA operations are handled north of Terminal A on the east side of the field, where the (now closed) Eagle satellite is, if memory serves.

I did read about how the south side gates of D are getting full at times with all of the Eagle ERJs to/from Mexico mixing in with the heavies, so now the airport is considering using the hardstands directly across from the gates and using buses for any flight that does not have a gate open.
.

Didn't they also build a secure walkway from B to D that would allow a few of the B gates to receive international passengers? This would free up some of the B gates that were taken up with RJs and allow more room for heavies.

Terminal F will likely come up directly across from Terminal E, where there is a big parking lot right now.

The parking lot has been there for quite a while now, not sure if there was a GA terminal there before. I think all GA operations are handled north of Terminal A on the east side of the field, where the (now closed) Eagle satellite is, if memory serves.

It was the GA terminal back in 2008 because I flew out of it, not sure when the new GA opened.

Didn't they also build a secure walkway from B to D that would allow a few of the B gates to receive international passengers? This would free up some of the B gates that were taken up with RJs and allow more room for heavies.

Terminal B already has a "stinger" on the south side, but I don't think it connects securely to the customs/immigration area in D. I think that's why all the international Eagle flights park on the south side of D.


It was the GA terminal back in 2008 because I flew out of it, not sure when the new GA opened.

I found out DFW opened the new GA facility (http://www.dfwairport.com/cs/groups/public/documents/webasset/p1_035631.pdf) in 2010 to accomodate Superbowl XLV. The old Eagle satellite (http://www.dfwairport.com/cs/groups/public/documents/webasset/p1_035622.pdf) was converted into a GA terminal.

Yeah the props has been gone for awhile now. I agree that DFW would be a great hub for a new deployment of ATRs. I think the one thing that could help get props back into wider usage is push the cost savings to the ticket prices. Also there has to be some openness to them otherwise Horizon wouldn't be as large as they are.

DFW has a lot of growth coming. American is getting the new Eagle extension as you mentioned and they are also going to build another terminal - from what I'm told. Also expect AA to make big waves in Chicago soon as word of a new terminal is starting to come around.

Not sure how I'd feel about props at DFW - don't get me wrong - I have nothing at all against props just because they're props - but there have been enough safety/reliability issues with props in cold climates that make me question how viable a large prop operation at DFW would be. Last thing I would want is my OKC-DFW flight in winter to cancel due to weather, when a simple ERJ/EMB/S80 would've done the trick. I know SAS/others operate the Q400 in Scandinavia safely - and we've come a long way safety-wise in the last decade, but still...

Not sure how I'd feel about props at DFW - don't get me wrong - I have nothing at all against props just because they're props - but there have been enough safety/reliability issues with props in cold climates that make me question how viable a large prop operation at DFW would be. Last thing I would want is my OKC-DFW flight in winter to cancel due to weather, when a simple ERJ/EMB/S80 would've done the trick. I know SAS/others operate the Q400 in Scandinavia safely - and we've come a long way safety-wise in the last decade, but still...

Most of the crashes I can think of in recent years on planes that had a propellers were not from an issue with the propellers.

Not sure how I'd feel about props at DFW - don't get me wrong - I have nothing at all against props just because they're props - but there have been enough safety/reliability issues with props in cold climates that make me question how viable a large prop operation at DFW would be. Last thing I would want is my OKC-DFW flight in winter to cancel due to weather, when a simple ERJ/EMB/S80 would've done the trick. I know SAS/others operate the Q400 in Scandinavia safely - and we've come a long way safety-wise in the last decade, but still...

There is next to no issue with props in colder climates. Horizon has Q400s every out west. Air Canada's feeder uses them up north. I don't see why the prop would be isolated for cancellation compared to any other aircraft. They are going to cancel just about anything now regardless of what it is to avoid issues with ramp delay fines and FAR 117.

The last major accident in the US that involved a prop was a Q400 in Buffalo during freezing rain. The issue though was crew error and not failure of the aircraft. I understand what you are saying though and this is representative of the perceptions that need to be changed. There aren't problems like what there were with early ATRs and icing.

Delta is moving Seattle to Hub status: Delta takes on Alaska in Seattle - Travel Weekly (http://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-News/Delta-takes-on-Alaska-Air-in-Seattle/)

Do you think that OKC would then rate a direct (even once-a-day) flight to Seattle via Delta? I have co-workers that take frequent trips to Fairbanks on Delta and always go through Salt Lake...

What traffic currently goes from OKC to Seattle anyway?

Delta is moving Seattle to Hub status: Delta takes on Alaska in Seattle - Travel Weekly (http://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-News/Delta-takes-on-Alaska-Air-in-Seattle/)

Do you think that OKC would then rate a direct (even once-a-day) flight to Seattle via Delta? I have co-workers that take frequent trips to Fairbanks on Delta and always go through Salt Lake...

What traffic currently goes from OKC to Seattle anyway?

It's possible. Alaska started flying non-stop Seattle-Omaha last November, which is a comparable airport to OKC.

But then again they don't really like OKC or Oklahoma up in that region. ;)

Delta is moving Seattle to Hub status: Delta takes on Alaska in Seattle - Travel Weekly (http://www.travelweekly.com/Travel-News/Airline-News/Delta-takes-on-Alaska-Air-in-Seattle/)

Do you think that OKC would then rate a direct (even once-a-day) flight to Seattle via Delta? I have co-workers that take frequent trips to Fairbanks on Delta and always go through Salt Lake...

What traffic currently goes from OKC to Seattle anyway?

The DL build up in SEA has been pretty interesting. They first wanted to do a code-share to feed the new international flights but something happened and they dumped in a ton of their own flights and removed the code-share on some cities. AS has since responded by opening up several new markets out of SLC. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out because AS is the hometown airline up there and people are loyal.

OKC-SEA traffic is around 170 pax per day with an average fare around $251.

Always thought SEA-OKC would've made complete sense for AS considering their maintenance needs being completed here. Something along the lines of what AA does with its 752's between TUL and DFW. Surprising to me that nothing has materialized as of yet.

Always thought SEA-OKC would've made complete sense for AS considering their maintenance needs being completed here. Something along the lines of what AA does with its 752's between TUL and DFW. Surprising to me that nothing has materialized as of yet.

I wonder if the proximity to DFW hurts us in not having AS. AS and AA are still cozy (unlike AS/DL), so AS probably feels like most OKC pax headed to the PNW are connecting on AA/DL/UA/F9 anyway, and the secondary markets AS serves (like GEG) probably don't have the traffic to justify SEA service. Too bad - it would be a great catch for OKC. Still makes me scratch my head how places like OMA/DSM/LIT get routes that OKC doesn't.

OKC-SEA traffic is around 170 pax per day with an average fare around $251.

If I understand my airline math correctly, that's 170 round trip, so 85 one way per day? That's essentially two regional jets per day, except that Delta is going to 75 passenger plus planes, so they'd maybe do one flight a day if the did OKC-SEA?

DL recognizing SEA as a hub airport. Interesting. Is this DL trying to convince Alaska Airlines that they should merge? Somewhere in the small print I bet it does :(

If I understand my airline math correctly, that's 170 round trip, so 85 one way per day? That's essentially two regional jets per day, except that Delta is going to 75 passenger plus planes, so they'd maybe do one flight a day if the did OKC-SEA?

You got it. I would think a 70+ seater RJ would do well on it, if not just a 737 for positioning. At some point I need to start taking some pics at the airport again. There was an AS 737 at AAR yesterday. One of the few airlines that still have a cheatline livery.


DL recognizing SEA as a hub airport. Interesting. Is this DL trying to convince Alaska Airlines that they should merge? Somewhere in the small print I bet it does :(

I really hope not. Any more mergers just need to be blocked at this point.

I think the main reason Delta started building the SEA hub was for international traffic to Asia. SEA-NRT/HKG/ICN/etc is about 700 miles shorter than from LAX and the fuel necessary to fly that last 700 miles makes the entire trip significantly more costly. Much more efficient to fly transpacs from SEA than LAX for connecting traffic. I think Delta determined it was cheaper to get the international hub built by using AS's existing feeder network. Once they got a number of international flights up and going, they have been slowly adding non stops to key markets and voila, no more need for AS. I don't fly Delta but they are extremely business savvy and know how to build and run an airline.

SEA is not a DL hub yet - it's a focus airport for the airline, although it has become a decent international station for DL (Amsterdam, Paris, Tokyo, Beijing, Shanghai; Seoul, Hong Kong and London are being added this year). The CFO has stated there are plans of a hub at Sea-Tac.

It's in their 2014 mission statement in all Delta break rooms. Specifically it says "Strengthen our Seattle hub and continue to invest in the Seattle area."

The last major accident in the US that involved a prop was a Q400 in Buffalo during freezing rain. The issue though was crew error and not failure of the aircraft. I understand what you are saying though and this is representative of the perceptions that need to be changed. There aren't problems like what there were with early ATRs and icing.

Oh yeah that Colgan Air crash - yeesh. And I'll be the first to admit what I said is completely perception based, and not off facts. I love props though, they just "seem" safer in warmer weather. Honestly I would be totally down with prop ops here. Whatever helps keep fares down!

It's in their 2014 mission statement in all Delta break rooms. Specifically it says "Strengthen our Seattle hub and continue to invest in the Seattle area."

Ahh, thanks for the information. Seems like DL hasn't updated its corporate information (http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=18&cat=47) page:

"Including its worldwide alliance partners, Delta offers customers more than 15,000 daily flights, with hubs in, Amsterdam, Atlanta, Cincinnati, Detroit, Minneapolis-St. Paul, New York-LaGuardia, New York-JFK, Paris-Charles de Gaulle, Salt Lake City and Tokyo-Narita."

As for the whole turboprops/icing deal, yes, they used to be a bit more susceptible to icing which is why an ATR accident occurred in Illinois back in 1994; ATR has since re-designed the de-ice boots that span the leading edge of the wings. Both the ATR and the Q400 regularly fly in cold climates. Further pilots of turboprops are given enhanced training to counter the effects of icing.

Next time I am in the Delta breakroom I will recommend they scratch that goal then. I'm sure corporate didn't mean it, since their website doesn't reflect it yet. :rolleyes:

^I'm just saying since I am not a DL employee the only info I have access to is what DL posts on its website; obviously the mission statement reflects it. But I did appreciate the update you gave.

For the record I'm not a Delta employee either.

^I'm just saying since I am not a DL employee the only info I have access to is what DL posts on its website; obviously the mission statement reflects it. But I did appreciate the update you gave.

The reason I posted is because their CFO publicly stated that they were making it a hub... websites often have old info, unfortunately.

^That's cool, no worries :). I wonder though what customers in the Pac NW think about this, Alaska Airlines is pretty big up there with a good customer base.

^That's cool, no worries :). I wonder though what customers in the Pac NW think about this, Alaska Airlines is pretty big up there with a good customer base.

Alaska's been strategically beefing up relationships with int'l partners (such as KE), and also has launched routes out of SLC. They're not gonna go down without a fight. I expect AS and AA to become cozier as well. Lots of chatter on a.net about this the last several weeks. AS and DL fans are out in full force!

Most of the Southwest DCA schedules got loaded today, and no good news for OKC in it. After all is said and done it will be the following cities with noted daily flights:

Atlanta - 6 daily
Canton/Akron - 2 daily
Chicago - 9 daily
Dallas 4 daily
Milwaukee - 4 daily
Houston - 4 daily
Indianapolis- 2 daily
Kansas City- 1 daily
St. Louis - 3 daily
Austin - 1 daily
New Orleans - 2 daily
Fort Myers - 1 daily
Nashville - 3 daily
Tampa - 2 daily

The DAL and HOU numbers are still guesses right now and CAK and IND are the rumored final cities to get service.

http://m.newsok.com/no-hub-no-problem-for-will-rogers-world-airport/article/3946311


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What a **** mentality by airport leaders.

Jennifer Palmer must have gotten lazy putting this together. So many errors.


Ultra-low cost airlines Spirit Airlines and JetBlue Airways operate in Dallas, but not Oklahoma City. Budget carrier Southwest does serve passengers here, but has been heavily focusing on its Dallas Love Field hub, adding flights to Mexico and the Bahamas.

JetBlue is not an ULCC, never has been. They are an LCC and yes...it is a HUGE difference from the product offered by NK. Southwest a budget carrier? Maybe 20 years ago. :) Focusing on Love Field? Sure...and DCA, LGA, and the AirTran integration. However Mexico and Caribbean flights will never happen from Love Field as the article seems to hint at. The Wright Amendment settlement restricts anyone from flying int'l from Love.


Cynthia Reid, vice president of marketing and communications for the Greater Oklahoma City Chamber, said it will take Cleveland a long time to recover and to redevelop its air service.
“With a hub strategy, you’re putting all your eggs in one basket,” Reid said. “We are not a hub market, so what we have to do is make sure we do everything we can to try and expand our air service on multiple levels.”

Except Delta and Frontier have already announced pretty substantial build ups to cover a good part of what was lost. CLE will be fine. Most of all the top O&D markets get to retain nonstop service - on United - and the smaller ones that had little local traffic will go away.


Hubs are determined by individual airlines, though the Federal Aviation Administration also defines them based on annual passenger boardings. Large hubs are defined by the FAA as having 1 percent or more of the nation’s yearly passengers.

When an airline makes an airport a hub, that airline become the dominant carrier at that airport. And it will often fight to stay dominant if another carrier threatens its status.

This was like a half hearted attempt to define "hub" per the FAA and then she just gave up. FAA has definitions for Large Hub, Medium Hub, Small Hub, and Non-Hub. OKC is a Small Hub. She also is confusing the airline specific definition of "hub" in with the FAA one...those two paragraphs - sentences - should have just been left out if she is going to half arse it.


Kranenburg said the airport fared well through the fuel crisis and economic downturn in 2008.
“We’ve bounced back each time. ... We’re as flush as we’ve ever been in regard to passengers,” he said. The airport logged 1.83 million outbound passengers in 2013.

Yet growth is flat for a few years now.


Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport in Washington, D.C., for example, has been on the city’s wish list for years. In 2012 and again in 2013, Oklahoma City was passed over for a proposed route to fill an opening at the busy East Coast airport. But airport officials remain determined to secure that connection eventually.

Southwest got a bunch of new slots, did they even both lobbying to get one of the flights? Probably not.


And though direct flights to Mexico may be on many travelers’ wish lists, pursuing international travel isn’t a high priority for the airport, though it was once offered through a Northwest Airlines subsidiary.

Lacking a customs facility, Will Rogers World Airport can’t accept return travelers from international locales. So if an airline wanted to offer a direct connection to Mexico, it would have to stop in Dallas or Houston on the return trip. The cost, and passenger inconvenience, is not something airlines have been willing to undertake post-9/11, Kranenburg said.

They are speaking of Champion, which connecting it to NW really doesn't mean anything for the context of the story. Why isn't near international a high priority? Considering the size of the oil and gas industry in Calgary, Air Canada should be a pretty big target to get a daily nonstop up there. Oh and hey...they have pre-clearance - no local customs required.

Kranenburg just comes across as...

http://animatedviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/05/droopy-02.JPG

Our airport management is inept. They really have no vision...they are running on auto-pilot.

I'm not saying I'm expecting a hub. But we need to be more proactive in talking with airlines.

Seattle and Boston are absolute probabilities within 10 years. Seattle more-so.

That article is a great representation of The Oklahoman's reporting and our airport management.

50 minute flight to DFW? Huh? I've never had it take more than 35.

Can't read the article as I'm not a subscriber but I'm not surprised at all the factual errors as quoted above. Typical for the jokelahoman.

I have to ask though - why all the hate for our airport management? I'm not sure it's entirely their fault OKC still lacks connections to DCA, SEA, LGA, etc. Don't you guys think that if a market for those routes existed, they would've been started by now? The airlines aren't completely dumb. Okay somewhat dumb, but they're all making profits again - so if they think OKC-xxx will make a profit, they would probably start it - right?

They are probably just using the "published" flight time for OKC-DFW. I've been on that flight where it's scheduled to be 52 minutes but when you get on the plane the pilot announces a flight time of about what you mentioned.

I believe the 50 min flight time listed for DFW is to account for the standard 15 min taxi time factored into all flights. Many times it doesn't take that long to taxi and depending on which approach you have can add/subtract mins.

Can't read the article as I'm not a subscriber but I'm not surprised at all the factual errors as quoted above. Typical for the jokelahoman.

If you use the mobile link provided above, it takes me to the full story without going through the NewsOK paywall for the DOK.


I have to ask though - why all the hate for our airport management? I'm not sure it's entirely their fault OKC still lacks connections to DCA, SEA, LGA, etc. Don't you guys think that if a market for those routes existed, they would've been started by now? The airlines aren't completely dumb. Okay somewhat dumb, but they're all making profits again - so if they think OKC-xxx will make a profit, they would probably start it - right?

There are definitely several factors that play in, but (corporate/business) politics is a big one. There has been little indication of the airport pushing to attract new service outside of a marketing agreement to cement G4 service. Is it completely their fault? No, but they are big part of it. In the environment now the airports that get the new service are either the big business markets with an established history or those with very aggressive air development people.

Washington DC is the 4th largest market from OKC - 362 pax per day.
Seattle is 12th...larger than ATL, STL, MSP, and DTW...which we all have nonstop service too. Keep in mind...all have airline hubs, including SEA (AS).
New York is the 8th largest and some how only has one 50-seater a day?

Alaska has been in a big push to expand, and not just against DL. The seem like the most logical addition to OKC in the near term. As far as would they start it on their own? Maybe. However, one of the most aggressive airports in the nation for new development - Akron/Canton - is rumored to be on tap to land 2 daily Southwest flights to DCA. That is a huge score and underlines how an aggressive team can make a difference.

The tone of the quotes in the article are enough for me. They sound bearish about the OKC market. It's hard to successfully pitch a product you don't believe in.

My co-workers, on average, fly to DCA once a month... they'd love a direct flight, even if it means not taking their beloved Delta (I think. :))