Has there ever been any talk of turning Will Rogers World Airport into an international airport? I don't know if there's enough land around the airport for the required runways or not. But with Oklahoma City growing like it is, it would almost make sense for it to one day go international. Although, with Dallas so close, maybe not, because of connecting flights.

As a world airport, I'd say that pretty well covers anything international. :)

On a serious note, you've already mentioned connecting flights, which will be more than sufficient for the forseeable future. We're smack dab in the middle of a lot of connection points, and can get to darn near anywhere with one stop. Until people start busting down the doors to fill what flights we already have (demand), we'll have to suffice ourselves with being connected to the hubs.

Why is it called a world airport? I never understood that.

Because it sounds more cosmo than Municipal, Regional, etc.

But yes, I agree, OKC will not be getting international anytime soon. We have very good access to a lot of the hubs that offer international travel to serve what little int'l traffic we have.

Why is it called a world airport? I never understood that.

Three W's sound better than three maybe? When I worked at Southwest agents from other cities, like Phoenix, Los Angles, Kansas City etc, would tease us about the big britches sounding name.

I honestly just call it Will Rodgers Airport.

Why is it called a world airport? I never understood that.
You can get anywhere in the world from there. I flew out there going to Tokyo and Nassau.

There are some international flights out of DIA but in most cases I would still be connecting somewhere else before heading overseas.

I honestly just call it Will Rodgers Airport.

I usually just call it the airport.

As a world airport, I'd say that pretty well covers anything international. :)

We're smack dab in the middle of a lot of connection points, and can get to darn near anywhere with one stop.

We have Will Rogers World & Tulsa International Airports in Oklahoma; both airports fed into major hubs like Dallas and Kansas City; if OKCWRWA could secure 'hub & 'international' flight status it could service the cities in our area.

OKC Will Rogers World Airport does possess the potential to become a 'hub' airport; it's close enough to Tulsa International, Wichita Mid-Continent, Wichita Falls Municipal, Fort Smith Regional that it would be less of a hassle for those passengers to get flights from OKC than Dallas or Kansas City.

An expansion of Will Rogers could handle more flights from Dallas Loves Field's Southwest Airlines hub.

Dallas Love Field & Fort Worth Alliance were suppose to become cargo and corporate airports with the creation of DFW. Alliance complied and Love Field reneged.

Dallas and Kansas City are huge markets. What makes their airports 'hubs' has to do with their large markets coupled with the large feeder cities.

Dallas (DFW, Love Field): Oklahoma City, Fort Worth-Arlington (FW Alliance is cargo/corporate), Abilene, Wichita Falls, Amarillo, Tyler etc...

Kansas City: Tulsa, Wichita, Topeka, Des Moines, Omaha etc...

Don't forget about Bentonville, AR which is close to Kansas City, Memphis (International) & Dallas. There is a 3 mile difference between KC & OKC from Bentonville. A plus for OKC--it doesn't possess the flight traffic as DFW or KC.

Distance: Miles & Nautical Miles Calculator: How Far is It (http://www.indo.com/cgi-bin/dist)

I am guessing what is meant by this is will the airport ever be a hub. That's hard to say but doubtful being that new hubs aren't being added these days and the airline industry continues to consolidate. I think OKC's airport falls right in line with what you would expect in a city this size that isn't a hub. If an airline ever decides to add a hub though I think WWRA would be a great candidate and should be something OKC should go after.

In the soon to be mega airlines I don't think we will ever a big hub.

Has there ever been any talk of turning Will Rogers World Airport into an international airport? I don't know if there's enough land around the airport for the required runways or not. But with Oklahoma City growing like it is, it would almost make sense for it to one day go international. Although, with Dallas so close, maybe not, because of connecting flights.

Technically an international airport just has to have customs available for inbound flights - we already have that. Granted it is all on call, but that is besides the point. We have had nonstop passenger flights to Mexico before before Champion closed up. Once we get an FIS area in the east concourse, I would not be shocked to see someone like Apple/Funjet come in at that point with weekly flights down.


I honestly just call it Will Rodgers Airport.

Will Rogers might be offended. :-P

In order to be called an international airport you need to have a customs and immigration facility. WRWA doesn't so it doesn't get the international distinction. Having international flights has nothing to do with it.

We have Will Rogers World & Tulsa International Airports in Oklahoma; both airports fed into major hubs like Dallas and Kansas City; if OKCWRWA could secure 'hub & 'international' flight status it could service the cities in our area.
Maybe I'm not understanding your definition of a "hub" airport. I would barely call Kansas City a hub airport at all and certainly not a major hub. Also, neither OKC or Tulsa have any nonstop flights to MCI so they don't feed into that airport.

In order to be called an international airport you need to have a customs and immigration facility. WRWA doesn't so it doesn't get the international distinction. Having international flights has nothing to do with it.

US Customs is on site and they are a landing rights point of entry...it meets the requirements to be an international airport.

You can call any airport any thing for marketing purposes. Has very little to do with what facilities are offered there. Passengers don't coordinate with customs, and airlines use more detailed information than the name of the airport to decide how capable the facilities are.

But, as far as OKC being a hub. Doubtful. I could see some small little operation. Frontier doing a few flights a day across a couple cities. Like 1 a day to LAS, MSY etc. or if Spirit came in, who knows what they would attempt.

Remember, Austin is a huge booming market. And no one has any interest in forming a hub there. Austin is a money-till for most airlines who operate there, yet -- still no hub.

If OKC (the city) continues it's good job growth, and demographic transformation, I foresee 2024 OKC being similar to 2014 AUS. (But not quite as big):

Some dots filled in (LGA, DCA, PHL, SEA, AUS/SAT, JFK, MCO), a few new carriers (B6 and NK), and more robust service to the hubs. (More mainline to IAH DEN ORD DTW, more frequency to EWR SFO CLT)

or if Spirit came in, who knows what they would attempt.

Perish the thought. That's the last airline I want in OKC.

Quick question, and sorry if this is stupid I'm not real knowledgeable with the industry even though I love aviation, when/will OKC ever get airlines flying here like Arab emirates or Korean Air? How far out are we from getting airlines like that?

Quick question, and sorry if this is stupid I'm not real knowledgeable with the industry even though I love aviation, when/will OKC ever get airlines flying here like Arab emirates or Korean Air? How far out are we from getting airlines like that?

Doubtful to ever happen. There just isn't enough local demand on a route from OKC to any international market overseas that would justify it.

Perish the thought. That's the last airline I want in OKC.

At the end of the day, more service - regardless who it is is on - equals more PFCs for airport upgrades. The minute we start snubbing our nose at carriers interested in service is the day we cement always just being a spoke. Not saying we will ever be a "hub" or "focus city" but the new Spirit is really doing a great job at connecting dots like Southwest use to. Frontier is also following the similar path. Hopefully F9 at some point gives us some attention to add some more cities to the mix. We are part of a shrinking group that doesn't have flights to multiple cities.

http://www.flyfrontier.com/plan-book/~/media/Files/docs/Routemap%2093014.ashx

You may not believe this but - and I read this directly on the old WRA website (way back in the day) - that when TWA started flying to St. Louis from Oklahoma City, the then airport administration added the "World" designation to reflect that now the city was just one-stop away from being connected to the world. I distinctly recall reading that in the "About" section of the old website, this was I think back in 1999 or so.

Anyway, the "Oklahoma City beoming a hub" subject is like beating a dead horse, I don't mean to be blunt about it but it has been discussed so many times with the same result - not happening. The days of new hubs are long gone, at least for the forseeable future. Hubs require lots of money to maintain, and thus require lots of profit to keep. A money-losing hub is no good, and those are exactly the types airlines have been closing in the past decade.

Austin's market is now much different than OKC's - it has way more high-paying business travellers than OKC does. Of course that does not mean Austin will get a hub, because there are already two major hubs within a 40 minute flight of it, not to mention it is also surrounded by other hubs much like us. But Austin now has nonstop service to 41 cities (and counting), and London service to boot. Miami will be added next year. So basically the city is well connected to all major hubs and then some. The FAA classifies AUS as a "medium hub", while we're a "spoke". Indeed, Southwest uses Austin as a small connection point, as some passengers from Lubbock and Midland-Odessa do connect at Austin to Southwest's other cities. Passenger traffic at AUS passed 10 million last year, and for the first time in its history, traffic passed the 1 million mark for any given month in July. Passenger traffic for AUS is up more than 6% YTD. There's no doubt AUS will finish even bigger than last year and smash the 10 million mark this time by a good margin. Keep in mind that in addition to the busiest months of November and December, that city also has the U.S. Grand Prix, which draws in thousands of visitors from across the world. The terminal will also be expanded, from the current 25 gates to 32. Also, something that's telling about the Austin market - a new airline called "Texas Sky" will start nonstops between Victoria, Texas and Austin, and those flights will continue to Dallas and back. I'm reminded of Austin Express, a similar carrier that operated Beechcraft 1900Ds (if memory serves) between Austin and a few other Texas cities, back in the late 90s before it folded. Now I'm not sure what the travel demand is between Austin and Victoria, but it's saying something anyway. They will be operated with Jetstream 41s.

And it's not just Austin that is gaining passenger traffic - Others like Nashville have had significant gains in traffic and thus have had new flights or upgrades from RJs to mainline aircraft on several routes.

As for OKC getting "bigtime" international service, like a London nonstop, or like Plutonic Panda above mentioned Korean Air or Emirates, we don't have the traffic for that yet. Austin just got its first London nonstop last year, and that was when research showed Austin had abut 90 passengers daily going to London; using the 787-8 BA figured it could "grow" the route and so far, the results have been pretty good from what I gather. Maybe 10-15 years down the road for us? We'll see, first we need more passengers to fly domestically before we can get service like that.

The FAA classifies AUS as a "medium hub", while we're a "spoke".

To be fair, if you are going to compare using the classifications there isn't a "spoke" classification. OKC is considered a "small hub" by FAA standards. The step down from that is simply "nonhub" which is everyone that has at least 10,000 pax boardings a year and less than 0.05% of overall boardings. You can see the breakdown here: Airport Categories ? Airports (http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning_capacity/passenger_allcargo_stats/categories/)


As for OKC getting "bigtime" international service, like a London nonstop, or like Plutonic Panda above mentioned Korean Air or Emirates, we don't have the traffic for that yet. Austin just got its first London nonstop last year, and that was when research showed Austin had abut 90 passengers daily going to London; using the 787-8 BA figured it could "grow" the route and so far, the results have been pretty good from what I gather. Maybe 10-15 years down the road for us? We'll see, first we need more passengers to fly domestically before we can get service like that.

It's hard to imagine a market that would work from OKC based on the local economics. Our main businesses are either government entities or O&G. I can't see how we would get anything overseas with either of those. AUS is a much more diversified economy and fueled by hi-tech outfits. I would say looking 10-15 years down the road the international traffic growth is going to be Mexico mostly for leisure travel and possibly Calgary for the O&G folks.

^Yes, you're right we are a "small hub" according to the FAA classifications. Guess I mixed up what the industry calls us with what the FAA has us under. We do have a few connecting passengers. In my books though calling us even a small hub is a stretch :P.

And I agree with you even that far down the road it might be difficult to gain an international flight other than transborder service to Canada/Mexico. We have had charters to CUN like you mentioned with Champion so hopefully once we get the east concourse FIS that will become a regular mainstay (at least seasonal anyway).

Not to draw out the "small hub" discussion anymore, but we are actually the largest (or 2nd largest) airport in the small hub category. They don't look at the definition of "hub" pertaining to just a single carrier operation...it is more so purely based on the percentage of overall boardings nationwide the airport handles. There are a few "large hub" airports that don't have traditional airline hubs that we are use to. SAN is probably the best example.

Maybe I'm not understanding your definition of a "hub" airport. I would barely call Kansas City a hub airport at all and certainly not a major hub.

Ijbab, I'm not sure I know what a 'hub' is either. You're right. Maybe I'm using it as a loose term.

Agree. Kansas City is not on par with DFW. I don't think they have true international flights like DFW.

Dallas is a 'large hub'
Kansas City is a 'medium hub'
Oklahoma City, Tulsa & Wichita are 'small hubs'

The source below is one I found on the internet that classifies airports. It's ten years old, so I wouldn't vouch for the credibility or accuracy of its information:

Source: Large Hub Airports - by Airport Code (http://www.airportcodes.us/large-hubs.htm)

Medium Hub Airports - by Airport Code (http://www.airportcodes.us/medium-hubs.htm)
Small Hub Airports - by Airport Code (http://www.airportcodes.us/small-hubs.htm)

With our passenger growth this year, could we possibly move into the medium hub category?

Doubtful to ever happen. There just isn't enough local demand on a route from OKC to any international market overseas that would justify it.

Back in 2011, somewhere between 30-40% of Oklahomans had passports, pretty low compared to the rest of the nation (except for some southern states), and most likely that's still pretty close to the case, so yeah, very small demand...

Getting a Virgin America flight would be awesome.

I know that OKC is a long way from hub status, but I believe it could support regular service to/from Calgary right now. This does not require customs & immigration as those things are handled in Canada. From OKC's perspective, these would be just like domestic flights. Establishing successful service to Calgary may help pave the way for Mexico service.

At the end of the day, more service - regardless who it is is on - equals more PFCs for airport upgrades. The minute we start snubbing our nose at carriers interested in service is the day we cement always just being a spoke. Not saying we will ever be a "hub" or "focus city" but the new Spirit is really doing a great job at connecting dots like Southwest use to. Frontier is also following the similar path. Hopefully F9 at some point gives us some attention to add some more cities to the mix. We are part of a shrinking group that doesn't have flights to multiple cities.

http://www.flyfrontier.com/plan-book/~/media/Files/docs/Routemap%2093014.ashx
At the end of the day the only way we get more PFC"s is to have more originating passengers, not more airlines. I just don't see Spirit having any influence on that. I just have an aversion to airlines like that and it would never entice me to fly more often from OKC because I don't see them as being interested in service as much as I see them being interested in how much money they can wring out of passengers for ancillary services.

Ijbab, I'm not sure I know what a 'hub' is either. You're right. Maybe I'm using it as a loose term.

Agree. Kansas City is not on par with DFW. I don't think they have true international flights like DFW.

Dallas is a 'large hub'
Kansas City is a 'medium hub'
Oklahoma City, Tulsa & Wichita are 'small hubs'

The source below is one I found on the internet that classifies airports. It's ten years old, so I wouldn't vouch for the credibility or accuracy of its information:

Source: Large Hub Airports - by Airport Code (http://www.airportcodes.us/large-hubs.htm)

Medium Hub Airports - by Airport Code (http://www.airportcodes.us/medium-hubs.htm)
Small Hub Airports - by Airport Code (http://www.airportcodes.us/small-hubs.htm)

Those traffic numbers are from 2004. When I saw a count of only 1,695,096 which is barely more than Little Rock I knew something had to be wrong.

The current number shown on Wikipedia is 3,683,051. Is that number correct? If so, would OKC still be classified as a small hub as of today? My guess is it should have already graduated to being a medium hub. If it really has increased that much in a decade, that is amazing.

Quick question, and sorry if this is stupid I'm not real knowledgeable with the industry even though I love aviation, when/will OKC ever get airlines flying here like Arab emirates or Korean Air? How far out are we from getting airlines like that?
Even with the amount of traffic that DIA has the only overseas based carriers are British Airways (only direct to Heathrow), Icelandair (Reykjavik) and Lufthansa (Frankfurt). There is a United direct flight to/from Tokyo that started up last year.

Frontier is the new Spirit clone.

At the end of the day the only way we get more PFC"s is to have more originating passengers, not more airlines. I just don't see Spirit having any influence on that. I just have an aversion to airlines like that and it would never entice me to fly more often from OKC because I don't see them as being interested in service as much as I see them being interested in how much money they can wring out of passengers for ancillary services.

That's fine and all...and I don't care for them either, but that doesn't take away from the fact that they stimulate traffic that wouldn't normally fly. Similar to what Southwest did in the past, Spirit does now. So it would actually create more originating passengers since it would get people that normally don't fly to do so.

Those traffic numbers are from 2004. When I saw a count of only 1,695,096 which is barely more than Little Rock I knew something had to be wrong.

The current number shown on Wikipedia is 3,683,051. Is that number correct? If so, would OKC still be classified as a small hub as of today? My guess is it should have already graduated to being a medium hub. If it really has increased that much in a decade, that is amazing.

I think that number is total numbers of passengers handled, not just boardings, which I believe is used by FAA.

To be completely honest, if Spirit did fly here -- assuming to somewhere I wanted to go: California, S. Florida, Austin, Chicago, etc.. I would take them in a heart beat. I can put up with a few hours of discomfort and no water (can bring your own) in exchange for cheap travel. If it weren't for the travel benefits of my job, I wouldn't have the money to fly at all. So venture is 100% correct in the fact that they do stimulate demand that otherwise would not be flying. And the major carriers don't mind them as much. There is virtually zero business travel on Spirit, so Spirit is taking the pricing pressure off of the legacy carriers. They don't have to fight tooth and nail with each other to gain the unprofitable casual leisure traveler. They can now focus more on business markets and offering amenities to business travelers, since Spirit, Frontier, and Allegiant are swooping in and grabbing the unloyal, fare sensitive travelers who generate very little profit for the legacy carriers.

They are WalMart Airlines.....and that's okay. They are a needed competitor in this market, providing service to a market demographic that is not suited for the legacy carries.

I think that number is total numbers of passengers handled, not just boardings, which I believe is used by FAA.
That is correct Andrew. The FAA ranks airports by boardings, while OKC's wikipedia reported total customers. If you made one round trip flight from OKC last year, you would be considered 2 customers and 1 boarding.

To be completely honest, if Spirit did fly here -- assuming to somewhere I wanted to go: California, S. Florida, Austin, Chicago, etc.. I would take them in a heart beat. I can put up with a few hours of discomfort and no water (can bring your own) in exchange for cheap travel. If it weren't for the travel benefits of my job, I wouldn't have the money to fly at all. So venture is 100% correct in the fact that they do stimulate demand that otherwise would not be flying. And the major carriers don't mind them as much. There is virtually zero business travel on Spirit, so Spirit is taking the pricing pressure off of the legacy carriers. They don't have to fight tooth and nail with each other to gain the unprofitable casual leisure traveler. They can now focus more on business markets and offering amenities to business travelers, since Spirit, Frontier, and Allegiant are swooping in and grabbing the unloyal, fare sensitive travelers who generate very little profit for the legacy carriers.

They are WalMart Airlines.....and that's okay. They are a needed competitor in this market, providing service to a market demographic that is not suited for the legacy carries.

Well let's agree to disagree then. I wouldn't fly with them no matter what and I would never recommend them to my customers. Any stimulation to the market would be marginal at best and I don't see them as a needed competitor. Take that from someone with almost 30 years in dealing with the traveling public in the travel business who knows what he's talking about. I know that you and Venture are very involved with the airlines but you aren't involved on a daily basis with the traveling public like I am.

Okay, you wouldn't fly them.

Their profits (one of the industry's highest) tends to disagree with you. They are attracting customers who are not flying at all right now, just as Frontier is trying to emulate.

Well let's agree to disagree then. I wouldn't fly with them no matter what and I would never recommend them to my customers. Any stimulation to the market would be marginal at best and I don't see them as a needed competitor. Take that from someone with almost 30 years in dealing with the traveling public in the travel business who knows what he's talking about. I know that you and Venture are very involved with the airlines but you aren't involved on a daily basis with the traveling public like I am.

There is nothing to agree or disagree on, so I don't get your point. So you wouldn't fly them and as a travel agent you wouldn't recommend them to your clients? Okay, that's perfectly fine.

That does not negate the fact that Spirit does indeed cause local markets to grow - and not "marginal at best" as you claim. When Spirit entered DFW-LAS the market grew 51%. PDX-LAS grew 32%. ORD-DFW grew 21%. DFW-DTW grew 21%. ORD-LGA grew 17%. I would not call these marginal increases thanks to the entry of Spirit. Also compare the route maps at the bottom on how they've changed in around 10 years. It is fascinating how they've exploded in high traffic markets.

Lastly, I do take exception with your last comment. There really isn't any need to take a shot at us when it comes to being involved with the traveling public. I probably interacted with more airline passengers in a week, on a one on one basis, than you do a month or longer. Does that mean I know more than you do? Depends what we are talking about. You handle finding the right solution for your customers...that is what you specialize in and that's great. That doesn't mean your knowledge of the airline industry is better than those that actually work for the airlines and follow it more intently. I would advise taking a less aggressive tone when the statistics don't really line up with you are saying. Spirit is essentially the new Southwest when it comes to market stimulation.

Spirit in 2003
http://airchive.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Spirit-Route-Map-2003.jpg

Spirit today...
http://www.spirit.com/images/base/content/page_headers/route_map.jpg

Our city is on the verge of expansion in so many areas. Let's find the 'X-factor' to hasten that growth in the airline industry.

What ever happened with Lufthansa Cargo? Some years ago, I thought they considered Will Rogers World Airport as a potential 'hub or service center' at one time.

Our city is on the verge of expansion in so many areas. Let's find the 'X-factor' to hasten that growth in the airline industry.

What ever happened with Lufthansa Cargo? Some years ago, I thought they considered Will Rogers World Airport as a potential 'hub or service center' at one time.

Air cargo has probably been harder hit the last several years than the pax carriers. I can think of over a dozen cargo hubs that have shut down located in much better areas than OKC. Keep in mind air cargo needs to have demand that is usually going to fueled by manufacturing or ground distribution centers with associated trucking systems. I would have a hard time seeing LH Cargo setup here without another air cargo firm based here with a decent network.

There is nothing to agree or disagree on, so I don't get your point. So you wouldn't fly them and as a travel agent you wouldn't recommend them to your clients? Okay, that's perfectly fine. Lastly, I do take exception with your last comment. There really isn't any need to take a shot at us when it comes to being involved with the traveling public. I probably interacted with more airline passengers in a week, on a one on one basis, than you do a month or longer. Does that mean I know more than you do? Depends what we are talking about. You handle finding the right solution for your customers...that is what you specialize in and that's great. That doesn't mean your knowledge of the airline industry is better than those that actually work for the airlines and follow it more intently. I would advise taking a less aggressive tone when the statistics don't really line up with you are saying. Spirit is essentially the new Southwest when it comes to market stimulation.

If you took my comments as "taking a shot" that was hardly my intention. I certainly appreciate the perspective that you and catch bring here and appreciate comments from airline insiders.

As you mentioned, we come at things in a very different way. You deal with multitudes of the public who, for the most part, have already made their decisions about travel. I deal directly with them when they are in the process of making decisions by finding out what their wants and needs are and giving advice. Every day I have people who live all over the country and world who contact me. Many of them live in places where Spirit Airlines has a large presence. They rarely, if ever, request Spirit.

Spirit Airlines might have a place here but I would be much happier with other carriers who might provide new service. As was mentioned, Frontier is trying a similar business model. I know they have limited routes but it certainly doesn't seem to be helping their passenger count to any degree.

Frontier is the new Spirit clone.

I have one free segment on Frontier, then i'm done with them. The baggage/ carry on fee is the last staw. Cancelling their credit card too.

If you took my comments as "taking a shot" that was hardly my intention. I certainly appreciate the perspective that you and catch bring here and appreciate comments from airline insiders.

As you mentioned, we come at things in a very different way. You deal with multitudes of the public who, for the most part, have already made their decisions about travel. I deal directly with them when they are in the process of making decisions by finding out what their wants and needs are and giving advice. Every day I have people who live all over the country and world who contact me. Many of them live in places where Spirit Airlines has a large presence. They rarely, if ever, request Spirit.

Spirit Airlines might have a place here but I would be much happier with other carriers who might provide new service. As was mentioned, Frontier is trying a similar business model. I know they have limited routes but it certainly doesn't seem to be helping their passenger count to any degree.

Completely agree, although I think you are being far too kind. Spirit Airlines is hot garbage. This is a company that generates 3x the number of complaints/passenger than any other airline. I can't even begin to describe everything that is terrible with this company...just google it LOL.

On a recent trip to Chicago I passed by their gate at DFW. I'm sorry if I come off as an elitist jerk here, but it was full of people who would have probably been at the bus terminal a few years ago. IMO they definitely rely (or prey) on lower income people who are not savvy enough to know to avoid their fees. I'm interested to see their long term business strategy. Much like Walmart is discovering now, this is a demographic that is extremely sensitive to economic shifts and will cut out any uneeded expenses should their finances change.

Even assuming a good economy, they will eventually run out of people to piss off and then what? Companies with such terrible customer relations rarely ever stick around. Their equally sucky European counterpart Ryanair is having to completely revamp itself after it started running into financial problems due in large parts to passengers avoiding them like the plauge. As it stands now, lots of sheep are lining themselves up to slaughter with Spirit, but something tells me this is not sustainable for them.

These are the exact same complaints waged against Southwest in their early years.

I am certainly no fan of Southworst, but they have grown over the past 40 years into an iconic brand and one of the most well run airlines to date. Their business model basically stayed the same for 40 years, and only in the recent few years has serious change been needed.

Spirit will follow the same path. Their costs will escalate, their staff will mature, they might outgrow the LCC model and begin to target premium traffic. At that time someone else will come in to the growing ULCC market.

People say they are pissed off, but there's very few options if you want to fly on a super budget. It would be perfect in this market. Huge college city to the south (Las Vegas and Florida). Huge price-sensitive leisure market in OKC who most likely do not travel right now because of ticket costs.

There's a reason they are profitable. They aren't stealing money. They are offering service to a segment of the market who does not usually travel unless prices are good.

For a flight less than 2 hours, I could put up with no leg room and bringing my own water on board if it means saving several hundred on a ticket. It's hard to justify a weekend getaway with a $389 roundtrip. Easier to justify for me when it's $99 round trip....

Even with the amount of traffic that DIA has the only overseas based carriers are British Airways (only direct to Heathrow), Icelandair (Reykjavik) and Lufthansa (Frankfurt). There is a United direct flight to/from Tokyo that started up last year.

Frontier is the new Spirit clone.

And DIA is the 5th busiest airport in the US in a metro of 3.3 million. Denver does have quite a few Mexico and Canada routes but is pretty thin to Europe/Asia with nothing to South America, though Panama City is starting next year on United.