That's great...if you want to be isolationist in business, which usually doesn't work well.

How would getting people to more destinations, cheaper, and faster be isolationist? Look at it in the inverse, if we already had HSR to DFW and there was a proposal to close it and build a local airport, with far few direct flights and higher prices would that make sense to do?

Some of you are really missing how this works. I must be doing a poor job of explaining it because so far every objection has zero to do with what I suggested.

I guess you assume no cost of the rail...and no time. Your picture always leaves out what you don't want to consider.

Reducing air to OKC would be isolationist and bad for business. ADDING HSR would be good for business. We need both. The market will sort out the balance if true costs are represented in the prices to use both.

I think it would improve our economy more than it would decrease our air travel. It's about making the city more important and more influential.

Certainly that's a possibility - my question is - is there a business case for a private developer to come in and build such a line? And if not (there is not), how many billions of our tax dollars would it take to get a HSR to Dallas up and running - and is there a better use of the billions of dollars? Almost certainly. We live in an incredibly unwalkable city for the most part, so why don't we spend some money making our city one that would even be conducive to supporting a HSR line first, before building it in the first place. Just because you build a rail line doesn't mean anyone will use it. There's little logic in taking a train from one unwalkable city (with poor to non-existent mass transit) to another - which is what an OKC to Dallas HSR line would accomplish. And I don't want to hear about how central Dallas is urban and walkable - it's not. DART's poor ridership numbers reflect that.


If it happened there would be almost no reason to keep WRWA open, but OKC would have better transportation service. Let that sink in for a little bit.

Again that's also debatable - why wouldn't or couldn't WRWA stay open? The notion that WRWA would close just because we had a HSR line to Dallas is just insane, quite frankly. So if a business traveler needed to get to LA, you think there's a better business case for them to use a HSR to Dallas, then get to DFW, then get on their 3 hour flight to LA, rather than just boarding here and reaching LA by 8 AM anyway? Huh? In an ideal world, a HSR and a healthy WRWA would complement each other. I'm just not sure that building said HSR would be the best use of our limited resources (at the moment).


How would getting people to more destinations, cheaper, and faster be isolationist? Look at it in the inverse, if we already had HSR to DFW and there was a proposal to close it and build a local airport, with far few direct flights and higher prices would that make sense to do?

Of course not, which is why that's fantasy and not reality.

If it happened there would be almost no reason to keep WRWA open, but OKC would have better transportation service. Let that sink in for a little bit.

So if I want to fly nonstop to San Francisco, I would have to ride a train to Dallas, then fly nonstop.
As opposed to getting to the airport, and boarding the nonstop flight OKC-SFO.

If I want to go to Seattle, I would have to take the train to Dallas, then fly nonstop.
As opposed to getting to the airport, and boarding the nonstop flight OKC-SEA.

If I want to go to Chicago, I would have to take the train to Dallas, then fly nonstop.
As opposed to getting to the airport, and boarding one of the 10 daily nonstop flights OKC-ORD/MDW?

If I want to go to Las Vegas, I would have to take the train to Dallas, then fly nonstop.
As opposed to getting to the airport, and boarding one of the 2 daily nonstop flights OKC-LAS?

If I want to go to Denver, I would have to take the train to Dallas, then fly nonstop.
As opposed to getting to the airport, and boarding one of the 9 daily nonstop flights OKC-DEN?

If I want to go to Los Angeles, I would have to take the train to Dallas, then fly nonstop.
As opposed to getting to the airport, and boarding one of the 3 daily nonstop flights OKC-LAX?

If I want to go to Washington DC, I would have to take the train to Dallas, then fly nonstop.
As opposed to getting to the airport, and boarding one of the 2 daily nonstop flights OKC-IAD/BWI

Do I need to continue this for all of the cities served or have I made my point? How would this system be an improvement over the current setup?

Some of you are really missing how this works. I must be doing a poor job of explaining it because so far every objection has zero to do with what I suggested.

That may be the case - so if you can let me know what I'm missing, I am all ears. I'm just not sure - I've taken trains to the airport in nearly every city I've visited where it's physically possible (Chicago, Philly, Singapore, Newark, Hong Kong, Osaka, probably a few others - not Rome though - didn't feel like getting pickpocketed), so I'm genuinely curious what I'm missing.

Some of you are really missing how this works. I must be doing a poor job of explaining it because so far every objection has zero to do with what I suggested.

I once had an employee who was so caught up in her own intelligence that she thought the ONLY way that people could disagree with her was that they just didn't understand. Obviously, if everyone understood they would see the brilliance and not possibly object. LOL.

We get it, we just disagree.

Catch22 - yes, if you wanted to fly non- stop to SFO you would go to a check-in station here in OKC, give them your bags, go through security, and get dropped off at DFW on the secure side of the terminal. You then board one of their many many flights to SFO at a lower cost. Now granted, going to SFO isn't the best example for this because a direct flight does exist, but what if you wanted to go to San Jose, Oakland, or Sacramento?

Catch22 - yes, if you wanted to fly non- stop to SFO you would go to a check-in station here in OKC, give them your bags, go through security, and get dropped off at DFW on the secure side of the terminal. You then board one of their many many flights to SFO at a lower cost. Now granted, going to SFO isn't the best example for this because a direct flight does exist, but what if you wanted to go to San Jose, Oakland, or Sacramento?

Then you either a) connect in (insert hub here) to get to SJC, OAK, or SMF via the quickest one-stop option, or b) you take the nonstop to SFO and hop on the train (or your Uber) to your destination. Either way will save time and expense. You conveniently leave out the cost of the HSR ticket and time required. Currently an OKC-DFW flight is 30 minutes in the air, one hour gate to gate (give or take). With AA's banks you can usually make your connecting flight within 40 minutes to an hour, and you still checked your bags (how many business travelers actually check bags?) in OKC. Granted this is just one airline but it's the one I'm most familiar with so that's why I used it as my example.

HSR tickets won't be cheap. Tokyo to Osaka one-way is routinely $150-200 or more on the Nozomi. What makes you think that an OKC-Dallas HSR could be significantly cheaper and faster?

I once had an employee who was so caught up in her own intelligence that she thought the ONLY way that people could disagree with her was that they just didn't understand. Obviously, if everyone understood they would see the brilliance and not possibly object. LOL.

We get it, we just disagree.

So why don't the objections have anything to do with I proposed? You think HSR would bring passengers to OKC. Why would a person going from Dallas to Richmond, VA go to DFW, go though security at DFW, then take a train to OKC, so they could fly to Atlanta, change plains, then fly to Richmond? The answer is, you didn't read what I suggested.

So why don't the objections have anything to do with I proposed? You think HSR would bring passengers to OKC. Why would a person going from Dallas to Richmond, VA go to DFW, go though security at DFW, then take a train to OKC, so they could fly to Atlanta, change plains, then fly to Richmond? The answer is, you didn't read what I suggested.

Just curious - have you read any of my replies? I'm still curious as to what I'm missing.

HSR would work both ways. OKC could market a more efficient, easier and less crowded airport.

That doesn't really work or appeal to all, especially not to time-sensitive business travelers. For years, Milwaukee tried to market itself as Chicago's 3rd airport, but all it led to was an unsustainable turf war between F9, FL, WN, and others, all of whom eventually dehubbed MKE - and it's right sized itself back to being a very large focus city/spoke for the legacies.

Not that it wasn't a decent idea - Milwaukee is far closer to Chicago than OKC is to DFW - and Amtrak's Hiawatha Service stops directly at Mitchell Airport - so it sure had a decent chance, but just didn't work.

Just curious - have you read any of my replies? I'm still curious as to what I'm missing.

I have. When I get to keyboard tonight I can expound a little more.

I left cost out of it because I don't know what the cost would be. However, running 3 airports also has a cost so while implementing some form rapid rail will have a cost, closing 3 airports will have a tremondous savings.

Back to Catch22's comnent about direct flights. OKC has 3 flights to LAX. If I want to go to LAX dirctly I can pick one if those 3 flights. How many flights does DFW have to LAX?

Also how many flights to LAX does OKC, Tulsa, and Wichita have?

That's great...if you want to be isolationist in business, which usually doesn't work well.

What are you talking about? One of us definitely misread the other's post.

Certainly that's a possibility - my question is - is there a business case for a private developer to come in and build such a line?

Probably not. Private developers normally don't build transportation infrastructure.


And if not (there is not), how many billions of our tax dollars would it take to get a HSR to Dallas up and running - and is there a better use of the billions of dollars?

Many billions.


Almost certainly. We live in an incredibly unwalkable city for the most part, so why don't we spend some money making our city one that would even be conducive to supporting a HSR line first, before building it in the first place. Just because you build a rail line doesn't mean anyone will use it. There's little logic in taking a train from one unwalkable city (with poor to non-existent mass transit) to another - which is what an OKC to Dallas HSR line would accomplish. And I don't want to hear about how central Dallas is urban and walkable - it's not. DART's poor ridership numbers reflect that.



Well that's why I listed over 20 things that I thought OKC should do to improve the city, including metro-wide rail transit. I'm also counting on a national high speed rail system in that calculation as well. But theoretically, I could live in a suburban home in the metro, walk 5 or 6 blocks to a rail station, and take the train all the way to the airport. Or with high speed rail, I could take it down to Dallas, and from there, I could go most places in the country. That's all without getting into a car.

I think that HSR access would give OKC a big competitive advantage over other cities our size. More people will move here. More businesses will move here. It isn't just about better serving the existing population, it's about making the city an attractive and convenient place to be. A metro area of 1.3 million people is a lot different from one of say, 1.9 million.

Back to Catch22's comnent about direct flights. OKC has 3 flights to LAX. If I want to go to LAX dirctly I can pick one if those 3 flights. How many flights does DFW have to LAX?

Also how many flights to LAX does OKC, Tulsa, and Wichita have?

Fine - then how about how many OKC-DFW flights are there? Quite a few, which easily connect to the even more DFW-LAX (or SNA, or SFO, or SJC, or wherever else you're trying to go). That's still much more time efficient than what you're proposing. 3x/day to LAX is pretty good service for a city OKC's size.

He seems intent on replicating the hub and spoke model, except where one leg is on a train to the hub, instead of an airplane to the hub.

In other words, he is trying to reinvent the wheel here. Pardon the pun (hub and spoke).

Probably not. Private developers normally don't build transportation infrastructure.



Many billions.



Well that's why I listed over 20 things that I thought OKC should do to improve the city, including metro-wide rail transit. I'm also counting on a national high speed rail system in that calculation as well. But theoretically, I could live in a suburban home in the metro, walk 5 or 6 blocks to a rail station, and take the train all the way to the airport. Or with high speed rail, I could take it down to Dallas, and from there, I could go most places in the country. That's all without getting into a car.

I think that HSR access would give OKC a big competitive advantage over other cities our size. More people will move here. More businesses will move here. It isn't just about better serving the existing population, it's about making the city an attractive and convenient place to be. A metro area of 1.3 million people is a lot different from one of say, 1.9 million.

There are many cases of private rail lines all over the world - private lines directly compete with JR in Japan in many cities. Italo is a new HSR network that connects Italy's major cities and directly competes with Trenitalia, so there is precedent. Amtrak was nationalized because after the rise of air travel in the 60s-70s, long distance rail travel became inefficient and too expensive. And as projects in other states have shown, there will need to be significant tax dollars committed to such a project for it to become viable (granted - I'd much rather shunt my tax dollars toward a HSR than the BLVD).

Again - I'm not so sure. I think if we tried to build a metro-wide rail system, we'd run into the exact same problems DART has - is that you basically need a car at both ends to make it work - which makes the transit system pointless to begin with. Certainly that's an excellent goal to have - is that even people who live in the suburbs could walk a few blocks to a train station - and, assuming that train ran with a usable enough frequency (for an airport line, I'm just guessing but that would be at least every 30 min), hop on a train that could bring them downtown or to the airport. But I'm skeptical for a few reasons - 1) we're not a walking city - it doesn't cross the minds of most people here to walk. That's just how it is - 2) we simply aren't built dense enough (outside of a few neighborhoods in the core) - to realistically support metro-rail throughout the city. Sure, you might be willing to walk 5-6 blocks, but how many others would? How many families with suitcases would? I'm guessing not too many.

Your list is excellent though - if we accomplish a lot of those things and manage to construct a usable transit system (even if limited in scope), then certainly we might see the benefits of HSR - and it may even be worth the cost. Something to keep an eye on is California's HSR line from SF to LA - I'm curious how it does given that one of those is very walkable and transit oriented, and the other, well, isn't.

Well, there are currently plans to build a metro-wide rail system. It has support from Mick Cornett and from a lot of the politicians from surrounding cities. It will probably take 20 years to complete it. I disagree that "we're not a walking city". The reason we don't walk is because we are quite spread out. I see people walk around Bricktown all the time. When you give someone a comfortable walking environment, they are more than willing to use it.

That's not to say that Cletus McRedneck who weighs 300 lbs and rides his Rascal scooter everywhere is going to suddenly take up jogging just because there's a train station 12 blocks away. But if we build things right, rail can become a viable transportation option for a lot of people. We'll see how the streetcar goes and how many people use it. The goal with a metro rail system would be to have transit oriented development at every stop. Imagine if, at every stop, you had a little mini-Bricktown/Deep Deuce. Two or three blocks in each direction with apartments, restaurants, shops and entertainment.

You are also not taking into account what the impact of 4 million more travelers a year would do for DFW airfares.

That kind of demand surge would send tickets skyrocketing. And American Airlines would have a DIRECT monopoly on the OKC market, whereas right now it's fairly segmented.

United's offerings out of Dallas are only slightly better than their offerings out of OKC. Delta has pretty much the same destinations out of Dallas that we do, only on more frequent and larger equipment.

The result, AA would raise prices across the board because the demand would be there to justify it.

I'm sure AA would love it. Oklahoma would shut down it's two largest airports, and force it's citizens into buying nonstop flights on American, out of their largest fortress hub at whatever price AA wanted to charge.

The more I think about either of your ideas (Great Plains Intl. or HSR to DFW and shutting down OKC and TUL) the more I find they would be a complete failure, and a complete disservice to passengers.

Look at Cincinnati (CVG) and St. Louis (STL). CVG serves a population about the size of Tulsa+OKC, it is no longer a hub and barely has better service than OKC. STL serves an area the size of OKC, TUL and ICT and also pretty much only flies non-stop to hubs. Airline consolidation has drastically reduced the number of hubs and the latest round will decrease the number further. There is no way GPI would become a hub in this environment, yes maybe if everything worked out right it might get non-stop service to MIA, but that wouldn't make up for the huge inconvenience of basically making every flight at least a 1-stop (first leg on HSR).

Fares out of hub cities are traditionally higher. When I lived in Cincinnati, CVG was still a Delta hub and was rated they most expensive airport every year I lived there. It was cheaper for me to fly from Dayton through CVG than O&D out of CVG directly. Speaking of, if any two airports were going to merge DAY and CVG would make much more sense, but that won't happen either.

Further, what would you tell the 7000 AA employees at TUL when you kick them out onto the street? AA uses the normal flight activity to get the narrow-bodies in and out of TUL (ever wonder why they have so much 757 service into TUL?). AA just closed their maintenance base at AFW in part because of the expensive ferry flight between DFW and AFW.

Okay - now I have keyboard. So here are a few things to address some of the issues raised.

If planning started on this today it would take 20 years to open (Catch22 will be retired). Who knows what the aviation industry will look like in 20 years, but whatever it looks I am pretty sure that the more passengers an airport serves the better air service that airport has. OKC is trying to grow its passenger count, but to what end, if not to get more flights to more cities? What wait X number of years to double passenger traffic at WRWA when it could be done all at once with a consolidated airport?

Multiple cities in the past have proposed a shared airport but usually distance was a deal killer (that and pride I guess) - but with HSR distance doesn't really matter. Couple HSR with city-side check in, baggage claim, security check point, car rentals, etc... and total travel time decrease even more. Yes, there is some additional time needed upfront, but if it prevents a stop in another airport or allows one to get to their destination sooner (because of more frequent service) then it is a net gain for the traveler.

Will the business community go for it? They will if they can get to where they want to go faster and cheaper. Some of you are just assuming this won't be faster or cheaper but the truth is, none of us know that. It would take someone with a lot more data than we have available to even begin to tackle that question. Yes this has a cost to it, but so does running 3 airports. I didn't include cost because this is just the concept stage.

Will the airlines go for it? Frankly, I don't care if the airlines will go for it or not. They are a business and will conform to what the customer wants. They don't dictate to us, we dictate to them. Plus, the major carriers at Stapleton also opposed building the new DIA but we see how that turned out. The people in Denver did it anyhow. Now try to talk United out of DIA.

Alas, I get that I am the only who thinks this could work, but I am no stranger to standing on an island. Eight years ago there wasn't a whole lot of people talking walkability and urban design either.

Stapleton was created because of space issues. Not because they wanted a combined airport between metros.

The only reason Stapleton doesn't have service now, is that it is gone. The Super 8 I just booked to sleep in on the way to Portland is in its place.

The small space restricted airports are often in the most demand. LGA DCA, DAL is picking up steam, and so is HOU. SNA is pushed to its limits. MDW is also bursting at the seams.

As long as there is a runway in OKC and a runway in TUL, the airlines will do whatever it takes to keep service at the city. Demolishing WRWA and TIA is a nonstarter. OKC and TUL handle much more than just commercial aviation. And those services will want to continue to be in OKC and TUL. So the airports would not be demolished. And if the airports aren't demolished, the airlines will exhaust every option to keep service at them no matter what you built up the turnpike.

I don't understand why you think a HSR connection to Perry is any different than a flight connection to DFW. If you do security/checking bags before you board the train, you still have to get to the train an hour early. Travel time from OKC to GPI would be at least as long as the flight to DFW, then you have a layover once you get to GPI, probably at least 40 minutes could be a couple hours depending on timing of rail service and flights. So no matter what I have a 1 connection equivalent, as opposed to the ~14 non-stop options I have today. All 1-stop flights now effectively become 2-stop trips. No one from OKC that had to connect through DFW would take the train to GPI, they'd just drive to DFW so there goes a ton of the PAX. There is no way you could time the rail service perfectly to eliminate the layover at GPI.

See my post about STL, even 3M people isn't enough to get you good non-stop options with a massive airport already centered in the middle of everything.

DFW is easy to get into and is a great airport with tons of flight options, but now that the Wright Amendment is gone DAL is growing like crazy and not just with Southwest. Delta, Virgin and others were all fighting for the gates that the DOJ made AA give up. Even though DFW is AA's largest hub, they still wanted those 4 gates at DAL, because it gave them a piece of the business traveler that didn't want to go the extra 30 minutes to DFW. If the 20 gate limitation at DAL went away tomorrow, you'd see a lot more growth at DAL at the determent of DFW. This just shows that customers and airlines like airports as close to the center of town as possible.

Kerry, I can tell you really believe this but it's just not feasible and, despite what you think, the airlines are totally in the driver's seat on this issue. It would never "fly".

As an alternative, I would also be completely happy closing WRWA and just building HSR directly to DFW.

Ha! Well as someone who flies out of WRWA 2-3 times a month and enjoys the convenience of living downtown and being less than 15 minutes from my airport ...I'm really glad you don't have any say in that.

Go ask Devon and GE if they want to send their employees 50 miles up the turnpike so they can fly to Houston. You may be a part of the business community, but you are certainly not a representative of the OKC business community as a whole.

No doubt...

Ha! Well as someone who flies out of WRWA 2-3 times a month and enjoys the convenience of living downtown and being less than 15 minutes from my airport ...I'm really glad you don't have any say in that.

Yes, I agree 1000%.

Well, just think about it and remember, you heard about GPI here first.

You still haven't told me what I'm missing - or any of the rest of us for that matter.

And the Denver example is completely, utterly irrelevant. Including that as your argument basically nullifies everything else you're saying, because a "GPI" and the new DIA aren't even remotely close to the same concept.

Yes, we heard about GPI here first, and hopefully last, because it's just that detached from reality.

Yes, 8 years ago not many were interested in urbanism and walkability, but a "GPI" would do absolutely nothing to encourage either.

P.S. I'm confused now - which is it that you're advocating for - a GPI or the elimination of spokes altogether? If we eliminate OKC, TUL, ICT, etc and consolidate all of our regional air service at DFW, then are you suggesting that as a country, we eliminate all airports that aren't major international hubs? So the only airports that remained would be DFW, IAH, ATL, ORD, JFK, LAX, SFO, and a handful of others? What's the difference between eliminating OKC and MEM, or LIT, or OMA, or any other mid-service airport?

It's a little frustrating because some of you aren't reading what I am typing.

Quick example: Never said WRWA would be torn down.
The DIA comment was a direct response to the airlines not wanting it. Never said anything about the type of high speed connection to get to GPI.

Anyhow, it was just a conceptual discussion to better connect OKC with the rest of the world. If everyone else is happy with the current strategy then so be it.

The idea of GPI is DOA.

Linked does not by itself make it better. Focus on people and what they need instead of what a SYSTEM theoretically needs to be to give the illusion of being efficient.

It's a little frustrating because some of you aren't reading what I am typing.

Quick example: Never said WRWA would be torn down.
The DIA comment was a direct response to the airlines not wanting it. Never said anything about the type of high speed connection to get to GPI.

Anyhow, it was just a conceptual discussion to better connect OKC with the rest of the world. If everyone else is happy with the current strategy then so be it.

Fine - so you never said "tear down" WRWA - just end all commercial service - picking nits IMO.

Which airlines didn't want DIA? Pretty sure UA (which is still the dominant player) had significant input into the design of the new DEN.

The irony is eliminating commercial service at WRWA would do nothing but disconnect OKC from the business world.

Also frustrating when you keep calling us out for what not reading what you're typing, but you also won't point out what exactly we're missing (even after being asked multiple times).

Anyway seems as though this thread has run it's course!

Maybe the future is mega-airports with 'last mile' hsr connections to regional cities.

Then you either a) connect in (insert hub here) to get to SJC, OAK, or SMF via the quickest one-stop option, or b) you take the nonstop to SFO and hop on the train (or your Uber) to your destination. Either way will save time and expense. You conveniently leave out the cost of the HSR ticket and time required. Currently an OKC-DFW flight is 30 minutes in the air, one hour gate to gate (give or take). With AA's banks you can usually make your connecting flight within 40 minutes to an hour, and you still checked your bags (how many business travelers actually check bags?) in OKC. Granted this is just one airline but it's the one I'm most familiar with so that's why I used it as my example.

HSR tickets won't be cheap. Tokyo to Osaka one-way is routinely $150-200 or more on the Nozomi. What makes you think that an OKC-Dallas HSR could be significantly cheaper and faster?

All of this is true, not to mention another major issue...why would HSR connect DT OKC directly to DFW and not to the Dallas and Fort Worth city centers first? It wouldn't make any sense to connect from city center to airport. You miss an entire group of people that would be going to the Dallas and/or Fort Worth specifically to stay in those cities without intending to fly out of them.

Which airlines didn't want DIA? Pretty sure UA (which is still the dominant player) had significant input into the design of the new DEN.


Both United and Continental fought DIA until the Denver vote passed. They even claimed it would put them out of business and funded opposition to try and stop it. Their real fear was the larger airport with more capacity and efficiency would allow other airlines to cut into market share.

All of this is true, not to mention another major issue...why would HSR connect DT OKC directly to DFW and not to the Dallas and Fort Worth city centers first? It wouldn't make any sense to connect from city center to airport. You miss an entire group of people that would be going to the Dallas and/or Fort Worth specifically to stay in those cities without intending to fly out of them.

For the love of Pete. Maybe this type of forumn is the wrong place for this kind of discussion :). If anyone wants to discuss this at a local watering hole let me know.

Both United and Continental fought DIA until the Denver vote passed. They even claimed it would put them out of business and funded opposition to try and stop it. Their real fear was the larger airport with more capacity and efficiency would allow other airlines to cut into market share.

Exactly - so they were afraid of competition - not afraid of a larger, more capable facility (par for the course for United). Now the distance from downtown Denver- that's another can of worms entirely, but not the point.

I think any of us would be up for discussing this anytime! On the bright side, maybe a green car ticket on the HSR to DFW would include a beverage or two...

I'm just as lost as anyone. I don't see any benefit to the consumer in replacing the OKC-DFW flights with HSR in exchange for shutting down all other commercial flight options. The anti-competitive nature of everything would just make this a non-starter. You funnel everyone to DFW where AA is dominate. Sure, maybe you add an additional option to get people to Love Field for WN, but it still leaves out UA, DL, G4, and AS. If I have status with either of those carriers (except G4 of course), why would I want to take a train to DFW to connect to a flight on DL to ATL to connect to my destination? Why is this a better option than just flying from OKC to ATL and connecting on.

That is where the disconnect is at...there is no definition of the logic on why this would be a good idea or favorable for the consumer. As far as the consumer being in the drivers seat...this is the airline industry we are talking about. Strong record profits are being posted right now, high load factors, and most cities with some of the best connections they've had in awhile. Of course that isn't to mean that some cities aren't still hurting big time due to the lack of overall competition thanks to consolidation. Those are typically going to be your cities with in 50-75 miles of a major hub. If anything, those cities are your candidates for HSR connections to major hubs...not OKC. I can get people in CAK or TOL driving an hour-ish to CLE or DTW respectfully...I still can't grasp people driving 2-3 hours to DFW from the OKC area. Regardless...that is for another thread.

Shutting commercial operations at TUL and OKC is a non-starter. ICT wouldn't go for shutting down and letting all that tax revenue go to Oklahoma. Let's also not leave out the massive additional operations at TUL and OKC that need the air fields to say open. There are also services that will end up being duplicated at this GPI...FAA, customs, emergency services, etc. Not to mention to paycheck airports get for having commercial passenger operations from the FAA for upgrades to infrastructure.

Again, if we were in Rockford, Akron, Toledo, Youngstown, Dayton, Lexington, Trenton, etc...there might be a point to all of this. Those medium sized cities don't have extremely extensive local air service and could be easily serviced with HSR to a regionalized air hub...but in the end it still would impact local economies when businesses are trying to fly employees directly into cities or out. Having the airport with flights in the local area means a lot to the business community. Your cheap fair weather flyers will go where they want, but if I have a business meeting in Akron...I want to fly into Akron if at all possible and not have to worry about flying into Cleveland and catching a train. Especially when I'll have to hope my flight isn't late if there is only one train left for the day. That's not even touching the issues of how many trains per day do you run to make it work without burning through cash or causing it to be entirely inconvenient for passengers.

JTF I'm curious why you would choose a centralized location. For me, if something like this were to work it would make more sense to pick a city and invest the 3 airports worth into making it a regional destination and then doing the HSR from the opposing cities. Sure it would add time for the other two cities but like it has been pointed out the current situation now already has a stop a major hubs so it would just be doing it by rail or limited air service to get to the regional hub. But by placing it on one city you 1 save cost from having to start from scratch and two give it a better feel than hey we shut down your airport and but it in the middle of nowhere. It's an interesting idea but as it has already been mentioned there will always been a layover somewhere. Makes more sense to lay the ground work to make our airport better than start anew and hope the airlines buy in. Now Tulsa and whicita would never go for it but think if all of their air traffic went through OKC. The options would immediately increase and we would probably see prices fall as different airlines attempted to have a hold on the traffic.

If we spent the hundreds of billions of dollars to make the GPI work on subsidizing service in OKC, you would have an Emirates sized air carrier out of OKC.

Neither will happen.

Even if we spent $20 million a year on subsidizing service, it would be cheaper than building one taxiway at your great plains airport, and use existing infrastructure.

JTF I'm curious why you would choose a centralized location. For me, if something like this were to work it would make more sense to pick a city and invest the 3 airports worth into making it a regional destination and then doing the HSR from the opposing cities. Sure it would add time for the other two cities but like it has been pointed out the current situation now already has a stop a major hubs so it would just be doing it by rail or limited air service to get to the regional hub. But by placing it on one city you 1 save cost from having to start from scratch and two give it a better feel than hey we shut down your airport and but it in the middle of nowhere. It's an interesting idea but as it has already been mentioned there will always been a layover somewhere. Makes more sense to lay the ground work to make our airport better than start anew and hope the airlines buy in. Now Tulsa and whicita would never go for it but think if all of their air traffic went through OKC. The options would immediately increase and we would probably see prices fall as different airlines attempted to have a hold on the traffic.

It would almost be sure to be cheaper, faster to implement and result in faster travel times verses HSR to pick one of the airports as the hub and then do the links to the others with airplanes. Not that this would be any more likely.

I vote for teleportation and eliminate airports, railroads, cars and ships altogether. Will be much more efficient, and probably more likely than GPI.

I vote for teleportation and eliminate airports, railroads, cars and ships altogether. Will be much more efficient, and probably more likely than GPI.

Just make sure to keep a bug zapper nearby. Don't want any... incidents.

http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e380/shirakusan/Silliness/Telepod.jpg

I think there a lot of merit to this idea, but the killer is that NO major city (OKC, Tulsa or Wichita) will have their airport by ceding their airport to GPI. What city would do that voluntarily? Maybe what we need is to first link the three cities by rail and, if we could cleverly use fed money to do it, include linking the smaller cities (Lawton, Stillwater, etc.) to the major cities by rail using the money they wanted from the FAA to have their own air service. Then use the consortium of those three airports to create a virtual GPI hub. Suddenly, boom, you've got three different origination points to choose from.

I vote for teleportation and eliminate airports, railroads, cars and ships altogether. Will be much more efficient, and probably more likely than GPI.

Probably with teleportation is it doesn't move you, it just creates a prefect copy of you. You die....

Might still be better than GPI, though :-P.

I think there a lot of merit to this idea, but the killer is that NO major city (OKC, Tulsa or Wichita) will have their airport by ceding their airport to GPI. What city would do that voluntarily? Maybe what we need is to first link the three cities by rail and, if we could cleverly use fed money to do it, include linking the smaller cities (Lawton, Stillwater, etc.) to the major cities by rail using the money they wanted from the FAA to have their own air service. Then use the consortium of those three airports to create a virtual GPI hub. Suddenly, boom, you've got three different origination points to choose from.

If we did that we would probably end up with 3 flights leaving for Atlanta at the same time from 3 different airports, when the desire is to have three flights leaving for Atlanta and hour apart from the same airport.

From a previous questions, I triangulated the location for 2 reasons - 1) To reduce travel time to the airport and 2) So that the cities involved had the same commitment. The big winners would be Stillwater, Enid, and Ponca City. I also think the oil companies would like it because with the combined traffic of OKC, Tulsa, Enid, Ponca City, and Cushing we could probably get direct flights to Calgary.

And that airport would never see any support from anyone in the state. TUL and OKC both are too well established and make their immediate customer base happy. We don't gain anything by combining the two. We get more gates, but you absolutely would not get to the status of some major airport. You WOULD piss everyone off that went from having a 20 minute drive, to an hour. Right now DFW is close enough that driving/flying to DFW takes about the same amount of time. If you added more time to the drive for OKC folks, you ABSOLUTELY would lose traffic to DFW. Why would I drive an extra 45 minutes in the wrong direction if I could drive to DFW with the same amount of total travel time, but save several hundred dollars? Right now, we pay for the convenience of time.

You are kind of missing the concept I was going for. The airports in Tulsa, OKC, and Wichita would be closed to commercial carriers. GPI would be far closer than DFW is and it's location would bring in people that are currently going to Kansas City. People in OKC wouldn't have to drive to GPI if they didn't want to. There would still be an airport terminal in OKC, it would just connect by train to the gates. Since there would be no runway associated with the local terminal it could be placed anywhere that is most convenient for the most people. Many people in Edmond would be just as close to GPI as they currently are to WRWA if they wanted to drive.

Let's say for fun the new airport gateway was downtown and a person lives in Norman. They drive to downtown OKC, park in a garage dedicated for airport passengers, check-in to their flight, check their luggage, go through security, and then board a train that wisks them away to the airport in 30 minutes. It doesn't even have to be a big train with 300 seats. It could be on-demand pods that hold 6 people so you don't even have to wait for a train (just get in a pod and go).

So what does the passenger get for the short train ride? More frequent flights, more direct flights, international service, and hopefully better fares. For example, let's say Tulsa/OKC/Wichita currently has a combined 10 flights to Atlanta (4 Tulsa, 4 OKC, and 2 Wichita). These flights typically have very similar departure times (morning and afternoon). At GPI we could keep the same number of flights but do the 10 flights 90 minutes apart, reduce it to 4 flights total but use a larger aircraft (which will reduce the price), or be able to piece together enough passengers connecting to the same destination through Atlanta to create a new direct flight.

Anyhow, we all know this is never going to happen because we let selfish interest get in the way of the common good. If we fight for out limitations we get to keep them.

Let me ask though - why do you consider driving north 45 minutes to be "the wrong way"?

It would never happen because the airlines would never want it to happen.

It would never happen because the airlines would never want it to happen.

The cities will almost surely not be interested in funding it's construction to begin with. The state does not have the funds to even think about it.

Wichita just opening a brand new terminal to replace their old one. Tulsa is within a year away from completing the major renovation of their terminal. Our remodel/rebuild was only completed a few years ago and have committed to a further expansion. If the 4 (plausibly 9 gates eventually) are not enough in the east concourse, a south concourse could easily add another 20+ gates. Unless the FAA does something similar to DFW and force the cities to do it or lose any future funding from them, it seems really unlikely to happen.

the East Concourse will have another expansion after this one to bring a total of 11 gates iirc, then yes, the final expansion could come as a new center concourse.

The thing about a regional airport is what city would adopt the name? OKC?

That in itself proves to problem with such an airport in a non-dense area of the country. If Oklahoma had 30M people then it 'could' possibly work as reliever airport for OKC and TUL but would likely brand itself to Stroud which itself might be the size of OKC of today in such a scenario.

JTF - I think we should let this one die, with prejudice. :)

This idea is so outlandish and unrealistic - where to even start.

The notion that a "GPI" would all of a sudden offer flyers flexibility, convenience, and savings is just laughable to say the least. JTF, there's no way airlines are going to all of a sudden fly larger planes into GPI. That's just not how the US aviation market works. US flyers have shown that they far prefer frequency to size, and the airlines have delivered. And it's not like this "GPI" is going to attract service from British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa, etc. Or really any significantly enhanced service from any US carrier. Which major int'l market do you think GPI would get service for to? I have an answer for you: none.

The airlines wouldn't want this, the consumers wouldn't want this, and none of these cities would want this. End. Of. Story.

Anyhow, we all know this is never going to happen because we let selfish interest get in the way of the common good. If we fight for out limitations we get to keep them.


Or maybe it won't happen because it isn't that great of an idea?

Such a terrible and unrealistic idea clearly this will never happen