My frustration with ticket prices, connection delays, and flight availability has me rethinking a subject that comes up on a regular basis on OKCTalk - the creation of regional airport between Tulsa and OKC. After giving it some thought, I think serious consideration should be given to creating a new airport between OKC, Tulsa and Wichita. Doing a quick triangulation of the three cities a good location would be at the junction of I-35 and the Cimarron Turnpike. As the crow flies it is 65 miles to downtown OKC, 76 miles to downtown Tulsa, and 89 miles to downtown Wichita. It would also serve Stillwater and Enid.

While this location would be easily accessible by automobile, high-speed rail using I-35 and turnpike right of way could connect to stations in downtown OKC, Tulsa, and Wichita. It would be reachable in about 30 minutes from each city. Passengers would check in, check baggage, and go through security at each city station, then be dropped off on the secure side of the terminal at the airport.. Arriving passengers would get baggage claim and rental cars at the city hubs as well. This would prevent people from having to lug their luggage. Of course, people could also drive to the airport if they choose.

The transit time by train would be more than made up for by eliminating a lot of lay-overs, and since the train trip occurs AFTER check-in that is time when people would be waiting in the terminal anyhow - just in this case the terminal would be moving at 150 mph.

From a numbers perspective, assume passenger counts wouldn't change, the airport would have 3,847,867 enplanements (2013 figures). This would make it the 46th busiest airport in the US, just between San Antonio and Pittsburgh.

In addition, the high-speed rail line could also be used to connect OKC, Wichita, and Tulsa with regular passenger service (stopping on the unsecured side of the terminal).

So how big would this new airport have to be? Really it would just need one runway. Gatwick only has a single runway and handles 38 million people per year. The San Jose airport operated for decades with a single runway and handled over 9 million annual passengers (arriving and departing). Finally, the increased passenger counts would make international flights a possibility and increase direct service to many cities only accessible by connecting through a hub.

In one word, NO. It's a nice sounding idea but it would never work as you envision it unless it had been planned 50 years ago. Airlines would have no interest in changing their offered service from this area in the way of nonstop flights. We would still be facing connections just like we do now for multitudes of destinations.

Why don't you think the number of direct flights would increase? Also, even the hubs would be served on a more frequent basis. And there is no doubt prices would drop drastically.

Why don't you think the number of direct flights would increase? Also, even the hubs would be served on a more frequent basis.

Because I know how airlines have operated in the last 20 years. Getting them to operate more direct flights would be difficult, even with monetary incentives. What would be their motivation to do that, unless it was much higher fares, when they have people flying between those cities already and they're making good money with existing connecting routes? I'm sure you're correct about more flights to hubs but it could also be possible those flights might just be with larger aircraft. As I said, the time that something like this could have been built in a way that it could have succeeded has sailed.

Lj is right -- the airlines are not going to abandon the hub and spoke model because we built an airport between two cities.

The airlines would not establish a hub with only 6 million O&D passengers. It would siphon traffic away from TUL and OKC -- we would have less service at all 3 airports. Airlines would still offer service to OKC and TUL for business traffic.

Look how Dulles is turning out. A huge airport, soon to have direct rail... Yet the airlines are still pushing as many flights as they can into DCA. Business travelers don't want to fly to the remote airport. They want to be close to the business centers.

It would be a collosal failure, with no benefit to anybody other than the handful of people that live between TUL and OKC.

Stop giving Dallas your traffic and airlines will add service to OKC. If you are complaining about lack of service at OKC, yet drive to DFW for cheap flights -- YOU are the problem.

Why don't you think the number of direct flights would increase? Also, even the hubs would be served on a more frequent basis. And there is no doubt prices would drop drastically.

OKC has no stop service to almost every single major hub in the U.S. What else do you need? Nonstop to JAX? Will never happen in OKC.

Well, I would consider it a total success if all we got out of it was larger aircraft serving the same cities with the same frequency at the same price.

OKC has no stop service to almost every single major hub in the U.S. What else do you need? Nonstop to JAX? Will never happen in OKC.

I know it won't happen in OKC - that is the point. As for the other question, more available seats with more frequency.

BTW - Pittsburgh - the city OKC would pass, has non-stop flights to Jacksonville. Just sayin'.

Well, I would consider it a total success if all we got out of it was larger aircraft serving the same cities with the same frequency at the same price.

At the same price? So you would not even use the airport, you'd still drive to Dallas?

I know it won't happen in OKC - that is the point. As for the other question, more available seats with more frequency.

It wouldn't happen with the combined airport either.

It wouldn't happen with the combined airport either.

Maybe it wouldn't, but if it increased flights and/or seats to Atlanta that would be good enough for me; there are hourly flights from Atl to Jax.

OKC-ATL is ALL mainline jets as it is on Delta and Southwest. 6 a day each way.

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

OKC-ATL is ALL mainline jets as it is on Delta and Southwest. 6 a day each way.

Yep, but at crappy times and crazy expensive.

Also, I am thinking the airline would actually like this idea; they could reduce staff, gate costs, and aircraft. Instead of 3 gates at ATL they could just have 1.

You have gone off the rails...

Yep, but at crappy times and crazy expensive.

But you said you'd be happy if the prices were the same it would be a success?

We have two flights at 6am, a 10am, 12pm, 3pm, and a 530pm. Those seem pretty good for eastbound connectivity.

Yep, but at crappy times and crazy expensive.

Also, I am thinking the airline would actually like this idea; they could reduce staff, gate costs, and aircraft. Instead of 3 gates at ATL they could just have 1.

Delta has around 125 gates at ATL...

Delta has around 125 gates at ATL...

Well, yes...but 3 of them could be reduced to 1, opening 2 up for other cities.

Anyhow - score wise it goes Industry Insiders 2 - Traveling Public 1.

Gotta go to work in the morning so talk to you guys later.

Look how Dulles is turning out. A huge airport, soon to have direct rail... Yet the airlines are still pushing as many flights as they can into DCA. Business travelers don't want to fly to the remote airport. They want to be close to the business centers.

You're absolutely correct about that. I deal with people going to Washington every day. No one wants to go to IAD unless it's to change planes. And that's mainly for international travel.

I don't think a new airport would be successful. As others have stated, it would simply decrease service at all three airports and would only really benefit a few people who live in between the three cities. Businesses aren't going to want to shuttle their people 70+ miles from the airport to their destination city.

There is nothing wrong with OKC's airport other than how much it costs to fly. A direct flight from OKC to Charlotte would cost me $427. I could drive to Dallas and it would only cost me $243. The difference in cost is absolutely ridiculous. For comparison the same flight is $294 out of Wichita, $319 from Memphis, and $344 from XNA. I don't understand why it is so expensive to fly out of OKC.

I don't think a new airport would be successful. As others have stated, it would simply decrease service at all three airports and would only really benefit a few people who live in between the three cities. Businesses aren't going to want to shuttle their people 70+ miles from the airport to their destination city.

There is nothing wrong with OKC's airport other than how much it costs to fly. A direct flight from OKC to Charlotte would cost me $427. I could drive to Dallas and it would only cost me $243. The difference in cost is absolutely ridiculous. For comparison the same flight is $294 out of Wichita, $319 from Memphis, and $344 from XNA. I don't understand why it is so expensive to fly out of OKC.
You must be looking at specific dates. I found prices from OKC to CLT as low as $326.70 on direct flights with very little problem just picking some random dates in July. When I looked at the same dates from Wichita the best fare was $311.70. Dallas was about $50.00 less and XNA was about $40.00 less. The difference is insignificant and certainly not worth driving to another airport.

You must be looking at specific dates. I found prices from OKC to CLT as low as $326.70 on direct flights with very little problem just picking some random dates in July. When I looked at the same dates from Wichita the best fare was $311.70. Dallas was about $50.00 less and XNA was about $40.00 less. The difference is insignificant and certainly not worth driving to another airport.

Yeah it must have been the date I was looking at. I was looking at a round trip leaving tomorrow and coming back Friday.

Yeah it must have been the date I was looking at. I was looking at a round trip leaving tomorrow and coming back Friday.

You just can't judge comparative prices by looking at last minute flights. There are just too many variables that go into that.

You just can't judge comparative prices by looking at last minute flights. There are just too many variables that go into that.

Exactly. Last minute flights are often quite expensive and very much connected to actual availability. Fare buckets further out in time are more reflective of the true price airlines are seeking.

To tag on, if you want to get a better idea of air fares...just go to google and type "OKC to ___ Flights" and click on the top sponsored link. The next page it'll give you the fares by airline, click the calendar icons by the dates and it'll give you the lowest fare per day (excluding Southwest and other airlines that restrict fare access). You'll get a pretty good idea of how fares work out. $300 round trip seems to be the floor for OKC-CLT.

https://www.google.com/flights/#search;f=OKC;t=CLT;q=OKC+to+CLT+flights;d=2015-05-20;r=2015-05-24

I need to work on getting market data posted again. I'm going to try to get a site put together to make it easier to look at all the market specifics.

To the topic at hand...a new airport in the middle of no where will fail. Pax want to have access to population centers, not corn fields. There is a reason why you see Southwest push to expand Love Field, Midway, and entertain serving Boeing Field/King County Int'l. New airports also come with high costs placed on the airlines - something they will fight.

Also the notion of eliminating service from OKC for high speed to DFW is foolish. Airline service is key to the health of the local economy.

DFW as a joint airport for the region was mainly being pushed for by the FAA, not the local communities. The FAA was threatening no further investment in separate facilities for either city's existing airports and if a location could not be decided on by the two cities, one would be chosen for them.

This has even less reason to exist for any of the communities as of today, if near the intersection of i35 & the Cimarron Turnpike would be a terrible location for all the cities and a tough location for staffing, travel time is near an hour and a half for all the cities by car. Even getting a Heartland flyer extension to Wichita failed, the proposed rail (kinda) between OKC and Tulsa so far does not even sound like it will be receiving much state or city funds, so HSR is not happening any time soon. Ignoring all that a big point of HSR is getting between cities, not finding new reasons to add delays between them.

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

Nooo.... those extra 500 mile segments add up quickly when trying to requalify for status!


Yep, but at crappy times and crazy expensive.

Also, I am thinking the airline would actually like this idea; they could reduce staff, gate costs, and aircraft. Instead of 3 gates at ATL they could just have 1.

All 6 times a day are crappy? Which exact time of departure do you want? Let DL know - if you're willing to pay a high enough fare, I'm sure they'll add a flight! And as catch pointed out, that will have absolutely no effect on their gates at ATL.


I don't think a new airport would be successful. As others have stated, it would simply decrease service at all three airports and would only really benefit a few people who live in between the three cities. Businesses aren't going to want to shuttle their people 70+ miles from the airport to their destination city.

There is nothing wrong with OKC's airport other than how much it costs to fly. A direct flight from OKC to Charlotte would cost me $427. I could drive to Dallas and it would only cost me $243. The difference in cost is absolutely ridiculous. For comparison the same flight is $294 out of Wichita, $319 from Memphis, and $344 from XNA. I don't understand why it is so expensive to fly out of OKC.

Let me play devil's advocate here - but $427 last second out of OKC isn't half bad at all. It's hard to get advance fares that low out of OKC. And when you add up the cost, time, and hassle of driving to DFW - no thanks.

I think Sid started a similar topic in the last - and I think most of us agree this type of arrangement is a non-starter for billions of reasons ($$$) - but also because OKC/TUL/LAW/ICT would then have to be artificially shuttered a la DAL (which was never shuttered but that was certainly the goal IIRC) - and that absolutely would not fly with the leaders of any of the aforementioned cities. A Great Plains Int'l airport would be absurdly expensive to build and would likely resemble something like: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2170886/Spains-ghost-airport-The-1BILLION-transport-hub-closed-just-years-thats-falling-rack-ruin.html - OR this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MidAmerica_St._Louis_Airport

And lastly, it's extremely unlikely that "GPI" would attract routes such as LHR, CDG, NRT, etc - which would be the only justification I could see. Even if you combined the business markets of OKC/TUL/ICT, we're just too close to DFW. And if the new airport had 737s to ORD instead of CRJs, really what's the difference? Minimal benefit for maximal cost IMO.

The cost to build a new airport would not be worth any benefit we'd get out of it. We'd be much better off using the money to make OKC into a better city. That would bring many more flights.

This is another "on paper" good idea. Reminds me of a client I had in NYC years ago who wanted to put a ski resort in an area that had "average" temperatures below 32 for Jan and Feb. Against advice, they spent a lot of money putting in one, and created a HUGE mud slope by creating snow at night. 40 at day and 20 at night averages below freezing. That darn sun and 40 degree temps got in the way. This is what these kind of theoretical and non pragmatic ideas remind me of. Totally impractical and doomed to failure. Sometimes a little reality needs to be applied when people get too caught up in their own mental gymnastics.

This seems like something soviet Russia would attempt...make the people serve the system instead of the people getting served.

To further add some perspective, back when Austin had the need for a new airport, the idea of a joint San Antonio-Austin airport had been going around. Very few people from both cities supported the idea. People want to have an airport close to their city, they don't want to go far and away just to get to their plane.

This seems like something soviet Russia would attempt...make the people serve the system instead of the people getting served.

Kind of like having the Winter Olympics in a sub-tropical climate...

To further add some perspective, back when Austin had the need for a new airport, the idea of a joint San Antonio-Austin airport had been going around. Very few people from both cities supported the idea. People want to have an airport close to their city, they don't want to go far and away just to get to their plane.

I agree with this. The airport is primarily used by the business community and you probably couldn't get the business communities in any of the three cities on board with a joint airport, especially for cities that are as far apart from each other as OKC, Tulsa, and Wichita.

So if WRWA was to double the number of passengers is the consesus then that OKC would not get more frequent service, nor more direct cities, nor lower fares, but only larger aircraft?

If that is the case then tell me again why people shouldn't drive to DFW.

Also, I am pary of the OKC business community and am not a recreational travler, so the ' business community won't support it' comment isn't true.

Hey JTF, I don't think your idea is gaining much traction here.

So if WRWA was to double the number of passengers is the consesus then that OKC would not get more frequent service, nor more direct cities, nor lower fares, but only larger aircraft?

If that is the case then tell me again why people shouldn't drive to DFW.

Also, I am pary of the OKC business community and am not a recreational travler, so the ' business community won't support it' comment isn't true.

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.

So if WRWA was to double the number of passengers is the consesus then that OKC would not get more frequent service, nor more direct cities, nor lower fares, but only larger aircraft?

If that is the case then tell me again why people shouldn't drive to DFW.

Also, I am pary of the OKC business community and am not a recreational travler, so the ' business community won't support it' comment isn't true.

Do that many local businesses send their employees to DFW? I would imagine people who drive to DFW are mostly recreational travelers.

If WRWA doubled the number of passengers then yes, I think the airport would get more competitive service. However, a new airport between Perry and Ponca city would decrease traffic and service at all airports. Unless a major airline was able to commit to making it a primary hub, it wouldn't achieve the desired results.

People shouldn't drive to DFW for the very reason you argue why people shouldn't shop at Walmart. Buy local! When you fly out of OKC, the local community benefits. If more people flew out of OKC, my company might have had more flights a day and I'd be keeping my job. Who knows!

Driving to DFW does nothing but hurt OKC.

Maybe you guys didn't read the whole thing. You would check-in here in OKC. Almost no one would drive to the airport. A person traveling to/from Devon would walk a total of 3 blocks.

Maybe you guys didn't read the whole thing. You would check-in here in OKC. Almost no one would drive to the airport. A person traveling to/from Devon would walk a total of 3 blocks.

Does any businessman want to take a 30 min train ride to catch a flight? (Besides you)

Does any businessman want to take a 30 min train ride to catch a flight? (Besides you)

People do it all over the world. Gatwick Express is about 40 minutes. MARTA from downtown Atlanta is 30 minutes, and it is packed. From north Atlanta it is an hour. This would be 30 minutes and not even have to carry your luggage or go through security when you get there.

Cities are not building airports anymore, and for good reason.

Its heralded a such a success story, but heaven and earth had to be moved back in the late 1960's for DFW to be built. Both Dallas and Ft Worth had to be forced to give up their own airports by federal threat. And this was for cities that were 30 miles apart and when jet travel was still in growth mode.

Most on here wouldn't believe this, but given the market size and limitations here (no big tourism draw, in the middle of the country, only 3 hours away from huge hub), OKC has very good air service. You can fly nonstop to 14 of the US largest CSA's. You definitely pay for the privilege though. If people want to drive to Dallas even though 90% of their savings will be burned in gas, possible lodging, and parking, then so be it. Just don't complain when airlines start pulling the plug on what nonstop service we do have.

Right now I certainly am appreciating Will Rogers. I am trying to book a flight from Dallas to a friends wedding in Virginia Beach and the flight options out there range from terrible to abysmal. This is for a market that is slightly larger than OKC but has a much larger tourism base and is a huge military center.

Also, just to be clear WRWA, Tulsa, and Wichita would close for commercial traffic.

We really do have good air service for a city our size. Use it or lose it.

People do it all over the world. Gatwick Express is about 40 minutes.
I've taken that. If I had it to do over again would have flown into Heathrow.

Also, just to be clear WRWA, Tulsa, and Wichita would close for commercial traffic.

Won't happen. The cities won't voluntarily do it, and the FAA has no interest in closing them.

Cities are not building airports any more.

No, but nearly every airport in the US has expansion underway and new airports are being built around the world constantly.

Well clearly there doesn't seem to be any interest.

Won't happen. The cities won't voluntarily do it, and the FAA has no interest in closing them.

You're right, they would have to be convinced.

I've taken that. If I had it to do over again would have flown into Heathrow.

Still a 30 minute ride on the Heathrow Express.

Does any businessman want to take a 30 min train ride to catch a flight? (Besides you)

I don't think that the ride in itself is the issue - as JTF explains, all over the world it's the norm. Narita is still a cool one hour from most parts of Tokyo, even longer at times. HKG is 25 minutes from Central Hong Kong. Milan Malpensa is about the same. Singapore's CBD is 20-25 minutes from Changi via MRT. So in the proper context, there's no issue with riding a comfortable express train 30-40 minutes to the airport.

The issue is the massive paradigm shift that would be required to make such a system viable here. I think it's safe to say that OKC will never be as dense and transit oriented as Tokyo, Hong Kong, or Singapore - so such a system here is sadly a non-starter. Though I have to say - in-town check-in at the station is incredible. Saves an unbelievable amount of hassle when you travel with as much stuff as we do!

The furthest cities in the US that share an airport might be SeaTac? DFW, Minneapolis St Paul, and a few others. 100+ miles between cities is too far. Airports want to be as close to the financial district as possible. It's all about business. If Wichita, Tulsa, and OKC were about 50-60 miles away from each other in a triangle, then there might be some possibility.

I'm not an expert on the airline business by any means, but I'd say there are probably 50 different things that OKC can do to improve our air travel options. If we do enough of them, in 30 years we could be a hub.

-Establish a functional and popular metro-wide light rail system
-Connect Will Rogers to it
-Connect all major entertainment attractions in city to it
-Get 3-5 more Fortune 500 companies HQs here
-Major expanded presence by Boeing and GE
-Successfully develop Core 2 Shore and Producers Co-Op into thriving urban areas with Deep Deuce-plus density
-4 Thunder NBA championships
-Highway beautification within the city limits
-A dozen 300+ ft residential towers
-Completed AICC
-A new Smithsonian-level science museum to replace the Omniplex
-A major salt water aquarium
-Solidify the city as a solid tier 2 convention city
-Host a yearly major tourist-oriented convention like Comic-Con
-Make Stockyard City into a Western-themed tourist friendly area with restaurants and live entertainment
-Increase undergrad enrollment at OU to 40,000 while retaining high enrollment standards
-A dozen different nationally ranked top 10 educational fields at OU
-HSR to Dallas and Tulsa
-Pandas at the OKC Zoo
-Extensive nationwide tourist-y marketing campaign
-NFL team
-Space Needle/Gateway Arch type tall building attraction
-Austin-level population growth from 2020 to 2040


That's 23 things right there, and yes, it's mostly a wishlist of stuff I want. And many of those would be quite difficult to pull off. Making OU competitive with the University of Michigan in academics and enrollment is a major league task. Some of the things are completely out of our hands, like the population growth. But my point really is that by making the city a better place, a more exciting place, increased air traffic will follow. OKC people need to travel to other cities more often, which will happen more as we get more transplants here and as we have more disposable income. And people from around the country need more reasons to come here to visit, which will happen as we have more transplants and more things to do.

I think HSR to Dallas would hurt - not help - our air service.

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.

So if WRWA was to double the number of passengers is the consesus then that OKC would not get more frequent service, nor more direct cities, nor lower fares, but only larger aircraft?

If that is the case then tell me again why people shouldn't drive to DFW.

Also, I am pary of the OKC business community and am not a recreational travler, so the ' business community won't support it' comment isn't true.

Sometimes people SHOULD drive to DFW. I've never found it convenient or worth the price, but I know some people who do. Of course, I know some people that will drive 25 miles to find a gas station selling gas 5 cents a gallon less too. When you realize that people have all kinds of reasons for doing what they do and quit trying to make everyone do the same thing the same way then one has a better understanding of capitalism and marketing.

Frankly, I like and have always been served well by being able to be at WWWA in 15-30 minutes and speed through to my flight. Much rather do that than take 15-30 min to drag bags to a train station, take the train 30 min or hr. to an airport, then still take 15-40 min to clear in a much more crowded airport. When I board here at the airport I don't need to clear again at my hub airport. I don't have to schlepp bags from train (or plane) to plane. It is easy.

I think HSR to Dallas would hurt - not help - our air service.
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.

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.

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

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.

We have history to show that wouldn't happen. There are both HSR and regional airports all over Europe. They work together, not to close one or the other. I am not sure where you get this absolutism as truth for everything. Get our of your theoretical world and realize how the world REALLY works.

I think HSR to Dallas would hurt - not help - our air service.

HSR would work both ways. OKC could market a more efficient, easier and less crowded airport. Likely all those in north Texas would have a choice they don't believe they have. And, we might pick up from Northern OK and southern Kansas who would HSR to OKC vs. Wichita or Tulsa. Why suppose the railroad only works one way...going south.