2018 Oklahoma City Aviation Thread

[d-usa]

My work usually books us on AA, and with the increased leisure options I might have to switch my meager miles to AA.

[s00nr1]

So come February, AA will have:
DFW 9x
ORD 3x
CLT 3x
LAX 2x
PHX 2x
PHL 2x
DCA 1x

Is this correct, catch?

If so, that's pretty dang impressive. Would think a 1x MIA and a 1x LGA could round things out and complete N/S service to all their hubs/focus cities.

[catch22]

CLT 2x ^ but yes very impressive schedule.

[OUman]

I'm guessing AA's first in line to get at least one of the four new gates when the first phase of the east concourse opens.

[catch22]

Here's the AA schedule for OKC for Feb 18, 2019. It does not appear to be final as a few turn times are unrealistic.

Arrival time, city, equipment, departure time; relative to OKC. If there are two cities, it comes from one, and turns to the other. E.G. PHX-OKC-DFW
---- DFW S80 0510
---- ORD CR7 0540
---- PHX CR9 0555
---- PHL E75 0600
---- LAX E75 0620
---- DCA E75 0655
---- DFW 738 0700
---- CLT CR9 0705
0801 DFW 319 0835
0951 DFW S80 1032
1025 PHL E75 1055
1134 DFW S80 1219
1150 ORD CR7 1220
1250 CLT CR9 1325
1344 DFW E75 1425
1428 LAX E75 1505
1517 DFW CR9 PHX 1550
1522 ORD CR7 1600
1623 PHX CR9 DFW 1653
1731 DFW 738 1820
1840 ORD CR7 ----
1932 DFW S80 2020
1955 CLT CR9 ----
2020 DCA E75 ----
2158 DFW 738 ----
2258 PHX CR9 ----
2320 PHL E75 ----
2321 DFW S80 ----
2345 LAX E75 ----

[brianinok]

Interesting: Charleston SC is getting a seasonal British Airways non-stop to LHR, twice weekly. Looking at the data, it looks like Charleston's passenger numbers are nearly identical to OKC. Too bad we don't already have the expansion built.

https://www.postandcourier.com/news/...9947a444b.html

[Celebrator]

Interesting: Charleston SC is getting a seasonal British Airways non-stop to LHR, twice weekly. Looking at the data, it looks like Charleston's passenger numbers are nearly identical to OKC. Too bad we don't already have the expansion built.

https://www.postandcourier.com/news/...9947a444b.html

It's all about touristic draw with CHS, though. We might have similar numbers, but Charleston is a pretty big leisure destination in the southeast. And, as always, DFW is just so close...relatively speaking.

[jonny d]

Makes me wonder if OKC even tries for international flights...

[baralheia]

Makes me wonder if OKC even tries for international flights...

At the moment, probably not, considering we don't have the facilities to accept international flights right now.

[brianinok]

It's all about touristic draw with CHS, though. We might have similar numbers, but Charleston is a pretty big leisure destination in the southeast. And, as always, DFW is just so close...relatively speaking.

OKC's passenger numbers are nearly identical. So, whatever their numbers are: leisure, business, manufacturing-- they add up to equal the same as OKC.

[catch22]

A couple things:

1) Charleston is closer: less fuel; lower crew costs; less aircraft time = lower risk, lower break even.

2) British Airways is targeting London point of sale traffic; as mentioned the US South is a tourist draw for Europeans.

3) Passenger numbers may be similar, but passenger type is not. A leisure dominated route can thrive on 2x weekly, where OKC is a steadier mix of business and US POS leisure traffic. A flight twice a week would not be competitive enough for business traffic. If you have to be in London at 4pm tomorrow, you simply cannot wait 3-4 days for a nonstop flight. You will connect or drive to DFW.

4) American Airlines and British Airways have a transatlantic metal neutral joint venture. This means that any flights between Europe and the United States on either American or BA are part of this joint venture. The airplanes are neutral, and the profit from each flight is divided up between the two carriers. In order for the AA/BA JV to launch OKC-LHR, they will have to make a decision to overfly 3 hubs (PHL,ORD,CLT) in order to do so, whereas Charleston really only overflies one (PHL). Airlines much rather you go to a hub, and in order for an airline to overfly a hub, they have to be very sure that the nonstop will command a fare premium. This means that people will pay more to not connect or drive to DFW. The OKC market has very poor evidence of people even paying a premium to fly nonstop from OKC to domestic markets, choosing to drive to DFW or connect for cheaper instead. Why would we assume people will suddenly pay more for this flight, versus connecting or driving; just as they do now?

[gopokes88]

Well that should end that discussion. If you want to argue with catch it’s just cause you want to argue. He’s pretty much dead on there.

[Celebrator]

Well that should end that discussion. If you want to argue with catch it’s just cause you want to argue. He’s pretty much dead on there.

Yep, well put and illustrated!

[jonny d]

A couple things:

1) Charleston is closer: less fuel; lower crew costs; less aircraft time = lower risk, lower break even.

2) British Airways is targeting London point of sale traffic; as mentioned the US South is a tourist draw for Europeans.

3) Passenger numbers may be similar, but passenger type is not. A leisure dominated route can thrive on 2x weekly, where OKC is a steadier mix of business and US POS leisure traffic. A flight twice a week would not be competitive enough for business traffic. If you have to be in London at 4pm tomorrow, you simply cannot wait 3-4 days for a nonstop flight. You will connect or drive to DFW.

4) American Airlines and British Airways have a transatlantic metal neutral joint venture. This means that any flights between Europe and the United States on either American or BA are part of this joint venture. The airplanes are neutral, and the profit from each flight is divided up between the two carriers. In order for the AA/BA JV to launch OKC-LHR, they will have to make a decision to overfly 3 hubs (PHL,ORD,CLT) in order to do so, whereas Charleston really only overflies one (PHL). Airlines much rather you go to a hub, and in order for an airline to overfly a hub, they have to be very sure that the nonstop will command a fare premium. This means that people will pay more to not connect or drive to DFW. The OKC market has very poor evidence of people even paying a premium to fly nonstop from OKC to domestic markets, choosing to drive to DFW or connect for cheaper instead. Why would we assume people will suddenly pay more for this flight, versus connecting or driving; just as they do now?

Isn't perception reality? OKC will never be seen as big league without an international flight. It's the only NBA market without an international flight. Not saying we need 5, but a flight like this would put the US on notice. Just my opinion, and I respect all of the points you made.

[Celebrator]

Isn't perception reality? OKC will never be seen as big league without an international flight. It's the only NBA market without an international flight. Not saying we need 5, but a flight like this would put the US on notice. Just my opinion, and I respect all of the points you made.

MKE is one of the smallest NBA markets and it just has YYZ and a bunch of Mexico service, most of it leisure for those cold Wisconsin winters, but certainly we should strive for Canada and Mexico service, too. See, MKE suffers from market drain to ORD for long haul int'l service, just like us and DFW. Would Canada and Mexico flights count for you to be "big league?" I think those are within reach. NOLA, the smallest NBA market, has a huge touristic draw, so it's hard to compare us with them.

[jonny d]

MKE is one of the smallest NBA markets and it just has YYZ and a bunch of Mexico service, most of it leisure for those cold Wisconsin winters, but certainly we should strive for Canada and Mexico service, too. See, MKE suffers from market drain to ORD for long haul int'l service, just like us and DFW. Would Canada and Mexico flights count for you to be "big league?" I think those are within reach. NOLA, the smallest NBA market, has a huge touristic draw, so it's hard to compare us with them.

True. But I wasn't really fully looking at size. If OKC could get a flight to Mexico, that would be huge. Heck, Toronto may be doable. But I think OKC could support an international flight. But I get what you are saying.

[Jersey Boss]

Wouldn't it be more valuable to the well being of the airport and the metro to be a hub versus international?

[amocore]

Wouldn't it be more valuable to the well being of the airport and the metro to be a hub versus international?

Maybe we can be a big Navy port too ?

Seriously, the hub is a dying breed and to be realistic, there are not enough inhabitants in the whole state to justify one. Furthermore with a huge metropolis and world hub just 3 hours away, it would not make sense. But again OKC is just too small for a big airport.

Enjoy the one here. It is very convenient and we are adding more direct flight so use them people !

[LakeEffect]

MKE is one of the smallest NBA markets and it just has YYZ and a bunch of Mexico service, most of it leisure for those cold Wisconsin winters, but certainly we should strive for Canada and Mexico service, too. See, MKE suffers from market drain to ORD for long haul int'l service, just like us and DFW. Would Canada and Mexico flights count for you to be "big league?" I think those are within reach. NOLA, the smallest NBA market, has a huge touristic draw, so it's hard to compare us with them.

MKE has double the passenger traffic that OKC has... January - August 2018, it was at 6.2 million. OKC, January - September, is 3.2 million.

[Celebrator]

Maybe we can be a big Navy port too ?

Seriously, the hub is a dying breed and to be realistic, there are not enough inhabitants in the whole state to justify one. Furthermore with a huge metropolis and world hub just 3 hours away, it would not make sense. But again OKC is just too small for a big airport.

Enjoy the one here. It is very convenient and we are adding more direct flight so use them people !

Well put and reasonable. A hub is likely out of the question for the near term, but hopes of starting out with int'l flights to Canada and Mexico are good and realistic goals for the time being. The dynamics of the business and of the area/state will also have to change dramatically for us to compete with DFW operationally. Might happen, but likely WAY, WAY down the line.

[Celebrator]

MKE has double the passenger traffic that OKC has... January - August 2018, it was at 6.2 million. OKC, January - September, is 3.2 million.

Wow, that's interesting--and a bit surprising to me. Wisconsin population is 5.7 million where OK's is almost 4 million. Milwaukee metro has pop. of 1.5 million, OKC has 1.3 million. Perhaps just sheer people accounts for it and perhaps MKE has a bigger economy or at least more business flyers. That's a LOT more traffic though--big difference.

[PaddyShack]

Are all of these passenger counts commercial carriers only or does it factor in the private air travel in and out of OKC airports? It would be interesting to see how much private/charter passengers we have compared to other cities in our size range.

[catch22]

Commercial only at Will Rogers.

[jonny d]

Wow, that's interesting--and a bit surprising to me. Wisconsin population is 5.7 million where OK's is almost 4 million. Milwaukee metro has pop. of 1.5 million, OKC has 1.3 million. Perhaps just sheer people accounts for it and perhaps MKE has a bigger economy or at least more business flyers. That's a LOT more traffic though--big difference.

Basically, Milwaukee is the only game in Wisconsin. OKC competes with Tulsa.

[gopokes88]

Basically, Milwaukee is the only game in Wisconsin. OKC competes with Tulsa.

They also get a bunch of bleed over traffic from Chicago. You live in north Chicago it’s about the same to get to either