WWWA airline hub

[OKCJapan]

I had an idea about 10 years ago when I learned about the proposed expansion of the airport. This idea was to start a new airline that would have its hub here in OKC.
This airline would connect OKC to many of the other large metro areas that are not serviced by one of the airlines already operation out of OKC.


Western cities serviced would include, San Francisco, LA(Ontario), Seattle, Portland, Sacramento, San Diego, Billings, Boise, Tempe, Albuquerque, El Paso, New Orleans, Omaha,
Eastern cities serviced, would include, Milwaukee, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Louisville, Buffalo, Charlotte, Pittsburgh, Nashville, Birmingham, Charleston, Jacksonville(FL), Miami
The airline would service just a few cities to begin with in order to generate the capital to add more routes. The main obstacle was the find the investors. It would take an incredible amount of start up. Even though, tt that time I began putting together a business plan but then September 2011 happened, I pretty much abandoned the idea because of the affect it had on the airline industry.

It seems that with so many of the airlines going belly up or merging, OKC is becoming less of a target for airlines. This to me would only justify the possibility of such an airline becoming a reality, especially with the growth the NBA seems to have sparked here.

All that being said, I don't know if it would work in OKC. There is no doubt a great percentage of the passengers would be transit. Usually this is a obstacle to the health of a hub airport. Example CVG.

Maybe it is too little to late for such a proposal. Just a dream of mine that maybe I should of continued to pursue. What do you think

[Kerry]

With the coming hyper-inflation we will be losing airlines - not getting more. Flying is already too expensive for most people and it is only going to get more expensive. The world is about to become a much larger place for the vast majority of the people.

[ljbab728]

With the coming hyper-inflation we will be losing airlines - not getting more. Flying is already too expensive for most people and it is only going to get more expensive. The world is about to become a much larger place for the vast majority of the people.

That certainly is not obvious based on the load factors, Kerry. I realize that airlines have cut back on the number of flights which affects that but saying that it is too expensive for most people is not accurate at all. There are a number of places such as New York and Denver where prices are much lower from OKC now than they were 10 years ago. You can speculate all you want on what may happen in the future and I don't have a crystal ball any more than you do.

[Kerry]

That certainly is not obvious based on the load factors, Kerry. I realize that airlines have cut back on the number of flights which affects that but saying that it is too expensive for most people is not accurate at all. There are a number of places such as New York and Denver where prices are much lower from OKC now than they were 10 years ago. You can speculate all you want on what may happen in the future and I don't have a crystal ball any more than you do.

Did you watch the Ben Bernanke show yesterday?

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2011/a.../?nwa-business

With fresh red ink at Delta and US Airways, the five biggest U.S. airlines showed a combined loss of more than $1 billion for the first quarter. Soaring jet fuel prices are the big culprit.

http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/a...o-lose-ov.html

Airline analyst Helane Becker now thinks AMR will lose $1.1 billion in 2011, as the Dahlman Rose & Co. analyst cut her earnings estimates for American Airlines' parent after AMR issued an investor update Tuesday morning.

Becker cut her 2011 forecast from a loss of 75 cents a share, or about $250 million, to a loss of $3.30 a share. For first quarter 2011, she now expects a loss of $1.35, or about $450 million, down from her prior estimate of a $1.12 per share loss, or about $373 million.

"We do not expect AMR to be profitable in any quarter this year, and as a result, we will maintain our Hold rating on the shares," Becker wrote in an earnings note to investors. "We believe these shares are unattractive until AMR can demonstrate some level of profitability."

[ljbab728]

Did you watch the Ben Bernanke show yesterday?

http://www.nwaonline.com/news/2011/a.../?nwa-business



http://aviationblog.dallasnews.com/a...o-lose-ov.html

Kerry, my response was concerning your statement about the cost of flying for the public, not the profitability of the airlines. Airlines have been in dire straits and consolidating for years. That is nothing new.

[OKCJapan]

I agree, keeping an airline profitable in today's economy with the price of fuel is a daunting task.

I think that many americans still fly regularly though.

[Kerry]

Kerry, my response was concerning your statement about the cost of flying for the public, not the profitability of the airlines. Airlines have been in dire straits and consolidating for years. That is nothing new.

Bag fees alone can cost upwards of $120 each way for a family of 4. We looked at going to Europe recently and found tickets for $700 to Ireland (cheapest tickets I could find to anywhere in Europe). After fees and surcharges were added on it came to over $1000 per ticket and we still would of had to pay another $240 in bag fees once we got to the airport. At $4,500 to fly to Ireland we said no thanks. We can take a 5 days cruise for under a $1,000.

[bombermwc]

^ you can repeat that story all over the place. You also can't blame fuel prices as much as you want to. Have you ever noticed that (just like gas prices) the price will steadily increase, the airline will say it's because of fuel prices, but once the price of fuel goes down, the ticket price continues to rise. They just use fuel as an excuse. Not to mention the fact that they buy fuel in wholesale amounts, so the daily cost of fuel has nothing to do with anything for airlines. It's just a bunch of crap that people believe and then pay for.

Flying has turned into a horrible experience compared to what it was 10 years ago. You're slapped with countless fees, have to deal with incredibly rude TSA folks, cramped conditions on the airplane itself (thank the fees for all those people shoving more than will fit in the overhead), delay after delay for stupid crap that's the airline's fault, missed flights and airlines that don't do what they should to get you to your destination...ie put you on someone else's plane, high prices which are exasserbated by consolidation and decreased competition, bad food, long tarmac waits, etc. The list just goes on and on and on.

Basically its so bad that people would rather drive for very long distances rather than fly. I do that every time I go to Alabama because it just doesn't make any sense to go through it all for a flight. Even if gas was $6 a gallon, I'd still save hundreds of dollars by driving. As long as that's true, then why do it? Even on a 12 hour drive, you end up only saving yourself something like 4 hours after you factor in the commute to the airport, parking, shuttle, check-in, security (get fondled by tsa), wait to board, wait to take off, flight, wait to "dock", wait to unload, wait for bags, shuttle/taxi/rental car, commute to destination.

[Kerry]

That is the thing Bomber - the leisure travel industry is dying. We frequent Disney World a lot and 2 months ago my wife kids stayed at a Disney resort. For the first time they were charged $10 per night to park at the hotel. On their 5 night stay that came $50 she didn't plan to spend. Upset about the fee she asked why Disney was doing that. They said more people are now driving to Disney instead of flying. This causes three problem for them. 1) Disney is heavily invested in transit from the airport. 2) Parking is becoming crowded at Disney so they have to build more spaces. 3) The Disney model is built for a captive audience. They don't want people leaving Disney property once they are there. So to solve those three issues they are trying to discourage people from driving.

[redland]

I agree that OKC is underserved by the airlines. However your "hub" proposal seems overly ambitious. I don't think the passenger load to most of the cities you cite is enough to support direct flights (e.g., Billings, Boise, Buffalo, Charleston, to name a few). Of course not each city would necessarily have non-stop servie. but to take Billings as an example. Non-stop? out of the question. But what city would you propose as an intermediate stop? The two obvious examples, Denver and Salt Lak, are already well served. Similar questions could be posed for most of the cities you name. So while I agree we need to keep pusing for expanded service to some cities, I don't think the hub idea is going to fly.

[OKCJapan]

redland,

I think you have a point. Obviously, I would have to start with a few connections that would yield high capacity flights. Then from, adding flights would be on based on if the the route could be operated at a reasonable profit.

[Swake2]

Bag fees alone can cost upwards of $120 each way for a family of 4. We looked at going to Europe recently and found tickets for $700 to Ireland (cheapest tickets I could find to anywhere in Europe). After fees and surcharges were added on it came to over $1000 per ticket and we still would of had to pay another $240 in bag fees once we got to the airport. At $4,500 to fly to Ireland we said no thanks. We can take a 5 days cruise for under a $1,000.

Most airlines waive bag fees for the first two bags on international flights, but go on.....

[Kerry]

The only hope OKC has for a hub is the Southwest/AirTran merger. That is hub and non-hub airlines trying to merge. We will see which side wins.

[Kerry]

Most airlines waive bag fees for the first two bags on international flights, but go on.....

I actually didn't know that - but it still wouldn't have changed my plans. $4,500 for 4 tickets did that.

[Patrick]

Concerning the hub issue, Great Plains Airlines already tried this, with Tulsa and OKC as their hub cities, and it failed miserably. They're now bankrupt.

[HOT ROD]

that was the mistake, Tulsa AND OKC. Should have picked one, say OKC for 'mainline' flights to the major markets. .... and then had frequent flights to/from Tulsa and other OK/Regional cities on smaller planes. In my humble opinion, it seems as if Tulsa was using the airline as a status symbol and threw only OKC in just to bump up the pax numbers - big mistake. ...

It could have worked, Horizon/Alaska does this in the Pac NW, I don't really see why it wouldn't work in underserved Oklahoma/Kansas etc region - competing effectively against DFW and DAL. ...

[semisimple]

Bad idea. There's no chance of OKC becoming a hub. For starters, there isn't a high demand for air travel in/out of OKC, so there would be few people benefiting from an increase in direct flights to other US cities. Just look at the 2010 passenger counts at WWWA vs. some other airports in mid-sized cities that don't have major hub operations:

OKC - 3.4 million passengers/yr

Nashville - 8.8
Raleigh-Durham - 8.7
Austin - 8.4
New Orleans - 8.2
Indianapolis - 7.4
Columbus - 6.2
Albuquerque - 5.6
Jacksonville - 5.5
Omaha - 4.2
Louisville - 3.3
Richmond - 3.3

Other smallish cities like Raleigh-Durham or Austin would make a little more sense for new hubs because those cities have SO many connecting flights and much more traffic to major hubs already (Atlanta and Dallas, respectively). What HOT ROD is saying about being a regional connector makes sense, but Dallas and KC would be hard to compete with.

[kevinpate]

Most airlines waive bag fees for the first two bags on international flights, but go on.....

This has already changed for some airlines, but I don't know how widespread it is. Poppa-in-law headed off to Africa on a mission trip in March. His luggage weight limits were lower, by quite a bit, than his prior mission trips in years gone by. Adding to the ouch factor, bag fees were well above what was originally anticipated (based on his prior mission trips) and the fees began with either bag 2 or bag 1.

[ljbab728]

That is the thing Bomber - the leisure travel industry is dying. We frequent Disney World a lot and 2 months ago my wife kids stayed at a Disney resort. For the first time they were charged $10 per night to park at the hotel. On their 5 night stay that came $50 she didn't plan to spend. Upset about the fee she asked why Disney was doing that. They said more people are now driving to Disney instead of flying. This causes three problem for them. 1) Disney is heavily invested in transit from the airport. 2) Parking is becoming crowded at Disney so they have to build more spaces. 3) The Disney model is built for a captive audience. They don't want people leaving Disney property once they are there. So to solve those three issues they are trying to discourage people from driving.

Disney has never been known as an economy destination. Anyone who goes there without being prepared to spend more than they planned is making a huge mistake. With that said, the leisure travel industry is far from dying. Various segments have ups and downs depending on a lot of factors but the leisure travel industry will continue to be there.

[ljbab728]

This has already changed for some airlines, but I don't know how widespread it is. Poppa-in-law headed off to Africa on a mission trip in March. His luggage weight limits were lower, by quite a bit, than his prior mission trips in years gone by. Adding to the ouch factor, bag fees were well above what was originally anticipated (based on his prior mission trips) and the fees began with either bag 2 or bag 1.

Is it possible that he had some foreign airlines involved in his itinerary? Everything is, of course, subject to change but the major US international carriers are not currently doing that. There are a few minor carriers like Spirit Airlines and other charter carriers that will charge for checked bags to mostly vacation destinations like Mexico and the Caribbean.

[bombermwc]

Heck, I'd just assume NOT have a hub here. Right now it's incredibly fast and easy to get in and out of the airport. Why would I want to increase the difficulties in my air travel by asking them to throw more folks at the airport?

[Spartan]

There are some hubs that are pretty easy to get in and out of. Not all airports are like DFW or Bush. KCI, for example..

[OUman]

Actually of all the hubs I have used, DFW is one of the more easier ones to get around. The TerminaLink connects you to all terminals within 5-7 minutes, and the terminals themselves are narow enough to where you can get between landside and airside within 15 minutes maximum most of the time. For a large hub, that's not bad at all. Sometimes it takes as much as 10 minutes at OKC.

[bombermwc]

Yeah I like DFW - it's super easy to get around and pretty fast with the tram. Nothing like what it used to be.

However, you could just as easily turn into Miami...and not even be a hub...shudder...or O'Hare (AHHHH). It took DFW 25 years to get where it is today.

I'd like to see a tram set up to replace the giddy-ups. It takes waaaaay too long for such a short ride.

[Kerry]

As I said - leasure travel is about to get a lot more expensive as Southwest makes the shift to high dollar business travelers.

The new frequent-flier program was designed expressly to reward customers for buying more-expensive tickets. It sent the message that Southwest wants business travelers, even at the expense of angering longtime leisure customers. The average fare on Southwest has risen about 12 percent a year recently, but the airline would like to push that even higher.


Read more: http://newsok.com/southwest-buys-air...#ixzz1LIhL3Ueu