Airport expansion news?

[Pete]

Yes, there's a whole section (2nd security check point, more gates, etc.) that is been under construction and away from the rest of the airport.

This is the last phase of the current expansion and that's what they promised to have complete by September, after pushing back the date no less than 3 times.

It sounds like they will miss yet another one of their promises and continue to do a bad job of communicating with the public.

[BDP]

OK, I guess there is more going on behind the scenes than I noticed right now.

[jbrown84]

I was there a couple of weeks ago flying, and they definitely still have that east end of the main terminal to finish. There is still a big temporary wall at that end of the terminal.

[venture]

Honest there isn't a huge rush to get this part of the terminal running. Delta is down to one mainline flight a day and the other 9 or 10 flights are CRJs. Granted they are also in a period of breathing room as Q3 is typically one of the slowest air travel periods of the year.

[Pete]

They need to get all that open before the holidays, especially the 2nd security check point which will be significantly large.

And just as important is finally finishing this, which has been delayed numerous times.

[Kerry]

According the project plan, the expansion was supposed to support growth up until 2012. Does anyone realize this is just 6 years away. I always thought it was stupid to spend 6 years upgrading the airport to a level that only last 6 years. And this included the unbuilt concourse. It is better than nothing - but bearly.

[OUman]

According the project plan, the expansion was supposed to support growth up until 2012. Does anyone realize this is just 6 years away. I always thought it was stupid to spend 6 years upgrading the airport to a level that only last 6 years. And this included the unbuilt concourse. It is better than nothing - but bearly.

Yes, but that was before the attacks and was based on traffic growth figures by 1999-2000 standards. Although nothing official has been released, I would bet OKC's pax traffic numbers would reach the "critical number" much later than originally thought. Remember that when this project was only announced, even before the first foundation for the west concourse was laid, OKC had just reached about 3.5 million in 2000. It is only now that we're back up there again (2005 figures) and unless we get a big boom in business and tonnes more high-paying jobs, the main terminal and west concourse should be plenty. Think about it.

[Kerry]

Fine - it seems that spending 6 years to only have room for 11 years is a waste of time. If places like Atlanta Hartsfield and DFW only planned 12 years out, there wouldn't be places like Hartsfield and DFW. Not saying it all has to be built at once but a 20-year comprehensive plan would be nice. Atleast you wouldn't end up with a piece-meal airport which is where I think WRWA is headed.

You only have to look at Phoenix Skyharbor to see what bad planning can do. They didn't even come close to planning for all of the growth they had. It is a very busy airport but looks like a five year old put it together. Atlanta on the other hand has to be one of the best planned airports in the world. These things don't happen by accident.

If you plan to be small, then you just might stay small.

[BG918]

I must say if Phase III ever does happen OKC will be one of the nicest airports its size anywhere. It is an amazingly nice facility and I always enjoy flying into and out of OKC. Just like I never will feel as if OU's stadium is complete without the south end zone bowled in or a complete renovation of the west side to match the new east, Will Rogers will never feel complete until Phase III is finished. Like at OU, who knows when those things will happen. Maybe the next mayor should make this a priority? It could help OKC land more routes, like US Airways to Charlotte, United to San Francisco and Washington Dulles, American to Miami, jetBlue to New York, and Alaska to Seattle, to name a few...

[OUman]

Fine - it seems that spending 6 years to only have room for 11 years is a waste of time. If places like Atlanta Hartsfield and DFW only planned 12 years out, there wouldn't be places like Hartsfield and DFW. Not saying it all has to be built at once but a 20-year comprehensive plan would be nice. Atleast you wouldn't end up with a piece-meal airport which is where I think WRWA is headed.

You only have to look at Phoenix Skyharbor to see what bad planning can do. They didn't even come close to planning for all of the growth they had. It is a very busy airport but looks like a five year old put it together. Atlanta on the other hand has to be one of the best planned airports in the world. These things don't happen by accident.

If you plan to be small, then you just might stay small.

All those other airports that you mentioned-ATL, PHX, DFW-are in urban centers with a lot more businesses and have either greater population, or business traffic or are major tourist destinations or a combination of two or all three of those. Also remember it depends on demographics. Why did we lose the Orlando flights when other cities our size have at least one daily mainliner there? We didn't even have a mainliner, we lost the only CRJ flight! Just goes to show that OKC needs to get more passengers going through, yes, maybe the marketing also needs to be stepped up, but a tourist destination like Orlando should do well regardless. And to prove my point-just look at the OKC-LAS flights. And Allegiant left because of its "use it or lose it" strategy. Although the market was over-saturated as well when Southwest started daily service.

Also, the same airports didn't build facilities until the need arose-read the history pages on the airport websites like ATL's and DFW's. It's only when traffic started growing by leaps and bounds that they resorted to building new terminals. You're mentioning ATL-a airport that has 87 million passengers a year and OKC-a little more than 3.5 mil a year.

Airports don't plan to be small or big-they plan for the expected traffic volume. Just so happens that OKC's expected volume is small compared to other airports.

Btw, Venture, how big a market is Miami for Oklahoma City? Just curious as to whether we have the traffic for a daily RJ flight. I'm guessing it's small though, considering Orlando didn't work out.

OUman

[ChristianConservative]

We don't need a larger airport, people. Who wants to Oklahoma City? If we had a hub, I could see it, but we don't. With our number of departs every year, we can't support much more than 20 gates.

[mranderson]

We don't need a larger airport, people. Who wants to Oklahoma City? If we had a hub, I could see it, but we don't. With our number of departs every year, we can't support much more than 20 gates.

See my post on the other airport thread.

It is the same as usual. Build it and they will come. We need to plan ahead before we get caught with out pants down. We are already a laughing stock because "size matters" and Will Rogers lacks it.

[OUman]

It's apparent you don't understand the condition of the industry these days. "Build it and they will come" won't work any longer these days. Not gonna happen. The days of airlines giving leeway to markets are long gone. OKC was ignored up to some extent by the airlines IMO back when it had a chance, but now air service is added only if the airlne can make a profit. And OKC won't become a hub and a second terminal isn't needed. Don't blame the airport trust for that, it isn't their fault. It's just that our traffic isn't that much. At least the marketing effort has been better than in past days, and it has produced some results. Even when our traffic has been growing back up to 2000 levels, airlines have been cutting back service or switching to smaller planes just to get load factors above 90%.

[mranderson]

It's apparent you don't understand the condition of the industry these days. "Build it and they will come" won't work any longer these days. Not gonna happen. The days of airlines giving leeway to markets are long gone. OKC was ignored up to some extent by the airlines IMO back when it had a chance, but now air service is added only if the airlne can make a profit. And OKC won't become a hub and a second terminal isn't needed. Don't blame the airport trust for that, it isn't their fault. It's just that our traffic isn't that much. At least the marketing effort has been better than in past days, and it has produced some results. Even when our traffic has been growing back up to 2000 levels, airlines have been cutting back service or switching to smaller planes just to get load factors above 90%.

I have been around business since I was eight years old. I have more understanding than most people do. Plus, the nay sayer attitude will not work. We must keep a positive approach.

Just imagine if Mick Cornett had said "the NBA will never work in Oklahoma City," or Ron Norick had said "this MAPS thing will not work here." Then where would we be? Think about that... Especially before you tell someone you do not know what YOU think they do not know.

[OUman]

I agree with keeping a positive approach, but getting the NBA in town and getting more airline service are two completely different things. Having poor ticket sales in a particular market for a season or two is bad, but it isn't going to make the NBA want to pull out so easily. If an airline route on the other hand doesn't do that well for a long period of time, you can bet it's going to go. We almost lost the COX service to Newark, just that COX did a good thing by adjusting flight times and getting fares to reasonable levels.

Some things are easier to sell, some are harder. And airlines need to be convinced that new routes will do well, they're very picky about it these days. There are people who say that there are already too many hubs in this country, and I agree. It's why Pittsburgh and Columbus lost their hubs, as did DFW with DL. So I don't really see how a new hub can even be remotely possible at OKC, especially with DFW so close as is. On the other hand, a mini-hub like at IND and AUS is a possibility, but first we have to minimize the loss of passengers to DFW who drive down there to fly nonstop somewhere.

And I only said what I said because anyone who thinks a hub and a second terminal is possible at OKC needs to check the facts seriously.

[mranderson]

"I agree with keeping a positive approach, but getting the NBA in town and getting more airline service are two completely different things."

As usual, you are missing the point.

[ChristianConservative]

Airlines are cutting back, not growing. Delta just closed a hub, they didn't create a new one. Airlines aren't looking for new hubs. If anything, they're looking to streamline their operations.

Oklahoma City is doing the right thing by improving its existing airport, not building a larger one. A larger airport would only sit empty, and be a waste of tax payer money.

Build it and they will come worked for the NBA, but part of that was luck. If Katrina hadn't come and given Oklahoma City a chance, I doubt the NBA would be courting us right now. Don't count on a similar event leading to Oklahoma City getting a hub.

[Kerry]

OUMan and ChristianConservative

Like I said, it doesn't need to be built at once. All I am asking for is a plan. When Hartsfield was built Atlanta was smaler than OKC is now. They day they opened they didn't have 87 milion passengers. They grew to that number.

I just checked out the Hartsfield web site and they have their comprehensive plan on-line. Not only is it available, but so is their competition plan. I'm not sure if WRWA has either of these documents - on-line or not. Granted, the "build it and they will come" philosphy may or may not work but I know one thing is for sure "don't build it and they won't come" works evertime it is tried.

Let just say that by chance OKC does land a large corporate headquarters or two. Is the current building expandable? What if an airline does want to build a hub in OKC? Does all of the recent construction have to be scrapped? Will it take another 6 years to build 12 more gates? Who knows.

[OUman]

^^ATL grew to that number only because the city of Atlanta grew and ATL established itself as a hub with Eastern first, then Delta. And when Hartsfield opened it was smaller than our current airport terminal. In fact, it didn't even have a terminal, they used old hangars for a while as makeshift terminals.

If OKC lands a corporate headquarters or two and high-paying jobs which require frequent travelling are added, the current terminal can be easily expanded-just add the east concourse. Also, doesn't matter if new corporate HQ don't come here, if the traffic figures keep climbing, new gates will be required. But it's not going to happen overnight and we're not in dire need of gates.

You know, in the end the only thing that warrants adding of more new routes and gates is passenger traffic. If the traffic is there, the airlines will add routes and service and then the east concourse will be built.

Look at the current state of the airlne industry and any reasonable person would tell you that no airline is even thinking about new hubs in a market like ours. I hear people say "oh, what a shame, the new concourse isn't going to be built, this is not the way to get new air service, great way to show the airlines how important our market is." I can't help but laugh. Airlines don't really care how many gates an airport builds, if the passenger numbers aren't there, they won't add new service. You can tell airlines as much as you please about the new facilities and grand plans, they're going to ask just one question: is the new route feasible? If not, bye bye. It's as simple as that. There are cases where a route did better than expected, although this is more common in international service, and quite rare in a market like ours.

Like I already said, all the hub airports we have today didn't just build terminals and concourses and keep them running till they got hubs. Just doesn't work that way. The airline first announces its intention of expanding THEN the facilities get built. That's the way it was done at ATL, DFW, IAH, PHL and every other hub airport in the U.S. Also, most of these airports are in cities which had major railway stations.

And no, if traffic rose to record-breaking levels, the current terminal wouldn't need to be scrapped-that would be kind of absurd. This terminal can handle 757's and 767's. In fact, I'm sure the designers made provisions so that it could be expanded way more than 25 gates if need be.

It didn't take 6 years to build the west concourse. That was built in about a year's time. The east concourse is eight gates and it can be built in about the same time as well.

Can't really compare airports in terms of traffic, but to give you an idea, Austin-Bergstrom's passenger terminal has 25 gates. Passenger traffic there in 2005 amounted to over 7.6 milion passengers. Still, there are TWO gates left empty. And airlines there are managing just fine. Some are adding flights, some are actually increasing capacity with larger planes. Is the airport suddenly building an entire new concourse? No, that would be kind of stupid. But the officials are updating the master plan. Only thing is AUS's pax traffic growth rate is higher than ours. And the current terminal down there can be expanded to have 55 gates, says so on the airport's website.

[venture]

Miami is a little different than Orlando. There is a lot of opportunity for connecting traffic to international destinations south, whereas Orlando is mostly O&D traffic.

Miami is around 44 pax a day in Q1 of this year, and Orlando was over 220 pax per day. Huge difference...but Orlando failed.

People that continue to make moronic statements of a hub in OKC know absolutely nothing of the airline industry. It is like no other. Every possible thing including a bird farting seems to impact it. OKC is doing it right...nice and slow. There is more room out there than you can imagine. Right now we are having to use the jetbridges for loading regional jets...versus full size jets. If things turn around, we move the RJs out ot the remote ramp or stack them in more and use the bridges for what they are meant for.

The airline industry will continue to be in a flux. Noting the early mention of Newark service...this has been cut to one flight a day from two.

What does the future hold? If airline execs and Wall Street have their way...more hookups similar to US Airways and America West. The current rumors include US Airways swallowing Northwest, and United taking on Continental. What does this mean for OKC? Probably a large impact.

I would expect US Airways to immediately shutter the Memphis hub. There would be a rush to consolidate the fleet, which would remove aircraft for expansion.

United/CO would be a little less intrusive on OKC with its lack of major exposure.

Delta is also in the process of downsizing Cincinnati...once the best connecting hub in the nation. OKC has lost 2 of 5 flights to that market...one that use to be mainline.

Hubs continue to vanish as airlines move to become more efficient.

[OUman]

Miami is around 44 pax a day in Q1 of this year, and Orlando was over 220 pax per day. Huge difference...but Orlando failed.

That alone should be telling enough, and people think we can support flights to MIA. Now if in fact an airline starts service there, there's an outside chance that some pax who usually take connecting Latin American/Mexico/South American flights might prefer heading to MIA and the market might develop, but IAH still rules when it comes to connecting South AmericanMexico/Caribbean flights for people headed out from OKC.

About the Newark flights, on weekdays I noticed there are still two flights, or am I looking at expired schedules?

If we start getting more mainliners here it will be great news. For now though, consider it good fortune that we still have decent mainliner service with CO, UA, WN, AA and DL. And NW brings in the DC 9's occasionally.

I always thought that the MEM hub was the next on the verge of going out, but what venture stated only confirms my suspicion.

[Pete]

So, they are going to miss their target date for the fourth time, coming in at least two months later than what Kranenburg just promised a few months ago. And even then, it sounds like they won't be done... Might just have the security check point completed.

And of course, no updates to the website since early July.


***********************


Air conditioned: Will Rogers preparing for holiday travelers as expansion nears completion
by Brian Brus
The Journal Record
10/10/2006

OKLAHOMA CITY – Passenger traffic through Will Rogers World Airport is expected to begin increasing this week even as the final touches are being put on a security checkpoint expansion, airport spokeswoman Karen Carney said Monday.

“We’re really looking to have it substantially complete by the first of November, just prior to Thanksgiving travel,” she said. “You can see it’s already starting to get busy. Fall break is one of our busiest times of the year with college students going home.”

The airport has been working through a $110 million, bond-supported expansion and renovation since 2002. The first phase focused on the front of the airport’s main terminal building and involved widening the access road and modifying the parking areas. The second phase has been mostly in the eastern end of the terminal where three gates, a security checkpoint and ticket counter have been installed.

A third phase involving a concourse extension has been designed but remains in the planning stage, depending on the airport’s traffic capacity needs.

The work has pushed Delta Airlines to temporary counters, Carney said. Airport officials hope to give those employees enough time to move back before holiday traffic kicks into high gear, if the company so chooses.

“We feel it’s critical that we have that second security checkpoint open. … It’s going to help alleviate a lot of congestion in the lobby as well as create more space for people to get through the checkpoint better,” she said.

The airport has reported passenger traffic continues to rise as it has for the last five years. The entire airline industry slumped after terrorist attacks in September 2001. Oklahoma City has experienced a steady improvement.

Carney said an increase in business travel also coincides with students taking time off from the school semester. After that, “our next big surge will be Thanksgiving and we’ll run at high capacity through New Year’s.”

“When we get into these time frames, with student luggage and people carrying Christmas presents back and forth, we see a lot of inexperienced travelers,” she said. “It really is a challenge with the new security rules, because they really can be complicated, and it slows down the screening process. … Our staff tries to help as much as they can, but it can get hectic.”

[ChristianConservative]

With DFW so close, I think it's foolish that we even discuss hub status here. Let's be realistic and try to make Will Rogers the best regional airport in the nation, and stop trying to be something we'll never be here. I'm not being negative, just realistic.

And we have a comprehensive plan in place. It's called the East Concourse. If the need for more gates comes up, we build the East Concourse.

The whole reason for the new airport design was that it was easier to expand. Additions to the east and west are easy money.

[mranderson]

"With DFW so close, I think it's foolish that we even discuss hub status here."

DFW is over 200 miles south of here. That is NOT close. Besides, Will Rogers has a great deal of land and can easily become a hub. DFW is maxed out. (I have been there many times, so I should know) Plus...

[ChristianConservative]

"With DFW so close, I think it's foolish that we even discuss hub status here."

DFW is over 200 miles south of here. That is NOT close. Besides, Will Rogers has a great deal of land and can easily become a hub. DFW is maxed out. (I have been there many times, so I should know) Plus...

DFW maxed out? lol! They have plenty of available space with the infrastructure Delta left behind.

There is no reason whatsoever to be striving for hub status. Instead, we need to do exactly what the airport trust is doing: seek more direct flights to major destinations.

I can't think of any airline right now that is considering adding hubs. If anything, most are cutting back. And, if there is a need for hubs again, they're going to go back to the markets they left behind, not a new, unexplored, undeveloped market.