What's wrong at the Airport Authority?

[BDP]

jbrown84, you are now on the NSA's "list".

J/k. Great pictures. I think the checkpoint is the only thing I don't like about the new airport. Its location creates a lot of congestion, especially with people waiting to pick people up. Airports should have a special "receiving" area for people to wait. It'd probably be more secure, too, without all those people just loitering around security.

[Pete]

I agree about the checkpoint and ideally incoming passengers should be funneled down to the baggage claim area (even if they don't have checked bags) which should include a waiting area for visitors. They have to end up down there eventually anyway, because that's how you get to the curb and parking garage.

The whole idea is to seperate incoming from departing passengers, otherwise you get a massive bottleneck, which is what seems to be happening now.


Also, when the new section is complete there will be a second security check point, which should help.

[venture]

The additional check point will likely improve the situation greatly. I agree that congestion is an issue, as I've had to roll over people with my bags before after getting off a flight - annoying.

[BDP]

Also, when the new section is complete there will be a second security check point, which should help.

Good point.

I've had to roll over people with my bags before after getting off a flight - annoying.

No doubt. Flying always reminds me of how unconcious people are of other people (especially if you're on Southwest) and that always seems to be a nice little reinforcement of that sentiment just when you thought you were finished with it for the day.

[Pete]

There seems to be a fundamental design flaw in that the incoming passangers all have to pass though the same relatively narrow passageway that contains the security checkpoint, then the escalator down to baggage claim and ground transportation just beyond, so everyone congregates there to meet their parties while outbound passangers are trying to get through with their bags.

What they should have done is put the down escalator before the security area so incoming passangers would have to go down to the 1st level to meet their party.


In the old design, there was a relatively large area between where incoming passangers passed out of the secure area and the down escalator. So, everybody congregated there and then went downstairs.

Now, people should be made to wait near baggage claim, not up on the ticket / gate level.

[Pete]

Here's what I'm talking about:




The area shaded in red has become a bottleneck because that's where the security checkpoint is located (the star in the diagram) and then the down escalator is just behind that.

People seem to be waiting in the ticketing area then pushing forward into that passageway to meet incoming passangers, which clogs up the same area where ticketed passangers are trying to pass to get through security.

[jbrown84]

Great pics...if you'd like, email me and we can get them added over on USAFlying.com to the OKC photo gallery there. http://gallery.usaflying.com:8383/ma...g2_itemId=1485 is the link for those that want it.

One comment though. Be EXTREMELY careful of what you photograph around the security check points. Always try to make sure you cannot see or make out the checkpoint and cannot make out any screening in progress. Otherwise you'll have the TSA all over your rump...and thats not pleasant.

Yeah, if you look at the pictures you may notice that I avoided that area. I didn't even go near it, much less point my camera in that direction. I was actually surprised that no one from security or TSA approached me. I was taking pictures for at least 30 minutes.

What email did you want that to? Actually, if it's easier for you, you're welcome to just save the pics to your computer and upload them that way. I give you permission.

[venture]

I can do that, or you can always email any you have to me at david@usaflying.com and I'll get them uploaded.

[Kerry]

I gave up on the airport trust years ago. I have also emailed numerous times in the past to update the site. At one point several new airlines had started operations in the City but the airport didn't list them on the site.

It is my opinon that the airport trust doesn't share the same vision of OKC that the average person does. How else can you explain a 6 year expansion project that only meets demand through 2012? As for the "familiar with our operation" excuse. I hear this all the time in my line of work and it is code for "he is just as incompetint as us".

[brianinok]

I see that the airport's website has been updated..... if that is what you call it. It is still not all completely correct. They updated some of the WORDING IN ALL CAPS BUT LEFT OTHER AREAS as a Mix Of Caps And Lower-case. Go Figure....

[Pete]

Hooray!

Took four bloody months, which has become typical.

I would be less angry about this if the airport didn't employ a full-time marketing director.


Also, the site does not begin to give you the impression that the airport has already undergone a massive renovation and they've been terrible about providing reports about the progress.

[Patrick]

Why does a non stop from Oklahoma City to San Antonio make sense? There is nothing there to attract a great number of people.

It makes a lot of sense to me. Tons of people from our city go to San Antonio every year, me included. Tourism is a big business in San Antonio.

I flew to SA a few years back and it was a hassle. But, I didn't want to drive 8-10 hours to SA. A non stop flight will be nice.

[Patrick]

If it wasn't for us bugging them, the airport's website would never get updated. And when you email Karen Carney, she's completely clueless most of the time. That's not to say she isn't a nice lady, it's just apparent that there's a real lack of concern for some areas involving the airport. Or possibly there's a lack of employees to handle these matters.

[OUman]

I flew from OKC just recently (Dec. 17th). The security checkpoint is just one of two, the other one will be opening before summer. I can tell you, it didn't take longer than 7 minutes to start from one end of the checkpoint and pass through to the other. And I was flying out in the morning, during the mid-morning rush hour. We really don't have a problem as far as crowding goes.

While we're at it, let me just say that the new terminal looks awesome. The workers who have expanded the old one and created the new one have really done a good job. Me being an aviation freak, I love the view out the terminal and west concourse, very neat.

OUman

[Patrick]

I agree. But, I wish for once we'd complete something. We need to finish the east concourse.

[brianinok]

FYI: The Airport Trust is meeting tomorrow.

Airport Trust Meeting
Date: 1/25/2006
Time: 10:30 a.m.

The Airport Trust meeting will be held at 10:30 a.m. Wednesday, Jan. 25, at the Council Chamber, 200 N. Walker, 3rd Floor.

» For more information contact: Echo Thierjung

If you would like to contact Echo, just go to okcbusiness dot com and you will see the Airport Trust Meeting listed under Events over on the right side.

[brianinok]

Does anyone know anything that happened at the Airport Authority's meeting? I guess the following article could have been the result of it?






OKC airport may add nonstop flights


By Julie Bisbee
The Oklahoman

Oklahoma City's Will Rogers World Airport could be well-positioned to get more nonstop flights to popular destinations in the next few years, according to industry consultants.

Hired by the airport trust to work on increasing nonstop service to Will Rogers, the Campbell-Hill Aviation Group found that travelers flying out of Oklahoma City are paying more for their tickets and traveling farther. When passengers fly a greater distance at higher fares, an airline's per mile revenue increases.

"An airline doesn't want to come to a market where they can't make money," said Kevin Schorr, vice president of Campbell-Hill Aviation Group. "Traffic is up, fares are up, the average distance people travel is up. People are responding to the new service and paying higher fares to do so."

And that's the message the Alexandria, Va.-based consulting group will take to airline executives in presentations to try to persuade them to add service in Oklahoma City.

The company has a two-year contract -- not to exceed $120,000 -- to help the airport increase air service to markets that are in demand but not adequately served by airlines.

One market airport officials are targeting is the Los Angeles area. Roughly 218 people a day fly from Oklahoma City to the Los Angeles area, and the same number fly into Oklahoma City from Los Angeles.

Adding flights heading east also would make sense at Will Rogers, the study found. About 185 passengers are traveling between Oklahoma City and the Baltimore and Washington area each way every day, the aviation group's study found. Flights from Oklahoma City to the San Francisco Bay area also are seeing passenger interest at both ends. The study showed that 106 passengers are coming and going each way per day.

Airport spokeswoman Karen Carney said Oklahoma City also is an underserved market in Los Angeles and the Washington area, which could help the case to get nonstop service to those locations.

Oklahoma City is sixth on a list of popular destinations without adequate service from airports in Los Angeles. In the Washington area, Oklahoma City is fourth on the list of underserved markets.

"It helps us because it shows there is need on both ends," Carney said.

But as airlines struggle in bankruptcy or fight to keep profits while facing high fuel prices, adding jet service may not be a priority, Schorr said.

"There's no question that several of the largest carriers are now bankrupt. They have greater things to focus on than adding service," Schorr said. "Then there are others out there like Jet Blue, Air Tran and Virgin that are being courted by every airport out there, and I think we can make a great case."

Will Rogers' $110 million makeover and increasing passenger counts are selling points for airlines looking to come to Oklahoma City. Increased business and developments in downtown Oklahoma City also help, Schorr said.

In the last year, new service has been added from Oklahoma City to Las Vegas, Orlando and Phoenix. Will Rogers World Airport has 76 daily flights to 18 destinations, and service to New Orleans and San Antonio is expected to begin in February.

Campbell-Hill has done work to increase air service in Reno, Nev.; Portland, Ore.; Austin, Texas; San Jose, Calif.; Milwaukee, Wis.; and Hartford, Conn.

[OUman]

I think this is very positive for the city. However, like the article mentions, the majors' struggle is far from over, so new nonstop flights might not come so soon. Until then we need to be agressive with the LCC's-Jetblue, Air Tran (this airline might start n/s service between OKC and ATL-not in the news, just my opinion, since DL/DL Connection have a monopoly on this route), Southwest and others. By the way, the number of total departures from OKC is currently at 83, not 76.

OUman

[venture]

Well here we go. The two targets are pretty public...LAX and WAS (either DCA, BWI, or IAD). First LAX...

A couple routes they can go. If they want an international connection opportunity...United. If they want a quality carrier to get Okies to the coast...Alaska. I would push them for AS much more than UA since AS already does some maintenance work at the AAR facility here. They will also provide very good connections up and down the WestPac coast that would rival US Airways out of PHX.

http://www.alaskaair.com/www2/destin...p_FullSize.asp

Washington...

Well DCA is pretty much out of the question unless we an sweet talk US Airways. BWI would be a lock for Southwest or AirTran. However, AirTran is only an option if they do Atlanta as well, but they won't do BWI until ATL is running full and they are content that they can make more money off of nonstops to BWI versus connections through ATL. Got all that? So Southwest is really the only option, but they really have no desire to grow OKC beyond the crud we see today. Which moves us on to IAD. Well Indy Air is gone, finally, so no LCC hope here. United would be the only option...and I think the more likely. This would connect OKC with the nation's capital, but also the international connection opportunities.

I would also look for some sort of announcement in the short term for US Airways to Charlotte. Philadelphia seems like a no-go for no due to capacity concerns at the airport. Pittsburgh would be a viable alternative, if only they maintained the fortress hub there. Overall opinions are the CLT flights will be CRJ-200s (50-seaters), but I feel they would take the opportunity to route CRJ-900s to connect the two networks. Also, we may finally see a US Airways painted bird soon, as they starting to repaint the CRJ-900s. If we get one, it will be luck, as these are moving over to the US East network pretty quickly.

Other airline tidbits...

American - No major changes coming.

Allegiant - No changes. Prelim plans to service Orlando-Sanford are gone for now.

Continental - No changes.

Delta - No changes.

Frontier - Steady at 3 CR7s a day.

Northwest - One Avro RJ85 remaining to MSP, but all other flights are 50-seat CRJs.

United - No major changes...SAT and MSY service still on track to start.

US Airways - No changes. See above.

Southwest...blah, my back hurts.

[OUman]

As always, if n/s's to LAX are started, it will most likely be CR2's (UAX), or CR7's (Horizon Air). I dunno, but Horizon seems less likely just because it already has three dd's to DEN, and probably many Oklahoma City pax take connecting flights to the western U.S. Filling a 737-400 (smallest in ths AS fleet) would be pretty hard to do.

By the way venture, why does WN not want to expand any at OKC? It's really puzzling, since its flights (most of them anyway) go out packed and come in packed. Strange, really. The only service it has added has been the new daily nonstop between OKC and LAS.

OUman

[HOT ROD]

I'd love to see:

United to DC, SFO, and LAX
Southwest to BWI
Alaska to SEA
US Airways to CLT and PHL

OKC needs to work on getting nonstops to every hub airline's hub cities. .. that alone would give us nonstop flights to every major city! And the coasts.

United: ORD, DEN, SFO, IAD, LAX (gateway). SAT, MSY already added. IAD, SFO and LAX needed.
American: DFW, ORD, STL, MIA (gateway). MIA needed.
Delta: ATL, SLC, CIN, DFW. ORL already added
Continental: IAH, EWR.
Northwest: MSP, DTW, MEM, SEA (gateway). SEA needed.
Southwest: DAL, PHX, MCI, STL, LAS. CHI, BWI, MSY, AUSTIN needed
US AIRWAYS: PHX, LAS, PHL, CLT. PHL, CLT, BWI needed.
Frontier: DEN
Allegient: ORL, LAS

So you see, we only need a handful of flights to have access to every major city (save Boston). We'd have great presence from United (who has the most hubs/gateway cities by the way) which is a great plus. Especially since United hubs/gateways ARE the largest and most business presence cities in the nation. I dont know how we could get Boston but it would be great if we could get them as well, then we'd have all of the majors.

I'd also get with the international carriers, which dont have to be nonstop but should be the international carrier with presence in the city (ie not just code share, but actual planes):

Air Canada: YYZ - Toronto, YVR - Vancouver
Mexicana: MEX, Cancun

I think OKC CAN win most if not all of these, especially with the new open skies agreement. You will see a lot more Canadian cities (especially YVR Vancouver) representing hub and gateway ops with flights originating in the US. Vancouver is the closest major hub in NA to Asia, has great capacity (and existing intl presence already), and is expanding the terminal even as we speak [can accomodate the A380 also] - so it only makes sense for airlines to shift flights there. OKC needs to get AC to get a flight a day doing a YYZ - OKC - YVR route, then reverse on an Air Canada flight (or AC Jazz).

[OUman]

You can forget about daily, year-round nonstop international flights to/from OKC. There have been no plans for a customs/immigration facility for international flights, and so accordingly, that hasn't been part of the expansion either. A separate facility like that exists at the airport, but not one in the terminal, and that doesn't appear likely either. We'll have to settle for domestic service only. Of course, we have only one international flight to Cancun but only in the summer, and it has to make a stop at DFW or SAT before coming back here.

OUman

[HOT ROD]

dont need to have customs in okc. Vancouver and Toronto have them and US-Canada have a very open skies agreement. pax can go thru customs there.

Never say never - i mean, there were those just last year who said "okc could not support a major league team" or "okc could never land or support the nba with ou around"

and, like you said, there is a customs facility just not at the terminal. Pax could arrive en route to/from that facility.

Never count OKC out!

[jbrown84]

There's no reason why we can't add an outer international terminal that connects by train and/or tunnel. Something like the way Atlanta's terminals are.

[brianinok]

Maybe we should be more concerned with a few other things before we start talking about adding an international terminal separate from the current one:

1. Finishing the currect expansion project. The finished product calls for 25-27 gates, not the 17 it will have at the end of this year.
2. Adding flights to major coastal cities (especially hubs) Washington, Los Angeles, San Fransisco, Seattle, etc.