Southwest and AirTran are merging. Southwest, as you may know, offers the most non-stop flights out of TUL: 17 daily flights to Dallas Love, Houston Hobby, St. Louis, Denver, Las Vegas and Phoenix. AirTran has hubs in Orlando, Milwaukee, and Baltimore/Washington. Could this mean added flights from Tulsa to these cities? I would love to also see Southwest add regional non-stop flights to San Antonio, Kansas City, Chicago Midway, Albuquerque, Nashville, and New Orleans. It would also be great to have another non-stop to the West Coast as United offers the only non-stop to LAX. Landing jetBlue with non-stops to New York and Austin and having Frontier (which just merged with Midwest Airlines) return would be great as well.
http://www.lowfaresfarther.com/ (http://www.lowfaresfarther.com/)
The big thing is that they fly a few stops outside the US.
http://www.airtran.com/route-map/city_information.aspx (http://www.airtran.com/route-map/city_information.aspx)
Based on their current routes Atlanta is their main hub.
I don't see any major changes in the offering to Tulsa as a result. I don't think there's enough demand for any of the direct routes you mentioned. As well, I think the Wright Amendment would prevent any TUL-AUS, TUL-SAT direct routes. I'm also not sure about the range on a fully loaded 737 in SWA's pax configuration being able to fly to LA or BWI non-stop. One would assume if you can fly non-stop from Tulsa to Phoenix, you would have enough plus reserves to make it to the coast. I think as the jet liner flies, LA is maybe an additional 30-45 minutes from Tulsa than it is to Phoenix.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 28, 2010, 09:19:47 AM
I don't see any major changes in the offering to Tulsa as a result. I don't think there's enough demand for any of the direct routes you mentioned. As well, I think the Wright Amendment would prevent any TUL-AUS, TUL-SAT direct routes. I'm also not sure about the range on a fully loaded 737 in SWA's pax configuration being able to fly to LA or BWI non-stop. One would assume if you can fly non-stop from Tulsa to Phoenix, you would have enough plus reserves to make it to the coast. I think as the jet liner flies, LA is maybe an additional 30-45 minutes from Tulsa.
OKC currently has a non-stop to BWI on Southwest. They also have a non-stop to Washington Dulles on United. Tulsa currently has no non-stops to the DC area so it makes sense for one of those airlines to offer the service at some point. Albuquerque has several non-stops to the West Coast on Southwest: Seattle, Portland, Oakland, LA, San Diego. Snagging one of those routes would be nice. Having a few more regional routes is important too. It doesn't make any sense that we don't have non-stops to bigger regional cities like San Antonio, Austin, New Orleans and Kansas City.
And the Wright Amendment is scheduled to end in 2014. It will be interesting to see what happens when that time comes.
Baltimore/Washington is the largest metro we don't currently have service to and Orlando is the nations second largest tourist destination. My guess would be that we pick up both BWI and Orlando. We have had Orlando flights off and on before, if we can add some hub type traffic to Orlando and BWI it should be easier to justify the flights.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 28, 2010, 09:19:47 AM
I'm also not sure about the range on a fully loaded 737 in SWA's pax configuration being able to fly to LA or BWI non-stop. One would assume if you can fly non-stop from Tulsa to Phoenix, you would have enough plus reserves to make it to the coast. I think as the jet liner flies, LA is maybe an additional 30-45 minutes from Tulsa than it is to Phoenix.
SWA flies one non stop daily between Phoenix and Boston, Phoenix to Orlando, and Buffalo NY, all seem to be btween just over 4 hours to almost 5 hours, as an educated guess the range might be just under 6 hours including reserve fuel.
Most of Southwest Planes are 737-700s with a range of 6200 Km, which is enough to fly between BWI and TIA three times without landing and still have about 1000 Km in reserve. To that point, SWA does fly from OKC to BWI right now, and that would have to be just a little further an TIA to BWI.
AirTran does have a bunch of 717s with much less range, but my guess would be that that SWA will not keep those planes at all.
Quote from: swake on September 28, 2010, 12:55:45 PM
Most of Southwest Planes are 737-700s with a range of 6200 Km, which is enough to fly between BWI and TIA three times without landing and still have about 1000 Km in reserve. To that point, SWA does fly from OKC to BWI right now, and that would have to be just a little further an TIA to BWI.
AirTran does have a bunch of 717s with much less range, but my guess would be that that SWA will not keep those planes at all.
717s are essentially MD-90 stretches (actually during development they called it the MD-95, then Boeing bought MD and said they'd keep the design as the 717). Their max ranges at MTOW of about 121000 lbs for the extended range 200 series is just over 2000 NM.
Quote from: swake on September 28, 2010, 12:55:45 PM
Most of Southwest Planes are 737-700s with a range of 6200 Km, which is enough to fly between BWI and TIA three times without landing and still have about 1000 Km in reserve. To that point, SWA does fly from OKC to BWI right now, and that would have to be just a little further an TIA to BWI.
AirTran does have a bunch of 717s with much less range, but my guess would be that that SWA will not keep those planes at all.
SWA likes the 737 because it can streamline its maintenance having just one type of plane. They make keep some of the AirTran 717's for shorter routes. If SWA began a Tulsa-Kansas City non-stop, for instance, I could see it being on a 717. Though I would prefer Frontier return to Tulsa with non-stops to Denver and Kansas City, and maybe their hub in Milwaukee. Frontier merged with Midwest Airlines and is expanding from its bases in Denver, KC and Milwaukee.
That being said, it would not surprise me at all to see BWI, Atlanta, and Orlando non-stops added from Tulsa on SWA. That would be great for expanding non-stop service from TUL.
Quote from: swake on September 28, 2010, 12:55:45 PM
Most of Southwest Planes are 737-700s with a range of 6200 Km, which is enough to fly between BWI and TIA three times without landing and still have about 1000 Km in reserve. To that point, SWA does fly from OKC to BWI right now, and that would have to be just a little further an TIA to BWI.
AirTran does have a bunch of 717s with much less range, but my guess would be that that SWA will not keep those planes at all.
The 717's will be the first thing to go, depending on lease arrangements which may be in place.
Their aircraft choice has been a cornerstone of the cost savings in the SWA business model all along- fly one aircraft type and your parts, maintenance, and training costs are significantly less. One of the other great ideas is very quick gate turn-arounds and selecting a model of aircraft when they started up which did not require a flight engineer on the flight deck.
I think the main thing Tulsa will see is being able to connect to flights to cities previously not served, either by direct (not nonstop) or change planes flights, and maybe the ability to get a nonstop that used to be offered so that flight can connect elsewhere. Here there will be minimal change since Airtran only has one gate in terminal 3.
Quote from: Trogdor on September 28, 2010, 09:18:50 AM
The big thing is that they fly a few stops outside the US.
http://www.airtran.com/route-map/city_information.aspx (http://www.airtran.com/route-map/city_information.aspx)
Based on their current routes Atlanta is their main hub.
I agree that this is the biggest thing for them is to get a toe hold in the Carribean.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 28, 2010, 09:19:47 AM
I don't see any major changes in the offering to Tulsa as a result. I don't think there's enough demand for any of the direct routes you mentioned. As well, I think the Wright Amendment would prevent any TUL-AUS, TUL-SAT direct routes.
The Wright Amendment, which is being phased out anyway, only applies to flights to/from DAL.
For thos interested:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wright_Amendment)
Check out Allegiant Airlines out of NWA for some great deals. Its a short drive and can save you a ton of money. It cost about $250 for two of us to fly round trip, non stop flights, to Orlando/Sanford.
Quote from: TheArtist on September 28, 2010, 10:38:32 PM
Check out Allegiant Airlines out of NWA for some great deals. Its a short drive and can save you a ton of money. It cost about $250 for two of us to fly round trip, non stop flights, to Orlando/Sanford.
I actually did since I am about 6 miles from Williams/Gateway (the former Williams AFB) and found that if I flew from Williams to Springfield/NW Arkansas/Wichita KS, as opposed to Tulsa on Southwest, including a rental car from Alamo, the savings was only $20 to $30 for flying in before Thanksgiving. And actually I can only get a flight and a car if I fly into Wichita or Springfield. If I fly into NW Arkansas, XNA, there is no car rental availlable. Also with Allegiant, if you are not at the gate more than one hour before departure, your ticket is void, and there is no refund, and no exchange. You purchase and fly at the appointed times, and arrive at their tmes or your purchase is void.
Quote from: nathanm on September 28, 2010, 05:34:03 PM
The Wright Amendment, which is being phased out anyway, only applies to flights to/from DAL.
It affects flights originating in the four neighboring states to Texas going to DAL or going to neighboring states out of KDAL which we know is the base for Southwest. Though I'm rather confused after further reading what has and has not been affected as of the 2006 compromise in repealing the Wright Amendment. My understanding is, we would still be about 3+ years away from a shot at direct flights to AUS or SAT if they are even economically feasible for SWA.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 29, 2010, 09:04:14 AM
It affects flights originating in the four neighboring states to Texas going to DAL or going to neighboring states out of KDAL which we know is the base for Southwest. Though I'm rather confused after further reading what has and has not been affected as of the 2006 compromise in repealing the Wright Amendment. My understanding is, we would still be about 3+ years away from a shot at direct flights to AUS or SAT if they are even economically feasible for SWA.
The Wright Amendment does not now and has never restricted nonstop flights between Tulsa and AUS or SAT or anywhere else other than DAL.
Expressjet had direct flights to Ausin and San Antonio from Tulsa during their brief existence. The Austin-Tulsa route was the least viable out of all their legs according to the guy who set up their Tulsa operations.
The San Diego-Tulsa direct flight via ExpressJet had to have been the most enjoyable flights I've ever been on. That was on an ERJ, so taking 737s to LA is no big deal.
Quote from: Conan71 on September 29, 2010, 09:04:14 AM
It affects flights originating in the four neighboring states to Texas going to DAL or going to neighboring states out of KDAL which we know is the base for Southwest. Though I'm rather confused after further reading what has and has not been affected as of the 2006 compromise in repealing the Wright Amendment. My understanding is, we would still be about 3+ years away from a shot at direct flights to AUS or SAT if they are even economically feasible for SWA.
There's nothing stopping Southwest or anyone else flying TUL-AUS or TUL-SAT nonstop today, or at any time in the past 30 years. They just can't do TUL-DAL-AUS or TUL-DAL-SAT. Also, there is no restriction on flights using aircraft with 56 seats or less. Legend was doing all-business service DAL-JFK for a while. American, of course, reconfigured a few of their own aircraft to 56 seats and launched a competing service to drive Legend out of business.
The changes to the Wright Amendment, when they fully take effect, amount to a strict limitation on gate space at DAL in exchange for unrestricted flights. Everybody gets what they have now, leaving Southwest with all but four gates there. I'm not sure that's a whole lot better for Dallas, even if it is better for Southwest's customers.
That's funny Nate, in the past few years I've flown Tul-Dal-Aus and Tul-Dal-Sat and round trip legs. Am I on acid or is there a possibility you are flat donkey wrong?
Quote from: Conan71 on September 30, 2010, 12:02:45 AM
That's funny Nate, in the past few years I've flown Tul-Dal-Aus and Tul-Dal-Sat and round trip legs. Am I on acid or is there a possibility you are flat donkey wrong?
Late evening posted, so had a brain fart. I meant TUL-DAL-BHM or TUL-DAL-ABQ (pre-2006) or TUL-DAL-SAN sort of flights. We're in the Wright Amendment area, so through ticketing is allowed to other points within the Wright Amendment area. You couldn't fly MCI-DAL-SAT on a single ticket, since Missouri was, until 2006, not in the Wright Amendment area.
My main point was that nothing has ever been stopping Southwest from flying from Tulsa to anywhere they please anyway.
Quote from: inteller on September 29, 2010, 09:16:38 PM
Expressjet had direct flights to Ausin and San Antonio from Tulsa during their brief existence. The Austin-Tulsa route was the least viable out of all their legs according to the guy who set up their Tulsa operations.
The San Diego-Tulsa direct flight via ExpressJet had to have been the most enjoyable flights I've ever been on. That was on an ERJ, so taking 737s to LA is no big deal.
That's interesting. You would think there would be more demand to fly to all of the big Texas cities (Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin) from both Tulsa and OKC due to shared commerce and especially family connections. I am going to Austin to visit family soon and will just drive the 7 hours instead of flying and stopping in Dallas or Houston. A non-stop would be an easy hour and 10 min. flight.
Quote from: SXSW on September 30, 2010, 11:20:47 AM
That's interesting. You would think there would be more demand to fly to all of the big Texas cities (Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, Austin) from both Tulsa and OKC due to shared commerce and especially family connections. I am going to Austin to visit family soon and will just drive the 7 hours instead of flying and stopping in Dallas or Houston. A non-stop would be an easy hour and 10 min. flight.
If adequate demand existed, someone would be flying those routes.
Quote from: inteller on September 29, 2010, 09:16:38 PM
Expressjet had direct flights to Ausin and San Antonio from Tulsa during their brief existence. The Austin-Tulsa route was the least viable out of all their legs according to the guy who set up their Tulsa operations.
The San Diego-Tulsa direct flight via ExpressJet had to have been the most enjoyable flights I've ever been on. That was on an ERJ, so taking 737s to LA is no big deal.
I believe that. From 2006-2008 I was dating someone who lived in Austin, which meant weekly flights to Austin - when ExpressJet started up, it was like a dream come true for me since it was DIRECT. I swear, half the time my flight was empty except for me and the flight attendants. Nice for me, but I can see why they weren't into it. Besides being a direct, they were also about $20 cheaper than Southwest or American. I also flew Express Jet to LA Ontario - and I agree, it was fine for a longer haul flight, as long as you are in seat 12A.
Quote from: tulsa1603 on October 05, 2010, 08:13:23 PM
I believe that. From 2006-2008 I was dating someone who lived in Austin, which meant weekly flights to Austin - when ExpressJet started up, it was like a dream come true for me since it was DIRECT. I swear, half the time my flight was empty except for me and the flight attendants. Nice for me, but I can see why they weren't into it. Besides being a direct, they were also about $20 cheaper than Southwest or American. I also flew Express Jet to LA Ontario - and I agree, it was fine for a longer haul flight, as long as you are in seat 12A.
Interesting because the numerous daily flights to Dallas and Houston (both airports) are always full. However that could be due to Dallas and Houston being hubs for flights to other cities. Austin is not a hub though. I still would think there would be enough business/leisure travel between Tulsa and Austin for a non-stop but I guess not. I am more surprised there is not a Tulsa-Kansas City non-stop. Maybe if (when?) Frontier returns they can offer non-stops to Kansas City (where they are building a hub) as well as their primary hub, Denver.
Quote from: SXSW on October 06, 2010, 08:24:02 AM
Interesting because the numerous daily flights to Dallas and Houston (both airports) are always full. However that could be due to Dallas and Houston being hubs for flights to other cities. Austin is not a hub though. I still would think there would be enough business/leisure travel between Tulsa and Austin for a non-stop but I guess not. I am more surprised there is not a Tulsa-Kansas City non-stop. Maybe if (when?) Frontier returns they can offer non-stops to Kansas City (where they are building a hub) as well as their primary hub, Denver.
I'm not surprised there isn't.
There was a Southwest flight for many years on that route, I even flew it several times for work. But after 9/11 with the pain that air travel has become and with the improved highway to Kansas City I wouldn't fly it today even for work. 169 to Kansas City has been improved over the years so that you can drive there in under 4 hours, usually about 3.5 hours. That's a heck of a lot easier than driving 25 minutes to TIA to be there an hour and a half early, then take my shoes off and searched and body scanned to fly for seriously under 40 minutes to get off the plane and spend 30 minutes getting bags and renting a car and ending up at MCI 30 minutes north of Kansas City. And that's if the plane is one time which unless you are flying first thing in the morning is getting pretty rare.
At best the flight only saves you like 30 minutes and is a lot more hassle and cost and at worst can take a lot longer than driving. I go to KC quite a bit and I would not fly there. I wouldn't fly to Dallas either. Both are just too close and flying is too painful anymore.
I had no idea Southwest had dropped the TUL-MCI route. Like you said, Swake, for all the post 9/11 time hassle on both ends it's so much simpler to drive. I used to run to the SW gate a few minutes prior to push-back as the MCI flights were seldom a sell out and I could still get a decent seat.
When it came to Dallas, if I was going to be in Dallas for the week, I'd drive so I'd have a car and not be dependent on a hotel shuttle or depending on a ride from someone at HQ. It was around 250 miles from my front door to HQ in Irving. If I left at 5:30 to 6am, I'd miss most of the traffic on 75 and the LBJ and could get there in under 4 hours.
If I was going to corporate HQ in Irving for a few hours for a meeting, I'd fly even though it might only save me an hour total on round trip from door to door. If the driver was late getting me at the airport in Dallas, then it was break even on time or even slower.
Quote from: swake on October 06, 2010, 08:34:38 AM
I'm not surprised there isn't.
There was a Southwest flight for many years on that route, I even flew it several times for work. But after 9/11 with the pain that air travel has become and with the improved highway to Kansas City I wouldn't fly it today even for work. 169 to Kansas City has been improved over the years so that you can drive there in under 4 hours, usually about 3.5 hours. That's a heck of a lot easier than driving 25 minutes to TIA to be there an hour and a half early, then take my shoes off and searched and body scanned to fly for seriously under 40 minutes to get off the plane and spend 30 minutes getting bags and renting a car and ending up at MCI 30 minutes north of Kansas City. And that's if the plane is one time which unless you are flying first thing in the morning is getting pretty rare.
At best the flight only saves you like 30 minutes and is a lot more hassle and cost and at worst can take a lot longer than driving. I go to KC quite a bit and I would not fly there. I wouldn't fly to Dallas either. Both are just too close and flying is too painful anymore.
Good point. However a non-stop could be useful if you are connecting on another Frontier flight to the Midwest, for instance. KC just gives you another option, and could be convenient for business travelers between the two cities.