Omaha Eppley Airfield - DISCUSSION

Bob from Omaha · Post by **Bob from Omaha** » Fri Oct 12, 2018 4:11 pm

Hey Eppley Lurkers,

I have a request or at least a question. This month, actually October 11, the Des Moines Airport posted their September stats on their web site. They seem to be able to post their stats within the first couple of weeks almost every month while Epley typically posts its numbers on or after the 20th of the month.

Now, I know that posting your numbers isn't really a high priority and let's be honest, about 12 people actually take the time to go to the web site and read the numbers. I'm just wondering if maybe Eppley could post the stats earlier?

With the thanks of a grateful dozen geeks

Mr.Nuke · Post by **Mr.Nuke** » Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:27 am

September up 10.3% y-o-r, still up 9.9% YTD.
https://www.flyoma.com/wp-content/uploa ... istics.pdf

Bob from Omaha · Post by **Bob from Omaha** » Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:58 am

Interesting....

Still on track to blow past 5 million.

Some comments and questions:
Did Alaska drop a flight? They were down 21% for the month, 3400 pax. Sounds like one flight a day on a regional.

American down 5.8?

Allegiant and Frontier are going to town. Really cooking.

Delta decent growth.

Southwest very nice growth.

United nice increase. They might actually eek out a gain for the year.

Air Canada is for bragging rights but really is an afterthought numbers wise.

In any event, Eppley is having a very good year.

Mr.Nuke · Post by **Mr.Nuke** » Tue Oct 16, 2018 10:26 pm

Bob from Omaha wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:58 am Did Alaska drop a flight? They were down 21% for the month, 3400 pax. Sounds like one flight a day on a regional.

They flew Portland last September, they aren't this year.

Bob from Omaha wrote: Tue Oct 16, 2018 11:58 am Air Canada is for bragging rights but really is an afterthought numbers wise.

We'll see how long it sticks around. September's load-factor was only 45.3%.

Omababe · Post by **Omababe** » Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:40 am

Not to come off as a total snot here, but I (still) don't get warm fuzzy feelings of accuracy when I look at the online arrival/departure board! I've lost count of the times I've checked before I left home and it said a flight was "On Time" only to be told at the counter at check-in that it's late! I've gotten in the habit of double-checking with the airline each time to be sure.

Today I was checking on a flight and found another obvious error for which there's really no excuse! There's no airport called "Array" and Southwest clearly shows that the flight does indeed come here from Dallas.

Eppley lurkers: PLEASE pay attention to detail! Any human QA-ing that display would notice the error immediately.

A couple of other suggestions. Too many gates show up as blank, even when they have been plainly assigned and the airline sites list them! Again, attention to detail. It would also be helpful if the departure board listed the first destination out of Omaha, which is where most people taking the flight are going! Too many times the departure board shows a destination several hops away and nothing about the one most people are flying to. (Yeah I know, b*tch b*tch b*tch!)

choke · Post by **choke** » Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:21 pm

Last week, I took my first direct flight from Eppley Airfield. It was from to Newark and back. I don't know if I can fly any other way now. Wow, what a difference. NO LAYOVERS!!!!!!!

Ryan Air · Post by **Ryan Air** » Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:25 pm

[quote=Omababe post_id=293938 time=1540305618 user_id=808]
Not to come off as a total snot here, but I (still) don't get warm fuzzy feelings of accuracy when I look at the online arrival/departure board! I've lost count of the times I've checked before I left home and it said a flight was "On Time" only to be told at the counter at check-in that it's late! I've gotten in the habit of double-checking with the airline each time to be sure.

Today I was checking on a flight and found another obvious error for which there's really no excuse! There's no airport called "Array" and Southwest clearly shows that the flight does indeed come here from Dallas.

Eppley lurkers: PLEASE pay attention to detail! Any human QA-ing that display would notice the error immediately.

A couple of other suggestions. Too many gates show up as blank, even when they have been plainly assigned and the airline sites list them! Again, attention to detail. It would also be helpful if the departure board listed the first destination out of Omaha, which is where most people taking the flight are going! Too many times the departure board shows a destination several hops away and nothing about the one most people are flying to. (Yeah I know, b*tch b*tch b*tch!)

[img]https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1943/4546 ... 8028_c.jpg[/img
I don’t even bother looking at airport displays anymore... Flightradar24 is the best app. Everything from aircraft current location to age and maintenance. I have seen my flight delayed several times well before any of the displays show it. I have also seen equipment changes and other interesting things. There are filters and live maps too. The basic is free and tells you what you need to know like location of plane and delays... the pro version gives you lots of interesting info and allows alerts and push notifications for specified flights.

Uffda · Post by **Uffda** » Wed Oct 24, 2018 6:20 am

Ryan Air wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 10:25 pm
Omababe wrote: Tue Oct 23, 2018 9:40 am Not to come off as a total snot here, but I (still) don't get warm fuzzy feelings of accuracy when I look at the online arrival/departure board! I've lost count of the times I've checked before I left home and it said a flight was "On Time" only to be told at the counter at check-in that it's late! I've gotten in the habit of double-checking with the airline each time to be sure.

Today I was checking on a flight and found another obvious error for which there's really no excuse! There's no airport called "Array" and Southwest clearly shows that the flight does indeed come here from Dallas.

Eppley lurkers: PLEASE pay attention to detail! Any human QA-ing that display would notice the error immediately.

A couple of other suggestions. Too many gates show up as blank, even when they have been plainly assigned and the airline sites list them! Again, attention to detail. It would also be helpful if the departure board listed the first destination out of Omaha, which is where most people taking the flight are going! Too many times the departure board shows a destination several hops away and nothing about the one most people are flying to. (Yeah I know, b*tch b*tch b*tch!)

[img]https://c2.staticflickr.com/2/1943/4546 ... 8028_c.jpg[/img
I don’t even bother looking at airport displays anymore... Flightradar24 is the best app. Everything from aircraft current location to age and maintenance. I have seen my flight delayed several times well before any of the displays show it. I have also seen equipment changes and other interesting things. There are filters and live maps too. The basic is free and tells you what you need to know like location of plane and delays... the pro version gives you lots of interesting info and allows alerts and push notifications for specified flights.

I will have to take a look at that app BUT I agree with Omababe that it looks like the airport is droppping the ball.

Ryan Air · Post by **Ryan Air** » Mon Nov 19, 2018 2:29 am

Some interesting Southwest operating stats for the month of Aug 2018... obtained via poster “Knope2001” on Airliners forum.

OMA: 145,403 passengers (45th) with a load factor of 79.4% (54th)... so 45th busiest with 54th highest load factor in the Southwest network for the month of August.

Total passengers August 2018 by station (onboard, both directions combined)

1 ….. 1,833,756 ….. MDW
2 ….. 1,609,213 ….. DEN
3 ….. 1,539,706 ….. BWI
4 ….. 1,531,823 ….. LAS
5 ….. 1,274,497 ….. DAL
6 ….. 1,240,993 ….. PHX
7 ….. 1,051,151 ….. HOU
8 ……. 857,490 ….. ATL
9 ……. 848,511 ….. STL
10 ….. 841,213 ….. LAX
11 ….. 828,906 ….. OAK
12 ….. 819,909 ….. MCO
13 ….. 811,621 ….. SAN
14 ….. 751,361 ….. BNA
15 ….. 598,535 ….. SJC
16 ….. 568,625 ….. SMF
17 ….. 521,297 ….. TPA
18 ….. 516,999 ….. MCI
19 ….. 496,734 ….. FLL
20 ….. 479,900 ….. AUS
21 ….. 360,482 ….. MSY
22 ….. 346,657 ….. SNA
23 ….. 337,801 ….. PDX
24 ….. 337,175 ….. SAT
25 ….. 337,033 ….. BUR
26 ….. 335,947 ….. SFO
27 ….. 333,538 ….. SEA
28 ….. 295,140 ….. DCA
29 ….. 290,011 ….. BOS
30 ….. 255,669 ….. MKE
31 ….. 244,499 ….. LGA
32 ….. 241,088 ….. ABQ
33 ….. 231,360 ….. ONT
34 ….. 229,260 ….. CMH
35 ….. 226,251 ….. IND
36 ….. 220,982 ….. SLC
37 ….. 218,281 ….. RDU
38 ….. 210,338 ….. PIT
39 ….. 186,659 ….. MSP
40 ….. 186,347 ….. PHL
41 ….. 164,529 ….. RNO
42 ….. 152,566 ….. DTW
43 ….. 150,334 ….. EWR
44 ….. 148,353 ….. CLE
45 ….. 145,403 ….. OMA
46 ….. 143,642 ….. BUF
47 ….. 142,202 ….. PVD
48 ….. 134,224 ….. BDL
49 ….. 130,037 ….. ELP
50 ….. 123,206 ….. OKC
51 ….. 104,502 ….. JAX
52 ……. 97,189 ….. ALB
53 ……. 95,282 ….. ISP
54 ……. 89,297 ….. MHT
55 ……. 88,784 ….. BOI
56 ……. 88,054 ….. SJU
57 ……. 85,515 ….. SDF
58 ……. 85,417 ….. TUL
59 ……. 84,475 ….. GEG
60 ……. 84,215 ….. RSW
61 ……. 74,265 ….. TUS
62 ……. 73,496 ….. BHM
63 ……. 63,836 ….. ORF
64 ……. 63,567 ….. CHS
65 ……. 62,772 ….. CLT
66 ……. 55,812 ….. IAD
67 ……. 55,206 ….. MEM
68 ……. 55,129 ….. MAF
69 ……. 52,911 ….. CVG
70 ……. 47,728 ….. LGB
71 ……. 45,548 ….. LBB
72 ……. 45,228 ….. LIT
73 ……. 43,118 ….. ECP
74 ……. 40,138 ….. PBI
75 ……. 38,480 ….. GRR
76 ……. 36,360 ….. HRL
77 ……. 35,845 ….. ROC
78 ……. 34,577 ….. PWM
79 ……. 28,999 ….. AMA
80 ……. 28,069 ….. PNS
81 ……. 27,365 ….. ICT
82 ……. 23,048 ….. DSM
83 ……. 22,348 ….. RIC
84 ……. 19,076 ….. GSP
85 ……. 17,783 ….. CRP

Twenty-five busiest city pairs by onboard passengers

1 ….. 121,202 ….. HOU ….. DAL
2 ……. 86,572 ….. SAN ….. SJC
3 ……. 85,815 ….. SAN ….. SMF
4 ……. 76,450 ….. SAN ….. OAK
5 ……. 75,488 ….. MDW ….. LAS
6 ……. 75,466 ….. DEN ….. PHX
7 ……. 73,848 ….. DEN ….. MDW
8 ……. 72,664 ….. LAX ….. LAS
9 ……. 71,998 ….. LAX ….. OAK
10 ….. 71,214 ….. BUR ….. OAK
11 ….. 70,924 ….. SAN ….. PHX
12 ….. 67,173 ….. BWI ….. FLL
13 ….. 66,947 ….. DEN ….. LAS
14 ….. 66,732 ….. LAS ….. RNO
15 ….. 66,035 ….. BWI ….. BOS
16 ….. 64,768 ….. BWI ….. MCO
17 ….. 64,381 ….. LAS ….. SAN
18 ….. 64,305 ….. LAS ….. PHX
19 ….. 63,761 ….. SNA ….. SJC
20 ….. 61,611 ….. DAL ….. SAT
21 ….. 60,541 ….. DAL ….. AUS
22 ….. 60,524 ….. BUR ….. LAS
23 ….. 60,484 ….. LAS ….. SJC
24 ….. 59,982 ….. MDW ….. PHX
25 ….. 59,338 ….. LAX ….. SJC

Load factors -- as always remember that load factors are only half the picture when guessing financial outcome so take them with a grain of salt.

Load factor (onboard pax) by station

1 ……. 95.9% ….. SJU
2 ……. 92.0% ….. PWM
3 ……. 91.5% ….. ALB
4 ……. 91.0% ….. LGA
5 ……. 89.9% ….. DSM
6 ……. 89.6% ….. RIC
7 ……. 89.3% ….. GRR
8 ……. 89.2% ….. ROC
9 ……. 89.0% ….. BUF
10 ….. 88.4% ….. SEA
11 ….. 88.2% ….. PHL
12 ….. 88.0% ….. DEN
13 ….. 88.0% ….. MKE
14 ….. 87.9% ….. EWR
15 ….. 87.1% ….. ORF
16 ….. 86.5% ….. CHS
17 ….. 86.4% ….. PIT
18 ….. 86.4% ….. ISP
19 ….. 86.4% ….. DTW
20 ….. 86.0% ….. GEG
21 ….. 85.8% ….. BOS
22 ….. 85.7% ….. PVD
23 ….. 85.6% ….. PNS
24 ….. 85.5% ….. ECP
25 ….. 85.2% ….. MCO
26 ….. 85.2% ….. FLL
27 ….. 85.2% ….. BWI
28 ….. 84.5% ….. MSP
29 ….. 84.4% ….. PBI
30 ….. 84.2% ….. IAD
31 ….. 84.1% ….. MDW
32 ….. 83.9% ….. RSW
33 ….. 83.9% ….. BDL
34 ….. 83.9% ….. PDX
35 ….. 83.6% ….. SNA
36 ….. 83.5% ….. MHT
37 ….. 83.4% ….. RDU
38 ….. 83.2% ….. STL
39 ….. 82.6% ….. LGB
40 ….. 82.4% ….. CLE
41 ….. 81.9% ….. BNA
42 ….. 81.2% ….. BOI
43 ….. 81.1% ….. CMH
44 ….. 81.0% ….. SAN
45 ….. 80.9% ….. RNO
46 ….. 80.9% ….. DCA
47 ….. 80.9% ….. TPA
48 ….. 80.2% ….. ATL
49 ….. 80.1% ….. AUS
50 ….. 79.7% ….. PHX
51 ….. 79.5% ….. LAS
52 ….. 79.5% ….. TUS
53 ….. 79.5% ….. HOU
54 ….. 79.4% ….. OMA
55 ….. 79.3% ….. SAT
56 ….. 79.2% ….. DAL
57 ….. 79.1% ….. OKC
58 ….. 79.1% ….. ICT
59 ….. 78.8% ….. SMF
60 ….. 78.5% ….. SLC
61 ….. 78.0% ….. MCI
62 ….. 77.8% ….. LAX
63 ….. 77.7% ….. SJC
64 ….. 77.6% ….. OAK
65 ….. 77.4% ….. IND
66 ….. 77.4% ….. CLT
67 ….. 76.9% ….. SFO
68 ….. 76.9% ….. JAX
69 ….. 76.8% ….. ABQ
70 ….. 76.0% ….. ONT
71 ….. 75.8% ….. LBB
72 ….. 75.5% ….. SDF
73 ….. 75.1% ….. MEM
74 ….. 75.0% ….. MSY
75 ….. 74.7% ….. BHM
76 ….. 74.5% ….. GSP
77 ….. 74.5% ….. ELP
78 ….. 74.1% ….. HRL
79 ….. 74.0% ….. LIT
80 ….. 73.5% ….. BUR
81 ….. 72.6% ….. TUL
82 ….. 72.5% ….. MAF
83 ….. 70.5% ….. CVG
84 ….. 68.5% ….. AMA
85 ….. 53.5% ….. CRP

Highest and lowest city pair load factor, excluding routes with less than weekly service.
Markets with * operated fewer than 31 round trips in August.

City pairs with onboard loads > = 95.0% (both ways combined)

97.1% ….. FLL ….. LGA*
97.0% ….. TPA ….. MKE*
96.9% ….. MCO ….. ALB
96.8% ….. PHL ….. FLL
96.6% ….. BWI ….. SJU
96.5% ….. BWI ….. PDX*
96.3% ….. MDW ….. SJU
96.0% ….. MDW ….. PWM*
96.0% ….. MCO ….. SJU
95.8% ….. FLL ….. SJU
95.6% ….. PHL ….. MCO
95.6% ….. BNA ….. PIT
95.6% ….. HOU ….. PDX*
95.3% ….. LAS ….. DSM
95.3% ….. HOU ….. SEA*
95.1% ….. TPA ….. SJU
95.1% ….. BWI ….. SEA

City pairs with onboard loads < = 70.0% (both ways combined)

70.0% ….. MAF ….. DAL
70.0% ….. IND ….. AUS*
69.8% ….. SLC ….. LAX
69.6% ….. BUR ….. SLC
69.2% ….. LAS ….. SAN
69.0% ….. CLT ….. BNA
69.0% ….. CLE ….. MKE
68.9% ….. DAL ….. AMA
68.8% ….. MSY ….. STL
68.7% ….. IND ….. MDW
68.6% ….. PHX ….. MSY
68.5% ….. CVG ….. MDW
68.4% ….. PHX ….. LAS
68.1% ….. LIT ….. DAL
68.1% ….. MCO ….. MCI
68.0% ….. CVG ….. BWI
67.9% ….. LAX ….. SJC
67.5% ….. RNO ….. SJC
67.5% ….. MSY ….. DAL
67.3% ….. TUL ….. HOU
67.1% ….. LAS ….. AMA
67.1% ….. HOU ….. MSY
67.0% ….. TUL ….. PHX
66.9% ….. ONT ….. SJC
66.6% ….. LAX ….. SMF
66.3% ….. ABQ ….. SNA*
66.3% ….. TUL ….. DAL
65.6% ….. OAK ….. LAX
65.3% ….. ELP ….. AUS
65.0% ….. TPA ….. SAT
64.5% ….. OAK ….. ABQ
64.3% ….. PDX ….. SFO
63.0% ….. CMH ….. DCA
62.8% ….. IND ….. EWR
62.7% ….. TPA ….. RDU
62.6% ….. TPA ….. MEM
62.2% ….. ABQ ….. SJC*
62.0% ….. GEG ….. BOI
61.0% ….. TPA ….. BHM
61.0% ….. MSY ….. MCI
60.9% ….. SAT ….. ELP
60.6% ….. IND ….. MCI
53.9% ….. BNA ….. ATL
53.5% ….. HOU ….. CRP
52.9% ….. JAX ….. FLL

Full flights aren't always a sign of top financial performers, and nothing says 70.0% is a magic cutoff where 71.0% is solid but 69.0% is endangered. Note, for example, that while Southwest largely owns California short haul quite a few markets are only in the 65-70% range. Nevertheless you can get a something of a comparative snapshot for the month of August .

Bob from Omaha · Post by **Bob from Omaha** » Mon Nov 19, 2018 1:00 pm

October is out. +7.7% for the month, 9.7% for the year.

On the plus side, Allegiant and Frontier are really growing their presence. Southwest had a solid +9.1% for the month and 9.9% for the year. United had a really good 12.1% increase for the month and that put them in positive ground for the year.

On the other hand, Alaska was down 22% for the month. American was down 5.8% and Delta was down 4.9%.

Still on track to crack 5 million for the year.

damonhynes · Post by **damonhynes** » Mon Nov 19, 2018 4:22 pm

I find it strange that AS is cratering that bad. Hard to believe that DL via MSP or SLC to the Pac NW is eating Alaska's lunch. The AS flight I took in March was packed to the gills.

Mr.Nuke · Post by **Mr.Nuke** » Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:17 pm

damonhynes wrote: Mon Nov 19, 2018 4:22 pm I find it strange that AS is cratering that bad. Hard to believe that DL via MSP or SLC to the Pac NW is eating Alaska's lunch. The AS flight I took in March was packed to the gills.

I'm not that they are cratering really at all. The Seattle flight was up 5.1% October over October 2017 and it is up 2.1% year-to-date. Eppley is reporting 3,520 passengers on the San Diego flight. I show 3,651 on San Diego in October 2017 from DOT data and 3916 on PDX.* So San Diego looks relatively flat. Again like last month, the drop here is almost entirely attributable to Portland operating in 2017 and not operating here. We can also pretty definitively say that if people are going to Portland while this flight isn't operating seasonably not many are using Alaska.

*Not a perfect comparison for sure as I'd like to be comparing DOT to DOT here but can't for another 2 or 3 months.

damonhynes · Post by **damonhynes** » Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:52 pm

Mr.Nuke wrote: Mon Nov 19, 2018 10:17 pm Again like last month, the drop here is almost entirely attributable to Portland operating in 2017 and not operating here. We can also pretty definitively say that if people are going to Portland while this flight isn't operating seasonably not many are using Alaska.

Cool, thanks for the reality check. I was mildly surprised about PDX when it was first announced.

Bob from Omaha · Post by **Bob from Omaha** » Tue Nov 20, 2018 8:06 pm

Stargazer wrote: Sat Jan 03, 2009 12:10 pm

In this graphic it says upper and lower roads. I guess I missed that at the time. I wonder if it's still in the plan. How about it lurkers? A hint?

Mr.Nuke · Post by **Mr.Nuke** » Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:32 pm

Bob from Omaha wrote: Tue Nov 20, 2018 8:06 pm In this graphic it says upper and lower roads. I guess I missed that at the time. I wonder if it's still in the plan. How about it lurkers? A hint?

You yourself noticed this at a minimum almost a year ago. http://eomahaforums.com/viewtopic.php?f ... ed#p284418

The elevated road was there in the post you quoted from the old Omaha World-Herald story/graphic. It wasn't there from what we can tell in the 2013 master plan. From the recent industry day PAL 1/PAL 2 presentation that we have (and that is the best information we have access to) it too appears the split level drive and split level arrivals/departures terminal concept was abandoned. The construction of the rental car facility also would lead me to believe they aren't looking at a multi-level road.

Omababe · Post by **Omababe** » Mon Nov 26, 2018 6:43 am

Doesn't anybody proofread or spot-check these things???!!!

Yeah, I know it shows cancelled, but anyone with any passing knowledge of air travel knows that Southwest does not fly to O'hare!

Eppley lurkers: PLEASE pay a wee bit of attention to detail!

Bob from Omaha · Post by **Bob from Omaha** » Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:44 am

Mr.Nuke wrote: Tue Nov 20, 2018 10:32 pm
Bob from Omaha wrote: Tue Nov 20, 2018 8:06 pm In this graphic it says upper and lower roads. I guess I missed that at the time. I wonder if it's still in the plan. How about it lurkers? A hint?
You yourself noticed this at a minimum almost a year ago. http://eomahaforums.com/viewtopic.php?f ... ed#p284418

The elevated road was there in the post you quoted from the old Omaha World-Herald story/graphic. It wasn't there from what we can tell in the 2013 master plan. From the recent industry day PAL 1/PAL 2 presentation that we have (and that is the best information we have access to) it too appears the split level drive and split level arrivals/departures terminal concept was abandoned. The construction of the rental car facility also would lead me to believe they aren't looking at a multi-level road.

Good catch regarding me noticing it. At my advanced age I'm lucky if I remember if I had breakfast an hour ago.

I'm not a construction expert and i'm sure somewhere out there is someone who can figure out how to build upper and lower roads in the space between the garage and the terminal but it sure seems tight. I'd guess it's also a logistical problem with ticketing and baggage handling upstairs but again, I'm no expert. It would certainly help manage arriving and departing passengers easier than doing all that on one level. The airports I've been to that do have upper and lower roads appear to have less congestion, but that may just be my impression and it does depend on how many people those airports serve.
In any event you do have a point regarding the rental car facility.

Bob from Omaha · Post by **Bob from Omaha** » Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:51 am

Omababe wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 6:43 am Doesn't anybody proofread or spot-check these things???!!!

Yeah, I know it shows cancelled, but anyone with any passing knowledge of air travel knows that Southwest does not fly to O'hare!

Eppley lurkers: PLEASE pay a wee bit of attention to detail!

I also noticed this and thought it was a goof but Alaska Air flight 9278 is actually scheduled to leave Omaha at 8 AM and arrive in Kansas City at 9AM. Not sure why and I doubt this is scheduled regular service.

Mr.Nuke · Post by **Mr.Nuke** » Mon Nov 26, 2018 9:31 am

Omababe wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 6:43 am Doesn't anybody proofread or spot-check these things???!!!

No the airport isn't paying someone to proof-read their departure/arrivals board. It is presumably an automated system that feeds into a 3rd party data source or the airlines directly. I wouldn't be surprised if airline/gate agents can manually override certain aspects like gates/delays, etc.

Omababe wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 6:43 am

Yeah, I know it shows cancelled, but anyone with any passing knowledge of air travel knows that Southwest does not fly to O'hare!

Your previous things that you think are wrong like a Sioux City or Sioux Falls flight (I forgot which one it) have failed to pan out, and I've personally never seen any data errors. Based on the other other departure times around that flight, I have a feeling there is a pretty logical conclusion here as well. Midway has a commercial curfew between Midnight and 6 a.m. That means no airline flights in or out. Especially with the snow last night and today, it is entirely possible Southwest wanted to get a plane/crew at Eppley positioned back in Chicago. If they were attempting to do it at that hour (which the departure time indicates) they would've had to fly to O'Hare... The no gate assignment also makes me think they were thinking about getting a crew/plane back in Chicago. Bob's example is another one that you would say see no airline flies from Omaha to Kansas City!

Omababe wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 6:43 am Eppley lurkers: PLEASE pay a wee bit of attention to detail!

The only quasi-legitimate issue you've shown is they need to potentially look at how Southwest flights are handled on the website with their data provider. I personally thought the "Array" you found was a decent compromise.

Bob from Omaha wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:51 am I also noticed this and thought it was a goof but Alaska Air flight 9278 is actually scheduled to leave Omaha at 8 AM and arrive in Kansas City at 9AM. Not sure why and I doubt this is scheduled regular service.

Kansas City was closed for multiple hours yesterday afternoon due to literal blizzard conditions. Eppley took multiple diversions of inbound aircraft when the airport shut down. Several left last night when the airport re-opened. This flight was from SEA-MCI. Presumably this crew timed out on the ground in Omaha last night. They landed at 3:40 p.m. per FAA crew rest they couldn't have departed until at least 2:40 a.m. At that point a more sensible morning departure makes sense.

Mr.Nuke · Post by **Mr.Nuke** » Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:27 pm

Bob from Omaha wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:44 am I'm not a construction expert and i'm sure somewhere out there is someone who can figure out how to build upper and lower roads in the space between the garage and the terminal but it sure seems tight.

Yeah and like I said it got tighter with the rental car facility. You could've and maybe still could elevate the road, but one of the major issues especially knowing roughly where they plan to expand the terminal to the North is there isn't a spot to bring the elevated traffic down. Skywalks on the existing parking garage would've had to been modified too, but that seems more minor.

Bob from Omaha wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:44 am I'd guess it's also a logistical problem with ticketing and baggage handling upstairs but again, I'm no expert.

This one seems easier to overcome and they obviously thought they could at some point given the graphic you quoted from the last modification prior to the existing masterplan. They obviously abandoned it. I do wonder how hamstrung they are out front in the grand scheme of things knowing they have to keep a functional terminal throughout the entire process versus building a completely new facility that isn't in constant use throughout construction.

Bob from Omaha wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:44 am It would certainly help manage arriving and departing passengers easier than doing all that on one level. The airports I've been to that do have upper and lower roads appear to have less congestion, but that may just be my impression

No I mean there is a reason nearly every major airport has separate arrivals/departures levels. You are effectively cutting your traffic in half both cars on the outside and humans on the inside checking in/picking up luggage. Based on the industry day presentation it looks like they think they can achieve some of these benefits just by separating arriving and departing traffic on a single level. I'm skeptical, but we'll see. It also seemingly limits future expansion opportunities in terms of passengers or additional service by cutting off the second level.

Edit to add the bold words that weren't there which changes meaning in the last paragraph

Bob from Omaha · Post by **Bob from Omaha** » Mon Nov 26, 2018 3:32 pm

Mr.Nuke wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:27 pm
Bob from Omaha wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:44 am I'm not a construction expert and i'm sure somewhere out there is someone who can figure out how to build upper and lower roads in the space between the garage and the terminal but it sure seems tight.
Yeah and like I said it got tighter with the rental car facility. You could've and maybe still could elevate the road, but one of the major issues especially knowing roughly where they plan to expand the terminal to the North is there isn't a spot to bring the elevated traffic down. Skywalks on the existing parking garage would've had to been modified too, but that seems more minor.
Bob from Omaha wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:44 am I'd guess it's also a logistical problem with ticketing and baggage handling upstairs but again, I'm no expert.
This one seems easier to overcome and they obviously thought they could at some point given the graphic you quoted from the last modification prior to the existing masterplan. They obviously abandoned it. I do wonder how hamstrung they are out front in the grand scheme of things knowing they have to keep a functional terminal throughout the entire process versus building a completely new facility that isn't in constant use throughout construction.
Bob from Omaha wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:44 am It would certainly help manage arriving and departing passengers easier than doing all that on one level. The airports I've been to that do have upper and lower roads appear to have less congestion, but that may just be my impression
No I mean there is a reason nearly every major airport has separate arrivals/departures levels. You are effectively cutting your traffic in half both cars on the outside and humans on the inside checking in/picking up luggage. Based on the industry day presentation it looks like they can achieve some of these benefits just by separating arriving and departing traffic on a single level. I'm skeptical, but we'll see. It also seemingly limits future expansion opportunities in terms of passengers or additional service by cutting off the second level.

My beef with the current terminal is simple. It is located at the narrowest point between Carter Lake and the runways. Take a look at Google Earth at the area south of the current terminal, all the way to Locust, which includes the current surface parking. There is quite a bit more real estate there. One of the earliest renderings of a new terminal had a (believe it or not) 75 gate terminal on the land I just spoke about. I know it is economically unfeasible and $90 million or so is going into a brand new parking garage. Still it would have allowed for quite a bit of expansion.

Just a thought.

Ryan Air · Post by **Ryan Air** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 11:35 am

Bob from Omaha wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 3:32 pm
Mr.Nuke wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 12:27 pm
Bob from Omaha wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:44 am I'm not a construction expert and i'm sure somewhere out there is someone who can figure out how to build upper and lower roads in the space between the garage and the terminal but it sure seems tight.
Yeah and like I said it got tighter with the rental car facility. You could've and maybe still could elevate the road, but one of the major issues especially knowing roughly where they plan to expand the terminal to the North is there isn't a spot to bring the elevated traffic down. Skywalks on the existing parking garage would've had to been modified too, but that seems more minor.
Bob from Omaha wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:44 am I'd guess it's also a logistical problem with ticketing and baggage handling upstairs but again, I'm no expert.
This one seems easier to overcome and they obviously thought they could at some point given the graphic you quoted from the last modification prior to the existing masterplan. They obviously abandoned it. I do wonder how hamstrung they are out front in the grand scheme of things knowing they have to keep a functional terminal throughout the entire process versus building a completely new facility that isn't in constant use throughout construction.
Bob from Omaha wrote: Mon Nov 26, 2018 7:44 am It would certainly help manage arriving and departing passengers easier than doing all that on one level. The airports I've been to that do have upper and lower roads appear to have less congestion, but that may just be my impression
No I mean there is a reason nearly every major airport has separate arrivals/departures levels. You are effectively cutting your traffic in half both cars on the outside and humans on the inside checking in/picking up luggage. Based on the industry day presentation it looks like they can achieve some of these benefits just by separating arriving and departing traffic on a single level. I'm skeptical, but we'll see. It also seemingly limits future expansion opportunities in terms of passengers or additional service by cutting off the second level.
My beef with the current terminal is simple. It is located at the narrowest point between Carter Lake and the runways. Take a look at Google Earth at the area south of the current terminal, all the way to Locust, which includes the current surface parking. There is quite a bit more real estate there. One of the earliest renderings of a new terminal had a (believe it or not) 75 gate terminal on the land I just spoke about. I know it is economically unfeasible and $90 million or so is going into a brand new parking garage. Still it would have allowed for quite a bit of expansion.

Just a thought.

I agree with this.

At the same time, you never know what designers will come up with. Adding a second level to front drive could easily be achieved. Moving the enclosed pedestrian walkway to the 5th floor of the garage and creating a mezzanine level above the new terminal for it to connect to with escalators/elevators is not a “far out there” idea. Just think of the limited space the old MDW had and what they were able to create.

Bob from Omaha · Post by **Bob from Omaha** » Wed Nov 28, 2018 3:00 pm

Midway moved Cicero over to expand, not really something Eppley could do. Maybe build over Abbott but that would be very expensive.

Ryan Air · Post by **Ryan Air** » Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:47 pm

Bob from Omaha wrote: Wed Nov 28, 2018 3:00 pm Midway moved Cicero over to expand, not really something Eppley could do. Maybe build over Abbott but that would be very expensive.

I get that. My point was, even with little space, there was a way.
And yes, I would move the front drive. I’d move it where the terminal is now and build the terminal where the drive is, butted up against the garage. I’d put the security checkpoint on other side of the “new” front drive and have two concourses on either side extending to the north and south.

My plan would have upper and lower drive. I’d also have a new tower.

Imissomaha · Post by **Imissomaha** » Wed Dec 05, 2018 4:01 pm

I was dropping off an architect/engineer at the airport about a month ago and they said that eventually the south parking garage will be razed making room for a new entrance and airport terminal.

Mr.Nuke · Post by **Mr.Nuke** » Wed Dec 05, 2018 10:04 pm

Imissomaha wrote: Wed Dec 05, 2018 4:01 pm I was dropping off an architect/engineer at the airport about a month ago and they said that eventually the south parking garage will be razed making room for a new entrance and airport terminal.

I don't think that information is very accurate. While we don't know the exact design of the new terminal yet, we do know the fundamentals of what they're trying to do for about the next 20 years. In the masterplan that encompass the entire new terminal and beyond; the new terminal doesn't impact either parking garage, the initial parking garage is still there, and beyond the time frame of the masterplan they've identified the need for an additional 3rd garage to the South of the original one.

Ryan Air wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 8:47 pm My plan would have upper and lower drive. I’d also have a new tower.

We'll see what the preliminary designs come back with and how much the airport authority directed what they're seeking re: said designs, but at this point it seems like a moot discussion. We are pretty confident the split drive concept got dropped in the 2013 master plan and even more so recently given that it isn't there based on the industry day presentation and preliminary conceptual terminal layout that they presented to the potential bidders.

iamjacobm · Post by **iamjacobm** » Thu Dec 13, 2018 5:09 pm

Kracky McGees in Terminal A looking a little more legit.

Ryan Air · Post by **Ryan Air** » Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:35 pm

Nov 2018 numbers up
https://www.flyoma.com/wp-content/uploa ... istics.pdf

We’re at 4.664 million through November. Looks like 5 million will happen. Up 8.2% Nov yoy and 9.5 for the year

Air Canada struggling with under 1000 pax for the 30 days of Nov
Mainline UA up over 200%
DL down slightly

My guess for end of year will be 5,065,455

joleo · Post by **joleo** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:32 am

Ryan Air wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:35 pm Nov 2018 numbers up
https://www.flyoma.com/wp-content/uploa ... istics.pdf

We’re at 4.664 million through November. Looks like 5 million will happen. Up 8.2% Nov yoy and 9.5 for the year

Air Canada struggling with under 1000 pax for the 30 days of Nov
Mainline UA up over 200%
DL down slightly

My guess for end of year will be 5,065,455

Air Canada didn't operate flights on all days in November. They didn't operate 3 or 4 days just like they are doing in December. This helps the loads slightly but still horrible around 35% somewhere.

Any Eppley learkers on here, if the OMA airport could help to get a United codeshare onto this route just like Air Canada does on just about EVERY other USA-Canada flight, I think the loads would jump big time and the route would be successful. Without that, I don't think this route will survive. For example, being able to see this route as a 'United' route on search engines for flights to Europe and the Caribbean would be huge. It would also price well as flying through Toronto one-way to Europe and United back through Newark or Chicago, instead of pricing that as two expensive one-way tickets. It would also increase exposure to Canada.

I literally just spoke to a friend who works for a consulting company that flew from Omaha to Toronto on United through Chicago instead of the nonstop. He is a United top tier elite and flies every week and only uses the United App for his tickets. Right now, the Air Canada flight doesn't show on the United App but for example, the Kansas City to Toronto shows on the United App. This flight would pick up additional passengers this way as well.

As this is sort of a 'bragging rights' thing to have service to Toronto, I would hope this is a high priority for Eppley management to work with the two airlines to get this codeshare done if they want to route to stay around.

Ryan Air · Post by **Ryan Air** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:49 pm

joleo wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:32 am
Ryan Air wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:35 pm Nov 2018 numbers up
https://www.flyoma.com/wp-content/uploa ... istics.pdf

We’re at 4.664 million through November. Looks like 5 million will happen. Up 8.2% Nov yoy and 9.5 for the year

Air Canada struggling with under 1000 pax for the 30 days of Nov
Mainline UA up over 200%
DL down slightly

My guess for end of year will be 5,065,455
Air Canada didn't operate flights on all days in November. They didn't operate 3 or 4 days just like they are doing in December. This helps the loads slightly but still horrible around 35% somewhere.

Any Eppley learkers on here, if the OMA airport could help to get a United codeshare onto this route just like Air Canada does on just about EVERY other USA-Canada flight, I think the loads would jump big time and the route would be successful. Without that, I don't think this route will survive. For example, being able to see this route as a 'United' route on search engines for flights to Europe and the Caribbean would be huge. It would also price well as flying through Toronto one-way to Europe and United back through Newark or Chicago, instead of pricing that as two expensive one-way tickets. It would also increase exposure to Canada.

I literally just spoke to a friend who works for a consulting company that flew from Omaha to Toronto on United through Chicago instead of the nonstop. He is a United top tier elite and flies every week and only uses the United App for his tickets. Right now, the Air Canada flight doesn't show on the United App but for example, the Kansas City to Toronto shows on the United App. This flight would pick up additional passengers this way as well.

As this is sort of a 'bragging rights' thing to have service to Toronto, I would hope this is a high priority for Eppley management to work with the two airlines to get this codeshare done if they want to route to stay around.

They are aware, it has been brought up to AC- ultimately it is the carriers decision to market in such a manner. Not sure why they are not- my guess is they will.

Bob from Omaha · Post by **Bob from Omaha** » Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:56 pm

For the trailing 12 months (12/17-11/18) OMA is at 5,015,815. So if OMA does no better than last year 5 million is a done deal. If December does +8.5% OMA is at 5,047,373.885. Not sure how many but I get the feeling that there were some cancellations in Nov & maybe even early Dec.

I'm going to predict OMA finishes in the area of 5,050,000

Wherever it ends up Eppley had a great year.

I'm curious where we are with regard to expansion. Maybe a lurker could clue us in on their Facebook page? Maybe whisper in a OWH crack reporter's ear? I'm sure at some point someone will say something. How's the new garage coming?

Mr.Nuke · Post by **Mr.Nuke** » Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:47 am

Ryan Air wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:35 pm Air Canada struggling with under 1000 pax for the 30 days of Nov

Not good. We'll see how long Air Canada is willing to fly this.

joleo wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:32 am Air Canada didn't operate flights on all days in November. They didn't operate 3 or 4 days just like they are doing in December. This helps the loads slightly but still horrible around 35% somewhere.

It may help the loads slightly, but I have a feeling multiple days that they didn’t fly were due to the loads being terrible. So in the grand scheme of things if you are getting ~35% loads on the days you flew and didn’t fly 10+% of your flights that obviously isn’t great.

joleo wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:32 am Any Eppley learkers on here, if the OMA airport could help to get a United codeshare onto this route just like Air Canada does on just about EVERY other USA-Canada flight, I think the loads would jump big time and the route would be successful.

This is mainly an airline to airline issue.

joleo wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:32 am It would also price well as flying through Toronto one-way to Europe and United back through Newark or Chicago, instead of pricing that as two expensive one-way tickets. It would also increase exposure to Canada.

This flight gets to Toronto too late to utilize the majority of Air Canada’s YYZ-Europe bank.

joleo wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:32 am I literally just spoke to a friend who works for a consulting company that flew from Omaha to Toronto on United through Chicago instead of the nonstop. He is a United top tier elite and flies every week and only uses the United App for his tickets.

Whether you realize this or not, this is exactly why United would NOT want to code share on this flight. Arrangements can get significantly more complicated, but fundamentally a code share agreement isn’t that different than a travel agent or now more commonly a third-party online booking site. Most of the ticket revenue goes to the operating carrier. The booking carrier gets a small essentially sales commission.

So with the example of your friend, United could either keep all of the money from his ticket by flying him or they could get about 5-10% of his ticket by selling him a ticket on Air Canada.

Let’s say hypothetically United is flying 10 people to Toronto daily from Omaha right now at $400 a ticket. That is $4,000 daily.

Say they could code share with Air Canada at 10% on $450 per ticket and they expect to sell 5 additional passengers on the AC flight but lose 1 of their own to the code share. That is $270 in code share revenue less $400 from the lost passenger. Or United just lost $130 by code sharing on this route. Again, your friend is the perfect example here. I have a feeling United has likely analyzed the OMA-YYZ market, is comfortable with their existing market share on said route, and feels like they’d lose revenue on a code share.

joleo wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:32 am This flight would pick up additional passengers this way as well.

It probably would, but at what cost to United? It is also possible Air Canada for whatever reason wanted to see how they could do alone before involving United.

joleo wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 11:32 am As this is sort of a 'bragging rights' thing to have service to Toronto, I would hope this is a high priority for Eppley management to work with the two airlines to get this codeshare done if they want to route to stay around.

Honestly though, If Omaha loses it, have they really lost that much? The flight doesn’t work for dual way European connections. There are ample connections through multiple carriers for Toronto. The loads are showing this route isn’t really viable.

Bob from Omaha wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 5:56 pm I'm curious where we are with regard to expansion. Maybe a lurker could clue us in on their Facebook page? Maybe whisper in a OWH crack reporter's ear? I'm sure at some point someone will say something. How's the new garage coming?

We may get a little in an end of year record passenger W-H article in January. Other than that the timeline again is preliminary designs by June to September. Final Designs by January 2020 to March of 2020. I don’t expect to hear or see much until early 2020. I dropped someone off at the airport yesterday. The garage is looking good.

Bob from Omaha · Post by **Bob from Omaha** » Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:52 am

If Mr. Nuke doesn't work at Eppley or for the Airport Authority he's gotta be named Top Geek of the Eppley fans, and I mean that with all due respect.

Yeah, Air Canada is probably not much more than bragging rights. Absent flights scheduled for maximum connections to international flights I'm not sure what the point of having the flights is. Additionally, Eppley needs to team up with the Nebraska congressional delegation to do whatever is necessary for international flights to Mexico and the Caribbean.

As to next year, I see Eppley working on maintaining and possibly increasing service to current destinations. Yeah, it would be nice to see flights to Boston, BWI, JFK, Dulles, Memphis, New Orleans and others but it seems like the major growth has been trailing off to 7-8% from double digits.

As I said before I get that Omaha wants expansion to be demand based but and I hate to sound like a broken record look at OKC. An amazing new terminal with upper and lower roads, adding 4 gates, taking it from 17 to 21 gates. All with less passengers served than OMA, to less destinations.

joleo · Post by **joleo** » Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:34 pm

Bob from Omaha wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 11:52 am If Mr. Nuke doesn't work at Eppley or for the Airport Authority he's gotta be named Top Geek of the Eppley fans, and I mean that with all due respect.

Yeah, Air Canada is probably not much more than bragging rights. Absent flights scheduled for maximum connections to international flights I'm not sure what the point of having the flights is. Additionally, Eppley needs to team up with the Nebraska congressional delegation to do whatever is necessary for international flights to Mexico and the Caribbean.

As to next year, I see Eppley working on maintaining and possibly increasing service to current destinations. Yeah, it would be nice to see flights to Boston, BWI, JFK, Dulles, Memphis, New Orleans and others but it seems like the major growth has been trailing off to 7-8% from double digits.

As I said before I get that Omaha wants expansion to be demand based but and I hate to sound like a broken record look at OKC. An amazing new terminal with upper and lower roads, adding 4 gates, taking it from 17 to 21 gates. All with less passengers served than OMA, to less destinations.

It would be nice to keep Air Canada and yes, I agree bragging rights. When Air Canada codeshares with United on literally 98% of their USA-Canada flights, why do they not do the Omaha flights? If United didn't see value in it, they wouldn't do it. Remember it does value United as well. A passenger that would have taken Delta or American from Eppley might fly a United-Air Canada combo instead. Or an Air Canada passenger from Toronto who time only works one-way could take United one direction and Air Canada the other vs potentially sending the entire passenger both ways to Delta or American.

I agree, they need to do everything in their power to get a custom's facility. I would guess Cancun on multiple airlines would be in the cards for sure. None daily and all seasonal. Otherwise, if the pre-clearance in mexico ever comes through, Eppley would get flights this way as well.

Terminal...I agree 100%!! OKC is almost perfect and also the new terminal being planned in DSM looks super nice as well!! I would hope they are constructing by fall 2019 and not final design in spring of 2020. As this is what my career is in, that is a nice relaxed pace for the design team. Something like this could work if Eppley gets aggressive for the new terminal!

September 2018 - Select consultant...who is it? Nothing in the paper yet which is weird!
December 2018 - Present preliminary designs.
March 2019 - select design
Fall 2019 - Put project out for bid.
Fall 2019 - Start Construction.
I'd guess construction of the entire terminal will take 5-6 years knowing that it will be done in phases if aggressive.

New terminal 100% done by 2025/2026 or so would be sweet!!

Bob from Omaha · Post by **Bob from Omaha** » Wed Dec 19, 2018 8:25 pm

This is what OMA could/should be doing:

http://fsb-ae.com/project/will-rogers-w ... expansion/

joleo · Post by **joleo** » Thu Dec 20, 2018 12:19 pm

Bob from Omaha wrote: Wed Dec 19, 2018 8:25 pm This is what OMA could/should be doing:

http://fsb-ae.com/project/will-rogers-w ... expansion/

100% agree! I hope we are getting renderings done and a nice website for the public. Right now I feel like we are all in the dark not knowing anything about the schedule etc.

Does anybody know if they are working on getting a nice website up and running for the expansion?

Austin Airport expansion is another good example:
http://www.abiamasterplan.com/
Talks about everything you need to know about the project!

http://www.austintexas.gov/department/d ... siness-aus
This website talks about everything the consultants need for working on the airport all the way down to CAD standards and titleblocks.

Super cool the amount of transparency at Austin airport. It also gets the public excited!

Cermak · Post by **Cermak** » Fri Dec 21, 2018 7:16 pm

Just flew from Omaha to LAX non-stop. This is a nice option for us to have, hopefully it does well. The plane was about 3/4 full. Love all the new non-stops we have been getting.

Omababe · Post by **Omababe** » Sat Dec 22, 2018 9:11 am

Cermak wrote: Fri Dec 21, 2018 7:16 pmJust flew from Omaha to LAX non-stop. This is a nice option for us to have, hopefully it does well. The plane was about 3/4 full. Love all the new non-stops we have been getting.

If you flew Thursday, we may have been on the same flight!

Coyote · Post by **Coyote** » Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:42 pm

Rafael, who lives in Virginia just outside of Washington, D.C., agreed, saying he is all in on a return trip.

"I'm totally happy to come back to Omaha or anywhere Terence Crawford may fight there anytime," he said. "I just wish I could get a non-stop flight. I have to stop in Chicago. But that's not Omaha's fault."

Post by **Brad** » Fri Jan 04, 2019 12:15 am

Coyote wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:42 pm
Rafael, who lives in Virginia just outside of Washington, D.C., agreed, saying he is all in on a return trip.

"I'm totally happy to come back to Omaha or anywhere Terence Crawford may fight there anytime," he said. "I just wish I could get a non-stop flight. I have to stop in Chicago. But that's not Omaha's fault."

Southwest has an Omaha to DC non-stop. My family and I use it all the time... It leaves Omaha late morning and the return non-stop arrives back in Omaha in the evening. Its usually fairly full.