Jshank83 wrote:
Sidenote: If STL is up 4.4% next year it will have its highest levels since 2003 (which was right before a big AA pulldown in 2004)
777PHX wrote:Jshank83 wrote:
Sidenote: If STL is up 4.4% next year it will have its highest levels since 2003 (which was right before a big AA pulldown in 2004)
The big pulldown was in Nov 2003. They wouldn't have shown much of a hit in 2003, but 2004 would have been drastically different.
DaufuskieGuy wrote:given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?
DaufuskieGuy wrote:given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?
stl07 wrote:DaufuskieGuy wrote:given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?
Nope, that title goes to our neighbor BLV
DaufuskieGuy wrote:
given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?
OzarkD9S wrote:DaufuskieGuy wrote:
given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?
Probably but when it was a hub it was bursting at the seams. If we had the $$$ (or the motivation) we could "right-size" the concourses or even the overall layout of our sprawling design but there doesn't seem to be any political, economic or financial drive to do so. With WN moving down D I wonder long-term if it wouldn't make sense for WN to move to a re-opened (the end bit) C concourse but that would probably make the T-1 terminal area a cluster-fudge pre-security. T-2 could easily house AA, F9, the EAS airlines and AS.
Jshank83 wrote:stl07 wrote:DaufuskieGuy wrote:given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?
Nope, that title goes to our neighbor BLV
Well they are using all their gates now at BLV. Actually had to add a 3rd mobile one, so I will give them credit there. I also wouldn't call BLV major.
But to answer the first question, it has to be pretty high up there. Most of the other airports that got dehubbed weren't as big as STL at its peak so most of them probably didn't fall as far. MEM has all the cargo to make up for any of their losses. STL is only back to about 50% of its peak.
Jshank83 wrote:OzarkD9S wrote:DaufuskieGuy wrote:
given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?
Probably but when it was a hub it was bursting at the seams. If we had the $$$ (or the motivation) we could "right-size" the concourses or even the overall layout of our sprawling design but there doesn't seem to be any political, economic or financial drive to do so. With WN moving down D I wonder long-term if it wouldn't make sense for WN to move to a re-opened (the end bit) C concourse but that would probably make the T-1 terminal area a cluster-fudge pre-security. T-2 could easily house AA, F9, the EAS airlines and AS.
I have heard (not sure if it is true or not) they were offered to move to C at some point by the airport and they refused. I think they like having T2 to themselves (besides WOW that is moving into it). If they keep growing I guess they could change their mind though. I don't think they would move without the FIS opening back up in C though, seeing they have direct access to FIS now.
I agree they could just do a swap with the current airlines in C though if they opened C all the way back up.
stl07 wrote:stl07 wrote:Nope, that title goes to our neighbor BLV. 2 parallel runways, ultra-modern terminal (from what I have heard), 80ish? gates were to be installed, but now there are only 2 gates (soon expanding to 3) and 6ish flights a day
haha you beat me by responding before I was even done with my edit. I was comparing it to the facility size in proportion to originally proposed flights vs current service and use
N383SW wrote:
I never understood why they keep A Concourse open and not just move DL, UA, and AC over to C or D since they could consolidate the security checkpoint and there's plenty of room.
N383SW wrote:Jshank83 wrote:OzarkD9S wrote:
Probably but when it was a hub it was bursting at the seams. If we had the $$$ (or the motivation) we could "right-size" the concourses or even the overall layout of our sprawling design but there doesn't seem to be any political, economic or financial drive to do so. With WN moving down D I wonder long-term if it wouldn't make sense for WN to move to a re-opened (the end bit) C concourse but that would probably make the T-1 terminal area a cluster-fudge pre-security. T-2 could easily house AA, F9, the EAS airlines and AS.
I have heard (not sure if it is true or not) they were offered to move to C at some point by the airport and they refused. I think they like having T2 to themselves (besides WOW that is moving into it). If they keep growing I guess they could change their mind though. I don't think they would move without the FIS opening back up in C though, seeing they have direct access to FIS now.
I agree they could just do a swap with the current airlines in C though if they opened C all the way back up.
I never understood why they keep A Concourse open and not just move DL, UA, and AC over to C or D since they could consolidate the security checkpoint and there's plenty of room.
DaufuskieGuy wrote:
funny you mention BLV since, as the old STL timers like me remember, they tried to close Lambert in the 70s and build an airport somewhere in IL (not at BLV though). By my count only LAX DEN DFW ORD ATL DTW MCO have more than 3 parallels though others have more overall capacity. Doesn't appear that there is much opportunity to regain its lost stature unless something crazy like AS and B6 merge and build a hub there.
stl07 wrote:DaufuskieGuy wrote:given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?
Nope, that title goes to our neighbor BLV. 2 parallel runways, ultra-modern terminal (from what I have heard), 80ish? gates were to be installed, but now there are only 2 gates (soon expanding to 3) and 6ish flights a day
stl07 wrote:DaufuskieGuy wrote:given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?
Nope, that title goes to our neighbor BLV. 2 parallel runways, ultra-modern terminal (from what I have heard), 80ish? gates were to be installed, but now there are only 2 gates (soon expanding to 3) and 6ish flights a day
Jshank83 wrote:They also are installing some sort of walls to help them increase cargo flights from 747s or something? I don't know. They have some big aspirations over there that I have yet to see fulfilled.
Jshank83 wrote:I have heard (not sure if it is true or not) they were offered to move to C at some point by the airport and they refused. I think they like having T2 to themselves (besides WOW that is moving into it). If they keep growing I guess they could change their mind though. I don't think they would move without the FIS opening back up in C though, seeing they have direct access to FIS now.
I agree they could just do a swap with the current airlines in C though if they opened C all the way back up.
stl07 wrote:Why did all of the ground transportation info on Wiki get deleted? It's on every major airport and this knowledge is definitely "encyclopedic"
OzarkD9S wrote:DaufuskieGuy wrote:
given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?
Probably but when it was a hub it was bursting at the seams. If we had the $$$ (or the motivation) we could "right-size" the concourses or even the overall layout of our sprawling design but there doesn't seem to be any political, economic or financial drive to do so. With WN moving down D I wonder long-term if it wouldn't make sense for WN to move to a re-opened (the end bit) C concourse but that would probably make the T-1 terminal area a cluster-fudge pre-security. T-2 could easily house AA, F9, the EAS airlines and AS.
STLflyer wrote:OzarkD9S wrote:DaufuskieGuy wrote:
given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?
Probably but when it was a hub it was bursting at the seams. If we had the $$$ (or the motivation) we could "right-size" the concourses or even the overall layout of our sprawling design but there doesn't seem to be any political, economic or financial drive to do so. With WN moving down D I wonder long-term if it wouldn't make sense for WN to move to a re-opened (the end bit) C concourse but that would probably make the T-1 terminal area a cluster-fudge pre-security. T-2 could easily house AA, F9, the EAS airlines and AS.
I am not really familiar with the layout of STL from the good old days, I was too young. But how far down the D concourse has WN gone? Is there any chance of re-opening it at the other end and connecting with C?
STLflyer wrote:OzarkD9S wrote:DaufuskieGuy wrote:
given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?
Probably but when it was a hub it was bursting at the seams. If we had the $$$ (or the motivation) we could "right-size" the concourses or even the overall layout of our sprawling design but there doesn't seem to be any political, economic or financial drive to do so. With WN moving down D I wonder long-term if it wouldn't make sense for WN to move to a re-opened (the end bit) C concourse but that would probably make the T-1 terminal area a cluster-fudge pre-security. T-2 could easily house AA, F9, the EAS airlines and AS.
I am not really familiar with the layout of STL from the good old days, I was too young. But how far down the D concourse has WN gone? Is there any chance of re-opening it at the other end and connecting with C?
GSP psgr wrote:Has there been any serious talk about a whole new replacement Terminal for STL? I would have to think that there's a lot of aging, expensive infrastructure at Terminal 1, and STL is no longer an ORD rival. Something like a 55 gate replacement better designed for the post 9/11 security era. Perhaps T2 stays in an expanded form, but the rest might be better off being replaced.
N383SW wrote:Jshank83 wrote:OzarkD9S wrote:
Probably but when it was a hub it was bursting at the seams. If we had the $$$ (or the motivation) we could "right-size" the concourses or even the overall layout of our sprawling design but there doesn't seem to be any political, economic or financial drive to do so. With WN moving down D I wonder long-term if it wouldn't make sense for WN to move to a re-opened (the end bit) C concourse but that would probably make the T-1 terminal area a cluster-fudge pre-security. T-2 could easily house AA, F9, the EAS airlines and AS.
I have heard (not sure if it is true or not) they were offered to move to C at some point by the airport and they refused. I think they like having T2 to themselves (besides WOW that is moving into it). If they keep growing I guess they could change their mind though. I don't think they would move without the FIS opening back up in C though, seeing they have direct access to FIS now.
I agree they could just do a swap with the current airlines in C though if they opened C all the way back up.
I never understood why they keep A Concourse open and not just move DL, UA, and AC over to C or D since they could consolidate the security checkpoint and there's plenty of room.
STLflyer wrote:GSP psgr wrote:Has there been any serious talk about a whole new replacement Terminal for STL? I would have to think that there's a lot of aging, expensive infrastructure at Terminal 1, and STL is no longer an ORD rival. Something like a 55 gate replacement better designed for the post 9/11 security era. Perhaps T2 stays in an expanded form, but the rest might be better off being replaced.
They just remodeled T1 a few years ago after the tornado hit it (I think it was due to be remodeled anyways, but the tornado expedited things), I don't know about the underlying infrastructure, but I doubt there's been any serious talk about a replacement.
GSP psgr wrote:Has there been any serious talk about a whole new replacement Terminal for STL? I would have to think that there's a lot of aging, expensive infrastructure at Terminal 1, and STL is no longer an ORD rival. Something like a 55 gate replacement better designed for the post 9/11 security era. Perhaps T2 stays in an expanded form, but the rest might be better off being replaced.
777PHX wrote:GSP psgr wrote:Has there been any serious talk about a whole new replacement Terminal for STL? I would have to think that there's a lot of aging, expensive infrastructure at Terminal 1, and STL is no longer an ORD rival. Something like a 55 gate replacement better designed for the post 9/11 security era. Perhaps T2 stays in an expanded form, but the rest might be better off being replaced.
Not in the current political climate. Most of the affluent tax base lives outside of the city which owns and runs the airport and the state won't be volunteering any money anytime soon.
The city has stated several times that it's cheaper to keep unused concourses dormant and shuttered than it is to demolish them.
ADrum23 wrote:
Then again, Missouri as a whole has really neglected their infrastructure over the last decade or so, and the problem is getting worse by the day.
stlgph wrote:You don't know what's beyond the walls.
Tearing down a portion of a building or structure is great if has absolutely no affect on a number of things -
1. Plumbing and piping systems
2. Sewage system
3. Rain drainage systems
4. Heating and ventilation systems.
5. Electrical systems.
The list goes on and on of possibilities here.
STLflyer wrote:On the subject of the glory days of STL, can someone help me out with something? Where was the exit from the US Customs and Border Patrol for international arrivals into the C gates back in the TWA days? The area where people picking up passengers off international flights would meet them I guess.
I remember going with my mom to pick up my sister from her class trip to Paris, and I'm 95% sure they flew nonstop, I'm also 95% certain we went through security into the C/D concourse (pre-9/11 days, so anyone could get through) and walked pretty far down, maybe in the C concourse, to meet her. BUT, that doesn't make any sense, because CBP can't exit into airside areas since passengers would have picked up their checked bags at CBP.
The only thing I can think of is it was some weird set up where arriving passengers would pick up their bags at CBP, re-check them just like connecting passengers, go through a security checkpoint to get back to airside C concourse, then claim their bags again at the landside T1 baggage claim. Or things were just way different in the pre-9/11 days. Or my recollection of things is wrong.
Anyone know how the international arrivals process worked in the main terminal?
stlgph wrote:Tucson, Norfolk, Hartford, Providence, Jacksonville, Cincinnati, Albuquerque, Orange County etc etc etc, there's plenty that Southwest can add and bring back, and for now, there's still room to make things happen.
But, as this all pans out, the coming question now for St. Louis lovers is: would you rather start seeing new destinations or increased frequencies?
Midwestindy wrote:stl07 wrote:DaufuskieGuy wrote:given the number of unused gates and considerable runway capacity (3 parallel) is it safe to say STL is the most underutilized major airport in the country?
Nope, that title goes to our neighbor BLV. 2 parallel runways, ultra-modern terminal (from what I have heard), 80ish? gates were to be installed, but now there are only 2 gates (soon expanding to 3) and 6ish flights a day
Interesting....I heard that the manager at BLV was approached about making BLV a base for G4, in exchange for expanding the terminal. But the airport declined...
14JDK wrote:I know WOW air is planning on starting service to STL in May 2018. Really Excited for British Airways to come to St. Louis as well!
Jshank83 wrote:STLflyer wrote:On the subject of the glory days of STL, can someone help me out with something? Where was the exit from the US Customs and Border Patrol for international arrivals into the C gates back in the TWA days? The area where people picking up passengers off international flights would meet them I guess.
I remember going with my mom to pick up my sister from her class trip to Paris, and I'm 95% sure they flew nonstop, I'm also 95% certain we went through security into the C/D concourse (pre-9/11 days, so anyone could get through) and walked pretty far down, maybe in the C concourse, to meet her. BUT, that doesn't make any sense, because CBP can't exit into airside areas since passengers would have picked up their checked bags at CBP.
The only thing I can think of is it was some weird set up where arriving passengers would pick up their bags at CBP, re-check them just like connecting passengers, go through a security checkpoint to get back to airside C concourse, then claim their bags again at the landside T1 baggage claim. Or things were just way different in the pre-9/11 days. Or my recollection of things is wrong.
Anyone know how the international arrivals process worked in the main terminal?
I'm not 100% sure but I'm pretty sure I have heard they had to go back through security to exit. I take that to mean they went through security and fed back into C then exited through C.
ADrum23 wrote:stlgph wrote:You don't know what's beyond the walls.
Tearing down a portion of a building or structure is great if has absolutely no affect on a number of things -
1. Plumbing and piping systems
2. Sewage system
3. Rain drainage systems
4. Heating and ventilation systems.
5. Electrical systems.
The list goes on and on of possibilities here.
Sure, but maintaining those things you mentioned long term cost a lot of money, especially given the age of the STL building. I highly doubt it would be so complex to the point that it would be extremely disruptive to demolish the building and build a new terminal.
At some point in the not too distant future, STL is going to need to redesign and rebuild their terminal. Otherwise, they will fall way behind.
stlgph wrote:ADrum23 wrote:stlgph wrote:You don't know what's beyond the walls.
Tearing down a portion of a building or structure is great if has absolutely no affect on a number of things -
1. Plumbing and piping systems
2. Sewage system
3. Rain drainage systems
4. Heating and ventilation systems.
5. Electrical systems.
The list goes on and on of possibilities here.
Sure, but maintaining those things you mentioned long term cost a lot of money, especially given the age of the STL building. I highly doubt it would be so complex to the point that it would be extremely disruptive to demolish the building and build a new terminal.
At some point in the not too distant future, STL is going to need to redesign and rebuild their terminal. Otherwise, they will fall way behind.
Such systems regarding ventilation, heating, cooling, piping, etc. etc., are a lot more complicated than you think, hence why they are left in place all the time and usually have things worked around them to leave them in place. Come to New York City, a 10 minute walk through Times Square serves as an example of this.
Another major factor is code. Many times these older systems were built in accordance to the codes in use at the time, as those codes have changed as the government has become more and more regulation happy, these building structures and projects have been grandfathered in. Major changes to a portion of one structure requires the whole damn thing to be reworked which runs into significant challenges of cost, time, design, and other construction necessities, etc. etc.
So yes, in the case of Lambert airport, where the structure is one whole entire building, not satellite operations such as PIT, CVG, or MCI where the buildings sit separate, it's easier and better to leave everything in tact.
ADrum23 wrote:777PHX wrote:GSP psgr wrote:Has there been any serious talk about a whole new replacement Terminal for STL? I would have to think that there's a lot of aging, expensive infrastructure at Terminal 1, and STL is no longer an ORD rival. Something like a 55 gate replacement better designed for the post 9/11 security era. Perhaps T2 stays in an expanded form, but the rest might be better off being replaced.
Not in the current political climate. Most of the affluent tax base lives outside of the city which owns and runs the airport and the state won't be volunteering any money anytime soon.
The city has stated several times that it's cheaper to keep unused concourses dormant and shuttered than it is to demolish them.
That is absolutely ludicrous. It most certainly is not cheaper to keep the unused concourses dormant and shuttered than it is to demolish them. If that was the case, why have airports such as CVG, PIT and MCI demolished (or are planning to demolish) unused terminals/concourses and consolidate remaining ones?
STL is stuck in the past, and its pretty sad. The days of a large legacy carrier (TWA/AA) connecting hub are never coming back. It is time to demolish and rebuild the terminals into a new consolidated facility that will better serve the air travel needs of the local population. Other mid-sized airports are doing it, why can't STL?
Then again, Missouri as a whole has really neglected their infrastructure over the last decade or so, and the problem is getting worse by the day.
ADrum23 wrote:It is time to demolish and rebuild the terminals into a new consolidated facility that will better serve the air travel needs of the local population. Other mid-sized airports are doing it, why can't STL?
ADrum23 wrote:Sure, but maintaining those things you mentioned long term cost a lot of money, especially given the age of the STL building. I highly doubt it would be so complex to the point that it would be extremely disruptive to demolish the building and build a new terminal.
ADrum23 wrote:At some point in the not too distant future, STL is going to need to redesign and rebuild their terminal. Otherwise, they will fall way behind.
777PHX wrote:ADrum23 wrote:777PHX wrote:
Not in the current political climate. Most of the affluent tax base lives outside of the city which owns and runs the airport and the state won't be volunteering any money anytime soon.
The city has stated several times that it's cheaper to keep unused concourses dormant and shuttered than it is to demolish them.
That is absolutely ludicrous. It most certainly is not cheaper to keep the unused concourses dormant and shuttered than it is to demolish them. If that was the case, why have airports such as CVG, PIT and MCI demolished (or are planning to demolish) unused terminals/concourses and consolidate remaining ones?
STL is stuck in the past, and its pretty sad. The days of a large legacy carrier (TWA/AA) connecting hub are never coming back. It is time to demolish and rebuild the terminals into a new consolidated facility that will better serve the air travel needs of the local population. Other mid-sized airports are doing it, why can't STL?
Then again, Missouri as a whole has really neglected their infrastructure over the last decade or so, and the problem is getting worse by the day.
Nonsense. It's far cheaper to pay a token amount in utilities every year to retain those concourses than it would be to demolish them.ADrum23 wrote:It is time to demolish and rebuild the terminals into a new consolidated facility that will better serve the air travel needs of the local population. Other mid-sized airports are doing it, why can't STL?
I already gave you the reasons. I don't know where you think you're going to find the hundreds of millions of dollars to completely rework KSTL, but it's not going to be from the city, it's sure as hell not going to be from the county, and it won't be coming from the state either.
The city is too occupied spending $51 million on some stupid trolley for the Loop to worry about the airport.ADrum23 wrote:Sure, but maintaining those things you mentioned long term cost a lot of money, especially given the age of the STL building. I highly doubt it would be so complex to the point that it would be extremely disruptive to demolish the building and build a new terminal.
What is there to maintain? The gates don't even have jetways.ADrum23 wrote:At some point in the not too distant future, STL is going to need to redesign and rebuild their terminal. Otherwise, they will fall way behind.
Lol, welcome to 1992. STL has been behind the times for a few decades now. Thanks for joining us.
stlgph wrote:I'm right and that's the way it is. But continue to moan and complain all you want. Sorry Charlie.