Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
pmanni1
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:17 am

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:15 pm

This does open up the opportunity for more 1 day business trips. This will eliminate 4 hours for STL-ORD-IND on AA and a 4 hour drive which currently make a day trip not so feasible.
 
atrude777
Posts: 4412
Joined: Wed Aug 13, 2003 11:23 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Wed Feb 05, 2020 9:55 pm

stlgph wrote:
Lest you forget Northwest Airlink ran the route very briefly during the IND focus city days. Load factor was on average......2.



Oh God, you're right haha

Forgot that too!

Alex
Good things come to those who wait, better things come to those who go AFTER it!
 
Jshank83
Posts: 3567
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 2:47 am

Thoughts on these proposed terminal renovations?

I am a hard no on B.

C seems expensive. I would need convinced they could make up most of that money without raising airport fees a bunch.

This is an unlocked link.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... yptr=yahoo
 
User avatar
stl07
Posts: 2530
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:24 am

I say keep the status quo and invest the money in getting a TATL. As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Why waste the money
Instead of typing in "mods", consider using the report function.
Love how every "travel blogger" says they will never fly AA/Ethihad again and then says it again and again on subsequent flights.
 
Jshank83
Posts: 3567
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:28 am

stl07 wrote:
I say keep the status quo and invest the money in getting a TATL. As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Why waste the money


If WN wants Option A then I am fine with that option. Whatever happens I think they need to be a big part of the choice.
 
User avatar
southwest1675
Posts: 1506
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2016 2:03 am

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:34 am

When did Terminal 2 open?
Herb Kelleher 1931-2019
 
User avatar
stl07
Posts: 2530
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:35 am

Jshank83 wrote:
stl07 wrote:
I say keep the status quo and invest the money in getting a TATL. As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Why waste the money


If WN wants Option A then I am fine with that option. Whatever happens I think they need to be a big part of the choice.

Option A I would not have a problem with, but B and C seem rather wasteful
Instead of typing in "mods", consider using the report function.
Love how every "travel blogger" says they will never fly AA/Ethihad again and then says it again and again on subsequent flights.
 
kipfilet
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:44 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:38 am

atrude777 wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:
Contour adding IND from STL.

Starts June 10th.
$99 each way
2x weekly 1x weekend


What in the...

Why? Hahaha, IND-STL locally is not a huge traffic, and an easy drive on 70.

I looked it up, this is more IND focused...

IND-BNA/STL/PIT are being added. Contour will make a Base out of IND.

Guess it's cool to add another new city to STL, albeit a return as WN last flew this with AA after 9/11.

Good Luck!

Alex


Sounds like it's more aimed at business travelers. 3h30 drive is pretty costly, especially when you could be working on your laptop either at the gate or on the plane.
 
Jshank83
Posts: 3567
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:41 am

southwest1675 wrote:
When did Terminal 2 open?


1998
 
BNAMealer
Posts: 916
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:03 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:47 am

stl07 wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:
stl07 wrote:
I say keep the status quo and invest the money in getting a TATL. As the saying goes, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it"

Why waste the money


If WN wants Option A then I am fine with that option. Whatever happens I think they need to be a big part of the choice.

Option A I would not have a problem with, but B and C seem rather wasteful


Problem is, anything other than option C would simply be kicking the can down the road for another generation. Virtually all of STL’s peers have built new or are rebuilding their terminals (MCI, PIT, MSY, IND, BNA, etc) so STL needs to seriously contemplate doing the same to stay competitive.
 
User avatar
stl07
Posts: 2530
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:19 am

BNAMealer wrote:
stl07 wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:

If WN wants Option A then I am fine with that option. Whatever happens I think they need to be a big part of the choice.

Option A I would not have a problem with, but B and C seem rather wasteful


Problem is, anything other than option C would simply be kicking the can down the road for another generation. Virtually all of STL’s peers have built new or are rebuilding their terminals (MCI, PIT, MSY, IND, BNA, etc) so STL needs to seriously contemplate doing the same to stay competitive.

Here's the thing, unlike the peer cities, STL has a large population and catchment area. We aren't in the business of attracting tourists like BNA, MSY, and to some extent IND, so we have no need to compete. So, at least I think, as long as we keep a decent airport, we don't need to worry about having the newest facilities. Also, we need to keep our costs down, they are already higher than in peer cities, which I think is more important than the beauty of the airport.
Instead of typing in "mods", consider using the report function.
Love how every "travel blogger" says they will never fly AA/Ethihad again and then says it again and again on subsequent flights.
 
stlgph
Posts: 11224
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:19 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:37 am

And then there is the crowd that is just happy driving because of the freedom of coming and going on their schedule. And also some companies pay very lucrative mileage rates.

A friend of mine lives in Whitestown, Indiana - drives 269 to Creve Coeur, Missouri once a week for work meetings. It's 60 cents a mile - roughly $323 roundtrip and even a couple bucks more for tooling around STL while in town. It's $20-$25 or so to fill up her Kia Soul. That's roughly $250 she pockets or $11,250 a year.
if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
 
Jshank83
Posts: 3567
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:14 am

stl07 wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:
stl07 wrote:
Option A I would not have a problem with, but B and C seem rather wasteful


Problem is, anything other than option C would simply be kicking the can down the road for another generation. Virtually all of STL’s peers have built new or are rebuilding their terminals (MCI, PIT, MSY, IND, BNA, etc) so STL needs to seriously contemplate doing the same to stay competitive.

Here's the thing, unlike the peer cities, STL has a large population and catchment area. We aren't in the business of attracting tourists like BNA, MSY, and to some extent IND, so we have no need to compete. So, at least I think, as long as we keep a decent airport, we don't need to worry about having the newest facilities. Also, we need to keep our costs down, they are already higher than in peer cities, which I think is more important than the beauty of the airport.


Some of the worst airports in the country are the busiest. Better facilities doesn’t mean more flights. We have plenty of gates and room for airlines to expand. A lot of those airports are building new facilities because they are out of room for airlines and need to expand. Keeping fees down is more important to me than a fancy airport.
 
Jshank83
Posts: 3567
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:16 am

One thing that got me thinking with the A option. Move all the airlines in C (except Cape and Air Choice One) to T2. Give WN all of C and make T2 customs. WN would then have plenty of room to grow. Even enough room to close off a few gates for more amenities if needed.
 
BNAMealer
Posts: 916
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:03 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 12:18 pm

Jshank83 wrote:
stl07 wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:

Problem is, anything other than option C would simply be kicking the can down the road for another generation. Virtually all of STL’s peers have built new or are rebuilding their terminals (MCI, PIT, MSY, IND, BNA, etc) so STL needs to seriously contemplate doing the same to stay competitive.

Here's the thing, unlike the peer cities, STL has a large population and catchment area. We aren't in the business of attracting tourists like BNA, MSY, and to some extent IND, so we have no need to compete. So, at least I think, as long as we keep a decent airport, we don't need to worry about having the newest facilities. Also, we need to keep our costs down, they are already higher than in peer cities, which I think is more important than the beauty of the airport.


Some of the worst airports in the country are the busiest. Better facilities doesn’t mean more flights. We have plenty of gates and room for airlines to expand. A lot of those airports are building new facilities because they are out of room for airlines and need to expand. Keeping fees down is more important to me than a fancy airport.


But most, of not all of those airports are undergoing some sort of modernization. I can’t imagine a new terminal would raise fees to the point where it would be unsustainable. I get there is fear over a repeat of another runway 11/29 situation, but it is wise to think long term, and new facilities will lower operating costs over time. Plus, with higher than average traffic with WN having a large operation, that should further lower costs.

Regardless, even if STL doesn’t outright demolish and rebuild, they do need to consolidate everyone in one terminal, preferably T1.
 
Jshank83
Posts: 3567
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:23 pm

BNAMealer wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:
stl07 wrote:
Here's the thing, unlike the peer cities, STL has a large population and catchment area. We aren't in the business of attracting tourists like BNA, MSY, and to some extent IND, so we have no need to compete. So, at least I think, as long as we keep a decent airport, we don't need to worry about having the newest facilities. Also, we need to keep our costs down, they are already higher than in peer cities, which I think is more important than the beauty of the airport.


Some of the worst airports in the country are the busiest. Better facilities doesn’t mean more flights. We have plenty of gates and room for airlines to expand. A lot of those airports are building new facilities because they are out of room for airlines and need to expand. Keeping fees down is more important to me than a fancy airport.


But most, of not all of those airports are undergoing some sort of modernization. I can’t imagine a new terminal would raise fees to the point where it would be unsustainable. I get there is fear over a repeat of another runway 11/29 situation, but it is wise to think long term, and new facilities will lower operating costs over time. Plus, with higher than average traffic with WN having a large operation, that should further lower costs.

Regardless, even if STL doesn’t outright demolish and rebuild, they do need to consolidate everyone in one terminal, preferably T1.


We will just have to agree to disagree on this. Putting all the airlines in T1 unless you are doing option C, makes no sense to me. Which is why I think option B is by far the worst. I’m not even sure you could fit everyone in T1 and still have room for WN to expand, without using D anyway.

For me it leans heavy on what WN wants. If they want C then maybe I can get behind it but it’s just hard for me to see them wanting a 2 billion dollar renovation with the fees it will bring. They were pushing hard back on MCIs 1 billion originally. Only thing that changed that was they basically couldn’t do connections anymore.
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:42 pm

stlgph wrote:
Lest you forget Northwest Airlink ran the route very briefly during the IND focus city days. Load factor was on average......2.


http://www.itravelmag.com/travel-articles/608/

Did they carry on avg 2 PAX or did it avg 20% ... either way .. it was a failure .... so what has changed ?
 
kipfilet
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2018 4:44 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 3:59 pm

crjflyboy wrote:
stlgph wrote:
Lest you forget Northwest Airlink ran the route very briefly during the IND focus city days. Load factor was on average......2.


http://www.itravelmag.com/travel-articles/608/

Did they carry on avg 2 PAX or did it avg 20% ... either way .. it was a failure .... so what has changed ?


Revenue guarantee? Let's see how the flight does when it expires.
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 4:04 pm

kipfilet wrote:
crjflyboy wrote:
stlgph wrote:
Lest you forget Northwest Airlink ran the route very briefly during the IND focus city days. Load factor was on average......2.


http://www.itravelmag.com/travel-articles/608/

Did they carry on avg 2 PAX or did it avg 20% ... either way .. it was a failure .... so what has changed ?


Revenue guarantee? Let's see how the flight does when it expires.


The Steve Miller Band had a hit in the 70's that will describe what will happen ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-WCFUGCOLLU
 
reednavy
Posts: 63
Joined: Sun Mar 24, 2019 4:01 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 5:27 pm

If they keep things as is, but reopen/reconnect the two terminals, how would you potentially go about doing the check-in & baggage process, particularly with WN. T2, especially during Spring Break and summer peaks, is a royal pain in the a**. Surely they could find a way to have check-in options for all carriers in both terminals to alleviate congestion for T2 and make things equal for all.

Something has go to be done because the current layout is absolutely atrocious and probably would require work with MODOT, the City, & the County to resolve the tangled web of roads that are no inviting for locals and non-locals.
 
User avatar
TWA302
Posts: 756
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:17 am

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 6:46 pm

Jshank83 wrote:
Thoughts on these proposed terminal renovations?

I am a hard no on B.

C seems expensive. I would need convinced they could make up most of that money without raising airport fees a bunch.

This is an unlocked link.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... yptr=yahoo



Leave the exisiting infrastructure alone but upgrade as financially possible. WN has more than enough room to expand down deeper into D I am not for any of their 'proposed' options nor spending BILLIONS to do so.
 
stlgph
Posts: 11224
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:19 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 8:14 pm

With a nice blank check, the ideal thing to increase connectivity through the entire airport would be to tear down the parking garage out front, move the Terminal south into the space and then get all fancy from behind there. You can leave the roads as they are now - just retool them so when you come up into the passenger drop off and pick up area, instead of going north into the Terminal, they go south, then cross back over the roadway in a set up similar to Chicago Midway. You come across, go through security, then you can use the current Terminal 1 in expanded form - lounges, restaurants and what have you.
if assumptions could fly, airliners.net would be the world's busiest airport
 
dcaproducer
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:26 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 9:57 pm

Jshank83 wrote:
stl07 wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:

Problem is, anything other than option C would simply be kicking the can down the road for another generation. Virtually all of STL’s peers have built new or are rebuilding their terminals (MCI, PIT, MSY, IND, BNA, etc) so STL needs to seriously contemplate doing the same to stay competitive.

Here's the thing, unlike the peer cities, STL has a large population and catchment area. We aren't in the business of attracting tourists like BNA, MSY, and to some extent IND, so we have no need to compete. So, at least I think, as long as we keep a decent airport, we don't need to worry about having the newest facilities. Also, we need to keep our costs down, they are already higher than in peer cities, which I think is more important than the beauty of the airport.


Some of the worst airports in the country are the busiest. Better facilities doesn’t mean more flights. We have plenty of gates and room for airlines to expand. A lot of those airports are building new facilities because they are out of room for airlines and need to expand. Keeping fees down is more important to me than a fancy airport.


I agree with Jshank83 on this.

I don't think any of those options in the report are a great idea. First, T2 is connected to T1 via D. WN can continue to expand down D, which has plenty of gate space. WN could eventually offer check-in in both T1 and T2. This is similar to what DL does at LAX with both T2 and T3 and JFK with T2 and T4.

STL has one big advantage that many peer cities such as BNA, AUS, etc don't have, gates! Lots of gates. Why rebuild and cut the gates by a third to nearly half?
The face lift to T1 is actually pretty nice. The airport should just focus on new service and TATL. This is a good use of money and as the airport pays down its debt passenger fees will go down.

If STL gets back over the 20Million passenger mark, then look at options to rebuild. Right now I think it's a silly use of money.

I've said it before, I really like what SLC is doing. That would be a good long term option for STL, but that's 10 years down the road.
 
BNAMealer
Posts: 916
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:03 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:49 pm

Jshank83 wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:

Some of the worst airports in the country are the busiest. Better facilities doesn’t mean more flights. We have plenty of gates and room for airlines to expand. A lot of those airports are building new facilities because they are out of room for airlines and need to expand. Keeping fees down is more important to me than a fancy airport.


But most, of not all of those airports are undergoing some sort of modernization. I can’t imagine a new terminal would raise fees to the point where it would be unsustainable. I get there is fear over a repeat of another runway 11/29 situation, but it is wise to think long term, and new facilities will lower operating costs over time. Plus, with higher than average traffic with WN having a large operation, that should further lower costs.

Regardless, even if STL doesn’t outright demolish and rebuild, they do need to consolidate everyone in one terminal, preferably T1.


We will just have to agree to disagree on this. Putting all the airlines in T1 unless you are doing option C, makes no sense to me. Which is why I think option B is by far the worst. I’m not even sure you could fit everyone in T1 and still have room for WN to expand, without using D anyway.

For me it leans heavy on what WN wants. If they want C then maybe I can get behind it but it’s just hard for me to see them wanting a 2 billion dollar renovation with the fees it will bring. They were pushing hard back on MCIs 1 billion originally. Only thing that changed that was they basically couldn’t do connections anymore.


Indeed. I just can't see how virtually all of STL's peers can rebuild/consolidate/modernize their terminals while they sit idly by. Eventually, they are going to have to do something. But I do agree it will be up to WN and what they want, and I'm almost certain sooner or later, STL and WN will come to an agreement on some sort of terminal modernization/redevelopment.

And to the arguments in the post above, first, STL is not far from 20 million. Second, just because STL has gates doesn't mean they are fully functional for modern airline operations. Sure, D could be fully reactivated, but that was designed for smaller mainline aircraft and the hold rooms are not really suitable for 175 seat 737-800/MAX 8 aircraft, which will be a major part of the WN fleet going forward. Plus, there isn't a ton of space for new concessions in D. Third, while I agree the new SLC is a wonderful layout, that isn't feasible in STL because the airfield is not laid out in a configuration that would allow for a midfield terminal complex.

Though I suppose one option to address the hold room space in D would be to do what MEM is doing and widen the concourse, not a full demolition, but blowing out the roof and pushing the north wall out.
 
crjflyboy
Posts: 456
Joined: Thu Jun 06, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Thu Feb 06, 2020 10:54 pm

dcaproducer wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:
stl07 wrote:
Here's the thing, unlike the peer cities, STL has a large population and catchment area. We aren't in the business of attracting tourists like BNA, MSY, and to some extent IND, so we have no need to compete. So, at least I think, as long as we keep a decent airport, we don't need to worry about having the newest facilities. Also, we need to keep our costs down, they are already higher than in peer cities, which I think is more important than the beauty of the airport.


Some of the worst airports in the country are the busiest. Better facilities doesn’t mean more flights. We have plenty of gates and room for airlines to expand. A lot of those airports are building new facilities because they are out of room for airlines and need to expand. Keeping fees down is more important to me than a fancy airport.


I agree with Jshank83 on this.

I don't think any of those options in the report are a great idea. First, T2 is connected to T1 via D. WN can continue to expand down D, which has plenty of gate space. WN could eventually offer check-in in both T1 and T2. This is similar to what DL does at LAX with both T2 and T3 and JFK with T2 and T4.

STL has one big advantage that many peer cities such as BNA, AUS, etc don't have, gates! Lots of gates. Why rebuild and cut the gates by a third to nearly half?
The face lift to T1 is actually pretty nice. The airport should just focus on new service and TATL. This is a good use of money and as the airport pays down its debt passenger fees will go down.

Pity the imbeciles at PIT refuse to follow your logic

If STL gets back over the 20Million passenger mark, then look at options to rebuild. Right now I think it's a silly use of money.

I've said it before, I really like what SLC is doing. That would be a good long term option for STL, but that's 10 years down the road.
 
dcaproducer
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:26 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Fri Feb 07, 2020 12:34 am

BNAMealer wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:

But most, of not all of those airports are undergoing some sort of modernization. I can’t imagine a new terminal would raise fees to the point where it would be unsustainable. I get there is fear over a repeat of another runway 11/29 situation, but it is wise to think long term, and new facilities will lower operating costs over time. Plus, with higher than average traffic with WN having a large operation, that should further lower costs.

Regardless, even if STL doesn’t outright demolish and rebuild, they do need to consolidate everyone in one terminal, preferably T1.


We will just have to agree to disagree on this. Putting all the airlines in T1 unless you are doing option C, makes no sense to me. Which is why I think option B is by far the worst. I’m not even sure you could fit everyone in T1 and still have room for WN to expand, without using D anyway.

For me it leans heavy on what WN wants. If they want C then maybe I can get behind it but it’s just hard for me to see them wanting a 2 billion dollar renovation with the fees it will bring. They were pushing hard back on MCIs 1 billion originally. Only thing that changed that was they basically couldn’t do connections anymore.


Indeed. I just can't see how virtually all of STL's peers can rebuild/consolidate/modernize their terminals while they sit idly by. Eventually, they are going to have to do something. But I do agree it will be up to WN and what they want, and I'm almost certain sooner or later, STL and WN will come to an agreement on some sort of terminal modernization/redevelopment.

And to the arguments in the post above, first, STL is not far from 20 million. Second, just because STL has gates doesn't mean they are fully functional for modern airline operations. Sure, D could be fully reactivated, but that was designed for smaller mainline aircraft and the hold rooms are not really suitable for 175 seat 737-800/MAX 8 aircraft, which will be a major part of the WN fleet going forward. Plus, there isn't a ton of space for new concessions in D. Third, while I agree the new SLC is a wonderful layout, that isn't feasible in STL because the airfield is not laid out in a configuration that would allow for a midfield terminal complex.

Though I suppose one option to address the hold room space in D would be to do what MEM is doing and widen the concourse, not a full demolition, but blowing out the roof and pushing the north wall out.


I grew up in STL in the 80’s and flew extensively out of STL in the 90’s when TW had 150 seat 727’s flying out of D. It’s not ideal, but it can be done. I’ve also suggested before the airport can add pop-out sections to D with larger concession spaces. C has a ton of potential and the end of C has a lot of room. Remember that’s where TW use to fly L1011’s and the 747.

STL wouldn’t require the midfield concourse that SLC is building. I’m referring to the linear main concourse that’s replacing the piers they currently have. STL could start by moving A carriers to C. Demolish A/B and start constructing a new linear concourse on the west side of T1. Open that, move the carriers from C to the new terminal, close C/D and finish the linear concourse to the east. When that’s done move WN from T2 into the newly completed linear concourse. By the time this would be done, T2 will be 30 years old. With that said, this is a huge expense and the airport needs to pay down its debt first.

STL has capacity. They need to grow service. They will and WN will continue to grow.
 
pmanni1
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:17 am

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Sat Feb 08, 2020 4:58 pm

Interesting how little Contour's aircraft are used in a day. Looking at the schedule for TBN and IND flights - the 1:55pm flight from TBN arrives in STL at 2:40pm and then sits there until either 5:25pm or 6:05pm depending if it continues onto IND or goes back to TBN. That's nearly 3 hours sitting. The 5:25pm flight to TBN arrives at 6:15pm and doesn't depart until the next morning at 6:45am. That's 12 hours of sitting. A 12 hour overnight would be a luxury for any flight crew.
 
User avatar
stl07
Posts: 2530
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Sat Feb 08, 2020 5:00 pm

they should add Memphis too and cut some of the slack
Instead of typing in "mods", consider using the report function.
Love how every "travel blogger" says they will never fly AA/Ethihad again and then says it again and again on subsequent flights.
 
Trololzilla
Posts: 137
Joined: Sat Dec 31, 2016 11:53 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:12 am

BNAMealer wrote:
Third, while I agree the new SLC is a wonderful layout, that isn't feasible in STL because the airfield is not laid out in a configuration that would allow for a midfield terminal complex.

The W-1W expansion originally included a midfield satellite terminal option that could be built out to 150 gates. Would honestly be a great spot for it; allows easy access to all four runways instead of just three (but basically two) as the current terminal arrangement does. Not much over there that'd need to be demolished either.

Image
 
User avatar
TWA302
Posts: 756
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:17 am

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Sun Feb 09, 2020 2:55 am

Trololzilla wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:
Third, while I agree the new SLC is a wonderful layout, that isn't feasible in STL because the airfield is not laid out in a configuration that would allow for a midfield terminal complex.

The W-1W expansion originally included a midfield satellite terminal option that could be built out to 150 gates. Would honestly be a great spot for it; allows easy access to all four runways instead of just three (but basically two) as the current terminal arrangement does. Not much over there that'd need to be demolished either.

Image


Yes, and now that's every STL aviation nut's dream. That'll never happen today though.
 
BNAMealer
Posts: 916
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 8:03 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:06 am

Trololzilla wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:
Third, while I agree the new SLC is a wonderful layout, that isn't feasible in STL because the airfield is not laid out in a configuration that would allow for a midfield terminal complex.

The W-1W expansion originally included a midfield satellite terminal option that could be built out to 150 gates. Would honestly be a great spot for it; allows easy access to all four runways instead of just three (but basically two) as the current terminal arrangement does. Not much over there that'd need to be demolished either.

Image


Wow, I didn’t know that.

A scaled back version of that would actually be a pretty good idea. You could build a 50 gate satellite connected to a new terminal via an underground walkway. 25 gates for WN and 25 for everyone else. Put a few international gates (3-4) connected to the main terminal and then call it a day. The best part would be it wouldn’t disrupt current operations to build it. The existing terminals/concourses could then be demolished for RON space/hangers/more cargo.

That’s a pipe dream though. It would likely cost $2 billion+ to build. No way STL ponies up the money for something like that.
 
User avatar
T18
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:28 am

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:11 am

Trololzilla wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:
Not much over there that'd need to be demolished either.



Well except the AOB which is the HQ for Trans States Holdings.

Issue I see with that terminal placement is the highway connection could prove annoying, that area right now is not well connected to 170 or 270, getting to 70 is okay but creating a good connection with out making thru traffic on Lindbergh a nightmare could be hard.
“Racing's important to men who do it well. When you're racing, it's life. Anything that happens before or after is just waiting.” ― Steve McQueen (Le Mans) 1971
 
addxb2
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2019 12:49 am

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Sun Feb 09, 2020 3:38 pm

With Breeze supposedly on the horizon here is some of what is known...
- secondary markets to secondary markets
- Allegiant style more than Southwest style
- Reviewing 500ish routes, 200-300 miles, with some as low as 30 connecting passengers currently.
- Avoiding most competition on routes.

https://crankyflier.com/2020/02/07/davi ... the-aisle/

Any ideas on how STL might benefit?
STL to SDF?
STL to MEM?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
BHMNONREV
Posts: 1237
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 9:17 am

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:47 pm

dcaproducer wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:
Jshank83 wrote:

We will just have to agree to disagree on this. Putting all the airlines in T1 unless you are doing option C, makes no sense to me. Which is why I think option B is by far the worst. I’m not even sure you could fit everyone in T1 and still have room for WN to expand, without using D anyway.

For me it leans heavy on what WN wants. If they want C then maybe I can get behind it but it’s just hard for me to see them wanting a 2 billion dollar renovation with the fees it will bring. They were pushing hard back on MCIs 1 billion originally. Only thing that changed that was they basically couldn’t do connections anymore.


Indeed. I just can't see how virtually all of STL's peers can rebuild/consolidate/modernize their terminals while they sit idly by. Eventually, they are going to have to do something. But I do agree it will be up to WN and what they want, and I'm almost certain sooner or later, STL and WN will come to an agreement on some sort of terminal modernization/redevelopment.

And to the arguments in the post above, first, STL is not far from 20 million. Second, just because STL has gates doesn't mean they are fully functional for modern airline operations. Sure, D could be fully reactivated, but that was designed for smaller mainline aircraft and the hold rooms are not really suitable for 175 seat 737-800/MAX 8 aircraft, which will be a major part of the WN fleet going forward. Plus, there isn't a ton of space for new concessions in D. Third, while I agree the new SLC is a wonderful layout, that isn't feasible in STL because the airfield is not laid out in a configuration that would allow for a midfield terminal complex.

Though I suppose one option to address the hold room space in D would be to do what MEM is doing and widen the concourse, not a full demolition, but blowing out the roof and pushing the north wall out.


I grew up in STL in the 80’s and flew extensively out of STL in the 90’s when TW had 150 seat 727’s flying out of D. It’s not ideal, but it can be done. I’ve also suggested before the airport can add pop-out sections to D with larger concession spaces. C has a ton of potential and the end of C has a lot of room. Remember that’s where TW use to fly L1011’s and the 747.

STL wouldn’t require the midfield concourse that SLC is building. I’m referring to the linear main concourse that’s replacing the piers they currently have. STL could start by moving A carriers to C. Demolish A/B and start constructing a new linear concourse on the west side of T1. Open that, move the carriers from C to the new terminal, close C/D and finish the linear concourse to the east. When that’s done move WN from T2 into the newly completed linear concourse. By the time this would be done, T2 will be 30 years old. With that said, this is a huge expense and the airport needs to pay down its debt first.

STL has capacity. They need to grow service. They will and WN will continue to grow.


We had this same discussion about a linear terminal 12-13 years ago.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=463299&p=6411499&hilit=STL+Lambert#p6411499

I believe the best move forward is continue to put the lipstick on the pig with the status quo until the runway debt is paid down. When that happens I believe the linear option is the best one available, not the three proposed by the Consultant. Linear would be able to use a lot of the existing infrastructure and be built in phases as needed.

But WN is the one calling the shots here, and I believe they are content to move down D as they need more room.
 
Jshank83
Posts: 3567
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:47 pm

addxb2 wrote:
With Breeze supposedly on the horizon here is some of what is known...
- secondary markets to secondary markets
- Allegiant style more than Southwest style
- Reviewing 500ish routes, 200-300 miles, with some as low as 30 connecting passengers currently.
- Avoiding most competition on routes.

https://crankyflier.com/2020/02/07/davi ... the-aisle/

Any ideas on how STL might benefit?
STL to SDF?
STL to MEM?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Or would they fly out of BLV?
 
Jshank83
Posts: 3567
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Sun Feb 09, 2020 4:48 pm

addxb2 wrote:
With Breeze supposedly on the horizon here is some of what is known...
- secondary markets to secondary markets
- Allegiant style more than Southwest style
- Reviewing 500ish routes, 200-300 miles, with some as low as 30 connecting passengers currently.
- Avoiding most competition on routes.

https://crankyflier.com/2020/02/07/davi ... the-aisle/

Any ideas on how STL might benefit?
STL to SDF?
STL to MEM?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
User avatar
stl07
Posts: 2530
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Sun Feb 09, 2020 5:38 pm

Meh, Based on the fact that B6 isn't even here, I doubt Breeze will come
Instead of typing in "mods", consider using the report function.
Love how every "travel blogger" says they will never fly AA/Ethihad again and then says it again and again on subsequent flights.
 
pmanni1
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:17 am

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:29 pm

stl07 wrote:
Meh, Based on the fact that B6 isn't even here, I doubt Breeze will come

I thought the opposite. Maybe they'll go where B6 isn't to avoid competing with themselves.
 
pmanni1
Posts: 249
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2018 10:17 am

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:32 pm

addxb2 wrote:
With Breeze supposedly on the horizon here is some of what is known...
- secondary markets to secondary markets
- Allegiant style more than Southwest style
- Reviewing 500ish routes, 200-300 miles, with some as low as 30 connecting passengers currently.
- Avoiding most competition on routes.

https://crankyflier.com/2020/02/07/davi ... the-aisle/

Any ideas on how STL might benefit?
STL to SDF?
STL to MEM?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Article says they'll mostly do leisure routes. Probably more Florida. SRQ, JAX, PBI
 
User avatar
stl07
Posts: 2530
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Sun Feb 09, 2020 6:42 pm

Read in another thread that SY "will not expand passenger operations this year"

Womp Womp. So our only hope of growth is if the ax other routes
Instead of typing in "mods", consider using the report function.
Love how every "travel blogger" says they will never fly AA/Ethihad again and then says it again and again on subsequent flights.
 
User avatar
TWA302
Posts: 756
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 12:17 am

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Sun Feb 09, 2020 8:52 pm

stl07 wrote:
Read in another thread that SY "will not expand passenger operations this year"

Womp Womp. So our only hope of growth is if the ax other routes


Finding out that their agreement with Amazon is a better business right now, maybe?
 
User avatar
stl07
Posts: 2530
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Sun Feb 09, 2020 9:50 pm

TWA302 wrote:
stl07 wrote:
Read in another thread that SY "will not expand passenger operations this year"

Womp Womp. So our only hope of growth is if the ax other routes


Finding out that their agreement with Amazon is a better business right now, maybe?

That would make sense, rather than flying random 2x a week routes for bottem barrel fares.
Instead of typing in "mods", consider using the report function.
Love how every "travel blogger" says they will never fly AA/Ethihad again and then says it again and again on subsequent flights.
 
STLflyer
Posts: 257
Joined: Sun Oct 01, 2017 2:08 am

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Mon Feb 10, 2020 2:35 am

Anyone know if the Battlehawks fly commercial or charter, and if it's the latter, what their flight number is?
 
lessredtape
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:57 am

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:02 am

pmanni1 wrote:
addxb2 wrote:
With Breeze supposedly on the horizon here is some of what is known...
- secondary markets to secondary markets
- Allegiant style more than Southwest style
- Reviewing 500ish routes, 200-300 miles, with some as low as 30 connecting passengers currently.
- Avoiding most competition on routes.

https://crankyflier.com/2020/02/07/davi ... the-aisle/

Any ideas on how STL might benefit?
STL to SDF?
STL to MEM?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Article says they'll mostly do leisure routes. Probably more Florida. SRQ, JAX, PBI
G4 style ??? Does G4 have 1st class?

I think it might be 2ndry airports to 2ndry airports & avoid the big hubs, which are one huge mess & getting worse.
 
User avatar
stl07
Posts: 2530
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:12 am

STLflyer wrote:
Anyone know if the Battlehawks fly commercial or charter, and if it's the latter, what their flight number is?

They flew commercial to camp I think, but now that they are a real team who knows.
Instead of typing in "mods", consider using the report function.
Love how every "travel blogger" says they will never fly AA/Ethihad again and then says it again and again on subsequent flights.
 
User avatar
stl07
Posts: 2530
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:13 am

Kaw
Instead of typing in "mods", consider using the report function.
Love how every "travel blogger" says they will never fly AA/Ethihad again and then says it again and again on subsequent flights.
 
lessredtape
Posts: 120
Joined: Sun Sep 15, 2019 3:57 am

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Mon Feb 10, 2020 3:26 am

I think many are misreading Breeze. I think they will be lower cost, not low cost.

Think about it, if you want to get from A to B but currently have to go via hub C & it costs you $x & breeze come along & say, we'll fly nonstop for slightly less or even slightly more the $x & save you 2 hours in each direction(+ potential delays at the hub), you'd avoid the hub like the Coronavirus.

Even better if they flew from a less congested airport at one or both ends. Big airports only work well for the airport operator, they don't work very well for passengers.
 
Jshank83
Posts: 3567
Joined: Tue Nov 01, 2016 2:23 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:27 am

STLflyer wrote:
Anyone know if the Battlehawks fly commercial or charter, and if it's the latter, what their flight number is?


Probably a pretty good chance it was this.

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/SCX8614
 
dcaproducer
Posts: 306
Joined: Wed Jan 06, 2016 5:26 pm

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Mon Feb 10, 2020 5:04 pm

BHMNONREV wrote:
dcaproducer wrote:
BNAMealer wrote:

Indeed. I just can't see how virtually all of STL's peers can rebuild/consolidate/modernize their terminals while they sit idly by. Eventually, they are going to have to do something. But I do agree it will be up to WN and what they want, and I'm almost certain sooner or later, STL and WN will come to an agreement on some sort of terminal modernization/redevelopment.

And to the arguments in the post above, first, STL is not far from 20 million. Second, just because STL has gates doesn't mean they are fully functional for modern airline operations. Sure, D could be fully reactivated, but that was designed for smaller mainline aircraft and the hold rooms are not really suitable for 175 seat 737-800/MAX 8 aircraft, which will be a major part of the WN fleet going forward. Plus, there isn't a ton of space for new concessions in D. Third, while I agree the new SLC is a wonderful layout, that isn't feasible in STL because the airfield is not laid out in a configuration that would allow for a midfield terminal complex.

Though I suppose one option to address the hold room space in D would be to do what MEM is doing and widen the concourse, not a full demolition, but blowing out the roof and pushing the north wall out.


I grew up in STL in the 80’s and flew extensively out of STL in the 90’s when TW had 150 seat 727’s flying out of D. It’s not ideal, but it can be done. I’ve also suggested before the airport can add pop-out sections to D with larger concession spaces. C has a ton of potential and the end of C has a lot of room. Remember that’s where TW use to fly L1011’s and the 747.

STL wouldn’t require the midfield concourse that SLC is building. I’m referring to the linear main concourse that’s replacing the piers they currently have. STL could start by moving A carriers to C. Demolish A/B and start constructing a new linear concourse on the west side of T1. Open that, move the carriers from C to the new terminal, close C/D and finish the linear concourse to the east. When that’s done move WN from T2 into the newly completed linear concourse. By the time this would be done, T2 will be 30 years old. With that said, this is a huge expense and the airport needs to pay down its debt first.

STL has capacity. They need to grow service. They will and WN will continue to grow.


We had this same discussion about a linear terminal 12-13 years ago.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=463299&p=6411499&hilit=STL+Lambert#p6411499

I believe the best move forward is continue to put the lipstick on the pig with the status quo until the runway debt is paid down. When that happens I believe the linear option is the best one available, not the three proposed by the Consultant. Linear would be able to use a lot of the existing infrastructure and be built in phases as needed.

But WN is the one calling the shots here, and I believe they are content to move down D as they need more room.


I was bored while sitting on a conf. call, so I loaded a satellite image from Google maps into Photoshop and put this together. The aircraft and building are roughly to scale. I used the existing C concourse to create my measurements. The RJ's are scaled off of a CRJ900, mainline AC are a 737-8 and the widebody AC are 777.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uqhwz8ard5hik ... p.jpg?dl=0
No idea how to embed the image. In this mockup, T1 would be extended to the East and the roadways would be reconfigured to provide more curb space. The section connecting to the linear concourse would be similar to what DTW did with the McNamara terminal.
 
BHMNONREV
Posts: 1237
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2003 9:17 am

Re: St. Louis Aviation Thread - 2020

Mon Feb 10, 2020 6:30 pm

dcaproducer wrote:
BHMNONREV wrote:
dcaproducer wrote:

I grew up in STL in the 80’s and flew extensively out of STL in the 90’s when TW had 150 seat 727’s flying out of D. It’s not ideal, but it can be done. I’ve also suggested before the airport can add pop-out sections to D with larger concession spaces. C has a ton of potential and the end of C has a lot of room. Remember that’s where TW use to fly L1011’s and the 747.

STL wouldn’t require the midfield concourse that SLC is building. I’m referring to the linear main concourse that’s replacing the piers they currently have. STL could start by moving A carriers to C. Demolish A/B and start constructing a new linear concourse on the west side of T1. Open that, move the carriers from C to the new terminal, close C/D and finish the linear concourse to the east. When that’s done move WN from T2 into the newly completed linear concourse. By the time this would be done, T2 will be 30 years old. With that said, this is a huge expense and the airport needs to pay down its debt first.

STL has capacity. They need to grow service. They will and WN will continue to grow.


We had this same discussion about a linear terminal 12-13 years ago.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=463299&p=6411499&hilit=STL+Lambert#p6411499

I believe the best move forward is continue to put the lipstick on the pig with the status quo until the runway debt is paid down. When that happens I believe the linear option is the best one available, not the three proposed by the Consultant. Linear would be able to use a lot of the existing infrastructure and be built in phases as needed.

But WN is the one calling the shots here, and I believe they are content to move down D as they need more room.


I was bored while sitting on a conf. call, so I loaded a satellite image from Google maps into Photoshop and put this together. The aircraft and building are roughly to scale. I used the existing C concourse to create my measurements. The RJ's are scaled off of a CRJ900, mainline AC are a 737-8 and the widebody AC are 777.
https://www.dropbox.com/s/uqhwz8ard5hik ... p.jpg?dl=0
No idea how to embed the image. In this mockup, T1 would be extended to the East and the roadways would be reconfigured to provide more curb space. The section connecting to the linear concourse would be similar to what DTW did with the McNamara terminal.


Very similar to what I had seen many years ago, but with a wider concourse a little closer to the main building and extended further to the west. This would allow for bi-directional taxiing on both the north and south sides of the concourse although with there no longer being a hub planes blocking a taxiway on pushback is not much of an issue anymore.

And the more I think about it the more I like Gavin's idea of extending the terminal out to where the parking garage sits. Raze the garage, build what is needed and place the garage on top, ala Tampa. With the extremely limited footprint available there is not a lot to work with.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos