urbanSTL

We have to accept that we don't have enough information to know everything, and that we never will. 

That Post-Dispatch op-ed focused strictly on how people who do consulting with government entities usually have worked previously for a government entity, and that they usually have an affiliation with a political party... In other breaking news, water is wet, and sometimes it falls from the sky. It said nothing about whether or not SJU is a better or worse airport. I'm glad sc4mayor posted it, especially as it (kind of) contributes to the region's knowledge of the process, but in the end it really didn't say much. That lies with the Post-Dispatch for publishing it in the first place. 

Any conversation needs to focus on key talking points: 
1. Will privatization lead to increased efficiencies and services? Will it attract new aeronautical service providers, i.e. passenger and cargo airlines? Most importantly, will it be able to operate more efficiently than it does today? 
2. How much would privatization pay the City? 
3. What oversight will the City have over the private operators? 

The most important thing to me is that whoever operates the airport will not be hindered by an outdated and shackling charter. I also really hope a private sector operator conducts their business with damn good profitability while the City recognizes proper value from the private operator's actions to increase the airport's efficiencies while increasing total aeronautical operations. And dammit, I want 777X flights to Heathrow... We can't look at this as one side has to win and the other has to lose. It has to be a mutual win. 

Cara Spencer rocked it on a recent KTRS interview. (And whoever thinks the St. Louis accent is dead, just listen to Cara say “farward”)!

https://m.soundcloud.com/550ktrs/alderm ... -millhaven

kipfilet wrote:I understand that it makes sense to alter the airport's charter, but why do we have to privatize the airport in order to change the charter? Can't the charter be changed without the airport being privatized? I really don't understand why does one imply the other.

If the airport's charter could be amended without having to attempt privatization, I'd be just as happy to see that done. Thing is, it never has been amended. The one guarantee that comes with privatization is the change of the charter. If the City (including the Board of Aldermen) would support an airport charter change, one that makes STL reasonably competitive and able to better operate as more than just a utility, then I bet you airport privatization wouldn't be that big a topic. Sure, there's the lure of a major cash drop into the City's coffers (and there's a lot that can be done with $2.5+ billion), but the big thing I want is the airport to not be handcuffed to outdated, shackling operating agreements. 

I honestly don't think it'll get done. For a privatization deal to pass, it must be approved - without amendment - by all companies that do business with the airport. If one airline, or one systems operator, or one shoe shine stand, doesn't like the proposal, then the whole deal can come undone. I just don't see something like 100 bells ringing at exactly the same time. Maybe, maybe it's the best thing for the airport and the region, I don't know. I just don't like the odds of seeing it achieve fruition. 

And Rex isn't the boogeyman. He's an orphaned kid who discovered passive investment management and changed Wall Street forever; who left SoCal for the CWE so he can do some good for STL. I disagree with him more strenuously on the validity of Modern Portfolio Theory than I do his methodologies towards help Saint Louis. And even where I don't like some of the things he supports, I am glad for all the good things he's done for the region. (and Cara gave a good interview, too)

And if you were the smallest company or had any form of contract with the airport, you'd be stupid to just agree without renegotiating terms that would benefit you.  If you're that shoe shine stand, ask for the moon and use your leverage.

jshank83 wrote: I don't think this is correct. Only half the airlines have to approve it, not all of them. 

God, that's sketchy. Didn't KC's airport need approval of every airline for the new terminal, yet STL wouldn't for this, despite privatization being practically as big of a change to the airport's fabric as a new terminal is to KC?

Not sure what you mean by ‘getting it back.’ From my understanding, the city will always own the airport if that’s what you mean by getting it back. (Someone kinda close to the project said, IIRC, said the biggest misconception is that the city is selling the airport which can’t happen because the FAA does not allow a publicly owned airport to go into private ownership.)