St. Louis Lambert Int. Airport [airline/hub/operations/info]

All the ways we move people and things: trains, planes, automobiles, biking, walking, etc.
First unread post4069 posts
Chalupas54 wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 4:37 pm
Today, PIT announced plans for a new terminal building. BNA will be breaking ground soon, MSY is well underway, and so is LGA.

MCI is in limbo and most likely will not go forward.

It does have me wondering, however. Do you think we would see STL come out with an updated terminal proposal in the next 5 years? Granted we just underwent the massive renovation, but is STL's facilities ready to continue on in the future? I would assume yes, but what does everyone else think?

I do think in the next 5 years we could see the end of Concourse C torn down. I don't think anything will happen to D/E given WN's growth.
PIT is just downsizing and consolidating. I personally think they are wasting a bunch of money. All they are doing moving the land side building closer so they can get rid of the train and closing about 1/4 of their gates permanently. IMO, they already have a pretty good setup with an X shaped terminal. They can put a food courts/shops in the center of the X and have everything centralized. I wish we had that and weren't so spread out.

I still have no clue what to think about MCI's chances. I know they aren't doing themselves any favors in the media lately. I haven't see any polls yet though.

For us, I can't see them tearing down the end of C now that they are talking about redoing it. I really don't know what they will do. What I would really like to see is them close A (maybe they could figure out some kind of rental car facility there) and then build some kind of bridge from the end of C to E. Extend C as far as you can ( and still allow enough room for planes to pass) before you build the bridge. It would be kind of a wonky setup but then everything would be accessible to each other.

This may be totally unfeasible but I don't see E going anywhere and I don't really know any other way to try to connected the entire airport together. I would like them to find a way to have a big indoor plaza (with food, shopping, etc) past security but I have no clue where it would go unless you pushed out E29-33 further and built it up.
imperialmog wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:10 pm
One area i could see be an issue and possibly within a couple of years is capacity for international arrivals. With the new incentive money approved last week it seems likely at least one or two new international routes will happen in the next couple of years, and depending on times it could be an issue with gates. And this isn't even considering if Southwest has further plans on that front in the future as well. I know there are some deficiencies with the old facilities in the end of C, so something might need to be worked out on this front to have more gates available.

This is the only thing i could see in improvment and renovations in the near term at this point since everything else was recently done and Southwest can keep reopening D as needed.
Someone at one posted a vision of tying Concourse A & C as one linear concourse in line with Delta's Detroit terminal by incorporating a new single entry security access where Concourse B stands now. This gives a lot of options for the future IMO. Wish I could express visually but I believe you could easily sequence construction with the benefit of having D as it currently stands.

- Terminal I linear concourse lets you shift gates to the west & be more centric with Terminal I itself.
- New single entry security for a Terminal 1 where concourse B stands now can be built while not interrupting existing A & C security points but more importantly will also allow you to incorporate a new separate customs/immigration space as well as add new Terminal I International gates to replace the old ones at end of C
- knock down the end of C, replace with tarmac and utilize D gates toward terminal I while you build out Terminal ii expansion to replace existing E gates/create new customs/immigration area for Southwest as well as short term parking and or Consolidated Rental Car facility.

But agree, Lambert needs a long term vision for its Terminals quickly because STL as a Southwest focus city and its instant capacity to scale up should be part of the Amazon RFP.
Well, there is always this puppy:

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn14 ... l_kstl.png

Apparently, part of the overall plan with 11/29 was building a brand new midfield terminal with approximately 100 gates in addition to demolishing the end of Concourse C (everything past the 'bend'). Of course, with the demise of TWA, the terminal never materialized. According to the source though, the terminal plans were never fully canceled, just placed on indefinite hold. Not sure if that's still the case.

Maybe a scaled-down version for Southwest?
Trololzilla wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:23 pm
Well, there is always this puppy:

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn14 ... l_kstl.png

Apparently, part of the overall plan with 11/29 was building a brand new midfield terminal with approximately 100 gates in addition to demolishing the end of Concourse C (everything past the 'bend'). Of course, with the demise of TWA, the terminal never materialized. According to the source though, the terminal plans were never fully canceled, just placed on indefinite hold. Not sure if that's still the case.

Maybe a scaled-down version for Southwest?
This link didn't work for me. Just brought up a bunch of ads and no image
jshank83 wrote:
Trololzilla wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:23 pm
Well, there is always this puppy:

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn14 ... l_kstl.png

Apparently, part of the overall plan with 11/29 was building a brand new midfield terminal with approximately 100 gates in addition to demolishing the end of Concourse C (everything past the 'bend'). Of course, with the demise of TWA, the terminal never materialized. According to the source though, the terminal plans were never fully canceled, just placed on indefinite hold. Not sure if that's still the case.

Maybe a scaled-down version for Southwest?
This link didn't work for me. Just brought up a bunch of ads and no image


Image
dredger wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:59 pm
Someone at one posted a vision of tying Concourse A & C as one linear concourse in line with Delta's Detroit terminal by incorporating a new single entry security access where Concourse B stands now. This gives a lot of options for the future IMO. Wish I could express visually but I believe you could easily sequence construction with the benefit of having D as it currently stands.
that might have been me.

image below—

A and C combined using B as access
Image


Long concourse will underground tram, hotel, CCRF and parking garage replacing current D gates.
Image
^ Thanks Shaddrach
shadrach wrote:
dredger wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 5:59 pm
Someone at one posted a vision of tying Concourse A & C as one linear concourse in line with Delta's Detroit terminal by incorporating a new single entry security access where Concourse B stands now. This gives a lot of options for the future IMO. Wish I could express visually but I believe you could easily sequence construction with the benefit of having D as it currently stands.
that might have been me.

image below—

A and C combined using B as access
Image


I think a reconfigured Terminal 1 Concourse that allows C to be shortened on the east end opens up a tremendous amount of real estate for future Terminal II expansion/vision that always for sequence construction utilizing D to have no loss of gates

For terminal II, maybe a mirror terminal II literally on west side of existing concourse that has an international/baggage area focus for Southwest but allows current drop off/pickup lanes to be extended and a second short term parking garage to the immediate west of current one. Shift Terminal II metrolink station to the west between the existing and new short term garage, enclose metrolink station as well as add an enclosed walkway to the terminal.

I still advocate and will not give up on my belief that D and even the refurbished E gates need to go at some point in Lambert's future
Interesting responses. I do agree, I don't really think STL is in 'dire' need of a new terminal.

After doing some initial research on PIT, it does seem a bit much.

On another note, a few posters on the rumor mill of airliners.net believe that Condor could announce STL by years end. If true, which given the fact that STL just authorized almost $4 million in air service incentives it could very well be, where would Condor be in the Airport?
Chalupas54 wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:12 pm
Interesting responses. I do agree, I don't really think STL is in 'dire' need of a new terminal.
Agreed. There is plenty of expansion left in D. C is still underutilized with another 6 or so gates available even if the terminal is renovated up to C32. Even A still has more room for flights.. UA & DL are not fully utilizing their current gates.

Building a new $1B terminal will not bring in more flights, just more debt. Let's utilize what we have until it we run out of space.

Greg
gregl wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:21 pm
Chalupas54 wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:12 pm
Interesting responses. I do agree, I don't really think STL is in 'dire' need of a new terminal.
Agreed. There is plenty of expansion left in D. C is still underutilized with another 6 or so gates available even if the terminal is renovated up to C32. Even A still has more room for flights.. UA & DL are not fully utilizing their current gates.

Building a new $1B terminal will not bring in more flights, just more debt. Let's utilize what we have until it we run out of space.

Greg
I think this by far is the smartest strategy. It just isn't as fun to think about, haha.

I do think remodeling in C as needed (if we add new airlines) is the best play because you can use both sides of the concourse. That is the downside to D/E. It can get long really fast because you can only use one side of the terminal for boarding. I wish Southwest was in C (and the current airlines in C were pushed to E/D) for this reason but I know it is unlikely to ever happen. I still would like to see the airport do something with that one wider area between E33 and E34. That is about the only larger space left they can use for anything. They might want to wait to see if they need to expand past E40 first though (and that might be awhile)
Chalupas54 wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:12 pm
Interesting responses. I do agree, I don't really think STL is in 'dire' need of a new terminal.

After doing some initial research on PIT, it does seem a bit much.

On another note, a few posters on the rumor mill of airliners.net believe that Condor could announce STL by years end. If true, which given the fact that STL just authorized almost $4 million in air service incentives it could very well be, where would Condor be in the Airport?
I would guess if they came in after 8 pm they could just run out of one the international gates. Southwest I don't think has a huge bank in their latest one so they could work around not using E29-E33. Otherwise, I am assuming they would let off at an international gate then tow to C. It would be a short tow so it shouldn't be a big deal. The only issue with loading out of E is that they might be out of counter space to check in. I think there is only one spot left (left of the main security lines, right of Starbucks) and WOW will be using it.

EDIT: I just looked and it looks like they had 12 in their last bank. That was more than I thought. Still workable but tighter.
^ What time do some of the charters arrive in terms of international gate space? If I recall the Southwest Cancun flight would arrive at 4pm so there is that to contend to as well.

With Condor, it would be a widebody and only one of those gates is capable to do so which is another complicated problem. And to tow it to C for departure, only AA has a gate suitable for a widebody at this time. (maybe the plans for reopening a couple gates in C addresses this)

And considering the amount of incentives that was announced, it seems like it could be for two different flights which really will be depending on timing run up against available space.Wonder if that empty space could be if needed be involved in reconfiguring things to add another international arrival capable gate that can fit a widebody? Since that could be an issue that needs to be addressed in the near future.
imperialmog wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 10:44 pm
^ What time do some of the charters arrive in terms of international gate space? If I recall the Southwest Cancun flight would arrive at 4pm so there is that to contend to as well.

With Condor, it would be a widebody and only one of those gates is capable to do so which is another complicated problem. And to tow it to C for departure, only AA has a gate suitable for a widebody at this time. (maybe the plans for reopening a couple gates in C addresses this)

And considering the amount of incentives that was announced, it seems like it could be for two different flights which really will be depending on timing run up against available space.Wonder if that empty space could be if needed be involved in reconfiguring things to add another international arrival capable gate that can fit a widebody? Since that could be an issue that needs to be addressed in the near future.
The Southwest flight should be turned and gone by 5 (if it arrives at 4) so that shouldn't be much of an issue.
Cancun on Frontier I think arrives around 2, so it shouldn't be an issue.
Xtra from Montego arrives at 7:30 it looks like on Mondays. 3 pm on Saturdays. I am sure the airport can tell Swift Air (who takes over for Xtra) when it can use the gate and push it earlier. I am not all that concerned about gate space for international flights at the moment. I can't see us getting 2 wide bodies in the near term. I think we will get one but I think it will be a little before we get a second one until people see how having a wide body and WOW go.

I think one of the gates in C (the on the virgin 747 charter used) is an open gate that AA just uses on per turn so they don't have full rights to it.
gregl wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:21 pm
Chalupas54 wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 9:12 pm
Interesting responses. I do agree, I don't really think STL is in 'dire' need of a new terminal.
Agreed. There is plenty of expansion left in D. C is still underutilized with another 6 or so gates available even if the terminal is renovated up to C32. Even A still has more room for flights.. UA & DL are not fully utilizing their current gates.

Building a new $1B terminal will not bring in more flights, just more debt. Let's utilize what we have until it we run out of space.

Greg
I wouldn't consider realigning and rebuilding Terminal I gates into a linear configuration a outright new terminal since you essentially keep the existing short term garage/taxi pickup intact, external ingress/egress the same, metrolink station the same as well as original ticketing/baggage claim area the same.

Worried about cost? In hindsight agree that major terminal II expansion does increase the bill significantly and therefore the unnecessary debt with no real reason to do two major expansions.

So my Alternate plan,

Build Terminal I gates into an linear concourse with new gates, locate international gates to align with new security access point/center of concourse where B stand as Shadrach outlined. Heck, look at the map and you can even keep some of Concourse A & C structure intact if you want to save a dime. The difference this time around. Swap Southwest with Legacy Carriers between terminals so Southwest/Southwest International flights and new International carriers like WOW, who knows CONDOR can make (or in Air Canada or Frontier sake keep) their home in an updated Terminal I concourse.

Terminal II/upgraded E gates can serve legacy carriers to and from hub routes since it is apparent that they might increase frequency which is not bad but it is doubtful you will see new routes in foreseeable future.. Leave E gate immigration/customs area intact for overflow and or charter flights. I would say that plan is very doable, gives Southwest even more reason to increase presence as well as consider more international connections/flights and far from a $1 billion dollar new terminal. That also leaves space to knock down part of D & add short term parking and or CCR facility between the two terminals if desired in the future. It benefits the one airline that has made STL a focus city and selling point to non-legacy airlines to bring international flights into the region.

Bring together a solid long term plan that reconfigures the hodgepodge of space, better utilize the big patch of wasted tarmac (more short term parking, CCR, heck, maybe a hotel next to Terminal I metrolink station) and doesn't leave yourself pigeonholed with the status quo where the only place you will add short term parking or other facilities is make it things even more spread out & more reliant on shuttle buses. At same time it consolidates and update international gates where you can embark, disembark at same gate and have quick easy access in/out of security & immigration/customs facility on international while providing 3 or 4 gates for the dreamliners and wide bodies of the world without having to tow & park them from one gate to another...
jshank83 wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 11:19 pm
The Southwest flight should be turned and gone by 5 (if it arrives at 4) so that shouldn't be much of an issue.
Don't count on that. All aircraft coming from an international destination must be cleared by CBP before they can begin another flight.

Looking at one random MEX-HOU flight today, Southwest schedules 1:40 between the scheduled arrival and next scheduled departure.
^That seems to be about the time between arrival and departure for the WOW flight as well when that starts which is likely another good comparision since it will depart from the same gate. I'm guessing anyone else that follows likely will just be towed to C for departure so as not to tie up the gates and that their check in area will be over there. Question then becomes how long would such a plane occupy a gate for international arrivals that ends up being towed to C for a departure. Mainly since if the scenario plays out with the new incentive money just approved is that in the next two years BA and Condor start service, how far apart timewise would they need to arrive to make sure there is gate availability due to only one of the arrivials gates is widebody capable. Of course depending on days of week they fly it could be most often a moot point. Its just something where the need for addressing this could happen not too long from now where adding more international arrival gates including widebody capable might need to be looked at.
gregl wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 12:41 pm


Don't count on that. All aircraft coming from an international destination must be cleared by CBP before they can begin another flight.
Ohh, I didn't even think about that. Thanks for the knowledge!

If it gets in at 4 then it should still be gone by 6 though (in theory) so I think that should be enough time to get out of the way.
imperialmog wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:02 pm
^That seems to be about the time between arrival and departure for the WOW flight as well when that starts which is likely another good comparision since it will depart from the same gate. I'm guessing anyone else that follows likely will just be towed to C for departure so as not to tie up the gates and that their check in area will be over there. Question then becomes how long would such a plane occupy a gate for international arrivals that ends up being towed to C for a departure. Mainly since if the scenario plays out with the new incentive money just approved is that in the next two years BA and Condor start service, how far apart timewise would they need to arrive to make sure there is gate availability due to only one of the arrivials gates is widebody capable. Of course depending on days of week they fly it could be most often a moot point. Its just something where the need for addressing this could happen not too long from now where adding more international arrival gates including widebody capable might need to be looked at.
I am sure the airport staff has already figured this all out. Or I would hope they would have a plan by now if that ever happens. I would think (Greg would probably know better) you could offload and tow out of the way in an hour without a ton of trouble? I wouldn't think you would have to have the airplane checked yet when you tow. You could check it after the tow or off the to side somewhere.
jshank83 wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:28 pm
I wouldn't think you would have to have the airplane checked yet when you tow. You could check it after the tow or off the to side somewhere.
Actually, I believe the inspection & clearance takes place at the international arrival gate. At least in Chicago, they do the inspections at Terminal 5 since that is where CBP is located before towing the aircraft to another terminal if that's where it is departing from.
jshank83 wrote:
imperialmog wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:02 pm
^That seems to be about the time between arrival and departure for the WOW flight as well when that starts which is likely another good comparision since it will depart from the same gate. I'm guessing anyone else that follows likely will just be towed to C for departure so as not to tie up the gates and that their check in area will be over there. Question then becomes how long would such a plane occupy a gate for international arrivals that ends up being towed to C for a departure. Mainly since if the scenario plays out with the new incentive money just approved is that in the next two years BA and Condor start service, how far apart timewise would they need to arrive to make sure there is gate availability due to only one of the arrivials gates is widebody capable. Of course depending on days of week they fly it could be most often a moot point. Its just something where the need for addressing this could happen not too long from now where adding more international arrival gates including widebody capable might need to be looked at.
I am sure the airport staff has already figured this all out. Or I would hope they would have a plan by now if that ever happens. I would think (Greg would probably know better) you could offload and tow out of the way in an hour without a ton of trouble? I wouldn't think you would have to have the airplane checked yet when you tow. You could check it after the tow or off the to side somewhere.
I think the airport could easily tell Southwest to move its flight schedule around to compensate. Aren't they using the gates with slots? I would imagine as well that the airport has this all figured out. Not to mention also, SWA will be going back to Saturday and WOW only runs 4x a week.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
^ I think the extra gates Southwest got is in part to not have to use those gates. The issue would present itself if there's a scenario where two widebodies are scheduled in the same day since only one of those gates can handle one. The way things seems to be setting up its possible that may happen in the next couple of years. Just need to either be able to handle more than one at a time or have the times different enough the first is towed to C before 2nd one lands. (and could still be an issue if the first is delayed)
dredger wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 1:59 am
Build Terminal I gates into an linear concourse with new gates, locate international gates to align with new security access point/center of concourse where B stand as Shadrach outlined. Heck, look at the map and you can even keep some of Concourse A & C structure intact if you want to save a dime.
I like this plan. What is most appealing is that it can be done in phases without disrupting the airport too much or sacrificing too much capacity while under construction. For example, first build out A towards B (or C towards B). Then demo the old non-linear part. Then build out the next linear part. Then demo. Then renovate the old linear parts to make them consistent with the new sections. Eventually you will wind up with something that looks like the long linear terminal from the illustration.

Maybe not in that exact order, but the point is that it could be done in phases.
jshank83 wrote:
Tue Sep 12, 2017 6:29 pm
This link didn't work for me. Just brought up a bunch of ads and no image
Not entirely sure why, I tested it beforehand. Sorry about that.

For anyone who wants it, here's the link to the original source. The terminal proposal in question is on page 11.
Chalupas54 wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 2:32 pm
I think the airport could easily tell Southwest to move its flight schedule around to compensate. Aren't they using the gates with slots?
It all depends on the contract Lambert has with Southwest.

There are multiple types of gate leases. Most common is single-use where an airline has exclusive use of a gate and can determine when (or if) a gate is actually being used. Less common types of leases are preferred-use where an airline has priority for using a gate but other airlines can use it when not in use and common-use where any airlines gets to use it.

I'm fairly certain that all of the gates in Terminal 2, with the exception of the international gates, are single-use for Southwest.

The key is how the lease contracts for the international gates are defined. But in any event, an airline knows what they are getting themselves into before they sign on the dotted line.
KevinAdams wrote:
Wed Sep 13, 2017 3:44 pm
For example, first build out A towards B (or C towards B).
B & C are already connected. That was built by/for TWA back in the mid/late 90s. If you are at the C security checkpoint and head down to the Admiral's Club, that walkway continues all the way down to B, but is blocked off since B is not in use.