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 post4061 posts
Looking on SW Corporate Facts Sheet (Not sure how up to date that is)

120 Daily @ ATL is 18 Gates
123 Daily @ OAK is 15 Gates
128 Daily @ LAX is 15 Gates

Probably more depends on bank sizes than daily departures but we are aligned right on par with 120 Daily departures and 15 Full time Gates.

I was down by 34/36/38 late last week, and with 2 closely timed departures it honestly gets a little tight in the gate area. I'm wondering if realistically 36 could be used as a full time gate along side 34/36/38.

If I'm remembering correctly Summer of '16 is when we finally broke 100 Daily departures, 20 additional in 2 years is fairly good growth. If that trend continues could defiantly signify needing another section of D in the next 2 years.
pmt257 wrote:
Sat Nov 11, 2017 8:04 pm
If I'm remembering correctly Summer of '16 is when we finally broke 100 Daily departures, 20 additional in 2 years is fairly good growth. If that trend continues could defiantly signify needing another section of D in the next 2 years.
I'd love to hear Southwest and the airport announce (by the end of 2018) plans to reopen gates D24, D22, and D20 as E42, E44, and E46 (and install E40's jetway if they haven't done so yet). They'd have fully half of D reopened if that were to happen.
dredger wrote: ^ Definitely, with AA dehubbing and Southwest expanding it makes sense to make some swaps but not sure all the complexities involved with that move, agreements, so forth not to mention the latest T2/E concourse improvements would probably make it less appealing to Southwest to move but who knows.
Not saying a swap is likely soon, but as you said there will be changes. And Concourse C is all bright and shiny now as well. And T-1, frankly, is actually nicer. Better baggage claim area. Better ticketing hall. Better pick up and drop off. Better Metrolink stop. Even the security area by the C concourse is somewhat the nicer. (Quite a bit, really.) Only after the Wingtips lounge opens will 2 even have all the amenities 1 already has. (Which, actually, could maybe make a one to one swap possible.) The ceilings are higher in T-2, but in all other ways I believe T-1 beats it silly now. Even the finishes are actually newer. Heck, T-1 even has the better plane. (The monocoupe in T-1 was Lindbergh's. The one in T-2 was . . . someone else's. Someone not named Charles Linbergh.) Don't get me wrong. T-2 is nice enough, but it's no T-1. It's not a hub. T-1 is a hub. T-2 is a nice small town airport. Southwest is (slowly) building a clandestine hub. And they need more than two baggage carousels. I'd be willing to be that sooner or later it will happen. Might be another ten years, but . . . we shall see. Anyway . . .
jshank83 wrote:
Sat Nov 11, 2017 8:51 am
Aren't they already doing these two things? Last I checked (maybe it changed) they run a terminal shuttle between the two and they metrolink is free between the two.
I'm not really sure if they're doing a shuttle. I've never needed to move between the two terminals for anything other than my own amusement. (And even that not inside the ten odd years there's been a wall in D.) The Metrolink used to be free between the terminals and between Union Station and the Eads Bridge downtown and maps reflected that and showed it. If it's free now it's not advertised or obvious. System maps certainly don't mention it anymore. I suppose I'd simply assumed it no longer was. When I pulled out of T-1 a few months back someone walked the train even before we got to the T-2 stop asking for tickets, as I recall. On the other hand . . . memory is imperfect at best. I could well be making that up. I'll try to look closer next time I'm out that way. And look into the shuttle too. No idea at all about that. It would make sense, I suppose. Might even be that the hotel and rental agencies would chip in, since they could then use one location as a hub and cut down a little on their own shuttle expenses. LaGuardia does this. All the shuttles go to the Marine Air Terminal save for the interterminal shuttles. Only they and city busses go to anything at all else. Probably only they are allowed. There's big signs about where to get (and not get) taxis too. Must be a fight with Uber or some such. (In spite of which I had a cabby trying to get my attention as soon as I grabbed my bags and headed for the shuttle.) Anyway . . .

I'm really just speculating and shooting hot air since I rather like the place. Don't know anything at all special. Just guesswork. Uneducated guesswork at that. Or at best self taught. That and four dollars will buy you a cup of coffee at the new Starbucks on your right as hurry towards your increasingly distant gate. ;-)
The Metrolink free zones are no more. No big loss really. It was a rather large investment of time and energy walking to them, especially to the T2 station, and waiting like 10-30 minutes for a train depending on the time. The current shuttle suffices.
symphonicpoet wrote:
Fri Nov 10, 2017 11:09 pm
The problem is that Southwest probably needs to move to C and American to E.
Never going to happen. AA is not going to give up the Admirals Club when there is no possibility of an equivalent in T2.
Yep... never going to happen.
Southwest is invested in T2 and has an airport terminal and concourse literally for their operations and expansion. It is a "hub" terminal if you will. Southwest works great in T2 and now also has T2 International Gates/Customs - may be why they are expanding international flights from STL. With the additional restaurants, air lounge and gates - the terminal/concourse looks great for them in connections as well as O&D. the only thing they need to do is reconfig the lower area of the terminal bldg. to put in more luggage carousels and spiffy up the METRO rail station connection from the T2 terminal to the platform.
matguy70 wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 6:24 pm
Yep... never going to happen.
Southwest is invested in T2 and has an airport terminal and concourse literally for their operations and expansion. It is a "hub" terminal if you will. Southwest works great in T2 and now also has T2 International Gates/Customs - may be why they are expanding international flights from STL. With the additional restaurants, air lounge and gates - the terminal/concourse looks great for them in connections as well as O&D. the only thing they need to do is reconfig the lower area of the terminal bldg. to put in more luggage carousels and spiffy up the METRO rail station connection from the T2 terminal to the platform.
Agreed. In my opinion (and it's only my opinion) no major reconfig is going to happen in the next 5 years.

My hope is the next 2-3 years in terms of terminal/concourse utilization:

-SW expand toward the 140 daily departures, and takes over another gate section in D (20-26). Add additional International out of E31/33
-BA or similar start Trans-Atlantic using E29 and a C gate.
-City go forward with the already planned opening of C toward C32
-New carrier (Jetblue?) start service either in the higher number Cs OR out of D2-D6 which would give higher justification to remodel/open all of D and still leave 4-6 gates in mid D open for expansion.
It's interesting to see the response many aviation bloggers have said in regards to the new MCI. Virtually all have said STL will take a "substantial" or "significant" hit from it. If Greg or JAL007 are still here, I would be interested to get your perspective on it.

Some of the comments I have read address that Southwest "has no ties to the St Louis market".

EDIT:

No need for alarm on this post. I found the article in question.
http://crankyflier.com/2017/11/09/with- ... nsas-city/

Feel free to read and leave your impression.
Chalupas54 wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:56 pm
It's interesting to see the response many aviation bloggers have said in regards to the new MCI. Virtually all have said STL will take a "substantial" or "significant" hit from it. If Greg or JAL007 are still here, I would be interested to get your perspective on it.

Some of the comments I have read address that Southwest "has no ties to the St Louis market".
Do you have some links?

I just don't see that happening...
pmt257 wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 10:20 pm
Chalupas54 wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:56 pm
It's interesting to see the response many aviation bloggers have said in regards to the new MCI. Virtually all have said STL will take a "substantial" or "significant" hit from it. If Greg or JAL007 are still here, I would be interested to get your perspective on it.

Some of the comments I have read address that Southwest "has no ties to the St Louis market".
Do you have some links?

I just don't see that happening...
I read blog posts on crankyflier and on a few other sites. It was a few hours ago, so I'll need a few minutes to go back and get them. I'll probably have them by tomorrow morning.
Chalupas54 wrote:
Sun Nov 12, 2017 9:56 pm

No need for alarm on this post. I found the article in question.
http://crankyflier.com/2017/11/09/with- ... nsas-city/

Feel free to read and leave your impression.
My take: first off no one knows in 4 years what the landscape will be. So making predictions like that are silly. If southwest keeps growing here just to pull flights later, it wouldn't make sense.

2nd this is the quote they like to use.

"We specifically flow more over St Louis from a mid-continent geographic perspective than we do over Kansas City, and that’s done purposefully. We have probably 25 to 30 more flights in St Louis than [Kansas City] because of that."

Others make it sound like Southwest gave us flights INSTEAD of KC, which it says nowhere. To me it says KC would have more flights like we do, if they had room to connect there. We would have what we have still and they would have probably have 20 more.

But again trying to figure out what will happen 4 or 5 years from now is silly. Rarely are people right with predictions that far out. During the Cancun event the Southwest guy talked about how much they love St.Louis and you can see it by their growth here. That could be some lip service but they obviously are pretty happy.
Too lazy/busy to look it up, how many gates does SW have in STL vs what's being planned in KC?

What's the gate breakdown by concourse here?

What's keeps STL c.p.e so damn high? How can we be more than a brand new airport in DEN?!

What's going on in concourse b?

Thank you for all the help!
RuskiSTL wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:02 pm
Too lazy/busy to look it up, how many gates does SW have in STL vs what's being planned in KC?

What's the gate breakdown by concourse here?

What's keeps STL c.p.e so damn high? How can we be more than a brand new airport in DEN?!

What's going on in concourse b?

Thank you for all the help!
https://www.flystl.com/uploads/document ... m_2017.pdf

Here is the gate diagram. It's a bit outdated. Missing Southwest's newest gates and Air Canada taking over A17. Looks like Southwest has 16. No one know what the KC gate situation will be way too early. They will have 35 total gates in the airport though when it opens.

Fees are high here because of the new runway debt and being half the size of when it was built. Less flights to spread out the cost. Denver has way more traffic so it spreads the cost out.

B is an event space now.
Update on the 120 flight thing. I got a reply that it is 119 on Sundays (he round up to 120). I didn't realize Sunday was going to be higher than during the week.
jshank83 wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:19 pm
RuskiSTL wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:02 pm
Too lazy/busy to look it up, how many gates does SW have in STL vs what's being planned in KC?

What's the gate breakdown by concourse here?

What's keeps STL c.p.e so damn high? How can we be more than a brand new airport in DEN?!

What's going on in concourse b?

Thank you for all the help!
https://www.flystl.com/uploads/document ... m_2017.pdf

Here is the gate diagram. It's a bit outdated. Missing Southwest's newest gates and Air Canada taking over A17. Looks like Southwest has 16. No one know what the KC gate situation will be way too early. They will have 35 total gates in the airport though when it opens.

Fees are high here because of the new runway debt and being half the size of when it was built. Less flights to spread out the cost. Denver has way more traffic so it spreads the cost out.

B is an event space now.
Also in Denver it was done in the middle of open space which drives costs down along with the fact that it was done a number of years before work here.

I do picture the passenger and cargo growth is going to help drive down the landing fees along with more of the debt being paid off. It does help that from what it looks like for Southwest they do very well with yield from here which would be the big argument for not losing flights.
SWA loves STL. Again, They have THEIR OWN TERMINAL AND CONCOURSE in STL and have invested years of crafting and integrating their STL focus "hub" status. Now with the abilty to have their own international arrivals and departures / customs area as well. In STL - Southwest now has usage of E4, E6, E8, E10, E12, E14, E16, E18, E20, E22, E24, E29, E31, E33, E34, E36, E38, E40 = 18 GATES Two of which are new secured international arrival/departure gates. They can easily and affordably (turn key) expand Concourse E by another 12 gates.


The new MCI will have similar to the same amount of gates now... however with improved larger spaces for amenities, TSA, luggage etc... Gates will all be in the same concourse terminal sharing next to other airlines.

RIGHT NOW: These airlines lease the following gates at MCI:
Air Canada: 1
Alaska: 1
Allegiant: 1
American: 7
Delta: 7
Frontier: 2
Southwest: 7
Spirit: 1
United: 7
Via Airlines: 1
Charter Air: 1

37 Gates Currently Used Airport wide

The NEW MCI will have 35 gates when completed. Not sure how much more capacity SWA will be able to perform there. It is really downsizing their gates and right out of the barn numbers. Expansion could come in another concourse - but that would't be likely for years.

You just don't build a new airport and whalla - an airline says we are going to dump (a larger market with high O&D and connection schedules) just because they have new shiny toilets and fountains. Think Indy - they have a gorgeous new terminal now for years - and the same service.

Crankyflier is a cranky former airline sales dude that is worthless to read. Never have found anything the guy posts to have any substance, truth or beef.

For the record:

STL International airlines OTHER than Southwest's Terminal 2 / Concourse E are currently leasing 30 gates in Concourse A and Concourse C.
matguy70 wrote:SWA loves STL. Again, They have THEIR OWN TERMINAL AND CONCOURSE in STL and have invested years of crafting and integrating their STL focus "hub" status. Now with the abilty to have their own international arrivals and departures / customs area as well. In STL - Southwest now has usage of E4, E6, E8, E10, E12, E14, E16, E18, E20, E22, E24, E29, E31, E33, E34, E36, E38, E40 = 18 GATES Two of which are new secured international arrival/departure gates. They can easily and affordably (turn key) expand Concourse E by another 12 gates.


The new MCI will have similar to the same amount of gates now... however with improved larger spaces for amenities, TSA, luggage etc... Gates will all be in the same concourse terminal sharing next to other airlines.

RIGHT NOW: These airlines lease the following gates at MCI:
Air Canada: 1
Alaska: 1
Allegiant: 1
American: 7
Delta: 7
Frontier: 2
Southwest: 7
Spirit: 1
United: 7
Via Airlines: 1
Charter Air: 1

37 Gates Currently Used Airport wide

The NEW MCI will have 35 gates when completed. Not sure how much more capacity SWA will be able to perform there. It is really downsizing their gates and right out of the barn numbers. Expansion could come in another concourse - but that would't be likely for years.

You just don't build a new airport and whalla - an airline says we are going to dump (a larger market with high O&D and connection schedules) just because they have new shiny toilets and fountains. Think Indy - they have a gorgeous new terminal now for years - and the same service.

Crankyflier is a cranky former airline sales dude that is worthless to read. Never have found anything the guy posts to have any substance, truth or beef.

For the record:

STL International airlines OTHER than Southwest's Terminal 2 / Concourse E are currently leasing 30 gates in Concourse A and Concourse C.
I think STL’s plethora of gates gives it an advantage. Some airlines share gates at KCI, so only 27 are actually leased. 35 in the new Terminal also slow more flights per gate so the flight capacity is double the number of flights we have today. From what I have read here, I think STL will become a new mid America SWA focus city so that pax can bypass Chicago.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
There's been a lot of consternation on the A.Net STL topic about the MCI vote as well, though it was a bit reassuring to see a post by a SW employee stating that SWA is still very much committed to staying at and growing STL and that the employee rumor mill is rampant with STL being selected as the next crew base.

The actual post:
STL has absolutely nothing to worry about. WN is completely committed to growing (not shrinking) STL. The community supports WN in spades and WN management LUVS that. Strong rumors that STL will be the next Pilot/Flight Attendant base and if that happens, there's virtually zero chance that WN significantly reduces flights in STL in favor of MCI.
(This all comes with the standard disclaimer warning, though)

All in all, I'm not seeing too much to worry about. MCI's new terminal is still at least 4 years away. In the meantime, MDW and DAL can't grow much more and STL (and maybe BNA) are about the only SW facilities east of DEN that'll be able to accommodate significant growth in the short term.

In the end, I think both airports will be happy with the level of service they receive.
matguy70 wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:40 pm
E4, E6, E8, E10, E12, E14, E16, E18, E20, E22, E24, E29, E31, E33, E34, E36, E38, E40 = 18 GATES Two of which are new secured international arrival/departure gates. They can easily and affordably (turn key) expand Concourse E by another 12 gates.
I believe they vacated E4 when they moved into E34 etc. E29 is a per turn gate, not Southwest. ATS presently holds the lease. WN uses it for overflow when it's available and when they need it, but international charters have to use it for arrivals, so they take priority. It's not a WN gate. They might use it more than anyone else, but they're just one more airline waiting in line. On the other hand, they do have 31 and 33. 31 has access to customs and is used as such presently. 33 has access, but I don't believe it's in service for customs right now. (Though it should be almost triflingly easy to fix that if it were needed. I believe all that's missing is a dividing wall and a door.) So it's not as though they're hurting in that regard. They're still quite well supplied.

As to swapping between C and E:

1. I said it wasn't likely to happen soon. In fact, I believe I said "maybe another ten years."

2. While the old Ambassador's club is larger there's about to be a club space in E, albeit a much smaller one. AA isn't going to leave town, but I also don't think they're planning to expand. And if Southwest said "we're expanding to 30 gates and we want C" do you really think anyone would say no, just because American happens to lease space for a club there? Who's counting on them to keep anything open at this point? American holds the lease, but they surely don't own the place. And that lease will run out eventually.

As to why:

E and D have 31 gates total between them. Two of those are ground level commuter gates that have never had a jetway and couldn't without serious construction. C has 30 gates. It's more than four thousand feet from E4 to D2. It's about fifteen hundred feet from C38 to C1. Now, if you're making a connection where would you rather be?

C and E are pretty comparable, as presently constituted, in terms of space for gate functions and amenities, with C coming out slightly ahead in both. C has about 48,000 sqft of holding and agent areas at its gates. E has about 43,000. C has 23,000 sqft of amenities. E has 22. Add the D spaces to that and D/E comes out ahead. (59-48 gate functions and 33-23 amenities, not counting club spaces.) On the other hand, that's not counting the 6,000 odd feet of food court just past security at the end of D, which is actually quite convenient to C as well. (Which is why it's open right now, even though D isn't.) And of course C has vastly more club space before you even count the closed Ambassador's club at the east end: over 12 thousand to under 4.

Next up there's security itself. There's over twelve thousand feet of security area at the west end of C. There's less than six thousand for E. And it's nicer, too. Better laid out. More pleasant. Not blocking the ticketing area. Next there's the USO space. T-1 has a great USO. T-2 has a satellite facility. There are six baggage carousels in T-1 to T-2's two. There's more and better spaces landside to eat or drink a cup of coffee in T-1. Basically, T-1 is, frankly, the nicer space. And the C concourse is a world unto itself, isolated from everything, compact, and convenient. Since it was built as TWA's hub. Heck, there's even a dedicated customs facility beneath it. A slightly larger customs facility. With six gates. (30, 32, 34, 35, 36, and 38.) It's not a perfect facility, since the only exit from it is into the C concourse. But if you're making a domestic connection it's fine. And if you're not . . . well, a lot of locals passed through without too much complaint before AA closed the hub.

So I'm not saying it's going to happen. And it's certainly not going to happen now. Expanding down E gives Southwest a little breathing room. But it's an imperfect solution at best if you're thinking in terms of connections. C, however, is great for connections. So it's not a silly idea to think that maybe the airline making connections might want C, while those which don't really route connections through town could easily survive elsewhere. Yes, E was built for Southwest. But they weren't really making connections here then. And TWA was making quite a lot of them. The world has changed. I'm just guessing. But it's at least an educated guess. We shall see. Probably not worth speculating about too much, as it's really too far out to say anything for sure. Let's see what becomes of the crew base rumor first.

Additionally, we can all be friendly about this. It's just speculation. And clearly labeled. No need to poop on other people's ideas.
symphonicpoet wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:46 am
matguy70 wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:40 pm
E4, E6, E8, E10, E12, E14, E16, E18, E20, E22, E24, E29, E31, E33, E34, E36, E38, E40 = 18 GATES Two of which are new secured international arrival/departure gates. They can easily and affordably (turn key) expand Concourse E by another 12 gates.
I believe they vacated E4 when they moved into E34 etc. E29 is a per turn gate, not Southwest. ATS presently holds the lease. WN uses it for overflow when it's available and when they need it, but international charters have to use it for arrivals, so they take priority. It's not a WN gate. They might use it more than anyone else, but they're just one more airline waiting in line. On the other hand, they do have 31 and 33. 31 has access to customs and is used as such presently. 33 has access, but I don't believe it's in service for customs right now. (Though it should be almost triflingly easy to fix that if it were needed. I believe all that's missing is a dividing wall and a door.) So it's not as though they're hurting in that regard. They're still quite well supplied.

As to swapping between C and E:

1. I said it wasn't likely to happen soon. In fact, I believe I said "maybe another ten years."

2. While the old Ambassador's club is larger there's about to be a club space in E, albeit a much smaller one. AA isn't going to leave town, but I also don't think they're planning to expand. And if Southwest said "we're expanding to 30 gates and we want C" do you really think anyone would say no, just because American happens to lease space for a club there? Who's counting on them to keep anything open at this point? American holds the lease, but they surely don't own the place. And that lease will run out eventually.

As to why:

E and D have 31 gates total between them. Two of those are ground level commuter gates that have never had a jetway and couldn't without serious construction. C has 30 gates. It's more than four thousand feet from E4 to D2. It's about fifteen hundred feet from C38 to C1. Now, if you're making a connection where would you rather be?

C and E are pretty comparable, as presently constituted, in terms of space for gate functions and amenities, with C coming out slightly ahead in both. C has about 48,000 sqft of holding and agent areas at its gates. E has about 43,000. C has 23,000 sqft of amenities. E has 22. Add the D spaces to that and D/E comes out ahead. (59-48 gate functions and 33-23 amenities, not counting club spaces.) On the other hand, that's not counting the 6,000 odd feet of food court just past security at the end of D, which is actually quite convenient to C as well. (Which is why it's open right now, even though D isn't.) And of course C has vastly more club space before you even count the closed Ambassador's club at the east end: over 12 thousand to under 4.

Next up there's security itself. There's over twelve thousand feet of security area at the west end of C. There's less than six thousand for E. And it's nicer, too. Better laid out. More pleasant. Not blocking the ticketing area. Next there's the USO space. T-1 has a great USO. T-2 has a satellite facility. There are six baggage carousels in T-1 to T-2's two. There's more and better spaces landside to eat or drink a cup of coffee in T-1. Basically, T-1 is, frankly, the nicer space. And the C concourse is a world unto itself, isolated from everything, compact, and convenient. Since it was built as TWA's hub. Heck, there's even a dedicated customs facility beneath it. A slightly larger customs facility. With six gates. (30, 32, 34, 35, 36, and 38.) It's not a perfect facility, since the only exit from it is into the C concourse. But if you're making a domestic connection it's fine. And if you're not . . . well, a lot of locals passed through without too much complaint before AA closed the hub.

So I'm not saying it's going to happen. And it's certainly not going to happen now. Expanding down E gives Southwest a little breathing room. But it's an imperfect solution at best if you're thinking in terms of connections. C, however, is great for connections. So it's not a silly idea to think that maybe the airline making connections might want C, while those which don't really route connections through town could easily survive elsewhere. Yes, E was built for Southwest. But they weren't really making connections here then. And TWA was making quite a lot of them. The world has changed. I'm just guessing. But it's at least an educated guess. We shall see. Probably not worth speculating about too much, as it's really too far out to say anything for sure. Let's see what becomes of the crew base rumor first.

Additionally, we can all be friendly about this. It's just speculation. And clearly labeled. No need to poop on other people's ideas.

Good points.

I believe E4 is still used (atleast it was late last week)
symphonicpoet wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 3:46 am
matguy70 wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 9:40 pm
E4, E6, E8, E10, E12, E14, E16, E18, E20, E22, E24, E29, E31, E33, E34, E36, E38, E40 = 18 GATES Two of which are new secured international arrival/departure gates. They can easily and affordably (turn key) expand Concourse E by another 12 gates.
I believe they vacated E4 when they moved into E34 etc. E29 is a per turn gate, not Southwest. ATS presently holds the lease. WN uses it for overflow when it's available and when they need it, but international charters have to use it for arrivals, so they take priority. It's not a WN gate. They might use it more than anyone else, but they're just one more airline waiting in line. On the other hand, they do have 31 and 33. 31 has access to customs and is used as such presently. 33 has access, but I don't believe it's in service for customs right now. (Though it should be almost triflingly easy to fix that if it were needed. I believe all that's missing is a dividing wall and a door.) So it's not as though they're hurting in that regard. They're still quite well supplied.

As to swapping between C and E:

1. I said it wasn't likely to happen soon. In fact, I believe I said "maybe another ten years."

2. While the old Ambassador's club is larger there's about to be a club space in E, albeit a much smaller one. AA isn't going to leave town, but I also don't think they're planning to expand. And if Southwest said "we're expanding to 30 gates and we want C" do you really think anyone would say no, just because American happens to lease space for a club there? Who's counting on them to keep anything open at this point? American holds the lease, but they surely don't own the place. And that lease will run out eventually.

As to why:

E and D have 31 gates total between them. Two of those are ground level commuter gates that have never had a jetway and couldn't without serious construction. C has 30 gates. It's more than four thousand feet from E4 to D2. It's about fifteen hundred feet from C38 to C1. Now, if you're making a connection where would you rather be?

C and E are pretty comparable, as presently constituted, in terms of space for gate functions and amenities, with C coming out slightly ahead in both. C has about 48,000 sqft of holding and agent areas at its gates. E has about 43,000. C has 23,000 sqft of amenities. E has 22. Add the D spaces to that and D/E comes out ahead. (59-48 gate functions and 33-23 amenities, not counting club spaces.) On the other hand, that's not counting the 6,000 odd feet of food court just past security at the end of D, which is actually quite convenient to C as well. (Which is why it's open right now, even though D isn't.) And of course C has vastly more club space before you even count the closed Ambassador's club at the east end: over 12 thousand to under 4.

Next up there's security itself. There's over twelve thousand feet of security area at the west end of C. There's less than six thousand for E. And it's nicer, too. Better laid out. More pleasant. Not blocking the ticketing area. Next there's the USO space. T-1 has a great USO. T-2 has a satellite facility. There are six baggage carousels in T-1 to T-2's two. There's more and better spaces landside to eat or drink a cup of coffee in T-1. Basically, T-1 is, frankly, the nicer space. And the C concourse is a world unto itself, isolated from everything, compact, and convenient. Since it was built as TWA's hub. Heck, there's even a dedicated customs facility beneath it. A slightly larger customs facility. With six gates. (30, 32, 34, 35, 36, and 38.) It's not a perfect facility, since the only exit from it is into the C concourse. But if you're making a domestic connection it's fine. And if you're not . . . well, a lot of locals passed through without too much complaint before AA closed the hub.

So I'm not saying it's going to happen. And it's certainly not going to happen now. Expanding down E gives Southwest a little breathing room. But it's an imperfect solution at best if you're thinking in terms of connections. C, however, is great for connections. So it's not a silly idea to think that maybe the airline making connections might want C, while those which don't really route connections through town could easily survive elsewhere. Yes, E was built for Southwest. But they weren't really making connections here then. And TWA was making quite a lot of them. The world has changed. I'm just guessing. But it's at least an educated guess. We shall see. Probably not worth speculating about too much, as it's really too far out to say anything for sure. Let's see what becomes of the crew base rumor first.

Additionally, we can all be friendly about this. It's just speculation. And clearly labeled. No need to poop on other people's ideas.
I believe such a switch would already have occurred. Considering the life of the structure, I would say in 10 years, St Louis will be looking at constructing a new terminal building.
jshank83 wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 4:19 pm
RuskiSTL wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:02 pm
Too lazy/busy to look it up, how many gates does SW have in STL vs what's being planned in KC?

What's the gate breakdown by concourse here?

What's keeps STL c.p.e so damn high? How can we be more than a brand new airport in DEN?!

What's going on in concourse b?

Thank you for all the help!
https://www.flystl.com/uploads/document ... m_2017.pdf

Here is the gate diagram. It's a bit outdated. Missing Southwest's newest gates and Air Canada taking over A17. Looks like Southwest has 16. No one know what the KC gate situation will be way too early. They will have 35 total gates in the airport though when it opens.

Fees are high here because of the new runway debt and being half the size of when it was built. Less flights to spread out the cost. Denver has way more traffic so it spreads the cost out.

B is an event space now.
Thanks!
Chalupas54 wrote: I believe such a switch would already have occurred. Considering the life of the structure, I would say in 10 years, St Louis will be looking at constructing a new terminal building.
I know someone here posted a new linear T1 from A to C and B would act like a central security point/food court. If we did that, would it make sense to then connect E to C and tear down D? How many gates do you guys expect we'd lose?

It seems like even though the airport is doing much better we're still only at about 50/60% gate usage. Is there any reason to believe we'll ever approach anything close to 90%? Would tearing down/losing gates really be a lost opportunity?

Thanks for all the info!
RuskiSTL wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:17 pm
If we did that, would it make sense to then connect E to C and tear down D? How many gates do you guys expect we'd lose?
Doing so would make the south side of C unusable.
RuskiSTL wrote:
Tue Nov 14, 2017 4:17 pm

I know someone here posted a new linear T1 from A to C and B would act like a central security point/food court. If we did that, would it make sense to then connect E to C and tear down D? How many gates do you guys expect we'd lose?

It seems like even though the airport is doing much better we're still only at about 50/60% gate usage. Is there any reason to believe we'll ever approach anything close to 90%? Would tearing down/losing gates really be a lost opportunity?

Thanks for all the info!
One issue with a new linear terminal in the current config is that you would only be able to use one side of it. Which is really inefficient as you can see by how far spread out Southwest is getting now. I would rather see them find a setup where you can use both sides like A and C are now if you are going to put a bunch of money into something. I'd rather see them build some kind of bridge from T2 to C instead of that. I know it won't happen and I am not sure it even would be a good use of money but I like it better than making one side of a concourse unusable.

The other option. Is tear out/reconstruct D and build it wider. Then tear down C and build out a couple 2 sided concourses perpendicular from the new D. Sort of how B is coming out of the main terminal only you would have room to make them a longer.