Incase anyone missed it. A flight with a bomb threat was divereted to STL today.
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crim ... ea368.html
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crim ... ea368.html
Does anyone have a picture of that area before they added the security lines? I always thought something like this idea would be great. We don't have a central mall type area that "major" airports have. I know it's only a fantasy but would it be possible to dig under and add a third level below ground to maintain all the security/baggage claim/other functions?STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:27 pmFirst I thought it kind of obvious baggage claim couldn't be airside. It's hard to fully layout an idea in a forum post as I am sure you know but I thought that didn't need spelled out.gregl wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2017 9:01 pmThat would be a logisitical nightmare.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Tue Feb 07, 2017 7:02 pmThis is why my biggest wish for Lambert is to move the security checks for A B and C up to the top level.
The entire lower level cannot be made airside -- baggage claim, where passengers can access items legal in checked bags but not legal for carry on, would be airside.
If the airside area was restricted to the corridor which runs from A to C, you'd still have 4 or 5 exits from the secured area based on how it is laid out today.
Not to mention that there really isn't space on the upper level for a consolidated security checkpoint.
Greg
Regarding the five exits you pointed out I would think that could be reduced to maybe 2. It's a detail that would have to be worked out.
I did specify an addition would probably be required to accommodate a new security checking area. My think was to the west side of the main terminal.
I am truly unfamiliar with what other systems would have to move to accommodate the idea but I am certain they are manageable. Baggage handling, hvac etc. there might not be a ROI case for it but to me it's how the airport should work especially if we ever have a shot at being a major hub again.
That's a rare occasion, however it does happen on SWA's route network. I have flown on many flights out of BWI that are empty. 12:55 is also a really inconvenient departure time. I also believe when it comes to LGA, the majority of STL passengers use Delta or American. I also think overall, EWR is the preferred NY area airport for STL travelers.jshank83 wrote:On the southwest 12:55 LGA-STL. 27 people. I know it's a Tuesday in winter but I wonder how often they run flights like this for very long? The plane came from STL so it isn't like it's was connecting through.
Have you ever been to Newark?!?Chalupas54 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:08 pmI also think overall, EWR is the preferred NY area airport for STL travelers.
Connecting from Europe this summer, hands down worst airport experience I've ever had. Soooooo many pigeons in the tiny, gross concourses.gregl wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2017 1:39 pmHave you ever been to Newark?!?Chalupas54 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:08 pmI also think overall, EWR is the preferred NY area airport for STL travelers.
I have and in fact it's currently my primary Airport. I should clarify, by preference I mean that fares/frequency out of EWR are overall better than LGA. As bad as EWR is, LGA is FAR worse, IMO.gregl wrote:Have you ever been to Newark?!?Chalupas54 wrote: ↑Tue Feb 14, 2017 12:08 pmI also think overall, EWR is the preferred NY area airport for STL travelers.
The history page is under the About Us section: http://flystl.com/about-us/historysymphonicpoet wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2017 3:01 amThe website seems simple enough. I miss the old history page, though. That's . . . less obvious, if it's still there. But yes, the website is mostly fine. Easy to navigate. And using Google maps is probably the way to go. (Though there is at least one minor error. Still shows the hall between B and C as open. And while B is greyed out there are numbered B gates, as though they are active.) Incidentally, the old terminal map is still there as a PDF. Not quite sure what you mean by the "nonstop map."
The new logo is one more generic logo. It could be for Standard Technical Logos LLC just as fittingly as St. Louis in general or Lambert in particular. It doesn't seem to say St. Louis as effectively as the old one did. It's less distinctive. . The letters are big and bold and all that, but there's nothing that says St. Louis quite as well as the arch. There's a nod in that direction, sort of, but it's too subtle. And there's nothing about the new logo that seems to speak to flight. I don't expect it will last much more than maybe ten years. It's a minor point, but it's one more "why change what ain't broke" kind of question. Meh.
When you clicked what now says nonstop service there used to be a map showing all the places that had nonstop service so you easily could see each destination on a map. Now they just list them out in a list (which they also did before). A map is just easier and quicker to see where they have flights. For example, lets say I needed to go to Ponca City, OK, I could just take a quick look at the map and see there are direct flights to Wichita, Tulsa, and Oklahoma City. I wouldn't have to go through and list and try to think of every close airport to check.
You mean something like this?jshank83 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:37 amWhen you clicked what now says nonstop service there used to be a map showing all the places that had nonstop service so you easily could see each destination on a map. Now they just list them out in a list (which they also did before). A map is just easier and quicker to see where they have flights. For example, lets say I needed to go to Ponca City, OK, I could just take a quick look at the map and see there are direct flights to Wichita, Tulsa, and Oklahoma City. I wouldn't have to go through and list and try to think of every close airport to check.
Here is Cleveland's map, for an example.
http://www.clevelandairport.com/flight- ... cities-old