urbanSTL

yeah, you're right. I probably am reading too much into the limited articles available about recent developments (or lack of developments)

An 'expert' weighs in on the China hub:
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2011/06/17/ ... cargo-hub/
Quote:
"He also cites the fact that Fed-Ex and UPS carry 90-percent of the country’s freight, and they’re well-established in other cities."
Considering that this entire idea is premised on the fact that Chinese carriers would be running the show in furtherance of their efforts to transport 50% of the air freight between the US and China, I don’t understand how Fedex and UPS are relevant. Further, his assertion that this has less than a 1% chance of succeeding seriously undermines his credibility. I mean, the Chinese would not engage in 3 years of protracted, fairly extensive negotiations if this had virtually no chance of working. Moreover, considering that the Chinese are intent on establishing a hub in the US and we are apparently their first choice, it’s deeply insulting, as well as absurd, to imply that their efforts have less than a 1% chance of succeeding. I have a feeling that Chinese leaders who have guided perhaps the most remarkable economic transformation in recent history are probably a bit more sophisticated than this ‘expert.’ As this story serves as the extent of his presence on the Internet, I’ll also go out on a limb and guess that this is little more than an attempt to enhance his public image.
It’s discouraging that a respected news outlet would carry this story without providing any critical analysis. I hope that publications like the P-D don't follow KMOX's lead. If they do, I hope they at least include some context rather than just provide this guy with what amounts to a free commercial for his consulting services.

Worthless politicians.

Comments from of Gov Nixon.

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... ecial.html

Nixon signals likelihood of special session

St. Louis Business Journal
Date: Friday, June 24, 2011, 6:54am CDT - Last Modified: Friday, June 24, 2011, 6:57am CDT
Gov. Jay Nixon sounded relatively optimistic during a speech Thursday at the St. Louis Regional Chamber and Growth Association about the prospect of a special legislative session to resolve the state's economic development incentive impasse and to pass incentives to make Lambert-St. Louis International Airport Lambert-St. Louis International Airport Latest from The Business Journals Lambert airport sells .5M in bondsSouthwest pilot suspended after open mic rant Lambert tornado repair to cost more than M Follow this company a trade hub, the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports. "I think we've had good progress the last four or five weeks," he said. "If folks are serious and roll up their sleeves we may be able to get something done."

This effort to lure Chinese investment in St. Louis has been going on for many years. Don't expect them to run elsewhere just because a bill for public monies in support of the project didn't pass the first time. I'm sure a lot of 'blood, sweat, and tears' and a few sleepless nights have gone into this big idea. Relationships have been made, they've walked an talked together and other opportunities have arisen. My old man refers to this as the cooridor principle.

Making St. Louis a hub for imports from China has been debated at length in the legislature, but has yet to happen. Senator Blunt and the Missouri Chamber of Commerce say taking advantage of that opportunity is going to give Missouri’s economy a huge boost. He says he talked in St. Louis with some people from China about making the hub happen.

The Missouri Chamber of Commerce says they would like to see a decision made on it in a special session of the legislature this summer, if one happens. President Dan Mehan says this opportunity is too important to pass up. Mehan says the conditions are perfect for St. Louis to be the hub: It’s central in the Mid-West, the airport has the capacity and Missouri agriculture has a large export volume.

Mehan says it’s dissapointing that it didn’t pass through the legislature this year. He says the main reason it didn’t pass was political fighting and not opposition to the issue.

http://www.missourinet.com/2011/06/29/b ... hub-audio/

RFT reporters apparently aren’t as discerning as those at the P-D. I’m just glad the Post hasn’t regurgitated this guy’s opinion without providing any analysis:
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... ams_st.php

I'm beginning to think that calling yourself an expert and then criticizing "Aerotropolis" is the easiest way to get noticed by the stl media. Short of robbing a group of marines, I can't think of a more effective way of getting attention.

the RFT apparently contacted this expert in order to get him to respond to comments made by me and others on the RFT's website. Here is his response:
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... webber.php

I decided to spend 15-20 minutes writing another comment. Probably a waste of my time, but whatever. I just can't stand a non-St. Louisan sh**ting on an important regional economic development bill. I did give a shout out to nextstl.com, though

Not as much "news" - but an interesting read. Written by the senior vice president and director of design at HOK.

Read more: http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/ar ... z1R5FZuZMv

http://www.stltoday.com/news/opinion/ar ... 70894.html

the count wrote:

Gone Corporate wrote:Quick thoughts:
1. Perhaps Lambert is planned for primarily US-China flights, where MidAmerica can specialize in China-US-LatAm flights. That could be a good distinction between the two hub offerings. I'll go so far as to say that this distinction has been solid in my mind for some time, and I'll all but expect MidAmerica to specialize as a go-between airport rather than a hub.

If there will be a distinction it could well turn out that Lambert will handle cargo from Chinese Airlines and MidAmerica the freight brought in by US cargo airlines, such as Southern Air. This is where it seems to be going so far.

Gone Corporate wrote: 4. If the Lambert hub becomes a reality, you can bet UniGroup would want to set up another operation at Lambert. Which, after all, is a lot closer to their HQ than Mascoutah. Who knows, the MidAmerica work could further prove their efficacies as a customs broker, better promoting them for future Lambert contracts.

They will. Representatives of Unigroup are involved in the China Hub idea and were present during the trade missions to China.

Gone Corporate wrote: 8. Consider it progress on both sides of the river in creating an aerial logistics hub.

Let MidAmerica help prove the viability of the concept.

Movers Pick Up China Business -- Wall Street Journal
The rising numbers of U.S. workers and students moving to China are a bright spot for moving companies like St. Louis-based UniGroup Worldwide, which has seen domestic business decline.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... bs=article

Colby wrote:the RFT apparently contacted this expert in order to get him to respond to comments made by me and others on the RFT's website. Here is his response:
http://blogs.riverfronttimes.com/dailyr ... webber.php

I decided to spend 15-20 minutes writing another comment. Probably a waste of my time, but whatever. I just can't stand a non-St. Louisan sh**ting on an important regional economic development bill. I did give a shout out to nextstl.com, though

The comments are blocked here at work (though I can see the article just fine), so I'll respond in this thread.

To the question "Why He Dissed The Plan", he responds:

In short, I see the St. Louis China Hub as a potentially huge white elephant for taxpayers.

Potentially. So the whole thing should just be abandoned and left for other cities to snap up. I wonder if he's one of those who thinks the city and state are just going to hand a developer a $300m+ check up front or if he realizes the majority of that incentive is coming from new revenue generated by aerotropolis? I'm assuming the former.

To the question About His "Conflict of Interest", he responds(paraphrasing in order to keep from quoting the whole article):

'Yes I work for Chicago and KC, but but I used to work for a bunch of other really big airports in the past too! I guess that makes me unqualified'

It doesn't necessarily make you unqualified (though not all who are employed in a field are expert in it). But it does in fact make it highly likely that your expert opinion is biased to favor your employers. That was the crux of this point of criticism, and you failed to address that at all in your retort. This is the very definition of a straw man argument.

To the question about "On FedEx and UPS" (I have to quote this one):

They say that doesn't matter, because those shippers won't be the backbone of the freight coming to St. Louis from China. OK. But I used that example because I think it's a pretty good indicator of what the cargo industry (and the world's two biggest shippers) think about St. Louis and its rank as the 39th biggest air-cargo hub in the U.S."

Again he resorts to straw men and attacking Lambert rather than composing a reply of substance. How about the fact that Memphis was FedEx's second choice - that they wanted to set up base here but the city preferred to cater to TWA. Could it be they saw something in Lambert then that another shipping company sees now? That the city sees an opportunity to correct the mistake they made with FedEx years ago by courting companies in a target market that has shown recent substantial growth and is poised to continue growing exponentially greater? How would the cargo industry view MEM today had STL not pushed FedEx away?

Perhaps someone chose not to take the short-sided view of 'relatively few people ship cargo from that airport now, therefore it can't possibly be a useful cargo hub'. Perhaps someone saw a centrally located airport with plenty of capacity available, runways that can handle even the heaviest planes, plenty of land available nearby for administrative, transfer, and processing facilities, and a network of land- and water-based ground transportation streaming out in all directions. Perhaps that someone saw an opportunity gain a substantial foothold in a relatively saturated cargo shipping market?

Nah, obviously STL is 'Lambert-Hooterville' and should resign itself to its inevitable decay to municipal airport status.

-RBB

"How about the fact that Memphis was FedEx's second choice - that they wanted to set up base here but the city preferred to cater to TWA."

Second time I've read that here. Other than Commercial Appeal article from March, I can't find any other reference online either.

Anyway, does anyone have more info (links perhaps) to stories talking about how STL chose TWA over FedEx?

It looks like Nixon might be moving toward calling for a special session: http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... edits.html

here we go!:

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... edits.html

Yes.