urbanSTL

The one at Fort Myers is very convenient.

Dido as a frequent business traveler myself.

The other plus side for STL for having a centralized facility, the current drop off and pickup was not designed for all the shuttle buses. As a former resident it annoyed me to know end on the preference that commercial vehicles get. Especially with the East Terminal.

My wish, Concourse D torn down to seperate the terminals and remake the International Terminal E Gates instead of having the seperate curbside entranct not really served well. With concourse D torn down you have considerable number of options including but not limited to routing Metrolink so it can be extended to Earth City, a people mover tram and as noted a centralized on site rental car facility.

Dido vs ditto

They could start by just tearing down D and leaving the space empty, even. It's obsolete, and it sucked to have a flight in or out of there even when it was open.

The D concourse is the physical manifestation of the emotional attachment people in St Louis have to Ozark/TWA and their glory days. Cut it loose.

I used to have a problem with tearing down D because I have a feeling we might see hub days again, but then I looked on google earth and found that we could add a concourse to the east side of the East Terminal and move all the A Concourse carriers to that, leaving the Main Terminal to be the "Hub" Terminal. An A/B/C Concourse hub would be soo much nicer than the old B/C/D configuration (anyone else agree?)

Anyway, that's a long way to say that I'm cool with tearing down D now, and a rental car facility would be a great thing to put in its place. There might be some security issues involved (so that terrorists can't just get onto the tarmac), but I'm sure it's nothing a simple fence couldn't fix.

Someguy wrote:I used to have a problem with tearing down D because I have a feeling we might see hub days again, but then I looked on google earth and found that we could add a concourse to the east side of the East Terminal and move all the A Concourse carriers to that, leaving the Main Terminal to be the "Hub" Terminal. An A/B/C Concourse hub would be soo much nicer than the old B/C/D configuration (anyone else agree?)

Anyway, that's a long way to say that I'm cool with tearing down D now, and a rental car facility would be a great thing to put in its place. There might be some security issues involved (so that terrorists can't just get onto the tarmac), but I'm sure it's nothing a simple fence couldn't fix.

There are setback requirements, height restrictions, construction phasing and staging, and cost issues with placing something where the D terminal is now. I don't see much happening in the location. If you consider the circulation road running parallel to the terminal it would be tough to add a parking garage and maintain proper circulation and heights without taking too much tarmac real estate and not disrupting metrolink bridges, etc. Interesting idea about adding on to E though, really does make D obsolete.

Do you think D could be used for any non traveler purposes? Restaurant, shops, airline history museum (TWA)?

TheRemedy wrote:There are setback requirements, height restrictions, construction phasing and staging, and cost issues with placing something where the D terminal is now. I don't see much happening in the location. If you consider the circulation road running parallel to the terminal it would be tough to add a parking garage and maintain proper circulation and heights without taking too much tarmac real estate and not disrupting metrolink bridges, etc.

I disagree. Look at the google map view of lambert field and zoom in to see concourse A and Concourse C in the same frame.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=lam ... a=N&tab=wl

Compare concourse A with concourse C, and you will see that along concourse A there is plenty of room for tarmac space AND a number of buildings along the service road. So if you leave the same tarmac space for concourse C, there is plenty of room for a very long and deep multi-story parking and/or rental facility -- about as deep as the current short-term parking garage at Terminal 1. Height should not be an issue, since 4 stories would be no taller that Terminal 1, and you could always go down if really needed to.

Since the building would be so long, diagonal ramps (one from the East and one from the West on the service road side of the structure could easily touch every level.

Delta is really going after AA frequent flyers.

Link to Airliners.net discussion: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... n/4880249/

Link to Delta press release: http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=43&item=1088

Link to pseudo schedule: http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=18&item=136

captainjackass wrote:Delta is really going after AA frequent flyers.

Link to Airliners.net discussion: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forum ... n/4880249/

Link to Delta press release: http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=43&item=1088

Link to pseudo schedule: http://news.delta.com/index.php?s=18&item=136

I would like to fly Delta more, but their lack of service representatives in the Main Terminal does not encourage me to fly them.

You can try my approach, avoid airline respresentative contact as much as possible on any airline. Simply put, I would rather not want to see an airline rep until I'm showing them my boarding pass at the gate. The beauty in my opinion is once you learn to work the online sites and kiosks you actually get better service.

Of course, my Delta frequent flyer miles makes flying a lot easier. Especially out of STL. Unfortunately my move from St. Louis to the Bay Area has resulted in a lot more competition on the upgrade list. I'm back to being a small fish in the pond of business travelers.

gary kreie wrote:

TheRemedy wrote:There are setback requirements, height restrictions, construction phasing and staging, and cost issues with placing something where the D terminal is now. I don't see much happening in the location. If you consider the circulation road running parallel to the terminal it would be tough to add a parking garage and maintain proper circulation and heights without taking too much tarmac real estate and not disrupting metrolink bridges, etc.

I disagree. Look at the google map view of lambert field and zoom in to see concourse A and Concourse C in the same frame.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&q=lam ... a=N&tab=wl

Compare concourse A with concourse C, and you will see that along concourse A there is plenty of room for tarmac space AND a number of buildings along the service road. So if you leave the same tarmac space for concourse C, there is plenty of room for a very long and deep multi-story parking and/or rental facility -- about as deep as the current short-term parking garage at Terminal 1. Height should not be an issue, since 4 stories would be no taller that Terminal 1, and you could always go down if really needed to.

Since the building would be so long, diagonal ramps (one from the East and one from the West on the service road side of the structure could easily touch every level.

Interesting concept it may work. For required restrictions ref FAA part 77 and the FAA Airport Design Advisory Circular 150/5300-13.

Wish that the St Louis even had an ounce of vision for Lambert that drives other aiports. Some info on Denver's new hotel/train station

http://archrecord.construction.com/news ... atrava.asp

Calatrava Unveils Design for Major Denver Airport ProjectJuly 30, 2010By David Hill
Denver International Airport’s main terminal, with its distinctive white peaked fabric roof, is getting some company: a 500-room Westin Hotel, a commuter train station, and a rail bridge, all designed by Santiago Calatrava.

The $650 million project is a major expansion for Denver’s airport (1995), designed by Denver-based architect Curt Fentress and recently named one of the world’s 15 most beautiful airports by Travel and Leisure magazine. (Calatrava’s Sondika Airport in Bilbao, Spain, also made the list.) Airport officials have long wanted to build a hotel next to the terminal; the train station is the result of a $1.2 billion commuter-rail project that will link downtown Denver with the airport. The “signature” bridge, as Day calls it, will carry commuter trains over Peña Boulevard, the primary automobile route from Denver to DIA, but Calatrava also intends it to serve as a symbolic gateway between the airport and the city.

^If we had mountains that draw millions in via the airport we could afford things like that too.

So, how is Dallas able to tear down and completely rebuild the Love Field terminal for 20 gates? They don't have mountains.


"The upgrades and future new routes are expected to nearly double Love Field's passenger traffic from its current 4 million passengers a year to about 8 million annually, which would beat the 1973 peak of 6.6 million.

Southwest is managing the improvement project for the city and has the ability to spend up to $75 million to get it started while Dallas waits for the right time to sell bonds to finance most of the improvements.

Those bonds will be paid for by higher landing fees and gate rentals paid by Southwest and other airlines, and also by ticket fees called passenger facility charges.

Passengers now pay $3 each time they go through Love; that's likely to rise, but the process to increase the fee is long and complicated, Weber said.

Revenue from additional parking and concessions also will help fund the work. Love Field's current 23,000 square feet of food and retail concession space will increase to more than 57,000 under the expansion, Mitchell said. That means more restaurant variety and new shops."

Dallas Love needs a new Terminal probably 3x more than STL. That is why they can do it.

I don't necessarily think Lambert needs a new terminal. However, I think the lack of a consolidated rental car facility impacts movement to and from the terminals as well as the perception of St. Louis as a business oriented city, that the airport simply has too many gates, and transit stations are lacking nor provide a means to extend metrolink.

In that regards, First, I think you can hobble grants or bonds together to demolish Concourse D. The airport already has it closed and using shuttle buses between terminals. Nor does any realistic growth scenario see a need for these gates for decades. The argument that an airline is going to pick up and move its hub to St. Louis is far fetched.

Second, why not pursue an extension of metrolink to Earth City Expressway via Lambert property and I-70 right of way using Prop A funds and matching fedderal funds. Build new airport stations, a station at Lindbergh Blvd (future BRT) and Earth City Expressway (Maryland Heights Expressway) to serve the industrial park, Riverport and Harrah's casino.

Finally, removing Concourse D provides a starting point with Southwest on whether it wants to be tied to international gates or not. If they don't, put some design effort into using Concourse B strictly as International gates. If so, the next FAA multiyear bill might increase the passenger fee that can be charged. The revenue source might be enough to make it happen.

Heck, Name the Main Terminal after Dansforth if his foundation is willing to fund a design competition to improve ingress/egress as well as how to best provide international gates within the existing structure.

Article on Airport Popularity:

"If you travel, there's a good chance you're going to Atlanta. The city's Hartsfield-Jackson airport is the busiest in the world, with 88 million passengers last year, a third more than the distant second, London's Heathrow. The hometown hub for Delta Air Lines (DAL), Atlanta's 2.5 million-square-foot terminal complex was designed in the 1970s to accommodate 55 million passengers a year. The airport has attracted as many "customers" as it has by competing on price, charging less to rent terminal space and gate access than competing hubs. According to the airport's own numbers, airlines flying to Atlanta pay about $5 per passenger, less than half the $11 charged by Chicago's O'Hare and about a third the $15 charged by San Francisco. At the high end, New Jersey's Newark Liberty airport charges about $19 per passenger."

http://www.businessweek.com/images/ss/1 ... ndex/2.htm

KSDK reports that Lambert's exceptionally high landing fees probably aren't helping matters:

http://www.ksdk.com/news/local/story.as ... yid=212284

However, according to Boyd Aviation (a prominent aviation industry consulting and forecasting firm),

"The chances of St. Louis getting a hub if the landing fees were a tenth of what they are now, or double what they are is just the same -- zero,"