urbanSTL

^ I would say that is a terrible idea, Concourse D which I believe you are referring to as the mothballed terminal was poorly planned constructed add on in my opinion and offers way way too many gates than what is needed for the airport as a whole. Even if Southwest wants more gates your just filling dead space by creating dead space somewhere else (there is not enough charter/international flights to fill Terminal 2. In addion, access is from either end versus having it in the middle as most linear terminals that work well. Which means that people using Southwest will still access from Terminal 2 for check in, baggage and so forth.

I would also agree in some sense that Terminal 2 was poorly planned constructed add on also. The baggage, arrivals area and very small short term parking garage is case in point. Still dumbfounded why you got grade changes when you walk out the baggage claim to get to parking gargage and why the access to metrolink is just as annoying.

However, I tend to believe you have a lot more possibilities for the future if they would simply demo Concourse D and International Gates. Than give Southwest first choice, do we add on gates with international connections? and if so, what can you help with. If not, rebuild Concourse B in Terminal 1 as international gates with connecting walkways between all three gates, A, B & C and move charters back to Terminal 1 where they just spent their money.

I agree with Dedger. Demolish D and build a long combined parking garage/rental car facility that one could walk or shuttle to from either terminal. Other cities have done it -- a user fee will pay for the facility and it will be more convenient for visitors and locals, and we can eliminate most of the vans that now clog arrival and departure.

Then demolish the current old Terminal 1 short term parking garage and replace with the original landscaping and a distinctive airport sign that compliments the architecture of Terminal 1.


postcard - St. Louis Airport vintage by Jassy-50, on Flickr

consolidate all the car rentals in one new area and bring in Jet Blue

^ I like the car rental idea. Not an issue for me here, but when travelling it is so nice not to have to climb on a bus to get to your rental car (or from your drop-off back to the airport).

matguy70 wrote:As for Kansas City consolidating their airport concourses - the three to just one in a new terminal --- it is in the planning stages but recently running out of steam. KC's airport is just ugly, dated and severly unoccupied and dysfunctional the configuration it is today. The new terminal is not very large and definately not impressive looking at all (if ever built). We will see what happens there.

I thought the KCI terminals were pretty cool when I was there. They're obviously unique. And going through security was absolutely painless since every two gates share a separate checkpoint. But I agree they are totally dysfunctional for that reason... it makes the terminal stores/restaurants/bathrooms inaccesible once you enter the gate. The design is neat, just not practical given today's safety concerns.

I think they're scrapping the south-of-the-airport terminal idea in Kansas City and looking at consolidating all the airlines into terminals A and B, and then building a new terminal where C is now. That idea makes a lot more sense to me, since they already have new economy lots and a new consolidated car rental center that would be useless with a new terminal south of the east-west runway. Not to mention that would also require miles and miles of new highway from 152 to a new south terminal, and they already have space for a "Terminal D" ring that never got built.

KCI has plenty of space to build anything - it is in the middle of a corn field.

Austin's airport had a rule a while back that all businesses has to be local or started locally.

Why don't they use B anymore?

^ the same reason why they don't use D. You simply have too many gates for not being a hub airport anymore not mention the consolidation that has happened since - Delta/Northwest, United/Continental, Southwest/Airtran and looking like AA/USAir merger. Eight of the airlines serving Lambert with multiple gates are now down to a group of five and could be four shortly.

I think it is smart move to retrench to concourses A & C. It gives a sense of a busy airport and they were able to concentrate their upgrades, resources, and eateries/amenities to two concourses instead of three or even all four concourses of TWA days. Maybe develop B into international gates when they move back to T1.

I'm still a big advocate of taking out D/International Gates and developing a new landside master plan for coming in and out from rethinking the roads, curbside, consolidated rental facility to new metrolink stations.

jmstokes wrote:
I love the look of the airport now.

I'd say Lambert is looking pretty good now. IMO T1 and T2 are both pretty respectable looking.

^ If Southwest continues to grow its presence as a mini hub it will be interesting to see what they would demand for a deal at end of day. The reality is you wonder what Lambert can really offer considering it just spent money on terminal enhancement and has a heavy debt obligation with the new runway.

Unfortunatley, the one thing lost from losing TWA and now AA cutback is the airplane maintenance presence at Lambert. Something that Southwest doesn't in St Louis. Looking at the latest round of proposed AA cutbacks and you can only assume its maintenance presence is going to be shuttered. Take into account the loss of the National Guard air wing and you lost a lot. Like Concourse D, Lambert has a large number of unused and underutilized facilities that are left standing with very little opportunity to be used in the foreseeable future.