urbanSTL

gregl wrote:

matguy70 wrote:STI don't think STL has ever had a flight to Indy nonstop.

Southwest had a non-stop until recently. During the days of the TWA hub, TWA flew STL-IND 6x daily.

Greg

Actually, I don't believe SWA ever has had one.

Chalupas54 wrote:

gregl wrote:

matguy70 wrote:STI don't think STL has ever had a flight to Indy nonstop.

Southwest had a non-stop until recently. During the days of the TWA hub, TWA flew STL-IND 6x daily.

Greg

Actually, I don't believe SWA ever has had one.

As of April 1995 (quickest link I could find), Southwest flew STL-IND 7x/day.

http://www.departedflights.com/STL95p4.html

Greg

zink wrote:We would probably visit what ever country they have a direct flight to. How about a travel company that specializes in tours/flights for cities with no direct international stops. So each quarter there is a direct flight to like Japan,Norway,ect.

The trend in the airline industry has been away from international seasonal flying and towards right sizing capacity and frequency in core markets.

zink wrote:Or now that delta basically owns virgin Atlantic, I don't see why they can't experiment with a stl to LHR direct.

Delta Air Lines has purchased a 49% stake in Virgin Atlantic Airways from Singapore Airlines, so they don't "basically own them". Virgin Atlantic still has their own management team, board of directors and is a separate entity all together. Delta has applied for anti trust immunity to operate a joint venture whereby the two airlines coordinate flight schedules, fares, and share equally in profit/loss of flights covered under the agreement.

Some reasons Virgin Atlantic may not see value "experimenting" with a route to St. Louis:

First off, you are talking a $40 million+ take-off/landing slot pair at Heathrow that could be used for additional service to New York, Hong Kong, or any other city that could generate higher revenue than St. Louis.

Secondly, any route from St. Louis would require a capital intensive and fuel thirsty widebody aircraft 767, 777, 787 or A330 aircraft. If St. Louis had the geographic location of Pittsburgh, Hartford or even Detroit a route to London on a lower cost and lower fuel consumption 757 would be operationally feasible. A flight to St. Louis from London would face considerable weight restrictions and possible diversions for refueling which would add further pressure on the route.

Delta or Virgin Atlantic know all of these variables. Heathrow slots of an expensive commodity and are only delegated to markets with high revenue potential which is driven by paid business and first class seats. Without the support from the St. Louis business community like the Research Triangle in Raleigh-Durham or GE and P&G in Cincinnati any new transatlantic service from St. Louis is a fantasy.

JAL007 wrote:The STL-SFO route is highly seasonal, this past winter service was reduced to 4x weekly A319.

I would not call it 'highly' seasonal. It is more occasionally seasonal, as I do know this summer it was scheduled every day and in Mid-June Early-July it was twice daily.

Chalupas54 wrote:

JAL007 wrote:Without the support from the St. Louis business community like the Research Triangle in Raleigh-Durham or GE and P&G in Cincinnati any new transatlantic service from St. Louis is a fantasy.

True, however calling it a 'fantasy' I think is far-fetched. St Louis is a global city, with many global corporations based here. Virgin Atlantic I don't think will EVER fly to St Louis, however I do see American or Delta possibly. A daily route would not work, however a twice weekly would. Also I have heard talk from friends in the Cincy area that P&G is cutting back, and is no longer buying bulk seats on CVG-CDG. There are further rumors that the route will most likely be on the chopping block in the near future.

Rumors are just that, rumors. It is no secret Delta has cut back CVG in favor of other hubs-ATL, DTW, and JFK but this route continues to serve the Cincinnati region. As of right now there are no plans to cut this route. General Electric has a joint venture agreement with Snecma and the route also performs particularly well with cargo.

Chalupas54 wrote:Then again, St Louis is becoming a major connection hub for Southwest. Also, I think STL would most likely get a route to Gatwick instead of Heathrow. Gatwick is less crowded, and is easier to get to from Central London.

This is now the second time I've heard this about Southwest, but haven't seen any sort of sourcing to back it up. It's not that I'm doubting, it's just that it sounds like exciting news, so I really want to learn more.

Any additional info on the STL becoming a hub for Southwest?

Chalupas54 wrote:Then again, St Louis is becoming a major connection hub for Southwest. Also, I think STL would most likely get a route to Gatwick instead of Heathrow. Gatwick is less crowded, and is easier to get to from Central London.

You really need to educate yourself before making statements like this. Southwest does not currently have any interline agreements beyond their AirTran subsidiary. It is unlikely connections onto SWA flights out of St. Louis would provide feed to a STL-LON flight. Passengers in markets served by WN from STL can already travel to London (and many other destinations) on network carriers through their existing hubs and routes. Such a routing wouldn't add any value and would be extremely inconvenient to passengers compared to other alternatives. In the airline industry non-stop flights command higher fares than flights with connections (all else equal) so this really wouldn't contribute to STL's case for London service.

Are you familiar with Greater London area? You may find Gatwick less crowded and easier to manage but Heathrow remains the airport of choice for business travelers (who purchase those costly premium fares that sustain the flights) for easier access to Central London by tube or Heathrow Express. Since US Airways moved their sole reaming Charlotte flight to Heathrow, no US carrier currently serves London Gatwick.

I understand your desire to see non-stop service to London from St. Louis but given the dynamics of the industry and global economy in 2013 it simply isn't a viable market for a major airline to serve, barring any financial support from the St. Louis business community,.

jstriebel wrote:

Chalupas54 wrote:Then again, St Louis is becoming a major connection hub for Southwest. Also, I think STL would most likely get a route to Gatwick instead of Heathrow. Gatwick is less crowded, and is easier to get to from Central London.

This is now the second time I've heard this about Southwest, but haven't seen any sort of sourcing to back it up. It's not that I'm doubting, it's just that it sounds like exciting news, so I really want to learn more.

Any additional info on the STL becoming a hub for Southwest?

http://www.stltoday.com/news/traffic/al ... 6fc5f.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinth ... s/1699277/

Top 10 busiest airports. More destinations and flights than SWA's long time focus city in Nashville. Pretty sure that's focus city status (Southwest has focus cities, which basically are hubs).

Chalupas54 wrote:

jstriebel wrote:

Chalupas54 wrote:Then again, St Louis is becoming a major connection hub for Southwest. Also, I think STL would most likely get a route to Gatwick instead of Heathrow. Gatwick is less crowded, and is easier to get to from Central London.

This is now the second time I've heard this about Southwest, but haven't seen any sort of sourcing to back it up. It's not that I'm doubting, it's just that it sounds like exciting news, so I really want to learn more.

Any additional info on the STL becoming a hub for Southwest?

http://www.stltoday.com/news/traffic/al ... 6fc5f.html

http://www.usatoday.com/story/todayinth ... s/1699277/

Top 10 busiest airports. More destinations and flights than SWA's long time focus city in Nashville. Pretty sure that's focus city status (Southwest has focus cities, which basically are hubs).

Excellent. Thanks!

Really glad to see some confirmation of that. I hope it continues.

Chalupas54 wrote: If STL got a Twice weekly flight to Amsterdam on an A330-200 which seats 253 passengers, most likely all Europe-bound STL passengers will fly to Amsterdam, and connect. That includes all London, Frankfurt, and Paris bound travelers.

There are two major flaws with your thinking:

1) There are no business-oriented trans-continental flights which operate less than 4-5 times a week. It is simply not a viable schedule for a business traveler, who will not wait 1-3 days for the next scheduled non-stop flight.

2) You neglect to account for the importance of frequent flyer programs. FF programs hold a lot of sway for what airline(s) someone will fly. At best, I think a non-stop European flight would capture -- at most -- 50-60% of European-bound STL passengers.

Not counting those who will most likely fly into STL and spend the night and then fly to AMS, and those who will drive from Kansas City.

Why would someone from another city with airline service drive to STL in order to catch a non-stop international flight? Do you drive to Chicago when you want to go to London, simply because there is a non-stop flight?

Greg

gregl wrote: There are two major flaws with your thinking:

1) There are no business-oriented trans-continental flights which operate less than 4-5 times a week. It is simply not a viable schedule for a business traveler, who will not wait 1-3 days for the next scheduled non-stop flight.

2) You neglect to account for the importance of frequent flyer programs. FF programs hold a lot of sway for what airline(s) someone will fly. At best, I think a non-stop European flight would capture -- at most -- 50-60% of European-bound STL passengers.



Why would someone from another city with airline service drive to STL in order to catch a non-stop international flight? Do you drive to Chicago when you want to go to London, simply because there is a non-stop flight?

Greg

1- Okay and I should have thought of that. Sorry
2- 50%? You do realize that American's total STL passenger base is disintegrating?
Not only does DAL have more flights, but now carries more passengers. Also, Delta hubs are getting more STL passengers, as ATL recently overtook ORD for most traveled route. I know a great deal of people who had American Advantage, but have since voided them, and switched to SkyMiles and RapidRewards. If Delta flew this route, they now have a large ex-AA travel base who would GLADLY give their money to a growing, non-bankrupt company, which assisted a great deal in helping Lambert rebound. Also, Delta flights are flying 95-100% full out of STL, while AA's are around 89-97%.
3- Have you seen the fares from MCI to O'Hare, Denver, JFK, and ATL? My God. I know people who have done split itineraries. For instance, our friends in Columbus flew to STL on Southwest, spent the night, and flew out to Cost Rica the next morning on Frontier(Yes it is a Charter, but they did the same with USA3000). Yes, splitting your itinerary is risky, but many people do it.


Now for proof that STL is becoming a SWA/DAL market, my father was American's biggest fan(eww I know ). Flew them everywhere. We once flew to Phoenix on SWA, but he had to fly AA. Well, now my dad flies only on DAL and occasionally SWA. He refuses to fly AA, and if he has to go to Dallas, he flies to Love Field, which actually there are more flights a day from STL-DAL than STL-DFW, and all are sold out.

If I say anything in here that makes you cringe, then again, I am a 16 year old.

Chalupas54 wrote:2- 50%? You do realize that American's total STL passenger base is disintegrating?

My argument that a non-stop European flight would only get 50-60% of the passenger base to Europe was not an AA vs. DL argument. But rather that there are four (soon to be three) legacy airlines with significant frequent flyer bases that would result in travelers not taking the non-stop.

Having said that, let me clear up some misconceptions about AA vs. DL in St. Louis.

American is still the 2nd largest airline in STL, flying 3700 seats/day vs 3500 for DL. Once the US merger completes, AA will have about 5200 seats/day from Lambert.

AA's FF presence in STL remains strong enough to have the Admirals Club lounge rebuilt following the tornado and remain the only airline with a lounge at Lambert.

If Delta flew this route, they now have a large ex-AA travel base who would GLADLY give their money to a growing, non-bankrupt company, which assisted a great deal in helping Lambert rebound.

You must have forgotten about DL's own bankruptcy in 2005. As for "growing", DL has cut a number of routes out of STL in the past two years (DCA, RDU, MEM) while not adding any new ones.

I know people who have done split itineraries. For instance, our friends in Columbus flew to STL on Southwest, spent the night, and flew out to Cost Rica the next morning on Frontier(Yes it is a Charter, but they did the same with USA3000).

But for European flights, there is rarely enough of a fare difference between cities to make it worthwhile to split tickets. Looking at LHR & FRA (STL's biggest European destinations), Lambert's fares are competitive (within $50 or so) with other nearby cities including Little Rock, Indianapolis and Kansas City. There is not going to be an incentive to split tickets to fly to STL and then go to Europe. Chicago's fares are $100-200 cheaper but that's barely enough to breakeven flying STL/MCI/IND/LIT-Chicago and then Chicago-Europe.

Greg

When I said Delta was adding routes, I meant adding more flights to their hubs. Last year there were only 5 flights a day between STL and MSP. Today there are 9. Atlanta has gained 3 additional flights, and one red-eye. They also brought Alaska here via partnership. I see your point with the fare difference. Indeed Lambert has an Admirals Club, as the remaining AA base is devoted. When I said Delta was growing, I meant as of today. Once the AA and USAIR merger is complete, DAL will be #2, however that doesn't discount the fact that Delta's passenger numbers out of St Louis are in fact growing.
Still though, Amsterdam is STL's only REAL possibility for European routes. Then again, KSTL is the go-to airport for people from both Springfields, and most Evansville travelers. I do think with corporate backing, STL has a very good chance for a seasonal flight to Europe. Then again, Portland,OR has a flight to Amsterdam, fewer annual passenger numbers, smaller city, close to Seattle, and no corporate backing. I think if Portland can support it, STL can too.

dweebe wrote:

Chalupas54 wrote:The reason I am so strong for Delta flying this route, is because American shows little to no interest in the St Louis market. AA has added no routes, not even more flights. Delta has cut 3, but added more flights to it's hubs. If American was to fly from STL to anywhere in Europe, it would be shocking. AA at the current time has a very inefficient fleet. Now, the 787 when it comes into play, we could see something. Same for Delta. The 787 or the A350. I don't see a 777 or 767 in STL's future.

It's almost like AA purposely flies the oldest stuff in/out of St. Louis. Nothing worse than flying out of Lambert on AA in some ancient MD80 that's jam packed. Then you connect at ORD, DFW or somewhere else and it's a bigger/newer plane that has open space.

I KNOW! While 737-800s fly into KC and other cities with small AA presences, STL gets trashy, grimy and humid planes that feel that they may just plummet to the ground. Delta's MD-80s have undergone major renovation and actually pleasant to fly in. American will fly the MD-80 into STL until the FAA grounds them. I would pay to see them fly a 737-800 into STL. With the Usless Air merger, now we will get America West's battered A319's. I have little to no positive things to say about American. I have most likely been delayed by AA 10 times because of an MD-80 equipment failure. Disturbing.

Now, I don't think that it's something like that. It comes more from the route development department. They most likely assign nicer planes to small markets to make a good impression. STL has a devoted aa base, which do not need to be impressed. But aa has done nothing for the STL market. In Cincinnati, DAL tried desperately to help bring in competition, but failed miserably. American basically packed up and left. I am happy that Delta has growing passenger numbers out of STL, in hopes they replace AA as #2 again.

Chalupas54 wrote:Last year there were only 5 flights a day between STL and MSP. Today there are 9. Atlanta has gained 3 additional flights, and one red-eye.

Delta varies their schedule very much based on day of week and season. Looking at August / September, they are running 6 STL-MSP flights on Friday and as few as 4 on Saturdays.

They also brought Alaska here via partnership.

Alaska is a partner to both Delta and American. I believe there is an AA code, as well as a DL code, on the STL-SEA flight.

Once the AA and USAIR merger is complete, DAL will be #2.

# 3 - Don't forget Southwest!

dweebe wrote:It's almost like AA purposely flies the oldest stuff in/out of St. Louis.

They do because the benefits of newer, more efficient planes are found on longer routes. All ORD/DFW-West Coast flights on AA are now on 737-800s, keeping the MD-80s on shorter routes like STL-ORD/DFW.

Having said that, Delta does fly the same planes to STL -- along with 40 year old DC-9-50 aircraft. DL's A320s are also among the oldest A320s in service, approaching 25 years. Some of AA's MD-80s are only 12 years old.

Greg

gregl wrote: They do because the benefits of newer, more efficient planes are found on longer routes. All ORD/DFW-West Coast flights on AA are now on 737-800s, keeping the MD-80s on shorter routes like STL-ORD/DFW.

Having said that, Delta does fly the same planes to STL -- along with 40 year old DC-9-50 aircraft. DL's A320s are also among the oldest A320s in service, approaching 25 years. Some of AA's MD-80s are only 12 years old.

Greg

Two issues. One- STL to LA is 4 hours, always an MD-80. BNA-MIA 1 hour. 737-800. MCI-ORD 1 hour 30 mins. 737-800. Also, Delta maintains their MD-80s and A320s. They all have been refurbished, and have inflight-tv. American's appear to never have been. Delta is retiring all of it's A320's and replacing them with 737-800s. Even though the MD-80 is a child of St Louis, I never have liked it. Very rough, loud, and SMALL. The MD-80s being twelve years old are the last ones ever built. But, American does use the 757, as well as DAL. Have you seen the new DAL 757 interior? LIE FLAT SEATS. American? Having flown in first on the 757, it's incredibly mediocre. I hope American's new Airbus A319s and 321s are much nicer than their current cattle planes.