urbanSTL

It's sad that St Louis and Baltimore were the largest cities to be de-hubbed. I read somewhere that we used to have the 6th busiest airport in the 90's.

wow...cool news out of Lambert today...thank you Frontier Airlines! that is awesome.

dude...2011?

dredger wrote:^ Greg, I can see your points but it is hard to argue reality after a major acquisition or merger

Pittsburgh, Eventually took a hit as US Airways consolidated around Charlotte
St. Louis, Eventually took a hit on the American acquisition of TWA
Memphis and Cinci, Eventually took a hit on Delta acquisition of Northwest Airlines.
Milwaukee brief mini hub will probably be the loser after Southwest swallowed AirTran
Cleveland, will be the loser of United and Continental merger

I still have a tough time seeing AA/US Airways being able to maintain those three hubs. As far as Phoenix, I still see it keeping the status quo for the same reasons that Delta has kept Salt Lake intact and United has kept Denver intact for the most part.

Now as far as St. Louis, still waiting for the day they announce tear down of Concourse D and rebuilding the E/International Gates. At some point they need to make a clean break from the TWA past and admit those gates in D will never be utilized to the extent that they were built for.

First of all, Concourse D wasn't built for TWA, but rather for Ozark! Of course, they became TWA in short order.. but back in the early 80s, STL was a two-hub airport.

As for possible cutbacks, yes it is possible a hub will be cutback... but JFK is slot restricted which limits the number of connections which can be provided. I think AA will cut some of the connections there to offer more non-stop routes out of NY and route that traffic through PHL.

I think CLT is at greater risk thanks to the existing AA hub in MIA. At least one international flight to South America has already been cut from CLT.

Greg

gregl wrote:

JuanHamez wrote:Neat! Frontier is adding some routes that I actually use regularly! Any hope of us getting JetBlue or Virgin America flights at some point? Didn't East China Airlines have a test flight here at some point? Was it just for the now failed aerotopolis initiative or were they actually considering a direct from China flight too?

I see these new Frontier flights lasting 3-6 months, at most. Frontier is trying to find a way to survive.. they are the # 3 airline in Denver (behind United & Southwest) and are running out of options.

SFO may work.. but United (with a hub at SFO) can't manage daily flights in the off-season. If a hub airline can't operate daily off-season to SFO, I don't see how PDX will survive. As for Trenton.. yeah.. that's high on my places to visit list.

China Eastern has one or two cargo test flights... nothing passenger.

Greg

I'm a bit surprised there isn't that much non-stop options to the Bay Area in general, though maybe the fact there are three airports in that region is a factor along with Denver being located about halfway in between. Meaning its more practical to stop in Denver and then split the traffic to each airport and not having an out of the way connection.

Doesn't the United SFO flight tend to be full all the time? And isn't that fight mostly a local traffic route since it isn't timed all that well to their hub specifically as it relates to transpacific flights?

PDX is interesting is that what could happen is if it stimulates demand Southwest or Alaska might jump on that route and they would have the benefit that one end would have a large operation that could also add connecting traffic on the route.

Trenton is them building an operation there so they won't be as reliant on Denver and this is another connect the dot from there.

What will be interesting is to see if any other airline does anything in response since this is actually a bit out of left field in terms of new routes. But this does help address some of the biggest gaps in non-stop service out of St. Louis since there isn't too much west coast service and that is where likely most new or expanded service out of St. Louis will likely be for some time.

Does anyone have any other guesses as to what new or expanded service will most likely be next out of St. Louis? If I had to guess the two I picture is Southwest adding service to Austin and something relating to San Diego (either Southwest makes that a year-round route or Alaska as they are building ops there jumps in to fight Southwest as a move for them starting San Diego to both Portland and Seattle)

matguy70 wrote:cutbacks on personnel. All airports are feeling it.

In the past few months I waited at least 30 minutes in Kansas City, 40 or so minutes in Orlando, 40 minutes in Portland PDX OR, and the longest was in Dallas LUV - it was almost an hour - seriously crazy!

No, Lambert wait times have always been a half hour longer than any other airport I've ever been to. It's ridiculous. I'd kill to only wait thirty minutes for my bags here.

Delta is reducing frequencies to Detroit (6 down to 5 daily), Minneapolis (7 down to 6 daily) and Salt Lake City (3 down to 2 daily) starting in June.

For those expecting further expansion by DL out of STL, I think this is clear proof that's not going to happen...

Greg

dweebe wrote:

gregl wrote:Delta is reducing frequencies to Detroit (6 down to 5 daily), Minneapolis (7 down to 6 daily) and Salt Lake City (3 down to 2 daily) starting in June.

For those expecting further expansion by DL out of STL, I think this is clear proof that's not going to happen...

Greg

All of those are Delta hubs. Dangit.

Though I was never expecting much out of them for non-hub additions out of STL, the loss of hub connections is a downer.

I saw somewhere that its they are reducing number of flights but using larger planes for the flights instead. Actually with what Delta is doing in Seattle with adding transpacific flights, would they possibly add a flight from St. Louis to feed into that?

Gregl, Would you know if Delta would be dropping a route from one of its regional carrier/parnters? Can't recall from the top of head which ones fly under the Delta banner. Flew one last week for my Atlanta to Mobile destination/Mobile to Atlanta return. While it sucks that you lose frequency, It does make sense as imperialmog is suggesting in some respects for the legacy carrier to keep same number of seats or revenues if you can do it on less flights in and out of your hubs. Especially if your regional partner has started a habit of cancelling flights because they can't field pilots.

On different subject but tied to my comment. I'm still floored that a regional carrier can get away with new hire pilots starting at 20k a year.

imperialmog wrote:I saw somewhere that its they are reducing number of flights but using larger planes for the flights instead. Actually with what Delta is doing in Seattle with adding transpacific flights, would they possibly add a flight from St. Louis to feed into that?

DTW will remain a mixture of CRJ-700, MD-88 and 717 flights. I think that is about the same mix of aircraft as currently.
SLC will be going to 2x Airbus A320s, which would keep the roughly the same number of seats as 2 large regional jets would provide.
MSP will be going from 50/50 mainline / regional to 100% mainline.

The downside here is chances for upgrades as an Medallion member will drop significantly -- especially to SLC & MSP.

I would be shocked to see DL add a flight to SEA, as they codeshare with Alaska on their flight currently (as does American).

Greg

The Business Journal has a substantial piece on Lambert in the paper today.

Here are a few snipits.
- The business community is frustrated with limited options and wasted time in airports waiting for connecting flights. The lack of nonstop service is consistantly in the top 3-4 issues when leaders meet with various companies. Some larger companies, like Express Scripts, are chartering flights. Others like Maschhoff farms are purchasing their own planes.
- Approx 300 passengers fly out of Lambert to catch international connections. 270 of those fly to Europe. 2 years ago Lambert was negotiating with TWO airlines who were to commit to service to Europe but they required financial guarantees of $6million in revenue. Lambert went to local business leaders but no one was willing to help.
- Regaining hub status is completely unrealistic.

moorlander wrote:The Business Journal has a substantial piece on Lambert in the paper today.

Here are a few snipits.
- The business community is frustrated with limited options and wasted time in airports waiting for connecting flights. The lack of nonstop service is consistantly in the top 3-4 issues when leaders meet with various companies. Some larger companies, like Express Scripts, are chartering flights. Others like Maschhoff farms are purchasing their own planes.
- Approx 300 passengers fly out of Lambert to catch international connections. 270 of those fly to Europe. 2 years ago Lambert was negotiating with TWO airlines who were to commit to service to Europe but they required financial guarantees of $6million in revenue. Lambert went to local business leaders but no one was willing to help.
- Regaining hub status is completely unrealistic.

Its odd the first two points seem like they want more nonstop options but not willing to do anything to help on it. In terms of the connecting flights wasted time issue, I think that is really a problem with anyone going west especially for transpacific flights due to the flight schedules and service going to western hubs.

I wonder considering the business makeup of area companies, the first issue may not be doable in the first place if they are going to rural areas with little if any commercial air service.

I'm curious as to who the two airlines were. My guess is one is British Airways with the other most likely someone who has or will have a 787 in the coming years. The most likely scenario on this is at some point down the road British Airways will start a flight on a 787 to London-Heathrow once the business community gets their act together and they get more 787s online. One scenario relates to the Emerald car facility in Hazelwood, since depending on how their production and supply goes, it could require a good amount of high value cargo which would be a good revenue source for an airline.

I wish Executives would at least be honest about their comments.

What they want is direct, premium service from themselves and the cheapest price for the rest of their company. My business requires a lot of travelling and what my boss and the owner are concerned about is not a direct flight for me. Which I don't see as an issue and in a lot of cases the corporate jet service is actually a better option for some of these executives and pay for themselves. Lambert addressed that issue with adding corporate jet service which was a smart move in IMO. Can't recall the name of the company that moved into the National Guard hanger if I remembered correctly.

Second, I think direct international flights is one place the state shared with the city & county can step in with a incentive that is relative small considering the current tax credit system. It would have a huge impact for the St. Louis business community. To me, local leadership should not be waiting on business community on this. Scrounge up the funding and go back to the airlines ASAP.

The issue to me is a long term vision for the current terminals. How many gates does Lambert really need? What will it take to get Consolidated Car Rental Facility that makes sense for both terminals? What will it take to get more business international flights? What do we want and need for international gates?

imperialmog wrote:

moorlander wrote:The Business Journal has a substantial piece on Lambert in the paper today.

Here are a few snipits.
- The business community is frustrated with limited options and wasted time in airports waiting for connecting flights. The lack of nonstop service is consistantly in the top 3-4 issues when leaders meet with various companies. Some larger companies, like Express Scripts, are chartering flights. Others like Maschhoff farms are purchasing their own planes.
- Approx 300 passengers fly out of Lambert to catch international connections. 270 of those fly to Europe. 2 years ago Lambert was negotiating with TWO airlines who were to commit to service to Europe but they required financial guarantees of $6million in revenue. Lambert went to local business leaders but no one was willing to help.
- Regaining hub status is completely unrealistic.

Its odd the first two points seem like they want more nonstop options but not willing to do anything to help on it. In terms of the connecting flights wasted time issue, I think that is really a problem with anyone going west especially for transpacific flights due to the flight schedules and service going to western hubs.

I wonder considering the business makeup of area companies, the first issue may not be doable in the first place if they are going to rural areas with little if any commercial air service.

I'm curious as to who the two airlines were. My guess is one is British Airways with the other most likely someone who has or will have a 787 in the coming years. The most likely scenario on this is at some point down the road British Airways will start a flight on a 787 to London-Heathrow once the business community gets their act together and they get more 787s online. One scenario relates to the Emerald car facility in Hazelwood, since depending on how their production and supply goes, it could require a good amount of high value cargo which would be a good revenue source for an airline.

Emerald was purchased by a chinese company.

dredger wrote:I wish Executives would at least be honest about their comments.

What they want is direct, premium service from themselves and the cheapest price for the rest of their company. My business requires a lot of travelling and what my boss and the owner are concerned about is not a direct flight for me. Which I don't see as an issue and in a lot of cases the corporate jet service is actually a better option for some of these executives and pay for themselves. Lambert addressed that issue with adding corporate jet service which was a smart move in IMO. Can't recall the name of the company that moved into the National Guard hanger if I remembered correctly.

Second, I think direct international flights is one place the state shared with the city & county can step in with a incentive that is relative small considering the current tax credit system. It would have a huge impact for the St. Louis business community. To me, local leadership should not be waiting on business community on this. Scrounge up the funding and go back to the airlines ASAP.

The issue to me is a long term vision for the current terminals. How many gates does Lambert really need? What will it take to get Consolidated Car Rental Facility that makes sense for both terminals? What will it take to get more business international flights? What do we want and need for international gates?

I never understood why the local and/or state government or even the airport ponied up the incentives for international flights? It seems that the guarantees aren't that much and if it stimulates demand (which it likely would) the costs could wind down or even be removed to be put for a similar package for service to another continent. Also don't they need to update the international arrivals and customs area since they are a bit lacking now? Southwest also could be interested in that if they want to start any international service out of St. Louis so they would have an interest in that part as well.

In terms of the car facility, isn't one issue is that the airport is still paying off loans for the runway and that they need to take care of that as it relates to landing fees? Woudln't for the Car Rental Facility would be to remove Concourse D and put it there? One other part of that would be is to then connect terminal 2 with Concourse C in some way. (could also tie into improving international arrivals area as well) Though isn't one complicating issue with terminal arrangment is that Southwest has filled up Terminal 2 and is starting to go around the corner into the far end of Concourse D? Since any reworking of terminals would need to make sure they have the gates for their needs and for any future needs by them as well.

imperialmog wrote:

moorlander wrote:The Business Journal has a substantial piece on Lambert in the paper today.

Here are a few snipits.
- The business community is frustrated with limited options and wasted time in airports waiting for connecting flights. The lack of nonstop service is consistantly in the top 3-4 issues when leaders meet with various companies. Some larger companies, like Express Scripts, are chartering flights. Others like Maschhoff farms are purchasing their own planes.
- Approx 300 passengers fly out of Lambert to catch international connections. 270 of those fly to Europe. 2 years ago Lambert was negotiating with TWO airlines who were to commit to service to Europe but they required financial guarantees of $6million in revenue. Lambert went to local business leaders but no one was willing to help.
- Regaining hub status is completely unrealistic.

Its odd the first two points seem like they want more nonstop options but not willing to do anything to help on it. In terms of the connecting flights wasted time issue, I think that is really a problem with anyone going west especially for transpacific flights due to the flight schedules and service going to western hubs.

I'm sure they want it but there's not enough demand and it makes no fiscal sense to subsidize. Our business base / consumer demand simply needs to grow if we want better options at Lambert.