urbanSTL

Almost hate to post this, because it basically says "no news," but since it's in the P-D:

Lambert seeking London flights

Travelers seeking a nonstop flight from Lambert-St. Louis International Airport to London were left at the gate more than a decade ago.

Now, Lambert officials are seeking to resurrect transatlantic flights between St. Louis and London through British Airways, officials said this week.

Airport Director Rhonda Hamm-Niebruegge said the idea was still in the discussion stage. St. Louis made a pitch for service before British Airways selected Austin-Bergstrom International Airport in Texas. Flights between London and Austin began in March on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

British Airways has made it known that as the carrier grows the 787 fleet, it is seeking entry into markets that lack major hub airports, Hamm-Niebruegge said.

more...

bprop wrote:Almost hate to post this, because it basically says "no news," but since it's in the P-D:

Lambert seeking London flights

Travelers seeking a nonstop flight from Lambert-St. Louis International Airport to London were left at the gate more than a decade ago.

Now, Lambert officials are seeking to resurrect transatlantic flights between St. Louis and London through British Airways, officials said this week.

Airport Director Rhonda Hamm-Niebruegge said the idea was still in the discussion stage. St. Louis made a pitch for service before British Airways selected Austin-Bergstrom International Airport in Texas. Flights between London and Austin began in March on the Boeing 787 Dreamliner.

British Airways has made it known that as the carrier grows the 787 fleet, it is seeking entry into markets that lack major hub airports, Hamm-Niebruegge said.

more...

At least there is further talks, but that has been known for some years now. Also there is a lot of talk that they do want to add more places in the US as they get more 787s so making the case works well. (and by a number of metrics St. Louis does do better than most other cities that have been mentioned) I was thinking though, if this does happen down the road how would the facilities be in terms of gates and international arrivals area? Wouldn't the current gates that are used for that not be able to handle a 787 due to size? Or would this likely require noticeable renovation to the international arrivals area? Would it make sense to just move it to the end of C since those three gates now used wouldn't work since they likely have to remove one for a 787 and there is the possibility Southwest might add Mexico/Carribean flights increasing demand for those gates. (also moving international arrivals frees those gates for Southwest whenever they need more space.

Finally, isn't it at this point for the airport that London is likely the top of the list for adding nonstop service at this point? Since if you look at where there are nonstop domestically there really isn't that much in holes or where service is not adequate. (especially since this month a lot more capacity to the Bay Area arrives)

STLEnginerd wrote:787 is comparable in size to other aircraft like the 757, and 767 and smaller than the 747, and 777 which i believe Lambert can already accommodate.

The A380 (Airbus) is massive and would likely require new infrastructure.

I know those were flown from the TWA days, but those facilities are on C and not where international arrivals are now. I'm just not sure if the gates used now could handle a 787 without having to make some changes. And at that point would it make sense to just reused the end of C and remodel international arrivals area that are currently unused there.

dweebe wrote:ORD and DFW don't even get the A380.

DFW will be getting at least one A380 starting this fall (Qantas) and possibly a second.

Greg

I could easily be mistaken, but I believe that one of the issues that limits what airport the A380 can fly in and out of is its weight, especially on taxiways and aprons. LAX for one had to spend a significant dollars on runway/taxiway upgrades to meet design criteria for the A380.

I'm still convinced that the best thing Lambert could do going forward is tearing down old B, D & E gates and come up with a vision for new international gates and expanded Southwest gates. Lambert needs to downsize the number of physical gates as a whole (Sorry, but concourse D will not be needed in the foreseeable future and spreading airlines out doesn't cut it) and provide new international gates even if their are only a handful of charter/Mexican destination flights or gates needed at the moment.

What to propose for that vision would be interesting to see what people can come up with. Do you rebuild E/west end of Southwest Terminal and pave the way for a consolidated car rental garage/people mover between Terminal 1 & 2? Do you rebuild the end of Concourse C? How about a new International only Concourse B connected by walkways to A&C and a underground/above ground automated people mover to Southwest Airlines?

You can drool over this. Sydney

matguy70 wrote:Lambert STL International adds more new nonstops to SFO starting Tuesday:

Southwest, Frontier will both add daily nonstops to SFO along with United. United has been the only carrier to SFO nonstop for several years - making nonstop prices high. Not anymore.

http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/09/08/ ... sco-route/

I know a couple people at work were taking flights at that time on Tuesday and it was quite a crowd. It is of note mentioning this flight is in part due to the increase in tech startups in the area increasing demand for nonstop service to SFO. (also note United is adding an additional flight later in the month further increasing seat total to SFO from here, and has the benefit of more options for transpacific travel)

This makes me think, is the business scene in the area in recent years doing the same thing where an increase in demand for new or additional nonstop service is needed? I have seen a lot more service to NYC the last couple of years which might be related to the growth of the financial services industry here.

^ I think your also seeing that it makes a lot more sense for airlines to expand direct service out of SFO so why not go after these mid markets and see if demand will meet market studies/projections.

SFO is undergoing its massive terminal(s) redo/upgrades along with a new control tower and plans to go forward with a big hotel at the terminal door step. I believe they are working on United gates after finishing work on Terminal 2 for AA/Virgin. Plenty of ticket space and terminal upgrades will maximize gate space. On the runway end, they recently completed their runway safety enhancement/modernization project over the summer that had put limits on capacity during bad weather/fog. Also, SFO/Bay area like New York would benefit from a GPS based air traffic control routing.

My only gripe about SFO is that they probably have enough demand for a second long term parking garage and can easily extend their airtrain over Bruno Ave to get to long term parking instead of the magic bus ride. Of course, I would gripe about wait times on the airtrain.

Columbus OH wants to get a BA flight, however only 50 people who pass through there are Europe bound. Also I was flying through STL two weeks ago, and Southwest is now using the international gates. They were probably 3-5 gates into D concourse.

Chalupas54 wrote:Columbus OH wants to get a BA flight, however only 50 people who pass through there are Europe bound. Also I was flying through STL two weeks ago, and Southwest is now using the international gates. They were probably 3-5 gates into D concourse.

Actually I was wondering if Southwest ever has to go into D at times due to operations. Since if they do, that does throw a big wrench into the ideas of trying to tear down D for a combined car rental facility, since it could isolate their terminal (which is newer so you wouldn't tear that down) preventing growth or have issues in operations in their network.

And how likely is it that the international gates will be moved back to the end of C with a renovation of the old facilities?

I think STL is on the short list for BA to expand London flights. STL is proving that our population and regional European travelers are here.

Yes, SWA is now using the international gates in the expanded E-concourse (older D east end gates). I often find that SWA is completely filled at all E-concourse gates all the time.

matguy70 wrote:http://www.aviationpros.com/news/116783 ... on-flights

Nice article. I think Columbus attempting to secure a flight is laughable. 3 million people fly through that airport each year, while here in STL its close to 13 million. Most people in Columbus are willing to drive 4 hours to Detroit and spend the night, as the friends we have in the area do that. Also, Port Columbus has pathetic air service, for a city booming as Columbus is.

The new copper roof really looks badass on the main terminal, as does the clearance of some of the older ticket counters. Now, if they could get rid of that hoosiery looking wine bar/ restaurant on the north end of the terminal and open that area up some more. Perhaps a local health food store would be a lot cooler or a modern style beer hall featuring all local beers from craft to AB. The concourses also look good to. Lambert is looking better than I have ever remembered. Let's just keep adding those flights.

I've said it before...I travel alot. Our airport has never looked better, nor been busier. It's the busiest non-hub airport I witness. I have heard, also, that the Cortex movers and shakers are pushing hard for the London flight. I guess propsective businesses ask two questions with regards to setting up shot at Cortex:

1) rail access at Cortex, taken care of with TIGER grant
2) flight to Europe.


We get this London flight things mar really take off (no pun intended)