urbanSTL

matguy70 wrote:In fact, out of the largest 40 airports in the USA - only two do not have service from STL: Salt Lake City or San Jose, CA In addition, only a few airports in the top 50 USA airports have no nonstop service to STL.
Breaking that sentence down... The 10 airlines serving 71 nonstop destinations from STL today (Jan 2016) service ALL of TWA's nonstop cities (listed in the top 40 USA) except Salt Lake City and San Jose, CA.

Not quite correct.

We DO have service to SLC - Delta has 2 or 3 non-stops a day.

We don't have service to JFK (#5 busiest), although we do have service to LGA & EWR.

We don't have service to HNL (#27 busiest)

But I do agree... STL is in far better shape than many other "downsized" airports.

Greg

Alaska has extended their second SEA-STL flight through October. It will operate 5 days/week.

Interesting is seeing the 2nd Alaska Seattle flight going into the fall, I remember seeing they were also starting it earlier this year with it starting in April. And in peak summer operate 7 days a week. Must be doing rather well and its also helps make their network more accessible from here. It is interesting is the last couple years the very large increase in west coast flights, something I saw that was the airports focus the past couple years. Not sure what the focus will be next...

As for JFK service, it would be helpful on allowing some more one-stop options but likely not too many places. Guess is if anyone would jump on that route it would be when JetBlue shows up. Really curious if in the next Southwest schedule they keep the 3rd Boston flight that they operate in the summer, since that is likely a route that could use more service with some of the new routes feeding into that. As for San Jose there is a good amount of service up the road to SFO and this summer Oakland starts.

gregl wrote:

matguy70 wrote:I didn't include JFK (due to the fact that service is offered to NYC market to LGA and Newark EWR).

True.. but lack of JFK service makes it a pain in the ass to use any of AA's or DL's international flights out of JFK. Either requiring an additional connection or a transfer between JFK & LGA.

Greg

Exactly - this cuts off a lot of options as an airport transfer in NYC is unacceptable.

matguy70 wrote: The plane was dirty and trashed and had been parked (overnighted) in Madrid so there is no excuse.

Not that this is an excuse for a dirty plane, but AA does not overnight any aircraft in Europe, except for 2 daytime US-LHR flights which arrive late in the evening. All MAD flights arrive in the morning and turnaround approximately 2 hours later.

Having said that, it is amazing how dirty and trashed an international flight can get after 10 hours. Even in business class, there seems to be papers and crap EVERYWHERE.

Greg

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/morn ... ml?ana=twt

Any chance Stifel would help subsidize a direct flight to London?!

It would take a consortium of the area's companies who have international biz to come together and present a plan with Rhonda to an airline.

I'd rather see more direct lights to major U.S. destinations on larger/nicer planes, and more direct Canadian, Mexican, and Caribbean destinations than a London flight. What's the point exactly? Prestige?

wabash wrote:I'd rather see more direct lights to major U.S. destinations on larger/nicer planes, and more direct Canadian, Mexican, and Caribbean destinations than a London flight. What's the point exactly? Prestige?

Think of it as global positioning - Money has been consolidating in a few global cities over the past 50 years - and it has accelerated in the past 20 - London shares the title of capital of the English speaking business world along with New York - A connection would be advantageous to us in many ways. Its not about a destination its about money and tapping into Europe.

wabash wrote:I'd rather see more direct lights to major U.S. destinations on larger/nicer planes, and more direct Canadian, Mexican, and Caribbean destinations than a London flight. What's the point exactly? Prestige?

A direct European flight is a HUGE plus to anyone that travels internationally for business.

wabash wrote:I'd rather see more direct lights to major U.S. destinations on larger/nicer planes, and more direct Canadian, Mexican, and Caribbean destinations than a London flight. What's the point exactly? Prestige?

It would mean one-stop connecting flights to much of Europe, as well as the immediate advantages of a London flight for business and pleasure, which would make it easier to get companies to locate and remain in St. Louis.

MarkHaversham wrote:It would mean one-stop connecting flights to much of Europe...

We already have one-stop flights to most major European cities. It's just that you connect in Chicago, Dallas, Newark, etc. instead of London.

Yes, a London flight would be helpful to a number of smaller cities, but I don't think there is significant business travel from St. Louis to those destinations.

Greg

Wonder how much any such route would be related to growing financial services industry in the area? Especially since those types of jobs would buy tickets in the front of the cabin. Also I could see CORTEX and the startup scene more proactive in this, they have in adding more west coast service. One thing is we obviously won't hear anything on this at this time of year since these types of routes tend to be announced in the fall.

Question I keep having is if a transatlantic route is announced, would there have to be changes in current facilities here in terms of international arrivals, customs area, and the gates that are used for them? Not sure if the current international arrival gates could work with say a 787. Maybe that part of the airport might be next for some redoing in part because of this, and also in case Southwest starts doing anything internationally from here.

gregl wrote:

MarkHaversham wrote:It would mean one-stop connecting flights to much of Europe...

We already have one-stop flights to most major European cities. It's just that you connect in Chicago, Dallas, Newark, etc. instead of London.

Yes, a London flight would be helpful to a number of smaller cities, but I don't think there is significant business travel from St. Louis to those destinations.

Greg

Being able to do customs in St. Louis, instead of doing customs in Newark and then sprinting to make the connection to StL, would also be a significant quality-of-life improvement.

^I understand your need for quality-of-life improvements but if the demand isn't there the demand isn't there. We need to build up demand so you can enjoy another quality-of-life improvement.

sirshankalot wrote:^I understand your need for quality-of-life improvements but if the demand isn't there the demand isn't there. We need to build up demand so you can enjoy another quality-of-life improvement.

Well, I think the demand is somewhat close if I remember correctly. And not having a flight to London can be a drawback to getting financial firms to locate in StL.

I'm not losing any sleep over it, I'm just pointing out reasons why it would be appealing, and might be worth it for a coalition of local businesses to subsidize a route slightly.

There are many companies with headquarters or a significant presence in STL also have European operations, no? Could any benefit from a direct connection? I would think so, but the market would seem to indicate otherwise.

[AB/InBev - A-B Subsidiary headquarters in STL, AB/InBev Operational HQ in NYC, world HQ in Leuven, Belgium
Emerson - World HQ in STL, employs more than 25K across Europe
Enterprise Holdings - World HQ in Clayton, European HQ in Surrey, UK
Mastercard - World HQ in O'Fallon MO, has an European regional HQ in Waterloo, Belgium
Monsanto - NA HQ in Creve Coeur, International HQ in Morges, Switzerland
Nestlé Purina - NA HQ in STL, World HQ in Lausanne, Switzerland
Worldwide Technologies - World HQ in Maryland Heights, has offices in London, UK, and Amsterdam, the Netherlands

Any others I'm not thinking of? If each could chip in just a bit to subsidize even one direct flight then perhaps that could make it both benefit companies already here as well as making it more feasible for other companies with European presences to consider placing operations of headquarters here. And the incorporation of 787s and/or A380s into fleets make a direct flight from STL to Europe a more realistic possibility for airlines than in the recent past.

-RBB

rbb wrote:There are many companies with headquarters or a significant presence in STL also have European operations, no? Could any benefit from a direct connection? I would think so, but the market would seem to indicate otherwise.

[AB/InBev - A-B Subsidiary headquarters in STL, AB/InBev Operational HQ in NYC, world HQ in Leuven, Belgium
Emerson - World HQ in STL, employs more than 25K across Europe
Enterprise Holdings - World HQ in Clayton, European HQ in Surrey, UK
Mastercard - World HQ in O'Fallon MO, has an European regional HQ in Waterloo, Belgium
Monsanto - NA HQ in Creve Coeur, International HQ in Morges, Switzerland
Nestlé Purina - NA HQ in STL, World HQ in Lausanne, Switzerland
Worldwide Technologies - World HQ in Maryland Heights, has offices in London, UK, and Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

All of these cities can be reached today with a single connection from STL. A non-stop London flight would be only of value to Enterprise and WorldWide Technologies.

And the incorporation of 787s and/or A380s into fleets make a direct flight from STL to Europe a more realistic possibility for airlines than in the recent past.

A380s have absolutely nothing to do with how likely STL is to get a European flight. No airline is going to introduce service to STL on an A380 when there is no A380 service to Chicago yet.

The problem that STL has is that it is just outside the range of a 757 flight to London. A 757 holds about 175 passengers on a trans-Atlantic flight. The smallest aircraft capable of STL-London are the 767 or 787, both of which seat 210-225.

If you have 150 passengers a day, that's a difference between an 86% load factor and a 66-71% load factor -- which is huge.

Greg

^ At least right now one thing that is helping is cheaper jet fuel. And the range thing is very key. Also, many airlines especially the European carriers don't have many 787s in their fleet yet and are mostly replacing older craft with them, with not much used for new service. If not mistaken I do think that does start to change next year.

On range, isn't St. Louis about the furthest east point for an e175 from any west coast airport? I wonder if say Alaska started using those from some other west coast points to start routes east of the Rockies, St. Louis might be one of those routes (it was the first route they launched from Portland) say from San Diego or San Jose for example.