^So true!
According to that STLToday article back in April, Lambert has a presentation to BA and Lufthansa this summer. That must be coming up soon. An international flight is on the top of my wish list right now—edging out MLS expansion, BPV tower and that long-rumored Google office.
Put Lambert under a regional port authority? Might be the way to get buy-in to support a subsidy for a flight to Europe.
KMOX - Mayor Slay Hints Long Term Projects For Lambert, Metro
Slay described Lambert's future as 'exciting' and 'bold.' He hasn't given specifics yet, but he says creating a regional airport would be a productive way for Lambert to stay competitive.
He is working to add airport commissioners to represent St. Clair, St. Charles and St. Louis Counties. Regional ownership of the airport would spread the cost over more of the area and would likely help with the airport's debt, Slay says.
^ At a minimum I think that discussion should happen with the county for a host of reasons. Everything from the fact that county surrounds the airport and therefore involved in its surrounding development from NorthPark to Hazelwood Logistics to old Ford site on top of the shared Bi-State Metrolink commitment to the fact where a good part of your Fortune 500 companies are located.
^ I think the plus for the runway that isn't mentioned much is it prevents bottlenecks in bad weather since the other runways are too close to each other. This is really helpful since increasingly there are a sizable number of flights arriving/departing at the same time in certain times of day and it seems those in Concourse A do like using the west runway due to location.
A regional authority would be a good idea as well to develop the freight and logistics aspect along with the fact that most airports are part of a regional authority. as for subsidies to prime the pump for a Europe flight, I remember the Airport Director a few years ago said the corporate community here wasn't that helpful, but that was some years ago. Since it sounds like the startup community is more supporting of helping out, along with maybe the TSA bottlenecks in Chicago make it a more pressing need.
That table showing the TWA hub is interesting, since if you really look at lower 48 destinations that are not short haul, there aren't many places that are not served now. And most of those are either have service elsewhere in the same market, or places that Southwest doesn't serve. Also note that this was both before 9/11 and TSA along with before higher speed limits which made short haul flying less practical. comparing the TWA hub with things now here is too much apples to oranges at this point because of that reason alone.
Interesting was noting that Oakland which Southwest started this week was only served briefly in the early 80s, so that is a route that was not served during hub peak.
Anyone know how much the "new" runway is used? I probably landed in STL 120x over six years of business travel and *maybe landed on the west runway once.
I am at terminal 2 now to pick up a friend and the garage is full. They are routing everyone to the cell phone lot unless you are handicapped. They obviously need to charge a lot more for short term parking. I do not believe all those folks are dropping off or picking up. They use it for long term parking.
^That terminal 2 garage is completely aggravating. The airport needs to capitalize on the people are willing to pay and raise the 24 hour rate until the garage thins out to reasonable levels.
^ or they could knock down D or at least part of it and offer a vision to go forward, either additional short term, terminal parking and or consolidated car rental facility between Terminal 1 & Terminal 2. People are willing to pay for short term parking and time to embrace Southwest as much as possible especially if they are willing to route more people through STL via Midway & entertain some international flights beyond the trip to a beach. Crammed terminal, crammed parking and less then ideal ingress/egress.
Alex. Keep the rates for short term the same, raise the daily rate.
My work doesn't blink at the $23/day rate when we travel. Lots of my coworkers boast about parking in the short term lots for a week while I'm using Metro to get to/from the airport.
dweebe wrote:Alex. Keep the rates for short term the same, raise the daily rate.
My work doesn't blink at the $23/day rate when we travel. Lots of my coworkers boast about parking in the short term lots for a week while I'm using Metro to get to/from the airport.
It's pretty obvious that would be a good solution to the parking problem because you hear stories like yours where people use the short term for longer trips which isn't the point of the garage. Make 24 hour rate like $50/day and keep the shorter rates the same. People will start using the other parking options around the airport at that price
How about dynamic pricing for 24 hour plus parkers, like Cardinal seats. During annual peak dates, crank up the rate for people using it as long term parking to save a few spaces for its intended purpose.
While I can certainly understand the point of pricing out the demand argument that essentially pushes some of the cars to long term as intended. However, wouldn't Lambert in the long term explore what it would to make more premium short term parking spots available? Especially when you consider that parking revenues is vital to the airport itself, Lambert can provide the closest parking spot to be had and that Lambert actually has competing private parking lots when it comes to long term.
..
Yes, the person who expenses might find themselves being pushed to long term by their boss with a higher parking fee or on demand but you might be pushing them to a private long term spot, or a taxi or car ride service. The result being a loss in long run for Lambert. Lambert should maximize and expand short term parking opportunities if the demand is there and the numbers work fiscally to do so.
Ok. While they are working out how to maximize short term parking, my friend who just got off a plane wonders why I am not there to meet them at security exit as we had planned. Because the airport offered no parking at any price at the terminal. Only a distant cell lot or all day long term parking with a bus ride.
They did add a parking lot just to the east of Terminal 2 just over a year ago, but it seems they are back to where they started in terms of congestion. Though to be honest this is a good problem to have since it shows nice growth in traffic.
The interview KMOX had with the Southwest executive is interesting. Though odd is stating they don't think too much with connections in mind but it does seem to play a bigger role than in the past. Also the international flights they are looking at for some Mexico/Carribean service seems to me more an when not if, in part due to the gates they just got plus they are advertising that on local radio lately.
Them shifting connecting traffic from Midway to here would make sense, they recently did that in a couple cases with places like Wichita and Des Moines. Reason I heard was in part due to having to compete with United and American out of O'Hare for local traffic since they could outfrequency them due to fleet and pricing pressure. Curious what might get added next at this point, since at this point a lot of places are possible if connecting traffic is involved.
gary kreie wrote:Ok. While they are working out how to maximize short term parking, my friend who just got off a plane wonders why I am not there to meet them at security exit as we had planned. Because the airport offered no parking at any price at the terminal. Only a distant cell lot or all day long term parking with a bus ride.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Even easier solution, you could probably just text your friend your new location and where to meet.
ricke002: That doesn't always work, especially when picking up an older person with mobility issues and not an active cell phone user. Recently I had to beg my way into the "sold out" T2 garage to be at the right spot to pick up my mother.
The other scenario that would also be a problem is picking someone up from overseas who wouldn't have a US based phone (since international text and data rates can be a pain).
The parking aspect definitely needs work if a transatlantic route happens. Since the arrivals due to customs would be in Terminal 2 where the parking issues are most dire. Since you wouldn't know when someone would be ready for pickup due to processing here and that could involve people picking up overseas friends and family.
imperialmog wrote:
The parking aspect definitely needs work if a transatlantic route happens. Since the arrivals due to customs would be in Terminal 2 where the parking issues are most dire. Since you wouldn't know when someone would be ready for pickup due to processing here and that could involve people picking up overseas friends and family.
Well for starters, I wouldn't leave my house to pick them up until their plane landed.
imperialmog wrote:They did add a parking lot just to the east of Terminal 2 just over a year ago, but it seems they are back to where they started in terms of congestion. Though to be honest this is a good problem to have since it shows nice growth in traffic.
Huh, is this space between Terminal 2 and the existing cargo facilities to the east of Terminal 2? If so, I also wonder if Lambert ever looked at the idea of clearing out and relocation the cargo facilities to the east of Terminal 2 for another short term, near terminal parking garage. I certainly understand that Lambert is probably limited in securing debt while paying off runway bonds. But demand and revenues from existing parking might make financing doable
Still like the idea of looking at something between Terminal 1 and Terminal 2 instead of holding onto internal hope that you will have an airline that will bring 480 daily flights back from dead of TWA's heyday
Had to make plans to fly into STL this weekend on short notice. The cheap seats on Southwest new direct OAK to STL were sold out and Delta had beat their price with a connection by a couple hundred dollars. Was surprised at the pricing difference considering that SWA has built up some pretty good options going out to Bay Area and out west in general Suggests demand or at least enough demand for pricing power.
I believe if you lose your parking ticket, you only pay $23. No matter how many weeks you were there. This is a much better deal than $20 per day intermediate parking between terminal and the cargo area. They just need to raise the price for folks who stay 24 hours or lose their ticket. Or put a colored chalk mark on tires every night and tow away vehicles with 2 marks. Or close the garage at 3 AM every night and tow away vehicles still there.
Gary: nice thought but they record plate numbers and know exactly how long that car has been there. Back in the 90's when I worked at the airport they had people walking the garage and recording them by hand. These days they probably have automated scanners/cameras.
Have to agree with Gary, Raising the price for losing a ticket (or least after the second time - should not be an issue to take license plate and put in system for future reference) or least making an effort to enforce the rules against those gaming the system should be a no brainer.
I still advocate making more parking available but Lambert is losing out on both ends - revenue lost and disgruntle customers who play be the rules - when or if someone parks the car in short term/daily for a week and claims a lost ticket & is let go with a $23 one day charge. That is just plain bad business practice as well as bad management of lazy employee(s).
New to this page and just wanted to post a few thoughts on the airport and see what other people think feedback wise. I have only been in Terminal 2 and Concourse A recently, so I might need some input on C.
First, terminal layout wise.
I don't think it is too bad. I do wish that all the secure areas were connected though. Although D isn't really in use I don't know why it can't just be open so you can walk to other areas for different food/merchandise options. Nothing would have to be in it initially. Mut maybe for security reasons they leave it closed. If Southwest does expand more into D maybe it would make sense that they also set up a counter in the main terminal so that people could get in from both sides? Security in Terminal 2 wouldn't grow out of it then. That might be too confusing though.
I have only been in D a couple times back when it was open, so this question would be for people who were in it more. Was it so bad just because it was narrow? Lacks room for resturants, etc? I don't think they should tear it down just because hopefully southwest keeps taking more of it up. Would it make more sense to bump it out a little so it is wider for resturants once it is in use? I don't know if that would make it too tight in there for planes though.
If I remember correctly the TWA flights to Paris/London were at the end of C so I am guessing if we ever get any, that is where those would go now also for airplane size reasons. What is the gate room like in C? Pretty open? Would Jetblue go there if they came also?
Lastly, destinations/airlines/flights.
Domestically, I think things are pretty covered at this point. I can fly almost anywhere I would want to nonstop. More flights, at least a morning and evening to each stop would be nice though. The only three I would really like to see are JFK (maybe JetBlue) because it opens up more international options, San Jose, and Albuquerque (just becuase I have a friend there).
The Carribean seems has decent coverage as long as you don't mind doing a charter through a vacation package. It would be nice to see Southwest pick up a couple places also. In Canada, I would say Montreal and Vancouver.
For Europe, I think at best we could get two. A combination of London, Paris, or Germany seems to make the most sense to me. We all have seen British Airways and Lufthansa mentioned. Condor is another German airline that has been expanding in the US. They are recently starting in San Jose, Austin, and New Orleans. So it might be a fit here also. My girlfriend's comany goes to France a lot and my company is Swedish owned so hopefully this pans out soon.
Two other notes. It drives me crazy that Southwest always has their SFO and OAK flights leave withing five minutes of each other. Spread them out! Also, earlier in this post people were talking about upticks for holidays. I know southwest has a 2nd SFO flights around Christmas new years this year.
Anyways, I am enjoying this site so far. Thanks for any feedback!
