urbanSTL

gregl wrote:
Delta does have a number of international flights out of BOS -- but those are all markets where they have a joint venture with another airline (Virgin Atlantic, KLM & Air France) where revenue is shared.

DL along with their JBV partners have metal out of here, only carrier not represented is KL. NW was always on the AMS route, until a few years ago it was only a single frequency (D13/332/333) with a second seasonal 757 in the summer. Now it's 333 & 764. DL gained the LHR slots in March 2011 as part of the divestiture for AA/BA/IB, was originally two frequencies and has been reduced to a single frequency, augmented by daily VS (equipment varies from 789/333/346/744 depending on day and season). Previously DL had LGW service that ended circa 2004. CDG has also been on DL metal for a few summers [although it now year round with a 757 in the winter], and is also augmented by daily AF metal. AZ service is sporadic and currently seasonal.

DL has been at a steady state here for the time being, and if anything has pared back the Florida leisure flying (PBI/FLL/RSW are now seasonal) and others have been discontinued altogether. It's very difficult for them to go against B6 despite having a fairly large local FF base.

gregl wrote: Unlike the AA / BA joint venture where each airline operates routes from it's hubs (AA flights to London are all out of AA hubs such as JFK, ORD, PHL, CLT, ORD, DFW, LAX while BA serves non-AA hubs such as AUS & SEA), DL and it's joint venture partners do a lot of mixing and matching to get the right size aircraft in a market. So, DL may flight BOS-CDG while AF flights ATL-CDG.

Greg

There is nothing in the AA/BA/IB JBV restricting service by hubs/bases/markets. You may recall in 2011 BCN-MIA was operated by IB metal before transitioning to daily AA 763 (and now 777) service. What is significant however, is that both the DL/AF+KL/AZ and DL/VS are both PROFIT sharing, AA/BA/IB are REVENUE sharing (as is the AA/JL and pending AA/QF & AA/LA). DL and their affiliates have generally been more willing to mix and co-mingle metal between markets, seasons and in some cases even days of week. This is a major sticking point with their pilots and among the reasons the T/A was shot down and they continue negotiating with DALPA. Even SLC currently has dual metal on DL+KL to AMS, and in the past CVG, DTW and MSP have all had AF metal. If anything, of late they seem to be taking a more pragmatic approach especially after foolishly placing DL 767 in the LAX market, which is well established by a fiercely loyal Virgin (across distinct but affiliated) branded carriers.

Regarding any potential future service to LHR from STL, at this point it's still far more likely to be AA metal initially a 763 and transitioned to a 788 or LUS 332 (since by such a time the SLI will be in place). As it is the 763 LOPA would be far better suited for such a thin, premium light market but from all indications is still a long shot and not imminent. AA still has a large footprint of employees and capabilities in place to handle the operation, BA would have to procure their own above the wing personnel, establish a marketing presence, etc. AA still has a 200-person crew base (and lengthy transfer list), fleet service, aircraft maintenance in place they can tap.

Either swap it or drop it.
St. Louis-Lambert International Airport or St. Louis International Airport.

Field? What does that evoke? An olive drab tent, a burn barrel and a three Sopwith Camels?

"at Lambert Field?" Wow. There's nothing like a preposition in a name to make it not a name and instead some sort of awkward, truncated phrase/half-thought. Maybe if we got the Frederick Roofing jingle writer to put the new name a melody it might work.

I like St. Louis-Lambert International Airport.
(That's what I thought it was anyway until the article pointed the weirdness of the official name.)

Point is when names of things/places/landmarks change, especially when the change is forced/purposeful people hold onto the old name.

"Sears Tower"
"John Hancock Tower" (Boston Properties has been trying to rebrand the building since JH/Manulife completely vacated the building years ago)
"USAIR" (despite adding "-ways" to the name in the Stephen Wolf era)

shadrach wrote: Field? What does that evoke? An olive drab tent, a burn barrel and a three Sopwith Camels?

To me it evokes an airfield.

JAL007 wrote:

Chalupas54 wrote:

JAL007 wrote:
the whole Mike Brown affair has cast St. Louis in a very negative light elsewhere (many people abroad haven't even heard of St. Louis) and certainly isn't helping these efforts.

As someone who also doesn't live in St Louis anymore, it should be noted that many people nationally do not know that Ferguson is in the St Louis area. That's just from my experience, as when the whole situation was on going, many in the upper midwest believed Ferguson an independent town near Memphis, which escapes me completely. But back on point, it's a very fair assessment.

shadrach wrote:Field? What does that evoke? An olive drab tent, a burn barrel and a three Sopwith Camels?

It's worth noting that Lambert was, in fact, there in the days of Olive Drab tents and Sopwith Camels. Teddy Roosevelt rode a Wright Flyer immediately north of there at an old airstrip called Kinloch Field in 1910. The flyers moved away briefly to Forest Park. (Note the hangars where they now stable the SLPD horses.) And then they moved back in 1920 and have stayed there ever since. (With some variation in facilities, of course. The original terminal was on Lindbergh about where the new runway is. There were 1920s Navy hangars at the NW corner of the field into the 90s, I believe.)



As I understand it, the current field was the location of the world's first paved runway (with wooden planks to keep the runway mud free) and air traffic control (with controllers in a tower waggling flags about.) It is a bone-fide piece of aviation history second to none.

All that said . . . St. Louis-Lambert International Airport or Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.

And since you brought up field and names . . . what's that stadium in Columbia MO called? The one at the University where the football team plays? (That's never changed, to my knowledge, but the first time I ever saw the actual name was on a set of blueprints. I'd worked for the athletic department off and on for maybe five years before I ever had a clue. Note: It's not Faurot Field. That's just the grass part. Most civilians have never been there. Even staff are encouraged to keep away.)

^that's great knowledge, thank you!

symphonicpoet wrote: And since you brought up field and names . . . what's that stadium in Columbia MO called? The one at the University where the football team plays? (That's never changed, to my knowledge, but the first time I ever saw the actual name was on a set of blueprints. I'd worked for the athletic department off and on for maybe five years before I ever had a clue. Note: It's not Faurot Field. That's just the grass part. Most civilians have never been there. Even staff are encouraged to keep away.)

That would be Memorial Stadium. I actually have been on Faurot Field many times as part of Marching Mizzou in the late 90s.

shadrach wrote:All that said...If the airport wants to be be a relevent player on the global stage, incorporating "field" into the name is just a bit too quaint.
Not to mention the preposition again.

And to be accurate, I should have said Curtiss Jennies, but I'm just fond of Sopwith Camels.

I entirely agree with you actually. Sorry. I should have been more clear. I was simply noting the irony. I would be willing to accept reversing Lambert and St. Louis in the name, but that's about all the change that's advisable.

m2tbone wrote:That would be Memorial Stadium. I actually have been on Faurot Field many times as part of Marching Mizzou in the late 90s.

Ding ding! Very good! That said, I don't get the feeling many people have heard that. I too have been all over Faurot for an assortment of reasons. (Down to and including loading large numbers of semis in the middle of the field.) But if you were in the marching band you're not really a civilian anymore, are you? And neither was I. The relative obscurity of the official, actual name has always amused me. I distinctly recall staring at a set of prints for a project I was helping with and saying to my boss "Where the heck is Memorial Stadium? I thought this was for the big mess at the football field." . . . (Cue the wa wa trumpet.) When that happened I'd already worked on and around that darn field off and on for . . . four years? I think?

matguy70 wrote:London, Paris and Tel Aviv had continuous nonstop service to STL on TWA for years on end making it a large metro hub to connect in, giving the city a name within itself. In addition, many other international cities would also connect through STL.

STL never had non-stop service to TLV. TWA served TLV only from JFK. There was seasonal service to Frankfurt at one or two times however.

Greg

gregl wrote:

matguy70 wrote:London, Paris and Tel Aviv had continuous nonstop service to STL on TWA for years on end making it a large metro hub to connect in, giving the city a name within itself. In addition, many other international cities would also connect through STL.

STL never had non-stop service to TLV. TWA served TLV only from JFK. There was seasonal service to Frankfurt at one or two times however.

Greg

TW also had TLV service from CDG on the L-1011 but at the very end it was only a 767-200 from JFK, TW 884/885.

Frontier is adding nonstop service to Phoenix starting in December. Not exciting but add it to the list.

^ I think part of it hasn't been that strong of a focus until now due to other things. So with those done they are putting more of their eggs in their basket on going for a transatlantic flight since there isn't much else that seems to be a priority. Since they did say one of their pushes before was to get more west coast flights, and that has been done with really strong results. At this point there isn't any noticeable holes in service domestically and there are a number of routes already servied that seem to be getting either upgauges and/or frequency boosts. Interesting is that there are a number of places with transatlantic flights that have noticeable domestic holes and even doesn't connect to all the AA/UA/DL hubs, while here its the opposite situation exists due to a function of strong Southwest presence and geography

Another factor was noting the business community a few years ago wasn't too focused on this, but seems they might be more now. It could be they are more willing to help on it and its more important to them. This could also be a function of the startup community and places like CORTEX, who has helped push for new/additional service in the last couple years and likely increasing demand to certain markets.

shadrach wrote:

JAL007 wrote:I work in the airline industry and have worked in network planning, anyone who has taken the time to analyze the traffic and forecasted revenues knows it's a weak case.

Either the people at Lambert: believe there's a case, are delusional, are clueless or are putting up a good effort lest they'd be criticized for not trying. What do you think?

Their job is to be optimistic and market the airport to carriers. They have many, many meetings and relatively few ever materialize. Airport route developers/business development officials are in and out of airline HQs constantly meeting with network planning teams. There are industry "speed dating" sessions called Routes Conferences, including one in CTU next month. There are no shortages of airports pursuing carriers for service. Some authorities have experienced, knowledgable people who have worked in the industry and are successful in their pursuits, and I would point to Boston Logan and Dallas-Ft. Worth. The process takes time, the "Asia Task Force" for Massport was formed in 2003 to secure a direct link to Japan (or another Asian point) by several Boston area business leaders. JAL finally committed in May 2011, and the service began in May 2012. Since then the airport has seen a record number of new carriers and growth, due in large part to: (a) growth and attractiveness of the Greater Boston area as a hub for finance, healthcare, higher education, consulting, etc (2) rising industry tide (3) advent of new generation 787 and A350 aircraft making flying such routes viable and (4) willingness of JetBlue to pursue bilateral agreements with these carriers to provide domestic feed.

In my view, what is holding St. Louis back is the business community isn't as engaged, isn't as organized or large. For the longest time the largest corporation in St. Louis had their own dedicated fleet of aircraft from Spirit flying at the drop of a hat to anywhere in the world. The other thing working against St. Louis is that WN functions in their own ecosystem, and their previous attempts to codeshare with WestJet and Volaris were unsuccessful. St. Louis is also well beyond the viable range of a 757 to Europe (AA and UA operate several to secondary points seasonally from ORD and they are often weight restricted and divert to Gander to re-fuel). DL briefly tried CVG-AMS on a 757 circa 2007, shortly before acquiring NW and they similarly had performance challenges.

I wouldn't say the people at Lambert are delusional, but rather they're doing what they are supposed to do as marketing ambassadors of the airport.