urbanSTL

It looks like they just have one big terminal with a common area/mall in the middle. Ours just isn't set up for that. I wish it all was connected better but I doubt it will be for awhile.

DogtownBnR wrote:Question... Seeing how busy Lambert used to be with the TWA hub, how come our airport didn't build the almost mall-like food courts, variety of shops and large, sprawling ceilings, etc....

^jcity hit on the biggest single reason; St. Louis terminal is simply older. I believe it's the oldest major active airport terminal in the US and one of the oldest in the world. There are some small terminals that are quite a bit older and yet still active. The most notable might be the Marine Air Terminal at LaGuardia, which dates to the late thirties. But it has only a half dozen gates and all of these are off a concourse that was added in the eighties. The concourses at Lambert have been redesigned and rebuilt a number of times over the years, but they still retain much the same layout as they did when the airport was first built in the 50s, and I from what I read much of the original structure of A, B, and C is still buried in there somewhere.


(Taken from Lambert's 2011 Master Plan.)

Lambert is just . . . older. It was among the first airports to even have concourses in the modern sense.

At the time of W1W there was a plan for a new terminal that would have been somewhere west of the current main terminal. (Terminal 1, if you prefer the rebranded parlance.) I'm sure it would have had all the airside mall bells and whistles . . . if it hadn't fallen into immediate vacancy. But the cost might have been the original building, which to my mind would have been too high a price.

jcity wrote:Pittsburghs terminal was built in 1992 and they included their "skymall". Ours was built in the mid 1950's.. They were severely hurt when US Air merged with American and this airport was also "dehubbed". They are the 47th busiest while Laambert is a top 30, I couldn't find the latest ranking. 8.1 million passengers through Pittsburgh while there were 12.7 through Lambert in 2015.

PIT was dehubbed well before the AA/US merger. It was a victim of the US/America West merger in the mid-2000s.

Greg

Question... Seeing how busy Lambert used to be with the TWA hub, how come our airport didn't build the almost mall-like food courts, variety of shops and large, sprawling ceilings, etc....

I wonder if the timing of the TWA bankruptcy had anything to do with it? Construction began on the $1.1B runway in 1998, TWA went belly up in 2001 or 2002, and without all of the landing fees that were expected to payoff the runway there just wasn't any money for terminal improvements. I wasn't living in St. Louis at the time, so this is just speculation, but maybe there were plans for the terminal pre-TWA bankruptcy and 9/11 that they had to shelf?

ebo wrote:I wonder if the timing of the TWA bankruptcy had anything to do with it?

Realize the 2001 TWA bankruptcy was their 3rd bankruptcy in less than 10 years. TWA was in horrible financial shape due to the leveraged buyout that Carl Icahn did -- Icahn bought the airline using debt issues by the airline. Not to mention the Karabu agreement which let Icahn sell unlimited tickets at 40% off what TWA would sell them for.

As a result, Lambert had limited financial resources to do a major terminal overhaul. They couldn't raise landing fees significantly to pay for such a project as it would likely push TWA over the cliff.

The Airport Experience project which was done over the last decade was done with a modest budget and greatly improved the look of the terminal while improving retail options as well.

Greg

symphonicpoet wrote:At the time of W1W there was a plan for a new terminal that would have been somewhere west of the current main terminal. (Terminal 1, if you prefer the rebranded parlance.) I'm sure it would have had all the airside mall bells and whistles . . . if it hadn't fallen into immediate vacancy. But the cost might have been the original building, which to my mind would have been too high a price.

Correct, here is an image from around the time. They had a lot of plans that, obviously, were not completed. If the main terminal were to be replaced it would be cool to somehow still incorporate it into the plan, maybe as a trans hub. But yes I know, we aren't getting a new terminal any time soon.

The reason for the box is way back when I downloaded this image I photochopped another runway to the north.

ebo wrote:I wonder if the timing of the TWA bankruptcy had anything to do with it? Construction began on the $1.1B runway in 1998, TWA went belly up in 2001 or 2002, and without all of the landing fees that were expected to payoff the runway there just wasn't any money for terminal improvements. I wasn't living in St. Louis at the time, so this is just speculation, but maybe there were plans for the terminal pre-TWA bankruptcy and 9/11 that they had to shelf?

I think that had everything to do with it. I believe TWA had been pushing for terminal improvements, whatever their financial health, much as they'd pushed for the new runway. TWA was, by then, employee owned, was it not? I suspect they'd have tried to make a go of it without the downturns following 9/11 and the final bankruptcy. I'm sure there would have been pushback and talks about financial reality and attempts to scale it back somewhat, but had TWA survived I suspect the terminal arrangement would be quite different now. On the other hand, the current utilization means that it's possible to do things right and in a way that preserves the historical fabric of the building without disrupting operations. We have a wonderful opportunity to save a really historic building while simultaneously making it better and planning for future growth.

. . . And maybe for some magical unicorn that will double emplanements and bring a hub back. Really, triple at this point. To be a big kid again. If you're going to wish for a unicorn, go all the way; a pegasgicorny whose mother was a unicorn and whose father was a pegasus. And all the flights are on 797s, A390s, L-2011s, MD12+s, and TW-Am Clipperliner Supers. (Wow, that looks pretty in my imagination.) Oh yes . . . and as many MD-80s and 727s as you can squeeze in.

matguy70 wrote:http://www.cleveland.com/travel/index.s ... light.html

Allegiant Air has pulled out of Akron and put their flight schedule over to Cleveland Hopkins.

Allegiant operates currently out of Mid America St. Louis Airport in the metro east - STL's secondary airport. They currently fly from Mid America St. Louis to Fort Walton Beach, Jacksonville, Las Vegas, Orlando/Sanford, Punta Gorda/Fort Myers, and St. Petersburg/Clearwater.

These operating flights would have better connections, better airport services, more central population and better safety/equipment operating out of STL International. It would add three Florida airport destinations not provided at STL International: Ft. Walton Beach, FL, Jacksonville, FL and St. Petersburg, FL. The other three nonstop destinations are served on other carriers at STL International.

Is this a trend for Allegiant? Will it take place here in St. Louis - consolidating both airports flights and destinations? I would like to see this happen. It would continue to grow Allegiant here possibly and it would also add (increase) those passenger numbers on Allegiant flights (now at Mid America STL) to STL International's numbers - which continue to surge this year.

I think we can pretty much lump St. Pete with Tampa, so I don't count that as another destination. I can't see them switching to Lambert unless Mid America totally shuts down. They try to fly to secondary airports whenever they can because it saves them money. Midamerica, Sandford, Mesa, St. Pete, Bellingham, etc. I would imagine landing fees at Lambert are fairly higher than what they pay now. They also do not allow connections, only nonstop, so that doesn't really factor much into their thinking either.

From what I remember reading years ago, TWA management did not view Carl Icahn as the white knight that many employees perceived him to be. Management was right...

jcity wrote:From what I remember reading years ago, TWA management did not view Carl Icahn as the white knight that many employees perceived him to be. Management was right...

Well, when TWA was bought by Icahn, it was a choice of being sold to him or to Frank Lorenzo who destroyed Eastern Airlines. At the time, the attitude was "nobody would be worse than Lorenzo".

In the end, they were about the same.

Greg

St. Louis getting global entry kiosks. Hopefully at some point they will get more international flights for them.

http://atwonline.com/security/nine-us-a ... ry-program

Yes, usually tourism is the reason the airlines give when they add the Europe routes for those two, especially New Orleans.

I don't see this as bad news for St Louis. I think New Orleans was the main competition, and now that they have it I would say it opens our door?

I think Nashville is also.

Chalupas54 wrote:I don't see this as bad news for St Louis. I think New Orleans was the main competition, and now that they have it I would say it opens our door?

There are two problems with your logic:

1) We are competing not only against other United States destinations, but other destinations around the world.

2) There doesn't have to be a "next" city to add... not adding new markets is a definite option compared to increasing frequency to existing markets.

Greg

^ This could be a function of fractured regional government and how the Airport is managed. Though Slay recently mentioned handing control over to a regional ports authority which is what most places have.

Also there has been mention that the business community hasn't been pushing hard enough as much as they complain, though it seems to be changing especially from the startup community. It seems they are in part responsible for some new service.

Also I think with the airport, it seems like they only have been focusing more on it in the past year or so, and beforehand was working at filling some domestic holes and more west coast, which has been done now. May also be that the airlines most likely to start such service won't have the largest group of new planes that would work until later anyway, so don't put all eggs in that basket until other needs are fixed.

It is of note that as much as we complain on progress in places like New Orleans, Austin, and Raleigh; there is a much broader number of domestic routes available here than either of them. And at this point there isn't any glaring holes left there, so its time to focus on the international side more. One thing that will help is if you see the air traffic reports there very healthy overall growth in traffic this year, still at about a 9% annual growth rate clip, which will definitely attract attention.

I miss Leonard Griggs.

framer wrote:I miss Leonard Griggs.

He was, by far, the biggest thing that held Lambert back. Rhonda Hamm-Niebrugge, having past airline management experience, has been a FAR FAR better airport director.

Of course, if you are looking only at the mustache category, I would agree about Griggs.

Greg

^Really? I'm not an airline/airport geek like some of you, so I guess I wouldn't know the difference. I only get the feeling that we've been in steady decline since he left. Maybe his outspoken persona just made the impression that he was getting things done.

(BTW, no offence meant, but "geek" is the best term I could think of)