Chalupas54 wrote:
Could this also be due to STL being a WN focus city? I read somewhere (escapes me where) that's why Spirit has no interest in serving STL.
If that was the case, how come they also don't serve any cities in Indiana, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas, Arkansas or Oklahoma? That's a number of decent sized markets other than STL, including IND, MKE, MCI & MSP. They also don't serve any cities other than CLE in Ohio -- no service to CMH or CVG.
Chalupas54 wrote:
Could this also be due to STL being a WN focus city? I read somewhere (escapes me where) that's why Spirit has no interest in serving STL.
If that was the case, how come they also don't serve any cities in Indiana, Missouri, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Kansas, Arkansas or Oklahoma? That's a number of decent sized markets other than STL, including IND, MKE, MCI & MSP. They also don't serve any cities other than CLE in Ohio -- no service to CMH or CVG.
Spirit doesn't really do anything for me anyways. I have heard they are pretty horrible. I would imagine if they move in it would be at the expense of someone else. I doubt they would fly nonstop from here to anywhere we don't already have one. Frontier is good enough for our super low cost option to vacation destinations. I wouldn't want to lose southwest options because of Spirit. If Spirit was going to fly nonstop to new Carribean or Canada locations from here then I might be swayed.
^ They seem to be doubling down on US routes. Note that Gatwick in their fleet is larger planes based on local demand towards tourism since there isn't much connecting opportunity there and the hub aspect and connections is what would be needed from somewhere like here. The 787s are only in Heathrow, and the one they are using to start New Orleans, they will get 4 more by 2018 summer season and with what they've been doing, likely at least 1 of those would be to start a new US route, which they have tended to pick places to minimal or no existing transatlantic service. It would not be surprising to hear something at that time, especially if that Slay visit did involve revenue guarantees and incentives in some form (which if you took that much effort going there, pretty good chance that was done).
Also the Delta Saturday Orlando flight, that sounds like its them using a plane that may otherwise just sit here all day depending on schedule.
Interesting noting the JetBlue hole seems to be almost the exact same area where Alaska has connected some dots to Seattle and Portland. Likely because the western Midwest and Plains states is the eastern limit of having the e175 as an option. Does seem this winter Alaska is having the 2nd Seattle flight around several days a week, which is helpful for business travel to get there early and network connectivity to their system.
imperialmog wrote:The 787s are only in Heathrow, and the one they are using to start New Orleans, they will get 4 more by 2018 summer season and with what they've been doing, likely at least 1 of those would be to start a new US route, which they have tended to pick places to minimal or no existing transatlantic service.
BA is also retiring the 747 and 767 fleets, so there may not be additional aircraft available for expansion that quickly.
All of the airports BA has just announced have trans-Atlantic service currently:
^ Does anyone think that Norwegian and or Condor would show up in STL before BA? The question is along the lines that OAK essentially a Southwest Focus city like STL and MSY also has a fair number of Southwest connections. In some respects, I see those two European discount carriers looking at the US market in terms of how Southwest network can help feed them some traffic indirectly even though no code share exists.
BA seems very deliberate but STL not a part of a larger metro area or could feed off San Antonio as they can with Austin flight or the larger Bay area that OAK serves. Nor is STL a destination airport for tourist like FLL (cruiseship and beaches) or MSY and old South.
dredger wrote:BA seems very deliberate but STL not a part of a larger metro area or could feed off San Antonio as they can with Austin flight or the larger Bay area that OAK serves.
Realize that BA now has service to all 3 Bay Area airports - SFO, SJC and now OAK.
Article on southwest's international thoughts over the next 5 years and how the new 737max fits into those. Not STL specific but since we are one of the bigger Southwest airports, I though this might come into play at some point.
For many years KMCI was more popular in Columbia for the simple reason that it was cheaper. Dropping someone off there I've found the place tolerable, even pretty. The terrazzo floors have some neat maps inlaid in them, for instance. (Forget which terminal I was in. I believe it was a Southwest flight, so probably B.) From an architectural standpoint, it's actually kind of cool. But in terms of functionality, if I were flying, it seemed pretty clear it'd be a lousy place to be stuck waiting. And it would be impossible to make a decent connection there. Which . . . makes sense, really.
^My primary problem with it - and I would think KC people would feel the same - is that it's so far away. A cab from KCI to Country Club Plaza costs a fortune and takes a really long time, much of which is spent driving through corn fields. We're really lucky in St. Louis to have an airport that's relatively central and convenient for most of the metro pop.
^Yes. Even the biggest KC boosters I knew, who liked the airport, complained about the location. Five or ten minutes curb to gate isn't worth all that much if you have to drive an hour to get there.
Driving to MCI is ridiculous... they might as well named it St. Joseph/Kansas City Airport. It is 28 miles to the KC Plaza to the airport and 28 miles to St. Joseph from the airport. Stupid.
If I were KC, I would go one step further and switch the location too. Move it further south or into Kansas near the core burbs. Missouri would flip though. Another mind boggling thing is that MCI is still in KC city proper. Insane.
That airport is hideous. They could make some serious improvements in the place overall... but it just seems like they don't want to or care. Even with a rebuild and all the delays involved (now and in the future), I doubt KC will have a new terminal of any sort until 2028 (at the least) IMO.
MCI can build a new 'taj mahal' like facility but other than WN the other carriers operating there feel their needs are adequately met with the current facility. Granted I've never been to KC or MCI myself, but it isn't a major or even secondary station for any of the big carriers. All building a new facility does is adds excess capacity, raises costs, and invites new entrants. MCI already has an entire terminal vacant, and the airport would bend over backwards to accommodate any interested new tenant. Sure the shiny new facilities are great for passengers but look at somewhere like Indy where CPE has risen and enplanements haven't grown as forecasted by the elaborate new facility. The best terminal capital projects are those that are demand driven and purpose built such as the Northwest McNamara WorldGateway Terminal in Detroit, American Airlines DFW Terminal D, American Airlines MIA North Terminal Complex and Continental Newark C-3/Global Gateway.
shadrach wrote:Hey, can we change the name of this thread to "Kansas City/MCI Airport?"
You could make the argument that we need to break part of it off into a new thread, but . . . no. Please no. I want the KSTL thread. And in spite of the last week it's mostly been about just that.
It looks like Southwest wants to start a STL to Cancun once a day route. They want Delta pushed out midday slots (in CUN) to do it. Although, I am not 100 percent sure Cancun even has a slot limit. Its biggest argument is that if they let in more LCC carriers to Mexico they can bring prices down. Oddly enough our only flight to CUN is Frontier not legacy but I would take a Southwest flight there.
Someone who knows more about this stuff than me can read through this. It is interesting, though some is blacked out for confidentiality reasons. It is the answer of SW airlines link.
It also talks about Mexico City slots but those wouldn't be for us.
Also, it wants more gates at the LAX international terminal and thinks it is getting screwed out of those also.
Anyways, if you have a little time it is interesting to see some background into this stuff.
