urbanSTL

Sixty destinations seems about right for STL...I don't know where the 78 number came from. We must have served more than 80 cities in the late 1990s-between European destinations, Canadian cities, and more regional destinations, we must have served more than 80 then and we certainly serve less than 80 now...



Don't go by Lambert's route map on their website. It hasn't been updated for months and is therefore inaccurate.

Thanks for posting AirTran's fare sales...I could have found this on their website.

Here's a link to an article in today's Post regarding music and other cosmetic improvements at Lambert field.





http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/c ... enDocument

JCity wrote:these little "touch ups" with a splash of new paint and carpet are so beyond mediocre, I'm not sure how to begin to respond. It sounds great for the set of Wings, but come on where are the MAJOR changes? Are they really happening?

I agree, they need to make some major changes. There is only so much fresh paint, new signs, new tile, and a couple new plants can do. I'm not a supporter of the airport experience, I think we should invest in a new terminal, but we'll have to wait and see what happens with the project. Who knows-the project could turn out to be really cool and make a big difference.

b777stl wrote:

JCity wrote:these little "touch ups" with a splash of new paint and carpet are so beyond mediocre, I'm not sure how to begin to respond. It sounds great for the set of Wings, but come on where are the MAJOR changes? Are they really happening?

I agree, they need to make some major changes. There is only so much fresh paint, new signs, new tile, and a couple new plants can do. I'm not a supporter of the airport experience, I think we should invest in a new terminal, but we'll have to wait and see what happens with the project. Who knows-the project could turn out to be really cool and make a big difference.

St. Louis is too closed-minded (and at this point, too ignorant) to see beyond those four domes to build a new terminal. I don't care what they do to the lower level, even opening it up to the outside with windows and such, it will still be a claustrophobic environment with low ceilings. The Lambert Experience Project does nothing for us airside-wise except slap a new coat of paint on the walls and unfurl rolls of new carpet without improving the layout of the airport for passenger convenience and other factors.



City officials use words out of context, describing Lambert as world-class when they have obviously don't know what world-class is!



Just as Missouri is too backward to consider starting fresh with a major build-up of MidAmerica-St. Louis, they are just as backward when it comes to the airport we already use as a major air carrier facility.



Face it, St. Louis is NOT trying to achieve world-class with the airport.

bpe235 wrote:

Progress wrote:

b777stl wrote:

I agree, they need to make some major changes. There is only so much fresh paint, new signs, new tile, and a couple new plants can do. I'm not a supporter of the airport experience, I think we should invest in a new terminal, but we'll have to wait and see what happens with the project. Who knows-the project could turn out to be really cool and make a big difference.

St. Louis is too closed-minded (and at this point, too ignorant) to see beyond those four domes to build a new terminal. I don't care what they do to the lower level, even opening it up to the outside with windows and such, it will still be a claustrophobic environment with low ceilings. The Lambert Experience Project does nothing for us airside-wise except slap a new coat of paint on the walls and unfurl rolls of new carpet without improving the layout of the airport for passenger convenience and other factors.



City officials use words out of context, describing Lambert as world-class when they have obviously don't know what world-class is!



Just as Missouri is too backward to consider starting fresh with a major build-up of MidAmerica-St. Louis, they are just as backward when it comes to the airport we already use as a major air carrier facility.



Face it, St. Louis is NOT trying to achieve world-class with the airport.

how do you really feel? geeze! As much as i'd like for st. louis to drop another billion on a new airport right now, there might be other priorities for our money this year. Granted, Lambert is bad, it's definately not the worst i've been to.

btw, I think doing anything with mid america is past it's time, and an absolutely terrible idea. With all the investment at lambert recently, the idea of abandoning it for mid america is unfathomable. And one more thing, MO being a backwards state HAS NOTHING TO DO with not wanting to lose the airport to ILL. St. louis, MO owns the airport, why would we want to give up such a valuable resource?

It's called SHARING! Two states split the cost of building it and SHARE in reaping the financial benefits. But I am too pessimistic to believe that such a thing COULD ever happen.



I never said anything about spending money THIS YEAR, as you stated. The idea is that you plan for 20 years down the road rather than letting 20 years pass then realizing that you should've done something 20 years earlier.



In 20 years, with the Lambert Experience Project, we will be BEGGING for either a new STL main terminal or MidAmerica-St. Louis. Do you realize that the historically significant main terminal will be about THREE-QUARTERS of a CENTURY OLD? How ludicrous is THAT?



Are people really willing to risk STL becoming a TRUE LAUGHINGSTOCK just to hold on to the past?

Grover wrote:

Progress wrote:

bpe235 wrote:



how do you really feel? geeze! As much as i'd like for st. louis to drop another billion on a new airport right now, there might be other priorities for our money this year. Granted, Lambert is bad, it's definately not the worst i've been to.

btw, I think doing anything with mid america is past it's time, and an absolutely terrible idea. With all the investment at lambert recently, the idea of abandoning it for mid america is unfathomable. And one more thing, MO being a backwards state HAS NOTHING TO DO with not wanting to lose the airport to ILL. St. louis, MO owns the airport, why would we want to give up such a valuable resource?

It's called SHARING! Two states split the cost of building it and SHARE in reaping the financial benefits. But I am too pessimistic to believe that such a thing COULD ever happen.



I never said anything about spending money THIS YEAR, as you stated. The idea is that you plan for 20 years down the road rather than letting 20 years pass then realizing that you should've done something 20 years earlier.



In 20 years, with the Lambert Experience Project, we will be BEGGING for either a new STL main terminal or MidAmerica-St. Louis. Do you realize that the historically significant main terminal will be about THREE-QUARTERS of a CENTURY OLD? How ludicrous is THAT?



Are people really willing to risk STL becoming a TRUE LAUGHINGSTOCK just to hold on to the past?

You either REALLY love airtravel or REALLY hate it. Our airport is OK. I'd say it's about right for the city at the moment. Some places are nicer, some cities are more vibrant, some places aren't as nice. In this case I believe the market will dictate changes at Lambert.

Okay, so I love it...been on planes since the tender age of 6 months.



You hit upon a point when you said it's OK. OK does NOT equal the WORLD-CLASS standard our city leaders say they're striving for with Lambert...never will.



I'm not saying that we need to build a super-duper megahub. I'm simply saying that we can have a world-class airport for the market we serve by building/rebuilding SENSIBLY.

"To be honest, I don't find anything wrong with the layout of Lambert, my flights are very rarely delayed and I have plenty of food options, but I do notice when the carpet is worn, signs are old, etc. I look at it just like anything else 99% of the job is doing the simply things well."



Things are OK now that Lambert is not a hub, but as someone who flew into or out of Lambert five or six times a year when TWA was in business, there were plenty of problems with delayed and/or lost luggage, complaints about long distances between gates (coming in on C36 and having to get to D29) and missed connections due to congestion getting in and out of Lambert. TWA also seemed to have major problems with gate assignments. I was on flights where the gate was changed two or three times in flight.



Speaking of bad hub experiences: any of you thinking of flying to the East Coast or Europe on US Air through the Philly hub: save yourself the grief and find another route. The problems TWA had at Lambert pale in comparison to the ones US Air now has in Philly.

I will honestly admit to being impassioned about the issue.



But look at it from this perspective:



When considering proposals for a new Mississippi River bridge, all parties involved worked to design a bridge that can ONLY be described as WORLD-CLASS - bar none. I was even willing to go along with the toll that Missouri wanted. Hey, you go to some of these other BIG MAJOR cities and they have tolls to pay for bridges, so why not?



For the effort they expended, I truly applaud all who worked for it. They could've taken the easy way out and said, "Oh we'll just put up something that looks like the Poplar Street Bridge to do it as cheap as we can get it." But they didn't.



When the design proved too expensive and Illinois balked at the toll, they sent the designers back to the drawing board to refine the bridge concept. I was worried that the architects would come back with something totally on-the-cheap. No, Missouri stuck to its guns insisting that the new bridge is the way to go. And I applaud them for it! I hope they get what they set out to achieve. Illinois wanted to simplify even further with the concept of a coupler to the King Bridge.



All I'm saying is that they should put that same energy into the airport - settle for nothing less than the best. Everything they've done thus far IS settling for less than the best.

Progress wrote:I will honestly admit to being impassioned about the issue.



But look at it from this perspective:



When considering proposals for a new Mississippi River bridge, all parties involved worked to design a bridge that can ONLY be described as WORLD-CLASS - bar none. I was even willing to go along with the toll that Missouri wanted. Hey, you go to some of these other BIG MAJOR cities and they have tolls to pay for bridges, so why not?



For the effort they expended, I truly applaud all who worked for it. They could've taken the easy way out and said, "Oh we'll just put up something that looks like the Poplar Street Bridge to do it as cheap as we can get it." But they didn't.



When the design proved too expensive and Illinois balked at the toll, they sent the designers back to the drawing board to refine the bridge concept. I was worried that the architects would come back with something totally on-the-cheap. No, Missouri stuck to its guns insisting that the new bridge is the way to go. And I applaud them for it! I hope they get what they set out to achieve. Illinois wanted to simplify even further with the concept of a coupler to the King Bridge.



All I'm saying is that they should put that same energy into the airport - settle for nothing less than the best. Everything they've done thus far IS settling for less than the best.

Totally. We need a full, comprehensive airport terminal expansion. We don't want or need a watered down, cosmetic 'airport experience' project. We need to have a nice airport that people remember-not just an average airport. I seriously hope the airport reconsiders this project, but they have already put out bids and will issue a contract.

b777stl wrote:

Progress wrote:I will honestly admit to being impassioned about the issue.



But look at it from this perspective:



When considering proposals for a new Mississippi River bridge, all parties involved worked to design a bridge that can ONLY be described as WORLD-CLASS - bar none. I was even willing to go along with the toll that Missouri wanted. Hey, you go to some of these other BIG MAJOR cities and they have tolls to pay for bridges, so why not?



For the effort they expended, I truly applaud all who worked for it. They could've taken the easy way out and said, "Oh we'll just put up something that looks like the Poplar Street Bridge to do it as cheap as we can get it." But they didn't.



When the design proved too expensive and Illinois balked at the toll, they sent the designers back to the drawing board to refine the bridge concept. I was worried that the architects would come back with something totally on-the-cheap. No, Missouri stuck to its guns insisting that the new bridge is the way to go. And I applaud them for it! I hope they get what they set out to achieve. Illinois wanted to simplify even further with the concept of a coupler to the King Bridge.



All I'm saying is that they should put that same energy into the airport - settle for nothing less than the best. Everything they've done thus far IS settling for less than the best.

Totally. We need a full, comprehensive airport terminal expansion. We don't want or need a watered down, cosmetic 'airport experience' project. We need to have a nice airport that people remember-not just an average airport. I seriously hope the airport reconsiders this project, but they have already put out bids and will issue a contract.

Nicely said.



As to why we need an airport that people will remember...



It is the first (and last) impression that many will have of our city and region when they FLY on an airliner.



Why build a fancy bridge...or a monument like The Arch?

Why build the world's tallest skyscraper...or the world's largest airport?

Why do anything superlative?



All I can say is that it shows a desire to be the best at something rather than just being mediocre.



Why settle for LESS THAN THE BEST?