urbanSTL

That's fine - we still must choose what we hope to be "the best" at. I'd say our airport is not at the top of the list. Why not have the best mass transit? Best schools? Best police force? I believe federal money paid for the arch. We're apparently not building a fancy bridge, or the largest anything. I think I understand your point, but function seems to get lost in the desire to be "the best." Too often this means the biggest etc. Maybe I'm different, but I can't even tell you the last time I saw a memorable airport - but I do remember the ones that had funky carpet and weren't clean (Memphis ahem . . )

New Flights to Ft. Leonard Wood and Burlington, IA on TBD airline.



http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/busine ... enDocument



Two more cities added to Lambert flight list

By Tim Logan

ST. LOUIS POST-DISPATCH

09/12/2007



It is resuming daily trips once flown by RegionsAir.



Want to fly to Fort Leonard Wood from Lambert Field? How about Burlington, Iowa? Come Oct. 7, you can do that again.



Great Lakes Airlines will pick up where RegionsAir left off and resume two daily flights from Lambert to both small cities, airport officials said Tuesday.



Both were among the nine airports that lost Lambert flights in March, when RegionsAir, a Tennessee-based feeder for American Airlines, shut down after a dispute with the Federal Aviation Administration. None of the nine cities has seen service resume yet.



In March, Great Lakes won a federally-subsidized Essential Air Service contract to fly from Lambert to Fort Leonard Wood, Burlington and three Illinois cities: Quincy, Decatur, and Marion.



Those flights were supposed to start around June 1, but the airline delayed, saying it did not have enough planes. And with RegionsAir out of business, the flights have not run in months.



It's not clear when flights will start to the three Illinois cities, said Great Lakes spokeswoman Monica Taylor, as the airline is still awaiting more planes.



The Burlington and Fort Leonard Wood routes will be Great Lakes' first at Lambert, and it does not yet have a code share agreement in place with any of the major airlines there. Those agreements streamline ticket-buying and connections and are common between regional airlines and major carriers at hubs.



Great Lakes is in talks with Frontier Airlines and United Airlines, both of which it works with in Denver, Taylor said, as well as American Airlines, Lambert's biggest carrier.

Interesting. I grew up 20 minutes south of Burlington, IA. Too bad I don't have much family there anymore.

^ Why do we need an airport that people will remember?

Wow, amazing thinking going on on this thread. When Lambert was built in 1956.. That's right 1956 it was the WORLD'S Osaka of it's day. It was the grandfather of the "light, airy, flight experience" that all other major modern airports copied, to this day this can be seen at Toronto's, eerily reminded me of Lambert.







Now, on this forum everyone is ho-hum on shooting for a new bad ass terminal. I'm sure the original Lambert building would have sufficed for many years before it was abandoned at only 30 + years old!! You can see it in the photo below, above center, above the hangers. 1920's era.

^ and St. Louis' world expo of 1904 attracted millions - all festivals since have been lame. And why is Chicago bidding for the Olympics? It was in St. Louis before and it can be again! And St. Louis was once the busiest rail hub in the nation - it can be again! Dagnabit - when did the world change?

I agree with JCity. While there is room for improvement at Lambert, I absolutely love the design.

Progress wrote:

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...

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...

Nicely said.

...

Why settle for LESS THAN THE BEST?

I hate to multi-quote, but I am adament as well! The bridge parallel is great. I do not know anyone from out of town that said "oh, yeah, the Poplar Street Bridge was really cool!" If StL wants to be known as a city, it needs to have architecture and design worth remembering. Obviously anyone who flies here will remember StL from the Airport...there's no way they wouldn't.



Unfortunately, the Experience project is the only thing in the pipes for the next several years. I guess being positive, let's hope they complete the entire Experience project and it increases revenue enough to sustain (re)design/development there.

Obviously anyone who flies here will remember StL from the Airport...there's no way they wouldn't.

I just don't buy this anymore. To fly in the 1950's was a very, very big deal, very memorable. When you landed you were mezmorized by the fancy terminal (or not), but you had really arrived! Surely someone visiting St. Louis is likely to remember Forest Park, the free museums, the Cards game, the Arch, the Botanical Gardens etc. more so than the airport - and I have no problem with this at all. I would like a nicer airport, but airports have not been the signature experience of a city for decades.

There's a St. Louis Business Journal poll that's very interesting.

How would you rate Lambert-St. Louis International Airport?



Excellent

5%



Good

18%



Average

34%



Poor

42%

^ Hey, that's 57% saying average or better . . . it seems you could ask any number of questions of St. Louisians and unless it was the Cards, Ted Drewes or the 1904 World's Fair you would be hard pressed to get 50%+ to think anything was average to good!

but airports have not been the signature experience of a city for decades.

sure, it's not the "signature" experience. Look at Detroit, great airport, rough city. I don't think it's a bad idea to shoot for having one of the best in the country/world though. After all, that's what we USED to have in our grandparents era. Some of the larger cities do have worse airports, LAX was an awful experience, but that was the old TWA terminal. New York's LaGuardia was/is a dump too. St. Louis was and still is (i hope) an aviation city. We should have the best airport in the country.

Thought some here would like to see this. It's the new terminal at Beijing. Of course it's being built to help the airport accomodate 90 million passengers by 2012. Sadly the mega projects that the US was once known for (airports, skyscrapers, bridges, etc.) are being built elsewhere. Just check out the skyscrapers in Dubai!!!

Cheap Labor and lack of sufficient infrastructure in those locations dictate that they need new stuff (where they actually have enough demand to justify the construction, even if only on a speculative basis);where here in America, we still have capacity enough to not warrant Dubai super high-rise building sprees, airports like Beijing, or super bridges etc. The one place that comes to mind that bucks the trend is Las Vegas, where they are building at a near breakneck pace. It would be awesome to compete with the Asian markets, but we don’t have the underserved population that they do...

JCity wrote:

^ Why do we need an airport that people will remember?

Wow, amazing thinking going on on this thread. When Lambert was built in 1956.. That's right 1956 it was the WORLD'S Osaka of it's day. It was the grandfather of the "light, airy, flight experience" that all other major modern airports copied, to this day this can be seen at Toronto's, eerily reminded me of Lambert.







Now, on this forum everyone is ho-hum on shooting for a new bad ass terminal. I'm sure the original Lambert building would have sufficed for many years before it was abandoned at only 30 + years old!! You can see it in the photo below, above center, above the hangers. 1920's era.

Nice photo. Notice that the terminal was on the Northwest side of the field. That is Lindbergh Boulevard back behind where it goes under the railroad tracks near Lindbergh and Mo Bottom. If we build a new terminal, maybe we should move it again and make a new interchange out at I-270 to bring most airport traffic in along the new runway instead of from 70. Or make 370 keep going East right into the new terminal.

Lambert Welcomes Great Lakes Airlines



Scroll to bottom of page for article.



http://www.slfp.com/stl-news.htm

datawhse wrote:Lambert Welcomes Great Lakes Airlines



Scroll to bottom of page for article.



http://www.slfp.com/stl-news.htm

This was mentioned on the page before this one. And I'll say it again, why does STL get hosed with these useless destinations/small towns??? Who even flies to these places?



I want to see new destinations or old destinations return to Lambert. Why can't we get a LGW or CDG route again? Is there not enough demand for this here or AA rather have us fly to O'S*** and DFW? How about SJC, BUF, YVR, HNL, OGG, or ONT? What makes MCI have the ONT destination while STL doesn't have it anymore? I know they have Southwest and Expressjet both flying to ONT and the price is over $200 cheaper to fly to ONT than here. Its nonstop from MCI-ONT, but from here we have to stop somewhere to fly there.



Why can't STL get more flights to more desirable locations?

I just flew into Dulles yesterday and I heard a few people complaining how the new Airport renovation there will bring them up to the 1980s. Guess we aren't the only ones who dislike our airport. By the way the shuttles b/w terminals there are scary. I'd rather walk like our airport is set up.

shadrach wrote:

10-intuition wrote:LGW, CDG, SJC, BUF, YVR, HNL, OGG, or ONT?

What?

These are airport codes for the following:



LGW = London Gatwick

CDG = Paris Charles de Gaulle

SJC = San Jose, CA

BUF = Buffalo-Niagara

YVR = Vancouver

HNL = Honolulu

OGG = Maui's Kahului Airport

ONT = Ontario,CA



Read the news the other day Great Lakes Airlines is adding flights from STL to Marion, Quincy, and another small town. Why?!? Who would fly when they can drive to STL?:?

10-intuition wrote:

shadrach wrote:

10-intuition wrote:LGW, CDG, SJC, BUF, YVR, HNL, OGG, or ONT?

What?

Read the news the other day Great Lakes Airlines is adding flights from STL to Marion, Quincy, and another small town. Why?!? Who would fly when they can drive to STL?:?

Psst. Those flights aren't about getting between St. Louis and those other cities. They're about connecting those cities by air with the rest of the country. The thinking being that if you lived in, say Quincy, you'd probably much rather fly from there to Lambert and connect than drive to Lambert or O'Hare, pay to park, deal with security hassles, etc.

I understand the sexiness of international destinations but it's just not important for myself. I may fly internationally once every-other year. I'd rather see some flights to places like Seattle, San Fran, Boston, etc. I fly to Providence, Manchester, Boston, Cleveland and Columbus on a regular basis and feel that these routes are well-enough served to fit my needs.