6,123
Life MemberLife Member
6,123

PostMay 25, 2019#5376

gregl wrote:
symphonicpoet wrote: Applications, huh? This sounds both promising and intriguing. :) Don't know who really has a shot at this (jshank!) but . . . I'm in! (The line to apply, that is.) This sounds like incredible fun! And hopefully, it will generate some excitement about our airport on other forums as well. :)
I'm offended... no offense, Jshank!
I certainly don't wish to say jshank83 is the only KSTL proponent. You are clearly also a strong supporter of the old dome. :) As are several of us on here. No offense was intended. But I figure he's a shoe in. He does some serious heavy lifting posting news and numbers. He is well known to the folks most likely organizing the thing. The airport retweets him. This absolutely does not imply he is the only shoe in. I am not a shoe in. I'm a bit of a booster, but my work is more subtle and behind the scenes. Also not remotely as extensive. Probably far fewer hours spent. And I only just started a Twitter account for the purpose. But I'm trying anyway. With a little luck, I'll see you there! :)

1,291
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,291

PostMay 25, 2019#5377

^ I think Jshank received an invite already, according to one of his posts on A.Net.

In other news, April numbers are out:

Total passengers up 3.0% to 4,841,462
Aircraft ops still down 0.5% at 61,632
Air cargo is up 4.0% to 47,643,587 lbs (and up 9.3% over last April!)

https://www.flystl.com/uploads/document ... PubRel.pdf

44 straight months of growth now according to the presser:
https://www.flystl.com/newsroom/stl-new ... his-summer

985
Super MemberSuper Member
985

PostMay 25, 2019#5378

The growth is more impressive than first glance when you consider how this is with the MAX groundings causing some reductions in service or delays in expansion from multiple airlines due to reduced fleets.

Once the MAX gets certified to fly again, it will be very interesting to see flight schedule changes as they reenter service.

6,123
Life MemberLife Member
6,123

PostMay 25, 2019#5379

Trololzilla wrote: ^ I think Jshank received an invite already, according to one of his posts on A.Net.
Speaking of which, if you haven't already applied yourself you really should. I sent you a PM, but I figured I'd quote you here just to make sure you get some notification. (PMs are easy to miss.) I found signing up for Twitter relatively painless. Applications should be open until eight this evening.

3,967
Life MemberLife Member
3,967

PostMay 26, 2019#5380

Updated my Load Factor Spreadsheet for Feb.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

66
New MemberNew Member
66

PostMay 29, 2019#5381

I've heard that Concourse D was originally going to have a people mover built on top of it. Is there a specific reason they chose to abandon that idea? Was it cheaper just to build another entrance at the end of D? Or was there another reason?

1,291
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,291

PostMay 30, 2019#5382

Even though the people mover never came about, theoretically speaking, Concourse D was still built to withstand a people mover on its roof IIRC, so it could get one, if they *really* wanted to add one. 

I think that it ultimately came down to cost - I think they really just wanted D done as cheaply and quickly as possible since they were desperate for gates. Adding a few moving walkways and making people just huff it was probably quite a bit cheaper and much more hassle-free in the long run. It'd probably also have run rather short for an airport people mover system, and wouldn't be able to form a 'loop' as many do (not to mention a terminal stop would have had to have been crammed in somewhere near to where the international gates are), so it just made the idea more impractical than beneficial. 

I'm sure that MetroLink was also in the study/planning phase by the time that D was finishing up, so I guess they just looked at the D plans and said "Why build a people mover if we could just extend the light rail system we're already planning up to the airport?"

66
New MemberNew Member
66

PostMay 30, 2019#5383

I was surprised to see that there were even plans for a people mover in the first place with MetroLink and all. Even in the glory days, T2 looked isolated because TWA never moved into T2. Was T2 originally planned to be more space for TWA before Southwest came on the scene?

On another note... Was E29-33 used by TWA before they went under?

2,687
Life MemberLife Member
2,687

PostMay 31, 2019#5384

Seeing that Indy took a big trim from Southwest in new schedule release, 5-7 fewer flights per day.
How did STL fare?

1,291
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,291

PostMay 31, 2019#5385

Perseus767:
I was surprised to see that there were even plans for a people mover in the first place with MetroLink and all. Even in the glory days, T2 looked isolated because TWA never moved into T2. Was T2 originally planned to be more space for TWA before Southwest came on the scene?

On another note... Was E29-33 used by TWA before they went under?
Terminal 2 (the modern incarnation) was built specifically for Southwest.

The gates were used by TWA, mainly for international arrivals, I believe. In fact, you can see what I assume is a TWA 747 parked at one of the gates on the oldest 'historical image' in Google Earth (from 1990). 

3,967
Life MemberLife Member
3,967

PostMay 31, 2019#5386

addxb2 wrote: Seeing that Indy took a big trim from Southwest in new schedule release, 5-7 fewer flights per day.
How did STL fare?
I'll post something this weekend if I get a chance. November and December are about impossible to compare Year over Year because the schedules change week to week so much. December is the only month I don't do a frequency schedule for because of it. November I do but Thanksgiving time won't be anything like earlier in the month. 

455
Full MemberFull Member
455

PostMay 31, 2019#5387

Trololzilla wrote:
Perseus767:
I was surprised to see that there were even plans for a people mover in the first place with MetroLink and all. Even in the glory days, T2 looked isolated because TWA never moved into T2. Was T2 originally planned to be more space for TWA before Southwest came on the scene?

On another note... Was E29-33 used by TWA before they went under?
Terminal 2 (the modern incarnation) was built specifically for Southwest.

The gates were used by TWA, mainly for international arrivals, I believe. In fact, you can see what I assume is a TWA 747 parked at one of the gates on the oldest 'historical image' in Google Earth (from 1990). 
D gates were NEVER used for international arrivals by TWA.  The high C gates and the Customs facilities there were used.

TWA used gates up to D40.  I'm not sure what the equivalent E gates numbers are.

2,831
Life MemberLife Member
2,831

PostMay 31, 2019#5388

TWA did NOT operate in the customs facility in T2.  That Custom Facility was in the process of being developed and TWA was going to move their International Flights to that Customs - possibly just a year after the were bought by AA.  The facility was under construction during that time.   TWA would begin running STL Toko nonstop 7 days a week.

Here are some references.

https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/1998/ ... PGtQohKiUk

https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/sto ... tory6.html

1,291
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,291

PostJun 01, 2019#5389

Hmm I was under the impression that TWA used the gates over there. At least, when they were needed.

Who would the 747 have belonged to? A one-off Northwest flight? Or did TWA regularly park planes over there? 

1,213
Expert MemberExpert Member
1,213

PostJun 01, 2019#5390

I went to check the image Trololzilla mentioned. The oldest available image is from 1996 and there are what seem two 747's parked at Lambert (unless I am misidentifying a 707 or a DC8). One is parked at Concourse C and the other at E. Here is a screenshot:


1,291
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,291

PostJun 02, 2019#5391

^ There's also either an L-1011 or a 767 parked next to the 747. The only caveat is that both those planes are parked at gates that I think only ever existed as part of the temporary terminal there - the jetways look like they connect to some sheet metal shack that was tacked on the that end of D (in between the current Terminal 2 and E29). 

My bad on the international part; I forgot that that customs area was so new. I just assumed that it was based on the presence of the widebodies there. Did TWA unload at C and load at D (to save space)?

66
New MemberNew Member
66

PostJun 02, 2019#5392

Both of those are indeed 747s. Parked to the left of the 747 is an L1011. You can tell because the wing is much more aft than a twin jet wings would be. (You can see a 767-200 parked further west at C for comparison)

Both of the 747s are TWA. You can sortive see the black stripes on the wings over engine #2 and #3. I assume the L1011 is TWA but I cannot tell for sure.

6,123
Life MemberLife Member
6,123

PostJun 02, 2019#5393

I'm pretty sure the two widebodies at the then new east terminal are a 767 and 747. DC-8s and 707s may be quad-jets, but they're quite a lot skinnier and smaller than a 747. And you can generally make out at least a shadow from the intake on an L-1011. As odd as this may sound, I'm inclined to believe the two aircraft might actually both be charters. It's really hard to find good pictures that show it clearly, but I believe the final livery involved a black stripe on the wing.

This is a model, so don't take it as gospel, but it's about the best shot I can quickly find from above:



If you look along what we would call C and D you'll see that every aircraft there has a fairly obvious stripe. The two widebodies at E have none. Different paint. Now, they could be hanging on in the previous livery. It's certainly possible. (Not everything gets repainted at the same time.) But given both the degree of paint consistency elsewhere and the fact that they were at city gates makes it at least some plausible they were both charters. Another minor interesting point: You can see a 737 pushing back from that mystery bumpout area. Those appear to have been Southwest gates in the days before they had their own building. (Along with the shack gates past the city gates.)

All that said . . . when did they actually first build the east terminal customs facility? The customs hall is entirerly within the structure that you see there in the picture. Without evidence to the contrary I'd have guessed they built it when they built that portion of the concourse. They almost have to have had one there for charters anyway, as TWA sure wasn't going to give up their gates for somebody else's international arrivals. And since C was, almost from day one, exclusively TWA . . . surely that customs hall was already there even well before that photo. The fact that TWA wanted to move in doesn't mean it was new. And it makes good sense that some of the city gates always had customs. (That's something you'd want to keep flexible no matter what.)

For consideration, here's some shots snagged from a slightly earlier aerial view on St. Louis County's property viewer.





In the above shot not only can you make out the L-1011 from the 767 but you can easily make out which aircraft have the new paint. This is obviously a little earlier than the shot Google is using, since there's a strong mix of old and new.



As to the customs hall in T2, they clearly altered the rear wall at some point, but basically the space is already there. Even the windows are the same. And some of what looks to be building alterations could well just be the vagaries of stitching together two photos. You can see some fuzziness, and a portion of the window above the red box appears below the red box, showing that there is, in fact, a discontinuity just at that spot. This is an old enough photo someone might well have literally cut and pasted it together accidentally creating a jog that was never there in the interest of making it look pretty.



This is just a curiosity, but it does show fairly clearly a couple of Southwest 737s at that odd bump Jshank is always asking about. Interestingly, if you look closely you can even tell that one is a 737-200 with the older Pratt and Whitney JT8 we all love hearing so much on Mad Dogs. Next to it is a 737-300 with the CFM56 in its hamster pouch.



Lastly, another bit of trivia: the mobile lounge. You can see it in the Google Earth photo out in the middle of the bay. Here it's docked at C.

Anyway, long story short, I really have to wonder if customs were already there even in the late 80s. TWA may not have used it, but surely there were international charters arriving every once in a while, even then. Happy to see good documentary evidence one way or the other, but that Biz Journal article doesn't really say. It only says TWA wants to move so as to free up space in C.

PostJun 02, 2019#5394

^Addendum: Perseus is certainly correct that the widebody twin in the Google Earth photo is an L-1011. I guess the light is just obscuring the intake, but the wings are a solid giveaway. My bad. Man, those two really are close in plan view. But I will respectfully disagree about the livery. They may be TWA, but if so, they're in the old paint and not the new. And given that they're at city gates . . . I'm guessing charters. It could be TWA was just having that much of a capacity crunch, but I'd think they'd work quite hard not to pay hourly on gates they weren't leasing. (And there are several widebody capable gates open in the shot. Only two go to customs, and the 747 is blocking one of those two. But there's probably four, and maybe five open.)

1,291
Veteran MemberVeteran Member
1,291

PostJun 02, 2019#5395

Which airline would have been running charters with an L-1011? It wasn't exactly a hot seller - really only a few airlines ever bought it (in the US, namely Delta, United, Eastern, TWA, and Pan Am) and never in great numbers. The only charter airline I saw that both operated L-1011s and flew to STL was ATA, so its likely to have been either an ATA or a TWA bird, IMO, unless Delta ever had reason to fly one here - in which case I could see it being parked at the end of D, since I doubt A can really handle widebodies (someone correct me on that). 

The only other realistic option would be a one-off Kalitta flight.

15
New MemberNew Member
15

PostJun 02, 2019#5396

The 747 on the Old East Terminal is a NW 747 that was part of the Military Charters that used to run through STL in the 1990s.  The 1011 is ATA, they used to run schedule widebody service for a brief time in the 1990s.
The very end of C housed TWA 747 flights, occasionally on a rare one off the last TWA D Gate could handle a 747 if it was needed.
C2 occasionally got 767-200 and 1011s..

PostJun 02, 2019#5397

A10, DL has run 767s on subs, it was wild a few years ago, A6 had a 757 on it and A10 had a 767-400 State Farm Charter.. AA used to run DC-10s occasionally in the 70s/80s on their A gates. EA used to run 1011s and A300s on the end of A. UA in the 1990s had DC-10s on the end of A when they took those gates after EA died.

2,327
Life MemberLife Member
2,327

PostJun 02, 2019#5398

Oh my, interesting and all but can we start a separate ‘Lambert History’ thread.

3,967
Life MemberLife Member
3,967

PostJun 02, 2019#5399

November (and probably December matches it) frequency spreadsheet is done for Southwest. This is for NON holiday weeks. It ramps up for Thanksgiving/Christmas. 

Lots of no Saturday service to cities so Saturday flights are way down. Hartford/Detroit/CLE/Columbus/OAK/PIT/SEA/SLC/Sacramento/San Jose all have no Saturday service even though some of those are 3x every other day of the week. Odd. 

Up 30 flights (4%) overall though

Mon-Fri 119
Saturday 66
Sunday 124
785 weekly

Far right tab.


https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

PostJun 02, 2019#5400

4th Qtr O&D Numbers

Change from 2017 YoY (One Way)

Biggest gains
Miami (metro) +43
Wash DC +39
San Diego +32
Phoenix +30
Sacramento +29
Jacksonville +26
New Orleans +23
Hartford +22

Biggest losses
Denver -42
Atlanta -30
Chicago -21

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/ ... sp=sharing

Read more posts (4316 remaining)