^There can't be that many people that would have FAA rated simulators at the field. I'd guess TSA, Boeing, and maybe American. GoJet is still flying for United, I guess. Maybe they have a CRJ simulator or two.
Regional airlines and sometimes airlines in general outsource their simulator/pilot training. Flight Safety is the largest provider of simulator centers. TSA (former), Gojet, skywest, republic, basically any airline using ERJ and CRJ aircraft send their pilots to Flight Safety every 6 to 12 months at whichever location has availability in that type of plane. Pilots from all over the US, and world, come to STL for initial/recurrent training on that type of aircraft.
I'm a pilot and I own Gateway Jets.
I'm a pilot and I own Gateway Jets.
^ Yeah my best friend’s mom works for Flight Safety in STL (or did in the recent past). They’re a pretty big deal here from what I understand.
- 6,118
^Ah, so this is a separate operation entirely? Neat! Was entirely unaware of them.
Yeah, Flight Safety's been around forever. Been in one of their big a-- simulators back in the day (late 90's). It was impressive. It was a long time ago, but I vaguely remember the building we were in had more than one of these huge simulators, and my vague memory is that it was in some industrial/office court near the airport. I'm not really into aeronautical stuff but it was a machine something like this:
![]()
.jpg)
- 6,118
^Lucky dog! I am officially jealous. That sounds like a heck of a good time. Those things are absolutely stunning even just to see on the internet. I can only imagine what one is like in person.
Southwest sent out WARN notices.
110 at STL
101 at KC
https://jobs.mo.gov/sites/jobs/files/so ... 032020.pdf
110 at STL
101 at KC
https://jobs.mo.gov/sites/jobs/files/so ... 032020.pdf
- 66
Has there been any news on renovations or gate reactivations recently?
No. Covid downturn has everything at a standstill in that department. Only updates lately have been to rebuilding taxiways.Perseus767 wrote: ↑Dec 07, 2020Has there been any news on renovations or gate reactivations recently?
Southwest is adding daily nonstop flights to Long Beach, Ca and Jacksonville, FL on March 11th.
Schedule is now open into august. Montego Bay is also back.
Schedule is now open into august. Montego Bay is also back.
American started back up flights to Cancun today. Not sure how long it has been. Over a decade?
Frontier started back up Punta Cana today
Sun Country started back up Fort Myers this week.
Allegiant is starting back up Mesa next week.
Southwest started Charlotte back up.
Not including all the routes back for Christmas season only. A big chunk of routes are scheduled to come back in March for Southwest “IF” the schedule holds. I think March is pretty firm for them. They just slashed it back a bunch. A few stations were cut back but mostly frequency cuts.
Nice to see a few coming back slowly.
In not good news, it looks like Delta cut Cincy for good. Not too surprising. I would guess Southwest could add it once travel picks up.
Southwest did take Punta Cana and West Palm beach off the schedule for this year. Guessing spring training uncertainty was the reason for the Palm beach cut.
Frontier started back up Punta Cana today
Sun Country started back up Fort Myers this week.
Allegiant is starting back up Mesa next week.
Southwest started Charlotte back up.
Not including all the routes back for Christmas season only. A big chunk of routes are scheduled to come back in March for Southwest “IF” the schedule holds. I think March is pretty firm for them. They just slashed it back a bunch. A few stations were cut back but mostly frequency cuts.
Nice to see a few coming back slowly.
In not good news, it looks like Delta cut Cincy for good. Not too surprising. I would guess Southwest could add it once travel picks up.
Southwest did take Punta Cana and West Palm beach off the schedule for this year. Guessing spring training uncertainty was the reason for the Palm beach cut.
Looks like Delta got rid of their pilot base in Cincy in May - siting Covid-19 as the reason. At the time they said it wouldn't effect any routes, but that was 7 months ago. Cincy lost hub status for Delta in December 2017.jshank83 wrote: ↑Dec 19, 2020In not good news, it looks like Delta cut Cincy for good. Not too surprising. I would guess Southwest could add it once travel picks up.
Also had their FA base cut to remote status a few months ago. Not much left to dismantle.wabash wrote: ↑Dec 19, 2020Looks like Delta got rid of their pilot base in Cincy in May - siting Covid-19 as the reason. At the time they said it wouldn't effect any routes, but that was 7 months ago. Cincy lost hub status for Delta in December 2017.jshank83 wrote: ↑Dec 19, 2020In not good news, it looks like Delta cut Cincy for good. Not too surprising. I would guess Southwest could add it once travel picks up.
Something like this is what I had in mind. These are from 2016 and the concept was designed by Denver-base Fentress Architects. These plans called for...chriss752 wrote: ↑Feb 07, 2020I have some insight into the current operations and condition of portions of the airport and over the past 24 hours, I now believe that it is wise to start thinking about a new terminal. We can spend the next several years figuring out a plan that doesn't disrupt business as usual at the airport but presents a new, modern terminal. While Option A seemed good at first glance, there are underlying issues, some that ldai_phs pointed out, that doesn't make it ideal for Southwest at this moment in time. We can't go for narrower concourses and spaces because of the increased traffic Southwest and others are seeing, how planes are cramming more and more people on board and more people are taking to the skies. We also have to understand that the Main Terminal is starting to show it's age in the back of house areas.
I understand that the consultant's report is just a concept and nothing beyond that, but it's time to have a real conversation about a new terminal at Lambert. Some of the privatization efforts included building a new terminal and redeveloping the Landmark Main Terminal. For those who were in the running to privatize the airport, I would suggest, and this is a controversial position, having the Airport Commission bring in some teams as advisors to present a new terminal plan that preserves our landmark but creates a modern airport terminal capable of holding larger planes that carry more passengers, and support an increased volume of passengers comfortably.
- Demolition of Concourse D (between Terminals 1 and 2) and the construction of a new central building.
- Airport Transportation System linking Terminals 1 and 2.
- Preservation of Terminals 1 and 2.
- Terminal 1 concourse layout overhaul to be more linear.
- Expansion of Terminal 2 to match a similar layout of the reimagined Terminal 1.
- Construction of a new Control Tower on the North side of the Airport's runways.
- Estimate: Overall reduction in Gates from 86 to 73. (35 at Terminal 1. 38 at Terminal 2).
After finding these renderings though, I have some questions that may never be answered.
- What is the new central building supposed to be? A Headhouse?
- Was this an architect's side project or did the Airport Commission hire the architects to create the concept?
- Or was this a potential idea for a privatization pitch?
Regarding Fentress Architects, the firm's website shows that they were involved in projects at the Denver, Nashville, Charlotte, Sacramento, San Francisco, Raleigh, Seattle-Tacoma, Orlando, and Los Angeles Airports. In St. Louis, their wesbtaie says they were the architecture firm on the St. Louis County Courts building expansion and renovation.
Aerial from Apple Maps...
This airport layout plan from 2012 has about a dozen different config options and rates them on which make the most sense. One terminal and two terminal options.
Starts on page 5-22.
I attached the two top options. The keeping 2 terminals got a higher score by moving it all to one by a point.
https://www.flystl.com/uploads/document ... Master.pdf
They are in the middle of a new master plan which should give similar options again. I am looking forward to see what comes from it.
Starts on page 5-22.
I attached the two top options. The keeping 2 terminals got a higher score by moving it all to one by a point.
https://www.flystl.com/uploads/document ... Master.pdf
They are in the middle of a new master plan which should give similar options again. I am looking forward to see what comes from it.
- 2nd option
![Screen Shot 2020-12-21 at 9.31.47 AM.png (917.86KiB)]()
- Top option
![Screen Shot 2020-12-21 at 9.31.35 AM.png (927.21KiB)]()
- 2,928
Chris, that is a fascinating rendering, really glad you found it and shared it.
- The only way to make the destruction of D Concourse worthwhile is to have a new central connecting building go in its place, which this provides in spades.
- Preservation of Yamasaki's main terminal building is wonderful, including the green space out front, although its purpose surely looks to have been supplanted by that big new building over what's now the D Concourse.
- I'd think there's actually more than 35 gates in the Terminal One side.
- It's definitely a modernization of the concourses that would be welcomed.
- The disruptions would suck for years, but they'd be worth it.
- Could such a layout convince American to relocate hub operations to STL from ORD? If so, then green light the sucker. Now.
Something tells me that this was drafted in tandem with the privatization push. Getting this all done would take at least a billion dollars.
Would the State of MO be willing to put up a multi-billion dollar general obligation bond for Lambert Airport?
I'd vote for it and maybe even buy in out of principle.
Right now, Lambert needs increased revenues. To that end, I very much like part of the Scenario II-B-I rendering posted by jshank83: the conversion of the parking lot south of Lambert International Blvd (south of main terminal garage) into a 3,000+ space garage. Parking revenues are a great source of income for the airport. There's definitely great demand for them, noting the competition from all the Parking Spot private garages south of I-70. Plus, that land is highly underutilized. If we could see that site become a large garage, with subterranean levels, it could generate solid ROI for STL, which it can then dedicate towards further modernization and enhancements, perhaps in time all the way to a share of what these renderings present. Minimally disruptive, too. We could start that up right away.
I believe the best thing STL can do to increase revenues is increasing total aeronautical operations through more flights at more dedicated gates, and in the process of seeing this done getting more flights into D Concourse all the way to connecting the Main and East Terminals. And, of course, air cargo. The rendering shows "Cargo City" being new passenger gates, which makes great sense. I'd love to see a dozen warehouses and an extended apron going in north of the new runway.
- The only way to make the destruction of D Concourse worthwhile is to have a new central connecting building go in its place, which this provides in spades.
- Preservation of Yamasaki's main terminal building is wonderful, including the green space out front, although its purpose surely looks to have been supplanted by that big new building over what's now the D Concourse.
- I'd think there's actually more than 35 gates in the Terminal One side.
- It's definitely a modernization of the concourses that would be welcomed.
- The disruptions would suck for years, but they'd be worth it.
- Could such a layout convince American to relocate hub operations to STL from ORD? If so, then green light the sucker. Now.
Something tells me that this was drafted in tandem with the privatization push. Getting this all done would take at least a billion dollars.
Would the State of MO be willing to put up a multi-billion dollar general obligation bond for Lambert Airport?
I'd vote for it and maybe even buy in out of principle.
Right now, Lambert needs increased revenues. To that end, I very much like part of the Scenario II-B-I rendering posted by jshank83: the conversion of the parking lot south of Lambert International Blvd (south of main terminal garage) into a 3,000+ space garage. Parking revenues are a great source of income for the airport. There's definitely great demand for them, noting the competition from all the Parking Spot private garages south of I-70. Plus, that land is highly underutilized. If we could see that site become a large garage, with subterranean levels, it could generate solid ROI for STL, which it can then dedicate towards further modernization and enhancements, perhaps in time all the way to a share of what these renderings present. Minimally disruptive, too. We could start that up right away.
I believe the best thing STL can do to increase revenues is increasing total aeronautical operations through more flights at more dedicated gates, and in the process of seeing this done getting more flights into D Concourse all the way to connecting the Main and East Terminals. And, of course, air cargo. The rendering shows "Cargo City" being new passenger gates, which makes great sense. I'd love to see a dozen warehouses and an extended apron going in north of the new runway.
Lol. Missouri would not support a bond for the airport in St Louis.
- 9,538
Each bidder was going to do their own plan- i saw the plans for one of them and we would have had the greenest airport in the world.gone corporate wrote: ↑Dec 21, 2020
Something tells me that this was drafted in tandem with the privatization push. Getting this all done would take at least a billion dollars.
Would the State of MO be willing to put up a multi-billion dollar general obligation bond for Lambert Airport?
I'd vote for it and maybe even buy in out of principle.
- 1,610
I think the O'Hare Modernization Project, which is putting ~$8.5bn into the airport through 2028, will keep AA staunchly in Chicago.gone corporate wrote: ↑Dec 21, 2020- Could such a layout convince American to relocate hub operations to STL from ORD? If so, then green light the sucker. Now.
I'm still all in for the mid-field terminal plan (however unlikely that may be). Get some better use out of 11/29. Having said that, I do really like this plan:
![]()
The only thing I would add to this is converting the East Terminal into a charter terminal and move those types of flights into their own nicer building. I would also demolish D...I don't see any reason to keep it. People could just ride MetroLink between the terminals for free.
The only thing I would add to this is converting the East Terminal into a charter terminal and move those types of flights into their own nicer building. I would also demolish D...I don't see any reason to keep it. People could just ride MetroLink between the terminals for free.
A GO bond isn't likely to happen state wide...especially one all residents would vote on (it would get crushed anyway). The hillbillies in the rest of Missouri don't want St. Louis to have nice things despite it being close to 50% of the state's economy. But I wouldn't necessarily count out any hypothetical state support...yet. Quite frankly I don't think state support would even be necessary. But if it came to that...get a couple of the Fortune 500 executives to put some pressure on those "pro-business" Republicans in Jeff City and see what happens. Ya never know.Would the State of MO be willing to put up a multi-billion dollar general obligation bond for Lambert Airport?
I'd vote for it and maybe even buy in out of principle.
I agree here. I think the responsibility of an airport’s funding comes from the municipality/county it lies in. So in this case, a City-County bond.ldai_phs wrote:Lol. Missouri would not support a bond for the airport in St Louis.
- 2,928
^Yes, any bond would have to center upon the City and County. When thinking of the potential of a MO State bond here, I was thinking of the privatization talks and the sudden emergence of a regional participation element to it, whereby what happens with Lambert primarily impacts STL City & County but also Jefferson, Franklin, and St. Charles County. It'd be good to have any bond issue include all the MO Counties in the STL Metro Area (add-in Lincoln and Warren Counties), all of it done on a proportional basis. Also, perhaps there'd be a series of bonds, part-General Obligation and part-Revenue (non-aeronautical, i.e. parking).
Anything comparable to those renderings would likely cost $1.5BB+, and I don't see that happening in a Recession. Looking ahead, I know Gov Parson wants to focus on economic development with infrastructure elements, and we're going to see the new Federal administration do actual transportation infrastructure investment rather than just promising "infrastructure week" for 4 years and delivering squat. Maybe, maybe we could see some real government funding emerge for Lambert. It sure would be good to have a major airline commit to more gates as a part of any of this.
Anything comparable to those renderings would likely cost $1.5BB+, and I don't see that happening in a Recession. Looking ahead, I know Gov Parson wants to focus on economic development with infrastructure elements, and we're going to see the new Federal administration do actual transportation infrastructure investment rather than just promising "infrastructure week" for 4 years and delivering squat. Maybe, maybe we could see some real government funding emerge for Lambert. It sure would be good to have a major airline commit to more gates as a part of any of this.
If the airlines agreed to it, STL Lambert can make the numbers work for a large scale overhaul. No State or Local GO Bonds needed. If the airlines support doing something here is the real question. So far, it sounds like the answer is no outside of a few smaller projects.gone corporate wrote:^Yes, any bond would have to center upon the City and County. When thinking of the potential of a MO State bond here, I was thinking of the privatization talks and the sudden emergence of a regional participation element to it, whereby what happens with Lambert primarily impacts STL City & County but also Jefferson, Franklin, and St. Charles County. It'd be good to have any bond issue include all the MO Counties in the STL Metro Area (add-in Lincoln and Warren Counties), all of it done on a proportional basis. Also, perhaps there'd be a series of bonds, part-General Obligation and part-Revenue (non-aeronautical, i.e. parking).
Anything comparable to those renderings would likely cost $1.5BB+, and I don't see that happening in a Recession. Looking ahead, I know Gov Parson wants to focus on economic development with infrastructure elements, and we're going to see the new Federal administration do actual transportation infrastructure investment rather than just promising "infrastructure week" for 4 years and delivering squat. Maybe, maybe we could see some real government funding emerge for Lambert. It sure would be good to have a major airline commit to more gates as a part of any of this.