St. Louis Lambert Int. Airport [airline/hub/operations/info]

jshank83 · PostDec 19, 2020#61612020-12-19T19:10+00:00

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.

wabash · PostDec 19, 2020#61622020-12-19T19:44+00:00

jshank83 wrote: ↑
Dec 19, 2020
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.

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 · PostDec 19, 2020#61632020-12-19T20:09+00:00

wabash wrote: ↑
Dec 19, 2020
jshank83 wrote: ↑
Dec 19, 2020
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.
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.

Also had their FA base cut to remote status a few months ago. Not much left to dismantle.

kipfilet · PostDec 20, 2020#61642020-12-20T02:12+00:00

Do they still have the Paris flight (ex-COVID)?

jshank83 · PostDec 20, 2020#61652020-12-20T02:43+00:00

kipfilet wrote: ↑
Dec 20, 2020
Do they still have the Paris flight (ex-COVID)?

Unclear. It’s on the schedule to start back up in May. But we’ll see

chriss752 · PostDec 21, 2020#61662020-12-21T09:49+00:00

chriss752 wrote: ↑
Feb 07, 2020
I 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.

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...

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).

I personally think this would be a wise investment as it looks ahead to the future for the airport while preserving some of our current facilities. This concept includes Concourse D being demolished and replaced, which is where some of the maintenance issues I alluded to are. So getting rid of that would be a benefit, especially since a majority of it isn't used anymore. The inclusion of 38 gates at Terminal 2 is perfect for Southwest expansion among other things (although I still prefer moving Southwest to Terminal 1).

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 the renderings, I find them a bit funny. It looks like they have the Las Vegas skyline thrown in to the East of the airport. But when you compare the rendering to Google or Apple Maps 3D view, you can make out the iconic Terminal 1 building and you can see Terminal 2 in the distance. If that's not enough proof, the parking lot and road layout (including I-70) matches current conditions.

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...

Screen Shot 2020-12-21 at 2.17.44 AM.png (7.43MiB)

jshank83 · PostDec 21, 2020#61672020-12-21T15:19+00:00

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.

gone corporate · PostDec 21, 2020#61682020-12-21T17:08+00:00

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.

ldai_phs · PostDec 21, 2020#61692020-12-21T17:23+00:00

Lol. Missouri would not support a bond for the airport in St Louis.

dbInSouthCity · PostDec 21, 2020#61702020-12-21T17:36+00:00

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.

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.

Bart Harley Jarvis · PostDec 21, 2020#61712020-12-21T17:44+00:00

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 think the O'Hare Modernization Project, which is putting ~$8.5bn into the airport through 2028, will keep AA staunchly in Chicago.

sc4mayor · PostDec 21, 2020#61722020-12-21T17:54+00:00

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.

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.

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.

chriss752 · PostDec 21, 2020#61732020-12-21T18:33+00:00

ldai_phs wrote:Lol. Missouri would not support a bond for the airport in St Louis.

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.

gone corporate · PostDec 21, 2020#61742020-12-21T18:49+00:00

^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.

ldai_phs · PostDec 21, 2020#61752020-12-21T18:56+00:00

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.

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.

wabash · PostDec 21, 2020#61762020-12-21T20:05+00:00

I like the idea of a shiny new airport. But it still feels like Lambert is just getting its finances in order after the "new" runway boondoggle. I'm hesitant to take on billions in costs and potential overruns and tear the whole place up for a number of years when the airlines are reeling from Covid-19 and (other than Southwest) were not investing too heavily or doing anything too transformative at STL prior to the pandemic.

Certainly do whatever keeps Southwest happy - more baggage claims, more gates, more parking, etc.... as they've been a great partner for the region and actually seem the best airline of them all to have your fate hitched to right now. But I just don't see the justification for doing anything transformative to accommodate the legacy carriers or to lure new airlines whether domestic (JetBlue, Spirit, Allegiant) or foreign (BA, Lufthansa).

symphonicpoet · PostDec 22, 2020#61772020-12-22T05:32+00:00

^First, the plans JShank posted are an older proposal. You can see on them a 2010 date. There was a big study begun back then right after American dehubbed us. I expect these were a part of that.

I feel like I'm banging a worn out drum, but I'm inclined to think the current management has a pretty good handle on things and we're in a spot where we can afford to take things slowly and see how it develops. We're finally back to a point where local landing fees are in line with other medium hubs. I hate to throw that away in some dream to chase big hub status again. I would desperately love to see a big hub here again, but I don't think a new building is what makes it happen. I don't think AA killed the hub because we were short on gates, amenities, hold areas . . . I think they killed it because we were short on passengers, and especially business passengers. Business has been picking up of late. It's not where it was in the 80s, but it's picking up. Traffic had been expanding nicely to a point where thinking about expanding made sense, but the pandemic probably pushes everything back a couple of years. Hopefully once we get out of this, the upward trend will continue or even accelerate.

chris fuller · PostDec 22, 2020#61782020-12-22T18:20+00:00

If you must fly

gone corporate · PostDec 22, 2020#61792020-12-22T20:06+00:00

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑
Dec 22, 2020
I don't think AA killed the hub because we were short on gates, amenities, hold areas . . . I think they killed it because we were short on passengers, and especially business passengers.

Got to differ with you here. The biggest factor in AA's shuttering of the Lambert hub was that it was redundant.

AA acquired TWA in April 2001, and with the TWA acquisition came the STL TWA hub. But, AA already had two hubs in the central US: DFW and ORD. They were never going to get rid of DFW, as AA is based in Dallas. ORD was already established for AA, and Chicago's a bigger city than Saint Louis. Plus, I'm pretty sure DFW and ORD were 2 of the 3 busiest airports in the US at the time (along with ATL, with its Delta hub). Then, 5 months after their TWA acquisition, was September 11, 2001, and the nightmares of that day (with 2 AA planes lost that day), all flights grounded, and the industry's future left uncertain. TWA was still flying under its own tail into December 2001. Amidst all of this, AA saw their maintaining 3 central US hubs being redundant. While I hate to say this, it really made strategic sense for them to de-hub STL, especially as it was not originally an AA hub. STL became a regional service airport in November 2003, going from 800 daily flights to only 200, and was officially de-hubbed as that in September 2009.

There has been some talk by certain C-Suite leadership at AA that they maybe de-hubbed STL too much, that the airline could benefit from increased capacities here. Plus, ORD remains most dedicated to UA, which is HQ'd in Chicago. While I don't think AA would dump their ORD hub for STL, it's a valid consideration; they could see value being the biggest fish in a medium-sized pond rather than being the second-biggest fish in a large pond (and especially one that freezes every winter).

Two other factors to consider...
1. STL was a great hub airport, in that it served as a connecting airport. It operated as a hub not for the population of Metro STL but as a base of operations. The new runway was built with this wholly in mind*. STL definitely has excess capacities today.
* The higher aeronautical costs (takeoffs, landings, and gating) to pay for the new runway, which was built to further the efficacies of the hub operating here, inadvertently led to the hub being taken away. That's irony.
2. The decrease in Saint Louis' corporate HQ strength was in no small part an effect of the de-hubbing of STL. Rather, the decrease in relative strength of the region as a HQ location for Fortune 500 companies correlates to the loss of STL's hub. We absolutely weren't short on business passengers prior to the airport's loss of hub status. Let's make sure not to put the cart before the horse here.

symphonicpoet · PostDec 23, 2020#61802020-12-23T06:10+00:00

gone corporate wrote: ↑
Dec 22, 2020
Got to differ with you here. The biggest factor in AA's shuttering of the Lambert hub was that it was redundant.

I don't think we really do disagree, I think we just said similar things in different ways. They had too many hubs (or at least they felt they did at the time) and so they killed the one that had the least O&D. The redundancy meant they got to pick who got the axe, but the reason it fell on us and not Chicago or Dallas was all about passengers and not about gates and hold areas. (And you're right, they're not going to consider closing Dallas, but I don't think it's about sentiment. I think it's about the fact that they've built themselves a tidy little fortress there and it's not too likely anyone will ever crack it. It was a hub long before it was the HQ, much like St. Louis to TWA. And it was an important station in the right geographic spot before it was a hub. Again, much like St. Louis to TWA.)

As to the rest, I'm quite aware it was a hub and what that means. I spent a good part of my youth lolly-gagging around that airport and I'm more than just a bit of an aviation buff. No expert, but probably not a completely uninformed yokel either. And no, hubs don't require O&D. They're there for the connections. But a hub with good O&D is better than one with mediocre O&D, all other things considered. And the bleeding had started long before TWA. Southwestern Bell moved to Texas in 1990. Boatmen's was bought out in 1996. McDonnell Douglas in 1997. Monsanto and Mercantile in 1999. Ralston Purina in 2001 . . . the list goes on. Did we have business travel in 2008 when AA shut us down? Sure. Was it like the 80s? I really can't believe that. I will not argue that the loss of the hub accelerated the process, but I have to think the ongoing decline was a factor in AA's decision. And now that we're maybe starting to bounce back it's not too surprising they might reconsider. (Albeit probably too late to really pull the big orange weed which is such a perpetual thorn in their very specific side.)

wabash · PostDec 23, 2020#61812020-12-23T15:16+00:00

Realizing from what you guys are saying that not a single legacy carrier has more than two hubs in the Midwest+Texas. Southwest has three "operating bases", two in Texas and one in Chicago.

Industry consolidation has resulted in a rich history of midwestern hubs being closed: St. Louis (AA), Cincinnati (Delta), Cleveland (United), Pittsburgh (US Airways), Milwaukee (Airtran & Midwest). And the near South - Memphis (Delta), Nashville (AA). These markets just aren't competed over the way they used to be. Kind of surprising Minneapolis and Detroit have bother held out for Delta. they're sort of outliers at this point with everyone else in either Chicago or Texas. I guess that's worked for them.

gone corporate · PostDec 23, 2020#61822020-12-23T17:26+00:00

Symphonic: I dig what you're saying. Cheers to that. Concurrently, I do think that the biggest detriment to STL getting larger corporations to locate new operations here is our airport's lack of a major carrier besides SWA. If we still had somewhere between 200 and 800 flights here, I bet we'd see more corporate growth.

For consideration... Clayco indicated that their relocation to Chicago was in part driven by ORD. Chicago also was the recipient of two major corporate relocations from IL: Caterpillar (Peoria) and Archer-Daniels-Midland (Decatur). While Saint Louis competed with Chicago for both of these, I have to think a significant part of their reasons to choose Chicago was ORD. And, I bet Centene's liking of Charlotte wouldn't be so strong if not for CLT's continued operation as a "fortress hub" for AA (after their USAir acquisition). I'm not stating there's direct causation, but it is definitely an ancillary factor.

Wabash: You're quite right here. The central US is severely lacking in airport hubs today. The "hub and spoke" model has overwhelmingly benefitted the coasts, leaving most airports from the Appalachians to the Rockies with excess capacities.

whitherSTL · PostDec 23, 2020#61832020-12-23T17:32+00:00

STL needs to overpay for a London flight ASAP. Get that monkey off our back. Then approach a legacy carrier about a mini hub. I know it all sounds pie-in-the-sky but it needs to be A1 priority.

quincunx · PostDec 23, 2020#61842020-12-23T17:48+00:00

How do we convince tbe state to subsidize one?

sc4mayor · PostDec 23, 2020#61852020-12-23T18:43+00:00

^ The state won’t (and it shouldn’t). Then they’d have to play favorites with the state’s two primary airports. The regional business community needs to take the lead on that. And they did at one point. Pre-pandemic Neidorff mentioned that he believed had it not been for the pandemic STL would have seen a European announcement by now. He was apparently involved in that as well.

St. Louis Lambert Int. Airport [airline/hub/operations/info]

Choose Display Mode