urbanSTL

If there is ever a true effort to consolidate City and County, Rhonda is just about the only non-political leader I would trust. I felt that way before this announcement. 

“The seasonal London flight, with four per week, will launch April 19 and run to Oct. 23. It's possible it could become a year-round flight if demand proves strong, Hamm-Niebruegge said.”

shadrach wrote: ↑

Oct 01, 2025

Regarding privatization, the key advantage I recall was the existing bonds the airport issued for expansion. The terms of those bonds was that only airport operations could be built/improved within the property the airport owned until paid off. This prohibited freight-forwarding, JIT warehouses, hotel, parking, etc. The private operator would retire the bonds freeing up (90 acres IRCC) for real estate development. That’s where they would make their investment back. I would imagine air cargo and its related industries and services would have been the focus.

I was open-minded ‘wait and see’ on this whole privatization play rather than immediately against it just because of Rex. I really wanted the process to move beyond RFQ to RFP. I was keen on seeing what Royal Schiphol Group had in mind. If it was a bad idea, no reason for the city to commit.

thank you for that context. I too would have liked to have seen an actual RFP.

shadrach wrote: ↑

Oct 01, 2025

Regarding privatization, the key advantage I recall was the existing bonds the airport issued for expansion. The terms of those bonds was that only airport operations could be built/improved within the property the airport owned until paid off. This prohibited freight-forwarding, JIT warehouses, hotel, parking, etc. The private operator would retire the bonds freeing up (90 acres IRCC) for real estate development. That’s where they would make their investment back. I would imagine air cargo and its related industries and services would have been the focus.

I was open-minded ‘wait and see’ on this whole privatization play rather than immediately against it just because of Rex. I really wanted the process to move beyond RFQ to RFP. I was keen on seeing what Royal Schiphol Group had in mind. If it was a bad idea, no reason for the city to commit.

I wasn’t against the idea of it but I didnt like how it was being handled. It is one of the main reasons we don’t have an expanded baggage claim and maybe a Southwest base.

But like you we got far enough along I was very disappointed not to see the proposals.

Don't want to be a debbie downer but I travel internationally and honestly it does not make any difference to my 20 hour flight. 

Tickets are expensive... with economy class everything is excluded only carry-on is allowed. Are you kidding me?

^It doesn't make a difference to my 20 hour flights either, but that's because those go a lot further away than London. It will, however, make a difference to my flights to London. Every new flight will probably help someone, but some help a lot more people. This one will be a winner, I think, rather like the LH flight to Frankfurt, albeit to a slightly different audience. The Frankfurt flight has, so far, done me personally no good at all, but it's still clearly a win for the city. Frankfurt LH is great for folks who fly UA/Star Alliance and for folks continuing on to destinations in Eastern Europe and Central Asia. The BA flight will be great for folks who fly AA/OneWorld or who wish to fly to the UK or continue on to Southern Europe, Africa, or South Asia. Now Delta/SkyTeam needs to get in on the act.

I suppose a part of it depends on how much you hate connections. My wife hates them. I don't mind them so much. But they've seemed to be getting worse since Covid. (Longer layovers, weirder routings, worse timings.) Some of this might simply be the result of the gradual move from a hub and spokes model to a point to point model, even for the legacy carriers. They still have hubs, clearly. But they don't operate them quite the same way as they used to, and they seem to do a lot more point to point flying all the time. Anyway, I regard this as a win. It's not quite as exciting as Lufthansa, by virtue of being second, but it's still pretty darned exciting and pretty darned useful.

stlurbanist wrote: ↑

Oct 01, 2025

Don't want to be a debbie downer but I travel internationally and honestly it does not make any difference to my 20 hour flight. 

Tickets are expensive... with economy class everything is excluded only carry-on is allowed. Are you kidding me?

well there you have it folks, call BA and tell them to cancel.  

its $189 to fly to London on April 21 and $400 to fly back.  its not that expensive 

STL Destinations by alliance

Oneworld(14)
AA
Boston
Cancun
Charlotte
DFW
DC
LAX
MIA
NY-LGA
ORD
PHL
PHX

Alaska
Seattle
Puerto Vallarta

BA
LHR

Star(9)
United
DC
DEN
Houston
Newark
ORD
SFO

Lufthansa
Frankfurt

Air Canada
Montreal
Toronto

Skyteam(6)
Delta
ATL
Detroit
Minny
NY-JFK
NY-LGA
SLC

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Oct 02, 2025

stlurbanist wrote: ↑

Oct 01, 2025

Don't want to be a debbie downer but I travel internationally and honestly it does not make any difference to my 20 hour flight. 

Tickets are expensive... with economy class everything is excluded only carry-on is allowed. Are you kidding me?

well there you have it folks, call BA and tell them to cancel.  

its $189 to fly to London on April 21 and $400 to fly back.  its not that expensive 

Not only is that not expensive, it's stupid cheap.  My family is flying non-stop out of ORD-LHR in a few weeks and it's $408/pp.  At the time I purchased, that was a really good price.  (And I got $506/pp CDG-ORD on the way back).  Hell, I'd be pleased with a $500 r/t to MIA & back.

@Bart Harley Jarvis Point noted. I was only comparing it to my long haul (over 20 hours) economy tickets (2 baggages included) which I get for $1400/pp round trip.

stlurbanist wrote: ↑

Oct 02, 2025

@Bart Harley Jarvis Point noted. I was only comparing it to my long haul (over 20 hours) economy tickets (2 baggages included) which I get for $1400/pp round trip.

And DB just said it would be $589 r/t on BA? Seems cheaper than $1400/pp

Bart Harley Jarvis wrote: ↑

Oct 02, 2025

stlurbanist wrote: ↑

Oct 02, 2025

@Bart Harley Jarvis Point noted. I was only comparing it to my long haul (over 20 hours) economy tickets (2 baggages included) which I get for $1400/pp round trip.

And DB just said it would be $589 r/t on BA? Seems cheaper than $1400/pp

I don't want to prolong this any further and sound like someone who is not excited about new addition. I am genuinely looking forward to this.

^Trans Pacific flights are surprisingly cheap for their length. I understand this has something to do with the fierce competition between Asian flag carriers, and I wouldn't be surprised if the average TransPac passenger is a little more price conscious. Probably a higher proportion of leisure and family visits and a somewhat lower proportion of last minute business purchases. It never ceases to amaze me that I can fly to Vietnam for less than it would cost me to drive there. (Assuming that were even possible.) . . . (Or at least I used to be able to do that, when flying basic economy. Not that I care to relive that particular experience anymore. I don't know how the heck I used to do it, but I was younger, somewhat skinnier, and the excitement of what was waiting at the other end, the woman I later married, made it a lot more survivable. Nowadays it's in laws and holidays, which is pretty cool, but not quite head over heels in love cool. Still . . . with the incentive of a more comfortable seat I am still looking forward to it. Except for the jetlag.)

I personally think this is stupid cheap.  Continental flights are more expensive than this more than often even for economy.

SWA's model obviously didn't work.  All of their flights are expensive as hell now, comparatively.  Used to be one ways for like $109.  Now you're looking at $250+ for bare bones whenever I have to travel for work.

I was poking around and for a normal economy ticket, with a checked bag.....who's flying all the way to London with just a carryon?! It's like $8-900 return.

Which is way cheaper than I expected. Didn't think you  could do TATL for less than 1200 these days.
 

gone corporate wrote: ↑

Oct 03, 2025

@symphonicpoet I bet a large amount of credit for those cheaper trans-Pacific prices is owed to the loss of business travelers. With our new tariff regime inhibiting commerce, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that airlines are losing a helluva lot of revenues from companies no longer flying their people to markets throughout SE Asia. Just a thought... 

We booked the (nearly) annual Tet pilgrimage before a lot of that kicked into effect, actually. I haven't looked at the prices recently, but my partner in long haul hasn't said anything about price drops and she keeps a pretty good eye on that. Might improve our upgrade odds, but I think I'd rather just have more trade and better integration. (The older sister in law has a small factory, and we have a share in some of the family property. And honestly, whose idea was it to charge usurious federal sales taxes on half of everything anyway? Oh . . . wait . . . never mind.)

Article and Podcast at the bizjournal on some background with the London flight. I read the article and listened to the podcast.

IAG (owner of British, Aer Lingus, Iberia, others) approached the airport a few months ago about starting the flight. - Personal note: I’d heard IAG thought BA was a better fit for STL than Aer Lingus last year when they were discussing who to add for Dublin. (went with BNA/IND). At the time I thought it might just be an excuse to pass on STL but good to know it wasn’t.
Made it sounds like they aren't in a hurry to add more Europe airlines, didn't 100% rule is out but likely want to see how things go with Lufthansa and British here. Kept mentioning demand is not limitless. It also depends on how much the business community wants to put money into luring more flights or will they be satisfied with what we have.  
Still looking at Vancouver and South America (mentioned Sao Paulo). Vancouver sounded promising.  "We thought we'd have a pretty good shot at Vancouver coming down the pike," Hamm-Niebruegge said. "We don't have that yet, but with Montreal and Toronto, both of those flights are doing well. So we would really like to see extension into the Canadian market."
South America she made it sound like it is a down the road thing, which I would agree with. I personally don't see it happening anytime soon unless Southwest partners with someone. 

Got a bit into Southwest talk said she understood the route cuts and stilland are looking for other routes they can add frequency or new flights that make sense. "While it was disappointing for us, I don't think it was an indication that Southwest has changed the strength of their partnership with St. Louis or has changed their desire to continue this being one of their four connecting hubs, those being Denver, (Chicago) Midway, St. Louis and Nashville," she said.


Podcast includes all above and also goes into it and some new terminal stuff.
Current timeline.
Airline approval for build late 2026
Construction starts 2027
1st phase done 2029
All done 2031/32

T2 use will be more looked into once terminal construction is approved. Said no reason to do that until they know it will be empty. Lots of things mentioned as uses including rental car but said it would be a small one, so I imagine that means not all rental companies would fit.

National Guard building will be torn down in a few weeks



article
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... ional.html

podcast
https://www.buzzsprout.com/2436581/epis ... light-back

gone corporate wrote: ↑

Oct 09, 2025

^The Director's comments re South America seemed focused on Brazil. Recognizing we're a major agricultural business hub, that makes sense, including recognition that Bunge was founded in Sao Paulo. Curious how much traffic that would have... I agree that focusing on South America is an interesting strategy. That said, I sure would like a great excuse to go to Montevideo, Uruguay on a regular basis. Also think it'd maybe be better to focus on Mexico City first. I bet American could do that route.  

I don’t think Mexico City is realistic. It’s 15ish people a day going there. I don’t think connections thru Mexico City would be enough to make a flight worth it. They are also very slot constrained. American is just getting ready to start service form Ohare there and don’t fly there from all their hubs as is. They won’t start here. They have no partners there. Mexico City is a Aeromexico which is a Skyteam (Delta) partner hub. But the DOJ just killed their JV. So that doesn’t help anyone get service.

Makes sense that pursuing more Europe is likely on the back burner and better to help develop existing and future route towards daily service.

Best targets on new service would be Vancouver which would involve better access to Western Canada and in Transpacific flights and look at improving Latin American connectivity. Likely a good number of domestic routes to target and also to watch how Southwest evolves. Cant rule out if they have to shift traffic from Midway in the future since they could get pressured on pricing by UA and AA. 

On the Brazil service, are there many local companies with notable presence there that could drive demand? Also aren't there a number of Brazilian companies with a presence in the area? 

Why even build rentals terminal side if it's going to be small? Just do it right the first time or it'll probably never be done.

It's frustrating leaving our airport to any other major airport and being able to grab a car in 15 minutes from a plane or 30 from baggage.  Just to be met with basically, a regional airport level of service and amenities for any inbound traffic.  The current rental area across the highway is depressing and distressed.  To not consolidate all rental services into one consolidated area and one massive garage along with outbound temp parking is a major miss.

I also appreciate we have MetroLink connection which is a huge highlight.  But for business class, I think it's a must to have rentals terminal side rather than that dump across the highway as it currently stands.  Talk about bad first impressions.

It's so fascinating to see how much of the discussions on here about the new airport have to do with rental cars. We are just so cucked by cars.

We don't need to make using a mode of transit so destructive and deadly as easy as possible. If it's a little harder for some businessman to rent a death machine, good.