urbanSTL

Do we know if the airport will begin implementing new signage for the name change?

^ I think I remember seeing they will do that as signs need replacement if i'm not mistaken.

Interesting is looking at the times with the added Air Canada flight to Toronto is that it's a little odd they went with that instead of upgauging one of the two current ones. Unless frequency was better here and especially since what's being added seems to be a very early flight which means likely overnighting here which could be needed for various reasons, that or a larger plane wasn't available. But something that leaves at start of day and arrives back end of day does help in terms of business traveler and network connectivity purposes. Wonder if this was added to keep someone like WestJet from starting it similar to possible reason Southwest added Boston frequency to protect against possible competition? But it could just be growth in demand that needed this as well.

imperialmog wrote: ↑

Mar 29, 2017

Interesting is looking at the times with the added Air Canada flight to Toronto is that it's a little odd they went with that instead of upgauging one of the two current ones. Unless frequency was better here and especially since what's being added seems to be a very early flight which means likely overnighting here which could be needed for various reasons, that or a larger plane wasn't available. But something that leaves at start of day and arrives back end of day does help in terms of business traveler and network connectivity purposes. Wonder if this was added to keep someone like WestJet from starting it similar to possible reason Southwest added Boston frequency to protect against possible competition? But it could just be growth in demand that needed this as well.

I was kind of wondering the same thing about up gauging. The only thing I could think of is the company that runs the RJs here, Air Georgian, doesn't have a bigger plane than the RJ100/200 and Air Canada didn't want to bring in a different company to run a bigger regional jet. Also, maybe adding a 3rd flight is better for connection times and not having as long of layovers.

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Mar 28, 2017

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Mar 28, 2017

I think what I'm looking for is earlier than the Google Earth imagery. The earliest one I'm seeing is 1996, which is about when they began construction on the current East Terminal.

Here is a link to older imagery but there is a hug gap before 1996 to the 70s so that doesnt help since there is literally nothing there then. It goes back to the 50s. Quality is good though. I have used the site a few times before.

https://www.historicaerials.com/viewer

Wow, love that website! Thanks for the link jshank83.

^ I was thinking the same thing. Why didn't they just add the city. It wouldn't have been that much more.

mill204 wrote: ↑

Mar 30, 2017

For historic aerial imagery of the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County only, this web application recently created by St. Louis County is much better than HistoricAerials.com (no watermarks!).

http://stlcogis.maps.arcgis.com/apps/we ... f788f560db

Another nice link, thanks!

http://www.kmov.com/story/35032416/thin ... at-lambert

Just me or is articles relating to transatlantic service and news on it has been noticibly more common the past year or so? And is there anything to it?

http://www.flystl.com/newsroom/stl-news ... terminal-2

looks like they are wanting some local restaurant to be added. Some ideas I've seen is Pi or Sugarfire. Noticed the timeline they have, and that it would likely at the earliest open for the holiday travel season. Trying to picture the exact space it would fit and guessing its the area that recently or will soon open in terminal 2. But how much room is there for a restaurant?

imperialmog wrote:http://www.kmov.com/story/35032416/thin ... at-lambert

Just me or is articles relating to transatlantic service and news on it has been noticibly more common the past year or so? And is there anything to it?

http://www.flystl.com/newsroom/stl-news ... terminal-2

looks like they are wanting some local restaurant to be added. Some ideas I've seen is Pi or Sugarfire. Noticed the timeline they have, and that it would likely at the earliest open for the holiday travel season. Trying to picture the exact space it would fit and guessing its the area that recently or will soon open in terminal 2. But how much room is there for a restaurant?

In regards to your first question, the answer is yes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

imperialmog wrote: ↑

Mar 31, 2017

looks like they are wanting some local restaurant to be added. Some ideas I've seen is Pi or Sugarfire. Noticed the timeline they have, and that it would likely at the earliest open for the holiday travel season. Trying to picture the exact space it would fit and guessing its the area that recently or will soon open in terminal 2. But how much room is there for a restaurant?

Here you go. The link has a layout at the bottom of it.

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Mar 21, 2017

There also is a bid out to put another Local Restaurant Concept in T2.

It looks like it will be by gate E33. 1468 square feet with the option of 506 square feet of patio space.

At the end of the pdf there is a layout for it. It wasn't where I expected but I think it will be good to have that down there. Fills that bottom section around E29/33 out, especially if you have people going on past it now.

Other tidbits:

Common Use Club at E31 (we already knew about this)

Starbucks Kiosk at E29

Concession development in the vicinity of E36 will be limited to kiosks.

http://www.flystl.com/uploads/bid-docum ... d-2017.pdf

Chalupas54 wrote: ↑

Mar 28, 2017

Do we know if the airport will begin implementing new signage for the name change?

I suspect they're still lining up bids for their city hall cronies. After all, that's what this silly renaming exercise is all about. Besides wasn't improved wayfinding and signage a big part of the airport experience (lite) capital project?

Oh, since we've been discussing aerial photos, here's a nice source I'd missed. (Odd, as I used to spend a lot of time digging through their stacks.)

http://digital.shsmo.org/cdm/compoundob ... 4139/rec/5

http://digital.shsmo.org/cdm/landingpag ... ion/aerial

The interface isn't perfect, but unlike some of the other sources they have the whole state (city included) and seamless public domain photos that are clearly marked as such. And some of the photos are different dates than elsewhere.

Slay Tweeted today "Through contacts with international carriers, we are continuing to pursue direct STL/Europe flights"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chalupas54 wrote: ↑

Apr 05, 2017

Slay Tweeted today "Through contacts with international carriers, we are continuing to pursue direct STL/Europe flights"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They have been on contact with international carriers for a long time. I am getting impatient waiting for in contact to actually produce something.

Also, not sure how it bodes for STL, but the load factors on MSY-LHR for the first week of service have not been stellar from what I've read.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

delete

Chalupas54 wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

Also, not sure how it bodes for STL, but the load factors on MSY-LHR for the first week of service have not been stellar from what I've read.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They announced they were adding an extra flight at week on the first day of service. So, I am assuming that future sales must be good.

Chalupas54 wrote: ↑

Apr 06, 2017

Also, not sure how it bodes for STL, but the load factors on MSY-LHR for the first week of service have not been stellar from what I've read.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Load factors especially for a newly (re)launched long-haul in the earliest days of operation is to be expected. Many aren't even aware the new service is operating and it takes time to raise awareness and convert traffic. Usually carriers allow 12-18 months minimum ramp-up for a new long-haul flight to perform, however some more conservative carriers have been known to pull unprofitable routes in as few as six months.

MSY doesn't have a lounge for BA passengers and reportedly J-cabin passengers receive $30 in airport food vouchers to use at the restaurants and concessions. The only club on-site at MSY is a Delta SkyClub in another concourse, although BA has contracts with DL for access at MCO (lounge access arrangements often cross alliance and partnership lines as it's mutually beneficial and in most cases easy revenue for the lounge operator)

^if BA started here would they just use the AA Lounge, since they are partners?

In all likelihood yes, unless the new contract facility would be able to meet their passenger volume needs. Any inbound international arrival requiring FIS at STL comes into E, so perhaps this would save them the trouble and expense of staging the aircraft back to C.

Once again gate space, counter space, lounge facilities are not limiting factors, it is the commercial viability that is questionable at best. The airport would bend over backwards to accommodate whatever needs they (or any other incumbent or potential carrier) may have that would result in more revenue for the aiport.

matguy70 wrote: ↑

Apr 11, 2017

Gate E29 is temporarily being used by SWA for outbound flights. The gate does not has permanent boarding number towers at it (only temporary ones) and according to SWA - they will lose this gate when they move into the new gates on the old (now new) E concourse. E31 is permanent for them. E29 is for international arrivals only now and will continue to be. I have a feeling this is why the new international lounge is being built adjacent to the customs/arrival gate and future departing international routes for international carriers only will also stay at this gate.

I still think if it is BA, that they will fly out of C. They are partners with AA so it makes sense to me that they are in the same concourse. I doubt you would have many connections but it at least gives you the chance to have a few. I also do not know if there is enough room by E29 for the amount of passengers on an international route (unless Southwest vacated 31 and/or 33). If you put them in C you can open up as much as is needed to make sure they have room. Just turning a plane around and moving it from E to C after offloading shouldn't be a big deal.

I also think the new lounge is going to be more focused for the Southwest customers that are here during layovers and need a place to go to work/etc. If it would be someone more like Condor/Wow/Norwegian then I could see them possibly flying out of E. If it is Lufthansa, then I don't know. I don't know if any gates in A are set up for over the ocean planes. It would make sense to have it by United but I am not sure I can see them in A.