urbanSTL

^Whats the reason?

I would be curious to see the loads over at midamerica for the Jacksonville route since it is one of their routes that Lambert doesn't have. It looks like it has been upgraded to year round from seasonal. It only runs twice a week though so that obviously plays into it. Maybe Southwest could make it work since it seems to be doing well with no connecting traffic from Midamerica.

Cincy is still the only place I feel pretty confident Southwest will add soon for us. I'd like another daily flight to Oakland or SFO for personal reasons. I'm also curious to see if southwest opens up more international routes now.

Looking at the pictures of E34-E40 on the Lambert facebook page...

Is it just me or does it seem like there are very few power outlets in the new gates? I don't see any of the Southwest armchairs with the outlets built in, or the bar stool/bar seating areas with outlets. I don't remember that section of D having may outlets, so unless they added more outlets, that seems odd for a "renovated" area.

Then again, I haven't been there in person, so I could be completely off base... guess we'll have to wait for someone on here to go there in person.

stlouisian133 wrote:Looking at the pictures of E34-E40 on the Lambert facebook page...

Is it just me or does it seem like there are very few power outlets in the new gates? I don't see any of the Southwest armchairs with the outlets built in, or the bar stool/bar seating areas with outlets. I don't remember that section of D having may outlets, so unless they added more outlets, that seems odd for a "renovated" area.

Then again, I haven't been there in person, so I could be completely off base... guess we'll have to wait for someone on here to go there in person.

I'm sure those are on the way. I will say that the rest of the concourse is inundated with USB and power ports.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks for the updates Matt (I'm assuming your name is Matt). In pics it looked like the waiting area was tight but your video made it look bigger than I thought. I like that this is the one part of the terminal where you have windows on both sides of the walkway in places. That is nice.

I am pretty excited to check it out tomorrow. My gate is E4, of course, but I'm going to make the hike to check it out. Maybe I'll map my walk and see how long it is.

The Hawaii and Anchorage comments were interesting but I don't think the MAX planes have the range to make it there from here do they? I thought I read LAS/PHX/SEA would be the longest nonstop to Hawaii they could do. I would actually be interested to see them start flying to Canada.

SWA definitely has a hub operation underway at STL. Love it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Jun 21, 2017

The Hawaii and Anchorage comments were interesting but I don't think the MAX planes have the range to make it there from here do they?

The 737 MAX variant that SWA is ordering has a maximum range 3500 miles -- which is no where near the range needed for HNL (over 4100).

Interestingly ANC is under 3000 miles... but there is no demand for an STL-ANC flight. Even in the days of the peak TWA hub with over 500 daily flights, ANC was a seasonal 1x daily. If Southwest were to add flights to ANC, they would be based out of the West Coast, not STL.

Love the sobriety that GregL brings!

gregl wrote: ↑

Jun 21, 2017

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Jun 21, 2017

The Hawaii and Anchorage comments were interesting but I don't think the MAX planes have the range to make it there from here do they?

The 737 MAX variant that SWA is ordering has a maximum range 3500 miles -- which is no where near the range needed for HNL (over 4100).

Interestingly ANC is under 3000 miles... but there is no demand for an STL-ANC flight. Even in the days of the peak TWA hub with over 500 daily flights, ANC was a seasonal 1x daily. If Southwest were to add flights to ANC, they would be based out of the West Coast, not STL.

Interesting. I had no clue they would make it up to ANC from here. But I agree with your thoughts on flights there will probably be from the west coast, if they even start them at all. Thanks for the info!

First tidbit on airport privatization. Bizjournals noting a California and Australian company interested enough to hire local lobbyist as reported. Curious how much international interest from private airport operators will show for Lambert

http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/news ... rport.html

Can someone explain the benefits of airport privatization? I've read some articles online, but I'm not seeing how it benefits the end users of airports, us.

If privatization is so great, why are no other major US airports privatized?

It seems to me that when you start privatizing infrastructure, the largest benefactors are the ones that can pay the most. Large companies, not every day people.

pat wrote: ↑

Jun 21, 2017

Can someone explain the benefits of airport privatization? I've read some articles online, but I'm not seeing how it benefits the end users of airports, us.

If privatization is so great, why are no other major US airports privatized?

It seems to me that when you start privatizing infrastructure, the largest benefactors are the ones that can pay the most. Large companies, not every day people.

I've seen another city do this when they didn't have the money to invest in a new terminal so they let the private side invest into the airport but they get a 50 year (I think) concession to run the airport and pull profits from it.

Seems like the city wants to get its hands on a lot of cash to build out whatever it is they think is worth it. It doesn't make sense because they have this income producing asset that they will sell to fund programs that will most likely be one time injections into the economy. You have a proven money maker on the upswing, don't pawn it to buy some jewelry. I have zero faith in the city government using any money from the sale wisely.

^^ I'm not sure either as some notable privatized efforts whether it be Indiana Tollway and believe Chicago Skyway have not gone well for the buyer either, corporate entity not getting the revenue to come close to return on investment. In addition, A lot of P3's freeway/expressways have used private finance to make it happen but even most of them I read about as of late have revenue guarantees that states have to meet if the tolls come up short. However, those are freeways and not sure if industry experts believes they can recoup a lot of cost savings out of airports. With Lambert have a tough time seeing that happen as it runs pretty lean already and has a fairly substantial amount of underutilized, non revenue real estate it owns and has to maintain.

I'm interested to see how this plays out with Southwest and if they would be interested in becoming a self operator of Terminal II just for the fact that POTUS admin has made it clear that the Feds wants others to fund infrastructure but will take credit for it while pushing privatization hard. Especially in aviation, think air traffic control. Southwest must be having this conversation on what impacts private airports might have on US and whether getting some skin in the game gives them more control, better option. Another way to look at, Is Southwest interested in looking at being a private operator of Lambert Terminal II as a test bed to see whether it gain from or not from privatization?

Seems like the city wants to get its hands on a lot of cash to build out whatever it is they think is worth it. It doesn't make sense because they have this income producing asset that they will sell to fund programs that will most likely be one time injections into the economy. You have a proven money maker on the upswing, don't pawn it to buy some jewelry. I have zero faith in the city government using any money from the sale wisely.

From what I understand, the City doesn't really get money from the airport. Money from the airport goes back to the airport. Regardless, I agree with you. We should not sell the airport for a short term cash injection.

pat wrote: ↑

Jun 21, 2017

Seems like the city wants to get its hands on a lot of cash to build out whatever it is they think is worth it. It doesn't make sense because they have this income producing asset that they will sell to fund programs that will most likely be one time injections into the economy. You have a proven money maker on the upswing, don't pawn it to buy some jewelry. I have zero faith in the city government using any money from the sale wisely.

From what I understand, the City doesn't really get money from the airport. Money from the airport goes back to the airport. Regardless, I agree with you. We should not sell the airport for a short term cash injection.

I think the city gets some money but it is capped. 6 million? This would take away the cap. Something along those lines. All that said the airport has a bunch of debt. It needs to be paying that off. I would rather the city not be taking even more money out of it until the debt is paid off.

dredger wrote: ↑

Jun 21, 2017

I'm interested to see how this plays out with Southwest and if they would be interested in becoming a self operator of Terminal II just for the fact that POTUS admin has made it clear that the Feds wants others to fund infrastructure but will take credit for it while pushing privatization hard.

This isn't going to happen for two reasons:

1) Southwest is an airline and not an airport operator. It's not part of their core business model.

2) You're not going to see privatization done piecemeal -- it's going to be the entire airport. The most significant source of revenue for an airport is landing fees. That is going to be the jkey to any privatization deal.

gregl wrote: ↑

Jun 21, 2017

dredger wrote: ↑

Jun 21, 2017

I'm interested to see how this plays out with Southwest and if they would be interested in becoming a self operator of Terminal II just for the fact that POTUS admin has made it clear that the Feds wants others to fund infrastructure but will take credit for it while pushing privatization hard.

This isn't going to happen for two reasons:

1) Southwest is an airline and not an airport operator. It's not part of their core business model.

2) You're not going to see privatization done piecemeal -- it's going to be the entire airport. The most significant source of revenue for an airport is landing fees. That is going to be the jkey to any privatization deal.

On your two points

1) Southwest is the biggest domestic carrier in a market that could, not saying it would, see a major shift in who they sign leases with going forward at some of the focus cities. The idea they are not talking about it internally or discounting the idea because it is not part of their business model but can significantly impact the business model sounds like a board of company looking backwards not forward. Would FedEx want to be a toll road operator? I doubt it. Would Southwest want to be an operator of Lambert's terminal II for which the pretty much have all the gates rather then lease from an operator who signs a lease with City of St. Louis? I think they would give that some serious thought.

2) I think it all depends who proposes what? Would a piecemeal look a lot better if Southwest comes to the table and says we will guarantee you x landings for x years if Terminal II stays out of the deal and or we become the operator. Where as a private operator comes to the table with cash offer because it does make a lot more sense as you stated but Southwest starts whispering in ears that it will start dropping flights because it sees an increasing price/landing fee structure going forward.

I agree with other posts that city politicians will be looking at this in a very short term benefit that could impact airport negatively in the future. Will take the cash and payoff runway debt or turn it around & spend it like a lotto winner on everything and anything.

The silver lining, An international private operator might just have the connections and pull to get oversee flights into St. Louis to create a defacto and alternate competitive route as well as some more cargo ops.

gregl wrote: ↑

Jun 21, 2017

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Jun 21, 2017

The Hawaii and Anchorage comments were interesting but I don't think the MAX planes have the range to make it there from here do they?

The 737 MAX variant that SWA is ordering has a maximum range 3500 miles -- which is no where near the range needed for HNL (over 4100).

Interestingly ANC is under 3000 miles... but there is no demand for an STL-ANC flight. Even in the days of the peak TWA hub with over 500 daily flights, ANC was a seasonal 1x daily. If Southwest were to add flights to ANC, they would be based out of the West Coast, not STL.

I thought Southwest was ordering two variants: the Max 7 and 8. Mostly the eight, to be fair, but I see them listed on Boeing's own website as the launch customer for not only the family, but also specifically the Max 7. (Wikipedia puts them at 30 orders for the Max 7 and Boeing says they converted that number of Next-Gen orders into Max 7s.

The 3500 mile figure you use appears to be the range of the 737 Max 8 . . . in nmi. (And approximately also the 737-700 in statute miles.) What's the ETOPS range on the 737 Max 7? Boeing is calling for it to add 400 nmi, more or less. The flight distance to HNL from STL is apparently around 3600 nmi, or about 4150 statute miles. Wiki gives the range of the Max 7 as 3800 nmi. They cite an article at Flight Global, which itself implies that Boeing is their source. The same article gives the range of the 737 Max 8 as a bit north of 3500 nmi, which is quite a lot more than 3500 miles. (More than four thousand, in fact, a nautical mile being very slightly over 6000 feet. 6,076.1 if you want to be exact, but I usually round it to 2000 yards for convenience. It was actually supposed to be a minute of longitude before it got all metricized and redefined in meters for some silly reaso. Though it is still a damned odd number of meters: 1852.) If Wiki and worldatlas.com are correct then the Max 7 could technically make it, but only just.

Anyway . . . I suspect the ETOPS range will be a good bit shorter, but they do plan to extend it. So a 737 to HNL might not be out of the question by 2021. Or whenever they really get the thing launched, that is. Further, they're planning a whole new bird that should be an even more leggity single aisle airliner. (Dubbed the 797 by some not-Boeing wag. All of this was just released in France.) I'm guessing this will be the 757 replacement everyone has been breathlessly waiting for. But with the way interoperability is going these days I would be at least a little surprised if it didn't share a cockpit qualification with the 737, rather like the 767 and 787 apparently do. Or the MD-10 (or glass cockpit DC-10) and MD-11. And lots of folks have been suggesting that Southwest's obsession with "everything must be the same" is nearing the end of its useful life anyway. (Heck, they fly so many quite different variants of the 737 already that it really died years ago. At this point they're retiring planes so all their pilots can fly all their planes . . . but they still won't all be the same in terms of parts or anything else. Haven't been in a long time. So if there was some other plane a 737 Max pilot could fly, I bet they would jump at it.)

Anyway . . . this is all speculation and WAGs. And I'm no pilot, for the record. Or airline insider. Just an enthusiast who reads. No special insider knowledge. Just guesses and public sources. And probably a pile of mistakes and false assumptions.

stlouisian133 wrote: ↑

Jun 20, 2017

Looking at the pictures of E34-E40 on the Lambert facebook page...

Is it just me or does it seem like there are very few power outlets in the new gates? I don't see any of the Southwest armchairs with the outlets built in, or the bar stool/bar seating areas with outlets. I don't remember that section of D having may outlets, so unless they added more outlets, that seems odd for a "renovated" area.

Then again, I haven't been there in person, so I could be completely off base... guess we'll have to wait for someone on here to go there in person.

I walked over to the new gates today but I was in a hurry and had stuff in both hands so I didn't take pics. Anyways, I thought it was nice. A lot of light with the round windows that go overhead. The seating was good for how they are using it now, but if they get all 4 gates going it is going to be tight. With mainly only using 2 gates, there was plenty of room. I didn't look super close but I didn't see any outlets in the seats. They did have some countertop like things that had plugs in them. There were A LOT of phones plugged into them, which also leads me to believe none were in the seats. Depending on where my plane comes into Monday night, I will try to get a few pics then and look closer at the seats.

The bar fit in well but they need to eventually get more options down there. I thought I had heard a Starbucks kiosk was going in. I also am curious what they use the area parallel to the moving walkway for? I know the building it wider there. I wonder if a restaurant could go in there eventually? The restaurant by E33 will be nice once they get it put in.

Chalupas54 wrote: ↑

Jun 20, 2017

I have reason to believe we could see a large SW expansion out of STL on the 22nd.

My picks: Indianapolis, Sacramento, and Charlotte. Maybe even Jacksonville.

None of these are showing up on the Southwest route map as of this morning.

I think STL-OAK got dropped which shocks me. I just flew it last night with a connection because the timing on the nonstop didn't work for me and there were several people also on our connection. The nonstop is usually full. Plus it being two bigger stations seems odd it isn't show up anymore... weird. There are now a bunch of one stop no plane change. STL-SFO is still there.

I haven't looked at anything else yet.

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Jun 22, 2017

I think STL-OAK got dropped which shocks me. I just flew it last night with a connection because the timing on the nonstop didn't work for me and there were several people also on our connection. The nonstop is usually full. Plus it being two bigger stations seems odd it isn't show up anymore... weird. There are now a bunch of one stop no plane change. STL-SFO is still there.

I haven't looked at anything else yet.

If you look at the end of the schedule extension in the last couple days, it pops back up so it could be either due to dead of winter or the fleet availability issue that will still linger due to not fully replacing the retiring planes. Also noticed there seems to be difference now in times from the SFO flight too. Also note they have done adjustments after schedule releases more too in adding things, so it could pop up later if they have an extra plane they know is around then.

Other things is that's interesting beyond the normal seasonal things that occurred before is looking like they are keeping San Diego at twice a day which is odd with competition arriving, unless its used as a substitute for Orange County until they can get more slots. also added frequencies to Nashville and Boston end in this one. The latter I expect is seasonal due to possible future competition.

Not too surprising to not see adds in this one due to time of year and their fleet issue not being resolved until later next year. But it would be hard to imagine not having at least some adds next year with the added gates, unless they need to not use the international arrival gates next year.