urbanSTL

imperialmog wrote: ↑

Jun 22, 2017

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.

I agree that it probably has to be plane crunch related. They are bringing Oakland back on an 800 so that makes me think there is demand.

It is a little odd they just said SAN, BNA, BOS were adding frequency permanently just a couple months ago and now take it all back (except SAN) already. I guess if they were really empty they could change course already but it seems early. Especially, when they are running 4 a day to Boston over summer.

Honestly, I hope the frequency to Boston now gets someone else to jump in on the route. We need that routes prices to go down.

I think I was being a little overly optimistic for adds while the plane crunch is going on because we had the adds last update. I would imagine this schedule ended up being a bunch of Florida and PHX adds for winter so they had to redirect planes from cold weather routes.

Trololzilla wrote: ↑

Jun 22, 2017

The 797 (or MOM, for Middle of the Market; or NMA, for New Midsize Airliner) at this point appears to be leaning towards a small widebody (~7 abreast, 4500-5500 NM range, all carbon-fiber body/wing) and a true 767 replacement. Boeing has said that customers want a plane with widebody advantages (two aisles for faster boarding, for example) but also with narrowbody economics, a tough challenge for sure. There's also been some talk that the 797 could possibly be developed into a two-family plane, much like the 767/757, where they share common elements, like the cockpit, and where the narrowbody part of the family serves as the NSA (New Small Aircraft), a replacement for the 737/757.

If anyone wants to read more on the speculative 797, here is the most recent of the *many* threads about it on Airliners.net. It explains things a whole lot better than me:
http://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopi ... &t=1365309

That does sound like a tidy trick if they can pull it off. And, wow, that's quite a thread to pop up in a week. New planes are a big deal, but holy cow!

As to Southwest changing from a single aircraft type fleet: I could see that, especially if Southwest wants to compete more with the US3 and offer longer transcons and/or intercontinental flights. I don't think it'd be anytime soon, though.

At some point it seems to me that it becomes a question of where else can they go that they don't already. And a lot of that sounds like "not a 737 route" for reasons of size in one direction the other. I suppose they can keep growing by shaking butts out of legacy seats for a while, but the unholy trinity seems to have caught on to some of the game. And there's a lot more non-trinitarian competition these days than there was a quarter century back. Just a WAG, but I can't believe they can stay 737 all the way forever. It's a great idea. Sound logic. But they've gotten a LOT bigger. And again, is a 737-700 really the same plane as a 738 or the skippy new MAX jets anyway? How many parts do they have in common and how many unique parts do you have to inventory for each model and sub-model? I suppose it probably still is a lot easier than breaking into a truly different airframe, like a 787 or some such. I suppose they all have related engines, at least, and that does go a long way. Eh. We shall see. They've managed to carry the experiment a long long way, so they clearly have a pretty good idea what they're doing.

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Jun 23, 2017

Trololzilla wrote: ↑

Jun 22, 2017

As to Southwest changing from a single aircraft type fleet: I could see that, especially if Southwest wants to compete more with the US3 and offer longer transcons and/or intercontinental flights. I don't think it'd be anytime soon, though.

At some point it seems to me that it becomes a question of where else can they go that they don't already. And a lot of that sounds like "not a 737 route" for reasons of size in one direction the other. I suppose they can keep growing by shaking butts out of legacy seats for a while, but the unholy trinity seems to have caught on to some of the game. And there's a lot more non-trinitarian competition these days than there was a quarter century back. Just a WAG, but I can't believe they can stay 737 all the way forever. It's a great idea. Sound logic. But they've gotten a LOT bigger. And again, is a 737-700 really the same plane as a 738 or the skippy new MAX jets anyway? How many parts do they have in common and how many unique parts do you have to inventory for each model and sub-model? I suppose it probably still is a lot easier than breaking into a truly different airframe, like a 787 or some such. I suppose they all have related engines, at least, and that does go a long way. Eh. We shall see. They've managed to carry the experiment a long long way, so they clearly have a pretty good idea what they're doing.

At this point all their pilots can fly every plane also, correct? Once you start adding different planes you have to have different pilots for different planes. I am sure that isn't a huge deal but right now they have lots of flexibility. With the MAX being able to make Europe routes/Hawaii, I would think that makes it less likely they add more types of planes. They can do most of the routes with what they will have already.

And the whole any of their pilot can fly any type of plane is why the 737-300 is retiring when the MAX models arrive, since they couldn't keep the same type rating for both. This will cause a fleet crunch for some time until they get enough new planes to replace retirements. I'm guessing that is the reason for any of the frequency reductions that aren't season here are occurring is they don't have planes to fly them and the seasonal north south routes are better to do for winter. Since them adding gates means they plan on another round of expansion at some point.

One other thing to note, could be having the gates ready and operating before the flights do so allow them to get a sense of how many more flights can be added and when before gate congestion issues occur when the weather is bad here or somewhere else. This also allows for new hires to be brought on and up to speed since there has to have been a nice uptick in staff here. Since you wouldn't take four more gates without adding a number of flights eventually to make it worth the expense doing so. This could also be at least in part due to needing to not use the international arrivial gates in the near future for some reason.

Looks like TPA-SAN was the only year round add on this update for anyone. No permanent cuts. Not exciting, haha.

https://www.southwestaircommunity.com/h ... pacity.pdf

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.

They're not selling the airport, they're selling operation of the airport, right? Whatever that means.

If I understand it correctly, in principle, expanding by trading income away rather than borrowing has some advantages. If you borrow against your future landing fees, you're counting on those fees to be sufficient to actually pay your debt. We kind of got bit by this in the past, where we built a runway for growth that never materialized. Privatization puts that risk on the private investors' books.

Of course, the devil is always in the details, both what on they're giving up and what they're blowing the money on in or outside the airport.

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Jun 23, 2017

At this point all their pilots can fly every plane also, correct? Once you start adding different planes you have to have different pilots for different planes. I am sure that isn't a huge deal but right now they have lots of flexibility. With the MAX being able to make Europe routes/Hawaii, I would think that makes it less likely they add more types of planes. They can do most of the routes with what they will have already.

Don't quote me on Europe and Hawaii. The longer legged MAX versions might be able to make it, but . . . I'm no pilot. I just play sims and take pictures. Classically twin engine passenger aircraft were not allowed to operate beyond a certain distance from diversionary airports, if I understand the history correctly. And this same thing did not originally apply to three and four engine aircraft. (Though I think it does now to some extent.) Obviously birds like the A310 and 767 are a lot less useful if you can't do that. So the bird builders lobbied ICAO the FAA for a way to make it happen. They were granted a sort of dispensation called "ETOPS" or Extended Twin Engine Operations. Whatever the range might be you can't go past your ETOPS rating outside a certain diversion range of an emergency field, I believe. And I've no idea what it might be for the MAX jets. Per Wiki the way they figure it is that you have to be able to reach an airport within a certain specified period of time on one engine. And over oceans there aren't many airports, so . . . that's doubtless why it gets tricky. Further, you always have to have a certain amount of reserves to get you to a plausible diversion in case of impenetrable San Fran fog, melted air in Phoenix, earthquakes, typhoons, angry badgers, or what have you. And diversions could be tricky in Hawaii, since something that melts a runway on Honolulu probably got Hilo too, so you might need to divert to Midway, or Wake . . . or Tokyo. Everything's either in the same zip code or a really really long way off. Makes it a little trickier than just a question of range. And all I've got to go on is the publicly available junk, which could well be half wrong anyway.

The MAX jets really might give SWA longer legs. I'll bet it eventually gets them to Hawaii. But . . . I'm just guessing and I'm a well known moron, so please don't quote me. Else you'll end up a marooned moron when the fuel runs out, which could be a real drag. But even so, I can't believe they'll be able to forever serve all the new markets they might want to serve without buying a plane without a three in the type listing. The jack of all trades is the master of none. I do speak from experience there. Seems like it's just a matter of time.

Of course . . . I am still a moron.

Southwest isn't ETOPS certified but there are other airlines (united being one) that fly 737-900s West Coast-HNL so whenever Southwest gets around to getting it, they can do it on a Max. I have also read articles that talked about which cities they could fly it from but I don't have a link handy.

Did we ever hear the May passenger numbers? I would assume they went well. Passed through Lambert again today, and did last week. E is extremely congested. The line for the food court is absolutely unbelievable- frankly, it's unacceptable. They should put queues out. I also pulled into one of the new gates- E38 I believe. I departed out of E2. I really do love how busy our airport has gotten. Not only in the terminal, but also on the tarmac. I have seen multiple takeoff queues, as well as arrival delays. Also, are they expanding Vino Volo?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chalupas54 wrote: ↑

Jun 26, 2017

Did we ever hear the May passenger numbers? I would assume they went well. Passed through Lambert again today, and did last week. E is extremely congested. The line for the food court is absolutely unbelievable- frankly, it's unacceptable. They should put queues out. I also pulled into one of the new gates- E38 I believe. I departed out of E2. I really do love how busy our airport has gotten. Not only in the terminal, but also on the tarmac. I have seen multiple takeoff queues, as well as arrival delays. Also, are they expanding Vino Volo?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

May isn't out yet. Usually it is by now, so I am kind of assuming it will be out Monday.

Also one additional thought regarding T2, there is a small little retail stand outside Chilis. That should be moved further down the concourse towards the newer gates. It takes up a lot of room and makes the walkway very congested. I also want to say that last night one of the people on my flight into STL was connecting to Minneapolis and said that our airport was 'so modern' and 'so efficient'. It made sense actually. The T2 structure has aged very well and is very bright, while most other SWA stations are drab. Either way, I'm very proud of how far KSTL has come.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like Quincy, Cape's service it out for bid also.

It has a lot more options than Quincy, that include STL, Memphis, Nashville, Atlanta, Chicago. Most still include us.

Again, not many passengers but I thought I would make a note. This article has links to all the proposals.

http://www.kfvs12.com/story/35739530/ca ... stinations

^ It is surprising how many of these small airports are connected to here, especially compared to other sized metros. Though geography could be a factor in it too with more remote areas but not too remote.

This also reminds me, noticed that quite a bit of local traffic does seem to be outside of the metro area. Furthermore, from what I have seen from people I know is a number drive to Chicago for international travel, so demand for that from here may be underreported due to that. Main reason seemed to be larger groups where cost saving made it worthwhile and/or their trip becomes one stop instead of two stops which reduces chances of missed connections. Not sure if anyone has seen or done this themselves.

imperialmog wrote: ↑

Jun 27, 2017

^ It is surprising how many of these small airports are connected to here, especially compared to other sized metros. Though geography could be a factor in it too with more remote areas but not too remote.

This also reminds me, noticed that quite a bit of local traffic does seem to be outside of the metro area. Furthermore, from what I have seen from people I know is a number drive to Chicago for international travel, so demand for that from here may be underreported due to that. Main reason seemed to be larger groups where cost saving made it worthwhile and/or their trip becomes one stop instead of two stops which reduces chances of missed connections. Not sure if anyone has seen or done this themselves.

My brother and his friend drove to Chicago for a flight to Asia earlier this year (Because of price). Two other friends drove to Chicago for a flight to Europe this year (because of price). I would be curious to know how much they really saved after gas, parking. Also, my companies CEO (lives in Europe) will fly into Chicago or DC a lot and drive here. It sounds like that is partially because he likes to drive and see the country though. I don't know if it is a huge number of people that do that but there are some for sure.

I am planning a trip to Europe next year and probably am going to fly Southwest to New York then fly someone else from there because it is way cheaper and we have to make a stop anyways. Side note, I have a companion pass for Southwest so that makes it cheaper to fly to NYC then take a different airline from there. If I didn't have that, then we maybe wouldn't do it that way.

Tomorrow at 4:25PM, I'm flying from Chicago to Zagreb Croatia (via Madrid) for $607 round trip with Iberia Airlines. i also booked separate a flight from STL to Chicago tomorrow morning at 9am for $205 round trip (on the way back i get into chicago at 8pm and praying i catch the 9:50PM flight from Chi to STL) if i put in STL to Zagreb it was like $1400-1600 this is $812.

dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑

Jun 27, 2017

Tomorrow at 4:25PM, I'm flying from Chicago to Zagreb Croatia (via Madrid) for $607 round trip with Iberia Airlines. i also booked separate a flight from STL to Chicago tomorrow morning at 9am for $205 round trip (on the way back i get into chicago at 8pm and praying i catch the 9:50PM flight from Chi to STL) if i put in STL to Zagreb it was like $1400-1600 this is $812.

The problem with this strategy is that (in most cases) if you misconnect, you are on your own. Airline alliances have even done away with the requirement that airlines will through-check bags between two tickets or reprotect passengers in the event of schedule disruptions.

The good news is that AA does honor baggage through checking and reprotection due to schedule disruptions if both tickets are AA / OneWorld airlines. So, if your tickets to/from Chicago are on AA, you'll be fine. But, if they are on UA, then you're out of luck.

Having said that... most online travel agents and airline websites should be able to price out such a ticket with separate STL-ORD and ORD-ZAG fares, although you may have to use the "multi-city" function.

Not sure if this is the thread to post this, but over on kcrag.com on the "we need a new airport!!!" thread, there is lengthy discussions on KCI, and how many believe a new airport facility there will result in a 'hub' operation from Southwest. Any possibility of that?

Chalupas54 wrote: ↑

Jun 28, 2017

Not sure if this is the thread to post this, but over on kcrag.com on the "we need a new airport!!!" thread, there is lengthy discussions on KCI, and how many believe a new airport facility there will result in a 'hub' operation from Southwest. Any possibility of that?

No, no chance at all. KC sucks. They all live in a dream world there. Believe me, I used to live there.

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Jun 27, 2017

My brother and his friend drove to Chicago for a flight to Asia earlier this year (Because of price). Two other friends drove to Chicago for a flight to Europe this year (because of price). I would be curious to know how much they really saved after gas, parking. Also, my companies CEO (lives in Europe) will fly into Chicago or DC a lot and drive here. It sounds like that is partially because he likes to drive and see the country though. I don't know if it is a huge number of people that do that but there are some for sure.

Re: gas, let's make some assumptions here. Say you're driving from Crestwood. The car you're driving averages 20 MPG (low for a modern car, but not for an SUV or an older vehicle). Let's say gas is $2.50/gal; that's currently high for both MO and IL, so it leaves room for gas prices to go up.

It's 310 miles from Crestwood to O'Hare. If you're just talking about gas, then you're using 15.5 gallons of fuel, which would cost you a little less than $40 bucks ($38.88 to be precise). each way. Realistically you'd likely top off the tank when you get to Chicago and again when you get back. So if you're just factoring in the fuel it's not that much.

But you can factor total vehicle maintenance costs (including fuel, insurance, depreciation, cost of licencing, etc) using AAA's 2016 numbers. By that metric A 311 mile trip would cost from $135.97 for an economy car to $211.95 for a 4WD SUV each way.

As for parking, you can park near O'Hare for as little as $5/day if you reserve a spot in advance. Just-in-time rates vary from $10 to $17/day.

Of course too, you could just rent an economy car to drive up there, and rent another to come back home. Costs for that could potentially be in the $20-30 range each way, plus gas (at, say 30 mpg - remember, it's a new economy car - you're looking at a hair over 10 gallons of fuel which would cost you about $25 each way). If you're going to be away a while that'd be much cheaper than driving your own car and paying to store it in a lot.

If you're saving several hundred dollars on a flight it might still be worth it to drive to Chicago - especially if you're eliminating a connection in the process. That's entirely an feasible scenario. A family member of mine living out of the country saved $300 by flying into Chicago instead of St. Louis-Lambert International, and we took her arrival as an excuse to spend a touristy weekend up in Chicago before we picked her up.

-RBB

Chalupas54 wrote: ↑

Jun 28, 2017

Not sure if this is the thread to post this, but over on kcrag.com on the "we need a new airport!!!" thread, there is lengthy discussions on KCI, and how many believe a new airport facility there will result in a 'hub' operation from Southwest. Any possibility of that?

I think they could get more flights but I think the ship will have sailed for a huge operation. IF and that is a big IF they even decide to build the terminal it won't be done for years. By that time I think the investment here, Nashville, and other places will already be have gotten to the point the MCI will be too late to the party to get a bunch of flights moved over.

rbb wrote: ↑

Jun 28, 2017

But you can factor total vehicle maintenance costs (including fuel, insurance, depreciation, cost of licencing, etc) using AAA's 2016 numbers. By that metric A 311 mile trip would cost from $135.97 for an economy car to $211.95 for a 4WD SUV each way.
[/url].

Or Amtrak is like $30 per person.

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑

Jun 29, 2017

rbb wrote: ↑

Jun 28, 2017

But you can factor total vehicle maintenance costs (including fuel, insurance, depreciation, cost of licencing, etc) using AAA's 2016 numbers. By that metric A 311 mile trip would cost from $135.97 for an economy car to $211.95 for a 4WD SUV each way.
[/url].

Or Amtrak is like $30 per person.

This is what I told them they should have done.

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Jun 29, 2017

MarkHaversham wrote: ↑

Jun 29, 2017

rbb wrote: ↑

Jun 28, 2017

But you can factor total vehicle maintenance costs (including fuel, insurance, depreciation, cost of licencing, etc) using AAA's 2016 numbers. By that metric A 311 mile trip would cost from $135.97 for an economy car to $211.95 for a 4WD SUV each way.
[/url].

Or Amtrak is like $30 per person.

This is what I told them they should have done.

You definitely pay in terms of time to take Amtrak to Chicago, get over to EL and out to Ohara if everything is on time. However, if Musk gets his way and a few billions he is going to build a high speed tunnel between downtown and O'hara

Just for fun, I wondered if you could add any 3 routes from the airport what would the city/airline be?

It can be a city there is already service to on an airline that doesn't fly it.

It doesn't have to be viable but in theory would have to be possible.

For example, Southwest or Cape Air to Sydney is not an option. If you want to say United to Tokyo then that is okay.

For me:

Jetblue to Boston
Porter to Toronto
Delta to Paris