Chalupas54 wrote:
I think it would also be fair to assert that since STL currently lacks service to Europe (where there is high demand), I would say getting service to any Asian destination is as pertinent for the airport as landing service to Sioux Falls, SD.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think you missed the joking tone I was attempting to insert. (Thus the castle country bit, among other things.) Are we likely to land a flight to Asia? No, not remotely. I suppose part of the joke is that I never fly nonstop anyway, and so it's all theoretical to me. Even in the TWA days I never did. I'm personally far more interested in affordable service than direct service. Direct flights tend to be more expensive, and nonstop more expensive than that. And I really like seeing new places and I'm rarely in a hurry, so I really only fly to places I can't drive, no matter how hard I try. And I really really like layovers. Which . . . is odd. I confess. That said, if slightly more expensive tickets are the price of making Lambert busy again (and they almost certainly are, at least here) then I'm willing to accept that small personal hit for the regional good.
But for one brief glowing moment of honesty . . . do you really believe that there's more economic potential in Europe than Asia? I just don't buy it. Europe is the past. The still wealthy past, to be sure. The cool past. The historic past. There's quite a lot to do there. I'm not knocking it. I wouldn't wish to sever economic ties. There is (and will be for the forseeable future) a lot of money and business there. But it's not where the growth is. Asia is the present. The increasingly wealthy present. Europe sees three percent growth. China ten. Vietnam twenty. Christ only knows what Myanmar's about to see.That will increasingly drive business traffic into Asia and tourist traffic out. Of course, the money over there is still quite new, so it's only just beginning, which is why all the locals want to go to castle country. But I'm telling you, you're missing the boat. The future is an issue for a different thread, as it doesn't really apply to air traffic anyway. Places presently poor need shipping lines and terminals far more than airlines. But Asia is big. Really big. In every conceivable sense of that. And there's enough money there that air traffic is just about ready to hit the roof.
Also note: I have friends and family in Europe. I've been to Europe. I have friends and family in Asia. I've been to Asia. Many times. So . . . I'm biased.
That's why this is supposed to be funny. It's a joke. Don't take it too seriously. I really do hope we land the flight to Europe, even though I will myself probably never once take a nonstop flight to Europe. Or Asia. I fly through Chicago and like it. But I'll cheer for you to get your direct flight . . . even as I secretly suspect, nay even hope, that the reason we get it is an increased demand that drives up all costs. Including mine.
And no, we're not getting a flight to Asia. The traffic isn't there yet. Remember. That's a joke. Seriously. Maybe it won't always be. But it is right now. The tourists (bless their filthy hearts) want to go to Europe. And maybe there's enough business traffic again to justify it. I hope so. And Asian business hasn't caught up . . . yet. Nor have other people's tourists generally figured out where we are. We need to build our cool for that before we build a new terminal. I can only guess at the answer. Maybe music. Maybe food. Beaches help. Or mountains. So . . . uh, yeah, let's go with the music. We need to work on the music. Who wants to commission a symphony today? Wait . . . I did say cool, didn't I? Well, crap.
. . . (Alternately one of you fine folks could invent the next great whizzbang and actually stay here with your company. That would also possibly work. But if you want a REALLY big market for consumer grade whizzbangs, look west . . . to Asia.)
*ducks*
