urbanSTL

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

Sep 26, 2017

I really really wish Southwest had a code-share with someone that went over the deep blue sea.

I am not sure if this is on their radar but I wish it would happen also. I would think they have to at least be keeping it in mind. I don't really know who the best option for them would be. I know they had interlined with Icelandair before but I can't really see them partnering with one of the Iceland airlines when there are LCC straight to mainland Europe now.

Norwegian seems like a fit to me. I know they are looking into a carrier to partner with on the European side. They are/were talking to RyanAir.

Condor already partners with Alaska so they are probably out. I think Icelandair might partner with Alaska also.

Picked some friends up from Terminal 2 on Saturday around 4:30. Pick up lanes were backed up. It took me 20 minutes to get from cell lot to pick up lane. The stoplight would only let 3-5 cars through at a time. It's nice to see the airport this busy, however, is there something the airport could possibly do to help terminal 2 pickup?

chrisberbs wrote: ↑

Sep 26, 2017

Picked some friends up from Terminal 2 on Saturday around 4:30. Pick up lanes were backed up. It took me 20 minutes to get from cell lot to pick up lane. The stoplight would only let 3-5 cars through at a time. It's nice to see the airport this busy, however, is there something the airport could possibly do to help terminal 2 pickup?

MetroLink expansion. Just saying. (and better bus service but that's a much larger issue)
Those two stop lights before T2 do get really bad though. Maybe reconfiguring the garage entry would help. Sometimes people don't mind paying a couple dollars to actually greet someone in the terminal.

Just an FYI:

Southwest is having a sale with $99 one way fares to SFO/SAN/LAX/OAK/FLL on Tues/Wed/Sat Oct-Feb (not holiday weeks). United is matching to SFO, AA to LAX and Miami, Alaska to SAN.

Also, United has a ton of $77 fares to Boston with one stop right now on all days of the week.

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Sep 27, 2017

Looks like Alaska now has cut PDX from STL/MCI/OMA from December to mid March. It had just been cut for December. I also noticed Skywest is flying it again now. Things with Horizon must be bad. Hopefully they get it straightened out soon.

Horizon is dealing with significant pilot shortages.

matguy70 wrote: ↑

Sep 29, 2017

I would expect (and hope) that SWA will add additional non-stops (or the new MAX 737) on this route. I fly STL-PDX once a month and it is full every time both ways.

It looks like most of next year on the schedule it is an -800 (not max) on PDX-STL. STL-PDX is a -700 still most of the time.

Looking at load factor it is pretty strong on both Southwest and Alaska from March-June (only Jan-June is out). Mid 80% to mid 90s.
It makes sense they are doing the -800 on the PDX-STL leg. It was 92% April, 96% May, 93% June on Southwest.
Jan/Feb isn't as good. 70ish percent full.
This is probably with the horizon pilot shortage why they cut us, along with the long length. Hopefully the current mid march date to resume the route sticks.

MCI was closer to 60% the first 2 months on Alaska. That was probably an easy pilot shortage cut.

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Sep 29, 2017

matguy70 wrote: ↑

Sep 29, 2017

I would expect (and hope) that SWA will add additional non-stops (or the new MAX 737) on this route. I fly STL-PDX once a month and it is full every time both ways.

It looks like most of next year on the schedule it is an -800 (not max) on PDX-STL. STL-PDX is a -700 still most of the time.

Looking at load factor it is pretty strong on both Southwest and Alaska from March-June (only Jan-June is out). Mid 80% to mid 90s.
It makes sense they are doing the -800 on the PDX-STL leg. It was 92% April, 96% May, 93% June on Southwest.
Jan/Feb isn't as good. 70ish percent full.
This is probably with the horizon pilot shortage why they cut us, along with the long length. Hopefully the current mid march date to resume the route sticks.

MCI was closer to 60% the first 2 months on Alaska. That was probably an easy pilot shortage cut.

Interesting the different plane depending on direction. But could make sense if one direction has more connecting opportunities here due to timing.
Jan/Feb isn't bad since that's the lowest load time of year anyway, especially for east/west travel. This is almost certainly the Horizon pilot shortage reason since they are doing well on this. Reason they would chose this route for temporary cut is its the longest so most hours saved (would be equivalent to cutting three short routes), there is 2x mainline to Seattle to handle flows to carry it over. (I think one was downgauged between summer and December due to shortage of planes), and they are only cutting PDX routes for the shortage reason since they are fighting with Delta in Seattle and Southwest in California (Wonder if Southwest adding SJC and SMF next year is tied to this at all?)

One thing I wonder too if this drags on or for another reason, is if Alaska decides to run the route as a 4x weekly 737? Since that would equal out a similar number of seats in a week and depending on day of week loads could fit well. Just depends on if they have a plane to use it on available.

Southwest is retiring there -300s today and the new MAX's start on Sunday so I updated my table. It is good as of Oct 9. I was going to do the 2nd but Frontier starts 2 routes towards the end of next week and Southwest changes frequency on New Orleans a week later than everything else so I just did the 9th.



From the last time I updated it, Southwest only has 3 less flights a week (all on Saturday). Still 105 daily. Some cities gained and some lost.

Notes:
The Charleston flight ends Saturday. I would assume this will be back next summer
Tampa and Fort Myers start for Frontier next week. These are seasonal start ups.
United moved ahead of Delta in weekly departures. Delta still runs far more mainline and passengers though.

Weekly Departures:
Southwest....697
American.....297
United..........196
Delta............189
Frontier........42
Alaska.........21
Air Canada..19
Allegiant......18

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Sep 29, 2017

This caught me off guard. I would think they would want to stay in A with United. I wonder if this means they will be adding destinations? I figured they would just add A17 but it already has a loading bridge. Unless it needs a new bridge for some reason.

Gate A9 is stripped on the tarmac, but lacks a jet bridge. That might be it.

For those who are interested Southwest's MAX routes that start Sunday for spotting (not that they look much different than a normal 800)

Sunday Schedule:
PHX-STL-SFO Arrival - 1:15 Departure - 2:05 pm
BNA-STL-HOU Arrival-8:35 pm Departure-9:40 pm

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Oct 03, 2017

More and heavier charters add to STL’s bright cargo prospects

https://www.ajot.com/news/more-and-heav ... -prospects

Nice. Any way to predict when these planes will be arriving/departing? Would be cool to try to get some pictures.

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Oct 03, 2017

More and heavier charters add to STL’s bright cargo prospects

https://www.ajot.com/news/more-and-heav ... -prospects

This is excellent news. The Airport charges airlines by the weight of the plane so more and heavier cargo flights are important revenue generators. The more revenue generated like this allows the Airport the ability to lower passenger flight landing fees which can be attractive to new airlines and existing airlines. Let's keep it up!

Just curious everyone's thoughts on the airport privatization up to this point.

At this moment, I am against it for the following reasons:

1. I don't want the city taking more money out of the airport until the airport debts are paid or at least closer to being paid off.

2. The private operator is going to want a cut of profits. So until I see how they are going to bring in more money than they take out, it is going to be hard for me to be in favor of it.

3. It feels to me like it is a money grab for the city. They just want more money up front so they can waste it on something dumb like normal. The mayor says she wants airport to increase capacity but wouldn't that already be happening if that was an option? I don't know how some private company is going to do that.

I will keep an open mind but so much of this has been in the shadows, it is hard to really know much about what the plan is.

Just concerned that it would be an asset skimming mechanism that hurts things in the long run like what Ichan did with TWA and look what happened there.

There is a part of me wondering if some of it is a way to force a hand and turn over management or even ownership of the airport to a regional port authority.

imperialmog wrote: Just concerned that it would be an asset skimming mechanism that hurts things in the long run like what Ichan did with TWA and look what happened there.

There is a part of me wondering if some of it is a way to force a hand and turn over management or even ownership of the airport to a regional port authority.

I wouldn't be too worried about either of those options.

It's the Show-Me Institute that's behind the push. Why would Sinquefield sink so much money into this if all he really wants to to is push it into a port authority type arrangement? Doesn't make sense. And doesn't match what I know of him. I may not see eye to eye with him about much other than chess, but he's clearly a bright guy. And he's never struck me as anything other than a straight shooter. If Show-Me is pushing for privatization (and it is) and he's got his money behind that (and he does) then why would he want a port authority? It might well be that's what happens. But I don't think that's remotely the goal of the effort. That said, I suspect I disagree with him about this as about everything else, but I haven't heard the whole pitch and I'm willing to listen. For what it's worth, I even think he genuinely wants to grow the region. I'd guess it's a good faith effort. Just one I disagree with, as per usual.

Anyway, no matter how much I might disagree with him, he's not Icahn. I don't think he's out to skin anyone. (At least not here.) And I can't believe he'd like a regional quasi-government running the place any better than the city running it now. He's a free market true believer, through and through. And pretty darn straightforward. WYSIWYG. Which . . . might be why he's not been more politically successful with his various pushes. It's not his game.

Of course, if privatization goes through and some other financier wins the bid and steps in and takes over on his coattails . . . That's a different kettle of fish. Kansas City style. (Or maybe KCI style, more accurately.)

jshank83 wrote: ↑

Oct 04, 2017

Just curious everyone's thoughts on the airport privatization up to this point.

At this moment, I am against it for the following reasons:

1. I don't want the city taking more money out of the airport until the airport debts are paid or at least closer to being paid off.

2. The private operator is going to want a cut of profits. So until I see how they are going to bring in more money than they take out, it is going to be hard for me to be in favor of it.

3. It feels to me like it is a money grab for the city. They just want more money up front so they can waste it on something dumb like normal. The mayor says she wants airport to increase capacity but wouldn't that already be happening if that was an option? I don't know how some private company is going to do that.

I will keep an open mind but so much of this has been in the shadows, it is hard to really know much about what the plan is.

1. Indifferent is my thought,

Lambert like most airports will have debt and continue to have debt to remain relevant as planes evolve, travel patterns & amenities change, and security issues change.

2. Agree, something has to give that neither benefits the city, airlines and or airport employees.

However, the one I can think of that might change that equation is a private operator offers to buy the debt as its payoff & agrees to minimum payment, say $6 million, to the city. Buying the debt gives the private operator a chance to finance at lower rates, or pay himself a lower finance charge on that debt if using their own equity to work the margins differently/gleam profits from the finance savings while clearing the books of debt for city.

But that begs the response. Lambert should be refinancing, and believe they have, current debt and pocket the savings already. The difference and benefit is having debt off the city books would probably be a better outcome then an alderman money grab.

2. Feels like a money grab but the question worth asking. Is their a reasonable investment that can be made with he tpayoff for the benefit of St. Louis in the long range?

The only investment that comes to my mind is payoff goes to a significant fixed transit investment whether it Grand Ave BRT/Streetcar or St. Louis streetcar along central corridor, or if payoff large enough, N-S Light Rail in the city proper. Otherwise, a one time slush fund for alderman, new cars and big city pay raises without any meaningful change or reform of services or future revenue sources is the most likely outcome and scariest, a money grab

As I understand it, if the airport is privatized, the incoming operator will assume the debt of the airport relieving the City of that burden. The operator will infuse private cash into the airport to modernize it and make it more attractive and will not be burdened with the same restrictions that a governmental unit faces (bidding requirements, etc.) The operator will have far more flexibility to market the airport and make it an asset.

This is a good thing. Sometimes, that happens.

As money isn't produced out of thin air - what are the downsides to privatization? All I hear is that privatization would generate a huge chunk of cash for the city, that the new owner will plow in lots of money to improve the airport, and presumable the new owner will make money on top of that in the meantime. Without something on the other side of the scale, all of those things happening simultaneously is impossible.

bprop wrote: ↑

Oct 06, 2017

As money isn't produced out of thin air - what are the downsides to privatization? All I hear is that privatization would generate a huge chunk of cash for the city, that the new owner will plow in lots of money to improve the airport, and presumable the new owner will make money on top of that in the meantime. Without something on the other side of the scale, all of those things happening simultaneously is impossible.

This is what I am waiting to see. People saying it will infuse cash into the city. They will modernize the airport. Well that private company isn't handing out money from the goodness of their heart. They plan to make a return on it and get all that money back (and more) somehow. So.. I want to see how they make more money than they take out so it also it a positive gain for the city. I have yet to see how that will happen.