urbanSTL

Ascension must be the biggest local company nobody has ever heard of. How many employees do they have here anyway?

Not sure on the number of employees working at their main office by the airport, but they have their investment management team on their own in Clayton and I believe it's about 20 +/- people.

From a different health merger story but it has Ascension info.

http://www.montrosepress.com/national/n ... 4b47e.html

This past weekend, the Wall Street Journal reported that Seattle-based Providence St. Joseph Health and St. Louis-based Ascension Health were in talks on a possible merger that would create the nation's largest hospital network and lead them to also relocate and open a shared headquarters in Chicago. A merger of Providence and Ascension would account for 191 hospitals in more than half of the states, surpassing the 177 hospitals of industry leader HCA Healthcare. The companies declined comment.

somebody needs to nuke Chicago.

Chicago: ruining everything for every other Midwestern city since trains were invented.

jshank83 wrote:From a different health merger story but it has Ascension info.

http://www.montrosepress.com/national/n ... 4b47e.html

This past weekend, the Wall Street Journal reported that Seattle-based Providence St. Joseph Health and St. Louis-based Ascension Health were in talks on a possible merger that would create the nation's largest hospital network and lead them to also relocate and open a shared headquarters in Chicago. A merger of Providence and Ascension would account for 191 hospitals in more than half of the states, surpassing the 177 hospitals of industry leader HCA Healthcare. The companies declined comment.

Oh come on. You gotta be kidding me. WHY?

That's a really unfortunate. We need companies like Ascension to stick around and grow right here.

Stenger needs to get on this! The County needs to be doing whatever possible to keep them here!

Obviously there is a chance that any relocation would be inevitable if the deal goes through, but at the very least his office should be doing anything possible.

So it sounds like ascension made its decision

Why on earth are companies still moving to Chicago? Don't they know that the state is totally broke and their employees are all gonna get screwed?

I have just contacted the St Louis Economic Development Partnership as well as County. Everyone should do the same.

But agreed. I see no reason why Chicago is appealing anymore.

BellaVilla wrote: ↑

Dec 13, 2017

Oh btw I know this news stings, but take solace in this...

Avg High 12/13-12/21
St. Louis Chicago
50.1 degress 37.25 degrees

Word on the street though is the HQ will be inside.

This is really disheartening. St. Louis seems to have a pretty robust healthcare and hospital industry and talent pool. I really don't get it. Other than O'Hare airport connections this just seems like a way of increasing costs. Chicago's a great city, but this move and the Clayco move, what's the big hang up on Chi?

Think a lot of it has to do with flight connectivity..

It the merger a done deal?

I have not read anywhere that it is.

DogtownBnR wrote: ↑

Dec 13, 2017

It the merger a done deal?

I have not read anywhere that it is.

No, it is not. That was just what would happen if it goes through. I don't know how likely it is to go through.

I'm inclined to think the flight connectivity really is something of a big deal. Chicago is the cheapest market in the country for flights, if I recall correctly. And we are one of the more expensive markets. Even when TWA was here, this was a comparatively pricey place to catch a flight. Of course, you could go anywhere easily and corporations doubtless got a nice discount on the expensive seats towards the front, so that probably mitigated some of the problem. Southwest is a dandy airline, but they cannot give the same perks that a legacy carrier can. They just don't have the equipment for it. That right there is a real problem. It's one thing to ask contractors and middle management to fly coach, but I can't imagine any upper management in the world would really be eager about the idea. So there's your options: coach or layovers. This is absolutely not true of Chicago. Or Denver. Or Phoenix. Or Charlotte. Or Dallas. Or Houston. Or Minneapolis. Or Salt Lake. Or even Detroit. You can probably even find cities with comparable or even somewhat inferior route maps that are more appealing to front office sorts, since the route map is American, Delta, or United and not an LCC. Nashville, maybe. Or Indianapolis. I basically enjoyed my first trip on Southwest. But make no mistake, even the "expensive" seats are quite closely equivalent to coach anywhere else. With a couple of free checked bags. And maybe a coupon for a free drink. Guess who wouldn't care about that? It's a real problem.

symphonicpoet wrote:I'm inclined to think the flight connectivity really is something of a big deal. Chicago is the cheapest market in the country for flights, if I recall correctly. And we are one of the more expensive markets. Even when TWA was here, this was a comparatively pricey place to catch a flight. Of course, you could go anywhere easily and corporations doubtless got a nice discount on the expensive seats towards the front, so that probably mitigated some of the problem. Southwest is a dandy airline, but they cannot give the same perks that a legacy carrier can. They just don't have the equipment for it. That right there is a real problem. It's one thing to ask contractors and middle management to fly coach, but I can't imagine any upper management in the world would really be eager about the idea. So there's your options: coach or layovers. This is absolutely not true of Chicago. Or Denver. Or Phoenix. Or Charlotte. Or Dallas. Or Houston. Or Minneapolis. Or Salt Lake. Or even Detroit. You can probably even find cities with comparable or even somewhat inferior route maps that are more appealing to front office sorts, since the route map is American, Delta, or United and not an LCC. Nashville, maybe. Or Indianapolis. I basically enjoyed my first trip on Southwest. But make no mistake, even the "expensive" seats are quite closely equivalent to coach anywhere else. With a couple of free checked bags. And maybe a coupon for a free drink. Guess who wouldn't care about that? It's a real problem.

Ehh, a lot of this is really iffy. Chicago is definitely not the cheapest airfare market. If it is, please tell me how to find their cheap fares. I also don’t find St Louis to be expensive. Fares out of STL, as someone who has flown into STL from literally every possible origin, are cheaper than most places. I think as other people have said, it’s just the “Chicago” name, IMO. I think that brand is fading quickly, however. Keep in mind that unless you are a hub city, you won’t have nonstops everywhere. Austin, Indianapolis, Nashville, and many many others have gaping holes in their route maps. Not really the case here in St Louis anymore. After the additions of San Jose and Sacramento, STL has a complete domestic route map.

On your point about Southwest, I know of many blue chips that have contracts/buy seats with Southwest. They aren’t as cheap as they used to be, but the advantages they offer domestic business travelers is really substantial. I don’t know why everyone says they’re a terrible airline. STL has biz seats to all major business markets. For STL-NYC alone we have 4 airlines running it.

But, in general, STL is very well served by legacy carriers. They all offer competitive prices. I just get very confused where people are ~still~ saying we have poor air service. That’s literally not the case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The Business Journal had a follow up article out this morning on the merger. There was mention that a letter of intent to merge was signed in August but no mention where the combined company would be hq'd.

Chalupas54 wrote: ↑

Dec 14, 2017

Ehh, a lot of this is really iffy. Chicago is definitely not the cheapest airfare market. If it is, please tell me how to find their cheap fares.

Check Southwest's prices out of Midway?

NB: This is a joke. In the author's very limited but statistically irrelevant experience Southwest flights from Midway are anywhere from 25-50% cheaper than comparable flights from Lambert. However, 2016 DOT statistics appear to back this up, as they rank Midway as the lowest average fair of fifty nine major airports.

I'm getting this from an article that was posted recently on Airliners.net. To quote Eno Transportation Weekly "Finally, Midway has the lowest average fare of any airport in the country." Which was a substantial part of why they ranked Chicago first in air service. Now, you can dispute their methodology, if you wish, but it's all there in the fine print. Better yet, their data is available for download, so you can see how they came to their conclusions.

I also don’t find St Louis to be expensive. Fares out of STL, as someone who has flown into STL from literally every possible origin, are cheaper than most places.

In the same report Lambert is ranked fiftieth of fifty nine. The DOT data on which this table is based is quite public, but I warn you, it is massive, as it's in city pairs, not cities. So I haven't waded through terribly much of it.

On your point about Southwest, I know of many blue chips that have contracts/buy seats with Southwest. They aren’t as cheap as they used to be, but the advantages they offer domestic business travelers is really substantial. I don’t know why everyone says they’re a terrible airline. STL has biz seats to all major business markets. For STL-NYC alone we have 4 airlines running it.

I'm not really disputing that many or even most companies use Southwest. It's not about that. It's about whether the upper management wants to fly in the cattle car. And I'm going out on a limb here . . . they don't. Nor would I suggest that other non-hub cities have better route maps than we do. But it's not all about the route map. It's also about the quality of that service. And it's not middle management or contractors that decides where the HQ goes, and not every company has a private jet. (And even if they do, not everyone in upper management will have the keys.) So whether or not a company is willing to book employees on a given airline is almost irrelevant. The boss doesn't want to fly coach. Or suffer layovers. And there are only three airlines in the country that actually offer real bone-fide business seats nationally. Southwest has something they call "business class" . . . but it's not remotely the same thing as what you'd get on the legacy carriers. It's the same teeny tiny seats you get in the back of the plane everywhere else. Sure, you get to pick a window seat by virtue of getting on first. And you get a free drink. But there's not much you can do to keep me from sitting down next to you. And as you get off, does it look to you like the seats at the front of the plane when you walk off one of American's triple sevens? Be honest.

I don't think Southwest's service is in any way bad. Their customer service was great. The planes are clean. The crew was friendly. But really, it's pretty much the same as flying coach on any airline, save for the fact that you get a couple of free checked bags domestic. All that said, I'm really glad their here and I hope they expand. They're a perfectly good carrier. But . . . I do think the airline service issue is real. And after some careful analysis, I can see why Southwest probably doesn't fill the gap for a "suit." Doesn't mean they're bad. Just means they really are different, and that difference is non-trivial. Not everyone wants the iconoclast.

All of which is to say that we should maybe find a way to encourage American to expand their service a little as well. Or start a new "legacy" airline. I'm pretty confident we're still a bit underserved. It's been a vicious cycle with the dominant legacy carrier supplying fancy service and the major companies that demand that service both bailing at the same time and opening a drain at the bottom of the air service pool. The leak has been plugged . . . but it's going to take some time for the pool to fill back up. Mm. maybe another ten to fifteen years, at a guess. I have patience. We live in interesting times. (Sadly?)

Chalupas54 wrote: ↑

Dec 14, 2017

But, in general, STL is very well served by legacy carriers. They all offer competitive prices. I just get very confused where people are ~still~ saying we have poor air service. That’s literally not the case.

No direct flights to major European hubs. I work in the financial/research sectors and can assure you that this is a big deal.

WOW is a first step in this direction, but it won't solve the problem because anyone above middle management would rather connect in Chicago with United and fly to Frankfurt or connect in Atlanta with Delta and fly to Paris than connecting in Reykjavik in an ultra budget carrier. The reason I say it's a step in the right direction is that it will potentially attract legacy carriers (either US or European) to the STL market.

It's particularly embarrassing that we are the largest MSA in the country with no nonstop flights to Europe or Asia, and some smaller MSAs do have them (Indianapolis, Nashville, etc)

kipfilet wrote: ↑

Dec 15, 2017

Chalupas54 wrote: ↑

Dec 14, 2017

But, in general, STL is very well served by legacy carriers. They all offer competitive prices. I just get very confused where people are ~still~ saying we have poor air service. That’s literally not the case.

No direct flights to major European hubs. I work in the financial/research sectors and can assure you that this is a big deal.

WOW is a first step in this direction, but it won't solve the problem because anyone above middle management would rather connect in Chicago with United and fly to Frankfurt or connect in Atlanta with Delta and fly to Paris than connecting in Reykjavik in an ultra budget carrier. The reason I say it's a step in the right direction is that it will potentially attract legacy carriers (either US or European) to the STL market.

It's particularly embarrassing that we are the largest MSA in the country with no nonstop flights to Europe or Asia, and some smaller MSAs do have them (Indianapolis, Nashville, etc)

Can of worms, but the ongoing "main" problem is that the airport did not have the greatest amount of $ to throw. They now have over $4 million to throw at airlines, which is a very large amount. I'd expect to see something come in the next year or so.

Let's hope so...

kipfilet wrote: ↑

Dec 15, 2017

Chalupas54 wrote: ↑

Dec 14, 2017

But, in general, STL is very well served by legacy carriers. They all offer competitive prices. I just get very confused where people are ~still~ saying we have poor air service. That’s literally not the case.

No direct flights to major European hubs. I work in the financial/research sectors and can assure you that this is a big deal.

WOW is a first step in this direction, but it won't solve the problem because anyone above middle management would rather connect in Chicago with United and fly to Frankfurt or connect in Atlanta with Delta and fly to Paris than connecting in Reykjavik in an ultra budget carrier. The reason I say it's a step in the right direction is that it will potentially attract legacy carriers (either US or European) to the STL market.

It's particularly embarrassing that we are the largest MSA in the country with no nonstop flights to Europe or Asia, and some smaller MSAs do have them (Indianapolis, Nashville, etc)

When TWA's hub was destroyed by American it was the most detrimental thing to happen to Saint Louis since the midwest railroad hub loss to Chicago.

kipfilet wrote: ↑

Dec 15, 2017

Let's hope so...

A ton more info is available in the St Louis Lambert thread.