JAL007 wrote: ↑Jul 17, 2018
Anyone know why AS appears to be using C27 (their usual gate is C15)? I assume there is a mechanical problem with the jetbridge and with so many surplus gates it’s easy for them to just move temporarily than more to get a quick repair.
While there are plenty of surplus gates, it was my understanding from the RFP for reoppening the four or so additional gates in the works east of the wall in C that there is no comparable surplus of jet-bridges. I believe they had precisely two extra and that they would need to buy more to open those gates. Wasn't sure why they got rid of all the old ones off D, but my guess is many were destroyed in the tornado and why replace when when you have extras sitting around? So now they don't have extras. I'll go with Jshank and guess it's to do with the fuel. They've been tearing up a lot of concrete.
This was from May. Assuming they've filled these two holes and moved on . . . C15 would be about next in line. (If the gate switch persists for a while that'll be a good indication. Or if I go back out and take more pictures. But . . . not today.)
![]()
shadrach wrote:
Timely upload from the ever-interesting Wendover Productions.
The firm that hired Slay is the same that manages Heathrow. It seems the connecting-passenger nature of STL-Lambert is the appeal. If it follows Heathrow's model, (big if) longer hauls, bigger planes and more amenities are the keys to making it work.
https://youtu.be/wdU1WTBJMl0
Hard to argue with Wendover. He does good work. But I have to think you need a different model for Lambert than Heathrow. And that still doesn't answer the "magic pot of money" question of why the city gets a better return when an operator is taking a cut. Sure, long haul is more profitable. And I think the airport folks know that and are doing what they can to attract more. Ditto connecting traffic. (Though potentially at the small plane cost described.)
Now, if the private investor negotiates better contracts that would make sense. (Meaning, most likely, they'd pay their employees less. At least for starters. Which, oddly, takes money out of local tax coffers by the back door, even if more seems to be coming through the airport door. So, actually, that makes sense. There could be other less ominous ways, but that would be an obvious one. And of course not everyone working at the airport lives in the city or pays the same city taxes. Maybe it'd hurt the county more, thus moving money to the city instead. For a price. Pure speculation.)
Anyway, I don't know. There's a lot of good press about Heathrow, but I've heard a lot of negative as well. (Quite possibly mostly from Brits complaining they can't connect there.)
Of course, Wendover does at least try to point out why money losing small public airports can make sense as well. (Though he doesn't go into detail. But all that logic is on clear display in Columbia every time Boone County offers bigger subsidies to a new air carrier to go farther . . . than St. Louis. Heh! You've never heard the hate for Lambert until you've read an op-ed on why the (Mi) "Zou" needs MOWR PLANES! to stay relevant.) And it's three in the morning and I'm making less sense but finding myself funnier. So . . . g'night folks.
(But thank you Shadrach for making me at least a little less worried. Still worried, but . . . not quite as worried. Maybe they know what they're doing and won't just shaft us Kroenke style.)
and it is what you say and they end up here
