Found the renderings for the new baggage claims area. Looks good. Extra concessions also.
![]()
![]()
![]()
This looks better then the airport terminal they're proposing to build in KC lol.
All kidding aside though, I do like it and as a frequent user of the Southwest terminal in St. Louis it will certainly help alleviate the crowding issues. Even though I know Southwest has no interest in moving over to T1 I still wish that's what they'd do. There is so much extra capacity over there, especially in the baggage area. Move all of SW over to C Concourse (where they'd still have their own customs area) and move American and other international carriers over to T2. Use the $20+ million they'd spend on this to bring new international services and make some other improvements. Wishful thinking I guess.
I'd also really like to be able to walk through the historic T1 building when I get picked up at Lambert instead of T2.
- 1,610
Why do the interior shots look dark, but the exterior shot is all glass?
- 985
Anyone else notice that the pictures of people in a couple of the photos have some of the exact same people images in them?
Is this supposed to be sarcasm?imperialmog wrote: ↑Oct 03, 2018Anyone else notice that the pictures of people in a couple of the photos have some of the exact same people images in them?
Obviously, the people just moved in between the pics they took.imperialmog wrote: ↑Oct 03, 2018Anyone else notice that the pictures of people in a couple of the photos have some of the exact same people images in them?
- 6,119
Might be that the renderings are mistakenly from a couple of different iterations. I rather thought they had ultimately decided to expand the ticketing level as well, though that wasn't a part of the original proposal. Maybe the exterior is the original one story idea and the interior is the new two story concept. Honestly, the line down the middle of the glass panels makes it look like two stories anyway, save for the fact they don't match the current building's levels. It's certainly tall enough for two stories, since the canopy only falls halfway up.ricke002 wrote: Why do the interior shots look dark, but the exterior shot is all glass?
- 1,792
I think its feasible but i dont know if its optimal. To my mind the best setup would be to extend metrolink to a consolidated car rental facilty. There are posibilities that arent even extensions such as the souteast corner of 170 and 70.
Use the area you pointed to for a new paid parking facility when the current terminal rquires expansion and add a terminal hotel. Mine iis obviously a long range vision bu there is no reason to create conflicts now for what you want to see later.
Disappointed I thought they would naturally expand the upper level at the same time. I rarely have problems at baggage but the morning rush at terminal 2 often seems like a trendy bar scene with everyone in each other’s armpits.
Also this is a pretty modest expansion only adding a single carousel. Would have preferred them to build out the space sufficient to serve two even if they only installed one. We are going to continue to grow right...? Although I suppose they might be able to repurpose the floor space of the coffee place when they need the space...
So I've wondered about this in the past. Do we actually know that this tunnel exists? The airport's website tells you to take shuttles to the MetroBus stop for both T1 and T2. Which is absurd, but fitting for STL's attitudes towards busses.Trololzilla wrote: ↑Oct 03, 2018There's already a tunnel that connects all the way from the terminal/pickup/parking garage area to the MetroBus depot on the other side of the road.
Yes, it serves 3 purposes:
1) Cars can use it to exit and pay in the Midterm lot.
2) Foot access to the Mid-term lot.
3) Foot access to the Bus Port.
They probably don't suggest it as it's a decent walk and a steep grade (especially with luggage).
Not feasible reasonable. With a consolidated facility, rental car companies do not store cars off site and bring them to the facility as needed. All cars are stored in the facility when not being rented. The area you have circled looks like it would hold maybe 100 cars per level of a garage.Trololzilla wrote: ↑Oct 03, 2018From the consolidated facilities I've seen, it could be a smallish parking garage (even just a one-story, covered garage), where you can rent cars in person or pick-up reserved cars and drive them out hassle-free. It's looks to be about a five minute walk from the baggage claims, which isn't too bad and in line with a lot of other such facilities I've seen at other airports. Thoughts? Is it feasible/reasonable?
Sure it might work during a period of high demand where most cars are rented... but most definitely not in a slow period.
- 985
Might want to compare total footprint of consolidated car rental facilities at other similar sized airports too see how much space is needed beyond the fuel area. Not sure what the lots just to the west of there is used for and if they could be moved to work something out. Another is take part of A if they want to turn A into a garage.
One question in terms of the luggage area they are expanding, is since they are also redoing existing carousels, will the redo of those and the back end components end up resulting in increasing capacity of each carousel beyond what it is now? If so it could mean adding one more carousel and redoing current ones would add more than just a 50% increase from the added one.
Weather they run into the same issues as before down the road all depends on what the long term plans are for Southwest for both St. Louis and as an operating model for the airline.
One question in terms of the luggage area they are expanding, is since they are also redoing existing carousels, will the redo of those and the back end components end up resulting in increasing capacity of each carousel beyond what it is now? If so it could mean adding one more carousel and redoing current ones would add more than just a 50% increase from the added one.
Weather they run into the same issues as before down the road all depends on what the long term plans are for Southwest for both St. Louis and as an operating model for the airline.
- 1,291
Some catch-up news, mainly courtesy of Jshank's posts over on A.Net:
And on a good note,
Listening to the airport commission meeting from this month.
Southwest is in charge of the expansion in T2, not the airport. They will be doing all the bidding, etc.
9-12 months design
20 months for construction
So that means at least 2 years before it opens.
They will do the expansion before they redo the current baggage claims.
Structure will probably be built to support a 2nd story later if needed, but it won't be built at this time.
Minor change, but good to see nonetheless (provided it's not abused).Also, to go alcohol cups are now available at the airport. Can't take them out of security or on the plane.
And on a good note,
In other news, Fitch and S&P have followed Moody's early August move of upgrading the airport's debt service. Moody's raised the debt service from A3 with a positive outlook to A2 with a stable outlook. S&P affirmed a rating of "A- long-term with a stable outlook" (which seems to be an apparent downgrade from last year's "A- with a positive outlook"), while Fitch upgraded the airport's bonds to "A- with a positive outlook", up from stable.St. Louis is the feature city in the Southwest Magazine this month. Really puts us in a good light, one of the better articles I have read about the city.
Pages 50-69
https://www.swamedia.com/magazine
Biz Journal released a list of the "most needed" nonstop destinations at STL, though they did note former destinations and some destinations do have seasonal or less than daily service, and I think the article was primarily about what they'd like WN to add. This is based solely on PDEW given by the airport (shown to the right of each destination):
1. SNA - 97
2. CHS - 68
3. HNL - 64
4. JAX - 64
5. ORF - 50
6. RIC - 49
7. PBI - 48
8. ONT - 47
9. LHR - 44
10. ABQ - 44
11. PVD - 39
12. SJU - 39
13. RNO - 39
14. TUS - 38
15. MHT - 32
16. ANC - 31
17. ALB - 30
18. GEG - 30
19. SAV - 29
20. BUF - 29
21. PNS - 28
22. OGG - 28
1. SNA - 97
2. CHS - 68
3. HNL - 64
4. JAX - 64
5. ORF - 50
6. RIC - 49
7. PBI - 48
8. ONT - 47
9. LHR - 44
10. ABQ - 44
11. PVD - 39
12. SJU - 39
13. RNO - 39
14. TUS - 38
15. MHT - 32
16. ANC - 31
17. ALB - 30
18. GEG - 30
19. SAV - 29
20. BUF - 29
21. PNS - 28
22. OGG - 28
This article is a little weird in my opinion. Some of the cities listed have service (even on Southwest), unless they meant they wanted it year round, which then should have been noted they want year round.Trololzilla wrote: ↑Oct 10, 2018Biz Journal released a list of the "most needed" nonstop destinations at STL, though they did note former destinations and some destinations do have seasonal or less than daily service, and I think the article was primarily about what they'd like WN to add. This is based solely on PDEW given by the airport (shown to the right of each destination):
Near 100 a day to Hawaii surprised me. London's number I thought would be higher, but I guess we usually hear the entire Europe number more than London.
A couple lines from the article or note:
Hamm-Niebruegge said in the past four years, Lambert has taken 14 cities off the list, calling that record significant.
She said when Lambert's underserved destinations hit below 100 passengers per day, the airport focused on adding connecting traffic. "If you've only got 60 or 50 people going somewhere, you can't make an airplane work financially," Hamm-Niebruegge said. "We've been making the case (to Southwest) that if you have that number of people, connect through St. Louis, which has a good completion factor," or the percentage of scheduled flights that are completed and not canceled.
Hamm-Niebruegge said Lambert would also like to add flights to cities like Indianapolis and Louisville, which do not appear on the list because people tend to drive to them, rather than connect from other cities via airlines. She also said the airport focuses on adding flights to destinations that already have nonstops.
This was a strange article all together and for the Business Journal's lack of knowledge on this... quite surprising.
The following list they have posted (If bolded - STL has nonstop service to - either seasonal or yearly):
1. SNA - 97 (John Wayne Orange County)
2. CHS - 68 (Charleston SC - Seasonal service - Southwest)
3. HNL - 64 (Honolulu - no service since TWA Days - however few US carriers are offering Midwest/East Coast nonstops to the Islands)
4. JAX - 64 (Jacksonville, FL) Frontier has seasonal service) JAX is served nonstop year round from STL MidAmerican on Allegiant
5. ORF - 50 - (Norfolk, VA)
6. RIC - 49- (Richmond, VA)
7. PBI - 48 (Southwest serves Palm Beach seasonal)
8. ONT - 47 (Ontario, CA) I roll this and SNA (above) all into the LAX area which is served via LAX
9. LHR - 44 (London) This is a destination that would be much higher daily if it was non-stop. WOW Air is seeing a lot of non-stop to EU through Iceland via ATL.
10. ABQ - 44 (Albuquerque)
11. PVD - 39 (Rhode Island) ??? Really?
12. SJU - 39 (San Juan) with cruise traffic I can see this
13. RNO - 39 (Reno) access to Lake Tahoe.
14. TUS - 38 (Tucson) 2 hours south of PHX Airport
15. MHT - 32 (Manchester) nonstops to BOS available
16. ANC - 31 (Limited to large hubs - most out of West Cost hubs)
17. ALB - 30 (Albany, NY) ??? Really?
18. GEG - 30 (Spokane) I can see this - most have to connect through SEA
19. SAV - 29 (Savannah) See Charleston
20. BUF - 29 (Buffalo) Summers?
21. PNS - 28 (Pensacola - Southwest has seasonal nonstops)
22. OGG - 28 - (Hawaii) Another Hawaii Destination
THE MOST INTERESTING thing about this 22 airport list is...
these are all very small / non-major city and feeder airports listed... WHY?
Because STL International already serves the majority of large major airports and popular destinations... almost 80 already. More than Nashville, KC, Cleveland, Cincy, Pittsburgh, Memphis, New Orleans, Milwaukee, Columbus, Raleigh/Durham, and Dallas LUV.
We are really lucky in STL to have our nonstop list of cities. It is a big misnomer that you can't fly to most domestic places nonstop from STL. Even when TWA was the big guy and alive in STL - many of the above airports were not served nonstop on TWA and TWA had a lot of TWexpress flights to very small commuter airports in the Midwest/Midsouth. Almost all of TWA's large aircraft were flying to all of the major markets served today on other carriers non-stop from STL.
The following list they have posted (If bolded - STL has nonstop service to - either seasonal or yearly):
1. SNA - 97 (John Wayne Orange County)
2. CHS - 68 (Charleston SC - Seasonal service - Southwest)
3. HNL - 64 (Honolulu - no service since TWA Days - however few US carriers are offering Midwest/East Coast nonstops to the Islands)
4. JAX - 64 (Jacksonville, FL) Frontier has seasonal service) JAX is served nonstop year round from STL MidAmerican on Allegiant
5. ORF - 50 - (Norfolk, VA)
6. RIC - 49- (Richmond, VA)
7. PBI - 48 (Southwest serves Palm Beach seasonal)
8. ONT - 47 (Ontario, CA) I roll this and SNA (above) all into the LAX area which is served via LAX
9. LHR - 44 (London) This is a destination that would be much higher daily if it was non-stop. WOW Air is seeing a lot of non-stop to EU through Iceland via ATL.
10. ABQ - 44 (Albuquerque)
11. PVD - 39 (Rhode Island) ??? Really?
12. SJU - 39 (San Juan) with cruise traffic I can see this
13. RNO - 39 (Reno) access to Lake Tahoe.
14. TUS - 38 (Tucson) 2 hours south of PHX Airport
15. MHT - 32 (Manchester) nonstops to BOS available
16. ANC - 31 (Limited to large hubs - most out of West Cost hubs)
17. ALB - 30 (Albany, NY) ??? Really?
18. GEG - 30 (Spokane) I can see this - most have to connect through SEA
19. SAV - 29 (Savannah) See Charleston
20. BUF - 29 (Buffalo) Summers?
21. PNS - 28 (Pensacola - Southwest has seasonal nonstops)
22. OGG - 28 - (Hawaii) Another Hawaii Destination
THE MOST INTERESTING thing about this 22 airport list is...
these are all very small / non-major city and feeder airports listed... WHY?
Because STL International already serves the majority of large major airports and popular destinations... almost 80 already. More than Nashville, KC, Cleveland, Cincy, Pittsburgh, Memphis, New Orleans, Milwaukee, Columbus, Raleigh/Durham, and Dallas LUV.
We are really lucky in STL to have our nonstop list of cities. It is a big misnomer that you can't fly to most domestic places nonstop from STL. Even when TWA was the big guy and alive in STL - many of the above airports were not served nonstop on TWA and TWA had a lot of TWexpress flights to very small commuter airports in the Midwest/Midsouth. Almost all of TWA's large aircraft were flying to all of the major markets served today on other carriers non-stop from STL.
- 6,119
Let me see if I can add some reasons for a couple of these . . .
11. PVD - 39 (Rhode Island)
If for no other reason than the Rhode Island School of Design, it would be good for a fair few local firms in the design and textile industries to have better access to Providence. We're trying to regrow our fashion industry. There are good schools in Missouri as well. (Stephens college, for instance, is top notch in fashion. And the Textile and Apparel Management program at UMC is no slouch. And UMKC has a first rate art program, I believe.) But diversity in recruiting is good. And direct flights help with that kind of thing, I'm told. And we've been labeled provincial too long. So it would be nice to drag in more folks from the eastern seaboard.
5. ORF - 50 - (Norfolk, VA)
Coal country. Arch. Peabody. Ameren. Need I say more?
And yes, it would be nice to have year round service to some more resort destinations like Reno/Lake Tahoe and Buffalo/Niagara. And . . . well . . . castle country. If you must.
Aside from ORF, PVD, MHT, and ALB they all sound like pretty solid tourist destinations to me with fairly obvious attractions. Sure, a few are close to other places, but direct access is always better. And I seem to recall Albany was pushing for St. Louis service as well. So . . . maybe there's something there I don't know.
11. PVD - 39 (Rhode Island)
If for no other reason than the Rhode Island School of Design, it would be good for a fair few local firms in the design and textile industries to have better access to Providence. We're trying to regrow our fashion industry. There are good schools in Missouri as well. (Stephens college, for instance, is top notch in fashion. And the Textile and Apparel Management program at UMC is no slouch. And UMKC has a first rate art program, I believe.) But diversity in recruiting is good. And direct flights help with that kind of thing, I'm told. And we've been labeled provincial too long. So it would be nice to drag in more folks from the eastern seaboard.
5. ORF - 50 - (Norfolk, VA)
Coal country. Arch. Peabody. Ameren. Need I say more?
And yes, it would be nice to have year round service to some more resort destinations like Reno/Lake Tahoe and Buffalo/Niagara. And . . . well . . . castle country. If you must.
Aside from ORF, PVD, MHT, and ALB they all sound like pretty solid tourist destinations to me with fairly obvious attractions. Sure, a few are close to other places, but direct access is always better. And I seem to recall Albany was pushing for St. Louis service as well. So . . . maybe there's something there I don't know.
While I think most of these won't happen, The STLBJ just listed the destinations with the most passengers not served (or partially served). I would have liked them to put a little more analysis of which destinations are possible except just listing the top PDEWs, even when some won't happen.
SNA would come back if Southwest gets move slots. As they mentioned it only went away because they got capacity taken away from them. Maybe they add ONT instead if they don't get any soon.
JAX on Southwest I think comes eventually. Maybe this summer extension. Allegiant moved it to seasonal this winter.
I also think either ORF or RIC gets added sometime in the near future, they are close so you can somewhat lump those numbers together if you add one of them.
ABQ I would love to see come back but its a long route for that low of a number. Same thoughts with RNO. Not sure how much east coast connections they could push thru for those.
ALB I only see as an option because as mentioned above they want service here. If they put some money up then maybe, still a long shot I would guess.
Others not mentioned that I could see added as feeder legs. IND, CVG, MEM, Louisville. CLT and SLC possibly long shots also. Not sure what the gate/southwest demand situation there really is though.
Besides those I can't really see any other domestic add options. Hartford that was just added was at 60 average in 2017 and Sacramento was 81 for 2017, so that kind of gives you a baseline for routes longer than feeder ones we have now (LIT/OKC/DSM, etc).
For those interested I have demand numbers broken down by quarter here for 2016 and 2017. This is broken down by city, not all the way to the airport level (all the LA airports are lumped into LA metro)
SNA would come back if Southwest gets move slots. As they mentioned it only went away because they got capacity taken away from them. Maybe they add ONT instead if they don't get any soon.
JAX on Southwest I think comes eventually. Maybe this summer extension. Allegiant moved it to seasonal this winter.
I also think either ORF or RIC gets added sometime in the near future, they are close so you can somewhat lump those numbers together if you add one of them.
ABQ I would love to see come back but its a long route for that low of a number. Same thoughts with RNO. Not sure how much east coast connections they could push thru for those.
ALB I only see as an option because as mentioned above they want service here. If they put some money up then maybe, still a long shot I would guess.
Others not mentioned that I could see added as feeder legs. IND, CVG, MEM, Louisville. CLT and SLC possibly long shots also. Not sure what the gate/southwest demand situation there really is though.
Besides those I can't really see any other domestic add options. Hartford that was just added was at 60 average in 2017 and Sacramento was 81 for 2017, so that kind of gives you a baseline for routes longer than feeder ones we have now (LIT/OKC/DSM, etc).
For those interested I have demand numbers broken down by quarter here for 2016 and 2017. This is broken down by city, not all the way to the airport level (all the LA airports are lumped into LA metro)
I'm originally from Buffalo and have been waiting for non-stop for some time. Once on a SW flight that was a "direct" STL-BUF via MDW I counted 30+ people that stayed on the plan to BUF with me. There is a LOT of ex-WNY (Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse) transplants in STL. In addition to that I see a need since MDW is the only airport served by SW until PHX or LAS out of Buffalo which would allow more connections out of BUF. Other reasons would of course be Niagara Falls, or the random Canadian travelers that live along the border.
Updated PDEW spreadsheet for 2018 Qtr 1.
Biggest gainers YOY
TPA
SAN
DEN
LAS
ATL
Losers:
PHX
Chicago
DC
SAN
SEA
Top unserved routes Qtr 1 (average for last 12 months)
ORF 45 (54)
RIC 39 (46)
ABQ 27 (38)
RNO 27 (34)
TUS 36 (34)
Biggest gainers YOY
TPA
SAN
DEN
LAS
ATL
Losers:
PHX
Chicago
DC
SAN
SEA
Top unserved routes Qtr 1 (average for last 12 months)
ORF 45 (54)
RIC 39 (46)
ABQ 27 (38)
RNO 27 (34)
TUS 36 (34)
First, thanks for the layman's translation of the alphabet soup. (I actually was translating it via google/copy and paste but it took so long the forum logged me out. ORF? OGG? PVD? Shall i rant again about this thread....)
Regarding nonstop, true but—my wife is from Jacksonville and in our younger years all of her friends were getting married down there. Also, a number of our agency clients were NASCAR sponsors (Daytona) I flew there a lot! And TWA offered 4 daily flights to JAX.
Then it went down to one. Suddenly, a business trip to JAX got more expensive by flying in the day before the meeting (hotel) missing that day's flight due to the time of the meeting (another hotel) or you go through ATL or DFW or whatnot and now it's a 6-8 hour travel day. Business trips to Jacksonville just stopped altogether.
- 6,119
First, I'll second Shadrach's thanks. And yes, rant away Mr. Shad. Our heads probably need occasional knocking. Lord knows mine's a thick enough block to screen out most information if I'm not starting straight at it and paying very close attention.
People still travel for business? I thought that was all tele-whatsit-computerized and digital these days.Regarding nonstop, true but—my wife is from Jacksonville and in our younger years all of her friends were getting married down there. Also, a number of our agency clients were NASCAR sponsors (Daytona) I flew there a lot! And TWA offered 4 daily flights to JAX.
Then it went down to one. Suddenly, a business trip to JAX got more expensive by flying in the day before the meeting (hotel) missing that day's flight due to the time of the meeting (another hotel) or you go through ATL or DFW or whatnot and now it's a 6-8 hour travel day. Business trips to Jacksonville just stopped altogether.
Valid points all. Yes, if there were more flights that would probably generate more demand. Just not sure if it would be enough to offset the added expense. There are so many extra costs baked in now that weren't there in TWA days. And people want to pay less and less. And there's more competition from other non-travel products. Wish I knew the magic bullet for that one. Wendover Productions makes a very good case that we're quite literally killing ourselves driving because flying is so much less convenient than it once was. Hidden costs are a b****. Especially when you can't see them.
(Pardon my little Yogi Berra moment there.)
LHR with 44 PDEW. BNA was launched on the 787 Dreamliner with 214 seats, 5 days a week. I understand that 44 will get a big boost but 5x is more than a boost, that's steroids.
Maybe the reason BNA got the flight over STL wasn't just incentives as many have written off. Maybe BA really just doesn't see us as a viable route right now.
Maybe the reason BNA got the flight over STL wasn't just incentives as many have written off. Maybe BA really just doesn't see us as a viable route right now.