I think you will see the D walk thru open by next summer. Not 100% sure but I think it is likely. The MAX slowdown might have pushed it back a bit.Rooster wrote: ↑Dec 13, 2019I agree with all of this, especially the last paragraph.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Dec 12, 2019^^ Yeah I fly Southwest 20-30 times a year and I agree. Full disclosure, I am A-List so I have a few other benefits that others don't, but even before that I never had any issues getting an aisle seat and whatnot as long as I checked in early enough.
Regarding Southwest continuing to increase frequency here, that is fantastic news. But as a frequent Southwest user, I'm getting fed up with the space issues at the East Terminal. Gate wise, there is plenty of space for further SWA expansion (I'm assuming another gate expansion in the old D gates is coming soon), but pickups and drop offs are getting ridiculous. As is baggage claim. I know they have plans to expand the baggage area and that can't come soon enough, but I thought I heard that was delayed. I know holidays are always going to be a little worse than usual, but the traffic backups are getting asinine. I picked my buddy up around 10pm two days before Thanksgiving and the T2 traffic on the main airport road was backed up past the Main Terminal. When I came in three days before the holiday I had a 20min wait for a Lyft because he was trapped in the traffic from the 170/70 exit into the airport from the east, his position never did end up changing lol. Finally just had to cancel and get a taxi. This was also one of the rare times I checked a bag. They had 8 recently arrived flights all on one carousel while the other just sat there empty and turned off lol.
I understand SWA's reasoning for wanting to maintain their presence in a single terminal and I know this won't happen...but damn...just move them to T1 and let them have all of C. So much extra baggage and pick up and drop off space. Or at the bare minimum at least get the damn D Concourse open so people could walk through to T1 which would make it a little easier on the pickups and drop offs. Anyway, sorry for the rant...I couldn't be more thrilled about how much busier Lambert is getting, but it's getting to the point of inconvenience in T2.
- 667
^ I hope Lambert reopens the D concourse soon. It would make it nice to visit the Wingtips Lounge in Terminal 2 when I am flying AA and not SW, but it'll also relieve T2 of some congestion, good God. I came back from a trip to SFO last Friday and T2 was a clusterf***. It took the Uber driver 30 plus minutes to just pick us up! He waited in traffic and we didn't see him move on the road leading to T2 in the app, but we let the driver know we are patiently waiting at near Entry 15. We had a nice conversation with the Uber driver, he said waited at the airport for about 2 hours before receiving my ping for pickup. He said he doesn't like T2 pickups as a lot of time there is spent sitting in traffic when so many flights arrive in the same hour. He told us that Uber doesn't pay the drivers enough and takes too much of a cut (This I knew as I know several friends who drive Uber/Lyft), but he got us safely back to our home in Chesterfield. The ride cost us $39 and I curiously asked the driver how much he made from this, he showed me how much Uber paid him for all that hassle of picking us up. They paid him a lil over $21 for 2 plus hours. I gave him 5 stars and $5 tip in the app because he was nice and he even helped us with our luggage. I also tipped the driver $40 in cash.
I can't imagine once T2 starts construction of the expanded baggage claim area and how that would further affect the traffic flow...ugh!
I can't imagine once T2 starts construction of the expanded baggage claim area and how that would further affect the traffic flow...ugh!
- 3,428
I was picking up someone around midnight in T2. The short term parking, at least the lowest level, was nearly full. Obviously all those cars were there long term. Businesses pay so the drivers don’t care. Can’t imagine why they don’t charge more to force long term parkers to remote parking.
Also I don’t know why Uber doesn’t raise prices. I would probable you still use it if it was twice the cost.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Also I don’t know why Uber doesn’t raise prices. I would probable you still use it if it was twice the cost.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 6,119
^I moonlighted for them a bit for a while. What's worse, even with all the waiting the airport rides still frequently paid better than city trips. (And I could give a little tour guide spiel, which I always enjoyed.) For a usual barfly hop you got maybe two or three bucks. It just wasn't worth the trouble after insurance and expenses. I've basically vowed not to use their services either. All that said, improvements in the T2 pickup can't come soon enough. (Or reopening D to allow passengers with carryon to exit or enter the other way. Yeah, we kind of need that.)
WSJ: Boeing Weighs Suspending or Cutting Back 737 MAX Production
https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-wei ... 1576448990
I wonder what this may mean for an airport with such high exposure to the 737 MAX as STL.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/boeing-wei ... 1576448990
I wonder what this may mean for an airport with such high exposure to the 737 MAX as STL.
- 2,419
I'm no Boeing expert, but doesn't that hurt Seattle more than it hurts St. Louis?
I don't mean in terms of manufacturing jobs but in terms of airport expansion. That's why I posted this in the airport thread.
STL is particularly vulnerable because of (i) Southwest, (ii) the fact that the MAX could potentially induce certain airlines to consider new international routes to secondary US cities
STL is particularly vulnerable because of (i) Southwest, (ii) the fact that the MAX could potentially induce certain airlines to consider new international routes to secondary US cities
We aren't in range with the MAX for any INTL routes to Europe routes except Iceland, which is a road I am not sure I want to go back down. What we need is for A321LR and A321XLRs to be on schedule.kipfilet wrote: ↑Dec 16, 2019I don't mean in terms of manufacturing jobs but in terms of airport expansion. That's why I posted this in the airport thread.
STL is particularly vulnerable because of (i) Southwest, (ii) the fact that the MAX could potentially induce certain airlines to consider new international routes to secondary US cities
I don't think the manufacturing slow down will matter much. They are so far ahead and it is going to take a long time for the current built ones to get delivered that it shouldn't be a big deal.
The bigger deal is just getting it back in the air. The longer that takes the longer the airport will basically be at flat growth. Other airlines are adding some but not enough to make more than a percentage or two uptick. Southwest makes it more like 5-10% for the airport if they are growing.
- 6,119
^It would be really interesting to see what happens if this really does finally convince Southwest to try a second class of airframes, as this really is sticking this to them where it hurts. Every flight they don't add is a passenger someone else can pick up. And the A320 family would be the obvious choice, and the A321LR in particular if they want to extend their legs. I've certainly heard that rumor before. Longer legs give better revenue, since takeoffs and landings are inefficient. Of course longer legs also bypass mid-continent hubs a bit more easily, so something of a double edged sword there. Of course, if you really want to dream big, maybe SW looks at the MoM.
Also of interest: Southwest lost about 1% of their flights yesterday to cancellations and it looks like we accounted for more than half of that either as the origin or the destination. I have to wonder how many of the other flights canceled would have had to pass through St. Louis for some middle leg. Really shows just what an impact we're starting to have on their system. Still modest, but growing. And hey, flights were getting in and out. Just . . . not as many as usual.
I think I see them going more the A220/E195 route. Would give them a chance to get into smaller airports and on routes the 737 is too big for. Either way it is probably time to add a 2nd plane after this debacle.symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2019^It would be really interesting to see what happens if this really does finally convince Southwest to try a second class of airframes, as this really is sticking this to them where it hurts. Every flight they don't add is a passenger someone else can pick up. And the A320 family would be the obvious choice, and the A321LR in particular if they want to extend their legs. I've certainly heard that rumor before. Longer legs give better revenue, since takeoffs and landings are inefficient. Of course longer legs also bypass mid-continent hubs a bit more easily, so something of a double edged sword there. Of course, if you really want to dream big, maybe SW looks at the MoM.
Article saying they think Cincy or STL could be next for British Airways. I don’t put a ton of stock into the headline since it is just guessing BUT it does list out some good stats comparing us to other cities trying to get flights.
https://www.anna.aero/2019/12/17/britis ... -st-louis/
https://www.anna.aero/2019/12/17/britis ... -st-louis/
Yes very interesting article, if only for the statistics that are usually proprietary/hard to find.
38,800 people going between STL and IATA per year? That's a bit more than I expected. That's 746 passengers a week, or little more than 106/day. I wonder how that compares to some cities that have non-stop service today?
-RBB
-RBB
I think that cheap WOW service may have provided a boost to Cincinnati and STL's numbers. Regardless, Cincinnati's market has received a boost in traffic and fares that comes with a full-service direct flight. I expect that Kansas City would likely be able to match or pass their numbers with a direct full-service flight. Cleveland and STL have higher traffic numbers then Cincinnatti with no direct flights making them the best expansion cities imho.rbb wrote: ↑Dec 17, 201938,800 people going between STL and IATA per year? That's a bit more than I expected. That's 746 passengers a week, or little more than 106/day. I wonder how that compares to some cities that have non-stop service today?
-RBB
- 9,552
The RFQs for the 18 bidders is out
https://www.fly314.com/transparency-portal/
Go to the handouts section.
https://www.fly314.com/transparency-portal/
Go to the handouts section.
A lot of interesting info about each firm. There’s also a pretty clear line between decent and insufficient. Momentum Group, Global Infrastructure Partners, Atlantia, and Vantage Group came off as the most well rounded and capable.
- 9,552
Interesting news about who the city wanted in the final 8 and how one groups connects with local lobbyist may get them cut off the bidding
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... ssion=true
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... ssion=true
I’m pretty sure that number includes both ways. So it’s half that per day going each direction. That’s average for the year. Summer is higher. Winter is lower.
- 9,552
dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Dec 18, 2019Interesting news about who the city wanted in the final 8 and how one groups connects with local lobbyist may get them cut off the bidding
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/met ... ssion=true
It’s amazing how these “world class” consultants assembled by Rex minions have totally butchered the airport privatization process. Feel bad for city employees that have to bend themselves in a pretzel just to make this appear legit
SWA still has options for new 737-800's (not Max). The reason that SWA uses all 737 series is that their pilots can fly any of the airlines fleet if need be. Pilots cannot hop from one aircraft type to another with their commercial license. They fly ONLY what they are licensed in on any airline. This is why so many airlines have to cancel flights due to pilots "timing out" because the airlines cannot pull a crew from another type of aircraft. They run skeleton pilot crews and no back up crews on the aircraft. This also applies to crew - the crew also must be trained and qualifies to work onboard the aircraft type they are flying... thus they "time out" on other carriers as well. On ground and maintenance crews also can service any aircraft quickly and efficiently. SWA figured out those logistics years ago and using the same type of aircraft across the board... thus becoming overly successful and profitable. They are the largest USA passenger airline and #2 worldwide as of last year (even just serving the USA, Caribbean, Central America and Mexico.)symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2019^It would be really interesting to see what happens if this really does finally convince Southwest to try a second class of airframes, as this really is sticking this to them where it hurts. Every flight they don't add is a passenger someone else can pick up. And the A320 family would be the obvious choice, and the A321LR in particular if they want to extend their legs. I've certainly heard that rumor before. Longer legs give better revenue, since takeoffs and landings are inefficient. Of course longer legs also bypass mid-continent hubs a bit more easily, so something of a double edged sword there. Of course, if you really want to dream big, maybe SW looks at the MoM.
I think what poet was getting at (I was for sure) is I think this event has made Southwest realize if you put all your eggs in one basket and that basket has an issue then you are in for some hurt. The one type has done well for Southwest so far but I think it is time for them to start looking at a second type to spread out the risk. They will just have to have different pilots fly different planes. Other airlines manage it and they will also. Adding a 2nd type shouldn’t be a huge deal with the size they are now. I know some Southwest pilots that would be happy to see another plane type brought in after this.matguy70 wrote: ↑Dec 18, 2019SWA still has options for new 737-800's (not Max). The reason that SWA uses all 737 series is that their pilots can fly any of the airlines fleet if need be. Pilots cannot hop from one aircraft type to another with their commercial license. They fly ONLY what they are licensed in on any airline. This is why so many airlines have to cancel flights due to pilots "timing out" because the airlines cannot pull a crew from another type of aircraft. They run skeleton pilot crews and no back up crews on the aircraft. This also applies to crew - the crew also must be trained and qualifies to work onboard the aircraft type they are flying... thus they "time out" on other carriers as well. On ground and maintenance crews also can service any aircraft quickly and efficiently. SWA figured out those logistics years ago and using the same type of aircraft across the board... thus becoming overly successful and profitable. They are the largest USA passenger airline and #2 worldwide as of last year (even just serving the USA, Caribbean, Central America and Mexico.)symphonicpoet wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2019^It would be really interesting to see what happens if this really does finally convince Southwest to try a second class of airframes, as this really is sticking this to them where it hurts. Every flight they don't add is a passenger someone else can pick up. And the A320 family would be the obvious choice, and the A321LR in particular if they want to extend their legs. I've certainly heard that rumor before. Longer legs give better revenue, since takeoffs and landings are inefficient. Of course longer legs also bypass mid-continent hubs a bit more easily, so something of a double edged sword there. Of course, if you really want to dream big, maybe SW looks at the MoM.
I’m also not aware of any 737-800 options southwest has. They have had all those orders filled and only have MAXs ordered. Boeing has less than 10 -800 orders left to fill total from what I can tell.
That'd make things a lot easier for anyone arriving at gates E34-40 and taking Metrolink into the City. They could walk directly down the D corridor to the Terminal 1 platform, instead of working their way through Terminal 2 and then up and around the T2 parking garage to get to the Terminal 2 platform.jshank83 wrote: ↑Dec 13, 2019I think you will see the D walk thru open by next summer. Not 100% sure but I think it is likely. The MAX slowdown might have pushed it back a bit.Rooster wrote: ↑Dec 13, 2019I agree with all of this, especially the last paragraph.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Dec 12, 2019Or at the bare minimum at least get the damn D Concourse open so people could walk through to T1 which would make it a little easier on the pickups and drop offs. Anyway, sorry for the rant...I couldn't be more thrilled about how much busier Lambert is getting, but it's getting to the point of inconvenience in T2.
I know this isn't a strong reason to be privatization curious, but MetroLink accessibility/promotion is something I believe the current airport operations haven't fully taken advantage of (similar to most of the region). Both internally at the airport but also in the community. The platforms are hard and unpleasant to find. Not a single airport advertisement on a Metro park-and-ride, train, or platform. I look at the garages/lots at Hanley, Brentwood, Shrewsbury, Belleville, Clayton, Forsyth, etc and wonder why anyone would pay $7 a day to park in the C or D lot. As one of the primary attractions on a 52 mile light rail network, they need to be wielding a much larger sword in all MetroLink conversations.wabash wrote: ↑Dec 18, 2019That'd make things a lot easier for anyone arriving at gates E34-40 and taking Metrolink into the City. They could walk directly down the D corridor to the Terminal 1 platform, instead of working their way through Terminal 2 and then up and around the T2 parking garage to get to the Terminal 2 platform.
I understand a % of funding comes from parking, but there are ways to mediate that.
Search on twitter, "@stlmetro", you'll probably find a post each week from visitors talking about how awesome it is that it exist in STL