I can't believe this hasn't been posted here yet, but the Post Dispatch has a very nice article on what sank the privatization bid: Consultants proposed dramatic changes, by Nassim Benchaabane.
- 2,929
I think I agree with pretty much all of the consultants’ recommendations. Most of all, I agree that Lambert Airport has to maximize revenues from non-aeronautical operations, such as retail sales and parking, if it is to decrease total fees for aeronautical operations in a manner that can attract new flights and larger jetliners.
1. Terminal consolidation… Very much worth considering.
At minimum, it certainly makes a lot of sense to have the Main Terminal and the East Terminal connected rather than two separate buildings. There’s a lot of value that can be found putting the majority of flights through the Main Terminal rather than the East Terminal for the simple reason that it’s easier to run one thing in one place than two redundant things in two places. Reopening the B and D Concourses to full flights is very important, and I hope that all happens.
Looking ahead, even if they can just get the D Concourse to fully connect the East Terminal to the Main Terminal, there’d be a whole lot of good that can come out of that. The only organic way to get this done is to hope Southwest keeps increasing flights in and out of Lambert Airport enough that they take over all the gates in D Concourse, thus connecting the Main and East Terminals under one tail, or getting non-Southwest flights intermixed with them. This all stated, I don’t know what they’d do with the East Terminal if commercial air flights were consolidated into the A-D Concourses, but I bet a good use can be found.
2. Hubbing retail into one spot… Damn right.
It’s just like the above argument, in that a store selling their products at two stores in two terminals, in the exact same way, isn’t as efficient as the store selling their products at one store with twice the consumer exposure. Also, when you have stores centralize, you are more likely to recognize cross-store shoppers, such as someone stepping away to get a coffee and then also goes into the bookstore because it’s next to the coffee shop.
3. Consolidating all the rent-a-car sites into one building… Damn right.
They can build a giant garage and get all of the car rental companies in there. If it can be built on Lambert Airport property, they can run the show and reap new revenues. It’s so much easier to get rental cars in other airports that have dedicated garages like these (i.e. Baltimore), and it’d reduce the numbers of rent-a-car buses cramming the pick-up lanes.
4. More airport-controlled long-term parking… Damn right.
The airport garages are overcrowded and beyond capacity (even while the tarmac is well below capacity). Long-term secure covered parking on-site at the airport would absolutely be welcomed by travelers. Heck, get valet services going in there as well, get even more revenues. While maybe not the most aesthetically pleasing of structures, we need more structured parking garages at Lambert Airport; we could very definitely double what exists today. And if this could be done in tandem with consolidating rent-a-car outfits into a new garage, then all the better for simultaneous construction projects.
Important: 70% of non-aeronautical revenues come from parking. We can push that higher. This is where public-private partnerships should be stepping in.
5. Higher fees for limos, taxis, etc... Yeah, I guess so.
I’m not one for gouging out the eyes of our taxi drivers with higher fees, but damn, it already costs a significant amount more to get from the airport to Clayton or Downtown or wherever than it does for a ride to the airport, so they’re already gouging our eyes out.
6. Increase capacities for air cargo operations… YES!!!!! DAMMIT, PLEASE!!!!!
Increasing air cargo operations at Lambert Airport is the most obvious and necessary thing we can do.
First, cargo flights generate more revenues than non-cargo flights. Aeronautical revenues are primarily earned from three fee sources: takeoffs, landings, and gating. The heavier the flights, the higher the fees. So, if you get a 747-400 ERF fully laden, that’s 100 tons of cargo, plus the weight of the plane, that’s assessed for fees. Therefore, the fastest way to get more airport aeronautical revenues is from increased dedicated cargo operations.
Second, increased cargo operations lead to increased passenger operations. Around 70% of total air cargo is shipped in the bellies of commercial jetliners. Even though Southwest doesn’t do much for cargo in their bellies, the other airlines can be all about it. Plus, revenues are higher for all parties involved for cargo than for human passengers. Should we be able to service more cargo in our flights, then we can get more flights operating out of Lambert Airport as well as bigger planes from these airliners. The local business community certainly would be glad to have non-Southwest service to more major cities for their executives who have to travel, especially on non-regional birds. If we really want international, then let’s give them flights not just with passengers but with bellies full of cargo. That’s how British Airways and Lufthansa can best be profitable flying in and out of here.
Third, there’s already significant cargo shipped out of STL to attract new operations. A lot of air cargo from STL is actually trucked to Chicago for flights in and out of ORD. So, let’s cut out the middleman and get these flights in and out of our own airport.
Fourth, increased cargo routes would increase business activities in STL. This would include local manufacturing opportunities and warehousing & logistics. There’s definitely excess land around the airport that can host warehouses (as well as parking garages and MRO hangars). Lambert Airport has lost cargo opportunities in the past because of a lack of adjacent warehousing space, such as the China Cargo Hub initiative, and it certainly was a mark against us when we tried to get Amazon’s Prime Air to hub here instead of Cincinnati at CVG. And building new on airport land means more revenues for the airport itself. In fact, this is the best opportunity to recognize both aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues. Let’s all recognize that, with the rise in online retail (and the decline of storefront retail), we will see the shipment of goods increase something greater than 30% in the next couple decades. Lambert Airport taking steps to proactively capture more of that market share is essential to the regional economy.
Finally, it’s necessary infrastructure with return on investment that pays for itself. Having the infrastructure to bring in more cargo operations is necessary for Lambert Airport to compete with everyone from ORD to MEM and SDF. Right now, we have “Cargo City” just east of the East Terminal, and it is so desperately in need of overhaul that I say we can just tear the whole site down and build again new. On the north side of the airport, there’s plenty of land just off James S. McDonnell Boulevard, south of Boeing and east of Signature Flight Support and both FedEx & UPS, where Berkeley High School and the old neighborhood used to be before noise abatement cleared the land out. That site’s just begging to be built upon, and the airport authority would certainly chip in to expand the apron. That site can be highly profitable for the airport authority even if it’s just warehousing.
The one thing all of these plans have in common is that they cost money. Privatization of the airport would have welcomed in very large investors who could have put a lot of that money up-front as well as the multi-billion dollar cash payments to STL for the long-term lease. The problems the airport has today aren’t just high fees for takeoffs and landings from expansion; it’s that it’s limited in its current abilities to pay for expanding operations (antiquated airport charter). Still, it must be done. If privatization could have done this, then so be it, but it can’t today. We have to figure out how to get the airport generating new revenues, and if it means we have to spend money to make more money down the road, then let’s figure out how we can do this.
We really, really, really need to start looking at private-public partnerships for building new on airport land.
If St. Louis County and St. Charles County were so damn adamant about having a say in privatization, or even getting a share of the revenues, then how about they step up and help pay for improving the airport? How about we start here?
1. Terminal consolidation… Very much worth considering.
At minimum, it certainly makes a lot of sense to have the Main Terminal and the East Terminal connected rather than two separate buildings. There’s a lot of value that can be found putting the majority of flights through the Main Terminal rather than the East Terminal for the simple reason that it’s easier to run one thing in one place than two redundant things in two places. Reopening the B and D Concourses to full flights is very important, and I hope that all happens.
Looking ahead, even if they can just get the D Concourse to fully connect the East Terminal to the Main Terminal, there’d be a whole lot of good that can come out of that. The only organic way to get this done is to hope Southwest keeps increasing flights in and out of Lambert Airport enough that they take over all the gates in D Concourse, thus connecting the Main and East Terminals under one tail, or getting non-Southwest flights intermixed with them. This all stated, I don’t know what they’d do with the East Terminal if commercial air flights were consolidated into the A-D Concourses, but I bet a good use can be found.
2. Hubbing retail into one spot… Damn right.
It’s just like the above argument, in that a store selling their products at two stores in two terminals, in the exact same way, isn’t as efficient as the store selling their products at one store with twice the consumer exposure. Also, when you have stores centralize, you are more likely to recognize cross-store shoppers, such as someone stepping away to get a coffee and then also goes into the bookstore because it’s next to the coffee shop.
3. Consolidating all the rent-a-car sites into one building… Damn right.
They can build a giant garage and get all of the car rental companies in there. If it can be built on Lambert Airport property, they can run the show and reap new revenues. It’s so much easier to get rental cars in other airports that have dedicated garages like these (i.e. Baltimore), and it’d reduce the numbers of rent-a-car buses cramming the pick-up lanes.
4. More airport-controlled long-term parking… Damn right.
The airport garages are overcrowded and beyond capacity (even while the tarmac is well below capacity). Long-term secure covered parking on-site at the airport would absolutely be welcomed by travelers. Heck, get valet services going in there as well, get even more revenues. While maybe not the most aesthetically pleasing of structures, we need more structured parking garages at Lambert Airport; we could very definitely double what exists today. And if this could be done in tandem with consolidating rent-a-car outfits into a new garage, then all the better for simultaneous construction projects.
Important: 70% of non-aeronautical revenues come from parking. We can push that higher. This is where public-private partnerships should be stepping in.
5. Higher fees for limos, taxis, etc... Yeah, I guess so.
I’m not one for gouging out the eyes of our taxi drivers with higher fees, but damn, it already costs a significant amount more to get from the airport to Clayton or Downtown or wherever than it does for a ride to the airport, so they’re already gouging our eyes out.
6. Increase capacities for air cargo operations… YES!!!!! DAMMIT, PLEASE!!!!!
Increasing air cargo operations at Lambert Airport is the most obvious and necessary thing we can do.
First, cargo flights generate more revenues than non-cargo flights. Aeronautical revenues are primarily earned from three fee sources: takeoffs, landings, and gating. The heavier the flights, the higher the fees. So, if you get a 747-400 ERF fully laden, that’s 100 tons of cargo, plus the weight of the plane, that’s assessed for fees. Therefore, the fastest way to get more airport aeronautical revenues is from increased dedicated cargo operations.
Second, increased cargo operations lead to increased passenger operations. Around 70% of total air cargo is shipped in the bellies of commercial jetliners. Even though Southwest doesn’t do much for cargo in their bellies, the other airlines can be all about it. Plus, revenues are higher for all parties involved for cargo than for human passengers. Should we be able to service more cargo in our flights, then we can get more flights operating out of Lambert Airport as well as bigger planes from these airliners. The local business community certainly would be glad to have non-Southwest service to more major cities for their executives who have to travel, especially on non-regional birds. If we really want international, then let’s give them flights not just with passengers but with bellies full of cargo. That’s how British Airways and Lufthansa can best be profitable flying in and out of here.
Third, there’s already significant cargo shipped out of STL to attract new operations. A lot of air cargo from STL is actually trucked to Chicago for flights in and out of ORD. So, let’s cut out the middleman and get these flights in and out of our own airport.
Fourth, increased cargo routes would increase business activities in STL. This would include local manufacturing opportunities and warehousing & logistics. There’s definitely excess land around the airport that can host warehouses (as well as parking garages and MRO hangars). Lambert Airport has lost cargo opportunities in the past because of a lack of adjacent warehousing space, such as the China Cargo Hub initiative, and it certainly was a mark against us when we tried to get Amazon’s Prime Air to hub here instead of Cincinnati at CVG. And building new on airport land means more revenues for the airport itself. In fact, this is the best opportunity to recognize both aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues. Let’s all recognize that, with the rise in online retail (and the decline of storefront retail), we will see the shipment of goods increase something greater than 30% in the next couple decades. Lambert Airport taking steps to proactively capture more of that market share is essential to the regional economy.
Finally, it’s necessary infrastructure with return on investment that pays for itself. Having the infrastructure to bring in more cargo operations is necessary for Lambert Airport to compete with everyone from ORD to MEM and SDF. Right now, we have “Cargo City” just east of the East Terminal, and it is so desperately in need of overhaul that I say we can just tear the whole site down and build again new. On the north side of the airport, there’s plenty of land just off James S. McDonnell Boulevard, south of Boeing and east of Signature Flight Support and both FedEx & UPS, where Berkeley High School and the old neighborhood used to be before noise abatement cleared the land out. That site’s just begging to be built upon, and the airport authority would certainly chip in to expand the apron. That site can be highly profitable for the airport authority even if it’s just warehousing.
The one thing all of these plans have in common is that they cost money. Privatization of the airport would have welcomed in very large investors who could have put a lot of that money up-front as well as the multi-billion dollar cash payments to STL for the long-term lease. The problems the airport has today aren’t just high fees for takeoffs and landings from expansion; it’s that it’s limited in its current abilities to pay for expanding operations (antiquated airport charter). Still, it must be done. If privatization could have done this, then so be it, but it can’t today. We have to figure out how to get the airport generating new revenues, and if it means we have to spend money to make more money down the road, then let’s figure out how we can do this.
We really, really, really need to start looking at private-public partnerships for building new on airport land.
If St. Louis County and St. Charles County were so damn adamant about having a say in privatization, or even getting a share of the revenues, then how about they step up and help pay for improving the airport? How about we start here?
I’d love for someone to do an in depth interview with Rhonda on the state of the airport and some kind of 3-5 year plan. It seems like so many interviews aren’t by people who really know the airport industry so they don’t get all that in depth on things. Not that our airport is one to really say much but maybe it’s time they are more forthcoming with info after all the scrutiny on the privatization process.
- 6,123
I think one of the points the article made, at least tangentially, is that the airport authority has considered all of these things and worked towards them to the extent they are able. They've been trying to get more parking revenue since the 90s when Col. Griggs was in charge. Before W1W. It's a known thing. But just building more parking won't necessarily bring that revenue since . . . there's a lot of private parking off site, but quite nearby. You could buy it, maybe, for the right price, but that would require taking out more loans. There have been quiet rumors that the airport tried to convince Southwest to move to T1, but Southwest said no. (It is taken as gospel over on a-net that Southwest likes it in T2 and won't move. I've been brutally shot down myself when I suggested a Southwest/AA et al C to E swap.) "Hubbing retail into one space" is one of those things that's nice for revenue, but not necessarily nice for the passenger, since it inevitably means the amount of retail near your gate goes down. A food court would be good, but I don't think that's unknown. And where to put it without significant expenditure is always tricky. (If you close E and reopen a linked B, C, D then the answer is easier and not too outrageous, but . . . see above.) And they're fighting hard for increased cargo, though Rex's consistent lobbying against state investment hasn't helped them on that account. (Funny that, in light of his later moves.) Anyway, yes, the suggestions are mostly pretty reasonable. And also pretty obvious and well known and in line with what management is doing, where the tenants don't object. All that said, I do think it hints pretty strongly at why the effort failed: Southwest and a consortium of other businesses expressed skepticism or outright said no. At least that was the impression I got from the thing in combination with other reporting and statements from Krewson and others.gone corporate wrote: ↑Dec 30, 2019I think I agree with pretty much all of the consultants’ recommendations. Most of all, I agree that Lambert Airport has to maximize revenues from non-aeronautical operations, such as retail sales and parking, if it is to decrease total fees for aeronautical operations in a manner that can attract new flights and larger jetliners.
1. Terminal consolidation… Very much worth considering.
At minimum, it certainly makes a lot of sense to have the Main Terminal and the East Terminal connected rather than two separate buildings. There’s a lot of value that can be found putting the majority of flights through the Main Terminal rather than the East Terminal for the simple reason that it’s easier to run one thing in one place than two redundant things in two places. Reopening the B and D Concourses to full flights is very important, and I hope that all happens.
Looking ahead, even if they can just get the D Concourse to fully connect the East Terminal to the Main Terminal, there’d be a whole lot of good that can come out of that. The only organic way to get this done is to hope Southwest keeps increasing flights in and out of Lambert Airport enough that they take over all the gates in D Concourse, thus connecting the Main and East Terminals under one tail, or getting non-Southwest flights intermixed with them. This all stated, I don’t know what they’d do with the East Terminal if commercial air flights were consolidated into the A-D Concourses, but I bet a good use can be found.
2. Hubbing retail into one spot… Damn right.
It’s just like the above argument, in that a store selling their products at two stores in two terminals, in the exact same way, isn’t as efficient as the store selling their products at one store with twice the consumer exposure. Also, when you have stores centralize, you are more likely to recognize cross-store shoppers, such as someone stepping away to get a coffee and then also goes into the bookstore because it’s next to the coffee shop.
3. Consolidating all the rent-a-car sites into one building… Damn right.
They can build a giant garage and get all of the car rental companies in there. If it can be built on Lambert Airport property, they can run the show and reap new revenues. It’s so much easier to get rental cars in other airports that have dedicated garages like these (i.e. Baltimore), and it’d reduce the numbers of rent-a-car buses cramming the pick-up lanes.
4. More airport-controlled long-term parking… Damn right.
The airport garages are overcrowded and beyond capacity (even while the tarmac is well below capacity). Long-term secure covered parking on-site at the airport would absolutely be welcomed by travelers. Heck, get valet services going in there as well, get even more revenues. While maybe not the most aesthetically pleasing of structures, we need more structured parking garages at Lambert Airport; we could very definitely double what exists today. And if this could be done in tandem with consolidating rent-a-car outfits into a new garage, then all the better for simultaneous construction projects.
Important: 70% of non-aeronautical revenues come from parking. We can push that higher. This is where public-private partnerships should be stepping in.
5. Higher fees for limos, taxis, etc... Yeah, I guess so.
I’m not one for gouging out the eyes of our taxi drivers with higher fees, but damn, it already costs a significant amount more to get from the airport to Clayton or Downtown or wherever than it does for a ride to the airport, so they’re already gouging our eyes out.
6. Increase capacities for air cargo operations… YES!!!!! DAMMIT, PLEASE!!!!!
Increasing air cargo operations at Lambert Airport is the most obvious and necessary thing we can do.
First, cargo flights generate more revenues than non-cargo flights. Aeronautical revenues are primarily earned from three fee sources: takeoffs, landings, and gating. The heavier the flights, the higher the fees. So, if you get a 747-400 ERF fully laden, that’s 100 tons of cargo, plus the weight of the plane, that’s assessed for fees. Therefore, the fastest way to get more airport aeronautical revenues is from increased dedicated cargo operations.
Second, increased cargo operations lead to increased passenger operations. Around 70% of total air cargo is shipped in the bellies of commercial jetliners. Even though Southwest doesn’t do much for cargo in their bellies, the other airlines can be all about it. Plus, revenues are higher for all parties involved for cargo than for human passengers. Should we be able to service more cargo in our flights, then we can get more flights operating out of Lambert Airport as well as bigger planes from these airliners. The local business community certainly would be glad to have non-Southwest service to more major cities for their executives who have to travel, especially on non-regional birds. If we really want international, then let’s give them flights not just with passengers but with bellies full of cargo. That’s how British Airways and Lufthansa can best be profitable flying in and out of here.
Third, there’s already significant cargo shipped out of STL to attract new operations. A lot of air cargo from STL is actually trucked to Chicago for flights in and out of ORD. So, let’s cut out the middleman and get these flights in and out of our own airport.
Fourth, increased cargo routes would increase business activities in STL. This would include local manufacturing opportunities and warehousing & logistics. There’s definitely excess land around the airport that can host warehouses (as well as parking garages and MRO hangars). Lambert Airport has lost cargo opportunities in the past because of a lack of adjacent warehousing space, such as the China Cargo Hub initiative, and it certainly was a mark against us when we tried to get Amazon’s Prime Air to hub here instead of Cincinnati at CVG. And building new on airport land means more revenues for the airport itself. In fact, this is the best opportunity to recognize both aeronautical and non-aeronautical revenues. Let’s all recognize that, with the rise in online retail (and the decline of storefront retail), we will see the shipment of goods increase something greater than 30% in the next couple decades. Lambert Airport taking steps to proactively capture more of that market share is essential to the regional economy.
Finally, it’s necessary infrastructure with return on investment that pays for itself. Having the infrastructure to bring in more cargo operations is necessary for Lambert Airport to compete with everyone from ORD to MEM and SDF. Right now, we have “Cargo City” just east of the East Terminal, and it is so desperately in need of overhaul that I say we can just tear the whole site down and build again new. On the north side of the airport, there’s plenty of land just off James S. McDonnell Boulevard, south of Boeing and east of Signature Flight Support and both FedEx & UPS, where Berkeley High School and the old neighborhood used to be before noise abatement cleared the land out. That site’s just begging to be built upon, and the airport authority would certainly chip in to expand the apron. That site can be highly profitable for the airport authority even if it’s just warehousing.
The one thing all of these plans have in common is that they cost money. Privatization of the airport would have welcomed in very large investors who could have put a lot of that money up-front as well as the multi-billion dollar cash payments to STL for the long-term lease. The problems the airport has today aren’t just high fees for takeoffs and landings from expansion; it’s that it’s limited in its current abilities to pay for expanding operations (antiquated airport charter). Still, it must be done. If privatization could have done this, then so be it, but it can’t today. We have to figure out how to get the airport generating new revenues, and if it means we have to spend money to make more money down the road, then let’s figure out how we can do this.
We really, really, really need to start looking at private-public partnerships for building new on airport land.
If St. Louis County and St. Charles County were so damn adamant about having a say in privatization, or even getting a share of the revenues, then how about they step up and help pay for improving the airport? How about we start here?
- 1,292
As symphonic alluded to, pretty much all of the things the consultants said are things that the Commission already either knows or are actively working towards as best as they are able. Increasing cargo was pretty much the Commission's primary goal in the current Five-Year Plan as part of an effort to increase non-aviation revenues all round. I suspect that the focus on cargo will remain when the next plan comes out for the 2020-2025 timeframe. The airport is also relying on several key infrastructure improvements in and around the airport to come to fruition, as identified by the Freightway's project list; when completed, those should really help with getting cargo in and out of the airport. PPP's should absolutely come into play with regards to warehousing/cargo space, as well as parking and hopefully rental cars. It's honestly a bit bizarre why the airport suddenly pulled out of the cargo terminal deal regarding the Northern Tract with Bi-National; either they no longer had any faith in the deal ever becoming reality or there were some privatization-related shenanigans going on. Hopefully they still can become a USDA-certified port, and maybe even still get the U.S./Mexico dual-customs facility.
My guess at the top 3 goals of the airport's next Five-Year Plan would be:
1. Continued focus on increasing non-aviation revenue, primarily through increased cargo.
2. Continue to renovate and reopen disused terminal space while also improving passenger experience throughout.
3. Reacquire international flights.
My guess at the top 3 goals of the airport's next Five-Year Plan would be:
1. Continued focus on increasing non-aviation revenue, primarily through increased cargo.
2. Continue to renovate and reopen disused terminal space while also improving passenger experience throughout.
3. Reacquire international flights.
- 2,929
^^SP, you're right. They've wanted these things, and more, for years.
The elephant in the hangar is cash flow. Lambert Airport is limited - by charter and by budget - on how it can allocate its limited free monies towards capital improvements. And absolutely, all of these things are issues that have been known for years. I've worked with Lambert to increase cargo operations, and we were damn close to getting new birds flying in and new construction started. Very much, they know what's up, and I credit them fully for not just their competencies but their focus on the long term while adapting to the near term. The one thing we all would have liked from privatization would have been the big dollar allocations: to the City for general purposes, to the bonds for the airport expansion (that would've reduced our high aeronautical fees and brought in more flights), and for capital improvements such as garages, warehousing, and MROs. If only the airport authority had the capital to improve, we'd see so many great things taking place at Lambert Airport that we'd all be celebrating new victories.
I think the big takeaway from Privatization needs to be that Lambert Airport needs increased free cash flows for self-investment and improvements in order for the airport, and through it the City and Metro Area, to remain competitive nationally. Public-Private Partnerships really, really need to be considered on a per-project basis, such as for building warehousing and cold chain storage (Could we get one for parking, if that means lot expansion and net revenues increases for the airport afterwards?) But, we mustn't rely on them going after PPPs alone, especially when big privatization just got knocked down.
The elephant in the hangar is cash flow. Lambert Airport is limited - by charter and by budget - on how it can allocate its limited free monies towards capital improvements. And absolutely, all of these things are issues that have been known for years. I've worked with Lambert to increase cargo operations, and we were damn close to getting new birds flying in and new construction started. Very much, they know what's up, and I credit them fully for not just their competencies but their focus on the long term while adapting to the near term. The one thing we all would have liked from privatization would have been the big dollar allocations: to the City for general purposes, to the bonds for the airport expansion (that would've reduced our high aeronautical fees and brought in more flights), and for capital improvements such as garages, warehousing, and MROs. If only the airport authority had the capital to improve, we'd see so many great things taking place at Lambert Airport that we'd all be celebrating new victories.
I think the big takeaway from Privatization needs to be that Lambert Airport needs increased free cash flows for self-investment and improvements in order for the airport, and through it the City and Metro Area, to remain competitive nationally. Public-Private Partnerships really, really need to be considered on a per-project basis, such as for building warehousing and cold chain storage (Could we get one for parking, if that means lot expansion and net revenues increases for the airport afterwards?) But, we mustn't rely on them going after PPPs alone, especially when big privatization just got knocked down.
^ I would think the PPP on landside warehouse, cargo, etc.. would be a great avenue to pursue but wonder if the laws, charter in place require changes as well which would take just as long.
As GC summarized well, it is painfully clear that Lambert is land & capacity rich and cash poor. Not sure how you truly address in the near term unless it is alternative financing such as PPP, a city bond measure to kick start a couple of these landside projects and or even a county buy in (cash for part ownership). City bond measure say for new cargo and parking facilities seems like the most direct and quickest way without the city giving up its most valuable asset.
As GC summarized well, it is painfully clear that Lambert is land & capacity rich and cash poor. Not sure how you truly address in the near term unless it is alternative financing such as PPP, a city bond measure to kick start a couple of these landside projects and or even a county buy in (cash for part ownership). City bond measure say for new cargo and parking facilities seems like the most direct and quickest way without the city giving up its most valuable asset.
- 2,929
^Thanks bud. I've been thinking for some time on what Lambert Airport could be if only we had more than just the City supporting it. I'm not ready to say the City should sell its interests in the airport as a whole to the County, or to the Chuck, or whomever else. Still... Maybe in parts? What if there was some way to get STL County and St. Charles County to be involved that wouldn't be dilutive to the City's equity? Better way of saying it: Could they make something new at the airport to handle developmental opportunities for things peripheral to the airport, into which another County and/or private interests participate?
I'm spitballing here... Say there was some multi-government "Airport Council", like East-West Gateway, for Lambert Airport's ancillary development. This group could potentially get bond issues for airport development that don't just rely on the credit of just the City of STL. Maybe it could source bonds from more than just the existing Airport Authority or the City of STL. Maybe it could help facilitate PPPs. Maybe it could do these things and not dilute the City's control over airport operations while opening up other interested parties (STL & St. Charles Counties, etc.) to being able to participate in the airport's ancillary operations and development, if not its management. On one hand, it increases regional cooperation and mutual dependence, all while furthering a collective need. On the other hand, maybe something could come into being to handle just the peripheral matters (i.e. land development) while not bucking with the airport's charter, keeping its management largely the same without muddying up the waters. I'm not philosophically a fan of creating more government layers, but hell, something's gotta be done so we can all help Lambert Airport. We couldn't privatize it partly after St. Charles County Executive Ehlmann wrote the Biz Journal demanding a say in the privatization plans; how about we see if he can step in and do something outside of privatization? A respectful "put up or shut up", if you will. Best case is that we can all act together towards the same goals and maybe, maybe get something real done.
Eh, who knows. I'm reminded of Ash Williams in AOD, who famously said:
I'm spitballing here... Say there was some multi-government "Airport Council", like East-West Gateway, for Lambert Airport's ancillary development. This group could potentially get bond issues for airport development that don't just rely on the credit of just the City of STL. Maybe it could source bonds from more than just the existing Airport Authority or the City of STL. Maybe it could help facilitate PPPs. Maybe it could do these things and not dilute the City's control over airport operations while opening up other interested parties (STL & St. Charles Counties, etc.) to being able to participate in the airport's ancillary operations and development, if not its management. On one hand, it increases regional cooperation and mutual dependence, all while furthering a collective need. On the other hand, maybe something could come into being to handle just the peripheral matters (i.e. land development) while not bucking with the airport's charter, keeping its management largely the same without muddying up the waters. I'm not philosophically a fan of creating more government layers, but hell, something's gotta be done so we can all help Lambert Airport. We couldn't privatize it partly after St. Charles County Executive Ehlmann wrote the Biz Journal demanding a say in the privatization plans; how about we see if he can step in and do something outside of privatization? A respectful "put up or shut up", if you will. Best case is that we can all act together towards the same goals and maybe, maybe get something real done.
Eh, who knows. I'm reminded of Ash Williams in AOD, who famously said:
Maybe. Just maybe my boys can protect the book... Yeah, and maybe I'm a Chinese jet pilot.
Well, holy crap, that didn't take long...
STL Post-Dispatch: Regional leaders float idea to buy Lambert from St. Louis
STL Post-Dispatch: Regional leaders float idea to buy Lambert from St. Louis
County and municipal leaders in St. Louis, St. Charles and Jefferson counties are looking at the possibility of buying St. Louis Lambert International Airport from the city and putting it under the control of a regional board.
The heads of some of the region’s largest governments have discussed a massive special sales taxing district spanning St. Louis, St. Charles, Jefferson and even Franklin counties, the Post-Dispatch has learned.
If voters in those jurisdictions approve, a half cent sales tax could generate some $80 million to $100 million annually — money that could be used to acquire the airport from St. Louis, much as a private operator would have done under a long-term lease contemplated during the recently aborted privatization process....
(Bridgeton Mayor Terry) Briggs said he and others have looked at the Transportation Development District statute and concluded that one of the districts — usually set up by private property owners to fund traffic infrastructure around retail developments — could be set up across county lines. The money generated from a sales tax could be used to issue bonds to pay the city, pay down the airport’s nearly $600 million in debt or invest in capital improvements...
Briggs said proponents of the plan have yet to approach Krewson about the proposal, and he still needs to speak to Franklin County Presiding Commissioner Tim Brinker. Nor has he spoken to leaders in the Metro East because it’s unclear how Missouri’s TDD law could interact with Illinois special taxing district laws.
Krewson’s spokesman, Jacob Long, said the mayor’s office was not invited to be part of the conversation on regional governance.
“It would be highly speculative for us to offer any sort of reaction because they haven’t asked us to be part of the conversation,” Long said.
^ Just put it under Bi-State. They already have the ability to raise taxes in both states and already operate the Downtown Airport in Cahokia.
It’s just hard to imagine certain counties passing something that directly benefits the city.
Idea...
Pass new tax, hand under Bi-State Development. Lambert, Mid-America, and Downtown under one control. Build in the freightway and ports in Madison and Jefferson County and you have a pretty impressive cargo network under one umbrella.
Idea...
Pass new tax, hand under Bi-State Development. Lambert, Mid-America, and Downtown under one control. Build in the freightway and ports in Madison and Jefferson County and you have a pretty impressive cargo network under one umbrella.
This seems like an odd idea. None of these counties were interested in doing anything with Lambert until the privatization talks started. Then they seemingly formed their own group to explore a regional take over of the airport, but they left the City of St. Louis out of the discussion, which I don't think is a wise choice. The City has owned the Airport for some time and while the Counties would buy it, the City should still have some involvement since the City is part of the region too. At least they admit they're going to make a pitch to the City, but they should've made the pitch already.gone corporate wrote: ↑Dec 31, 2019Well, holy crap, that didn't take long...
STL Post-Dispatch: Regional leaders float idea to buy Lambert from St. Louis
While everyone talks about a fragmented region, this is another example of fragmentation since it leaves the City out of the mix (who by the way has more people living in it than Jefferson County (302,000 vs 223,000) and Franklin County (302,000 vs 103,000). It's an absurd idea in my opinion. Either keep the City involved or drop the talk. Why only include the City to buy the airport and then leave the table to never return to consult with them again? It sounds like a way to screw the City over.
Having known knowledge on some of the Privatization proposals, even those wouldn't have worked because St. Louis just doesn't seem to need to be a hub anymore especially as KC, Nashville, and Chicago grow their airports. All are 4-5 hours away and while that's not ideal, why have a true international flight leave St. Louis when you can go a few hours to the other cities and get to real international flights? It may not be ideal but re-establishing STL as a hub would be hard to do with nearby competition increasing steadily.
What I also don't like is their hope to bring in the Metro East as part of this regional effort. They don't know the Special Tax District laws in Illinois, so it can complicate things. If they were to work with the Metro East, they'll need to deal with the failure and money burner that is MidAmerica. Take all tax money that is thrown at MidAmerica and throw it at Lambert. If MidAmerica closes, so be it, it will just be another example of money wasted in Illinois, and at only a few flights a week, it's not like it's a valuable asset the region is losing. It's just there to say, "we have another airport". We do not need two Airports in St. Louis. We need to strengthen the larger of the two if it's our hope to be a hub again. Park's Airport (Downtown) is mostly used by private jets and chartered flights, and I believe it's used more than MidAmerica. That can stay but MidAmerica needs to be put out of it's misery.
If this "regional" effort has a true plan to make Lambert a hub and provide meaningful updates to the Airport, they need to put them out there. We shouldn't risk letting these people who got bent out of shape because they weren't consulted on privatization make decisions on what happens to the Airport. The City has been a stakeholder and owner for some time, no need to up and leave now.
I figure voters in the Counties that would be part of this TDD would shoot the proposal down. Maybe support from St. Louis County would happen but I don't see St. Charles, Franklin, Jefferson or even the Metro East voting in favor of this.
On the recommendation of having Bi-State take over the airport, it sounds like a ludicrous idea. Bi-State is too involved in other things to all of a sudden take over the burden that is Lambert.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this issue, but we need to be smart about the Airport. It's a huge asset. We have the ability to make it strong or really weak. It can be a friend or an enemy. We can't just impulsively move on something that's risky like this.
I'm sorry, but the City needs to deal with this issue on their own and maybe, at most, bring in St. Louis County for future changes.
That's a whole lot of opinion that largely ignores the significant progress the airport has made over the last decade or so. I really don't feel like unpacking all of it, but this particular paragraph is pretty out there. Other cities are improving so we should just sit back and let them eat our lunch? Come on, that's just dumb. St. Louis is a much larger business center than both KC and Nashville and significantly larger in population than both too. Lambert already sees almost 4 million more passengers per year than KC and it's growth rates are currently better than MCI. Lambert's growth is predicted to increase 3% per year until 2030, much of that is going to be Southwest and the East Terminal can't handle all of that...something has to be done.chriss752 wrote: ↑Jan 01, 2020Having known knowledge on some of the Privatization proposals, even those wouldn't have worked because St. Louis just doesn't seem to need to be a hub anymore especially as KC, Nashville, and Chicago grow their airports. All are 4-5 hours away and while that's not ideal, why have a true international flight leave St. Louis when you can go a few hours to the other cities and get to real international flights? It may not be ideal but re-establishing STL as a hub would be hard to do with nearby competition increasing steadily.gone corporate wrote: ↑Dec 31, 2019Well, holy crap, that didn't take long...
STL Post-Dispatch: Regional leaders float idea to buy Lambert from St. Louis
And maybe you missed some recent reporting in the PD but at least one aviation industry expert considers St. Louis to have already built itself back into a hub, albeit a small one. Southwest now moves over 40% of their connecting traffic through St. Louis. You want to give that up to a competitor? The city doesn't have the credit or the money to build Lambert into a 21st Century airport. A regional governance model (with the city included, I do agree with you there) is going to be the best way forward.
Doing nothing is not an option.
Bi-State idea is pretty good, existing governing board and ability to raise taxes. More importantly it covers most of the population center that has bought into Transit. Including fixed transit that already serves Lambert and not to far away from serving Mid America. In other words, St Charles, Franklin and Jeff are looking for a piece of the regions best asset and still avoid transit.. Bi State nixes that. I'm sure their is some downside but anything you do requires trade offs.
Still can't help to go back to the idea of rebuild A & C into a new single linear concourse with B being location of new single security point access, immigration/customs as well as platform for possible hotel tower if it can be done within current height requirements. You can build out while utilizing extra D gates. Once completed, knock down D for single metrolink airport station additional parking, consolidated rental facility, or maybe add a hotel tower between Terminal 1 & 2. Go the Bi-State route and now you got a tax revenue avenue to pursues the long term terminal improvement. Bi State would also be avenue and resources to generate PPP and landside cargo, warehouse development
Still can't help to go back to the idea of rebuild A & C into a new single linear concourse with B being location of new single security point access, immigration/customs as well as platform for possible hotel tower if it can be done within current height requirements. You can build out while utilizing extra D gates. Once completed, knock down D for single metrolink airport station additional parking, consolidated rental facility, or maybe add a hotel tower between Terminal 1 & 2. Go the Bi-State route and now you got a tax revenue avenue to pursues the long term terminal improvement. Bi State would also be avenue and resources to generate PPP and landside cargo, warehouse development
I think it's well past time that the surrounding counties get a piece of the pie. It is a regional asset, after all. The only question is how to divvy it up fairly. Bi-State is would be a good place to start.
This is exactly the kind of regional cooperation we need more of around here. We have to think like One City, not like a pack of dogs fighting over the scraps.
This is exactly the kind of regional cooperation we need more of around here. We have to think like One City, not like a pack of dogs fighting over the scraps.
The bi-state idea seems to make sense. Consistent with other cities - like New York - that have a centralized Port Authority which manages the airports along with other major transit assets (although not the subway in that particular instance).
- 71
There's no way St. Chuck/JeffCo/STL would ever propose an amount that the city would consider. If they did, the number would be so large that voters in most of those areas would balk.
- 6,123
I expect there will be a lot of negotiation. If the surrounding counties offer enough money I can easily believe the city would sell shares and allow them a seat at the table. (I don't think City Hall is too likely to sell it outright, but I could see a new regional agency emerging.)
As to dredger's redesign proposals I suspect those belong most properly in the airport thread. (Where we've discussed most all of them before.)
Anyway, let's hope the talks lead to something useful.
As to dredger's redesign proposals I suspect those belong most properly in the airport thread. (Where we've discussed most all of them before.)
Anyway, let's hope the talks lead to something useful.
I would be shocked if Jeff Co and St Charles County would approve any type of tax to allow this to happened.
- 2,929
Let’s all keep in mind that, in these conversations, we’re not talking about an “All-or-Nothing” deal. It looks like the Counties (St. Louis, St. Charles, Jefferson, and even Franklin) are interested in potentially acquiring some ownership of Lambert Airport, which currently is wholly owned by the City. I really don’t see everyone ganging up to take the airport away from the City; I see the Counties wanting to join with the City in co-ownership. If it really is an AON bid, then I see the City telling the Counties to stick it.
Where it comes to the City not being a part of the conversations yet, I don’t take it as a major slight at the City. Right now, we have interested parties (the Counties) talking to each other about potentially making a joint offer to the City, to acquire a partnered equity stake in what the City currently owns, the airport. If I were going to team up with some business partners to make a bid on an asset of another business (one which they recently tried to sell), I’d want to make sure my potential partners were on-board first, that we knew what we can afford, that we know we legally can make the offer, and that we know the amount to bid – before we make our first approach. I think this whole thing is becoming mutually known now to figure out two things: how much the Counties can bid, and how much the City should ask. The Counties need the City to think how much money they can ask of the Counties, how much potential equity they’d be willing to part with, and how the potential funding vehicles (Counties creating bonds for City use under a multi-jurisdictional TDD) impact their ask. That news story could just be a "heads-up" to the City that the Counties may want to approach them soon with a potential bid, just one played out more publicly than normal.
addxb2: I’m not sure if getting Bi-State to run Lambert Airport is a possibility. Creating another regional authority to operate the airport, based on Bi-State or the NY/NJ Port Authority? Maybe… Same time, I’m fully in favor of the other idea you mentioned: getting the Counties to contribute towards infrastructure buildout of the emerging Port of Herculaneum in Jeff Co and expanding both the Port of St. Louis and America’s Central Port in Granite City. This would all be in preparation for American Patriot Holdings’ forthcoming Cargo-on-Vessel freighters, which should be online in two years.
chriss752: Let's never forget that Mid-America Airport is a regional victory. While it's a nothing airport today, its construction and operation has kept Scott AFB off the Base Realignment and Closure lists since the 1990s.
Dredger: I don’t see a hotel tower anywhere north of I-70. FAA height restrictions likely wouldn’t allow it.
Generally speaking, I’m in favor of getting more funding to the airport and working as a region. If the Counties can get monies from their jurisdictions to pay airport debt while also paying for improving the airport – including cargo expansion – then I’m damn interested in learning more. Let’s see what plays out.
Where it comes to the City not being a part of the conversations yet, I don’t take it as a major slight at the City. Right now, we have interested parties (the Counties) talking to each other about potentially making a joint offer to the City, to acquire a partnered equity stake in what the City currently owns, the airport. If I were going to team up with some business partners to make a bid on an asset of another business (one which they recently tried to sell), I’d want to make sure my potential partners were on-board first, that we knew what we can afford, that we know we legally can make the offer, and that we know the amount to bid – before we make our first approach. I think this whole thing is becoming mutually known now to figure out two things: how much the Counties can bid, and how much the City should ask. The Counties need the City to think how much money they can ask of the Counties, how much potential equity they’d be willing to part with, and how the potential funding vehicles (Counties creating bonds for City use under a multi-jurisdictional TDD) impact their ask. That news story could just be a "heads-up" to the City that the Counties may want to approach them soon with a potential bid, just one played out more publicly than normal.
addxb2: I’m not sure if getting Bi-State to run Lambert Airport is a possibility. Creating another regional authority to operate the airport, based on Bi-State or the NY/NJ Port Authority? Maybe… Same time, I’m fully in favor of the other idea you mentioned: getting the Counties to contribute towards infrastructure buildout of the emerging Port of Herculaneum in Jeff Co and expanding both the Port of St. Louis and America’s Central Port in Granite City. This would all be in preparation for American Patriot Holdings’ forthcoming Cargo-on-Vessel freighters, which should be online in two years.
chriss752: Let's never forget that Mid-America Airport is a regional victory. While it's a nothing airport today, its construction and operation has kept Scott AFB off the Base Realignment and Closure lists since the 1990s.
Dredger: I don’t see a hotel tower anywhere north of I-70. FAA height restrictions likely wouldn’t allow it.
Generally speaking, I’m in favor of getting more funding to the airport and working as a region. If the Counties can get monies from their jurisdictions to pay airport debt while also paying for improving the airport – including cargo expansion – then I’m damn interested in learning more. Let’s see what plays out.
I'm suprised no one has brought up city re-entry into the county as part of this process. I've always seen control of the airport as one of the city's best bargaining chips for making the terms of re-entry more favorable.
Are we assuming the city wants to re-enter? I always thought they would but some of the talk over the last year or so now makes me wonder.danryan1 wrote: ↑Jan 02, 2020I'm suprised no one has brought up city re-entry into the county as part of this process. I've always seen control of the airport as one of the city's best bargaining chips for making the terms of re-entry more favorable.
A couple things. KC airport is going to have a negative growth year. So I don't think they are doing all that great a job of growing their airport. They have basically been the same size for the last 12+ years. Fluxing up and down. We have grown pretty steadily since the AA hub has been fully dismantled. It has easily been growing faster than KC. With the 13% increase in flights Southwest has on the schedule for next June we should continue to grow much faster. Nashville has been doing great. I agree with that one, props to them.chriss752 wrote: ↑Jan 01, 2020Having known knowledge on some of the Privatization proposals, even those wouldn't have worked because St. Louis just doesn't seem to need to be a hub anymore especially as KC, Nashville, and Chicago grow their airports. All are 4-5 hours away and while that's not ideal, why have a true international flight leave St. Louis when you can go a few hours to the other cities and get to real international flights? It may not be ideal but re-establishing STL as a hub would be hard to do with nearby competition increasing steadily.gone corporate wrote: ↑Dec 31, 2019Well, holy crap, that didn't take long...
STL Post-Dispatch: Regional leaders float idea to buy Lambert from St. Louis
What I also don't like is their hope to bring in the Metro East as part of this regional effort. They don't know the Special Tax District laws in Illinois, so it can complicate things. If they were to work with the Metro East, they'll need to deal with the failure and money burner that is MidAmerica. Take all tax money that is thrown at MidAmerica and throw it at Lambert. If MidAmerica closes, so be it, it will just be another example of money wasted in Illinois, and at only a few flights a week, it's not like it's a valuable asset the region is losing. It's just there to say, "we have another airport". We do not need two Airports in St. Louis. We need to strengthen the larger of the two if it's our hope to be a hub again. Park's Airport (Downtown) is mostly used by private jets and chartered flights, and I believe it's used more than MidAmerica. That can stay but MidAmerica needs to be put out of it's misery.
Mid America has more than "a few flights a week" and has done a good job growing their airport. I wouldn't say I would be all that sad if it shut down but to say a few flights isn't giving it credit. They have over 30 flights a week during summer. They need to find a way to break even though, I will say that.
Parks airport is the 3rd busiest airport in the state behind O'hare and Midway. So yes, it should stay.
- 9,566
If KCI grew 3% a year this entire next decade it would pass Lambert in 2030 and that’s if lambert didn’t grow at all
From 2010-2019 KC grew 17%
Lambert 27%
From 2010-2019 KC grew 17%
Lambert 27%
Biz Journal Article behind paywall so not sure if their is any information beyond what the headline states. It does make sense that Southwest would rather see airport in same hands, work down fees and expand flights on decreased fees instead of a new party trying to figure out a way to make money as well as spend on improvements, and so forth.
What would interesting to me as fly on wall is if Southwest talked about any further landside improvements such more near short term parking, ingress/egress, its see in future, so on. I don't think getting more D gates is a big issue. But this is not the thread to continue that discussion.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... s_headline
Two St. Louis executives skeptical of the Lambert airport privatization process met with a top Southwest Airlines leader days before Mayor Lyda Krewson ended it.
What would interesting to me as fly on wall is if Southwest talked about any further landside improvements such more near short term parking, ingress/egress, its see in future, so on. I don't think getting more D gates is a big issue. But this is not the thread to continue that discussion.
https://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/new ... s_headline
Two St. Louis executives skeptical of the Lambert airport privatization process met with a top Southwest Airlines leader days before Mayor Lyda Krewson ended it.