urbanSTL

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Feb 06, 2020

In my opinion, Option 1 is the way to go. The main terminal building is a landmark, make that the home of our busiest airline in and out of St. Louis. The recent renovations made it better but a few more dollars could make it better if they really wanted to. 

Option 3 is iffy in my opinion. The layout and logistics of moving planes around just wouldn't make sense. Also, imagine getting off of a plane on the East End and having to connect to some other flight on the West End. That would be a hike to take. For people who would take Metro, this isn't a good configuration. It would be a giant mess for operations, passenger flow, and other things. On the bright side, at least it saves the main terminal. 

Option 2 is the worst of the plans. It would alter the main terminal way too much to where it probably wouldn't even resemble how it does today. It's just a wacky plan all around.

I know these are all concepts but we have to be real here, Option 1 is really the only option that's really worth anything at this point in time. If they so badly want a new terminal, go visit some of the new airports built or being built throughout the country and learn a thing or two because the concept site plan they came up with isn't good at all.

On another note, I would love to see us pick up some bigger airline names and get expanded services for other airlines at Lambert. The smaller airlines can go to MidAmerica after the MetroLink expansion is completed. It will actually give that airport a usage 

Hi Chris, it's great to see you post again!

I agree, Option 1 is the only reasonable way to go at this time.  After making such a great effort to reduce fees, and get them closer in line with peer airports, why would STL blow $2 billion on a new terminal?  It just doesn't make financial sense.

A revitalized Lambert for around $150 million (maybe $200  million when it's all said and done) seems like a pretty wise investment.  I was in LIT about 2 months ago, and they're investing $100 million there.  The renderings show a vast improvement in amenities and capacity for a relatively small amount of money ($100 mil vs $1 billion).  MCI and BNA have to build new terminals because they were never as big as STL.  The great thing about our excess capacity is the major infrastructure is already there.

frequentflyer wrote:

chriss752 wrote: ↑

Feb 06, 2020

In my opinion, Option 1 is the way to go. The main terminal building is a landmark, make that the home of our busiest airline in and out of St. Louis. The recent renovations made it better but a few more dollars could make it better if they really wanted to. 

Option 3 is iffy in my opinion. The layout and logistics of moving planes around just wouldn't make sense. Also, imagine getting off of a plane on the East End and having to connect to some other flight on the West End. That would be a hike to take. For people who would take Metro, this isn't a good configuration. It would be a giant mess for operations, passenger flow, and other things. On the bright side, at least it saves the main terminal. 

Option 2 is the worst of the plans. It would alter the main terminal way too much to where it probably wouldn't even resemble how it does today. It's just a wacky plan all around.

I know these are all concepts but we have to be real here, Option 1 is really the only option that's really worth anything at this point in time. If they so badly want a new terminal, go visit some of the new airports built or being built throughout the country and learn a thing or two because the concept site plan they came up with isn't good at all.

On another note, I would love to see us pick up some bigger airline names and get expanded services for other airlines at Lambert. The smaller airlines can go to MidAmerica after the MetroLink expansion is completed. It will actually give that airport a usage 

Hi Chris, it's great to see you post again!

I agree, Option 1 is the only reasonable way to go at this time.  After making such a great effort to reduce fees, and get them closer in line with peer airports, why would STL blow $2 billion on a new terminal?  It just doesn't make financial sense.

A revitalized Lambert for around $150 million (maybe $200  million when it's all said and done) seems like a pretty wise investment.  I was in LIT about 2 months ago, and they're investing $100 million there.  The renderings show a vast improvement in amenities and capacity for a relatively small amount of money ($100 mil vs $1 billion).  MCI and BNA have to build new terminals because they were never as big as STL.  The great thing about our excess capacity is the major infrastructure is already there.

I don’t think that option 1 works well in the medium-long run. STL’s duel terminal set up without room for Southwest to expand in its terminal but open gates in the other is the exact issue that MCI has had with Delta and Southwest in B vs open gates in C. I also struggle to see how all of those security lines are going to get moved to the main floor. Where would they go? The head house is already pretty small.
Turning concourse B into a FIS facility makes little sense as it’s apron looks too “short” to hold a widebody or maybe even 757/A321 nor the hold rooms big enough for one. My earth measurements confirm this.

Option 1 is a short term solution but a new terminal will be needed in 10-15 years.



Option 2: It looks like there a few positions that are not feasible due to airside geometries. Removing B would fix a lot of this and you’d only loose maybe 1-2 positions. $1.1 billion+ for this plan that doesn’t really fix anything would be a mistake.

Option 3: I have strong doubts that a multi-phase project like this would come in for the proposed budget. Regardless, there are a lot of downsides dealing with longevity and airside geometries.


Summary: None of the options are good options for the long term. I am seeing the new build options propose a lot of things that will reduce the flexibility and this longevity of the terminal. The best solution for St. Louis is really going to be new construction away from T1: either parking lots and hangars to the west of T1; T2, Air Cargo, and abandoned regional jet area; north of new runway.

ldai_phs wrote: ↑

Feb 06, 2020

I don’t think that option 1 works well in the medium-long run. STL’s duel terminal set up without room for Southwest to expand in its terminal but open gates in the other is the exact issue that MCI has had with Delta and Southwest in B vs open gates in C. I also struggle to see how all of those security lines are going to get moved to the main floor. Where would they go? The head house is already pretty small.

Turning concourse B into a FIS facility makes little sense as it’s apron looks too “short” to hold a widebody or maybe even 757/A321. Option 1 is a short term solution but a new terminal will be needed in 10-15 years.

You make some good points here. Option 1 may be a short-term solution, but it's one that should be looking at now. When the time comes for a new terminal, I would highly encourage the authority, who would be making the decision, to preserve the main, landmark terminal. I'm not opposed to a new terminal, just the option the consultant came up with is a mess of a design. We need to do what we have to do now to make STL competitive and on par with other peer airports while looking ahead to the future. Looking ahead, we will need a new terminal but it shouldn't be a priority right now. We can play around with the idea, but save the seriousness and enthusiasm for a few more years.

In many ways, we must be careful with what we do. the Kansas City airport is far different than St. Louis's in the way it was built in circles and probably didn't have the capacity like Lambert did. We were once a major hub for TWA. Our airport is large enough to grow within it's current boundaries without facing many issues. As larger planes start making their way into the fleet of airline companies, then we will have a problem.

As far as the security comment, I haven't flown out of STL so I don't know the situation there. I mean I kind of do from other things I've done but surely not enough to make a decision on if it should move upstairs. In my opinion, leave it where it is. It will save a few bucks. 

frequentflyer:

Hi Chris, it's great to see you post again!

I agree, Option 1 is the only reasonable way to go at this time.  After making such a great effort to reduce fees, and get them closer in line with peer airports, why would STL blow $2 billion on a new terminal?  It just doesn't make financial sense.

A revitalized Lambert for around $150 million (maybe $200  million when it's all said and done) seems like a pretty wise investment.  I was in LIT about 2 months ago, and they're investing $100 million there.  The renderings show a vast improvement in amenities and capacity for a relatively small amount of money ($100 mil vs $1 billion).  MCI and BNA have to build new terminals because they were never as big as STL.  The great thing about our excess capacity is the major infrastructure is already there.

My return is temporary but thanks for the welcome back.

That's what I'm thinking. Why blow $2 Billion now? Maybe it's wise to or maybe it isn't. I just don't know. Down the line, we will need to spend a good amount of money on a new terminal but it doesn't have to be right away.

Trololzilla wrote:For now, Option A seems the most reasonable - solves an issue for a few decades for fairly cheap (in comparison) and gives the airport time to come up with a more permanent solution while keeping costs low.

I'm still partial to the original W-1W mid-field terminal concept as an end-goal, though:

Option A isn’t going to buy you decades I don’t think.

Do you have a high res version of the drawing?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Privatization is dead but what about the proposal for a regional airport authority including the surrounding counties and how might that affect design and or funding? I know, that's a broad question and impossible to answer right now but this next step to improve Lambert should be, IMO, a regional effort.

The last master plan was to expand west with a new terminal and/or concourse and I still think that is the best long-term option, as others have mentioned that will allow airlines to utilize 11/29 without a long taxi and will better fit the available space. Re-purposing the original terminal into something else (don't touch it!) would be okay, then build a new terminal about where concourse A sits now. 

I hope you stick around Chris, I appreciate the information that you contribute.

I would love to see Southwest move to T1.
I would love to a regional board for the airport as well.  But if the out lying counties will want a piece of the profit
I doubt that it will happen.

I'd hate to see T2 abandoned - it is the newer, more modern terminal and is in the least need of work. It's just too small for SWA these days.

T1 has the gates but even the most recently renovated parts aren't as nice as what T2 offers - and I get the impression that SWA feels the same way.  While the recent modernization efforts helped a bunch, I've honestly felt that the concourses have always felt cramped  - not in a 'there's too many people in here' way, but the ceilings are low and the central walkways narrow compared to other airports, even other mid-tier cities.  

Money no object, rebuilding the T1 concourses- as is represented in option 2 and 3 - would present an opportunity to make them taller and more open, not to mention opportunities to add more retail. But obviously that's quite an expensive thing to do, and closing T2 to do it seems wasteful.

What about demolishing a portion of concourse D and building a properly-integrated eastward T2 expansion in its place? That would keep Southwest happy and perhaps create an opening for international flights to be based there too.

-RBB

Why would you do anything other than Option A if it is not obvious that there will be extremely solid growth in the medium run?

kipfilet wrote: ↑

Feb 06, 2020

Why would you do anything other than Option A if it is not obvious that there will be extremely solid growth in the medium run?

Option A is a lot of money to spend on a bandaid fix for 10 years. Option A also reduces SWA's independence/flexibility(very important to them) and forces them into a cramped and old facility from their relatively modern and spacious current digs. AKA you would be asking Southwest to pay more to reduce the quality of their operations and customer experience.

The widths of Southwest's current passenger level facilities are single-loaded and about:  Terminal 2 90'-60' wide, 110' where it connects to D gates, and a paltry 55' in the D gates. Concourse C, on the other hand, is double-loaded yet only ~75' wide. So even the narrow D gates are giving you more room per gated side then Concourse C. I think the consultants are way overestimating how many positions you can fit into Concourse C if you take into account modern load factors, airplane sizes, and the fact that SWA will have big banks.

The Southwest section of the new KCI terminal looks to be about 110,000 sqft for 15 gates. My Google Earth calculations show about 95,000 sqft for Southwest's 22 gate section of Concourse C at STL. $141 million or $200 million won't be enough to significantly change the footprint of the Concourse C structure, upgrade the existing structures, and move security. 

IMHO. Southwest may as well build up KC or Nashville instead of selecting Option A. $200 million would buy you at minimum 5 additional gates at KCI -  more when you consider huge pieces of that project's price tag are demolition and parking garage. 


Only Solution in the near-mid-long term is going to be some type of new construction. I would say that the $200 million short term solution would be better suited on expanding SWA's current T2 concourse east and head house to the west. Phase 2 in the mid-run would demo the D gates and extend that main T2 concourse to the west where the apron is now. 

sc4mayor wrote: ↑

Feb 07, 2020

^ I think the idea is that SWA would move to T1 with significant renovations and upgrades to that structure.  We’re getting a little deep in the weeds here for what are very early concepts and not any formal proposal for the airport.  I don’t think anyone, consultants included, were suggesting that SWA and another airline simply switch terminals and call it a day.

I understand that. Given the limited budget and constraints from Concourse C  being active, I don't think they would be changing the physical footprint of the terminal. The changes sounded more along the lines of updated interiors, changing the security locations, some upgrades to BOH spaces and systems, etc. Even with a bigger budget, there isn't much if any room to expand towards the north. There doesn't look to be any on the south unless you wanted to give up the duel-taxi lanes (SWA wouldn't agree to it) or recognize that D will never be used again and restrip the apron.

STL is where KC was in 1990's when they made the (poor) choice of renovating the 3 leaf clover at KCI. STL needs to really be serious about what they actually have now and how it aligns with where they want to go.  If you really sit down and think about it, I don't think it aligns.

I have some insight into the current operations and condition of portions of the airport and over the past 24 hours, I now believe that it is wise to start thinking about a new terminal. We can spend the next several years figuring out a plan that doesn't disrupt business as usual at the airport but presents a new, modern terminal. While Option A seemed good at first glance, there are underlying issues, some that ldai_phs pointed out, that doesn't make it ideal for Southwest at this moment in time. We can't go for narrower concourses and spaces because of the increased traffic Southwest and others are seeing, how planes are cramming more and more people on board and more people are taking to the skies. We also have to understand that the Main Terminal is starting to show it's age in the back of house areas.

I understand that the consultant's report is just a concept and nothing beyond that, but it's time to have a real conversation about a new terminal at Lambert. Some of the privatization efforts included building a new terminal and redeveloping the Landmark Main Terminal. For those who were in the running to privatize the airport, I would suggest, and this is a controversial position, having the Airport Commission bring in some teams as advisors to present a new terminal plan that preserves our landmark but creates a modern airport terminal capable of holding larger planes that carry more passengers, and support an increased volume of passengers comfortably.

This shouldn't be difficult and we should start talking about it. I am sure that there is talk about it behind the scenes already. Some people are aware that if we don't perform major enhancements and upgrades, we could lose out to peer cities. We cannot afford to lose airline services. While things are good now, a decade down the line, things could look vastly different. And who knows, maybe that $2 Billion figure is factoring in potential inflation. I don't know. 

This will be a controversial decision no matter when the time comes. Ideally, I would like a future roadmap for Lambert laid out by 2026 at the latest. That gives us enough time to have conversations, create plans, and hopefully finalize deals to get the thing built.

The "cramped" comment always surprises me. I feel like it's an impression from long ago when the place was much busier. The headhouse in T1 is clearly and visibly much much larger than T2. There are more desks. There are more baggage carousels even than are planned for 2. The baggage handling plants is larger and more efficient. The terminal building is generally much more recently remodeled than T2. (Thanks to a little tornado some years back.) Likewise, the bulk of concourse C is recently remodeled.

Now I grant, I haven't been in C in a fair few years, as I kind of gave up on AA, but it was always D that felt narrow and cramped, not C. And C has more square footage of everything than E: more hold area, more security, more service, more retail space, vastly more club space. In terms of square footage C is just the biggest concourse at the airport by far. Simple as that. It was the primary TWA hub. B and D were other people's space that TWA took over later and adapted, but C is what they built as a major connecting hub from day one. Okay, the ceilings in the older part are a bit lower, but who really cares about ceiling height that much? You won't hit your head. Even if you're an NBA star. Higher ceilings just make the acoustics that much more difficult to control, really. Good riddance.

Now, I agree that it would be premature to demolish E, or even mothball it. But moving WN to C, if they were willing, makes a certain amount of sense. The only real downside I'm aware of is that the customs space isn't as well configured as that in E. Okay. So what. Leave customs in E and open up D as a pass through, or even as more gate space, just like they're already doing. Just swap C and E. WN gets the better deal. Really.

Honestly, it will be a good while before we exceed the capacity of the current structure. It was adequate for thirty million people. We're at half that. There's growth, but it's going to be a while before there are twice as many people as there are now. And gates clearly aren't a problem either, as WN mostly uses bigger planes than TWA did. The current plant really will serve for a decade or more at minimal cost. Probably a couple. Maybe (gasp) several. Unless things turn around drastically and the region starts growing quickly. And building a new midfield terminal won't magically bring corporations, people, or even airlines to town. Quite the opposite. It will just cost a lot of money and raise the CPE, driving airlines (and businesses) elsewhere. Grow first. New terminal second. We have plenty of airport and it works. And it's recently updated and in generally decent shape.

And best of all: the plumbing works and it doesn't smell bad. No mold. No stale grease smells. It's going to be okay. Honest. It's a heck of a lot better than some of the biggest and busiest airports int he world. Seriously. I'll go into details if you want, but trust me, they're not details that are fit for ordinary dinner conversation. (Did I mention the new satellite mega-terminal at Shanghai Pudong has some serious plumbing problems in need of correction. And I do mean serious. Brand new. Smells like . . . yeah.)

Just relax. It'll be okay.

symphonicpoet wrote:The "cramped" comment always surprises me. I feel like it's an impression from long ago when the place was much busier. The headhouse in T1 is clearly and visibly much much larger than T2. There are more desks. There are more baggage carousels even than are planned for 2. The baggage handling plants is larger and more efficient. The terminal building is generally much more recently remodeled than T2. (Thanks to a little tornado some years back.) Likewise, the bulk of concourse C is recently remodeled.

Now I grant, I haven't been in C in a fair few years, as I kind of gave up on AA, but it was always D that felt narrow and cramped, not C. And C has more square footage of everything than E: more hold area, more security, more service, more retail space, vastly more club space. In terms of square footage C is just the biggest concourse at the airport by far. Simple as that. It was the primary TWA hub. B and D were other people's space that TWA took over later and adapted, but C is what they built as a major connecting hub from day one. Okay, the ceilings in the older part are a bit lower, but who really cares about ceiling height that much? You won't hit your head. Even if you're an NBA star. Higher ceilings just make the acoustics that much more difficult to control, really. Good riddance.

Now, I agree that it would be premature to demolish E, or even mothball it. But moving WN to C, if they were willing, makes a certain amount of sense. The only real downside I'm aware of is that the customs space isn't as well configured as that in E. Okay. So what. Leave customs in E and open up D as a pass through, or even as more gate space, just like they're already doing. Just swap C and E. WN gets the better deal. Really.

Honestly, it will be a good while before we exceed the capacity of the current structure. It was adequate for thirty million people. We're at half that. There's growth, but it's going to be a while before there are twice as many people as there are now. And gates clearly aren't a problem either, as WN mostly uses bigger planes than TWA did. The current plant really will serve for a decade or more at minimal cost. Probably a couple. Maybe (gasp) several. Unless things turn around drastically and the region starts growing quickly. And building a new midfield terminal won't magically bring corporations, people, or even airlines to town. Quite the opposite. It will just cost a lot of money and raise the CPE, driving airlines (and businesses) elsewhere. Grow first. New terminal second. We have plenty of airport and it works. And it's recently updated and in generally decent shape.

And best of all: the plumbing works and it doesn't smell bad. No mold. No stale grease smells. It's going to be okay. Honest. It's a heck of a lot better than some of the biggest and busiest airports int he world. Seriously. I'll go into details if you want, but trust me, they're not details that are fit for ordinary dinner conversation. (Did I mention the new satellite mega-terminal at Shanghai Pudong has some serious plumbing problems in need of correction. And I do mean serious. Brand new. Smells like . . . yeah.)

Just relax. It'll be okay.

Chris and I have a lot of experience in this area. Trust me - Option A isn’t all roses. STL is different than KCI but it has a lot of the same problems. STL’s terminal’s aren’t as horrible as KC’s 3 circle ones but it’s the same structural issues in STL as KC. STL’s structures are small in both width and height.

You need to take into account the average passengers per flight and less so total passengers. STL today sees significantly more people per flight today than it did during TWA hub days. That means you need a lot more hold room and amenity space for every gate which will lead to a reduction in gates or if not a significant reduction in quality. The hold room and amenity space per gate is very low for the load factors and airplanes that Southwest uses. Providing modern space to gate ratios is going to greatly reduce the number of gates you have to the point SWA may have to downsize compared to current.

Yes, you can keep repairing and renovating terminal 1 and it could keep going for decades but is that the best solution? I don’t think so. The terminal had its renovation in 2011+ that bought it an extra 1-2 decades. Now is the time to starting thinking about starting over completely.

So, I’m just curious. Around the time KCI finalized plans and started construction, many on this site didn’t feel like KC’s new terminal is a threat to Lambert. KCI as well as BNA would not impact what Southwest is doing in St. Louis. Has something changed regarding the threat these other airports pose to STL/Lambert? Obviously, a lot of the discussion centers around the age, condition and lack of modern amenities Lambert is dealing with. I understand that is a huge motivation. However, is the regional competition a major factor as well. Is there fear SW could shift more flights to a KCI, if Lambert does not keep pace? How would a new terminal be paid for? Would it be a combo of local/federal tax, local businesses and airport funds? Just curious if anything has changed with regards to our position with SW. Is there a greater threat from other Midwest airports, than once perceived.

DogtownBnR wrote:So, I’m just curious. Around the time KCI finalized plans and started construction, many on this site didn’t feel like KC’s new terminal is a threat to Lambert. KCI as well as BNA would not impact what Southwest is doing in St. Louis. Has something changed regarding the threat these other airports pose to STL/Lambert? Obviously, a lot of the discussion centers around the age, condition and lack of modern amenities Lambert is dealing with. I understand that is a huge motivation. However, is the regional competition a major factor as well. Is there fear SW could shift more flights to a KCI, if Lambert does not keep pace? How would a new terminal be paid for? Would it be a combo of local/federal tax, local businesses and airport funds? Just curious if anything has changed with regards to our position with SW.

No, I don’t think there is a threat from KC unless you force SWA into Terminal 1 or don’t make any big upgrades in the next 1-2 decades. The bigger threat is Nashville.

Funding: concessions, parking, fees for ride share, increased passenger fees, etc. There is no reason for tax dollars to be involved.

Interview with outgoing UK Ambassador to the US has this interesting tidbit about BA wanting to operate domestic flights in the US:

“British Airways would love to be able to pick up passengers in London, fly them to, say, New York or Boston, and fly them on to St Louis and finish up with them in San Francisco. Are we going to get that? There is no chance the Americans are going to give us those rights to allow British carriers to break into the US domestic market, which is fantastically lucrative."

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ambassador

kipfilet wrote: ↑

Feb 07, 2020

Interview with outgoing UK Ambassador to the US has this interesting tidbit about BA wanting to operate domestic flights in the US:

“British Airways would love to be able to pick up passengers in London, fly them to, say, New York or Boston, and fly them on to St Louis and finish up with them in San Francisco. Are we going to get that? There is no chance the Americans are going to give us those rights to allow British carriers to break into the US domestic market, which is fantastically lucrative."

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ambassador

This isn't my area of expertise but I'm pretty sure that's possible now and something other airlines do. They just aren't able to pick up passengers in NYC and drop them off in STL which is what I think the ambassador is actually saying they would love.