This is a great conversation; props to all y’all. ldai_phs has some solid commentary here, keeping an eye on the long-term. Very much, we’re not competing with KC but with Nashville, as they have the growth we don’t have. Therefore, to remain competitive, a new Main Terminal would be great, just damn expensive.
Those 3 consultant options are, to say the least, quite interesting…
· Option #1 is something that’s likely been contemplated for years, consolidating the airport’s largest client into its largest facilities. Generally speaking, as a regular SWA passenger, I’m deferential to whether SWA stays in T2 or relocates to T1. It would work if and only if SWA wants to do this, and Lord knows STL won’t try to force SWA to do something they don’t want to do. Most important consideration: it’s definitely the most cost-effective option.
· Option #2 is flat-out not feasible. Shuttering T2? Come on. It looks written to only give something crappy for the other 2 options to contrast against positively.
· I like the idea of creating a new Main Terminal for STL, while recognizing the historic significance of Lambert’s Main Terminal for ushering in modern commercial air travel. Same time, I think turning the existing Main Terminal into a hotel would be horrible; it’s not the TWA at LaGuardia. So, as long as it is retained/incorporated into something new, then I’m all for it. Option #3 could be great, especially as a long-term answer to growth and amenities – if not for the fact that it’d cost $2BB in non-adjusted dollars, at an airport that’s still needs to reduce costs to the airlines it currently serves.
Right now, I’d say Option #1 would be preferable only for the fact that its costs ($141MM) are a fraction of the costs for a new terminal ($2BB+).
Meanwhile, I’d very much like to see Concourse D continue to be rehabbed and modernized on a westward movement, eventually connecting the East Terminal with the Main Terminal. If not relocating SWA to the Main Terminal in full, I would like to see it connected to it. I also find it interesting how both Options #1 & #2 considered Concourse B being converted for use by international flights, putting global operations right in the middle of the Main Terminal’s expanse while giving it aeronautical usage again.
That all stated, I think these options, in the post-privatization world, are now just dreams. All 3 have to be considered under the context that they would be operable under the custody of a new long-term private equity fund leaseholder, which isn’t going to happen. Without a giant pot of money to throw at STL, I don’t see any of these things being done in the near term, not even Option #1 at a fraction of the others’ costs.
intern222:Let's get's some financing, and have a groundbreaking!!!!
Indeed, we need financing before any shovels can be moved.
STL’s biggest issue remains its debt load and revenue streams, IMHO. Right now, we have high costs leading to excess capacities, i.e. empty gates. Passenger numbers are definitely increasing, with long-term momentum growth signaling we have definitely turned the corner from when AA gut-punched us after taking over TWA.
What are STL’s options for increased revenue generation?
1. Expanding current revenue streams, both aeronautical and non-aeronautical, which are increasing but are not producing very large cash reserves to fund any of the consultant’s Options.
2. Debt refinancing, which they’ve already done successfully.
3. Big new bond issuance, which I don’t think is likely so soon after the last ones.
4. Taking on public sector partners, i.e. STL City bringing in STL County, STC County, Jeff County, and maybe Franklin, Lincoln, & Warren Counties, capping off the MO-based STL Metropolitan Statistical Area (won’t get IL counties to participate with Mid America still operating).
5. Federal grants? Doubtful.
Perhaps the best thing we can do now in the short-term is to capitalize on existing revenue streams. Non-aeronautical revenues can expand from increased on-site parking services, expanding the current garages and building parking garages on some existing parking lots. Here, I’d love to see Lot A, due south of the Main Terminal garage south of Lambert International Blvd., turned into an underground garage that directly connects with the existing Main Terminal garage, with LI Blvd. on top of it. But, this would be both expensive and disruptive to traffic that it could disrupt existing revenues prohibitively. Plus, it doesn’t answer the issues of the East Terminal’s parking problems, compounded by how the site is largely land-locked. A new STL mega-garage south of I-70 may not be possible, as that’s in STL County and outside the airport’s jurisdiction – and a much longer walk – while also being the site of multiple private sector parking lot operators.
Increased aeronautical revenues can maybe best come from attracting new cargo operators, as they’d operate the largest planes with the heaviest weight loads (fees for landings and takeoffs assessed by gross weight). My personal dream for STL would be to secure a major cargo outfit that could focus on utilizing the new runway (11-29) and building warehousing space and gates along the north and northwest sides of the airport. But, the major cargo carriers all already have operations at nearby cities, with FedEx in Memphis, UPS in Louisville, and Amazon Prime in Cincinnati. Meanwhile, existing FedEx and UPS operations are currently based on the north side of the airport; perhaps these gates could be expanded if STL gets McDonnell Blvd. rerouted east to directly access the Berkeley noise abatement lands, thereby opening these lands up for development while expanding the apron? Again, it’d be costly.
Air cargo also is regularly shipped in the bellies of larger passenger planes, which can lead to more commercial operations doing more flights with larger planes, and can effectively be the tail wagging the dog to increase commercial passenger flights. Meanwhile, if STL can create a new cargo hub outside of “Cargo City” east of the East Terminal, maybe the East Terminal can expand operations (or parking) to its east while cargo operations expands elsewhere.
Regarding KC, I’m thinking we should keep in mind Hyperloop is looking to connect KC & STL at Lambert Airport, which could perhaps make STL the State’s top airport. I’m not saying Hyperloop is going to work or not, only that plans are for it to station at STL. (Remember: “Virgin Hyperloop”)
kipfilet: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
You bet BA would love for this to happen. There’s no way the US is going to authorize Open Skies domestically. First, that’d eat at the markets already served by our domestic airline fleets, from American to United and everything in between. Second, and more importantly, we’d then be hit up not just by BA but by every other non-US airline wanting Open Skies, stating that if one can do it then all can do it. This would mean GCC airlines – Emirates, Qatar, Etihad, etc. – would all want in. Noting that many get their jet fuel at discounts as they’re supported by their oil-rich home countries, this would further damage the domestic commercial airlines by a significant amount. Europe already has been impacted by GCC airlines flying under Open Skies conditions; we don’t need their troubles.
