I don’t think it made that big a difference. I don’t really feel like we compete with them that much air travel wise. It was just time to get the ball rolling on our side.DogtownBnR wrote: ↑Jan 06, 2022Obviously the huge influx of infrastructure and other monies that created a surplus have sped up these projects, but do you think KCI played a role in STL getting on the ball and coming up with a new plan. Or Is KCI irrelevant to STL? I've heard conflicting views on KCI's impact on STL. I figure this project has been on the minds of Lambert/regional leadership for some time.
- 1
For food and bev, Austin is the best I have seen yet and I really hope Lambert management looks to that as a good example to copy. It makes me jealous every time I have flown there, our options are just so bad in comparison. Somewhere in this video I am sure it will show a spot in their terminal where there is a bar, a stage, and a food truck taco stand all with a really cool layout. Many local places represented there with much better menu options. It shouldn't even take a new terminal for some of this to happen.rbb wrote: ↑Jan 06, 2022Was just thinking about how to convey ways a new single terminal could/should be best designed. Could we post examples of good terminal design at other airports (like DogtonwBnR did for the food court) that could be used as inspiration?
I'll start: One of the main complaints is how cramped the current terminals feel, and I think a large portion of this isn't just how narrow the T1 terminals are but how low the ceiling is. I think the ceilings should be 20-25' feet at minimum - I've always felt that not only would a taller terminal feel bigger than one of the same width but lower ceilings, but that 'soaring' ceilings are the perfect representation of the airport experience. I'll use the Miami terminal as an example:
-RBB
^^ My thoughts too, the ALP was due this year anyway and they were looking at some various layout options during the privatization attempt.
I think it’s long been on the minds of various regional officials, irrespective of what’s happening elsewhere. Add in all this extra money floating around and it just seems like the time is right.
I think it’s long been on the minds of various regional officials, irrespective of what’s happening elsewhere. Add in all this extra money floating around and it just seems like the time is right.
Agree with Jshank thoughts.jshank83 wrote: ↑Jan 06, 2022I don’t think it made that big a difference. I don’t really feel like we compete with them that much air travel wise. It was just time to get the ball rolling on our side.DogtownBnR wrote: ↑Jan 06, 2022Obviously the huge influx of infrastructure and other monies that created a surplus have sped up these projects, but do you think KCI played a role in STL getting on the ball and coming up with a new plan. Or Is KCI irrelevant to STL? I've heard conflicting views on KCI's impact on STL. I figure this project has been on the minds of Lambert/regional leadership for some time.
A major overhaul on gate/curbside is way over due just in terms of aging facilities, the piecemeal adds on that are coming up on their life expectancy and general changes over time. The reality is the runway expansion whether needed or not pushed this back a good couple of decades & led to the cheapest option possible to get Southwest presence. Time for some serious catch up and modernization now that some debt is paid down and infrastructure dollars are out there/
Non terminal related. One of the things I found interesting from the commission meeting is that the Lufthansa flight would have started at 5x a week if it weren’t for covid.
I hope the flights push that number back up to 5x. Could even be better in the long run for PR. Would be massively positive news for the region, something to counter the "dying metro" narrative.jshank83 wrote: ↑Jan 07, 2022Non terminal related. One of the things I found interesting from the commission meeting is that the Lufthansa flight would have started at 5x a week if it weren’t for covid.
I remember in old TATL talk there were numbers of PAX by destination, and ultimately unserved destinations. Does anyone know where those came from?
- 2,929
Honestly, I'm more excited about non-passenger flight updates than I am about the new consolidated terminal, which I think is outstanding.
Specifically, there's the recognition of the role of cargo at the airport. STL has just seen a 40% y/y increase in the amount of cargo carried out of the airport, part of which is due to Covid leading to increased deliveries of products (the Amazon flights). The presentation made note of the importance of belly cargo, i.e. the shipments of unit load devices (ULDs, cargo boxes that fit in the bellies of passenger jets). Airlines make a lot of money shipping cargo, definitely more than they do passengers. Building the new T1 specifically for larger planes that can and will carry ULDs on a regular basis will bring these larger jets to STL so long as we can have cargo carried out of here on a regular, sustainable basis, which I certainly think we can. Such a thing will also increase destinations to and from here, as airlines will want to maximize revenues by having sustainable belly loads, all of which will increase total revenues at STL. Just having more belly loads taking place will increase the weight of incoming and outgoing aircraft, meaning more fuel sales and higher takeoff & landing fees as they are assessed by aircraft weight. Mo money, mo money, mo money!
Now, I don't know how to copy & paste slides to this forum, but my eyes have been lit up by p.53 of the slide show (somebody please upload this; thanks). This slide shows other facilities developments on the airport's footprint.
Two big things caught my eye:
1. Construction of an MRO along Runway 11/29, i.e. the new runway. MROs are Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul hangars meant to service jetliners. Lambert had been home to an MRO for the MD-80s in the TWA/AA fleet. It appears the airport is set on seeing a new MRO built, and a pretty sizeable one at that. This is a solid enhancement to what we can and will offer the airline fleets. It's things like MROs that attract major airlines to base more flights out of a market.
2. Increased cargo facilities. There are two shown on this page.
A. The first is on the upper side near where Bi-National Gateway has(had) been retrofitting the old McDonnell Douglas fighter building along Banshee Road. This site has a rail spur, which is key to securing long-term sustainability for cargo at the airport. More to the point, it shows the new cargo facilities sticking out from the old fighter building; perhaps this means they'll increase the size of the existing structure? Honestly, I think the existing building is not worth redeveloping as-is and would appreciate a new, modern cargo facility being built here.
B. The second -- and more important one -- is the old Berkeley High School site on the NE side of the airport, across McDonnell Boulevard from the existing gates for UPS & FedEx. The presentation shows that entire area rebuilt for cargo operations, and that's a pretty big chunk of land. How telling is this site? The presentation shows the extension of Runway 12L-30R (the northern runway) and its taxiway up to the site of the new cargo area's footprint. We can reasonably anticipate that the airport intends to extend the apron onto this land to service cargo freighters at the warehouses to be built there. Further, the presentation implies that this sector of land will see this development going over the current stretch of McDonnell Blvd. that goes around the eastern edge of the airport before looping back over I-70 at Air Cargo Road. That they're going public with their intent to end McDonnell Road here is kind of significant. There still remains the Scudder Road bridge over I-170 into the NorthPark industrial park, full of warehouses and land to build more, that can run right up to this site.
Side note: The cargo development shown atop the old Berkeley High School site is something that I've heard the airport consider previously to attract cargo operations to STL. That it's shown here demonstrates how serious they are about truly modernizing. For those who wondered if KC's modernizing compelled STL Lambert to do the same, I can only say that this concept here has existed for years quietly. Therefore, its inclusion in this week's presentation tells me that all we have seen here really does reflect long-term thought and planning into total airport operations and modernization, nothing short-term inspired because of any perceived competitive pressures by KCI's new plans.
Specifically, there's the recognition of the role of cargo at the airport. STL has just seen a 40% y/y increase in the amount of cargo carried out of the airport, part of which is due to Covid leading to increased deliveries of products (the Amazon flights). The presentation made note of the importance of belly cargo, i.e. the shipments of unit load devices (ULDs, cargo boxes that fit in the bellies of passenger jets). Airlines make a lot of money shipping cargo, definitely more than they do passengers. Building the new T1 specifically for larger planes that can and will carry ULDs on a regular basis will bring these larger jets to STL so long as we can have cargo carried out of here on a regular, sustainable basis, which I certainly think we can. Such a thing will also increase destinations to and from here, as airlines will want to maximize revenues by having sustainable belly loads, all of which will increase total revenues at STL. Just having more belly loads taking place will increase the weight of incoming and outgoing aircraft, meaning more fuel sales and higher takeoff & landing fees as they are assessed by aircraft weight. Mo money, mo money, mo money!
Now, I don't know how to copy & paste slides to this forum, but my eyes have been lit up by p.53 of the slide show (somebody please upload this; thanks). This slide shows other facilities developments on the airport's footprint.
Two big things caught my eye:
1. Construction of an MRO along Runway 11/29, i.e. the new runway. MROs are Maintenance, Repair, and Overhaul hangars meant to service jetliners. Lambert had been home to an MRO for the MD-80s in the TWA/AA fleet. It appears the airport is set on seeing a new MRO built, and a pretty sizeable one at that. This is a solid enhancement to what we can and will offer the airline fleets. It's things like MROs that attract major airlines to base more flights out of a market.
2. Increased cargo facilities. There are two shown on this page.
A. The first is on the upper side near where Bi-National Gateway has(had) been retrofitting the old McDonnell Douglas fighter building along Banshee Road. This site has a rail spur, which is key to securing long-term sustainability for cargo at the airport. More to the point, it shows the new cargo facilities sticking out from the old fighter building; perhaps this means they'll increase the size of the existing structure? Honestly, I think the existing building is not worth redeveloping as-is and would appreciate a new, modern cargo facility being built here.
B. The second -- and more important one -- is the old Berkeley High School site on the NE side of the airport, across McDonnell Boulevard from the existing gates for UPS & FedEx. The presentation shows that entire area rebuilt for cargo operations, and that's a pretty big chunk of land. How telling is this site? The presentation shows the extension of Runway 12L-30R (the northern runway) and its taxiway up to the site of the new cargo area's footprint. We can reasonably anticipate that the airport intends to extend the apron onto this land to service cargo freighters at the warehouses to be built there. Further, the presentation implies that this sector of land will see this development going over the current stretch of McDonnell Blvd. that goes around the eastern edge of the airport before looping back over I-70 at Air Cargo Road. That they're going public with their intent to end McDonnell Road here is kind of significant. There still remains the Scudder Road bridge over I-170 into the NorthPark industrial park, full of warehouses and land to build more, that can run right up to this site.
Side note: The cargo development shown atop the old Berkeley High School site is something that I've heard the airport consider previously to attract cargo operations to STL. That it's shown here demonstrates how serious they are about truly modernizing. For those who wondered if KC's modernizing compelled STL Lambert to do the same, I can only say that this concept here has existed for years quietly. Therefore, its inclusion in this week's presentation tells me that all we have seen here really does reflect long-term thought and planning into total airport operations and modernization, nothing short-term inspired because of any perceived competitive pressures by KCI's new plans.
We need more than one line over there. Seems lonely.shadrach wrote: ↑Jan 07, 2022flightconnections.com has already added Frankfurt.
^^ Good catches GC, there's a lot to digest from the report but I'm impressed with the overall vision.
- 1,291
I feel that instead of tearing T2 down, the airport should repurpose it into a large-scale event space. They won't have B acting as one anymore, and I feel that T2 would act as a great replacement; a lot of the interior could be opened up by knocking down non-structural walls and even possibly raising the ceiling some in the current airside half, as it appears that the metal 'panels' that shrink the vertical space in that part of the building are merely decorative in nature, not structural. You could then subdivide the space into multiple event 'halls' partitioned with moving walls for larger events. You'd have an entire wall of windows acting to provide a fantastic view/backdrop for any event and I think you'd get good use out of a building that might be at its EOL for an airport terminal but not necessarily for other purposes.
Just a thought for an alternate source of income. I'd certainly pay to go for even just a planespotting event.
Just a thought for an alternate source of income. I'd certainly pay to go for even just a planespotting event.
Hotel and mini convention space? Is it doable? Would surely be unique!Trololzilla wrote: ↑Jan 08, 2022I feel that instead of tearing T2 down, the airport should repurpose it into a large-scale event space. They won't have B acting as one anymore, and I feel that T2 would act as a great replacement; a lot of the interior could be opened up by knocking down non-structural walls and even possibly raising the ceiling some in the current airside half, as it appears that the metal 'panels' that shrink the vertical space in that part of the building are merely decorative in nature, not structural. You could then subdivide the space into multiple event 'halls' partitioned with moving walls for larger events. You'd have an entire wall of windows acting to provide a fantastic view/backdrop for any event and I think you'd get good use out of a building that might be at its EOL for an airport terminal but not necessarily for other purposes.
Just a thought for an alternate source of income. I'd certainly pay to go for even just a planespotting event.
^^ I don’t hate that idea but I’d honestly like to see the GA operations consolidated into the East Terminal. Charters, etc.
Imagine the Blues walking the Stanley Cup through the East Terminal instead of a sh*tty parking lot north of the airport.
Imagine the Blues walking the Stanley Cup through the East Terminal instead of a sh*tty parking lot north of the airport.
PD coverage:
St. Louis airport planners foresee new single passenger terminal
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 86bd7.html
St. Louis airport planners foresee new single passenger terminal
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 86bd7.html
She said the preparation of a 20-year guide for Lambert’s future is required by the Federal Aviation Administration. However, she said “if all the stars align and if everybody agrees,” it’s possible that such a project could be carried out sooner, in 10 to 12 years.
So southwest grabs 3-4 more gates max and then are done for another decade+?sc4mayor wrote:PD coverage:
St. Louis airport planners foresee new single passenger terminal
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 86bd7.htmlShe said the preparation of a 20-year guide for Lambert’s future is required by the Federal Aviation Administration. However, she said “if all the stars align and if everybody agrees,” it’s possible that such a project could be carried out sooner, in 10 to 12 years.
21 gates (taking the next bank and stopping) would last them until the new terminal is done. Not sure how fast you think they are going to grow but something like adding 10+ flights a year for the next 8 years would be pretty remarkable. 5% average growth would be pretty strong and 21 gates should be able to handle that.ldai_phs wrote: ↑Jan 09, 2022So southwest grabs 3-4 more gates max and then are done for another decade+?sc4mayor wrote:PD coverage:
St. Louis airport planners foresee new single passenger terminal
https://www.stltoday.com/news/local/gov ... 86bd7.htmlShe said the preparation of a 20-year guide for Lambert’s future is required by the Federal Aviation Administration. However, she said “if all the stars align and if everybody agrees,” it’s possible that such a project could be carried out sooner, in 10 to 12 years.
10 to 12 years also is to completion. They probably could get the first half open a couple years faster and I would expect southwest to be first in so that timeline might be more like 7-10 instead of 10-12 for southwest.
Not too active on this site anymore but wanted to add in this comment- AA has actually been investing a lot into the STL market recently with their new flights to BOS, AUS and even Cancun. They have also been adding much larger planes the Northeast and reopened their admirals club, which is the only airline run club in STL. This isn't the AA of twenty years ago.JJ Taino wrote: ↑Dec 17, 2021I do the same thing! Whoever does better for the region that’s who I role with!matguy70 wrote:I will be flying a new Iberia A330-300 Miami to Madrid on Christmas Eve. With Southwest's new service into MIA - it is an easy connection now to this flight. AA always flew to STL to MIA but I am not a lover of AA. I choose to fly SWA out of STL since they commit to STL as a connection hub and we can fly most places nonstop domestic on them.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I think with a lot of things in the city, ESPECIALLY with the airport, STLisians are holding on to preconceived notions of things from the past. And I'm talking about the attitude in the region as a whole, not just the above posters. AA=anti-STL is no longer true. Just like the statement that STL airport is underserved is no longer true, despite the fact that everyone will tell you about the "good old days" when you didn't have to connect to Cancun or Los Angeles (despite the fact that multiple airlines are on each of those routes.)
- 1,291
Would certainly be smart to try and get a hotel operator to build a hotel attached to T2 if it became an event space - there'd be lots of usable land over there in the future, and as a bonus you'd be adjacent to the T2 Metrolink station. Hell, if you knocked down the T2 garage, you could directly connect the terminal building and the station to a hotel in the middle and still leave room for airport parking over there, especially if the hotel was built over parking. Honestly, that whole southeastern portion of the airport could use a hefty reconfiguration.RuskiSTL wrote: ↑Jan 08, 2022Hotel and mini convention space? Is it doable? Would surely be unique!
So many decisions for the airport to make.
I wonder what FAA regulations there would be to regarding hotel height? Repurpose T2 into a massive lobby/main floor, attach a tower for hotel rooms and you have a super unique venue. Maybe Drury can pick it up to keep it local or hopefully something a bit more upscale? Either way, would instantly be on most AvGeeks bucket list. Imagine hitting the hotel gym with a view of the airfield.Trololzilla wrote: ↑Jan 09, 2022Would certainly be smart to try and get a hotel operator to build a hotel attached to T2 if it became an event space - there'd be lots of usable land over there in the future, and as a bonus you'd be adjacent to the T2 Metrolink station. Hell, if you knocked down the T2 garage, you could directly connect the terminal building and the station to a hotel in the middle and still leave room for airport parking over there, especially if the hotel was built over parking. Honestly, that whole southeastern portion of the airport could use a hefty reconfiguration.RuskiSTL wrote: ↑Jan 08, 2022Hotel and mini convention space? Is it doable? Would surely be unique!
So many decisions for the airport to make.
Here's my question after thinking about this proposal for a while -- where would the additional check in locations be placed in T1? I can't see how many additional spaces would fit in the current check-in area.
So no more Southwest direct to oakland, this is getting crazy. Basically no directs to the Bay Area
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As much as I like that idea, do any midsized airports in the US have on property hotels? AFAIK the only airports with on-site hotels are either major international gateways (O'Hare, Orlando, Miami) and/or a major hub for an airline. But maybe if Southwest put it on their wish list for Lambert, we could get one?Trololzilla wrote: ↑Jan 09, 2022Would certainly be smart to try and get a hotel operator to build a hotel attached to T2 if it became an event space - there'd be lots of usable land over there in the future, and as a bonus you'd be adjacent to the T2 Metrolink station. Hell, if you knocked down the T2 garage, you could directly connect the terminal building and the station to a hotel in the middle and still leave room for airport parking over there, especially if the hotel was built over parking. Honestly, that whole southeastern portion of the airport could use a hefty reconfiguration.RuskiSTL wrote: ↑Jan 08, 2022Hotel and mini convention space? Is it doable? Would surely be unique!
So many decisions for the airport to make.
KC does and I thought MSY and IND have future plans for them. Not the kind that connect directly into the terminal.dweebe wrote:As much as I like that idea, do any midsized airports in the US have on property hotels? AFAIK the only airports with on-site hotels are either major international gateways (O'Hare, Orlando, Miami) and/or a major hub for an airline. But maybe if Southwest put it on their wish list for Lambert, we could get one?Trololzilla wrote: ↑Jan 09, 2022Would certainly be smart to try and get a hotel operator to build a hotel attached to T2 if it became an event space - there'd be lots of usable land over there in the future, and as a bonus you'd be adjacent to the T2 Metrolink station. Hell, if you knocked down the T2 garage, you could directly connect the terminal building and the station to a hotel in the middle and still leave room for airport parking over there, especially if the hotel was built over parking. Honestly, that whole southeastern portion of the airport could use a hefty reconfiguration.RuskiSTL wrote: ↑Jan 08, 2022Hotel and mini convention space? Is it doable? Would surely be unique!
So many decisions for the airport to make.