^ The airport Renaissance in STL is closer to the terminal complex than any hotel at KCI. I think he was talking about hotels connected to terminal complexes.
^^ Would SWA even wishlist something like that though? I’d imagine most of their passengers aren’t staying around by the airport, but I suppose I can’t say for sure.
GA, charters and private flights seem like a good use to me. Or move all the airport’s offices over there. Not sure STL needs an on-site hotel as much as it does an easier connection to the hotels and businesses on the other side of the highway.
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.
They would have to expand it. Or take out the restaurants on the west end at the very least. Slides say reconfigured check in lobby. So I figure they have something in mind.
stl07 wrote: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.
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.)
More than that, I think they've invested in the maintenance base. Didn't they transition it from MD-80s over to 737s? I expect that required some investment in tools, parts, scaffolding, and so forth. Also doubtless some retraining for the techs working there. And the only reason the Admiral's Club was closed at all was for a rehab, I think. They never let go of the lease so far as I'm aware. They're still the dominant legacy carrier, and for those of us who fly international more than domestic that's important. I would love to see AA really try to win back passengers from Southwest. I'd settled down on Delta pre-Covid, but I'm not at all opposed to flying AA. And if you go out to the airport at rush hour it's pretty clear the place isn't a ghost town anymore. That said, I think we are still statistically a little underserved next to our peers. At this point it's probably a matter of capacity or frequency, not of destinations per se. And it's certainly not by a huge amount. I can't imagine it's something that'd impact anyone but an exceptionally busy business traveler. In terms of leisure flights I think we're pretty well served. But more competition brings down costs and I think wee all want that.
gregl wrote: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.
At present there are five banks of desks with space for a sixth that's presently being used for some art and a small seating area. (The China Air Cargo statue and the living green wall sculpture thing on the south side of the terminal in the middle.) Each check in area seems to have between four and five thousand square feet of space dedicated to it. Southwest is leasing 5600 for check in in T2. Just putting the south center bank of desks back would get you most of the way there. Plus there's some vacancy in the existing desks. If you want more you could move the current restaurant concession to the area of the current Admiral's Club. I expect AA will move that once the new concourse opens up. Mind you, that is technically outside the footprint of the domes, so it should be structurally independent and you probably demolish it and replace it entirely. But there's also a lot of airport offices and conference rooms over there, plus the Metrolink stop. So even if you demo you'll want to build something. I imagine you could replace in kind, more or less. Or maybe even save that bit if it's salvagable. Maybe even open the void space back up and have that glorious two story gallery back with a plane hanging in the middle of it and entirely landside again. Imagine having your restaurant next to an aircraft looking down into an event and gathering space. Or maybe the restaurant is even on both floors with a view out from the Admiral's club space onto the field. (Or at least the back of the new concourse and the aircraft parked there.) I'm really starting to like this plan. It has a lot of possibilities.
dweebe wrote:
Trololzilla wrote:
RuskiSTL wrote:
Hotel and mini convention space? Is it doable? Would surely be unique!
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.
So many decisions for the airport to make.
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?
Just because no one else has done it doesn't mean it's a terrible idea. There are clearly hotels nearby aimed at the airport, so I think there's a market. Whether it's the most productive possible use of a tight space is another question entirely, but some of the nearby hotels are clearly on their last legs and I'd rather have the new hotel generating revenue for the airport if possible. It'd certainly be a convenient site for a visitor wishing to use Metrolink. But there still might be better uses for the site. Land is decidedly limited south of the airfield.
^ The airport Renaissance in STL is closer to the terminal complex than any hotel at KCI. I think he was talking about hotels connected to terminal complexes.
^^ Would SWA even wishlist something like that though? I’d imagine most of their passengers aren’t staying around by the airport, but I suppose I can’t say for sure.
GA, charters and private flights seem like a good use to me. Or move all the airport’s offices over there. Not sure STL needs an on-site hotel as much as it does an easier connection to the hotels and businesses on the other side of the highway.
I doubt many SWA passengers are the ones staying at airport area hotels. Would an on-site, terminal renovated hotel be a big need? No. But imagine how much it could set us apart, do something innovative and improve passenger experience.
Yes, getting to Renaissance or the Natty B hotels is no problem. But imagine with an onsite hotel and parking structure, being able to repurpose some of those hotels/massive parking lots into big apartment units, connect them to the airport metro stations with pedestrian bridges over the highway. Much better land use.
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.
They would have to expand it. Or take out the restaurants on the west end at the very least. Slides say reconfigured check in lobby. So I figure they have something in mind.
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.
They would have to expand it. Or take out the restaurants on the west end at the very least. Slides say reconfigured check in lobby. So I figure they have something in mind.
I thought the plans said to add a 5th dome, no?
Yeah, the preliminary preferred plan definably mentioned expanding the terminal west.
GA, charters and private flights seem like a good use to me. Or move all the airport’s offices over there. Not sure STL needs an on-site hotel as much as it does an easier connection to the hotels and businesses on the other side of the highway.
T2 seems excessive for just a few charters and GA - honestly, GA and private flying are fine staying as is (mostly on the northern parts of the airport by the cargo ramps), as they tend to need easy access to hangars and more or less direct access to the roadways from the airport. Larger charter flights could be handy to keep over there - probably not in the main T2 building but simply in the old East Terminal where the 3 FIS gates currently are. You'd still have 3 'gates' over there then (more than enough for charters, and you could maybe even convince Cape Air and Air Choice One to move there) and it's already got easy egress, while a point of ingress could be worked in fairly easily I'd imagine.
And yeah, the hotel idea was more or less just a spitballed thought exercise more than a true proposal.
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.
They would have to expand it. Or take out the restaurants on the west end at the very least. Slides say reconfigured check in lobby. So I figure they have something in mind.
I thought the plans said to add a 5th dome, no?
I think someone on here mentioned putting in a 5th dome. The plan still only shows 4 (at this time)
Hotel and mini convention space? Is it doable? Would surely be unique!
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.
So many decisions for the airport to make.
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?
Large hubs:
ATL (Marriott) [accessible by APM near GA intl convention center]
BOS (Hilton) [Hyatt Regency on airport grounds but not connected by indoor corridors]
DEN (Westin)
DFW (Grand Hyatt)
DTW (Westin)
EWR (Marriott)
IAH (Marriott)
JFK (TWA)
MCO (Hyatt)
MIA (airport hotel)
MSP (Intercontinental)
ORD (Hilton)
PHL (Marriott)
SFO (Grand Hyatt)
TPA (Marriott)
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.
So many decisions for the airport to make.
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?
Large hubs:
ATL (Marriott) [accessible by APM near GA intl convention center]
BOS (Hilton) [Hyatt Regency on airport grounds but not connected by indoor corridors]
DEN (Westin)
DFW (Grand Hyatt)
DTW (Westin)
EWR (Marriott)
IAH (Marriott)
JFK (TWA)
MCO (Hyatt)
MIA (airport hotel)
MSP (Intercontinental)
ORD (Hilton)
PHL (Marriott)
SFO (Grand Hyatt)
TPA (Marriott)
^ I think the reality for airports is that on site Hotel rooms are an easy revenue producer. I imagine that these airports had high occupancy over the holidays with a fair share of flight cancellations, weather and the convenience of it for a lot of people.
Would have to go dig up Lambert budget but believe Lambert was getting like 40% or maybe more of its non ticket/non landing revenues from concessions, parking, and so forth.
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.
So many decisions for the airport to make.
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?
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?
If you want to get pedantic how do you define a “mid-size” airport?
If you noticed I grouped the DOT Large Hub (top 30) airports from others.
Some may argue MSP or TPA are “mid-size” airports and MSAs. Some will point a number of these airports not having ‘hub status’ as designated a network carrier.
If you want to get pedantic how do you define a “mid-size” airport?
If you noticed I grouped the DOT Large Hub (top 30) airports from others.
Some may argue MSP or TPA are “mid-size” airports and MSAs. Some will point a number of these airports not having ‘hub status’ as designated a network carrier.
Plus pre-COVID didn't MSP have 4 or 5 European routes as well as Incheon Korea? I thought TPA also had multiple Europe routes plus some to South America and Central America. So when STL gets back into that top tier and has regular non stops to multiple continents, we can get grouped with MSP and TPA.
Not sure what point you’re trying to make. I simply provided information and for the record I don’t think an in-terminal hotel is merited for STL nor do I believe an owner/operator would see value building one for ~$150k+/key for a new full-service on airport hotel.
Take a drive (or browse online) and look at the landscape of STL airport hotels. While there have been a couple limited service offerings added in last decade, there hasn’t been a newly built full service hotel in the airport vicinity in nearly 40 years. Drive down Lindbergh some time to see multiple abandoned former airport hotels.
Hyatt doesn’t have any STL airport offering, full service or otherwise
Marriott has two dated properties in vicinity with low average daily rates.
Hilton has two dated properties in vicinity with low average daily rates.
IHG has a dated Crowne Plaza roughly two miles from terminal 1.
Starwood didn’t have a single STL airport property.
Some thoughts on my own wish list of things to have in the new linear terminal:
1) Centralized food/retail court - this was brought up before in previous posts but this would be an excellent thing to have! I travel quite a bit for work (all domestic travel) and especially in hubs like CLT and DEN, it is super convenient especially when shuttling between gates or concourses in a hurry. This would open up opportunities to have both national chains and local restaurants sitting side by side for a variety of dining options. Same goes for retail; having more national (or widely recognized) retail chains open up shops in a new terminal will offer passengers more options for shopping, along with a decent offering of local/artisanal shops. This will be super helpful when we start to have more international passengers coming through STL (fingers crossed that the Lufthansa experiment goes well) and that opens up opportunities for duty-free shops and offerings. Having it set up in such a manner would allow for us to have our own "airport marketplace" like CLT or PHL.
2) Electronic signboards - this would be a fantastic offering to have in a new terminal and would bring us out of the mid-late 20th century vibe we have and fully embrace the 21st century. Electronic signboards would offer a lot of customization with what we would want to display - be it wayfinding, flight alerts/updates, advertising options/opportunities, etc. The option I'm most excited about here is advertising, since we would be able to draw in some amount of revenue from companies (both local and national/international) to advertise on our signboards, while giving options for stationary or moving/animated displays to be used, thus offering a new visual medium for passengers to look at when connecting or waiting for their flight. Especially since it is customizable, this could also be a way for the airport to make our wayfinding/flight info/alerts more visually appealing in and outside of the airport (especially when navigating around the airport from the outside) and adaptable to changing conditions (like weather updates or construction detours for example).
3) Additional lounge spaces - My hope is that with a new terminal and design, we can offer more space for airlines and companies to establish lounges for passengers in STL to use for their pleasure. Presently we just have the Admirals Club in T1 and Wingtips (which recently started accepting PP members) in T2 which may be enough for now, but if the goal is increased passenger growth by 2040 and beyond, it would be nice to have some additional offerings. Especially since more and more CC's are offering lounge access as part of their membership, it would be to our advantage to have some expanded options for passengers to use across the new terminal. My personal wish would be to have a "The Club" lounge and some additional airline lounges like a Sky Club or United Club besides the Admiral's Club. Depending on how passenger growth shapes out, we could also house an Amex or Capital One luxury lounge in the future as well, which would be awesome to have with a new terminal.
4) CRCC - A dedicated one stop spot for all rental needs would be incredible to have within the airport property itself! Like many have mentioned before, it would cut out the need for multiple shuttles clogging up pickup and dropoff lanes and would allow for a seamless movement from the plane to your car all within airport property. It would save time and a lot of hassle for passengers to find their rental car company, pick up/drop off their car and walk to the terminal without a reliance on shuttles or traffic conditions. If the CRCC needs to be built off-site, maybe having an APM or some form of rapid access to the terminal would be key to making this work well, but best case scenario would be to keep this onsite. This would free up all the space currently occupied by the various rental car chains on the other side of I-70 to be used by developers looking to build new hotels or move existing ones closer to the airport or by parking companies or perhaps an office park with new dining establishments. Just spitballing thoughts here on the possibilities.
flightconnections.com has already added Frankfurt.
We need more than one line over there. Seems lonely.
What about a direct flight to Paris CDG ? This is the historical route to Europe from STL. A large number of passengers fly from STL to CDG with Delta via layover’s in ATL or DTW. Any on-going discussions with Air France KLM? After Covid when tourism will resume?
So I’ll throw my hat in the ring on how to repurpose the D concourse along with terminal 2.
1). The red outline represents a new CRCC. Depending on height restrictions in that area, you could build a three story linear garage with the rental counters lining a redesigned D concourse (green). Customers would enter the garage from there and self serve out to the terminal roadway/highways. Depending on the amount of space necessary for pushback at the new linear terminal, the garage could hold a few hundred cars. You’d still have access to metro link which allows those not using the airport to still conveniently access rentals cars.
2). Then the T2 terminal could be rebuilt as an airport hotel and event space (blue) using the moving walkways in a repurposed D (green) to speed up the trip. Added revenue stream for the airport and great wide open window conference/lounge views of the runways.
3). Both the rental facility and the Hotel would be connected to the new terminal via the redesigned/rebuilt concourse D. Redesign and repurpose for cost savings. Rebuild for maximum space and efficiency.
With the limitation of available land in this area due to the proximity of the runways and I-70, there doesn’t seem to be very many other options to utilize this prime space right next to the new terminal.
Biz Journal released a list of the "most needed" nonstop destinations at STL, though they did note former destinations and some destinations do have seasonal or less than daily service, and I think the article was primarily about what they'd like WN to add. This is based solely on PDEW given by the airport (shown to the right of each destination):
^^ If D was repurposed into nothing but an enormous 'connector' between the new T1 and the old T2, it might make sense at that point to build an APM on the roof of D as was originally intended.
So I’ll throw my hat in the ring on how to repurpose the D concourse along with terminal 2.
1). The red outline represents a new CRCC. Depending on height restrictions in that area, you could build a three story linear garage with the rental counters lining a redesigned D concourse (green). Customers would enter the garage from there and self serve out to the terminal roadway/highways. Depending on the amount of space necessary for pushback at the new linear terminal, the garage could hold a few hundred cars. You’d still have access to metro link which allows those not using the airport to still conveniently access rentals cars.
2). Then the T2 terminal could be rebuilt as an airport hotel and event space (blue) using the moving walkways in a repurposed D (green) to speed up the trip. Added revenue stream for the airport and great wide open window conference/lounge views of the runways.
3). Both the rental facility and the Hotel would be connected to the new terminal via the redesigned/rebuilt concourse D. Redesign and repurpose for cost savings. Rebuild for maximum space and efficiency.
With the limitation of available land in this area due to the proximity of the runways and I-70, there doesn’t seem to be very many other options to utilize this prime space right next to the new terminal.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I rather got the impression folks at the airport regard D as somewhat unsightly, so saving it would be a hard sell. That said, I do like the idea. It's the newest concourse, so there's decent odds its in the best structural shape of the four. (Assuming the updates on A and C were largely cosmetic, which I believe was the case.) I like your idea of putting the CRCC and some parking there and I think they might even have hinted at something along those lines in the meeting if I recall correctly, though I think they were envisioning a new structure.
Repurposing the extent structure could make more sense, particularly if you retain T2 as hospitality or even office space. (And there was some pushback from her staff when Hamm-Niebruegge said it would be demolished. Someone else said "or repurposed," more or less. Someone seemingly in the loop, though I forget who.) That said, there's a cost to keeping a building open, even if it doesn't need structural work. A long, slender building probably won't be the most energy efficient. And they really want to simplify circulation by reducing the number of entries and exits and spreading them out. This would either move the current traffic nodes for 2 closer to 1 or potentially add even more. I don't think it would work to completely segregate them from the airport drive, since passengers returning rental cars to airport property are instinctively going to follow airport wayfinding. I don't think that's unsolvable, but it is a complication.
All that said, I for one would love to see D preserved in some capacity, particularly if it's landside. Would even be neat if it were possible to keep some of the old TWA aesthetic and maybe backdate some to Ozark as a nod to history. It could be great office or hospitality space. Could even be a fun spot for a small landside shopping area. It'd be on the smaller side, but without the need for gates and their associated holding areas you get more flexibility. In my ideal dream world I'd love to see some aviation museum style space in there; something that's not reliant on passengers and which might even draw people to the airport if done correctly. (That could be in T2 as well, but D has more history behind it. And it would be easier to control light, which would be a problem with the enormous window wall in 2.)
A/B/C/D all need demolished. They have all outlived their lifespan and aren’t really designed for planes these days. You might be able to convince me T2 is worth saving but the T1 concourses for sure need to go. They leak they are just being patched together to be useable.
Kansas City had some small pockets of “save the old” supporters. I would argue their terminals are more unique/historic. They aren’t going to be saved and neither will STL’s unless they just can’t afford to demolish them. There are higher and better uses for the land and basic upkeep and security is expensive. These old facilities are hard to repurpose. Would really hate to have a crumbling vacant T2 next to the new STL terminal.
