^The kid flipping four at the poor England fan is priceless. And of course the beer stays very yellow and German looking, even on the "real" flight. (I say as a drink a lovely yellow mass market American take on a Bavarian lager. I do have some English style stuff in the fridge, though.)
Newer route loads for November
(NEW = new in Nov)
AA
AUS 58%
BOS 50% --- NEW
Spirit
LAX 83.5%
PHX 78% --- NEW
LAS 73%
FLL 67%
MCO 56.5%
RSW 49% --- NEW
TPA 43% --- NEW
Frontier
ATL 59%
MIA 31% ---NEW
Southwest
JAX 81%
LGB 81.5%
SJU 78.5% ---NEW
SRQ 77%
MIA 74%
SNA 75%
(NEW = new in Nov)
AA
AUS 58%
BOS 50% --- NEW
Spirit
LAX 83.5%
PHX 78% --- NEW
LAS 73%
FLL 67%
MCO 56.5%
RSW 49% --- NEW
TPA 43% --- NEW
Frontier
ATL 59%
MIA 31% ---NEW
Southwest
JAX 81%
LGB 81.5%
SJU 78.5% ---NEW
SRQ 77%
MIA 74%
SNA 75%
WN is as strong as ever.
Love to see those new #s on the SRQ flight, your last load report looked scary.
Love to see those new #s on the SRQ flight, your last load report looked scary.
It was over 80% combined in October. So I think it’s fine. 74% since it started.pdm_ad wrote: ↑Feb 11, 2022WN is as strong as ever.
Love to see those new #s on the SRQ flight, your last load report looked scary.
Had a couple rough outbound months but besides that not bad. As they put more flights back in here it should help everything also with more connectors.
Top is outbound, bottom inbound- number next to it is month.
Spirit adding 3x a week service to Myrtle Beach starting late May.
Southwest has service 1x a week and Allegiant has it 2x a week.
Southwest has service 1x a week and Allegiant has it 2x a week.
Would someone be kind enough to remind me what stage we are at with respect to the updated master plan and the decision-making process? Would love to keep tabs on that and see what conversations/proposals are coming out of this exciting development for the airport.
- 733
Most likely 5-10 more “studies” need to take place and ground-breaking slated for 2065.
- 9,560
It was presented and nothing is happening for a while. It’s probably a second half of the decade discussion.
The FAA should approve the completed ALP by this summer. From there discussions start with various stakeholders…the public, airlines, the city, the business community, FAA, etc.
But the ALP is the guiding document for the next decade at least…once that’s approved it’s just a matter of the powers that be getting it done. Definitely a number of years off before anything substantial happens though.
- 2,419
Nobody expects this to be the case, but play ball with me here for a moment.
If St. Louis were on its game and pushing this along, when is the absolute soonest we would see movement at the airport?
If St. Louis were on its game and pushing this along, when is the absolute soonest we would see movement at the airport?
The director of the airport herself said the ALP could be completed in 10 to 12 years if everyone can get on the same page.
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.
If everything went perfect I think they could have it done by 2030. But as sc mentions. Probably it will be a few years after that. Although I’m guessing the new terminal would open in stages.RockChalkSTL wrote: ↑Feb 16, 2022Nobody expects this to be the case, but play ball with me here for a moment.
If St. Louis were on its game and pushing this along, when is the absolute soonest we would see movement at the airport?
^ Definitely see the build out as phase construction which in reality is the only way it can be done with single terminal & new linear concourse put forth. The plus side, is Lambert has plenty of gate capacity to make it happen. Heck, you could literally tear down Concourse B & build a state of the art, single point security access/customs facility, new international gates with very little interruptions. As soon as first phase is built you add the temporary bridge to C, open D from terminal 1 side and get to work knocking down A for new linear west side legacy carrier gates. Get done there and start knocking down C for new linear concourse on east side for Southwest.
I think air side is getting in order for the long term. What I think is lacking is a plan and or thought on how you could incorporate or facilitate extending Metrolink westward. Yes, it maybe never gets past the Missouri River into St. Charles Count but it seems like a new single metrolink station corresponding with single terminal plan along with extension to Riverport/Casino or into Earth City industrial or even a turn north to future sportsplex (old outlet mall) would be an easy win for Fed dollars. So why not incorporate Terminal improvements, I70 rebuild/freeway ramps curbside, new parking & amenities and metrolink all into one solid plan? Then go seek out the funding pots. I just think it is a failure to plan for the future w leaving metrolink as is in my opinion.
I think air side is getting in order for the long term. What I think is lacking is a plan and or thought on how you could incorporate or facilitate extending Metrolink westward. Yes, it maybe never gets past the Missouri River into St. Charles Count but it seems like a new single metrolink station corresponding with single terminal plan along with extension to Riverport/Casino or into Earth City industrial or even a turn north to future sportsplex (old outlet mall) would be an easy win for Fed dollars. So why not incorporate Terminal improvements, I70 rebuild/freeway ramps curbside, new parking & amenities and metrolink all into one solid plan? Then go seek out the funding pots. I just think it is a failure to plan for the future w leaving metrolink as is in my opinion.
I agree as well, the phase building plan would make plenty of sense here. I was recently flying through SLC and they had finished what I believe was their first phase of construction and they were already setting up for phase 2 of their new terminal rebuild. Even with this, there were no issues getting around the airport nor were there any delays getting from one spot to the other due to ongoing construction or detours. The only major headache was that they had only one underground walkway connecting both concourses and it was situated mid-concourse on both sides, and that was cause they were still constructing the larger walkway which will likely be fitted with more moving walkways and possibly an APM. Taking this idea to our situation: as long as we start construction on one end and move east or west from there and with a proper amount of planning, we could see minimal passenger movement issues cropping up, and we could likely have a much more smooth construction process. The big question in this theoretical scenario is which terminal do we disturb first: T1 or T2. With SW's large presence, would it make sense to have them transitioned into the new complex first but deal with the logistical and construction challenges of moving around their gates and operations to other parts of the current layout? Or would it make sense to tackle the airlines in T1 and move them to the D gates while the new terminal is built and encounter a nightmare scenario in which thousands will be piled into T2's already-messy traffic situation? I guess the questions are rhetorical but still something that I see coming up should this commence in the near future.
I would shift T1 airlines to the D and C Concourses, demolish A and B, build out half the new terminal, including the updated processor, the new security screening area and the FIS gates. Then shift SW to the newly opened section and move the others to T2 while C and D are demolished and the second half completed.
That would largely keep the pick ups and drop offs in separate terminals throughout construction.
That would largely keep the pick ups and drop offs in separate terminals throughout construction.
Build wise this makes the most sense.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Feb 17, 2022I would shift T1 airlines to the D and C Concourses, demolish A and B, build out half the new terminal, including the updated processor, the new security screening area and the FIS gates. Then shift SW to the newly opened section and move the others to T2 while C and D are demolished and the second half completed.
That would largely keep the pick ups and drop offs in separate terminals throughout construction.
Moving airlines wise not sure. I’m
Not sure the airlines in A want to move 3 times. Might make more sense to just leave Southwest in T2 until it’s all done. Move A airlines to C and D. After the first half is finished move the airlines in C and D to the new section. Less moving parts. Might somewhat depend on Southwests size at the moment though and if they need to be in the new gates right away.
Before anything... STL International needs to continue to grow throughout the process. With Europe international flights coming online and airlines beefing up more destinations and flights - the airport doesn't want to "inhibit" it's growth over the next ten years too.... we have to remember that.
Southwest is continuing their connection "hub" growth here. They have a great operation and/as well growth potential for connections in their own Terminal/concourse. I would think that Southwest's operation (as is and growth over the next 10 years) needs to retain it's current location. It would be extremely costly for Southwest to change at this point.
REMEMBER, we also need to think about the fact that this was just the first proposal. I would rather see some more ideas. I, for one, would like to continue to see Southwest having their own Terminal and growth potential with a overhaul of the T2 check-in hall. Build out the baggage area (like proposed now) and put in the upper area a food court and combine the two check in areas (TSA and CLEAR) doubling the entire size of it. With self check-ins less counters are needed - and now outside curbside is again available. As for Terminal 1 - built out a larger TSA check-in and "Mall" area in the space between (now D concourse and C Concourse) and expand the airside gates - like proposed heading to the (plenty room) west. I really think there is SO MUCH more we could do on the same budget building off of what we have and eliminating the areas/buildings that are unused or need replacement. Maybe someone should start a STL Airport grass-roots "ideas" and "concepts" webpage for the new airport and get some notice by the media / airport planners etc.
Southwest is continuing their connection "hub" growth here. They have a great operation and/as well growth potential for connections in their own Terminal/concourse. I would think that Southwest's operation (as is and growth over the next 10 years) needs to retain it's current location. It would be extremely costly for Southwest to change at this point.
REMEMBER, we also need to think about the fact that this was just the first proposal. I would rather see some more ideas. I, for one, would like to continue to see Southwest having their own Terminal and growth potential with a overhaul of the T2 check-in hall. Build out the baggage area (like proposed now) and put in the upper area a food court and combine the two check in areas (TSA and CLEAR) doubling the entire size of it. With self check-ins less counters are needed - and now outside curbside is again available. As for Terminal 1 - built out a larger TSA check-in and "Mall" area in the space between (now D concourse and C Concourse) and expand the airside gates - like proposed heading to the (plenty room) west. I really think there is SO MUCH more we could do on the same budget building off of what we have and eliminating the areas/buildings that are unused or need replacement. Maybe someone should start a STL Airport grass-roots "ideas" and "concepts" webpage for the new airport and get some notice by the media / airport planners etc.
- 1,291
^ I would trust airport planners, engineers, and the airport authorities and airlines themselves far more to come up with workable ideas for an airport redevelopment plan than any grassroots thinktank. Honestly, doing something like that would appear to me to tread down the same fractured, incessant 'study' mentality that has plagued the region for the last 200 years.
^ Couldn't agree more. When it comes to MetroLink or other large capital projects in St. Louis I have plenty of reservations. But in my opinion Rhonda and her team have gone above and beyond in their management of the airport thus far. This is actually one group in St. Louis I don't have many concerns about. Certainly helps that the business community seems to be linked up and engaged as well.
Also, this isn't the "first" proposal. The airport explored 22 terminal concepts as part of this process:
![]()
They then shortlisted four of them:
![]()
And settled on this one based on the public feedback that's been gathered in the passenger surveys:
![]()
This is likely to be what's built.
Also, this isn't the "first" proposal. The airport explored 22 terminal concepts as part of this process:
They then shortlisted four of them:
And settled on this one based on the public feedback that's been gathered in the passenger surveys:
This is likely to be what's built.
after looking at those plans - I will have to agree as well.
My worries of the single long linear terminal is making it longer and longer - then we will need a APM in my opinion. I truly believe this concept leaves out growth planning. If STL plans to keep Southwest growth and a major connection hub, I think we need to centrally locate SWA in their own "operational concourse" as they have now (re: BNA new exclusive SWA concourse, DEN Southwest Concourse). SWA continues to want to grow STL's connection hub and it shows that SWA future (especially with their new CEO) is basing itself more as a traditional connection (hub) airline. I think that their growth at DEN may slow down over the next 10 years (Re; Frontier/Spirit combines hub there and limited capacity/wait times). I see the airline watching STL and BNA as their two central growth hubs and their ability to grow in both.
I also believe that if STL wants to continue to grow it's international presence, then we need to have a specific international(s) arrival/departure area that can serve all airlines more directly for connections.
Just my 2 cents.
I really prefer the "8B" concept and the "18-5" concepts myself. Both offer much better growth options for single airlines and connection ease than a "2 mile" long terminal.
My worries of the single long linear terminal is making it longer and longer - then we will need a APM in my opinion. I truly believe this concept leaves out growth planning. If STL plans to keep Southwest growth and a major connection hub, I think we need to centrally locate SWA in their own "operational concourse" as they have now (re: BNA new exclusive SWA concourse, DEN Southwest Concourse). SWA continues to want to grow STL's connection hub and it shows that SWA future (especially with their new CEO) is basing itself more as a traditional connection (hub) airline. I think that their growth at DEN may slow down over the next 10 years (Re; Frontier/Spirit combines hub there and limited capacity/wait times). I see the airline watching STL and BNA as their two central growth hubs and their ability to grow in both.
I also believe that if STL wants to continue to grow it's international presence, then we need to have a specific international(s) arrival/departure area that can serve all airlines more directly for connections.
Just my 2 cents.
I really prefer the "8B" concept and the "18-5" concepts myself. Both offer much better growth options for single airlines and connection ease than a "2 mile" long terminal.
I'm not worried. SW is very much involved in this process...if they weren't at least somewhat on board with this...we probably wouldn't have seen this proposed. We shouldn't have to be talking about expansion until 2040 at the very earliest. And even with the east and west linear expansions, we're not talking a two mile long terminal. Probably slightly less than a mile if my measurements check out...still a good distance, but with moving walkways it wouldn't be that bad.
Alaska and Spirit share C in DEN with SW too. They don't have their own concourse there.
There will be a dedicated FIS area including separate baggage claim:
![]()
Alaska and Spirit share C in DEN with SW too. They don't have their own concourse there.
There will be a dedicated FIS area including separate baggage claim:
Lufthansa is going to run fully out of T2. Hopes to get flights to daily soon.
Great news on Lufthansa.
I just booked 10 flights for STL to Milan in September and the price was 998.00 roundtrip and both flight to/from STL were well over half sold out according to the seating chart.
I also booked 5 flights STL to FRA in October and same thing.
That is a good sign!
I just booked 10 flights for STL to Milan in September and the price was 998.00 roundtrip and both flight to/from STL were well over half sold out according to the seating chart.
I also booked 5 flights STL to FRA in October and same thing.
That is a good sign!
- 6,120
While it might technically be a single shared concourse I very much suspect it will behave like two. When you clear security I expect you'll go one way to get to Southwest (probably left, since they'll build that end first) and the other way to get to everyone else. (Airlines that haven't shown significant St. Louis growth will probably be obliged to wait at the end of the line, ergo you'll turn right to get to everyone else, and United and Delta will probably get the far end of the deal.)matguy70 wrote: ↑Feb 18, 2022I truly believe this concept leaves out growth planning. If STL plans to keep Southwest growth and a major connection hub, I think we need to centrally locate SWA in their own "operational concourse" as they have now.
I also believe that if STL wants to continue to grow it's international presence, then we need to have a specific international(s) arrival/departure area that can serve all airlines more directly for connections.
And since the international arrivals are in the middle you'll be able to easily make a connection to either end from FIS. Or just walk out if St. Louis is your final destination. (Which is far more likely anyway.) I expect it wouldn't be supremely difficult to expand FIS a gate or two in either direction, so long as there's enough space for an enlarged customs hall. It'll be very similar to the setup in Detroit, really. Which is a very nice setup. It beats Chicago or Atlanta any day of the week. Honestly, it's the easiest customs connection I can recall from anywhere except the new terminal in Shanghai, which is about comparable so long as you don't need to change terminals. But the setup in St. Louis should be better than Hong Kong, Narita, Saigon, the old terminal in Shanghai, London . . . take your pick. Frankfurt might be about comparable as well, though again . . . it's been forever. Will let you know soon I hope.
(Assuming I don't just connect to the train and be done with the air. Which is honestly more likely. And in Frankfurt . . . that's an absolute breeze.)
Edit: I should add that if they end up needing to expand they could easily build that midfield terminal for a next stage. It'd be less convenient, but you could technically build a shuttle without crossing a runway. (Several taxiways, though.) On the other hand . . . if they eventually close the crosswind runway it'd be a fairly simple shuttle, and I wouldn't be surprised if 6/24's days are numbered.
I agree with this. Whatever happens Southwest is going to be a big part of the final plan. So it will turn out however they want it to.