While the state specifically set the money aside for KCI, lawmakers say it could go to help another cities’ efforts. “I would love to see Kansas City get a direct flight, but if St. Louis has a fantastic proposal suddenly, there’s nothing that prohibits them from looking at this pot of money,” said Sen. Greg Razer, a Kansas City Democrat.
^But they have no business class, no economy plus, no real international flights worth mention, and no ticket sharing. They ARE a low cost carrier.
Circling back to this, as I recently had opportunity to look up flights to Seattle (I've been to every part of the US except the Pacific NW and Alaska, and I'm looking to rectify the former at least).
Alaska airlines has late-August tickets for two for a non-stop flight selling for ~$850 (total price, 1 carry on each included; checked bags extra). AA actually has non-stop flights for two for ~$950 (again, plus checked bags). Southwest? The cheapest I could find for two people using the 'wanna get away' prices was $1350 - and that was for a red eye flight on the way out and a stop in Denver on the way back.
This is consistent with my past experiences when trying to price shop them. I *want* to support SWA given their consistent commitment to Lambert. But not only are they not a low cost carrier, my personal experience for the last several years is that their tickets out of STL are consistently much higher than the legacy carriers - even factoring in fees, bags, etc.
Oh, and @SeattleNative I might bend your ear for tourist tips later
-RBB
AA does not have non-stop flights to SEA. You are seeing an AA codeshare on the Alaska flight.
^But they have no business class, no economy plus, no real international flights worth mention, and no ticket sharing. They ARE a low cost carrier.
Circling back to this, as I recently had opportunity to look up flights to Seattle (I've been to every part of the US except the Pacific NW and Alaska, and I'm looking to rectify the former at least).
Alaska airlines has late-August tickets for two for a non-stop flight selling for ~$850 (total price, 1 carry on each included; checked bags extra). AA actually has non-stop flights for two for ~$950 (again, plus checked bags). Southwest? The cheapest I could find for two people using the 'wanna get away' prices was $1350 - and that was for a red eye flight on the way out and a stop in Denver on the way back.
This is consistent with my past experiences when trying to price shop them. I *want* to support SWA given their consistent commitment to Lambert. But not only are they not a low cost carrier, my personal experience for the last several years is that their tickets out of STL are consistently much higher than the legacy carriers - even factoring in fees, bags, etc.
Oh, and @SeattleNative I might bend your ear for tourist tips later
-RBB
AA does not have non-stop flights to SEA. You are seeing an AA codeshare on the Alaska flight.
I swear during the old TWA glory days there’d be 3 or 4 daily non stops to Seattle each way.
Looking at the July 1997 schedule, outbound flights left at 8:45a, 11:30a, 4:54p, 5:45p, 8:20p and 10:40p. Inbound flights departed SEA at 12:25a, 6:25a, 7:45a, 9:35a, 12n and 2:55p.
I swear during the old TWA glory days there’d be 3 or 4 daily non stops to Seattle each way.
In the late 90s, I believe they were up to 6 or 7 flights a day. (My mom lived in Seattle at the time.)
At one point, they had "wingtip" flights -- two flights leaving within a short period of time. I believe it was something like 8:35am and 8:50am. On one trip, I booked the later flight (I like my extra 15 minutes of sleep!) and was the only passenger in First Class. I think the flight attendents were bored because they would come around every 15 minutes asking if I needed anything.
Checking Departedflights.com - They had 7 flights a day in the July, 2001 timetable.
You think we will see an uptick in inbound travelers who will attend the newly designated NASCAR event at WWT Raceway or is the general consensus that most people will arrive to the region by road for the most part? I know generally NASCAR events are also a major tailgating opportunity but wasn't entirely sure if the premises has enough space for campers and RV's, hence the question about travel by air.
I would think that a lot of the tickets will be bought by people in the immediate vicinity, but I could also see some of those racing diehards out of states like Indiana making their way over.
I know next to nothing about the traveling culture of racing fans, though, as I know next to nothing about racing in general.
Just selected our flights for another Viking river cruise (Prague to Paris) in October. And was thrilled when the RT via Lufthansa, utilizing the STL-FRA, FRA-STL flights was an open option (Viking had a free airfare deal). It’s going to be so nice to have both trips as one stop trips, and once through customs at the end, to be home!
FWIW Biz Journal running opinion piece on supporting Terminal rebuild. Behind paywall so not sure how good of an argument is made but believe for region's sake the plan needs to happen yesterday and business community sticks behind it IMO. Just wish the City, County and metrolink go one step further and incorporate a metrolink pass through plan incorporating a new underground station and so tracks can continue on west, even if they never get across the Missouri River. Think of a new cut and cover cavern to facilitate a metrolink station under vehicle arrival lanes with escalators to and from baggage & ticket areas in the rendering in the biz journal article.
FWIW Biz Journal running opinion piece on supporting Terminal rebuild. Behind paywall so not sure how good of an argument is made but believe for region's sake the plan needs to happen yesterday and business community sticks behind it IMO. Just wish the City, County and metrolink go one step further and incorporate a metrolink pass through plan incorporating a new underground station and so tracks can continue on west, even if they never get across the Missouri River. Think of a new cut and cover cavern to facilitate a metrolink station under vehicle arrival lanes with escalators to and from baggage & ticket areas in the rendering in the biz journal article.
Great article. It's an opinion piece by Dick Fleming, former head of the STL RCGA. Prior to running the RCGA, he was head of the Chamber of Commerce in Denver; his tenure there included the time Denver International Airport was built as a successor to Stapleton International Airport. His Denver office's original projections for increased employment from DIA's construction was 90,000 new full-time jobs, which he mentioned in a 2015 article for Denver's Business Journal. Subsequently, he was contacted by Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper (who, yes, has tight STL family connections) who told him that actual new full-time jobs that can be credited directly to DIA was 179,000. Denver's recent growth, as a city and region, would not have been possible without DIA's construction...
I firmly believe that the #1 way STL can increase total employment in the region is through investment in St. Louis Lambert International Airport. More direct flights, on larger planes, with more full-service (Big 3+) airlines coming in and out, will foster increased demand for companies to consider locating offices here. Having a better airport furthers this immensely. This really should be our top priority for new development in the STL region.
FWIW Biz Journal running opinion piece on supporting Terminal rebuild. Behind paywall so not sure how good of an argument is made but believe for region's sake the plan needs to happen yesterday and business community sticks behind it IMO. Just wish the City, County and metrolink go one step further and incorporate a metrolink pass through plan incorporating a new underground station and so tracks can continue on west, even if they never get across the Missouri River. Think of a new cut and cover cavern to facilitate a metrolink station under vehicle arrival lanes with escalators to and from baggage & ticket areas in the rendering in the biz journal article.
Great article. It's an opinion piece by Dick Fleming, former head of the STL RCGA. Prior to running the RCGA, he was head of the Chamber of Commerce in Denver; his tenure there included the time Denver International Airport was built as a successor to Stapleton International Airport. His Denver office's original projections for increased employment from DIA's construction was 90,000 new full-time jobs, which he mentioned in a 2015 article for Denver's Business Journal. Subsequently, he was contacted by Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper (who, yes, has tight STL family connections) who told him that actual new full-time jobs that can be credited directly to DIA was 179,000. Denver's recent growth, as a city and region, would not have been possible without DIA's construction...
I firmly believe that the #1 way STL can increase total employment in the region is through investment in St. Louis Lambert International Airport. More direct flights, on larger planes, with more full-service (Big 3+) airlines coming in and out, will foster increased demand for companies to consider locating offices here. Having a better airport furthers this immensely. This really should be our top priority for new development in the STL region.
Exactly, St. Louis has absolutely failed at building significant major infrastructure for the better part of a century and wonder why we're such a slow growth region. People always talk about places like Atlanta, Dallas, and other Sunbelts growing like crazy because of their weather, but what they ignore is that these places have spent serious money on big city infrastructure in a way that St. Louis just hasn't. They've built huge modernized highways (I know that's a sin to say on an urbanist airport), built massive airports, and even Atlanta was smart enough to invest in MARTA in the 70s, while St. Louis totally fumbled the ball on rapid transit back then when it was actually significantly larger than Atlanta. Today, we are doing the same thing with Metrolink and have a half built system, while cities from Dallas, Denver, and Charlotte are building out full systems when we had light rail before them. Whether we like it or not, major employers pay attention to what cities have major plans and which ones are not. I think St. Louis unfortunately falls into the not category.
FWIW Biz Journal running opinion piece on supporting Terminal rebuild. Behind paywall so not sure how good of an argument is made but believe for region's sake the plan needs to happen yesterday and business community sticks behind it IMO. Just wish the City, County and metrolink go one step further and incorporate a metrolink pass through plan incorporating a new underground station and so tracks can continue on west, even if they never get across the Missouri River. Think of a new cut and cover cavern to facilitate a metrolink station under vehicle arrival lanes with escalators to and from baggage & ticket areas in the rendering in the biz journal article.
Great article. It's an opinion piece by Dick Fleming, former head of the STL RCGA. Prior to running the RCGA, he was head of the Chamber of Commerce in Denver; his tenure there included the time Denver International Airport was built as a successor to Stapleton International Airport. His Denver office's original projections for increased employment from DIA's construction was 90,000 new full-time jobs, which he mentioned in a 2015 article for Denver's Business Journal. Subsequently, he was contacted by Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper (who, yes, has tight STL family connections) who told him that actual new full-time jobs that can be credited directly to DIA was 179,000. Denver's recent growth, as a city and region, would not have been possible without DIA's construction...
I firmly believe that the #1 way STL can increase total employment in the region is through investment in St. Louis Lambert International Airport. More direct flights, on larger planes, with more full-service (Big 3+) airlines coming in and out, will foster increased demand for companies to consider locating offices here. Having a better airport furthers this immensely. This really should be our top priority for new development in the STL region.
If Columbia/Waterloo mega-airport had been built, STL would have been a major growth city and would likely still have hub status on one of the "Big-3" airlines. No question our lack of connectivity from American, Delta and United airlines hurts. I'd also suggest we missed out on a chance to re-center downtown as the choice location for businesses as a result of sticking with Lambert. Just another example of regional politics protecting turf at the cost of the entire region.
^You really think so? I'm skeptical it would have changed the math all that much. I never got the impression American de-hubbed Lambert because operations were too difficult or it was too congested. They simply had excess capacity at their other mid-continent hubs, all of which had more O&D traffic. (Which was basically true of all the major carriers at that time save Southwest, and might be again at present.) Don't get me wrong, I'm all in favor of this rebuild, but I'm deeply skeptical lack of investment in aviation infrastructure had anything to do with our troubles. And I don't see a Columbia-Waterloo airport changing much, since I can't imagine it would have been all that much cheaper than 11/29. Maybe I'm missing something.
FWIW Biz Journal running opinion piece on supporting Terminal rebuild. Behind paywall so not sure how good of an argument is made but believe for region's sake the plan needs to happen yesterday and business community sticks behind it IMO. Just wish the City, County and metrolink go one step further and incorporate a metrolink pass through plan incorporating a new underground station and so tracks can continue on west, even if they never get across the Missouri River. Think of a new cut and cover cavern to facilitate a metrolink station under vehicle arrival lanes with escalators to and from baggage & ticket areas in the rendering in the biz journal article.
Great article. It's an opinion piece by Dick Fleming, former head of the STL RCGA. Prior to running the RCGA, he was head of the Chamber of Commerce in Denver; his tenure there included the time Denver International Airport was built as a successor to Stapleton International Airport. His Denver office's original projections for increased employment from DIA's construction was 90,000 new full-time jobs, which he mentioned in a 2015 article for Denver's Business Journal. Subsequently, he was contacted by Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper (who, yes, has tight STL family connections) who told him that actual new full-time jobs that can be credited directly to DIA was 179,000. Denver's recent growth, as a city and region, would not have been possible without DIA's construction...
I firmly believe that the #1 way STL can increase total employment in the region is through investment in St. Louis Lambert International Airport. More direct flights, on larger planes, with more full-service (Big 3+) airlines coming in and out, will foster increased demand for companies to consider locating offices here. Having a better airport furthers this immensely. This really should be our top priority for new development in the STL region.
If Columbia/Waterloo mega-airport had been built, STL would have been a major growth city and would likely still have hub status on one of the "Big-3" airlines. No question our lack of connectivity from American, Delta and United airlines hurts. I'd also suggest we missed out on a chance to re-center downtown as the choice location for businesses as a result of sticking with Lambert. Just another example of regional politics protecting turf at the cost of the entire region.
I disagree. There is nothing wrong with Lamberts location, I actually think its a pretty good location. Moving the airport further from the population center would't have moved the center, most people don't fly enough for that to matter.
If that airport would have been built it would have been dehubbed also. It never was an airport issue, like symphonic says, once TWA was bought out and 9/11 happened airlines needed to downsize and AA wasn't going to pick STL over Chicago or Dallas.
Great article. It's an opinion piece by Dick Fleming, former head of the STL RCGA. Prior to running the RCGA, he was head of the Chamber of Commerce in Denver; his tenure there included the time Denver International Airport was built as a successor to Stapleton International Airport. His Denver office's original projections for increased employment from DIA's construction was 90,000 new full-time jobs, which he mentioned in a 2015 article for Denver's Business Journal. Subsequently, he was contacted by Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper (who, yes, has tight STL family connections) who told him that actual new full-time jobs that can be credited directly to DIA was 179,000. Denver's recent growth, as a city and region, would not have been possible without DIA's construction...
I firmly believe that the #1 way STL can increase total employment in the region is through investment in St. Louis Lambert International Airport. More direct flights, on larger planes, with more full-service (Big 3+) airlines coming in and out, will foster increased demand for companies to consider locating offices here. Having a better airport furthers this immensely. This really should be our top priority for new development in the STL region.
If Columbia/Waterloo mega-airport had been built, STL would have been a major growth city and would likely still have hub status on one of the "Big-3" airlines. No question our lack of connectivity from American, Delta and United airlines hurts. I'd also suggest we missed out on a chance to re-center downtown as the choice location for businesses as a result of sticking with Lambert. Just another example of regional politics protecting turf at the cost of the entire region.
I disagree. There is nothing wrong with Lamberts location, I actually think its a pretty good location. Moving the airport further from the population center would't have moved the center, most people don't fly enough for that to matter.
If that airport would have been built it would have been dehubbed also. It never was an airport issue, like symphonic says, once TWA was bought out and 9/11 happened airlines needed to downsize and AA wasn't going to pick STL over Chicago or Dallas.
I agree. I can't think of a mid-sized city besides Denver that didn't lose it's status as a hub in the early 2000s. And United probably would have if it wasn't for location and the airport was still new.
I'd contribute that I don't think there was anything that could have been done by STL to keep our TWA/American hub here. We were redundant for the Central Time Zone after both DFW and ORD, which is incredibly important to recognize as this was really the time of the Hub-and-Spoke business model kicking into high gear, recognizing the above statement that most mid-sized US cities lost their hub statuses. Very much, 9/11 changed everything, and that cannot be overstated. Further, we had the new runways under construction at the time, ostensibly to better service our hub. Maybe, just maybe, we could have kept our hub longer if that runway was already operational at the time, but it wasn't, and second-guessing doesn't really do any favors except to torture ourselves playing "what if?" to our detriment. We should recognize that, with that construction, we had bills to pay, leading to very high fees for takeoffs, landings, and gatings that we sure didn't need at the time. Still, there was no turning back from finishing that runway; land was bought, ground was broken, bonds were sold, and construction was progressing. I've equated it before to someone building a swimming pool in their backyard, with the hole dug and concrete going in the ground, when they're all of a sudden in a car accident and lose their legs. Yeah, they're not going to swim like they did before, but they've already sunk so much money into it, and there's still the desire to use the pool even if you'd have to swim differently than otherwise. Even more than that, you don't want a giant, half-finished hole in the ground. It looks like crap. Consider the Sandcrawler site right now, sitting in a mess of foundation but otherwise just a staging ground today for other projects' construction as we hope to see it go back into development rather than remaining a sloppy hole. Would the Columbia/Waterloo concept have succeeded? Maybe, but it would've had a hell of a lot of new costs on it while dumping the airport where McDonnell Douglas had all their aeronautical operations, and still does. If we really want to go down that rabbit hole, it could be argued that the Columbia/Waterloo airport would have led to the demise of Scott Air Force Base during the BRAC closures of military bases after the end of the Cold War. It took the construction of Mid America Airport (yes, BLV) to allocate local monies to shore up federal defense operations enough to make it worth keeping operational. I'd considered BLV to have been a boondoggle for years, but really it took BLV being built to keep Scott from being shuttered, and in fact it has grown significantly over the years.
I'm standing by my original thoughts that the #1 way to bring economic development to STL is to improve St. Louis Lambert International Airport. Better facilities will attract more airlines, with bigger birds, newer routes, and enhanced accommodations that better service business travelers, whose employers would more favorably consider STL as a viable option to expanding their operations.
Scott USAF is still here because in 1999-2000 ILL Air National Guard moved here from O'Hare, BLV is probabaly a net negative for USAF operationally
Don't understand your comment, Scott USAF essentially went from a single runway on the closure list to a two runway base with BLV. How would that be a net negative in terms of operations? I guess you can argue a security issue but doesn't seem to be an issue now even though you could argue that more resources are needed to keep civilian side of servicing passenger jets from somehow wandering across an open airfield to base side.
Politically you have to give some credit on the Illinois side for all hands on deck to get it off the closure list once upon a time. But never say never as i understand that the armed forces would still like to shrink the number of bases..
Scott USAF is still here because in 1999-2000 ILL Air National Guard moved here from O'Hare, BLV is probabaly a net negative for USAF operationally
Don't understand your comment, Scott USAF essentially went from a single runway on the closure list to a two runway base with BLV. How would that be a net negative in terms of operations? I guess you can argue a security issue but doesn't seem to be an issue now even though you could argue that more resources are needed to keep civilian side of servicing passenger jets from somehow wandering across an open airfield to base side.
Politically you have to give some credit on the Illinois side for all hands on deck to get it off the closure list once upon a time. But never say never as i understand that the armed forces would still like to shrink the number of bases..
The control tower is USAF operated, only one floor is useable (elevator only stops on every other) and it’s also used to train airmen in military traffic control but they also have to direct commercial traffic.
Scott USAF is still here because in 1999-2000 ILL Air National Guard moved here from O'Hare, BLV is probabaly a net negative for USAF operationally
Don't understand your comment, Scott USAF essentially went from a single runway on the closure list to a two runway base with BLV. How would that be a net negative in terms of operations? I guess you can argue a security issue but doesn't seem to be an issue now even though you could argue that more resources are needed to keep civilian side of servicing passenger jets from somehow wandering across an open airfield to base side.
Politically you have to give some credit on the Illinois side for all hands on deck to get it off the closure list once upon a time. But never say never as i understand that the armed forces would still like to shrink the number of bases..
The control tower is USAF operated, only one floor is useable (elevator only stops on every other) and it’s also used to train airmen in military traffic control but they also have to direct commercial traffic.
And yes DoD would like to close dozens and dozens of bases but there is no BRAC coming so the DoD has decided theyll downsize by demolition as a way to reduce costs of keeping lights on, heating/cooling and maintenance of buildings. There is a big push to down size physical space to just the amount of needed to execute the mission and demolish everything else. O-5 might be use to a 400-500 SQ ft office but a new requirement is 140 Sq ft
