I don’t know how many people connect/transfer through STL but if you come in on Southwest and connecting on Spirit—that’s DFW/O’Hare level headache from an airport that has no business passing out headaches.
sc4mayor wrote: ↑Sep 04, 2022^ I’m not sure I’d consider going to a state of the art consolidated terminal with 62 gates “downsizing.” Sure, Lambert has capacity for 81 gates or something like that, but 10 of those are abandoned in B, 13 are abandoned in C, 8 are abandoned in D (the other 5 are relatively unused city gates) and one is abandoned in A. For actual commercial service the airport is only using about 45 of those gates…across three concourses and two terminals. That’s what sad lol. A brand new, state of the art terminal is not sad in the least bit considering the airport’s current facilities.
Agree with this. Once you take out unusable gates that are blocked by retail now or ones that just aren’t feasible to use it probably is closer to 62 (or less). I actually thought they might do less than 62. The new terminal will be such a better experience and I am going to guess the airport will make a fair amount more from retail with the better setup. Which should help with paying off the debt.
Not Lambert but hanging out on Flightradar24 and saw this oddity.
Diversion? No, wait — who are the Cardinals playing tomorrow? The Nationals, who played the Mets today.
Diversion? No, wait — who are the Cardinals playing tomorrow? The Nationals, who played the Mets today.
- 6,123
It will give everyone access to all the amenities, which should be great. And while others have noted the number of vacant gates now, I'll add that this is an easy plan to expand. The original presentation noted that they could expand east into the footprint of T2. That should get them back to 80 odd gates if they ever need it. And if they need to go beyond that we'll be incredibly lucky. (And it'll be time to think about that midfield terminal again. Which should still be entirely possible. Might even be possible to build a midfield terminal and connect it to the current main terminal via an underground people-mover without disrupting ops too badly if you're really careful about temporary taxiways and phasing.)AquiSTL wrote: ↑Sep 04, 2022Can someone please explain the thought process behind having a “single terminal”?
I know there are a few airports in the US that have this and do it well, but also with 62 gates we would be downsizing. A little sad when you think about the fact that we just got a new intl flight. Then again almost all of the gates at the end of T1 are a ghost town. Excited to see more news about this, I love Lambert but it’s not the most exciting airport.
Anyway, I'm genuinely going to miss what's there, and I'm excited to get back into C again for what may be one of the last times. (I'd been flying Delta, but we're trying AAn experiment. We'll see how foolish this is in a few months. I'll post pictures, I'm sure.)
- 1,291
^ The only issue I can foresee with expanding the single concourse eastward is that it'll get very long to taxi around the whole thing if your gate is on the inset side. At some point, it's probably a smarter idea to, instead of expanding the single concourse in one long linear building, build a satellite concourse in more or less the same footprint as the expansion so that planes can just taxi in between them and passengers just use underground tunnels to move between them, like in SLC.
And of course, if it ever gets to that point, I would love to see a return of the midfield terminal plan.
And of course, if it ever gets to that point, I would love to see a return of the midfield terminal plan.
Agree. It’s pushing it as is.Trololzilla wrote:^ The only issue I can foresee with expanding the single concourse eastward is that it'll get very long to taxi around the whole thing if your gate is on the inset side. At some point, it's probably a smarter idea to, instead of expanding the single concourse in one long linear building, build a satellite concourse in more or less the same footprint as the expansion so that planes can just taxi in between them and passengers just use underground tunnels to move between them, like in SLC.
And of course, if it ever gets to that point, I would love to see a return of the midfield terminal plan.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
- 1,797
It’s not a really a headache, it’s just a longer walk than you’d like to see (which can be ameliorated with moving walkways). There’s no headache like getting on a train to get to another terminal. I hate Denver and DFW. PHX is alright
Have they opened up D all the way? Last I recall you can’t get from terminal 2 to 1 without getting on MetroLink or a shuttle.
I would put Atlanta and Denver in a very difference class then say DFW, or Orlando, or Seattle and what JFK and now the forthcoming LAX loop train(s). I find Atlanta simply one of the most of the most efficient hub airports in terms of business travel. The time to change or get between concourses is really a mater of minutes and in some respects quicker then say MSP and DTW when flying on DeltaJaneJacobsGhost wrote: ↑Sep 05, 2022It’s not a really a headache, it’s just a longer walk than you’d like to see (which can be ameliorated with moving walkways). There’s no headache like getting on a train to get to another terminal. I hate Denver and DFW. PHX is alrightshadrach wrote: ↑Sep 04, 2022I don’t know how many people connect/transfer through STL but if you come in on Southwest and connecting on Spirit—that’s DFW/O’Hare level headache from an airport that has no business passing out headaches.
1/3ish of Southwest are connecting.shadrach wrote: ↑Sep 04, 2022I don’t know how many people connect/transfer through STL but if you come in on Southwest and connecting on Spirit—that’s DFW/O’Hare level headache from an airport that has no business passing out headaches.
- 6,123
A satellite concourse to the east should be possible with the current plan. It'd be more expensive and complicated, so I'm not sure it's worth it to shave a half mile or mile off a taxi. But I can't see any reason you couldn't do it. Just for giggles I did some G-maps taxi measurements. The longest current taxi, from a full length landing on 29 (not counting the landing itself, of course) to C1, is 3.6 miles. (Which is long, but I've certainly been on longer. Had a pilot apologize about the "tour" of Shanghai once. We'd truly gone the long way around creation. I think they must have changed runways on him midway through the taxi.) Anyway, the current worst is 3.6. With the longest possible expansion of the linear concourse I can envision the worst taxi I can find (again, from a full length 29 to a gate roughly where the B concourse is now) would be about 4.6 miles. But they pretty much never land on 29 for that very reason. A more typical long taxi, even with a fully built out concourse obliging you to taxi all the way from the end of 30L (counterintuitively that's actually the longer taxi) to roughly the Juliet pad (at about the east end of E) to something more middling, maybe where C15 is now, would still be under three miles. To be fair, that's still longer than the longest possible taxi I can envision in Atlanta, but Atlanta is VERY efficiently laid out from that standpoint. (I don't think it would be geographically possible to make it better, but still functional at that scale.) O' Hare is enough of a mess I expect taxis in excess of three miles are not uncommon. Anyway, yeah, it could be a long taxi, but when the runway itself is already two miles long what's an extra half mile or a mile between friends?Trololzilla wrote: ↑Sep 05, 2022^ The only issue I can foresee with expanding the single concourse eastward is that it'll get very long to taxi around the whole thing if your gate is on the inset side. At some point, it's probably a smarter idea to, instead of expanding the single concourse in one long linear building, build a satellite concourse in more or less the same footprint as the expansion so that planes can just taxi in between them and passengers just use underground tunnels to move between them, like in SLC.
And of course, if it ever gets to that point, I would love to see a return of the midfield terminal plan.
That said, a satellite could work too. If we ever get so luck that they need to expand. But the linear terminal should make it much easier for passengers when they're not yet on the plane. (Which is probably the more important problem here.)
- 1,291
Here's a crude mockup of what I had in mind:
Either way, it looks like expanding to the east would be very tight for taxiing unless they demolish the former T2 (which, depending on the alternate usage(s) they find for it, I wouldn't want). It's the reason why I offset the satellite concourse a little so it's not completely in-line with the rest of the concourse, but more or less still is and might provide enough space for taxiing. Planes would essentially be right up against where the windows on T2 are now though, I think. And I don't believe there'd be enough apron to push back along the northern half without intersecting the taxiway there, but that could possibly be alleviated with paving over some of the retention areas there (and adding proper drainage) and reconfiguring the taxiways.
Might even be a smarter choice to just build out the "western expansion" with the initial build out and just shuffle gates when an airline (re: Southwest) actually needs to expand gates, since it'd kind of be wasted space anyway with just the rebuilt culvert there. That'd mean it would take a bit longer to actually need to expand to the east, and then you'd have at least 4 extra gates you could add onto the east before even having to reconfigure taxiways, demolish buildings (like T2), or build new concourses/terminals (i.e. satellite or midfield).
Either way, it looks like expanding to the east would be very tight for taxiing unless they demolish the former T2 (which, depending on the alternate usage(s) they find for it, I wouldn't want). It's the reason why I offset the satellite concourse a little so it's not completely in-line with the rest of the concourse, but more or less still is and might provide enough space for taxiing. Planes would essentially be right up against where the windows on T2 are now though, I think. And I don't believe there'd be enough apron to push back along the northern half without intersecting the taxiway there, but that could possibly be alleviated with paving over some of the retention areas there (and adding proper drainage) and reconfiguring the taxiways.
Might even be a smarter choice to just build out the "western expansion" with the initial build out and just shuffle gates when an airline (re: Southwest) actually needs to expand gates, since it'd kind of be wasted space anyway with just the rebuilt culvert there. That'd mean it would take a bit longer to actually need to expand to the east, and then you'd have at least 4 extra gates you could add onto the east before even having to reconfigure taxiways, demolish buildings (like T2), or build new concourses/terminals (i.e. satellite or midfield).
Yeah I'd call it right-sizing more than downsizing. The latest renders show there is opportunity to expand the new terminal on either end if more capacity is needed in the future.
-RBB
-RBB
Definitely, now that I’m seeing the renders and that there is opportunity to expand, what everyone is saying makes more sense. Really looking forward to hearing more about this project and see it come to fruition as it really is much needed.rbb wrote:Yeah I'd call it right-sizing more than downsizing. The latest renders show there is opportunity to expand the new terminal on either end if more capacity is needed in the future.
-RBB
- 6,123
That's about what I was figuring you meant. And it makes good sense. Should be entirely possible to do it later, if the need arises. Same could be said of possible west expansion onto the old MO ANG property. Both could be satellites accessible via underground walkways or trams.Trololzilla wrote: ↑Sep 06, 2022Here's a crude mockup of what I had in mind:
That said, both Shanghai and Detroit are pretty functional and their linear concourses are just a shade under a mile and very similar to what's proposed here. And even with both the proposed expansions that's about all you'd be looking at. And you'd get more gates cheaper with simple linear expansions, even if it would mean slightly longer taxis. It's clearly a model that works, and it fits the site we have. I'm not dogmatic. I can definitely see the advantages to what you're proposing. Just not sure it would justify the cost. Maybe? Tough call.
- 2,632
Depending on what T2 is repurposed for it could be a candidate to be un-mothballed in the event of drastic expansion. Just dive under the pavement and back up. Would be a great international terminal. Of course this is all best case scenario for STL but it's fun to dream.
Also does anybody have the plans or mockups for the midfield terminal you all speak of? Sounds very interesting.
Also does anybody have the plans or mockups for the midfield terminal you all speak of? Sounds very interesting.
Yes. When I opened the app recently I was logged out. Logged in —- my flight was gone! Gone, I tell you. I needed the booking code.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Jul 08, 2022Anyone else think the Lufthansa app is absolute trash. I upgraded to biz class for a flight in September and you couldn't tell that on the app, it fact it even said upgrade didn't go through but my card was charged and when I login to my Lufthansa account on their desktop website it clearly says that the flight was upgraded
Good lord, I don’t know, that’s what the app is for. Anyway, found it through the iPhone’s triple redundancy nature.
And it seems Miles and More and the app don’t get along. Still trying get those synced up.
Booked through Kayak. Lufthansa was over $2400, United around $1400, Kayak $1200.
- 6,123
I'm not sure how far it got. All I've ever seen is some images from a presentation from around 2000 or so:GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑Sep 07, 2022Depending on what T2 is repurposed for it could be a candidate to be un-mothballed in the event of drastic expansion. Just dive under the pavement and back up. Would be a great international terminal. Of course this is all best case scenario for STL but it's fun to dream.
Also does anybody have the plans or mockups for the midfield terminal you all speak of? Sounds very interesting.
I grabbed that out of a report discussing the W-1W plan that became 11/29. I've never managed to find a higher resolution copy, but it's clear enough that it was from an official document the airport had drawn up around then.
- 1,291
^ Yeah, I've tried very hard to find the original from the source the presentation cites but have never had any luck - like it never even existed. Maybe Rhonda has a better copy she could send out if someone asked her lol.
Still don't know how they planned to cram 150 gates into that thing.
Still don't know how they planned to cram 150 gates into that thing.
Southwest bringing back Punta Cana in March. First time since covid started.
Montego Bay goes to 2x a week.
Still a lot of west coast flights missing
Montego Bay goes to 2x a week.
Still a lot of west coast flights missing
RJ gates?Trololzilla wrote:^ Yeah, I've tried very hard to find the original from the source the presentation cites but have never had any luck - like it never even existed. Maybe Rhonda has a better copy she could send out if someone asked her lol.
Still don't know how they planned to cram 150 gates into that thing.
This is my thought as well. T2 is already pretty nice in my opinion. It’s open, airy, high ceilings, plenty of windows, etc. Obviously the gates in the old D Concourse suck, and it’s not double loaded, but in the event the airport ever needs more than 60-70 gates (which is unlikely), the newer part of T2 could honestly be perfect.GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑Sep 07, 2022Depending on what T2 is repurposed for it could be a candidate to be un-mothballed in the event of drastic expansion. Just dive under the pavement and back up. Would be a great international terminal. Of course this is all best case scenario for STL but it's fun to dream.
The potential east and west expansions on the new concourse would bring the new terminal up to 70 gates. There’s 11 in the newest part of T2. That takes the airport right back to 81, where it was in its heyday.
From what I can gather much of the existing roadway and the train station at T2 will be maintained as is. Probably wouldn’t be super difficult to slide an airline or two back in there should it be necessary. Though of course that depends on how they plan on reusing it.
Fun to think about.