quiz time- do i have a free checked bag or do i not?
- 1,610
Poorly worded, but I interpret it as 1 checked bag is included with the fare, the first bag (2nd bag belonging to you) you are to pay for would be $75.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Sep 12, 2022quiz time- do i have a free checked bag or do i not?
- 2,929
Quick thoughts on airport planning...
1. Revenue generation must remain at the top of the list, especially non-aeronautical. To be competitive, and to attract more birds, we need to offer lower pricing for gating, takeoffs, and landings, especially after paying down the 11-29 bonds all these years. By generating more revenues from STL's multiple potential revenue streams - such as parking, retail, and so on - STL can lower aeronautical fees and better compete for more flights with bigger jets. Specifically, I think we can make the most near-term buck from (a) on-site parking and (b) getting car rentals into a consolidated on-site facility. (Enterprise has the opportunity to really lay its mark on the site if we/they can get a full on-site car rental facility on the airport grounds. Plus, that's a whole new opportunity for non-aeronautical revenue generation to a considerable degree.)
2. Plans for the single terminal look great. We should hopefully be able to fill almost all the slots by the time it gets built and be able to consider expansion in relative short order and with minimal disruptions.
3. I have great confidence in Director Rhonda Hamm-Niebruegge and her leadership throughout this planning process. What concerns we have here, I'm sure she's heard them before and that they've been taken up in committee with the BoD.
4. T2 has multiple potential uses that can make more money for the airport. I remain very focused on air cargo operations being something that STL can use to generate more flights and more revenues. Maybe there's something to extending the "Cargo City" site west into T2?
1. Revenue generation must remain at the top of the list, especially non-aeronautical. To be competitive, and to attract more birds, we need to offer lower pricing for gating, takeoffs, and landings, especially after paying down the 11-29 bonds all these years. By generating more revenues from STL's multiple potential revenue streams - such as parking, retail, and so on - STL can lower aeronautical fees and better compete for more flights with bigger jets. Specifically, I think we can make the most near-term buck from (a) on-site parking and (b) getting car rentals into a consolidated on-site facility. (Enterprise has the opportunity to really lay its mark on the site if we/they can get a full on-site car rental facility on the airport grounds. Plus, that's a whole new opportunity for non-aeronautical revenue generation to a considerable degree.)
2. Plans for the single terminal look great. We should hopefully be able to fill almost all the slots by the time it gets built and be able to consider expansion in relative short order and with minimal disruptions.
3. I have great confidence in Director Rhonda Hamm-Niebruegge and her leadership throughout this planning process. What concerns we have here, I'm sure she's heard them before and that they've been taken up in committee with the BoD.
4. T2 has multiple potential uses that can make more money for the airport. I remain very focused on air cargo operations being something that STL can use to generate more flights and more revenues. Maybe there's something to extending the "Cargo City" site west into T2?
- 1,614
The cargo city idea is an interesting one for T2. That said I thought there was plenty of room out on that side for further expansion already? Because of what I perceive to be an easy conversion, I would like to see T2 become either charter / private / international terminal or the consolidated rental car facility - the latter with metrolink access seems ideal. The cargo expansion certainly has merit, though seems there is ample room east on to & around lot E for that (though yes, would require new construction).
- 1,792
Expansion? like after THIS rebuild/ how does that look? I assume we are building for our perceived capacity for the next 20 years. If not we should probably just put T2 in Mothballs.gone corporate wrote: ↑Sep 12, 2022Quick thoughts on airport planning...
1. Revenue generation must remain at the top of the list, especially non-aeronautical. To be competitive, and to attract more birds, we need to offer lower pricing for gating, takeoffs, and landings, especially after paying down the 11-29 bonds all these years. By generating more revenues from STL's multiple potential revenue streams - such as parking, retail, and so on - STL can lower aeronautical fees and better compete for more flights with bigger jets. Specifically, I think we can make the most near-term buck from (a) on-site parking and (b) getting car rentals into a consolidated on-site facility. (Enterprise has the opportunity to really lay its mark on the site if we/they can get a full on-site car rental facility on the airport grounds. Plus, that's a whole new opportunity for non-aeronautical revenue generation to a considerable degree.)
2. Plans for the single terminal look great. We should hopefully be able to fill almost all the slots by the time it gets built and be able to consider expansion in relative short order and with minimal disruptions.
3. I have great confidence in Director Rhonda Hamm-Niebruegge and her leadership throughout this planning process. What concerns we have here, I'm sure she's heard them before and that they've been taken up in committee with the BoD.
4. T2 has multiple potential uses that can make more money for the airport. I remain very focused on air cargo operations being something that STL can use to generate more flights and more revenues. Maybe there's something to extending the "Cargo City" site west into T2?
I think this rebuild is truly a half century commitment and to me, everything except the original T1 domes should be cleared from the southside in my opinion. I believe Lambert already has a vision for cargo that already includes a big empty facility that was formerly MD plant. Plenty of space for expanded private airplane services on north side if not mistaken. Finally, converting T2 into something that was not designed for doesn't feel like a good plan. Heck, just thinking it would probably be nightmare to reconfigure for Consolidated Car Rental facility when half the rental cars or more might be EV's (do you do a massive utility gut just to charge on site) or will their even be a need for counter space. Just so many facilities at airports are task or design specific.
- 2,929
^Could the T2 Garage site be retrofitted or fully rebuilt to be a rental car facility? Is it even big enough? Could it be retrofitted to handle EV, or would a total site rebuild be necessary? (assuming the garage site is viable to begin with, of course)
I ask this under the reasonable belief that the Airport Authority already has some good plans for T2 that have not been made public, and should not be for some time.
I ask this under the reasonable belief that the Airport Authority already has some good plans for T2 that have not been made public, and should not be for some time.
Go back through the last few pages as we have been discussing that. Thanksgone corporate wrote: ↑Sep 12, 2022^Could the T2 Garage site be retrofitted or fully rebuilt to be a rental car facility? Is it even big enough? Could it be retrofitted to handle EV, or would a total site rebuild be necessary? (assuming the garage site is viable to begin with, of course)
I ask this under the reasonable belief that the Airport Authority already has some good plans for T2 that have not been made public, and should not be for some time.
- 6,123
I honestly believe that's the plan. The concept sketches even showed the basement below T-1 completely reconfigured and dramatically expanded to the south. They're planning to knock down all the concourses and Niebrugge even as much as said they were planning to demolish T2 before one of her aids walked her back on that. I expect they'll leave that much for now, as there's no real need to demolish it immediately and maybe, if it can be easily reconfigured, there's a reason to save it. But they're not going to leave it for sentimental reasons. (And yes, a lot of things are design specific, but in the end quite a lot are just big spaces with a certain number of load bearing columns in them. The T2 ticket lounge could work just as well as a hotel lobby, office atrium, or even as a headhouse for a train station if you wanted to go that way. GC might even be onto something with the garage comments. Anyway, nothing but the domes seems to be sacred. They're keeping those. (Which makes me happy.) But nearly everything else will almost certainly go. And everything else might. (Unless there's some really good reason to save it; that saving the old thing will be cheaper in the long run.)dredger wrote: ↑Sep 12, 2022I think this rebuild is truly a half century commitment and to me, everything except the original T1 domes should be cleared from the southside in my opinion. I believe Lambert already has a vision for cargo that already includes a big empty facility that was formerly MD plant. Plenty of space for expanded private airplane services on north side if not mistaken. Finally, converting T2 into something that was not designed for doesn't feel like a good plan. Heck, just thinking it would probably be nightmare to reconfigure for Consolidated Car Rental facility when half the rental cars or more might be EV's (do you do a massive utility gut just to charge on site) or will their even be a need for counter space. Just so many facilities at airports are task or design specific.
As to the utility issues, I can't imagine there are many places where it would be much easier to run utilities than a garage. No need to cut through walls and add fireblocking around your conduit. Lots of wide open ceilings to hang them off. No worries about plenum ratings, or grids you have to work around. Just hang the conduit and pull the wire. Sure, it would require a fair number of charging stations, and a bigger service. But I doubt even if your fleet was 100% EV you'd need a charging station at every space. You'll never need to charge every car at once. I expect a generous bank of stations would suffice. I suspect it'd be more in line with a few dozen than a few hundred. Even if you decided to put at an outlet at every space you wouldn't be charging every car at once. You could probably get away with trickle charging at most spaces and fast charging at a select few, and the trickle charging wouldn't require any more wire than then lighting already does. (Maybe not even all that much more power. Double, probably. Strictly a WAG, mind, but from what I'm seeing your average household trickle charger is apparently just 120V and maybe a 20amp circuit. So about what you have in your kitchen for the toaster. Not even the washing machine.) (And yes, I have pulled that kind of stuff before. Even the big stuff for a 400 amp service. I may just be a composer, but I worked for a long time as a stagehand. And while I was a stagehand, I helped build a football stadium and a fair few theatres. It's not the same, I admit. But the power needs probably aren't that far different. And I've at least looked into charging infrastructure a little, since I am EV curious. Like most people with a Prius, probably.)
Anyway, just my layman's opinion but I bet it could be made to work.
- 1,614
Thinking over the layout of T2 Garage, which I frequently park in, the ramp configuration is a challenge for rental car facility but not insurmountable, imo.
As for the electric charging, likely not the most difficult challenge in the conversion.
Question: can you imagine a scenario where the "front of house", ticketing area of T2 is used for rental cars and "back of house" is used for charter or cargo? Can you make it a dual use that maximizes each area?
As for the electric charging, likely not the most difficult challenge in the conversion.
Question: can you imagine a scenario where the "front of house", ticketing area of T2 is used for rental cars and "back of house" is used for charter or cargo? Can you make it a dual use that maximizes each area?
- 9,564
Update on my checked bag question- when I checked in the flight today it says that I do have to pay $75 and Lufthansa Twitter yesterday said I don’t. I guess we will find out around 2:15 tomorrow
- 6,123
^Good luck. Haven't flown Lufthansa, but the big three US carriers each give you one free on international, even if you're flying basic economy in the cheapest part of the plane. (Full disclosure: I haven't flow that cheapest part in . . . about five or six years. But I have done international on all of them and several international carriers, and one late, oft lamented TWA. And in the cheap seats on everything but Delta. Oddly, with Delta I went straight to the middle of the plane. Not sure why. But If United gives you a free bag, and they did . . . 'Nuff said.)
Have fun, send pictures, and do let us know how it comes out! From your Twitter pics it looks like you're all set for fabulous! Congrats!
Have fun, send pictures, and do let us know how it comes out! From your Twitter pics it looks like you're all set for fabulous! Congrats!
- 1,792
Yeah T2 definitely seems not ideal for anything other than air travel. Its more a circulation question than a space issue which seems pretty sufficient for all the majors as long as they do maintenance offsite which i assume is typical. When you get a rental car you either shuttle, arrive by car or in this case you could arrive by metrolink.TheWayoftheArch_V2.0 wrote: ↑Sep 13, 2022Thinking over the layout of T2 Garage, which I frequently park in, the ramp configuration is a challenge for rental car facility but not insurmountable, imo.
As for the electric charging, likely not the most difficult challenge in the conversion.
Question: can you imagine a scenario where the "front of house", ticketing area of T2 is used for rental cars and "back of house" is used for charter or cargo? Can you make it a dual use that maximizes each area?
One Option:
-If you assume pickup and drop off is lower level then maybe you go up escalator to checkout counters. Walk out current arrivals (whose entrance ramp can be eliminated and the flat area converted to more parking. Then leave via parking lot via the exiting ramp.
-If you arrive by Metrolink you have to walk through the lot to get to the check-in areas. Not ideal but not terrible.
The current airside seems harder to work with to me. Admin Offices for AIrport is fine but they aren't gonna need all that space. Anything that fills the space will require parking and the parking spaces are fundamental to the whole consolidated rental car facility so the garage is not available in that scenario
- 1,291
Still think T2 would make a phenomenal event space. Having a party at the end of B and being able to planespot that close the the apron seems pretty lit. Would have great views out of the old T2 concourse if they went that route.
- 9,564
I’m in biz class but i never buy it outright, always wait for a price to drop at certain time before upgrading, with base + upgrade to biz my trip is $3300 vs just $3300 if I booked biz STL to Zagreb via Frankfurt just to get there and not including the trip backsymphonicpoet wrote: ↑Sep 14, 2022^Good luck. Haven't flown Lufthansa, but the big three US carriers each give you one free on international, even if you're flying basic economy in the cheapest part of the plane. (Full disclosure: I haven't flow that cheapest part in . . . about five or six years. But I have done international on all of them and several international carriers, and one late, oft lamented TWA. And in the cheap seats on everything but Delta. Oddly, with Delta I went straight to the middle of the plane. Not sure why. But If United gives you a free bag, and they did . . . 'Nuff said.)
Have fun, send pictures, and do let us know how it comes out! From your Twitter pics it looks like you're all set for fabulous! Congrats!
but apparently even that may not get me a free bag?
They even make you pay for a seat selection in premium economy. Some of their fees for a non LCC seem silly to me.dbInSouthCity wrote: ↑Sep 14, 2022I’m in biz class but i never buy it outright, always wait for a price to drop at certain time before upgrading, with base + upgrade to biz my trip is $3300 vs just $3300 if I booked biz STL to Zagreb via Frankfurt just to get there and not including the trip backsymphonicpoet wrote: ↑Sep 14, 2022^Good luck. Haven't flown Lufthansa, but the big three US carriers each give you one free on international, even if you're flying basic economy in the cheapest part of the plane. (Full disclosure: I haven't flow that cheapest part in . . . about five or six years. But I have done international on all of them and several international carriers, and one late, oft lamented TWA. And in the cheap seats on everything but Delta. Oddly, with Delta I went straight to the middle of the plane. Not sure why. But If United gives you a free bag, and they did . . . 'Nuff said.)
Have fun, send pictures, and do let us know how it comes out! From your Twitter pics it looks like you're all set for fabulous! Congrats!
but apparently even that may not get me a free bag?
- 1,792
Would be cool, just not sure how much use it would get.Trololzilla wrote: ↑Sep 14, 2022Still think T2 would make a phenomenal event space. Having a party at the end of B and being able to planespot that close the the apron seems pretty lit. Would have great views out of the old T2 concourse if they went that route.
Another thought. Would the T2 reuse option be a good avenue to pursue a level of privatization for non essential services. Lease the land and building to a private entity and lease back the space the airport wants to retain for essential airport service. I was definitely against the previous privatization push because i don't like the government putting essential services at risk in privatization deals, but I am not convinced the airport needs to be in the business of managing an event venue for example.
Not sure which category i put consolidated rental car facility.
- 1,614
The money making category.STLEnginerd wrote: ↑Sep 14, 2022Not sure which category i put consolidated rental car facility.Trololzilla wrote: ↑Sep 14, 2022Still think T2 would make a phenomenal event space. Having a party at the end of B and being able to planespot that close the the apron seems pretty lit. Would have great views out of the old T2 concourse if they went that route.
- 2,929
@STLEnginerd Look at potential uses for T2 not as privatized uses because the Airport Authority would receive revenues from whatever goes there. If it's a hotel, they'll pay rent to the Airport Authority (and that's where a private event space can go). I'm curious about a possible on-site hotel with large meeting rooms and rentable office spaces.
My biggest thoughts on the T2 site are (beating a dead horse here) expanding cargo and non-aeronautical revenue streams. A consolidated car rental facility, i.e. massive garage for all rental brands, would be ideal for here and maybe along the existing Concourse D. Even expanded passenger parking would be great as this is a major revenue generator that's often overlooked. With more non-aeronautical revenues, the airport can lower fees for gating, takeoffs, and landings, thereby attracting more routes and bigger aircraft.
Mindset: The whole site's coming down once the new terminal's up and running. No doubt, they'll tear down the terminal, garage, and infrastructure like roads and lots. So is Concourse D. What are the very best things that can go there to (1) further the passenger experience, (2) make STL [City and Airport] more accommodating and welcoming, (3) leads to more flights on bigger jets, and (4) maximizes non-aeronautical revenues?
My biggest thoughts on the T2 site are (beating a dead horse here) expanding cargo and non-aeronautical revenue streams. A consolidated car rental facility, i.e. massive garage for all rental brands, would be ideal for here and maybe along the existing Concourse D. Even expanded passenger parking would be great as this is a major revenue generator that's often overlooked. With more non-aeronautical revenues, the airport can lower fees for gating, takeoffs, and landings, thereby attracting more routes and bigger aircraft.
Mindset: The whole site's coming down once the new terminal's up and running. No doubt, they'll tear down the terminal, garage, and infrastructure like roads and lots. So is Concourse D. What are the very best things that can go there to (1) further the passenger experience, (2) make STL [City and Airport] more accommodating and welcoming, (3) leads to more flights on bigger jets, and (4) maximizes non-aeronautical revenues?
- 1,792
Tear down T2? That doesn't make much sense if they look at a consolidated rental car facility there. For Reference Sky Harbor in Phoenix has a 170,000+ footprint, Seattle's is a similar footprint, Lambert T2 is around 130k sqft footprint (with 2 levels.) so it right around the right size. Only issue is circulation but that seems addressable. at a very reasonable price compared to new build.
Tearing out garage seems even more wasteful. If two of the uses you mention (rental car and parking would simply require it to be reconstructed.
I thought you were a proponent of privatization. The difference is the airport gets someone else to pay for the improvements and gets a steady check on a lease agreement. Basically they don't have to issue any bonds to cover it. If its a flop i don't see it as a economically crippling result. I didn't like it for the main terminal but i don't hate it for T2 reuse with the right partner.
Cargo Ops makes more sense on the North side of the airport as i don't see how that function can lend itself to the existing buildings and to the extent it ties into the current carrier model it already exists to the East of T2. There is room for some smaller cargo expansion east of T2 but not a lot.
Tearing out garage seems even more wasteful. If two of the uses you mention (rental car and parking would simply require it to be reconstructed.
I thought you were a proponent of privatization. The difference is the airport gets someone else to pay for the improvements and gets a steady check on a lease agreement. Basically they don't have to issue any bonds to cover it. If its a flop i don't see it as a economically crippling result. I didn't like it for the main terminal but i don't hate it for T2 reuse with the right partner.
Cargo Ops makes more sense on the North side of the airport as i don't see how that function can lend itself to the existing buildings and to the extent it ties into the current carrier model it already exists to the East of T2. There is room for some smaller cargo expansion east of T2 but not a lot.
- 2,929
^I'd say I was a proponent of improving the airport by any means necessary, and that privatization would've worked if no other viable scenario existed. While I am a hardcore capitalist sorta guy, I also am wary of privatizing crucial public assets. For example, check out how Chicago leased out parking violation revenues for a very long-term lease, which was then covered in profits by the outsourced company within something like 3 years. I also remember reading something about highways in Indianapolis blowing back on that city, but the details I can't remember offhand.
From what Lambert has been indicating, the long-term plans for T2 involve a total site redesign, or at the very least strongly consider it. If the whole site is possibly destined for tear-down and reconstruction, I wouldn't be surprised in the least. Wasteful? Maybe. Depends on what goes in there next.
Also, I agree fully that the north side of the airport is best for cargo, whether on the footprint of the old Berkeley High School (NE corner) or a major logistics investment with extended apron along the NW side (near the golf course and warehouse parks). Where cargo works for passenger planes comes in belly loads, which is why Cargo City is along the SE corner. Too bad Southwest doesn't do much with belly loads, as that'd be a great revenue stream.
From what Lambert has been indicating, the long-term plans for T2 involve a total site redesign, or at the very least strongly consider it. If the whole site is possibly destined for tear-down and reconstruction, I wouldn't be surprised in the least. Wasteful? Maybe. Depends on what goes in there next.
Also, I agree fully that the north side of the airport is best for cargo, whether on the footprint of the old Berkeley High School (NE corner) or a major logistics investment with extended apron along the NW side (near the golf course and warehouse parks). Where cargo works for passenger planes comes in belly loads, which is why Cargo City is along the SE corner. Too bad Southwest doesn't do much with belly loads, as that'd be a great revenue stream.
International Loads for March
Southwest Cancun 93%
AA Cancun 88.5%
Frontier Cancun 79.5%
Southwest Montego Bay 79.5%
Apple/Viva Huatulco 78%
Southwest Cancun 74.5%
Frontier Punta Cana 68%
Apple/Viva Cabo 54.5%
STL loves Cancun apparently. For March 13,623 people flew from STL to Cancun nonstop
Southwest Cancun 93%
AA Cancun 88.5%
Frontier Cancun 79.5%
Southwest Montego Bay 79.5%
Apple/Viva Huatulco 78%
Southwest Cancun 74.5%
Frontier Punta Cana 68%
Apple/Viva Cabo 54.5%
STL loves Cancun apparently. For March 13,623 people flew from STL to Cancun nonstop