What exactly is wrong with the current airport other than that it isn't "new?"
I for one remember a certain runway was constructed at considerable cost and the displacement of nearby neighborhoods which did absolutely nothing to stop the airport being demoted from hub status. It was a merger that did that, not the lack of infrastructure.
PeterXCV wrote:What exactly is wrong with the current airport other than that it isn't "new?"
I for one remember a certain runway was constructed at considerable cost and the displacement of nearby neighborhoods which did absolutely nothing to stop the airport being demoted from hub status. It was a merger that did that, not the lack of infrastructure.
The design is inefficient and not sized for modern operations or planes. There isn’t as much food and beverage space as new airports and the ceilings are pretty low. The buildings are pretty aged.
You need two things, capacities and efficiencies and currently Lambert has excess capacity at T1 that is past life and highly inefficient and T2 has some more modern efficiencies (though not enough because it was built fast and cheap) and no capacity.
So yes, an investment that solves these problems for the next 40 years is highly warranted.
Airports are the modern equivalent to union stations in the height of train travel. They are the first impression people get of a city so it's logical to make them as grandiose as possible. Lambert is perfectly functional and decent to look at, but as someone who travels a decent amount, it's hard to deny that it's a level or two below our peer airports in terms of amenities and architecture.
And while ceiling height can be considered merely aesthetic, I do think it conveys a more welcoming, spacious and modern feel - the welcome mat. Coupled with natural light (which i believe to be more important than the height) you can alleviate or eliminate the "rat race" feel of travel. IMO, when we are packed into spaces with people and there are low ceilings anxiety and frustration build, particularly for the unexperienced traveler - which is probably 70% of the people at any given airport.
The new Lambert probably won't cost St. Louis $3 Billion, but simply getting new concourses that are up to modern standards, and not so small feeling, will be extremely beneficial. I have faith they'll do it right.
What exactly is wrong with the current airport other than that it isn't "new?"
- 4 different concourses (3 in terminal 1 plus another in terminal 2) which means 4 different security lines and other duplicated infrastructure leading to economic inefficiencies as well as making navigation more of a hassle
- Outdated international/customs facilities which will become more of a problem if the airport continues to pursue international flights
- Lack of concourse size and retail facilities means the airport is losing out on revenue it otherwise needs to make up for with fees, not to mention with 4 different concourses the current retail bays don't have the customer base that one unified concourse would have
- Age: buildings have lifespans, especially an airport that was built before modern security standards and all the other things we've become accustomed (and subjected) to that weren't the norm when the current buildings were designed
The airport has been and could continue to be retrofitted well into the future, but at increasing cost for diminishing returns, at some point it's more prudent just to start with a clean slate.
What exactly is wrong with the current airport other than that it isn't "new?"
I for one remember a certain runway was constructed at considerable cost and the displacement of nearby neighborhoods which did absolutely nothing to stop the airport being demoted from hub status. It was a merger that did that, not the lack of infrastructure.
Nothing is wrong with the actual airfield. It’s the buildings.
T1 is held together by duct tape. I’d guess the expenses on upkeep at this point are so high that building new isn’t a huge jump price wise in the long run.
Southwest is almost out of room to expand. It will be half a mile from one end of their gates to the other if they open another bank of gates. I can’t see them opening more after that.
Also remember the city doesn’t pay anything for this. It will all be paid for by fees to airlines, rental cars, concessions, as well as grants from the feds. So they will be the ones who decide if it goes forward. From every indication they want it to happen so it will.
I thought airport commission had something about how Southwest hired an airline rep consultant for the new terminal
It wasn’t terminal related. The normal rates and charges contract is up.
Disappointing. Iirc, the environmental study for KCI was happening around the same time the new use and lease agreement was negotiated.
They are working parallel. That board meeting item was for the current ongoing normal fee changes. New terminal items are being worked separately. I don’t think the commission has anything to do with them.
I haven't really been following this thread, so sorry for the dumb question, but is this a City only project, or some kind of a regional deal? Is our disfunction likely to slow the work the way the County has messed up the convention center expansion?
I haven't really been following this thread, so sorry for the dumb question, but is this a City only project, or some kind of a regional deal? Is our disfunction likely to slow the work the way the County has messed up the convention center expansion?
Only city has to do approvals for things. But since they really won’t be on the hook for anything it shouldn’t get much resistance.
Agreed.. once southwest (et al) is able to have gates on both sides of a concourse, that's a huge win for efficiency. Garages are significantly too small for their use. Net result is no more need to change terminals. To get to Lufthansa if you aren't taking southwest you'd need to fly into T1, transfer to T2, go through security again, and get to your plane. FIS is in T2.
And as someone else pointed out, this is going to be paid from airline fees. I don't see any sort of negative here. Unless someone else can.
^ negative is that in the repayment term of the bonds there will be at least one and maybe 2 economic downturns where the City would be left to make up the difference between what airlines fees covered and bond payments
^ negative is that in the repayment term of the bonds there will be at least one and maybe 2 economic downturns where the City would be left to make up the difference between what airlines fees covered and bond payments
No the fees go up to cover it. It has to be paid by the airport. That’s the same reason the fees went way up when they built the new runway, when AA dehubbed, and during covid. That’s why fees go down when you have more flights come in. It’s a set amount the airport has to bring in and the fees adjust so that they match up.
Isn’t that just more of a reason not to raise enough to pay the bonds? If sh*t hits the fan and airlines cut flights wouldn’t they cut more if fees are higher?
I think fees are only one concern. More important are demand and network issues. People complain about the fees associated with the new runway, but at the end of the day I think we got hammered because demand dropped, and AA was better able to meet their network issues at O'Hare and DFW, both of which had higher organic demand anyway. We run the risk that the same thing will happen with the current project, but Southwest isn't in the same precarious state TWA was, and the new project isn't quite as ambitious and expensive as W1W was. Further, it will create some real cost savings in terms of airport operations, not just added expenses, as it will replace complicated and expensive older infrastructure with more modern and efficient infrastructure.
As an aside, I'm willing to buy the cost of maintenance argument, but after banging around C I find myself even less convinced by the space and amenities arguments. I am truly looking forward to seeing the A concourse airlines bodily moved into B, C, and D during construction, as the space is clearly there for everyone and it will give us a nice taste of what is to come, since it will functionally be somewhat similar: You'll have a single linear expanse accessible from the C security checkpoint with a right turn taking you to one group of airlines (in D and E) and a "left" taking you to a different group (B and C.) And it will make T1 feel more full and busy again, a bit more like TWA days, which will be nice. None of this should be taken as an argument against the new concourse, mind. The existing ones are still old, in need of maintenance, and particularly in the case of D and E limited by their design compromises. But I'm genuinely looking forward to that. And I'm looking forward to the new design, though I do worry they'll sacrifice the view from the domes to the field. (And vice versa.) The view in and out of the headhouse is one of the truly nice features of the airport, and I think we should fight to preserve it.
Isn’t that just more of a reason not to raise enough to pay the bonds? If sh*t hits the fan and airlines cut flights wouldn’t they cut more if fees are higher?
Lower fees usually lead to more flights, usually connectors or ULCCs, for the reason opposite of the reason you say. Less fees mean it is more cost advantageous to add. I’d assume like you say the opposite is the same. High fees will price out ULCCs.
Airlines have to have some amount of flights to a city our size though so even if they go up there still will be enough to cover everyone who wants to fly out of here. Might mean airlines charge higher fares to cover it. But also they can spread that across the entire network. If cost per passenger goes up $3, they don’t have to charge it all here. They could charge a 5 cents more a ticket across 60 airports to cover it.
This all is another reason to push hard for cargo airlines. Airports with lots of cargo usually have low fees even if they don’t have many passengers because the cargo operators are footing a bunch of the bill in landing fees.
So basically it ends up being the airport users that are going to pay it one way or another. Thru airline tickets, rental cars, concessions or ride share.
I’m 99% sure the city won’t/can’t put money into it. I think it’s a federal law the airport has to be self sufficient.
This is also the reason the airlines have to sign off on any major improvements or privatization since they are paying for it.
With a single concourse the concession revenue boost alone should be substantial. There will be enough travelers to get some big name stores, restaurants etc. I don't think we have to worry about fiscal issue at Lambert as long as Rhonda has her thumb on things.
Yep, major airports replacing and modernizing old infrastructure is a happening across the nation and so no reason why Rhonda's team can't pull it off for the region as a whole. Also the timing for federal grants is now. Believe DOT still has 4 out of 5 years in infrastructure grant dollars it will be doling out. Maybe not huge amounts but every little grant helps. The same could probably be said on N-S/metrolink expansion thread in terms of federal dollars.
^All things considered, that is not too far away. With that kind of timeline, working through the logistical issues, working within the current footprint and keeping the airport running during construction, would take a lot of planning. To me, that would mean to wheels are turning as we speak. Engineers, architects and designers are hard at work on the planning process. (I hope!)
I can see where the Airport might have the opportunity to proceed with some site demo and utility work happening earlier, maybe by 2024. Not huge contracts, or not as significant by themselve but some work that has to been done in the larger scheme of things. In other words, why not clean the slate on the periphery if it works within the budget and or if you can get a Federal Grant or two. Kinda like tearing down the old detached backyard garage that is about to fall down or maybe redo some of irrigation before installing the new retaining wall & adding pavers to really simplify my thoughts.
What exactly is wrong with the current airport other than that it isn't "new?"
I for one remember a certain runway was constructed at considerable cost and the displacement of nearby neighborhoods which did absolutely nothing to stop the airport being demoted from hub status. It was a merger that did that, not the lack of infrastructure.
There's no doubt that the airport terminals need to be replaced, plain and simple. It has outlived its purpose especially given how dated T1 looks and the limited facilities within it, not to mention T2 being at capacity with no room to expand (other than going into the D/E gates). It's high time that the two terminals be replaced with a more modern, wider and linear terminal to bring our airport into the 21st century. A previous poster mentioned that the airport serves as a welcome mat for our region and that statement is absolutely true. Travelers should be welcomed to an airport that is representative of this century and not last century. By consolidating the terminals into a single linear terminal/concourse, we're also getting rid of unnecessary and unused space that the current terminals have and making the new airport more efficient and purposefully used.
Keeping the terminals as is and continuously patching and repairing it doesn't make any sense when you're running into the same problems or issues year after year - at a certain point, it is just cost-effective to replace the terminals with something more sustainable and newer. A good analogy is if you kept putting money into an old beat-up car to keep it running at the bare minimum - why not put that money towards something newer that will not break down as much and allows you to do more with it?
Additionally, many cities around us and across the US are realizing that its past time to replace or update their airport infrastructure. As a developed country, we have some of the worst or poorly maintained airports around - not just an opinion but pretty much a fact at this point. Many of these airports can't keep up with their passenger levels and at times, it's like walking through a bus station with the dated buildings, limited concessions and overcrowding. Thankfully the tide is turning with a large number of airport-related projects but I can't believe it's taken us this long to realize that. Sure the economy plays a major factor as to why cities or airport authorities have waited or delayed these projects, but now we have little to no excuse to get the job done with federal funds coming to states and cities for public infrastructure improvements.
We have an awesome opportunity to have a new terminal that can help us grow our region by having the capacity to bring more passengers through here - be it through O&D traffic or connections - and help create new employment opportunities for the region across a wide array of job categories. I think that would bring tremendous value to the airport and the region as a whole!
^A minor request: can we quit using the word "terminals" when we mean "concourses"? It's a nitpick, I know, but T1 is staying in the current plan and I'd fight any proposal to demolish it. T2 might stay too, though it will be repurposed. But the A, B, C, D concourses, and probably E will all meet the wrecking ball. And that's as it should be, much as it pains me. They've outlived their useful life. But stay away from the domes, dang it! They're fine!
^A minor request: can we quit using the word "terminals" when we mean "concourses"? It's a nitpick, I know, but T1 is staying in the current plan and I'd fight any proposal to demolish it. T2 might stay too, though it will be repurposed. But the A, B, C, D concourses, and probably E will all meet the wrecking ball. And that's as it should be, much as it pains me. They've outlived their useful life. But stay away from the domes, dang it! They're fine!
I’d argue it still is a new terminal. Everything is going to be gone except the domes, so it’s more than just concourses. I guess it depends on how you look at it.. if you tear down your entire house and build it all new but keep one room from the old house, is it a new house?
But I am not going to argue too hard one way or the other on it though.
