Landing around 1220 amNHampton wrote: ↑Jun 23, 2023The Cardinals flew a Virgin Atlantic charter from DC to London. If they have the same coming back, there should be a rare Virgin A350 coming to Lambert (or City airport) on Sunday night. I'm not enough of a planespotter to know how to search for something like that.
Sent from my Pixel 6a using Tapatalk
Virgin Atlantic coming in from London and Lufthansa back to Frankfurt. I like these EU flights.
- 2,929
Wondered what that was... Got in extremely late last night on Southwest from MDW (apparently, storms mucked their entire system yesterday). As we pulled up to T2, I saw that big Virgin tail on the eastern side of the tarmac. Neat.
Southwest released their Jan/Feb 2024 schedule
year 2024 (2023) 2020
Fri 113 (98) 110
Sat 83 (73) 69
Sun 113 (86) 110
Small bump over 2020 so that is good to see we continue in these updates to be ahead of precovid.
Sunday vs 2023 is a nice gain, almost 30 flights.
Oakland (daily except Sat) and San Jose (4x a week) are in the Jan/Feb schedule for the first time since covid.
year 2024 (2023) 2020
Fri 113 (98) 110
Sat 83 (73) 69
Sun 113 (86) 110
Small bump over 2020 so that is good to see we continue in these updates to be ahead of precovid.
Sunday vs 2023 is a nice gain, almost 30 flights.
Oakland (daily except Sat) and San Jose (4x a week) are in the Jan/Feb schedule for the first time since covid.
| City | Airline | Friday | Saturday | Sunday |
| Atlanta GA (ATL) | Southwest | 5 | 2 | 4 |
| Austin TX (AUS) | Southwest | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Baltimore MD (BWI) | Southwest | 3 | 2 | 4 |
| Boston MA (BOS) | Southwest | 2 | 2 | 3 |
| Cancun MX (CUN) | Southwest | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Charleston SC (CHS) | Southwest | |||
| Charlotte NC (CLT) | Southwest | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Chicago IL (MDW) | Southwest | 6 | 3 | 5 |
| Cleveland OH (CLE) | Southwest | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Columbus OH (CMH) | Southwest | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Dallas TX (DAL) | Southwest | 6 | 4 | 6 |
| Denver CO (DEN) | Southwest | 7 | 5 | 6 |
| Des Moines IA (DSM) | Southwest | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Destin FL (VPS) | Southwest | |||
| Detroit MI (DTW) | Southwest | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Ft. Lauderdale FL (FLL) | Southwest | 2 | 4 | 3 |
| Ft. Myers FL (RSW) | Southwest | 2 | 3 | 3 |
| Houston TX (HOU) | Southwest | 4 | 4 | 5 |
| Jacksonville FL (JAX) | Southwest | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Kansas City MO (MCI) | Southwest | 3 | 2 | 3 |
| Las Vegas NV (LAS) | Southwest | 5 | 4 | 5 |
| Little Rock AR (LIT) | Southwest | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Long Beach CA (LGB) | Southwest | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Los Angeles CA (LAX) | Southwest | 3 | 1 | 2 |
| Miami FL (MIA) | Southwest | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| Milwaukee WI (MKE) | Southwest | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Minneapolis MN (MSP) | Southwest | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Montego Bay JAM (MBJ) | Southwest | |||
| Myrtle Beach SC (MYR) | Southwest | |||
| Nashville TN (BNA) | Southwest | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| New Orleans LA (MSY) | Southwest | 2 | 2 | 2 |
| New York NY (LGA) | Southwest | 5 | 2 | 3 |
| Oakland CA (OAK) | Southwest | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Oklahoma City OK (OKC) | Southwest | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Omaha NE (OMA) | Southwest | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Orange County CA (SNA) | Southwest | |||
| Orlando FL (MCO) | Southwest | 5 | 5 | 6 |
| Panama City FL (ECP) | Southwest | |||
| Pensacola FL (PNS) | Southwest | |||
| Philadelphia PA (PHL) | Southwest | 1 | 1 | 2 |
| Pittsburgh PA (PIT) | Southwest | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Phoenix AZ (PHX) | Southwest | 4 | 3 | 4 |
| Portland OR (PDX) | Southwest | |||
| Punta Cana DR (PUJ) | Southwest | |||
| Raleigh NC (RDU) | Southwest | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Sacramento (SMF) | Southwest | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| Salt Lake City (SLC) | Southwest | |||
| San Antonio TX (SAT) | Southwest | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| San Deigo CA (SAN) | Southwest | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| San Jose CA (SJC) | Southwest | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| San Juan PR (SJU) | Southwest | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Sarasota FL (SRQ) | Southwest | 1 | 2 | 1 |
| Seattle WA (SEA) | Southwest | |||
| Tampa FL (TPA) | Southwest | 3 | 3 | 3 |
| Tulsa OK (TUL) | Southwest | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Washington DC (DCA) | Southwest | 4 | 2 | 4 |
| Wichita KS (ICT) | Southwest | 2 | 1 | 2 |
| Totals | 113 | 83 | 113 |
Southwest birds are parked all over the place; C gates, old D gates and various pad spots. Anyone know what's going on?
Guessing out of place from all the storms this weekend. Had to be at least 8 or 9 parked in non normal spots when I left Saturday.pdm_ad wrote: ↑Jul 03, 2023Southwest birds are parked all over the place; C gates, old D gates and various pad spots. Anyone know what's going on?
Small ALP update during the Commission meeting today. Apparently everything is still on schedule, enabling projects should start in 2025, construction in 2026. According to RHN, the airport will start applying to federal grant programs for terminal funding this year. The MetroLink station will remain in place.
A slightly different concept rendering was shown:
![]()
Note the curved structure to the left of the domes...according to the WSP representative, they are looking at some sort of glass "hallway" or large, open welcoming area for international arrivals. The outdoor areas next to the upper level entryways would be public plazas with a reconstructed baggage claim area underneath.
![]()
![]()
(CTP: Consolidated Terminal Package) (WAP: West Airfield Package)
A slightly different concept rendering was shown:
Note the curved structure to the left of the domes...according to the WSP representative, they are looking at some sort of glass "hallway" or large, open welcoming area for international arrivals. The outdoor areas next to the upper level entryways would be public plazas with a reconstructed baggage claim area underneath.
(CTP: Consolidated Terminal Package) (WAP: West Airfield Package)
Found this bit interesting. Not sure if shared before
Phase 0: rehabilitate concourse D
Phase 1: move concourse A airlines to concourse D
Completion of Terminal Program: 2032
Phase 0: rehabilitate concourse D
Phase 1: move concourse A airlines to concourse D
Completion of Terminal Program: 2032
Haven’t we always known D would be brought back into service?
The staging presentation from last year had A and B being demolished first…presumably they’d have to use D while the west half is built.
West half (Terminal Phase 1) begins construction in 2027.
Edit: Some slides from the phasing presentation last summer:
![]()
The staging presentation from last year had A and B being demolished first…presumably they’d have to use D while the west half is built.
West half (Terminal Phase 1) begins construction in 2027.
Edit: Some slides from the phasing presentation last summer:
- 6,123
First, overall I like this. The general concept is good. The flow is good. The staging is sound.
Second, I am still disappointed that the concept appears to completely block the view between the airfield and the historic ticketing hall. It's the signature feature of the airport. I really feel some effort should be taken to preserve that view for passengers arriving from both sides of the terminal; from airside and landside. From airside seeing the domes really tells you that you've arrived in St. Louis and not somewhere else. From landside seeing the planes really tells you where you're going, that it's an airport and not a bus terminal or parking garage. It'll be a real miss if we sacrifice that to convenience or expense.
Second, I am still disappointed that the concept appears to completely block the view between the airfield and the historic ticketing hall. It's the signature feature of the airport. I really feel some effort should be taken to preserve that view for passengers arriving from both sides of the terminal; from airside and landside. From airside seeing the domes really tells you that you've arrived in St. Louis and not somewhere else. From landside seeing the planes really tells you where you're going, that it's an airport and not a bus terminal or parking garage. It'll be a real miss if we sacrifice that to convenience or expense.
- 991
I totally disagree. Views from a historic terminal (vs views from any terminal) are not even in my top 20 list of things to care about when flying in/out of Lambert. I’d be very happy if they built all new as presented in this conceptual rendering. I’d rather they keep the historic terminal historic instead of being limited in what they can/can’t fit into the space.
I really only care about seeing the domes from land side. Im not sure I’ve even thought about seeing them from the air side because they are blocked by C or I am flying into T2 and don’t see them anyway.
- 1,610
Is there a reason given for moving the roadway so far away from the buildings and just having those three long walkways?
- 1,792
i think its an improvement They created a public plaza at ground level and arrivals is fully covered now rather than being exposed to rain and such. Downside is a longer walk for departures. I don't think those are the reasons though. I suspect it more relates to the phasing of construction and keeping the airport functioning while its going on.Bart Harley Jarvis wrote: ↑Jul 06, 2023Is there a reason given for moving the roadway so far away from the buildings and just having those three long walkways?
I would think canting the canopy toward the south would be a better choice to open the view of the terminal from the departures lane as well as possibly incorporating solar panels into it for some nominal power generation.. I also wonder if those walkway canopies could be made minimalist and/or partially transparent to minimize obstruction when viewing the old terminal head house. I would also like to see the plaza space be more Green, less concrete.
As far as views of the terminal from the runway i think the new terminal is a little bland looking. No reason it couldn't be built to be more attractive. That said your are appealing to the roughly 1/5 of of arriving passengers who have a window seat on the right side of the aircraft when they land, and of those only the one who land in daytime and give a damn about architectural form. Suffice it to say it makes sense to me that function trumps form from that vantage.
- 2,634
Interior design is much more important than exterior in the context of an airport. As long as it's well organized, roomy, airy, modern, and full of retail/amenities I will be happy.
The current arrival and departure roadways run on top of the existing baggage claim area, hence the low ceilings down there.Bart Harley Jarvis wrote: ↑Jul 06, 2023Is there a reason given for moving the roadway so far away from the buildings and just having those three long walkways?
This plan would create a more typical stacked roadway setup with departures on top of arrivals, like the East Terminal. A rebuilt baggage claim area would be built underneath the plaza/entrance areas.
I love the current feature of the diagonal drop off area at the main terminal. I wish they could keep that somehow. I swear it works so much better than 3 lanes deep parallel parking at other airports.
The addition of outdoor plaza space also seems just ridiculous to me.
Since the domes are supported at 4 corners each, I think they should just lift them and elevate them another 20-30 feet or something and rebuild the entire building below them with additional height and an additional floor for whatever is needed.
The addition of outdoor plaza space also seems just ridiculous to me.
Since the domes are supported at 4 corners each, I think they should just lift them and elevate them another 20-30 feet or something and rebuild the entire building below them with additional height and an additional floor for whatever is needed.
They're doing a similar thing at Laguardia by building the new roadway next to the old one in large part so that it can stay open during construction
That wouldn't make much sense. The lower levels of the domes house support facilities, offices, baggage handling areas, physical plant, etc. Never mind the expense of lifting the building. The domes aren't wide enough to accommodate everything directly beneath them, they don't do that now. The roadways are literally on top of the lower level baggage claim, which is a huge maintenance issue. That was specifically pointed out by the WSP rep in yesterdays presentation.c2city wrote: ↑Jul 06, 2023Since the domes are supported at 4 corners each, I think they should just lift them and elevate them another 20-30 feet or something and rebuild the entire building below them with additional height and an additional floor for whatever is needed.
The "plazas" will allow for higher ceilings below and skylights will allow natural light into the lower level baggage area. Jacking the building up would do none of those things and would only make passenger movement more inefficient. Current plans show arriving passengers with a simple, single level exit. Departing passengers will descend down to the concourse level from the ticketing level.
Not to mention this probably isn't structurally possible, the 4 corners of each dome are not just gravity loads, there's also a strong lateral component that going into the floor and foundation, the domes would probably collapse when they're disconnected from that during elevation.sc4mayor wrote: ↑Jul 06, 2023That wouldn't make much sense. The lower levels of the domes house support facilities, offices, baggage handling areas, physical plant, etc. Never mind the expense of lifting the building. The domes aren't wide enough to accommodate everything directly beneath them, they don't do that now. The roadways are literally on top of the lower level baggage claim, which is a huge maintenance issue. That was specifically pointed out by the WSP rep in yesterdays presentation.c2city wrote: ↑Jul 06, 2023Since the domes are supported at 4 corners each, I think they should just lift them and elevate them another 20-30 feet or something and rebuild the entire building below them with additional height and an additional floor for whatever is needed.
The "plazas" will allow for higher ceilings below and skylights will allow natural light into the lower level baggage area. Jacking the building up would do none of those things and would only make passenger movement more inefficient. Current plans show arriving passengers with a simple, single level exit. Departing passengers will descend down to the concourse level from the ticketing level.
I did not intend for everything to be packed under the domes, I would just keep them for their architectural significance and keep absolutely nothing else of the current building or facility. I really hope the future airport doesn't become limited due to reuse of parts of aging facilities.
I really don't think moving them would be any unusual technical engineering problem. The lateral component of forces that was mentioned above is symmetric so tension cables would not be complicated to implement. Techniques to mobilize structures like that can be used in seismic retrofitting for base isolation. Regardless, I don't expect anything like this to be done. I just like to consider possibilities like that which I don't think other people often consider.
I also don't want them to keep any of the current drop off facilities or any of the roadways, I just like the diagonal layout and flow of the lanes when I compare it to any other airport I get dropped off at. I feel like that layout could be implemented in more places.
I really don't think moving them would be any unusual technical engineering problem. The lateral component of forces that was mentioned above is symmetric so tension cables would not be complicated to implement. Techniques to mobilize structures like that can be used in seismic retrofitting for base isolation. Regardless, I don't expect anything like this to be done. I just like to consider possibilities like that which I don't think other people often consider.
I also don't want them to keep any of the current drop off facilities or any of the roadways, I just like the diagonal layout and flow of the lanes when I compare it to any other airport I get dropped off at. I feel like that layout could be implemented in more places.
That’s what they’re doing. The support operations in the lower levels will likely remain, but as far as public facing areas…the upper level of the domes is really all they’re keeping. Everything else will be new. Including the lower levels.c2city wrote: ↑Jul 06, 2023I would just keep them for their architectural significance and keep absolutely nothing else of the current building or facility.
The outdoor plaza is nice (and I agree, kind of over the top), but what about an outdoor area past security? Half of what I loathe about airports for the most part (outside of Long Beach, I love that airport) is the fact that I'm going to sit in stale ass air filled with a vast array of weird food smells for an hour or more. You'd think that adding some sort of outside component past security would be a no-brainer especially with the mentality post-covid. Or maybe that's just me. Even a rooftop viewing deck would be a really cool addition.
That said, I know nothing about FAA regulations.. so all of that might be ridiculous.
That said, I know nothing about FAA regulations.. so all of that might be ridiculous.