urbanSTL

Just propose to change the name to you know who, and we'll get all the funding we need

Rick Prieto wrote: ↑

7:12 PM - Jul 31

Just propose to change the name to you know who, and we'll get all the funding we need

Yep, tough to argue against rick's comment.    

Kinda crazy, ENR reporting that UD DOT latest efforts will make Dulles into a $20 billion mega project.   Never really seeing Dulles being a hub on par of Atlanta, Dallas, or Houston but definitely see it as a play on hub status that will probably mean Charolete, Newark & other northeast airports taking a hit.  The winner being Virginia of course and the biggest loser must certainly be Baltimore is my thoughts..     

While at same time USDOT actions will delay Washington DC Union Station plans to move forward.   Even with a major rail bridge expansion across Potomac River started on that will significantly increase passenger rail capacity to the south and State of Virginia as well North Carolina keep expanding rail.   Frustrating as great opportunity for major southeast rail expansion now that VA and NC own the S-line & can easily build out capacity for higher speeds rail, 110-125 mph, into NC and onto Atlanta.

USDOT Expands Dulles Modernization Into $20B Megaproject | Engineering News-Record

The U.S. Dept. of Transportation on July 29 selected a proposal that would nearly triple the investment in the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority's modernization of Washington Dulles International Airport.

Announced during a White House event with President Donald Trump, Transportation Sec. Sean Duffy, MWAA officials and United executives, the proposal expands the roughly $7-billion modernization program outlined in MWAA's May 2025 master plan into a redevelopment effort valued at more than $20 billion. It includes more than 5 million sq ft of new or renovated terminal, concourse and passenger-processing facilities.

USDOT Scraps Approved Washington Union Station Expansion Plan | Engineering News-Record

The U.S. Dept. of Transportation announced July 24 that it is scrapping the federally approved $8.8-billion Washington Union Station expansion plan and directing $24 million toward developing a public-private partnership for the project that will replace it.

The announcement says Union Station Redevelopment Corp. (USRC) and Amtrak will use the $24 million to seek private-sector ideas to expand station capacity, improve the passenger experience and accelerate delivery through a public-private partnership. It provides no replacement design, capital cost, procurement schedule or construction timeline, and does not address the status of the Federal Railroad Administration's March 2024 Record of Decision approving the previous expansion.

Rick Prieto wrote:Just propose to change the name to you know who, and we'll get all the funding we need

USDOT posted that the project will be fully funded via MWAA / Airline fees. Seems to claim it won’t be a major federal grant.

Given the kinds of rebuilds we have seen in ORD, LGA, JFK, etc. this seems semi-realistic, especially if UA are viewing this as the new American super hub and it’s done over an extended period of time. IAD has always been designed to support a larger hub than EWR, more along the lines of Atlanta.

So how many billions do we get when we name our new terminal the Trump Middle America Gateway Airport?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Chanel 9 replayed a show this week called Flight Check on the history of local aviation that was really good. One of the stats they gave is that there are an estimated 300K jobs in St. Louis tied to aviation. 

Lufthansa loaded in their winter cuts and so far STL will keep its February flights for 2027

Frankfurt-Austin/Denver and Dulles-Munich appear to be the ones cut for February this year.

gary kreie wrote: ↑

11:35 PM - Jul 31

So how many billions do we get when we name our new terminal the Trump Middle America Gateway Airport?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This was my idea as well for the Green Line too. And in true St. Louis fashion we just end up using the old name forever.

gary kreie wrote: ↑

11:35 PM - Jul 31

So how many billions do we get when we name our new terminal the Trump Middle America Gateway Airport?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Sorry up front on my efforts to keep derailing thread and no qualms when my irrelevant posts get deleted but as reported by the economists.   This has gone internationally 

Morocco’s king said he named a major new highway that crosses into the disputed territory of Western Sahara after Mr Trump as a sign of “deep appreciation” for America’s president. King Mohammed VI hailed Mr Trump’s “historic recognition” of Morocco’s claim to the territory, which the president gave during his first term in office. Morocco has long disputed rule of the region with an Algerian-backed independence movement.

Got back from Europe last night.  Flew out Lufthansa (it was reported as delayed waiting for connecting passengers), flew back British Airways.  Enjoyed both flights and having a direct connection is BY FAR better than racing for connections in Chicago and Charlotte when I went last.   Only thing I would suggest improvements on (which may be for the new terminal) would be access to customs (1 elevator and stairs, it seems) and better staffing levels of agents.  But, I do understand we might have been the only international flight.  I also enjoyed the 787 over the Airbus.  It may have offered more seating categories.  My BA flight was 3, 3, and 3 seats per row, while Lufthansa was 3, 4 and 3.  I did pay more for the BA flight.  Both were better than my AA flight back in 2019.

Loved the tinting windows (no pull down window visors).  BA also seemed to have more flight attendants working.  Overall loved the experience for St. Louis!

^ It will interesting to see how the designs come out with a single security entrance  and how it all relates/incorporates international flights.   Assume you would have your international gates front and center as you pass through TSA and enter into the gate area.   Some double level action for incoming international arrival going to nearby customs/immigration area either above or below the domestic security.  

The only downside is not sure if you limit yourself on future additions but assume you could build in some excess capacity nor sure how the respective airlines, especially Southwest, would want it to play out as well.    

MikeKinSTL wrote: ↑

9:45 PM - 7 days ago

Got back from Europe last night.  Flew out Lufthansa (it was reported as delayed waiting for connecting passengers), flew back British Airways.  Enjoyed both flights and having a direct connection is BY FAR better than racing for connections in Chicago and Charlotte when I went last.   Only thing I would suggest improvements on (which may be for the new terminal) would be access to customs (1 elevator and stairs, it seems) and better staffing levels of agents.  But, I do understand we might have been the only international flight.  I also enjoyed the 787 over the Airbus.  It may have offered more seating categories.  My BA flight was 3, 3, and 3 seats per row, while Lufthansa was 3, 4 and 3.  I did pay more for the BA flight.  Both were better than my AA flight back in 2019.

Loved the tinting windows (no pull down window visors).  BA also seemed to have more flight attendants working.  Overall loved the experience for St. Louis!

Lufthansa should have been 2 4 2. That said it’s definitely an old plane. It should be a better interior whenever they switch to the 787. The A330s are on their way out so they haven’t been updated in awhile.

Glad you had a good experience!

jshank83 wrote: ↑

10:11 PM - 7 days ago

MikeKinSTL wrote: ↑

9:45 PM - 7 days ago

Got back from Europe last night.  Flew out Lufthansa (it was reported as delayed waiting for connecting passengers), flew back British Airways.  Enjoyed both flights and having a direct connection is BY FAR better than racing for connections in Chicago and Charlotte when I went last.   Only thing I would suggest improvements on (which may be for the new terminal) would be access to customs (1 elevator and stairs, it seems) and better staffing levels of agents.  But, I do understand we might have been the only international flight.  I also enjoyed the 787 over the Airbus.  It may have offered more seating categories.  My BA flight was 3, 3, and 3 seats per row, while Lufthansa was 3, 4 and 3.  I did pay more for the BA flight.  Both were better than my AA flight back in 2019.

Loved the tinting windows (no pull down window visors).  BA also seemed to have more flight attendants working.  Overall loved the experience for St. Louis!

Lufthansa should have been 2 4 2. That said it’s definitely an old plane. It should be a better interior whenever they switch to the 787. The A330s are on their way out so they haven’t been updated in awhile.

Glad you had a good experience!

I think you are correct.  It was 2-4-2.  

This Simple Flying article ("Southwest Airlines Launches 11 Massive New Routes") came up in my Google newsfeed and contains the following quote I was hoping someone here could expand on/push back on:

Three of the links involve AUS, and two are from Nashville International Airport (BNA). Back in 2019, before the pandemic started, BNA was only Southwest's 14th-busiest airport for flights, with 221 daily movements. In 2026, it ranks seventh, with 364 daily movements. BNA has become increasingly popular as a connecting airport, and it has progressively replaced Lambert St Louis International Airport (STL) for that role. Southwest's STL movements have reduced over the past seven years.

Is Southwest really phasing STL out as a connecting airport in favor of BNA? If so, is it weather-related?

I'm holding out hope that SW is just scaling back a bit as we move closer to terminal reconstruction. We will be able to see more clearly what they are thinking long term when we see how many gates SW ends up buying in the 30% design phase. 

GoHarvOrGoHome wrote: ↑

3:08 PM - 5 days ago

I'm holding out hope that SW is just scaling back a bit as we move closer to terminal reconstruction. We will be able to see more clearly what they are thinking long term when we see how many gates SW ends up buying in the 30% design phase. 

I have wondered if that is a factor along with the issue of delayed plane deliveries. The new terminal due to design will be better suited for connections too since current layout may be a detriment.

Also another thing to watch is any changes at their MDW ops, in part due to the UA and AA fight at ORD having potential impacts.

stldotage wrote: ↑

2:57 PM - 5 days ago

This Simple Flying article ("Southwest Airlines Launches 11 Massive New Routes") came up in my Google newsfeed and contains the following quote I was hoping someone here could expand on/push back on:

Three of the links involve AUS, and two are from Nashville International Airport (BNA). Back in 2019, before the pandemic started, BNA was only Southwest's 14th-busiest airport for flights, with 221 daily movements. In 2026, it ranks seventh, with 364 daily movements. BNA has become increasingly popular as a connecting airport, and it has progressively replaced Lambert St Louis International Airport (STL) for that role. Southwest's STL movements have reduced over the past seven years.

Is Southwest really phasing STL out as a connecting airport in favor of BNA? If so, is it weather-related?

Nashville passed us a long time ago, they are close to double our size for Southwest now. They chopped Atlanta by 2/3s and moved it all to Nashville a few years ago. I think Nashville could end up being their 2nd biggest station behind Denver when they are fully done there. Vegas may stay bigger than them but those are the only two I think do. 

jshank83 wrote: ↑

5:17 AM - 4 days ago

stldotage wrote: ↑

2:57 PM - 5 days ago

This Simple Flying article ("Southwest Airlines Launches 11 Massive New Routes") came up in my Google newsfeed and contains the following quote I was hoping someone here could expand on/push back on:

Three of the links involve AUS, and two are from Nashville International Airport (BNA). Back in 2019, before the pandemic started, BNA was only Southwest's 14th-busiest airport for flights, with 221 daily movements. In 2026, it ranks seventh, with 364 daily movements. BNA has become increasingly popular as a connecting airport, and it has progressively replaced Lambert St Louis International Airport (STL) for that role. Southwest's STL movements have reduced over the past seven years.

Is Southwest really phasing STL out as a connecting airport in favor of BNA? If so, is it weather-related?

Nashville passed us a long time ago, they are close to double our size for Southwest now. They chopped Atlanta by 2/3s and moved it all to Nashville a few years ago. I think Nashville could end up being their 2nd biggest station behind Denver when they are fully done there. Vegas may stay bigger than them but those are the only two I think do. 

It's crazy how Nashville is the new corporate darling of the elites. If you would have told me 25 years ago Nashville would be the next "it" city, I would have laughed.

I asked ChatGPT to list Saint Louis fortune 500 and 1000 to Nashville fortune 500 and 1000.  Which city has the better business climate?

ChatGPT answer as follows:

If you're comparing the St. Louis metro with the Nashville metro as places to build or relocate a business, the answer depends on whether you value scale and corporate depth or growth and momentum.

Fortune 500 headquarters
St. Louis metro (2026)

• Centene
• Reinsurance Group of America
• Emerson Electric
• Edward Jones
• Graybar
• Ameren
• Post Holdings
• Core & Main

Total: 8 Fortune 500 headquarters

Nashville metro (2026)

• HCA Healthcare
• Dollar General
• Tractor Supply
• Community Health Systems
• Delek US Holdings

Total: 5 Fortune 500 headquarters

Fortune 1000 comparison
While the exact Fortune 1000 roster changes every year:

• St. Louis has roughly 23–25 Fortune 1000 and major private-company headquarters.
• Nashville has roughly 12 Fortune 1000 and major private-company headquarters.

Examples of additional large St. Louis companies include:

• Olin
• Peabody Energy
• Stifel Financial
• Energizer Holdings
• Caleres
• Belden

Nashville's large corporate base also includes privately held or non-Fortune companies such as:

• Asurion
• AllianceBernstein
• Bridgestone Americas
• Nissan North America
• Oracle (major campus)
• Amazon (major operations)

Category	St. Louis	Nashville
Fortune 500 HQs	8	5
Fortune 1000 + major private HQs	~23–25	~12
Corporate diversity	Excellent	Good
Recent HQ relocations	Moderate	Strong

Which has the better business climate?
It depends on what you mean by "business climate."
St. Louis has advantages in:

• Larger concentration of established corporate headquarters.
• Lower commercial real estate costs.
• Lower office rents and industrial costs.
• Deep engineering, aerospace, financial services, and healthcare talent.
• Major logistics hub on the Mississippi River with extensive rail and interstate access.

Nashville has advantages in:

• Faster population growth.
• Strong job creation.
• Tennessee has no state income tax on wages, which is attractive for recruiting executives and employees.
• High levels of corporate relocation activity over the past decade.
• Strong momentum in healthcare, technology, and professional services.

Overall assessment
If your metric is existing corporate headquarters and Fortune 1000 presence, St. Louis is clearly stronger. It has more Fortune 500 companies and roughly twice the number of large-company headquarters.
If your metric is growth trajectory and attracting new corporate investment, Nashville has had more momentum over the last 10–15 years, fueled by rapid population growth and Tennessee's tax environment.
A concise comparison:

• Corporate headquarters depth: St. Louis
• Fortune 500 count: St. Louis
• Business growth momentum: Nashville
• Tax friendliness: Nashville
• Affordability for commercial operations: St. Louis
• Talent in healthcare and engineering: St. Louis (slight edge)
• Population and employment growth: Nashville

jshank83 wrote: ↑

5:17 AM - 4 days ago

stldotage wrote: ↑

2:57 PM - 5 days ago

This Simple Flying article ("Southwest Airlines Launches 11 Massive New Routes") came up in my Google newsfeed and contains the following quote I was hoping someone here could expand on/push back on:

Three of the links involve AUS, and two are from Nashville International Airport (BNA). Back in 2019, before the pandemic started, BNA was only Southwest's 14th-busiest airport for flights, with 221 daily movements. In 2026, it ranks seventh, with 364 daily movements. BNA has become increasingly popular as a connecting airport, and it has progressively replaced Lambert St Louis International Airport (STL) for that role. Southwest's STL movements have reduced over the past seven years.

Is Southwest really phasing STL out as a connecting airport in favor of BNA? If so, is it weather-related?

Nashville passed us a long time ago, they are close to double our size for Southwest now. They chopped Atlanta by 2/3s and moved it all to Nashville a few years ago. I think Nashville could end up being their 2nd biggest station behind Denver when they are fully done there. Vegas may stay bigger than them but those are the only two I think do. 

I chalk some of it to the Show Me State mentality.   My simple mind thinks that Nashville and Southwest saw an opportunity when it became clear that Delta was not going to settle with Southwest having a significant presence at ATL.   Nashville been build/expanding/upgrading its Terminal while Lambert is still in a design and see what we can afford to pay mode.   In meantime, Southwest has been restructuring its physical and business plan to be more in line as a legacy carrier from premium/assigned seating to more hub & spoke vs point to point ops.   

My fear for STL is when it comes to significant increase in connecting traffic going through its new concourse/gates is that the plane has already taken off.   Hopefully wrong, but like i said, my simple mind thinks the new terminal is desperately needed either way but a golden opportunity might have passed by not having up and running about 5-10 years ago.   

dredger wrote:

jshank83 wrote: ↑

5:17 AM - 4 days ago

stldotage wrote: ↑

2:57 PM - 5 days ago

This Simple Flying article ("Southwest Airlines Launches 11 Massive New Routes") came up in my Google newsfeed and contains the following quote I was hoping someone here could expand on/push back on:



Is Southwest really phasing STL out as a connecting airport in favor of BNA? If so, is it weather-related?

Nashville passed us a long time ago, they are close to double our size for Southwest now. They chopped Atlanta by 2/3s and moved it all to Nashville a few years ago. I think Nashville could end up being their 2nd biggest station behind Denver when they are fully done there. Vegas may stay bigger than them but those are the only two I think do. 

I chalk some of it to the Show Me State mentality.   My simple mind thinks that Nashville and Southwest saw an opportunity when it became clear that Delta was not going to settle with Southwest having a significant presence at ATL.   Nashville been build/expanding/upgrading its Terminal while Lambert is still in a design and see what we can afford to pay mode.   In meantime, Southwest has been restructuring its physical and business plan to be more in line as a legacy carrier from premium/assigned seating to more hub & spoke vs point to point ops.   

My fear for STL is when it comes to significant increase in connecting traffic going through its new concourse/gates is that the plane has already taken off.   Hopefully wrong, but like i said, my simple mind thinks the new terminal is desperately needed either way but a golden opportunity might have passed by not having up and running about 5-10 years ago.   

WN and DL were driving BNA expansion earlier than pushes for it were started at STL. Not sure STL itself could have done anything about that. BNA went through its own process of design and revision but the airlines pushed for the redevelopment project many years earlier and so we are now starting to see the results.

IMHO: WN’s rise at STL was based on the ready availability of cheap gates more than anything else. Continued growth was always going to be put into question once they had to pay full freight for their gates.

ldai_phs wrote: ↑

7:34 PM - 3 days ago

IMHO: WN’s rise at STL was based on the ready availability of cheap gates more than anything else. Continued growth was always going to be put into question once they had to pay full freight for their gates.

Which is why costs will play a big part in their future here, and I assume there is as much talk about them as there is. Right now they make a bunch of money here. If costs don't get out of control I am under the impression Southwest plans to grow here, if they get out of control then not so much. If the costs end up in a place the like I think they could put some of those growth plans in place before the new terminal.
I also am guessing that is why you hear about them wanting to move in first now. If they like the final cost, they don't want to waste time in the current setup. They want a better connections experience sooner than later. If they don't like the costs then I figure they won't be in a rush. Longer time with lower fees and they aren't as worried about growing. 

MSP is paying $263 million to add two gates (plus some restrooms and concessions) to terminal 2, the low cost terminal (Sun Country, Southwest, Frontier, Icelandair). 168k sq ft.
Another data point for "how much will this cost." T2 at MSP is a very no-frills but decent space. I'd expect something similar for the STL concourse area, except with gates on both sides.
Still, $130 mil per gate for a small expansion of an existing terminal is extraordinary. *And* construction (and pricing) started two years ago.

https://metroairports.org/terminal-2-north-expansion

President Donald Trump has unveiled a massive $22.5 billion master plan to completely modernize Washington Dulles International Airport.
Originally designed in 1958 by the renowned Finnish-American architect Eero Saarinen, the ambitious architectural overhaul preserves Saarinen’s iconic landmark main terminal while expanding square footage and introducing a new U-shaped transit system to replace the airport's legacy mobile lounges.
The project aims to dramatically enhance passenger capacity, walkability, and terminal efficiency, with officials projecting that construction could potentially begin as early as the spring of 2027.
https://imgur.com/a/gMhh0kh

He hasn't said where the $22 billion will come from, though. I don't think he's just going to give them all the funds in a grant. An article I read said that, if the airport and United were to finance it through bonds, the CPE (cost per enplanement, the portion of the airline ticket price that goes towards airport infrastructure) could jump from less than $26 to more than $90 per ticket. Have fun trying to get people to fly through your Dulles hub when every connecting passenger pays $180 for the privilege.