urbanSTL

symphonicpoet wrote: ↑

4:38 AM - 1 day ago

^Honestly, if all they do is restore and reopen the rest of C and D and mothball A I'd count that a win. Leave the linear single concourse concept for later. It will probably be more expensive in the long run, since nothing will get done until it's truly needed, meaning there will be less space to paly with, but I still feel moving into C would solve a lot of Southwest's problems, and reopening D and closing the A security checkpoint gets most of the desired savings. And if A and B remain vacant, if mothballed, that still means you can do a phased project later.

If open skies fails... I am not really sure what I want. I think it would be to build as much of the original plan as you can for what you have money for and leave open whatever current concourses you need to to get by. By original plan I mean the plan no one saw that was to 30% this spring and got rejected by the airlines for being to expensive. Then build out the rest as you can afford to. Far from the ideal situation but I think they need to build some kind of terminal, and it not be half ass, to get the ball rolling. T2 is still in decent shape so keeping it around isn't the worst thing. I'd have to hear a firm number on how many gate they can afford before I really have a full opinion. I think you need to find a way to get Southwest a better setup and International arrivals/departures a better setup. The rest of the airlines it isn't as big a deal. So if that means you only build 25-30 gates, then that is what you do, but do it well. 

A key objective was consolidating the support services (ticketing, security, food) to a single entry/terminal to both reduce operational cost and increase vendor revenue. I think no matter what that consolidation has to happen and the entrance has to incorporate the domes. 

Shorter linear terminal where A/B/C are now. Remodeled D. Extend linear terminal and close D gradually. My current projection.

addxb2 wrote: ↑

5:23 AM - 1 day ago

. I think no matter what the entrance has to incorporate the domes. 

The cost of incorporating the domes into a new terminal vs building from scratch are astronomical. So people also need to be prepared for this part of the plan to also change. Not saying they get demolished or anything but I think they will end up being used for something else, maybe event space, now that costs are way over. 

^I think moving away from the domes is a non-starter.

$47 billion to go kill people for no reason and $100+ billion for a completely unnecessary defense contract to line the pockets of Boeing shareholders but no money to actually meaningfully improve our basic infrastructure.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

If they only build 30 to 35 gates in the new consolidated terminal design do we think Southwest would go into the new terminal along with international flights? And then the rest of the airlines would potentially go into Terminal 2 connected by current D terminal? 

I can't imagine Southwest wanting to stay in terminal 2. They have concerns with the capacity of the baggage system already so Southwest staying in Terminal 2 leaves some issues on the table that they really want resolved.

johnsouthstl wrote: ↑

6:29 AM - 1 day ago

If they only build 30 to 35 gates in the new consolidated terminal design do we think Southwest would go into the new terminal along with international flights? And then the rest of the airlines would potentially go into Terminal 2 connected by current D terminal? 

I can't imagine Southwest wanting to stay in terminal 2. They have concerns with the capacity of the baggage system already so Southwest staying in Terminal 2 leaves some issues on the table that they really want resolved.

If it’s 30-35 I think you can probably get by with D and don’t need T2. Either way I’d think, no background on this, Southwest has to be in the new terminal regardless. 

Again, the city/region got beyond creative to fund that riverfront NFL stadium but we can't get creative in financing here?

Almost makes me want to revisit privatization. 

^Exactly! If they are not able to do it right now, wait until the money is there. This is not an emergency. Do we need to rebuild the airport, for sure! Should it be done half-azzed, NO! I want it done right the first time, no regrets. This project is WAY too important to the region to screw it up. The 62 gate terminal needs to be built as first designed or even better, so wait if that is not possible right now. 

Unfortunately this is already the result of us waiting too long while prices ballooned. I'm pessimistic that prices won't continue to grow in the future

Funding airports is not the same as funding stadiums, although they should be more similar (stadiums should be funded by user fees). How they are funded is set in stone. This is the result of being a midwestern market, growing 1-2% annually, that is dependent on a historically cheap airline. Southwest calls the shots and Southwest does not see the point in STL having the premier Dubai airport some are envisioning. That does not mean the region should get stupid with debt to make an airline and ourselves happy. We’ve already done that.

addxb2 wrote:Funding airports is not the same as funding stadiums, although they should be more similar (stadiums should be funded by user fees). How they are funded is set in stone. This is the result of being a midwestern market, growing 1-2% annually, that is dependent on a historically cheap airline. Southwest calls the shots and Southwest does not see the point in STL having the premier Dubai airport some are envisioning. That does not mean the region should get stupid with debt to make an airline and ourselves happy. We’ve already done that.

I think a blessing and a curse is that Southwest grew St Louis into a “hub” but it was all based on cheap existing gates that were “good enough” for their use.

Now that those cheap facilities are getting old and costly to maintain and inefficient to operate, STL is in a very hard position. BNA becomes a very very attractive alternate if you are paying full freight for the gates either way. What could have been and still could be a saving grace for STL is Southwest’s transition to an international airline. MDW and DAL can’t support wide bodies and Nashville I presume can’t be their only mid-continent international hub.

The airport can use other revenues, like land sales. Anyone know of an industry which pays 200-400% land value and is willing to pay community benefit agreements without incentives? An industry that is comfortable next to loud aviation industry?

hmmmmmmm

addxb2 wrote: ↑

3:10 PM - 1 day ago

Funding airports is not the same as funding stadiums, although they should be more similar (stadiums should be funded by user fees). How they are funded is set in stone. This is the result of being a midwestern market, growing 1-2% annually, that is dependent on a historically cheap airline. Southwest calls the shots and Southwest does not see the point in STL having the premier Dubai airport some are envisioning. That does not mean the region should get stupid with debt to make an airline and ourselves happy. We’ve already done that.

Your oblique mention of the W-1W  fiasco is fair.  Agree there!

Not asking for something irresponsible here just that, like downtowns, local airports are how people experience/imagine places.  Having a highly functional and attractive airport will absolutely improve STL's vibes nationally. So, I think we should look deeply look at how to get that done.  

At the same time, I think a subpar new terminal that SWA doesn't like all-but seals SWA going all-in on Nashville to the detriment of STL.  With such low growth here, I almost feel like the terminal redo is our last shot at maintaining airline relevance that keeps us in the tier 2 (non-hub) category.  (I just made up the tiers...lol...you all know what I mean.  Tier 2 are airpots like Cinci and Pit.  Smaller places that still have real international flights and good flight selection to other US places. KC, CLE? Tier 3)  

I don't see to much talk on here about our own Senator Schmitt proposal, "Modern Skies Act".  If this act passes, it could provide the funding Lambert needs. 

https://www.schmitt.senate.gov/media/press-releases/schmitt-introduces-modern-skies-act-to-invest-in-americas-airports-support-air-traffic-control/

Does the airport genuinely need Southwest's sign-off to make this happen? They're a tenant, not an owner. Where can tenants dictate to owners about how a thing with a property should be done?

If the airport attempts to build a terminal that doesn't use the domes, it would require either demolition, which I think nearly all of us would fight tooth and nail to the point that it would be (hopefully) completely impossible, or relocation. So the question becomes where you would even put a new terminal, and the only site I can think even makes a lick of sense is off Navaid where the vehicle maintenance is now. Highway access won't be quite as good, as you'll need to use Lindbergh to get to it. It would make taxiing somewhat easier, I suppose. But it would require new utilities, new fuel lines, and a whale of a lot of new construction, and it absolutely wouldn't connect with what we've got, and using the existing terminals along with that would be quite a lot worse than what we have now, so there'd be no phased construction. It'd be all or nothing.

And at the end of the day, I just don't see that. I suspect it would be easier to expand Mid America by sixty gates and move everything over there than to build a new airport at Lambert that doesn't use the domes. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but I just don't think there's any way to build on the current site without incorporating the historic T1 headhouse into the plan. And I think the airports own plans demonstrated why years ago.

symphonicpoet wrote:Does the airport genuinely need Southwest's sign-off to make this happen? They're a tenant, not an owner. Where can tenants dictate to owners about how a thing with a property should be done?

If the airport attempts to build a terminal that doesn't use the domes, it would require either demolition, which I think nearly all of us would fight tooth and nail to the point that it would be (hopefully) completely impossible, or relocation. So the question becomes where you would even put a new terminal, and the only site I can think even makes a lick of sense is off Navaid where the vehicle maintenance is now. Highway access won't be quite as good, as you'll need to use Lindbergh to get to it. It would make taxiing somewhat easier, I suppose. But it would require new utilities, new fuel lines, and a whale of a lot of new construction, and it absolutely wouldn't connect with what we've got, and using the existing terminals along with that would be quite a lot worse than what we have now, so there'd be no phased construction. It'd be all or nothing.

And at the end of the day, I just don't see that. I suspect it would be easier to expand Mid America by sixty gates and move everything over there than to build a new airport at Lambert that doesn't use the domes. Maybe there's something I'm missing, but I just don't think there's any way to build on the current site without incorporating the historic T1 headhouse into the plan. And I think the airports own plans demonstrated why years ago.

You need a majority or super majority of landed weight to approve the deal.

MANY other cities have invested in their airports.  In Missouri alone KCI, Columbia, Springfield and Joplin.  Now I realize these may be very different projects, but we currently have the busiest airport in the state.  Indy, New Orleans, La Guardia and several others.  This project needs to set us up for a successful future.  It is frustrating for me to hear otherwise.

STLCityMike wrote:MANY other cities have invested in their airports.  In Missouri alone KCI, Columbia, Springfield and Joplin.  Now I realize these may be very different projects, but we currently have the busiest airport in the state.  Indy, New Orleans, La Guardia and several others.  This project needs to set us up for a successful future.  It is frustrating for me to hear otherwise.

MCI has a nearly unusable terminal.

I think a hybrid renovation and new build project here really wouldn’t be so bad. Pittsburgh did one and it turned out well. Think Memphis did too.

courtland wrote:I don't see to much talk on here about our own Senator Schmitt proposal, "Modern Skies Act".  If this act passes, it could provide the funding Lambert needs. 

https://www.schmitt.senate.gov/media/press-releases/schmitt-introduces-modern-skies-act-to-invest-in-americas-airports-support-air-traffic-control/

There has been significant discussion about it on here.

Sent from my SM-S936U using Tapatalk

My current thoughts on Modern Skies. 

• Under 5% that it goes forward as written. It's too expensive for the right wing and an administration priority that will be rejected by the incoming congress.
• Under 5% that it doesn't go forward but Schmitt has enough political capital to get STL some money elsewhere in negotiations. He's made it a priority (so he says) and obviously has the administrations ear. 
• 50% chance it goes forward but with $10B for airports removed or reduced and the number of qualifying airports increased. The bills supporters really care about ATC improvements. They can cut this $30B in half and still get most of what they want. This article already suggest there is skepticism that the $10B in airports will survive. The industry and administration will know where to cut first in negotiations. 
• 40% congress does nothing with this bill and others because we'll be deep into Trump's martial law to prevent certifying of election.

ldai_phs wrote: ↑

5:27 PM - 1 day ago

STLCityMike wrote:MANY other cities have invested in their airports.  In Missouri alone KCI, Columbia, Springfield and Joplin.  Now I realize these may be very different projects, but we currently have the busiest airport in the state.  Indy, New Orleans, La Guardia and several others.  This project needs to set us up for a successful future.  It is frustrating for me to hear otherwise.

MCI has a nearly unusable terminal.

I think a hybrid renovation and new build project here really wouldn’t be so bad. Pittsburgh did one and it turned out well. Think Memphis did too.

How is MCI unusable?