The old ones that got torn downjshank83 wrote:How is MCI unusable?ldai_phs wrote: ↑5:27 PM - Oct 29MCI has a nearly unusable terminal.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.
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.
It depends airport to airport but will be either a majority of landed weight or a majority of passengers in most cases.jshank83 wrote:Technically I think it is a majority of airlines have to agree so in theory all the other airlines could overrule Southwest. But since Southwest I negotiating on all the airlines behalf, that won’t happensymphonicpoet wrote: ↑5:01 PM - Oct 29Does 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.
TBH. I think we are all getting ahead if the
horse here.
The largest issue that we are facing at St Louis International is the infrastructure around the concourses in terminals themselves. Just like homes they need to be upgraded. Overall the concourses look fine inside and the airport has done an amazing job to make them look nice. They're functional. However, the infrastructure itself needs to be upgraded. When you have tens of millions of people passing through your buildings every year that is a lot of wear and tear on everything from sewer, water, electrical, you name it. Not to mention what the structural base of those buildings go through on a daily basis. Technically every one of those concourses is a moving entity within itself. So it comes down to the fact that, like Rhonda says, the airport is functional it's just deteriorating. It has run its course. So this airport is costing us more money to operate than a newer state-of-the-art infrastructure. That is the most important thing that we need to address. Terminal 2 is already almost 30 years old. That terminal also in the last 26 years has been the biggest Workhorse in the network.
Southwest Airlines hubbed St Louis primarily when American Airlines left the holes for St Louis travelers. The one thing that St Louis has over any other Midwest/ Mid-South / MidAmerica airports is the local catchment. St Louis is the largest metropolitan area by far besides Chicago. Nashville is working for southwest east west connections, however, Southwest is still running North and South from Chicago and Texas through St louis. In order for them to continue to do that, they need more gates but they also need a better terminal that's more functional to get connection Travelers to their next flight faster than having to walk the distances they are ready do in St louis. This will greatly improve their connection travel and timing. Terminal 2 has expanded too far and too long of a walk even with the speed ramps. Southwest is a different beast, their turn and go operation in connection flights needs quick and easy connection times. Terminal 2 being one sided can only allow so many flights connecting in one area. Nashville's new airport allows that. However, they're having issues in Midway Chicago and denver. This is one of the reasons that, I believe, that St Louis International needs to give Southwest what they want or what they really need to put it that way. Southwest knows that they have local catchment in St Louis not just with connections and that alone is important to them. It is also important for St Louis and our Airport to focus on their Hub operations here
I truly believe with the plan of moving Airlines already and tearing down Concourse a etc next year and that already in moving order, the ball has started..
I also believe that our airport Commission knows that we have to continue running straight ahead with the airport plan. I am confident in the fact that we are using local HOK for the airport planning. If there is any company that can pull off creating a first class state-of-the-art Airport in budget they can! Not to mention that this is their home world headquarters where their operations are flying in and out of. HOK does not do things halfway. They are fully invested on getting this Airport completed and done correctly. Will that mean they need to correct things for budgeting, we'll see. But again I have complete 100% confidence in them and I am very happy that they are the ones that were chosen and that is not going to change. I am confident are Civic leaders as well as our airport Commission and the Port Authority will get this done. The demolition is going to start next year regardless.
When Concourse A is torn down and the airlines are moved into the renovated Concourse D by next fall, Terminal 1 is going to feel very different, in a good way. I do remember that Rhonda said that Southwest Airlines may start using some of T1 baggage claim for the gates in D. If I remember correctly, flights that will be coming in on Southwest in Gates 29 and above will possibly be using the Far East baggage claims in T1. All departures will still be processed out of Terminal 2. This at least will help with some of the congestion and traffic in T2 until the new terminal can be done.
horse here.
The largest issue that we are facing at St Louis International is the infrastructure around the concourses in terminals themselves. Just like homes they need to be upgraded. Overall the concourses look fine inside and the airport has done an amazing job to make them look nice. They're functional. However, the infrastructure itself needs to be upgraded. When you have tens of millions of people passing through your buildings every year that is a lot of wear and tear on everything from sewer, water, electrical, you name it. Not to mention what the structural base of those buildings go through on a daily basis. Technically every one of those concourses is a moving entity within itself. So it comes down to the fact that, like Rhonda says, the airport is functional it's just deteriorating. It has run its course. So this airport is costing us more money to operate than a newer state-of-the-art infrastructure. That is the most important thing that we need to address. Terminal 2 is already almost 30 years old. That terminal also in the last 26 years has been the biggest Workhorse in the network.
Southwest Airlines hubbed St Louis primarily when American Airlines left the holes for St Louis travelers. The one thing that St Louis has over any other Midwest/ Mid-South / MidAmerica airports is the local catchment. St Louis is the largest metropolitan area by far besides Chicago. Nashville is working for southwest east west connections, however, Southwest is still running North and South from Chicago and Texas through St louis. In order for them to continue to do that, they need more gates but they also need a better terminal that's more functional to get connection Travelers to their next flight faster than having to walk the distances they are ready do in St louis. This will greatly improve their connection travel and timing. Terminal 2 has expanded too far and too long of a walk even with the speed ramps. Southwest is a different beast, their turn and go operation in connection flights needs quick and easy connection times. Terminal 2 being one sided can only allow so many flights connecting in one area. Nashville's new airport allows that. However, they're having issues in Midway Chicago and denver. This is one of the reasons that, I believe, that St Louis International needs to give Southwest what they want or what they really need to put it that way. Southwest knows that they have local catchment in St Louis not just with connections and that alone is important to them. It is also important for St Louis and our Airport to focus on their Hub operations here
I truly believe with the plan of moving Airlines already and tearing down Concourse a etc next year and that already in moving order, the ball has started..
I also believe that our airport Commission knows that we have to continue running straight ahead with the airport plan. I am confident in the fact that we are using local HOK for the airport planning. If there is any company that can pull off creating a first class state-of-the-art Airport in budget they can! Not to mention that this is their home world headquarters where their operations are flying in and out of. HOK does not do things halfway. They are fully invested on getting this Airport completed and done correctly. Will that mean they need to correct things for budgeting, we'll see. But again I have complete 100% confidence in them and I am very happy that they are the ones that were chosen and that is not going to change. I am confident are Civic leaders as well as our airport Commission and the Port Authority will get this done. The demolition is going to start next year regardless.
When Concourse A is torn down and the airlines are moved into the renovated Concourse D by next fall, Terminal 1 is going to feel very different, in a good way. I do remember that Rhonda said that Southwest Airlines may start using some of T1 baggage claim for the gates in D. If I remember correctly, flights that will be coming in on Southwest in Gates 29 and above will possibly be using the Far East baggage claims in T1. All departures will still be processed out of Terminal 2. This at least will help with some of the congestion and traffic in T2 until the new terminal can be done.
I don't think in our case they could unilaterally decide on their own, which would have been the case if that is what they go by. I thought it was majority of airlines. But I would have to go back and find it. I could be wrong.ldai_phs wrote: ↑11:49 PM - Oct 29It depends airport to airport but will be either a majority of landed weight or a majority of passengers in most cases.jshank83 wrote:Technically I think it is a majority of airlines have to agree so in theory all the other airlines could overrule Southwest. But since Southwest I negotiating on all the airlines behalf, that won’t happensymphonicpoet wrote: ↑5:01 PM - Oct 29Does 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.
Around 2000 we approved runway W-1W with a cost of $1.1Billion. According to the I terse a that’s more that $2Billion in today’s dollars. I know funding sources were likely different but I have to believe if we can round up $2Billion for a runway certainly we can source multiples of that for a new terminal.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I am happy HoK is doing it but there is only so much they can do with the budget they are being given. There is a reason we haven't seen renderings yet and we were suppose to in March. It was way way over budget and the airlines aren't budging off the original number so HoK is having to go do a redesign. Southwest has a CPE target they want here to grow and the first design would have pushed it way above that number. So unless the city/region finds a way to add money to the pot we will end up with a scaled back version. I doubt they throw Rams money into it so I unless modern skies passes I don't know what else they can tap to help pay for it. Maybe they can get some local companies to buy in or sell sponsorships or something.matguy70 wrote: ↑11:58 PM - Oct 29TBH. I think we are all getting ahead if the
horse here.
The largest issue that we are facing at St Louis International is the infrastructure around the concourses in terminals themselves. Just like homes they need to be upgraded. Overall the concourses look fine inside and the airport has done an amazing job to make them look nice. They're functional. However, the infrastructure itself needs to be upgraded. When you have tens of millions of people passing through your buildings every year that is a lot of wear and tear on everything from sewer, water, electrical, you name it. Not to mention what the structural base of those buildings go through on a daily basis. Technically every one of those concourses is a moving entity within itself. So it comes down to the fact that, like Rhonda says, the airport is functional it's just deteriorating. It has run its course. So this airport is costing us more money to operate than a newer state-of-the-art infrastructure. That is the most important thing that we need to address. Terminal 2 is already almost 30 years old. That terminal also in the last 26 years has been the biggest Workhorse in the network.
Southwest Airlines hubbed St Louis primarily when American Airlines left the holes for St Louis travelers. The one thing that St Louis has over any other Midwest/ Mid-South / MidAmerica airports is the local catchment. St Louis is the largest metropolitan area by far besides Chicago. Nashville is working for southwest east west connections, however, Southwest is still running North and South from Chicago and Texas through St louis. In order for them to continue to do that, they need more gates but they also need a better terminal that's more functional to get connection Travelers to their next flight faster than having to walk the distances they are ready do in St louis. This will greatly improve their connection travel and timing. Terminal 2 has expanded too far and too long of a walk even with the speed ramps. Southwest is a different beast, their turn and go operation in connection flights needs quick and easy connection times. Terminal 2 being one sided can only allow so many flights connecting in one area. Nashville's new airport allows that. However, they're having issues in Midway Chicago and denver. This is one of the reasons that, I believe, that St Louis International needs to give Southwest what they want or what they really need to put it that way. Southwest knows that they have local catchment in St Louis not just with connections and that alone is important to them. It is also important for St Louis and our Airport to focus on their Hub operations here
I truly believe with the plan of moving Airlines already and tearing down Concourse a etc next year and that already in moving order, the ball has started..
I also believe that our airport Commission knows that we have to continue running straight ahead with the airport plan. I am confident in the fact that we are using local HOK for the airport planning. If there is any company that can pull off creating a first class state-of-the-art Airport in budget they can! Not to mention that this is their home world headquarters where their operations are flying in and out of. HOK does not do things halfway. They are fully invested on getting this Airport completed and done correctly. Will that mean they need to correct things for budgeting, we'll see. But again I have complete 100% confidence in them and I am very happy that they are the ones that were chosen and that is not going to change. I am confident are Civic leaders as well as our airport Commission and the Port Authority will get this done. The demolition is going to start next year regardless.
When Concourse A is torn down and the airlines are moved into the renovated Concourse D by next fall, Terminal 1 is going to feel very different, in a good way. I do remember that Rhonda said that Southwest Airlines may start using some of T1 baggage claim for the gates in D. If I remember correctly, flights that will be coming in on Southwest in Gates 29 and above will possibly be using the Far East baggage claims in T1. All departures will still be processed out of Terminal 2. This at least will help with some of the congestion and traffic in T2 until the new terminal can be done.
Southwest is not going to split up their baggage. That would be a logistical nightmare for passengers and for Southwest routing bags. Southwest just spent a decent chunk of money to upgrade the baggage system in T2 to help speed things up.
I 100% agree with your comments on the current concourses are past their useful life and need replaced. I think A/B/C have to be gone no matter what. D should be but maybe they can find a way to ducttape it together awhile longer.
My biggest frustration with the airport is the last decade has had so many things that have just stagnated things which kept it from being what it could be. Privatization put a huge hold on getting anything done. Southwest was going to add onto T2 and that was put on hold for that. Then they again were going to do it and covid came and put it on hold again. And now it is scrapped because of the new terminal, which itself is dragging its feet. If it just got fixed a back in 2018ish we would be in better shape. I also think Southwest would be much bigger here if we hadn't had all these things happen that stalled things. Frustrating
I think you might be getting confused with the Executive Steering Committee which requires all decisions to pass a majority of members. That is made up of a number of airport staff and 2 3rd party consultants the airlines hire.jshank83 wrote:I don't think in our case they could unilaterally decide on their own, which would have been the case if that is what they go by. I thought it was majority of airlines. But I would have to go back and find it. I could be wrong.ldai_phs wrote: ↑11:49 PM - Oct 29It depends airport to airport but will be either a majority of landed weight or a majority of passengers in most cases.jshank83 wrote: Technically I think it is a majority of airlines have to agree so in theory all the other airlines could overrule Southwest. But since Southwest I negotiating on all the airlines behalf, that won’t happen
Majority Interest at STL is a block of signatory airlines that represents both:
1. 50% + 1 in the # of airlines operating at the airport
2. 66.7% or more of total rents and fees
So I guess we both were a bit correct.
^I suppose I'm confused about how we ended up in this situation where we need the tenants approval to do anything. I can't imagine any other industry where that's the case. If it was owned by a group of the tenants, like a typical union station arrangement it would make more sense, but it's a city owned asset. I'll trust that it's true and it's not just AI slop reporting (which is what at least one video appeared to be) since JShank knows his stuff, as do several other people on here.
And yes, the infrastructure is the issue. The foundations of A, B, and the first half of C date to the fifties, and I expect at least some of the utilities under them are nearly that old. It really does need to be replaced. But if Southwest won't sign off on it I'm not sure we can do anything at all. I'm a bit frustrated as I feel they're holding us hostage. I still don't see how this can practically happen without using the headhouse more or less as intended unless you demolish it and build fresh, but I for one would be decisively and loudly opposed to that.
And yes, the infrastructure is the issue. The foundations of A, B, and the first half of C date to the fifties, and I expect at least some of the utilities under them are nearly that old. It really does need to be replaced. But if Southwest won't sign off on it I'm not sure we can do anything at all. I'm a bit frustrated as I feel they're holding us hostage. I still don't see how this can practically happen without using the headhouse more or less as intended unless you demolish it and build fresh, but I for one would be decisively and loudly opposed to that.
The plan has always been long term bondsTrololzilla wrote:Are longer term bonds an option to keep the CPE down?
Allowing the airlines some say is the American standard for airport use and lease agreements and serves as a balance against cities wanting to build Cadillac facilities that are not economically viable (which in some sense is the case here).symphonicpoet wrote:^I suppose I'm confused about how we ended up in this situation where we need the tenants approval to do anything. I can't imagine any other industry where that's the case. If it was owned by a group of the tenants, like a typical union station arrangement it would make more sense, but it's a city owned asset. I'll trust that it's true and it's not just AI slop reporting (which is what at least one video appeared to be) since JShank knows his stuff, as do several other people on here.
And yes, the infrastructure is the issue. The foundations of A, B, and the first half of C date to the fifties, and I expect at least some of the utilities under them are nearly that old. It really does need to be replaced. But if Southwest won't sign off on it I'm not sure we can do anything at all. I'm a bit frustrated as I feel they're holding us hostage. I still don't see how this can practically happen without using the headhouse more or less as intended unless you demolish it and build fresh, but I for one would be decisively and loudly opposed to that.
The airlines are paying for the project and there is not a City guarantee on the debt. So if you didn’t let the tenants vote and built a Cadillac terminal, the airlines would very likely just reduce service or move to cheaper BLV.
The whole budget issues thing is very common. Recently opened KC and Pittsburgh went through their own major redesigns. You start with a general concept plan, the architects draw up something real nice, you price it, and then the airlines pull back dramatically causing multiple redesigns and value engineering exercises.
STL is just a little unique because it has a connecting traffic business that’s based on having nearly free terminal space available as well as a very expensive multi phased construction process. Wanting to save the domes does not help…
This is a good summary. It has to be a partnership and you need the airlines happy. Otherwise they will start cutting back flights which then makes fees go up even more, like they did when AA left. Then Southwest decides it will move connecting traffic to an airport that is cheaper per person. Then the nonstops get cut back because we don’t have the connectors to support them. Lufthansa and British might decide the extra fees make their flights unprofitable (or less profitable) and leave.ldai_phs wrote: ↑12:31 PM - Oct 30Allowing the airlines some say is the American standard for airport use and lease agreements and serves as a balance against cities wanting to build Cadillac facilities that are not economically viable (which in some sense is the case here).symphonicpoet wrote:^I suppose I'm confused about how we ended up in this situation where we need the tenants approval to do anything. I can't imagine any other industry where that's the case. If it was owned by a group of the tenants, like a typical union station arrangement it would make more sense, but it's a city owned asset. I'll trust that it's true and it's not just AI slop reporting (which is what at least one video appeared to be) since JShank knows his stuff, as do several other people on here.
And yes, the infrastructure is the issue. The foundations of A, B, and the first half of C date to the fifties, and I expect at least some of the utilities under them are nearly that old. It really does need to be replaced. But if Southwest won't sign off on it I'm not sure we can do anything at all. I'm a bit frustrated as I feel they're holding us hostage. I still don't see how this can practically happen without using the headhouse more or less as intended unless you demolish it and build fresh, but I for one would be decisively and loudly opposed to that.
The airlines are paying for the project and there is not a City guarantee on the debt. So if you didn’t let the tenants vote and built a Cadillac terminal, the airlines would very likely just reduce service or move to cheaper BLV.
The whole budget issues thing is very common. Recently opened KC and Pittsburgh went through their own major redesigns. You start with a general concept plan, the architects draw up something real nice, you price it, and then the airlines pull back dramatically causing multiple redesigns and value engineering exercises.
STL is just a little unique because it has a connecting traffic business that’s based on having nearly free terminal space available as well as a very expensive multi phased construction process. Wanting to save the domes does not help…
September are out. Not as bad as August at least. At least some slack from Southwest picked up by other carriers.
Passengers Down 5.7% vs Sept 2026
Down 3.6% YTD
Cargo up 28.5%... nice jump there
Passengers Down 5.7% vs Sept 2026
Down 3.6% YTD
Cargo up 28.5%... nice jump there
St. Louis Airport Just Got A $3 BILLION Upgrade And It's Totally Insane!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhYsPOLfR2g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhYsPOLfR2g
I just skipped thru it, I like how part of it is showing the midamerica director when talking about the Lambert reno. seems like this had heavy AI involved and they didn't really know what is going onBarryGlick wrote: ↑8:30 PM - Oct 31St. Louis Airport Just Got A $3 BILLION Upgrade And It's Totally Insane!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhYsPOLfR2g
^The amount of AI slopping up YouTube and every bother bit of social media now is nuts. I'm to the point that I just don't watch anything on YouTube anymore unless it's from a channel I subscribed to years ago. (Nebula sounds better all the time.)
I know that, but I mean having bonds with a longer than normal maturation.ldai_phs wrote: ↑12:24 PM - Oct 30The plan has always been long term bondsTrololzilla wrote:Are longer term bonds an option to keep the CPE down?
I’d think at some point the amount you pay in interest by stretching it out is basically lighting money on fire. Not sure what that point is though.
Sorry, I have heard people around town say things along the lines of "How can STL pay $3 billion for a new airport terminal when our city budget isn't that big?" As if it would be paid in cash upfront.
Airports are financed with revenue bonds. Generally the maturity is capped by the lifetime of the asset.
Alaska is cutting their route to Portland. Have to guess fuel prices are a big reason
It’s updated. When I discovered this site, we didn’t have have one Trans-Atlantic flight.
^It's a pleasant map to see. Not quite the old days, but very nice. Getting closer all the time.
Ok, we are in the home stretch for this bill, it will huge for Lambert if it becomes law.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/11/11/congress/duffy-white-house-30b-atc-01161474
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/11/11/congress/duffy-white-house-30b-atc-01161474
Home stretch in what sense? GOP is concerned not enough law makers are showing up to work to pass their most critical lame duck legislation and the incoming D committee chair isn’t supportive of the bill.courtland wrote:Ok, we are in the home stretch for this bill, it will huge for Lambert if it becomes law.
https://www.politico.com/live-updates/2026/11/11/congress/duffy-white-house-30b-atc-01161474