STL Airport operation

[3WE]

While STL builds a third runway (SORT of increasing it's capacity by 50%), it experiences a traffic decline of 66%.

Of interest, is that the new runway is somewhat inconveineint taxi-wise being located totally west (and then some) of the terminals.

Adude777 is probably the only person that might comment on this, but it almost seems like they decided to start playing with the new runway. For about a year, it seemed like the airport was almost operating like it DIDN'T have a new runway- Oh I'm sure it did the rare landing on IMC days as it opened a little flexibility for simultneous ILS (albeit close-proximity simultaneious).

But more recently, they seem to be sending errant aircraft to land on 11- even on sunny days. I thought it might be MOSTLY A-terminal aircraft (where the taxi is not as bad), but I had an AA flight land on 11 one night. I think A-dude has even ridden a SW airline flight into 11- having to taxi an whole additional runway length to get to it's gate. Then, last Sunday, I saw them send an AA plane to 29....as it taxied out, there were about 4 departures off of 30L that turned North....I can't quite figure out why they didn't send some of those planes to 30R, although 30R is SORT OF the landing runway....I guess I can see the logic- keep 30R open for landings, and send your Southbound AA flight to 29, and it won't kill him, since he'd be number 4 behind all the other aircraft.....but still, it's a pretty short taxi from 30L to 30R, and there's sure gaps in the arrivals to sneak the northbound folks out and let the southbound AA use 30L....

I'm probably just over-thinking things- I guess it makes sense, but I also think they might just want to play with the new concrete.

It's funny- they just closed off a chunk gates claiming it would save money. I would think they might consider closing 11-20....I'm sure it costs more than my electric bill to keep the runway, two taxiways worth of blue lights, approach lights and a PAPI burning bring all night long...even on dim!

[ATrude777]

Hola here-

I have landed on the new runway back in April of 2007 from DAL on WN and it took us 11 minutes to taxi from that runway to the terminal, which I know WN could not have been happy about. It was absolutely sunny, so regardless of wind direction, I didn't see why we had to land on that.

I also have taken off on a Northwest Aircraft on the new runway too heading west, as we were flying to MSP, that was Feb of 09.

It does seem when 30 is used for take/off landing, 30R is landing, and 30L is take off, while for 12, 12L is take off and 12R is landing. Is 6/24 still open? I landed on 24 once coming from MDW on WN March of 05.

Without working in ATC I couldn't begin to say why or comment because I don't have the information in front of me to guess why a plane is assigned a certain runway. Runway, destination, who knows haha.

Alex

[Big777jet]

Alex,

STL has 4 runways. But you mention 12, 12L and 12R. It is actually 11, 12L and 12R.

You mentioned that "It does seem when 30 is used for take/off landing, 30R is landing, and 30L is take off, while for 12, 12L is take off and 12R is landing. Is 6/24 still open? I landed on 24 once coming from MDW on WN March of 05."

You mean that "It does seem when 29 is used for take/off landing, 30R is landing, and 30L is take off, while for 11, 12L is take off and 12R is landing. Is 6/24 still open? I landed on 24 once coming from MDW on WN March of 05."

Check it out airport map: http://map.aeroplanner.com/plates/Fa...fs/00360AD.PDF


Stuart

[ATrude777]

Stuart-

No, I didn't mean any of what you thought I said. I meant everything I said posted.

Alex

[3WE]

I had to read A-dude's post twice, but he is speaking correctly.

In the greater scheme of things STL avoids 11-29....And my point is 1) they seem to be using it a little more and the logic of WHEN the use it doesn't always seem strong.

SWA lands on 11.....I would bet a beer that someone from the North was very close and landing on 12R (or 12L) at that time- but A-dude said it was PERFECTLY clear, and in the olden days, simultaneous landings on 12R and 12L were the norm- and I can't see how there would be a huge line of departing SWA planes that couldn't wait to let the "Northerner go to 12L and Alex have 12R)

I landed on 24 last fall (again a clear night) and we were coming from Charlotte.

However, in the last year I also saw the big illuminated X on 6- but that could have been for routine maintenance- they are still messing with taxiways at STL- in a seemingly never-ending upgrade.

In the olden days- I think there was a slight advantage to landing on 24 and 30R "at the same time" in IFR as opposed to stringing people out on both or one of the 30's. (Technically it could not be the same time in IFR due to missed approaches).

And, one foggy, busy night on TWA we landed on 6 with landings also going on on 12R- with 12L available for takeoffs....again- a slight advantage to converging approaches over what they could do with the two close paralells.

I still wonder if they could save more money by shutting down 11-29 instead of the D-gates?

I also thing there'd be money to be saved if they could close the A gates and put those folks on D??? (Of course, then folks with D gates would be DOUBLY hacked if they had to land on 11!

[3WE]

Today 8/26/09, 6:55 PM CDT:

We land on 12R in an AA MD-80 While another "AA" ERJ is landing on 11 very slightly ahead of us. An Airtran 717 is taxing out to 12L, but is not at the hold line.

This really makes it seem like they want to play with thier new runway. The ERJ was really screwed since they have to go to the backside of the C-gates!!!!- about as inconveineint of taxi as you could have! No reason we could not have landed 12L and the RJ could have had 12R. The AirTran sure didn't need 12L!

Worse yet, by the time I get out to the Economy parking lot (~7:25), there are 4 planes lined up to take off from 12L and no one on final to either 12R or 11....

What happened to old STL when the ran three times as much traffic off of 12R 12L? I just doesn't seem right to send the poor RJ to 11 nor right to have 4 folks liked up on the left when they could launch some of them off of 12R?????

In the olden days there were multiple takeoffs and landings happening all the time on the old runways.

[AFROPILOT]

I'm not sure if this information may help, but it seems fairly similar so I'll give it a try.

I constantly listen in on LiveATC for KLAX (Los Angeles Intl. Airport) Tower frequency, and every single aircraft lands on the outboard runways (25L and 24R - furthest from the terminals) and all takeoffs are on the inboard runways (25R and 24L - closest to the terminals). Even the Cargo jets, who are all south of 25L on the southern most part of the field have to cross 25L and taxi up to 25R (even though they're fully capable of departing off of 25L). Just so you can get a picture of what it looks like, it's set up like this: Cargo Terminals, 25L, 25R, Terminals, 24L, 24R. Anyways, on occasion you get a pilot who requests to land on 25R or 24L instead (to expedite taxi) and the controller quickly responds with a nice big NO. He/she never explains why the pilot is denied that request, they just say NO. Weeks later, I got a cool controller who FINALLY explained over the frequency why aircraft couldn't land on the inboards, and his explanation was that 1. it puts their sequencing out of order (which effects the landing pattern and also the takeoff pattern) and 2. regulations state (at least at KLAX) that no aircraft are to land on the inboards UNLESS IT IS 100% COMPLETELY NECESSARY). I'm not sure if they have a similar mindset at STL or not, but the reasoning, especially with STL's new runway, could have altered their policies for landing/departing aircraft.

The confusing part to this reasoning though is that I have seen aircraft at KLAX landing like there's no tomorrow on the outboards, but there's no aircraft taking off on ANY of the inboards whatsoever. Why can't the controller have at least a few of them land on the inboards to expedite landing and reduce congestion of the outbaords??? It doesn't make sense. But I guess if it's POLICY, then what can you say?

Also at KDEN (Denver Intl. Airport), similar thing. 35R is damn near 10 miles away from the terminals! (I'm exaggerating of course, but it's SUPER far away). Aircraft could EASILY land on 35L or even 34R which are a mere few feet away from the terminals, but of course the controllers aren't having it.

[cegro27]

I'm not sure if this information may help, but it seems fairly similar so I'll give it a try.

I constantly listen in on LiveATC for KLAX (Los Angeles Intl. Airport) Tower frequency, and every single aircraft lands on the outboard runways (25L and 24R - furthest from the terminals) and all takeoffs are on the inboard runways (25R and 24L - closest to the terminals). Even the Cargo jets, who are all south of 25L on the southern most part of the field have to cross 25L and taxi up to 25R (even though they're fully capable of departing off of 25L). Just so you can get a picture of what it looks like, it's set up like this: Cargo Terminals, 25L, 25R, Terminals, 24L, 24R. Anyways, on occasion you get a pilot who requests to land on 25R or 24L instead (to expedite taxi) and the controller quickly responds with a nice big NO. He/she never explains why the pilot is denied that request, they just say NO. Weeks later, I got a cool controller who FINALLY explained over the frequency why aircraft couldn't land on the inboards, and his explanation was that 1. it puts their sequencing out of order (which effects the landing pattern and also the takeoff pattern) and 2. regulations state (at least at KLAX) that no aircraft are to land on the inboards UNLESS IT IS 100% COMPLETELY NECESSARY). I'm not sure if they have a similar mindset at STL or not, but the reasoning, especially with STL's new runway, could have altered their policies for landing/departing aircraft.

The confusing part to this reasoning though is that I have seen aircraft at KLAX landing like there's no tomorrow on the outboards, but there's no aircraft taking off on ANY of the inboards whatsoever. Why can't the controller have at least a few of them land on the inboards to expedite landing and reduce congestion of the outbaords??? It doesn't make sense. But I guess if it's POLICY, then what can you say?

Also at KDEN (Denver Intl. Airport), similar thing. 35R is damn near 10 miles away from the terminals! (I'm exaggerating of course, but it's SUPER far away). Aircraft could EASILY land on 35L or even 34R which are a mere few feet away from the terminals, but of course the controllers aren't having it.

It all has to do with redundancy of safety (think the USAir/Skywest collision in 1991). Keeping departures and arrivals segregated to different runways, even if the traffic flow is light, prevents runway incursions that "could" occur as a result of pilot/controller complacency. It seems ridiculous I know, to have heavy arrival volumes on arrival runways while the departure runways are seeing light (if any) departures, but it truly does upset the flow pattern and requires controllers to be much more vigilant when cross utilizing runways.

[3WE]

It all has to do with redundancy of safety (think the USAir/Skywest collision in 1991). Keeping departures and arrivals segregated to different runways, even if the traffic flow is light, prevents runway incursions that "could" occur as a result of pilot/controller complacency. It seems ridiculous I know, to have heavy arrival volumes on arrival runways while the departure runways are seeing light (if any) departures, but it truly does upset the flow pattern and requires controllers to be much more vigilant when cross utilizing runways.

So, it's safer that essentially ALL the departing aircraft cross the BUSIEST landing runway to take off?

If STL operations were 100% about incursion safety and 0% about taxi conveineince, there would be yet another type of runway usage than what I describe....like 12L, 30R would be used for GA/Cargo and all airliners would be on 11/29 and 12R/30L where they did not have to taxi accross ANY operating runways.

Guess again, and try looking at a taxi diagram before shooting off simplistic but error-laden explanations.

[cegro27]

So, it's safer that essentially ALL the departing aircraft cross the BUSIEST landing runway to take off?

If STL operations were 100% about incursion safety and 0% about taxi conveineince, there would be yet another type of runway usage than what I describe....like 12L, 30R would be used for GA/Cargo and all airliners would be on 11/29 and 12R/30L where they did not have to taxi accross ANY operating runways.

Guess again, and try looking at a taxi diagram before shooting off simplistic but error-laden explanations.

Why don't you try checking who my response was directed at, and while you're at it you should also check that attitude you're stupidly sending my way. Whatever manner that ATC chooses to handle traffic in STL, I'm sure they have their reasons for doing so...take a tour of their control tower like I did and maybe then you can get whatever explanation you're looking for. My post was in response to AFROPILOT's statements about LAX, not STL. Now, I hope that isn't too 'simplistic' and 'error-laden' for you to understand.

[Jet-fighters.Net]

It seems to be common practice for the landing A/C to use the outer runways while the departing A/C uses the inner parallel. Then ATC has several arrivals use different crossing taxiways to stop and hold short then have 4-5 cross the active departure runway to get to there gates.

At PHX during the morning departure rush hour I have seen them get 7-8 departures then allow the 3-4 arrivals to cross. It seems to allow arrivals to land and get out of the pattern while getting the departures out with minimal delays.

If the departures had to cross the active arrival runway it would create even more delays.