We need a new airport!!!

Transportation topics in KC
WoodDraw
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 723
Joined: Tue Jan 27, 2004 8:53 pm

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby WoodDraw » Fri May 19, 2017 5:27 pm

My memory is fading every day, but remember when we had to vote on the sprint center, and enterprise made a big fit, and the us vs. STL company line became a campaign thing? Or something like that. And the KC architects all came together.

I think we can run a good campaign around something like that. One of our star companies is going to design it, they'll show hometown pride and show off for the entire country, or you can vote no and relegate yourselves to second tier city status and start losing all of our flights to cities like XYZ. You don't want to be like them do you?

I want to start hearing some visionary rhetoric. Stuff like cars will go here and get dropped off here is fine, but boring. Let's start selling people on something they can be excited about while paying nothing.

pash
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3531
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2011 2:47 am

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby pash » Fri May 19, 2017 5:29 pm

KCPowercat wrote:4 international gates.

Indeed, from the MOU between the city and the airlines [PDF]:

Facility to include secure concourses providing concessions and customer amenities, capable of providing 35 ADG III aircraft (including 4 City-controlled, internationally capable gates and associated Federal Inspection Services (“FIS”)) with expansion option to 42 gates and Airline operational support facilities incorporated to successfully operate and maintain terminal-related functions.

ldai_phs
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 345
Joined: Mon Mar 30, 2015 9:52 pm

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby ldai_phs » Sat May 20, 2017 2:17 am

pash wrote:
cityscape wrote:Number one international destination not served by KC is London.

That would be fantastic, but I doubt it's ever going to happen unless there are big handouts involved—not just because KC's market is too small, but because you're going to fly almost within spitting distance of O'Hare on the direct route between KC and London. It's always going to make too much sense to dump people in Chicago and collect them there.



KC's market has more than enough to support a daily round trip to Europe. I think the number was somewhere in the 300's each way every day as previously mentioned(787 carries 242 to 310 for reference) . If a new terminal can garner more feeder flights from Omaha, Whitchita, etc that would only help to add even more demand. The airport already announced that they talked with airlines about international flights. They would only be willing to give marketing packages, not guaranteed revenue amounts.(free marketing isn't uncommon to attract new international flights).

Cincinnati has a direct flight to Europe supported by their businesses who prefer a direct flight over stopping in places like Chicago or NYC(Their flight runs from 70% to 90% full throughout the year). "With the Paris flight, CVG has what Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis, Louisville, Dayton, St. Louis, Kansas City, Nashville and Milwaukee don't – a daily nonstop flight to Europe. Pittsburgh has a seasonal direct flight to Paris on Delta." - Cincinatti.com. Cincinnati uses their Europe flight to attract more businesses to their area vs. other cities like KC.



https://youtu.be/NlIdzF1_b5M

Starting at the 4 minute mark it begins explaining why airlines now prefer"long and skinny routes" vs hub and spoke("dump them in Chicago")

User avatar
grovester
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3292
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: KC Metro

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby grovester » Wed May 24, 2017 8:21 am

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics ... 25952.html

Graves initial support of the Burn & Mac plan seems like kind of a big deal.

User avatar
KCPowercat
Power & Light
Power & Light
Posts: 27201
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby KCPowercat » Wed May 24, 2017 8:27 am

Why does he approve of this plan? Weird.

flyingember
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5363
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby flyingember » Wed May 24, 2017 8:34 am

KCPowercat wrote:Why does he approve of this plan? Weird.


From the article:
Graves warmed to the company’s proposal because he believes the private financing aspect of it increases the chances that KCI could be rebuilt faster and under budget. Graves is likely to insist upon public support for the idea and for transparency during the process.

User avatar
KCPowercat
Power & Light
Power & Light
Posts: 27201
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby KCPowercat » Wed May 24, 2017 9:22 am

Uhh huh

hartliss
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 4:05 pm
Location: Brookside

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby hartliss » Wed May 24, 2017 12:10 pm

I am planning on attending the hearing tomorrow at city hall. I am sure it will be a doozy.

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12030
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby FangKC » Wed May 24, 2017 9:30 pm

KCPowercat wrote:Why does he approve of this plan? Weird.


Look and see if Burns & McDonnell (or individuals who run the company) fund Graves' campaigns and you will probably have your answer.

User avatar
KCPowercat
Power & Light
Power & Light
Posts: 27201
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby KCPowercat » Wed May 24, 2017 9:39 pm

Graves, Sam (R-MO) $7,500

Not that I'm trying to say Burns & Mac is "buying" this deal as all businesses give to campaigns...but to me it shows how two faced Graves is....against the deal until a contributor comes up with the plan...then he can suddenly warm to it? Gross.

User avatar
beautyfromashes
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3492
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby beautyfromashes » Thu May 25, 2017 11:05 am

Perhaps Graves is just following a change in viewpoint on the new terminal hearing from his constituents and wants to be on the right side of the vote.

flyingember
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5363
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby flyingember » Thu May 25, 2017 11:12 am

beautyfromashes wrote:Perhaps Graves is just following a change in viewpoint on the new terminal hearing from his constituents and wants to be on the right side of the vote.

Probably a combination of people who vote for him, the public and local donors

kboish
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:25 am
Location: West Plaza

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby kboish » Thu May 25, 2017 12:42 pm

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00013323

I find it highly unlikely that someone who raised over $1.5 million in 2015-2016 is going to make a decision based on a $7500 campaign contribution- but then again, according to my link above, Graves received more money from the "Crawford Group" over that time period and so one could just as easily conclude that the reason Graves backed that plan was because of political donors, not his supposed fight for transparency and convenience. (Graves Press Release , Star Article, Star Article 2)

Also, I'm sure if you look at Teresa Loar's campaign contributions, you would find the Crawford Group et al were some of her biggest donors as well.

My sense is that public sentiment is the biggest contributing factor. Initially, each political type only spoke to people within their respective bubbles- everyone agreed (both with the idea of rehab or rebuild with new single terminal), so that is what they supported. After they got out of their bubbles they found out opinions were much more split than they originally realized. IMO, the rehab politico group is coming to realize that the business community hates this airport and is pissed it is taking so long to move the ball and do something, however the council and Mayor feel like they have used up all of their political capital for large projects (streetcar starter line, hotel, GO Bond, failed streetcar extension, incentives debate, etc- folks, that is alot of major efforts!) so they are retrenching and telling someone else to do it while they shore up work on hotel and GO Bond- they can only do so much. To me, that is why the business community is taking the lead and in turn, is also why you see most of the politicos changing tact to support the new single terminal. And btw, that is the only thing B&M has said they are doing- single terminal.

KCFan
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 322
Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2007 6:30 pm
Location: Northland

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby KCFan » Thu May 25, 2017 12:57 pm

The reality is if a multi-terminal design made the most sense for KCI and was the best design, that's what we would be doing. No one intentionally tries to design a crappy airport. Just like KCI never would have been designed with 3 semi-circles had they anticipated how big a threat terrorism would become.

But I totally get why business people care. How many times do you have to roll into terminal B and take 15 minutes to find a parking spot? Or like a family member of mine recently had to circle the terminal 4 times before she could get into valet parking and then had 2 cars cut each other off and nearly collide trying to jump in front of her because they were tired of waiting. And before people whine boo-hoo, for a lot of business travelers, whoever they're doing the work for gets billed for parking so the cost isn't an obstacle and it's a drop in the bucket for most businesses. Business travelers do want a convenient airport where they can park close and walk over.

For me, I'm a leisure traveler and I want a predictable check-in experience. I never know if it's going to be 5 minutes or 35 minutes so I find myself getting to the airport earlier and earlier, which is annoying for the time you get through in 5 minutes and then can't buy a cup of coffee at 5 in the morning. There's a reason KCI is ranked 27th out of 33 mid-size airports.....it's just not very good compared to what we could have, which will hopefully be something closer to Indianapolis.

miz.jordan17
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 1:11 pm

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby miz.jordan17 » Thu May 25, 2017 4:37 pm

New counterproposal from the LARGEST airport engineering firm! Maybe a blessing.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics ... 65554.html

flyingember
Oak Tower
Oak Tower
Posts: 5363
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby flyingember » Thu May 25, 2017 8:42 pm

I'm intrigued

User avatar
FangKC
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12030
Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby FangKC » Thu May 25, 2017 9:00 pm

kboish wrote:https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00013323

I find it highly unlikely that someone who raised over $1.5 million in 2015-2016 is going to make a decision based on a $7500 campaign contribution- but then again, according to my link above, Graves received more money from the "Crawford Group" over that time period and so one could just as easily conclude that the reason Graves backed that plan was because of political donors, not his supposed fight for transparency and convenience.


Look deeper at the contributors. There are many professional trade groups that have donated who would benefit from a new airport: not just aviation and transportation-related, but general contractors, engineering, electrical, sand & gravel,concrete, etc.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2016&cid=N00013323&type=I&newmem=N

These trade groups work in lock-step with each other to lobby politicians for mutual benefit. There is probably a grand poohba lobbyist who is coordinating all these related groups to work on Graves.

kboish
Valencia Place
Valencia Place
Posts: 1912
Joined: Mon Nov 26, 2007 12:25 am
Location: West Plaza

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby kboish » Thu May 25, 2017 9:49 pm

FangKC wrote:
kboish wrote:https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cid=N00013323

I find it highly unlikely that someone who raised over $1.5 million in 2015-2016 is going to make a decision based on a $7500 campaign contribution- but then again, according to my link above, Graves received more money from the "Crawford Group" over that time period and so one could just as easily conclude that the reason Graves backed that plan was because of political donors, not his supposed fight for transparency and convenience.


Look deeper at the contributors. There are many professional trade groups that have donated who would benefit from a new airport: not just aviation and transportation-related, but general contractors, engineering, electrical, sand & gravel,concrete, etc.

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cycle=2016&cid=N00013323&type=I&newmem=N

These trade groups work in lock-step with each other to lobby politicians for mutual benefit. There is probably a grand poohba lobbyist who is coordinating all these related groups to work on Graves.


Definitely- especially b/c Graves sits on the Highways and Transit subcommittee.

My point was that people keep saying that the $$ contributions to the council from B&M is why the mayor and council are supportive of the proposal. My opinion is this has nothing to do with it. What is changing naysers' minds related to this new proposal is the displeasure of the business community ( ie civic council and the chamber, but also the airlines to an even greater degree) with the current airport and their displeasure with the lack of movement or will by our mayor and council to take the lead on the airport campaign. The biz community is starting to make their voice heard (did you notice Joe Reardon was part of this new push ? )

more links

This new proposal allows the business community to take the driver's seat and gives the council and mayor an opportunity to act like there is something new on the table and that they are driving a hard bargain on our behalf when in reality we will arrive at the same place we started- single terminal.

This second proposal we are hearing about is interesting and is a positive development in my opinion. They are outsiders. KC always coalesces against potential outsider involvement. Let's see if they come in with a better offer. My guess is they will be similar or B&M will be slightly better. If so, you know we will hear everyone saying KEEP THE $$$ in KC and B&M will join forces with a couple of other local firms to fortify that battle cry. No way a firm outside KC gets this deal when we have so many engineering and architecture firms in the city that do this stuff.

I think this new proposal will go to show that this has nothing to do with campaign contributions and everything to do with changing the conversation to where the council and mayor are in a better political position to help move the single terminal forward.

miz.jordan17
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 83
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 1:11 pm

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby miz.jordan17 » Fri May 26, 2017 9:09 am

http://cityclerk.kcmo.org/LiveWeb/Meeti ... qU7v9A9C5K

When legislation includes an accelerated effective date (even if a MOU), does that mean it is less likely to succumb to petitioners? Also, if the terminal votes is unsuccessful, does the city have legal grounds to build anyway? Obviously that would be a bold and harmful political move, but I feel like for Sly James it would be worth it, as he'll be done in 2019. Maybe not good for the Council, including those running for mayor.

hartliss
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 455
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 4:05 pm
Location: Brookside

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Postby hartliss » Fri May 26, 2017 12:55 pm

miz.jordan17 wrote:http://cityclerk.kcmo.org/LiveWeb/Meetings/CommitteeAgenda.aspx?q=Ajsr49pigh9uN8AwEL84NdPqRUSpoFU%2fQKWgGtieCJJeVRxOfg9it8qU7v9A9C5K

When legislation includes an accelerated effective date (even if a MOU), does that mean it is less likely to succumb to petitioners? Also, if the terminal votes is unsuccessful, does the city have legal grounds to build anyway? Obviously that would be a bold and harmful political move, but I feel like for Sly James it would be worth it, as he'll be done in 2019. Maybe not good for the Council, including those running for mayor.


Hey MIZ, I believe that is true an accelerated date probably helps avoid a petition. However, a petition in 2014 is the reason we are voting for this in November. If the vote fails, then the city will probably have to start back over and re-asses.


Return to “Kansas City Transportation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests