We need a new airport!!!

[Highlander]

[


IT's crazy that this has to be voted on by residents that have no clue about the issue. Here in DC both DCA and BWI are always spending hundreds of millions to improve themselves and they never ask the public for approval. They just do it. KCI is really missing out.

Thank you for pointing that out. When I hear that the airport question will come down to a vote, all I can think of is WTF??? The primary attachment KC citizens have to the airport (other than being a minority user of the airport) is that the airport happens to be within the city limits of Kansas City. Johnson County airport users probably out number KC users by a pretty fair margin and are most likely the plurality if not majority user. There are plenty of other users from all over the metro and surrounding hinterlands - and the aggregate of these people are the ones who ultimately pay for the new terminal. KC residents have absolutely nothing financially at stake in the process, it's nothing like the P&L District. We all know how the funds to pay off the construction are generated.

[KCPowercat]

MO law on public bonds....and even with private funding the low # needed for petitions to be voted on. It's ridiculous.

[aknowledgeableperson]

I want to see flights to
Fayetteville
Wichita
Omaha
Cape Girardeau
Springfield MO
Joplin
Little Rock
Tulsa
Des Moines
Salina
Sioux City
Fort Smith

When we're the center point for the surrounding state's mid-sized cities it means we need more direct flights to other cities. It also makes that feeder network for more international flights or with less hops. More flights to LAX or NYC would be really nice. It connects KC better to regional business too, which is smart.

Salina is closer to KC than Denver by almost half the distance but has two airlines flying to Denver. That the city isn't pointing out this kind of situation is beyond me.

You make a good point. However the airports that are the destinations of flights from those cities are hub airports. KCI is not a hub nor will it be a hub,

[flyingember]

What's the difference between an airport with flights to lots of hubs and being a hub? It's if one or many airlines provide the service.

[cityscape]

Every problem you mentioned is a problem created by mismanagement. Except for the tidbit about the passenger being confused by walking past the other passengers preparing to board.. It's like that at many airports jet ways so they likely have not flown enough to become accustomed with the unique regularities of air travel.

I disagree that better management can solve these problems. Not having enough room to properly manage deplaning/boarding of a flight is not a management issue. Having to put people in wheelchairs in front of a restaurant entrance because no where else exists (except 2 gates away) is not a management issue. Cleaning bathrooms more than every two hours, when there are already a disproportionate number of restrooms per people, would actually cause more issues with cleanliness and availability (Not a management issue). The issue with all of these problems is that our airport facility is not designed/built to accommodate the needs of today's flying public. We serve larger planes on average than when the airport was built and most of those flights are full. You're not able to roam the entire terminal and are confined to such a smaller space than was originally intended. I've been to a lot of airports in this country (small and large) and I have yet to experience anything similar to what I experienced last week. Honestly, I'm beginning to dread flying in/out of my hometown airport. It is embarrassing to have these types of issues.

I also heard from one of my coworkers who missed their flight Tuesday morning last week because the central garage sign said it had availability, when in reality it was full. Therefore everyone was entering the garage and having to circle only to find out it was full. They then were backed up at the exit trying to get everyone out (30-40 minute line to exit) and subsequently the valet was swamped. Normally, I'd chalk that up to poor planning and pushing how little time you need to arrive ahead of your flight, but with a 30-40 minute wait to get out of garage, I don't think that's the passenger's fault anymore. This would be a management issue

[flyingember]

The garage exit overlaps with everyone else, the busses, hotel shuttles and such. The garage shouldn't be accessed from anywhere near the terminal entrance or exit. That's a design issue, not a management issue.

I did an airport pickup last week and it said the B garage may be full and valet was backed up 8-10 deep. So they do set the sign sometimes and not being set is a management issue. But when valet is that popular that it backs up, that is a management issue. There's always been security pushes to leave the curb quickly and yet they'll let people sit there in a line for valet service, it doesn't make sense.

[flyingember]

Here's another thing to account for. The airport didn't have those garages originally, something I'm sure is often forgotten

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com ... SX425_.jpg

[GRID]

The garage exit overlaps with everyone else, the busses, hotel shuttles and such. The garage shouldn't be accessed from anywhere near the terminal entrance or exit. That's a design issue, not a management issue.

I did an airport pickup last week and it said the B garage may be full and valet was backed up 8-10 deep. So they do set the sign sometimes and not being set is a management issue. But when valet is that popular that it backs up, that is a management issue. There's always been security pushes to leave the curb quickly and yet they'll let people sit there in a line for valet service, it doesn't make sense.

So true. KCI is basically a giant bus stop, only planes are trying to use it. No matter how you manage that, it's going to have major issues.

[GRID]

The garage exit overlaps with everyone else, the busses, hotel shuttles and such. The garage shouldn't be accessed from anywhere near the terminal entrance or exit. That's a design issue, not a management issue.

I did an airport pickup last week and it said the B garage may be full and valet was backed up 8-10 deep. So they do set the sign sometimes and not being set is a management issue. But when valet is that popular that it backs up, that is a management issue. There's always been security pushes to leave the curb quickly and yet they'll let people sit there in a line for valet service, it doesn't make sense.

People talk about how great the parking is at KCI. A new airport would be much better.

I'll bring up BWI again. I'll be honest, when I lived in KC, BWI was intimidating, huge, confusing etc. The airport has at least three times the traffic as KCI. Now that I use it as my primary hometown airport (along with DCA occasionally), it's incredible how much more user friendly BWI is than KCI.

Everything about BWI is better than KCI for the entire flight experience, but I will just compare parking here as a hometown user of both airports.

BWI Parking options:
Hourly garage connected to the terminal, just like KCI only it's one big garage for all terminals. The garage is huge at about 5000 spaces, but there are never EVER any sort of delays into or out of the garage and you can always park very close to whatever part of the airport you are flying out of. I rarely use unless just picking somebody up because it's $22 a day, but if you want to pay that much, it's much easier than the garages at KCI. It's high tech, so you drive directly to level with the most amount of spaces available and then there are overhead lights to guide you to empty spaces. Walk across the street and you are in the ticketing area or baggage claim level. The high speed ramps also make leaving a breeze and the entry and exit to the garage are nowhere near the congestion of the curb pickup.

Then you have a humongous daily garage of 8400 spaces which is also very easy to use with zero congestion and never any capacity problems. It's only $12 a day, so I will use it when I want my car covered. You have to take a bus to it, but it's easy and unlike KCI, the buses don't mix departing and arriving passengers so it's a much smoother process.

Most of the time I use long term surface parking which is like KCI's. It's only $8 a day. Same deal with the buses though. Full size 40' buses that don't mix departing and arriving passengers, so it's a fast, efficient process.

What I'm saying is that with a new terminal and new structured parking, KCI would actually become MUCH more user friendly to locals that park at KCI. If you are being dropped off it doesn't matter much, but if you are dropped off, there is not much difference between any airport. Avoid peak times and there you basically walk through TSA at any airport. But during peak times, other airports simply open more TSA lanes, KCI just bogs down. (dang it, trying to stick to just parking ).

[flyingember]

The point on the separated people movement and tiered parking means you pay for convenience and speed makes sense. And that connects to another holy grail of our airport. Rail and how to pay for it.

One thing pointed out is space for a train will be built into the plan (could make great to downtown bus dropoff space until then)

I'm certain moving people back and forth to parking via bus is a big expense today. Why can't we combine this with getting downtown and share the cost of a rail line? You replace the expense of the airport busses with helping pay for rail operations all together. Basically use it as a revenue stream.

Another thing that we know didn't work out is to move the terminal closer. Why can't we move parking closer to downtown? Move cheap long-term parking to Amity and 152 at a train stop between Zona Rosa and the airport. Now it's 5 miles closer from downtown via I-29 and 7 miles closer to JoCo via 435. So the convenience factor went up, you park closer, hop on a ride all the same and it's just a new mode.

[aknowledgeableperson]

What's the difference between an airport with flights to lots of hubs and being a hub? It's if one or many airlines provide the service.

Basically the flights from the smaller airports are to the hubs. For example Des Moines has direct flights to 20 large or nearby large cities. But only 4 of those cities are served by more than one airline. Springfield MO has non-stops flights to 11 airports and serviced by 4 airlines. However both do have limited flight schedules. My son flies out of Des Moines and it can be quite a problem for him because of times plus many times he has to catch a flight to a smaller airport. He loves it when he can catch a ride on the company jet.

[im2kull]

What's the difference between an airport with flights to lots of hubs and being a hub? It's if one or many airlines provide the service.

Hubs have higher ticket prices and a lack of flights on competitors planes (Since it's a hub for one airline). Less overall options and more profiteering from the passengers by the airlines.

Non Hubs have lower, competitive prices, more flight variety, more airlines, and ultimately are better for the consumer (passengers/travelers) than Hubs.

Example: Let's say you want to fly to Dallas (DFW) from anywhere in the US that Southwest Airlines services (for any number of reasons). Surprise! You CAN'T because DFW is a hub for American Airlines and has virtually no flights inbound that aren't AA or part of their alliance. Welcome to the greedy business model of airline hubs!

[pash]

.

[KCFan]

I disagree that better management can solve these problems. Not having enough room to properly manage deplaning/boarding of a flight is not a management issue. Having to put people in wheelchairs in front of a restaurant entrance because no where else exists (except 2 gates away) is not a management issue.

All of those problems, and the broader problem of overcrowding in Terminal B, stem directly from the decision to close Terminal A and consolidate into two terminals, or where greatly exacerbated by that decision. It seems hard to imagine why that decision was made unless (a) the airport's management expected to have a new terminal built already, (b) they failed to foresee the dire situation caused by overcrowding, or (c) they successfully foresaw the problems and closed Terminal A deliberately to create this mess in order to strengthen their case for building a new terminal.

In any case, the biggest problems with KCI are problems of its management's own making, so it's entirely appropriate to call it grossly mismanaged.

It's not hard to imagine at all. The existing airlines fit in terminals B & C with room to grow (4 open gates). Why would you run all the extra expense of running an airport terminal if you didn't have to?

[pash]

.

[grovester]

Doing something that is not profit driven would be classified as waste to those that oppose a new terminal.

[pash]

.

[KCPowercat]

So that most of the gates in Terminal B are not overcrowded and miserable.

Airlines wouldn't take that expense. What would you do, move Delta alone to A? They aren't going to take the additional expense it would take to run A alone just for them.

[Highlander]

What's the difference between an airport with flights to lots of hubs and being a hub? It's if one or many airlines provide the service.

Hubs have higher ticket prices and a lack of flights on competitors planes (Since it's a hub for one airline). Less overall options and more profiteering from the passengers by the airlines.

Non Hubs have lower, competitive prices, more flight variety, more airlines, and ultimately are better for the consumer (passengers/travelers) than Hubs.

Example: Let's say you want to fly to Dallas (DFW) from anywhere in the US that Southwest Airlines services (for any number of reasons). Surprise! You CAN'T because DFW is a hub for American Airlines and has virtually no flights inbound that aren't AA or part of their alliance. Welcome to the greedy business model of airline hubs!

I lived in Houston for nearly 8 years. A big Continental and then United hub. I had more choice on a per destination basis than I ever would in KC. Bigger cities get the hubs but they are also the spokes for other airlines who have their hubs elsewhere. Also hubs generally have real and direct international flights - something we are not likely to see at KCI in most of our lifetimes.

[Highlander]

I disagree that better management can solve these problems. Not having enough room to properly manage deplaning/boarding of a flight is not a management issue. Having to put people in wheelchairs in front of a restaurant entrance because no where else exists (except 2 gates away) is not a management issue.

All of those problems, and the broader problem of overcrowding in Terminal B, stem directly from the decision to close Terminal A and consolidate into two terminals, or where greatly exacerbated by that decision. It seems hard to imagine why that decision was made unless (a) the airport's management expected to have a new terminal built already, (b) they failed to foresee the dire situation caused by overcrowding, or (c) they successfully foresaw the problems and closed Terminal A deliberately to create this mess in order to strengthen their case for building a new terminal.

In any case, the biggest problems with KCI are problems of its management's own making, so it's entirely appropriate to call it grossly mismanaged.

Shuddering a terminal has never been the issue. I saw more people on remote backpacking trips than I did in sections of KCI's terminals when all 3 were functioning. KCI has plenty of length (ie gate space) with two terminals. What it lacks is depth. The existing terminals are now and have always been to shallow to allow the airport to run effectively. Among the primary problems is that a critical mass of space cannot be placed behind security. Until someone shows how that can happen with 3 narrow terminal buildings, KCI will eternally remain obsolete and dysfunctional. For the last two decades, a case for a new terminal has been screaming KC in the face. KCI is obsolete. That's the case. We can absolutely survive another 10 years with KCI no problem (I mean people purposely fly out of London Luton too - the Quonset Hut of airports) but London at least has two other premier airports. I can live in a shack too if I wish - it would be cheaper. I choose not to.