We need a new airport!!!

[flyingember]

They numbered to be able to have 1-30 in A, 31-60 in B, 61-90 in C. If it ever had that many is a different point, but it's clear how that idea became a thing.

There's flights in gates 81 to 83, for example.

[flyingember]

I don’t see the numbers ever working to support rail to KCI. The density along that 15-20 miles between KCI and downtown is just not there and probably never will be there

Never say never. There's a 75,000+ person worth of development coming north of Barry Road.
It doesn't need to be cost effective to build rail, it just needs to be cheaper than freeway windenings. It's the same as the airport rebuild. We don't have a spend nothing option coming.

You can’t really combine regional transit with local people moving issues at KCI.

You certainly can. Other cities do it today.
Minneapolis is a hub for Delta so we know it's not a small airport. The airport has two stops and is between the Mall of America and downtown.

[KCFan]

They numbered to be able to have 1-30 in A, 31-60 in B, 61-90 in C. If it ever had that many is a different point, but it's clear how that idea became a thing.

There's flights in gates 81 to 83, for example.

Never had that many nor was it ever designed to in any configuration. That's just how it was numbered. I can see why it's confusing to people, but airport opponents use it as a negative saying "Why we would go from a 90 gate airport to 35 gate single terminal?"

https://twitter.com/JustinMeyerKC/statu ... 6935401474

[KCFan]

I thought this was an interesting message posted on the bottom of a blog I just found:

Kansas City Deputy Aviation Director Justin Meyer sent me this response to Bill’s comment:

1. The three terminals do not have 90 gates and they never have had 90 gates. They have about 15 jet-bridges/gates each for a total of about 45 gates today across all three terminals. When the three terminal design opened in 1972 the gates were numbered 1-30, 31-60, and 61-90 to help people identify between Terminals A, B and C. Currently 31 jetbridges are leased.

2. Regarding airlines not coming to KC, we’ve been successful in bringing three new airlines to market. They are Alaska (2012), Spirit (2014) and Allegiant (2015). We do still have some gates unleased and available so there is some opportunity for airlines to continue to grow in Terminals B & C.

3. There is not a plan for less flights at a new terminal. The airlines and the airport agreed in 2013 on 1.9% annual passenger growth through 2030 that drove the forcast for gate counts, checkpoint size, and overall sqft need. Since we agreed on that 1.9% forecast we’ve seen 36 consecutive months of year over year growth at a 4.3% average growth rate.

4. The “inevitable comparison” between MCI and STL was actually made by Southwest when they presented to KCMO Council on April 26, 2016. Southwest is the largest airline at both STL and MCI, and it was Southwest who said with a new terminal that was conducive to layovers they would have the opportunity to connect more passengers through Kansas City which would allow for new routes and more flights, as they have done in St. Louis. The video of that statement by Southwest is at the following link. Start at 0:37:00. http://kansascity.granicus.com/MediaPla ... ip_id=9571

5. St. Louis may have a larger MSA but Kansas City has a higher propensity to travel.

https://jimmycsays.com/2017/05/15/maybe ... -we-do-it/

[pash]

.

[KCPowercat]

I've gathered A was closed for the following:

- Maintenance costs were rising to keep up all three terminals
- Airline mergers
- No need for 90 gates
- Prepare for new terminal land

[KCFan]

The more I think about your arguments Pash, the more I feel you would have supported to upgrade Kemper and not build the Sprint Center.

I'm not even arguing against building a new terminal. (I think at this point I'm tepidly in favor.) I'm just wondering why nobody will admit that closing Terminal A is the biggest cause of the worst problems with KCI right now; and, as a corollary, why this mess has gone on for three years and evidently is going to continue until the day a new terminal opens.

As I've hinted, I suspect the reason is, at least in small part, that the city and the airport's department is perfectly happy to make us suffer needlessly if it will catalyze public support for building a new terminal. And I think that's grotesque, the latest sordid episode in a long line of disingeniousness and underhandedness on the part of the public officials who have been trying to build a case for new terminal over the last decade.

Almost all of my many posts in this thread (way too many) have been written to expose the half-truths and despicable tactics on the part of the officials pushing this project, not to argue for preserving the status quo of KCI per se. Yes, I have expressed doubts about whether a new terminal will really be a couple of billion dollars better than what we have, and I've lamented that a new terminal will fix none of the things I dislike most about KCI (first among them it's diatance from the urban core and the consequent lack of convenient transit options to the airport)—but mainly I've just been pointing out the vacuity or insincerity of the arguments that have been put for for a new terminal, and decrying the lack of accountability for the public officials who have been making them. I do not think it is acceptable for public officials to advance their preferred policies though a decade-long campaign of misleading the public.

If we're going to build a new terminal, please, let's build it because we think it's worth spending a couple of billion dollars for a newer, more spacious terminal that offers better amenities and state-of-the-art systems, not because a small group of people at City Hall and the aviation department have successfully deceived us.

No doubt there were business reasons to consolidate to two terminals, but it wouldn't surprise me if they tried to make the airport a little less friendly just because the airport was fairly popular locally and if people don't perceive a problem, they're not going to be for doing something new. Now I think a lot of people have their head buried in the sand at just how bad KCI is compared to what we could have. So to me, if they are making it less convenient, the strategy makes sense. But then again on the other hand, bigger planes and more passengers than security can handle was going to be a problem at KCI no matter what in the current configuration.

[WoodDraw]

We pat the city on the back when they can walk and chew gum at the same time, and yet we think they're behind some grand conspiracy with the federal government and the airlines to convince voters to get a new airport?

Yes, Yesss. I vote for all of these people to run our city now. Pash, tell me who they are!

[aknowledgeableperson]

Moving back into A would increase operational costs by roughly a third without any increase in revenue. No increase unless the airlines increase their fees to offset the higher costs.
I would imagine it was a business decision to close Terminal A that took many factors into account. But opening up that terminal I seriously doubt would provide much relief to the passengers. Passenger comfort wasn't all that great in the first place before the security partitions.

[pash]

.

[WoodDraw]

edit

[Highlander]

We pat the city on the back when they can walk and chew gum at the same time, and yet we think they're behind some grand conspiracy with the federal government and the airlines to convince voters to get a new airport?

What requires a grand conspiracy with powerful collaborators here? Airport officials closed Terminal A so they'd be ready to build a new terminal as soon as possible, rather prematurely as it has turned out. And evidently they're perfectly content with the side-effect of greatly exacerbating all of KCI's failures, I imagine because the miserable situation is the most powerful motivator yet for building public support for a new terminal.

Moving back into A would increase operational costs by roughly a third without any increase in revenue.

Airport officials were quoted as saying they expected to save about $2.5 million a year by closing Terminal A. The aviation department's cash expenditures in 2015 were about $84 million. That's a savings of less than three percent. (Yes, that expenditure number includes downtown airport. No, I'm not going to bother trying to find numbers for KCI alone, although they're probably in the department's annual report somewhere if you want to look.)

They're not saving anywhere close to a third of their operating expenses by closing Terminal A. Try an order of magnitude lower.

Operating expense does not equal cash expenditures. Cash expenditures generally exceed operating expenses due to overhead and capital improvements which can be rather substantial to say the least.

And furthermore, per your earlier response, not all space is equal. Would you want a 1500 sq ft house that is 5' wide and 300' feet long? The need for a new terminal at KCI is self evident and that's the end game here regardless of whether or not the current space crunch is created by mismanagement or not. By the way, it's not.

[aknowledgeableperson]

"Airport officials were quoted as saying they expected to save about $2.5 million a year by closing Terminal A. The aviation department's cash expenditures in 2015 were about $84 million. That's a savings of less than three percent. (Yes, that expenditure number includes downtown airport. No, I'm not going to bother trying to find numbers for KCI alone, although they're probably in the department's annual report somewhere if you want to look.)

They're not saving anywhere close to a third of their operating expenses by closing Terminal A. Try an order of magnitude lower."

Going through the city's budget the best amount I can find for the cost of operating the KCI airport is the amount of $25,683,476 found on page 259 for Building Maintenance. There is a separate line item for Downtown Airport so I assume the $25M figure is for KCI. Of course there are more buildings under the control of the Aviation Dept at KCI than the terminals so I would assume the terminals is a smaller amount than that. Of course one has to consider there is some ongoing costs incurred in keeping the building vacant such as utilities for heating, cooling and electricity.
So if the savings is $2.5M I don't believe my third is that far off. Of course there are other costs by others to consider such as the TSA.

[cityscape]

Pash, bottom line, it was a strategic business decision to close terminal A. Doing so solved more than one problem. I don't doubt that some of the idea behind closing it had something to do with wanting a new terminal, but I seriously doubt it was the driver. The drivers were increased costs for security, airlines that were consolidating/merging operations, and facilities that were costing more to maintain everyday. So, yeah, those factors probably do mean they would greatly prefer a new terminal, but not necessarily closed A to force the issue. I think the leaders were way ahead of the public (as they should be), but likely realized a new terminal wasn't going to happen in the next 5 years so they did what was in their best interest to provide stable operations at the airport and control costs.

[pash]

.

[flyingember]

[
I really don't understand how all of you can think closing Terminal A and keeping it closed is no big deal when you're adamant that we need a new terminal to increase space and amenities for passengers. Space per passenger would increase by half immediately if Terminal A were re-opened, and the amount of seating, number of bathrooms in secured areas, etc., would increase substantially, too.

Luggage pickup and luggage drop off tend to frame the gates. This means you've bookended each set of gates into a fixed configuration that matches the lower level, you're not going to be expanding the gates.
Remember, underground is setup as multiple complete airlines with actual walls between, it's not a giant shared system, can't remove one set of luggage returns and ticket counters and combine gate areas together with minor rerouting of luggage underneath

The idea of moving one airline into more flexible space in A isn't a bad idea, just not practical. You're not proposing something that can be done without the major renovation the airlines don't want.

[kboish]

https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians ... =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 ... 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.

Its happening.

Burns&McDonnell bulks up KCI terminal design team with five more local firms

[aknowledgeableperson]

Operating expense does not equal cash expenditures. Cash expenditures generally exceed operating expenses due to overhead and capital improvements which can be rather substantial to say the least.

The number I quoted is the "operating expenditures" line-item from the 2015 annual report. "Cash" in this context means excluding "non-cash" implicit expenditures like amortization and depreciation. The savings to closing Terminal A are in the mid- to low single-digit percent range of airport operating expenditures, period.

Pash, the problem is you are using the wrong number. A number too high.

[pash]

.

[mean]

Not really, they pretty obviously did it to shift the public perception needle for a new terminal. I'm guessing they came to the realization that almost everyone here has been asserting that the current facility is pretty grossly inadequate and needed to be replaced, but knew that the public resistance would be overwhelming. They also knew they had more than enough gates in B and C to accommodate, and they could save at least some nonzero amount of money by closing A, and hopefully shift the public narrative at the same time. I don't think it's a Machiavellian plot so much as simply doing what they could to try and get what they wanted.