We need a new airport!!!

Transportation topics in KC
User avatar
Highlander
Mark Twain Tower
Mark Twain Tower
Posts: 9015
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
Location: Houston

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by Highlander » Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:31 pm

aknowledgeableperson wrote:They would have to get the feds on board, wouldn't they?
Indeed. I doubt if they would get much pushback if the airlines were onboard. KCI from a TSA perspective has to be the most inefficient airport in the country.

User avatar
grovester
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3716
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: KC Metro

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by grovester » Sat Dec 31, 2016 9:48 pm

Yep, the feds want a single terminal. If the voters object the feds might not stand in the way.

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10738
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by mean » Sun Jan 01, 2017 3:08 pm

I don't particularly care whether the airport is in Olathe, but if a move is actually on the table, that should be more persuasive than I was thinking originally. Not because I think a significant number of people have some deep sense of pride associated with the airport existing in their preferred municipality, but because if the current configuration is going away and being replaced by a single terminal regardless of location, they will have to come to terms with the fact that whatever "convenience" they believe KCI currently offers them is going to be gone, so they might as well vote to put the inevitable single terminal where KCI lives now.

Sani
Parking Garage
Parking Garage
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Oct 19, 2006 5:22 pm
Location: The Kansas side (sorry)

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by Sani » Mon Jan 02, 2017 4:44 pm

There's not a chance in hell a threat to move to Johnson County would be anything but a bluff. Turning New Century into an international airport would cost billions of dollars more than a new terminal at KCI, not to mention the locals in Gardner might not be too happy with the upgrade. But if a bluff will convince folks to let the new terminal happen, then go for it, I guess.

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10738
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by mean » Mon Jan 02, 2017 7:50 pm

The question isn't about cost or what the locals think, it's how bad do the FAA and the airlines want it. Obviously these things intersect, but at the end of the day it doesn't really matter how much it costs or who bitches about it as long the people in charge have their minds made up, unless the people bitching are prepared to have protestors camping out at New Century and blocking bulldozers. And even then I'd give them worse than even odds.

User avatar
KCPowercat
Power & Light
Power & Light
Posts: 28653
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by KCPowercat » Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:35 pm

We are going to design a new airport terminal, build it, the day it opens they are going to change airport security and it's going to be obsolete the day it opens.

flyingember
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6808
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by flyingember » Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:05 pm

KCPowercat wrote:We are going to design a new airport terminal, build it, the day it opens they are going to change airport security and it's going to be obsolete the day it opens.
That's a horrible argument

We won't be able to meet some unannounced future need for security so let's not solve the current operational needs we have today, which include a known problem around security.

User avatar
KCPowercat
Power & Light
Power & Light
Posts: 28653
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by KCPowercat » Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:20 pm

It's not an argument. It's a prediction based on some current events and an homage to what happened last time.

We don't need your expertise on every post.

longviewmo
Colonnade
Colonnade
Posts: 879
Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:58 am
Location: Manhattan, Kansas
Contact:

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by longviewmo » Sat Jan 07, 2017 3:12 pm

KCPowercat wrote:It's not an argument. It's a prediction based on some current events and an homage to what happened last time.

We don't need your expertise on every post.
Sarcasm seems to be lost on him often.

flyingember
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6808
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by flyingember » Sat Jan 07, 2017 4:59 pm

longviewmo wrote:
KCPowercat wrote:It's not an argument. It's a prediction based on some current events and an homage to what happened last time.

We don't need your expertise on every post.
Sarcasm seems to be lost on him often.
sarcasm can't be written.

The problem with the arguement is you're not paying homage to the past.

We can't do anything, new terminal or not, without running into fancy new security issues. You're playing homage to right now and because you're arguing we can't do better than the current terminal and the security space issues in play it's a pro-renovation argument.

User avatar
KCPowercat
Power & Light
Power & Light
Posts: 28653
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
Location: Quality Hill
Contact:

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by KCPowercat » Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:20 pm

Dude....Stop. it was a joke.

aknowledgeableperson
City Center Square
City Center Square
Posts: 12247
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by aknowledgeableperson » Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:58 pm

KCPowercat wrote:We are going to design a new airport terminal, build it, the day it opens they are going to change airport security and it's going to be obsolete the day it opens.
Funny thing is you may be right. The way things are going it may be 20 or more years before being built. And if based on today's needs ...

UrbanKC
Pad site
Pad site
Posts: 82
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 10:21 am

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by UrbanKC » Sat Jan 07, 2017 9:00 pm

I'm definitely a minority in this city (I assume) because I love the idea of a single terminal. Or at least a single security terminal that can then branch off into separate terminals that are beyond the security checkpoints.

My honest opinion of airports I've been to...

Denver: Sucks, at least the security portion, as it scares the daylights out of me. I was lucky to have arrived at a time when it wasn't really busy, so I got through security in decent time. But it looked like it could be a complete nightmare at peak times. Plus with the way the terminal is designed, the security area was really freaking loud. Seemed to make the stress of being patted down, directed through massive x-ray machines etc... just larger. Crying kids get 10x louder, the beeping of the machines seems 10x louder. Just adds more stress than is needed at that point.

Chicago O'Hare: Only flown through there twice, and haven't had major issues.

Atlanta: Freaking amazing, I love it!

Pittsburgh: Loved it, easy to navigate, though security check could probably be better.

John F. Kennedy: 2nd to worst airport I've been to. Total cluster.

Paris Charles de-Gaulle: Worst airport I've been to. FUBAR.

Kansas City: Ugh... I feel like I travel back 50 years when I enter it, especially if I've just come from modern airports. Plus I feel like an animal in a zoo in the waiting area. Caged, nowhere to go, no place to hang out. Feel like the people watching me on the other side of the glass are "free" and I'm just a trapped animal waiting to be transported. Though I like the location and convenience of baggage claim. If I take SuperShuttle, or have a ride pick me up, I always worry about if they arrive at the correct terminal, and then the correct entrance. Parking also sucks, hence why I don't like driving myself.

mean
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 10738
Joined: Wed Feb 05, 2003 9:00 am
Location: Historic Northeast

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by mean » Sun Jan 08, 2017 4:00 pm

KCPowercat wrote:Dude....Stop. it was a joke.
Joke or not, you're advocating a dangerous and unproductive alternative which threatens to undermine future progress.

:lol:

flyingember
One Park Place
One Park Place
Posts: 6808
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by flyingember » Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:40 am

It was a horrible joke. it deserved to be called out.

User avatar
grovester
Bryant Building
Bryant Building
Posts: 3716
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:30 pm
Location: KC Metro

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by grovester » Tue Jan 10, 2017 11:47 am

Fess up, you didn't get it. I thought it was quite clever and scarily prescient.

miz.jordan17
Strip mall
Strip mall
Posts: 104
Joined: Tue Apr 26, 2016 1:11 pm

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by miz.jordan17 » Tue Jan 10, 2017 10:23 pm

History repeats itself, just in a slightly different form.
Image

swid
New York Life
New York Life
Posts: 320
Joined: Wed Jul 10, 2013 8:29 pm
Location: Financial District

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by swid » Sat Jan 21, 2017 1:25 pm

The 2016 end-of-year stats for the airport are out. Total passenger volume was up 5.4% over 2015 to 11,041,750 - the most passengers since 2007. 2016 was the first year since 2007 that the number of aircraft operations increased over the previous year - up 3.2% to 122,814. (For comparison, 2007 had a passenger volume of 11,275,951 and 194,969 aircraft operations.)

The Terminal B airlines (Southwest, Delta, Alaska) account for 67.7% of all enplanements; Southwest alone is 49.2% of the airport's passenger volume.

User avatar
im2kull
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3251
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by im2kull » Sat Jan 21, 2017 1:35 pm

flyingember wrote:The storm shelter aspect actually intercepts with the adding restrooms inside security aspect that many people dismiss as unnecessary.

Many cities designed airport restrooms to be shelter space.

Denver
http://media2.wcpo.com//photo/2013/06/1 ... 40_480.JPG

St. Louis
http://l7.alamy.com/zooms/44b7bb6574744 ... efa6pk.jpg

Huntsville, AL
https://localtvwhnt.files.wordpress.com ... eather.jpg

None of those are specially designed "Shelter spaces"...they're ordinary bathrooms that public affairs chose to designate as shelter-in-place areas because of the false misconception that you would be "Safer" in an internal room versus a room with an outside wall in the event of some large storm. In a tornado that causes any real structural damage it's all a moot point. The building itself will be totally flattened by an F3/4/5, irregardless of what's inside.

User avatar
im2kull
Hotel President
Hotel President
Posts: 3251
Joined: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33 pm
Location: KCMO

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Post by im2kull » Sat Jan 21, 2017 1:39 pm

flyingember wrote:
TheBigChuckbowski wrote:
pash wrote:And the preponderance of attacks, including all of those with the highest death tolls, in both the West and in the Middle East, have been against soft targets in mundane locations like town squares, nightclubs, theaters, and so on.
This is exactly my point. Yes, an airport can be a target but it's no more a target than anywhere else that has a bunch of people in a small area. There's no reason to secure every part of KCI if we aren't securing literally everywhere we go with a few hundred or thousand of people in any given day which is most places in an urban area. If you aren't arguing for locking down every part of downtown, I don't get the point of arguing to lock down every part of the airport.
It's not about locking everything down to get a benefit.

At KC someone can walk inside and be right at a large group of people and perform their attack within seconds. Multiple attackers can do the same thing, each picking a door during peak hours. There's no way to easily stop them since any response would be slower than the people. There's also no point at which to detect something and drop blast/biohazard doors that have any impact.

A new design would still have these unsafe areas but just by being able to drop security doors the airport can immediately be separated in two.

It's not 100%, no, but it would be a lot better.

And I'm not thinking of terrorists, I'm thinking of some disillusioned local or militia group with tear gas.

Risk mitigation never needs to be 100% to be worth doing.
You guys are funny.. Talking about KCI being a "Soft Target" for a random terrorist attack that focuses on killing many people in a large, crowded area...while COMPLETELY neglecting to consider that IF KCI had a large central security area (As proposed) THEN it would have an even MORE dense area to attack. Concentrating the attack in ONE area, impacting ALL passengers... versus the present possibility of an attack on 1 of 20 random mini security checkpoints that exist today, impacting 1/20th of all passengers at most.

Post Reply