We need a new airport!!!

[pash]

.

[mean]

I don't think it was a no-brainer of a business decision, and I think anyone asserting that is being a bit overly defensive of the city's motives, probably because they're trying to preemptively fend off arguments that we should just reopen A and everything will be fine. That, of course, isn't the outcome they want, so their bias makes them bend over backwards and look a little silly in defending the closure.

I do think it was a fairly well-calculated move to deliberately overcrowd B and C so that the mounting terrible experiences would shift the conversation in the direction airport officials have been wanting it to go for the better part of the last decade. And as far as that goes, I think it was reasonably successful and probably a good idea in the long run if you take the view that a new terminal is truly in the best interest of the city. On the downside, admitting that sets opponents up to then propose (or demand) reopening A, at which point we are back to where we were in, what, 2013? For new-terminal proponents that's not likely to be a place they want to risk going, so I get it. Defend away, even if you kind of look like you're not living in the same reality.

[grovester]

I really can't imagine any self-respecting private business doing anything different. Bottom line rules.

[pash]

.

[Highlander]

That, of course, isn't the outcome they want, so their bias makes them bend over backwards and look a little silly in defending the closure.

Not really. I posted reviews of the airports a few pages back on this thread. I went back and read the reviews a few minutes ago. The reviews are essentially the same pre and post closure of the terminal. Cramped with crappy services behind security regardless of how many terminals are at KCI.

[grovester]

mean, I agree with you completely, if that didn't come across before. I'm wishing you good luck because nobody else in this thread seems to have any remaining grasp on the reality of the situation, which is why I'm going to stop posting here. (Anytime now, I swear!)

I really can't imagine any self-respecting private business doing anything different. Bottom line rules.

OK, last one: KCI is not a private business. It is a facility owned by the city that provides a public transportation service. Further, it is subject to strict federal rules that govern both how much it can spend, on what, as well as how much it can charge, for what. In this context, it is even more bizarre that anyone should argue that closing Terminal A makes good business sense, because if KCI reduces its expenses too much, it is required by law also to reduce revenues to eliminate its profit.

And quite contrary to what imagine, I don't think any private business in a competitive market would possibly make this sort of decision: it's very, very bad business to make your customers miserable. This situation is possible at KCI only because it's the only game in town (unless you have your own jet) and is run by unaccountable public officials who are perfectly willing to subject their customers to a terrible experience in order to get the new terminal they decided they wanted a decade ago.

Later!


Edit: clarity

Yes, you and I know this. The general public somehow thinks that govt entities should behave like business, so this behaviour is accepted and probably applauded when it happened. Sales are down, close stores.

Government entities perpetuating wasteful organizations are frowned upon in this day and age. Can't have it both ways.

I happily acknowledge that there is some optimum combination of gates/airlines/terminals that yields a better customer experience than we currently have. But to get it would require at least two things: KCI profits less than it currently does, and airlines are required to shuffle gates/terminals against their will.

edit: drunken explanation

[aknowledgeableperson]

Pash, your reply was "No, I'm not" when you made your reply to my statement that you were using the wrong number. Below are the budget numbers for the Aviation Department as a whole. You used the number of around $85M for 2015 operating expenditures. Of course I am not sure of your source document so I am not sure how the $85M was determined. In looking at the categories the only one I can see that would relate to the terminals would be Building Maintenance, and that building maintenance is not just for the terminals but for all of the buildings at KCI under city responsibility.


Allocation by Program: Actual 2015/16 Budgeted 2016/17 Adopted 2017/18
Airport Management $2,312,649 $2,680,696 $2,644,546
Building Maintenance $23,569,873 $24,710,967 $25,683,476
Debt Services $32,852,653 $32,859,900 $32,953,880
Downtown Airport $2,859,264 $4,192,590 $3,762,124
Field Maintenance $7,341,543 $8,404,479 $8,102,905
Fleet Maintenance $3,068,735 $3,316,390 $3,401,286
KCI Capital Improvements $30,639,037 $36,116,000 $48,200,000
Parking and Bus Service $15,041,292 $17,876,208 $18,589,234
Safety $13,387,104 $13,196,560 $14,228,288
Total Allocation by Program $131,072,150 $143,353,790 $157,565,739

And I never said they were saving a substantial amount of money. My statement was:
"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."
The main point being that operational costs (of the terminals) would increase (maintaining three terminals instead of two) without a corresponding increase in revenues.

[KCPowercat]

Moving on.

[aknowledgeableperson]

What? Taking the fun out of life.

[im2kull]

I'm a bit bewildered by the rhetorical Rube Goldberg machines several of you are trotting out to deny and excuse what is obvious: closing Terminal A vastly worstened the experience of flying out of KCI, period.

..they pretty obviously did it to shift the public perception needle for a new terminal.

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.

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.

You guys are right, and anyone who can't clearly see the collusion behind what's happened over the last decade now are blind. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure these things out, nor does it have to be some huge grand scheme of trickery. It's simple business economics. Someone wants something, for whatever reason, and they do what it takes to get it. Even if that means lying and presenting false flags to justify their desires.

Who can forget all the red-herrings about KCI that we've had thrown our collective taxpayers ways by the ATA?

To list a few of the reasons the ATA has stated that we NEEDED a new terminal to solve:

1.
Purported problem: Deicing runoff is a huge pollution problem and the EPA is going to fine us big time if we don't build a new terminal to fix this!
Reality: Fixed with the installation of a new oil water separator and other simple sewage infrastructure improvements circa 2010 using operating and maintenance funds that had already been allocated to fix this problem.

2.
Purported Problem: TSA is too spread out and inefficient.
Reality: TSA internal report detailed KCI as the model TSA system (IE: Checks near gates w/o central security area) with some of the highest efficiency, lowest wait times in the nation.

3.
Purported Problem: The terminals are falling apart because of failing infrastructure, water leaks/etc.
Reality: Routine maintenance and recurring maintenance on the terminals was found to have been put off and de-funded for years. IE: Management issue. Equivalent to paying your yearly HOA fees for amenities just to have the HOA never use that money to maintain those amenities.


As the KC Star pointed out recently:
http://www.kansascity.com/news/business ... 63549.html

"Other missteps have amounted to six years of bungling the KCI discussion.

An early plan moved the new airport 4 miles closer to downtown, until city officials realized it would take $500 million to build new access roads.

The current KCI was labeled vulnerable to terrorists, but then the Transportation Security Administration downplayed that.

The airlines questioned the need for a new terminal, then completely reversed course.

“This process appears to have been snakebitten from the beginning,” said veteran campaign consultant Steve Glorioso. “It’s never moved in a straight line. So the public is left with a scene of uncertainty and confusion, which is not what you want.”

Now, city leaders armed with a new proposal are beating a path toward finally putting the matter on the ballot for a November vote. But, yet again, they’re enduring missteps in trying to get there."

[Highlander]

The idea that there is some conspiracy to make KCI less comfortable to get an new single terminal past voters is absurd. KCI's problems speak for themselves and are insurmountable given the current design. They have been speaking for themselves for a couple of decades now. The airport is only barely functional because KC is a relative aviation backwater - it's not more widely recognized as among the worst airports in the US for the same reason (although it does get plenty of recognition for being a very poor airport).

Even the Star, which appeared to try to submarine the idea of a new terminal early on is now squarely behind a new terminal. The only hold outs are people who took their last flight in the 80's and those with the ideological belief that if it kind of works, why fix it.

[earthling]

^Bingo. And just because it's barely workable now doesn't mean the very narrow ways will work in 10 years as the metro grows, need to plan now as it will take 10 years for new terminal. And the chances of KC attracting a mini hub to increase flights with more destinations is near zero as other airports are better designed for being a small hub. With only a few gates per secure area and the very narrow and small holding areas, it's not very manageable for people switching planes, especially if they have exit/re-enter security areas to change flights.

Though there really are some people out there that don't want KC to grow. They want KC to stay nearly as is and have no issue with say Nashville, Columbus, Indy or even OK City passing KC up. Some friends from LA moved here because KC is 'small town' to them with enough big city amenities. They don't want the airport to take KC to the next tier, they came here to escape that. They want some incremental improvements like rotating places to eat/go but not fundamentally develop KC into a much bigger market (and higher cost of living with it). I disagree with this but can understand people have this notion.

[mean]

Don't conflate believing that A's closure was at least a partially calculated move with non-support of a new terminal. Also, what's so absurd about it? It seems so stunningly obvious what's going on that to say it is absurd makes me wonder whether we're looking at the same facts. Nothing about KCI having obvious design problems precludes closing A to move the public perception needle; in fact, I would argue that it is those very problems being identified long ago by the aviation department, coupled with the public's ongoing ironclad resistance to any changes, that necessitated they do something.

[Highlander]

Don't conflate believing that A's closure was at least a partially calculated move with non-support of a new terminal. Also, what's so absurd about it? It seems so stunningly obvious what's going on that to say it is absurd makes me wonder whether we're looking at the same facts. Nothing about KCI having obvious design problems precludes closing A to move the public perception needle; in fact, I would argue that it is those very problems being identified long ago by the aviation department, coupled with the public's ongoing ironclad resistance to any changes, that necessitated they do something.

The problems facing KCI were same before and after the closure of A. The obvious issue at KCI is that there is simply no room to perform all the tasks now associated with flying - checking in, bag checking, security, arriving, waiting, eating, toilets etc in a comfortable fashion. Every airport in the US has a process to handle these things - and it's predicated on having enough depth to the structure so those processes can be done sequentially. Most airports have arrival and departures on different levels. KCI has extremely narrow terminals and all these various tasks are going on essentially on top of each other. There's no way that can be changed at KCI. You can add 1 or 5 more similar terminals and it's not going to change. The airports two working terminals have plenty of gates already. KCI's design dictates that too much goes on in too small of space - I cannot see any way to take a long narrow terminal and realistically create what other airports have. It doesn't work. It will never work. Frankly, I think its you and Pash that are not thinking this through. What works is to have the space in depth so all of these functions can be spatially compartmentalized. Nearly all airports do this by having large deep terminals where the processes can be stacked in depth to minimize walking. To accomplish anything close to that at KCI would require doing it along an extended axis with check-in and security at one end of the terminal (or center) and gates stacked behind and it would indeed destroy any convenience the airport still maintains. But I still don't think that design would work at KCI.

[earthling]

^ +1

[mean]

The problems facing KCI were same before and after the closure of A. The obvious issue at KCI is that there is simply no room to perform all the tasks now associated with flying - checking in, bag checking, security, arriving, waiting, eating, toilets etc in a comfortable fashion. Every airport in the US has a process to handle these things - and it's predicated on having enough depth to the structure so those processes can be done sequentially. Most airports have arrival and departures on different levels. KCI has extremely narrow terminals and all these various tasks are going on essentially on top of each other. There's no way that can be changed at KCI. You can add 1 or 5 more similar terminals and it's not going to change. The airports two working terminals have plenty of gates already. KCI's design dictates that too much goes on in too small of space - I cannot see any way to take a long narrow terminal and realistically create what other airports have. It doesn't work. It will never work. Frankly, I think its you and Pash that are not thinking this through. What works is to have the space in depth so all of these functions can be spatially compartmentalized. Nearly all airports do this by having large deep terminals where the processes can be stacked in depth to minimize walking. To accomplish anything close to that at KCI would require doing it along an extended axis with check-in and security at one end of the terminal (or center) and gates stacked behind and it would indeed destroy any convenience the airport still maintains. But I still don't think that design would work at KCI.

I'm starting to wonder whether either you guys have some reading comprehension problem, I'm having a problem making myself adequately clear, or your bias is so extreme that you can't understand I'm on your side. I'm agreeing with you. The only thing we apparently don't agree on is that I think A's closure was motivated in part by a desire to inconvenience people so they'd finally be willing to vote to fix those things. You said that was absurd. I explained why I didn't think it was absurd, and was in fact probably necessary. Then instead of explaining why I'm wrong you give me a laundry list of KCI's problems? Immediately after I ask you not to conflate two things, you spend an entire paragraph conflating them... it's kind of stunning, really.

[Highlander]

The problems facing KCI were same before and after the closure of A. The obvious issue at KCI is that there is simply no room to perform all the tasks now associated with flying - checking in, bag checking, security, arriving, waiting, eating, toilets etc in a comfortable fashion. Every airport in the US has a process to handle these things - and it's predicated on having enough depth to the structure so those processes can be done sequentially. Most airports have arrival and departures on different levels. KCI has extremely narrow terminals and all these various tasks are going on essentially on top of each other. There's no way that can be changed at KCI. You can add 1 or 5 more similar terminals and it's not going to change. The airports two working terminals have plenty of gates already. KCI's design dictates that too much goes on in too small of space - I cannot see any way to take a long narrow terminal and realistically create what other airports have. It doesn't work. It will never work. Frankly, I think its you and Pash that are not thinking this through. What works is to have the space in depth so all of these functions can be spatially compartmentalized. Nearly all airports do this by having large deep terminals where the processes can be stacked in depth to minimize walking. To accomplish anything close to that at KCI would require doing it along an extended axis with check-in and security at one end of the terminal (or center) and gates stacked behind and it would indeed destroy any convenience the airport still maintains. But I still don't think that design would work at KCI.

I'm starting to wonder whether either you guys have some reading comprehension problem, I'm having a problem making myself adequately clear, or your bias is so extreme that you can't understand I'm on your side. I'm agreeing with you. The only thing we apparently don't agree on is that I think A's closure was motivated in part by a desire to inconvenience people so they'd finally be willing to vote to fix those things. You said that was absurd. I explained why I didn't think it was absurd, and was in fact probably necessary. Then instead of explaining why I'm wrong you give me a laundry list of KCI's problems? Immediately after I ask you not to conflate two things, you spend an entire paragraph conflating them... it's kind of stunning, really.

I agree that shuttering a terminal may ultimately work out in favor of those in the decision-making process's. But my point has always been that cramped situation at KCI was there before the terminal A was shuttered. That seems to be what the flying public is saying when I read reviews of the airport from over the last 10 years. From my own experience of flying into and out of KCI several times per year (and I fly mostly United and American), the conditions at KCI seems about the same to me since Terminal A was shut down. So, while I see that there might be something to be theoretically gained from shutting a terminal down from a public opinion standpoint, I don't see how that advantage is being realized since the conditions that people are complaining about existed prior to the terminal being shuttered. The ulterior motive is a big public opinion risk for little gain (KCI's was already a miserable place to spend time) all while running the risk of putting the city in a very bad light to visitors (which would be counter-productive to say the least).

And when dealing with the KC public, I am not sure if substantially impacting the comfort factor at KCI would ever create the hoped for cause and effect. When I read the KCstar's comments sections where readers complain about a single terminal airport, it's clear that many of the responders haven't used the airport in years. And it's not the airport users that will decide the issue - it's Kansas Citians of whom a certain percentage happen to be airport users.

Frankly, I think most Kansas Citian's ultimately will approve a new terminal once they truly believe that airport users would pay for the terminal; and not their taxes. That seems to me to be the battle that needs to fought - far more to be gained here than to get into the technical aspects of design.

[im2kull]

Frankly, I think most Kansas Citian's ultimately will approve a new terminal once they truly believe that airport users would pay for the terminal; and not their taxes.

Given that 90% of the airports users ARE Kansas City area residents, your statement that KC area residents taxes won't pay for the terminal, is a bit misleading. 90% of the funds will still come from KC area residents pockets. Unless we magically gain thousands of connecting flights overnight, which would be a stretch to say the least. Eventually the airport would surely have more connecting PAX that help bear costs, but definitely not during the construction and first few years of a new terminals construction..which is when the majority of the costs will be paid for.

The idea that there is some conspiracy to make KCI less comfortable to get an new single terminal past voters is absurd. KCI's problems speak for themselves and are insurmountable given the current design. They have been speaking for themselves for a couple of decades now. The airport is only barely functional because KC is a relative aviation backwater - it's not more widely recognized as among the worst airports in the US for the same reason (although it does get plenty of recognition for being a very poor airport).

Just like Mean, I'm ON your side.. I WANT a new terminal. But, I also am not so blinded to see that the airport authority and specifically Mark VanLoh created numerous problems, and flat out LIED about many purported problems at KCI that didn't actually exist, in an attempt to gain support for a new terminal. THAT is absolutely wrong to do. And that is what I have a problem with. This whole thing has been mismanaged from the get go, as the KC Star pointed out in the article I quoted. If what myself, Mean, and others are claiming is not true..then please explain to us all the reason behind the whole deicing pollution red herring, the constant shuffling of gates and eventual closure of terminal A, and the multiple JD power awards that KCI gathered for being an exceptional midsize airport (As rated by them AND the end users) while VanLoh was claiming the airport sucked throughout the mid 2010's.

Sure KCI might suck now, but mismanagement (Most likely on purpose) is THE reason for no routine maintenance taking place in the facility..causing things to fall apart that shouldn't, the configuration of the secured gate areas (Which could easily be changed and made completely different...and world class!), the congested terminal B (Although, lets be real...Southwest gates are jam packed and a completely miserable experience at EVERY airport. It's a budget airline for a reason..), and so forth.

And what exactly did we save by closing terminal A? Oh that's right, nobody knows. Why? Because the reality is that we probably saved almost nothing by "Closing" that terminal. Terminal A is, and remains to this day, very much in a turn key, operational readiness mode. The building is still heated and cooled, maintenance still goes on, cleaning still occurs, and no jobs were shuttered by closing it.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/business ... -move.html

“When you say ‘closed’ it brings to mind all these dark images,” airport spokeswoman Kathleen Hefner said of the plan for Terminal A. “It doesn’t mean turning off all the utilities and boarding up the windows.

“We’ll have to keep it above freezing levels and keep it operable in case we need it. A sports team might fly in at the spur of the moment or a charter flight might drop in.”

The moves will mean some, as yet undetermined, utility cost savings. But airport staffing will be reassigned so there will be no appreciable personnel cutbacks. Terminal A will be cleaned less often, but security patrols will continue.

[KCPowercat]

ATA doesn't run the airport. Please source the 90% stat

[mean]

Given that 90% of the airports users ARE Kansas City area residents, your statement that KC area residents taxes won't pay for the terminal, is a bit misleading. 90% of the funds will still come from KC area residents pockets. Unless we magically gain thousands of connecting flights overnight, which would be a stretch to say the least. Eventually the airport would surely have more connecting PAX that help bear costs, but definitely not during the construction and first few years of a new terminals construction..which is when the majority of the costs will be paid for.

I think we are largely on the same page, but you seem to be misunderstanding the difference between taxes and use fees. Just because the fees will mostly be paid by locals doesn't make them taxes, and nowhere does Highlander imply they will mostly be paid by non-locals. He just says they aren't taxes. Because they aren't.