Terminal B is often jam packed for early morning flights and the lines are unpredictable.
Yep - Terminal B i.e. Southwest can be a total clusterfuck. Garage is often full or close when travelling for biz early in the week (could be helped or at least produce more revenue with dynamic pricing I would think) and lines can be blissful and short or crazy overcrowded.
Mostly, the terminals are just a dump. All of the supporting infrastructure is in place and of high-quality, despite the distance from the regional population center.
mgsports wrote:One like Topeka,Wichita,Springfield/Branson have?
Still not good examples of airports that would even come close to supplement KCI.
In order-
Half the flights of New Century and JoCo each
Around 10% the passengers of KCI
Less than 10% of their flights are commercial, A majority is general aviation
Kansas isn't getting the airport unless the northlanders royally screw things up.
I'm hopeful that Kansas City, Mo. rebuilds KCI not because they are being forced to because of Kansas, but because it's the right thing to do regardless.
Anyone else see this as the push Missouri voters needed? I personally think more people would vote for a new airport if they knew there was even a slight chance of Kansas stealing that too.
Would be nice if KCI could get bi-state cooperation tax like what happened with Union Station but fat chance of that in this era, which is why they'll need to rely on ticket fees. I don't personally care where the airport goes but obviously most of the infrastructure is already in place at KCI so should be the obvious first consideration.
There simply needs to be a new terminal no matter what happens, instead of these cramped cattle bins we have and long lines in tiny restrooms. A plan needs to be approved -now- as it will take 10-15 years to complete.
If KCI did move what would it hurt? I really think the only thing it would kill are like 10 hotels. The Zona Rosa and Restaurants are pretty much self-sustaining and does not rely on airport traffic. I could see maybe some multi family housing take a hit in that area. Maybe KC could redevelop that entire area into a Stapleton like development in Denver
Nobody should want that at all..... I'm not even sure it's legal.... Airports fund themselves with fees and leases....A bistate thing would be a waste of that taxing method
I flew to Chicago this weekend. This afternoon we returned via O'Hare and were through security in 5 minutes. Would have been less than 15 minutes from a curbside drop off via cab/friend to my gate. It was only 20 minutes from the blue line stop to our gate.
Traffic, not terminal construct, dictate how easy an airport is to use. A single terminal in Kansas City will still be incredibly easy to navigate because it just won't be that busy. I spent at least twice as long getting through security on Friday morning.
All the highest rated airports in KC's class size are single terminal airports. Being a single terminal doesn't preclude an airport from being easy to use. Most people just think of the biggest, busiest airports as airports they dislike and somehow they associate that with a single terminal. I have a feeling that when the airport is done, people will wonder why they were ever against it (kinda like all the people against the Sprint Center before it was built).
Is interesting that _some_ friends who have moved here from the largest cities are not for a new airport and in general not often pro development. They want to see new things in KC regularly but don't want KC to become the big cities they've escaped. They like KC as it is for the most part and want to keep it a secret. KC will be passed up by Oklahoma City if it thinks that way.
