We need a new airport!!!

[nota]

It would be a massive project costing millions of dollars, but it would make the airport more efficient and cost-friendly.   but yes, you would have to walk a while to reach the exits. (gasp) like Kansas Citians couldn't use the excersice. 

Got any facts and figures on that or is it just something you pulled out of the air?

[KCTigerFan]

I like the idea of "main" terminal buildings in the circles above the parking structure.  I bet it would never be approved thugh due to security concerns.  How long did they search every car trunk going into the garages after 9/11...

[mykem]

From what I've read about MCI, The airport was designed by TWA, they wanted the circular design and the three terminals. They vetoed The original design of MCI which was to reflect that of Dulles in washington DC. All of this of course was before the 1980's, and the the dawn of terrorism.

After years of rising security costs TWA approached the city, and asked the city to combine the terminals into one, or build a new facility to house everybody. The city refused, and TWA relocated their hub to st.Louis.

Before this airport grows any larger with carriers, and passengers the airport will have to find a way to minimize it's security costs. The only way that may happen is to build a brand new passenger terminal to house everyone.

[bbqboy]

KCI was designed in the era of Airline Regulation and was designed for same. iIn between design and implementation, deregulation happened, making KCI obsolete before it even opened.

[shinatoo]

Got any facts and figures on that or is it just something you pulled out of the air?

Check the Director of Aviations e-mail posted above. He stated

...a single terminal with extended concourses will allow the airport to increase all revenues from concessions and decrease the amount of personnel needed to maintain the three identical terminals we have today.

[en08]

I asked the director of aviation the following question:
Thank you for your response. I do have one question though in response to some of the information you stated in your email. You said that "It is my intention to steer this process into the construction of a new single facility to serve all airlines and passengers.  Although KCI does not pay for the security services you mentioned, a single terminal with extended concourses will allow the airport to increase all revenues from concessions and decrease the amount of personnel needed to maintain the three identical terminals we have today". Does this mean that you wish to or there are plans to tear down our current airport and build a new one, or simply re-structure our existing terminals?

He responded:

As with anything an airport does, extensive federal oversight is required. As Director, I hope to have some influence in the future direction of the airport. The FAA will study numerous environmental issues before any new terminal can be built. The existing terminals will most likely be torn down. Their age and location makes any expansion difficult and as you mentioned, the airlines face tough decisions whenever they think of expansion here. It was a great design and well ahead of its time in 1971-before hijacks and terrorism.

Mark

Does anyone have any information on these plans or the "master plan" for KCI? Renderings? Anything. Obviously, the circles will be torn down, but he didn't divulge more information than that, as you can see.

[DaveKCMO]

ah, the circles will be missed...

[tat2kc]

It would be years before this ever moved beyond the "I wish" stage. We aren't anywhere near capacity, and we just finished a multimillion dollar upgrade.  There is absolutely no way the Feds would kick in any cash to tear down recently upgraded terminals to build a brand new one.

en08, I stil fail to see your problems with KCI. Its a great airport.

[en08]

It would be years before this ever moved beyond the "I wish" stage. We aren't anywhere near capacity, and we just finished a multimillion dollar upgrade.  There is absolutely no way the Feds would kick in any cash to tear down recently upgraded terminals to build a brand new one.

en08, I stil fail to see your problems with KCI. Its a great airport.

It is a "great airport" in terms of conveience. Otherwise, it sucks and it's design is obsolete for today's post 9/11 world. There are few non-stop destinations, If I need to take a crap while waiting for my plane, I have to go through the stupid pain in the ass security system again. Not to mention it is one of the most BORING airports in the country. I realize that an airport isn't a mall, but still I WANT SOMETHING TO DO IF I AM WAITING 2 HOURS FOR A PLANE!!!! It is not an airport befitting a city with a population of 2,200,000 people! It might have been really great in 1970, but today it's not. As the director said, the issue of security is a major issue with KCI-- having to "close off" every five gates for individual security-- it's one of the most expensive security situations in the entire country. Actually, I wouldn't be suprised if the feds DID fork over the money for a new terminal just so they could save in the long run on security costs. Yes, driving to your gate is a "nice" feature, but we are the only large city in the COUNTRY that allows you to "drive to your gate" (I have been to plenty of small cities that do this, but NEVER to a big city that has a "drive-to-your gate" airport except Kansas City). Because of this, our airport is relativley small and an INCONVIENCE for people connecting there. Although KCI is not a hub or focus city, the city strives to be a "world class city". That's why we are spending 4 BILLION DOLLARS renovating our downtown, and all the other development that is taking place around the metro. Kansas City wants to grow and wants to become a world-class city. With a small city airport like KCI, we are not going to do this. It is time for this CITY to shed this stupid small-town utilitiarian "convience" mentality and adopt the mentality of the people in similar sized cities like Denver.

[GRID]

en08, I agree with much of what you say.  Our airport is "boring", but most airports are, they just have more people walking around to look at.  Don't we have non-stops to 60-70 towns? Although I would like to see a few more and at a bit higher frequency.  I am flying out of southwest in the morning and returning on midwest, so I will need to catch a red bus to my blue bus, but I will still be at I-29 and Barry Road before I reach the bagage claim area of most airports.

It will be cool to get a new terminal, KCI does need it, but the airport is not quite a drab as you describe it IMO.

By far, the worst thing about KCI IMO is flying over freaking cows when you land and that's not going to change in our lifetimes.

[Highlander]

en08, I agree with much of what you say.  Our airport is "boring", but most airports are, they just have more people walking around to look at.  Don't we have non-stops to 60-70 towns? Although I would like to see a few more and at a bit higher frequency.  I am flying out of southwest in the morning and returning on midwest, so I will need to catch a red bus to my blue bus, but I will still be at I-29 and Barry Road before I reach the bagage claim area of most airports.

It will be cool to get a new terminal, KCI does need it, but the airport is not quite a drab as you describe it IMO.

By far, the worst thing about KCI IMO is flying over freaking cows when you land and that's not going to change in our lifetimes.

For me, its a question of trade-offs.

What you gain with KCI:  Customer-oriented

1) Convenience
2) Cheaper airfare
3) Lack of Complexity (everything is right there when you walk in)
4) Lack of crowds (generally)

What you lose with KCI:  KC Growth and Business-oriented

1) A wider variety of flights and non-stop destinations (makes KC that much of a harder sell as a relocation spot)
2) Lack of a hub (fewer flights as above and less airline-related business and employment)
3) Lack of international flights
4) Lack of vibrancy
5) Lack of selected conveniences such as toilets within all secure areas
6) Less efficient for airport staffing (costs more to operate)

I don't mind giving up a bit of convenience to see the airport become more of a growth engine for the city.  But, then again, I only fly in once or twice a year at the current time.  If I was doing it on a regular basis, my preferences might be different. 

[KC0KEK]

It is a "great airport" in terms of conveience. Otherwise, it sucks and it's design is obsolete for today's post 9/11 world. There are few non-stop destinations, If I need to take a crap while waiting for my plane, I have to go through the stupid pain in the ass security system again. Not to mention it is one of the most BORING airports in the country. I realize that an airport isn't a mall, but still I WANT SOMETHING TO DO IF I AM WAITING 2 HOURS FOR A PLANE!!!! It is not an airport befitting a city with a population of 2,200,000 people! It might have been really great in 1970, but today it's not. As the director said, the issue of security is a major issue with KCI-- having to "close off" every five gates for individual security-- it's one of the most expensive security situations in the entire country. Actually, I wouldn't be suprised if the feds DID fork over the money for a new terminal just so they could save in the long run on security costs. Yes, driving to your gate is a "nice" feature, but we are the only large city in the COUNTRY that allows you to "drive to your gate" (I have been to plenty of small cities that do this, but NEVER to a big city that has a "drive-to-your gate" airport except Kansas City). Because of this, our airport is relativley small and an INCONVIENCE for people connecting there. Although KCI is not a hub or focus city, the city strives to be a "world class city". That's why we are spending 4 BILLION DOLLARS renovating our downtown, and all the other development that is taking place around the metro. Kansas City wants to grow and wants to become a world-class city. With a small city airport like KCI, we are not going to do this. It is time for this CITY to shed this stupid small-town utilitiarian "convience" mentality and adopt the mentality of the people in similar sized cities like Denver.

First, why are you checking in two hours before your flight? Second, why don't you take a shit before going through security? Unless you're incontinent or have stomach flu, crapping before the security gauntlet should have you covered for quite a while. 

[tat2kc]

They've added restrooms in the security areas. It takes less than 10 minutes to get through security. There are non stop flights to 64 cities. A new terminal would cost a billion dollars, easily. How long would it take the feds to recoup a billion dollars by saving money on security?  KCI is the easiest airport for the citizens of Kansas City.  If the demand was there for more frequent non stops, the airlines would provide it.

As for flying over cows, its better than being hemmed in on all sides by developement that prevents further expansion. Denver's Stapleton Airport was easy to get to, but they couldn't expand. The new DIA is a beautiful airport, but its way the hell in BFE. I'll take KCI over Denver anytime.

[ddw334umkc]

I say tear down each terminal  one by one and replace them with newer, modern terminals.  KCI really is an outdated eyesore.  Flying over cow pastures and farmland tends to leave a lasting impression on out-of-town visitors, especially first-time visitors.  No wonder there aren't too many airlines at KCI (which should be renamed St. Joseph International Airport considering how far it is from the city).  Wichita has a busier airport than us.  ,

Those renovations aren't really noticeable other than the waterfall sign, a few new restaurants and the blue marble floors.  The new consolidated car rental facility is really a dissappointment.  There are no people movers to transport passengers to the facility (as a result, people still have to wait out in the cold for those stupid shuttle buses).  Hell, they could've stayed where they were!  And KCI could've done better than those shitty-ass Wolfgang Puck sandwich refridgerators and 1-man restrooms!  Not to mention the lack of decent public transportation that forces people to resort to lazy hotel shuttle drivers and overpriced cabs.

Kansas City deserves a much better facility to represent a soon-to-be "world class city".

[KC0KEK]

Then move to Wichita if its airport is an example of what you're looking for.

[skim82]

en08 / /

I must agree with you 100%

As far as those disagreeing with you, they have their own opinions... but i must agree that our airport is far out dated and boring. 

There are some on this thread that believe KCI is ok, and most of all convenient, but being convenient user friendly airport for LOCALS does not make a great airport.

Some of the problems i see with KCI..

1) There is no designated drop off and pick up location, thus creating a traffic snarl and chaos for security members keeping an eye on the incoming and outgoing passengers of the airport. (would be ideal to have two levels, one for departures and one for arrivals)

2) There is a significant lack of amenities such as restaurants, shops, in-airport hotel, walkways(people movers)

3) Even with the upgrades, the terminal is still too dark and outdated.

4) Lack of foot traffic from the spread out gates disallows for concentration of retail and airport services

5) The many numerous entrances and exit makes it too costly to monitor all suspicious behavior in the airport.

6) Lack of access to and from all terminals... red buses is not an efficient way to move travelers from terminal to terminal, nor is it a pleasant to wait for buses in the cold or hot weather.

Those are just some of the problems that jump out at me. Again just MHO. 

[skim82]

Got any facts and figures on that or is it just something you pulled out of the air?

Thx en08 for the info... Nota check the replied e-mail that en08 posted.

I don't think its too hard to tell that having a centralized location for airport services would be more cost effective for the airport.  Creating an area for all services would increase foot traffic and create a destination for all travelers. 

[GRID]

en08 / /

I must agree with you 100%

As far as those disagreeing with you, they have their own opinions... but i must agree that our airport is far out dated and boring. 

There are some on this thread that believe KCI is ok, and most of all convenient, but being convenient user friendly airport for LOCALS does not make a great airport.

Some of the problems i see with KCI..

1) There is no designated drop off and pick up location, thus creating a traffic snarl and chaos for security members keeping an eye on the incoming and outgoing passengers of the airport. (would be ideal to have two levels, one for departures and one for arrivals)

2) There is a significant lack of amenities such as restaurants, shops, in-airport hotel, walkways(people movers)

3) Even with the upgrades, the terminal is still too dark and outdated.

4) Lack of foot traffic from the spread out gates disallows for concentration of retail and airport services

5) The many numerous entrances and exit makes it too costly to monitor all suspicious behavior in the airport.

6) Lack of access to and from all terminals... red buses is not an efficient way to move travelers from terminal to terminal, nor is it a pleasant to wait for buses in the cold or hot weather.

Those are just some of the problems that jump out at me. Again just MHO. 

Yea, just wanted to say if I sounded a bit harsh I apologize, didn't mean to be, this is a forum for "discusion" not who is right or wrong.  I can see all the benefits of building new terminals as well.  Either way, I think KC has or will have a decent airport.  KCI is still nicer than most airports IMO.

[aknowledgeableperson]

No wonder there aren't too many airlines at KCI (which should be renamed St. Joseph International Airport considering how far it is from the city).  Wichita has a busier airport than us. 

Let's see. The last time I checked KCI was inside the city limits of KCMO so it must not be too far from the city.

Also, how many take-offs and landings does Wichita have?  How many passengers go through the Wichita airport?  Let me know if Wichita has greater numbers than KCI.
http://www.flykci.com/NewsRoom/NewsRoom/150.htm

We will get new buildings when the airlines and the feds want them.  Since they will be the ones paying the bill it will be their votes that count.
Could KCI be better?  Yes.  But so can all of the other airports, they all have good points and bad points.  I haven't been to many airports since I do not fly very often but compared to the ones I have been in KCI is not as bad as many here have posted and it seems that they tend to list only what is unfavorable and ignore its fine points.

[mykem]

The same architect who is designing the PAC, also designed the new terminal f at pearson international airport in toronto.