We need a new airport!!!

[chingon]

Part of me thinks they should cancel the election as a big FU since no taxes would be needed, but I'd also like to see it pass with the infrastructure margins and put the do nothing crowd back in their hole for a while.

The idea that the polling has shifted (or will shift) enough to pass between now and anytime soon is madness.

[hartliss]

Part of me thinks they should cancel the election as a big FU since no taxes would be needed, but I'd also like to see it pass with the infrastructure margins and put the do nothing crowd back in their hole for a while.

The idea that the polling has shifted (or will shift) enough to pass between now and anytime soon is madness.

It is?

[shaffe]

I get why the other engineering firms (BNIM quoted in that article) might not like it, but if that is what it freaking takes then I'm all for B&M taking this project on. It may be necessary after the ballot item in November (insanely and stupidly) fails.

[flyingember]

Burns & McDonald is obviously putting this plan forward because they see profit in it. Where would this increased profit be coming from?

Time is money. If the airport costs X and they say they can build it quicker, that's less labor costs for the same end result.

[beautyfromashes]

^^ I guess that I don't buy that the 'time/money' value for just a few months until a fall election would be worth the considerable effort and risk B&M would have to undergo. The only reason I would see is that this way would bypass the bid process for them and guarantee them the business. But, if there is so much profit available in building a new airport, the city should find a way to capture it. It's my understanding that all airport funds currently just stay with the airport. Build the new airport with the profits going into the city budget.

[Highlander]

^^ I guess that I don't buy that the 'time/money' value for just a few months until a fall election would be worth the considerable effort and risk B&M would have to undergo. The only reason I would see is that this way would bypass the bid process for them and guarantee them the business. But, if there is so much profit available in building a new airport, the city should find a way to capture it. It's my understanding that all airport funds currently just stay with the airport. Build the new airport with the profits going into the city budget.

Doesn't the "profit" cover the operational budget of the airport and any further capital costs? It's not like you spend the money on construction and there's no further costs. The operational costs have to be huge.

[chingon]

Part of me thinks they should cancel the election as a big FU since no taxes would be needed, but I'd also like to see it pass with the infrastructure margins and put the do nothing crowd back in their hole for a while.

The idea that the polling has shifted (or will shift) enough to pass between now and anytime soon is madness.

It is?

Yes. Hence, a "plan" that is not subject to the Hancock Ammendment.

[WoodDraw]

Wait, if they go private why would we still have a vote?

[grovester]

Wait, if they go private why would we still have a vote?

"However, even if the city proceeds with this private financing option, James said, it still would have an election in November. The ballot would ask the voters to sign off on this new terminal construction plan. That vote would happen because the City Council promised a vote in response to a 2014 citizens petition requiring a public election on any major KCI improvements.

If voters say no, James acknowledged, “we’re screwed.”"

[grovester]

Part of me thinks they should cancel the election as a big FU since no taxes would be needed, but I'd also like to see it pass with the infrastructure margins and put the do nothing crowd back in their hole for a while.

The idea that the polling has shifted (or will shift) enough to pass between now and anytime soon is madness.

This concept has to move the needle a little at least.

[shinatoo]

I hope Burns a Mac can make a profit on this. That profit comes right back into KC. City backed bonds or Airline financing would send the profits out of town.

[KCPowercat]

Good point

[chingon]

Part of me thinks they should cancel the election as a big FU since no taxes would be needed, but I'd also like to see it pass with the infrastructure margins and put the do nothing crowd back in their hole for a while.

The idea that the polling has shifted (or will shift) enough to pass between now and anytime soon is madness.

This concept has to move the needle a little at least.

1. The needle needs to move A LOT. A lot a lot.

2. While Loar rarely does anything based on constituent desires or good policy and not her own self-interest, she is right on this one. No one really objects to the bonding. Not really. People here fucking love that airport and are very, very afraid that they will have to wait in lines and walk a long way at a new one. It really is that simple.

[KCFan]

^^ I guess that I don't buy that the 'time/money' value for just a few months until a fall election would be worth the considerable effort and risk B&M would have to undergo. The only reason I would see is that this way would bypass the bid process for them and guarantee them the business. But, if there is so much profit available in building a new airport, the city should find a way to capture it. It's my understanding that all airport funds currently just stay with the airport. Build the new airport with the profits going into the city budget.

That's the thing, we're not talking about a couple months - it's more like a couple years or more shaved off. No doubt this is a civic pride thing for B&M plus it's an arena they're trying to compete in around the world so there's huge motives there besides the profit motive. Getting a first class airport is a huge deal for KC in attracting people, jobs, and economic development to the metro....never mind more flight options. People would love to have a direct flight to Europe and we're just not going to get that without having the ability to connect flights in from other cities.

Personally, I just want a new airport to get done and sooner rather than later. If it takes the B&M plan to do it, that's fine with me. If the city wants to go back with the old plan, that's fine too. We just need to get the airport done before we hit another recession and the airlines pull back (or pull their money out).

[hartliss]

The idea that the polling has shifted (or will shift) enough to pass between now and anytime soon is madness.

This concept has to move the needle a little at least.

1. The needle needs to move A LOT. A lot a lot.

2. While Loar rarely does anything based on constituent desires on not her own self-interest, she is right on this one. No one really objects to the bonding. Not really. People here fucking love that airport and are very, very afraid that they will have to wait in lines and walk a long way at a new one. It really is that simple.

I agree, there is a majority who like the airport the way it is. In their mind we are going to blow up KCI and build Chicago OHare, which isn't true. We can still have a new airport AND it can be convenient. The Teresa Loar crowd will use the new airport "inconvenience" strategy as way to ramp up opposition. As far as I am concerned, someone could propose building a brand new airport for free and the anti-crowd would find a way to shut it down. Welcome to KCMO, where we are afraid to invest in a new airport because it may be 22 steps longer to my gate.

[KCPowercat]

The benefit I see here is speed. That may negate or even become a better deal financially even given private financing

[hartliss]

In case people care how "other" surveys fare on the airport:
http://www.airlinequality.com/airport-r ... y-airport/
http://www.worldairportawards.com/award ... ating.html
http://www.aci.aero/Airport-Service-Qua ... th-America
https://www.google.com/search?q=kansas+ ... 5d2edaa0,1,
https://www.yelp.com/biz/kansas-city-in ... sas-city-5
http://www.jdpower.com/press-releases/2 ... tion-study

[KCFan]

The idea that the polling has shifted (or will shift) enough to pass between now and anytime soon is madness.

This concept has to move the needle a little at least.

1. The needle needs to move A LOT. A lot a lot.

2. While Loar rarely does anything based on constituent desires on not her own self-interest, she is right on this one. No one really objects to the bonding. Not really. People here fucking love that airport and are very, very afraid that they will have to wait in lines and walk a long way at a new one. It really is that simple.

It depends on who you talk to because there's a vocal pool that hate KCI with a passion. I don't know that people object to bonding, but they do object to the perception their taxes are funding the airport, that a new airport would increase their taxes, and that by doing the airport, it's taking priority over other things their tax dollars could be going to. What percentage of voters believe their taxes run the airport? I'll bet it's 1/3 to 1/2 of voters.

And what a lot of residents have to understand is doing nothing is not an option. If you look at the renovation plans that literally put the centralized security on top of the parking garages (in the middle of terminals B & C). If they want to see what a long walk is, start looking at where you would check in there and how far people would have to walk. It's one of those things where if renovation ultimately happened, people wouldn't like the outcome.

The biggest thing I've noticed is Kansas Citians are constantly comparing KCI to Denver, Atlanta, L.A., etc. Denver is the smallest of those airports flying around 58 million passengers a year. KCI flies somewhere around 11 million a year. A new KCI is going to be fine because if nothing else, it's still going to be a small airport. KC is closer to Wichita in airport size (1.6 mil passengers) than we are to Denver (which flies 47 million more people).

[flyingember]

From the middle of a hypothetical new security area to the end of each of two terminals is about 1/2 a mile long.

That's like walking from Union Station to 26th and Grand via the most direct route. Some people will do it, not everyone will.

One gate to another could be a mile away

[grovester]

The City needs to quantify the savings from financing. They should also quantify the likely fee increase per ticket.