We need a new airport!!!

[Highlander]

Some national sentiment about KCI over the past few years

http://gizmodo.com/the-worst-airports-i ... 1662565765
http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... ction.html
http://jalopnik.com/the-ten-worst-airpo ... 1453999532
https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/f ... s/2581015/

Interesting reviews and very telling (many express my frustrations with KCI): http://www.airlinequality.com/airport-r ... y-airport/


This well-known blogger acknowledges KCI's convenience - but goes on to give the reason for it (same as I have always argued - that KCI is just not a busy airport).
http://www.kcconfidential.com/2012/06/1 ... i-airport/
There are those who come to KCI's defense in the comments though - but note that some are same people that call the Streetcar a toy train.

I could provide another 50 links without trying all that hard. To be fair, KCI doesn't make all the worst airport lists in North America but I think that's largely because it's not on a lot of people's radar. Most people writing the columns reserve those distinctions to much busier airports. But for those not mired in the KCI convenience myth and actually do travel here, KCI is long past its days of impressing anyone.

[cityscape]

I had my worst experience ever at KCI this week. Late afternoon flight out of B37 (Southwest). Had to use the restroom past security, which I don't think I've done for a while and I was truly disgusted. It reeked of urine. There were puddles of urine and splashed water from sinks everywhere. Speaking of the sinks, one of the faucets didn't work and the other dribbled out water. All of this while there was a line of at least 7 people waiting to use it. I saw several people open the door and just turn around and leave. I did let one of the airport workers know the bathroom needed some attention and he said they're cleaned every couple hours.....I don't see how. Anyway, upon our flight arriving there were 5 people in wheel chairs waiting to get on and with no room to put them, they blocked the entrance to Jose Cuervo's restaurant, frustrating a lot of folks trying to grab a bite. As the passengers deplaned on the flight i was about to board, they all seemed frustrated and confused with having to navigate around wheel chairs and other passengers waiting to board. One lady actually said "Are we at an airport or a subway station?" I'm assuming she was referring to the low ceilings and cramped spaces. As we're lined up to begin boarding our full flight, people walking from gates 32-34 to 37-45 on the exterior walkway could not enter and had to wait until enough people had boarded for them to walk past the crowd.

We should have been in the process of replacing this airport 5 years ago. I cannot imagine what the next few years will bring. There is no more convenience to this airport aside from a shorter walk for those being dropped off. Flights are constantly full, meaning that there are more and more people waiting post security with no where to seat them all. This is unacceptable for a metro airport serving 2+ million people. I've seen nicer and more convenient airports in Redmond, Oregon (Seriously).

We need a modern airport with open spaces and enough seating for everyone waiting to board. Clean and updated restrooms with enough stalls/urinals to support more than 3 people at once. An airport where the secure area is actually secure (hint, anyone can throw any type of device over the window wall).

With so many flights packed full and the trend not seeming to end, wouldn't it be nice to enjoy the time at the airport before you board your sardine can for 2-3 hours? Seems reasonable to me.

Rant over. Thanks for reading.

[SingleMalt12]

Exactly. I had to fly into and out of KCI a couple of weeks ago. For all the blather about short walk from car/garage to gate the experience was absolutely awful. A single terminal with a longer walk to the gate is that way for a reason. What's the reason you ask? Come closer...I'll share the secret with you. ROOM! Room to move around, room to enter the terminal even when there is a flight loading, room for larger bathrooms, room for passengers with special needs, room for decent food post security, room for actual security. Oh, and the bathrooms are either not actually cleaned every two hours or for reasons passing understanding no one has much aim when they use them. Either way they are disgusting. I fly to a ton of airports and yes, there are others that are bad but seriously, replace this dinosaur from another era. No one gets to run onto a plane as perhaps they could in the 70s and 80s.

[im2kull]

I had my worst experience ever at KCI this week. Late afternoon flight out of B37 (Southwest). Had to use the restroom past security, which I don't think I've done for a while and I was truly disgusted. It reeked of urine. There were puddles of urine and splashed water from sinks everywhere. Speaking of the sinks, one of the faucets didn't work and the other dribbled out water. All of this while there was a line of at least 7 people waiting to use it. I saw several people open the door and just turn around and leave. I did let one of the airport workers know the bathroom needed some attention and he said they're cleaned every couple hours.....I don't see how. Anyway, upon our flight arriving there were 5 people in wheel chairs waiting to get on and with no room to put them, they blocked the entrance to Jose Cuervo's restaurant, frustrating a lot of folks trying to grab a bite. As the passengers deplaned on the flight i was about to board, they all seemed frustrated and confused with having to navigate around wheel chairs and other passengers waiting to board. One lady actually said "Are we at an airport or a subway station?" I'm assuming she was referring to the low ceilings and cramped spaces. As we're lined up to begin boarding our full flight, people walking from gates 32-34 to 37-45 on the exterior walkway could not enter and had to wait until enough people had boarded for them to walk past the crowd.

We should have been in the process of replacing this airport 5 years ago. I cannot imagine what the next few years will bring. There is no more convenience to this airport aside from a shorter walk for those being dropped off. Flights are constantly full, meaning that there are more and more people waiting post security with no where to seat them all. This is unacceptable for a metro airport serving 2+ million people. I've seen nicer and more convenient airports in Redmond, Oregon (Seriously).

We need a modern airport with open spaces and enough seating for everyone waiting to board. Clean and updated restrooms with enough stalls/urinals to support more than 3 people at once. An airport where the secure area is actually secure (hint, anyone can throw any type of device over the window wall).

With so many flights packed full and the trend not seeming to end, wouldn't it be nice to enjoy the time at the airport before you board your sardine can for 2-3 hours? Seems reasonable to me.

Rant over. Thanks for reading.

Every problem you mentioned is a problem created by mismanagement. Except for the tidbit about the passenger being confused by walking past the other passengers preparing to board.. It's like that at many airports jet ways so they likely have not flown enough to become accustomed with the unique regularities of air travel.

[GRID]

I had my worst experience ever at KCI this week. Late afternoon flight out of B37 (Southwest). Had to use the restroom past security, which I don't think I've done for a while and I was truly disgusted. It reeked of urine. There were puddles of urine and splashed water from sinks everywhere. Speaking of the sinks, one of the faucets didn't work and the other dribbled out water. All of this while there was a line of at least 7 people waiting to use it. I saw several people open the door and just turn around and leave. I did let one of the airport workers know the bathroom needed some attention and he said they're cleaned every couple hours.....I don't see how. Anyway, upon our flight arriving there were 5 people in wheel chairs waiting to get on and with no room to put them, they blocked the entrance to Jose Cuervo's restaurant, frustrating a lot of folks trying to grab a bite. As the passengers deplaned on the flight i was about to board, they all seemed frustrated and confused with having to navigate around wheel chairs and other passengers waiting to board. One lady actually said "Are we at an airport or a subway station?" I'm assuming she was referring to the low ceilings and cramped spaces. As we're lined up to begin boarding our full flight, people walking from gates 32-34 to 37-45 on the exterior walkway could not enter and had to wait until enough people had boarded for them to walk past the crowd.

We should have been in the process of replacing this airport 5 years ago. I cannot imagine what the next few years will bring. There is no more convenience to this airport aside from a shorter walk for those being dropped off. Flights are constantly full, meaning that there are more and more people waiting post security with no where to seat them all. This is unacceptable for a metro airport serving 2+ million people. I've seen nicer and more convenient airports in Redmond, Oregon (Seriously).

We need a modern airport with open spaces and enough seating for everyone waiting to board. Clean and updated restrooms with enough stalls/urinals to support more than 3 people at once. An airport where the secure area is actually secure (hint, anyone can throw any type of device over the window wall).

With so many flights packed full and the trend not seeming to end, wouldn't it be nice to enjoy the time at the airport before you board your sardine can for 2-3 hours? Seems reasonable to me.

Rant over. Thanks for reading.

Every problem you mentioned is a problem created by mismanagement. Except for the tidbit about the passenger being confused by walking past the other passengers preparing to board.. It's like that at many airports jet ways so they likely have not flown enough to become accustomed with the unique regularities of air travel.

Man you are crazy. KCI is by far one of the worst airports in the country and has been for a long time. There are only a few airports worse than KCI and all of them have at least four times the traffic of KCI. I fly a lot and I will go hours out of my way to avoid KCI for connecting flights. Believe it or not, KCI seems to come up often as a place to change planes when I book flights. Um....no way. I'm not a alone. Lots of frequent flyers won't come near KCI and that hurts KC's ability to have more flights.

I hope they get the new terminal done. IT's crazy that this has to be voted on by residents that have no clue about the issue. Here in DC both DCA and BWI are always spending hundreds of millions to improve themselves and they never ask the public for approval. They just do it. KCI is really missing out. I'm confident that KCI would be a major hub for Southwest today had KCI built a new terminal 5-10 years ago. That ship may have sailed though. I think all those flights went to St Louis instead. They now have way more flights than KC.

For the record the last three times I flew out of KCI, the wait times for TSA were longer than just about any other airport I have used. I almost missed a flight out of KCI on a Monday morning even though I was in line over an hour before my flight. It's probably a good thing though because there is generally no place to sit if you do have to wait. Do NOT fly out of KCI during peak mornings. The entire southwest terminal totally breaks down and fails at everything. For the record, when I land at BWI or DCA, my time from gate to pick up at curb or car in garage is nearly the same as KCI. KCI is actually slower if you check bags. So the only thing KC has going for it is highly overstated.

[aknowledgeableperson]

"I'm confident that KCI would be a major hub for Southwest today had KCI built a new terminal 5-10 years ago."

In 1994 I seem to remember flights to/from Chicago by Southwest every hour. I remember this because my son and I took a flight to Chicago for a World Cup game in the afternoon and had to be back for a party that night. Also Southwest had more non-stop flights to/from Las Vegas since that is the airline we take when we go there. Had more choices than now for non-stop flights.

[brewcrew1000]

Not sure what you are getting at but in 1994 you didn't have to go thru security, take off shoes, empty water, empty toiletries, and we were not stuck in an enclosed area separated by a wall. In 1994 the Airport would have been most similar to DFW and it would have been pleasant. Just 20 extra feet on the secure side of the terminals would make a huge difference.

Southwest was a lot smaller back in 1994, they really only mainly few in the Southwest, so its possible they were most concerned about frequency of flights back then, here is an historic route map from 94 - http://www.departedflights.com/WN100494.html

[earthling]

KCI was built before any security was needed. You could freely roam mostly the entire terminal when it opened. When security was required, KCI lost TWA as a hub. KCI is not designed for security and not plausible to retrofit given the narrow terminals. The waiting areas are already cramped and will be worse in 10 years, the time it will take to build new. Airlines can't share 12+ gates to transfer because passengers may have to reenter security. Think strategically long term people, not about what you prefer today. KC has fewer flights and destinations than several markets smaller than KC because KCI can't even operate as a mini-hub. Businesses want more nonstop flights to more destinations and airlines won't support KCI as configured. Newer airport designs are not at all less convenient than KCI today.

[KCFan]

Justin Meyer had an interesting series of tweets this morning that showed how at peak times on Southwest and United, KCI's security can't handle all the people that need to get through security. It shows year over year how United has added 235 seats (no new flights), but how it swamps security. 45 minute security waits at United this morning.

https://twitter.com/JustinMeyerKC/statu ... 8552591361

[aknowledgeableperson]

Not sure what you are getting at but in 1994 you didn't have to go thru security, take off shoes, empty water, empty toiletries, and we were not stuck in an enclosed area separated by a wall. In 1994 the Airport would have been most similar to DFW and it would have been pleasant. Just 20 extra feet on the secure side of the terminals would make a huge difference.

Southwest was a lot smaller back in 1994, they really only mainly few in the Southwest, so its possible they were most concerned about frequency of flights back then, here is an historic route map from 94 - http://www.departedflights.com/WN100494.html

I wasn't trying to be negative but if there was a new terminal maybe there could be a return to more direct flights to Vegas and Chicago and maybe other points as well.

[aknowledgeableperson]

"When security was required, KCI lost TWA as a hub."

Not accurate. It was around 1985/6 when TWA made a big change in its air operations and made St. Louis it hub for all domestic operations. Serious doubt KCI with its layout could have handled that type of a setup. At one time TWA had over 80% of the flights at the St. Louis airport.

[flyingember]

Not sure what you are getting at but in 1994 you didn't have to go thru security, take off shoes, empty water, empty toiletries, and we were not stuck in an enclosed area separated by a wall. In 1994 the Airport would have been most similar to DFW and it would have been pleasant. Just 20 extra feet on the secure side of the terminals would make a huge difference.

Southwest was a lot smaller back in 1994, they really only mainly few in the Southwest, so its possible they were most concerned about frequency of flights back then, here is an historic route map from 94 - http://www.departedflights.com/WN100494.html

I wasn't trying to be negative but if there was a new terminal maybe there could be a return to more direct flights to Vegas and Chicago and maybe other points as well.

I want to see flights to
Fayetteville
Wichita
Omaha
Cape Girardeau
Springfield MO
Joplin
Little Rock
Tulsa
Des Moines
Salina
Sioux City
Fort Smith

When we're the center point for the surrounding state's mid-sized cities it means we need more direct flights to other cities. It also makes that feeder network for more international flights or with less hops. More flights to LAX or NYC would be really nice. It connects KC better to regional business too, which is smart.

Salina is closer to KC than Denver by almost half the distance but has two airlines flying to Denver. That the city isn't pointing out this kind of situation is beyond me.

[mean]

A ~3-4 hour drive has to be right around the threshold where most people will just drive rather than deal with the hassle and expense of flying. At that distance, you're probably going to be spending as much or more time driving to the airport, getting through security, and waiting to board than you do in the air.

[brewcrew1000]

I dunno, i just don't see us being a centerpoint for surrounding states middle tier cities because we are too small of a city and we have too many larger airports/cities much closer to us then say someplace like Salt Lake City, Phoenix or Denver. If our city was the same size now but in the location of where say Bismark, ND (Remotely located) then I see the case for flights to small cities but I just don't see it happening given where we are located in relation to other large cities/airport.

Fayettville, Little Rock, Tulsa, Fort Smith has the luxury of DFW being about 4 hours away by car, you could basically take a flight from Fort Smith to pretty much any destination in the world with a quick connect in DFW or a nonstop flight if you just drive the 4 hours. People in 3-4 hr driving range of kc south of here probably don't even consider flights out of KC because DFW is most likely going to be cheaper and more convenient.

I really think 95% of people who fly are driven by prices over nonstop convenience. Its nice but I don't think its a deciding factor. I flew with a guy from Hays one time, he is usually driven by prices and he will drive to either Denver or KC depending on the price of the flight.

If we are trying to use Indy as a barometer for an airport u don't see non stop flights from Indianapolis to places like Fort Wayne, Louisville, Kokomo, Dayton, Cincinnati, it just doesn't make any sense and it will probably never work.

[earthling]

"When security was required, KCI lost TWA as a hub."

Not accurate. It was around 1985/6 when TWA made a big change in its air operations and made St. Louis it hub for all domestic operations. Serious doubt KCI with its layout could have handled that type of a setup. At one time TWA had over 80% of the flights at the St. Louis airport.

Right, TWA left because KCI airport design wasn't working out as a major hub after security was added, but yes it wasn't immediately after security added and it was also the layout in general. Ultimately KCI is probably one of the worst designs out there to function as a hub and even not great as a mini-hub. And operating as a hub is how you get more flights and more non-stop destinations. KCI has only about 50 nonstop destinations, it can be well over 100 when a hub. Charlotte has over 140 nonstop and many more international. STL is about 70 BTW, much less than when they were a hub.

In terms of long term planning, replacing KCI should be #1, #2 and #3 priorities. The basic services have mostly been addressed fairly well recently, time to think long term and fix KCI, which has to start now as it may take 10+ years to go live.

[flyingember]

Delta in SLC flies to 89 cities nonstop
Delta in KC flies to 10 cities nonstop
SLC flies nonstop to more than ten cities within a 3-4 hours of another major airport

When you remove dupes, like 2x airports In a market- Houston, Tampa, Chicago, Fort Meyers, Phonenix, Orlando, NYC/Newark, San Fran/Oakland, Pensacola/Destin, Dallas

KCI flies to 38 metro areas nonstop.
Delta flies to nearly 3x the total cities in a similar market than all destinations for all airlines in KC

Delta has a hub in Detroit too
You can fly to Lansing, 94 miles away. There's over 10 destinations reachable by car, the same or more as their total number of flights to/from KC. So that's two hubs for them with close reach flights.

I'm not saying we'll get Delta to move flights, but we need to look like a good choice for the next airline needing a hub. Allegiant has no central hub yet, so there's an opportunity. We don't even have flights to all their hubs yet so why not go after one? You can see there's no rule on distance, just getting an airlines interested.
https://www.allegiantair.com/route-map

[mean]

I'm not saying we'll get Delta to move flights, but we need to look like a good choice for the next airline needing a hub.

No we don't. Hubs are the awful, busy, and inconvenient places everyone complains about and doesn't want KCI to become like. If that's the aim, count me out.

[KCFan]

KCI just came in as the 15th most hated airport in America and was the only small airport on the entire list.

http://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/most- ... ?a=viewall

[flyingember]

Nobody Goes There Anymore, It's Too Crowded

Look at the city market, the train improved transit to it so well that so many people can get to it you could call it "awful, busy, and inconvenient" and it still draws people en mass.

Don't confuse "I don't like it" with "bad for everyone"

[brewcrew1000]

Delta in SLC flies to 89 cities nonstop
Delta in KC flies to 10 cities nonstop
SLC flies nonstop to more than ten cities within a 3-4 hours of another major airport

When you remove dupes, like 2x airports In a market- Houston, Tampa, Chicago, Fort Meyers, Phonenix, Orlando, NYC/Newark, San Fran/Oakland, Pensacola/Destin, Dallas

KCI flies to 38 metro areas nonstop.
Delta flies to nearly 3x the total cities in a similar market than all destinations for all airlines in KC

Delta has a hub in Detroit too
You can fly to Lansing, 94 miles away. There's over 10 destinations reachable by car, the same or more as their total number of flights to/from KC. So that's two hubs for them with close reach flights.

I'm not saying we'll get Delta to move flights, but we need to look like a good choice for the next airline needing a hub. Allegiant has no central hub yet, so there's an opportunity. We don't even have flights to all their hubs yet so why not go after one? You can see there's no rule on distance, just getting an airlines interested.
https://www.allegiantair.com/route-map

Allegiant only puts hubs in Vacation destinations like Vegas and Orlando, plus its a terrible airline in general.

Detroit is like twice the size of KC and is a huge economic power for a pretty powerful industry and it also has a good international population, lots of Arabs in Detroit.

Salt Lake City is a pretty unique hub, i think it just serves as a West Coast Hub for smaller cities on the West Coast. Instead of Delta having to Launch a non stop from say Detroit, MSP, o Atlanta to Pocatello/Idaho Falls/Boise they can just launch a bunch of regional jets from SLC. I just don't see a need for that in the Midwest because Denver, Chicago, MSP, DFW and ATL all pretty much cover that now.

The only airline I could see grow here is Alaska Airlines if they wanted to set up some kind of MidWest to East Coast kind of hub but they are not gonna be launching flights to Joplin or Salina.