KCRag Forum

There is a World Cup in KC thread where all of this should probably be moved, but here are my thoughts:

I think KC has a legit shot at being a host city, but is nowhere near a lock. I'd guess around a 25% chance.

The big advantage KC has is a natural grass stadium. Artificial turf is a no-go for World Cup soccer. Many of these cities people are suggesting don't have natural grass stadiums. Temporary grass playing surfaces can be installed on top of turf, but the result is usually poor. Maybe it can be done well if more time and money are invested.

I think the chances of building a new stadium for World Cup are next to zero. FIFA doesn't require huge stadiums for World Cup - only 40k. SKC definitely could stand to expand their stadium and I do think 40k could be a good number for them around 2026. However, I think they may be locked into their stadium deal for a longer period. CMP opened in 2011 and I think they had a 20 or 25 year lease. Also, I think FFIA/US Soccer want to use the larger, NFL size stadiums. The 94 World Cup in the US is still the highest attended ever, largely due to the NFL stadium sizes. There's no reason to think they wouldn't top those attendance numbers in 2026.

This thread derailed, landed on a new set of tracks, and kept going

^ We had a layover and switched terminals. No biggee.

St. Louis has where Rams played available and Baseball is in season so that eliminates Baseball Stadiums/Domes.

I was already sold on and voted for the new terminal, but I flew for the holidays after a not having flown for a while and it was fairly awful. Granted it was Christmas Eve-eve and probably somewhat busier than usual, but the time it took to push my way through the masses of people to get from B40 to Starbucks was bad enough that I had to turn right back around. No time to wait in line for a drink and push my way back through the crowd. And B40 is like right there. Not that I had a spare hour or whatever, it didn't take that long, but if I've got 10-15 minutes to blow I'd sure like to be able to get a coffee or something.

Interesting comparison between Guadalajara and KC
Guadalajara
Metro Size: 4.4 Million(lots of very poor)
Yearly PAX: 11.4 Million
Gates: ~ 11
Clubs: AMEX Centurion and Aeromexico
Passenger Airlines: ~18
Cargo Airlines: ~15
Amentities: more than KC

KC
Metro; 2.2 Million + surrounding areas
Pax:11.4 Million
Gates:~37 gates (Old) 35(New)
Lounges:None(Old) USO + 2 Others(new)
Passenger Airlines:15(Old)....... 15+ Wizz Air (Probably happening) + Condor and or BA
Cargo Airlines: 3
Amenities: not a lot

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guadalaja ... al_Airport

mean wrote:I was already sold on and voted for the new terminal, but I flew for the holidays after a not having flown for a while and it was fairly awful. Granted it was Christmas Eve-eve and probably somewhat busier than usual, but the time it took to push my way through the masses of people to get from B40 to Starbucks was bad enough that I had to turn right back around. No time to wait in line for a drink and push my way back through the crowd. And B40 is like right there. Not that I had a spare hour or whatever, it didn't take that long, but if I've got 10-15 minutes to blow I'd sure like to be able to get a coffee or something.

Just flew through KCI. Arriving at KCI isn't all that bad. Departing is a pain in the ass. We had a similar experience to you. Because of circumstances, we arrived at the airport sooner than we wanted to for a United flight to SF. As expected, the choices for finding something to eat and a beer were extremely limited (ended up at a crappy restaurant on the opposite side of the terminal from our gate). The one eating establishment that did look compelling and relatively close appeared to be behind security in a completely different set of gates. After going through security, the gate area was packed and uncomfortable and virtually without amenities and when our flight began to queue up to board, the line completely blocked off access to more outlying gates for the people coming out of security. I hope the council can move forward and construction on the new terminal can start ASAP.

Southwest, which just so happens to own the most flights, is particularly bad because the gate areas are so narrow and people insist on queueing up way before they're supposed to, not only adding unnecessary bodies for people to navigate through/around, but confusing the issue for those who are supposed to be queued up and understandably assume the doofus in group C who is preemptively standing in line while A boards is, in fact, in A group. Granted, this is an issue of people being stupid self-absorbed jerks as much as a deficiency of the terminal design (or Southwest's open seating), but I suppose it is in everyone's best interest if all infrastructure projects are designed to accommodate the fact that a certain number of people will reliably act in the most obnoxiously selfish ways possible.

Edgemoor planning a Highschool and college student internship program as part of MOU/Community Benefits Agreement

Given the community meetings have restarted I take that as a positive regarding negotiations.

Apparently though the $30 million fee the city would own if they don't meet their obligations is still on the table.

cityscape wrote:Apparently though the $30 million fee the city would own if they don't meet their obligations is still on the table.

I'm fairly certain this continues to be misrepresented by the media. My understanding based on watching committee hearings is that $30 million is the max amount Edgemoor could get reimbursed for work rendered if the city and Edgemoor do not reach a final financial agreement. I don't think Edgemoor simply "gets" $30 million if they don't reach a final agreement.

Plus, all work rendered would then be owned by the city and allow anyone who steps in to pick up where Edgemoor leaves off. (For example, some environmental work/assessment/engineering is already being done... and that will be needed no matter who is the developer).

I believe some council people either aren't understanding that or are purposely misrepresenting this detail.

I think it's the second thing.

kboish wrote:

cityscape wrote:Apparently though the $30 million fee the city would own if they don't meet their obligations is still on the table.

I'm fairly certain this continues to be misrepresented by the media. My understanding based on watching committee hearings is that $30 million is the max amount Edgemoor could get reimbursed for work rendered if the city and Edgemoor do not reach a final financial agreement. I don't think Edgemoor simply "gets" $30 million if they don't reach a final agreement.

Plus, all work rendered would then be owned by the city and allow anyone who steps in to pick up where Edgemoor leaves off. (For example, some environmental work/assessment/engineering is already being done... and that will be needed no matter who is the developer).

I believe some council people either aren't understanding that or are purposely misrepresenting this detail.

I will add, that some of the council people brought up issues with what was eligible for reimbursement and the total reimbursement size. The Manager has defended the size of the reimbursement based on the desire for speed in the construction of the terminal....in other words, do more now instead of waiting since the site is vacant and ready for preliminary work. I don't know what the problem was with actual items to be reimbursed.

What seems to be happening is there are some council people negotiating in good faith (wagner, mcmanus, fowler, and probably lucas) and their are others who hear something and then just spin it to fit their narrative. Thats my opinion anyway. The majority seem to be level headed and able to get it done. Here's hoping anyway.

The other main sticking point in the MOU is related to the community benefits agreement. Council members appear to be in disagreement over how the agreement should and actually can be constructed (read as: does the FAA allow funding of housing program not geographically adjacent to the airport?). So with all things, the main disagreement I've seen comes down to where does a relatively small total portion of the project budget get spent and can people wring a few more dollars out. Basically, I think everyone wants more money, but spent in their district (surprise, surprise). Something totally unrelated to actually building a new terminal.

The problem is, Edgemoor can't negotiate with 12 different people who have 7 different opinions. Plus, council people didn't seem to understand that they have to actually direct their representatives to negotiate for specific items, individuals can't just make side comments about stuff and then claim Edgemoor isn't being responsive (they can make that claim, but they're wrong). How is Edgemoor supposed to know who to appease if there is disagreement or they are receiving mixed signals?

So basically, the council people who have issues with the project are not all on the same page. There are a couple of factions that want different things. It seems to me the mayor figured this out and at least set up a process where there can actually be a negotiation now. Not everyone on the council will get what they want, but hopefully people see the bigger picture and we can just get a new frickin terminal at some point.

I feel like some rookies in the council came up with this great CBA idea and now think it should be stuck on everything they approve without considering the impact or legality of that on projects.

I think it's a fine idea but when dealing with FAA funding type of things maybe listen to experts and adapt...it's not one size fits all.

So have CBA's become a standard part of deals in the US between cities and developers? Or is this some kind of one off in KC? Reminds me of what a third world country would require of a western oil company as part of a deal to get a concession. Hope the council is grounded in reality here - if a company cannot make a reasonable return on their investment with the burdens placed on them and the government isn't willing to give some ground, they may simply walk.

A bit off topic but here's a nice video on the new terminal 3 being constructed in Taipei, Taiwan.

https://vimeo.com/143552601

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/edito ... 13689.html

KC Star calls for regional airport authority.

KCMO should use this as leverage to get regional transit funding.

kboish wrote:http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/edito ... 13689.html

KC Star calls for regional airport authority.

KCMO should use this as leverage to get regional transit funding.

Hell yes.