We need a new airport!!!

[earthling]

^A few I know in Charlotte say it has below zero culture - say KC is a cultural dream in comparison. But they are an air hub and fast growing city. But so is Phoenix, another cultural pit.

Is not considered a travel destination by Travel and Leisure but KC is...
http://www.travelandleisure.com/america ... /vs/denver

[im2kull]

^A few I know in Charlotte say it has below zero culture - say KC is a cultural dream in comparison. But they are an air hub.

I could agree with this. There's a lot of things about KC that most people outside of KC will never realize. A revamped airport won't change this. Better support for tourism from within can, and a good place to start is with a new convention hotel...IE: Not an airport.

[KCPowercat]

Charlotte is not a destination city.

Says who?

Charlotte is much more of a destination city than KC is, and a lot of that has NOTHING to do with their airport. More about city management, and their ability to drum up business without getting stuck on such trivial things like replacing one of the nations best performing mid-market airports.

I think you need to do some brushing up on Charlotte..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte,_North_Carolina

They just hosted the Democratic National Convention, something KC hasn't done since 1900. They have a light rail system. They're the 2nd largest banking center in the US, and a leader in post-highschool education. Their population density is almost twice ours and they're growing 25% faster. They're located on the east coast..something that bids well for direct intl flights to Europe, and they service 400% more passengers than MCI does. Anything I forget to mention? Oh yeah, they also have an NBA team..

None of that nonsense makes them an international destination like you are claiming is the reason they have international flights completely ignoring it is simply because they are a hub. Travel and leisure agrees it appears... Charlotte is a fine city but it doesn't support international flights based on its draw.

[im2kull]

Charlotte is a fine city but it doesn't support international flights based on its draw.

Is that an opinion, or fact? What makes you think KC could be an international draw? Have you talked to many foreigners lately?

[Highlander]

They're located on the east coast..something that bids well for direct intl flights to Europe, and they service 400% more passengers than MCI does. Anything I forget to mention? Oh yeah, they also have an NBA team..

Like I've said before, being on the east coast has absolutely nothing to do with international (European in this case) flights. Flights travel along an arc which is basically the closest thing to a straight line on a globe. Consequently, they fly over the arctic not along shipping lanes. Minneapolis, Dallas, Memphis, Denver, Salt Lake City, LA, Seattle, Las Vegas, SF, Phoenix, Houston, Detroit, Atlanta, Chicago and I suspect many more inland cities have direct flights to Europe.

KC has nearly 2.5 million people in the metro and a host of business's that have international endeavors. For the most part, business and not tourism, drives overseas flights. Tourists don't tend to fly business or first class (where the money is for the airlines) - business travellers do. KC doesn't even need daily service, plenty of airlines fly to an international location 1-3 times per week.

[KCPowercat]

Charlotte is a fine city but it doesn't support international flights based on its draw.

Is that an opinion, or fact? What makes you think KC could be an international draw? Have you talked to many foreigners lately?

Fact. I didn't say KC was.

[pash]

.

[im2kull]

Like I've said before, being on the east coast has absolutely nothing to do with international (European in this case) flights. Flights travel along an arc which is basically the closest thing to a straight line on a globe. Consequently, they fly over the arctic not along shipping lanes.

Not every destination has the same arc. Detroit, and NY are far shorter trips than any international flight to KC would be. Why would someone add time to their trip just to transfer to another flight from KC to their final destination? Twist and turn the globe any which way you want, but there's still no way that making a pit stop in KC is any quicker than flying directly to any one of the major east coast, or northern hubs.

[KCMax]

Delayed: Study of single-terminal design for KCI

Kansas City Aviation Department spokesman Joe McBride said Thursday that the study will be presented in April. The department had planned for the first part of the study to land on the desks at the City Council in February. A second part of the study, by the department and Cincinnati consultant Landrum & Brown Inc., now will be presented in October, rather than June. McBride said the delay came about because cost estimates topped the project’s $1.2 billion budget.

[Highlander]

Like I've said before, being on the east coast has absolutely nothing to do with international (European in this case) flights. Flights travel along an arc which is basically the closest thing to a straight line on a globe. Consequently, they fly over the arctic not along shipping lanes.

You're overplaying the significance of great circles, and of how far north they take you when flying to most European gateway cities. Flying to New York to get on a flight to London adds only five percent to your travel distance versus flying to London directly from KC, for example. The advantages of flying out of bigger markets and of aggregating passengers in a hub count for much more.

The suggestion has been made that KC's location precludes KCI as an international destination. We both know that's BS. We are surrounded by cities with international flights in all compass directions.

There are other reason's why KC doesn't have international flights, and Im2kull is even half right about it. Great cities, however, have great infrastructure, and the two develop hand in hand as part of a positive feedback loop. We've sat on an obsolete airport for decades - I don't believe the solution is more bandaids. KC aviation may or may not make huge progress with a new terminal; it won't make any without it.

[pash]

.

[KCPowercat]

Doesn't seem like much of a switch.

[mykem]

I wonder if these cost issues are because Mr. VanLoh wants too much in a medium sized airport???? I think he better start looking at a blueprint(Indianapolis) that will fit in the $1.2 billion budget, and still please everyone.
http://www.hntb.com/sites/default/files ... future.pdf

[im2kull]

The suggestion has been made that KC's location precludes KCI as an international destination. We both know that's BS. We are surrounded by cities with international flights in all compass directions.

There are other reason's why KC doesn't have international flights, and Im2kull is even half right about it. Great cities, however, have great infrastructure, and the two develop hand in hand as part of a positive feedback loop. We've sat on an obsolete airport for decades - I don't believe the solution is more bandaids. KC aviation may or may not make huge progress with a new terminal; it won't make any without it.

Not exactly what I've been saying, but whatever. KC is not currently an international DESTINATION CITY, which is one of the things I've been talking about in regards to international flights...not just our physical location.

[LCDSI]

fyi; not sure if anyone posted this but an article in the st. joseph paper late last month.

http://www.newspressnow.com/news/local_ ... 37515.html

[brewcrew1000]

With the rapid growth of all these Middle Eastern airlines like Emirates, Etihad, Qatar, Turkish and others; who are buying tons of planes and getting fuel dirt cheap, wonder if we would see a route like this pop up in KC first before a flight to London, Paris, etc.

[im2kull]

With the rapid growth of all these Middle Eastern airlines like Emirates, Etihad, Qatar, Turkish and others; who are buying tons of planes and getting fuel dirt cheap, wonder if we would see a route like this pop up in KC first before a flight to London, Paris, etc.

That I could actually see. Those people come prepared for some really long flights, and always seem to be more interested in the slower, more rural side of the US than the big, bustling cities.

[Highlander]

With the rapid growth of all these Middle Eastern airlines like Emirates, Etihad, Qatar, Turkish and others; who are buying tons of planes and getting fuel dirt cheap, wonder if we would see a route like this pop up in KC first before a flight to London, Paris, etc.

The first three are in their own class. Turkish Airlines is not great.

I flew Emirates regularly from Houston to Dubai for several years. These are not cheap airlines. An Emirates ticket from Houston to Dubai was about $11,000 for business class. A comparable ticket on KLM or Lufthansa was only $6000 (the Emirates flight was direct in a new triple 7 while both KLM and Lufthansa then flew only old 757's with stops in their Amsterdam and Frankfurt hubs). Emirates, however, is a great ride - best airline for comfort-by far- I've flown on and I've spent a lot of time on business class flights (I hear only Singapore equals Emirates). Don't know about tourist class but I bet its pricey.

[cknab1]

I flew from LAX to Dubai last October and will vouch for Emirates. I was in coach and it wasn’t as bad as some other long distance flights. But no doubt, 16 ½ hours would have been much nicer in business class. I walked by those seats when I arrived in Dubai. Nice!

[Highlander]

I flew from LAX to Dubai last October and will vouch for Emirates. I was in coach and it wasn’t as bad as some other long distance flights. But no doubt, 16 ½ hours would have been much nicer in business class. I walked by those seats when I arrived in Dubai. Nice!

Interesting that it took 16.5 hours from LAX - about the same duration as the flight from Houston. Unfortunately, I'm only flying business class on international business trips. When it's personal pleasure, I'm back in the cheap seats.