We need a new airport!!!

[earthling]

local airlines are dead thanks to deregulation

Given that mid-sized cities are at the mercy of airlines to determine who they can connect with, it's probably time to shake up the industry. Before assuming regulation is needed, would be interesting to see if the local biz model could work again with newer efficient regional planes. The industry may be less regulated but KCI could help support a private company to fill in service gaps w/out the need for regulation. And if the local airline is private and controlled by local interests, is then more difficult for larger airlines to overtake.

Would like to see someone in the know to at least check if the biz model could work given newer efficient regional planes that now can fly over 1500 miles and over 500mph. The cost/seat ratio is supposedly much much better than planes used in the 90s.

[mykem]

United Airlines just dropped Cleveland as a hub, used to be a Continental hub.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle ... story.html

This is the wonderful result of mergers - hubs get cut and impact mid-sized cities. Have posted before that one way for mid-sized cities to not be at the mercy of airlines determining who they connect with, is to have their own locally run airline like when KC had Vanguard. It fills in the gaps of missing non-stops. Seeking/encouraging a local Vangard type airline should be KC's first priority - well tactical priority. A new terminal will eventually be needed and the strategic planning should continue with a specific 15 year plan.

The KC CSA is now nearly 2.4M, 23rd largest CSA market and professional services jobs are about 25K higher than in 90s. KC region could probably support a Vangard type airline better than in the 90s. Is worth checking if it can be a viable business model if using high efficiency regional planes. There are now efficient regional planes that can cross half country at over 500MPH, I think seating about 80 or so - every new model is more fuel efficient. They didn't quite exist when Vangard was operating. One edge KC has over coastal cities is that entire country can be reached with highly efficient regional class planes.

I have flown Delta Airlines from LAX to KCI in a Canadair Regional Jet and it was a non stop flight.

[flyingember]

I don't see how the areas along the route could possibly gain adequate density to justify running rail through them in a hundred years, at which point it might as well be "ever" because we'll all be dead and nobody will remember I made the claim.

not that long, but 20-30 years, sure. look how long it's taken DC.

the metro opened in 1976. the further airport connection is looking to open 40+ years later

I think you just made my point.

not necessarily airport connections tend to be hit or miss as end points. Chicago took forever to get to theirs. Boston and NYC still haven't.

It seems like this is an area where the mid-sized city is who builds rail to an airport. they're also cities where the airport is somewhat surrounded by suburbs
St. Louis, Minneapolis, Portland, Baltimore

[earthling]

I have flown Delta Airlines from LAX to KCI in a Canadair Regional Jet and it was a non stop flight.

Yeah I was in LA/SF couple weeks ago and flew a Canadair regional back nonstop from SF, very comfortable. Ran GPS app on my phone, was going up to near 550MPH, some of the regular size only go 400 to maybe 500. Also, given it's 2x2 seating, you have a 50% chance getting aisle/window seat most want. Some regionals are 1x2, even better. The newer models are also more fuel efficient.

Might be worth taking another look at local airline biz model with the new efficient regional jets. Mid-sized cities need to have more control of their destinations, not allow airline industry decide for them.

[knucklehead]

I don't mind the 2X2 canadian jets. They do take about 30 minutes longer in the air to get to San Francisco - but boarding and "deplaneing" is quicker, so total time in the plane is probably only about 15 minutes more. With the big jets, if you are in the back it can take a long time to get off the plane because everyone has carry on luggage these days.

The smaller planes give the airlines more flexibility to add or subtract flights while still maintaining a non-stop route.

The 1x2's usually have less headroom. You have to stoop when you are going down the alise. Don't care for them but they do the job.

My big complaint about all airplanes - big and small - is not enough padding in the coach seats. When you get to be in your mid 50s, certain body parts get sore when you sit on a hard seat for two hours.

[shinatoo]

Half size planes, twice the number of crew to fly them. Twice the payroll. I don't know if that even matters.

[knucklehead]

It would be a factor - although my understanding is the pilots of the smaller planes have lower salaries.

I spoke to a young pilot who flew for American's non-union regional airline. He claimed he was only making 40K a year. And that was after three years. Think about it, a job that requires constant travel - for $40 K a year. Not much of a job.

He indicated that many rich kids pay for pilot school cause they think being a pilot would be neat. That increases the supply pilots and depresses wages.

[bobbyhawks]

It would be a factor - although my understanding is the pilots of the smaller planes have lower salaries.

I remember seeing this sticker on some pilot's briefcase when US Airways had a direct flight to Little Rock.
http://www.flystickers.com/pudgy-airpla ... e-pay.html


An interview with a regional pilot:
http://www.airfarewatchdog.com/blog/103 ... jet-pilot/

One thing to consider is that smaller planes generally use more inexperienced pilots, which translates to a less safe overall series of departures from KC.

[mean]

$40k a year is actually pretty great for only having three years and working at a non-major airline. There are guys out there making half that.

Looks like bobbyhawks beat me to it.

[warwickland]

Or how about HSR between STL and KC and put a new modern airport in Columbia.

i love lambert. also, we just fixed it.

[earthling]

Half size planes, twice the number of crew to fly them. Twice the payroll. I don't know if that even matters.

The major airlines are starting to use regional planes out of KCI anyway (even to the coasts), so the net is no different anyway. What I'm proposing is taking the decision of who KC connects to out of the hands of corporations who don't even think about KC and in the hands of local interests who can manage connections where it matters to KC.

The mergers are a big problem for mid-sized cities as flights and number of non-stop cities are cut. STL used have top 10 airport traffic with TWA, it dropped to 30+ after merger with AA, way below market size. Cities (the ecodev biz community, not necessarily metro govt) can take action on their own, by not depending on major airlines or regulation - if they try. I don't know for sure another local Vangard type airline could work in KC again, but now is the time to at least do a cost-benefit analysis and check it out.

[knucklehead]

$40k a year is actually pretty great for only having three years and working at a non-major airline. There are guys out there making half that.

Looks like bobbyhawks beat me to it.

My conversation with the pilot was four or five years ago. I have to confess, I don't actually remember exactly what salary he told me or exactly how many years of experience he had. So you are correct to view my figures with scepticism. They are "illustrative".

[mykem]

A little more info here
http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/04/47 ... lines.html

[cityscape]

Here's why I feel we need a new airport (not that my opinion matters ). I travel about 10-15 times a year and I will be the first person to agree that our current airport IS convenient for local travelers. However, that doesn't mean we should accept the status quo. Everytime I'm in the terminal waiting to get on my flight I almost always overhear someone complaining about the lack of services or having to wait in a line 5-6 deep to use the 2 stall bathroom. That's unacceptable for the 'front door' to our city. It's also unacceptable for anyone who is connecting or delayed at the airport. With airlines packing planes full these days, delays and connections are becoming more and more common especially with weather events. I'm also concerned that the supporters for the existing terminals think it is wise to spend $500-750 million to make the existing terminals more efficient. Didn't we just spend $250+ million to do that 10 years ago? This airport has served its purpose and is now living on borrowed time, I just don't understand how anyone can think the economics to do such a renovation make sense. This isn't Union Station which was overbuilt for its time and when finally refurbished was ultimately changed into something very different from its original intended use. This Airport is no longer capable of handling the future of air travel. Travelers expect convenience, but that convenience comes in the form of ample bathrooms, space, electrical outlets, good restaurants, and shopping to bide their time. The discussion that this city SHOULD be having is how can we make the next airport be all of those things as well as being convenient for local travelers. This isn't hard to do. Even though there may more actual distance between the checkout counter and the terminal that can be solved with moving walkways, people movers, etc... I know that means more $$$ but if these facilities are going to last for upwards of 50+ years then we need to get this right and not put another expensive bandaid on the current facility. With the creation of the TSA pre-check the likelyhood of long security lines is starting to fizzle across the nation and the argument against a new terminal is starting to lose ground. I just hope our city officials are able to accurately communicate these points.
Okay, rant over, thanks for reading

[KCPowercat]

Odd location choices...but I like the reaching out to KS. Strange nothing downtown/plaza/waldo area.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... ml?ana=twt

[beautyfromashes]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that all money made by the airport has to stay with the airport. The city can only use those funds for airport related expenses. I've also thought i heard that its a big money maker when you talk about airplane fees, fuel sales, parking fees, etc. Is changing the airport a way to access some of those funds to build residual incomes (restaurant/retail taxes) that can be used by the city? I might feel differently about redoing the airport if it meant more direct money to the city by using funds that are collecting dust and not benefitting anyone.

[FangKC]

FAA tells KCI board: Don't expect agency to pay for project

http://tinyurl.com/mypbkch

[knucklehead]

This is very important evidence.

KCI ranks 1st in medium size airports for customer satisfaction according to J.D. Power.

J.D. Power is a widely recognized consumer survey agency.

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/15/48 ... mains.html

I think that conclusively demonstrates just how out of touch the "executives" that testified recently were. They no more "speak for" business travelers than the man in the moon.

I am not against replacing the KCI terminals - they are over 40 years old - but I am against dragging KCI down into the mediocrity I see in most newer airports. The key to making an airport great is maximizing convience and minimizing the amount of time the traveler spends in the airport. KCI's design accomplishes those goals. Please Please Please don't build anything close to the mediocre crap depicted in the long planning document posted a couple of weeks ago. WE CAN DO BETTER and WE HAVE DONE BETTER for 40 years.

And let me reiterate, the preferences of connecting passingers are much less important than the preferences of travelers origniating and departing from Kansas City. Hubs are for losers.

[KCPowercat]

This is very important evidence.

KCI ranks 1st in medium size airports for customer satisfaction according to J.D. Power.

J.D. Power is a widely recognized consumer survey agency.

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/02/15/48 ... mains.html

I think that conclusively demonstrates just how out of touch the "executives" that testified recently were. They no more "speak for" business travelers than the man in the moon.

I am not against replacing the KCI terminals - they are over 40 years old - but I am against dragging KCI down into the mediocrity I see in most newer airports. The key to making an airport great is maximizing convience and minimizing the amount of time the traveler spends in the airport. KCI's design accomplishes those goals. Please Please Please don't build anything close to the mediocre crap depicted in the long planning document posted a couple of weeks ago. WE CAN DO BETTER and WE HAVE DONE BETTER for 40 years.

And let me reiterate, the preferences of connecting passingers are much less important than the preferences of travelers origniating and departing from Kansas City. Hubs are for losers.

Well it did say portland and tampa are ranked higher...and both are more traditional single terminal designs.

While I agree our own metro customers are most important, lets not forget that customer like us like direct flights...direct flights come from airlines being able to transfer passengers at KCi...unless you think Charlotte, NC is suddenly a hotbed of international flight based on the 2.2M living in the Charlotte metro alone.

[knucklehead]

OK - I am confused the article states Portland and Tampa rank just behind KCI. I thought that meant they were ranked behind KCI.