We need a new airport!!!

[nota]

Thx en08 for the info... Nota check the replied e-mail that en08 posted.
   

I did check it. No FACTS were there. Only Mark saying it would be cheaper. NO numbers. Just another guy's wish list and him selling it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with MCI and as for me, I doubt that it will be redone in any significant manner in your lifetimes. For sure, not in my lifetime.

It's interesting when reading this thread that one can tell those who actually USE MCI on a regular basis and those who don't. The ones who USE it think it is great and the ones who go there on occasion just complain mostly about things that they just don't know are there like restrooms inside gate areas or drop off and pick up points.

It's also interesting that the regular fliers quote the TANGIBLE benefits to MCI's users and those who are not regular fliers are looking for INTANGIBLES.

[Boognish]

What sort of country fried rube makes a judgement of a city by it's airport? Our airport is wonderful and functional and I could really give a rip if it's glamorous or not.

Besides, anyone who is just seeing the area around the airport is doing so intentionally - as mentioned, it's a destination and origin airport, there has to be pretty limited lamenting about four hour layovers unless you just arrive too early or your flight is delayed. So they have a long drive to their business destination, what are they to learn? That KC sprawls? Hey, there's a news flash for you.

[skim82]

I did check it. No FACTS were there. Only Mark saying it would be cheaper. NO numbers. Just another guy's wish list and him selling it.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with MCI and as for me, I doubt that it will be redone in any significant manner in your lifetimes. For sure, not in my lifetime.

It's interesting when reading this thread that one can tell those who actually USE MCI on a regular basis and those who don't. The ones who USE it think it is great and the ones who go there on occasion just complain mostly about things that they just don't know are there like restrooms inside gate areas or drop off and pick up points.

It's also interesting that the regular fliers quote the TANGIBLE benefits to MCI's users and those who are not regular fliers are looking for INTANGIBLES.

Nota,

I fly out of KC at least once every 2 months or so on business/ pleasure.  I understand there are travelers who fly out of KCI every week, but I am not so fortunate, or unfortunate to do so. 

As far as tangible and intangable benefits, well, that's what they are, intangible... you are welcome to have your opinion, but that's all that is.. My opinion is that having a convenient airport does not make it a greatairport in terms of vibrancy, centralized retail/food courts, designated entrances/exits, etc.

Also, you make an interesting point about infrequent travelers using our airport and "complaining" about not knowing where the bathrooms are located inside the gate area.  Hmm... you bring up a good point. That's exactly why a centralized location for all services is essential inside/outside the gate areas... after all, the airport was designed for travelers of KC and outside our fine city, not tailored/designed for you or an individual.

from wikipedia.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_Cit ... al_Airport
Security issues

The three-ring design makes it one of the most passenger friendly airports in the world, but it was conceived before skyjacking and terrorism became a part of the air travel mentality. Therefore, the airport is very expensive to operate, since rather than having a single security checkpoint to pass through, each cluster of gates (generally 3-5) must have its own x-ray, metal detector and guards. This expense caused TWA to use Lambert Field in St. Louis as its hub rather than MCI.

After the establishment of the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), MCI was one of five airports where the TSA has experimented with using independent contractors to provide all traveler inspector services. The airport uses FirstLine Transportation Security, an independent contractor who conforms to TSA's recruiting and training standards. TSA supervises these independent contractors, but they are not federal employees.

No firm numbers, but here is a valid source making light of our security costs.  I also know there were a variety of factors that forced TWA to move to STL, but doesn't that fact alone "cost" Kansas City International?

[aknowledgeableperson]

from wikipedia.com
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kansas_Cit ... al_Airport
Security issues

The three-ring design makes it one of the most passenger friendly airports in the world, but it was conceived before skyjacking and terrorism became a part of the air travel mentality. Therefore, the airport is very expensive to operate, since rather than having a single security checkpoint to pass through, each cluster of gates (generally 3-5) must have its own x-ray, metal detector and guards. This expense caused TWA to use Lambert Field in St. Louis as its hub rather than MCI.

I know some people have questioned how authoritive wiki because many postings are not completely accurate.  But by reading the above it reads that TWA Lambert over KCI because of security costs to prevent hijacking and terrorism.  Lambert became the hub over KCI long before these were major concerns.  Believe TWA used Lambert more than KCI even in the 70's.  Had a grade/high school friend who's father retired from the KCMO PD and took a high security job in St. Louis with TWA in the mid to late 70's.

Again, all airports have good points and bad points but KCI generally receives high marks from the public in it evaluations.

[nota]

I know some people have questioned how authoritive wiki because many postings are not completely accurate.  But by reading the above it reads that TWA Lambert over KCI because of security costs to prevent hijacking and terrorism.  Lambert became the hub over KCI long before these were major concerns.  Believe TWA used Lambert more than KCI even in the 70's.  Had a grade/high school friend who's father retired from the KCMO PD and took a high security job in St. Louis with TWA in the mid to late 70's.

Again, all airports have good points and bad points but KCI generally receives high marks from the public in it evaluations.

You beat me to it. Wiki is only as good as whoever wrote it last. It shouldn't be used as the only source of info.

besides-I don't really care about the historical info. I live in the here and now. And in the here and now, MCI does indeed receive high marks from the travelling public.

I've been doing the drop off/pick up so long that I read the gate number on the 'net when I print boarding passes and that is the gate I drop off my passenger at. I love the gate numbers. When I check on the incoming flight, the internet gives the gate number and that is where I look to pick up my passenger unless they have checked bags.

[Highlander]

You beat me to it. Wiki is only as good as whoever wrote it last. It shouldn't be used as the only source of info.

besides-I don't really care about the historical info. I live in the here and now. And in the here and now, MCI does indeed receive high marks from the travelling public.

I've been doing the drop off/pick up so long that I read the gate number on the 'net when I print boarding passes and that is the gate I drop off my passenger at. I love the gate numbers. When I check on the incoming flight, the internet gives the gate number and that is where I look to pick up my passenger unless they have checked bags.

Airlines generally locate their major hubs in high volume of traffic cities because the hub offers a way to dominate a key market.  Such cities are either large cities or cities with significant passenger throughput due to other things such as tourism.  Look at the hub cities around us....Dallas, Houston, Atlanta, Chicago etc...  Smaller hubs generally have something else going for them like Salt Lake City and Denver; Skiing and summer holiday and Las Vegas (SW hub).  KCI could be a hub for a smaller airline or a minor hub for some majors but the design of the airport discourages transfer and it is expensive to operate due to the security issue.  Having said all that, it is indeed a very convenient airport for passengers but the perception of a lack of flight availability does hurt KC as a business community and lack direct international flights does not help either.  It is a question of what is more important, passenger convenience or trying to enhance the the growth of KC's business community.

[nota]

It is a question of what is more important, passenger convenience or trying to enhance the the growth of KC's business community.

That's not even a question to me. Passenger convenience would top the list. Business growth would be a nice addition, but that isn't the responsibility of the airport except as a small piece of the whole.

No one should forget that many of those businesses that located up near MCI did so because of the proximity, accessibility and ease of use of our airport. Harley Davidson even mentions that on their website and their tour.

Our buddy the pilot for Midwest was counting on them making KC a hub city this fall, but that was before the Air Tran thing. Who knows what will happen with that.

[aknowledgeableperson]

KCI could be a hub for a smaller airline or a minor hub for some majors but the design of the airport discourages transfer and it is expensive to operate due to the security issue.  Having said all that, it is indeed a very convenient airport for passengers but the perception of a lack of flight availability does hurt KC as a business community and lack direct international flights does not help either.  It is a question of what is more important, passenger convenience or trying to enhance the the growth of KC's business community.

KCI has been a hub in the past for a few airlines.  However, those smaller airlines were shakey financially (like many of the majors) and went bust.  Mostly the Aviation Dept has marketed KCI the way it is being used right now.  There are certain trade-offs but it works well for KCI, especially with current airlines adding flights.  True, a lack of international flights hurt but face it, how many people fly internationally every day when they depart KCI?  If the demand was there it would be satisfied.  Besides, the number of international flights arriving at these destinations are limited and I am sure that flights from KC are low on the totem pole.  And if the local business community was dissatisfied with KCI operation I am sure we would be hearing about it very often.

Is KC hurt from a business sense?  I would say little, if any.  I am sure that Transamerica took airports into consideration when they decided to relocate from KC.

Besides, there are troubles with hubs.  How many people had to fly to St. Louis and then west when they had to travel to say Denver, LA, etc using TWA?

[GRID]

I hate most of the approach paths to KCI, except when I go to anyplace like Atlanta or Florida.  I flew to Orlando this week and just love flying over the entire city to reach KCI, you always fly right over downtown.  It's freaking awesome.

[skim82]

I hate most of the approach paths to KCI, except when I go to anyplace like Atlanta or Florida.  I flew to Orlando this week and just love flying over the entire city to reach KCI, you always fly right over downtown.  It's freaking awesome.

Agreed... i love the flight path from ATL or FLA... really shows off our city However, the flight in from LA or the west makes our airport and city look like Goodland, KS.

How is the view from the N and S? 

Also, about the validity of wikipedia, i understand....  i should've written that in my post.  If you guys like the airport, that's fine... I'm just saying for me, I wish it could be more, well, compact and vibrant.. again people, this is just my opinion, so i hope someone doesn't try to argue with me about my feelings.. KCI is just fine and is in my opinion the status quo for our city..  It's also ironic that it resembles KC as it is spread out, auto dependent, and allows us to walk as little as possible. 

[GRID]

If you fly in from LA or something, which I do a lot, you see nothing.  If you are lucky, and the wind is blowing south you might fly over the speedway area but you have to be on the right side of the plane or you see nothing.  Chances are, you will fly over Leavenworth County and land on the east west runway.

From the south (dallas, Phoenix etc), you typically fly over Olathe and follow 435 up and over parkville.  Again, the right side of the plane can make out a pretty large city, especially at night, while the left side of the plane sees nothing, even when you land, it's like the runway is all by itself, no terminals etc, till the plane turns around and you can see the airport.

From the north, it's really the same deal.  Coming in from Chicago you land on the N/S runway and fly over 435/29 most of the time.  You seen even less than you do from the west.  But you do see Smithville Lake and sometimes they bring you in over the northland to land E/W.

If you fly in from the east like Baltimore or something, you fly over the northland and sometimes Blue Springs, Independence.  If you are on the left side of the plane, you can see the city pretty well.

Nothing beats the flight in from the SE though.  Wow, I love that, especially at night.

I actually sit on the plane where I know I will see the most.  If I fly Southwest, I will think about how the plane will take off (or land if departing for KCI) and sit accordingly to take in the view.  Am I the only one that does that?

[Tosspot]

Even on my vaunted flight to Hong Kong last year, upon descent into Hong Kong I could see absolutely nothing but night sky, as I was seated on the right side of the plane. The people on the left got treated to a huge, lit-up city at night, but us people on the right saw basically nothing but some poles with lights on them.

[nota]

Different strokes I guess. I love all the different views flying in and out.

Most of the flights I take go out kind of south and make a loop over my house and above the river as they turn northeast. Coming home, we most often come in over Smithville Lake. No bw and then I've been on a plane that comes in from the north/northeast direction and makes a giant loop down to almost JOCO and comes in from the south over the river right at the bend at Parkville. Going south to Dallas/Charlotte, it seems always to be a straight shot either coming or going.

Only once was I ever disappointed coming and that was a "weather" day and we came in from due north and I couldn't recognize anything except the plains of Nebraska.

I seldom go west, but the last few times, it has been pretty uneventful-out over the speedway and back the same way.

Regarding the view of the city,etc-I guess its just me, but I really only like the night arrivals because it is like twinkling diamonds laying on black velvet. To me, the city in the daytime is just more concrete. I prefer the grass and the crops and leaves and trees. That view is ever changing. The city view is always the same.

Different strokes.

[ddw334umkc]

I flew in from Vegas the other day.  It seemed as if Topeka, Lawrence and KCK were all connected, with the Kansas River and I-70 weaving in and out between them.

The worst aerial view is on Northwest coming in from Minneapolis. Had I been on the right side of the plane, I would've been able to follow the Missouri River.  But I was sitting on the left and there was nothing to see but fields.  The flight attendants voice was the only indication of an approach to KCI.

[anniewarbucks]

I do agree that KC needs a new airport per say. I do not think though trashing the existing runways is a good idea. the only thing that needs to be changed is the terminals. I have drawn out a terminal that might work in the same space as the present terminal complex. this will also have more of the shopping mall feel to allow pasengers to better circulate thruogh the terminal. If anything on the runways is to put more runways in parralell with existing runways as the need arises.

[Burton]

Wow anniewarbucks .
First of all, Kansas City is to the south of KCI, so your north arrow is wrong. Secondly, that looks like every generic hub & spoke airport layout. Stick to your dayjob.

[anniewarbucks]

The To Kansas City arrow is pointing up the existing highway that runs from the exiting terminals to I29. This new terminal would sit on the same ground as the existing clover layout. Oh by the way I have no day job.

[49r]

I like muffins!

[Moving2KC]

Want an outsiders opinion?  It's all bull.  MCI is just fine.  Plenty of room to grow, over 65 non stop destinations (how many cities of KC's size can boast that many?), AMAZINGLY low fares, good access, NOT TOO FAR-even from JOCO, car-to-gate distance that, if it were any closer, would be on the tarmac, and PLEASE dry your eyes-those who don't live here REALLY don't have a negative impression based on the view during approach and in the terminal and the drive to KC.

The person who originally opened this topic needs to take a break & switch to decaf.

[DaveKCMO]

The person who originally opened this topic needs to take a break & switch to decaf.

thanks for sharing, but the aviation director -- mark van loh -- is the one who intimated there would be a significant change or redo to support future expansion and a reduction in security costs.