We need a new airport!!!

[earthling]

^Air Canada still has a direct flight from KCI to Toronto. Cancun and other Mexican cities are seasonal but not seeing any at this time. The KCI site still lists Cancun as a nonstop, but it's seasonal.

[flyingember]

would be nice to get more though.

Bahamas would be a good one.
So would Vancouver

[brewcrew1000]

Why would you want a nonstop to vancouver, why pay 450-500 on average for a flight to vancouver when you could fly into bellingham 50 miles away for 200-300 dollars less. Tons of Vancouver residents are flying into Bellingham now to pay less

[flyingember]

Why would you want a nonstop to vancouver, why pay 450-500 on average for a flight to vancouver when you could fly into bellingham 50 miles away for 200-300 dollars less. Tons of Vancouver residents are flying into Bellingham now to pay less

does KC have a direct flight to Bellingham?

[im2kull]

Makes you wish our airport were in Kansas. We'd have direct flights to everywhere!

Is it too late to build a new airport in Fairfax?

Last time I checked "Kansas" wasn't exactly "Raleigh-Durham". You can't expect people to think that we're not a Cow-Town when we've got people like you jumping to conclusions about other cities. The Raleigh-Durham area is packed with commerce, young adults, and very high profile neighbors. If I had to bet I'd say that you weren't even aware that Duke, North Carolina, NC State, and Wake Forest are ALL located right in there in Raleigh.

For what it's worth their airport is certainty cow-townish! They might have international flights, but KCI is by far the better airport!

What the fuck are you talking about?

Try reading. My comment was in reply to brewcrew's remark that Raleigh-Durham has direct flights to London because local government subsidizes them. The state of Kansas doles out corporate subsidies like candy. ... Can you make the connection?

And, yes, I've been to the Research Triangle and on the campuses of several of the local universities.

Point was this:
Do you think anyone is going to subsidize empty flights?

I'm interested in hearing how subsidized flights (Which means NOTHING to the ticket buyer) are going to magically bring in PAX to KC who are here to stay and not just on connecting flights? Is it really worth it to fund a bunch of connecting flights that directly profit a private business (IE: KCI), while leaving the city in the dust? It's like spending $99 to get 1c back. The city doesn't need to be wasting money subsidizing and marketing the airport, the city needs to spend money marketing and improving itself! What little bit of revenue the city could make off subsidized international flights is NOT worth it. Maybe in Raleigh-Durham, but not in KC. We have no reason to subsidize international flights..Raleigh does.

[im2kull]

Why would you want a nonstop to vancouver, why pay 450-500 on average for a flight to vancouver when you could fly into bellingham 50 miles away for 200-300 dollars less. Tons of Vancouver residents are flying into Bellingham now to pay less

Why pay $5k for first class seats to Paris when you could buy economy seats for less than a grand? For some people it's about convenience, not money.

[aknowledgeableperson]

The city doesn't need to be wasting money subsidizing and marketing the airport,

The city does not subsidize either airport. They are operated via various fees and rents o airport users. In fact the airports help city operations via various charges to the airport funds for services provided (like personnel, payroll, purchasing and such).

[KCPowercat]

The city doesn't need to be wasting money subsidizing and marketing the airport,

The city does not subsidize either airport. They are operated via various fees and rents o airport users. In fact the airports help city operations via various charges to the airport funds for services provided (like personnel, payroll, purchasing and such).

He meant future tense if we would subsidize to get international flights

[aknowledgeableperson]

Jst took the sentence out of context.

But seriously, why would the city subsidize a scheduled international flight? The amount of subsidy would likely exceed any potential revenue the city would receive, outside of airport operations. And if subsized by airport operations it would also be at a loss. My rational for this is the city would already be doing this if it would have a positive effect for the city.

[shinatoo]

Jst took the sentence out of context.

But seriously, why would the city subsidize a scheduled international flight? The amount of subsidy would likely exceed any potential revenue the city would receive, outside of airport operations. And if subsized by airport operations it would also be at a loss. My rational for this is the city would already be doing this if it would have a positive effect for the city.

Isn't that why it's called a subsidy and not an investment?

[aknowledgeableperson]

No matter what you call it for whatever purpose there is money in airport operations to do it but I take it the benefit is not there. They do surveys all the time about what travelers want my conclusion is no particular demand.

[GRID]

KC needs more non-stops to more domestic cities. International flights would be nice, but that's not going to happen without KC being a major hub. Personally, if you are flying that far, I prefer to stop on the coasts first and have a short layover.

[Highlander]

KC needs more non-stops to more domestic cities. International flights would be nice, but that's not going to happen without KC being a major hub. Personally, if you are flying that far, I prefer to stop on the coasts first and have a short layover.

Not me. Layovers suck - a flight from KC to Europe would not be much longer than a flight from the coast, you fly over Greenland so the distance isn't that much greater (maybe an extra hour at the most). Where it really hits the traveler is on the way back when you have to retrieve your bags, go through customs at the port of entry, recheck your bags and then fly on to one's destination. That little customs and rechecking adventure makes not having a direct connection overseas a royal pain in the ass. Little wonder why international companies gravitate towards cities with direct access to overseas destinations.

[im2kull]

KC needs more non-stops to more domestic cities. International flights would be nice, but that's not going to happen without KC being a major hub. Personally, if you are flying that far, I prefer to stop on the coasts first and have a short layover.

Not me. Layovers suck - a flight from KC to Europe would not be much longer than a flight from the coast, you fly over Greenland so the distance isn't that much greater (maybe an extra hour at the most).

A flight from Charlotte to KC is something like 2 and a half hours...a fairly significant amount of time (Considering that you can go from the east coast to Europe in roughly 7-9 sometimes) I always pick short layovers, usually around an hour, and have never had a problem getting through customs and on to the next flight in that time. Consider the fact that either way you have to go through customs, which takes the bulk of the time that you're in an international layover, and the time savings by having a direct flight to KC from Europe is really, really, small.

Where it really hits the traveler is on the way back when you have to retrieve your bags, go through customs at the port of entry, recheck your bags and then fly on to one's destination. That little customs and rechecking adventure makes not having a direct connection overseas a royal pain in the ass. Little wonder why international companies gravitate towards cities with direct access to overseas destinations.

Those cities with "Direct access" to overseas destinations have "Direct access" because they themselves are destination cities. That is exactly why KC needs to spend money on itself first, and not a privately run business such as the airport. If the airport was owned, and operated by the city for profit, then I would sing a much different tune. But the simple fact is that it's not.

[pash]

.

[KCPowercat]

KC needs more non-stops to more domestic cities. International flights would be nice, but that's not going to happen without KC being a major hub. Personally, if you are flying that far, I prefer to stop on the coasts first and have a short layover.

Not me. Layovers suck - a flight from KC to Europe would not be much longer than a flight from the coast, you fly over Greenland so the distance isn't that much greater (maybe an extra hour at the most).

A flight from Charlotte to KC is something like 2 and a half hours...a fairly significant amount of time (Considering that you can go from the east coast to Europe in roughly 7-9 sometimes) I always pick short layovers, usually around an hour, and have never had a problem getting through customs and on to the next flight in that time. Consider the fact that either way you have to go through customs, which takes the bulk of the time that you're in an international layover, and the time savings by having a direct flight to KC from Europe is really, really, small.

Where it really hits the traveler is on the way back when you have to retrieve your bags, go through customs at the port of entry, recheck your bags and then fly on to one's destination. That little customs and rechecking adventure makes not having a direct connection overseas a royal pain in the ass. Little wonder why international companies gravitate towards cities with direct access to overseas destinations.

Those cities with "Direct access" to overseas destinations have "Direct access" because they themselves are destination cities. That is exactly why KC needs to spend money on itself first, and not a privately run business such as the airport. If the airport was owned, and operated by the city for profit, then I would sing a much different tune. But the simple fact is that it's not.

Charlotte is not a destination city. I don't think you understand how airlines or flights overall operate.

[LCDSI]

fyi; article in the leavenworth times.

interesting comment about international flights and missed opportunities

http://www.leavenworthtimes.com/article ... /130118888

[IraGlacialis]

Personally, if you are flying that far, I prefer to stop on the coasts first and have a short layover.

After a certain point, it is preferable to simply get as close as possible to your final destination as possible, if not directly. The less time you have to spend on that connecting flight, the better, especially since those international carriers tend to have better service overall.
And except for Asian airports, I have yet to discover an enjoyable layover. Unless I had access to a lounge or something.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

And except for Asian airports, I have yet to discover an enjoyable layover. Unless I had access to a lounge or something.

The Delta terminal in Atlanta has a Nathan's Hot Dogs right next to a Freshen's Smoothies. It's basically heaven.

[im2kull]

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..