We need a new airport!!!

[KCPowercat]

If you are offering!

[pash]

.

[KCPowercat]

Just talk oranges to oranges with renovation costs estimates then.

[flyingember]

Just talk oranges to oranges with renovation costs estimates then.

it's not completely helpful but the article im2kull linked to earlier has some helpful detail

this batch of repairs would be approx 1/5-1/6 the cost of new (maybe 1/4-1/5 with financing) and kick the ball down the court 5 years

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... l?page=all

The KCI terminals still would operate with small floor plates and 40-year-old concrete shells, he said, and airport officials probably would be asking for more improvements by 2020.

So if we repair for an average of every 10 years and assume that inflation makes the current high number into super cheap 40 years out, repairs would cost more than $1.2 billion before financing for the same period.

granted, we'll need airport work on new before 40 years out. but if we get honest information on both choices from a third party I don't see how renovating over and over will be cheaper

[Unknown JimmyD]

sorry if this is kind of off-topic, but i wanted to get some thoughts on an issue i experienced today.

so i was at the airport today. there was a bit of a delay with a flight and it meant that i'd have to wait around 10 minutes from when i got there to when i could leave to come home. the parking lot was full and was blocked off. i got shooed away from parking curbside with my blinkers on, so where was i to go? there's a small lot right next to the entrance/exits of each terminal that was open and had one car with a woman in it. if you're familiar with kci, it's right next to the strip where you complete the loop from the exit and re-enter the first gate of the terminal. now, it clearly says it's unauthorized parking, so i realize that, but i pulled in anyway as i wasn't going to just drive 20-30 laps around the terminal to kill time. it was really busy and i didn't want to cause more congestion doing that. i figured that if i didn't leave my car, the worst would be that i'd just get shooed away from there as well. a few more cars parked there as well in the minutes that followed. then, after about 7-8 minutes, the airport cop/security lady pulled in and parked her truck behind the first car there so that she couldn't back out. she got out and started writing a ticket right away. a minivan tried to drive around the coptruck and the lady jumped out in front of the vehicle and started writing a ticket for her as well. i saw what was going on and scooted around the backside of the lot and got out while she was busy with the other two vehicles. well, i think i got out. maybe she has really good vision and got my plates as i was pulling out and i'll be getting a surprise in the mail soon.

i got lucky. that's a crap policy, though. would it have been so hard for security to recognize that the lot is full and there's nowhere else to go, and to just tell us that we have to move somewhere else or inform us of an alternate place to park? i was more than willing to pay the $1 to park for the less-than-30min i needed, but it was blocked off. i'm not a regular to the airport, so what should i have done in that situation?

[flyingember]

you go and sit in one of the lots near the Marriott.

this is the counterpoint to a point made earlier. the airport is great if you're being picked up at the door. it's horrible for the person doing the pickup

[KCPowercat]

The thought of using economy lot as a cell phone lot is a joke.

[WSPanic]

The thought of using economy lot as a cell phone lot is a joke.

LOL. Those lots are extremely easy to use. They're fine for cell phone lots. And they are as close - or closer - then plenty of other cities' cell phone lots. What exactly is the problem with them? By the time someone texts you that they're on the ground, you can be there to pick them up.

Considering the fact that you can pretty much pin point an arrival time using the internet - it shouldn't be an issue for most.

If those lots are so horrible, go to the circle lot that isn't full and pay a whole $1 for the first 30 minutes.

[KCPowercat]

I think the 2 mile exit road is generally why I think that. I'm all for dual purpose though, no reason I build a specific cell phone lot.

I generally just drive around if I'm early. Go check out the cargo area, etc. Exciting stuff.

[im2kull]

how are those lies? different improvements have different values. they're changing the list based on feedback

The lies lie in what is or is not "necessary maintenance" versus "desired improvements". You can't change a list of necessary maintenance based on feedback. It's either necessary or it isn't. This is just about the simplest thing one could possibly be asked to understand, yet people here are consistently struggling with it, as though they are confused about whether an emergency quadruple bypass is equivalent in necessity to a boob job. I'm certain nobody here is that stupid.

Never underestimate the current generation of Americans..

And yes, by that I mean every American citizen now alive. Our stupidity has begun spanning generations.

[im2kull]

you'd have a point about the cost changes if you don't read the paragraph immediately following that one

Muncy told members of the board charged with recommending the best course of action for KCI that the new estimate does not include the addition of parking spaces and further rehabilitation of garages.

there you are, proven wrong

I'm pretty sure that is his point, and that the quoted paragraph proves him right. Airport officials keep weasling in all sorts of costs for desired improvements that are in no way necessary maintenance. They keep saying, "If we don't build a new terminal, we'll have to spend X anyway." And then it always turns out the amount that we would "have to" spend in lieu of building a new terminal is really the cost of their hoped-for Plan B.

That's hugely disingenuous because their primary purpose in trotting out a big number for Plan B is to make the big number attached to Plan A seem less bad. "See," says Mark Van Loh, "If we don't spend all this money on a new terminal, we're going to have to spend all this money doing this other stuff anyway." But what Mr Van Loh is really saying is that if we don't let him build a new terminal, he's going to several hundred million dollars to build a new parking garage and other bits and pieces of the new-terminal plan anway.

We're not getting an honest estimate of the cost of maintaining KCI if we don't build a new terminal. We're getting an estimate of the cost of the wish list airport officials will go after if they don't get their new terminal. It doesn't hurt, from their perspective, that the bigger they make the wish list for Plan B, the more attractive a new terminal seems.

As I've said before, my biggest frustration with this whole thing is how underhanded the airports department has been throughout this whole process. I cannot support spending a couple of billion dollars on a project advocated by people who have lied and dissembled about every aspect of it from day one.

Exactly.

What's the dollar figure to maintain the airport as it currently exists? In it's JD Power award winning status and 90%+ Satisfied status? Surely it's nowhere near even $100 million dollars..which is why the powers to be are so hush hush and weary of disclosing THAT estimate. It would ruin any prospects for a new terminal or half billion dollar renovation (That's NOT needed).

Ok, im2kull is officially trolling this thread.

How so? Has anything I said been proven wrong?

Seriously? Let's get you started...ATA doesn't run the airport.

Which, once corrected I promptly accepted and admitted that I was "Wrong". Unlike many others here who simply refuse to allow facts to interpret their opinions (Which is pure ignorance). Best yet I not only accepted the correction, I have embraced it. Why? Because why not? You proved me wrong, so I accepted that as a fact. Sweet. I learned something new and I now know who the *Correct* party is to blame when I bring up airport mismanagement issues! Win Win! Of course, I'm no hypocrite so I had zero issues doing that. I'm not so sure everyone else would do the same...

it's not about desired vs mandatory. it's becoming about timing and you just ignore doing preventative maintenance on some things (see the Kansas turnpike vs I-70 in MO)

like this most recent plan will last something like 5 years until more work is needed. I haven't seen for certain but I bet some of the dropped items have more tolerance for not doing right now but do need to be done like the parking garages

it's why I really want to see a 20+ year plan for maintenance vs building new. not just some arbitrary plan of what people will vote for and then we get surprised with another big repair project in 5-10 years

Stop and listen to yourself for a moment, instead of the Red-Herrings they've been throwing your way. Doing "Preventative Maintenance" (IE: Recurring Maintenance) should be figured into the yearly operating costs for the airport. If they're not, then we have far larger problems to worry about. Example: We build a new 2 Billion Dollar terminal. Are we going to let it waste away and never perform RWP (Recurring Maintenance that's needed to maintain the buildings current condition) or just let it rot away? How then, has the current terminal "Rotted away"? Think about that for a second. IF RWP is being performed, the building won't just "Rot Away". If it has indeed rotted away, then there IS an intentional reason for it...

..perhaps Mark van Loh is neglecting his duties in order to "encourage" dissatisfaction with the existing layout.

Bingo. He's created a multi-million dollar problem (By his own account nonetheless) and alludes to a billion-dollar-solution, and should be held accountable as such. Fry him. Not the airport who's received award after award.

you go and sit in one of the lots near the Marriott.

this is the counterpoint to a point made earlier. the airport is great if you're being picked up at the door. it's horrible for the person doing the pickup

Juding by what "JimmyD" said happened, that's a problem with the airport police unnessecarily blocking off large portions of parking for no apparent reason, and not an actual design problem. No renovation would fix this. Having VanLoh pull his head outta his arse and quit trying to railroad our airport into the ground with redicoulous policies and rules would fix this.

[KCPowercat]

Exactly.

What's the dollar figure to maintain the airport as it currently exists? In it's JD Power award winning status and 90%+ Satisfied status? Surely it's nowhere near even $100 million dollars..which is why the powers to be are so hush hush and weary of disclosing THAT estimate. It would ruin any prospects for a new terminal or half billion dollar renovation (That's NOT needed).

Please stop posting numbers w/o any sort of source behind them. It's not adding to the conversation.

Which, once corrected I promptly accepted and admitted that I was "Wrong". Unlike many others here who simply refuse to allow facts to interpret their opinions (Which is pure ignorance). Best yet I not only accepted the correction, I have embraced it. Why? Because why not? You proved me wrong, so I accepted that as a fact. Sweet. I learned something new and I now know who the *Correct* party is to blame when I bring up airport mismanagement issues! Win Win! Of course, I'm no hypocrite so I had zero issues doing that. I'm not so sure everyone else would do the same...

Your question was "Has anything I said been proven wrong?" That is simply one example....you actually posted the ATA runs the airport at least twice.

it's not about desired vs mandatory. it's becoming about timing and you just ignore doing preventative maintenance on some things (see the Kansas turnpike vs I-70 in MO)

like this most recent plan will last something like 5 years until more work is needed. I haven't seen for certain but I bet some of the dropped items have more tolerance for not doing right now but do need to be done like the parking garages

it's why I really want to see a 20+ year plan for maintenance vs building new. not just some arbitrary plan of what people will vote for and then we get surprised with another big repair project in 5-10 years

Stop and listen to yourself for a moment, instead of the Red-Herrings they've been throwing your way. Doing "Preventative Maintenance" (IE: Recurring Maintenance) should be figured into the yearly operating costs for the airport. If they're not, then we have far larger problems to worry about. Example: We build a new 2 Billion Dollar terminal. Are we going to let it waste away and never perform RWP (Recurring Maintenance that's needed to maintain the buildings current condition) or just let it rot away? How then, has the current terminal "Rotted away"? Think about that for a second. IF RWP is being performed, the building won't just "Rot Away". If it has indeed rotted away, then there IS an intentional reason for it...

you understand some problems can't be fixed with preventative maintenance right?

[beautyfromashes]

Google founder wants to totally redesign the idea of the airport. We should wait for airport 2.0 instead of copying something that will be obsolete in 10 years.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/forget-hy ... 54821.html

[flyingember]

If it has indeed rotted away, then there IS an intentional reason for it...

how much in taxes are you willing to pay for the level of maintenance needed to keep up everything?

because we're not doing this with thousands of buildings

[im2kull]

If it has indeed rotted away, then there IS an intentional reason for it...

how much in taxes are you willing to pay for the level of maintenance needed to keep up everything?

because we're not doing this with thousands of buildings

If we spent our collected taxes the right way to begin with, we wouldn't have this problem.

Does the airport turn a profit? Does any of that go to the city? If so those funds should be directly used to maintain the facilities. Zero added taxes. See how easy that was?

[flyingember]

If we spent our collected taxes the right way to begin with, we wouldn't have this problem.

what's the right way to spend our taxes? you just waded into a 200-year-old discussion that's nowhere near resolved

[aknowledgeableperson]

If it has indeed rotted away, then there IS an intentional reason for it...

how much in taxes are you willing to pay for the level of maintenance needed to keep up everything?

because we're not doing this with thousands of buildings

If we spent our collected taxes the right way to begin with, we wouldn't have this problem.

Does the airport turn a profit? Does any of that go to the city? If so those funds should be directly used to maintain the facilities. Zero added taxes. See how easy that was?

Not sure if the airport is on a break-even basis or what but if there was a "profit" it would stay inside the funds used for airport purposes. Profits from the airport cannot be used for other operations of the city. And city taxes are not used for airport operations.

Airport buildings are maintained but much like any other large structure or complex things do get worn out. Many times a cheaper fix can do and will last a short time but eventually those cheap fixes add up and eventually things need to be replaced and/or upgraded. Think of an air conditioner at home. You have a small Freon leak and the ac will work each year with adding Freon but eventually you will need to put in a new unit.

[im2kull]

how much in taxes are you willing to pay for the level of maintenance needed to keep up everything?

because we're not doing this with thousands of buildings

If we spent our collected taxes the right way to begin with, we wouldn't have this problem.

Does the airport turn a profit? Does any of that go to the city? If so those funds should be directly used to maintain the facilities. Zero added taxes. See how easy that was?

Not sure if the airport is on a break-even basis or what but if there was a "profit" it would stay inside the funds used for airport purposes. Profits from the airport cannot be used for other operations of the city. And city taxes are not used for airport operations.

The aviation dept had a total operating revenue of $106,000,000 last year.
The aviation dept had a total operating expense of $76,600,000 last year.
http://www.flykci.com/_FileLibrary/File ... EVISED.pdf

End of year net position was +$514,003,715...

So yes, the aviation dept definately breaks even!

Airport buildings are maintained but much like any other large structure or complex things do get worn out. Many times a cheaper fix can do and will last a short time but eventually those cheap fixes add up and eventually things need to be replaced and/or upgraded. Think of an air conditioner at home. You have a small Freon leak and the ac will work each year with adding Freon but eventually you will need to put in a new unit.

Exactly. When it comes time to address the root cause of the Freon leak (A broken AC unit) do you replace the AC unit, or build a whole new house? Common sense says to replace the AC..as you stated. The plan the aviation dept is pushing for however fails to address the broken AC unit and instead proposes demolishing the existing house with its broken AC unit and building a whole new house from scratch, with a nice new AC unit inside (The same nice new AC unit that you could get without having to demolish and rebuild..). We have yet to see the cost estimate for replacing the AC and keeping the current "House" (IE: Terminal).

[aknowledgeableperson]

The aviation dept had a total operating revenue of $106,000,000 last year.
The aviation dept had a total operating expense of $76,600,000 last year.

Of course you don't add depreciation and amortization.

Exactly.

Of course, exactly, you missed the point. But you missing it helped your argument.

[shaffe]

The aviation dept had a total operating revenue of $106,000,000 last year.
The aviation dept had a total operating expense of $76,600,000 last year.
http://www.flykci.com/_FileLibrary/File ... EVISED.pdf

End of year net position was +$514,003,715...

So yes, the aviation dept definately breaks even!

Yeah you probably shouldn't run your mouth trying to read things you have no fucking clue how to.