We need a new airport!!!

[flyingember]

One thing worth noting is Dallas did terminal renovations a few years ago.

$600 million per terminal.

That's a good item for why $350 million is a joke cost

[im2kull]

Cost to a contractor is quite different than the cost to the project owner. So you made a profit of almost 300%, good for you. It still cost the owner $1.5M.

Poor contracting is NOT an excuse to give misleading numbers on a public issue and prop up a poor, exaggerated cost estimate as the only option out there. There were bids from 350k up for this job. They could have chosen any of the lessor ones, but hey..it's political. Just like the KCI terminal situation which is why I brought it up. You're smoking crack if you don't think that Mark VanLoh and the KC Aviation Department isn't parading around this "1 Billion dollars to fix existing "Problems"" concept for anything other than personal gain.. and that it couldn't be done for significantly less.

The City's policy on accepting bids is "lowest and best". Basically the City ALWAYS accepts the lowest bid unless the bidder is not qualified or has unacceptable conditions in the bid. If the lowest is not accepted or approved the City works it way up the ladder in bid prices. Almost always, if the lowest bid is rejected the bidder will file a lawsuit forcing the City to award it the contract. And, of course, contracts that size are approved by the City Council.
For me your claim is dubious. Do you have an ordinance # or contract # so one could look up the details to this project?

The lowest bid isn't always the "Cheapest" way to do things..even if it is the lowest bid. It's still a bid, by a for-profit company to do work that you're *Choosing* to have done that way. It's far from the most efficient way of doing things. You pay a premium, one that the bidder determines. Everyone knows that. Outsourcing everything is the first of many financial problems that cities create.

[aknowledgeableperson]

The city does not have the ability to do the work itself so yes this work is "outsourced". That's how the airport, Bartle Hall, Sprint Center, Police and Public Works Buildings along with Parks. And I would imagine just about every company does the same thing.

[KCPowercat]

This new Crawford proposal is pretty LOL when you realize that the $350M~ number they are throwing out is only half of the actual cost to do it since they are quoting per terminal costs and 2 of them would need to be done.....so save $100M and not all problems fixed with the building yet lose the connivence that new KCI people can't seem to lose. Great idea.

[bobbyhawks]

"Cheapest" is subjective as well. GSA and other government entities basically just come up with a big requirements spreadsheet. Whichever bid hits all the must-have requirements for the lowest price gets the job. I could come up with a requirements spreadsheet for buying a car, and if one of the must have features is "self-driving capability via OTA updates," etc., the "cheapest" option may be a Tesla. It is all in who builds the requirements and what type of a vision they have. The city could absolutely screw this component up, but there is at least transparency in their decision making.

[kboish]

This new Crawford proposal is pretty LOL when you realize that the $350M~ number they are throwing out is only half of the actual cost to do it since they are quoting per terminal costs and 2 of them would need to be done.....so save $100M and not all problems fixed with the building yet lose the connivence that new KCI people can't seem to lose. Great idea.

Exactly. You get the best of neither the old KCI nor a new single terminal. But hey we saved $100 million-though based on their phasing concept the savings is unlikely not mention this draws out the construction period we would have to endure as passengers. AND this has zero input from the airlines, which, up until they started supporting a new terminal was supposedly super important. Sounds like a winner! or at least someone trying to submarine the process and possibly snag a 15 year construction project.

[beautyfromashes]

If we're so worried about the cost, we should talk about opening the bid to non-unionized workers. If we're honest, we know this is the type of project that unions run the cost up on since they know there is a government union initiative.

[flyingember]

If we're so worried about the cost, we should talk about opening the bid to non-unionized workers. If we're honest, we know this is the type of project that unions run the cost up on since they know there is a government union initiative.

That's why CM@risk has to be on the table for the construction method. It's perfect for very large, very complex projects to keep costs under control.

[aknowledgeableperson]

With Federal Funds, and even City policy, prevailing wage comes into play. Union or no union.

[brewcrew1000]

American has added a daily flight from MCI to LAX, American has really expanded a lot over the last year, we now have daily nonstops on AA from LaGuardia, Miami, LAX and cancun

[KCPowercat]

Cancun is seasonal only and only Saturday.

[herrfrank]

American has added a daily flight from MCI to LAX, American has really expanded a lot over the last year, we now have daily nonstops on AA from LaGuardia, Miami, LAX and Cancun

This is great news -- AA is expanding at LAX, there are now nonstops to SYD and also to Shanghai PVG. Makes Asian travel much easier. The LGA flight timing is also good for inbounds from Europe, although you still have to take a taxi across Queens to transfer from JFK.

[im2kull]

On average that's 245 people per hour, every hour for 10 hours per day (I figure not many people are transferring late in the day or early in the morning at KC), that could have to go through security just to use the restrooms.

There's restrooms inside the secure area..so they wouldn't "Have" to go through security, they would "Choose" to.

I think we need to separate out "Wants" from "Needs" if we're going to have an earnest conversation. You can NEVER fully satisfy one's wants.

[chingon]

If we're so worried about the cost, we should talk about opening the bid to non-unionized workers. If we're honest, we know this is the type of project that unions run the cost up on since they know there is a government union initiative.

You don't know what you're talking about.

[im2kull]

I also don't see all the work mentioned like the de-icing repair. So I wonder if that's anywhere close to a final price?

The de-icing system never needed "Repaired", it needed improvements and those improvements were done progressively throughout the last few years. It's done. But anyways the article does mention it, because they've probably all fallen for the same red-herring, but if you read closely you'll see...

"That cost includes money to fix the deferred maintenance (Recurring work that should have been done already but was chosen for whatever reason not to have been done) and de-icer shortcomings of the existing building, providing a modernized terminal for Kansas City’s largest airlines.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/governme ... rylink=cpy"

Two things of note with that plan

1. it does away with the convenience factor by moving to central security. Which is one of the stated goals of this plan. Ironic.
2. it costs $700 million minimum since we'd be renovating two terminals. So it's not that much cheaper than the other plans at the end of the day.
I also don't see all the work mentioned like the de-icing repair. So I wonder if that's anywhere close to a final price?

Wrong, and wrong. The article states that there will NOT be a central security area. Just a change from 4 security gates in each terminal to 2 high capacity ones. Nothing centralized about that.

Secondly, it's a plan for a single terminal renovation. With the option for 1, or 2 more copycats in the future. So yes, the cost is actually $350 million for the one terminal that would be done. All airport PAX operations would be consolidated to the one terminal until the need for more gates and PAX capacity arises.

"As future airport needs are assessed, the plan says, a second terminal could then be renovated for the other airlines at similar cost adjusted for inflation.

Read more here: http://www.kansascity.com/news/governme ... rylink=cpy"

(If Im2kull) merely has very little empathy for anyone who doesn't have the privilege of traveling like he does

Privilege? It's has nothing to do with privilege, and everything to do with personal choices. Own your choices. Own them.

If traveling through an airport stresses you out or makes you "Want" a giant mass clogged security checkpoint, and more places to sleep or eat...then you're doing it wrong. Start traveling. Stop stopping and creating excuses. Quit failing America.

[bobbyhawks]

If traveling through an airport stresses you out or makes you "Want" a giant mass clogged security checkpoint, and more places to sleep or eat...then you're doing it wrong. Start traveling. Stop stopping and creating excuses. Quit failing America.

Sounds a lot like you get stressed out traveling through certain airports also. Don't know about you, but when I layover for longer than 30 minutes, I often want somewhere to eat or drink and relax, or to walk around and stretch my legs. If you are totally unconcerned with KCI being the type of airport you wouldn't hate having a layover in, then you have you admit you really don't care how outsiders view KCI (which is totally a reflection of how they view the city).

The frequent work travelers I know who come to KC (and other cities) from out of town universally agree KCI is a joke. I travel the other way and agree that KCI is a joke. If you are such a frequent traveler and congestion is such a problem for you, there is always Global Entry (shhh) and the TSA Pre Check. I have zero issue with lines in any airport security configuration. If you travel out of KCI so much that the security line would be an issue, it costs like $14 per year. If you add up all of the lines at KCI at a given moment and stack the TSA pre check together, you would max wait for like 5 minutes.

[aknowledgeableperson]

" you "Want" a giant mass clogged security checkpoint"

Given the number of that have to go through the security checkpoint at KCI at one time I doubt the waiting lines would really be that long. Instead of having 2 checkpoints busy and the other 2 waiting you would have just one with the passengers spread out among the various stations.

[mykn]

Stop stopping and creating excuses. Quit failing America.

I've figured it out, im2kull is Donald Trump.

[Highlander]

While I can't tell (for sure) if im2kull is flat-out trolling or merely has very little empathy for anyone who doesn't have the privilege of traveling like he does, I will admit that KCI's current layout works well if most or all of the following apply to you:

- you're not checking anything
- you're flying at non-peak times and/or have TSA Pre/airline status (particularly in Terminal B)
- you're flying at times that typically aren't delayed or on airlines that aren't frequently delayed out of KC (i.e., not United)
- the sole or one of the two screening machines in your 4- to 6-gate area isn't broken down, undergoing maintenance, or is unstaffed

KCI's terminals opened 44 years ago; even with the renovations, I can't imagine there's more than a decade or two left in their design life anyway.

That's a good list but it is not extensive enough. Frankly, unless you have a cavalier attitude about flying and are willing to endure Spartan conditions, then you are probably going to have an issue with KCI. As for myself, I've flown into some dicey airports around the world (sub-Saharan Africa/FSU) and I'm willing to accept low quality conditions because, essentially, there's no other choice. But I'm generally on business when that happens and it is part of earning the paycheck. When I am flying with my family or on my own, everything changes - I'm not going to Turkmenistan - and I do want a certain level of comfort, amenities, and options available. I also get to the airport early to protect my investment so I have a vested interest in airports offering a range of options.

Those who suggest that those options and comfort levels are not necessary and people need to "get with the program" are just full of shit. That's an extremely arrogant attitude and it is counter to the needs of the majority (people who arrive at the airport just in time to make the flight are in the extreme minority). You design airports that meets the needs of as many as possible - so if 10% of the flights are transfers, that has to be a major part of the design consideration.

Most of this is a moot point. We all know that you can design a single terminal airport that is every bit as convenient as KCI without any difficulty at all and with a far greater level of amenities, it's done all the time, all over the US.

[flyingember]

I've noticed the number one response recently online isn't to renovate, it's to do absolutely nothing.

Building new could lose not because people think we need to renovate instead, it will be because they think nothing should be done. See the streetcar P2 election, convention hotel, etc.

The city has been putting too many large projects up in a short time. It doesn't matter if all/most need to be done, it's just becoming easy to make a case the city is developing at the expense of its residents with incentive-based and tax increases, not from increased revenue. The airport is sliding into this same idea.

The city needs to step back and show results to people before it puts another huge project to a vote. A good starting point would be to find a tax to put up for repeal alongside the airport vote.