KCRag Forum

In a mistake I probably won't make again any time soon, I listened to Dan Coffey and Jolie Justus talk about Tuesday's vote on KMBZ. Dan claimed that CFRG's "polling" had the Yes vote at about 55%, but it had "dropped about 3% in the past few days". Given that he painted his own side as losing currently, I'm guessing that the polling done by the Better KCI group shows it being less close than that.

As an aside, I had never heard Dan talk until this morning - for running a pretty small-time anti-everything group, he's pretty good at the whataboutism, unsourced references to data he claims to support his position, and strategic name-dropping that works well on low-information voters. The KMBZ host was better at calling him out on this than Jolie was, unfortunately.

Another outsider perspective: http://crankyflier.com/2017/11/02/kansa ... next-week/

If the vote fails can we just condemn the terminals? Asbestos or something?

Ada

tower wrote:Good article on the economic benefit of direct flights:
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/10/ ... es/544478/

90% of our existing flights are direct flights... Sooo..

shinatoo wrote:If the vote fails can we just condemn the terminals? Asbestos or something?

They’ve already abated that.

Every naysayer should have to watch this video. I know Mark Van Loah is the one explaining everything and he's the one who got us into the mess the wrong way, but this really sheds light on why a renovation won't work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VsPYlHm ... e=youtu.be

100 percent of our flights are direct.

KCPowercat wrote:100 percent of our flights are direct.

And to nitpick the term purposefully-
True in the figurative sense
False in the literal sense

Since this is meant to be a figurative statement anyone on the internet who nitpicks the word "direct" is an idiot. I predict a bunch of people already have over the new terminal.

im2kull wrote:

tower wrote:Good article on the economic benefit of direct flights:
https://www.citylab.com/equity/2017/10/ ... es/544478/

90% of our existing flights are direct flights... Sooo..

100% of all flights are direct in a sense.

The key word is more. And cheaper and quicker. To more places, especially internationally.

Edit: oh, I see we'd already gone there

Lol

mykn wrote:

shinatoo wrote:If the vote fails can we just condemn the terminals? Asbestos or something?

They’ve already abated that.

Something? Or asbestos?

Make sure we delete this thread if that does happen though

I'm running across several in Midtown to SKC intending to vote who don't think we need a new terminal, thinking current one is fine. My approach is to explain that it's possibly the worst design in country for being a hub, that we only have 40 something destinations compared to 80+ or more for forward moving cities and KC is the largest market not to have a flight to Europe. Companies want flights to more markets, airlines want many gates that don't need to re-enter security. Voting against a new terminal will allow smaller markets to pass up KC long term. It will happen. Some have moved to KC from big cities not wanting KC to grow too much and are OK with other markets passing up KC.

Am concerned about this passing. The perceived perception of convenience is far outweighing the understanding of how hubs work and airlines operate. KCI is simply the worst airport to operate in and most voters don't understand this or want to keep KC from moving forward.

earthling wrote:I'm running across several in Midtown to SKC intending to vote who don't think we need a new terminal, thinking current one is fine. My approach is to explain that it's possibly the worst design in country for being a hub, that we only have 40 something destinations compared to 80+ or more for forward moving cities and KC is the largest market not to have a flight to Europe. Companies want flights to more markets, airlines want many gates that don't need to re-enter security. Voting against a new terminal will allow smaller markets to pass up KC long term. It will happen. Some have moved to KC from big cities not wanting KC to grow too much and are OK with other markets passing up KC.

Am concerned about this passing. The perceived perception of convenience is far outweighing the understanding of how hubs work and airlines operate. KCI is simply the worst airport to operate in and most voters don't understand this or want to keep KC from moving forward.

Unfortunately, the election has somewhat become a referendum on KC's entire capital improvement process and not the actual airport itself. The Star has demonstrated duplicitous behavior in this regard favoring the new airport but criticizing the process at every step along the way in their lame attempt to create controversy. The fact that home-town Burns and McDonald was enlisted and then dropped isn't helping either. All that is very unfortunate because KC desperately needs a new terminal at KCI and a renovation of the existing terminals would be a disaster that would take decades to recover from.

shinatoo wrote:

mykn wrote:

shinatoo wrote:If the vote fails can we just condemn the terminals? Asbestos or something?

They’ve already abated that.

Something? Or asbestos?

Asbestos. I stumbled upon a star article about it from years ago when reading about an illegal dump site on the east side of town.

57% approval in polls

That's a good sign, but I'm burned on polls, maybe forever.

ldai_phs wrote:57% approval in polls

which poll? conducted by whom?

swid wrote:In a mistake I probably won't make again any time soon, I listened to Dan Coffey and Jolie Justus talk about Tuesday's vote on KMBZ. Dan claimed that CFRG's "polling" had the Yes vote at about 55%, but it had "dropped about 3% in the past few days". Given that he painted his own side as losing currently, I'm guessing that the polling done by the Better KCI group shows it being less close than that.

As an aside, I had never heard Dan talk until this morning - for running a pretty small-time anti-everything group, he's pretty good at the whataboutism, unsourced references to data he claims to support his position, and strategic name-dropping that works well on low-information voters. The KMBZ host was better at calling him out on this than Jolie was, unfortunately.

It's interesting following the Star's comments on KCI-related articles. Now that the Star has moved to a FB format for comments, it allows one to put together a cross-section of opponents to a new terminal into 1 of 2 categories: 1) Older - those that remember when KCI was relatively new and have fond memories and 2) the typical conservative republican that harbors the belief that anything government does is bad .

I've listened to Coffey too and have had several discussions with opponents. If you mention an issue with KCI, the typical response is "so you want to spend a billion dollars for......whatever single issue". KCI has a myriad of damning problems, a single problem may or may not be worth a new terminal (although I believe the lack of space in the secure area alone justifies a new terminal). It always comes back to a single issue with the opponents be it more direct flights, international flights, lack of outlets for recharging phones, crowded conditions behind security (actually on both sides), gateway to the city, and amenities.