KCRag Forum

Just because you haven't heard something doesn't mean others haven't. Ex. It's been said publicly since the council issue that everything is on track.

Save your judgment for the New Terminal until 1. The actual renderings and plans come out. And 2. When you use it.

Well this is the latest:
http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics ... 34529.html

There's newer details on the timeline if you look.

https://www.kci-edgemoor.com/events-1/

Tells us there's supposed to be a public meeting in two weeks around part of the planning process.

I'm at Lambert right now, terminal A, and I don't know what your smoking STLguy1, but this place is only marginally better than MCI. Would not want to layover here.

shinatoo wrote:I'm at Lambert right now, terminal A, and I don't know what your smoking STLguy1, but this place is only marginally better than MCI. Would not want to layover here.

My educated guess is still that SWA at STL is just to tide them over till new KCI opens

I'm at Lambert right now, terminal A, and I don't know what your smoking STLguy1, but this place is only marginally better than MCI. Would not want to layover here.

You are in A Concourse - the oldest concourse and the smallest. Home to all the "other airlines" that are the smallest O&D in STL. Delta, Air Canada and United. Concourse C is the big one in T1. T2 and Concourse E is the really big one and is Southwest and International. I haven't been in Concourse A in STL but looked at photos online. If you think that KCI looks better - then you truly are the one smoking crack. Here is T2 E Concourse from Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URHrV5w-yDo
and again, I reposted that post only because I am always impressed with the level of passenger traffic in St. Louis' T2.

My educated guess is still that SWA at STL is just to tide them over till new KCI opens

I wish. But yeah... not gonna happen. The new KCI will have higher costs for SWA, especially in three years, a shared terminal and less O&D traffic. Airlines don't move to airports because they are new and pretty (see Indy) and don't care if they are ugly (see LGA, LAX, MSY, FLL, KCI), they care about O&D, ease of connections and landing/terminal fees and population centers.

In STL they have been there since the 80s (granted a few more years here) and are solid. They built T2 in the late 90's and now have expanded it tremendously and have the ability to expand easily and cost effectively even more. They have moved routes through STL from Chicago this past year and their growth there is phenomenal really. What I expect is the new KCI will have better O&D destinations but not the connection traffic STL has today when completed. I will be happy with being able to fly more places nonstop from here than flying to STL(or others) to connect.

Article on STL resurgence and growth:
https://airlinegeeks.com/2017/08/07/the ... l-airport/

THIS is an excellent read about Indy's 1.1 billion dollar airport a few years after after opening:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/can-the-ne ... justified/

Then another 5 years later:
https://www.indystar.com/story/money/20 ... t/3693059/

who really wants to layover anywhere

hell, i was waiting in a klm lounge in houston on the way to/from new zealand and there was like food stuck to the wall and flu people everywhere. george bush intl is gross, anyway. no bathrooms for almost literally miles when you get off the plane in international. i thought i was just going to have to soil myself and that was that. welcome to 'merica/texas.

Spent several hours in the MSP airport on the same trip. It was very nice. Love Field isn't bad.

The conversation wasn't about if all airports are great compared to STL, it was about if STL is a great airport. It is not.

Since moving to Chicago, I haven’t been as up on this as I’d like to be. I’ve looked at their website, and am I wrong in thinking that a lot of the architectural renderings are subject to changes?

Yeah I would trust much yet. I honestly hope they look at the H layout. I think an X layout would be better but maybe not feasible in that space

KCPowercat wrote:Yeah I would trust much yet. I honestly hope they look at the H layout. I think an X layout would be better but maybe not feasible in that space

You mean like shape of our new terminal?

Yes.

i dont think any designs besides the H/I shape have been looked at in years.

Understood but if we are finally paying a company to do detailed design work, I would hope we'd kick it off by looking at all configurations before just assuming the H design is the only option after all these years.

We should implement the K design. &

shinatoo wrote:Spent several hours in the MSP airport on the same trip. It was very nice. Love Field isn't bad.

The conversation wasn't about if all airports are great compared to STL, it was about if STL is a great airport. It is not.

the sentiment seems to be whipsawing between extremes...

KCPowercat wrote:Understood but if we are finally paying a company to do detailed design work, I would hope we'd kick it off by looking at all configurations before just assuming the H design is the only option after all these years.

It isn't the only option but It is the best. Dozens and dozens of configurations have been looked at for the past 5+ years. The airlines, city, etc decided on the current shape. The current shape has been refined and is the best for the given space. It also provides better expansion opportunities imho

I remember all the drawings of the terminal shapes but it would be foolish to not at least look again at options....but we are doing this as cheap and quick as possible so I'm sure that won't be done ....hopefully not leading to the same problem this current terminal design has.

The H shape has some big advantages over the x and k. The top 2 being expansion options and airside geometries.

Okay.