We need a new airport!!!

[pash]

.

[im2kull]

You forget the utility savings with less square footage and lower maintenance costs with newer equipment and less area to keep up.

You must have missed the part about them not demolishing the existing terminals and continuing to use them for other purposes? Utilities and maintenance is not going to change, it will in fact cost more with the additional of a new terminal to maintain along with the existing 3.

Billions????

Yes?

The only concrete financial argument for a new terminal that I've heard relates to reducing the TSA workforce. As I pointed out several weeks ago, spending a couple of billion dollars upfront to save a few hundred thousand a year is an argument that only the Miss Teen South Carolina of financial literacy could make.

+1

This is clearly being done for financial reasons far outside of reducing the airports operating costs. As with everything I'm sure that somebody has their hands stuffed in the cookie jar..

[KCPowercat]

You understand the exisiting terminals will be leased out to private companies....utilities wouldn't be paid by the city.

This is a bazaar discussion. Are you guys really against this? Your comments dont seem to be based in the real discussion of what is being proposed. I'm confused to say the least.

[im2kull]

You understand the exisiting terminals will be leased out to private companies....utilities wouldn't be paid by the city.

Says who?

Even if they are leased out to private companies, there's no telling how much crap the city is going to get stuck subsidizing.

[mean]

Personally, I'm not terribly concerned about whether the project saves money. I'm far more interested in whether we'll end up with additional nonstop flights to new destinations, and particularly whether we might actually land some international flights. KC-London or Paris or Mumbai nonstop would be huge, but frankly I'd be happy if Southwest added direct flights from KC to MPLS, Atlanta, NYC, San Antonio, and/or New Orleans.

[Highlander]

Personally, I'm not terribly concerned about whether the project saves money. I'm far more interested in whether we'll end up with additional nonstop flights to new destinations, and particularly whether we might actually land some international flights. KC-London or Paris or Mumbai nonstop would be huge, but frankly I'd be happy if Southwest added direct flights from KC to MPLS, Atlanta, NYC, San Antonio, and/or New Orleans.

I am glad someone else is seeing that the debate cannot be limited to cost vs savings. It is a far more encompassing issue.

[pash]

.

[shaffe]

What infrastructure project ISN'T a massive waste of money?

[grovester]

Seems to me that we're only accelerating the inevitable maybe 10 years. The fact that the existing will be reused kind of negates the "waste" aspect.

[im2kull]

Personally, I'm not terribly concerned about whether the project saves money. I'm far more interested in whether we'll end up with additional nonstop flights to new destinations, and particularly whether we might actually land some international flights. KC-London or Paris or Mumbai nonstop would be huge, but frankly I'd be happy if Southwest added direct flights from KC to MPLS, Atlanta, NYC, San Antonio, and/or New Orleans.

If they're not adding flights with our current terminal, then do you really think they'll add flights to a more crowded, less efficient terminal? Something tells me that our current offering of flights has more to do with the city, and less to do with our airport. If we were a hub then perhaps we'd see more regular flights to those destinations, but with that we'd also lose the variety of destinations and choices that we currently have. Not to mention increased ticket prices, and much less flexibility when booking those tickets.

[KCPowercat]

SWA wants to add flights...they can't at their current terminal. They could with a new central terminal that could move airlines around easier. One example.

No one saying this is a waste has answered my question...when do you think a new terminal should be built? What criteria is needed to make it "worth it" to you? The FAA wants this due to security, the airlines want it due to ability to modify flights easier, the city wants it to lower their utility costs and better location, some customers want it for layovers and amenities...what additional is needed? Should we always keep the current design? My FAA fees/taxes should continue to build new terminals around the country? Seems like typical KC attitudes.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

SWA wants to add flights...they can't at their current terminal. They could with a new central terminal that could move airlines around easier. One example.

No one saying this is a waste has answered my question...when do you think a new terminal should be built? What criteria is needed to make it "worth it" to you? The FAA wants this due to security, the airlines want it due to ability to modify flights easier, the city wants it to lower their utility costs and better location, some customers want it for layovers and amenities...what additional is needed? Should we always keep the current design? My FAA fees/taxes should continue to build new terminals around the country? Seems like typical KC attitudes.

I think it's actually the opposite of the KC attitude. We like what we already have so much, we don't want anything to change. Isn't the normal KC attitude saying that what we have sucks?

[Highlander]

If they're not adding flights with our current terminal, then do you really think they'll add flights to a more crowded, less efficient terminal?

Less efficient? The current terminal configuration is a model of inefficiency, no economy of scale, no easy way to move passengers around, no critical mass, everything (including security) dispersed, etc.... Airline operations do not get any more inefficient than they do in KC which is exactly why we are having this discussion.

[KCPowercat]

SWA wants to add flights...they can't at their current terminal. They could with a new central terminal that could move airlines around easier. One example.

No one saying this is a waste has answered my question...when do you think a new terminal should be built? What criteria is needed to make it "worth it" to you? The FAA wants this due to security, the airlines want it due to ability to modify flights easier, the city wants it to lower their utility costs and better location, some customers want it for layovers and amenities...what additional is needed? Should we always keep the current design? My FAA fees/taxes should continue to build new terminals around the country? Seems like typical KC attitudes.

I think it's actually the opposite of the KC attitude. We like what we already have so much, we don't want anything to change. Isn't the normal KC attitude saying that what we have sucks?

Was thinking more the "oh we don't need the industry standard what everybody else has, don't change anything, the bare minimum is just good enough for this "town""

[TheBigChuckbowski]

If they're not adding flights with our current terminal, then do you really think they'll add flights to a more crowded, less efficient terminal?

Less efficient? The current terminal configuration is a model of inefficiency, no economy of scale, no easy way to move passengers around, no critical mass, everything (including security) dispersed, etc.... Airline operations do not get any more inefficient than they do in KC which is exactly why we are having this discussion.

I think he probably means less efficient in terms of the traveler. The time it takes someone to get from the parking lot into the gate.

[im2kull]

Was thinking more the "oh we don't need the industry standard what everybody else has, don't change anything, the bare minimum is just good enough for this "town""

If by "Bare minimum" you mean receiving praise from multiple entities, while winning a nationally acclaimed JD Power & Associates award every year, then I suppose I'd have to say that all this "Town" wants is the "Bare Minimum".

[KCPowercat]

Was thinking more the "oh we don't need the industry standard what everybody else has, don't change anything, the bare minimum is just good enough for this "town""

If by "Bare minimum" you mean receiving praise from multiple entities, while winning a nationally acclaimed JD Power & Associates award every year, then I suppose I'd have to say that all this "Town" wants is the "Bare Minimum".

Those don't go hand in hand you realize. I am a frequent user of KCI and I love how easy it is to get in an out of....but I also see it's obvious shortcomings....including limiting non-stops for airlines that want to add them...which is bad for me as a customer. JD Powers was for midsized airports...ONE year. Not quite justification for never building new.

[phxcat]

SWA wants to add flights...they can't at their current terminal. They could with a new central terminal that could move airlines around easier. One example.

No one saying this is a waste has answered my question...when do you think a new terminal should be built? What criteria is needed to make it "worth it" to you? The FAA wants this due to security, the airlines want it due to ability to modify flights easier, the city wants it to lower their utility costs and better location, some customers want it for layovers and amenities...what additional is needed? Should we always keep the current design? My FAA fees/taxes should continue to build new terminals around the country? Seems like typical KC attitudes.

I think it's actually the opposite of the KC attitude. We like what we already have so much, we don't want anything to change. Isn't the normal KC attitude saying that what we have sucks?

Was thinking more the "oh we don't need the industry standard what everybody else has, don't change anything, the bare minimum is just good enough for this "town""

Yeah.

Was thinking more the "oh we don't need the industry standard what everybody else has, don't change anything, the bare minimum is just good enough for this "town""

If by "Bare minimum" you mean receiving praise from multiple entities, while winning a nationally acclaimed JD Power & Associates award every year, then I suppose I'd have to say that all this "Town" wants is the "Bare Minimum".

As has been noted several times, we can build a more efficient terminal and design it in such a way that it is just as easy to get in and out. Actually, Sky Harbor (if you know where to go and follow the signs) is not bad. I think that the real charm of KCI's convenience is its simplicity. Slap a short term parking garage and a drop off drive right in front of the new terminal, and it will be just as convenient as KCI, and a little more simple to figure out.

[im2kull]

Was thinking more the "oh we don't need the industry standard what everybody else has, don't change anything, the bare minimum is just good enough for this "town""

If by "Bare minimum" you mean receiving praise from multiple entities, while winning a nationally acclaimed JD Power & Associates award every year, then I suppose I'd have to say that all this "Town" wants is the "Bare Minimum".

Those don't go hand in hand you realize. I am a frequent user of KCI and I love how easy it is to get in an out of....but I also see it's obvious shortcomings....including limiting non-stops for airlines that want to add them...which is bad for me as a customer. JD Powers was for midsized airports...ONE year. Not quite justification for never building new.

KCI has won the award multiple times. Just an fyi.

How exactly is the airport "Limiting" non-stops for airlines? If they (The airlines) really wanted to add them, they would. Some of you people need to just wake up and realize that Kansas City no longer falls inside the top 25 most populated cities in America. We're lucky to have the air traffic that we do have.

[aknowledgeableperson]

I am one who has changed sides on this issue. I can see both sides and their respective good and bad points.
So, why did I change? For the local traveler the current setup may not be 100% ideal but it does have great benefits and those are evident given the various awards it has received. But I think we have to look towards the future and what air travel may look like 15 years from now and beyond. At the same time we need to look at our present facilities and see if they can be modified to satisfy the needs of the traveler and the airlines of the future.
Originally I had the opinion of why spend the large amount of money to fix what might not be broken but just damaged alittle. To make a long story short I now believe there is not just a small amount of damage here and there but it is broken beyond repair (the costs to upgrade and improve what is there may be close to the same amount of money as to build new) given what may be needed in the way of facilities in 2025 and beyond.
The challenge the designers will face will be trying to maintain the features of what makes KCI an airport many travelers like. Can it be done? I think so if those designers do their work with the users needs and wants kept at the top of the list.