KCRag Forum

Just got back from LA via Burbank. Getting through KCI security was nothing, went straight through (US Air) as fast as it could possibly be. (Ditto with recent flight to Tampa.) As small/easy Burbank airport is, TSA freaked out when I went through the thing with a belt on, which I've done with every airport as it doesn't trigger detectors and it didn't trigger theirs. They did a pat down, made a big deal out of it and checked my luggage. Was pretty ridiculous.

BTW, I rode the bus around LA. The LA Metro had cutbacks and some lines run only every 45 minutes. Was surprised the line getting from Burbank to Hollywood (222 line) only runs every 45 minutes, even during rush hour. KC Metro didn't seem so bad after riding around LA Metro for a week.

KCPowercat wrote:Look at that horse....it looks dead, lets beat it.

It's not dead. This new terminal for KCI is still a long shot, especially if KC doesn't have support in DC.

So these little "beating the dead horse" posts once in a while might just help out and make those that love KCI think twice. You never know .

earthling wrote:Just got back from LA via Burbank. Getting through KCI security was nothing, went straight through (US Air) as fast as it could possibly be. (Ditto with recent flight to Tampa.) As small/easy Burbank airport is, TSA freaked out when I went through the thing with a belt on, which I've done with every airport as it doesn't trigger detectors and it didn't trigger theirs. They did a pat down, made a big deal out of it and checked my luggage. Was pretty ridiculous.

BTW, I rode the bus around LA. The LA Metro had cutbacks and some lines run only every 45 minutes. Was surprised the line getting from Burbank to Hollywood (222 line) only runs every 45 minutes, even during rush hour. KC Metro didn't seem so bad after riding around LA Metro for a week.

They checked your luggage because you wore a belt through the detector? I always take my belt off, they don't usually give you a choice. I never have problems with TSA anywhere though. Not sure why. And I carry on bags full of all kinds of electronics, lose wires etc for all my camera and computer gear.

BTW, I didn't say KCI was a long wait, I said most other airports are no longer, if not shorter. The difference is that KCI probably has as many TSA people as ATL does.

Who rides buses in LA? . ATL is the same way. The poor people ride the buses, everybody else drives or takes the trains. Buses take FOREVER to get anywhere in LA. Even the orange line BRT is very slow.

Hell, Hartsfield was a nightmare before 9/11...

I'm on board with a new terminal, but as I've probably said a dozen times, I'd rather centralize security and establish better connectivity between the existing buildings with something ala Skylink. But whatevs. Just get it done.

Just in case you didn't know, I thnk KCI needs a new terminal.

I don't see any reason we couldn't DFW-ify KCI, but I don't care that much either way.

mean wrote:I don't see any reason we couldn't DFW-ify KCI, but I don't care that much either way.

I’m pretty sure it’s because the footprints of kci's terminals are way too small to do something like that. The radius of the kci terminals is about half of those at DFW. One of the terminals at DFW probably has the same sq ft as all three at MCI. One of the big problems with MCI is they can’t sustain retail and therefore can’t general revenue from that. While the layout of MCI is the main reason for that and makes it a terrible airport to connect in, the other main reason MCI has so little basic retail and restaurants is that MCI is not a large enough airport to split up traffic 3 ways and still have enough traffic to sustain a decent amount of retail and restaurants per terminal. Even if you close off a terminal and open up the concourses to the gates, you would still have the problem of having the traffic at MCI spread across three terminals or like it is today where one terminal has 70% of the traffic. So you would basically still have the retail and dining options of an airport the size of Wichita rather than one that serves over 10 million passengers a year.

Also, DFW has a departing and arriving level if I remember correctly so that really helps free up space on the concourses. There would be no way to really create a secure side of the concourse like DFW has with just one level. It would cost more to try to add another level to MCI's terminals than it would to build a new terminal.

Basically while DFW and MCI have sort of the same original design idea, MCI and DFW are completely different animals. If MCI’s terminals were much larger and designed like DFW, then I’m sure they could do that. But then MCI would only need one terminal that size unless things change and KC somehow becomes a much larger hub airport.

Had KCI built a new terminal back when TWA asked for it before they left for St Louis, I think MCI would have developed into one of the largest airports in the country between the coasts possibly rivaling or exceeding DEN, SLC, MSP etc. MCI had everything to become a world airport except a terminal.

I’m sure KC has missed that boat now as Denver sort of jumped and stole KC’s potential, but they still need a new terminal.

mean wrote:I don't see any reason we couldn't DFW-ify KCI, but I don't care that much either way.

Like Grid said, the DFW rings are much wider, and they are close enough together to be physically connected. It also sounds like the innards of KCI's terminals weren't really built to last, like most things built in the 1970s.

Quick update, within the last week, Delta changed up their food offering inside their gates. No longer wolfgang puck but instead, it's something called "the Rustic Local." New layout. A much better selection of sandwiches there. Whole Grain, good cheese. Microwave oatmeal in the morning. More pastries. Didn't try any of it as I was getting served food on the plane.

.

America's Most Important Airport Cities

A different site for new airport terminal?

Kansas City could save time and money — as much as $500 million — by building its new airport on the site of Terminal A rather than on land south of KCI, aviation officials said today....

But he said the new plan could save $500 million from a project that was expected to cost $1.5 billion to $2 billion. It also could shave two years off the construction schedule, so the new airport could possibly be completed within five years.

Cool article Max...I was surprised at Louisville being ahead of us in cargo.

KCMax wrote:A different site for new airport terminal?

Kansas City could save time and money — as much as $500 million — by building its new airport on the site of Terminal A rather than on land south of KCI, aviation officials said today....

But he said the new plan could save $500 million from a project that was expected to cost $1.5 billion to $2 billion. It also could shave two years off the construction schedule, so the new airport could possibly be completed within five years.

Good night this cannot happen. We need to quit "retrofitting" everything. Build it right.

The only real concern I read was MoDot funding concerns to build the necessary new interchanges.

.

So, MoDot has stepped in and said not so fast! I think, if they're looking to replace a terminal, terminal B would make the most since to replace. The reason, despite that it's the most used terminal, is that terminal B is the most centralized to the current runway configuration. If they build a new terminal where terminal A is now, then to use the eastern runway a plane would have to taxi for over a mile to get there.

Here is a more detailed plan if they choose the southside terminal option.

http://www.flykci.com/_FileLibrary/File ... VanLoh.pdf

We need to quit "retrofitting"

Where in the article does it say anything about retrofitting? It says on the site of terminal A which I take it to be demolishing A, leaving the site left to build new.

Yea, no retrofitting going on here. They're talking about demo and rebuild one large terminal. It makes more sense to do this than build it way out in a field.

Whats interesting is they cited all the costs of building a greenfield development and came to the conclusion that it does not make financial sense b/c of new roads, utilities, etc needed...why is it this city can't come to that conclusion when considering TIF and other new developments?

aknowledgeableperson wrote:

We need to quit "retrofitting"

Where in the article does it say anything about retrofitting? It says on the site of terminal A which I take it to be demolishing A, leaving the site left to build new.

I agree, in the first sentence of that article it says "by building its new airport terminal on the site of Terminal A." Not sure how that is construed as "retrofitting." If it had said something like expanding Terminal A and closing B & C then I'd call that retrofitting.

I'm not necessarily sold on a new terminal for KCI. Seems to me they need to just close one terminal and consolidate all the gates into the other two.

In 2011 I flew twice a week between KCI and LaGuardia for a year. I honestly didn't have much problem with the terminals. I'm not there to have dinner and drinks. I find the restaurant thing is more for hubs.

And if anyone thinks KCI needs to be updated to better attract an airline to put a hub here I think you're smoking crack. Airlines are consolidating and those that are left have plenty of established hubs.

I think I'm in the camp that would be against a whole new terminal south of the east/west runway, and if a new one is going in, make it a replacement or expansion of an existing terminal.