We need a new airport!!!

[KCPowercat]

The de-icing thing has nothing to do with with the terminals. They can build the infrastructure to catch and store it properly whenever they decide to spend the money to do that, whether they build a new terminal or not.

According to Airport officials, it was a big factor....at least according to the original article discussing a new southern terminal.

[pash]

.

[GRID]

At first I thought this new plan was to build on terminal C where there is plenty of room for a full blown new terminal.

But now after looking at the details I'm sort of in shock that they are even considering this.

This is a terrible idea and would end up looking like a band-aid. It's like throwing money at Kemper when you need a new arena. It's like telling everybody KC is getting state of the art Bus Rapid Transit system when in reality KC got a bus line with slightly more visible shelters.

This will not be any closer to KC or I-29. They will cram a terminal into a small footprint and duplicate many of the problems they already have and need to fix.

Do it right the first time. If KC can't build a new terminal from the ground up in a location large enough to accommodate a spacious, modern terminal and if that location offers little improvement over the existing terminals like being closer to the city and being less hostile to bringing fixed transit to the terminal.

Then don't do anything at all.

[KCMax]

This is a terrible idea and would end up looking like a band-aid. It's like throwing money at Kemper when you need a new arena. It's like telling everybody KC is getting state of the art Bus Rapid Transit system when in reality KC got a bus line with slightly more visible shelters.
l.

Or like renovating an old baseball stadium in a terrible location and telling everyone you got a brand new stadium. That's how we roll in KC bro.

[GRID]

This is a terrible idea and would end up looking like a band-aid. It's like throwing money at Kemper when you need a new arena. It's like telling everybody KC is getting state of the art Bus Rapid Transit system when in reality KC got a bus line with slightly more visible shelters.
l.

Or like renovating an old baseball stadium in a terrible location and telling everyone you got a brand new stadium. That's how we roll in KC bro.

Trust me. I for some reason don't think that KC would have built a wonderful downtown park. So many corners would have been cut and KC is OBSESSED WITH PARKING in a city with more parking than any metro over 250k.

But for the record, I was in full support of a downtown park till I realized that it had a 5% chance of ever happening and KC might have lost MLB over the gamble. So few people were on board with a new park in KC that it was just a lost cause from the start. It's the same with KCI, only KCI can be done regardless of what the majority of people think they want. Too bad the feds couldn't have stepped up and offered 200 million to help build a downtown stadium!

[shaffe]

But now after looking at the details I'm sort of in shock that they are even considering this.

What details? All that has been floated is a vague idea of building a brand new terminal on the current site of terminal A. Still a shiny new place, it just won't require (by your own estimates) half a billion in infrastructure on top of the cost of the building itself.

[KCMax]

NYT: As They Lose Traffic, Once Bustling Airports Have Space to Rent

[earthling]

Airline mergers hurt many airports. STL went from top 10 busiest in TWA days and is now ranked 31st, only one notch above KCI, ranked 32nd.

KCI is only about 15% below its peak of 12M passengers/year and could probably be higher if the mergers didn't kill service. But KCI is dong a lot better than other comparable cites. Cincy went from being top 20 airport to ranking 51st. Pittsburgh is a larger market than KC yet is ranked 45th. Cleveland is ranked 40th. KC's 32nd ranking doesn't look so bad - 4th busiest of the Midwest.

http://www.transtats.bts.gov/airports.a ... ernational

[mykem]

The New KCI airport should consider less gates, and more comfort for travelers. I think the proposed 60 gates is more than what is currently needed.
Also fitting a 60 gate airport on terminal A's footprint would be hard to do, and expensive in itself. If you use the new Indy airport which has a landside terminal, and 2 concourses containing 20 gates each as a model, 60 gates at a new KCI would require a landside terminal that is 600' X 500' and 3 concourses which are 1300' L X 120' W.

[im2kull]

So I want to hear from some of you pro new terminal types..what exactly is the thinking there? WHY do you think we NEED a new terminal, and demolition of our current three? When was the last time you traveled from KCI, through KCI, and Internationally? The only feeling I get is that this is a bunch of BS conversation being stirred by a group of people who really have no handle on what the actual situation is.

Do you honestly think that KCI will become a boom airport with a new terminal? Do you really think that we'll have non-stop international flights? Do you really think airlines are going to rush to turn KCI into a hub so that every traveler going to every major city like NY, Philly, Chicago, LA, etc will have to WASTE a stop here in KC? NO! The reason WE have to stop in those cities is because they have something we DON'T...Massive Population Centers! Sorry, but a new terminal isn't going to fix that. Cry all you want about security and De-icing, but that's all just smoke in the mirror. I've flown through KCI more times than I can count, and almost every time the security checkpoint lines are virtually empty, just begging you to step inside. Never takes more than 60 seconds to get through. Call me crazy, but I'd rather deal with that, than a common checkpoint clogged full of travelers that creeps along at the pace of a turtle.


As for de-icing, is there even proof that this is an issue, that the ponds are even contaminated? I mean really, how does deicer from a taxiway behind the terminals flow all the way around the entire airport to the entrance area retention ponds? Has nobody else thought about this? Do we not have separate sanitary and storm water sewer systems? I'd like to know who engineered that one!

[mean]

WHY do you think we NEED a new terminal, and demolition of our current three?

I don't think the plan is to demolish the current three, is it? It was my understanding that they would be reused.

When was the last time you traveled from KCI, through KCI, and Internationally?

From KCI at the end of April and fairly frequently. Never through, nor internationally.

Do you honestly think that KCI will become a boom airport with a new terminal?

What constitutes a "boom airport"? I think an expanded KCI would, at least, allow Southwest to expand and add more nonstops out of KCI. I don't think that would make it a "boom airport" but it would make it somewhat more convenient to travel to particular destinations.

Do you really think that we'll have non-stop international flights?

Possibly eventually, although not likely right away, and never to a huge number of international destinations.

Do you really think airlines are going to rush to turn KCI into a hub so that every traveler going to every major city like NY, Philly, Chicago, LA, etc will have to WASTE a stop here in KC?

Um, no. I don't think anybody thinks KCI will turn into a hub.

Never takes more than 60 seconds to get through.

You aren't flying Southwest then. Not that security takes hours upon hours, but it can take a good half hour at least.

Personally I don't care one way or the other, new terminal or not, except insofar as it would be nice to be able to fly nonstop to San Antonio.

[aknowledgeableperson]

So I want to hear from some of you pro new terminal types..what exactly is the thinking there?

I am one who was against the idea at first but have come to the realization that it will be the best option for the city, especially the current plan with some changes.

Mainly, having three terminals just isn't effective enough. If all three were more-or-less equally busy then the change makes less sense. But currently one terminal is dominate while the other two are rather sleepy. This is just not cost effective for all of the the airlines who pay for the operations of the airport. Plus, by the time they actually get around to opening a new terminal the current terminals will require more costly maintenance, an overall cost that just might be as expensive as building a new terminal. Yes, two of the buildings remain but will serve different purposes than now and that cost conversion from what I have heard would be less than the cost of new construction.
I see the benefits of moving the building south but the cost of those benefits are just too high. That is why I like the plan to replace the A Terminal. What I would like, though, is a longer, narrower building. There would be one point of entry with one point of exit with those points on different levels (right now you have people loading and unloading at the same points which leads to a certain amount of traffic congestion).
No doubt about it, a new single terminal will require more walking but that can be minimized with proper design.

BTW, my last trip was in June this year. Compared to the Vegas airport KCI would be the winner. But consider, the Vegas airport buildings have been modified a few times. If it were to be built new I am sure a few changes would and could be made.

[mykem]

So I want to hear from some of you pro new terminal types..what exactly is the thinking there?

I am one who was against the idea at first but have come to the realization that it will be the best option for the city, especially the current plan with some changes.

Mainly, having three terminals just isn't effective enough. If all three were more-or-less equally busy then the change makes less sense. But currently one terminal is dominate while the other two are rather sleepy. This is just not cost effective for all of the the airlines who pay for the operations of the airport. Plus, by the time they actually get around to opening a new terminal the current terminals will require more costly maintenance, an overall cost that just might be as expensive as building a new terminal. Yes, two of the buildings remain but will serve different purposes than now and that cost conversion from what I have heard would be less than the cost of new construction.
I see the benefits of moving the building south but the cost of those benefits are just too high. That is why I like the plan to replace the A Terminal. What I would like, though, is a longer, narrower building. There would be one point of entry with one point of exit with those points on different levels (right now you have people loading and unloading at the same points which leads to a certain amount of traffic congestion).
No doubt about it, a new single terminal will require more walking but that can be minimized with proper design.

BTW, my last trip was in June this year. Compared to the Vegas airport KCI would be the winner. But consider, the Vegas airport buildings have been modified a few times. If it were to be built new I am sure a few changes would and could be made.

Vegas just opened their new 2.4 billion dollar Terminal 3. It has a long narrow layout, and is connected to concourse D by a APM.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Vegas just opened their new 2.4 billion dollar Terminal 3. It has a long narrow layout, and is connected to concourse D by a APM.

That was opening the day after I left, never got a chance to see it. Flew Southwest and departed at the end of Concourse C. Sure that if the airport was built from scratch, all at one time it would look quite different than now.

[SWFan]

I've flown through KCI more times than I can count, and almost every time the security checkpoint lines are virtually empty, just begging you to step inside.

That is the biggest reason. Due to KCI's terminal set up it requires the same amount of security personnel as some place like Chicago. We don't need a new terminal because security lines are too long, we need one because they are too short, we are over staffed. There is no way to fix that other than to consolidate security checkpoints into one centralized location. The way our terminals are configured I just don't see how you could do that without having some main entryway terminal.

Regarding all your other points, I agree completely. We aren't going to get a hub and we're not going to get intl flights. The only legitimate reason I've seen is that the cost to operate the three terminals is significantly more than if we had a traditional style one checkpoint terminal. Enough so to possibly make it worth spending the millions on a new terminal.

[mykem]

A little on Terminal 3 in Vegas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Dklkq4z ... re=related
A better video here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xLlXJmLR ... re=related

[im2kull]

I've flown through KCI more times than I can count, and almost every time the security checkpoint lines are virtually empty, just begging you to step inside.

That is the biggest reason. Due to KCI's terminal set up it requires the same amount of security personnel as some place like Chicago. We don't need a new terminal because security lines are too long, we need one because they are too short, we are over staffed. There is no way to fix that other than to consolidate security checkpoints into one centralized location. The way our terminals are configured I just don't see how you could do that without having some main entryway terminal.

Regarding all your other points, I agree completely. We aren't going to get a hub and we're not going to get intl flights. The only legitimate reason I've seen is that the cost to operate the three terminals is significantly more than if we had a traditional style one checkpoint terminal. Enough so to possibly make it worth spending the millions on a new terminal.

It's not just millions they want to spend on a new, smaller, less customer friendly, less enjoyable experience and overall slower terminal, it's BILLIONS. This is my main problem with the whole thing. I have yet to see any reason justifying spending Billions on a new terminal. Having too many TSA agents is never a bad thing, sure it costs a few Thousand extra every year, but they're obviously in higher spirits, not overworked, can do their job better, not feel rushed when scanning luggage, etc. It's not worth our time or money to do something that will save none of us a single dollar, and only increase our travel time and stress levels.

Now if the airlines decided to suddenly reduce fares for us building a new terminal, and demo'ing our current 3, then we might talk. But until then, forget about it. Not a single, truly needed reason I can think of to do what the powers to be want to do with KCI. It's a sad deal, but much like everything else in this business state of America: Change (Even if it's bad), just for the sake of change!

[pash]

.

[im2kull]

But you can just imagine looking back in twenty years, after all this security-theater nonsense has faded away (or after somebody machine-guns two hundred people waiting behind a security checkpoint), and thinking, "What a terrible idea. Why did we consciously design our airports so that they crowd everyone together, create huge waits, and generally make things as unpleasant on travelers as possible? That was insane!" … And you'll be right.

Kinda how I feel about the outdoor mall fad. You can already feel it fading, in fact, I think that began after the first real winter occurred and all those businesses began wondering why they were losing customers! LOL

[DaveKCMO]

we should absolutely not invest in a brand new terminal if it can't be moved closer to the city as originally presented, i don't care how it's paid for. repeating the same mistakes we made with kemper and TSC...

the total number of commercial flights and/or carriers isn't increasing and no one is expecting it to increase anytime soon. the only thing that will change dramatically over the long-term is the size and efficiency of aircraft (and perhaps number of passengers, assuming the atmosphere stays stable enough to support current air travel demand).