We need a new airport!!!

[im2kull]

What domestic locations require 2 or more layovers from KCI?

The one's in peoples imaginations. Fact of the matter is KCI is super convenient...For 90+ percent of all travelers. There will always be a vocal minority. That's just how it is, but we shouldn't inconveinence the majority for the minority. It may not be all PC to say that, but I'm a realist, and that's as real as you get.

[KCPowercat]

What domestic locations require 2 or more layovers from KCI?

The one's in peoples imaginations. Fact of the matter is KCI is super convenient...For 90+ percent of all travelers. There will always be a vocal minority. That's just how it is, but we shouldn't inconveinence the majority for the minority. It may not be all PC to say that, but I'm a realist, and that's as real as you get.

Always be a vocal minority? If that's the case then that majority is for a new terminal....

[flyingember]

What domestic locations require 2 or more layovers from KCI?

The one's in peoples imaginations. Fact of the matter is KCI is super convenient...For 90+ percent of all travelers. There will always be a vocal minority. That's just how it is, but we shouldn't inconveinence the majority for the minority. It may not be all PC to say that, but I'm a realist, and that's as real as you get.

Our federal government was founded partially that sometimes you have to think about the minority over the majority.

Is this of those times? That's a good question.

[beautyfromashes]

Our federal government was founded partially that sometimes you have to think about the minority over the majority.

Is this of those times? That's a good question.

So, the majority you speak of is the business traveler who wants a larger number of direct flights to business meetings or the cheap vacation traveler saving money by stopping in Kansas City and taking a bus to switch airlines?

[flyingember]

Our federal government was founded partially that sometimes you have to think about the minority over the majority.

Is this of those times? That's a good question.

So, the majority you speak of is the business traveler who wants a larger number of direct flights to business meetings or the cheap vacation traveler saving money by stopping in Kansas City and taking a bus to switch airlines?

leisure trips apparently make up a huge percentage at 75% of domestic air travel. that would explain why there's so many multi-part flights from KC

http://www.ustravel.org/sites/default/f ... ummary.pdf

[swid]

leisure trips apparently make up a huge percentage at 75% of domestic air travel. that would explain why there's so many multi-part flights from KC

http://www.ustravel.org/sites/default/f ... ummary.pdf

I suspect that as a % of domestic air revenue, it's reversed in favor of business travel.

Anyway, I'm surprised that no one seems to be interested in a compromise proposal between an all-new single terminal and "don't change a thing". Looking at the current layout, wouldn't it make sense to build a new unified departure/security terminal between Terminals A and B and move virtually everything in those terminals behind security. Arrivals and baggage claim would still work same as they do now, and this would have a side benefit of segregating arrival/departure traffic.

And since no one in KC likes walking and curved moving sidewalks are presumably expensive, build an above- or below-ground moving sidewalk from this new departure terminal to somewhere between Gates 1 and 10 in Terminal A and between Gates 50 and 60 in Terminal B. Finally, at some point further down the road, Terminals A and B would be demolished and then rebuilt in more or less in their current locations (likely using Terminal C, which would be mothballed in this plan, while each one is being rebuilt). If you want a visual reference, here's a vague "10 minutes in Paint" sense of what the area would like after the first phase:

[mean]

Anyway, I'm surprised that no one seems to be interested in a compromise proposal between an all-new single terminal and "don't change a thing". Looking at the current layout, wouldn't it make sense to build a new unified departure/security terminal between Terminals A and B and move virtually everything in those terminals behind security. Arrivals and baggage claim would still work same as they do now, and this would have a side benefit of segregating arrival/departure traffic.

And since no one in KC likes walking and curved moving sidewalks are presumably expensive, build an above- or below-ground moving sidewalk from this new departure terminal to somewhere between Gates 1 and 10 in Terminal A and between Gates 50 and 60 in Terminal B. Finally, at some point further down the road, Terminals A and B would be demolished and then rebuilt in more or less in their current locations (likely using Terminal C, which would be mothballed in this plan, while each one is being rebuilt). If you want a visual reference, here's a vague "10 minutes in Paint" sense of what the area would like after the first phase:

I think much of the anti-new-terminal crowd, at least on this forum, or at least least me, aren't particularly concerned about changing anything. We largely just don't think it's worth the money. If an airline was willing to throw in, or we were getting financial help from the federal government it'd be vastly more palatable. From that perspective, if the city is determined that they're going to spend a bunch of money either on a new airport or a hacky retrofit, then just build the new one and be done with it.

I'd rather they didn't, though, and if it comes to a vote I don't think it's got much of a chance.

[flyingember]

a new middle security area kills the quick to the gate aspect and it doesn't replace what's not working overall

thus it's a stupid option.

if we're going to spend the money build new and cut the future maintenance needs for a while or keep the short walk with *massive* repairs/improvements.

[LenexatoKCMO]

Our flight options have nearly halved over the last few years. Probably more than halved if you factor for the reduction in capacity from much smaller planes serving the airport. Yet people are seriously arguing that there are plenty of options and suggesting its just whining to complain about our service? It delusional. But hey enjoy that short god damned walk and cheap airport fee on your way to nowhere.

[pash]

.

[mean]

The fact that our flight options have halved in just the past few years contradicts your assertion that the terminal setup is the reason for the decline. If the terminal didn't work for twice as many flights, there wouldn't have been twice as many flights.

I'm not happy about the decline, but the facilities aren't the cause. The decline is everywhere. KCI is hardly unique in losing tons of flights over the past seven years. Virtually every airport, particularly smaller and midsize airports, have been losing flights. It's not a secret. Do all these cities need billion-dollar new terminals? Of course not. The industry is the problem. Consolidation has been a huge problem. Quadrupling jet fuel prices over the past decade is another huge part of the problem. You're trying to fix a brain tumor by putting the brain in a different body.

[LenexatoKCMO]

Its pure speculation whether it improves service. What is not speculation is that failing to address the design failures that have been continuously identified as making our airport unattractive to airlines for over forty years, will predictably continue to make the airport unattractive to airlines for as long as the conditions fester. We fucked up. One way or the other it will eventually have to be fixed. Its just a question of how far we want to be behind when we do. Its the ball parks all over again.

[mean]

It's pure speculation that our airport is unattractive to airlines, too. I'd argue they don't give a shit about anything except their costs, that the facilities don't matter, and that flights will be added or removed regardless of what we do with the airport dependent solely upon whether the airlines think they can make money with them.

Did we fuck up? Emphatically, yes. We teamed up with TWA and gave them exactly what they wanted, which just so happened to be exactly the wrong airport design at more or less exactly the time it became obsolete. I'm just saying, it's been obsolete since day one and has seen ups and downs in flight numbers with the ebb and flow of the industry. Why this sudden sense of urgency to replace an airport that almost nobody who is going to have to vote on it cares to replace, precisely at a time when there are zero entities in the form of government agencies or airlines willing to help out and the airline industry itself is in turmoil with no signs of stabilization? The timing just seems particularly awful. Replace it when the FAA is flush with cash, running around looking for cities to hand grants to or something.

[aknowledgeableperson]

If an airline was willing to throw in, or we were getting financial help from the federal government it'd be vastly more palatable. From that perspective, if the city is determined that they're going to spend a bunch of money either on a new airport or a hacky retrofit, then just build the new one and be done with it.

I'd rather they didn't, though, and if it comes to a vote I don't think it's got much of a chance.

The vote the citizens of KCMO would have would be to authorize the city to issue bonds to raise money for the construction. The bonds would not be paid off by the citizens directly but by revenues generated by the airport. So, if a citizen uses the airport yes the citizen would be helping to pay off the bonds but if the citizen is not using the airport then there is no money out of his/her pocket. The feds may or may not, and if they do don't know how much, kick in any funds. If they do it wouldn't come from general tax revenues but from the airport trust fund, funds coming ticket fees.

[pash]

.

[KCPowercat]

The FAA have said there's no money in the airports trust fund for improvements at KCI.

The airlines adamantly don't want a new terminal to be funded by fees that show up in ticket prices. And if you parse the words of Southwest's executives before and after their recent lease renewal, it seems that airport officials have indeed given the airlines some assurances that a new terminal will not be funded substantially through gate fees. So the large bulk of the funds will very likely come from other sources, which means higher taxes and fees on airport retail, parking, and rental cars.

(Not that it would happen anyway, but if parking and rental-car revenues do end up paying for most of a new terminal, we will absolutely never get a rail line to the airport.)

I don't think I can't take that leap with you.

[pash]

.

[pstokely]

Our flight options have nearly halved over the last few years. Probably more than halved if you factor for the reduction in capacity from much smaller planes serving the airport. Yet people are seriously arguing that there are plenty of options and suggesting its just whining to complain about our service? It delusional. But hey enjoy that short god damned walk and cheap airport fee on your way to nowhere.

what domestic locations require 2 or more connections from KCI?

[brewcrew1000]

Our flight options have nearly halved over the last few years. Probably more than halved if you factor for the reduction in capacity from much smaller planes serving the airport. Yet people are seriously arguing that there are plenty of options and suggesting its just whining to complain about our service? It delusional. But hey enjoy that short god damned walk and cheap airport fee on your way to nowhere.

what domestic locations require 2 or more connections from KCI?

Block Island Airport, any airport in Alaska besides Anchorage, Fairbanks and Juneau, Guam, Hilo Airport, Lanai Airport, Molokaʻi Airport

Thats about it really, the amount of people needing to fly to these places in a given year is probably less than 100 in the entire Metro

[LenexatoKCMO]

The fallacy of these responses is that you assume the traveler is free to schedule any day/time it might work and that the connecting flights are always available. When you actually try to book around real travel requirements the options often look quite a bit bleaker. Especially if you try and rule things out like spending the night in a connecting airport. I am sure your response is that we should just suck it up because hey you can get to the client site with two legs after spending the night on the floor of some connecting airport and/or adding another two travel days to your trip. Sure. All in the name of saving fat asses from walking another 500 feet to their gate on their way to their once a year trip to Vegas.