We need a new airport!!!

[flyingember]

I recently scheduled a flight. The first two flights there transferred to the same flight in Chicago. So you can wait in the airport more or less there for that pairing.

And for the return the first flight of the day arrived around 10am.
the second flight around 1pm.

That's choice...

[TheBigChuckbowski]

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.

Who said we're going to get better flight options with a new airport?

[KCPowercat]

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.

Who said we're going to get better flight options with a new airport?

As stated before, no airline is going to come out and promise it....but you give airlines a better situation to transfer passengers, better chance....given that's where more direct options manifest themselves...one sure way to get same/less options is to keep the airport the way it is.

[mean]

one sure way to get same/less options is to keep the airport the way it is.

Do you really think that if an airline thought they could make money adding a dozen flights, that the executives making those decisions would say, "Well, we could make more money, but those terminals are kind of shabby. Nah, we refuse to make more money." That's bordering on being completely detached from reality.

There are fewer flights because there's less competition; there's less competition because everyone is consolidating; everyone is consolidating because they aren't profitable; they aren't profitable because their costs, primarily in the form of jet fuel, have skyrocketed over the last 7-10 years (Southwest being something of an exception at least up to 2012 due to smart fuel hedging). This has necessitated flight reductions here (and everywhere else) because it is no longer profitable to fly airplanes that aren't more or less full, so rather than Airline X flying 25 flights a day at 50-75% capacity, they have to fly 15 full flights to make money.

So, what then do you think could drive growth at KCI? A crash in the price of jet fuel could do it. A dramatic increase in demand could do it. A Vanguard-style hometown airline offering stiff competition might do it. But building a new terminal simply can not make it profitable for Airline X to fly those 25 flights a day that they would have been able to fly profitably in 2007.

Which is all to say that neither the existing terminals nor any proposed new terminal are serious factors in whether growth occurs. It will happen, or more likely not I'm sad to say, completely independent of the facility itself.

[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.

Who said we're going to get better flight options with a new airport?

Why do I get the feeling this conversation is just going in circles . . .

[aknowledgeableperson]

Just like planes circling the airport waiting for their landing slots. Think of the Christmas movie Die Hard II.

[KCPowercat]

one sure way to get same/less options is to keep the airport the way it is.

Do you really think that if an airline thought they could make money adding a dozen flights, that the executives making those decisions would say, "Well, we could make more money, but those terminals are kind of shabby. Nah, we refuse to make more money." That's bordering on being completely detached from reality.

No I don't think that at all and it's already been stated many times in this thread. KC isn't going to suddenly demand a dozen new flights by O&D passenger alone I think we all can agree...but if Southwest or some other Southwest clone can easily/quickly/comfortably connect passengers here, we could add that dozen flights. Now, they go somewhere else where they can. Right now, as has been pointed out, our airport is almost totally O&D traffic.....I can't find any stats but I'd be willing to bet it's the highest of any midwest airport percentage wise. I think Southwest has 90-100 departures out of STL....60'ish here....30% more population, 40% more flights on just one airline (Southwest is top airline by % of total flights at both airports). Why?

[pash]

.

[flyingember]

But there's opportunity. Chicago will max out on airport capacity long before kc does.

And we want to be able to jump on that when it happens. Does that mean to build new today? Tough to answer. But at some point airlines will go looking for more Midwest capacity and we want to be on their short list.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

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.

Who said we're going to get better flight options with a new airport?

As stated before, no airline is going to come out and promise it....but you give airlines a better situation to transfer passengers, better chance....given that's where more direct options manifest themselves...one sure way to get same/less options is to keep the airport the way it is.

Sorry if I don't just take your uneducated theory as fact on a billion dollar investment. I get not trusting the airlines, how about an unbiased analysis by someone who knows what they're talking about? Has anyone done a study of the affect a new terminal would have on flights (legitimate question, maybe I missed one, I would think if what you're saying is true, VanLoh would have put something out by now)?

[pash]

.

[mean]

The only reason we're discussing this is because Internet.

Truth. It's more fun than watching Jersey Shore or whatever.

[KCPowercat]

Who said we're going to get better flight options with a new airport?

As stated before, no airline is going to come out and promise it....but you give airlines a better situation to transfer passengers, better chance....given that's where more direct options manifest themselves...one sure way to get same/less options is to keep the airport the way it is.

Sorry if I don't just take your uneducated theory as fact on a billion dollar investment. I get not trusting the airlines, how about an unbiased analysis by someone who knows what they're talking about? Has anyone done a study of the affect a new terminal would have on flights (legitimate question, maybe I missed one, I would think if what you're saying is true, VanLoh would have put something out by now)?

Never my intention to prove that as fact. Simply a spitball theory. Nor is it why I support a new terminal. I've stated many times my reasons... I was just playing airport expert on this particular idea.

Billion now or billion in incremental upgrades and still stuck with a design that obviously isn't the desired terminal design... Because if it was, all new airports would look like KCI.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Billion now or billion in incremental upgrades and still stuck with a design that obviously isn't the desired terminal design... Because if it was, all new airports would look like KCI.

Desired terminal design for who?

[KCPowercat]

Billion now or billion in incremental upgrades and still stuck with a design that obviously isn't the desired terminal design... Because if it was, all new airports would look like KCI.

Desired terminal design for who?

So your opinion is KCI is the last airport built for the passengers and every terminal since is horrible for us as customers?

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Billion now or billion in incremental upgrades and still stuck with a design that obviously isn't the desired terminal design... Because if it was, all new airports would look like KCI.

Desired terminal design for who?

So your opinion is KCI is the last airport built for the passengers and every terminal since is horrible for us as customers?

No.

You said that we'd be stuck with "a design that obviously isn't the desired terminal design." Desired for who? I desire the current design. MANY people in Kansas City desire the current design. Who "obviously" doesn't desire the current design?

[mean]

Mark VanLoh.

[KCPowercat]

Desired terminal design for who?

So your opinion is KCI is the last airport built for the passengers and every terminal since is horrible for us as customers?

No.

You said that we'd be stuck with "a design that obviously isn't the desired terminal design." Desired for who? I desire the current design. MANY people in Kansas City desire the current design. Who "obviously" doesn't desire the current design?

So in Make believe world we are building our first airport, you are choosing the KCI design over every other airport? I mean I can understand the "new terminal costs more" although I think it's shortsighted... But to say KCI is a desired design? Woof.

[im2kull]

one sure way to get same/less options is to keep the airport the way it is.

Do you really think that if an airline thought they could make money adding a dozen flights, that the executives making those decisions would say, "Well, we could make more money, but those terminals are kind of shabby. Nah, we refuse to make more money." That's bordering on being completely detached from reality.

There are fewer flights because there's less competition; there's less competition because everyone is consolidating; everyone is consolidating because they aren't profitable; they aren't profitable because their costs, primarily in the form of jet fuel, have skyrocketed over the last 7-10 years (Southwest being something of an exception at least up to 2012 due to smart fuel hedging). This has necessitated flight reductions here (and everywhere else) because it is no longer profitable to fly airplanes that aren't more or less full, so rather than Airline X flying 25 flights a day at 50-75% capacity, they have to fly 15 full flights to make money.

So, what then do you think could drive growth at KCI? A crash in the price of jet fuel could do it. A dramatic increase in demand could do it. A Vanguard-style hometown airline offering stiff competition might do it. But building a new terminal simply can not make it profitable for Airline X to fly those 25 flights a day that they would have been able to fly profitably in 2007.

Which is all to say that neither the existing terminals nor any proposed new terminal are serious factors in whether growth occurs. It will happen, or more likely not I'm sad to say, completely independent of the facility itself.

Totally agree. Look at the recent peaks in air traffic at MCI and what do you realize? We peak when we get investment from locals, IE: Midwest Express, etc. We fall when there's no need for investment from outsiders..new terminal or not. It's not profitable for Delta to send 1,000 flights a day through MCI. That will not change for some time.

[im2kull]

But there's opportunity. Chicago will max out on airport capacity long before kc does.

And we want to be able to jump on that when it happens. Does that mean to build new today? Tough to answer. But at some point airlines will go looking for more Midwest capacity and we want to be on their short list.

KCI currently has more than enough capacity for the future. In fact, the new terminal proposals all reduce capacity.

So your opinion is KCI is the last airport built for the passengers and every terminal since is horrible for us as customers?

No.

You said that we'd be stuck with "a design that obviously isn't the desired terminal design." Desired for who? I desire the current design. MANY people in Kansas City desire the current design. Who "obviously" doesn't desire the current design?

So in Make believe world we are building our first airport, you are choosing the KCI design over every other airport? I mean I can understand the "new terminal costs more" although I think it's shortsighted... But to say KCI is a desired design? Woof.

If KCI doesn't have a desired design, why are there several copy cats around the world? Most notably DFW (Dallas/Fort Worth Intl)? If this design is so useless, as some would want us to believe, then why is DFW the hub for American Airlines? Why do they routinely receive 747's and 777's loaded full of pax with no complaints? Why are they expanding and adding more semi-circular terminals? Haven't they gotten the memo that the semi-circle is outdate and drives away business?

What's that you say? Third busiest airport in the WORLD, 200+ Destinations, 29+ Million passengers.