This is a bigger issue than some people think. A lot of people think that just because they don't need services at the airport, nobody should need them either. There are a myriad of reasons the require people to get to airports early.FangKC wrote:It would also be nice to be able to sit in a bar or restaurant past the security portal. Again, if your departure is delayed, it's nice to be able to do this without having to go through security again.KCPowercat wrote:New terminal does not equal less convenient. This thought has to die
Before I lived in Kansas City, I used to visit my family when I lived in Phoenix and New York City. My family lives in NW Missouri, so I am not a KC-native. Many times, after driving 1 1/2 hours to KC, we would find upon arrival that my flight was delayed--sometimes by two or three hours because of weather or problems with the plane. Because the restaurant options were so limited at KCI, we would often leave the terminal and drive to Barry Road to eat at a restaurant, then we would come back, park again, and go through security a second time. Each time one of us had to go to the bathroom, they would have to go through security again. There were often not enough seats in the departure waiting area for all of us to sit down.
We need a new airport!!!
- Highlander
- City Center Square
- Posts: 10168
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
- Location: Houston
Re: We need a new airport!!!
Re: We need a new airport!!!
I was doing a really poor job of just having fun with you. I retract all statements. That is all.Highlander wrote:That's not the point. I'm not here to argue with you - just point out that the convenient reputation KCI has is because, historically, KC doesn't have that much air traffic and what we did have was spread out over 3 terminals for most of the life of the airport. Now when you compress the air traffic into a relatively small area because of the limitations of the terminal design - yes - it will be busy at times in that one area. Most people going in and out of Terminal B when it is at its busiest are not going to come away saying it's a convenient design.shinatoo wrote:You just said it wasn't busy, then you came back and said it isn't convenient when it is busy. Which it isn't. Convenient that is; not not busy. So i'm confused. Is the airport never busy or is it sometimes busy?
- Highlander
- City Center Square
- Posts: 10168
- Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2004 1:40 pm
- Location: Houston
Re: We need a new airport!!!
Sorry - didn't mean to overreact. The Star - incidentally - has a poll on a new terminal. Most people - 65% - favor a new terminal but that's across the entire subscription. Most of the voters probably not in KCMO.shinatoo wrote:I was doing a really poor job of just having fun with you. I retract all statements. That is all.Highlander wrote:That's not the point. I'm not here to argue with you - just point out that the convenient reputation KCI has is because, historically, KC doesn't have that much air traffic and what we did have was spread out over 3 terminals for most of the life of the airport. Now when you compress the air traffic into a relatively small area because of the limitations of the terminal design - yes - it will be busy at times in that one area. Most people going in and out of Terminal B when it is at its busiest are not going to come away saying it's a convenient design.shinatoo wrote:You just said it wasn't busy, then you came back and said it isn't convenient when it is busy. Which it isn't. Convenient that is; not not busy. So i'm confused. Is the airport never busy or is it sometimes busy?
Re: We need a new airport!!!
the star should do an actual poll of likely KCMO municipal voters. that's actually what matters on this topic.
Re: We need a new airport!!!
Why, because now instead of being in a holding area for 10 minutes (With no conveniences...because they're all easily accessible right outside the holding area) you're going to be stuck there for hours like at every other airport? I'd rather skip the "conveniences" and board the damn plane. What's the point of air travel if the total time you have to spend traveling exceeds what it would take to drive?aknowledgeableperson wrote:If passengers can get more comfort in the holding area that should be worth more than any perceived loss of convenience.KCPowercat wrote:New terminal does not equal less convenient. This thought has to die
- FangKC
- City Hall
- Posts: 18141
- Joined: Sat Jul 26, 2003 10:02 pm
- Location: Old Northeast -- Indian Mound
Re: We need a new airport!!!
Because plane departures are often delayed--sometimes by hours. And when there aren't enough seats in the departure waiting area to begin with, this can make it a very long and uncomfortable wait.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: We need a new airport!!!
As described by the study the really small apron between the taxiway and terminal makes it slower to move planes around. Fixing this is one goal with a new terminal. It takes longer to get a full plane from the terminal to the runway as described. Boarding the plane only to wait in a tiny space is way worse than waiting in the terminal.
So even if you add some time at the beginning, it could be made up some at the end.
And for driving, I see your point if it wasn't an extreme exaggeration. Go take a look at how many places you can't fly to from KC quicker than driving (nonstop only)
http://www.flykci.com/flight-informatio ... tinations/
You're correct in that you can't get a direct flight to Omaha, Wichita, Springfield, etc despite there being airports there. the market doesn't provide flights to anywhere except St. Louis (for connections with Southwest) and three small towns
So even if you add some time at the beginning, it could be made up some at the end.
And for driving, I see your point if it wasn't an extreme exaggeration. Go take a look at how many places you can't fly to from KC quicker than driving (nonstop only)
http://www.flykci.com/flight-informatio ... tinations/
You're correct in that you can't get a direct flight to Omaha, Wichita, Springfield, etc despite there being airports there. the market doesn't provide flights to anywhere except St. Louis (for connections with Southwest) and three small towns
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 33828
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: We need a new airport!!!
Current airport... 10 minutes
New terminal.... Hours.
Be realistic in the discussion at least.
New terminal.... Hours.
Be realistic in the discussion at least.
Re: We need a new airport!!!
KCPowercat, I don't understand your post. Would you please explain?
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 33828
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: We need a new airport!!!
im2kull last post.missingkc wrote:KCPowercat, I don't understand your post. Would you please explain?
-
- Western Auto Lofts
- Posts: 540
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 12:39 am
Re: We need a new airport!!!
Alright grandad.KCPowercat wrote:Current airport... 10 minutes
New terminal.... Hours.
Be realistic in the discussion at least.
Re: We need a new airport!!!
That is realistic. I regularly fly out without waiting in line for more than 10 minutes at KCI. Other places, that's an insane proposition. I spent 3 hours at De Gaulle recently, just to go down one level in the same terminal. Thank you centralized security area.KCPowercat wrote:Current airport... 10 minutes
New terminal.... Hours.
Be realistic in the discussion at least.
I missed the part where you are forced and held hostage in the departure lounge. Besides, if you find it uncomfortable there..why wouldn't you go elsewhere? There are plenty of waiting areas at the airport, not to mention the restaurants and eateries.FangKC wrote:Because plane departures are often delayed--sometimes by hours. And when there aren't enough seats in the departure waiting area to begin with, this can make it a very long and uncomfortable wait.
- Midtownkid
- Broadway Square
- Posts: 2991
- Joined: Tue Oct 15, 2002 4:27 pm
- Location: Roanoke, KCMO
Re: We need a new airport!!!
I love our airport.
The burtalist architecture is pretty awesome.
If you are getting dropped off or picked up it is the most convenient airport in the world. You can get off the plane, take 20 steps to the hall outside security, grab your bag (close by) and be in the car in 10 or so minutes. It's amazing.
I do see the problems with new security measures and such, but it's a damn shame.
We will end up with an airport that costs us billions and makes you walk miles to get anywhere...and we will have to pay the bill.
I think the airlines should help pay for it just like I think sports teams should pay for their stadiums. But we all bend over backwards to keep them happy no matter the cost.
The burtalist architecture is pretty awesome.
If you are getting dropped off or picked up it is the most convenient airport in the world. You can get off the plane, take 20 steps to the hall outside security, grab your bag (close by) and be in the car in 10 or so minutes. It's amazing.
I do see the problems with new security measures and such, but it's a damn shame.
We will end up with an airport that costs us billions and makes you walk miles to get anywhere...and we will have to pay the bill.
I think the airlines should help pay for it just like I think sports teams should pay for their stadiums. But we all bend over backwards to keep them happy no matter the cost.
- KCPowercat
- Ambassador
- Posts: 33828
- Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2002 12:49 pm
- Location: Quality Hill
- Contact:
Re: We need a new airport!!!
We aren't building a De Gaulle sized terminal.
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: We need a new airport!!!
You're comparing KCI, with 900k passengers using ~30 gates in 700,000 square feet to an airport which sends more than that only to JFK?im2kull wrote:
That is realistic. I regularly fly out without waiting in line for more than 10 minutes at KCI. Other places, that's an insane proposition. I spent 3 hours at De Gaulle recently, just to go down one level in the same terminal. Thank you centralized security area.
Maybe if you compare central security to a mostly domestic travel airport with the same number of people using it you'll have a realistic comparison.
-
- Alameda Tower
- Posts: 1008
- Joined: Sat Jun 20, 2009 12:58 am
- Location: Manhattan, Kansas
- Contact:
Re: We need a new airport!!!
I'm sure whatever plan they come up with, they'll make sure to incorporate the practices learned from the worst airports in the country. /s
-
- City Center Square
- Posts: 12624
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:31 pm
Re: We need a new airport!!!
"I missed the part where you are forced and held hostage in the departure lounge. Besides, if you find it uncomfortable there..why wouldn't you go elsewhere? There are plenty of waiting areas at the airport, not to mention the restaurants and eateries."
That's just it, the best place to wait is outside the secure area. Let's see, go thru security, find out the flight is delayed, hungry now so leave secure area to get a meal, go back thru security, need a bathroom break and the bathroom is busy so leave the secure area again, go back thru security again and stand for 30 minutes till time to get in line for loading. All this time with your carryon.
That's just it, the best place to wait is outside the secure area. Let's see, go thru security, find out the flight is delayed, hungry now so leave secure area to get a meal, go back thru security, need a bathroom break and the bathroom is busy so leave the secure area again, go back thru security again and stand for 30 minutes till time to get in line for loading. All this time with your carryon.
- beautyfromashes
- One Park Place
- Posts: 7188
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am
Re: We need a new airport!!!
So, why not just expand the secure area to incorporate most of the terminal? Have a non-secure check-in area for each airline and another for baggage claim. Why do we need a wide, non-secure walkway through the entire terminal?
-
- Mark Twain Tower
- Posts: 9862
- Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2012 7:54 am
Re: We need a new airport!!!
Not one. Multiple secure areasbeautyfromashes wrote:So, why not just expand the secure area to incorporate most of the terminal? Have a non-secure check-in area for each airline and another for baggage claim. Why do we need a wide, non-secure walkway through the entire terminal?
there's literal concrete walls separating each airline's baggage system from another.
If there's four you literally put a 150 foot security area into a 520 foot wide section.
To put multiple modern security systems into the airport is a huge space crunch. You basically run out of space for the gates after adding everything else in.
If split in four a we would have to knock half the gates out of the airport. Each airline would get 2-3 gates total.
If split in two each airline gets 6 gates total.
it's the airplane wingspan that determines the layout as much as anything. A 737 needs well over 100 feet across and it's not a large plane.
- beautyfromashes
- One Park Place
- Posts: 7188
- Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:04 am
Re: We need a new airport!!!
Southwest basically has one terminal all to themselves. Put a bag check in at each end. After check in, you enter the secure area which is the entire terminal to the other checkin on the other end.