We need a new airport!!!

[kboish]

One of the major points made in the presentation is that the current structure's screening facility is grandfathered in and does not comply with current regulations. If a rehab is initiated on the facility it will need to comply with new FAA and TSA standards (b/c it will no longer be grandfathered). The current facility at 72 feet deep simply cannot contain the required space because only 12 feet would be left after the required FAA dimensions were achieved (plus i think it would knock out too many gates). To meet this requirement they would have to construct the security checkpoints in a separate facility and retain the existing horseshoe facility as the passenger holding areas. This significantly increases the cost of the "rehab" and would leave a massive 200,000 sqft of excess beyond what is anticipated needing. This would obviously also be more expensive to maintain (not to mention the would still have no economical advantage of consolidating baggage, centralized services, etc). Additionally, the dimensions of an existing facility rehab(a depth of 70 feet) allows no flexibility to accommodate whatever future requirements FAA or TSA stacks on at some later date. And again, no additional gates could be added at some later date to this existing design so if the city for some reason did have an influx of flights it would be constrained only to existing gates and have no economical expansion possibility except adding another terminal.

They also mentioned it costs airlines money because they have to idle planes longer due to the current horseshoe design and limited surrounding taxi way. There was also discussion on another cost to the airlines related to the gates and terminals, but i missed exactly what that was.

They did a better job explaining why the costs were different this time. The council asked some good questions (ie. can we somehow get around the federal requirements? can we get a specific regulation so we know its true, how much can we renovate before we loose our grandfathered status, etc)..but there was also some upset council people who didn't seem to actually be listening to the presenters and just wanted to be angry and let everyone know they are angry!!!

All in all, it seems like there are some pretty strong arguments for a new terminal to me.

[WSPanic]

They also mentioned it costs airlines money because they have to idle planes longer due to the current horseshoe design and limited surrounding taxi way. There was also discussion on another cost to the airlines related to the gates and terminals, but i missed exactly what that was.

Even with it being limited to two terminals, I feel like I spend less time idling in the plane at KCI than I do anywhere else. It seems that gate availability at some of the larger airports has become an increasing problem.

And, yes - before flying member comes in and calls me stupid for comparing KCI to larger airports - I get it. KCI is small.

[flyingember]

If you want to be called stupid around gate availability is because the airport is too big. It's functionally oversized for our needs.
There's 90 gates between the three terminals and we're using around 30-35 of them.

We're wasting 2/3 of the available space. The new terminal is in total size bigger than what we're using today but it rearranges what purpose space is given to to fit modern usage needs. We have too much space given the areas before security and not enough after. At all the other airports I've been at before security is crowded and after is spacious.

Larger airports have one runway per approx. 20-40 gates. (I checked 5 of the largest airports) We are using 10 gates per runway and can support 30 gates per. So we're sized right in line with all the large cities if we had the demand for all the gates.

If you wondered why the idle wait was so short, that's why. There's plenty of capacity for planes to take off.

[im2kull]

But once again, how much would it cost to maintain what we currently have and fix the actual PROBLEMS that need fixed? Need, not want. Because as it stands our airport WINS awards for being customer friendly, the airlines back our layout, and TSA has already stated that we're a model of efficiency for them. So what other Red-Herrings can we debunk today>


Why are we being handed ultimatums that say you can vote for Trump, or vote for Trump! Kinda like that Crimea vote that happened. Do you want to join Russia?

A. Yes
B. Yes

[Highlander]

Because as it stands our airport WINS awards for being customer friendly, the airlines back our layout, and TSA has already stated that we're a model of efficiency for them.

Google Worst Airports in the US. KCI makes every list. Whatever it may mean to certain people from KC, most of the rest of the country thinks KCI is awful.

[flyingember]

But once again, how much would it cost to maintain what we currently have and fix the actual PROBLEMS that need fixed? Need, not want

Ok, so that is a clear list. See Page 25 of the city document.

Aging Infrastructure –underground utilities, apron, & terminal roadways
Increases potential for critical failure of mechanical systems (electric, plumbing, fueling, HVAC)

We're talking about replacing major aspects of the airport that let it be used inside and out. This isn't cosmetic like repaving sidewalks. electrical, hvac and apron work is staged closing type of work where parts of the airport can't be occupied during work. Plumbing alone is going to mean digging since you want to check more than just inside. to do it right is a major tear out of everything

I would add reviewing the foundation on inside and out too, column structural and the roof to the list. We don't want to do a large scale closure and have to come back and repeat it again.

The problem is once you get into that scope repairs you're in a semantics argument of if that's renovations or just maintenance, .
that's where page 19 of the city's released document comes

Any renovations must follow the current TSA guidelines

The city will lose that argument with the TSA if we try to get out of this change with the scale of redoing fundamentals of the airport.
This is why we don't have your idea as a choice no matter how much a lot of people want it to be what we do. It would likely be incredibly cheaper than any of the options on the table.

Now the project just snowballed due to federal requirements. a 60 foot wide by 150 foot deep security area in a 72 foot terminal. (you enter on the short end). to put that in context, each terminal is approx. 2110 feet end to end. Each security area is over 5% of the total current terminal space. That's why both renovation options moved security, because it was substantially easier to add onto the structure than try and make it fit and put everything else in the terminal.

[FangKC]

The thing most Kansas Citians don't understand, who oppose changing the airport terminal, is that they are not the tenants. The airlines are the tenants, and they are driving most of this process. The cost of renovations, or building a new terminal, will not be paid for out of the City budget. The money comes from airport user fees, and it's a closed finance system under federal law.

It is like complaining that Block Real Estate and its' tenants are negotiating to remodel restaurants in an old strip mall, or build new, and some restaurant customers are demanding they have a huge say in what Block and its' tenants do because they occasionally buy meals there.

[pash]

.

[WSPanic]

The thing most Kansas Citians don't understand, who oppose changing the airport terminal, is that they are not the tenants. The airlines are the tenants, and they are driving most of this process. The cost of renovations, or building a new terminal, will not be paid for out of the City budget. The money comes from airport user fees, and it's a closed finance system under federal law.

It is like complaining that Block Real Estate and its' tenants are negotiating to remodel restaurants in an old strip mall, or build new, and some restaurant customers are demanding they have a huge say in what Block and its' tenants do because they occasionally buy meals there.

There's a difference between not understanding and not caring if they're not the tenants.

And that analogy doesn't really work in this situation. If I don't want to eat at your crappy strip mall, I have options. Not so much for an airport.

[FangKC]

The airport improvements at KCI are paid for by all air travelers--not just those who live in our area.

The user base is not just people who live in Kansas City. It's also people traveling to Kansas City from other places.

[KCPowercat]

New terminal does not equal less convenient. This thought has to die

[aknowledgeableperson]

New terminal does not equal less convenient. This thought has to die

If passengers can get more comfort in the holding area that should be worth more than any perceived loss of convenience.

[Highlander]

New terminal does not equal less convenient. This thought has to die

If passengers can get more comfort in the holding area that should be worth more than any perceived loss of convenience.

That would not be hard to accomplish. I think KCI has the worst post-security space in the US.

And there are lots of single terminal airports that equal, if not exceed, KCI in convenience. KCI's convenience is not due it's design, it's because KCI just isn't that busy.

[shinatoo]

New terminal does not equal less convenient. This thought has to die

If passengers can get more comfort in the holding area that should be worth more than any perceived loss of convenience.

That would not be hard to accomplish. I think KCI has the worst post-security space in the US.

And there are lots of single terminal airports that equal, if not exceed, KCI in convenience. KCI's convenience is not due it's design, it's because KCI just isn't that busy.

Guess you haven't departed from B on a Monday morning.

[Highlander]

Guess you haven't departed from B on a Monday morning.

That's a very artificial situation created by - the airport being not all that busy - and the need to compress what traffic there is from three terminals into two (while not dividing any single airline's business across the two remaining terminals). That's what happens when you have to live with a very inefficient airport design. And Terminal B, when it's busy, is not convenient.

[shinatoo]

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]

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?

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.

[flyingember]

It's not busy per se, it's that most people pick the same airline, Southwest, because they have most of the flights And it's the cheapest option out of KC (I cost compare every time, Southwest has won on price and choice 3 of 4 flights we have made in 8 years)

If Terminal C had 50% of airport usage and within terminal B the flights were evenly spread among all gates we wouldn't have an under used airport with one area with congestion.

[KCPowercat]

New terminal does not equal less convenient. This thought has to die

If passengers can get more comfort in the holding area that should be worth more than any perceived loss of convenience.

Even without that. Better checkin g process, TSA precheck for all airlines, ability to meet demand at security gates, better parking situation.

[FangKC]

New terminal does not equal less convenient. This thought has to die

Yes. This is a good point. Everyone is freaking out before we have even seen the final designs of any new terminal building. It is possible that the new terminal might be better. Once those designs are completed, we might see that it's just as convenient, and that it adds some features that we don't currently have now. For example, the waiting areas at the gate might be set up so that you don't have to go through security every time you go to the bathroom. While this is not always a problem, it is if your flight departure time is delayed for a couple of hours. Having bathroom access near the gate waiting area without having to go through security again is a very nice feature. So would having enough seating for all passengers to sit while they wait to board (and their family members who are seeing them off).

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.

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.