flyingember wrote:...with restrooms you're thinking healthy adult. think 4-year-old, elderly person or individual with a urinary health issue. choosing when to go isn't always picture perfect. public facilities need to account for the most common exceptions, not the norm.
I would wager that the current MCI you are never more than 50 yards from a toilet. Yes, in an emergency you may need to exit security and later re-enter (but if it's an emergency bio need, so be it). I would further wager that the new terminal design will have areas more than 50 yards from a toilet. The airport's current layout minimizes the distance from any one point to the curbside wall, where the toilets are.
I agree that in one big box terminal you will probably have a better quality sandwich shop (not sure that the hours will improve) than in the current two terminals in use. This all seems like an elaborate expense for upgraded airport food and to save TSA some screener salaries.
it's not about convenience, it's about the time value, as has been mentioned
not going through security when you have well under 30 minutes to make your flight is the value in having more options inside security.
luckily the argument doesn't matter since building new is the cheaper of the two options
I used to be 100% for building new, and I still am in general. But that plan floated out last week is pretty bad IMO. I am 100% against building new if it's so closed minded as to ONLY have parking and minimal bus options at the airport. Do better, KCI.
Don't know if this has been posted here, but here is a 55 minute video tour of Mark Van Loh, and others at KCI explaining to the city on why KCI needs a new single terminal. http://kcmo.org/CKCMO/Initiatives/Airpo ... /index.htm
not directly on topic but it validates how changes to the way things are done need to save time for more people to be worthwhile.
imagine if the airport could implement a premium express service with a new terminal and garage design. reserved parking in a premium area and express check-in alone could sell the service. couple that with hand holding through the TSA express service and you have a winner for frequent flyers. free per flight with a full price ticket, a yearly option or buy express check-in per flight for small fee. it's not the food or restrooms that matters, it's about getting time-saving services implemented to speed people through the lines who want to pay extra to do so. someone where that extra hour before the flight is valuable time to them in the office
I used to be 100% for building new, and I still am in general. But that plan floated out last week is pretty bad IMO. I am 100% against building new if it's so closed minded as to ONLY have parking and minimal bus options at the airport. Do better, KCI.
I doubt they will but even the shell of a train station and the row reserved in the plan. train to the airport is a necessity to enough people in clay and platte to vote for rail that even beginning to prep that could sell a new airport
flyingember wrote:not directly on topic but it validates how changes to the way things are done need to save time for more people to be worthwhile.
imagine if the airport could implement a premium express service with a new terminal and garage design. reserved parking in a premium area and express check-in alone could sell the service. couple that with hand holding through the TSA express service and you have a winner for frequent flyers. free per flight with a full price ticket, a yearly option or buy express check-in per flight for small fee. it's not the food or restrooms that matters, it's about getting time-saving services implemented to speed people through the lines who want to pay extra to do so. someone where that extra hour before the flight is valuable time to them in the office
I used to be 100% for building new, and I still am in general. But that plan floated out last week is pretty bad IMO. I am 100% against building new if it's so closed minded as to ONLY have parking and minimal bus options at the airport. Do better, KCI.
I doubt they will but even the shell of a train station and the row reserved in the plan. train to the airport is a necessity to enough people in clay and platte to vote for rail that even beginning to prep that could sell a new airport
Imagine if we quit spending money on the Airport and started spending money on High Speed Rail (real 220mph) to St. Louis and then just used their airport. Or vice versa.
Don't think you need to go that far out on a limb. Never is a long time though. Might happen, just might, the next time or two the airport is modernized.
aknowledgeableperson wrote:Don't think you need to go that far out on a limb. Never is a long time though. Might happen, just might, the next time or two the airport is modernized.
I don't see how the areas along the route could possibly gain adequate density to justify running rail through them in a hundred years, at which point it might as well be "ever" because we'll all be dead and nobody will remember I made the claim.
Maybe down the road KCI should do what they have done in Phoenix to connect light rail to the new terminal. Although the price tag for this is outrageous, and could be the reason there is no plan in the near future for this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcYvL_YloO4
This is the wonderful result of mergers - hubs get cut and impact mid-sized cities. Have posted before that one way for mid-sized cities to not be at the mercy of airlines determining who they connect with, is to have their own locally run airline like when KC had Vanguard. It fills in the gaps of missing non-stops. Seeking/encouraging a local Vangard type airline should be KC's first priority - well tactical priority. A new terminal will eventually be needed and the strategic planning should continue with a specific 15 year plan.
The KC CSA is now nearly 2.4M, 23rd largest CSA market and professional services jobs are about 25K higher than in 90s. KC region could probably support a Vangard type airline better than in the 90s. Is worth checking if it can be a viable business model if using high efficiency regional planes. There are now efficient regional planes that can cross half country at over 500MPH, I think seating about 80 or so - every new model is more fuel efficient. They didn't quite exist when Vangard was operating. One edge KC has over coastal cities is that entire country can be reached with highly efficient regional class planes.
And where is Vanguard now. There is a reason for that. Eastern air is being resurrected and where are they going? Where the passengers are. The east coast - Miami is the base.
mean wrote:
I don't see how the areas along the route could possibly gain adequate density to justify running rail through them in a hundred years, at which point it might as well be "ever" because we'll all be dead and nobody will remember I made the claim.
not that long, but 20-30 years, sure. look how long it's taken DC.
the metro opened in 1976. the further airport connection is looking to open 40+ years later
flyingember wrote:imagine if the airport could implement a premium express service with a new terminal and garage design. reserved parking in a premium area and express check-in alone could sell the service. couple that with hand holding through the TSA express service and you have a winner for frequent flyers. free per flight with a full price ticket, a yearly option or buy express check-in per flight for small fee. it's not the food or restrooms that matters, it's about getting time-saving services implemented to speed people through the lines who want to pay extra to do so. someone where that extra hour before the flight is valuable time to them in the office
This is basically what we have now at KC. The MCI airport is fast -- in the last 50 departures, I have only one time had to wait in any queue more than 5 minutes to get from curb to gate. This is across airlines -- US, AA, DL.
We have a super fast airport now, with somewhat limited food options and mostly landside toilets. And we don't have to pay extra for fast security.
mean wrote:
I don't see how the areas along the route could possibly gain adequate density to justify running rail through them in a hundred years, at which point it might as well be "ever" because we'll all be dead and nobody will remember I made the claim.
not that long, but 20-30 years, sure. look how long it's taken DC.
the metro opened in 1976. the further airport connection is looking to open 40+ years later
