We need a new airport!!!

[GRID]

KCI is great if you are alone, your flight is on time, you have a ride, you don't check bags, you live close and can get there quickly before a flight departs, there are no delays and you avoid southwest during peak hours.

+1. I've arrived 45 minutes before departure on my Southwest flight before and almost missed it because of lines. I've also arrived 30 minutes before departure at LAX and made my gate with plenty of time.

On the other extreme, I've been through airports in Europe where you go through security at the gate immediately prior to boarding, but I'm guessing that model won't be implemented in the US any time soon.

Interesting, so everybody goes through the TSA type machine as they entire the jetway? I would imagine that could make the process of boarding a plane messy and time consuming at times, but that would be better than KCI is now. Tear down all the walls, make everything unsecure and clear people as they entire the jetways! That's probably how it was in the 60's. Did anybody fly back then? Did you just get on the plane or were there some type of screening at the gates?

[swid]

On the other extreme, I've been through airports in Europe where you go through security at the gate immediately prior to boarding, but I'm guessing that model won't be implemented in the US any time soon.

Interesting, so everybody goes through the TSA type machine as they entire the jetway? I would imagine that could make the process of boarding a plane messy and time consuming at times, but that would be better than KCI is now. Tear down all the walls, make everything unsecure and clear people as they entire the jetways! That's probably how it was in the 60's. Did anybody fly back then? Did you just get on the plane or were there some type of screening at the gates?

This was at Prague's airport for a flight to the UK, so this wasn't any special intra-Schengen Area rules in place for the terminal flying out of. The terminal was secure in that I had to show my passport and boarding pass before entering the terminal itself, so I couldn't walk straight to the gate w/o going through some sort of security.

Each gate had its own metal detector and there was a separate, walled-off room with seats for people to wait briefly before they could board (as the gate/security area itself wasn't manned until just before the arriving plane pulled into the gate).

[aknowledgeableperson]

Did you just get on the plane or were there some type of screening at the gates?

Till 9/11, for the most part, the only screening was "Ticket please."

[flyingember]

Did you just get on the plane or were there some type of screening at the gates?

Till 9/11, for the most part, the only screening was "Ticket please."

http://www.wired.com/2013/06/fa_planehijackings/

this has a good timeline

[SWFan]

Was just in Dallas last week and spent some time in the half circle terminals. I paid a bit more attention and they are very similar to KCI's terminals. I would say it appeared to me that the Dallas terminals are about 130% to 150% wider than KCI's. Their half circles are bifurcated about 25% unsecured ticketing and 75% secured gates. Our terminals are bifurcated, but more like 50/50 and therein lies the problem. All the space for traveler amenities sits in the unsecured area. Our terminals as-is just don't seem wide enough to split them without making the unsecured ticket side about as wide as a residence hallway.

The terminals are probably set up about as well as could be done with what they have to work with. Anything else I think would require new structures.

But at least at KCI it doesn't cost you $'s just to drop someone off or pick someone up curbside. Dallas has toll booths at both ends of the airport. You don't get a ticket at the garages, you get your ticket at the toll booth. Looked like the minimum charge was $2. So if you're just dropping off grandma at DFW you'll pay $2 to do it.

[LenexatoKCMO]

I had an experience earlier this week that illustrated the "efficiency" of MCI's design perfectly. Due to a last minute equipment issue they had to change my gate after all the passengers were already behind security. Apparently the only gate they could use was in another security area. They made us all line up single file. Marched us through a behind the scenes area and then out into the unsecured area where they had literally closed that portion of the airport and formed a cordon of ~25 TSA and other airport employees to make sure no terrorists passed us any guns. Meanwhile the security checkpoint is totally shut dow and the airport ground to a halt.

MCI's gate layout problems would never discourage airlines from operating here. &&&&

[im2kull]

(Cue im2kull saying that Southwest, Frontier and Spirit should all move over to Terminal A so they can have access to more gates while simultaneously being segregated from any true business travelers like him.)

On the other extreme, I've been through airports in Europe where you go through security at the gate immediately prior to boarding, but I'm guessing that model won't be implemented in the US any time soon.

Actually, the airport authority has done enough random moving of airlines over the last 6 years that no more moving is needed...except to reconsolidate them to the way they used to be, and to quit purposely trying to pack one terminal to cause an "Inconvenience" (and therefore justification for a new, "Efficient" terminal).

Airports in the US used to be like that. Metal detectors and ticket scanning right as you went on the jetway. Nothing was wrong with that, since your real luggage was getting the exact same treatment it gets today...but...someone decided change was needed (More money in their pocket is what it really boils down to...safety this safety that..just red herrings).

[im2kull]

MCI's gate layout problems would never discourage airlines from operating here. &&&&

Hasn't happened yet.

[LenexatoKCMO]

MCI's gate layout problems would never discourage airlines from operating here. &&&&

Hasn't happened yet.

Prove it.

[im2kull]

MCI's gate layout problems would never discourage airlines from operating here. &&&&

Hasn't happened yet.

Prove it.

I never get the "YOU prove it" logic, when someone replys to what was an *unsubstantiated* post to begin with. Why should I have to prove something that you're not willing to prove? Shouldn't the person I replied to have to prove THEIR end first?????

None the less, for the crybabies here...
-Business is up big for 2014! Even with all the supposed "Problems" that people seem to think airlines care about in KC. Here's a hint: Profit = Profit. Nothing else matters to a corporation.
http://www.kansascity.com/news/business ... 11213.html

Our PAX and flight numbers have been steadily increasing for the better part of 3 decades. None of this would be possible if airlines "Didn't want to operate in KCI". Of course, if you had read all my posts in this thread and the accompanying information and stats (Sourced from none other than the airport managment itself) then you would know everything you need to know about PAX, Cargo numbers, and Connecting Flights.

[im2kull]

Furthermore...for the "MCI discourages airlines from operating here..." crowd..

Airlines Concerned About One-Terminal Plan
http://savekci.org/reality-finally-land ... iscussion/

"..from the airlines themselves that not only would a shiny new terminal not attract flights, it might cost us some of the non-stop service we now enjoy."

"Terminals don’t attract flights, demand and anticipated profits attract flights."

[kboish]

Furthermore...for the "MCI discourages airlines from operating here..." crowd..

Airlines Concerned About One-Terminal Plan
http://savekci.org/reality-finally-land ... iscussion/

"..from the airlines themselves that not only would a shiny new terminal not attract flights, it might cost us some of the non-stop service we now enjoy."

"Terminals don’t attract flights, demand and anticipated profits attract flights."

Linking to an article written by the opposed view point as proof that we don't need a new terminal doesn't add much.

IIRC- we have since found their statements at the hearings were essentialy a way for the airlines to get a better seat at the table and ultimately just wanting to make sure the planning process is using numbers they agree with.

There is no "build it and they will come" mantra happening. The real issues is there are ongoing maintenance items that need to be resolved that will cost alot of money- if it isn't much more to build a new/better terminal- then you may as well do that. I think the airlines were simply trying to reign in the increase in costs to themselves (understandably self serving) by claiming the new terminal would be extravagent or somehow unneccessary.

This article has a better representation of their stance- IMO--


http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... tml?page=2

Southwest Airlines Co. is keeping its mind open as plans move forward on Kansas City International Airport's future.
....
....
He said it would be unfair to give an opinion on a new terminal, a renovation or any other option at KCI at this time.

“We’re treating this as seriously as we should,” Sisneros said.

Otherwise, Southwest and the airlines are pleased with the planning process, and the airline is grateful to be participating, he said. The goal is to have more concrete plans established by the middle of 2015, though the parties have until the end of April 2016 to establish a plan. He said an air of trust and cooperation surrounds the meetings.

[flyingember]

exactly. we're well past the point where we're not spending money.

it's a math problem. and the city showed themselves as serious by aiming to have both plans created with their latest contract

the against group started by indirectly implying it's about a new terminal

the city turning it into two real numbers with a clear thing the city gains by picking it becomes a discussion of merits

[Highlander]

MCI's gate layout problems would never discourage airlines from operating here. &&&&

Hasn't happened yet.

Prove it.

I am surprised you even had to ask that question. The proof is TWA. After pushing KC into what would soon be an untenable design, they left for St Louis when the city would not redesign the facility.

[im2kull]

The real issues is there are ongoing maintenance items that need to be resolved that will cost alot of money- if it isn't much more to build a new/better terminal- then you may as well do that.

A couply leaky pipes and such (Which should be maintained as a yearly RWP budget anyways..IE: Not emergency repairs..) don't add up to well over a BILLION dollars. Maybe 100k. Maybe.

And don't kid yourself. Expanding bathrooms, and making huge reconfigurations/remodeling again does NOT qualify as "Maintenance" that is needed unless we want the terminals to rot away and fall apart. Maintenance includes the utility systems and existing infrastructure, nothing more and nothing less.

[flyingember]

The real issues is there are ongoing maintenance items that need to be resolved that will cost alot of money- if it isn't much more to build a new/better terminal- then you may as well do that.

A couply leaky pipes and such (Which should be maintained as a yearly RWP budget anyways..IE: Not emergency repairs..) don't add up to well over a BILLION dollars. Maybe 100k. Maybe.

And don't kid yourself. Expanding bathrooms, and making huge reconfigurations/remodeling again does NOT qualify as "Maintenance" that is needed unless we want the terminals to rot away and fall apart. Maintenance includes the utility systems and existing infrastructure, nothing more and nothing less.

you have no idea what needs to be done

I haven't seen it again, but foundation repair was on the list at one point

[KCPowercat]

The quote for needed repairs was like 500MM

[flyingember]

The quote for needed repairs was like 500MM

the lifetime of the repairs is key too. if the engineers say $500mm and it gets us 15 years is different from $1000mm and it gets us 40 years

I'm hoping they do similar length plans for repair vs new

[KCPowercat]

Right. That number didn't fix all the problems either. Waste of money.

[im2kull]

the lifetime of the repairs is key too. if the engineers say $500mm and it gets us 15 years is different from $1000mm and it gets us 40 years

It's not like a new terminal will have no yearly repair costs either. More times than not, contract laden new construction ends up costings MORE than the existing construction when it comes to repair costs. All sorts of things get screwed up nowadays in construction, and companies aren't held liable like they used to be.

you have no idea what needs to be done

Likewise.

There's no way in the world it would cost 500 million dollars for "Needed" repairs. You guys have no idea how much real world repairs cost, and that's a problem. The 500 million figure includes all sorts of pleasantry/not Recurring Work requests..like bathroom reno's, gate reno's, and all sorts of junk. Let's see a figure for actual needed maintenance first..and work from that.