OFFICIAL - New KCI Terminal

[beautyfromashes]

Looks like it's been made public that B & C will be demo'd per graphic https://www.buildkci.com/future-kci/

The sooner, the better

Prediction it won’t be demolished before the WC. I still think some Saudi prince in his 787 will want a private airstrip away from the terminal. Will probably even spend a few $M to fix it up for his 2 minute walk from plane to limousine. &

[normalthings]

Looks like it's been made public that B & C will be demo'd per graphic https://www.buildkci.com/future-kci/

The sooner, the better

Prediction it won’t be demolished before the WC. I still think some Saudi prince in his 787 will want a private airstrip away from the terminal. Will probably even spend a few $M to fix it up for his 2 minute walk from plane to limousine. &

Airline-Airport Agreement requires the new terminals to go and the airlines to pay for it. The terminals staying up is expensive. Who covers that cost today? Would you be okay with KCMO paying a few million per year in the off chance they are needed? Just for 2-3 gates international gates?

A better use for the money would be KCMO funneling a few million into a 5 star hotel downtown or at least incentivizing one.

[beautyfromashes]

Airline-Airport Agreement requires the new terminals to go and the airlines to pay for it. The terminals staying up is expensive. Who covers that cost today? Would you be okay with KCMO paying a few million per year in the off chance they are needed?

Few million for what?! Mothball it. Only cost would be occasional security drive by.

[normalthings]

Airline-Airport Agreement requires the new terminals to go and the airlines to pay for it. The terminals staying up is expensive. Who covers that cost today? Would you be okay with KCMO paying a few million per year in the off chance they are needed?

Few million for what?! Mothball it. Only cost would be occasional security drive by.

You can't turn this thing off and back on.


Its an involved and expensive process
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA3RXeds0_g

[DColeKC]

Our local sports teams are the current biggest user of one of those closed terminals. Unless they want to pay to keep one, blow em up!

[beautyfromashes]

Airline-Airport Agreement requires the new terminals to go and the airlines to pay for it. The terminals staying up is expensive. Who covers that cost today? Would you be okay with KCMO paying a few million per year in the off chance they are needed?

Few million for what?! Mothball it. Only cost would be occasional security drive by.

You can't turn this thing off and back on.


Its an involved and expensive process
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA3RXeds0_g

Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about at all. It should never be used again as a public terminal with all the amenities for 1000s of people. I'm talking about just holding it in place as a private de-boarding place before it's destruction after the event. The cost for that is negligible.

[normalthings]

Few million for what?! Mothball it. Only cost would be occasional security drive by.

You can't turn this thing off and back on.


Its an involved and expensive process
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JA3RXeds0_g

Yeah, that's not what I'm talking about at all. It should never be used again as a public terminal with all the amenities for 1000s of people. I'm talking about just holding it in place as a private de-boarding place before it's destruction after the event. The cost for that is negligible.

Why would anyone want that experience? Did you ever experience the teams travel? The terminal was not in good shape. The single benefit was a jet bridge instead of stairs

[WoodDraw]

It’s not like kci gets crazy traffic. The new airport can easily handle charter flights.

Private flights are normally processed different than commercial as well.

It’s not that hard

[bpanama]

I mean that was public the day the project was announced. Doesn't mean that can't change for C

Not quite - this wasn't a given.

[phuqueue]

Not sure why KC should make any particular effort to appease hypothetical Saudi princes who might want their own private airport

[normalthings]

I mean that was public the day the project was announced. Doesn't mean that can't change for C

Not quite - this wasn't a given.

Bulldozing the old terminals had always been in the use and lease agreement

[kboish]

I think they plan to save one of the parking garages, but the terminals themselves i think have always been on the chopping block

[beautyfromashes]

I just hate tearing most anything down. There's almost always a valid use for most buildings. Many times, it doesn't present itself for awhile until people have a chance to see it empty or underused and find a purpose for it. Sometimes, like Union Station, it just takes time for the demand for the purpose to generate before any action is taken. The Star printing press would be another one I'd hate to tear down. Buck ONeil bridge. The pedestrian bridge from US to Crossroads. Kaw River bridge. Kemper Arena. Reuse is ALWAYS the answer.

[SiouxCity KCMO Man]

If the terminals were in good shape, then they could have been fixed. I thought I had heard that some of the steel and concrete from the exterior was in really poor shape due to all the chemicals used for deicing and that is why the decision was made to build new rather than remodel and build. I know Parking lot for B terminal is supposed to be saved for employees, but B and C and its garage were always on the demolition block. If there is any shot at a focus city which might require any sort of new building in the future, i assume that area would be where it would go. Doesn't take any kind of space away from the airfield I assume.

[im2kull]

If the terminals were in good shape, then they could have been fixed. I thought I had heard that some of the steel and concrete from the exterior was in really poor shape due to all the chemicals used for deicing and that is why the decision was made to build new rather than remodel and build. I know Parking lot for B terminal is supposed to be saved for employees, but B and C and its garage were always on the demolition block. If there is any shot at a focus city which might require any sort of new building in the future, i assume that area would be where it would go. Doesn't take any kind of space away from the airfield I assume.

Deicing doesn't happen anywhere near the terminals, and the deicing things you remember hearing were a red-herring argument that Mark Van Loh made back in like 2008 when he said that the deicing collection system was basically not working and that the airport wasn't in compliance with the EPA which meant it HAD to be renovated, the whole airport, immediately to fix this problem.

The real problem was that the deicing area had been upgraded a few years prior, and no such problem existed. Mark would do anything to try and grab votes for a new terminal.

[normalthings]

If the terminals were in good shape, then they could have been fixed. I thought I had heard that some of the steel and concrete from the exterior was in really poor shape due to all the chemicals used for deicing and that is why the decision was made to build new rather than remodel and build. I know Parking lot for B terminal is supposed to be saved for employees, but B and C and its garage were always on the demolition block. If there is any shot at a focus city which might require any sort of new building in the future, i assume that area would be where it would go. Doesn't take any kind of space away from the airfield I assume.

Deicing doesn't happen anywhere near the terminals, and the deicing things you remember hearing were a red-herring argument that Mark Van Loh made back in like 2008 when he said that the deicing collection system was basically not working and that the airport wasn't in compliance with the EPA which meant it HAD to be renovated, the whole airport, immediately to fix this problem.

The real problem was that the deicing area had been upgraded a few years prior, and no such problem existed. Mark would do anything to try and grab votes for a new terminal.

They de-ice on the aprons? There aren’t remote pads as seen at other airport

[Noahfleshman]

When I worked a MCI last winter we would deice Inside our apron right past the drain line at the gates, depending on the gate you would have to turn the aircraft A certain way and make sure you weren’t blocking the other airline, at times the aircraft would get deiced at the gate. B pad is the only remote area they de ice currently besides right outside the American gates. Terminal B is being torn down and turned into a deicing site. That type one and type four gets everywhere and all over everything. It taste like cinnamon.

[WoodDraw]

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t the deicing improvements for environmental and run off reasons?

My memory is bad I thought that was it.

[normalthings]

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t the deicing improvements for environmental and run off reasons?

My memory is bad I thought that was it.

I seem to remember improvements around collecting and storing in-terms of preventing it to run off into streams/MO river.

[Noahfleshman]

From what I can remember the reason we kept the aircraft in the apron / gate area was because of the drain situation, one went to sewer and the other was run off, the big square ones in the center alley are run off, and the small ones that run the lease line are sewer. Not to mention all the sand for traction / ice melt coating everything on the ramp. On top of all that if you have a dedicated area for deicing it makes departing flights easier amongst airlines, that way they’re not blocking each other during deicing procedures.