We need a new airport!!!

[KCPowercat]

We don't. I think that option was researched. Doesn't eliminate planes not being able to maneuver around the tarmac with the tight circle shape or the need to replace the building itself.

[flyingember]

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.

Huh?

Southwest is gates 37-45. they're using one gate less than a third of the terminal.

http://www.flykci.com/flight-informatio ... es-at-kci/

[beautyfromashes]

Ok, so give them half a terminal, enter at one end and baggage claim at the half terminal. Entire half terminal loop would be secure area.

[KCPowercat]

Ok, so give them half a terminal, enter at one end and baggage claim at the half terminal. Entire half terminal loop would be secure area.

Watch out, the not as convenient crowd won't go for this one bit!

[flyingember]

Ok, so give them half a terminal, enter at one end and baggage claim at the half terminal. Entire half terminal loop would be secure area.

Watch out, the not as convenient crowd won't go for this one bit!

Even with the assumption this is realistic, and I don't see it as such, I'm of the opinion that an in place upgrade alternative that still does away with what people like about the airport isn't a winning alternative to building new.

[KCPowercat]

Ok, so give them half a terminal, enter at one end and baggage claim at the half terminal. Entire half terminal loop would be secure area.

Watch out, the not as convenient crowd won't go for this one bit!

Even with the assumption this is realistic, and I don't see it as such, I'm of the opinion that an in place upgrade alternative that still does away with what people like about the airport isn't a winning alternative to building new.

Agreed...it's probably the worst of all worlds.

[aknowledgeableperson]

.

[beautyfromashes]

Agreed...it's probably the worst of all worlds.

I don't see why. At most, you'd have to walk one quarter loop of the terminal (way less than what a new terminal would make you walk), you'd more than double the retail space and bathrooms, you'd still have curbside pickup and the cost would be a fraction of the options already out there.

[flyingember]

You're forgetting that it increases distances and congestion.

Curbside pickup would move from ~10 exits to one point at baggage pickup. Curbside dropoff would move to the other end. One of these will be right at the entrance to the circle and one right at the exit and two in the middle.

You also increase walking to the bus/shuttle pickups or force cars to stay further away from the entry so it's not nearly as convenient.

It also probably wouldn't cost a fraction. You massively increased the cost to do the work since you're reorienting the entire airport from front to back to a side to side design. It means moving airlines around again great cost since you're taking out half a terminal at once. You have to move gates and this means moving everything related to operating an airplane from fueling to baggage to the layout of the plane approaches.

The renovation plans proposed expanding the way it did because it can build the new security and baggage aspects while using what's in place live. Then shut down a portion of the terminal at a time and tie it into the new systems. In the interim it can have bridging plans like temporary baggage pathways. No gate has to move so that aspect is left alone.

[beautyfromashes]

Not any more than the expanded distances for a new terminal which would make travelers move the distance of the entire terminal to get to pickup. All I'm suggesting is removing the temporary barriers that close in secure areas now. This would make all retail and bathrooms in the terminal open to travelers in the secure area. It would mean moving baggage check for some airlines together, but with online checkin and kiosks, I don't understand why people need to stand in lines for an agent anyway. Curbside pickup would be consolidated into one or two locations causing some to have to walk down the sidewalk for pickup, but his already happens just at staggered times at different points depending on arrival. This plan just makes the staggered congestion always happen at the same door. You can't tell me this wouldn't cost a fraction on the $1B that is being proposed for a new terminal.

[flyingember]

You're not recommending just removing the temporary barriers, you're redoing *everything* inside the airport. The only thing staying the same is the foundation, some walls and roof.

You don't want to expand the airport so the new single security entrance has to go inside the building.
It's nearly the depth of the airport (90% of the depth) and 150 feet wide. So it literally will separate the airport side to side as gates can't be behind security
moving the gates that would line up behind it which changes the gate design from end to end. This moves fueling, baggage, personal access, taxi design, etc. The entire airplane side of the airport gets redone.


to not need to do that and add depth for security means building over the current road, tearing out the garage and replacing both.
a large garage can cost $100 million easily, especially for the teardown and road as well.


And this assumes that no airline will ever need more or less gates
Splitting in quarters lessens the value of each gate. If southwest wants 12 gates and they have 8 you just made some transfers require walking outside the building and going back through security. with a single terminal an airline can share gates, and add/remove how many they use based on time of day

You just moved all ticketing to one side of security. This means tearing out 100% of below ground to move everything around. The entire baggage system gets redone. Walls come out and new ones put up. You just moved all baggage claim to the other end so all the related needs get moved around like lost luggage.

You just moved basically every vendor and their access points to get goods into the airport. with a new security building next to the current terminal some can stay put and like you said, the walls can just come down so they're more accessible now.

You're shutting down doors so everything on the entry side gets redone. by building a new building for a renovation they cut holes where the entrances/exits to the new space goes and can have a bunch of entrances to ticketing/security

Plumbing, electrical, hvac, communications all just got torn out and redone from end to end to work with the new layout.
Which will admittedly be done with any project.

All while keeping the airport open and functional. This could mean moving every airline around. So there's the cost of reopening terminal A and figuring out how to direct 10 million passengers as work moves around. with a new building every airline stays in place the entire length of work and can move to the new terminal one at a time.

And to consolidate curbside pickup we need more space. There isn't room for curbside at the ends of the circle drive so it stays in the middle. It's almost out of room at peak use without taking away entrances that everyone wants to be close to. people already double park.
this is why all plans were moving to a double level entry

and I'm sure there's even more work than this to be done with any plan

[beautyfromashes]

Now you're just being obstructionist. Tell me why plumbing and HVAC need to move since bathrooms will be in the exact same place as they are now. They would just be behind security instead of outside. Honestly, we probably see a different problem with the airport. I just want more amenities and bathrooms inside the secure area. As a customer, I don't care how many security checkpoints there are. Even if it does cost more to have many security check ins, it's less than what it will cost the customer to build a new airport. I have to be convinced that I'll get anything out of a renovation or new build that I don't already have now. And if you're going to give me something better, is it worth the cost it will bring to me with higher ticket prices and taxes.

[cityscape]

Now you're just being obstructionist. Tell me why plumbing and HVAC need to move since bathrooms will be in the exact same place as they are now. They would just be behind security instead of outside. Honestly, we probably see a different problem with the airport. I just want more amenities and bathrooms inside the secure area. As a customer, I don't care how many security checkpoints there are. Even if it does cost more to have many security check ins, it's less than what it will cost the customer to build a new airport. I have to be convinced that I'll get anything out of a renovation or new build that I don't already have now. And if you're going to give me something better, is it worth the cost it will bring to me with higher ticket prices and taxes.

I disagree, you're making things simpler than they likely are. This facility is at the end of its useful life and even seemingly small changes can be extensive and carry exponential costs because of the age of the infrastructure. Don't get me wrong, at one point this was one of the great airports in the country, however, it does NOT meet the needs of today's average traveler (retail, restaurants, bathrooms, space, and openness). I've traveled all over this country and have seen some great examples of what this airport can be and should be for a city of this size, but we stand in our own way. Any renovations to the existing infrastructure is essentially lipstick on the pig at this point. The building was not intended to serving the public into 2020, it is no Union Station...... Let's build something new that can introduce flexibility into the design to meet future demands as well as current, all at the same time building in convenience that so may love about the existing buildings. Then in 50 years, we can have the same argument about replacing or renovating

[aknowledgeableperson]

The voters will have a final say in whether this project advances to construction or not but up to that time of voting the driving force behind any final plan will be the airlines. If they can see some greater efficiency along with easier and more flexible operations then that is what will be presented to the public.

[beautyfromashes]

So, tell me what I get. Do I get cheaper prices, more destinations, or quicker times through security? Sure, more bathrooms and retail would be nice, but I use the airport probably 5-6 times a year. What's the value here? Sure, it's nice to have a good entrance to the city, but what's the return for the big check being written?

[longviewmo]

Not having an airport that's falling apart.

[im2kull]

We don't. I think that option was researched. Doesn't eliminate planes not being able to maneuver around the tarmac with the tight circle shape or the need to replace the building itself.

Red Herring.

What planes are currently unable to maneuver around the tarmac at KCI? The current airport was designed specifically for 747's, which I believe are still among the largest passenger planes in the world.

[flyingember]

We don't. I think that option was researched. Doesn't eliminate planes not being able to maneuver around the tarmac with the tight circle shape or the need to replace the building itself.

Red Herring.

What planes are currently unable to maneuver around the tarmac at KCI? The current airport was designed specifically for 747's, which I believe are still among the largest passenger planes in the world.

it wasn't plane size actually.

The study said the geometry issue limits how many planes can get to/from the terminal at once which limits how quickly flights can get in and out. The more people want to fly the slower travel will get.

To leave the gate many planes back into the path used to get to the gates. Southwest is positioned so this is an issue

[flyingember]

Now you're just being obstructionist. Tell me why plumbing and HVAC need to move since bathrooms will be in the exact same place as they are now. They would just be behind security instead of outside.

Actually, the airport study specifically pointed out those two things as being at risk of failure due to age and needing major work. Plumbing alone is a big deal since that could mean a major underground project. I didn't just make that up.

And you have to move them because to put in your new security you have to take away what's already where you're moving it too. The place you want to put your new single security entry isn't empty right now. There's airline gates where it will go or ticketing or restrooms, etc

And the number of things that has to be outside security is incredibly high. You need bathrooms outside security too, for example. There's an entire entry hall. You need a car rental pickup and return desks, which would need to be doubled or make people walk back outside after their return.

[normalthings]

We don't. I think that option was researched. Doesn't eliminate planes not being able to maneuver around the tarmac with the tight circle shape or the need to replace the building itself.

Red Herring.

What planes are currently unable to maneuver around the tarmac at KCI? The current airport was designed specifically for 747's, which I believe are still among the largest passenger planes in the world.

Even when the airport opened it couldn't handle a 747. The terminals were too small to hold enough people, and that was before the TSA secured area.

The 747's of today are longer, wider, and more powerful than the ones from when the airport was built. The newer widebody jets use higher powered engines then when the airport was designed. This affects how the airport functions, because other planes need to stay a certain distance out of the "blast zone". This effects how the airport operates. I remember seeing somewhere that even a 767 causes problems.