We need a new airport!!!

[cityscape]

I fly out of KCI on average every other week. It absolutely blows and is embarrassing.

I completely agree. Most everyone I have spoken to who still loves this airport and doesn't think we need any changes either hasn't flown out of KCI in the last few years or only flys a couple times per year. The 10% of transfers are not who need the amenities, it is the out of town visitors and business travelers who make up the bulk of people using KCI. $5-10 per ticket is worth it to have a first class "front door" and more convenient airport for the next 40 years.

[brewcrew1000]

I use to love it when we didn't have kids, now that we have kids I absolutely hate it, there is no room to roam around or just get some energy off once you are in the gates. It gets so claustrophobic in there, business people are always making fun of it when they are standing in line.

Luckily the next 2 of 3 trip we are driving to DFW and Omaha instead of flying out of KCI, the biggest reason is that these were the closest places where we could use our Award miles on 4 tickets, KCI didn't have an availabilty but I'm glad that i'm not flying out of that airport.

[swid]

While I can't tell (for sure) if im2kull is flat-out trolling or merely has very little empathy for anyone who doesn't have the privilege of traveling like he does, I will admit that KCI's current layout works well if most or all of the following apply to you:

- you're not checking anything
- you're flying at non-peak times and/or have TSA Pre/airline status (particularly in Terminal B)
- you're flying at times that typically aren't delayed or on airlines that aren't frequently delayed out of KC (i.e., not United)
- the sole or one of the two screening machines in your 4- to 6-gate area isn't broken down, undergoing maintenance, or is unstaffed

So, in short, KCI is great for reducing up to 5-7 minutes of in-airport time that might otherwise be spent walking to your gate for departing short-term business travelers with status who have the "lol, who buys warm food or gets a drink in an airport before their flight? chumps, amirite?" mentality. For everyone else, though, security-side KCI is cramped, unpleasant, and offers next to nothing for you to do to kill time if you want or have to get there more than 45 minutes early for any reason before your flight leaves, your flight out is delayed, or you're there on a layover, and it isn't like the outside-security portions are much better for that either.

KCI's terminals opened 44 years ago; even with the renovations, I can't imagine there's more than a decade or two left in their design life anyway.

[bobbyhawks]

While I can't tell (for sure) if im2kull is flat-out trolling or merely has very little empathy for anyone who doesn't have the privilege of traveling like he does, I will admit that KCI's current layout works well if most or all of the following apply to you:

- you're not checking anything
- you're flying at non-peak times and/or have TSA Pre/airline status (particularly in Terminal B)
- you're flying at times that typically aren't delayed or on airlines that aren't frequently delayed out of KC (i.e., not United)
- the sole or one of the two screening machines in your 4- to 6-gate area isn't broken down, undergoing maintenance, or is unstaffed

Check, check, check, check for me. Generally a pre-7:00 AM flight on Monday morning, through TSA Pre. I still hate it. TSA Pre-check is fast everywhere when they aren't allowing lottery winners, which happens in KC, too. Once you are through security, you still have to sit in the doctor's office lounge that is KCI. If you are there during breakfast, there is the world's worst Starbucks (seriously seriously horrible) and beef jerky. The best retail in the entire place is a vending machine that nobody knows is there. The bathrooms are disguised so nobody can find them and make them dirty. The place smells like it always just leaked rain water inside. The stuff outside of security sucks. The suckiness of the airport has created a culture of people who arrive at the last minute for their flights, not because it is super convenient, but because they can't stand to be there.

[flyingember]

The place smells like it always just leaked rain water inside.

Given part of the work needing to be done involves concrete you might not be imagining this

[swid]

Teresa Loar commissions study on renovating Terminal A alone, estimates it would cost $335.6 million

[grovester]

Now that smells like a boondoggle. At leas the consultant is honest that they are trying to get their foot in the door on future contracts.

[flyingember]

Two things of note with that plan

1. it does away with the convenience factor by moving to central security. Which is one of the stated goals of this plan. Ironic.
2. it costs $700 million minimum since we'd be renovating two terminals. So it's not that much cheaper than the other plans at the end of the day.
I also don't see all the work mentioned like the de-icing repair. So I wonder if that's anywhere close to a final price?

[shinatoo]

1. Two security areas for 18 gates, both close to the drop off point, everything still on one level, three baggage claims within steps of the gates and the street. Pretty convenient.

2. Correct.

I like the idea of bringing back the tram for long term parking and the rental cars. Could probably do that with both terminals and stay under the single terminal budget. Would be crucial because traffic is a cluster f*** right now and will get way worse with this plan. Get rid of the buses and it improves. Make people tram out to a taxi/limo stand would be even better.

[KCPowercat]

Oh man, that is a KC townie plan if I ever saw one.

[flyingember]

I like the idea of bringing back the tram for long term parking and the rental cars. Could probably do that with both terminals and stay under the single terminal budget. Would be crucial because traffic is a cluster f*** right now and will get way worse with this plan. Get rid of the buses and it improves. Make people tram out to a taxi/limo stand would be even better.

What's the difference between a tram and a bus in your mind?

[brewcrew1000]

I've always thought you could use One terminal for all the check in, TSA, baggage, etc, then you just build 2 trams to take people to each of the other terminals but when they get off they have access to the entire B and C terminal, B and C could not be accessed by car or non-passengers. It would work the same way as DFW.

So Terminal A would have nothing in terms of flights while B and C has everything while you wait on the Trams from Terminal A

I think this could be done fairly cheap

[shinatoo]

The proposed tram is a fixed guide way system, probably automated. I assume it is out of general traffic? Something like what they have in Atlanta.

A bus is a bus.

[flyingember]

The proposed tram is a fixed guide way system, probably automated. I assume it is out of general traffic? Something like what they have in Atlanta.

A bus is a bus.

Where do you put it without reducing convenience for other modes?

[shinatoo]

It's shown in phase 4 of the proposed plan.

[herrfrank]

I've always thought you could use One terminal for all the check in, TSA, baggage, etc, then you just build 2 trams to take people to each of the other terminals but when they get off they have access to the entire B and C terminal, B and C could not be accessed by car or non-passengers. It would work the same way as DFW.

So Terminal A would have nothing in terms of flights while B and C has everything while you wait on the Trams from Terminal A

I think this could be done fairly cheap

Interesting concept. DFW allows exiting (arriving) passengers to depart the airport at multiple locations, via one-way revolving doors. With the same design for KCI, cars and taxis for arriving passengers would not be affected, they could still use the existing roadways at KCI terminals B and C. Departing passengers would arrive only at KCI terminal A for ticketing and security. DFW's tram (actually a monorail) runs overhead, along the roof of its five terminals, two stops per terminal.

Your tram solution would either require TSA to clear the tram of passengers each circuit, if one tram cycled between parking (pax would presumably want to park at their inbound terminal) and the secured zone. Otherwise you would need two systems (trams or tram plus bus) -- one on the secured side and one on the parking and ticketing (nonsecured) side.

[flyingember]

Remember that one thing people dislike about a new terminal is the distance.

From the middle of B to the end of A/C is getting close to a mile long.
I don't care if you put in walkways, distances are still a pain.

So the idea isn't horrible but it doesn't provide anything better than a new terminal

[woodrow]

Do something! KCI is a joke! A drab, inefficient joke. In town this past weekend and reminded, yet again, how awful it is. 9-11 really did a number on the place. It used to be a joy to travel to-from there, but now, every time I come to KC, the airport is just terrible. The security demands make the space inefficient and unattractive. It is especially awful for departures. Dark, especially at night! WTF with the lighting? The Gate areas are awful, there are no amenities to speak of, the entire place feels cramped.

Have 1 terminal. This new suggested plan is just lipstick on a pig.

[herrfrank]

The lighting has been changed -- a few years ago it was high-pressure sodium lighting -- very bright. Then all the lighting was changed to some low-intensity discharge crap that is simply not adequate for the space. Regardless of the resolution to the greater airport question, the lighting needs to be retrofitted to something much brighter. Even if it's only for five years to build a new terminal, the current lighting is completely inadequate.

[KCPowercat]

This new janky plan also doesn't solve the issue of plane movement around the tight circumference of the building. It makes it worse with only 18 gates.