KCRag Forum

Posted: **Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:28 pm**

mean wrote:
im2kull wrote:Given that 90% of the airports users ARE Kansas City area residents, your statement that KC area residents taxes won't pay for the terminal, is a bit misleading. 90% of the funds will still come from KC area residents pockets. Unless we magically gain thousands of connecting flights overnight, which would be a stretch to say the least. Eventually the airport would surely have more connecting PAX that help bear costs, but definitely not during the construction and first few years of a new terminals construction..which is when the majority of the costs will be paid for.
I think we are largely on the same page, but you seem to be misunderstanding the difference between taxes and use fees. Just because the fees will mostly be paid by locals doesn't make them taxes, and nowhere does Highlander imply they will mostly be paid by non-locals. He just says they aren't taxes. Because they aren't.

Yes, user fees are not taxes. But im2kull makes an important distinction. He refers to those who will be pay for the airport as "KC area residents". That is mostly true - the users of the airport from this much larger aggregate and NOT KCMO voters are the entity that largely pays for the airport. I think KCMO residents, if they truly understood the concept of user fees, would be more than happy to embrace a new terminal. Unfortunately, this concept of payment, factual as it is, is still met with skepticism from many of those who will be deciding the issue. In the end, education regarding funding may be more critical than the design of the new terminal. I think airport users are largely being won over to the reality of KCI's design flaws, I'm not sure if KCMO voters, however, yet grasp the facts about funding.

And while 90% of the people who use KCI may be from KC (IDK - is this actually documented?), 40% of the flights they take are business related (national average). So considerably less than 90% of the funding is actually on the dime of the people of the area.

Posted: **Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:40 pm**

That's the distinction. KCMO voters/taxpayers vs. regional payers who are not KCMO taxpayers but who pay taxes in KCMO occasionally because they live nearby and occasionally pay (sales or whatever) taxes in KCMO. These are not the same pools of people.

Posted: **Sun Jul 02, 2017 8:48 pm**

Side note: it's really hard to decide where to come down on any given issue if you can't tell for sure which side is gaslighting you. Welcome to politics in the 21st century.

Posted: **Mon Jul 03, 2017 1:10 am**

KCPowercat wrote:Please source the 90% stat

It's been well documented in this thread, among others that connecting PAX account for just 5-10% of all travelers at KCI in an average year. That has been a steady trend for the last 35 years. It makes you wonder..should we really rebuild an entire airport at a cost in the Billions of dollars, for an extreme minority of the users of said airport?

HISTORICAL O&D AND CONNECTING ENPLANED PASSENGERS
ORIGINATING CONNECTING TOTAL
1990 3,297,610 95.9% 141,051 4.1% 3,438,661 100.0%
1991 3,155,360 90.8% 317,973 9.2% 3,473,333 100.0%
1992 3,334,777 89.9% 376,068 10.1% 3,710,845 100.0%
1993 3,572,122 90.0% 398,232 10.0% 3,970,354 100.0%
1994 3,973,561 89.0% 492,414 11.0% 4,465,975 100.0%
1995 4,279,896 90.2% 463,997 9.8% 4,743,893 100.0%
1996 4,591,340 91.0% 452,974 9.0% 5,044,314 100.0%
1997 4,828,188 87.1% 713,382 12.9% 5,541,570 100.0%
1998 4,852,448 86.9% 734,189 13.1% 5,586,637 100.0%
1999 4,984,354 84.2% 935,225 15.8% 5,919,579 100.0%
2000 5,069,362 83.4% 1,010,933 16.6% 6,080,295 100.0%
2001 4,822,825 82.3% 1,036,331 17.7% 5,859,156 100.0%
2002 4,467,232 86.0% 724,584 14.0% 5,191,816 100.0%
2003 4,405,089 90.8% 445,182 9.2% 4,850,271 100.0%
2004 4,610,998 91.7% 416,612 8.3% 5,027,610 100.0%
2005 4,706,304 93.0% 356,535 7.0% 5,062,839 100.0%
2006 5,000,568 91.5% 464,684 8.5% 5,465,252 100.0%
Sources: Federal Aviation Administration, Terminal Area Forecast; U.S. DOT, Schedule T-100; Official Airline
Guide; Landrum & Brown analysis.
H:\KCI Master Plan\Master Plan\Aviation Forecast\Master Sheets and Data\[MCI Master Sheet.xls] Enpax History

The little numbers in Bold, that's the % of connecting passengers we carry. Less than 10% each year on average. Let that one sink in for a moment before making further remarks..

Posted: **Mon Jul 03, 2017 4:12 am**

So note when Vanguard Air was at peak (1999-2001) as a mini-hub it was over 15%. Another reason to attract a small hub, which current terminal layout is not conducive for - one of worst in country. The connecting % could be higher if KCI acting as a bit larger hub than mini but not too big to dominate most gates, which causes higher fares due to less competition.

The target needs to be to attract more flights and more non-stop destinations, which a hub of any size does. KC may fall behind other markets if it does not address that (businesses want more flight options) and a new terminal would increase the opportunity in the long term.

Posted: **Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:21 am**

Originating =! KC resident

Posted: **Mon Jul 03, 2017 8:44 am**

KCPowercat wrote:Originating =! KC resident

Exactly. There's a lot of people that drive some distance to fly out of KCI like Wichita, Des Moines, Omaha, or even Columbia, MO.

I wish those numbers showed connecting passengers in recent years because I feel like it's down to 6%. Southwest specifically has said they avoid connecting passengers out of KCI if at all possible.

Posted: **Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:24 am**

I can't imagine what connecting through KC must be like, especially if you don't know the airport.

How long until we start to get real proposals? I assume that there needs to be something solid to show to the voters by election time?

Posted: **Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:34 am**

Would be surprised if Omaha, Wichita, Des Moines would drive to KC or connect through KCI if available given they can easily connect through major hubs on way to destination from their own airports. Springfield to Ottawa to Manhattan draw more likely, maybe a draw from Columbia if full flight from KCI much cheaper than from STL.

Posted: **Mon Jul 03, 2017 9:55 am**

earthling wrote:Would be surprised if Omaha, Wichita, Des Moines would drive to KC or connect through KCI if available given they can easily connect through major hubs on way to destination from their own airports. Springfield to Ottawa to Manhattan draw more likely, maybe a draw from Columbia if full flight from KCI much cheaper than from STL.

I know for a fact people do this. They don't fly to KCI. They drive and then fly out of KCI to wherever they're going. Just depends on airfares.

Posted: **Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:00 am**

I could see it if say $200 fare difference to drive 3 hours, maybe $100 if tight penny pincher (considering gas, etc) but doesn't seem worth the effort unless major savings and worth possibly having to connect after KCI anyway. Are their fares that much higher? All of them can connect via DEN, DFW, ORD, ATL and others.

Posted: **Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:19 am**

Flight availability probably plays a big part in someone driving to KC for flights. It's not going to just be about travel time to KC but the total picture.

For example,
Salina has two flights daily to Denver. If you miss the second flight of the day you're going the next day.
If Denver has delays in winter you're not going anywhere.

So driving to KC from Salina some parts of the year seems super logical.

Posted: **Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:27 am**

earthling wrote:I could see it if say $200 fare difference to drive 3 hours, maybe $100 if tight penny pincher (considering gas, etc) but doesn't seem worth the effort unless major savings and worth possibly having to connect after KCI anyway. Are their fares that much higher? All of them can connect via DEN, DFW, ORD, ATL and others.

I live in KC so I can't tell you how much in savings people need to see before they fly out of KCI (I personally would pay a premium to stay local), but you can get to most major cities on a direct flight out of KCI. So no doubt there are opportunities for people out of area to save money at times. I just did a quick google search and there was a Des Moines web site where people were chastising locals for flying out of KCI or Omaha to save a buck because it hurts their air demand. The other option some pointed out was KCI and Omaha have more frequent flights to some destinations (or the fact that you can get to more destinations direct). For one guy, the threshold in savings was $125 to consider KCI or Omaha. My cousin regularly drives up from Wichita to KCI for flights. Granted he has family in KC, but just a lot more flight options.

Posted: **Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:31 am**

Well KCI used to have typically 80-100 non-stop destinations when we had Vanguard, now it's under 50 (probably below 40 markets) because no airline wants to use KCI as a hub given crappy terminal layout. Southwest doesn't use KC much for hub either now, they've used STL more after they lost American.

I suppose there could be some cases from the more distant 'satellite' cities using KCI but would be surprised if say over 15% from Omaha use KCI any given day while 85% use OMA. Would be interesting if those stats are available.

Posted: **Mon Jul 03, 2017 12:45 pm**

Again, it's 38 non stop destinations when you look at the metro area level

No probably about it.

Posted: **Mon Jul 03, 2017 2:54 pm**

earthling wrote:Well KCI used to have typically 80-100 non-stop destinations when we had Vanguard, now it's under 50 (probably below 40 markets) because no airline wants to use KCI as a hub given crappy terminal layout.

No, this is because of mergers, code sharing, and hot-swap assignable gates. Which is exactly why pax at KCI has gone up, destinations have remained the same or increased, while aircraft operations have been drastically reduced. Airlines are more efficient now than ever. 20 years ago airlines would fly empty planes from point A to B, because they all flew independently from each other and wanted to service that same route. Fast forward to modern times and with the massive increases in operating costs airlines have been forced to cut costs by "Sharing" flights. In today's world your Delta flight is also a United, KLM, Aeromexico, etc flight. Same plane, the only difference is who you bought your ticket through. No airline is going to fly half empty planes anymore, and any frequent flier will tell you that this is the reality because they've seen flights become more and more crowded over the last two decades.. whereas previously it was pretty easy to book and fly on a half full flight.

Posted: **Mon Jul 03, 2017 2:59 pm**

flyingember wrote:Again, it's 38 non stop destinations when you look at the metro area level

No probably about it.

You meant to say 41..

Which puts us on par or ahead of larger, more touristy cities like Austin TX, New Orleans, Sacramento (Only 27 destinations!), San Antonio (32), Pittsburgh, Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Jacksonville (24), Nashville, Anchorage, etc...all whilst having less than 10% connecting pax volume. That's pretty remarkable. We're definitely doing better then most people on this forum seem to realize.

So let's be real: The airlines in current existence already have their hubs decided on...and none of them are going to move connections away from places like Atlanta, Chicago, Minneapolis, Denver, and Dallas Fort Worth to Kansas City. New terminal or not. Our only bet then would be to have another startup airline like Midwest Express or Vanguard use KCI as a mini-hub. But..history tends to repeat and as soon as those airlines are either profitable enough, or in a slump then they'll simply merge or disappear and we're right back where we are today. I think we all need to ask ourselves if Kansas City could realistically ever be a hub regardless of our airport, and go from there.

Posted: **Mon Jul 03, 2017 3:00 pm**

Yeah true mergers certainly impacted as well. And Vanguard didn't make it through 911 impact, the Feds helped many airlines but Vanguard didn't make the cut for Fed aid. The timing is ripe now to start new airlines given low fuel prices and fewer competition. Would like to see KC try to entice a new local startup similar to Vanguard with a new terminal in the pipeline that would be more conducive to being a hub.

Posted: **Mon Jul 03, 2017 3:13 pm**

earthling wrote:Would be surprised if Omaha, Wichita, Des Moines would drive to KC or connect through KCI if available given they can easily connect through major hubs on way to destination from their own airports. Springfield to Ottawa to Manhattan draw more likely, maybe a draw from Columbia if full flight from KCI much cheaper than from STL.

I used to live in Wichita and there definitely were many people who drove to KC for flights. The company I worked for was one of them, we'd drive to KC to fly SW many times. Now that Wichita has expanded discount service there likely isn't as much of that going on. Same can be said for Omaha and Des Moines, I think both now have some decent discount airline service and likely we don't see as much traffic coming from them as KCI would have in the 1990's to early 2000's.

Posted: **Mon Jul 03, 2017 3:18 pm**

Yeah I could see that back in the Vanguard days when KC flights were cheaper and those cities had less service, but KC fares have been a bit higher lately and they now have better service.

KCRag Forum

We need a new airport!!!

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Re: We need a new airport!!!

Re: We need a new airport!!!