KCI Flight Schedule Adjustments

[GRID]

Replacing and upgrading the terminal at MCI is a needed long term infrastructure improvement the area needs and deserves.  KCI is a self sufficient entity that seems to do just fine and make the right decisions to keep itself self sufficient and successful.

The aviation department has finally decided to attempt to take KCI to the next level by developing the long under-used and under-developed area around KCI into an intermodal facility and mixed use office/industrial/hotel district.

The aviation department also wants to develop a terminal that is more convenient for connecting flights, generates more revenue and is cheaper and more efficient to operate with a centralized passenger screening area, all while attempting to maintain most of the convenience that local travelers treasure.  It can be done.  Most new terminals built since 9-11 are very efficient and easy on travelers.  Short lines, places to dine, shop and wait etc.

Everybody from the aviation department to the airlines that serve MCI are in favor of building a new terminal and developing KCI into a more vibrant business and cargo center.  I don’t think they are doing it simply to destroy an amazing airport that everybody loves.

If KC ever wants to use our runway capacity to anywhere near their capacity, then a new terminal is needed.  I’m not talking about a hub, but a terminal system that is not dead 90% of the time and overcrowded  to the point of gridlock when two planes unload or load at once.

A new terminal is essential if we ever want to build transit to MCI as well.

KCI would also like to build a hotel as part of the new terminal.  A hotel would never work slapped onto the side of one of the existing terminals.  This is not DFW.  The idea is the same, but the DFW terminals are much larger and DFW is a world hub, something KCI will never be, especially not with its current terminals.

So, why wouldn’t the aviation department go ahead and plan to build a new terminal to replace 40 year old terminals that simply do not function well and do not generate money for the airport?  Why would the aviation department say no to potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of federal government money (KC is very good at this) so Louisville or Sacramento or San Antonio can use it for their own airport upgrades?

So we are 75’ from the gate to the jetway?  OK.

The side effect to building a new terminal?  Giving KC a good first impression.  People know KC is a big city, we don’t need signs.  We just need an airport terminal that is more representative of the city and again, if you have flown into any of the “new” terminals out there,  they are very user friendly, open and offer a traveler anything they would need.

Do you build a new terminal for this reason?  Absolutely not, but if you already need a new terminal for all the reasons I listed above then it’s a great benefit to the community to have a terminal that welcomes visitors to KC in a manner that represents the city well.

This would be a MAJOR investment in our city, our future and I just don’t get why people think this is some sort of joke to consider building a new terminal.  But then again, I don’t get a lot of the things KC and its residents do.

[shinatoo]

Hopefully this gets accelerated with the cash infusion that Obama is planning. These kind of public works projects are what KC needs.


Along with a hub for a new national high speed rail system. (OK, I went to far.)

[SingleMalt12]

Hopefully this gets accelerated with the cash infusion that Obama is planning. These kind of public works projects are what KC needs.


Along with a hub for a new national high speed rail system. (OK, I went to far.)

How was the 2004 "upgrade" paid for?  I still don't see where hundreds of millions of dollars went.  Yep, it's a short walk from the car to the gate if you don't check bags.  Big deal.  Wherever you're going you're going to have to walk farther.  People seem to be ok with that.  Have you ever heard anyone say "Gee, Margaret, that sure was a short walk.  Let's move to Kansas City so we can do that again."?

On the other hand, I've never heard anyone say "Albert?  Let's not do business with Kansas City because their airport is silly."

It's an airport and in the end the fares are lower than most cities in America and there are non stop flights to most of the country.  Isn't that what matters anyway?

[GRID]

Call me crazy, but I think no matter what I say about this topic, this is what people will actually comprehend.

Replacing and upgrading the terminal at MCI is a needed long term infrastructure improvement the area needs and deserves.  KCI is a self sufficient entity that seems to do just fine and make the right decisions to keep itself self sufficient and successful.

The aviation department has finally decided to attempt to take KCI to the next level by developing the long under-used and under-developed area around KCI into an intermodal facility and mixed use office/industrial/hotel district.

The aviation department also wants to develop a terminal that is more convenient for connecting flights, generates more revenue and is cheaper and more efficient to operate with a centralized passenger screening area, all while attempting to maintain most of the convenience that local travelers treasure.  It can be done.  Most new terminals built since 9-11 are very efficient and easy on travelers.  Short lines, places to dine, shop and wait etc.

Everybody from the aviation department to the airlines that serve MCI are in favor of building a new terminal and developing KCI into a more vibrant business and cargo center.  I don’t think they are doing it simply to destroy an amazing airport that everybody loves.

If KC ever wants to use our runway capacity to anywhere near their capacity, then a new terminal is needed.  I’m not talking about a hub, but a terminal system that is not dead 90% of the time and overcrowded  to the point of gridlock when two planes unload or load at once.

A new terminal is essential if we ever want to build transit to MCI as well.

KCI would also like to build a hotel as part of the new terminal.  A hotel would never work slapped onto the side of one of the existing terminals.  This is not DFW.  The idea is the same, but the DFW terminals are much larger and DFW is a world hub, something KCI will never be, especially not with its current terminals.

So, why wouldn’t the aviation department go ahead and plan to build a new terminal to replace 40 year old terminals that simply do not function well and do not generate money for the airport?  Why would the aviation department say no to potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of federal government money (KC is very good at this) so Louisville or Sacramento or San Antonio can use it for their own airport upgrades?

So we are 75’ from the gate to the jetway?  OK.

The side effect to building a new terminal?  Giving KC a good first impression.  People know KC is a big city, we don’t need signs.  We just need an airport terminal that is more representative of the city and again, if you have flown into any of the “new” terminals out there,  they are very user friendly, open and offer a traveler anything they would need.
Do you build a new terminal for this reason?  Absolutely not, but if you already need a new terminal for all the reasons I listed above thenit’s a great benefit to the community to have a terminal that welcomes visitors to KC in a manner that represents the city well.

This would be a MAJOR investment in our city, our future and I just don’t get why people think this is some sort of joke to consider building a new terminal.  But then again, I don’t get a lot of the things KC and its residents do.

[DanCa]

I recently flew to Austin and their new (1999?) terminal was great.  It probably had fewer gates than KCI, but the setup was convenient, plenty of stores and restaurants to keep me occupied while I waited for my flight, the car rental desks were near the baggage claim, and you just walked out of the terminal to pick up your car - no bus ride.  Although it's a newer terminal, it's very similar to the Orange County (John Wayne) airport in layout.  I could see this style of terminal working well in KC, although I'm sure it would need to be bigger than Austin or OC.

[trailerkid]

KCI is a self sufficient entity that seems to do just fine and make the right decisions to keep itself self sufficient and successful.

I was unaware air travelers had choices besides MCI...

If you live in Kansas City, MCI is where you'll spend your money unless you want to drive to Topeka or Omaha. It will continue being successful as long as there is air traffic business within a three hour radius.

The aviation department has finally decided to attempt to take KCI to the next level by developing the long under-used and under-developed area around KCI into an intermodal facility and mixed use office/industrial/hotel district.

The aviation department also wants to develop a terminal that is more convenient for connecting flights, generates more revenue and is cheaper and more efficient to operate with a centralized passenger screening area, all while attempting to maintain most of the convenience that local travelers treasure.  It can be done.  Most new terminals built since 9-11 are very efficient and easy on travelers.  Short lines, places to dine, shop and wait etc.

Everybody from the aviation department to the airlines that serve MCI are in favor of building a new terminal and developing KCI into a more vibrant business and cargo center.  I don’t think they are doing it simply to destroy an amazing airport that everybody loves.

If KC ever wants to use our runway capacity to anywhere near their capacity, then a new terminal is needed.  I’m not talking about a hub, but a terminal system that is not dead 90% of the time and overcrowded  to the point of gridlock when two planes unload or load at once.

A new terminal is essential if we ever want to build transit to MCI as well.

KCI would also like to build a hotel as part of the new terminal.  A hotel would never work slapped onto the side of one of the existing terminals.  This is not DFW.  The idea is the same, but the DFW terminals are much larger and DFW is a world hub, something KCI will never be, especially not with its current terminals.

So, why wouldn’t the aviation department go ahead and plan to build a new terminal to replace 40 year old terminals that simply do not function well and do not generate money for the airport?  Why would the aviation department say no to potentially hundreds of millions of dollars of federal government money (KC is very good at this) so Louisville or Sacramento or San Antonio can use it for their own airport upgrades?

So we are 75’ from the gate to the jetway?  OK.

The side effect to building a new terminal?  Giving KC a good first impression.  People know KC is a big city, we don’t need signs.  We just need an airport terminal that is more representative of the city and again, if you have flown into any of the “new” terminals out there,  they are very user friendly, open and offer a traveler anything they would need.

You lose credibility talking about MCI when you go on and one about the farm fields around it and then in your next post brag about Denver, which has the least urban, least "developed" airport in the history of the human race. You have good points, but people will never listen because you've attacked MCI multiple times and people have pigeonholed your comments as anti-MCI at all costs.

I do agree with you that KC needs a new terminal. KC basically needs a new everything. 

[DaveKCMO]

i was at a meeting recently with the aviation director from ICT and he told that many in the topeka/lawrence/KC corridor have been driving to his airport to fly to vegas because it's cheaper than flying there from MCI.

[trailerkid]

Service is back on from MCI to Grand Island, NE. Kinda cool IMHO.

i was at a meeting recently with the aviation director from ICT and he told that many in the topeka/lawrence/KC corridor have been driving to his airport to fly to vegas because it's cheaper than flying there from MCI.

They are doing a lot of advertising through KU basketball and my first reaction was WTF. I'm assuming they are trying to bring parts of NE KS into the fold.  I've heard of people from Lawrence flying out of Topeka to Vegas, but not Wichita. I couldn't imagine driving to Wichita for a flight to Vegas. It'd have to be A LOT cheaper than MCI.

[DaveKCMO]

Service is back on from MCI to Grand Island, NE. Kinda cool IMHO.

part of the essential air service program, i assume?

[GRID]

I was unaware air travelers had choices besides MCI...

If you live in Kansas City, MCI is where you'll spend your money unless you want to drive to Topeka or Omaha. It will continue being successful as long as there is air traffic business within a three hour radius.


You lose credibility talking about MCI when you go on and one about the farm fields around it and then in your next post brag about Denver, which has the least urban, least "developed" airport in the history of the human race. You have good points, but people will never listen because you've attacked MCI multiple times and people have pigeonholed your comments as anti-MCI at all costs.

I do agree with you that KC needs a new terminal. KC basically needs a new everything. 

I never, ever proposed moving KCI just because it's surrounded by open land.  The only point I ever made about that is that when people land at KCI, chances are good, they have seen nothing that resembles a city.  If you are lucky, you will fly over the speedway area.  Once in a blue moon, you get that flight from Atlanta or Florida that will give you a spectacular view of the city.  But 95% of the time, you will see Platte City, Smithville or Bonner Springs.

Then when you step off the plane and into an airport that makes the Joplin Airport look pretty amazing, it pretty much says, yea, you just landed in Kansas and not only Kansas, but Kansas in 1975...

Our terminal is embarrassing.  I hear it all the time.  I love the short lines, but I would give up that extra 20 minutes on both ends of a flight to have a decent terminal that is more representative of our city.

[trailerkid]

I never, ever proposed moving KCI just because it's surrounded by open land.  The only point I ever made about that is that when people land at KCI, chances are good, they have seen nothing that resembles a city.  If you are lucky, you will fly over the speedway area.  Once in a blue moon, you get that flight from Atlanta or Florida that will give you a spectacular view of the city.  But 95% of the time, you will see Platte City, Smithville or Bonner Springs.

Then when you step off the plane and into an airport that makes the Joplin Airport look pretty amazing, it pretty much says, yea, you just landed in Kansas and not only Kansas, but Kansas in 1975...

Our terminal is embarrassing.  I hear it all the time.  I love the short lines, but I would give up that extra 20 minutes on both ends of a flight to have a decent terminal that is more representative of our city.

All your complaints of not having a "big city" airport and not having "big city" views drown out the valid point that you do make.

People like MCI in the same way that they like Kauffman Stadium. As much as you try to convince people of economic factors, negative traveler percections, or life span of a facility; they will always pick familiarity and convenience. I would guess that among locals, MCI probably has one of the highest satisfaction marks among any airport.

[chrizow]

airports suck.  period.  no one likes to hang out in airports.  complaining about airports is, for the business traveler set, just the mobile version of inane office chatter about the weather, KU sports, gas prices, etc. 

KC faces a hell of a lot of problems, and the "image" our rural, retro airport has for people who stopover in KC on their way to wherever is about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000th on the list.  the fact is that we have a functional, easy, convenient (once you get there) airport that is 20 minutes from downtown.  i would love to see improvements to the airport - light-rail, better food, etc, but as is it's nothing to get up in arms about.

I love the short lines, but I would give up that extra 20 minutes on both ends of a flight to have a decent terminal that is more representative of our city.

this is just amazing to me.  what would be more "representative" of KC?  really.  how does an airport terminal "represent" any city?  i have recently been to the airports in Charlotte, St. Louis, Raleigh-Durham, New York, Denver, San Francisco, Cleveland, Milwaukee, etc., and i didn't get a feel for any material aspect of any of those cities from their airport.  and guess what: 100% of those airports sucked, because all airports suck.  and the only cities where i had a visually-interesting "approach" was NYC (LGA), which is a no-brainer, and Milwaukee.  do you really think Joe Business Traveler from Long Island or metro Atlanta gives a shit about whether he sees KC's 50 square miles of relative urbanity underneath the plaine as he flies into KCI?! 

we could have the most modern, beautiful airport in america, situated among 50 new condo towers, with light-rail going everywhere, and many people from the coasts will still think KC is a shithole farm town full of illiterate hicks.  the sooner we accept that and just live our lives, the better.

[LenexatoKCMO]

Yeah, the image thing is way down the list of reasons for a change in my book.  I would favor a more conventional terminal layout primarily for the economic advantages and booking convenience that a hub would bring. 

[lock+load]

economic advantages and booking convenience that a hub would bring. 

higher fares?

[trailerkid]

KC faces a hell of a lot of problems, and the "image" our rural, retro airport has for people who stopover in KC on their way to wherever is about 100,000,000,000,000,000,000th on the list.  the fact is that we have a functional, easy, convenient (once you get there) airport that is 20 minutes from downtown.  i would love to see improvements to the airport - light-rail, better food, etc, but as is it's nothing to get up in arms about.

You're missing that point that a new terminal is not an issue that suddenly replaces important issues in the city. Building a new terminal is something that will have to happen eventually and would probably be more beneficial sooner rather than later. Further, the costs associated with the new terminal would not hinder solving the other, more pressing problems of the city. Image problems and "real" problems for KC aren't mutually exclusive.

[GRID]

Jesus Christ people, I want a new terminal for reasons far far beyond how the airport portrays what people think of KC.  The latter is simply a nice fringe benefit of having a modern terminal.   It’s not a priority, but something that needs to be addressed over the next decade or so and when it comes to airports, 10-15 years means start planning now. When I say an airport more “representative” of our city, I’m talking about an airport that offers more of the conveniences and dining, retail and flights that a large metro airport should have.  Again, stepping off the jetway into a terminal that is open, well lit, modern, active and offers people a damn cheeseburger or taco, or god forbid a bathroom or retail store that’s not outside security and or a red bus ride away as opposed to a dark, 1970’s cramped, yet dead terminal with no or very limited services would be a great side effect to that.  We can have a decent terminal and not give up the things we like about KCI.  KCI will still be a relatively easy airport to use.  It has three wide open runways.  The new terminals in busy airports like Detroit have very little delays in getting checked in and screened.

But the number one reasons are economic reasons.  That airport will never really be any more than it is today in its current design.

Can you not get that through your thick skulls?   I don’t want to build a new terminal just so people from the coasts will think highly of KC, for the 1000th time…

We need a new terminal though and since we need a new terminal, there is nothing wrong with building one that just might help welcome people to KC is a bit more metropolitan way than MCI does.

[LenexatoKCMO]

higher fares?

No

Economic advantages of having a hub:
Easier to recruit corporations and employers to locate here.
Easier to sell conventions, trade shows, conferences.  
Easier to land major sporting, etnertainment, and other national events.
Easier to sell the city to future residents.  

[LetsGoKC]

No

Economic advantages of having a hub:
Easier to recruit corporations and employers to locate here.
Easier to sell conventions, trade shows, conferences.  
Easier to land major sporting, etnertainment, and other national events.
Easier to sell the city to future residents.  

KCI has more flights than some hubs.
KCI has lower fares than most hubs.
Kansas City needs a convention hotel yes, but conventions, trade shows and conferences go everywhere, hub or not.
Kansas City already lands more than its share of sports, entertainment and other national events.
LOW TAXES and good jobs will bring future residents here. 
KC has so much to offer people and the great thing about KCI is that you DON'T need to go through a hub to get where you want to go.  THAT is a great selling point.

"Get on the plane in KC, get off at your final destination" 

[LenexatoKCMO]

I would love to know what vested interest created a profile to post this. 

KCI has more flights than some hubs.

Some?  what kind of a definition of a hub are you using here?  Certainly no significant hub.

Kansas City needs a convention hotel yes, but conventions, trade shows and conferences go everywhere, hub or not.

BS.  I have tried to sell conference attendence for KC events - limited availability of air access is a very restrictive hurdle.  Business people don't like going places where they only have one or two time slots to choose from, layovers, and extra time away due to limited schedules. 

Kansas City already lands more than its share of sports, entertainment and other national events. 

Really?  How did things go over with that RNC application we put in?  Hotels aren't the only thing that make it impossible for us to host that kind of event - airport is right up there. 

KC has so much to offer people and the great thing about KCI is that you DON'T need to go through a hub to get where you want to go.  THAT is a great selling point.

As long as you are happy with limited choices. 

[SingleMalt12]

I would love to know what vested interest created a profile to post this.  Just me.  I hadn't planned on ever posting but sometimes you do what you hadn't planned.

Some?  what kind of a definition of a hub are you using here?  Certainly no significant hub. Do you REALLY think United or Delta or American are ever considering another hub?

BS.  I have tried to sell conference attendence for KC events - limited availability of air access is a very restrictive hurdle.  Business people don't like going places where they only have one or two time slots to choose from, layovers, and extra time away due to limited schedules.  B.S. to you.  I HAVE sold conferences WITH successes.  It is your contention that business people ONLY want to go to New York, Chicago, Orlando, L.A., etc.?  Please.  They go where the business is. Period.

Really?  How did things go over with that RNC application we put in?  Hotels aren't the only thing that make it impossible for us to host that kind of event - airport is right up there.   So we didn't get the RNC.  Give me a break.  Again, KC isn't NYC or Chicago or Dallas.  We aren't Sioux City either.

As long as you are happy with limited choices.  Limited choices or higher prices.  You pick.  By the way, correlation does not imply causality.  KC didn't get the RNC because someone else did.