We need a new airport!!!

[KCFan]

The City needs to quantify the savings from financing. They should also quantify the likely fee increase per ticket.

They already did. It was $2.10 one way. Airline pricing is more complex than that, but if you wanted to look at it simply, it would be $4.20 more in fees that are part of each round trip ticket.

[normalthings]

Is the city required to put the airport to a vote, or is it just a promise? If not, is the city allowed to sell land to a developer(Burns and Mac) and allow them to build a terminal without a vote?

[grovester]

The City needs to quantify the savings from financing. They should also quantify the likely fee increase per ticket.

They already did. It was $2.10 one way. Airline pricing is more complex than that, but if you wanted to look at it simply, it would be $4.20 more in fees that are part of each round trip ticket.

I knew they did, I meant they should make that and the finance savings a big part of their PR push.

[beautyfromashes]

I'm picturing a single terminal about the size and look of Austin. Would that be an accurate comparison?

[flyingember]

I'm picturing a single terminal about the size and look of Austin. Would that be an accurate comparison?

For size,

http://www.flykci.com/media/1439/cityco ... -final.pdf
page 47

750k sq feet planned with 35 gates
21000 sq ft per gate

Austin is 660k after their expansion from 500k for 19 to 25 gates
26k per gate in both cases.

So our airport would have 80% the space per gate as Austin.

[beautyfromashes]

Ok, thanks. So, more square footage but less room per gate. Will there be more than one security check and multiple exits from the gate? Austin has only one which usually makes for a huge funnel line. I think that would be a major change for those used to flying out of KC. More space, charging stations, food options would be a huge improvement.

[aknowledgeableperson]

^^ I guess that I don't buy that the 'time/money' value for just a few months until a fall election would be worth the considerable effort and risk B&M would have to undergo. The only reason I would see is that this way would bypass the bid process for them and guarantee them the business. But, if there is so much profit available in building a new airport, the city should find a way to capture it. It's my understanding that all airport funds currently just stay with the airport. Build the new airport with the profits going into the city budget.

If the project was put out to bid and B&M were to win the bid to design there would be a normal profit margin in that. And if B&M were to act as a general contractor for the build there would be a normal profit margin in that. Would B&M make a profit on this? And if so how much? Probably would to some degree and likely a normal amount. At the same time though B&M may be proposing to do this at a lower than normal profit. And since it would be doing this while assuming the liability for project overruns and the City would have no risk in the project that sounds like a good trade-off.
Anyway, in the past some firms have done business with the City on a cost basis. JE Dunn was the original contractor for Kemper Arena. After the roof failed JE Dunn offered to rebuild on a cost only basis to minimize the cost to the City. Yes, there was insurance coverage but insurance didn't cover the whole rebuild cost because of the improvements the City made to the roof and drainage structure.
And yes all funds generated by the airport stay within the Aviation Department's fund for operational purposes. It is an enterprise fund and since the city receives federal funds for the airport I believe that is a requirement.

[flyingember]

Also think not in direct monetary terms. They may not be the cheapest in the end but may get KC the best long-term return.

Every potential customer for a big engineering project that flies into KC steps off gets a huge advertisement of the quality of work they provide. That's invaluable to a company.

[pash]

.

[beautyfromashes]

I've gone back and forth on this, as perhaps evidenced by my questions. But, I think the B&M private option would be best. While I think the borrowing costs will be somewhat higher, as pash mentions above, I think the construction would happen much more quickly since there would be more incentive for that to happen. I think private build would also eliminate some of the beauracracy in place with public construction.

[aknowledgeableperson]

"I think private build would also eliminate some of the beauracracy in place with public construction."

If any federal funds are involved the same bureaucracy will be in place,


"Private financing, which in this case seems to mean some combination of traditional bank loans and corporate bonds issued by some of the companies involved, would almost certainly cost substantially more than issuing airport revenue bonds in the same amount."

Cost more, yes. But substantially, that depends on what is substantial. Compared to the overall cost of the project, the additional cost over the life of the debt, and the cost per ticket for that period of time I don't think it will make that much different in the cost of a ticket. Of course that potential increase in cost could be offset by the operational cost savings of going to a single terminal with a single security check in sit. Plus the possible increase in concession revenues with all restaurants/stores available to all airport users instead of being limited to those customers that happen to be in either individual terminal.

[flyingember]

The concession revenue isn't expected to go up much, it's premium parking abailability that would be the big gain

[Highlander]

The details I've seen suggest this plan is pure politics, concocted so that its proponents can bandy about the phrase "privately financed" to bamboozle ignorant voters—and so that Burns & Mac can land a big no-bid contract.

Private financing, which in this case seems to mean some combination of traditional bank loans and corporate bonds issued by some of the companies involved, would almost certainly cost substantially more than issuing airport revenue bonds in the same amount. Bond markets offer lower interest rates on airport revenue bonds than on almost any other class of bonds because (a) airport bonds qualify for the federal tax exemption on capital gains earned by holding municipal bonds, so investors effectively get an added return net of taxes, and because (b) major commercial airports historically have very predicable revenues, and are subject to federal rules that make it very difficult for them to get themselves into financial trouble.

Whether construction is funded by issuing airport bonds or by "private financing," every dollar spent will ultimately come out of the pockets of flyers through user fees baked into ticket prices and taxes on airport retail and services. The only difference at the end of the day is that private financing will almost certainly come with significantly higher interest rates than airport bonds, raising the bottom-line price of building a new terminal well beyond what it would be if it were done the same way it's been done for every other major airport in the country.

So is this plan just another ruse in a long history of dissimulation and outright lies by a city leadership that keeps trying to sell us on a new terminal by any means other than by arguing the merits of the idea? That's how it looks to me.

The voters are already bamboozled by their own ignorance regarding the entire issue. One look at the ill informed comments on this story in the Star reveal the following:

1. People think the airport is financed by taxes
2. People still fear a new terminal that would instantly convert KCI into an LAX or O'Hare
3. People think KCI has cornered the market on convenience
4. People think the way to solve KCI's issues are to link the terminals by people movers

I don't know if private financing is the solution or not. If it gets the job done, then it's the answer. But if Kansas Citians still get to vote on the issue, then what is the point of private financing? The only advantage would be to alleviate the fear of many that the airport is somehow being financed and operated off their tax money - that's more of an educational problem that new terminal advocates have failed to successfully address. I'm sure that in addition to being able to circumvent a bidding process, Burns and McDonald (and may other KC businesses that have to attract talent from outside the area to be successful) are probably not too excited about bringing in engineering recruits to an airport that smacks of "welcome to Texarkana" rather than a thriving major metropolitan area.

[beautyfromashes]

I'm honestly one of those who has said the current airport is fine and just needed some upgrading to modern conveniences. It's mostly out of my sheer terror of tearing down an old building for something 'bigger and better'. But, I've come to the conclusion now that building new is the best option. I don't believe it will be more convenient for those who live here and just want to get their bags and get home. But, I hope that it will increase flight options, make waiting for a plane more enjoyable and (this is the main thing) be a good representation of the city for those coming in from out of town. I imagine there are lots of people starting to come to the same conclusion as I have. Some of you did years ago. The big problem that I see is the lack of information on what the experience of a new airport would be. Our leaders have done a terrible job selling it. I think I am mostly logical and want the best for the city. I probably would have come to my current conclusion years ago if it was sold properly showing what we are getting. Do we even have more than the one picture of what we would get?

[pash]

.

[Highlander]

The voters are already bamboozled by their own ignorance regarding the entire issue.

So the solution is more half-truths and deliberately misleading arguments from the mayor, council, airports department, and supporters of building a new terminal?

I've made dozens of posts in this thread, and almost all of them are about the sleazy politics of the last decade's worth of efforts to get this thing built. I'd really like at some point instead to have a discussion about the merits of building a new terminal or not. But that's a conversation that our city leadership still hasn't bothered to start.

I'm honestly one of those who has said the current airport is fine and just needed some upgrading to modern conveniences. ... But, I've come to the conclusion now that building new is the best option. ... The big problem that I see is the lack of information on what the experience of a new airport would be. Our leaders have done a terrible job selling it. ...

I could have written basically the same thing. But if I were asked to vote on anything having to do with a new terminal today, I would vote no in a heartbeat, for the sole reason that I will always oppose the agenda of politicians and civic leaders whose instincts are to get things done by dissembling and back-room dealing.

If you want me to vote for a new terminal, tell me teuthfully why I should do that. I'll listen.

[Highlander]

The voters are already bamboozled by their own ignorance regarding the entire issue.

So the solution is more half-truths and deliberately misleading arguments from the mayor, council, airports department, and supporters of building a new terminal?

I've made dozens of posts in this thread, and almost all of them are about the sleazy politics of the last decade's worth of efforts to get this thing built. I'd really like at some point instead to have a discussion about the merits of building a new terminal or not. But that's a conversation that our city leadership still hasn't bothered to start.

There has been plenty of discussion but it usually breaks down to something like this: Because of its uncompromising design in the age of security, KCI is uncomfortable and lacks amenities to which a certain number of people reply - you whine too much and don't need that crap.

I really could care less if some folks are Spartan travelers that arrive at the gate at the last minute and have no need for amenities. That is not the vast majority of flying public. I've long reconciled myself that I am going to spend time and money in airports given the amount that I travel on business and for pleasure. And it might as well be as pleasant of an experience as possible. I'm not willing to join a debate about what I need and don't need when travelling because that standard has already been put into place and KCI is nowhere close to meeting it.

If KCI was really all that convenient, than those arguing for doing nothing would have a point. But it isn't. It just isn't. I've been to nearly every major airport in the country and I've rarely had issues getting in and out most airports and those that do present challenges are among the largest in the country. And even in the larger cities in the US, KCI offers only time savings of a few minutes.

I don't find the politics sleazy. I think the politicians in the city are frustrated with a populace that embraces an entire host of myths about KCI. I applaud them for looking for alternatives. We are stuck with an obsolete petition system that has forced a a vote of people that don't necessarily fly or even use the airport, have nothing financially at stake, and do not care to educate themselves regarding the issues at hand. It's essentially mob rule and I find that every bit as sleazy than using our representatives for what they elected to do - to gather information and make decisions. If you don't like the decisions, don't vote for them.

[grovester]

The voters are already bamboozled by their own ignorance regarding the entire issue.

So the solution is more half-truths and deliberately misleading arguments from the mayor, council, airports department, and supporters of building a new terminal?

I've made dozens of posts in this thread, and almost all of them are about the sleazy politics of the last decade's worth of efforts to get this thing built. I'd really like at some point instead to have a discussion about the merits of building a new terminal or not. But that's a conversation that our city leadership still hasn't bothered to start.

I'm honestly one of those who has said the current airport is fine and just needed some upgrading to modern conveniences. ... But, I've come to the conclusion now that building new is the best option. ... The big problem that I see is the lack of information on what the experience of a new airport would be. Our leaders have done a terrible job selling it. ...

I could have written basically the same thing. But if I were asked to vote on anything having to do with a new terminal today, I would vote no in a heartbeat, for the sole reason that I will always oppose the agenda of politicians and civic leaders whose instincts are to get things done by dissembling and back-room dealing.

If you want me to vote for a new terminal, tell me teuthfully why I should do that. I'll listen.

They tried the logical, factual route and got nowhere. That's why we're here 5 years later. You are not a good barometer for the average KC voter and you should be grateful for that.

[flyingember]

It's funny someone would vote no because of backroom dealings. Might as well not vote because nearly every thing on the ballot comes from that process.

That's how politics has worked since the 1770s. Representative democracies are extremely messy.

[pash]

.