I was unable to attend the committee and Council meetings today due to job obligations but did receive a couple of emails from people in the committee meeting and was able to catch a few minutes of the council online. Here are some initial thoughts…
The email from the committee meeting said:
Russ Johnson shut down comments and questions while Patrick Tuohey spoke, not letting the gentleman ask his questions. It was clear they were not interested in questions or feedback. There were great comments prior.
This was verified later by a story in the Business Journal that said,
The session also included a question-and-answer question, in which Kansas City residents said the new plan was unnecessary and unwanted, and would put the city into debt. Johnson said those claims are untrue and told the dissenters that the session was not a “public debate forum.”
KMBC-TV’s Michael Mahoney tweeted:
KC City Councilman Russ Johnson ducks camera crew and refuses interview on new KCI airport plan
The part of the council meeting I saw included the last part of the presentation followed by council comments. I was struck by the fact that more than one council member publicly refuted the claims made in the presentation that KCI was a bad experience for travelers. Of course, rather than suggest that the Aviation Department reconsider the proposal, they simply advised them not try to sell the new terminal to the public by saying something that the public knows is completely untrue.
Just prior to the council meeting, the Aviation Department posted the presentation documents online. Among them was a Q&A that, if not quickly assembled this week, was at least tweaked because it references this site which did not even exist this time a week ago.
I’ve not had a chance to really dive in but here it is, with some initial comments in italics.
KCI New Single Terminal
Q&A
April 2013
Q. Why does Kansas City need a new terminal?
A. Going forward, the three terminals at KCI do not make sense financially or
environmentally and cannot accommodate needed modernization for passenger
convenience, airline expansion, baggage and security requirements. A do nothing
approach could result in an EPA violation and a finding of non-compliance.
Be specific. HOW are these measurable issues? As for the EPA, no one is saying do nothing. Surely if we can contain oil spills on oceans, someone can figure out how to deal with the de-icing issue without blowing up an airport.
Q. What happened to the site originally proposed in the Master Plan?
A. We thoroughly explored the financial viability of the initial site, and the needed road and
infrastructure improvements would have made it too costly to build. The new proposed
location at the existing Terminal A provides a financially and environmentally responsible
alternative that is in the best interest of passenger convenience and meets all of the
objectives outlined in the 2008 Master Plan.
The mere fact that the initial site was “thoroughly explored” should disqualify anyone involved with the decision to explore it. No infrastructure existed but they were surprised by the cost to build it? And still, there is no mention that to have built it there would have made obsolete the brand new rental car facility, all of the city-owned economy parking lots as well as all of the hotels, satellite parking and other businesses that would have found themselves on the “wrong side” of the runway.
Q. Why now?
A. The current terminal design isn’t economically viable in the long term and it won’t meet
security and environmental standards. The planning process taking place right now will
allow us to design a new terminal that meets all these requirements, and better meets
the needs of business and leisure travelers alike.
It’s Kansas City’s turn. Kansas City travelers have contributed for decades – and will
continue to contribute – to the construction of new terminals and airport infrastructure
across the country through federal ticket taxes and travel fees called Passenger Facility
Charges (PFCs) added to every ticket purchase. Now, it is our turn to build a terminal
that meets the needs of our citizen travelers and those visiting Kansas City for business
or pleasure.
We’ve seen exciting changes in Kansas City in the past few years; Kansas City has
experienced a downtown renaissance and the opening of world-class attractions. Now
it’s time for our airport to be part of our economic growth. However, between March 2007
and March 2013, St. Louis added 160 weekly flights with Southwest Airlines while MCI
lost 39 flights with Southwest Airlines. A single modern terminal facility will better
aggregate demand to help support future air service growth.
Again, no specifics, just emotional greed-playing. The reference to Southwest in St. Louis is interesting but perhaps irrelevant. How much was due to other airlines leaving the market and leaving service holes? Southwest does not send airplanes to pretty airports (St. Louis is proof of that) they send them where there are people who want to fly somewhere. If there was a shift in flights, it was because more people in St. Louis wanted to fly where Southwest goes. Let’s remember that the St. Louis market is still larger than KC even though within the city limits, they are smaller.
Q. Why are you proposing this when Kansas Citians clearly don’t want it?
A. We understand that Kansas Citians have an emotional connection to KCI and want to
maintain the convenience and efficiency they currently enjoy. We do too. The new single
terminal concept will preserve everything Kansas City travelers love about KCI, including
improved curb-side drop-off and pick-up, convenience, comfort and safety. Kansas City
travelers will still be able to get in and out of KCI as quickly as they do today, but in a
single terminal with state-of-the-art security, baggage and amenities.We know that we need to have a conversation with Kansas Citians about the challenges
of our current airport and build support for the new concept. We will be reaching out to
residents for their input and involvement and engaging them throughout the planning
process.
In addition, it is important to note that there are just as many businesses and individuals
who support creating a modern airport that supports the growth and innovation for which
our city is becoming known, while maintaining the ease and convenience of KCI that
many travelers love.
How condescending. Someone on the council actually said that there had been a similar “emotional connection” to Kemper Arena that got in the way of Sprint Center. Huh??? There was no such thing. My only “emotional connection” to KCI is an emotional connection to facts, logic, convenience, time-saving and not spending over a billion dollars on something that will be a step backwards in those areas if we don’t have to. Show me some proof that “Kansas City travelers will still be able to get in and out of KCI as quickly as they do today”. Today I can go from my office near downtown to a seat on the plane in 25 minutes. Coming back, I can go from my seat on the plane to a waiting car out front in less than two minutes. I’m from Missouri. Show Me. Prove it or stop making bogus claims.
Q. What is your reaction to the new SaveKCI web site?
A. We understand that Kansas Citians have an emotional connection to KCI and want to
maintain the convenience and efficiency they currently enjoy. We do too. The new single
terminal concept will preserve everything Kansas City travelers love about KCI, including
improved curb-side drop-off and pick-up, convenience, comfort and safety. Kansas City
travelers will still be able to get in and out of KCI as quickly as they do today, but in a
single terminal with state-of-the-art security, baggage and amenities.
We know that we need to have a conversation with Kansas Citians on the challenges of
our current airport and build support for the new concept. We will be reaching out to
residents for their input and involvement throughout the planning process.
My reaction is a chuckle. This site did not even exist a week ago and it is question 5 on the Q&A. Were you that surprised that “we the people” might actually care? And again, quit with the “emotional connection.” Perhaps we should look at the emotional connection the Council and Aviation Department have with the idea of a bright-shiny new toy that WE have to pay for. Are they “emotionally connected” to the idea of a big new plaque with all of their names on it?
Read the rest of the Q&A and other info here and feel free to comment below. Like I noted above, I have a job and I’m wasting all of the time I save by travelling through the most efficient airport in the U.S. on trying to save it.
Why is this an either or situation. Why can’t we have our cake and eat it too. By closing one terminal (C) and adding a second level to A and B coupled with a 10 story parking structure in the center of A and B will solve everyone’s problem.
The parking structure eliminates the need for shuttles, Take an elevator from your car parked in a snow free, covered parking spot to the 2nd level, across the skybridge to a centrally located single security area or the ticket counters and down to the completely secured first level where you will have plenty of room for lots of restaurants, sports bars, shops, bathrooms and waiting lounges,
The 2nd level can also have a ramp to drive up to drop off passengers and each terminal can have one centrally located luggage area. In the rare event that a bag has to be transferred to the other terminal, it can be shuttled over. Most airports shuttle their bags all over the field to their multitude of terminals, (LAX, MAD, DFW, ORD) Do you see DFW or ORD losing airlines. The parking structures already in place get utilized (expanded) and the tunnels to the current terminals can still be used. If you put the luggage carousels on the extreme ends of the terminals in an unsecured area on the 1st level, you can still have curbside pickup on that 1st level and passenger drop off would be on the 2nd level, less congestion.
Airlines choose any city as a hub based on two factors, cost and revenues. We can’t change how many people live in the metro but we can sure affect how much the airlines pay to do business in KC. The single terminal plan has the airlines paying to help finance it, eliminate that fee and we become much more attractive.
Lastly, recollecting the de-icing fluid on the less than 1/2 of 1 % of the flights that leave KC can be done in a separate de-icing area. You don’t need to spend $1.2 billion dollars to allow de-icing at every gate.
Don’t forget, we spent $400 million doing renovations to KCI over the last 15 years. Lets not waste those renovations with a baby and bathwater situation. Can you say Kemper arena.
The City staff who champion this effort and citizens clamoring for a new $1.2B airport sound like someone who after getting stuck in one of our last snow storms goes out and buys a new 4×4 or AWD vehicle so they won’t get stuck again. Yeah buying something to have 1 day out of 365 days. Similar to wanting the comforts of home for that rare layover.
I’ve had as much as 7 hour layovers and there is nothing including a restaurant meal that made it feel less of a hassle.
Jay the intention of a new terminal is to serve many purposes, not just a cozy layover spot. Have you ever talked to someone that had a layover at KC? What was their experience like?
I had a five hour layover/wait/mechanical on a flight out of KCI three years ago so I guess that would count. It was annoying but having all the creature comforts of home would have still made it a five hour wait.
I can’t imagine any other airport I would have been in that would have made it any better including Sky Harbor in Phoenix I fly to a lot now. I wait there in the US Air Club and five hours would still boring and a hassle even with TV, free food, drinks, magazines and some real good chairs.
I am a frequent traveler and have used KCI for years. I do appreciate the history and nostalgia for the airport. I have been through all major airports and, compared to most, KCI really needs updating. Although security is currently decentralized which does seem to be a plus, the rest of the airport is grossly underutilized due to the antiquated design. I can’t think of one airport where I have to wait for an inefficient shuttle bus service to get to another terminal. The volume of flights doesn’t justify the current layout and overhead expense. I hate to see a part of Kansas City history go but the city must be allowed to be forward thinking or the city will continue to lose business and will struggle to shed its cowtown image and perception. People in KC may disagree but I have heard many complaints and criticisms from travelers outside of KC and very few positive comments.
Stuart – completely agree.
Explain the routing you took that you got off of one flight at one terminal and had to transfer to another airline at another terminal. Seems like you need to learn how to book flights.
In my 25 years of business travel I have NEVER once had to transfer airlines in Kansas City or for that matter any other airport (except when flying internationally)
Mike – are you from KC? Makes sense that you wouldn’t transfer if your trip originated here. Granted there aren’t many times that you would have to switch terminals, but flights booked through Orbitz can sometimes have weird routing combinations. Besides, with all of the recent mergers the current layout has bitten me a few times having to shuttle between A and C for United.
I was at the meeting and clearly the media is looking to stir up the drama for a good story.
I was at the meeting yesterday. The media has done a nice job of misconstruing what actually happened.
This seems pretty black and white to me. (Well, actually color.) Link to: Michael Mahoney chases Russ Johnson with a question.
Yes I witnessed that as well, felt like the paparazzi hounding a celebrity to be quite honest. The media also interviewed both of the gentleman who spoke out against the airport and that is what ended up on the news and in the newspaper. Mahoney was trying to have CM Johnson elaborate on his speech that he used to wrap up the meeting, which I am sure was un-scripted but filled with his passion towards a new terminal.
As I mentioned, the media has continued to dig up all of the naysayers and use that as ammunition to create drama.
It is quite sad actually, we are trying to take a step forward as a progressive city and yet people are angry that they will have to walk 70 more steps to their gates in the new terminal and “all of that federal money being wasted” (which will end up with another airport anyway if we don’t receive any)
I support the new design for KCI. The existing airport is outdated and not user friendly. I fly almost every week although I am slowing down. I hear complaints everytime I come through the airport… tired of waiting for busses in the parking lot at 6:30 in the morning. I have missed flights because the bus did not show up. When I land and walk outside the first thing I smell is cigarettes. Coming off the plane on a jet way I smell deep friers cooking. Security reminds me of carnival barkers yelling what to do next. I could go on and on. Please let’s vote for a new cutting edge airport that makes KC a show place for the entire area. Thank you
KC needs a lot of things, but a new Airport shouldn’t be one of them. KCI is a great airport for business travel, but when has KC done anything that makes sense. They renovated Kemper Arena, then decided they needed the Sprint Center and Power and Light District, while still owing money on Kemper Arena, (and subsidizing the P&L district to the tune of 10-12 million per year) the sewer system has needed repair for decades, neighborhoods are going to hell, the city won’t even try to be competitive with Kansas and retain businesses, but they need a new Airport?!………….please
Dave – the airport operates financially independently from the city. Any and all money made within the airport has to stay with the airport. The issues above are city issues and regardless if we build a new airport or not will have no bearing on the issues you described above.
“Tired of waiting for buses.” Why would your wait be any less with one terminal? You think they’re going to keep the same amount of buses that will now go to one? Since 6:30 AM is not a popular time, you’re still going to sit and wait. And if you’re missing flights because of a bus, you’re cutting it too close.
I’ve flown into and out of that airport hundreds to thousands of times and it’s one of the most convenient in the nation.
None of your complaints really have anything to do with the layout of the airport. The parking buses are not part of the design; And the smells can happen whatever the design. Most food courts are inside the security zone. We also fly at least once a week and love KCI the way it is configured. It is the most flyer-friendly for getting in and out; and through security.
Its 41 years old, incredibly expensive to maintain and staff, horribly energy inefficient, its customers (the airlines) hate it and it loses more flights every year.
But hey, lets keep it around because we don’t like walking.
Their argument tonight on the news is that it is mainly to save on security costs because they require 500 agents.
Even if they can lay off 4/5 of the agents (which they won’t), the math does not add up.
1.2 billion for a new airport vs. saved salary for 400 laid off agents over 50 years…. do the math, it still costs more.
According to Glassdoor.com the average tsa agent makes $34925 a year. 400 employees comes out to just under $14 million saved a year.
It will take over 90 years of that level of saving to just break even, which would never happen as we would clearly have had to rebuild the terminal again once or possibly twice by then.
Even if we take tertiary costs into account beyond salary saved, there is no way it will amount to 1.2 billion when combined with salary saved over 50 years.
This is a bad deal that is unnecessary at this time.
Jeff – that seems like an unfair comparison. I don’t believe the airport is suggesting that by only reducing security count they are going to save money. It involves other variables as well such as overall maintenance, HVAC, electrical,etc.