Tomorrow, the latest KCI terminal proposal will be presented to the Kansas City Council’s Transportation & Infrastructure Committee at 8:45 a.m. and then to the full council at 1 p.m. On the docket already is a resolution to adopt and implement this new plan. Yes, the plan that has not even been presented to the committee is already on the docket to be approved by the full council. Is this another one of those infamous pieces of legislation that “we have to pass it to see what’s in it”?
There seems to be a lot of railroading here for a proposal about an airport.
But here is the best part. There is a “fact sheet” available about this resolution and the reasons and considerations for passage. It essentially says that because this new study says that the best place for a new terminal is different than where we planned, we should adopt it. Oh, and it says it will be a “catalyst for economic development” and is “good for the children.” There are no other details or reasons given for passage.
I’m sorry but this is crazy. We have the most convenient airport in the country. No other airport at a major city can you grab your carry on bag from the overhead bin upon landing, walk down the jet way and be outside hailing a shuttle or jumping in a family member’s car in 3 minutes or less. Ok sometimes its 5 minutes if you use the bathroom first but you get the point.
This project is a WANT…not a NEED. We do not NEED a new airport. Our city leadership can find another way to spend billions of dollars of tax payer money to build a momument for themselves.
Business Guy – many really tiny airports that I have flown into (Sioux Falls and Lafayette) offer this type of convenience. I guess if we want to be more like those airports we are in good shape.
Like I have mentioned in numerous posts, the city isn’t going to build the next Denver International Airport. There will not be trains, people movers, etc. They recognize the convenience that today’s airport offers and will do their best to emulate the success while offering more.
I have frequently heard that Tampa has the highest rated airport so I checked it out. It appears the reason it is so well liked is because the parking garage is built above the main terminal. Locals drive to the airport park and take an elevator to the security area instead of a shuttle.
We can do the same thing. By expanding the terminal parking lots up about 10 more levels and adding a second level to each terminal building to be used for ticketing and security, you could park, take an elevator to the 2nd level, a short skybridge to one centrally located security checkpoint in each terminal and your there in 5 minutes. Straight down an escalator to an entirely TSA secure gate level with plenty of room for shops, restaurants, bars and waiting lounges without ever boarding a shuttle.
With the $1 billion dollars you would save you could cut the rent to the airlines which would encourage much more service.
Tampa still requires a shuttle out to each gate area which we would not. We would easily become the highest ranked airport in the country.
KCI has the same layout as DFW. Instead of tearing down DFW they have upgraded their infrastructure and have trains going between their 5 terminals. If the city council thinks that going to 1 terminal will bring more airlines, that belief is not what is happening in places like Detroit and Dallas. City Council should take a lesson from those cities.
I have no complaints about KCI (other than the TSA), why are they doing this to a wonderful airport???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
NO! NO!NO! on new airport..i agree with previous comments. How can we get the word out! use the billion to make changes to the present system. Maybe the people who run the terminals should be the ones to come up with money SAVING ideas, not money SPENDING!
I just attended the meeting this morning. A lot of the media reports discussing payment options are misconceived. The funding is fully financed by the airport itself and people who use the airport (passengers, airlines, rental cars, etc). If the airport elects to issue a bond, they would ask the general public to approve that channel of financing but at the end of the day has no impact to the city’s financial base (a la Power and Light).
I understand the passion towards keeping the airport due to its convenience. Based on the conceptual renderings I saw today, the planners made every effort to minimize walking distance, etc. In fact, in some instances you would be closer to your gate than you are today (drop off to gate steps).
Overall, this city needs to take a progressive step forward. Our airport is over 40 years old and does not meet the needs of today’s traveler and security standards. The airport is the first impression to our out of town guests, drives the local economy and air service development and options. If we choose to stay status quo, then we will continue to lose air service opportunities to other closer communities.
Removing emotion entirely – airlines and passengers pay fees for using an airport. They are landing fees (landing/parking/terminal rent/common use areas/etc) for airlines and passenger facility fees for passengers. If you build a new terminal with new ramps, etc — do you think landings fees will go up or down? Airlines are businesses. They operate based on demand and cost. This is why there are some airports that receive a subsidy to provide service (there is just enough demand to warrant service, but not enough use to be profitable when considering costs – therefore they receive a subsidy) I’m not suggesting or even implying that KCI receives a subsidy for service. I am stating that if fees for airlines go up, KCI will be less attractive to them because profits are already thin in medium sized markets. Caveat emptor. You may get a new terminal and actually lose service – all the while seeing your ticket costs increase.
I doubt that will happen, the airport will have to gain approval from the airlines on this new terminal and any impact to costs before they move forward. They would be foolish not to.
People who fly are taxpayers. So it is in effect a tax increase on people who use airline travel for pleasure or business. Politicians apparently have too much free time on their hands if they have wandered onto this “critical issue”. When the sewers are clear, curbs aren’t crumbling, the Police have a handle on crime and we have 500,000,000.00 or so laying around in reserves then let’s look for an opportunity for a legacy project for a Mayor.
Consultants reports are generally useless. They tell the customer what they want to hear. More wasting of money at City Hall. Maybe Sly would want to try something new. Have a town meeting and see what the residents think.
I have been through many many airports and KCI is the best, minimal walking, convenient services and parking, efficient security even on the heaviest travel days during the holidays… why oh why does anyone want to change the setup!!!!
Someone somewhere has a huge stake, dare I say financial, in the effort…
I left for Chicago on Easter Sunday. Parked in long term lot ($7 per day), was at the American terminal in less than 10 minutes, and through security in less than five minutes. The plane was full so it wasn’t just a slow day.
Returned today (Wednesday) from O’Hare. Took me 25 minutes to get through security check point and another 15 minutes to walk to my gate. I am in my 60s, with a carryon bag and I was tired by the time I got there.
And the city wants to spend $1.2 billion to make life worse for 99% of Kansas City travelers? I will actively campaign against everyone on the Council who votes for this crazy proposal.
I agree with your comments and position of working against anyone that votes for this idea.
I have traveled in and out of KC for over 25 years to many different cities and believe Kansas City’s airport to be the most convenient.
The $1.2B should be spent on a rail connection from the airport to downtown KC/Union Station and the Plaza.