Here is a section from today’s KC Star story on the show yesterday.
Despite the public’s affection and emotional attachment to KCI, the airport is actually a “poor passenger experience,” with insufficient restrooms and minimal concessions in the gate areas, said Mark Perryman, a Landrum & Brown consultant who worked on the study.
Perryman said the airport’s baggage security systems and mechanical systems are hopelessly outdated and cannot be updated in the current, 40-year-old airport. And he said new security requirements coming in the near future will be hard to accommodate with KCI’s current design.
While the existing KCI currently has 30 gates, it was built for 90. The new terminal would be built for 37 gates initially, but the design would be flexible and the facility could be bumped out over time to 60 gates.
Perryman said a new airport could be just as convenient as the current facility, with gates and parking still close, and it doesn’t have to be a huge, intimidating behemoth. It would have different levels for departing and arriving passengers to minimize the congestion that can sometimes occur now.
“You’re not Atlanta or Chicago,” he said, adding that KCI could look to Sacramento, Indianapolis or Austin as cities with newer airports that work well.
I have used Sacramento even after the remodel. NO WAY is it as convenient as KCI
Sure a consultant is going to say Yes you need to change > otherwise they would need to admit you wasted your money on them!
An airport is a machine. That’s all. A machine that moves passengers to and from planes. It’s like a car. And if you have an outdated, gas-guzzling car, don’t you trade it in for a new, efficient, lower-cost one? Yes. So what is all this moaning about KCI? Only in Kansas City would a major, reasonable and necessary upgrade be argued against! While cities like Portland (the same metro size as KC) put in light rail and turn their airport into an international hub, a few hold-back types in KC do everything they can to stop progress. KCI is outdated, and the design restricts the kinds of amenities modern travelers demand – i.e. shopping malls on site (as in Portland). This sentimental attachment is wrong-headed. The competition for flights and passengers is intense out there. Wake up guys! Time to trade in your old machine.
This website is a wonderful idea, at last a chance to hear from the people and maybe result in some objective thinking on the issue.
In all of the news reports, I have not seen one good reason to rebuild KCI. There is no cost benefit analysis that truly accounts for the passenger experience. Or anything else. For example, how much would be saved by letting go a few security agents, compared to the proposed cost? I called a KC council member’s staff person about this and she said that the council member does not know much, but is just following the “expert’s” recommendation.
Like many other unfortunate decisions of governments, school boards, etc. they are making decisions without doing any real thinking. This whole ptroject smacks of corruption.
I still don’t understand how the bond ratings have anything to do with building a new terminal? If anything the PFCs would go up with a new airport, expanded flights, more concessions, reduced maintenance cost, etc. I also don’t see anywhere in the PR that building a new airport would be risky and unnecessary.
It basically means the airport is doing fine, it’s affordable, a stable investment, and there is no need to spend 1.2 Billion for a new airport.
Published: Friday, Apr. 05, 2013 / Updated: Friday, Apr. 05, 2013 01:01 PM
Fitch Affirms Kansas City, MO’s Airport Passenger Facility Revs; Outlook Stable
CHICAGO —
Fitch Ratings has affirmed the rating for Kansas City, Missouri’s approximately $93.8 million passenger facility charge (PFC) revenue bonds at ‘A’. The Rating Outlook is Stable.
KEY RATING DRIVERS
HIGH O&D BASE WITH SOME CONCENTRATION: Kansas City International Airport (KCI) enjoys a 95% origination and destination (O&D) enplanement base without a competitive airport within 170-plus miles. After leveling out in fiscal 2011, enplanements rebounded 5.1% in fiscal 2012 to approximately 5.2 million passengers, however fiscal year-to-date traffic (10 months through February) is down 8.6% over the same period a year prior signaling passenger volatility. Additionally, moderate carrier concentration is present as Southwest comprises approximately 41% of enplaned passengers.
ROBUST CAPITAL STRUCTURE: The PFC bonds benefit from a flat debt service profile of approximately $10 million per year and a sufficiency test that provides additional protection should PFC collection prove inadequate. Further, a cash-funded debt service reserve provides bondholders further security.
May I ask with the fiscally sound investment we have with our current facility, we need a new airport why?
Not sure how this factors in to a new terminal.
Kansas City International has consistently ranked in the top-five airports in the North
America Airport Satisfaction Study by J. D. Power and Associates. In February 2010, the airport was the highest-rated medium-sized airport receiving five stars in all categories. In February 2008, U.S. News & World Report ranked the airport the “third least miserable airport” in the U.S., based on the 47 busiest airports in the country.
Any other questions?
John – like all JD Power awards, you have to pay them to publish your name in conjunction with theirs. Might I add that both of those awards are 3 and 5 years old respectively.
Also, there is no reason we can’t win these awards with a new terminal.
Why all the pressure to keep the public out of the process Brian? Are you working for Russ Johnson?
John – no I am not working for Russ Johnson.
I am not sure how any of my messages were conceived as removing this decision from the public. I am all about public forums, etc. I am trying to point out the facts.
The airport doesn’t have a centralized baggage system that would allow carriers to quickly change baggage from one airline to another.
Each airline has its own separate baggage system and its own separate baggage screening. There also isn’t a lot of space underneath the airport to sort and check baggage.
Most airports have one centralized baggage screening system that allows airlines to quickly screen and transfer baggage between aircraft. However, KCI has six separate systems: one for each airline.
The only way for baggage handlers to get luggage from one aircraft from another is to do it by hand. That takes time costing airlines in efficiency and money.”
I’m guessing the airlines didn’t participate in the JD Powers survey…
Read more: http://www.kshb.com/dpp/news/local_news/investigations/hidden-problems-causing-headaches-for-airlines-at-kci#ixzz2PcNH1q1V
Not many airlines even have interline baggage agreements anymore- most airlines don’t want the liability.
So if you fly two airlines whether you are in ATLANTA, CHICAGO, or KC you have to claim your bag and re-check it.
Source:
Delta:
http://milepoint.com/forums/threads/the-fl-lounge-part-4-iv.37923/page-2539#post-1721170
US Airways/AA:
http://boardingarea.com/blogs/viewfromthewing/2012/07/22/us-airways-to-stop-interlining-baggage-on-separate-tickets/
United/COA:
Will transfer to any airline but Southwest
And Southwest:
http://www.southwest.com/assets/pdfs/about-southwest/terms-and-conditions/travel-agency-certificate.pdf
So please explain to me why the baggage system matters?
This whole plan is just a complete embarrassment. There is no reason for a new airport. Think if how much renovation $1.2 BILLION could cover over 25 or 50 years. This is just more spending that the City doesn’t need. Sly just wants his name on the new building, plain and simple.
Patrick – the aviation department pays for the airport and airport improvements, it is not dependent on the city funds.
The point is how do you best utilize the dollars to make KCI a better airport without losing all the infrastructure already in place. The funds will get spent no matter what, so add a second level to terminals A and B and use it for ticketing and security. Use the remaining money for mass transit to downtown or extra parking levels at the terminals. The lower levels could then add all the amenities the airport lacks. I’m sure a baggage system could be worked out with the existing infrastructure.
Tim – your plan would add more ‘steps’ that we value so preciously. If you add two levels, you are separating the passenger experience and adding complexity to the navigation.
Hey Brian thanks for your response, it makes me feel like someone is listening.Tell me more about adding “steps”. My plan allows you to rebuild terminal A then move B tenants to A while B gets done and then move C to B. Whats the hurry. its already an enormously popular airport without the upgrades.
If you want to attract more airline traffic from the current carriers, make it cheaper to do business at KCI. That means don’t charge them to upgrade our air[port as you already have planned
” the aviation department pays for the airport and airport improvements”?
who’s zooming who here?
The point was to look at the new terminal and Sacramento for comparison purposes. It did not state to compare the overall operations (two terminals)
Their point was to say that KC is more like Sacramento than a major market and to compare our needs/solutions to theirs rather than to a Dallas or Chicago or Atlanta. I agree.
And I did. They spent a billion dollars and ended up with a solution that is not as good as the current KCI from a passenger perspective. And yes, I have been there.
And I did. They spent a billion dollars and ended up with a solution that is not as good as the current KCI from a passenger perspective. And yes, I have been there.
What is this based on? Is there a survey comparing the KCI experience to the new Sacramento terminal?
KCI is an absolute joke and embarrassment to Kansas City. How many other airports have you been to? Have you ever tried to park in the center lot of Terminal B anytime between 10 am Monday and Thursday afternoon? Chances are it is completely full, and you’ll be parking at another terminal and either walking or waiting for a Red Bus. And how about the amenities once you are past security? I have sincere pity for anyone who actually has a layover in Kansas City. Bottom line, KCI was designed in an era before today’s security. It is an inefficient, poorly operated, DINOSAUR!
KCI is not a joke at all, nor is it an embarrassment. I have parked in Terminal B many times during the time you mentioned and have never had a problem. There are amenities once you pass security. They may not be full restaurants but there are meals, snacks and drinks. There are restrooms too. If you want a full restaurant, they are available before security. And speaking of security, I actually like it at KCI. It is a parallel system. There are many security points making the wait at each one shorter. (Just as parallel processors in computers are faster.) So, it is actually more efficient than other designs.
If a single security point is absolutely needed, in my humble opinion, a curved building that is in the basic shape and location of the “circle parking” (which perhaps could be moved or made to be underground) and connected to the ends of each terminal would solve all the issues. A single security point could then be added to this building. Perhaps a small rail system such as in Detroit could speed passengers to the appropriate terminal after security.
I have traveled a lot to many places in the world, and have always found KCI to be very convenient. Of course it could use a few updates in places. I don’t see why new scanners cannot be added to the design I mentioned above.
KCI is neither inefficient nor a Dinosaur. There is a notion that if something is older that makes it bad. Nothing can be further from the truth. Shoes are a very old idea, but they are still being used – because they make sense. KCI’s design, with a little updating, can be one of the best airports in the world.
It is a dinosaur. Airports are machines, that’s all. And KCI is an old gas-guzzling monster from the 70’s. The design mitigates against the increasingly necessary amenities that travelers require – i.e. shopping malls (as in Portland), and good restaurants. It also mitigates against new airlines and flights. Only in KC would this necessary and hopeful upgrade be argued against! They did down light rail, and now they’re trying to stop this. While cities like Portland, Denver, etc. forge ahead into the future, KC prefers whatever is familiar. I love KC and I’m always impressed by the improvements going on in the city – and the desire to preserve the past – but this is only an airport, a machine. It needs to change.
The ‘experts’ told them; haven’t these hack politicians learned over the years that an ‘ex’ is a has been, and a ‘pert’ (spurt) is a drip under pressure. KCI is an iconic experience. I’ve flown through Boston, Chicago, Midway, Dallas, San Francisco; KCI has always stood out, it’s passenger friendly.
“Point still goes to KCI”
I like how you just gloss over the “airport’s baggage security systems and mechanical systems are hopelessly outdated and cannot be updated in the current, 40-year-old airport. And he said new security requirements coming in the near future will be hard to accommodate with KCI’s current design.” points, and then move on to your perception of convenience.
Its 41 years old now, how much longer do we keep it around? 10, 15 20 years?
Sorry, I did not mean to “gloss over”. I wanted to get the mention of the consultant and did not want to delete the part of the story between it and the relevant point, lest someone accuse me of taking something out of context.
As for those other items, I would include those in points made earlier. Be specific. How are they outdated and how does the airport design make it impossible to update? There are older airports all over the country that seem to get bags out just fine.
As with all of this, we’re asked to accept the word of people who have demonstrated that they are not thinking things through. We are simply asking for more substance and proof.
I would imagine the aviation department will start sharing how much it costs to maintain and repair baggage claims. The ring design is what makes expansion less ideal from a baggage claim perspective.
It would appear constructing round buildings isn’t such a bad idea. http://goo.gl/J4gXm
Way to go KCI for being 40 years in front of the curve! Oh… and ahead of the most innovative company on the planet.
So you are saying that it should be called iKCI?
Apple is also $2billion over budget.
As for KCI, I have lived here all my life and as much as I like the ring design that has to be extremely hard to make straight baggage belts go curved. Lots of money is being wasted on tons of extra people it takes to have several security check points and several baggage belts/claims, etc.
So we’re supposed to throw away an entire airport and all it’s buildings and facilities just because they need new security systems and mechanical systems?
In what bizarre universe does that make sense?
Why do you not just replace those security and mechanical systems?
And please don’t tell me because it’s cheaper this way because it’s not. It can’t be. That’s insane. It defies all logic and sense.