U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > Kansas City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 11-22-2011, 10:29 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
7,645 posts, read 5,638,332 times
Reputation: 7496

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MoNative34 View Post
It's one of those "time will tell" type of things. The aviation director has wanted a new terminal for a long time as well as most on the city council. In fact, I remember when a proposed plan was put out maybe 5 or 6 years ago that went nowhere.

I don't want to say "It'll never happen", but it'll take more than what's going on at the moment to think this is something that will be finished in the time frame they're talking about.

Does KCI have problems? Yes. Every single airport out there, even new ones, have their own issues.

Is the answer to build a new terminal? No. A vast majority of people like the airport.
Agreed.

I wonder how many of the oh so hip and "with it" who love to bash KCI have ever considered that it just might be today's "security" measures that are, in fact, the problem?

But no, let's embrace "security" that is unconstitutional and unthinkable in the former United States of America and reject an airport that was the best possible design for the convenience of local travelers just a few short years ago.

In today's world, madness has become the rule....on so many fronts. I am fortunate to have lived for a good many years when it was the exception.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
That's the way it works there. They seem to really like those 1965-1975 years.
And anyone who lived those years old enough to be aware knows exactly why.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-22-2011, 10:33 AM
 
Location: Tower Grove East, St. Louis, MO
12,064 posts, read 27,207,945 times
Reputation: 3739
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
Agreed.

I wonder how many of the oh so hip and "with it" who love to bash KCI have ever considered that it just might be today's "security" measures that are, in fact, the problem?

But no, let's embrace "security" that is unconstitutional and unthinkable in the former United States of America and reject an airport that was the best possible design for the convenience of local travelers just a few short years ago.

In today's world, madness has become the rule....on so many fronts. I am fortunate to have lived for a good many years when it was the exception.

And anyone who lived those years old enough to be aware knows exactly why.
Whether you like the new security measures or not, they're unlikely to go anywhere, so what's your point?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 10:34 AM
 
Location: On the road
2,642 posts, read 1,826,889 times
Reputation: 2866
I like KCI, actually. I mean, yeah, it's a bit run down, but it's easy to get in and out of, easy to get through security. The people are friendly, and traffic is soft.
I am sure that when they finally come up with a new terminal, it will ruin all that.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 11:09 AM
 
Location: St. Louis City
447 posts, read 765,429 times
Reputation: 198
New Airlines are not being created, so I don't see new hubs being born. Southwest does not operate hubs, rather focus cities, and there are several of them. Denver being one of the newest. I doubt that any new airport is going to be built to accommodate 25 million passengers or even for a hub. Rather, and operable airport capable of expansion IF needed. The market is telling me that we are going to continue to see streamlined operations, and the big airports in the mid continent will continue to be Chicago, Minneapolis, Denver, Dallas and Houston. I wish it were different. I do hope that KC gets their new terminal, though
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-22-2011, 01:10 PM
 
Location: Denver, Colorado U.S.A.
14,174 posts, read 22,496,291 times
Reputation: 10428
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
Agreed.

I wonder how many of the oh so hip and "with it" who love to bash KCI have ever considered that it just might be today's "security" measures that are, in fact, the problem?

But no, let's embrace "security" that is unconstitutional and unthinkable in the former United States of America and reject an airport that was the best possible design for the convenience of local travelers just a few short years ago.

In today's world, madness has become the rule....on so many fronts. I am fortunate to have lived for a good many years when it was the exception.

And anyone who lived those years old enough to be aware knows exactly why.
What, you're comfortable getting on a plane where your "constitutional rights" weren't "violated" but any terrorist could have walked on with a bomb or knives? Thanks, but no thanks. It's not 1955 anymore.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 06:47 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
7,645 posts, read 5,638,332 times
Reputation: 7496
Quote:
Originally Posted by aragx6 View Post
Whether you like the new security measures or not, they're unlikely to go anywhere, so what's your point?
The sole reason that they're unlikely to go anywhere is that the nation of sheep we are today shrugs its shoulders and says they're unlikely to go anywhere and that (below) it's not 1955 anymore. The collective resignation to the inevitable loss of our once great beacon of hope for the future of freedom for mankind is disturbing beyond words....especially to those of us who grew up in a different country and give a damn. It is pathetic that today so many care so little about giving up so much.

Quote:
Originally Posted by denverian View Post
What, you're comfortable getting on a plane where your "constitutional rights" weren't "violated" but any terrorist could have walked on with a bomb or knives? Thanks, but no thanks. It's not 1955 anymore.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 07:13 AM
 
Location: Tower Grove East, St. Louis, MO
12,064 posts, read 27,207,945 times
Reputation: 3739
Welp, then have fun driving.

As for me, I'll have a nice lady feel me up for all of six seconds so that I can have some confidence that some ass won't try to divebomb my plane into the White House.

And frankly, as a woman, I have far more freedom than I would have "back in the good ol' days"
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 08:46 AM
 
Location: Denver, Colorado U.S.A.
14,174 posts, read 22,496,291 times
Reputation: 10428
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
The sole reason that they're unlikely to go anywhere is that the nation of sheep we are today shrugs its shoulders and says they're unlikely to go anywhere and that (below) it's not 1955 anymore. The collective resignation to the inevitable loss of our once great beacon of hope for the future of freedom for mankind is disturbing beyond words....especially to those of us who grew up in a different country and give a damn. It is pathetic that today so many care so little about giving up so much.
I don't understand you. What freedom are you giving up? You want to carry guns and knives on a plane? Or you feel that going through security violates your freedom?

This country has lots of problems, but going through a security line at airports is pretty far down the list! And ask any minority old enough to remember how great their freedom was back in the '50s...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 09:54 AM
 
1,830 posts, read 3,109,783 times
Reputation: 532
I can understand both sides to airport security. The approach taken though is essentially guilty until proven innocent. Body scanners are too much methinks. Those should only be used if there is specific suspicion of intent. I do think we did 'let the terrorists win' when starting up the body scanners. The complacency of the masses for this false sense of security is a little disturbing and it won't be surprising if we start soon seeing body scanners for events and even schools.

I'm in Tampa at the moment and was able to select the line without the body scanners. They exist to pander to fear, not provide system wide security. You can go to a small airport that doesn't have body scanners and connect to a larger airport past the security gates. It's just not very effective.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-23-2011, 10:08 AM
 
Location: Tower Grove East, St. Louis, MO
12,064 posts, read 27,207,945 times
Reputation: 3739
^Body scanners actually aren't even that useful when they have them. See this article: TSA Source: Armed Agent Slips Past DFW Body Scanner | NBC Dallas-Fort Worth

That's not a symptom of "fear mongering" it's a problem with government lobbying. Ex-Homeland Security chief head said to abuse public trust by touting body scanners

There Crown Vic and I might just agree, but the idea that we should have looser restrictions, to me, is nonsense. It's just a matter of how we spend valuable resources.
Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


 
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Missouri > Kansas City
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top