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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-28-2013, 09:30 AM
 
Location: Middle America
35,818 posts, read 39,375,570 times
Reputation: 48613

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by RDM66 View Post
I flew through LaGuardia once about two years ago. It is an old, ugly airport that makes KCI looks like the Taj Mahal.

Surprisingly, the security lines through LaGuardia moved quickly. I was freaking out when I had to fly home to Kansas City. I kept thinking, "It's New York, so I'll be in a security line for about 10 hours." I showed up nearly 4 hours early for my flight, but they moved everyone through security in about 30 minutes. I had a lot of time to kill in that dump.
Preach on.

LaGuardia is appalling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-28-2013, 10:02 AM
 
12,607 posts, read 14,617,198 times
Reputation: 14105
And yet I don't see anyone clamoring to rebuild/renew LaGuardia. Why is this being pushed in Kansas City? Building a new terminal is not going to increase air traffic in and out of MCI. Seems like most people like it just the way it is. I have even said people say here the MCI is a laughingstock across the country. Somehow I doubt that, especially when there are airports like LaGuardia. I haven't been to LAX, but I have heard it's not all that great either. So why is MCI being picked on when it's just fine the way it is?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-29-2013, 09:35 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,504,291 times
Reputation: 5415
Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne View Post
Why does anyone need to eat an airport anyway, unless you have a long layover? If you are cutting it close and don't want to get to the airport until just before your flight leaves, why not eat at home before you leave for the airport? Eat an apple or a banana if nothing else, or carry on a snack that will tide you over till you get to your destination. I don't understand all the emphasis on needing a lot of restaurants at the airport.

Bare bones/easy in/easy out works just fine for me. I get to the airport, park across the street, walk over, go through security, wait maybe 30 minutes and get on my flight. MUCH better than Phoenix Sky Harbor, where I had to take the rental car back, catch a bus to the terminal, then wait in a very long serpentined line for security. Also better than Denver, Las Vegas, Dallas, and Spokane, all of which I have flown to and from in the last year.

kcmo, is it really fair to the other people in line at other airports when you arrive late and get to jump ahead in the queue because your flight is leaving soon? I don't think so. I think you should get there in plenty of time and wait your turn like everyone else. If it were circumstances beyond your control that would be different, but just because you don't want to be at the airport for very long - well, neither does anyone else.
The only difference between your experience with KCI and those other places is you didn't rent a car at KCI. Renting a car at any airport changes everything and trust me, renting a car at KCI is annoying at best and you need to have a lot of buffer time added into your trip to account for rental car return, yet another reason to get all that out of the way, get through security and then relax at a nice terminal. You don't get it. Does KC want a "bus stop" with regional air service or something a little better. Obviously the bus stop to get to real flights at DFW and DEN is what people want.

I only get to "KCI" last minute (30-45 minutes prior to flight). Most other airports I get to about 45-60 minutes prior to flight, which allows for time for anything I may need. When I travel for business I'm not coming from Grandma's house and can eat before I go to the airport. I typically run run run and then run to the airport sometimes with a rental, sometime via taxi or transit. The airport is often the first place I have a chance to grab a bite to eat all day and trust me when I say that KCI does not leave a good last impression for business travelers leaving KC. The place screams hillbilly flyover country and acts like an airport serving a city like Columbia MO.

So if KC builds a new terminal, it will be just like laguardia or atl or ohara or lax. got it. But wow, KC would have some nice direct flights to anyplace in the country and world! I would take that trade. Wrong though. KCI would have five minute waits at security with a new terminal, just like most other modern mid sized airports. You might have to walk a little further. Big deal. Give me basic airport services. I'm good with walking 500 feet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-01-2013, 11:45 AM
 
Location: Florida and New England
1,101 posts, read 1,305,361 times
Reputation: 1358
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
So if KC builds a new terminal, it will be just like laguardia or atl or ohara or lax. got it. But wow, KC would have some nice direct flights to anyplace in the country and world! I would take that trade. Wrong though. KCI would have five minute waits at security with a new terminal, just like most other modern mid sized airports. You might have to walk a little further. Big deal. Give me basic airport services. I'm good with walking 500 feet.
I don't mean to quibble, but it is exactly the unknown, uncontrollable TSA/ security situation that makes me prefer only small modifications to the Kansas City airport (or no change at all).

A big box terminal will almost certainly mean a single security checkpoint, with a slow, quarter-mile walk to distant gates. TSA will reduce its staffing to the minimum, meaning 20, 30, or even 45 minute security wait times (compared to the 5 minute average I experience at MCI now).

Yes, the secure waiting areas are small, but I've always found a seat. I simply read a few e-mails before boarding. If anything, it keeps the operations to a highly-efficient "just-in-time" mode at Kansas City.

The _reason_ that the big box airports have so many amenities is exactly because passengers have to give themselves enormous lead times -- because of the unknowns of security wait times and the long distances to gates. With MCI, you can drive up 45 minutes before your flight and know you'll make it.

Plus, you can leave an inbound aircraft and be on I-29 within five minutes.

The other argument for replacing MCI with a big box is that airlines will decide to "hub" at Kansas City. Suddenly, the big box means an airline will "hub" here because there will be more departures space and no terminal changes for their customers. No way. The airlines are in a decades-long consolidation mode, and they are closing hubs, not creating hubs. Please see: CVG (Cincinnati) and MEM (Memphis). Kansas City, for better or for worse, is an O & D airport -- originating and destination passengers only.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 11:50 AM
 
12,607 posts, read 14,617,198 times
Reputation: 14105
Great points, westender!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 12:36 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,504,291 times
Reputation: 5415
Quote:
Originally Posted by westender View Post
I don't mean to quibble, but it is exactly the unknown, uncontrollable TSA/ security situation that makes me prefer only small modifications to the Kansas City airport (or no change at all).

A big box terminal will almost certainly mean a single security checkpoint, with a slow, quarter-mile walk to distant gates. TSA will reduce its staffing to the minimum, meaning 20, 30, or even 45 minute security wait times (compared to the 5 minute average I experience at MCI now).

Yes, the secure waiting areas are small, but I've always found a seat. I simply read a few e-mails before boarding. If anything, it keeps the operations to a highly-efficient "just-in-time" mode at Kansas City.

The _reason_ that the big box airports have so many amenities is exactly because passengers have to give themselves enormous lead times -- because of the unknowns of security wait times and the long distances to gates. With MCI, you can drive up 45 minutes before your flight and know you'll make it.

Plus, you can leave an inbound aircraft and be on I-29 within five minutes.

The other argument for replacing MCI with a big box is that airlines will decide to "hub" at Kansas City. Suddenly, the big box means an airline will "hub" here because there will be more departures space and no terminal changes for their customers. No way. The airlines are in a decades-long consolidation mode, and they are closing hubs, not creating hubs. Please see: CVG (Cincinnati) and MEM (Memphis). Kansas City, for better or for worse, is an O & D airport -- originating and destination passengers only.
I can say the same things about BWI, the airport I now use the most, only BWI has basic services and far more direct flights.

Not only is KC an O & D airport (more connecting flights actually improves O & D traffic BTW), but KCI is turning into a commuter airport and getting worse every year. I used to have twice as many direct flights to choose from when flying to KC.

Not only are there less non-stop flights to KC, they are twice as much as they were just two years ago. KC has become about as expensive and annoying to get to as Oklahoma City.

Again, what's the point of all this "convenience" that people rave about with KCI when you have to go to Chicago, Denver and DFW to get anywhere? I believe KC has lost like 15 nonstop destinations and has had major reductions is those it still has. Southwest alone has nearly stopped expanding in KCI, if not reduced flights even while 60% of the airport is a freaking ghost town. During the same time, they added dozens of flights to DEN and STL and here at BWI as they expand.

KCI is not working and it's going to ultimately hurt the city's economy and ability to compete if metro KC doesn't do enough of that already (economic self annihilation).

Last edited by kcmo; 07-02-2013 at 12:47 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-02-2013, 03:52 PM
 
Location: Florida and New England
1,101 posts, read 1,305,361 times
Reputation: 1358
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
I can say the same things about BWI, the airport I now use the most, only BWI has basic services and far more direct flights.

Not only is KC an O & D airport (more connecting flights actually improves O & D traffic BTW), but KCI is turning into a commuter airport and getting worse every year. I used to have twice as many direct flights to choose from when flying to KC.

Not only are there less non-stop flights to KC, they are twice as much as they were just two years ago. KC has become about as expensive and annoying to get to as Oklahoma City.

Again, what's the point of all this "convenience" that people rave about with KCI when you have to go to Chicago, Denver and DFW to get anywhere? I believe KC has lost like 15 nonstop destinations and has had major reductions is those it still has. Southwest alone has nearly stopped expanding in KCI, if not reduced flights even while 60% of the airport is a freaking ghost town. During the same time, they added dozens of flights to DEN and STL and here at BWI as they expand.
The reduction of nonstop flights and the current terminal configuration are not causally related. Airlines make business judgments on adding and removing flights from quantitative analyses. They'd fly out of a tarpaper shack airport if the demand was there. MCI will get some additional flights by the way next year after the AA/ US merger completes, namely MIA. Kansas City also recently got new nonstop service on Alaska to SEA.

In any case, the airport remodel or demolition should not be implemented in order to encourage more or newer flights. The airlines don't use that as part of their business decision. They base flights on traffic and yield. Same goes for pricing -- domestic air travel is experiencing an increase in price because of two significant market trends -- (1) the US economy is improving and (2) capacity/ inventory is being tightly controlled.

If the citizens of KC want a new airport because it's fancier, or because TSA is forcing the issue in order to reduce staff counts, or because the current airport has lots of wasted space, then they will vote for it. However, I suspect that because of local resistance and a hefty price tag, MCI will remain the way it is for many years. The DFW airside model which I mentioned upthread would also be a possible middle-ground resolution.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-09-2013, 11:02 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,504,291 times
Reputation: 5415
Flew out of KCI VERY early on Monday morning and it was the biggest freaking disaster I have seen in a long time and I had longer waits there than any airport I can remember in many years, including flying out of BWI the day before thanksgiving last year, which I thought was bad.

Nothing more comical than going to an airport that is 90% vacant and standing in 40-60 minute lines, that don't even have enough space for queues (the lines just go into the narrow hallways).

So you have lines blocking departing and arriving passengers etc. Once we got our bags checked (and had to drag them back through the line and put them in a pile for the TSA) and finally inside the gates (after another long line to go through security), the gates were all full, and smelled like a NYC subway station. I can not even image having to change planes in KC.

Yet I'm sure everybody wondering around in their typical Kansas City airport apparel (ku and kstate college gear) were all thinking "I sure hope they keep this place, because LaGuardia sucks"

KCI is the biggest joke of an airport. There are a million reasons why KCI sucks. It would be a nice place if it were a bus stop. Although some bus stops and commuter rail stops have better basic amenities at least out here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 02:43 PM
 
Location: Denver, Colorado U.S.A.
14,174 posts, read 22,505,000 times
Reputation: 10428
Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne View Post
Why does anyone need to eat an airport anyway, unless you have a long layover? If you are cutting it close and don't want to get to the airport until just before your flight leaves, why not eat at home before you leave for the airport? Eat an apple or a banana if nothing else, or carry on a snack that will tide you over till you get to your destination. I don't understand all the emphasis on needing a lot of restaurants at the airport.

Bare bones/easy in/easy out works just fine for me. I get to the airport, park across the street, walk over, go through security, wait maybe 30 minutes and get on my flight. MUCH better than Phoenix Sky Harbor, where I had to take the rental car back, catch a bus to the terminal, then wait in a very long serpentined line for security. Also better than Denver, Las Vegas, Dallas, and Spokane, all of which I have flown to and from in the last year.

kcmo, is it really fair to the other people in line at other airports when you arrive late and get to jump ahead in the queue because your flight is leaving soon? I don't think so. I think you should get there in plenty of time and wait your turn like everyone else. If it were circumstances beyond your control that would be different, but just because you don't want to be at the airport for very long - well, neither does anyone else.
I typically eat at the airport before getting on flights. Much more now since they don't serve food on flights anymore. Or I like to stop for a beer and people watch. KCI is great to fly in to, horrible to fly out. I just feel trapped once I'm in the gate. And the food options are an expensive joke.

They did a great job with the remodel of KCI, but it still just doesn't function well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-11-2013, 02:48 PM
 
Location: Denver, Colorado U.S.A.
14,174 posts, read 22,505,000 times
Reputation: 10428
Quote:
Originally Posted by westender View Post
I don't mean to quibble, but it is exactly the unknown, uncontrollable TSA/ security situation that makes me prefer only small modifications to the Kansas City airport (or no change at all).

A big box terminal will almost certainly mean a single security checkpoint, with a slow, quarter-mile walk to distant gates. TSA will reduce its staffing to the minimum, meaning 20, 30, or even 45 minute security wait times (compared to the 5 minute average I experience at MCI now).

Yes, the secure waiting areas are small, but I've always found a seat. I simply read a few e-mails before boarding. If anything, it keeps the operations to a highly-efficient "just-in-time" mode at Kansas City.

The _reason_ that the big box airports have so many amenities is exactly because passengers have to give themselves enormous lead times -- because of the unknowns of security wait times and the long distances to gates. With MCI, you can drive up 45 minutes before your flight and know you'll make it.

Plus, you can leave an inbound aircraft and be on I-29 within five minutes.

The other argument for replacing MCI with a big box is that airlines will decide to "hub" at Kansas City. Suddenly, the big box means an airline will "hub" here because there will be more departures space and no terminal changes for their customers. No way. The airlines are in a decades-long consolidation mode, and they are closing hubs, not creating hubs. Please see: CVG (Cincinnati) and MEM (Memphis). Kansas City, for better or for worse, is an O & D airport -- originating and destination passengers only.
And it has no chance to ever be a hub as it is today. I love Denver's airport. And we have direct flights to Tokyo, London, Frankfurt, and every major city in North America. Makes it quicker to get places.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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