Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 05-23-2016, 01:29 PM
 
13,721 posts, read 19,142,055 times
Reputation: 16970

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
I have said that a hundred times. If you are being dropped off or picked up at the curb or are parking in economy parking, there is almost no difference between between gate to curb times at other airports vs KCI. If there is a difference it's trivial, like 1-2 minutes.

But we have an expert that flys out of KCI once a year and apparently has to use two airports to get to their destination and that sure saves a lot of time! I can't remember the last time I didn't fly non-stop, but it was many many flights ago, probably when I lived in KC.

Then you have the other expert who I'm not sure has flown anywhere since the 1980's.

Yep, pretty good cross section of the flying public in KC that will dictate if they rebuild the KCI terminal or not.


Yes, there is a difference between KCI and other airports being dropped off and picked up, more than 1-2 minutes, usually because of traffic/congestion. And if we have one terminal at KCI, it will be more congested as well and will take longer.


You know I travel way more than once a year. But nice of you to try to minimize my contribution. I know you like to think you are the world traveler/resident expert on EVERYTHING. Other people fly besides you, me included.


The only reason I "had" to use two airports is that *I* didn't make the travel arrangements. I was traveling with other people and had to accommodate their schedules. There were direct flights available, just not at the specific time they chose to fly. Did have a direct flight out.


I always flight direct when I make the travel arrangements.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-23-2016, 03:11 PM
 
1,328 posts, read 1,445,468 times
Reputation: 690
Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne View Post
Well, it seemed pretty self-explanatory to me. It's obvious that going from what we have now, where you can walk off the plane, get your luggage and be in your car in 20 minutes, to a single terminal where it is going to take longer to get from plane to car, is not going to be as convenient. Thus, my statement "It just won't be." I didn't really think I needed to spell it out for you.
Oh, you meant "convenient for me, and people like me". OK, well that is self-explanatory, you're correct.

What's not obvious is whether the current terminal is convenient for people with layovers in Kansas City, or whose flights get delayed, or who can't afford premium parking. It's not even obvious that there's a convenience advantage for arrivals like there is for departures. If you have to go to the ticketing counter in one part of the circle, then the security checkpoint in another part of the circle, before settling in at your gate, which is a third part of the circle, you can easily walk just as far as you would in Indianapolis or Cincinnati.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2016, 04:24 PM
 
13,721 posts, read 19,142,055 times
Reputation: 16970
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell View Post
Oh, you meant "convenient for me, and people like me". OK, well that is self-explanatory, you're correct.

What's not obvious is whether the current terminal is convenient for people with layovers in Kansas City, or whose flights get delayed, or who can't afford premium parking. It's not even obvious that there's a convenience advantage for arrivals like there is for departures. If you have to go to the ticketing counter in one part of the circle, then the security checkpoint in another part of the circle, before settling in at your gate, which is a third part of the circle, you can easily walk just as far as you would in Indianapolis or Cincinnati.
I meant convenient for everyone. When you have a big, spread out airport, it is less convenient for everyone.


I think you would say that CTL or MIA are great compared to MCI because they are more modern and have more amenities. Well, that didn't make much difference to me when I was stranded. There was nothing I did at either airport that I couldn't have done at MCI. I ate some crappy, overpriced Pizza Hut pizza at one ($26 for two personal pan pizzas and two drinks). At the other I ate at a nicer restaurant while my flight was delayed, but honestly we just picked the closest one to our gate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2016, 06:40 PM
 
639 posts, read 757,458 times
Reputation: 453
What gets me about only KC residents being able to vote are those, i.e.: Jackson County residents, who don't fly and will vote no, the airport was obsolete almost from day one. If a new terminal depends on a vote, then all residents of the metro area, both states/counties, should be able to vote on it. It would pass then. The KC residents only voting on KCI's future, is kind of like the earnings tax, only KC residents can vote for it. How many of those KC voters pay no earnings tax, they don't earn income, live in rentals, but can vote and force me to pay an earnings tax to the city? Only allowing KC voters to vote on issues that affect all metro residents is wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2016, 07:53 AM
 
1,328 posts, read 1,445,468 times
Reputation: 690
OK, anti-one-terminal folks. You don't want the city to spend $1 billion on a new terminal. Will one of you please tell me how much money you'd support spending on maintaining the current terminals?

$1 billion on a new terminal would last a solid 10-20 years. Over that same time frame, estimates show that we'd have to spend almost that much just to maintain and update the old terminals. And then at the end of that time frame, we'd just have to tear them down anyway. Is that really what people want?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2016, 08:54 AM
 
2,233 posts, read 3,138,179 times
Reputation: 2066
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovekcmo View Post
What gets me about only KC residents being able to vote are those, i.e.: Jackson County residents, who don't fly and will vote no, the airport was obsolete almost from day one. If a new terminal depends on a vote, then all residents of the metro area, both states/counties, should be able to vote on it. It would pass then. The KC residents only voting on KCI's future, is kind of like the earnings tax, only KC residents can vote for it. How many of those KC voters pay no earnings tax, they don't earn income, live in rentals, but can vote and force me to pay an earnings tax to the city? Only allowing KC voters to vote on issues that affect all metro residents is wrong.
You seem to be bother by the central tenet of democracy. Get over it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2016, 12:11 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
11,108 posts, read 23,725,398 times
Reputation: 6427
Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell View Post
OK, anti-one-terminal folks. You don't want the city to spend $1 billion on a new terminal. Will one of you please tell me how much money you'd support spending on maintaining the current terminals?

$1 billion on a new terminal would last a solid 10-20 years. Over that same time frame, estimates show that we'd have to spend almost that much just to maintain and update the old terminals. And then at the end of that time frame, we'd just have to tear them down anyway. Is that really what people want?
A new terminal will last 50 plus years. A renovated terminal would last another 10-15 years and then the city would have to tear down that renovated terminal to build what will be a 2 billion dollar terminal in another ten years. Plus the city will have waited at least another 500 million renovating the terminals.

It's beyond comprehensible to me. Mind blown whenever I try to understand the logic of the way most KC people think.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2016, 06:41 PM
 
639 posts, read 757,458 times
Reputation: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by s.davis View Post
You seem to be bother by the central tenet of democracy. Get over it.
Ummm, maybe it's because we are a Constitutional Republic, and not a democracy????
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2016, 07:30 PM
 
Location: Peoria, AZ
975 posts, read 1,396,281 times
Reputation: 1076
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
A new terminal will last 50 plus years. A renovated terminal would last another 10-15 years and then the city would have to tear down that renovated terminal to build what will be a 2 billion dollar terminal in another ten years. Plus the city will have waited at least another 500 million renovating the terminals.

It's beyond comprehensible to me. Mind blown whenever I try to understand the logic of the way most KC people think.
It's shocking that people in KC don't realize that they have probably the worst terminal setup of any airport in the country and that they'd rather throw money at keeping it the worst terminal in the country rather than cost effectively build a modern terminal.

As I've posted before, airport renovations / expansions should NOT be up to a public vote. No other major city in the country requires that the public vote on airport renovations / expansions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-24-2016, 08:04 PM
 
639 posts, read 757,458 times
Reputation: 453
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ztonyg View Post
It's shocking that people in KC don't realize that they have probably the worst terminal setup of any airport in the country and that they'd rather throw money at keeping it the worst terminal in the country rather than cost effectively build a modern terminal.

As I've posted before, airport renovations / expansions should NOT be up to a public vote. No other major city in the country requires that the public vote on airport renovations / expansions.
I think the reason airport renovations have to go up to a vote is because there are some Kansas Citians are, intellectually mental midget giants, who think we are a democracy where everything should be up for public vote.
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 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

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 36, 37 - Top