U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Happy Easter!
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 10-31-2016, 12:14 PM
 
519 posts, read 467,812 times
Reputation: 325

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rwiksell View Post
This is not happening, sorry bud. No one is proposing it, and no one is willing to try and make it happen.

Try and focus.
I know this isn't going to happen, but I wish it would. It would teach KC MO a lesson if they lost the airport. Maybe the city should just give Terminal A to Southwest and tell them something like "here you go, Terminal A with 30 gates is yours to do as you please" and then just be done with this whole, should we build a new airport, yes, but KC residents (probably most of them don't use it) will vote no on it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-31-2016, 02:37 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,493,517 times
Reputation: 5409
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovekcmo View Post
I know this isn't going to happen, but I wish it would. It would teach KC MO a lesson if they lost the airport. Maybe the city should just give Terminal A to Southwest and tell them something like "here you go, Terminal A with 30 gates is yours to do as you please" and then just be done with this whole, should we build a new airport, yes, but KC residents (probably most of them don't use it) will vote no on it.
Southwest basically has terminal B to do what they want with. They want to freaking tear it down and start over. They don't want another crappy terminal like they have now. What's the point of that?

Most frequent voters (especially those that consistently vote down things such as this) are not frequent flyers. Most voters are clueless on the real issues of KCI and how it effects KC. KCI is used by a huge region stretching hundreds of miles in each direction so any single part of the metro will be a small user of the airport. KCI is also used by people across the country that never set foot outside the airport. KC people think the airport is theirs and have a wacky emotional love for the old dated airport, even if they rarely use it, and they are very stubborn about it never changing. Most cities are not so emotional over an airport. It's just basic infrastructure and they show up and use it when needed. That's it.

State law requires the airport authority to ask for permission by these clueless residents, most of which think they are professional aviation engineers and planners and have a better idea of what to do with KCI than the city, airlines and planners.

The same people that say a new terminal is too costly, will propose complete nonsense like making MKC the main airport again or building a totally new airport in some other part of town that will likely be further from Downtown than MCI is.

KC's airport needs to get out from under this requirement of having to ask voters for permission to spend their own money or nothing will ever get done with KCI and KC's economy will suffer.

And why would moving the airport to Kansas teach KCMO a lesson? This is not about the city. Most people at city hall want a new terminal. Most people that know the facts and economic issues want a new terminal. It's about having to ask frequent voters to approve a new terminal.

Kansas is a joke. The state is dead broke and the only economic news out of the state is bad news. Literately years and years of nothing but bad news now. Are they going to STAR bond all of Johnson County to build a new multi billion dollar airport that already exist in the metro? Even as dumb as Kansas is when it comes to economics, I don't think see that happening.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-31-2016, 03:05 PM
 
1,298 posts, read 983,095 times
Reputation: 658
Quote:
Originally Posted by lepoisson View Post
I actually hate the airport. But I think it would be somewhat okay if they'd build a new terminal and just keep the old one. So the plan sounds like a good one!
Are you saying you want them to add a terminal, but still keep using the old terminal(s) alongside it? That doesn't make any sense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2016, 05:51 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,493,517 times
Reputation: 5409
KCI ranked 79th best airport in the country!

The TravelPulse 100 Best US Airports in 2016 | TravelPulse
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-02-2016, 09:34 PM
 
Location: Peoria, AZ
941 posts, read 1,004,515 times
Reputation: 1015
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
Southwest basically has terminal B to do what they want with. They want to freaking tear it down and start over. They don't want another crappy terminal like they have now. What's the point of that?

Most frequent voters (especially those that consistently vote down things such as this) are not frequent flyers. Most voters are clueless on the real issues of KCI and how it effects KC. KCI is used by a huge region stretching hundreds of miles in each direction so any single part of the metro will be a small user of the airport. KCI is also used by people across the country that never set foot outside the airport. KC people think the airport is theirs and have a wacky emotional love for the old dated airport, even if they rarely use it, and they are very stubborn about it never changing. Most cities are not so emotional over an airport. It's just basic infrastructure and they show up and use it when needed. That's it.

State law requires the airport authority to ask for permission by these clueless residents, most of which think they are professional aviation engineers and planners and have a better idea of what to do with KCI than the city, airlines and planners.

The same people that say a new terminal is too costly, will propose complete nonsense like making MKC the main airport again or building a totally new airport in some other part of town that will likely be further from Downtown than MCI is.

KC's airport needs to get out from under this requirement of having to ask voters for permission to spend their own money or nothing will ever get done with KCI and KC's economy will suffer.

And why would moving the airport to Kansas teach KCMO a lesson? This is not about the city. Most people at city hall want a new terminal. Most people that know the facts and economic issues want a new terminal. It's about having to ask frequent voters to approve a new terminal.

Kansas is a joke. The state is dead broke and the only economic news out of the state is bad news. Literately years and years of nothing but bad news now. Are they going to STAR bond all of Johnson County to build a new multi billion dollar airport that already exist in the metro? Even as dumb as Kansas is when it comes to economics, I don't think see that happening.
The problem is that voters are even being asked this in the first place. Phoenix is spending billions of dollars on renovations to its airport terminals and not once has it come up for a vote by anyone other than the city council. Voters should get a voice on things like stadiums. However basic infrastructure like highways (to an extent) and airports should be left up to the experts. Whoever at the state house wanted this law really did everyone in the KCMO region a major disservice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2016, 11:18 AM
 
Location: Germantown, Philadelphia
3,658 posts, read 1,768,811 times
Reputation: 2198
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ztonyg View Post
The problem is that voters are even being asked this in the first place. Phoenix is spending billions of dollars on renovations to its airport terminals and not once has it come up for a vote by anyone other than the city council. Voters should get a voice on things like stadiums. However basic infrastructure like highways (to an extent) and airports should be left up to the experts. Whoever at the state house wanted this law really did everyone in the KCMO region a major disservice.
^This.

I know of no other city in the country that requires airport construction/renovation projects to be put to a vote of the electorate.

How did this law get passed in the first place, and why?

BTW, I had a chance to use MCI on my trip back in September. Maybe if we didn't have those post-9/11 security theater requirements, it would still be a halfway decent airport. But we do, and so it's not.

There was only one other airport in the country built with a drive-to-your-gate design. But the horseshoes at DFW are much deeper, so the security-theater stuff could be added without making everything cramped and inconvenient on the inside. Besides, Southwest uses Love Field there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2016, 04:29 PM
 
519 posts, read 467,812 times
Reputation: 325
My mother worked for TWA for 40 years and had a lot of behind the scenes insight into KCI as far as the why, how, etc. TWA had a lot of clot in KCI's development as it was/is, none of it panned out for TWA or the city. The airport as is is "hostage" by the residents of KC, the majority of those residents don't/hardly/rarley/never use it but have voting power for it's future. The only way KCI or KC in general will change is by the voice of only one influential congressman in DC. If he was to step up and say KCI needs a single terminal, protestors would be out in force demanding a new terminal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-09-2016, 02:01 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,493,517 times
Reputation: 5409
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovekcmo View Post
My mother worked for TWA for 40 years and had a lot of behind the scenes insight into KCI as far as the why, how, etc. TWA had a lot of clot in KCI's development as it was/is, none of it panned out for TWA or the city. The airport as is is "hostage" by the residents of KC, the majority of those residents don't/hardly/rarley/never use it but have voting power for it's future. The only way KCI or KC in general will change is by the voice of only one influential congressman in DC. If he was to step up and say KCI needs a single terminal, protestors would be out in force demanding a new terminal.
TWA actually wanted a new terminal back in the 1970's. Even though TWA played a big role in the design of KCI, they actually realized that KCI was obsolete the day it opened. They wanted the city to rebuild the terminals to better deal with new security issues (and this was before 9-11).

The city refused, TWA moved to St Louis and the airport continues to be a huge problem for airlines to make it a major hub 40 years later.

Lots of airlines have tried to make KCI a hub. KCI is the perfect airport for a hub with its central location, huge geographic market and plenty of runway capacity.

So despite the flaws of the terminals, many airiness have still tried and all have failed. Southwest will be the latest fail at KCI. They wanted to make KCI a major focus city (much like a hub) and because of the airport, have completely pulled back on that plan. Kansas City residents could easily have three times the flight options today with Southwest alone. Had they done something with KCI 10-15 years ago, KCI would have much of the Southwest traffic that has gone to St Louis and Denver (which have MUCH HIGHER landing fees). BWI is a huge Southwest focus city and the amount of flights is incredible.

With a modern terminal, KC would not only have more domestic cross country options, but would likely have at least one true international flight to Europe and much of the commuter to hub flights it has lost to St Louis, Omaha, Denver, DFW etc. People in Columbia, Springfield, Wichita etc no longer have commuter flights to KCI, they go to other cities.

KCI has become about as relative to the national flight system as OKC or Omaha, only those smaller cities have much nicer terminals. KCI serves the bare minimum demand from local metro residents and gets nothing else. It's just enough to get by, but KC people could have so many more options, but they might have to walk for an extra 2 minutes with a new terminal and that's scary...

Last edited by kcmo; 12-09-2016 at 02:18 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2016, 08:43 AM
 
Location: St. Louis City
447 posts, read 765,429 times
Reputation: 198
I have kept up on the debate from across the state. While I do think Kansas City would be better served with a new terminal, you also have to keep in mind the number of hubs are reducing in our country as airlines consolidate. Many of the airports in the country are losing flights (St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Memphis for example) as the airlines consolidate operations. Denver, Chicago, Dallas and Atlanta will continue to increase as they are hubs for multiple airlines.


St. Louis was definitely impacted by TWA and American. We have capacity in our gates and runways, however I am not hopeful of us ever getting a replacement hub. It is good to see Southwest increase our flights, but even as Southwest increases flights we are not as large as their operations at Love Field (Dallas), Midway in Chicago, Denver or Baltimore. The market is very competitive, and it seems KCI (an perhaps Missouri in general) does have an unfair disadvantage.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-12-2016, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,493,517 times
Reputation: 5409
Quote:
Originally Posted by STLCityMike View Post
I have kept up on the debate from across the state. While I do think Kansas City would be better served with a new terminal, you also have to keep in mind the number of hubs are reducing in our country as airlines consolidate. Many of the airports in the country are losing flights (St. Louis, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Memphis for example) as the airlines consolidate operations. Denver, Chicago, Dallas and Atlanta will continue to increase as they are hubs for multiple airlines.


St. Louis was definitely impacted by TWA and American. We have capacity in our gates and runways, however I am not hopeful of us ever getting a replacement hub. It is good to see Southwest increase our flights, but even as Southwest increases flights we are not as large as their operations at Love Field (Dallas), Midway in Chicago, Denver or Baltimore. The market is very competitive, and it seems KCI (an perhaps Missouri in general) does have an unfair disadvantage.
It's not about making it a hub, it's about making it a functioning modern airport.

I was just saying that KC would probably be a hub today had the city built a new terminal 20 years ago due to location, runway capacity etc. KC has many advantages over St Louis which is why TWA originally wanted to be in KC, but settled on St Louis mainly due to the airport terminal (which was nearly brand new at the time). KC will probably never be a hub now. Like you said, there are far fewer hubs now and Denver, DFW, ORD, MSP have the middle of the country well covered now. But KC could easily be a major "focus city" for Southwest. The only thing that has stopped that from happening is the terminal. However, by the time KC fixes the airport, that ship will likely have sailed too. Southwest has already basically shelved the idea as they are now putting emphasis on Denver and St Louis instead and that won't be easy to undo.
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
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