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 11-14-2017, 10:42 PM
 
Location: Germantown, Philadelphia
3,658 posts, read 1,768,811 times
Reputation: 2200

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by CrownVic95 View Post
Indeed, it makes no sense given the debate's history.

I've withheld further comment until I begin to understand what really happened here.
Since I wasn't there, I don't have a bead on it either, but I do know from interviews I had with the City Council member who chaired Council's Aviation Committee in connection with a column I wrote on the issue for 435 Magazine that one of the things that the proponents were going to stress was that the new terminal wouldn't cost city taxpayers a dime.

It was my impression that one of the sources of resistance to the new terminal was the belief that city taxpayers would be on the hook for an expensive new project that they couldn't see a compelling reason for. I recall reading reports in The Kansas City Star that stressed this aspect of the project.

If I were being asked to shell out for something I wasn't sure was necessary, I would have voted against it too. But if I'd not pay a cent unless I flew into or out of the airport, and everyone else who actually used it said this was needed (and I've used it, and agree it was needed), then the equation changes: Why not let them have what they say they need, especially if they're going to pay for it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-14-2017, 10:49 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,493,517 times
Reputation: 5409
While KC has basically jacked around with MCI for the last 30 years, Denver just passed a 1.5 Billion 39 gate expansion with a simple vote by the Denver city council with little fanfare and only a few questions. KCI has been obsolete since is opened, but nearly dysfunctional since 9-11. MCI could and should be a major airport with its central location, large local market and plenty of room to build up a large modern airport, but I honestly think KC may have blown it for the most part and missed the opportunity.

I'm so happy that KCMO voters passed the terminal, but I still wonder how much ground the city lost by dragging this out so long. Even if few flights are ever added, I still think this was needed though and KC will be a much better city with and nice airport terminal.

Hopefully the airport is aggressive in luring flights to MCI from surrounding airports like DEN and STL once it opens. Especially Southwest which expanded rapidly in those cities while doing very little at MCI even though Southwest originally planned for more flights at MCI than either Denver or St Louis.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/n...y-council.html
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-14-2017, 10:56 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,493,517 times
Reputation: 5409
Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl View Post
Since I wasn't there, I don't have a bead on it either, but I do know from interviews I had with the City Council member who chaired Council's Aviation Committee in connection with a column I wrote on the issue for 435 Magazine that one of the things that the proponents were going to stress was that the new terminal wouldn't cost city taxpayers a dime.

It was my impression that one of the sources of resistance to the new terminal was the belief that city taxpayers would be on the hook for an expensive new project that they couldn't see a compelling reason for. I recall reading reports in The Kansas City Star that stressed this aspect of the project.

If I were being asked to shell out for something I wasn't sure was necessary, I would have voted against it too. But if I'd not pay a cent unless I flew into or out of the airport, and everyone else who actually used it said this was needed (and I've used it, and agree it was needed), then the equation changes: Why not let them have what they say they need, especially if they're going to pay for it?
Yea, the city basically did a good job educating voters most of which no know nothing about flying or the economics of the airport. I'm just surprised so many actually listened.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-15-2017, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Kansas City MO
204 posts, read 182,223 times
Reputation: 311
I think people may have understated how bad the experience at the airport has gotten over the past 2-3 years since they closed terminal A. The last time I was there, I had to stand in a ridiculously long line AFTER I got my boarding pass in order to put my bag in the checked bag area. This means I had to stand in line 3 times, one to check in and pay for my checked bags, one to actually give my bag to someone and then the security line. KCI was tolerable for about 10 years between the time they changed the blue bus route to be terminal specific and until they closed terminal A. Now between the water outages and the ridiculous bag checking situation, it is like LAX. Good thing we are getting a new terminal someday!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-16-2017, 01:50 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh PA
402 posts, read 300,064 times
Reputation: 426
Kci is the only place I have seen where after you check your bags they tell you to take your bags back out to the concorse and put them in a pile in an unsecure area where everyone is walking by. Very wierd airport for sure.
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