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 01-04-2017, 10:02 AM
 
2,195 posts, read 2,144,593 times
Reputation: 1916

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarketStEl View Post
If there are so many people who live in Missouri and are annoyed with the provision in state law that sends bond issues for airport improvements to the voters in the airport's jurisdiction for approval, how come they don't let their representatives in Jeff City know that the law should be changed?
Because they are significantly in the minority.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-04-2017, 07:36 PM
 
30 posts, read 33,926 times
Reputation: 12
a new terminal will never pass by KC residents voting. It should be up to voters that make up the counties of the metro, then it might have a chance of passing. Why there's a law requiring voting for public infrastructure such as the airport is mindless. We elect people to city council, they should be are representatives in deciding large expenditures.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-05-2017, 07:43 PM
 
519 posts, read 467,812 times
Reputation: 325
I met a KCI Southwest employee at a party New Years Eve. This employee said that Southwest tries not to route connecting passengers through KCI anymore because of surveys that show how many connecting people hate KCI and that Southwest will continue to grow at St Louis but not KC, because of KCI's terminal set up. This employee said that before 9/11/01 Southwest had plans to build up KCI to Midway size but looked elsewhere because of the terminal. If that's true,KC officials knew for 20 plus years, that the terminals were bad but yet went with doing all that cosmetic improvements they did.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2017, 10:20 AM
 
Location: Peoria, AZ
941 posts, read 1,004,515 times
Reputation: 1015
Quote:
Originally Posted by welshearl View Post
a new terminal will never pass by KC residents voting. It should be up to voters that make up the counties of the metro, then it might have a chance of passing. Why there's a law requiring voting for public infrastructure such as the airport is mindless. We elect people to city council, they should be are representatives in deciding large expenditures.
It is mindless.

I don't know of any other major airport in the country that has this same ridiculous rule in place.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2017, 11:06 AM
 
Location: The Windy City
5,163 posts, read 2,843,175 times
Reputation: 4371
Quote:
Originally Posted by lovekcmo View Post
I met a KCI Southwest employee at a party New Years Eve. This employee said that Southwest tries not to route connecting passengers through KCI anymore because of surveys that show how many connecting people hate KCI and that Southwest will continue to grow at St Louis but not KC, because of KCI's terminal set up. This employee said that before 9/11/01 Southwest had plans to build up KCI to Midway size but looked elsewhere because of the terminal. If that's true,KC officials knew for 20 plus years, that the terminals were bad but yet went with doing all that cosmetic improvements they did.
As far as I know, there are very few flights which pass through KCI anyways. Perhaps if you are going from STL to LAS, you might be able to find a flight with a stop over.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-11-2017, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,493,517 times
Reputation: 5409
Quote:
Originally Posted by lepoisson View Post
As far as I know, there are very few flights which pass through KCI anyways. Perhaps if you are going from STL to LAS, you might be able to find a flight with a stop over.
That's not how it works...

It's not about having a location in a direct route between two other locations. Very few SW flights that stop (with or without changing planes) fly in a straight line. There are a lot more logistics behind flight planning than just how the crow flies.

While lovekcmo seems to be off his rocker in many posts lately , I do agree with this post. Southwest was going to make KC a primary focus city but because of the airport situation, those plans have pretty much been lost. Even after KC builds a new terminal, it may never have the flights that SW once planned unless SW pulls a lot of flights out of other cities that were once going to go to KCI. I think SW will do more with KCI with a new terminal, dragging their feet on the terminal has probably cost KC a lot of flights.

It's really too bad. KC didn't used to be so stubborn with change. The city wouldn't likely be no bigger than Omaha or even St Joe today had the city not had such a progressive way of thinking in the 1920's and 30's.

First it was the Hannibal Bridge which turned KC from St Joe into a major city, then Union Station was built to handle hundreds of trains a day and was one of the biggest stations in the country. Nearly every cross country passenger train went through KC. The city wanted to be something great and would do whatever it took to become a greater city.

That was even the case when KCI was built. The city wanted to have a world class airport hub for supersonic air travel.

But then something happened. An airliner was hijacked and KCI was obsolete the day it opened. The terminals were a huge fail and 40-50 years later the city still has not fixed it and it has cost the city. The terminal is the only thing has kept KCI from being a major middle of the country hub. I get it, people like the short walks, but good god, it's going on 50 years of having a failed airport terminal. It's time to accept it as a fail and rebuild it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2017, 08:18 PM
 
519 posts, read 467,812 times
Reputation: 325
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
That's not how it works...

It's not about having a location in a direct route between two other locations. Very few SW flights that stop (with or without changing planes) fly in a straight line. There are a lot more logistics behind flight planning than just how the crow flies.

While lovekcmo seems to be off his rocker in many posts lately , I do agree with this post. Southwest was going to make KC a primary focus city but because of the airport situation, those plans have pretty much been lost. Even after KC builds a new terminal, it may never have the flights that SW once planned unless SW pulls a lot of flights out of other cities that were once going to go to KCI. I think SW will do more with KCI with a new terminal, dragging their feet on the terminal has probably cost KC a lot of flights.

It's really too bad. KC didn't used to be so stubborn with change. The city wouldn't likely be no bigger than Omaha or even St Joe today had the city not had such a progressive way of thinking in the 1920's and 30's.

First it was the Hannibal Bridge which turned KC from St Joe into a major city, then Union Station was built to handle hundreds of trains a day and was one of the biggest stations in the country. Nearly every cross country passenger train went through KC. The city wanted to be something great and would do whatever it took to become a greater city.

That was even the case when KCI was built. The city wanted to have a world class airport hub for supersonic air travel.

But then something happened. An airliner was hijacked and KCI was obsolete the day it opened. The terminals were a huge fail and 40-50 years later the city still has not fixed it and it has cost the city. The terminal is the only thing has kept KCI from being a major middle of the country hub. I get it, people like the short walks, but good god, it's going on 50 years of having a failed airport terminal. It's time to accept it as a fail and rebuild it.
Probably any other major city that had KCI as it's airport, would see the sense of building an exit to the airport off of 152, west of Zona Rosa, straight north to a southern, single terminal on the grounds. Think of all of the development that could happen with two entrances into the airport (the current entrance off of I-29 and a new one from 152 north.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-12-2017, 10:13 PM
 
Location: Peoria, AZ
941 posts, read 1,004,515 times
Reputation: 1015
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
That's not how it works...

It's not about having a location in a direct route between two other locations. Very few SW flights that stop (with or without changing planes) fly in a straight line. There are a lot more logistics behind flight planning than just how the crow flies.

While lovekcmo seems to be off his rocker in many posts lately , I do agree with this post. Southwest was going to make KC a primary focus city but because of the airport situation, those plans have pretty much been lost. Even after KC builds a new terminal, it may never have the flights that SW once planned unless SW pulls a lot of flights out of other cities that were once going to go to KCI. I think SW will do more with KCI with a new terminal, dragging their feet on the terminal has probably cost KC a lot of flights.

It's really too bad. KC didn't used to be so stubborn with change. The city wouldn't likely be no bigger than Omaha or even St Joe today had the city not had such a progressive way of thinking in the 1920's and 30's.

First it was the Hannibal Bridge which turned KC from St Joe into a major city, then Union Station was built to handle hundreds of trains a day and was one of the biggest stations in the country. Nearly every cross country passenger train went through KC. The city wanted to be something great and would do whatever it took to become a greater city.

That was even the case when KCI was built. The city wanted to have a world class airport hub for supersonic air travel.

But then something happened. An airliner was hijacked and KCI was obsolete the day it opened. The terminals were a huge fail and 40-50 years later the city still has not fixed it and it has cost the city. The terminal is the only thing has kept KCI from being a major middle of the country hub. I get it, people like the short walks, but good god, it's going on 50 years of having a failed airport terminal. It's time to accept it as a fail and rebuild it.
I think that the Southwest focus city ship has sailed.

The largest cities East and West of Kansas City now are large connecting stations for SW. Denver has over 200 daily departures on SW and St. Louis has over 100. If Kansas City had a more modern airport terminal some of the Denver and St. Louis flights would be out of KCI. However, due to the lack of a decent terminal, SW has decided to route the flights elsewhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-13-2017, 09:57 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,705 posts, read 18,493,517 times
Reputation: 5409
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ztonyg View Post
I think that the Southwest focus city ship has sailed.

The largest cities East and West of Kansas City now are large connecting stations for SW. Denver has over 200 daily departures on SW and St. Louis has over 100. If Kansas City had a more modern airport terminal some of the Denver and St. Louis flights would be out of KCI. However, due to the lack of a decent terminal, SW has decided to route the flights elsewhere.
Yep, I have said that lots of times. That doesn't mean KC should not build a new terminal though. Things are only going to get worse for KCI as it's slowly becoming a very regional airport which means KC will only have the bare bones basic flights that serve the local market when it could have probably double the flights if it were a bigger part of the flight network. For example, KC will NEVER has international flights if it only serves local passengers. Those flights need to be able to pull at least some people from connecting feeder flights.

BTW, for as cheap as the landing fees are at KCI, it's gotten expensive to fly there on Southwest. It's often cheaper to fly to Denver from DCA or BWI now than to MCI. Sometimes is a LOT cheaper to fly to Denver. STL is generally cheaper too even though there landing fees are also more than double KCI's.

Landing fees is how the terminal would be paid for, but all the KC aviation experts (I mean voters) don't want KCI to raise the landing fees because it might raise fares. Those fees have very little to do with fares.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-18-2017, 06:26 PM
 
519 posts, read 467,812 times
Reputation: 325
I try to book my flights on Southwest as much as possible and I'm finding that there's less cities to fly nonstop to than there were 15 years ago. Southwest may have about the same number as flights as 15 years ago but less non stop cities now.
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