U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Covid-19 Information Page
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 01-06-2014, 11:25 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
11,002 posts, read 20,635,732 times
Reputation: 6029

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by luzianne View Post
More room than PV. All of PV wouldn't be big enough for an airport. But I was mainly just trying to get under kcmo's skin! I knew the thought of an airport in KCK would set him off!
No, I'm pretty sure you would be just fine putting it there and if you could pull if off, you would (or in some part of urban KCMO). But then you would have to go to those places to use the airport
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-06-2014, 11:33 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
11,002 posts, read 20,635,732 times
Reputation: 6029
Quote:
Originally Posted by MoNative34 View Post
kcmo, that's some good photoshop work, btw.
It's more like way too much time that I probably should be using more productivity. I don't think people realize how big a foot print a major commercial airport is though. I think KCI is in a great location.

Had the city been on the ball back in the 70's and 80's and put infrastructure up north instead of annexing all that land just to sit on it to try to keep other suburbs from developing it, they might have a lot of the growth that went to Kansas during that time. Annexing that land and not developing it only created less suburban options on the MO side and more opportunity on the KS side. I mean there are still no sewers east of I-29 and north of 152. They are adding infrastructure now though and it's rapidly developing. It just took 30 years.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2014, 07:13 AM
 
Location: Kansas City, MO
3,572 posts, read 6,891,853 times
Reputation: 2588
^Wow, that photoshop work really puts KCI's size into perspective.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2014, 07:27 AM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
11,002 posts, read 20,635,732 times
Reputation: 6029
Quote:
Originally Posted by MOKAN View Post
^Wow, that photoshop work really puts KCI's size into perspective.
I started to do one another one, only this time using DIA. A large airport like that is twice the footprint of KCI. Using eminent domain, they could wipe out most of developed Johnson County and KC would have a real aiport with many more flights!
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2014, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Florida and New England
1,513 posts, read 1,615,590 times
Reputation: 2206
DIA is actually a nice example of airport sprawl similar to KCI and its subsequent northland sprawl. The airports themselves are opposite in design, however. Denver's is a big box terminal with tram service to multiple concourses. Kansas City's is a skinny terminal design, with roadway access to all gates. (I do not like big box terminals because of the additional time, sometimes approaching an hour, needed to simply navigate the airport -- a topic for another thread).

The similarities: DIA was built on the "wrong" side of Denver just as KCI was built on the "wrong" side of Kansas City. That is, both of these airports were put in the opposite direction of the population/ suburban growth patterns. Time will tell if these decisions make sense. Both cities have experienced sprawl toward and around their airports, which would otherwise probably have been preventable. I don't like the siting of either airport because of the consequent driving distances involved, and I am a heavy airport user (I fly more than 125,000 flight miles per year).

I had a customer in exurban Denver -- between Longmont and Boulder -- and the drive from DIA was an hour. So my 10:30am Monday arrival meant a customer arrival time of after lunch (airport tram, big box navigation, rental car shuttle, long drive). It's a burden on the traveler, the environment, and the business community.

Same thing with KCI. Although my current customer in KC is downtown, for many years I had customers in Olathe. Another hour-long drive. And love it or hate it, many, if not most, KC business travelers are headed to the south suburbs, especially JoCo.

Contrast these airports to O'Hare, which is convenient both to the Loop and to the northwestern suburb business community. Or MSP, also squarely in the main business suburban area. DFW isn't too bad to the Plano/ Frisco business area. Even ATL which is not well-sited at least has its subway (although road traffic is a bear). And STL is not that far from the primary business areas in West County.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2014, 11:55 AM
 
367 posts, read 735,363 times
Reputation: 244
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
Do people in South County St Louis complain about the location of Lambert as much as people in JoCo complain about the location of KCI?
As an aside - yes.

My mom lives in Jefferson County (south of South County) - the airport is close to an hour and a half's drive.

About as long, I guess, as it is from Topeka to KCI.

Lambert's *always* been there, though, whereas people still remember flying in and out of MKC downtown.

I do find the idea of putting KCI in downtown KCK very interesting. Nice photoshop, kcmo!
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2014, 12:36 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
11,002 posts, read 20,635,732 times
Reputation: 6029
Quote:
Originally Posted by westender View Post
DIA is actually a nice example of airport sprawl similar to KCI and its subsequent northland sprawl. The airports themselves are opposite in design, however. Denver's is a big box terminal with tram service to multiple concourses. Kansas City's is a skinny terminal design, with roadway access to all gates. (I do not like big box terminals because of the additional time, sometimes approaching an hour, needed to simply navigate the airport -- a topic for another thread).

The similarities: DIA was built on the "wrong" side of Denver just as KCI was built on the "wrong" side of Kansas City. That is, both of these airports were put in the opposite direction of the population/ suburban growth patterns. Time will tell if these decisions make sense. Both cities have experienced sprawl toward and around their airports, which would otherwise probably have been preventable. I don't like the siting of either airport because of the consequent driving distances involved, and I am a heavy airport user (I fly more than 125,000 flight miles per year).

I had a customer in exurban Denver -- between Longmont and Boulder -- and the drive from DIA was an hour. So my 10:30am Monday arrival meant a customer arrival time of after lunch (airport tram, big box navigation, rental car shuttle, long drive). It's a burden on the traveler, the environment, and the business community.

Same thing with KCI. Although my current customer in KC is downtown, for many years I had customers in Olathe. Another hour-long drive. And love it or hate it, many, if not most, KC business travelers are headed to the south suburbs, especially JoCo.

Contrast these airports to O'Hare, which is convenient both to the Loop and to the northwestern suburb business community. Or MSP, also squarely in the main business suburban area. DFW isn't too bad to the Plano/ Frisco business area. Even ATL which is not well-sited at least has its subway (although road traffic is a bear). And STL is not that far from the primary business areas in West County.
Well, they didn't put DIA out there to spur growth. And it's way out there especially since most of Denver's corporate and affluent suburban growth is to the south. They put it there because they had to walk away from landlocked Stapleton and build new and in order to amass that much land affecting the fewest people, they had to go northeast and get away from the front range.

And I think it's silly to compare KCI to DIA no matter what. DIA gets between 50-60 million passengers a year and still going up. MCI has been struggling to get back to 11 million.

A big box terminal at MCI is a completely different animal than DIA, ATL, DFW, etc.

BWI here in Baltimore does 30 million passengers and I find it actually easier to use than MCI. A single terminal at MCI simply would not be a big deal. MCI is still a relatively small airport that will never resemble the long lines and walks of places like DIA no matter the terminal structure.

And I would still take DIA. Gosh, an extra 15-30 minutes for TSA and walking and flights to every major city in the US plus many international cities. Lets see, save ten minutes, but add 2 hour connection or fly nonstop without a connection for cheaper. I choose DIA unless you never fly any place but DFW or Chicago.

Oh and you want to talk about far away. Dulles is way out there too, but again, 30 minutes extra drive, non-stops to well, everywhere.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2014, 03:09 PM
 
Location: Florida and New England
1,513 posts, read 1,615,590 times
Reputation: 2206
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
Well, they didn't put DIA out there to spur growth. And it's way out there especially since most of Denver's corporate and affluent suburban growth is to the south. They put it there because they had to walk away from landlocked Stapleton and build new and in order to amass that much land affecting the fewest people, they had to go northeast and get away from the front range.

And I think it's silly to compare KCI to DIA no matter what. DIA gets between 50-60 million passengers a year and still going up. MCI has been struggling to get back to 11 million.

A big box terminal at MCI is a completely different animal than DIA, ATL, DFW, etc.

BWI here in Baltimore does 30 million passengers and I find it actually easier to use than MCI. A single terminal at MCI simply would not be a big deal. MCI is still a relatively small airport that will never resemble the long lines and walks of places like DIA no matter the terminal structure.

And I would still take DIA. Gosh, an extra 15-30 minutes for TSA and walking and flights to every major city in the US plus many international cities. Lets see, save ten minutes, but add 2 hour connection or fly nonstop without a connection for cheaper. I choose DIA unless you never fly any place but DFW or Chicago.

Oh and you want to talk about far away. Dulles is way out there too, but again, 30 minutes extra drive, non-stops to well, everywhere.
The big box references relate to multiple plans to "do something" with KCI -- lots of plans but nothing concrete yet. The Homeland Security agency/ TSA wants to reduce the cost of staffing multiple checkpoints at KCI, and several civic leaders want a new terminal (jobs, more parking revenue). Regardless of how that argument resolves, KCI will not magically become a hub.

It may have had a chance once (and back in the 1980s Braniff ran a lot of flights through KCI), but the airline industry is consolidating and closing hubs. PIT, CVG, MEM, and CLE all used to be hubs. MSP and PHX may eventually share their same fate. KC also does not have the O&D traffic to replace one of the remaining megahubs.

So even if MCI were to rebuild exactly like Denver or IAD-Dulles, it would still not get the volume of nonstop flights like those airports.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2014, 03:23 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
11,002 posts, read 20,635,732 times
Reputation: 6029
Quote:
Originally Posted by westender View Post
The big box references relate to multiple plans to "do something" with KCI -- lots of plans but nothing concrete yet. The Homeland Security agency/ TSA wants to reduce the cost of staffing multiple checkpoints at KCI, and several civic leaders want a new terminal (jobs, more parking revenue). Regardless of how that argument resolves, KCI will not magically become a hub.

It may have had a chance once (and back in the 1980s Braniff ran a lot of flights through KCI), but the airline industry is consolidating and closing hubs. PIT, CVG, MEM, and CLE all used to be hubs. MSP and PHX may eventually share their same fate. KC also does not have the O&D traffic to replace one of the remaining megahubs.

So even if MCI were to rebuild exactly like Denver or IAD-Dulles, it would still not get the volume of nonstop flights like those airports.
Yea, I never said it would become a hub, I Just said, that all the airports people love to hate are actually nice to have in your town. Sure they suck, but you still have to fly through them to get anywhere anyway, may as well start there and not have to start at some little airport and then connect. KCI is ok if you are not checking bags and are flying southwest or what's left of the other airlines nonstop. But coastal flights from KC are rare and expensive now and there are no international flights, well, a daily to Toronto I think.

Anyway, regardless of the hub situation, KCI needs a new terminal, or a MAJOR overhaul of the existing terminals which would probably cost the city more in the long run (IE, Kemper arena) to band-aid it again only to be right back with this same problem in 7 years.

KCI has run it's course, it's time to build a modern airport not so KC can land a hub, but just because it's time. Build a nice airport that will handle the 10-15 million passengers KC will produce. I see no reasons why a new terminal for an airport that size would not be just as easy and user friendly only 100 times better than that dump. Most airports I use are much busier and far nicer and and just as quick to park, get a rental, go thru security, check bags etc. Get some financial help and advice from Southwest Airlines so you don't overdue it, but do something. KCI is just a terrible airport experience and I have been most of them. I don't get why people want to save it. But then again, I din't get why people wanted to save Kemper Arena or Bannister Mall or even Kauffman Stadium (should be downtown). Guess I'm different.
Rate this post positively Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 04:24 PM
 
99 posts, read 90,229 times
Reputation: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
KCI has run it's course, it's time to build a modern airport not so KC can land a hub, but just because it's time. Build a nice airport that will handle the 10-15 million passengers KC will produce..
The airlines that fly into KC disagree with this. Southwest Airlines recently advised a city task force that even a costly new terminal would probably not increase flights by a substantial amount and certainly not convert it into a "hub airport". Hub-chasing is so late 1990s/early 2000s anyway. We have seen what consolidations and mergers of airlines have resulted in: fewer hubs and reduction of service duplication/redundancy in order to operate profitably (See: Cincinnati, Pittsburgh, Saint Louis and Memphis). With that in mind, I think that KCI could be cost-effectively improved without tearing it down and rebuilding the terminal. The airport should appeal to its residents because that is who it serves (not tourists and the very, very few passengers annually who transfer planes in KC). Unfortunately we cannot pick up the airport and move it closer to the population center...it will always be a bit "far out". However, that inconvenience is more than made up by the quick time from entry-point to gate.

About the biggest improvement would have been moving the Rental Car facility within walking distance of the terminal (no bus to a separate facility). That is pretty annoying. Aside from that, I don't see how you can say KC is that bad of an airport. I have been to many, many airports...and a lot of them are a severe hassle. About the only airport I like as much as KC is McCarran because it seems like I can get from gate to curbside very quickly. Orlando, O'Hare and JFK, Atlanta, Denver, and Phoenix are awful for that (I travel a lot for work).
Rate this post positively 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.


 
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
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2020, 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