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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-15-2014, 06:15 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,994 posts, read 20,625,270 times
Reputation: 6024

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by aviastar View Post
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).
KC can and will do what it wants. Spend 600 million "renovating" and still have a 1960's terminal that barely functions as a modern airport terminal and then having this same discussion in 10-15 years or attempting to replace a terminal that is simply obsolete with something that should be good for the next 40-50 years.

I never said anything about luring a hub or any of that nonsense and I don't even know that 1.3 billion is a good number. Maybe that is too high, I don't know. Sounds kinda cheap for me since KC will be building an entire new terminal and parking complex while 1 billion is what it takes to just expand or renovate or do a single terminal (only part of total airport) at these other airports.

Airport terminals are expensive to replace. KC's is old and it's time. If KC wants to keep it and keep putting hundreds of millions into it. Whatever I guess.

And please stop comparing an airport with 10 million passengers to airports with 40-70 million passengers. makes zero sense. Even if KC was as busy as ATL or DEN, PHX etc, I would think that would mean KC is now a big time hub with a gazzilion domestic and international flights. Gosh why would you not want that even if it came with an extra 30 minute wait? You have to go through those airports anyway to get anywhere.

But KC is not going to get a gazzillion flights with a new terminal, the city is just trying to modernize something that was built a long time ago before this day an age of travel. A smaller airport like KCI can be both user friendly to locals AND and be a modern airport with modern amenities etc. Why would a modern terminal make KCI a hassle like big hub airport with 5 times the traffic?

It's not going to happen though. KC will probably throw another half billion at KCI and in 2020, they finally be backed into a corner and have to do a full tear down.

Personally, I would just get some porta potties, hire some food trucks a and put up some cheap wharehouse structures and call it a day. Better than spending 600 million on renovations. I"m sure Southwest would be fine with that too.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-15-2014, 07:56 PM
 
13,699 posts, read 16,538,435 times
Reputation: 16713
KCI functions just fine. I for one don't want a new airport and don't want increased ticket prices to build an airport we don't need. Bigger isn't always better.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 08:30 PM
 
Location: IN
21,716 posts, read 38,110,620 times
Reputation: 14285
KC will do whatever it wants regarding the issue of KCI. The last time I was at the airport it was a nightmare as usual with all traffic crowded and packed in with no room to move through corridors as well as baggage. Going to DIA is like entering the space age compared to KCI. Oh well, if you don't move forward you just fall further and further behind even factoring in costs.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 08:51 PM
 
99 posts, read 90,182 times
Reputation: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
Airport terminals are expensive to replace. KC's is old and it's time. If KC wants to keep it and keep putting hundreds of millions into it. Whatever I guess.
Funny thing is I don't think that just because it is old that it should torn down. We tear down old buildings and people get upset...we don't tear down old buildings and other people get upset. "Old" is relative and some people consider KCI perfectly functional. KC has bigger fish to fry.

KC is a city of residents - not of tourists. Sure, it has some things that are attractive to conventioneers, but it is not a destination city. That is the reality. It is a great city...but it has problems to address. And replacing the airport is like putting new brakes on the car while the garage is falling down around it.

Most of the traffic is local...that's all they need to worry about. Throw a couple extra restaurants in there, maybe replace some carpeting or whatever...spend about $5-10 million bucks to spruce it up and call it a day. Hell, save some money by tearing down two of the terminals, reduce it to 30 gates and have just the one terminal...fine. But there is no need to tear down the whole thing and build a new building. They serve the purpose they were built for.

Honestly KC could do just fine with a 20 gate terminal. No sense in expanding for traffic that will never come.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 09:02 PM
 
99 posts, read 90,182 times
Reputation: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
KC can and will do what it wants. Spend 600 million "renovating" and still have a 1960's terminal that barely functions as a modern airport terminal and then having this same discussion in 10-15 years or attempting to replace a terminal that is simply obsolete with something that should be good for the next 40-50 years.

.
We don't even know that airline travel will be current mode of travel in 50 years. Imagine if, in 1935, KC expanded Union Station in anticipation of ever-increasing train-travel. Or - imagine if they knocked it down to build a new one in 1954. Then when air travel came about, the place would have been abandoned and we would not at least have a historic building. So if we think a turn of the century building is darling, why do we have disdain for a 1960s era building? And who is to say we won't feel differently about that style of architecture in 50 years?
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 09:28 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,994 posts, read 20,625,270 times
Reputation: 6024
^ Lol. My gosh, people may not be flying in 100 years! Seriously?

KC was a different city back in the 20's and 30's. The city was one of the most progressive chance taking cities in the nation and those were the best years of the city. Union Station was built only a decade or two before trains began to give way to air travel. But KC was still better off building it than doing nothing. Actually KCI was built at the beginning of KC's tailspin. Bartle Hall, KCI, the sports complex, kemper, crown center etc. Then it was 40-50 years of status quo and building up the suburbs and KC fell harder than most US cities.

I get it. KC doesn't want a new terminal. Trust me, they won't get one. You don't have anything to worry about.

Will it be cheaper in the long run or better for the city in the long run? I have serious doubts, but hey I don't live there anymore. I just post my opinions on what I think could possibly help the city. KC is a very stagnant city that really seems stuck and irrelevant nationally.

Will a new terminal fix any of this? Of course not, but the mentality of the people about the airport are the same as everything in the city. Poor KC is just not good enough to have all that. People there can't wait for that little streetcar line to fail so they can say I told you so!!! Private money had to build the arts center, the p&l distrct and sprint center had to be crammed down people's throats and people still hate them.

But have you been to the Legends???

KC is really not the kind of city I prefer (way to slow paced and too suburban oriented) and I think the airport fits the city well. But I will continue to do my thing, promote the city for what it does offer and try to live to the day that KC gets over the hump and reaches the potential I have always thought it could reach. I know, few others there care about any of what I just said.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 09:32 PM
 
99 posts, read 90,182 times
Reputation: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
^ Lol. My gosh, people may not be flying in 100 years! Seriously?
People probably said the same thing about train travel in 1914. The only thing that is constant is change. With all of the new technologies being discussed, who is to say that commercial air travel as we know it is not completely different or changed in 100 years? What if airports as we currently understand them are redundant or unnecessary? It's rather short-sighted to just assume things will remain the same.

What if the concept of centralized location for air travel are completely outdated, and flights terminate in more scattered boarding stations in the region? What if STOL aircraft become more popular because of advanced in technology, and airports with a much smaller footprint become the trend? What if enhances in videoconferencing technology further reduce the need to be somewhere, and air traffic takes a plunge? What if Elon Musk's ideas come to fruition and "tube" travel is more efficient and environmentally friendly than air travel? What about drones for cargo/packages? Building a new airport now based on uncertain projections 100 years from now would be rather foolish when we have one now that meets the demands of current technology.

Last edited by aviastar; 01-15-2014 at 09:44 PM..
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 09:35 PM
 
99 posts, read 90,182 times
Reputation: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post

Will a new terminal fix any of this? Of course not, but the mentality of the people about the airport are the same as everything in the city. Poor KC is just not good enough to have all that..
No, it's just that most people see past the hype. I'm not saying KC is not good enough to have all that...we just don't want it. Many residents of KC don't want an over-hyped tourist magnet because we have the things that we like here without requiring any change at all. It's good for residents - we couldn't give a flip about what people who don't live here think.

I am curious as to what "potential" we are missing out on here. KC offers a pretty diverse range of living options, and amenities. To me, it fulfills it's potential pretty well - it appeals to its citizens. What it needs to focus on are problem areas like city schools.
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 09:37 PM
 
Location: Washington, DC area
10,994 posts, read 20,625,270 times
Reputation: 6024
Quote:
Originally Posted by aviastar View Post
People probably said the same thing about train travel in 1914. The only thing that is constant is change. With all of the new technologies being discussed, who is to say that commercial air travel as we know it is not completely different or changed in 100 years? It's rather short-sighted to just assume things will remain the same.
Trust me, if things do change, KC will be one of the last cities in the nation to build whatever infrastructure that might be

Now if 1980's suburban office parks and strip malls come full circle, KC will be all over that!

Look at this project straight out of 1982 rearing its ugly head in 2014. "Mixed Use". LOL.

Big Overland Park mixed-use project City Place moves forward - KansasCity.com
Rate this post positively Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-15-2014, 09:44 PM
 
13,699 posts, read 16,538,435 times
Reputation: 16713
Quote:
Originally Posted by kcmo View Post
^ Lol. My gosh, people may not be flying in 100 years! Seriously?

KC was a different city back in the 20's and 30's. The city was one of the most progressive chance taking cities in the nation and those were the best years of the city. Union Station was built only a decade or two before trains began to give way to air travel. But KC was still better off building it than doing nothing. Actually KCI was built at the beginning of KC's tailspin. Bartle Hall, KCI, the sports complex, kemper, crown center etc. Then it was 40-50 years of status quo and building up the suburbs and KC fell harder than most US cities.

I get it. KC doesn't want a new terminal. Trust me, they won't get one. You don't have anything to worry about.

Will it be cheaper in the long run or better for the city in the long run? I have serious doubts, but hey I don't live there anymore. I just post my opinions on what I think could possibly help the city. KC is a very stagnant city that really seems stuck and irrelevant nationally.

Will a new terminal fix any of this? Of course not, but the mentality of the people about the airport are the same as everything in the city. Poor KC is just not good enough to have all that. People there can't wait for that little streetcar line to fail so they can say I told you so!!! Private money had to build the arts center, the p&l distrct and sprint center had to be crammed down people's throats and people still hate them.

But have you been to the Legends???

KC is really not the kind of city I prefer (way to slow paced and too suburban oriented) and I think the airport fits the city well. But I will continue to do my thing, promote the city for what it does offer and try to live to the day that KC gets over the hump and reaches the potential I have always thought it could reach. I know, few others there care about any of what I just said.
Good thing you left then. You still seem to be obsessed with Kansas City, though. Why else would you be on this forum all the time when you live in DC?
Rate this post positively 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
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