News: "Task force backs single terminal for KCI" (Kansas City: houses, buy)

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by westender

I actually live in New England...

Thanks for your post. You make a lot of good points however, I guess we have two very different ways of flying. I like to get through the mass hassle of checking bags and getting through TSA with about 30 min to spare to I can get something to eat etc especially when traveling with family. Even at KCI, if you don't allow 30 min, you are taking a chance on missing a flight or at least getting a terrible seat or no room for your carry on if you fly Southwest.

First off, you must fly a lot alone and never check bags. Lots of very short trips? I honestly think the average traveler in KC would have a better experience with a modern terminal and most connecting traffic and business travelers to KC would have a far better experience. You disagree and I'm totally fine with that.

Oh and I'm a frequent flyer as I mention often. I flew out of BWI two days ago with my son. Storms moved into the east coast and ultimately our flight was delayed almost four hours. Sucks because we had zero wait for TSA and our gate couldn't be closer to the curb for this flight so we didn't eat before our flight thinking it would be a quick flight.

But the entire time we were there, we kept thanking god, that we were not at KCI because that would have really sucked. Ended up having some chipoltle, finding plenty of places to stretch and charge our phones, large clean bathrooms around, even walked into some shops for the first time just to kill some time all without leaving security and being within 30 seconds of our gate. KCI would have made that bad situation absolutely miserable.

Like you say, we will see. I don't fly into KCI enough to really care that much anymore. I just don't see what you see in it. Different strokes I guess.

[luzianne]

Originally Posted by westender

For me, the paramount issue is time. The only "service" I need at an airport is the occasional urinal, and KC has them in spades along the exterior walls outside of security. I want to arrive at an airport and be at my boarding gate within 5 minutes. At Kansas City, this is easily accomplished. I get out of the taxi/ car directly in front of the TSA checkpoint and go through the line. In the past 3 years, only once has it exceeded 5 minutes, when Frontier and AA had multiple departures within a short period. And TSA responded with extra staff to expedite the line. At BDL (and similar to BWI), regardless of TSA, there is a significant walk/ queue to the checkpoint, followed by a significant walk after the checkpoint. And I find that airports with big box, centralized security tend to have much longer waits at peak times. Yes, I have global entry/ pre-check, etc. Kansas City is simply faster.

The arrival experience at KC is among the fastest in the world. It takes 2 minutes to get from the jetbridge to the back seat of a waiting car. Compare & contrast with landing at CLT terminal E a few weeks ago, where I had to walk/ escalate/ dodge people and electric carts for 20 minutes to get to ground transportation. Same with Miami, Dulles (remote terminals), JFK (Delta's new gates), MSP, DTW, SEA, etc. Even the relatively convenient LGA and BOS can have a 10-minute exit walk. Kansas City wins that game hands down.

Anyhow, it appears that the city is pushing forward with the big box. We will see what happens.

Exactly the reasons that most Kansas Citians prefer to keep KCI the way it is, too. But clearly Sly James has an agenda and appointed a task force to recommend what the city already has decided to do, whether the people of Kansas City want it or not (and the majority do not).

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by luzianne

Exactly the reasons that most Kansas Citians prefer to keep KCI the way it is, too. But clearly Sly James has an agenda and appointed a task force to recommend what the city already has decided to do, whether the people of Kansas City want it or not (and the majority do not).

It's just not right that a handful of bureaucrats can make this happen in direct conflict with the interests of most users/taxpayers. Who makes the final decision?

Perhaps there should be a contingency plan for some pickets or other civil disobedience if this thing gets much closer to reality?

I chuckled at the reference in the KC Star article to "42 year old KCI" as though that's old. How and when did we get to this degree of silliness whereby major construction projects like airports and sports stadiums are considered disposable? Is the whole world under 25 now?

[KC_Sleuth]

Originally Posted by CrownVic95

It's just not right that a handful of bureaucrats can make this happen in direct conflict with the interests of most users/taxpayers. Who makes the final decision?

Perhaps there should be a contingency plan for some pickets or other civil disobedience if this thing gets much closer to reality?

I chuckled at the reference in the KC Star article to "42 year old KCI" as though that's old. How and when did we get to this degree of silliness whereby major construction projects like airports and sports stadiums are considered disposable? Is the whole world under 25 now?

Old is relative. There are things that are dated after they are 10 years old (think first-generation iPods). If it sucks, we are going to complain about it being old. KCI is ridiculously dated. It has very few of the modern amenities that other airports have. There is nothing interesting about it.

And yes, catering to youth is important. You rarely hear about marketers and advertisers targeting that "key 65+ plus demographic". It's the 18-35 age range that pushes the needle. It's about appealing to youth.

[luzianne]

Look at LAX. It's horrible. And yet I don't see LA screaming that it's old and they need to build a new airport. If anyplace should care what other people think about their city/airport, it would be LA. I don't know why KCI needs to change anything; it's fine. Sheesh, if we go tearing down every building over 40 years old...And I really like NEW stuff, but I just think a new airport isn't necessary.

I kind of disagree about it being the 18-35 range that pushes the needle. 35 maybe. 18 - no. 18 year olds don't have any money; marketers and advertisers aren't going to target an age group with no money, unless they have parents with money.

It has been kind of nice being a Baby Boomer. Seems like most of my life things were geared toward what we liked and what we wanted, likely because we were the biggest demographic. I mean, even down to music you hear everywhere you go - ball parks, etc. But that is changing now.

[shindig]

In the end, the City is going to do what the task force recommended and that's to build a new, single terminal. I'm fine with that. For one, it will create thousands of jobs, plus it will be an indication that Kansas City is really "up to date".

[CrownVic95]

Originally Posted by shindig

In the end, the City is going to do what the task force recommended and that's to build a new, single terminal. I'm fine with that. For one, it will create thousands of jobs, plus it will be an indication that Kansas City is really "up to date".

That's what nobody besides luzianne (and maybe a couple of others like westender) can seem to understand. KCI was and is far more up to date in terms of things that matter than any big box megalopolis of a single terminal. What you want is for KCI to take a big step backward from its cutting edge efficiency and convenience for the sole purpose of being like everybody else. I can't imagine a poorer reason to spend a billion dollars wrecking a uniquely superior airport.

[shindig]

Originally Posted by CrownVic95

That's what nobody besides luzianne (and maybe a couple of others like westender) can seem to understand. KCI was and is far more up to date in terms of things that matter than any big box megalopolis of a single terminal. What you want is for KCI to take a big step backward from its cutting edge efficiency and convenience for the sole purpose of being like everybody else. I can't imagine a poorer reason to spend a billion dollars wrecking a uniquely superior airport.

Gripe all you want, but I can tell you right now, the City is moving forward with the single terminal design. People just need to get over it.

[luzianne]

Originally Posted by shindig

Gripe all you want, but I can tell you right now, the City is moving forward with the single terminal design. People just need to get over it.

The city already knew before they appointed a task force what they were going to do. They just wanted the task force to "recommend" it so it looked more legitimate. Isn't Sly James the one who is in the end deciding? He's the main one trying to shove this down our throats.

[kcmo]

Sly is just trying to take a leadership role on the KCI issue. Whether you think KCI needs a new terminal or not, Sly James is exactly the kind of mayor KC needs. I seriously doubt that the task force was put into place to just rubber stanp the the new terminal. Even though most in city hall do support the idea, they were very apprehensive at first. I don't think Sly fully supported a new terminal at first and I know many council members didn't at first. I think many of them have taken a serious look at the situation and how it effects the future of KC and they have therefore convinced themselves that it's in the best interest of the city to pursue it. Just like Mayor Barnes did with downtown when almost nobody (residents) wanted the city to spend money on downtown, new arena etc.

Do people honestly believe that Sly James or other council members only want a new terminal so they can go party with their corrupt development cronies? It's Mayor Barnes all over again on some of these issues. If anything, Sly has been a bit conservative by not pushing harder on some controversial issues such as the convention center hotel. Mayors have to get things like that done sometimes.

People like Sly are taking a MUCH bigger risk with their career trying to support a new terminal vs jumping on the "it's fine the way it is" wagon which would be so much easier.

KC may want to keep their 1960's era bus shelter and call it an airport terminal. But personally I applause Sly for taking a risk and going against the grain of what most people "want". Compare a city that just does what the residents want all the time rather to cities that go ahead and just do things regardless of popularity because the city thinks is in the best interest to do so and you have two VERY different cites. I'll let you guess which cities are progressive vibrant cities today and which cities are "has been" cities just trying to stay relative.

KC is right in the middle right now luckily. Had it not been for Barnes, KC would for sure be a "has been" right now.

KC tried the "what the residents want" mayor (Funkhouser) and it failed big time. Strong cities need strong mayors.