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.
How nice! No lines on the check-in areas, no crowds blocking access to baggage carousels, empty seating available. Un-huh.
Gimme another glass of that Kool-Aid you're drinking.
So, your point is that KCI will instantly become a busy airport when the new terminal is finished and create lines and passenger discomfort because of we are changing its design?
The reason KCI is presently viewed as "convenient" is because is not a function of its design. It's simply because it's not a very busy airport. KC's not a big city, KCI is not a hub. We are not a Las Vegas or Orlando that generates a lot of vacation oriented travel nor do we have a stable of large headquarter operations in KC that generate business travel. None of that is going to change. The only time I ever see big crowds at KCI is at Christmas and Thanksgiving and the current terminals are hopelessly ill equipped to handle that.
While you might experience a slightly longer walk to your gate, that's about the only discomfort you will experience. There are not big crowds at KCI now and there won't be when the new terminal is finished. Believe me, I wish KCI were busier and that all of us would experience a little less convenience when we arrive at the airport, that's the sign of a healthy airport, economy and city. But that's not what's going to happen.
So, your point is that KCI will instantly become a busy airport when the new terminal is finished and create lines and passenger discomfort because of we are changing its design?
The reason KCI is presently viewed as "convenient" is because is not a function of its design. It's simply because it's not a very busy airport. KC's not a big city, KCI is not a hub. We are not a Las Vegas or Orlando that generates a lot of vacation oriented travel nor do we have a stable of large headquarter operations in KC that generate business travel. None of that is going to change. The only time I ever see big crowds at KCI is at Christmas and Thanksgiving and the current terminals are hopelessly ill equipped to handle that.
While you might experience a slightly longer walk to your gate, that's about the only discomfort you will experience. There are not big crowds at KCI now and there won't be when the new terminal is finished. Believe me, I wish KCI were busier and that all of us would experience a little less convenience when we arrive at the airport, that's the sign of a healthy airport, economy and city. But that's not what's going to happen.
But the "convenient" part was supposed to be a function of its design - it was designed to minimize the walk to your departure gate. Had it been better designed from the outset, in this age of online ticketing and check-in, people would probably praise that feature of the airport, even though the security theater apparatus does defeat the purpose of the design.
I'd heard in the past that Southwest wanted to establish a hub operation in Kansas City, which would change that, but didn't want to as long as it had to operate in the current cramped facilities.
Had the architects (and the city, and the airlines that use the airport) opted to make the concourses as wide as they are at DFW;
had they separated arriving from departing traffic, as at that airport too;
we probably would have had no need for the new terminal. The new facility fixes both defects.
So, your point is that KCI will instantly become a busy airport when the new terminal is finished and create lines and passenger discomfort because of we are changing its design?
The reason KCI is presently viewed as "convenient" is because is not a function of its design. It's simply because it's not a very busy airport. KC's not a big city, KCI is not a hub. We are not a Las Vegas or Orlando that generates a lot of vacation oriented travel nor do we have a stable of large headquarter operations in KC that generate business travel. None of that is going to change. The only time I ever see big crowds at KCI is at Christmas and Thanksgiving and the current terminals are hopelessly ill equipped to handle that.
While you might experience a slightly longer walk to your gate, that's about the only discomfort you will experience. There are not big crowds at KCI now and there won't be when the new terminal is finished. Believe me, I wish KCI were busier and that all of us would experience a little less convenience when we arrive at the airport, that's the sign of a healthy airport, economy and city. But that's not what's going to happen.
This. Even with the new terminal I don’t see KC getting any new destinations. The only changes maybe to increase a flight or two to places like SFO and SEA. In fact given the hubifacation of today. One could argue KC is luckily to have what it does thanks in most part to Southwest. KC doesn’t have a strong enough tourist convention or corporate presence for the type of service that other markets have. What it does have though is a little bit of all the former. So it sort of gives KC just enough demand to sustain what it has. It would not in the least surprise me if one day cities like Cini and even Des Moines get more options down the line then KC. While few people are taking their next vacation in DSM. The city has the corporate presence one needs to eventually expand airport outreach.
But the "convenient" part was supposed to be a function of its design - it was designed to minimize the walk to your departure gate. Had it been better designed from the outset, in this age of online ticketing and check-in, people would probably praise that feature of the airport, even though the security theater apparatus does defeat the purpose of the design.
I'd heard in the past that Southwest wanted to establish a hub operation in Kansas City, which would change that, but didn't want to as long as it had to operate in the current cramped facilities.
Had the architects (and the city, and the airlines that use the airport) opted to make the concourses as wide as they are at DFW;
had they separated arriving from departing traffic, as at that airport too;
we probably would have had no need for the new terminal. The new facility fixes both defects.
That's true but not the entire story. KCI was initially going to be a standard multi-concourse airport but the people movers were deemed too expensive. It was 1972. TWA pushed KC into adopting the current configuration for what was going to be their hub. We all know the rest of the story. A year later KCI's design was pretty much obsolete and TWA asked the city of Kansas City to retrofit the design to which KC declined and TWA moved to St Louis.
The terminal design at KCI is only convenient if convenience is defined by passengers taking fewer steps. For a mid-sized non-hub airport with a limited number of gates, you won't be saving many steps due to KCI's design. But an ever-so-slightly shorter walk to the gate compared to peer airports is not the only definition of convenience. Other things such as poor access to toilet facilities and other services make KCI very inconvenient. Hey, some people do actually want to eat at airports (I do if I am pressed for time). And the downside of the design is always going to be there: Operations spread across three terminals which are not really needed in absence of a hub and no critical mass developed in any place in the airport to support a variety of services not to mention the dispersal of security facilities, cramped post security conditions, etc...
As you point out, we probably could have made KCI work had the terminals been wider like at DFW. But the dispersal of services would still be an issue. The practicality of widening the terminals was actually looked at but it didn't leave enough room on the tarmac for planes to exit the gates and turn.
That's true but not the entire story. KCI was initially going to be a standard multi-concourse airport but the people movers were deemed too expensive. It was 1972. TWA pushed KC into adopting the current configuration for what was going to be their hub. We all know the rest of the story. A year later KCI's design was pretty much obsolete and TWA asked the city of Kansas City to retrofit the design to which KC declined and TWA moved to St Louis.
The terminal design at KCI is only convenient if convenience is defined by passengers taking fewer steps. For a mid-sized non-hub airport with a limited number of gates, you won't be saving many steps due to KCI's design. But an ever-so-slightly shorter walk to the gate compared to peer airports is not the only definition of convenience. Other things such as poor access to toilet facilities and other services make KCI very inconvenient. Hey, some people do actually want to eat at airports (I do if I am pressed for time). And the downside of the design is always going to be there: Operations spread across three terminals which are not really needed in absence of a hub and no critical mass developed in any place in the airport to support a variety of services not to mention the dispersal of security facilities, cramped post security conditions, etc...
As you point out, we probably could have made KCI work had the terminals been wider like at DFW. But the dispersal of services would still be an issue. The practicality of widening the terminals was actually looked at but it didn't leave enough room on the tarmac for planes to exit the gates and turn.
Kansas City lost out on a lot of flight opportunities over the years for it's residents by just sitting not doing anything with the airport.
Kansas City lost out on a lot of flight opportunities over the years for it's residents by just sitting not doing anything with the airport.
yeah, big time. KC would probably be a major hub today if they replaced the terminal 20 years ago and it probably would have contributed to more population growth to the metro area over those years.
I welcome the new terminal, but I don't think KC will ever make up those lost years. I think places like Denver and MSP and DFW have too much of a footprint now with much larger airports.
Even with this new terminal, KCI won't be set up all that well for much more than just being a big terminal for Southwest. The new terminal is kind of a bare minimum terminal. At least it will have more basic modern airport amenities.
yeah, big time. KC would probably be a major hub today if they replaced the terminal 20 years ago and it probably would have contributed to more population growth to the metro area over those years.
I welcome the new terminal, but I don't think KC will ever make up those lost years. I think places like Denver and MSP and DFW have too much of a footprint now with much larger airports.
Even with this new terminal, KCI won't be set up all that well for much more than just being a big terminal for Southwest. The new terminal is kind of a bare minimum terminal. At least it will have more basic modern airport amenities.
Kansas City will never make up all the time lost, it's too late in the game for that. The new terminal isn't being built large enough for much more than what the current flights/airlines/etc are currently; it's only housing the airlines and flights under one roof. My mother worked for 40 years for TWA here in KC and she has a wealth of knowledge of the failures of what happened between KC and TWA.
Kansas City will never make up all the time lost, it's too late in the game for that. The new terminal isn't being built large enough for much more than what the current flights/airlines/etc are currently; it's only housing the airlines and flights under one roof. My mother worked for 40 years for TWA here in KC and she has a wealth of knowledge of the failures of what happened between KC and TWA.
And it's really such a waste. KCI has THREE long runways. It's probably the best location for a major airport in the central part of the country. KC is by far the closest big city to the geographic center of the country and it's not nearly as isolated as hubs out west like DEN and SLC, so KC has a regional local draw of millions of passengers. People from Omaha to Des Moines, to Tulsa should be flying or driving to KCI for international flights and flights to the coasts.
Instead, KCI has a ton of flights to Denver, DFW, Chicago etc. So the airlines basically treat the KC market pretty much the same as Omaha etc.
With all that capacity of three runways, room for a proper new terminal etc, KC has really dropped the ball with the airport and the new terminal, while a massive improvement, seems to continue that trend.
If you think about why cities like Denver and MSP blew past KC in the past 30 years, the airport has to be one of the reasons to look at.
I still say the main reason KC lost so much ground is the state line though. Even today. Way too much of KC's economy is based in suburban Kansas which has really weakened the core of the city when compared to peer cities. KC has no central regional focal point. It's a city being pulled in many directions and competition is so fierce locally, that the metro has not been able to even think about competing with other metros.
KCMO has spent the last 40 year fighting off Overland Park. While that fight might be finally coming to an end or at least mitigated, the damage done to the entire metro has been significant.
Kansas City will never make up all the time lost, it's too late in the game for that. The new terminal isn't being built large enough for much more than what the current flights/airlines/etc are currently; it's only housing the airlines and flights under one roof. My mother worked for 40 years for TWA here in KC and she has a wealth of knowledge of the failures of what happened between KC and TWA.
I think that might make a fascinating story should she ever decide to share it with anyone.
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 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.
