Perhaps this will gain some traction. The mayor said that even though no taxpayer money will fund the project he is still planning on putting this initiative up for a public vote. I am not at all convinced this will be approved by a majority of KCMO residents. This is a benefit to the region and I suspect there are more people living outside of Kansas City, MO proper that use KCI would have say in the matter but alas they won't because they can't vote for it.

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/ar ... 91597.html

Thoughts?

are there any renderings of the proposed terminal

Midwestindy wrote:

are there any renderings of the proposed terminal

More info can be found here: http://kcmo.gov/wp-content/uploads/2016 ... mSheet.pdf

This will put them in an excellent position to become a hub/focus city. Current terminal layout not condusive to it

I like the current set up. It is really easy to get in and out of, even if there isn't much there to eat/do. Perfect for O/D

It's about time! I can't wait to see it. I could create scenery in my FS2004 new terminal.

Q

ahj2000 wrote:

I like the current set up. It is really easy to get in and out of, even if there isn't much there to eat/do. Perfect for O/D

A new terminal, like the one in the renderings, doesn't preclude convenience and ease of use. An extra 100 yards or so of walking isn't going to mean KCI is suddenly a burdensome chore. Plus, separating arrival passengers from departing passengers means less congestion for both.

I think MCI doesn't like pay twice or three terminals for TSA expenses. Just one Terminal less TSA expenses. And also passengers can connect any airlines without going to security through issued.

Q

Q wrote:

I think MCI doesn't like pay twice or three terminals for TSA expenses. Just one Terminal less TSA expenses. And also passengers can connect any airlines without going to security through issued.

Q

MCI uses a private contractor for security screening. Not sure how the contract compares to what TSA would charge but I can tell you the do a great job. There would just be less of them.

FlyingJhawk wrote:

ahj2000 wrote:

I like the current set up. It is really easy to get in and out of, even if there isn't much there to eat/do. Perfect for O/D

A new terminal, like the one in the renderings, doesn't preclude convenience and ease of use. An extra 100 yards or so of walking isn't going to mean KCI is suddenly a burdensome chore. Plus, separating arrival passengers from departing passengers means less congestion for both.

Sure it does, right now it's easily less than 100 ft from your car at the curbside to walking down the jetbridge. Granted, they badly need a new terminal, but any vote of the public isn't going to pass, because they're not going to give up their "convenience"

So let's see, we have what is basically a no-bid contract for a public space. And what happens if, down the road, B&M run in to financial issues midway through the project and the city has to start pumping money in to it so that we don't end up with a half-completed airport? Just ideas that concern me as a resident and frequent MCI user.

BobbyPSP wrote:

This will put them in an excellent position to become a hub/focus city. Current terminal layout not condusive to it

Please tell me which airlines are expanding and creating hubs in the US...

I personally hope kansas city keeps dragging its feet on a new airport, that means more WN flights for STL, BNA, and IND!

sw733 wrote:

So let's see, we have what is basically a no-bid contract for a public space. And what happens if, down the road, B&M run in to financial issues midway through the project and the city has to start pumping money in to it so that we don't end up with a half-completed airport? Just ideas that concern me as a resident and frequent MCI user.

BobbyPSP wrote:

This will put them in an excellent position to become a hub/focus city. Current terminal layout not condusive to it

Please tell me which airlines are expanding and creating hubs in the US...

Maybe AS in the future they are rapidly expanding, and are creating hubs across the west coast. WN has said they want to greatly expand their already large operation in MCI once they get a new terminal.

Granted, they badly need a new terminal, but any vote of the public isn't going to pass, because they're not going to give up their "convenience"[/quote]

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. The business traveler understands how a new terminal will increase the flying experience but it is the traveler that flies once or twice a year that has been brainwashed to think MCI is great. It will be the less frequent traveler and their friends that will undoubtedly vote down any new terminal.

BobbyPSP wrote:

This will put them in an excellent position to become a hub/focus city. Current terminal layout not condusive to it

What a pipe dream. I don't think anyone needs or wants benefit from a hub/focus city at MCI.

tsra wrote:

Granted, they badly need a new terminal, but any vote of the public isn't going to pass, because they're not going to give up their "convenience"

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. The business traveler understands how a new terminal will increase the flying experience but it is the traveler that flies once or twice a year that has been brainwashed to think MCI is great. It will be the less frequent traveler and their friends that will undoubtedly vote down any new terminal.[/quote]

I'm a business traveler who sees no point in a new terminal. And I'm not the only one.

BobbyPSP wrote:

This will put them in an excellent position to become a hub/focus city. Current terminal layout not condusive to it

Just because an airline redesigns their terminal, doesn't all of a sudden make it an attractive hub. There is a lot more that needs to be taken into consideration than that. MCI is in a prime location geographically, but there are cities like ORD and MSP that are a day's drive that have much larger population centers and are more powerful drivers of business traffic.

they were throwing around the terminal on the Barry Road/152 south side when I was working there 7 years ago.... I see they have decided to knock down A to replace it with this....

if they had designed the terminal about 20 feet thicker, as they did DFW they would not have had to have the separate "pods' of security.

Andrew

WAN has a large operation in MCI with connections being sold there. I can see them being very interested in this layout. Keep B or C for the legacy carriers O&D, and let WN come in to make a larger focus city. It could even attract the likes of G4S, F9, or NK. MCI is a great location (demographics and geography) for a good-sized (U)LCC hub.

sw733 wrote:

So let's see, we have what is basically a no-bid contract for a public space. And what happens if, down the road, B&M run in to financial issues midway through the project and the city has to start pumping money in to it so that we don't end up with a half-completed airport? Just ideas that concern me as a resident and frequent MCI user.

BobbyPSP wrote:

This will put them in an excellent position to become a hub/focus city. Current terminal layout not condusive to it

Please tell me which airlines are expanding and creating hubs in the US...

Yeah, that's not happening. But, MCI is a perfect candidate for Norwegian to put a plane there and give it a go. Catchment area of Omaha, Wichita, Springfield, even Northwest Arkansas and Tulsa and dare I say St. Louis within an easy drive.

sw733 wrote:

tsra wrote:

Granted, they badly need a new terminal, but any vote of the public isn't going to pass, because they're not going to give up their "convenience"

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. The business traveler understands how a new terminal will increase the flying experience but it is the traveler that flies once or twice a year that has been brainwashed to think MCI is great. It will be the less frequent traveler and their friends that will undoubtedly vote down any new terminal.

I'm a business traveler who sees no point in a new terminal. And I'm not the only one.[/quote]

I am a frequent businesst traveler and resident and disagree. Flying out of terminal b and trying to park in the garage is nearly impossible. That is inconvenient to me not too mention the hold areas for WN are routinely jammed packed and we get to listen to TSA yell at people to get out of the way.

A new terminal does not equal inconvenience, which is the perception the city will have to defeat with MCI loyalists.

I would love to see MCI get a new terminal and the updates it very much needs but if Kansas Citians have a say in it then it will never happen. I've lived in the Kansas City area my entire life and there are way too many NIMBY types here and people who hate change and don't understand how these sort of things move Kansas City forward. Also, why we have a useless streetcar system downtown that barely goes a mile but we can't get our airport updated is beyond me.

ahj2000 wrote:

I like the current set up. It is really easy to get in and out of, even if there isn't much there to eat/do. Perfect for O/D

True. If you get lost at MCI you're an idiot.

KentB27 wrote:

I would love to see MCI get a new terminal and the updates it very much needs but if Kansas Citians have a say in it then it will never happen. I've lived in the Kansas City area my entire life and there are way too many NIMBY types here and people who hate change and don't understand how these sort of things move Kansas City forward. Also, why we have a useless streetcar system downtown that barely goes a mile but we can't get our airport updated is beyond me.

I agree that this city is full of NIMBY s , which is often a set back anytime this city tries to get anything of significance done. I have to disagree with your streetcar statement, as a frequent user I am behind it 100% (but the only way that got done was a special election limiting who could vote on it, anytime the entire city voted on light rail they shot it down except for one time but the city council ultimately overturned it, I digress)

Midwestindy wrote:

I personally hope kansas city keeps dragging its feet on a new airport, that means more WN flights for STL, BNA, and IND!

More power to these airports in all honesty. At least things get done as it relates to airport relates issues in those cities

From the article:
"Most airport design firms require a 7 percent to 10 percent rate of return on their financial investment. Burns & McDonnell would be working with closer to a 3 percent rate of return, he said."

Does anyone find this remotely believable?

From the article "Some costs would be passed down to passengers" Of course they will be, we all know the airlines are gonna be charged more then they plan, costs on these things always go up. A private firm is probably overly excited, this smells risky to me.

I really don't think the "if you build it they will come" attitude works in aviation in 2017.

Anything that increases costs i think is really scary for MCI. For not being a hub they have a pretty good amount of service and N/S flights. I know the setup stinks but its really fast in and out as is, and costs are low. They already have a ton of gates.

I don't believe a single thing the administration of this airport says. They even said a new flashy terminal is the kind of thing airlines want to launch N/S flights to Asia and Europe! The costs will go up and it will be even LESS attractive. This airport is pushing for a new terminal no matter what, i don't think its necessarily a good idea.

What is KC really going to gain from this, the current facility has plenty of gates, costs will go up. What does the public gain from higher costs besides a flashier terminal and probably less service with increased costs. I like the idea, but I have some serious doubts.

PastTense wrote:

From the article:
"Most airport design firms require a 7 percent to 10 percent rate of return on their financial investment. Burns & McDonnell would be working with closer to a 3 percent rate of return, he said."

Does anyone find this remotely believable?

I guess this whole thing sounds a little to good to be true to me. Someone needs to explain it to me. How goes the firm make money if they don't own the airport or run it? That's a lot of money to put in with the city supposedly not pitching in. Something doesn't add up. But maybe I'm missing it. The extra $5 a flight doesn't seem like it would even close to cover it.

blhp68 wrote:

KentB27 wrote:

I would love to see MCI get a new terminal and the updates it very much needs but if Kansas Citians have a say in it then it will never happen. I've lived in the Kansas City area my entire life and there are way too many NIMBY types here and people who hate change and don't understand how these sort of things move Kansas City forward. Also, why we have a useless streetcar system downtown that barely goes a mile but we can't get our airport updated is beyond me.

I agree that this city is full of NIMBY s , which is often a set back anytime this city tries to get anything of significance done. I have to disagree with your streetcar statement, as a frequent user I am behind it 100% (but the only way that got done was a special election limiting who could vote on it, anytime the entire city voted on light rail they shot it down except for one time but the city council ultimately overturned it, I digress)

I'll stop complaining about the streetcar when it finally goes all the way from River Market to Country Club Plaza. But I also heard that could take as long as 10 years. With that being said KC has a lot going for it at the moment. Anyways, I'm veering off subject at this point so I'll leave it at that.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

I don't believe a single thing the administration of this airport says. They even said a new flashy terminal is the kind of thing airlines want to launch N/S flights to Asia and Europe! The costs will go up and it will be even LESS attractive. This airport is pushing for a new terminal no matter what, i don't think its necessarily a good idea.

I agree, that is such BS. I don't think MCI will ever see nonstop flights to Europe and Asia. The market just isn't there and what's the point when people can just take a short flight to Denver, Chicago, DFW, Atlanta, Houston, etc. and connect onto a flight to the international destination of their choice? And while I don't think a new terminal is necessarily a bad idea, I do think that renovating the existing terminals is a more cost effective solution and a good compromise.

If any airlines would be likely to serve MCI with a long haul international route its going to be a LCC like Norwegian, Icelandair, WOW, or Level. And any of those will want costs to be as low as possible ie keep existing facilities.

sw733 wrote:

tsra wrote:

Granted, they badly need a new terminal, but any vote of the public isn't going to pass, because they're not going to give up their "convenience"

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. The business traveler understands how a new terminal will increase the flying experience but it is the traveler that flies once or twice a year that has been brainwashed to think MCI is great. It will be the less frequent traveler and their friends that will undoubtedly vote down any new terminal.

I'm a business traveler who sees no point in a new terminal. And I'm not the only one.[/quote]

I must not fly the same time or airline as you because just the other night (most times that I fly) traffic was at a stand still in front of B - it reminded me of rush hour on I35. If there were different arrival and departure levels this would not happen. Don't get me started about no parking in the B garage - where is the convenience now? Also, a new terminal would have a true TSA pre check line which would allow me to breeze on through to my departure gate.. Maybe I fly more then I care to and it is getting to me (I know this is blasphemy on a.net) but I do not like being crammed in a holding cell just to get on an airplane to be cramped up for the next few hours. It is my opinion that a new, open terminal with all of the modern amenities would make my trip much more enjoyable. But again, the voters will never let that happen.

MCI is a dump. Plain and simple. Old design. Cramped areas, food selection in some terminals is a joke. Put down the kool-aid people, stop living in the past. Embrace growth and embrace the future!
If Kansas City ever wants to become a world class city and attract more business and tourism, they need world class airport facilities to accomplish that. Not some LGA looking dump from the 1970's. I rest my case.

tsra wrote:

sw733 wrote:

tsra wrote:

Granted, they badly need a new terminal, but any vote of the public isn't going to pass, because they're not going to give up their "convenience"

Ding, ding, ding, we have a winner. The business traveler understands how a new terminal will increase the flying experience but it is the traveler that flies once or twice a year that has been brainwashed to think MCI is great. It will be the less frequent traveler and their friends that will undoubtedly vote down any new terminal.

I'm a business traveler who sees no point in a new terminal. And I'm not the only one.

I must not fly the same time or airline as you because just the other night (most times that I fly) traffic was at a stand still in front of B - it reminded me of rush hour on I35. If there were different arrival and departure levels this would not happen. Don't get me started about no parking in the B garage - where is the convenience now? Also, a new terminal would have a true TSA pre check line which would allow me to breeze on through to my departure gate.. Maybe I fly more then I care to and it is getting to me (I know this is blasphemy on a.net) but I do not like being crammed in a holding cell just to get on an airplane to be cramped up for the next few hours. It is my opinion that a new, open terminal with all of the modern amenities would make my trip much more enjoyable. But again, the voters will never let that happen.[/quote]

Must be because I almost never use B.

KentB27 wrote:

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

I don't believe a single thing the administration of this airport says. They even said a new flashy terminal is the kind of thing airlines want to launch N/S flights to Asia and Europe! The costs will go up and it will be even LESS attractive. This airport is pushing for a new terminal no matter what, i don't think its necessarily a good idea.

I agree, that is such BS. I don't think MCI will ever see nonstop flights to Europe and Asia. The market just isn't there and what's the point when people can just take a short flight to Denver, Chicago, DFW, Atlanta, Houston, etc. and connect onto a flight to the international destination of their choice? And while I don't think a new terminal is necessarily a bad idea, I do think that renovating the existing terminals is a more cost effective solution and a good compromise.

I disagree with you here in part. They will get flights to Europe, likely London. Asia less likely in the next ten years, but there are many scenarios by which the city could grow to the point an Asia flight becomes viable. The question is when.

At present the Kansas City metro is a good size, with a decent catchment area too. Its past hub status suggests there is potential, as do its future economic possibilities. Like most places the city will have its day. That day just may be a good decade or so away.

BobbyPSP wrote:

This will put them in an excellent position to become a hub/focus city. Current terminal layout not condusive to it

I really doubt it. Yes, the current layout isn't conducive to MCI being a hub, but it has probably been tried and failed more than just about any airport I can think of. None of the big 3 will do it, WN may add. I'm still not buying into the idea AS of B6 must have a mid-continent hub. That leaves NK and G4, and G4 doesn't do hubs as we traditionally know then.

I feel for the city - the reality is that they were forced into this design by TWA, which wanted a drive to your gate airport. After hijackings became a thing, the need for security gateways destroyed any usability at the airport, and then sued by TWA to add insult to injury before TWA a band owned the airport. There was a plan in the early 90s to rebuild the airport to effectively compete with DEN as the best middle of the country airport, but it didn't pass, and you can see the ultimate outcome of that, with Denver hubbing three carriers, and MCI back to the drawing board again to fix the airport.

I'd like to see published numbers of how much money is spent per emplaned passenger in MCI versus most other airports.

Where I live I can basically pick from TUL or MCI to fly (MCI is a little further). I avoid MCI because of the layout of the airport. While it's nice to park so close to the gate; being packed in the gate house like sardines is not a pleasure.

I really don't understand local's love affair with the terminal design. Lack of restrooms, lack of concessions and lack of space.

Kansas City is the darkest, dreariest airport serving a medium size population center in the US. It is like stepping into a 1950's bus terminal. Demolition would be a kindness to all who use the place.

raddek wrote:

MCI is a dump. Plain and simple. Old design. Cramped areas, food selection in some terminals is a joke. Put down the kool-aid people, stop living in the past. Embrace growth and embrace the future!
If Kansas City ever wants to become a world class city and attract more business and tourism, they need world class airport facilities to accomplish that. Not some LGA looking dump from the 1970's. I rest my case.

Yes I have to agree. I recently flew in and out of MCI and found it was nearly as bad as Terminal B at LGA. MCI is very dated with extremely cramped facilities. I flew a DL 757 to ATL with 717s to DTW and SLC also boarding and it was very very crowded in the gate area. Great city I must add.

nsap wrote:

I really don't understand local's love affair with the terminal design. Lack of restrooms, lack of concessions and lack of space.

We don't spend a lot of time in it so there's really not a lot of time to experience the disadvantages. Not that I agree we don't need a new terminal.

I was just in Terminal B and it is absolutely horrible. People crammed in tight spaces, two few baggage claims (and no space around them), no space at the checkin counters for the volume of traffic. It's really an embarrassment to an otherwise great city and metro area. The rental car center there is far nicer than the terminal itself.

FlyingJhawk wrote:

nsap wrote:

I really don't understand local's love affair with the terminal design. Lack of restrooms, lack of concessions and lack of space.

We don't spend a lot of time in it so there's really not a lot of time to experience the disadvantages. Not that I agree we don't need a new terminal.

I agree this is probably the reason. MCI isn't my home airport but I hardly ever use amenities at my home airport. I know how early I need to get to the airport to get through security and to my gate. I don't give myself much extra time there for other things. I would guess this is how people there treat it as well. They aren't worried about people connecting, etc.

I haven't been on a flight I need to connect in while but this forum made me not pick MCI for a trip coming up. Thanks for the heads up.

It's a disaster. Feds should refused to fund the massive security costs at this airport until the city fixes it.

The geography of the country suggests that MCI is an almost perfectly located hub for East / West connecting traffic & if Kansas City wishes to try & exploit that, then a new terminal is required to attract a carrier who is willing to set up this hypothetical hub.

I'd think as cities like Chicago, Dallas etc expand with their current tenants there will need to be a reliever hub at some point in the future as air traffic continues with double digit growth year over year.

So far not one carrier has had success with creating an MCI hub, but maybe once MCI is large enough the facility will attract a new hub carrier.

As a former local who still flies back to MCI at least once a year, a new single terminal is a must. The passenger experience at MCI is horrible and the illusion of convenience evaporates the minute you are inside the holding area, have a delay, and want one of the services outside the holding area - or the minute you are outside the holding area and waiting for a massive, inefficient security screening layout.

It doesn't matter whether there will ever be a hub or long-haul international service at MCI - that is probably not likely, anyhow. It is simply a matter of making a more efficient, cost-effective travel experience for all parties involved.

Southwest having massive check-in lines is really the airlines fault, (photo above) that could easily happen at any airport where the check-in is understaffed. The airport has problems but what medium sized airport doesn't in 2017 doesnt suffer from lines TSA lines at times or check-in counters with airlines understaffing. Denver also suffered from massive security lines last summer and that is one of Americas best terminals, it was TSA and airlines under-staffing not a design problem with the terminal.

If the whole project is to have more concession stands there are alot cheaper options. I think they could connect more gates and put more stuff post security. There have to be alot of other options then rebuilding everything. MCI has no shortage of gates and there should be creative cost efficient alternatives. I cant believe a renovation costs more then a total rebuild. The airport management and some city people have an agenda here.

"Plans for renovating or rebuilding Kansas City International Airport should focus on keeping costs low", the chief executive of Southwest Airlines said Wednesday in Kansas City. Gary Kelly said low costs mean low fares and that’s the only way to keep growing service.

I am not sure how long ago he said this but when your largest carrier is concerned about costs, that would really make you scared to spend alot of money. I could really see this back firing with less service, and everyone admits higher costs for users. I doubt the average person wants to pay more and there is no hub carrier who is going to stand behind a renovation. Sorry to be negative, i just think with so much empty gate space especially in the central located airports, I could really see this back firing on them. IND, MEM, MKE, CVG, CLE, COS, STL, PIT there are so many airports that are really way below capacity. MCI seems to have a really good amount of service, destinations for a non-hub I don't see enough benefit for this, could backfire.

No legacy carrier is going to hub in MCI, and being in-between STL and DEN Southwest already has too much redundancy to increase. Southwest wants MORE for Denver and is working to get more gates, that means there is NO expansion going to MCI. The best thing MCI can do is keep costs low to keep all of their good Southwest service and destinations. If they increase costs look for Southwest to do less destinations and more flights to focus cities. Less destinations is bad for business.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

Southwest having massive check-in lines is really the airlines fault, (photo above) that could easily happen at any airport where the check-in is understaffed. The airport has problems but what medium sized airport doesn't in 2017 doesnt suffer from lines TSA lines at times or check-in counters with airlines understaffing. Denver also suffered from massive security lines last summer and that is one of Americas best terminals, it was TSA and airlines under-staffing not a design problem with the terminal.

If the whole project is to have more concession stands there are alot cheaper options. I think they could connect more gates and put more stuff post security. There have to be alot of other options then rebuilding everything. MCI has no shortage of gates and there should be creative cost efficient alternatives. I cant believe a renovation costs more then a total rebuild. The airport management and some city people have an agenda here.

They may have an agenda, and they might not have a great financial plan for how to pay for it. But it shouldn't be too hard to see why a renovation of the existing terminal can't actually solve the problems. MCI doesn't need cosmetic upgrades, it needs a huge change in function. To put more stuff behind security, to connect more gates, etc would require a massive expansion of the existing buildings which would be incredibly inefficient.

Sometimes it's worth it to replace expensive parts on an old, paid for, otherwise reliable car. And sometimes it makes more sense to get rid of a lemon and just buy a new car. MCI's design makes it incredibly hard to meet any of those goals with a simple renovation. And once you come to that conclusion, it's not hard to see why they might think of a renovation as simply throwing good money after bad.

slcdeltarumd11 wrote:

I am not sure how long ago he said this but when your largest carrier is concerned about costs, that would really make you scared to spend alot of money. I could really see this back firing with less service, and everyone admits higher costs for users. I doubt the average person wants to pay more and there is no hub carrier who is going to stand behind a renovation. Sorry to be negative, i just think with so much empty gate space especially in the central located airports, I could really see this back firing on them. IND, MEM, MKE, CVG, CLE, COS, STL, PIT there are so many airports that are really way below capacity. MCI seems to have a really good amount of service, destinations for a non-hub I don't see enough benefit for this, could backfire.

CVG doesn't really have extra gate space. The old terminals 1 and 2 have been torn down along with Concourse 3 the old Comair regional jet terminal. Concourse A is filled with all non-DL airlines (F9, G4, WN have/are adding lots of flights and others including UA have upgraded flights to mainline). DL controls all of Concourse B, and it is full during several banks and with RONs. DL has plenty of space to add flights throughout the day, other airlines do not have that luxury.

Speaking of MCI, I'd like to see them get a new terminal. I agree with others that WN might add o/d flights, but they've missed the window to be the next focus city with how they are situated with the much larger operations at DEN, DAL, STL only a quick hop away.