http://www.kansascity.com/news/politics ... 69097.html

MCI picks Edgemoor over Burns McDonnell for new airport terminal.

Honestly now that there's a Starbucks available in A, KCI is great to fly into. It's 20 yards to the door from the plane on some gates, security is almost never bad, and the entire concept is very O/D friendly. No growth though, I guess, unless A is reopened

ahj2000 wrote:

Honestly now that there's a Starbucks available in A, KCI is great to fly into. It's 20 yards to the door from the plane on some gates, security is almost never bad, and the entire concept is very O/D friendly. No growth though, I guess, unless A is reopened

What? MCI is easily one of the worst airports in the US

I was cheering for the Burns & McDonald proposal. Why? Because it was the hometown team and they were the ones that got this ball rolling. I hope the winning company produces an excellent design that will last the city for many years to come.

chalupas54 wrote:

ahj2000 wrote:

Honestly now that there's a Starbucks available in A, KCI is great to fly into. It's 20 yards to the door from the plane on some gates, security is almost never bad, and the entire concept is very O/D friendly. No growth though, I guess, unless A is reopened

What? MCI is easily one of the worst airports in the US

Its no Changi, but it is EASY. And fast. For an airport where no one connects, it's nice. No long walks to the rental car bus stop, no 10-min walk to the gates...I kinda like that as I live in and fly through almost entirely bigger-airport cities.

Is Southwest capable of adding nonstop service from MCI to CUN out of its existing terminal? Southwest has announced plans to serve CUN nonstop from both IND and CMH, but not from MCI, which is a bigger Southwest Airlines station than IND or CMH.

ahj2000 wrote:

chalupas54 wrote:

ahj2000 wrote:

Honestly now that there's a Starbucks available in A, KCI is great to fly into. It's 20 yards to the door from the plane on some gates, security is almost never bad, and the entire concept is very O/D friendly. No growth though, I guess, unless A is reopened

What? MCI is easily one of the worst airports in the US

Its no Changi, but it is EASY. And fast. For an airport where no one connects, it's nice. No long walks to the rental car bus stop, no 10-min walk to the gates...I kinda like that as I live in and fly through almost entirely bigger-airport cities.

WN runs connections through MCI, so not no one. However there aren't as many anymore like there was when Midwest was in town.

jplatts wrote:

Is Southwest capable of adding nonstop service from MCI to CUN out of its existing terminal? Southwest has announced plans to serve CUN nonstop from both IND and CMH, but not from MCI, which is a bigger Southwest Airlines station than IND or CMH.

There's already three or four airlines operating seasonal MCI-CUN service. Not sure Southwest would want to jump in on that, but who knows.

Would they be capable? Sure, why not. The others do it. If someone were to connect, however, CUN-MCI-XXX, it would require a terminal change after clearing immigration at Gate 90 (Terminal C) to get to the rest of the WN flights in Terminal B.

sw733 wrote:

jplatts wrote:

Is Southwest capable of adding nonstop service from MCI to CUN out of its existing terminal? Southwest has announced plans to serve CUN nonstop from both IND and CMH, but not from MCI, which is a bigger Southwest Airlines station than IND or CMH.

There's already three or four airlines operating seasonal MCI-CUN service. Not sure Southwest would want to jump in on that, but who knows.

Would they be capable? Sure, why not. The others do it. If someone were to connect, however, CUN-MCI-XXX, it would require a terminal change after clearing immigration at Gate 90 (Terminal C) to get to the rest of the WN flights in Terminal B.

^^ This is why they will not operate the route.

Minority group: Reject KCI developer recommendation

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... ation.html

I feel like this keeps getting messier.

While I absolutely love arriving into MCI, it's no pleasure to fly out of. Limited facilities in secure area, cramped seating, it's always hot and muggy inside, and limited security lines. I do agree we need a new terminal here. But if they want this on the ballot in less than two months they've really gotta start telling the voting public about it and trying to sell it.

Jshank83 wrote:

Minority group: Reject KCI developer recommendation

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/ ... ation.html

I feel like this keeps getting messier.

I suspect this is simply political posturing. Keep in mind the city doesn't even have an MOU with Edgemoor so how can they reject something that isn't binding at this point?

chalupas54 wrote:

What? MCI is easily one of the worst airports in the US

It is a dump, but it literally takes less than one minute from the time you get off the plane to the sidewalk and get picked up. A little cramped leaving, but no unbearable. I never use airports for shopping or eating or sticking around more than I have to. It's a dump, but a fast drop off and pickup dump.

I really don't see this passing.

Are there any polls out yet on this?

Kansas just needs to build an airport on their side and be done with this.

TVNWZ wrote:

chalupas54 wrote:

What? MCI is easily one of the worst airports in the US

It is a dump, but it literally takes less than one minute from the time you get off the plane to the sidewalk and get picked up. A little cramped leaving, but no unbearable. I never use airports for shopping or eating or sticking around more than I have to. It's a dump, but a fast drop off and pickup dump.

A number of years ago I used to fly between DFW and MCI on business and it seemed like the only redeemable thing about MCI (and the thing that the airport bragged about) was the short distance between getting on and off the plane to/from the sidewalk. Otherwise I found the terminals lacking in room and restaurants/stores.

chalupas54 wrote:

I really don't see this passing.

I honestly feel bad for MCI frequent flyers, they deserve better than the monstrosity that is MCI, I hope this passes...

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Kansas just needs to build an airport on their side and be done with this.

Agreed. Missouri has devolved into a ridiculous bureaucratic mess. They can't spend any money without putting it to vote. The city doesn't even control alot of it's own affairs as the state has taken some (Police/Fire) away for political reasons.

A shame for such a pretty city.

Midwestindy wrote:

I honestly feel bad for MCI frequent flyers, they deserve better than the monstrosity that is MCI, I hope this passes...

It's funny -- among more than a few KC'ers the peculiar terminal is a point of pride. And the short curb-to-gate walk is almost a religious tenet, though it's not much benefit unless you're being dropped off or picked up. (I would love to know what portion of KC traffic is dropped off or picked up.) Often when you arrive you can be out to the curb very quickly, especially if you don't have a bag to claim and don't need to find a bathroom. But as a departing passengers I'm not so sure the number of steps from car to get is so few. From your drop off point to the ticket counter (to drop your bag or get a boarding pass) to the security checkpioint to your gate you do a lot more "east-west" walking than you might realize even though you're never far from the drive.

Parking is no treat at KCI. The garages within the terminal arc are expensive ($23/day) and often fill up, especially on B. And if you park remotely, well, frankly that's not very convenient. If do park remote when you return you get to wait for the shuttle bus mostly exposed to the elements on an island in the middle of the drive. There are some half-open 70's style bus shelters but they aren't a lot of protection against cold or wet, and routinely some people end up waiting with no shelter. The parking choice $23 a day (if there's any room in the garage) or a remote parking lot is not something to brag about. Lots of medium airports have cheaper, more ample covered parking at the terminal and $23/day is about what curbside valet service costs at some medium-sized airports.

I think that some opponents feel like their options are either the existing terminal or something like Minneapolis or Atlanta. I wish people could easily see Indianapolis airport. It's a great terminal, walks are reasonable, parking is ample. Something on the approximate scale of Indy could readily handle what KC can expect for years to come, and with a bit of foresight it could be designed for expansion should the need arise.

knope2001 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

I honestly feel bad for MCI frequent flyers, they deserve better than the monstrosity that is MCI, I hope this passes...

It's funny -- among more than a few KC'ers the peculiar terminal is a point of pride. And the short curb-to-gate walk is almost a religious tenet, though it's not much benefit unless you're being dropped off or picked up. (I would love to know what portion of KC traffic is dropped off or picked up.) Often when you arrive you can be out to the curb very quickly, especially if you don't have a bag to claim and don't need to find a bathroom. But as a departing passengers I'm not so sure the number of steps from car to get is so few. From your drop off point to the ticket counter (to drop your bag or get a boarding pass) to the security checkpioint to your gate you do a lot more "east-west" walking than you might realize even though you're never far from the drive.

Parking is no treat at KCI. The garages within the terminal arc are expensive ($23/day) and often fill up, especially on B. And if you park remotely, well, frankly that's not very convenient. If do park remote when you return you get to wait for the shuttle bus mostly exposed to the elements on an island in the middle of the drive. There are some half-open 70's style bus shelters but they aren't a lot of protection against cold or wet, and routinely some people end up waiting with no shelter. The parking choice $23 a day (if there's any room in the garage) or a remote parking lot is not something to brag about. Lots of medium airports have cheaper, more ample covered parking at the terminal and $23/day is about what curbside valet service costs at some medium-sized airports.

I think that some opponents feel like their options are either the existing terminal or something like Minneapolis or Atlanta. I wish people could easily see Indianapolis airport. It's a great terminal, walks are reasonable, parking is ample. Something on the approximate scale of Indy could readily handle what KC can expect for years to come, and with a bit of foresight it could be designed for expansion should the need arise.

Eisenhower's terminal down in Wichita could handle KCI's needs if it we 20% larger. The backwards NIMBYism in KC is a really weird phenomenon.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Kansas just needs to build an airport on their side and be done with this.

As a Kansas resident - no thanks.

knope2001 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

I honestly feel bad for MCI frequent flyers, they deserve better than the monstrosity that is MCI, I hope this passes...

It's funny -- among more than a few KC'ers the peculiar terminal is a point of pride. And the short curb-to-gate walk is almost a religious tenet, though it's not much benefit unless you're being dropped off or picked up. (I would love to know what portion of KC traffic is dropped off or picked up.) Often when you arrive you can be out to the curb very quickly, especially if you don't have a bag to claim and don't need to find a bathroom. But as a departing passengers I'm not so sure the number of steps from car to get is so few. From your drop off point to the ticket counter (to drop your bag or get a boarding pass) to the security checkpioint to your gate you do a lot more "east-west" walking than you might realize even though you're never far from the drive.

Parking is no treat at KCI. The garages within the terminal arc are expensive ($23/day) and often fill up, especially on B. And if you park remotely, well, frankly that's not very convenient. If do park remote when you return you get to wait for the shuttle bus mostly exposed to the elements on an island in the middle of the drive. There are some half-open 70's style bus shelters but they aren't a lot of protection against cold or wet, and routinely some people end up waiting with no shelter. The parking choice $23 a day (if there's any room in the garage) or a remote parking lot is not something to brag about. Lots of medium airports have cheaper, more ample covered parking at the terminal and $23/day is about what curbside valet service costs at some medium-sized airports.

I think that some opponents feel like their options are either the existing terminal or something like Minneapolis or Atlanta. I wish people could easily see Indianapolis airport. It's a great terminal, walks are reasonable, parking is ample. Something on the approximate scale of Indy could readily handle what KC can expect for years to come, and with a bit of foresight it could be designed for expansion should the need arise.

You're missing the circle lots between terminals. Not covered but a nice in-between if you don't want garage or remote

sw733 wrote:

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Kansas just needs to build an airport on their side and be done with this.

As a Kansas resident - no thanks.

Yea but then Missouri won't close their airport and the Kansas airport will be BLV.

sw733 wrote:

knope2001 wrote:

Midwestindy wrote:

I honestly feel bad for MCI frequent flyers, they deserve better than the monstrosity that is MCI, I hope this passes...

It's funny -- among more than a few KC'ers the peculiar terminal is a point of pride. And the short curb-to-gate walk is almost a religious tenet, though it's not much benefit unless you're being dropped off or picked up. (I would love to know what portion of KC traffic is dropped off or picked up.) Often when you arrive you can be out to the curb very quickly, especially if you don't have a bag to claim and don't need to find a bathroom. But as a departing passengers I'm not so sure the number of steps from car to get is so few. From your drop off point to the ticket counter (to drop your bag or get a boarding pass) to the security checkpioint to your gate you do a lot more "east-west" walking than you might realize even though you're never far from the drive.

Parking is no treat at KCI. The garages within the terminal arc are expensive ($23/day) and often fill up, especially on B. And if you park remotely, well, frankly that's not very convenient. If do park remote when you return you get to wait for the shuttle bus mostly exposed to the elements on an island in the middle of the drive. There are some half-open 70's style bus shelters but they aren't a lot of protection against cold or wet, and routinely some people end up waiting with no shelter. The parking choice $23 a day (if there's any room in the garage) or a remote parking lot is not something to brag about. Lots of medium airports have cheaper, more ample covered parking at the terminal and $23/day is about what curbside valet service costs at some medium-sized airports.

I think that some opponents feel like their options are either the existing terminal or something like Minneapolis or Atlanta. I wish people could easily see Indianapolis airport. It's a great terminal, walks are reasonable, parking is ample. Something on the approximate scale of Indy could readily handle what KC can expect for years to come, and with a bit of foresight it could be designed for expansion should the need arise.

You're missing the circle lots between terminals. Not covered but a nice in-between if you don't want garage or remote

Do people routinely walk from those "circle parking" lots to the terminals? I thought people took shuttles, normally. I know you can walk -- I've walked several times between terminals myself when I had time to burn but I considered those shuttle lots too, even if they aren't as far away as Economy.

knope2001 wrote:

Do people routinely walk from those "circle parking" lots to the terminals? I thought people took shuttles, normally. I know you can walk -- I've walked several times between terminals myself when I had time to burn but I considered those shuttle lots too, even if they aren't as far away as Economy.

Now that you mention it, I've done it and I've never even personally flown out of KC. We were dropping off friends, but decided to stay and wait for a while and the local guide sent us to an in between lot. My own experience with MCI is limited to that and a couple of similar experiences. All were pleasant enough, but it's been a while and the place always seemed a little awkward and oddly quiet. Pleasant, but odd. It looked like a lousy place to wait airside, but I think that was before the last round of fixes. Now it might not be too bad. Not really sure. But then I do very very little shopping airside. I buy snacks and coffee and that's about the end of it. Apart from that I prefer exploring and plane watching, so my tastes are maybe a little off from most of the traveling public anyway.

You'll all love this anna.aero article:

http://www.anna.aero/2017/09/13/kansas- ... rom-europe

MCI now "largest unserved US market from Europe".

Discuss

knope2001 wrote:

sw733 wrote:

knope2001 wrote:

It's funny -- among more than a few KC'ers the peculiar terminal is a point of pride. And the short curb-to-gate walk is almost a religious tenet, though it's not much benefit unless you're being dropped off or picked up. (I would love to know what portion of KC traffic is dropped off or picked up.) Often when you arrive you can be out to the curb very quickly, especially if you don't have a bag to claim and don't need to find a bathroom. But as a departing passengers I'm not so sure the number of steps from car to get is so few. From your drop off point to the ticket counter (to drop your bag or get a boarding pass) to the security checkpioint to your gate you do a lot more "east-west" walking than you might realize even though you're never far from the drive.

Parking is no treat at KCI. The garages within the terminal arc are expensive ($23/day) and often fill up, especially on B. And if you park remotely, well, frankly that's not very convenient. If do park remote when you return you get to wait for the shuttle bus mostly exposed to the elements on an island in the middle of the drive. There are some half-open 70's style bus shelters but they aren't a lot of protection against cold or wet, and routinely some people end up waiting with no shelter. The parking choice $23 a day (if there's any room in the garage) or a remote parking lot is not something to brag about. Lots of medium airports have cheaper, more ample covered parking at the terminal and $23/day is about what curbside valet service costs at some medium-sized airports.

I think that some opponents feel like their options are either the existing terminal or something like Minneapolis or Atlanta. I wish people could easily see Indianapolis airport. It's a great terminal, walks are reasonable, parking is ample. Something on the approximate scale of Indy could readily handle what KC can expect for years to come, and with a bit of foresight it could be designed for expansion should the need arise.

You're missing the circle lots between terminals. Not covered but a nice in-between if you don't want garage or remote

Do people routinely walk from those "circle parking" lots to the terminals? I thought people took shuttles, normally. I know you can walk -- I've walked several times between terminals myself when I had time to burn but I considered those shuttle lots too, even if they aren't as far away as Economy.

I park in Circle Parking a few times each month and definitely see people walking more than waiting at the shuttle stop. I've never taken the shuttle, that's for sure.

TheLion wrote:

You'll all love this anna.aero article:

http://www.anna.aero/2017/09/13/kansas- ... rom-europe

MCI now "largest unserved US market from Europe".

Discuss

Well one thing is the existence of WOW. Who would've thought even a year or two ago that places like Cleveland and St. Louis would be connected to Keflavik. I could certainly see WOW coming to MCI, with or without a new terminal, if they can make it work with the aircraft range. Immigration at MCI isn't ideal, but it's there and it works.

Some people here in KC think we'll get, say, British Airways. They're the same delusional people who think we'll be a major hub once we build a new airport.

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Kansas just needs to build an airport on their side and be done with this.

There was a proposal or two to build a new airport in south Johnson County on the Kansas side but they were basically laughed out of the room.

TheLion wrote:

You'll all love this anna.aero article:

http://www.anna.aero/2017/09/13/kansas- ... rom-europe

MCI now "largest unserved US market from Europe".

Discuss

As a lifelong KC resident, why would anyone from Europe want to visit KC for anything other than family or business? I can see the argument for people traveling to Europe from MCI but not people traveling from Europe to MCI. MCI can handle wide bodies though. UA occasionally flies 767s into MCI.

KentB27 wrote:

TheLion wrote:

You'll all love this anna.aero article:

http://www.anna.aero/2017/09/13/kansas- ... rom-europe

MCI now "largest unserved US market from Europe".

Discuss

As a lifelong KC resident, why would anyone from Europe want to visit KC for anything other than family or business? I can see the argument for people traveling to Europe from MCI but not people traveling from Europe to MCI. MCI can handle wide bodies though. UA occasionally flies 767s into MCI.

Pretty sure the market would be for US tourists going to Europe, not vice versa, though a few of those would certainly come.

We have also has the occasional Virgin A346 for both NFL and MLS charters to/from Europe.

TheLion wrote:

You'll all love this anna.aero article:

http://www.anna.aero/2017/09/13/kansas- ... rom-europe

MCI now "largest unserved US market from Europe".

Discuss

As much as I'd like to see TATL service from MCI, I think that when BA announces STL (and trust me, it's going to happen), Kansas City would feed into the STL market, much like how San Antonio feeds into the AUS market with BA, so I don't see it happening soon. But as usual, I'd love to be proven wrong.

KentB27 wrote:

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Kansas just needs to build an airport on their side and be done with this.

There was a proposal or two to build a new airport in south Johnson County on the Kansas side but they were basically laughed out of the room.

The problem is that KC voters love their dump of a terminal too much (or don't use it at all) that a new terminal probably won't win at the ballot box.

At some point, something is going to have to be done.

I'm going to be completely honest here. I visit MCI about 3 times per year, and the first time I ever visited I got lost in the terminal. After an early flight out of LGA and what turned out to be 7 hours in ORD (AA cancelled my ORD-MCI flight with nothing more than a random phone call and no announcement made in the gate area), I got off the plane in MCI and went looking for the escalator/stairs/elevator to baggage claim not realizing that the boarding gates were on the same level (the jetways angle downward to most aircraft as you regularly see in multi-level terminals with the boarding gates on the second level, especially when you are on an MD-80). So after about 5-10 minutes of circling the gate area (and a bathroom break), I finally walked out of the sterile area and realized that baggage claim was right next to me.

With that said, I'll agree that the space is cramped, and while you can go from jetway to curbside in about 60 seconds, it's just not cutting it anymore. Aviation has changed since MCI was built, and the NIMBYs don't realize that service levels probably will be no different than they are if/when the new terminal is built. You won't be seeing 777s landing at the airport JUST because you have a new terminal. It will just be an easier experience with more concessions within the sterile area of the terminal (that really is a pain when everything decent is outside of security).

Vctony wrote:

KentB27 wrote:

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Kansas just needs to build an airport on their side and be done with this.

There was a proposal or two to build a new airport in south Johnson County on the Kansas side but they were basically laughed out of the room.

The problem is that KC voters love their dump of a terminal too much (or don't use it at all) that a new terminal probably won't win at the ballot box.

At some point, something is going to have to be done.

Nobody has really done a good job of getting the word out there on why this would benefit KC, plus for some reason KC is home to a bunch of grumpy NIMBY types. I'll admit, I have a lot of fond memories of MCI as it is now but the terminals aren't getting any younger and with terminal A already shut down this is an opportune time to make changes.

I'm honestly surprised that the streetcar project in downtown KC even happened.

Vctony wrote:

KentB27 wrote:

WaywardMemphian wrote:

Kansas just needs to build an airport on their side and be done with this.

There was a proposal or two to build a new airport in south Johnson County on the Kansas side but they were basically laughed out of the room.

The problem is that KC voters love their dump of a terminal too much (or don't use it at all) that a new terminal probably won't win at the ballot box.

At some point, something is going to have to be done.

I think the tide is starting to turn quickly in KCMO. It wouldn't surprise me if the new terminal passed in November, though I think it'll be close either way.

evank516 wrote:

You won't be seeing 777s landing at the airport JUST because you have a new terminal.

But see this is the problem. So many people in KC have been made to think that a new terminal = airline hub and 777s to London. For the last few years, so many people have been saying this that it boggles my mind. Granted, it's usually people who rarely travel (maybe they fly once a year to Florida and once a year to Denver) that say this, but in reality that's the majority of people.

The "Build it and they will come" mentality is huge with this airport here in KC. Now, I've slowly become someone who admits we need a new airport of some kind, but I'm not foolish enough to think we'll get any additional air travel from it aside from maybe a couple of WN flights.

sw733 wrote:

evank516 wrote:

You won't be seeing 777s landing at the airport JUST because you have a new terminal.

But see this is the problem. So many people in KC have been made to think that a new terminal = airline hub and 777s to London. For the last few years, so many people have been saying this that it boggles my mind. Granted, it's usually people who rarely travel (maybe they fly once a year to Florida and once a year to Denver) that say this, but in reality that's the majority of people.

The "Build it and they will come" mentality is huge with this airport here in KC. Now, I've slowly become someone who admits we need a new airport of some kind, but I'm not foolish enough to think we'll get any additional air travel from it aside from maybe a couple of WN flights.

sw733, that is exactly why I made this specific comment because that IS the NIMBY mentality. Look at ISP, they built a brand new concourse and all WN did over time was downsize their operation, they even let go of 4 out of the 8 new gates. DAB has an international terminal with Customs/Border Protection available, a jetway to handle large widebody aircraft, and absolutely zero international service scheduled since the 2000s, and transatlantic service has not existed since the mid-1990s. I view NIMBYs as uninformed, uneducated, and smart alec type individuals who think they know the aviation world, but in reality have zero knowledge about how the industry works. Terminals don't bring new service (usually), demand does. And even then, demand doesn't always sell the service either.

787fan8 wrote:

TheLion wrote:

You'll all love this anna.aero article:

http://www.anna.aero/2017/09/13/kansas- ... rom-europe

MCI now "largest unserved US market from Europe".

Discuss

As much as I'd like to see TATL service from MCI, I think that when BA announces STL (and trust me, it's going to happen), Kansas City would feed into the STL market, much like how San Antonio feeds into the AUS market with BA, so I don't see it happening soon. But as usual, I'd love to be proven wrong.

Correct me if im wrong but how are MCI passengers going to connect in STL if the only airline that serves the route is Southwest? Unless you're are thinking people are going to drive 5+ hrs.

What about the likes of Norwegian Air or Condor or even LEVEL? Could they be contenders to start a flight to MCI? It seems like their kind of market.

Vctony wrote:

sw733 wrote:

evank516 wrote:

You won't be seeing 777s landing at the airport JUST because you have a new terminal.

But see this is the problem. So many people in KC have been made to think that a new terminal = airline hub and 777s to London. For the last few years, so many people have been saying this that it boggles my mind. Granted, it's usually people who rarely travel (maybe they fly once a year to Florida and once a year to Denver) that say this, but in reality that's the majority of people.

The "Build it and they will come" mentality is huge with this airport here in KC. Now, I've slowly become someone who admits we need a new airport of some kind, but I'm not foolish enough to think we'll get any additional air travel from it aside from maybe a couple of WN flights.

I believe WN has stated that it built up DEN and STL a little larger that it otherwise would have due to MCI's terminal setup.

WN doesn't like routing connecting passengers through MCI because its a less than pleasant experience.

If MCI does get a new terminal, I'm sure WN will expand to a few more domestic stations (and possibly Mexico).

Wouldn't be surprised, but then again with DEN and STL built up, where is the need for that in MCI?

sw733 wrote:

evank516 wrote:

You won't be seeing 777s landing at the airport JUST because you have a new terminal.

But see this is the problem. So many people in KC have been made to think that a new terminal = airline hub and 777s to London. For the last few years, so many people have been saying this that it boggles my mind. Granted, it's usually people who rarely travel (maybe they fly once a year to Florida and once a year to Denver) that say this, but in reality that's the majority of people.

The "Build it and they will come" mentality is huge with this airport here in KC. Now, I've slowly become someone who admits we need a new airport of some kind, but I'm not foolish enough to think we'll get any additional air travel from it aside from maybe a couple of WN flights.

I believe WN has stated that it built up DEN and STL a little larger that it otherwise would have due to MCI's terminal setup.

WN doesn't like routing connecting passengers through MCI because its a less than pleasant experience.

If MCI does get a new terminal, I'm sure WN will expand to a few more domestic stations (and possibly Mexico).

Vctony wrote:

sw733 wrote:

evank516 wrote:

You won't be seeing 777s landing at the airport JUST because you have a new terminal.

But see this is the problem. So many people in KC have been made to think that a new terminal = airline hub and 777s to London. For the last few years, so many people have been saying this that it boggles my mind. Granted, it's usually people who rarely travel (maybe they fly once a year to Florida and once a year to Denver) that say this, but in reality that's the majority of people.

The "Build it and they will come" mentality is huge with this airport here in KC. Now, I've slowly become someone who admits we need a new airport of some kind, but I'm not foolish enough to think we'll get any additional air travel from it aside from maybe a couple of WN flights.

I believe WN has stated that it built up DEN and STL a little larger that it otherwise would have due to MCI's terminal setup.

WN doesn't like routing connecting passengers through MCI because its a less than pleasant experience.

If MCI does get a new terminal, I'm sure WN will expand to a few more domestic stations (and possibly Mexico).

A few more routes, sure. Or at least a few more frequencies. But I just don't see anything too big coming from a new terminal as far as routes go. I don't see any transatlantic/Mexico (sans Cancun)/Caribbean routes starting just because of a new terminal. In the end, whether a new terminal comes or doesn't come, KC is still only a mid-sized city with barely 2,000,000 people.

sw733 wrote:

Vctony wrote:

sw733 wrote:

But see this is the problem. So many people in KC have been made to think that a new terminal = airline hub and 777s to London. For the last few years, so many people have been saying this that it boggles my mind. Granted, it's usually people who rarely travel (maybe they fly once a year to Florida and once a year to Denver) that say this, but in reality that's the majority of people.

The "Build it and they will come" mentality is huge with this airport here in KC. Now, I've slowly become someone who admits we need a new airport of some kind, but I'm not foolish enough to think we'll get any additional air travel from it aside from maybe a couple of WN flights.

I believe WN has stated that it built up DEN and STL a little larger that it otherwise would have due to MCI's terminal setup.

WN doesn't like routing connecting passengers through MCI because its a less than pleasant experience.

If MCI does get a new terminal, I'm sure WN will expand to a few more domestic stations (and possibly Mexico).

A few more routes, sure. Or at least a few more frequencies. But I just don't see anything too big coming from a new terminal as far as routes go. I don't see any transatlantic/Mexico (sans Cancun)/Caribbean routes starting just because of a new terminal. In the end, whether a new terminal comes or doesn't come, KC is still only a mid-sized city with barely 2,000,000 people.

The mentality in KC is largely, don't fix what isn't broke and why would we demolish the most convenient airport in the world. As someone who lives in KC, this is largely the attitude on most things and a big reason why the city continues to fall behind peer cities - not just on airport issues alone.

trexel94 wrote:

787fan8 wrote:

TheLion wrote:

You'll all love this anna.aero article:

http://www.anna.aero/2017/09/13/kansas- ... rom-europe

MCI now "largest unserved US market from Europe".

Discuss

As much as I'd like to see TATL service from MCI, I think that when BA announces STL (and trust me, it's going to happen), Kansas City would feed into the STL market, much like how San Antonio feeds into the AUS market with BA, so I don't see it happening soon. But as usual, I'd love to be proven wrong.

Correct me if im wrong but how are MCI passengers going to connect in STL if the only airline that serves the route is Southwest? Unless you're are thinking people are going to drive 5+ hrs.

What about the likes of Norwegian Air or Condor or even LEVEL? Could they be contenders to start a flight to MCI? It seems like their kind of market.

I think the suggestion is that people will drive the 4 hours to hop on a BA flight. It will be interesting to see what, if any, TATL comes to MCI - LCC or Legacy.

sw733 wrote:

evank516 wrote:

You won't be seeing 777s landing at the airport JUST because you have a new terminal.

But see this is the problem. So many people in KC have been made to think that a new terminal = airline hub and 777s to London. For the last few years, so many people have been saying this that it boggles my mind. Granted, it's usually people who rarely travel (maybe they fly once a year to Florida and once a year to Denver) that say this, but in reality that's the majority of people.

The "Build it and they will come" mentality is huge with this airport here in KC. Now, I've slowly become someone who admits we need a new airport of some kind, but I'm not foolish enough to think we'll get any additional air travel from it aside from maybe a couple of WN flights.

That is the fault of the city and other leaders who have attempted to convey the value of a new terminal. It amazes me that most other major airport projects in the US move forward without much drama yet in KC we can't get anything moving in the right direction.

trexel94 wrote:

787fan8 wrote:

TheLion wrote:

You'll all love this anna.aero article:

http://www.anna.aero/2017/09/13/kansas- ... rom-europe

MCI now "largest unserved US market from Europe".

Discuss

As much as I'd like to see TATL service from MCI, I think that when BA announces STL (and trust me, it's going to happen), Kansas City would feed into the STL market, much like how San Antonio feeds into the AUS market with BA, so I don't see it happening soon. But as usual, I'd love to be proven wrong.

Correct me if im wrong but how are MCI passengers going to connect in STL if the only airline that serves the route is Southwest? Unless you're are thinking people are going to drive 5+ hrs.

What about the likes of Norwegian Air or Condor or even LEVEL? Could they be contenders to start a flight to MCI? It seems like their kind of market.

"IF" BA enters the STL market, If memory serves me, AA stopped STL-MCI-STL back in 2003. It is possible to re-start that again. Not counting on it, but hey who knows.

TWA302 wrote:

trexel94 wrote:

787fan8 wrote:

As much as I'd like to see TATL service from MCI, I think that when BA announces STL (and trust me, it's going to happen), Kansas City would feed into the STL market, much like how San Antonio feeds into the AUS market with BA, so I don't see it happening soon. But as usual, I'd love to be proven wrong.

Correct me if im wrong but how are MCI passengers going to connect in STL if the only airline that serves the route is Southwest? Unless you're are thinking people are going to drive 5+ hrs.

What about the likes of Norwegian Air or Condor or even LEVEL? Could they be contenders to start a flight to MCI? It seems like their kind of market.

"IF" BA enters the STL market, If memory serves me, AA stopped STL-MCI-STL back in 2003. It is possible to re-start that again. Not counting on it, but hey who knows.

I'm sure AA would jump right into MCI-STL after not being able to sustain MCI-LGA

Interesting insight here, this is why I think Norwegian comes regardless of terminal issues if the A321LR has the legs for at least summer flights as well as my home town of Memphis.

http://www.anna.aero/wp-content/uploads ... arkets.jpg

evank516 wrote:

TWA302 wrote:

trexel94 wrote:

Correct me if im wrong but how are MCI passengers going to connect in STL if the only airline that serves the route is Southwest? Unless you're are thinking people are going to drive 5+ hrs.

What about the likes of Norwegian Air or Condor or even LEVEL? Could they be contenders to start a flight to MCI? It seems like their kind of market.

"IF" BA enters the STL market, If memory serves me, AA stopped STL-MCI-STL back in 2003. It is possible to re-start that again. Not counting on it, but hey who knows.

I'm sure AA would jump right into MCI-STL after not being able to sustain MCI-LGA

They still fly NS to LGA from MCI, just no mainline last time I looked. Unless OAG just changed recently?