We need a new airport!!!

[KCPowercat]

the lifetime of the repairs is key too. if the engineers say $500mm and it gets us 15 years is different from $1000mm and it gets us 40 years

It's not like a new terminal will have no yearly repair costs either. More times than not, contract laden new construction ends up costings MORE than the existing construction when it comes to repair costs. All sorts of things get screwed up nowadays in construction, and companies aren't held liable like they used to be.

you have no idea what needs to be done

Likewise.

There's no way in the world it would cost 500 million dollars for "Needed" repairs. You guys have no idea how much real world repairs cost, and that's a problem. The 500 million figure includes all sorts of pleasantry/not Recurring Work requests..like bathroom reno's, gate reno's, and all sorts of junk. Let's see a figure for actual needed maintenance first..and work from that.

Go back a few pages and just read that. Nothing new is being discussed here.

We appreciate you imparting your knowledge of construction costs AND being a pro flyer to us.... But nothing new or of real substance is being posted.

[im2kull]

We appreciate you imparting your knowledge of construction costs AND being a pro flyer to us.... But nothing new or of real substance is being posted.

A large part of what I do for a living is build contracts for utility/building repair work (Of all scopes) and I know for a fact that it's impossible for repair work at KCI to run over $100M for the items that they've specified and shown as needed repaired. A few leaky pipes and what not shouldn't even add up to over one million dollars. I don't think you realize how much "Work" is needed to add up to the numbers they've given (Hundreds of millions of dollars..).

[grovester]

We appreciate you imparting your knowledge of construction costs AND being a pro flyer to us.... But nothing new or of real substance is being posted.

A large part of what I do for a living is build contracts for utility/building repair work (Of all scopes) and I know for a fact that it's impossible for repair work at KCI to run over $100M for the items that they've specified and shown as needed repaired. A few leaky pipes and what not shouldn't even add up to over one million dollars. I don't think you realize how much "Work" is needed to add up to the numbers they've given (Hundreds of millions of dollars..).

You were also once a young black man.

[NDTeve]

We appreciate you imparting your knowledge of construction costs AND being a pro flyer to us.... But nothing new or of real substance is being posted.

A large part of what I do for a living is build contracts for utility/building repair work (Of all scopes) and I know for a fact that it's impossible for repair work at KCI to run over $100M for the items that they've specified and shown as needed repaired. A few leaky pipes and what not shouldn't even add up to over one million dollars. I don't think you realize how much "Work" is needed to add up to the numbers they've given (Hundreds of millions of dollars..).

Maybe they don't want to "underestimate" and require a bunch of change orders.

[aknowledgeableperson]

Don't forget, they are talking about repairs and maintenance and upgrades to 3 buildings not one. And those 3 buildings are not small buildings.

[flyingember]

Don't forget, they are talking about repairs and maintenance and upgrades to 3 buildings not one. And those 3 buildings are not small buildings.

and three parking garages plus the entire road system to serve them too. (the roads are more than the circle drives). when was the last time the pavement was ripped out and replaced, we're finding that roads from that era are lasting 40-50 years

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... l?page=all


$365-460 is a much more reasonable number than the last ones. that included massive renovations. and if accurate and done now, it will put off more work to 2020

[MidtownCat]

Ok, im2kull is officially trolling this thread.

[im2kull]

Ok, im2kull is officially trolling this thread.

How so? Has anything I said been proven wrong?

Meanwhile the web of lies continues to unfold..
"Phil Muncy, deputy director of the Kansas City Aviation Department, told the Mayor's KCI Advisory Board that bare-bones improvements at the airport would cost between $365 million and $460 million. In a similar presentation in September, Muncy put the cost of a bare-bones rehabilitation at between $645 million and $785 million."
http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... l?page=all

[flyingember]

Ok, im2kull is officially trolling this thread.

How so? Has anything I said been proven wrong?

Meanwhile the web of lies continues to unfold..
"Phil Muncy, deputy director of the Kansas City Aviation Department, told the Mayor's KCI Advisory Board that bare-bones improvements at the airport would cost between $365 million and $460 million. In a similar presentation in September, Muncy put the cost of a bare-bones rehabilitation at between $645 million and $785 million."
http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/n ... l?page=all

you'd have a point about the cost changes if you don't read the paragraph immediately following that one

Muncy told members of the board charged with recommending the best course of action for KCI that the new estimate does not include the addition of parking spaces and further rehabilitation of garages.

there you are, proven wrong

[KCPowercat]

Ok, im2kull is officially trolling this thread.

How so? Has anything I said been proven wrong?

Seriously? Let's get you started...ATA doesn't run the airport.

[pash]

.

[flyingember]

how are those lies? different improvements have different values. they're changing the list based on feedback

like expanded parking would be helpful at terminal B to maintain the quick to the gate aspect people like. if people don't like the cost of the project it's an easy thing to cut and instead do more practical work.

at least with having a solid list people can make a determination of if the project has value. the moving target certainly isn't helping

and sometimes a shorter list is harder to sell. spending hundreds of millions and getting nothing new may fail more than a larger project with visible improvements

look at the streetcar, my assessment is there was too little perceived benefit across much of the district. a smaller district or a larger project may have succeeded
similarly, the airport project is trying to get the scope of the project right.

[mean]

how are those lies? different improvements have different values. they're changing the list based on feedback

The lies lie in what is or is not "necessary maintenance" versus "desired improvements". You can't change a list of necessary maintenance based on feedback. It's either necessary or it isn't. This is just about the simplest thing one could possibly be asked to understand, yet people here are consistently struggling with it, as though they are confused about whether an emergency quadruple bypass is equivalent in necessity to a boob job. I'm certain nobody here is that stupid.

[flyingember]

how are those lies? different improvements have different values. they're changing the list based on feedback

The lies lie in what is or is not "necessary maintenance" versus "desired improvements". You can't change a list of necessary maintenance based on feedback. It's either necessary or it isn't. This is just about the simplest thing one could possibly be asked to understand, yet people here are consistently struggling with it, as though they are confused about whether an emergency quadruple bypass is equivalent in necessity to a boob job. I'm certain nobody here is that stupid.

it's not about desired vs mandatory. it's becoming about timing and you just ignore doing preventative maintenance on some things (see the Kansas turnpike vs I-70 in MO)

like this most recent plan will last something like 5 years until more work is needed. I haven't seen for certain but I bet some of the dropped items have more tolerance for not doing right now but do need to be done like the parking garages

it's why I really want to see a 20+ year plan for maintenance vs building new. not just some arbitrary plan of what people will vote for and then we get surprised with another big repair project in 5-10 years

[herrfrank]

I will give KCI props. Once you land, you are out the door and on the curb faster than any place in the country. Unless you have checked bags, then you are once again, standing in the main concourse waiting around a tiny carrousel for what seems like a very long time for bags to come from 100 feet away.
...
KCI is great if you are alone, your flight is on time, you have a ride, you don't check bags, you live close and can get there quickly before a flight departs, there are no delays and you avoid southwest during peak hours.

Yes, KCI is great if you have an arranged ride and use only carry-on luggage, as many, if not most, business travelers operate. The fact that the airport is located far north is a problem, but that will not change under either option.

Southwest appears to be the root of a lot of the complaints here -- slow checked-bag protocols and huge lines. My experiences with Delta, AA, and US at KCI have all been superb -- extremely fast, maybe the fastest domestic experience in the US. Because I-29 rarely has traffic, I can time my departure from downtown to the minute and walk through security just as the gate opens to my flight. I _love_ that. Arrivals at KCI are even faster.

Yes, the gate areas need regular refreshing, because of the compactness of the space. But have you been to Tegel lately? Airports with high utilization of small spaces should be carefully maintained, and perhaps Mark van Loh is neglecting his duties in order to "encourage" dissatisfaction with the existing layout.

My ultimate criterion for this choice involves time, and any big box design is going to be a slower experience. I don't think that observation is really debatable. Maybe Southwest could build a giant box on the existing KCI apron, adjacent to its gates and full of toilets and interrogation lamps to provide the bright and well-plumbed airside experience that its flyers demand.

[KCPowercat]

you'd have a point about the cost changes if you don't read the paragraph immediately following that one

Muncy told members of the board charged with recommending the best course of action for KCI that the new estimate does not include the addition of parking spaces and further rehabilitation of garages.

there you are, proven wrong

I'm pretty sure that is his point, and that the quoted paragraph proves him right. Airport officials keep weasling in all sorts of costs for desired improvements that are in no way necessary maintenance. They keep saying, "If we don't build a new terminal, we'll have to spend X anyway." And then it always turns out the amount that we would "have to" spend in lieu of building a new terminal is really the cost of their hoped-for Plan B.

That's hugely disingenuous because their primary purpose in trotting out a big number for Plan B is to make the big number attached to Plan A seem less bad. "See," says Mark Van Loh, "If we don't spend all this money on a new terminal, we're going to have to spend all this money doing this other stuff anyway." But what Mr Van Loh is really saying is that if we don't let him build a new terminal, he's going to several hundred million dollars to build a new parking garage and other bits and pieces of the new-terminal plan anway.

We're not getting an honest estimate of the cost of maintaining KCI if we don't build a new terminal. We're getting an estimate of the cost of the wish list airport officials will go after if they don't get their new terminal. It doesn't hurt, from their perspective, that the bigger they make the wish list for Plan B, the more attractive a new terminal seems.

As I've said before, my biggest frustration with this whole thing is how underhanded the airports department has been throughout this whole process. I cannot support spending a couple of billion dollars on a project advocated by people who have lied and dissembled about every aspect of it from day one.

It's not a "couple of billion". Seems weird to rant about officials inflating cost estimates and then double the billions yourself.

[KCPowercat]

I will give KCI props. Once you land, you are out the door and on the curb faster than any place in the country. Unless you have checked bags, then you are once again, standing in the main concourse waiting around a tiny carrousel for what seems like a very long time for bags to come from 100 feet away.
...
KCI is great if you are alone, your flight is on time, you have a ride, you don't check bags, you live close and can get there quickly before a flight departs, there are no delays and you avoid southwest during peak hours.

Yes, KCI is great if you have an arranged ride and use only carry-on luggage, as many, if not most, business travelers operate. The fact that the airport is located far north is a problem, but that will not change under either option.

Southwest appears to be the root of a lot of the complaints here -- slow checked-bag protocols and huge lines. My experiences with Delta, AA, and US at KCI have all been superb -- extremely fast, maybe the fastest domestic experience in the US. Because I-29 rarely has traffic, I can time my departure from downtown to the minute and walk through security just as the gate opens to my flight. I _love_ that. Arrivals at KCI are even faster.

Yes, the gate areas need regular refreshing, because of the compactness of the space. But have you been to Tegel lately? Airports with high utilization of small spaces should be carefully maintained, and perhaps Mark van Loh is neglecting his duties in order to "encourage" dissatisfaction with the existing layout.

My ultimate criterion for this choice involves time, and any big box design is going to be a slower experience. I don't think that observation is really debatable. Maybe Southwest could build a giant box on the existing KCI apron, adjacent to its gates and full of toilets and interrogation lamps to provide the bright and well-plumbed airside experience that its flyers demand.

Delta has been miserable the last two times I've went through there. Why should our airport provide such different experiences simply based on the airline I choose anyways? That in itself seems idiotic.

Nowhere has it been proven that a new design would be a slower experience.....to assume that isn't keeping options open, it's a "change is bad" mindset.

[pash]

.

[KCPowercat]

The Only number I've seen is 1.2. Can you provide a link to a 2B source? Thanks.

[pash]

.