We need a new airport!!!

[WSPanic]

I've traveled quite a bit for work the past three years and it's just so damn easy. Park at bottom level of garage - escalator up - stand in line 10-15 mintes - board plane. If I'm checked in and only carrying on, I can get there 30 minutes before boarding. Compared to my return trips from Philly/Newark/La Guardia it's incredibly easy.

You just compared the #1 and #7 most populated metro areas with #28. If you read comments comparing to other cities the list always contains a top 3 city based on size.

I have never heard someone say that flying out of KC is easier than #45, New Orleans or #54 Rochester or #60 Dayton. But I bet people there find their airport easier than NYC or Philly.

Thanks for ignoring most everything I said. Makes for a constructive discussion.

[shaffe]

I really need to quit reading this thread until something new happens.

-September 2014

[grovester]

I really need to quit reading this thread until something new happens.

-September 2014

Thanks for the reminder.

[pash]

.

[chingon]

The alternative is Van Loh being "diplomatic" and allowing a full discourse, and allowing the vocal minority to bluster our way to a half ass renovation that we regret for the next 30 years. His job is to sell the new terminal. Your public debate is happening now.

Hate to break it to you, and I say this as someone who, after a long time in the opposite camp, supports a single terminal replacement, but it is not a vocal minority in the opposition. A very large and very significant majority of voters would prefer renovating to building new. And if you listen long enough, the only reason why is security lines and distance to the gate. Both of which are 100% valid reasons to prefer the current layout.

The city has huge hill to climb if they expect this to pass the ballot.

What many people are missing is that the 2 renovation plans in the mix both have consolidated security and long walks to the existing gates.

[flyingember]

What many people are missing is that the 2 renovation plans in the mix both have consolidated security and long walks to the existing gates.

Where do you see diagrams of the two renovation plans?

[chingon]

What many people are missing is that the 2 renovation plans in the mix both have consolidated security and long walks to the existing gates.

Where do you see diagrams of the two renovation plans?

Starting on pg. 20.

https://data.kcmo.org/api/file_data/IL ... n.pdf

[flyingember]

nice. that's actually very well done too.

option A
•New two-level terminals and major concourse renovations at Terminals A and B
•Centralized ticketing, security and baggage, in both terminals
•New two-level, arrivals and departures roadways
•2 new garages

option B
•A new centralized, two-level terminal with major renovation of existing A & B concourses
•Consolidated ticketing, security and baggage
•New two-level, arrivals and departures roadways
•New central garage
•Renovation of 2 existing garages

So yes, what everyone wants is gone no matter what.

[im2kull]

My hypothesis is Homeland Security is mandating closing all the entrances close to the secure areas.

Homeland Security and TSA have already stated that they LOVE our current design as it gives the fewest amount of people per screener, resulting in maximum search effectiveness of travelers. I'm not joking btw. Our system is the model TSA system. They back keeping the current airport.

[im2kull]

To those of you that don't want a new single terminal, how often do you really fly? I am first to admit that KCI used to be convenient and was the envy of everyone who flew to/from KCI. However, that just isn't the case any more. I travel at least twice a month and it just amazes me how so many people think it is just fine. Walk around terminal B in the morning or mid afternoon and just listen to all the comments being freely shared about what a dump and inconvenient airport we have. Sadly, it is all true. I look forward to getting on a Southwest plane these days because it feels more roomy than the departure lounge. I've been to several of the comparison airports (Sacramento, Oakland, Indy, Hobby) and can tell you that while a single terminal is definitely going to create a little more time between drop off and pick up, the added conveniences while you're in the airport more than make up for an extra 2-5 minutes. Also, I believe security is also faster these days at the single terminal sites, now that they have TSA Pre. I realize this is my opinion, but an airport designed to meet the needs 40-50 years ago, just isn't convenient for today's needs. Let's get this ball rolling faster so that we don't see a dramatic increase in price when interest rates start rising.....

Try flying on an airline other than Southwest, then get back to us. Thanks.

[grovester]

The alternative is Van Loh being "diplomatic" and allowing a full discourse, and allowing the vocal minority to bluster our way to a half ass renovation that we regret for the next 30 years. His job is to sell the new terminal. Your public debate is happening now.

Hate to break it to you, and I say this as someone who, after a long time in the opposite camp, supports a single terminal replacement, but it is not a vocal minority in the opposition. A very large and very significant majority of voters would prefer renovating to building new. And if you listen long enough, the only reason why is security lines and distance to the gate. Both of which are 100% valid reasons to prefer the current layout.

The city has huge hill to climb if they expect this to pass the ballot.

What many people are missing is that the 2 renovation plans in the mix both have consolidated security and long walks to the existing gates.

I think most people are firmly in the "I'm completely oblivious about the whole subject" camp.

[flyingember]

That is true. Most think that somehow if they say no they get to keep what we have today with some modest upgrades.

The July 21st document firmly kills that idea.

[kboish]

I think this is a good point. If the city is going to have any success, they need to make sure people understand that renovation does not equal retaining current layout.

[TheBigChuckbowski]

What many people are missing is that the 2 renovation plans in the mix both have consolidated security and long walks to the existing gates.

Where do you see diagrams of the two renovation plans?

Starting on pg. 20.

https://data.kcmo.org/api/file_data/IL ... n.pdf

So, can someone explain page 15 to me?
a. It says we have 29 gates but looking on Google Maps, it seems like there's 35.
b. Where do these requirements for space come from? There are no citations. I don't see how they can be "requirements" if we have an operable airport currently.

[flyingember]

Your first answer is on page 13. It says 29 are being used and the future requires 35. There's 30 per terminal so there's actually 90 gates available right now.

Requirements sources are given on page 12.

[cityscape]

To those of you that don't want a new single terminal, how often do you really fly? I am first to admit that KCI used to be convenient and was the envy of everyone who flew to/from KCI. However, that just isn't the case any more. I travel at least twice a month and it just amazes me how so many people think it is just fine. Walk around terminal B in the morning or mid afternoon and just listen to all the comments being freely shared about what a dump and inconvenient airport we have. Sadly, it is all true. I look forward to getting on a Southwest plane these days because it feels more roomy than the departure lounge. I've been to several of the comparison airports (Sacramento, Oakland, Indy, Hobby) and can tell you that while a single terminal is definitely going to create a little more time between drop off and pick up, the added conveniences while you're in the airport more than make up for an extra 2-5 minutes. Also, I believe security is also faster these days at the single terminal sites, now that they have TSA Pre. I realize this is my opinion, but an airport designed to meet the needs 40-50 years ago, just isn't convenient for today's needs. Let's get this ball rolling faster so that we don't see a dramatic increase in price when interest rates start rising.....

Try flying on an airline other than Southwest, then get back to us. Thanks.

So I should fly on the operators with fewer flights and connect to more airports....no thanks (even though I've done that before). That is a terrible argument by the way. "Because it isn't busy at United or Frontier, we don't need a new facility" The beauty of a new single terminal is they could gate share (cheaper to operate and more flexible) so you don't have to have a crappy CNBC store open that is visited only a few times a day because it operates across from Frontier. The idea of the current design was amazing when it was introduced, but it is not feasible any longer (operating cost, maintenance, flexibility, amenities post security, rest-rooms, etc...). Tell me how you answer those concerns about how the current design is lacking with a renovation that is cheaper than a new build and I'm all ears. I think the biggest issue we have with the folks against a single terminal is that they don't seem to care about the legitimate concerns with the existing facility. Very short sighted thinking.....

[flyingember]

there's still people that if we build new want the airport closer in. I understand the interest but would love to know where this would be.
So wanting to keep the design is nowhere near the most unreasonable position

The airport is roughly 7 square miles of land. Gladstone is 8 square miles.

Where exactly will we find an area the size of Gladstone that would work for an airport that's closer and would take less than 20 years to get the land for?

(for comparison with the new runway in St. Louis, it took them ~15 years to get all the land and tear the homes out and that was just one runway)

[TheBigChuckbowski]

Your first answer is on page 13. It says 29 are being used and the future requires 35. There's 30 per terminal so there's actually 90 gates available right now.

The presentation is incredibly misleading then. It makes it seem like the current setup can only handle 29 gates on page 15. I don't see how currently leased gates is at all relevant in a decision that will last decades.

Requirements sources are given on page 12.

I'm not seeing what you're seeing. Passenger count doesn't really translate to specific square footage needs.

[flyingember]

if you don't know the number and use of the gates today you can't forecast for a design.
say there's 29 gates leased but Southwest has half of them empty from 9am to 2pm and Delta could use another gate but only at noon but they're in the wrong terminal. that's why you need to know what's being used today because when you know what future demand would be based on airline plans you can figure out if building one shared gate could add way more capacity than giving one gate to each airline right now with less operational cost

passenger counts are per hour. there's a chart of that in the document! so when you have X people in an area at the maximum you know how big to make that area

[TheBigChuckbowski]

if you don't know the number and use of the gates today you can't forecast for a design.
say there's 29 gates leased but Southwest has half of them empty from 9am to 2pm and Delta could use another gate but only at noon but they're in the wrong terminal. that's why you need to know what's being used today because when you know what future demand would be based on airline plans you can figure out if building one shared gate could add way more capacity than giving one gate to each airline right now with less operational cost

Okay, but that's not the point. The way it's shown implies that the airport can only handle 29 gates and renovations/a new terminal are needed to get to 35 gates. If there were only 2 currently leased gates, does that imply anything about what the airport could handle at capacity?

What I'm saying is that nothing needs to change about the current airport to handle 35 gates. But, there are 4 slides pointing out the need to have 35 gates by 2030 but not mentioning that we already do (they're just not all leased).

It implies a need for change that doesn't exist.