We need a new airport!!!

[Highlander]

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.

SW provides the lion's share of flights in and out of KCI. But in terms of getting back to you - I fly mostly on United - and it's not what I would call a good experience. I think I've flown in and out of most major airports in the US now and KCI isn't really that much more convenient than most - KCI saves maybe 5-10 minutes at most compared to some of the bad airports and is on par in terms of time to get in and out with the best. If you have to rent a car or you are parked in the long term parking areas, that time convenience evaporates. But time convenience is just part of the overall experience - in just about every other way, I rank KCI near the bottom.

[herrfrank]

I'll take the 10 minutes saved on arrival every time. That's 8 hours per year I am not exiting an airport. And the time savings on departure are even greater. KCI is about 30 minutes faster to depart than big box terminal airports.

The downside to KCI is the tight departure lounge. Solution: go to a bar or coffee shop outside security (there is a Starbucks directly across from the AA/ US gates) until your flight is ready to board. You can see almost every boarding gate from the public side of the airport. Occasionally there is a line at security which means a few minutes in the cramped lounge. Still worth it for me.

A few years ago I commuted from the East Coast to Denver rather than KC. The Denver airport, snazzy and new, required an arrival time of at least one hour before boarding. Centralized security could be enormously slow, and there were transit times up to 20 minutes _within the airport_. KCI can accommodate an arrival 15 minutes before boarding.

I travel about 150,000 miles per year, and for me, saving time is my primary objective when it comes to airports.

[flyingember]

I get your point but you don't get that as a choice. If renovations are actually still on the table you will still get to be disappointed.

Remember, all plans have the airport moving to centralized security. Your sitting across from the gate outside security was going away no matter what.

I can see that the timeframe could stay the same. The real change could be the 15 minute from door to plane is likely going away. A lot of people will need to plan for delays.

[beautyfromashes]

Why don't we just have a completely secure terminal? Everyone coming in has to go through security: one would be a quick check line for those picking people up with no baggage. Remove the current security barriers and current 'non-secure' amenities & bathrooms would be open to those departing. Most people getting picked up at KCI probably claim their bags and meet their ride on the curb anyway.

[herrfrank]

Not to mention the fact that the age and design of the airport inhibits the ability to adopt changes occurring within the industry. This is not your fixer upper 3 bed/2 bath in midtown, this is a critical piece of infrastructure that is past its usable life and we need to move into the 21st century.

KCI is certainly not past its usable life. The city and its vaunted aviation department finished a gut renovation _just 10 years ago_. Buildings are generally designed to last a century, not a decade.

Changes within the industry is a strawman. Airlines fly to remote and completely unimproved locations. Check out some of the airports in Alaska or, at the other extreme, on resort islands like Nantucket. An airport could be a tarpaper shack and the airlines would fly there if there was profit to be had from its passengers.

"We need to move into the 21st century" is about as meaningful as Pol Pot announcing Cambodia needs to "move into year zero."

This critical piece of infrastructure functions well right now. It should remain in its current configuration with minimal meddling from the city and bond glutton Mark VanLoh.

[flyingember]

This critical piece of infrastructure functions well right now

that's subjective. and that's why the process needs to listen to many types of travelers and many different stakeholders

[cityscape]

Not to mention the fact that the age and design of the airport inhibits the ability to adopt changes occurring within the industry. This is not your fixer upper 3 bed/2 bath in midtown, this is a critical piece of infrastructure that is past its usable life and we need to move into the 21st century.

KCI is certainly not past its usable life. The city and its vaunted aviation department finished a gut renovation _just 10 years ago_. Buildings are generally designed to last a century, not a decade.

Changes within the industry is a strawman. Airlines fly to remote and completely unimproved locations. Check out some of the airports in Alaska or, at the other extreme, on resort islands like Nantucket. An airport could be a tarpaper shack and the airlines would fly there if there was profit to be had from its passengers.

"We need to move into the 21st century" is about as meaningful as Pol Pot announcing Cambodia needs to "move into year zero."

This critical piece of infrastructure functions well right now. It should remain in its current configuration with minimal meddling from the city and bond glutton Mark VanLoh.

The usable life of the airport was 50 years back when it was first built (based on some of the presentations done in 2002), the last upgrade, did little to address the issues today with the concrete shell or many of the other critical plumbing, electrical, baggage, etc.. infrastructure. Basically it was a cosmetic update with some interior redesign and layout changes. That doesn't extend the usable life by much if any..... Add to that all the cost factors involved in pursuing a single terminal vs major renovation and it is clear something has to be done.

It is comical that you are comparing our city to some tiny resort island airport or Alaska airport that doesn't handle the traffic or planes that KCI handles (TERRIBLE ARGUMENT).

Moving to the 21st century is about meeting the needs of the people and businesses that use our airport today not from 1972. It is clear that people who travel these days expect more from their airport than two stalls in a bathroom for 6 gates....... KCI meets some needs, but fails quite spectacularly on others.

[flyingember]

I wish I could find the info, but apparently TWA told KC to replace the airport terminals back in the 1970s. That's how ironic the argument of it not being 1972 is. The airport was already out of date 40 years ago. It was a last generation design when it opened.

[KCPowercat]

I'll take the 10 minutes saved on arrival every time. That's 8 hours per year I am not exiting an airport. And the time savings on departure are even greater. KCI is about 30 minutes faster to depart than big box terminal airports.

The downside to KCI is the tight departure lounge. Solution: go to a bar or coffee shop outside security (there is a Starbucks directly across from the AA/ US gates) until your flight is ready to board. You can see almost every boarding gate from the public side of the airport. Occasionally there is a line at security which means a few minutes in the cramped lounge. Still worth it for me.

A few years ago I commuted from the East Coast to Denver rather than KC. The Denver airport, snazzy and new, required an arrival time of at least one hour before boarding. Centralized security could be enormously slow, and there were transit times up to 20 minutes _within the airport_. KCI can accommodate an arrival 15 minutes before boarding.

I travel about 150,000 miles per year, and for me, saving time is my primary objective when it comes to airports.

We aren't building ATL or LHR or DIA with a new terminal...this assumption that it will take longer are premature.

It's great you are comfortable waiting outside of security until boarding....the reality is most of the flying public (even seasoned travelers) want to get through security and done with that...which is why I see the obvious business traveler struggling to work/eat/drink inside security vs. relaxing at food joints outside of security...and why Pork/Pickle is always packed.

The terminal renovation a decade ago was window dressing. Was it a waste? Probably....it didn't fix the root problems with the buildings on bit.

[normalthings]

LaGuardia is to be torn down and rebuilt. Central Terminal replaced with a 4 Billion dollar new terminal. Delta is going to replace there 2 terminals.

[beautyfromashes]

Will the city get more flights at the same current fares with no new taxes out of this new deal?

[awynhaus]

La Guardia article in the NYT:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/28/nyreg ... .html?_r=0

[LCDSI]

it's interesting that the proposal for the new la guardia is also for 35 gates.

i've flown through there several times and I'm glad they're making the change.

here are some of the renderings:

[aknowledgeableperson]

Will the city get more flights at the same current fares with no new taxes out of this new deal?

Who knows. The number of flights go up and down now, as it is. With regards to taxes there are no tax funds involved. Only the users will pay for it.

[flyingember]

it's interesting that the proposal for the new la guardia is also for 35 gates.

that rendering shows 60+ gates. it looks like just the first phase is 35 gates

[beautyfromashes]

Who knows. The number of flights go up and down now, as it is. With regards to taxes there are no tax funds involved. Only the users will pay for it.

It was my understanding that existing user fees have been accumulating and can only be spent on the airport. This was a reason to rebuild a new airport. Basically, let's access these funds along with federal dollars to create a new airport with more revenue generating amenities. Are these fees and the current funds surplus enough to rebuild the airport currently, or would they have to increase fees to the airlines/customers?

[flyingember]

It was my understanding that existing user fees have been accumulating and can only be spent on the airport.

Not likely once you look at the city budget

there's $230 million in bonds to pay off.

The KCI Passenger Facility Charge makes $20 million per year

but the airport has to have 125% the cost of the current year's debt payments dedicated to the current payments.

The airport bond covenants require that the airport will establish, fix, prescribe and collect rates, tolls, fees,
rentals and charges in connection with the airport system and for services rendered in connection therewith,
so that during each fiscal year the net revenues, together with any Transfer, as defined in the airport bond
ordinance, will be equal to at least 125% of annual debt service on the outstanding bonds in such fiscal year.

The payments on the current budget is $18 million.

So best case that means there's $2 million that can be saved up.

The city needs a new dedicated fee for the new bonds unless it wants to get 1000 year terms on repayment.

[beautyfromashes]

I would have guessed that federal funds, airport fees and taxes inside the airport property for the last 30-40 years of the current airport would generate enough funds for a replacement on their own. Significantly increasing the airline fee would pass directly to me as the consumer. What would I get as someone who, besides a drink or pack of gum, is just a strictly flight consumer?

[flyingember]

the money raised from the last 30-40 years have been spent.

Do you think the airport just built up a huge pool of money and did nothing with it?

[beautyfromashes]

the money raised from the last 30-40 years have been spent.

Do you think the airport just built up a huge pool of money and did nothing with it?

No, that would be too fiscally responsible.