KCRag Forum

beautyfromashes wrote:

flyingember wrote: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.

Raising too much money and doing nothing in it would be worse. We shouldn't be stupid lean but the airport should not have been raising hundreds of millions per decade that sat unused.

Also, your idea requires perfect hindsight. Do you really think that in 1975 anyone would know how much building an airport would cost even 10 years out, how big it would need to be, let along 40 years out?

.

flyingember wrote:Raising too much money and doing nothing in it would be worse. We shouldn't be stupid lean but the airport should not have been raising hundreds of millions per decade that sat unused.

Like raising enough to at least pay off the bonds that you mentioned, $230M, after 40 years? If that number is the case, then we would be taking out another bond covered by additional airline fees while tearing down the building we are still paying for.

beautyfromashes wrote:

flyingember wrote:Raising too much money and doing nothing in it would be worse. We shouldn't be stupid lean but the airport should not have been raising hundreds of millions per decade that sat unused.

Like raising enough to at least pay off the bonds that you mentioned, $230M, after 40 years? If that number is the case, then we would be taking out another bond covered by additional airline fees while tearing down the building we are still paying for.

So in other words every potential project into the future must be pre-planned?

Ok, we're going to build new to open in 2019 and renovate it in 2039. We need to raise ticket rates to pay for both right now.

flyingember wrote:Ok, we're going to build new to open in 2019 and renovate it in 2039. We need to raise ticket rates to pay for both right now.

We should never be tearing something down to build something new when we haven't paid off what we are tearing down(.) Why haven't we paid off the bonds in over 40 years?

beautyfromashes wrote:

flyingember wrote:Ok, we're going to build new to open in 2019 and renovate it in 2039. We need to raise ticket rates to pay for both right now.

We should never be tearing something down to build something new when we haven't paid off what we are tearing down(.) Why haven't we paid off the bonds in over 40 years?

That's from the renovation 2000-2004.

And with $20M in revenue, how much of the bonds have we paid off? Can we sue for a renovation only lasting 10 years? Was it shoddy work?

Most bonds have a 30 year lifespan. And not quite sure what additional items besides the terminals was included in the early 2000's work. Not sure about how much bonding authority already approved by the voters is left but shouldn't even come close to pay for anything being planned. So by the time it comes to which path the city will take with the airport the city voters will have a chance to vote yeah or nay on the decision.

$240 million bonding capacity is left as of when the current budget planning began in 2014, no vote required to use. That's explicitly mentioned in the city budget.

And if someone can find proof either way from a late 90s official record, I thought I saw several years back that those were always meant to be temporary improvements before building a new terminal. Just can't find that statement again.

.

Just FYI on other Airport news

Alaska Airlines has launched another route from MCI - This time they are launching MCI to Portland

http://splash.alaskasworld.com/Newsroom ... 045554.asp

brewcrew1000 wrote:Just FYI on other Airport news

Alaska Airlines has launched another route from MCI - This time they are launching MCI to Portland

http://splash.alaskasworld.com/Newsroom ... 045554.asp

We still get the shaft if we are traveling to Portland for business. The direct flights are at awkward times heading in both directions. They are great times, I suppose, if you are heading out here for a weekend, but they basically match what Southwest has.

that's a family vacation schedule set of flights

the departure isn't perfect but you could go into work at 7am, leave at noon (or 1 if you're close to home), take the flight in the afternoon and check into your hoel right after dinner in Portland

then the return is decent for a family with kids. up too early and everyone drags. you're back in time to eat dinner at home

the benefit to this flight is SW doesn't serve Alaska and Hawaii. Though I don't see these flight times as great as legs to/from those destinations. Intrigued to see how it fits in once the flight goes live.

If we are going to end up spending the $$ for a new airport...I wish they would go ahead and just build it all new in a new location...ya know...close to things.

One spot that I think would be amazing is the Fairfax area of KCK. Kansas wants to steal everything from us...why not the airport. That area is directly accross from the DT airport, which has too small of an area for the new airport. Fairfax is much larger but still just about as close to the city. There are some awesome streamline-deco industrial buildings in Fairfax that would be a shame to lose, but maybe they could even be moved and incorporated into the new airport building(s).

I know, crazy and never gonna happen. Good location though!

https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1304525 ... a=!3m1!1e3

The fairfax area? It would take the entire fairfax district to have enough space. The expense there would make a new terminal on existing land look like buying a rundown warehouse downtown.

How many tens of billions do you think it would take to buy out GM? What about the cost to buy out an oil company, they won't sell a storage facility cheap since finding a replacement spot will be a a NIMBY nightmare. What about moving a power plant? That's assuming there's not a MAJOR fight from the union over jobs. Just GM is over 3000 jobs.

Also need to reroute US 69 and 635. the runway would likely be right over both. Look at the length of the just one runway plus approaches to move, it's 3.3 miles, the distance from the river to 635

The airport is never moving to fairfax unless you want to spend tens of billions. Who wants airline tickets to triple immediately?

And then you'll have some of the richest people in the city living on the approach in two directions. Briarcliff and Sunset Hills would be flown over by very large planes

There was a fantastic proposal before KCI (when there was still a Fairfax airport and GM was in a WWII landing boat building) to create a new airport by combining the airports with runways that spanned the river. As any bridging structure would have to be quite elevated I have no idea how this would have worked.

1. The high rises downtown and the bluffs make landing and takeoff from the Kaw confluence a terrifying ride in a commercial airliner. Not even sure that a 880 or 747 could do it.

2. Our Airport is 20 minutes from downtown. That's pretty damn close as airports go.

Don't celebrate too hard but Allegiant is flying out of KCI to Florida now.... Yawn

KCPowercat wrote:Don't celebrate too hard but Allegiant is flying out of KCI to Florida now.... Yawn

This airline could be a big deal for KC if done right. This is the airline we could become a hub with. Look at the size of the cities they're in. We're their biggest airport between Indianapolis and Las Vegas and they don't have a hub in the Midwest. Start looking at their flights and every flight to connect has to go through Las Vegas or Florida. So if they want to expand service they need a place to have shorter connecting flights than sending everyone back and forth across most of the country.

After all, KC is quite a bit bigger than a city they normally serve. So you have to ask why they entered KC if it's just to add three flights to one state?

https://www.allegiantair.com/interactive-routemap

flyingember wrote:

KCPowercat wrote:Don't celebrate too hard but Allegiant is flying out of KCI to Florida now.... Yawn

This airline could be a big deal for KC if done right. This is the airline we could become a hub with. Look at the size of the cities they're in. We're their biggest airport between Indianapolis and Las Vegas and they don't have a hub in the Midwest. Start looking at their flights and every flight to connect has to go through Las Vegas or Florida. So if they want to expand service they need a place to have shorter connecting flights than sending everyone back and forth across most of the country.

After all, KC is quite a bit bigger than a city they normally serve. So you have to ask why they entered KC if it's just to add three flights to one state?

https://www.allegiantair.com/interactive-routemap

I wouldn't hold your breath....much better chance of them dying off.