The Airport Debate (Kansas City, Denver: tax, restaurants, cost of)

[The Grim Reaper]

I actually have grown to really dislike KCI. I don't like the set up and I really don't like where it is.

[luzianne]

I have no problem with KCI. I like it precisely because it is the way it is; easy to get in and out of. I don't go to the airport to shop or eat. I pay extra to park at the terminal so I can park and walk right in and get on my plane. And when I get home I can get off the plane and walk right to my car. I don't have to get on a train to take me to the baggage area. I don't have to wade through a bunch of crap I don't care about (restaurants, stores, transportation spots) to get where I need to go. Why spend a bunch of money to create something that makes it so much more complicated when all I want/need to do is catch a flight?

I also don't care how outsiders view the airport. WHO CARES?! LAX is horrible, and I don't see that being replaced to please outsiders.

IF and WHEN the airport is replaced, I really think it would be better to move it closer to the city. That's the only problem I have with it, that it's so far from everything. Even that I can live with, but if we are talking about redoing the whole thing, why not move it closer? If/when we build a new airport, why not put it smack dab on the dividing line between KCMO and KCK, half in each city? The airport should be for both sides of the state line and should be supported by both.

Otherwise, just leave it alone.

[kcmo]

There is no place to put KCI that would put it any closer to the city than where it is now. If you were to build a new airport in a new location, it would be way out in the middle of nowhere. KCI is only 15-20 minutes from downtown and close to much of the metro area (sorry if it's not close to southern joco). Plus building a whole new airport on a new site with new runways and everything would cost many billions, probably well over 5-6 billion. Talk about a colossal waste of money when KCI has everything including three long runways and room for more. A terminal is only part of an airport.

So do you spend (waste) another half billion on band-aids to an old and terribly inefficient airport that will need another half billion in updates and repairs in another decade or do you go ahead and do it right?

And why does everybody think that a new airport terminal in KC would be like LAX or ATL or DEN with people movers, massive walks to hundreds of gates etc? Is the traffic going to somehow go from 10 million passengers a year to 70 million plus? And even if KCI did become busy (not possible) would people in KC actually turn down a true major world airport that has so many more flights (domestic and international) just because they don't want to deal with the airport? Because right now, you have to put up with KCI + ATL, LAX, DEN etc if going places that KCI doesn't serve. Makes zero sense to me.

Spend another 500 million on KCI. Still have a crappy airport, half closed, half crowded airport and then be right back at this same discussion in 7-10 years. Sounds logical to me!

[luzianne]

I don't live in southern Johnson County. It's far away from pretty much everyone in the KC metro area. I say just leave it the way it is. It's not a crappy airport. It is great for what it's supposed to be for - flying.

[kcmo]

Originally Posted by luzianne

I don't live in southern Johnson County. It's far away from pretty much everyone in the KC metro area. I say just leave it the way it is. It's not a crappy airport. It is great for what it's supposed to be for - flying.

I disagree. KCI is far from half the metro. The other half it's not far at all. KCK, Northland, northwestern JoCo, the urban core are close (under 20 minutes). Even Independence and NE JoCo is 30 minutes. Big deal. Lee's Summit, South JoCo are getting further away, but so what. StL airport, Denver airport Dulles etc are all very far from many parts of their metros too. Unless it's downtown the airport will not be close to everybody and close in airports like San Diego and Boston are easy for urban core residents and not so close to most suburban areas. So KCI's location is absolutely fine.

But you still didn't answer my question. The terminals need a major overhaul no matter what. They can't just "stay the same" even if you don't build a new billion dollar terminal, do you support spending half that or more trying to extend the life of the existing terminals another decade or so? Personally, I find that far more wasteful than spending the billion now and building a terminal that will last another 40 plus years and improving the airport at the same time.

[denverian]

Originally Posted by luzianne

I have no problem with KCI. I like it precisely because it is the way it is; easy to get in and out of. I don't go to the airport to shop or eat. I pay extra to park at the terminal so I can park and walk right in and get on my plane. And when I get home I can get off the plane and walk right to my car. I don't have to get on a train to take me to the baggage area. I don't have to wade through a bunch of crap I don't care about (restaurants, stores, transportation spots) to get where I need to go. Why spend a bunch of money to create something that makes it so much more complicated when all I want/need to do is catch a flight?

I also don't care how outsiders view the airport. WHO CARES?! LAX is horrible, and I don't see that being replaced to please outsiders.

IF and WHEN the airport is replaced, I really think it would be better to move it closer to the city. That's the only problem I have with it, that it's so far from everything. Even that I can live with, but if we are talking about redoing the whole thing, why not move it closer? If/when we build a new airport, why not put it smack dab on the dividing line between KCMO and KCK, half in each city? The airport should be for both sides of the state line and should be supported by both.

Otherwise, just leave it alone.

Moving the entire airport would cost WAY more than just building a new terminal and concourses! Or you could just move to North KC.

Airports are rarely conveniently located for all people it serves. I'm about 15 min. from DIA, but if you live in the SW suburbs of Denver, you're looking at over an hour to get there in any sort of traffic. People always want the airport to be close to their house, but they don't want planes flying overhead.

[denverian]

Originally Posted by kcmo

There is no place to put KCI that would put it any closer to the city than where it is now. If you were to build a new airport in a new location, it would be way out in the middle of nowhere. KCI is only 15-20 minutes from downtown and close to much of the metro area (sorry if it's not close to southern joco). Plus building a whole new airport on a new site with new runways and everything would cost many billions, probably well over 5-6 billion. Talk about a colossal waste of money when KCI has everything including three long runways and room for more. A terminal is only part of an airport.

So do you spend (waste) another half billion on band-aids to an old and terribly inefficient airport that will need another half billion in updates and repairs in another decade or do you go ahead and do it right?

And why does everybody think that a new airport terminal in KC would be like LAX or ATL or DEN with people movers, massive walks to hundreds of gates etc? Is the traffic going to somehow go from 10 million passengers a year to 70 million plus? And even if KCI did become busy (not possible) would people in KC actually turn down a true major world airport that has so many more flights (domestic and international) just because they don't want to deal with the airport? Because right now, you have to put up with KCI + ATL, LAX, DEN etc if going places that KCI doesn't serve. Makes zero sense to me.

Spend another 500 million on KCI. Still have a crappy airport, half closed, half crowded airport and then be right back at this same discussion in 7-10 years. Sounds logical to me!

True. The extra 20 min. I may spend getting to my plane in DIA is made up for with no layovers getting to any mid size or larger U.S. city or several international cities. Can you even get to LAX or SFO direct from KC? There was a time when there was one SW flight from LAX to KCI daily. I drove further to fly out of LAX just for that direct flight.

[luzianne]

Originally Posted by denverian

Moving the entire airport would cost WAY more than just building a new terminal and concourses! Or you could just move to North KC.

Airports are rarely conveniently located for all people it serves. I'm about 15 min. from DIA, but if you live in the SW suburbs of Denver, you're looking at over an hour to get there in any sort of traffic. People always want the airport to be close to their house, but they don't want planes flying overhead.

Ya, I know. My point was that the only problem I have with the airport is that it's so far out. And I know DIA well, so I know it's not right in the city, either.

I lived up north from birth till about age 5 (Smithville and Platte City), with planes flying overhead. I actually wouldn't mind that at all. Some of my best childhood memories are being outside on a summer day and hearing/watching planes overhead. I kinda like it!

It's no different than living near train tracks. After a while it's just part of the background noise and you don't even notice it. I've lived near train tracks and liked that too.

[denverian]

Originally Posted by luzianne

Ya, I know. My point was that the only problem I have with the airport is that it's so far out. And I know DIA well, so I know it's not right in the city, either.

I lived up north from birth till about age 5 (Smithville and Platte City), with planes flying overhead. I actually wouldn't mind that at all. Some of my best childhood memories are being outside on a summer day and hearing/watching planes overhead. I kinda like it!

It's no different than living near train tracks. After a while it's just part of the background noise and you don't even notice it. I've lived near train tracks and liked that too.

We're under the flight path for DIA and while they're not buzzing our house, you can hear them from inside. And when they're coming over, there's a plane about every minute or so. But I too like watching them.

[lovekcmo]

The whole history of KCI , where it is and it's designed is an interesting story and tied to TWA, they should at least put an exit to KCI off of 152 by Zona Rosa. The city should have built a new terminal when TWA left for St Louis and the city should never had put all the money into it 15 years ago.