rove312

Article:

LegalTender

Well, yeah. Along with efficiencies from not having 11 security portals and projected 3x concession revenues. It's an under-utilized airport even with rock-bottom per-passenger costs. If the future MCI's fees are in line with other airports its size, WN isn't apt to curtail service.

djp98374

Single terminal is more efficient on many levels.

How much underutilized is MCI as it is now?

I also wonder if there would be an incentive to Southwest to bring more thru passeangers thus increasing airport revenue which would then give Southwest a kickback on that increased revenue.

What OI think..since Soithwest moved into Denver,& St Louis--- MCI service has dropped.---at least thru service. i have not seen data. I have noticed there used to be more potential flights I would fly through KC that have since dropped.

heyeaglefn

I fly to that dump about once a month, wish it was nicer.

toomanybooks

Politicians gotta pay off local construction companies/unions. Build, build, build. I like that WN is pushing back with a hint of threat.

knope2001

KCI has three essentially identical terminals. With US moving to C in the next several weeks:

A is completely empty

B is the fullest terminal with Southwest/AirTran and Delta/Alaska. There are two empty jetways on B.

C has United, American, Frontier and an international arrival gate plus US is coming shortly. There are 8 empty jetways there now and when USAirways comes over that should leave 5.

I believe these are the totals:

27 occupied jetways
1 international arrivals jetway
21 empty jetways
11 additional striped parking spots without a jetway attached

So very roughly, KCI is about half empty in terms of real estate depending on how you measure it.

InkUnderNails

I fly in and out of MCI reasonably often. The airport was designed with the local passenger in mind and in a time of light security. You can park within 100 yards of your gate, walk in and clear security in less than 30 minutes. It is less convenient for the non-KC passenger, but only slightly so.

The airport has completed over a few years a large reconstruction of the WN gate area to provide restrooms (yes, at one time you had to leave the secure area to use the restroom), dining options, and have connected several gates inside security so that one security check point serves many of the WN gates. It is a much improved airport.

If WN was a financial partner in these changes in their gate area, they should be screaming. Just at the time the gate area has been modernized mostly to WN's convenience, they are talking about a new terminal.

I suspect the real answer is that because MCI is a semi hub, they generate considerable revenue from the connecting passengers and the considerable number of WN flights. They have the cash that must be spent on airport projects and they will spend it.

LegalTender

I don't know whether airlines were financial partners, but MCI modernized for everyone's convenience during the same 2005 project.

Even their $5.25 cost-per-enplanement [CPE] bargain leaves MCI underutilized. Competitiveness, it seems, rests on many other metrics.

2011 CPE numbers from the Centre for Aviation:

SpeedyDelivery

The situation at MCI now is that _all_ Southwest and AirTran gates can be reached without reclearing security. The recent opening of an airside hallway made this possible.

That same addition means there are two checkpoints serving the cluster of gates now. The one to the right of the combined check in area is often less busy, but beware that it isn't always open. The checkpoint signage hasn't been updated (at least as of a few weeks ago) so very few flyers know that trick right now, and by virtue of being WTMD only it makes for a much more pleasant security experience.

Exiled in Express

Has an airline ever been in favor of an infrastructure improvement that would require their contributions?

MCI could use a remodel, they spent their millions on the excessive rental car facility though.

traveller001

WN made a significant investment in HOU for International arrivals and the total remake of DAL was with their approval.

MCI post Wright might be a totally different story. It's one of very few gateway cities allowed by Wright to fly from DAL.

steved5480

Ta-Da:

http://www.kansascity.com/2014/05/07...-terminal.html

Shock of shocks....Sylvester gets what he wants.

Beckles

It seems a majority of the folks in Kansas City want to keep the existing airport, however, I believe a majority of those folks travel infrequently to never. The existing terminals are inefficient, crowded (small gate areas and tiny bathrooms) and in general obsolete, despite some recent improvements.
The rental car facility is paid for with rental car fees, this is just more FUD like those arguing against the use of 'tax' money for the new terminal. The old rental car lots were more remote than the consolidated facility and space constrained, something had to be done and what was done works pretty well in my opinion, and will actually work even better with a single terminal (i.e., even less buses will be needed to connect the new terminal with the rental car facility). Of course I wish it were less expensive, I rented a car at the airport for one day last weekend, $16 rental rate and then you pile on $3 for the rental car facility, $2.63 for the bus from the airport to the rental car facility and back, then the 11.11% concession recovery (which existed even before the new rental car facility, but is money going to the airport). There is also $4 for the Sprint Center, $1.60 'licensing fee' which really goes to the rental agency to pay their state mandated licensing fees, and finally state and local sales tax.

Beckles

The primary impact on Wright going away will be on DAL-MCI and MCI-MDW traffic, those are 9 and 10 flights each respectively. DAL-MCI however should benefit some from the ability of better connections through DAL than currently exist.

Amicus

[QUOTE=Beckles;22825376]It seems a majority of the folks in Kansas City want to keep the existing airport, however, I believe a majority of those folks travel infrequently to never. QUOTE]

How did you reach that conclusion?

I travel four times per month in/out of MCI.

I believe a majority of "those folks" travel frequently, and like the airport design just fine.