Thank You Southwest!
 

City officials for my home airport, MCI, want to tear down the existing terminals and spend a billion or so dollars to build a brand new airport.

Many locals are just fine with the airport as it is now . . . I can deplane and be curbside (no checked bags) in just a few short minutes.

So, today, Ron Ricks, a V.P. of WN, who was in Kansas City today, meeting with city officials, proclaimed that building a brand new terminal will not result in more passengers or flights, but instead may result in higher fares.

THANK YOU, Mr. Ricks!!^

Yes, thank you Mr. Ricks & also the other carriers' management you spoke for.

KCMO's buffoon of a mayor already has his mind made up that he "wants a new terminal", but it will be very helpful to have your quite logical explanation on the record just the same.

Indeed, Mayor Sly James also supports a two mile long trolley that will cost a boatload but benefit very few people. So, no surprise he wants to also build a new airport. :rolleyes:

If they build it, they should actually put it closer to Kansas City instead of Iowa.



(That's hyperbole and a joke. No geography lesson needed. I work in Lenexa from time to time. It seems like the airport is an hour away.)

Current airport is a dump.

All these cities keep dumping money into airports and expansion, etc etc. Do I care about fancy floors, glass walls and expansive spaces? No. All I care about is a comfortable seat and an outlet to charge my phone/computer. 90% of the time they can't get that right. I'm sure KC will spend 10 figures on an airport and still not supply those basic needs.

Oakland holds the crown for wasting money, as far as I know, with the
$500M BART connector that replaces a bus service with a train that will run no faster at double the fare.

If you believe project proponents, Oakland gained 2500 jobs at a cost of only $200k per job. :rolleyes:

Its been awhile since I've been there, but my memories of KC's airport involve separate security checks for each gate, complete with their own X-ray machines and some of the surliest personnel known to mankind. It was a horrible, crowded and confusing mess. Is it still like that?

Maybe not a new airport, but a major retrofitting is what they need.

Yes. It used to be that in Terminal B that you had to leave to go to the bathroom and come back through security, but that is different now.

Hardly better. They now have 2 security entrances (one entrance has 2 lines). Their security personnel are contractors (not TSA) although ironically they are the most nit-picky people of any airport I've ever been to. I'll carry the same bag with the same items through security with nary a problem or bag check anywhere else, but the screeners at MCI always find something. (like the completely empty 4oz tube of toothpaste, or the 4.5oz frozen solid hair "gel"- I had to pitch both)

Bob Montgomery, another one of Southwest's executives who met with the airport advisory board stated an interesting example of why the airlines are not in support of a brand new terminal:

Just look at San Jose and Sacramento, for what not to do.

I have personally never been in either airport, but I assume they are referring to brand new terminals built, and resulting higher passenger fares.

Another comment by Mr. Ricks suggested that the number of flights might actually decrease at MCI if the airlines' cost of doing business there increases to pay for the new terminal.

No thanks.

I like being able to fly nonstop /direct, low $5 govt taxes, to over 50 cities, including both coasts. And, although seating is crowded in the waiting areas, nothing is perfect.

It is pretty cruddy looking and has very limited options on food, restrooms, etc. compared to similar sized airports. It feels old and is poorly organized.

I tend to agree that a new airport isn't going to solve many of their needs. The trick with a major retrofitting is that can be almost, if not more costly than a new airport, however the infrastructure AROUND the airport is pretty good. It's easy to get to, rental cars are easy to get to, and getting in and out isn't bad at all. So if you did a new airport you'd have to redo all of that which seems ridiculous.

It's better than it was but barely. They have so many issues there and they truly have the pickiest screeners I've ever seen. I saw them pat down a toddler, baby, Mom and Dad and then go through the family's diaper bag like she was carrying a bag with "BOMB" on the outside. It was actually uncomfortable to watch how thorough they were with this particular family.

Huh. I'd fly WN very rarely back during DotCom1, but when I did, their side of SJC was pretty dismal, and used airstairs. Having used the new SJC twice-weekly the last couple of years, I much prefer it, and I swear there's far more WN flights now than before. I do know it's nearly always full, too.

I believe that $5.00 September 11 Security Fee will be increasing no later than 7/1/14:

Actually I think the rental car situation is pretty bad. You have to take a shuttle, and the rental car area seems too big for what it is. Off the top of my head, OMA, DSM, and TPA all have much better layouts. You get your bag, then walk across the street to get your car. I think TPA has one of the most user friendly airports in the country, although they have one of those automated trams, which is probably an expensive design. But their economy parking is right next to the terminal in a parking garage and is something like $7 a day. If KC could manage something like that I'd be all for it, although their history of cost overruns and poor planning do not give me much faith.