captaink

MCI lacks the corporate footprint that supports long-haul flights out of Austin, and to the extent that there are multinationals with major operations in MCI, their European units are spread out among many cities.

N830MH

Right, they do have BA, DE, AM and a few other, as well.

joshua362

Well then they would have to move the runways too!

N830MH

Probably yes, they will move the runway. Once they demolished the oldest terminal.

steved5480

MCI opened for commercial business 45 years ago tomorrow when the airlines moved North up I-29 from MKC.

The "airport" is not moving & is not being "rebuilt".

The runways have all 3 been rebuilt in recent times (<10 years) & no changes are planned. There is plenty of City-owned land to accommodate a 3rd parallel N/S as well as a 2nd parallel east/west runway when the need arises. Unlikely any of us reading this today will live to see those runways constructed; demand obviously doesn't justify it.

The existing terminal A (abandoned several years ago), along with it's existing (closed) short term parking garage will be scraped, and the new terminal constructed in that general footprint. Obviously considerable ramp re-work will also occurr.

Terminals B (70% of today's business,) & C will keep on keeping on. Once the new terminal is open and If/when more monies are located, terminal B will get scraped & the short term parking repurposed for airport/airline employee parking. Long term plans for terminal C have not yet been firmed.

msglsmo

I believe the stats show roughly several hundred flyers daily travel TATL from MCI by connecting elsewhere first.

While certainly not AUS levels, the demand is there.

joshua362

FWIW, I was joking on Ink's comment when it was directly above me but a miss click delayed the posting. Those big beautiful runways aren't going anywhere

I traveled there some 20+ times a year for 20 years and loved the ease of in/out and options to get to and fro unencumbered by traffic even during "rush" hours from the other side of KC. I could cover the 30 miles from the office in 30 minutes, check bags at the gate, return a car and be at the gate within another 30 minutes safely. Sure the food and bathroom options were limited but it functioned better than any other "big city" airport I've ever been too.

klemsaba

Good news as we travel from ICT to fly out of MCI all the time. Better prices. Better flight options. Better connections all around. Great options all around for our family.

sdsearch

Huh? This is a new terminal for the existing airport, not a new airport. It has to serve the same runways, etc, so it can't move very far. In fact, the only reason to move it at all (as opposed to replace at the same spot) would be if they want to keep the old operating fully until the new one is finished.

rove312

The initial proposals included a new terminal on the south end of the grounds (I guess SE would have the most convenient access to Downtown), but that was discarded as too costly without saving a lot of distance.

pinniped

It's been my home airport forever and I'm glad we're getting a new one.

I've never really understood the complaint about the distance from downtown. It's faster into the city than most of the places I travel regularly - under 30 minutes with almost no traffic variance, ever.

I suspect the talk of a TATL route was mostly wishful thinking. If it was northeast enough for BA to get here with a 757, maybe. But I can't see them running a 777 just for O&D traffic. The only thing I could envision for now is maybe a Norwegian flight 3x a week or something like that.

The biggest upside for locals will probably be more WN frequencies and maybe a few new routes. Maybe some modest continued expansion from Alaska or the addition of Jetblue. I don't see a legacy hub relocating, and the design of the airport doesn't appear to build that assumption in. One drawing circulating in the media appeared to include 40-50 gates, which isn't a lot more than they are actively using today.

I wished the designers would have better explained how their design will continue to enable affordable walk-from-your-car parking and an efficient (under 5 minutes) security process. I believe a good design *can* do both, and I've been in a few decent medium-sized airports that pull it off. But the vote won by a huge margin, so I guess such detailed explanation wasn't really needed.

Proudelitist

I am not sure either, if this means increased, hub based WN traffic at MCI. Love Field in Dallas seems to be their main midwestern HUB as well as the home field, with the northern Midwest covered by MDW.

DenverBrian

Looks like the era of "drive to your gate" is rapidly ending, with only DFW having the ring-style concourses anymore.

pinniped

I haven't seen the whole new design (nor do I know if the one shown during the campaign is anything more than an artist's rendering), but I would hope they keep some element of "medium-term" (for lack of a better word) parking that's walkable.

I've been to a few places that still have it, and on a medium-sized airport it still should be possible.

The WN commentary about the new airport has been in favor of it, with them saying that the existing design has them maxed out on capacity. They've suggested that total traffic would increase in the new design, but they've never suggested that it would be hub-like behavior or a replacement for DAL or MDW. I've taken this to mean that we'd get some gradual expansion...a few more frequencies on the highest-demand routes and maybe a couple new routes.

I have no idea what the airline landscape will look like in 2021. In 2018 terms, I like the westward expansion with AS growth so it'd be nice to see that continue in the decade ahead. More WN is always a good thing. I'd even be happy with a couple more AC/Jazz flights...say, YUL and YVR.

aaronp84

I'd be surprised at any huge increase in flights from WN at MCI after the new terminal is built, considering the rapid and ongoing expansion of flights and gates at STL.