Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
WN Wants Bigger Voice In MCI's Future  
User currently offlineemseeeye From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 508 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 5313 times:

Its amazing now that the airlines are starting to see the cost increase they are starting to voice their opinion on whether on not they want to pass any increases on to passengers to help fund a new terminal.

http://www.kansascity.com/2013/11/13...uthwest-airlines-wants-bigger.html

The issue that I now have with WN is they cannot have their cake and eat it too. Also, since WN owns 50% of the traffic they seem to have tunnel vision on the future of MCI. There are all the other carriers operating as well. The airport authority cannot neglect what the other airlines issues are just to appease WN.

Also, over the last couple of years wasn't WN's position that they couldn't grow at MCI due to space?

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinesccutler From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 5615 posts, RR: 28
Reply 1, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 5237 times:

Quoting emseeeye (Thread starter):

Its amazing now that the airlines are starting to see the cost increase they are starting to voice their opinion on whether on not they want to pass any increases on to passengers to help fund a new terminal.

It would be seriously foolish if they did not voice an opinion.

Quoting emseeeye (Thread starter):
The issue that I now have with WN is they cannot have their cake and eat it too.

What is the "cake"?

Quoting emseeeye (Thread starter):
Also, since WN owns 50% of the traffic they seem to have tunnel vision on the future of MCI.

Again, their business model is not the promotion of the success of their competitors.

Quoting emseeeye (Thread starter):
The airport authority cannot neglect what the other airlines issues are just to appease WN.

Nor should they.



...three miles from BRONS, clear for the ILS one five approach...
User currently offlinePHX787 From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 7959 posts, RR: 19
Reply 2, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4826 times:

Is MCI going to finally scrap that 70s terminal they have and build something more 2010s? I love the design aesthetically but at the same time it's not useful at all.


Follow me on twitter: www.twitter.com/phx787
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7680 posts, RR: 15
Reply 3, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4732 times:

Quoting emseeeye (Thread starter):
There are all the other carriers operating as well. The airport authority cannot neglect what the other airlines issues are just to appease WN.

To be honest, no airline wants to spend another nickel.

Is the terminal in MCI awful? Yes.
Do the airlines care? Largely No.
Do the passengers want to pay another $7 or $9 every time they fly for it to be nice for 10 years? Probably not.

So, this is one of those situations where the govt sees the "bigger picture" and forces something they think is overall for the public good on everybody involved. Whether it is really in the public good is debatable...and it is being debated.


User currently offlineDL WIDGET HEAD From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 2100 posts, RR: 5
Reply 4, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 4732 times:

Quoting sccutler (Reply 1):
Quoting emseeeye (Thread starter):
The issue that I now have with WN is they cannot have their cake and eat it too.

What is the "cake"?

I think the "cake" means that they (WN) can't expect a new terminal and think that the costs to build and operate it won't go up.


User currently offlineusflyguy From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1074 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4557 times:

Quoting emseeeye (Thread starter):
Also, over the last couple of years wasn't WN's position that they couldn't grow at MCI due to space?

And then some walls were removed on the secure side where the gates are and more space was opened up and gate areas were combined which made operations more efficient.

Ask Indy, building a new terminal and having costs skyrocket doesn't bring new service...



My post is my ideas and my opinions only, I do not represent the ideas or opinions of anyone else or company.
User currently offlineCubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 23299 posts, RR: 20
Reply 6, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4554 times:

Quoting usflyguy (Reply 5):
And then some walls were removed on the secure side where the gates are and more space was opened up and gate areas were combined which made operations more efficient.

Yes, though there are only 7 or so gates in the "WN secure zone." If they want sterile connections between all of their gates--a reasonable goal--growth is indeed limited.



I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5844 posts, RR: 28
Reply 7, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 4463 times:

Sounds like a replay of the new terminal construction arguments at SMF.


"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlineknope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2998 posts, RR: 31
Reply 8, posted (1 year 1 month 4 days ago) and read 4230 times:

Southwest has 7 gates in a single holding area...37-45 (there's no 42 nor 44) but they also have two other gates down the hall which they also use, 32 and 33. Those were AirTran gates, but now they rotate usage and there are definitely connections which need to re-clear security.

Today, for examlpe, flight 473 arrived from Dallas at 10:50 and flight 162 departed for BWI at 11:20. That's a valid connection and looking at tomorrow (for example) it's the earliest available flight. Today the MCI-DAL flight arrived at B37, and the connecting MCI-BWI flight departed B33, meaning a walk out of security, down the hall a ways, and into another security area. The KCI flight information lists the inbound DAL flight as arriving 15 minutes late at 11:05. One would hope they held BWI's 11:20 departure until connections made it over, but that's not exactly a low-stress connection.

If KCI builds new and airline fees reach a level Southwest doesn't feel reasonable to pay, they can rework things that a lot more connecting flow now using KCI traverses another city. KCI will certainly still have a lot of Southwest flights which serve a lot of local passengers, but less connecting flow means fewer nonstops. Maybe they see fewer IND and MKE flights, maybe PDX goes seasonal instead of year-round, maybe plans for a MCI-PIT flight go south, etc.


User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3156 posts, RR: 6
Reply 9, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 4042 times:

It seems to me the best approach to add space to the existing rings terminals is to build inward. Cut a couple secants in the circular drive, use that inward space to expand ticketing and baggage claim, and completely free up the existing ring terminal to become airside, post-security. As for the drive, it might follow the exterior edge of the square parking garage on one level. Lose some close-in parking, but that's OK. (EWR, MDW, and LAS have done this.) My plan preserves the convenience that the locals love (walk to the gate), would maintain the existing footprint, would cost less than a new facility clear across the airport, and could be built mostly without closing the existing concourses. I may have to rough up a diagram to post here. Later.

-Rampart


User currently offlinetyler81190 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 724 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 3554 times:

Honestly, this is going to happen one way or another. The Aviation Department does not need voter consent to build the terminal, as they do not plan on using ANY local tax dollars. Also, I have serious doubts about WN's capacity after the Wright Amendment goes away.

On the Airport's side, they have the "Shiny New Terminal" syndrome. A new terminal would greatly reduce security screening costs, and open up the storm water system to be repaired so they can stop being fined by the EPA for polluting the ground.

On the Passenger side, It would mean the end of the "drive to your gate" concept. Many people love that about MCI, but there are many people who buy their tickets from 3rd party vendors that offer connections and interlining in MCI. Some I have seen: AA to UA, AS to UA, UA to DL, DL to AA, AS to DL, AS to AA, and US to just about everyone. This new terminal would be a life saver for these passengers.

Playing devil's advocate, the airport does not care about how easy it is to drop off or pick up, it makes them no money... Parking fees for short term or long term do. Passengers sitting airside at a bar does not make money, Landing fees, parking (aircraft) fees, PFCs, and leased gate save does.

In the proposed plan, the sterile area would be Common Use, which would give airlines flexibility for light days, or for IROPS. The proposed site is where Terminal A currently sits, which by the way will become vacant on Jan. 10th with the move of US to Term. C.

I will be shocked if they do not begin to tear down Term. A within a year from now. As Term. A is the oldest terminal, it is also the first to be empty. You do the math, empty terminal sealed off, cut utilities means a rotting building. They will use that as an excuse to tear it down quickly.


For the new terminal, a single security point means easier use of the space, more restrooms in sterile area, more food, and shops. It also means cheaper operating costs for TSA (Firstline) and easier upkeep for the Aviation Department!

T


User currently offlineblhp68 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3083 times:

Quoting knope2001 (Reply 8):

Hey Knope, if I am not mistaken, the airport spent about 1.5 million dollars to construct a secure bridge walkway from the main southwest gates to the AirTran gates. This means that you would not have to leave security if you are connecting.


User currently offlinetyler81190 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 724 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 3033 times:

Quoting blhp68 (Reply 11):
Hey Knope, if I am not mistaken, the airport spent about 1.5 million dollars to construct a secure bridge walkway from the main southwest gates to the AirTran gates. This means that you would not have to leave security if you are connecting.

That is true... Only Southwest has that bridge though...


User currently offlinePITrules From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 3254 posts, RR: 6
Reply 13, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2951 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 9):
It seems to me the best approach to add space to the existing rings terminals is to build inward. Cut a couple secants in the circular drive, use that inward space to expand ticketing and baggage claim, and completely free up the existing ring terminal to become airside, post-security.

Or an outward expansion? Plenty of airside space to do this, with the exception of sacrificing a few gates on each end of the middle terminal. Shouldn't be a problem as MCI can spare the extra gates.



FLYi
User currently offlinerampart From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 3156 posts, RR: 6
Reply 14, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2931 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 13):
Or an outward expansion? Plenty of airside space to do this, with the exception of sacrificing a few gates on each end of the middle terminal. Shouldn't be a problem as MCI can spare the extra gates.

I thought of that, too, but would be more disruptive to operations than my original suggestion, as in it would take gates out of use during the expansions. But I suppose if they have an entire terminal to be mothballed soon, that isn't as much of a problem.

-Rampart


User currently offlinetyler81190 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 724 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 2913 times:

Quoting rampart (Reply 14):
But I suppose if they have an entire terminal to be mothballed soon, that isn't as much of a problem.

The Aviation Department is not temporarily mothballing it. They have said it will not reopen.


User currently offlineknope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2998 posts, RR: 31
Reply 16, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 2790 times:

Interesting idea to build inward. I've thought about building upward, but

Quoting blhp68 (Reply 11):
Quoting knope2001 (Reply 8):
Hey Knope, if I am not mistaken, the airport spent about 1.5 million dollars to construct a secure bridge walkway from the main southwest gates to the AirTran gates. This means that you would not have to leave security if you are connecting.

Interesting! I'll be there in a week and will check it out. If this exists it would make sense why they're using those gates at all -- other than for an originator or two they should be able to serve everything (including the AirTran flights) from their 7 previous gates.


User currently offlineblhp68 From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 149 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (1 year 1 month 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2586 times:

Quoting knope2001 (Reply 16):
Interesting! I'll be there in a week and will check it out. If this exists it would make sense why they're using those gates at all -- other than for an originator or two they should be able to serve everything (including the AirTran flights) from their 7 previous gates.

As a resident, I recall reading about this bridge but didn't actually stumble upon it until I had a flight out of gate 32. I went in the checkpoint for the main gates and then after passing through security, realized my gate was in the wrong area! Luckily the bridge saved me a trip back through security!

Photo is courtesy of the KC Star from their article.



User currently offlineknope2001 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2998 posts, RR: 31
Reply 18, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 2442 times:

Thanks for the pic! I'll have to check it out next week.

User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 940 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2240 times:

Quoting PITrules (Reply 13):

Could go landslide too. Close a terminal, drop the parking structure and elevated roadways, secure the entire building as a single concourse, build a pax processor with bridges from security to the gates like a wagon wheel and add a new parking parking structure and roadway. Rinse and repeat.


User currently offlinemhkansan From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 720 posts, RR: 1
Reply 20, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2226 times:

MCI needed a clean sheet terminal on the South side of the terminal. It's closer to the city, and would fix decades of poor terminal facilities at MCI.

MCI is one of the saddest air service stories in the US. Once it was a huge played in the national air transportation system. Everybody had transcon flights stopping in MKC with 707s, 727s, etc. Vanguard Airlines, Frontier's hub, the US Airways hub, Braniff hub, and of course the TWA hub... All that service evaporated largely due to really crappy connecting facilities.

Now, even though MCI is the best positioned transcontinental hub in the USA, there are no airlines left to open up a large operation there, except WN, which has relatively high service levels there mostly due to Wright.

Hopefully the airport authority won't cock this new terminal up also. Actually, I hope they do. Maybe it would mean more traffic at MHK? Ah, that will happen regardless.


User currently offlineBoeing717200 From United States of America, joined Jan 2013, 940 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (1 year 1 month 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 2218 times:

Quoting mhkansan (Reply 20):

As long as they build a terminal and not some monument to the staff they'll be fine.


User currently offlineskywaymanaz From United States of America, joined May 2012, 562 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (1 year 1 month 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1927 times:

Quoting mhkansan (Reply 20):
even though MCI is the best positioned transcontinental hub in the USA

There have been many on here questioning that premise for years. I hate to say it as a KC native who grew up near KCI and briefly worked there but I tend to agree. There are huge blanks on the map to the west and north that make it a lot less desireable than say MSP for connecting feed. That said the terminals are a joke. It was tolerable before 9/11 when security was more common sense, less invasive and fast. I don't doubt some of the fixes proposed above are possible but you're still putting bandaids on a 40 year old building. There aren't to many terminals left in the US that are this old. I can think of a few but most had fewer problems and have either been radically remodeled or demolished. WN was a major player at MCI before it was added into the Wright zone. Even with Wright it is NOT a desirable connecting point due to the facilities. There may well be some connecting traffic that drops off post Wright but they'll still be the biggest airline there by far. Maybe I just have shiny new terminal syndrome too but I really believe it is the only long term solution. I've travelled to SGF a few times on business and love what they've done with their new building. The old one was hemmed in by the airport layout and once it could no longer be expanded it was replaced. That wasn't without controversy there either, especially with competition down the road at BBG.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Chance Of WN Looking At The BLI In The Future? posted Sat Feb 9 2013 18:09:35 by raddek
Southwest WN Finally Touches Down In Pensacola posted Mon Nov 4 2013 06:40:47 by beau222
Could 787-3 Style Jet Still Work In The Future? posted Mon Jun 24 2013 07:41:37 by AviationAddict
Eastern And Braniff In MCI posted Tue May 28 2013 20:08:15 by WDBRR
Study: Tatl Flights "Very Turbulent" In The Future posted Mon Apr 8 2013 19:05:47 by Gonzalo
WN Three Blown Tires In DEN posted Mon Jan 21 2013 16:59:54 by DENOO
Does WN Only Fly 73NG's In/Out Of MDW? posted Sun Sep 30 2012 22:10:23 by flaps30
WN Pilot, TSA Agent In 'confrontation' At MHT posted Sat Aug 11 2012 08:04:31 by chrisnh
Will IAH Get More A380s In The Future? posted Sat Aug 4 2012 14:37:05 by AVENSAB727
Could HA Launch HNL-MIA Service In The Future? posted Thu Jul 19 2012 11:35:14 by 747400sp