Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
727tiger
Topic Author
Posts: 302
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 11:22 pm

MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Wed Jul 22, 2015 12:42 pm

A year-long study group of airline representatives, MCI representatives and a consultant for the City of Kansas City aviation department has recommended a new single terminal to replace MCI's existing terminal, citing -- among other reasons -- the believed less expensive nature of building new v. renovating current terminals:

http://www.kansascity.com/news/local/article28037629.html

I grew up first with MKC then MCI, and I loved the unique design of MCI's terminals. But, that was a different age. I'm ready to move on to a new, single modern terminal.
 
RJNUT
Posts: 1829
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 1999 1:58 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:19 pm

as a member of my high school marching band , we played at the inauguration of KCI in OCT.72.. Yes i too am ready to move on.. Heck I still have my fondest memories of old Municpal airport downtown!
 
KFLLCFII
Posts: 3541
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:08 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:33 pm

Interesting how (arguably) the very best terminal design for O&D passenger convenience before the screening era could become the very worst for both O&D and connecting passengers with gateside screening halls.

What I don't understand, though, is that if the existing terminal structures already "begin" and "end" roughly around the circumference of a broad circle (Bonn Circle & International Circle within), and generally function sufficiently if not for the security aspect, then why not simply build a central processing/screening center within the circle and connect the three terminals as sterile, airside concourses?

Would something like this not be as cost-effective as building an entire landside-airside complex from the ground up?

"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
 
GSPSPOT
Posts: 2528
Joined: Thu Sep 11, 2003 1:44 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Wed Jul 22, 2015 1:50 pm

Or, if it can be determined that the capacity that all 3 rings provides is not needed, could building a central terminal with security checkpoints between two of the existing rings work? Then, the interiors of those ring terminals could be opened up as true concourses, much closer to what DFW has, as ticketing/baggage claim/security would all be in the central terminal at that point.
Great Lakes, great life.
 
KFLLCFII
Posts: 3541
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 7:08 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:12 pm

Quoting GSPSPOT (Reply 3):
Or, if it can be determined that the capacity that all 3 rings provides is not needed, could building a central terminal with security checkpoints between two of the existing rings work? Then, the interiors of those ring terminals could be opened up as true concourses, much closer to what DFW has, as ticketing/baggage claim/security would all be in the central terminal at that point.

Exactly. Tampa, Orlando...
"About the only way to look at it, just a pity you are not POTUS KFLLCFII, seems as if we would all be better off."
 
washingtonflyer
Posts: 1602
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2013 9:45 pm

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:15 pm

How many gates are actually used at MCI these days?
 
User avatar
LOWS
Posts: 1335
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 5:37 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Wed Jul 22, 2015 2:45 pm

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 2):
Would something like this not be as cost-effective as building an entire landside-airside complex from the ground up?

Probably not, because they would still need to heat and cool a lot of unused space. Also, you'd have to build and operate a people mover system, as the terminals are pretty big (I like a long walk, but most people in an airport don't). Not to mention, the rings are old and very narrow.

Finally, what would happen to the parking garages in the center of each ring?
 
User avatar
enilria
Posts: 10082
Joined: Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:15 pm

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Wed Jul 22, 2015 3:53 pm

I think they should have 7 terminals in different corners of the airfield that are separated by moats with alligators and if an airline can't fit all their operations in one of them then they should spread out over several of them. There should also be an Arby's the least accessible terminal and only a Waldenbooks at the others.  
 
User avatar
TVNWZ
Posts: 2252
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:28 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Wed Jul 22, 2015 4:03 pm

MCI never really panned out the way it was planned. It's time has come and gone and the city really needs to start with a clean sheet of paper and design a much smaller and efficient airport. It was a nice try and the time, but now its time to acknowledge that times are different and move on.
 
User avatar
res77W
Posts: 313
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 4:59 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:09 pm

Quoting washingtonflyer (Reply 5):

I'm MCI based. Not many. There are peak times of the day, but often times many gates sit vacant, excluding Terminal A which was shut down a couple years ago I believe.
 
Byrdluvs747
Posts: 2540
Joined: Thu Jul 15, 2004 5:25 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Wed Jul 22, 2015 6:17 pm

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 8):
the city really needs to start with a clean sheet of paper and design

Yes, there comes a time when dynamite and bulldozers are an airports best friend.

Quoting washingtonflyer (Reply 5):
How many gates are actually used at MCI these days?

Not sure of the exact count, but Terminal A isn't used. This low gate utilization would actually make it easier to plan a clean sheet design.

Quoting enilria (Reply 7):
I think they should have 7 terminals in different corners of the airfield that are separated by moats with alligators

Isnt that the design MCO went with 
Quote:
construction at the airport will not be paid for with taxes. Bonds issued for a project will be repaid with airline fees and concessions at the airport.
Quote:
And eventually, Kansas City residents will have a vote on any major airport improvements.

If taxpayers are not footing the bill, why should they have any say on its contruction?

[Edited 2015-07-22 11:24:45]
The 747: The hands who designed it were guided by god.
 
ScottB
Posts: 6836
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2000 1:25 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Wed Jul 22, 2015 8:53 pm

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 2):
Would something like this not be as cost-effective as building an entire landside-airside complex from the ground up?

There are several key problems with that idea. First is that a landside complex that large would be nearly as expensive as a new terminal and require some very long walks to the farther gates in the rings. It also wouldn't solve the two most valid problems with the terminal design -- the terminals will require some renovation and maintenance on the aging terminal buildings is getting more expensive. There would likely be higher operating costs given larger areas to heat/cool/clean/police. And it would likely be very challenging to phase construction while keeping the existing terminals open.

The potential candidates for renovation & new terminal designs can be seen here: http://data.kcmo.org/Airport/KCI-Pre...15-To-KCMO-City-Council-/s2c7-qczd

Quoting 727tiger (Thread starter):
A year-long study group of airline representatives, MCI representatives and a consultant for the City of Kansas City aviation department has recommended a new single terminal to replace MCI's existing terminal, citing -- among other reasons -- the believed less expensive nature of building new v. renovating current terminals:

It looks like the "renovation" plans included some significant construction on their own -- either a new central terminal structure between two of the rings or central structures for ticketing/baggage/security filling in part of the rings, which would also require the parking garages to be replaced.

Given that the proposed "renovation" wasn't going to just be updating the existing structures (as was done around 10 years ago), it's not surprising that the new terminal alternatives are now the cheapest. But it's still going to be important to keep costs under control.
 
User avatar
TVNWZ
Posts: 2252
Joined: Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:28 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Wed Jul 22, 2015 9:11 pm

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 10):
If taxpayers are not footing the bill, why should they have any say on its contruction?

Because taxpayers always foot the bill. It's just the way they foot it. Not to mention the taxpayers own the thing.
 
User avatar
christao17
Posts: 925
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 12:14 pm

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:44 am

As a former resident and long-time visitor (since before MCI opened, in fact), I vote for a single terminal.

The convenient horseshoe design became less convenient shortly after the airport opened in 1972 once security screening was added at gates.

It became tremendously inconvenient in the aftermath of 9-11 and even with remodeling combining several gates into a single holding area, facilities are limited and the overall design does not serve passengers effectively.

And then there is the cost issue. If a new terminal is more cost effective, let's do it.
More than a dozen years flying in and around Asia...
 
User avatar
tb727
Posts: 2190
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:40 pm

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Thu Jul 23, 2015 12:20 pm

Quoting washingtonflyer (Reply 5):
How many gates are actually used at MCI these days?

In the presentation it says 29 are currently leased, 35 gates are needed in 2030.

I like Major Renovation Concept B myself.

MCI is my favorite overnight at the moment believe it or not.
Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
 
User avatar
knope2001
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:54 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:17 pm

Quoting tb727 (Reply 14):
In the presentation it says 29 are currently leased, 35 gates are needed in 2030.

Although the current KCI terminals are numbered for 90 gates I think each of the three terminals can reasonably park up to 20 mainline aircraft. I believe there are about 50 jetways on the three terminals (some unused gates which could have jetways currently do not). If the projection of needing 35 gates by 2030 is accurate, the current terminal would still have about 25 surplus gates, about 15 of which currently have jetways.

As reference, KCI has roughly150 daily departures, 2/3 of which are mainline. (That excludes the handful of SeaPort flights which use the FBO.)
 
sw733
Posts: 5881
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:19 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Thu Jul 23, 2015 1:46 pm

Quoting tb727 (Reply 14):

MCI is my favorite overnight at the moment believe it or not.

As an MCI-based frequent flyer, I am curious...why?
 
User avatar
tb727
Posts: 2190
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:40 pm

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Thu Jul 23, 2015 2:29 pm

Quoting sw733 (Reply 16):
As an MCI-based frequent flyer, I am curious...why?

We stay downtown, most downtowns we stay in kinda suck but KC is pretty cool. Good restaurants and stuff to do.
Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
 
kstateinALB
Posts: 542
Joined: Tue Dec 12, 2006 10:22 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Thu Jul 23, 2015 9:45 pm

I feel like I'm one of a few that actually likes MCI's terminal!

I completely understand people's qualms over the airport. In all honesty, MCI is a blessing and a curse. A blessing, meaning you can get from curb to gate in ten minutes, maybe even less that (which saved me a few times). A curse, if you're trying to eat/not wait in line for the bathroom/find a seat near your gate.

MCI was my home airport for six years. I always appreciated that I could get from economy parking to my gate in 15 minutes. But yes, the curses outweigh the blessings. Something with more amenities for passengers is much needed. Whether it be a renovation or a completely new building, it'll be nice to see one day.
ALB, DTW, ORD, MDW, MCI, JFK, LGA, LHR, MAD, MSP, IAD, DCA, MCO, ATL, CVG, TUL, MHK, PHL, PIT, DFW, DAL, CLT, IND, AUS,
 
afcjets
Posts: 3347
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:44 pm

Quoting TVNWZ (Reply 8):
Quoting ScottB (Reply 11):
First is that a landside complex that large would be nearly as expensive as a new terminal and require some very long walks to the farther gates in the rings

First of all the central terminal area would not need to be that large and most importantly while you would no longer be able to drive up to your gate, the walks would be very short by the way the terminals are designed. Look at the pic above, any point in the blue region to any gate on one of the semi-circles is a very short walk, and obviously an airlines ticket counter would be located in relation to their gates.

The thing that really blows my mind about this article is that it says it will need 6 more gates in 15 years, and it says it will be easy to build a new terminal where terminal A is now which is not being used. Um, why not use terminal A then, wouldn't that give you six new gates and then some? Or am I missing something here?

[Edited 2015-07-23 15:48:58]
 
stburke
Posts: 152
Joined: Wed Sep 05, 2007 1:11 pm

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:52 pm

Quoting afcjets (Reply 19):
The thing that really blows my mind about this article is that it says it will need 6 more gates in 15 years, and it says it will be easy to build a new terminal where terminal A is now which is not being used. Um, why not use terminal A then, wouldn't that give you six new gates and then some? Or am I missing something here?

The need for additional new gates may be marginal but the need for a new modern facility is pretty huge - and ultimately what's driving all this. Outdated, cumbersome facilities being replaced by a single "right sized" efficient terminal is what the city needs.

Or a return to the downtown airport  
 
N1120A
Posts: 26557
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Thu Jul 23, 2015 10:58 pm

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 2):
Interesting how (arguably) the very best terminal design for O&D passenger convenience before the screening era could become the very worst for both O&D and connecting passengers with gateside screening halls.

The issue isn't the screening era, it is the TSA era, where non-ticketed persons can't go through security.

Quoting KFLLCFII (Reply 2):
Would something like this not be as cost-effective as building an entire landside-airside complex from the ground up?

That would likely cost a fortune, and actually take more space. Some sort of train system would likely have to be used. Basically, this is something similar to what LAS does.

Quoting enilria (Reply 7):
I think they should have 7 terminals in different corners of the airfield that are separated by moats with alligators and if an airline can't fit all their operations in one of them then they should spread out over several of them. There should also be an Arby's the least accessible terminal and only a Waldenbooks at the others.

    
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
afcjets
Posts: 3347
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:10 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 21):
Some sort of train system would likely have to be used.

There is no reason a tiny airport with 35 gates which is not even a hub (barring WN but it is probably their smallest of approximately 15 mostly redundant hubs) would need a train or people mover system. Also the semicircular design of the concourses means a short walk to each gate even from a central terminal area. The concourses/terminals are right on top of each other too, not spread out like at TPA.
 
User avatar
tb727
Posts: 2190
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 1:40 pm

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Thu Jul 23, 2015 11:58 pm

Quoting stburke (Reply 20):
Or a return to the downtown airport

Now there is an idea, that's a fun airport to land at! Shorter van ride to the hotel too.
Too lazy to work, too scared to steal!
 
airplanedaj
Posts: 201
Joined: Wed Aug 14, 2013 1:05 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Fri Jul 24, 2015 1:26 am

Quoting stburke (Reply 20):
Or a return to the downtown airport

The only issue there is how many gates/parking spaces would you have. No passenger airline flies anything greater than a 757 in (do they), but terminal/gate space would be the main issue. As a pilot (commercial student with airline ambitions), I would love more small airports to break up the monotony of 8,000+ ft runways.
 
asaad11
Posts: 36
Joined: Thu May 29, 2008 6:04 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Fri Jul 24, 2015 9:02 am

There is definitely a need for a single terminal at MCI take for example DL who has 2 separate gate areas for departures...if a gate change has to be made then all pax must exit security and go through it again in the other secured area. There are no shops and very minimal restaurants inside security which could aid in keeping passengers busy when there is an IROP or delayed flights. DL also has two 757's, three airbus, one CRJ 700 that all depart in the first hour of the day which makes for little to no seating for anyone and one mens restroom with two stalls and one womens restroom with two stalls, For 500+ people that is not much at all.

Just my take on it
 
JBAirwaysFan
Posts: 569
Joined: Sat May 23, 2009 11:17 pm

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Sat Jul 25, 2015 12:58 am

I travel somewhat regularly to MCI. The layout is very O&D friendly, but MCI's location in the middle of the country would make it great for connections. Their terminal layout? Not so much. Though I did notice terminal B is much more open, at least on the WN side because WN does have connecting opportunities there. You don't have to leave the sterile area to go between their gates. I think it's a great airport, but like I said I'm an O&D passenger there, not connecting.
In Loving Memory of Casey Edward Falconer; May 16, 1992-May 9, 2012
 
MIflyer12
Posts: 7310
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2013 11:58 pm

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Sat Jul 25, 2015 2:30 am

Quoting Byrdluvs747 (Reply 10):
If taxpayers are not footing the bill, why should they have any say on its contruction?

Construction won't be pay-as-you-go -- there will be bonds sold by the city with the city on the hook.
 
toltommy
Posts: 2762
Joined: Tue Dec 09, 2003 9:04 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Sat Jul 25, 2015 3:28 am

Quoting stburke (Reply 20):
Or a return to the downtown airport

Except for todays population lives in the suburbs, and the flooding issue.
A300/A310/A319/A320/A321/A332/A333 / 707/712/727/732/733/734/735/738/739/752/753
/762/763/764/772/788/789/DC8/DC9-10/30/40/50/MD81/83/87/88/90/L1011-/250/500/CRJ200/440 /700/900/EMB135/140/145/170/175/190/328Jet/F70/SF3/BE1/J31
 
N1120A
Posts: 26557
Joined: Sun Dec 14, 2003 5:40 pm

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Sat Jul 25, 2015 6:55 am

Quoting afcjets (Reply 22):
There is no reason a tiny airport with 35 gates which is not even a hub (barring WN but it is probably their smallest of approximately 15 mostly redundant hubs) would need a train or people mover system. Also the semicircular design of the concourses means a short walk to each gate even from a central terminal area. The concourses/terminals are right on top of each other too, not spread out like at TPA.

They aren't exactly on top of each other - they even have different roadways.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
 
afcjets
Posts: 3347
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Sat Jul 25, 2015 12:37 pm

Quoting N1120A (Reply 29):

Figure of speech obviously. Looking at the aerial shot in post 2, if you connected the terminals you might could squeeze one or two gates in between them.
 
User avatar
compensateme
Posts: 3279
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2009 4:17 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Sun Jul 26, 2015 1:51 am

It sounds like MCI has reached the end of its useful life. Considering what must be done to renew the building's life -- everything from new roofs to structural reinforcements to replacements of the HAVAC & baggage systems/etc. -- costs can easily climb into the hundreds of millions. In addition to a modern terminal & amenities, new construction has the advantage of reducing annual repair & maintenance, labor, utilities, etc. as well as increasing revenues from concessions. I've never worked with MCI but I'm skeptical of the $1B price tag to renew the building's life although I won't disagree that it's possible new construction would be a better option.

MEM is a great example of an airport that will ultimately pay more to renovate an antiqued facility vs. construction a new one. But MEM was in a more political situation given that new construction would've relinquished 3/4 of its gates (the former NW hub) and its constituents believe that MEM should be able to fill every one of those...
We don’t care what your next flight is.
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4619
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Sun Jul 26, 2015 2:46 am

Should MCI even consider connections in their design? I feel like its primarily an o&d airport and will continue to be that even if its one building. This is not a legacy connection city that really needs to consider connections in their design. Doesnt MCI have way way too many gates as is? I think almost any project that the city has to pay for the renovation is a bad idea, to go this big.

This is also the airport where a representative said they needed a modern terminal setup to attract premium routes like a non-stop to Europe. Lets be clear here a new terminal in no way will enhance MCIs chances of a route to Europe, Hawaii, or Asia. The people running MCI seem to want a world class hub airport when its a spoke o&d city you making taxpayers pay for this is bad. If the airport itself can't pay for this over time they are thinking too big.
 
afcjets
Posts: 3347
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Sun Jul 26, 2015 4:42 am

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 32):
Should MCI even consider connections in their design?

Yes, MCI has been a hub at least three times before, if they do not take connections into account in their design that decreases their chance anyone would look twice in the future. Even as an O&D airport, it makes no sense to hire TSA agents for every two gates or however many gates per checkpoint they currently have.
 
815Oceanic
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:53 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Sun Jul 26, 2015 6:12 am

In Singapore, every gate or two gates has security screening and that was voted the #1 airport in the world. I've never been to MCI so I am honestly curious, why is the separate screening for gates any different other than the added cost of TSA? In SIN, the gate opens about an hour before the flight and you go through security and stay in the secure area until your flight takes off.
 
User avatar
christao17
Posts: 925
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2005 12:14 pm

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Sun Jul 26, 2015 6:31 am

Quoting 815Oceanic (Reply 34):
In Singapore, every gate or two gates has security screening and that was voted the #1 airport in the world. I've never been to MCI so I am honestly curious, why is the separate screening for gates any different other than the added cost of TSA? In SIN, the gate opens about an hour before the flight and you go through security and stay in the secure area until your flight takes off.

Great question. Let me take a stab at it from my experience with both airports:

SIN has security arrive at a single gate about 1 hour before the flight and then once the majority of the pax have arrived, most of them move on to the next scheduled gate. Gates are fairly close together so not too hard to manage staffing levels.

MCI was remodeled after 9-11 and have about a half-dozen (sometimes more/less) gates per sterile area. With the different levels of traffic, the security areas goes from extremely crowded to very quiet, but a minimum staffing is always required. With these sterile areas spread further apart, it is more difficult to shift staff.

Now, I would argue that SIN doesn't have the most efficient layout; most international airports just have pax go through a central security screening, which is what the new MCI layouts would do.
More than a dozen years flying in and around Asia...
 
815Oceanic
Posts: 181
Joined: Wed Sep 10, 2014 12:53 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Sun Jul 26, 2015 2:36 pm

Quoting christao17 (Reply 35):

Ahh thanks that makes sense! I never liked Singapore's layout but they did do screenings efficiently. But when you have a Cebu A330 with 400 people on it, those screening areas are just not enough. I hope MCI does get a central screening!
 
afcjets
Posts: 3347
Joined: Thu Jan 01, 2015 6:20 pm

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Sun Jul 26, 2015 5:10 pm

Quoting christao17 (Reply 35):
MCI was remodeled after 9-11 and have about a half-dozen (sometimes more/less) gates per sterile area

How many gates before then? The last time I flew there was the 1990s and it seemed like each gate or pair of gates had it's own checkpoint.
 
User avatar
knope2001
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2005 5:54 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Sun Jul 26, 2015 7:03 pm

Quoting afcjets (Reply 37):
How many gates before then? The last time I flew there was the 1990s and it seemed like each gate or pair of gates had it's own checkpoint.

IIRC it was usually 3 or 4, though (as today) some numbered gates don't have jetways and may have use as an overflow aircraft parking spot or for parking for ground equipment. The remodeling over the past 10-15 years or so did create some areas of combined security but the bigger change was installing restrooms and adding services as best they can within security. The restrooms, newsstands and other services within the secured areas today come off very poorly for an airport the size of KCI . But not too long ago even getting drink of water or washing your hands meant leaving security. I *think* all the actively-used gate areas at KCI today have restrooms and some sort of service like a newsstand kiosk, but I'm pretty sure there are unused gates where that's still not true. Most of the cases where separate sterile areas were joined were efforts to better accommodate specific airlines (most notably Southwest and Midwest) being able to handle connections.

As someone who's not KC-based but who has flown in and out of that airport several dozen times in the past years, the big shortcoming is on space and services. No, I don't want nor need for there to be a Brooks Brothers or a L'occitane (though apparently those places do enough business to last at airports). But life behind security at KCI is often about as comfortable as the older terminal at LaGuardia in terms of space and amenities. Life outside of security is worse than LGA because at least they have that huge, relatively spacious food court at LGA. To be fair KCI is frequently not as packed as LGA's B and isn't as neglected as some of LaGuardia's old terminal is. But to me KCI is about as bad as LGA for in-terminal experience.

To be sure, there are other things which often make LGA a worse overall experience than KCI...ATC delays, crowded/overstressed ground transportation facilities, waiting for gates to open up, more overcrowded peak periods than KCI, etc. And there are few (if any) parts of KCI that feel like they haven't had a facelift since Ford was in office. But to grab a pre-flight meal, or cool your heels during a delay, or to get to early in case you can go standby sooner, or meet up with a local friend before you head home, or to talk a walk to pass the time, or to find an open area where you can plug in and recharge a device...it's pretty much on par with the old terminal at LaGuardia in my book.
 
slcdeltarumd11
Posts: 4619
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2004 7:30 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Sun Jul 26, 2015 8:00 pm

Its great to see us talking about MCI, not an airport that gets much talk on here, not much going on usually. Its good to see some discussions on MCI

I have always thought MCI is super fast and amazingly easy as an o&d airport. In and out pretty fast out of that place. They already have way way too many mainline sized gates i think they should just renovate. Taking out bonds for a middle sized airport with no hub carrier to help cover the costs makes this a bad idea IMHO. Look at ONT the new terminals raised costs a ton and airlines reduced service. Terminals dont bring in new service it often reduces service if the fees the airlines pay goes up. MCI has no hub and its become much less important to Southwest with the Denver hub, raising costs is a horrible idea and that is how this terminal will be built.

I think MCI should be trying to keep costs as low as humanly possible and add what specifically airlines need to the current design or use the money to bring in new service. A flight to Europe wont happen because of a flashy new terminal, you might get that flight with a large subsidy or revenue guarantees that you could offer if you didnt spend a fortune building new terminals when you already have too much space. Flashy terminals and increased costs will only drive service away. I think southwest is still artificially large in MCI they will shrink more in the future if/when they get more DEN gates on concourse C.
 
airplaneboy
Posts: 697
Joined: Sat May 15, 2004 11:59 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Sun Jul 26, 2015 8:17 pm

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 39):
Flashy terminals and increased costs will only drive service away. I think southwest is still artificially large in MCI they will shrink more in the future if/when they get more DEN gates on concourse C.

Southwest has grown in MCI the last couple of years. Their MCI schedule is actually *very tailored* to MCI O&D (take a look). Although they do sell connections through MCI, that station never functioned in the same capacity as DEN. It still remained a very local O&D destination. Every destination WN serves from MCI is in the top 30 markets of most traveled destinations- and the schedules suit locals. Cheers!
 
2travel2know2
Posts: 2927
Joined: Mon Apr 26, 2010 3:01 pm

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Sun Jul 26, 2015 8:39 pm

Just by seeing the pic, seems an easy way to improve MCI would be to keep the current terminals, make them a full circle and join the terminals to the centre circle with wider connecting structures, widening and/or adding extra floors to any part of the 3 circles if needed.
I'm not on CM's payroll.
 
User avatar
FlyingJhawk
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 9:26 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Sun Jul 26, 2015 9:42 pm

I've been based in MCI for over 30 years. And while I would love a shiny new terminal configuration the reality is that for people living in the area MCI is an absolute dream airport. I don't hang out in bars nor do I need dining options and really, security for the most part is a breeze. In addition, I've had time that from when the plane landed to being in my car about about 20 minutes - usually it's no more than 45 minutes if I include taxi to the gate, waiting to get off, getting by bags from baggage claim and getting to remote parking. That's awfully nice after a late arriving return from a business trip.

Now would I support higher landing fees for a new terminal. Yes. The vast majority of my travel out of MCI is for business so I won't be absorbing the additional costs anyway.
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Mon Jul 27, 2015 3:33 pm

Quoting slcdeltarumd11 (Reply 39):
think MCI should be trying to keep costs as low as humanly possible and add what specifically airlines need to the current design or use the money to bring in new service. A flight to Europe wont happen because of a flashy new terminal, you might get that flight with a large subsidy or revenue guarantees that you could offer if you didnt spend a fortune building new terminals when you already have too much space. Flashy terminals and increased costs will only drive service away. I think southwest is still artificially large in MCI they will shrink more in the future if/when they get more DEN gates on concourse C.

Whatever they do, they've got to keep the costs down for the airlines, lest they end up like PIT or CVG, more empty than they are now. The amount of money they've spent in the last 10 years on renovations in the terminal and building the new consolidated rental car lot, would be wasted, IMO, if they move the terminal to the other side of the airport, like the initial plan had called for.

Personally, I think a centralized non-secure area is the way to go, connecting it to terminal A & B (which could yet again be remodeled). Build the central area, move half the airlines into A (which would be remodeled) and then close B to remodel. When that's done, move everyone into the new terminal and remove C.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
desertjets
Posts: 7693
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2000 3:12 pm

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Mon Jul 27, 2015 3:47 pm

I can tell who actually bothered to look at the proposal presentation and those who didn't (or just looked at the pictures).


The biggest takeaway for me is how the current terminal complex would still be bigger in total square footage than the either of the new construction proposals -- but the allocation of space is horribly inefficient in the existing complex. So as far as I can tell the new construction proposals are not going to be for some fancy palace, but rather something more right sized with room for expansion. And it will likely be cheaper to operate.
Stop drop and roll will not save you in hell. --- seen on a church marque in rural Virginia
 
DiamondFlyer
Posts: 3307
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2008 11:50 pm

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Mon Jul 27, 2015 3:55 pm

Quoting desertjets (Reply 44):

I can tell who actually bothered to look at the proposal presentation and those who didn't (or just looked at the pictures).

For what it's worth, the original idea floated a couple of years ago relocated the entire terminal complex to the south side of the airport. I'm glad to see they seem to have moved away from that idea.

-DiamondFlyer
From my cold, dead hands
 
sw733
Posts: 5881
Joined: Wed Feb 25, 2004 6:19 am

RE: MCI Study Group Recommends Single Terminal

Mon Jul 27, 2015 4:00 pm

Quoting afcjets (Reply 33):
Yes, MCI has been a hub at least three times before, if they do not take connections into account in their design that decreases their chance anyone would look twice in the future.

And in this day in age, when the number of hubs is DECREASING as a result of airline consolidation, what airline would go make MCI a hub? I sure can't think of a single one.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos