Kansas City things

[pissclams]

or growth won't occur.  and the model is busted, and the airlines say "we assumed growth that never happened because X, Y, and Z and we have no option but to increase ticket prices, sorry guys".

KCI didn't grow in passengers from 2004 (last renovations) to today...yet our ticket costs didn't rise at any different rate than domestic average...but you know.

so you think that our previous 15 years of undisputed data is an anomaly and growth will appear (much like the billion dollars of cost to build the new terminal) out of thin air?

[Phil Titola]

there is no risk to the airlines lol, what risk are you talking about?
why won't they sign an agreement that limits their ability to raise ticket prices to line up with a factor connected to inflation?

That is from the presentation today.  I'm sure Loar will bulldog and get to the bottom of that agreement for us!

Yes, let's get them to sign that....tell me how that goes.

So to be clear, our own historical data of flat # of fliers and other airport's data after a new terminal show that it doesn't increase your ticket costs....but we're just ignoring all that data?

[Phil Titola]

or growth won't occur.  and the model is busted, and the airlines say "we assumed growth that never happened because X, Y, and Z and we have no option but to increase ticket prices, sorry guys".

KCI didn't grow in passengers from 2004 (last renovations) to today...yet our ticket costs didn't rise at any different rate than domestic average...but you know.

so you think that our previous 15 years of undisputed data is an anomaly and growth will appear (much like the billion dollars of cost to build the new terminal) out of thin air?

I have no idea how the airline's consultants (not the city's) came up with their growth estimates....maybe 1990-2000 growth has some influence? 

[pissclams]

there is no risk to the airlines lol, what risk are you talking about?
why won't they sign an agreement that limits their ability to raise ticket prices to line up with a factor connected to inflation?

That is from the presentation today.  I'm sure Loar will bulldog and get to the bottom of that agreement for us!

Yes, let's get them to sign that....tell me how that goes.

So to be clear, our own historical data of flat # of fliers and other airport's data after a new terminal show that it doesn't increase your ticket costs....but we're just ignoring all that data?

what's the risk you keep bringing up?  there's no risk the the airlines. they'll gladly pay the ~$30M delta.  and then they'll pass that cost increase along to you and i.
and no, the airlines aren't going to agree to not raising ticket prices because that's exactly what they plan on doing. 

[Phil Titola]

there is no risk to the airlines lol, what risk are you talking about?
why won't they sign an agreement that limits their ability to raise ticket prices to line up with a factor connected to inflation?

That is from the presentation today.  I'm sure Loar will bulldog and get to the bottom of that agreement for us!

Yes, let's get them to sign that....tell me how that goes.

So to be clear, our own historical data of flat # of fliers and other airport's data after a new terminal show that it doesn't increase your ticket costs....but we're just ignoring all that data?

what's the risk you keep bringing up?  there's no risk the the airlines. they'll gladly pay the ~$30M delta.  and then they'll pass that cost increase along to you and i.
and no, the airlines aren't going to agree to not raising ticket prices because that's exactly what they plan on doing.

yet their costs went up in 2004 and our ticket prices didn't skyrocket...they only matched the industry....the fact is the terminal costs is only 7% of their total operating expenses....not to mention competition.

[pissclams]

there is no risk to the airlines lol, what risk are you talking about?
why won't they sign an agreement that limits their ability to raise ticket prices to line up with a factor connected to inflation?

That is from the presentation today.  I'm sure Loar will bulldog and get to the bottom of that agreement for us!

Yes, let's get them to sign that....tell me how that goes.

So to be clear, our own historical data of flat # of fliers and other airport's data after a new terminal show that it doesn't increase your ticket costs....but we're just ignoring all that data?

what's the risk you keep bringing up?  there's no risk the the airlines. they'll gladly pay the ~$30M delta.  and then they'll pass that cost increase along to you and i.
and no, the airlines aren't going to agree to not raising ticket prices because that's exactly what they plan on doing.

yet their costs went up in 2004 and our ticket prices didn't skyrocket...they only matched the industry....the fact is the terminal costs is only 7% of their total operating expenses....not to mention competition.

agree on the competition at MCI, there's a crap ton of it

[wetwillie]

if ticket costs aren't going to go up why wouldn't the airlines agree to cap increases tied to inflation?

[pissclams]

there is no risk to the airlines lol, what risk are you talking about?
why won't they sign an agreement that limits their ability to raise ticket prices to line up with a factor connected to inflation?

That is from the presentation today.  I'm sure Loar will bulldog and get to the bottom of that agreement for us!

Yes, let's get them to sign that....tell me how that goes.

So to be clear, our own historical data of flat # of fliers and other airport's data after a new terminal show that it doesn't increase your ticket costs....but we're just ignoring all that data?

what's the risk you keep bringing up?  there's no risk the the airlines. they'll gladly pay the ~$30M delta.  and then they'll pass that cost increase along to you and i.
and no, the airlines aren't going to agree to not raising ticket prices because that's exactly what they plan on doing.

yet their costs went up in 2004 and our ticket prices didn't skyrocket...they only matched the industry....the fact is the terminal costs is only 7% of their total operating expenses....not to mention competition.

2004, the last time we spent a billion dollars $250M on our airport

[Phil Titola]

If airlines were as sensitive to airport terminal costs as you are assuming, they would be telling KCI to not touch a thing....but they aren't.  They see the value in a new terminal to their operations as well..

Salomon said a new terminal makes sense from an airline perspective because it helps with the ebb and flow of airlines getting in and out. Because airplanes are growing in size, the airport needs gate flexibility and the ability to add more gates when needed.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2016/02/02/airlines-shoot-down-new-kci-renovation-idea.html

[Phil Titola]

if ticket costs aren't going to go up why wouldn't the airlines agree to cap increases tied to inflation?

Because their major operating costs (fuel and employees in unions) aren't tied to inflation?

[pissclams]

If airlines were as sensitive to airport terminal costs as you are assuming, they would be telling KCI to not touch a thing....but they aren't.  They see the value in a new terminal to their operations as well..

Salomon said a new terminal makes sense from an airline perspective because it helps with the ebb and flow of airlines getting in and out. Because airplanes are growing in size, the airport needs gate flexibility and the ability to add more gates when needed.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2016/02/02/airlines-shoot-down-new-kci-renovation-idea.html

southwest isn't getting away from their 737's

[Phil Titola]

there is no risk to the airlines lol, what risk are you talking about?
why won't they sign an agreement that limits their ability to raise ticket prices to line up with a factor connected to inflation?

That is from the presentation today.  I'm sure Loar will bulldog and get to the bottom of that agreement for us!

Yes, let's get them to sign that....tell me how that goes.

So to be clear, our own historical data of flat # of fliers and other airport's data after a new terminal show that it doesn't increase your ticket costs....but we're just ignoring all that data?

what's the risk you keep bringing up?  there's no risk the the airlines. they'll gladly pay the ~$30M delta.  and then they'll pass that cost increase along to you and i.
and no, the airlines aren't going to agree to not raising ticket prices because that's exactly what they plan on doing.

yet their costs went up in 2004 and our ticket prices didn't skyrocket...they only matched the industry....the fact is the terminal costs is only 7% of their total operating expenses....not to mention competition.

2004, the last time we spent a billion dollars $250M on our airport

Their cost per enplanement went up $2 since that time.  Sounds familiar.

[pissclams]

there is no risk to the airlines lol, what risk are you talking about?
why won't they sign an agreement that limits their ability to raise ticket prices to line up with a factor connected to inflation?

That is from the presentation today.  I'm sure Loar will bulldog and get to the bottom of that agreement for us!

Yes, let's get them to sign that....tell me how that goes.

So to be clear, our own historical data of flat # of fliers and other airport's data after a new terminal show that it doesn't increase your ticket costs....but we're just ignoring all that data?

what's the risk you keep bringing up?  there's no risk the the airlines. they'll gladly pay the ~$30M delta.  and then they'll pass that cost increase along to you and i.
and no, the airlines aren't going to agree to not raising ticket prices because that's exactly what they plan on doing.

yet their costs went up in 2004 and our ticket prices didn't skyrocket...they only matched the industry....the fact is the terminal costs is only 7% of their total operating expenses....not to mention competition.

2004, the last time we spent a billion dollars $250M on our airport

Their cost per enplanement went up $2 since that time.  Sounds familiar.

my goodness, you really are looking at it that way. 
yikes, man.  support the rough ridin' thing.  i can't help.

[Phil Titola]

If airlines were as sensitive to airport terminal costs as you are assuming, they would be telling KCI to not touch a thing....but they aren't.  They see the value in a new terminal to their operations as well..

Salomon said a new terminal makes sense from an airline perspective because it helps with the ebb and flow of airlines getting in and out. Because airplanes are growing in size, the airport needs gate flexibility and the ability to add more gates when needed.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2016/02/02/airlines-shoot-down-new-kci-renovation-idea.html

southwest isn't getting away from their 737's

yet they are the major driver behind this from the airline side.  the movement of planes today is already hampered no matter the size of the plane per some prior presentation. 

[Phil Titola]

there is no risk to the airlines lol, what risk are you talking about?
why won't they sign an agreement that limits their ability to raise ticket prices to line up with a factor connected to inflation?

That is from the presentation today.  I'm sure Loar will bulldog and get to the bottom of that agreement for us!

Yes, let's get them to sign that....tell me how that goes.

So to be clear, our own historical data of flat # of fliers and other airport's data after a new terminal show that it doesn't increase your ticket costs....but we're just ignoring all that data?

what's the risk you keep bringing up?  there's no risk the the airlines. they'll gladly pay the ~$30M delta.  and then they'll pass that cost increase along to you and i.
and no, the airlines aren't going to agree to not raising ticket prices because that's exactly what they plan on doing.

yet their costs went up in 2004 and our ticket prices didn't skyrocket...they only matched the industry....the fact is the terminal costs is only 7% of their total operating expenses....not to mention competition.

2004, the last time we spent a billion dollars $250M on our airport

Their cost per enplanement went up $2 since that time.  Sounds familiar.

my goodness, you really are looking at it that way. 
yikes, man.  support the rough ridin' thing.  i can't help.

Just one piece of data reflecting their costs that you've told us that is going to increase our ticket prices despite data showing that doesn't happen here or in other cities.

[pissclams]

If airlines were as sensitive to airport terminal costs as you are assuming, they would be telling KCI to not touch a thing....but they aren't.  They see the value in a new terminal to their operations as well..

Salomon said a new terminal makes sense from an airline perspective because it helps with the ebb and flow of airlines getting in and out. Because airplanes are growing in size, the airport needs gate flexibility and the ability to add more gates when needed.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2016/02/02/airlines-shoot-down-new-kci-renovation-idea.html

southwest isn't getting away from their 737's

yet they are the major driver behind this from the airline side.  the movement of planes today is already hampered no matter the size of the plane per some prior presentation. 

they're the major driver behind this from the airline side because they stand to gain the most. 

i'm not going to scour the web for supporting data, but their planes have no problem getting in and out of MCI

[pissclams]

there is no risk to the airlines lol, what risk are you talking about?
why won't they sign an agreement that limits their ability to raise ticket prices to line up with a factor connected to inflation?

That is from the presentation today.  I'm sure Loar will bulldog and get to the bottom of that agreement for us!

Yes, let's get them to sign that....tell me how that goes.

So to be clear, our own historical data of flat # of fliers and other airport's data after a new terminal show that it doesn't increase your ticket costs....but we're just ignoring all that data?

what's the risk you keep bringing up?  there's no risk the the airlines. they'll gladly pay the ~$30M delta.  and then they'll pass that cost increase along to you and i.
and no, the airlines aren't going to agree to not raising ticket prices because that's exactly what they plan on doing.

yet their costs went up in 2004 and our ticket prices didn't skyrocket...they only matched the industry....the fact is the terminal costs is only 7% of their total operating expenses....not to mention competition.

2004, the last time we spent a billion dollars $250M on our airport

Their cost per enplanement went up $2 since that time.  Sounds familiar.

my goodness, you really are looking at it that way. 
yikes, man.  support the rough ridin' thing.  i can't help.

Just one piece of data reflecting their costs that you've told us that is going to increase our ticket prices despite data showing that doesn't happen here or in other cities.

they didn't spend any money, that's why

[Phil Titola]

If airlines were as sensitive to airport terminal costs as you are assuming, they would be telling KCI to not touch a thing....but they aren't.  They see the value in a new terminal to their operations as well..

Salomon said a new terminal makes sense from an airline perspective because it helps with the ebb and flow of airlines getting in and out. Because airplanes are growing in size, the airport needs gate flexibility and the ability to add more gates when needed.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2016/02/02/airlines-shoot-down-new-kci-renovation-idea.html

southwest isn't getting away from their 737's

yet they are the major driver behind this from the airline side.  the movement of planes today is already hampered no matter the size of the plane per some prior presentation. 

they're the major driver behind this from the airline side because they stand to gain the most. 

i'm not going to scour the web for supporting data, but their planes have no problem getting in and out of MCI

It has to do with the taxiing routes and the horseshoe design today cuts those down to single paths for many gates....that's from memory alone.

[Phil Titola]

there is no risk to the airlines lol, what risk are you talking about?
why won't they sign an agreement that limits their ability to raise ticket prices to line up with a factor connected to inflation?

That is from the presentation today.  I'm sure Loar will bulldog and get to the bottom of that agreement for us!

Yes, let's get them to sign that....tell me how that goes.

So to be clear, our own historical data of flat # of fliers and other airport's data after a new terminal show that it doesn't increase your ticket costs....but we're just ignoring all that data?

what's the risk you keep bringing up?  there's no risk the the airlines. they'll gladly pay the ~$30M delta.  and then they'll pass that cost increase along to you and i.
and no, the airlines aren't going to agree to not raising ticket prices because that's exactly what they plan on doing.

yet their costs went up in 2004 and our ticket prices didn't skyrocket...they only matched the industry....the fact is the terminal costs is only 7% of their total operating expenses....not to mention competition.

2004, the last time we spent a billion dollars $250M on our airport

Their cost per enplanement went up $2 since that time.  Sounds familiar.

my goodness, you really are looking at it that way. 
yikes, man.  support the rough ridin' thing.  i can't help.

Just one piece of data reflecting their costs that you've told us that is going to increase our ticket prices despite data showing that doesn't happen here or in other cities.

they didn't spend any money, that's why

your ticket price didn't go up either

[Mikeyis4dcats]

If airlines were as sensitive to airport terminal costs as you are assuming, they would be telling KCI to not touch a thing....but they aren't.  They see the value in a new terminal to their operations as well..

Salomon said a new terminal makes sense from an airline perspective because it helps with the ebb and flow of airlines getting in and out. Because airplanes are growing in size, the airport needs gate flexibility and the ability to add more gates when needed.

http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/news/2016/02/02/airlines-shoot-down-new-kci-renovation-idea.html

southwest isn't getting away from their 737's

this is true, but the planes are getting larger
http://www.aviatorjoe.net/go/compare/737-800/737-300/

[KCFDcat]

JFC, both of you are a little insane.

Will renovating/rebuilding KCI cost money? yes. higher fees? probably. Does KCI need renovation? yes. I mean, it was built in 1972. air travel has changed drastically in the last 45 years. It's insane to think an airport that was built that long ago can still be efficient in today's world.

Maybe I'm in the minority here, but it's pretty obvious that KCI is not a very secure airport, and I've sat in security lines just as slow here than at any other airport in the country. It's really not much more convenient than any other airport. ever had a layover in KCI? good god. had to switch terminals? the worst.

"ticket prices" are not a huge concern for me. I honestly don't know the difference in price between the cheapest airport and the most expensive airport, but I can't imagine it's enough to halt air travel out of KC. I understand your desire to not do a damn thing to the airport clams, I do. I get that you're a fiscal conservative. Unfortunately cities do have to spend money on projects every now and then.

I swear to god if Teresa Loar's name is brought up one more time I'm going to lose it. She's absolutely insane and complains like a little kid when she doesn't get her way. Even her supporters were embarrassed by her behavior at the council meeting a few months ago. Not very becoming of a city official.

Last thing: the year after it was built TWA basically said "oh crap, we can't really fly 747's out of here" it's a huge PITA. Which is still true. 

[pissclams]

mci is very efficient, we're essentially a single terminal now and it works great

why would i have a layover at mci?  i live here.

mci isn't very secure?  let's talk about all of the terrorists that use mci's lack of security to reign terror upon us

the current design was developed by twa, for good or bad

[Mikeyis4dcats]

mci is very efficient, we're essentially a single terminal now and it works great

why would i have a layover at mci?  i live here.

mci isn't very secure?  let's talk about all of the terrorists that use mci's lack of security to reign terror upon us

the current design was developed by twa, for good or bad

obviously the bad since they essentially asked them to tear them down and start over a year after the airport opened.

[Phil Titola]

Reflecting back clams does have fair points and questions about what happens if their assumptions don't work, etc. I'd expect much more info to come out prior to any vote.

[KCFDcat]

mci is very efficient, we're essentially a single terminal now and it works great

why would i have a layover at mci?  i live here.

mci isn't very secure?  let's talk about all of the terrorists that use mci's lack of security to reign terror upon us

the current design was developed by twa, for good or bad

I have had layovers at MCI when I didn't live here.

it may be efficient for you, but it's not for the airlines.

Even though I brought it up, I do hate the security excuse. I don't like the "what if" line of questioning. But, it will get brought up, I mean the non-secure area is like 5 feet from the secure area...doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

yes I'm aware, and they were immediately saying it was a poor design. so....