Kansas City things

[pissclams]

I agree AA cares not about me. They do care about customer complaints... And those complaints about the  air side of KCI is their responsibility to maintain and upgrade. They can't give customers what customers are asking for with the current terminal.... That's their interest.

they brought in $6 billion in profit last year, they could figure out a tsa precheck line if they wanted to. southwest has +2x more daily flights and has figured it out.  aa's interest is getting this single terminal approved so they can continue to grow their record setting profit numbers.

[The Big Train]

I agree AA cares not about me. They do care about customer complaints... And those complaints about the  air side of KCI is their responsibility to maintain and upgrade. They can't give customers what customers are asking for with the current terminal.... That's their interest.

they brought in $6 billion in profit last year, they could figure out a tsa precheck line if they wanted to. southwest has +2x more daily flights and has figured it out.  aa's interest is getting this single terminal approved so they can continue to grow their record setting profit numbers.

Just in KC, or across their whole company?  Makes a huge difference, and I would make a relatively good guess that is for the whole company.  So yeah, adding another person at EVERY airport is super easy

[HerrSonntag]

I agree AA cares not about me. They do care about customer complaints... And those complaints about the  air side of KCI is their responsibility to maintain and upgrade. They can't give customers what customers are asking for with the current terminal.... That's their interest.

they brought in $6 billion in profit last year, they could figure out a tsa precheck line if they wanted to. southwest has +2x more daily flights and has figured it out.  aa's interest is getting this single terminal approved so they can continue to grow their record setting profit numbers.

Just in KC, or across their whole company?  Makes a huge difference, and I would make a relatively good guess that is for the whole company.  So yeah, adding another person at EVERY airport is super easy

No way thats just MCI.  MCI served 10,472,461 passengers last year, and even if every one of those were AA, they'd have to be marking up tickets $500/ea. above cost on average.

[pissclams]

 

[Phil Titola]

Oh my....okay I'm passing on this debate pending further details on the plan

[kitten_mittons]

I would like Kansas City to have a nicer airport.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

[Emo EMAW]

Wait...the structure is falling apart?  Really?  I mean we have rough ridin' castles built in the 12th century still standing but an airport that's 20 years old is crap?

[420seriouscat69]

Why do so many ppl like spending tax $ on so many unnecessary things?!

[Phil Titola]

Wait...the structure is falling apart?  Really?  I mean we have rough ridin' castles built in the 12th century still standing but an airport that's 20 years old is crap?

40....it's more the design itself that is the driver but yes there are major infrastructure items needing fixing....and that fixing costs as much if not more than building new according to estimates.

[Emo EMAW]

Wait...the structure is falling apart?  Really?  I mean we have rough ridin' castles built in the 12th century still standing but an airport that's 20 years old is crap?

40....it's more the design itself that is the driver but yes there are major infrastructure items needing fixing....and that fixing costs as much if not more than building new according to estimates.

Do you have a link to this information?

[CNS]

The whole idea of fixing an existing entire airport costing more than building a new entire airport is something that seems completely unbelievable.  I cannot imagine not being able to repair whatever may be wrong with a 40 yr set of buildings for $1B+. 

I mean, the fudges in calcs, and prob what is included in those calcs, to make that calc work have to be extreme.

I mean, you could build pretty much any building on the KC skyline for like 20% of that, from scratch.

[AbeFroman]

 

Wait...the structure is falling apart?  Really?  I mean we have rough ridin' castles built in the 12th century still standing but an airport that's 20 years old is crap?

tbf those castles were designed by Royalty and built by slaves, rather than a clusterfuck of politicians, design firms, airline execs, contractors, city officials etc.

[Panjandrum]

The whole idea of fixing an existing entire airport costing more than building a new entire airport is something that seems completely unbelievable.  I cannot imagine not being able to repair whatever may be wrong with a 40 yr set of buildings for $1B+. 

I mean, the fudges in calcs, and prob what is included in those calcs, to make that calc work have to be extreme.

This is KCMO math and planning we're dealing with, here.

[Mrs. Gooch]

The whole idea of fixing an existing entire airport costing more than building a new entire airport is something that seems completely unbelievable.  I cannot imagine not being able to repair whatever may be wrong with a 40 yr set of buildings for $1B+. 

I mean, the fudges in calcs, and prob what is included in those calcs, to make that calc work have to be extreme.

Has mocat checked the calculations?

[Emo EMAW]

It sounds like mocat is the source of these calculations.

[Phil Titola]

Wait...the structure is falling apart?  Really?  I mean we have rough ridin' castles built in the 12th century still standing but an airport that's 20 years old is crap?

40....it's more the design itself that is the driver but yes there are major infrastructure items needing fixing....and that fixing costs as much if not more than building new according to estimates.

Do you have a link to this information?

Two years of work and presentations has been public the whole time...I think this is the right link, it's not pulling up for me right now

https://www.flykci.com/newsroom/terminal-master-plan/

[Phil Titola]

The whole idea of fixing an existing entire airport costing more than building a new entire airport is something that seems completely unbelievable.  I cannot imagine not being able to repair whatever may be wrong with a 40 yr set of buildings for $1B+. 

I mean, the fudges in calcs, and prob what is included in those calcs, to make that calc work have to be extreme.

This is KCMO math and planning we're dealing with, here.

It's not....it's consultants...which is generally as bad I know....these consultants were hired by the airlines who are looking for most cost effective solution for them.

Cns the estimates show they can be fixed for around the same price as new.....but that doesn't fix the outdated design itself, logistic problems with plane movements, and loses the short walks people talk about with current kci.

[Missouriscribe]

Phil, are you in a line of work that stands to benefit from construction of a new airport?

[CNS]

Phil, I get what you are saying, and I am not calling you a liar.  I am saying that the concept of repair of a 40 yr old building in what appears to be generally decent shape, to those who walk though it, costing as much as tearing said building down, hauling off massive amts of rubble, arch designing, engineering, bidding, building, commissioning, etc a new building is preposterous.  That is saying nothing about temp staging for airlines to continue functions during construction.

The consultants, at best are not including some pretty major costs of the new building in their numbers, imo.  Even if they are only looking at construction and ignoring design, demo, etc, I would still call bullshit on this. 

It has to be apples and oranges.

[Phil Titola]

Phil, are you in a line of work that stands to benefit from construction of a new airport?

I have no vested interest other than my business and personal travel improving with new kci.

[Phil Titola]

Phil, I get what you are saying, and I am not calling you a liar.  I am saying that the concept of repair of a 40 yr old building in what appears to be generally decent shape, to those who walk though it, costing as much as tearing said building down, hauling off massive amts of rubble, arch designing, engineering, bidding, building, commissioning, etc a new building is preposterous.  That is saying nothing about temp staging for airlines to continue functions during construction.

The consultants, at best are not including some pretty major costs of the new building in their numbers, imo.  Even if they are only looking at construction and ignoring design, demo, etc, I would still call bullshit on this. 

It has to be apples and oranges.

It does seem crazy on the surface. Which is why I lean on experts and the fact they are hired by airlines who have their costs in the forefront of their mind....they are going to want the most cost effective option....

Temp staging for airlines is done....terminal A is empty which is where new kci will go.

[meow meow]

why can't they put new KCI closer to things other than Platte City if they are gonna build new?  like there's that space by Union Station where the Royals had the Championship celebration, can't they just put it there?

[Emo EMAW]

Phil, I get what you are saying, and I am not calling you a liar.  I am saying that the concept of repair of a 40 yr old building in what appears to be generally decent shape, to those who walk though it, costing as much as tearing said building down, hauling off massive amts of rubble, arch designing, engineering, bidding, building, commissioning, etc a new building is preposterous.  That is saying nothing about temp staging for airlines to continue functions during construction.

The consultants, at best are not including some pretty major costs of the new building in their numbers, imo.  Even if they are only looking at construction and ignoring design, demo, etc, I would still call bullshit on this. 

It has to be apples and oranges.

It does seem crazy on the surface. Which is why I lean on experts and the fact they are hired by airlines who have their costs in the forefront of their mind....they are going to want the most cost effective option....

Temp staging for airlines is done....terminal A is empty which is where new kci will go.

Are the airlines the ones funding the new airport?

[Trim]

This thread started in June of 2013 so I've never read it.  You people should move.

Will the proposed new airport include a way to get from it to Kansas City?

[Phil Titola]

Phil, I get what you are saying, and I am not calling you a liar.  I am saying that the concept of repair of a 40 yr old building in what appears to be generally decent shape, to those who walk though it, costing as much as tearing said building down, hauling off massive amts of rubble, arch designing, engineering, bidding, building, commissioning, etc a new building is preposterous.  That is saying nothing about temp staging for airlines to continue functions during construction.

The consultants, at best are not including some pretty major costs of the new building in their numbers, imo.  Even if they are only looking at construction and ignoring design, demo, etc, I would still call bullshit on this. 

It has to be apples and oranges.

It does seem crazy on the surface. Which is why I lean on experts and the fact they are hired by airlines who have their costs in the forefront of their mind....they are going to want the most cost effective option....

Temp staging for airlines is done....terminal A is empty which is where new kci will go.

Are the airlines the ones funding the new airport?

Yes...read the newest presentation...it details that well