Author Topic: Kansas City things (Read 1006771 times)

Phil Titola · « **Reply #4825 on:** April 27, 2016, 04:43:47 PM »

Quote from: kitten_mittons on April 27, 2016, 04:36:55 PM

I would like a direct flight to/from austin. Although I think they had one and recently got rid of it.

Sent from my SM-G930P using Tapatalk

Delta and Frontier both flew there for awhile...pretty embarrassing for Austin not to have a direct to such a stud city.

The Tonya Harding of Twitter Users Creep · « **Reply #4826 on:** April 28, 2016, 12:40:33 PM »

i am pro new airport

Cire · « **Reply #4827 on:** April 28, 2016, 01:25:32 PM »

I'm pro new airport as long as I don't have to pay for it.

420seriouscat69 · « **Reply #4828 on:** April 28, 2016, 01:26:18 PM »

Quote from: Cire on April 28, 2016, 01:25:32 PM

I'm pro new airport as long as I don't have to pay for it.

Spoiler alert: you will

Phil Titola · « **Reply #4829 on:** April 28, 2016, 02:00:57 PM »

Quote from: WackyCat08 on April 28, 2016, 01:26:18 PM

Quote from: Cire on April 28, 2016, 01:25:32 PM
I'm pro new airport as long as I don't have to pay for it.
Spoiler alert: you will

Wrong.

Emo EMAW · « **Reply #4830 on:** April 28, 2016, 02:04:03 PM »

Quote from: Phil Titola on April 28, 2016, 02:00:57 PM

Quote from: WackyCat08 on April 28, 2016, 01:26:18 PM
Quote from: Cire on April 28, 2016, 01:25:32 PM
I'm pro new airport as long as I don't have to pay for it.
Spoiler alert: you will

Wrong.

Then sign the paper.

Phil Titola · « **Reply #4831 on:** April 28, 2016, 02:12:05 PM »

Quote from: Emo EMAW on April 28, 2016, 02:04:03 PM

Quote from: Phil Titola on April 28, 2016, 02:00:57 PM
Quote from: WackyCat08 on April 28, 2016, 01:26:18 PM
Quote from: Cire on April 28, 2016, 01:25:32 PM
I'm pro new airport as long as I don't have to pay for it.
Spoiler alert: you will

Wrong.

Then sign the paper.

What paper? This made up agreement Emo cat came up with? Come on.

Long version of my "wrong"... No taxes will be increased or KCMO general fund money be used to pay for a new KCI. If you fly you will pay an airport fee just like you do today. You will pay the airlines an amount of money to fly on their plane just like you do today. Part of the airlines COGS is the landing fees at an airport that they pay using the money you paid to fly on their planes. Just like you do today. Will your MCI to LAS ticket price go up due to this increased cost ($2 per passenger estimated) to the airlines from higher landing fees? Almost certainly not as those fees are a tiny portion of the airlines cost structure and history at other airports building new terminals proves this out.

Hope that helps.

Emo EMAW · « **Reply #4832 on:** April 28, 2016, 02:17:27 PM »

Why would someone voluntarily enter into an agreement with no upside, but with considerable risk? That is essentially what is being asked of the people over this airport deal. People are smart to be wary.

Phil Titola · « **Reply #4833 on:** April 28, 2016, 02:21:56 PM »

What considerable risk are you thinking of? There is no risk to kcmo taxpayers here. There is also tons of upside for every user of the airport.

Emo EMAW · « **Reply #4834 on:** April 28, 2016, 02:30:30 PM »

The risk of higher ticket prices in the future.

I think we've pointed out how there is not "tons of upside for every user of the airport." I think Pan did a good job of very specifically refuting that opinion stated as fact.

Mikeyis4dcats · « **Reply #4835 on:** April 28, 2016, 02:30:35 PM »

I like our hayseed airport. In fact, given a choice I just booked travel out of MHK to Dallas because it is even more hayseed than KCI.

Mikeyis4dcats · « **Reply #4836 on:** April 28, 2016, 02:31:05 PM »

FYI I think LAX is a bigger shithole than KCI

star seed 7 · « **Reply #4837 on:** April 28, 2016, 02:31:59 PM »

Quote from: The Tonya Harding of Twitter Users Creep on April 28, 2016, 12:40:33 PM

i am pro new airport

Your line of work probably has something to gain from the project, so typical

star seed 7 · « **Reply #4838 on:** April 28, 2016, 02:36:02 PM »

Anyone who would pick mci in that situation would be dumb.

Emo EMAW · « **Reply #4839 on:** April 28, 2016, 02:37:46 PM »

^ smug lib.

Phil Titola · « **Reply #4840 on:** April 28, 2016, 02:38:03 PM »

Quote from: Emo EMAW on April 28, 2016, 02:30:30 PM

The risk of higher ticket prices in the future.

I think we've pointed out how there is not "tons of upside for every user of the airport." I think Pan did a good job of very specifically refuting that opinion stated as fact.

Actually he didn't refute every point but no matter... Can't convince everyone. Only stating an opinion. I totally get much easier to accept the status quo. KCI has a short walk from an airplane...thats it's one trick.

A new terminal is not increasing risk of ticket prices going up. This is proven over and over at other airports. Find me one example of this occurring.

Could actually argue the opposite that not approving this could raise ticket prices as competition could decrease out of KCI.

pissclams · « **Reply #4841 on:** April 28, 2016, 02:38:26 PM »

everything at and about the new airport will be more expensive. this extends beyond takeoff & landing fees.

imagine a world where instead of charging whatever we will be at the new airport for parking and taking off and landing and rent, etc and spending it on a $1B terminal, instead we took half of that proposed income and renovated MCI. then, we took the other $500M and spent it on schools and police and streetcars and all the crap the city actually needs.

unlike some, i'm not dumb enough to believe that the option presented is the least cost alternative

this city is going down the literal sewer and the new airport will do nothing to fix that

Phil Titola · « **Reply #4842 on:** April 28, 2016, 02:43:35 PM »

Quote from: pissclams on April 28, 2016, 02:38:26 PM

everything at and about the new airport will be more expensive. this extends beyond takeoff & landing fees.

imagine a world where instead of charging whatever we will be at the new airport for parking and taking off and landing and rent, etc and spending it on a $1B terminal, instead we took half of that proposed income and renovated MCI. then, we took the other $500M and spent it on schools and police and streetcars and all the crap the city actually needs.

unlike some, i'm not dumb enough to believe that the option presented is the least cost alternative

this city is going down the literal sewer and the new airport will do nothing to fix that

Spending 100 billion at KCI wouldn't decrease KCMO ability to spend all the money we want on sewers or schools. You can cross the streams.

pissclams · « **Reply #4843 on:** April 28, 2016, 02:56:32 PM »

Quote from: Phil Titola on April 28, 2016, 02:43:35 PM

Quote from: pissclams on April 28, 2016, 02:38:26 PM
everything at and about the new airport will be more expensive. this extends beyond takeoff & landing fees.

imagine a world where instead of charging whatever we will be at the new airport for parking and taking off and landing and rent, etc and spending it on a $1B terminal, instead we took half of that proposed income and renovated MCI. then, we took the other $500M and spent it on schools and police and streetcars and all the crap the city actually needs.

unlike some, i'm not dumb enough to believe that the option presented is the least cost alternative

this city is going down the literal sewer and the new airport will do nothing to fix that

Spending 100 billion at KCI wouldn't decrease KCMO ability to spend all the money we want on sewers or schools. You can cross the streams.

note- we don't have all the money we want to spend on sewers or schools or police or other necessary infrastructure. what we are doing is considering diverting money that could be spent on those things, towards a $1B airport terminal. why can't you figure out that our city is poor?

star seed 7 · « **Reply #4844 on:** April 28, 2016, 02:58:19 PM »

Poor people don't use the airport, but they would probably work at the airport Chili's too

star seed 7 · « **Reply #4845 on:** April 28, 2016, 02:59:34 PM »

That's a little thing I call job creation

Emo EMAW · « **Reply #4846 on:** April 28, 2016, 03:03:07 PM »

Quote from: Phil Titola on April 28, 2016, 02:38:03 PM

Quote from: Emo EMAW on April 28, 2016, 02:30:30 PM
The risk of higher ticket prices in the future.

I think we've pointed out how there is not "tons of upside for every user of the airport." I think Pan did a good job of very specifically refuting that opinion stated as fact.

Actually he didn't refute every point but no matter... Can't convince everyone. Only stating an opinion. I totally get much easier to accept the status quo. KCI has a short walk from an airplane...thats it's one trick.

A new terminal is not increasing risk of ticket prices going up. This is proven over and over at other airports. Find me one example of this occurring.

Could actually argue the opposite that not approving this could raise ticket prices as competition could decrease out of KCI.

This would almost certainly be a better argument than the one you've already put forth.

Phil Titola · « **Reply #4847 on:** April 28, 2016, 03:12:23 PM »

Quote from: pissclams on April 28, 2016, 02:56:32 PM

Quote from: Phil Titola on April 28, 2016, 02:43:35 PM
Quote from: pissclams on April 28, 2016, 02:38:26 PM
everything at and about the new airport will be more expensive. this extends beyond takeoff & landing fees.

imagine a world where instead of charging whatever we will be at the new airport for parking and taking off and landing and rent, etc and spending it on a $1B terminal, instead we took half of that proposed income and renovated MCI. then, we took the other $500M and spent it on schools and police and streetcars and all the crap the city actually needs.

unlike some, i'm not dumb enough to believe that the option presented is the least cost alternative

this city is going down the literal sewer and the new airport will do nothing to fix that

Spending 100 billion at KCI wouldn't decrease KCMO ability to spend all the money we want on sewers or schools. You can cross the streams.

note- we don't have all the money we want to spend on sewers or schools or police or other necessary infrastructure. what we are doing is considering diverting money that could be spent on those things, towards a $1B airport terminal. why can't you figure out that our city is poor?

Not diverting one penny from city needs to an airport with a yes vote in August.

Mikeyis4dcats · « **Reply #4848 on:** April 28, 2016, 03:16:35 PM »

Quote from: libliblibliblibliblib on April 28, 2016, 02:36:02 PM

Anyone who would pick mci in that situation would be dumb.

I live slightly closer to MHK than MCI, I don't have to park and ride a shuttle, and I can get home sooner. Yeah, dumb.

mocat · « **Reply #4849 on:** April 28, 2016, 03:19:12 PM »

Quote from: Mikeyis4dcats on April 28, 2016, 03:16:35 PM

Quote from: libliblibliblibliblib on April 28, 2016, 02:36:02 PM
Anyone who would pick mci in that situation would be dumb.

I live slightly closer to MHK than MCI, I don't have to park and ride a shuttle, and I can get home sooner. Yeah, dumb.

hey mikey, did you read that post that you just quoted or nah?