We'd be better off with more direct flights than we would with a new terminal. I'm talking like MCI > Amsterdam or something. (Not that the volume could/would ever justify actually having those flights.) My old company literally moved their executives to Chicago because the Danes hated getting on that extra flight.
Actually the volume is there
http://www.kmbc.com/news/kci-eyes-flights-to-europe-in-potential-international-expansion/27843684
Meyer said about a plane full of people leave Kansas City International Airport every day for international destinations. He said some mid-sized markets are already drawing the expanded international flights.
Kansas City isn't getting direct Europe ever.
New Orleans doesn't have direct Europe. STL doesn't have direct Europe, Memphis doesn't have direct Europe.
In this 'new world' of airline consolidation, more and more travel will be through hubs. The board at United is already talking about axing their hub in Denver and Delta is drawing down their hub at MSP. Both cities will lose quite a bit of international service, if not all of it just like STL lost all of it when AA bought TWA.
I'm pro MKC btw, we don't need a big airport.