Seventeen months ago, I wrote this about Kansas City International Airport:
“KCI is the dullest, dreariest major airport I’ve ever seen, and it’s horribly inefficient as far as check-in, security and concessions. A move to a single terminal — an inevitability — can’t happen soon enough for me.”
In that blog, I also said, “A new, all-in-one terminal would inject energy into Kansas City, just as construction of the Power & Light District energized downtown.”
Five readers commented on that blog, and each of them defended the existing three-terminal design — which is now nearly 40 years old — because of its efficiency.
Now, if you happened to read Lynn Horsley’s excellent, front-page story about KCI in Sunday’s Kansas City Star, you’ll know that the existing KCI’s days are numbered.
Yes, folks, quaint and cozy Kansas City Insipid Airport is on the way to becoming a trucking or freight terminal and a facility “for businesses needing ample parking and airport access.”
What’s the matter with KCI?
For starters, it’s dull and dark, and its retail and food options are pathetic.
Oh, and did you know that because of its layout, with no central security point and no “spokes” to gate areas, probably hundreds of thousands of dollars a year are wasted on excess security people and other personnel who need to be deployed throughout three different terminals?
But here’s the clincher: In terminal A, only eight of 27 gates are being used. In Terminal C, only 12 of 24 gates are being used. In Terminal B, meanwhile, where Southwest Airlines holds sway, 20 of 24 gates are in use.
As Horsley aptly put it, “Terminals A and C sometimes resemble ghost towns.”
That’s ridiculous. If we want to remain a major-league city in every respect, we must have a modern terminal — one that is not only efficient but hums with activity and sends a signal that you have arrived (or are leaving) a place that holds out the prospect of activity and excitement.
As usual, U.S. Rep. Emanuel Cleaver gets the picture. One role of airports, he told Horsley, is to function as “glamorous ports of entry into a community.”
Mark VanLoh, city aviation director, has a clear view, too. “The situation with the three terminals is getting worse. It’s a mess…It (a new terminal) is going to happen regardless of whether our citizens want it to happen.” He estimates that a new terminal will open within 10 years.
Plans are for the new terminal, which would cost $1 billion to $2 billion, to be located south of the existing airport on city-owned land. It would use the same runways, but the terminal would be four miles closer to people arriving from the south — the direction that the vast majority of airport users come from.
The new terminal would be about 700,000 square feet, compared to the current terminals’ 1.2 million square feet. The reduction, Horsley said, would mean “big savings on utilities, while still accommodating 15 million passengers or more per year.”
And that bulging price tag? No tax increase necessary. “The money…would come from federal aviation dollars, the airlines themselves and taxes and fees paid by airline customers,” The Star’s story said.
The Aviation Department is one of two “enterprise” departments, along with the water and pollution control, that pays for itself through customer fees.
Those among us who are having trouble giving up the “curb-to-gate-is-best” philosophy need to think this through and consider what we want our city to be in the future. Do we want to continue being a destination city, like Denver, St. Louis and Indianapolis, or do we want to be an also-ran, falling farther behind other major cities with newer, first-class airport terminals.
Jerry Orr, the aviation director in Charlotte, NC, where the airport serves nearly 40 million passengers a year, told a visiting contingent from the KC chamber of commerce this fall that with a new terminal Kansas City could get more direct, international flights.
In other words, KCI could actually be an international airport, deserving of its name.
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
Jim:
I’ll have to disagree. KCI is the easiest, most comfortable airport I’ve ever experienced. In returning from New York recently, LaGuardia had an hour wait to go through security. In leaving K.C., security was a snap and the gate only steps away–unheard of elsewhere. In returning, baggage claim was only steps from the arrival gate. We have it better here than anywhere in the world. No escalators, elevators, rolling walkways, stairs and long walks to get where you are going. We are the luckiest travelers in the world.
Why not put the billions it would cost to build one, congested terminal into fixing an ancient sewer system that is constantly causing horrible water main breaks?
Sincerely and Happy Thanksgiving,
Your friend,
Laura
I agree totally with Laura’s view. KCI is absolutely a joy to depart and arrive from pretty much anytime during the day or night compared to other airports. Visitors nearly always confirm that view.
I personally do not look to an airport for fine dining. I also don’t care about clothing, liquor or any other shops.
In the case of KCI I am reminded of the saying, “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.”
Happy Thanksgiving.
KC is one of the few airports nationwide to enjoy the easy in easy out approach. Made for the flying customer, not the aviation tourist, or the security guru, or the cleaning guy. Lots of airline open space, that was used years ago by the airlines, when flying was fun. Groping guards, scanners, and other “necessities” made it less fun. Finally the public stops flying, in the middle of a recession, when 99’s income is dropping, and now you want to waste money to “improve” the flying experience. Can anyone say BS?
I completely agree with Jim, it is time to move forward. What people don’t understand is that the architects are not going to build the next O’Hare or LaGuardia. The architects are going to be cognizant of what we like about our airport and make every attempt to incorporate those conveniences. It is time for a change, we need to make the airport a great place for first impressions!
“federal aviation dollars”… i.e. more loans from the Chinese.
I will eat my hat if we ever have international service from KC. Why should we? Another flaw in this story: The airport is to be downsized, saving utility costs, and yet flights are to increase? Doesn’t add up. Except to a big payday for builders, et al.
Every time I write about this, I feel ganged up on. But this time, thank God, one person (so far) — Brian — agrees with me. So, I’m starting to make inroads.
Oddly, when I was younger, I had more trouble with change than I do now. The longer I live in Kansas City and enjoy this great town, the more I want it to keep pace with other major cities. If other cities have first-rate arenas, performing arts centers and downtown entertainment districts, I want them here, too. (Those, we’ve got.) If other cities have new, efficient airports where you can get some good food and shop for your kids or your mother-in-law on the way out of town, I want that for Kansas City, too…Fortunately, due to visionary department heads like Mark VanLoh, we’re going to get that, too.
Another thing…When I came to KC in 1969 (driving a ’59, white Pontiac that my father sold to me for $1 “and other valuable considerations”), Downtown Airport was the city’s “big” airport. Talk about convenient! It’s a couple of hundred yards across the Broadway Bridge. I remember that after KCI opened in 1972, people complained about how far north it was. Well, you sure don’t hear that complaint anymore, do you? I think it shows that for significant progress to be made in the modern era, it sometimes means driving more miles, waiting in longer lines, or, in the case at hand, taking a tram from the parking lot to the terminal, instead of “The Blue Bus.”
Not sure where it is called “progress” when you have to drive more miles or wait in longer lines for services.
The tram idea sounds great, but when the dust clears numerous folks will lose their jobs and you can take any tram cost estimates and quadruple them. That will also mean the very reasonable parking charges today will be quadrupled and you won’t be dropped off anywhere near your car.
And the airport is still too damn far north!!!
If it were me, I’d tell the Aviation Department to take better care of what it has. The aviation guy has a bad attitude: We (his department) don’t care if you (airport users/taxpayers) don’t like our idea. We are going to build it anyway. So, citizens, quit your bitching. Someone needs to sit on the Aviation Department, which tends to run off on its own. Tell ’em to make do. There are better aviation uses for a couple billion dollars.
On another topic, has anyone noticed how this city council redistricting proposal divides Brookside/Country Club? I’ve noticed residents’ unhappiness, especially those living south of 59th Street. Looks to me like they’re/we’re getting screwed. A column, Fitz, please?
G. Fred Wickman
Fred — I’m one of those who would be “moving” from the 4th councilmanic district to the 6th. I’m OK with it. Like I said, the older I get, the less I seem to be bothered by change. I really don’t expect the change to significantly affect those of us south of 59th.
I understand the need to upgrade KCI and I would hope that the curb to gate convenience would be retained in any new facility.
After a week away from home there is something exhilarating about walking off your flight and being on I-29 within 7-10 minutes.
KCI won’t be able to support the luxe retail you see in Pittsburg, Atlanta or Charlotte. Food upgrades are always appreciated but again I think there will be an issue of “local flavor” being able to operate and be profitable.
As for a new airport infusing new life into KC, that’s like suggesting that botox injections in Kim Kardashians “money-maker” will make her more talented.
You want NEW LIFE in KCMO. Fix the streets, sewers, schools and public safety issues. Get rid of the EIEIO-TAX and the State Tax. If we can accomplish that it will mean that all of the useful idiots we call civic and political leaders have gone elsewhere to force defication into oscillation.
i seem to remember a railroad station inside of your union station that looked like a tin hut with plastic around it..it was the first time i had met jim and he kept saying how bad it looked for KC to have a shack for a railroad station..it was better than what we had in STL by a long shot..Lambert in STL is under going massive reworking after the tornado damage in the spring but there is always the CHINA HUB to look forward to..relax..take the train…
That was Kansas City at its nadir, when a tennis-court-type bubble in the lobby of run-down Union Station served as the Amtrak station. It was embarrassing to pick up Gus — a resident of our main, competitive city, St. Louis — in, yes, a shack. The only thing I’m glad about is that I got to see that disaster so that I can now see, in retrospect, how far our city has come. Same thing with Downtown; it was an utter disaster, with broken sidewalks, massage parlors, sleezy bars and an atmosphere of gloom and abandonment…I’m telling you, the new airport terminal will be as big a shot in the arm for KC as the renovated Union Station, Sprint Center-Power&Light and the Kauffmen Center for the Performing Arts. Go KC!
I covered KCI for The Star for 10 years and first reported this possible change to the airport in July of 2007. The reader response to that story was massive. Readers were still calling me more than a week after the story ran. Most of the respondents were against closing the three terminals. They truly loved the idea of getting out of a car and walking a few hundred feet to your plane.
I haven’t read Lynn Horsley’s article but I’m guessing that Mark VanLoh gave her the same reasons why he thinks the airport needs to be rebuilt: Three terminals are difficult to maintain, including three different heating and cooling systems; the concessionaires can’t make decent money; and the numerous security checkpoints are impractical. These are all very valid points. The problem is that they do not resonate with the local traveling public. They don’t care if the gift shop in Terminal A can’t make a decent profit. Security costs don’t matter to them as long as they don’t have to stand in line for 30 minutes plus. Heating and cooling are intangibles.
In the end, if airlines are telling VanLoh that they will not offer or expand service to KCI because of the three-terminal layout, then he and the rest of the Aviation Department do have a fidicuiary and civic responsibility to rebuild that airport. Sure, some people will be mad. But where else are they going to go?
From a personal standpoint, I drive a limo on weekends and often drive people to and from the airport. As long as we have our company-purchased trip coupons, we are allowed to park on the median outside the terminals and go inside to meet our incoming passengers. That is a nice service that limo companies can offer people flying into KCI. That would probably go by the wayside with a new, single terminal. But again, such convenience may have to give way to the future viability of this nearly 40-year-old airport.
There’s the crux of the matter from someone who understands Aviation Department dynamics: The airlines will have the final say. Get ready for the trams and the single security point.
Rick from Prarie Village.
’bout how big is that hat?
I say we split it.
I too, will eat Rick’s hat, or part of it, if we ever really become an “International” airport.
Total BS.
Billions wasted again to fix something that is NOT broken.
Let’s meet at the groundbreaking, Chuck. I’ll buy you an iced tea.
At least with the massage parlors downtown you could count on a HAPPY ENDING. The most recent attempt at social engineering and demographic thrust in that area will not yield similar results.
YES FITZ!!!!!!!
I will drive anywhere for a Long Island Ice Tea!!
:)
“Glamorous?” It’s been a half-century since air travel was glamorous. In the present day, travel by air is an assault on the senses. How long you have to endure it – that’s the only thing that counts.
Nobody who has the choice to be anywhere else on earth would spend one extra moment in any airport in the world. All anybody wants is to get out.
The most attractive airport is the one that’s most nearly unnoticeable — the one that intrudes least on our senses and speeds us on our way.
If KC is determined to spend billions of everybody’s dollars on an airport, build it with mercy for the humans who’ll be using it. Let it be the Apple of airports.
Lambert makes KCI look like an ’80s nightclub!