Dumping the three-terminal, KCI layout got a big boost today from Kansas City Star business editor Keith Chrostowski.
In a Star Business Weekly commentary, Chrostowski laid out, logically and unemotionally, why we need to build a modern airport terminal.
He acknowledged the “40-year love affair” that Kansas City has enjoyed with KCI and noted in the headline that “breaking up is hard to do.”
Chrostowski
That was an excellent way to get the readers’ attention, affirming the warm feelings that many people have for KCI, before weighing in with a set of facts that makes it clear that KCI needs a complete overhaul and new design.
Here are some of the points Chrostowski made:
— As it is, KCI has lost any hope of becoming a hub and essentially is a “fly-over” airport.
— KCI has “16 security stations manned by hundreds of Transportation Security Administration staffers compared with one checkpoint and relatively few TSA staff at most big airports.”
— Once through security, passengers are “trapped” in the barren gate areas.
— Connecting passengers often have to go through security at KCI, even though they already cleared security at their origination point.
— The interior design is antiquated, and the curve of the terminals tends to give travelers the impression that they are in a small airport.
— The loss of flights over the years, coupled with KCI’s “underwhelming impression” has dragged the city’s economy down.
Just as I did yesterday in yesterday’s post, Chrostowski reinforced the point that the money to retire construction bonds would not come from the city’s General Fund but from “a designated revenue stream of fees on airlines and fliers.” Yes, $1.2 billion is a lot of money, but investing it in a new, modern terminal would be far from wasting money, as many people have suggested. It would put us back on the aviation map and would provide the local economy with a tremendous boost.
Finally, Chrostowski noted that most of the money spent on a new airport “would go into the pockets of local contractors and thousands of area construction workers.” Can’t beat that, can you? As the political consultants will tell us when it comes time to approve a bond issue in order to proceed, it would be a major investment in Kansas City’s future.
***
Bravo, Chrostowski! You did a great job of methodically ticking off the reasons why we need to “toss over” this decades-old romance with KCI.
And now, let me say it with a little less restraint:
Let’s dump this damn airport as soon as reasonably possible and get on with building an airport that our children can be proud of and that will serve Kansas City’s needs for decades to come!
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
This will be a world-class, union-renovated airport ASAP!
I don’t know about ASAP, Larry, but I hope within five years…
But gosh, what about the jobs lost sanding those parquet floors? You would think by now there would be no parquet left!
The parquet floors were replaced with marble about 10 years ago, John; the high cost of maintenance was one of the reasons.
Anybody that blindly follows the KC Star and not smart enough to intelligently evaluate a situation, is not worth my time reading. AKA – unsubscribe
Where’d that corn cob come from AU? I know where it is now.
I travel over 100 days a year. I know many, many other people that do too; out of and into Kansas City. We love it! We are road warriors and business travelers. We are the real reason airlines and airports exist. Not people that fly twice a year.
How many times does BIG KEITH fly?
KCI is NEVER going to be a hub. Been there, done that. Fought the battles. LOST!
Mr. Chrostowski should visit Midway, O’Hare and Hartsfield Jackson and do a head count of TSA and other security. The number of employees is not “relatively few”.
Don’t need a new airport to fix barren gate areas. How about some ideation?
The percentage of travelers that have to clear security twice on a trip due to moving between terminals and/or airlines is very, very small. More people don’t flush after a BIG DEUCE at the airport than undergo this inconvenience.
Antiquated or retro? Who cares whether you think you’re in a big or small airport. Sounds like a phallic shortcomings issue. Therapy Keith.
What in the hell is a loss of lights? Typo or idiot Star employee? Did someone mean flights? IT’S SUPPLY AND DEMAND DINGBAT! A new airport is not going to change that! It’s Kansas City, not Orlando, Vegas, NY, LA. Hell, in a few years we won’t even be Omaha or Des Moines. Don’t blame the airport. Blame Manny Cleaver, Art Brisbane, Kay Barnes, Sylvester James. NOT THE AIRPORT!
You wanna see more flights in to KCI? Legalize Prostitution! Should be able to do that in a week for little or no cost.
We miss you Jerry Heaster. Now more than ever. RIP
“Lights out” comment, Smartman. (Thanks for the editing; somebody has to do it.)
I’ll go along with the Smartman. We do not want a new airport. All the reasons you gave to get a new airport are the reasons we don’t want it. Our economy is fine compared to some other cities in the country. Leave us alone and see if you can get some money invested in the aging sewer system or expand the bus routes in Kansas City or even push for more light rail, but please leave the damn airport alone. If it ain’t broke (and it ain’t), don’t fix it. All this propaganda is not going to get you the votes you need to pass this waste of the taxpayers’ money.
Editor’s note: Here’s another comment from Harvey Lee Alexander, which, for some technical reason, I could not post in the usual fashion.
We need better bus routes with later hours not some try-and-keep-up-with-the-Joneses, pie-in-the-sky, spend-it-cause-you-don’t-have-to-pay-for-it airport. Use the one we have until you can’t use it any more and then ask the people if they want a new one that they don’t have to pay for. I’m sorry, people like KCI. Besides, the runways seem to be in pretty good shape. That’s where you need to focus your attention.
I agree with most of what The Smartman said, though I’m suspicious of anyone who openly calls himself that. Sorry, but we’re all being opinionated here.
If you happen to be a person looking around observing the gate area, you’re in a 1% minority. Seventy-five percent of people have their noses stuck in their phones or their Ipads. Fifteen percent are dealing with their children and strollers and car seats. Five percent are sleeping; and four percent are eating and watching TV in the gate area. That doesn’t change regardless of what airport you’re in — modern or retro.
Could the terminals be redesigned without tearing them down completely and hauling all the millions of pounds of debris to a landfill? We have some top architectural firms here, and at least one of them is known for it’s sustainability and green design. Have they been asked to evaluate the airport’s present design in light of all the new needs with security, etc., and contribute to a redesign?
Right now, 1970s architecture is out of style, and that is fueling this debate. Kansas City is great at tearing down older buildings and then later realizing what a mistake has been made. All periods of architecture have been denigrated, then later have had a revival. Look at Frank Lloyd Wright buildings, Art Deco, or mid-century-modern buildings. A mid-century-modern building that fell on hard times is the former TWA headquarters in downtown Kansas City — now home to super-stylish PR firm Barkley, Inc.
Depending on how far apart the terminals are, could a connector – a main section — be built between two of the existing, round terminals and make that the one main entrance to the airport? Or, at lease use one of the present terminals and incorporate it into a new design. How about a design competition?
Yes, fix the sewer system! Yes, get light rail going! We need bike lanes! So many things that can make this a better city and regional draw. A new airport isn’t going to make Kansas City a hub or an airline mecca. More people will NOT visit us because we have a new airport that looks like every other airport in the country. Their opinions of Kansas City will form after they leave the airport and see what the city has to offer.
I gotta get this Patty person commenting more…What insight, what logic! Sounds a lot like what my wife has been telling me…but I’m pretty sure she doesn’t read the blog.
If Kansas City built a hub airport, Kansas City would be the crossroads of the United States. At least, that’s the intuitively obvious result. The good news is: that opportunity can’t be stolen by anyone else. We’re the only city in this (geographical) spot. So we can chase our tails around KCI’s dismal, dark dungeons for four more decades and let our great grandkids handle this one. As someone who has lived outside KC and flown in to visit, I can honestly say that KCI is an embarrassing front door to this city, although at least it gives visitors no inflated expectations. As for those who live here and love to fly away often and easily: I know, right? But you know what? A hub airport would provide a LOT more opportunities to do that with many more flights stopping through. That’s the best argument, by far.
Well, thank God somebody sees this the way I do…I was starting to think the single-terminal proposal might be d.o.a. It still might be, but at least some of us are thinking along the same lines.
FYI…Mark is a former reporter for the Kansas City Business Journal and is either a lawyer now or close to becoming one. So, he has a great business perspective. And that’s what we need to be focused on, in my opinion — Would Kansas City benefit significantly if it had a new, modern terminal?
Sure, we can stick with the “dark dungeons,” as Mark so aptly described the existing terminals, but how is that going to help Kansas City stay apace of other large midwestern cities? I, for one, don’t want to see Kansas City left behind on any front…I want my children and grandchildren (God willing) to live in a city that is great in every respect and to be proud of their city’s cultural, sports, business and travel facilities.
We were the crossroads of the United States during the railroad heyday. Same geographic dynamics and business principles don’t apply to air travel.
Judging a city by it’s airport seems rather “snooty”. La Guardia isn’t exactly a swell place.
Air travel exists primarily for the business traveler. We subsidize the rest of you. You make our lives miserable by not knowing how to travel. I could write 9000 words on that alone. Your kids that cry cross country for 3 hours. LOVE EM!. People that oversleep that don’t bathe or brush are my favorite folks to get wedged next too. I love me some halitosis and body odor particularly when you’re trying to watch the movie I’m watching ON MY LAPTOP! Begone you porcine moron! Whatever lack of civility exists in day to day life gets multiplied by a factor of 10 on a 737.
Anyone that travels 100+ days a year will tell you KCI is one of their favorite airports, along with Orange County/John Wayne and GSO, Greensboro..
In much the same way that unretired people on the government dole should lose their right to vote. People that travel once or twice a year that make my life a living hell should STFU about KCI. I don’t tell my doctor what scalpel to use or my mechanic what tools to use. As professionals I trust they know what’s best. If any voices are going to be heard about what changes need to take place at KCI it needs to be the voices of people that are there once a week and not once a year. Not the jagoffs at city hall, the Chamber of Commerce, the Star or the peanut gallery. You’ve already done enough damage for one lifetime.
Everybody has a great idea in their head. For most people that’s exactly where it should stay. Gotta go, group therapy tonite.
Undoubtedly, you’re the lead therapist, Smartman…
No, tonight was therapy. I have anger issues. I’m the lead instructor in the Thursday night indoctrination class.
Anger issues, Smartman….No, you’re just a little tightly wound…But therapy never hurts,does it?
NYC has several more airports in the area. Several handle more traffic than KCI….snooty people travel and spend snooty money, that is why some of the reasons they are snooty.