Lynn Horsley, The Star’s longtime City Hall reporter, did an excellent job today of parlaying a news story into a broader look at the plusses and minuses of scrapping the three-terminal set-up at Kansas City International Airport and building a new, single terminal.
Wisely, the editors put the story at the top of Page 1, where tens of thousands of readers go every day to see what The Star editors believe is the biggest story of the day — locally or otherwise.
But for its construction and outreach, the story could have amounted to little more than a report that a Southwest Airlines executive told a citizens advisory panel that the costs associated with a new terminal could deter airlines from adding more flights at KCI.
But instead of starting the story with finger-wagging from airline executives, Horlsey reached for a wider brush. The story began like this:
“Want a spiffier airport, Kansas City, with more amenities, roomier gates and more practical security screening? Aviation experts say that’s what’s needed to replace an antiquated facility.
“But the folks who strive to make a buck flying passengers in and out of the city said Tuesday it likely won’t tempt them to steer more flights to Kansas City International Airport.
“If anything, they warned against spending so much that the cost of doing business here pushes them to take their flights elsewhere.”
Horsley
In those three paragraphs, Horsley framed the debate that has been going on for months over the future of KCI. She didn’t have to get into the “convenience” argument, which the Save-Our-KCI-Crowd embraces. That point has been well established.
With Southwest weighing in, and speaking for three other major carriers as well, the issue has now moved on to the question of whether a major KCI renovation makes sense financially.
So, we learned from Horsley’s story that Southwest Executive Vice President Ron Ricks thinks unequivocally that it doesn’t make sense to build a new terminal at a cost of an estimated $1.2 billion.
But is that the end of the story?
No, not at all. Horsely proceeded to elevate the story several levels by summoning into the reportorial mix an aviation expert who has no ax to grind and no financial stake in what happens at KCI.
She devoted about 10 column inches in the body of the story to the observations of her neutral source, Mike Boyd, president of Boyd Group International of Denver.
Boyd said that Kansas City is “between a rock and a hard place” because it is looking at the possibility of a very expensive renovation at a time of stagnancy in the airline business.
OK, that’s definitely something to think about.
But then there’s this: Boyd went on to explain that “there are costs to not modernizing.”
“Boyd said airlines naturally want costs as low as possible,” Horsley wrote. “And he said they don’t make empty threats about cost-cutting. But he also noted that Southwest once said it would never go to Denver International Airport, and now Denver is one of Southwest’s prime destinations.”
Now, to me, that is really interesting. Southwest abandoned Denver for two decades (this is from my own research), until 2006, when the Denver market became way too good for Southwest to ignore any longer.
What that tells me is that even though Mr. Ricks contends today that building an expensive single terminal isn’t a good idea…if Kansas City went ahead and did it anyway…and if passenger traffic began going way up…well, Mr. Ricks and Southwest surely would add flights at KCI.
Moreover, in his interview with Horsley, Boyd reinforced the fact that KCI is outdated and inefficient. He said flat out that KCI needs a new terminal, if for no other reason than the practicality and cost saving of having a central security point.
***
Of course we need a new terminal. KCI sucks. Everyone can see it except those who have their heads buried in the inner-terminal parking lots.
And, fortunately, Bob Berkebile, co-chairman of the KCI advisory panel, appears to be committed to modernization. Horsley ended her story by paraphrasing Berkebile as saying that “there’s a natural tension” between airlines. which want to keep costs down, and the city’s need for a modern airport.
Horsley’s deft, expansive reporting should leave reasonable readers with the impression that it is more important to have a modern airport — an airport that will serve our city and future generations well — than it is to heed the advice of an airline executive who doesn’t want to see his airline have to raise ticket prices a few dollars.
Editors are forever urging reporters to do whatever they can to “advance” long-running, complicated stories. Today, Lynn Horsley moved the KCI story well down the runway. Congratulations, Lynn!
JimmyCsays: At the juncture of journalism and daily life in KC 
I read that same article and also thought it was very well-written, but I didn’t jump to the same conclusions you did by any stretch of the imagination. That article reinforced my belief that renovating KCI is a far better investment than an all-new terminal, unless that new terminal can be built without raising the airline fees to the point where SWA or Delta says it’s not worth it and moves our connecting flights all to St. Louis or Denver. Which isn’t happening without raising passenger fees or local taxes somehow.
The big thing I read in that article is that KC is lucky to have the number of flights we do, probably thanks to our central location and the low fees for the airline. If we raise those fees, without raising passenger numbers accordingly, they could go away and we could be more like Omaha, Des Moines or Oklahoma City in terms of flights. Peer cities to KC that have invested in big, expensive new airports (Sacramento, San Jose, Indianapolis) have not seen the ROI they sold the plans on.
I don’t think there’s any way someone can argue that a newer airport is going to make people fly out of it more. People fly out of necessity and base their decision on where to fly from based on location and cost, not amenities. Nobody is choosing to fly KCI instead of an alternative travel method based on shopping or overpriced food options.
Besides the obvious needs to upgrade facilities incrementally due to their age, the only major problems seem to be the de-icing liquid disposal issue, which will be fixed regardless of the new terminal due to law, and the parking/long lines in Terminal B during the week.
I have yet to see an explanation why moving either SWA or Delta out of Terminal B and into the other terminal wouldn’t solve that challenge. Why put the two busiest carriers in the same terminal?
Good observations, Kyle…Lynn did lay out plenty of information for either side to latch onto…I just wanted to try to tip the balance in the direction I’m leaning, you know…Based on the second Southwest official’s comments about Sacramento and San Jose being case studies of “what not to do,” I did a little research on both those airport expansions, and I don’t think it’s at all clear-cut that the expansions were a mistake. Like KC, their passenger traffic dropped significantly after the Great Recession but has now leveled off and is starting to move up again. I think both cities (and probably Indianapolis, as well) have positioned themselves for the future growth that is almost bound to come. Flying will always be the most appealing way to travel long distances, and time has shown that people simply get used to the higher fares.
I haven’t read the article but am sure that Lynn did an excellent job. She inherited The Star’s airport beat after I was laid off and has covered this issue very well. For what it’s worth, I wrote the first story on the new airport idea back in July of 2007. You’re right in that outside consultants are great sources for enterprise stories regarding the airport. I turned to Michael Boyd many times, as well as Terry Trippler, who was based in Minneapolis.
The case for building a new airport is legitimate but not having the support of KCI’s biggest carrier is a very big hurdle. Combine that with the possibility of this thing being put to a public vote, and I don’t think the chances of getting a new airport are very good. Also, I think that it’s rather unfair for Kansas City voters to solely decide this single terminal issue considering that people all around the metro area use it. But what do I know?
Agree with kylerohde. I see no causal connection between a new airport and increased usage. Also, the current layout is very convenient and easily acessed. As far as security goes, the only ones you’re battling in order to get through security are your fellow passengers on your flight, maybe 1, or 2 others. Compare that to a centralized security where you’re battling people from dozens of flights.
Indeed, the only thing I can think of that would be more convenient is that the food courts could be more centrally located and hence remain open longer and perhaps add additional variety.
I don’t think they can fix the food-court problem…that is, create one, given the current layout. Curved buildings do not allow for a suitable grouping of stations. I remember, years ago, going to a contact lens place that had its offices in a circular building just off Johnson Drive. It was the goofiest layout I ever saw. Didn’t serve the needs of the customers or the business owners. Finally, it was torn down…Same should happen at KCI — three times over.
Count me in with Kyle, but has the KC Star story changed?