The Continuing Debacle That Is and Will Be Our New Airport

I have to hand it to our Kansas City Star.

They've been behind a new airport for us from the start and they are just not going to let up on it, that seems clear. Here's their latest contribution.

New KCI will help region grow faster than U.S.

A bit from the article:

Kansas City’s economy will fly higher than the rest of the nation in coming years, as construction of a new airport terminal masks the region’s “disappointing” comparison to similar markets, said a forecast released Friday.

The $1.4 billion project at Kansas City International Airport stands at the center of economist Frank Lenk’s outlook for the region in 2019 and 2020. Lenk provided his annual economic projections at a Greater Kansas City Chamber of Commerce breakfast Friday at the Kansas City Marriott Downtown.

Apparently, just building, building an airport makes an area's economy soar.

Sure it does.

More from the article:

Lenk’s outlook reminded his audience that Harley-Davidson is shutting down its factory next year, and Procter & Gamble is heading that way in 2020, taking other jobs with them. T-Mobile plans to turn Sprint’s Overland Park headquarters campus into a secondary propertyif Washington approves the companies’ plans to merge.

Those setbacks, his report noted, will be offset by continued expansion at the Cerner Innovation Campus and Garmin’s Olathe operations, job growth at Honeywell Federal Manufacturing & Technologies and Burns & McDonnell, and new call centers and distribution centers opening here.

This is the normal churn of an active economy, saidLenk’s prepared report, which was provided to The Star ahead of his presentation.

This is the part that slays me.

KCI is something different.

“Because the funds to build the airport are coming from the airlines and not local taxpayers, this expenditure brings net new dollars to the regional economy that would not otherwise be expected,” Lenk’s report said.

Specifically, KCI’s new terminal means construction jobs. Spending by those workers means more jobs in other fields.

Wow.  "...the funds to build the airport are coming from the airlines and not local taxpayers."

O.M.G.

I don't know where the author of the article and the Star think those airlines get their funds Someone needs to tell them about plane tickets. One day very soon we'll have conversations beginning like this: "Remember when it didn't used to cost that much to fly out of Kansas City?"

And the second part of that? Where "Spending by those (construction) workers means more jobs in other fields."

That's another beauty.

How much do people think these construction workers make, anyway?

And then, if they weren't building the airport, do people really think these same construction workers would be just sitting around, not working, not making their own paychecks?

Really?

Construction workers, getting their regular paychecks that they would be getting anyway are going to lift the Kansas City economy? Really? That's how that will work?

And check out that cost.

Before this was voted on and passed, it was promised it would't be that expensive. 

Before the vote, I said it would hit a 1 billion dollar cost.

Now?

Ground isn't even plowed and it's going to cost 1.4 billion.

As if that, the cost, isn't enough, our same paper posted this 4 months ago.

Opening of new KCI terminal, originally November 2021, is already delayed

So it's going to cost us far more than estimated, projected--promised--and it's going to be late, too.

But hey, the airlines are going to build it, not us, so that makes everything a-okay.

Thanks, Kansas City Star! Thanks, City Hall!

We'll love walking away from our existing facilities, the terminals and all, just so we can build this expensive, very late boondoggle.

Costs and environment be damned.

We Warned About a New Airport

From the Star yesterday.

Out of the gate, KCI delay and rising costs 

are red flags for the airport

We could have spent far less and redone our existing, very convenient terminals, saved a great deal of money, done the fiscally responsible thing and, oh yeah, not trashed the environment by throwing away existing facilities but no, let's do this.

Let's blow more than a billion dollars, instead.

Enjoy those higher, much higher airline ticket prices, too, kids.

First Lie of the New Single Terminal Airport Confirmed

This hit yesterday in the Star.

Opening of new KCI terminal, originally November 2021, is already delayed

So that's the first promise shattered on this airport and all the promises made. The first lie broached.

The next one?

That it "will cost less than one billion dollars."

It will shatter that figure.

Watch for it.

Wait for it.

All so we could walk away from a very usable, fixable, intelligently designed, convenient airport.

Brilliant.

Suckers.

Fantastic Irony and Coincidence

I just saw this on the Kansas City Public Library's website, earlier today.

On this day...

Plane Speaking | KC HISTORY

On November 11, 1972, the Kansas City International Airport officially opened for commercial service. The airport replaced the existing Mid-Continent Airport at the same location. Twenty years before, the 1951 flood destroyed many Fairfax Airport facilities on the west side of the Missouri River and compromised operations at the downtown Municipal Airport. With the area’s two main airports shut down, Kansas City began planning a new airport 20 miles north of the flooded city.

In the same week we voted to bulldoze our very convenient, very workable airport.

Pretty bizarre.

Have a great weekend, y'all, regardless.

Vote, Kansas City! And Vote NO! On Question 1!

So today is the day, Kansas City! Get out there and vote! And make sure, on Question 1, calling for the more-than-one-billion-dollar-boondoggle, MAKE SURE you VOTE NO! Thank you, in advance!

And just as a reminder, here are lots of reasons why we should all VOTE NO!

The 500 Million Dollar Lie About the Airport We Keep Hearing

A Less Convenient, More Congested, Extremely Expensive and Completely Unnecessary Single Terminal Airport

Every Day Now, Some New Lie About a New Airport
Why We Should VOTE NO on Question 1 Tomorrow On A New Single-Terminal Airport

Suddenly, A New Airport Is "Fiscally Responsible"

The New KCI People Are Getting Desperate

Full Court Press From the "New KCI" Folks

Now the New KCI People Are Trying to Threaten US

KCI/MCI: Still Convenient, Still Beautiful

And don't forget all these facts and statistics, folks. Our airport keeps getting MORE and yet MORE traffic, month over month, year over year, AS IT IS. As badly maintained and managed as our airport is now, by our Airport Authority, we STILL KEEP GETTING MORE PEOPLE GOING THROUGH IT. Face it, they're coming here, to Kansas City. They're not coming here for a new, gleaming airport.

KCI Passenger Growth Continued 

in November

KCI Airport Passenger Traffic Up 

for 13th Straight Month

Kansas City International Airport Reports 

One Million Passengers

KCI breaking records 

with one million passengers served in August

ANNUAL PASSENGERS AT KCI AIRPORT EXCEED 11 MILLION IN 2016 

KCI Passengers Up 8.8 Percent in February

KCI Passengers Up Three Percent in April

KCI TOPPED 1 MILLION PASSENGERS IN MAY 2017

Kansas City International Airport Reports 

Third Busiest July on Record

KCI Passengers up 6.6 Percent in November

Kansas City International Airport 

Reports 37th Consecutive Month of

 PASSENGER GROWTH

If anyone wants to increase the number of people and flights coming and going at our airport, they should give money to the Nelson-Atkins Museum of Art, not propose we build a more than one billion dollar new airport terminal.

Links:

Save KCI! | Better Solutions Come From Better Discussions

Save KCI - Home | Facebook

Friends of KCI - Home | Facebook

New KCI terminal may mean more flights, 

but not necessarily

New KCI terminal alone won't increase flight demand, 

say airline

​DOT data: Passenger traffic, airline revenue increasing 

at KCI

Representatives of Southwest Airlines urge caution 

on costly new KCI

KCI/MCI: Still Convenient, Still Beautiful

This was made some time ago but it's still true today.



VOTE NO! tomorrow, folks, on Question 1 here in Kansas City. Kill the more than one billion dollar boondoggle that is a new, single terminal airport.

Then, let's hold the Airport Authority accountable. It's not THEIR airport to neglect and manage poorly and keep run down and looking shoddy so they can get a new, very expensive bauble.

IT'S OUR AIRPORT.

And they should run it well and smart and smartly, as they should have all along. It can be done and it should be done.

VOTE TOMORROW! AND VOTE NO! ON QUESTION ONE!

Links:

Save KCI! | Better Solutions Come From Better Discussions

Save KCI - Home | Facebook

Save KCI (@SaveKCI) | Twitter

A Less Convenient, More Congested, Extremely Expensive and Completely Unnecessary Single Terminal Airport

A friend--an architect, no less--made this very clear, intelligent, fair observation this past week out on Facebook. (See link and credit below).

Mayor Sly James and The Kansas City Star and all kinds of people and organizations have come out for this new, single terminal, more-than-one-billion-dollar-boondoggle of an airport, saying, now it's "fiscally responsible" (it's anything but) and the right thing to do and the way to go forward with progress and the city. They also claim it will be just as convenient as our current airport and terminals.

To which I and a lot of us out here promptly say "bunk."

Think about this.

If, God forbid, the "New KCI" people and vote wins this coming week, we would get, yes, a single terminal airport. Sure, it will blow through more than 1 billion dollars that we don't need to and shouldn't spend and it will make flying in and out of Kansas City far more expensive and it's grossly, fiscally and environmentally irresponsible but there's one more thing.

We would get that one, single security check in.

Think how that works at other airports.

Think of the lines, the long, long lines just to get to security, that one security check in at all those other airports. Then think of waiting to get through that security.

We don't have that now. With our current terminals, we don't have those abominable long lines and long, long waits.

And Mayor James and the Star and others are going to tell us it will be just as convenient?

That there won't be long lines?

Really?

And people are going to fall for that?

Vote NO Tuesday, November 7 on Question 1.

Save KCI! | Better Solutions Come From Better Discussions

Save KCI - Home | Facebook

Save KCI (@SaveKCI) · Twitter

Link:

Sven Erik Alstrom

Now the New KCI People Are Trying to Threaten US

From the Star yesterday:

If the KCI vote fails next week, city leaders say there’s no ‘Plan B’

They mean to say they have no intention or goal to keep up the place or run it well or run it right and manage it correctly?

Really?

So just because they have no plan or plans---or profess to not have any---we should vote for a more than 1 billion dollar redo at the airport?

Really?

Anyone else feel like they’re being threatened or blackmailed here besides me?

Naturally they’re going to say there’s “no plan b.” Sure they do. They want their big, new plan. I get that.

But how about, if they lose, as they should, after this vote, how about they do just that, take care of the facility, open it up, maintain it, get restaurants in, open up the restrooms, all of it? The whole thing.

Save KCI! | Better Solutions Come From Better Discussions

Save KCI - Home | Facebook

Friends of KCI - Home | Facebook

Suddenly, A New Airport Is "Fiscally Responsible"

As I said earlier here, I've been receiving big postcards here in Brookside, daily, telling us all why we should vote for the billion dollar plus boondoggle that is a new, single terminal airport. I didn't get one yesterday but today got two.

And on both of these today, they both repeated the same, very familiar phrase.

The whole idea of paying out more than one billion dollars--because it will be more than one billion dollars, folks, for a new single terminal airport here in town, let there be no doubt--is both fiscally and environmentally irresponsible.

I've said it repeatedly.

Fiscally irresponsible.

So what phrase is added today, to these new postcards from the "vote for a new terminal" folks?

Oh, yes. On both of them, they suddenly say "fiscally responsible."

They ripped me off.

Suddenly, suddenly they're touting a completely new airport terminal as "fiscally responsible."

The previous day, on the post card for that day, as proof, they called it "fiscally smart."

Forget that it will cost us more than 1 billion dollars.

Forget that we're walking away from 3 existing, functioning, convenient, attractive, very practical terminals and other buildings and facilities there so they can be torn down and thrown away.

Forget that we could spend far, far less on our existing facilities and get the security we need and the restaurants and all the other facilities we want and need.

Forget all that.

They're saying we should only throw away the old buildings, build new and spend, spend, spend.

Since when is spending more--in this case, a lot more--to get  what you want and need "fiscally responsible"?

Only now does that make sense and only according to the "new KCI" people.

So they ripped me off for the phrase. Great for them.

They should give me residuals.

The fact is, building a new airport is not only unnecessary but fiscally irresponsible.

And very much so.

Save KCI! | Better Solutions Come From Better Discussions

Save KCI - Home | Facebook

Save KCI (@SaveKCI) · Twitter

Full Court Press From the "New KCI" Folks

Yes sir, there's a virtual "full court press" going on just now, this week, from the people and groups pushing for the more than one billion dollar boondoggle that is the "new KCI" campaign.

On KCUR, 89.3 FM this morning, Steve Kraske is going to throw out his one sided support for it on his program "Up to Date" at 11 am. It is our local NPR station and you wish they'd be impartial and non-partisan, since they're a news site, mostly but Mr. Kraske has gone along with the newspaper, the Star, and so many other local celebrities and supports it. I'm hoping for some good, probing questions today on the show, so it isn't just a fully, one-sided prop job for this nonsense.

Then, tomorrow night, our own Kansas City Star is hosting a town hall on KCI. Even the name of it shows they're not being a non-partisan news site:  "Why we need a new KCI." They aren't even pretending to be reporting news and not taking sides. That is tomorrow night, again, at 7 pm at Union Station. From the sounds of it, they're to be in what is not a terribly large room because when you register for it online, it says seating is limited. I fear and expect they don't want too large a crowd lest they get too many opposing views from the audience. Here's hoping.

So for all the more rational and fiscally and environmentally responsible people out there who see and know this "new KCI" for the absurd, again, boondoggle that it is, by all means, please phone in today to Mr. Kraske's show. Let's hold the supporters "feet to the fire", so to speak. Let's point out what an outrageous, expensive, ridiculous and yes, again, irresponsible move this would be.

Then, let's do it again, this time, in person, by going to the Star's town hall tomorrow evening. Come loaded with good, hard, fair, researched questions for them, too.



Links:

New KCI terminal may mean more flights, 

but not necessarily

New KCI terminal alone won't increase flight demand, 

say airline

​DOT data: Passenger traffic, airline revenue increasing 

at KCI

Representatives of Southwest Airlines urge caution 

on costly new KCI

The New KCI People Are Getting Desperate

Here in Brookside, we've gotten a large postcard nearly every day from the "Better KCI" group, pointing out why they think we should have a new, single terminal airport, even with it taking more than 1 billion dollars to do so.

Yesterday's postcard shows, as the headline says, that these people are getting desperate.

They've begun repeating the same, old, tired ideas now. Today was this.

All they could say today, with this postcard was that our current airport needs updates--tell us something we don't know---and that they would cost $500,000.

Let's put this in perspective.

First, suddenly $500,00 is a lot of money.

They want 1 billion dollars for this new, single terminal airport--actually, it will be more than 1 billion dollars, more than twice as much---but they're suddenly complaining about spending too much money.

Talk about trying to have it both ways. Wow.

So one half billion dollars is A LOT but more than one billion just ain't that much.

What utter, ridiculous nonsense.

Spending only one half of what they propose for a new airport, to get and keep what we need seems clearly very sensible. Why on Earth would or should we throw away good, very convenient, intelligent, already built buildings, modernize and update them and continue to use them?

It makes eminent sense.

On the postcard yesterday, they say: "Our airport was built in 1972 and it's served us well, but it's past our prime."

And that, right there ladies and gentlemen, is our problem. It is one of America's problems. We've seen it, repeatedly, down through decades and the short last century here in the US.

After about 40 or 50 years, we think we need to somehow "move on", tear down a building--in this case, buildings--and press forward with progress somehow. All across Europe, they have functioning buildings, hundreds of years old but we have to tear ours down, build new, start all over again and begin anew.

This is fiscally irresponsible. And that's what's wrong with this plan of theirs. It is fiscally irresponsible. Actually, to be clear and accurate, it is grossly irresponsible, fiscally. That's ignoring the fact that it's also environmentally irresponsible. I won't even touch on that.

There is no reason in the world why we cannot update, modernize and yes, improve our existing 3 terminals at our airport, get the security we need and continue to use these buildings, these facilities.

I say again, the Airport Authority, our Airport Authority has been conniving for a new airport and for years. To get it, they have ignored and neglected maintenance and not worked to get restaurants at these existing terminals, all so they could say today and for the last several years that we needed a new airport, a new building and that what we have isn't working and doesn't work.

Again, I repeat, look at the statistics. Our airport keeps increasing the numbers of flights, month after month and year over year yet they say it isn't working and we need a new airport.

​DOT data: Passenger traffic, 

airline revenue increasing at KCI

KCI Passenger Growth Continued 

in November

KCI Airport Passenger Traffic Up 

for 13th Straight Month

Kansas City International Airport Reports 

One Million Passengers

KCI breaking records 

with one million passengers served in August

Annual passengers at KCI Airport exceed 11 million in 2016 

KCI Passengers Up 8.8 Percent in February

KCI Passengers Up Three Percent in April

KCI topped 1 million passengers in May 2017

Kansas City International Airport Reports 

Third Busiest July on Record

KCI Passengers up 6.6 Percent in November

Kansas City International Airport 

Reports 37th Consecutive Month of

 Passenger Growth

So please, all you people at "Better KCI"?  Mayor James? Airport Authority? Cut it out. Stop lying to us. Stop misrepresenting the truth. Stop redefining the way things are up there at the airport because even given how badly the Airport Authority is running and not maintaining it, it's still increasing in flights, statistically. 

So with, actually, some good and decent and fair and intelligent updating and modernizing---and for far, far less money---we good have that stellar airport you keep describing.

And we'd save hundreds of millions of dollars doing it, in the meantime.

Vote no---a resounding, responsible NO--on Question 1 next week, November 7.

Links:

Save KCI! | Better Solutions Come From Better Discussions

Friends of KCI

Save KCI - Home | Facebook

Save KCI (@SaveKCI) · Twitter

Even Jolie Justus Gets In On the Lies About a New Airport

On our local NPR station today, the national program "Here and Now" reported from out of this station and our city. It was great to hear.

On it, even our own local representative and councilwoman, Jolie Justus was on it, who I usually always like to hear and, up to now, always support and agree with.

For this first time in disagreement, however, she came down squarely for this billion dollar boondoggle of a new, single terminal airport.

Not a surprise but a disappointment, nonetheless.

One of the things she said is that our huge Cerner Company, with all that business and all those employees, is a huge, one of the biggest, users of the airport and that, if we don't update it, we run the risk of that company leaving.

To which I say

What utter nonsense.

Who of us has trouble leaving our city byt the current airport, with its configuration?  Just who, exactly?

I've never heard of anyone having that issue, Cerner employee or no.

Then, she claimed that, with all the architects in town, and she said we have a lot, per capita, they might have difficulty getting a flight and getting out of town, too. She went as far as to suggest they might have to take as long as two days to get out of town if we don't update the airport.

What undisguised, ridiculous, ludicrous assertions.

I point out again, our current airport, even as poorly managed as it is by our Airport Authority, we still, month over month and year over year, both, have nothing but increased in the numbers of people flying out of our airport, KCI, MCI.

That doesn't sound like too horrible or difficult a situation or airport, does it to you?

Side note: Do keep in mind that the law firm she works for, Shook, Hardy and Bacon, had for a client Burns & McDonnell, who had been fighting for the work at the airport, too. It was found that, legally, in a courtroom, that Ms. Justus had no conflict of interest but but the relationship is there, like it or not, see link below.

Anyway, the lies about the airport and getting a new one, continue, virtually unabated, sadly.

Link:

UPDATED: Airport-Related Ethics Complaint Against Councilwoman 

Today's New Airport Lie Du Jour

Okay, here we go again.

I got yet another postcard yesterday, lying to me, to all of us, about how we "need a new airport" and all the reasons behind it.

Today's blatant ugliness and misrepresentation of truth and facts blares out the following:

"A Better KCI =

Thousands of Jobs +
More Than $! Billion
in Economic Impact"

And see? Here's what's wrong, so very wrong about that.

First, when they call it "economic impact", they describe it as "more than $1 billion."

But when they talk about cost? When they talk about the price of this boondoggle?

Then they only call it $1 billion.

I say again, don't kid yourself, ladies and gentlemen, let's not kid ourselves. If they get this shiny, new, single terminal airport, it's going to cost MORE THAN 1 BILLION DOLLARS.

Let there be no doubt.

Second, this thing calls for "thousands of jobs."

Well, yeah, sure. I get that, we get that. It takes lots of people to build an airport.

But guess what?

Those are temporary jobs. The airport only takes so long to build. Then those jobs go away.

As a matter of fact, the new, single terminal airport they're proposing would actually have FEWER gates than the 3 terminals we have now. Seems as though, if they get their shiny new toy, there would be LESS jobs, ultimately, since fewer people would be needed to run the place.

I propose an alternate idea and solution, once more.

How about we only spend half of that? Or, heck, even two-thirds that much, of that 1 billion dollars, and update and modernize and repair our existing airport, instead of throwing it away?

--We end up with the better, more functioning and better looking airport we want and need
--We don't blow through more than 1 billion dollars
--We don't end up walking away from and almost literally throwing away 3 good, functioning, attractive, very convenient buildings and a lot of others
--and finally, we don't end up raising the prices of the tickets for flying in and out of our city.

Because while the Mayor and all the proponents of this new, more than 1 billion dollar airport want to keep saying "It won't be paid for with your taxes" or "We don't end up paying for it", we do, in fact, end up paying for it.

We pay for it in higher prices to fly into and out of our city and region.

Which brings up another one of their lies.

They say this new airport is supposed to bring more people to our city.

In the first place, I've shown here, earlier, how our current airport, as badly and poorly managed as it has been and is, up to now, has seen month to month and year to year growth in the numbers of people using our airport. So already that's not an isssue.

So how, exactly, do you INCREASE the number of people coming into your city and region by RAISING THE PRICE, the cost of doing just that, of flying into your city?

And of course the answer is, you don't.

So let's get serious. Let's get real here.

Let's start being responsible, modernize and update and repair our existing airport and terminals, make them more attractive and functional again while we also do the fiscally responsible thing as well as the environmentally responsible.

It's not as "fun" or sexy as talking about a bright, shiny, new, single terminal airport but it's the smart  and right thing to do.

Save KCI! | Better Solutions Come From Better Discussions

savekci.org

Save KCI - Home | Facebook

Save KCI (@SaveKCI) | Twitter

The 500 Million Dollar Lie About the Airport We Keep Hearing

Another thing we all keep hearing from our Mayor Sly James and the new airport supporters, that our current airport "...needs $500 million dollars in repairs just to keep it operating with no improvements."

Excuse me?

They're trying to say that if we give our currently functioning airport 5oo million dollars---one half billion dollars---in improvements that it wouldn't be vastly improved and functioning and looking, both, better than it is now?

Really?

That is very difficult to believe in the extreme.

It already works. It's already increasing in flights in and out of our city, month after month and year after year and if we add 500 hundred million dollars of updates and improvements, it won't do and be doing what we need?

Please.   That's just absurd.

As for jobs, spending $500 million dollars for those updates and improvements would create plenty of local construction jobs so that argument is taken from them, as well.

So, another misrepresentation.

What will the new lie be tomorrow?

Save KCI!

Save KCI