COMMENTARY

A new KCI is on the way, even if you don’t want it

By YAEL T. ABOUHALKAH

The Kansas City Star

More News

Aviation Director Mark VanLoh has some curt advice for all the metropolitan area residents who love, love, love the convenience of Kansas City International Airport.

Wave goodbye to KCI’s three-terminal design and get ready to see $2 billion or so spent to build almost an entirely new, shiny airport.

“This new terminal is going to happen,” VanLoh says. “It has to happen.”

Mayor Sly James is also on board with the idea that Kansas Citians can’t keep KCI the way it is, even if they want to.

“It’s inevitable,” James said recently while wrapping himself in the change-is-good mantra.

KCI’s critics claim that only with a mostly new airport can we get more international flights, more airlines and more robust economic growth.

Unfortunately, when asked at a recent editorial board meeting how much passenger traffic would increase at a new KCI, VanLoh demurred and didn’t want to make projections. Ditto for how many new airlines might come here in the future.

Ah, the old build-it-and-they-will-come argument.

So could a new KCI boost our airline passenger business? Consider a couple of facts.

The population of the Kansas City metropolitan area as of the 2010 census was 29th highest in the United States.

And the Kansas City area’s volume of passenger traffic in 2010 at KCI — the old, “outdated” airport that VanLoh badmouths in arguing for a new terminal — was 29th highest in the nation, according to Airports Council International.

In other words, Kansas City had exactly the kind of passenger traffic one would expect for a metropolitan area of its size. And that’s been mostly true for the last four years.

Kansas City has less traffic than a few smaller metro areas such as Las Vegas and Charlotte, but more than bigger regions including Sacramento, Pittsburgh, San Antonio and Cincinnati.

In promoting a new terminal, VanLoh pulls out a list of tweeted complaints about KCI, almost all from people who appeared to be visitors.

“Kansas City: nice city, terrible airport,” read one comment. Another said, “Having a layover at #KCI airport blows. Can’t get to anything without having to go through security again.”

Actually, these criticisms are nothing more than a cheap parlor trick, designed to make it appear everyone hates KCI when we know they don’t.

So I went to the customer satisfaction websites of some top U.S. airports and quickly found these comments:

• “I’ve seen more power outlets in a Third World country. Typical of the south, everything moves slower,” on Charlotte-Douglas International Airport.

• “A miserable airport, one that I hope to never visit again,” on Seattle/Tacoma International Airport.

• “I cannot conceive what the planners had in mind to create such an isolated, ill-suited and tedious facility,” on Denver International Airport.

One conclusion: You can find people who hate any airport for all kinds of good and not-so-good reasons.

Now comes the rotten part of this column, at least for myself and many others who want to keep KCI as it is.

The new terminal, garages, roadways and highway connectors will be built.

VanLoh, James and others in power want it to happen, so they can use aviation funds (not local tax dollars) to create jobs and a huge construction project that will benefit the local economy. Airlines want it so connecting flights are easier. And the federal government may push it to reduce security screening costs.

So if a new KCI is “inevitable,” as James says, what’s his role and that of VanLoh and others?

Pretty simple, really.

They need to build a new airport with lots of parking close to the terminal, a well-designed entrance that gets people quickly through security, and moving walkways everywhere to whisk passengers to their gates.

Take heart, KCI lovers: The project won’t be done for about a decade. So as the website for our current airport advises, “Fly KCI” — at least while you still can.