This week, the city received a status report on the negotiations. Nothing is final, but refurbishment plans have been shelved as “too expensive,” and the city and the airlines are now looking for a cost-effective new terminal plan. While most news outlets appear to take that as meaning a new terminal is definitely going to happen, that assumption is premature. If Southwest and the other airlines do not like the terminal plan that comes out of negotiation, refurbishment plans can be unshelved.

However, at this point it looks as though the city and airlines are looking at new terminal options, but it generates more questions than it answers. Will it be the same as the terminal plan from last year? Will it be a more modest proposal? Is Southwest planning to make the kind of investments it has made in Houston, Fort Lauderdale, or Dallas? Will Kansas City voters, many of whom enjoy the convenience of the current layout, support such a new terminal plan?

One new terminal proposal under consideration

Old New Terminal Plan (2013)

We don’t know, and likely won’t know, until earlier next year. However, the flying public in Kansas City and the airport itself will be best served by a terminal system that is cost-effective and user-friendly.

The post New Airport Terminal Coming to Kansas City, Maybe? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The fact that air traffic grew faster in the rest of the nation than it did in Missouri could be taken as meaning that Missouri is lagging the rest of the nation in growth. But in reality, most of Missouri’s airports—including Kansas City International (MCI), Springfield-Branson (SGF), Joplin Regional (JLN), and Columbia Regional (COU)—grew faster than the national average, in the case of Springfield, Joplin, and Columbia much faster (at 8.4 percent, 11 percent, and 16 percent, respectively). Springfield’s recent growth may be enough for it to regain its small hub airport status, which SGF lost following the recession. The performance of Missouri’s largest airport, Lambert-St. Louis International (STL), dampens the state’s overall numbers. Despite a concerted push to get more flights, STL’s passengers actually decreased by about 0.6 percent last year.

The poor performance of STL compared to other airports in Missouri and nationally may be in part due to a relatively weak recovery in the Saint Louis area. It is well understood that underlying economic conditions mostly determines total airline traffic in large cities. However, Saint Louis did see some positive economic growth in 2014, along with a large increase in employment.

Another factor that may affect STL’s ability to gain both flights and passengers is cost. STL’s cost per enplaned passenger, at almost $15, is about three times the costs at MCI or SGF. Higher costs can mean fewer or more expensive flight options, dampening demand. STL’s elevated prices mainly stem from massive debt taken on to build a new runway in the early 2000s, planned when the airport was still a TWA hub.

STL’s leadership, unlike those at another Missouri airport, see the airport’s high costs as a major hurdle toward increasing traffic and are taking aggressive steps to bring in more revenue and rein in costs. This includes leasing out unused land to local businesses and attempting to attract more national and international cargo shipments.

Whether or not these strategies will succeed is as yet unknown. But perhaps the lesson from STL’s experience for all Missouri’s cities is that if their airport provides what it needs at a low price, it will be in the best position to contribute to, and benefit from, better economic growth.

The post Missourians Take to the Skies With Increasing Numbers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The editorial claims that critics who oppose the “new, as yet undesigned, terminal” are chanting a “everything-is-OK mantra.” First, if we are concerned about facts, while the design of the airport is far from final, the new terminal plan is not some blank slate. The design is a centralized terminal where Terminal A now is located, with plans for at least 37 contact gates, a new parking garage, and new facilities. These plans are readily available, and I encourage the writers at the Star to read them. The estimated cost is more than $1.2 billion, necessitating issuing airport revenue bonds, which requires a public vote. That chance to vote on whether the proposal is funded is the reason for the public discussion in the first place.

Second, who has the “everything-is-OK mantra?” Some oppose the new terminal plan because they find the current layout convenient. Others criticize the plan because its expense will reduce MCI’s competitiveness and financial health. That is not the same as thinking that the airport does not require any upgrades or repairs. The editorial does not name any group that says this, instead constructing a straw man to lambast.

After attacking phantom critics, the Star editorial draws a false equivalency between Southwest Airline’s statements on why it chooses to fly out of a certain airport and a consultant’s (Frasca & Associates) opinion about why Southwest does that. Southwest Airlines transported the most passengers in the U.S. last year and provides 3,700 flights per day. It is also the largest carrier at MCI. Frasca & Associates is a consulting group that the city hired. Their opinions about the airline business are not equal. The facts are that building a $1.2 billion new terminal without expecting any real increase in demand for flights will make MCI the most expensive medium hub airport in the country. Airport users will have to pay for this honor, through higher airport fees, reduced airline service, or higher ticket prices.

Separating facts from emotion is important in any debate, but so is separating facts from logical fallacy. The question is not whether we plan for the future, but whether the $1.2 billion new terminal plan is acceptable. Many might argue that making MCI a convenient, competitive airport is more important than making “it over to impress future guests.”

Come to think of it, is vanity an emotion?

The post Separate Facts From Straw Men In Debate About Kansas City Airport appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Perhaps to make up for stealing the Kings, Sacramento has decided to show Kansas City the pitfalls of expensive airport terminals. Sacramento opened a new $1 billion terminal in 2011. Like Kansas City, Sacramento wanted to attract more airlines and passengers with a state-of-the-art facility. Like the Kansas City experience, the terminal:

…drew rave reviews from local business leaders and politicians…the project was criticized by airline executives, including those at Southwest, as too big and too expensive for their needs.

Despite the criticisms, the Sacramento County Airport System decided to build anyway. This gave the airport a high debt load and made it one of the most expensive medium-sized airports in the nation, a dubious honor that will belong to Kansas City if its new terminal plan takes flight.

The hopes that a state-of-the-art terminal would attract more passengers to Sacramento’s airport have not materialized. Passenger traffic fell from 2011 to 2012. But because of the increased debt, the airport had to increase landing fees. Airlines’ concerns, especially those of Southwest, over the increased expense of using the airport has led to an impasse over a new airline lease agreement.

The inability to increase airline service and need to make significant payments has put the airport into a financial bind. In April, Sacramento’s airport executive was replaced and his successor was given “marching orders to improve airport finances.” As the Sacramento Bee reported this week:

Faced with declining passenger levels and high debt, Sacramento International Airport officials say they plan to cut airport system costs by 15 percent over the next 18 months.

While that will save the airport about $14 million, the airport’s management claims that it must further increase parking fees and work with a developer to build a new airport hotel.

The managers of Sacramento International Airport made a $1 billion mistake. Their experience shows that, even with large airports, debt payments and competitiveness still matter. Just as in Kansas City, Sacramento officials downplayed critics like Southwest and took on significant debt to build a new terminal when cheaper options would have sufficed. Sacramento County Supervisor Jimmie Yee said of the airport’s new terminal, “What’s done is done…” But it is not done in Kansas City.

Not yet.

The post The Ghost Of Airport Terminals Yet To Come appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Unfortunately, the airport has had trouble from the start. Timing didn’t help, as the airport opened in 2009, just months after the onset of the largest post-war recession in American history. Falling demand for air service and “capacity discipline” from air carriers meant actual passengers at Branson fell far short of meeting both expectations and operating expenses. In 2011, Branson Airport LLC went into debt forbearance. On top of these financial woes, the airport’s runway has had structural problems that led the airport to sue the construction contractor.

Southwest’s decision in early 2013 to begin service to Branson Airport looked promising to help save the venture from financial demise. Passenger levels increased, but not enough to satisfy Southwest’s bottom line. So on Dec. 5, the airline announced it would end service to Branson as well as two other small airports.

While no one wants to see Branson Airport fail, the overall story is one that shows the benefit of using the market to build transportation infrastructure. Private developers saw an opportunity and took a risk. As it turned out, actual demand is falling short of projections. A private company sought to make a profit and now they, not local taxpayers, may pay the cost.

The post Southwest’s Decision To End Service Could Doom Branson Airport appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Building a new terminal would not require general taxpayer funds. Instead, bonds would be paid by airport passengers, airlines and other users of the facility.

Now we learn from the Kansas City Business Journal that general taxpayer funds will be used after all. On Nov. 19, Austin Alonzo reported on the latest airport advisory group meeting:

During the meeting, Fowler announced that the board will “engage” New York-based transportation consultancy firm Frasca & Associates LLC as its independent consultant.

After the meeting, Fowler said Kansas City will handle the consultant’s contract, which could be worth as much as $100,000. More information on that choice and what the firm will do for the KCI Advisory Board will be revealed at the group’s next meeting.

Why are general taxpayer funds being used instead of airport funds? Apparently VanLoh cried poverty, saying the Aviation Department does not have the money. Mind you, the airport had the $117,000 to pay public relations firm Global Prairie to tell us how great an idea the new terminal is. The Aviation Department found the money to conduct the multi-year study that is now being considered. They even had the cash to loan Kansas City $10 million (at a modest rate of interest).

Terminal supporters may argue that the Aviation Department should not have to pay for a consultant to review Aviation Department claims. (After all, we at The Show-Me Institute have been investigating the matter for months at no public expense.) But even if you accept that argument, if the new terminal plan goes forward it, will put the airport into even more debt than the new terminal will generate in revenue. And that debt, we argue, could result in Kansas City making up the difference from the general taxpayer funds, as it has with Power & Light, The Citadel and this current airport consultant. Residents will certainly pay the high costs through airline tickets, parking, or reduced options at MCI.

The people of Kansas City do not want a new terminal. MCI’s biggest tenant, Southwest Airlines, says the proposed plan is too expensive and unnecessary. In most places, that would be enough to settle the issue, but in Kansas City, it just increases the cost (see also: streetcar).

The post New Terminal Already Costing Kansas City Taxpayers appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The headline? The near future of all air service is looking grim. Airlines continue to consolidate service at their largest hubs, consolidate with each other, and will continue further reductions at small community airports.

Columbia has felt this decline over the past several months, and the final Frontier Airlines flight from Columbia took off for Orlando, Fla., on Monday. Columbia is not alone. Data in the MIT study shows that Missouri airports, along with almost every other airport in the country, have lost service over the past five years.

This data shows us that the fate of air travel is not dependent on how shiny your airport is. Airlines have shifted away from capacity expansion because it was not a profitable strategy. They will continue to seek ways to maximize profits; unfortunately, small- and medium-sized airports are disproportionally affected in the process.

The post MIT Study Cautions Small Community Airport Expansion appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Aerotropolis: China Hub Responsive Documents, Part 4 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Aerotropolis: China Hub Responsive Documents, Part 3 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Aerotropolis: China Hub Responsive Documents, Part 2 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Aerotropolis: China Hub Responsive Documents, Part 1 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.