I have not written anything about the Kansas City airport in years, and I doubt I would have ever predicted flight numbers. I responded in the moment that I was writing about the number of gates at the new airport. But after the event Mayor James insisted I had written such a thing. I thanked him for reading the Show-Me Institute blog and didn’t think of it again.

The very next night, I was speaking to a community group in south Kansas City about the stadium tax. In the parking lot after the event, the representative of the Royals also mentioned my KCI flight prediction when I was speaking with him—which had not come up in the meeting.

Why are members of the Royals campaign sharing Show-Me Institute blog posts from 8 years ago? And which posts? There are many. (Here is a summary of the airport debate from 2017.) Were they referring to my post from 2017 pointing out that The Kansas City Star editorial board incorrectly asserted that a new airport will guarantee more flights? Or maybe it was the one from 2016 in which I wrote:

To sum it up, the airlines (and common sense) say that building an expensive new terminal will not increase demand for air travel. Quite the contrary, the higher costs to airlines and passengers may mean fewer flights.

Neither the former mayor nor the Royals representative mentioned a specific post, but it doesn’t matter. According to the Kansas City Aviation Department’s 2023 Annual Report, there were 5,195,871 enplanements (the number of people boarding the plane) in 2023. Compared to 5,951,776 in 2019, that represents about a 14 percent drop.

What about flights? Again, using Kansas City Aviation Department data, in January 2020, right before the beginning of the pandemic, the airport saw 8,606 carrier flights in and out of the old terminals. In January 2024, there were 8,138 carrier flights. That amounts to a 10 percent drop. The change between December 2019 and December 2023 is less dramatic, but still down a half percent. Mind you, this is after the International Air Transport Association (IATA) claimed in October 2023 that air travel demand is back to pre-pandemic levels.

Claiming that flights are up at KCI is incorrect. Even if the number of flights had increased, there is a lot more at play than just a new terminal. But then, these are the same guys who argue downtown baseball has positive economic impacts. It doesn’t.

The post Yes, Mr. Mayor, There Are Fewer Flights from KCI appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Fast forward a year and Vockrodt writes that the new Aviation Department director, Pat Klein, was unaware of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidelines on conducting an environmental assessment. He writes,

Klein said there had been an assumption that the city could put out solicitations for certain construction work before the FAA approved an environmental assessment in October, and then signing those contracts shortly afterward.

“What we’ve been told initially by the FAA is they don’t think that’s a smart idea,” Klein said. “They think we should hold, so we’re in discussions with them to do that. That’s a three-, four-, five-month lag on our schedule, which could be the difference between summer or winter of 2022.”

Now we learn that even before construction has begun, the project’s opening is being delayed 11 months to October 2022 and will cost much more than originally planned. Delays and increased costs such as these are not surprising for such large projects. After all, the Aviation Department itself has been all over the map on costs for years. Changes in costs and timelines can be forgiven. Not knowing FAA rules on construction suggest a deeper problem of management.

The Kansas City Star editorial board rightly called for more transparency in the construction of the new airport terminal. The Show-Me Institute has also called repeatedly for more transparency in the airport process since 2013, when the Council first took up the matter.

It’s difficult to be confident that the City will suddenly adopt a position in favor of transparency after years during which the process was opaque. We remain confident, however, given the Aviation Director’s unfamiliarity with FAA guidelines, that transparency remains the highest need.

The post Kansas City Airport Stumbles Along appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

It appears that some people can’t take No for an answer. The Aviation Department has announced what it calls “listening sessions” on its webpage, stating:

The listening sessions will be an open forum for residents to discuss their thoughts and concerns about the airport with Aviation Department leadership, and will include a short presentation to bring everyone up-to-date on previous planning efforts. Information gathered through community listening sessions will directly influence the terminal facility planning process and will be shared with City Council members. [Emphasis added.]

If the past is any indication, I question how much listening will occur. Will Aviation Department officials hear and understand the great risk to Kansas City travelers of spending over $1 billion and passing those costs onto airlines? Or will attendees be told that all the options have been considered, that mere renovation is just too expensive, and that the airlines have agreed to pay for everything? And while proponents probably won’t say that if we build a new terminal we’ll get more flights, but they will likely leave you with that impression. If it all sounds too good to be true, be on guard.

Who supports the new terminal? We can expect most members of the City Council to support a new terminal, as will the Chamber of Commerce. The usual pundits will weigh in with their usual opinions. The Kansas City Star will likely endorse a new terminal, as it has in the past. Not to be outdone, The Kansas City Business Journal has already weighed in with an underresearched story and editorial on security check point wait times.

We’ve seen it all before.

Stiffen your resolve, Kansas City. The proposal, the arguments and the supporters will likely be the same. They say they are listening—but who are they listening to?

The post Brace Yourselves: Another Single Terminal Sales Pitch Is Coming appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

City officials have talked recently about trying to hold that election either in August or November of this year, and they said it was important to have airport leadership that the public trusts.

So in order to restore trust in the Aviation Department, city leaders have undertaken a nationwide search for a qualified and well-trusted airport administrator who will come in, clean house, and present to voters a new and more thoroughly considered airport plan. Right?

No. The Aviation Department will be led by Pat Klein, who, according to his LinkedIn page, has been a city employee for 20 years, but with no apparent experience leading an aviation department. According to that same Star piece, Klein will present to the Council and voters the same airport plan that VanLoh and Mayor James have been pushing.

If city leaders want to restore public trust in them and their policy proposals, they need to do more than merely swap out department heads.

The post Shake-Up at KC Aviation Department appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

At the latest meeting, the Aviation Department told the Council that building a new terminal would cost less than refurbishing the existing terminals. The department claims that refurbishing the current configuration would cost more than $1.1 billion dollars, while a slate of new terminal plans would cost less than $1 billion.

Two things are interesting to note here. First, the Aviation Department’s cost of refurbishing the terminals has escalated dramatically from July 2013, when the initial new terminal plan was proposed. At that time, keeping the existing design was supposed to cost up to $785 million, not more than $1.1 billion. This is likely due to the scale of the refurbishment now proposed, which is more extensive than what the department had previously recommended. The cost escalation underscores the fact that the scale of the refurbishment is directly related to the cost. Certainly, fixing up the existing terminals could cost less than $1.1 billion, but that would mean a different and possibly less desirable end product.

The second interesting point is the cost of the new terminal plans, which range between $900 million and $1 billion. The Aviation Department claims that these are not “Taj Mahal” plans, that is to say they are cost effective. However, the department said the same thing for the plan that they proposed in 2013, which was $1.223 billion. The ability to find more than $200 million in savings indicates that either the “old” new terminal plan was in fact more expensive than was necessary, or that the “new” new terminal plans have lowballed cost estimates (or are insufficient).

We will continue to follow this story as the Aviation Department prepares a final recommendation. 

The post New Terminal Plans on the Table in Kansas City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

City officials should pull the plug on a little-known perk that allows [Kansas City Council member Quinton] Lucas and 28 other people to park for free in the public garages at Terminals B and C. The passes are awarded by the Aviation Department’s parking division.

In advance of their editorial, The Star requested the parking pass records from the Aviation Department on September 4. On September 8 the Department responded with the list on which the editorial board based their September 11 column.

The Show-Me Institute was also looking into this data, but we also requested a copy of all passes issued since January 2011. The second list we received included additional names the Aviation Department did not share with The Star. They included passes issued to:

·         John McGurk, former chief of staff to Mayor James,

·         Buffy Smith, current staffer to Congressman Sam Graves

·         John Diehl, former Missouri House speaker,

·         Paul LaVota, former Missouri senator, and 

·         Tom Dempsey, former Missouri senator.·          

All of these passes were voided at 9:05 a.m. on September 8, right before the Aviation Department provided The Star with a list of active passes.

(Links to both lists provided by the Aviation Department can be found at the bottom of this post.)

It's unknown why the Aviation Department did not fully comply with The Star's straightforward request. What they withheld hardly amounts to much: a few recently-resigned state officials and some staffers. But it appears that their first instinct was to obfuscate; they didn't share the whole picture when asked. If the Department wants to be a credible source of information about the need for a new terminal, or much of anything else, they must be more transparent about their operations.

The post Aviation Department Withholds Information from the Star appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The challenges again would be educating the public on why we think we need a new single terminal. So many people—and around the country—think that aviation revenues should be spent fixing potholes or schools, where as you know airport revenues have to stay on the airport. And because we’re a department of the city that’s a tough sell.

First of all, I can think of no one who claims that aviation revenue should be used elsewhere in the city. It appears to be a red herring argument and it gives short shrift to the arguments that people have made against building a new terminal: Namely, that it will increase fees and therefore risk costing us flights, and that MCI is a great and convenient airport just as it is,

But even more importantly, VanLoh's claims that airport funds stay at the airport is wrong, and he knows it. After all, he signed the documents moving $10 million dollars from the Aviation Department to the City Finance Department, And he agreed to the amendment that extended the loan, too.

If the Aviation Department wants to convince Kansas Citians of anything, they first need to start speaking honestly about how they operate.

The post Aviation Administrator Still Denying Reality appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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.

Even if the report is factually flawed, it aspires to ensure good government. On page 30, the report recommends more transparency:

In addition to KCAD [Kansas City Aviation Department], the City should provide for additional oversight to maintain transparency and improve two-way communication. This oversight (possibly in the form of an informal oversight committee) would be responsible for insuring City involvement and help to oversee the process over the next two years. The oversight committee could also assist in vetting the planning and design process and communicating it to the Mayor of Kansas City, Kansas City Manager, City Council, as well as the general public and local businesses.

Several months have passed, and none of this has been acted upon. It was ignored on the day the City Council received the report. Mayor James said in the July 10, 2014, City Council business session that discussed the report (remarks begin at 37:52):

The question was, as currently configured, does KCI meet the needs of Kansas City now and into the future? And if not, what are our options? Now, the options are being determined now by the airlines as they are in consultations—secret, private consultations—with the Aviation Department. That is their job. They will determine how much money they want to spend. And when they determine how much money they want  to spend they will pretty much tell us what they think we ought to do.

So much for transparency. Also, so much for the work of the ATAG in the first place; a year’s worth of work and $100,000 spent on consultants seems to have been wasted. (As for the financial costs and benefits of a new terminal, the Show-Me Institute has issued its own report.)

Kansas City leaders need to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. While it is good that the airlines are involved—they should have been all along—it does not bode well that the process is again opaque. When the time comes to present options to the public, the truth still may be that, according to Kansas City Star editorialist Yael Abouhalkah, “Director Mark VanLoh does not have the public credibility to lead on this extremely crucial project.” The voters of Kansas City have spoken clearly on this matter, and they deserve to get the transparency and accountability necessary for good public policy.

The post Kansas City Airport Effort Still not Transparent appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Read the full essay:

The post The Comparative Expense Of The Proposed New Terminal Plan For Kansas City International Airport appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Here are five good reasons to reject ATAG’s call for the creation of a new terminal at KCI:

No. 1: It is hugely expensive compared with the alternatives.

The Kansas City Aviation Department has stated that repairs could cost as little as $241 million if only two of the three terminals are repaired ($360 million for all three). That being the case, KCI could perform two major repairs over the next 30 years instead of building a $1.2 billion new terminal and still save hundreds of millions of dollars. The necessary service amenities such as Wi-Fi or electrical outlets can be added at a significantly lower cost and do not justify a new terminal.

No. 2: A new terminal will not bring new flights to KCI.

During ATAG meetings, the airlines and aviation consultants stated that the number of flights a city receives is mostly based on underlying economic factors, not the quality of the airport terminal. Paraphrasing a Southwest Airlines representative, if airport terminals determined air service, no one would ever fly from LaGuardia Airport. Promises of increased business travel or businesses choosing Kansas City based on airport terminals have never been more than anecdotes.

No. 3: The airlines are not happy with the plan.

The Kansas City Aviation Department claims the airlines were consulted, but representatives for the airlines disagree. Last year, Southwest representatives openly complained that the Aviation Department had not consulted with them. At a later ATAG meeting, they warned that the new terminal plan was too expensive and might result in reduced service. Only now, months after debate about the new terminal plan began, have the airlines truly been brought into the decision-making process through a new airport-airline contract signed last month.

No. 4: It will lead to less flights and higher costs to Kansas City residents.

The supporters of the new terminal plan presume that airlines and passengers at other airports will bear the entire cost of building a new terminal, with no consequences for KCI. However, if nothing else, KCI users will immediately pay higher parking fees, part of the new terminal plan. In addition, the idea that costs do not matter for airport service goes against both the warnings of airlines and the experiences of other airports such as Sacramento International Airport and Lambert-St. Louis International Airport. A more expensive KCI could certainly see less airline service – in leading to higher landing fees, reduced service, and steeper airfares.

No. 5: Who wants it anyway?

Whether it is the plentiful parking or the short security lines, residents are concerned that the terminals they like are being replaced so they can be corralled into a shopping mall. Groups like Save KCI and others have made their voices heard at both ATAG meetings and through city legislation preventing the demolition of the existing terminals without a public vote.

The new terminal plan proposes to make KCI an expensive, high-debt airport. The plan, if implemented, will risk KCI’s competitiveness without attracting new passengers. The plan was created without the approval of critical stakeholders, the airlines, and without proving that the plan was either necessary or cost-effective. ATAG might not have done its job to ground this irresponsible plan, but residents, who will get to vote on the matter, certainly should.

Joseph Miller is a policy researcher at the Show-Me Institute, which promotes market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post Five Good Reasons To Reject New KCI Terminal appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

That ATAG recommended the new terminal plan is inexplicable based on facts, but not so surprising given just how tilted the scales really were. Nearly all the information at ATAG meetings came from the authors of the new terminal plan (Kansas City Aviation Department), the only real option presented in any detail was the new terminal plan, and the process for selecting a conclusion was weighted in favor of the new terminal plan.

Fortunately, the ATAG’s recommendation is by no means binding. MCI and its airlines have already signed an agreement allowing them to basically rewrite the plan in conjunction with the Aviation Department. In addition, Kansas City voters will get a say on whether a new terminal is built. Hopefully, fiscal discipline and common sense will prevail and voters will permanently ground this boondoggle.

Our full position on the new terminal plan is outlined in this presentation from February:

The post Airport Advisory Group Recommends New Terminal Plan appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We have long been critical of the new terminal plan. We have pointed out that the plan is costly and unnecessary. As for ATAG, the group received all of its “airport schooling” from the Kansas City Aviation Department (the same people who created the new terminal plan) and were never presented any real alternatives. We criticized the wildly varying estimates for repairing MCI’s existing terminals, a sentiment that ATAG Co-Chairman David Fowler shared. “Any dollar amount placed on any alternative is almost pretty random,” Fowler said.

Precisely because ATAG has not been presented with real alternatives to the new terminal plan, many ATAG members feel they do not have enough information to make a recommendation, and rightfully so. How could one expect ATAG to select an alternative such as repairing the existing terminals when it could cost anywhere from $240 million to $785 million?

From the beginning, the Kansas City Aviation Department has pushed its preferred plan for MCI, supplying the public with alternatives that exist only in a few PowerPoint slides and contradictory quotes in newspaper articles. If the Aviation Department insists on a referendum between its plan and a straw man, ATAG should do the sensible thing and send the planners back to the drawing board until they present legitimate alternatives.

The post Airport Terminal Advisory Group Decides To Make A Recommendation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Even if Kansas City builds a new terminal and begins to perform as well as peer airports in raising retail revenues, conservative policy analyst Joseph Miller calculated the airport should only expect another $1 million or $1.5 million per year in extra funds.

Hardly much to offset the cost of building a new facility, he said.

“Remember that debt service for a $1.2 billion new terminal is likely to be close to $70 million a year,” said Miller of the Show-Me Institute, a free-market think tank based in St. Louis. “In terms of making a new airport affordable, retail sales are not a well-thought-out argument.”

It seems that the Kansas City Aviation Department and other supporters of the proposed $1.2 billion new terminal plan for Kansas City International Airport are still arguing that increased retail sales at the airport is a valid reason for opting for a new terminal. In reality, the amount of revenue that retail would bring to the airport is minimal and dwarfed by the cost of the new terminal plan.

First, let’s be clear about what retail we are discussing. Concessions at airports are usually defined as either food service or retail (e.g., Kansas City trinkets, Dan Brown’s latest mass-produced masterpiece, luggage for people who by definition already have luggage). The Star states that retailers at KCI drew $29 million in revenue last year, but only if we include food service. In fact, retail and duty-free shops usually generate less than $7 million a year in total revenue.

But KCI does not get to keep all the revenue from those shops, only a cut. From retail, KCI only received approximately $900,000 in 2013. Combine retail with food sales, and revenue to KCI from all concessions climbs to just less than $3 million per year. When we remember that KCI’s total operating revenue is $104 million in 2013, we see just how miniscule the retail source of revenue is.

If we assume that with a new terminal KCI will perform as well in sales/pass as other airports with new terminals, at best, KCI will increase retail sales by $1.5 million and food sales by $2.5 million. Certainly they must have a better argument to build a $1.2 billion terminal.

The post Terminals For T-Shirts appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We have been critical of the Kansas City mayor’s airport terminal advisory group, including when leadership met with the Kansas City Aviation Department’s PR firm. We also have been critical of its conflicted make-up and its treatment of opponents. Prior to that, we were critical of the Aviation Department and of the Kansas City City Council for refusing to answer questions. We’re not alone; some have called for the airport director to go.

But this is something new. In a recent email sent from the advisory group’s leader, Bob Berkebile, including to several city employees, he seeks to circumvent Missouri’s open meetings law (emphasis added):

On another note we have offered to meet with members of the city council who may want to offer input or to hear from us about how we are doing with our deliberations.  Cindy Circo has extended an invitation to members of the council to meet with us between 9:30 and 11 either this Thursday or on April 3^rd.  Our assumption is that these will be informal and that only a few will schedule interviews (to date John Sharp is the only one to request time).  We have also assumed that they will be small (one to one sessions or two of us and two of them in a session).  Cindy and Travis will help us manage the times and any potential conflicts with committee structures to avoid creating a public meeting. Please let us know if you are interested in representing us with your council representative or any of them, and if you are interested please identify what dates/times you are available.

In other words, city council members want to offer input, but they don’t want to do so publicly. This is not new or unique to Kansas City government — all levels of government seek to work around the open record or sunshine or freedom of information laws that apply to them. However, it is disheartening to learn that the group supposedly appointed to bring the public into the discussion about a $1.2 billion new terminal is complicit in keeping things from them.

At every ‘town hall’-style meeting the advisory group hosted that I attended, people said they were frustrated with the process and that they felt locked out of meaningful discussion. Unfortunately, the advisory group’s actions seem to confirm the worst of these fears.

The post Airport Advisory Group Seeks To Avoid Public Scrutiny appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The current terminal infrastructure does not allow the airport to meet the EPA’s new standards for capturing deicing fluids, which require capturing about 30% of run-off. The new single terminal will capture nearly 100% of the run-off and resolve Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) issues the airport is currently facing. The single terminal will also require less [sic] bus trips to and from the consolidated rental car facilities than the current three terminals significantly reducing carbon emissions.

This is misleading, as it suggests that MCI is under some sort of EPA requirement to improve its ability to capture deicing fluids. The EPA is fine with how MCI performs this task now. While MCI could do a better job of collecting these fluids, the EPA allows for several much cheaper ways to do it than the one method called for in the proposed $1.2 billion new terminal plan.

For example, MCI could attempt either greater efficiency in use of deicing or greater collection of runoff. Ways of reducing runoff include using highly concentrated type IV fluids, anti-icing fluids before inclement weather, hot-air deicing, and infrared deicing. As for capturing more runoff, the EPA considers using collection trucks, improvements in drainage systems, and mobile deicing pads as viable options. These options are certainly cheaper than building a new terminal, aprons, roadways, and parking structures.

The airport’s fact-checking goes on to include:

The new single terminal, built as a replacement facility on the reclaimed Terminal A site, will be built to LEED standards. The  New Terminal’s enhanced daylighting concepts , thermally designed building envelope, and new high-efficiency systems will maximize energy performance to achieve sustainability goals.

Yet we learned from a recent study of LEED-certified buildings in Washington, D.C., that the rating is apparently meaningless (emphasis added):

The free-market group analyzed the first round of energy usage data released by city officials Friday and found that large, privately-owned buildings that received the green energy certification Leadership in Energy Design (LEED) actually use more energy than buildings that didn’t receive this green stamp of approval.

The Show-Me Institute has argued that it is unlikely that a new terminal will increase revenue or provide sufficient savings to make it a viable alternative. Now we know there is no environmental or energy necessity for it either.

The post No Environmental Or Energy Need For A New Terminal appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Read more of the Show-Me Institute's research into Kansas City International Airport at ShowMeDaily.org.

The post Policy Presentation: A Public Discussion About Kansas City International Airport appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Perhaps in an overeager attempt to answer our questions, the Aviation Department has produced a plethora of cost estimates. In July, keeping the existing terminals supposedly was going to cost about $600 million, with little explanation of those costs. We questioned that number, stating:

KCAD has yet to release an independent analysis of the supposed $600 million improvement costs. But if history is any guide, it is inflating costs. The last renovation of MCI’s terminals took place from 2000 to 2004, and cost the airport $183.4 million . . .  The Aviation Department should explain why the new renovation would cost more than double the adjusted expense of the last.

Aside from criticizing the cost estimate, we also pointed out that it is unclear when these repairs are required.

However, by September of 2013, the price estimate of the airport increased, with a range from $645 million to $785 million. Again, we questioned the estimates, stating:

. . . as of a presentation on Sept. 10, the Aviation Department now claims the cost will be between $645 million and $785 million. A cursory inspection of these estimates prompts many questions, as the itemized repair costs are much larger than those for identical or similar items in the new terminal plan’s budget.

Again, there was no time estimate for these needed repairs.

In the last week, those estimates took a nosedive. The Aviation Department now claims that the repair costs are actually between $365 million and $460 million, a 43 percent decrease in the estimate. The department also stated those figures could be lower by a third if one of the terminals is mothballed. Of course, the estimate still prompts questions, like why the repairs to the central utility cost 25 percent more in the repair estimate than in the new terminal plan. The Aviation Department actually put a timeline on these repairs this time, to be completed in 2020. They also began discussing alternatives, such as a structure that centralizes security between the existing terminals.

The debate about the new terminal plan has already been underway for months. An Airport Terminal Advisory Group has met numerous times to make a recommendation to the Kansas City City Council. But with these new estimates, everyone will need to reconsider the cost of the new terminal plan. Moreover, the lack of consistency and transparency in the Aviation Department’s repair estimates mean no one can trust that these estimates are accurate or final.

The post The Kansas City International Rehab Roller Coaster appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

We at the Show-Me Institute have written about the new terminal plan many times. We have expressed skepticism at the lack of alternatives to the expensive new terminal plan. Our research has pointed out the danger of the airport assuming so much debt. We also have cast doubts on the Aviation Department’s alternative repair cost estimates.

Now that the law states that the public must approve any new terminal plan, it is more important than ever for residents to be informed regarding the costs and benefits of the new terminal plan.

With that goal in mind, the Show-Me Institute hosts a meeting about the future of Kansas City International Airport from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m. on Wed., Feb. 26 at the Kansas City Public Library (Central location: 14 W. 10th Street in Kansas City). Show-Me Institute Western Missouri Field Manager Patrick Tuohey and I will present our research about the proposed new terminal plan and answer the public’s questions. This is a free event so sign up today to attend and receive valuable information about the airport plan that does not come straight from the Aviation Department.

The post Next Wednesday: A Public Discussion About Kansas City International Airport appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Aviation officials and the eight airlines serving Kansas City pledge to collaborate over the next two years on plans for airport terminal improvements. The agreement, with council approval, would take effect May 1 and sets the stage for both sides to work together on a project the public can embrace.

In other words, the Kansas City Aviation Department is announcing that it will do its job: work with airlines to determine what is best for the airport and Kansas City. Remember that Aviation Department Director Mark VanLoh once said on the radio:

. . . he works for the airlines and not the flying public.  He said his goal is to make things easier for the airlines, and not necessarily for passengers.

Yet VanLoh didn’t consult the airlines about the new terminal idea before going public. When the airlines finally learned of the plans, they “cautioned against building something so expensive that it drives up costs and drives away airlines” (as the Show-Me Institute pointed out months earlier).

Once the public learned of the project, they balked as well. VanLoh complained about local politics hampering his efforts. As a result of VanLoh’s own failures to communicate with important stakeholders, the mayor appointed a window-dressing advisory group. The advisory group spent $100,000 on a consultant that attempted to downplay the airlines’ important concerns. (This is on top of the $117,000 the Aviation Department contracted out to convince the public that a new terminal is a good idea.)

This could have all been avoided if VanLoh just did what he was hired to do. According to the Star, Kansas City City Councilman John Sharp said of the recent deal:

“I feel clearly the city dropped the ball in not consulting with the airlines earlier,” Sharp said, adding that the lease approach should address that shortcoming.

For his part, VanLoh is “thrilled” about the new agreement:

Because after what we’ve all seen and heard, we got agreement from all parties that we’re going to sit down together and get us into the future somehow.

That is how bad the airport situation has become in Kansas City — an agreement to merely sit down together with one’s tenant airlines is thrilling. It’s no wonder that some in Kansas City have already called for new airport leadership.

The post Kansas City Airport Officials Decide To Do Their Job appeared first on Show-Me Institute.