Kansas City Aviation Department Community Partner Update 1 KCI - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Kansas City Aviation Department Community Partner Update 1

KCI Business Update Economic Impact Study – 41,625 Jobs and $5.02B Annual Impact Passenger Traffic is Increasing • 14 consecutive months of year-over-year growth • July 2015 – First million-passenger month since June 2008 Airlines are Choosing Kansas City • Allegiant will become KCI’s third new airline in four years when service begins November 2015 New Destinations since Summer 2014: • Miami (MIA), Orange County (SNA), St. Pete/Clearwater (PIE), Great Bend (GBD), Punta Gorda (PGD) and Orlando/Sanford (SFB) New Competition since Summer 2014 2

KCI Business Update Valet Parking Launched in September 2014 to Alleviate B Garage Demand • 300 peak day customers KCI Hangar Facility (MRO) is Fully Leased • 500 employees KCI Intermodal BusinessCentre is Expanding • New spec building MKC Investment is Paying Dividends 3

KCI Terminal Facility History Prior to the 1972 Charles B Wheeler Downtown Airport (MKC) was Kansas City’s commercial airport Trans World Airlines (TWA) influenced the planning of the Kansas City International Airport (MCI/KCI) in the 1960s, designing it to be a gateway to the world for supersonic aircraft KCI opened November 11, 1972 Do to a rapid increase in aircraft hijackings, the FAA mandated screening of airline passengers and carry-on bags on January 5, 1973 When KCI was designed/built there was no separation between secure and unsecure areas 4

KCI Terminal Facility History 5

Airport Funding KCI Improvements are Funded by Airlines & Travelers • City tax revenues do not, and will not, pay for airport operations, maintenance & capital projects. Airport Fees & Charges Stay at KCI • Federal law prohibits diverting airport fees & charges for other City purposes. Airport Revenue Bonds • Bonds are secured based only on airport fees & charges, passenger facility charges & federal grants — not with city or state taxes. 6

Terminal Improvement Program Terminal Improvement Program (TIP), 1995-2004 Included Complete Removal of Interior Down to Concrete Frame 1995: Airport Master Plan/approved by the FAA, the 1995: Terminal Improvement Program – TIP TIP was initiated. 1998 1998 - 2000: : Completed designs for construction/bid documents. Construction phasing determined with airline approval. 2000 2000 - 2004 2004: : TIP construction takes place in multiple phases in each of the three terminals. Prog ogram Co Costs tot otal l $258 mi milli lion (today’s dollars = $420 million) 7

Airport Terminal Timeline 8

Program Goals Customer Affordability Convenience Construct- Efficiency ability Improving KCI Flexibility Technology Right-Sized 9

KCI Forecast: Gate Requirements 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 5 4:50 5:20 5:50 6:20 Aircraft Operations (Arrivals and Departures) in 2030 6:50 7:20 7:50 8:20 8:50 9:20 9:50 10:20 10:50 11:20 11:50 12:20 12:50 13:20 13:50 14:20 14:50 15:20 15:50 16:20 16:50 17:20 17:50 18:20 18:50 19:20 19:50 20:20 20:50 21:20 21:50 (30 currently KCI needs 22:20 35 gates in 2030. leased) 22:50 10 23:20

Airport Terminal Gate Comparison 176 180 160 144 140 120 105 KCI Peer Airports – 7 to 13 million pax 100 Gates 80 63 60 40 33 35 34 32 40 30 20 20 0 IND DAL MSY SMF SJC AUS STL KCI DEN DFW ORD Indianapolis Dallas Love New Sacramento San Jose Austin St. Louis Kansas Denver Dallas Fort Chicago Field Orleans City/2025 (53 million Worth (64 (70 million pax) million pax) pax) Note: AUS and MSY gate counts reflect projects planned and currently under construction. KCI count reflects KCI’s future needs. 11

Existing Space/Terminal Requirements FUNCTION Existing* Requirements 35 Gates 29 Ticketing/Check-in 20,879 32,000 Security Checkpoint 29,951 18,640 Departure Lounges 100,281 81,600 Post-Security Post-Security Departure Corridor 0 95,540 Space Undersized by Nearly One-Half Post-Security Restrooms 4,949 11,200 Airline Club 0 2,500 Pre-Security Space International Arrivals 21,001 31,460 Nearly 3x Amount Concessions 60,097 70,660 Needed Pre-Security Circulation, Restrooms, and Seating 156,283 58,200 Bag Claim Space Bag Claim 17,745 45,710 Undersized by Baggage Makeup 72,761 82,080 Nearly 2/3rds Airline Operations/ATO/BSO 96,591 56,720 Non Public Spaces 91,955 49,450 Non Public Space Terminal Functions (HVAC, MEP) 101,357 117,200 Oversized by Nearly 2x Amount Total Area 773,850 752,960 Needed *Existing Terminals B&C 12

U.S. Airport Terminal Configurations Kansas City Int’l Austin- Bergstrom Int’l Dallas Love Field Detroit Metropolitan General Mitchell Int’l (Milwaukee) John Wayne-Orange County Indianapolis Int’l Lambert- St Louis Int’l Louis Armstrong New Orleans Metropolitan Oakland Int’l Int’l Portland Int’l Nashville Int’l Norman Y. Mineta San Jose Int’l Pittsburgh Int’l Port Columbus Int’l Raleigh- Durham Int’l Sacramento Int’l San Antonio Int’l Southwest Florida Int’l William P Hobby (Houston) 13

Overview of Terminal Planning Approach KCAD and the airlines reviewed options identified in earlier studies, ideas from the Mayor’s Terminal Advisory Group, and public comments; then generated numerous new terminal alternatives to optimize the configurations Major Renovation | MR New Terminal | NT MR | OPTION A NT | OPTION A MR | OPTION B NT | OPTION B 14

Conceptual Site Plans Major Renovation: A New Terminal: A Major Renovation: B New Terminal: B 15

Major Renovation: Concept A New two-level terminals and major concourse renovations at Terminals A and B Centralized ticketing, security and baggage in both terminals New two-level arrival and departure roadway 2 new garages 16

Major Renovation: Concept B A new centralized, two-level terminal with major renovation of existing A & B concourses Consolidated ticketing, security and baggage New two-level arrival and departure roadway New central garage Renovation of 2 existing garages 17

New Terminal: Concept A New two-level terminal and concourses New two-level arrival and departure roadway New parking garage 18

New Terminal: Concept B New two-level terminal and concourses New two-level arrival and departure roadway New parking garage 19

Facility Requirements: MR / NT Major New FUNCTION Requirements Renovation Terminal 35 35 35 Gates Ticketing/Check-in 32,000 49,344 34,901 Security Checkpoint 18,640 21,693 18,654 Departure Lounges 81,600 92,859 82,395 Public Space/Departure Corridor 164,940 211,518 170,048 Airline Club 2,500 4,163 2,546 International Arrivals 31,460 40,003 34,106 Concessions 70,660 73,245 68,633 Bag Claim 45,710 50,641 45,401 Baggage Makeup 82,080 127,494 79,882 Airline Operations/ATO/BSO 56,720 66,814 52,961 Non Public Spaces 49,450 49,766 44,818  MR Oversized by 21% Terminal Functions 117,200 120,038 117,663  NT Right-Sized Total Area in Use (Square Feet) 752,960 907,578 752,008 Unassigned Space 143,165 21,542 To Provide Future Unbuilt Tug Drive Through 29,056 24,889 Expansion Capability: Undeveloped Space 12,929  MR Oversized by 43%  Total Gross Area (Square Feet) 752,960 1,079,799 811,368 NT Only 8% 20

MR / NT Alternatives Evaluation GOALS MAJOR RENOVATION (MR) NEW TERMINAL (NT) More difficult and longer time to construct Isolated site allows easier and shorter Construct- than NTs with far more passenger disruptions construction time than MR with less ability during construction passenger disruptions Some limitations on ability to include all new All new technologies for all functions Technology technologies Requires more space than necessary due to its Avoids duplicate central processors, bag inefficient configuration and duplication of systems, concessions, moving walkways, Right-Sized functions parking garages Existing concrete structure and circular New structure and layout provides better configuration limits the flexibility of functional flexibility of spatial uses and more Flexibility uses and expansion options expansion potential Less operationally efficient than NT due to More efficient airside, terminal and airside, terminal, and landside operational landside operations than MR Efficiency constraints Better t han today’s terminals but less than NT More customerr conveniences for all Customer passengers Convenience Higher capital and operating cost than NT Lower capital and operating cost than MR Affordability 21

Initial Findings: Airlines and KCAD concluded that major renovation alternatives presented significant shortfalls: • Higher capital and ongoing operating cost • Substandard operational performance • More difficult and lengthy construction • Limited options to improve customer convenience 22

Airline Recommendation: The Airline-Airport Affairs Committee unanimously proposed tabling further study of major renovation options The Airline-Airport Affairs Committee will continue to review and refine new terminal options 23

Next Steps Final Presentation Refine New to City Council & Terminal Options Mayor • Design & layout • Cost estimations • Airline agreement 24