TKC BREAKING AND EXCLUSIVE NEWS!!! INSIDERS: AIRLINES FAIL TO GUARANTEE NEW KANSAS CITY SINGLE-TERMINAL!!!
This week there was a sales pitch and a lot of talk about the new airport that was COMPLETELY unchecked by Kansas City mainstream media. Luckily, the first sketches of the deal are so horrible that local power brokers already seem eager to oppose the plan.
To wit . . .
TKC FACT CHECK: KANSAS CITY INSIDERS CALL B.S. ON AIRLINE PROMISES TO BACK UP KANSAS CITY SINGLE-TERMINAL BONDS!!!
Following the big announcement this week, here are just a few items that stand out to people already working on a campaign to challenge this low turnout voter initiative:
AIRLINES GRACIOUSLY AGREE TO KEEP PAYING KANSAS CITY AIRPORT RENT FOR A NEW SINGLE-TERMINAL!!!
This needs to be noted once and for all for the cheap seats:
THE AIRLINES ARE NOT CO-SIGNING ANY BOND ISSUE BACKING UP THE FINANCIAL FATE OF THE PROPOSED KANSAS CITY SINGLE-TERMINAL AIRPORT!!!
Reality . . .
The extent of the airlines "backing" the single-terminal airport plan is only a non-binding, flimsy and completely unenforceable MOU document which only promises that IF Kansas City builds a new airport THEN the airlines will probably pay rent there, too.
That's not a commitment, not even something close to a promise . . . It's an empty headline grabbing statement from companies who are coping with their own biz problems.
AIRLINES WON'T SAY THEY'LL LEAVE WITHOUT A SINGLE TERMINAL
For those of us who watched the presentation . . . A few council members questioned the airlines and asked them if this was a "make or break deal" and the airlines balked. Neither Southwest nor any other airline has said that they'll leave MCI if there is not a new Kansas City airport forthcoming.
But let's not feel too confident . . .
AIRLINES AREN'T BOUND TO STAY IN KANSAS CITY AMID RISING COSTS
By that same token, if the costs get too high, if biz doesn't pan out here in flyover country or if there's a better deal to be found elsewhere . . . The airlines aren't committed to Kansas City beyond any agreement that isn't easily breakable if it begins to seriously impact their business.
In other words, the airlines don't have any love for the proposed single-terminal beyond their bottom line and THERE IS NO FINANCIAL COMMITMENT FROM THE AIRLINES TO BUILDING THE SINGLE-TERMINAL.
Mayor Sly and the cadre of biz interests he represents have taken years, countless meetings and millions in taxpayer funded consulting fees in order to concoct this week's cleverly worded press statement that puts Kansas City back where it started and no closer to a resolution of the single-terminal airport question soon to be asked of voters.
Developing . . .
If KC is going to pay for all this, I think it's about time we got an itemized billing of how much time Jon Stephens and other consultants are paid to troll this blog and tell everyone that there opinions don't matter. It's one thing to do it on election day but I'm pretty sure there are at least a few consultant who use their comment count here to pad their billable hours.
ReplyDeleteI am in favor of a new airport but only if they build it without the islamic feet washing stations. or allow pagan solstice dancing facilities as well. Either way.
ReplyDeleteThe airlines won't leave if the airport stays the same. Anyone saying such is a bigger fucking liar than that dipshit shithouser.
ReplyDeleteNew restaurants at the new airport? That should make up the cost difference quickly. Considering a hamburger costs about $75.
ReplyDeleteWhen was the last time Jon Stephens had a job that did not involve a government subsidy?
ReplyDeleteWtf is The Star doing?? I know they're laying off staff but they reported the city's position verbatim as objective news and then offered an unscientific online poll to suggest KC may want a new airport after all. I've never seen a paper more lock step with a government. Truly shameful.
ReplyDeleteThere are occasionally anecdotal stories and op eds wishing the city would pay more attention to neighborhoods, infrastructure, crime and urban education, but they never have teeth and they never demand accountability. It's always, "These difficult issues are important but the cities priorities are way cooler and more exciting; yay city hall!!"
They've been doing that since at least 2011. What finally tipped you off?
DeleteThe only entities that can guarantee municipal bonds are municipals .
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteThe bonds will be revenue bonds, not municipal bonds. Revenues from all of the airport activities are used. None of the general funds. There has never been a default of aviation bonds in the U.S. But if that happened, the bond holders would lose.
If the airlines would leave K.C. then the world economy has crashed.
It's easy Bryan, The city owns the Star and they will print whatever story the city wants the residents to see. They will even post idiot polls trying to make the residents think the vast majority of residents want something. I really don't think you dumb enough Bryan to think those tax breaks didn't go to the Star without a lot of strings attached to it did you?
ReplyDeleteThe federal subsidies aren't there for the airlines to continue with an offer.
ReplyDeleteTKC, A HEARTY THANK YOU!!!
ReplyDeleteWhen you have to sweep up behind the mess laid down by the Star and other media, and explain the REALITY which is an airline non-commitment (after much arm-twisting, promises, and flip-flops by airline executives), no wonder public trust in corporate media is at a new low.
Thank you for standing up for TRUTH!
Are these city planners fucking brain dead? If the airlines are looking at this and saying they are not going to obligate themselves in this fiasco the the city needs to take a very close look at the run amok pipedream and cut the fat. There is already a Denver and KC is not even in the same class metrowise.
ReplyDeleteWhy is it not possible to build a simple functional and relatively inexpensive airport? We are not in the era of an airline or air traveler boom. Most airlines are walking on thin ice financially with no guarantee that things are going to improve in the near future. The idea that they are all flocking to KC looking for a a hub would be a complete hallucination on our part. Airlines do not operate under the premise that tax payers should pick up the tab for their operational expenses, but that is exactly where this airport idea is headed. Again, if the airport can not pay for itself through fees and other related revenue then what in the hell has us believing all of this fluff is required? Cut the bullshit, cut costs, make it simple, attractive and functional without turning it into an adult amusement park. What is this disease we have when it comes to this freaking airport?
wealthy Democrat donors and Democrat greedy union slobs scamming the taxpayer...
ReplyDeleteagain...and again.
Well at least all the corrupt consultants and other paid off shills hawking this thing will get their money with the e-tax and water and sewer rate increase cash on hand to draw from.
ReplyDeleteThis is probably Lyin' Sly's ultimate con job since he's been in office. The Trolley #2 then you can keep building the list as you please.
ReplyDelete2:19 - the City would never let the airport default on the bonds. To do so would destroy the city's bond rating on any future project. So in that worse case scenario, the taxpayers would have to step up and cover it.
ReplyDeleteAs far as airlines pulling out representing a crash of the economy, it would only take a crash of the KCI economy. Now that airlines have consolidated, if one of the big 4 goes under, the additional burden that would place on the others to cover the bonds would dramatically affect their cost to do business here. But if they pull out, they're off the hook. They only have to pay the rent if they're here and there is nothing in the current agreement requiring them to pay if they decide to leave because the cost went up.
Basic rule of any negotiation - the party with the greatest ability to walk away (the guy who cares the least about making a deal) always wins. The city has demonstrated for 10 years that it will do or say anything to get their new shiny airport. The airlines can make money just about anywhere and can move their assets 500 miles in about an hour. Sly and his minions seem to think we report to him. Meanwhile the airlines report to shareholders. This friends, is why we are screwed unless we rise up and say NO.
ReplyDeleteSo American who pulled out of our maintenance base, one of the best in the country, and moved to Tulsa is guaranteeing this thing?
ReplyDeleteA billion of for that hideous looking layout?
ReplyDeletePhew boy
The point remains that the bonds will be guaranteed by the city that issues them.
ReplyDeleteRemodel the airport. It's good enough. KC is not a hub, not a major destination. Building a tent-pole attraction seems like a waste.
ReplyDeleteFinance experts discourse on municipal debt.
ReplyDeleteLMFAO.
Ah, what is a tranche?
Anyway, I like the new outfits !
ReplyDeleteThis bit of truth brought to you by the same citizen journalist who uncovered Mike Sanders FBI arrest, Louie Wright's embezzlement, the Ebola epidemic sweeping KC, the real estate bubble that's been about to burst for 10 years now, etc. etc. etc.
ReplyDeleteWho paid for the bus terminal and the Amtrak shack? Get a clue
ReplyDeleteTKC is the best blog in Kansas City. 10,000 haters every day can't be wrong.
ReplyDeleteLighten up doods, the deal is done. They don't want your opinion, just your tax money.
No new airport, no more sly, no thank you.
ReplyDeleteTraveled all over the world, easiest airport to get in and out of hands down.
ReplyDeleteThe airlines' position is we will show up to all the parties and cheerleading events but we're not going to flatly lie and say we need or want something we don't. We can walk away at anytime without notice. I'd say that's negotiating from a position of strength.
ReplyDeleteDon't ever change, CK! It's scary!
ReplyDelete