Saturday, January 19, 2019
TKC MUST READ!!!! INSIDER EXPLAINS NEW KCI AIRPORT BAGGAGE CLAIM SYSTEM HOT MESS!!! KANSAS CITY SHOULD'VE EXPECTED FIGHT AMONG AIRLINES!!!
So far the MSM hasn't been very forthright about the behind the scenes struggles of the new airport. What has turned into a blood feud was initially reported as nothing more than a minor delay . . . That has now resulted in a wait of months not weeks.
To wit . . .
CHECK THIS KICK-ASS INSIDER EXPOSÉ OF THE BAGGAGE CLAIM FIGHT AT NEW KCI AND WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO THE AIRLINES!!!
Of course, this is just one aspect of the hold up but so far local media is only sharing City Hall press releases and not any analysis or critical reporting of the STALLED project.
Airport woes explained
Let’s drill down on why airlines are MIA on the new airport deal. In a word: Competition. Airlines were deregulated by the feds in 1978. The objective was more competition, producing better prices and services for travelers. Good for customers but like a knife fight in a broom closet for air carriers. Competition between airlines is intense, with profit margins well below where they were 30 years ago.
Airlines fight for every customer and every dollar of operating cost. KCI is pushing a residual cost agreement, which means the airline signers are collectively responsible for covering all airport expenses. All expenses. Including an estimated 117 million dollars per year bond interest payment, on top of other operating costs. Pay attention to these words: collectively responsible. What happens if some members of this collective pay less? Answer: The others pay more. It’s like going to dinner with tightwad uncle Phil, who always “forgets” his wallet. This is a game of financial chicken, the losers of which pay for their competitors’ dinner. Two of the eight airlines that fly KCI have already said, Nope, we’re not signing. This is like uncle Phil warning you in advance he’s not bringing his wallet. Any surprise that various airlines are in no hurry to sign this deal?
Which brings us to the mysterious conflict over a 20-million-dollar-per-year baggage handling system. That’s nothing in a project expected to top out over 4 billion, right? Not exactly. No airline can operate without access to this system, making it a major choke point in the whole setup. The issue hinges on “equitable use” by competing airlines, not the relatively trivial cost of the equipment. Translation: Each airline will try to get priority use because that will choke how many customers competitors can move through the airport. Which creates a bigger problem. Airline honchos are likely asking: Why should we pay 117 million per year, when we can’t move our customers’ bags? Back to the knife fight metaphor. It’s a question of who gets to carry the knife into the broom closet. That’s a question that might also interest the FAA.
The feds say airports can’t give preferential access to vital equipment and services, if that unfairly limits competition between airlines.
Maybe you thought these predictable complications were thought out by the city and airport management before the new airport went to voters. Not so much.
Developing . . .