From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.	Aviation Portal
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated projects or task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Airports WikiProject

	Missouri Portal This article is part of WikiProject Missouri, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Missouri. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

	This article is related to WikiProject Kansas City, an attempt to write quality articles about Kansas City, Missouri and the surrounding Metropolitan Area. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within Kansas City. Please rate the article.

Contents 1 Passenger Friendly? 1.1 Pasenger Friendly? Yes indeed. 1.2 Foot bath deal 1.3 Deleted Foot Bath Information 1.4 Response to Foot Bath Comments 1.5 Central Terminal

[edit] Passenger Friendly?

"The three-ring design makes it one of the most passenger friendly airports in the world" - This strikes me as POV, and certainly has no source. And certainly does not fit my experience of having to wait over 20 minutes for the "Red Bus" to decide to show up just so I can effectively leave the airport to get to another terminal just to wait in line again at security because you have to leave the area. Ridiculous. Soonercary 13:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with you. The only things I've heard about MCI is that it's the complete opposite because of difficult to transit terminals. The only ones I've heard described as "passenger friendly" would be places like DTW, PIT, DEN, and the like due to a single security checkpoint. NW036 16:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pasenger Friendly? Yes indeed.

On various newspapers and newscasts, the airport is always mentioned as easy to get around. Keep in mind, 90%+ of passengers either begin or end their travel at KCI. Southwest has all of its aircraft in councorse B and Midwest has all of theirs in concourse A. If you have the need to travel in betwen terminals its probably due to a code share disaster. You can fault the airline you flew with for that problem. There is no airport in the western hemisphere handling the amount of passengers MCI handles and yet has such small distance between parking and gate. At LaGuardia airport you can wait up to 2 hours just to get through security. In short, passengers love the airport because of ease of use and airlines hate it do to the amount of security and workforce required to service it. Kcuello (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Foot bath deal

The fact that a far-right-wing talk show host and a far-right-wing heavily-biased "news" site like WorldNetDaily attacked this is not evidence of any broader "controversy." Connecting the foot baths with 9/11 is a blatant example of poisoning the well and absolutely does not belong in this article. It's wingnuttery in the extreme. I have inserted a factual statement about the installation. FCYTravis 16:28, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deleted Foot Bath Information

The Foot Bath controversy has been extensively discussed here, here, here, and here. It is easily found in a google search for "Kansas City International Airport Foot Bath". I'm not up for a reversion war over sanitizing history. So here's the section that was deleted. Americasroof 16:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

A minor part of the renovation received national publicitiy in 2007 when the airport built four low level shower heads at the cabbie way station under the airport control tower that is usually not visited by the general public.

Radio talk show host Michael Savage said the baths were built for Muslim cab drivers. Worldnet showed pictures of the footbath area which had rolled up prayer rugs nearby and had the following quote:^[1]

Islamic suicide attackers go through a ritual called ablution, or bodily cleansing, before carrying out their martyrdom operations. The 9/11 hijackers performed this ritual before entering airport terminals...Muslims are required to wash their feet and other body parts before praying to Allah five times a day. They often complain that public restroom sinks do not accommodate their needs. Floor-level basins and benches make it easier for them to perform their foot-washing ritual.

Worldnet quoted Mark VanLoh, director of the Kansas City Aviation Department: "The majority of our drivers are Muslim, so preventing them from praying at all was not an option, especially in our public terminal restrooms...This was the best solution, and those facilities were added without public money.

Kansas City Aviation Department spokesman Joe McBride was quoted at Worldnet as saying the showers could be used "for any wash purpose by any of the users, including filling car wash buckets." McBride told KMBC-TV "It's a case of mistaken information on the Internet."

[edit] Response to Foot Bath Comments

You posted a bunch of links to... right-wing or Christian conservative blogs and forums. That spectacularly fails our reliable sourcing criteria. This has been extensively discussed over at Islam in the United States. The "controversy" over this matter is limited entirely to a few right-wing Web sites and talk show hosts. There is no serious opposition to the installation, no lawsuits have been filed nor has anyone attempted to have them removed. It's hot air and bloviation from the usual suspects. FCYTravis 17:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The IndyStar article you mention makes note of the controversy:

They have drawn the ire of bloggers and pundits, who say they violate the separation of church and state, and the praise of advocacy groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations.

There is clearly controversy and KCI is one of the first major airports to have the controversy. The airport will continue to be mentioned as the foot bath issues will continue to arise. There are legitimate arguments (e.g., the cleansing is part of the 3x/day prayer process and not necessarily only a precursor for terrorist attacks, there were safety concerns and there's the famous separation of church and state arguments). The debate occuring in the Midwest rather than the more cosmopolitan coast cities adds to the notability. Unfortunately in an attempt to make the article politcally correct, a real issue is being sanitized. P.S. I've added sections to separate the section about the deleted section from the debate. Americasroof 18:04, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Footbaths are not a precursor to terrorist attacks at all. This is the kind of false "controversy" that I'm talking about. No sane person believes that Muslim footbaths are a precursor to terrorist attacks on airliners any more than holy water fonts are precursors to terrorist attacks on abortion clinics. The "debate" is nothing of the sort - where is there serious debate? We do not serve to republish and amplify fringe opinions, and there's nothing to suggest that the opposition is anything more than fringe. Indianapolis, Phoenix, Denver, Kansas City - all have Muslim prayer facilities and none qualify as "coast cities." Where is the serious attempt to remove these? It's a blogstorm that's already passed. Get back to me when there's a lawsuit filed or some concrete evidence that there's more to the opposition than hot air. FCYTravis 21:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting this. I found this topic very strange to be located in an airport article. I have yet to read the article of any major airport in the world that has such an off-topic article. The issue bears no reason as to why it needs to be in this article. Kcuello (talk) 22:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Central Terminal

Added additional information on the central terminal issue. I cant seem to find pictures of the blueprint the arcitects used to display to the airport personell. If someone could find a picture of the blueprint and include it in the article it would be much appreciated. Kcuello (talk) 15:09, 12 December 2007 (UTC)