We'll Always Have Paris
 By Mark ForsytheThe Kansas City Post I imagine some people reacted negatively to an article in the Star this weekend detailing the contingent from Kansas City traveling to France for the Paris Air Show. Sounds exotic. Who wouldn't want to travel to Paris on business? But this is no boondoggle. I used to work in the avionics industry and I can tell you the Paris Airshow is the Daytona 500, Superbowl and World Series all rolled into one. Everybody who is anybody, or wants to be somebody will be there. Entire industries can be made or broken depending on their performance at aviation's biggest trade show. Usually when we hear about council people traveling it's for some fact finding mission or conference. Rarely do you see any tangible dividends from such trips. Sure an official might come back with a "here's how they do it in Detroit" report, but rarely are any of these ideas ever implemented and even if they are, the same information can usually be found on the World Wide Web. You don't necessarily need to see first hand what another city's policy is on street maintenance or crime prevention. In contrast however, sending officials from Kansas City to the Paris Air Show are exactly the kind of trips we should be encouraging. Promoting Kansas City and literally letting the world know that our airport has limitless possibilities for business and development is a worthy mission. The local officials traveling on City expense accounts are Aviation Director Mark VanLoh, Councilman Bill Skaggs and Gary Bartek, the airport’s cargo development manager. That's not a bad deal. Three people for a week of marketing Kansas City to a world audience. The Kansas City contingent probably won't come home with some company in tow ready to set up shop. Consider this a long-term investment. We'll need to go back every year and make ourselves a fixture. But having a presence at the Paris Air Show, and indeed other major trade shows is definitely a good investment. It's time we start telling the world that the "Paris of the Plains" is open for business. Oh, and by the way... I'm clearing my schedule for next year to go help out. That's just the kind of selfless guy I am! |
posted by Mark at 8:04 AM
Comments on "We'll Always Have Paris"
-
mainstream said ... (9:28 AM) :
-
Mark said ... (9:33 AM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (11:53 AM) :
-
DaveKCMO said ... (1:27 PM) :
-
Xavier Onassis said ... (8:34 PM) :
-
Anonymous said ... (11:10 PM) :
-
idan said ... (8:59 AM) :
-
DaveKCMO said ... (5:44 PM) :
-
idan said ... (10:23 PM) :
-
mainstream said ... (8:29 AM) :
-
mainstream said ... (8:43 AM) :
-
idan said ... (9:54 AM) :
-
idan said ... (10:12 AM) :
-
mainstream said ... (10:20 AM) :
-
eastsider said ... (10:20 AM) :
-
idan said ... (4:30 PM) :
post a commentI see we've had more than our share of coffee before penning this post.
"Paris of the Plains?"
Hmmmm, if I look at the KCPT Tower on 31st street and squint....
mainstream,
First of all, you're freaking me out. I did have an extra cup of coffee this morning! Love my Roasterie. I don't know how but when my wife grinds the same beans, puts them in the same french press and pours in the same boiling water, her coffee always ends up tasting better than mine.
I didn't come up with "Paris of the Plains." Actually I'm not sure who originally penned that phrase. I know it's been around since before the Pendergast era.
"If you want to see some sin," advised Omaha World Herald journalist Edward Morrow, "forget about Paris and go to Kansas City."
http://www.umkc.edu/lib/spec-col/parisoftheplains/webexhibit/index.html
...because it's always money well spent to promote the least-fuel-efficient mode of travel! :-)
Ummm, I understand your point.
But Kansas City sending a delegation to The Paris Air Show to promote our local facilities is a bit of a reach. The three rpresentatives you mentioned will be out of their league.
At The Paris Air Show you have rich nations marketing their air and space war-mongering equipment and space-launch capabilities to other rich nations. Some of which have dubious intentions but come with large check books and little oversight.
That's why they have it in France.
Think about the local gun show at an area "Expo Center" or "Convention Center", where unlicensed "collectors" come to exploit loopholes in backround checks to unload stuff they shouldn't own to people who shouldn't be allowed to buy them.
But instead of bowie knives, pistols, shotguns and automatic weapons, it's fighter planes, shoulder-fired anti-aircraft rockets, radar systems and ballistic missles.
It's a bit more than some international tourism swap between sister cities.
Paris will probably say, " Kansas City, where is Kansas City? Never heard of it."
When Cleaver was Mayor wasn't Kansas City a sister city to some African town?
Paris could be our sister city.
davekcmo,
I disagree that air travel is the least fuel efficient mode of travel. On the contrary, it may be the most efficient! A new Boeing 777 full of passengers can achieve nearly 90mpg/passenger for a long flight.
Give the aviation industry credit for working hard to increase fuel efficiency, improve emission quality, decrease noise pollution, and so on. I don't think you will find the same innovation and sense of purpose in Detroit.
And who knows how much better the new Boeing Dreamliner will be!
simple physics shoots a hole in your response, idan. air travel will have a very hard time competing with intercity buses and trains with fuel efficiency per passenger mile in the fastest growing segment of travel (trips under 500 miles). if the airlines replace all of their planes with brand new 777s or dreamliners tomorrow, call me. regardless, the whole airline industry knows it's about to get hit with carbon taxes and they are running scared.
davekcmo,
Physics?? I will one up your light rail and buses with bicycles. Everybody should ride their bicycle to save the Earth.
I hate to be the crazy physics, math, numbers guy, but here are the digits for the 777:
Range = 6,000 statute miles
Fuel Cap. = 31,000Gal
Max Passengers = 440
... 6000/31000x440 = 86 passenger miles/gallon.
Even the old, junky 727s got 40 to 50 passenger miles/gallon.
The new Airbus 380 claims to outdo anything in existence by another 20%... if it ever enters service.
You are right, jet planes are not THE MOST EFFICIENT mode of travel, but it is far, far, far from the worst. It is hard to beat a skateboard. But I ain't ridin my skateboard to New York no matter how good it is for the environment. At the same time, I am not taking a 777 to Tanner's Downtown for a beer.
And you call me when I can take a bus or rail trip to a place I want to visit that is under 500 miles. I will admit I could probably take a nasty bus today, but I wouldn't.
What we need are conveyor belts. Conveyor belts are probably the most efficient mode of transport in the world when considering many factors.
Conveyor belts? Hmmm. I love 'em in airports. I'm forming a mental image of a starter conveyor between downtown and the plaza :o)
Very good analysis of the planes, I was going to conclude that planes were the worst.
Although as I'm thinking and typing, a major feat in itself, most plane travel is truly elective, so I'm not sure the fuel efficiency passes the red-face test....
I have to retract my earlier statement about being impressed by the mpg of planes. My lovely bride reminded me that per passenger mile, planes emit way more carbon emmissions than a car.
mainstream,
This is according to Airbus... "In fact the A380 produces only 75g of CO2 per passenger and (sic) per km, almost half of the target set by the European Union for cars manufactured in 2008." I assuming they meant "75g per passenger per km", otherwise that doesn't make sense.
This according to automotive.com...
"In 1998, all European original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) voluntarily agreed to reduce the fleet average of CO2 emissions to 140 g/km by 2008 and 120 g/km by 2012." I think the 2012 goal was later readjusted to 130g/km b/c of trouble meeting it. And apparently premium car makers are having trouble getting their "fleet" average below 160g/km to 190g/km.
These are some fast and loose numbers I quickly came by on "the internets" but they seem reasonable.
I don't think aviation is that far behind and may even be equal or better when compared to single drivers, SUVs, and so on. But certainly 6 people crammed in a 2,000lbs Fiat going cross country will come out ahead... though you might not be friends when you get to your destination. And, of course, you have older aircraft still in service, but you also have millions of older cars on the road too.
mainstream,
For some time I have been considering starting the Kansas City Urban Conveyor Belt Society to promote this idea with the mayor and other influential stakeholders.
Definitely, some logistical hurdles with implementation but I think the mining industry could help us with this!
I am working on getting Mr. Chastain on board. I will report back soon.
Thanks, idan,. I will anxiously await an update.
Idan,
Lets give a little comparison.
That makes your 777 = to the chevy crewcab, my crew is using today( 5 passengers @ 17mpg, combined milage, EPA sticker)
My wifes car , 5 passengers @30 mpg would have a 150 pmpg rating
I don't think anybody would call my pickup the model of energy efficiency, then again it wasn't designed to. It was to haul cargo with a crew and that is what we use it for.
Eastsider,
I agree. If you put enough passengers in a car the efficiency is drastically better.
Your example of the crew cab with 5 guys is also 2 to 3 times more efficient than a Honda Prius with a single driver. So a very good point with which I agree.
My point is simply that jet planes are not the "big dark evil empire", in my opinion, that some like to portray them as.
Try chartering jet plane efficiency increases over the last 30-yrs and you will see a steep increase. Chart auto efficiency during the same time and will likely see no increase at all. At least the aviation industry is responding to the call.