Aviation Mega Cities

Airbus defines an Aviation Mega City as a city with more than 10,000 daily international passengers who fly more than 2000 nautical miles. It's obviously a definition to help them make the case for the A380 (which is primarily used on long haul international flights). Denver is excluded from the top 7 US airports because it doesn't have that much international traffic.

But the definition includes 3 airports in Latin America (BOG, EZE and GRU), 3 in Canada (YMQ, YTO , YVR), 11 in the USA, and 1 in Africa. All total there are 55 such airports in the world. Airbus is trying to convince people that no matter how many long thin routes get developed that massive movement of people from hub to hub will still dominate international air traffic. Hence the need for very large aircraft. The argument has been going on for a decade, but they still don't sell a lot of planes.

AMS ATL AUH BJS BKK BOG BOM BOS BRU BUE CAN CHI DEL DFW DOH DPS DUB DXB FRA HKG HNL HOU IST JED JKT JNB KUL LAX LIS LON MAD MAN MEL MIA MIL MNL MOW MUC NYC OSA PAR ROM SAO SEL SFO SHA SIN SYD TPE TYO WAS YMQ YTO YVR ZRH

Definition does not include Mexico City where most international flights are under 2000 nm. It does not have 10,000 daily passengers to Europe, Asia, Peru, Chile, Brazil, and Argentina . Bogota is included while Mexico City is not. But Bogota is more than 2000 nm from DFW, Chicago, Washington DC, Rio de Janeiro, Santiago Chile, and Sao Paulo while Mexico City is closer to many of the USA cities.

I should note that almost all economic analysis is prepared to sell something.

The choice of 2000 nm, and international flights in excess of 10,000 passengers per day to define an "aviation mega city" is suspicious, in that Embraer jetliners are flown up to 1800 nm. A number closer to 3000 nm would seem more appropriate, as it is beyond the range of most narrow body models.

Nautical Miles - Narrow body - Airline - Route (longest flown with that model)
1,791 Embraer E190 Air Canada: Toronto-Pearson to Seattle
1,923 Boeing 737-600 WestJet: Ottawa to Vancouver
1,966 Boeing 737-500 UTair Aviation: Munich to Tyumen
2,239 Boeing 767-300 Air Algérie Oran to Jeddah
2,260 Tupolev Tu-154 ALROSA: Polyarny to Moscow
2,269 Boeing 737-300 Canadian North: Cancun to Calgary
2,350 Boeing 737-900 United Airlines: Boston to San Francisco
2,562 Airbus A319-100 Ural Airlines: Chita to Moscow-Domodedovo
2,607 Airbus A320-200 Gulf Air: Bahrain to Paris-Charles de Gaulle
2,773 Airbus A321-200 Thomas Cook Scandinavia: Tromsø to Gran Canaria
2,918 Boeing 737-900ER Turkish Airlines: Istanbul-Atatürk to Dar es Salaam
2,941 Boeing 737-700 Copa Airlines: Montevideo to Panama City
3,017 Airbus A318-100 British Airways: New York-JFK to London-City
3,201 Boeing 737-800 Sunwing Airlines: Vancouver to Punta Cana

But Airbus has been using this definition for almost a decade to convince people that hub to hub traffic between two mega aviation cities will dominate air travel. In 2012 there were 42 such aviation mega cities, and in 2015 there were 55 mega cities. At least another 38 will be added in 20 years.



Frankly, Airbus is trying to sell A380s and they came up with this idea to countermand the Boeing argument that the future of long distance aviation is in long thin point to point routes. Using 2000 nm instead of 3000 nm increases the number of mega cities, and increases the percentage of traffic from mega city to mega city.

They need to justify the global 20 year demand for 1550 A380s (or B747-8).


Airbus wants their definition of Aviation Mega cities to line up as much as possible with airports that have A380 operations,


Of course, the reality is that Airbus will probably never sell 300 A380s.

Quote: Pacomartin

They need to justify the global 20 year demand for 1550 A380s (or B747-8).

IMO, Boeing wouldn't be loudly thinking about shutting down production of the 747 if that were the real demand.

It's all down again to frequencies. If someone made a 150-passenger jet in a typical 2-class or 3-class cabin that could fly non-stop from NYC to Singapore economically(*), airlines would buy it and we'd have more flights between those cities.

In some long haul routes, you cannot run too many flights, because time changes mean limited windows of opportunity for arrival at a decent hour. But there are plenty of long haul routes with little or no time change, say all between North and South America (though the seasons change). If the demand justified it, AA or United or someone would be running hourly flights on smaller planes

Quote: Nareed

It's all down again to frequencies. If someone made a 150-passenger jet in a typical 2-class or 3-class cabin that could fly non-stop from NYC to Singapore economically(*), airlines would buy it and we'd have more flights between those cities.

Although I keep saying that increased frequency simply transfers the burden from the airline to the airport system. But hypothetically the world's biggest international airport was joined by the potential largest airport in the world only 28 miles away (in Dubai).

The two airports will have the potential to carry 300 MAP a year.

But maybe that won't happen. Possibly the airlines will look at all that runway space and also look at the extended ranges of the new narrowbodies. They may find it more lucrative to run high frequency narrow body runs to Europe and Asia instead of purchasing most of the widebody planes in the world,


Dubai's current primary airport DXB flies


List of busiest airports by international passenger traffic
1. Dubai International Airport Garhoud, Dubai, United Arab Emirates DXB/OMDB 77,453,466
2. London Heathrow Airport Hillingdon, Greater London, United Kingdom LHR/EGLL 69,816,491
3. Hong Kong International Airport Chek Lap Kok, Lantau Island, Hong Kong HKG/VHHH 68,139,897
4. Paris-Charles de Gaulle Airport Roissy-en-France, Val d'Oise, Île-de-France, France CDG/LFPG 60,369,798
5. Amsterdam Airport Schiphol Haarlemmermeer, North Holland, Netherlands AMS/EHAM 58,245,545
6. Singapore Changi Airport Changi, East Region, Singapore SIN/WSSS 54,835,000

Al Maktoum Airport will eventually be able to handle 200 MAP.


Ranges of 6500km and 7400km which are published ranges for neo A320/A321 family and Long Range version of A321


Dubai might become not just the choice for widebody aircraft, but for high frequency narrowbody ones. In that sense it mirrors Panama City which has most of the Americas in range of narrow body aircraft. Right now they don't fly to Seattle and Vancouver, but with the new generation of planes B737-Max, they will be able to.

Quote: Pacomartin

I should note that almost all economic analysis is prepared to sell something.

That right there is the essential message. Often the starting point is selected to exclude a certain contender.

EVERYTHING seems to be "soft" these days.

A delivery date is still negotiable.

A delivery configuration is negotiable.

A plane is considered re-shuffable if new models come out or new engines come out.

A price is a political decision between airline and a country's government or banks that finance the purchase.

Hubs, spokes, runways are often more political than economic.

Public funds support what can be described as essentially private airports endowed with sufficient trappings to be dubbed "Public".

Quote: Pacomartin

But maybe that won't happen. Possibly the airlines will look at all that runway space and also look at the extended ranges of the new narrowbodies. They may find it more lucrative to run high frequency narrow body runs to Europe and Asia instead of purchasing most of the widebody planes in the world,

Sounds bleak, doesn't it?

But, IMO, airbus is right, just in the wrong time frame.

As I recall, the typical 727, 737 and DC-9 of the 70s and 80s, the mainline narrow bodies of their day, were smaller than the A320/B737 of today. The older planes carried about 100-120 people. The A320 carries more, even in a two-class cabin, or even with Interjet's generous leg room. So the small planes have grown larger. This reflects in part the increase in passenger traffic, the other part being more planes aloft today.

At the same time the wide bodies have been growing smaller, with the exception of the A380 and 747-8, both of which are far from stellar sales numbers compared to the A350, and Boeing's 787 and 777s.

I'm not saying that within 10 years AA or Qatar or Interjet or Lufthansa will think "Oh, wow. We're running out of room up there, so we'd best put a 787 or A350 on all those A320/B737 routes." But they will think "Oh, wow! we're running out of room up there. I sure wish we had a bigger narrow body for all those A320/B737 routes."

Not to mention that Boeing has kept a late 60s airframe alive this long with the 737, and Airbus isn't too far behind with the A320 (1987). Since both are in the early sales stages of their "new" narrow bodies, I don't expect them to develop a new design soon. But the one that doesn't come up with one within the next ten years, will have its lunch eaten by the other one.

I figure, too, that congestion will hit long haul routes eventually, just not as soon. Therefore in 20-30-40 years, the Very Large Airplane may start becoming a necessity for the most traveled routes, in particular given the time difference restrictions I mentioned before.

All this, BTW, assuming no unexpected revolutionary development in the supersonic airliner front.

Quote: Fleastiff

That right there is the essential message. Often the starting point is selected to exclude a certain contender.

San Diego county population 3.3 million estimated July 1 2015. has a GDP in excess of $200 billion. The single runway airport is currently carrying 20 million passengers a year.

Quote: Economic lmplications of the SAN airport Site selection Program

However, no amount of efficiency can compensate for the limitations of a single, 9400 ft. runway on 661 bounded acres.

SDIA will reach maximum operational capacity of 275,000 operations around the years 2033-2034. This is at least 11 to 18 years later than Hamilton, Rabinovitz, & Alschuler (HR&A) predicted in their 2001 ―The Impacts of Constrained Air Transportation Capacity on the San Diego Regional Economy‖ (ICATCSD). SDIA will reach maximum capacity for air cargo tonnage in 2013. This is 6 years later than HR&A predicted in their 2001 ICATCSD

Opportunity costs to the San Diego region in the year 2030 if no action is taken would be: $3.9 to $7.2 Billion dollars in lost Gross Regional Product (GRP) (1997$), 20 to 38,000 jobs lost, and $1.7 to $3.1 Billion dollars of personal income lost (1997$).

While it is obvious that San Diego airport is the only major single runway airport in the USA, Gatwick Airport in the UK carried 40.3 million passengers on a single runway in 2015. San Diego has prohibited take offs from 11:30 PM to 6:30AM since 1979 to reduce noise, but Gatwick does not have a large number of takeoffs at night. It's not like Miami.

Despite the maximum operational capacity of 275,000 operations, the Authority will not budge on the statement that severe constraints will develop at 23 - 26 MAP. That is far fewer than 100 passengers per operation. Southwest Airlines fleet is primarily 143 seats per plane, and a good percentage are 175 seats per plane.

One professor questioned these financial statements, and he simply said most of the airports in the world are facing growth constraints. So ticket prices will have to rise to limit growth at some point. But he said that these estimates of 3.9 to $7.2 Billion dollars in lost Gross Regional Product (GRP) (1997$), 20 to 38,000 jobs lost are out of line.

Quote: Nareed

I figure, too, that congestion will hit long haul routes eventually, just not as soon. Therefore in 20-30-40 years, the Very Large Airplane may start becoming a necessity for the most traveled routes, in particular given the time difference restrictions I mentioned before.

Part of the problem is that the congestion is on the runway, gate, and terminal areas, which don't readily distinguish between the long haul and short haul. And of course, there is the congestion on the freeways.



LAX has only two pairs of runways, and the traffic from San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Palm Springs (110 miles ore less) is mostly turboprops because frequency is at a premium. These small planes require triple the landing spacing as regular jets so they don't flip over in the wake. So because automobile and bus is impractical, the runway is more taxed from these three airports than they would be by the traffic going to Asia.

Trains are often cited as alternative transport for these short routes, but then there is some conflict about going to downtown versus the airport.

Cross Border Xpress, or CBX, a covered pedestrian walkway which functions as a border crossing, connecting San Diego with the Tijuana airport. In the first 50 days of operation, GAP reported that over 130,000 passengers used this bridge. Promotional pricing ended this summer, and the full price of $16 each way is now in effect.

Quote: Pacomartin

Part of the problem is that the congestion is on the runway, gate, and terminal areas, which don't readily distinguish between the long haul and short haul. And of course, there is the congestion on the freeways.

Yeah, that was badly worded on my part.

I meant that if the demand for long haul flights keeps rising, eventually bigger planes will be wanted by the airlines to meet the demand.

The problem is that there is room within existing models to carry more passengers, and this will remain so for a while. Say Delta uses a 787 for 250 people or so on flights to, say, Tokyo from LAX. If the demand grows and they can't just add another flight, they can move to a 787 for 300 passengers, then to a 777-300 for 400-450. Then in some decades they'll need a bigger plane.

In other routes they'll add planes first, but eventually will need to move to bigger ones. Especially in routes where, due to time changes, departure windows are limited. No one wants to fly for 10-12+ hours and then arrive at an inopportune time.

Quote:

LAX has only two pairs of runways, and the traffic from San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Palm Springs (110 miles ore less) is mostly turboprops because frequency is at a premium. These small planes require triple the landing spacing as regular jets so they don't flip over in the wake. So because automobile and bus is impractical, the runway is more taxed from these three airports than they would be by the traffic going to Asia.

I know Long Beach sharply restricts slots to keep noise down, but what about Ontario and Burbank? In a car-obsessed state like California, throwing the small fry off LAX could work reasonably well. Assuming, that is, there are airports they could fly into instead.

Okay, it seems that San Diego has formal limits on nocturnal operations whereas Gatwick has informal and less restrictive nocturnal limits.

Opportunity costs? Usually means 'Listen to the experts and spend now'. I wonder if waiting means airplanes will be quieter and require shorter runways and shorter intervals between touchdowns? Can runways be laser scanned rather than inspected by a jeep? That would save alot of time allowing more landings. Would nocturnal constraints on type of aircraft work better, so that small planes could land at night and quieter airlines could still land at night. Is building a tall noise barrier cheaper than building a second runway somewhere? Would capping a freeway segment provide not only a noise barrier but also a new runway segment on the cheap?

On Edit:
Could one improve turn around time at gates by having fewer service vehicles, baggage carts, food trucks and honeybucket trucks? Rather than one tug towing a train of ten baggage cars could one invent a high speed Ramp Vacuum that swallows all the baggage containers whole and escalators them directly into baggage handling areas thus eliminating the tug, trailers and loading/unloading time? Could one have a high speed frozen food delivery via a fast escalator to a Ramp Extension thus eliminating the time and the truck that must maneuver near the craft to load dinners for takeoff. If you reduce turn around time at Gates, then reduce Airborne Holds waiting for a free gate to develop. Results in more landings without extending the runway or building more gates.