Airport reviews

Page 2 of 29<12345>Last »
April 19th, 2014 at 7:29:21 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 331
Posts: 11745
Quote: Wizard
By chance, a whole bunch of flights must have landed at the same time, and that huge room in customs got filled to capacity.


Not by chance. All cities which are business destinations, like Mexico City, Monterrey, NYC, London, etc get a lot of arrivals early in the morning. I'm surprised a flight from Vegas landed at that time (probably to use the plane for the flight out to Vegas at 8-9 AM?)

Quote:
There were no ropes to control the line and it snaked around all over the place. Then line cutting became rampant as more and more flights landed and emptied into the room. Tempers started flaring as the crowd grew.


Yup. We call this "a la Mexicana," or "Mexican style." At least I assume several customs positions were open? Either way, it's made worse by the fact that ALL luggage is inspected. You should have seen what it was like in the 80s without X-ray machines or the randomizer, when all bags were opened and inspected by hand.

In contrast, in my many trips to America, plus one trip to Canada, 2 to Israel and one to England, my luggage has been inspected exactly zero times.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
April 19th, 2014 at 8:08:06 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 753
Posts: 8879


# Airport Name State of Location City Served IATA
1 Benito Juárez International Airport Federal District Mexico City MEX
2 Cancún International Airport Quintana Roo Cancún CUN
3 Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla International Airport Jalisco Guadalajara GDL
4 General Mariano Escobedo International Airport Nuevo León Monterrey MTY
5 Tijuana International Airport Baja California Tijuana TIJ
6 Los Cabos International Airport Baja California Sur San José del Cabo SJD

Many people think this new bridge from California to TIJ will push the airport ahead two places to become the 3rd largest airport in Mexico
April 19th, 2014 at 8:28:28 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 331
Posts: 11745
Quote: Pacomartin
This paper looks somewhat dated, but is it basically correct?


It has a 2006 date. That would be months before T2 opened. It looks accurate.

BTW, last Monday both runways were very much in use. One for landings and one for takeoffs. I had a chance to see many from the plane, as we waited our turn to take off.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
April 19th, 2014 at 11:50:53 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 753
Posts: 8879
Quote: Nareed
BTW, last Monday both runways were very much in use. One for landings and one for takeoffs. I had a chance to see many from the plane, as we waited our turn to take off.


I'm not sure how LAX uses it's doubled runways. I think that one plane is going down the runway to takeoff, and the second one starts up before the first one lifts off. That way in the extremely unlikely event that the first one crashes at the end of the runway, the second one can still stop in time.

In 2007 they doubled the south runway as well. I don't think that they double up on landings however, as that sounds dangerous. The doubling of this south runway met with years and years of opposition from neighbors.In 1993 the mayor suggested expanding the airport to 100 million passengers a year and tripling the amount of cargo it handles.

In exchange for dropping the lawsuits in 2005 the airport agree that once annual passenger traffic hits 75 million, the airport would shut down two gates a year for the next five years. That would reduce the number of airport gates from the current 163 to 153, limiting the number of flights that could be accommodated, although much larger planes are expected to come into use in the years ahead. In any case they are going to do everything to keep it under 79 million passengers a year.

The FAA does not allow airports to cap the number of passengers, but LAX can be designed to limit growth. This settlement cleared the way for the fourth runway in 2007.

As of today on Atlanta International Airport and Beijing Capital International Airport have over 79 million passengers. LAX is less than 67 million, so they could end up closing gates within the decade.

The most common destination from LAX is LAS VEGAS, so I think that the airport authority may make these flights expensive somehow. In theory there are alternatives to flying LAX-LAS (like buses or flying ONT-LAS). The same authority owns both LAX and ONT airports. LAX-ONT is 46 air miles, and ONT has quite a ways before it is at capacity.
April 19th, 2014 at 2:50:46 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 331
Posts: 11745
Monterrey, Nuevo León, airport.

This airport has three terminals, of which I know only two. So:

Terminal 1 is small. Few airports in Mexico can be called large, aside from Mex City's. Monterrey is one of the country's top three cities, it gets a lot of air travel, yet it has a smallish airport. Just the same, it has had to expand. The concourse at terminal 1 is very small, I estimate less than 100 meters from one end to the other. Aside from a few shops, there is a fast food area and two restaurants, and a few areas for seating. That's it.

The gate area is rather separate from the concourse. To get to security you go down an escalator, then walk a long hallway. Security is at the end. once you pass it, you go up another escalator to the gate area. You'll notice at once it's much bigger than the concourse, but not really big. There are lots of shops, several restaurants, bars, no fast food area, and of course lots of seats at the gates.

Terminal 3 is even smaller. Actually it's part of the cargo area, and the only airline which uses it is Viva Aerobus. In fact, that's their main terminal in the country and the hub of their route scheme. They're the first Mexican airline that is not centered on Mexico City.

The concourse is of course small, with a bigger area given over to processing passengers and for security than for anything else. but it's nicely appointed and there are a couple of shops and restaurants. There is a rather pretty garden out front, with shaded wooden benches next to small lawn and gravel patches.

Again it's bigger past security at the gates area, but the gates are bunched up and rather mix together. Finding one's flight can be challenging. There are no jetways. Planes are boarded after a brief walk outside to one's plane. That's very much how things are at Toluca's airport, which will come next.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
April 19th, 2014 at 3:55:44 PM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 753
Posts: 8879
Quote: Nareed
Few airports in Mexico can be called large, aside from Mex City's. Monterrey is one of the country's top three cities, it gets a lot of air travel, yet it has a smallish airport.


The six busiest domestic routes in Mexico in 2013 (statistics in psgrs per day both directions)
MEXICO CANCUN 9,027
MEXICO MONTERREY 6,739
MEXICO GUADALAJARA 6,242
MEXICO TIJUANA 3,399
MEXICO MERIDA 2,876
GUADALAJARA TIJUANA 2,577

Out of 30.49 million domestic passengers in Mexico last year, 20.97 million landed or took off from Mexico City airport.
Out of 29.52 million international passengers in Mexico last year, 10.48 million landed or took off from Mexico City airport., and 9.12 million to/from Cancun.

So the three largest US airports (Atlanta, Chicago, and LAX) individually handle more passengers than all the air traffic in the country of Mexico

With so much of the air travel in the country dependent on physically small Mexico City airport, it will be difficult to expand much.

Another way to say it is, you will never expand AICM to be large enough to handle all traffic. If Mexico expands it's offprice airlines enough, maybe it can concentrate it's origin/destination passenger load at Mexico City, and move some more of it's connection traffic to Guadalajara and Monterrey.
April 19th, 2014 at 6:25:55 PM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 331
Posts: 11745
Quote: Pacomartin
The six busiest domestic routes in Mexico in 2013 (statistics in psgrs per day both directions)
[..]
MEXICO MONTERREY 6,739


In a way that seems right with the number of flights available. In another way it seems low.

Quote:
Out of 29.52 million international passengers in Mexico last year, 10.48 million landed or took off from Mexico City airport., and 9.12 million to/from Cancun.


That's interesting. One thing I've noticed in recent years is lots of international flights from other cities. I recall back in the 80s flying from Houston to Monterrey involved a connection in Mexico City.

Quote:
Another way to say it is, you will never expand AICM to be large enough to handle all traffic. If Mexico expands it's offprice airlines enough, maybe it can concentrate it's origin/destination passenger load at Mexico City, and move some more of it's connection traffic to Guadalajara and Monterrey.


There's a great deal more involved than airport sizes and routes. Purchasing power and living standards, for starters. But it's true that for a long time direct flights between smaller cities were just non-existent. Even between smaller cities and some bigger ones.

Distance, too, is a consideration. Fact is Mexico is a much smaller country then America and Canada, and travel to the farthest points is not frequent.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
April 20th, 2014 at 1:04:48 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 753
Posts: 8879
Quote: Nareed
There's a great deal more involved than airport sizes and routes. Purchasing power and living standards, for starters. But it's true that for a long time direct flights between smaller cities were just non-existent. Even between smaller cities and some bigger ones.

Distance, too, is a consideration. Fact is Mexico is a much smaller country then America and Canada, and travel to the farthest points is not frequent.


Well that is true, and it is obvious that Mexico will not have the air traffic of northern America. But Aeroméxico is expanding it's fleet of wide body aircraft from 14 to 19 and has options to go to 24. If all those widebodies are based in Mexico City they will easily carry 6-8 million passengers per year.

Currently, half of AICM's domestic traffic on narrowbody jets are going to these five airports. That fact is not likely to change.
CANCUN 799 miles
MONTERREY 442 miles
GUADALAJARA 284 miles
TIJUANA 1430 miles
MERIDA 620 miles

For instance as there is no nonstops from TIJ to Merida or Cancun some of that traffic is just changing planes at Mexico City.

Here is the Mexican civil fleet ordered from oldest fleet to youngest

Number
4 Aerounión 30.5 years (cargo)
14 Magnicharters 27.1
6 Estafeta 22.7 (cargo)
22 Vivaaerobus 21.6
18 Aeromar 15.3 (regional)
61 Aeroméxico 8.8
4 Mas Air 8.5 (Cargo planes Boeing 767)
57 Aeroméxico Connect 8.0 (regional)
44 Interjet 5.8
49 Volaris 4.6
April 20th, 2014 at 4:12:00 AM permalink
Nareed
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 331
Posts: 11745
Quote: Pacomartin
But Aeroméxico is expanding it's fleet of wide body aircraft from 14 to 19 and has options to go to 24. If all those widebodies are based in Mexico City they will easily carry 6-8 million passengers per year.


The wide bodies are all for long-haul routes. If memory serves, for Aeromexico that means Buenos Aires, Rio, London, Madrid, Paris, Tokyo and Shanghai or Beijing.

I don't see anything bigger than the A-320/B-737 type used for any domestic routes any time in the near future.

BTW, once upon a time, say late 80's to early 90s, Mexicana operated a couple of DC-10s on the Mex City-Chicago route. One flight made a stop at Monterrey. I got to fly one of these once.

Quote:
For instance as there is no nonstops from TIJ to Merida or Cancun some of that traffic is just changing planes at Mexico City.


I assume there isn't enough demand for that route. Also most traffic to Tijuana actually winds up in San Diego.
If Trump where half as smart as he thinks he is, he'd be twice as smart as he really is.
April 20th, 2014 at 6:17:25 AM permalink
Pacomartin
Member since: Oct 24, 2012
Threads: 753
Posts: 8879
Quote: Nareed
I assume there isn't enough demand for that route.


Look at the five most popular domestic routes not involving Mexico city

1) TIJUANA - GUADALAJARA
2) MONTERREY - CANCUN
3) GUADALAJARA - MONTERREY
4) TIJUANA - CULIACAN
5) GUADALAJARA- CANCUN

So if you want to go from Tijuana to Cancun , you could take #1 and #5. But by nature of Mexico-Cancun being the most popular domestic route in the country, there will always be more efficient connections through Mexico City.

It's the nature of air routing. It is always more efficient for the airlines to overload the infrastructure. It's true in every country. In the USA they are very reluctant to use outright prohibitions. The only cases that I know of where outright prohibitions are used is Washington National and NYC La Guardia. Flights are restricted to narrow body jets of a limited distance.

Mexico may eventually take a different legislative route, and simply prohibit the use of AICM for certain domestic connections. They would save the airport for people flying internationally and/or those with origin or destination in Mexico City.

If Mexico is going to buy 15-19 Boeing 787's, they are going to have to be able to fly them.

Wide-body fleet in Mexican airlines as of end of 2013
11 Boeing 767: 16.7 years (to be retired)
4 Boeing 777: 9.5 years
3 Boeing 787: few months



Loveland in Jeju Island has statues designed for photo taking


Quote: Nareed
The wide bodies are all for long-haul routes. If memory serves, for Aeromexico that means Buenos Aires, Rio, London, Madrid, Paris, Tokyo and Shanghai or Beijing. I don't see anything bigger than the A-320/B-737 type used for any domestic routes any time in the near future.


The current long haul routes are AICM to Lima, Quito, Rio de Janeiro–Galeão. Santiago de Chile, São Paulo-Guarulhos, Buenos Aires-Ezeiza and Shanghai-Pudong, Tokyo-Narita in Asia and London-Heathrow, Madrid, Paris-Charles de Gaulle in Europe.

The initial routes for the Boeing 787 will be those from Mexico City to New York, Paris, and Tokyo nonstop. In 2014, they will be adding London and Madrid with the Boeing 787-8. Future destinations such as Rome, Frankfurt, Beijing or Seoul could follow once the plane consolidates on the routes, as he said the airline intends to replace the Boeing 767-200ER with the Boeing 787-8.

But AICM will not be able to handle 40 million domestic passengers, and at the same time build up this international traffic.


There are not that many widebody domestic routes in the USA. The planes are so expensive that it is rarely economical.


The route between New York and Miami is the most traveled of any US domestic route. Nearly 7 million passengers made the trip in 2012. Even though the distance is short, it may make sense to schedule a widebody service once in a while, just to reduce pressure on runways and gates.
Page 2 of 29<12345>Last »