 |
 |
Airport reviews
| July 28th, 2015 at 6:32:04 AM permalink | |
| Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 |
They should close the current Mex city airport, not Toluca. Toluca airport has been there for decades. Mostly it handled general aviation and freight. From time to time an airline tried to run flights off there, but it failed. The airport took off, metaphorically, when Volaris and Interjet set up shop there as low cost airlines. The rationale was the lower costs at Toluca, but really it was because Mex City's slots were filled up. That won't change when the new airport goes up.
At one time all airports were owned by the federal government. That's no longer the case. The new airport is federally owned, but handled by a decentralized agency. Toluca is owned by Mexico state. The feds can't just order it shut down. besides, what of all the general aviation still based there? Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
| July 28th, 2015 at 7:53:59 AM permalink | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
I shouldn't have used the term "shut down". I should have said restricted in some way. When Dallas Fort Worth was built, the US federal government intervened despite the fact that airports are controlled by regional governments. The Wright Amendment of 1979 was a federal law that governed traffic at Dallas Love Field. It originally limited most non-stop flights from Love Field to destinations within Texas and neighboring states. Additional states were added to the permissible area in 1997 and 2005. In 2006, the amendment was repealed but left some restrictions intact until October 13, 2014 but with an added restriction on the number of gates allowed. Toluca has some limited flights to the USA on Interjet and Spirit. The federal government may prohibit international flights to Toluca. I'm assuming that landing fees at the hugely expensive new airport will be very high. Airlines may try to undercut the fares out of the new airport by establishing a much larger route structure to the USA or Canada from Toluca. Interjet may try to establish flights to Central America and Colombia. Air Europa may start cheaper flights from Madrid. I know that it seems heavy handed, but most countries have learned that you can't establish a new airport without shutting down competition. And most airports cost only a small fraction of the price of the new Mexico City airport. ----------------- On the issue of the A380 flights to North America, the table shows the existing 30 routes. Air France abandoned their A380 flight to Miami, and it may be the reason they have extra airframes to try Mexico City. Emirates may try to duplicate their controversial flight from Dubai to Milan to JFK in Latin America with a flight from Dubai to Madrid or Barcelona and on to Mexico City. It seems less likely British Air or Lufthansa will fly an A380 to Mexico City, but the old B747s must be retired eventually.Unless something drastic happens in the world economy, a flight from Australia or East Asia to Mexico City on an A380 is very unlikely, as any Australians coming to Mexico can easily change planes in Dallas or LA.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| July 28th, 2015 at 8:14:19 AM permalink | |
| Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 |
Let the market work. I've said this before: getting to and from Toluca is expensive. Consider, the current airport at Mex City has higher fees than Toluca. Yet Interjet moved 99% of its routes there, and Volaris pretty much all of them. Why? Because for most residents of Mex City the local airport is much cheaper to get to, especially if they travel in a group of more than two people. A cab to the airport from anywhere in the city will cost as much as 250 pesos, say $16, for up to 4 people. A cab to Toluca will be around 350-400, plus tolls, which run up another 150 or so. Say its 500 all told, that's $32. You can use an Interjet shuttle, but for a group of 4 the costs come to around as much, including perhaps a cab to/from the shuttle departure place. I liked using Toluca for business trips because the company paid for the tolls and the parking. I still use it for going to Vegas only because my long stays require a lot of luggage, and Interjet still allows 50 kg without extra charge. But if the shuttle fare goes up soon, then the extra fees at Volaris for a second suitcase and an additional 20 kg will come to about the same. If/when that happens, I may switch. I don't know yet who much it will cost to get to the new airport. Supposedly there won't be a toll road to reach it. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
| July 28th, 2015 at 9:22:51 AM permalink | |
| Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
Yes, but every answer depends on cost. Nobody has ever built an airport for MXP169 billion (even in the USA). Right now the cost of higher landing fees is well below the cost and time to get to Toluca. But in the USA they regularly have people who go 100 miles to an airport, driving right past an airport that could be next door. They are usually looking for cost savings, but sometimes they are looking for better connections or nonstops. The industry term for it is "leakage". US Airports price per mile. Sometimes "leakage" is encouraged to reduce demand. In that case, the airport is called a "reliever". Notably, the bridge to Tijuana Airport is hoped to relieve some demand at San Diego airport's single runway. As long as the bridge takes away people flying to Mexico, most people won't mind, but it is likely to pull deep pocket businessmen trying to get to Shanghai as well. If it becomes too successful, you will hear complaints. Mexico essentially has very little "leakage" as there are very few airports, limited price differential, and high cost of overland travel. According to Wikipedia these are the remaining international routes from Toluca. ALmost certainly SPirit will expand their routes once the new airport is built. Interjet : Las Vegas Spirit Airlines: Fort Lauderdale, Houston–Intercontinental   |
| July 28th, 2015 at 11:36:00 AM permalink | |
| Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 |
By my calculations, and depending on the exchange rate, that figure comes to about $10-$11 billion. I forget whose law it is, but everything takes longer and costs more. Call it $15 billion. Yeah, that's a lot of money. On the other hand, as I understand it will be built in stages, starting with two runways and part of the whole terminal. As I understand, too, it will be a private/public venture. past that I've no idea how much income is expected and from which sources. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
| July 28th, 2015 at 7:58:40 PM permalink | |
| Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
Mexico has 943.8 billion pesos billetes y monedas en circulación En el público (another 114 billion pesos en caja de bancos). So compared to that amount 169 billion pesos, (18% of value of currency) is a lot of money. In comparison, DIA cost less than 1.2% of the value of US currency in circulation in 1995. Denver Airport first full year 1996 had 32,296,174 passengers (a little less than MEX today) By 2014 it is up to 53,472,514 . As you may have heard, it's construction had repeated delays, and major problems with luggage handling system. DIA finally replaced Stapleton on February 28, 1995, 16 months behind schedule and at a cost of $4.8 billion, nearly $2 billion over budget. The cost $4.8 billion is about $7.5 billion today adjusting for inflation. As I understand it, MEX will require a lot of money even for the first stage, as the terminal is not really modular. Plus keep in mind that DIA airport was supposed to cost under $3 billion. They have made some massive adjustments in the estimated cost of the new Mexico City airport in the first month. As expected there was a strong push to keep the old airport (for at least small jets under 100 passengers). All the hotels were still at the old airport. There was also competition from Colorado Springs Airport (Colorado's 2nd airport), which was nearly 100 miles away. Despite the distance they tried to take advantage of lower landing fees to persuade people to drive for the lower fares. That pretty much died after a few years, and now Colorado Springs Airport carries about 2.5% of the passenger load of DIA. But, I think there is no real alternatives. Mexico can't grow it's economy without an airport that can handle at least 60-70 MAP. |
| July 29th, 2015 at 6:36:47 AM permalink | |
| Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 | Terminal two at the current airport is quite new. At least one expensive hotel was built adjacent to it. It will be interesting to see what happens to them. BTW, had Mexicana died earlier, T2 probably wouldn't have been constructed. Aeromexico would have snapped up all its slots, and Interjet and Volaris might have remained largely at Toluca. Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
| July 29th, 2015 at 7:17:42 AM permalink | |
| Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
May 30, 2003: the Federal Government announced a new air terminal in order to widen its service capacity from 20 million to 32 million passengers a year. Mexicana was still far from collapsing in 2003. You will not that AICM is already well above 32 million passengers. As I said earlier, there is almost always pressure to use the old infrastructure for general aviation or for commuter flights. I think in the case of Mexico City that will be impossible as the runways approaches will overlap. The hotels at the old Denver Airport were not replaced, as the new airport was so far outside of town. Even now 20 years later, some of the old suite hotels are still functioning at the old airport site. Personally, I think the federal government will have to intervene within 10 years in southern California, and build a runway in the ocean for the big jets. The cost of the project may prove overwhelming for the local airport authority, LAWA. The federal government in the past has never taken direct control of an airport except for Washington Dulles. |
| July 29th, 2015 at 2:13:01 PM permalink | |
| Nareed Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 346 Posts: 12545 |
Alas! But if in science fiction actual science shouldn't be allowed to stand in the way of a good story, then the same thing goes for actual history in alternate history. Having Mexicana broke in 2003 makes for a good story for Toluca (and for me as well).
That's why they kept remote positions.
That was part of the huge fight last decade about the new airport. President Fox wanted it nearby in Texcoco, while God, er, Jehovah, er Zeus, I mean Jove, no, ah, yes! AMLO wanted it in Tizayuca, all the way in Hidalgo, so the current airport would stay open. I wonder what they'll do with the current airport now.
By design. So how come NYC has three airports? Counting Newark in South New York ;) Donald Trump is a one-term LOSER |
| July 29th, 2015 at 3:11:00 PM permalink | |
| Pacomartin Member since: Oct 24, 2012 Threads: 1068 Posts: 12569 |
(1) Newark opened October 1, 1928 on 68 acres of reclaimed land along the Passaic River. (2) Mayor Fiorello H. LaGuardia staged a publicity stunt when his plane landed at Newark in the mid 1930's. He shouted that his ticket said New York and he demanded that the plane fly to an air field in Brooklyn. He then held a press conference to urge the public to build an airport within the city limits. The future site of La Guardia has only been turned into a 105-acre private flying field in 1929. By 1939 it was a city owned airport. (3) La Guardia quickly reached its capacity, so construction began in 1942 at the site of the Idlewild Golf Course in southeast Queens. It involved filling in acres of marshy tidelands on Jamaica Bay. It was dedicated in July, 1948, as New York International Airport, rededicated in December, 1963, after the death of the president, as John F. Kennedy International Airport and henceforth known as JFK. LaGuardia is so limited in size and in such poor shape that it must be completely rebuilt from scratch. It actually has no subway connection. ================= As of 2003 AirTrain JFK, 3-line, 8.1-mile-long people mover system and elevated railway carries people around the terminals. You pay an extra fare to stay on the train and go the entire distance to a station that connects with the Long Island Railroad or one of two subway stations. It would be about 12 miles more to go from Jamaica station to Manhattan, but that plan was abandoned as too expensive. The subway system takes about an hour since there are multiple stops. The logical decision at this point would be just to close La Guardia and use the billions of dollars to add to JFK's four runways and build new terminals. Then you can build a proper AirTrain that will run to Manhattan with stops in Brooklyn (JFK is in Queens). La Guardia and JFK together carry more passengers than LAX (though still smaller than Atlanta).  There is no indication that anyone will undertake this logical decision. It's a shame since La Guardia could be a great terminal for "lighter than air" ships to carry people to Boston, Connecticut or Long Island. |