Print from Airliners.net discussion forum
http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/5680525/

Topic: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: 345rules
Posted 2013-02-04 08:52:53 and read 6629 times.

All three airlines have a robust growth and keep adding new destinations every year. MEX, however, is still missing on the map. I wonder why that is. Financially, MEX is just as important as GRU, GIG, or EZE and remains the largest city in the Americas. True, it is a high airport and the fact that it's close to major hubs in the US often drives airlines away. Would a MEX-DXB, MEX-IST, or MEX-DOH really be unprofitable?

Regards,
345rules

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: TK787
Posted 2013-02-04 08:59:23 and read 6611 times.

MEX was announced by TK on their wish list of cities recently.
The problem with MEX is being hot and high, but we might see TK flying to MEX (coupled with another city) sometime in the future.

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: yellowtail
Posted 2013-02-04 09:00:42 and read 6607 times.

Your answer is most likely....

Quoting 345rules (Thread starter):
True, it is a high airport

To get out with a full load to those distances will with most aircraft need a tech stop or weight restrictions...
thought i would have thought that by now one of these carriers would have tried XXX-MEX-CUN-XXX

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: ely747
Posted 2013-02-04 09:03:23 and read 6591 times.

Quoting 345rules (Thread starter):

the only aircraft in EK fleet capable of flying this sector would be 77L. Perhaps it's more profitable to deploy this frame somewhere else since it would take close to 40 hours for a return trip.

[Edited 2013-02-04 09:06:04]

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: 345rules
Posted 2013-02-04 09:08:47 and read 6536 times.

Thanks. How about a MEX-Europe-DXB/DOH? There are several European hubs without direct connections to MEX (MUC --which never materialized when LH announced the route; FCO; MXP; ZRH; BRU), although a 77L, 77W, or 345 could support a MEX-CUN-DXB/DOH/IST, no?

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: ely747
Posted 2013-02-04 09:36:00 and read 6414 times.

LH is doing very good on MEX flights. It's been said that B748 will be serving this sector soon. But then again, it's mostly because of German investments in Mexico. Not sure if Belgian or Italian market would be able to generate suffiecient yields, leave alone the current shape of AZ these days. Can't rule out LX, though.

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: EddieDude
Posted 2013-02-04 12:10:58 and read 6071 times.

Sao Paulo is a more important financial center than Mexico City. It is undoubtedly Latin America's most important financial center. Mexico City however is far, far more important than Buenos Aires.

As others have mentioned, the main reason why we don't get these airlines in Mexico is the altitude of the airport (coupled with the distance), and the presence of major U.S. hubs nearby (and the ability of European carriers to connect MEX with the Middle East and Asia). I'd add as well as the limited (or practically non-existing) business traffic between Mexico and the Middle East.

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: yellowtail
Posted 2013-02-04 14:05:35 and read 5893 times.

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 6):
I'd add as well as the limited (or practically non-existing) business traffic between Mexico and the Middle East.

I'm not to sure about that...my uncle works in Qatar and he tells me he was surprised by the mexicans working over there. He himself is of mexican decent.

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: g500
Posted 2013-02-04 14:08:36 and read 5880 times.

Quoting ely747 (Reply 5):

A flight from MEX to FRA is about 10 hours... A flight to Dubai or Doha would be about 13 hours. An airplane CANNOT take off out of an airport with that altitude and flight for 13+ hours..

If Emirates or Qatar or any airline from the Mid East or Asia ever lands at MEX, it will have to be with a tech stop

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: TK787
Posted 2013-02-04 14:21:33 and read 5837 times.

[quote=g500,reply=8]If Emirates or Qatar or any airline from the Mid East or Asia ever lands at MEX, it will have to be with a tech stop

Ever???
Maybe 787/350 size/range aircraft might make this feasible.

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: thenoflyzone
Posted 2013-02-04 14:29:21 and read 5799 times.

Quoting 345rules (Thread starter):
True, it is a high airport
Quoting ely747 (Reply 3):
the only aircraft in EK fleet capable of flying this sector would be 77L.

A 77L, on a standard day, would need to take a payload hit of 100,000 lbs in order to takeoff from MEX. Even worse on a Standard +15 C day. You're looking at a payload hit of 110,000 lbs+, and it's surely not all going to come from the fuel, because you would need the tanks pretty close to full in order to operate the 8900sm sector to DXB.

Put MEX at sea level, and it's a whole new ball game !

Thenoflyzone

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-02-04 14:33:47 and read 5785 times.

The Gulf 3 exists to connect Europe and North America to Asia. But from MEX it's faster to go to China from any West Coast hub. Add to that, the fact that European airlines are very competitive on MEX-India routes. And there probably isn't enough business between Mexico and India to sustain service via the Gulf.

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: leftyboarder
Posted 2013-02-04 14:43:34 and read 5755 times.

Some great circle distances:

MEX-IST 6173 nm
MEX-MUC 5324 nm
MEX-CDG 4975 nm
MEX-MAD 4903 nm
MEX-DOH 7632 nm
MEX-DXB 7746 nm

So, DOH and DXB seem a bit hopeless. IST on the other hand seems doable. Which is precisely why the folks at TK route planning are considering it right now.

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-02-04 14:46:20 and read 5741 times.

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 2):
To get out with a full load to those distances will with most aircraft need a tech stop or weight restrictions...
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 10):
A 77L, on a standard day, would need to take a payload hit of 100,000 lbs in order to takeoff from MEX. Even worse on a Standard +15 C day. You're looking at a payload hit of 110,000 lbs+, and it's surely not all going to come from the fuel, because you would need the tanks pretty close to full in order to operate the 8900sm sector to DXB.

Exactly why it'll probably be only TK that tackles MEX from that part of the world. And even then, it may have to be a 77L or 359R.

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: Tupolev160
Posted 2013-02-04 15:34:32 and read 5614 times.

There were already talks about this before, it is a difficult route to handle, with quite few O&D passengers between Mexico and the Middle-East and many Mexico-Asia connections being handled over the Pacific. Secondly, to make such a long route attractive, you need to have high and constant loads of cargo and certainly not weight penalties - these two factors alone make any airline from the region reluctant to launch the route. I eventually see QR doing it, just intuition.

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-02-04 15:50:16 and read 5571 times.

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 14):
I eventually see QR doing it, just intuition.

At 1500nm more than IST? I don't think so.

I'd say TK is a slim chance but possible. But QR? If TK has a slim chance at making that route work, QR, EY and EK have even less.

Unless they can build 20 000ft runways at MEX, it'll be quite the effort for any airline to go beyond Western Europe. Adding over 50% more distance to make the Gulf? I don't think so.

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: g500
Posted 2013-02-04 16:01:50 and read 5556 times.

Quoting leftyboarder (Reply 12):
MEX-DOH 7632 nm
MEX-DXB 7746 nm

with those distances, the flight would be almost 14 hours, plus Mexico City's elevation is 7300ft (I believe), a 777L CANNOT do that non-stop

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: 345rules
Posted 2013-02-04 17:22:20 and read 5412 times.

Oh well, a man can dream. You'd think that a city of MEX's size would support a healthier international traffic, but I've been proven wrong. There are few European connections (almost the exact same connections than LIM, CCS, or BOG), MEX no longer sees East Asian carriers, and AM has been very slow to upgrade its fleet or add more destinations in Europe (btw, does anyone know how they're doing on their recent MEX-LHR route?). It would be interesting to eventually see a Middle Eastern or Asian airline regularly land at the airport.

Regards,
345rules

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-02-04 18:26:44 and read 5305 times.

ET requires a fuel stop at FCO on westbound ADD-YYZ and ADD-IAD flights.

MEX and ADD are both at about the same elevation but MEX-DXB/DOH is roughly 1,500 nm further than the ET routes. Eastbound from MEX you don't have the headwinds but you also have to fly 1,500 miles further.

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: thenoflyzone
Posted 2013-02-04 18:39:09 and read 5271 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 15):
Unless they can build 20 000ft runways at MEX,

building anything past 14000 ft is pretty useless. Tire speed limit of 235 mph is reached around there.

Thenoflyzone

[Edited 2013-02-04 18:42:38]

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-02-04 18:57:04 and read 5230 times.

Alright, let's look at the payload range chart of the 77L/77W :

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/777_2lr3er.pdf




MEX-DOH is 7632nm. I'll multiply that by 1.2 for headwinds, non-great circle route and we're all the sudden up to 9160nm still air range! That is pushing a 77L.

MEX-IST is but 6173nm. So one needs an aircraft with ~7400nm still air range for the mission. Maybe possible with a 77W... But I'm seeing a 788 being a better fit.

We'll have to flip between the slides on page 37 and 40 for the 77L. I'll use a pressure altitude of 8,000 ft (vs. 7316ft actual) as a start. That limits the 77L takeoff weight to 650,000 lbm from page 40 which implies on page 37 the diagonal line to follow. For 9160nm, there is zero payload. The 77L is not doing MEX to the mid-east. Since the 788 does not have that range, the discussion is over on MEX by a mid-east carrier without a tech stop.

Now let us consider MEX-IST.
The 77L should have about 177t OEW + payload by my eyeball or just a little shy of 400,000lbm. From this we must subtract 145t OEW plus I estimate another 5t to 7t that isn't included but must be lifted. So 25t to 27t payload. While marginal, it is fine for MEX-IST with the 77L even with a few less tons of takeoff weight at +15C as shown on slide 41.

With the 77W, I'll go straight to the hot day MEX-IST a MTOW of ~630,000lbm on slide 49. Per slide 38 of the first pdf, one needs almost 700,000lbm to have any payload at MEX with that airframe. So the 77W is a no-go.

How about the 788 for MEX-IST?
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/787sec3.pdf

I see a 420,000 lbm take off weight, but those charts are more for frame 100 than the current 788s...
Per slide 20, that means perhaps 2 tons of payload. That is not an economical route even with a later 788 unless the weight of the airframe is brought down.

And then we see why IB flies A340s from MAD-MEX.  

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: 2travel2know2
Posted 2013-02-04 19:06:19 and read 5200 times.

Any EK, QR or TK MEX service most likely would have to be a one-stop, be in Mexico (eastbound in CUN for leisure or MTY for petrochemical-related traffic) or in Europe.
Now which European country would grant one of those airlines 5th rights to fly to MEX and would Mexico allow it?
If EK wants to do something daring, EK could apply with UK and Mexico authorities for a DXB-STN-MEX 3-4 days per week (when BA isn't flying). EK already have crews in London (currently flying to both LHR and LGW) so no need for same crews to fly all the way between DXB and MEX.

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: Viscount724
Posted 2013-02-04 20:10:50 and read 5081 times.

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 23):
I wonder why QR didn't launch DOH-IAH-MEX, could it be due to visa regulations for Mexican citizens?

I doubt Mexico has any bilateral with any countries in the Gulf that would permit such services. Does it have any bilaterals with ANY countries in the Middle East, even outside the Gulf?

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: 345rules
Posted 2013-02-04 21:11:23 and read 5081 times.

In short, we won't ever see these airlines in MEX  

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: leftyboarder
Posted 2013-02-04 23:02:41 and read 4957 times.

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 23):

As noted dozens of times on many threads, one would need to clear customs in IAH and require a US visa for that. There are almost no such flights transiting in the US.

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: AR385
Posted 2013-02-04 23:43:53 and read 5037 times.

While the operational limitations are there, and are difficult to surmount, I am sure that if the market was there any of the mentioned airlines in this thread would find a way around them. Most likely the flight on its way back would stop in CUN.

The question is if there is a market? I don´t think so. At least not the kind that would make the route profitable ie high yield.

Mexicans don´t travel internationally much. I read somewhere that it is only about 6% to 7% of the population and much of that is to the US. The rest to Europe, and pretty much its France, Spain and Italy. While I´ve heard some of my richer friends are more and more travelling to DXB for vacation, I´m not sure if that is just a nouveau riche fad than a general trend.

TK could work as it offers many connections to the ME, Levant, and North Africa regions. Even to Europe although passengers would have to backtrack.

Business people who need to travel to those regions always have the choice of going through the US hubs. A friend of mine that lives in Singapore takes UA to IAH from MTY and then the SQ flight. Many take the AM flights to PVG.

So I don´t really see a market there.

I could be wrong though.

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: g500
Posted 2013-02-05 03:22:22 and read 4844 times.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 28):

You don't see a market for DXB/DOH to MEX?

If you look at all the destinations around the world that Emirates and Qatar fly to, there's about 20 destinations that I don't see a market for, and is working for them.

If MEX was at sea level, I am certain EK would be operating to MEX already. I promise you...

Doesn't EK fly to Dallas and Seattle? What type of business or leisure market is there between DFW/SEA-DXB? None, 100% connecting

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-02-05 06:03:36 and read 3938 times.

Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 19):
building anything past 14000 ft is pretty useless. Tire speed limit of 235 mph is reached around there.

Balanced Field Length.

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-02-05 06:16:28 and read 3865 times.

Quoting g500 (Reply 26):
If MEX was at sea level, I am certain EK would be operating to MEX already. I promise you...

Agreed. But it is not. It is in thin air which changes the aircraft lift dramatically as well as reducing the thrust. Having to do a tech stop dramatically alters the business case and makes it tougher to compete versus IAH, FRA, and other existing hubs.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: ytz
Posted 2013-02-05 06:19:30 and read 3870 times.

Quoting AR385 (Reply 25):
So I don´t really see a market there.

I could be wrong though.

It's not just about people who want to travel FROM Mexico. It's also about people who want to travel TO Mexico.

Quoting g500 (Reply 26):
If MEX was at sea level, I am certain EK would be operating to MEX already. I promise you...

  

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 20):

I'm just too lazy to do that kind of analysis. Even though we can all figure that intuitively. Kudos!

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 20):
And then we see why IB flies A340s from MAD-MEX.

I wonder if a 789 or A359 would work for MEX-IST.

I also wonder if the route is workable because of the benefit of the the jetstream eastbound. Landing hot and high is less of a problem than departing hot and high, after all.

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: hohd
Posted 2013-02-05 09:04:25 and read 2834 times.

Transiting via US hubs is not an option for most since Mexicans will require a visa (although most who go to Europe/Middle East generally qualify for one), but it is still a hassle getting it. While European hubs are ideal for transit I am sure there is enough traffic for EK or TK to start a flight to Mexico City, you will be surprised at the number of the passengers who will come.

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: lightsaber
Posted 2013-02-05 11:47:12 and read 2632 times.

Quoting ytz (Reply 29):
I wonder if a 789 or A359 would work for MEX-IST.

With the same wing as the 788, the 789 will have no weight for payload for MEX-IST. It will hit tire limits first.

What we need is a higher thrust 788. Perhaps not higher actual thrust a la the Trents on the A330 where they produce 73k thrust maximum but are derating from 77k. Another 6% or 7% of thrust would make a big difference...

Quoting ytz (Reply 29):
I also wonder if the route is workable because of the benefit of the the jetstream eastbound.

Maybe... I did a penalty rather than a benefit.

Quoting ytz (Reply 29):
Landing hot and high is less of a problem than departing hot and high, after all.

   Of that we are in agreement.

Quoting hohd (Reply 30):
you will be surprised at the number of the passengers who will come.

I would like to see the business case. However technically, the aircraft just cannot profitably do the route. Not with *any* competition.

Lightsaber

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: Yakamoz
Posted 2013-02-05 12:19:08 and read 2579 times.

I'm not sure but there are rumors of TK will start in June 2013 IST-HAV-MEX

Topic: RE: Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX?
Username: EddieDude
Posted 2013-02-05 14:55:16 and read 2452 times.

Quoting yellowtail (Reply 7):
my uncle works in Qatar and he tells me he was surprised by the mexicans working over there. He himself is of mexican decent.

The big question is whether all those individuals working there actually constitute steady and high-yielding traffic. I would lean towards no.

I have heard of many Mexicans being employed in hospitality jobs, international consulting firms, airlines (as pilots or first officers), etc., in Dubai, but these people do not need to make several yearly trips to MEX in J-class or paying full-fare Y.

In terms of Mexican investment in the United Arab Emirates, I am only aware of Kidzania. I wonder whether there is any significant UAE investment in Mexico.

Quoting leftyboarder (Reply 12):
So, DOH and DXB seem a bit hopeless. IST on the other hand seems doable. Which is precisely why the folks at TK route planning are considering it right now.

I think TK will make it happen at some point.

Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 14):
There were already talks about this before, it is a difficult route to handle, with quite few O&D passengers between Mexico and the Middle-East and many Mexico-Asia connections being handled over the Pacific. Secondly, to make such a long route attractive, you need to have high and constant loads of cargo and certainly not weight penalties - these two factors alone make any airline from the region reluctant to launch the route. I eventually see QR doing it, just intuition.

Many Mexico-Asia connections are handled via the U.S., Canada and LHR/FRA/AMS/CDG. I would imagine that DL and MU also work in tandem with AM at NRT and PVG, respectively, to connect passengers flying between Mexico and Asian destinations other than NRT and PVG.

Quoting 345rules (Reply 17):
Oh well, a man can dream. You'd think that a city of MEX's size would support a healthier international traffic, but I've been proven wrong. There are few European connections (almost the exact same connections than LIM, CCS, or BOG), MEX no longer sees East Asian carriers, and AM has been very slow to upgrade its fleet or add more destinations in Europe (btw, does anyone know how they're doing on their recent MEX-LHR route?). It would be interesting to eventually see a Middle Eastern or Asian airline regularly land at the airport.

I, too, am very sad about the limited number of non-North American carriers at MEX. Particularly when it comes to Europe, we have very little service. There is only AM, IB, AF, KL, BA and LH at MEX (CUN is a different story). We used to have SU, Lauda, AZ and perhaps some others, but not anymore. Even SkyTeam member UX left recently. Would be awesome if we could land another European carrier soon (including TK) and that AM would launch new destinations in Europe. In terms of Asia, the big problem is, again, range. JL is gone but perhaps we will see a Chinese carrier flying to MEX some time (or maybe KE or CX), but there would need to be a stopover with fifth freedom rights at, say, YVR in order to make this feasible. With AC now serving MEX-YVR nonstop, Of the Asian carriers, I would expect to see one of CZ, MU or KE at MEX at some point because of their SkyTeam/AM relationships.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 20):
I see a 420,000 lbm take off weight, but those charts are more for frame 100 than the current 788s...
Per slide 20, that means perhaps 2 tons of payload. That is not an economical route even with a later 788 unless the weight of the airframe is brought down.

As YTZ mentioned, how about a 789 or an A359 in the future? I wonder if TK has placed orders for A350XWBs and/or 787s, and if the -900 variant of either type could make this route possible nonstop.

Quoting 2travel2know2 (Reply 21):
Any EK, QR or TK MEX service most likely would have to be a one-stop, be in Mexico (eastbound in CUN for leisure or MTY for petrochemical-related traffic) or in Europe.
Now which European country would grant one of those airlines 5th rights to fly to MEX and would Mexico allow it?
If EK wants to do something daring, EK could apply with UK and Mexico authorities for a DXB-STN-MEX 3-4 days per week (when BA isn't flying). EK already have crews in London (currently flying to both LHR and LGW) so no need for same crews to fly all the way between DXB and MEX.

To be honest, a stop in CUN both ways does not sound too far-fetched. It is not ideal of course, but it would help attract some high-yield Middle-Eastern tourism to Cancun/Playa del Carmen. Plus, it might be more convenient than flying via a third party country with no fifth freedom rights, or via a third party country that would require all passengers to deplane and where transit visas might be necessary. MTY is not really a pure-play oil & gas destination. I'd say the manufacturing industry (especially automotive) is more important at MTY's catchment area. The major oil & gas centers in Mexico are D.F. (Pemex headquarters, the country's political and financial capital, etc.) and places such as Reynosa, Ciudad del Carmen and the Coatzacoalcos-Minatitlán corridor.

Now, on the subject of fifth freedom rights via European cities, I would imagine that any one-stop flight involving the cities with current MEX service (i.e., MAD, CDG, LHR, FRA and AMS) would be a no go because the incumbent carriers would lobby hard to protect their vested interests. It'd have to be something new like ZRH, MXP, FCO, BRU, LIS, HAM or maybe BCN or MUC.

Quoting Viscount724 (Reply 22):
I doubt Mexico has any bilateral with any countries in the Gulf that would permit such services. Does it have any bilaterals with ANY countries in the Middle East, even outside the Gulf?

I believe a bilateral agreement between Mexico and the U.A.E. is in force and effect. I also believe it contemplates one-stop flights via European ports, but I am not sure about freedoms.

Quoting hohd (Reply 30):

Transiting via US hubs is not an option for most since Mexicans will require a visa (although most who go to Europe/Middle East generally qualify for one), but it is still a hassle getting it.

I have said this myself many times too, but sometimes I wonder whether this argument is really that strong. To be honest, the people who can afford to travel to the Middle East, Asia, Africa, etc. or who work at places that would require them to fly internationally, should have no problem applying for and receiving a regular U.S. visa. I also understand that nowadays the formalities are no less strict but more more straightforward, meaning that the hassle issue has been reduced. I think most everybody in Mexico who is a candidate for air travel to the Middle East has a U.S. visa.


The messages in this discussion express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of Airliners.net or any entity associated with Airliners.net.

Copyright © Lundgren Aerospace. All rights reserved.
http://www.airliners.net/