Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Mexico City New Airport  
User currently offlineJuanchito From Guatemala, joined Nov 2000, 1182 posts, RR: 9
Posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 6212 times:

I search the forum and found this post

Green Light For A New Airport At Mexico City (by Anthsaun May 23 2007 in Civil Aviation)

Couldn't post it there because it was already closed.

I found the following news. Sorry only Spanish.

==================================================================================
Si va el nuevo aeropuerto en Texcoco
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
La construcción será en terreno federal y sin expropiaciones

David Aguilar
El Universal

Lunes 21 de enero de 2008


david.aguilar@eluniversal.com.mx

El gobierno de Felipe Calderón construirá en Texcoco un nuevo aeropuerto para la ciudad de México pero, a diferencia de la administración de Vicente Fox, no recurrirá a la expropiación de terrenos ejidales de San Salvador Atenco.

La edificación de la terminal aérea ocupará 9 mil hectáreas que hoy pertenecen al gobierno federal y considera una inversión inicial de 8 mil millones de pesos, indicaron fuentes de alto nivel de la Secretaría de Comunicaciones y Transportes (SCT).

La licitación del proyecto tomaría un año y medio y se calcula que a finales de 2012 comenzarían las primeras operaciones aeroportuarias.

Para el proyecto, el gobierno retoma un estudio del Massachusetts Institute of Technology Research & Engineering publicado en 2001, y elementos del plan maestro para el aeropuerto de la capital de 1972.

De acuerdo con el funcionario de la SCT, los terrenos federales se consideran suficientes para alojar el recinto del aeropuerto y tres pistas para operaciones simultáneas, que ocuparían sólo 9% de esa área (900 hectáreas). Aseguró que la calidad del suelo en Texcoco es similar a la de la terminal actual.

Así, indicó la fuente, no se necesitarían las 4 mil 550 hectáreas situadas en Atenco, que en 2001 desataron la resistencia de ejidatarios a los que disgustó que el decreto de expropiación del gobierno foxista fijara en siete pesos el precio del metro cuadrado de sus terrenos.

Ahora, señaló, esas tierras serían un “colchón ecológico”, pues no se requieren para la operación de las tres pistas, porque “la tecnología disponible en el mercado permitiría tener la misma distancia” entre ellas y “diseñar el tráfico aéreo sin riesgos”.

La decisión de edificar la nueva terminal dejaría apenas una vigencia de cuatro o cinco años a la inversión en la Terminal 2 (poco más de 800 millones de dólares) y a la remodelación en la Terminal 1, hecha entre 2001 y 2004.

================================================================================

Here is where they plan to build it.



Regards,

Juanchito


Chapin de corazon.
33 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineCaptaink From Mexico, joined May 2001, 5109 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6171 times:

Is a new airport really needed for the DF? I know it is a very busy airport as it is, but isn't handling the traffic well?


There is something special about planes....
User currently offlineLatinplane From United States of America, joined Dec 1999, 2717 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 6168 times:

I always wondered if there was enough land around the dry lake bed area to build a replacement to Benito Juarez without needing to go into the private property. I guess this means that there is. Yet, I think that we'll have to wait to see it in its preliminary construction face until we believe it. The new airport has been in talks since 1999, at the least, and should have been fully operational by 2005. But, this is Mexico and Mexico is in Latin America, and the way things get done in this region of the world is so interesting, isn't it...

In any case, does anyone know why AeroCalifornia was using such remote-remote parking (next to defunct Azteca hangars) for its flights in January, and does it still practice this?



 Smile LatinPlane


User currently offlineJuventus From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2835 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 17 hours ago) and read 6076 times:



Quoting Captaink (Reply 1):
Is a new airport really needed for the DF? I know it is a very busy airport as it is, but isn't handling the traffic well?

My take on this:

Yes it is needed. They just build T2, and the media says it will be able to handle 35 million pax in a couple of years. The problem is not the terminals, or the passenger numbers, but the aircraft movenments. 35 million passengers can go through the terminals fine and dandy, no problem; the problem is going to be on the taxiways, and ramp/tarmac areas, chances are they're going to get very crowed with thousands more aircraft movenments. I hope MEX doesn't turn into another La Guardia, 2 hour taxi when things get busy.....

A big problem is going to be the $600+ million USD they spend on building T2 at MEX. That's going to be very difficult to explain when they make their case for a new MEX airport..the opposition ( and there's going to be one because its Mexico) is going to say, "you spend millions of dollars on T2, you better make it work...


User currently offlineRojo From Spain, joined Sep 2000, 2447 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 6026 times:



Quoting Latinplane (Reply 2):
In any case, does anyone know why AeroCalifornia was using such remote-remote parking (next to defunct Azteca hangars) for its flights in January, and does it still practice this?

Cost issues. The amount charged by the airport to use Gates and AeroCars is quite high, so JR decided to park and turn around its aircraft first near T2 and now near Azteca hangar. They are using special buses (Estrella Roja) to take passengers to/from T1.

I assume JR will keep this practice until the airport lowers its fees for using Gates and AeroCars.


User currently offlineGhost77 From Mexico, joined Mar 2000, 5219 posts, RR: 51
Reply 5, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 5974 times:



Quoting Latinplane (Reply 2):
In any case, does anyone know why AeroCalifornia was using such remote-remote parking (next to defunct Azteca hangars) for its flights in January, and does it still practice this?

Lack of gates! Since T2 opened, JR is getting again contact gates at T1!

g77



Ricardo Morales - flyAPM - ¡No es que maneje rapido, solo estoy volando lento!
User currently offlineSXDFC From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 2327 posts, RR: 21
Reply 6, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 5898 times:

When did the current Mexico City Airport first begin operations?


ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
User currently offlineSJOtoLIR From Costa Rica, joined Jul 2007, 4488 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 5624 times:

MEX was the airport which handle more passengers in Latin America throughout the 2007.
The usage of TLC as alternative airport for Mexico City hasn't alleviated yet the crowed operations in MEX. For the time being, substantially national low-cost carriers are operating in TLC.
Mexico City hasn't followed the same model given in other large Latin American cities as Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires. These cities are allowing at least a different airport concentrating mostly the domestic traffic.




.

Quoting SXDFC (Reply 6):
When did the current Mexico City Airport first begin operations?

1928-1929. Full history in Spanish supplied by AICM.
http://www.aicm.com.mx/acercadelaicm/GACM/index.php?Publicacion=5

Regards.



"Goin' up to the spirit in the sky"
User currently offlineJuventus From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2835 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 5527 times:



Quoting SJOtoLIR (Reply 7):
MEX was the airport which handle more passengers in Latin America throughout the 2007.
The usage of TLC as alternative airport for Mexico City hasn't alleviated yet the crowed operations in MEX. For the time being, substantially national low-cost carriers are operating in TLC.
Mexico City hasn't followed the same model given in other large Latin American cities as Sao Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Buenos Aires. These cities are allowing at least a different airport concentrating mostly the domestic traffic.

http://encarta.msn.com/map_701512097/Distrito_Federal_(Mexico).html
If you look at this map, it could take 2-3 hours in heavy traffic to get from the East side of Mexico city to Toluca.

If they build the new airport in Texcoco, people from the West and South side of Mexico City might feel more compelled to use TLC for domestic flights. Anyway you look at it, crossing Mexico City from one side to other in heavy traffic its an event.


User currently offlineKtachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1794 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 21 hours ago) and read 5399 times:



Quoting Captaink (Reply 1):
Is a new airport really needed for the DF

My question on this is, are they building it so they can build a longer runway in order to accomodate long-haul? I have been reading numerous times that because of the rwy length and the altitude, they can't fly directly to Asia without a stop somewhere. This kills off any chances for long-hauls such as using the 777-200LR or the A340-500. So, if they build for say, a 6000 meter rwy (just for instance) will it be able to accomodate more long-haul traffic?



Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
User currently offlineJuventus From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2835 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4947 times:



Quoting Ktachiya (Reply 9):
My question on this is, are they building it so they can build a longer runway in order to accomodate long-haul?

There's plenty of long-haul in and out of MEX. Runway lenght is not an issue at all, I believe both runways are more than 12,000 feet, 1 of the runways is actually close to 13000 ft.. The airport's altitude is always going to be the problem.

I'm not sure if the 787 will be able to do MEX-NRT/PVG non-stop


User currently offlineMayaviaERJ190 From Mexico, joined Jan 2008, 304 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 4904 times:

I don't think that the new airport will have longer runways, it is more a matter of more passenger and cargo terminal space, number of simultaneous capable runways, taxiway separation and efficiency and proximity to downtown Mexico City than a matter of having a worldwide-longhaul-nonstop-capable airport.

As a matter of fact it have been the aircraft capabilities which have been improving through the years rather than the runways' length.

MX's experiences with the JATO equipped 722s and the Mexico-City-specially-built DC-10-15s (IIRC AM also flew the DC-10-15s) both designed for hot and high airports came to reality much before anyone thinking of longer runways at MEX.

Many years ago, QF's 747s had to make a technical stop in ACA for refueling and to be able to perform a sea level fully-refueled take-off both ways in their SYD-MEX-LHR route that included some other stops in Tahiti and/or Papette and in Nassau (Bahamas) and/or Hamilton (Bermuda). Another limited flight was LH's MEX-FRA with a B707 that at least had one stop in MID, IIRC. Nowadays JL stops in YVR coming to MEX and AM stops in TIJ going to NRT.

Shortly JL will have a 17-strong 787-8 fleet and AM a 5-strong 787-8 fleet and even though they might seem to be capable to perform MEX-NRT non-stop it is most likely that neither will drop the YVR or TIJ stops due to the benefits derived from the sea-level operation and the increased passenger and cargo loads both, AM within mexican air-space and JL with its 5th freedom between CA & MX.

AM's 787 long haul fleet will be capable to perform MEX-TIJ-SYD, MEX-MTY-BOM and MEX-CUN-JNB (we'll have to keep an eye in the upcoming world cup AM charters to ZA) if needed, so after this I rather see my tax money spent on multiple runways rather than longer runways.

For me, there definitively won't be a 6 km-long runway at "the new MEX".



My other plane is an A380.
User currently offlineAnthsaun From Mexico, joined Apr 2004, 544 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 4798 times:

I believe TLC has contribuited little to the ease of MEX mostly because you can not get everywhere in the country from TLC. AM and MX have just a few operations from TLC and the LCCs are still far from having a strong network as AM & MX. Also, TLC doesn´t look like an airport at all. It is just a landing field with little pax services. So pax still use MEX as the main airport.

The need for a new big airport is a must. There are lots of airlines wanting to serve MEX but there is not more room for them. Not just because gates but slots. Cargo plays an important role in MEX and it is kept to the minimum.



Over 80 years in business say a lot about success
User currently offlineVincewy From Taiwan, joined Oct 2005, 767 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 4753 times:



Quoting Anthsaun (Reply 12):
The need for a new big airport is a must. There are lots of airlines wanting to serve MEX but there is not more room for them. Not just because gates but slots. Cargo plays an important role in MEX and it is kept to the minimum.

Interesting, when I transited through MEX in the mid 80s, I thought they already needed a new airport, not all 747s (IB, KL, PA) could use normal gate ares, passengers needed to be transported via elevated trucks from the gates to the planes, you would also notice there's hardly any space between the taxiway and gates, in other words, it's packed to the gill. In the early morning rush periods planes were queued all the way back to the gates for takeoffs. Having lived in Latin America, I'm not surprised at all on how long it takes to get things moving (let alone getting it done).

Best solution is building a new airport for all long haul flights plus some domestic flights too for connections, retain the current one for domestic O&C, any additional space can be used for cargo, if they plan to build high speed rail (is this still moving forward?), perhaps they should extend it to both airports.


User currently offlineMarcus From Mexico, joined Apr 2001, 1790 posts, RR: 2
Reply 14, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4681 times:

If this new project gets the green light and it is actually built.....what is the plan for the current MEX airport once this new one is operating?


Kids!....we are going to the happiest place on earth...TIJUANA! signed: Krusty the Clown
User currently offlineMayaviaERJ190 From Mexico, joined Jan 2008, 304 posts, RR: 1
Reply 15, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4668 times:

This new project already has a green light. The Mexican Government is working in the all new ESE, TUY and MEX.

What is the most likely to happen to what will become the old MEX is something similar to what happened to the old Kai Tak in Hong Kong, a new urban development area with parks, housing and business district, since the operation of both of MEX's 5-23s is incompatible with the location of the new MEX and very possibly also with SLM Mexican Air Force Base #1, for the latter I'm not sure.



My other plane is an A380.
User currently offlineJuventus From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2835 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 15 hours ago) and read 4655 times:



Quoting MayaviaERJ190 (Reply 15):
What is the most likely to happen to what will become the old MEX is something similar to what happened to the old Kai Tak in Hong Kong, a new urban development area with parks, housing and business district, since the operation of both of MEX's 5-23s is incompatible with the location of the new MEX and very possibly also with SLM Mexican Air Force Base #1, for the latter I'm not sure.

Wouldn't it be better to leave it open for ONLY domestic flights since it has a brand new terminal??? Leave T2 standing, and turn the old terminal into hotels or something of that sort.


User currently offlineLH498 From Germany, joined May 2007, 215 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 4620 times:

I just hope, that this time it will work and construction really begins.
As said before a new airport is badly needed, the main problem are the runways being so closed one of the other and there is no better solution than constructing a new airport.
The terrain looks really big, now I don't understand quite really why there was the problem with Atenco if the federal government had that terrain already and the original project was to construct also 3 parallel runways. What was to be done then with those terrains in Atenco??

As for the new airport it really should have at least one runway long enough to allow unrestricted takeoffs. No matter how capable aircraft have become, the altitude of MEX is still an issue; MEX has more potential to grow and consolidate as Latin Americas busiest airport, the less restrictive the operations can be.
MEX can be an ideal hub to connect Latin America and Asia, but it is less attractive for passengers if they would not only need to change planes in MEX but then also make a stop on their way to Asia.

The new airport should also concentrate both domestic and international flights, enabling for better connectivity. But from an operational point of view it is impossible for both the old and new airports to operate at the same time. So T2 was really a big waste of money. ..
Interesting to see is going to be when the big day arrives and a moving a la MUC/HKG/BKK takes place...


User currently offlineSJOtoLIR From Costa Rica, joined Jul 2007, 4488 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 4 hours ago) and read 4455 times:



Quoting Ktachiya (Reply 9):
So, if they build for say, a 6000 meter rwy (just for instance) will it be able to accommodate more long-haul traffic?

6000 meters equate about to 19 700 feet.
I understood it's just an example, but this magnitude looks very rare.
Airports with altitude issues do not follow this pattern:
....Runway.........Length of runway [feet].......Elevation [feet]
BOG 13R/31L.............12 467............................8361
BOG 13L/31R.............12 467............................8361
MEX 05R/23L.............12 795............................7316
MEX 05L/23L..............12 966............................7316
......UIO......................10 286............................9228
......LPB.....................13 123...........................13 325




.

Quoting MayaviaERJ190 (Reply 11):
Shortly JL will have a 17-strong 787-8 fleet and AM a 5-strong 787-8 fleet and even though they might seem to be capable to perform MEX-NRT non-stop it is most likely that neither will drop the YVR or TIJ stops due to the benefits derived from the sea-level operation and the increased passenger and cargo loads both

I am not completely sure if the 787-8 is capable to operate non-stop services without payload restrictions between Asia-MEX, taking into account the 7316 feet high in MEX.
Despite the 787-9 is not included into the plans for AM, the capability of this plane is better, based on its range established at [8000nm - 8500nm], regardless any constraint related to altitude.

Regards.



"Goin' up to the spirit in the sky"
User currently offlineAnthsaun From Mexico, joined Apr 2004, 544 posts, RR: 3
Reply 19, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 4214 times:



Quoting MayaviaERJ190 (Reply 15):
both of MEX's 5-23s is incompatible with the location of the new MEX and very possibly also with SLM Mexican Air Force Base #1, for the latter I'm not sure.

The airforce base SLM is far enough.



Over 80 years in business say a lot about success
User currently offlineEddieDude From Mexico, joined Nov 2003, 7575 posts, RR: 43
Reply 20, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 4095 times:



Quoting Anthsaun (Reply 12):
AM and MX have just a few operations from TLC and the LCCs are still far from having a strong network as AM & MX.

Unless I am mistaken, neither AM, nor 5D, nor MX has operations at TLC. I believe QA also dropped its flights ex-TLC.



Next flights: MEX-GRU (AM 77E), GRU-GIG (JJ A320), SDU-CGH (G3 73H), GRU-MEX (JJ A332).
User currently offlineSteeler83 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 9197 posts, RR: 20
Reply 21, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4074 times:



Quoting Juventus (Reply 3):
My take on this:

Yes it is needed. They just build T2, and the media says it will be able to handle 35 million pax in a couple of years. The problem is not the terminals, or the passenger numbers, but the aircraft movenments. 35 million passengers can go through the terminals fine and dandy, no problem; the problem is going to be on the taxiways, and ramp/tarmac areas, chances are they're going to get very crowed with thousands more aircraft movenments. I hope MEX doesn't turn into another La Guardia, 2 hour taxi when things get busy.....

That's partially my take. My take on it is that the airport currently handles 20 million pax, and this figure is estimated to triple by 2020. Already, about three quarters of the residents of the Mexico City metro area use the existing airport (if my translation is correct.). So, if all of that is correct, then this airport's traffic is supposed to really grow, therefore requiring a new facility to be built to accomodate the new traffic...



Do not bring stranger girt into your room. The stranger girt is dangerous, it will hurt your life.
User currently offlineKLM685 From Mexico, joined May 2005, 1577 posts, RR: 19
Reply 22, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 4074 times:

The new airpot IS needed. MEX is a patch ontop of a patch right now. The T2 as good as it could be will not be enough if MEX pretends to keep growing in the short haul. If they don't start know in 8 years as a maximum it will be too late and too many conflicts will arise until the new airport is opened.

The ex-MEX project that was presented by the Fox administration sounded promising. Unfortunately the government lacked the capabilty of negotiating with the people that "owned/lived" in those terrains. The defeat of the new MEX project was the point of inflection for Fox government, when everything went downhill for the administration. The project always remained as a matter of importance as lots of political issues are involved. Now Calderon wants to clean his political party's image and create something that will definately create huge propaganda for him but something that was owed since many years to the city.

Quoting MayaviaERJ190 (Reply 11):
I don't think that the new airport will have longer runways, it is more a matter of more passenger and cargo terminal space, number of simultaneous capable runways, taxiway separation and efficiency

Bingo! Simultaneous runways will definately help create something different!

Quoting Anthsaun (Reply 12):
I believe TLC has contribuited little to the ease of MEX mostly because you can not get everywhere in the country from TLC.

It did contribute but MEX pax numbers just kept rising even though TLC was opened as an alternative for domestic traffic.

Quoting LH498 (Reply 17):
The terrain looks really big, now I don't understand quite really why there was the problem with Atenco if the federal government had that terrain already and the original project was to construct also 3 parallel runways. What was to be done then with those terrains in Atenco??

The problem with Atenco was the lack of ability from the government side to negotiate with farmers, etc... They were offered a misery for their terrains and they of course wouldn't go away from them unless they really get a good deal. Negotiating with them went beyond the capabilities of the Fox government as the owners of the land has the resources to take the project down.

Quoting EddieDude (Reply 20):
Unless I am mistaken, neither AM, nor 5D, nor MX has operations at TLC. I believe QA also dropped its flights ex-TLC

That's right. AM, MX and QA started operations in TLC right when Interjet and later Volaris appeared but withdrew withing months or weeks. Of course their failure was almost obvious.


Cheers!

Alonso



KLM- The Best Airline in the World!
User currently offlineKtachiya From Japan, joined Sep 2004, 1794 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3962 times:



Quoting SJOtoLIR (Reply 18):
6000 meters equate about to 19 700 feet.
I understood it's just an example, but this magnitude looks very rare

I think you understand and it was just an example. And I made it that long to say that if they made it that long, will super long-hauls to Asia be possible from MEX. For instance, KIX Airport Authority said sometimes that they want a 4500 meter runway at sea level, which I think is quite remarkable ffor 06C/24C if they really build it.

I'm sorry, I am not accustomed to feet, its divide by 3.1 for meters correct?



Flown on: DC-10-30, B747-200B, B747-300, B747-300SR, B747-400, B747-400D, B767-300, B777-200, B777-200ER, B777-300
User currently offlineWolflair From Mexico, joined Sep 2007, 170 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (6 years 6 months 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 3943 times:



Quoting Juventus (Reply 8):

If they build the new airport in Texcoco, people from the West and South side of Mexico City might feel more compelled to use TLC for domestic flights. Anyway you look at it, crossing Mexico City from one side to other in heavy traffic its an event.

New infrastructure is being built at the moment (like new suburban rail links) which will alleviate some of the cronic transit problems in Mexico City. Whilst this may not be enough, usually "locals" know very well what streets to avoid and specific times of the day in order to get to their destinations on time. From Cuernavaca and the south of Mexico City, once you get to the Periferico it is way easier to navigate to the airport. Additionally, any new terminal will keep in mind the problem of getting there on time, thus road and public transport infrastructure would be put in place.

Quoting Ktachiya (Reply 9):
My question on this is, are they building it so they can build a longer runway in order to accomodate long-haul? I have been reading numerous times that because of the rwy length and the altitude, they can't fly directly to Asia without a stop somewhere. This kills off any chances for long-hauls such as using the 777-200LR or the A340-500. So, if they build for say, a 6000 meter rwy (just for instance) will it be able to accomodate more long-haul traffic?

Even if you build a 30000' rwy, the take off speeds required for a heavy at MTOW at this altitude would be a problem. Additionally, some planes may not be able to climb out efficiently (any A340 would hit the surrounding mountains before the earth's curvature puts the mountain's peak below the plane!)

Quoting Marcus (Reply 14):
If this new project gets the green light and it is actually built.....what is the plan for the current MEX airport once this new one is operating?

There is green light for planning. No actual building work has begun, but this will be underway once planning and the corresponding bids from developers are received.

Quoting Juventus (Reply 16):
Wouldn't it be better to leave it open for ONLY domestic flights since it has a brand new terminal??? Leave T2 standing, and turn the old terminal into hotels or something of that sort.

Not a chance. The new airport's location would be 100% incompatible with any traffic from the current MEX. The same issue was present with the previous projects (i.e. any big airport at Tizayuca would be a real problem for the BAM 1 @ Santa Lucia).

Quoting LH498 (Reply 17):
The terrain looks really big, now I don't understand quite really why there was the problem with Atenco if the federal government had that terrain already and the original project was to construct also 3 parallel runways. What was to be done then with those terrains in Atenco??

Two things differ between the original project during Fox government and the current one:

- Most of the activist/rioters/"social leaders" of the movement against the previous project are now in jail or under intense scrutiny from the police (there were some riots in Atenco which turned out into some people's deaths). They are not an open threat to the project at this moment in time. Additionally, any support they had received from the PRD back then will not be around this time mainly because of the current process to select the party's new leadership and AMLOs dilapidated political gains after he failed to recognise his defeat in past year's elections. Any open support leading to riots would be terrible for the PRD in any upcoming elections.

- The new project is not so ambitious by reducing the amount of land that would require expropiation. Additionally, large portions of land that do require expropiation have changed hands to people more keen to accept the project.

- The current goverment did the homework by negotiating beforehand, thus minimising the risk of protests.



JMM -A319,A320,A321,A333,A343,AT45,AT72,B462,B722,B737s from -200 to -800,B744,B752,B762,B763,BE35,DC91,F70,Ju52,MD80,S3
25 LH498 : Thanks for your answers!! I was wondering rather from an non-political point of view why there was the problem with Atenco if the federal terrain loo
26 Post contains images Latinplane : Wolfair, this sounds too good to be true, but I'll take your knowledgeable information on the matter with optimism. I was reading that the current ad
27 Juventus : God I hope so. Too much bureaucracy, and politics in Mexico. I'm afraid people who are against construction of a new airport will march in Mexico Cit
28 EddieDude : I bought a ticket from MTY to TLC with 5D in December 2006 and it cost me the exact same fare that I would have paid for an Interjet ticket, which ob
29 Rojo : AM and QA operations at TLC were part of a plan to block IJ and Y4 from a successful entry into the lucrative MTY, GDL and CUN routes and from taking
30 AR385 : I am no too technically inclined, so forgive if I'm repeating the above, but I believe tire rotation speeds are also a major factor here. Ah yes...th
31 Wolflair : The press assumes that. However, no clear word on the size and extent of the project has been given. The only fact that can be inferred from the gove
32 KLM685 : I agree with your statements and appreciate them but I wouldn't doubt the government tried to get the land as easy as possible. Then again the left-w
33 SJOtoLIR : The comprehensive factor is: 3,2808398 1 feet = 12 inches. 1 inch = 2,54 centimeters. 100 centimeters = 1 meter. For example, a runway whose length i
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Mexico City's New Airport posted Wed Feb 23 2000 00:16:23 by MX_757
The New Mexico City International Airport posted Mon Oct 22 2001 07:27:33 by AM
Mexico City International Airport - New Gates posted Mon Oct 8 2001 01:26:29 by AM
Questions About Mexico City New Terminal 2 posted Wed Jul 5 2006 15:22:33 by BA0242
Green Light For A New Airport At Mexico City posted Wed May 23 2007 18:08:21 by Anthsaun
New Mexico City Airport posted Sat Aug 9 2003 19:07:11 by Bmacleod
New Airport For Mexico City Cancelled posted Fri Aug 2 2002 16:38:38 by Republic
New Mexico City Airport @ Texcoco posted Mon Oct 22 2001 21:07:48 by MX-757
New Mexico City Airport In Texcoco posted Wed Feb 28 2001 02:44:39 by Cynthia
New International Airport For Mexico City posted Fri Sep 10 1999 04:27:14 by LeoDF