jsnww81 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1855 posts, RR: 17 Reply 2, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 4425 times:
I was just in Quito last weekend - it was kind of neat flying into UIO just five days before it closes forever. I made sure to take plenty of photo of the airfield and terminal, for posterity's sake. It's a very unique airport and I was really glad I got a chance to see it before it shuts down.
It's easy to see why it's being replaced - the approach and landing are right over the city, with homes and businesses under the wingtip until the very last moment. The terminal buildings are extremely small - the domestic check-in lobby and departure lounge were PACKED, and the international terminal (at least, the landside part that I could access) was full of people too. There are buildings directly across the street from the terminal - you come out of baggage claim and you're standing on the curb with houses and hotels about 200 feet away from you.
There are plans to redevelop the Mariscal Sucre site into a very large linear park, and the terminal will be turned into an exposition/conference center (the same thing was done to Guayaquil's old terminal when it closed in 2006.)
On my return flight from UIO-GYE we passed over the new airport during climbout. The terminal looks to be very similar in layout to GYE's new terminal, and a very impressive-looking divided highway has been built linking the airport to the city. This is a pretty big deal for Ecuador and the cab drivers and airport workers I talked to were all very excited about the new facility (although all of them mentioned they weren't happy about having a longer commute to work.) A new Quito airport has been on the drawing board for several decades and many people said they never thought it would be built.
Quoting FlyingHollander (Reply 1): Will the location of the new airport have any consequences for KLM's Ecuador route?
KLM's 773 was parked at the old UIO when I arrived last Friday. If that plane can use Mariscal Sucre (the old airport) I expect it will have no problem at the new airport. The new airport has a longer runway and I wouldn't be surprised to see the route "de-coupled" from Guayaquil in the future (although I don't know if they can maintain the current frequency without serving both cities.) I imagine Iberia may do the same once the new airport is established and stabilized, and American may consider upgauging to a 767, as they have done at GYE.
UIO-AMS is around 5163 nm on a great circle route, meaning at least 5400+ nm in real life. The new airport is at an altitude of 7800ft ASL.
a B77W, at that altitude, in ISA conditions, can takeoff with a max weight of 645,000 lbs. Well below the MTOW of 775,000 lbs.
Therefore, considering this very same 77W has to travel a good 5400-5500 nm to get to AMS, the only payload it could carry is around 25,000 lbs.
That means an empty cargo hold and less than half the seats sold, or very little cargo and no seats. Whichever way you slice it, hard to see how KL can make money on a non stop to AMS. So the answer is no, KLM will not change its ops in UIO. The stopover point might change, but a non stop to AMS is out of the question.
Thenoflyzone
[Edited 2013-02-19 09:58:11]
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
Birdwatching From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3573 posts, RR: 52 Reply 5, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 15 hours ago) and read 4128 times:
I lived in Quito for 7 years in the late 80s / early 90s, in those years there was a huge crash at UIO every year. Landing in UIO was unforgettable and I'm very sad from a nostalgia point of view I'll never again experience blasting over the skyscrapers on Gonzales Suarez avenue at the edge of the valley. But Quito will become much safer and indeed quieter now. I was just hoping for some sort of high speed rail to the new airport but it doesn't look like it's happening.
Quito is the perfect example of a city that simply doesn't have a suitable location for an airport. The new one isn't perfect either, apparently the area has lots of fog, you can't expand it, there is a humongous ravine at the end of the runway, and it's far from the city center. But then again Quito has been shifting down into the Cumbaya / Tumbaco valley in the last 20 years, most wealthy people live there now.
Crazy... I can't imagine Quito without the planes landing over the city every 10 minutes... it will never be the same!
Soren
All the things you probably hate about travelling are warm reminders that I'm home
A388 From Netherlands Antilles, joined exactly 12 years ago today! , 9067 posts, RR: 13 Reply 6, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 4075 times:
I wonder whether all the cargo flights to Europe will still require a fuel stop when the new airport opens. I remember reading in the past that the high altitude of the new airport will still cause take-off penalties/limitations, no matter how long the new runway is.
jsnww81 From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1855 posts, RR: 17 Reply 7, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3920 times:
Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 5): Crazy... I can't imagine Quito without the planes landing over the city every 10 minutes... it will never be the same!
It was pretty awesome. I stayed at the Hilton Colon right at the south end of the new town and from my room I could see the planes passing right to left across the city valley. The best were the widebodies - KLM's 773, Iberia's A340 and a Mas Air 767.
Quoting Birdwatching (Reply 5): blasting over the skyscrapers on Gonzales Suarez avenue at the edge of the valley
That was definitely a highlight - we passed really low over a mountain ridge, then a gorge with a highway running along it, and then suddenly the terrain rose sharply and there were skyscrapers right below the plane. One of the best approaches I've had the pleasure of experiencing!
thenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1964 posts, RR: 12 Reply 8, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3885 times:
Quoting A388 (Reply 6):
I wonder whether all the cargo flights to Europe will still require a fuel stop when the new airport opens. I remember reading in the past that the high altitude of the new airport will still cause take-off penalties/limitations, no matter how long the new runway is.
I answered your question in reply 4.
Yes. Fuel stop still required for most if not all modern airliners, as no one is still capable of lifting enough payload to justify the non stop to Europe. The problem is not the length of the runway. You can lay down 20,000 ft of asphalt if you wanted. At that altitude (7,800ft), the aircraft will hit max tire speed limit of 235 MPH around 13,500 feet and has to rotate.
The problem is the altitude. Short of digging a massive hole and putting UIO in it, you aint seeing non stops to Europe.
Thenoflyzone
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
thenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1964 posts, RR: 12 Reply 9, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3748 times:
The only airline i could see attempt a non stop to Europe from UIO is IB, as MAD is the closest European hub to Quito (LIS is closer, but i dont think there is any demand for UIO-LIS), and it might be just close enough for IB to make it work.
UIO-MAD is 4724 nm (great circle)
400 nm closer than AMS. Might just be enough, if the yields are there.
Thenoflyzone
[Edited 2013-02-19 16:04:36]
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
IBERIA747 From Spain, joined Aug 2003, 1825 posts, RR: 62 Reply 10, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3716 times:
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 9): The only airline i could see attempt a non stop to Europe from UIO is IB, as MAD is the closest European hub to Quito, and it might be just close enough for IB to make it work.
UIO-MAD is 4724 nm (great circle)
400 nm closer than AMS. Might just be enough, if the yields are there.
Although it hasnt been confirmed, there are rumors about the possibility of IB operating the A346 again on UIO flights now that the new airport is about to start operations. Remember they only operate the A343 on that route since the A346 incident that took place in 2007.
thenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1964 posts, RR: 12 Reply 11, posted (2 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3660 times:
Ran the numbers for the A346, and it looks like on a standard day, IB might be able to leave UIO bound for MAD with a close to full passenger load. No cargo though.
IBERIA747 From Spain, joined Aug 2003, 1825 posts, RR: 62 Reply 12, posted (2 months 4 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 3445 times:
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 11): Ran the numbers for the A346, and it looks like on a standard day, IB might be able to leave UIO bound for MAD with a close to full passenger load. No cargo though.
For reference purposes, we can compare this to LH's operations between BOG and FRA using their A346s, as well as AF's BOG-CDG flights using their A343s.
BOG-FRA: 9087 km / 4907 nm
UIO-MAD: 8750 km / 4724 nm
BOG-CDG: 8645 km / 4668 nm
BOG altitude: 2547 m
New UIO altitude: 2400 m
BOG's rwy length: 3800 m / 12467 ft
UIO's rwy length: 4100 m / 13448 ft.
- According to Great Circle Mapper, UIO-MAD is 337km / 182nm shorter than BOG-FRA and only 105 km / 57nm longer than BOG-CDG.
- UIO's new airport has a longer runway than BOG and sits at a slightly lower altitude.
Taking all this into account, I'd think nonstop flights between UIO and MAD would be perfectly doable by either an A343 or an A346 with a more than decent load. Of course we're not taking into account any minimum altitude restrictions on departure that could affect the payloads in order to comply with a certain climb performance. I say this because I have no idea about how terrain's altitude around the new airport will affect departure ops, even more if we're talking about heavy aircraft.
thenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1964 posts, RR: 12 Reply 13, posted (2 months 4 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 3401 times:
Clearly quads have an advantage with these kind of routes, as their takeoff performance is better compared to twins, in the event of an engine failure on takeoff, meaning less runway needed for more payload. If a European airline is going to serve UIO, it's going to be with a quad, that's for sure.
Will any other airline besides IB give it a go? That i don't know.
Isn't BOG a higher yielding market than UIO? That might be the difference maker.
Thenoflyzone
[Edited 2013-02-20 05:00:06]
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
iahmark From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 30 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (2 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 3274 times:
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 4): UIO-AMS is around 5163 nm on a great circle route, meaning at least 5400+ nm in real life. The new airport is at an altitude of 7800ft ASL.
a B77W, at that altitude, in ISA conditions, can takeoff with a max weight of 645,000 lbs. Well below the MTOW of 775,000 lbs.
Therefore, considering this very same 77W has to travel a good 5400-5500 nm to get to AMS, the only payload it could carry is around 25,000 lbs.
That means an empty cargo hold and less than half the seats sold, or very little cargo and no seats. Whichever way you slice it, hard to see how KL can make money on a non stop to AMS. So the answer is no, KLM will not change its ops in UIO. The stopover point might change, but a non stop to AMS is out of the question.
Thenoflyzone
I think is possible; MEX it’s the only hot and high airport (I believe) that sees 777 operation with AM and AF.
AF sometimes operates B777’s on its CDG-MEX-CDG flight which has a distance of 9213 Km per GCM.
AMS-UIO is just a tad longer (9561 Km) so I think it’s possible for KLM to do it with the 777, probably no cargo, all passengers thought.
BTW the elevations of these airports are pretty close:
MEX is at 7316 ft (2230 m) elevation
UIO is at 7906 ft (2410m) elevation
I could be doable, problem may be decrease I frequencies however last I heard was that KL was planning to increase service to 6 times/week
PDPsol From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 998 posts, RR: 6 Reply 16, posted (2 months 4 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 3228 times:
Quoting iahmark (Reply 15): BTW the elevations of these airports are pretty close:
MEX is at 7316 ft (2230 m) elevation
UIO is at 7906 ft (2410m) elevation
Quoting IBERIA747 (Reply 12): BOG altitude: 2547 m
New UIO altitude: 2400 m
So, MEX and BOG both have Europe non-stops and UIO is "only" 170 meters above MEX and below BOG? One would think Europe is doable from UIO. Perhaps this is more of a market and yield issue, as UIO is definitely a small market, compared to BOG, or of course MEX, which is massive.
76er From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 409 posts, RR: 2 Reply 17, posted (2 months 4 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 3200 times:
The main issue when departing the new UIO is not the altitude, but obstacle clearance limitations, as was mentioned before. Haven't been to MEX in a loooong time, but I don't recall this airport being surrounded by some pretty tall mountains the way UIO is.
Indeed, Quads and trijets have an engine-inop performance advantage over twins here. Hmm, perhaps a good 74M route for KL? Don't really think so, as KL prefers to use the gas guzzling 74's on somewhat shorter routes and leave ULH to the T7.
As for GYE: with the opening of the new airport MP has suspended its fuelstop there, as its MD11's can now make it to MIA nonstop without penalties.
thenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1964 posts, RR: 12 Reply 18, posted (2 months 4 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 3147 times:
Quoting iahmark (Reply 15): I think is possible; MEX it’s the only hot and high airport (I believe) that sees 777 operation with AM and AF.
AF sometimes operates B777’s on its CDG-MEX-CDG flight which has a distance of 9213 Km per GCM.
AMS-UIO is just a tad longer (9561 Km) so I think it’s possible for KLM to do it with the 777, probably no cargo, all passengers thought.
BTW the elevations of these airports are pretty close:
MEX is at 7316 ft (2230 m) elevation
UIO is at 7906 ft (2410m) elevation
I could be doable, problem may be decrease I frequencies however last I heard was that KL was planning to increase service to 6 times/week
As you said, MEX is 600 ft lower and slightly closer to Europe than UIO. That makes all the difference. Another thing in MEX's favour....the JETSTREAM.
AF, BA, LH and KL leaving MEX for Europe can take advantage of the jetstream, which is nowhere in play on a UIO to Europe flight.
All these tiny factors, 600ft lower, slightly closer to Europe, the jetstream, and the fact that MEX is a higher yielding market, make MEX-Europe more viable than UIO-Europe.
Thenoflyzone
[Edited 2013-02-20 09:59:12]
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
IBERIA747 From Spain, joined Aug 2003, 1825 posts, RR: 62 Reply 19, posted (2 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3062 times:
I'll quote myself on this one:
Quoting IBERIA747 (Reply 10): Although it hasnt been confirmed, there are rumors about the possibility of IB operating the A346 again on UIO flights now that the new airport is about to start operations. Remember they only operate the A343 on that route since the A346 incident that took place in 2007.
Well, IB has confirmed (on their Facebook profile) that they will use the A346 again on UIO flights now that the new airport is open. The route will now be operated by both the A343 and A346, as happens with many other IB long haul routes.
thenoflyzone From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1964 posts, RR: 12 Reply 20, posted (2 months 4 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 3042 times:
Quoting IBERIA747 (Reply 19): Well, IB has confirmed (on their Facebook profile) that they will use the A346 again on UIO flights now that the new airport is open. The route will now be operated by both the A343 and A346, as happens with many other IB long haul routes.
still with a stop at GYE on the outbound, right ?
us Air Traffic Controllers have a good record, we haven't left one up there yet !!
iahmark From United States of America, joined Nov 2007, 30 posts, RR: 0 Reply 22, posted (2 months 4 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2850 times:
Quoting 76er (Reply 17): The main issue when departing the new UIO is not the altitude, but obstacle clearance limitations, as was mentioned before. Haven't been to MEX in a loooong time, but I don't recall this airport being surrounded by some pretty tall mountains the way UIO is.
Indeed, Quads and trijets have an engine-inop performance advantage over twins here. Hmm, perhaps a good 74M route for KL? Don't really think so, as KL prefers to use the gas guzzling 74's on somewhat shorter routes and leave ULH to the T7.
I was looking at some pictures of the new airport and there isn't any major mountains on the vicinity (like the old one).
SCL767 From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8262 posts, RR: 5 Reply 23, posted (2 months 4 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 2827 times:
Quoting jsnww81 (Reply 2): The new airport has a longer runway and I wouldn't be surprised to see the route "de-coupled" from Guayaquil in the future (although I don't know if they can maintain the current frequency without serving both cities.) I imagine Iberia may do the same once the new airport is established and stabilized, and American may consider upgauging to a 767, as they have done at GYE.
Hopefully with the opening of the new Quito airport there will be a new non-stop service to North America. TAME has expressed an interest in launching UIO-JFK in the near future. LAN Ecuador currently operates GYE-JFK 11x weekly with the B763. IMO, it would be great if LAN Ecuador launched UIO-JFK in the future to complement the GYE-JFK service. AA could have operated the B763 into the old Quito airport from MIA, just like its oneworld partner LAN Ecuador. Also, with the opening of the new Quito Airport certain airlines will not have to deal with severe capacity constraints. There will be a size-able increase in domestic and regional operations from the new Quito airport starting next month.
76er From Netherlands, joined Mar 2007, 409 posts, RR: 2 Reply 24, posted (2 months 3 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2708 times:
Quoting iahmark (Reply 22): I was looking at some pictures of the new airport and there isn't any major mountains on the vicinity (like the old one).
I've looked up the difference in the performance limited takeoff weight for the MD11F and came up with a 34 metric tonne advantage for the new airport. That should allow for about 3-1/2 hours of extra flight time.
25 r2rho: IMO IB could eventually decouple GYE and UIO and introduce a non-stop - it has 4-holers and shorter distance to MAD than other EU airlines. But the yi
26 A388: So expansion possibilities from the new UIO airport is also very limited? Why did they design a new airport only to have a maximum capacity that is 2
27 SCL767: Yes, they do plan to expand the terminal at the new UIO airport.
28 A388: Strange planning to design and build a brandnew terminal with expansion also in mind while designing the new terminal. Why not do it right from the s
29 atnight: Hello, I had the opportunity to arrive the very first day of operations, 20 of February 2013. I arrived from MCO (via PTY) on CM at 5:30PM... I had th
30 Polot: Remember they had been building UIO since about 2006- and traffic to UIO has exploded in that time. I can't find any hard figures for passenger traff
31 A388: Awesome thanks for sharing them with us Runway expansion is not related to the airport expanding in this case so I'm not sure what you mean by this.
32 atnight: Sorry for the confusion, I was just answering to some comments made in previous posts that suggested the new airport is terrible because it cannot be
33 Birdwatching: Wow, just wow. That video is highly appreciated! Thank you so much! I literally enjoyed every second of that video. Here I am, wondering what the new
34 atnight: The approach itself is pretty cool... because it feels a longer approach than to the older airport... before, the pilot would do a quick U turn to la
35 Birdwatching: ... and sometimes more than that!! Soren
36 r2rho: The runway is fine at 4100m, no worries about that, by adding more length you'll sooner or later start hitting tire speed limits anyway. It's hard to
37 A388: No worries my friend, thanks for the great explanation As Birdwatching said, wow, great video!!! I have never been there but seeing your video I see
38 factsonly: Not long to go now, so here are some reminders of what the aviation community will be missing soon. Reminds me of the old Kai Tak: View Large View Med
40 TheSultanOfWing: I have been to the old UIO once. Anybody know what happened to the old Boeing 727's and Fokkers on the East side of the runway.....as well as the anci
41 factsonly: Martinair Cargo's MD11 assisted the Ecuadorian authorities in the certification of the new UIO Airport navigation equipment, with pre-operational flig
42 av757: I ran the numbers with the average yearly winds for a flight from SEQM/LEMD with an AV A330-243 with RR Trent 772B engines and the results for a 9:40
Sponsor Message: 
From Saudi Arabia, joined Jan 2000, 1786 posts, 
From Netherlands, joined Jul 2011, 210 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 1855 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2001, 1964 posts, 
From Netherlands Antilles, joined exactly 12 years ago today! 
, 9067 posts, 
From Spain, joined Aug 2003, 1825 posts, 
From Chile, joined Feb 2006, 8262 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
