Updated: Mexico city's new airport to be improved Santa Lucía Airport

KrustyTheKlown · Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:48 am

Context: Mexico city's new airport started construction in 2015 and was scheduled to open by mid 2022. It's already 30% finished and scrapping it will cost $5-6 Billion dollars.

The president-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) just orchestrated a fake referendum to avoid taking responsibility for scrapping the airport in order to give contracts to his long time "associate" Jose Maria Rioboo to build a different airport at the Santa Lucia Air Force base.

The referendum was fake because according to Mexican laws at least 40% of voters have to participate in it, the supreme court has to approve the question to be asked and the National Electoral Institute (INE) has to be in charge of the referendum.

Instead less than 1.2% voters participated in the fake referendum and neither the Supreme Court or the INE were involved in it as it was organized 100% by AMLO's party.

Results: 29% for the airport already under construction, 69% for AMLO's airport, whats specially funny considering that all polls gave the opposite numbers.

As Rioboo has absolutely no experience designing airports and they promised to build it in 2 years despite not even having a credible airspace study, expect the Santa Lucia airport to become a ****show that will make Berlin-Brandenburg look as a fine example of airport planning.

jcancel · Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:51 am

Which articles do you recommend about the case?

Wouldn't parties sue the government in this case?

KrustyTheKlown wrote:
Context: Mexico city's new airport started construction in 2015 and was scheduled to open by mid 2022. It's already 30% finished and scrapping it will cost $5-6 Billion dollars.

The president-elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO) just orchestrated a fake referendum to avoid taking responsibility for scrapping the airport in order to give contracts to his long time "associate" Jose Maria Rioboo to build a different airport at the Santa Lucia Air Force base.

The referendum was fake because according to Mexican laws at least 40% of voters have to participate in it, the supreme court has to approve the question to be asked and the National Electoral Institute (INE) has to be in charge of the referendum.

Instead less than 1.2% voters participated in the fake referendum and neither the Supreme Court or the INE were involved in it as it was organized 100% by AMLO's party.

As Rioboo has absolutely no experience designing airports, expect the Santa Lucia airport to become a ****show that will make Berlin-Brandenburg look as a fine example of airport planning.

KrustyTheKlown · Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:11 am

jcancel wrote:
Which articles do you recommend about the case?

Wouldn't parties sue the government in this case?

Most information is in Spanish at the moment. A few weeks ago The economist had an article about the fake referendum.

The builders will surely sue the government as they have to scrap all the works they are currently doing, that's what the $ 5-6 billion USD refers to.

Investors will also sue the government as $ 7-to-8 billion USD worth of bonds issued by the airport were bought by financial institutions all around the world and those bonds were structured according to traffic figures that only the now-canceled airport will be able to achieve.

When all is said and done scrapping the airport will surely cost more than complete it. And that's not even considering the cost of building the "Santa Lucia" airport.

LAXintl · Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:30 am

Elections have results.

But lets be honest, the project has faced a ton of problems and irregularities from the start even with the site selected being in a flood zone and grounds would require lots of rehabilitation.
Some of the worlds most expert companies were barred from participating at the end, yet many of their early documents are being used page by page by winning consortium.
Host of construction errors and shody materials and work such as the collapsed bridge found to have not been built to specs only discovered after an earthquake.

Not that the next group or project might be any better, but elections can and do change the direction the wind blows.

KrustyTheKlown · Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:43 am

LAXintl wrote:
Elections have results.

But lets be honest, the project has faced a ton of problems and irregularities from the start even with the site selected being in a flood zone and grounds would require lots of rehabilitation.
Some of the worlds most expert companies were barred from participating at the end, yet many of their early documents are being used page by page by winning consortium.
Host of construction errors and shody materials and work such as the collapsed bridge found to have not been built to specs only discovered after an earthquake.

Not that the next group or project might be any better, but elections can and do change the direction the wind blows.

If you think the contracts for the airport weren't fair, just wait to see Rioboo's company getting ever single one of them with absolutely no tenders.

Speaking of shody construction, Rioboo's company was behind that brand-new mall that collapsed because it rained

What's even more insulting is that Santa Lucia airport is also in a flood zone and its soil will also require very expensive ground improvement works (which by the way, were almost completed for the Texcoco airport).

And in case you didn't pay attention to the first post, this wasn't an election. It was a fake referendum.

Sorry, but if the wind is indeed changing is not for the better.

Mex87 · Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:50 am

Those techincal issues were already solved.

The other proyect is also going to be developed on top of a low ground, flood-prone zone and even worse ground quality. This has nothing to do with democracy, and has all to do with corruption from the new ruling party, even ignoring mexican businessmen, engineers and other politics. Has to do more with power than with money, really. Maybe a pseudo-venezuela? Two of Mexico´s three powers are under MORENA (leftists) influence and they are seeking to get the top position of the remaining one via nepotism, something MORENA swore to erase from mexican history. Also excessive expenses, changes to the Mexican Constitution...So, well, you know how this stories go.

many321 · Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:56 am

This is horrible! My pa earlier this year lost his connecting flight due to congestion at MEX, and we thought, well at least with the new terminal he wouldn't be rushing from the International side of T2 to catch his domestic AM flight to MLM. Now, this...Jesus...What are people thinking.

flyingclrs727 · Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:25 am

Well this should be great for LAX, DEN, DFW, IAH, ATL, MIA, and PTY. Without a new hub airport in Mexico City, lots of passengers will fly through hubs in nearby countries.

LAX772LR · Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:06 am

BER authorities have to see this and be concerned....

I sincerely doubt Germany would ever follow suit. But it's still gotta be disconcerting.

Bobloblaw · Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:01 am

A preview of what Mexico will be like under AMLO.

mercure1 · Mon Oct 29, 2018 3:58 pm

Too me actually seems whatever Mexico City does its a bad choice for new airport location. Why not instead look to expand fields like Toluca and Puebla?

I dont see need for a mega airport, when the city can be serviced by multiple smaller fields located in different directions.

janders · Mon Oct 29, 2018 4:42 pm

I'd also a agree, a large metro like Mexico City would be well served by multiple airports. No need for a grand colossal mega project when multiple smaller existing fields with expansion can handle the load.

xaapb · Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:00 pm

mercure1 wrote:
Too me actually seems whatever Mexico City does its a bad choice for new airport location. Why not instead look to expand fields like Toluca and Puebla?

I dont see need for a mega airport, when the city can be serviced by multiple smaller fields located in different directions.

Planes struggle with Mexico City altitude, Toluca is even higher than Mexico City, Toluca has been used in the past by airlines and it just does not work for them. I can't imagine arriving to Toluca then drive 65km to catch and international flight.
Puebla is even farhter, from Mexico current airport to Puebla airport the distance is of 103km.

I'm sorry but Mexico dose need a mega aiport.

Greetings

xaapb · Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:01 pm

xaapb wrote:
mercure1 wrote:
Too me actually seems whatever Mexico City does its a bad choice for new airport location. Why not instead look to expand fields like Toluca and Puebla?

I dont see need for a mega airport, when the city can be serviced by multiple smaller fields located in different directions.

Planes struggle with Mexico City altitude, Toluca is even higher than Mexico City, Toluca has been used in the past by airlines and it just does not work for them. I can't imagine arriving to Toluca then drive 65km to catch and international flight.
Puebla is even farhter, from Mexico current airport to Puebla airport the distance is of 103km.

I'm sorry but Mexico dose need a "mega aiport".

Greetings

mercure1 · Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:17 pm

Look at large cities like London, New York, Los Angeles with multiple airports.

With the distances involved in Mexico City, a mega airport would require a long journey for a large percentage of the population. Instead of operating a multi-airport system would offer more a local option for many travelers.

MaverickM11 · Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:28 pm

xaapb wrote:
mercure1 wrote:
Too me actually seems whatever Mexico City does its a bad choice for new airport location. Why not instead look to expand fields like Toluca and Puebla?

I dont see need for a mega airport, when the city can be serviced by multiple smaller fields located in different directions.

Planes struggle with Mexico City altitude, Toluca is even higher than Mexico City, Toluca has been used in the past by airlines and it just does not work for them. I can't imagine arriving to Toluca then drive 65km to catch and international flight.
Puebla is even farhter, from Mexico current airport to Puebla airport the distance is of 103km.

I'm sorry but Mexico dose need a mega aiport.

Greetings

plus passengers have very clearly voted with their wallets, driving TLC capacity down 80+% from its peak

xaapb · Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:34 pm

mercure1 wrote:
Look at large cities like London, New York, Los Angeles with multiple airports.

With the distances involved in Mexico City, a mega airport would require a long journey for a large percentage of the population. Instead of operating a multi-airport system would offer more a local option for many travelers.

Well the new airport is closer from the current airport than TLC, PBC or SLM.

TWFlyGuy · Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:35 pm

LAX772LR wrote:
BER authorities have to see this and be concerned....

I sincerely doubt Germany would ever follow suit. But it's still gotta be disconcerting.

Berlin authorities: We really have a disaster of a project here. Might be the worst ever.

Mexican authorities: Hold my beer!

KrustyTheKlown · Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:41 pm

mercure1 wrote:
Look at large cities like London, New York, Los Angeles with multiple airports.

With the distances involved in Mexico City, a mega airport would require a long journey for a large percentage of the population. Instead of operating a multi-airport system would offer more a local option for many travelers.

Those are cities that are not completely surrounded by mountains. Texcoco is the only place where an airport can be built without serious airspace limitations.

Santa Lucia will require an even larger journey than Texcoco as is farther away from where people actually lives, and for most people it will be in the same direction as the old MEX. This is not comparable to NY having JFK to the east and Newark to the west. If you want a NY analogy it would be having only LGA near the city and another airport in Stamford, CT, with the additional limitation that the only approaches to both airports interfere with each other.

A multi-airport system was tried last decade and it was a complete disaster as nobody wanted to flight out of the secondary airports.

airbazar · Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:43 pm

mercure1 wrote:
Look at large cities like London, New York, Los Angeles with multiple airports.

With the distances involved in Mexico City, a mega airport would require a long journey for a large percentage of the population. Instead of operating a multi-airport system would offer more a local option for many travelers.

Those cities have multiple airports because they don't have a choice. When given a choice, one single mega airport is better than multiple airports every single time: PEK, DXB, IST, etc.

mugler · Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:47 pm

What an atrocious decision made by the AMLO administration. This will affect passengers, airlines, tourism, the economy and the ability to build a one of a kind megahub.

dcajet · Mon Oct 29, 2018 5:52 pm

Regardless of if a mega city as Mexico City is better served with one or multiple airports, this about face is in the best Latin American tradition of zero respect for legal continuity and security. And paves the way for all sorts of speculation about what really is behind this decision. Reducing such a complex decision for the future of Mexico City to a binary vote, cast by the average citizen, who knows squat about airports and only represents around 1% of the Mexican population is a travesty of democracy and spells really bad news for Mexico.

ScottB · Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:02 pm

mercure1 wrote:
Too me actually seems whatever Mexico City does its a bad choice for new airport location. Why not instead look to expand fields like Toluca and Puebla?

Because telling people in Mexico City to "use Puebla" is like telling New York to "use Hartford" due to the NYC airports being full. The poor choices for the location of a new airport are largely because substantially all of the land which is easy to develop has already been taken in a mountainous metropolitan region of 20+ million. Mountains aren't good locations for airports so the remaining swampy former lake beds are the only option. Puebla and Toluca have maybe one or two road options each from Mexico City and neither is remotely convenient for anyone in the Mexico City region.

LAXintl wrote:
Elections have results.

True, but the circumstances surrounding the "consulta" regarding NAICM seem exceedingly dodgy.

Murdoughnut · Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:16 pm

I did a tour of the site about six months ago - quite a bit of infrastructure and foundation already there then.

DLvsWN · Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:21 pm

Truly a disaster for anyone who actually travels to MEX much (I also travel to PBC a lot too, and suggesting that as a secondary airport is laughable). MEX has fallen into worse and worse disrepair as a result of the planned new airport, and even without this problem it's a congested nightmare by an reasonable standard.

PDPsol · Mon Oct 29, 2018 6:50 pm

dcajet wrote:
Regardless of if a mega city as Mexico City is better served with one or multiple airports, this about face is in the best Latin American tradition of zero respect for legal continuity and security. And paves the way for all sorts of speculation about what really is behind this decision. Reducing such a complex decision for the future of Mexico City to a binary vote, cast by the average citizen, who knows squat about airports and only represents around 1% of the Mexican population is a travesty of democracy and spells really bad news for Mexico.

THIS! dcajet has hit the issue on the head: institutional stability and legal transparency for private property and contracts. This 'vote' is a joke and does not even meet Mexico's election commission due process standards. This vote betrays AMLO's bold statements about 'popular democracy' and reveals this guy is just like all the other Mexican populists like Lopez Portillo in the 1970's, who pushed the nation into its worst financial crisis in the early 1980s and led to their 'lost decade.' AMLO is simply today's version of that ineffective leader.

Unfortunately, this thread now traffics with policy makers and politics rather than objective aviation sector facts. For that, there is only one person to blame: AMLO himself.

IAHWorldflyer · Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:26 pm

This really is bad for Mexico City, and for Mexican airlines. The present MEX is hemmed in by housing on all sides and there is no where to expand. Though I wasn't looking forward to the trek out to Texcoco, a nice modern terminal and properly spaced runways would make up for it. I seriously doubt the Sta. Lucia site will work in conjunction with MEX. As with so many things in Mexico, it's two steps forward and one step back.

c933103 · Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:34 pm

airbazar wrote:
mercure1 wrote:
Look at large cities like London, New York, Los Angeles with multiple airports.

With the distances involved in Mexico City, a mega airport would require a long journey for a large percentage of the population. Instead of operating a multi-airport system would offer more a local option for many travelers.

Those cities have multiple airports because they don't have a choice. When given a choice, one single mega airport is better than multiple airports every single time: PEK, DXB, IST, etc.

Beijing will have a multi airport system starting from next year

wingman · Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:45 pm

That's a shame. I was just in Mexico City earlier this year for a foodie/drinks weekend and the city really is something special once you get out of that airport. Truly awful infrastructure, concessions, lounges, layout..it made no sense and was literally unchanged from visits 10 and 20 years prior. Even JFK seems to have improved in that time.

jr1000 · Mon Oct 29, 2018 7:56 pm

mercure1 wrote:
Look at large cities like London, New York, Los Angeles with multiple airports.

With the distances involved in Mexico City, a mega airport would require a long journey for a large percentage of the population. Instead of operating a multi-airport system would offer more a local option for many travelers.

Well, Actually, Texcoco is just 5 kms form actual MEX, Proposal site is 46 KMS from actual MEX. connecting International to National, how, involving another transport ?...Airlines told Him not to cancel TEXCOCO, 30% of investment will be wasted.
Mexico city need a big airport, and some regional ones, in order toa void crossing the city, but that happened in the past, all airlines leave TOLUCA
Jose

CarlosSi · Mon Oct 29, 2018 8:43 pm

Even if expensive to build, it would’ve been a great airport to have long-term with the possibilities of expansion and location just outside the city. Santa Lucía is incredibly far from the city center. I presume this would also mean AICM would stay open and some flights would be moved to SL. Connect it with the city center via high speed rail and this would be a decent alternative. Question is who would be willing to move?

santi319 · Mon Oct 29, 2018 9:34 pm

Welcome to AMLO’s Mexico. If there was any doubt whats comming, here it is..

777kkk · Mon Oct 29, 2018 10:54 pm

Welcome to AMLO’s Mexico. If there was any doubt whats comming, here it is..

Yes ,and it is terrifying

Antarius · Mon Oct 29, 2018 11:49 pm

Weapons grade stupidty.

ual777newpaint · Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:02 am

A friend from MEX just sent me this interesting study, which basically says, “Yeah, it would be possible to operate both AICM and Santa Lucia.”

https://lopezobrador.org.mx/wp-content/ ... avBlue.pdf

KrustyTheKlown · Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:19 am

ual777newpaint wrote:
A friend from MEX just sent me this interesting study, which basically says, “Yeah, it would be possible to operate both AICM and Santa Lucia.”

https://lopezobrador.org.mx/wp-content/ ... avBlue.pdf

Yet that study doesn't consider wind patterns nor weather factors and only shows 2 final approaches in total for the airports, while the Texcoco airport would have triple independent approaches.

In the best of cases it implies 2/3 of the capacity of the airport that is being built, and that matters because the bonds sold to finance the airport depend on traffic figures that only the to-be-canceled airport will be able to achieve.

Bobloblaw · Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:29 am

777kkk wrote:
Welcome to AMLO’s Mexico. If there was any doubt whats comming, here it is..

Yes ,and it is terrifying

Yup....he ran on an anti corruption platform and is corrupt before he even takes office...prediction. The next president of Mexico will be a far rightwing populist.

ual777newpaint · Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:43 am

KrustyTheKlown wrote:
ual777newpaint wrote:
A friend from MEX just sent me this interesting study, which basically says, “Yeah, it would be possible to operate both AICM and Santa Lucia.”

https://lopezobrador.org.mx/wp-content/ ... avBlue.pdf

Yet that study doesn't consider wind patterns nor weather factors and only shows 2 final approaches in total for the airports, while the Texcoco airport would have triple independent approaches.

In the best of cases it implies 2/3 of the capacity of the airport that is being built, and that matters because the bonds sold to finance the airport depend on traffic figures that only the to-be-canceled airport will be able to achieve.

I wasn’t saying I support this, but it’s an interesting read either way. I’d argue that this will prove to be the worse solution, but there are arguments to be made for both sides. The environmental impact of the Texcoco airport was not insignificant.

aerolimani · Tue Oct 30, 2018 1:00 am

AMLO hasn't even taken office yet. He's not the president until December 1.

Since being elected, he's flip-flopped a few times. Personally, I think this is his version of brinksmanship. I think it is still 50/50 as to whether he will actually cancel the Texcoco airport project.

smiranda01 · Tue Oct 30, 2018 2:27 am

Having international flights at one airport and domestic at another one is a very bad idea... Perhaps AMLO does not realise that some people actually make connections.

This approach was tried in Canada years ago in Montreal, with new YMX handling international, and old YUL domestic, with connecting passengers needing a long and expensive cab ride. Eventually YMX was abandoned for passenger traffic and the passenger terminal was demolished... a white elephant used for cargo. That will likely be the sad fate of Santa Lucia

Chemist · Tue Oct 30, 2018 2:36 am

I connected a number of years ago in MEX. Never again.
I have a trip to South America coming up. One option was flying AeroMexico through MEX. They lost my business as I was never going to go through MEX again.
Hello Copa and Panama City!

dcajet · Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:45 am

Chemist wrote:
I connected a number of years ago in MEX. Never again.
I have a trip to South America coming up. One option was flying AeroMexico through MEX. They lost my business as I was never going to go through MEX again.
Hello Copa and Panama City!

Regardless of airport, transiting through MEX is not a good idea, as one has to go through immigration and customs even if you are in transit, same as it is in the USA. You will not regret giving PTY & COPA a chance: connections are their business and it's a very well run machine.

LAX772LR · Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:27 am

airbazar wrote:
When given a choice, one single mega airport is better than multiple airports every single time: PEK, DXB, IST, etc.

...except that every single one of those cities is (or in the case of PEK, will soon have) multiple commercial airports.

Might want to rethink that point.

KrustyTheKlown · Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:38 am

ual777newpaint wrote:
KrustyTheKlown wrote:
ual777newpaint wrote:
A friend from MEX just sent me this interesting study, which basically says, “Yeah, it would be possible to operate both AICM and Santa Lucia.”

https://lopezobrador.org.mx/wp-content/ ... avBlue.pdf

Yet that study doesn't consider wind patterns nor weather factors and only shows 2 final approaches in total for the airports, while the Texcoco airport would have triple independent approaches.

In the best of cases it implies 2/3 of the capacity of the airport that is being built, and that matters because the bonds sold to finance the airport depend on traffic figures that only the to-be-canceled airport will be able to achieve.

I wasn’t saying I support this, but it’s an interesting read either way. I’d argue that this will prove to be the worse solution, but there are arguments to be made for both sides. The environmental impact of the Texcoco airport was not insignificant.

Most of the environmental impact of Texcoco already happen, add that to the environmental impact of building Santa Lucia and you have the worst possible outcome.

The soil at Santa Lucia is practically the same as in Texcoco as both sites used to be part of the same dried lake:

The Texcoco airport had a remediation plan for its environmental impact but that plan is likely to be canceled as well.

Chemist · Tue Oct 30, 2018 5:39 am

dcajet wrote:
Chemist wrote:
I connected a number of years ago in MEX. Never again.
I have a trip to South America coming up. One option was flying AeroMexico through MEX. They lost my business as I was never going to go through MEX again.
Hello Copa and Panama City!

Regardless of airport, transiting through MEX is not a good idea, as one has to go through immigration and customs even if you are in transit, same as it is in the USA. You will not regret giving PTY & COPA a chance: connections are their business and it's a very well run machine.

Thanks for the comment. Actually I've flown Copa a couple of times before; I found the soft and hard product to be decent in economy. Better than the US3.

airbazar · Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:21 pm

c933103 wrote:
airbazar wrote:
mercure1 wrote:
Look at large cities like London, New York, Los Angeles with multiple airports.

With the distances involved in Mexico City, a mega airport would require a long journey for a large percentage of the population. Instead of operating a multi-airport system would offer more a local option for many travelers.

Those cities have multiple airports because they don't have a choice. When given a choice, one single mega airport is better than multiple airports every single time: PEK, DXB, IST, etc.

Beijing will have a multi airport system starting from next year

Yes it will have 2 mega airports

MEX is nowhere near the mega airport ranking. When they get there it may make sense to start talking about a second airport.
Having said that, it is true that multiple airports are better from the point of view of the O&D passenger but it's bad for business because operating 2 airports is more costly than 1, and no network carrier wants to split operations if it doesn't have to.

Caribbean007 · Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:24 pm

dcajet wrote:
Chemist wrote:
I connected a number of years ago in MEX. Never again.
I have a trip to South America coming up. One option was flying AeroMexico through MEX. They lost my business as I was never going to go through MEX again.
Hello Copa and Panama City!

Regardless of airport, transiting through MEX is not a good idea, as one has to go through immigration and customs even if you are in transit, same as it is in the USA. You will not regret giving PTY & COPA a chance: connections are their business and it's a very well run machine.

Last august I use Aeromexico SDQ-,MEX-CUN and return same way, first thing is impossible to make fast conection in MEX. the shortest time must be 2 hours to at least get your next flight just walking fast. The way Back from Cancun we was lucky that we decided to arrive as international flight 3 hrs before, our flight was delay 50 minutes and with that delay our conection in MEX to SDQ was impossible to make it in 1 hr and they was putting every body that arrived early in the earlier flight to make possible the conections.

Flaps · Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:31 pm

Multiple airports in very large cities are not such a problem so long as domestic and international traffic are co-mingled. Its when you limit international operations to one airport and domestic to another that things get dicey. For example JFK and EWR both have extensive international and domestic operations. Regardless of airport chosen you have a lot of connecting options. Montreal with YUL and YMX was a good of example of the opposite extreme. In very large cities such as MEX and several places in China the markets are large enough to have two airports with co-mingled traffic. MEX may not be quite there yet but it certainly has the potential.

Caribbean007 · Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:31 pm

janders wrote:
I'd also a agree, a large metro like Mexico City would be well served by multiple airports. No need for a grand colossal mega project when multiple smaller existing fields with expansion can handle the load.

Oh, yes, and then what you will do when those diferents airports get the point of congestion? build 2 more new airports? MEX do not have more flights because is running over the limit, with the new airport will be solved a lot problems that they have now and will have space for future expansions.

FF22DXB · Tue Oct 30, 2018 12:54 pm

dcajet wrote:
Chemist wrote:
I connected a number of years ago in MEX. Never again.
I have a trip to South America coming up. One option was flying AeroMexico through MEX. They lost my business as I was never going to go through MEX again.
Hello Copa and Panama City!

Regardless of airport, transiting through MEX is not a good idea, as one has to go through immigration and customs even if you are in transit, same as it is in the USA. You will not regret giving PTY & COPA a chance: connections are their business and it's a very well run machine.

I believe this was going to change with NAICM and that connections withouth immigration would have been possible.

I guess now with Santa Lucia airportt will be better, you land in MEX take the bus to Santa Lucia and you can be there 6 hours later.............

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net