A fake inauguration as that site already was a military base and it will have no commercial ops as there's no commercial terminal. This "NEWS" are intended only for the consumption of AMLO's personality cult.

The demise of Interjet also opens a lot of slots in the current MEX airport so this is even more pointless.

So for clarification, is this the half-built airport that the current Mexican president halted, or is this a conversion of an extant airfield?

LAX772LR wrote:

So for clarification, is this the half-built airport that the current Mexican president halted, or is this a conversion of an extant airfield?

Its being built on the grounds of the existing air force base



https://cdnimg.bnamericas.com/feaccrwbP ... WObTIb.jpg



https://mk0mexiconewsdam2uje.kinstacdn. ... -lucia.jpg

LAXintl wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

So for clarification, is this the half-built airport that the current Mexican president halted, or is this a conversion of an extant airfield?

Its being built on the grounds of the existing air force base



https://cdnimg.bnamericas.com/feaccrwbP ... WObTIb.jpg



https://mk0mexiconewsdam2uje.kinstacdn. ... -lucia.jpg

Wow! Pretty impressive. I wonder how much passenger/aircraft volume will it be designed to handle?

Seeing the diagrams this looks like a water down version of what the original MEX replacement was going to look like, though modified for St Lucia. Then, I just think why did they even bother canceling the project in the first place.

many321 wrote:

Seeing the diagrams this looks like a water down version of what the original MEX replacement was going to look like, though modified for St Lucia. Then, I just think why did they even bother canceling the project in the first place.

Less impressive, less useful, less convenient and causes a split airport situation.

They didn't do this for logical reasons. It was dropping pants and whipping it around, plain and simple.

Well, there are many cities in the world that had the same problem -main airport at full capacity- and they built a second one far way, but managed to keep both airports open with different targets. Usually the "closer to downtown" airport gets to keep the regional routes and some key business routes.

Aeroparque and Ezeiza (Buenos Aires) + Until recently: El Palomar
Congonhas and Guarulhos (Sao Paolo) + Viracopos (Arguable)
Santos Dumont and Galeao (Rio de Janeiro)
National and Dulles (Washington)
Linate and Malpensa (Milan)
Ciampino and Leonardo da Vinci (Rome)
Haneda and Narita (Tokyo)
Midway and O'Hare (Chicago)
Love and DFW (Dallas)
I believe Melbourne (Australia) also has 2 airports open simultaneously.

Maybe they don't all belong in the same basket case, but they share many common features.

And then of course there are some HUGE cities that NEED at least 2 airports to serve their needs:

London (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, City, Southend)
Moscow (SVO, Domodedovo, Vnukovo and 2 more!)
Paris (CDF, Orly)
New York (La Guardia, Kennedy, Newark) + Stewart (Arguable)

I believe Mexico City is big enough to sustain the coexistance of 2 airports. Benito Juarez can handle regional flights plus flights to Monterrey, Guadalajara, Panamá and maybe Cancún, and Santa Lucía could handle everything else.

Just remembered another one:
Olaya Herrera and Jose Maria Córdova (Medellin)

Sky Harbor and Gateway (Phoenix). Although in this case the closer to downtown airport is still the main airport.

Antarius wrote:

Less impressive, less useful, less convenient and causes a split airport situation.

Split airports aren't great for hubbing (they siphon off some traffic that could yield a more efficient hub) but they handle O&D just fine. In sprawling metros there's even an argument that it improves ground transport because people don't have to travel as far to get to the airport.

It's takes a lot of political muscle to tell carriers (and car rentals, hotels, retail, restaurants) they're all going to vacate XXX (with the closure of XXX) and move to YYY. Think about where that has occurred in the last fifty years.

Surely Greater Mexico City, with a population over 20 million, can support 2 airports.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Less impressive, less useful, less convenient and causes a split airport situation.

Split airports aren't great for hubbing (they siphon off some traffic that could yield a more efficient hub) but they handle O&D just fine. In sprawling metros there's even an argument that it improves ground transport because people don't have to travel as far to get to the airport.

It's takes a lot of political muscle to tell carriers (and car rentals, hotels, retail, restaurants) they're all going to vacate XXX (with the closure of XXX) and move to YYY. Think about where that has occurred in the last fifty years.

DEN. IST. BER. I'm sure there are more.

Regardless, I don't recall any carriers objecting to moving from Benito Juarez to Texcoco. It wasn't that much further either; it isn't like the original new MEX was being built in Toluca or something like that.

maverick4002 wrote:

Oh this went ahead? Surely they have to close Benito Juarez and force all the airlines there, otherwise whats the point?

NLU because of its geographical conditions and land availability will never be able to grow big enough to allow MEX to be closed, and if it does based on current MEX levels of demand both in operations and passenger/cargo volumes NLU can´t de expanded in the future to cope with potential new demand after Covid recovery.

If MEX ends up being closed, as I believe will eventually do, then demand from western Valley of Mexico will return back to TLC as both NLU and TLC share the same access/distance problems which MEX doesn´t have.

Moreover that would allow hubbing at either NLU or TLC.

Maybe this will be the solution to the problem.

I was also disappointed to see the new MEX being halted. It was magnificent, pretty, luxurious and expensive. I am unsure if Mexico needs such a glamourous building, and I do not know enough to acertain the reasons that the current administration used to stop its construction. Some say it was just a symbol against corruption, while others say it was to transfer contracts to sympathizing groups... I wonder if anyone will ever know the reality. The truth is that we need an alternative plan to the current MEX for when traffic picks up after covid. Before the pandemic, airlines had to fight their way to get slots and take off queues were ridiculously long at certain times of the day. If this fixes that situation, I am up for it. There are examples of successful cities with multiple airports and examples of very unsucccessful stories. Which one will it be? Only time will tell... Mexico City is a pretty unique metropolis that does not behave predictibly.

jmmadrid wrote:

I believe Mexico City is big enough to sustain the coexistance of 2 airports. Benito Juarez can handle regional flights plus flights to Monterrey, Guadalajara, Panamá and maybe Cancún, and Santa Lucía could handle everything else.

I believe you are right in that Mexico City can handle multiple airports. I am not sure that I agree with splitting domestic and international operations between two airports. MEX and SLU are not close to each other, and passengers connecting between the two would probably go cardiac before reaching the second airport and it would involve having to deal with luggage. Transiting from T1 to T2 in MEX is already a pain, I can't envision transiting between these two airports. IMHO, each could house a different group of airlines in both domestic and international operations.

I wonder though if they will follow through with the expansion of TLC. During the mid 2000s, the government tried to push for this airport to be successful. They even got the Air Madrid flights! I was looking good when Interjet and Volaris were operating from there, but once MX went bankrupt, they jumped on its MEX slots right away and left very few flights from TLC. I remember flying IAH-TLC on Continental some years ago too! It is true that TLC is far from the main tourist attractions in Mexico City, but it is important to remember that Toluca has a large industrial complex and it is 30-40 minutes away from Santa Fe (lots of headquarters and businesses there). Moreover, a train link between Santa Fe and Toluca was being built (halted now, and they were expecting to resume before covid started). Airlines know their finances and their markets better than I do, I just wonder if TLC could grow if the right routes were opened here.

MIflyer12 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

Less impressive, less useful, less convenient and causes a split airport situation.

Split airports aren't great for hubbing (they siphon off some traffic that could yield a more efficient hub) but they handle O&D just fine. In sprawling metros there's even an argument that it improves ground transport because people don't have to travel as far to get to the airport.

It's takes a lot of political muscle to tell carriers (and car rentals, hotels, retail, restaurants) they're all going to vacate XXX (with the closure of XXX) and move to YYY. Think about where that has occurred in the last fifty years.

MEX is currently being used by a lot of traffic both Pax/Cargo for hubbing and not only airwise. A lot of air to ground from nearby cities like Puebla, Queretaro, Pachuca, Toluca and Cuernavaca takes place at MEX where AM hubs a lot.

Texcoco airport was accepted with all airlines because it meant closing MEX eliminating the hubbing variable from the ecuation.

If MEX is to be closed, then airlines will have to decide whether to use NLU or TLC for their 100% operations for Mexico City, much in a way has happened in Beijing with the new Daxing airport. Maybe this is the solution.

CMA727 wrote:

If MEX is to be closed, then airlines will have to decide whether to use NLU or TLC for their 100% operations for Mexico City, much in a way has happened in Beijing with the new Daxing airport. Maybe this is the solution.

MEX is not going to be closed, it doesn't make any sense. The connectivity of TLC or NLU with the main demand area of Mexico City is pretty bad, I don't see any of those airports being preferred in the mid-term compared to MEX.

rabader wrote:

CMA727 wrote:

If MEX is to be closed, then airlines will have to decide whether to use NLU or TLC for their 100% operations for Mexico City, much in a way has happened in Beijing with the new Daxing airport. Maybe this is the solution.

MEX is not going to be closed, it doesn't make any sense. The connectivity of TLC or NLU with the main demand area of Mexico City is pretty bad, I don't see any of those airports being preferred in the mid-term compared to MEX.

MEX can be closed and both demand and airlines would be forced to choose from TLC or NLU, hubbing there, thus eliminating MEX attraction capacity it currently has.

MEX is located in a 750+ hectar permiter, very very close to downtown Mexico City. This land could be very valuable for enviromental, commercial o other uses.

Believe me, there is a real risk that the current goverment will decide to close MEX in order to make both NLU and TLC viable, specially the later,

Regards from Mexico City.

CMA727 wrote:

rabader wrote:

CMA727 wrote:

If MEX is to be closed, then airlines will have to decide whether to use NLU or TLC for their 100% operations for Mexico City, much in a way has happened in Beijing with the new Daxing airport. Maybe this is the solution.

MEX is not going to be closed, it doesn't make any sense. The connectivity of TLC or NLU with the main demand area of Mexico City is pretty bad, I don't see any of those airports being preferred in the mid-term compared to MEX.

MEX can be closed and both demand and airlines would be forced to choose from TLC or NLU, hubbing there, thus eliminating MEX attraction capacity it currently has.

MEX is located in a 750+ hectar permiter, very very close to downtown Mexico City. This land could be very valuable for enviromental, commercial o other uses.

Believe me, there is a real risk that the current goverment will decide to close MEX in order to make both NLU and TLC viable, specially the later,

Regards from Mexico City.

It can be closed by the government, but it doesn't make sense in any way. AMLO's plan is to operate the two airports simultaneously. One of the big slogans was: why do they have to close the AICM if it works? That's why they're adding gates to the T2.

I understand that MEX is land-locked and it doesn't have any room to grow but in 2019, 50 million people flew from there.

TLC and NLU don't have the transportation infrastructure to seriously threaten MEX. For NLU to work it has to be connected to Mexico City. What I see in the NLU future is that maybe the government will heavily subsidize fees in NLU to stimulate traffic. And I see some low-cost airlines flying to GDL, MTY, CUN, TIJ.

CMA727 wrote:

rabader wrote:

CMA727 wrote:

If MEX is to be closed, then airlines will have to decide whether to use NLU or TLC for their 100% operations for Mexico City, much in a way has happened in Beijing with the new Daxing airport. Maybe this is the solution.

MEX is not going to be closed, it doesn't make any sense. The connectivity of TLC or NLU with the main demand area of Mexico City is pretty bad, I don't see any of those airports being preferred in the mid-term compared to MEX.

MEX can be closed and both demand and airlines would be forced to choose from TLC or NLU, hubbing there, thus eliminating MEX attraction capacity it currently has.

MEX is located in a 750+ hectar permiter, very very close to downtown Mexico City. This land could be very valuable for enviromental, commercial o other uses.

Believe me, there is a real risk that the current goverment will decide to close MEX in order to make both NLU and TLC viable, specially the later,

Regards from Mexico City.

That's like cutting of your nose to spite your face. MEX has issues, but replacing it with two horrible alternatives is ludicrous.

I'm not sure what this would achieve.

One of the things I recall from previous discussions was how neither airport, MEX nor NLU, can achieve their potential capacity because of issues with coordination of traffic between the two. Some were suggesting that the two airports functioning simultaneously may not be able to significantly exceed the capacity currently available at MEX. And certainly, never reach the potential capacity of the now-cancelled new MEX.

So, sadly, I can see the eventual closure of the current MEX, thus optimizing usage of NLU, and shunting ULCC traffic off to TLC.

I had the opportunity to visit NLU and found that the airport terminal is being built at an impressive pace and moreover, at least what I saw looks promising in terms of architecture.

LAX772LR wrote:

So for clarification, is this the half-built airport that the current Mexican president halted, or is this a conversion of an extant airfield?

This is not the one they halted a few years ago. They quit that and went with this one instead for some reason I still haven’t figured out.

Halted:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_ ... co_Airport

New plan:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexico_ ... Da_Airport

Cancellation of Texcoco Airport is a few decision more idiot than the trump wall in Mexico history

[threeid][/threeid]

chunhimlai wrote:

Cancellation of Texcoco Airport is a few decision more idiot than the trump wall in Mexico history

It was politically motivated by an egomaniac. A disgrace. And in these few years Mexico has gone back 20 years in development. But thats what they wanted.

Without wanting to sidetrack the topic, what are the chances that a future administration might revive Texcoco? Or has that horse bolted?

V/F

VirginFlyer wrote:

Without wanting to sidetrack the topic, what are the chances that a future administration might revive Texcoco? Or has that horse bolted?

V/F

I think it’s over.

The abandoned construction zone is now part of a project to conserve 12,200 hectares of marsh on what was once massive Lake Texcoco before Spanish colonizers in the 1600s began draining the water to prevent flooding in their burgeoning settlement.

About half that area is slated for public use, including sports and events space more than twice the size of New York's Central Park.

Architect Iñaki Echeverria, who is overseeing the project, aims to open a portion of the park by March next year and offer full access by 2024.

It hasn't hit the news on English language sites yet, but on Spanish sites people are criticizing and making memes of the new logo for the airport at Santa Lucia.

Google "logotipo aeropuerto felipe angeles" to see it. There's a mammoth walking in front of a control tower. (Yeah, you read that right.)

It’s not as random as it appears. Remains of at least 200 mammoths were found during construction of the airport.

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/st ... ction-site

The problem with the logo is that most people won’t get the connection. The logo does look amateurish and without much creative thought.

It is more silly than the cancel of the Texcoco airport

chunhimlai wrote:

It is more silly than the cancel of the Texcoco airport

That stands alone as one of the stupidest decisions of the decade.

vedatil4 wrote:

It hasn't hit the news on English language sites yet, but on Spanish sites people are criticizing and making memes of the new logo for the airport at Santa Lucia.

Google "logotipo aeropuerto felipe angeles" to see it. There's a mammoth walking in front of a control tower. (Yeah, you read that right.)

Here it is


And lord, it is amateurish.

Gotta love the right wing shown crashing into the tower, the mammoth, the checkered patterns at the runway, and the color scheme!

Its the logo the current Mexican Government deserves to be honest.

More crap from this government... a white elephant ahead... a decade lost... we'll need Texcoco one day!

g77

That logo looks far far too complicated. What's wrong with a simple stylised plane that requires no more than 5 pen strokes, maybe a bit of a swoosh in there, and the name of the airport ?
Straightforward, easy to understand and inoffensive... albeit likely to garner endless criticism on a.net because it doesn't depict the wings entirely accurately as they exist on a 757

Antarius wrote:

vedatil4 wrote:

It hasn't hit the news on English language sites yet, but on Spanish sites people are criticizing and making memes of the new logo for the airport at Santa Lucia.

Google "logotipo aeropuerto felipe angeles" to see it. There's a mammoth walking in front of a control tower. (Yeah, you read that right.)

Here it is


And lord, it is amateurish.

Thanks for posting the picture. Boy is that poor.

This is the kind of nonsense someone who doesn't produce marketing material, websites, etc would do. Won't scale well to a smaller size and who cares if mammoth remains were found on the site, the relevance is nil. Just some government person thinking way too hard for their payscale.

davidjohnson6 wrote:

That logo looks far far too complicated. What's wrong with a simple stylised plane that requires no more than 5 pen strokes, maybe a bit of a swoosh in there, and the name of the airport ?
Straightforward, easy to understand and inoffensive... albeit likely to garner endless criticism on a.net because it doesn't depict the wings entirely accurately as they exist on a 757

Are those the wings of a 757 on the body of a 747? At closer look the shape of the plane seems odd. There are spots for two more engines but they weren't drawn. The elevators and the belly seem odd too. It's like they were attempting to draw a 747 but then modified it. The 747's iconic shape was probably too prevalent at first.

Also, it seems like the runway part was joined to the airplane and acronym part later on.

The bottom part by itself must've seemed like for a car racetrack, sports banner, or future star wars movie to the casual observer.

I’m not an aerospace engineer, but shouldn’t that plane have main landing gear? Nose gear only seems like a poor design.

vedatil4 wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

That logo looks far far too complicated. What's wrong with a simple stylised plane that requires no more than 5 pen strokes, maybe a bit of a swoosh in there, and the name of the airport ?
Straightforward, easy to understand and inoffensive... albeit likely to garner endless criticism on a.net because it doesn't depict the wings entirely accurately as they exist on a 757

Are those the wings of a 757 on the body of a 747? At closer look the shape of the plane seems odd. There are spots for two more engines but they weren't drawn. The elevators and the belly seem odd too. It's like they were attempting to draw a 747 but then modified it. The 747's iconic shape was probably too prevalent at first.

The winglets indicate a 744 (or an a330/a340). The 757 winglets are more vertical.

Alias1024 wrote:

I’m not an aerospace engineer, but shouldn’t that plane have main landing gear? Nose gear only seems like a poor design.

You win this thread.

Antarius wrote:

vedatil4 wrote:

davidjohnson6 wrote:

That logo looks far far too complicated. What's wrong with a simple stylised plane that requires no more than 5 pen strokes, maybe a bit of a swoosh in there, and the name of the airport ?
Straightforward, easy to understand and inoffensive... albeit likely to garner endless criticism on a.net because it doesn't depict the wings entirely accurately as they exist on a 757

Are those the wings of a 757 on the body of a 747? At closer look the shape of the plane seems odd. There are spots for two more engines but they weren't drawn. The elevators and the belly seem odd too. It's like they were attempting to draw a 747 but then modified it. The 747's iconic shape was probably too prevalent at first.

The winglets indicate a 744 (or an a330/a340). The 757 winglets are more vertical.

This is a.net
Therefore the only type of aircraft that exists is a 757. Everything else is deemed a land vehicle

Antarius wrote:

Alias1024 wrote:

I’m not an aerospace engineer, but shouldn’t that plane have main landing gear? Nose gear only seems like a poor design.

You win this thread.

That was a great catch. Maybe aircraft are expected to make belly landings all the time, with two engines missing, as they crash into the control tower? Lots of crazy things are happening in this logo.

From reliable but confidential sources I just learned that military administration of Santa Lucia Airport is getting rid of most of the civilian airport operations experts occuping management level positions to replace them with military officials, making it even more clear that the airport will be run as some sort of military unit. I don´t think that´s a wise move.

CMA727 wrote:

From reliable but confidential sources I just learned that military administration of Santa Lucia Airport is getting rid of most of the civilian airport operations experts occuping management level positions to replace them with military officials, making it even more clear that the airport will be run as some sort of military unit. I don´t think that´s a wise move.

If true, that is very unfortunate.

aerolimani wrote:

CMA727 wrote:

From reliable but confidential sources I just learned that military administration of Santa Lucia Airport is getting rid of most of the civilian airport operations experts occuping management level positions to replace them with military officials, making it even more clear that the airport will be run as some sort of military unit. I don´t think that´s a wise move.

If true, that is very unfortunate.

Unfourtunatly it is true.

aerolimani wrote:

CMA727 wrote:

From reliable but confidential sources I just learned that military administration of Santa Lucia Airport is getting rid of most of the civilian airport operations experts occuping management level positions to replace them with military officials, making it even more clear that the airport will be run as some sort of military unit. I don´t think that´s a wise move.

If true, that is very unfortunate.

Unfourtunatly it is true.

It is true. It's painful to watch the entire former project trashed so that a new president could say he cut out the pork.... he also has the terrible teens 787 prez jet up for sale (which admittedly was a vanity purchase made by the former president... but it's done.... money spent). just posturing... but all of my years living in Mexico... I saw unbelievable things.... from municipalities getting federal money for new energy efficient street lights every term... so that the incoming president could tear out the old ones, recycle the metal, and put the money in his own personal coffers... I watched that happen twice in Guaymas, Sonora in under 10 years from 2006-2014... this doesn't surprise me...

SFOThinker wrote:

Surely Greater Mexico City, with a population over 20 million, can support 2 airports.

One would think, but I'm not so sure that the current airport will become anything beyond an LCC/regional hub a shadow of it's current size. Look at SBD, so many damn people in that part of SoCal and they can't get a single airline. The closest airport with regular airline service is ONT, and while ONT is growing, even they aren't nearly as big as you'd expect given how many millions of people live in the area closest to that airport. There are a lot of rich people in MEX, but there are also many, many, many more who will never have enough money at once for a plane ticket.