AICM œ Mexico City International Airport

Transcripción

Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla
MIT ID. 924011563
Airport Design and Planning
December 9, 2004
AICM
– Mexico City International Airport—
Is another alternative possible?
1. AICM, saturated?
The Aeropuerto Internacional de la Ciudad de Mexico (Mexico City International
Airport or AICM) is located in the core of the Mexico City Metropolitan Area (MCMA),
that comprises the sixteen delegations of the DF, fifty-eight municipalities of the State of
Mexico, and one municipality of the State of Hidalgo. Since the construction of the
AICM in the 1950’s, it was necessary to adapt it with the improvement and construction
of new runways, taxiways, terminals, etc, due to the economic growth, steady progress in
technology, and the increase in national and international flights. However, even with the
continuous improvements and constructions, with the most important developments
occurred in the eighties, the AICM is not currently serving properly and with the
appropriate levels of service the increasing demand. The airport is currently at the edge of
saturation not only in its runway capacity but also in several other facilities and services.
Let us analyze some of the AICM elements to assess its level of congestion or saturation:
Runway Capacity: The runway system of the AICM consists of two non-independent
runways that are separated by 300 m between its axis as it is shown in Appendix 1. The
maximum capacity of the AICM at the end will be given by the runway system. The
declared capacity of the runway system is of 54 operations per hour or 320 thousand a
year. The AICM provided service to 22 million passengers and handled around 22
million passengers in 2003. The system is currently reaching capacity as it is shown in
Fig 1 where the average number of operations per hour from January to September 2004
are depicted.
Fig 1. Average Operations per hour (Jan – Sep 04)
Source: www.aicm.org.mx
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
The average number of operations even though gives a general overview of the demand
at the AICM, does not provide a framework of the level of saturation. This can be
observed in Table 1 where can be observed the number of times that the declared
capacity of 54 operations per hour has been exceeded in 2004. The maximum number of
operations undertaken at the AICM has reached 66 operations/hour (AICM Nov 2004).
Table 1 Number of times that the declared capacity has been exceeded in 2004.
Month 9
10
13 13
Jan
5
19
Feb
6
21
Mar
9
12
Apr
11 13
May
14
5
Jun
15 12
Jul
23
5
Aug
17
2
Sep
26
Oct
3
4
Nov
Dic
Total 142 106
11
1
1
12
13
2
2
3
7
6
2
3
5
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
7
2
32
14
5
1
2
2
2
3
10
6
7
1
1
15
40
2
16
1
17
2
1
1
5
8
1
4
9
1
1
1
3
30
18
1
1
3
11
4
5
10
4
3
2
3
19
3
7
3
7
2
1
11
5
4
10
2
20
8
10
17
15
13
19
13
12
21
25
4
21
25
20
23
19
12
11
11
19
14
12
6
T
74
66
83
92
65
61
90
91
69
80
25
47
55
157 172 796
Source: (AICM Nov 2004)
The situation has worsened in the last months April and October where 80% of the
operations exceeded 50 operations per hour, 40% more than 54 operations – which is the
AICM declared capacity per hour-- and 40% between 50 and 53% operations per hour as
it is depicted in Fig 2.
Fig 2. Programmed vs. Real Operations
PROGRAMMED VS. REAL OPERATIONS
45%
40%
40%
40%
35%
40%
35%
25%
30%
20%
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
54 or mor e
50 t o 53
N U M B ER OF OP ER A T I ON S
Programmed
Source:(SCT 2004)
Real
40 t o 49
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
Taxiways: The current taxiways capacity is considered by the authorities of 300 thousand
operations per year. The AICM is currently handling around this number of operations
per year. The AICM is also reaching capacity in taxiways operations
Terminals: The current terminals that exist at the airport for aircraft parking have the
following capacity:
Table 2: Contact and Remote Terminals
No
1
2
3
4
5
Location
Passenger Terminal
North Platform
South Platform
Customs
SE of the Airport, Tango
Subtotal
Total
Position Type
Contact
Remote
Remote
Remote
Remote
Remote
Number of Positions
33
4
9
9
16
38
71
Source: (ASA 2003)
According to the current demand, the AICM authorities estimate that the terminals have a
remaining capacity between 3 or 5 more years.
Passenger Building: The passenger building could be classified as a linear building, as is
depicted in Appendix 2, that has contact aprons with air bridges that connects the aircraft
with the passenger buildings and two areas for the operations of remote terminals with
transporters. The passenger building is divided in two areas, the north section for
international service and the south for national services. The total area for passenger
service and process is 105,500 square meters divided in 42,000 square meters for
international service and 63,500 square meters for the national service. This is
appropriate since the demand composition of the AICM is 70% national and 30%
international. Considering the minimum index of surface per passenger in peak hours,
recommended by the aviation authorities1 of 18 square meters passenger at the
international area and 6 square meters for the national area (this space requirement seems
excessive), the resulting capacity for both areas are(ASA 2003):
International Area:
National Area:
2,333 passengers in peak hours
The current demand for these areas has been estimated for peak hours in:
International Area:
National Area:
As we can observe, the international area is at the edge of its capacity whereas the
national area is already saturated(ASA 2003).
1
The AICM Master Plan does not mention which aviation authorities are referring to.
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
Parkings: The parking demand has already exceeded supply since 2001.
The noise impact of the AICM is also severe by any standards. However, there is no
evidence that the authorities are worried about these factor or mitigation measures or
studies are being considered.
The government had foreseen this increasing congestion and airport saturation many
years ago and started to analyze the possibility and location of a new airport for the
MCMA. The issue of finding a location for a new airport was reinforced and of
significant important in 2001 when from March 19th to April 4th due to maintenance a
runway of the AICM was closed representing extraordinary costs for the airlines in jet
fuel, crew overtime, extension in airport schedules, and jet ways overtimes as well as
delays and discomfort for passengers.
2. A New Airport to Satisfy Demand?
The Mexican government had been lobbying the construction of a new airport at the
MCMA for several years. The Mexican government could not delay more the decision of
a new airport and its location due to the Mexican economic growth, and the increasing
globalization. President Fox’s Administration was the first in thirty years to go beyond
the words of the decision of the site of the new airport. The final contenders for the
location of the new airport were Texcoco in the State of Mexico and Tizayuca in the State
of Hidalgo. Texcoco is located twenty-six kilometers away from Mexico City downtown
and would represent the closure of the current airport. Tizayuca is located seventy-three
kilometers away of Mexico City downtown and would operate in conjunction with the
AICM. The cost of building the new airport in Texcoco would have been around two
billion dollars, whereas the cost of building it in Tizayuca would have been three billion
dollars (An analysis and comparison of the alternative locations for a complementary
airport at the MCMA is out of the scope of this document).
On October 22, 2001, the Secretary of Communications and Transport announced the
Federal Government’s decision to construct the new airport at the northeast of the
Distrito Federal (Federal District or DF) on the former Texcoco lake in response to the
increasing demand and congestion at the AICM. The objective of the construction of this
airport was to become a hub for international and domestic flights. The decision of
locating the new airport in Texcoco responded to the following technical criteria(Davis
Rosan 2002):
1) “making sure that the demand and necessities of the users are satisfied in the
long term (50 years)
2) that the option is viable for the airlines
3) that is economically profitable
4) that it has a positive impact on the urban development of the zone with the
least environmental impact”
One of the positive factors of the development of the new airport at the Texcoco site was
that of the 15,000 hectares required, most of them were already owned by the federal
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
government. However, 4,500 hectares were “ejidos2” (13 “ejidos” including San
Salvador Atenco) owned by “ejidatarios” (local farmers)(Davis Rosan 2002) and this
jeopardized the new airport project. In order to build the new airport in this land, the
federal government needed to expropriate the “ejidos” declaring this land as of public
utility. Therefore, the decision immediately face opposition by local and regional
communities. This opposition turned into political pressure, demonstrations, and violence
not only by the local and regional communities but also from political groups and parties
that wanted to take advantage of the situation.
On April 16, 2002, the government published the announcement for the competitive
bidding process for the construction of the new MCMA airport. In this process twentyeight enterprises were registered, of which 12 of them, integrated in 6 consortiums
presented formally their proposals. The veredict was programmed to be announced in
August 2003 and the Master Plan was expected to be finished at the beginning of 2003.
However, due to the political pressure and violence undertaken by the “ejidatarios” the
government decided to stop the current project(SCT 2002). The government justified its
decision and argued that the demand reduction as a result of the September 11, 2001
attacks to the World Trade Center in New York extended the useful life of the current
airport and provided the opportunity to keep analizing and exploring new options to
satisfy the need and demand of airport services.
3. What is next for the AICM?
The planning for the AICM is at a very critical stage due to the impossibility to extend or
build new runways. The AICM is currently planning to increase capacity through an
expansion project to reach its maximum capacity as well as to implement demand
mechanisms to shift demand for a different time of the day.
This expansion project comprise the following(ASA 2003)3:
• The expansion and renewal of the National and International buildings and
services
• The construction of a new passenger building (Building No.2) that will handle
around 10 million passenger
• The construction of a new passenger movement system between the two terminals
• New taxiways in the operations area to balance the runway and taxiways demand.
• New runway parallel 210 m away of the current 05-D-231.
The main elements of this expansion project are depicted in Appendix 3.
The new runway will not constitute a third runway for landing or takeoff but the actual
5I-23D will become a taxiway to reduce the traffic of Terminal 1. The airspace does not
2
Ejidos were stablished in the 1920s as an achievement of the Mexican Revolution in which local and
small farmers were owners of a share of land.
3
Translation from ASA (2003). Plan Maestro del Aeropuerto Internacional de la Ciudad de Mexico. Mexico, D.F.,
Aeropuertos y Servicios Auxiliares (ASA).
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
allow more than two sequencial runways at the AICM. In addition, the new runway allow
to have always two runways in operation while the other one is having maintenance.
The Two Terminals System requires an efficient, reliable, and fast transportation system
between these two terminals. Thus, the AICM is planning to build a small transporter
(small train) has been planned for passengers and cargo.
The AICM expansion project to its maximum capacity is considering to handle 30
million passengers a year since they are assuming an increase in the number of
passengers (95) per operation (national/international) that combined with the 320
thousand operations a year gives the 30 million passengers. The AICM forecast was
based on the total number of passengers considering an annual increase of 3.94% which
is 0.26% less than the historic growth average of 4.2%. The maximum capacity with this
expansion project will be of 350 thousand operations; however, the airport authorities
does not consider this figure since it will compromise the operation of the airport. The
maximum capacity (30-32 million passengers) with the current extension programs is
estimated to be reached in ten years(ASA 2003). However, this is difficult to predict and
risky to assume. The airline industry current trend is to increase frequency and reduce the
aircraft size. Therefore, to assume that the flight occupancy will be higher and that the
aircraft size will be bigger is unreal. Therefore, the expected number of passenger that the
AICM can manage should be reduced and considered around 28-30 million passengers in
the best of the cases.
Based on the premise that “forecast is always wrong”, to predict the future of the airports
is by nature uncertain and risky. The extent and time framework in which demand will
reach capacity is uncertain; however, the aeronautic authorities should conduct strategic
planning which considers long-term and anticipatory planning rather than responsive in
order to provide adequate and efficient air transportation services to the population.
The problem of the AICM is not only the operations in the long-term or at peak hours but
has extended through most of the operative hours. Therefore, the AICM must not be
focused on increasing capacity that will be reached sooner rather than later but into
managing the demand and providing efficient alternatives to des-centralize the AICM
operations. The motivation that the AICM must have is that when demand reaches
capacity the relationship between delays and demand/capacity is not linear. A small
demand reduction could result in significant delay reduction that is currently an issue at
the AICM.
The political and social impossibility of building a new airport, the limited time
framework of the current AICM expansion, and the increasing demand have forced the
AICM and the SCT authorities to explore new alternatives in order to provide efficient
and reliable services. The initial proposal of the author for the AICM and the
complementary airports was to implement a demand management scheme in the AICM in
conjunction with a strengthen program of the complementary airports. The AICM is
already trying to implement such a scheme and the Secretaria de Comunicaciones y
Tranportes (Ministry of Communications and Transport or SCT) authorities are trying to
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
develop a multi-airport system4. Therefore, instead of making a set of proposals for the
development of these initiatives, this paper will intend to provide recommendations and a
general framework for the adequate planning and design of both, the Demand
Management scheme and the Multi-Airport System. The following section will provide a
general framework and guidelines about Demand Management and Multi-Airport
Systems.
4. Demand Management and a Multi-Airport System Framework
Given the AICM’s impossibility of expansion because of both political and social issues
as well as physical constraints, the task is how to provide efficient and reliable air
transportation services for the Mexico City Metropolitan Area (MCMA) improving and
increasing the operations of the AICM and developing a set of complementary airports
that will constitute a multi-airport system. De Neufville and Odoni establish that these
tasks involve at least three components(De Neufville 1995):
• Management of Supply: What kind, where, how, and at what scale and in which
phases the primary airport or the complementary airports should be improved,
expanded or built.
• Management of Demand: What are the most effective mechanisms to shift
demand to different times of the day, different days, seasons or to complementary
airports?
• Economic Efficiency: Which should be the most appropriate and cost-efficient
transition scheme to traverse from a centralized airport to a multi-airport system
in order to avoid excessive costs to the different stakeholders either airlines,
passengers, or the airport owners.
In the following sections, general guidelines to approach the management of demand and
supply will be provided.
a. Demand Management5
Demand Management are the “set of administrative or economic measures and
regulations aimed at constraining the demand for access to a busy airfield and/or at
modifying the temporal characteristics of such demand(De Neufville and Odoni 2003).”
The objective of Demand Management schemes resides on trying to maintain a
determinate level of operations in airport that is facing increasing congestion in order to
maintain a level of efficiency and reliability.
In Demand Management, three different demand management mechanisms can be
approached(De Neufville and Odoni 2003):
4
These initiatives are being implemented by the AICM and the SCT in an un-coordinated manner.
This section will be based on “De Neufville, R. and A. Odoni (2003). Airport Systems: Planning, Design,
and Management, Mc Graw Hill” which provides an general overview of the Demand Management
mechanisms.
5
MIT ID. 924011563
•
•
•
December 9, 2004
Administrative: This approach considers the assignation of slots6 among airlines,
general aviation, and cargo based on a specified criteria. These criteria could be
“length of time that the flight”(De Neufville and Odoni 2003) has been operated
been operated by a particular airline, “the regularity of the flight”, “the origin or
destination of the flight” or the “characteristics of the airline requesting the
slot”(De Neufville and Odoni 2003).
Economic: This approach is based on several forms of congestion pricing which
consist of attempting of reducing delays to an economic efficient level at a
particular time of day or season or day of the week by charging higher fees during
the these periods and lower fees during normal periods.
Hybrids: This approach complements the slot allocation with pricing schemes in
which higher fees are charged in peak hours in order to discourage users to
operate flight at these periods. Hybrid schemes require the implementation of the
following steps(De Neufville and Odoni 2003):
o “Step 1: Declare the airport capacity, i.e., specify the number of slots
available in each time period”
o Step 2: Develop and announce a schedule of landing fees (and possibly
other airport charges) that vary by time of day and/or day of week and/or
season.
o Step 3: Invite request for slots from perspective users.
o Step 4: Use a schedule coordinator (or other administrative mechanism) to
allocate slots, whenever the number of requests for a time period exceeds
the number of available slots.”
b. Multi-airport system7
A multi-airport system consists of a set of airports serving commercial transport in a
metropolitan region independently of airport ownership. The premise is that multi-airport
systems just work well if area served by the airports generates large amounts of traffic.
The multi-airport system is appropriate and viable if the area serving the airport has a
threshold of 10-14 million originating passengers depending on the characteristics of the
metropolitan area served by the multi-airport systems(De Neufville 2000; De Neufville
and Odoni 2003). De Neufville and Odoni provide a formula to calculate the number of
originating passengers:
Originating Passengers: ½ (Total Passengers – Transfers)
However, the number of originating passengers would not be the only reason why a
multi-airport system is un-evitable or necessary at a metropolitan region. The lack of
6
Slot refers to an “interval of time reserved for the arrival or the departure of a flight and is allocated to an
airline or other aircraft operator for a specified set of dates” from De Neufville, R. and A. Odoni (2003).
Airport Systems: Planning, Design, and Management, Mc Graw Hill.
7
Based on Ibid, De Neufville, R. (1995). Amsterdam Multi-airport System Policy Guidelines. Cambridge,
Amsterdam Airport Schiphol, De Neufville, R. (2000). Planning Multi-Airport Systems in Metropolitan
Regions in the 1990's. Cambridge, US Federal Aviation Administration.
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
capacity or limitations of an existing airport could be another reason to develop a multiairport system.
In the analysis of a multi-airport system must be considered the market dynamics and that
the major airport will influence the traffic and activity in the secondary airports. Market
and competition dynamics normally concentrates the demand on primary airports.
Therefore, the construction or improvement of secondary airport must be carefully
analized taking in consideration the social, geographic, economic, and political reality of
the metropolitan area to prevent political and economical failures. Planners should be
aware of the strategic choices they have to influence the market either in the primary or
secondary airports.
Extensive experience of multi-airport systems has been developed in cities such as New
York, Miami, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, Washington, D.C., London, Paris or
Seoul. As De Neufville and Odoni mention, the common pattern in multi-airport systems
is that the primary airport comprises a large share of the traffic and one or more airport a
small share of the traffic that could range between 10 to 50 percent. In addition, another
common patter is the volatility of traffic at secondary airports. Thus, secondary airports
must be developed with a considerable flexibility to respond to particular demands and
types of traffic. Another lesson obtained at the multi-airport systems around the world is
that strong regulation or government intervention in setting a particular demand market or
sector in a particular airport or forcing passengers or traffic to consider secondary airport
has proved to be unsuccessful. Planners should be aware of their limits in setting the
market dynamics. San Francisco/Oakland, Charles de Gaulle/Orly, Dulles/Reagan or
Osaka/Kansai are examples of unsuccessful government attempts to force passengers or
airlines to move from a busy airport to un-congested facilities. “Governments are
practically powerless to influence the distribution of traffic between airports”(De
Neufville and Odoni 2003). In contrast, some of the secondary airports, without
government pressure, have developed its operations focused on particular markets or
specialized airlines which demonstrates how the market contributes to set the
characteristics of the airports in the system.
5. Demand Management and a Multi-Airport System in MCMA
As a result of the cancellation of the construction of the new MCMA airport, The
Secretaria de Comunicaciones y Transportes (Ministry of Communications and
Transport or SCT) is undertaking a program that has as its main objective(SCT 2004):
• Increase the air coverage through the following actions:
o To promote new routes focused on regional routes
o To promote the growth of existent routes
o To promote the consolidation of Monterrey (MTY) and Guadalajara
(GDL) airports as “Hubs”.
• Promote the Metropolitan Airport System development and the descentralization
of the AICM through the following actions:
o To decentralize traffic Origin/Destination to Toluca(TLC), Puebla (PBC),
Cuernavaca (CVJ), and Queretaro (QET). The Metropolitan areas and its
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
historic urban development patterns served by each of these airports and
the AICM is depicted in Appendix 4.
o To promote the demand growth of air services at the influences zones in
the complementary airports
o Decentralize connecting flights from the AICM to MTY and GDL
At the same time, the AICM is implementing a demand management scheme. However,
they are not doing these actions in a coordinated manner, which reduces the efficiency
and effectiveness of these two actions. The following section will provide details about
how these two approaches are being undertaken and will provide some comments and
recommendations to improve its functioning.
a. Demand Management
As De Neufville and Odoni have pointed out, the issue is not if the AICM should apply
demand management schemes but how can these schemes can be best applied. Let us
analyze the demand management scheme that is trying to be implemented in the AICM.
The AICM has tried to implement a hybrid demand management mechanisms and has
followed in general terms the steps suggested in the previous section:
•
•
•
Step 1: The AICM has already established a declared capacity of 54
operations/hour,
Step 2: The AICM since at least 1998 has announced and charged a set of fees
that varies by time of day. The government announced a set of landing and
services fees that also vary with time on July 18, 2002 that were cancelled on
October 12, 2004 without specifying the reasons. The AICM announced the set of
fees that are currently charged by the AICM on October 28, 2002 that were
authorized by the Secretaria of Hacienda y Credito Publico (Secretary of
Treasury or SHCP). The SHCP has the faculty of authorizing the AICM fees since
this airport is mainly own by the government. The landing and services fees that
are currently charged are shown in Appendix 5.
Step 3: The AICM announced and established in 2002 the assignation of slots for
landings and takeoffs. The slot assignation for the Winter period is depicted in
Appendix 6. In addition, an example of the slot assignation for landings and takeoffs is shown in Appendix 7.
The Demand Management steps already developed at the AICM should be reviewed and
modified since they present some inconsistencies that will be analyzed in the following
lines.
The AICM has been charging differential fees depending on time of day at least since
1998 and maybe even before. However, in real terms the level of some of the current fees
charged is quite similar to those fees charged in 1998. The demand in these recent years
has not decreased but on the contrary has growth in a significant level. Therefore, the
peak pricing used at the AICM is not producing the outcomes wished. The level of
congestion is still considerable and the airlines still schedule flights at peak hours. The
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
fees levels are comparable with Milan Airports, which are one of the cheapest airports in
terms of fees in Europe.
The peak hours –Critical 1 and 2 in Appendix 5— at which the set of landing and other
services fees are does not correspond to the current peak hours. This peak hours –Critical
1 and 2—were established in 1998 when the demand pattern and airline framework was
completely different. In addition, the set of fees vary depending if the flight is national or
international. The difference is substantial as it is shown in Appendix 5. Even though this
is not considered illegal, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) considers
this as an unfair practice for the airlines. Therefore, the peak hours in which the
differential fees will be charged must be reviewed as well as these differential charges.
The AICM must also extend the peak pricing scheme for at least three hours in both, the
morning and the evening peak periods due to the fact that delays occur when high
demand remains present for long periods of time and that in the case of short peakpricing periods airlines can avoid paying the higher charge changing its schedule for
fifteen or twenty minutes. If the peak pricing is extended to three hours instead of one as
it is the case of the AICM evening peak pricing the AICM has the chance to recover of
possible delays.
As it was mentioned above, the AICM announced and assigned slots for landings and
takeoffs. However, this mechanism has not helped to improve operations or reduce delays
at the AICM. The number of operations exceeds most of the time the declared capacity.
In addition, the slots are not strictly followed even by the flight schedule announced by
the airlines. According to SCT authorities, there are three different flight schedules at the
AICM: slot schedule, operational schedule, and the airlines flights schedules. Even
though the slot schedule could be flexible since the landing and take-offs are in some
sense stochastic, at least the slot schedule and airline flight schedule should be similar.
This factor contributes to that the declared capacity is exceeded.
Furthermore, the author is not aware of any “buy and sell”, auction, or different
assignation slot processes being implemented by the AICM authorities. This factor also
contributes to increasing congestion at the AICM because airlines are not provided with
the mechanisms to shift to a different time of day in order to be more economically
efficient. Even more, the airlines do not receive any incentive to shift to a different time
of day or to a complementary airport. Authorities should be careful in that the peak hour
charges are not transmitted to the passengers by the airlines.
Currently, there is no legal procedure to deny the assignation of a slot. The AICM is
considered a “facilitator” airport. The unique instrument to intervene, control, reduce, or
withdraw slots is the Reglamento de la Ley de Aeropuertos (Regulations of the Airports
Law). In this regulation at its Article 998, SCT can control the slot assignation in a
saturated airport. During the first four years of saturation the airport authorities must
withdraw the slots that during the previous year were not used in at least an 85% of the
8
Translation conducted by the author
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
time or had delays with respect to the schedule assigned in a 15% or more. If saturation
remains for a three years period, the airport authorities should withdraw the first month of
each year, starting the forth year, 10% of the slot assigned at the saturated slot hours. The
withdrawn slot should be auctioned.
SCT based on the Regulations of the Airports Law in its Article 100 can declare an
airport as a saturated facility, either in the Airfield or the Passenger buildings if more that
52 times a year the declared capacity is exceeded or if delays are caused by lack of
runways, terminals or services.
Even though this regulation provides an instrument to control the assignation the slots,
this regulation is limited by all means. According to the data provided by ASA, there are
five hours that are already saturated. The actions that could be undertaken could take
several years. It is needed additional schemes to enforce slot schedule adherence and
prompt mechanism to control, trade, auction, or cancel slots.
The SCT is currently pushing to declare the AICM as a saturated facility in order to be
able to intervene in the AICM and foster demand decentralization through slot control.
However, due to political and social considerations this is considered not a viable option.
This issue also suggest the need of an expedite slot control process.
b. Multi-airport system
If we consider the formula provided, perhaps the MCMA does not have a threshold of
more than 14 million originating passengers. However, its lack of capacity and level of
saturation makes necessary and inevitable the creation of a multi-airport system. In
addition, the geographic and demographic characteristics of the MCMA makes
appropriate the constitution of a multi-airport system. The Instituto de Geografia de la
UNAM (UNAM Geography Institute) conducted a study to establish the airports
influence areas based on the time that takes to travel from the different areas of the
MCMA to each one of the airports—isochrones areas. The isochrones to travel to the
primary and complementary airports at the MCMA are shown in Appendix 8. As it can
be appreciated in isochrones figure, the influence areas for the AICM and TLC are
overlapped in some areas of the Distrito Federal (Federal District or DF). In some areas
of the DF—north, northwest, west, and southwest—could take more time to travel to the
AICM than to the TLC. Therefore, the demand of these DF areas could be better served
by TLC rather than by the AICM. The travel time to the different airport explain the
revealed preferences of some of the current AICM passengers to shift to TLC expressed
in a survey of which the results will be explained in the following sections. The travel
times at the MCMA is an important factor due to the difficult road traffic conditions
present in the main Mexico City corridors and streets. The traffic density of the MCMA
is shown in Appendix 9 and will contribute to explain the travel times and influence areas
of each of the airports. Considering the isochrones and traffic density figures, the
influence areas for each of the airports is depicted in Appendix 10.
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
The multi-airport system system considered by the SCT comprises the AICM and the
airports of Toluca, Puebla, Cuernavaca, and Queretaro. These set of airports serve and
should serve more in the future different markets in terms of location, quality, or fare.
Even though the SCT is planning to decentralize O/D operations to TLC, PBL, CVJ, and
QET, the analysis of the airport characteristics will be focused just in TLC and PBL
airports which the author thinks that are the most viable to become part of an efficient
multi-airport system.
i. Toluca
Toluca’s Airport is the best “escape valve” for relieving the AICM since it already serves
a fraction of the general aviation of the MCMA and that the planning of the Toluca
International Airport (AIT) is already defined by the SCT at the 2003 plan for the
MCMA demand services.
The AIT started operations in 1984 and is located in Lerma municipality. An important
characteristic of this airport is the altitude (2575 m. above sea level) which presents some
challenges to the operations to the airlines. The AIT has a 4200 m runway with a 15-33
orientation. The runway capacity is 35 general aviation operations per hour of 15
commercial aviation operations per hour. The annual capacity has been considered of
148,000 operations per year(SCT 2003). The current bottleneck in the Toluca Airport is
the passenger building which serves just a small number of passengers. This is the main
reason of why this airport has not become a complementary airport to the AICM. This is
about to change due to the willingness of the State of Mexico government and the SCT.
Currently, the AIT is an appropriate example of adequate planning since the authorities
have foreseen this airport as the main complementary airport for AICM and have secure
the future development of the airport considering “landbanking” and planning the
development of this airport facilities incrementally. The State of Mexico Government
hired Mitre Corporation to develop a Master Plan for AIT. The Master Plan is focused on
the development on the long-term and at the maximum capacity of the airport of two
parallel and independent runways that can serve around 60 million passengers a year.
This development will be undertaken incrementally according to several stages starting
with the improvement of the passenger building to serve from 2-8 million passengers a
year which is the actual capacity of the current runway with complete taxiways up until
the construction of the parallel and independent runway in conjunction with other
developments as taxiways, new passenger buildings, multimodal transport interchange
centers. In general improvements to different airport and non-airport services as cargo,
fuel and terminal buldings as well as hotels and commerce infrastructure respectively.
ii. Puebla
Puebla International Airport (PBL) is located at 20 km northwest of Puebla city and at
100 km southeast of Mexico City in Huejotzingo municipality covering its total surface
approximately 396 hectares. PBL is located at 2,241 above sea level which provides
adequate conditions for air navigation. In 2003, the PBL airport provided service to
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
71.662 passengers, of which 97% were national passengers and undertook 11,006
operations of which 39% were commercial operations, 60% were general aviation
operations, and 1% were cargo operations. The PBL airport has just one runway (17-35
orientation) of 3,600 m length that provides a capacity of 18 operations/hour. The
maximum annual capacity of PBL airport is about 195,000 operations a year. The PBL
provides services to considerably less passengers and commercial operations than the
ones generated at its influence area.
Near to the PBL, Puebla government is planning a “Dry Port” and an International
Logistic Center. The “Dry Port” which consists of specialized cargo terminals which will
comprise infrastructure and logistic integrated services to provide cargo reception,
storage, and transference between different transportation modes, i.e. surface
transportation and rail transportation.
In the long term, PBL should become a viable option as a complementary airport since a
considerable number of O&D passengers at its influence zone could be better server at
this airport. In addition, the construction of the “Dry Port” and the International Logistic
Center provides an important market niche for PBL to decentralized cargo operations and
increase the air cargo operations in the center region. This will depend on the planning
and decision-making process of the aeronautical authorities of both the PBL and the
AICM.
c. Potential Market for the Complementary Airports
The airlines that operate the system “hub & spoke” concentrate most of its activity at the
AICM due to the economic advantages present at the main commercial aiport of the
country. However, this does not mean that the demand is better served at the AICM nor
that the passengers just prefer the AICM. Currently, there are important market niches
for the complementary airports.
As part of the studies undertaken to evaluate the AICM O/D passenger des-centralization
to the complementary airports, the Unidad de Apoyo para el Cambio Estructural
(Structural Change Support Unit or UACE) conducted a survey at the boarding terminals
of the AICM. This survey was actually conducted by Felipe Ochoa y Asociados (FOA)
from July 19 to 21, 2003 in order to know the revealed preferences from the airport
passengers regarding TLC, PBL, CVJ, and QET and to explored their disponibility to
change to a complementary airport. 2423 surveys were undertaken. The results of this
survey depicted in Fig. 3 show that 23% of the passengers would be willing to change
from the AICM to TLC, 14% to CVJ, 10% to PBL, and 7% to QET if these airports
would have the same destinations, schedules, and frequencies as the AICM.
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
Fig. 3 AICM Revealed preferences survey
Source:(SCT 2004)-a
This would represent a potential market for the 4.1 million passengers for TLC, 2.1
million passengers for CVJ, 1.8 million passengers for PBC, and 1.1 million passengers
for QET of the total 17.7 million O/D passengers transported by the national airlines(SCT
2004). However, feasibility studies for these airports have shown that the actual market
would be less than the potential market that due to the existence of low-density routes in
these airport that would not be attractive to the airlines. The actual market for these
airports would be 1.5 million passengers for TLC, 0.8 million passengers for CVJ, 0.8
million passengers for PBC, and 0.4 million passengers for QET(SCT 2004). The other
two survey results presented in Fig 3 wanted to explore the revealed preferences form the
airport passengers regarding TLC and the AICM and the disponibility of the passengers
to change to this complementary airport. The results of this survey seems consistent with
those obtained by the UACE. Considering just the national routes, the actual market for
these airports would be 1.2 million passengers for TLC, 0.6 million passengers for CVJ,
0.6 million passengers for PBL, and 0.3 million passengers for QET.
The SCT considers that there is an important potential market niche for air transportation
in the following years in the current road-based mass transportation market --passenger
buses--which is the main competitor for air transportation in Mexico since rail is not
significant in the country. Therefore, the SCT hired Felipe Ochoa y Asociados, S.C. to
evaluate the potential modal passenger shift from passenger road-based mass
transportation to air transportation. Road-based and air transportation have its own
specific characteristics that determine its own market share. There are different buses
services –economy class, first class, executive service—that offer different competition to
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
air transportation. In order to evaluate the opportunity of the it is necessary to focus on
the passenger road-based transportation that actually competes with air transportation9. In
this sense, the bus transportation has a total ridership per year of 2,246 million passengers
per year10. Of this total bus ridership, 1,665 million passengers are “economy” services
that do not compete with air transportation., 435 million passengers are
Origin/Destination routes between cities with less than 15,000 persons which will not be
considered viable for air transportation, 86 million passenger travel distances less than
300 km which will not be viable for air transportation, and 3.9 million passengers do not
have air transportation coverage. This result in a potential market for air transportation of
56.1 million passengers per year as it is shown in Fig. 4 compared with the 17.7 million
passengers per year handled by the national airlines in national service in the past year.
Fig. 4 Potential Market at Road Based Mass Transportation
Source: (FOA 2003)
Of these potential market of 56.1 million passenger a year that travel by first-class or
executive bus, 25.1 million passengers travel in routes in which there are air
transportation routes and 31 million passengers in bus routes in which there is no flights
available. The SCT considers three different strategies as tools to shift passengers from
bus transportation to air transportation: Marketing, Fare Reduction and Yield
Management. The SCT estimates that with these three strategies air transportation will be
able to capture around 3 million passengers in existent routes and 3.6 million in new
routes.
9
The bus services that compete with the air transportation services are first class and executive services.
Includes all kinds of services and trips, without regarding on the distance
10
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
Of this captured demand the market for each airport is 1.6 million passengers for TLC,
1.2 million passengers for PBL, 0.6 million passengers for QET, and 0.5 million
passengers for QET.
The total potential market for the different airports adding the AICM decentralization and
modal shift are 2.8 million passengers for TLC, 1.8 million passengers for PBL, 1.1
million passengers for CVJ, and 0.9 million passengers for QET.
Even though the potential market for the complementary airports is not considerable, it
will produce significant delay and congestion reductions at the AICM. As it has been
mentioned, the relation between delays and demand or capacity is not linear. Therefore, a
small reduction in demand could represent significant reduction in delays. Even if
currently the potential market for the complementary airports is not considerable as was
mentioned above, complementary airports are part of long-term strategies to serve
originating passengers from the area. The complementary airports must be developed
incrementally to satisfy the uncertainties of future demand.
These figures of potential demand on each complementary airport just have the objective
to provide a general framework of the possible viability of a multi-airport system, even
though the author is aware of uncertainty of forecasts.
d. Mechanisms and Incentives to Promote Complementary Airports
Currently, the complementary airports are more expensive than the AICM, 5-6% more
expensive in fuel and 15-25% in airport services(SCT 2004). Therefore, the SCT in order
to foster the complementary airports has proposed the following set of measures that
include incentives for the airlines to choose the complementary airports(SCT 2004):
• Complementary airports marketing with existent and new airlines, passengers, etc
• Business Plans Development with airlines, financing and banking institutions,
airports, etc.,
• Support services such as preferential treatment for complementary airport services
and routes, joint marketing programs between the federal government, state
government, etc.,
• The incentives packages for the airlines shown in the Table 3.
Table 3 Incentives for Airlines that choose the AICM Complementary Airports
Agency
Complementary
Airports
Airport Groups
ASA Fuels
SENEAM
Charge
Discounts in airport services
Incentive by passenger exit
Discounts in airport services
Incentive by passenger exit
Discount in fuel charge factor
Discount in navigation
services
Source:(SCT 2004)-b
Year 1
100%
Year 2
75%
Year 3
50%
100 pesos
75 pesos
50 pesos
100%
75%
50%
100 pesos
75 pesos
50 pesos
100% Discount until Dec 2006
100% Discount until Dec 2006
MIT ID. 924011563
•
•
•
December 9, 2004
Adequate airport and access infrastructure for the complementary airports
Stakeholder participation either the federal and state governments, the airlines, or
the airlines
Others such as slot protection at the AICM, fast-track route authorization at
complementary airports, etc.
In general terms, the strategy adopted by the SCT of developing a set of complementary
airports is adequate. However, one of the recommendations that can be presented for the
multi-airport system is that it will be unviable to develop a multi-airport system of five
airports at the same time, including the AICM. In any case, perhaps it is different to
establish a multi-airport system than to create the flights in the airports for their particular
influence zone. CVJ and QET even though today serve to a fraction of the AICM and
could serve to decentralize the operations of the AICM, perhaps to consider and plan to
include them in a multi-airport system in this first stage seems too ambitious. It is
different to serve the market than to be part or plan to develop a multi-airport system.
Multi-airport systems are long-term efforts that need to be built and developed
incrementally in order to serve a particular market niche, either airport influence zone,
fare, or frequency.
The objective in this particular case is to generate the appropriate frequency in the
destinations in the complementary airports to attract originating passengers since the
other factor to attract originating passenger – “geographic accessibility to the airport”(De
Neufville 1995)—is already given by the influence zones of each airport. Most of the
strategies and mechanisms to generate this frequency in the destinations and attract
airlines seems adequate. In case in the short term these strategies do not provide results,
the government should take more aggressive measures to decentralize demand from the
AICM.
The multi-airport system will not only contribute to alleviate air traffic congestion at the
AICM but also the road traffic congestion since it will change the O/D road based trips
that at the end will change the shape of the city. Another crucial issue is to develop the
appropriate infrastructure either in the airport itself or it access corridors so the
complementary airports can be efficient and viable air transportation services for
passengers and cargo industries.
e. Institutional Framework
The implementation of both, the demand management scheme and the multi-airport
scheme should me implemented in strong coordination by the different stakeholders
involved in the project. However, due to the institutional structures and political
difficulties between the different stakeholders it is difficult to implement coordinated
measures. Up until now the congestion pricing is being implemented by the AICM
without taking in consideration the recommendations of the Ministry of Communications
and Transport. The Ministry of Communications and Transport is undertaking an effort to
descentralize AICM demand without the cooperation of the AICM. In order to be
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
effective the air traffic policies must be undertaken in an integral and coordinated way
considering the effects on the different air actors. The AICM must conduct the
appropriate economic and sensitivity analysis in establish the landing and services fees at
the adequate levels so its economically efficient not only to the airlines, but also to the
passengers and airport owners to move to the complementary airports.
The AICM, TLC, and PBC ownership structures shape the economic and operational
priorities of these airports. The AICM is owned mostly by the federal government which
has constituted the Mexico City Air Group which is an enterprise in charge of the
management and operations of the AICM. The TLC is owned by the State of Mexico
government and the Aeropuertos y Servicios Auxiliares (Aiports and Auxiliary Services
or ASA) which is part of the federal government. PBL is owned 51% by Puebla State and
49% by private investors. This different ownership structures even though should not
affect the services provided to the passengers or the passengers should not realize about
the different ownership structures, makes difficult the implementation of different
policies or multi-airport planning schemes. For example, the PBL private investors would
not be open to the airline incentive schemes since that would affect their investments or
the AICM would not charge fees that reduce the number of operations and des-centralize
them to the complementary airports since that would represent a decrease in its income.
Perhaps a Multi-Airport System agency or authority in charge of planning, operational,
and financial issues is unviable due to multiple considerations. Nevertheless, coordination
and collaboration mechanisms should be explored in order to provide integrated air
transportation services rather than isolated. Only integrated collaborative planning and
decision-making mechanisms and processes will guarantee the correct functioning of
policies and operations in the whole multi-airport system.
6. Conclusion
Throughout the present document several comments and recommendations have been
provided regarding the current demand management mechanisms implemented and the
multi-airport system. These comments and recommendations are considered as part of the
recommendations and suggestions that would be drawn as part of the conclusion;
however, will not be repeated in this section.
Even though it is out of the scope of the present document to analyze the current AICM
expansion project, it is appropriate to say that this project seems limited and overestimate the benefits that will be obtained with it. This seems to be a palliative measure to
extend the operations of the AICM. Nevertheless, this could generate extensive cost to
the airline in delays, fuel, etc. A more extensive solution needs to be explore at the
AICM. The main lesson and recommendation could be the need to incorporate the
Dynamic Strategic Planning approach in the air transportation decision-making in the
country. The air transportation authorities must plan focused in the long term and on
anticipatory schemes rather than responsive.
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
In summary, due to the severe congestion and saturation that the AICM is experiencing
during the last years and the increasing demand for air transportation in the center region,
the SCT and the AICM authorities have launched projects that comprises the expansion
of the AICM to its maximum capacity, the development of the TLC, PBL, CVJ, and QET
complementary airports, and the development of passenger and cargo regional hubs at
Guadalajara, Monterrey, and Cancun. In addition, during the last years, the AICM
authorities have implemented demand management mechanisms in an attempt to shift
flights from peak to non-peak hours. However, as it has been mentioned, these efforts
have been undertaken in an un-coordinated manner by the SCT and AICM authorities.
On one hand the SCT authorities are fostering the complementary airports. In the other
hands the AICM authorities are implementing demand management mechanisms and
expanding the airport to its maximum capacity. One of the main recommendations of this
document could be the need of integrated planning, operations, and decision-making in
the MCMA multi-airport system. It would be useless the decentralize flights to
complementary airports if that is not traduced in a reduced flight schedule or operations
in the MCMA. The Multi-airport system stakeholders must conduct the following tasks in
a coordinated manner(De Neufville 1995):
•
•
•
Management of Supply: What kind, where, how, and at what scale and in which
phases the primary airport or the complementary airports should be improved,
expanded or built.
Management of Demand: What are the most effective mechanisms and fees levels
to shift demand to different times of the day, different days, seasons or to
complementary airports?
Economic Efficiency: Which should be the most appropriate and cost-efficient
transition scheme to traverse from a centralized airport to a multi-airport system
in order to avoid excessive costs to the different stakeholders either airlines,
passengers, or the airport owners.
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
Reference:
AICM (Nov 2004). Operaciones 2004, Veces que se rebasaron las 54 operaciones por
hora. Mexico, D.F., AICM, Grupo Aeroportuario de la Cd. de Mexico.
ASA (2003). Plan Maestro del Aeropuerto Internacional de la Ciudad de Mexico.
Mexico, D.F., Aeropuertos y Servicios Auxiliares (ASA).
Davis Rosan, C. (2002). !No al Aeropuerto en Texcoco! Regional Decision-Making and
Community Countermobilization: The siting of Mexico City's New Airport. Urban
Planning. Cambridge, Massachusetts Institute of Technology: 89.
De Neufville, R. (1995). Amsterdam Multi-airport System Policy Guidelines. Cambridge,
Amsterdam Airport Schiphol.
De Neufville, R. (2000). Planning Multi-Airport Systems in Metropolitan Regions in the
1990's. Cambridge, US Federal Aviation Administration.
De Neufville, R. and A. Odoni (2003). Airport Systems: Planning, Design, and
Management, Mc Graw Hill.
FOA (2003). Desarrollo de Hubs Regionales: Estudio de Oportunidades de Mercado para
el Servicio Aereo. Mexico, D.F., ASUR.
SCT (2002). Informe de Labores del Sector. Mexico City.
SCT (2004). Estrategia para la Desconcetracion del AICM. Mexico City.
SCT (2004). Promocion al Crecimiento de la Aviacion y Desarrollo del Sistema
Aeroportuario Metropolitano. Mexico City.
SCT, E. M. (2003). Plan Maestro Aeropuerto Internacional de Toluca. Toluca.
www.aicm.com.mx Aeropuerto Internacional de la Ciudad de Mexico Website. Retrieved
on December 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8.
Instituto de Geografia de la UNAM (2004). MERCADO LOCAL Y REGIONAL PARA
LA DESCENTRALIZACIÓN DEL AEROPUERTO
Reglamento de la Ley de Aeropuertos.
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
Appendixes
Appendix 1 AICM Runway Configurations
Source: ASA (2003)
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
Appendix 2 AICM Passenger Buildings and Terminal
Source: www.aicm.com.mx
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
Appendix 3. AICM Total Expansion Project
New Runway
Building No. 2
Source: ASA (2003)
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
Appendix 4. AICM and Complementary Airports Metropolitan Regions
Source: Instituto de Geografia de la UNAM (2004).
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
Appendix 5. AICM Airport Services Fees (In Pesos)
Aircraft parking fee for
Aircraft Parking fees
long stay or overnight
Landing fee
Fee Factor ($/ton)
Fee Factor ($/ton/half
hour)
Fee Factor ($/ton/hour)
Flight
Flight
Flight
Hour
National International
National
Per ton
International
Per ton and half hour
Normal
$12.480
$32.216
$4.293
$8.757
Critical 1
$16.608
$42.989
$5.721
Critical 2
$20.772
$53.730
$7.164
International
Per ton and hour
$1.216
National
International
Per half hour and vehicle
$2.392
$145.832
$284.496
$11.676
$194.437
$379.313
$14.599
$243.047
$474.148
Fee Factor
($/passenger)
Airport Services Fees for
General Aviation
Fee Factor ($/ton)
Flight
Flight
Flight
Hour
Per passenger
Critical
1
Critical
2
Flight
Use of the Airport
Fee
Fee Factor
($/passenger)
Security services fee
Normal
National
Telescopic
Passageways, Air
Bridges, Mobile
Lounges and Buses
Fee
Fee Factor ($/half
hour/vehicle)
TUA
National
TUA Int.
Per Passenger
$2.246
$2.842
$3.016
$3.750
$148.436
$13.063
Per ton
$16.772
$40.973
$3.788
$22.331
$54.665
$4.761
$27.937
$68.329
Normal Hour: de 0:00 a 7:59, de 11:00 a 17:59 y de 19:00 a 23:59.
Critical Hours 1: from 8:00 to 8:59 and from 10:00 to 10:59.
Critical Hours 2: from 9:00 to 9:59 and from 18:00 to 18:59.
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
Appendix 6: Winter Slot Assignation Oct 2004 – 2 Abril 2005
LOCAL
UTC
LUNES
MARTES MIERCOLES
JUEVES
VIERNES
SABADO
DOMINGO
0:00 - 00:59 06:00 - 06:59
3
7
6
7
7
3
4
01:00 - 01:59 07:00 - 07:59
1
6
4
6
6
3
2
02:00 - 02:59 08:00 - 08:59
1
1
3
2
1
0
1
03:00 - 03:59 09:00 - 0959
3
2
3
3
2
0
0
04:00 - 04:59 10:00 - 10:59
1
7
7
7
6
3
1
05:00 - 05:59 11:00 - 11:59
7
9
8
11
11
9
11
06:00 - 06:59 12:00 - 12:59
38
34
34
35
36
28
23
07:00 - 07:59 13:00 - 13:59
46
45
45
49
48
42
40
08:00 - 08:59 14:00 - 14:59
54
53
55
52
54
48
34
09:00 - 09:59 15:00 - 15:59
53
53
53
54
55
54
46
10:00 - 10:59 16:00 - 16:59
54
54
54
55
54
51
49
11:00 - 11:59 17:00 - 17:59
51
51
51
51
54
48
42
12:00 - 12:59 18:00 - 18:59
51
49
51
51
52
53
51
13:00 - 13:59 19:00 - 19:59
53
50
54
53
52
53
53
14:00 - 14:59 20:00 - 20:59
55
54
53
54
55
51
51
15:00 - 15:59 21:00 - 21:59
53
51
50
53
51
44
51
16:00 - 16:59 22:00 - 22:59
52
51
52
52
50
51
54
17:00 - 17:59 23:00 - 23:59
54
53
55
53
54
45
50
18:00 - 18:59 00:00 - 00:59
54
54
54
54
55
46
54
19:00 - 19:59 01:00 - 01:59
54
54
54
54
54
47
53
20:00 - 20:59 02:00 - 02:59
54
53
55
54
55
52
54
21:00 - 21:59 03:00 - 03:59
55
50
52
52
53
45
53
22:00 - 22:59 04:00 - 04:59
42
40
40
49
43
39
46
23:00 - 23:59 05:00 - 05:59
15
14
13
14
13
11
12
TOTAL
904
895
906
925
921
826
835
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
Appendix 7: Airline Slots Assignation per hour (Thursday 20:00 - 20:59)
LOCAL
UTC
Línea Aérea
20:00
01:00
AMX
20:01
01:01
AMX
20:02
01:02
SIN ASIGNAR
20:03
01:03
AMX
20:04
01:04
COA
20:05
01:05
CHP
20:06
01:06
SER
20:07
01:07
SER
20:08
01:08
AMX
20:09
01:09
AMX
20:10
01:10
AMX
20:11
01:11
CHP-AMX
20:12
01:12
SER
20:13
01:13
MXA
20:14
01:14
AMX
20:15
01:15
MXA
20:16
01:16
TAO
20:17
01:17
SER
20:18
01:18
MXA
20:19
01:19
SIN ASIGNAR
20:20
01:20
MXA
20:21
01:21
CHP
20:22
01:22
DLH
20:23
01:23
CHP
20:24
01:24
MXA
20:25
01:25
MXA
20:26
01:26
MXA
20:27
01:27
CHP-TAO
20:28
01:28
SER
20:29
01:29
AMX
20:30
01:30
AMX
20:31
01:31
AVA
20:32
01:32
TAO
20:33
01:33
AFR
20:34
01:34
CHP
20:35
01:35
MXA
20:36
01:36
SER
20:37
01:37
MXA
20:38
01:38
TAO
20:39
01:39
SER
20:40
01:40
SER
20:41
01:41
IBE
20:42
01:42
AMX
20:43
01:43
AMX
20:44
01:44
AMX
20:45
01:45
SIN ASIGNAR
20:46
01:46
MXA
20:47
01:47
SIN ASIGNAR
20:48
01:48
AMX
20:49
01:49
SIN ASIGNAR
20:50
01:50
MXA
20:51
01:51
TAO
20:52
01:52
AMX
20:53
01:53
AMX
20:54
01:54
CHP
20:55
01:55
AMX
20:56
01:56
SER
20:57
01:57
MXA
20:58
01:58
SIN ASIGNAR
20:59
01:59
SER
Total
56
MIT ID. 924011563
Appendix 8. Isochrones of the Center Region
December 9, 2004
MIT ID. 924011563
Appendix 9: Traffic Density
December 9, 2004
MIT ID. 924011563
Appendix 10: Airport’s Influence Zones
December 9, 2004
MIT ID. 924011563
December 9, 2004
Appendix 11. Mexican Air Transportation Existent Routes
Source:(SCT 2004)
Appendix 12. Mexican Air Transportation New Routes
Source: (SCT 2004)

AICM œ Mexico City International Airport

Transcripción

Documentos relacionados

Jacksonville International Airport

Siesta Campers, Campervan Hire in Portugal.

Yearbook_2013: - Riga International Airport

Grass monoculture