AICM œ Mexico City International Airport
Transcripción
AICM œ Mexico City International Airport
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 Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning 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 Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning 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 2,970 passengers in peak hours The current demand for these areas has been estimated for peak hours in: International Area: National Area: 2,320 passengers in peak hours 4,350 passengers in peak hours 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. Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning 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 Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning 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). Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning 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 Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning 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 Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 • • • Airport Design and Planning 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. Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning 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 Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning 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 Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning 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 Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning 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. Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning 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 Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning 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. Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning 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 Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning 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 Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning 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 Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 • • • Airport Design and Planning 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 Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning 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. Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning 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. Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning 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. Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning December 9, 2004 Appendixes Appendix 1 AICM Runway Configurations Source: ASA (2003) Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning December 9, 2004 Appendix 2 AICM Passenger Buildings and Terminal Source: www.aicm.com.mx Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning December 9, 2004 Appendix 3. AICM Total Expansion Project New Runway Building No. 2 Source: ASA (2003) Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning December 9, 2004 Appendix 4. AICM and Complementary Airports Metropolitan Regions Source: Instituto de Geografia de la UNAM (2004). Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning 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 ($/ton) Flight Flight Flight Hour National International Per passenger Critical 1 Critical 2 Flight Use of the Airport Fee Fee Factor ($/passenger) Security services fee Normal National Telescopic Passageways, Air Bridges, Mobile Lounges and Buses Fee Fee Factor ($/half hour/vehicle) TUA National TUA Int. National International 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. Source: www.aicm.com.mx Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning 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 Source: www.aicm.com.mx Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning 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 Source: www.aicm.com.mx 56 Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Appendix 8. Isochrones of the Center Region Source: Instituto de Geografia de la UNAM (2004). Airport Design and Planning December 9, 2004 Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Appendix 9: Traffic Density Source: Instituto de Geografia de la UNAM (2004). Airport Design and Planning December 9, 2004 Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Appendix 10: Airport’s Influence Zones Source: Instituto de Geografia de la UNAM (2004). Airport Design and Planning December 9, 2004 Bernardo Jose Ortiz Mantilla MIT ID. 924011563 Airport Design and Planning December 9, 2004 Appendix 11. Mexican Air Transportation Existent Routes Source:(SCT 2004) Appendix 12. Mexican Air Transportation New Routes Source: (SCT 2004)