16.781 planning and design of airport systems planning for a new international hub in mexico city...
TRANSCRIPT
16.781 Planning and Design of Airport
Systems
Planning for a New International Hub in Mexico
City
Alvaro CovarrubiasDecember 10th, 2002
• Air market between North America and Central/South America.
• Competitive analysis of different hubs.• Case studies: airports trying to become
hubs.• A strategy for Mexico City.
Outline
Air Market - Airports
For historical, cultural and geographic reasons, Miami is the maingateway for traffic from Central and South America.
Available Seats to Central and South America
MIA
DFW
IAH
EWR
ATL
LAXJFK
Source: OAG (2001)
Air Market - Airlines
As MIA is a hub for AA, the airline and its partners dominates the traffic between the two regions.
Available Seats to Central and South America
AA
LANTACATAMIBERIA
UNITED
VARIG
DELTA
AEROLINEAS ARGENTINAS
SUMMA
CONTINENTAL
OTHER INDEPENDENT
COPA
Source: OAG (2001)
Air Market – Main Destination in Central/South America
Although Central America represents almost 45% of the AS…
Weekly Seats from North American Gateways
0
5,000
10,000
15,000
20,000
25,000
30,000
35,000
40,000
GR
UC
CS
EZE
BO
GS
JO LIM
SC
LG
UA
SA
LG
IGP
TYM
GA
UIO
SA
PB
ZEB
AQ
MA
RG
YE
TGU
CLO
MA
OM
DE
LPB
CTG VV
IV
CP
VLN
MV
DR
TBR
EC
Source: OAG (2001)
Air Market – Main Destination in Central/South America
It only represents a 20% of the ASM.The business is in South America.
Source: OAG (2001)
Weekly thousand seats*miles from North American Gateways
020,00040,00060,00080,000
100,000120,000140,000160,000180,000
GR
UE
ZES
CL
LIM
GIG
BO
GC
CS
SJO
GU
AS
AL
PTY UIO
MG
AG
YE
SA
PB
ZEB
AQ
CLO
MA
RM
DE
TGU
CTG
MA
OV
VI
LPB
VC
PV
LNM
VD
RTB
RE
C
Airport
Competitive Analysis – Geographic Location
Evaluate the geographic suitability of hubs, for traffic between the 13 airportswith more ASM from US gateways…
Competitive Analysis – Geographic Location
To 18 of the largest metropolitan areas in the US and Canada.
Results: - MEX would only be competitive for traffic to WestCoast and Texas from Central America, LIM, SCL, EZE.- IAH, DFW and LAX would be the competitors.
Competitive Analysis – Delays/Capacity
• IAH and DFW:– High On-Time performance.– High Capacity to grow. New runways are
going to be built.
• LAX:– Lower than average on-time performance.– Almost impossible to grow.
Competitive Analysis – Design
• DFW: Linear buildings, not good for connections.
• IAH: Hybrid design, regular quality for connections.
• LAX: Finger piers, long separation between international and domestic terminals, no people-mover.
Case Studies
Munich Kuala Lumpur
Construction Gradual, Reactive Anticipatory
Airline’s Strength in Region High Low
Airline’s Alliance Star None
Multi-airport Region No Yes
Rail connection Yes Only from 2002
Domestic Fares Uncontrolled Subsidized
Design Linear structure Midfield x-shaped
Competing Hubs Situation FRA: Capacity constraints ZRH: Swissair’s bankruptucy.
SIN: Blooming BKK: Blooming
Participation of Airline Joint design, funding and operation
None
Air Service Freedoms Extensive Limited
Conclusions
• Search for an alliance to operate the hub.• Build airport gradually, be flexible.• Design for easy connections.• Engage with airlines, try joint operation of
terminals.• Land banking.• Liberalize air service agreements.• Volumes do not allow hub operation and
multi-airports in Mexico City.