Why No EK, TK, Or QR To MEX? ? Civil Aviation Forum | Airliners.net
All three airlines have a robust growth and keep adding new destinations every year. MEX, however, is still missing on the map. I wonder why that is. Financially, MEX is just as important as GRU, GIG, or EZE and remains the largest city in the Americas. True, it is a high airport and the fact that it's close to major hubs in the US often drives airlines away. Would a MEX-DXB, MEX-IST, or MEX-DOH really be unprofitable?
Regards,
345rules
29 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
MEX was announced by TK on their wish list of cities recently.
The problem with MEX is being hot and high, but we might see TK flying to MEX (coupled with another city) sometime in the future.
Your answer is most likely....
To get out with a full load to those distances will with most aircraft need a tech stop or weight restrictions...
thought i would have thought that by now one of these carriers would have tried XXX-MEX-CUN-XXX
the only aircraft in EK fleet capable of flying this sector would be 77L. Perhaps it's more profitable to deploy this frame somewhere else since it would take close to 40 hours for a return trip.
[Edited 2013-02-04 09:06:04]
Thanks. How about a MEX-Europe-DXB/DOH? There are several European hubs without direct connections to MEX (MUC --which never materialized when LH announced the route; FCO; MXP; ZRH; BRU), although a 77L, 77W, or 345 could support a MEX-CUN-DXB/DOH/IST, no?
LH is doing very good on MEX flights. It's been said that B748 will be serving this sector soon. But then again, it's mostly because of German investments in Mexico. Not sure if Belgian or Italian market would be able to generate suffiecient yields, leave alone the current shape of AZ these days. Can't rule out LX, though.
Sao Paulo is a more important financial center than Mexico City. It is undoubtedly Latin America's most important financial center. Mexico City however is far, far more important than Buenos Aires.
As others have mentioned, the main reason why we don't get these airlines in Mexico is the altitude of the airport (coupled with the distance), and the presence of major U.S. hubs nearby (and the ability of European carriers to connect MEX with the Middle East and Asia). I'd add as well as the limited (or practically non-existing) business traffic between Mexico and the Middle East.
Quoting EddieDude (Reply 6): I'd add as well as the limited (or practically non-existing) business traffic between Mexico and the Middle East.
I'm not to sure about that...my uncle works in Qatar and he tells me he was surprised by the mexicans working over there. He himself is of mexican decent.
A flight from MEX to FRA is about 10 hours... A flight to Dubai or Doha would be about 13 hours. An airplane CANNOT take off out of an airport with that altitude and flight for 13+ hours..
If Emirates or Qatar or any airline from the Mid East or Asia ever lands at MEX, it will have to be with a tech stop
[quote=g500,reply=8]If Emirates or Qatar or any airline from the Mid East or Asia ever lands at MEX, it will have to be with a tech stop
Ever???
Maybe 787/350 size/range aircraft might make this feasible.
Quoting ely747 (Reply 3): the only aircraft in EK fleet capable of flying this sector would be 77L.
A 77L, on a standard day, would need to take a payload hit of 100,000 lbs in order to takeoff from MEX. Even worse on a Standard +15 C day. You're looking at a payload hit of 110,000 lbs+, and it's surely not all going to come from the fuel, because you would need the tanks pretty close to full in order to operate the 8900sm sector to DXB.
Put MEX at sea level, and it's a whole new ball game !
Thenoflyzone
The Gulf 3 exists to connect Europe and North America to Asia. But from MEX it's faster to go to China from any West Coast hub. Add to that, the fact that European airlines are very competitive on MEX-India routes. And there probably isn't enough business between Mexico and India to sustain service via the Gulf.
So, DOH and DXB seem a bit hopeless. IST on the other hand seems doable. Which is precisely why the folks at TK route planning are considering it right now.
Quoting yellowtail (Reply 2): To get out with a full load to those distances will with most aircraft need a tech stop or weight restrictions...
Quoting thenoflyzone (Reply 10): A 77L, on a standard day, would need to take a payload hit of 100,000 lbs in order to takeoff from MEX. Even worse on a Standard +15 C day. You're looking at a payload hit of 110,000 lbs+, and it's surely not all going to come from the fuel, because you would need the tanks pretty close to full in order to operate the 8900sm sector to DXB.
Exactly why it'll probably be only TK that tackles MEX from that part of the world. And even then, it may have to be a 77L or 359R.
There were already talks about this before, it is a difficult route to handle, with quite few O&D passengers between Mexico and the Middle-East and many Mexico-Asia connections being handled over the Pacific. Secondly, to make such a long route attractive, you need to have high and constant loads of cargo and certainly not weight penalties - these two factors alone make any airline from the region reluctant to launch the route. I eventually see QR doing it, just intuition.
At 1500nm more than IST? I don't think so.
I'd say TK is a slim chance but possible. But QR? If TK has a slim chance at making that route work, QR, EY and EK have even less.
Unless they can build 20 000ft runways at MEX, it'll be quite the effort for any airline to go beyond Western Europe. Adding over 50% more distance to make the Gulf? I don't think so.
with those distances, the flight would be almost 14 hours, plus Mexico City's elevation is 7300ft (I believe), a 777L CANNOT do that non-stop
Oh well, a man can dream. You'd think that a city of MEX's size would support a healthier international traffic, but I've been proven wrong. There are few European connections (almost the exact same connections than LIM, CCS, or BOG), MEX no longer sees East Asian carriers, and AM has been very slow to upgrade its fleet or add more destinations in Europe (btw, does anyone know how they're doing on their recent MEX-LHR route?). It would be interesting to eventually see a Middle Eastern or Asian airline regularly land at the airport.
Regards,
345rules
ET requires a fuel stop at FCO on westbound ADD-YYZ and ADD-IAD flights.
MEX and ADD are both at about the same elevation but MEX-DXB/DOH is roughly 1,500 nm further than the ET routes. Eastbound from MEX you don't have the headwinds but you also have to fly 1,500 miles further.
Quoting ytz (Reply 15): Unless they can build 20 000ft runways at MEX,
building anything past 14000 ft is pretty useless. Tire speed limit of 235 mph is reached around there.
Thenoflyzone
[Edited 2013-02-04 18:42:38]
Alright, let's look at the payload range chart of the 77L/77W :
MEX-DOH is 7632nm. I'll multiply that by 1.2 for headwinds, non-great circle route and we're all the sudden up to 9160nm still air range! That is pushing a 77L.
MEX-IST is but 6173nm. So one needs an aircraft with ~7400nm still air range for the mission. Maybe possible with a 77W... But I'm seeing a 788 being a better fit.
We'll have to flip between the slides on page 37 and 40 for the 77L. I'll use a pressure altitude of 8,000 ft (vs. 7316ft actual) as a start. That limits the 77L takeoff weight to 650,000 lbm from page 40 which implies on page 37 the diagonal line to follow. For 9160nm, there is zero payload. The 77L is not doing MEX to the mid-east. Since the 788 does not have that range, the discussion is over on MEX by a mid-east carrier without a tech stop.
Now let us consider MEX-IST.
The 77L should have about 177t OEW + payload by my eyeball or just a little shy of 400,000lbm. From this we must subtract 145t OEW plus I estimate another 5t to 7t that isn't included but must be lifted. So 25t to 27t payload. While marginal, it is fine for MEX-IST with the 77L even with a few less tons of takeoff weight at +15C as shown on slide 41.
With the 77W, I'll go straight to the hot day MEX-IST a MTOW of ~630,000lbm on slide 49. Per slide 38 of the first pdf, one needs almost 700,000lbm to have any payload at MEX with that airframe. So the 77W is a no-go.
How about the 788 for MEX-IST? http://www.boeing.com/commercial/airports/acaps/787sec3.pdf
I see a 420,000 lbm take off weight, but those charts are more for frame 100 than the current 788s...
Per slide 20, that means perhaps 2 tons of payload. That is not an economical route even with a later 788 unless the weight of the airframe is brought down.
And then we see why IB flies A340s from MAD-MEX. ?
Lightsaber
Any EK, QR or TK MEX service most likely would have to be a one-stop, be in Mexico (eastbound in CUN for leisure or MTY for petrochemical-related traffic) or in Europe.
Now which European country would grant one of those airlines 5th rights to fly to MEX and would Mexico allow it?
If EK wants to do something daring, EK could apply with UK and Mexico authorities for a DXB-STN-MEX 3-4 days per week (when BA isn't flying). EK already have crews in London (currently flying to both LHR and LGW) so no need for same crews to fly all the way between DXB and MEX.
Quoting Tupolev160 (Reply 23): I wonder why QR didn't launch DOH-IAH-MEX, could it be due to visa regulations for Mexican citizens?
I doubt Mexico has any bilateral with any countries in the Gulf that would permit such services. Does it have any bilaterals with ANY countries in the Middle East, even outside the Gulf?
In short, we won't ever see these airlines in MEX ?
As noted dozens of times on many threads, one would need to clear customs in IAH and require a US visa for that. There are almost no such flights transiting in the US.
25 AR385: While the operational limitations are there, and are difficult to surmount, I am sure that if the market was there any of the mentioned airlines in th
26 g500: You don't see a market for DXB/DOH to MEX? If you look at all the destinations around the world that Emirates and Qatar fly to, there's about 20 dest
27 ytz: Balanced Field Length.
28 lightsaber: Agreed. But it is not. It is in thin air which changes the aircraft lift dramatically as well as reducing the thrust. Having to do a tech stop dramat
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.