New high capacity airplanes

Quote: Fleastiff

Future airline expansion is like anything else, well ....up in the air.

Mexico traffic is more like US traffic decades ago. Chicago Midway was the busiest airport in the USA from 1948 to 1960 when it was passed by Chicago O'Hare. But most of the flights to Europe left out of Newark and New York International Airport (renamed JFK in 1963).

Mexico City airport is the hub of almost all the domestic flights and there is no major new airport under construction. In addition all the flights to Europe and South America leave from the airport. The relatively new traffic to Asia also originates there.

Cancun is the second busiest airport in Mexico, but there are no transfers there. It also increases the traffic in Mexico City airport since Cancun is the most common destination. Guadalajara and Monterrey are proportionately much smaller transfer airports than Chicago, Dallas, and LA are to Atlanta.

Quote: Pacomartin

Mexico City airport is the hub of almost all the domestic flights and there is no major new airport under construction.

Mexico is a great deal more centralized than the US. Partly that's due to geography (Mex City is dead center population-wise), partly it's the paternalistic national character. But that has been changing, slowly, over the past few decades.

Viva Aerobus, for example, uses Monterrey as its hub. From Mex City there are two or three routes only. Voalris kind of took over Mexicana's secondary hub at Guadalajara.

A new airport has been discussed endlessly. about ten years ago, give or take, construction was set to start in Texcoco for a larger airport to replace the existing one. The idea died in political wrangling and "grass-roots" protests. Instead they built a second terminal, which helpd but the airport is still congested. A larger airport with two more runways would help more.

Quote: Pacomartin

I realize that no one has done it yet. But it would be nice if it could pick up a container with 150 people, move to a nearby city at 200 mph, and drop one container, and winch another one up.



No runways, no building rail up steep slopes, no earthquake issues, no property procurement.

I've always wondered why we don't see more blimps. Correct me if I'm wrong but there would be minimal fuel cost. I could picture two uses:

1. Hauling land cargo where it is otherwise difficult to get to. For example, northern cities in Alaska that get iced-in in winter.
2. Tourism. I think half-day blimp cruises over the Grand Canyon would be a huge hit, although I'm sure some would complain they are an eyesore.

Quote: Nareed

A new airport has been discussed endlessly. about ten years ago, give or take, construction was set to start in Texcoco for a larger airport to replace the existing one. The idea died in political wrangling and "grass-roots" protests. Instead they built a second terminal, which helpd but the airport is still congested. A larger airport with two more runways would help more.

As I said earlier, there has essentially been a lost decade in increased air travel in the USA. Domestic passenger loads are not much difference in 2012 as they were in the year 2000. International travel has increased from 56m passengers to 82m passengers.

YEAR-PASSENGERS IN USA
2000 641.2m domestic 56.4m international
2012 649.4m domestic 82.3m international
2020 796.4m domestic 113.7m international
2032 1,044m domestic 188.8m international

In the early 1990's the USA was predicted to hit a crisis in airport capacity by now. Since growth slacked off, it hasn't happened, but the FAA is predicting that it will resume an increase of 2.5% starting this year. International travel will increase at a much higher rate.

The drumbeat begins for the crisis again, as Las Vegas, New York's 3 airports, San Francisco, San Diego, and Chicago hit capacity. Philadelphia is building a new runway at the cost of billions by expanding into the river.

It remains to be seen how much of San Diego's traffic can be shifted to Tijuana. It seems that Atlanta, Houston, Phoenix, and Denver will keep growing at exponential growth.

====================
Mexico's growth in passenger air travel has had it's up's and down's, but generally there has been much more growth in recent years. Projections should be for much higher growth than the 2.5% in USA.



Year- Millions of psgrs
1992 26.8
1993 28.5
1994 32.6
1995 28.5
1996 30.1
1997 32.7
1998 35.1
1999 37.7
2000 39.3
2001 38.2
2002 37.1
2003 39.2
2004 43.4
2005 45.9
2006 48.7
2007 55.4
2008 56.2
2009 48.8
2010 50.4
2011 52.4
2012 56.8
2013 61.5

There is just no way for AICM to continue with MOST OF THE air traffic in the country for much longer. GDL and MTY will simply have to grow.

MEX 31,532,331
CUN 15,962,162
GDL 8,104,762
MTY 6,417,755
TIJ 4,255,235

Quote: Wizard

I've always wondered why we don't see more blimps. Correct me if I'm wrong but there would be minimal fuel cost. I could picture two uses:

1. Hauling land cargo where it is otherwise difficult to get to. For example, northern cities in Alaska that get iced-in in winter.
2. Tourism. I think half-day blimp cruises over the Grand Canyon would be a huge hit, although I'm sure some would complain they are an eyesore.

Forest fires, civilian law enforcement (a permanent eye in the sky), Eco-friendly forestry/mining.

Trouble is speeds are too slow to outrun adverse weather.

Quote: Wizard

I've always wondered why we don't see more blimps. Correct me if I'm wrong but there would be minimal fuel cost. I could picture two uses:

1. Hauling land cargo where it is otherwise difficult to get to. For example, northern cities in Alaska that get iced-in in winter.
2. Tourism. I think half-day blimp cruises over the Grand Canyon would be a huge hit, although I'm sure some would complain they are an eyesore.

I don't know if fuel costs would be minimal. You still have a lot of air to push, and in order to get a reasonable speed you can't build them lighter than air. It might be safer to say that fuel costs would be less than airplanes,

1. Land Cargo is actively being pursued with new class of blimps.
2. I would say tourism with a destination. Anaheim to Las Vegas. Anaheim to Catalina and Catalina to Santa Barbara. Maybe Santa Barbara to San Jose.

I think the traditional Graf Zeppelin speed of 73 mph won't satisfy people today. But they may be happy to go up the California Coast at 130 mph (average speed of bargain basement high speed rail), if there is a nice romantic view.

I was talking to an older man, and I said although I was only six when Kennedy was shot, it's my earliest memory of the entire world convulsing in agony. Even at the age of six, seeing all the adults in the world crying at once makes an impression. He said it was that way with him and the Hindenburg in 1937. He was fairly young, but he'll never forget it his whole life. Now that those people are getting fewer and fewer, perhaps the airships will return.

The Hindenburg was hydrogen largely because the USA would not sell Germany any helium.

Hydrogen storage is now inside of metal sponges rather than inside of inflatable but still rather porous bags. Still, I think commercial blimps would have to use helium rather than hydrogen.

Many US serviceman were line handlers at the Hindenburg explosion and did not let go of the lines in time.

Airships are making a comeback right now.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-a-future-for-airships/

Quote: Wizard

Quote: Pacomartin

I realize that no one has done it yet. But it would be nice if it could pick up a container with 150 people, move to a nearby city at 200 mph, and drop one container, and winch another one up.



No runways, no building rail up steep slopes, no earthquake issues, no property procurement.

I've always wondered why we don't see more blimps. Correct me if I'm wrong but there would be minimal fuel cost. I could picture two uses:

1. Hauling land cargo where it is otherwise difficult to get to. For example, northern cities in Alaska that get iced-in in winter.
2. Tourism. I think half-day blimp cruises over the Grand Canyon would be a huge hit, although I'm sure some would complain they are an eyesore.

Not an eyesore in the Grand Canyon so much as a hazard to aviation. Too many helicopters and small, slow airplanes want to share that airspace. Airships would have right-of-way, but be treated as interlopers at this point. Doubt anyone could get a license/waiver to run the route.

The FAA itself was created in 1958 after an uncontrolled mid-air over the Grand Canyon by a United and a TWA both trying to show their pax the sights. The public and the government got tired of unsafe operations; that was the last straw.

Just as on the roads, its not "traffic" but "traffic mix" that is critical. Trucks, buses, small cars with no power or protection, large cars with power, etc. Airspace is rarely crowded, but airports are. There is even one incident where two small craft seem to have collided in the middle of nowhere, each tooling along on intersecting VFR courses without a cloud or another plane around for hundreds of miles.

Note: As to that steep rails up hills, the locomotive may have to pull cars uphill but the cars get to push the locomotive going downhill. Thats one of the major dangers with "shipper declared weight". An engineer calculates the speed he needs to get those cars to the top of the hill then he finds out what those cars must really weigh when he is on the trip down that hill and the cars are pushing his locomotive faster than that next curve can sustain.

Under 'free flight' we could have automated flight along all the en-route portions but it would still be difficult at airports.