Planeopnik oppos... a question

"Spanfeller is a twat" (theaspiringengineer)
03/29/2018 at 21:35 • Filed to: None

This sneaky mofo did not appear in Flight tracker. Jump!

Anyway.... I was looking at flight tracker and I saw something:

Jets leaving Mexico City airport (MEX/MMMX) fly directly along the city center; If you ask me that sounds like something dangerous. Not that they could’ve chosen otherwise.

This plane coming from the south was flown straight through the city, did a long que along the outskirts of the metro area (still highly dense) and then go above a swampland and Nabor Carrillo; a huge artificial lake.

I can trace the routes sort of, blue are outs, reds are ins:

These are probably wrong, but many planes still cross very populated areas on approach to the airport... is this normal in the US?

DISCUSSION (41)

For Sweden > Spanfeller is a twat
03/29/2018 at 21:42

It’s normal everywhere I think.

Maxima Speed > Spanfeller is a twat
03/29/2018 at 21:42

Yes, from what I understand this is quite common. I’m not sure holding pattern and approach vectors have much of any thing to do with population centers except for obvious considerations for tall buildings.

Spanfeller is a twat > For Sweden
03/29/2018 at 21:45

It’s a hot and high airport; and an accident already happened in 2008 when a lear jet fell just infront of a building inbetween two arterial roads... it could’ve been a disaster, planes are still routed through there...

But again, I know very little. I just wonder if all the traffic could be routed through the swam and the lake rather than the whole city?

WilliamsSW > Spanfeller is a twat
03/29/2018 at 21:48

Yes it’s normal. Here in Chicago it’s virtually impossible to avoid crowded areas, but given the incredible safety of air travel, the only concerns regarding air carriers flying over crowded areas is obstacle clearance and noise abatement.

If you want to see crazy, google arrivals to the old Kai Tak airport in Hong Kong.

Spanfeller is a twat > Maxima Speed
03/29/2018 at 21:48

AFAIK Mexico City airport has an interesting approach (hehe) to holding patterns, if your flight is really short (an hour or two; national) the airport there doesn’t let you take off unless you have a landing spot in Mexico City. So for instance, if I’m flying MTY-MEX and the plane won’t have an assured landing spot in an hour, they don’t let us board. it has happened to me multiple times, they reschedule 40mins or an hour sometimes.

Spanfeller is a twat > WilliamsSW
03/29/2018 at 21:50

That’s unsettling. I’d much rather see something like DFW that has little land or MAD that only has storage around it (granted the Spanish pretty much had to build a highway to the airport which is not fiscally responsible)

ttyymmnn > WilliamsSW
03/29/2018 at 21:57

Kinja'd!!!

Flying the checkerboards.

Chariotoflove > Spanfeller is a twat
03/29/2018 at 21:57

Speaking of crowded, Dallas Love Field is right I’m the city. The 737s drop in on a very steep approach

For Sweden > Spanfeller is a twat
03/29/2018 at 22:01

It could, but you have to land into the wind.

Spanfeller is a twat > Chariotoflove
03/29/2018 at 22:03

About that, now that mid size jets are getting crazy ETOPS numbers, I wonder what will happen to Hub airports... I feel like they’re going to become sort of pointless.

It’s one of the reasons Mexico City’s new airport is also pointless, it’s a huge airport in the middle of a swampland that is built based on the hub and spoke model as airlines are switching to going directly to already very large airports like Cancun, or Monterrey, or Guadalajara; Air France actually flew the A380 to Cancun before doing the Mexico City route. Considering so many tourists just go on to destinations that are increasingly larger and have bigger, better airports and, as twin jet aircraft are getting ever increasing etops capacity which encourages companies to fly smaller jets directly to a destination, why build an airport that will try to re-enforce a dying system?

Spanfeller is a twat > For Sweden
03/29/2018 at 22:07

Land into the wind?

ttyymmnn > Spanfeller is a twat
03/29/2018 at 22:08

If you fly into Midway in Chicago, you have no choice but to fly over densely populated areas. Many, like Midway and O’Hare, weren’t always in such populated areas. They got their start outside of town, but then the towns came to them.

Kinja'd!!!

ttyymmnn > Spanfeller is a twat
03/29/2018 at 22:09

There is still a fair bit of residential land around DFW, lots of condos and apartments etc. However, it was originally built in an industrial area, so there is less there than in some places.

Mercedes Streeter > Spanfeller is a twat
03/29/2018 at 22:10

It’s pretty standard procedure to route planes through the heart of a city. Chicago’s airports are positioned in such a way that no matter which runway planes takeoff from or land on, they’ll directly fly over heavily populated areas.

These holding patterns and approach vectors are highly optimized for providing stable landings while also being able to support a heavy load of traffic. Takeoff and landing are the two most dangerous stages of flight.

If you go nighttime planespotting in Chicago you’ll see a conga line of planes all lining up for the same runways. It’s beautiful how highly optimized traffic patterns are.

But yeah, unfortunately due to how many airports are situated directly next to (if not in) a major metro area, it’s inevitable that some planes will be routed through the city. Is such dangerous? Decades ago? Sure. But today? Not really.

ttyymmnn > Spanfeller is a twat
03/29/2018 at 22:11

Yes. Airports are designed with the prevailing winds in mind. When an aircraft is landing or taking off, it does so into the wind so the wind can provide extra lift as the airplane is moving more slowly. Taking off into the wind helps to reduce both takeoff and landing distances.

https://oppositelock.kinja.com/wingspan-did-you-know-1820777063

Spanfeller is a twat > ttyymmnn
03/29/2018 at 22:13

The same happened to the Mexico City airport. In fact it used to have more runways but the government shut them down and gave the land away to the communities.

DarkCreamyBeer > Spanfeller is a twat
03/29/2018 at 22:14

Hubs aren’t going anywhere. For one thing, the longest range narrowbody today (757-200) is only good for about 4000 miles. The longest regularly served route with one of those is Newark to Berlin and United has to fly them not quite full to make the range going west.

For another, there are all sorts of benefits to hubs for airlines beside connecting cities together. Things like crew bases, maintenance facilities, etc. Southwest is the least “hubby” airline in the US and pulls it off mostly because they fly only one type of airplane: the 737. But they don’t fly intercontinental.

Lastly, hubs provide “safe” markets to dominant airlines and lots of political clout which has its own value. See examples in Atlanta, Detroit, and Minneapolis (Delta), Denver, Houston, and San Francisco (United), and Dallas, Charlotte, Phoenix, and Miami (American), among several others. Or look overseas at Amsterdam, Paris-De Gaul, London, Dubai.

Some aviation pundits started writing obituaries to hubs when regional jets started flying. Didn’t happen then, won’t happen soon.

Mercedes Streeter > Spanfeller is a twat
03/29/2018 at 22:18

Hubs aren’t disappearing any time soon. These smaller airports are insanely popular with regional and local airlines. Shipping companies like them too as they can get cargo closer to rural destinations than they would at large airports.

Spanfeller is a twat > ttyymmnn
03/29/2018 at 22:19

Kinja'd!!!

Mexico City’s runways are parallel and they’re at 05R and 23L respectably, so they’re kind of near perpendicular to the wind... I’ve seen some spectacular crosswind landings here!

Spanfeller is a twat > ttyymmnn
03/29/2018 at 22:20

Hopefully less than some airports people have been showing me

ttyymmnn > Spanfeller is a twat
03/29/2018 at 22:21

There is still a fair bit of open land around DFW. But, as WilliamsSW said, it’s really, really safe. The fact that airliners aren’t dropping out of the sky every day should make you feel a lot better.

Spanfeller is a twat > Mercedes Streeter
03/29/2018 at 22:22

Well, removing inmminent danger, you still have NIMBY emissions, which sort of no one deserves... and airplanes (I think! I could be very wrong) generate a lot of Ozone... which is not good.. I think it was Ozone...

Spanfeller is a twat > Mercedes Streeter
03/29/2018 at 22:23

Well, I mean, as a tourist if I’m given the choice to fly straight to Cancun rather than do a 5-7hr detour to Mexico City, I know where I’d go! and some airlines already fly directly to Cancun! which is good for me, the smaller the airport here is, the better for me as a consumer.

Spanfeller is a twat > DarkCreamyBeer
03/29/2018 at 22:32

well, Jet Blue already outsources maintenance, which is a good indicator they don’t even want to get comfy in NYC, and I’m not talking about narrow jets exclusively, although many jets from NA destinations in Mexico are narrow jets. I’m more worried about ETOPS, now that twins are getting real good at it a company like British Airways might aswell send a jet from Gatwick to Cancun... it’s not even a small jet, it’s a 777. They still send a 747 to Mexico City, but it’s one of the last airlines to do it.

I like the decentralization, I’d encourage it if I were the government because it means travelers have less hassle around their trip, I think that’s good if you ask me, and as demand can support intercontinetal trips between medium cities, like Monterrey and Barcelona (medium: LOL) I think it’s better than building one mega airport where everything is combined and messed with.

Nowadays Air France (A380), Iberia(A343-A346), Lufthansa(B748), KLM(B744), and BA (B744) send quads to Mexico City, but I’ve seen Iberia toy around with the A330 and Air France has landed a few 777 here too.

Spanfeller is a twat > ttyymmnn
03/29/2018 at 22:33

now lets worry about emissions and noise!

WilliamsSW > Spanfeller is a twat
03/29/2018 at 22:33

It may seem unsettling, but over a 50 year period, it’s entirely possible that more people will be killed driving an extra 20 miles to a remote airport, than would have been killed on the ground due to a crash. Main difference is that the car crashes don’t make the news.

Besides, development follows airports. Build a busy airport in the middle of nowhere* wait 30 years and it will be in a crowded area.

As far as I recall, I think 4-5 people have been killed on the ground due to airliner crashes in Chicago in the last 40 years, from 2 crashes (one was an overrun which hit a car just off the runway at Midway). It’s a very rare thing, and we have two very busy airports.

Besides, my office is directly under the OHare arrival flight path, only two miles from the end of the runway. I don’t worry about it.

*exc Denver

Spanfeller is a twat > WilliamsSW
03/29/2018 at 22:38

“It may seem unsettling, but over a 50 year period, it’s entirely possible that more people will be killed driving an extra 20 miles to a remote airport”

That is really true... but then it should also be argued that these planes fly close to the ground and they generate a lot of pollutants that do kill a lot of people and a lot of noise that angers some assholes(this is very local, some of the neighborhoods want the aircraft’s route over poorer people)

Mercedes Streeter > Spanfeller is a twat
03/29/2018 at 22:42

True, but here’s a local example. Say I want to have an alcohol-filled weekend in Green Bay, WI. If it were not for hub airports, I’d have to go from ORD to MKE, then Uber roughly 100-ish miles. With the existence of GRB, I can fly straight to Green Bay then walk to my hotel room.

These short routes are worth a whole lot more to airlines than most would think. As much as some pundits keep calling for the death of hubs, it’s just not going to happen anytime soon.

Mercedes Streeter > Spanfeller is a twat
03/29/2018 at 22:50

Safety is the priority that reigns above all. Residents of cities always complain about planes flying overhead. Airports do their best to accommodate those concerns. Though eventually there does come a point where such accommodations are impossible without relocating the entire airport.

Spanfeller is a twat > Mercedes Streeter
03/29/2018 at 22:53

I’m not saying they should dissappear, it’s just more convenient to the traveler. As much as I love the work of architecture that DFW, or MAD, or CDG, or even MEX is; those huge airports are super annoying to handle as a passenger. Let me put it this way.

As a tourist to Mexico most flights before the 2010s pretty much went like this:
Foreign airport-MEX-Local airport
If you were flying say, Dusseldorf to Cancun, it would look like this:
DUS->FRA->MEX->CUN

now it could look like this:
DUS->CUN

now Cancun handles 15 million passengers, it’s the millions of people that would rather go straight to Cancun and skip the middle port! Even intercontinental flights do that now, and it’s great for consumers!

Spanfeller is a twat > Mercedes Streeter
03/29/2018 at 22:54

Well, that’s what’s happening here with the NAICM

Mercedes Streeter > Spanfeller is a twat
03/29/2018 at 23:04

I dun goof’d. I misunderstood you and got my terms mixed. I was calling spoke airports “hubs”. Oh man, I need my avgeek license revoked. I need an energy drink lol.

Yeah, though I guess my idea still stands. Hubs and popular spokes aren’t going away any time soon.

DarkCreamyBeer > Spanfeller is a twat
03/29/2018 at 23:04

Mexico City was never a hub for BA, though it may have been a hub for a partner of BA’s. BA’s hub is Heathrow, and that’s unlikely to change.

All airlines use third parties for some of their maintenance, for a variety of reasons, especially for major work like overhauls. But he big successful ones do lots of their own work. If a plane breaks, they’ve got to fix it to fly it. It’s a lot easier to do service recovery at a hub where you have lots of airplanes.

BTW: There is nowhere that a 4 engine jumbo can fly that a modern 2 engine jumbo can’t also fly. 4 engine jets are on their way to be beer cans. It’s just going to take a while longer before the airlines extract the rest of their value from existing investments.

Spanfeller is a twat > DarkCreamyBeer
03/29/2018 at 23:08

MEX is Aeromexico’s hub and most international flights to Mexico fly through MEX. The whole point of the new airport is that it’s sheer size will encourage foreign carriers to continue sending huge jets there and then off loading the peoples into smaller narrow bodies or regional planes to smaller cities, bare in mind that Mexico City makes every other city look small even if they’re huge.

I think the trend should be towards making regional airports handle more foreign traffic than to saddle a single airport with most international flights. we have very large, very good airports across the country that need more love!

Spanfeller is a twat > Mercedes Streeter
03/29/2018 at 23:11

No... but I’d rather see some happy medium ports. Nothing is as satisfying as SQC; it’s not a small airport it handles 4 million passengers a year, but it takes me 10 minutes to check in, pass security, and wait for the airplane inside, not the 1:20 hour clusterfuck at MEX or MAD.

Mercedes Streeter > Spanfeller is a twat
03/29/2018 at 23:44

That works for me, too! Honestly I know how to game the system, so big airports are never a problem for me. I don’t even get screwed with luggage fees on low cost carriers.

Sad thing about all of this is that the airlines are not much different than say, Comcast. Sure, they could make air travel better for the consumer, but why would they do that? .

Airlines know that there aren’t any better options if you need to travel far distances quickly. If they could somehow fit 200 people in a CRJ700, they would in a heartbeat.

WilliamsSW > Spanfeller is a twat
03/30/2018 at 00:27

Also very true. Sadly the poorer people don’t have the political leverage to keep development further away.

Spanfeller is a twat > WilliamsSW
03/30/2018 at 00:40

Well, all western routes come through las lomas; the most expensive part of the city... which is good.

Chariotoflove > Spanfeller is a twat
03/30/2018 at 00:43

There is no question that hub and spoke is on the wane with the new jets. However, going all direct like Southwest Airlines does doesn’t fit all situations either, especially for long haul stuff. I think we’re going to need big and small airports going forward, even if we don’t always need those monstrous wide bodies to fly into them.

Eury - AFRICA TWIN!!!!!!! > Spanfeller is a twat
03/30/2018 at 07:08

In the US it all comes down to how much people complain about the noise. We fly published arrival and departure procedures that route everything the same way. Every now and then there will be a revision that moves one of those routes because enough people complained.

DutchieDC2R > Spanfeller is a twat
03/30/2018 at 08:07

Amsterdam is like that too. We had a disaster in the nineties with a jet crashing into one of the highrises, look up Bijlmer Crash.