(Megan has asked her colleague Brendan, who covers Latin America for Flight, to write this blog on the Mexican airport scene.)Mexico's ailing air transport market is starting to catch up with airports as several expansion projects south of the border are put on hold.
Los Cabos, a popular destination in Baja California for holidaying Americans, has decided to delay for at least one year the opening of a new terminal which would have doubled the airport's capacity. Los Cabos airport, which is operated by Mexican airport group GAP and handled three million passengers last year, was slated to open a fourth terminal this quarter. It is now slated to open in the first quarter of 2010.
Over in Monterrey, airport group OMA has delayed the opening of a third terminal which would have expanded capacity from seven to nine million passengers annually. The new terminal, which was slated to open this quarter, is now slated to open in the second half of this year.
Meanwhile in Guadalajara, the airports' small regional terminal will be temporarily shut at the end of this month. The airport operator, GAP, decided the regional terminal was no longer
needed after ALMA, a Guadalajara-based low-cost regional airline which launched operations in 2006, shut down in November. GAP opened the terminal in 2007 to accommodate fast expansion at ALMA. The terminal's only other tenant, Aeromexico Connect, will now move back to the main terminal.
Why should an airport operator pay to staff, heat and light a building that is really not needed? Clearly it is more efficient to move all airlines into one building if falling traffic means they can all be accommodated in one terminal, rather than pay to keep two buildings open.
Mothballing new terminals and shutting a terminal which opened less than two years ago sounds painful but are smart decisions in difficult times. GAP and OMA explained to me that keeping open or opening a building that is not needed is simply a waste of resources.
One has to wonder what other Mexican airports will be next in deciding to shut terminals that
aren't really needed, and whether some airports in the US can also learn from their Mexican counterparts. For example, why does Austin continue to keep open its south terminal when it only has one tenant with flights only two days per week?
Austin opened the south terminal last year for Monterrey-based low-cost carrier VivaAerobus, which at the time was planning to serve Austin every day with flights to several Mexican destinations. But VivaAerobus has cut frequencies to the point it is now only operating into Austin on Thursdays and Sundays. Clearly having an entire terminal open just two days a week is not the most efficient use of resources.
While US airports have been reeling from capacity cuts that were implemented in September and October, traffic has been down at almost every Mexican airport since July. Not only have the airports been affected by capacity cuts by both Mexican and US carriers and the economic downturn, no fewer than four Mexican airlines ceased operations in the second half of last year.
The freefall in Mexico follows two years of torrid growth driven by the launch of six low-cost carriers. Airport operators expect the decline to continue through at least the first half of this year, so expect more cost saving initiatives to be unveiled in the coming months.
Why should an airport operator pay to staff, heat and light a building that is really not needed? Clearly it is more efficient to move all airlines into one building if falling traffic means they can all be accommodated in one terminal, rather than pay to keep two buildings open.
Mothballing new terminals and shutting a terminal which opened less than two years ago sounds painful but are smart decisions in difficult times. GAP and OMA explained to me that keeping open or opening a building that is not needed is simply a waste of resources.
One has to wonder what other Mexican airports will be next in deciding to shut terminals thataren't really needed, and whether some airports in the US can also learn from their Mexican counterparts. For example, why does Austin continue to keep open its south terminal when it only has one tenant with flights only two days per week?
Austin opened the south terminal last year for Monterrey-based low-cost carrier VivaAerobus, which at the time was planning to serve Austin every day with flights to several Mexican destinations. But VivaAerobus has cut frequencies to the point it is now only operating into Austin on Thursdays and Sundays. Clearly having an entire terminal open just two days a week is not the most efficient use of resources.
While US airports have been reeling from capacity cuts that were implemented in September and October, traffic has been down at almost every Mexican airport since July. Not only have the airports been affected by capacity cuts by both Mexican and US carriers and the economic downturn, no fewer than four Mexican airlines ceased operations in the second half of last year.
The freefall in Mexico follows two years of torrid growth driven by the launch of six low-cost carriers. Airport operators expect the decline to continue through at least the first half of this year, so expect more cost saving initiatives to be unveiled in the coming months.
on January 17, 2009 9:50 PM | Reply
The South Terminal is a small, efficiently designed, privately owned and operated facility that can easily open (and close) to accomodate a temporary reduction of frequency by an airline. There are no employees being paid when the facility is closed and no waisted utilities are being consumed. Vivaaerobus operates a full day (3 arrivals and 3 departures) of flights 2 days a week and uses the building in its entirety during these days. The terminal also accomodates scheduled charters and is actively seeking new carriers. Viva has also added increased frequencies in March for Spring Break traffic.
on January 20, 2009 6:50 PM | Reply
Thanks for the comment. I agree the South Terminal is small and efficient and indeed the fact it is has different owners than the main terminal make it difficult to simply shut it down and move VivaAerobus. But I disagree that the terminal is being used in its entirety the two days per week VivaAerobus flies into Austin. The terminal has three gates but there is never more than one aircraft there at any single time. Every Thursday and Sunday one aircraft is turned around in the early morning, one around lunchtime and one in the late afternoon. I hope efforts to attract more carriers are successful so the terminal can be used in entirely not only on Thursdays and Sundays but also the other five days of the week. I also hope enough traffic is secured to move forward with plans to build a larger low-cost terminal to replace the current building. But with the airport’s fastest growing carriers deciding to stick to the main terminal, including Southwest and JetBlue, and the fact the main terminal seems to have space (I was just there this weekend) to accommodate VivaAerobus one has to wonder what the future will be for the South Terminal. Also bear in mind that one of the key carriers Austin is now courting, Mexico’s Volaris, will almost certainly opt for the main terminal because it has inked a comprehensive codeshare deal with Southwest.