Mexico airport policy, USA News: Mexico must review its airport policy with a long-term vision, moving past the political differences that have accompanied decisions in recent years. The fundamental question is whether the current system offers the capacity, connectivity, and efficiency that the country will need over the coming decades. The Felipe Ángeles International Airport (AIFA) is an infrastructure asset that must be utilized. However, its existence does not eliminate the need to evaluate whether it is beneficial to recover and update the New International Airport of Mexico (NAIM) project in Texcoco, leveraging existing works that are technically and economically recoverable. This is not about rebuilding the past, but rather reconsidering a strategic alternative for the future.
Airport Capacity: Two Projects of Different Scale
AIFA features two 4,500-meter civil runways and a terminal with 28 contact positions. The NAIM was conceived as a high-capacity international airport with three runways in its initial phase and a master plan contemplating up to 95 contact gates in its projected initial development. Although boarding gates and parking positions are not equivalent, the figures reflect the scale of the Texcoco project and its orientation toward greater international connection capacity. The comparison must consider not only runways and terminals, but also taxiways, airspace, flight procedures, and the capacity to handle future passenger and cargo growth. The question is inevitable: should Mexico definitively discard that infrastructure or evaluate how much it would cost to recover it and what benefits it could offer?
Accessibility: Time Also Costs Money
AIFA is located north of Mexico City and requires travel times that vary considerably depending on the passenger’s origin, traffic, and route used. Texcoco, meanwhile, was designed to offer an alternative closer to certain areas of the capital and its main economic centers. However, real advantage must be measured through effective travel times, toll costs, and public transport availability, not solely by geographic distance. An updated mobility study would allow for an objective comparison of both schemes and determine how much time and money it represents for users to reach each airport. Accessibility is part of airport competitiveness and must form part of any serious evaluation.
The Financial Cost of Canceling NAIM
The cancellation of the project generated obligations related to contracts, indemnifications, and financing. Part of the financial commitments was addressed through mechanisms tied to airport revenues, including airport use fees from the Mexico City International Airport. It is important to distinguish between the cost of executed works, indemnifications, debt service, and future expenses. Only a comprehensive evaluation will reveal the accumulated cost and obligations that still persist. Resuming NAIM would not automatically eliminate those commitments, but studying the recovery of existing infrastructure alongside a viable investment and financing model could offer alternatives to leverage assets and improve long-term profitability.
Private Investment and Operational Efficiency
An airport project of this magnitude requires capital, technical expertise, and operational capacity. Therefore, it would be advisable to explore whether investors, contractors, and operators who participated in the original project, as well as new domestic and international participants, would have an interest in evaluating a new phase. Additionally, the location of airports, arrival and departure procedures, and airspace design directly influence fuel consumption, delays, and airline operating costs. Comprehensive planning that optimizes routes and reduces unnecessary waits could generate significant savings, improve punctuality, and decrease pollutant emissions.
