Recent flights and thoughts on the future

[D'kian]

I love to fly. More than that, I love nearly everything that's associated directly to flying. More specifically, I love airports.

When I travel I sometimes try to get a stop (if stops there must be) either at airports I like or at airports I've never been to before. Since I don't travel very often, that usually doesn't happen. But recently I had a chance to use the airport at Toluca, an industrial town close to Mexico City.

The airport there is quite old, but until recently it was used almost exclusively by small, private planes and some courier and cargo firms (FedEx and UPS have a long association with it). From time to time the two national airlines (which were for a time the only airlines), Mexicana and Aeromexico, tried to use it as an alternate to the City's airport, but they always failed.

Starting in 2005, though, two low cost airlines, Volaris and Interjet, set up shop there. Their reasons were twofold: 1) to aviod the congestion at Mexico City's airport, and 2) to cut costs, since Toluca has lower operational fees. Two other airlines, also low cost, ahve tried using it. One, Click Mexicana (a subsidiary of Mexicana de Aviacion), decided it didn't work and moved back to the City. The other, Avolar, still runs flights from there, but it is struggling and has greatly reduced its schedules in that part of the country. Continental Airlines offers a daily trip to Houston from Toluca operated by its subsidiary Express Jet, which of course makes Toluca an international airport.

The airport has worked very well. Last year it passed the 2 million passenger mark. It draws mostly business fliers, which reflects the low costs sound business plan, but also a fair share of the tourist trade. However, it can be expensive to get there from some parts of Mexico City. Interjet offers a shuttle service for about $20 round trip, but all its pickup locations are in the Western and North parts fo town. Volaris offers complimentary bus service round trip, but only to one destination in the Western part of the City.

What's hard to believe is that such a little airport handles so many people. It is much like most airports in layout. You go into a lobby with a few shops and see the airline counters right in front of you right away. That's a raher large area, well kept and it feels brand new. You then move to the security checkpoint, which is like any other in the world. Then you get to the terminal. That one looks more like a bus depot than an airport. It's a large room with chairs in rows in the middle, shops and restaurants on three sides, and five glass doors in the other side. Next to each door there's a small counter with a led sign that announces airline and flight info.

That's it.

You wait till one counter has your flight on it, then wait till the ground crew announces the flight. More often than not you'll see the flight crew gather at a door, board a small van and be whisked to the plane. Passengers board a bus which takes them to their ariplane. Once there you go up a portable staircase like they did in the 50s. The planes are parked on a concrete mat, about six of them at a time. from there they roll to the one taxiway and onto the one runway and take off.

It hardly seems possible such a tiny facility can do so much. But there it is.

I flew Interjet to Monterrey (that's a town about 500 miles from Mexico City in Nuevo Leon state, it's mostly an industrial and business center, also capital of its state). Interjet flies only an A-320 variant in all its routes. It was very comfortable, though the air conditioning was rather weak. The seats are leather, have lots of leg room and recline well enough for a nap. This airline also does something I very much enjoyed: it shows flight info on the onboard screens from around 20 minutes after takeoff to 10 minutes before landing. They show the plane's position on a map in three different scales, then show a screen with ground speed, altitude, outside air temperature, local time and time remaining before landing. It all cycles in about a minute and a half. I loved it.

One bad thing about Toluca is that it tends to get foggy when its cold, and it does get cold in winter (around 5 to minus 4 Celsius as low day temp). And since it's even higher from sea level than Mexico City, low cloud ceilings are common. On the return flight we hit one such low ceiling. We must have spent about 5 minutes enshrouded in cloud, everything white as far as the eye can see, which means we were blind to the outside. This was ll close to landing, too. I half-expected we'd emerge from the cloud right on top of the runway, which is about the most dangerous thing to do when landing.

It wasn't that bad. We came out about ten miles from the runway at a guess. I dind't spot the airport, but I spotted the intersection leading from the highway to the airport. It's easy to spot because a large mall sits there. By then you're low enough to read the names on the big stores, too. That's quite an experience.

I'm very favorably impressed with Interjet, less so with Toluca airport. But I do see bigger things in its future. It doesn't quite have room to expand, but it sits near a rural area rather than an urban area as Mexico's airport does. So perhaps land can be acquired to expand it. There are industrial areas nearby, too, which may preclude urbanization about the airport. The terminal building can be made bigger, jetwats can be added. If that's done, and if cheap transportation can be arranged (and it might be), then Toluca's airport could grow, on its own, to be either an alternate or complementary airport to mexico City's congested one. The fog and low ceilings, though, will remain a problem.

My round trip ticket came to about $160 US. It made me think about day trips for pleasure to other places. Imagine a day trip, or a short weekend trip, to the beach, to a large shopping center, to a city rife with museums, to Vegas, to a border town, etc. Then my imagination ran further:

Imagine supersonic flights. Now imagine them relatively cheap, say $300 round trip NYC to London or Paris. Now imagine hypersonic flights (3 to 5 times the speed of sound), Los angeles to Tokyo in less then 4 hours.Weekend trips to Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, even perhaps Australia.

It gets even better: sub-orbital flights on parabolic arches spanning Sydney on one end and New York on the other, taking perhaps 90 minutes, most of the travel done above the atmosphere in weightlessness. Nowhere in the world any farhter from anywhere else more than a couple of hours.

Imagine the possibilities for really exotic vacations. Imagine hypersonic and sub-orbtal travel so commonplace as to make business apointments in another continent, or even dinner apointments, as common as cross-town ones.

Of course there's the matter of how to do it. More on that later.

[D'kian]

I flew Interjet again yesterday, again to Monterrey. I'd read in their in-flight magazine they have two planes that show live feeds from the cockpit for take-off and landing. Yesterday my outbound flight was in one of them.

It's great. Clearly the people who run the airline also love to fly. The take-off wasn't much, which surprised me. You just see the center stripes on the runway go faster and faster, then the nose rotates up and you see nothing at all but a gray blur (it was an overcast day; I suppose on a clear day it would be better).

But the landing was a novel experience. Whenever I fly I try to spot the runway before we land. That happens only rarely, as the plane heads more or less straight for the runway and, as a passenger, I can only see out the sides. with the live feed you do see the runway about ten minutes prior to landing. Even though modern jets land with a nose-up attitude, you can also see the runway all the way through (the angle is higher on take-off). I just wish they'd put this feature in all their airplanes.

Oh, the screens on the A-320 are small, with about one screen per 4 rows. I'd preffer a larger screen, or a seat-back screen.

[Greebo]

I flew Interjet again yesterday, again to Monterrey. I'd read in their in-flight magazine they have two planes that show live feeds from the cockpit for take-off and landing. Yesterday my outbound flight was in one of them.

Very cool!

You just see the center stripes on the runway go faster and faster, then the nose rotates up and you see nothing at all but a gray blur (it was an overcast day; I suppose on a clear day it would be better).

It sounds to me like you need to try flying in a small plane next.

But the landing was a novel experience. Whenever I fly I try to spot the runway before we land. That happens only rarely, as the plane heads more or less straight for the runway

If you can ever see the airport on the way in, its because you're passing by it on your way to the approach point.

Even though modern jets land with a nose-up attitude, you can also see the runway all the way through (the angle is higher on take-off). I just wish they'd put this feature in all their airplanes.

That'd be neat.

Have you considered getting a pilots certificate? Or even just taking a few lessons? I think you'ld get hooked fast.

[D'kian]

If you can ever see the airport on the way in, its because you're passing by it on your way to the approach point.

One time, about 15 years ago, I had a stop at San Luis Potosi (central Mexico). The plane approached parallel to the runway, then banked sharply 90 degrees, then finished its descent and landed. For all I know the pilot or the controllers screwed up. But when the plane banked the runway could clearly be seen, the lights still a bit bright in the dawning day.

In the approach to Mexico City the plane passes parallel to the airport, but very high and at least 20 miles away. So you know the runway is out there in one particular direction, but you can't see it. When the plane is low enough and near enough, it will be heading straight in for landing.

Have you considered getting a pilots certificate? Or even just taking a few lessons? I think you'ld get hooked fast.

I've thought about now and again. It requires a great deal of dedication and not a small amount of money. And once you have a liscence, it requires yet more money to keep flying on anything approaching a regular basis. Still, it's something to think about.

[Greebo]

One time, about 15 years ago, I had a stop at San Luis Potosi (central Mexico). The plane approached parallel to the runway, then banked sharply 90 degrees, then finished its descent and landed. For all I know the pilot or the controllers screwed up. But when the plane banked the runway could clearly be seen, the lights still a bit bright in the dawning day.

Procedures in Mexico are probably different. I was thinking in USA FAA procedures.

I've thought about now and again. It requires a great deal of dedication and not a small amount of money. And once you have a liscence, it requires yet more money to keep flying on anything approaching a regular basis. Still, it's something to think about.

The saying goes, if you want to make a small fortune in aviation, start with a large one.

But it *is* a totally amazing experience to take a plane from wheels up to wheels down entirely on your own.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

But it *is* a totally amazing experience to take a plane from wheels up to wheels down entirely on your own.

I can certainly second that comment! It's also amazing to get from Riverside CA to Colorado Springs in one day under your "own" power, without d*cking with airport security or losing sleep.

[D'kian]

Procedures in Mexico are probably different. I was thinking in USA FAA procedures.

As i said, I think it was a mistake. On the other hand, it was a small airport in a small city, so who knows for sure.

Oh, I just recalled a flight in 89. On final approach to Atlanta the plane suddenly increased power and climbed for a go around. the previous plane had not cleared the runway. On the go aroud I was perfectly able to see the runway. Of course, it doesn't really count.

The saying goes, if you want to make a small fortune in aviation, start with a large one.

I thought that was gambling. You know, how to leave the casino with a small fortune...

But it *is* a totally amazing experience to take a plane from wheels up to wheels down entirely on your own.

I'm sure it is. So long, of course, as you get to wheels down and a full stop you can walk away from.

Edited April 30, 2008 by D'kian

[Greebo]

As i said, I think it was a mistake. On the other hand, it was a small airport in a small city, so who knows for sure.

Ah in *that* case, most likely the plane was released from ATC when they had the airport in sight, and the airplane was flying under visual rules, not using a charted, straight-in approach (which is usually a straight line from a distance) but entering the airport traffic pattern (a big rectangle in the air).

[D'kian]

A question for aircraft aficionados: in my last four flights in diferent airlines the takeoff and landing announcements included the direction to please keep the window shades open. I know the seat back and tray anouncements are for safety, but waht do window sahdes affect one way or the other?

And something really interesting happened on the flight back from Vegas. The plane banked left, hard, right after takeoff. I'd been watching lots of planes taking off and I saw they all banked hard left or hard right after takeoff, so that was normal procedure. Well, this time when the plane stopped turning I was able to see the enitre airport, including of course all four runways. First time I've spotted the runway on the way out.

Lastly a warnign for those fying Mexicana. Their onboard entertainment is a joke. During the flight out they showed a movie, then an ep of Modern Marvels. Audio for both worked well enough. But there wasn't any other audio available. No music or news or talk shows. Plus the headphone jacks don't hold the prongs, so they tend to slip. On the flight back their video system simply conked out and there was nothing available.

This doesn't affect me too much. I preffer to sleep when taking very early or very late flights (as I did this time), and I always carry a book or some magazines with me. But, come on, even in the early 80s with the air-powered headsets there were plenty of audio channels and one or two movies per flight lasting more than two hours.

BTW a tip for sleeping in the aircraft. Choose the section behind the wings, which is much noisier due to the engine wash, and take along foam ear plugs. Why? well, the plugs filter out the low frequency rumble from the engines just fine, but they do a much poorer job of stopping higher frequency sounds like human voices, particularly female voices. I sat on the forward part of the plane, and a group of women talking about three rows back kept me from falling asleep. Fortunately the flight was half-full, so I moved to the back and slept most of the rest of the way. Also, as it is noisier in the back, people talk less because they have trouble hearing each other. Parents traveling with children tend to choose the front, too (children are noisy at all times when awake).

[mrocktor]

A question for aircraft aficionados: in my last four flights in diferent airlines the takeoff and landing announcements included the direction to please keep the window shades open. I know the seat back and tray anouncements are for safety, but what do window shades affect one way or the other?

Seat backs and tray positions are important to prevent head injury in case of full brake application. A three point seat belt is better, but people would tend to take them off more during the flight and that is a poor tradeoff (the seat belt basically exists to keep you in place in the event of turbulence and during deceleration).

Keeping the shades open makes sense in that for an emergency evacuation the flight attendants must determine if there is a fire outside the aircraft before opening the doors. If there is a fire in the vicinity of a door, it is important to not open it (incidentally, it is for this reason why evacuation tests are done with only half the doors open). Shades open is, to my knowledge, not mandatory by regulation - but it can be part of an airline's operating procedures.

Finally, another thing you may have noticed during night time operations is that the cabin lights are dimmed or turned off for takeoff and landing. Once again, the rationale behind this is that in the event of mishap the cabin crew will already be adjusted to the darkness and act effectively to evacuate the plane immediately. This too is not mandatory by regulation, as far as I know.

[D'kian]

Keeping the shades open makes sense in that for an emergency evacuation the flight attendants must determine if there is a fire outside the aircraft before opening the doors.

Thank you. That makes perfect sense.

Finally, another thing you may have noticed during night time operations is that the cabin lights are dimmed or turned off for takeoff and landing. Once again, the rationale behind this is that in the event of mishap the cabin crew will already be adjusted to the darkness and act effectively to evacuate the plane immediately. This too is not mandatory by regulation, as far as I know.

I did notice, as my last flight took off in the late afternoon and landed at midnight. But I didn't pay it any mind. All the night flights I remember keep the lights dim not only at landing and take off, but throughout most of the flight. I suppose they do so to make looking out the window easier, and to allow sleepy passengers to sleep, and the rest to watch the movie. The lights come up only during meal service, and after landing.

It does make sense for the crew as well.

[D'kian]

I flew out of Toluca again yesterday. The airport recently comlpeted an expansion to handle more passengers. They added a second waiting/boarding area, complete with separate security screening capacity (this is important). They new area also lets passengers baord their flights directly, without the need for a shuttle bus. This part is odd, as there are no jetways, but rather fabric covered passages on the tarmac, each leading to a different plane.

The bad news is there is still not a single screen or baord showing either departing or arriving flights. Now, what's the use of pre-printing your baording pass over the web if you have to go to the counter to ask what baording area to go to? All arrivals come to the smae area, but if your'e waiting for someone you won't know whether their flight's on time or not. Again you ahve to look for the airline's counter and ask.

I flew to Monterrey on Volaris, a low cost airline. They fly only a variant of the A-320 (I think they fly the A-319) with enough legroom and confortable leather seats. Oddly, though, there is no inflight magazine and no fabric or netting pouch in the seat backs. The safety instructions card is a decal stuck just below the tray. There is a safety video, which is more and more common in many airlines. This one, however, is dramatized with an actress playing a passenger trying to have some sort of witty abnter, mostly addressing the audience. It fails as either drama or a safety lacture.

Other than that it was a pleasant flight. For a short flight (70 to 90 minutes depending on weather and winds) the entertainment was pretty good: one video channel and six audio channels. I missed all of it because I slept through most of the flight (I had to get up at 4:30 AM to catch it). Meal service is a snack and a beverage, in this case a doughnut and a reasonable choice of juices and sodas, plus milk and coffee. I mostly avoid coffee on planes becasue it's too much trouble: badly balanced cups too prone to spill, particularly when being stirred, small handles with the same spilage problems. Volaris uses a styrofoam cup (yay!) without a handle, does not overfill the cup and gives you a coffee stirrer rather than a spoon. Problem solved.

Oh, I had to drive through fog for about 20 minutes to reach teh airport. By boarding time, 6:30 AM, the fog was still there. I thought we'd be delayed, but the flight departed only a few minutes past 7 AM, with fog still there. Now, I know the rules for take-offs and alndings are different in case of fog, but I was still surprised. If anyone knows more about it, I'd appreciate it.

The return flight was on Interjet (scheduling reasons). They did expand the use of cockpit cameras to all their fleet (double yay!), which is really, really nice. the only problem was the screen nearest me was broken, so I had to settle for a smaller view. It does amke a difference on take-off when the sky isn't overcast.

It also makes a difference approaching and landing at Toluca. The ceilings tend to be low, especially during the rainy season in summer. Each time we came out of a cloud, the ground seemed much too close. It was a great ride.

BTW, I had a chance to talk to a pilot at Toluca. he says the ceilings aren't low, but rather that the ground is too high Ok, Toluca is around 2,650 meters above sea level and tends to ahve a colder weather than other cities in the region, such as Mexico City (alt 2,250 meters). So yes, what would be low clouds in Mexico become fog in Toluca, and the ceiling is lower as well.

So far as I know Toluca airport ahs on bad case of frequent delays due to fog. Volaris even offers a 50% money back guarantee if your flight does not arrive at the gate 30 minutes past the posted time. Curiously, though, they built a house edge on that bet. At this time of year normal flight time Toluca to Monterrey is 70 to 75 minutes, so a flight elaving at 7 AM ought to arrive by 8:10 to 8:15 (or 8:15 to 8:20 given minor departure delays of five minutes or so, which are common). The posted arrival time on my ticket was 8:40. That's an estimate of 100 minutes, and that eats any normal 30 minute delay whole!

[Chris.S]

Thanks for bumping an old thread or I wouldn't have seen it!. In April, I had a chance to fly from Toronto to Colombo, and it was amazing. It was the first time I'd flown since I was a kid (trans-Atlantic from Ottawa to Germany a couple times) back in '91-'93, and I forgot how awesome it was.

The first leg was Toronto to Dubai, 13 hrs. I was a little worried that I'd be bored, so I brought TF and VoS with me, but Emirates has an awesome entertainment system in the seat-backs. Tons of recent movies, music and video games. They had 3 good meals, and 2 snacks. I was full the whole time, and very relaxed after a couple whiskey-and-cokes. And the flight attendants...even the guy was good looking, and I don't swing that way.

The stop-over in Dubai was 8 hrs, so I spent that time looking around, reading and buying some chocolate. The airport is a long oval I think; huge glass walls, lots of seating along the sides and ends, and a shopping strip in the middle that runs about 3/4's of the whole thing. There was some sort of Asian restaurant, a Starbucks and a Burger King at one end, while at the other end were some smaller no-name shops and a McDonald's. Besides a couple Saudi-looking guys walking around, it was pretty cool. I was able to see some of the desert on the way in - it's kind of boring, but I'd never seen it before. I think Dubai proper is far away from the airport, or I was on the wrong side of the plane and couldn't see the city (or the Burj Dubai).

Dubai to Colombo was much shorter, only 4hrs, but just as comfortable as the previous flight. One snack, one hot meal (spicy Sri Lankan lamb curry, it was very good).

I'm definitely looking forward to the flights back to Toronto in August, and I'm hoping I'll be able to travel more later.

[D'kian]

The first leg was Toronto to Dubai, 13 hrs. I was a little worried that I'd be bored, so I brought TF and VoS with me, but Emirates has an awesome entertainment system in the seat-backs.

Long haul aircraft have always had the best options. Back in the mid 80s you had to settle for a couple of movies and some audio channels (which repeated about every 80 minutes or so). BUt back then that was much better than the nothing you got on shorter flights. I always bring along magazines or a book, too.

I've never been bored on a flight no matter how long. Once I did get very anxious to have the flight over, but that involved a bad seat placement (never sit between two strangers) and a row neighbor who was scared to death of flying. The movie, I recall, was Project Brainstorm, Natalie Wood's last work.

I loved long flights until they banned all smoking on ariliners. My maximum now are 5 hour flights (which depending on departure and arrival conditions can mean up to 8 hours without a cigarette).

The stop-over in Dubai was 8 hrs, so I spent that time looking around, reading and buying some chocolate.

The Gulf States' airports are knwon for their large and varied duty-free shopping. Mexico City's airport has a great DF mall (it's several stores), with varied offerings aside from the three classics (perfume, alcohol and tobacco)

I'm definitely looking forward to the flights back to Toronto in August, and I'm hoping I'll be able to travel more later.

Think back on the outgoing flight. Chances are you've learned something you didn't know before, like what's the best side of the plane for sight-seeing, which section to sit on, etc. There's an online site, I'll look it up when I get home today, that has details on seating for many airlines. For example, which seats don't fully recline, which have extra leg room, built in trays/screens, where to recharge a laptop, etc.

[Chris.S]

Yeah, that site would be good to look at. I figured out that if I'm flying economy, I'd rather sit in an isle seat than window or middle. Also, a seat at the front of a bank of seats right by the door, cause the legroom is huge! I had the window seat on my way here, and while it was nice to look out on take-off and landing, I had to keep it closed during most of the flight so the other passengers could sleep.

[D'kian]

Yeah, that site would be good to look at. I figured out that if I'm flying economy, I'd rather sit in an isle seat than window or middle.

I think in all my flights I didn't seat at a window only once or twice. Looking out is the whole point of flying.

Also, a seat at the front of a bank of seats right by the door, cause the legroom is huge!

Yes, but they commonly have fold-out trays and/or screens, which tend to reduce the width of the seats.

I had the window seat on my way here, and while it was nice to look out on take-off and landing, I had to keep it closed during most of the flight so the other passengers could sleep.

When I don't sleep through the flight, and it isn't too cloudy down there, I keep the shade open most of the flight. High end airlines sometimes offer masks for sleeping passengers, too. Or you could get some at the airport and offer them to whichever passenger wants you to pull down the shade.

On the other hand window and middle seats are harder to get in and out of in a full or nearly full flight, especially if you're kind enough not to want to wake someone up on a long flight.

I know people who prefer aisle seats so they can disembark quickly. Me, I usually travel alone and that allows me to disembark quickly, aisle seat or not (often not). I'm also a lto faster retrieving luggage and navigating through immigration and customs. ON business trips I try to pack everything into the carry-on.

then, too, at airports that handle plenty of wide-body jets they ahve multiple jetways per large plane (usually two or three), which allows for faster debarkation as well.

[D'kian]

Here's the Seat Guru site:

http://www.seatguru.com/airlines/Emirates_...information.php

[Chris.S]

On the other hand window and middle seats are harder to get in and out of in a full or nearly full flight, especially if you're kind enough not to want to wake someone up on a long flight.

This was my main reason for wanting an aisle seat. I'm too polite to bother sleepers unless I'm gonna pee my pants. A lesser reason is just being able to get up and walk around a bit, even if only to the bathroom. I don't mind waiting for debarkation, but it does make sense to get off the plane faster to get through immigration faster.

Whatever happened to zeppellins? Those things were so spacious!

Thanks for the link, I'll plan my seating really well this time.

[D'kian]

I don't mind waiting for debarkation, but it does make sense to get off the plane faster to get through immigration faster.

Teh fastest way out of immigration and customs is to arrive at an hour few other flights arrive. McCarran at Las Vegas at 9 am is a ghost town immigration-wise. I think it took me longer to walk from the plane to immigration than to get through it.

Whatever happened to zeppellins? Those things were so spacious!

There was the Hindenburg, and then airplanes were fast enough, even then, to corss the Atlantic within 24 hours.

Now and then there are propposals to build new airships, but almost always it's for short sightseeing trips. A blimp would be great at palces like the Grand Canyon. As a serious means of transportation, forget it. They're too slow.

Thanks for the link, I'll plan my seating really well this time.

You're welcome. I think there isn't that much to plan, but the site lets you avoid really bad seats.

One tip, if you plan to sleep choose a seat back of the engines. I find engine noise easier to ignore (it's steady in pitch and volume), and it prevents others from talking as much. Also get yourself some noise-reduction plugs, the foam kind works best for me.

[D'kian]

Last week I took a short flight (50 min.) to Guadalajara, a city in western Mexico.

To beging with I flew on Aeromexico, which means I got to use the new terminal in Mexico City's airport. The new terminal is built along moRe mdoern lines. It's a two "finger" type with jetways along the fingers (a reasonable alternative to the satellite concept). UNlike the old terminal, this one has large windows looking out on the runways (the old terminal has fewer, smaller windows, many of them covered with "decorative" shutters). The jetways have glass walls, which is nice and gives good views of the terminal area.

The downside is the size. The new terminal is smaller, but has a large surface area due to the finger configuration, and due to the presence of multiple levels within each finger. In short the walk from the plane to the baggage claim and exit area is longer than in the old terminal.

The flights would have been unremarkable as I've flown Aeromexico and its workhorse B-737 plenty of times before. But when I got the return flight info the plane for that flight was supposed to be an Embraer EMB 190. This is a B-737/A-320 like plane, a bit narrower with slightly less passenger-carrying capacity. When I selected seats at the automated counter the interiro layout showed rows of two seats on one side of the ailse and three seats in the other. As usual I chose a window seat.

Well, upon reaching the gate in Guadalajara there was a B-737 parked there. I even checked to see whether I'd amde a mistake, but it was my flight and that was the plane. The 737 has rows of three seats in both sides, but they are labaled differently than in the EMB. So the seat I reserved turned out to be an aisle seat (it could have been worse: I could have gotten the middle seat <shudder>).

Curioser, upon looking up that flight number (it is a regular flight), it was listed as an EMB 190, meaning seat assignments are meaningless online or at the automated counter (possibly not at the regular counter, but what's the use of traveling without luggage if you are going to stand in line as though you did ahve bags with you?) It amy be they changed planes for the duration of summer because of increased demand on that route, but there's still a mistake somewhere or neglect to update info on their system.

The aisle seat is tolerable, but you do get bumped and touched by people going to and from the lavatory, also by flight attendants during meal service. Still better than the middle seat, where you are trapped between two strangers (I usually travel alone). Nothing beats a window seat.

Finally I noted something: new airports are too well insulated. Both at Mexico and Guadalajare you can see planes taking off silently. It's an eerie, unnatural sight. from my office window I can see planes on approach, and I hear them just fine (the roar of the jet engine is as much part of the beauty of watching a plane in flight as any other aspect of the plane). Whatever they use for sound insulation (I'm guessing double-pane windows with an innert gas filling) robs you of that experience. But I wouldn't mind having it at home.

[D'kian]

You're welcome. I think there isn't that much to plan, but the site lets you avoid really bad seats.

Ha! Famous last words!

I did another courier flight to Gudalajara (I love this type of assignment, more below). At the office the procedure is as follows: I look up shcedules online and then tell the boss' secretary which flight combo to purchase. I then look over her shoulder in order to get the seat assignments right.

This time I neglected that aprt because I had to rush somewhere to get some VIPs (very improtant papers, of course). And guess how the seating worked out? Middle seats on both flights! <insert Howard Dean like scream here> So I made sure to get to the airport early and have them changed. Fortunately both fligths had some room to spare and I was able to get window seats.

I flew Interjet this time but from Mexico City's airport. The outgoing flight had the take-off/landing camera feature (I found out the camera is stuck outside the nose in its own polycarbonate fairing). There was little new, except for the sunrise approach. The camera has a low-light mode, which makes a strikign contrast from seeing the ground mostly dark through the window and bright almost as day on the monitor. The return flight lacked the feature, but I got to seat on the wing just behind the emergency exit rows. I had a grand view of the A-320's main flight control systems (they're partly hydraulic and parrtly mechanical).

So, as I was saying, I love this kind of assignment. On the one hand I get to do something I love, fly, and on the other hand I get to bitch about it at the office. They don't believe me whan I say I like getting up at 4:30 am to catch a flight (what's wrong with these people?), so I get to complain and obtain a few breaks along the way.

So why do I like getting up before dawn to catch a flight? Back in the 70s when I went on vacation to Houston and Florida with my parents, we would usually take the earliest flights out, in order to take full advantage of the day. I dind't appreciate this until I flew on my own to Orlando four years ago leaving late in the morning. I wound up reaching my hotel past 5pm, hungry and tired, with no desire to do anything.

So getting up that early now, even for a courier flight, does still feel the way it did back then, and I like it.

[D'kian]

I forgot to mention a couple of odd sightings (yah, like someone eveb reads these posts!):

The Guadalajara airport is rather small and compact. When taxing from gate to runway you see the entire airport. Usually there's a Fed-Ex 757 (judging by size and wing shape) parked in the open on the mats next to the passenger terminal, and a UPS 757 on the mats in front. This time there they were, plus a Fed-Ex DC-10. I hadn't seena DC-10 in years!

On arrival the plane stopped betwen the runway and terminal to let an Air France Cargo 747 through. I had no idea Air France flew cargo to Guadalajara (I know it was cargo because the livery said "Air France Cargo;" airlines do that to differentiate between regular and cargo planes). It was a "baby" 747, too. It has a propper model number, but it's known as the Baby Jumbo. The wingspan is nearly the same, but it's noticeably shorter.

El-Al used to offer limited, bargain-basement seats on cargo 747s (I know this from a cousin who works at El-Al). The tickets were cheap because the accomodations were terrible: a small cramped space aft of the cockpit on the upper deck, without in-flight entertainment or even much in the way of service, plus a lavatory. You may recall an El-Al 747 that crashed in Amsterdam shortly after take-off. It was a cargo plane. it tried to turn around to Schipol for an emergency landing, but crashed into an apartment building instead. Most deaths occurred on the ground.

Lastly, Interjet plays a flight location/info throughout the flight. There are three maps to different scales showing the plane's position, plus two info screens showing altitude, ground speed, outside air temp, local time (over current location) and ETA to landing. Usually the crew turns it off shortly before touchdown. This time they left it on until the plane stopped at the gate.

So finally I have an answer to "How fast do planes taxi?" Turns out the speed ranged from a low of 18 kilometers per hour (around 11 mph) to a maximum of 55 kph (about 35 mph). I'd ahve sworn it was much slower than that, Of course I've no idea how the ground speed measurement is arrived at (air speed is measured through a pitot tube somehwre on the fuselage), or whether it's still accurate once the plane is on the ground (ironaically enough). I wished I timed it. At Mex City's airport, the Interjet gates are at the precise other end of the runway. Time it, look up the runways lenght, and I could check the speed. Maybe next time.

[D'kian]

Next time has come and gone.

I'm sorry to say Interjet's gone a bit downhill since last year.

This time I flew from Mex City to Monterrey. It's about a 65-75 minute flight. Considering the lousy weather (vold, overcast, rainy, low ceilings) at both cities, take-offs and landings were flawless. The flight attendants dind't wake me for the snack service in the mornign flight, which is considerate of them.

However, the flight info screen is gone. Now they put on a 60 minute very bland video. Normally I'd just ignore it. But on Interjet you can't do that because they don't issue headphones. Many of their planes don't even ahve headphone jacks in the armrests. So you have to listen to it on the PA system. It sucks. Fortunately I had earplugs and they filtered the worse of it (it was too loud). I couldn't sleep on the way back, but I could read or watch the solid white non-view out the window.

I hate the communal entertainment played on the PA. Many bus companies do the same thing, too. Once I had to endure a 5+ hour bus trip from Jalapa with movie after bad movie played so loud even with earplugs it was too loud. The driver said he couldn't control the volume. I decided then I woulnd't travel on any bus line not offering headphones unless the trip was short. I'm mulling something similar for airlines, too.

I expect I'll write Interjet, and I expect they'll ignore me.

According to their inflight magazine audio entertainment is available, with headphones, on trips lasting more than 2 hours. given their route map, that would mean only on 3 or four routes (Mex to Cancun, Mex to Tijauana, Monterrey to Cancun and possibly Guadalajara to Tijuana).

Given what passes for inflight entertainment these days, though, I'd just as soon do without. I always carry books or magazines with me anyway.