Is Chicago Tourism mostly Domestic? (Lincoln, Oregon: hotel, neighborhoods, colleges)

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by Alacran

But it's the busiest simply because of refueling, transferring, etc.
It's just a pit stop

Um, no. Not even close anymore. That might have been true 20-30 years ago when planes had shorter reach on one fueling. That's not true at all anymore for many locations.

The only long distance stuff would be from Australia to New York City which is slightly further than a 777 can go at its max.They don't go through Chicago though, they go through Los Angeles for South Pacific/Australia/New Zealand flights. Some people do come from Tokyo too, but it's possible to get a non stop from Tokyo to NYC. By the same token, LA, Miami, and NY are used just as often for refueling and transfering.

International planes don't land in Chicago just to refuel/transfer as much anymore. Every once in awhile maybe, but nowadays with new planes available and the more 747, 777, 787, and 767 available...it's easier to fly non stop to many places in the world. Planes can reach even Tokyo to NYC now easily. That's absolutely ridiculous thinking for these days. Even if you were flying from deep inside Africa to the US and not Chicago, you stop in Europe first and then go to the US. If you want to get to NYC from the Maldives or something, you don't fly direct to the US. You stop in Asia or Europe first, NOT Chicago. LA has more stop-overs and it's for mainly Australian and New Zealand flights.

[hindukid]

Originally Posted by marothisu

Um, no. Not even close anymore. That might have been true 20-30 years ago when planes had shorter reach on one fueling. That's not true at all anymore for many locations.

The only long distance stuff would be from Australia to New York City which is slightly further than a 777 can go at its max.They don't go through Chicago though, they go through Los Angeles for South Pacific/Australia/New Zealand flights. Some people do come from Tokyo too, but it's possible to get a non stop from Tokyo to NYC. By the same token, LA, Miami, and NY are used just as often for refueling and transfering.

International planes don't land in Chicago just to refuel/transfer as much anymore. Every once in awhile maybe, but nowadays with new planes available and the more 747, 777, 787, and 767 available...it's easier to fly non stop to many places in the world. Planes can reach even Tokyo to NYC now easily. That's absolutely ridiculous thinking for these days. Even if you were flying from deep inside Africa to the US and not Chicago, you stop in Europe first and then go to the US. If you want to get to NYC from the Maldives or something, you don't fly direct to the US. You stop in Asia or Europe first, NOT Chicago. LA has more stop-overs and it's for mainly Australian and New Zealand flights.

I think he should have rephrased it as O'hare has many flights for connections. It is a major hub for 2 of the 3 largest airlines in the country. Probably far more of the traffic headed for Tulsa, Milwaukee, Boise and every other small city in this country connects in Chicago than anywhere else when heading abroad.

A large portion of international travelers at ORD are simply connecting on their way to somewhere else. This is because Chicago has far better domestic service than JFK, SFO, MIA and even LAX.

Chicago does have plenty of locals who are traveling internationally but I think there is some logic to the idea that foreigners are going to land on either the east coast or west coast.

Of the numbers I have seen, Chicago has a far greater portion of its tourism come from domestic travel than international. NYC has less than double the amount of domestic tourists but has like 10X as many international tourists. I do think its something Rahm needs to work on. Seems to me that word is out within the US but not internationally.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by hindukid

I think he should have rephrased it as O'hare has many flights for connections. It is a major hub for 2 of the 3 largest airlines in the country. Probably far more of the traffic headed for Tulsa, Milwaukee, Boise and every other small city in this country connects in Chicago than anywhere else when heading abroad.

A large portion of international travelers at ORD are simply connecting on their way to somewhere else. This is because Chicago has far better domestic service than JFK, SFO, MIA and even LAX.

Chicago does have plenty of locals who are traveling internationally but I think there is some logic to the idea that foreigners are going to land on either the east coast or west coast.

Of the numbers I have seen, Chicago has a far greater portion of its tourism come from domestic travel than international. NYC has less than double the amount of domestic tourists but has like 10X as many international tourists. I do think its something Rahm needs to work on. Seems to me that word is out within the US but not internationally.

Yes, there are some connecting flights for international travelers to other cities but my point is that it's waning. 10-20-30 years ago, there was more, but it's way less now with the emergence of some planes (i.e. the 777 and ANA with their 787s). Many connecting areas for people coming abroad are in Europe (i.e. if they're coming from certain parts of Asia or Africa) if they need to do that.

And while those people flying in here might not be staying in Chicago, my other point was that you could make the same argument about many other places in the US, NOT just Chicago. I guarantee you any airport in the US that has international service is in the same boat (especially a place like Charlotte).

IMO, we have our hypothesis, but is there any data to support anything out there? I know of data about the number of domestic and international enplanements, but..?

[hindukid]

I believe a major reason Chicago struggles internationally is that there is nothing else near it. Quite frankly there is nothing within driving distance that is one of the top sites in America.

Whereas NYC has Boston and DC. LA has San Francisco and Vegas. Miami has Orlando. In all 3 of those areas there are at least 2 places you can visit without needing to fly. If you visit Chicago you pretty much need to fly to your next destination.

If I were a tourist I would probably be thinking the same thing. My first trip would likely be NYC with DC tacked on and the second would likely be California and Vegas.

[hindukid]

Originally Posted by marothisu

And while those people flying in here might not be staying in Chicago, my other point was that you could make the same argument about many other places in the US, NOT just Chicago. I guarantee you any airport in the US that has international service is in the same boat (especially a place like Charlotte).

I'll grant you Charlotte and most cities in the US. But not NYC, LAX, and SFO. Probably also not DC or MIA. I am very convinced that is where the large majority of international tourist are flying into.

They are logical stopping points. Big international airports with many flights, generally low airfares and on the coast which avoids excess flying. I just think they are the places foreigners are naturally going to look too.

[Alacran]

There's Milwaukee ?

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by hindukid

I believe a major reason Chicago struggles internationally is that there is nothing else near it. Quite frankly there is nothing within driving distance that is one of the top sites in America.

Whereas NYC has Boston and DC. LA has San Francisco and Vegas. Miami has Orlando. In all 3 of those areas there are at least 2 places you can visit without needing to fly. If you visit Chicago you pretty much need to fly to your next destination.

If I were a tourist I would probably be thinking the same thing. My first trip would likely be NYC with DC tacked on and the second would likely be California and Vegas.

I agree. NYC and Chicago are semi similar cities, but you are correct in the driving portion of it. Milwaukee is close, and while it's a semi big city, it's not a destination tons of people are flocking to necessarily (some).


I am friends with people from Europe who did the same trips. Either NYC or LA/San Francisco..or both. There's no denying those cities are more well known. Chicago has its own things to do just like any other city, but there's still work to be done when you say you live in Chicago overseas and people say more than just "OH! Chicago Bulls!" or "Michael Jordan!"

[hindukid]

In 2010, Chicago received just over 39 million visitors. Of those who came to the City, 38 million were domestic visitors and 1 million (about 4%) were international visitors. While 39 million overall visitors is not a bad number, as the 2nd largest city in the United States, the Mayor thinks that Chicago can do better. New York City, for example, recently announced that they hosted over 50 million visitors in 2011, of which, 10 million were overseas travelers.


To me this quote speaks volumes. Chicago has 38 million domestic, just under the 40 million at NYC. But NYC has ten times as many international tourists.

[Alacran]

We need to create a gimmick.

[marothisu]

Originally Posted by hindukid

In 2010, Chicago received just over 39 million visitors. Of those who came to the City, 38 million were domestic visitors and 1 million (about 4%) were international visitors. While 39 million overall visitors is not a bad number, as the 2nd largest city in the United States, the Mayor thinks that Chicago can do better. New York City, for example, recently announced that they hosted over 50 million visitors in 2011, of which, 10 million were overseas travelers.


To me this quote speaks volumes. Chicago has 38 million domestic, just under the 40 million at NYC. But NYC has ten times as many international tourists.

Yeah definitely. NYC though is in the history books and it's always noted as America's first and foremost city. If you are coming to the US, that's the one place you must go basically IMO. It does make sense.

One of the things that helps New York and LA out is that they are more diverse. I'm not saying Chicago isn't, because it is here, but I find things rather homogeneous here in many areas and when I think of a lot of areas like Lincoln Park, Lakeview,Irving Park, etc..it's all the same area to me.

As a coworker of mine from the east coast pointed out...the arts scene here is pretty sad compared to other areas. It exists here, but there's not a ton of areas where you go and you're like "wow this area is...different..").

I think a lot of things have to do with what the cities are known for. LA is known for celebrities and movies while NYC is just known for a lot of different things (art, celebrities, tall buildings, history, etc).