Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is that true? There's Origin and Destination (O&D) that can tell you exactly how many international passengers made ATL their destination vs. connected to somewhere else. I haven't seen numbers recently, but I think that number is significant. I believe it's still one of the top 10 airports in the U.S. in terms of international O&D passengers even though it's a major hub for connecting flights.
I would think so too.
I know it's a major hub for domestic flights, and that's the primary reason for it being the busiest airport in the world, but I don't know that there are that many international routes that make Atlanta their connection stop... I may be wrong on this.
I would think so too.
I know it's a major hub for domestic flights, and that's the primary reason for it being the busiest airport in the world, but I don't know that there are that many international routes that make Atlanta their connection stop... I may be wrong on this.
its a huge Delta Int'l connection hub, probably close to half make a connection but still strong O/D numbers regardless
domestic the connection rate is insane, same with DFW
But it may slip if you whittle down to just international. It does look like more than 60% of ATLs traffic is connecting.
Because ATL is a Delta hub, it does get a lot of international Skyteam traffic like KLM, British Airways, Air France, Korean, Aeromexico, etc. but a lot of that does funnel into Delta’s network.
SFO eeked past MIA, which actually saw a slight decline in passengers arriving on foreign carriers. I wonder why?
Destination Airports by Number of Passengers Arriving on Foreign Carriers, 2017
JFK 10,541,754
LAX 8,967,158
SFO 4,319,036
MIA 4,318,896
ORD 3,356,921
BOS 2,719,039
MCO 2,383,743
IAD 2,346,084
EWR 2,258,733
LAS 1,780,085
IAH 1,481,216
HNL 1,289,249
FLL 1,239,276
SEA 1,218,405
ATL 990,013
DFW 926,961
LGA 840,655
DEN 530,906
PHX 516,377
TPA 378,882
PHL 329,460
SAN 303,316
DTW 251,282
MDW 236,318
BWI 206,020
PDX 184,826
MSP 175,522
DCA 139,767
CLT 93,256
SLC 42,739
These are the only airports classified as 'major airports' by the DOT. I know that some smaller airports have more passengers arriving on foreign carriers than some listed above.
Int'l metal is one metric but for larger US driven hubs they funnel much of the traffic via US metal and connections; this allows better plane utilization so leads to more code shared US metal for plane air time utilization
also Asian flights have much higher foreign metal numbers coming in and out of the US
I think you would have to look at total Int'l passengers; though it is as stated here a form of OD of sorts without any connections
On Miami not sure; they have moved some AA connections to CLT but that would not explain foreign metal
SFO eeked past MIA, which actually saw a slight decline in passengers arriving on foreign carriers. I wonder why?
I would wager rapid expansion at FLL is siphoning some of the traffic. Norwegian specifically has ramped up operations at FLL a few of those routes were new in 2017, and a few grew during that time.
Whenever I read these airport statistics, I'm always surprised at how DC area airports are given the fact that DC is the capital, is relatively international, etc.
Much of DC's traffic is split between BWI (Baltimore's main airport), and Dulles which is in Virginia.
Baltimore's BWI is actually the larger of the two overall.
Destination Airports by Number of Passengers Arriving on Foreign Carriers, 2017
DCA 139,767
I didn't think DCA had ANY international flights on any airline, foreign or domestic. Heck, even its name suggests a lack of international service: Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.
PBI is actually growing like crazy now but mostly domestic flights (and these days a ton of air force one flights)
I remember reading, several decades ago, an article about why PBI did not have any trans-Atlantic service. The problem was, a fully loaded 747 with enough fuel to reach London would have had trouble taking off in the length of PBI's main runway. But that was then, and this is now. I would think that a fully loaded and properly fueled 787 could successfully take off from that airport. I wonder if there is enough demand for trans-Atlantic ridership from PBI to make it worthwhile for some airline to give it a go?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
