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.
Any city that can send and receive international shipping containers by water should not be considered flyover country IMO. The difference is that these cities have the potential to be international trade centers, whereas in cities without this potential, the likelihood is far lower.
Any city that can send and receive international shipping containers by water should not be considered flyover country IMO. The difference is that these cities have the potential to be international trade centers, whereas in cities without this potential, the likelihood is far lower.
No, flyover country is generally anything between the northeast and california, that's the generally accepted terminology. Exceptions might be Las Vegas, Hawaii, Miami. Everything else is game.
No, flyover country is generally anything between the northeast and california, that's the generally accepted terminology. Exceptions might be Las Vegas, Hawaii, Miami. Everything else is game.
Why would a place like Chicago be considered flyover country? I know many people from the coasts travel there on a regular basis, and many planes land in and take off from Chicago, so I hardly see how that can be considered flyover country.
Seems like a good number. 200 is far too short for flyover country. By that measure, Shreveport, LA, Jackson, MS, Carson City, NV, and Spokane, WA are all flyover country.
I think to most people those are all classic flyover cities.
Seems when people talk about flyover country they usually mean anything that isn't NY or LA, and to a lesser extent DC, SF Bay, Bos, and maybe Seattle or Miami.
It's actually everything outside of New York and Los Angeles, the country's two largest cities. That was the initial definition for it and then it extended to be East Coast and West Coast and then extended to mean any land locked place in Middle America.
This qualifies the entire region of the Midwest and much of the South and West that's not on the Atlantic or Gulf Coasts. So places like Austin, Dallas, Fort Worth, San Antonio, Denver, El Paso, Albuquerque, Phoenix are in flyover territory where as places like Tampa, Miami, Houston, New Orleans for major cities on some salt water coasts are not. I do journalism and this is always a repeatedly brought up topic here at work, lol.
This is what typical flyover country looks like for hundreds of miles surrounding on all 4 sides:
Detroit, Chicago, Cleveland and Milwalkee are always refered to as part of flyover country. Hard to imagine how, or why they would be excluded. In fact Chicago is the ultimate flyover city.
This is what typical flyover country looks like for hundreds of miles surrounding on all 4 sides:
Exactly my point, this is not what Great Lakes cities look like, notice when you fly over them there are big blue things roughly the combined size of the Black Sea in Europe.
No, flyover country is generally anything between the northeast and california, that's the generally accepted terminology. Exceptions might be Las Vegas, Hawaii, Miami. Everything else is game.
No you're not understanding my point. Coasts are salt bodies of water that reach the ends of the country. The furthest south you can in the United States is the Gulf Coast, the furthest West you can go is the Pacific and the Furthest East you can go is the Atlantic.
The Great Lakes while very massive are just that, Great Lakes and they're in the middle of the country. When you fold the country everything land locked in middle America is a fold including the Great Lakes and interior Canada. Before you ask, yes there really is that much of a difference between a lake and a real salt water coast. The two bodies of water are Atlantic and Pacific and generally the Gulf is just a seismic extension of the Atlantic Ocean.
o reach regional destinations you can fly east, west, north, or south from Chicago. To reach regional destinations in the lower 48 states you cant go any further east of Boston, any further south of Houston, or any further west of San Francisco. You can go as far north as you want until you reach the landlocked US-Canada border. Do you catch my drift?
The great lakes are an anomoly. They shouldn't be lakes but they are not oceans.
Whoever decided to call them lakes is stupid.
They're Seas
You're a troll and it can be seen from your few posts.
I am not making up the rules. I am just saying how the term is used. So, yes pretty much.
Do I think Chicago is worth flying over? No.
Do I think Chicago is generally considered part of flyover country by the generally accepted terminology of "flyover country"? Yes.
As another poster said. It started out as just NYC and LA, then got extended to Northeast/California... and you MIGHT make exceptions for destinations such as Miami/Las Vegas with a very broad term.
Las Vegas is filled with people from Southern California on the weekends and is an international resort vacation destination. Miami likewise shares commonality between NYC Metro and is an international resort. But again, those would go beyond the common definition to include possible exceptions if you were to debate the subject.
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.
