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.
15 Longest Non-Stop Flights in the World
Rank/ Airline/ Route/ Miles
1 Air India, Delhi-San Francisco 15,100
2 Emirates, Auckland-Dubai 14,203
3 Qantas, Dallas-Sydney 13,804
4-tie Singapore Airlines, San Francisco- Singapore 13,593
4-tie United, San Francisco-Singapore 13,593
5 Delta, Johannesburg-Atlanta 13,582
6 Etihad, Abu Dhabi-Los Angeles 13,502
7 Emirates, Dubai-Los Angeles 13,420
8 Saudia, Jeddah-Los Angeles 13,409
9 Qatar Airways, Doha-Los Angeles 13,367
10 Emirates, Dubai-Houston 13,144
11 Etihad, Abu Dhabi-San Francisco 13,128
12 American, Dallas-Hong Kong 13,067
13 Emirates, Dubai-San Francisco 13,041
14 Cathay Pacific, Hong Kong-New York 12,983
15-tie Cathay Pacific, Hong Kong-Newark 12,980
15-tie United, Hong Kong-Newark 12,980
I'm not sure why you are pretending the four have similar accomplishments.
There wasn't any pretending on my part, I believe every word that I wrote. For the record though, I don't believe all four have similar accomplishments but rather that all four have hallmark accomplishments.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa
San Francisco is the global Hi-Tech Capital of the World,
I said this too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa
Washington is the Political Capital of the World,
Perhaps the most influential of the world's geopolitical axises, seeing as how America remains the world's only Superpower, but not the only one of significant power and influence. Both Beijing and Moscow are also major actors in the geopolitical realm. They also have large spheres, then there are other geopolitical axises that dictate negotiations, trade, commerce, immigration, and defense too. That comes in addition to the aforementioned three places.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa
Chicago anchors the U.S. Heartland, a region of over 75 million people and a GDP nearly 5 trillion.
Yes, Chicago is the largest anchor city in Middle-America but not the only one of large size. For example, both Dallas and Houston are rather large metropolises with rather huge economies, they both would be in the top 25 largest economies in the world if they were countries. Chicago has no cultural, economical, social, political, commercial influence outside of the Midwest. It most definitely has no pull in those factors in the South, Southwest, or Intermountain West of the United States.
The Midwest's GDP, if it were a country would be one of the world's top 6-8 and would likely be somewhere between $2.4 Trillion - $2.6 Trillion (I'll add them up later) but Chicago does not spearhead an economy of $5 Trillion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by manitopiaaa
Toronto is the #1 city in a G-20 country. So are Johannesburg, Riyadh and Jakarta. And you wouldn't call those World-Class would you?
Yes and maybe I should have been clearer and more precise with my point. I'll re-state it: Toronto is the premier city in a G7 country, a first world G7 country, not developing world, but first world.
Canada has one of the world's top 10 largest economies, is a great country on standard of living and quality of life, and is generally as tolerable as other Anglophone nations such as Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
There wasn't any pretending on my part, I believe every word that I wrote. For the record though, I don't believe all four have similar accomplishments but rather that all four have hallmark accomplishments.
I said this too.
Perhaps the most influential of the world's geopolitical axises, seeing as how America remains the world's only Superpower, but not the only one of significant power and influence. Both Beijing and Moscow are also major actors in the geopolitical realm. They also have large spheres, then there are other geopolitical axises that dictate negotiations, trade, commerce, immigration, and defense too. That comes in addition to the aforementioned three places.
Yes, Chicago is the largest anchor city in Middle-America but not the only one of large size. For example, both Dallas and Houston are rather large metropolises with rather huge economies, they both would be in the top 25 largest economies in the world if they were countries. Chicago has no cultural, economical, social, political, commercial influence outside of the Midwest. It most definitely has no pull in those factors in the South, Southwest, or Intermountain West of the United States.
The Midwest's GDP, if it were a country would be one of the world's top 6-8 and would likely be somewhere between $2.4 Trillion - $2.6 Trillion (I'll add them up later) but Chicago does not spearhead an economy of $5 Trillion.
Yes and maybe I should have been clearer and more precise with my point. I'll re-state it: Toronto is the premier city in a G7 country, a first world G7 country, not developing world, but first world.
Canada has one of the world's top 10 largest economies, is a great country on standard of living and quality of life, and is generally as tolerable as other Anglophone nations such as Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.
Are you joking? Illinois alone is home to 35 fortune 500 companies, including names like Caterpillar, ADM, Boeing, McDonald's...The current POTUS built his political career in Chicago and the future POTUS is from suburban Chicago. Also plenty of cultural institution/museums in Chicago. Not sure what world you're living in if you think any of that is true.
Are you joking? Illinois alone is home to 35 fortune 500 companies, including names like Caterpillar, ADM, Boeing, McDonald's...The current POTUS built his political career in Chicago and the future POTUS is from suburban Chicago. Also plenty of cultural institution/museums in Chicago. Not sure what world you're living in if you think any of that is true.
LOL, so how does any of this contradict what I said? You realize every large metropolitan area has Fortune 500 companies with multi-national capabilities and markets and that a handful of metropolitan areas have produced presidents and legislative leaders, right?
Maybe reading comprehension is not your strong suit, so I'll repeat what I said, exactly the way it was written before.
"Yes, Chicago is the largest anchor city in Middle-America but not the only one of large size. For example, both Dallas and Houston are rather large metropolises with rather huge economies, they both would be in the top 25 largest economies in the world if they were countries. Chicago has no cultural, economical, social, political, commercial influence outside of the Midwest. It most definitely has no pull in those factors in the South, Southwest, or Intermountain West of the United States."
Can you actually prove that Chicago has cultural, economical, social, political, commercial influence on regions, states, and cities outside of the Midwestern United States?
Should be easy, right?
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 10-25-2016 at 03:43 PM..
I wonder what it looks like to someone reading from Dhaka Bangladesh how there is 70 pages of people bickering over which of their world class cities is the best...
So lets hear that argument on how Chicago is socially, culturally, economically, politically, commercially influential to places outside of the Midwest.
And you wouldn't call those World-Class would you?
I think it is fair to explain my position on "world class" as to avoid any further confusion in the future.
I'm of the belief that "world class" cities are an exclusive, tidy, small number. Unlike others that feel practically every decent to nice city is world class and should be classified with that designation, in contrast I hold the belief that there are about 15-25 world class cities in the world. That's it.
To me a world class city is a showcase city. World class isn't the same as "most important" (so put those GDP stats away) or "most cosmopolitan" (so put those diversity stats away) or "best standard of living" (so put those cost-of-living to income ratio charts away). Those are all different topics, altogether, and would wield different results than what cities are most "world class."
To me a world class city is a showcase city, an elite city, with the amenities, sites, urban form, and offerings that can keep tourists and locals busy for quite some time (a 2-3 weeks stay to get the hang of it type of city). A comprehensive city with elite food, music, nightlife, architecture, infrastructure, cultural institutions and performing arts, exclusive retail offerings, local culture, and social atmosphere.
I consider the city I live in to be world class. Why not? We are over 800 square miles of continuous urban city, with a clean and effective transit system, world renown cultural institutions and performing arts, a spectacularly innovative food scene, and architecturally profound. Our nightlife is top tier as is our music scene.
The reason I mention my city is because it is what I am most familiar with and to me it is an example of the type of city that has dominant features of a world class city. Below are some images that you can view of various neighborhoods or locations in my city. You'll notice the architecture, the level of pedestrian activity and vibrancy, our cultural traditions, and other aspects about our city.
This is 'the City' (less than 2 kilometers from where I live):
Recently our city celebrated a treasured tradition. In 1666, our city burned down due to the Great Fire. This year marked the 350th anniversary of the occasion and this is how we recreated the event to commemorate our history:
Needless to say, I think London is a world class city. I don't mean to be talking about London but you specifically brought up "world class" cities and I do have an opinion on that. I gave you an example of a city that I think is world class so that way you can see which features or aspects about it make it so. I think London checks every box, honestly, as a showcase city. It has the nightlife, the infrastructure, the architecture, the food scene, retail scene, the music scene, the art scene, all the cultural institutions and performing arts (its elite in every category there), plenty of cosmopolitan diversity, each neighborhood is different, large, and pedestrian scaled. Our city's urban fabric radiates out of neighborhoods that emerge from roundabouts and public spaces. We have an excellent historic element with plenty of iconic sites and events to take in.
Most importantly we have excellent aviation and airport infrastructure. Meaning the word "world class" is not just a concept to us. We actually have the infrastructure to connect directly with cities all over the world, which is huge. In a thread in the General U.S. forum, a lot of the cities people were saying are "world class" don't even have direct airline service destinations in much of the world, LOL. How's that "world class"?
Our quality of life is great but can be worked on to be even greater. We are not a perfect city by any means and we have a lot of challenges. Our economy this year has been pretty volatile due to Brexit and our real-estate market is stuck in a limbo where valuations and demand haven't crossed paths yet. We also have stifling income inequality. Fortunately we have other issues worked out to a respectable manner. Unlike some second rate cities where 600+ murders in a single year is acceptable (along with a laundry list of other issues that city has), we have a lower murder rate than anywhere in America. While we still have crime in the South and East Ends, it has improved dramatically and continues to go down each year. Hopefully we can aspire to be like Tokyo with regards to crime and take a few pages to improve, we aren't that bad to begin with as it is, but improvement is never a bad thing either. We're not in Tokyo's league with regards to crime but we should aspire to be.
Like I mentioned earlier, I think the world only really has 15-25 world class cities, a select group. I think world class is a pretty strong term that shouldn't be applied to just any city.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 10-25-2016 at 06:03 PM..
So lets hear that argument on how Chicago is socially, culturally, economically, politically, commercially influential to places outside of the Midwest. LOL.
With all the bickering between Torontonians and someone from San Francisco. I was happy they were NOT LESSENING DC and CHICAGO.
Now you came in. Generally a AWESOME POSTER and Thread maker. But here in this thread LESSENING CHICAGO by stature and influence. Mentioning Dallas and Houston (NOT Midwest cities I will add) As if MORE INFLUENCIAL To the Midwest and rest of the Nation. I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. SORRY
I realize you always give Toronto a win. But Chicago's Core and Metro area. Has NOT LOST its Corporate, Banking and Finance power. It is very much in the MIX OF LEADERS. Including in the World still. Even in the NEW 2016 A.T. Kearney Global cities index.
Chicago remained at #7 in the world (no drop) but ROSE 6 PLACES IN ITS GLOBAL FUTURE OUTLOOK. From # 17 to #11.
So this is no city in STATISTICAL OR ECONOMIC DECLINE. Despite sunbelt cities rising too. Since you mentioned Houston. It rose one place in FUTURE outlook but Atlanta rose 10. It is possible Chicago could rise at least in future outlook again.
Incidentally Your Toronto DROPPED 4 PLACINGS IN CURRENT OUTLOOK. NOW AT #17. TEN PLACES NOW BELOW CHICAGO and in FUTURE OUTLOOK Toronto rose 2 places to #18. So Chicago REMAINS Rising even faster then Toronto and higher on both metrics.
I don't like Chicago lessened when it isn't Nationally or Globally Warranted.
Now you came in. But here in this thread LESSENING CHICAGO by stature and influence. Mentioning Dallas and Houston (NOT Midwest cities I will add) As if MORE INFLUENCIAL To the Midwest and rest of the Nation. I RESPECTFULLY DISAGREE. SORRY
I never said that.
I did the opposite actually. The poster I was referring to said Chicago is the anchor to "the heartland" which has an economy of $5 Trillion. The only way he could've come up with $5 Trillion is if he included Texas, and other places in the South, in with the Midwest, and in which case, he's wrong for doing so. Chicago does not influence Texas, at all, and the same is true vice versa, where Texas doesn't influence Chicago at all. These places have nothing to do with each other, period. That's my only problem with what the poster said about Chicago. I felt he was giving Chicago way to much credit for "anchoring the heartland" when in reality both Dallas and Houston are also in Middle-America and not at all influenced by Chicago, whatsoever. Both are large metropolises of nearly 7 million and over 7 million, respectively, with economies that are around $500 Billion (half-a-trillion dollars; larger than all but 24 other countries). These places and others around them have nothing to do with Chicago.
Beyond that I don't have a problem with his point.
I just think he should've said something more agreeable like "the Midwest" with its nearly 68 million people and $2.5 Trillion dollar economy. I find that agreeable but I don't think Chicago is "the City" for people in the South or other regions. I don't think it is influential to those places in that manner, so yeah, I disagreed with him countering my point by saying Chicago is "the anchor of the heartland which has an economy of $5 Trillion." Dallas and Houston influence Texas and other nearby states "in the heartland" such as LA, OK, AR, and the like and not Chicago. That's a fact.
I did the opposite actually. The poster I was referring to said Chicago is the anchor to "the heartland" which has an economy of $5 Trillion. The only way he could've come up with $5 Trillion is if he included Texas, and other places in the South, in with the Midwest, and in which case, he's wrong for doing so. Chicago does not influence Texas, at all, and the same is true vice versa, where Texas doesn't influence Chicago at all. These places have nothing to do with each other, period. That's my only problem with what the poster said about Chicago. I felt he was giving Chicago way to much credit for "anchoring the heartland" when in reality both Dallas and Houston are also in Middle-America and not at all influenced by Chicago, whatsoever. Both are large metropolises of nearly 7 million and over 7 million, respectively, with economies that are around $500 Billion (half-a-trillion dollars; larger than all but 24 other countries). These places and others around them have nothing to do with Chicago.
Beyond that I don't have a problem with his point.
I just think he should've said something more agreeable like "the Midwest" with its nearly 68 million people and $2.5 Trillion dollar economy. I find that agreeable but I don't think Chicago is "the City" for people in the South or other regions. I don't think it is influential to those places in that manner, so yeah, I disagreed with him countering my point by saying Chicago is "the anchor of the heartland which has an economy of $5 Trillion." Dallas and Houston influence Texas and other nearby states "in the heartland" such as LA, OK, AR, and the like and not Chicago. That's a fact.
You can't just say that, it's not true.
As you know, Chicago is way more important to the economy of this country, than just in the heartland. I will repost my links from the other thread, if you're still in denial.
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.
NOW AT #17. TEN PLACES NOW BELOW CHICAGO and in FUTURE OUTLOOK Toronto rose 2 places to #18. So Chicago REMAINS Rising even faster then Toronto and higher on both metrics. 
