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.
Not really demand, but more yields. You will fill the front of the plane from SFO more easily than from LAX. The premium traffic to India is much greater from SFO than from LAX. Amazing how much this area can warrant non stops to India. 20 yearscago a nonstop would have been a pipe dream
Yep and now there are going to be 9 weekly nonstops-apparently there's a huge demand for weekend trips which is astounding considering the distance. Another interesting tidbit I read, the SFO-Delhi roundtrip also circles the globe, one leg over the Pacific, the other over the Atlantic.
The Mumbai nonstop will be only the third to the west, after London and JFK.
I think you can actually find cheaper rents in JC than Jackson Heights
Not sure about that - really depends on where you are, but the rents in Jackson Heights are cheap relatively. Jersey City you can find rent that's cheap and you can find rent that's more expensive if you want a more luxury building. Anyway, point is that a lot of Indian born people seem to be more jaded by urbanity than other cultures - at least that's what my Indian coworkers and friends tell me I do remember by the time I moved out of Chicago though, a few of the main nightlife areas downtown had a pretty heavy Indian presence at times - more noticeable than when I had first moved in so that type of thing was good to see. I think it's younger people usually under the age of 35. The older ones tend to go for the suburbs on average.
It's not surprising to me at all. It's the same way in NYC - while there's a number of Indian born people in NYC, the vast majority live outside of the city. I asked a few of my Indian coworkers about this and they told me hearing, for example, that there's way more Indian born people in the suburbs of Chicago than the city is not at all surprising. Most of my coworkers here in NYC do not live in NYC, actually even though they could. I have coworkers who have willingly moved from Manhattan and Queens to Jersey City, NJ.
They told me that because the urbanity of India can be not very good, a lot of Indian people think of a good life in America as living in a nice, clean area with a nice house. Often times this means the suburbs to them. At the same time, it's not a surprise that there's over 5500 Indian born people living in downtown Chicago alone and another few thousand in a few neighborhoods just outside of it. These are nice, clean areas with plenty of trees and nice real estate. At the same time, you have places like Jersey City which have a lot of Indian-born people and there are areas of it now that are nicer with regards to cleanliness than Manhattan or Queens. Even though the rent might be cheaper in Jackson Heights in Queens than Jersey City, there are a lot of Indian people who make decent money who opt to live in Jersey City instead. I also work with a bunch of Indian born people out of an office in Ohio. Suburban as all hell and they actually prefer it that way oddly enough.
The entire mindset differs from say the Chinese born population who views living in somewhere like a bustling downtown as almost a status symbol and not an issue since many Chinese cities are nowhere near as bad as Indian cities with respect to how nice/clean they are.
I wish I could rep you for this, but I can't. That actually makes a lot of sense. Here in the DC area, the vast majority of South Asians live in Northern Virginia, though there are some in Maryland. Barely any live in DC itself. New York doesn't seem to be as extreme as DC proper or SF proper though. There are still plenty of South Asians in the city proper.
Quote:
Hmm, not surprising at all - especially if you are talking about Indian people. We're talking about silicon valley here..
I dunno, it seems that a lot of posters in this thread seem surprised the Bay Area has Desi people.
I wonder if the Bay Area is in its own tier nowadays, or is it still in the DC/Chicago/LA tier for South Asians.
Not sure about that - really depends on where you are, but the rents in Jackson Heights are cheap relatively. Jersey City you can find rent that's cheap and you can find rent that's more expensive if you want a more luxury building. Anyway, point is that a lot of Indian born people seem to be more jaded by urbanity than other cultures - at least that's what my Indian coworkers and friends tell me I do remember by the time I moved out of Chicago though, a few of the main nightlife areas downtown had a pretty heavy Indian presence at times - more noticeable than when I had first moved in so that type of thing was good to see. I think it's younger people usually under the age of 35. The older ones tend to go for the suburbs on average.
I don't know if I would call Jackson Heights cheap. Yes it's cheap compared to much of Manhattan and yuppie Brooklyn, but the apartments are still expensive for working class people to afford.
I don't know if I would call Jackson Heights cheap. Yes it's cheap compared to much of Manhattan and yuppie Brooklyn, but the apartments are still expensive for working class people to afford.
It looks like Jersey City has a considerably lower price floor
It's easy to do that and compare, but Jersey City has a lot more in the way of luxury apartment buildings than Jackson Heights, easily. Not even close. There are a lot of nice apartments available in Jersey City. Remember - Jersey City is a city nearing in on 275,000 people. Jackson Heights is between 100K and 110K people. Jersey City is over 2.5 times the population of Jackson Heights. I have a lot of coworkers who live in Jersey City - varying degrees of living. My girlfriend used to live there too before moving onto Queens and then Manhattan.
Jersey City essentially has a bunch of nice/luxury buildings that are similar in price to downtown Chicago (though I'd say on average more expensive than downtown Chicago even).
The Mumbai nonstop will be only the third to the west, after London and JFK.
I'm surprised there isn't one to Toronto, especially since there are a lot of Tamil people there. However, given how much closer Mumbai is to the tech cities in India, it does make sense why SF would get one.
I'm surprised there isn't one to Toronto, especially since there are a lot of Tamil people there. However, given how much closer Mumbai is to the tech cities in India, it does make sense why SF would get one.
There is a Toronto-Mumbai non-stop. Air Canada flies Mumbai/Toronto using 789 equipment. Air Canada serves Delhi (non-stop as well) and Mumbai out of YYZ while Jet Airways serves Toronto to Delhi direct via Amsterdam.
Chatrapati Shivaji International Airport in Mumbai is also connected to more cities in the west than just New York, London and Toronto. It is also connected to Amsterdam, Paris, Brussels and Frankfurt.
As for Tamils in Toronto - many are Sri Lankan. There may be no benefit connecting in India vs Europe. In Europe they can connect in say London or Frankfurt etc on Sri Lankan Airlines direct to Negombo/Colombo.
Yep and now there are going to be 9 weekly nonstops-apparently there's a huge demand for weekend trips which is astounding considering the distance. Another interesting tidbit I read, the SFO-Delhi roundtrip also circles the globe, one leg over the Pacific, the other over the Atlantic.
The Mumbai nonstop will be only the third to the west, after London and JFK.
Im still waiting to see if it actually starts. AI loses money on almost all their flights to the West. Id imagine DEL-SFO does better than most because they can fill the front of the cabin with passengers between SFO and Bangalore.
Air India is being pushed to privatize by the Indian government. If that does happen youll see them scale down some because of how much money they lose on their long haul operation.
Also, JFK has no flights to Mumbai. Newark and Toronto do.
That being said, its actually surprising that municipalities such as Fremont and San Jose have more Indian/South Asian people than cities such as Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston and Philadelphia despite the latter 4 having way more people. Not to mention you don't traditionally think of "San Francisco" or "San Jose" as places that have a lot of South Asians.
What's surprising is that DFW burbs like Plano and Irving have that much more than Dallas itself. Also that Dallas is not even top 5 in Texas being passed by Houston, Plano, Irving, Austin, Sugarland.
Austin has really improved is diversity numbers the last couple of decades. I wonder how Austin City compares to The other big 5 now? Fort with had improved too.
So IMO, its Toronto, NYC, Vancouver, Chicago, DC, LA, SF in that order.
Thank you for actually looking this up instead of saying "I think".
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.
-apparently there's a huge demand for weekend trips which is astounding considering the distance. Another interesting tidbit I read, the SFO-Delhi roundtrip also circles the globe, one leg over the Pacific, the other over the Atlantic.
I do remember by the time I moved out of Chicago though, a few of the main nightlife areas downtown had a pretty heavy Indian presence at times - more noticeable than when I had first moved in so that type of thing was good to see. I think it's younger people usually under the age of 35. The older ones tend to go for the suburbs on average.
