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.
Well six isn't really a big difference, and depending on the six, may not really mean much for most people IMO.
There is also the fact that Vancouver only has 6 less despite being comparatively in a more isolated location and with only 2.5 million people (half of Boston's size by MSA, less than a third of Boston's size by CSA).
The fact that it has nearly as many international destinations as Boston despite being half the size (or less than a third of the size if you go by CSA) indicates that it has a much higher per capita demand for overseas travel than Boston and for its size is perhaps more of a destination city for overseas travelers. Then again, this seems apparent as nearly half of Vancouver's population is foreign born as it is. One out of every two people you meet in Vancouver has their originations in some country that isn't Canada. You'd have to think that eventually (perhaps soon?) the foreign borns will outnumber the domestic borns there.
Boston itself is a really sturdy global city, for its part it definitely gets a great deal of immigration from across the globe. The demand for international service has always been there for them. Though when you take into account size and location, it's obvious that Vancouver punches well above its weight class. Especially since it nearly matches Boston despite being nowhere near as large.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 11-29-2018 at 03:26 PM..
There is also the fact that Vancouver only has 6 less despite being comparatively in a more isolated location and with only 2.5 million people (half of Boston's size by MSA, less than a third of Boston's size by CSA).
The fact that it has nearly as many international destinations as Boston despite being half the size (or less than a third of the size if you go by CSA) indicates that it has a much higher per capita demand for overseas travel than Boston and for its size is perhaps more of a destination city for overseas travelers. Then again, this seems apparent as nearly half of Vancouver's population is foreign born as it is. One out of every two people you meet in Vancouver has their originations in some country that isn't Canada. You'd have to think that eventually (perhaps soon?) the foreign borns will outnumber the domestic borns there.
Boston itself is a really sturdy global city, for its part it definitely gets a great deal of immigration from across the globe. The demand for international service has always been there for them. Though when you take into account size and location, it's obvious that Vancouver punches well above its weight class. Especially since it nearly matches Boston despite being nowhere near as large.
Vancouver does punch above its weight in a lot of ways such as what you listed. Boston is still a different weight class though so it has the economic clout and the institutions accordingly.
Vancouver does punch above its weight in a lot of ways such as what you listed. Boston is still a different weight class though so it has the economic clout and the institutions accordingly.
I'm sure that Boston's economic clout and institutions are quite lovely but we're only talking about international airline service though. That appears to be the topic that we're in discussion with the last couple of posts. In which case 46 versus 41 on international service destinations implies cities that are in the same weight class for this topic. Sort of astonishing really, especially given that the one that has 46 is 2X larger (more than 3X larger by CSA) than the one that has 41 and is much closer to the populated parts of its continent and world than the other.
Well six isn't really a big difference, and depending on the six, may not really mean much for most people IMO.
Where are you sourcing your numbers from?
May not matter to you Nat, but matters to people who do most of their traveling internationally and hate connecting. Of course not everything matters to everyone.
I made a mistake though, it is 48 for Boston because I did not include Havana which starts next month.
There is also the fact that Vancouver only has 6 less despite being comparatively in a more isolated location and with only 2.5 million people (half of Boston's size by MSA, less than a third of Boston's size by CSA).
The fact that it has nearly as many international destinations as Boston despite being half the size (or less than a third of the size if you go by CSA) indicates that it has a much higher per capita demand for overseas travel than Boston and for its size is perhaps more of a destination city for overseas travelers. Then again, this seems apparent as nearly half of Vancouver's population is foreign born as it is. One out of every two people you meet in Vancouver has their originations in some country that isn't Canada. You'd have to think that eventually (perhaps soon?) the foreign borns will outnumber the domestic borns there.
Boston itself is a really sturdy global city, for its part it definitely gets a great deal of immigration from across the globe. The demand for international service has always been there for them. Though when you take into account size and location, it's obvious that Vancouver punches well above its weight class. Especially since it nearly matches Boston despite being nowhere near as large.
Actually I am not surprised at all. Logan has always suffered due to its proximity to New York. For example Boston just got a direct flight to Brasil this year, despite Massachusetts having the 2nd largest Brazilian population outside of Brasil. Of course Newark had a direct flight for years and Brazilians used to simply connect on their way to Logan. That is just one example but there are many others.
If Vancouver was located within a 45min flight to NYC or even Toronto, it would see a similar pattern.
I don't know the details, but it's often easier to get permission for new air routes to Vancouver than it is to the US.
For example for us Seattle residents, our direct flights are often more expensive because they're relatively full due to our limited service, while Vancouver is flush with flights. Last I checked, they had six to London just in the typical 6:00 pm red-eye time range.
May not matter to you Nat, but matters to people who do most of their traveling internationally and hate connecting. Of course not everything matters to everyone.
I made a mistake though, it is 48 for Boston because I did not include Havana which starts next month.
Actually I am not surprised at all. Logan has always suffered due to its proximity to New York. For example Boston just got a direct flight to Brasil this year, despite Massachusetts having the 2nd largest Brazilian population outside of Brasil. Of course Newark had a direct flight for years and Brazilians used to simply connect on their way to Logan. That is just one example but there are many others.
If Vancouver was located within a 45min flight to NYC or even Toronto, it would see a similar pattern.
Your links say Vancouver has 43 non-stop international flights, excluding US. Your Logan link has 45 non-stop flights excluding Canada.
Add you one for next year 46, vs 43, well 44 since YVR is adding a new non-stop to Liberia, Costa Rica.
I'm not seeing much if any difference in number of international non-stop flights. 2 more.
I'm not even sure if this is the way to say which is better. We also have to take into account how frequent are those flights.
Your links say Vancouver has 43 non-stop international flights, excluding US. Your Logan link has 45 non-stop flights excluding Canada.
Add you one for next year 46, vs 43, well 44 since YVR is adding a new non-stop to Liberia, Costa Rica.
I'm not seeing much if any difference in number of international non-stop flights. 2 more.
I'm not even sure if this is the way to say which is better. We also have to take into account how frequent are those flights.
Not to nitpick, but I was counting city destinations. So that is why it was 44 for Logan and 41 for Vancouver (I am not double counting London and Tokyo)
Logan is adding 4 by next year not one (Seoul, Casablanca, Chengdu and Havana)
I did not look into Vancouver's confirmed additions for next year so yes Liberia, CR is confirmed.
This comes down to preference of course, but it was worth mentioning. 48 - 44. It also comes down to preference when it comes to destinations. For example I have never been to Australia, but if I lived in Vancouver I would have definitely visited multiple times. You probably would say the same if you lived in Boston about some destinations in South America or The Middle East.
Not to nitpick, but I was counting city destinations. So that is why it was 44 for Logan and 41 for Vancouver (I am not double counting London and Tokyo)
Logan is adding 4 by next year not one (Seoul, Casablanca, Chengdu and Havana)
I did not look into Vancouver's confirmed additions for next year so yes Liberia, CR is confirmed.
This comes down to preference of course, but it was worth mentioning. 48 - 44. It also comes down to preference when it comes to destinations. For example I have never been to Australia, but if I lived in Vancouver I would have definitely visited multiple times. You probably would say the same if you lived in Boston about some destinations in South America or The Middle East.
LOL. I think we are both nitpicking
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.
