More recognizable skyline: Seattle or Toronto

[Heel82]

Originally Posted by fusion2

I just did a count of International airlines serving both Toronto Pearson vs Seatac (not including U.S and Canadian Airlines) and the count is 34 International Carriers serving Pearson vs 19 for Seatac. So it appears to the travelling global population Toronto is more on the radar for them than Seattle.

Toronto is bigger though, and the main entry point for it’s country. None of this points to a more recognizable skyline.

[fusion2]

Originally Posted by mhays25

You're not wrong, but it's also easier for carriers to get permission to operate in Canadian airports. The gap is real but wider than it should be.

I've flown Seattle-London quite a few times. There's traditionally the option of a packed direct flight or a half-empty flight via Vancouver.

Sea-Tac has also had capacity issues. They just opened a new international arrivals facility in May, making several more gates international-capable and more than doubling Customs capacity. Now, airlines are starting to announce new flights we'd never have gotten before.

I'm not sure of how complicated it is for Carriers vs the two Countries tbh. That said, I think the fact Toronto has a significant number of more International Carriers is simply because it is the more global of the two cities. It connects to more places because more people around the world are connected to it for fairly obvious reasons. I think that has more to do with it than it is easier to get permission to go to Pearson.

Toronto Pearson is also having Capacity issues. Welcome to the club. This is a global issue due to a lack of staffing, covid rules/regs and some other reasons as we recover from the pandemic. Just google search Toronto airport issues or Amsterdam etc etc etc.

Originally Posted by Heel82

Toronto is bigger though, and the main entry point for it’s country. None of this points to a more recognizable skyline.

This is my point. It is bigger and is a bigger international entry point and terminus for International pax. What else is there in supporting which city would be more recognizable though. What criteria do you want to use if not for global connectivity, city size and relative importance etc. You want to use Frasier as the metric instead for Seattle or Turning Red for Toronto?

[Heel82]

Originally Posted by fusion2

This is my point. It is bigger and is a bigger international entry point and terminus for International pax. What else is there in supporting which city would be more recognizable though. What criteria do you want to use if not for global connectively, city size and relative importance etc. You want to use Frasier as the metric instead?

I mean visual media is a huge part of it (maybe the largest when talking about recognizing skylines). Airport size is not. Atlanta's skyline isn't at the forefront of anyone's mind just because of how many use Hartsfield-Jackson.

But short of just surveying people with an image of the Space Needle and an image of the CN Tower to see what they say, this is an unknowable question.

[JMT]

This is why skyline discussions were originally banned, as they invariably devolve into completely off-topic discussions such as which airports have more international carriers. This thread is now closed.