The U.S. Cities Where Airlines See the Most Growth

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by LouisianaRush

BWI eclipsed Dulles as the busiest Baltimore-Washington Metro airport a few years ago, due to its location and Southwest hub. The problem with BWI, it is mostly services North America airports and only has a small intercontinental reach. If I want to fly outside of North America, I normally take the train to Newark. It is easier to take the train to NYC than to drive to Dulles.

I was talking about that on another thread, but that's another for Bos-Wash having a very reliable and fast HSR. All the metropolises (and their airports) linked, short air travels eliminated, while passengers and companies would have more options for long distance destinations.

New York would obviously be the most important air hub, as it's the main destination in the US. On the other hand, PHI is short enough to pick up more routes with New York and Washington-Baltimore spill overs. And Washington-Baltimore airports could also cater from Philadelphia market.

--------------------------------------------------

About São Paulo, we could see that the city has several non-stop flight to North American cities. To think up to the late 1980's, Rio de Janeiro was pretty much the only Brazilian gateway. Now, São Paulo (GRU and VCP) handles 4x times more passengers than Rio (GIG).

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

I was talking about that on another thread, but that's another for Bos-Wash having a very reliable and fast HSR. All the metropolises (and their airports) linked, short air travels eliminated, while passengers and companies would have more options for long distance destinations.

New York would obviously be the most important air hub, as it's the main destination in the US. On the other hand, PHI is short enough to pick up more routes with New York and Washington-Baltimore spill overs. And Washington-Baltimore airports could also cater from Philadelphia market.

Philadelphia loses out because it's so close to Newark. Many people who live in the Philadelphia MSA opt to use EWR as their primary airport. This especially true since US Airways merged with American Airlines.

It's also so close to New York that it is affected by heavy traffic in the New York airspace.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Philadelphia loses out because it's so close to Newark. Many people who live in the Philadelphia MSA opt to use EWR as their primary airport. This especially true since US Airways merged with American Airlines.

It's also so close to New York that it is affected by heavy traffic in the New York airspace.

What if Newark becomes overcrowded? In a HSR scenario, airlines might use PHI to serve New York area.

[dimondpark]

Guangzhou-Baiyun International Airport had 73 million passengers in 2019 and is close to Shenzhen an Hong Kong .

Guangzhou: 73 million
Hong Kong: 71 million
Shenzhen: 49 million

this^ comes out to 193 million passengers, and has to be one of the busiest air spaces in the world for such a small geographic area.

EDIT: LAX and YVR are the only 2 North American Airports to have flights to all 3.

Anyhow, here are the Non-Asian airports that have nonstop flights to/from there(I also included the Middle East and Western Asia here)

Guangzhou-Baiyun International Airport
Addis Ababa
Adelaide
Amsterdam
Antananarivo
Auckland
Baghdad
Brisbane
Cairo
Doha
Dubai
Frankfurt
Helsinki
Islamabad
Istanbul
Jeddah
Kuwait
London-Heathrow
Los Angeles
Melbourne
Moscow-Domodedovo
Moscow-Sheremtyevo
Muscat
Nairobi-Jomo Kenyatta
New York-John F Kennedy
Paris-Charles de Gaulle
Perth
Riyadh
Rome-Fiumicino
Saint-Denis de la Reunion
San Francisco
Sydney
Tehran-Imam Khomeini
Toronto-Pearson
Vancouver
Vienna

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

What if Newark becomes overcrowded? In a HSR scenario, airlines might use PHI to serve New York area.

Newark is already crowded, but I don't think there will be many people from New York who would fly from PHL. PHL airport would be a more attractive option for New Jersey residents, but they can already get to PHL airport pretty easily.

The real benefit of HSR to New York is removing a lot of the short flights from NYC/Newark to DC and Boston. This would help to free up airspace to accommodate more longer distance flights.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

Guangzhou-Baiyun International Airport had 73 million passengers in 2019 and is close to Shenzhen an Hong Kong .

Guangzhou: 73 million
Hong Kong: 71 million
Shenzhen: 49 million

this^ comes out to 193 million passengers, and has to be one of the busiest air spaces in the world for such a small geographic area.

As Hong Kong is "another country", I think we can think of it as a single airspace.

However, Guangzhou-Shenzhen is already 3rd in the world, not far away from New York. And it's even more impressive as Chinese HSR already reaches every corner of the country, taking a good chunk of passengers away from airports.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

What if Newark becomes overcrowded? In a HSR scenario, airlines might use PHI to serve New York area.

The three main NY-area airports are all under federal flight restrictions, due to local NIMBY crazies. So there's no such thing as "overcrowded", thought they're at permanent "capacity".

The only way to increase usage is to fly bigger planes, which is why the airlines have mostly phased out the smaller regional jets to the main NY airports.

But yeah, there are some flight pattern issues under current FAA rules. The NY airspace is busiest in the world. The bigger issue is all the corporate/charter/private flights headed out of Teterboro Airport and the like. Teterboro is the busiest general aviation airport anywhere.

Newark and BWI are already on the Amtrak Acela line, so it would be relatively easy to add HSR service for flyers, in theory.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

The three main NY-area airports are all under federal flight restrictions, due to local NIMBY crazies. So there's no such thing as "overcrowded", thought they're at permanent "capacity".

The only way to increase usage is to fly bigger planes, which is why the airlines have mostly phased out the smaller regional jets to the main NY airports.

Delta leans very heavily on regional jets to serve NYC, particularly on flights into LGA or JFK within a 500-600 mile radius of NY. American seems to use regional jets less, though. I hardly ever fly United, and they also fly mostly out of EWR so I don't see their fleet as much.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Interesting. Detroit had service to São Paulo, but it was apparently ended in 2019.

I think 4 or 5 of these cities aren't really that important, though. Right now they're just big. Guangzhou, for instance, is arguably the third or fourth most important city in China. But these cities could become more important in the future.

Yeah, I don't think this is the right bucket of cities to gauge connectiveness. Hong Kong, London, and Paris are 3 of the 4 most important connections imo, and none of them are populous enough to crack the Top 10.

I'd suggest the 10 most important connections are more diverse. Something like:

• Delhi [South Asian gateway]
• Frankfurt [Central European gateway]
• Hong Kong [Chinese gateway]
• Istanbul [Middle East gateway]
• London [Top 4 Global City]
• Moscow [Eastern European gateway]
• New York [Top 4 Global City]
• Paris [Top 4 Global City]
• Sao Paulo [Latin American gateway]
• Tokyo [Top 4 Global City]

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Dimond, before the pandemics, there was a non-stop São Paulo-Detroit. If I remember right, it was 3x week, Delta. Not sure if they'll resume it.

On the other hand, I didn't know about São Paulo-Montreal.

Here are the Anglo American destinations that Sao Paulo has non-stops to:

• Atlanta
• Boston
• Chicago
• Dallas
• Houston
• Miami
• Montreal
• New York
• Orlando
• Toronto

As is no surprise, Miami is #1 by far (1,000,112 seats as of 2017) with New York as a close #2 (996,028 seats). Then you have a huge drop until you get to Orlando at #3 (348,272 seats).

Everyone else is way further down from that. And of course a lot of Brazilians transfer in Panama City.

I'm surprised Boston isn't a bigger hub as the Lusophone Capital of North America, but it's making progress. They are getting direct flights to Belo Horizonte starting June 4.

[Steely Dan]

^ i'm a bit surprised that there's no non-stop to LA from Sao Paulo.

[Manitopiaaa]

Originally Posted by LouisianaRush

BWI eclipsed Dulles as the busiest Baltimore-Washington Metro airport a few years ago, due to its location and Southwest hub. The problem with BWI, it is mostly services North America airports and only has a small intercontinental reach. If I want to fly outside of North America, I normally take the train to Newark. It is easier to take the train to NYC than to drive to Dulles.

Yeah, the problem is how fragmented it is.

Dulles is OK for international, but their domestic flights are horrifically uncompetitive.

Reagan is excellent for domestic flight, but they have no international flights outside of the immediate vicinity.

Baltimore has the cheapest fares by far, but international is horrid and getting there from D.C. is a chore (it's marketed as a Baltimore-Washington airport, but it's 40-50 miles away depending on how traffic choked the highways are and how Google Maps detours you).

Ideally we'd have a much bigger Reagan with international flights. D.C. will have a height limit regardless so the reason for not having a nearby airport doesn't matter anyway. But we instead now have Amazon HQ2 taking up all that bandwidth.

Reagan is too crowded and near capacity for future growth and BWI is too far to be a credible D.C. option outside of when fares are $100 cheaper. So that leaves Dulles, where we still don't have a metro connection to and the Silver Line is like Waiting for Godot.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ i'm a bit surprised that there's no non-stop to LA from Sao Paulo.

I know right?

The very first flight I took from the US to Sao Paulo was way back in 1994 and it was from LAX to GRU, on the now defunct VARIG(I miss that airline)

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

I know right?

it just doesn't make any sense.

i mean, dallas, houston, atlanta, chicago, boston and freaking orlando get non-stops but not the mighty LAX???

and it's not like we don't have jets that can easily do that distance.

they have to be two largest unconnected metro areas in the western hemisphere.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Here are the Anglo American destinations that Sao Paulo has non-stops to:

• Atlanta
• Boston
• Chicago
• Dallas
• Houston
• Miami
• Montreal
• New York
• Orlando
• Toronto

As is no surprise, Miami is #1 by far (1,000,112 seats as of 2017) with New York as a close #2 (996,028 seats). Then you have a huge drop until you get to Orlando at #3 (348,272 seats).

Everyone else is way further down from that. And of course a lot of Brazilians transfer in Panama City.

I'm surprised Boston isn't a bigger hub as the Lusophone Capital of North America, but it's making progress. They are getting direct flights to Belo Horizonte starting June 4.

Manitopiaaa, it's nice to check Viracopos Airport in Campinas (80 km north of São Paulo). Before the pandemics, it has risen to the 3rd busiest for international passengers. If I'm not mistaken, it has flights (pre-pandemics at least) to Fort Lauderdale, Orlando and New York.

Even though Campinas has its own strong market, Viracopos (VCP) is under the SAO code, as Guarulhos (GRU) and Congonhas (CGH).

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by dimondpark

I know right?

The very first flight I took from the US to Sao Paulo was way back in 1994 and it was from LAX to GRU, on the now defunct VARIG(I miss that airline)

When the big Brazilian Japanese migration to Japan started in the early 1990's, São Paulo-Los Angeles-Tokyo or São Paulo-Los Angeles-Osaka was the main route.

Since the 2000's, the migration died out and many returned. Today, to get to Japan, Brazilians will choose Dubai, European airports or even New York.

I've never been to the US, and Los Angeles would definitely be a destination, but I really hate connections.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

it just doesn't make any sense.

i mean, dallas, houston, atlanta, chicago, boston and freaking orlando get non-stops but not the mighty LAX???

and it's not like we don't have jets that can easily do that distance.

they have to be two largest unconnected metro areas in the western hemisphere.

Brazilians love Disney World. Sorry for forumers who live there or like it, but I really can't see myself going to Orlando. Life too short and there are so many places to go.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by yuriandrade

Manitopiaaa, it's nice to check Viracopos Airport in Campinas (80 km north of São Paulo). Before the pandemics, it has risen to the 3rd busiest for international passengers. If I'm not mistaken, it has flights (pre-pandemics at least) to Fort Lauderdale, Orlando and New York.

I might need to check this out, as we'll be visiting Santa Catarina, on a leisure trip (close friends now live there), sometime next year. I'm only doing directs, and I know the directs to SP from U.S. are expensive.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

it just doesn't make any sense.
i mean, dallas, houston, atlanta, chicago, boston and freaking orlando get non-stops but not the mighty LAX???

Orlando makes lots of sense, though. Disney and lots of Brazilians in Florida. West Coast doesn't have much of a Brazilian presence.

Orlando might make more sense than any city other than NYC and Miami

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Manitopiaaa

Yeah, I don't think this is the right bucket of cities to gauge connectiveness. Hong Kong, London, and Paris are 3 of the 4 most important connections imo, and none of them are populous enough to crack the Top 10.

I'd suggest the 10 most important connections are more diverse. Something like:

• Delhi [South Asian gateway]
• Frankfurt [Central European gateway]
• Hong Kong [Chinese gateway]
• Istanbul [Middle East gateway]
• London [Top 4 Global City]
• Moscow [Eastern European gateway]
• New York [Top 4 Global City]
• Paris [Top 4 Global City]
• Sao Paulo [Latin American gateway]
• Tokyo [Top 4 Global City]

Yeah... I think your method is better. I'd have fewer European cities, though. My stab at it:

• London (western & central Europe) - still the hub between Europe and the globe, but remains to be seen how this holds post-Brexit.
• Moscow (eastern Europe)
• Shanghai (China)
• Hong Kong (southeast Asia & Oceania) - probably is the true melting pot of east Asia.
• Tokyo (North Pacific) - Honorary mention due to size. Huge city but very inward focused. Doesn't serve well as an international melting pot that you'd expect from a large urban.
• Delhi (South Asia)
• Dubai (Middle East) - Hub between Europe, South Asia, and the Arab world.
• São Paulo (South America)
• Lagos (Sub-Saharan Africa) - Largest city and economy Africa.
• New York (North & Central America)

[Camelback]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I'm not sure RDU is a big enough airport to handle a major hub, though. The airport terminal is relatively tiny compared to an ATL/DFW/DTW/etc, and it would need to adopt the ATL/CLT model in order for it to make sense as a major hub.

RDU was an American Airlines hub from the late 80s to mid 90s. I agree with you that it's unlikely it'll become a hub airport again.