World's most busy airports - April 2014

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

Very interesting as usual. Big thanks going to Airliners.net forum for drawing my attention to it.

The latest rankings by Airports Council International are also quite surprising, at least for me.

I had a bit different view of which airports are on top of the list but, seemingly, the world is changing.

Asia rules to say the least. 6 of the 10 most busy airports are Asian.

Together with the current winner - Beijing. Wishing we had its decent rendition in FSX...

Have a look and enjoy (numbers showing monthly served passengers are given on the right):

[Aerosoft Team [Inactive Account] 51558]

Jakarta certainly surprised me.

[Chris_327 42]

This is actually for January of this year I believe, and don't forget that a lot of places are in the "low season" so this list will change as the year progresses.

[iPetroSS 542]

I did believe that Amsterdam would be a little bit higher in the list!

Thanks for the info though.

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

This is actually for January (...) so this list will change as the year progresses.

The changes I am intriugued by are general, seen in years. When I compare these results with ones I saw years ago, there are some clear changes, with Asia going higher and higher.

That especially refers to Dubai which is becoming "World's Hub' (attracting most airlines now, with some, like Qantas, moving their secondary hubs on transcontinental flights to DXB).

For comparison here's the January 2013 list:

1 ATLANTA

2 BEIJING

3 DUBAI

4 LONDON

5 LOS ANGELES

6 TOKYO HND

7 CHICAGO

8 DALLAS FORT WORTH

9 JAKARTA

10 HONG KONG

11 BANGKOK

12 SINGAPORE

13 PARIS CDG

14 DENVER

15 GUANGZHOU

16 FRANKFURT

17 NEW YORK JFK

18 INCHEON

19 SHANGHAI

20 ISTANBUL

21 MIAMI

22 KUALA LUMPUR

23 AMSTERDAM

24 SYDNEY

25 CHARLOTTE

26 SÃO PAULO

27 PHOENIX

28 SAN FRANCISCO

29 LAS VEGAS

30 HOUSTON

Looks like some changes did take place here. Including the Beijing's leadership.

My personal surprise (you learn something every day) is how much Haneda beats Narita (which is not even listed here) - almost twice more passengers!

And my favourite airport, Frankfurt, is slowly falling.

Yes, Jakarta is suprising, but even more Charlotte which, with all respect for Charlotters, I've never heard much about (more than its being the US Airways hub).

[Chris_327 42]

And my favourite airport, Frankfurt, is slowly falling.

Mine too, Heathrow's rank is only going to go down by the looks of things. Unless we ever get that third runway!

I guess Haneda gets a lot more domestic traffic than Narita does?

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

I guess Haneda gets a lot more domestic traffic than Narita does?

I does, exactly, much more domesting connections.

Additionally it is half way closer to the city centre than New Narita, so it would often be a choice for Tokyo visitors, I guess.

What is more, the lists we are discussing here take passenger numbers as the measurement. Haneda looks like a definite passenger-type airport.

Narita, on the contrary, with some 25 cargo airlines (including most world's freight leaders), and being also a great fishing port (lol), beats Haneda hands down.

[BPL 39]

Yes, Jakarta is suprising, but even more Charlotte which, with all respect for Charlotters, I've never heard much about (more than its being the US Airways hub).

I'm not from Charlotte, but I am from North Carolina (Charlotte is the largest city in North Carolina). Many people don't realize that Charlotte actually has a larger population than that of Atlanta by quite a large margin (estimated at 775,202 in 2012 vs. 443,775 for Atlanta). The city of Atlanta is actually closer in population to Raleigh, the capital of North Carolina, which had a population of 423,179. The difference lies in the metro areas. The metro area of Charlotte had a population of 2,335,358, while the Atlanta metro area had a population of 5,457,831. As you can see, when you factor in the surrounding cities and towns, Atlanta beats out Charlotte by quite a bit.

Just some fun facts from a lover of geography.

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

Just some fun facts from a lover of geography

Hi, BPL!

Thanks for your input.

Certainly the population factor explains a lot. What I meant rather, as a non-American, is that Charlotte doesn't sound like NY, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco or Las Vegas which are commonly known for this or that reason. Ask Europeans or Asians what they know about any of the above listed cities, and you will often hear some info. Now ask about Charlotte. For a similar reason the first impression here may be close (and it was for me). Certainly that only refers to popular knowledge, not scientific facts which indisputably justify reality.

There are a few more names on the list where most people could scratch their heads for a moment.

I believe Jakarta'a posistion will surprise for a similar reason. You don't hear much about Jakarta in Europe or North America, I guess.

But with almost 30 million inhabitants (in the metro area - world's second largest) and South Asia's largest population - that stops being a surprise.

Living in Europe, where largest metropolitan areas seldom go over 10 million inhabitants, we tend to forget how huge populations some other places on Earth have.

Greetings to you from a geographer by education.

Great to see others interested in this branch of science.

EDIT:

Charlote's around the 17th place on the US largest cities list by population. I just asked my wife if she heard about it. Guess what? She didn't.

Now in Europe, Belgrade is number 17. Do ask any family members or friends in the US - I am almost sure most of them never heard this name.

That is the difference between popular knowledge and facts. As you yourself correctly wrote:

Many people don't realize

[PatrickZ 300]

There's not a straight line to be drawn between how well a certain city is known and how many inhabitants it has. For example, Amsterdam has only 812.895 inhabitants but still it's widely known. Compare that to Zhengzhou, a city somewhere in China wich in an international scale very few people have ever heard of. Still it has 8.626.525 inhabitants, that's more than 10 times as much as Amsterdam.

What is also to be concidered that some cities got multiple airports. I once heard (don't know if it's still true) that London is the city wich serves the most air passengers. Heathrow may not be on top of the list, but it would be if you'd add the passenger numbers of Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, Southend and City. I wouldn't be surprised if London would turn out to be the city with the highest number of commercial airports.

[Rafal Haczek 1612]

Amsterdam has only 812.895 inhabitants

Take into account the cities we discussed above were calculated as metropolitan areas in which case Ranstad has more than 7 miliion inhabitants and is one of Europe's largest metros.

Compare that to Zhengzhou, a city somewhere in China wich in an international scale very few people have ever heard of. Still it has 8.626.525 inhabitants, that's more than 10 times as much as Amsterdam.

Be careful with Chinese numbers. 8 million inhabitants here go for the prefecture level, which is one level of Chinese administrative divisions.

The Zhengzhou number actually tells us how big the whole municipality is, which consists of several urban districts, 5 of which are county-level cities.

As a side note: Schiphol serves five times more passengers than Zhengzou.

What is also to be concidered that some cities got multiple airports.

Yes, most of the largest cities do. In Europe London rules, no doubt, but there is also Moscow, Paris, Stockholm, etc. In the states New York, Los Angeles, and so on.

Heathrow may not be on top of the list, but it would be if you'd add the passenger numbers of Gatwick, Stansted, Luton, Southend and City

That is a long list but some of them use the commercial name of London actually being located well outside of it (in different counties). Another factor to consider.

But if we calculate their passengers all together, that may indeed give us the most busy city region on our planet.

Anyway, thank you for participating in this very interesting discussion.

[BPL 39]

Certainly the population factor explains a lot. What I meant rather, as a non-American, is that Charlotte doesn't sound like NY, Chicago, Los Angeles, San Francisco or Las Vegas which are commonly known for this or that reason. Ask Europeans or Asians what they know about any of the above listed cities, and you will often hear some info. Now ask about Charlotte. For a similar reason the first impression here may be close (and it was for me). Certainly that only refers to popular knowledge, not scientific facts which indisputably justify reality.

There are a few more names on the list where most people could scratch their heads for a moment.

I believe Jakarta'a posistion will surprise for a similar reason. You don't hear much about Jakarta in Europe or North America, I guess.

But with almost 30 million inhabitants (in the metro area - world's second largest) and South Asia's largest population - that stops being a surprise.

. . .

EDIT:

Charlote's around the 17th place on the US largest cities list by population. I just asked my wife if she heard about it. Guess what? She didn't.

Now in Europe, Belgrade is number 17. Do ask any family members or friends in the US - I am almost sure most of them never heard this name.

That is the difference between popular knowledge and facts. . . .

Very interesting discussion, Rafal. That was the paradox I was pointing out. It's very interesting how popular knowledge of some cities compares with population figures, especially when you factor in things like metro population. Charlotte's claim to fame is banking, which doesn't exactly make it an iconic city in popular knowledge. Even in the U.S., you don't hear as much about Charlotte as you do about a city like Atlanta. I'll have to try asking about Belgrade; you're probably right that many here have never heard of it.

Back to the topic of airports, if any of y'all are ever at CLT, be sure to check out the Carolinas Aviation Museum: http://www.carolinasaviation.org/.