Talk:World's busiest airport
|WikiProject Aviation / Airports||(Rated List-class)|
Is is just me, or does the number of destinations served have nothing to do with how busy an airport is? Sekicho 13:14, Jun 17, 2004 (UTC)
New York air traffic
New York must generate more aircraft movements than any other city in the world, yet its main airport, JFK, is relatively small compared to, say, Heathrow. So where does all the Big Apple traffic go?
- LaGuardia, Newark, Islip, White Plains, etc. - Sekicho 22:30, Nov 12, 2004 (UTC)
But am I right in thinking New York generates more air traffic than any other city in the world?
- 2003 passenger statistics:
Heathrow 64,300 JFK 31,712 Gatwick 30,000 LGA 22,470 Stansted 19,400 Newark 29,584 Luton ~1,000 Islip 1,973 City 1,471 W/Plains ~1,000 -------- -------- LONDON 116,171 NEW YORK 86,739
- Despite being an American who loves New York, I have to admit that London has beaten New York in terms of air traffic. Also, adding the Haneda and Narita figures would give 88 million passengers a year in Tokyo, a good million more than New York.
- However, New York might lead in terms of the number of aircraft it handles, since Japanese airlines use huge planes almost exclusively and London handles a lot of high-density intercontinental flights. Sekicho 22:30, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
I think world's busiest airport is a title no city wants. New York realized this long ago and that's why city planners disbursed the traffic to multiple fields. I don't know London's reasoning (probably lack of space) behind sticking to the one airport model. I'm all about pride but this is actually one that NY wins by not being on this list. Take Atlanta for example. That's a city that should have expanded "eons" ago but there they are with one claim to busiest airport. It has nothing to do with how popular a city is, just how inept (or sometimes, how incredibly awesome)the planners were. I come from St Louis and for a long time (when trains were popular) we had the busiest train station in the country. That's how these silly contests are won/lost. Everyone knows New York has more people and more people on trains but they were smart and spread it out over 2 or 3 stations instead of one gigantic one that took up half of downtown. Dividebyzero —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dividebyzero (talk • contribs) 16:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- What is the above table of, flight movements (takeoffs and landings) per year? It certainly can't be passengers - ATL handles 90,000,000 per year (2008) about 30,000,000 more than LHR did. Being at the edge of the country detracts significantly from NYC numbers for all of its airports - ATL is a hub through which many passengers stop, even though their ultimate destination isn't Atlanta itself. LHR claims to be the leader in number of international passengers, but then the whole of the UK is what the size of Kansas, so there's not much domestic travel. A better comparison would be interstate travel from a US airport or just look at total passengers (other than passport control and customs, what's the difference domestic vs. international). As for the distribution of passengers between several airports in NYC, it should be remembered that London has two major commercial airports LHR and LGW plus a few others besides so that's not going to be the difference. For international traffic out of the US, there are many choices besides NYC area airports (ORD, DFW, etc.) that work better as they are hubs with many feeder flights - again no airline really uses NYC area airports as hubs (well Continental uses Newark I guess). Probably the biggest detractor for NYC is that JFK is the main international airport while LGA handles the domestic traffic. As anyone who's landed at one and had to get to the other for a connection knows, this is a virtually impossible to do while maintaining sanity. Hence, JFK really only handles locally generated international traffic while LGA is only a destination, not a reasonable waypoint for someone going on overseas. Jmdeur (talk) 05:52, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hm..it might be better off staying as such, and having sub-sections for different ranking categories?--Huaiwei 17:41, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Why is Frankfurt there? It is definately not one of the world's busiest airports.
- Someone removed the Atlanta info and replaced it with uncited claims about O'Hare. I restored the original info. Simishag 17:36, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
The page for Dulles Airport states that it is one of the world's busiest and links here, but Dulles isn't found on this page.
Van Nuys vs. Phoenix Deer Valley
Van Nuys airport is widely recognized and has been the worlds busiest general aviation airport for over 30 years running. It currently has about 394,915 take offs and landings anually or nearly 19,000 more than Deer Valley's 376,000. If you do a Yahoo! or Google search for world's busiest general aviation airport, you will also see Van Nuys appearing in nearly every link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
There is a claim that Los Angeles is the busiest airport between 2001 to the present based on a quote in an article in a now defunct link. However, according to FAA statistics this can not be true for all years. Data shows ATL and ORD have more enplanements. Enplanements are the number of people who board a plane for the first leg of their trip, but do not include passengers connecting and travelling through or passengers arriving at the airport.
2008 Total passenger enplanements  ATL 43,761,280 ORD 33,683,991 LAX 28,861,477
I removed this information.
Is not an appropriate link. This airport is not the world's busiest in any published metric. The description is inaccurate and is not suitable. The link also seems to go to a generic page. This is better link (once re-linked) for regional information but is not applicable here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2014 (UTC)