JFK and SFO are in areas with multiple airports, Newark and LaGuardia for New York and Oakland for San Francisco that could have an effect perhaps?

Good point about Singapore and possibly Hong Kong (might be considered part of PRC now?).

ORD is a pretty major international hub, the only US city and one of only 5 cities in the world to have non stop service to all continents (Antarctica excepted).

https://www.travelandleisure.com/tra...tional-flights

KUL>HKG makes sense as it's the hub for airasia. KUL has KLIA1 (legacy IIRC) and KLIA2 (airasia and other LCCs), really, 2 big terminals in their own right at the same location. I think the effect of LCCs would make the ranking make more sense. SIN and scoot don't hold a candle to the airasia group. not sure if HKG has a LCC hubbed there (?dragonair).

and I'm surprised that more of asia isn't on here - the amount of new pax being able to fly is just insane. I went thru the new terminal at CGK a few mos ago and it is enormous. They also have a new rapid train to Jakarta and a new intra-terminal train. I'm also surprised DMK isn't on the list.

Agreed. TPE should be high on that list too, huge number of connections through there.

Effective Oct 1, China will ease restriction on one airline per route policy on 20 most popular routes.

Affected routes in Canada:
PEK-YVR
PEK-YYZ
PVG-YVR
PVG-YYZ

List of all the routes:
https://fingfx.thomsonreuters.com/gf...A-AIRLINES.jpg

Source:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-c...-idUSKCN1M60TL

Doesn't change the fact that Canada-China bilateral is maxed out on the Chinese side. So if a Chinese carrier wants to start PEK-YYZ, they need to cancel another route to make it happen.

Same thing with the US-China bilateral. All capacity from tier 1 cities to the US is maxed out on the Chinese side.

The AC-CA JV can make things interesting though. If CA wants access to YYZ, AC can take over YUL-PEK, and CA can start YYZ-PEK. Still, as both routes are metal neutral, the advantages of CA switching between YUL and YYZ are minimal.

This doesn't look good for YYC or WS.

If I was Hainan, I would drop YYC-PEK in favour of YVR-PEK. I might even be persuaded to reduce or drop PEK-YYZ infavour of a new YVR flight.

Even if Hainan doesn't make a play for PEK-YVR, They could still drop YYC to get better equipment utilization and yields on USA run like PEK-LAX.

AS for WS, their China ambitions just got a lot more competition and less reason for Chinese airline to partner with them. Eg Why would a Chinese airline partner with WS if they don't need to get around one route one airline policy?

The new rule only apply to the "20 busiest routes with minimum of 14x weekly flights".

So if HU reduce PEK-YYZ to 6x weekly, then PEK-YYZ will be 13x weekly in total. Does that mean CA can't come in anymore? :diablo:

While HK is legally a part of China, for the purposes of air travel in China it's still considered an 'international' destination.

Not really, and especially not as a percentage of total traffic. ORD's international numbers are even likely to be surpassed by YVR this year.

ORD has 7.85 million international PAX through July of this year out of 47 million total
YVR has 7.87 million international PAX through July of this year out of 15 million total

How that gets them second place globally I don't understand.

Since when does ORD have non-stop flights to Australia?

It doesn't. Althought QF is considering opening ORD.

It will get non stop to Auckland on November 30.


The list has nothing to do with overall passenger numbers, or international passenger numbers. The mere fact that YUL and PTY are on there proves it. It's about the highest ratio of scheduled connections to the number of destinations served.

OAG has a method to calculate this. The list takes into account overall possible connections within a specific time frame. Domestic to international is counted as an international connection (same as intl to intl). Considering ORD has a huge domestic network and handles 3x times the commerical aircraft movements YVR does, you quickly realize why ORD is well ahead of YVR in the list, as more flights = more connection possibilities.

Straight from the website:

Suffice it to say, the list is correct, even if you think some airports should be higher or lower. Hope this explains it.

That does make a bit more sense yes. What is it they are trying to measure with that statistic? Connectivity within the airport doesn't seem to correlate to connectivity outside the airport as ORD has no where near the intl connections as some of the airports lower on the list.

HU seems pretty committed to YYC, as they could very have easily already cut PEK-YYC in favour of increasing frequency to YVR. They even increased capacity on the route this past summer.

Air Canada is ending service to Rochester, Syracuse and Harrisburg this November.

Air Canada Express/Air Georgian moving away from 1900D service to smaller communities?

World's Worst Airports, Ranked

https://www.farandwide.com/s/worst-a...content=172183

^ So much of it comes down to overcrowded facilities. Pearson is a very busy airport, so it follows that they'd rank on this list. However, I think it's much better than many big American airports that are notably absent from this list, like ORD or SFO.

That's just a whole lot of excuses. Many airports are busy but execute well. And since when are US airports the gold standard? 'Much better than many big American airports' is a very low standard to hold oneself to.

Many things at Pearson seem so amateur. Staff are rude, they don't listen to what's being asked, and are totally lost if an unseen problem arise. I'm not privy to what corporate is like but it's likely run in a similar fashion. That they still haven't gotten around to installing proper signage suggest they don't even realize it's a problem. What else don't they know?

I might add that they just got around to posting July passenger data when almost every top 50 airport in the world posted August data weeks ago. This is a familiar pattern with Pearson. They're almost always one of the last to report. Are they that uninterested in how their airport is growing?

Pearson has a few weaknesses, I'll admit it. I don't think it's in the top 20 worst airports, however.

It suffers from things it can't really control (snow/storms) relative to some of the best airports in the world, but nothing exceptional in terms of the part of North America it resides in. The New York area airports and Chicago seem to be much worse in this regard.

The second knock against it is its popularity - it is experiencing the growing pains of running up near its capacity. As the slack is drawn out of the facilities and they're running close to (if not over) their designed capacity, things start to unravel. Gates become scarce, security lines get longer, washrooms stay less clean and peak season travel becomes more annoying.

I'd say the worst things about Pearson in my experience are the washrooms (which I chalk up to the above-mentioned reason) and the baggage return, which is unusually slow and I've no explanation for.

Otherwise it seems to be better than many crowded European airports and several US airports (specifically the ones in the NY area). It also ranks far above several scary airports in the developing world.

Sure, it's not super-fancy like Dubai, Seoul or Singapore. It gets the job done without being too painful. That's all I can ask for an airport.