Printable View
Saw this in the Financial Times and thought it was interesting.
Leading long-haul routes measured in ASKs (available seat-kilometers--number of seats multiplied by the number of KM flown) in millions
LHR-JFK 241.9
LHR-HKG 240.6
LHR-SIN 194.6
LHR-LAX 184.3
LAX-TPE 174.7
LAX-NRT 145.0
LHR-ORD 132.1
For those who wonder what's so special about LHR, there you go!
These long haul routes must be making tons for the airlines. Expensive tickets and lots of pax. Anyone know the most frequented domestic route?
That's between NYC and ORD and NYC and certain Florida markets.Quote:
Originally Posted by stuart schechter
This is sort of unrelated, but...
LHR-JFK is immensely popular yet we always hear that EWR is the preferred airport. Why isn't there a switch of service from JFK to EWR on say BA, since apparently the consumer loves flying to EWR instead of JFK?
It just seems like there would be a bigger demand for more EWR-LHR service since all the Manhattanites and tourists always complain about getting to JFK.
Thoughts?
I guess its more convient and somewhat better to head to JFK as more people know about it and a lot more people live closer to it
My 2 cents on JFK vs. EWR, while EWR is certainly more convenient for some people, JFK is the historical transatlantic gateway and offers more service from a variety of airlines with multiple flight times, whereas CO dominates at EWR. Also, JFK is on the NYC public transit system and has service by NYC yellow taxis (with meter to airport and flat rate into the city), whereas EWR has NJ Transit and the less organized Newark taxis which can't pick up in Manhattan. So, it's all a bit of a tradeoff really and probably comes down to where exactly you live, how you go to the airport, and if you're loyal to a particular airline.
I wonder how much of that LHR-SIN traffic is on the Kangaroo to SYD.
Top US Domestic routes (in millions of pax - couldn't find an apple-to-apples RPM/RPK number):
1.) NYC-CHI (3.16)
2.) LAX-CHI (2.80)
3.) NYC-FLL (2.78)
4.) NYC-ATL (2.66)
5.) WAS-CHI (2.62)
6.) ATL-MCO (2.58)
7.) WAS-ATL (2.54)
8.) DEN-ORD (2.53)
9.) NYC-MCO (2.41)
10.) LAS-CHI (2.41)
BTS doesn't separate out multiple airports in a city pair, but this lets you know where the traffic is.
Title of the busiest (no direct comparison to ASKs) route in the world goes to...Barcelona-Madrid.
#2 is Sao Paulo-Rio de Janeiro.
http://news.opodo.co.uk/articles/2006-0 ... usiest.php
Well the part that says CO dominates EWR is correct. But both BAW and VS offer more service from EWR-London then CO. BAW has 3 flights a day with 2 777 flights and a 763. VS has a daily 747 and A346. CO only has two daily flights, which both go to Gatwick instead of Heathrow with a 777 and a 757-200. So CO may dominate EWR for the most part, but definitely not to London.Quote:
Originally Posted by Nonstop2AUH
Yes, what I meant was CO dominates EWR in general. Probably if they got LHR rights they would kick up the frequency but as long as they can only get LGW, they won't be #1 on EWR to London because even though some NYers prefer EWR to JFK, very few people prefer LGW to LHR.
Anyone who lives in Spain can tell you the "Puente Aero" is the busiest route in the world. :wink: :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by Winglets747
I could be way off but there is something like 102 daily flights on certain days.
It's all down to geography. For me, because of where I live, all I have to do is jump on route 78 and 20 minutes later without much effort I'm at EWR with access to much of the world non-stop. However getting to JFK requires a lot more effort, a lot more time, and a lot more hassle for people who live where I am - so much that after flying through JFK a couple times we vowed to never do it again. But it's the opposite for people in other locations, so I don't think either one is necessarily better as a whole.