Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Seattle really wants to control its growth. Wedged in between Puget Sound and the Cascades, and with a huge lake in the middle of the metro area which you cross on traffic-clogged floating pontoon freeways, it can only choke on itself more. DFW and ATL can accommodate growth more readily, and even though Seattle is the US port closest to Japan and Korea and is where Boeing rolls out their big planes, there is something still very provincial about it.
Seattle may not become mega sized, but I do see it being a big player in international economic terms. Maybe already top 10 (among other US Cities)
British, Lufthansa, Air France, KLM, Air Canada, Korean, and South African. The word is emerging. I'm sure others will join these ranks. But, as I said, I think the airport is just part of the overall equation. The whole infrastructure of the metro area is poised for this type of growth and recognition, especially if a second ring road were to go around the city.
South African doesn't serve ATL. They used to.
If we are talking about foreign carriers serving a market as how international it is:
Houston: 11
Atlanta: 6
Dallas: 8
I wouldn't use that measurement personally. Atlanta is in a perfect geographical position to serve traffic flows from Latin America to the East Coast and Asia which is how it gets most of its flights to Latin America. Its also on the Eastern seaboard so it can serve Europe and Africa extensively. That's the reason for many of Deltas flights from Atlanta.
Last edited by Cowboys fan in Houston; 04-16-2012 at 06:18 PM..
I voted correctly. I said Atlanta. It is the nerve center for a quadrant of this country, adds population like crazy, and the airport is too important to overlook. The places ATL now has non-stop flights to across the globe is now mind-boggling.
Houston and Miami have already emerged for being energy/medical and financial centers, respectively, and for having port city status. BTW, I would NEVER consider Houston midwestern, lest any part of Texas. Miami intrigues foreigners for some reason, as does LA.
Dallas and Phoenix want to emerge as such, but I don't think they are world cities.
Philadelphia and Boston are already considered important.
Las Vegas and Twin Cities, "fat chance."
In no way does Dallas belong with Phoenix in that paragraph. Dallas and Atlanta are birds of a feather on this topic. Given that both are experiencing explosive growth and adding international ties, it's bound to happen.
I personally think Htown sumerized Dallas' situation on this topic perfectly so I won't dive into it again.
Last edited by Cowboys fan in Houston; 04-16-2012 at 06:19 PM..
If we are talking about foreign carriers serving a market as how international it is:
Houston: 11
Atlanta: 6
Dallas: 8
I wouldn't use that measurement personally. Atlanta is in a perfect geographical position to serve traffic flows from Latin America to the East Coast and Asia which is how it gets most of its flights to Latin America. Its also on the Eastern seaboard so it can serve Europe and Africa extensively. That's the reason for many of Deltas flights from Atlanta.
That measurment is one of the tools in determining how big a roll a certain area plays in the international arena. It's not the only rule, but it is part.
As for the foreign metal flying into ATL, Air France, KLM, and Korean are alliance members with Delta (Skyteam) and they get a share of the Domestic feed from Delta. There is no way Korean Airlines would survive in Atlanta on O&D alone which would be the case if it was a non-Skyteam partner. As for the other two British/Lufthansa, they seem to have service to many third tier US cities because London/Frankfurt are the two most traveled to cities from the US to Europe. So having them is not unusual for a Atlanta sized CSA.
From Latin America to Asia via Atlanta? You have got to be kidding. Atlanta is a joke as an Asian gateway..Sorry!! Anybody traveling from latin America to the far East is taking United/Continental via Houston or Delta via LAX. Atlanta is seriously backtracking as a transit point for Latin America/Asian bound flights. I can assure you that Asian ops from Atlanta on Delta are miniscule compared to their Europe/Middle East routes out of ATL.
As for the foreign metal flying into ATL, Air France, KLM, and Korean are alliance members with Delta (Skyteam) and they get a share of the Domestic feed from Delta. There is no way Korean Airlines would survive in Atlanta on O&D alone which would be the case if it was a non-Skyteam partner. As for the other two British/Lufthansa, they seem to have service to many third tier US cities because London/Frankfurt are the two most traveled to cities from the US to Europe. So having them is not unusual for a Atlanta sized CSA.
From Latin America to Asia via Atlanta? You have got to be kidding. Atlanta is a joke as an Asian gateway..Sorry!! Anybody traveling from latin America to the far East is taking United/Continental via Houston or Delta via LAX. Atlanta is seriously backtracking as a transit point for Latin America/Asian bound flights. I can assure you that Asian ops from Atlanta on Delta are miniscule compared to their Europe/Middle East routes out of ATL.
As to the first paragraph, thats incorrect. Atlanta-Seoul is actually large local market with about 100-110 PDEW. A 777 with no connections on the Atlanta end could still easily be filled with connections in Seoul to other Asian destinations. It also has a relatively high average paid fare. Atlanta-Tokyo is about 60 PDEW so its not particularly small either.
As to the second paragraph, my point was that Atlanta has the geography to serve Latin America to Asia and it does. Central America-Asia (outside Mexico City) is largely irrelevant, the cities in deep South America are what the airline would be after and Atlanta is in a good place to capture it (as is Dallas and Houston).
The most prized Asia-Latin America local market is Tokyo-Sao Paulo. Its by far the largest and most high yielding of the bunch. For this city pair, connections can be made in Los Angeles, Dallas, Chicago, Houston, Atlanta, New York, Detroit, and Washington DC. On the Latin America end, Buenos Aires, Lima, Mexico City, and Rio are the only other Latin America-Asia markets with the trouble. The others are too small.
As for the geography to this, look at Great Circle Mapper. I used Tokyo-Sao Paulo as a reference. Atlanta is right along the way from Asia to the deep South America cities. Dallas, Houston, and New York are others that are good to use. The problem is that Houston only serves one city in Asia nonstop (Tokyo) and Dallas and Atlanta only serve two (Tokyo and Seoul). New York serves all the major cities in Asia.
My point was also that the reason so many flights to Latin America exist from Atlanta has to do with the traffic flow (primarily from the Northeastern US). Atlanta-Latin America is actually not a very big market over all. Houston and Dallas to Latin America are several times larger. Houston-Latin America is the 4th largest in the US and Dallas-Latin America is the 6th largest. Atlanta-Latin America barley cracks the top 15. But because it is right along the way from bigger markets like NYC, DC, Chicago, and Boston, it captures it perfectly. Yes, it is still small compared to Latin America-Asia through New York or Los Angeles and they do get a lot more traffic to Europe, but the geography is there.
Atlanta is no way considered a transfer hub for latin America/Asain flights compared to other hub airports further west. With Delta serving only Tokyo-Narita and Korean serving Seoul from ATL and both are dailies. You can't possibly think that these two flights will cover the O&D, domestic to international connection, and the formidable Latin America/Asain connection you speak of. I agree with you on the Latin America/Europe/Middle East connection flights, but with only two planes per day (777's) you can not say that that is remotely substantial.
I'm done with the airport thing, since this is kinda derailing this thread..Nice chat though
Maybe I just have a bit of a different opinion on what a truly "world class" city is, but this thread is...ummm... Yeah, way off in my opinion. Some of these are even more laughable than the list as a whole, Vegas? Phoenix? Twin Cities? Nvm...I'll be listing all of them.
It's not snobby in my opinion, but NYC is the only "world class" city in the US. "World class" is truly special for me and the only cities I see in it are NYC, London, Paris, and Tokyo. That isn't to say all of the cities on the poll aren't nice with a whole lot of positives, but "world class," come on now... Maybe this just heads to the tier discussion in my mind.
This global city ranking from wikipedia summarizes tons of data. From what I can gather, Caesarstl named the top four. We must ask ourself what criteria are we measuring:
- GDP and economic indicators
- Political stability
- Cultural attractions and entertainment
- Population
- Influential people residing in the city
I find New York City and London to be in a league of their own for all of these measures. In the US, the one that is up and coming is Washington DC to crack the top five.
This global city ranking from wikipedia summarizes tons of data. From what I can gather, Caesarstl named the top four. We must ask ourself what criteria are we measuring:
- GDP and economic indicators
- Political stability
- Cultural attractions and entertainment
- Population
- Influential people residing in the city
I find New York City and London to be in a league of their own for all of these measures. In the US, the one that is up and coming is Washington DC to crack the top five.
Sorry, but San Francisco is definately on tier with Washington DC, to say it isn't makes this a homer comment in the biggest way.
Political stability- Please elaborate?
GDP and economic indicators- The San Francisco Bay Area wipes the floor with the DC area
Cultural attractions and entertainment- I'd say both offer entertainment and attractions that bring tourists from all over the world.
Population- Bay Area has 7.5 million
Influential people- thats debatable. Washington for politicians and San Francisco for business intellectuals.
Which cities do you think are emerging as world cities? I didn't include L.A., New York, DC, Chicago, and the SF Bay Area, because I feel those are already in that category.
All of the cities you listed were already World Cities with the one exception of Las Vegas , so I tried to voted for Las Vegas.
Last edited by Howest2008; 04-19-2012 at 02:12 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yeah, way off in my opinion. Some of these are even more laughable than the list as a whole, Vegas? Phoenix? Twin Cities? Nvm...I'll be listing all of them.
