Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Top 10 Country In Air Traffic  
User currently offlineHardiwv From Brazil, joined Oct 2004, 8780 posts, RR: 50
Posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12523 times:

Top 10 countries with passenger air traffic in 2007 (million pax), and percentage growth over 2006:

1. United States 1,450,454 (3,3%)

2. China 349,833 (14,3%)

3. United Kingdom 242,994 (2,3%)

4. Spain 210,034 (8,7%)

5. Japan 203,530 (0,3%)

6. Germany 185,738 (6,0%)

7. France 140,178 (5,0%)

8. Italy 129,240 (9,9%)

9. Brazil 120,403 (7,8%)

10.Canada 101,192 (6,0%)

It is interesting the absence of India, Russia, Indonesia, Mexico, Nigeria which all have major populations but should be part of the list in the years to come.

Rgs,

11 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19385 posts, RR: 58
Reply 1, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 12505 times:

I wonder how that works out per capita. I'm sure the U.S. ceases to be #1 and China DEFINITELY ceases to be #2 seeing as how it has 3x the population of the U.S. and 1/5th the capacity.

User currently offlineSsides From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 4059 posts, RR: 21
Reply 2, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12467 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 1):
I wonder how that works out per capita. I'm sure the U.S. ceases to be #1 and China DEFINITELY ceases to be #2 seeing as how it has 3x the population of the U.S. and 1/5th the capacity.

I would think the US would still be highest per capita. For example, it has 6x the air traffic as the UK, but I don't think it's 6x as populous as the UK.

Canada might be up there, though.



"Lose" is not spelled with two o's!!!!
User currently offlineJush From Germany, joined Apr 2005, 1636 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 12399 times:



Quoting Ssides (Reply 2):
I would think the US would still be highest per capita. For example, it has 6x the air traffic as the UK, but I don't think it's 6x as populous as the UK.

Canada might be up there, though.

Well it is almost exactly that



There is one problem with airbus. Though their products are engineering marvels they lack passion, completely.
User currently offlineGlareskin From Netherlands, joined Jun 2005, 1303 posts, RR: 1
Reply 4, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 12336 times:



Quoting Ssides (Reply 2):

I would think the US would still be highest per capita. For example, it has 6x the air traffic as the UK, but I don't think it's 6x as populous as the UK



Quoting Jush (Reply 3):
Well it is almost exactly that

I don't know how your math is but according to this list Spain has more air traffic per capita.
As of today the USA has 304133348 inhabitants and Spain has got 40495524 which makes the US 7.5 times as populous. According to this list the US has however only 6.9 times the traffic.

What does this list say anyway? Is it times thousand? And is it registered pax in all airports or just domestic pax?



There's still a long way to go before all the alliances deserve a star...
User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7387 posts, RR: 17
Reply 5, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 12324 times:



Quoting Ssides (Reply 2):
I would think the US would still be highest per capita. For example, it has 6x the air traffic as the UK, but I don't think it's 6x as populous as the UK.

I am not sure of the relevance of the population or the per capita figures.

The number of passengers using UK airports in 2007 according to the CAA was 241,684,904. This number excludes passengers using airports on Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man that are strictly not in the UK. So Hardivw's figure of 242,994,000,000 looks to be exactly 1000 times too high.

Can I take it that all of his figures are not millions but thousands? If so the USA, with an estimated population of 301 million in 2007, has a per capita figure of 4.8 flights per capita. The UK's population passed 60 million in very early 2007. So the UK per capita figure is 4.0 flights.

But it must be noted that these figures are for all passengers of all nationalities making a flight to or from an American or British airport. In the case of the British figure if a passenger travels from LHR to EDI he or she will add 2 to the total passenger figure but only 1 if he or she flies on an international flight such as LHR-CDG. So if you are looking to find how many flights an average person of a given nationality makes the CAA numbers that are the total number of passengers using each British airport all added together does not help very much.

This factor is well illustrated if you look at small countries with large number of passengers.

Consider Singapore. It has a population of 4.553 million. And in 2007 36.7 million passengers used Changi Airport (SIN). So the Singapore per capita figure is 8.1.

Even more extreme look at the United Arab Emirates. Its population is 4.105 million. In 2007 DXB handled 34.3 million and AUH 6.9 million passengers. So the combined total of these two airports (that are not the only airports in UAE) is 41.2 million. This gives a figure of just over 10.0 passengers per capita. But, of course, that does not mean that each UAE resident took an average of 10 flights!


User currently offlineHardiwv From Brazil, joined Oct 2004, 8780 posts, RR: 50
Reply 6, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 12281 times:



Quoting Glareskin (Reply 4):
What does this list say anyway? Is it times thousand? And is it registered pax in all airports or just domestic pax?

Domestic and international passenger traffic in the specific countries.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 5):
I am not sure of the relevance of the population or the per capita figures.

It boils down to the actual figures we have above, as they are important indication of a country's air traffic movement.

Quoting VV701 (Reply 5):
Consider Singapore. It has a population of 4.553 million. And in 2007 36.7 million passengers used Changi Airport (SIN). So the Singapore per capita figure is 8.1.

Even more extreme look at the United Arab Emirates. Its population is 4.105 million. In 2007 DXB handled 34.3 million and AUH 6.9 million passengers. So the combined total of these two airports (that are not the only airports in UAE) is 41.2 million. This gives a figure of just over 10.0 passengers per capita. But, of course, that does not mean that each UAE resident took an average of 10 flights!

Singapore, UAE and Netherlands would certainly be countries with high per capta numbers because they are all connecting airports.

Rgs,


User currently offlineSandroZRH From Switzerland, joined Feb 2007, 3427 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 12253 times:



Quoting Hardiwv (Reply 6):
Singapore, UAE and Netherlands would certainly be countries with high per capta numbers because they are all connecting airports.

You can throw Switzerland in there aswell.


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7387 posts, RR: 17
Reply 8, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 12204 times:



Quoting Hardiwv (Reply 6):
It boils down to the actual figures we have above, as they are important indication of a country's air traffic movement.

Not necessarily at least on a comparative basis.

Take a country like the USA. I am guessing that most of the passenger journeys in the American figures are for domestic flights. If the numbers are obtained by adding together the numbers of passengers using each American airport (as the British numbers provided by the CAA certainly are) then most passengers in the American figure will be counted once at the passenger departure airport and once at the arrival airport.

Now take a country like Singapore. With no domestic flights there will be no similar double counting. Every passenger will be counted just once for every journey he or she makes.

So the passenger numbers need to be adjusted by a factor representing the proportion of domestic passengers before you can use them as an indication of a country's air traffic movements. With the figures for a predominantly domestic-flight market inflated and the existance of international-only markets like Singapore, no direct comparison is meaningful.

So, although the per capita figure for the USA looks like 4.8 - see Reply 5 - is higher than the UK figure of 4.0, the higher proportion of domestic American flights could reverse the order of these figures.


User currently offlineHardiwv From Brazil, joined Oct 2004, 8780 posts, RR: 50
Reply 9, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 12139 times:



Quoting VV701 (Reply 8):
So the passenger numbers need to be adjusted by a factor representing the proportion of domestic passengers before you can use them as an indication of a country's air traffic movements

Not really because the domestic traffic will be very important for the local domestic carriers. See the case of Brazil, it is the domestic traffic that make GOL and TAM such important airlines. So domestic traffic is very important to the industry, as important as international traffic, especially because you have to some degree less competition. Routes such as CGH-SDU are the mainstay for Brazilian domestic carriers being their most lucrative income source.

Rgs,


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7387 posts, RR: 17
Reply 10, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 11889 times:



Quoting Hardiwv (Reply 9):
Not really because the domestic traffic will be very important for the local domestic carriers.

There are lies, damn lies and statistics. And I am trying to point out how carefully the interesting statistics you provided need to be treated and, specifically, how talking about air passengers arriving and departing from any specified geographic area when compared to the population of that area (as others have done in subsequent replies) need to be treated very, very carefully if you are not to produce totally meaningless comparisons.

I will repeat for clarification purposes:

The figures for the UK in the opening post appear to be based on those published by the British CAA. The CAA compile these figures by adding together the total number of passengers boarding and disembarking from a flight at every British airport.

This means that every passenger travelling on a British DOMESTIC flight is counted TWICE. He or she is counted once as he or she boards an aircraft for a specific domestic flight. He or she is then added to the cumulative number of passengers using his or her departure airport. He or she is then counted a second time when he or she disembarks from that same flight at another British airport. He or she is then added to the cumulative total of the number of passengers using his or her destination airport. The annual figures for the total number of passengers using all British airports are then added together to give a national total. So a single British passenger on a single domestic flight increases the CAA total passenger count by 2.

On the other hand a passenger boarding or disembarking from an INTERNATIONAL flight at a British airport is counted just ONCE either as he or she boards a departing flight or disembarks from an arriving flight. So a single British passenger on a single international flight increases the CAA total passenger count by just 1.

IF - I repeat IF - other countries' data is compiled in the same way, comparing the data of a country such as the USA or, indeed, Brazil where there is a proportionally very large domestic market that will be double counted with the data for a country like Singapore that has no domestic market and therefore no double counting or a country like the Netherlands that has a very small domestic market with therefore minimal double counting becomes meaningless.

On the other hand if other countries' data is NOT compiled in the same way, then comparing the data of one country against that of another will be meaningless anyway.

I understand the point that "domestic traffic will be very important for the local domestic carriers". But it is equally clear to me that international traffic will be very important for the local international carriers. Indeed in most cases the average international passenger will travel further than the average domestic passenger. He or she will therefore likely pay a higher fare. It can therefore be argued that international traffic is more important to most local international carriers than domestic traffic is to most local domestic carriers. It therefore seems totally illogical to give domestic traffic twice the weighting of international traffic.

Finally I indicated before that the data for the UK in the opening thread is stated to be in millions but is x 1,000 larger than the data published by the British CAA. Is it possible to confirm that all the data for all countries is in thousands ('000s) and not millions ('000,000s) of passengers as is stated?


User currently offlineHardiwv From Brazil, joined Oct 2004, 8780 posts, RR: 50
Reply 11, posted (5 years 11 months 2 weeks 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 11855 times:

Quoting VV701 (Reply 10):
There are lies, damn lies and statistics. And I am trying to point out how carefully the interesting statistics you provided need to be treated and, specifically, how talking about air passengers arriving and departing from any specified geographic area when compared to the population of that area (as others have done in subsequent replies) need to be treated very, very carefully if you are not to produce totally meaningless comparisons.

The statistics I posted are from ACI - Airports Council International which I am sure understands quite well about air traffic statistics.

http://www.aci.aero/aci/aci/file/Pre.../2008/Interesting%20Stats_2007.pdf

I will complement the above data with some other interesting official statistics by ACI:

Top 15 fastest growing airports in the world:

1. Wuhan (WUH) +37%
2. Sayan (SYX) +36%
3. Denpasar-Bali (DPS) +35.5%
4. Bagalore (BLR) +33.8%
5. Moscow (VKO) 32.5%
6. Chongoing (CKG) +28.6%
7. Calcutta (CCU) +28.2%
8. Nanjin (NKG) 28.2%
9. Sharm el Sheik (SSH) +27%
10. Hyderabad (HYD) +26.1%
11. Lima (LIM) +24.3%
12. Monterrey (MTY) 23.6%
13. Caracas (CCS) 23.4%
14. Hurghada (HRG) 23%
15. Madras (MAA) 23%

Top 10 Airports (million pax)

1. ATL 89.3 +5.3
2. ORD 76.1 -0.1
3. LHR 68 +0.8
4. HND 66.8 +1.1%
5. LAX 61.8 +1.4%
6. CDG 59.9 +5.4%
7. DFW 59.7 -0.7%
8. FRA 54.1 +2.6%
9. PEK 53.8 +10.1%
10. MAD 52.2 +13.9% (took over AMS position is no. 10 in the world)

Rgs,

[Edited 2008-08-12 08:18:08]

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
HKIA: May Sees Healthy Growth In Air Traffic posted Mon Jun 13 2005 10:11:48 by United Airline
Who Are The Top 10 Airlines In The US? posted Thu Dec 30 2004 03:27:00 by Future757
Decline In Air Traffic At Toledo posted Tue Jul 1 2003 00:21:39 by Rajivvyas
Top 10 Airlines In Your Airport. posted Fri May 17 2002 03:28:28 by Flymia
Rank Your Top 10 Factors In Choosing An Airline posted Thu Nov 8 2001 16:26:53 by Airworthy
Top 10 Airlines In Terms Of Size... posted Mon May 28 2001 17:01:34 by 767-332ER
Top 10 Airlines!(in Your Opinion) posted Mon Jun 19 2000 17:52:15 by Neo
Brazil Air Traffic Jan/Jun 2008: Top 20 Airports posted Tue Jul 22 2008 08:56:56 by Hardiwv
Brazil Air Traffic Jan/Feb 2008: Top 20 Airports posted Mon Mar 31 2008 06:13:50 by Hardiwv
An Official Air Traffic Control Strike In Italy posted Tue May 22 2007 11:15:51 by OA260