Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
DXB Overtakes LHR In International Passenger Numbers  
User currently offlineRJA321 From Jordan, joined Mar 2009, 69 posts, RR: 0
Posted (9 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 15702 times:

According to the article attached below, Dubai International Airport has overtaken London Heathrow in terms of international passenger numbers for the period January - February 2014.

For the above period, the number of passengers was:
DXB: 12.1 million
LHR: 10.3 million

Is it unlikely that DXB will continue this dominance come the end of the year, contrary to what the article states (runway closure this May-July = reduced flights)?

This is still an exciting and impressive accomplishment. I wonder if DXB has overtaken LHR in terms of international pax numbers in the past for a set time period rather than for the whole of the year.

Article:

http://www.khaleejtimes.com/biz/insi...s_March390.xml&section=uaebusiness


Hurry up, before we all come to our senses!
47 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinefactsonly From Montserrat, joined Aug 2012, 1006 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (9 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 15534 times:

Quoting RJA321 (Thread starter):
This is still an exciting and impressive accomplishment. I wonder if DXB has overtaken LHR in terms of international pax numbers in the past for a set time period rather than for the whole of the year.

No it hasn't yet, this is the first time that the number of international pax at any airport exceeds LHR for any period of time.

see: www.aci.aero for airport statistics - http://www.aci.aero/Data-Centre/Mont...ic-Data/Aircraft-Movements/Monthly


User currently offlineAIR MALTA From Malta, joined Sep 2001, 2531 posts, RR: 1
Reply 2, posted (9 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 15420 times:

Quoting factsonly (Reply 1):
No it hasn't yet, this is the first time that the number of international pax at any airport exceeds LHR for any period of time.

And it won't be the last time... everyone is taking over Europe for everything... Bravo to our politicians for making Europe such an undfriendly place to do business.



Next flights : BRU-ZRH-CAI (LX)/ BRU-FCO-TLV (AZ)
User currently offlineFCAFLYBOY From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2006, 609 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (9 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 15408 times:

I don't see it lasting even past that. Much as I love EK (and BA) I feel the Dubai Tourism bubble is near it's peak, so many clients now saying its passé and done. Yes I believe EK will still remain a huge hub airline, however much traffic into DXB is also leisure driven and for business. Once those numbers drop in the next 5 years we will see a slide I believe.

User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 3038 posts, RR: 8
Reply 4, posted (9 months 4 days 20 hours ago) and read 15304 times:

Quoting FCAFLYBOY (Reply 3):
Yes I believe EK will still remain a huge hub airline, however much traffic into DXB is also leisure driven and for business. Once those numbers drop in the next 5 years we will see a slide I believe.

Certainly an adjustment and stabilisation is inevitable at some point.

Still the airline Hub and Spoke strategy has a ways to go yet and the physical constraints on Heathrow aren't changing any time soon are they?

Dubai and Beijing are going to be the biggest people movers over the next twenty years that just how it is.

Through the London market as a whole remains by magnitude the worlds largest international focus !

That said and in addition imho I am sceptical at some of the projected figures especially for the developed world quoted by some analysts


User currently offlineVV701 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2005, 7742 posts, RR: 17
Reply 5, posted (9 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 14851 times:

Note that in 2013 5,005,942 or 6.9 per cent of a total of 72,331,157 passengers at LHR were domestic passengers. So it is likely that the title of this thread (that does not include the word "International") is misleading as there are few if any domestic passengers at DXB.

Seasonal variations in traveller numbers make any comparison in airport passenger numbers potentially misleading if they are not for a 12 month period.

In this instance the chosen period is the least busy two months at LHR. So, for example, in August 2013 6,962,892 passenger used LHR. This figure is as much as 14.3 per cent more than the 4,850,195 passengers that used the same airport in February 2013.

This seasonal variation at Heathrow is dependent on two factors - summer holiday travellers and winter weather diversions and cancellations - snow in 2013, high winds in 2014.

There will also be a seasonal variation in traffic at DXB. There holiday traffic is likely higher in the winter as European holidaymakers seek a break in the sun. It is also likely lowest in the summer as holidaymakers avoid the very high Dubai temperatures . (For the record the average daily high in Dubai in February is a pleasant 25.4 degrees C or 77.7 degrees F. In August it is a scorching 41.3 degrees C or 106.3 degrees F.)

Whereas one swallow does not make a summer, there is no doubt about the trend. LHR is near to loosing its crown as the airport handling the largest number of international passengers. It is, of course, significantly smaller than ATL in terms of the total numbers of passengers handled.

The source of the LHR passenger figures quoted above is the Civil Aviation Authority web site.


User currently offlinejetblue1965 From United States of America, joined Mar 2014, 2402 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (9 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 14770 times:

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 4):
Dubai and Beijing are going to be the biggest people movers over the next twenty years that just how it is.

Depends on what Beijing decides with their new airport - move everything over, or split operation the way PVG+SHA is. If the latter, then each airport will fall far behind DXB.

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 4):
Through the London market as a whole remains by magnitude the worlds largest international focus !

Exactly. London has 5 core airports, so focusing on LHR alone really shines them in poor light since a large chunk of leisure, regional, and LCC traffic occur at the other ones.


User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 7, posted (9 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 14639 times:

I suggest a thread title change. DXB isn't even a top five airport in terms of passengers. Its not even a top 30 airport in terms of aircraft movements which some might indicate as the statistic of note when talking about 'busiest airports'. No doubt that DXB is on the move but it won't take the title until they move to the new airport as two runways just won't cut it.

tortugamon


User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4676 posts, RR: 77
Reply 8, posted (9 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13936 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 7):
I suggest a thread title change. DXB isn't even a top five airport in terms of passengers.

Your stats are obsolete : DXB is, per 2013 figures, # 7... and with a yearly rate of growth around 13 %, might very well end 2014 at # 4.
Stats are only indicative for a study on - here - air transport characteristics : what traffic, whe to and from... has never been meant for competition.
The *aircraft movements* stats are biased toward US peculiarities : especially a very active third level traffic : business and private.
On the *International passengers* aspect, US airports suck : in 2013, the first one is JFK, ranked # 17, followed by MIA at # 26.

So everyone takes his/her pick.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineTusdawg23 From United States of America, joined May 2010, 148 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (9 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13540 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 8):
On the *International passengers* aspect, US airports suck : in 2013, the first one is JFK, ranked # 17, followed by MIA at # 26.

Ya have you been to the US lately? It's not like JFK and MIA are our only international gateways. The US is a huge country and there are dozens of airports that have international service to the US so obviously these numbers are going to spread out over many airports.


User currently offline777sigfan From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 17 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (9 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 13216 times:

Sort of unfair to say that US airports "suck". As mentioned we have multiple international gateways JFK, MIA, LAX, IAH, IAD, OHR, DFW and even SFO has their fair share of international pax coming through. Now back on topic, congrats to DXB I thought it would be much longer before LHR was dethroned for any period of time. It will be interesting to monitor this as we move forward.

User currently offlinehomer787 From United States of America, joined Feb 2014, 72 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 12595 times:

It is a no brainer that DXB is busier in the winter months. Who wants to go to the UK in the winter? They might as well compare themselves to DTW or MSP. LHR will kick DXB's rear end this spring and summer when the leisure travel season begins again.

User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4676 posts, RR: 77
Reply 12, posted (9 months 4 days 16 hours ago) and read 12389 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Tusdawg23 (Reply 9):
Ya have you been to the US lately? It's not like JFK and MIA are our only international gateways. The US is a huge country and there are dozens of airports that have international service to the US so obviously these numbers are going to spread out over many airports.
Quoting 777sigfan (Reply 10):
As mentioned we have multiple international gateways JFK, MIA, LAX, IAH, IAD, OHR, DFW and even SFO has their fair share of international pax coming through

OK ; Numbers have a funny way of telling a story :
Taking the 2012 stats for us airports, the top ten are, in decreasing traffic order :
JFK, MIA, LAX, EWR, ORD, ATL, SFO, IAH, IAD and DFW. with an international passenger traffic of 24.7M for JFK to 5.8 for DFW.
Their total barely matches the UK association of their Top Three : LHR, LGW and MAN...

Please check your facts before accusing me.



Contrail designer
User currently offlineYouGeeElWhy From Chile, joined Feb 2014, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 11707 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 12):
Please check your facts before accusing me.

Facts are like bums everyone has one.

How far can you fly in the UK to reach all destinations in the UK, about an hour and half. How far can you fly from JFK and not leave the continental US, about 6 and half hours.

These are not apple to apple comparisons.

BTW busy to me means plane movements and no other country has the capability to move planes like the US. Everything else is a joke in that regard.

[Edited 2014-03-26 10:12:08]

User currently offlineWestern727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 753 posts, RR: 4
Reply 14, posted (9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 11562 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 12):
Their total barely matches the UK association of their Top Three : LHR, LGW and MAN...

That in itself discredits your assertion that the US airports (as a whole) "suck" at international traffic. We all know that comparing individual US airports to, say, UK airports is an apples-and-oranges comparison, given the large, spread-out nature of the US vs. the UK. Fair comparisons would be with nations of large size with spread-out populaces and multiple international gateways like China, Canada, India, Russia, et al.

Let's focus on the facts in our shared love of aviation.



Jack @ AUS
User currently offlinePihero From France, joined Jan 2005, 4676 posts, RR: 77
Reply 15, posted (9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 11210 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Western727 (Reply 14):
. Fair comparisons would be with nations of large size with spread-out populaces and multiple international gateways like China, Canada, India, Russia, et al.

Fair enough : Let's cvompare the economic EU to the economic US : similar populations, similar GDP... similar area...
That means that you have to add to LHR, LGW, MAN the likes of CDG, FRA, AMS, MAD, BCN, ORY... and still on international ,passengers you'd come far second.
I have the greatest admiration for the US aviation but in terms of internatrional traffic, be it airlines or airports, it is obvious that it's not really in their economic psyche.

Quoting Western727 (Reply 14):

Let's focus on the facts in our shared love of aviation.

Let's



Contrail designer
User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 3038 posts, RR: 8
Reply 16, posted (9 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 10982 times:

Quoting Western727 (Reply 14):
That in itself discredits your assertion that the US airports (as a whole) "suck" at international traffic. We all know that comparing individual US airports to, say, UK airports is an apples-and-oranges comparison, given the large, spread-out nature of the US vs. the UK

The size of the US in and of its self is only a single matrix.

The US air transportation structures and dynamics have developed to meet a specifically domestic requirement and international travel is a graft on extra.

The UK is a series of islands and remains a major global trading nation. Our air transportation system has developed to connect us with the outside world for leisure and commerce.

Domestically the majority of business travel can be accomplished via ground transport either rail or car with rather few corridors where air actually provides time advantages - Notably London-Scotland.


User currently offlineYouGeeElWhy From Chile, joined Feb 2014, 89 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10864 times:

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 16):
Fair enough : Let's cvompare the economic EU to the economic US : similar populations, similar GDP... similar area...

Still not apple to apples. To be fair any intra EU flight would not be international.


User currently offlineIslandRob From US Virgin Islands, joined Apr 2011, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10745 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 15):
Fair enough : Let's cvompare the economic EU to the economic US : similar populations...

Can you please cite any published statistics underlying this assertion? Thanks. -ir



If you wrote me off I'd understand it, Because I've been on some other planet, So come pick me up... I've landed
User currently offlinerutankrd From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2003, 3038 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10630 times:

Quoting YouGeeElWhy (Reply 17):
Still not apple to apples. To be fair any intra EU flight would not be international.

Yes they are the EU is a group of independent sovereign nations each with their own economies tax systems parliaments and laws. Languages and cultural histories and frontiers.

There are however differing levels of co-operation

Central core share a currency
Some countries including none EU members operate within the Schengen common frontier area
UK and Eire have a smaller Common Travel Area.

Rest assured through cross an international frontier and travel documents either National ID card or Passport remains a legal requirement.

Each country produces nation balance of payments and GDP figures.

Oh and even within the core Euro area international transfers are subject to bank charges (true its a fixed rate).


User currently offlinetravelin man From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 3556 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10449 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 15):
I have the greatest admiration for the US aviation but in terms of internatrional traffic, be it airlines or airports, it is obvious that it's not really in their economic psyche.

You are turning this into a weird argument. Do you understand that "international" in the context of much of the EU traffic is the equivalent of flying from LAX to LAS? Or ORD-LGA?

"International" traffic is a different metric when you are comparing Europe with the US. They both have similar land areas, but one contains 50+ countries, and all traffic between them is "international", and one is just one country (with all traffic being "domestic").

It has nothing to do with "psyche".


User currently offlineWestern727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 753 posts, RR: 4
Reply 21, posted (9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10416 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 15):
I have the greatest admiration for the US aviation but in terms of internatrional traffic, be it airlines or airports, it is obvious that it's not really in their economic psyche.

I agree...and am embarrassed by this, as an American, to be frank. I read somewhere that the US has a fairly-low percentage of passport-holders among its citizens as opposed to citizens of other industrialized nations, though the number of passport holders has grown significantly in the past couple of decades. Yes, the US is large, but aviation and the Internet have shrunken the world. As Mark Twain said, "the world is a book, and those that do not travel read only one page".

Quoting rutankrd (Reply 16):
The US air transportation structures and dynamics have developed to meet a specifically domestic requirement and international travel is a graft on extra.

  ...to a large extent, I think. 

Quoting YouGeeElWhy (Reply 17):
Still not apple to apples. To be fair any intra EU flight would not be international.

That's partly true. To that, on my last trip to Europe (a few years ago) I was able to drive from Germany to Austria and back (on different routes) like it was one US state to another. And flying from BRU to MUC and then MUC to STN were both almost like flying on US domestic flights.



Jack @ AUS
User currently offlineWestern727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 753 posts, RR: 4
Reply 22, posted (9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10310 times:

Quoting travelin man (Reply 20):
It has nothing to do with "psyche".

On the contrary....much of US aviation saw international flying as generally an afterthought (note the old Humphrey terminal at MSP and the old international terminal in the north part of DTW, both of which left much to be desired)...until the advent of modern, well-designed terminals; SFO, IAH, ATL and DTW come to mind, among others.



Jack @ AUS
User currently offlinetortugamon From United States of America, joined Apr 2013, 3451 posts, RR: 11
Reply 23, posted (9 months 4 days 14 hours ago) and read 10232 times:

Quoting Pihero (Reply 8):
Your stats are obsolete : DXB is, per 2013 figures, # 7... and with a yearly rate of growth around 13 %, might very well end 2014 at # 4.

You want me to include statistics for a year that isn't even a quarter of the way done yet for an airport that is undergoing a runway shutdown in my statistics of top five airports? 2013 data doesn't sound obsolete to me.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 8):
The *aircraft movements* stats are biased toward US peculiarities : especially a very active third level traffic : business and private.
On the *International passengers* aspect, US airports suck : in 2013, the first one is JFK, ranked # 17, followed by MIA at # 26.

That is why I was suggesting a thread title change. These airports are not the busiest in either traffic nor aircraft movements. The thread title as "DXB Overtakes LHR As Busiest Airport" is completely incorrect. Honestly other than customs and passport control who really cares how many international passengers you have? Its a title for small countries for geographically convenient airports.

Quoting Pihero (Reply 15):
I have the greatest admiration for the US aviation but in terms of internatrional traffic, be it airlines or airports, it is obvious that it's not really in their economic psyche.

Haha, I laughed at this one. It isn't about economic psyche. Why would you fly to the US if you weren't planning on going to the US? I have been to LHR, FRA, and DXB dozens of times but I have been to England, Germany, and Emirates far fewer.

Quoting IslandRob (Reply 18):
Can you please cite any published statistics underlying this assertion? Thanks. -ir

No such data exist. Europe has nearly twice the population of the US.

tortugamon


User currently offlineIslandRob From US Virgin Islands, joined Apr 2011, 172 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (9 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 9766 times:

Quoting tortugamon (Reply 23):
Quoting IslandRob (Reply 18):
Can you please cite any published statistics underlying this assertion? Thanks. -ir

No such data exist. Europe has nearly twice the population of the US.

Yeah, that's what I was (politely) getting at! Regards. -ir

[Edited 2014-03-26 12:34:57]


If you wrote me off I'd understand it, Because I've been on some other planet, So come pick me up... I've landed
25 goosebayguy : American airports have never really been set up for international travel. The crazy tax free system where you buy and it gets delivered to the gate fo
26 Pihero : That statement sums up the level of this discussion for me. Bye !
27 777sigfan : Was not accusing you in anyway why so defensive? I was hinting at the apples to oranges topic others touched on, albeit far better than I did. Not Ev
28 tortugamon : I am not sure how this conversation has become about the US anyway. It really is about DXB and LHR and neither are the World's busiest airports. I fig
29 jumpjets : When you've got the whole range of climates from the steamy everglades; to the Mojave desert and glacial Alaska there are plenty of good reasons not
30 Post contains images 777sigfan : Agreed.
31 rwy04lga : Ahh, but if you add in Canada...oh wait...never mind. That number probably includes the illegals.
32 brilondon : I completely agree. You cannot compare January and February in the UK to the same time period as, frankly, the weather is not the greatest in the win
33 c680 : I don't know. Last time I flew over ATL it sure LOOKED like the whole world was changing flights there! (kind of felt like it too!)
34 RJA321 : I don't think they are entirely misleading. If it were based on weather/seasonal factors, then the statistics would be just that - the number of inte
35 Post contains images LHRSIMON : OK if your factoring DXB & DWC then London can have LHR/LGW/STN & LTN [Edited 2014-03-26 17:15:23]
36 ChaosTheory : 'Economic EU', the words used is Germany, France, UK, Italy and Spain. You will find that the pop. numbers from these nations would tally to 300milli
37 RJA321 : I was not referring to DXB/DWC as one and the same. I meant that DXB, and then in the future DWC would be the leaders in the relevant statistics. I a
38 Viscount724 : However you're rarely requested to show any ID when travelling entirely within the Schengen area. I can't recall the last time I flew from GVA within
39 IslandRob : Can you please cite a reference for your definition of 'Economic EU'? I've honestly never heard the term used your way. And while your at it, add up
40 Post contains images lightsaber : Agreed. This is also likely seasonal. But it is a new and unique transition. Thank you for bringing it to a.net attention. LHR has been begging for e
41 Post contains images VV701 : This is certainly not my own personal experience. I have flown from LAX to LAS (but not ORD-LGA). When I did so I did not pass through customs. Neith
42 Viscount724 : The reply you responded to said "much of the EU traffic" is like U.S. domestic travel. That's certainly correct. Obviously it isn't true to/from the
43 VV701 : I am not sure of the relevance of the Schengen Area in a discussion of international traffic to and from LHR and DXB. Nevertheless it is of course cor
44 Post contains links Tangomaniac : If you want to compare the US to the EU or Europe, the Schengen treaty is most relevant. Have a look at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schenge
45 tortugamon : Gentlemen, I think the context of this argument that is relevant here is the number of international passengers. Even if its easy to move within the
46 jetlanta : Unless the argument is that "domestic" passengers are somehow not "people", this entire conversation is just silly. ATL had 94.4 million passengers tr
47 B777LRF : I think you will find that FedEx and UPS would violently oppose such an idea.
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...
Passenger Numbers Flying Up In Asia Pacific posted Mon Mar 15 2010 05:50:47 by yazoo
YUL Passenger Numbers Are In! posted Sat Mar 1 2008 11:25:09 by Thenoflyzone
Icao Expects Growth In Passenger Numbers posted Tue Aug 12 2003 20:25:32 by Dispatch
EasyJet Passenger Numbers Up 32% In March 2003 posted Mon Apr 7 2003 20:07:21 by Singapore_Air
Passenger Numbers At MAN Down 6% In January posted Tue Feb 12 2002 00:22:22 by David_itl
BA STL-LHR In 2014? posted Tue Jul 30 2013 11:54:51 by psa1011
DXB Hub Waves: In-depth Flow Chart posted Sat Jun 15 2013 23:19:52 by laolao
MCW (Mason City, Iowa) Passenger Numbers Down 48% posted Sun Jan 20 2013 17:23:55 by iowaman
United To Add 3rd Daily IAH Flight To LHR In 2013 posted Wed Oct 3 2012 19:18:50 by GEsubsea
Etihad - Record Passenger Numbers posted Tue Jan 17 2012 02:44:51 by blueshamu330s