LAX is undoubtedly the gateway of the Pacific, but in recent years SFO has grown strongly, some destinations such as HKG, TPE and SIN are stronger in SFO than in LAX, and many more airlines are adding more capacity and frequencies in SFO, In the future, will I be able to beat LAX? United and Star Alliance airlines continue to take more leadership in SFO

Since the Pan Am Clippers in the 30s, San Francisco has been the US premier gateway to Asia. That said, as the LA Metro area grew to become a larger market, LAX overtook SFO. So LAX provides tons of volume, and lots of it is P2P traffic. SFO continues to be the premier hub for connections to Asia, thanks to United's hub. Also the proximity of Silicon Valley. makes the SFO hub very high yielding. Volume is LAX's edge.

LA is obviously larger, San Francisco is by itself a large Pacific market. UA makes a large part of SFO with their hub. LAX is less dominated by any of the US3 and flown by every Asia Pacific airline one can think of.

LAX does have three route all US3 airlines fly LAX to Sydney, Tokyo and Shanghai. AA does fly to many Asia Pacific destinations from LAX: SYD, Tokyo Haneda & NRT, Hong Kong, Peking and Shanghai. LAX is "JFK west", it is the first west coast destination for ay Pacific based airline. Interesting times for airline development especially from China made easy by the 787.

dcajet wrote:

Since the Pan Am Clippers in the 30s, San Francisco has been the US premier gateway to Asia. That said, as the LA Metro area grew to become a larger market, LAX overtook SFO. So LAX provides tons of volume, and lots of it is P2P traffic. SFO continues to be the premier hub for connections to Asia, thanks to United's hub. Also the proximity of Silicon Valley. makes the SFO hub very high yielding. Volume is LAX's edge.

Absolutely correct.
Historically, San Francisco was the financial center and the U.S. gateway on the West Coast. All that started to change after World War II with the grow of the L.A. area and, in the financial field, with the use of computers. The Pacific Coast Stock Exchange was closed in 2006.
Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Crocker and one or two others were, at one time, San Francisco based banks.
Crocker merged with Wells Fargo Bank in the 1980s. Bank of America was bought out by Nationsbank in the late 1990s and changed the name of the joint operation to Bank of America. Only Wells Fargo remains a San Francisco based bank.

I think SFO benefits a bit from geography too, as in its location is closer to most large Asian markets than LAX is (many LAX flights to/from Asia overfly the Bay, depending on winds). If the LA and SF metro areas were flipped (ie the Bay was where SoCal is and SoCal was where the Bay is), I think that SF wouldn’t have quite as much Asia service as it does (but would still have a good amount).

SFO won’t touch LAX on O&D anytime soon.

Historical is irreverent. After the INA of 1965, Asian immigration boomed and Southern California has been - by far - the largest recipient.

LAX dominates when to TPAC routes. SFO is only strong in that area because of UA. If you remove UA from the picture, SFO is tiny when it comes to TPAC.

xxcr wrote:

SFO is only strong in that area because of UA. If you remove UA from the picture, SFO is tiny when it comes to TPAC.

There's no evidence to support that.

While with few exceptions (most notable being Hong Kong and India) SFO doesn't have the O&D pull that LAX does, it's still a massive market to Asia. If a US3 carrier didn't have a hub there, it'd just be backfilled by foreign flags. Perhaps not to same extent as today, but nowhere able to accurately be called "tiny" by any stretch of the imagination.

Asia-Pacific airlines that fly to LAX…
NZ TN FJ VA QF SQ PL CA CZ MF MU HU 3U CX HX CI BR KE OZ JL NH (21)

To SFO…
NZ FJ QF SQ PL HX CX CA CZ MU CI BR KE OZ JL NH (16)

Probably a couple missing but not a huge difference between the two West Coast cities. No doubt LAX has more frequencies/larger aircraft plus of course the US3 all flying to Asia-Pacific from there.

compensateme wrote:

Historical is irreverent. After the INA of 1965, Asian immigration boomed and Southern California has been - by far - the largest recipient.

Depends on the definition of Asia though. If we’re talking east Asia, yes for sure. If the definition of Asia includes the subcontinent and the Middle East, NYC is the greatest recipient.

how is HKG larger from SFO

wenders825 wrote:

how is HKG larger from SFO

In O&D, it is.

Per UA townhall connections represent half of boardings at SFO.

If not for such high connectivity feed UA would never be able to serve as many markets simply based on SF demand.

wenders825 wrote:

how is HKG larger from SFO

It looks like there's 4-5x daily from LAX and 5-6x daily from SFO.

LAX:
3x Daily CX 77W
1x Daily AA 77W
5x Weekly Hong Kong Airlines A359

SFO:
3x Daily CX, 2x 77W and 1x A359/A35K mix
1x Daily SQ 77W
1x Daily UA 77W
4x Weekly Hong Kong Airlines A359

It's not a zero sum game. Yes, LAX has more service to Asia and more O&D, but SFO is still a giant market to Asia of its own both in terms of O&D and connections. From an international perspective, California is home to two very large but distinct markets that will always command a huge amount of service, even if one is larger than the other.

LAX772LR wrote:

xxcr wrote:

SFO is only strong in that area because of UA. If you remove UA from the picture, SFO is tiny when it comes to TPAC.

There's no evidence to support that.

While with few exceptions (most notable being Hong Kong and India) SFO doesn't have the O&D pull that LAX does, it's still a massive market to Asia. If a US3 carrier didn't have a hub there, it'd just be backfilled by foreign flags. Perhaps not to same extent as today, but nowhere able to accurately be called "tiny" by any stretch of the imagination.

I'd additionally argue that the only reason for the greater diversity at LAX is the lack of a single dominant US3 carrier, which leads to a larger number of foreign tails as well as US3 competition. At SFO, UA not only handles a lot of TPAC flights for its Asian partners but also eats into any potential for DL and its Asian Skyteam partners, and Oneworld/AA + partners as well.

intotheair wrote:

It's not a zero sum game. Yes, LAX has more service to Asia and more O&D, but SFO is still a giant market to Asia of its own both in terms of O&D and connections. From an international perspective, California is home to two very large but distinct markets that will always command a huge amount of service, even if one is larger than the other.

Yeah. SFO-Asia is still massive. It’s a solid 3rd place after LAX and NYC.

Trends that I've noticed over the past several years:

TPE: LAX had the edge up until about 2 years ago. LAX/ONT and SFO now pretty even.
ICN: SFO > LAX in terms of frequency (smaller aircraft), but I doubt it will ever surpass the volume afforded by LAX's VFR pax.
HKG: SFO>>LAX until about 2 years ago, with LAX really closing the gap.
SIN: Once LAX-dominant. Now SFO >> LAX
TYO: LAX >>> SFO
PVG: LAX >> SFO
SYD: LAX pax numbers steadily declining, but still LAX>>SFO.
MEL: LAX > SFO, but wouldn't be surprised to see SFO catch up to LAX within the next couple years.
AKL: LAX > SFO, but wouldn't be surprised to see SFO catch up to LAX within the next couple years.
Secondary China: LAX >>> SFO

Duplicate post

Largest mainland-APAC markets YE09/2018

1. LAX-ICN - 1,091,113
2. SFO-HKG - 1,045,964
3. LAX-TPE - 1,011,489
4. LAX-HKG - 1,001,436
5. LAX-SYD - 918,232
6. SFO-TPE - 898,017
7. LAX-NRT - 878,144
8. LAX-PVG - 822,517
9. JFK-ICN - 690,404
10. SFO-ICN - 677,909

(Note: These are airport pairs. If city-pairs considered than a market like Tokyo(with HND/NRT) climbs list and for example, LAXTYO becomes the largest market).

MIflyer12 wrote:

No. SFO has the connectivity of the UA hub but LAX is a vastly larger market. This is basic demography. It's like asking if PHL is going to overtake NYC in TATL services.

Not really. The difference between LAX and SFO isn't as big as PHL and NYC.

wenders825 wrote:

how is HKG larger from SFO

San Francisco has had ties with the Hong Kong/Canton area for centuries now. Most Chinese immigration to the Bay Area and SF specifically has been Cantonese. Not the case in the LA area, where it tends to be from Taiwan or other parts of China where Mandarin Chinese is spoken. This is not to say there is not a significant number of Cantonese migration in So Cal.

LAXintl wrote:

Largest mainland-APAC markets YE09/2018

1. LAX-ICN - 1,091,113
2. SFO-HKG - 1,045,964
3. LAX-TPE - 1,011,489
4. LAX-HKG - 1,001,436
5. LAX-SYD - 918,232
6. SFO-TPE - 898,017
7. LAX-NRT - 878,144
8. LAX-PVG - 822,517
9. JFK-ICN - 690,404
10. SFO-ICN - 677,909

(Note: These are airport pairs. If city-pairs considered than a market like Tokyo(with HND/NRT) climbs list and for example, LAXTYO becomes the largest market).

I’m surprised to find the largest TPAC route from JFK is Seoul, not Tokyo.

What about the overall TPAC traffic from NYC including both JFK and EWR? Which city in APAC is the largest destination from NYC?

The airfare from west coast to Asia is more expensive if you choose to depart from SFO(except flying to HKG and Mainland China). When you look at the round trip nonstop from SFO to Tokyo, it costs regularly above $1,500, which is higher than other major US-Japan route. That's why I always choose to leave from LAX, because the fare is only between $700 to $800.

ronmk1986 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Largest mainland-APAC markets YE09/2018

1. LAX-ICN - 1,091,113
2. SFO-HKG - 1,045,964
3. LAX-TPE - 1,011,489
4. LAX-HKG - 1,001,436
5. LAX-SYD - 918,232
6. SFO-TPE - 898,017
7. LAX-NRT - 878,144
8. LAX-PVG - 822,517
9. JFK-ICN - 690,404
10. SFO-ICN - 677,909

(Note: These are airport pairs. If city-pairs considered than a market like Tokyo(with HND/NRT) climbs list and for example, LAXTYO becomes the largest market).

I’m surprised to find the largest TPAC route from JFK is Seoul, not Tokyo.

What about the overall TPAC traffic from NYC including both JFK and EWR? Which city in APAC is the largest destination from NYC?

The figure shows LAX -NRT only
LAX-HND has 234158 passenger from 01-11/2018

Which airport id more slot constrained
SFO or LAX?

chunhimlai wrote:

ronmk1986 wrote:

LAXintl wrote:

Largest mainland-APAC markets YE09/2018

1. LAX-ICN - 1,091,113
2. SFO-HKG - 1,045,964
3. LAX-TPE - 1,011,489
4. LAX-HKG - 1,001,436
5. LAX-SYD - 918,232
6. SFO-TPE - 898,017
7. LAX-NRT - 878,144
8. LAX-PVG - 822,517
9. JFK-ICN - 690,404
10. SFO-ICN - 677,909

(Note: These are airport pairs. If city-pairs considered than a market like Tokyo(with HND/NRT) climbs list and for example, LAXTYO becomes the largest market).

I’m surprised to find the largest TPAC route from JFK is Seoul, not Tokyo.

What about the overall TPAC traffic from NYC including both JFK and EWR? Which city in APAC is the largest destination from NYC?

The figure shows LAX -NRT only
LAX-HND has 234158 passenger from 01-11/2018

What’s the tally of a combined TYO-NYC, as in EWR/JFK-NRT/HND?

chunhimlai wrote:

Which airport id more slot constrained
SFO or LAX?

Neither airport has slots.

LAX has ample runway capacity in essentially all situations, due to 4 parallels + calm weather 90%+ of the time.

SFO's approaches can get a bit messy when weather with low ceiling sets in.

flyer1225 wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

xxcr wrote:

SFO is only strong in that area because of UA. If you remove UA from the picture, SFO is tiny when it comes to TPAC.

There's no evidence to support that.

While with few exceptions (most notable being Hong Kong and India) SFO doesn't have the O&D pull that LAX does, it's still a massive market to Asia. If a US3 carrier didn't have a hub there, it'd just be backfilled by foreign flags. Perhaps not to same extent as today, but nowhere able to accurately be called "tiny" by any stretch of the imagination.

I'd additionally argue that the only reason for the greater diversity at LAX is the lack of a single dominant US3 carrier, which leads to a larger number of foreign tails as well as US3 competition. At SFO, UA not only handles a lot of TPAC flights for its Asian partners but also eats into any potential for DL and its Asian Skyteam partners, and Oneworld/AA + partners as well.

I'd argue the exact opposite: there's not a single dominant US3 carrier because foreign flags have so thoroughly and pervasively asserted their claim over the massive O&D.

For example, no US3 carrier could effectively compete with the secondary PRC carriers on a cost basis (regional subsidies don't help), and AF/LH et al have been successful in keeping the US3 off of the likes of CDG and FRA for years, until recently.

We should be celebrating the fact California has two huge Asian gateways we can all benefit from. The world has changed too, now you can fly to Australia from DFW & IAH. Hong Kong and Taipei are reachable nonstop from gateways on both coasts since the 77W can reach Boston, JFK and Toronto nonstop. The 787 has helped SFO too with nonstop flights to Singapore and perhaps soon to Bangkok. Will Vietnam Airlines fly nonstop to LAX or SFO, time will tell.

Besides passenger demand, LA basin far larger cargo draw.
Just compare the number of freighter at LAX vs SFO.

janders wrote:

Per UA townhall connections represent half of boardings at SFO.

If not for such high connectivity feed UA would never be able to serve as many markets simply based on SF demand.

A hub profitably maxes out at 50% O&D, so US is opperating rationally. I wonder if with T9 at LAX they might hub more there?

Lightsaber

From Australia/ New Zealand region LAX is the biggest market easily ...
Lax (weekly)
BNE (6) VA 77W / (10) QF 789
SYD (7) AA 789 / (7) DL 77L / (3) UA 789 / (7) VA 77W / (7) QF A380
MEL
(7) UA 789 / (7) QF A380 (2) QF 789 / (5) VA 77W
AKL
(11) NZ 77W plus one NZ 77E via Rar
SFO
BNE
None
SYD
UA (7) 789 /QF (6) 747
MEL
QF (4) 789
AKL
NZ (5) 77W UA (3) 77E...

Just because a great deal of Asian flying depends on VFR and Im a demographics nerd, Ill share some Asian demographics data below. Ill do total numbers later.

In 2017, here are the number of Asian immigrants that came to each metro area. This does include all of Asia, not just East Asia:
1. NYC: 62,240
2. Los Angeles: 43,693
3. San Francisco: 20,798
4. Washington DC: 16,625
5. Chicago: 14,336
6. Houston: 14,287
7. Dallas: 14,108
8. San Jose: 13,590
9. Seattle: 11,384
10. Atlanta: 8,947
11. Boston: 8,742
12. Sacramento: 8,703
13. Philadelphia: 8,632
14. Detroit: 8,020
15. San Diego: 7,595
16. Riverside: 5,590

China, India, Vietnam, and the Philippines are the largest Asian contributors to US immigration so they are broken down below. Again, these numbers are from 2017:

China:
New York: 18,222
Los Angeles: 9,999
San Francisco: 6,769
San Jose: 2,926
Boston: 2,262
Washington DC: 1,908
Seattle: 1,896
Chicago: 1,793
Philadelphia: 1,696
Houston: 1,673
Riverside: 1,147
Dallas: 1,122

India:
New York: 9,551
Chicago: 3,713
Dallas: 2,956
San Francisco: 2,827
San Jose: 2,468
Houston: 2,328
Philadelphia: 2,068
Los Angeles: 2,023
Washington DC: 1,949
Atlanta: 1,948
Boston: 1,477
Seattle: 1,468

Philippines:
Los Angeles: 5,961
New York: 3,720
San Francisco: 2,955
Honolulu: 2,312
San Diego: 1,721
Chicago: 1,667
Las Vegas: 1,488
Riverside: 1,324
Washington DC: 1,153
Seattle: 1,139
San Jose: 1,138

Vietnam:
Los Angeles: 5,791
Houston: 2,805
San Jose: 2,782
Dallas: 1,674
Seattle: 1,647
San Francisco: 1,251
Washington DC: 1,234
Atlanta: 1,139

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Just because a great deal of Asian flying depends on VFR and Im a demographics nerd, Ill share some Asian demographics data below. Ill do total numbers later.

In 2017, here are the number of Asian immigrants that came to each metro area. This does include all of Asia, not just East Asia:
1. NYC: 62,240
2. Los Angeles: 43,693
3. San Francisco: 20,798
4. Washington DC: 16,625
5. Chicago: 14,336
6. Houston: 14,287
7. Dallas: 14,108
8. San Jose: 13,590
9. Seattle: 11,384
10. Atlanta: 8,947
11. Boston: 8,742
12. Sacramento: 8,703
13. Philadelphia: 8,632
14. Detroit: 8,020
15. San Diego: 7,595
16. Riverside: 5,590

China, India, Vietnam, and the Philippines are the largest Asian contributors to US immigration so they are broken down below. Again, these numbers are from 2017:

China:
New York: 18,222
Los Angeles: 9,999
San Francisco: 6,769
San Jose: 2,926
Boston: 2,262
Washington DC: 1,908
Seattle: 1,896
Chicago: 1,793
Philadelphia: 1,696
Houston: 1,673
Riverside: 1,147
Dallas: 1,122

India:
New York: 9,551
Chicago: 3,713
Dallas: 2,956
San Francisco: 2,827
San Jose: 2,468
Houston: 2,328
Philadelphia: 2,068
Los Angeles: 2,023
Washington DC: 1,949
Atlanta: 1,948
Boston: 1,477
Seattle: 1,468

Philippines:
Los Angeles: 5,961
New York: 3,720
San Francisco: 2,955
Honolulu: 2,312
San Diego: 1,721
Chicago: 1,667
Las Vegas: 1,488
Riverside: 1,324
Washington DC: 1,153
Seattle: 1,139
San Jose: 1,138

Vietnam:
Los Angeles: 5,791
Houston: 2,805
San Jose: 2,782
Dallas: 1,674
Seattle: 1,647
San Francisco: 1,251
Washington DC: 1,234
Atlanta: 1,139

Out of curiosity, what is your source?

BA744PHX wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Just because a great deal of Asian flying depends on VFR and Im a demographics nerd, Ill share some Asian demographics data below. Ill do total numbers later.

In 2017, here are the number of Asian immigrants that came to each metro area. This does include all of Asia, not just East Asia:
1. NYC: 62,240
2. Los Angeles: 43,693
3. San Francisco: 20,798
4. Washington DC: 16,625
5. Chicago: 14,336
6. Houston: 14,287
7. Dallas: 14,108
8. San Jose: 13,590
9. Seattle: 11,384
10. Atlanta: 8,947
11. Boston: 8,742
12. Sacramento: 8,703
13. Philadelphia: 8,632
14. Detroit: 8,020
15. San Diego: 7,595
16. Riverside: 5,590

China, India, Vietnam, and the Philippines are the largest Asian contributors to US immigration so they are broken down below. Again, these numbers are from 2017:

China:
New York: 18,222
Los Angeles: 9,999
San Francisco: 6,769
San Jose: 2,926
Boston: 2,262
Washington DC: 1,908
Seattle: 1,896
Chicago: 1,793
Philadelphia: 1,696
Houston: 1,673
Riverside: 1,147
Dallas: 1,122

India:
New York: 9,551
Chicago: 3,713
Dallas: 2,956
San Francisco: 2,827
San Jose: 2,468
Houston: 2,328
Philadelphia: 2,068
Los Angeles: 2,023
Washington DC: 1,949
Atlanta: 1,948
Boston: 1,477
Seattle: 1,468

Philippines:
Los Angeles: 5,961
New York: 3,720
San Francisco: 2,955
Honolulu: 2,312
San Diego: 1,721
Chicago: 1,667
Las Vegas: 1,488
Riverside: 1,324
Washington DC: 1,153
Seattle: 1,139
San Jose: 1,138

Vietnam:
Los Angeles: 5,791
Houston: 2,805
San Jose: 2,782
Dallas: 1,674
Seattle: 1,647
San Francisco: 1,251
Washington DC: 1,234
Atlanta: 1,139

Out of curiosity, what is your source?

DHS 2017 immigration handbook

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Just because a great deal of Asian flying depends on VFR and Im a demographics nerd, Ill share some Asian demographics data below. Ill do total numbers later.

In 2017, here are the number of Asian immigrants that came to each metro area. This does include all of Asia, not just East Asia:
1. NYC: 62,240
2. Los Angeles: 43,693
3. San Francisco: 20,798
4. Washington DC: 16,625
5. Chicago: 14,336
6. Houston: 14,287
7. Dallas: 14,108
8. San Jose: 13,590
9. Seattle: 11,384
10. Atlanta: 8,947
11. Boston: 8,742
12. Sacramento: 8,703
13. Philadelphia: 8,632
14. Detroit: 8,020
15. San Diego: 7,595
16. Riverside: 5,590

China, India, Vietnam, and the Philippines are the largest Asian contributors to US immigration so they are broken down below. Again, these numbers are from 2017:

China:
New York: 18,222
Los Angeles: 9,999
San Francisco: 6,769
San Jose: 2,926
Boston: 2,262
Washington DC: 1,908
Seattle: 1,896
Chicago: 1,793
Philadelphia: 1,696
Houston: 1,673
Riverside: 1,147
Dallas: 1,122

India:
New York: 9,551
Chicago: 3,713
Dallas: 2,956
San Francisco: 2,827
San Jose: 2,468
Houston: 2,328
Philadelphia: 2,068
Los Angeles: 2,023
Washington DC: 1,949
Atlanta: 1,948
Boston: 1,477
Seattle: 1,468

Philippines:
Los Angeles: 5,961
New York: 3,720
San Francisco: 2,955
Honolulu: 2,312
San Diego: 1,721
Chicago: 1,667
Las Vegas: 1,488
Riverside: 1,324
Washington DC: 1,153
Seattle: 1,139
San Jose: 1,138

Vietnam:
Los Angeles: 5,791
Houston: 2,805
San Jose: 2,782
Dallas: 1,674
Seattle: 1,647
San Francisco: 1,251
Washington DC: 1,234
Atlanta: 1,139

Probably should consider metro area. I would combine San Francisco with San Jose, and LA with Riverside.

nry wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Just because a great deal of Asian flying depends on VFR and Im a demographics nerd, Ill share some Asian demographics data below. Ill do total numbers later.

In 2017, here are the number of Asian immigrants that came to each metro area. This does include all of Asia, not just East Asia:
1. NYC: 62,240
2. Los Angeles: 43,693
3. San Francisco: 20,798
4. Washington DC: 16,625
5. Chicago: 14,336
6. Houston: 14,287
7. Dallas: 14,108
8. San Jose: 13,590
9. Seattle: 11,384
10. Atlanta: 8,947
11. Boston: 8,742
12. Sacramento: 8,703
13. Philadelphia: 8,632
14. Detroit: 8,020
15. San Diego: 7,595
16. Riverside: 5,590

China, India, Vietnam, and the Philippines are the largest Asian contributors to US immigration so they are broken down below. Again, these numbers are from 2017:

China:
New York: 18,222
Los Angeles: 9,999
San Francisco: 6,769
San Jose: 2,926
Boston: 2,262
Washington DC: 1,908
Seattle: 1,896
Chicago: 1,793
Philadelphia: 1,696
Houston: 1,673
Riverside: 1,147
Dallas: 1,122

India:
New York: 9,551
Chicago: 3,713
Dallas: 2,956
San Francisco: 2,827
San Jose: 2,468
Houston: 2,328
Philadelphia: 2,068
Los Angeles: 2,023
Washington DC: 1,949
Atlanta: 1,948
Boston: 1,477
Seattle: 1,468

Philippines:
Los Angeles: 5,961
New York: 3,720
San Francisco: 2,955
Honolulu: 2,312
San Diego: 1,721
Chicago: 1,667
Las Vegas: 1,488
Riverside: 1,324
Washington DC: 1,153
Seattle: 1,139
San Jose: 1,138

Vietnam:
Los Angeles: 5,791
Houston: 2,805
San Jose: 2,782
Dallas: 1,674
Seattle: 1,647
San Francisco: 1,251
Washington DC: 1,234
Atlanta: 1,139

Probably should consider metro area. I would combine San Francisco with San Jose, and LA with Riverside.

Those are the metro areas. Riverside and San Jose are not in the same metro with LA and SF respectively.

nry wrote:

LAXdude1023 wrote:

Just because a great deal of Asian flying depends on VFR and Im a demographics nerd, Ill share some Asian demographics data below. Ill do total numbers later.

In 2017, here are the number of Asian immigrants that came to each metro area. This does include all of Asia, not just East Asia:
1. NYC: 62,240
2. Los Angeles: 43,693
3. San Francisco: 20,798
4. Washington DC: 16,625
5. Chicago: 14,336
6. Houston: 14,287
7. Dallas: 14,108
8. San Jose: 13,590
9. Seattle: 11,384
10. Atlanta: 8,947
11. Boston: 8,742
12. Sacramento: 8,703
13. Philadelphia: 8,632
14. Detroit: 8,020
15. San Diego: 7,595
16. Riverside: 5,590

China, India, Vietnam, and the Philippines are the largest Asian contributors to US immigration so they are broken down below. Again, these numbers are from 2017:

China:
New York: 18,222
Los Angeles: 9,999
San Francisco: 6,769
San Jose: 2,926
Boston: 2,262
Washington DC: 1,908
Seattle: 1,896
Chicago: 1,793
Philadelphia: 1,696
Houston: 1,673
Riverside: 1,147
Dallas: 1,122

India:
New York: 9,551
Chicago: 3,713
Dallas: 2,956
San Francisco: 2,827
San Jose: 2,468
Houston: 2,328
Philadelphia: 2,068
Los Angeles: 2,023
Washington DC: 1,949
Atlanta: 1,948
Boston: 1,477
Seattle: 1,468

Philippines:
Los Angeles: 5,961
New York: 3,720
San Francisco: 2,955
Honolulu: 2,312
San Diego: 1,721
Chicago: 1,667
Las Vegas: 1,488
Riverside: 1,324
Washington DC: 1,153
Seattle: 1,139
San Jose: 1,138

Vietnam:
Los Angeles: 5,791
Houston: 2,805
San Jose: 2,782
Dallas: 1,674
Seattle: 1,647
San Francisco: 1,251
Washington DC: 1,234
Atlanta: 1,139

Probably should consider metro area. I would combine San Francisco with San Jose, and LA with Riverside.

By the US Census Bureau's definitions, those are separate metro areas.

lightsaber wrote:

A hub profitably maxes out at 50% O&D, so US is opperating rationally. I wonder if with T9 at LAX they might hub more there?
Lightsaber

Not doubting you, but curious how you arrive at that number as a general rule of thumb? I'd have thought it's very specific to each hub, airline, and route. For example, connecting traffic through SFO for United depends on how much traffic comes west of the Rockies vs east of it (which could be routed through ORD or DEN), no?

This previous post viewtopic.php?t=1409283#p20886837

Shows connecting traffic flows for the top US hubs and they're pretty divergent.

Ok, below are the total number of Asians per CSA (Combined Statistical Area).

Total Asian Population as of 2017:
Los Angeles/Orange County/Riverside: 2,540,757
New York City: 2,471,124
San Francisco/San Jose/Oakland: 2,179,169
Washington/Baltimore: 810,523
Chicago: 630,187
Seattle/Tacoma: 562,015
Houston: 545,052
Dallas/Fort Worth: 507,544
Boston/Worcester/Providence: 499,101
San Diego: 403,200
Philadelphia/Vineland: 403,192
Atlanta/Athens: 357,827
Sacramento/Roseville: 326,188
Minneapolis/St. Paul: 247,534
Las Vegas/Henderson: 228,057
Detroit/Ann Arbor: 226,839
Phoenix/Mesa/Scottsdale: 186,768
Portland/Salem: 184,406
Miami/Fort Lauderdale: 166,334

These were the top 10 fastest growing Asian communities from 2016-2017:
01. New York, NY-NJ-CT-PA (CSA): + 90,557
02. San Francisco Bay Area, CA (CSA): + 81,578
03. Los Angeles, CA (CSA): + 76,558
04. Houston, TX (CSA): + 38,001
05. Boston, MA-RI-NH-CT (CSA): + 28,882
06. Washington, DC-MD-VA-WV (CSA): + 27,773
07. Dallas-Fort Worth Metroplex, TX-OK (CSA): + 27,720
08. Seattle, WA (CSA): + 24,345
09. Chicago, IL-IN-WI (CSA): + 23,865
10. Atlanta, GA (CSA): + 20,182

chunhimlai wrote:

Which airport id more slot constrained
SFO or LAX?

No slots like LAX772LR mentioned, but both airports face operational constraints. Gates are a huge issue at LAX and runway/airfield capacity is a big one at SFO.

In a sense both airports have very little room to grow unless improvements are made and with that said LAX has more growth potential given they are planning on expanding their terminal footprint (MSC and Terminal 9) whereas SFO struggles to overcome the hurdles they need to make improvements to the airfield configuration to support operational growth.

tcaeyx wrote:

Trends that I've noticed over the past several years:

TPE: LAX had the edge up until about 2 years ago. LAX/ONT and SFO now pretty even.
ICN: SFO > LAX in terms of frequency (smaller aircraft), but I doubt it will ever surpass the volume afforded by LAX's VFR pax.
HKG: SFO>>LAX until about 2 years ago, with LAX really closing the gap.
SIN: Once LAX-dominant. Now SFO >> LAX
TYO: LAX >>> SFO
PVG: LAX >> SFO
SYD: LAX pax numbers steadily declining, but still LAX>>SFO.
MEL: LAX > SFO, but wouldn't be surprised to see SFO catch up to LAX within the next couple years.
AKL: LAX > SFO, but wouldn't be surprised to see SFO catch up to LAX within the next couple years.
Secondary China: LAX >>> SFO

KIX: SFO > LAX UA offers more capacity on this route than JL, and with the arrival of the Olympics I already see UA increasing capacity
MNL: SFO=LAX PR is offering the same capacity both routes are being operated with two daily flights with B77W
DEL: LAX continues without service, and AI has 9 weekly flights and UA adds a new daily flight this December

With the perspectives that I have AKL-SFO can surpass AKL-LAX, the new JV of UA and NZ will greatly benefit this market, since UA sends the B77W in high season with the time they will expand their services more, And other Asian destinations such as TLV have far surpassed LAX, TLV-SFO is operated by the B77W of UA and B789 of LY, while in LAX is only LY

xxcr wrote:

LAX dominates when to TPAC routes. SFO is only strong in that area because of UA. If you remove UA from the picture, SFO is tiny when it comes to TPAC.

all the Airlines foreign and domestic who fly to LAX also fly to SFO. LAX is a larger airport but SFO can hold it's own.

LAX is definitely in a league of its own in terms of transpacific service. No other airport comes close. However, SFO firmly ranks as the 2nd largest transpacific airport in North America, a clear cut above YVR and JFK. SFO Asian traffic will only continue to grow in the future, but I can't see it surpassing LAX for at least the next 10 years. As LAXdude1023 noted, the Bay Area has 2 million+ Asian population, strong business ties to Asia due to the tech industry, and an affluent, fast growing immigrant population with high propensity to travel.

For those of you thinking SFO is only big because of UA connecting traffic, you are obviously wrong. Even if you take UA out of SFO, SFO still has more weekly departures to the Asia-Pacific region on foreign carriers than all of JFK.

Motorhussy wrote:

chunhimlai wrote:

ronmk1986 wrote:

I’m surprised to find the largest TPAC route from JFK is Seoul, not Tokyo.

What about the overall TPAC traffic from NYC including both JFK and EWR? Which city in APAC is the largest destination from NYC?

The figure shows LAX -NRT only
LAX-HND has 234158 passenger from 01-11/2018

What’s the tally of a combined TYO-NYC, as in EWR/JFK-NRT/HND?

318901 for TYO-NYC from JAN2018 to NOV2018
In which 105375 for HND-JFK, 119480 for NRT-JFK and 94046 for NRT-EWR

theasianguy wrote:

LAX is definitely in a league of its own in terms of transpacific service. No other airport comes close. However, SFO firmly ranks as the 2nd largest transpacific airport in North America, a clear cut above YVR and JFK. SFO Asian traffic will only continue to grow in the future, but I can't see it surpassing LAX for at least the next 10 years. As LAXdude1023 noted, the Bay Area has 2 million+ Asian population, strong business ties to Asia due to the tech industry, and an affluent, fast growing immigrant population with high propensity to travel.

For those of you thinking SFO is only big because of UA connecting traffic, you are obviously wrong. Even if you take UA out of SFO, SFO still has more weekly departures to the Asia-Pacific region on foreign carriers than all of JFK.

Remember there is also ewr flights out of new York. I would have to look this up but the combined total should be comepetitive with the west coast. NYC is not a bad connection point to Asia from East coast. LAX is not a great connection point domestically to Asia.

It's really simple. LAX area is 2.5 times bigger then SFO Area. Per person SFO area is a litter richer per person. LAX more O+D, SFO more Hub based. Both airports cater to more of less the same ethnic demographic and face many of the same hurdles for physical expansion, Nimby's, political culture. Often once just competitors, now often both airports complement one another especially in tourist and leisure travel (Tour group flying into SFO from Europe and the next week out of LAX after visiting a range of sites and places throughout the state). Competition comes a lot from other unexpected area's like DFW for example. Both airports share a uniqueness in their ways including having a lot of character and frustrating flyers with different challenges. Both airports are here to stay around, unable to be reproduced by bulldozing and popping up somewhere else like a DEN. So where stuck with them, and just enjoy them folks.