Atlanta airport likely to be undisputed No. 1

Richard Steiner wrote:
> Doesn't that depend on definitions? ATL is the busiest airport, and it
> also handles international flights, so...

An airport which handles huge numbers of international passengers has
customs/immigration processing capacity to match the volume. An airport
whome traffic is almost all domestic doesn't need much
customs/immigration processing capacity.

So if comparing "my airport is bigger than yours", with customs
processing capacity as the metric, Atlanta may not be impressive at all.
Customs processing capacity is measures in passengers/hour, not total
passengers in a year.

LAX for instance seems to have too small a customs capacity since there
are so many complaints of passengers having to wait 2 hours to get
through. so even though its intl number may be relatively high for a
year period, it doesn't automatiocally mean that it has high customes
processing capability.

Also, one has to take into account airports that handle large amount of
transfer passengers (such as Singapore). They may have huge intl
numbers, but may not require large customs processing capacity. (intl
transfers are no longer done in the USA so it becomes harder to compare
airports since in the the civilised world, intl transfers are still common).

nobody wrote:

> Richard Steiner wrote:
>
>>Doesn't that depend on definitions? ATL is the busiest airport, and it
>>also handles international flights, so...
>
>
> An airport which handles huge numbers of international passengers has
> customs/immigration processing capacity to match the volume. An airport
> whome traffic is almost all domestic doesn't need much
> customs/immigration processing capacity.
>
> So if comparing "my airport is bigger than yours", with customs
> processing capacity as the metric, Atlanta may not be impressive at all.
> Customs processing capacity is measures in passengers/hour, not total
> passengers in a year.
>
> LAX for instance seems to have too small a customs capacity since there
> are so many complaints of passengers having to wait 2 hours to get
> through. so even though its intl number may be relatively high for a
> year period, it doesn't automatiocally mean that it has high customes
> processing capability.
>
> Also, one has to take into account airports that handle large amount of
> transfer passengers (such as Singapore). They may have huge intl
> numbers, but may not require large customs processing capacity. (intl
> transfers are no longer done in the USA so it becomes harder to compare
> airports since in the the civilised world, intl transfers are still common).

OK so possibly within the EU shouldn't count for EU airports and
certainly within Schengen shouldn't count for Schengen countries.

"Frank F. Matthews" schrieb:

> > But are they claiming that they will become the worlds busiest in terms of
> > International flights ?
> >
> >
>
> Of course not. Your airport has to be in a little country and near to
> neighbors before you can claim that.

Well, Luxemburg-Findel meets thise conditions but cannot claim being
busiest in international flights...

Regards, ULF

Ulf Kutzner wrote:
> "Frank F. Matthews" schrieb:
>
>
>>>But are they claiming that they will become the worlds busiest in terms of
>>>International flights ?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Of course not. Your airport has to be in a little country and near to
>>neighbors before you can claim that.
>
>
> Well, Luxemburg-Findel meets thise conditions but cannot claim being
> busiest in international flights...
>
> Regards, ULF

It probably is if you use the metric of % of the flights that are
international.

"Frank F. Matthews" schrieb:

> > But are they claiming that they will become the worlds busiest in terms of
> > International flights ?
> >
> >
>
> Of course not. Your airport has to be in a little country and near to
> neighbors before you can claim that.

Well, Luxemburg-Findel meets these conditions but cannot claim being
busiest in international flights...

Regards, ULF

If Delta goes under, Atlanta would probably become just another US
airport without any claim to fame.

nobody wrote:
> If Delta goes under, Atlanta would probably become just another US
> airport without any claim to fame.

It'd be a contest between Cinnci and Atlanta for the
"largest airport collapse in history".