[RonnieJonez]

Reading here, I noticed a lot of cities seem to claim "International Airport Status" (probably via some loophole), but how many besides Chicago and Minneapolis are TRULY international in the respect that they directly fly to other countries, excluding NAFTA countries?

 

[hutson]

Well I have flown out of Detroit to Europe many times so to me Detroit would qualify.

 

[illmatic774]

LOL, every airport in the Midwest claims to have an International Airport. (I cant even get to Toledo anymore using SW Airlines from Vegas)

Detroit and the big one in Chicago are gimmes.

 

[Sam_Harmon]

Reading here, I noticed a lot of cities seem to claim "International Airport Status" (probably via some loophole), but how many besides Chicago and Minneapolis are TRULY international in the respect that they directly fly to other countries, excluding NAFTA countries?

I think (but am not sure) that Cincy has an Air France flight to Paris due to the Delta/AF alliance.

 

[VanillaVille]

There are many airports in the midwest that have the title "International" with a customs office. And most of them have regularly scheduled international service, albeit primarily flights to Toronto and Cancun. As for "big time" international flights (London, Paris, Tokyo) you have to serve a very large city with the traffic to handle it - Chicago O'Hare, or a large hub airport that can funnel people from throughout the United States to fill international flights - Minneapolis/St.Paul, Detroit, and Cincinnati. When St.Louis was a larger hub they had flights to Europe.

 

[Markitect]

From the looks of the defintion of international, it would indeed seem that airports with flights to even NAFTA countries would actually be TRULY international, even if they're just short hops. They can't not be international.

 

[RonnieJonez]

It looks silly though. Everyone knows what "International travel" implies. Flying from Minnesota to Canada is technically considered international, or Texas to Mexico, but I don't think anyone will ever be bragging about having direct flights to those locations.

 

[Chicagoago]

Makes sense as to why they do it though. I always chuckled at the Des Moines International Airport. If you think about it though, why the hell wouldn't you name your airport that instead of the Des Moines Municipal Airport. Many smaller cities are competing for jobs and businesses, you have to do everything you can to make your city seem worthy. Of course being in Iowa, you have all the stigmas too that it's some farming state, everything to see past the stereotype helps. I'm sure many midwestern cities are in the same boat when being seen by the rest of the country.

 

[Chicagoago]

To follow up though more on topic, yes - it does seem ridiculous. An airport with International should be a gateway airport to the world, not some 5 gate terminal with a once weekly flight to Regina, Saskatchewan. It's a little mis-leading and takes away from the legitimacy of REAL international airports ( even though we all know they're legitimate ).

K - I'M DONE.

 

[i_am_hydrogen]

Although O'Hare is the second busiest airport in the world, it's much more of a domestic hub than an international one. Other large airports around the world serve far more international passengers than O'Hare.

From ACI Website

MONTHLY - JANUARY 2006

RANK CITY PASSENGERS % CHG
1 LONDON, GB (LHR) 4 630 676 0.2
2 PARIS, FR (CDG) 3 676 333 6.5
3 HONG KONG, CN (HKG) 3 403 000 15.8
4 FRANKFURT, DE (FRA) 3 160 177 (0.0)
5 AMSTERDAM, NL (AMS) 3 025 243 2.5
6 SINGAPORE, SG (SIN) 2 676 224 12.6
7 BANGKOK, TH (BKK) 2 560 258 23.1
8 DUBAI, AE (DXB) 2 346 455 17.1
9 SEOUL, KR (ICN) 2 248 245 4.7
10 TOKYO, JP (NRT) 2 180 688 (0.8)
11 LONDON, GB (LGW) 1 812 594 1.7
12 MADRID, ES (MAD) 1 683 078 6.6
13 TAIPEI, TW (TPE) 1 560 818 15.2
14 TORONTO, ON, CA (YYZ) 1 445 809 2.8
15 LOS ANGELES, CA (LAX) 1 436 575 (0.5)
16 NEW YORK, NY (JFK) 1 387 743 (0.6)
17 LONDON, GB (STN) 1 332 698 7.1
18 MIAMI, FL (MIA) 1 317 402 2.1
19 MUNICH, DE (MUC) 1 315 826 11.6
20 MILAN, IT (MXP) 1 276 398 11.2
21 DUBLIN, IE (DUB) 1 252 397 13.0
22 KUALA LUMPUR, MY (KUL) 1 220 444 20.6
23 COPENHAGEN, DK (CPH) 1 217 878 5.2
24 ZURICH, CH (ZRH) 1 204 871 (0.4)
25 SHANGHAI, CN (PVG) 1 188 455 4.9
26 MANCHESTER, GB (MAN) 1 062 514 (1.1)
27 ROME, IT (FCO) 1 037 437 4.8
28 VIENNA, AT (VIE) 1 030 859 9.8
29 BRUSSELS, BE (BRU) 998 810 1.8
30 SYDNEY, AU (SYD) 970 028 (1.5)

 

[Markitect]

It looks silly though. Everyone knows what "International travel" implies. Flying from Minnesota to Canada is technically considered international, or Texas to Mexico, but I don't think anyone will ever be bragging about having direct flights to those locations.

Sure. International means traveling from one country to another country, flying, driving, sailing, teleporting, whatever. Why would it be mean anything else, or have a limit of distance?

But VaniallaVille is correct, the presence of "International" in the airport title usually does (maybe always does?) coincide with a US Customs office on site.

 

[moochie]

I was under the impression that it was a requirement to designate your airport as "International" if it does fly internationally. Even if it only has one flight to Toronto once a week, it has to have a customs office, and therefore the designation is considered necessary.

Perhaps I'm wrong.

 

[Badgers77]

Your big overseas international airports (like to Japan, etc) will most likely be found in cities closer to the actual ocean, I believe.

 

[MABCLE]

Cleveland, in addition to the Canadian routes and a new Mexican route, has a Flight to London, albeit only in the summer LOL!

 

[Oshkosh49]

If "International" means nothing more than having flights to and from another country, then European International Airports isn't saying a hell of a lot. Over there, a number of European countries are geographically small and only takes a short flight from London to Paris for example. Which could be like flying Dallas to Houston. Big deal, NOT! And Badger77 makes a valid point about how it's so easy to be an International airport in the Far East.

 

[RonnieJonez]

Again, many of you are missing the point. There is an accepted standard for "International Airports" in the US, which usually means at least one flight to Europe/South America.

I can seriously see some of you guys jumping the border to Canada or Mexico and saying you traveled across the world, several of you are that ridiculous.

 

[NaptownBoy]

^^Ah, but not ridiculous enough to post something as incredibly stupid as what you just posted.

 

[Markitect]

There is an accepted standard for "International Airports" in the US, which usually means at least one flight to Europe/South America.

Do you have a source for this accepted standard...actual documentation of some kind, a proclamation from the FAA, or anything of the sort, something objective and non-anecdotal?

 

[RonnieJonez]

^^Ah, but not ridiculous enough to post something as incredibly stupid as what you just posted.

I'm not the one arguing in favor of using whatever technicality you can to claim international (its a good way to get your city laughed at). By the rationale they are using, illegal immigrants can be considered world-travelers then since they did in fact travel "internationally".

Quit trying to be clever, you aren't good at it.

 

[RonnieJonez]

Do you have a source for this accepted standard...actual documentation of some kind, a proclamation from the FAA, or anything of the sort, someting objective and non-anecdotal?

Hu Hu Hu, I knew that was coming, I almost forgot who I'm dealing with here. That's right, full-grown children.