Toronto's Pearson Airport ranked fifth most connected in world

8083 Views 46 Replies 10 Participants Last post by Taller, Better, Jan 3, 2019

Taller Better

Discussion Starter · Sep 27, 2017

http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/busine...ort-toronto-s-pearson-is-5th-report-1.3606967

London's Heathrow world's most connected airport, Toronto's Pearson is 5th: Report
Relaxnews
Published Tuesday, September 26, 2017 2:06PM EDT

(EDMOND TERAKOPIAN/AFP)

London's Heathrow has emerged the most connected airport, and Toronto's Pearson placed fifth, in a list that ranks the busiest megahubs around the world.

Compiled by air travel intelligence company OAG, the international megahubs index ranks airports by calculating the total number of possible connections between inbound and outbound international flights within a six-hour window.

For the report, analysts looked at the busiest day of the year for global aviation among the world's largest airports.

1. London Heathrow Airport

2. Frankfurt Airport

3. Amsterdam Airport Schiphol

4. Chicago O'Hare International Airport

5. Toronto Pearson International Airport

6. Singapore Changi Airport

7. Soekarno-Hatta International Airport, Jakarta

8. Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport

9. Kuala Lumpur International Airport

10. Charles de Gaulle Airport, Paris

read it all here:
http://www.ctvnews.ca/mobile/busine...ort-toronto-s-pearson-is-5th-report-1.3606967

Reactions: 1

1 - 20 of 47 Posts

hkskyline

· #2 · Oct 3, 2017

Strangely no Dubai up there?

Reactions: 1

Taller Better

Discussion Starter · #3 · Oct 5, 2017

hkskyline said:
Strangely no Dubai up there?

Dubai comes in 20th, but that was a big jump from 48th in 2016. Here is the top 50 list:
http://anacgabon.org/site/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/oag-megahubs.pdf

hkskyline

· #4 · Oct 6, 2017

Looking at the methodology, it is about connections, so airports with lots of O&D passengers that support more destinations seem not factored in.

Also note this is on # connections and has no assessment on the real important factor - ASK capacity. 1 connection with a regional jet is counted the same way as a A380 connection.

These are likely causes why the list does not match the world's busiest airports.

Taller Better

Discussion Starter · #5 · Oct 9, 2017

^^ Yes, looking at the headline, that is what the article is about: most connected airports and not busiest airports.
Here is a list of the busiest airports in 2016, and it is quite different, of course. Pearson (at #32) has about half the passengers processed through Dubai (which is #3):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_busiest_airports_by_passenger_traffic

But Pearson has been slowly climbing the list over the years, as shown by statistics in that link.

hkskyline

· #6 · Oct 11, 2017

No. It is about connections, and not direct flights. Airports that have more direct flights instead of pushing people through transit to connect are penalized, which doesn't make sense if we want to truly measure connectivity.

Taller Better

Discussion Starter · #7 · Oct 11, 2017

I get your point, but traveling is not always about getting a direct flight; I've been pretty glad in the past to be able to at least get out of a city before a snowstorm arrives, or make up a cancelled flight and still get to my destination by taking a connecting flight If I had had to wait for a direct flight it would have taken longer. Not all direct flights leave when you want them to, even in Dubai.
Yes Dubai is a busier airport with more direct flights, but the study is what it says it is and I think there are likely dozens more studies on the internet about different things.

hkskyline

· #8 · Oct 11, 2017

International connectivity is not just about getting from A to B via C. It can also be from A to B directly. Measuring the via C part and putting out a ranking as such is misleading. It's always important to read the fine print to see what they're actually trying to assess and conclude.

What's the use of a longest route from my city ranking via every other place on Earth?

Taller Better

Discussion Starter · #9 · Oct 11, 2017

I'll just leave the study with you then because I realise you are unhappy with what it represents but we can't change what the study is about. I'm sure there are plenty more on the internet, too.

Abhishek901

· #10 · Oct 11, 2017

The number of connections is directly dependent on the number of cities with direct flights from a particular city. If a city has 100 direct flights, the number of possible connections is 100*99 = 9,900. If a city has 10 direct flights to another city, it will still add up to one possible connection vs another city which has just one daily flight to 5 other cities.

HKSkyline also mentioned about airline capacity which doesn't matter from a customer's point of you. If want to fly to Brussels, it does't matter if the aircraft is A380 or A320. What matters is that if I can fly to Brussels and in what price and what time.

Reactions: 1

hkskyline

· #11 · Oct 12, 2017

But it fails to take into account the population centres being connected, which makes this even more misleading. Connecting Iqaluit should not be counted in the same way as connecting Mumbai. There will be far more customers connecting to the latter so capacity does matter. But these types of analyses are often too simplistic, which makes their conclusions questionable.

This is why countries with scattered populations and smaller centres spread throughout will benefit because they run many small planes to remote places at sparse frequencies. Yet they will get captured because the OAG's methodology looks merely at schedules in the most simplistic way of doing a 6 hour time check. Contrast that to a major hub like Dubai that runs large amounts of flights to multiple large urban centres, and you can clearly see why Toronto being more connected than Dubai doesn't make any sense.

See less See more

Taller Better

Discussion Starter · #12 · Oct 12, 2017

No doubt there are bigger transportation hubs elsewhere, but here is an article about plans for Pearson Airport:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ilds-for-new-pearson-airport-transit-hub.html

Momentum builds for new Pearson airport transit hub
A proposal for a multi-billion dollar transit hub at Pearson International Airport is getting serious consideration by the federal and provincial governments.

Plans to make Pearson airport a transit hub could be one step closer after high-level officials met to discuss the issue. Both the federal and provincial governments are said to be interested in the proposal. (Rick Madonik / Toronto Star) | Order this photo

By Bruce Campion-SmithOttawa Bureau
Thu., Oct. 12, 2017

OTTAWA—A proposal for a multi-billion dollar transit hub at Pearson International Airport is getting serious consideration by the federal and provincial governments, the Star has learned.
A high-level meeting involving stakeholders from all three levels of government was held at Queen’s Park Tuesday to provide an update on the proposal and map out next steps.
That meeting — which also involved the operators of Pearson airport and Metrolinx, the regional transit agency — brought together both transportation planners as well as the infrastructure officials who can provide the public funding needed to make the project a reality....

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ilds-for-new-pearson-airport-transit-hub.html

See less See more

Abhishek901

· #13 · Oct 12, 2017

hkskyline said:
But it fails to take into account the population centres being connected, which makes this even more misleading. Connecting Iqaluit should not be counted in the same way as connecting Mumbai. There will be far more customers connecting to the latter so capacity does matter. But these types of analyses are often too simplistic, which makes their conclusions questionable.

This is why countries with scattered populations and smaller centres spread throughout will benefit because they run many small planes to remote places at sparse frequencies. Yet they will get captured because the OAG's methodology looks merely at schedules in the most simplistic way of doing a 6 hour time check. Contrast that to a major hub like Dubai that runs large amounts of flights to multiple large urban centres, and you can clearly see why Toronto being more connected than Dubai doesn't make any sense.

You are right about connecting smaller cities. But in case of Toronto, I don't see too many small cities like Iqaluit being connected. There are several such cities which are not directly connected to Toronto. You have to first fly to a regional hub and then catch a connecting flight to these destinations. These cities are not even served by aircrafts that can fly a few thousand kms. And by the way, Toronto is one of the southernmost cities in Canada, further away from these small cities.

Abhishek901

· #14 · Oct 12, 2017

Taller said:
No doubt there are bigger transportation hubs elsewhere, but here is an article about plans for Pearson Airport:
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada...ilds-for-new-pearson-airport-transit-hub.html

I doubt this will help Pearson grow air traffic at all. This is more for convenience of passengers getting in or out of Pearson. If they need to fly from Toronto, Pearson is the only option and they will come, transit hub is there or not. And it doesn't even matter at all for transiting passengers.

Govt. should rather work on lowering taxes and levies. Expensive airports can't realize their full potential.

isaidso

· #15 · Oct 13, 2017 (Edited)

hkskyline said:
But it fails to take into account the population centres being connected, which makes this even more misleading.

It's not misleading at all. Dubai may fly more passengers overall but Pearson has better connections (the number of PLACES one can get to). That was what the study was analyzing NOT how many people want to go to some place. 'Connectivity' is right there in the title. I'm not sure how more plain as day it could be. And Iqaluit is the exception (not that its size should have any bearing). The fault is not with the study but with readers attempting to draw conclusions that aren't there.

The beauty of the English language is that one can say precisely what one wants to say yet people still manage to get confused.

hno:

Reactions: 1

hkskyline

· #16 · Oct 15, 2017

isaidso said:
It's not misleading at all. Dubai may fly more passengers overall but Pearson has better connections (the number of PLACES one can get to). That was what the study was analyzing NOT how many people want to go to some place. 'Connectivity' is right there in the title. I'm not sure how more plain as day it could be. And Iqaluit is the exception (not that its size should have any bearing). The fault is not with the study but with readers attempting to draw conclusions that aren't there.

The beauty of the English language is that one can say precisely what one wants to say yet people still manage to get confused. hno:

The misleading part is 2 airports with 100 connections mean entirely different things when you look at capacity and demand. That makes a huge difference between what a London or Dubai hub is like than a commuter airport that fans out to small communities.

This case is very relevant for many large Canadian airports that serve as mini-hubs to smaller communities across a spread-out country. These flights are flown by small regional jets that you hardly see in the real big hubs such as London or Dubai. So why would these 2 different groups of airports be comparable in this ranking?

Any study where the same results are not even comparable is badly defined, badly interpreted, and or incorrectly designed. Putting such results together in some sort of ranking is misleading. It has nothing to do with the English language. It's a scientific/mathematical folly.

See less See more

ditto

· #17 · Oct 15, 2017

As others have pointed out, the study is based on "connectivity", and simply defined it is the state being connected (directly) OR interconnected. So Pearson may rank high due to its "interconnectivity" even though it may not have more direct connections compared to say London or Dubai.

Perhaps a better argument should be if the term "connectivity" factors in the number of different countries a traveler can reach from an airport. This would not only knock down Pearson, but many U.S. airports that connect to literally hundreds of domestic urban centers.

noir-dresses

· #18 · Oct 15, 2017

Focus on the article stating connections within a six hour period in high season.

This is irrelivent to DXB because its a 24 hour running operation, and YYZ isnt.

Yes YYZ gets the glory of fifth place in this silly numbers game, but on any given day be that high season, or low season DXB blows away YYZ on a 24 hour basis.

Now if we were to add available seats/connections in a 24 hour period then its game over.

capslock

· #19 · Nov 2, 2017

So what we seem to be saying is that if this study had been about something else, measured in a different way, it would have shown something different.

Interesting :lol:

isaidso

· #20 · Nov 2, 2017 (Edited)

hkskyline said:
The misleading part is 2 airports with 100 connections mean entirely different things when you look at capacity and demand.

If it was measuring capacity and demand that would be in the title. If its not in the title it's not measuring that. How on earth is that confusing?

ditto said:
As others have pointed out, the study is based on "connectivity"....

Precisely. How people could possibly get confused is astonishing yet here we are. :hammer:

1 - 20 of 47 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.