OAG is out with its 2017 on the worlds most connected airport rankings. Airports are ranked by comparing the number of viable scheduled international connections and the number of destinations served from the airport creating an index to measure the effectiveness of major hubs.

Top global hubs
Ranking / Airport / Connex Index
1. LHR - 379
2. FRA - 307
3. AMS - 299
4. ORD - 295
5. YYZ - 271
6. SIN - 257
7. CGK - 256
8. ATL - 256
9. KUL - 242
10. CDG - 242


Regional rankings

Asia/Pacific
1. SIN - 257
2. CGK - 256
3. KUL - 242
4. HKG -233
5. BKK - 226

Europe, Middle East and Africa
1. LHR - 379
2. FRA - 307
3. AMS - 299
4. CDG - 242
5. MUC - 221

North America
1. ORD - 295
2. YYZ - 271
3. ATL - 256
4. LAX - 235
5. MIA - 204

Latin America
1. MEX - 176
2. BOG - 127
3. GRU - 120
4. SJU - 114
5. PTY - 108


Methodology - analyzed 12 months of schedules through July 2017
• Single connections only to/from the chosen airports
• International connections including domestic to international, international to domestic and international to international connections
• Maximum circuity of 150
• MCT varies by individual airport. OAG holds the MCT information for every commercial airport in operation; at any one time there are typically over 120,000 exceptions globally. These are typically less than published MCTs although there are often cases whereby they are longer than the standard.
• Viable maximum Connection window of six hours


Report can be downloaded at:
https://www.oag.com/megahubs-index-2017


OAG does a similar report for US domestic only connectivity

1. ORD 455
2. ATL 390
3. CLT 238
4. DFW 207
5. DEN 186

Report can be found at:
https://www.oag.com/megahubs-united-states-index-2017

=

For the life of me I can't understand the measurement.

"Ratio of possible scheduled connections to the number of destinations served"

But presented as an index?

So ORD's measurement of 455 indicates there are on average 455 possible connections for every city served? It just seems strange to me, as ORD doesn't have anywhere close to 455 nonstop destinations. Why would you count being able to connect to 10 LAX flights from a single DSM flight more than being able to connect to 1 HKG flight?

I'm probably missing something.

KUL in top 10? There has to be something wacky in this index.

Not to mention DXB isn't even mentioned and sheer numbers of PAX alone tell a different story

Thank you for posting.

The methodology is quite logical actually, in that that OAG properly considered number of viable connections within a time window and also ensured connections were not too circuitous since you would be unlikely to using a hub to essentially head back in the same direction you came from.. (for example (Lisbon to Barcelona via London)

Lufthansa wrote:

Not to mention DXB isn't even mentioned and sheer numbers of PAX alone tell a different story

Dubai does not have as many spokes as a European hub, nor the frequency to make it one of the high connective airports. When you have some flights that only operate one or two times per day that's not very helpful to offer connectivity options.

mercure1 wrote:

The methodology is quite logical actually, in that that OAG properly considered number of viable connections within a time window and also ensured connections were not too circuitous since you would be unlikely to using a hub to essentially head back in the same direction you came from.. (for example (Lisbon to Barcelona via London)

Logical but sort of artificial. AMS gets credit for NCL-AMS-FRA but ORD does not get credit for SAN-ORD-BOS?

jetero wrote:

For the life of me I can't understand the measurement.

"Ratio of possible scheduled connections to the number of destinations served"

But presented as an index?

So ORD's measurement of 455 indicates there are on average 455 possible connections for every city served? It just seems strange to me, as ORD doesn't have anywhere close to 455 nonstop destinations. Why would you count being able to connect to 10 LAX flights from a single DSM flight more than being able to connect to 1 HKG flight?

I'm probably missing something.

I believe the 455 number is for ORD’s domestic connectivity operations only. The 295 was reflective of ORD’s international to domestic or vice versa.

Cubsrule wrote:

Logical but sort of artificial. AMS gets credit for NCL-AMS-FRA but ORD does not get credit for SAN-ORD-BOS?

They would both qualify.

SAN-ORD-BOS is almost perfectly circuity via ORD (only 2 miles deviation than nonstop) per GCM

mercure1 wrote:

Cubsrule wrote:

Logical but sort of artificial. AMS gets credit for NCL-AMS-FRA but ORD does not get credit for SAN-ORD-BOS?

They would both qualify.

SAN-ORD-BOS is almost perfectly circuity via ORD (only 2 miles deviation than nonstop) per GCM

No, I think SAN-ORD-BOS is omitted from the international rankings because it is completely domestic. The international-domestic criterion means that this does not matter so much in smaller countries (FRA has some connections from within Germany but not much Germany-Germany), but in big countries like the US, Canada and Australia, quite a lot of the connections, even on medium-length stages, may be wholly domestic.

Does anyone have any idea as to how the number itself is calculated?

Not sure what is so complicated. This is largely identical to measures used internally at many airlines also to assess things such as strength of hub banks for example.

To put it simply, the index measures the number of viable(*) connections at an airport. *Viable being defined within a certain time period, and within certain circuity since for example, you are unlikely to connect at DXB if you are traveling between SIN and HKG.

OAG published two seperate reports - 1) Global index that looks at international connections, 2) a US only domestic report looking at US hub connectivity.

Cubsrule wrote:

No, I think SAN-ORD-BOS is omitted from the international rankings because it is completely domestic. The international-domestic criterion means that this does not matter so much in smaller countries (FRA has some connections from within Germany but not much Germany-Germany), but in big countries like the US, Canada and Australia, quite a lot of the connections, even on medium-length stages, may be wholly domestic.

SAN-ORD-BOS is counted in the US domestic report obviously. SAN-ORD-YYZ would be counted in the international one.

OAG thus created a US hub report to analyze US internal traffic and hub connectivity.

jetero wrote:

Does anyone have any idea as to how the number itself is calculated?

Did you download the reports and read the explanation page?

LAXintl wrote:

jetero wrote:

Does anyone have any idea as to how the number itself is calculated?

Did you download the reports and read the explanation page?

LAX, I did when I got the report last week.

Since it's so easy and self-evident to you, why not just post the formula for us peons? I'm personally not sure what's so complicated about that.

Is it the total number of potential city-pair connections divided by the number of cities served nonstop?

May I suggest reading following document for better insight into industry hub connectivity measurements

https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstre ... i_ET34.pdf

I'm confused by ATL as higher than ORD in global but ORD higher than ATL in North America. Is that saying ATL is better at connecting points on earth while ORD is better at connecting points within North America?

In simplistic terms index is a measure of potentially viable connectivity once rules such as MCT, max connection windows, distance circuity are applied to filter out all the non-conforming flights.

adamblang wrote:

I'm confused by ATL as higher than ORD in global but ORD higher than ATL in North America. Is that saying ATL is better at connecting points on earth while ORD is better at connecting points within North America?

ORD ranks higher than ATL in both global and US domestic index. Re-read the list.

mercure1 wrote:

adamblang wrote:

I'm confused by ATL as higher than ORD in global but ORD higher than ATL in North America. Is that saying ATL is better at connecting points on earth while ORD is better at connecting points within North America?

ORD ranks higher than ATL in both global and US domestic index. Re-read the list.

More coffee for me, I guess.

LAXintl wrote:

May I suggest reading following document for better insight into industry hub connectivity measurements

https://www.openstarts.units.it/bitstre ... i_ET34.pdf

OK, so LAX posts an academic article that measures connections by something called a "weighted connectivity ratio" that seems to be an integer between 1 and 2, nowhere close to 455.

I'll take that as an indication that even he doesn't know how OAG is measuring it.

In any case, if it is what I crudely described what I think it is, it seems like a purely academic measurement. So a UA GRR-ORD flight connects to, say, 2 UA ORD-LAX flights, 2 AA ORD-LAX flights, a VX ORD-LAX flight, and an NK ORD-LAX flight such that the "average city" connected to ORD has 455 domestic city-pair (well scheduled city-pair--as city-pairs can be counted more than once--connecting opportunities. If that's what it's measuring, I really fail to see the point. Take it to DEN, with F9 and WN, who don't interline (at least I don't think F9 does), it's even more academic.

But if I'm missing something, by all means, I'd love to know how it's actually measured.

No IST even among EMEA top 5? Sounds incredible...

Wouldn't JFK be on there? Practically every flag carrier has flights there.

IST is 15th globally with 219.

JFK is 18th globally with 195.

DXB is 20th globally with 183.

People just need to read the methodology and read the report. It isn't too hard.

Maybe some of us are being a bit dim about this but it is very odd that CGK makes it higher up a list like this than IST and DXB.

DXB has many frequencies and destinations. It is SIN on steroids (even though it is modelled on something SIN pioneered).

TK has more destinations than almost any other airline outside of the US.

If this survey really does take viable connectivity into account, how on Earth is LHR #1? LHR is only the most O&D biased airport on Earth...

MoKa777 wrote:

If this survey really does take viable connectivity into account, how on Earth is LHR #1? LHR is only the most O&D biased airport on Earth...

Potential connectivity.

Pe@rson wrote:

IST is 15th globally with 219.

JFK is 18th globally with 195.

DXB is 20th globally with 183.

People just need to read the methodology and read the report. It isn't too hard.

Pe@rson I downloaded the file again.

I still don't see any formula as to the index.

219 what to what?

195 what to what?

183 what to what?

Seriously for the people who understand and say it's "not difficult," please help us understand.

Surprised ORD leads North America, considering the outdated facilities there. All the more reason to get going on the Terminal rebuild/expansion.

This is really inaccurate. If I'm correct LHR has less than 300 destinations served. FRA has the most, and it is accurate.

CGK and KUL really do surprise me.

OK I downloaded the international report which is more specific. I think my understanding above as expressed in the GRR example is indeed the case (but not sure). If so, I think it's rather meaningless, which is explained by the results. If no one is connecting ATL-DEN on DL to DEN-SFO on WN, I don't see why one would weight it similarly to an ATL-DEN-SFO itinerary on UA.

If I do understand it correctly it is that the "average" spoke has 455 connection opportunities over ORD, which double (or triple, quadruple, etc etc) counts potential city-pair connections. That's fair to, say, weight a busier hub like SLC over a less busy (former hub) at MEM that may have been connected to about the same destinations, but it doesn't do any weighting whatsoever for same-airline, alliance, codeshare, or interline connections that I can see. If that's the case it's rather academic and useless.

But who knows, I could have it completely wrong.

MalevTU134 wrote:

No IST even among EMEA top 5? Sounds incredible...

Its #6

TK might serve the most destinations the world, but many destinations are low frequency which result in lower matching flight connection opportunities, and you would not use TK to connect within many regions, for example IST is poor location for bulk of intra-Europe connections which would result in high route circuity distances.

NichCage wrote:

This is really inaccurate. If I'm correct LHR has less than 300 destinations served. FRA has the most, and it is accurate.

Again, it's not merely a number of destinations. Its the number of markets, flights, and potential connectivity based on criteria like MCT, max transit time, route circuity, etc, plus intra-German flights are excluded also.

MoKa777 wrote:

If this survey really does take viable connectivity into account, how on Earth is LHR #1? LHR is only the most O&D biased airport on Earth...

Actually LAX is the #1 O&D airport in the world.

mercure1 wrote:

MalevTU134 wrote:

NichCage wrote:

This is really inaccurate. If I'm correct LHR has less than 300 destinations served. FRA has the most, and it is accurate.

Again, it's not merely a number of destinations. Its the number of markets, flights, and potential connectivity based on criteria like MCT, max transit time, route circuity, etc, plus intra-German flights are excluded also.

And as jetro argues, the way they measure it is quite meaningless when they consider connections between two carriers that do not sell through tickets/interline.

These surveys really don't mean anything as different airports mean different things to each travelers personnel needs

ADrum23 wrote:

Surprised ORD leads North America, considering the outdated facilities there. All the more reason to get going on the Terminal rebuild/expansion.

Just think what ORD could be with the new runway layout and proposed terminal set-up! Could be a real powerhouse if local airlines put as much attention to ORD as DL does to ATL and AA to DFW. Great location, strong O&D, but horrible facilities and just as bad weather (sorry for sounding like a troll from another city not too far away). But it’s market realities and I accept it (no conspiracy theories here)!

NichCage wrote:

This is really inaccurate. If I'm correct LHR has less than 300 destinations served. FRA has the most, and it is accurate.

CGK and KUL really do surprise me.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're a plane spotter and OAG is the leading industry provider of schedule data and analysis. You also very obviously didn't read the report - or even the opening post - and the methodology of it.

globalcabotage wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Surprised ORD leads North America, considering the outdated facilities there. All the more reason to get going on the Terminal rebuild/expansion.

Just think what ORD could be with the new runway layout and proposed terminal set-up! Could be a real powerhouse if local airlines put as much attention to ORD as DL does to ATL and AA to DFW. Great location, strong O&D, but horrible facilities and just as bad weather (sorry for sounding like a troll from another city not too far away). But it’s market realities and I accept it (no conspiracy theories here)!

Chicago can build a completely, shining beautiful new terminal with the same number of gates and it won't make a significant difference in passenger traffic or the number of destinations.

Chicago can build the 30 more gates to the T2 standard and sure it'll grow by a lot.

jetero wrote:

globalcabotage wrote:

ADrum23 wrote:

Surprised ORD leads North America, considering the outdated facilities there. All the more reason to get going on the Terminal rebuild/expansion.

Just think what ORD could be with the new runway layout and proposed terminal set-up! Could be a real powerhouse if local airlines put as much attention to ORD as DL does to ATL and AA to DFW. Great location, strong O&D, but horrible facilities and just as bad weather (sorry for sounding like a troll from another city not too far away). But it’s market realities and I accept it (no conspiracy theories here)!

Chicago can build a completely, shining beautiful new terminal with the same number of gates and it won't make a significant difference in passenger traffic or the number of destinations.

Chicago can build the 30 more gates to the T2 standard and sure it'll grow by a lot.

If they added more gates to Terminal 5, I'm sure more international carriers would come in. Perhaps we could see El Al, Qantas, etc, come in after that. But Terminal 5 is not the issue, it is Terminals 1, 2 and 3. All have an extremely outdated design (Terminals 2 and 3 in particular) and need to basically be torn down and rebuilt. I like the proposal that has the concourses as islands with an underground people mover.

ADrum23 wrote:

jetero wrote:

globalcabotage wrote:

Just think what ORD could be with the new runway layout and proposed terminal set-up! Could be a real powerhouse if local airlines put as much attention to ORD as DL does to ATL and AA to DFW. Great location, strong O&D, but horrible facilities and just as bad weather (sorry for sounding like a troll from another city not too far away). But it’s market realities and I accept it (no conspiracy theories here)!

Chicago can build a completely, shining beautiful new terminal with the same number of gates and it won't make a significant difference in passenger traffic or the number of destinations.

Chicago can build the 30 more gates to the T2 standard and sure it'll grow by a lot.

If they added more gates to Terminal 5, I'm sure more international carriers would come in. Perhaps we could see El Al, Qantas, etc, come in after that. But Terminal 5 is not the issue, it is Terminals 1, 2 and 3. All have an extremely outdated design (Terminals 2 and 3 in particular) and need to basically be torn down and rebuilt. I like the proposal that has the concourses as islands with an underground people mover.

This is not an ORD thread but I shall ask the question anyway.

What airline has the CDA turned away since the inn has been full, for what now, 5 years?

Circuity is a term which reflects how far from the Great Circle Distance between the origin and destination is the actual routing when two or more flights connect. It is calculated as: (aggregate distance of each flight leg) / (great circle distance between origin and destination of route) x 100

So, for instance, if it is possible to make a connection from CLT via JFK to MSP, that still wouldn't count because that's too offroute?
Likwise a person connecting from PEK via Dubai to most of Northern Europe, or from Egypt via Dubai to most of Middle East, would also be excluded?
However, options like connecting in LHR to go from JFK to Perth are considered eligible?
Sound like the index would be heavily influenced by the hubs' geography and less so by who actually connect there?

Pe@rson wrote:

NichCage wrote:

This is really inaccurate. If I'm correct LHR has less than 300 destinations served. FRA has the most, and it is accurate.

CGK and KUL really do surprise me.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're a plane spotter and OAG is the leading industry provider of schedule data and analysis. You also very obviously didn't read the report - or even the opening post - and the methodology of it.

Don't take this the wrong way but OAG is definitely not the leading industry provider of analysis. As is evidenced by this "analysis," and all the acolytes of said "analysis," being completely unable to explain what it means to a layman.

If "analysis"=data dump, well, yeah, OAG is where it's at (along with many others in the industry).

jetero wrote:

Pe@rson wrote:

NichCage wrote:

This is really inaccurate. If I'm correct LHR has less than 300 destinations served. FRA has the most, and it is accurate.

CGK and KUL really do surprise me.

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're a plane spotter and OAG is the leading industry provider of schedule data and analysis. You also very obviously didn't read the report - or even the opening post - and the methodology of it.

Don't take this the wrong way but OAG is definitely not the leading industry provider of analysis.

I guess we'll differ. I'm far more inclined to believe a leading industry provider of schedule data and analysis than the opinions of those on a plane-spotting website - most of whom disregard anything that doesn't tally with their 'facts' and scarcely ever read what's provided.

Pe@rson wrote:

jetero wrote:

Pe@rson wrote:

Don't take this the wrong way, but you're a plane spotter and OAG is the leading industry provider of schedule data and analysis. You also very obviously didn't read the report - or even the opening post - and the methodology of it.

Don't take this the wrong way but OAG is definitely not the leading industry provider of analysis.

I guess we'll differ. I'm far more inclined to believe a leading industry provider of schedule data and analysis than the opinions of those on a plane-spotting website.

Keep on saying "leading industry provider" ... I'm beginning to think you must work for them. OAG is like a phone book as far as I'm concerned--it's a central publishing house. Yes, I use it every day for work, but it's not an intellectual nerve center by any means. (Not that they don't make good money with zero overhead, other than to publish a mindless PDF that gets a headline from time to time.)

It is just so crazy to me that in 40 posts none of those who have commented how "uncomplicated" or "simple" it is can shed any light whatsoever on what the actual index measures. It's meaningful only in that 2 is greater than 1. Is 8 greater than 2 as 2x4 or being the third power of 2? There's big difference in the implications if one wants to build on this masterful "analysis." Surely you get that, Pe@rson.

Which has produced some questionable results (see 20 posts above).

I've read the report and the only thing I don't really agree with is that SJU is rated above PTY and LGW (as low cost hub). SJU traffic is mainly to the U.S. so it's pretty much one-directional whereas to me a hub has a lot of flights in both directions. PTY to me in that case, is better as they really connect South America with North America, SJU doesn't. LGW is the main base of Easyjet and I can't imagine that operations being smaller than JetBlue's operations in SJU. Other than that, I'm amazed at the connections at some of the other airports, great.


A388

So just to be clear, pairings such as the following are included in this calculation, correct?

YYC - ORD - MAN

The first segment is only flown by United, and the second only by American, and no sane person would ever book this itinerary, but it's technically an itinerary that satisfies the requirements.

There are numerous small (sometimes essential air service) destinations served by one or the other out of ORD that probably add numerous connections to the international destinations served by other airlines but have almost zero relevance in the real world for anyone.

DLvsWN wrote:

So just to be clear, pairings such as the following are included in this calculation, correct?

YYC - ORD - MAN

The first segment is only flown by United, and the second only by American, and no sane person would ever book this itinerary, but it's technically an itinerary that satisfies the requirements.

There are numerous small (sometimes essential air service) destinations served by one or the other out of ORD that probably add numerous connections to the international destinations served by other airlines but have almost zero relevance in the real world for anyone.

The answer to the question is yes, and I'm not sure why no sane person would ever book it. With no formalities at ORD it's a pretty easy connection.

Cubsrule wrote:

DLvsWN wrote:

So just to be clear, pairings such as the following are included in this calculation, correct?

YYC - ORD - MAN

The first segment is only flown by United, and the second only by American, and no sane person would ever book this itinerary, but it's technically an itinerary that satisfies the requirements.

There are numerous small (sometimes essential air service) destinations served by one or the other out of ORD that probably add numerous connections to the international destinations served by other airlines but have almost zero relevance in the real world for anyone.

The answer to the question is yes, and I'm not sure why no sane person would ever book it. With no formalities at ORD it's a pretty easy connection.

And they interline so it would actually be quite an easy connection that one would see being sold on Orbitz, etc.

A388 wrote:

I've read the report and the only thing I don't really agree with is that SJU is rated above PTY and LGW (as low cost hub). SJU traffic is mainly to the U.S. so it's pretty much one-directional whereas to me a hub has a lot of flights in both directions. PTY to me in that case, is better as they really connect South America with North America, SJU doesn't. LGW is the main base of Easyjet and I can't imagine that operations being smaller than JetBlue's operations in SJU. Other than that, I'm amazed at the connections at some of the other airports, great.

Some LCC hubs lose points for fact they either dont offer online connections or dont interline. OAG does not count if customer must self connect.