I am hoping to find any statistics or data on which airports in the world have the highest proportion of transiting passengers. For example, I recall hearing a statistic that about 56% of ATL's passengers are not origin or destination ATL, and are therefore transiting. I would assume DXB, DOH, AUH, SIN, HKG would all be quite high, but an unable to find the statistics.

cyxuk wrote:

I am hoping to find any statistics or data on which airports in the world have the highest proportion of transiting passengers. For example, I recall hearing a statistic that about 56% of ATL's passengers are not origin or destination ATL, and are therefore transiting. I would assume DXB, DOH, AUH, SIN, HKG would all be quite high, but an unable to find the statistics.

Pretty sure ATL is significantly higher than that. Closer to 70

I believe I have read CLT is highest of major hubs in US.

Add to that list KEF (well until the recent surge in tourist numbers), ADD and to a lesser extent NBO, IST and FRA

I would think that FRA would have a pretty high percentage

In the middle East I would say DOH has the highest percentage. Probably JED had the lowest

AMS also has a high percentage of transfer passengers; 37% of the 68,5M passengers in 2017 transited through AMS.
Netherlands is a small country (although densely populated) so AMS, which is Europe's 2nd or 3rd biggest airport, has relatively few O&D passengers.

In the air transport industry we differentiate between:

- Transit
- Transfer

TRANSIT:
Passengers who are on-board an aircraft during an intermediate stop are in TRANSIT. If you fly on BA from LHR to SYD with an intermediate stop in SIN, you are a BA transit passenger for SIN Changi Airport.

TRANSFER:
Passengers who change flights at a certain airport are TRANSFER passengers. If you fly BA from LHR to SIN and change to a SQ flight from SIN to SYD, you are a TRANSFER passenger at SIN Changi Airport.

Sorry, just wanted to add some depth to this discussion.

Please continue.......

According to this report from OAG:
https://www.oag.com/hubfs/Free_Reports/ ... b3a88feeeb

HKG is 71% O&D, while SIN is 74% O&D. Tons of transit traffic, but also tons of O&D also. I would say the like of IST and FRA are in the same range (~70% O&D, ~30% transit). Keep in mind that even "large" O&D airport like LAX is only around 75% O&D max.

P.S. CLT does have the highest transit-to-O&D ratio for airports in US.

As a baseline, someone posted this in the "Largest O&D airport" thread:
https://orlandoairports.net/site/uploads/OandD_Rank.pdf

LAS, SEA, and CLT handles about the same amount of pax every year. But CLT has O&D number more comparable to AUS, with AUS having about only 1/3 of the total annual pax compare to CLT.

P.S. 55-60% transit at ATL sounds about right. Atlanta is still a fairly large metro (6.5M and growing), and ATL's catchment area goes as far south as Macon or north to Chattanooga.

zakuivcustom wrote:

According to this report from OAG:
https://www.oag.com/hubfs/Free_Reports/ ... b3a88feeeb

HKG is 71% O&D, while SIN is 74% O&D. Tons of transit traffic, but also tons of O&D also. I would say the like of IST and FRA are in the same range (~70% O&D, ~30% transit). Keep in mind that even "large" O&D airport like LAX is only around 75% O&D max.

P.S. CLT does have the highest transit-to-O&D ratio for airports in US.

As a baseline, someone posted this in the "Largest O&D airport" thread:
https://orlandoairports.net/site/uploads/OandD_Rank.pdf

LAS, SEA, and CLT handles about the same amount of pax every year. But CLT has O&D number more comparable to AUS, with AUS having about only 1/3 of the total annual pax compare to CLT.

P.S. 55-60% transit at ATL sounds about right. Atlanta is still a fairly large metro (6.5M and growing), and ATL's catchment area goes as far south as Macon or north to Chattanooga.

I'm going to have to re-calibrate my expectations for O&D. Thank you for the data.

Smaller planes that fly further reduce the need for hubbing. I know I pay extra for non-stop, it appears the market is transitioning. There will always be a need for hubs, but perhaps less of a need as a fraction of passengers.

This does not bode well for the economies of cities that cannot support P2P of sufficient scale or refuse to grow airport capacity to meet business needs.

Lightsaber

zakuivcustom wrote:

HKG is 71% O&D, while SIN is 74% O&D.

I always have an issue with the definition of the share of O&D.

Indeed, transit and transfer passengers are counted twice in the airports statistics : See for example HKG stats https://www.hongkongairport.com/iwov-re ... /2016e.pdf

Meaning that, for HKG, instead of 66.8 M including 19.6 M connecting, I would rather consider 19.6/2 = 9.8 M pax connecting out of 66.8- 9.8 = 57 M, hence a connecting rate of 17% and not 29%.

What do you think ?

I would bet DXB as most all passengers are coming into the UAE from one country and transiting to another country. It's how they are set up. with all that traffic they have to be number 1 in transiting passengers. Otherwise they would need a huge increase in hotels to cover the tourism load.

lightsaber wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

According to this report from OAG:
https://www.oag.com/hubfs/Free_Reports/ ... b3a88feeeb

HKG is 71% O&D, while SIN is 74% O&D. Tons of transit traffic, but also tons of O&D also. I would say the like of IST and FRA are in the same range (~70% O&D, ~30% transit). Keep in mind that even "large" O&D airport like LAX is only around 75% O&D max.

P.S. CLT does have the highest transit-to-O&D ratio for airports in US.

As a baseline, someone posted this in the "Largest O&D airport" thread:
https://orlandoairports.net/site/uploads/OandD_Rank.pdf

LAS, SEA, and CLT handles about the same amount of pax every year. But CLT has O&D number more comparable to AUS, with AUS having about only 1/3 of the total annual pax compare to CLT.

P.S. 55-60% transit at ATL sounds about right. Atlanta is still a fairly large metro (6.5M and growing), and ATL's catchment area goes as far south as Macon or north to Chattanooga.

I'm going to have to re-calibrate my expectations for O&D. Thank you for the data.

Smaller planes that fly further reduce the need for hubbing. I know I pay extra for non-stop, it appears the market is transitioning. There will always be a need for hubs, but perhaps less of a need as a fraction of passengers.

This does not bode well for the economies of cities that cannot support P2P of sufficient scale or refuse to grow airport capacity to meet business needs.

Lightsaber

To be fair, HKG still has the highest transit percentage (~29-30%) out of all the major hubs in East/SE Asia. p.14 of the OAG report listed other airports (single month only, March 2017) in terms of transit percentage:

HKG - 30.7%
SIN - 24.8%
KUL - 24.0%
BKK - 21.4%
HND - 18.0%
DEL - 16.5%
ICN - 16.2%
CGK - 12.3%
PEK - 12.4%
PVG - 14.8%
CAN - 14.1%

It was also noted that the transit percentage at the 3 largest mainland hub (PEK, PVG, CAN) are increasing, not surprising due to the ultra-low fare (at times) that CN3/4 provided. CAN, for example, jumped from 9.6% transit in March 2014 to 14.1% transit in March 2017. Conversely, ICN dropped from 24.9% to 16.2% transit, chiefly due to (mainland) Chinese pax both choose to not transit at ICN (It was during the height of the THAAD BS) and also, the much greater availability of non-stop flights from mainland PRC.

rouelan wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

HKG is 71% O&D, while SIN is 74% O&D.

I always have an issue with the definition of the share of O&D.

Indeed, transit and transfer passengers are counted twice in the airports statistics : See for example HKG stats https://www.hongkongairport.com/iwov-re ... /2016e.pdf

Meaning that, for HKG, instead of 66.8 M including 19.6 M connecting, I would rather consider 19.6/2 = 9.8 M pax connecting out of 66.8- 9.8 = 57 M, hence a connecting rate of 17% and not 29%.

What do you think ?

I believe OAG counts transit/transfer pax only once, at least from my understanding of the way they calculate those number.

FRA has roughly 60% transfer pax. Remember: transfer pax are counted twice. So 40% is O&D traffic, 2x30% is transfer

chicawgo wrote:

cyxuk wrote:

I am hoping to find any statistics or data on which airports in the world have the highest proportion of transiting passengers. For example, I recall hearing a statistic that about 56% of ATL's passengers are not origin or destination ATL, and are therefore transiting. I would assume DXB, DOH, AUH, SIN, HKG would all be quite high, but an unable to find the statistics.

Pretty sure ATL is significantly higher than that. Closer to 70

Transiting passengers are those flying into 1 country and changing planes and going to another country. i.e.: LAX-HND-SIN, ATL-DXB-DEL.
Connecting passengers are flying from 1 airport in a country & connecting to another flight within the same country. i.e.: JFK-ATL-MSY.
Connections are not considered transiting within a single country & Probably not EU to EU or Schengen Area flights.

The US does not allow transiting the way other countries do. You wan't to fly from CDG-JFK-GIG you have to get your luggage, go through customs, recheck you luggage and go back throughout security to board the next plane.

Other countries if you fly for instance CDG-DXB-GIG you would exit your plane in DXB & then board your plane to GIG. Only going through customs in Brazil vs the CDG-JFK-GIG flight going through US customs & then going through Brazil customs. This is why US airlines are avoided if your doing that kind of flight.

zakuivcustom wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

According to this report from OAG:
https://www.oag.com/hubfs/Free_Reports/ ... b3a88feeeb

HKG is 71% O&D, while SIN is 74% O&D. Tons of transit traffic, but also tons of O&D also. I would say the like of IST and FRA are in the same range (~70% O&D, ~30% transit). Keep in mind that even "large" O&D airport like LAX is only around 75% O&D max.

P.S. CLT does have the highest transit-to-O&D ratio for airports in US.

As a baseline, someone posted this in the "Largest O&D airport" thread:
https://orlandoairports.net/site/uploads/OandD_Rank.pdf

LAS, SEA, and CLT handles about the same amount of pax every year. But CLT has O&D number more comparable to AUS, with AUS having about only 1/3 of the total annual pax compare to CLT.

P.S. 55-60% transit at ATL sounds about right. Atlanta is still a fairly large metro (6.5M and growing), and ATL's catchment area goes as far south as Macon or north to Chattanooga.

I'm going to have to re-calibrate my expectations for O&D. Thank you for the data.

Smaller planes that fly further reduce the need for hubbing. I know I pay extra for non-stop, it appears the market is transitioning. There will always be a need for hubs, but perhaps less of a need as a fraction of passengers.

This does not bode well for the economies of cities that cannot support P2P of sufficient scale or refuse to grow airport capacity to meet business needs.

Lightsaber

To be fair, HKG still has the highest transit percentage (~29-30%) out of all the major hubs in East/SE Asia. p.14 of the OAG report listed other airports (single month only, March 2017) in terms of transit percentage:

HKG - 30.7%
SIN - 24.8%
KUL - 24.0%
BKK - 21.4%
HND - 18.0%
DEL - 16.5%
ICN - 16.2%
CGK - 12.3%
PEK - 12.4%
PVG - 14.8%
CAN - 14.1%

It was also noted that the transit percentage at the 3 largest mainland hub (PEK, PVG, CAN) are increasing, not surprising due to the ultra-low fare (at times) that CN3/4 provided. CAN, for example, jumped from 9.6% transit in March 2014 to 14.1% transit in March 2017. Conversely, ICN dropped from 24.9% to 16.2% transit, chiefly due to (mainland) Chinese pax both choose to not transit at ICN (It was during the height of the THAAD BS) and also, the much greater availability of non-stop flights from mainland PRC.

rouelan wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

HKG is 71% O&D, while SIN is 74% O&D.

I always have an issue with the definition of the share of O&D.

Indeed, transit and transfer passengers are counted twice in the airports statistics : See for example HKG stats https://www.hongkongairport.com/iwov-re ... /2016e.pdf

Meaning that, for HKG, instead of 66.8 M including 19.6 M connecting, I would rather consider 19.6/2 = 9.8 M pax connecting out of 66.8- 9.8 = 57 M, hence a connecting rate of 17% and not 29%.

What do you think ?

I believe OAG counts transit/transfer pax only once, at least from my understanding of the way they calculate those number.

I like when people try to rig their figures with statements like "East/SE Asia" so they can exclude DXB which is #3 for passenger traffic & relies on passengers transiting between countries to keep their 153 777, 100 A380 & 1 single A319 filled. It would be like Allegiant noting they are the biggest US vacation Airline to make themselves more relevant in shuffling numbers to look good.

Blotto wrote:

FRA has roughly 60% transfer pax. Remember: transfer pax are counted twice. So 40% is O&D traffic, 2x30% is transfer

Thats a huge assumption that 50% of the transfer passengers are transiting & 50% are actually transferring. If they don;t list them different there would be no way to prove that figure, Thus it would become fully invalid for tracking data. Same as I noted I would expect DXB traffic to be heavy transiting vs transferring or O&D. Can't b sure as they don't release the data.

zakuivcustom wrote:

I believe OAG counts transit/transfer pax only once, at least from my understanding of the way they calculate those number.

No, it does not look like. I dont have the precise figures for 12 months ending Feb 2017 but I checked figures for year ending dec 2016, which should not be too different.

HKG declared 70.5 M, double counting transfer pax and including non Rev, in fairness bit over 66.8 M as per OAG excluding non Rev (but I think figures are closer for SIN).

By the way, I dont know which source OAG is using to retrieve pax figures, as well as split between O&D and transfer.

Edit : they use MIDT which we know are more and more incomplete because of increasing direct sales. Presumably adjusted to take into account these sales. If MIDT, yes, they would actually count on PNR, meaning 1 passenger even if connecting. But then we have too many of them on the example of HKG...

zakuivcustom wrote:

According to this report from OAG:
https://www.oag.com/hubfs/Free_Reports/ ... b3a88feeeb

HKG is 71% O&D, while SIN is 74% O&D. Tons of transit traffic, but also tons of O&D also. I would say the like of IST and FRA are in the same range (~70% O&D, ~30% transit). Keep in mind that even "large" O&D airport like LAX is only around 75% O&D max.

P.S. CLT does have the highest transit-to-O&D ratio for airports in US.

As a baseline, someone posted this in the "Largest O&D airport" thread:
https://orlandoairports.net/site/uploads/OandD_Rank.pdf

LAS, SEA, and CLT handles about the same amount of pax every year. But CLT has O&D number more comparable to AUS, with AUS having about only 1/3 of the total annual pax compare to CLT.

P.S. 55-60% transit at ATL sounds about right. Atlanta is still a fairly large metro (6.5M and growing), and ATL's catchment area goes as far south as Macon or north to Chattanooga.

Metro Atlanta still has a population under 6M. You're confusing the CSA which includes separate and distinct metro areas such as Athens with the MSA which refers specifically to Metro ATL.

rbavfan wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

lightsaber wrote:

I'm going to have to re-calibrate my expectations for O&D. Thank you for the data.

Smaller planes that fly further reduce the need for hubbing. I know I pay extra for non-stop, it appears the market is transitioning. There will always be a need for hubs, but perhaps less of a need as a fraction of passengers.

This does not bode well for the economies of cities that cannot support P2P of sufficient scale or refuse to grow airport capacity to meet business needs.

Lightsaber

To be fair, HKG still has the highest transit percentage (~29-30%) out of all the major hubs in East/SE Asia. p.14 of the OAG report listed other airports (single month only, March 2017) in terms of transit percentage:

HKG - 30.7%
SIN - 24.8%
KUL - 24.0%
BKK - 21.4%
HND - 18.0%
DEL - 16.5%
ICN - 16.2%
CGK - 12.3%
PEK - 12.4%
PVG - 14.8%
CAN - 14.1%

It was also noted that the transit percentage at the 3 largest mainland hub (PEK, PVG, CAN) are increasing, not surprising due to the ultra-low fare (at times) that CN3/4 provided. CAN, for example, jumped from 9.6% transit in March 2014 to 14.1% transit in March 2017. Conversely, ICN dropped from 24.9% to 16.2% transit, chiefly due to (mainland) Chinese pax both choose to not transit at ICN (It was during the height of the THAAD BS) and also, the much greater availability of non-stop flights from mainland PRC.

rouelan wrote:

I always have an issue with the definition of the share of O&D.

Indeed, transit and transfer passengers are counted twice in the airports statistics : See for example HKG stats https://www.hongkongairport.com/iwov-re ... /2016e.pdf

Meaning that, for HKG, instead of 66.8 M including 19.6 M connecting, I would rather consider 19.6/2 = 9.8 M pax connecting out of 66.8- 9.8 = 57 M, hence a connecting rate of 17% and not 29%.

What do you think ?

I believe OAG counts transit/transfer pax only once, at least from my understanding of the way they calculate those number.

I like when people try to rig their figures with statements like "East/SE Asia" so they can exclude DXB which is #3 for passenger traffic & relies on passengers transiting between countries to keep their 153 777, 100 A380 & 1 single A319 filled. It would be like Allegiant noting they are the biggest US vacation Airline to make themselves more relevant in shuffling numbers to look good.

To be fair, the OAG report is focus on "Asia hub" (More like Asia-Pacific hubs, so basically East, SE, and South Asia). If I have the number for DXB I would have posted that also.

rouelan wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

I believe OAG counts transit/transfer pax only once, at least from my understanding of the way they calculate those number.

No, it does not look like. I dont have the precise figures for 12 months ending Feb 2017 but I checked figures for year ending dec 2016, which should not be too different.

HKG declared 70.5 M, double counting transfer pax and including non Rev, in fairness bit over 66.8 M as per OAG excluding non Rev (but I think figures are closer for SIN).

By the way, I dont know which source OAG is using to retrieve pax figures, as well as split between O&D and transfer.

I believe OAG used GDS datas (Abacus, Amadeus, Sabre, etc.) to look at all ticketed passengers, which is why they won't have data for non-rev or charters (b/c those doesn't go through the GDS channel).

Brickell305 wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

According to this report from OAG:
https://www.oag.com/hubfs/Free_Reports/ ... b3a88feeeb

HKG is 71% O&D, while SIN is 74% O&D. Tons of transit traffic, but also tons of O&D also. I would say the like of IST and FRA are in the same range (~70% O&D, ~30% transit). Keep in mind that even "large" O&D airport like LAX is only around 75% O&D max.

P.S. CLT does have the highest transit-to-O&D ratio for airports in US.

As a baseline, someone posted this in the "Largest O&D airport" thread:
https://orlandoairports.net/site/uploads/OandD_Rank.pdf

LAS, SEA, and CLT handles about the same amount of pax every year. But CLT has O&D number more comparable to AUS, with AUS having about only 1/3 of the total annual pax compare to CLT.

P.S. 55-60% transit at ATL sounds about right. Atlanta is still a fairly large metro (6.5M and growing), and ATL's catchment area goes as far south as Macon or north to Chattanooga.

Metro Atlanta still has a population under 6M. You're confusing the CSA which includes separate and distinct metro areas such as Athens with the MSA which refers specifically to Metro ATL.

Does it really matter that much whether you included places like Athens, GA or not? People living there (or u(sic)ga students) use ATL when they fly anyway, since AHN no longer has air service.

Blotto wrote:

FRA has roughly 60% transfer pax. Remember: transfer pax are counted twice. So 40% is O&D traffic, 2x30% is transfer

So in reality, out of every seven passengers:
- four are starting or ending their journey in Frankfurt
- three are changing flights in Frankfurt

That means:
- 57 % of all passengers are origin and destination passengers
- 43 % of all passengers are transfer passengers

And the roughly 64,500,000 passengers that Frankfurt handled in 2017 were actually 45,150,000 individuals.

rbavfan wrote:

Blotto wrote:

FRA has roughly 60% transfer pax. Remember: transfer pax are counted twice. So 40% is O&D traffic, 2x30% is transfer

Thats a huge assumption that 50% of the transfer passengers are transiting & 50% are actually transferring. If they don;t list them different there would be no way to prove that figure, Thus it would become fully invalid for tracking data. Same as I noted I would expect DXB traffic to be heavy transiting vs transferring or O&D. Can't b sure as they don't release the data.

You may check the data here on page 17: https://www.fraport.de/content/fraport/ ... 2016-3.pdf

Actually, your definition of transit is wrong. Transit pax stay on the plane while it makes a stop at the given airport. That number is pretty low in FRA. Transfer pax are those that deboard a flight and board another one as part of their journey. They are counted twice as per definition by ACI: http://www.aci.aero/Media/aci/file/Publ ... 202011.pdf (page 15)

MartijnNL wrote:

Blotto wrote:

FRA has roughly 60% transfer pax. Remember: transfer pax are counted twice. So 40% is O&D traffic, 2x30% is transfer

So in reality, out of every seven passengers:
- four are starting or ending their journey in Frankfurt
- three are changing flights in Frankfurt

That means:
- 57 % of all passengers are origin and destination passengers
- 43 % of all passengers are transfer passengers

And the roughly 64,500,000 passengers that Frankfurt handled in 2017 were actually 45,150,000 individuals.

Exactly. Numbers may vary a bit for 2017.
If we compare the numbers, we need make sure that we either compare the official pax statistics or the number of travelling individuals.
btw, MUC was bragging about being the largest O&D airport in Germany in 2016 because they had a pretty low number of transfer pax.

rbavfan wrote:

This is why US airlines are avoided if your doing that kind of flight.

Somewhat, but not nearly to the exaggerated extent that's often expressed here.

There's still plenty of int'l-int'l transfer via the USA, especially between Asia & LatAm, and Europe & the south Pacific.

I doubt the title means what OP intended. When transiting you stay on the same plane with the same flight number. The answer might be Singapore as they still have quite some 5th freedom flights.

rbavfan wrote:

Transiting passengers are those flying into 1 country and changing planes and going to another country. i.e.: LAX-HND-SIN, ATL-DXB-DEL.
Connecting passengers are flying from 1 airport in a country & connecting to another flight within the same country. i.e.: JFK-ATL-MSY.
Connections are not considered transiting within a single country & Probably not EU to EU or Schengen Area flights.

This is the first time I've heard of this definition of 'transiting'.

Blotto wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

Blotto wrote:

FRA has roughly 60% transfer pax. Remember: transfer pax are counted twice. So 40% is O&D traffic, 2x30% is transfer

Thats a huge assumption that 50% of the transfer passengers are transiting & 50% are actually transferring. If they don;t list them different there would be no way to prove that figure, Thus it would become fully invalid for tracking data. Same as I noted I would expect DXB traffic to be heavy transiting vs transferring or O&D. Can't b sure as they don't release the data.

You may check the data here on page 17: https://www.fraport.de/content/fraport/ ... 2016-3.pdf

Actually, your definition of transit is wrong. Transit pax stay on the plane while it makes a stop at the given airport. That number is pretty low in FRA. Transfer pax are those that deboard a flight and board another one as part of their journey. They are counted twice as per definition by ACI: http://www.aci.aero/Media/aci/file/Publ ... 202011.pdf (page 15)

If transiting passengers stay on their planes the whole flight, why are there transiting lounges at some airports that have a large number of transiting passengers? Airlines have complained about the US not allowing them.

rbavfan wrote:

If transiting passengers stay on their planes the whole flight, why are there transiting lounges at some airports that have a large number of transiting passengers? Airlines have complained about the US not allowing them.

That may be because they use a wrong definition of transit, a better word would be transfer lounges, and that's how they're often named. The Airports Council International statistics manual clearly mentions the definition:

Passengers stopping temporarily at the designated airport and departing on an aircraft with the same flight number (and same aircraft registration). These passengers are counted once.
http://www.aci.aero/Media/aci/file/Publ ... 202011.pdf

And this is also the way 'transit' is being used in the vast majority of airport statistics.

PTY should be up there since a high percentage of Copa Airlines passengers are connecting traffic.

LAX772LR wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

This is why US airlines are avoided if your doing that kind of flight.

Somewhat, but not nearly to the exaggerated extent that's often expressed here.

There's still plenty of int'l-int'l transfer via the USA, especially between Asia & LatAm, and Europe & the south Pacific.

But but but you have to climb Mt. Everest to get a US visa and then spend 3 months clearing immigration and customs to connect through the US. It’s all so impossible.

zakuivcustom wrote:

P.S. CLT does have the highest transit-to-O&D ratio for airports in US.

Can you point to a source for that?

Not just ATL, but I believe we'll find DTW and MSP have a fairly low O&D %.

MIflyer12 wrote:

zakuivcustom wrote:

P.S. CLT does have the highest transit-to-O&D ratio for airports in US.

Can you point to a source for that?

Not just ATL, but I believe we'll find DTW and MSP have a fairly low O&D %.

My baseline for O&D pax (It's domestic only, but it's a good baseline for simple comparison sake):
https://orlandoairports.net/site/uploads/OandD_Rank.pdf

DTW and MSP both have more O&D pax compare to CLT (MSP = 21M, DTW = 18.5M, CLT = 13M).

Then using ACI Total Pax Data:
https://www.aci-na.org/content/airport-traffic-reports

DTW and MSP both have about 10M less total pax compare to CLT (CLT = 44M, MSP = 37M, DTW = 34M).

Total Int'l Pax from all 3 airports are about the same (~3M/year):
https://www.transportation.gov/sites/do ... r-2016.pdf

In another word, it's not even close. In fact, the total number of O&D pax at CLT is comparable to airports like AUS (1/3 of total pax of CLT@13M) or even mid-size hub like SLC (1/2 the total pax of CLT@~23M), while the total number of pax at CLT is more comparable to the like of SEA, PHX, and MIA.

P.S. If you use the O&D number and divided that by pax total (It won't be exact since the timeframe is different between the two), you'll see CLT is about 30% O&D, while ATL is something like 35% (Which is close to the 40% estimate once you factor in international traffic). DTW and MSP are both around 55% O&D. Other low O&D airports include DFW and IAH, both having <50% O&D percentage.

Not surprisingly, the highest O&D can be found at airports like LAS, MCO, and FLL (Leisure Destinations), LGA and DCA (O&D "close to city" airports), and mid-size (or medium large) metro areas on the corners of US geographically, such as TPA, BOS, PDX, and SAN.

The 2 that come to mind for me are IST and PTY, with SAL to a lesser extent.

rbavfan wrote:

I would bet DXB as most all passengers are coming into the UAE from one country and transiting to another country. It's how they are set up. with all that traffic they have to be number 1 in transiting passengers. Otherwise they would need a huge increase in hotels to cover the tourism load.

Yes Emirates is a huge transfer airline, however Dubai is one of the most visited cities in Earth and has hundreds of hotels. Not to mention all the other airlines which fly there.

NTLDaz wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

I would bet DXB as most all passengers are coming into the UAE from one country and transiting to another country. It's how they are set up. with all that traffic they have to be number 1 in transiting passengers. Otherwise they would need a huge increase in hotels to cover the tourism load.

Yes Emirates is a huge transfer airline, however Dubai is one of the most visited cities in Earth and has hundreds of hotels. Not to mention all the other airlines which fly there.

From an old thread 5 years back:
viewtopic.php?t=561455

This is the number for 2013:
https://www.economist.com/graphic-detai ... ith-hubbub

Showing DXB at about 40-45% transfer.

Dubai may not be a big city, but it's still the economic center for the Gulf region and there are certainly O&D for both business and tourism (well, and VFR traffic for all those migrant workers in UAE). For comparison between DXB, which is (at worst) 50-50 between transfer vs. O&D, vs. DOH/AUH (Both are like 70-80% Transfer), just look at the carrier that served DXB but not DOH.

slickvik wrote:

The 2 that come to mind for me are IST and PTY, with SAL to a lesser extent.

IST is closer to 50-50 (at worst) between O&D and transfer. Istanbul is a HUGE city (15M people), with a fair amount of tourism demand to boot (Although not sure whether the number went back up yet, or is still down).

What about SEA?

Hope this graph helps, though a bit outdated
Graph: Top 30 Hub Airports Worldwide by Connecting Passengers 2015, YoY Growth & Connecting Passenger Share
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1387949&p=20221613&hilit=list+of+top+connecting#p20221613

slickvik wrote:

The 2 that come to mind for me are IST and PTY, with SAL to a lesser extent.

Last year the % of transit passengers at PTY was 71%.

rbavfan wrote:

I would bet DXB as most all passengers are coming into the UAE from one country and transiting to another country. It's how they are set up. with all that traffic they have to be number 1 in transiting passengers. Otherwise they would need a huge increase in hotels to cover the tourism load.

You are so wrong with DXB. Look at the number of tourists and business travellers it receives per year, plus the number of airlines flying there (that obviously end there and stay in Dubai).

If you compare this to DOH, which quite clearly wishes to emulate DXB, the apron barely contains any other airlines apart from Qatar. Flown through DOH 3 times and only ever seen one other airline (Royal Air Maroc). They have not nailed the tourism side of things at all. Having said that, tansitting through DOH is very pleasant.

Difficult topic. As Frankfurt has been mentioned, a lot of "O&D" pax are in fact transfer pax because they conncet to a high speed rail train at FRA to a destination that 20 years ago was served exclusively with flight connections via FRA. Some of there pax are self-connecting, others are using the official rail&fly scheme while others are flying a level 0 on a train carriage that has a Lufthansa flight number, going to a train station that has a 3-letter IATA-code.

vfw614 wrote:

Difficult topic. As Frankfurt has been mentioned, a lot of "O&D" pax are in fact transfer pax because they conncet to a high speed rail train at FRA to a destination that 20 years ago was served exclusively with flight connections via FRA. Some of there pax are self-connecting, others are using the official rail&fly scheme while others are flying a level 0 on a train carriage that has a Lufthansa flight number, going to a train station that has a 3-letter IATA-code.

So true. Last year I arrived in and left Germany at FRA and took an ICE train to and from other destinations. I guess I'd count as O & D despite never going into Frankfurt.

Kilgen wrote:

slickvik wrote:

The 2 that come to mind for me are IST and PTY, with SAL to a lesser extent.

Last year the % of transit passengers at PTY was 71%.

Sounds right. It’s amazing I’ve never seen a line for PRY-IAH at United desk in PTY and this is the reason

Estimates for a few other airports not on Zoedyn's graph: (p.7)
http://www.dlr.de/fw/Portaldata/42/Reso ... mation.pdf

Not tons of surprises, either. AUH and DOH, not surprisingly, stand out with 70% transit.

LAX772LR wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

This is why US airlines are avoided if your doing that kind of flight.

Somewhat, but not nearly to the exaggerated extent that's often expressed here.

There's still plenty of int'l-int'l transfer via the USA, especially between Asia & LatAm, and Europe & the south Pacific.

Numbers have increased, but nowhere near at the same rate as international passenger growth in those regions.

The USA is not considered a transit / transfer friendly country. Plus add the lack of price competition due to strategic JV's, and it's not difficult to see why the USA has lost market share.

Planesmart wrote:

. Plus add the lack of price competition due to strategic JV's,

Which isn't a negative effect that you'd be able to empirically show....

Planesmart wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

This is why US airlines are avoided if your doing that kind of flight.

Somewhat, but not nearly to the exaggerated extent that's often expressed here.

There's still plenty of int'l-int'l transfer via the USA, especially between Asia & LatAm, and Europe & the south Pacific.

Numbers have increased, but nowhere near at the same rate as international passenger growth in those regions.

The USA is not considered a transit / transfer friendly country. Plus add the lack of price competition due to strategic JV's, and it's not difficult to see why the USA has lost market share.

Perhaps not, but I'd suggest that the USA is simply just not geographically well positioned for international to international connections, especially as the number of direct routes increases.

Aside from maybe Europe to South America, North America is situated away from the centers of the world's population. Whereas DXB is very well strategically placed by comparison.

wave46 wrote:

Planesmart wrote:

LAX772LR wrote:

Somewhat, but not nearly to the exaggerated extent that's often expressed here.

There's still plenty of int'l-int'l transfer via the USA, especially between Asia & LatAm, and Europe & the south Pacific.

Numbers have increased, but nowhere near at the same rate as international passenger growth in those regions.

The USA is not considered a transit / transfer friendly country. Plus add the lack of price competition due to strategic JV's, and it's not difficult to see why the USA has lost market share.

Perhaps not, but I'd suggest that the USA is simply just not geographically well positioned for international to international connections, especially as the number of direct routes increases.

Aside from maybe Europe to South America, North America is situated away from the centers of the world's population. Whereas DXB is very well strategically placed by comparison.

Not Europe, Asia.

The USA is the natural geographical transit point between east/north Asia and Mexico or western South America.

Jetty wrote:

rbavfan wrote:

If transiting passengers stay on their planes the whole flight, why are there transiting lounges at some airports that have a large number of transiting passengers? Airlines have complained about the US not allowing them.

That may be because they use a wrong definition of transit, a better word would be transfer lounges, and that's how they're often named. The Airports Council International statistics manual clearly mentions the definition:

Passengers stopping temporarily at the designated airport and departing on an aircraft with the same flight number (and same aircraft registration). These passengers are counted once.
http://www.aci.aero/Media/aci/file/Publ ... 202011.pdf

And this is also the way 'transit' is being used in the vast majority of airport statistics.

CLT has transit lounges in concourse D, at least for the original gates D1,D2, D3, D5 (formerly numbered D1,D2, D3, D4 pre-concourse D expansion). When you deplane and exit these jetways, the up ramp takes you to the gate/concourse and the down ramp leads to the transit lounge. LH used the transit lounge below gates D3/D4 when they flew FRA-CLT-IAH from D3 on the 747-200 Combi 3Xs per week (Su/We/Fr) in the early 1990s. Passengers continuing onto IAH were forced to disembark and wait in the transit lounge while the plane was inspected either by Customs or USDA (can't remember which one I think USDA though) and they did not clear customs until they arrived in IAH.