Click on a label to read posts from that part of the world.
The World's 10 Busiest Airports in 2006
According to a preliminary report released by Airports Council International, passenger traffic in the US in 2006 increased by 5% over 2005, while international traffic rose by a more robust 7%. In total, therefore, airports moved an astounding 4.4 billion passengers around the world in 2006. That's a lot of salted nuts.
According to the same report, the world's 10 busiest airports are:
- Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson
- Chicago's O'Hare
- London's Heathrow
- Tokyo's Haneda
- Los Angeles International
- Dallas/Ft. Worth International
- Paris' Charles de Gaulle
- Frankfurt International
- Beijing International
- Denver International
Interestingly, the world's busiest airport in terms of cargo traffic was Memphis International. Hmm... wonder why.
If you're interested (or waiting on a flight delay), you can check out the rest of the Top 30 busiest airports (PDF).
[Photo: Brent Danley]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
t-bone Mar 13th 2007 11:07PM
yeah, thing is about atlanta and chicago and dallas is they have fat hubs from the major airlines who send all their flights there. the true powerhouses of airports are London Heathrow and Los Angeles International.
Eric Mar 13th 2007 10:50PM
I'm surprised that Altanta is the world's busiest airport. Although I've never flown through Hartsdale, I have flown through every other airport on the top-ten list (except Toyko and Beijing too), and I remember Chicago, for example, or Heathrow, for another, being unimaginably busy. I can't imagine what Hartsdale must look like!
Oh, the reason Memphis International is the world's busiest airport in terms of cargo is most likely due to the fact that DHL is based out of Memphis, and DHL is one of the world's largest air cargo transporters.
DukeSB Mar 13th 2007 10:47PM
Actually, Eric, Atlanta's Hartsfield Airport has been the busiest for quite some time now. I remember when they had to evacuate it, and it caused my plane to have to be delayed 8 hours and have to wait another 3 hours after landing to actually get a gate. But since it's physically very large, and you can take a train to get from terminal to terminal, it doesn't usually seem crowded.
Proud American! Mar 13th 2007 10:40PM
Sorry Eric, check your facts - Fed-Ex is based in Memphis. DHL is out of Plantation, Florida and Bonn, Germany.
black dogs mom Mar 13th 2007 10:45PM
Beijing was loong, but not bad; Atlanta is like a rat maze and takes forever to get to the terminals, but you don't hear of fatalities like O'Hare! Charlotte is the most underplanned airport; that's why they're clogged up so much.
James Pomeroy Mar 13th 2007 10:49PM
Now, why not rank these top 10 busiest airoports as to the easiest to get round. I put DFW first!
Ana Mar 13th 2007 10:55PM
Excuse me Eric it's Hartsfield-Jackson not Hartsdale.
sam Mar 13th 2007 11:10PM
T-bone, Heathrow is a big hub too. Have you heard of British Airways?
John Mar 13th 2007 11:10PM
In response to the first, somewhat misinformed comment, it is FedEx that's based in Memphis, not DHL. Atlanta HartsFIELD airport, as well as ALL the airports listed, are extremely busy due in large part to the presence of an airline(s) HUB operation being centered at these airports. Atlanta is home to Delta Airlines, as well as the main operating HUB of AIRTRAN Airlines. Chicago O'Hare hosts United and American Airlines. London Heathrow is home to British Airways, and at last check is the busiest in terms of INTERNATIONAL air traffic.
Airlines, such as Delta and Airtan in Atlanta, coordinate their schedules with their smaller "feeder" carriers primarily flying smaller "Regional Jets" in order to "feed" passengers through their HUB airports, where they'll change planes in order to reach your ultimate destination.
This allows the Airlines to more economically get you from your departure point "A", to your destination point "C", by going THROUGH their HUB point B, than if they flew an aircraft nonstop from A to C. Changing planes at a HUB airport such as Atlanta, allows the airlines to fill more seats on flight A to B(the HUB), since most of those passengers will then be connecting on to MANY different flights leaving the HUB, and proceeding on to MANY different "B"(HUB) departures, leaving to MANY different airport "C's"(Destinations).
As a result, at an airport like Atlanta Hartsfield the vast majority of passengers "flying to Atlanta" are only changing planes there, and departing to their actual destination. The same is true in Chicago and London, although to a lesser extent than in Atlanta.
It is ALL of these "Point A to HUB" flights, followed an hour later by ALL of these "HUB to Point C" departures, that leads to such a busy operation at a HUB airport in comparison to a NON-HUB airport, even though the "Non Hub" airport's CITY may be considerably larger population wise. Also a factor contributing to "how busy" an airport can be, are factors such as surrounding airspace congestion and geographical limitations which has lead to capacity limits being placed on certain airports. The more CONCRETE(runways) an airports has, 5 in Atlanta for instance, and their ability to operate efficiently in ALL weather conditions, affects how "busy" an airport can EVER be. This is regardless of whether it is, or is not, a HUB airport. New Jersey's Newark airport for example, is a HUB for Continental Airlines, but due to limited availability of "all weather" runways, will never be able to accept the large number of aircraft as Atlanta or Chicago.
Rick Mar 13th 2007 11:23PM
I have used Hartsfield airport for many years and have never had a problem with getting to terminals or gates. All you have to do is give yourself a little extra time and things go very smooth.
Akronos Mar 13th 2007 11:26PM
I'm surprised that JFK Airport in New York isn't up there. Especially considering this- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Busiest_airports_in_the_United_States_by_international_passenger_traffic
Jack Maddox2 Mar 13th 2007 11:31PM
Interestingly, the world's busiest airport in terms of cargo traffic was Memphis International. Hmm... wonder why.
Weird question! It's FedEx's home office and terminal, is why.
John Mar 13th 2007 11:31PM
in reference to "t-bones" comment above. The FACTS from the FAA show that in terms of busiest Air Traffic, in the U.S ONLY. There are the "Big Two" - Atlanta #1(980,000 takeoffs/landings) and Chicago #2(972,000), and then the rest. DFW(718,000) is 3rd, and handles 25% fewer aircraft each year than ATL and ORD.
LAX is a distant 4th(651,000 takeoffs/landings), and handles over 33% fewer aircraft each year than ATL and ORD.
...but then again......why confuse the issue with FACTS.
Los Angeles just SLIGHTLY beats out the number 5 airport, which is Las Vegas.
John Mar 13th 2007 11:37PM
for Akronos: New York Kennedy (JFK) airport ranks 24th in takeoffs and landings IN THE U.S. with 363,000 per year. (#1 is ATL with 980,000)
In INTERNATIONAL PASSENGERS in the U.S, JFK ranks number 1 (but behind Heathrow and others in the world). The article was about the BUSIEST airports in terms of Air Traffic, which other than 2-3 periods during the day, JFK is relatively slow in air traffic compared to the airports listed.
joe Jun 30th 2007 3:12AM
I went through the international gates in Atlanta in january and i dont think i have seen a larger line in my life. It moved rather quikley, it took about an hour and a half to get through. The line was probably 5 city blocks long. It was amazing. I didn't miss my flight though.
carfan Mar 14th 2007 2:14AM
Seattle has a nice airport. It isn't particularly busy, though for some reason we need a new runway. Seems like waste of money to me. I'd rather see afordable housing. We also have Boeing here and alot of military traffic.
McCarran airport is horribly laid out, that is one reason it seems busy. LAX is nice, although there is never anywhere to park. Portland, OR has a goofy looking airport. Denver is closed alot for an airport that is suposed to be blizzard proof.
Bud Selig sucks
Rebekka Mar 14th 2007 6:29AM
Uh, the link for the 30 busiest doesn't work...
John..This data is not based on air traffic sweety. Go to the source's site. It's based on passangers. And which year were you looking at on FAA's site cos the most up-to-date info shows the exact same data shown in this article.
You have made a complete ass out of yourself. Fool.