Talk:List of busiest airports by international passenger traffic

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

keep, January 15, 2006, see discussion.
no consensus, September 24, 2005, see discussion.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Aviation: Airports

This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles

This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked	To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: \| b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> \| b2<!--Coverage and accuracy --> = <yes/no> \| b3<!--Structure --> = <yes/no> \| b4<!--Grammar and style --> = <yes/no> \| b5<!--Supporting materials --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion.

This article is supported by the airport project.

2008 Data

I can find the 2007 data which shows the Top 30 list but not the 2008 data. I'm skeptical that Toronto-Pearson is #9 in the 2008 table when it was #25 in 2007 with half the number of passengers. Hypertall (talk) 16:50, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed Toronto, since the number cited was the same as the number of TOTAL passengers on Toronto-Pearson's own wiki page. Hypertall (talk) 17:05, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone add the quantitative data about international passenger traffic of these airports? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.24.27.146 (talk • contribs) 21:00, 27 September 2005

Can anyone check the tables, there are some inconsistencies between 2006 and 2005, for example LHR had according to the table 60,964,323 passengers in 2005 and 46,835,753 in 2006, that could not possibly correspond to an increase of 0.9%, in the article it is said that in 2006 the number of passengers was 67.7 million which is also inconsistent with the 0.9% claim although it is also mentioned there. Is this ranking based on the total number of passengers travelling through the airport minus the number of passengers in domestic flights, and what about the international passengers taking a domestic flight in the next leg of their journey ? All this seems fairly dubious. Blastwizard 07:30, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you double check the tables presented, they are not full-year statistics, and do not refer to the same length of time. The %change is based on source figures.--Huaiwei 13:50, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's still inconsistent, 2005 has a larger number of passenger over a shorter period of time so the 0.9% do not add up, to have this increase, that would mean over 14 million passengers in LHR during September 2006 (nearly 25% of the annual traffic!). Same problem with other airports. Blastwizard 17:22, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from errors in the indication of the rank change (f.i. London Gatwick should be decrease 2), the most funny thing is that Istanbul has completely eclipsed from the 2007 list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.51.49.57 (talk) 09:50, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any particular reason that Gatwick and Charles de Gaulle seem to have changed location over the years and the location of each has got less specific over time? Kae1is (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oslo Airport, Gardermoen

Oslo Airport, Gardermoen should be on this list. Because had, based on this list http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_largest_airports_in_the_Nordic_countries, 19,043,800 passangers in 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.69.198.27 (talk) 11:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One list with all passengers, this list should be only international passengers, I understand.Meerwind7 (talk) 10:51, 10 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This page included passengers traveling within the EU

since the use of the eurpean union passports, does this still count as international travel.

The members of the EU are still independent nation states, though with an additional common supra-national legal structure. You still have to use a passport in airports and the Schengen Agreement only applies to land borders. 23:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

While you are correct that the nations are independent, if you are an EU citizen, you need to demonstrate ID at the airport, but it doesn't have to be a passport, it can be any valid government-issued photo ID. The agreement is applicable to all forms of travel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.79.65.12 (talk) 21:00, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, some airlines require no form of ID at all for intra-Schengen travel. --SmilingBoy (talk) 16:22, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong

Hong Kong should probably not be on this list since the international passengers number includes a large proportion of travellers to mainland China. Those passengers should count as domestic passengers. Hong Kong has since 1997 been a part of the country of China (one country, two systems). Oberoende (talk) 15:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable Data

The idea that 15 airports are ahead of New York's JFK, and that Chicago's O'Hare and Atlanta's Hartsfield-Jackson do not even make the top 30, makes this data highly questionable. We have two airports in Turkey making the top 30, but only two airports - JFK and Miami - in the entire US in the top 30. Who would believe that Los Angeles International is not among the top 30 busiest airports in the world, according to this list? This is laughable.

Since 1998, Hartsfield-Jackson in Atlanta has been the busiest passenger airport in the world, averaging 250,000 passengers per day. Its monthly average is between 7 - 8 million passengers, or at least 84 - 96 million passengers per year.

The main article should be modified to reflect accurate data.

Below is Oct 2012 data for Harstfield-Jackson - 8 million passengers, and 7.7 in Nov 2012:

http://www.atlanta-airport.com/docs/Traffic/201210.pdf

http://www.atlanta-airport.com/Airport/ATL/ATL_FactSheet.aspx

Merlin1935 (talk) 00:24, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for international passengers only. Hartsfield-Jackson has the greatest number of passengers, but a majority of them are domestic, not international. Lawsonstu (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing that international passenger means one coming from or going to a different country than that of the airport. I shouldn't have to guess. Jackhammer111 (talk) 06:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of busiest airports by international passenger traffic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The presented data is not corresponding at all with given sources.

The presented data is not corresponding at all with given sources. It has many factual errors and many missing entries.

I think this article should be deleted due to too many factual errors (for too many years). -- ZH8000 (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]