Australia's east coast is very densely populated so it makes snse that there's heaps of flights there, quite a few airports there too, and most touristy areas are on the east coast.
Cool. If you look closely they show day and night. Check out all the eastbound TATL at the beginning, then as the daylight gets to Europe, Europe really kicks up as the U.S. dies down. Then as you get through the day all the eastbound TATL changes to westbound TATL. Also, as the sunrise moves across the U.S. about 2/3 of the way in, you see how the U.S. traffic really kicks back up, almost like it is following the line of sunlight.
Programs: US Plat, DL Gold, WN when needed, PC Plat, SPG Gold, National Exec
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by uscsailor
Alaska activity was also surprising. Must be a lot of freight.
The airport in Anchorage moves a lot of freight. I believe it ranks in the top 5 domestically. Of course, air travel is one of the main ways to get around in Alaska, given the lack of suitable roads.
The airport in Anchorage moves a lot of freight. I believe it ranks in the top 5 domestically. Of course, air travel is one of the main ways to get around in Alaska, given the lack of suitable roads.
Actually, I believe that Anchorage is a well-used transit point (refueling, crew changetc.) for some trans-pacific flights. Almost all of my flights from HKG-YYZ via CX stopped there. There were plenty of other "transit" passengers with other airlines, there were at least 3-4 other (passenger) planes docked there doing the same - I don't remember which, since it's been a while since I've taken that route (or have flown with CX).
Programs: BD*G, PC P. [EK, BA, QR & LI Blue]. Formerly H.Esprit White
Posts: 3,085
Nice looking picture, but is it based on flights schedules rather than what the flights actually flew?
I can't see any flights that deviate from a direct-to line; for instance UK to North Carribean flights tend to fly across the North Atlantic with the bulk of the other traffic and then head down the east coast of the USA, but in the image they're shown routing directly across the ocean.
Programs: AS MVP (withering away due to insane fares), UA, AA, AGR, NPS passport, Costco Exec
Posts: 5,179
Quote:
Originally Posted by SouthsideJAX
The airport in Anchorage moves a lot of freight. I believe it ranks in the top 5 domestically. Of course, air travel is one of the main ways to get around in Alaska, given the lack of suitable roads.
And after I read the OP but before I read the rest of the posts in this thread, I watched the video and noticed that there's almost more traffic between ANC and SEA at night than during the day! We certainly do have a higher proportion of red-eyes here--the conventional wisdom has always been that it usually works better for connecting flights beyond the West Coast, but in any case, no one here thinks anything of leaving at 1am or 2:30am or whatever--in fact, if someone asks you if you'd mind giving them a ride to the airport, the first thing that goes through your mind is "What time do I have to be at work in the morning?" I do quite a bit of house sitting, and almost always the homeowners depart sometime between 11pm and 3am and arrive around the same times. So the airlines have conveniently conditioned us to readily book red-eyes...which certainly makes things easier on them in terms of aircraft utilization! (Gee, what should we do with all our planes sitting at night? I know! Send them up to Alaska!)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnivore
Australia's east coast is very densely populated so it makes snse that there's heaps of flights there, quite a few airports there too, and most touristy areas are on the east coast.
Dense, perhaps, to an Aussie ...but there are over three times as many people in the 400-mile Boston-Washington corridor than in the 1,500-mile Australian east coast. (That puts the average number of people per [linear] mile between Washington and New York at almost 15 times that of the Australian east coast!) Also see California, in which the vast majority of the state's 37 million people live in the 500-mile San Diego-Bay Area/Sacramento corridor.
The population of the Australian east coast (Melbourne to Cairns) seems to be much more in line with that under a 1,500-mile line covered from Spokane, Washington to St. Louis, Missouri (the Spokane metropolitan area plus Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, Kansas, and Missouri). Not exactly the most populous part of the United States!
OK, a slightly fairer comparison would be a line of just the three primary cities. MEL to SYD to BNE, ignoring the vast, mostly empty stretches of QLD north of its capital (I know it's vast and empty, because I took the train that entire stretch!). Even then, the number of people there roughly corresponds to a line from Sacramento to Denver, passing through Reno, Nevada and Salt Lake City, Utah...and the hundreds of miles of uninhabited desert and mountain ranges in between! Again, not exactly considered a densely populated, major corridor of people in the U.S....
And heck: much of the road between MEL and SYD is two-lane undivided highway. There's not even the traffic to support a four-lane divided highway (sorry, dual carriageway)! (Though they are working on it, and I saw a lot of new construction of a second carriageway in November.)
But I digress. I still love Oz--greatest people in the world and certainly one of the greatest countries in the world!
...but there are over three times as many people in the 400-mile Boston-Washington corridor than in the 1,500-mile Australian east coast. (That puts the average number of people per [linear] mile between Washington and New York at almost 15 times that of the Australian east coast!) Also see California, in which the vast majority of the state's 37 million people live in the 500-mile San Diego-Bay Area/Sacramento corridor.
