Arrive in or arrive at?

I arrived in Lisbon would be correct. 

You put in before cities. for e.g. in New York, in Paris, in Oslo, etc.

But, if you're talking about the station, e.g. I arrived at Lisbon (Here, you're talking about the Lisbon station), you can use at.

Than you!

Kuljc03

I arrived //

You're quite right: You arrive in a city, but at a place.

Only for your information:

You arrive in a big place.( Beijing, New York)

You arrive at a small place.(airport, trian station..)

You normally use at when the name represents a station, airport, port, head office of a company or a meeting place that is familiar to all speakers in the conversation, etc.

Isn't it also possible to use the preposition ON? In for instance;

When I arrived on the scene, it was all over.

Is this wrong? Jay

Hello Jay

Yes, you are quite right. In English they say "arrive on the scene" as well as "arrive at the scene". They use both on and at also for "the island". In the case of "the coast", they mostly say "arrived on the coast".

"Arrive over" is also possible in a context like "Lindbergh arrived over Paris at

Okay I have never heard the one with over before. I cannot remember who Lindbergh was. But wasn't he one of the first ever to fly?

Jay

Yes you ar

I've heard this discussion many times and I have told my students about the at , in explanation but I was wondering if "arrive to" would also be correct. It's very common in American English.