Originally Posted by
lhrsfo
Pure speculation here but I should imagine that this route has been added because of a combination of factors: 1) J is selling very well on the SFO and SJC routes and they've already responded by mixing capacity at SFO to a higher J configuration, thus with fewer Y seats; 2) leisure demand between the UK and the Bay Area is increasing strongly; 3) they don't want to use another slot at LHR to increase either the SFO or SJC frequencies, so they are stuck with LGW which is principally leisure; 4) OAK will no doubt have given them a very good deal and is also principally leisure based; 5) they have seen that Norwegian's yields are good on the route but that Norwegian's reliability is very poor; and 6) whilst there's not much connecting traffic at LGW, they can do some with their own limited European network, plus EI and Vueling - whereas Norwegian is very limited from LGW.
Re the discussion about First etc., clearly this route is not about First, but it will add significant PE to the London/Bay Area market, and BA seems to be able to sell the PE cabin very effectively and UA doesn't offer it at all.
Agreed, pretty much on all fronts. Furthermore, as someone who has lived in the East Bay since 1988, and have never had much of an issue with the trip to/from SFO, the last couple of years has changed my "not much of an issue." Despite the relatively close geography, certain airlines are smart to have flights at all 3 of our major airports. Although I'm not likely to frequent this new service, the concept of an OAK / Europe on an airline that will take care of me in the case of IRROPS is quite appealing.