"Our California Game is Stepping Up"....Not You Oakland
 

Hey Alaska, did you know Oakland is in California?

Seems like in big ways and small ways Alaska has treated OAK and their passengers as second class citizens (still using Q400s to/from Portland, constant chopping of the SEA schedule, first flight cancellation option during the Horizon debacle, etc.). Alaska's recent regional commercial is themed "Our California Game is Stepping Up" and includes the usual puffery about low fares, free upgrades, etc. Oddly, the end of the commercial features a roll call of California destinations including all the major metropolitan airports.....except Oakland! Even Fresno and Monterey get listed (along with SFO and SJC of course). With the Hawaii and Pacific Northwest flights, OAK is easily the highest volume CA airport to get left off the list.

With a passenger growth rate exceeding 10% in the past year and Norwegian, British Airways, Southwest and others adding Oakland flights, Alaska seems to be stuck in the past. Come on Alaska please show Oakland some love.

They’ve tried hard to keep Q400s on PDX-OAK but it appears they’ve finally been forced to go mainline from Dec 1 until at least March 10, when they evidently hope to get the Q400s back on the route :rolleyes:

Meanwhile WN has three evening OAK-PDX flights now, happily accommodating everyone who can’t fit on the sole QX Q400 flight.

Southwest has had such a stronghold on OAK for so many years, they've conditioned many East Bay flyers to visit Southwest.com and not shop around.

Meanwhile, tourists and business travellers visiting SF prefer SFO.

It's​t's understandably a tough market to expand without some unique flight that WN doesn't already serve.

Airlines aren't charities, if Oakland were more profitable for them it would get more "love"

Airlines are not charities but there are other considerations that go into this beyond simply maximizing profits on any given route. Since the VX purchase AS has thrown every resource they can on any route they can at SFO to try to work towards building up a competitive hub, no matter if the fares are low and the planes are not full. It's not hard to imagine an alternate scenario with no VX purchase, and AS working to organically grow and develop existing routes and airports that aren't SFO (like OAK). Every communication from the company pre-VX seemed to indicate the E175s would be headed for routes like PDX-OAK (they told me as much every time I complained about the Q400s), but instead today we get SFO-ABQ, SFO-MSP, SFO-MCI, etc.

OAK is not a high yield airport, simple as that. If it was, AS would invest more there. Just because the market is growing, doesn't mean the market is profitable.

Heck, UA isn't there at all...DL is there on a limited basis, and AA as well.

The international flights are on basically LCCs (Level for IB, Norwegian, Volaris) with the exception of BA...and that flight is not particularly high yielding either based on what I see out of the fares.

And don't feel bad. SMF isn't getting much love from AS either, but WN sure seems more interested.

It's not hard to imagine but AS execs have the data and didn't pursue a strategy of growth at OAK (for now). That's not really surprising following the acquisition of a carrier with a hublet at SFO. If AS doesn't work for you and the OP, move on.

It is probably profitable. It is likely not as profitable as using the same resources at other stations. WN fares are no bargain much of the time. Yet, getting to/from SFO is getting more difficult more hours of the day. For shorter hops, I'm much more likely to end up on WN than deal with traffic to/from SFO along with delays, etc., even if I may have a lounge and earn some miles or points in a better program than WN.

Yesterday's good news is that Jetsuite is starting OAK/BUR.

Many good comments. However comments along the lines of “it must be a good idea or they wouldn’t do it” must be from people not dealing with the Horizon pilot debacle courtesy of the same management team. And where are the yield observations coming from? Anyone who regularly compares prices from OAK to SEA or PDX knows they are more expensive than from SFO. My guess is the yields from OAK are better given that there appears to be comparable occupancy on the SEA flights. We will see what happens. Thanks for th good feedback.

Fares are certainly lower at SFO. I’ve hiked over there many weeks for $48 premium seats this fall when the Q400 alternative at OAK is $69, $87, $107, etc. Fortunately in time for winter storm delays at SFO we’re getting mainline flights (and comparably low fares) at OAK

I guess Alaska’s delusions about the OAK market are so strong the other airline at SEA shares them. Funny how DL serves SJC and SFO but not OAK from SEA, innit? But I am sure they are completely irrational about OAK just like AS. Must be something in the water here.

OAK often has more award seats open. Even that BA is remarkably easy to score.

I can't imagine the yield is terribly good. WN is the powerhouse there and will defend their turf to keep the Southwest Effect (aka high fares) alive.

WN also happy about lack of DL service to SEA. Adding a frequency next year to go to 7x.

Top airline market share at some CA airports:

SFO: UA, 40%
LAX: AA, 20%
SNA: WN, 45%
SAN: WN, 39%
SJC: WN, 49%
OAK: WN, 72%

♫One of these things is not like the others...♫

Next up, people complaining about why WN doesn't feel the need to start service to IAH, ORD, or DFW. Followed by complaints about why AA and DL are SO WEAK at EWR (which UA has about a 72% market share at).

Yeah. It's funny how AS and DL came to the same conclusion about expanding into OAK while both have expanded over the years at SJC.

No one can say that DL isn't a well managed airline these days based on the profitability.