FlyerTalk Forums

FlyerTalk Forums (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/index.php)
-   Alaska Airlines | Mileage Plan (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/alaska-airlines-mileage-plan-442/)
-   -   OAK/PDX Reduced to 2X/Day (November 2018) (https://www.flyertalk.com/forum/alaska-airlines-mileage-plan/1938035-oak-pdx-reduced-2x-day-november-2018-a.html)

Eastbay1K Nov 3, 18 11:32 am


Originally Posted by eponymous_coward (Post 30388586)


You mean like how UA, DL and BA have worked for those customers by abandoning routes or the station completely?

They could have, and there's plenty of money to be made here, but no one wants to devote the resources. So we have a de facto monopoly forming @ OAK. You can't operate the shorter hops at minimal frequency and expect your business travelers to stick around.

It isn't that I don't like SFO (save the delays) and without traffic, it is about 10 minutes more travel time than SFO. 10 and 20 and 30 years ago, I had to plan for traffic. What we have now isn't traffic anymore. It is life-ruining eternal congestion. Coming home in the afternoon (including Saturdays) - 2+ hour drive home. 25 miles. No joke. BART? Up to 20 minute wait for a train (then have to change trains) and it is an hour plus on the train and then an UBER/LYFT from the station.

This causes business people to fly OAK even if their preferred airlines don't service the airport.

milypan Nov 3, 18 12:36 pm


Originally Posted by Eastbay1K (Post 30388703)
BART? Up to 20 minute wait for a train (then have to change trains) and it is an hour plus on the train and then an UBER/LYFT from the station.

At the risk of straying off topic, it has become increasingly clear with time that the decision to build the SFO/Millbrae extension with a wye going straight into the Intl Terminal is a tragedy cast in concrete. The correct way to build would have been to terminate BART at San Bruno and build the intermodal station there, running the Airtrain up the Caltrain ROW to make the connection for airport passengers. They could even extend BART down to Millbrae still, if they wanted the massive parking lot for the line terminus. But this way there would be no splitting of Millbrae and SFO service, and you could cut the headways in half for both lines at most hours of day.

eponymous_coward Nov 3, 18 2:44 pm


Originally Posted by Eastbay1K (Post 30388703)
They could have, and there's plenty of money to be made here, but no one wants to devote the resources. So we have a de facto monopoly forming @ OAK. You can't operate the shorter hops at minimal frequency and expect your business travelers to stick around.

It isn't that I don't like SFO (save the delays) and without traffic, it is about 10 minutes more travel time than SFO. 10 and 20 and 30 years ago, I had to plan for traffic. What we have now isn't traffic anymore. It is life-ruining eternal congestion. Coming home in the afternoon (including Saturdays) - 2+ hour drive home. 25 miles. No joke. BART? Up to 20 minute wait for a train (then have to change trains) and it is an hour plus on the train and then an UBER/LYFT from the station.

This causes business people to fly OAK even if their preferred airlines don't service the airport.

I don’t disagree, but of those airlines (AS, BA, DL and WN) only one of them faces stronger competition (in terms of a bigger airline) in every single one of their hubs with a metro population > 3 million.

Let’s look at what their effectively uncontested hubs are (in that they are top dog and there isn’t a bigger airline fighting for it):

DL has ATL, SLC, MSP, DTW.
UA has IAH, EWR, SFO, IAD.
BA has LHR.
WN has MDW, HOU, DAL, OAK, SJC, BAL, SAN*
AS has ANC and PDX.

* yes, I know, WN doesn’t have hubs. They sure are top dog in those airports though.

Go look at those metro populations and tell me who’s got the better position.

”Let’s start a land war in Asia, I mean Oakland, while all but two of our hubs/focus cities are all under attack by a bigger airline (and those are the smallest ones by population, and one is useless for connecting anyone outside the state of Alaska) during a merger” might not be the best strategy. To be honest, AS is arguably MORE aggressive against WN than they have been in the past: they’ve pushed BAL, SJC, SAN. They restarted SJC-AUS after folding it when WN entered. They haven’t completely folded DAL yet (and TBH maybe they should and move everything to DFW, they could pick up some AA connecting traffic that way). I find it hard to give them grief that they pick and choose battles against bigger airlines. But I don’t live in the East Bay. Maybe I’d feel differently if I did.






eponymous_coward Nov 3, 18 2:56 pm

Duplicate

DG206 Nov 4, 18 1:28 am

This really sucks for me. I need to get to Contra Costa county and keeps getting harder and harder to do so. WN does not fly anywhere remotely close to my home airport so I am not going to drive 6 hrs to Spokane to fly them, DL has pretty limited frequency and UA moved out of OAK completely years ago.

I obviously do not know the rationale for these reductions there, but with SFO being such a mess so often I would think that OAK would be a really decent alternative. I guess that is what SJC is for?

VegasGambler Nov 4, 18 11:09 am


Originally Posted by ucdtim17 (Post 30381410)
There is certainly marketing out there. There's the giant Durant billboard facing both terminals at OAK, and similar advertising ("Bring it in, Oakland") throughout BART, even at SFO. Most Ford bike share stations in Oakland are Alaska-branded. AC Transit bus shelters have AS-to-Hawaii advertising now. I doubt there's an airline with more physical advertising out there now. It's just odd to do so much in the east bay, including Oakland-specific advertising, but then not try to leverage with any actual service.

I'd actually argue that there is plenty of marketing and advertising; just no service to back it up. And it's not just OAK... SFO too.

On the other hand, you never see any ads for UA and they fly everywhere, usually many times per day, from SFO.

tom911 Nov 4, 18 2:32 pm


Originally Posted by DG206 (Post 30390537)
This really sucks for me. I need to get to Contra Costa county and keeps getting harder and harder to do so.

Living just across the bridge from Contra Costa, let me comment.....

I'm within an hours drive of all three Bay Area airports, plus Sacramento and Santa Rosa. My preference is always to fly from Sacramento, when the fares or award travel work out, given how easy it is to get in and out of there, providing it's not during commute hours. Have you thought about SMF as an option? If you're dependent on public transportation, though, you don't want to fly from there.

DG206 Nov 4, 18 3:15 pm


Originally Posted by tom911 (Post 30392625)
Living just across the bridge from Contra Costa, let me comment.....

I'm within an hours drive of all three Bay Area airports, plus Sacramento and Santa Rosa. My preference is always to fly from Sacramento, when the fares or award travel work out, given how easy it is to get in and out of there, providing it's not during commute hours. Have you thought about SMF as an option? If you're dependent on public transportation, though, you don't want to fly from there.

Yeah, been a while since I have flown through there but that is an alternative worth noting, thank you. Nice little airport if I remember and they did a great job with the remodeling a few years back. Might have to look at SJC as well. I have so few options flying out of MSO anytime a reduction in service occurs anywhere it can really affect our travel plans. Thanks!

Kacee Nov 4, 18 9:33 pm


Originally Posted by bofc (Post 30387531)
And the Southwest "experience" leaves a lot to be desired, especially for business travelers.

I've come to actively hate flying WN. The slim-lined aircraft are terribly uncomfortable and I've just had too many bad neighbor experiences the past few years.

Originally Posted by Eastbay1K (Post 30388703)
It isn't that I don't like SFO (save the delays) and without traffic, it is about 10 minutes more travel time than SFO. 10 and 20 and 30 years ago, I had to plan for traffic. What we have now isn't traffic anymore. It is life-ruining eternal congestion. Coming home in the afternoon (including Saturdays) - 2+ hour drive home. 25 miles. No joke. BART? Up to 20 minute wait for a train (then have to change trains) and it is an hour plus on the train and then an UBER/LYFT from the station.

This causes business people to fly OAK even if their preferred airlines don't service the airport

Yes OAK has a substantial natural advantage if you live in the east bay. In addition to horrific traffic (bay bridge westbound now backs up at 5 am, and as you note, leaving SFO between 2 pm and 7 pm likely means 2 hrs plus to cross the bridge), last BART train departs SFO right before midnight, and after that you're subject to risk of a 3x Uber surge. I've paid $150+ to get to Oakland at 1 a.m.

VegasGambler Nov 4, 18 9:40 pm


Originally Posted by Kacee (Post 30393730)
I've come to actively hate flying WN. The slim-lined aircraft are terribly uncomfortable and I've just had too many bad neighbor experiences the past few years.

Yes OAK has a substantial natural advantage if you live in the east bay. In addition to horrific traffic (bay bridge westbound now backs up at 5 am, and as you note, leaving SFO between 2 pm and 7 pm likely means 2 hrs plus to cross the bridge), last BART train departs SFO right before midnight, and after that you're subject to risk of a 3x Uber surge. I've paid $150+ to get to Oakland at 1 a.m.

You know... cabs still exist :) I take them from time to time when the surge is ridiculous.

The lineup for the bridge backing up is right outside my window...

Kacee Nov 5, 18 3:06 am


Originally Posted by VegasGambler (Post 30393761)
You know... cabs still exist :) I take them from time to time when the surge is ridiculous.

It's easily over $100 for a taxi from SFO to Oakland, with a solid chance of an unpleasant ride. There's a reason Uber has done so well.

tusphotog Nov 5, 18 5:29 pm


Originally Posted by Kacee (Post 30393730)
I've come to actively hate flying WN. The slim-lined aircraft are terribly uncomfortable and I've just had too many bad neighbor experiences the past few years.

You must not have flown the AS slimline seats in Y. Or AA. Or UA. Or anyone else that uses those seats.

At least WN gives you 32" on every non exit row seat on the 738s and 7M8s.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 4:26 pm.


This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.