New nonstop OAK-BCN

Old Mar 17, 17, 10:52 am
  #1  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,375
New nonstop OAK-BCN

Another response to Norwegian from IAG - new 3x weekly service from BCN to OAK. There are now two carriers on this route before any try SFO, which is a little unusual. Fares to Europe staying cheeeeap for the forseeable future.

http://flylevel.com/
http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.c...level-airline/
ucdtim17 is offline  
Old Mar 17, 17, 2:03 pm
  #2  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 43,254
Does anyone know if it's cheaper for an airline to fly in/out of OAK vs. SFO? I don't know how all the fees work. If it is much cheaper, then I can see why OAK makes sense for the Barcelona route (mostly tourism). To get a good leisure fare, lots of people would be willing to BART/drive over to OAK from other parts of the SF Bay Area. Plus parking is cheaper than at SFO.

Last edited by dhuey; Mar 17, 17 at 5:50 pm Reason: sense, not since
dhuey is offline  
Old Mar 17, 17, 4:07 pm
  #3  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 30,589
Originally Posted by dhuey View Post
Does anyone know if it's cheaper for an airline to fly in/out of OAK vs. SFO?
I would imagine the office space lease is much less. I learned once what a "three flight a week" international carrier was paying at SFO annually for the lease and was rather shocked.
Eastbay1K is offline  
Old Mar 17, 17, 4:08 pm
  #4  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 30,589
Originally Posted by Eastbay1K View Post
I would imagine the office space /gate and counter space lease is much less. I learned once what a "three flight a week" international carrier was paying at SFO annually for the lease and was rather shocked.
I have no idea how I quoted myself and said nothing further. So at the risk of getting my response as reported as bad, here's my response

Last edited by Eastbay1K; Mar 17, 17 at 7:20 pm
Eastbay1K is offline  
Old Mar 17, 17, 6:14 pm
  #5  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: VNY | BUR | LAX
Programs: AAdvantage | MileagePlus
Posts: 11,773
Originally Posted by dhuey View Post
Does anyone know if it's cheaper for an airline to fly in/out of OAK vs. SFO? I don't know how all the fees work.
I'm not sure if I'm reading the tables in these publications correctly, however, it would appear that SFO's landing and parking fees are approximately 50% higher than OAK's.
SFO - Summary of Airport Charges

OAK - Ordinance Relating to Landing and Terminal Space Rental Fees (PDF)
TWA884 is offline  
Old Mar 17, 17, 8:09 pm
  #6  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: SJC/SFO
Programs: UA lifetime gold; Hilton Gold; Marriott/SPG Plat; Hyatt Discoverist
Posts: 2,859
the website says Level operated by Iberia. Is this a new low cost offshoot of Iberia?
There is no explanation of the "premium economy" seat? anybody knows?
Prices are not bad.


Disregard my questions:
OMAAT had all the answers.
keisari is offline  
Old Mar 17, 17, 9:07 pm
  #7  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,106
Landing fees are cheaper.

SFO $4.57 per 1000lbs
OAK $3.13 per 1000lbs


OAK roughly $939 to land a 787
SFO roughly $1371 to land a 787

http://www.oaklandairport.com/wp-con.../chapter_7.pdf

http://www.oaklandairport.com/wp-con...2016-07-14.pdf

http://media.flysfo.com.s3.amazonaws...y2014-15_0.pdf
returnoftheyeti is offline  
Old Mar 18, 17, 10:58 am
  #8  
Moderator: Travel Safety/Security, Travel Tools, California, Los Angeles
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: VNY | BUR | LAX
Programs: AAdvantage | MileagePlus
Posts: 11,773
Dense configuration and a la carte pricing.

From the IAG news release:
IAG Takes Flying To A New Level

***

LEVEL will fly two new Airbus A330 aircraft branded in its own livery and fitted with 293 economy and 21 premium economy seats.

***

Checked luggage (in addition to a free cabin bag), meals, seat selection and the latest movie releases will be complimentary for customers flying in premium economy. Those travelling in economy can chose what they want to buy based on a menu of choices. All customers will have access to next generation inflight technology with a wide range of onboard entertainment options. High speed internet connectivity will be available with prices starting at €8.99.

***
TWA884 is offline  
Old Mar 18, 17, 11:04 am
  #9  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 43,254
Originally Posted by returnoftheyeti View Post
Landing fees are cheaper.

SFO $4.57 per 1000lbs
OAK $3.13 per 1000lbs


OAK roughly $939 to land a 787
SFO roughly $1371 to land a 787
Thanks. That's pretty substantial. I'm guessing the local labor costs are lower at OAK as it is much closer than SFO to "affordable" (a relative term) places to live in the SF Bay Area.

It's funny to see little OAK getting more and more European routes. I still think of it as bus terminal with flying buses to LA, Seattle or Vegas.
dhuey is offline  
Old Mar 19, 17, 9:18 am
  #10  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 30,589
Originally Posted by dhuey View Post
Thanks. That's pretty substantial. I'm guessing the local labor costs are lower at OAK as it is much closer than SFO to "affordable" (a relative term) places to live in the SF Bay Area.

It's funny to see little OAK getting more and more European routes. I still think of it as bus terminal with flying buses to LA, Seattle or Vegas.
I certainly wouldn't want to be in T1 during irrops of these carriers with no interline agreements.
Eastbay1K is offline  
Old Mar 19, 17, 11:14 am
  #11  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 43,254
Originally Posted by Eastbay1K View Post
I certainly wouldn't want to be in T1 during irrops of these carriers with no interline agreements.
To our friends here unfamiliar with OAK, all gates are connected airside. If you find yourself facing a long delay in Terminal 1 (the bus terminal), you might want to wander over to the new section of Terminal 2 to get a meal, drink or snack. It's much nicer over there.
dhuey is offline  
Old Mar 19, 17, 2:47 pm
  #12  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,375
Originally Posted by dhuey View Post
To our friends here unfamiliar with OAK, all gates are connected airside. If you find yourself facing a long delay in Terminal 1 (the bus terminal), you might want to wander over to the new section of Terminal 2 to get a meal, drink or snack. It's much nicer over there.
The problem with that idea is that during most busy hours everything in T2 is full. Speaking for myself, most times I would be interested in sitting down for a beer or something before my flight, there is no room anywhere so I don't bother. The airport must lose a ton of revenue from people making the same calculation as me. T2 seems appropriately sized for 2013 levels of traffic, not 2017, much less 2020 or 2025. T1 has been pretty empty at times since the recession but that is quickly changing. The lounge opening is nice, but that's only added a tiny amount of dining/drinking capacity. I don't know what they're going to do in the near-mid term before building another terminal. It's going to be bad for a while.

It's so different than PDX, which hosts ~50% more people in what feels like 100% more space. I never worry about a lack of room there (aside from the AS Lounge, which is tiny)
ucdtim17 is offline  
Old Mar 19, 17, 2:58 pm
  #13  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 43,254
Originally Posted by ucdtim17 View Post
The problem with that idea is that during most busy hours everything in T2 is full.
I'd still try it. T1 is downright depressing -- dark and cavernous. The new section of T2 has lots of natural light, high ceilings and large windows. Even if crowded, I'd rather be in new T2.
dhuey is offline  
Old Mar 19, 17, 3:40 pm
  #14  
Original Poster
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,375
Originally Posted by dhuey View Post
I'd still try it. T1 is downright depressing -- dark and cavernous. The new section of T2 has lots of natural light, high ceilings and large windows. Even if crowded, I'd rather be in new T2.
Newer but definitely usually crowded. I don't know why they didn't try to make more space when they built it, perhaps building out over the roadway between the building and the water. Having a full size Gordon Biersch and 100 more seats for the foot court on that side would be much more appropriate.
ucdtim17 is offline  
Old Mar 19, 17, 7:34 pm
  #15  
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 1,106
Yeah, but isn't there a Chilis over there in T1? And the worlds slowest Starbux? :-)
returnoftheyeti is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread