Is SFO Doomed?

Old Apr 1, 2019, 10:39 pm
  #16  
nnn
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: San Francisco
Programs: All-Around Kettle
Posts: 3,286
When SFO has delays, it stinks. But on the whole it's not that bad and I'd much rather make the trip to SFO than to OAK. Partially snobbery I'll admit.

So...where are those promised technological improvements that were supposed to allow side by side landings at SFO in weather....?
nnn is offline  
Old May 2, 2019, 2:16 pm
  #17  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Verdi, NV, SFO & Olympic (aka Squaw )Valley.
Programs: Ikon Pass Full + AS Gold + Marriott Titanium + Hilton Gold. Recovering UA Plat. LT lounge AA+DL+UA
Posts: 3,815
Originally Posted by nnn
When SFO has delays, it stinks. But on the whole it's not that bad and I'd much rather make the trip to SFO than to OAK. Partially snobbery I'll admit.

So...where are those promised technological improvements that were supposed to allow side by side landings at SFO in weather....?
Until relatively recently it was quite hard to reach Oakland and no lounge on arrival. Today BART + the rideshare services make access much easier and there is a lovely Escape Lounge. Most of my west coast flying now leaves from the 510.
worldwidedreamer is offline  
Old May 4, 2019, 10:12 am
  #18  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 56,887
Originally Posted by worldwidedreamer
Until relatively recently it was quite hard to reach Oakland and no lounge on arrival. Today BART + the rideshare services make access much easier and there is a lovely Escape Lounge. Most of my west coast flying now leaves from the 510.
The Escape Lounge makes a huge difference at OAK, but Terminal 1 is still a cavernous bus terminal. I agree, though, that OAK is easier to use than SFO. It's a much more convenient option for those of us in the East Bay, especially around commute times.
dhuey is offline  
Old May 4, 2019, 10:33 am
  #19  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 38,504
Originally Posted by dhuey
The Escape Lounge makes a huge difference at OAK, but Terminal 1 is still a cavernous bus terminal. I agree, though, that OAK is easier to use than SFO. It's a much more convenient option for those of us in the East Bay, especially around commute times.
And in fact, earlier this week, I just went a bit early and had pre-flight lounge lunch, and the next day, arriving just after 12:00, had a post-flight lunch.
Eastbay1K is offline  
Old May 4, 2019, 10:37 am
  #20  
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
 
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 56,887
Originally Posted by Eastbay1K
And in fact, earlier this week, I just went a bit early and had pre-flight lounge lunch, and the next day, arriving just after 12:00, had a post-flight lunch.
Similar for me last week. During am rush my wife kindly dropped me off at North Berkeley BART. Took AirBART to OAK and had a leisurely breakfast prior to my Delta flight, which boarded a couple of gates from the Escape Lounge.
dhuey is offline  
Old May 6, 2019, 4:49 pm
  #21  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA 1MM, WN CP, Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Gold, IC Plat
Posts: 15,649
Originally Posted by Eastbay1K
And looking at these last few replies, it is clear that SFO isn't doomed. WN didn't have any SFO service for years. Now it has a modest amount. B6 was all about OAK, and has shifted almost everything to SFO. AS OAK service is a fraction of its former self, everything else is from SFO. UA, after having a maintenance base @ OAK, and flights to all of its hubs along with shorter west coast hops, eventually pulled out completely and it is all SFO.
Yes, 100% correct. I think the title is clickbait at best.

There are a quite a few reasons why flights have not shifted to OAK:
  • Major airlines prefer to connect to other major airlines via SFO. OAK does not yet have a critical mass of airlines that will permit such connections (and in fact can be considered a hub fortress for OAK)
  • There are many days when few flights are delayed and other days when most flights are not delayed >30 minutes. Some of these delays are already built into the schedules. So travelers are willing to risk delays v. using an airport that may be less convenient.
  • There are no flight perimiter restrictions as you find at LGA, DCA, etc. so no incentive for travelers to use an alternative and possibly less convenient airport.
  • There are no fare discounts from OAK and SJC. In fact IME fares are often cheaper from SFO due to the significant competition. Compare to other secondary airports where fares are often cheaper, e.g. BWI, LGB, etc.
  • Legacy airlines largely abandoned OAK after 9/11 and 2008 recession, and the airport has not regained the critical mass that would drive travel there.
  • Absent rush hour traffic, for many East Bay residents it is only a 15-20m longer drive to SFO over OAK, a trip we are willing to take in return for a nonstop flight (particularly international).
  • A lot of visitors don't know that OAK is an option and many come from places that are not served by WN.
Personally I would love to see many more flight options from OAK, but I don't see that happening absent some government mandate, which has never materialized even for discussion.
Boraxo is offline  
Old May 6, 2019, 7:46 pm
  #22  
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: DCA, lived MCI, SEA/PDX,BUF (born/raised)
Programs: Marriott (Silver/Gold), IHG, Carlson, Best Western, Choice( Gold), AS (MVP), WN, UA
Posts: 8,629
Originally Posted by Boraxo
Yes, 100% correct. I think the title is clickbait at best.

There are a quite a few reasons why flights have not shifted to OAK:
  • Major airlines prefer to connect to other major airlines via SFO. OAK does not yet have a critical mass of airlines that will permit such connections (and in fact can be considered a hub fortress for OAK)
  • There are many days when few flights are delayed and other days when most flights are not delayed >30 minutes. Some of these delays are already built into the schedules. So travelers are willing to risk delays v. using an airport that may be less convenient.
  • There are no flight perimiter restrictions as you find at LGA, DCA, etc. so no incentive for travelers to use an alternative and possibly less convenient airport.
  • There are no fare discounts from OAK and SJC. In fact IME fares are often cheaper from SFO due to the significant competition. Compare to other secondary airports where fares are often cheaper, e.g. BWI, LGB, etc.
  • Legacy airlines largely abandoned OAK after 9/11 and 2008 recession, and the airport has not regained the critical mass that would drive travel there.
  • Absent rush hour traffic, for many East Bay residents it is only a 15-20m longer drive to SFO over OAK, a trip we are willing to take in return for a nonstop flight (particularly international).
  • A lot of visitors don't know that OAK is an option and many come from places that are not served by WN.
Personally I would love to see many more flight options from OAK, but I don't see that happening absent some government mandate, which has never materialized even for discussion.
i agree in parts and disagree in parts...

legacy carriers didnt sbsndon it as it as much as with mergers things changed.

people are aware Oakland is near SFO just like BWI is near dc.

SFO is an international destination. Carriers fly there to link pax

sjc prices are higher given the business traveler traffic it gets. Oakland has less service making its fares higher.

OAK and SJC do have good deals to Hawaii because these arent hub cities thus lityke connecting traffic from east coast.

from a commuting to the airport from east side its easier to get to sfo because you can be at airport instead of waiting in the hood for a shuttle that you have to pay for.

because of consolidation you have had less flights coming in. Seattle has gotten worse due to delta service expension




djp98374 is offline  
Old May 6, 2019, 10:46 pm
  #23  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 38,504
Originally Posted by Boraxo
  • Absent rush hour traffic, for many East Bay residents it is only a 15-20m longer drive to SFO over OAK, a trip we are willing to take in return for a nonstop flight (particularly international).

I've got a max 10 minute differential without traffic, but I've also had 2+ hour drives back from SFO for the 24 or so miles at the wrong hours, and those wrong hours keep increasing.

As far as fares, on an August Sunday after a conference, I just booked UA in F (DEN/SFO) for a relatively small premium over what WN Y was DEN/OAK.
Eastbay1K is offline  
Old May 7, 2019, 12:56 am
  #24  
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: TLV
Programs: UA Platinum, Avis Chairman, Marriott Gold, Hilton Gold, GA Pilot
Posts: 3,225
Oakland should change the name to SF Bay/Oakland Airport . It's on the SF Bay so nobody can dispute the name. Would definitely help with marketing .
​​​
ryw likes this.
NYTA is offline  
Old May 7, 2019, 1:09 am
  #25  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA 1MM, WN CP, Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Gold, IC Plat
Posts: 15,649
Originally Posted by Eastbay1K

I've got a max 10 minute differential without traffic, but I've also had 2+ hour drives back from SFO for the 24 or so miles at the wrong hours, and those wrong hours keep increasing.

As far as fares, on an August Sunday after a conference, I just booked UA in F (DEN/SFO) for a relatively small premium over what WN Y was DEN/OAK.
I have similar aggravation driving home from SFO - often 1.5-2 hours - if I land between 3-7pm. I do my best now to avoid this scenario but sometimes it is very difficult for international arrivals (particularly from Europe) where you don't have as many options.

Alas the fares are often much better from SFO as WN charges a fortress hub premium from OAK. WN is sometimes worth the convenience for intra-state flights where you can avoid SFO & LAX traffic and atc delays. But I'm always amazed at the fools who pay a huge premium for WN holiday flights when they can get reserved E+ seats on the legacy carriers. Or in our case, possible upgrades to F. I bet we will see the same foolishness for Hawaii flights.

As you note JetSuiteX is an awesome alternative to WN, I just wish they had a deeper schedule and more flights from CCR. I know, patience is a virtue...
Boraxo is offline  
Old May 7, 2019, 3:46 am
  #26  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London & Sonoma CA
Programs: UA 1K, MM *G for life, BAEC Gold
Posts: 10,215
Norwegian switched its LGW-OAK flight to SFO because it couldn't compete against UA, BA and VS who already use SFO. That neatly explains why SFO will continue to get the lion's share of the business.
lhrsfo is offline  
Old May 7, 2019, 8:08 am
  #27  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: PEK
Programs: A3*G, UA Gold EY Silver
Posts: 8,924
The problem in the bay area is the tribalism and the fragmented management of the infrastructure - not just airport infrastructure. In a perfect world, OAK and SFO would be connected by a 20-25-min ferry, which would allow for the two airports to operate as an airport system. Given how the current management practices are set up, that won't happen any time in the future.
Boraxo, lhrsfo and ryw like this.
Palal is offline  
Old May 7, 2019, 10:40 am
  #28  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: London & Sonoma CA
Programs: UA 1K, MM *G for life, BAEC Gold
Posts: 10,215
Originally Posted by Palal
The problem in the bay area is the tribalism and the fragmented management of the infrastructure - not just airport infrastructure. In a perfect world, OAK and SFO would be connected by a 20-25-min ferry, which would allow for the two airports to operate as an airport system. Given how the current management practices are set up, that won't happen any time in the future.
This applies in spades to pretty well every decision SFO makes. For example, the realignment of UBER etc. pick ups, whilst sensible in itself, completely fails to see the big picture. The aim is to reduce congestion and also pollution. So, instead of slapping a significant tax on BART arrivals which create no congestion and very low pollution, they should simply slap a tax on all car arrivals, including cabs, Ubers and shuttles. Then they could even subsidise BART, rather than discourage people from using it.
futuramadramallama likes this.
lhrsfo is offline  
Old May 7, 2019, 11:30 am
  #29  
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 38,504
Originally Posted by lhrsfo
This applies in spades to pretty well every decision SFO makes. For example, the realignment of UBER etc. pick ups, whilst sensible in itself, completely fails to see the big picture. The aim is to reduce congestion and also pollution. So, instead of slapping a significant tax on BART arrivals which create no congestion and very low pollution, they should simply slap a tax on all car arrivals, including cabs, Ubers and shuttles. Then they could even subsidise BART, rather than discourage people from using it.
Well, BART is subsidized, notwithstanding the stooopid airport surcharge. But it is the surcharge, along with the extreme velocity* of the service, not to mention SRO in the AM to get to the airport (and now, with construction, even more difficult to get to an earlier AM flight), that makes me rarely use the service. $9.85 each way, plus I still need a ride to/from BART, plus an hour once on the train, plus up to 20 minutes wait time for the proper train(s) ... other than the worst of the traffic times, BART is not a great option.

*that doesn't necessarily mean "fast."
Eastbay1K is offline  
Old May 7, 2019, 11:34 am
  #30  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,635
Originally Posted by lhrsfo
This applies in spades to pretty well every decision SFO makes. For example, the realignment of UBER etc. pick ups, whilst sensible in itself, completely fails to see the big picture. The aim is to reduce congestion and also pollution. So, instead of slapping a significant tax on BART arrivals which create no congestion and very low pollution, they should simply slap a tax on all car arrivals, including cabs, Ubers and shuttles. Then they could even subsidise BART, rather than discourage people from using it.
The problem is BART runs BART, not the airport, and BART has its own budget considerations. Riders on the airport extensions pay the high costs of those rides so that other commuters don't have to subsidize them, which makes sense. Like many Bay Area problems, it stems from having many different fiefdoms all running independently, with their own incentives, looking out for only themselves.
ryw likes this.
ucdtim17 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Manage Preferences - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.