SFO or OAK?
 

My husband & I are going to Sonoma, CA in June. Which airport would you fly into, San Fransisco or Oakland? We flew into SFO 2 years ago and it was a nightmare to get a rental car so I'm wondering if Oakland would be easier. Any opinions?

I'm a big fan of oakland. Its much smaller, less chance of fog delays and pretty close to napa and sonoma.

Bad side- no real coffee in the airport, but good burittos http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif.

OAK!!!!!

MUCH easier to deal with, and no stupid shuttle busses to the rental cars. Just walk right out and there they are.

Also the traffic in and around OAK is much easier to deal with than driving through SF to go north.

[This message has been edited by Kitty Hawk (edited 01-10-2001).]

OAK is by far the better choice. Small and easy to get to rental cars. Less chance of delays. Less congestion. You can avoid all the traffic of SFO getting to the lovely vineyards of Sonoma and Napa. My personal preference and favorite winery is in Alexander Valley, though. (Ferrari Carano) Check them out if you have a chance. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Ditto. If you're flying in with a major airline and airfare is your primary concern, however, SFO might be your best choice, since it has more wide-bodied jets, more frequencies and usually have lower fares.

But otherwise, I would vote for OAK, hands down. Yeah so it doesn't have all the nice amenities like SFO has, but if you want a simple airport to land into and take off from, and all you do is walk straight to the gate, OAK is very efficient. At least you don't have to go very far for rental cars either.

Hope this helps!
Jamester

One more vote for OAK.

Thanks for the replies so far. I knew I'd find some help on this board.

Another vote for OAK http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

But...if you would like to avoid the bay area airports completely, consider flying in to Sacramento (SMF). It's approximately 70 miles to Sonoma from here (vs. 50 or so from Oakland) by the most direct route. Even with the extra mileage you might save driving time because traffic in the bay area can get ugly.

I wasn't going to post another "I'm for OAK" (even though I am) but the idea of flying into SMF is a good one. I'd at least check into it . . . http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

-levi aka eastwest

One more suggestion (although it requires changing planes at SFO) is to see if you can fly to STS for just about the same price as SFO/OAK - however you may not want to fly on United Express and the connection and delay times - you could probably just fly into OAK and drive faster (and wave to me as you pass me by on the freeway).

Watch your travel dates and times if you fly into Sacramento. It can be one big parking lot driving towards Sacramento on Friday afternoons (or even just evening commute Mon-Fri, where it comes to a crawl at the 680/80 split in Cordelia). Just something to keep in mind.

dlflyer,

I just noticed, from your name, that you must be an avid DL frequent flyer; in which DFW-OAK is one of the only existing route DL has left from OAK. And just happens that this weekend, DFW-OAK rt with DL is only about $118. There's another reason to land in OAK. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Jamester

.

[This message has been edited by jeffreyt (edited 01-10-2001).]

OAK by a landslide.

I have flown into Oakland on AA and SFO on AA and Oakland was much easier, and less painful. Suggest you try Oakland, and be amazed at the wonder of an on time flight (I havent had one since March)