SFO or OAK?
Jan 10, 2001 | 8:59 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Programs: AA EXPLT, HH Diamond
Posts: 50
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?
Jan 10, 2001 | 10:03 am
#3
Join Date: Sep 1999
Posts: 1,222
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).]
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).]
Jan 10, 2001 | 10:07 am
#4
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Some where in the Mountains
Posts: 5,878
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. 
Jan 10, 2001 | 10:38 am
#5
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Bay Area
Programs: UA1MM, *G,HA Premier Club, Hyatt Disc, HHonors Gold, Marriott LTPlat, ClubCarlson Gold, IHG PlatAmb
Posts: 1,281
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
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
Jan 10, 2001 | 12:51 pm
#8
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Sacramento, California, USA
Posts: 2,978
Another vote for OAK
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.
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.
Jan 10, 2001 | 1:23 pm
#9
Join Date: Aug 2000
Programs: I am an AS employee, but my comments do not represent the company in any official capacity.
Posts: 4,343
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 . . .
-levi aka eastwest
-levi aka eastwest
Jan 10, 2001 | 1:30 pm
#10
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 42,569
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).
Jan 10, 2001 | 2:49 pm
#11
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
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.
Jan 10, 2001 | 3:49 pm
#12
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Bay Area
Programs: UA1MM, *G,HA Premier Club, Hyatt Disc, HHonors Gold, Marriott LTPlat, ClubCarlson Gold, IHG PlatAmb
Posts: 1,281
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.
Jamester
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.
Jamester
Jan 10, 2001 | 7:10 pm
#15
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Philadelphia AA Platinum, BA Gold, No Status US
Posts: 68
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)