Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
San Diego Vs San Jose, Comparisons  
User currently offlineJuventus From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2835 posts, RR: 2
Posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 3239 times:

-Who is California's third busiest airport?
-Who has more International flights, SAN or SJC?
-Who has a better chance of landing an European carrier? I know Aer Lingus is been rumored for SJC
-Potential for growth between these two

thanx for any comments

23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5398 posts, RR: 8
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3217 times:

Quoting Juventus (Thread starter):
-Who is California's third busiest airport?

OAK...then SAN, SJC

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineLegacyins From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2054 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3197 times:

Quoting Juventus (Thread starter):
I know Aer Lingus is been rumored for SJC

EI already annonced SFO.



John@SFO
User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24858 posts, RR: 46
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3194 times:

Quoting Juventus (Thread starter):
-Who is California's third busiest airport?

1- LAX 61.5mil
2- SFO 32.9mil
3- SAN 17.4mil
4- OAK 14.4mil
5- SJC 10.9mil
6- SMF 10.2mil
7- SNA 9.6mil
8- ONT 7.2mil
9- BUR 5.5mil
10- LGB 3.0mil

Comprehensive list of passenger volume in the state for 2005.
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planning/aeronaut/documents/2005pax.pdf



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineJuventus From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2835 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3175 times:

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 1):
OAK...then SAN, SJC



Quoting Laxintl (Reply 3):
1- LAX 61.5mil
2- SFO 32.9mil
3- SAN 17.4mil
4- OAK 14.4mil
5- SJC 10.9mil

I guess I should have added OAK to the mix, I was under the impression they were a distant 5th.

Quoting Legacyins (Reply 2):
EI already annonced SFO

thanx


Which foreign airlines serve SAN and SJC??


User currently offlineLaxintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24858 posts, RR: 46
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3162 times:

I have not seen the 2006 numbers however would not be surprised to see SMF bump SJC from the #5 spot very soon.

Sacramento continues to experience growth, while SJC has remained steady-- if not decline in recent years as AA continues their reductions.

[Edited 2007-04-26 17:30:24]


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5398 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 3153 times:

Quoting Juventus (Reply 4):
Quoting Bond007 (Reply 1):
OAK...then SAN, SJC



Quoting Laxintl (Reply 3):
1- LAX 61.5mil
2- SFO 32.9mil
3- SAN 17.4mil
4- OAK 14.4mil
5- SJC 10.9mil

OK, should have been more clear. We are probably both correct. My data was purely number of flights - not pax.

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineCoronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1597 posts, RR: 2
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3110 times:

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 6):
OK, should have been more clear. We are probably both correct. My data was purely number of flights - not pax.

If you're talking about aircraft movements, then that usually includes general aviation of which there is little at SAN as most of that has moved to MYF (Montgomery Field). Passenger count and the number of airline flights would be in relation to each other unless your airport is enjoying twin-aisle aircraft all day long.

SJC (10M PAX) has a long way to go before it catches up with SAN (17M PAX). I am sorry, but San Jose to me is more of a bedroom community of the massive Bay Area where San Diego is it's own distinct metro area separate from L.A. 120 miles away.It is hard for me to make any real comparison. SJC reminds me more of the Orange County Airport (SNA) then SAN.

One thing SJC has going for it is being close to San Francisco and Oakland. It can attract passengers from other points in the Bay Area. In contrast, I have never met someone from L.A. driving down to SAN to catch a flight. For this reason, SJC has a better chance of intercontinental service than SAN which has to rely on it's own local O&D and the runway situation that isn't exactly the best for launching the heavies.



Uncle SAN at your service!
User currently offlineCV880 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 1124 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3087 times:

SJC, runways 11,000', have had overseas int'l flights to TPE, NRT, CDG on AA, but those are gone at the moment. OAK has had numerous charter aircraft operations from Europe during the summer, as well as scheduled service during summer months in the past (Martinair).

User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5398 posts, RR: 8
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 3042 times:

Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 7):
If you're talking about aircraft movements, then that usually includes general aviation of which there is little at SAN as most of that has moved to MYF (Montgomery Field). Passenger count and the number of airline flights would be in relation to each other unless your airport is enjoying twin-aisle aircraft all day long.

Actually, just for airline flights alone, there isn't much between OAK and SAN ...OAK a little ahead depending on the day. Remember those pax numbers are over a year old (my data from this year), and also SAN has a much higher percentage of regional size aircraft than OAK, maybe accounting for the pax difference.


Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2991 times:

Quoting Bond007 (Reply 9):
Actually, just for airline flights alone, there isn't much between OAK and SAN ...OAK a little ahead depending on the day. Remember those pax numbers are over a year old (my data from this year), and also SAN has a much higher percentage of regional size aircraft than OAK, maybe accounting for the pax difference.

Oakland has two runways and a FEDEX hub hence the operational up-tick over SAN. OAK and SJC are medium hub airports. SAN, SFO and LAX are large hub airports.

They are ranked:

LAX
SFO
SAN
OAK
SJC

[Edited 2007-04-26 21:56:48]

User currently offlineSJCRRPAX From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2989 times:

Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 7):
SJC (10M PAX) has a long way to go before it catches up with SAN (17M PAX). I am sorry, but San Jose to me is more of a bedroom community of the massive Bay Area where San Diego is it's own distinct metro area separate from L.A. 120 miles away.It is hard for me to make any real comparison. SJC reminds me more of the Orange County Airport (SNA) then SAN.

This is exactly correct. There are really three cities talked about here, San Francisco-Bay Area, Sacramento, and San Diego. The San Francisco Bay Area has 3 airports, SFO, OAK, and SJC, while San Diego and Sacramento really only have one each, so I would expect San Diego to remain bigger than SJC and OAK, and Eventually Sacramento to be bigger than OAK and SJC. The only reason SAN is even compared with OAK or SJC now is because SAN is small by voter choice. Traditionally SJC and OAK have been about the same size, and for a short while in 2000 SJC was bigger than OAK. In recent years OAK has moved ahead quite a bit in PAX loads from SJC, which I attribute to several reasons, Dot-Com bust, BART close to OAK but not SJC, drive time to Silicon Valley compared to drive time from OAK from the tri-valley, and OAK finally getting the LCC it deserves in WN. OAK's fast growth with respect to SJC I think will slow down now because WN's will not be going through the start-up phase and some of WN's passengers will start flying out of SFO. The Bay area is very fortunate to have three airports nearly perfectly placed geographically. They all draw from nearly equal population base, but IMHO OAK is the most central, followed by SJC and than SFO.

Internationally SFO owns the Bay Area. By all rights OAK should have cracked SFO's monopoly by now, but the name San Francisco is a huge plus for that airport, and now SFO has by far the best infrastructure in the Bay Area, the other two aren't even close. IMHO, both SJC and OAK should get some international flights. SJC should get them because of the large amount of international business taking place in Silicon Valley plus a very wealthy population and huge immigrant populations. On the flip side of the story SFO is close enough to San Jose that an airline loses nothing by using SFO instead of SJC, and the only way I see that lock to be broken is for SFO to become a slot restricted airport.

The long term plan for the Bay Area is not to build any more runway capactity at OAK, SFO or SJC. OAK could add another runway, SJC could move to Moffitt field, and SFO could build out into the bay, but the planners are opposed to that, so High Speed RAil plus pushing air traffic out to SMF and Stockton is considered as the plan for the far future.


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2983 times:

Quoting Juventus (Thread starter):
-Who is California's third busiest airport?
-Who has more International flights, SAN or SJC?
-Who has a better chance of landing an European carrier? I know Aer Lingus is been rumored for SJC
-Potential for growth between these two

The answer is:

SAN
They may be even - haven't seen the recent schedules.
SAN (787)
SAN (as a market)/SJC (as an individual airport)

[Edited 2007-04-26 22:01:08]

User currently offlineBond007 From United States of America, joined Mar 2005, 5398 posts, RR: 8
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 2953 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 10):
They are ranked:

LAX
SFO
SAN
OAK
SJC

Yes, so you're ranking them without cargo flights, OK.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 12):
They may be even - haven't seen the recent schedules.

Yeah, about the same I believe.

Jimbo



I'd rather be on the ground wishing I was in the air, than in the air wishing I was on the ground!
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26376 posts, RR: 76
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 5 days ago) and read 2835 times:

Quoting Juventus (Thread starter):
-Who has more International flights, SAN or SJC?

SAN

Quoting Juventus (Thread starter):
-Who has a better chance of landing an European carrier? I know Aer Lingus is been rumored for SJC

Actually, with the 787 coming on line, SAN probably has the better chance.

Quoting Juventus (Thread starter):
-Potential for growth between these two

SJC has the most growth potential because SAN cannot be expanded. If SAN were moved, the answer would be different.

Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 7):
but San Jose to me is more of a bedroom community of the massive Bay Area

That may have been true 30 years ago, but San Jose has surpassed every city except for San Francisco for importance in the Bay Area. San Jose is larger than San Francisco by more than 200,000 and it is the hub of the Silicon Valley, not to mention attracting cachement from much of the South Bay, East Bay (almost 6 and 1/2 to OAK for many communities) and North Central California.

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 10):
Oakland has two runways

In reality, Oakland only has 1 true commercial runway. Oakland almost operates as 2 seperate airports with 11/29 being almost exclusively commercial traffic. Despite the fact that 9R/27L can be used in a pinch (just under 6300'), its distance from the commercial terminal and complicated taxi means that Oakland functions as a 1 runway airport for commercial flights.

Quoting Coronado990 (Reply 7):
One thing SJC has going for it is being close to San Francisco and Oakland.

You still seem to forget that SJC is larger than either one of those cities and has the Silicon Valley traffic.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineJuventus From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2835 posts, RR: 2
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 2778 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 11):
Actually, with the 787 coming on line, SAN probably has the better chance.

We'll keep our fingers crossed for SAN. Would be great to see one or two 787s at SAN, and with the open skies treaty, anything is possible.


User currently offlineSan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4941 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 21 hours ago) and read 2719 times:

Quoting Juventus (Reply 15):

We'll keep our fingers crossed for SAN. Would be great to see one or two 787s at SAN, and with the open skies treaty, anything is possible.

Exactly. For years, basically since the 787 was first announced, it has been hoped to be SAN's Asian/European savior, and now that Open Skies is in place, our chances only improve!

Strong airline possibilities- NH, BA (if they order it the 787), VS (now that they have).

I'm not sure if airlines like, AF/KL or LH have ordered the 787, if so, add them to the possible list too.



Scotty doesn't know...
User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5354 posts, RR: 12
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2624 times:

Oh man, I thought for sure by now this would be a major "My-CA-city-can-woop-your-CA-city's-butt" thread; it's been a while and I think... no I won't try to start it!

As usual, I agree with Coronado and '7E7 and their comments. Others make good point too.

I have a couple of thoughts on the topic. Both SJ and SD have the size and structure to be "stand-alone" cities yet both are in the shadows of "Big Brother" to the north and both airports suffer for it, especially in the int'l-flight department. SD has the advantage on # pax (as noted earlier in the thread) and # of gates (Lindbergh at 45 and Mineta with 33) while SJ certainly has more growth potential and capacity. If it weren't for the sweet new bird on the horizon, i.e. with the current choice of a/c out there, I would imagine SJ would ultimately prevail.

I agree with all the others saying that (hopefully) the Dreamliner will fly Lindbergh Field into the big leagues (of intercontinental travel!) I have previously (in other threads) stated some of the statistics reported by the SDCRAA concerning SAN and int'l travel and I won't repeat them here but it is one of the ripest markets in the country for long-range intercontinental travel.

SJC of course has 2 major-league airports within about 30-40 miles competing for its business while SAN has one really major-league competitor 100 miles away, plus all the other LA-area airports that offer little that can not be found at SAN other than convenience for those living in North SD County. That has to be considered when trying to compare the futures of both cities.

Quoting San747 (Reply 16):
Strong airline possibilities- NH, BA (if they order it the 787), VS (now that they have).
I'm not sure if airlines like, AF/KL or LH have ordered the 787, if so, add them to the possible list too.

And hey, '747, let's not forget about the American cx ordering the Dream Machine; I think they may have their eyes on our little corner of the world as well!

bb


User currently offlineBoeing7E7 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2621 times:

Quoting San747 (Reply 16):
Exactly. For years, basically since the 787 was first announced, it has been hoped to be SAN's Asian/European savior, and now that Open Skies is in place, our chances only improve!

Western Europe is doable. Asia will come at a fare premium with Tokyo being the most likely market.


User currently offlineSan747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 4941 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 2609 times:

Quoting Boeing7E7 (Reply 18):
Western Europe is doable. Asia will come at a fare premium with Tokyo being the most likely market.

I figure the only flights to Asia that SAN could really support anyway are NRT and MNL, both of which are easily attainable in the future if everything works out right.

I forgot the exact situation that's holding back PR right now (besides a/c)... Something about 5th freedom negotiations?



Scotty doesn't know...
User currently offlineLightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12899 posts, RR: 100
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 2568 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting San747 (Reply 16):
I figure the only flights to Asia that SAN could really support anyway are NRT and MNL, both of which are easily attainable in the future if everything works out right.

SAN has quite a bit of business that is trans-Pacific. But its the runways. Or are you talking a SAN2?

SAN only meets about half of San Diego's demand. 1/4 is met at LAX/ONT and the rest of the people just sit at home going "its not worth braving rush hour to LAX."

SJC is part of a thriving city. But until the terminal is dramatically expanded, it is constrained.

Both airports would expand rapidly after expansion (as would SNA or if LGB if either were allowed).

Let's face it, there are reasons that "California is running out of airport capacity" threads are becoming common.

Long term the state is in trouble. Let's put it this way, I predict a recession; yet its already too late to build the airport capacity that will be needed on the other side of a recession. If I'm wrong... we're doubly constrained on airport capacity.

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineSANMAN66 From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 785 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2436 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

If SAN's hope for intercontinental air service is on the 787, I wonder if the A350 would be able to fly out of Lindbergh without all the weight restrictions,as the 787? This thread has been discussed before, BA dropped service here because
it had to take weight penalties flying the 777. Excuse me for being ignorant on the weight penalty thing, but who imposes these penalties? The FAA? or the SAN Airport Authority?



PSA Gives you a lift!
User currently offlineCoronado990 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 1597 posts, RR: 2
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 2422 times:

Quoting San747 (Reply 19):
figure the only flights to Asia that SAN could really support anyway are NRT and MNL, both of which are easily attainable in the future if everything works out right.

ICN will probably be quite a large superhub in the future. If a 787 could make it there battling headwinds from SAN then that would be a good thing. Probably not, though.

Quoting SANMAN66 (Reply 21):
Excuse me for being ignorant on the weight penalty thing, but who imposes these penalties? The FAA? or the SAN Airport Authority?

Physics. If a 787 can't make it over the Pt. Loma hill with only one engine heading out on departure, then weight needs to be reduced.

[Edited 2007-04-28 18:34:22]


Uncle SAN at your service!
User currently offlineJuventus From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 2835 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (7 years 3 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 2325 times:

Quoting SANMAN66 (Reply 21):
Excuse me for being ignorant on the weight penalty thing, but who imposes these penalties? The FAA? or the SAN Airport Authority?

Combination of Boeing and the FAA. The airplanes come with MTOW (maximum take-off weight), climb and a few other restrictions.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
WestJet To San Diego (SAN) posted Thu Mar 10 2005 20:57:35 by TheHangarCat
San Diego (SAN) Airport Info. posted Wed Jul 25 2001 01:10:04 by QANTAS747-438
San Diego (SAN) Parking Structure posted Wed Aug 9 2000 09:49:16 by B737-112
Volaris Is Marketing San Diego From Tijuana! posted Sun Feb 4 2007 11:37:44 by MXComet4C
Simple And Cheap Solution For San Diego posted Thu Jan 18 2007 02:05:08 by Tommytoyz
Delta 767-400 Flying Patriots To San Diego posted Fri Jan 12 2007 17:06:30 by ChrisNH
Two Airlines Relocating At San Diego Int'l posted Thu Jan 11 2007 02:35:54 by SANFan
Hawaiian Temporarily Suspends San Diego-Maui posted Wed Jan 3 2007 21:46:29 by SDWranglers
Imperial Beach - Why Not For San Diego? posted Thu Dec 28 2006 04:24:22 by Flyf15
2 WN Planes Bump Tails In San Diego posted Wed Dec 27 2006 08:20:13 by Lt-AWACS