copaair737
Posts: 3571
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:00 am

SFO In 2004

Wed Oct 29, 2003 3:54 pm

What new airlines or new routes from existing airlines or added frequencies do you guys see for SFO in 2004? I see EI, VN, GF, EK, if the open skies is okd, and maybe AZ or SK coming, and I think that maybe in Dec we could see SQ's 345 doing nonstops to SIN. I also expect that TZ will open up some new routes. UA could open up AUS, SAT, or BDL nonstops too. Maybe some new STAR carriers will come too, such as TG or BMI. What are your thoughts?
Livin' on Reds, Vitamin C, and Cocaine
 
aaway
Posts: 1243
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 2:07 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Oct 30, 2003 1:39 am

I think most of the new activity at SFO will be of an international flavor. I do not believe UA will open any new domestic routes from SFO in 2004.
"The greatest mistake you can make in life is to continually be afraid you will make one." - Elbert Hubbard
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24724
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Oct 30, 2003 1:50 am

The potential for the airlines you mentioned is definitley there, but they are not all going to show up. I'd say one or two new airlines for SFO in 2004, though it be hard to guess which ones. bmi british midland won't be one of them, however. They are most definitley going to launch Miami or Boston this summer if they decide to add a third U.S. destination.
a.
 
LHR001
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:56 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:08 am

Best Bets-

EI, VN, EK, AZ

Least Likely-

GF, SK, BMI, TG

Aer Lingus, is currently looking at San Francisco. The most recent word is that they have been offered San Jose. San Jose, may only play well if it is built into a One World Hub.. Chances of that -null!

Vietnam Airlines is taking delivery of further 777-200ER and mostly like will be serviing San Francisco by years end 2004!

Emirates, has filed for the service. However, the services to the U.S. are being delayed due to security issues. Most likely cleared up by years end 2004!

Alitalia, has been rumored to be looking at both San Francisco and Washington D.C. Most likely of the two is San Francisco. Alitalia, pulled out due to the ridiculous cargo/pax restrictions on the 767-300. Alitalia, has served the Los Angeles market as well. However, most traffic is from Northern California. Alitalia, will have to wait until sometime in 2004 when the new 777's are recieved!
 
planesarecool
Posts: 3211
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2001 12:37 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Oct 30, 2003 3:02 am

I can't see bmi going there. With destinations of Chicago and Washington, i'm sure they'd be more interested in the east coast and i'm sure there are more important east coast destinations to serve than San Francisco. I can't see Gulf Air going there either. SFO to the Gulf is almost like London to Sydney. It's a long route, and if they did start something like that i'm sure they'd pick Los Angeles over San Francisco.

Aer Lingus looks like a good option though

-Stephen
 
MEA321
Posts: 381
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2003 11:28 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Oct 30, 2003 3:03 am

Scandinavian Airlines was supposed to launch service from Scandinavia (CPH and ARN) to SFO, but after the 11th those plans disappeared. Hopefully as the economy comes back from the recession they might actually start the route.

I dont know much about the demographics of San Francisco in terms of how many Scandinavians there are, but I am sure that tourism would be a primary push for SAS to start this route. San Francisco is beautiful!!
MEA321
 
copaair737
Posts: 3571
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:00 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Oct 30, 2003 7:55 am

I have heard GF in the spring. It will supposedly be routed SFO-GVA-BAH, also JFK-GVA-BAH. It is because of all the silicon valley firms that are helping rebuild Iraq, and they chose GVA because of all the UN firms there. The flights will be timed to connect with the BAH-Iraq flights.
Livin' on Reds, Vitamin C, and Cocaine
 
User avatar
legacyins
Posts: 1836
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 1:11 pm

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Oct 30, 2003 10:13 am

It mystifies me why GF would come to SFO. Just because a few companies have contracts in Iraq, it does not mean the planes will be full. For example, Bechtel Corp of San Francisco is one of the main companies rebuilding Iraq. They have a total of 100 personnel from the San Francisco office in Iraq at one time. All the other employees are from their London and Middle East offices. If all those 100 employees decide to fly back to SFO at one time, it would not even fill up half that A340.

As far as Aer Lingus goes. I was talking with a Customs Officer at SJC today and they are getting word that the city/airport in San Jose is pushing hard for the service. Being that the valley's offices are at about 21% vacant, I hope they are not relying on the business crowd to fill their planes. I also can't imagine that a family in Cork is going to spend their vacation in San Jose.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Oct 30, 2003 10:35 am

MEA321:
I live here in San Francisco. I've dated many, many hot Swedish and Norwegian babes. There is enough demand here in San Francisco to support SAS.
We need more A340 traffic here.
It was sad to see Singapore Air replace the SFO route with 777s.  Sad
The only A340 we get is Air Philipeans(sp). It comes in and leaves under the cloak of darkness.
Bring back the Concorde
 
User avatar
legacyins
Posts: 1836
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 1:11 pm

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Oct 30, 2003 11:22 am

AF flies in their A340 during the winter months. Also, VS is flying in an A340 for a few dates or possibly the winter months.
 
Superfly
Posts: 37735
Joined: Thu May 11, 2000 8:01 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Oct 30, 2003 12:02 pm

Legacyins:
Thanks for the info!
Can't wait!  Smokin cool
Bring back the Concorde
 
copaair737
Posts: 3571
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:00 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Oct 30, 2003 1:10 pm

the US and EU are in open skies talks. It is very likely that the SNN stopover will be dropped, and then EI will be granted the cities they want. It will sure be cool to see the green 330s of EI coming into SFO! I think that SK and TG could come in too. oh, and superfly, if GF does indeed start services in the spring, they too will be flying 343s in.
Livin' on Reds, Vitamin C, and Cocaine
 
SuperDash
Posts: 352
Joined: Sun Sep 07, 2003 1:52 pm

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Oct 30, 2003 1:22 pm

No one can afford SFO. I would bet that San Jose and Oakland win more domestic new routes...Like Horizon's Sun Valley route. But you never know.
 
User avatar
legacyins
Posts: 1836
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 1:11 pm

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Oct 30, 2003 1:35 pm

The SF Airport commission lowered landing fees by 50% to any carrier who started a new route from SFO.

I know there are individuals who would like to see new International air service from Oakland/ San Jose. As we all know, these flights would require Immigration/Customs clearance. Right now, Immigration Officers from the San Francisco airport travel to Oakland/ San Jose to clear those flights. By taking officers from the larger SFO, it slows down the arrivals and processing of passengers at SFO. One day, it could come about that the Customs may say that all international flights land at SFO only. If the manpower is not there, they may use this excuse to staff only one airport.
 
User avatar
RayChuang
Posts: 8028
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2000 7:43 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:10 pm

I definitely see AZ return to SFO in 2004, mostly because AZ knows they can get traffic on the MXP-SFO-MXP route. By using the 777-200ER, AZ can fly this route year-round with no pax/cargo restrictions.  Smile
 
LHR001
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:56 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Oct 30, 2003 2:52 pm


ALITALIA.... please come back!

For domestic flights... lets leave that to OAK and SJC!

AMERICAN AIRLINES.... please switch the SJC-NRT to SFO!



LHR001
 
copaair737
Posts: 3571
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:00 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Oct 30, 2003 3:47 pm

does anyone actually see AA moving the AA), Japan">NRT-SJC flight to SFO? I think it could be logical, as AA has somekind of a feed there, and there would be alot of O and D traffic. SJC has silicon valley though, but maybe SFO could get that. An interesting scenario could be if SFO becomes like the JFK of the west coast with mainly intl traffic, and the domestic feed goes to SJC and OAK.
Livin' on Reds, Vitamin C, and Cocaine
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Oct 30, 2003 5:00 pm

I don't see why AA just doesn't move that 777 svc from SJC to SFO. From SFO Airport..you can get into San Jose faster than you can get into the city of SFO! Why AA doesn't do it (esp. since they shutdown their SJC mini-hub) completely leaves me dumbfounded! It's not like if they left....some other carrier would rush right in to fill the void..(void? what void?)

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24724
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Oct 30, 2003 5:03 pm

does anyone actually see AA moving the AA), Japan">AA), Japan">NRT-SJC flight to SFO? I think it could be logical, as AA has somekind of a feed there, and there would be alot of O and D traffic.

No, it is not happening. Why in the world would American Airlines move from having the only trans-Pacific flight from the San Jose area to a crowded market to compete with ANA, United, Northwest, and JAL from SFO? That is just ridiculous and it would be a stupid move on thier part. And while SFO has "some kind of feed", the AA), Japan">NRT-SJC flight is still mainly O&D, with the limited feed coming from Las Vegas and San Diego, feed that SFO does not have with AA.
a.
 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Oct 30, 2003 5:51 pm

MAH4546 I have to disagree, it isn't stupid at all..those same ODs in SJC will just have to drive a bit further..less than those from the city of SFO to SFO. Plus whatever feed AA has into SJC (and it does has some) can easily be consolidated with AA SFO ops. But I what think AA resents is the influence UA has at SFO. UA's muscle at SFO is unmatched at any airport/carrier in the US. I don't even think AA has a much influence over DFW officials as UA does at SFO. I've never seen anything like it. Perhaps AA enjoys 'running' the show at SJC.


BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
sk945
Posts: 424
Joined: Thu May 09, 2002 6:28 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Oct 30, 2003 6:16 pm

SAS plan to start CPH-SFO were dropped after 911, but also, the reason that there are no plan to start right now, are that the demand for IT-business related travell have dropped, wish from the begining were the main reason to start the SFO route.
 
LHR001
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:56 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Fri Oct 31, 2003 1:03 am

MAH4546,

To clear up your misconseption!

American Airlines has served San Francsico for years!

San Francisco at one time had offer daily 747 service to Chicago, Dallas, Honolulu, and New York!

San Francisco, is much more profitable than San Jose.

American Airlines at SFO-

SFO-BOS
SFO-JFK
SFO-LAX
SFO-MIA
SFO-DFW
SFO-ORD
SFO-HNL
SFO-STL

In addition San Francsico has had widebody aircraft in place where narrowbody aircraft are flying San Jose.

Do you recall the failures in the past with San Jose. And they were very large at that!

SJC-NRT (downgarded to 767-300 during 1990's, lack of demand)
SJC-TPE (lasted only several months on a 777-200)
SJC-CDG (lasted only several months on a 767-300)

American Airlines, has in the past built San Jose, dropped San Jose, built San Jose... and now... drop it may seem is the next course of action.

San Francisco is served by One World airlines -

British Airways - 2 x SFO-LHR
JAL - SFO-NRT

The fact of the matter is that most of American Airlines traffic in San Jose has lower fares, and more of the crowd that would compete with Southwest Airlines rather than United Airlines. There has been a lot of talk in the Bay Area, that SFO is prime to become a Sole-International and Domestic Long-Haul airport. This would leave San Jose and Oakland to fend for the domestic jumps.

People in San Francisco >>> DO NOT <<< like the San Jose airport, it is nearly an hour by car, and most of all only has one route to cling to and tht is the SJC-NRT! You may say the San Jose flight is fed by Las Vegas and San Diego. that is a nice point...

You need to remember the American Airlines SJC-NRT is now in competition with LAX-NRT, ORD-NRT, DFW-NRT, and JFK-NRT!
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24724
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: SFO In 2004

Fri Oct 31, 2003 1:35 am

San Francisco, is much more profitable than San Jose.

And you know this how?


Do you recall the failures in the past with San Jose. And they were very large at that!

SJC-NRT (downgarded to 767-300 during 1990's, lack of demand)
SJC-TPE (lasted only several months on a 777-200)
SJC-CDG (lasted only several months on a 767-300)


And you know that NRT-SJC, which was only flown with MD11s and 772s IIRC, is a failure how? It is still operating, is it not?

San Francisco is served by One World airlines -

British Airways - 2 x SFO-LHR
JAL - SFO-NRT


What's your point? Plus, JAL is not in oneWorld


People in San Francisco >>> DO NOT <<< like the San Jose airport, it is nearly an hour by car, and most of all only has one route to cling to and tht is the SJC-NRT!

NEWS FLASH! People in San Jose >>> DO NOT <<< like San Francisco International Airport, it is nearly an hour by car! And, another news flash, San Jose is the largest city proper in the San Francisco Bay Area, larger than San Francisco or Oakland.

You need to remember the American Airlines SJC-NRT is now in competition with LAX-NRT, ORD-NRT, DFW-NRT, and JFK-NRT!

Your point? The JFK-NRT flight is almost entirely O&D. DFW-NRT has a lot of connecting traffic. LAX-NRT, when it starts, will be almost entirely O&D. ORD-NRT is a big mix of O&D and traffic coming from MIA/Latin America (hence the flight originates in Miami).
a.
 
triscl
Posts: 138
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 4:08 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Fri Oct 31, 2003 1:46 am

MAH4546-

After reading the post, I think what LHR001 means to say is that SFO is much more GLAMOROUS than SJC, rather than profitable. Of course, AA probably cares a little more about the latter. But I too wonder: he knows this how??
 
windshear
Posts: 2261
Joined: Tue Mar 14, 2000 4:45 pm

RE: SFO In 2004

Fri Oct 31, 2003 1:46 am

Well yeah SAS had planned to go to SFO and LAX but those plans are put on hold...

I think DLH, BAW and AFR get all of the west coast/Pacific connections for us Scandinavians so I think SAS needs to be agressive in their offer planning for the routes to SFO/LAX...But there is need for those routes, as many visit California, LAS and the natural reserves and parks in the Utah, Arrizona and California areas!
Also more and more people are interested in going to Australia and Hawaii...Excellent transfer in LAX for those destinations!
That's why I think it's an important route for SAS!

But again the economical slowdown and world crisis, makes this kind of route expansions risky...

But again SAS has declared that the new CPH-SHA will open up in the near future...

So maybe SAS will reinvent the CPH-LAX route and start the CPH/ARN-SFO route?

Boaz...
"If you believe breaking is possible, believe in fixing also"-Rebbe Nachman
 
LHR001
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:56 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Fri Oct 31, 2003 2:28 am

International travelers want San Francisco not San Jose...

the same for

Narita vs. Haneda

Miami vs. Ft. Lauderdale

O Hare vs. Midway

Heathrow vs. Gatwick

Charles de Gaulle vs. Orly

Malpensa vs. Linate

Frankfurt vs. Hahn

American Airlines maylay claim to SJC-NRT.... The problem is that SJC, is an "alternate" not a "major" International Gateway!

The San Jose boom is bye bye..... San Francisco still and always will have the well-heeled, businessman, wealthy, worldly crowd!

Even San Jose lost out to Sacramento for Hawaiian Airlines!

Even San Jose lost out to MartinAir and CorsAir!

Even San Jose lost out to Oakland for Jet Blue!

The 767-300, was used in the mid 1990's when the demand dropped, then it was back to a MD-11 and finally to a 777!

MAH4546..... You are in Sweden???

It is a ways for you to know what is good in the San Francisco and San Jose market!

In addition to your reference to the ORD flight feeding South America, you probably meant DFW, as there are now daily flights to SCL, GRU-GIG, and thrice-weekly service to EZE!

In addition to your reference as to people in San Jose don't want to drive to SFO! When the people in San Jose wanted to go to Taipei and Paris they chose to fly out of SFO! CDG, and TPE were embarrassing cutbacks for American Airlines.

San Jose has the importance of RDU, in the American Airlines route network...
FADED GLORY... ONE ROUTE TO CLING TO!


LHR001
 
User avatar
legacyins
Posts: 1836
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 1:11 pm

RE: SFO In 2004

Fri Oct 31, 2003 4:46 am

The AA AA), Japan">NRT flight has a lot of connecting passengers to LAS and SAN. It will be interesting to see when they start their LAX-AA), Japan">NRT flight next year whether the passengers will choose SJC to connect through or include a couple of days in LA before moving onto SAN or LAS. In my opinion, I think AA will loose a few transit Pax when LAX -AA), Japan">NRT opens up.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24724
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: SFO In 2004

Fri Oct 31, 2003 6:48 am

International travelers want San Francisco not San Jose...


Not if they happen to live in the San Jose area or want to travel from Japan to San Jose.

MAH4546..... You are in Sweden???

It is a ways for you to know what is good in the San Francisco and San Jose market!


From Sweden. I live in Miami and have lived in San Francisco.

In addition to your reference to the ORD flight feeding South America, you probably meant DFW, as there are now daily flights to SCL, GRU-GIG, and thrice-weekly service to EZE!

No, I meant O'Hare. It only takes about an hour extra flying time to fly GRU-MIA-ORD-AA), Japan">NRT than GRU-DFW-AA), Japan">NRT, and most of the Latin American destinations are not served from Dallas (like GIG, which is served from MIA non-stop and JFK via GRU).

In addition to your reference as to people in San Jose don't want to drive to SFO! When the people in San Jose wanted to go to Taipei and Paris they chose to fly out of SFO!

And you know this how?

The AA AA), Japan">AA), Japan">NRT flight has a lot of connecting passengers to LAS and SAN. It will be interesting to see when they start their LAX-AA), Japan">AA), Japan">NRT flight next year whether the passengers will choose SJC to connect through or include a couple of days in LA before moving onto SAN or LAS. In my opinion, I think AA will loose a few transit Pax when LAX -AA), Japan">AA), Japan">NRT opens up.

Yield management will work it all out. LAX-AA), Japan">NRT is meant for the high-yielding customers and mainly O&D. AA's res computers will likely offer a lower fare on LAS-SJC-AA), Japan">NRT than LAS-LAX-AA), Japan">NRT. Same reason for DFW-EZE. Gets rid of low-yielding passengers on MIA-EZE leaving more space for higher-yielding customers who book late.
a.
 
BA
Posts: 10166
Joined: Fri May 19, 2000 11:06 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Fri Oct 31, 2003 7:03 am

International travelers want San Francisco not San Jose...

the same for

Narita vs. Haneda

Miami vs. Ft. Lauderdale

O Hare vs. Midway

Heathrow vs. Gatwick

Charles de Gaulle vs. Orly

Malpensa vs. Linate

Frankfurt vs. Hahn


That's not true. International travelers want whatever is most convenient for them.

Business travelers fly to the airport that is closest to where they will be conducting business. One of the reasons why Washington National (DCA) is incredibly popular is because of its close proximity to the government buildings, making it an outstanding airport for conducting business in the capital for a day, then going back.

San Jose has a lot of computer-related businesses. San Jose Airport actually recieves quite a bit of business travelers.

And you say that people in San Jose avoid SJC and go to SFO instead, not true at all. Infact, I know many people who avoid SFO because of all the congestion and delays it has. SJC is a much smaller airport, has much less traffic and much less congestion. Frontier Airlines has been extremely successful in SJC initially only serving it with Frontier JetExpress CRJs and now serves it with a mix of A319s and CRJs due to high demand. The fact is SJC is very convenient for those that can't stand the congestion of SFO and for those that live closer to SJC.

So like I said in the beginning, international travelers want whatever is most convenient for them.

Nobody ever said SJC is a major international gateway. There is no question about it that SFO is king in the Bay Area, but that doesn't make SJC worthless like you make it sound to be. It's simply an alternative airport.
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
 
mikesairways
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Oct 07, 2003 1:47 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Fri Oct 31, 2003 8:20 am

Watching this has been rather interesting. SJC is my home airport and in all the flying I've done, I've only HAD to fly out of SFO (SFO-HKG-SIN-NRT-SFO)once. If JFK, EWR, and LGA can all share a big chunk of the traffic, I know EWR has quite a few of international flights, why can't SJC? If anything...SJC is the little airport that can. Granted it will never be anything like SFO, nor do I think they want that. But I think international traffic will do quite well here. I think if 9/11 didn't happen, we would still have SJC-TPE and SJC-CDG, and quite possibly could have had and supported a SJC-LHR/LGW.

I know this is not probably accurate, but if you match up our airports compared to the east coast, this is how I would probably see it:

JFK=SFO
LGA=OAK
EWR=SJC
The red zone is for the immediate loading and unloading of passengers only, there is no stopping in the white zone...(Ai
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Fri Oct 31, 2003 8:51 am

If AA had any balls, they'd keep things together in SJC. Its the vastly preferred airport in the region, especially for Asian business travellers as well as the still-not-dead tech sector.

Moving services to SFO would be suicide.

N
 
LHR001
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:56 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:10 am

The problem is AA is serving and trying with San Jose.

United Airlines is serving and expanding with San Francisco.

It is like comparing Heathrow (SFO), to Stansted (SJC)

For all of you San Jose fans, dont forget that Oakland historically has been a first choice for international service over San Jose!

BalAir
CorsAir
MartinAir
Minerve
TowerAir

Oakland is competing head on with San Jose, and they are winning!

Aloha Airlines
Jet Blue
North American Airlines
 
irishpower
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:18 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:17 am

I just read an article that Orient Thai has applied for BKK-SFO and BKK-LAX and they want to start in 2004. I don't know where the technical stop will be. I'm guessing ICN.
 
LHR001
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:56 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Sat Nov 01, 2003 1:23 am

Irishpower,

Thank you for the information. They are also going to be serving New York!

This just goes to show that San Francisco is international and San Jose is domestic.

Orient Thai may change however.

Thai is rumored at serving San Francisco, if that i the case. Orient Thai may look to serve Oakland..
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24724
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: SFO In 2004

Sat Nov 01, 2003 2:15 am

This just goes to show that San Francisco is international and San Jose is domestic.

Kl777jfk, no, it does not. It shows nothing of that sort.
a.
 
macmac76
Posts: 230
Joined: Fri Sep 29, 2000 7:04 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Sat Nov 01, 2003 2:38 am

Before SJC can ever compete with SFO, they need to renovate terminal C. That terminal is a huge embarrassment...still using airstairs? Come on, SJC is in the backyard of Silicon Valley, the technological haven, but SJC is still stuck in the 50s.
 
LHR001
Posts: 966
Joined: Mon Oct 27, 2003 1:56 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Sat Nov 01, 2003 2:42 am

Home Sick for the Silicon Valley???

 
BN747
Posts: 5344
Joined: Thu Mar 28, 2002 5:48 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Sat Nov 01, 2003 3:02 am

JFK=SFO
LGA=OAK
EWR=SJC well it's more like...


JFK=SFO
EWR=OAK
LGA=SJC geogrpahically, because SFO/SJC share the same peninsula as does JFK/LGA. EWR and OAK are both across the bays.

But service-wise as lhr001 says, OAK is kicking SJC's ass..left and right. And the mantra around the bay area is 'who the hell wants to go Oakland for anything? But put San Jose in the mix...and there's a sudden beaten path to get to OAK (if SFO is not a choice).

I would compare SJC with BUR or ONT in SoCal against LAX, but even that is faulty (both are far busier than SJC). Perhaps it's more accurate to say SJC is SFO's LGB. More of a nuisance than anything else. Imagine if AA instead of LAX (Apr 04) offered LGB-AA), Japan">NRT nonstop 777 svc. totally ignoring it's base in LAX....well that's what you currently have in SJC.

BN747
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
 
Tolosy
Posts: 341
Joined: Wed Oct 29, 2003 2:14 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Sat Nov 01, 2003 4:49 am

superfly

You forgot the LH 340 flying daily from Munich

when going home from Sunnyvale to San Francisco, I knew if I was on time or late. If she had already landed.

Sort of my clock  Wink/being sarcastic
 
copaair737
Posts: 3571
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:00 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Sat Nov 01, 2003 10:31 am

SJC is really a pain in the ass to get to. Id fly out of SFO (and I have, numerous times) any day, if that wasnt a choice, OAK would be, because of the convienice of the BART.
Livin' on Reds, Vitamin C, and Cocaine
 
gigneil
Posts: 14133
Joined: Fri Nov 08, 2002 10:25 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Sat Nov 01, 2003 12:36 pm

If you work in San Jose, as most of the economic force in that region does, OAK and SFO are just not an option.

SJC provides convenience. There is no "competition" that SJC is losing.

N
 
copaair737
Posts: 3571
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:00 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Sat Nov 01, 2003 12:40 pm

Does anyone know the status of Orient Thai service to SFO? I heard about it starting soon, but nothing has happened, does anyone know what happened?
Livin' on Reds, Vitamin C, and Cocaine
 
irishpower
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 2:18 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Sat Nov 01, 2003 5:55 pm

Does anyone know the status of Orient Thai service to SFO? I heard about it starting soon, but nothing has happened, does anyone know what happened?

Copaair737--read above.

Comparing SJC to SFO is like comparing SAN to LAX--there is no comparison when it comes to international service.
 
johnboy
Posts: 2561
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 1999 9:09 pm

RE: SFO In 2004

Sat Nov 01, 2003 10:25 pm

Has SJC gotten rid of that ridiculous traffic light/bottleneck at the entrance yet?
 
copaair737
Posts: 3571
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:00 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Sun Nov 02, 2003 10:49 am

LHR001- Where did you hear about TG coming to SFO? If it were to happen, would it be a 744 or a 345? If it were to stop intermediately, I would bet either a point in Japan, HKG, or ICN. Orient Thai at OAK would probably work too.
Livin' on Reds, Vitamin C, and Cocaine
 
User avatar
legacyins
Posts: 1836
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2003 1:11 pm

RE: SFO In 2004

Sun Nov 02, 2003 11:45 am

TG already announced their desire to serve ORD with a new A340-500. I do not think SFO is on the radar screen.
 
copaair737
Posts: 3571
Joined: Sat Aug 30, 2003 5:00 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Sun Nov 02, 2003 5:22 pm

I think the top 3 bets for new service are AZ, VN, and GF.
Livin' on Reds, Vitamin C, and Cocaine
 
AA623BDLSJU
Posts: 346
Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 2:16 am

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Nov 06, 2003 2:43 am

Well duh, AA was going to drop SJC-TPE, SJC-CDG. The service was just so recent when 9/11 happened. Just like every other carrier that had expected new service, they had to drop them. NO ONE wanted to fly and that affected these new flights and all other flights for that matter. If 9/11 never happened te flights would probably would maybe still here. Besides when AA began the SJC-TPE it started out with good flight loads.
 
MAH4546
Posts: 24724
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 1:44 pm

RE: SFO In 2004

Thu Nov 06, 2003 2:46 am

Well duh, AA was going to drop SJC-TPE, SJC-CDG. The service was just so recent when 9/11 happened. Just like every other carrier that had expected new service, they had to drop them. NO ONE wanted to fly and that affected these new flights and all other flights for that matter. If 9/11 never happened te flights would probably would maybe still here. Besides when AA began the SJC-TPE it started out with good flight loads.

SJC-TPE was actualy doing pretty well, SJC-CDG, however, never was a star performer and was on the chopping block even before September 2001.
a.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos