scutfarcus
Posts: 363
Joined: Fri May 12, 2000 3:03 pm

OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Sat May 13, 2006 3:44 am

So I was thinking the other day about Midwest Airlines (for whom I have a certain affection) and wondering if they could save money by moving their SFO operations to OAK. Afterall, getting to San Francisco from OAK is practically the same distance/time and it's only slightly farther to get to Silicon Valley from OAK.

My assumption is that the various operational fees at OAK are much cheaper than SFO. Am I right? If so, by how much?

My second assumption is that the "ego value" of flying into SFO continues to be seen as advantageous, and that there is fear that unfamiliar passengers might misunderstand the difference and panic when told that they airline flies to Oakland and not SF.

Personally, I reckon that if it is in fact cheaper to fly to OAK, a small airline like YX really ought to consider it. If properly marketed, most people wouldn't notice the difference.

What do you think?
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Sat May 13, 2006 4:08 am

Don't have the current actual numbers, however have completed analysis comparing the two airports for airlines previously. Besides lower fee structure, OAK also offers other incentives including free advertising etc..

However having said this tough, the new San Francisco mayor, and airport board likewise are soliciting new business aggressively having landed Virgin America, FLYi, Icelandair & Spirit for example.
SFO has seen a damaging decline in traffic the last half decade due to SARS, local economy fall out from the dot.com bust, 9/11, and United's Ch11 filing and subsequent schedule adjustments all while the airport was spending large sums opening new facilities.

Oakland on the other hand has continued to grow steadily thanks primarily to Southwest Airlines.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
SJCRRPAX
Posts: 961
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 2:29 am

RE: OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Sat May 13, 2006 4:33 am

One of my favorite topics, Bay Area Airports. If you are depending upon tourists, and to a certain extent business people (a lot of people fly to SFO do business in the SJC area, but want to hang around a world class city, so they are kind of business-tourists) you will never get them to fly into OAK or SJC --- they want SFO, and you will never convience them that OAK is a good substitute. If your traffic is local all O&D, OAK will beat SFO hands down. OAK is closer to far more people than SFO and is way easier, no damm bridges to go over. This is also an SJC advantage, people can get to SJC from either side of the bay and not cross a bridge.

SFO on the other hand is the bay Area's International Airport. It really has a great location. For the most part the planes can come in over the bay and not disturb a million plus people like an approach to SJC would do, consequently the FF - One-World crowd will drive out of their way to use SFO. And SFO is much better for connecting traffic.

So that's my analysis, if the locals are the only ones on the plane choose SJC or OAK, else SFO is the winner.
 
User avatar
4everRC
Posts: 256
Joined: Sat Jul 12, 2003 7:53 am

RE: OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Sat May 13, 2006 4:35 am

Quoting Laxintl (Reply 1):
However having said this tough, the new San Francisco mayor, and airport board likewise are soliciting new business aggressively having landed Virgin America, FLYi, Icelandair & Spirit for example.

Did I miss something? When did Spirit resume fly to the Bay Area? They used to fly DTW-OAK, but I didn't know they started @ SFO.
Nobody served our republic like Republic!
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Sat May 13, 2006 4:37 am

Quoting 4everRC (Reply 3):
Did I miss something? When did Spirit resume fly to the Bay Area? They used to fly DTW-OAK, but I didn't know they started @ SFO.

Starts 5/25. Airbus red-eye to DTW.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
as739x
Posts: 5001
Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2003 7:23 am

RE: OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Sat May 13, 2006 5:07 am

4everRC:
http://www.spiritair.com/welcome.aspx?pg=routemap_all

Anyone know what terminal at SFO Spirit is using? They still have no info on the website.

ASLAX
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
 
oakjam
Posts: 178
Joined: Fri Jun 24, 2005 9:22 am

RE: OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Sat May 13, 2006 9:50 am

I personally think that OAK is doing a great job at taking the low fare carriers and having them use OAK as their destination point. Oakland is actually better situated than SFO(Millbrae Int'l). Remember SFO is not in San Francisco but actually situated in the suburbs of Millbrae, San Bruno and South San Francisco of which all three are not world class places near the Airport. Just a bunch of dumpy hotels that sprung up because of SFO. SJCRRPAX said that SJC and OAK don't work well I tend to disagree, most people don't care about what's near the Airport, they just care about how far an airport is from SFO. Of all three Airports OAK is the closest to SFO. Silicon Valley has died down from what it used to be. A lot of new job growth in the Bay Area is also in the East Bay. Dude if OAK got a second runway and a new 20 gate terminal I bet they could give SFO a run for their money. And slowly but surely Oakland will get respectability!!!

SJCRRPAX From United States, joined Dec 2005, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted Fri May 12 2006 21:33:14 UTC+2 and read 164 times:

"SFO on the other hand is the bay Area's International Airport. It really has a great location. For the most part the planes can come in over the bay and not disturb a million plus people like an approach to SJC would do, consequently the FF - One-World crowd will drive out of their way to use SFO. And SFO is much better for connecting traffic."
 
midnights
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Aug 18, 2005 11:24 pm

RE: OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Sat May 13, 2006 11:13 am

Rental cars are a little cheaper at OAK.
 
SkyexRamper
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:17 am

RE: OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Sat May 13, 2006 1:19 pm

Quoting Scutfarcus (Thread starter):
small airline like YX really ought to consider it. If properly marketed, most people wouldn't notice the difference.

Midwest serves SFO year round through MCI which is a huge booming city and I'm sure the biz travel on that route is fairly good. Also Midwest will be starting their summer non-stop runs from MKE June 1st for the vacation travelers.
Good Luck to all Skyway Pilots! It's been great working with you!
 
wedgetail737
Posts: 3637
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:44 am

RE: OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Mon May 15, 2006 9:39 am

Quoting AS739X (Reply 5):
Anyone know what terminal at SFO Spirit is using? They still have no info on the website.

ASLAX...NK is using the International Terminal...same as FL.
 
wedgetail737
Posts: 3637
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:44 am

RE: OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Mon May 15, 2006 9:47 am

OAK is getting its fair share of service. Harmony is slated to begin service between OAK-YVR 2X per week with 757's. That's not much, but it's a start. OAK is a respectable gateway for Mexicana. I think MX's service to OAK is larger than SFO. I just wish ZE would increase service.

If Oasis Hong Kong Airlines really does begin service to HKG from OAK, then that could really kick OAK off as a true international gateway, but I think OAK will always be secondary to SFO.

Right now, I think OAK's biggest problem right now is running out of capacity. Once T2's expansion is done, that might (keyword) alleviate traffic at OAK temporarily. It could free up four to five gates in T1. But the likes of B6 and AQ could thwart airline growth once again until further expansion is realized.

That's my 2 cents.
 
BigGSFO
Posts: 2214
Joined: Sun Jun 12, 2005 5:27 am

RE: OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Mon May 15, 2006 9:51 am

Quoting Oakjam (Reply 6):
Remember SFO is not in San Francisco but actually situated in the suburbs of Millbrae, San Bruno and South San Francisco of which all three are not world class places near the Airport. Just a bunch of dumpy hotels that sprung up because of SFO.

Ever see any of the hotels around OAK?  crazy 

OAK has done a fine job at positioning themselves as the LCC hub of Northern California. However security lines are outrageous and until the extra terminal space opens, it is cramped. SFO on the other hand is easier to get from curb to gate, in my opinion, and no Bay Area airport is easier to get on or off the freeway. Of course there are those who argue that the BART SFO extension is not as much of value as others, SFO is the only airport in the area with BART service form the terminals to downtown and beyond.

But assuming all things being equal, yields at SFO are often higher than OAK or SJC. So it depends on what market the airline is wanting to target.
 
wedgetail737
Posts: 3637
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:44 am

RE: OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Mon May 15, 2006 12:37 pm

IMO, the only thing going against SFO are getting to the airport and weather-related delays.

Correct me if I'm wrong, does SFO have noise restrictions that prohibit aircraft like 707's and older DC-8's? I know OAK does not.

With all things aside, I still love OAK because it was my hometown airport.
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Mon May 15, 2006 1:03 pm

Quoting Wedgetail737 (Reply 12):
Correct me if I'm wrong, does SFO have noise restrictions that prohibit aircraft like 707's and older DC-8's? I know OAK does not.

while I don't know about the older aforementioned planes you mentioned, SFO isn't flight restricted....however, SJC is....flying SJC-ORD-SJC enough times, once on my return flight ORD-SJC flight...we departed late and barely made it by the restricted hours..the captain said we might have to divert to SMF of all places..... crazy 
"Up the Irons!"
 
halls120
Posts: 8724
Joined: Sun Jun 05, 2005 3:24 am

RE: OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Mon May 15, 2006 9:39 pm

Quoting Oakjam (Reply 6):
I personally think that OAK is doing a great job at taking the low fare carriers and having them use OAK as their destination point. Oakland is actually better situated than SFO(Millbrae Int'l). Remember SFO is not in San Francisco but actually situated in the suburbs of Millbrae, San Bruno and South San Francisco of which all three are not world class places near the Airport. Just a bunch of dumpy hotels that sprung up because of SFO. SJCRRPAX said that SJC and OAK don't work well I tend to disagree, most people don't care about what's near the Airport, they just care about how far an airport is from SFO. Of all three Airports OAK is the closest to SFO. Silicon Valley has died down from what it used to be. A lot of new job growth in the Bay Area is also in the East Bay. Dude if OAK got a second runway and a new 20 gate terminal I bet they could give SFO a run for their money. And slowly but surely Oakland will get respectability!!!

OAK needs to bulldoze terminal 1 and replace it with something decent. It was never designed to handle TSA security lines, has absolutely pitiful food choices, and getting your luggage upon arrival is the worst I've experienced at any major airport in the US.

Despite all the shortcomings, you are correct about it's location. I almost never use SFO.....

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 11):
Ever see any of the hotels around OAK?

Actually, the hotel situation has improved in the last year. Where there used to be nothing, there are at least two hotels on Hegenberger that are decent.

Quoting BigGSFO (Reply 11):
OAK has done a fine job at positioning themselves as the LCC hub of Northern California. However security lines are outrageous and until the extra terminal space opens, it is cramped. SFO on the other hand is easier to get from curb to gate, in my opinion, and no Bay Area airport is easier to get on or off the freeway.

Problem is, fares to SFO tend to be higher than to OAK.
"Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." Mark Twain, a Biography
 
2travel2know
Posts: 2236
Joined: Sun Apr 10, 2005 7:05 am

RE: OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Mon May 15, 2006 11:49 pm

As for passenger-friendly Port-of-Entry facilities, sure SFO wins hands down over OAK. OAK may be too small for the 2-3 international arrival gates they might have, when all are in use. I could imagine OAK is a mess when those 2-3 flights from Mexico arrive around 2300h.
SJC maybe a very relaxed Port-of-Entry due to the lack of international flights, but after finding out that SJC is a restricted hours airport, it won't be that attractive for those California-Mexico red-eye flights.
I don't work for COPA Airlines!
 
wedgetail737
Posts: 3637
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:44 am

RE: OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Mon May 15, 2006 11:57 pm

Quoting 2travel2know (Reply 15):
As for passenger-friendly Port-of-Entry facilities, sure SFO wins hands down over OAK. OAK may be too small for the 2-3 international arrival gates they might have, when all are in use. I could imagine OAK is a mess when those 2-3 flights from Mexico arrive around 2300h.

I agree. I remember seeing long lines at Gate 1 when both Aerocancun and Martinair were there at the same time. This was before they made Gate 3 an international gate for the Mexican carriers.

I believe Gate 1 is now the only widebody gate at OAK. Gates 4,6,8,12 and 15 all used to be widebody gates, until the Port start cramming more gates into the terminal. Gate 6 may be the only one left for domestic airlines.
 
shane
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 2:38 am

RE: OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Tue May 16, 2006 12:15 am

I live in Oakland but often choose SFO for several reasons:

1. more flight options (I often fly UA and have lots of options)
2. more widebodies (often a 777 from ORD or DEN)
3. BART goes directly to the terminal with no bus
4. lines are often shorter
5. no Soufwurst crowds to deal with
6. UA PS service to JFK!
7. Nonstops to Europa! (does Martinair still come to OAK?)
 
Georgetown
Posts: 280
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:50 pm

RE: OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Tue May 16, 2006 12:49 am

Well, there's two perspectives I guess.

The "resident" perspective basically tends to come down where you're going and where you live in the Bay Area. If you're on the Peninsula, say, from San Carlos north, SFO is going to be best bet. South of San Carlos, SJC is great if you can get a non-stop to where you're going. When I lived in Palo Alto I could be from my front door to the gate in about 25 minutes. Still, there's a lot more options from SFO, such as widebody/P.S. service on UA, etc etc. If you live in the East Bay, OAK is great, although again, more limited in options as compared to SFO. If you're not in the East Bay, it can be a real hassel, especially if there's a lot of traffic. While OAK is closer to the City, the bridge can tack on a lot of time.

As a visitor to the Bay Area (I've been that too) I find SFO to be the overall best - no matter where I'm going. Even if my destination is a meeting in San Jose, it's worth it to pay cab fare to stay in or near San Francisco. From talking to other business travellers, the general consensus I get is that "it would be a shame to be so close to a city like San Francisco and not spend a little time there." For tourists, I think SFO is the obvious choice: it's cheap to get to the City (esp if you take Bart/Caltrain) and a lot more convienent.

Also, until OAK opens up the new terminal, T1 can be a little slice of hell when it's crowded. So much so that I'm willing to pay a marginally higher fare to go into SFO. The same can be said of SJC in many respects, although not to the same extent. In the end, I think SFO, for all its faults, is still the overall best.
Let's go Hoyas!
 
stirling
Posts: 3897
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 2:00 am

RE: OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Tue May 16, 2006 1:06 am

The new International terminal at SFO is real nice...it is vastly superior to Oakland. And then there is BART straight to the terminal, but if you have to go anywhere other than the International terminal, it is quite a hike. (And out of the question if one is partially disabled like myself)

But BART and the new International Terminal aside....OAK will be ultimately more convenient for me, as SJCRRPAX said, no Bridges!
However traffic is still a nightmare coming from Modesto....The hopes are one day we'll have the choices in airline travel becoming of a city with 210,000 residents...until then it's UA/x to SFO, and soon LAX, or schlepp over to a Bay Area airport or Sacramento.

Until the Terminal 2 expansion is done at OAK, are they not technically at capacity? Are there any common use gates? I know the International gates are, but could a domestic airline use one? Like a Spirit or airTran or Midwest?
Delete this User
 
jacobin777
Posts: 12262
Joined: Sat Sep 11, 2004 6:29 pm

RE: OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Tue May 16, 2006 1:28 am

Quoting Stirling (Reply 19):
The new International terminal at SFO is real nice...it is vastly superior to Oakland. And then there is BART straight to the terminal, but if you have to go anywhere other than the International terminal, it is quite a hike. (And out of the question if one is partially disabled like myself)

its not that bad taking the airtrain between the terminals....but I agree...it can get to be a stretch..

that bloody international terminal is too big....put a roller coaster ride in there..
"Up the Irons!"
 
wedgetail737
Posts: 3637
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:44 am

RE: OAK Vs. SFO (Landing, Parking, And Other Fees)

Tue May 16, 2006 4:22 am

Quoting Stirling (Reply 19):
Until the Terminal 2 expansion is done at OAK, are they not technically at capacity? Are there any common use gates? I know the International gates are, but could a domestic airline use one? Like a Spirit or airTran or Midwest?

Well, CO uses gate 3, which is an international gate. I believe gates 8A, 13 and 15 are common-use gates. I've seen DL, B6, AQ and UA use gates 13 and 15. AA and AS uses gate 8A.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot], brajur, giblets, Google Adsense [Bot], intotheair, ish2dachoppa, jamie86, KarelXWB, klwright69, LG777, PM, rebr, redroo, smaragdz, StTim, SyeaphanR, teme82, tootallsd, Vos, warpedreality and 233 guests