Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
alggag wrote:How often do airliners use the north field runways (if ever)?
alggag wrote:How often do airliners use the north field runways (if ever)?
nine4nine wrote:For one of the highest priced places to live in the US only SJC has a very nice modern airport to offer. Both OAK and SFO are stuck in the Cold War era. Dark gloomy and gray inside and complete dumps.
It always amazes me that you can go to many 3rd world countries who have facilities that blow some of the major US international gateways out of the water.
Jshank83 wrote:nine4nine wrote:For one of the highest priced places to live in the US only SJC has a very nice modern airport to offer. Both OAK and SFO are stuck in the Cold War era. Dark gloomy and gray inside and complete dumps.
It always amazes me that you can go to many 3rd world countries who have facilities that blow some of the major US international gateways out of the water.
Airports really don't have any incentive to improve if it knows it won't make a difference on who flies there. If you are SFO/any major airport you know people are going to add routes and fly there no matter what shape the airport is in. As long as it is functional, the only real incentive you have is to add space for whatever flights want to start or to add more money making stores/resturants. I can't imagine any airline saying they are going to quit flying somewhere because the airport isn't very nice, as long as the demand is there for them to make money they will fly to it.
nine4nine wrote:For one of the highest priced places to live in the US only SJC has a very nice modern airport to offer. Both OAK and SFO are stuck in the Cold War era. Dark gloomy and gray inside and complete dumps.
It always amazes me that you can go to many 3rd world countries who have facilities that blow some of the major US international gateways out of the water.
nine4nine wrote:
Take LGB for example. Before the entry of B6, the city couldn't pay or subsidize anyone except for a few public charter carriers to serve the airport. You had a few dailies on AA and HP, other than that the airport was a ghost town. Because the facilities were lackluster. a turn off to any major carrier even pre-9/11. Now once they've built a nice terminal you have airlines fighting over slots and also brought the entry of WN. So I would say facilities do play a part in service.
Jshank83 wrote:nine4nine wrote:
Take LGB for example. Before the entry of B6, the city couldn't pay or subsidize anyone except for a few public charter carriers to serve the airport. You had a few dailies on AA and HP, other than that the airport was a ghost town. Because the facilities were lackluster. a turn off to any major carrier even pre-9/11. Now once they've built a nice terminal you have airlines fighting over slots and also brought the entry of WN. So I would say facilities do play a part in service.
Did LGB grow because it got better or because LAX was running out of space/was too expensive? (serious question, I don't know). If LAX had the room would those flights be there?
I am also talking more on the larger airport (Top 50 level) scale. Bay Area/LAX/NYC/CHI/etc. To me the demand/bottom line still is what matters for the most part, imo.
nine4nine wrote:Jshank83 wrote:nine4nine wrote:
Take LGB for example. Before the entry of B6, the city couldn't pay or subsidize anyone except for a few public charter carriers to serve the airport. You had a few dailies on AA and HP, other than that the airport was a ghost town. Because the facilities were lackluster. a turn off to any major carrier even pre-9/11. Now once they've built a nice terminal you have airlines fighting over slots and also brought the entry of WN. So I would say facilities do play a part in service.
Did LGB grow because it got better or because LAX was running out of space/was too expensive? (serious question, I don't know). If LAX had the room would those flights be there?
I am also talking more on the larger airport (Top 50 level) scale. Bay Area/LAX/NYC/CHI/etc. To me the demand/bottom line still is what matters for the most part, imo.
LAX still has the room and always has hence why capacity is still constantly added. I know that during those years LGB was being redeveloped both ONT and BUR saw declines in service, so I wouldn't go out on a limb to say it was due to capacity issues at LAX.
i agree with you on the demand/bottom line as a major factor but I'm also saying do not rule out the facilities end of it too. Can the terminal handle a certain number of pax in a gate area, are FIS facilities capable, are there sufficient amenities, connection options? I think if OAK did a major facelift they would appeal much more to the flagship carriers and really optimize what could be a really great alternative to SFO.
nine4nine wrote:For one of the highest priced places to live in the US only SJC has a very nice modern airport to offer. Both OAK and SFO are stuck in the Cold War era. Dark gloomy and gray inside and complete dumps.
It always amazes me that you can go to many 3rd world countries who have facilities that blow some of the major US international gateways out of the water.
SFOtoORD wrote:nine4nine wrote:For one of the highest priced places to live in the US only SJC has a very nice modern airport to offer. Both OAK and SFO are stuck in the Cold War era. Dark gloomy and gray inside and complete dumps.
It always amazes me that you can go to many 3rd world countries who have facilities that blow some of the major US international gateways out of the water.
Not sure what you’re talking about. When were you last there. T2, T3E and Intl terminals at SFO are some of the best in the US. The rest of T3 isn’t bad either and T1 is going through a rebuild. When done they’ll have arguably the best facilities in the US
SFOtoORD wrote:nine4nine wrote:For one of the highest priced places to live in the US only SJC has a very nice modern airport to offer. Both OAK and SFO are stuck in the Cold War era. Dark gloomy and gray inside and complete dumps.
It always amazes me that you can go to many 3rd world countries who have facilities that blow some of the major US international gateways out of the water.
Not sure what you’re talking about. When were you last there. T2, T3E and Intl terminals at SFO are some of the best in the US. The rest of T3 isn’t bad either and T1 is going through a rebuild. When done they’ll have arguably the best facilities in the US
SFOA380 wrote:nine4nine wrote:
For one of the highest priced places to live in the US only SJC has a very nice modern airport to offer. Both OAK and SFO are stuck in the Cold War era. Dark gloomy and gray inside and complete dumps.
It always amazes me that you can go to many 3rd world countries who have facilities that blow some of the major US international gateways out of the water.
You obviously don't fly through SFO too often... On a side note: American carriers are designed to make money and we don't bankrupt our communities to build senseless edifices that proclaim our glory... OAK works perfectly fine. It's a low cost operation and those of us who live here want it to stay that way.
Jshank83 wrote:nine4nine wrote:For one of the highest priced places to live in the US only SJC has a very nice modern airport to offer. Both OAK and SFO are stuck in the Cold War era. Dark gloomy and gray inside and complete dumps.
It always amazes me that you can go to many 3rd world countries who have facilities that blow some of the major US international gateways out of the water.
Airports really don't have any incentive to improve if it knows it won't make a difference on who flies there. If you are SFO/any major airport you know people are going to add routes and fly there no matter what shape the airport is in. As long as it is functional, the only real incentive you have is to add space for whatever flights want to start or to add more money making stores/resturants. I can't imagine any airline saying they are going to quit flying somewhere because the airport isn't very nice, as long as the demand is there for them to make money they will fly to it.
bfitzflyer wrote:Jshank83 wrote:nine4nine wrote:For one of the highest priced places to live in the US only SJC has a very nice modern airport to offer. Both OAK and SFO are stuck in the Cold War era. Dark gloomy and gray inside and complete dumps.
It always amazes me that you can go to many 3rd world countries who have facilities that blow some of the major US international gateways out of the water.
Airports really don't have any incentive to improve if it knows it won't make a difference on who flies there. If you are SFO/any major airport you know people are going to add routes and fly there no matter what shape the airport is in. As long as it is functional, the only real incentive you have is to add space for whatever flights want to start or to add more money making stores/resturants. I can't imagine any airline saying they are going to quit flying somewhere because the airport isn't very nice, as long as the demand is there for them to make money they will fly to it.
I regularly fly out of SFO and outside of terminal 1 which is currently being rebuilt the terminals are far from Dary, gloomy and cold war era. Actually some of the nicer terminal in the US.
alggag wrote:bfitzflyer wrote:Jshank83 wrote:
Airports really don't have any incentive to improve if it knows it won't make a difference on who flies there. If you are SFO/any major airport you know people are going to add routes and fly there no matter what shape the airport is in. As long as it is functional, the only real incentive you have is to add space for whatever flights want to start or to add more money making stores/resturants. I can't imagine any airline saying they are going to quit flying somewhere because the airport isn't very nice, as long as the demand is there for them to make money they will fly to it.
I regularly fly out of SFO and outside of terminal 1 which is currently being rebuilt the terminals are far from Dary, gloomy and cold war era. Actually some of the nicer terminal in the US.
I admit it's been a few years since I went through OAK (the BART people mover was nearing completion but not yet open) and while I wouldn't call it a crystal palace I thought it was pleasant and maybe even a little nice for a second string airport that caters to LCCs and ULCCs.
nine4nine wrote:Other than the recent add of BA you don't see international or domestic carries kicking down the door to get into OAK, even given its geographically closer to downtown San Francisco than SFO and less prone to fog issues. While SFO facilities are nothing close to spectacular they pull all of the domestic and international legacies.
flyrocoak wrote:nine4nine wrote:Other than the recent add of BA you don't see international or domestic carries kicking down the door to get into OAK, even given its geographically closer to downtown San Francisco than SFO and less prone to fog issues. While SFO facilities are nothing close to spectacular they pull all of the domestic and international legacies.
??? Have you been to OAK at all in the last couple years. One terminal is relatively new, the other just remodeled and both are more than adequate for an airport its size. As for domestic carriers not knocking down the door to go there, that's because most of them are already there. United isn't going to return with a hub 10 miles west. As for international, Oakland is doing quite well for being a secondary airport in the region. It's not SFO and never will be. And it's actually a nice airport to boot; not overly large or difficult to navigate, clean, new looking, direct BART access. I'd take OAK any day over SFO - and I just flew both over the last 3 weeks.
barney captain wrote:As a rule, it surprises me how many people from all over the Bay Area seem to not realize the OAK/SJC alternatives - they only think SFO - even coming from East Bay and flying to LA! I love SFO, but as we all know, it can be experiencing 3 hour delays when OAK and SJC are experiencing zero. It's just the nature of the volume and airport arrangement. I remind people routinely that when, especially flying domestic or near-international, to look at the other two airports. And yes, even that equation is now changing with long-haul options available in both airports. Ease of access and very few delays are big reasons to look at SJC and OAK whenever possible.
SFOtoORD wrote:barney captain wrote:As a rule, it surprises me how many people from all over the Bay Area seem to not realize the OAK/SJC alternatives - they only think SFO - even coming from East Bay and flying to LA! I love SFO, but as we all know, it can be experiencing 3 hour delays when OAK and SJC are experiencing zero. It's just the nature of the volume and airport arrangement. I remind people routinely that when, especially flying domestic or near-international, to look at the other two airports. And yes, even that equation is now changing with long-haul options available in both airports. Ease of access and very few delays are big reasons to look at SJC and OAK whenever possible.
Everyone I know in the Bay Area knows about the alternatives at SJC and OAK. Maybe that was true in the mid-90s when WN was in hyper growth mode, but it’s not an issue now. SFOs popularity is not a function of local point-of-sale traffic not knowing the alternatives.
barney captain wrote:SFOtoORD wrote:barney captain wrote:As a rule, it surprises me how many people from all over the Bay Area seem to not realize the OAK/SJC alternatives - they only think SFO - even coming from East Bay and flying to LA! I love SFO, but as we all know, it can be experiencing 3 hour delays when OAK and SJC are experiencing zero. It's just the nature of the volume and airport arrangement. I remind people routinely that when, especially flying domestic or near-international, to look at the other two airports. And yes, even that equation is now changing with long-haul options available in both airports. Ease of access and very few delays are big reasons to look at SJC and OAK whenever possible.
Everyone I know in the Bay Area knows about the alternatives at SJC and OAK. Maybe that was true in the mid-90s when WN was in hyper growth mode, but it’s not an issue now. SFOs popularity is not a function of local point-of-sale traffic not knowing the alternatives.
Everyone you know obviously doesn't represent everyone in the Bay Area.
I've been based in OAK for over twenty years and have lived here for nearly ten. Trust me, I'm constantly "enlightening" people.
Just this summer we had a group of 15 meeting in PVR - all from the east bay. My wife and I were the only ones flying ns out of OAK - even after I educated them. They got to endure over an hour drive and, on the day we all left - they were 2 1/2 hours late due to flow. These people are not novice travellers but simply didn't even consider anything but SFO - even after someone in the industry explained it to them. The "reasoning"? "SFO just seems more like a real airport". The prejudice still exists.
nine4nine wrote:SFOtoORD wrote:nine4nine wrote:For one of the highest priced places to live in the US only SJC has a very nice modern airport to offer. Both OAK and SFO are stuck in the Cold War era. Dark gloomy and gray inside and complete dumps.
It always amazes me that you can go to many 3rd world countries who have facilities that blow some of the major US international gateways out of the water.
Not sure what you’re talking about. When were you last there. T2, T3E and Intl terminals at SFO are some of the best in the US. The rest of T3 isn’t bad either and T1 is going through a rebuild. When done they’ll have arguably the best facilities in the US
I was connecting thru SFO in September. The UA terminal was a disappointment. Hasn't changed since the days I flew thru there as a kid in the mid 90's. I'd rate it on par with LAX T3. I'm not going to agree with SFO being one of the best facilities in the US.
A good number of you who aren't pilots or actually working for an airline but are posting on here are armchair aviation know it all's. I fly for business for a living. I see airports in all parts of the world on the regular. A lot of what I post are observations from a seasoned flyer not someone who takes a flight twice a year cross state lines to visit grandma. Us frequent flyers do discuss planes, airports, etc....at the gates or on the plane and we do have opinions and observations. Sometimes not accurate but none the less not out of touch.
friendlyskies22 wrote:Re: OAK, what's happening with the old World 747 hangar?
barney captain wrote:SFOtoORD wrote:barney captain wrote:As a rule, it surprises me how many people from all over the Bay Area seem to not realize the OAK/SJC alternatives - they only think SFO - even coming from East Bay and flying to LA! I love SFO, but as we all know, it can be experiencing 3 hour delays when OAK and SJC are experiencing zero. It's just the nature of the volume and airport arrangement. I remind people routinely that when, especially flying domestic or near-international, to look at the other two airports. And yes, even that equation is now changing with long-haul options available in both airports. Ease of access and very few delays are big reasons to look at SJC and OAK whenever possible.
Everyone I know in the Bay Area knows about the alternatives at SJC and OAK. Maybe that was true in the mid-90s when WN was in hyper growth mode, but it’s not an issue now. SFOs popularity is not a function of local point-of-sale traffic not knowing the alternatives.
Everyone you know obviously doesn't represent everyone in the Bay Area.
I've been based in OAK for over twenty years and have lived here for nearly ten. Trust me, I'm constantly "enlightening" people.
Just this summer we had a group of 15 meeting in PVR - all from the east bay. My wife and I were the only ones flying ns out of OAK - even after I educated them. They got to endure over an hour drive and, on the day we all left - they were 2 1/2 hours late due to flow. These people are not novice travellers but simply didn't even consider anything but SFO - even after someone in the industry explained it to them. The "reasoning"? "SFO just seems more like a real airport". The prejudice still exists.
nine4nine wrote:SFOtoORD wrote:nine4nine wrote:For one of the highest priced places to live in the US only SJC has a very nice modern airport to offer. Both OAK and SFO are stuck in the Cold War era. Dark gloomy and gray inside and complete dumps.
It always amazes me that you can go to many 3rd world countries who have facilities that blow some of the major US international gateways out of the water.
Not sure what you’re talking about. When were you last there. T2, T3E and Intl terminals at SFO are some of the best in the US. The rest of T3 isn’t bad either and T1 is going through a rebuild. When done they’ll have arguably the best facilities in the US
I was connecting thru SFO in September. The UA terminal was a disappointment. Hasn't changed since the days I flew thru there as a kid in the mid 90's. I'd rate it on par with LAX T3. I'm not going to agree with SFO being one of the best facilities in the US.
A good number of you who aren't pilots or actually working for an airline but are posting on here are armchair aviation know it all's. I fly for business for a living. I see airports in all parts of the world on the regular. A lot of what I post are observations from a seasoned flyer not someone who takes a flight twice a year cross state lines to visit grandma. Us frequent flyers do discuss planes, airports, etc....at the gates or on the plane and we do have opinions and observations. Sometimes not accurate but none the less not out of touch.
wedgetail737 wrote:I think the only near-term expansion you'll see is an addition of another jetway behind Gate 1, dubbed Gate 1A. It's visible from where the old Gate 18 used to be. The last time ever saw any airline use Gate 1A was Aerocancun because it arrived around the same time as Martinair, whose 747-200 used Gate 1.
During the 1980's and 1990's, there had been strong rumors of the port replacing the current cargo facility with a new terminal. Another discussion involved lengthening Terminal 2 for Southwest.
But nothing concrete yet. The FIS at OAK is apparently not adequate to handle the international capacity.
I fly for business for a living. I see airports in all parts of the world on the regular. A lot of what I post are observations from a seasoned flyer not someone who takes a flight twice a year cross state lines to visit grandma.
Us frequent flyers do discuss planes, airports, etc....at the gates or on the plane and we do have opinions and observations.
It always amazes me that you can go to many 3rd world countries who have facilities that blow some of the major US international gateways out of the water.
nine4nine wrote:even given its geographically closer to downtown San Francisco than SFO
Aeroflot777 wrote:A family member flew into OAK on Norwegian the other day, coming from CPH. They waited 40 minutes after landing for an international gate to open up. The crew onboard said these delays are now almost a daily occurrence. With Norwegian, British and Level operating TATL services, seems like the gate capacity is limited.
What are the plans to ease this congestion?
ucdtim17 wrote:Full international arrivals expansion is opening next month
Aeroflot777 wrote:A family member flew into OAK on Norwegian the other day, coming from CPH. They waited 40 minutes after landing for an international gate to open up. The crew onboard said these delays are now almost a daily occurrence. With Norwegian, British and Level operating TATL services, seems like the gate capacity is limited.
What are the plans to ease this congestion?
Aeroflot777 wrote:A family member flew into OAK on Norwegian the other day, coming from CPH. They waited 40 minutes after landing for an international gate to open up. The crew onboard said these delays are now almost a daily occurrence. With Norwegian, British and Level operating TATL services, seems like the gate capacity is limited.
What are the plans to ease this congestion?