(I’m new to this so please tell me if I’m doing something wrong)
I saw on a thread here (the Lufthansa SJC inauguration one) that EVA air was “hinting” to staff that one of their new Dreamliner’s destinations would be SJC. Is there any more proof? Rumors?

From what I’ve gathered it’s highly likely/coming very soon. The market to Asia from San José and the Bay Area in general is huge, if EVA starts flights I could see connections to Vietnam, India, and the Philippines (3 underserved yet huge routes for residents here). BR has 787s about to be delivered right now, the 787 serves 3/4 of the long haul routes from SJC. And this is far fetched but EVA air ads have been popping up on the light rail system. All these lead me to believe that they’ll be joining the SJC family quite soon

I suspect it’s possible. West coast cities tend to be at the front of the line when attracting Asian airlines.

Doesn’t CA pulling out of SJC indicate that it’s not as popular of a market to Asia as they’d hoped?

If they couldn’t make it work out of SJC with a 787 and their dirt cheap fares then how could BR?

BR just went from 14x to 18x at SFO and then 18x to 21x at SFO a week. As much as I would like to see them at SJC, I would have expected them to do so before going 3x daily at SFO. Given they are in Star Alliance and that Air China has to pull out, I am not so sure they or anyone else will be trying SJC-Asia anytime soon. NH seems to have that route locked down.

BayAreaFan0 wrote:

BR just went from 14x to 18x at SFO and then 18x to 21x at SFO a week. As much as I would like to see them at SJC, I would have expected them to do so before going 3x daily at SFO. Given they are in Star Alliance and that Air China has to pull out, I am not so sure they or anyone else will be trying SJC-Asia anytime soon. NH seems to have that route locked down.

What if BR took one of the daily frequencies from SFO and moved it to SJC? Sort of what EK did with EWR/JFK. I could see it work with the connections on the TPE side. If the frequencie wasnt daily BR could go back to 18x out of SFO and 3x out of SJC to try it out first before going daily.

Cheers from EWR

The new CEO (well the latest one) is very conservative in open up new routes, I doubt he would want to take the risk.

But again previous CEO ordered a LOT of new WB aircraft from Boeing and they have be deployed into somewhere.

a19901213 wrote:

The new CEO (well the latest one) is very conservative in open up new routes, I doubt he would want to take the risk.

But again previous CEO ordered a LOT of new WB aircraft from Boeing and they have be deployed into somewhere.

They recently just switched in January to a new president(airline does not have a “CEO” position), who seems more keen on opening more routes.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

Doesn’t CA pulling out of SJC indicate that it’s not as popular of a market to Asia as they’d hoped?

If they couldn’t make it work out of SJC with a 787 and their dirt cheap fares then how could BR?

CA pulled out because their 787 fleet was having problems, not because passenger count was low, they were using the A330. Also I think I messed up how many international flights with the 787 go out of SJC on my original comment; there’s 1 to Beijing on HU, 1 to Heathrow on BA, and 1 to Narita on NH, the other 2 long haul flights are an a330 to Shanghai for CA and an a340 to Frankfurt on LH

BayAreaFan0 wrote:

BR just went from 14x to 18x at SFO and then 18x to 21x at SFO a week. As much as I would like to see them at SJC, I would have expected them to do so before going 3x daily at SFO. Given they are in Star Alliance and that Air China has to pull out, I am not so sure they or anyone else will be trying SJC-Asia anytime soon. NH seems to have that route locked down.

I suspect they’ll shift 1 flight from SFO to SJC or just have a non daily flight to SJC. Also CA pulled out not because of passenger count or loss but because they needed the a330 serving the route to replace a broken 787. But I think NH and HU can be disrupted if BR plays it smart and aims towards passengers connecting onwards (something Hainan and ANA haven’t cought onto)

If there is a possibility of a new Taiwanese carrier to SJC, I would put my money on Starlux.

hayzel777 wrote:

a19901213 wrote:

The new CEO (well the latest one) is very conservative in open up new routes, I doubt he would want to take the risk.

But again previous CEO ordered a LOT of new WB aircraft from Boeing and they have be deployed into somewhere.

They recently just switched in January to a new president(airline does not have a “CEO” position), who seems more keen on opening more routes.

Sorry for my mistake on the position but I don’t seem to find any news on the new president?

I mean it would be great news if it was true...

legacyins wrote:

If there is a possibility of a new Taiwanese carrier to SJC, I would put my money on Starlux.

well its going to be a while because they dont get their A350s , if ever, till end 2021!
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 81083.html

Delta757MD88 wrote:

BayAreaFan0 wrote:

BR just went from 14x to 18x at SFO and then 18x to 21x at SFO a week. As much as I would like to see them at SJC, I would have expected them to do so before going 3x daily at SFO. Given they are in Star Alliance and that Air China has to pull out, I am not so sure they or anyone else will be trying SJC-Asia anytime soon. NH seems to have that route locked down.

What if BR took one of the daily frequencies from SFO and moved it to SJC? Sort of what EK did with EWR/JFK. I could see it work with the connections on the TPE side. If the frequencie wasnt daily BR could go back to 18x out of SFO and 3x out of SJC to try it out first before going daily.

Cheers from EWR

It would all depend on the timing of the flight leaving SJC and reaching TPE for connections and aircraft (787/A350)

CI right now is trying to course correct with their ONT flights since they screwed up with introducing daytime flights since they dumped nearly all of their connecting traffic by only focusing on O&D traffic. Then, those who wanted to leave from ONT couldn't due to long connecting times in TPE.

CI has gone ahead and swap aircraft (A350 - starting on OCT28) re-timed the departure to late nights to grab that connecting traffic, plus try siphon some traffic from BR to CI due to ONT being far nearer to the cities were Asian (Chinese/Taiwanese/Filipino) community live in.

It could be done, though BR better not do the same mistakes that CI did in ONT.

If CI can make ONT work, then there is no reason that SJC with its proximity to the tech world, will not be able to make SJC a winner.

Dragonlionting wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

Doesn’t CA pulling out of SJC indicate that it’s not as popular of a market to Asia as they’d hoped?

If they couldn’t make it work out of SJC with a 787 and their dirt cheap fares then how could BR?

CA pulled out because their 787 fleet was having problems, not because passenger count was low, they were using the A330. Also I think I messed up how many international flights with the 787 go out of SJC on my original comment; there’s 1 to Beijing on HU, 1 to Heathrow on BA, and 1 to Narita on NH, the other 2 long haul flights are an a330 to Shanghai for CA and an a340 to Frankfurt on LH

Although the reason CA pulled out did relate to 787 engine issues, PVG-SJC was also one of their worst performing long-haul flights and hence the cut.

Michael

trex8 wrote:

legacyins wrote:

If there is a possibility of a new Taiwanese carrier to SJC, I would put my money on Starlux.

well its going to be a while because they dont get their A350s , if ever, till end 2021!
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-release ... 81083.html

My point exactly, it will be a while. BR just increased their SFO flights to 3 daily. It is very unlikely they will reduce to start a SJC flight. BR only has 4 787-9 on order and I believe they will be used elsewhere than starting a SJC route. Their 797-10 won’t come on property for a few years.

Dragonlionting wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

Doesn’t CA pulling out of SJC indicate that it’s not as popular of a market to Asia as they’d hoped?

If they couldn’t make it work out of SJC with a 787 and their dirt cheap fares then how could BR?

CA pulled out because their 787 fleet was having problems, not because passenger count was low, they were using the A330. Also I think I messed up how many international flights with the 787 go out of SJC on my original comment; there’s 1 to Beijing on HU, 1 to Heathrow on BA, and 1 to Narita on NH, the other 2 long haul flights are an a330 to Shanghai for CA and an a340 to Frankfurt on LH

It was both.

SJC-PVG was not performing well. IIRC, the LF was in the 60s.

Dragonlionting wrote:

BayAreaFan0 wrote:

BR just went from 14x to 18x at SFO and then 18x to 21x at SFO a week. As much as I would like to see them at SJC, I would have expected them to do so before going 3x daily at SFO. Given they are in Star Alliance and that Air China has to pull out, I am not so sure they or anyone else will be trying SJC-Asia anytime soon. NH seems to have that route locked down.

I suspect they’ll shift 1 flight from SFO to SJC or just have a non daily flight to SJC. Also CA pulled out not because of passenger count or loss but because they needed the a330 serving the route to replace a broken 787. But I think NH and HU can be disrupted if BR plays it smart and aims towards passengers connecting onwards (something Hainan and ANA haven’t cought onto)

Doesn’t EVA have a connecting hub at TPE? Wouldn’t the combination of P2P tech traffic and onward connecting traffic make this a possibility? Did CI have much connections at Shanghai?

Antarius wrote:

It was both.

SJC-PVG was not performing well. IIRC, the LF was in the 60s.

The fares were tempting but the reviews were so horrid that I spent more money to drive to SFO and fly EVA.

I could see it happening with a 787 with EVA. EVA's product is much nicer and the kind of people who would fly out to Asia from SJC (predominantly very well off people in the tech world) would be willing to drive to SFO instead of flying out of SJC for a nicer flight (the product on CA is not very nice in comparison to BR's product on the 777 for example). If EVA opened up they would be able to capture the business market to Taipei and the connections out of TPE onwards to other destinations in Asia.

mham001 wrote:

Antarius wrote:

It was both.

SJC-PVG was not performing well. IIRC, the LF was in the 60s.

The fares were tempting but the reviews were so horrid that I spent more money to drive to SFO and fly EVA.

I can’t speak for CA, but HU and NH are quality airlines.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

Doesn’t CA pulling out of SJC indicate that it’s not as popular of a market to Asia as they’d hoped?

If they couldn’t make it work out of SJC with a 787 and their dirt cheap fares then how could BR?

I live 10 mins from SJC and I would rather fly United out of SFO than CA out of SJC. In J, the seats are similar with an edge to UA, but SFO has the Polaris lounge. In Y, most UA FF will prefer E+ on UA metal for 12+ hours, and there are two UA metal options out of SFO. Lastly, CA has an even worse reputation than United.

a19901213 wrote:

hayzel777 wrote:

a19901213 wrote:

The new CEO (well the latest one) is very conservative in open up new routes, I doubt he would want to take the risk.

But again previous CEO ordered a LOT of new WB aircraft from Boeing and they have be deployed into somewhere.

They recently just switched in January to a new president(airline does not have a “CEO” position), who seems more keen on opening more routes.

Sorry for my mistake on the position but I don’t seem to find any news on the new president?
I mean it would be great news if it was true...

Clay Sun(formerly EVP of the Passenger Management Division) became President in January. The Chairman remains the same(very hands off guy). He’s now looking at Penang, restarting Yangon, and they are studying India(but are somewhat reluctant due to “geopolitical risk” and the low yields).

He has also been very good at managing costs and maintaining yields. The yield of BR has been plummeting the last 2 years, but is now on the incline(up ~3%) despite the increased fuel costs.

http://www.evaair.com/en-global/about-e ... -chen.html

SJC-PVG needed to work on O/D only. CA doesnt have much of a connecting network at PVG- most of their destinations there are long-haul. Looking up random domestic transfers from PVG on CA few if any had timely connections from the SJC-PVG arrival at 15:10.

I agree CI made a big mistake arriving the ONT-TPE flight at 20:55 with no onward connection possibilities. That probably makes it a certainty the BR SJC-TPE flight will be an overnight. I assume TPE has gate capacity to fit more morning flights?

GoSharks wrote:

I live 10 mins from SJC and I would rather fly United out of SFO than CA out of SJC. In J, the seats are similar with an edge to UA, but SFO has the Polaris lounge.

I'm curious about this as I've never enjoyed an airport lounge. What do you do in the lounge? Do you have to arrive early to use it or does it offer faster passage to the plane? What are the benefits?

mham001 wrote:

GoSharks wrote:

I live 10 mins from SJC and I would rather fly United out of SFO than CA out of SJC. In J, the seats are similar with an edge to UA, but SFO has the Polaris lounge.

I'm curious about this as I've never enjoyed an airport lounge. What do you do in the lounge? Do you have to arrive early to use it or does it offer faster passage to the plane? What are the benefits?

I don't see the value on the Origin side much. For a layover, it is nice to enjoy and at a destination the arrivals lounge makes sense if you need to shower, change and go to a meeting. On the origin side though, meh. If there is a delay, then it is helpful but for 99% of my flying, there is no point in showing up early to a lounge*

*exception being JFK/east coast. Where the flight to Europe is short, so eat in the lounge and sleep on the flight.

We have to remember that SJC has curfew, so it makes red-eye back to TPE for BR impossible, or at undesirable timing (3-4am TPE time) They have to do a morning flight out of TPE and departure time at SJC noon-ish to arrive TPE before 6pm for the second bank of connections to BKK/MNL/SGN and HKG+ICN. But compared to CA at PVG, I think BR would stand a much better chance to make SJC work. Most engineers on business trips to TPE or onward travel at least in PE class or above so should be pretty premium.. However, rumors that BR's 789 does not have PE may indicate that they have no plan to do this SJC... unless they do 2 configs on their 78X to include PE...

Antarius wrote:

mham001 wrote:

GoSharks wrote:

I live 10 mins from SJC and I would rather fly United out of SFO than CA out of SJC. In J, the seats are similar with an edge to UA, but SFO has the Polaris lounge.

I'm curious about this as I've never enjoyed an airport lounge. What do you do in the lounge? Do you have to arrive early to use it or does it offer faster passage to the plane? What are the benefits?

I don't see the value on the Origin side much. For a layover, it is nice to enjoy and at a destination the arrivals lounge makes sense if you need to shower, change and go to a meeting. On the origin side though, meh. If there is a delay, then it is helpful but for 99% of my flying, there is no point in showing up early to a lounge*

*exception being JFK/east coast. Where the flight to Europe is short, so eat in the lounge and sleep on the flight.

Normally I would agree, but Polaris at SFO offers restaurant quality dining. I would put it at $20-30/main level. I much rather eat there than somewhere else on the way to the airport, or be stuck with what's on the plane.

AirFiero wrote:

Dragonlionting wrote:

BayAreaFan0 wrote:

BR just went from 14x to 18x at SFO and then 18x to 21x at SFO a week. As much as I would like to see them at SJC, I would have expected them to do so before going 3x daily at SFO. Given they are in Star Alliance and that Air China has to pull out, I am not so sure they or anyone else will be trying SJC-Asia anytime soon. NH seems to have that route locked down.

I suspect they’ll shift 1 flight from SFO to SJC or just have a non daily flight to SJC. Also CA pulled out not because of passenger count or loss but because they needed the a330 serving the route to replace a broken 787. But I think NH and HU can be disrupted if BR plays it smart and aims towards passengers connecting onwards (something Hainan and ANA haven’t cought onto)

Doesn’t EVA have a connecting hub at TPE? Wouldn’t the combination of P2P tech traffic and onward connecting traffic make this a possibility? Did CI have much connections at Shanghai?

While I would love to see them at SJC, I just feel the likelihood is fairly low. With them increasing at SFO I don't see why they would suddenly pull a flight to take a chance on SJC. If they are increasing at SFO they presumably are doing well there and why fix something that isn't broken?

BayAreaFan0 wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Dragonlionting wrote:

I suspect they’ll shift 1 flight from SFO to SJC or just have a non daily flight to SJC. Also CA pulled out not because of passenger count or loss but because they needed the a330 serving the route to replace a broken 787. But I think NH and HU can be disrupted if BR plays it smart and aims towards passengers connecting onwards (something Hainan and ANA haven’t cought onto)

Doesn’t EVA have a connecting hub at TPE? Wouldn’t the combination of P2P tech traffic and onward connecting traffic make this a possibility? Did CI have much connections at Shanghai?

While I would love to see them at SJC, I just feel the likelihood is fairly low. With them increasing at SFO I don't see why they would suddenly pull a flight to take a chance on SJC. If they are increasing at SFO they presumably are doing well there and why fix something that isn't broken?

Other airlines have. This airline might decide there is a market to be tapped. We’ll see.

AirFiero wrote:

BayAreaFan0 wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Doesn’t EVA have a connecting hub at TPE? Wouldn’t the combination of P2P tech traffic and onward connecting traffic make this a possibility? Did CI have much connections at Shanghai?

While I would love to see them at SJC, I just feel the likelihood is fairly low. With them increasing at SFO I don't see why they would suddenly pull a flight to take a chance on SJC. If they are increasing at SFO they presumably are doing well there and why fix something that isn't broken?

Other airlines have. This airline might decide there is a market to be tapped. We’ll see.

What airline has a recent increase at SFO to only pull the increase to move it to SJC or OAK? I can't think of any off the top of my head. ANA never had a second flight at SFO and BA never had a 3rd flight at SFO. Those were added to compliment their SFO operations. Like I said, I would love to see EVA at SJC, but I don't see why they would increase at SFO just last month to only pull the increase to move to another airport. To me that doesn't make sense. If they were gonna do it I would have expected them not to increase at SFO and to have just started flying at SJC.

Airlines just seem to do well at SFO so it seems like they have a hard to being convinced to start service at SJC or OAK where they would likely to decently as well.

BayAreaFan0 wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

BayAreaFan0 wrote:

While I would love to see them at SJC, I just feel the likelihood is fairly low. With them increasing at SFO I don't see why they would suddenly pull a flight to take a chance on SJC. If they are increasing at SFO they presumably are doing well there and why fix something that isn't broken?

Other airlines have. This airline might decide there is a market to be tapped. We’ll see.

What airline has a recent increase at SFO to only pull the increase to move it to SJC or OAK? I can't think of any off the top of my head. ANA never had a second flight at SFO and BA never had a 3rd flight at SFO. Those were added to compliment their SFO operations. Like I said, I would love to see EVA at SJC, but I don't see why they would increase at SFO just last month to only pull the increase to move to another airport. To me that doesn't make sense. If they were gonna do it I would have expected them not to increase at SFO and to have just started flying at SJC.

Airlines just seem to do well at SFO so it seems like they have a hard to being convinced to start service at SJC or OAK where they would likely to decently as well.

I wasn’t implying that. Other airlines have service with multiple flights and often competing airlines on routes at SFO. It’s possible SJC could gain service. But I think you are correct that getting a new fight at SJC after an airline increases SFO means decreased odds for SJC.

If I remember, AA at least announced if not flew, SJC - TPE for a year or so in the early 90's. Different times, but SJC always seems to ride business cycles hard so wouldn't last an economic down turn for sure,.

bfitzflyer wrote:

If I remember, AA at least announced if not flew, SJC - TPE for a year or so in the early 90's. Different times, but SJC always seems to ride business cycles hard so wouldn't last an economic down turn for sure,.

It was for six months during 2001. AA started and ended TPE and CDG from SJC on the same dates.

BoeingGuy wrote:

bfitzflyer wrote:

If I remember, AA at least announced if not flew, SJC - TPE for a year or so in the early 90's. Different times, but SJC always seems to ride business cycles hard so wouldn't last an economic down turn for sure,.

It was for six months during 2001. AA started and ended TPE and CDG from SJC on the same dates.

The 9/11 downturn killed both. Then AA later de-hubbed.

BoeingGuy wrote:

bfitzflyer wrote:

If I remember, AA at least announced if not flew, SJC - TPE for a year or so in the early 90's. Different times, but SJC always seems to ride business cycles hard so wouldn't last an economic down turn for sure,.

It was for six months during 2001. AA started and ended TPE and CDG from SJC on the same dates.

April 1, 2001... they made a big deal out of it.


Pretty sure you can guess how/why they both ended at the same time on the same day.

AirFiero wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

bfitzflyer wrote:

If I remember, AA at least announced if not flew, SJC - TPE for a year or so in the early 90's. Different times, but SJC always seems to ride business cycles hard so wouldn't last an economic down turn for sure,.

It was for six months during 2001. AA started and ended TPE and CDG from SJC on the same dates.

The 9/11 downturn killed both. Then AA later de-hubbed.

9/11 didn't help but the runways at the time were shorter and the planes were forced to fly without a full load. Trans-oceanic was marginal to start with so any disruption was fatal. The economics today are far different. For example the #1 and #2 largest companies in the US by revenue are in the same county as SJC. Samsung recently opened a 1,000,000 sqft office complex just north of the airport. SF used to be the financial hub of the bay area but Santa Clara now holds that title. This does not diminish SFO but enhances SJC.

atypical wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

It was for six months during 2001. AA started and ended TPE and CDG from SJC on the same dates.

The 9/11 downturn killed both. Then AA later de-hubbed.

9/11 didn't help but the runways at the time were shorter and the planes were forced to fly without a full load. Trans-oceanic was marginal to start with so any disruption was fatal. The economics today are far different. For example the #1 and #2 largest companies in the US by revenue are in the same county as SJC. Samsung recently opened a 1,000,000 sqft office complex just north of the airport. SF used to be the financial hub of the bay area but Santa Clara now holds that title. This does not diminish SFO but enhances SJC.

Actually the runways had already been extended by then. The runways had not yet been extended when SJC-NRT started, which caused performance issues with the DC-10.

I heard TPE had good loads, but CDG did not.

BayAreaFan0 wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

BayAreaFan0 wrote:

While I would love to see them at SJC, I just feel the likelihood is fairly low. With them increasing at SFO I don't see why they would suddenly pull a flight to take a chance on SJC. If they are increasing at SFO they presumably are doing well there and why fix something that isn't broken?

Other airlines have. This airline might decide there is a market to be tapped. We’ll see.

What airline has a recent increase at SFO to only pull the increase to move it to SJC or OAK? I can't think of any off the top of my head. ANA never had a second flight at SFO and BA never had a 3rd flight at SFO. Those were added to compliment their SFO operations. Like I said, I would love to see EVA at SJC, but I don't see why they would increase at SFO just last month to only pull the increase to move to another airport. To me that doesn't make sense. If they were gonna do it I would have expected them not to increase at SFO and to have just started flying at SJC.

Airlines just seem to do well at SFO so it seems like they have a hard to being convinced to start service at SJC or OAK where they would likely to decently as well.

I was actually thinking about this like a situation when BA moved in. The market from Bay Area to the UK before was BA from SFO 2x daily, Virgin Atlantic 2x daily, and United daily I believe. BA still added Sjc without decreasing service around sfo. Nowadays it’s BA 2x daily from sfo, 3x weekly from OAK (ending soon, rip), and 1x daily from SJC. Virgin Atlantic has 2x daily from SFO and a few times weekly to Manchester. Thomas Cook has a few times weekly from SFO to MAN, United has 2x daily to LHR, ans nowegian has a few Times weekly from OAK to Gatwixk. None of this stopped SJC from being a success

Dragonlionting wrote:

BayAreaFan0 wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Other airlines have. This airline might decide there is a market to be tapped. We’ll see.

What airline has a recent increase at SFO to only pull the increase to move it to SJC or OAK? I can't think of any off the top of my head. ANA never had a second flight at SFO and BA never had a 3rd flight at SFO. Those were added to compliment their SFO operations. Like I said, I would love to see EVA at SJC, but I don't see why they would increase at SFO just last month to only pull the increase to move to another airport. To me that doesn't make sense. If they were gonna do it I would have expected them not to increase at SFO and to have just started flying at SJC.

Airlines just seem to do well at SFO so it seems like they have a hard to being convinced to start service at SJC or OAK where they would likely to decently as well.

I was actually thinking about this like a situation when BA moved in. The market from Bay Area to the UK before was BA from SFO 2x daily, Virgin Atlantic 2x daily, and United daily I believe. BA still added Sjc without decreasing service around sfo. Nowadays it’s BA 2x daily from sfo, 3x weekly from OAK (ending soon, rip), and 1x daily from SJC. Virgin Atlantic has 2x daily from SFO and a few times weekly to Manchester. Thomas Cook has a few times weekly from SFO to MAN, United has 2x daily to LHR, ans nowegian has a few Times weekly from OAK to Gatwixk. None of this stopped SJC from being a success

I agree. I don't see SJC pulling traffic or routes away from SFO but more complimenting them when traffic increase. SFO is up to 5x-6x daily flights to TPE amongst 3 carriers. You would think with the population base in and around San Jose a flight could be supported down there. But with oil prices creeping up I am afraid the secondary airports of a region will be the first ones to start taking the hits.

BayAreaFan0 wrote:

Dragonlionting wrote:

BayAreaFan0 wrote:

What airline has a recent increase at SFO to only pull the increase to move it to SJC or OAK? I can't think of any off the top of my head. ANA never had a second flight at SFO and BA never had a 3rd flight at SFO. Those were added to compliment their SFO operations. Like I said, I would love to see EVA at SJC, but I don't see why they would increase at SFO just last month to only pull the increase to move to another airport. To me that doesn't make sense. If they were gonna do it I would have expected them not to increase at SFO and to have just started flying at SJC.

Airlines just seem to do well at SFO so it seems like they have a hard to being convinced to start service at SJC or OAK where they would likely to decently as well.

I was actually thinking about this like a situation when BA moved in. The market from Bay Area to the UK before was BA from SFO 2x daily, Virgin Atlantic 2x daily, and United daily I believe. BA still added Sjc without decreasing service around sfo. Nowadays it’s BA 2x daily from sfo, 3x weekly from OAK (ending soon, rip), and 1x daily from SJC. Virgin Atlantic has 2x daily from SFO and a few times weekly to Manchester. Thomas Cook has a few times weekly from SFO to MAN, United has 2x daily to LHR, ans nowegian has a few Times weekly from OAK to Gatwixk. None of this stopped SJC from being a success

I agree. I don't see SJC pulling traffic or routes away from SFO but more complimenting them when traffic increase. SFO is up to 5x-6x daily flights to TPE amongst 3 carriers. You would think with the population base in and around San Jose a flight could be supported down there. But with oil prices creeping up I am afraid the secondary airports of a region will be the first ones to start taking the hits.

Isn’t the reason why oil prices are creeping up due to the improving economy? The FINALLY, after 10 years of stagnation, improving economy? Won’t that factor into whether new airline service will not only be successful, but it will be in demand?