LH is ending service to SJC (again) effective the end of October. Very sad to see this route go.

NOOOOO!

I was hoping we would at least see mainline A330s or A340s before they left. Hopefully there is a restart.

Apparently, at least during the first year of service, SFO LH frequent flyers were often unaware of the SJC flight unless IROPS saw them rebooked on it! It did seem odd to me that San Jose was not marketed as the San Francisco area on Lufthansa's site, at least last I checked soon after service began.

With Air China and Lufthansa gone, my bet is a second city from Hainan and possibly BR/KE and a European leisure carrier. Other than that, I think long haul growth will be more or less stagnant for the next 5 years at SJC

The Bay Area is over served internationally. This doesn’t surprise me at all.

Oh wow, first Air China and now Lufthansa.

I think this is the start of a period where we will see full or part closure (reduced or seasonal service) on many such routes where yields and/or front end traffic might be weak. With oil where it is, there is certainly a cost pressure on thinner routes such as this.

I'd also draw attention to the CX announcement of closing CPH.

While I'm drawing from a small sample size, I do think these macro pressures are a big contributing factor!

airevents wrote:

LH is ending service to SJC (again) effective the end of October. Very sad to see this route go.

Shocking...No wait wrong word, what is the opposite of shocking?

enilria wrote:

airevents wrote:

LH is ending service to SJC (again) effective the end of October. Very sad to see this route go.

Shocking...No wait wrong word, what is the opposite of shocking?

Expected.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

The Bay Area is over served internationally. This doesn’t surprise me at all.

I seriously doubt that the Bay Area is "overserved," but it's clear that international carriers prefer SFO.

Some of those reasons are obvious, but others are less clear. I'll be first to admit I'm no expert on the area, but given the proximity to Silicon Valley, is there a primary reason why SJC doesn't see more service? Are connecting opportunities on UA at SFO too great to overcome? Are SFO's facilities just plain better? Is it relatively easy to get to SFO from the Valley?

How is BA doing at SJC? Surely the B789 is a better aircraft for serving a market the size of San Jose, but I've not heard the same enthusiasm about this (long) flight to LHR as from, say, AUS...

DFWAviator76 wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

The Bay Area is over served internationally. This doesn’t surprise me at all.

I seriously doubt that the Bay Area is "overserved," but it's clear that international carriers prefer SFO.

Some of those reasons are obvious, but others are less clear. I'll be first to admit I'm no expert on the area, but given the proximity to Silicon Valley, is there a primary reason why SJC doesn't see more service? Are connecting opportunities on UA at SFO too great to overcome? Are SFO's facilities just plain better? Is it relatively easy to get to SFO from the Valley?

FWIW, BA's premium-heavy 789 to SJC is still around and has outlasted their own LGW flight to OAK. At least from what I remember from past threads on LH's flight, it like BA's LGW flight was aimed at lower-yield traffic already and nowadays CityLine 340s are being moved to SN/EW. Quite honestly I'm surprised international flights are still flocking or consolidating to SFO from OAK/SJC when airlines like CM/BR/BF/OZ were switching between A and G, with the first gate space relief and the new T1 coming relatively soon but not soon enough, and with boarding area H still a ways away.

Can't personally speak for people driving up from the south bay to SFO, but within the past few months Caltrain/SamTrans introduced a new bus service between SFO and the Millbrae Caltrain/BART station that's anywhere from complementary (to regular Caltrain commuters with a 2+ zone monthly pass) to half the price of BART between the same two stations (and without the goofy transfer through San Bruno on most days that still seems to confuse travelers that I end up helping assist/explain the concept at SFO). I probably wouldn't say that it's driving traffic from SJC to SFO that international flights suffer directly (though I use it to get to/from SFO in off-peak times and it's usually almost empty) but it's one way to get to SFO from the south bay.

Is this a seasonal suspension or is it permanent?

I agree with some comments that people in SJC don’t even realize they can fly out of SJC to some of the same destinations as SFO. I often see on Facebook postings of high school friends in SJC flying out of SFO to places like SJD or Europe, apparently not knowing they could have flown right out of SJC to the same places for likely the same cost.

Could it be related to the opening of AUS? Maybe they expect more yields there and therefore deploy the aircraft to TX instead of fully covered SFO area?

Chasensfo wrote:

Apparently, at least during the first year of service, SFO LH frequent flyers were often unaware of the SJC flight unless IROPS saw them rebooked on it!(

I fly LH from SFO about 4-5 times per year, and it's my preferred carrier internationally. I live on one of the towns on the mid-Peninsula, and "as the crow flies" I'm closer to SJC than SFO. I'm well aware of LH's service to SJC, and I've deliberately avoided it, for several reasons:

1. SFO has significantly better lounge and dining options than SJC.
2. The A380 to FRA, and the A340 to MUC, are both significantly roomier and more comfortable than the A330 out of SJC.
3. SFO isn't *that* much further than SJC.
4. To get to the terminal at SJC you have to loop around on a second freeway off of 101. The traffic is no better than to SFO.

In addition, I usually fly for business, but if I'm going for leisure, SFO easily connects to the BART and Caltrain.

If I lived in someplace like Gilroy or downtown San Jose, the slight convenience factor might overcome all this, but definitely not on the mid-Peninsula. I'm not at all surprised to see this route go.

SurlyBonds wrote:

Chasensfo wrote:

Apparently, at least during the first year of service, SFO LH frequent flyers were often unaware of the SJC flight unless IROPS saw them rebooked on it!(

4. To get to the terminal at SJC you have to loop around on a second freeway off of 101. The traffic is no better than to SFO.

No, you don't. You can get off 101 at the 1st Street exit and take an arterial street right to the terminal. It's very fast and convenient. I've rented cars and been picked up or dropped off at SJC many times. That's always the way I go, which is much easier than what you describe (which I've also done).

FWIW, I have a buddy in San Mateo who is physically closer to SFO, but used to drive to SJC to catch AA's SJC-NRT flight because he felt it was worth it to go out of the much easier SJC.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

The Bay Area is over served internationally. This doesn’t surprise me at all.

I hate statements that say something is overserved or underserved, it doesn't make any sense. First, international carriers are overall expanding in the Bay Area (UA to AMS, El Al addition, additional flights with AI, AY extension, Level with BCN, two new connections to PPT...I could go on); some airlines try things and, because of uncertainty, some don't pan out. I generally believe that in an era of deregulation, adjustments to schedules and failed routes are to be expected. I end my digression.

Regardless, I grew up in the East Bay, and from my hometown it was roughly equidistant to SFO and SJC; I have flown out of SJC only twice. I'm a loyal UA member, and there is no United Club at SJC. The facilities are small and not suited for business travelers. But the real reason is that there is no reasonable transit option. Whenever I couldn't get a ride or traffic was horrendous, Bart provides a clear option to get to the East Bay reliably and then get an Uber from there. For SJC, you're stuck with relying on a car. Even for my parents, when they are going on a long-haul trip, it's much easier just to get on Bart and avoid the parking fees.

Maybe SJC should just rename itself "San Francisco-San Jose", like United did with "New York/Newark". After all, that's what Norwegian did with OAK and it seems to be working.

Just a note - Newark airport was referred to as "New York/ Newark" LONG before United / Continental had a hub there. Every single airline in the 1980s and probably before always grouped the two together. It wasnt a United thing.

simpv wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

The Bay Area is over served internationally. This doesn’t surprise me at all.

I hate statements that say something is overserved or underserved, it doesn't make any sense. First, international carriers are overall expanding in the Bay Area (UA to AMS, El Al addition, additional flights with AI, AY extension, Level with BCN, two new connections to PPT...I could go on); some airlines try things and, because of uncertainty, some don't pan out. I generally believe that in an era of deregulation, adjustments to schedules and failed routes are to be expected. I end my digression.

Regardless, I grew up in the East Bay, and from my hometown it was roughly equidistant to SFO and SJC; I have flown out of SJC only twice. I'm a loyal UA member, and there is no United Club at SJC. The facilities are small and not suited for business travelers. But the real reason is that there is no reasonable transit option. Whenever I couldn't get a ride or traffic was horrendous, Bart provides a clear option to get to the East Bay reliably and then get an Uber from there. For SJC, you're stuck with relying on a car. Even for my parents, when they are going on a long-haul trip, it's much easier just to get on Bart and avoid the parking fees.

Maybe SJC should just rename itself "San Francisco-San Jose", like United did with "New York/Newark". After all, that's what Norwegian did with OAK and it seems to be working.

I think, for many years, people in the Bay Area viewed SFO as the region's sole international airport. I guess SJC is finding it hard to overcome the more 'domestic' brand people had applied to it for many years. Given its smaller size and its proximity to many large companies in Silicon Valley, people should prefer to fly out of SJC...but habits are hard to break I guess.

simpv wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

The Bay Area is over served internationally. This doesn’t surprise me at all.

I hate statements that say something is overserved or underserved, it doesn't make any sense. First, international carriers are overall expanding in the Bay Area (UA to AMS, El Al addition, additional flights with AI, AY extension, Level with BCN, two new connections to PPT...I could go on); some airlines try things and, because of uncertainty, some don't pan out. I generally believe that in an era of deregulation, adjustments to schedules and failed routes are to be expected. I end my digression.

Carriers may be adding flights, but other airlines are dropping flights to the Bay Area at the same time. EY left SFO, CA left SJC, LH is leaving SJC, BA left OAK, QR announced service and still hasn't started it. I'm sure I'm forgetting more.

SurlyBonds wrote:

2. The A380 to FRA, and the A340 to MUC, are both significantly roomier and more comfortable than the A330 out of SJC.

Though the A340 is a little longer, doesn't the A340 and A330 have the same cabin size. How is the A340 significantly roomier and more comfortable than an A330?

clrd4t8koff wrote:

simpv wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

The Bay Area is over served internationally. This doesn’t surprise me at all.

I hate statements that say something is overserved or underserved, it doesn't make any sense. First, international carriers are overall expanding in the Bay Area (UA to AMS, El Al addition, additional flights with AI, AY extension, Level with BCN, two new connections to PPT...I could go on); some airlines try things and, because of uncertainty, some don't pan out. I generally believe that in an era of deregulation, adjustments to schedules and failed routes are to be expected. I end my digression.

Carriers may be adding flights, but other airlines are dropping flights to the Bay Area at the same time. EY left SFO, CA left SJC, LH is leaving SJC, BA left OAK, QR announced service and still hasn't started it. I'm sure I'm forgetting more.

But I agreed with you--service is likely to stop. But it doesn't mean anything is over or underserved.

I'd like to see a serious development at OAK. For somebody who travels internationally as a non US citizen to the US and has to travel across town regularly on my trips to SFO I'd much rather land in OAK than SFO. There is an affluent population within reach and universities too (my profession). I am done with the long commute and am arranging my lifestyle to avoid San Francisco in future. I'm done with the tiresome commute. OAK has the land and the infrastructure to support a serious airport. I can't for the life of me understand why they don't deliver a more balance offering in San Francisco Bay area.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

SurlyBonds wrote:

2. The A380 to FRA, and the A340 to MUC, are both significantly roomier and more comfortable than the A330 out of SJC.

Though the A340 is a little longer, doesn't the A340 and A330 have the same cabin size. How is the A340 significantly roomier and more comfortable than an A330?

SFO- has the A340-600, SJC had* the A340-300

SurlyBonds wrote:

Chasensfo wrote:

Apparently, at least during the first year of service, SFO LH frequent flyers were often unaware of the SJC flight unless IROPS saw them rebooked on it!(

I fly LH from SFO about 4-5 times per year, and it's my preferred carrier internationally. I live on one of the towns on the mid-Peninsula, and "as the crow flies" I'm closer to SJC than SFO. I'm well aware of LH's service to SJC, and I've deliberately avoided it, for several reasons:

1. SFO has significantly better lounge and dining options than SJC.
2. The A380 to FRA, and the A340 to MUC, are both significantly roomier and more comfortable than the A330 out of SJC.
3. SFO isn't *that* much further than SJC.
4. To get to the terminal at SJC you have to loop around on a second freeway off of 101. The traffic is no better than to SFO.

In addition, I usually fly for business, but if I'm going for leisure, SFO easily connects to the BART and Caltrain.

If I lived in someplace like Gilroy or downtown San Jose, the slight convenience factor might overcome all this, but definitely not on the mid-Peninsula. I'm not at all surprised to see this route go.

Completely agree on point number 1. Amex Centurian and United Polaris Lounge in SFO vs the Club in SJC. There just enough enough restaurant competition in SJC and the terminal offerings have horrible service.

One other thing I would mention is that if there are any irrops issues with the once daily out of SJC, then heading up to SFO isn't an easy adjustment. Better rebooking options out of SFO with multiple Star Alliance flights to Europe if one of them has issues then getting a boarding pass for TK, LX, UA etc would be easier.

When did LH begin serving SJC? I'm guessing 2-3 years ago? It would seem that the route must have been fairly under-performing since the beginning for it to be dropped this quickly.

I wonder how important the rise in fuel prices has been to this decision by LH?

With the huge increase in the number of Euro-routes in the U.S. over the last couple of years, mainly to secondary markets, I'm not surprised that we are seeing 'adjustments' in some of those markets. This was expected to happen at some point, and increasing fuel prices may very well be the catalyst.

We'll see if BA is now able to see better numbers at SJC, given the new a/c being used, along with the exit of major competition (LH) to Europe. It seems very possible that there simply isn't the traffic for both of these legacy flags to survive out of SJC. (Apparently the same issue may exist to Asia from this airport.)

Getting new intercontinental routes is great for a non-major city but there's a thin line between supportable capacity and too much.

bb

Deleted

No-one has answered whether this is a permanent closing, or just a seasonal suspension as it was last year. I don't know. Does anyone have an real information on this?

stylo777 wrote:

Could it be related to the opening of AUS? Maybe they expect more yields there and therefore deploy the aircraft to TX instead of fully covered SFO area?

I don’t think so, AUS is getting the A333 and SJC has the A343, this is likely due to low LFs.

Carriers may be adding flights, but other airlines are dropping flights to the Bay Area at the same time. EY left SFO, CA left SJC, LH is leaving SJC, BA left OAK, QR announced service and still hasn't started it. I'm sure I'm forgetting more.[/quote]

...just like they do everywhere else

Bay Area has had more international growth than anywhere in the US over the past five years. Of course there will be additions and subtractions. Cathay has added a third daily to Hong Kong, EVA has added a third daily to Taipei. Qantas has added Sydney and Melbourne. AI has gone from 3 weekly to 9 weekly due to stunning success. UA SFO-TLV went from 3 weekly 788 to daily 77W. There are many, many more examples but just look at the numbers over the past several years.

At least three *A carriers have been turned away due to lack of available gate space... Fortunately there is a plan in place that will deliver more than a dozen new Int'l gates to SFO over the next decade.

blooc350 wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

SurlyBonds wrote:

2. The A380 to FRA, and the A340 to MUC, are both significantly roomier and more comfortable than the A330 out of SJC.

Though the A340 is a little longer, doesn't the A340 and A330 have the same cabin size. How is the A340 significantly roomier and more comfortable than an A330?

SFO- has the A340-600, SJC had* the A340-300

But aren't they the same cabin, the a340-600 just being longer? I'm just confused when someone says an A340 is roomier than an A330. They're the same cabins, no?

clrd4t8koff wrote:

simpv wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

The Bay Area is over served internationally. This doesn’t surprise me at all.

I hate statements that say something is overserved or underserved, it doesn't make any sense. First, international carriers are overall expanding in the Bay Area (UA to AMS, El Al addition, additional flights with AI, AY extension, Level with BCN, two new connections to PPT...I could go on); some airlines try things and, because of uncertainty, some don't pan out. I generally believe that in an era of deregulation, adjustments to schedules and failed routes are to be expected. I end my digression.

Carriers may be adding flights, but other airlines are dropping flights to the Bay Area at the same time. EY left SFO, CA left SJC, LH is leaving SJC, BA left OAK, QR announced service and still hasn't started it. I'm sure I'm forgetting more.

And Finnair added SFO this year, United recently or is adding Zurich/Amsterdam/Munich/Tel Aviv/Papeete and moved it's LAX-SIN flight to SFO. I'm sure I'm forgetting some.

EY has dire financial issues and QR will eventually start, they have bigger issues to deal with right now. The rest of the carriers you speak of are OAK and SJC, which are and always will be secondary to SFO. Level moving to SFO being a good example of this. With 7 million people in the Bay Area and it being the strongest economic region in the US, it's doing just fine and is anything but over served.

SurlyBonds wrote:

Chasensfo wrote:

Apparently, at least during the first year of service, SFO LH frequent flyers were often unaware of the SJC flight unless IROPS saw them rebooked on it!(

I fly LH from SFO about 4-5 times per year, and it's my preferred carrier internationally. I live on one of the towns on the mid-Peninsula, and "as the crow flies" I'm closer to SJC than SFO. I'm well aware of LH's service to SJC, and I've deliberately avoided it, for several reasons:

1. SFO has significantly better lounge and dining options than SJC.
2. The A380 to FRA, and the A340 to MUC, are both significantly roomier and more comfortable than the A330 out of SJC.
3. SFO isn't *that* much further than SJC.
4. To get to the terminal at SJC you have to loop around on a second freeway off of 101. The traffic is no better than to SFO.

In addition, I usually fly for business, but if I'm going for leisure, SFO easily connects to the BART and Caltrain.

If I lived in someplace like Gilroy or downtown San Jose, the slight convenience factor might overcome all this, but definitely not on the mid-Peninsula. I'm not at all surprised to see this route go.

Sounds like we're pretty near each other (not sure which mid-Peninsula town you're in, but the situations they face are roughly the same, I think). The one thing I'd add in terms of airport access is that - at least for me - the Caltrain connection is easier to SJC. BART only runs direct from Millbrae to SFO on weekends, and while the new SamTrans SFO is ok, it's at best equivalent to the VTA 10 from the Santa Clara Caltrain (which is pretty regular and is free).

For me, I'd use SJC every time if I could, except for a couple of things, particularly your 1 and 3. Add in that my UA status moves me up to E+ for free on UA metal, which it doesn't on LH, and I again have a substantial incentive to stay on UA on longhaul leisure.

I'd add that for *A flyers like the two of us (I'm assuming that fact for you, but it seems safe given the post), the offerings are so much thinner at SJC. I go to DC roughly once a month, and there's not even a single IAD on UA from SJC. That's not a connection anyone would make on this flight, but it's symptomatic of the lack of feed for any *A carrier at SJC. Even SFO isn't a fantastic place to feed a TATL longhaul, but you need to fill the plane somehow. That's the main reason I'm not surprised to see this one go.

It definitely could go to Eurowings or Condor.

drdisque wrote:

It definitely could go to Eurowings or Condor.

I see Condor doing the flight over Eurowings. Isn't Eurowings affiliated with LH? Since LH is transferring A333's to Eurowings and they are moving from CGN to DUS, maybe they'll start SFO seasonally.

Don't forget that Level is moving from OAK to SFO next summer.

clrd4t8koff wrote:

blooc350 wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

Though the A340 is a little longer, doesn't the A340 and A330 have the same cabin size. How is the A340 significantly roomier and more comfortable than an A330?

SFO- has the A340-600, SJC had* the A340-300

But aren't they the same cabin, the a340-600 just being longer? I'm just confused when someone says an A340 is roomier than an A330. They're the same cabins, no?

The only major difference in the A340-600 are the economy toilets in the lower deck. Other than that the seats and cabin are the same.

No flights are loaded for next summer (unlike at other US destinations), so the closure seems to be permanent.

as739x wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

simpv wrote:

I hate statements that say something is overserved or underserved, it doesn't make any sense. First, international carriers are overall expanding in the Bay Area (UA to AMS, El Al addition, additional flights with AI, AY extension, Level with BCN, two new connections to PPT...I could go on); some airlines try things and, because of uncertainty, some don't pan out. I generally believe that in an era of deregulation, adjustments to schedules and failed routes are to be expected. I end my digression.

Carriers may be adding flights, but other airlines are dropping flights to the Bay Area at the same time. EY left SFO, CA left SJC, LH is leaving SJC, BA left OAK, QR announced service and still hasn't started it. I'm sure I'm forgetting more.

And Finnair added SFO this year, United recently or is adding Zurich/Amsterdam/Munich/Tel Aviv/Papeete and moved it's LAX-SIN flight to SFO. I'm sure I'm forgetting some.

EY has dire financial issues and QR will eventually start, they have bigger issues to deal with right now. The rest of the carriers you speak of are OAK and SJC, which are and always will be secondary to SFO. Level moving to SFO being a good example of this. With 7 million people in the Bay Area and it being the strongest economic region in the US, it's doing just fine and is anything but over served.

I wish IB and AY will go year round at SFO. How come UA is still flying seasonal to ZRH and MUC, while new flight to AMS is not considering AMS is non Star Alliance hub.

LH tried to make SJC work, but with SFO so close, it proved to be too much of a struggle apparently. Does Caltrain have any plans to build an extension to SJC? I know they’re working on an electrification project right now which will speed up trips and increase capacity when they introduce new electric bi-level trains.

dampfnudel wrote:

LH tried to make SJC work, but with SFO so close, it proved to be too much of a struggle apparently. Does Caltrain have any plans to build an extension to SJC? I know they’re working on an electrification project right now which will speed up trips and increase capacity when they introduce new electric bi-level trains.

No, but you can already go from Caltrain to SJC just as easily as you go from Caltrain to SFO.

Though SJC has seen a great deal of expansion in recent years, it is interesting to me that it isn't bigger. I've been traveling in and out of SJC for work the past few weeks, and the sheer number of major companies with offices very near SJC is crazy - Intel, Amazon, Apple, Google, AMD, Analog Devices, Cisco, Adobe, Ericsson, and on and on... It does strike me that more of the tech-related traffic is likely across the Pacific or domestic as opposed to across the Atlantic. Even with CA cutting PVG (that route never made any sense to me) and LH now ending FRA, I wouldn't be surprised if KE to ICN or BR to TPE would be able to do well from SJC (probably on aircraft no larger than the 789).

My Bay Area destination recently has been Palo Alto (fairly equidistant from SJC and SFO), and honestly I've been choosing SJC because I can drop off my rental car and be through security 10 minutes later - it takes that long just to get to security from the rental car center at SFO.

How was it marketed in San Jose. Cityline? Nobody would know what that means.

rlwynn wrote:

How was it marketed in San Jose. Cityline? Nobody would know what that means.

The flight was marketed as Lufthansa all over the Bay area. In fact, I remember the ads on the buses here in SF (SamTrans, not Muni), that read "Bird watching in San Jose: Lufthansa Nonstop You". The operated by Cityline part flew over most people's heads and it was, to my knowledge not disclosed to people. Planes had the Star Alliance logo, with no LH markings.

BoeingGuy wrote:

No-one has answered whether this is a permanent closing, or just a seasonal suspension as it was last year. I don't know. Does anyone have an real information on this?

Permanent. It's not loaded for the summer 2019 travel season.

I live about 5 minutes from SJC. I have been using SJC since the 1970s, back when I could walk out the gate onto the tarmac and up the rear stairs on a PSA Boeing 727. It's certainly not the same airport today.

A ton of money has been spent over more than 10 years in modernizing SJC. Several things that have been a surprise for many people here in San Jose is that little attention seems to have been made regarding traffic and transit. Hwy 101 exits to Hwy 87 to enter SJC. I880 drives right by the runways and provides access via the Coleman Avenue exit, requiring one to enter the airport from the back side and drive around the runways to access the entrance, gates, parking, etc. The City of San Jose is in an all out effort to force people to ride bikes or take public transit. As a result, they are actively removing traffic lanes for conversion to bike lanes, which for the most part, are largely unused. As a result, we have more drivers than ever sitting idle in traffic for longer periods of time, since there are fewer traffic lanes to move traffic. If the City of San Jose has any plans to improve traffic access to SJC, it will most likely be in the form of adding more bike lanes.

Regarding public transit for SJC, there are buses that run within the airport to go from terminals to long term parking. Santa Clara County public transit, VTA, provide bus service to and from SJC. There are no plans to add lines for light rail, BART or CalTrain to SJC.

The City of San Jose has done very little in terms of marketing SJC as an international airport. Even here in San Jose, most people don't realize that several airlines offer international service, so they automatically assume that if they must fly internationally, they're going up 101 to SFO.

Domestic or international, SJC offers little in terms of comfort, food and relaxation for passengers or people waiting in the terminals for passengers. It's my least favorite airport in that regard.

wedgetail737 wrote:

drdisque wrote:

It definitely could go to Eurowings or Condor.

I see Condor doing the flight over Eurowings. Isn't Eurowings affiliated with LH? Since LH is transferring A333's to Eurowings and they are moving from CGN to DUS, maybe they'll start SFO seasonally.

Don't forget that Level is moving from OAK to SFO next summer.

Level moves from OAK to SFO this month. This is not a seasonal route.

LondonXtreme wrote:

as739x wrote:

clrd4t8koff wrote:

Carriers may be adding flights, but other airlines are dropping flights to the Bay Area at the same time. EY left SFO, CA left SJC, LH is leaving SJC, BA left OAK, QR announced service and still hasn't started it. I'm sure I'm forgetting more.

And Finnair added SFO this year, United recently or is adding Zurich/Amsterdam/Munich/Tel Aviv/Papeete and moved it's LAX-SIN flight to SFO. I'm sure I'm forgetting some.

EY has dire financial issues and QR will eventually start, they have bigger issues to deal with right now. The rest of the carriers you speak of are OAK and SJC, which are and always will be secondary to SFO. Level moving to SFO being a good example of this. With 7 million people in the Bay Area and it being the strongest economic region in the US, it's doing just fine and is anything but over served.

I wish IB and AY will go year round at SFO. How come UA is still flying seasonal to ZRH and MUC, while new flight to AMS is not considering AMS is non Star Alliance hub.

I think Finnair is close. They extended their season all the way to December this year and are adding an additional frequency next summer.

dwightm wrote:

Domestic or international, SJC offers little in terms of comfort, food and relaxation for passengers or people waiting in the terminals for passengers. It's my least favorite airport in that regard.

I disagree on domestic.

I flew WN for 3 years every other week from the LA area. I tried SFO but at least for WN, the terminal was packed and dirty; the weather delays and cancellations were too frequent. You have to ride a train to the car rental.

SJC has much less crowding, fast free internet, plenty of places to sit (even office/work areas that are rarely crowded). The car rental is right across the street from Terminal B used by WN and AS and BA. There's no runway congestion and it's a really quick taxi to/from runways to gates.

<deleted duplicate>

dwightm wrote:

Domestic or international, SJC offers little in terms of comfort, food and relaxation for passengers or people waiting in the terminals for passengers. It's my least favorite airport in that regard.

I don’t know about you, but I go to an airport to get someplace, not to have great places to relax or great lounges and restaurants.

I’ve flown out of SJC a number of times in the past several years. I find it very comfortable. There was a great cafe near the AS gates that could get a quick breakfast out before the 6:30am departure to SEA.

I’d drop the rental car and have a short walk to the 2 minute (if that) wait at security.

I think it’s a great airport. If you aren’t satisfied with the offerings you are free to drive in traffic to SFO. Personally I’d fly out of SJC any chance I have.

This might just be wishful thinking but there are no announcements/news articles talking about this so until I can get a link I don’t think this is true

1.My bet is on EW to start this route.
2.An A346 is way langer then an A343.

1.My bet is on EW to start this route.
2.An A346 is way langer then an A343.