Looks like Norwegian is starting their exit from Oakland as I predicted months ago much to the disbelief of many on this forum:


LGW-SFO starting March 31st, 2019
5x weekly (Mon/Tues/Thurs/Fri/Sun)


Sounds like as Norwegian is able to secure more gates at SFO during the peak times they will migrate other destinations over.

OAK in a span of 5 years has grown from no regularly scheduled transatlantic international service (besides charter Azores) to 3 carriers serving 7 destinations. But with the cancelation of BA LGW and Level moving their BCN flight to SFO citing better yields, Norwegian is all OAK has left.

OAK and SJC have been losing long haul international service left and right (SJC-FRA, OAK-LGW, SJC-PVG, etc) while SFO continues steady international growth (UA AMS, LY TLV, TP LIS, UA PPT, second frequency UA & SQ to SIN, etc) and now with DI/DY moving from OAK does this spell the end of this long haul experiment at secondary Bay Area airports?

Not highly unexpected but what an absolute bummer for Oakland after five years of international expansion, I wonder where this leaves their plans concerning the major expansion of the airports facilities that were released not that long ago!

It's a great pity as the Bay Area excluding SJO has now just SFO for their long haul flights bar from the rather niche Azores flight which for now remains the only only one left at OAK, back to square one isn't it.

As if SFO is not already crowded enough, now the G side will probably be filled with LCC pax! Ugh!

hayzel777 wrote:

As if SFO is not already crowded enough, now the G side will probably be filled with LCC pax! Ugh!

What is the world coming too when you have to share a terminal with LCC pax ! How disgraceful of SFO to even consider to let Norwegian in

Is LGW-SFO replacing OAK, or in addition? Sorry, but can you cite a source please?

What about their current service to OSL/CPH/CDG/BCN/FCO/ARN out of OAK?

They serve a lot more than just LGW. Your thread title (unless you have more information) is far from accurate.

EDIT - I just looked at the route map - as of April - June of 2019, they will continue to serve LGW as well as the other 6 European destination from OAK.

It looks like your "predictions" were a bit off.

There will be an announcement tomorrow.

hayzel777 wrote:

As if SFO is not already crowded enough, now the G side will probably be filled with LCC pax! Ugh!

Norwegian will probably be on the A-side.

The "filled with pax" is probably what airports actually want

But yes, not a big surprise. Although I'd expect most Norwegian customers to be O/D in the San Francisco area, so for them... the move may not make much of a difference. But for those that continue on, SFO has more domestic flights I think.

Do you believe this is a right move taking into account Norwegian's situation? I assume SFO is way more expensive to operate in. Do they have poor yields just because they fly to OAK instead SFO? Competition, although not exactly on the SFO-LGW corridor, still up to 5 daily SFO-LHR is going to be hard from SFO, and fares can't increase much. On the other hand, could SFO potentially handle all the Norwegian routes which they operate in OAK? I still see that scenario far from real, but you never know...

And FLL for MIA!

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1409403

Maybe the two threads should be merged

Am I crazy by assuming this might also have to do with a possible IAG third round?

hayzel777 wrote:

As if SFO is not already crowded enough, now the G side will probably be filled with LCC pax! Ugh!

Let me just respond horribly to a horrible comment here: I'd argue that international LCC pax are a WAYYYY better cargo than the overweight domestic slobs in flip flops tank tops and baseball caps the US3 have to contend with......

barney captain wrote:

Is LGW-SFO replacing OAK, or in addition? Sorry, but can you cite a source please?

What about their current service to OSL/CPH/CDG/BCN/FCO/ARN out of OAK?

They serve a lot more than just LGW. Your thread title (unless you have more information) is far from accurate.

EDIT - I just looked at the route map - as of April - June of 2019, they will continue to serve LGW as well as the other 6 European destination from OAK.

It looks like your "predictions" were a bit off.

OAK route will be dropped (oak-lgw to be replaced with sfo-lgw). Wait a few more hours. I know what I'm talking about....

SonaSounds wrote:

OAK route will be dropped (oak-lgw to be replaced with sfo-lgw). Wait a few more hours. I know what I'm talking about....

The swap of airports is 100% effective. Tickets aren't bookable to OAK from 31st March on, when SFO becomes available.

Lgw - Sfo is already on sale on the Norwegian site. Oak not available from April.

a350lover wrote:

Do you believe this is a right move taking into account Norwegian's situation? I assume SFO is way more expensive to operate in. Do they have poor yields just because they fly to OAK instead SFO? Competition, although not exactly on the SFO-LGW corridor, still up to 5 daily SFO-LHR is going to be hard from SFO, and fares can't increase much. On the other hand, could SFO potentially handle all the Norwegian routes which they operate in OAK? I still see that scenario far from real, but you never know...

According to the FAA https://cats.airports.faa.gov/Reports/reports.cfm

Average CPE is $5 difference between OAK and SFO and international may be more like a $10 difference CPE. You're talking about Norwegian needing to get $10 more a ticket to breakeven and they can now market the route as "San Francisco" instead of "Oakland - San Francisco Bay Area". Name recognition in Europe alone should make up the difference.

OAK route will be dropped (oak-lgw to be replaced with sfo-lgw). Wait a few more hours. I know what I'm talking about....

Fair enough - but when someone posts a random statement like that without any supporting evidence, expect scepticism.

I'll ask again - will this be all the OAK service, or just LGW?

If it's just LGW, I go back to my original statement that your thread title is completely misleading - as 5 of the 6 European markets remain at OAK.

SonaSounds wrote:

Average CPE is $5 difference between OAK and SFO and international may be more like a $10 difference CPE. You're talking about Norwegian needing to get $10 more a ticket to breakeven and they can now market the route as "San Francisco" instead of "Oakland - San Francisco Bay Area". Name recognition in Europe alone should make up the difference.

Looking at it individually, it doesn't sound like a big difference, but when you breakdown the Norwegian fares, it actually makes a bit of difference, especially now that they are looking at cost control like crazy.

Very much agree on the name recognition, San Francisco is much more appealing for the market than just Oakland. However, Norwegian has a bit of history serving Oakland (serves the area from 2014), and for all these years they seemed not to suffer of any problem on that.

barney captain wrote:

OAK route will be dropped (oak-lgw to be replaced with sfo-lgw). Wait a few more hours. I know what I'm talking about....

Fair enough - but when someone posts a random statement like that without any supporting evidence, expect scepticism.

I'll ask again - will this be all the OAK service, or just LGW?

If it's just LGW, I go back to my original statement that your thread title is completely misleading - as 5 of the 6 European markets remain at OAK.

LGW for now, the rest as Norwegian can secure more "slots" at SFO. Given how full SFO is during the European banks it might take until March 2021 when the swing gate at T1 open before Norwegian is able to secure enough space for all their flights. Thread title is correct as they are exiting just not everything at once like you're assuming but in waves as space become available at SFO. Hard to move 3-4 daily international flights into a congested airport like SFO in one fell swoop.

Is moving to SFO the right move? Only time will tell. You have to imagine OAK offered everything they could for them to stay.

a350lover wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

Average CPE is $5 difference between OAK and SFO and international may be more like a $10 difference CPE. You're talking about Norwegian needing to get $10 more a ticket to breakeven and they can now market the route as "San Francisco" instead of "Oakland - San Francisco Bay Area". Name recognition in Europe alone should make up the difference.

Looking at it individually, it doesn't sound like a big difference, but when you breakdown the Norwegian fares, it actually makes a bit of difference, especially now that they are looking at cost control like crazy.

Very much agree on the name recognition, San Francisco is much more appealing for the market than just Oakland. However, Norwegian has a bit of history serving Oakland (serves the area from 2014), and for all these years they seemed not to suffer of any problem on that.

True they have been able to build up the Oakland brand awareness overseas. But for whatever reason have now decided SFO is a better place for them to be. I'm guessing there's other factors at play if you decide to make a move like this.

there could also be Logistical reasons why they're moving to SFO. Maintenance is one that comes to mind. Something as simple as a tire change could ground them for hours if a new wheel isn't available. United does contract maintenance but unless it's catastrophic? They're not likely to go to Oakland. Even though at SFO as the Largest carrier there we have little choice but to assist in an incident or a breakdown if it occurs. Also? We have all the equipment required to do any job necessary. United isn't inexpensive by any means.
We charge for Time and material. But! If Needed? We'll be there Johnny on the Spot.

Bummer, OAK just recently upgraded their international arrivals building able to accommodate a high volume of passengers. Might be the time to find another European carrier and potential Asian routes that could serve OAK in the future.

It’s just LGW that’s changing to SFO, all other routes will stay at OAK.

BOS to FCO and MAD will also start for summer 19

Thought something was off when I only saw an identical winter schedule (4 weekly) searching LGW-OAK a week and thensome ago, because last summer was 6 weekly (every day except Saturday). SFO being 5 weekly is an increase compared to what was bookable prior but still not quite what they had last summer.

Sounds like the same move PE did back in the 1980's, when they moved their OAK-EWR to SFO-EWR.

When DY leaves OAK, there will be no overseas flights. At least SJC still has Hainan to PEK and ANA to NRT. But the last time I was at SJC, the loads looked pretty dismal. I wonder how SAN is doing with their overseas routes.

BayAreaFlyer wrote:

Bummer, OAK just recently upgraded their international arrivals building able to accommodate a high volume of passengers. Might be the time to find another European carrier and potential Asian routes that could serve OAK in the future.

Who else do you think would try?

hayzel777 wrote:

As if SFO is not already crowded enough, now the G side will probably be filled with LCC pax! Ugh!

Most of whom will be nickel and dimed and likely to stock up in the airport's expensive restaurant, shops, delis etc. Smart move.

wedgetail737 wrote:

Sounds like the same move PE did back in the 1980's, when they moved their OAK-EWR to SFO-EWR

If I remember right the only reason PE was allowed to use the International gates back then was the flight continued over to BRU. Otherwise SFO didn't want them, the airport was very picky under Lou Turpin whom could come in, because of lack of gate space etc.

Official tweet

https://mobile.twitter.com/Fly_Norwegia ... 5325000707

From an article:
https://www.sfgate.com/chris-mcginnis/a ... 409289.php

"Norwegian Air spokesperson Anders Lindstrom said that the carrier is moving its flights for three main reasons: First, Norwegian thinks it can attract more premium class passengers from SFO- primarily business travelers. Second, it believes that there's a better cargo market between SFO and London. It ships more Norwegian salmon to the US than any other product. Third, Norwegian believes it will get more online search traffic using SFO instead of OAK since not all search engines show Oakland when a traveler searches for San Francisco flights."

The second reason certainly didn't occur to me.

However, it does shed some light on whether the other flights would be moved. Perhaps BCN and FCO don't have the same advantages? Lindstrom also says that SFO expansion is likely, but that OAK will remain the center (for now). 3x a week frequency also announced for OAK-FCO in S19.

I’ve posted this before, but I was in SLC years ago on the day of the Asiana crash in SFO. All the flights to SFO were already cancelled. They were rebooking people fast and furiously, and a bunch of us who were going to SFO ended up on an OAK flight. I was standing near that new gate, and struck up a conversation with a lady next to me. She was traveling to her niece’s wedding that was going to be in San Francisco that evening and staying in FiDi. Despite all of my best efforts, I just could not convince her that OAK would be only slightly further (Bay Bridge Traffic aside) from downtown SF than SFO would have been (not to mention the fact that she would have missed the wedding had she held out for SFO). She just kept saying “but I don’t know why they rebooked me on this flight, I want to go to San Francisco, not Oakland.”

Even with the easy BART connection, and especially internationally, I think that OAK still has a huge name recognition issue. This is really too bad, because, as others have mentioned, SFO’s runways are already strained in the best of conditions, and it will still be a while until the T1 expansion is complete to help relieve gate crowding.

Edit: typo corrected

Perhaps the title of the thread should be updated to reflect the fact that just LGW is moving to SFO (for now)?

ucdtim17 wrote:

Perhaps the title of the thread should be updated to reflect the fact that just LGW is moving to SFO (for now)?

More are moving over for next summer season as I have said before. The article above confirms it. Thread title is perfectly accurate.

Which other routes might hop over the bay from Oakland to SFO? Time will tell. Lindstrom said that London won't be the only destination to get SFO flights, but would not divulge others under consideration

SonaSounds wrote:

ucdtim17 wrote:

Perhaps the title of the thread should be updated to reflect the fact that just LGW is moving to SFO (for now)?

More are moving over for next summer season as I have said before. The article above confirms it. Thread title is perfectly accurate.

Which other routes might hop over the bay from Oakland to SFO? Time will tell. Lindstrom said that London won't be the only destination to get SFO flights, but would not divulge others under consideration

Nothing in the linked article at all suggests that they plan on closing OAK... Only that they are moving LGW over to SFO in the hopes of getting more premium traffic, and that they are evaluating other destinations to start from SFO. It's possible that their end game is to wind down OAK in favor of SFO, but you really couldn't infer that from any sources shared so far.

A quote from the below linked article also would suggest that the thread title should be updated.

https://airwaysmag.com/airlines/norwegian-2019-us-expansion/

From a Norwegian spokesman: “We want to move our most successful route in order to make it even more successful. London attracts a large number of business travelers, which provides greater opportunities for our competitive Premium cabin out of Miami and San Francisco, whereas the other routes are more leisure focused and therefore more suited for Fort Lauderdale and Oakland,” he explained.

FSDan wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

ucdtim17 wrote:

Perhaps the title of the thread should be updated to reflect the fact that just LGW is moving to SFO (for now)?

More are moving over for next summer season as I have said before. The article above confirms it. Thread title is perfectly accurate.

Which other routes might hop over the bay from Oakland to SFO? Time will tell. Lindstrom said that London won't be the only destination to get SFO flights, but would not divulge others under consideration

Nothing in the linked article at all suggests that they plan on closing OAK... Only that they are moving LGW over to SFO in the hopes of getting more premium traffic, and that they are evaluating other destinations to start from SFO. It's possible that their end game is to wind down OAK in favor of SFO, but you really couldn't infer that from any sources shared so far.

I told everyone this was happening months ago and no one believed it.

BayAreaFlyer wrote:

ucdtim17 wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

3 months ago
DY is rumored to be leaving OAK next year as well

source?

He has no source, it’s false information.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1401909&p=20655051#p20655051

Some of us work in the industry and know what is going on. Airliners.net has done a good job driving most of those people away as they don't have sources because they would be a source. So many people spout misinformation on this website that when people come along who know what they are talking about they just get shot down. Believe what you want, but I will let me record speak for itself.

Didn't DY reconfigure (part of) their LGW fleet to have alot more Y+ seats ? This might be step 2 of this strategy, if so then I don't see any other services shifting away. Kudos to DY and best of luck to them.

Sad for OAK though, losing all their LGW in such a short period of time.

SonaSounds wrote:

OAK and SJC have been losing long haul international service left and right (SJC-FRA, OAK-LGW, SJC-PVG, etc)

This is a bit misleading. SJC had no long haul international flights a few years back. Five new long haul international flights were added left and right. Two have since been discontinued - both of which I predicted would be the weaker ones not likely to last.

CA, LH, and AM added new flights and dropped them. BA, NH and HU added flights and they remain.

SJC has one flight to Europe and two to Asia. That's three more long haul international flights than they had six years ago. It's hardly correct to say that SJC has been losing long haul international service left and right.

FromCDGtoSYD wrote:

Didn't DY reconfigure (part of) their LGW fleet to have alot more Y+ seats ? This might be step 2 of this strategy, if so then I don't see any other services shifting away. Kudos to DY and best of luck to them.

Sad for OAK though, losing all their LGW in such a short period of time.

If you think about this objectively, London tends to be the first route any secondary city in the USA gets to mainland Europe. If DY think LGW will fetch higher yields at SFO, then why would it leave destinations like OSL, ARN, etc at OAK? Sure they might be doing alright but if they think they could be doing better at SFO with arguably the easiest secondary city route to support (London), why wouldn't they move other destinations over if the yields were higher?

If they had moved OSL, ARN, or BCN over first I would tend to agree with you that they wouldn't be moving everything over. But given they moved a core route over, they are just testing the waters before the secondary routes follow.

BoeingGuy wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

OAK and SJC have been losing long haul international service left and right (SJC-FRA, OAK-LGW, SJC-PVG, etc)

This is a bit misleading. SJC had no long haul international flights a few years back. Five new long haul international flights were added left and right. Two have since been discontinued - both of which I predicted would be the weaker ones not likely to last.

CA, LH, and AM added new flights and dropped them. BA, NH and HU added flights and they remain.

SJC has one flight to Europe and two to Asia. That's three more long haul international flights than they had six years ago. It's hardly correct to say that SJC has been losing long haul international service left and right.

I mean by your argument one could say that half the new long haul service that started in the last 6 years has failed, no? I wouldn't consider that very successful.

SonaSounds wrote:

FSDan wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

More are moving over for next summer season as I have said before. The article above confirms it. Thread title is perfectly accurate.

Nothing in the linked article at all suggests that they plan on closing OAK... Only that they are moving LGW over to SFO in the hopes of getting more premium traffic, and that they are evaluating other destinations to start from SFO. It's possible that their end game is to wind down OAK in favor of SFO, but you really couldn't infer that from any sources shared so far.

I told everyone this was happening months ago and no one believed it.

I think you have mentioned this enough in the thread. You can give it a rest now.

EvanWSFO wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

FSDan wrote:

Nothing in the linked article at all suggests that they plan on closing OAK... Only that they are moving LGW over to SFO in the hopes of getting more premium traffic, and that they are evaluating other destinations to start from SFO. It's possible that their end game is to wind down OAK in favor of SFO, but you really couldn't infer that from any sources shared so far.

I told everyone this was happening months ago and no one believed it.

Double Post sorry.

SonaSounds wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

OAK and SJC have been losing long haul international service left and right (SJC-FRA, OAK-LGW, SJC-PVG, etc)

This is a bit misleading. SJC had no long haul international flights a few years back. Five new long haul international flights were added left and right. Two have since been discontinued - both of which I predicted would be the weaker ones not likely to last.

CA, LH, and AM added new flights and dropped them. BA, NH and HU added flights and they remain.

SJC has one flight to Europe and two to Asia. That's three more long haul international flights than they had six years ago. It's hardly correct to say that SJC has been losing long haul international service left and right.

I mean by your argument one could say that half the new long haul service that started in the last 6 years has failed, no? I wouldn't consider that very successful.

New stuff was tried and didn’t work out. It happens. The CA route was a crap shoot long thin route. LH came on line at roughly the same time as BA, which is arguably redundant. AM to GDL was the THIRD carrier on the route. Now, if SJC loses NH and BA, then we can have the funeral.

SonaSounds wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

OAK and SJC have been losing long haul international service left and right (SJC-FRA, OAK-LGW, SJC-PVG, etc)

This is a bit misleading. SJC had no long haul international flights a few years back. Five new long haul international flights were added left and right. Two have since been discontinued - both of which I predicted would be the weaker ones not likely to last.

CA, LH, and AM added new flights and dropped them. BA, NH and HU added flights and they remain.

SJC has one flight to Europe and two to Asia. That's three more long haul international flights than they had six years ago. It's hardly correct to say that SJC has been losing long haul international service left and right.

I mean by your argument one could say that half the new long haul service that started in the last 6 years has failed, no? I wouldn't consider that very successful.

Or you could say that airlines over expanded at SJC and are now right sizing. I thought LH was a shoot-from-the-hip response to BA starting SJC. CA seemed similar. I'd like to see HU try SJC-PVG since they already serve SJC.

BA starting OAK-LGW was also a response to Norwegian. I didn't think that would last either.

AM has a history of dartboard expansion and contraction (e.g. PDX-MEX). They started SJC-GDL when two other carriers already serve the market.

SonaSounds wrote:

FSDan wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

More are moving over for next summer season as I have said before. The article above confirms it. Thread title is perfectly accurate.

Nothing in the linked article at all suggests that they plan on closing OAK... Only that they are moving LGW over to SFO in the hopes of getting more premium traffic, and that they are evaluating other destinations to start from SFO. It's possible that their end game is to wind down OAK in favor of SFO, but you really couldn't infer that from any sources shared so far.

I told everyone this was happening months ago and no one believed it.

Sorry, I still don't see how the thread title is accurate based on sources that can be cited... "Norwegian moving OAK-LGW to SFO-LGW" would absolutely be an accurate title, but the best info we have to go on otherwise is Norwegian's own spokesman saying that other existing routes are better suited to OAK and FLL. As of now, the fact that Norwegian is pulling out of OAK completely is, at best, a rumor.

FSDan wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

FSDan wrote:

Nothing in the linked article at all suggests that they plan on closing OAK... Only that they are moving LGW over to SFO in the hopes of getting more premium traffic, and that they are evaluating other destinations to start from SFO. It's possible that their end game is to wind down OAK in favor of SFO, but you really couldn't infer that from any sources shared so far.

I told everyone this was happening months ago and no one believed it.

Sorry, I still don't see how the thread title is accurate based on sources that can be cited... "Norwegian moving OAK-LGW to SFO-LGW" would absolutely be an accurate title, but the best info we have to go on otherwise is Norwegian's own spokesman saying that other existing routes are better suited to OAK and FLL. As of now, the fact that Norwegian is pulling out of OAK completely is, at best, a rumor.

I would call it a trial balloon. F9 and NK and G4 have done things like this where they trialed "the other airport nearby" to do an A-B test on performance. I think if MIA/SFO do well and they have facilities, it will all move. OTOH, it may not do well. Running a split operation is not the goal. They are only at SWF because they cannot expand at JFK according to what I've heard them say. If SFO and MIA aren't constrained I see them moving...pending results.

enilria wrote:

FSDan wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

I told everyone this was happening months ago and no one believed it.

Sorry, I still don't see how the thread title is accurate based on sources that can be cited... "Norwegian moving OAK-LGW to SFO-LGW" would absolutely be an accurate title, but the best info we have to go on otherwise is Norwegian's own spokesman saying that other existing routes are better suited to OAK and FLL. As of now, the fact that Norwegian is pulling out of OAK completely is, at best, a rumor.

I would call it a trial balloon. F9 and NK and G4 have done things like this where they trialed "the other airport nearby" to do an A-B test on performance. I think if MIA/SFO do well and they have facilities, it will all move. OTOH, it may not do well. Running a split operation is not the goal. They are only at SWF because they cannot expand at JFK according to what I've heard them say. If SFO and MIA aren't constrained I see them moving...pending results.

Yep, that could absolutely happen. In fact, I won't be surprised if it does. And I think it's perfectly reasonable to discuss that possibility in the body of this thread, but at the current time I don't see any supporting evidence for that to be in the thread title. Others may disagree.

FSDan wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

FSDan wrote:

Nothing in the linked article at all suggests that they plan on closing OAK... Only that they are moving LGW over to SFO in the hopes of getting more premium traffic, and that they are evaluating other destinations to start from SFO. It's possible that their end game is to wind down OAK in favor of SFO, but you really couldn't infer that from any sources shared so far.

I told everyone this was happening months ago and no one believed it.

Sorry, I still don't see how the thread title is accurate based on sources that can be cited... "Norwegian moving OAK-LGW to SFO-LGW" would absolutely be an accurate title, but the best info we have to go on otherwise is Norwegian's own spokesman saying that other existing routes are better suited to OAK and FLL. As of now, the fact that Norwegian is pulling out of OAK completely is, at best, a rumor.

Their spokesperson, Lindstrom, literally said "London won't be the only destination to get SFO flight." https://www.sfgate.com/chris-mcginnis/a ... 409289.php

They are moving more flights. Wait another month for more announcements......

this is great news for those that fly out of SFO! more options to Europe.

They'll fly out of Terminal A most likely. Terminal G is used almost all day and dominated with Star Alliance

SonaSounds wrote:

FSDan wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

I told everyone this was happening months ago and no one believed it.

Sorry, I still don't see how the thread title is accurate based on sources that can be cited... "Norwegian moving OAK-LGW to SFO-LGW" would absolutely be an accurate title, but the best info we have to go on otherwise is Norwegian's own spokesman saying that other existing routes are better suited to OAK and FLL. As of now, the fact that Norwegian is pulling out of OAK completely is, at best, a rumor.

Their spokesperson, Lindstrom, literally said "London won't be the only destination to get SFO flight." https://www.sfgate.com/chris-mcginnis/a ... 409289.php

They are moving more flights. Wait another month for more announcements......

Is it possible that Norwegian adds duplicate flights to SFO? In fairness, it says that London won't be the only destination--it doesn't specifically say that OAK service will end, though I might find that hard to believe.

And please don't take these posts personally. Perhaps if you could elucidate the nature of the source of your information, that would help blunt accusations that these are rumors.