Page 1 of 1

jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 12:58 am
by TTraider95
Hello Everybody,

If I remember correctly in the mid to late 2000's jetBlue had a reasonably good sized operation out of Oakland with almost twenty flights a day. (I got that number from a news article about B6 expanding service but now I can't find it.) Now a days, they are down to three flights a day to JFK and LGB and seasonally BOS. I suspect Southwest pushed them out of out most markets plus, Virgin America was growing on the other side of the bay didn't help their operation either. Was there any other events that caused such a reduction of flights out of Oakland?

Besides JFK/BOS/LGB what other stations did they fly to? I know they also flew to IAD and ATL but neither of them lasted long. Here is a route map from June 2004 showing OAK's size in their network.
http://www.departedflights.com/B60604.html

Thanks Everybody!

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:12 am
by bfitzflyer
At one point they flew to IAD as well

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:13 am
by jfklganyc
They went into SFO and then doubled down in SFO with a shrinkage in OAK

Frankly, with mint, SFO seems to work well
for them with token presences in OAK and SJC

From NY, B6 flies to SAN LGB ONT LAX BUR SJC OAK SFO and SMF.

No other airline even comes close to offering that level of transcon service from NY, let alone BOS

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:15 am
by B6JFKH81
WN wasn't the problem. VX was. Once VX started up in SFO, there were less people crossing over the bridge to fly out of OAK since VX had a very similar product and price structure. So, B6 had to re-focus on the bay area and make SFO the primary airport for their operation. It wasn't an experiment, it was an LCC using a secondary airport in a region which is common but having to change game plans with a switch in competition and customer preferences.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:27 am
by tphuang
In Oakland now, you have the WN + NK combination which is deadly to any B6 ambitions.

Funnily enough, with the cuts to LGB-OAK, it has now become a profitable route again.

JFK-OAK also suffered a bit when WN started flying EWR-OAK

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:41 am
by wnflyguy
[threeid][/threeid]
B6JFKH81 wrote:
WN wasn't the problem. VX was. Once VX started up in SFO, there were less people crossing over the bridge to fly out of OAK since VX had a very similar product and price structure. So, B6 had to re-focus on the bay area and make SFO the primary airport for their operation. It wasn't an experiment, it was an LCC using a secondary airport in a region which is common but having to change game plans with a switch in competition and customer preferences.

Also before VX started up WN made a big blunder by pulling out of SFO with the anticipation everyone would treak to OAK and SJC.
B6 saw a great opportunity to close up most flights and relocate to SFO were it's yields almost double vs the traffic at OAK.
With VX and B6 both doing better it forced WN to reinstall SFO service.
JetBlue is supposed to get 5 gates on the new A concourse.

Flyguy

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:49 am
by MIflyer12
jfklganyc wrote:
From NY, B6 flies to SAN LGB ONT LAX BUR SJC OAK SFO and SMF.

No other airline even comes close to offering that level of transcon service from NY, let alone BOS


Destination count is a poor metric. Everything except SFO or LAX is just one or two flights a day. Not by seats or flights is B6 the NYC-California leader.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:58 am
by ucdtim17
Also started OAK-FLL in 2006; I don't know how long it lasted though - https://www.oaklandairport.com/jetblue- ... -from-oak/. 16 daily flights to five destinations at that point.

OAK-IAD lasted through the worst recession years before it was just dropped a few years ago.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 7:37 am
by psa1011
It seems like B6 could add a daytime OAK-JFK given the growth in the East Bay.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:45 am
by tphuang
wnflyguy wrote:
[threeid][/threeid]
B6JFKH81 wrote:
WN wasn't the problem. VX was. Once VX started up in SFO, there were less people crossing over the bridge to fly out of OAK since VX had a very similar product and price structure. So, B6 had to re-focus on the bay area and make SFO the primary airport for their operation. It wasn't an experiment, it was an LCC using a secondary airport in a region which is common but having to change game plans with a switch in competition and customer preferences.

Also before VX started up WN made a big blunder by pulling out of SFO with the anticipation everyone would treak to OAK and SJC.
B6 saw a great opportunity to close up most flights and relocate to SFO were it's yields almost double vs the traffic at OAK.
With VX and B6 both doing better it forced WN to reinstall SFO service.
JetBlue is supposed to get 5 gates on the new A concourse.

Flyguy

where did you hear that they are moving to concourse A? I'm pretty sure they are moving to Terminal 1 given this tweet
https://twitter.com/Erik_Ascending/stat ... 3136392192

On the subject of JFK to California market, B6 is definitely the leader per Q4.

Carrier flights Board
B6 4461 632530
DL 3492 596224
AA 3191 297531

this counts LAX, SFO, SAN, SMF, BUR, LGB, ONT, PSP, SJC, OAK

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:05 pm
by ucdtim17
psa1011 wrote:
It seems like B6 could add a daytime OAK-JFK given the growth in the East Bay.


I was a frequent flyer on the route from ~2012-2015 and always hoped for every schedule extension to see a daytime flight added as the economy moved out of the recession and got stronger year after year. Like AS though, B6 was apparently satisfied with their recession-level of service at OAK and wanted to direct any new capacity to SFO.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 1:39 pm
by FLIHGH
OAK-IAD actually held on for pretty long, but I don’t believe it was daily towards the end. But, it made it to this decade.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:39 pm
by ucdtim17
FLIHGH wrote:
OAK-IAD actually held on for pretty long, but I don’t believe it was daily towards the end. But, it made it to this decade.


It ended June 2014 https://www.usatoday.com/story/todayint ... s/8164595/

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 3:55 pm
by SonaSounds
Seems like the peak of B6 at OAK was in 2006

Mkt Al Orig Dest Miles Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat Sun Ops/Week Seats Seats/ Dep ASMs
B6 OAK BOS 2,693 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 3,276 156.0 8,822,268
B6 OAK FLL 2,575 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 7 1,092 156.0 2,811,900
B6 OAK IAD 2,408 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 21 3,276 156.0 7,888,608
B6 OAK JFK 2,576 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 42 6,552 156.0 16,877,952
B6 OAK LGB 353 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 35 5,460 156.0 1,927,380
TOTAL 18 18 18 18 18 18 18 126 19,656 156.0 38,328,108

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:05 pm
by AirFiero
SJC and OAK pretty much always get f***ed by SFO. Or by local people’s belief that the only airport in the Bay Area is SFO.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:51 pm
by wnflyguy
tphuang wrote:
wnflyguy wrote:
[threeid][/threeid]
B6JFKH81 wrote:
WN wasn't the problem. VX was. Once VX started up in SFO, there were less people crossing over the bridge to fly out of OAK since VX had a very similar product and price structure. So, B6 had to re-focus on the bay area and make SFO the primary airport for their operation. It wasn't an experiment, it was an LCC using a secondary airport in a region which is common but having to change game plans with a switch in competition and customer preferences.

Also before VX started up WN made a big blunder by pulling out of SFO with the anticipation everyone would treak to OAK and SJC.
B6 saw a great opportunity to close up most flights and relocate to SFO were it's yields almost double vs the traffic at OAK.
With VX and B6 both doing better it forced WN to reinstall SFO service.
JetBlue is supposed to get 5 gates on the new A concourse.

Flyguy

where did you hear that they are moving to concourse A? I'm pretty sure they are moving to Terminal 1 given this tweet
https://twitter.com/Erik_Ascending/stat ... 3136392192

On the subject of JFK to California market, B6 is definitely the leader per Q4.

Carrier flights Board
B6 4461 632530
DL 3492 596224
AA 3191 297531

this counts LAX, SFO, SAN, SMF, BUR, LGB, ONT, PSP, SJC, OAK


Terminal 1 ya your right.
Flyguy

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:54 pm
by jfklganyc
[threeid][/threeid]
MIflyer12 wrote:
jfklganyc wrote:
From NY, B6 flies to SAN LGB ONT LAX BUR SJC OAK SFO and SMF.

No other airline even comes close to offering that level of transcon service from NY, let alone BOS


Destination count is a poor metric. Everything except SFO or LAX is just one or two flights a day. Not by seats or flights is B6 the NYC-California leader.[/quote

Who beats them on seats or on flights or on destinations from NY?

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:57 pm
by intotheair
AirFiero wrote:
SJC and OAK pretty much always get f***ed by SFO. Or by local people’s belief that the only airport in the Bay Area is SFO.


I still think OAK’s best days are ahead of itself. It’s the only one of the three with lots of potential to expand. The BART connection has made it much easier to get to San Francisco and elsewhere. Terminal 2 is looking nice, now if only Terminal 1 could get another good remodel...

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 6:03 pm
by Ziyulu
B6 was a better airline in terms of soft product. You got snacks on B6, but not VX.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 6:23 pm
by ucdtim17
AirFiero wrote:
SJC and OAK pretty much always get f***ed by SFO. Or by local people’s belief that the only airport in the Bay Area is SFO.


I would guess the problem is everyone else, not locals. Tourists and other visitors want to fly to “San Francisco” airport and may not know if another airport might be closer to their destination and/or less delay-prone. Locals should know local geography.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 9:44 pm
by wedgetail737
Didn't OAK go through a pretty tough time during the early 2000's with the recession and all?

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:30 pm
by babastud
I think B6 missed a big opportunity in setting up shop in OAK instead of SFO. They believed it would pay off with less competition, congestion, and lower costs. The thing was in the early 2000's SFO numbers where way down and only in 2014 they started to tick back up. That would have been a great time to set up in SFO with plenty of gates available, less congestion and could have struck a deal with SFO for an established west coast hub. I know many here would argue United. Well just a few years later VX (say what you will) had the courage to start-up in SFO and take on United and others. B6 a decade later ended up in a bidding war with Alaska for VX and the same very gates and established presence they could have easily had in the first place. No marks against OAK, it's a great airport and I'm a fan. It just does not hold the same weight as SFO in terms of yield. With JFK and BOS as there east coast and SFO as there west. They would have turned out to be a more well rounded and successful airline.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 10:34 pm
by wedgetail737
A few airlines have experimented with OAK. AA tried flying to LAX and JFK in addition to DFW. Going back some years, Wien Air Alaska and America West tried a mini-hub at OAK. Even UA tried it. WN is the only airline to be successful at hubbing it at OAK. All others have tried and failed.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Fri Apr 19, 2019 11:05 pm
by OAKSpotter
UA is considering to return service to OAK. Although the date has not been announced as of yet coming from an official. OAK is slowly recovering of the routes lost from the 2008 crash.

ATL is now year-round on DL and DFW is back on AA. WN is adding LIH, HLI, and HTO in the near future. Moxy Airways is interested in adding service to OAK. It's just a matter a time when we'll see a Terminal 3 expansion project get off the ground. The OAK marketing team is working hard in adding more air-service as possible. We won't see a project happening at least in the coming next five years.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:59 am
by wedgetail737
OAKSpotter wrote:
UA is considering to return service to OAK. Although the date has not been announced as of yet coming from an official. OAK is slowly recovering of the routes lost from the 2008 crash.

ATL is now year-round on DL and DFW is back on AA. WN is adding LIH, HLI, and HTO in the near future. Moxy Airways is interested in adding service to OAK. It's just a matter a time when we'll see a Terminal 3 expansion project get off the ground. The OAK marketing team is working hard in adding more air-service as possible. We won't see a project happening at least in the coming next five years.


Outlook for OAK may be looking a little more positive, but OAK's international service was suffering a little with the departure of Level, BA and some Norwegian. I think Norwegian is going to move all of their flights to SFO, if they don't close up shop first.

OAK is gaining little by little with ATL and DFW, as you mentioned. LF has added 2 additional flights to CEC and SBA (which I think will be seasonal). WN continues to trickle in some flights. I will believe in the return of UA when I see it. AA only returned because of combination of US Airways and AA.

We'll see what happens.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 6:28 am
by AirFiero
OAKSpotter wrote:
UA is considering to return service to OAK. Although the date has not been announced as of yet coming from an official. OAK is slowly recovering of the routes lost from the 2008 crash.

ATL is now year-round on DL and DFW is back on AA. WN is adding LIH, HLI, and HTO in the near future. Moxy Airways is interested in adding service to OAK. It's just a matter a time when we'll see a Terminal 3 expansion project get off the ground. The OAK marketing team is working hard in adding more air-service as possible. We won't see a project happening at least in the coming next five years.


Why would UA want to build up OAK (or SJC for that matter) when they have a massive hub at SFO?

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:41 am
by dfwjim1
intotheair wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
SJC and OAK pretty much always get f***ed by SFO. Or by local people’s belief that the only airport in the Bay Area is SFO.


I still think OAK’s best days are ahead of itself. It’s the only one of the three with lots of potential to expand. The BART connection has made it much easier to get to San Francisco and elsewhere. Terminal 2 is looking nice, now if only Terminal 1 could get another good remodel...


I flew out of Oakland last month from Terminal 1 after a long absence and Terminal 1 still looked the same, old and dated. OAK has a long way to go to match up with SFO and SJC.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:52 am
by intotheair
AirFiero wrote:
OAKSpotter wrote:
UA is considering to return service to OAK. Although the date has not been announced as of yet coming from an official. OAK is slowly recovering of the routes lost from the 2008 crash.

ATL is now year-round on DL and DFW is back on AA. WN is adding LIH, HLI, and HTO in the near future. Moxy Airways is interested in adding service to OAK. It's just a matter a time when we'll see a Terminal 3 expansion project get off the ground. The OAK marketing team is working hard in adding more air-service as possible. We won't see a project happening at least in the coming next five years.


Why would UA want to build up OAK (or SJC for that matter) when they have a massive hub at SFO?


There are strategic advantages to being in all three airports. It would certainly give Bay Area flyers more reason to stay loyal to United, and it would make it harder for Alaska or anyone else to try to build up more at OAK or SJC.

I used to be an elite and flew United 95% of the time from either SFO or OAK. I preferred OAK as it was closer and easier, but I’d still do SFO if it were cheaper or if the schedule was better. Then United left OAK, and I grudgingly went to SFO until I started to question my loyalty to what was then an awful airline. I gave Southwest a shot for the first time, and I realized that it was quite nice being able to fly from Oakland again.

I am far from being a high value Bay Area flyer (though I’m also no budget traveler), but clearly the new United thinks that there’s a competitive upside to having a decent presence at Oakland and San Jose in addition to the powerhouse hub at SFO. Scott Kirby was very clear in his Chronicle interview that United is coming back to Oakland - it’s only a matter of time.

Back on the subeject of JetBlue, I always wished for them to build up a bigger presence on the west coast. I’m willing to bet though that they probably would have also shrunk SFO had VX ended up with them instead.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 9:00 am
by intotheair
dfwjim1 wrote:
intotheair wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
SJC and OAK pretty much always get f***ed by SFO. Or by local people’s belief that the only airport in the Bay Area is SFO.


I still think OAK’s best days are ahead of itself. It’s the only one of the three with lots of potential to expand. The BART connection has made it much easier to get to San Francisco and elsewhere. Terminal 2 is looking nice, now if only Terminal 1 could get another good remodel...


I flew out of Oakland last month from Terminal 1 after a long absence and Terminal 1 still looked the same, old and dated. OAK has a long way to go to match up with SFO and SJC.


It definitely got a remodel about ten years ago or so with upgraded floors, new concessions, and better signage. They also removed some of the ceiling panels for a mod, exposed look. I went through OAK again for the first time in two years or so (just moved back to the Bay Area) and I noticed they put all the ceiling panels back in but painted them white. I found it amusing to see what’s old is new again. It now looks a lot more like how it did in the 80s again.

Also, some Southwest flights now use Terminal 1 - is that a new thing, or was I just not paying attention before? My flight left out of there and it caught me off guard.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 2:40 pm
by wedgetail737
intotheair wrote:
dfwjim1 wrote:
intotheair wrote:

I still think OAK’s best days are ahead of itself. It’s the only one of the three with lots of potential to expand. The BART connection has made it much easier to get to San Francisco and elsewhere. Terminal 2 is looking nice, now if only Terminal 1 could get another good remodel...


I flew out of Oakland last month from Terminal 1 after a long absence and Terminal 1 still looked the same, old and dated. OAK has a long way to go to match up with SFO and SJC.


It definitely got a remodel about ten years ago or so with upgraded floors, new concessions, and better signage. They also removed some of the ceiling panels for a mod, exposed look. I went through OAK again for the first time in two years or so (just moved back to the Bay Area) and I noticed they put all the ceiling panels back in but painted them white. I found it amusing to see what’s old is new again. It now looks a lot more like how it did in the 80s again.

Also, some Southwest flights now use Terminal 1 - is that a new thing, or was I just not paying attention before? My flight left out of there and it caught me off guard.


The claim I heard (although I don't know how true it was) was that WN didn't have enough gates in T2 for -800 ops. So they ended up with 2 gates at T1 for those ops. However, I've seen more -700's at those gates than -800's. WN is slowly taking over OAK, kind of leaving less room for any other airline to come in.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 3:31 pm
by ucdtim17
OAK recently spent $33 mil on Terminal 1 but managed to avoid any customer-facing improvements (https://www.portofoakland.com/press-rel ... lease-342/). Concessions are being overhauled now so the end product there should be a significant improvement but I don’t think there are other major plans to renovate T1. A terminal 3 will be needed at some point but for now, with everyone but WN not really making any attempts to grow their business there, T1 gates have a lot of slack.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:37 pm
by AirFiero
intotheair wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
OAKSpotter wrote:
UA is considering to return service to OAK. Although the date has not been announced as of yet coming from an official. OAK is slowly recovering of the routes lost from the 2008 crash.

ATL is now year-round on DL and DFW is back on AA. WN is adding LIH, HLI, and HTO in the near future. Moxy Airways is interested in adding service to OAK. It's just a matter a time when we'll see a Terminal 3 expansion project get off the ground. The OAK marketing team is working hard in adding more air-service as possible. We won't see a project happening at least in the coming next five years.


Why would UA want to build up OAK (or SJC for that matter) when they have a massive hub at SFO?


There are strategic advantages to being in all three airports. It would certainly give Bay Area flyers more reason to stay loyal to United, and it would make it harder for Alaska or anyone else to try to build up more at OAK or SJC.

I used to be an elite and flew United 95% of the time from either SFO or OAK. I preferred OAK as it was closer and easier, but I’d still do SFO if it were cheaper or if the schedule was better. Then United left OAK, and I grudgingly went to SFO until I started to question my loyalty to what was then an awful airline. I gave Southwest a shot for the first time, and I realized that it was quite nice being able to fly from Oakland again.

I am far from being a high value Bay Area flyer (though I’m also no budget traveler), but clearly the new United thinks that there’s a competitive upside to having a decent presence at Oakland and San Jose in addition to the powerhouse hub at SFO. Scott Kirby was very clear in his Chronicle interview that United is coming back to Oakland - it’s only a matter of time.

Back on the subeject of JetBlue, I always wished for them to build up a bigger presence on the west coast. I’m willing to bet though that they probably would have also shrunk SFO had VX ended up with them instead.


I can see the value of having a presence at all 3 area airports, but I doubt we’d see OAK or SJC get anything more than a few extra flights to the UA hubs and focus cities.

New question, how many total gates does OAK have now, and is there any expansion imminent?

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:37 pm
by n471wn
WN actually uses 3 gates in Terminal 1—3, 4 and 6. I fly out of Oakland exclusively for my domestic flights and only go to SFO when I have no other choice. Oakland’s Terminal 1 remains a disappointment in several areas starting with the food choices which are embarrassingly spartan. Years ago they had a great burrito place but it is long gone.

And of course the gate numbering is simply crazy. There is no Gate 2 but yet there is a Gate 7A and a Gate 7B which confuses rookies. You would think that Oakland could at least get this right. Next to San Jose it is a dump but we all love where it is.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 4:51 pm
by intotheair
AirFiero wrote:

I can see the value of having a presence at all 3 area airports, but I doubt we’d see OAK or SJC get anything more than a few extra flights to the UA hubs and focus cities.

New question, how many total gates does OAK have now, and is there any expansion imminent?


Oh absolutely. In that interview, Kirby said that SJC will obviously only see flights to the hubs. I would imagine it would be the same for OAK. I would guess they’ll resume OAK-DEN and maybe ORD or IAH, if that. OAK-DEN was 2x 319 when it was last flown if I recall. With our luck, they’ll probably bring it back on RJs. I still can’t believe UA puts CRJ-200s on BUR-DEN.

https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/I ... 729013.php

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 5:02 pm
by SurfandSnow
TTraider95 wrote:
Now a days, they are down to three flights a day to JFK and LGB and seasonally BOS.


IMO, OAK is lucky to have even these B6 services today. IAD was also a focus city experiment, and now it doesn't even have B6 service...

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 5:20 pm
by doug_or
When did B6 pull down OAK to a simple spoke? When did VX start flying? I thought there was a bit of a gap.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:28 pm
by AirFiero
intotheair wrote:
AirFiero wrote:

I can see the value of having a presence at all 3 area airports, but I doubt we’d see OAK or SJC get anything more than a few extra flights to the UA hubs and focus cities.

New question, how many total gates does OAK have now, and is there any expansion imminent?


Oh absolutely. In that interview, Kirby said that SJC will obviously only see flights to the hubs. I would imagine it would be the same for OAK. I would guess they’ll resume OAK-DEN and maybe ORD or IAH, if that. OAK-DEN was 2x 319 when it was last flown if I recall. With our luck, they’ll probably bring it back on RJs. I still can’t believe UA puts CRJ-200s on BUR-DEN.

https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/I ... 729013.php


Is UA completely out of OAK now?

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 8:54 pm
by ytib
AirFiero wrote:
Is UA completely out of OAK now?


Yes, they left in 2012. Leaving WN the only airline on the DEN-OAK market which I fly frequently. There is no need to go to SFO when your destination is Bay Farm Island in Alameda.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/ ... d-airport/

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sat Apr 20, 2019 10:35 pm
by OzarkD9S
wedgetail737 wrote:

The claim I heard (although I don't know how true it was) was that WN didn't have enough gates in T2 for -800 ops. So they ended up with 2 gates at T1 for those ops. However, I've seen more -700's at those gates than -800's. WN is slowly taking over OAK, kind of leaving less room for any other airline to come in.


I flew 737-700's in and out on a STL-OAK-RNO (T-1) connection not too long ago so you are correct on that one.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:13 am
by tphuang
it's interesting how B6 strategy has changed over time. From one that still believed in flying out of secondary airports like OAK/BUR/LGB in west coast to SFO/LAX. Unfortunately, the move came too late. There just isn't anyway they can compete with WN's presence there. Anyone can comment on how large WN was at OAK when they started? Cause right now, it would be crazy for them to try building up OAK again.

If they had adopted VX strategy to build up at SFO/LAX back a decade ago and had mint existed earlier, I wonder what might have been. As of now, they are going to have to just wait for the next opportunity in west coast. They would need to put the newest of their fleet A220 and A321NEO there along with a lot of money to gain a foothold.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:06 am
by Georgetown
I flew OAK-IAD regularly from about 2002-2010, then went completely to United. I’ve gotta say I really miss that service. Weird to think it’s completely gone. Really wish B6 would put mint from Bay Area to WAS. United needs more competition.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:22 am
by jplatts
Georgetown wrote:
I flew OAK-IAD regularly from about 2002-2010, then went completely to United. I’ve gotta say I really miss that service. Weird to think it’s completely gone. Really wish B6 would put mint from Bay Area to WAS. United needs more competition.


While WN already serves BWI nonstop from both OAK and SJC, WN could add nonstop service to IAD from both OAK and SJC in order to better compete against AS in the San Francisco Bay Area. IAD is also almost 60 miles from BWI on the opposite side of the DC area.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2019 3:43 pm
by AirFiero
jplatts wrote:
Georgetown wrote:
I flew OAK-IAD regularly from about 2002-2010, then went completely to United. I’ve gotta say I really miss that service. Weird to think it’s completely gone. Really wish B6 would put mint from Bay Area to WAS. United needs more competition.


While WN already serves BWI nonstop from both OAK and SJC, WN could add nonstop service to IAD from both OAK and SJC in order to better compete against AS in the San Francisco Bay Area. IAD is also almost 60 miles from BWI on the opposite side of the DC area.


Does AS fly IAD-west Coast (or at least California)?

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:30 pm
by F9LASDEN
AirFiero wrote:
jplatts wrote:
Georgetown wrote:
I flew OAK-IAD regularly from about 2002-2010, then went completely to United. I’ve gotta say I really miss that service. Weird to think it’s completely gone. Really wish B6 would put mint from Bay Area to WAS. United needs more competition.


While WN already serves BWI nonstop from both OAK and SJC, WN could add nonstop service to IAD from both OAK and SJC in order to better compete against AS in the San Francisco Bay Area. IAD is also almost 60 miles from BWI on the opposite side of the DC area.


Does AS fly IAD-west Coast (or at least California)?


Yes, they serve LAX, SFO, and SEA

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2019 4:57 pm
by caflyboy
Didn't they fly AUS-OAK also? I seem to rememberAUS had 6 cities at one point: LGB/OAK for the west coast. BOS/JFK for the NE and MCO/FLL for Florida.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2019 5:59 pm
by wedgetail737
ytib wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
Is UA completely out of OAK now?


Yes, they left in 2012. Leaving WN the only airline on the DEN-OAK market which I fly frequently. There is no need to go to SFO when your destination is Bay Farm Island in Alameda.

https://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/ ... d-airport/


The irony is that UA used to be one of OAK's largest players back in the day. Now, they're nothing at OAK, and it's been that way for a while. Wasn't it all part of UA's domestic retrenchment around the time you mentioned? They cut a lot out of SEA as well. I think it was a big mistake on UA's part. But now here we are.

I just think B6 has totally lost any expansion interest at OAK. They apparently have much bigger fish to fry than OAK.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:11 pm
by AirFiero
F9LASDEN wrote:
AirFiero wrote:
jplatts wrote:

While WN already serves BWI nonstop from both OAK and SJC, WN could add nonstop service to IAD from both OAK and SJC in order to better compete against AS in the San Francisco Bay Area. IAD is also almost 60 miles from BWI on the opposite side of the DC area.


Does AS fly IAD-west Coast (or at least California)?


Yes, they serve LAX, SFO, and SEA


LAX and SFO leftover from VX, or did they start post-merger? I would assume SEA was AS origin?

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:13 pm
by jplatts
AirFiero wrote:
LAX and SFO leftover from VX, or did they start post-merger? I would assume SEA was AS origin?


AS inherited SFO-IAD and LAX-IAD nonstop service through the AS-VX merger whereas AS added SEA-IAD nonstop service prior to the AS-VX merger.

Re: jetBlue's Oakland Experiment

Posted: Sun Apr 21, 2019 11:21 pm
by Austin787
caflyboy wrote:
Didn't they fly AUS-OAK also? I seem to rememberAUS had 6 cities at one point: LGB/OAK for the west coast. BOS/JFK for the NE and MCO/FLL for Florida.

I remember JetBlue flew AUS-SFO - I took that flight a few times. Not sure if they also flew AUS-OAK as well.