Hello guys,

I am aware mods these topic was partially covered in the thread about the switch of the LGW routes to both MIA and SFO respectively. Feel free to reorganize this new thread wherever you may consider in case it looks duplicate.

Looking at schedules after Oct19, Norwegian hasn't opened any route for sale from either FLL or OAK.

FORT LAUDERDALE

Seasonal, only EU summer: BCN
Seasonal, ending this March: Fort de France, Pointe a Pitre.
Year-round: CPH, OSL, ARN, CDG. LGW ends this March switches to MIA.
Nothing bookable for next W19-20.

I believe FLL was a cabin crews base, and also pilots?

OAKLAND

Seasonal, only EU summer: CPH, ARN, OSL and FCO.
Year-round: BCN, CDG and LGW ends this March switches to SFO.
Nothing bookable for next W19-20.

Following the movement made on the Gatwick routes from both airports, one can think DY is looking at moving towards MIA and SFO, but do you think this is a realistic scenario? SFO is super busy. We are not talking about a huge amount of frequencies, but it would add some more traffic to congested terminals. On the other hand, fees and ground costs I assume are higher in both places, so would this movement if eventually happens pay off in better yields for Norwegian?

Norwegian will move BCN/CDG-OAK to BCN/CDG-SFO from W19.

https://media.es.norwegian.com/pressrel ... al-2894972 (spanish)

Once again as with many other airlines, OAK gets dumped in favor of SFO.

Hardly surprising. I'm sure very few people in Europe want to fly into OAK and then schlep into the city.

What flights does Norwegian still have at Oakland? And do people think they will keep those, or eventually move everything to SFO?

That's too bad for OAK. They should've advertised that OAK is closer to downtown than SFO and far less delay prone.

That's too bad for OAK. They should've advertised that OAK is closer to downtown than SFO and far less delay prone.

BlatantEcho wrote:

Hardly surprising. I'm sure very few people in Europe want to fly into OAK and then schlep into the city.

What flights does Norwegian still have at Oakland? And do people think they will keep those, or eventually move everything to SFO?

I think they still have seasonal Scandinavian destinations. But I'm sure in time, those will move to SFO as well. When that happens, that'll leave just the seasonal Azores flights.

BlatantEcho wrote:

Hardly surprising. I'm sure very few people in Europe want to fly into OAK and then schlep into the city.

What flights does Norwegian still have at Oakland? And do people think they will keep those, or eventually move everything to SFO?

The schlepping from OAK isn’t too bad if you’re going somewhere near a BART stop. My guess is that OAK has an awareness challenge in Europe and they get better yields from SFO.

bcn92 wrote:

Norwegian will move BCN/CDG-OAK to BCN/CDG-SFO from W19.

https://media.es.norwegian.com/pressrel ... al-2894972 (spanish)

Here’s the thread from 5 months ago when it was announced via schedule change.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1414851

SFOtoORD wrote:

BlatantEcho wrote:

Hardly surprising. I'm sure very few people in Europe want to fly into OAK and then schlep into the city.

What flights does Norwegian still have at Oakland? And do people think they will keep those, or eventually move everything to SFO?

The schlepping from OAK isn’t too bad if you’re going somewhere near a BART stop. My guess is that OAK has an awareness challenge in Europe and they get better yields from SFO.

Carriers face the same problem with PVD vs. BOS, Sanford vs. Orlando, SWF vs. JFK, etc. The calls to chase the subsidies and/or find the cheaper (CPE) airport seem to ignore impact on yields.

That's too bad. There's not much difference between the two airports with transportation connectivity to San Francisco itself.

BlatantEcho wrote:

Hardly surprising. I'm sure very few people in Europe want to fly into OAK and then schlep into the city.

What flights does Norwegian still have at Oakland? And do people think they will keep those, or eventually move everything to SFO?

It takes almost the exact same time to get to Embarcadero from either OAK or SFO on BART. Yes, the Bay Bridge can be daunting if you drive, but OAK isn’t “schleping it” the same way that, say, Beauvais is to Paris or Narita is to Tokyo. Sadly, many people from outside the region don’t realize that.

Is the timing on these changes related to when incentives for the routes are expiring, or have those already ended?

BlatantEcho wrote:

Hardly surprising. I'm sure very few people in Europe want to fly into OAK and then schlep into the city.

What flights does Norwegian still have at Oakland? And do people think they will keep those, or eventually move everything to SFO?

Actually I don't think there's any schlepping involved at OAK. As a European I find it one of the easiest US airports to get to the (main) city from. SF is one a very few US cities with decent and reliable public transportation you can actually use to/from the airport.

oldannyboy wrote:

BlatantEcho wrote:

Hardly surprising. I'm sure very few people in Europe want to fly into OAK and then schlep into the city.

What flights does Norwegian still have at Oakland? And do people think they will keep those, or eventually move everything to SFO?

Actually I don't think there's any schlepping involved at OAK. As a European I find it one of the easiest US airports to get to the (main) city from. SF is one a very few US cities with decent and reliable public transportation you can actually use to/from the airport.

Very few? Like BOS, JFK, PHL, BWI, IAD, MIA, FLL, ORD, DEN, DFW, SEA, PDX and about 4 dozen more?

With how cheap uber is, I would rather do that and not smell the homeless people.

Varsity1 wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

BlatantEcho wrote:

Hardly surprising. I'm sure very few people in Europe want to fly into OAK and then schlep into the city.

What flights does Norwegian still have at Oakland? And do people think they will keep those, or eventually move everything to SFO?

Actually I don't think there's any schlepping involved at OAK. As a European I find it one of the easiest US airports to get to the (main) city from. SF is one a very few US cities with decent and reliable public transportation you can actually use to/from the airport.

With how cheap uber is, I would rather do that and not smell the homeless people.

Check your privilege.

It's disappointing OAK can't keep service like this. DY is exactly the sort of airline you could see setting up shop at OAK and being successful. And it appears they were, for a while to an extent, but as long as SFO is right there across the bay airlines that have the option to operate there will eventually choose it. As others have mentioned above, it is no more of a schlep from OAK into the city than it is from SFO.

Follow the money....

These moves come on the heels of Norwegian shifting its Bay Area flight to London-Gatwick Airport from Oakland to SFO in March — a decision the company said is already paying dividends. More about that here.

"By moving our London service from OAK to SFO at the end of March this year, we've seen greater return and higher yields, especially in our Premium cabin, as well as greater cargo opportunities," said Anders Lindstrom, Norwegian's Director of Communications in North America. "We are very pleased with how SFO-London has been performing in a relatively short period, and we are expecting similar results for Barcelona and Paris once we move those routes to SFO at the end of October."

https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/N ... 077892.php

cschleic wrote:

That's too bad. There's not much difference between the two airports with transportation connectivity to San Francisco itself.

As long as there is a BART stop nearby. If you’re going to less BART accessible parts of the city and you’re using an Uber or taxi pretty much anything is better than the Bay Bridge. But for tourists BART is likely going to be just fine for OAK or SFO.

enilria wrote:

bcn92 wrote:

Norwegian will move BCN/CDG-OAK to BCN/CDG-SFO from W19.

https://media.es.norwegian.com/pressrel ... al-2894972 (spanish)

Here’s the thread from 5 months ago when it was announced via schedule change.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1414851

Your link doesn't appear to be working for me

Varsity1 wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

BlatantEcho wrote:

Hardly surprising. I'm sure very few people in Europe want to fly into OAK and then schlep into the city.

What flights does Norwegian still have at Oakland? And do people think they will keep those, or eventually move everything to SFO?

Actually I don't think there's any schlepping involved at OAK. As a European I find it one of the easiest US airports to get to the (main) city from. SF is one a very few US cities with decent and reliable public transportation you can actually use to/from the airport.

Very few? Like BOS, JFK, PHL, BWI, IAD, MIA, FLL, ORD, DEN, DFW, SEA, PDX and about 4 dozen more?

With how cheap uber is, I would rather do that and not smell the homeless people.

You invariably come across as a horrible human being.

^^^
Thats not necessary. Guy just shared his opinion.
Not everyone thinks the same as you.

oldannyboy wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

Actually I don't think there's any schlepping involved at OAK. As a European I find it one of the easiest US airports to get to the (main) city from. SF is one a very few US cities with decent and reliable public transportation you can actually use to/from the airport.

Very few? Like BOS, JFK, PHL, BWI, IAD, MIA, FLL, ORD, DEN, DFW, SEA, PDX and about 4 dozen more?

With how cheap uber is, I would rather do that and not smell the homeless people.

You invariably come across as a horrible human being.

Nice personal attack.

Not only have the flights moved, but the CDG flight is almost 6 hours earlier than before (or 3 hours compared to the two days of the week that it won't run during this winter), and compared to W18 at OAK, will be 2-weekly down from 3-weekly. For the BCN flight, the Monday flight's timing is relatively unchanged and still departs in the evening, but the Friday flight departs in the early afternoon, like the CDG flight's new timing. Frequency-wise, BCN is unchanged compared to W18 (2-weekly).

Granted, I've already booked my trip across the pond this November (these schedule changes and announcements from DY did come at pretty short notice), but supposing I hadn't and was prospecting booking that BCN flight, I'd either need to leave early on Friday or take that day off...but at least there's still the LGW flight at its usual evening time.

Alas, unfortunate for OAK after what it was able to build up these past 5-6 years.

mooseofspruce wrote:

Not only have the flights moved, but the CDG flight is almost 6 hours earlier than before (or 3 hours compared to the two days of the week that it won't run during this winter), and compared to W18 at OAK, will be 2-weekly down from 3-weekly. For the BCN flight, the Monday flight's timing is relatively unchanged and still departs in the evening, but the Friday flight departs in the early afternoon, like the CDG flight's new timing. Frequency-wise, BCN is unchanged compared to W18 (2-weekly).

Granted, I've already booked my trip across the pond this November (these schedule changes and announcements from DY did come at pretty short notice), but supposing I hadn't and was prospecting booking that BCN flight, I'd either need to leave early on Friday or take that day off...but at least there's still the LGW flight at its usual evening time.

Alas, unfortunate for OAK after what it was able to build up these past 5-6 years.

what OAK was able to build up?? The Airlines obviously wanted to fly into SFO or they wouldn't have went there. There's nothing wrong with OAK other than it's in the same Metro area as SFO and that's the name recognized around the world. Just like JFK is recognized over EWR for New York City.

oldannyboy wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

oldannyboy wrote:

Actually I don't think there's any schlepping involved at OAK. As a European I find it one of the easiest US airports to get to the (main) city from. SF is one a very few US cities with decent and reliable public transportation you can actually use to/from the airport.

Very few? Like BOS, JFK, PHL, BWI, IAD, MIA, FLL, ORD, DEN, DFW, SEA, PDX and about 4 dozen more?

With how cheap uber is, I would rather do that and not smell the homeless people.

You invariably come across as a horrible human being.

It is a fair point. Most US airports are linked by reliable public transportation to city centers. So to say SF is one of the "very few" is not correct.

strfyr51 wrote:

what OAK was able to build up?? The Airlines obviously wanted to fly into SFO or they wouldn't have went there. There's nothing wrong with OAK other than it's in the same Metro area as SFO and that's the name recognized around the world. Just like JFK is recognized over EWR for New York City.

It was able to build up service to 7 European destinations and attract multiple carriers to two European routes for the first time in its history. It didn't last (like everything but WN service at OAK) but it was still significant for the airport. Norwegian could have started at SFO if they wanted. It's not slot restricted and I doubt it would have been difficult to find gate space in 2013. They wanted to be at OAK, were successful enough to keep adding destinations, but several years later decided their business prospects were better at SFO.

That's the way things are for OAK now vis-a-vis SFO. 15 years ago SFO was ~twice the size of OAK and now it's between four and five times bigger (in passenger numbers).

ucdtim17 wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

what OAK was able to build up?? The Airlines obviously wanted to fly into SFO or they wouldn't have went there. There's nothing wrong with OAK other than it's in the same Metro area as SFO and that's the name recognized around the world. Just like JFK is recognized over EWR for New York City.

It was able to build up service to 7 European destinations and attract multiple carriers to two European routes for the first time in its history. It didn't last (like everything but WN service at OAK) but it was still significant for the airport. Norwegian could have started at SFO if they wanted. It's not slot restricted and I doubt it would have been difficult to find gate space in 2013. They wanted to be at OAK, were successful enough to keep adding destinations, but several years later decided their business prospects were better at SFO.

That's the way things are for OAK now vis-a-vis SFO. 15 years ago SFO was ~twice the size of OAK and now it's between four and five times bigger (in passenger numbers).

Basically the same thing is happening to OAK and SJC. It’s SFO or nothing.