Simple question. With most majors having at least token service to OAK, (UA 2x daily to DEN, even with a massive hub across the Bay, DL mainline to SLC, and DL Connection to LAX and SLC, among others), why doesn't AA at least serve OAK with 1-2 flights daily to ORD or DFW?
(In light of the numerous AA bankruptcy threads, I realize that DFW-OAK may not make any money at all now.) However, was there any reason in the past not to have at least a flight or two to OAK?
Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
AA did fly DFW-OAK with MD-80s. They dropped it a few years ago around the same time that CO dropped OAK-IAH. Apparently they thought that their DFW-SFO and SJC flights were sufficient. I agree that I'd much prefer to fly into a closer airport and the East Bay does have a large population base (OAK is somewhat a more direct drive to Marin and Sonoma Counties than is SFO also).
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
Pure speculation here, but I imagine that with a heavy LCC presence in OAK with WN and B6, they priced some of the legacies out of the market.
-
- Byrdluvs747
- Posts: 2560
- Joined:
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
I'm not sure why, but when I used to price flights from the bay area to CUN, the prices from OAK were always higher than from SFO. Of all the times I flew from the bay area, I only flew the OAK-DFW route twice. However, I do miss AA's presence at OAK.
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
AA has not had the best of luck with OAK.
They axed their JFK service in 2003 which at the time was 3x daily up against JetBlue. Eagle dropped its multiple daily LAX service circa 2004 or so, with the remaining DFW service ended in 2008.
Franky the entire Bay Area has not been not been too peachy for AA over the last decade.
They axed their JFK service in 2003 which at the time was 3x daily up against JetBlue. Eagle dropped its multiple daily LAX service circa 2004 or so, with the remaining DFW service ended in 2008.
Franky the entire Bay Area has not been not been too peachy for AA over the last decade.
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
| Quoting modesto2 (Reply 2): Pure speculation here, but I imagine that with a heavy LCC presence in OAK with WN and B6, they priced some of the legacies out of the market. |
I think that pretty much sums it up. WN practically owns OAK (and, until AS's recent build-up, has essentially owned SJC since AA gutted out the QQ network in the early 2000's). I know this isn't necessarily the most accurate indicator, but while I drive people to and from SFO daily (and SJC pretty regularly), I may only go to OAK once in 2 or even 3 MONTHS, and I can't remember the last time I picked up someone at OAK from an airline other than WN or B6...
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
Had AA kept the flying going when they bought OC they would have keep a good enough presence at OAK to have supported the DFW flights, as they would have kept loyal customers to some extent. The same goes true for their acquisition of QQ in SJC. They did much better in SJC though. But even their SFO flying has been scaled back during the years. The Bay Area is owned by UA, which is why the token UA flights from OAK to DEN & ORD. Not to mention the maintenance UA does in OAK. Lots of loyal UA & *A clients live all over the bay area.
Last OAK I did on UA was A-320 to ORD n/s, and back via DEN, only 735 I've ever flown, but BART is easier from SFO.
Last OAK I did on UA was A-320 to ORD n/s, and back via DEN, only 735 I've ever flown, but BART is easier from SFO.
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
At one time, AA had a decent presence in OAK...flights to DFW, LAX with mainline aircraft and to JFK.
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
| Quoting as739x (Reply 8): OAK is more direct to Sonoma yes, Marin Co., no. |
You must not live here.....tell you what I will do....I will bet you $100 (to be given to charity) and we will start in San Rafael and you go over the Golden Gate and head to SFO and I will go over the Richmond-San Rafael Bridge and see who gets to their airport first.
The point being that OAK is so popular because it is so easy to get to and is actually closer to San Francisco than is SFO
Now all of us know that AA's flights to DFW were always packed but they said they could not justify just three flights per day
And remember the Arpey/Horton business plan has long been----let's get smaller and smaller and fly less and less
Lastly look for OAK to get some foreign carriers as the San Francisco political machine refuse to allow SFO to build new runways
-
- jacobin777
- Posts: 12262
- Joined:
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
| Quoting LAXintl (Reply 4): Franky the entire Bay Area has not been not been too peachy for AA over the last decade. |
..I'm one unfortunate (of many) victim of this.
| Quoting RWA380 (Reply 6): DFW flights, as they would have kept loyal customers to some extent. |
I never found AA to good out of OAK. I flew AA out of OAK a few times, only due to better fares than SJC/SFO. Even then, I decided to stop flying AA out of OAK (though I live in the South Bay Area).
| Quoting n471wn (Reply 9): The point being that OAK is so popular because it is so easy to get to and is actually closer to San Francisco than is SFO |
I never liked dealing with OAK. Didn't like the timings/frequency. I didn't think AA has too much of a market which wanted to fly out of OAK.
| Quoting n471wn (Reply 9): And remember the Arpey/Horton business plan has long been----let's get smaller and smaller and fly less and less |
That wouldn't make sense as OAK was still to a major AA hub.
At the end of the day, there just wasn't enough flights to keep the station open.
Even with all of the SJC cutbacks, AA/MQ still has about 12-14 daily flights (depending on day of the week).
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
| Quoting as739x (Reply 8): OAK is more direct to Sonoma yes, Marin Co., no. |
Yeah it is faster to Marin. Ever drive from Highway 280 or 101 to the Golden Gate Bridge. It's like driving from I-5 into Vancouver B.C. No freeway. You get dumped onto arterial streets. When I had friends living in Marin County they always tried to go out of OAK as they found it much easier to get to.
| Quoting Jacobin777 (Reply 10): Even with all of the SJC cutbacks, AA/MQ still has about 12-14 daily flights (depending on day of the week). |
Yeah, woooo-hooooo. At one time it was more like 77 mainline flights a day to BOS, JFK, MIA (short-lived), CDG (short-lived), AUS, DFW, ORD, DEN, LAS, SAN, SNA, LAX, PDX, SEA, YVR, HNL, OGG, TPE (short-lived), NRT. What's disappointing is there are people on A.net who think it would be a good idea for AA, US or DL to buy AS, which likely would result, at best, in a significant pulldown of AS's route structure.
-
- jacobin777
- Posts: 12262
- Joined:
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
| Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 11): What's disappointing is there are people on A.net who think it would be a good idea for AA, US or DL to buy AS, which likely would result, at best, in a significant pulldown of AS's route structure. |
AA's cost structure would kill many if not most of AS's routes/profitability.
As long as I can earn AA miles/EQM's by flying AS, I say "let AS alone". If anything, I would like to see AS take over many of those long-gone routes.
| Quoting BoeingGuy (Reply 11): Yeah, woooo-hooooo. At one time it was more like 77 mainline flights a day to BOS, JFK, MIA (short-lived), CDG (short-lived), AUS, DFW, ORD, DEN, LAS, SAN, SNA, LAX, PDX, SEA, YVR, HNL, OGG, TPE (short-lived), NRT. |
Something is better than nothing..
-
- Jonathanxxxx
- Posts: 345
- Joined:
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
I think one thing you have to remember about AA coming back to OAK would be that the only logical route would be OAK-DFW. MIA won't work because you already have SFO and they couldn't even make SJC work, JFK already has competition from B6, LAX would be a blood-bath with WN and DL, the only one left is DFW. Even then it isn't too large. Only 190 PDEW. A daily 738/M80 could work but is it really worth opening a station for a single flight?
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
[quote=jonathanxxxx,reply=13] A daily 738/M80 could work but is it really worth opening a station for a single flight?
No but that is not the point---AA just never stays and fights and just gives up----I mean they bought Air Cal and did nothing with it but dismantle it and turn tale and run----pitiful
No but that is not the point---AA just never stays and fights and just gives up----I mean they bought Air Cal and did nothing with it but dismantle it and turn tale and run----pitiful
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
Just like what has happened at SJC, OAK jacked up fees and rents to pay for terminal expansion and renovation, pricing airlines like AA and CO out of that airport. AS also dropped their OAKSNA flights.
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
I don't think you will see AA again in Oak anytime soon. AA truly has a history of just giving up like n471wn said. They certainly did in Sjc, oak and the only thing they have done at sfo is put more modern 737's to compete with competition and moved to a new terminal. AA needs to improve their product and although I like their livery, I feel a new livery and complete makeover of product and service is needed at American. As for Oak, I recently flew Spirit out of terminal 1 and it was a ghost town. Although I will never fly spirit again, Oak is a convenient airport. I could not pass up the $ 2 airfare for a day trip to Vegas.
-
- Sevensixtyseven
- Posts: 283
- Joined:
-
- elmothehobo
- Posts: 990
- Joined:
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
The real issue was not the loads out of Oakland, but the yields. Low fare pressure made the yields garbage, and American launched its quest to 'consolidate' its position in major cities. Unfortunately for Bay Area AA loyalists, American didn't add capacity at SJC and SFO to compensate for the loss of seats at OAK.
-
- Byrdluvs747
- Posts: 2560
- Joined:
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
| Quoting jonathanxxxx (Reply 13): I think one thing you have to remember about AA coming back to OAK would be that the only logical route would be OAK-DFW. MIA won't work because you already have SFO and they couldn't even make SJC work, JFK already has competition from B6, LAX would be a blood-bath with WN and DL, the only one left is DFW. Even then it isn't too large. Only 190 PDEW. A daily 738/M80 could work but is it really worth opening a station for a single flight? |
I don't think DFW would make sense at this point. With VX in SFO pushing down fares to DFW, there isn't enough high yielding traffic to justify the costs.
The best AA could do is let Eagle handle OAK-LAX. Since it would serve primarily as a feed into the LAX hub, competition from WN and DL mean very little as most tickets would be sold as part of a larger itin. AA already flies LAX-PHX which is a heavily saturated route with US, UA, and WN.
-
- wedgetail737
- Posts: 6819
- Joined:
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
OAK went through a pretty depressing time when it lost AA and CO. Then the demise of AQ and ATA pretty much killed HI service until HA and AS filled the void. AA had a moderate presence at OAK with flights to both ORD and DFW. ORD was dropped a long time ago, even before they tried OAK-LAX and OAK-JFK.
UA also scaled back a lot with the discontinuation of OAK-LAX, OAK-ORD and OAK-IAD. B6 scaled back a bit with the reduction of OAK-BOS, OAK-JFK and the discontinuation of OAK-FLL. Even WN has scaled OAK back a little.
The largest contributors to another rise of OAK has been HA, AS and Volaris. OAK gets new European service with Arkfly 767-300's to AMS.
UA also scaled back a lot with the discontinuation of OAK-LAX, OAK-ORD and OAK-IAD. B6 scaled back a bit with the reduction of OAK-BOS, OAK-JFK and the discontinuation of OAK-FLL. Even WN has scaled OAK back a little.
The largest contributors to another rise of OAK has been HA, AS and Volaris. OAK gets new European service with Arkfly 767-300's to AMS.
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
| Quoting wedgetail737 (Reply 21): |
OAK when thru a awful run there as carriers were leaving, not to mention B6 never being what I think most of us thought they would be. It has been nice to see multiple carriers filling the voids. To be honest. I am trying to figure out how UA is sustaining OAK service with what is left. They have less service I believe then AA did when they pulled out.
| Quoting n471wn (Reply 9): |
Check my profile. It's a magical tool to see where I work. I stand by what I say and don't need the driving challenge. So now we can concentrate on the topic of AA @ OAK again.
What Int'l carriers do you see coming to OAK (other then low cost Mexican) and passing over SFO?
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
| Quoting Sevensixtyseven (Thread starter): UA 2x daily to DEN, even with a massive hub across the Bay |
UA is a mere shell of what it used to be at OAK.
-
- Sevensixtyseven
- Posts: 283
- Joined:
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
| Quoting as739x (Reply 22): |
I think UA is able to provide 2x daily because they can connect more of the Bay Area with DEN, because maybe they realize not everyone is going to go to SFO for a flight out to the east, so for some people, OAK-DEN-IAD (or similar) is easier. Besides, WN only has 4X nonstop daily OAK-DEN, so with UA offering half that, they can make a bit of money, or at least not lose any. Plus, they're running A320s on that route, so if they weren't making it work, I think it would be down gauged to a 319 or E170 before cutting it.
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
| Quoting as739x (Reply 22): Check my profile. It's a magical tool to see where I work. I stand by what I say and don't need the driving challenge. So now we can concentrate on the topic of AA @ OAK again. What Int'l carriers do you see coming to OAK (other then low cost Mexican) and passing over SFO? |
You made the comment about Oakland----I was trying to point out how wrong you were to say that Marin County people prefer SFO and note that several posters agreed with me on this point
A carrier (sorry forgot the name) said they were launching AMS to OAK flights and my information is that another carrier may launch flights to Australia---point being is they are tired of the fog delays at SFO
RE: Why No AA @ OAK?
| Quoting N1120A (Reply 28): Quoting warden145 (Reply 25): Just wondering, how big was UA's operation at OAK at its peak? I'm guessing that it wasn't insignificant given that UA had a maintenance center there... It was probably close to 20 flights a day as recently as a few years ago. |
Yeah they had 2 or 3 dailies to ORD, a flight to IAD, 5 or 6 to DEN and about the same on UAX to LAX not to many years ago.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: 737900ER, 817Dreamliiner, AH45, airindia787, airman99o, akaza1, amc737, atal17, avianca707359b, B6FLL954, BringBackMunoz, Capn, Carrera125, cathay747, cledaybuck, dbo861, Dominion301, EADSYABSOB73857, F4BY, fastmover, fishbone, FromCDGtoSYD, Gonzalo, h133, IndianicWorld, jetblastdubai, jpiddink, jumbojettony, kalvado, kingcavalier, LHUSA, melpax, Miamiairport, NYKiwi, Oilman, oosnowrat, PHLspecial, PITfall, qf789, RJNUT, sircygnus, SoCalFlyer, southwest1675, StinkyPinky, SURFER, terrificturk, TheDutchman92, Tolbs, Travelcan, UALifer, usflyer msp, Weatherwatcher1, WorldFlier and 261 guests