BA invents new airport. "San Francisco Oakland"

flyfresno · Sat Aug 19, 2017 11:38 pm

ucdtim17 wrote:
Cactus742 wrote:
I wonder if calling the airport San Francisco violates the DOT rules against deceptive advertising.

If that were the case, a lot of other airports mentioned in this thread will have problems as well - IAD, BWI, SEA, RNO, FAT, DFW, and on and on. SFO itself is in unincorporated San Mateo county, not San Francisco.

It's actually part of San Francisco...it has a San Francisco address (780 S Airport Blvd, San Francisco, CA 94128), is overseen by the SF Airport Commission, which is operated by the City of SF, and has fire and police that are both run by the City.

Siddar · Sat Aug 19, 2017 11:48 pm

Seems an insult to Oakland. Oakland is the bigger city and its being termed subservient to San Francisco by this naming choice. Reality is its almost certainly a marketing decision to obscure the fact that your landing in an entirely different city. It wont fool the locals but it may trick a few foreigner into going to Oakland when they wanted to go to San Francisco.

intotheair · Sat Aug 19, 2017 11:57 pm

flyfresno wrote:
ucdtim17 wrote:
Cactus742 wrote:
I wonder if calling the airport San Francisco violates the DOT rules against deceptive advertising.

If that were the case, a lot of other airports mentioned in this thread will have problems as well - IAD, BWI, SEA, RNO, FAT, DFW, and on and on. SFO itself is in unincorporated San Mateo county, not San Francisco.

It's actually part of San Francisco...it has a San Francisco address (780 S Airport Blvd, San Francisco, CA 94128), is overseen by the SF Airport Commission, which is operated by the City of SF, and has fire and police that are both run by the City.

It may be operated by the city of San Francisco and have an SF mailing address, but the land on which the airport sits is still in unincorporated San Mateo County.

That doesn't really make it any less of San Francisco's airport, but it is still not technically located within San Francisco city limits, or within any other city for that matter.

USAIRWAYS321 · Sun Aug 20, 2017 12:16 am

Siddar wrote:
Seems an insult to Oakland. Oakland is the bigger city and its being termed subservient to San Francisco by this naming choice.

Oakland has less than half the population of San Francisco.

SFOtoORD · Sun Aug 20, 2017 12:43 am

intotheair wrote:
flyfresno wrote:
ucdtim17 wrote:

If that were the case, a lot of other airports mentioned in this thread will have problems as well - IAD, BWI, SEA, RNO, FAT, DFW, and on and on. SFO itself is in unincorporated San Mateo county, not San Francisco.

It's actually part of San Francisco...it has a San Francisco address (780 S Airport Blvd, San Francisco, CA 94128), is overseen by the SF Airport Commission, which is operated by the City of SF, and has fire and police that are both run by the City.

It may be operated by the city of San Francisco and have an SF mailing address, but the land on which the airport sits is still in unincorporated San Mateo County.

That doesn't really make it any less of San Francisco's airport, but it is still not technically located within San Francisco city limits, or within any other city for that matter.

It's no different than many other big airports like ORD in terms of proximity to city boundaries. Not that unusual.

KanaHawaii · Sun Aug 20, 2017 12:44 am

Sometimes airports are also identified by attractions that don't have their own airport. For instance, in the 1980's, Eastern Airlines used to identify Orlando as "Orlando/ (Walt Disney World)" and United used to batch together the LA basin with a laundry list of places such as "Los Angeles/Ontario/Disneyland".

Not anything new by attaching an airport designation by an airline to something of more significance, like a better known name. Someday when the population of Oahu, Hawaii reaches above 1 million, you may see the Kalaeloa Airport be redesgnated as "Honolulu-Kalaeloa" or "Honolulu West".

Just suggestin!

zeke · Sun Aug 20, 2017 12:45 am

Many of the larger cities that have multiple airports have a code for the greater area that covers all of the airports, train stations, and ports in the area. Well known examples of this is LON and NYC which covers those city's. Likewise the San Francisco Bay Area has its own code, QSF in booking engines that covers SFO, OAK, and SJC. If you select SJC and then ask for nearby airports in search engines they will display OAK and SFO.

AntonioMartin · Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:10 am

LAXLHR wrote:
26point2 wrote:

IF only BA would start LHR to Los Angeles Ontario hahaha ...I JOKE!!

Or to Tucson-Marana....

We have Phoenix-Mesa here...

On the other hand, my native city of San Juan, Puerto Rico, has it backwards: What should be known as San Juan-Carolina is actually known plainly as San Juan, whereas the airport properly in San Juan (the original San Juan International Airport which once saw flights from the likes of Iberia, Lufthansa, Pan Am, Compania Mexicana, Cubana, Chicago and Southern etc) is known as San Juan-Isla Grande...

blockski · Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:13 am

SFOtoORD wrote:
intotheair wrote:
flyfresno wrote:

It's actually part of San Francisco...it has a San Francisco address (780 S Airport Blvd, San Francisco, CA 94128), is overseen by the SF Airport Commission, which is operated by the City of SF, and has fire and police that are both run by the City.

It may be operated by the city of San Francisco and have an SF mailing address, but the land on which the airport sits is still in unincorporated San Mateo County.

That doesn't really make it any less of San Francisco's airport, but it is still not technically located within San Francisco city limits, or within any other city for that matter.

It's no different than many other big airports like ORD in terms of proximity to city boundaries. Not that unusual.

ORD is different, as the City of Chicago annexed the land it sits on (including a narrow strip of land connecting it to the rest of the city) to be a part of the city. Therefore, ORD sits within Chicago's city limits. Google a map of Chicago, and ORD is included.

SFO is different. The land is owned by the City and County of San Francisco, but it is not part of the city's legal jurisdiction. Google a map of SF's city limits, and SFO is not included.

Mailing addresses can also be changed. For example, the mailing address for DCA is listed as 'Washington, DC' despite the airport's location in Arlington, VA.

Cubsrule · Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:15 am

blockski wrote:
Mailing addresses can also be changed. For example, the mailing address for DCA is listed as 'Washington, DC' despite the airport's location in Arlington, VA.

DCA is in Virginia for all purposes other than the mailing address, though, right?

ytib · Sun Aug 20, 2017 2:16 am

Cubsrule wrote:
blockski wrote:
Mailing addresses can also be changed. For example, the mailing address for DCA is listed as 'Washington, DC' despite the airport's location in Arlington, VA.

DCA is in Virginia for all purposes other than the mailing address, though, right?

Correct, however if Virginia didn't take back their land given for the District of Columbia it would be in DC. That however is a whole different conversation.

Back to the thread:
Dulles is referred to the name of Dulles International Airport by the MWAA however airlines call in Washington Dulles
Of course there is also Baltimore Washington International Airport

As many have said there isn't a new airport being invented by BA and there is nothing wrong with call it Oakland - San Francisco or what not.

SFOtoORD · Sun Aug 20, 2017 2:28 am

blockski wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
intotheair wrote:
It may be operated by the city of San Francisco and have an SF mailing address, but the land on which the airport sits is still in unincorporated San Mateo County.

That doesn't really make it any less of San Francisco's airport, but it is still not technically located within San Francisco city limits, or within any other city for that matter.

It's no different than many other big airports like ORD in terms of proximity to city boundaries. Not that unusual.

ORD is different, as the City of Chicago annexed the land it sits on (including a narrow strip of land connecting it to the rest of the city) to be a part of the city. Therefore, ORD sits within Chicago's city limits. Google a map of Chicago, and ORD is included.

SFO is different. The land is owned by the City and County of San Francisco, but it is not part of the city's legal jurisdiction. Google a map of SF's city limits, and SFO is not included.

Mailing addresses can also be changed. For example, the mailing address for DCA is listed as 'Washington, DC' despite the airport's location in Arlington, VA.

ORD isn't that different. If you look at a city map it looks like a lollipop sticking out of the NW corner of the city connected only by a strip of freeway. And SFOs situation isn't ultimately that unusual. Cities tend to be densely populated so the best places for airports tend to be on the fringes and/or near water.

jetblueguy22 · Sun Aug 20, 2017 2:30 am

Siddar wrote:
Seems an insult to Oakland. Oakland is the bigger city and its being termed subservient to San Francisco by this naming choice. Reality is its almost certainly a marketing decision to obscure the fact that your landing in an entirely different city. It wont fool the locals but it may trick a few foreigner into going to Oakland when they wanted to go to San Francisco.

I would think Oakland should be thrilled to have a nonstop flight on a major international carrier to London. There are about 10 other US airports that would jump at the chance

DaufuskieGuy · Sun Aug 20, 2017 2:47 am

PatrickZ80 wrote:
Cactus742 wrote:
I wonder if calling the airport San Francisco violates the DOT rules against deceptive advertising.

No, it doesn't violate the rules. Airports can name themselves however they want, the DOT has got nothing to do with that. They can call it New York Oakland airport if they want to. That would of course be very confusing and anything but good marketing, but not illegal.

You'd be surprised how many airports are not actually in the city they call themselves after, I think that goes for the majority of all airports worldwide. Rockford airport is allowed to call itself Chicago Rockford, even if it's over 120 kilometers from Chicago. Still it's good marketing for them. Very few people from outside the area have heard of Rockford, but if you mention Chicago they know.

in this case it couldn't ever be illegal because San Francisco International Airport (SFO),is a department of the City and County of San Francisco, https://www.flysfo.com/about-sfo - they'd no sooner relinquish that land to San Mateo County than fly to the moon, and why would they, they paid for its construction.

DaufuskieGuy · Sun Aug 20, 2017 2:56 am

As a former City of San Francisco employee with access to land records and deed maps, I can attest that the airports is in fact City of San Francisco property. It just happens to sit on unincorporated land in San Mateo County. Hooray for lawyers!

viewtopic.php?t=1205305#p17685313

reality · Sun Aug 20, 2017 4:51 am

Oakland is kind of a dumpy looking airport, but they keep remodeling it and they keep it in as good shape as possible. (A new terminal might have been a better and less costly option.) It is definitely convenient to all of the Bay Area, however, and not prone to weather delays like SFO. Whether it is called Oakland-San Francisco or San Francisco-Oakland by the airlines really doesn't matter. Both are clear.

There have been complaints about long arrival lines and slow customs processing when more than 1 international flight arrives at the same time. To address that . .. Press Release . . .July 28 2017 . . .

"As passenger traffic continues to climb, Oakland International Airport (OAK) today opens the first phase of its expanded International Arrivals Building (IAB) in Terminal 1. The $45 million construction project, which began in August 2016, includes 13,000 sq. ft. of additional space incorporating a new baggage carousel and an expanded passenger primary processing room.

"With international passenger traffic up 106% over last summer, the expansion of OAK’s IAB allows the Airport to better accommodate growing demand and increasing passenger levels arriving from foreign markets in Mexico, England, Spain, Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and the Azores. [British Airways, Level, Southwest to Mexico, Norwegian, Azores Airlines, Volaris (recently moved to SFO I think).] In 2018, Paris and Rome will join OAK’s international roster of nonstop markets operated by Norwegian Air.

"Prior to today’s opening, international arrival operations had been limited to approximately 300 passengers per hour, the equivalent of one widebody aircraft. However, with the expanded facility, approximately 600 passengers per hour can be accommodated, meaning two widebody aircraft can be processed simultaneously. Additionally, the new space accommodates 16 automated passport control kiosks, doubling availability from 8 previously."

http://www.oaklandairport.com/oakland-i ... -arrivals/

intotheair · Sun Aug 20, 2017 5:15 am

SFOtoORD wrote:
blockski wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:

It's no different than many other big airports like ORD in terms of proximity to city boundaries. Not that unusual.

ORD is different, as the City of Chicago annexed the land it sits on (including a narrow strip of land connecting it to the rest of the city) to be a part of the city. Therefore, ORD sits within Chicago's city limits. Google a map of Chicago, and ORD is included.

SFO is different. The land is owned by the City and County of San Francisco, but it is not part of the city's legal jurisdiction. Google a map of SF's city limits, and SFO is not included.

Mailing addresses can also be changed. For example, the mailing address for DCA is listed as 'Washington, DC' despite the airport's location in Arlington, VA.

ORD isn't that different. If you look at a city map it looks like a lollipop sticking out of the NW corner of the city connected only by a strip of freeway. And SFOs situation isn't ultimately that unusual. Cities tend to be densely populated so the best places for airports tend to be on the fringes and/or near water.

It's not unusual, yes, but it is inaccurate to say that SFO is within SF city limits. It is legally in unincorporated San Mateo County. It is not legally in San Francisco City and County.

SF southern city limits lie at a mostly straight east-west border just a little bit north of where the Daly City BART station is.

SFOtoORD · Sun Aug 20, 2017 5:31 am

intotheair wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
blockski wrote:

ORD is different, as the City of Chicago annexed the land it sits on (including a narrow strip of land connecting it to the rest of the city) to be a part of the city. Therefore, ORD sits within Chicago's city limits. Google a map of Chicago, and ORD is included.

SFO is different. The land is owned by the City and County of San Francisco, but it is not part of the city's legal jurisdiction. Google a map of SF's city limits, and SFO is not included.

Mailing addresses can also be changed. For example, the mailing address for DCA is listed as 'Washington, DC' despite the airport's location in Arlington, VA.

ORD isn't that different. If you look at a city map it looks like a lollipop sticking out of the NW corner of the city connected only by a strip of freeway. And SFOs situation isn't ultimately that unusual. Cities tend to be densely populated so the best places for airports tend to be on the fringes and/or near water.

It's not unusual, yes, but it is inaccurate to say that SFO is within SF city limits. It is legally in unincorporated San Mateo County. It is not legally in San Francisco City and County.

SF southern city limits lie at a mostly straight east-west border just a little bit north of where the Daly City BART station is.

That was never the discussion or the point. The discussion was entirely about proximity and physical location not about which police force or legal jurisdiction is in play.

intotheair · Sun Aug 20, 2017 5:49 am

SFOtoORD wrote:
That was never the discussion or the point. The discussion was entirely about proximity and physical location not about which police force or legal jurisdiction is in play.

It wasn't the main topic at hand, though I was originally replying to someone who claimed that it was "in San Francisco." You can see it in the threaded quotes up above. Though you are also right that this is mostly pedantry, as SFO and OAK are both pretty easy to get to from SF proper.

atypical · Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:28 am

ucdtim17 wrote:
Cactus742 wrote:
I wonder if calling the airport San Francisco violates the DOT rules against deceptive advertising.

If that were the case, a lot of other airports mentioned in this thread will have problems as well - IAD, BWI, SEA, RNO, FAT, DFW, and on and on. SFO itself is in unincorporated San Mateo county, not San Francisco.

caflyboy · Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:55 am

The only issue I see, being a bay area resident and having lived next to both SFO and SJC, is that if you call OAK San Francisco Oakland, and you abbreviate it, you get SFO which, of course would get you to the incorrect airport. Calling one San Francisco Oakland, and the other Oakland San Francisco might be an option, or just leave the Oakland off of the SFO title.

SFOA380 · Sun Aug 20, 2017 7:49 am

flyfresno wrote:
SFOA380 wrote:
Slightly off topic - partly because this thread is so amusing to those of us in the Bay Area... Best use of a name that has no business using that name: Fresno/Yosemite - a whopping 2.5 hour drive to Yosemite Valley. I think the more appropriate name would be Fresno - Gateway to Yosemite or something like that. Having the national park in the airport's name gives people the wrong idea with regards to proximity. Oakland, on the other hand is as convenient to San Francisco as SFO itself...

1) The drive from FAT to the Yosemite Valley is closer to 2 hours than 2.5, unless you are a camper (or drive like one).
2) With the exception of MMH, which doesn't have year-round access to the Yosemite Valley (unless you are on snow shoes), and MCE, which has a whopping 30ish seats per day each way, it's the closest commercial airport to YNP.
3) The drive time from FAT to the edge of Yosemite Park is only a little over an hour.
4) If you want to play the "distance to where most people want to go" game, yes it might be a bit of a stretch, but you could argue that the drive/public transit time from LAX to downtown LA isn't much better than 2 hours at the height of rush-hour traffic; the same could be said about JFK to Manhattan. And, certainly, these sorts of things aren't entirely unprecedented when it comes to National Parks: "Bozeman Yellowstone Int'l" is about the same drive (actually a bit further) from Old Faithful.
5) You've obviously never been in the "giant sequoia forest" in the airport...might as well be Yosemite itself. (kidding)

Point taken... all in good fun!

lesfalls · Sun Aug 20, 2017 10:10 am

AAvgeek744 wrote:
This isn't new. Before Southwest actually started flying into BOS, they marketed MHT as Boston North, and PVD as Boston South. For a time when the served both Houston airports, the were tagged as North (IAH) and South (HOU).

Just out of wonder how did that go for WN as I'm surprised to hear that MHT was used by them as a "BOS" airport?

mrbonfire · Sun Aug 20, 2017 10:46 am

The power of words. Legally, there's nothing wrong with it so marketing depts will always try to pee on your leg and tell you it's raining.

It should be Oakland-San Francisco if that's the way they want to play it, though as both cities are separate entities, it's very cheeky.

I understand the need to market Torp as Oslo or Treviso as Venice but Oakland is it's own place.

LAXLHR · Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:12 pm

AntonioMartin wrote:
LAXLHR wrote:
26point2 wrote:

IF only BA would start LHR to Los Angeles Ontario hahaha ...I JOKE!!

Or to Tucson-Marana....

We have Phoenix-Mesa here...

On the other hand, my native city of San Juan, Puerto Rico, has it backwards: What should be known as San Juan-Carolina is actually known plainly as San Juan, whereas the airport properly in San Juan (the original San Juan International Airport which once saw flights from the likes of Iberia, Lufthansa, Pan Am, Compania Mexicana, Cubana, Chicago and Southern etc) is known as San Juan-Isla Grande...

Yep, all down to the marketing, based upon public perception.

mjoelnir · Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:47 pm

mrbonfire wrote:
The power of words. Legally, there's nothing wrong with it so marketing depts will always try to pee on your leg and tell you it's raining.

It should be Oakland-San Francisco if that's the way they want to play it, though as both cities are separate entities, it's very cheeky.

I understand the need to market Torp as Oslo or Treviso as Venice but Oakland is it's own place.

The point with Trevisio - Venice is actually comparable to the situation Oakland - San Francisco. Treviso is the capital of the province of Treviso, so not a completely unimportant town. It i the same thing, few people do know about Oakland, but a lot about San Francisco.

AAvgeek744 · Sun Aug 20, 2017 1:57 pm

lesfalls wrote:
AAvgeek744 wrote:
This isn't new. Before Southwest actually started flying into BOS, they marketed MHT as Boston North, and PVD as Boston South. For a time when the served both Houston airports, the were tagged as North (IAH) and South (HOU).

Just out of wonder how did that go for WN as I'm surprised to hear that MHT was used by them as a "BOS" airport?

I never flew MHT or PVD during the time they were marketed and North and South so I can't say. In the case of MHT, I wopjld guess they were drawing from suburbs such as Lowell, Andover, etc. South at PVD they probably took traffic from pretty much anywhere outside the I-93/95 freeways all the way over to the cape.

blockski · Sun Aug 20, 2017 4:06 pm

SFOtoORD wrote:
intotheair wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:

ORD isn't that different. If you look at a city map it looks like a lollipop sticking out of the NW corner of the city connected only by a strip of freeway. And SFOs situation isn't ultimately that unusual. Cities tend to be densely populated so the best places for airports tend to be on the fringes and/or near water.

It's not unusual, yes, but it is inaccurate to say that SFO is within SF city limits. It is legally in unincorporated San Mateo County. It is not legally in San Francisco City and County.

SF southern city limits lie at a mostly straight east-west border just a little bit north of where the Daly City BART station is.

That was never the discussion or the point. The discussion was entirely about proximity and physical location not about which police force or legal jurisdiction is in play.

Sure it was. Your point might have been narrow, but the entire conversation was about legal control of an airport and where they lie in terms of political boundaries. You are right that the relative position isn't all that different, but that doesn't then hold that there's no difference in terms of legal jurisdiction, ownership, or any number of other factors.

And it does matter in terms of naming. SFO is branded as San Francisco because it's owned and operated by the City of San Francisco, despite the location outside of the city's legal jurisdiction.

rrapynot · Sun Aug 20, 2017 4:08 pm

Heathrow is owned by a consortium of sovereign wealth funds from China, Qatar, Quebec and Spain. Since ownership rather than physical location determines where an airport is, does that mean that Heathrow is actually in China, Qatar, Quebec and Spin? (Sarcasm)

Turnhouse1 · Sun Aug 20, 2017 4:40 pm

Somewhat amusingly, this whole discussion relates to a flight from London Gatwick airport, which is in West Sussex, with the county of Surrey in between it and London. The people of Crawley are apparently less concerned about the naming of the airport. Though seriously, most people in the UK probably recognise Los Angeles, San Francisco & Seattle as cities on the west coast of the USA. San Diego and Portland might register for a few. BA are catering to their customers.

SFOtoORD · Sun Aug 20, 2017 5:42 pm

blockski wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
intotheair wrote:
It's not unusual, yes, but it is inaccurate to say that SFO is within SF city limits. It is legally in unincorporated San Mateo County. It is not legally in San Francisco City and County.

SF southern city limits lie at a mostly straight east-west border just a little bit north of where the Daly City BART station is.

That was never the discussion or the point. The discussion was entirely about proximity and physical location not about which police force or legal jurisdiction is in play.

Sure it was. Your point might have been narrow, but the entire conversation was about legal control of an airport and where they lie in terms of political boundaries. You are right that the relative position isn't all that different, but that doesn't then hold that there's no difference in terms of legal jurisdiction, ownership, or any number of other factors.

And it does matter in terms of naming. SFO is branded as San Francisco because it's owned and operated by the City of San Francisco, despite the location outside of the city's legal jurisdiction.

Your pedantic point is made. I feel totally enlightened. My general point about the naming and it's parallels in many other cities stands.

PatrickZ80 · Sun Aug 20, 2017 6:55 pm

AAvgeek744 wrote:
This isn't new. Before Southwest actually started flying into BOS, they marketed MHT as Boston North, and PVD as Boston South. For a time when the served both Houston airports, the were tagged as North (IAH) and South (HOU).

Kind of like Ryanair serving Barcelona (Girona) and Barcelona (Reus). Neither of them are actually in Barcelona, but they still call them Barcelona.

mrbonfire wrote:
I understand the need to market Torp as Oslo or Treviso as Venice but Oakland is it's own place.

So are Torp and Treviso. You may not have heard of them because they are relatively unknown, but so would Oakland be if if wouldn't be for the proximity of San Francisco. The names Torp and Treviso didn't come out of the blue, they are the towns these airports are actually meant to serve. Of course it helps them that there is a much larger and more important city not that far away. In that way they're very much like Oakland.

BoeingGuy · Sun Aug 20, 2017 8:18 pm

DaufuskieGuy wrote:
As a former City of San Francisco employee with access to land records and deed maps, I can attest that the airports is in fact City of San Francisco property. It just happens to sit on unincorporated land in San Mateo County. Hooray for lawyers!

viewtopic.php?t=1205305#p17685313

That's my understanding too. I believe the Farralon Islands and Hetch Hetchy are also technically the property of the city of San Francisco.

BoeingGuy · Sun Aug 20, 2017 8:22 pm

caflyboy wrote:
or just leave the Oakland off of the SFO title.

Do you know what the "O" stands for in SFO? I believe it is or was officially the San Francisco-Oakland International Airport.

Similarly speaking, do you know what "Sea-Tac" airport stands for?

reality · Sun Aug 20, 2017 8:37 pm

BoeingGuy wrote:
caflyboy wrote:
or just leave the Oakland off of the SFO title.

Do you know what the "O" stands for in SFO? I believe it is or was officially the San Francisco-Oakland International Airport.

Similarly speaking, do you know what "Sea-Tac" airport stands for?

San FranciscO That's where it comes from--not from Oakland. Many airport codes are a combination of letters including the last letter in the name. Both OAK and SFO came into existence in 1927.

"The [Oakland] airport was dedicated by Charles Lindbergh September 17 [1927]. In its early days, because of its long runway enabling safe takeoff rolls for fuel-heavy aircraft, Oakland was the departing point of several historic flights, including Charles Kingsford Smith's historic US-Australia flight in 1928, and Amelia Earhart's final flight in 1937. Earhart departed from this airport when she made her final, ill-fated voyage, intending to return there after circumnavigating the globe." (Wkipedia)

"Airport codes arose out of the convenience that it brought pilots for location identification in the 1930s. Initially, pilots in the United States used the two-letter code from the National Weather Service (NWS) for identifying cities."

I'm sure San Francisco would have wanted SAN to be the code, but San Diego must have reserved that designation first.

BoeingGuy · Sun Aug 20, 2017 9:19 pm

reality wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
caflyboy wrote:
or just leave the Oakland off of the SFO title.

Do you know what the "O" stands for in SFO? I believe it is or was officially the San Francisco-Oakland International Airport.

Similarly speaking, do you know what "Sea-Tac" airport stands for?

San FranciscO That's where it comes from--not from Oakland. Many airport codes are a combination of letters including the last letter in the name. Both OAK and SFO came into existence in 1927.

"The [Oakland] airport was dedicated by Charles Lindbergh September 17 [1927]. In its early days, because of its long runway enabling safe takeoff rolls for fuel-heavy aircraft, Oakland was the departing point of several historic flights, including Charles Kingsford Smith's historic US-Australia flight in 1928, and Amelia Earhart's final flight in 1937. Earhart departed from this airport when she made her final, ill-fated voyage, intending to return there after circumnavigating the globe." (Wkipedia)

"Airport codes arose out of the convenience that it brought pilots for location identification in the 1930s. Initially, pilots in the United States used the two-letter code from the National Weather Service (NWS) for identifying cities."

I'm sure San Francisco would have wanted SAN to be the code, but San Diego must have reserved that designation first.

Yeah, you're right. I just looked it up. In my defense, the articles I found said it's a common misconception that the O stands for Oakland.

. I grew up in Millbrae on line with the runway 1s and always thought that.

AAvgeek744 · Sun Aug 20, 2017 10:46 pm

reality wrote:
BoeingGuy wrote:
caflyboy wrote:
or just leave the Oakland off of the SFO title.

Do you know what the "O" stands for in SFO? I believe it is or was officially the San Francisco-Oakland International Airport.

Similarly speaking, do you know what "Sea-Tac" airport stands for?

San FranciscO That's where it comes from--not from Oakland. Many airport codes are a combination of letters including the last letter in the name. Both OAK and SFO came into existence in 1927.

"The [Oakland] airport was dedicated by Charles Lindbergh September 17 [1927]. In its early days, because of its long runway enabling safe takeoff rolls for fuel-heavy aircraft, Oakland was the departing point of several historic flights, including Charles Kingsford Smith's historic US-Australia flight in 1928, and Amelia Earhart's final flight in 1937. Earhart departed from this airport when she made her final, ill-fated voyage, intending to return there after circumnavigating the globe." (Wkipedia)

"Airport codes arose out of the convenience that it brought pilots for location identification in the 1930s. Initially, pilots in the United States used the two-letter code from the National Weather Service (NWS) for identifying cities."

I'm sure San Francisco would have wanted SAN to be the code, but San Diego must have reserved that designation first.

IMO, SFO makes the city immediately identifiable. Then again, I doubt many pax ever look at their baggage tags.

BGS91762 · Sun Aug 20, 2017 10:50 pm

Siddar wrote:
Seems an insult to Oakland. Oakland is the bigger city and its being termed subservient to San Francisco by this naming choice. Reality is its almost certainly a marketing decision to obscure the fact that your landing in an entirely different city. It wont fool the locals but it may trick a few foreigner into going to Oakland when they wanted to go to San Francisco.

This is nothing new and happens all over the world. When you fly to Newark most airlines say New York/Newark. As stated earlier, all airports around London use that name in their title even though they are miles from Central London. Closer to home, Southwest advertises all 5 LA area airports as LA on their website.

AAvgeek744 · Sun Aug 20, 2017 11:07 pm

BGS91762 wrote:
Siddar wrote:
Seems an insult to Oakland. Oakland is the bigger city and its being termed subservient to San Francisco by this naming choice. Reality is its almost certainly a marketing decision to obscure the fact that your landing in an entirely different city. It wont fool the locals but it may trick a few foreigner into going to Oakland when they wanted to go to San Francisco.

This is nothing new and happens all over the world. When you fly to Newark most airlines say New York/Newark. As stated earlier, all airports around London use that name in their title even though they are miles from Central London. Closer to home, Southwest advertises all 5 LA area airports as LA on their website.

Oakland is bigger than San Francisco? By what measure?

DaufuskieGuy · Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:48 am

AAvgeek744 wrote:
BGS91762 wrote:
Siddar wrote:
Seems an insult to Oakland. Oakland is the bigger city and its being termed subservient to San Francisco by this naming choice. Reality is its almost certainly a marketing decision to obscure the fact that your landing in an entirely different city. It wont fool the locals but it may trick a few foreigner into going to Oakland when they wanted to go to San Francisco.

This is nothing new and happens all over the world. When you fly to Newark most airlines say New York/Newark. As stated earlier, all airports around London use that name in their title even though they are miles from Central London. Closer to home, Southwest advertises all 5 LA area airports as LA on their website.

Oakland is bigger than San Francisco? By what measure?

Alameda County is larger, Oakland is not.

klakzky123 · Mon Aug 21, 2017 3:49 am

If the Angels can be the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, I suppose OAK be the San Francisco Airport of Oakland.

SFOtoORD · Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:23 am

AAvgeek744 wrote:
BGS91762 wrote:
Siddar wrote:
Seems an insult to Oakland. Oakland is the bigger city and its being termed subservient to San Francisco by this naming choice. Reality is its almost certainly a marketing decision to obscure the fact that your landing in an entirely different city. It wont fool the locals but it may trick a few foreigner into going to Oakland when they wanted to go to San Francisco.

This is nothing new and happens all over the world. When you fly to Newark most airlines say New York/Newark. As stated earlier, all airports around London use that name in their title even though they are miles from Central London. Closer to home, Southwest advertises all 5 LA area airports as LA on their website.

Oakland is bigger than San Francisco? By what measure?

Maybe by land mass, but certainly SF is 2x Oakland's population (~800k vs ~400k). The poster may be confused with San Jose being bigger than SF, but even then not by much and SJ is physically 4.5x the size of SF.

mutu · Mon Aug 21, 2017 11:42 am

For many years BA used New York Newark for EWR until enough familiarity grew at the European/middle eastern end that Newark was good for New York. Similarly Washington Baltimore is now Baltimore.

Very few people would be able to point out Oakland on a map (no slur intended) and would simply overlook it when considering flight options to that region. The commercial success of the flight may depend on a few more tourist types using open jaws through OAK so raising its profile is important.

Unconnected but reminds me of the BA customer who went to Costa Rica instead of Silicon Valley when the 2 San Jose flights started!!

mrbonfire · Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:39 pm

mjoelnir wrote:
mrbonfire wrote:
The power of words. Legally, there's nothing wrong with it so marketing depts will always try to pee on your leg and tell you it's raining.

It should be Oakland-San Francisco if that's the way they want to play it, though as both cities are separate entities, it's very cheeky.

I understand the need to market Torp as Oslo or Treviso as Venice but Oakland is it's own place.

The point with Trevisio - Venice is actually comparable to the situation Oakland - San Francisco. Treviso is the capital of the province of Treviso, so not a completely unimportant town. It i the same thing, few people do know about Oakland, but a lot about San Francisco.

Good point. Thank you

mrbonfire · Mon Aug 21, 2017 5:42 pm

PatrickZ80 wrote:
AAvgeek744 wrote:
This isn't new. Before Southwest actually started flying into BOS, they marketed MHT as Boston North, and PVD as Boston South. For a time when the served both Houston airports, the were tagged as North (IAH) and South (HOU).

Kind of like Ryanair serving Barcelona (Girona) and Barcelona (Reus). Neither of them are actually in Barcelona, but they still call them Barcelona.

mrbonfire wrote:
I understand the need to market Torp as Oslo or Treviso as Venice but Oakland is it's own place.

So are Torp and Treviso. You may not have heard of them because they are relatively unknown, but so would Oakland be if if wouldn't be for the proximity of San Francisco. The names Torp and Treviso didn't come out of the blue, they are the towns these airports are actually meant to serve. Of course it helps them that there is a much larger and more important city not that far away. In that way they're very much like Oakland.

That's fair but I always thought Torp didn't exist or was a hamlet or just toponym and that it actually served Sandefjord.

Also Oakland is connected by same transport system whereas Torp,well, anyone who's taken that bus to Oslo knows that it makes a big difference to your deep vein thrombosis.

BGS91762 · Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:02 pm

I fly from Ontario (ONT) many times per year. I'm always surprised how many people think I'm traveling to Canada, even when checking in at the airline counter. I was happy when I they included in LA in the title of the airport since it's only a few miles form the LA county line. However, now they have reverted back to the old name that will cause the same confusion about traveling to Canada.

PatrickZ80 · Mon Aug 21, 2017 6:07 pm

mrbonfire wrote:
That's fair but I always thought Torp didn't exist or was a hamlet or just toponym and that it actually served Sandefjord.

Also Oakland is connected by same transport system whereas Torp,well, anyone who's taken that bus to Oslo knows that it makes a big difference to your deep vein thrombosis.

Torp is a village just north of Sandefjord where the airport is actually located. Sandefjord is the somewhat bigger town that it's meant to serve, but of course it serves the whole region which includes Oslo.

Of course it's quite far from Oslo (86 kilometers as the crow flies), but on the other hand Oslo Gardermoen airport (the main Oslo airport) is also located 37 kilometers from Oslo as the crow flies. This makes Torp is only a little further.

The three step airport naming is something you come across more often by the way. Milan Bergamo Orio al Serio airport is a good example. Orio al Serio is the village closest to the airport, the one that it's named after. Bergamo is the larger town it's meant to serve. Milan is the big city further away but still within it's catchment area. And when you got such a big city within your catchment area, why not use it?

atypical · Tue Aug 22, 2017 8:52 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
DaufuskieGuy wrote:
As a former City of San Francisco employee with access to land records and deed maps, I can attest that the airports is in fact City of San Francisco property. It just happens to sit on unincorporated land in San Mateo County. Hooray for lawyers!

viewtopic.php?t=1205305#p17685313

That's my understanding too. I believe the Farralon Islands and Hetch Hetchy are also technically the property of the city of San Francisco.

Point of order your honor, SFO is more than a just technicality the property of San Francisco. In fact is it closer to the truth to say it is technically in San Mateo county. SFO is owned and operated by the city. Everything from police and fire to sewage is provided by the city and not San Mateo county.

Some people seem to be making an argument that because an airport is not in some city that it is undeserving or less deserving of using that city in its name. SFO would need to get in line with DFW, MSP, FLL PIT, DTW, and SEA. So BA is identifying OAK as serving San Francisco? The reality is that for many people who will use this flight, who are not residents of the area, are doing so to visit SF and if it weren't for the airport wouldn't set foot in Oakland.

atypical · Tue Aug 22, 2017 9:02 am

BoeingGuy wrote:
caflyboy wrote:
or just leave the Oakland off of the SFO title.

Do you know what the "O" stands for in SFO? I believe it is or was officially the San Francisco-Oakland International Airport.

Similarly speaking, do you know what "Sea-Tac" airport stands for?

Nothing probably. Three letter codes forced airports to adopt whatever they liked and most of the time it was probably someone who created it on the spot to complete the paperwork. Look at PIE for St. Petersburg/Clearwater and SUX for Souix City. My opinion is that some of these got named during a hangover.

synanthropic · Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:31 am

Norwegian Air (Argentina) requested routes to "Fort Lauderdale/Miami" (where those flights are landing at FLL and not MIA). I think it's fine for major metropolitan areas that share markets to be termed as such. Especially in this situation, with the high speed train that will be connecting all of the tri-country (MIA, FLL, WPB) centers with Orlando.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net