San Francisco is one of the largest financial centers worldwide and one of dreams, apart from SFO is one of the best airports in the United States in the latter has had a notorious growth airlines such as Cathay Pacific, Eva Air and Korean Air have increased its operations, apart from being an airport where it receives several Airbus A380 operations from the British Airways, Lufthansa, Air France and Emirates airlines. And in recent years new European airline flights have entered SFO and many airlines have increased their services

Summer flight schedule 2018

1. London Heathrow - 6 Daily Flights
Bristish Airways (Airbus A380-800, Boeing 747-400) 2 Daily
United (Boeing 777-200ER / -300ER) 2 Daily
Virgin Atlantic (Airbus A340-600, Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner) 2 Daily

2. Frankfurt - 3 Daily Flights
Lufthansa (Airbus A380-800) Daily
United (Boeing 777-200ER / -300ER) 2 Daily

3. Paris (Charles de Gaulle / Orly) - 3 Daily + 5 weekly frequencies
United (Boeing 777-200ER) Newspaper (CDG)
Air France (Airbus A380-800, Boeing 777-300ER) 2 Daily (CDG)
French Bee (Airbus A350-900XWB) 3 weekly frequencies (ORY)
XL Airways France (Airbus A330-200) 2 weekly frequencies

4. Amsterdam - 11 weekly frequencies
KLM Royal Dutch Airlines (Boeing 747-400PAX, Boeing 787-9 Dreamlines)

5. Copenhagen - 1 daily flight
Scandinavian Airlines (Airbus A340-300)

6. Munich - 2 daily flights
Lufthansa (Airbus A340-600) Daily
United (Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner) Journal

7. Zurich - 2 daily flights
Swiss (Boeing 777-300ER) Daily
United (Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner) Journal

8. Istanbul - 1 daily flight
Turkish Airlines (Boeing 777-300ER)

9. Dublin - 1 daily flight
Aer Lingus (Airbus A330-200)

10. Finnair - 3 weekly frequencies
Finnair (Airbus A350-900XWB)

11. Madrid - 3 weekly frequencies
Iberia (Airbus A330-200)

12. Manchester 6 weekly frequencies
Virgin Atlantic (Airbus A330-200) 3 weekly frequencies
Thomas Cook Airlines (Airbus A330-200) 3 weekly frequencies

13. Reykjavík-Keflavík 1 daily flight + 4 weekly frequencies
WOW Air (Airbus A330-200) Daily
Icelandair (Boeing 767-300ER) 4 weekly frequencies

What do you think would be the following European destinations in SFO?




Barcelona (BCN) , Rome (FCO) , Brussels (BRU) and Dusseldorf (DUS) ,these may be potential United destinations in Europe, these last days were interested in buying more Dreamliners maybe use it to expand a little in their Hubs, especially Brussels and Dusseldorf, which are strong territories of Star Alliance

Vienna (VIE) Austrian after adding a new Boeing 777 to its fleet to return to Tokyo, Austrian has been interested in adding another B777 to its fleet to expand, Lufthansa Group is very strong in SFO and to strengthen itself even more serious would be to add Austrian to the market

Warsaw (WAW) with the arrival of the new Boeing 787-9 for LOT Polish, they add 3 more to their fleet by 2019, the route to LAX has gone very well since they have 6 weekly flights, potentially they can add SFO to their network of routes for the next summer 2019 with your Boeing 787-8 Dreamliner

Stockholm (ARN) for SAS the ARN-LAX route has been a tremendous success with high load factors, SFO is a large Star Alliance territory with the arrival of the new Airbus A330 and the new A350, SAS can increase its long-haul operations in Stockholm and increase its frequencies on the west coast

Milan Air Italy is an airline that comes with everything, by 2019 its Boeing 787-8 Dreamliners arrive, and the west coast asks for more flights to Italy, Qatar Airways has not yet announced date for its flights to SFO, maybe they will give it this route to your new airline

Lisbon As a launch customer of the new Airbus A330-900neo TAP Air Portugal seeks to be visionary and want to add new destinations with its new fleet, SFO would be an excellent option to expand its network of routes

Just to correct your point no.13, I believe Wow Air is 3x weekly to KEF on A333. In addition Icelandair (FI) is relaunching SFO on June 1st, with 4x weekly 76W.

EI now operate A330-300 x4 weekly and 200 x3 weekly.

As a 41 year resident of the San Francisco Bay Area I was interested in your post about SFO. However, your statement that SFO is “one of the best airports in the United States” is laughable. It is simply one of the worst—just above Newark. You are right that it has lots of airlines and lots of destinations. But SFO is an operational nightmare and if on time and cancellations have any meaning to people then let me just state what we locals have long known: If you can fly out of Oakland or San Jose then do so. What a treat to fly non-stop to London, Barcelona, Copenhagen, Oslo, Paris, and soon Berlin out of Oakland. SFO is runway constrained due to the environmental anti-growth bunch and all the nice terminals cannot change the fact that when you go to SFO and expect your flight to leave on time you will be disappointed 40% of the time.

RainerBoeing777 wrote:

San Francisco is one of the largest financial centers worldwide and one of dreams, apart from SFO is one of the best airports in the United States in the latter has had a notorious growth airlines such as Cathay Pacific, Eva Air and Korean Air have increased its operations, apart from being an airport where it receives several Airbus A380 operations from the British Airways, Lufthansa, Air France and Emirates airlines. And in recent years new European airline flights have entered SFO and many airlines have increased their services

One of the best on the inside maybe but it needs to be for the amount of time people spend there on delayed flights.

Don't forget that Oakland, just across the bay, also sees service to a good number of European destinations. It may not be the same airport, but it's certainly within the same catchment area and therefor these flights do compete with the flights out of San Francisco. In the opening post Barcelona, Rome and Stockholm were mentioned as possible destinations from San Francisco. All of these airports are already served from Oakland, as well as some others like London Gatwick.

RainerBoeing777 wrote:

Stockholm (ARN) for SAS the ARN-LAX route has been a tremendous success with high load factors, SFO is a large Star Alliance territory with the arrival of the new Airbus A330 and the new A350, SAS can increase its long-haul operations in Stockholm and increase its frequencies on the west coast

I don't think that is very likely. I have the impression that they are more likely to open routes to new cities than new routes to airports they already fly to. But who knows?

Not sure if I see much more in way of SFO - Europe: certainly not Air Italy in the immediate future, though MXP 2-4x/week on Norwegian might work (assuming they last). Perhaps more reinforcement of the UA/LH (et al.) hold on the hub, though SN to BRU is a long shot to me: maybe EW to DUS in the summer.

TATLTALE wrote:

Not sure if I see much more in way of SFO - Europe: certainly not Air Italy in the immediate future, though MXP 2-4x/week on Norwegian might work (assuming they last). Perhaps more reinforcement of the UA/LH (et al.) hold on the hub, though SN to BRU is a long shot to me: maybe EW to DUS in the summer.

Given all evidence to date, new Norwegian routes will probably be at OAK.

LIS with TP is guaranteed, as soon as TP starts operating the A330neo. If not still during W18 it will surely start for S19 probably as a 3-4 weakly service.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Don't forget that Oakland, just across the bay, also sees service to a good number of European destinations. It may not be the same airport, but it's certainly within the same catchment area and therefor these flights do compete with the flights out of San Francisco. In the opening post Barcelona, Rome and Stockholm were mentioned as possible destinations from San Francisco. All of these airports are already served from Oakland, as well as some others like London Gatwick.

Oakland I see it as a very niche arrival to get to San Francisco aside which is one of the most dangerous cities, and in Europe it attracts many premium passengers and I see a better get from SFO apart that many airlines have several Lounge and there are more connections than from Oackland, at least SAS dominates the LAX market better than Norwegian, many destinations operated by Norwegian from Oackland can easily be operated by premium airlines from San Francisco (SFO)

TATLTALE wrote:

Not sure if I see much more in way of SFO - Europe: certainly not Air Italy in the immediate future, though MXP 2-4x/week on Norwegian might work (assuming they last). Perhaps more reinforcement of the UA/LH (et al.) hold on the hub, though SN to BRU is a long shot to me: maybe EW to DUS in the summer.

Many did not imagine that Air Italy was not going to fly to Bangkok (a strong Star Alliance territory) or Mumbai (a strong territory of Skyteam), and there both were launched, Air Italy will have an aggressive growth to lead the European intercontinental market

Austrian and LOT should come online once gate space becomes available. Not much room on the G side for additional carriers unless they want to operate off-peak. Also OAK has a few unique destinations that should be included as it’s in the catchment area: TER, BCN, FCO, LGW, BCN, ARL and OSL. 20 European destinations in all including service to all five Scandinavian capitals.

While SFO has a good range of destinations in Europe, it still is the 2nd choice for many EU carriers when they want to serve the West Coast. Most telling is that both LO and OS fly to LAX instead of SFO despite the large Star hub up the road. Furthermore, many of the destinations served out of SFO has a greater frequency out of LAX. Take LHR, while 6x daily out of SFO it is flown 10x daily from LAX in addition to Norwegian flying to LGW up to 2x daily.

B747forever wrote:

While SFO has a good range of destinations in Europe, it still is the 2nd choice for many EU carriers when they want to serve the West Coast. Most telling is that both LO and OS fly to LAX instead of SFO despite the large Star hub up the road. Furthermore, many of the destinations served out of SFO has a greater frequency out of LAX. Take LHR, while 6x daily out of SFO it is flown 10x daily from LAX in addition to Norwegian flying to LGW up to 2x daily.

The CSA for LA is ~2x larger so it makes sense they’d have a lot more service. LAX has a ton of O&D traffic too.

RainerBoeing777 wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

Don't forget that Oakland, just across the bay, also sees service to a good number of European destinations. It may not be the same airport, but it's certainly within the same catchment area and therefor these flights do compete with the flights out of San Francisco. In the opening post Barcelona, Rome and Stockholm were mentioned as possible destinations from San Francisco. All of these airports are already served from Oakland, as well as some others like London Gatwick.

Oakland I see it as a very niche arrival to get to San Francisco aside which is one of the most dangerous cities, and in Europe it attracts many premium passengers and I see a better get from SFO apart that many airlines have several Lounge and there are more connections than from Oackland, at least SAS dominates the LAX market better than Norwegian, many destinations operated by Norwegian from Oackland can easily be operated by premium airlines from San Francisco (SFO)

What are you talking about? Very few people that fly in/out of OAK live there so the relative crime level (which is often overstated) isn't an issue. People have chosen OAK as an alternate airport because a large number of us can go to either airport so look to the destination options, price and to an extent, the lesser delays at OAK.

OAK isn't niche, its a smart alternative for millions of folks in the Bay Area.

n471wn wrote:

As a 41 year resident of the San Francisco Bay Area I was interested in your post about SFO. However, your statement that SFO is “one of the best airports in the United States” is laughable. It is simply one of the worst—just above Newark. You are right that it has lots of airlines and lots of destinations. But SFO is an operational nightmare and if on time and cancellations have any meaning to people then let me just state what we locals have long known:

I 2nd that statement....been here the same amount of time (1977), worked there for many years, the traffic in and around the terminals is a nightmare, however the terminals themselves are an evolving improvement. I can't stand to drive to pickup arriving pax there due to the congestion in and out of there along with the Nazi's who patrol the front of the terminals. The inbound delays on a semi cloudy day are hours. Don't miss working there at all. It's a real shame that there isn't 24 hour rail traffic that connects all 3 airports around the Bay. The rail system (Bart & Caltrain) are half assed efforts for mass transportation.

B747forever wrote:

While SFO has a good range of destinations in Europe, it still is the 2nd choice for many EU carriers when they want to serve the West Coast. Most telling is that both LO and OS fly to LAX instead of SFO despite the large Star hub up the road. Furthermore, many of the destinations served out of SFO has a greater frequency out of LAX. Take LHR, while 6x daily out of SFO it is flown 10x daily from LAX in addition to Norwegian flying to LGW up to 2x daily.

That's generally how the airline business works. Larger markets typically have more service while smaller cities have less, ie New York and Boston, London and Manchester, Houston and Dallas, Seattle and Portland, etc. Got it?

Hmmm. I’ve lived in SF for a while and had family there too. I think your statements are not entirely correct.
- Important financial centre yes but not for Europeans.
- Silicon Valley is the key here. None of the cities you’ve listed have anything to do with tech.
- SF and the Bay Area has a large Asian community
- Holidays in SF are expensive, avarage joe will struggle to finance a 7 days vacation.

Based on that, SF is well connected to the important cities in Europe but I doubt there will be flights from the airports you have mentioned. Simply because there wouldn’t be enough O&D. For connecting Pax BA, LH Group and AFKLM do a pretty good job.

I'm not so sure French Bee is going to last. UA flies to PPT. I would think TN gets most of the France to Tahiti business.

I'm not so sure French Bee is going to last. UA flies to PPT. I would think TN gets most of the France to Tahiti business.

bagoldex wrote:

B747forever wrote:

While SFO has a good range of destinations in Europe, it still is the 2nd choice for many EU carriers when they want to serve the West Coast. Most telling is that both LO and OS fly to LAX instead of SFO despite the large Star hub up the road. Furthermore, many of the destinations served out of SFO has a greater frequency out of LAX. Take LHR, while 6x daily out of SFO it is flown 10x daily from LAX in addition to Norwegian flying to LGW up to 2x daily.

That's generally how the airline business works. Larger markets typically have more service while smaller cities have less, ie New York and Boston, London and Manchester, Houston and Dallas, Seattle and Portland, etc. Got it?

Wow, really didnt know that...

Anyway, the OP made it sound as if SFO is the premier destination way ahead of any other market. Was trying to just put it in contrast to it’s big brother further south.

B747forever wrote:

While SFO has a good range of destinations in Europe, it still is the 2nd choice for many EU carriers when they want to serve the West Coast. Most telling is that both LO and OS fly to LAX instead of SFO despite the large Star hub up the road. Furthermore, many of the destinations served out of SFO has a greater frequency out of LAX. Take LHR, while 6x daily out of SFO it is flown 10x daily from LAX in addition to Norwegian flying to LGW up to 2x daily.

I think you need to compare apples to apples. While LAX has more London and Europe flights than SFO, LAX is the only airport in its metro region with such flights. OAK and SJC also have a fair number of international flights as others have mentioned. So SFO-LHR is 6x, OAK-LON is 2x, SJC-LHR is 1x, for a total of 9x.

psa1011 wrote:

B747forever wrote:

While SFO has a good range of destinations in Europe, it still is the 2nd choice for many EU carriers when they want to serve the West Coast. Most telling is that both LO and OS fly to LAX instead of SFO despite the large Star hub up the road. Furthermore, many of the destinations served out of SFO has a greater frequency out of LAX. Take LHR, while 6x daily out of SFO it is flown 10x daily from LAX in addition to Norwegian flying to LGW up to 2x daily.

I think you need to compare apples to apples. While LAX has more London and Europe flights than SFO, LAX is the only airport in its metro region with such flights. OAK and SJC also have a fair number of international flights as others have mentioned. So SFO-LHR is 6x, OAK-LON is 2x, SJC-LHR is 1x, for a total of 9x.

OAK - LGW has only 10 weekly frequencies, 3 weekly with British Airways and 7 with Norwegian, would be a total of 8 daily flights with 3 weekly frequencies

B747forever wrote:

While SFO has a good range of destinations in Europe, it still is the 2nd choice for many EU carriers when they want to serve the West Coast. Most telling is that both LO and OS fly to LAX instead of SFO despite the large Star hub up the road. Furthermore, many of the destinations served out of SFO has a greater frequency out of LAX. Take LHR, while 6x daily out of SFO it is flown 10x daily from LAX in addition to Norwegian flying to LGW up to 2x daily.

Actually LO wanted to fly out of SFO but due to the lack of gates in G at the times they wanted they ended up having to choose
LAX. I also believe OS wanted to fly into SFO but ran into a similar problem? This has been a problem for Star Alliance partners looking to expand into SFO.

Moreover, SFO was and may still be per person more popular with Euro carriers due to the stage length distance and they could utilize one plane rather then two. Of course LAX catchment is around 2.5 times that of the Bay Area, so you will have more flights most often.

One thing to keep in mind is that SFO has had in the past some of these routes. Air Berlin just folded and thus DUS went goodbye. Alitalia used to fly to MXP. Both of these flights where popular but where done with for issues other then their ability to succeed.

As others have stated OAK has picked up some of the lower yielding pax's via Norwegian, and Gatwick and such.... But yes I think SFO could easily support BRU, LOT, DUS, FCO etc. Some will come in time, many of these uncertainties are not a result of lack of demand, or LAX vs. SFO, Rather SFO is booked up in terminal G at the times these flights would ideally demand, moreover many of these cities are linked with Airlines in financial difficulty or a lack of equipment too support such an expansion.

The author makes the primary point and I agree that SFO serves one of the most in demand places to travel too (Bay Area), and serves one of the wealthiest area's per person in the world thus it should ideally be able to support some substantial expansion into new, or prior and/or additional euro markets.

Not really European, but I've always wondered the chance of ET operating a ADD-XXX-SFO flight with XXX being an unserved European city from SFO. Something like ADD-ARN-SFO seems possible since it first gives ET a presence in SFO which would benefit its large Ethiopian community and its Star hub, secondly it opens up ARN to SFO.

I doubt SK would start SFO-ARN unless DY went bankrupt and OAK-ARN ceased.

Is LAX-ARN really that successful for SK? Anecdotally I've flown the route twice and both times the place was barely half full.

iadadd wrote:

Not really European, but I've always wondered the chance of ET operating a ADD-XXX-SFO flight with XXX being an unserved European city from SFO. Something like ADD-ARN-SFO seems possible since it first gives ET a presence in SFO which would benefit its large Ethiopian community and its Star hub, secondly it opens up ARN to SFO.

Ethiopian has been talking with Lufthansa for a JV and having a connection center for ET in Munich. It is possible to work with ADD-MUC-SFO, another potential is via Dublin.

RainerBoeing777 wrote:

OAK - LGW has only 10 weekly frequencies, 3 weekly with British Airways and 7 with Norwegian, would be a total of 8 daily flights with 3 weekly frequencies

Not for long, as BA is soon suspending OAK (or at least making it seasonal).

RainerBoeing777 wrote:

10. Finnair - 3 weekly frequencies
Finnair (Airbus A350-900XWB)

Unfortunately still not A350 but A333, this year SFO is served 3 May - 5 Dec.

SonomaFlyer wrote:

What are you talking about? Very few people that fly in/out of OAK live there so the relative crime level (which is often overstated) isn't an issue. People have chosen OAK as an alternate airport because a large number of us can go to either airport so look to the destination options, price and to an extent, the lesser delays at OAK.

OAK isn't niche, its a smart alternative for millions of folks in the Bay Area.

I agree, plus it works the other way around as well. Europeans going to San Francisco couldn't care less what airport they fly into, one is as good as the other. Lounges and stuff like that only apply to the premium passengers, but that's just a small fraction of all passengers. The majority of them don't care about lounges as long as they get to their destination for cheap.

senatorflyer wrote:

- Silicon Valley is the key here. None of the cities you’ve listed have anything to do with tech.

In that case I'm surprised there isn't a direct Berlin - San Francisco flight as Berlin is the largest tech city in Europe.

The Bay Area definitely is growing and has lots of high yield traffic. However, SFO is a mess and severely constrained. While the terminals are nice, I just don't see how they can stick many more flight ops on those runways, with delays already routine even without weather issues.

SFO is United's primary Asian gateway. But given the unreliability of flight ops, I foresee much of the connecting traffic eventually being routed to LAX (or even ORD, depending on their origin). Similarly, I don't see new flights to Europe starting that depend on connecting traffic. Not only is it geographically unsuited for east-ward connecting traffic, there's just no room. So unless you think SFO can sustain enough O&D traffic to all those places, I don't think they'll happen. Even then, many of the destinations you list like Barcelona and Lisbon are largely vacation sites, which means most travelers won't mind connecting through another airport.

Essentially, unless SFO embarks on a major expansion effort, I see it becoming like JFK: a largely O&D focused airport, with connecting traffic routed to other airports e.g. LAX, and maybe even DEN / Seattle / etc. Usually, LAX and SFO compete to see who is the main connecting hub for western cities, with the winner being whoever has capacity to handle excess flights. That used to be SFO in the 80s/90s, but LAX has been expanding rapidly while SFO has stagnated, meaning LAX is now the primary connecting hub. Unless something changes soon, expect even more of the connecting traffic that powers many of these direct flights to go away.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

- Silicon Valley is the key here. None of the cities you’ve listed have anything to do with tech.

In that case I'm surprised there isn't a direct Berlin - San Francisco flight as Berlin is the largest tech city in Europe.

Google, Facebook, Apple etc. have their biggest European Ops. mostly in the UK and Ireland.

I think we all know that long haul out of Berlin isn’t working well.

LXwing wrote:

LIS with TP is guaranteed, as soon as TP starts operating the A330neo. If not still during W18 it will surely start for S19 probably as a 3-4 weakly service.

I hope Open also LIS-LAX and LIS-ORD with A330-900 and azores airlines could also Open PDL/TER-SFO/LAX with their a330 or leasing a340 from hi fly.
If this operation works well TAP or UA (if OPO-EWR os actually working well) can think on OPO-SFO/LAX with B767 or B777, who knows?
Portugal needs, at least, One west coast destination, among with asia, they are the worst regions served.

RainerBoeing777 wrote:

San Francisco is one of the largest financial centers worldwide and one of dreams, apart from SFO is one of the best airports in the United States in the latter has had a notorious growth airlines such as Cathay Pacific, Eva Air and Korean Air have increased its operations, apart from being an airport where it receives several Airbus A380 operations from the British Airways, Lufthansa, Air France and Emirates airlines.

What do you mean with this sentence? I have read it several times now, but I still don't understand it.

Why not use a few shorter sentences instead of this really long one?

muralir wrote:

The Bay Area definitely is growing and has lots of high yield traffic. However, SFO is a mess and severely constrained. While the terminals are nice, I just don't see how they can stick many more flight ops on those runways, with delays already routine even without weather issues.

SFO is United's primary Asian gateway. But given the unreliability of flight ops, I foresee much of the connecting traffic eventually being routed to LAX (or even ORD, depending on their origin). Similarly, I don't see new flights to Europe starting that depend on connecting traffic. Not only is it geographically unsuited for east-ward connecting traffic, there's just no room. So unless you think SFO can sustain enough O&D traffic to all those places, I don't think they'll happen. Even then, many of the destinations you list like Barcelona and Lisbon are largely vacation sites, which means most travelers won't mind connecting through another airport.

Essentially, unless SFO embarks on a major expansion effort, I see it becoming like JFK: a largely O&D focused airport, with connecting traffic routed to other airports e.g. LAX, and maybe even DEN / Seattle / etc. Usually, LAX and SFO compete to see who is the main connecting hub for western cities, with the winner being whoever has capacity to handle excess flights. That used to be SFO in the 80s/90s, but LAX has been expanding rapidly while SFO has stagnated, meaning LAX is now the primary connecting hub. Unless something changes soon, expect even more of the connecting traffic that powers many of these direct flights to go away.

What are you talking about? SFO is in the middle of a $8.5B Capital Project which includes rebuilding BA-B with 24 gates (7 being international swing gates), building out additional swing gate at T3, on airport hotel, new post security connector between T2-T3, new long term parking garage, new observation deck, etc. While both LAX and SFO are constrained compared to DFW and DEN, SFO is dealing with significantly less land than LAX given that over half of the airport owned property is protected wetlands. SFO is very land constrained and I think the airport authority is being careful in planning the terminal facility so gates do not exceed runway capacity which would force the airport into level 3. I was watching a presentation from LAX where they were saying the average number of seats per flight in 2017 went down while SFO went up. Both airports are becoming a difficult to travel through and now SEA is joining those ranks as well. Even the TSA lines at SJC have been a nightmare to go through during my multiple trips this summer. West Coast airports seem to be struggling in general to keep up with all their crazy growth.

CV880 wrote:

n471wn wrote:

As a 41 year resident of the San Francisco Bay Area I was interested in your post about SFO. However, your statement that SFO is “one of the best airports in the United States” is laughable. It is simply one of the worst—just above Newark. You are right that it has lots of airlines and lots of destinations. But SFO is an operational nightmare and if on time and cancellations have any meaning to people then let me just state what we locals have long known:

I 2nd that statement....been here the same amount of time (1977), worked there for many years, the traffic in and around the terminals is a nightmare, however the terminals themselves are an evolving improvement. I can't stand to drive to pickup arriving pax there due to the congestion in and out of there along with the Nazi's who patrol the front of the terminals. The inbound delays on a semi cloudy day are hours. Don't miss working there at all. It's a real shame that there isn't 24 hour rail traffic that connects all 3 airports around the Bay. The rail system (Bart & Caltrain) are half assed efforts for mass transportation.

Totally agree. Public transportation in the Bay Area is a joke for how many people live there.

Plus doesn't SFO have nonstop services to far off places like ME and India.

Its surprising that there is still so much European service supported.

manny wrote:

Plus doesn't SFO have nonstop services to far off places like ME and India.

Its surprising that there is still so much European service supported.

Sure it does. AI flies to DEL. EK flies to DXB.

n471wn wrote:

...soon Berlin out of Oakland.

Haven't seen this news. Will it be Norwegian? Got a news source?

n471wn wrote:

As a 41 year resident of the San Francisco Bay Area I was interested in your post about SFO. However, your statement that SFO is “one of the best airports in the United States” is laughable. It is simply one of the worst—just above Newark. You are right that it has lots of airlines and lots of destinations. But SFO is an operational nightmare and if on time and cancellations have any meaning to people then let me just state what we locals have long known: If you can fly out of Oakland or San Jose then do so. What a treat to fly non-stop to London, Barcelona, Copenhagen, Oslo, Paris, and soon Berlin out of Oakland. SFO is runway constrained due to the environmental anti-growth bunch and all the nice terminals cannot change the fact that when you go to SFO and expect your flight to leave on time you will be disappointed 40% of the time.

I fly out of SFO weekly, sometimes twice weekly for the last 10 years. My experiences is that 20-25% of my flights have been delayed. That's not great compared to some airports, but given its runway configuration, it's not bad. I'd choose SFO over LAX anytime, especially if it's international.

SonaSounds wrote:

muralir wrote:

The Bay Area definitely is growing and has lots of high yield traffic. However, SFO is a mess and severely constrained. While the terminals are nice, I just don't see how they can stick many more flight ops on those runways, with delays already routine even without weather issues.

SFO is United's primary Asian gateway. But given the unreliability of flight ops, I foresee much of the connecting traffic eventually being routed to LAX (or even ORD, depending on their origin). Similarly, I don't see new flights to Europe starting that depend on connecting traffic. Not only is it geographically unsuited for east-ward connecting traffic, there's just no room. So unless you think SFO can sustain enough O&D traffic to all those places, I don't think they'll happen. Even then, many of the destinations you list like Barcelona and Lisbon are largely vacation sites, which means most travelers won't mind connecting through another airport.

Essentially, unless SFO embarks on a major expansion effort, I see it becoming like JFK: a largely O&D focused airport, with connecting traffic routed to other airports e.g. LAX, and maybe even DEN / Seattle / etc. Usually, LAX and SFO compete to see who is the main connecting hub for western cities, with the winner being whoever has capacity to handle excess flights. That used to be SFO in the 80s/90s, but LAX has been expanding rapidly while SFO has stagnated, meaning LAX is now the primary connecting hub. Unless something changes soon, expect even more of the connecting traffic that powers many of these direct flights to go away.

What are you talking about? SFO is in the middle of a $8.5B Capital Project which includes rebuilding BA-B with 24 gates (7 being international swing gates), building out additional swing gate at T3, on airport hotel, new post security connector between T2-T3, new long term parking garage, new observation deck, etc. While both LAX and SFO are constrained compared to DFW and DEN, SFO is dealing with significantly less land than LAX given that over half of the airport owned property is protected wetlands. SFO is very land constrained and I think the airport authority is being careful in planning the terminal facility so gates do not exceed runway capacity which would force the airport into level 3. I was watching a presentation from LAX where they were saying the average number of seats per flight in 2017 went down while SFO went up. Both airports are becoming a difficult to travel through and now SEA is joining those ranks as well. Even the TSA lines at SJC have been a nightmare to go through during my multiple trips this summer. West Coast airports seem to be struggling in general to keep up with all their crazy growth.

While it is true that SFO is rebuilding their terminal buildings, their biggest issue is the notorious runway spacing which is NOT going away. SJC is also expanding their terminal but while they and OAK do not typically have weather issues, SJC does have space constraints too. OAK might be the only major airport in the SF Bay Area that might have the space to grow both in terminal space and runway expansion. All three airports are now (or soon to be connected) by BART, so it's possible to fly into one of the three and get to most corners of the Bay, which may explain why all three of them have been getting more and more flights to Asia and Europe.

MCIRNO wrote:

All three airports are now (or soon to be connected) by BART, so it's possible to fly into one of the three and get to most corners of the Bay, which may explain why all three of them have been getting more and more flights to Asia and Europe.

I wish that were true at SJC, but BART will not connect directly to the airport even with the extension. It will remain a shuttle ride away from all light/heavy rail transit options.

MCIRNO wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

muralir wrote:

The Bay Area definitely is growing and has lots of high yield traffic. However, SFO is a mess and severely constrained. While the terminals are nice, I just don't see how they can stick many more flight ops on those runways, with delays already routine even without weather issues.

SFO is United's primary Asian gateway. But given the unreliability of flight ops, I foresee much of the connecting traffic eventually being routed to LAX (or even ORD, depending on their origin). Similarly, I don't see new flights to Europe starting that depend on connecting traffic. Not only is it geographically unsuited for east-ward connecting traffic, there's just no room. So unless you think SFO can sustain enough O&D traffic to all those places, I don't think they'll happen. Even then, many of the destinations you list like Barcelona and Lisbon are largely vacation sites, which means most travelers won't mind connecting through another airport.

Essentially, unless SFO embarks on a major expansion effort, I see it becoming like JFK: a largely O&D focused airport, with connecting traffic routed to other airports e.g. LAX, and maybe even DEN / Seattle / etc. Usually, LAX and SFO compete to see who is the main connecting hub for western cities, with the winner being whoever has capacity to handle excess flights. That used to be SFO in the 80s/90s, but LAX has been expanding rapidly while SFO has stagnated, meaning LAX is now the primary connecting hub. Unless something changes soon, expect even more of the connecting traffic that powers many of these direct flights to go away.

What are you talking about? SFO is in the middle of a $8.5B Capital Project which includes rebuilding BA-B with 24 gates (7 being international swing gates), building out additional swing gate at T3, on airport hotel, new post security connector between T2-T3, new long term parking garage, new observation deck, etc. While both LAX and SFO are constrained compared to DFW and DEN, SFO is dealing with significantly less land than LAX given that over half of the airport owned property is protected wetlands. SFO is very land constrained and I think the airport authority is being careful in planning the terminal facility so gates do not exceed runway capacity which would force the airport into level 3. I was watching a presentation from LAX where they were saying the average number of seats per flight in 2017 went down while SFO went up. Both airports are becoming a difficult to travel through and now SEA is joining those ranks as well. Even the TSA lines at SJC have been a nightmare to go through during my multiple trips this summer. West Coast airports seem to be struggling in general to keep up with all their crazy growth.

While it is true that SFO is rebuilding their terminal buildings, their biggest issue is the notorious runway spacing which is NOT going away. SJC is also expanding their terminal but while they and OAK do not typically have weather issues, SJC does have space constraints too. OAK might be the only major airport in the SF Bay Area that might have the space to grow both in terminal space and runway expansion. All three airports are now (or soon to be connected) by BART, so it's possible to fly into one of the three and get to most corners of the Bay, which may explain why all three of them have been getting more and more flights to Asia and Europe.

While it is true that runway spacing at SFO is not going to change, technology has made it better in that past few years. In good weather, SFO can do ~60 arrivals (dual arrivals every 2 mins). In bad weather they used to operate a single runway for 30 arrivals (1 arrival ever 2 mins). With technology like CSPR (Closely-Spaced Parallel Runways) SFO increased that to 43 an hour (V shaped approaches on both runways) in 2013/2014 and next year it is expected to go up to 48. In a very Bay Area fashion, SFO is tackling their runway limitations with technology instead of more construction.

I agree OAK has the most room to grow land wise and could host a significantly larger operation there. Problem is most of the businesses and wealthy travelers are closer to the other 2 Bay Area airports.

On another note, I have done the BART transfer thing between airports and it is a nightmare, especially at OAK. Let alone the price gauging that goes on. Almost cheaper to just take an Uber across the Bay even for 1 person.

n471wn wrote:

As a 41 year resident of the San Francisco Bay Area I was interested in your post about SFO. However, your statement that SFO is “one of the best airports in the United States” is laughable. It is simply one of the worst—just above Newark. You are right that it has lots of airlines and lots of destinations. But SFO is an operational nightmare and if on time and cancellations have any meaning to people then let me just state what we locals have long known: If you can fly out of Oakland or San Jose then do so. What a treat to fly non-stop to London, Barcelona, Copenhagen, Oslo, Paris, and soon Berlin out of Oakland. SFO is runway constrained due to the environmental anti-growth bunch and all the nice terminals cannot change the fact that when you go to SFO and expect your flight to leave on time you will be disappointed 40% of the time.

SFO has its operational difficulties relating to weather, to be sure. But facilities-wise, yes, it is one of the best airports in the country.

As for the anti-growth issues, these affect OAK as much as SFO.

senatorflyer wrote:

Hmmm. I’ve lived in SF for a while and had family there too. I think your statements are not entirely correct.
- Important financial centre yes but not for Europeans.

I would disagree, at least with respect to venture capital/technology finance and banking. A huge number of European startups choose to relocate or open offices in the Bay Area. Many European governments have accelerators here, to say nothing of private sector accelerators.

PatrickZ80 wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

- Silicon Valley is the key here. None of the cities you’ve listed have anything to do with tech.

In that case I'm surprised there isn't a direct Berlin - San Francisco flight as Berlin is the largest tech city in Europe.

But that's primarily a function of Berlin's anemic role in German aviation. It's similar to the way AI serves SFO-DEL, not BLR.

SurlyBonds wrote:

PatrickZ80 wrote:

senatorflyer wrote:

- Silicon Valley is the key here. None of the cities you’ve listed have anything to do with tech.

In that case I'm surprised there isn't a direct Berlin - San Francisco flight as Berlin is the largest tech city in Europe.

But that's primarily a function of Berlin's anemic role in German aviation. It's similar to the way AI serves SFO-DEL, not BLR.

SFO use to have a daily flight to Dusseldorf and a 5x weekly flight to Berlin both on Air Berlin but we all know what happened to that......Probably only a matter of time before LH/EW pick up one or both of those routes.