Have noticed numerous other threads on regional aviation, but none so far for the SF Bay Area. SFO also dominates over OAK and SJC, so I thought I'd start a thread. Covered here would be SFO, OAK, SJC, and STS.

Here are some topics that I thought would be interesting to discuss, but feel free to take this thread however you want.

SFO
- large increase in domestic and international flights, namely by United and foreign carriers
- new international routes (talk of TP to LIS, increase frequency of MEL, MAD, HEL, etc, and the monthly discussions of additions like SGN, BKK, etc)
- competitive aspects regarding UA vs AS, and possibilities for expansion or contraction
- capacity issues and terminal renovation/expansion

OAK
- terminal expansion and modernization
- Norwegian expansion, Level moving to SFO, ending of BA
- WN continued growth
- struggle to compete with rapid growth at SFO

SJC
- terminal expansion and modernization plans
- future domestic routes, possibility of increased AS and WN presence
- future international routes, possibly to Canada, Mexico, Europe, and Asia
- reductions in some international routes, such as LH's service to FRA and cancellation of CA's flight to PVG

STS
- huge expansion of service, with additions to SFO and DEN
- viability of more expansion by AS or UA

I was reading on the SF Gate, their travel writer McGinnis (I think thats his name) titled an article Loss of Major International Route. Then it mentions that the 2x week SJC-PVG service was going away. Any route that is twice a week is not major..

McGinnis is a great writer and has good scoop on information. Like his work

For SJC, losing a Foreign carrier may be a little bit of a blow, but I would have guess from the beginning that this one was doomed. Curious if Air China thought they'd pick up some of the Apple traffic. UA has that well sealed out of SFO with a huge contract. My guess,if anything is added from Asia, is KE or BR with 787's. Could be wishful thinking on my part as well.

as739x wrote:

McGinnis is a great writer and has good scoop on information. Like his work

For SJC, losing a Foreign carrier may be a little bit of a blow, but I would have guess from the beginning that this one was doomed. Curious if Air China thought they'd pick up some of the Apple traffic. UA has that well sealed out of SFO with a huge contract. My guess,if anything is added from Asia, is KE or BR with 787's. Could be wishful thinking on my part as well.

Agreed, it is more of a symbolic blow to SJC. I assume it was that CA wanted to have a PVG-SF Bay Area link, but that China Eastern's flight prevented that. I think KE or BR would not be crazy. CI seems to be making ONT work (though SJC would probably warrant a smaller aircraft than they have), so another spoke at SJC by another Asian carrier doesn't seem crazy.

as739x wrote:

McGinnis is a great writer and has good scoop on information. Like his work

For SJC, losing a Foreign carrier may be a little bit of a blow, but I would have guess from the beginning that this one was doomed. Curious if Air China thought they'd pick up some of the Apple traffic. UA has that well sealed out of SFO with a huge contract. My guess,if anything is added from Asia, is KE or BR with 787's. Could be wishful thinking on my part as well.

I agree with you that both KE and BR could be coming..TPE would be a big draw for the tech industry; as evidence when AA operated the 777 before 9/11, and KE could be the gateway to China.

simpv wrote:

OAK
- WN continued growth

SJC
- future domestic routes, possibility of increased AS and WN presence

Top domestic destinations traveled to from SJC that aren't currently served nonstop from SJC on any airline include IND, MCI, BNA, RDU, TPA, and IAD. In addition to Hawaiian destinations, WN could add nonstop service to ATL, IND, MCI, BNA, RDU, SAT, TPA, and IAD out of SJC. WN could also add SJC-LGB nonstop service if WN is able to acquire enough extra slots at LGB.

OMA and PHL are two of the top destinations traveled to OAK that aren't currently served nonstop from OAK, but WN previously served PHL nonstop from OAK. WN could add OAK-OMA nonstop service and bring back OAK-PHL nonstop service.

Top domestic destinations traveled to from the San Francisco Bay Area that do not currently have nonstop service out of any of the San Francisco Bay Area airports include ALB, BUF, CHS, ELP, RSW, GRR, JAX, SDF, MEM, ORF, RIC, and ROC. WN could add nonstop service to at least ALB, BUF, ELP, SDF, MEM, and ORF out of OAK if UA doesn't add nonstop service to these destinations out of SFO.

In addition to the previously mentioned opportunities, WN could also add nonstop service to ANC, CVG, CLE, DTW, BDL, PIT, RDU, TPA, and IAD out of OAK.

jplatts wrote:

simpv wrote:

OAK
- WN continued growth

SJC
- future domestic routes, possibility of increased AS and WN presence

Top domestic destinations traveled to from SJC that aren't currently served nonstop from SJC on any airline include IND, MCI, BNA, RDU, TPA, and IAD. In addition to Hawaiian destinations, WN could add nonstop service to ATL, IND, MCI, BNA, RDU, SAT, TPA, and IAD out of SJC. WN could also add SJC-LGB nonstop service if WN is able to acquire enough extra slots at LGB.

OMA and PHL are two of the top destinations traveled to OAK that aren't currently served nonstop from OAK, but WN previously served PHL nonstop from OAK. WN could add OAK-OMA nonstop service and bring back OAK-PHL nonstop service.

Top domestic destinations traveled to from the San Francisco Bay Area that do not currently have nonstop service out of any of the San Francisco Bay Area airports include ALB, BUF, CHS, ELP, RSW, GRR, JAX, SDF, MEM, ORF, RIC, and ROC. WN could add nonstop service to at least ALB, BUF, ELP, SDF, MEM, and ORF out of OAK if UA doesn't add nonstop service to these destinations out of SFO.

In addition to the previously mentioned opportunities, WN could also add nonstop service to ANC, CVG, CLE, DTW, BDL, PIT, RDU, TPA, and IAD out of OAK.

How close are OAK and SJC to their capacity limits, both in terms of number of arrivals/departures, as well as gate space?

SFO need a nonstop flight to South America. I am not expecting UA and hopefully either Latam or Avianca will come to SFO soon.

I have heard that QR will launch SFO service before 2020. Also, I hope UA will resume NGO by using 788.

simpv wrote:

jplatts wrote:

simpv wrote:

OAK
- WN continued growth

SJC
- future domestic routes, possibility of increased AS and WN presence

Top domestic destinations traveled to from SJC that aren't currently served nonstop from SJC on any airline include IND, MCI, BNA, RDU, TPA, and IAD. In addition to Hawaiian destinations, WN could add nonstop service to ATL, IND, MCI, BNA, RDU, SAT, TPA, and IAD out of SJC. WN could also add SJC-LGB nonstop service if WN is able to acquire enough extra slots at LGB.

OMA and PHL are two of the top destinations traveled to OAK that aren't currently served nonstop from OAK, but WN previously served PHL nonstop from OAK. WN could add OAK-OMA nonstop service and bring back OAK-PHL nonstop service.

Top domestic destinations traveled to from the San Francisco Bay Area that do not currently have nonstop service out of any of the San Francisco Bay Area airports include ALB, BUF, CHS, ELP, RSW, GRR, JAX, SDF, MEM, ORF, RIC, and ROC. WN could add nonstop service to at least ALB, BUF, ELP, SDF, MEM, and ORF out of OAK if UA doesn't add nonstop service to these destinations out of SFO.

In addition to the previously mentioned opportunities, WN could also add nonstop service to ANC, CVG, CLE, DTW, BDL, PIT, RDU, TPA, and IAD out of OAK.

How close are OAK and SJC to their capacity limits, both in terms of number of arrivals/departures, as well as gate space?

I think just like SFO, OAK and SJC are both pretty full at certain times of the day, but all the airports have room to expand in the off peaks. From my understanding OAK is pretty full on their international gates which is part of the driver for Level to move over to SFO. Withe BA, Norwegian, and Level on the international gates at OAK this past summer, things have been a mess mostly due to Southwest running all these Mexico flights. The Port of Oakland cannot say no to Southwest so they have over scheduled their few international gates causing numerous DY and IB flights to arrive on the gate and keep people in the plane because their limited FIS is at capacity already from other flights. Additionally, both IB and DY have been getting their catering from SFO and having it trucked across the bay and then having their cargo trucked back over to SFO for processing. Any small savings in operating costs at OAK are eaten up by these additional costs hence why IB moved their Level flight over to SFO this fall and DY will (most likely) start migrating their flights over to SFO S19. Furthermore, yields have been at the bottom of the barrel for OAK on international flights with SJC being 3x and SFO being 4x that of OAK. This is why the BA LGW-OAK flight was unsustainable.

SJC on the other hand has seen rapid domestic growth, but still continues to struggle with the problem of retaining international service. Much of this is changing the public's perception of SJC to convince them to not drive past SJC on their way to SFO. How AS will play out at both SJC and SFO will be interesting to watch.

LondonXtreme wrote:

I have heard that QR will launch SFO service before 2020. Also, I hope UA will resume NGO by using 788.

Qatar is confirmed and announce in 2017, however continues to be delay....we sit and wait!

United probably will not re-launch NGO. The 788 is the plane for the job, but well spoken for on more robust routes in the system. UA also is really feeling gate restraint at SFO with international traffic. This was another reason CTU was moved to a late night departure. SFO will not allow regularly scheduled international departures from domestic gates, so UA works with what it has. There has been the occasional intl departure from F gates, but was like pulling teeth to approve it due to no Duty Free stores there anymore.

simpv wrote:

jplatts wrote:

simpv wrote:

OAK
- WN continued growth

SJC
- future domestic routes, possibility of increased AS and WN presence

Top domestic destinations traveled to from SJC that aren't currently served nonstop from SJC on any airline include IND, MCI, BNA, RDU, TPA, and IAD. In addition to Hawaiian destinations, WN could add nonstop service to ATL, IND, MCI, BNA, RDU, SAT, TPA, and IAD out of SJC. WN could also add SJC-LGB nonstop service if WN is able to acquire enough extra slots at LGB.

OMA and PHL are two of the top destinations traveled to OAK that aren't currently served nonstop from OAK, but WN previously served PHL nonstop from OAK. WN could add OAK-OMA nonstop service and bring back OAK-PHL nonstop service.

Top domestic destinations traveled to from the San Francisco Bay Area that do not currently have nonstop service out of any of the San Francisco Bay Area airports include ALB, BUF, CHS, ELP, RSW, GRR, JAX, SDF, MEM, ORF, RIC, and ROC. WN could add nonstop service to at least ALB, BUF, ELP, SDF, MEM, and ORF out of OAK if UA doesn't add nonstop service to these destinations out of SFO.

In addition to the previously mentioned opportunities, WN could also add nonstop service to ANC, CVG, CLE, DTW, BDL, PIT, RDU, TPA, and IAD out of OAK.

How close are OAK and SJC to their capacity limits, both in terms of number of arrivals/departures, as well as gate space?

I’ve covered this before in other threads, but it is worth repeating here. The long term plan for SJC terminal growth is a build out of Terminal B with 10 more gates, with the “South Concourse” to be a mirror image of the North Concourse. The construction is to be triggered by growth in passenger traffic (essentially, by demand). 2 temporary gates were added in the last year, and recently it was announced that 4 temporary/interim gates will be added with construction that is supposed to be finished by next June. That leaves planned room for another 4 gates, long term, unless they somehow change that plan. The airport is limited by local ordinance to, I believe, 45 total air carrier gates which includes the build out of terminal B.

The runways are as big and long as they will ever be. They seem to be handling the air traffic well. I haven’t heard any reports of delays caused by insufficient runways or airspace issues. It has been reported here that RON parking for airliners is maxed out.

So SJC probably has room for a fair amount of growth.

This is a very cool thread. Thanks for starting it.

People predicted that no way would LH resume SJC this Summer, but they did. That was good news.

I’m interested to see if HU starts SJC to PVG to replace CA.

as739x wrote:

LondonXtreme wrote:

I have heard that QR will launch SFO service before 2020. Also, I hope UA will resume NGO by using 788.

Qatar is confirmed and announce in 2017, however continues to be delay....we sit and wait!

United probably will not re-launch NGO. The 788 is the plane for the job, but well spoken for on more robust routes in the system. UA also is really feeling gate restraint at SFO with international traffic. This was another reason CTU was moved to a late night departure. SFO will not allow regularly scheduled international departures from domestic gates, so UA works with what it has. There has been the occasional intl departure from F gates, but was like pulling teeth to approve it due to no Duty Free stores there anymore.

I know the gate restraint at G side during the peak hours, but it still has the way to improve. All the Air Canada flight should move to domestic gates because those flights have pre-clearance in Canada. The night departure to CTU is not bad, I just wondering how come UA don't move one of 2 daily PVG flights to midnight. Currently, 2 flights departure at 1:20pm and 4:25pm respectively and one plane has to ground on PVG for 16 hours. Meanwhile, I think some Star Alliance flight can be moved to A side, and eventually get rid of all the domestic flight(include Hawaiian flight) from international terminal.

LondonXtreme wrote:

as739x wrote:

LondonXtreme wrote:

I have heard that QR will launch SFO service before 2020. Also, I hope UA will resume NGO by using 788.

Qatar is confirmed and announce in 2017, however continues to be delay....we sit and wait!

United probably will not re-launch NGO. The 788 is the plane for the job, but well spoken for on more robust routes in the system. UA also is really feeling gate restraint at SFO with international traffic. This was another reason CTU was moved to a late night departure. SFO will not allow regularly scheduled international departures from domestic gates, so UA works with what it has. There has been the occasional intl departure from F gates, but was like pulling teeth to approve it due to no Duty Free stores there anymore.

I know the gate restraint at G side during the peak hours, but it still has the way to improve. All the Air Canada flight should move to domestic gates because those flights have pre-clearance in Canada. The night departure to CTU is not bad, I just wondering how come UA don't move one of 2 daily PVG flights to midnight. Currently, 2 flights departure at 1:20pm and 4:25pm respectively and one plane has to ground on PVG for 16 hours. Meanwhile, I think some Star Alliance flight can be moved to A side, and eventually get rid of all the domestic flight(include Hawaiian flight) from international terminal.

As far as PVG, UA had difficulty obtaining slots at all on the PVG side. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong, but they preferred to have a second PVG flight (poorly timed) rather than no flight or flying to HGH.

Don't forget about STS (Sonoma County) either. STS is developing into an airport that can be an alternative for North Bay residents who do not want to drive to SFO and/or OAK.

LondonXtreme wrote:

SFO need a nonstop flight to South America. I am not expecting UA and hopefully either Latam or Avianca will come to SFO soon.

LAN Peru operated SFO-LIM with a 767 until 2014 (I think). Flying to South America doesn't fit with United's strategy right now, not to mention the lack of gate space. Avianca already flies daily to MSLP and Copa is doing well with PTY, so the availability of connecting options might make competition for a nonstop tough.

atcpeter wrote:

LondonXtreme wrote:

SFO need a nonstop flight to South America. I am not expecting UA and hopefully either Latam or Avianca will come to SFO soon.

LAN Peru operated SFO-LIM with a 767 until 2014 (I think). Flying to South America doesn't fit with United's strategy right now, not to mention the lack of gate space. Avianca already flies daily to MSLP and Copa is doing well with PTY, so the availability of connecting options might make competition for a nonstop tough.

SFO-LIM was fairly short lived. The TACA flight (now Avianca) that you mention has been around since the 1980s though.

I wonder if there is any chance of COPA trying SJC.

BoeingGuy wrote:

atcpeter wrote:

LondonXtreme wrote:

SFO need a nonstop flight to South America. I am not expecting UA and hopefully either Latam or Avianca will come to SFO soon.

LAN Peru operated SFO-LIM with a 767 until 2014 (I think). Flying to South America doesn't fit with United's strategy right now, not to mention the lack of gate space. Avianca already flies daily to MSLP and Copa is doing well with PTY, so the availability of connecting options might make competition for a nonstop tough.

SFO-LIM was fairly short lived. The TACA flight (now Avianca) that you mention has been around since the 1980s though.

I wonder if there is any chance of COPA trying SJC.

Sorry, I meant Avianca to BOG(not current AV flight). I know LA used to operated SFO-LIM for a short period of time and then cancelled in order to strengthen their LAX flight. But I believe SFO-LIM still has chance and offer one stop service from SFO to anywhere in South America via Lima, and Latam offer better product compare to Copa(all narrow bodies).

LondonXtreme wrote:

as739x wrote:

LondonXtreme wrote:

I have heard that QR will launch SFO service before 2020. Also, I hope UA will resume NGO by using 788.

All the Air Canada flight should move to domestic gates because those flights have pre-clearance in Canada. Meanwhile, I think some Star Alliance flight can be moved to A side, and eventually get rid of all the domestic flight(include Hawaiian flight) from international terminal.

There are no domestic gates for AC to relocate to. This has nothing to due with being ore-cleared or not. They will get their own gates once the project Western Terminal Project and Renovation is complete.

Your making it sound like there is more available space at the domestic gates then there really is. Hawaiian is at G overnight for a reason (A side is full), not by choice. Also, Star Alliance carriers prefer to be together due to lounges and ground handling. There is a lot to the logistics behind the scene that can't be overlooked. Moving ground equipment, UA ramp staff, passenger connections not having to go back through security from inbound UA flights,etc. OZ has always been the oddball since they have a lounge on the A side.

There is a lot of good information by Chasensfo in the Expansion At SFO thread

http://media.flysfo.com.s3.amazonaws.co ... ojects.pdf

dfwjim1 wrote:

Don't forget about STS (Sonoma County) either. STS is developing into an airport that can be an alternative for North Bay residents who do not want to drive to SFO and/or OAK.

STS has a nice little niche up there. Its unfortunate that UA doesn't really have the right plane to make multiple SFO flights work. Much more of a smaller turboprop route. I believe this is the shortest RJ route around. Glad to see STS have continued success.

I know OAK was planning on having remote stands and buses to avoid backups on international arrivals; does anyone know if those are in use now? Without Level and BA next summer, hopefully everything is a little smoother.

ucdtim17 wrote:

I know OAK was planning on having remote stands and buses to avoid backups on international arrivals; does anyone know if those are in use now? Without Level and BA next summer, hopefully everything is a little smoother.

Was at OAK last week and noticed BA and DY both parked at the international gate at the terminal.

I did notice a Contour Airlines E135 preparing for OAK-CEC parked at a gate.

AirFiero wrote:

2 temporary gates were added in the last year, and recently it was announced that 4 temporary/interim gates will be added with construction that is supposed to be finished by next June. That leaves planned room for another 4 gates, long term, unless they somehow change that plan.

Currently the plan is to add 5 jetbridge gates and 1 ground boarding gate to end up with 36 total. They're aiming to get the facility open by March 2019, but I'm seriously doubting it'll be that soon. They're just about finished with the fenceline relocation to allow construction to really get going. October should be when things ramp up, and structural steel should be finished by the end of 2018. Hopefully the rain holds off so the ramp reconstruction wraps up in time to be ready by the time the building is done and the new jetbridges arrive.

iflykpdx wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

2 temporary gates were added in the last year, and recently it was announced that 4 temporary/interim gates will be added with construction that is supposed to be finished by next June. That leaves planned room for another 4 gates, long term, unless they somehow change that plan.

Currently the plan is to add 5 jetbridge gates and 1 ground boarding gate to end up with 36 total. They're aiming to get the facility open by March 2019, but I'm seriously doubting it'll be that soon. They're just about finished with the fenceline relocations to allow constructions to really get going. October should be when things ramp up, and structural steel should be finished by the end of 2018.

Thanks. Where did you get this info, was there an article or do you know first hand?

I work in Airport Ops at SJC (see signature).

Replying to below: The 5+1 new gates are in addition to the gates added last year (29 and 30). They will not be connected directly. The 5+1 facility will connect to Terminal B with a separate corridor just adjacent to where gates 29/30 connect to the south end of the building.

I found this article...

San Jose International Airport breaks ground on boarding project
https://www.passengerterminaltoday.com/ ... oject.html

Connected to the Fentress-designed Terminal B on the south end, the budgeted US$58m facility will include five gates with passenger boarding bridges; a sixth gate position to be ground loaded; a 15,000ft² (1,400m²), 550-person hold room; and additional concession space.

I wonder if that is in addition to the two newest interim gates, or includes them?

iflykpdx wrote:

I work in Airport Ops at SJC (see signature).

Ah, nice! Thanks.

iflykpdx wrote:

I work in Airport Ops at SJC (see signature).

Replying to below: The 5+1 new gates are in addition to the gates added last year (29 and 30). They will not be connected directly. The 5+1 facility will connect to Terminal B with a separate corridor just adjacent to where gates 29/30 connect to the south end of the building.

I heard from the other side of the break room that they are planning mid-June for the opening.

dfwjim1 wrote:

Don't forget about STS (Sonoma County) either. STS is developing into an airport that can be an alternative for North Bay residents who do not want to drive to SFO and/or OAK.

Keep in mind that until late 2014, the longest runway at STS was just 5,115 ft. That was long enough for AS/QX Q400s to fly as far as SAN and SEA, but woefully inadequate for regional jets. The main STS runway extension to 6,000 ft was completed with the goal of getting "major airlines offering flights east to air travel hubs including Denver, Salt Lake City and Phoenix."

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/2215 ... ry=2356253

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/2932 ... he?sba=AAS

By 2016, AS/QX had added nonstop service to SNA and a second airline had arrived: G4. G4 restored nonstop service to LAS (it had been served by AS/QX in the past) and gave AZA a try. Although both G4 services quickly proved to be unsuccessful, G4's interest in the STS market may have been the catalyst for AA to give PHX-STS a try. AA's addition of STS may have then convinced UA to resume service on the SFO-STS route - for the first time since 2001! Once UA established service to STS, the airport was able to achieve its longstanding goal of getting nonstop service to DEN. The Healdsburg winery I work for promoted the debut of DEN-STS on social media - Wine Country locals and visitors alike are aware of and excited for the flight.

SFO-STS probably doesn't have much of a future at 1x daily frequency (what if you misconnect?), maybe UA could do LAX-STS instead. ORD-STS might very well be a possibility in the not-so-distant future. Lots of folks from Chicagoland and points east joining wine clubs in California and discovering the convenience of STS. I could something like DFW-STS (AA E-175) or even ATL-STS (DL 73G) for similar reasons. B6 publicly mentioned the possibility of serving STS from LGB, so it would seem this airport is on the radar for LCCs and I presume ULCCs as well. Could WN ever pull off STS service?

SurfandSnow wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

Don't forget about STS (Sonoma County) either. STS is developing into an airport that can be an alternative for North Bay residents who do not want to drive to SFO and/or OAK.

Keep in mind that until late 2014, the longest runway at STS was just 5,115 ft. That was long enough for AS/QX Q400s to fly as far as SAN and SEA, but woefully inadequate for regional jets. The main STS runway extension to 6,000 ft was completed with the goal of getting "major airlines offering flights east to air travel hubs including Denver, Salt Lake City and Phoenix."

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/2215 ... ry=2356253

https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/2932 ... he?sba=AAS

By 2016, AS/QX had added nonstop service to SNA and a second airline had arrived: G4. G4 restored nonstop service to LAS (it had been served by AS/QX in the past) and gave AZA a try. Although both G4 services quickly proved to be unsuccessful, G4's interest in the STS market may have been the catalyst for AA to give PHX-STS a try. AA's addition of STS may have then convinced UA to resume service on the SFO-STS route - for the first time since 2001! Once UA established service to STS, the airport was able to achieve its longstanding goal of getting nonstop service to DEN. The Healdsburg winery I work for promoted the debut of DEN-STS on social media - Wine Country locals and visitors alike are aware of and excited for the flight.

SFO-STS probably doesn't have much of a future at 1x daily frequency (what if you misconnect?), maybe UA could do LAX-STS instead. ORD-STS might very well be a possibility in the not-so-distant future. Lots of folks from Chicagoland and points east joining wine clubs in California and discovering the convenience of STS. I could something like DFW-STS (AA E-175) or even ATL-STS (DL 73G) for similar reasons. B6 publicly mentioned the possibility of serving STS from LGB, so it would seem this airport is on the radar for LCCs and I presume ULCCs as well. Could WN ever pull off STS service?

Good stuff and thanks for sharing. As a side note I was booking MIA to SFO on AA last month and one of the options was to fly MIA-PHX-STS. The price and schedule were pretty attractive but I prefer to fly nonstop when possible so I booked MIA - SFO.

BoeingGuy wrote:

atcpeter wrote:

LondonXtreme wrote:

SFO need a nonstop flight to South America. I am not expecting UA and hopefully either Latam or Avianca will come to SFO soon.

LAN Peru operated SFO-LIM with a 767 until 2014 (I think). Flying to South America doesn't fit with United's strategy right now, not to mention the lack of gate space. Avianca already flies daily to MSLP and Copa is doing well with PTY, so the availability of connecting options might make competition for a nonstop tough.

SFO-LIM was fairly short lived. The TACA flight (now Avianca) that you mention has been around since the 1980s though.

I wonder if there is any chance of COPA trying SJC.

UA already has a huge S America presence from IAH and EWR

iflykpdx wrote:

I work in Airport Ops at SJC (see signature).

Replying to below: The 5+1 new gates are in addition to the gates added last year (29 and 30). They will not be connected directly. The 5+1 facility will connect to Terminal B with a separate corridor just adjacent to where gates 29/30 connect to the south end of the building.

I have been wondering if one or more airlines approached the airport requesting more space for some specific expansion plans?

Such a shame CA is leaving but that route was never going to make money. It relied mostly on people flying between shanghai and San Jose, CA only has long haul connections at PVG do connections were hard. If an asian carrier started a flight that could easily connect between SJC and SGN, MNL, or DEL via east Asia they would do pretty good.

AirFiero wrote:

I have been wondering if one or more airlines approached the airport requesting more space for some specific expansion plans?

Operationally right now it's a pain having AS and WN split across terminals. One of the goals of the expansion is to enable them to move all operations back to Terminal B. Additionaly I assume it'll allow them to add more flights during the busiest periods of the day, but whether they have any concrete plans to do so is beyond my knowledge.

Could KMRY, Monterey Regional Airport, be included in this discussion or is it too far away from the Bay Area?

dfwjim1 wrote:

Could KMRY, Monterey Regional Airport, be included in this discussion or is it too far away from the Bay Area?

That’s fair game. Go for it. It’s no farther than STS is.

BoeingGuy wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

Could KMRY, Monterey Regional Airport, be included in this discussion or is it too far away from the Bay Area?

That’s fair game. Go for it. It’s no farther than STS is.

"Technically" MRY isn't part of the Bay Area, but it is probably best to include it. (STS is).

dfwjim1 wrote:

Could KMRY, Monterey Regional Airport, be included in this discussion or is it too far away from the Bay Area?

I'd like to make this forum friendly and open, so sure. Monterey is close enough .

I think CA closing PVG is seasonal is it not?
Will they return in summer 2019 with PVG ?

Secondly :I think AA used to run SJC-NRT on DC-10. Are they going to be back and why now ?
Same with AA 777 on SJC-CDG (Gone for long time now.)

But BA (LHR) and LH(FRA) are good additions.

I would expect
AC(YYZ).
UA/AA (ORD/EWR/JFK) more service
and SJC-RDU (Midway air used to have it)

simpv wrote:

dfwjim1 wrote:

Could KMRY, Monterey Regional Airport, be included in this discussion or is it too far away from the Bay Area?

I'd like to make this forum friendly and open, so sure. Monterey is close enough .

I started a Central Coast thread a while ago for MRY, SBP, SMX, and SBA. There was a little bit of a conversation for a while before it fizzled out. I personally would consider Santa Cruz and Monterey separate from the Bay Area, but then again, you wouldn't believe how many people now commute up to the Bay.

iflykpdx wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

I have been wondering if one or more airlines approached the airport requesting more space for some specific expansion plans?

Operationally right now it's a pain having AS and WN split across terminals. One of the goals of the expansion is to enable them to move all operations back to Terminal B. Additionaly I assume it'll allow them to add more flights during the busiest periods of the day, but whether they have any concrete plans to do so is beyond my knowledge.

AS and WN are using parts of terminal A?

So are things seriously maxed out at SJC?

mandargb wrote:

Secondly :I think AA used to run SJC-NRT on DC-10. Are they going to be back and why now ?
Same with AA 777 on SJC-CDG (Gone for long time now.)

I believe the AA long haul service in the 90s used MD-11. And it was TPE, not NRT. Memory is a bit foggy but wasn’t this before SJC runway was lengthened which occasionally required a fuel stop enroute to TPE? Somsome will remembe more details.

AirFiero wrote:

iflykpdx wrote:

AS and WN are using parts of terminal A?

So are things seriously maxed out at SJC?

AS has been using Gates 13 & 14 since 2017 and WN has been using Gate 12 since July 2018. WN has 12 and 19-26 and AS has 13, 14 and 27-30 (they also often use 17/18 for morning departures) so between them they have over 50% of the preferential use gates in both terminals. Directing passengers to the correct baggage claim has been an issue for both of them. I don't know who will end up with a higher share of the additional gates- I would assume Alaska but it's anyone's guess.

There will be another gate rearrangement on 11/1/18. UA, AA and DL will be shuffling around a bit again even though they just did in July.

Edit: Looks like WN is adding weekly SJC-ELP on 4/14/19.

iflykpdx wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

iflykpdx wrote:

AS and WN are using parts of terminal A?

So are things seriously maxed out at SJC?

AS has been using Gates 13 & 14 since 2017 and WN has been using Gate 12 since July 2018. WN has 12 and 19-26 and AS has 13, 14 and 27-30 (they also often use 17/18 for morning departures) so between them they have over 50% of the preferential use gates in both terminals. Directing passengers to the correct baggage claim has been an issue for both of them. I don't know who will end up with a higher share of the additional gates- I would assume Alaska but it's anyone's guess.

There will be another gate rearrangement on 11/1/18. UA, AA and DL will be shuffling around a bit again even though they just did in July.

Edit: Looks like WN is adding weekly SJC-ELP on 4/14/19.

Thanks for the in depth information. Does SJC use assigned gates, flex gates, or a combination?

AirFiero wrote:

Thanks for the in depth information. Does SJC use assigned gates, flex gates, or a combination?

We have preferential and common use gates. FIS gates 15-18 are all common use. Gates 1 and 3 are also currently common use but gate 1 will become preferential on 11/1. Ground boarding gate 7a is also common use.

26point2 wrote:

mandargb wrote:

Secondly :I think AA used to run SJC-NRT on DC-10. Are they going to be back and why now ?
Same with AA 777 on SJC-CDG (Gone for long time now.)

I believe the AA long haul service in the 90s used MD-11. And it was TPE, not NRT. Memory is a bit foggy but wasn’t this before SJC runway was lengthened which occasionally required a fuel stop enroute to TPE? Somsome will remembe more details.

The SJC runways were lengthened prior to the TPE flight. TPE and CDG lasted only six months from about May 2001 to November 2001. NRT started in the 1990s and ended in late 2006.

TPE was a 777. CDG was a 767-300ER.

By then NRT was a 777 also. Prior to AA taking the 777, the NRT flight was first a DC-10 and then a MD-11.

mandargb wrote:

I think CA closing PVG is seasonal is it not?
Will they return in summer 2019 with PVG ?

Secondly :I think AA used to run SJC-NRT on DC-10. Are they going to be back and why now ?
Same with AA 777 on SJC-CDG (Gone for long time now.)

But BA (LHR) and LH(FRA) are good additions.

I would expect
AC(YYZ).
UA/AA (ORD/EWR/JFK) more service
and SJC-RDU (Midway air used to have it)

UA is ending EWR, which I find surprising given the large demand. But perhaps people preferred SFO's premium transcon service.

I guess I'm not sure exactly where SJC fits in--SFO has become larger and focused on US3 and international, OAK the more discount airline with Spirit, Southwest, and Norwegian. SJC seems caught in between. Lots of local route expansion, overflow international service from SFO, but relatively weak to the East Coast, particularly given its location in Silicon Valley. I think rather than UA, AS and WN will have the most service expansion possibility out of SJC. Though others might disagree with my assessment.

OAK is the fastest growing hub in the SWA system

SJC was the fastest growing major airport in the nation last year