BoeingGuy wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

This is a bit misleading. SJC had no long haul international flights a few years back. Five new long haul international flights were added left and right. Two have since been discontinued - both of which I predicted would be the weaker ones not likely to last.

CA, LH, and AM added new flights and dropped them. BA, NH and HU added flights and they remain.

SJC has one flight to Europe and two to Asia. That's three more long haul international flights than they had six years ago. It's hardly correct to say that SJC has been losing long haul international service left and right.

I mean by your argument one could say that half the new long haul service that started in the last 6 years has failed, no? I wouldn't consider that very successful.

Or you could say that airlines over expanded at SJC and are now right sizing. I thought LH was a shoot-from-the-hip response to BA starting SJC. CA seemed similar. I'd like to see HU try SJC-PVG since they already serve SJC.

BA starting OAK-LGW was also a response to Norwegian. I didn't think that would last either.

AM has a history of dartboard expansion and contraction (e.g. PDX-MEX). They started SJC-GDL when two other carriers already serve the market.

Didn’t AM also drop some other large stations like BOS at the same time? That’s hardly a reflection on only SJC.

BoeingGuy wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

This is a bit misleading. SJC had no long haul international flights a few years back. Five new long haul international flights were added left and right. Two have since been discontinued - both of which I predicted would be the weaker ones not likely to last.

CA, LH, and AM added new flights and dropped them. BA, NH and HU added flights and they remain.

SJC has one flight to Europe and two to Asia. That's three more long haul international flights than they had six years ago. It's hardly correct to say that SJC has been losing long haul international service left and right.

I mean by your argument one could say that half the new long haul service that started in the last 6 years has failed, no? I wouldn't consider that very successful.

Or you could say that airlines over expanded at SJC and are now right sizing. I thought LH was a shoot-from-the-hip response to BA starting SJC. CA seemed similar. I'd like to see HU try SJC-PVG since they already serve SJC.

BA starting OAK-LGW was also a response to Norwegian. I didn't think that would last either.

AM has a history of dartboard expansion and contraction (e.g. PDX-MEX). They started SJC-GDL when two other carriers already serve the market.

Didn’t AM also drop some other large stations like BOS at the same time? That’s hardly a reflection on only SJC.

BoeingGuy wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

This is a bit misleading. SJC had no long haul international flights a few years back. Five new long haul international flights were added left and right. Two have since been discontinued - both of which I predicted would be the weaker ones not likely to last.

CA, LH, and AM added new flights and dropped them. BA, NH and HU added flights and they remain.

SJC has one flight to Europe and two to Asia. That's three more long haul international flights than they had six years ago. It's hardly correct to say that SJC has been losing long haul international service left and right.

I mean by your argument one could say that half the new long haul service that started in the last 6 years has failed, no? I wouldn't consider that very successful.

Or you could say that airlines over expanded at SJC and are now right sizing. I thought LH was a shoot-from-the-hip response to BA starting SJC. CA seemed similar. I'd like to see HU try SJC-PVG since they already serve SJC.

BA starting OAK-LGW was also a response to Norwegian. I didn't think that would last either.

AM has a history of dartboard expansion and contraction (e.g. PDX-MEX). They started SJC-GDL when two other carriers already serve the market.

I don't disagree with you. All I am saying is that there are two ways to look at what is happening depending on what you want to believe for SJC's future. Given that both SJC and OAK have lost quite a few new long haul flights within the last year and no new ones have been announced, I would consider that a downward trend, but to each their own.

I also didn't feel like some routes at major hubs like MIA, LAX, etc would last but they are still here. I think it more has to do with secondary airports still struggling.

simpv wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

FSDan wrote:

Sorry, I still don't see how the thread title is accurate based on sources that can be cited... "Norwegian moving OAK-LGW to SFO-LGW" would absolutely be an accurate title, but the best info we have to go on otherwise is Norwegian's own spokesman saying that other existing routes are better suited to OAK and FLL. As of now, the fact that Norwegian is pulling out of OAK completely is, at best, a rumor.

Their spokesperson, Lindstrom, literally said "London won't be the only destination to get SFO flight." https://www.sfgate.com/chris-mcginnis/a ... 409289.php

They are moving more flights. Wait another month for more announcements......

Is it possible that Norwegian adds duplicate flights to SFO? In fairness, it says that London won't be the only destination--it doesn't specifically say that OAK service will end, though I might find that hard to believe.

And please don't take these posts personally. Perhaps if you could elucidate the nature of the source of your information, that would help blunt accusations that these are rumors.

I work with both airline network planners and airport executives, do the routes development conference circuits, etc. and believe it or not, it's a pretty small community. Word gets around pretty quickly when stuff is happening. I think for your question, you answered it yourself. Hard to believe they would keep the same routes at both airports if one is getting you significantly higher yields.

AirFiero wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

I mean by your argument one could say that half the new long haul service that started in the last 6 years has failed, no? I wouldn't consider that very successful.

Or you could say that airlines over expanded at SJC and are now right sizing. I thought LH was a shoot-from-the-hip response to BA starting SJC. CA seemed similar. I'd like to see HU try SJC-PVG since they already serve SJC.

BA starting OAK-LGW was also a response to Norwegian. I didn't think that would last either.

AM has a history of dartboard expansion and contraction (e.g. PDX-MEX). They started SJC-GDL when two other carriers already serve the market.

Didn’t AM also drop some other large stations like BOS at the same time? That’s hardly a reflection on only SJC.

I would say that any one route in itself dropping would no be a big deal. But 3 international routes in a year with no new adds I would argue is significant. SJC has always perplexed me as I feel it should do better than it does given its proximity to such a large portion of the affluent Bay Area population. But whenever I fly to the Bay from the east coast, more often than not it is cheaper to go to SFO. I had to fly business from the Bay earlier this year to Europe and was amazed how much more expensive if was to fly out of SJC vs SFO on the same carriers (over $2k difference). Not sure why that is, but just my observations of the situation in the Bay.

enilria wrote:

FSDan wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

I told everyone this was happening months ago and no one believed it.

Sorry, I still don't see how the thread title is accurate based on sources that can be cited... "Norwegian moving OAK-LGW to SFO-LGW" would absolutely be an accurate title, but the best info we have to go on otherwise is Norwegian's own spokesman saying that other existing routes are better suited to OAK and FLL. As of now, the fact that Norwegian is pulling out of OAK completely is, at best, a rumor.

I would call it a trial balloon. F9 and NK and G4 have done things like this where they trialed "the other airport nearby" to do an A-B test on performance. I think if MIA/SFO do well and they have facilities, it will all move. OTOH, it may not do well. Running a split operation is not the goal. They are only at SWF because they cannot expand at JFK according to what I've heard them say. If SFO and MIA aren't constrained I see them moving...pending results.

I 100% agree. This is a test as there is no way they would run a split operation leaving the more obscure destinations at a secondary airport. I believe this will mostly depend on SFO's gate availability situation as they need 3-4 turns a day at SFO to accommodate their current OAK operation.

SonaSounds wrote:

Their spokesperson, Lindstrom, literally said "London won't be the only destination to get SFO flight." https://www.sfgate.com/chris-mcginnis/a ... 409289.php

And Lindstrom's statement would hold true if they were to move CDG from OAK to SFO while keeping their more leisure focused destinations at OAK. Going from "London won't be the only destination to get an SFO flight" to "Norwegian Exiting OAK for SFO" is quite the logical jump. I agree that maintaining a split operation is not ideal and that would logically point to the potential for OAK to be closed as a station, but on the other hand Norwegian currently has JFK/EWR/SWF, BOS/PVD, and even CDG/ORY. So SFO/OAK and MIA/FLL wouldn't be out of the question based on precedent.

SonaSounds wrote:

They are moving more flights. Wait another month for more announcements......

Then perhaps in a month we'll be able to say that the thread title is accurate. Right now, Norwegian has not said anything about pulling out of OAK, and has actually made at least one statement to the contrary. Look, I'm not saying I don't believe you, and I'm not betting against Norwegian closing OAK in the mid-to-long term. I'm just saying that as of now, Norwegian has not said they are closing OAK, which makes the thread title misleading (or at the very least, premature).

DY just made a terrible mistake to go to SFO and I will punish them as I have flown OAK to LGA R/T 15 times and let us hope other airlines fill their void. Perhaps after they see their customers routinely delayed they might come to their senses.

Last time I was in San Francisco, I flew into SFO and out of Oakland and there was hardly any difference in terms of convenience. The metro takes about the same time from the city center to either and, in fact, because OAK was relatively small and empty it was very easy to use. What is the advantage of SFO?

hayzel777 wrote:

As if SFO is not already crowded enough, now the G side will probably be filled with LCC pax! Ugh!

Yeah, the hoi polloi should never have access to G-deck. </sarcasm>

peterinlisbon wrote:

Last time I was in San Francisco, I flew into SFO and out of Oakland and there was hardly any difference in terms of convenience. The metro takes about the same time from the city center to either and, in fact, because OAK was relatively small and empty it was very easy to use. What is the advantage of SFO?

The answer is exactly what you wrote: there is no real difference in terms of convenience when you're travelling from OAK to downtown San Francisco or SFO to downtown San Francisco. So that commute is a wash (I suspect SFO actually comes out a little ahead in practice).

But downtown San Francisco is not the whole of the Bay Area. Within the City itself, Sunset Heights and similar areas will be closer to SFO. Outside of the City, the Peninsula is easily the most important part of the Bay Area -- indeed, within the technology space, which drives much corporate travel, it until recently has clearly been *more* important than the City, and probably still is with the likes of Apple, Google, and Facebook being headquartered on the Peninsula. And on the Peninsula, SFO is the clear winner over OAK, and as between SFO and SJC it's largely a wash.

SFO is the clear loser only for places like the south East Bay (i.e., Fremont, Livermore, Danville and such) vis-a-vis OAK. And that is the least important part of the Bay Area from a high-yielding business travel standpoint.

Finally, SJC currently has no BART connection, and although OAK's Air Train connection is fun, it still requires a transfer to get onto BART. SFO hosts a BART station on site, with relatively easy connections to CalTrain.

There are very sound reasons why SFO is the focal point for aviation in the Bay Area and will remain such for the foreseeable future.

n471wn wrote:

DY just made a terrible mistake to go to SFO and I will punish them as I have flown OAK to LGA R/T 15 times and let us hope other airlines fill their void. Perhaps after they see their customers routinely delayed they might come to their senses.

I was planning to buy a CDG-OAK return (outbound is an AF J award) next year but I'll hold off now until it's clear the flight will actually return to OAK. If it's going to be SFO, I'll consider all my options with a very strong prejudice against rewarding DY for the move.

(However I am not under any illusion that my decision matters to them one way or another.)

SonaSounds wrote:

a350lover wrote:

Do you believe this is a right move taking into account Norwegian's situation? I assume SFO is way more expensive to operate in. Do they have poor yields just because they fly to OAK instead SFO? Competition, although not exactly on the SFO-LGW corridor, still up to 5 daily SFO-LHR is going to be hard from SFO, and fares can't increase much. On the other hand, could SFO potentially handle all the Norwegian routes which they operate in OAK? I still see that scenario far from real, but you never know...

According to the FAA https://cats.airports.faa.gov/Reports/reports.cfm

Average CPE is $5 difference between OAK and SFO and international may be more like a $10 difference CPE. You're talking about Norwegian needing to get $10 more a ticket to breakeven and they can now market the route as "San Francisco" instead of "Oakland - San Francisco Bay Area". Name recognition in Europe alone should make up the difference.

They already market it as "Oakland - San Francisco (OAK)." If you go to the website and start typing in San ... it will pull up. But that's only as much as they control, as they said in the release (or article) posted in this thread. They're hoping the difference on third party sites will be worth it.

SurlyBonds wrote:

peterinlisbon wrote:

Last time I was in San Francisco, I flew into SFO and out of Oakland and there was hardly any difference in terms of convenience. The metro takes about the same time from the city center to either and, in fact, because OAK was relatively small and empty it was very easy to use. What is the advantage of SFO?

The answer is exactly what you wrote: there is no real difference in terms of convenience when you're travelling from OAK to downtown San Francisco or SFO to downtown San Francisco. So that commute is a wash (I suspect SFO actually comes out a little ahead in practice).

But downtown San Francisco is not the whole of the Bay Area. Within the City itself, Sunset Heights and similar areas will be closer to SFO. Outside of the City, the Peninsula is easily the most important part of the Bay Area -- indeed, within the technology space, which drives much corporate travel, it until recently has clearly been *more* important than the City, and probably still is with the likes of Apple, Google, and Facebook being headquartered on the Peninsula. And on the Peninsula, SFO is the clear winner over OAK, and as between SFO and SJC it's largely a wash.

SFO is the clear loser only for places like the south East Bay (i.e., Fremont, Livermore, Danville and such) vis-a-vis OAK. And that is the least important part of the Bay Area from a high-yielding business travel standpoint.

Finally, SJC currently has no BART connection, and although OAK's Air Train connection is fun, it still requires a transfer to get onto BART. SFO hosts a BART station on site, with relatively easy connections to CalTrain.

There are very sound reasons why SFO is the focal point for aviation in the Bay Area and will remain such for the foreseeable future.

As a resident of Danville I resent being called “less important”!

FSDan wrote:

enilria wrote:

FSDan wrote:

Sorry, I still don't see how the thread title is accurate based on sources that can be cited... "Norwegian moving OAK-LGW to SFO-LGW" would absolutely be an accurate title, but the best info we have to go on otherwise is Norwegian's own spokesman saying that other existing routes are better suited to OAK and FLL. As of now, the fact that Norwegian is pulling out of OAK completely is, at best, a rumor.

I would call it a trial balloon. F9 and NK and G4 have done things like this where they trialed "the other airport nearby" to do an A-B test on performance. I think if MIA/SFO do well and they have facilities, it will all move. OTOH, it may not do well. Running a split operation is not the goal. They are only at SWF because they cannot expand at JFK according to what I've heard them say. If SFO and MIA aren't constrained I see them moving...pending results.

Yep, that could absolutely happen. In fact, I won't be surprised if it does. And I think it's perfectly reasonable to discuss that possibility in the body of this thread, but at the current time I don't see any supporting evidence for that to be in the thread title. Others may disagree.

Yes title is wrong.

SonaSounds wrote:

I 100% agree. This is a test as there is no way they would run a split operation leaving the more obscure destinations at a secondary airport. I believe this will mostly depend on SFO's gate availability situation as they need 3-4 turns a day at SFO to accommodate their current OAK operation.

My bet is that this is about CBP as much as anything. I've heard that CBP has been very restrictive in what hours they are willing to work plus their willingness to accept schedule changes at airports like OAK, while they are all day staffed at SFO.

SurlyBonds wrote:

peterinlisbon wrote:

Last time I was in San Francisco, I flew into SFO and out of Oakland and there was hardly any difference in terms of convenience. The metro takes about the same time from the city center to either and, in fact, because OAK was relatively small and empty it was very easy to use. What is the advantage of SFO?

SFO is the clear loser only for places like the south East Bay (i.e., Fremont, Livermore, Danville and such) vis-a-vis OAK. And that is the least important part of the Bay Area from a high-yielding business travel standpoint.

Finally, SJC currently has no BART connection, and although OAK's Air Train connection is fun, it still requires a transfer to get onto BART. SFO hosts a BART station on site, with relatively easy connections to CalTrain.

I wouldn't say just the south Eastbay. Most people I know who are in the inner Eastbay also try to avoid SFO when possible, and if a comparable flight is offered at OAK, they prefer it. Myself included. And that's in good weather. I take non-direct flights out of OAK, just so I don't have to huff it to SFO. I even dropped United when they pulled out of OAK; and I had been at least Premiere Exec for years with them. Taking BART to SFO, I always have to transfer to an SFO train at Daly City. Not all BART lines go to SFO. Thus, the transfer is a wash.

SonaSounds wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

BoeingGuy wrote:

Or you could say that airlines over expanded at SJC and are now right sizing. I thought LH was a shoot-from-the-hip response to BA starting SJC. CA seemed similar. I'd like to see HU try SJC-PVG since they already serve SJC.

BA starting OAK-LGW was also a response to Norwegian. I didn't think that would last either.

AM has a history of dartboard expansion and contraction (e.g. PDX-MEX). They started SJC-GDL when two other carriers already serve the market.

Didn’t AM also drop some other large stations like BOS at the same time? That’s hardly a reflection on only SJC.

I would say that any one route in itself dropping would no be a big deal. But 3 international routes in a year with no new adds I would argue is significant. SJC has always perplexed me as I feel it should do better than it does given its proximity to such a large portion of the affluent Bay Area population. But whenever I fly to the Bay from the east coast, more often than not it is cheaper to go to SFO. I had to fly business from the Bay earlier this year to Europe and was amazed how much more expensive if was to fly out of SJC vs SFO on the same carriers (over $2k difference). Not sure why that is, but just my observations of the situation in the Bay.

You answered your own question. If airfares are cheaper at SFO, then people will follow. Another factor is competition. If most routes have at least two competitors, then fares typically will be lower than a route with only one carrier.

Another set of factors someone brought up on this subject in an earlier thread were SFO often has multiple flights on routes and frequent flier loyalty, major conveniences for travelers especially for business. All of the above mentioned make it a tough road for SJC and international traffic and growth.

Yes title is wrong.

You, I and several others continue to point this out - and yet it has not been corrected.

All we know right now is they are moving their LGW flight to SFO.

Newsflash for the OP, regardless of your inside knowledge, there is only one certainty in aviation - change. Even if the "plan" right now is to move all service to SFO - until it happens, many things could alter that. Things are certain - right up until they're not.

This is very clear that they are preparing to move operations to SFO, case closed. DY was interested in adding MAD and MXP from OAK but there weren't sufficient gates to accommodate and secure those future flights. Which led to their decision to move operations across the bay. The quotations from the spokesperson telling to the press is a reality. The six other routes that remain at OAK will follow suit to be moved to SFO by 2020. OAK will soon have zero European routes in the meantime, while the future negotiations have already begun of possible European long-haul routes and Asian markets.

SonaSounds wrote:

BayAreaFlyer wrote:

Bummer, OAK just recently upgraded their international arrivals building able to accommodate a high volume of passengers. Might be the time to find another European carrier and potential Asian routes that could serve OAK in the future.

Who else do you think would try?

Negotiations are underway, the information is kept confidential between the airport administrative staff and the airline marketing officials.

BayAreaFlyer wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

BayAreaFlyer wrote:

Bummer, OAK just recently upgraded their international arrivals building able to accommodate a high volume of passengers. Might be the time to find another European carrier and potential Asian routes that could serve OAK in the future.

Who else do you think would try?

Negotiations are underway, the information is kept confidential between the airport administrative staff and the airline marketing officials.

Hard not to be a little skeptical and pessimistic at this point. If a semi-successful low cost long haul carrier like Norwegian, after going to all the effort and cost of building up OAK, still jumps to SFO at soon as they can, why would the calculation for any other carrier be different? Norwegian seemed perfectly situated to take advantage of opportunity at OAK. Larger legacy carriers are already at SFO and will be reluctant to compete with themselves (see BA). What else is there?

In the big picture, we don't necessarily need 3 airports with extensive international networks; Norwegian abandoning OAK would be a little easier to take if we just had a good domestic airport with basic service to all major domestic hubs and more than 1x daily to major east coast markets, but WN seems to be the only major carrier that can ever have long term success at OAK.

First BA left OAK, now Norwegian's LGW flight. Oakland is having quite a Brexit

OAK has a great domestic future with SWA adding the Hawaii routes which hopefully will take Hawaii travelers away from SFO

OAK has a bright future, period. For all we know DY may not even exist in another couple of years if it is acquired by IAG or another suitor. If DY wants to add more markets @ OAK, it absolutely has the ability to, especially in light of BA and LEVEL discontinuing service, freeing up FIS capacity. BA was primarily there to disrupt DY and it seems to have had an impact, though perhaps not what BA expected. It's only a few years before SFO is near the brink of being full at the inn, at least on the airfield capacity side. That, combined with the ongoing surge in East Bay population and business growth, and ever worsening traffic and packed BART trains, will put more of a focus on OAK. Short term, if DY departs for SFO entirely, it will sting. But, it is not going to diminish what the future potential is on both the domestic & international fronts.

AAflyguy wrote:

OAK has a bright future, period. For all we know DY may not even exist in another couple of years if it is acquired by IAG or another suitor. If DY wants to add more markets @ OAK, it absolutely has the ability to, especially in light of BA and LEVEL discontinuing service, freeing up FIS capacity. BA was primarily there to disrupt DY and it seems to have had an impact, though perhaps not what BA expected. It's only a few years before SFO is near the brink of being full at the inn, at least on the airfield capacity side. That, combined with the ongoing surge in East Bay population and business growth, and ever worsening traffic and packed BART trains, will put more of a focus on OAK. Short term, if DY departs for SFO entirely, it will sting. But, it is not going to diminish what the future potential is on both the domestic & international fronts.

Well put.

If DY eventually moves to SFO, so be it - OAK will continue to thrive. However, until that day happens, I'll maintain a 'wait and see' mentality. In this business, plans (even "firm" ones) can and do change on a dime.

ucdtim17 wrote:

BayAreaFlyer wrote:

SonaSounds wrote:

Who else do you think would try?

Negotiations are underway, the information is kept confidential between the airport administrative staff and the airline marketing officials.

Hard not to be a little skeptical and pessimistic at this point. If a semi-successful low cost long haul carrier like Norwegian, after going to all the effort and cost of building up OAK, still jumps to SFO at soon as they can, why would the calculation for any other carrier be different? Norwegian seemed perfectly situated to take advantage of opportunity at OAK. Larger legacy carriers are already at SFO and will be reluctant to compete with themselves (see BA). What else is there?

In the big picture, we don't necessarily need 3 airports with extensive international networks; Norwegian abandoning OAK would be a little easier to take if we just had a good domestic airport with basic service to all major domestic hubs and more than 1x daily to major east coast markets, but WN seems to be the only major carrier that can ever have long term success at OAK.

Remember JetBlue's initial presence at OAK and LGB? Their convenient west coast gateways. I certainly appreciated them, yet the market spoke otherwise. Somehow, sadly, this feels like a possible reprise.

Interesting and Confusing: I just noticed that Norwegian now uses the designation San Francisco-Oakland for Oakland flights. Since they began service they always used to use the term Oakland-San Francisco for the Oakland airport--much more accurate. All the more confusing since they are now starting flights from SFO which they of course call San Francisco.

So, start flying to/from San Francisco Airport (SFO) and at the same time change the name of Oakland Airport (OAK) to San Francisco-Oakland. Somewhere along the line, someones is going to show up at the wrong airport.

I also notice that when you book a flight from Oakland, it says San Francisco-Oakland and does not say OAK during the reservation process.

Of course other metro area airports are referred to this way too: London Heathrow/London Gatwick. New York Kennedy/New York Newark. Paris De Gaulle/Paris Orly. It will just take some getting used to. And it does convey in a better way that Norwegian flies to the San Francisco since Oakland is unknown in Europe.

reality wrote:

I also notice that when you book a flight from Oakland, it says San Francisco-Oakland and does not say OAK during the reservation process.

Shows up as "San Francisco-Oakland (OAK)" for me right now

a350lover wrote:

Do you believe this is a right move taking into account Norwegian's situation? I assume SFO is way more expensive to operate in. Do they have poor yields just because they fly to OAK instead SFO? Competition, although not exactly on the SFO-LGW corridor, still up to 5 daily SFO-LHR is going to be hard from SFO, and fares can't increase much. On the other hand, could SFO potentially handle all the Norwegian routes which they operate in OAK? I still see that scenario far from real, but you never know...

Well? If Norwegian is In Fact losing money? Then going where there might be more revenue would be a "NO Brainer".. They would have access to more premium passenger occurrences and More overall connections.