Airliners.net

Continue from last year's discussion.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1404709

Fun day at SFO today. There have been departures and arrivals on both the 19s and 10s. Peak gust of 52 so far.

ucdtim17 wrote:

Fun day at SFO today. There have been departures and arrivals on both the 19s and 10s. Peak gust of 52 so far.

It's going to be fun for te next 4 days, I used to work Mid shift on the Terminal for United. Winters were a Bear because it seemed like all we DID was change Tires and Brakes all winter in the RAIN! And? That Sucked. But if it was your Monday? That's what you got!!

ucdtim17 wrote:

Fun day at SFO today. There have been departures and arrivals on both the 19s and 10s. Peak gust of 52 so far.

It's going to be fun for te next 4 days, I used to work Mid shift on the Terminal for United. Winters were a Bear because it seemed like all we DID was change Tires and Brakes all winter in the RAIN! And? That Sucked. But if it was your Monday? That's what you got!!

Buried in an article about a possible renaming of OAK is the more interesting mention of a potential Terminal 3:

Colbruno said he'd like to name the airport's two terminals after Gee and Li to help nail down a timeline for building the third terminal.

"Maybe renaming the terminals gets us there," he said.

Not needed now but will hopefully be needed sooner rather than later so it'd be nice to see at least one Port commissioner is thinking about it.

https://www.aviationpros.com/news/12439 ... uld-happen

Looks like SJC is officially going to pass OAK for #2 in the Bay Area and #4 in the state https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/new ... -2018.html

ucdtim17 wrote:

Looks like SJC is officially going to pass OAK for #2 in the Bay Area and #4 in the state https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/new ... -2018.html

Paywall. Can you tell us more?

Until then...

ucdtim17 wrote:

Looks like SJC is officially going to pass OAK for #2 in the Bay Area and #4 in the state https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose/new ... -2018.html

They passed OAK in monthly passengers in November 2017 and Year-to-Year passengers in June 2018

SJC numbers out: https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/B ... 607810.php

14.3 million for the year, expecting to break 15 this year. Passenger count up 14.7% over 2017.

OAK at 13.6 million, up 4% and SFO at 43.5 million up 2.6%

Growth at SJC will probably continue to be mostly from WN and AS. I'd be surprised if B6 isn't down to just BOS and maybe JFK by this time next year. Legacies have probably added all they reasonably could and ULCC's don't really seem interested, as F9's experiment seems to have ended with them mostly pulling out everything they added last spring and no other carriers seem keen to try.

The struggle of the intercontinental flights does surprise me. I don't know if it's a failure of marketing them and getting the word out, or if the strength of UA at SFO is just too great to pull the business travelers away. Either way, it's disappointing that in an area with such a high population and wealth, the closest major airport can't support more than a single flight to Europe and two to Asia (more like 1.5).

All I want is UA to operate 2-3 flights a day to DEN, ORD, and IAH from OAK. Is that too much to ask?

iflykpdx wrote:

The struggle of the intercontinental flights does surprise me. I don't know if it's a failure of marketing them and getting the word out, or if the strength of UA at SFO is just too great to pull the business travelers away. Either way, it's disappointing that in an area with such a high population and wealth, the closest major airport can't support more than a single flight to Europe and two to Asia (more like 1.5).

I wish OAK and SJC had more luck too. I think they're at a disadvantage especially with international because it's a lot easier to justify going to SFO for a longhaul flight. For much of the peninsula and South Bay, it's pretty much a wash between getting to SJC or SFO. OAK is easier to get to for pretty much the entire East Bay, but SFO isn't that hard to get to by BART or one of the bridges. From the North Bay, none of the options are great. And there's not enough marketing in the world to overcome the challenge of getting people overseas to recognize OAK and SJC as decent alternatives to SFO.

sincx wrote:

All I want is UA to operate 2-3 flights a day to DEN, ORD, and IAH from OAK. Is that too much to ask?

Same! I'd also love to see AS restart SFO-DEN.

iflykpdx wrote:

SJC numbers out: https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/B ... 607810.php

14.3 million for the year, expecting to break 15 this year. Passenger count up 14.7% over 2017.

OAK at 13.6 million, up 4% and SFO at 43.5 million up 2.6%

I think you mis-read the article. The SFO pax number of 43.5 million was for domestic only. Add to that the 14.2M international brings the total to 57.7M.

Makes sense. I thought the lower figure seemed off.

SJC publishes International figures and they're at nearly a million for 2018... Anyone know what OAK Int'l numbers were?

While WN already has seasonal nonstop service to MKE from SFO, the lack of UA SFO-MKE nonstop service is a huge hole in the SFO market.

There was an average of 462 passengers traveling between the San Francisco Bay Area and MKE in Q2 2018, and there is more than enough demand for UA nonstop service to MKE from SFO on at least a seasonal basis with the demand exceeding the capacity available on the WN SFO-MKE nonstops during the summer travel season.

There is enough demand for WN to add OAK-MKE nonstop service on at least a seasonal basis if UA doesn't add SFO-MKE nonstop service, and there is also probably enough demand for year-round daily nonstop service to MKE from SFO.

AS adding SFO-MKE nonstop service is another possibility if UA doesn't add SFO-MKE nonstop service and if WN doesn't add OAK-MKE nonstop service.

Will UA or AS ever add SFO-MKE nonstop service? Will WN add OAK-MKE nonstop service?

iflykpdx wrote:

SJC numbers out: https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/B ... 607810.php

14.3 million for the year, expecting to break 15 this year. Passenger count up 14.7% over 2017.

OAK at 13.6 million, up 4% and SFO at 43.5 million up 2.6%

Growth at SJC will probably continue to be mostly from WN and AS. I'd be surprised if B6 isn't down to just BOS and maybe JFK by this time next year. Legacies have probably added all they reasonably could and ULCC's don't really seem interested, as F9's experiment seems to have ended with them mostly pulling out everything they added last spring and no other carriers seem keen to try.

The struggle of the intercontinental flights does surprise me. I don't know if it's a failure of marketing them and getting the word out, or if the strength of UA at SFO is just too great to pull the business travelers away. Either way, it's disappointing that in an area with such a high population and wealth, the closest major airport can't support more than a single flight to Europe and two to Asia (more like 1.5).

With WN jumping unto the LGB Route, B6 is probably toast.

You’re probably right about the major growth coming from the battle at SJC between AS and WN (Although DL has been pretty active at SJC).If one of them blinks (more likely AS), the other would dominate and growth would probably level off or even reverse.

The lack of airline lounges probably isn’t helping SJC. They only have one lounge, and it’s not directly associated with any airline.

I’d guess that the UA hub at SFO is probably the biggest factor affecting service and growth at all three airports.

When will Concourse B at SFO be demolished?

jplatts wrote:

While WN already has seasonal nonstop service to MKE from SFO, the lack of UA SFO-MKE nonstop service is a huge hole in the SFO market.

There was an average of 462 passengers traveling between the San Francisco Bay Area and MKE in Q2 2018, and there is more than enough demand for UA nonstop service to MKE from SFO on at least a seasonal basis with the demand exceeding the capacity available on the WN SFO-MKE nonstops during the summer travel season.

There is enough demand for WN to add OAK-MKE nonstop service on at least a seasonal basis if UA doesn't add SFO-MKE nonstop service, and there is also probably enough demand for year-round daily nonstop service to MKE from SFO.

AS adding SFO-MKE nonstop service is another possibility if UA doesn't add SFO-MKE nonstop service and if WN doesn't add OAK-MKE nonstop service.

Will UA or AS ever add SFO-MKE nonstop service? Will WN add OAK-MKE nonstop service?

My understanding is that MKE is a maintenance base for several UAX carriers which is why MKE sees more RJs despite being a larger market than MSN which has n/s service to SFO and soon LAX. Perhaps once UA onboards more 319s they will start SFO-MKE but it’s a long shot considering UA has kept MKE stagnant despite its aggressive domestic growth the last few years.

77H

JetSuiteX starting OAK-BFI 3x daily on July 1 https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/J ... 786456.php

While WN already serves BWI, HNL, HOU, MCI, and BNA nonstop from OAK in the San Francisco Bay Area, these 5 destinations are some of the top domestic destinations that WN doesn't currently serve nonstop from SFO.

Will WN ever add SFO-BWI, SFO-HNL, SFO-HOU, SFO-MCI, and/or SFO-BNA nonstop service?

Curious as to how ELAL SFO flight is doing. Granted I know it's super early and summer, just wondering how bookings are? There have been a few new International flights to SFO that have started up, any info on them?

jplatts wrote:

While WN already serves BWI, HNL, HOU, MCI, and BNA nonstop from OAK in the San Francisco Bay Area, these 5 destinations are some of the top domestic destinations that WN doesn't currently serve nonstop from SFO.

Will WN ever add SFO-BWI, SFO-HNL, SFO-HOU, SFO-MCI, and/or SFO-BNA nonstop service?

I doubt it. WN seems to be happy flying those routes from SJC and OAK, where they have substantial operations.

sincx wrote:

All I want is UA to operate 2-3 flights a day to DEN, ORD, and IAH from OAK. Is that too much to ask?

Yeah,, it might BE since United no longer has facilities at Oakland..

strfyr51 wrote:

sincx wrote:

All I want is UA to operate 2-3 flights a day to DEN, ORD, and IAH from OAK. Is that too much to ask?

Yeah,, it might BE since United no longer has facilities at Oakland..

Airlines, UA included, start/re-start new airports without existing facilities all the time. Not a large stopping block. I read somewhere that UA may be looking at restarting OAK in the future.

77H

77H wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

sincx wrote:

All I want is UA to operate 2-3 flights a day to DEN, ORD, and IAH from OAK. Is that too much to ask?

Yeah,, it might BE since United no longer has facilities at Oakland..

Airlines, UA included, start/re-start new airports without existing facilities all the time. Not a large stopping block. I read somewhere that UA may be looking at restarting OAK in the future.

77H

Scott Kirby told the SF Chronicle that UA *will* return to Oakland. He didn't say when or from where, but he said it will happen.

What about Oakland?

Oakland is on our list. I'm not sure when we are going to add it, but we are going to get back into the East Bay. We have not decided the timing yet, but we are absolutely planning to get back into Oakland.

https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/I ... 29013.php#

intotheair wrote:

77H wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Yeah,, it might BE since United no longer has facilities at Oakland..

Airlines, UA included, start/re-start new airports without existing facilities all the time. Not a large stopping block. I read somewhere that UA may be looking at restarting OAK in the future.

77H

Scott Kirby told the SF Chronicle that UA *will* return to Oakland. He didn't say when or from where, but he said it will happen.

What about Oakland?

Oakland is on our list. I'm not sure when we are going to add it, but we are going to get back into the East Bay. We have not decided the timing yet, but we are absolutely planning to get back into Oakland.

https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/I ... 29013.php#

That’s probably where I read it.

77H

according to this https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/H ... 047873.php
B6 and WN is moving into T1. The curious part I saw there is this.
Southwest Airlines and JetBlue will move into the new space in July with six gates.
I can't see why B6 would need 6 gates and I can't see WN/B6 combined would only require 6 gates. Anyone know if B6 is actually getting that many gates?

intotheair wrote:

77H wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

Yeah,, it might BE since United no longer has facilities at Oakland..

Airlines, UA included, start/re-start new airports without existing facilities all the time. Not a large stopping block. I read somewhere that UA may be looking at restarting OAK in the future.

77H

Scott Kirby told the SF Chronicle that UA *will* return to Oakland. He didn't say when or from where, but he said it will happen.

https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/I ... 29013.php#

I hope this materializes, it would be nice to start flying UA again. Provided they fly to more than LAX & DEN.

tphuang wrote:

according to this https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/H ... 047873.php
B6 and WN is moving into T1. The curious part I saw there is this.
Southwest Airlines and JetBlue will move into the new space in July with six gates.
I can't see why B6 would need 6 gates and I can't see WN/B6 combined would only require 6 gates. Anyone know if B6 is actually getting that many gates?

It does seem a little tight, but my guess will be WN 5 gates, with one or two being common use with B6. B6 will have one gate using common use when demand requires. SFO is pretty good at getting airline management into an office and working out kinks, as the airport transitions.

Weather prone day will be a challenge more then usual for these two

I'm assuming that Frontier and American will completely move out of boarding area "C"? Does that mean Delta will have the entire concourse to themselves? Will Alaska take ALL of Terminal 2?

as739x wrote:

tphuang wrote:

according to this https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/H ... 047873.php
B6 and WN is moving into T1. The curious part I saw there is this.
Southwest Airlines and JetBlue will move into the new space in July with six gates.
I can't see why B6 would need 6 gates and I can't see WN/B6 combined would only require 6 gates. Anyone know if B6 is actually getting that many gates?

It does seem a little tight, but my guess will be WN 5 gates, with one or two being common use with B6. B6 will have one gate using common use when demand requires. SFO is pretty good at getting airline management into an office and working out kinks, as the airport transitions.

Weather prone day will be a challenge more then usual for these two

There is simply no way that's the case. B6 had 2 gates + multiple CUTE gates available at international terminal. They'd have to cut half of their flights to shrink down to one gate + CUTE gate access. My question was if B6 is getting 6 gates. WN already has 6 gates (23 to 28) in T1 and they use them pretty fully. There is no way they are giving up gates.

What is the ultimate capacity of SFO? 70 million pax or 80 million pax? Also what year will SFO reach its ultimate capacity?

tphuang wrote:

as739x wrote:

tphuang wrote:

according to this https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/H ... 047873.php
B6 and WN is moving into T1. The curious part I saw there is this.
Southwest Airlines and JetBlue will move into the new space in July with six gates.
I can't see why B6 would need 6 gates and I can't see WN/B6 combined would only require 6 gates. Anyone know if B6 is actually getting that many gates?

It does seem a little tight, but my guess will be WN 5 gates, with one or two being common use with B6. B6 will have one gate using common use when demand requires. SFO is pretty good at getting airline management into an office and working out kinks, as the airport transitions.

Weather prone day will be a challenge more then usual for these two

There is simply no way that's the case. B6 had 2 gates + multiple CUTE gates available at international terminal. They'd have to cut half of their flights to shrink down to one gate + CUTE gate access. My question was if B6 is getting 6 gates. WN already has 6 gates (23 to 28) in T1 and they use them pretty fully. There is no way they are giving up gates.

Not sure if the article was updated or you misread, but it says nine gates, which is accurate. JetBlue will have two gates, WN will have 6, and there will be one common use gate. That being said, WN could probably make do with 5 gates - they’ve cut quite a bit of SFO capacity in the last year (PDX, SNA, AUS, etc).

UALifer wrote:

tphuang wrote:

as739x wrote:

It does seem a little tight, but my guess will be WN 5 gates, with one or two being common use with B6. B6 will have one gate using common use when demand requires. SFO is pretty good at getting airline management into an office and working out kinks, as the airport transitions.

Weather prone day will be a challenge more then usual for these two

There is simply no way that's the case. B6 had 2 gates + multiple CUTE gates available at international terminal. They'd have to cut half of their flights to shrink down to one gate + CUTE gate access. My question was if B6 is getting 6 gates. WN already has 6 gates (23 to 28) in T1 and they use them pretty fully. There is no way they are giving up gates.

Not sure if the article was updated or you misread, but it says nine gates, which is accurate. JetBlue will have two gates, WN will have 6, and there will be one common use gate. That being said, WN could probably make do with 5 gates - they’ve cut quite a bit of SFO capacity in the last year (PDX, SNA, AUS, etc).

That makes a lot of sense. It was definitely updated. 5/6 for WN, 2 for B6 and 1/2 CUTE seems like a pretty fair setup.

Nice article about the newly opened interim gates at SJC

SAN JOSE AIRPORT OPENS NEW INTERIM GATES FACILITY, REPORTS IMMENSE GROWTH
https://airwaysmag.com/airports/san-jos ... se-growth/

flyrocoak wrote:

intotheair wrote:

77H wrote:

Airlines, UA included, start/re-start new airports without existing facilities all the time. Not a large stopping block. I read somewhere that UA may be looking at restarting OAK in the future.

77H

Scott Kirby told the SF Chronicle that UA *will* return to Oakland. He didn't say when or from where, but he said it will happen.

https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/I ... 29013.php#

I hope this materializes, it would be nice to start flying UA again. Provided they fly to more than LAX & DEN.

if and when they go back? I would betr that OAK becomes a spoke for EWR, IAD, ORD, IAH, DEN, LAX, SEA and HNL.

strfyr51 wrote:

flyrocoak wrote:

intotheair wrote:

Scott Kirby told the SF Chronicle that UA *will* return to Oakland. He didn't say when or from where, but he said it will happen.

https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/I ... 29013.php#

I hope this materializes, it would be nice to start flying UA again. Provided they fly to more than LAX & DEN.

if and when they go back? I would betr that OAK becomes a spoke for EWR, IAD, ORD, IAH, DEN, LAX, SEA and HNL.

SJC only has DEN, IAH, and ORD. There's no way that OAK would get more than SJC.

AirFiero wrote:

Nice article about the newly opened interim gates at SJC

SAN JOSE AIRPORT OPENS NEW INTERIM GATES FACILITY, REPORTS IMMENSE GROWTH
https://airwaysmag.com/airports/san-jos ... se-growth/

I used SJC for the first time this year to get to the South Bay (had always used SFO in the past).
From the terminal to the walk to the rental car bus... to get the rental car.
No thanks, not going to use it again - sticking with SFO even if I'm heading to SV or San Jose itself.

KLMatSJC wrote:

strfyr51 wrote:

flyrocoak wrote:

I hope this materializes, it would be nice to start flying UA again. Provided they fly to more than LAX & DEN.

if and when they go back? I would betr that OAK becomes a spoke for EWR, IAD, ORD, IAH, DEN, LAX, SEA and HNL.

SJC only has DEN, IAH, and ORD. There's no way that OAK would get more than SJC.

While I could see UA possibly adding OAK-LAX, OAK-EWR, or OAK-IAD nonstop service in addition to OAK-DEN, OAK-IAH, and OAK-ORD if UA re-enters OAK, I agree that UA would only serve its hubs nonstop from OAK if UA re-enters OAK.

BlatantEcho wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Nice article about the newly opened interim gates at SJC

SAN JOSE AIRPORT OPENS NEW INTERIM GATES FACILITY, REPORTS IMMENSE GROWTH
https://airwaysmag.com/airports/san-jos ... se-growth/

I used SJC for the first time this year to get to the South Bay (had always used SFO in the past).
From the terminal to the walk to the rental car bus... to get the rental car.
No thanks, not going to use it again - sticking with SFO even if I'm heading to SV or San Jose itself.

Huh? The rental cars are right across from the terminal. And SFO is much larger, requiring MORE walking.

p.s. add...as for SFO, I won’t fly out of there under any circumstances. It’s a big, dumb, delay-plauged mess. And that’s after another hour of s*** traffic to get there from the South Bay. If I can’t get somewhere in my own plane or from SJC, then I probably don’t need to go there.

AirFiero wrote:

BlatantEcho wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Nice article about the newly opened interim gates at SJC

SAN JOSE AIRPORT OPENS NEW INTERIM GATES FACILITY, REPORTS IMMENSE GROWTH
https://airwaysmag.com/airports/san-jos ... se-growth/

I used SJC for the first time this year to get to the South Bay (had always used SFO in the past).
From the terminal to the walk to the rental car bus... to get the rental car.
No thanks, not going to use it again - sticking with SFO even if I'm heading to SV or San Jose itself.

Huh? The rental cars are right across from the terminal. And SFO is much larger, requiring MORE walking.

They likely landed in A and had to take a bus over. It is a weird walk through the garage, but it is still a lot quicker than going to a train and then taking it for 10 minutes.

KLMatSJC wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

BlatantEcho wrote:

I used SJC for the first time this year to get to the South Bay (had always used SFO in the past).
From the terminal to the walk to the rental car bus... to get the rental car.
No thanks, not going to use it again - sticking with SFO even if I'm heading to SV or San Jose itself.

Huh? The rental cars are right across from the terminal. And SFO is much larger, requiring MORE walking.

They likely landed in A and had to take a bus over. It is a weird walk through the garage, but it is still a lot quicker than going to a train and then taking it for 10 minutes.

Yup, sounds right. The really odd thing about the guy’s post is that he’s complaining about the walk which under most circumstances would have to do more walking at SFO, and that he’d rather fly into SFO to get to San Jose but would likely face an hour or more in potential traffic jams on 101? It makes no sense.

Is Norwegian pulling completely out of OAK this winter?

I heard rumors of this so I tried to make a booking and no tickets are being sold to any destination past October 27, 2019. SFO still just shows LGW only. Last winter LGW, BCN, and CDG all operated at OAK. Obviously the LGW was moved to SFO, but the BCN and CDG flight are no where to be seen.

Are these routes being dropped completely from the Bay Area, just not loaded in yet for OAK, or are they moving over to SFO?

SonaSounds wrote:

Is Norwegian pulling completely out of OAK this winter?

I heard rumors of this so I tried to make a booking and no tickets are being sold to any destination past October 27, 2019. SFO still just shows LGW only. Last winter LGW, BCN, and CDG all operated at OAK. Obviously the LGW was moved to SFO, but the BCN and CDG flight are no where to be seen.

Are these routes being dropped completely from the Bay Area, just not loaded in yet for OAK, or are they moving over to SFO?

According to a poster in the Norwegian drops LAS thread, they'll remain year round at OAK, so presumably they are just delayed in loading while they are finalizing the winter schedule.

iflykpdx wrote:

SJC numbers out: https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/B ... 607810.php


The struggle of the intercontinental flights does surprise me. I don't know if it's a failure of marketing them and getting the word out, or if the strength of UA at SFO is just too great to pull the business travelers away. Either way, it's disappointing that in an area with such a high population and wealth, the closest major airport can't support more than a single flight to Europe and two to Asia (more like 1.5).

I've flown the BA SJC-LHR route about 5 times in the past 3 years. I'm not a business traveler but it is disappointing to see the plane only 60%-70% full. On three occasions I flew in Club World and the cabin was barley 50% occupied.

I do hope the BA flight is here to stay for a long time but it is discouraging to see so many empty seats.

Would it improve if the airport was renamed SJC-SILICON VALLEY AIRPORT ?

tonyban wrote:

iflykpdx wrote:

SJC numbers out: https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/B ... 607810.php


The struggle of the intercontinental flights does surprise me. I don't know if it's a failure of marketing them and getting the word out, or if the strength of UA at SFO is just too great to pull the business travelers away. Either way, it's disappointing that in an area with such a high population and wealth, the closest major airport can't support more than a single flight to Europe and two to Asia (more like 1.5).

I've flown the BA SJC-LHR route about 5 times in the past 3 years. I'm not a business traveler but it is disappointing to see the plane only 60%-70% full. On three occasions I flew in Club World and the cabin was barley 50% occupied.

I do hope the BA flight is here to stay for a long time but it is discouraging to see so many empty seats.

Would it improve if the airport was renamed SJC-SILICON VALLEY AIRPORT ?

At least you're doing better than OAK, which couldn't keep its BA service (although that was with an inferior product to the secondary airport, so not apples to apples). Silicon Valley might be a better name for SJC, along with Oakland-San Francisco International Airport or something similar for OAK. I wonder how much business goes to SFO because of the "San Francisco" in the name and/or general ignorance of the region's geography.

ucdtim17 wrote:

tonyban wrote:

iflykpdx wrote:

SJC numbers out: https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/B ... 607810.php


The struggle of the intercontinental flights does surprise me. I don't know if it's a failure of marketing them and getting the word out, or if the strength of UA at SFO is just too great to pull the business travelers away. Either way, it's disappointing that in an area with such a high population and wealth, the closest major airport can't support more than a single flight to Europe and two to Asia (more like 1.5).

I've flown the BA SJC-LHR route about 5 times in the past 3 years. I'm not a business traveler but it is disappointing to see the plane only 60%-70% full. On three occasions I flew in Club World and the cabin was barley 50% occupied.

I do hope the BA flight is here to stay for a long time but it is discouraging to see so many empty seats.

Would it improve if the airport was renamed SJC-SILICON VALLEY AIRPORT ?

At least you're doing better than OAK, which couldn't keep its BA service (although that was with an inferior product to the secondary airport, so not apples to apples). Silicon Valley might be a better name for SJC, along with Oakland-San Francisco International Airport or something similar for OAK. I wonder how much business goes to SFO because of the "San Francisco" in the name and/or general ignorance of the region's geography.

No doubt 'San Francisco' is a name recognized world wide whereas San Jose might not be well known or linked to Costa Rica instead. I do know a lot of Indian ex-pats still fly out of SFO because they simply don't know that option from San Jose exists. It is indeed some ignorance or lack of knowledge.

tonyban wrote:

iflykpdx wrote:

SJC numbers out: https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/B ... 607810.php


The struggle of the intercontinental flights does surprise me. I don't know if it's a failure of marketing them and getting the word out, or if the strength of UA at SFO is just too great to pull the business travelers away. Either way, it's disappointing that in an area with such a high population and wealth, the closest major airport can't support more than a single flight to Europe and two to Asia (more like 1.5).

I've flown the BA SJC-LHR route about 5 times in the past 3 years. I'm not a business traveler but it is disappointing to see the plane only 60%-70% full. On three occasions I flew in Club World and the cabin was barley 50% occupied.

I do hope the BA flight is here to stay for a long time but it is discouraging to see so many empty seats.

Would it improve if the airport was renamed SJC-SILICON VALLEY AIRPORT ?

I would imagine it's a combination of a number of factors that you mentioned. And maybe there's not enough O&D Santa Clara County-London as well. Anecdotally, I hear fellow tech folks are flying mostly to India, China, Israel more than anywhere else, and with UA/*A providing direct service or 1 connection out of SFO, there's just not enough critical mass at SJC to get people thinking about it. In addition, the focal point of tech has been moving north to SF. Even though many of the larger companies are still in the Valley, many of the newer tech companies are in SF.

AirFiero wrote:

KLMatSJC wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

Huh? The rental cars are right across from the terminal. And SFO is much larger, requiring MORE walking.

They likely landed in A and had to take a bus over. It is a weird walk through the garage, but it is still a lot quicker than going to a train and then taking it for 10 minutes.

Yup, sounds right. The really odd thing about the guy’s post is that he’s complaining about the walk which under most circumstances would have to do more walking at SFO, and that he’d rather fly into SFO to get to San Jose but would likely face an hour or more in potential traffic jams on 101? It makes no sense.

A) I wasn’t ‘complaining’ I was stating my observation and why I wouldn’t be using SJC again.
I was heading to the South Bay for work, and have decided the negatives of SJC outweigh the train ride and longer drive from SFO. So, I’ll be using SFO like normal unless heading to east bay, where OAK is fine.

B) Yeah, had to bus over. It was just a dark, just dirty and not well laid out jaunt. No thanks.

C) Ultimately, I prefer the number of flights, connections and general amenities of SFO.
I tried SJC, didn’t like it, so won’t be using it again. Just sharing my experience.