Why do you still use sfo or oak airports? (San Diego: live in, costs)

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Yes, I live in Sacramento & I always check OAK and SMF, and SFO for international travel. I go out of my way to avoid plane changes and long layovers, if that costs me a few hundred dollars in order to do so, that's fine. If I am going to Cancun I do not want to wander around the Houston airport for three hours. I want to get on a plane and land in Cancun, as far as I know the only direct to CUN is SFO. Convenience motivates me far more than money, particularly for international travel.

I hate SFO for many reasons, but I will fly out of SFO to get a direct international flight. Since I have family living in Contra Costa County and San Francisco it's never difficult for me to fly out of either SFO or OAK and when I go to France, Sweden or Norway to visit family the time difference between a flight with connections out of SMF vs direct at SFO is considerable as is the fare.

With all of that said, I love SMF, I'm glad we have it here but that does not mean that I am somehow disloyal because I occasionally use other airports. I am not going to spend 18 hours flying to Paris because the will supposedly enable SMF to add flights, and how would that work anyway? If airlines see sold out flights that involve several stops I'm sure they are delighted and will add more of the same, I don't see how that incentivizes them to add direct flights.

Yeah, I get it concerning International for SFO, although I now take my time in researching my options originating out of SMF first, and I would pay anywhere from $100-$300 more NOT to fly out of a SFO or OAK, remember it costs more to get to SFO and OAK, for some a lot more.

How do you "use" family living in CCC or SFO when flying out of SFO or OAK? I have several friends in the City without cars or garages so no help in leaving my car with them.

I have family in CCC within 5 mins of Walnut Creek BART, but I actually missed a flight because of several issues with BART, got delayed in Orinda before the tunnel, sat in the median of the freeway "forever", and Powell Street Station was closed temporarily causing delays.

We have family in Alameda as well, and the idea is to spend a day or two with them overnight and they take us to SFO, worked out fine once; the other time our car got broken into as we had to leave it on the street near their house, and they had to move the car twice to avoid parking tickets.

Nationally(domestically) I don't even consider OAK or SFO, it's not worth it to me, there is no "added value" for me.

I'm guessing 1-3 million Sacramento passengers annually use Bay Airports, if all those passengers used SMF, you bet the airlines would not only add more flight options but they would reduce airfares. A good example is the past few years, SMF has responded favorably with an increase in just 1-2 million passengers annually.

SMF no longer charges airlines "hefty" "gate charges" and the airlines have already responded in kind with new non-stops and more flights per day.

[WizardOfRadical]

Supply and demand.

SFO has way more carriers, flights, and destinations.

So say you are flying out to Chicago. Sac offera several non stop flights to OHare Chicago daily. SFO offers a couple dozen.

So the price drops as the supply of flights is bountiful.

Business travelers usually make up the bulk of passangers. So the bulk of people flying... just folks headed to the capitol from the Los Angeles basin.

On a whole, I would often fly SMF, and rarely the bay, while living in Sacatomato. The prices in the bay were cheaper. But finding a ride and sitting in traffic was not worth it. I was mainly flying to LA. So it would be dumb to spend more time in traffic to SFO than actual flight time.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

Yeah, I get it concerning International for SFO, although I now take my time in researching my options originating out of SMF first, and I would pay anywhere from $100-$300 more NOT to fly out of a SFO or OAK, remember it costs more to get to SFO and OAK, for some a lot more.

How do you "use" family living in CCC or SFO when flying out of SFO or OAK? I have several friends in the City without cars or garages so no help in leaving my car with them.

I have family in CCC within 5 mins of Walnut Creek BART, but I actually missed a flight because of several issues with BART, got delayed in Orinda before the tunnel, sat in the median of the freeway "forever", and Powell Street Station was closed temporarily causing delays.

We have family in Alameda as well, and the idea is to spend a day or two with them overnight and they take us to SFO, worked out fine once; the other time our car got broken into as we had to leave it on the street near their house, and they had to move the car twice to avoid parking tickets.

Nationally(domestically) I don't even consider OAK or SFO, it's not worth it to me, there is no "added value" for me.

I'm guessing 1-3 million Sacramento passengers annually use Bay Airports, if all those passengers used SMF, you bet the airlines would not only add more flight options but they would reduce airfares. A good example is the past few years, SMF has responded favorably with an increase in just 1-2 million passengers annually.

SMF no longer charges airlines "hefty" "gate charges" and the airlines have already responded in kind with new non-stops and more flights per day.

My son in Contra Costa county has a garage and off street parking. I've never had to park at my stepson's place in SF but I could, it would just entail parking on the street or borrowing his employer provided garage pass (he bikes to work) I've never had trouble with Bart but I guess anything can happen. For that matter my car could break down on my way to SMF.

It's nothing bad about SMF, it's just my personal preference not to have layovers when I fly international. I just want to get on the plane and sleep until they feed me, then after I eat I go back to sleep

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by WizardOfRadical

Supply and demand.

SFO has way more carriers, flights, and destinations.

So say you are flying out to Chicago. Sac offera several non stop flights to OHare Chicago daily. SFO offers a couple dozen.

So the price drops as the supply of flights is bountiful.

Business travelers usually make up the bulk of passangers. So the bulk of people flying... just folks headed to the capitol from the Los Angeles basin.

On a whole, I would often fly SMF, and rarely the bay, while living in Sacatomato. The prices in the bay were cheaper. But finding a ride and sitting in traffic was not worth it. I was mainly flying to LA. So it would be dumb to spend more time in traffic to SFO than actual flight time.

Yes, regarding Asian flights, sometimes its better to fly to LAX , rather than driving to SFO. Delta, American, United all have added more LAX flights from SMF, and of course there are gazzillon flights on Southwest and Alaska to LAX from SMF.

SMF flights have become "equal" in cost to Bay flights especially when adding in extra costs getting to the Bay.

SMF has near 11 million passengers annually if you added the 1-3 million that use Bay airports to SMF, that is 12-14 Million passengers annually, for a non-hub, non-vacation destination city, that's huge!

1. LAX, 2. SFO, 3. SAN. 4. OAK, 5. SJC almost tied with 6. SMF.

SMF has near double the passengers than all the other SoCal airports (John Wayne, Bob Hope, Ontario, Long Beach).

[NewToCA]

We've used the Oakland airport a few times to fly Southwest to Ft Lauderdale, FL. The price difference was about $200 per ticket, round trip, and three of us were making the trip. So to save $600 we drove an hour and a half to Oakland and just flew out of there. Most of the time, we do fly out of Sacramento, but sometimes the price difference makes it worthwhile to fly out of Oakland.

Since it would take us over a half hour to drive to Sacramento, the time difference wasn't that great.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by 49erfan916

Because it's usually cheaper to fly from SFO than Sacramento. I'm talking a significant difference.

Significantly? Really?

I did a price check on Southwest & American Non-Stops Only to Phoenix (Hub Airport):

To Phoenix - SOUTHWEST

Sacramento was $20 cheaper than both Oakland and San Francisco

To Phoenix - AMERICAN

Sacramento was $5 cheaper than Oakland

San Francisco was $40 cheaper than Oakland

I used the cheapest fares non-stops only on the same dates.

[Malloric]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

Sacramento International Airport (SMF) was rated the BEST medium-sized airport several years in a row, so why do you still use SFO or OAK airports?

SMF had close to 11 million passengers in 2017 and is adding more and more NON-STOP flights to more destinations and increasing the amount of flights to major hubs and non-hubs.

HOW MANY PASSENGERS ANNUALLY IS SACRAMENTO LOSING TO BAY AREA AIRPORTS? 1 MILLION? 2 MILLION?
3 MILLION?

Lots. It's an international airport with almost no international flights. Domestic, yeah, I mostly used Sac when I lived in the area unless it was a last minute flight in which case it was wherever I could get it.

International, I have family in the bay area. I'd rather just drive there the night before, leave my car at their house and either use uber/transit/get dropped off.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by Malloric

Lots. It's an international airport with almost no international flights. Domestic, yeah, I mostly used Sac when I lived in the area unless it was a last minute flight in which case it was wherever I could get it.

International, I have family in the bay area. I'd rather just drive there the night before, leave my car at their house and either use uber/transit/get dropped off.

Thanks for the response. Please mark the poll, "I stay with family in the Bay Area....".

BTW, You can pick multiple answers.

[tstieber]

As a frequent visitor to Sacramento in the past, but admittedly never a resident, I'm actually shocked that people would drive to Bay Area airports to travel. I will say that the poll questions above are too inherently biased or conclusionary to get enough response, but there are plenty of responses to see what motivates people. Personally, I think even for international travel, using a smaller Airport for your departure saves so much time and headache, and makes for such a more pleasant travel experience, that it more than makes up for the added travel time to a larger airport, the expense of long-term parking, and the longer wait times at a more crowded airport. Not to mention that SFO pretty much always experiences delays, which Sacramento or Oakland don't, so that even an extra stopover will likely be more pleasant than dealing with the headaches of a large Airport. Now that I live in San Diego, I've always traveled internationally from Lindbergh Field, sometimes even taking a commuter jet to LAX for my main leg, but I've also gone from the one terminal Carlsbad airport, which was incredibly Pleasant. The one time I drove to LAX with a rental car was a complete nightmare. Yet our neighbors routinely fly out of LAX and drive there. It seems like masochism to me.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by Malloric

Lots. It's an international airport with almost no international flights. Domestic, yeah, I mostly used Sac when I lived in the area unless it was a last minute flight in which case it was wherever I could get it.

International, I have family in the bay area. I'd rather just drive there the night before, leave my car at their house and either use uber/transit/get dropped off.

What city in the Bay Area do the family live in?