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

[marcopolo666]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

Hey marco, for all the fights you listed, including the Austin one I re-posted, did you compare by airline or are you mixing airlines within your list? Why didn't you list the airlines?

Regarding the Austin flight: totally not worth it to save $64 on airfare to drive all the way to SFO. 2-4 hours extra time wasted getting to SFO, stress from bay traffic, bay bridge, inconvenience to me and/or someone else, uber/lyft costs, parking costs, totally not worth it.

I went to expedia and typed in the first 3 large cities (but not "mega-cities", like NYC) that popped into my head - figuring they would be "representative" of places people might want to go. (I happen to have friends with a daughter in med school in Omaha.)

Then, I sorted the list by price (cheapest) and *tried* to pick the flight at each airport with the least time spent traveling that was also the cheapest (or within $5 or so). That just happens to be the way *I* pick flights - cheapest, then most convenient. I couldn't care less what airline (unless I have several choices that are about the same price). I didn't list airlines because (1) the are fungible - I don't care, and (2) it would have been more work (and I don't think it really matters much).

Actually, I picked 4 cities, but the 4th was such a hugely bad compare for SMF that I didn't list it - I figured you would be convinced I was picking them on purpose. My daughter went to London last summer so it was near the top of my list - go ahead and look at the price difference (and travel time difference). You *should* notice that one of my cities wasn't really THAT much difference in either money or time - that was the way the dice fell - I did NOT pick cities with an agenda in mind - all the cities are BIG places that I've travelled to (except for Omaha). Of course all of them WERE cities that were more than $20 apart ... unlike most of the examples that you posted. MY choices WERE random (well, just the first ones I thought of - I guess that doesn't technically qualify as "random").

[04kL4nD]

I fly all the time, and for a while, I used to include SAC in airport options when searching fares. I stopped doing that though, because never once was it ever cheaper for me to fly out of SAC, and even though it only takes a fraction of a second to click a box including SAC as a possible option, I'd rather not waste it.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

I fly all the time, and for a while, I used to include SAC in airport options when searching fares. I stopped doing that though, because never once was it ever cheaper for me to fly out of SAC, and even though it only takes a fraction of a second to click a box including SAC as a possible option, I'd rather not waste it.

Yeah. Flying nonstop is a big deal for folks too...

SMF and OAK nonstop flights to Hawaii or Abroad.
SMF:
Aeromexico:
Guadalajara
Mexico City

Air Canada:
Vancouver

Alaska Airlines:
Kahului
San Jose del Cabo

Hawaiian Airlines:
Honolulu

Southwest Airlines:
San Jose del Cabo

Volaris:
Guadalajara


OAK:
Alaska Airlines:
Honolulu
Kahului
Kailua–Kona
Lihue

Azores Airlines:
Lisbon
Terceira

British Airways:
London–Gatwick

Hawaiian Airlines:
Honolulu
Kahului
Kailua-Kona
Lihue

Kona Shuttle:
Kailua–Kona

LEVEL:
Barcelona

Norwegian Airlines:
Barcelona
Copenhagen
London–Gatwick
Paris–Charles de Gaulle
Oslo-Gardermoen
Rome–Fiumicino
Stockholm–Arlanda

Southwest Airlines:
Puerto Vallarta
San Jose del Cabo

Volaris:
Guadalajara
León/Del Bajío
Mexico City
Morelia

Oakland has a bit more options.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

I fly all the time, and for a while, I used to include SAC in airport options when searching fares. I stopped doing that though, because never once was it ever cheaper for me to fly out of SAC, and even though it only takes a fraction of a second to click a box including SAC as a possible option, I'd rather not waste it.

Comparing OAK with SMF, non-stop to ATLANTA. Dates are in May 2018.

OAK has only one NON-STOP on Southwest, ugh, Southwest, lowest price $382

SMF has 3 NON-STOPS on Delta lowest price $360. Sacramento was less expensive than Oakland on a better class airline by $22.

Let's compare Southwest to Southwest with 1 stop same overall flight time for both Oakland and Sacramento.

Southwest - OAK to ATL - $388
Southwest SMF to ATL - $402
$14 difference, again so not worth it for a Sacramentan to drive to Oakland.

The days where bay airports are hugely different in airfare compared to Sacramento (SMF) are over for many routes on various airlines. SMF has definitely become more competitive ESPECIALLY when you factor in the cost of getting to a bay airport, and added stress and time lost.

[Chimérique]

You bay folks are so funny, no-one is saying that SMF would replace SFO or OAK, especially Internationally.

Sacramentans still consider SFO as one of our primary airports just like someone from the far reaches of the bay area, like in Sonoma or Solano County.

Sacramento just happens to have a pretty fanstastic airport much closer to home with better and better options and more and more competitive fares.

I would think you bay folks would prefer that we didn't you bay airports, less crowds, less traffic.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

You bay folks are so funny, no-one is saying that SMF would replace SFO or OAK, especially Internationally.

Sacramentans still consider SFO as one of our primary airports just like someone from the far reaches of the bay area, like in Sonoma or Solano County.

Sacramento just happens to have a pretty fanstastic airport much closer to home with better and better options and more and more competitive fares.

I would think you bay folks would prefer that we didn't you bay airports, less crowds, less traffic.

Well u posed a question as your thread title.

Lots of people hate connecting flights and SMF is severely lacking in nonstop international flights.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Well u posed a question as your thread title.

Lots of people hate connecting flights and SMF is severely lacking in nonstop international flights.

Keep in mind, I posted this thread in a Sacramento thread. Concerning SMF, I really don't care what bay area people think as they "never" use SMF. Error on my part, I should have said, Why do SACRAMENTANS still use SFO and OAK airports.

I'm interested in why Greater Sacramento area folks still use SFO or OAK, specifically why and how much trouble are they willing to go for such usage.

For example, do they always check SFO or OAK in their search, or are they like me in that I only include SFO when I'm flying to Asia. Do they have a price point, already knowing that most bay airfares will be less but it doesn't matter. My price point is $100-$300, if the difference is within that range I will choose SMF overwhelmingly.

Since OAK added more European destinations I started including OAK in my search, normally I wouldn't.

I would think you bay folks would prefer that Sacramentans didn't use bay airports as it would mean less crowds, less traffic.

Regarding DOMESTIC FLIGHTS, The days where bay airports are hugely different in airfare compared to Sacramento (SMF) are over for many routes on various airlines. SMF has definitely become more competitive ESPECIALLY when you factor in the cost of getting to a bay airport, and added stress and time lost.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

Keep in mind, I posted this thread in a Sacramento thread. Concerning SMF, I really don't care what bay area people think as they "never" use SMF. Error on my part, I should have said, Why do SACRAMENTANS still use SFO and OAK airports.

I'm interested in why Greater Sacramento area folks still use SFO or OAK, specifically why and how much trouble are they willing to go for such usage.

For example, do they always check SFO or OAK in their search, or are they like me in that I only include SFO when I'm flying to Asia. Do they have a price point, already knowing that most bay airfares will be less but it doesn't matter. My price point is $100-$300, if the difference is within that range I will choose SMF overwhelmingly.

Since OAK added more European destinations I started including OAK in my search, normally I wouldn't.

I would think you bay folks would prefer that Sacramentans didn't use bay airports as it would mean less crowds, less traffic.

Regarding DOMESTIC FLIGHTS, The days where bay airports are hugely different in airfare compared to Sacramento (SMF) are over for many routes on various airlines. SMF has definitely become more competitive ESPECIALLY when you factor in the cost of getting to a bay airport, and added stress and time lost.

Again,
You asked why people use SFO or OAK over SMF and I gave 2 legitimate responses:

1. People like to fly nonstop.

2. SMF has no international flights outside of 3 cities in Mexico and 1 to Vancouver.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Again,
You asked why people use SFO or OAK over SMF and I gave 2 legitimate responses:

1. People like to fly nonstop.

2. SMF has no international flights outside of 3 cities in Mexico and 1 to Vancouver.

That seems to be falling on deaf ears in this thread.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

That seems to be falling on deaf ears in this thread.

I agree that people, including myself, love flying nonstop, but the reason for that is to save time. It seems to me that driving a couple of hours, adding the expense of gas and parking, as well as the extra time needed at a more crowded Airport, at least substantially offsets that benefit. I suppose I've learned the hard way from living in San Diego now that it is infinitely more comfortable to fly in and out of the closest airport, enjoy shorter baggage check in lines, shorter security wait times, and save the aggravation of traveling to a more distant International Airport. Even when I've flown to Europe non-stop from LAX, I decided once was enough in actually driving to the airport 2 hours away. I subsequently started originating my flights from San Diego, even if that meant just taking a small Regional Jet from San Diego to LAX. Way more comfortable than driving.