Why do you still use sfo or oak airports? (Sacramento: to rent, hotels)

[04kL4nD]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

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.

So it's $22 cheaper for this one flight you've cherry picked, but you're not factoring in the cost to get to Sac, which would put you in the same exact situation that this thread is supposedly addressing?

Others have already said it, but SFO/OAK offer more choices than Sac, so no, Bay folks aren't going to make the drive, and yes, plenty of Sac folks WILL make the trip to a Bay Area airport because they DO offer more convenience, depending on a variety of factors.

Clearly, you're mad so few people use Sac, but you should actually be happy, since it means you'll breeze through security (unless you have TSA Pre already). Enjoy your layovers

[04kL4nD]

Originally Posted by tstieber

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.

The problem with short layovers is that half the time something goes wrong and you may end up missing your connection- or at the very least, stress about it. For me, it's not worth the risk, so I will ALWAYS book a direct flight, even if it means paying more, because I've gotten burned way too many times being cheap and putting up with an unnecessary connection. I vastly prefer flying out of OAK since it's like a 10 min drive, but I will suck it up and spend the extra hour or however long it takes to get to SFO if it means getting a direct flight somewhere. Same deal with SJC.

[marcopolo666]

Frankly, I search for flights not just at OAK and SFO (for some reason, the OP thinks those are the only 2 valid airports?) - but also at SJC (and yes, SMF).

Rarely do SJC or SMF have the convenience (including # of flights) or price for me to want to use them - IF THAT IS THE ONLY CRITERIA - but I fly out of all 4. Sometimes based on price/convenience, and sometimes to combine the flight with something else : such as visiting friends the night before, or to take in a Giants game (or both). I also tend to drive instead of fly if the trip is < 400 miles (unless it's for business) - so trips to L.A. are generally via car down I-5.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

So it's $22 cheaper for this one flight you've cherry picked, but you're not factoring in the cost to get to Sac, which would put you in the same exact situation that this thread is supposedly addressing?

Others have already said it, but SFO/OAK offer more choices than Sac, so no, Bay folks aren't going to make the drive, and yes, plenty of Sac folks WILL make the trip to a Bay Area airport because they DO offer more convenience, depending on a variety of factors.

Clearly, you're mad so few people use Sac, but you should actually be happy, since it means you'll breeze through security (unless you have TSA Pre already). Enjoy your layovers

You don't get it. The premise is about Sacramentans driving to the Bay, not Bay folks driving to SMF. IT COSTS ALOT MORE FOR A SACRAMENTO RESIDENT TO DRIVE AND PAY FOR PARKING TO SFO THAN DRIVING TO SMF.

Actually I'm very happy that 11 million people use SMF. Thats huge for a Metro the size of Sacramento considering it is not a Hub Airport and it has 3 other large to medium size airports within 70-100 miles of it.

Originally Posted by tstieber

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.

THANK YOU! YOU GET IT, as do a lot of SDers, and more and more Sacramentans.

San Diego is a good example because for so long it didn't have the greatest options and I always thought it was strange that so many people had to schlept it to LAX, and they still do because Lindberg as only one runway in the "middle of the City". But Lindberg has come a long way with its latest International options.

On that note: Do you remember PSA flight 182, where a Cessena collided with a 727 and nose-dived into the North Park neighborhood. I was living in San Diego at the time (Clairemont). I'll never forget it. It was a 727 out of Sacramento to San Diego. I think it stands as the worst commercial aviation disaster in California.

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

I vastly prefer flying out of OAK since it's like a 10 min drive, but I will suck it up and spend the extra hour or however long it takes to get to SFO if it means getting a direct flight somewhere. Same deal with SJC.

By that comment, we are in agreement. I vastly prefer flying out of SMF BECAUSE ITS A 10 MINUTE DRIVE FOR ME, and often there are plenty of NON-STOP options. So if I found a better airfare flying out of SFO or OAK its still not worth it.........I'm finding that I almost never check OAK and SFO anymore.

Also, more often than not, the really cheap airfare out of OAK or SFO involves at least 1 connection, so its even more of a deterrent.

Because OAK is so close to SFO, it doesn't have some of the non-stop routes to the big hubs (I'm not counting Southwest); whereas, SMF does as in my non-stop to Atlanta example. You obviously don't care about that, but it does matter to a lot of us living in Sacramento.

Originally Posted by marcopolo666

Frankly, I search for flights not just at OAK and SFO (for some reason, the OP thinks those are the only 2 valid airports?) - but also at SJC (and yes, SMF).

Hello, I included SJC in my poll!. Countless times I refer to Bay Airports, that includes SJC.

My best friend lives 10 mins from SJC, so I've used SJC just because it was convenient..when we go on trips together. And when he drives up to Sacramento, we fly out of SMF together for trips to Vegas, Palm Springs, Florida, Hawaii, and Mexico.

[KC6ZLV]

The availability of non-stop routes is mostly due to the availability of airlines and what type of airports. For example, I can't think of any non-stop flights to San Antonio from California other than to LAX and SFO for the purpose of connecting to international flights out of those airports. Every other airport requires you to fly into Dallas to connect to another flight from Dallas to San Antonio. I don't know if this has something to do with the way the FAA has flight paths planned, or if it is due to the number of people who are looking to fly to San Antonio from the regional airports on the West Coast. The airlines don't like empty seats, so they dump everyone off at larger hubs in various parts of the country where more people will be flying between cities in those regions. Anyway, I think SMF has direct flights to most of the cities with a population greater than about 500,000 in the western half of the country, and quite a few with populations much smaller than that.


I think most people who chose to fly out of San Jose or Oakland when you live in Sacramento do so because they are flying out with someone in the Bay Area, or maybe they are parking there car at a friends/relatives place and getting a ride to and from the airport from them.

The other possibility is marketing. If you have ever been on an airlines email list for deals, most of the deals aren't going to be at your local airport because they are trying to fill empty seats in Oakland and San Jose.

And you can't really compare SFO to SMF, SJC, or OAK. The latter three weren't intended to serve the same function as SFO.

[marcopolo666]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

And you can't really compare SFO to SMF, SJC, or OAK. The latter three weren't intended to serve the same function as SFO.

All other things being equal, I would much rather fly out of SJC or SMF or even OAK than SFO.

But things AREN'T equal, so I suck it up and fly out of SFO when it makes sense (and I can get somebody else to do the driving).

[Nn2036]

If you have to take long international flight, you cannot afford to miss the connection. I rather drive to the airport for direct flight than risk delay and missed connection.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by KC6ZLV

Anyway, I think SMF has direct flights to most of the cities with a population greater than about 500,000 in the western half of the country, and quite a few with populations much smaller than that.

And you can't really compare SFO to SMF, SJC, or OAK. The latter three weren't intended to serve the same function as SFO.

Good post.

The airlines have definitely tailored specific flights out of the 3 medium sized airports in NorCal.

SMF has more Non-Stop options on non-Southwest flights compared to Oakland domestically because SFO carries most of those flights (United, American, Delta). Having said that, Southwest has the lions share of SMF flights and many of those are direct-non-stops.

OAK has gained a lot more International non-stops because SFO is at capacity and they can pull not only from the entire Bay Area, they pull in Central Valley cities and Sacramento flyers.

SJC has gained a lot more International non-stops specific to Silicon Valley business and because of the huge amount of Asians living in Santa Clara County.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by marcopolo666

All other things being equal, I would much rather fly out of SJC or SMF or even OAK than SFO.

But things AREN'T equal, so I suck it up and fly out of SFO when it makes sense (and I can get somebody else to do the driving).

So unlike a Sacramento resident you don't have to add an additional 2-4 hours getting to SFO, so for us it is not simply about which of the Bay area airports has the best deal and/or the best options.

Think of it like this, if SMF had the best deal on a non-stop to JFK or Atlanta, would you, without a doubt ,make that extra trek to SMF or would you skip SMF because of the extra time and cost of getting to SMF?

[marcopolo666]

I'd actually probably fly out of SMF in that situation (direct flight, save $$$). Of course, saving $10 or $40 wouldn't cut it for me - it would have to be more. But the same to flying out of SFO - I wouldn't do it just to save $40 (it isn't the distance - I just hate SFO for many reasons). SMF is a much nicer airport, IMO (but then most are, compared to SFO - well, except maybe the new intl terminal). I've actually flown out of SMF more recently than OAK.