The proposed name may confuse people but the distances between the airports and the city are no worse than London Heathrow and London Gatwick. If someone bought the wrong ticket there wouldn't be...
The proposed name may confuse people but the distances between the airports and the city are no worse than London Heathrow and London Gatwick. If someone bought the wrong ticket there wouldn't be much harm to the traveler.
I wish they chose to honor someone local with a name.
I think the name change makes a lot of sense. For people wanting to go to the San Francisco Bay Area, a search for San Francisco as the destination may not show that the Oakland Airport exists....
I think the name change makes a lot of sense. For people wanting to go to the San Francisco Bay Area, a search for San Francisco as the destination may not show that the Oakland Airport exists. The Oakland Airport may have more flight availability or cheaper tickets, but travelers may overlook it since the region is defined by the San Francisco name.
Both airports are connected to BART, the regional light rail system, so any mixup by travelers can be remedied with an affordable train ride.
Do people not look at where the airports are before booking their flights? Most airports are located an hour or more away from the region they represent. Figuring out how to get from the airport...
Do people not look at where the airports are before booking their flights? Most airports are located an hour or more away from the region they represent. Figuring out how to get from the airport to your actual destination is all part of the trip planning.
If I'm looking up flights to San Francisco, I might not know that Oakland Airport is an option. But if it somehow gets on my radar as an option (either because they've changed their name, or it came up in a search), I'm still not going to assume that it's a short walk from the airport to downtown SF - I'd still want to research how I'm getting to and from the airport.
I suspect the opposition to the name change is actually because SFO is afraid of losing business to Oakland, rather than the stated reason of misleading customers.
Both airports are located about a 30-40 minute train ride to downtown San Francisco. You may miss a connecting flight if you somehow manage to book a connection at a different airport, but if a...
Both airports are located about a 30-40 minute train ride to downtown San Francisco. You may miss a connecting flight if you somehow manage to book a connection at a different airport, but if a tourist makes a booking mistake, the trip to their hotel is basically the same.
This seems like it could provide more travel options for travelers to the region.
Yeah, I do think that the majority of people do their research and have no issue. But I linked to an article in another comment which quoted airport customer service representatives who cite that...
Yeah, I do think that the majority of people do their research and have no issue. But I linked to an article in another comment which quoted airport customer service representatives who cite that people do get mixed up between similarly named and located airports and somehow wind up at the wrong airport. Never done it myself because I do my research, but it happens.
I suspect the opposition to the name change is actually because SFO is afraid of losing business to Oakland, rather than the stated reason of misleading customers.
I agree with you here on their actual motivation to fight this. But that doesn't change the potential for confusion.
I feel like visiting "The SF Bay Area" for tourism isn't really a common thing. Visiting SF, yes, but other than the Golden Gate, you don't need to be crossing any other bridges. I honestly feel...
I feel like visiting "The SF Bay Area" for tourism isn't really a common thing. Visiting SF, yes, but other than the Golden Gate, you don't need to be crossing any other bridges.
I honestly feel like this is just trying to scam people into thinking that the east bay is a reasonable destination to fly into even if you don't have relatives who live in Walnut Creek or something.
Hmm.. that makes sense. Maybe I'm just not that open minded about the east bay and should try to be more objective. I'm even a Raiders fan, but I've always thought of Oakland as an unpleasant...
Hmm.. that makes sense. Maybe I'm just not that open minded about the east bay and should try to be more objective. I'm even a Raiders fan, but I've always thought of Oakland as an unpleasant place to visit.
Oakland has it's issues, but there are still places worth visiting in the East Bay. The area around the airport sucks, but downtown Oakland, Rockridge, Lake Merritt, and Berkely have nice things...
Oakland has it's issues, but there are still places worth visiting in the East Bay. The area around the airport sucks, but downtown Oakland, Rockridge, Lake Merritt, and Berkely have nice things to do. Even if you don't want to hang around the East Bay, OAK is still just as convenient as SFO if you just want to visit San Francisco.
They are in process of installing tall gates at the stations rather than the current ones that an athletic person can jump or crawl under. Bart police now have a contact number to text complaints...
They are in process of installing tall gates at the stations rather than the current ones that an athletic person can jump or crawl under.
Bart police now have a contact number to text complaints and they are responding quickly.
I can see where it could cause actual problems. I was looking up some stats on this. Of course there are no hard numbers, but this article talks about how it's not unheard of for people to show up...
I can see where it could cause actual problems. I was looking up some stats on this. Of course there are no hard numbers, but this article talks about how it's not unheard of for people to show up at the wrong similarly-named airport, especially if they're geographically close to each other.
Arriving at the wrong location is a more frequent occurrence in places with two major airports, like Dallas, where passengers sometimes confuse Dallas-Fort Worth International and Dallas Love Field, which are about 16 miles apart.
If they did this for SFO vs OAK, they'd more than likely miss their flight given more than 30 miles between the airports in Bay-area traffic.
How can you set up a layover that requires you to switch airports? Every time I’ve booked a flight that has a layover, whatever software I am using finds the correct connecting flight to get me to...
How can you set up a layover that requires you to switch airports? Every time I’ve booked a flight that has a layover, whatever software I am using finds the correct connecting flight to get me to my destination. It seems like booking a connecting flight at a different airport than the one you land at would be very difficult if it is even possible.
I wasn't thinking it was a software issue. I figured that travelers who wound up in this situation just punched "Dallas Airport" into their GPS which routes them to the wrong one. But from a...
I wasn't thinking it was a software issue. I figured that travelers who wound up in this situation just punched "Dallas Airport" into their GPS which routes them to the wrong one.
But from a software perspective, when you're using an airline's website to book, I agree that they'll route you out the same airport you arrived. But I've seen some wonky stuff in corporate travel tools (like Concur) where you can tell it that you want to travel to a city instead of a specific airport and it doesn't adhere to the same rules, especially if you're doing multi-leg trips that aren't just out-and-back. Travel agents might be using similar tools. You also have situations where you have a connecting flight that lands in one airport and departs a different one (transfers between JFK and LGA aren't uncommon), but they try and make it clear that that's happening.
I've never shown up at the wrong airport, so I'm not 100% sure the logistics of how people wind up at the wrong airport. But it does seem to happen.
Sometimes people buy tickets for the wrong country like San Jose California vs San Jose Costa Rica. But incoming travelers wouldn't be too disadvantaged by this name change. It's all close...
Sometimes people buy tickets for the wrong country like San Jose California vs San Jose Costa Rica.
But incoming travelers wouldn't be too disadvantaged by this name change. It's all close relatively speaking. Outgoing travelers would have to learn the specific names.
I've absolutely gotten transfers between airports in the same city recommended before. I think it was Brussels in my case? Though it's hard to remember since I chose a different route. In my case...
I've absolutely gotten transfers between airports in the same city recommended before. I think it was Brussels in my case? Though it's hard to remember since I chose a different route. In my case it was on one of those cheap flight finder websites that string together tickets from different carriers -- I assume you're not likely to get this if you book it all with one carrier. Luckily this website both had a little warning popup about this and had a toggle in its search settings that let me filter these types of layovers out.
You wouldn't drive, you'd take the light rail that directly connects them. Though that is an hour and a half on the train. Honestly, I think the name change isn't bad, as there's lots of the SF...
You wouldn't drive, you'd take the light rail that directly connects them. Though that is an hour and a half on the train. Honestly, I think the name change isn't bad, as there's lots of the SF Bay Area that is more accessible from Oakland than SFO but the airports aren't analogous. Everyone would have a strong opinion if they ended up at the wrong one.
The point is that if you show up to the wrong airport for whatever reason and it's 90 minutes to the airport you intended to go to, you're going to miss your flight. At least with DAL and DFW,...
The point is that if you show up to the wrong airport for whatever reason and it's 90 minutes to the airport you intended to go to, you're going to miss your flight. At least with DAL and DFW, it's only a 30 minute drive.
Tbf these types of situations are not unique. Look at London and how many airports it has. Or New York City for that matter. You should always check where the airport is if you're travelling...
Tbf these types of situations are not unique. Look at London and how many airports it has. Or New York City for that matter.
You should always check where the airport is if you're travelling anyhow. I'd pick an airport that's one and a half hours away by light rail if the tickets are much cheaper or somehow more convenient.
I live in San Francisco, and I don't think the name change is a good idea, largely because if you search on line to buy tickets, you will routinely be offered the option of flying into nearby...
I live in San Francisco, and I don't think the name change is a good idea, largely because if you search on line to buy tickets, you will routinely be offered the option of flying into nearby airports like Oakland and San Jose. It's not as if the vast majority of people are unaware when making flight arrangements that these airports are in the Bay Area.
The expense of changing all the signs and so forth seems to be a huge venture that would likely net very few additional travelers coming to OAK, while simultaneously generating ill will between Oakland and San Francisco.
I understand the outrage, but respect the hustle. In the past 5-10 years, a number of things have left Oakland. I still remember when Oakland International was a legit international airport. I was...
I understand the outrage, but respect the hustle.
In the past 5-10 years, a number of things have left Oakland. I still remember when Oakland International was a legit international airport. I was able to catch direct flights from places like London and Stockholm. Nowadays, Oakland is only “international” to a handful of places in North America.
I’m for a name change if this means bringing back some transpacific or transatlantic routes. I hope it makes sense why it’s important to have more options, so we don’t slip increasingly to the SFO and SJC duopoly.
I wonder if anyone here knows why OAK might have declined in the first place? Given the constant flow of traffic into and out of SFO, I can't imagine there isn't demand for competitively priced...
I wonder if anyone here knows why OAK might have declined in the first place? Given the constant flow of traffic into and out of SFO, I can't imagine there isn't demand for competitively priced flights. Given the very close approach paths of SFO/OAK/SJC (and the continuous long-term staffing issues at the FAA), I wouldn't be surprised at all if the decline of OAK is caused at a much higher level than the airport itself.
I can see why Oakland wants to ride on the 'San Francisco' name. As a foreign tourist, I knew they were in the same area but never really thought about the fact that they're just across the bay...
I can see why Oakland wants to ride on the 'San Francisco' name. As a foreign tourist, I knew they were in the same area but never really thought about the fact that they're just across the bay from each other. If presented with both options as 'San Francisco' airports I'd just go with whichever had the best flights instead of thinking "I dont wanna go to Oakland, Im trying to get to San Francisco"
Now that you mention it, I haven’t either, and I have flown out of OAK quite a bit. Tickets, buildings, announcements, booking websites, everything is “Oakland International Airport”. Actually...
Now that you mention it, I haven’t either, and I have flown out of OAK quite a bit. Tickets, buildings, announcements, booking websites, everything is “Oakland International Airport”. Actually they focus quite a bit on their IATA code, so most things are just “OAK”. This probably won’t change almost anything.
The proposed name may confuse people but the distances between the airports and the city are no worse than London Heathrow and London Gatwick. If someone bought the wrong ticket there wouldn't be much harm to the traveler.
I wish they chose to honor someone local with a name.
I think the name change makes a lot of sense. For people wanting to go to the San Francisco Bay Area, a search for San Francisco as the destination may not show that the Oakland Airport exists. The Oakland Airport may have more flight availability or cheaper tickets, but travelers may overlook it since the region is defined by the San Francisco name.
Both airports are connected to BART, the regional light rail system, so any mixup by travelers can be remedied with an affordable train ride.
An affordable, but 90-minute train ride that will certainly cause you to miss your flight.
Do people not look at where the airports are before booking their flights? Most airports are located an hour or more away from the region they represent. Figuring out how to get from the airport to your actual destination is all part of the trip planning.
If I'm looking up flights to San Francisco, I might not know that Oakland Airport is an option. But if it somehow gets on my radar as an option (either because they've changed their name, or it came up in a search), I'm still not going to assume that it's a short walk from the airport to downtown SF - I'd still want to research how I'm getting to and from the airport.
I suspect the opposition to the name change is actually because SFO is afraid of losing business to Oakland, rather than the stated reason of misleading customers.
Both airports are located about a 30-40 minute train ride to downtown San Francisco. You may miss a connecting flight if you somehow manage to book a connection at a different airport, but if a tourist makes a booking mistake, the trip to their hotel is basically the same.
This seems like it could provide more travel options for travelers to the region.
Yeah, I do think that the majority of people do their research and have no issue. But I linked to an article in another comment which quoted airport customer service representatives who cite that people do get mixed up between similarly named and located airports and somehow wind up at the wrong airport. Never done it myself because I do my research, but it happens.
I agree with you here on their actual motivation to fight this. But that doesn't change the potential for confusion.
I feel like visiting "The SF Bay Area" for tourism isn't really a common thing. Visiting SF, yes, but other than the Golden Gate, you don't need to be crossing any other bridges.
I honestly feel like this is just trying to scam people into thinking that the east bay is a reasonable destination to fly into even if you don't have relatives who live in Walnut Creek or something.
If your hotel is downtown or at fisherman's wharf or Union square, OAK is equally close by Bart or ride-sharing or taxi.
Hmm.. that makes sense. Maybe I'm just not that open minded about the east bay and should try to be more objective. I'm even a Raiders fan, but I've always thought of Oakland as an unpleasant place to visit.
Oakland has it's issues, but there are still places worth visiting in the East Bay. The area around the airport sucks, but downtown Oakland, Rockridge, Lake Merritt, and Berkely have nice things to do. Even if you don't want to hang around the East Bay, OAK is still just as convenient as SFO if you just want to visit San Francisco.
You're not wrong, unfortunately. The issues with car break ins near the Oakland airport makes it even worse.
Sadly the neighborhood near the airport has bad crime. However Bart, cabs and ride-sharing is safe.
And if you arrive there by plane as a tourist, your car is not at Oakland airport. So that is mainly a concern for locals.
Not sure that safe is the word I’d use to describe BART.
I'm interested in how dangerous BART is. Do you have some data on that?
They are in process of installing tall gates at the stations rather than the current ones that an athletic person can jump or crawl under.
Bart police now have a contact number to text complaints and they are responding quickly.
I can see where it could cause actual problems. I was looking up some stats on this. Of course there are no hard numbers, but this article talks about how it's not unheard of for people to show up at the wrong similarly-named airport, especially if they're geographically close to each other.
If they did this for SFO vs OAK, they'd more than likely miss their flight given more than 30 miles between the airports in Bay-area traffic.
How can you set up a layover that requires you to switch airports? Every time I’ve booked a flight that has a layover, whatever software I am using finds the correct connecting flight to get me to my destination. It seems like booking a connecting flight at a different airport than the one you land at would be very difficult if it is even possible.
I wasn't thinking it was a software issue. I figured that travelers who wound up in this situation just punched "Dallas Airport" into their GPS which routes them to the wrong one.
But from a software perspective, when you're using an airline's website to book, I agree that they'll route you out the same airport you arrived. But I've seen some wonky stuff in corporate travel tools (like Concur) where you can tell it that you want to travel to a city instead of a specific airport and it doesn't adhere to the same rules, especially if you're doing multi-leg trips that aren't just out-and-back. Travel agents might be using similar tools. You also have situations where you have a connecting flight that lands in one airport and departs a different one (transfers between JFK and LGA aren't uncommon), but they try and make it clear that that's happening.
I've never shown up at the wrong airport, so I'm not 100% sure the logistics of how people wind up at the wrong airport. But it does seem to happen.
Sometimes people buy tickets for the wrong country like San Jose California vs San Jose Costa Rica.
But incoming travelers wouldn't be too disadvantaged by this name change. It's all close relatively speaking. Outgoing travelers would have to learn the specific names.
I've absolutely gotten transfers between airports in the same city recommended before. I think it was Brussels in my case? Though it's hard to remember since I chose a different route. In my case it was on one of those cheap flight finder websites that string together tickets from different carriers -- I assume you're not likely to get this if you book it all with one carrier. Luckily this website both had a little warning popup about this and had a toggle in its search settings that let me filter these types of layovers out.
You wouldn't drive, you'd take the light rail that directly connects them. Though that is an hour and a half on the train. Honestly, I think the name change isn't bad, as there's lots of the SF Bay Area that is more accessible from Oakland than SFO but the airports aren't analogous. Everyone would have a strong opinion if they ended up at the wrong one.
The point is that if you show up to the wrong airport for whatever reason and it's 90 minutes to the airport you intended to go to, you're going to miss your flight. At least with DAL and DFW, it's only a 30 minute drive.
Tbf these types of situations are not unique. Look at London and how many airports it has. Or New York City for that matter.
You should always check where the airport is if you're travelling anyhow. I'd pick an airport that's one and a half hours away by light rail if the tickets are much cheaper or somehow more convenient.
I live in San Francisco, and I don't think the name change is a good idea, largely because if you search on line to buy tickets, you will routinely be offered the option of flying into nearby airports like Oakland and San Jose. It's not as if the vast majority of people are unaware when making flight arrangements that these airports are in the Bay Area.
The expense of changing all the signs and so forth seems to be a huge venture that would likely net very few additional travelers coming to OAK, while simultaneously generating ill will between Oakland and San Francisco.
I understand the outrage, but respect the hustle.
In the past 5-10 years, a number of things have left Oakland. I still remember when Oakland International was a legit international airport. I was able to catch direct flights from places like London and Stockholm. Nowadays, Oakland is only “international” to a handful of places in North America.
I’m for a name change if this means bringing back some transpacific or transatlantic routes. I hope it makes sense why it’s important to have more options, so we don’t slip increasingly to the SFO and SJC duopoly.
I wonder if anyone here knows why OAK might have declined in the first place? Given the constant flow of traffic into and out of SFO, I can't imagine there isn't demand for competitively priced flights. Given the very close approach paths of SFO/OAK/SJC (and the continuous long-term staffing issues at the FAA), I wouldn't be surprised at all if the decline of OAK is caused at a much higher level than the airport itself.
I can see why Oakland wants to ride on the 'San Francisco' name. As a foreign tourist, I knew they were in the same area but never really thought about the fact that they're just across the bay from each other. If presented with both options as 'San Francisco' airports I'd just go with whichever had the best flights instead of thinking "I dont wanna go to Oakland, Im trying to get to San Francisco"
When is the long, official name used? I don’t specifically remember seeing “Metropolitan Oakland International Airport” anywhere.
Now that you mention it, I haven’t either, and I have flown out of OAK quite a bit. Tickets, buildings, announcements, booking websites, everything is “Oakland International Airport”. Actually they focus quite a bit on their IATA code, so most things are just “OAK”. This probably won’t change almost anything.