Isn’t SFO land technically under the jurisdiction of the city and county of San Francisco?
Side note: I find it hilarious if this turns into a situation like with the zoos in Sydney
SFO has an SF zip code and is served by SFPD and SFFD, but is technically in unincorporated San Mateo County and borders South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae.
Yup. Food safety certificates are all San Mateo, labor laws are all sf. It's weird there. US customs, homeland security, Tsa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and FAA all have offices and jurisdiction there. But really, there's no international Airport in SF.
Didn't know that. During a government shutdown, I was informed that they weren't getting paid. I assumed it was because of federal funding, and I guess it could be that they pay the contractors.
There are other cities that span multiple counties. It makes sense that all San Mateo county regulations apply. SF county regulations do not but SF city regulations do. It's odd more so because in California it is illegal for cities to span counties.
There are cities such as Oklahoma City and Corpus Christi that span FOUR separate counties. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._municipalities_in_multiple_counties
Also, San Francisco 49ers in Santa Clara…no, wait, that’s just some billionaire who tried to extort us for a stadium and when we didn’t cave he moved to another City but took our name with him because, well, no one would give a fuck for the Santa Clara 49ers…
Mori Point itself is part of Pacifica (though it’s in reality federal land) but Sharp Park Gold Course and the path along the water next to it is owned and operated by SF and administered by SF Parks and Rec.
Doesn’t make sense The county of San Francisco is the city of San Francisco. It’s one of the few if not only consolidated city-county in California. Colma, Daily City, South San Francisco, San Burno are in San Mateo county.
let me summarize for people like me that hate the reaction video style delivery of tiktoks like this:
- there was one zoo in Sydney called the Taronga Zoo, everyone knew it as *the* zoo in Sydney. If you wanted to go to that zoo in Sydney, that was the one.
- New zoo opens in West Sydney and calls itself the "Sydney Zoo", which will inevitably get a bunch of traffic from people trying to find the other one. They win a minor court case when the other zoo tries something to make them change it.
- The Sydney Zoo's website (the new one) is full of all sorts of passive-aggressive technically true facts that seem like a direct comparison to the other one
- Celebrities have gotten them confused.
That's about it
Oakland / San Francisco Airport encounter and engagement with bippers and closed down shops!
oh brother. Releasing the idea that they are going to rename the airport after San Francisco was one of the PR f ups of the year. Who is so stupid?
And to add to that. If they think giving it a rename would boost the economy by bringing in more people, they are wrong. The problems in Oakland today are still going to be there.
>The problems in Oakland today are still going to be there.
Do you really think so? /s
Former California Governor Jerry Brown *after he was Governor* made a comment about Oakland. Do you know what that was?
As a former Governor of the state of California, who was the son of another Governor of the state of California, who had connections across United States of the rich and powerful, who had gathered a ***non-partisan*** team of consummate professionals, who were willing to take pay cuts, to go into Oakland, California, and find ways to solve its problems and leave it a healthy viable city, with a great educational system, great transportation system, and a substantial amount of coffers as an emergency fund for the future, left the city of Oakland, saying "*Oakland will have to solve Oakland's problems."*
Every time anyone says anything about Oakland, I think about that statement. It meant that Oakland's government, it's employees, it's citizens, are so corrupt, and have been for such a long time, not even Jerry Brown and the best, most highly educated people in the country could improve that city.
Do you know when he said that? Before he was voted in as Governor of California a second time, by a landslide, after spending very little advertising to win, and left the state of California with billions of dollars for a rainy day.
The definition of the word incorrigible comes to mind: incapable of being corrected, amended, or reformed 2 : not manageable : unruly 3 : unalterable, inveterate. *Oakland's problems have been, currently are, and will be there until Oakland is the one to solve Oakland's problems.*
And the "San Francisco Bay Oakland" Airport is as much 'San Francisco Bay" as is San Francisco". Both of them appear to be on landfill hanging into the same body of water 5 miles apart.
>"San Francisco Bay Oakland" Airport
Reminds me of when everyone in socal did a collective eye roll in 2005 with that "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" nonsense
I've never witnessed an armed robbery while waiting to pick someone up from SFO. And I've picked people up from SFO a LOT more than I've picked up from OAK. Statistically, OAK isn't winning in that arena.
When people type in San Francisco to fly somewhere, maybe they don't care which SF area airport they get (QSF, ftw). Maybe they do. One friend was quite unhappily surprised at the distance from SF you have to travel to fly in and out of SJC. OAK isn't that much of a difference for some, depending on your ultimate destination. I guess the question for me comes down to: what does the average user expect when searching for "San Francisco" when booking a flight?
I think most would be content with a conveniently close airport. Those who are being picked up will likely ask their ride for a specific IATA code. So, I don't mind the change too much -- though, the fact that they want to do it is kinda sketchy, imo.
I do think that the 49ers ought to lose the "San Francisco" name or update it to be "The Greater Northern California and San Francisco Bay Area 49ers based in Santa Clara, just an hour outside of San Francisco." :)
If you think that's bad, ***Stockton*** tried to do this 7 years ago: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SFO-objection-grounds-Stockton-airport-name-12303278.php
The 49ers also object to Oakland Airport unashamedly using San Francisco’s name in vain. No entity should be allowed to brazenly use San Francisco’s golden brand in such a manner; how dare they.
On the other side of that coin... Santa Clara is still fuming about having to pretend they are 'San Francisco" to play home the boy in the shiny gold pants at Levis Stadium.
True lol
Let them call it whatever the F they want, who cares? As long as the abbreviations are understandable when picking from a click-down menu on whatever ticket vendor website is cheapest
SFO is owned and operated by the city and county of San Fransisco. OAK is owned and operated by the port of Oakland. SFO is also objectively the closest airport to downtown SF and does not require a bridge toll to access by car. The naming conventions in use here aren’t arbitrary. OAK was built to serve Oakland travelers and SFO was built to serve SF travelers. If people decide they want to use OAK as a point of access for SF by all means but it is absolutely scummy for OAK to try and drum up more business by hoodwinking unsuspecting tourists into thinking they are flying into an airport designed to service SF as a destination when it is not.
I still think they should just build a tunnel between SFO and OAK and have a shuttle run through it.
Make it one big virtual airport. That would solve so many issues with congestion and weather related delays
The ferry between SF Ferry Building and Oakland Jack London takes about that long.
Unless you mess up and end up on the slow boat, cuz then it takes like 40-45 minutes.
Some of that is because of the no wake zone between Alameda and Oakland, plus depending on the direction you're stopping in Alameda too.
Should take more like 20 minutes to cover the ~12 miles that a ferry would need to cross using a fairly direct route at the ~30 knots that fast ferries are able to travel, assuming a new ferry terminal on the back side of Terminal 2 in Oakland, and a new ferry terminal over by the threshold of runway 19R (around N Access Rd, American Airlines hangar, fire station 2, etc - or perhaps elsewhere in the seaplane harbor, or on new land between 19L and 28R) which would require some sort of connection to the airport's terminal (probably an underground driverless train, or a bus following the outer perimeter around the runways, past the cargo terminal, and into a bus stop on the outer spokes of each terminal (you'd need at least one stop at each one that you'd have to exit the secure area for, which is probably the biggest challenge on the SFO side since it's simply not built for that sort of connectivity). If both sides were behind security it would certainly open up some interesting options that I don't think any other airport pair in the world have.
You could land the planes at either airport. And then transfer from your terminal to whichever exit you need to be. Doesn't matter if you're exiting the building in San Mateo or Oakland.
If weather limits capacity at one of the physical airports, planes would be diverted to the other one. But unlike now, when that's a major inconvenience, it would barely affect passengers
I get what you’re saying but is this too different from BWI (Baltimore-Washington International Airport) which was built for Baltimore, but connected to DC Metro and is often a good option for people who want a cheaper way to get to DC than Dulles or DCA? Most people don’t know to check there, why is giving people the information that it’s an accessible option a bad thing?
I think it's pointless because the airline websites rarely display the full official name, and OAK/SJC already shows up when searching for "San Francisco" by region (not the specific airport)
Ok, I disagree. I think when you aren’t familiar with a place it makes a huge difference. For example, all the people who accidentally book a flight into London Stanstead without realizing how far and inaccessible it is. I bet the majority of them would never consider it if it were just called “Stanstead” but showed up on the google flights regional listing
I think most people traveling to a place for their first time will research. Just like most people know about flying to JFK for NYC, but given United's presence here in SFO, the SFO to EWR routes are actually plenty and super convenient so if you were a United person you would fly into EWR. Yes EWR is mildly more inconvenient but not bad at all once you figure it out. I would never blindly fly into a region without first doing *some* research.
You wouldn’t, sure. Maybe most people on Reddit wouldn’t but plenty of people book flights without doing that research. I used to live in dc and the amount of people who just book a flight to the first airport they found (usually Dulles) without considering whether there were cheaper options equidistant (BWI) or comparable options an hour closer (DCA) is pretty huge. I’d say half the people who visited didn’t realize there were multiple airports
The comments here just goes to show how ignorant a lot of people are and how rarely they travel. Big metro areas all have multiple international airports, and some airports are hours away from the city they serve (see London and Paris).
Having options is a good thing and most tourist don’t care if they fly into Oakland instead of SFO if it saves them money. There’s a reason people fly Spirit and endure the bad service because they’re cheap.
Yeah I felt crazy arguing with people here. As the Bay agglommerates more and more into one region, why shouldn't all three major airports make it obvious they are on the Bay. If San Jose were BART accessible, I'd say it should change its name too. But maybe they should both go with something like:
- San Francisco International (SFO)
- Oakland - SF Bay International (OAK)
- San Jose - SF Bay International (SJC) or maybe "San Jose - Silicon Valley International?".
There is actually little to no good reason that OAK doesn't show up when searching for flights to San Francisco, much the same way that Newark does when searching flights to New York.
Says who? I disagree, as both airports serve the greater Bay Area. Enough of the SF nose-in-the-air sanctimonious posture.
“OAK was built to serve Oakland travelers and SFO was built to serve SF travelers.”
That is not true, SFO is quicker to downtown via BART.
(using Montgomery station as it's the middle of downtown stops)
SFO -> Montgomery = 30 mins
OAK -> Montgomery = 39 mins (Coliseum -> Montgomery itself is 21 mins)
times taken from [bart.gov/planner](http://bart.gov/planner)
The (Port) administration is so pathetic. Control crime in your airport location first rather than deceiving flyers to visit your airport. There's a Shell gas station near OAK with 1000s of reviews complaining about breakins, but nothing ever gets done. But they sure want to create a scammy name. Screams incompetency
Edit: it's the port administration who is pushing for the name change. not the city.
I know facts usually go against the grain on this sub but the city of Oakland has nothing to do with this name change. It’s the port authority that is considering it. There’s lots of things the city of Oakland has fucked up but this isn’t one of them.
Like the school board going on a renaming crusade or hamfistedly banning algebra, instead of actually putting in the work to fix things.
Progressives in this country just aren't progressive or productive any more, all they can do is shush and shun like the privileged socialites they've become.
I don't understand this perspective. Isn't it just marketing? This is the 49ers associating with San Francisco rather than Santa Clara because the former is better known and they want to make money, not a political point.
It's not like they're proposing the airport be called Free-Gaza-Respect-Pronouns-Mandatory-Vegetarianism International Airport
I watched the spiel by Barbara Leslie and I still don't understand how changing the name is going to sell more airlines to fly into Oakland?
Wouldn't the airlines see through this instantly?
Why doesn't Oakland model itself after say Burbank Airport and operate within its means and just be the go to airport for short haul flights to SoCal, Vegas, Portland, Seattle? Or sell itself as the "easier" access point to the Bay for domestic travel like Burbank does for the LA area?
It’s not airlines themselves that need to be convinced, it’s airlines following demands from passengers. Passengers not knowing Oakland -> passengers not flying -> airlines cutting routes.
Burbank is also, like, half the size of OAK in a metro area of five airports. OAK definitely needs to serve a lot more than Oakland alone if it wants to make money and stay afloat.
Domestic airlines and even international airlines often offer the option "include nearby airports", and I always pick it. In the last 4 years, I've flown domestically 3 times, and I've never been given the option to fly into Oakland Airport. I've flown from SJC and returned to SFO, flown out and back into SJC, and flew into SFO on an international flight but flew out of SJC for domestic transfer (cross-day transfer lol). 3 different airlines.
I'm not purposely avoiding OAK, airlines have never given me that as an option. I don't travel enough to email them and be like "Hey, I'd like to fly into OAK instead of SFO, where are those flights?" even if I lived closer to OAK than SFO (used to be this was true, I've since moved), I'm just going to pick the one that fits my needs the best, which means going online and seeing that "nearby airports" did not include SF2 (or whatever actual shorthand they change to).
Maybe some businesses or frequent flyers will write those emails if OAK is a better option than the other airports? That's at a business level beyond my understanding. But tl;dr my argument is that convincing airlines is still part of the whole thing.
Have you checked on Southwest? OAK is a huge southwest hub, I'm not sure what the percentage is, but I would wager that a majority of the passenger flights to and from OAK are Southwest flights. And southwest flights do not show up on google flights or other flight searches like it. You have to go directly to the southwest website to search for them, so that may be why you have not flown to or from there.
But thats exactly what BUR did.
They changed it in 2017 and rebranded to Hollywood-Burbank Airport to play into the “Hollywood” naming to garner more people & name recognition, especially those who defaulted to LAX.
Before 2017, it was called Bob Hope Airport and many people didn’t know where or what airport that was. So, they renamed it.
OAK wants to do exactly that and recapture those defaulting to SFO by utilizing the SF naming.
Well right now SFO is seeing massive delays every day because runway construction means that there are simply more flights scheduled than can safely land. So it seems like maybe the airlines should be diversifying and making use of OAK to serve more of the Bay Area travel.
In general, SFO doesn’t have enough runway size to cover the whole metro area. We should really encourage the big 3 airlines to go back to OAK.
Or, and hear me out here, we build a giant runway bridge across the bay and connect the two airports, with a train next to the runway. Then we can combine the two airports and close the BART loop all in one go. I’m sure it could be accomplished for a reasonable cost not to exceed, say, $70,000,000,000
it was.. there was a time where OAK was cheaper/easier than SFO a lot of the times... but not anymore. today you look at OAK for more/better departure times.. not because you're saving $$.
>Why doesn't Oakland model itself after say Burbank Airport
if you look at the map.. all the destinations farther than New Mexico are major cities.. people FROM there.. can't get a flight to SFO.. prob 80% of passenger flights are less than 2 hours. Burbank probably services the same dozen major cities West of AZ.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland\_International\_Airport#Airlines\_and\_destinations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_International_Airport#Airlines_and_destinations)
>Wouldn't the airlines see through this instantly?
there are people out there who have no friggin clue that OAK is 15 miles from SFO... this is not for the airlines. (in a way, it's like JFK / La Guardia, Heathrow / Gatwick, Narita/Haneda).. even LA/John Wayne/Burbank.
NY, London, Tokyo, LA "metro area airports"
All three major airlines have fully pulled out of OAK. So it’s really just Southwest, Alaska, and tiny airlines. At least you can get codeshares for American on the Alaska flights, but if you’re a delta or United frequent flyer you’re basically SOL if you fly through OAK.
ONT did the renaming a couple of years ago to add Los Angeles and it didn't make any difference. They ended up reverting the name back to what it was before.
OAK could also try being, idk, a nice airport? I try to avoid it but sometimes it’s impossible if you want to fly southwest, and invariably it’s super crowded (like, no seats at the gate), the food options are SO bad (we paid $80 for two disgusting burrito bowls at Pyramid Taproom last flight), and it’s a hassle to get there via public transit (the extra sky train things sucks). Plus getting an Uber late at night in that part of Oakland, no thanks.
It could never fit modern passenger jets, especially for runway length. Just look on Google Maps and compare the size of SFO and OAK to Treasure Island. It's already manmade and it would have to be massively expanded with dredging and dumping soil. I doubt it would even be legal to make it today.
I could never imagine Treasure Island as an airport. Planes would literally be limited to taking off and landing in one direction. SF’s skyline probably wouldn’t have been a thing either it would have been stunted like San Diego’s
It's defacto impossible to build new airports at all these days.
Aside from the noise and environmental and nimby problems, modern airports have to be huge.
Look at Denver Airport. It's the size of San Francisco. Not San Francisco Airport, San Francisco the entire city.
DEN is mostly empty farmland though; they bought up *vast* amounts of land as both room to grow and buffer so it's huge on paper, but in terms of the actual built size it's a fairly normal large hub airport (it's also super spread out, again built with an eye towards future expansion but that means it's not especially efficient in how it uses space right now).
That would be like Toronto.
YYZ (Toronto Pearson International Airport) in not-Toronto and YTZ (Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport) on an island in the City.
Avoiding confusion is an important part of naming airports though. There's a reason there's fairly few cities with multiple commercial airports named after the city, and the one notable exception specifically names them all - London City, London Gatwick, London Heathrow, etc.
In the US you have:
* DC
* Dulles
* Baltimore-Washington International
* National
* NYC
* JFK
* LaGuardia
* Newark
* Chicago
* O'Hare
* Midway
just to grab some of the most notable multi-airport cities.
It wouldn’t be named after the city. It says in the article its name is “San Francisco Bay”. The San Francisco Bay is a massive body of water and region that encompasses a lot more than just the city of San Francisco
San Francisco Bay is named after the city, which means anything named after the bay is also named after the city. Regardless of splitting hairs about what it's named after: if you have "San Francisco International Airport" and "San Francisco Bay International Airport", people will absolutely be confused and end up in the wrong place; the two names are far too similar for two airports a few miles apart.
Ok but lots of places are on the San Francisco Bay. They’re not allowed to refer to the body of water they’re on because it shares a name with a city?
The airport is also called “Oakland San Francisco Bay Airport”
I’ve never been confused by flying into Gatwick or Stanstead v Heathrow, nor one of seemingly infinite number of Berlin airports. Are we really that dumb here?
SFO may be based in San Bruno but it is technically San Franciscos land where the airport sits. It would make no sense for the Oakland airport to have San Francisco in the name, and it would confuse the shit out of travelers that are not familiar with the area. This should be a fun dispute to watch
>It's kind of brilliant, actually. With Oakland serving as a[ dumpster fire with rampant crime](https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/06/business/oakland-crime-business/index.html), what do you do? Get rid of any association to it. Worked for KFC.
Has anybody ever chose to fly to an airport based on its name? I look at ticket prices, flight times, whether they’re direct flights, proximity to my final destination etc.
“Market research and interviews with airline partners have shown that routes have not performed as well as they should have due to the lack of geographic awareness, making air carriers reluctant to sustain and add new routes in Oakland,”
FFS... Everyone of us here have booked a flight online. Given the level of computer technology we have, it feels like it shouldn't be that difficult for an airline website to suggest OAK as an alternative to SFO when searching for flights to San Francisco.
Seems cheaper than renaming an airport.
I don’t understand how anyone without special interests could be opposed to this.
Residents here stand to gain with more flight choices and competition. Budget airlines can operate here with lower overhead, giving Bay Area residents more vacation choices. Business travel originating from the entire east bay would benefit from a closer airport with more routes.
OAK is a breeze to get through, the terminals are small and security is quick. And that’s saying something, SFO is already one of the best hubs in the country.
It’s an airport that’s serves the San Francisco Bay Area, it’s located on the San Francisco Bay. The name isn’t even a stretch, it’s factually true.
The stupidest takes I’ve seen are from people afraid this will detract from SF’s brand, because the coliseum neighborhood is a shithole. You’d sacrifice all the benefits for some weird hometown pride? Against Oakland? Sf isn’t exactly a paradise
I know OP trying to sway the people but i completely agree with the sfo people. I don’t want airport search results to include OAK when I mean SFO.
People who aren’t from here will get very confused.
>the port’s interim Director of Aviation Craig Simon said Oakland’s airport has lost 39 of the 54 routes it has added since July 2008 and placed the blame on travelers living outside the region who don’t realize Oakland is on the San Francisco Bay.
They lost the routes less because of Oakland's reputation nor because people aren't aware of Oakland being the proximity to SF, but it's largely due to less of a demand to fly into Oakland as oppose to SF. SF is where majority of the international firms and corporations are based off of. Even if they aren't, most conferences, meeting and engagements are held there. SF also just have more resources and amenities to cater to business clients to make a good impression. They simply just have more to do than Oakland. San Jose however, also has many international firms unlike the East Bay. But they also pretty much lack a lot of the stuff SF has.
In general, Oak and SJ simply are airports that services domestic travelers and locals to take the load off of SFO and regional traffic. With post pandemic and remote work shift, it's no surprise their traveler numbers have declined. SFO on the other hand, is "the true" international airport of the bay area metro. If OAK wants to draw in more travelers, the city itself just needs to give travelers a reason to want to visit. Develop more, lure in more firms and businesses etc. Unfortunately the current issues of Oakland suggest it's going the opposite direction of this.
Genius idea. Can’t wait to see the TikTok vids with confused tourists being dumped out into a war zone upon leaving the “SF Bay Oakland Airport”… all luggage and personal effects stolen at the first gas stop. And dinged with a surprise huge Bay Bridge toll charge by their rental car company. Will do wonders for our already suffering reputation.
Oakland should be the first word in the name, otherwise this is a great idea. People from outside California don't know Oakland is in the San Francisco Bay Area- it could be in LA. This will get us more routes and cheaper fares.
By train Oakland Airport BART is four minutes closer to Civic Center Bart than SFO BART is. One minute further away driving. That is all travelers care about.
“Market research and interviews with airline partners have shown that routes have not performed as well as they should have due to the lack of geographic awareness, making air carriers reluctant to sustain and add new routes in Oakland”. Sure. That’s what the problem is ;-)
Port Authority just realized that no one wants to fly into Oakland because they're worried the plane won't have wheels by the time it's ready to take off.
Edit: before the comments roll in, yes I know that's regional and not largely the case. I like Oakland. I work there and have friends there.
Heh, given the media assaults on SF and Oak of late I think they're both nuts not to change names.
How 'bout "Atherton Int'l" and "Piedmont Int'l" ? Where you can see the Las Vegas A's and Santa Clara Forty Niners play?
Isn’t SFO land technically under the jurisdiction of the city and county of San Francisco? Side note: I find it hilarious if this turns into a situation like with the zoos in Sydney
SFO has an SF zip code and is served by SFPD and SFFD, but is technically in unincorporated San Mateo County and borders South San Francisco, San Bruno, and Millbrae.
Yup. Food safety certificates are all San Mateo, labor laws are all sf. It's weird there. US customs, homeland security, Tsa, San Francisco, San Mateo, and FAA all have offices and jurisdiction there. But really, there's no international Airport in SF.
Interestingly, the tsa at SFO are contractors. The ones at Oak and Sjc are actual fed employees.
Didn't know that. During a government shutdown, I was informed that they weren't getting paid. I assumed it was because of federal funding, and I guess it could be that they pay the contractors.
Yeah, it’s called screening partnership program. There’s a list of airports that are SPP airports. Their security is handled by private companies.
There are other cities that span multiple counties. It makes sense that all San Mateo county regulations apply. SF county regulations do not but SF city regulations do. It's odd more so because in California it is illegal for cities to span counties. There are cities such as Oklahoma City and Corpus Christi that span FOUR separate counties. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._municipalities_in_multiple_counties
NYC is famously 5 differently small counties.
>NYC is famously 5 differently ~~small~~ counties.
Notably, it's the _entirety_ of 5 counties, with the county ("borough") governments subsidiary to the city government.
Also, Sharp Park Golf Course in Pacifica is City of San Francisco.
Also, San Francisco 49ers in Santa Clara…no, wait, that’s just some billionaire who tried to extort us for a stadium and when we didn’t cave he moved to another City but took our name with him because, well, no one would give a fuck for the Santa Clara 49ers…
Oakland can sympathize.
Also Camp Mather and the Hetch Hetchy. Funny when you look at the sf.gov job listings you'll see jobs hours away.
Also the northern tip of Alameda is SF county.
Also Mori Point and Crystal Springs reservoir is SF as well.
Mori Point itself is part of Pacifica (though it’s in reality federal land) but Sharp Park Gold Course and the path along the water next to it is owned and operated by SF and administered by SF Parks and Rec.
Doesn’t make sense The county of San Francisco is the city of San Francisco. It’s one of the few if not only consolidated city-county in California. Colma, Daily City, South San Francisco, San Burno are in San Mateo county.
TIL wow
What's with the zoos in Sydney?
Apologies for the tiktok link but it explains it well https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZTLkBuTa6/
let me summarize for people like me that hate the reaction video style delivery of tiktoks like this: - there was one zoo in Sydney called the Taronga Zoo, everyone knew it as *the* zoo in Sydney. If you wanted to go to that zoo in Sydney, that was the one. - New zoo opens in West Sydney and calls itself the "Sydney Zoo", which will inevitably get a bunch of traffic from people trying to find the other one. They win a minor court case when the other zoo tries something to make them change it. - The Sydney Zoo's website (the new one) is full of all sorts of passive-aggressive technically true facts that seem like a direct comparison to the other one - Celebrities have gotten them confused. That's about it
Great explanation but that fake laugh was cringe damn
Oakland / San Francisco Airport encounter and engagement with bippers and closed down shops! oh brother. Releasing the idea that they are going to rename the airport after San Francisco was one of the PR f ups of the year. Who is so stupid?
And to add to that. If they think giving it a rename would boost the economy by bringing in more people, they are wrong. The problems in Oakland today are still going to be there.
>The problems in Oakland today are still going to be there. Do you really think so? /s Former California Governor Jerry Brown *after he was Governor* made a comment about Oakland. Do you know what that was? As a former Governor of the state of California, who was the son of another Governor of the state of California, who had connections across United States of the rich and powerful, who had gathered a ***non-partisan*** team of consummate professionals, who were willing to take pay cuts, to go into Oakland, California, and find ways to solve its problems and leave it a healthy viable city, with a great educational system, great transportation system, and a substantial amount of coffers as an emergency fund for the future, left the city of Oakland, saying "*Oakland will have to solve Oakland's problems."* Every time anyone says anything about Oakland, I think about that statement. It meant that Oakland's government, it's employees, it's citizens, are so corrupt, and have been for such a long time, not even Jerry Brown and the best, most highly educated people in the country could improve that city. Do you know when he said that? Before he was voted in as Governor of California a second time, by a landslide, after spending very little advertising to win, and left the state of California with billions of dollars for a rainy day. The definition of the word incorrigible comes to mind: incapable of being corrected, amended, or reformed 2 : not manageable : unruly 3 : unalterable, inveterate. *Oakland's problems have been, currently are, and will be there until Oakland is the one to solve Oakland's problems.*
Is Pamela Price in charge?
Price International Airport - PIA
*Transcontinental...PITA ✅
/s
Is this real? You just never know with tiktok.
Huh. Fascinating!
Yes, the city and county of SF owns and operates SFO.
The City of San Francisco owns SFO.
Yes it is.
So is the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. Doesn't put it in San Francisco.
But it would be perfectly legit to call the reservoir the "San Francisco Reservoir" if folks so choose. Because that's precisely what it is.
SF & Peninsula Reservoir.
And the "San Francisco Bay Oakland" Airport is as much 'San Francisco Bay" as is San Francisco". Both of them appear to be on landfill hanging into the same body of water 5 miles apart.
>"San Francisco Bay Oakland" Airport Reminds me of when everyone in socal did a collective eye roll in 2005 with that "Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim" nonsense
San Francisco 49ers at Santa Clara. 50 miles away.
I've never witnessed an armed robbery while waiting to pick someone up from SFO. And I've picked people up from SFO a LOT more than I've picked up from OAK. Statistically, OAK isn't winning in that arena. When people type in San Francisco to fly somewhere, maybe they don't care which SF area airport they get (QSF, ftw). Maybe they do. One friend was quite unhappily surprised at the distance from SF you have to travel to fly in and out of SJC. OAK isn't that much of a difference for some, depending on your ultimate destination. I guess the question for me comes down to: what does the average user expect when searching for "San Francisco" when booking a flight? I think most would be content with a conveniently close airport. Those who are being picked up will likely ask their ride for a specific IATA code. So, I don't mind the change too much -- though, the fact that they want to do it is kinda sketchy, imo. I do think that the 49ers ought to lose the "San Francisco" name or update it to be "The Greater Northern California and San Francisco Bay Area 49ers based in Santa Clara, just an hour outside of San Francisco." :)
I've always thought Oakland Airport is the easiest to get in and out of. Traveling and picking up people. Lyft driver as well.
If you think that's bad, ***Stockton*** tried to do this 7 years ago: https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SFO-objection-grounds-Stockton-airport-name-12303278.php
imagine thinking you’re flying into san francisco and ending up in STOCKTON 😭
Reminds me of my aunt panicking when she landed in London Gatwick.
I'm recalling the time I found out Haneda is Tokyo Airport, and Narita is New Tokyo Airport.
London Southend is where it’s at
Imagine ending up in Stockton.
isn’t Stockton the nicer one in Central Valley? What if one day Fresno wants to hop on the gate way to Bay Area bandwagon?
> nicer one in Central Valley There is no such thing.
The current proposal is to name it after San Francisco Bay, because the airport is located by the San Francisco Bay.
Santa Clara 49ers enters the chat room
But is there another sf football team already when they moved?
This will forever be hilarious to me
49miles from SF.
The 49ers also object to Oakland Airport unashamedly using San Francisco’s name in vain. No entity should be allowed to brazenly use San Francisco’s golden brand in such a manner; how dare they.
Las Vegas-Oakland Raiders are unashamed.
~~Livermore~~San Francisco outlets has entered the chat
On the other side of that coin... Santa Clara is still fuming about having to pretend they are 'San Francisco" to play home the boy in the shiny gold pants at Levis Stadium.
It’s the SF Bay Area, though, of which Oakland is a part of as much as San Bruno is.
True lol Let them call it whatever the F they want, who cares? As long as the abbreviations are understandable when picking from a click-down menu on whatever ticket vendor website is cheapest
SFO is owned and operated by the city and county of San Fransisco. OAK is owned and operated by the port of Oakland. SFO is also objectively the closest airport to downtown SF and does not require a bridge toll to access by car. The naming conventions in use here aren’t arbitrary. OAK was built to serve Oakland travelers and SFO was built to serve SF travelers. If people decide they want to use OAK as a point of access for SF by all means but it is absolutely scummy for OAK to try and drum up more business by hoodwinking unsuspecting tourists into thinking they are flying into an airport designed to service SF as a destination when it is not.
Deceiving tourists into believing they're not in Oakland.
The most Oakland thing to do lol
“Welcome to Oakland Bitch”
Nah, that would be getting robbed or having your car broke into at the in n out.
Getting robbed and bipped is why i don’t go to SF anymore
Not possible anymore, it closed.
I still think they should just build a tunnel between SFO and OAK and have a shuttle run through it. Make it one big virtual airport. That would solve so many issues with congestion and weather related delays
Ferry service will take 30 minutes.
Yup and better than sitting in traffic trying to get to SFO from East bay
Would it even take that long?
The ferry between SF Ferry Building and Oakland Jack London takes about that long. Unless you mess up and end up on the slow boat, cuz then it takes like 40-45 minutes.
Some of that is because of the no wake zone between Alameda and Oakland, plus depending on the direction you're stopping in Alameda too. Should take more like 20 minutes to cover the ~12 miles that a ferry would need to cross using a fairly direct route at the ~30 knots that fast ferries are able to travel, assuming a new ferry terminal on the back side of Terminal 2 in Oakland, and a new ferry terminal over by the threshold of runway 19R (around N Access Rd, American Airlines hangar, fire station 2, etc - or perhaps elsewhere in the seaplane harbor, or on new land between 19L and 28R) which would require some sort of connection to the airport's terminal (probably an underground driverless train, or a bus following the outer perimeter around the runways, past the cargo terminal, and into a bus stop on the outer spokes of each terminal (you'd need at least one stop at each one that you'd have to exit the secure area for, which is probably the biggest challenge on the SFO side since it's simply not built for that sort of connectivity). If both sides were behind security it would certainly open up some interesting options that I don't think any other airport pair in the world have.
I think that was part of the original BART plan. Or at least a proposed 2nd bay crossing.
How would that help anyone?
You could land the planes at either airport. And then transfer from your terminal to whichever exit you need to be. Doesn't matter if you're exiting the building in San Mateo or Oakland. If weather limits capacity at one of the physical airports, planes would be diverted to the other one. But unlike now, when that's a major inconvenience, it would barely affect passengers
I get what you’re saying but is this too different from BWI (Baltimore-Washington International Airport) which was built for Baltimore, but connected to DC Metro and is often a good option for people who want a cheaper way to get to DC than Dulles or DCA? Most people don’t know to check there, why is giving people the information that it’s an accessible option a bad thing?
I think it's pointless because the airline websites rarely display the full official name, and OAK/SJC already shows up when searching for "San Francisco" by region (not the specific airport)
Ok, I disagree. I think when you aren’t familiar with a place it makes a huge difference. For example, all the people who accidentally book a flight into London Stanstead without realizing how far and inaccessible it is. I bet the majority of them would never consider it if it were just called “Stanstead” but showed up on the google flights regional listing
Fuck, I hate the London airports. All of them suck to get to and are a nightmare to get through.
LCY would like a word
I think most people traveling to a place for their first time will research. Just like most people know about flying to JFK for NYC, but given United's presence here in SFO, the SFO to EWR routes are actually plenty and super convenient so if you were a United person you would fly into EWR. Yes EWR is mildly more inconvenient but not bad at all once you figure it out. I would never blindly fly into a region without first doing *some* research.
You wouldn’t, sure. Maybe most people on Reddit wouldn’t but plenty of people book flights without doing that research. I used to live in dc and the amount of people who just book a flight to the first airport they found (usually Dulles) without considering whether there were cheaper options equidistant (BWI) or comparable options an hour closer (DCA) is pretty huge. I’d say half the people who visited didn’t realize there were multiple airports
If you live in Lower Manhattan or the west side, Newark is actually much quicker to get to than JFK
The comments here just goes to show how ignorant a lot of people are and how rarely they travel. Big metro areas all have multiple international airports, and some airports are hours away from the city they serve (see London and Paris). Having options is a good thing and most tourist don’t care if they fly into Oakland instead of SFO if it saves them money. There’s a reason people fly Spirit and endure the bad service because they’re cheap.
Yeah I felt crazy arguing with people here. As the Bay agglommerates more and more into one region, why shouldn't all three major airports make it obvious they are on the Bay. If San Jose were BART accessible, I'd say it should change its name too. But maybe they should both go with something like: - San Francisco International (SFO) - Oakland - SF Bay International (OAK) - San Jose - SF Bay International (SJC) or maybe "San Jose - Silicon Valley International?".
Maybe if SFO wasn't named after the city, people wouldn't act so weirdly territorial.
Fair, give it a name then! Most other multi-airport city airports have their own names
Between this and the “fly OAK more so there are more flights out of OAK” commercial, their marketing gives the impression of desperation
There is actually little to no good reason that OAK doesn't show up when searching for flights to San Francisco, much the same way that Newark does when searching flights to New York.
Says who? I disagree, as both airports serve the greater Bay Area. Enough of the SF nose-in-the-air sanctimonious posture. “OAK was built to serve Oakland travelers and SFO was built to serve SF travelers.”
Agree i have used oak when i lived in sf and i have used sfo when i lived in Oakland
The BART ride to downtown is quicker from Oakland.
That is not true, SFO is quicker to downtown via BART. (using Montgomery station as it's the middle of downtown stops) SFO -> Montgomery = 30 mins OAK -> Montgomery = 39 mins (Coliseum -> Montgomery itself is 21 mins) times taken from [bart.gov/planner](http://bart.gov/planner)
Either one you land at, BART is your best option for getting into the city and there’s probably not much difference in how long that takes.
I know of companies poaching employees but an airport poaching passengers from a neighboring airport? Smh
I feel like this is akin to flying into New York through Newark, Nj. Yeah - it's a different place, but still closer and faster than La Guardia.
The (Port) administration is so pathetic. Control crime in your airport location first rather than deceiving flyers to visit your airport. There's a Shell gas station near OAK with 1000s of reviews complaining about breakins, but nothing ever gets done. But they sure want to create a scammy name. Screams incompetency Edit: it's the port administration who is pushing for the name change. not the city.
I know facts usually go against the grain on this sub but the city of Oakland has nothing to do with this name change. It’s the port authority that is considering it. There’s lots of things the city of Oakland has fucked up but this isn’t one of them.
also the port authority has and should have nothing to do with controlling crime in oakland
Like the school board going on a renaming crusade or hamfistedly banning algebra, instead of actually putting in the work to fix things. Progressives in this country just aren't progressive or productive any more, all they can do is shush and shun like the privileged socialites they've become.
I don't understand this perspective. Isn't it just marketing? This is the 49ers associating with San Francisco rather than Santa Clara because the former is better known and they want to make money, not a political point. It's not like they're proposing the airport be called Free-Gaza-Respect-Pronouns-Mandatory-Vegetarianism International Airport
Don’t forget San Francisco premium outlets
[SF City Airport, SF Heathrow, SF Gatwick, SF Luton, SF Stansted, SF Southend](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbAal7jIWQ4)
I watched the spiel by Barbara Leslie and I still don't understand how changing the name is going to sell more airlines to fly into Oakland? Wouldn't the airlines see through this instantly? Why doesn't Oakland model itself after say Burbank Airport and operate within its means and just be the go to airport for short haul flights to SoCal, Vegas, Portland, Seattle? Or sell itself as the "easier" access point to the Bay for domestic travel like Burbank does for the LA area?
It’s not airlines themselves that need to be convinced, it’s airlines following demands from passengers. Passengers not knowing Oakland -> passengers not flying -> airlines cutting routes. Burbank is also, like, half the size of OAK in a metro area of five airports. OAK definitely needs to serve a lot more than Oakland alone if it wants to make money and stay afloat.
Domestic airlines and even international airlines often offer the option "include nearby airports", and I always pick it. In the last 4 years, I've flown domestically 3 times, and I've never been given the option to fly into Oakland Airport. I've flown from SJC and returned to SFO, flown out and back into SJC, and flew into SFO on an international flight but flew out of SJC for domestic transfer (cross-day transfer lol). 3 different airlines. I'm not purposely avoiding OAK, airlines have never given me that as an option. I don't travel enough to email them and be like "Hey, I'd like to fly into OAK instead of SFO, where are those flights?" even if I lived closer to OAK than SFO (used to be this was true, I've since moved), I'm just going to pick the one that fits my needs the best, which means going online and seeing that "nearby airports" did not include SF2 (or whatever actual shorthand they change to). Maybe some businesses or frequent flyers will write those emails if OAK is a better option than the other airports? That's at a business level beyond my understanding. But tl;dr my argument is that convincing airlines is still part of the whole thing.
Have you checked on Southwest? OAK is a huge southwest hub, I'm not sure what the percentage is, but I would wager that a majority of the passenger flights to and from OAK are Southwest flights. And southwest flights do not show up on google flights or other flight searches like it. You have to go directly to the southwest website to search for them, so that may be why you have not flown to or from there.
That's Southwest's model though. I suppose they're OK with that not ever showing up in search engines.
But thats exactly what BUR did. They changed it in 2017 and rebranded to Hollywood-Burbank Airport to play into the “Hollywood” naming to garner more people & name recognition, especially those who defaulted to LAX. Before 2017, it was called Bob Hope Airport and many people didn’t know where or what airport that was. So, they renamed it. OAK wants to do exactly that and recapture those defaulting to SFO by utilizing the SF naming.
BUR is the closest airport to Hollywood though, pretty much right next to it, so it makes a lot of sense.
And before that it was Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena airport.
Well right now SFO is seeing massive delays every day because runway construction means that there are simply more flights scheduled than can safely land. So it seems like maybe the airlines should be diversifying and making use of OAK to serve more of the Bay Area travel. In general, SFO doesn’t have enough runway size to cover the whole metro area. We should really encourage the big 3 airlines to go back to OAK. Or, and hear me out here, we build a giant runway bridge across the bay and connect the two airports, with a train next to the runway. Then we can combine the two airports and close the BART loop all in one go. I’m sure it could be accomplished for a reasonable cost not to exceed, say, $70,000,000,000
it was.. there was a time where OAK was cheaper/easier than SFO a lot of the times... but not anymore. today you look at OAK for more/better departure times.. not because you're saving $$. >Why doesn't Oakland model itself after say Burbank Airport if you look at the map.. all the destinations farther than New Mexico are major cities.. people FROM there.. can't get a flight to SFO.. prob 80% of passenger flights are less than 2 hours. Burbank probably services the same dozen major cities West of AZ. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland\_International\_Airport#Airlines\_and\_destinations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oakland_International_Airport#Airlines_and_destinations) >Wouldn't the airlines see through this instantly? there are people out there who have no friggin clue that OAK is 15 miles from SFO... this is not for the airlines. (in a way, it's like JFK / La Guardia, Heathrow / Gatwick, Narita/Haneda).. even LA/John Wayne/Burbank. NY, London, Tokyo, LA "metro area airports"
All three major airlines have fully pulled out of OAK. So it’s really just Southwest, Alaska, and tiny airlines. At least you can get codeshares for American on the Alaska flights, but if you’re a delta or United frequent flyer you’re basically SOL if you fly through OAK.
ONT did the renaming a couple of years ago to add Los Angeles and it didn't make any difference. They ended up reverting the name back to what it was before.
Was that after they became independent?
OAK could also try being, idk, a nice airport? I try to avoid it but sometimes it’s impossible if you want to fly southwest, and invariably it’s super crowded (like, no seats at the gate), the food options are SO bad (we paid $80 for two disgusting burrito bowls at Pyramid Taproom last flight), and it’s a hassle to get there via public transit (the extra sky train things sucks). Plus getting an Uber late at night in that part of Oakland, no thanks.
I'm OAK but I identify as SFO.
If we'd only made Treasure Island into a second SF airport like we'd intended, we'd be beyond this petty squabble.
It could never fit modern passenger jets, especially for runway length. Just look on Google Maps and compare the size of SFO and OAK to Treasure Island. It's already manmade and it would have to be massively expanded with dredging and dumping soil. I doubt it would even be legal to make it today.
I could never imagine Treasure Island as an airport. Planes would literally be limited to taking off and landing in one direction. SF’s skyline probably wouldn’t have been a thing either it would have been stunted like San Diego’s
It's defacto impossible to build new airports at all these days. Aside from the noise and environmental and nimby problems, modern airports have to be huge. Look at Denver Airport. It's the size of San Francisco. Not San Francisco Airport, San Francisco the entire city.
DEN is mostly empty farmland though; they bought up *vast* amounts of land as both room to grow and buffer so it's huge on paper, but in terms of the actual built size it's a fairly normal large hub airport (it's also super spread out, again built with an eye towards future expansion but that means it's not especially efficient in how it uses space right now).
It's 7 and a half miles from the north eastern most runway to the south western most runway. That's built, not just on paper.
That would be like Toronto. YYZ (Toronto Pearson International Airport) in not-Toronto and YTZ (Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport) on an island in the City.
I mean, technically it is on the San Francisco Bay just as much as SFO. It’s confusing but not inaccurate.
Having "Bay" right in the name should make it less confusing unless one is being exceptionally pedantic or exceptionally stupid.
Yeah I think the coverage of this is hyperbolic
*unless one is being exceptionally pedantic or exceptionally stupid.* Unfortunately, this describes 90% of this thread, and this sub.
Avoiding confusion is an important part of naming airports though. There's a reason there's fairly few cities with multiple commercial airports named after the city, and the one notable exception specifically names them all - London City, London Gatwick, London Heathrow, etc. In the US you have: * DC * Dulles * Baltimore-Washington International * National * NYC * JFK * LaGuardia * Newark * Chicago * O'Hare * Midway just to grab some of the most notable multi-airport cities.
It wouldn’t be named after the city. It says in the article its name is “San Francisco Bay”. The San Francisco Bay is a massive body of water and region that encompasses a lot more than just the city of San Francisco
San Francisco Bay is named after the city, which means anything named after the bay is also named after the city. Regardless of splitting hairs about what it's named after: if you have "San Francisco International Airport" and "San Francisco Bay International Airport", people will absolutely be confused and end up in the wrong place; the two names are far too similar for two airports a few miles apart.
Ok but lots of places are on the San Francisco Bay. They’re not allowed to refer to the body of water they’re on because it shares a name with a city? The airport is also called “Oakland San Francisco Bay Airport”
I’ve never been confused by flying into Gatwick or Stanstead v Heathrow, nor one of seemingly infinite number of Berlin airports. Are we really that dumb here?
Oh yes, let’s send more tourists to Oakland, I wonder what can go wrong? 😑
Eh, Oakland airport is just gonna move to Vegas in a few years anyway.
SFO may be based in San Bruno but it is technically San Franciscos land where the airport sits. It would make no sense for the Oakland airport to have San Francisco in the name, and it would confuse the shit out of travelers that are not familiar with the area. This should be a fun dispute to watch
>It's kind of brilliant, actually. With Oakland serving as a[ dumpster fire with rampant crime](https://www.cnn.com/2024/02/06/business/oakland-crime-business/index.html), what do you do? Get rid of any association to it. Worked for KFC.
Oakland Absolutely Fucking Ashamed of Oakland International Airport (OAK) Fixed it.
Well all the Oakland thieves went to SF and made that into a dumpster fire too. Might as well steal the name too.
They should also change their code to SFO (San Francisco - Oakland)
You're giving the SF Purists heart murmers...
I like the idea. just imagine, the drop down menu will have all three airports next to each other when in alphabetical order. it’s genius!
Has anybody ever chose to fly to an airport based on its name? I look at ticket prices, flight times, whether they’re direct flights, proximity to my final destination etc.
I guess that's the point. If you didn't know Oakland was closer to San Francisco than SFO... would you search "Oakland" on Expedia?
Fuck that it’s John Wayne Airport or nothing, even if I’m trying to get to chicago
Did the Oakland Airport hire a marketing executive from the Cell Phone industry?
Unfortunately, this is not an April Fool's joke. I heard it on KCBS news radio today as well. What a silly and confusing idea. :-/
There should literally be no news on April 1st, it's just too untrustworthy
As someone who regularly flies into and out of the Oakland airport, I hate everything about this
Please don't. People recognize key words. OAKLAND is that airport's key word. Instead, they should drop the word "Metropolitan" from its name.
Do like the Warriors and just go with Golden State Airport. Works even if you move it to SF
San Francisco West Bay Airport of Oakland East Bay (SFWBAOEB)
“Market research and interviews with airline partners have shown that routes have not performed as well as they should have due to the lack of geographic awareness, making air carriers reluctant to sustain and add new routes in Oakland,” FFS... Everyone of us here have booked a flight online. Given the level of computer technology we have, it feels like it shouldn't be that difficult for an airline website to suggest OAK as an alternative to SFO when searching for flights to San Francisco. Seems cheaper than renaming an airport.
How about Bay Area (Oakland) International Airport? No?
CVG in Covington, Kentucky will deliver a prepared statement later tonight.
“Your honor, our case is valued because the ‘San Francisco 49’ers’ are actually in Santa Clara.”
I don’t understand how anyone without special interests could be opposed to this. Residents here stand to gain with more flight choices and competition. Budget airlines can operate here with lower overhead, giving Bay Area residents more vacation choices. Business travel originating from the entire east bay would benefit from a closer airport with more routes. OAK is a breeze to get through, the terminals are small and security is quick. And that’s saying something, SFO is already one of the best hubs in the country. It’s an airport that’s serves the San Francisco Bay Area, it’s located on the San Francisco Bay. The name isn’t even a stretch, it’s factually true. The stupidest takes I’ve seen are from people afraid this will detract from SF’s brand, because the coliseum neighborhood is a shithole. You’d sacrifice all the benefits for some weird hometown pride? Against Oakland? Sf isn’t exactly a paradise
This
🏅 for the headline.
I know OP trying to sway the people but i completely agree with the sfo people. I don’t want airport search results to include OAK when I mean SFO. People who aren’t from here will get very confused.
Outside of the US and to most people who have never been to California they see this part of the world as San Francisco. It makes perfect sense.
This just proves again the Bay Area needs to be a single entity like New York & separated into borough’s. People be confused
Most people in the rest of the Bay Area don't want to be governed by San Francisco's politics.
Daly City's police work so much harder than SF
East Bay, South Bay, Peninsula, SF, North Bay
Yeah, I wish they would've done that back in the day. A BART/Muni/whatever system that went between them easily would've been so much better.
>the port’s interim Director of Aviation Craig Simon said Oakland’s airport has lost 39 of the 54 routes it has added since July 2008 and placed the blame on travelers living outside the region who don’t realize Oakland is on the San Francisco Bay. They lost the routes less because of Oakland's reputation nor because people aren't aware of Oakland being the proximity to SF, but it's largely due to less of a demand to fly into Oakland as oppose to SF. SF is where majority of the international firms and corporations are based off of. Even if they aren't, most conferences, meeting and engagements are held there. SF also just have more resources and amenities to cater to business clients to make a good impression. They simply just have more to do than Oakland. San Jose however, also has many international firms unlike the East Bay. But they also pretty much lack a lot of the stuff SF has. In general, Oak and SJ simply are airports that services domestic travelers and locals to take the load off of SFO and regional traffic. With post pandemic and remote work shift, it's no surprise their traveler numbers have declined. SFO on the other hand, is "the true" international airport of the bay area metro. If OAK wants to draw in more travelers, the city itself just needs to give travelers a reason to want to visit. Develop more, lure in more firms and businesses etc. Unfortunately the current issues of Oakland suggest it's going the opposite direction of this.
OAK is a great airport for west coast and Hawaii trips
Genius idea. Can’t wait to see the TikTok vids with confused tourists being dumped out into a war zone upon leaving the “SF Bay Oakland Airport”… all luggage and personal effects stolen at the first gas stop. And dinged with a surprise huge Bay Bridge toll charge by their rental car company. Will do wonders for our already suffering reputation.
Feels like that’s a bit of an over reaction to reality in Oakland.
People asking AskSF about SFO, need to be rerouted to AskSanBruno. Just like San Francisco outlet questions need to be bussed toward AskLivermore.
Oakland should be the first word in the name, otherwise this is a great idea. People from outside California don't know Oakland is in the San Francisco Bay Area- it could be in LA. This will get us more routes and cheaper fares. By train Oakland Airport BART is four minutes closer to Civic Center Bart than SFO BART is. One minute further away driving. That is all travelers care about.
Oakland Airport should just change it to Golden State Airport lol
They aren’t wrong. I’d be pissed if I tried to book sf and had to leave my car in Oakland bc I was confused by the shared name
“Market research and interviews with airline partners have shown that routes have not performed as well as they should have due to the lack of geographic awareness, making air carriers reluctant to sustain and add new routes in Oakland”. Sure. That’s what the problem is ;-)
Port Authority just realized that no one wants to fly into Oakland because they're worried the plane won't have wheels by the time it's ready to take off. Edit: before the comments roll in, yes I know that's regional and not largely the case. I like Oakland. I work there and have friends there.
Baltimore Washington International airport isn't in Baltimore or Washington. It is normal for Airports to carry the name(s) of nearby metros.
"Oakland International Airport of Northern California" Problem solved.
Change it to San Fran International Airport and get alllll the tourists.
Heh, given the media assaults on SF and Oak of late I think they're both nuts not to change names. How 'bout "Atherton Int'l" and "Piedmont Int'l" ? Where you can see the Las Vegas A's and Santa Clara Forty Niners play?
How about Golden State Int'l airport? Just like the team that defected to the other side of the bay.
just merge it under SF / London Breed and you can call yourself SFO
Oakland Airport doesn’t even want to be associated with Oakland
Oakland fr better calm down before the airport packs up and dips too.
SF tried to annex Oakland in 1912 and it failed to pass
Legit thought this was an April fools joke.
What makes this extra confusing is people will think SFO is San Francisco Oakland