A few weeks ago, plans were announced for Oakland Airport to have its name modified. The airport’s leadership approved this change last week, and now the city of San Francisco has filed a lawsuit.
In this post:
How & why Oakland Airport could be renamed
Metropolitan Oakland International Airport (OAK) is the second major airport in the San Francisco Bay Area, after San Francisco International Airport (SFO). While the airport is located in Oakland, that’s not far from San Francisco, and as you’d expect, airport officials want to capitalize on that.
The Oakland Board of Port Commissioners has voted unanimously to change the name of the airport. With this plan, “Metropolitan” will be removed from the name, and will be replaced by “San Francisco Bay.” In other words, the airport will be named San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport. With this change, the airport code (OAK) and the general visual branding will remain the same.
What’s the logic for this change? According to the Port of Oakland:
- The Port of Oakland constantly hears from local travelers about their desire for more direct flights to more domestic and global destinations
- To make this happen, travelers who live outside of the San Francisco Bay Area need to learn that OAK is located on the San Francisco Bay, and close to regional destinations
- The lack of geographic awareness among inbound travelers means that flights haven’t performed as well as they could; around half of international travelers and around one-third of domestic travelers aren’t aware of the airport’s “amazing location” (it’s not clear if that means they don’t know where Oakland is, or just that they don’t find the location to be “amazing”)
- The belief is that by adding “San Francisco Bay” to the beginning of the name, demand for travel to the airport will increase, and more airlines will be attracted
As mentioned above, there was a unanimous vote in favor of the renaming on April 11, 2024. A second reading is scheduled to occur on May 9, 2024. After that, staff will move forward with the formal renaming, including working with airlines, other airports, and local agencies, to reflect the modification in airport and airline systems (pending any successful legal challenges).
Below you can see a video from the President of the Oakland Board of Port Commissioners, making the case for this change. This was filmed before the vote happened to approve this change.
San Francisco files lawsuit in opposition of name change
The city of San Francisco has just filed a lawsuit regarding an Oakland Airport name change, suggesting that this name change would violate San Francisco Airport’s trademark rights, and cause confusion among travelers, due to the use of “San Francisco” and “International Airport” together. Per the lawsuit:
“We had hoped Oakland would come to its senses, but their refusal to collaborate on an acceptable alternative name leaves us no choice but to file a lawsuit to protect SFO’s trademark.”
“Travelers will very likely be confused and book tickets to the unintended airport, thinking that the ‘San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport’ is SFO and arrive in the wrong place.”
The lawsuit suggests that the city of Oakland reached out to SFO’s airport director 30 minutes before announcing the name change. When San Francisco officials expressed concerns, they received no response.
Everyone can decide for themselves what the motive here is. Obviously every airport wants to maintain as much market share as possible, and Oakland Airport gaining market share would probably come at the expense of some traffic at San Francisco Airport.
My take on Oakland Airport’s potential name change
I totally see where Oakland Airport leadership is coming from here, and it’s hardly the first airport that has struggled with geographic awareness among travelers.
For example, in the New York area, United Airlines has Newark Airport (EWR) as its primary hub, but we’ve seen the airline try (unsuccessfully) to expand to Kennedy Airport (JFK), as management at the airline felt they were losing out on many travelers by not flying to the airport. That’s despite the endless ad campaigns that the airline ran for years, emphasizing that for most travelers, Newark is just as convenient as Kennedy.
Now, some airports have tried to take some rather extreme liberties with their naming. For example, in Florida you have Melbourne Orlando International Airport (MLB), which is around 70 miles from Orlando. Obviously the airport is primarily trying to serve that region for cost conscious travelers, who are willing to drive a long distance to get a cheaper flight. The airport has even been sued over its name.
In the case of Oakland Airport, the airport isn’t unreasonably far from San Francisco, and there are absolutely situations where someone could reasonably book a flight to Oakland when the plan is to travel to San Francisco. So I’d put this more in line with Newark Airport than Melbourne Airport in that regard.
Now, I do think it would be more accurate to have the name be “Oakland San Francisco Bay,” rather than “San Francisco Bay Oakland.”
I’d argue the biggest issue for Oakland Airport isn’t the name, but rather how the airport is categorized by online travel agencies and other flight search tools. If you go to Google Flights and type in “New York,” you’ll see flights to Kennedy, LaGuardia, and Newark. If you type in “Miami,” you’ll see flights to Fort Lauderdale and Miami. Yet if you type in “San Francisco,” you’ll only see flights to San Francisco, and not Oakland.
I’m not sure who has to be convinced/bribed to update that, but it seems like updating the city search to include Oakland would be the biggest game changer for the airport. That would allow people to more directly compare flights between Oakland and San Francisco, rather than specifically having to seek out Oakland flights.
Bottom line
Metropolitan Oakland International Airport may be renamed San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport, to increase awareness of the airport’s geography. Airport executives have voted unanimously to approve this change, as they believe the airport has missed out on a lot of traffic due to people not being aware of the airport’s proximity to San Francisco, and the goal is to capitalize on that.
However, the city of San Francisco opposes this change, and has filed a lawsuit to block this name change from happening.
I think what would make the biggest difference for the airport is Oakland consistently being included in a search for San Francisco flights, just as you’ll find Fort Lauderdale included in a search for Miami flights.
What do you make of Oakland Airport being renamed?
As a San Franciscan, this seems pretty obvious why OAK wants to change their name.
Secondly, it's different than JFK, La Guardia or Newark because there is no ambiguity to where you will be flying into.
Lastly, all the sentiments on SFO disputing this change because of our supposed superior attitude has been pinned on us from those in Oakland so it actually tells me they have some feelings of being inferior for their own reasons.
It is not that crazy... If one lives in San Francisco, you have to travel through a different city (South San Francisco) to get to SFO.
As the crow flies, OAK is closer to downtown San Francisco than SFO.
OAK is on BART.
I totally see why SF city folks are not happy, but, get over yourselves.
It's just a matter of time before a tourist types in san fra and auto fill will show san francisco but it's actually oak and not sfo. And let's hope the person realizes before confirming. But in this age of "I want everything done in 2 clicks" there will be some confused looks when they arrive in Oakland.
I have lived in the bay area for decades. In those decades, I have never taken a flight out of oak that was longer than 2 hours because there are no good flights available domestic(iinternational is pretty much non existant on an airline I would think twice about) at a reasonable price and and as a points person have never been seen lay flat anything out of oak. There are no lounges. Tsa is a...
I have lived in the bay area for decades. In those decades, I have never taken a flight out of oak that was longer than 2 hours because there are no good flights available domestic(iinternational is pretty much non existant on an airline I would think twice about) at a reasonable price and and as a points person have never been seen lay flat anything out of oak. There are no lounges. Tsa is a sheet show there. And if you're unlucky enough to fly in the early am with all the cheapskates on spirit or SW you'll get the most interesting crowd.
There are no lounges - FALSE. There is an Escape Lounge in T1. BA had non-stops pre-pandemic and at one point served all 3 Bay Area Airports SJC, OAK and SFO. SJC and SFO to LHR, OAK to LGW. And yes OAK-LGW had flat bed Club World.
Great middle ground with Oakland San Francisco Bay. Have google lump it in. Case closed.
OAK's problem is not its name but its inventory of flights and i doubt changing the name will solve that as they seem to think. OAK doesn't offer a lot of flights. United and American do not even fly to OAK at all. Barely any int'l flights and almost all short-haul. It makes little sense for UA or AA to shift flights to OAK. Passenger demand for OAK flights would have to be massive for...
OAK's problem is not its name but its inventory of flights and i doubt changing the name will solve that as they seem to think. OAK doesn't offer a lot of flights. United and American do not even fly to OAK at all. Barely any int'l flights and almost all short-haul. It makes little sense for UA or AA to shift flights to OAK. Passenger demand for OAK flights would have to be massive for that to happen. That's just not likely.
Would a different categorization of flight search engines help? Maybe but I doubt it. Runs into the same problem mentioned above. OAK is also inconvenient for most people in SF or on the peninsula/Silicon Valley (i.e. more than half the population of the Bay Area and travelers to SF) no matter what people claim. At the end of the day, SFO is a super-convenient airport by large global airport standards. Now they just need to fix that second runway.
I’m supportive of this. Oakland is just a bridge away from downtown San Francisco. SFO isn’t really in San Francisco either. By that logic, SFO should
Not have San Fran in its name and be renamed to Millbrae International Airport.
No matter what happens with the name, it will not change the fortunes of that airport.
@Lucky: "I’d argue the biggest issue for Oakland Airport isn’t the name, but rather how the airport is categorized by online travel agencies and other flight search tools. If you go to Google Flights and type in “New York,” you’ll see flights to Kennedy, LaGuardia, and Newark.. yet if you type in “San Francisco,” you’ll only see flights to San Francisco, and not Oakland."
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
I live in Berkeley, CA -- in the East Bay,...
@Lucky: "I’d argue the biggest issue for Oakland Airport isn’t the name, but rather how the airport is categorized by online travel agencies and other flight search tools. If you go to Google Flights and type in “New York,” you’ll see flights to Kennedy, LaGuardia, and Newark.. yet if you type in “San Francisco,” you’ll only see flights to San Francisco, and not Oakland."
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
I live in Berkeley, CA -- in the East Bay, just north of Oakland and across the Bay from San Francisco. I fly in and out of both SFO and OAK multiple times a year. You may be right re: Google Flights, but when you go to Southwest, Alaska, American, or United, you can search SFO, OAK, and SJC simultaneously (AS actually includes STS and SMT as possibilities). It's similar to typing "LON" or "TYO" into the destination box, and getting flights to Heathrow, Gatwick, London City, Stansted, and Luton (or both Narita and Haneda). Among the majors, only Delta makes you pick San Francisco OR Oakland OR San Jose...
Since Chapter 9 is probably inevitable.
Let's burn tax payers money for matters like this.
But who knows SF might win. In the state that OJ gloves doesn't fit, anything is possible.
I think one of the bigger questions is whether “San Francisco Bay”, a body of water, can be legally trademarked for the exclusive use by the City of San Francisco.
Something tells me Oakland may prevail in this argument.
Lawsuit filed
https://www.wsj.com/business/airlines/san-francisco-sues-oakland-over-plan-to-rename-airport-c1187ae7?mod=hp_lead_pos11
They should add "watch your wallet" to the name.
SFO doesn't have a leg to stand on if they sue. Lawyers could find a passenger who was confused and then start a class action lawsuit where they settle and get millions in legal fees and passengers can get a 2 cent voucher.
OAK is crazy. The problem with the old and new name is Oakland. Oakland has a bad reputation for crime, drugs, and, among some people, having lots of African American people. If...
SFO doesn't have a leg to stand on if they sue. Lawyers could find a passenger who was confused and then start a class action lawsuit where they settle and get millions in legal fees and passengers can get a 2 cent voucher.
OAK is crazy. The problem with the old and new name is Oakland. Oakland has a bad reputation for crime, drugs, and, among some people, having lots of African American people. If they want to change name, get rid of "Oakland". To avoid confusion, also drop "international". Make it "San Francisco Bay Airport", which people may shortened to "Bay Airport". It could then be a region with San Francisco International Airport, San Francisco Bay Airport, and San Jose airport (San Jose Mineta International Airport).
New York to Newark. San Fran to Sanfren. So, it’s Sanfren international airport? Easy
I liked OAK the one time I flew on a connection SW flight this past thanksgiving.
If i recall correctly (could be totally wrong), the departures/arrivals screen showed a lot of lesser known airlines. Is this really a problem because of passengers not choosing OAK or the airlines that fly there and therefore the options for travellers?
Next update; San Jose renames its self to San Jose SF Bay Silicon Valley airport
Oakland's problem isn't just branding, it's the fact that it costs 2x more to fly into and out of OAK than SFO. I'm always going to the east bay, and I'll always go to OAK for those trips, but I'm not as price sensitive as others are (and SHOULD be).
Living in the SF Bay Area, I sometimes fly out of SFO, sometimes out of OAK -- whichever is less expensive. They are never the same price...usually WN is cheaper out of OAK, but even they seem to be cutting back at OAK and increasing traffic at SFO. It's about a 4:1 ratio, in favor of SFO.
It’s not just geography. Changing the name won’t change the airport. How do they think airlines will suddenly decide to start operating there ? With regards to international flights, OAK has extremely limited facilities and I believe just 1 gate to accommodate incoming customs / immigration arrivals. Perhaps they can woo emirates or Peace air and global airlines. No doubt the ceo of peace would demand SFO.
As for using SF Bay they aren’t wrong as it’s on SF Bay.
The problem is not logistics but how it affects software. If san francisco is in both names, you're bound to click on the wrong one especially with drop-down boxes on a phone with a narrow width. If Oakland made their airport not so sucky they wouldn't need rebranding. Rebranding only happens when your product sux.
London Gatwick, London Heathrow, London City, London Stansted.
People figure it out. And when in those rare cases they don't, I've never heard people blame the airports before.
They're only trying to make this a problem because they already have distaste for Oakland.
Oakland city leaders are so ashamed and embarrassed for what they've allowed their city to devolve into, that they now have to modify their airport name. Note how they also added the "San Francisco" name first and "Oakland" second, despite being in Oakland proper.
"Oakland city leaders are so ashamed and embarrassed for what they've allowed their city to devolve into..."
They are? Everyone I know in the Oakland/Berkeley area, from Oakland itself and out to Orinda, Walnut Creek, and Danville, are quite proud to live in Oakland and in proximity to Oakland, and I don't know of any Oakland city leaders who are ashamed of Oakland.
Perhaps you could cite some here?
“Everyone I know in the Oakland/Berkeley area…”
So how many people is that? 10? 20? 50? Doesn’t really matter, because there are still millions of people in the area that you don’t know. The truth of the matter is that many people are fed up with the leadership. You don’t need a cite for that. It’s common sense.
A basic expectation of the government you pay your taxes to is not have your...
“Everyone I know in the Oakland/Berkeley area…”
So how many people is that? 10? 20? 50? Doesn’t really matter, because there are still millions of people in the area that you don’t know. The truth of the matter is that many people are fed up with the leadership. You don’t need a cite for that. It’s common sense.
A basic expectation of the government you pay your taxes to is not have your car window broken and your possessions stolen. Or to walk on a sidewalk free of needles and feces. And yet, Oakland fails miserably at even those basics.
"Oakland fails miserably at even those basics."
So the logic is that they changed their name because they're ashamed, and changed it to highlight a city that HAS THE EXACT SAME PROBLEMS??? (And is better known nationally for having those problems?).
Come. On!
Lol. I'm not one of those people proud of Oakland in any capacity. That's why I moved to to the peninsula instead.
Lol, absolutely no one in Danville is claiming to live in the "Oakland area" nor should they be
Ha! San Francisco has led the way in making California the butt of a bazillion jokes about liberalism. When talk of poop in streets come up, it's almost exclusively about that city. Oakland only recently got some national spotlight for the In-N-Out closure.
But that's neither here nor there... San Francisco has always been the bigger tourist draw because it's a bigger city and has more tourist attractions. Oakland has never tried to exceed that...
Ha! San Francisco has led the way in making California the butt of a bazillion jokes about liberalism. When talk of poop in streets come up, it's almost exclusively about that city. Oakland only recently got some national spotlight for the In-N-Out closure.
But that's neither here nor there... San Francisco has always been the bigger tourist draw because it's a bigger city and has more tourist attractions. Oakland has never tried to exceed that draw, and that's independent from any of the problems the city has. Getting people to funnel through OAK on their way to said tourist destination (not to mention Napa Valley) is just good business sense. Especially considering OAK is a better airport to fly to if you're heading to Napa.
It has nothing to do with "shame".
Please!
Hey SFO - aren't you in Millbrae anyway?
Technically no, it’s managed by the city of San Francisco
Geographically, it’s Millbrae, in San Mateo County. (San Francisco is its own city and county.) Similarly, O’Hare is really in Elk Grove Village in what was part of DuPage County prior to annexation by the city (the limits of which include the El line out to O’Hare, making it technically contiguous with the rest of the city).
Fun fact: in 1912, San Francisco tried to annex the East Bay, including Oakland.
I wish the commission had hired you, Ben. Oakland San Francisco Bay makes much more sense, and is defensible as it distinguishes Oakland, CA from other Oaklands. I think the bigger problem though is the airport isn't really ready to serve more international flights. They have tried numerous times before and failed. There is a plan, being fought by the NIMBY's in Alameda to expand the airport. If that happens then I think OAK will...
I wish the commission had hired you, Ben. Oakland San Francisco Bay makes much more sense, and is defensible as it distinguishes Oakland, CA from other Oaklands. I think the bigger problem though is the airport isn't really ready to serve more international flights. They have tried numerous times before and failed. There is a plan, being fought by the NIMBY's in Alameda to expand the airport. If that happens then I think OAK will see significant growth. There are many days of the year where SFO is facing weather delays due to fog, while there are clear skies over OAK. I live about 20 minutes from OAK and pick whichever airport has the cheaper (including point booking) flights.
"San Francisco Bay Oakland" will cause confusion. I'd be fine with "Oakland San Francisco Bay" - but Oakland needs to lead.
Aren’t there other places called Oakland so it could be confusing....
You're not going to type in any other Oakland airport on a web page or app. But when you enter san Francisco and the screen only can display 10 characters which one are you getting?
The real problem is not branding or even distance (a person with a 6 year old’s intellect will learn Oakland is adjacent to SF and can reach SF very shortly by train), the problem is it’s to expensive to fly in/out of Oakland. Fix that!
I hope they don't do this, or at minimum have Oakland as the first part of the name. Norwegian airlines actually did this - they had something like 'San Francisco Bay', even though they exclusively operated out of OAK. My wife drive to SFO and only realized she was at the wrong airport when she was checking in her bag.
I lived in San Francisco from 1979 to 1995 and OAK used to market itself as "closer to downtown San Francisco than SFO" which is technically true. BART does not directly serve OAK... One must take a shuttle to Coliseum and then into the City. Now, BART does have direct service from SFO making SFO far more attractive for people coming into the city itself. I used to fly OAK from time to time and I didnt find it a particular time or cost saver.
BART serves OAK….
Not directly, no. There is no OAK stop. You get off at the Colliseum then thake the BART shuttle - still a "train", but a separate OAK-only connector - to OAK. You cannot travel directly from, say, Embarcadero to OAK.
If a train transfer is considered not being on a subway system than every system in the world must only have exactly one train line, according to you, since transferring would be leaving the system.
The Port of Oakland needs to stop assuming the traveling public is stupid. People know full well where Oakland and San Francisco are located. And Oakland is not getting increased air service simply because most people don’t want to go there, for many reasons. Changing the name of the airport is akin to changing deck chairs on the Titanic. In the end, it’s still sinking.
Could you tell that to the east bay real estate market? To paraphrase Yogi Berra, nobody buys here anymore it's too expensive.
Not everyone knows that, it is not like Oakland is known outside the US. Europe has plenty of those wrongly branded airports, and many tourists are surprised with a 1 or 2 hour bus transfer.... Ryanair was really smart in pushing lower cast airports like Paris Beauvais, Düsseldorf Weeze, Frankfurt Hahn, Stockholm Skavsta, Girona Barcelona Airport, London Luton.
Great, this would finally stop idiots from ending up in New Zealand.
I don’t get why SFO has a claim to San Francisco anymore than Oakland does. SFO is in Milbrae, and not really much closer to SF.
The city of San Francisco owns the airport, they bought the land and started and airport almost 100 years ago.
Heathrow airport is owned by the government of Qatar. That doesn’t mean that Heathrow airport is located in Qatar.
I think this only makes sense. It should have been done yesterday. I think one thing that’s been overlooked is that Oakland’s reputation has always been worse than San Francisco’s due to its safety issues, especially in recent years. The whole area around the airport has been turning into a lawless, crime ridden ghost town, where luggage theft occurs to anybody who goes to the gas stations there, and many businesses there (e.g. In N...
I think this only makes sense. It should have been done yesterday. I think one thing that’s been overlooked is that Oakland’s reputation has always been worse than San Francisco’s due to its safety issues, especially in recent years. The whole area around the airport has been turning into a lawless, crime ridden ghost town, where luggage theft occurs to anybody who goes to the gas stations there, and many businesses there (e.g. In N Out, Walmart) have left as a result, and it will probably stay that way forever given politics. It would be beneficial for the airport to try to distance itself from the Oakland name if they want to attract more travelers.
And yet Sand Francisco downtown is a blight on the landscape of crime and homelessness?
Maybe both Cites should pretend they are NOT SFO
Very true about San Fran's current blight. But its a Ritz Carlton compared to Oakland. They warn you to not even stop at gas stations near the airport to refuel rental cars because of the extremely high chance you will be just another victim.
Ben -- still waiting for you to try the once-weekly seasonal OAK-TER flight. This summer it will be operated by a Plus Ultra A330 that rotates between TER-OAK/BOS/YYZ/JFK.
yes! Please take it Ben!
Everone seems to have forgotten/been unaware that basically the exact same thing happened in 2017 at a different airport with the exact same airport director protesting against it.
https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/SFO-objection-grounds-Stockton-airport-name-12303278.php
When 'updating' and re-posting a story, would it be possible to call out the new information? As an avid reader of this blog I read most posts, and would love an easier way to see what new information has been posted without re-reading the entire post. Thanks for considering!
Oakland definitely has a good claim to also serving San Francisco given it's connected to the BART. Certainly better than San Jose as a secondary airport, if SF is your destination.
Just another marketing scam. There are plenty of those in the airport business, e.g., New York Stewart (about 60mi from NYC), Sao Paulo Viracopos (about 90km from SP), Bruxelles Charleroi Airport (about 65km from Brussels) etc. … mainly targeting the ULCCs who’s pax find it an “experience” if they spend half of their vacation waiting for some kind of bus.
VCP used to be the main international airport of Sao Paulo and Congohas was the London City or La Guardia of Sao Paulo. Actually Viracopos was like Mirabel in Montreal, a grand vision that didn't work out. Dulles was like Mirabel for a time until Washington, DC grew bigger and needed more runways.
VCP worked out fine for Azul, just a couple of decades later.
Except that it can actually be faster coming from OAK than SFO if heading to some parts of SF, depending on time of day and traffic. The airport is literally on the SF bay, right across the bay from SFO, how is that a scam? If you want a marketing scam, look to some of the "London" airports that are 2 hours outside of the city.
When I lived in SF 20 years ago, BART did not go to the terminal building. You had to use a shuttle bus to/from Oakland Coliseum... rough! But despite that, I was ok & many times cheaper than SFO. Also, OAK gets less fog than SFO. I once flew LHR > SFO but we diverted to OAK due to SFO socked-in with fog. The flight from OAK to SFO was awesome fun. Lots turns at low altitudes on a 747!
And that shuttle didn't run early so a whole lot of passengers at 6am will stand at the shuttle stop going now what. And groups of people will suddenly become friends and share a cab (no Uber either) to oak. Good times. Surprised i didn't get shanked.
Lets try that again...
I lived in Menlo Park for many years and it is almost exactly the same distance to OAK, SFO and SJC. My first choice was always SJC -- it's low hassle getting in and out and lots of choices if things go sideways. SFO is great for international and more non-stops more places. Getting to Oakland is fine although there's always a risk of a problem on a bridge... but...
Lets try that again...
I lived in Menlo Park for many years and it is almost exactly the same distance to OAK, SFO and SJC. My first choice was always SJC -- it's low hassle getting in and out and lots of choices if things go sideways. SFO is great for international and more non-stops more places. Getting to Oakland is fine although there's always a risk of a problem on a bridge... but if there are issues there just aren't enough flights.
Funny, I live in DC now. And while I'm super close to DCA and BWI is next, it's similar. DCA is easy and there are lots of options. IAD has more choices for long haul, especially non-stop international. BWI is cheaper but if things go sideways, I'm probably heading to DCA for a new flight.
OAK is not equidistant to SFO from Menlo Park. Not even close.
Mantis,
Googling my address, the three airports are 20, 22 and 24 miles from my house. So, yes, very close. I always thought OAK was further until I actually tried it and it's just not. I happened to live very close to Marsh road which leads to the bridge. It's not the same for everyone as Menlo Park is quite large and if you live on the west side it's a different story, but from my house in Menlo Park it is entirely accurate to say the are nearly the same distance.
Yes but from Menlo park to oak you have to cross dumbarton or san mateo bridge and then 880. I would rather get a root canal. Less painful.
I lived in Menlo Park for many years. It is almost exactly equida
To be fair, OAK can get you to downtown San Francisco sometimes faster than SFO can, and it's on the train.
At least it's not like when Manchester renamed to "Manchester-Boston Regional Airport", when the airport is fully in New Hampshire and an hour's drive from Boston (on a good day), when Logan is a 10 minute free bus ride to downtown. Can you add a city name that's in a different state? I guess they did lol.
Cincinnati's main airport (CVG) is in another state and is called Cincinnati / Northern Kentucky International Airport
And yet CoVinGton, KY is right there by the airport. I once had an ICU nurse who used to fling bags out at KCVG explain to me the subtle distinction, but hey, I can't recall the exact details, we were in the ICU at the time.
As noted above, OAK is closer to downtown San Francisco than SFO is. I'll add that wine grown 30 miles east of Oakland has been able to have...
And yet CoVinGton, KY is right there by the airport. I once had an ICU nurse who used to fling bags out at KCVG explain to me the subtle distinction, but hey, I can't recall the exact details, we were in the ICU at the time.
As noted above, OAK is closer to downtown San Francisco than SFO is. I'll add that wine grown 30 miles east of Oakland has been able to have the appellation "San Francisco Bay" for twenty years now. And, to be fair, their main runway is in the middle of the bay, so what more do you want?
Gary/Chicago.
Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport and Laughlin/Bullhead International Airport both have their names start with a nearby city in a different state.
Oakland ghetto af tho. They have like 3 rappers. E 40 , too short , and Clyde Carson.
Shut the airport down. Rebuild in Berkeley ; a regional airport.
What a stupid comment…
An idiotic comment by an idiot.
Groundbreaking.
I truly hope you get exactly what’s coming to you. I won’t say specifically what that is but I truly do hope you get it.
The world will be better off without you.
Most people can figure out where Oakland is situated across from SFO. Maybe they might want to crack down on crime in the airport area. When your rental is broken into when you gas up or are robbed close to the airport, you can change the name all you want. people will still avoid it.
Do you think the Oakland airport could buy the IATA code "BAY" from the small Romanian airport it is currently assigned to, and make it refer to the whole Bay Area (SFO, OAK, SJC) just like NYC is used for New York (JFK, LGA and EWR)? Surely the ~45,000 annual passengers in Romania won't notice the difference, while it would boost the traffic at OAK by a much larger number.
There are dozens of BAYs in the world. Not specific enough.
One of the worst offenders has to be the airport at Rockford, Illinois. Despite being 80+ miles away from Chicago, Rockford's airport is named Chicago Rockford International Airport.
International to where?!
Tokyo, London, Paris? Rome?
It might have offered flight to Canada and/or Mexico in the past, and/or has cargo flights to and from other countries? To be frank there are quite a few airports in the US with international in their name but only offer domestic flights.
Another data point on this subject. The Los Angeles area has several airports. Los Angeles International, Burbank, Long Beach, Orange Count/Santa Ana, Ontario International, ...
The local names seem to work well. I'm not aware of any push to prefix any of these airports with Los Angeles. If anything they add names of famous entertainers which seems to me would confuse travelers -- after all who know where the Bob Hope Airport is located:-)
It's now called Hollywood Burbank...because yeah, no one knew where Bob Hope was located.
It’s been called Hollywood/Burbank Airport for decades.
I actually think it is a very good idea. Even though I always knew Oakland was near SFO, I never knew how close and convenient Oakland airport is for visiting San Francisco. And as far as putting Oakland in front of San Francisco, I vehemently disagree as that is not how airport names work. The first name is usually the city the airport serves and the second name is the area the airport is located....
I actually think it is a very good idea. Even though I always knew Oakland was near SFO, I never knew how close and convenient Oakland airport is for visiting San Francisco. And as far as putting Oakland in front of San Francisco, I vehemently disagree as that is not how airport names work. The first name is usually the city the airport serves and the second name is the area the airport is located. You don't have Luton London or Heathrow London or Schiphol Amsterdam or Narita Tokyo. Why should this be Oakland San Francisco? That makes it sound like it is an airport serving Oakland that happens to be in San Francisco...
Oakland is itself a city of 430,000+ people. That makes it the 45th most populous city in the US, just behind Miami and just ahead of Minneapolis. The Oakland airport serves Oakland and the East Bay as well as San Francisco.
Unlike many secondary airports which try to pretend they're elsewhere (Frankfurt Hahn, Paris Beauvais, etc.), at least OAK is on the BART rail network, which should be a definite plus, as downtown San Francisco is easily accessible from OAK.
It's not that difficult to google this info. I first discovered NRT and HND airports through a google search when looking for tickets. I looked on a map and did some more googling. Its not that difficult to look up SFO/SJC/OAK and decide what would work best. There aren't that many international flights to either of these airports anyways.
As a resident of Oakland, I concur with others, that this change is asinine and will have little impact. Ben hits the nail on the head with the observation that the issue is with travel search engines that don't recognize the airports are less than 10 miles apart. Money/effort would be much better expended convincing the search engines to show all bay area airports.
On a related note I've argued that SFO and OAK...
As a resident of Oakland, I concur with others, that this change is asinine and will have little impact. Ben hits the nail on the head with the observation that the issue is with travel search engines that don't recognize the airports are less than 10 miles apart. Money/effort would be much better expended convincing the search engines to show all bay area airports.
On a related note I've argued that SFO and OAK ought to be connected by a nonstop rapid transit connector under the bay --somewhat integrating the operations at both airports.
"On a related note I've argued that SFO and OAK ought to be connected by a nonstop rapid transit connector under the bay --somewhat integrating the operations at both airports."
I hope anyone you've "argued" that to has laughed at you.
You want to bore an underwater tunnel 3-4X the distance of the current BART tunnels for a handful of people a day?
For anyone not "a resident of Oakland", the airports are already connected by rail transit, just not "nonstop".
Correct, there are not that many passengers connecting between OAK and SFO. If there were even a little bit of demand, there would be a non-stop bus between the two, like there is between Gatwick and Heathrow.
On social media, there are a lot of clowns like this that want rail everywhere even if there is no demand. One example is @thetransitguy on Instagram but he is not the only clown.
Disagree with you having a pop at Hayden the Transit Guy. Sure he’s provocative and pushes people’s buttons but wanting more public transport in the US is an extremely reasonable view. It’s ridiculous how little inter city rail there is in the US connecting up cities that are relatively close together. Some people seem to think trains equal communism in the US, it’s bizarre. Go Transit Guy I say.
You have to realize that a project like this cannot get federal funding (which is basically essential) unless it can sustain a minimum ridership threshhold between two points, or for a given station -- no matter how logical it sounds to you. Connecting two airports would never come anywhere near that.
@Never In Doubt: Sometimes one "argues" outlandishly tongue in cheek to see if one gets a reaction. It often does as you proved. But it does often lead to a discussion about connections between the airports. In the 70s and until the mid 80s SFO Helicopters offered service between the OAK and SFO.
Now more seriously another rail connection between the East Bay and mid peninsula in general (a rail version of the long dismissed...
@Never In Doubt: Sometimes one "argues" outlandishly tongue in cheek to see if one gets a reaction. It often does as you proved. But it does often lead to a discussion about connections between the airports. In the 70s and until the mid 80s SFO Helicopters offered service between the OAK and SFO.
Now more seriously another rail connection between the East Bay and mid peninsula in general (a rail version of the long dismissed "southern crossing") could be a useful addition to the bay area rail network.
I'd love a ferry connection between OAK and SFO. But I'd also just love a lot more ferry connections between everywhere on the Bay.
If they insist on San Francisco, International should not be used to avoid confusion.
San Francisco Merritt Airport or San Francisco Merritt Regional Airport, aka San Francisco Merritt
San Francisco Dellums Airport
(Where they charge you a passenger fee of $50 if you income is over $175,000)
"The belief is that by adding “San Francisco Bay” to the beginning of the name, demand for travel to the airport will increase, and more airlines will be attracted"
That's nonsense. It's all about hoping to "inform" travelers that OAK is an option when traveling to the SF area.
Southwest, Hawaiian, LCCs and a couple Alaska & Delta flights use OAK. A name change isn't going to move the needle on that.
The problem is Oakland's bad reputation and slightly worse location to San Francisco compared to SFO.
Serious name change: Samuel Merritt Airport. Merritt was a founding regent of the University of California, physician, and donated land for Lake Merritt in Oakland.
Another possibility: Amelia Earhart Airport. Her round the world trip started in Oakland.
Stupid name: Edmund G. "Jerry " Brown, Jr. Ron Dellums San Francisco Oakland International Airport
Just like how bevis and butthead airport, I mean beauvais is called Paris airport despite being hour and half away. Might as well start calling Philly airport also "NYC" and Baltimore airport as dc!
Um…Thurgood Marshall Baltimore Washington International (BWI) airport is already included in the results when one does a “WAS” search.
Technically, BWI stands for Baltimore-Washington International.
BWI is a hell of a lot closer to most parts of the DMV than Dulles
And you’ve got Avelo pitching Santa Rosa as San Francisco.
Let’s just go ahead and change OAK to SFO - San Francisco Oakland. Errr, wait already taken.
Today I learned that SFO/OAK/SJC go by metropolitan code QSF. Maybe that will help?
I don't think QSF has the same level of compatibility as NYC. It doesn't work in Google Flights, for instance.
To downtown SF like the IC at Mark Hopkins, the OAK and SFO takes the same amount of time.
The IATA City code table - ironically, the same one that recently declared Newark is *not* part of New York - can be adapted to cover the multi-airport thing, just a matter of asking them nicely.
The challenge is, there are so many airports that well and truly stretch plausibility. I think when they decided Southend was "London," that just turned it in to a free-for-all, since at that point clearly nothing has any meaning.
I definitely think it is worth people knowing that when flying to the Bay Area, there are three viable choices: Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose. Depending on what part of the Bay Area you are visiting, what prices look like, and what airlines serve your home airport, any one of the three could make sense. If you are visiting UC Berkeley, either Oakland or San Francisco work well. If you are visiting Stanford or...
I definitely think it is worth people knowing that when flying to the Bay Area, there are three viable choices: Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose. Depending on what part of the Bay Area you are visiting, what prices look like, and what airlines serve your home airport, any one of the three could make sense. If you are visiting UC Berkeley, either Oakland or San Francisco work well. If you are visiting Stanford or Silicon Valley, San Francisco or San Jose are both good options. So I get why this move might benefit OAK.
I do worry a little about putting the words "San Francisco" before the word "Oakland" because that makes the names of two airports similar. So one airport is going to be called "San Francisco International Airport" and the other airport is going to be called "San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport"? I could imagine miscommunication between visitors and taxi, Uber, Lyft drivers. It would not be fun to wind up at the wrong airport.
In most other multi-airport regional areas, I feel like the names are more distinct, e.g., BWI, Reagan, Dulles, or Newark, JFK, LaGuardia. I consider distinct names better for tourists arranging ground transport. So if I had a vote, I would still put the word "Oakland" first in any name change.
At least it's not being named after a politician!
Utterly ridiculous yet typical of leaders who run a city into the ground. It's not us and our failing policies. You really think people are avoiding your airport because they don’t know about it? They do know and it's one reason they are avoiding it. Oakland's professional sports franchises have baild on the city too. Yeah. Go ahead and change the airport name. Let us know how that works.
This country was built on...
Utterly ridiculous yet typical of leaders who run a city into the ground. It's not us and our failing policies. You really think people are avoiding your airport because they don’t know about it? They do know and it's one reason they are avoiding it. Oakland's professional sports franchises have baild on the city too. Yeah. Go ahead and change the airport name. Let us know how that works.
This country was built on the backs of a lot of smart, hard working people. It's being destroyed by idiots.
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/businesses-leaving-oakland-crime/3440618/
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/article/ousd-oakland-schools-students-18610733.php
As a Bay Area resident, I don't know of anyone avoiding OAK because the city has been "run into the ground".
As someone who doesn't live in the bay, it's the reputation for outsiders that counts and yes I know of a few who avoid Oakland airport due to reputation of the city.
For me it's more about geographic convience and price.
@Mark
Yeah, it seems like people like David need to whine about something something liberally perceived areas suck something something.
It's funny from that first article he posted that it seems people are reacting more to the perception of crime. From that article:
*"Preliminary figures suggest auto burglaries have hit a 20-year low."
*"A 40% reduction in crime last year around the airport after an increase in police presence."
And from the second...
@Mark
Yeah, it seems like people like David need to whine about something something liberally perceived areas suck something something.
It's funny from that first article he posted that it seems people are reacting more to the perception of crime. From that article:
*"Preliminary figures suggest auto burglaries have hit a 20-year low."
*"A 40% reduction in crime last year around the airport after an increase in police presence."
And from the second article:
*"In the first semester alone, the 34,000-student district approved 950 requests for a transfer out, about 200 more than would be expected based on historic trends. Yet at the same time, the district added 900 students who transferred in from other districts while also enrolling 200 additional students this month, said Kilian Betlach, executive director of enrollment."
Some overreactions based on what people perceive the situation to be more than anything else.
I use to live in the east bay and left in the early 2000's even then many of my service people that flew in to work on our equipment were "suggested" to gas up by our site and their company will eat the fueling fees when the car is returned to Oakland.
Yes, I really think some people don’t consider flying to Oakland because they’re unaware how close it is to San Fran. London has six airports with the name “London” in - some an hours drive away - precisely so travelers know which city the airport serves. It’s perfectly reasonable for the Oakland airport to point out which major conurbation it’s in.
Yup...came to the comments expecting to read some BS post and Davie didn't disappoint. There are 7 million residents in the Bay Area alone, in a state of 40 million. We get that your crappy town in your crappy state is your utopia, and frankly, the majority of us here in the Bay Area don't care what your thoughts are. Dont like beautiful liberal cities? Don't visit them. And I *promise* I wont be visiting whatever shitehole town you live in, ok Davie?
My surgeon colleagues can barely afford Oakland anymore because the housing is so desirable for their Bay Area commutes, but please do go on from whatever basement you are living in.
I think it makes sense. Outside of North America people ( like me) have heard of Oakland but probably wouldn’t know it a viable alternative to flying to SFO if searching for flights.
Consider how many daily flights any major international carrier has out of SFO on any given day. For a single carrier, two or three at most? That number serves the entire Bay Area market. If a flight is added to OAK, that will mean a flight will be removed from SFO. Okay, fine. But, now, the carrier had terminal operations at two airports. Staff, gate lease, etc. My sense is that it would result in higher expense to serve the Bay Area market.
Right - OAK is barely farther than SFO.
Also, SFO is *not* in San Francisco either. It just has the name.
I've seen OAK gain and lose longhaul flights over the years. It's unfortunate. I believe all it has is that seasonal flight to the Azores. San Jose doesn't fare much better, with just the one flight to Haneda.
Actually SFO is in San Francisco. There's a small carve-out where the land the airport sits on is in fact San Francisco proper and not South San Francisco. Even the police for the airport are SFPD.
Oh cool... that's news to me. Thanks Vince.
Small notation:
At least on the Alaska Air website, if you type in BAY as the airport code the system will search flights for SFO, OAK and SJC.
Also, although I haven't looked it up, I think the travel time on BART from SFO vs. OAK is pretty similar to downtown SFO.
And...for the record....EWR is not equivalent to JFK - if you live on the island (Brooklyn, Queens, Long Island)!
Same as how HND is not really "better" than NRT if you live in or are bound for Asakusa, Ueno or somewhere else in northeastern Tokyo.
I wanna fly into NRT.
Of course EWR isn't equivalent to JFK if you live close (or closer) to JFK. From the other side, JFK isn't as useful as EWR if you live in NJ. They are roughly equal options if you're trying to get in/out of Manhattan, though.