Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I've noticed that a growing number of people who live in Solano and Napa Counties (NE Bay Area) have started to fly in and out of Sacramento (SMF). My aunt and uncle, who live in Vallejo, now prefer to use SMF over OAK Airport. My cousins from Houston have been flying into SMF when they're out visiting my aunt.
Regarding the LAX discussion, LAX may be fine for international connections, but if I'm flying strictly into So Cal, I prefer to use the alternate airports such as Burbank, Long Beach, John Wayne or Ontario. It's less hassle for me even if LAX is closer to where I'm visiting in So Cal.
Wow, that is interesting, Bay Area folks using SMF over OAK; that's a switch. I never thought that would happen.
Do you know why your cousins chose SMF over OAK? Do you know why your Aunt and Uncle prefer SMF over OAK?
I go to LA proper a lot, which I define as the Coast(west) to I-5(east) including downtown LA; the Santa Monica Mts/Hollywood Hills (north) to Century Frwy I-105(south) including South Bay Cities.
I would use Hollywood/Burbank if going anywhere in the San Fernando Valley and the far west of it too, including the Pasadena area, or going to Downtown LA. I would use Long Beach airport if going to much of the LA Basin and/or OC. I would use Ontario if going anywhere in the Inland Empire and the larger Palm Springs area.
If am going to be anywhere WEST of Downtown LA I would NOT use Ontario airport. I would NOT use Orange Cnty airport unless I was going to OC and points south of it.
Totally not worth it, schlepping it to SFO, traffic, wasted time, gas, inconvenience to yourself or whoever schleps you to SFO, increased risk of missing your flight, SFO security vs. SMF security.
DELTA HUBS: LAX, Seattle, Salt Lake Cty, Minneapolis, Atlanta - NON-STOPS
To Seattle $20 difference
From SMF: $136
From SFO: $116, add the cost of getting to SFO $280
To Salt Lake City $6 difference
From SMF: $160
From SFO: $154, add the cost of getting to SFO $314
To Minneapolis $90 difference, but what about the cost and time of getting to SFO?
From SMF: $298
From SFO: $208, add the cost of getting to SFO $372
To Atlanta $8 difference
From SMF: $306
From SFO: $298, add the cost of getting to SFO $462
To LAX $18 difference
From SMF: $116
From SFO: $92, add the cost of getting to SFO $256
The first Non-stop flight from Sacramento to Europe will likely be to Amsterdam on Delta. But more than likely it will be one of the low cost airlines like Norwegian.
Fun Fact:
There are 128 Non-stop flights DAILY to Southern California airports and back to Sacramento (64 one-way trips, Daily).
Oakland DOES NOT have a single Non-stop flight to LAX on the Big 3: American, Delta, United.
Whereas, Sacramento has 24 Daily flights to LAX and back to Sacramento on the Big 3: American, Delta, United. Another reason to fiy to LAX instead of driving to the Bay when flying internationally. Plus, another 16 Daily non-stops on Southwest to LAX and back. That's 40 Non-stops to LAX and back, DAILY. (20 one-way trips, Daily)
Five(5) to Eight(8) Million passengers a year from the Sacramento Area are lost to SFO or Oak when they could be using SMF. I get using SFO to Asia, but really, driving to Oakland to go to Hawaii or Mexico, come on people choose Sacramento first. It's amazing that the airlines provide so many non-stops out of SMF and we keep them full despite the fact that we..... still use SFO or Oak as well.
Nobody in the Bay would drive to Sacramento to fly to Hawaii or Mexico, or anywhere, so why do we still drive to the Bay when we have so many options out of Sacramento? So many of the flights out of Oakland still require a change of planes, yet will still drive down there, I used to be one of the them.
Sacramento airport flys Non-Stop-
Direct to 44 different cities across the nation and overseas.
So what, not sure why this is even relevant? United is a complete garbage airline, I’d put it one notch above spirit and frontiers these days. And besides that, Southwest flies nonstop pretty much hourly to LAX from Oakland.
As for this thread, I don’t know why anyone would drive from Sacramento to San Francisco for a flight unless it was an international flight or for a family emergency. Even still, if it meant having a layover in another city I’d still opt for Sacramento.
For me, stretching my legs, using a real bathroom (I’m 6’4”), and grabbing a drink and a bite to eat (if there’s time) is a better alternative than traffic, parking, shuttles, and a more hectic airport just for a direct flight. At the end of the day your overall travel time is probably gonna be about the same, maybe less?
I could see why many don’t like layovers (obviously I prefer a direct flight) though as everyone seems to lug multiple full size suitcases passed off as carry-on bags these days to save a few bucks. I often carry only a small bag for my wife so even if I have to book across a huge airport it’s nothing.
Wow, that is interesting, Bay Area folks using SMF over OAK; that's a switch. I never thought that would happen.
Do you know why your cousins chose SMF over OAK? Do you know why your Aunt and Uncle prefer SMF over OAK?
I go to LA proper a lot, which I define as the Coast(west) to I-5(east) including downtown LA; the Santa Monica Mts/Hollywood Hills (north) to Century Frwy I-105(south) including South Bay Cities.
I would use Hollywood/Burbank if going anywhere in the San Fernando Valley and the far west of it too, including the Pasadena area, or going to Downtown LA. I would use Long Beach airport if going to much of the LA Basin and/or OC. I would use Ontario if going anywhere in the Inland Empire and the larger Palm Springs area.
If am going to be anywhere WEST of Downtown LA I would NOT use Ontario airport. I would NOT use Orange Cnty airport unless I was going to OC and points south of it.
I believe it's due to several factors as to why my relatives in Vallejo prefer SMF over OAK. First thing that comes to mind is less traffic congestion between Vallejo and SMF and not having to cross the Carquinez Bridge. Another factor for their preference is that they find SMF to be a nicer airport than OAK. It's an overall better experience from a customer service standpoint.
So what, not sure why this is even relevant? United is a complete garbage airline, I’d put it one notch above spirit and frontiers these days. And besides that, Southwest flies nonstop pretty much hourly to LAX from Oakland.
It's relevant because Sacramento has way more options to LAX than Oakland does to LAX. Southwest flys almost hourly to LAX from Sacramento as well.
United is the premier and largest airline at SFO and has the most non-stops across the world than any airline from NorCal. United is also a big player at LAX having some of the most non-stops across the world as well.
So, it is a big deal that United has several non-stops from Sacramento to two of it's largest hubs in California: LAX and SFO. And of course, United connects Sacramento NON-STOP to its largest hubs in the USA: Chicago, Houston, Denver, Newark(NYC) and Washington DC (Dulles).
Incidentally, Sacramento has Non-Stops to every major metro; every major airport; and every major hub in the USA, except for Miami International Airport (but, Southwest does go Non-Stop to Ft. Lauderdale from SMF).
Quote:
Originally Posted by TacoSoup
As for this thread, I don’t know why anyone would drive from Sacramento to San Francisco for a flight unless it was an international flight or for a family emergency. Even still, if it meant having a layover in another city I’d still opt for Sacramento.
"Even...if it meant having a layover in another city I'd still opt for Sacramento". Thank you for saying that! Believe it or not, old habits are hard to break, and I know there are still way too many Sacramentans that actually still think of SFO or even Oak first when traveling despite the success of SMF.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TacoSoup
For me, stretching my legs, using a real bathroom (I’m 6’4”), and grabbing a drink and a bite to eat (if there’s time) is a better alternative than traffic, parking, shuttles, and a more hectic airport just for a direct flight. At the end of the day your overall travel time is probably gonna be about the same, maybe less?
I totally agree, and that is why it is important that Sacramento has so many non-stops to LAX on American, Delta, and United and not just on Southwest. When flying from Sacramento it's easier to transfer on American, Delta, and United when flying on to Europe, South American and Asia from LAX. Southwest doesn't have flights to Europe, South American and Asia.
Last edited by Chimérique; 11-20-2019 at 10:51 PM..
I believe it's due to several factors as to why my relatives in Vallejo prefer SMF over OAK. First thing that comes to mind is less traffic congestion between Vallejo and SMF and not having to cross the Carquinez Bridge. Another factor for their preference is that they find SMF to be a nicer airport than OAK. It's an overall better experience from a customer service standpoint.
Cool, could be why Sacramento Airport often wins those JD Powers customer satisfaction awards. I noticed that they are now switching SMF from the Medium size Airport category to the Large Airport category when doing their surveys and making their awards.
Sacramento's first Non-Stop Direct Flights to Europe or Asia. Which city or country will come first? On which airline? Numbered from most likely to less likely. We could get Amsterdam first, and wait 5 years before we get Paris and so on, eventually we could get all on the list.
1. To Amsterdam on DELTA
2. To Paris on DELTA
3. To Iceland on ICELANDAIR
4. To London on AMERICAN
5. To Norway on NORWEGIAN Airlines
6. To Tokyo on DELTA, or JAPAN Airlines
Because United dominates SFO Internationally, and SMF is as close as it is to SFO, I don't think United will ever put a non-stop direct to Asia or Europe from SMF. DELTA WILL BE THE FIRST.
Last edited by Chimérique; 11-20-2019 at 10:47 PM..
If your destination is LA itself, especially LA proper, central LA and the westside, south central, LAX is way more convenient. And there are way way more options and airlines out of LAX than those other LA area airports.
If you actually know LA well, you know know that the best and coolest parts of LA are Central/West LA proper and South Bay cities, LAX is closest to all those areas.
But, yes, if you are within a short radius of John Wayne, or Burbank, or Ontario, or Long Beach and you are NOT going anywhere near the Westside, or Central LA, and/or you don't need to transfer to any of the other airlines besides Southwest, by all means use those airports.
And, because there are next to zero non-stop convenient international flights out of Hollywood/Burbank, Long Beach and John Wayne.
When flying to LAX from Sacramento to transfer to an International flight it's a piece of cake. There is no car traffic to deal with because you aren't driving to LAX. It sure is a lot better than actually driving to SFO or Oakland from Sacramento.
Anyone from LA or who has lived there long enough knows you take a free shuttle ride to either the Rental Car Facility, or the LA Metro stop green line, or the shuttle hotels located on Century Blvd. So that way your LA friend/relative does not have to actually drive to the terminal(s) to pick you up. And, It is going to get way way easier when LAX finishes their people mover/trains that connect all the terminals to LA's newest light rail line.
LAX is a C.F. and should be avoided unless you are traveling to/from an very adjacent area, most of which (Westchester, Inglewood, El Segundo) are not tourist destinations. Orange County has better beaches and Burbank is closer to a lot of what you would want to do in LA. If you are headed to Europe, from SMF you would likely be connecting at Chicago, Denver, or MSP. If you are headed south, maybe LAX but probably DFW or Houston is a better choice. Asia? That is where you have to decide if you want to drive to SFO but otherwise, you can connect in Seattle so that you don't have to backtrack.
LAX is a C.F. and should be avoided unless you are traveling to/from an very adjacent area, most of which (Westchester, Inglewood, El Segundo) are not tourist destinations. Orange County has better beaches and Burbank is closer to a lot of what you would want to do in LA. If you are headed to Europe, from SMF you would likely be connecting at Chicago, Denver, or MSP. If you are headed south, maybe LAX but probably DFW or Houston is a better choice. Asia? That is where you have to decide if you want to drive to SFO but otherwise, you can connect in Seattle so that you don't have to backtrack.
I disagree with you about avoiding LAX all costs, quite the contrary. I use LAX all the time and I certainly don't restrict its use just to places like Westchester, Inglewood, and El Segundo.
I would definitely use LAX if the area or areas we going are within these borders of LA: From the Coast(west) to I-5(east) including downtown LA; from the Santa Monica Mts/Hollywood Hills (north) to Century Frwy I-105(south) including South Bay Cities.
I would use Hollywood/Burbank airport if going anywhere in the San Fernando Valley and the far west of it too, including east to the Pasadena area, or going to Downtown LA. I would use Long Beach airport if going to much of the LA Basin and/or OC. I would use Ontario if going anywhere in the Inland Empire and the larger Palm Springs area.
If am going to be anywhere WEST of Downtown LA I would NOT use Ontario airport. I would NOT use Orange Cnty airport unless I was going to OC and points south of it. If my main destination is only OC Beaches and/or Disneyland, yes, John Wayne-OC airport would be my first choice, Long Beach airport 2nd choice, Ontario would be a 3rd choice, but LAX would be just as much of a 3rd choice as Ontario.
I AGREE with you: if you are headed to Europe, from Sacramento (SMF) you would likely be connecting at Chicago and MSP, but I would add Washington-Dulles, Newark, and JFK, Denver less likely.
I AGREE: If you are headed to Central and South America, maybe LAX, but yes, DFW, Houston ,and Atlanta are better choices.
Yes, if going to Asia I would consider driving to SFO, but I always check LAX as well. I would very likely NOT connect in Seattle, LAX has way more options to Asia than Seattle and it is a shorter hop to LAX than Seattle and the International terminal at LAX is way better than Seattle.
I always begin and end my journey at Sacramento's airport (SMF) and it RARELY means a connection at LAX ;however, if my final destination is the LA area, especially west and central LA area, no problem; if my final destination is NOT the LA area, but if it does involve a connection at LAX, like going to Australia or Asia, no problem.
All I am saying is I'd rather fly to LAX THAN drive to SFO. I've even taken United's hops to SFO from SMF just so I don't have to drive to SFO.
Last edited by Chimérique; 11-23-2019 at 08:59 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
