Why do you still use sfo or oak airports? (San Jose: hotel, transfer to)

[Nn2036]

Let look at some of the fare right now:


SFO :I can fly to Paris in March to May period for $688 (A few weeks ago, I found flights for $500)). I can even fly for $448 if I want a low cost carrier (Wow)

SMF: $939-$1282 with 2 stops. Cheapest 1 stop is $1182-$1373

Tell me ,which airport should I flying to?

[savoytruffle]

I like SMF a lot, except the one time we had to wait in a customs line for 2 hours coming back from Mexico because there was only one passport agent serving a flight of 100+ people (mostly Mexicans). Other than that my experiences have been good and the airport is big, clean and nice, and security has always been fast for me.

But I agree with everyone who says flying SFO internationally is easier. For example, I am flying to London Heathrow this fall and tickets from SFO to Heathrow nonstop were $350 per person cheaper than SMF to Dallas or wherever, then to Heathrow. So of course I am going to take the SFO deal. We can take Amtrak's Capital Corridor to BART to get there and not have to worry about parking for 2 weeks (which would indeed erase the cost savings). And actually my concern would more be with a potential Capital Corridor or BART delay than any delay at SFO.

I admire the OP for being so pro-Sacramento because I like it here too, but acting like some tourism bureau representative when it comes to SMF is silly. I don't know anyone who'd fly out of San Jose or Oakland than SMF, anyway. The prices are the same or SMF is cheaper. However, SFO being a massive international hub makes it a better option most of the time when flying to the major airports in Europe.

[savoytruffle]

Originally Posted by Nn2036

Let look at some of the fare right now:


SFO :I can fly to Paris in March to May period for $688 (A few weeks ago, I found flights for $500)). I can even fly for $448 if I want a low cost carrier (Wow)

SMF: $939-$1282 with 2 stops. Cheapest 1 stop is $1182-$1373

Tell me ,which airport should I flying to?

Yes I have seen similar deals from SFO to Heathrow in September on a weekday, prices like $590 per person on Virgin versus $870 at the very cheapest from SMF that include one stop.

So actually that's more like a savings of $250 vs $350 that I said before, but for two people it comes out to be $500 more, and that is significant.

[Nn2036]

Originally Posted by savoytruffle

I like SMF a lot, except the one time we had to wait in a customs line for 2 hours coming back from Mexico because there was only one passport agent serving a flight of 100+ people (mostly Mexicans). Other than that my experiences have been good and the airport is big, clean and nice, and security has always been fast for me.

But I agree with everyone who says flying SFO internationally is easier. For example, I am flying to London Heathrow this fall and tickets from SFO to Heathrow nonstop were $350 per person cheaper than SMF to Dallas or wherever, then to Heathrow. So of course I am going to take the SFO deal. We can take Amtrak's Capital Corridor to BART to get there and not have to worry about parking for 2 weeks (which would indeed erase the cost savings). And actually my concern would more be with a potential Capital Corridor or BART delay than any delay at SFO.

I admire the OP for being so pro-Sacramento because I like it here too, but acting like some tourism bureau representative when it comes to SMF is silly. I don't know anyone who'd fly out of San Jose or Oakland than SMF, anyway. The prices are the same or SMF is cheaper. However, SFO being a massive international hub makes it a better option most of the time when flying to the major airports in Europe.

You also have nonstop flights from San Jose to London, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Beijing and Shanghai. Prices can be similar to SFO.

[savoytruffle]

Originally Posted by Nn2036

You also have nonstop flights from San Jose to London, Frankfurt, Tokyo, Beijing and Shanghai. Prices can be similar to SFO.

Huh. Usually when I look up San Jose it's always more expensive than SFO. I know we flew out of SFO to get to Kona and had a stop, whereas flying out of San Jose would have been direct. But since BART does not yet go to San Jose, you'd have to look into other public transit in order not to have to park there.

[tstieber]

Some of these flight savings for international flights are indeed much cheaper at SFO. Everyone has a price, and if it's a BIG savings, then it may be worth the commute. For a couple hundred bucks on a long distance flight, probably not. For $400 or $500, probably yes. For a short regional flight, I don't think anyone would bother going to OAK or SFO bc the savings would be negligible, if any, and the travel would cost more than the savings. It's a case-by-case situation.

[JohnS_15]

And if you are say... a family of 4 traveling then any savings on flights you multiply by 4. So yeah if you are saving $150 a ticket by flying out of SFO versus SMF then suddenly you are saving $600. Which makes the pain of the journey down there more worth it.

[Nn2036]

Originally Posted by savoytruffle

Huh. Usually when I look up San Jose it's always more expensive than SFO. I know we flew out of SFO to get to Kona and had a stop, whereas flying out of San Jose would have been direct. But since BART does not yet go to San Jose, you'd have to look into other public transit in order not to have to park there.

There is some occasionally good deal from San Jose.

I can find nonstop flights to London in March, April and May from SJC for $600 on British Airways. $626 in August and September.

You can get $440 from Norwegian flying out of Oakland but adding the fees, the fare is probably similar.

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

I assume you mean Non-Stop, (direct flights can actually stop somewhere before going on to the final destination). You must have bad luck because its always worked out fine for us. WE Never EVER needed to rent a car because we made ONE connection.

I don't depend on luck when I fly international, I rely upon common sense and a nonstop flight is far more likely to get me to my destination on time. Sorry but that trumps any loyalty that I might feel toward a particular airport and always will.

[04kL4nD]

Yeah. I mean you don't get anything like status or miles just being blindly devoted to a particular airport like you can when you stick to an airline.

I've said it before, but I HATE flying out of SFO for a variety of reasons, so I always look for flights out of Oakland first since it's 10 mins from my place. But if it comes down to a direct flight out of SFO, versus a flight out of OAK with a short layover, I think about how much time I'll save first, versus a savings of $50 or whatever may be the case.

It's nice to have so many options, honestly. One of the fringe benefits of living in the Bay Area is that compared to lots of other places, you have lots of different ways to travel domestically and internationally for relatively cheap if you know what you're doing.