I agree with you, Bill. Virgin is going to be might disappointed in using SFO. The airport is quite often fogged in and delays are the norm, not the exception. Additionally, the city of San Francisco has screwed the taxpayers (again) by giving away landing and money. David R > I don't quite agree with this guy: there's enough business east of > the bay to support traffic at OAK, and UA probably has more to fear > from a Virgin America than do HP or B6. > > --- In BATN@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "6/15 San Mateo Journal" <batn@xxxx> > wrote: > Published Tuesday, June 15, 2004, in the San Mateo Daily Journal > > Comment > > The party is over for Oakland and San Jose > > By Stanford M. Horn > > Virgin Airways' selection of San Francisco International Airport as > its operational headquarters was hot news to SFO. But it had to be > like an ice-cold splash in the face of two airlines and two airports. > Because now the party's over. > > Southwest and JetBlue airlines and the Oakland and San Jose airports > they serve had gotten fatter than they had ever dreamed of because of > an anomaly that is now about to be shattered. These two airlines cut > fares, and the relatively smaller airports promoted themselves well. > During the same period, no other airlines at SFO countered the > competition and the giant-sized SFO didn't to promote itself and > defend its turf. Consequently, passengers began to move away from SFO > to Oakland and San Jose. SFO's loss was enormous. Passenger traffic > at SFO dropped from 41 million to 29 million. Meanwhile, Oakland's > traffic went up because of those willing to put up with some > inconvenience to save big dollars. > > For several years, the Oakland airport, Southwest and JetBlue enjoyed > the ride, setting records and no doubt wondering why their > competitors across the San Francisco Bay didn't wake up and take > steps to stem the tide. > > Now Virgin has. Before Virgin, six other low-fare carriers -- Air > Tran, America West, American Trans Air, Frontier, Midwest Express and > Ted -- chose to land at SFO and the number of passengers started > rising for the first time since early 2001. > > Here is the new business paradigm. It's never been any secret that > more than half of the passengers who go to Oakland really don't want > to go to Oakland. They're only flying JetBlue or Southwest because > they're a lot cheaper. Now, Virgin will step in and meet those fares > and compete on many of the best routes. It will heavily promote its > service and cheeky personality. This will result in JetBlue and > Southwest losing passengers to Virgin and SFO. In this situation what > will JetBlue and Southwest do? Will they keep their satisfied > customers and the Bay Area market share by following them back to SFO? > > Low-fare carriers have often invaded the turf of "legacy" > carriers ... and won. Never before, though, has a low-fare carrier > invaded the turf of other low-fare carriers to the extent that Virgin > will here. The good news for millions of Bay Area travelers and > visitors seems to be not-so-good for Oakland and San Jose airports > and their two-star carriers. > > Their party is over. > > > Stanford M. Horn writes on Bay Area transportation and development > issues. He is a resident of Millbrae. > > > [BATN: See also > > Give-aways, real estate lured Virgin discount carrier to SFO > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN/message/18683 > > Airline workers await Virgin's landing > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN/message/18651 > > Virgin lands at SFO > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN/message/18648 > > Give-aways, schmooze land Virgin at SFO > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN/message/18645 > > Virgin discount air carrier to be based at SFO > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/BATN/message/18620 ] > --- End forwarded message ---