Talk:San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport

message: The proper name of KOAK is "Metropolitan Oakland International Airport".
I would propose we move this page to "Metropolitan Oakland International Airport" and redirect "Oakland International Airport" there (currently the opposite is true). ChadScott 05:10, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The airport's official web site does not use "Metropolitan" in any context. It is referred to as Oakland International Airport in the page title, press releases, and "Contact Us". The same is true for the airport's owner/operator, the Port of Oakland. What is the source of your assertion? MCB 05:25, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The FAA calls it "Metropolitan Oakland International Airport", all instrument approaches into the field are titled "Metropolitan Oakland International Airport", and the airport diagram is titled "Metropolitan Oakland International Airport."  I'm not sure which name we prefer using: the proper marketing name from the operator or the proper registered name with the FAA.  Is there any precedent? ChadScott 05:31, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes. Wikipedia naming conventions prefer using the "what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize" and that "names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors; and for a general audience over specialists." So I'd say it should probably stay as is. MCB 05:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just looked at several other airport pages (okay, three) and there seems to be a precedent to use the FAA name and have a redirection for various other common names.  An example of this is Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport, which is the proper FAA name, but is more commonly referred to as Reagan National or Ronald Reagan National Airport, both of which redirect to the proper name.  I guess it's just splitting hairs, but as a pilot I'm always hearing/reading "Metropolitan Oakland International Airport" (even the ATIS says this, typically).  As I write this, my wife chimes in with: "I think the new welcome signs out front even say this." ChadScott 05:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't want to beat this dead horse too much longer, but I just called up KOAK ATIS (510-635-5850) and it began, "Oakland International Airport information Echo, 1453 Zulu..." And all the new signage I'm aware of uses the new "OaklandInternational" (no space, "Airport" omitted) logo that's on the web site. But really, for Wikipedia purposes I think we should stick with what's used by the public, airlines, the airport, etc., rather than what's used by the FAA and (the comparatively small number of) pilots. MCB 15:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The ATIS is literally typed in by a controller every hour, so it varies based upon who's typing (it has even said "Oakland Raider Nation International Airport").  The ASOS says "Metropolitan Oakland International Airport" as I recall, at the start of each reading.  I can't comment on the signs as I've only seen them once (I'm usually going in the back way).  Anyway, I'll leave the horse alone for now, even though it's backwards to have the article title be the "common" name and have an "also known as" the proper name in there. ChadScott 19:15, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Metropolitan Oakland International Airport" 

message: The article's third paragraph currently contains this sentence: In 2004, OAK had 339,163 aircraft movements, and was the 30th busiest airport in the United States. What is meant by "aircraft movements"?  Does that mean take-offs and landings, or does it include other types of "movements"?  Perhaps someone with subject matter knowledge could make the sentence clearer. - Walkiped 04:01, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An "aircraft movement" is defined as a takeoff or landing.  This means a transient aircraft would count as two "movements": one for the arrival and one for the subsequent takeoff at a later time. -- ChadScott 16:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! I've edited the article accordingly. - Walkiped 00:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: What are "aircraft movements"?

message: Please stop adding this and derivatives of this to the incidents section.  First, the fuel load between Sacramento and San Diego would not require fuel dumping on any aircraft and, second, the 737 has no fuel dumping capability.  Third, the aircraft did not land heavy as it was already under maximum landing weight. -- ChadScott 18:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aircraft landed "heavy" without dumping fuel 

message: Before we get into a reverting war here, I just wanted to justify my removal of JetBlue as a "heavy user" of the airport with some statistics.
Presuming JetBlue has 15 scheduled flights daily (unverified), it's less than 10% of the total (the FAA estimates 439 commercial movements daily, 15 flights at two movements each is 30, or 7%).  Southwest, on the other hand, has at least 27% (60 flights daily [I got tired of counting... it looks more like 100 - 150], equaling 120 movements, or 27%).
The only heavy volume user of the commercial airfield is Southwest.
ChadScott 02:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With new flights that are just starting Southwest has 147 daily flights. You can see this on the news section of the airports website. JetBlue has only 10% of what Southwest has. Tuyvan 15:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reference.  I started by counting the flights on SWA's schedule until I realized I was counting several twice.  Then I went through scheduled SWA departures for OAK and got to 60 and quit. :) -- ChadScott 02:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  JetBlue "heavy" presence 

message: While Volaris is a major addition for OAK, I would like to emphasize the following, in connection with the previous discussion topic: this airline is currently scheduled to fly non-stop to only 3 destinations.  As for all of the others that were added to the table, they are _not_ nonstop, requiring a connection via Tijuana.  Today, for the second time now, over the last small number of weeks, I have had to delete them.  This time however, not to ignore them as destinations, I moved such info to the 'upcoming service' section, while adding a link to the main website's home page.  There, for the last few days anyway, has been a map and mention of the destinations.  Thank you for understanding, and I hope that helps.  Dlikuski (talk) 10:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Volaris destinations: non-stop vs connection-required

message: The "Military Aircraft Mistake" section is a bit heavy as per WP:DUE, relative to the other sections of the article, and relative to it's brief and thin coverage in the news media. I'm inclined to pare it back a bit to something a bit more concise.  Please provide feedback or edit as appropriate. CriticalChris 10:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Weight of "Military Aircraft Mistake" section

message: Hello.  I found it to be best to move the most recently-added OAC information to the transportation section, as opposed to having it in the history section.  It seems more fitting in 'transportation', as it is a future project relating to such; that, as opposed to being a part of the airport's history.  This also helps mesh the end of the history section (lost service) with the following section: 'added service, 2009 and beyond'.
On a related note, to clarify that OAC isn't part of _current_ transportation, I put the word "future"(:) ahead of it, as part of the sub-header for that section.  I also removed the old OAC info from years ago that some of us contributed to; it seems to be summarized better in the new material along with the links.
As controversial as the OAC project has been over the last year or so, it is fitting for this article.  If anyone feels however, that it should have its own article, please mention so.Min1Phoeb2 (talk) 07:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Oakland Airport Connector (OAC)

message: I suggest that a photo showing the carriers largely represented at OAK, be the first one.  In the current one, a Continental plane shows, and that airline is long gone from the airport.  The large Delta plane also shown, is only used one or two flights daily.  Does anyone have a pic taken of the control tower from the other side of terminal 1 (near T-2)?  That way, airlines such as Alaska, Horizon, and Southwest can all possibly be shown instead...similar to the photo further down in the article.  Also, the weather conditions shown in the current picture (background of the control tower) make it seems as if there is a major haze/smog problem.
Just some thoughts.Dlikuski (talk) 09:30, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory Photo

message: "The 16-gate facility featured the airport's first jetways."
I deleted that sentence, which gives the impression the terminal had jetways in 1962. When did it actually get them-- early 1980s? Tim Zukas (talk) 22:43, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Pardon the late response here.  Early '80's sounds a bit late (to recent), but I can try to find out from someone who I think may know.  Thank you for bringing it up in discussion.Min1Phoeb2 (talk) 11:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, OAK had no jetways in 1962; it would be nice to know when they got their first ones. They certainly weren't all-jetway until after 1980-- I've got pics of passengers walking across the ramp to the steps to a PSA MD80. (Also, the 1962 terminal didn't start with 16 gates-- no way they needed that many for the flights they had then.) Tim Zukas (talk) 21:28, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jetways at OAK 

message: I just uploaded :File:Aerial view of Oakland International Airport.jpg (right), taken recently. Feel free to use if useful. Dcoetzee 19:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent!  I saw that.  Also, Flickr and the OAK Facebook page are good places to find archives of old photos.  There was an aerial one on FB of T1 from 1970, before the top concourse was built.  Maybe we should include that one.Min1Phoeb2 (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New aerial photo 

message: No big deal here, yet is it necessary to include the link for each new April Allegiant route in the table?  Is having one enough, considering all of the listed dates are the same or one apart?  Also, should we drop the 2012 listings for all upcoming service, if by default, new service happens this year if no listing?  Thanks all for considering, and happy editing. Min1Phoeb2 (talk) 06:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated Allegiant links in table 

message: Please modify transatlantic map so that OAK-TER is also drawn, thanks. Ssredg (talk) 22:11, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: OAK-TER on SATA

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Oakland International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120627082841/http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2012/03/united-airlines-oakland/654490/1?csp=34travel to http://travel.usatoday.com/flights/post/2012/03/united-airlines-oakland/654490/1?csp=34travel
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Does anyone else feel that this section should be completely removed, considering that much of the content of additions still existing at OAK are also found in the 'Airlines & Destinations' (A&D) table? I created this section years ago when it was preceded by alot of the cuts that the airport suffered during the "Great Recession" years (i.e. the liquidation of ATA, and pullouts of airlines). However, now that OAK is thriving quite well, perhaps we can consolidate all of the additions into a small paragraph noting the recovery, with a reference to the A&D table.  Thoughts?
MinPhoeb1 (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  "2009--Present": becoming too long and somewhat redundant == 

message: American Airlines plans to suspend service to Dallas/Fort Worth come this Friday (July 5th, 2019). I've already edited the listing, but since American has stated its intention to resume the route at some point later this year if possible I think it would be better to list the destination as suspended rather than removing it entirely when the day comes. Viero223 (talk) 17:29, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did this a short while ago with a separate "header" for Southwest following that of seasonal routes, since more than one route has been suspended so far (2) and 2 more will be, effective August 5th: MSP & SAT. The link is provided. PhoebeMin1 (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  American Airlines OAK-DFW flight suspension 

message: I realize that this came up as a sub-topic over a decade ago, yet just a courtesy reminder to those editing in the lead, to please refrain from listing OAK as a hub for SWA; the correct term is focus city. The airline flies on a point-to-point system as opposed to hub-and-spoke, hence the reasoning for this. Theoretically, the airport is also an operating base and [crew] domicile for the airline, yet that would have complicated matters in the lead so I just kept it listed as focus city along with Allegiant. OAK is only currently a hub, cargo-wise, for Fed-Ex Express, so that is properly listed. Thank you, and please provide any further feedback if need be. PhoebeMin1 (talk) 04:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  focus city for Southwest Airlines, not hub 

message: Good morning, OAK-editors.  Based on the SWA schedule extension through mid-April, resuming dates for IND, MSP and SAT have now been added, although the former is only seasonal during the early-winter (holiday season); the latter two continue up through the schedule extension. I also had to move a few routes to/from the seasonal section based on the SWA flight-booking section of their website, after going through it day-by-day.
PhoebeMin1 (talk) 11:19, 9 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  suspended SWA routes: resume-dates now posted 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Oakland International Airport's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Destinations":
From Ontario International Airport: 
From List of JetBlue destinations: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:11, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Oakland International Airport]] 

message: At the time of writing the name of this article is San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport but that is only a proposed name. It hasn't actually been renamed yet.
"Port spokesperson Robert Bernardo said the name change must go through a second reading among the commissioners for it to be officially implemented."
https://sfstandard.com/2024/04/11/oakland-airport-san-francisco-international-name-change/
"Oakland International Airport"
https://www.oaklandairport.com/ David G (talk) 02:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The airport hasn't been renamed yet 

message: There has been some news coverage lately of how Oakland is often confused with Auckland and that is one of the reasons for the proposed name change: 
https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/port-oakland-approve-airport-change-sf-bay-area-19398706.php
https://www.nzherald.co.nz/travel/airport-name-change-to-end-confusion-with-auckland-but-san-francisco-isnt-happy/WWNYBLT6HZH63J4VEKN7AIHGVM/
At some point, someone needs to add this information to the article. I am too busy right now. Coolcaesar (talk) 06:21, 23 April 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it really that much of an issue? I haven't seen many articles from independent (not the airport) sources saying this mistake is common. The NZ Herald article only mentions once instance in 1985. I don't know if it's notable enough for inclusion. Far more people mistake San Jose, California for San Jose, Costa Rica, and vice versa, than do Oakland and Auckland, and neither SJC or SJO is planning to change their names.Mirza Ahmed (talk) 02:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Auckland confusion issue