This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

California: San Francisco Bay Area High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as High-importance). Aviation: Airports This article is within the scope of the Aviation WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.AviationWikipedia:WikiProject AviationTemplate:WikiProject Aviationaviation articles This article has not yet been checked against the criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar and style: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following code to the template call: | b1<!--Referencing and citation--> = <yes/no> | b2<!--Coverage and accuracy   --> = <yes/no> | b3<!--Structure               --> = <yes/no> | b4<!--Grammar and style       --> = <yes/no> | b5<!--Supporting materials    --> = <yes/no> assessing the article against each criterion. This article is supported by the airport project.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[San Francisco Bay Ferry#Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry|Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry]] The anchor (#Alameda Harbor Bay Ferry) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before. Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Thanks! I've edited the article accordingly. - Walkiped 00:03, 14 November 2006 (UTC) reply

Next question: do touch-and-gos (which OAK has lots of) count as one or two movements? Tim Zukas ( talk) 22:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

According to section 1.3 (5) the WP:Airports format (Airlines and destinations), the term "destinations" includes not only "non-stop" flights, but also service that continues to another city under the same flight number and without change of aircraft. (5. List non-stop and direct flights only. That means the flight number and the aircraft, starts at this airport and continues to one or more airports. Avoid using the description 'via' since that is more correctly listed as another destination. If passengers can not disembark at a stop on a direct flight, then do not list it as a destination or as 'via'. Direct flights are not always non-stop flights. ...") Under these criteria, "Philadelphia" thus clearly qualifies as a SWA "destination" from Oakland as the airline currently operates twice daily such "direct" service between the two cities in both directions with only a single stop at Chicago-Midway from which each flight continues on to Philadelphia or Oakland with "no change in plane or flight number". (Under these criteria some other SWA cities such as Baltimore/Washington and Manchester, etc also quaiify as destinations.) The carrier has also operated this route as a non-stop service (and may very well may again in the future) on flights which I have personally flown four times, and the company also still lists Philadelphia as a non-stop destination from Oakland on the internet on its "City Fact Sheet" for the Oakland Airport" ( Centpacrr ( talk) 10:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC)). reply

That policy also states in the same paragraph "However, avoid listing direct flights that contain a stop at a domestic hub, as virtually all of these are simply flights from one "spoke city" to a hub, with the plane continuing from the hub to a second spoke city." Since MDW is an SWA hub, that would apply to these destinations. V-train ( talk) 15:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

The problem with listing "direct" flights is two-fold: One, they artificially inflate an airline's presence at a given base; especially the case with Southwest. You can probably find "direct" flights from OAK to basically every city in the WN system. The destination list would become useless. Two, these direct flights often change with the whims of schedulers; with every timetable change, we'd have to go through the schedules for every city to figure out where the flights continued on to. It's unworkable.

The exception for international direct flights was inserted because of a problem with certain flights, such as the Kangaroo Route services to Australia, that are very traditionally one-stop direct flights because the planes literally don't have the range to make it LHR-SYD without stopping.

I just checked OAG, and the WN fact sheet is out of date. There are no non-stop OAK-PHL or OAK-BWI flights currently loaded. They might be operating seasonally - if they do pop back up in the schedules come summer, we can reinsert them with the [seasonal] tag. FCYTravis ( talk) 18:22, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

SWA does not promote its these four flights as "hub and spoke" trips, but as direct service between the two cities which currently happen to include a stop in Chicago. During that brief stop (about 30 minutes) the many through passengers may remain on the aircraft and retain their seats. The trips operate with one aircraft, one flight number, and begin and terminate in the principal cities of Philadelphia and Oakland with through passengers needing to check in for the trip just once with a single boarding pass issued for the originating city of their trip. In such a case, the fact the enroute stop also happens to be a "Hub" would be all but irrelevant to through passengers. In addition SWA has operated this route as a non-stop trip (which I haver personally taken four times) and could well do so again. ( Centpacrr ( talk) 18:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)) reply

Yes, they have operated it non-stop in the past. If they do so again, it'll be listed as a non-stop destination again - perhaps with the [seasonal] tagline to indicate that they're only operating it during certain parts of the year.

If we listed every city that WN serves via one-stop flights from a given station, you might as well just list every WN city at every WN station. FCYTravis ( talk) 19:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

Suggestion (probably should make this at WP:Airport): What about "downgrading" the disqualifying factor for SWA from "hubs" to "focus cities"? This would probably eliminate a lot of SWA's cities, and preserve some genuine "stops". HkCaGu ( talk) 19:24, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

What's a WN "focus city?" There is no objective criteria for that, because Southwest does not distinguish between its stations in any official manner. The airline does not have an official set of "hubs" and "focus cities." FCYTravis ( talk) 19:55, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

SWA doesn't refer to these cities as "Hubs" anyways. The airline has said it "does not operate hubs." And regards to that link, WN has not update their website because if you go on the TUS page, the recent addition of nonstop service to OAK has not been added to the destinations, so they have not updated the OAK page for the recent discontinuation of service to PHL. Sox 23 22:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

Yes, I agree. The airport has played a major role for Oakland's transportation for so long now. I find it disturbing that a negative incident being too wordy, diverts one's attention from the overall article. Dlikuski ( talk) 10:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

"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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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

The introduction dubiously says that OAK is the closest airport geographically and via BART to the San Francisco financial district. While the geographic claim is literally true, this traces a line across the Bay and the actual path through roads or BART appears to be 5 miles longer. The BART claim is also dubious because while the trip on BART from the Coliseum/Oakland Airport station to the Financial District is shorter than the trip from the SFO station, this does not account for the time it takes to get to the BART station from the airport and OAK is considerably farther away from its BART station than SFO is.

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Oakland International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{ cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{ nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} 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.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{ source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. — ^{cyberbot II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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: "Nonstop Destinations". flyontario.com. Retrieved March 28, 2019.
• From List of JetBlue destinations: "Destinations". JetBlue. Retrieved 5 December 2020.

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply

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) reply