Why San Jose Intl would be considered?

knockon · 23-03-2013 10:05am #1

Why would EI consider SJC? 45 miles outside SFO and poor onward connectivity. What's the usual business/leisure breakdown on a 330-200 when they were on the SFO route?

dm09 · 23-03-2013 10:16am

knockon wrote: »

Why would EI consider SJC? 45 miles outside SFO and poor onward connectivity. What's the usual business/leisure breakdown on a 330-200 when they were on the SFO route?

Hey Op. Do you have a source for this?

knockon · 23-03-2013 10:20am

RTE news on Thursday. SJC is an option due to its location relative to Silicon Valley. It was on the -pm news and morning Ireland

Sorry - I should be more specific. Aer Lingus are not quoted as considering SJC but Business interests were quoted. I suppose the wider question I should have asked is where would Aer Lingus choose and why?

Plowman · 23-03-2013 10:56am

This post has been deleted.

knockon · 23-03-2013 11:05am

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You would think so. Isn't it as important to have onward connectivity to places such as other West Coast destinations in US and Canada on onwards internationally to places like NZ?

Plowman · 23-03-2013 11:15am

This post has been deleted.

knockon · 23-03-2013 11:25am

I used it several times to LAX and other occasions to connect to HNL and YVR. Loads were high and freight was selling at 110% i.e. the could'nt keep up with the demand even in winder when it when to 2-3 flights a week. But someone pointed out recently here that the crewing and fuel costs were crippling and he route could not be completed in a 24 hour rotation which played havoc with scheduling (don't know much abut that one).

L1011 · 23-03-2013 11:29am

A new East Coast route would probably rely on a number of multinationals agreeing to a minimum purchase of business class capacity for a period, and if they've requested SJC en masse, that'd heavily swing the decision.

bk · 23-03-2013 11:48am

MYOB wrote: »

A new East Coast route would probably rely on a number of multinationals agreeing to a minimum purchase of business class capacity for a period, and if they've requested SJC en masse, that'd heavily swing the decision.

Google, Oracle, Facebook, Apple, etc. all very close to SJC.

I can imagine Google being a major driver of these, their operations here are really massive at this stage.

donvito99 · 23-03-2013 1:31pm

We discussed this a while back when there were rumours of a West Coast route (which was pushed back).

If I recall correctly, they said that it would be SFO and not SJC, if at all.

basill · 23-03-2013 3:44pm

CEO confirmed this week at an internal business briefing that west coast next year.

IRLConor · 23-03-2013 4:24pm

duck_77 · 23-03-2013 8:32pm

To be honest, if you want to build beyond just business, SJC is too far south for the Bay Area at large. If you are going to Marin County it is a long way away.

Plus BART goes straight to SFO, Caltrain is a short hop away which can get you to San Jose.

As well as that, the code share/connections in SFO will be much stronger which will encourage more than just O&D traffic which would not sustain the route.

Del2005 · 23-03-2013 10:51pm

IRLConor wrote: »

Going to San Jose would kill a chunk of the leisure side of the business. The difference in travel time between SFO/SJC and most of the big tech companies is not that big either, though San Jose would be more convenient for a lot of them. (Times are from Google Maps)

Company|Time to SFO|Time to SJC|Winner
Apple|33 mins|16 mins|SJC by 17 mins
Ebay & Paypal|34 mins|4 mins|SJC by 30 mins
EMC|32 mins|9 mins|SJC by 23 mins
Facebook|28 mins|21 mins|SJC by 7 mins
Google|24 mins|14 mins|SJC by 10 mins
HP|28 mins|21 mins|SJC by 7 mins
Intel|31 mins|7 mins|SJC by 24 mins
Oracle|14 mins|27 mins|SFO by 13 mins
Salesforce.com|21 mins|51 mins|SFO by 30 mins
Symantec|27 mins|10 mins|SJC by 17 mins
Xilinx|39 mins|16 mins|SJC by 23 mins
Yahoo!|31 mins|13 mins|SJC by 18 mins

The most important statistic though is:

Number of people in their right minds who would fly to SJC for leisure: 0

How many people fly across an ocean and a continent to go straight to work? If it was a 4 or 5 hour flight people may go directly to work but 10+ hours I doubt many would.

IRLConor · 24-03-2013 12:28am

Del2005 wrote: »

How many people fly across an ocean and a continent to go straight to work? If it was a 4 or 5 hour flight people may go directly to work but 10+ hours I doubt many would.

I've done it. It sucks, but sometimes you gotta do it. The routes I've been travelling more recently get me into SFO after the end of the work day but I've worked the day I've come back to DUB a few times (have to stay up anyway to kill the jetlag, may as well get some use out of the time).

Whether you go straight to work or not is moot though, since you normally stay somewhere pretty close to where you work. In that case the distance from the airport to the office is going to be pretty similar to the distance from the airport to your hotel.

bk · 24-03-2013 9:56am

Del2005 wrote: »

How many people fly across an ocean and a continent to go straight to work? If it was a 4 or 5 hour flight people may go directly to work but 10+ hours I doubt many would.

Been there, done that, far too frequently!!

I agree that SFO is a better location in general, I could only see them consider SJC if landing chargers were far lower plus a big payout by one of the tech companies.

It is about time that we have a direct SFO/SJC route back. I was always surprised that the Irish government didn't subsidise one, given the vast importance of the IT industry in Ireland.

basill · 24-03-2013 11:22am

Happens all the time. Particularly with nice comfy seats up front and the ability to rest. Also with wireless onboard many folk are expected to be working away and responding to emails. That's why people get paid the big bucks.

Marcusm · 24-03-2013 6:23pm

Del2005 wrote: »

How many people fly across an ocean and a continent to go straight to work? If it was a 4 or 5 hour flight people may go directly to work but 10+ hours I doubt many would.

Lots of people, ESP on routes back from Asia. I've had a monthly week trip to HK for 3-5 years involving landing at 530am and off to the office (returning Friday mornings generally). The outbound could often be leaving LHR noon Sunday arriving HK at 7am Monday. So a 12hr trip and straight to the office both ends.

seanmacc · 25-03-2013 3:40pm

IRLConor wrote: »

The most important statistic though is:

Number of people in their right minds who would fly to SJC for leisure: 0

Don't know about that. There are a good few decent connecting flights out of SJC. If the price was any way good I'd fly to PDX that way.

http://www.flysanjose.com/fl/travelers.php?page=airlines_flights/airlines&exp=0

It's only a short hop from LA and United fly there out of SJC and which EI codeshare with.

IRLConor · 25-03-2013 3:45pm

seanmacc wrote: »

Don't know about that. There are a good few decent connecting flights out of SJC. If the price was any way good I'd fly to PDX that way.

If you're going to go EI-UA to PDX it's probably quicker to go via ORD. That's how I went in January and it wasn't bad even considering that ORD is a dump.

seanmacc · 25-03-2013 3:53pm

IRLConor wrote: »

If you're going to go EI-UA to PDX it's probably quicker to go via ORD. That's how I went in January and it wasn't bad even considering that ORD is a dump.

The problem is always the United flights from ORD, I detest their planes and the terminal changing. I connected with Aerlingus through SFO a couple of times and it was fantastic. One thing I have to hand it to Aerlingus is that their longhaul experience is great even if its a bit expensive from time to time.

Since they stopped the SFO route we've being flying KLM to PDX through Amsterdam.

MICKEYG · 25-03-2013 10:04pm

seanmacc wrote: »

The problem is always the United flights from ORD, I detest their planes and the terminal changing. I connected with Aerlingus through SFO a couple of times and it was fantastic. One thing I have to hand it to Aerlingus is that their longhaul experience is great even if its a bit expensive from time to time.

Since they stopped the SFO route we've being flying KLM to PDX through Amsterdam.

Any reason why EI don't use the united terminal in ORD. It would make connection in both directions a whole lot easier. Maybe it is gate space but even an airside bus connection to meet the incoming flight from DUB/SNN would make a huge difference.
I see they are doing it now in JFK with Jet Blue. Any chance this will happen in Boston?

donvito99 · 25-03-2013 10:05pm

MICKEYG wrote: »

Any reason why EI don't use the united terminal in ORD. It would make connection in both directions a whole lot easier. Maybe it is gate space but even an airside bus connection to meet the incoming flight from DUB/SNN would make a huge difference.
I see they are doing it now in JFK with Jet Blue. Any chance this will happen in Boston?

I think it's a case of some flights not clearing at DUB. I may be wrong.

Jamie2k9 · 26-03-2013 6:26pm

donvito99 wrote: »

I think it's a case of some flights not clearing at DUB. I may be wrong.

Nothing to do with flights not clearing at DUB, all do.

Tenger · 26-03-2013 8:38pm

MICKEYG wrote: »

Any reason why EI don't use the united terminal in ORD. It would make connection in both directions a whole lot easier. Maybe it is gate space but even an airside bus connection to meet the incoming flight from DUB/SNN would make a huge difference.
I see they are doing it now in JFK with Jet Blue. Any chance this will happen in Boston?

Lots of things involved in moving terminals. -UA may have not space avail at that time, -UA may not want to dilute their presence by admitting other airlines, -EI may have a lease on facilities in their current terminal, -Perhps ORD prefer to have all 'foreign' airlines in 1 terminal

Why San Jose Intl would be considered?

Comments