As an airport director, I spend a great deal of time working to make air travel less stressful for people.
Because — let’s be honest — there are plenty of moments in the journey that can fray nerves. Getting to the airport on time. Going through security screening. Dealing with weather delays. The list goes on.
At San Francisco International Airport (SFO), we’ve worked hard to elevate the experience. We’ve overhauled our signage and how we number gates to make finding your way easier and more intuitive. We’ve designed terminals that allow you to clearly see what lies ahead. We’ve even opened yoga rooms and launched a team of therapy animals. I firmly believe all airports should work together to make the experience easier, hassle-free and less stressful.
So when the Port of Oakland advised me about their plans to rename their airport, I was immediately concerned. I knew that, for whatever business intentions existed behind the idea, adding “San Francisco” to the name of an airport located in Oakland could only cause confusion and disservice, creating a misunderstanding of its physical location or its perceived relationship to another airport. This potential for confusion is even greater when considering the large number of international passengers served at Bay Area airports.
I’ve seen firsthand how easily this confusion can happen. Several years ago, an international, low-cost airline launched service at Oakland International Airport but marketed itself as an airline serving San Francisco. We saw several passengers for this airline arrive every day at SFO to check in for their flight, only to learn that their airline was in fact operating in Oakland. Many missed their flight as a result. For this reason, among others, this airline eventually relocated their operations to SFO.
If this can happen regularly for a single airline that isn’t clear about where it operates, imagine the impact of all flights at an airport being exposed to this level of confusion. That’s why so many airlines at SFO have voiced their own objections to this proposal. Alaska Airlines and Japan Airlines, as well as our newest domestic airline, Breeze, have expressed concerns about confusion and possible inconvenience for passengers, particularly those making connections.
I’ve also talked to my counterparts at other major airports in the United States. The concerns I have ring true in any location with duplicative naming conventions, like Washington-Dulles and Washington-National airports, who see each other’s passengers end up at the wrong airport on a daily basis.
What I’ve learned from over 30 years in this business is that the name of an airport doesn’t drive its success. It’s about the value proposition an airport makes to airlines, along with an airport’s accessibility, features, and amenities. To generate more passengers, airports need to attract and retain airlines by managing what it costs for an airline to operate there. At SFO, we closely monitor these costs, always benchmarking against comparable airports to ensure we’re competitive.
I know I’m not alone in my concerns that the proposal to rename the Oakland International Airport would only result in more confusion and inconvenience to the global travelers served by all Bay Area airports. I urge the Port to Oakland not to proceed with this renaming proposal and hope they will work to find a solution that provides clarity for the global travelers who visit the Bay Area. SFO stands ready to work collaboratively with them to do so.
Ivar C. Satero is airport director at San Francisco International Airport.