|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Oakland port officials last week gave preliminary approval to change the name of the city’s airport to “San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport” despite San Francisco threatening a lawsuit over the issue.
By unanimous vote on April 11, the Board of Commissioners for the Port of Oakland approved the official new name, while keeping the airport’s identifier as “OAK,” and scheduled a final hearing for May 9.
The proposal — first made public on March 29 — so infuriated San Francisco officials that City Attorney David Chiu sent a demand letter to the commission threatening legal action if Oakland adopted the proposal.
Chiu’s letter said that changing the name of Oakland International Airport would cause massive confusion for travelers, especially international travelers who might not be familiar with local geography and find themselves in the wrong place. Moreover, San Francisco holds federally registered trademarks on its airport — San Francisco International Airport — and its airport identifier, SFO.
Chiu said that a lawsuit would include claims for infringement on, and dilution of, the federally registered marks.
Some 25 speakers spoke at the commission meeting, roughly equally divided between enthusiastic support for the proposal and sharp opposition. The pro-speakers emphasized the positive business and economic development aspects of the proposal. Those against focused on the potential for confusion and a worry that Oakland’s identity was being diminished.
Cestra Butner, a former member of the commission, appeared representing the Oakland Branch of the NAACP. He expressed concern about the lack of community engagement over the name change as well as the potential “loss of identity of Oakland and its rich civil rights history.”
Butner added, “While some officials may see the renaming as a simple rebranding effort, we view it as a reflection of ongoing gentrification in Oakland.”
The NAACP’s written statement said “The concerns raised by residents about the erasure of Oakland’s history and identity are valid and indicate the need for a more thoughtful approach to renaming such a significant landmark.”
Prior to voting, the commissioners made statements in which they said they thought the name change was pro-Oakland and would help grow passengers and routes at the airport.
Following the vote, Chiu said “we are disappointed that Oakland did not take the opportunity to work collaboratively with us to develop alternative names and to avoid litigation.”
Diversion of passengers from SFO
In his demand letter, Chiu said that it appeared Oakland “chose to include the term ‘San Francisco’ in its new name to intentionally divert travelers who may be unfamiliar with the relevant geography and lead them to believe that the Oakland International Airport is located in San Francisco or has a business relationship with SFO, which it does not.”
Materials presented to the commissioners at last week’s meeting suggest that Chiu’s charge has some basis in fact.
The “Agenda Report” presented to the commissioners by Craig Simon, Interim Director of Aviation, said the Oakland airport has a problem. Despite a decade of aggressively pursuing a number of strategies to develop its air services, the results have only been “mixed.”
Simon said, “Since 2008, 54 new routes have been added, but 39 of these have been discontinued. In addition, six pre-existing routes have also been lost. The airline industry is perceived as being reluctant to sustain certain new routes and destinations to and from OAK, in large part based on the lack of awareness of OAK’s geographic advantages…”
Simon thinks that the airport has a lot of positives to sell including “aeronautical reliability, proximity to most of the region’s employers and population base, and OAK’s comparatively lower landing fees relative to other airports in the region.”
The problem, according to Simon, is that “the further away travelers are from the San Francisco Bay Area region, the less familiar they are with OAK’s geographic location and convenience of access to destinations throughout all Northern California.”
This has resulted in “inbound travelers not choosing OAK even though their travel destinations are closest to OAK.”
The solution, to Simon, was obvious: “Incorporating “San Francisco Bay” in a name that also maintains the name “Oakland” will, over time, increase the visibility of OAK flights when “San Francisco Bay Area” or similar terms are used in consumer online searches, aiding in the overall retention of flights and destinations.”
The approach seems consistent with a January airport press release that stated, “The vision of Oakland International Airport is to be the airport of choice for San Francisco Bay Area residents and visitors alike.”
It is hard to see how Oakland could achieve this goal without diverting traffic from SFO.
Oakland is not the first area airport to try to use the San Francisco brand. According to multiple media reports, in October 2017 the city of Stockton proposed to change its airport’s name from Stockton Metropolitan Airport to San Francisco-Stockton Regional Airport. The proposal was withdrawn after SFO’s objection.
Laying the groundwork
According to Doug Yakel, spokesperson for the SFO, San Francisco was not advised of Oakland’s plan until March 29, the same day as it was publicly announced. (A port spokesperson said it is a “Port-specific initiative” that “does not involve SFO.”)
However, the idea for the name change was not a spur of the moment suggestion. At the hearing, Simon said the proposal has been “studied for a number of years.”
The materials presented to the commission show that OAK has been actively rounding up support for the plan.
Written statements of support came from Southwest Airlines, Spirit Airlines and Volaris, three air carriers that fly out of Oakland. Each had a representative call into the meeting to emphasize the importance of the name change. Southwest is by far the dominant carrier at OAK with 1376 average weekly flights out of 2524 total among all 83 airlines that fly there.
Others expressing support include Oakland’s Mayor, Sheng Thao, Councilmember Treva Reid, as well as a panoply of leaders of East Bay tourism, economic development and pro-business groups. They all argued that increased air traffic to and from Oakland will provide economic benefits throughout the East Bay.
The airport commissioned the polling firm FM3 Research with offices in Oakland and Los Angeles who produced a report that said it had “done extensive research and interviewed airline executives to determine why OAK has not been able to sustain many of the new routes that have been launched over the last 15 years.”
After passenger surveys and conversations with airline executives, the answer emerged: “lack of geographic awareness is a significant reason for these challenges.”
The survey found “overwhelming support for airport’s efforts to attract new travel destinations, create and sustain local jobs, and increase the economic vitality of Oakland, the East Bay, and greater Bay Area.”
According to FM3, “local voters … are comfortable with a name change as part of efforts to achieve that goal.”
Local voters who expressed being ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ comfortable with the name change apparently included Oakland voters (55%) and East Bay voters (51%), but not voters from San Francisco or the peninsula who were not polled.
The percentage of local voters who said they were comfortable rose after they were told that a new name would help attract more passengers and add more flights. (Oakland 66%; East Bay 68%)
A spokesperson for San Jose Mineta International Airport (airport identifier SJC) offered a political perspective on Oakland’s renaming: “We are aware of Oakland’s intention to rename itself. Going through a rebranding ourselves in January 2023, we know that a decision like this is based on thorough research. We wish Oakland Airport the best.”
The statement continued, “The Bay Area is a vibrant and diverse region and each of the three airports serving it has a unique role in supporting the travel needs of our communities and visitors.”
It closed with a plug for itself, stating, “SJC is the Bay Area’s easiest and most dependable Airport.”
A storied history
The airport in Oakland has a long history. The original operation was built in 1927 and is still used for cargo and general aviation. Commercial passenger services opened in 1962.
When the first runway was built, it was the longest in the world, according to the airport’s website. Amelia Earhart took off from the airport in 1937 on her doomed attempt to fly around the world.
The airport sits on 2300 acres of land in Alameda County, approximately 6.5 miles to the southeast of downtown Oakland.
According to Google maps, the Oakland airport is 19.4 miles from San Francisco City Hall (with a one-way toll over the bridge). SFO is 12.8. SJC is 55.2.
At 3 p.m. on April 10, Google Maps predicted the drive time from city hall would be 46 minutes to Oakland compared to 21 minutes to SFO and 75 minutes to SJC.
The Oakland airport is in the process of planning major renovations that would create new and modernized terminal facilities that could accommodate greater passenger demand.
The project and its potential impacts are described in a monumental draft environmental impact report released to the public in July 2023. The report was open for public comments through October 16, 2023.
According to the report, the existing facilities include 29 passenger gates in two terminals and were built to accommodate 8-10 million annual passengers.
The report says that the airport “served 13 million passengers in 2019. This means that the existing terminal facilities… do not meet industry standard levels of service.”
The report anticipates annual passenger enplanements of 17.6 million in 2028 and 24.7 million in 2038.
Notwithstanding the predictions in the draft EIR, current statistics on the airport’s website suggest that Oakland has had trouble growing its traffic coming out of the pandemic. Its 11 million total passengers in 2023 were almost 2 million less than it served in 2019. Monthly commercial flights in March 2024 were 9,790 compared to 10,000 in 2023 and 10,200 in 2022.
Environmental review of the modernization proposal is proceeding. The airport website reports that the port is reviewing public comments and preparing responses. The port anticipates a final EIR in the summer of 2024.
Interestingly, the 524-page draft report does not appear to mention the idea of changing the airport’s name.
Two speakers, both attorneys, said the name change needed to be reviewed under CEQA, the California statute that requires environmental review for government projects. The attorneys argued that the name change should be incorporated with the pending EIR. Neither overtly threatened suit but they warned that proceeding without environmental review would violate the law.
Simon’s report estimates the cost of the name change for Oakland would only be $150,000. However, following the meeting, Danny Wan, Executive Director of the commission, said the $150,000 does not include the cost of legal proceedings.
One thing seems certain. In the event of a full-scale intellectual property litigation battle with San Francisco and a possible fight over CEQA, that money will be eaten up quickly.
The commission said that before the final hearing on approval it would expect to talk to stakeholders and interested parties who it has not yet heard from and take their views into account before the vote.