The Port of Oakland will be voting to change the name of the Oakland International Airport to The San Francisco Bay Area Oakland International Airport at the Board of Commissioners meeting on May 9th, 2024.
Here is the real reason - being hidden by the Port of Oakland - for the name change.
The Port is planning an expansion of OAK by adding a new terminal with 16 new gates, because their alleged “market based projections” claim that passenger traffic would grow by 5% per year, to more than double in the next 15 years. However, the Port's own data and reporting clearly show that passenger traffic through OAK is not only failing to grow at the rates the Port had projected, but may actually be falling. This part of the story has been overlooked by most of the media so far.!
The Port knows why this is happening: Business air travel is not rebounding post-pandemic between northern and southern CA.
An apparent massive increase in advertising by the Port, promoting OAK, is failing to change the situation.
So the name change appears to be an attempt to replace the lost business travelers by diverting travelers to OAK from SFO, essentially "stealing" the higher demand that has not otherwise materialized.
This all exposes the fallacy, in the Port's July 2023 Draft Environmental Impact Report, at the core of the Port's case for expanding OAK by adding a new terminal (an expansion proposal that is rarely mentioned in recent media reports about the name change controversy), that increased passenger traffic from "market-based demand" will necessitate the addition of the new terminal.
Here is the data:
Passenger traffic through OAK is not only failing to grow at rates the Port had projected, but may actually be falling.
Using data reported starting on this page on the Port's website, one finds data on this page that shows that passenger traffic only grew by 0.8% in CY 2023 compared to CY 2022.
This has been reported in the media. However, if one digs through the data, it shows that, so far, for FY 2024 (i.e. July 2023 through Feb. 2024), that passenger traffic actually fell by 3.9% compared to the same period one year ago (i.e. July 2022 through Feb. 2023.)
This despite the FY 2024 forecast of 4.3% growth in passenger traffic, that one can find on page 7 of this July 7, 2023 financial forecast from the Port's CFO.
2. The Port knows why this is happening: Business air travel to southern CA is not rebounding after the pandemic.
You can find here the Annual Comprehensive Financial Report from the Port's Financial Services Division.
On page 40, one finds the following statement:
“The surge in business air travel demand between major destination cities in Northern and Southern California did not materialize in the same way leisure travel demand increased post pandemic. Historically a primary driver of passenger traffic at the Airport, business travel demand within the State continues to lag behind pre-pandemic levels. This decline is attributed in part to the widespread adoption of web-based virtual meeting applications such as Zoom and Teams, coupled with the adoption of permanent or flexible work arrangements aimed at enhancing work-life balance, thereby reducing the need and frequency of travel. The trajectory of this trend, whether it will revert or persist in the foreseeable future, remains uncertain.”
3. An apparent massive increase in advertising by the Port promoting OAK is failing to change the situation
In a table on page 57 of the Port's Fiscal Year 2023-24 Budget Summary, one finds a projected increase of $679,000 (from $2,667k to $3,346k) in the budget category called "General and Administrative" between 2022-23 to 2023-24. The explanation for the increase can be found on the next page (page 58 in the report), in the explanation of the "General and Administrative" category, where it states, " FY 2024: Expenses higher by $0.7 million due to increased marketing and advertising spending."
4. This all exposes the fallacy of the Port’s claims, articulated in the Port's DEIR, and at the core of the Port's case for expanding OAK by adding a new terminal, that increased passenger traffic from "market-based demand" will necessitate the addition of a new terminal.
If you search for the word "market" in the Port's Draft Environmental Impact Report, you will find it 36 times, and the phrase "market-based demand" 19 times. The claim that "the market" will more than double the passenger traffic through OAK by 2038 is at the core of the case the Port is making, in the DEIR, for the alleged need for a new terminal.
Conclusion: The Port’s claims that"market-based demand" will drive a doubling of passenger traffic through OAK by 2038 (and therefore the need for new terminal with 16 new gates) are pure fantasy. So they want to steal passengers from SFO to make up for the failure of their “market” projections.