Is it a good idea to be headquartered in San Francisco? That's halfway between EVERYWHERE, and the vast uninhabited expanse of the Pacific. Most airlines have hubs inland.
(Maybe I'm just bitter because I'll probably never take a Virgin flight due to their route layout. Also I hate SFO.)
I like the ground experience at SFO (it, along with PDX, has my favorite food), but I hate the runways, specifically the two parallel runways which get converted by daily fog into one runway for most of the morning. Which causes predictable many-hour delays.
OAK and SJC are far more reliable, although far less pleasant as airports.
I find SJC quite nice when it's convenient to my destination. I suppose it's not nearly as luxurious-feeling, but it's so much more relaxed. I went through OAK just once, and was surprised how much of a dump it was. Reminded me of Midway before it was renovated/rebuilt. But I'd still choose it over SFO.
OAK will be a lot better once the airport connector (to BART) opens in 2014, I think. That will lure a lot more ex-SF traffic, which will probably cause the traffic to increase, which will improve retail, which might cause the terminal itself to be improved.
There are already some great direct flights out of OAK -- Alaska and Hawaiian direct flights to Honolulu and the Neighbor Islands, etc.
(Maybe I'm just bitter because I'll probably never take a Virgin flight due to their route layout. Also I hate SFO.)