AAL151Heavy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 75 posts, RR: 5 Posted (6 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4292 times:
An Air Canada 767-200 (flight AC 757) came into SJC late this morning and left about 3 hours later to its final destination of SFO. Anyone knows what happened?
RP TPA From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 829 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (6 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 4258 times:
It was due to "extensive ATC holds" at SFO. Arrived SJC 1203, departed 1346 and arrived SFO 1410.
Apparently there were low ceilings at SFO. The morning YVR-SFO flt (AC560) was delayed 1hr30, but that was mostly due to a late departure from YVR, awaiting a "wheels up" slot time. At least it wasnt stacked up like the YYZ arrival.
Stealth777 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 359 posts, RR: 0 Reply 2, posted (6 years 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 4138 times:
I was at the SJSU campus and my classmates and I was very surprised when we saw this bird come in. After it landed it was parked over by FedEx area. I am surpised to see the schdule from AC that they have the one 767 flight but the remaining flights appear to be 319 aircrafts. Seems they have limited seats for the route to YYZ from SFO. I remember they used to to have a 767 as one flight and the other flights were 320's.
YYZ-SFO
Flight Aircraft Departure Arrival Travel Time Stops Via
AC 5659 319 07:25 09:46 5 hr 21 mn 0
* AC5659 OPERATED BY/EXPLOITE PAR/UA-UNITED AIRLINES
AC 757 767 08:50 11:15 5 hr 25 mn 0
AC 755 319 15:40 18:05 5 hr 25 mn 0
AC 759 319 20:45 23:10 5 hr 25 mn 0
SFO-YYZ
Flight Aircraft Departure Arrival Travel Time Stops Via
AC 758 319 07:00 14:50 4 hr 50 mn 0
AC 5660 319 10:45 18:32 4 hr 47 mn 0
* AC5660 OPERATED BY/EXPLOITE PAR/UA-UNITED AIRLINES
AC 756 767 12:35 20:25 4 hr 50 mn 0
AC 754 319 22:25 06:13 +1 4 hr 48 mn 0
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, RR: 59 Reply 3, posted (6 years 3 weeks 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3846 times:
AC has added the 762 back to some YYZ-SFO/LAX skeds recently, for the initial morning flights out of YYZ. Likely for connecting UA flights to Asia. I have not looked forward enough in the schedules to see how long this will last.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
FLYACYYZ From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 1914 posts, RR: 12 Reply 5, posted (6 years 3 weeks 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 3621 times:
Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 3): AC has added the 762 back to some YYZ-SFO/LAX skeds recently, for the initial morning flights out of YYZ. Likely for connecting UA flights to Asia. I have not looked forward enough in the schedules to see how long this will last.
767's operate the YYZ/SFO run until May 31st inclusive on AC757/756
767's will operate the YYZ/LAX run from July 1st - September 2nd on AC791/792.
Mainly 762's with the occasional 763 on both of the above services.
Stealth777 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 359 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (6 years 3 weeks 2 days 11 hours ago) and read 3425 times:
I find it strange that they would use a 767 on the SFO until May31, as the summer season kicks off after June 10th when they would want the increrase in capacity. The timing for LAX is ideal, the SFO does not.
FLYACYYZ From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 1914 posts, RR: 12 Reply 8, posted (6 years 3 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 3309 times:
I suspect that the 767 is a substitution aircraft while several narrow bodies are undergoing "XM" refurbishment.
Quoting Stealth777 (Reply 6): I find it strange that they would use a 767 on the SFO until May31, as the summer season kicks off after June 10th when they would want the increrase in capacity. The timing for LAX is ideal, the SFO does not.
There is a substantial capacity increase on the YYZ > SFO route during the summer schedule. There is an upgauge from 3 to 5 daily flights offering at least 200 extra daily seats on the route.
Gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2884 posts, RR: 1 Reply 9, posted (6 years 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3217 times:
Quoting N53614 (Reply 7): Damn, too bad I missed it! Didn't even know Air Canada flew B767s to SFO...all I see are A319s/A320s.
I was on AC756 yesterday (Thursday) and the flight was 100% full in Economy and First. It was operated by a 762 and was a very nice ride!
There were many unhappy passengers, as at boarding their was not enough space for roll-ons on and were making people leave them at the boading gate to go into the hold. The poor cabin crew got a right roasting from some passengers... Those overhead lockers on the 767-200's they operate are simply not big enough with todays hand baggage requirements.
ATCGOD From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 658 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (6 years 3 weeks 2 days ago) and read 3189 times:
Quoting RP TPA (Reply 1): It was due to "extensive ATC holds" at SFO. Arrived SJC 1203, departed 1346 and arrived SFO 1410.
Apparently there were low ceilings at SFO. The morning YVR-SFO flt (AC560) was delayed 1hr30, but that was mostly due to a late departure from YVR, awaiting a "wheels up" slot time. At least it wasnt stacked up like the YYZ arrival.
Sounds like someone in flow control screwed up. That's a big error on someone in Oakland ARTCC's fault.
Yyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, RR: 59 Reply 11, posted (6 years 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3120 times:
Quoting FLYACYYZ (Reply 5): 767's operate the YYZ/SFO run until May 31st inclusive on AC757/756
767's will operate the YYZ/LAX run from July 1st - September 2nd on AC791/792.
Mainly 762's with the occasional 763 on both of the above services.
Thanks for the clarification Rod.
Quoting AA61Hvy (Reply 4): AC flies a lot of the same routes from YYZ as UA does from LAX. (Asia specifically)
You are correct Ryan. However, AC is currently running tight on wide-bodies (at least according to on-going discussions on this board) so they are ill-prepped to add more Asia flights. Perhaps the rationale is too feed the excess to their Star Alliance partner UA. The daily morning YYZ-SFO 762 is an upgrade from the 321, and flies (almost) parallel with a UA 319 on the same route, so the demand is there for Star Alliance YYZ-SFO. If UA cannot afford a spare 752 for this route, AC perhaps could respond with the 762.
Quoting Gilesdavies (Reply 9): The poor cabin crew got a right roasting from some passengers...
People need to travel lighter.
Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
LongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4281 posts, RR: 36 Reply 12, posted (6 years 3 weeks 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 3109 times:
Quoting ATCGOD (Reply 10): Sounds like someone in flow control screwed up. That's a big error on someone in Oakland ARTCC's fault.
In my opinion, SFO is like PHX and LAS, in that they handle an incredible about of traffic when Visual approaches are warranted .... but .... slow down to a snail's pace when put in minimum IFR conditions. Not much any one can do when the weather decides to throw a monkey-wrench into things.
I have come close to diverting from SFO many times when this happens. Its a shame when it finally does happen!
Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
Timeair From Canada, joined May 2005, 436 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (6 years 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2917 times:
Quoting Gilesdavies (Reply 9): There were many unhappy passengers, as at boarding their was not enough space for roll-ons on and were making people leave them at the boading gate to go into the hold. The poor cabin crew got a right roasting from some passengers... Those overhead lockers on the 767-200's they operate are simply not big enough with todays hand baggage requirements.
Well, too bad for the passenger! There is way too much crap people feel is essential to take on an aircraft, and if the person travelling originated in another country, or with another carrier, one would think they would have checked on what the carry on restrictions are for each carrier they are scheduled to travel, and planned accordingly. I get sick of seeing some of the crap people try to take onboard an aircraft, saying "it is very essential".
Pack a change of clothes, a toothbrush and buy the rest at the other end!!!!!!!!
If you can't grasp the reality of there is limited space in an aircraft, and the carrier is looking out after "your" safety, please, please next time take a bus and save the rest of us the headache of hearing you whine and snivel as they place your article in the bulk pit below !! (not directed at Gilesdavies directly)
Hawaiian717 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3092 posts, RR: 8 Reply 14, posted (6 years 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2858 times:
Quoting LongHauler (Reply 12): In my opinion, SFO is like PHX and LAS, in that they handle an incredible about of traffic when Visual approaches are warranted .... but .... slow down to a snail's pace when put in minimum IFR conditions.
SFO's parallel runways are too close together. In visual conditions they can do simultaneous approaches to both runways; typically, 28L/R for arrivals and a few heavy departures, with most departures on the intersecting parallels 1L/R. However, when the weather gets bad (which isn't all that common with San Francisco's reputation for fog), only one of the pair can be used, and as a result the airport's runway capacity is cut in half.
Gilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2884 posts, RR: 1 Reply 19, posted (6 years 3 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 2650 times:
Quoting Chris133 (Reply 18): Or people justtry to bring to much stuff and are not curtious to their fellow passengers (i.e putting a jacket or briefcase in the overhead bins)
Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 11): People need to travel lighter. Smile
It was just a flipant comment I put into my original thread, which I had noticed about the 767 when flying between SFO-YYZ-LHR... I did NOT have a roll-on with me...
As I had travelled from the UK originally, there was simply no way I was aloud to take that hand baggage with me into the cabin. All I had was a laptop, travel documents and MP3 player.
Chris133 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (6 years 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2597 times:
Quoting Gilesdavies (Reply 19):
It was just a flipant comment I put into my original thread, which I had noticed about the 767 when flying between SFO-YYZ-LHR... I did NOT have a roll-on with me...
Oh its ok nothing wrong with carrying a bag on, as long as you are mindfull of others and put the smaller one under the seat and don't put things like jackets and small bags in the bins untill the roller bag are in there. People just don't seem to get it that there is space on-top of them in the end (but thats a different thread)
AS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 5821 posts, RR: 23 Reply 21, posted (6 years 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2578 times:
Actually guys the reason for the 767 for one month is cargo. In particular its cherry season. The asian carriers also increase flights for this time. Iv'e personally seen China Airlines Cargo 747's loaded with half the cargo being cherries.
ASSFO
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
FLYACYYZ From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 1914 posts, RR: 12 Reply 22, posted (6 years 3 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 2533 times:
Quoting Gilesdavies (Reply 19): It was just a flipant comment I put into my original thread, which I had noticed about the 767 when flying between SFO-YYZ-LHR... I did NOT have a roll-on with me...
Even with the original style bins, baggage stowage is not usually an issue on the 767's.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 75 posts, 
From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 15990 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 2884 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
