Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Air Canada 767-200 At SJC Today - What Happened?  
User currently offlineAAL151Heavy From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 99 posts, RR: 4
Posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6468 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

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?

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/ACA757

Interesting thing was all the flight trackers (including AC's own website) showed "arrived" at SFO at 11 am when in fact it was at SJC.

Friend working at the airport said it went to the cargo ramp - it didn't even go to a gate.

Ben

22 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineRP TPA From United States of America, joined Oct 1999, 852 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 14 hours ago) and read 6434 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.

Must have been a fun mornng for United!!!  sarcastic 


User currently offlineStealth777 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 372 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 6314 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


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 3, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 6022 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.
User currently offlineAA61Hvy From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 13977 posts, RR: 57
Reply 4, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 5856 times:

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 3):
Likely for connecting UA flights to Asia

AC flies a lot of the same routes from YYZ as UA does from LAX. (Asia specifically)



Go big or go home
User currently offlineFLYACYYZ From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 1914 posts, RR: 12
Reply 5, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 5797 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.



Above and Beyond
User currently offlineStealth777 From United States of America, joined Feb 2006, 372 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 5601 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.

User currently offlineN53614 From United States of America, joined May 2007, 247 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5505 times:

Damn, too bad I missed it! Didn't even know Air Canada flew B767s to SFO...all I see are A319s/A320s.


B722 B732 B733 B734 B735 B73G B738 B739 B742 B752 B772 A320 A319 CRJ2 DHC8 E135 E140 E145
User currently offlineFLYACYYZ From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 1914 posts, RR: 12
Reply 8, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 5485 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.



Above and Beyond
User currently offlineGilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3013 posts, RR: 2
Reply 9, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5393 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.

Sorry, didn't get the number...


User currently offlineATCGOD From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 10, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 5365 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.


User currently offlineYyz717 From Canada, joined Sep 2001, 16248 posts, RR: 56
Reply 11, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5296 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.  Smile



Panam, TWA, Ansett, Eastern.......AC next? Might be good for Canada.
User currently offlineLongHauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4927 posts, RR: 43
Reply 12, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 5285 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
User currently offlineTimeair From Canada, joined May 2005, 436 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5093 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)



You can't get there from here.
User currently offlineHawaiian717 From United States of America, joined May 1999, 3192 posts, RR: 7
Reply 14, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 5034 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.


User currently offlineTropicBird From United States of America, joined May 2005, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 15, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 4928 times:

For those interested. AC has also been overnighting an EMB 190 in SFO.

User currently offlineATCGOD From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 661 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (7 years 3 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4904 times:

Quoting LongHauler (Reply 12):
Not much any one can do when the weather decides to throw a monkey-wrench into things.

That's what flow control's job is, to keep airliners on the ground so congestion doesn't happen at airports during bad weather.


User currently offlineBmacleod From Canada, joined Aug 2001, 2259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4846 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.

Frequency seems to be the reason AC switched to 319/320s on YYZ-SFO and YYZ-LAX. Nice to see the 767 coming back to SFO after 15 years.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Mark Durbin




The engine is the heart of an airplane, but the pilot is its soul.
User currently offlineChris133 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4839 times:

Quoting Gilesdavies (Reply 9):
Those overhead lockers on the 767-200's they operate are simply not big enough with todays hand baggage requirements.

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)


User currently offlineGilesdavies From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2003, 3013 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 4826 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.


User currently offlineChris133 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 303 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4773 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)


User currently offlineAS739X From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6124 posts, RR: 23
Reply 21, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4754 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!"
User currently offlineFLYACYYZ From Canada, joined Jan 2004, 1914 posts, RR: 12
Reply 22, posted (7 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4709 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.

There must have been a big sale at Macy's.  dollarsign   dollarsign   dollarsign 



Above and Beyond
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Air Canada 767-200 Routes. posted Sat May 27 2006 20:38:08 by Bmacleod
Air Canada A340-500 At Heathrow Today posted Wed Sep 7 2005 09:27:15 by HARLEYF150
AA 767-200 At DFW Today In 2005 posted Tue May 17 2005 06:53:12 by American 767
Air France A-330-200 At SFO Today posted Mon Jan 10 2005 23:34:10 by Leamside
Air Canada's 767-200 (-ER) posted Thu Nov 25 2004 06:18:32 by David T
Air Canada 767-200 Escorted Into YVR posted Wed Apr 28 2004 03:23:28 by CanadaEH
Air Luxor A330-200 At PVD Today (July 18) -- Why? posted Sat Jul 19 2003 01:46:34 by USAIRWAYS321
Air Canada B-767-200/300's. Stay Or Go? posted Tue Aug 27 2002 18:25:24 by Canadi>nBoy
CO 767-200 At PHX Today posted Thu Mar 1 2001 03:20:39 by Jmc1975
Air Canada 767 At MCI? posted Mon Mar 6 2006 21:38:25 by Blhp68