Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
FAA Looks To Make SFO Slot Restricted  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25148 posts, RR: 46
Posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 12384 times:

The FAA announced its designation of San Francisco International Airport (SFO) as a Level-2 airport under slot guidelines effective for the IATA Summer 2012 (Mar 25 – Oct 27, 2012) scheduling period.

The FAA has determined this designation is necessary based on runway capacity, existing congestion and delays.

FAA will require carriers to submit schedule information for all planned operations between 0600-2259 Pacific time.

Under Level-2, it has been identified that there exist significant potential for congestion during some periods of the day, weeks or season which will see FAA review cumulative intended flight schedules to discuss operational implications and propose schedule changes with air-carriers.

The FAA however expects Level-2 review alone may not reduce existing congestion and delays which may lead to need for full Level-3 slot coordination, and will as such review the Level-2 designation in advance of each IATA scheduling season.

FAA Notice 4910-13


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
40 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineapodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4263 posts, RR: 6
Reply 1, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 12321 times:

Well, OAK and SJC are still in the bay area that could siphon off traffic that can't serve SFO.

If this happens, it will put VX in a very difficult spot. VX wants to grow, and had most of their eggs in the SFO basket. I don't know how many A320's they are taking delivery of in the near future, but they are going to have to start a lot of new service in a hurry if they are to be granted and who knows if they have the resources for this.

UA is also going to be hurt by this, because with this coming from the federal Gov't, there exists the desire to balance slots among all carriers for competition.

Very interesting to see how this plays out.


User currently offlineDCA-ROCguy From United States of America, joined Apr 2000, 4499 posts, RR: 33
Reply 2, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12245 times:

Wasn't there controversy around 2000 when the Federal government wanted to implement some sort of slot control plan at SFO? According to Aviation Week, the Feds singled out UA and their use of multiple EMB-120's to CA feeder markets as a problem, and suggested UA use fewer, bigger CRJ's instead. UA insisted that the multiple frequencies were needed for "competitive" reasons (read: congest SFO so badly that other carriers won't want to compete with them) and said the gov't couldn't interfere with their business plan.

Then 9/11 happened, and congestion at SFO eased some, so Federal interest waned. Interesting that SFO has recovered enough that congestion is that big an issue again.

Jim



Need a new airline paint scheme? Better call Saul! (Bass that is)
User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5411 posts, RR: 12
Reply 3, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12148 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 1):
it will put VX in a very difficult spot. VX wants to grow, and had most of their eggs in the SFO basket.

Their other basket of course is LAX but you're right that SFO certainly could be a real issue for Virgin... I for one will be very curious to see how -- and what -- the carrier does if Level 2 or 3 happens at SFO!

bb


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7886 posts, RR: 52
Reply 4, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12146 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 1):
UA is also going to be hurt by this, because with this coming from the federal Gov't, there exists the desire to balance slots among all carriers for competition.

My thoughts too, just how big can a carrier get at a slot controlled airport before the DOT intervenes? UA's SFO is a pretty nicely size operation...



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offlinen515cr From United States of America, joined Oct 2007, 394 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12051 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 1):
I don't know how many A320's they are taking delivery of in the near future, but they are going to have to start a lot of new service in a hurry if they are to be granted and who knows if they have the resources for this.

According to this, they ordered 60 320s (30 'classics' and 30 NEOs): http://www.virginamerica.com/press-r...rms-Order-for-60-New-Aircraft.html


User currently offlineScottB From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 6751 posts, RR: 32
Reply 6, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 12054 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
The FAA however expects Level-2 review alone may not reduce existing congestion and delays which may lead to need for full Level-3 slot coordination, and will as such review the Level-2 designation in advance of each IATA scheduling season.

It will be interesting to see if we see UA, VX, or WN start to throw additional capacity into SFO in order to receive grandfathered slots in advance of full slot corrdination.


User currently offlineB6JFKH81 From United States of America, joined Mar 2006, 2882 posts, RR: 7
Reply 7, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 11966 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 1):
Well, OAK and SJC are still in the bay area that could siphon off traffic that can't serve SFO.

I am thinking that is one of the reasons SFO is having these issues (just my opinion). OAK had a little boom of LCC traffic for a while and it seems that once VX started in SFO people weren't as willing to cross the bridge like they were before and the LCCs moved their focus for the bay-area over to SFO. OAK's pax numbers have dropped to the levels of over a decade ago as airlines battle it out in SFO now.

From OAK's website http://www.flyoakland.com/airport_stats_yearend_stats.shtml this graph speaks volumes to me:

http://www.flyoakland.com/images/interior/airport_stats_passenger_11.gif



"If you do not learn from history, you are doomed to repeat it"
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25148 posts, RR: 46
Reply 8, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 11919 times:

Don't think this will have much effect on VX initially as the FAA order even states that the Department believes there is ample available capacity at SFO during slower periods to accommodate more operations.

SFO has pronounceable scheduling peaks (such as the noon Asia rush) much due to United and its hub operation. VX still has large chunks of the day to work with and build its network.

As far as the idea that other carrier bulk up fast at SFO, another underlying issue is gates. The airport is pretty tight on gate space, so its not going to be easy for anyone else to develop much of a large operation from scratch.


At the end of the day however SFO simply sucks operationally. Having hourly airport rate of between 30-48 movements is a definitive handicap for all involved.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineRoseFlyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9607 posts, RR: 52
Reply 9, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 11833 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 1):

UA is also going to be hurt by this, because with this coming from the federal Gov't, there exists the desire to balance slots among all carriers for competition.

UA's arrival banks are what causes the problem. When dual approaches can be made at SFO (Ceilings above 4,000ft), everything is fine. When not, the flow control goes into effect. It is extraordinarily predictable however. I commuted SEA-SFO and it was really easy to know if the flight would depart on time or with a 1hr 10min delay due to flow control. Implementing slots would make it so that there is not the disparity, however it would essentially treat SFO as an airport with 3 instead of 4 runways.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 8):


Don't think this will have much effect on VX initially as the FAA order even states that the Department believes there is ample available capacity at SFO during slower periods to accommodate more operations.

Only during the arrival banks is there a problem. UA's 10am, 1pm, and 4pm banks are where there are problems. Outside of those, the flow control isn't that bad. Since VX does not focus on connecting traffic, I would not expect them to have much trouble.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7138 posts, RR: 13
Reply 10, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 11690 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 1):
If this happens, it will put VX in a very difficult spot. VX wants to grow, and had most of their eggs in the SFO basket.

I would assume that VX will get the State of California behind them as this will limit jobs from all these VX planes that will need to go elsewhere.

Is SFO really in more need of this than BOS and PHL???

[Edited 2011-10-13 11:04:20]

User currently onlineas739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6124 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 11562 times:

I am curious to know if UA saw this coming. They have been doing some fitting at gate 89 with the 777 to see if it can be accommodated. With slot control in effect you will obviously need to add larger aircraft.

VX with their current schedule has a lot of growth room gate wise before they run into any snags, as they have some times of the day when only 1 or 2 gates are occupied. As they add more short haul West Coast flights mid-afternoon there will be the gate space.

DL is another carrier who has started a noticeable presence here with all the RJ flying to LAX. That would be an easy fix throwing a few 737's back on the route. But then again back to the complaining of not being competitive on the frequency side.

On top of what hurts SFO is that once we are running behind from that morning rush starting at 9am, if the weather persist there is no time for schedules to recover.

Personally over slot control, I like the idea of incentives if you cancel or pre-cancel flights with known weather systems coming in. Just last week SkyWest precancelled 27 flights, which should be rewarded. How I don't know. Mind you this was just a thought on my part.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 8):

I think you nailed it. Slot control during the obvious peeks that screw up the whole day. Example; 0900-1300 and 1930-2130



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineenilria From Canada, joined Feb 2008, 7138 posts, RR: 13
Reply 12, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 11461 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 10):
Quoting apodino (Reply 1):
If this happens, it will put VX in a very difficult spot. VX wants to grow, and had most of their eggs in the SFO basket.
I would assume that VX will get the State of California behind them as this will limit jobs from all these VX planes that will need to go elsewhere.
Is SFO really in more need of this than BOS and PHL???
Quoting as739x (Reply 11):
VX with their current schedule has a lot of growth room gate wise before they run into any snags, as they have some times of the day when only 1 or 2 gates are occupied. As they add more short haul West Coast flights mid-afternoon there will be the gate space.

What follows would require a lot of money, BUT if this really happens and VX really wants SFO growth then they have two options. Begin a lot of short-haul flying with mainline to eat up slots and slowly transition it to long-haul over time as they get more airplanes...or contract with somebody like OO to waste a bunch of slots on junk until VX needs them for something important.


User currently onlineas739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6124 posts, RR: 23
Reply 13, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 11337 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 12):

Let's not jump the gun. At no point does the FAA statement above say what the restrictions will be. If there is a slot number published and VX does this, what makes UA/DL not do the same thing? Then SFO is in a world or hurt.

What the FAA is asking for is published schedules for now, that's how I read it.

If the airlines flood SFO with flights, your going to have your hands full with your schedule updates  



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlineFATFlyer From United States of America, joined May 2001, 5801 posts, RR: 15
Reply 14, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11104 times:

Quoting DCA-ROCguy (Reply 2):
Wasn't there controversy around 2000 when the Federal government wanted to implement some sort of slot control plan at SFO? According to Aviation Week, the Feds singled out UA and their use of multiple EMB-120's to CA feeder markets as a problem, and suggested UA use fewer, bigger CRJ's instead. UA insisted that the multiple frequencies were needed for "competitive" reasons (read: congest SFO so badly that other carriers won't want to compete with them) and said the gov't couldn't interfere with their business plan.

Back in 1999 SFO administration (not the Federal Govt) was talking about trying to make airlines use larger aircraft to cut the number of flights and reduce delays.

From 1999:
SFO May Force Airlines to Use Bigger Planes - Director sees it as one way to cut delays
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl....cgi?f=/c/a/1999/02/04/MN37917.DTL

S.F. International Gets Plan For Bigger Jets, Fewer Flights
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl....cgi?f=/c/a/1999/02/17/MN49020.DTL

The attempt followed then-Mayor Willie Brown's rant about the "Those itty-bitty panty-waist planes that they use between here and Los Angeles " in reference to the United Shuttle 737s.



"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness." - Mark Twain
User currently offlinecatiii From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 3029 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 11046 times:

Quoting apodino (Reply 1):
UA is also going to be hurt by this, because with this coming from the federal Gov't, there exists the desire to balance slots among all carriers for competition.
Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 4):
My thoughts too, just how big can a carrier get at a slot controlled airport before the DOT intervenes? UA's SFO is a pretty nicely size operation...

Apparently pretty big. I believe DL now controls almost half the slots at LGA following this week's slot swap approval.


User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5411 posts, RR: 12
Reply 16, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 10649 times:

Quoting enilria (Reply 10):
I would assume that VX will get the State of California behind them as this will limit jobs from all these VX planes that will need to go elsewhere

Yeah, or perhaps VX could (finally) look at some other airports in the Golden State besides SF and LA...   

bb


User currently onlinelightsaber From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 13012 posts, RR: 100
Reply 17, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 10291 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Instead of expansion...

Quoting B6JFKH81 (Reply 7):
it seems that once VX started in SFO people weren't as willing to cross the bridge like they were before and the LCCs moved their focus for the bay-area over to SFO.

I suspect that VX drew attention to SFO. WN crossing the bridge didn't hurt either...

Quoting SANFan (Reply 16):
Yeah, or perhaps VX could (finally) look at some other airports in the Golden State besides SF and LA...

There are other airports?   

Lightsaber



Societies that achieve a critical mass of ideas achieve self sustaining growth; others stagnate.
User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5935 posts, RR: 9
Reply 18, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 10190 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 17):
Quoting SANFan (Reply 16):
Yeah, or perhaps VX could (finally) look at some other airports in the Golden State besides SF and LA...

There are other airports?   

Indeed there are and VX tried one of them not to long ago IIRC (SNA) and it didn't turn out so well for them.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineSANFan From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 5411 posts, RR: 12
Reply 19, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 hour ago) and read 9854 times:

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 17):
There are other airports?

I'm pretty sure if you ask Mr. Cush, you would get a blank stare, a pause, then a "no, not that I'm aware of".

bb


User currently offlinebriguy1974 From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 133 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (2 years 10 months 3 weeks ago) and read 9245 times:

Why not build the 3rd parallel runway to the 28's in the bay and do a crazy thing. Solve the GDP problem at SFO, create jobs. Put people to work. If I was a politician in the bay area I would be all over this. The plans are already there. The enviromental impact studies have already been done. The president himself has talked about infrastructure in this country. Lets stop talking and get to work.

User currently offlineUnited1 From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 5935 posts, RR: 9
Reply 21, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 9053 times:

Quoting briguy1974 (Reply 20):
Lets stop talking and get to work.

I agree however the Bay is plagued by Marin housewives and Berkleites who will never allow anything to be done at SFO that would remove even a cubic foot of water from the bay.



Semper Fi - PowerPoint makes us stupid.
User currently offlineRayChuang From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 8003 posts, RR: 5
Reply 22, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 8811 times:

This type of slot restriction will do two things, in my humble opinion:

1. We could see larger planes used by regional carriers like United Express out of SFO.

2. It could mean UA/CO may have to seriously consider rebuilding and refurbishing a lot more 757-200's than anticipated, since slot restrictions means UA/CO will have to use larger planes to maintain seat capacity in and out of the airport.


User currently offlinen471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1531 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 8389 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting briguy1974 (Reply 20):
Why not build the 3rd parallel runway to the 28's in the bay and do a crazy thing. Solve the GDP problem at SFO, create jobs. Put people to work. If I was a politician in the bay area I would be all over this. The plans are already there. The enviromental impact studies have already been done. The president himself has talked about infrastructure in this country. Lets stop talking and get to work.

Yes and right on!! Of course that is the answer as nothing needs more of an infastructure now than SFO and the window to do it is now.....we need a new runway configuaration and with the need for jobs this is the time to do it----perhaps the environmental whacko's will shut up long enough to get this done!!


User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2619 posts, RR: 9
Reply 24, posted (2 years 10 months 2 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 7089 times:

Quoting n471wn (Reply 23):
Yes and right on!! Of course that is the answer as nothing needs more of an infastructure now than SFO and the window to do it is now.....we need a new runway configuaration and with the need for jobs this is the time to do it----perhaps the environmental whacko's will shut up long enough to get this done!!

Don't expect the whackos to change their tune. There are a lot of bridges that Obama talks about being functionally or structurally insufficient when they really have just too much traffic than the bridge was designed to handle. The biggest obstacle to building bridges and airports is the environmental concerns, many pushed by environmental whackos..


25 fcogafa : SFO gets a significant amount of business aviation traffic so that would be high up the list for curtailment, as at other large airports.
26 Post contains images LAXintl : In a worst case of a SFO slot lockdown they can still grow LAX significantly. They have plenty of gates, and no slot or ATC restrictions to work arou
27 goldenstate : I know this will not be a popular view here, but given that human beings have already reduced the size of San Francisco Bay by a third over the last
28 as739x : SFO will be fine under UA's long term plan.
29 Jacobin777 : A third runway however would take up very little area and it is something which would be beneficial to all of the people who live in Bay Area.
30 United1 : I don't disagree that the bay is something absolutely beautiful and needs to be protected but I don't see the harm in removing both sets of runways a
31 LAXintl : Its not hard to envisage at all. Fast forward. Its 2017. United 744 fleet has continued to shrink and are on the way out, it has 50 787s on property
32 n471wn : A poor analogy and you know it but I live in Danville and there is no airport here. Where you live, you knew SFO was there first and you still electe
33 Cubsrule : It's already true to a large extent. From SFO, UA flies to PEK, KIX, ICN, PVG, SYD and NRT. PEK has service to ORD, IAD and EWR PVG has service to OR
34 RWA380 : I agree that if UAX cut frequencies and added CRJ's to EMB routes and/or some destinations could even support a 737 mainline UA. EUG, MFR, RDM, BOI, S
35 point2point : Here are the FAA numbers for General Aviation in the 2010 calendar year for the top 20 airports by total traffic movement: 1 ATL ……. 7,269 2 ORD
36 slcdeltarumd11 : I wonder if this will put a priority on VX to add more SFO ideal times over LAX to grab more slots in the future?
37 Post contains links LAXintl : From an article looks like VX welcomes the FAA getting involved. ..when contacted, the carrier responded with the following statement: %u201CThis will
38 Post contains links psa188 : At the risk of stating the obvious, as SFO congestion comes back to pre-9/11 levels, operational realities will force airlines to start looking at OAK
39 FlyPNS1 : Maybe, but historically that is easier said than done. JFK/LGA/EWR have been a congested mess for many years now, but carriers are not exactly beatin
40 psa188 : I'm not expecting a "stampede" of carriers/flights to OAK or SJC, but common sense tells us that if SFO becomes increasingly congested, nearby airpor
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...
United Looks To Further Defer SFO-CAN Start Up posted Wed Mar 25 2009 08:06:52 by LAXintl
New Airline Looks To Use C-Series LCY-NYC posted Mon Dec 19 2011 11:08:54 by multimark
CWA Looks To Unionize 9,700 AA Employees posted Wed Dec 7 2011 14:49:15 by LAXintl
LAS Vegas Looks To Be A Gateway To Asia posted Thu Nov 24 2011 21:37:52 by murchmo
DL Expands @ JFK, DL Ups LAX To 8 Daily, SFO To 6 posted Mon Nov 14 2011 06:44:17 by g500
CO To Make Aviation History! posted Sat Nov 5 2011 08:42:35 by tpaewr
Congress Looks To Limit Helicopter Usage Over LA posted Fri Oct 28 2011 19:07:39 by LAXintl
AA To Close SFO Pilot Base posted Thu Oct 13 2011 09:12:52 by CODC10
Alitalia Resume Tripoli, Looks To Add Benghazi posted Sun Oct 2 2011 12:16:53 by LIPZ
QF Plans To Make Biofuel posted Tue Jan 4 2011 08:55:10 by trent1000