Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
SFO To Close Runway 28L June 1-4  
User currently offlinebioyuki From United States of America, joined Nov 2009, 156 posts, RR: 0
Posted (2 years 2 months 17 hours ago) and read 4815 times:

SFO is closing Runway 28L this weekend for construction, starting Friday, June 1st at 8PM PDT and it will remain closed through Monday, June 4th at 8AM PDT. Runways 28R, 1L and 1R are unaffected. Arrival capacity at SFO will be halved from 60/hour to 30/hour.

What are airlines, especially UA, doing with regards to this shutdown? Are airlines reducing flights during this time period?

Link: http://www.flysfo.com/web/page/about/news/pressrel/2012/sf1234.html


Next flight: UA 726/84 SFO-EWR-TLV
23 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinen471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1518 posts, RR: 2
Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 4738 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Airports all around are in an expansion mode and there sits SFO doing nothing about their runway situation----there will never be a better time than now for SFO to get off their butts and propose something---even Obama is supporting infastructure growth......

User currently offlineanonms From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 617 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 4653 times:

Quoting n471wn (Reply 1):
Airports all around are in an expansion mode and there sits SFO doing nothing about their runway situation----there will never be a better time than now for SFO to get off their butts and propose something---even Obama is supporting infastructure growth......

SFO's consistently been trying to propose runway expansion projects, but NIMBYs and environmentalists keep shooting them down.



This is my signature.
User currently offlinen471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1518 posts, RR: 2
Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 4639 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting anonms (Reply 2):

SFO's consistently been trying to propose runway expansion projects, but NIMBYs and environmentalists keep shooting them down.

Yes I know that but these envoronmental whackos have now been quiet for several years and now is the time to reopen the debate


User currently offlinegigneil From United States of America, joined Nov 2002, 16347 posts, RR: 85
Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 4634 times:

Quoting n471wn (Reply 1):
-even Obama is supporting infastructure growth......

Only Obama is supporting infrastructure growth. The right would let all our bridges, airports, and railways disintegrate.

NS


User currently offlineflyingcaT From United States of America, joined May 2007, 541 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 4634 times:

I never under stood why they don't pull an LAX and claim that for reasons of safety they need to separate the runways. Unfortunately they will have to override the restriction that they they have to restore an equivalent amount of bay for every cm they fill in. Also they must be at least 22 agencies who watch the bay like a hawk. They got rid of the redevelopment agencies you would think they could unfund several more.

User currently offlineCALPSAFltSkeds From United States of America, joined Dec 2006, 2589 posts, RR: 9
Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 16 hours ago) and read 4634 times:

I thought when SFO got clouds, they went down to a single runway arrival pattern. How is this different?

User currently offlineflyabunch From United States of America, joined Nov 2004, 517 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 15 hours ago) and read 4535 times:

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 6):

My thoughts exactly. This will just be a typical four day storm system type slowdown.

mike


User currently offlineAeroflot777 From Russia, joined Mar 2004, 3006 posts, RR: 27
Reply 8, posted (2 years 2 months 12 hours ago) and read 4259 times:

Quoting CALPSAFltSkeds (Reply 6):

I thought when SFO got clouds, they went down to a single runway arrival pattern. How is this different?

  

Quoting bioyuki (Thread starter):
What are airlines, especially UA, doing with regards to this shutdown? Are airlines reducing flights during this time period?

This isn't anything too drastic SFO can't cope with at all. We'll be ok over here  


User currently offlineflySFO From United States of America, joined Apr 2011, 112 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3276 times:

What happens when a heavy needs to use the sole arrival runway for departure? Or even worse, if the winds change to where both arrivals and all departures have to use 28R?

User currently offlineas739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 6098 posts, RR: 23
Reply 10, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3270 times:

Its actually been a very entertaining day at SFO.

As of 1300 the airport is using 28R for all arrivals and departures. Thank goodness for a Saturday schedule, however there are still some good delays. And to cap it off there is a fire on the NE side of Mt. San Bruno and firebomber have been on station since 1330 doing drops. First time I have ever seen this in person.



"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
User currently offlinewarden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3222 times:

Quoting n471wn (Reply 3):
Yes I know that but these envoronmental whackos have now been quiet for several years and now is the time to reopen the debate

Say one word about re-opening the possibility of adding runways and the environmentalists and NIMBY's will stop being quite rather quickly. They've only been quiet because they've won (so far).

Besides, where would the $$ come from? The state doesn't have it, and Congress is so deadlocked that there's no way the discussion would go anywhere even if the environmentalists/NIMBY's didn't loudly voice their opposition. It's a shame too, since SFO desperately needs the runways...



ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
User currently offlineWingedMigrator From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 2212 posts, RR: 56
Reply 12, posted (2 years 1 month 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 3027 times:

Quoting n471wn (Reply 3):
Yes I know that but these envoronmental whackos have now been quiet for several years

They're busy fighting high-speed rail. Give them a few months until that falls apart too.


User currently offlineanonms From United States of America, joined Dec 2007, 617 posts, RR: 0
Reply 13, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2492 times:

Quoting WingedMigrator (Reply 12):
They're busy fighting high-speed rail. Give them a few months until that falls apart too.

I'm not an environmentalist wacko, and even I think it's a waste of time and money...



This is my signature.
User currently offlineRoseflyer From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 9511 posts, RR: 52
Reply 14, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2426 times:

SFO currently has a 1400ft ceiling and clouds at 400ft. That means the lowest acceptance rate of 30 planes per hour anyway even with all runways open (presuming that it is open again). SFO is down to its slowest operation. That's resulted in the longest flow control that SFO gets. Having a runway closed does not really make much of a difference.

SFO flow control is very predictable. Today it is actually rather typical for a low visibility day. If the visibility was higher, I'd actually think that the closure would have meant something more. They only thing affected by the closed runway is when a heavy jet needs to takeoff of 28R.



If you have never designed an airplane part before, let the real designers do the work!
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 24893 posts, RR: 46
Reply 15, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2271 times:

Quoting flyingcaT (Reply 5):
I never under stood why they don't pull an LAX and claim that for reasons of safety they need to separate the runways

Because LAX did not move its airport boundary one inch when it relocated runway 25L. It was all rebuilt inside the existing property, not something that can be accomplished at SFO without encroaching into the bay.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinen471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1518 posts, RR: 2
Reply 16, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2261 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

[quote=LAXintl,reply=15]Because LAX did not move its airport boundary one inch when it relocated runway 25L. It was all rebuilt inside the existing property, not something that can be accomplished at SFO without encroaching into the bay.

Who cares about encroaching into the Bay? Not me as the Bay will be just fine.


User currently offlinewarden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 17, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 15 hours ago) and read 2253 times:

Quoting n471wn (Reply 16):
Who cares about encroaching into the Bay? Not me as the Bay will be just fine.

The environmentalists care, a LOT. As far as they're concerned, any sort of man-made bay filling for any reason is pure evil and will destroy the world as we know it. For that matter, they'd just as soon shut the airport down and restore the bay to the state it was in before the airport was built. And, for better or worse (for worse IMHO), the environmentalists have quite a bit of power in the Bay Area.



ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
User currently offlinen471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1518 posts, RR: 2
Reply 18, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2248 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting warden145 (Reply 17):
And, for better or worse (for worse IMHO), the environmentalists have quite a bit of power in the Bay Area.

Sadly you are right and all we can do is to fight them as hard as we can!!


User currently offlineSonomaFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2010, 1711 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2242 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Reasons SFO won't get a runway that is clearly needed:

1) NIMBY;
2) 2200 environmental groups will sue;
3) No federal $$ available and money that is available go to other projects;
4) The overall cost of such a project would be at least 2x to 3x the cost of that project at other airports in need of another runway.

Such a project would take four to five years assuming no litigation delays. I won't begin to estimate the costs due to the SF Bay mitigation which would be extensive to allow for necessary runway separation.

Here's a question though:

*Once all of the new GPS enabled nav aids are implemented in the air and on the ground, will that help regarding a/c separation? I know there is a rule about so many feet of horizontal separation needed between runways for certain types of ops...perhaps the new nav gear will enable airports such as SFO to operate at full speed in low vis conditions?

*If so, the need for another runway is abated and the new nav gear could open up more operational options in all weather conditions.


User currently offlinen471wn From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1518 posts, RR: 2
Reply 20, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2226 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Actually I have wondered why the smaller international carriers do not just go to Oakland---Martinair Holland used Oakland for many years as did Corsair (how we miss both carriers and especially those cheap Corsair flights to Tahiti).
Oakland ought to try and land some more carriers. Keep in mind that Oakland (OAK) is closer to Fisherman's Wharf than SFO!!


User currently offlinewarden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 502 posts, RR: 0
Reply 21, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2183 times:

Quoting n471wn (Reply 20):
Oakland ought to try and land some more carriers. Keep in mind that Oakland (OAK) is closer to Fisherman's Wharf than SFO!!

Keep in mind that, for commercial flights, OAK is a one-runway airport under all circumstances...although, with that said, that can be taken into account for flights and whatnot.

And, re: OAK being closer to Fisherman's Wharf than SFO is, you're right, but that's as the crow flies. Realistically, without traffic, you're looking at about 45 minutes from OAK into SF, compared to 20 to 25 from SFO (unless you're off 19th Ave). With traffic...I have two words for that: Bay Bridge.

OAK could stand to expand some (if WN would let them    ), but I don't see it replacing SFO...



ETOPS = Engine Turns Off, Passengers Swim
User currently offlinemikeology From United States of America, joined Mar 2012, 124 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2149 times:

Quoting n471wn (Reply 20):
Actually I have wondered why the smaller international carriers do not just go to Oakland---Martinair Holland used Oakland for many years as did Corsair (how we miss both carriers and especially those cheap Corsair flights to Tahiti).

This summer Arkefly (OR) has a summer schedule to Oakland. OAK-AMS. Apparently it starts this week June 7th. Its not much but is something for OAK. Not sure what loads are like. Haven't seen much advertising for it other than an article on sfgate.


User currently offlinelegacyins From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 2055 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (2 years 1 month 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 1995 times:

Quoting mikeology (Reply 22):

I believe the flight stops either in LAS/LAX. The loads on charters are high in the 90s to 100% no matter where they fly from. It is based on low fares and package deals with hotels and tour operators.



John@SFO
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...
AA To Close SFO Pilot Base posted Thu Oct 13 2011 09:12:52 by CODC10
UA837 (SFO-NRT) Diverted To SEA On 18 June posted Fri Jun 18 2010 16:39:25 by warreng24
Why Close JFK Runway Into June posted Mon Mar 1 2010 04:08:22 by Qantas777
Birds So Close To The Runway? posted Tue Oct 20 2009 00:25:10 by Chuchamadre
JFK's Longest Runway To Close For Construction posted Fri Jul 10 2009 12:06:37 by Mayor
Main IGI (New Delhi) Runway To Close For 8 Months posted Wed Mar 18 2009 00:41:37 by Aviationbuff
DTW Runway 3R-21L To Close For Construction posted Fri Mar 2 2007 21:48:40 by KarlB737
ASA LAX Base To Close In June '07 posted Fri Feb 23 2007 23:32:43 by AV8AJET
Palmdale To SFO On UAX Starts In June posted Sat Feb 3 2007 00:06:26 by FATFlyer
HNL Alert: Reef Runway To Close For 3 Days! posted Wed Jan 10 2007 08:00:36 by 777fan