So SFO is closing 28L for the better part of September for a major rebuild
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/SFO-to-close-busiest-runway-for-much-of-14379076.php

I received the following from UA today:

We have a hard hat heads-up for you: From September 7–26, our friends at San Francisco International Airport (SFO) will have a major runway closed for repairs. This could lead to delays, but we're here to help!

If your plans are flexible, you might want to consider flying a day earlier or later or connecting in a different city. The good news is that we'll waive the change fee. Visit united.com or use the United app to check your flight status and find more information about your options on our Important Notices page.

Thanks for packing a little extra patience!

How bad do you think this will really be? They seem to be giving a gloomy outlook about it.

I'm booked to fly in and out during that time. Flying in I'm on UA on an 8am transcon from BWI. I figure that flight is fine, it's leaving too early for delays to start at SFO before its airborne. Coming home, I'm on WN leaving SFO around 2pm. Good news is I have 1:45 to make a connection in DEN, so hopefully ok.

It will be like the previous scheduled SFO runway closures, with potential for significant multi-hour delays especially if the weather does not cooperate.

United did in anticipation of problems did trim their schedule a bit during the construction period but like previous times, day of operation issues can snowball.

zuckie13 wrote:

How bad do you think this will really be? They seem to be giving a gloomy outlook about it.

Seeing as SFO is one of the most chronically delayed airports in the U.S. even when all runways are available, it seems like it could be pretty bad. I travel to Palo Alto often for work and usually use SJC. I was considering trying out SFO more regularly, but it sounds like I should give September a pass at the very least...

And the same has been going on this summer at JFK, FLL, and now HPN. In an IROP you’re screwed. Otherwise you’ll probably be fine.

Considering how similar closure in 2018 led to many long delays, its pretty safe to assume same will happen.

Per SFO airport advisory for this upcoming work:

San Francisco International Airport (SFO) announced plans to close Runway 28L for 20 days in September to construct a new base layer below the runway surface. The closure will begin on Saturday, September 7, 2019, and is expected to reopen on Friday, September 27, 2019. Airport officials advise travelers arriving or departing SFO during this period to expect delays and cancellations, as the closure will reduce the Airport’s overall runway capacity.
SFO recommends that travelers opt for early morning flights before 9:00 a.m. PDT during this period, as delays are expected to begin after 9:00 a.m. PDT each day during the closure, and continue for the remainder of the day. Both domestic and international flights may be affected by this activity.

This is going to be bad. SFO barely gets by on a good day. Fortunately, CA rarely gets any sort of weather in September so that won't add any further delays, but it's not going to be good at all.

On the best days, there will be bad GDP times and possibly lengthy gate hold prior to pushback. On the worst days, lots of cancellations. Just like always when one of the 28s closes.

9AM is a safe bet, mostly because other than a few periods of time where a gaggle of jets show up to land at once, SFO is pretty quiet for arrivals in general until about 8AM then ramping up to steady traffic by 9AM.

Two weeks ago, I was on a UA 739 departing MFR (who'd a thought a 739 at Medford?!?!), which was scheduled for arrival at SFO around 09:00. We departed the gate and then sat in a penalty box with a one-hour wheels-up time. So we arrived after 10:00. So I don't think their suggestion of early arrivals to avoid delays in going to pan out. It will suck.

zuckie13 wrote:

...How bad do you think this will really be? They seem to be giving a gloomy outlook about it.

I'm booked to fly in and out during that time. Flying in I'm on UA on an 8am transcon from BWI. I figure that flight is fine, it's leaving too early for delays to start at SFO before its airborne. Coming home, I'm on WN leaving SFO around 2pm. Good news is I have 1:45 to make a connection in DEN, so hopefully ok.

One, I think it's good that UA gave you a heads up about this.

Two, regarding your connection on WN in DEN - are there other and later flights to your destination (back to BWI?)? I wouldn't count on your aircraft arriving into SFO on time, so 1:45 may not be enough.

SFO has done runway repair work in September before and at least in the past, they have finished early. Best of luck to you.

One more thought - would OAK or SJC work for you?

Sept is typically the best month for SFO weather. Summer fog is history and still a month or 2 before the rain starts up. At least there’s that. Perhaps they planned the work for Sept considering it’s typically a good wx month.

Just fly to SJC instead. It’s way more convenient even without the construction if your destination is south of SFO.

FlyHossD wrote:

zuckie13 wrote:

...How bad do you think this will really be? They seem to be giving a gloomy outlook about it.

I'm booked to fly in and out during that time. Flying in I'm on UA on an 8am transcon from BWI. I figure that flight is fine, it's leaving too early for delays to start at SFO before its airborne. Coming home, I'm on WN leaving SFO around 2pm. Good news is I have 1:45 to make a connection in DEN, so hopefully ok.

One, I think it's good that UA gave you a heads up about this.

Two, regarding your connection on WN in DEN - are there other and later flights to your destination (back to BWI?)? I wouldn't count on your aircraft arriving into SFO on time, so 1:45 may not be enough.

SFO has done runway repair work in September before and at least in the past, they have finished early. Best of luck to you.

One more thought - would OAK or SJC work for you?

Already decided to change to an OAK flight going back. Can make the same connection in DEN.

zuckie13 wrote:

One more thought - would OAK or SJC work for you?

...Already decided to change to an OAK flight going back. Can make the same connection in DEN.[/quote]

Me thinks that's a smart move - best to be pro-active while you still can.

Would the runway closures affect arrivals at all? I'm on a flight from ORD on Sep. 14th but would that get delayed at ORD because of the closures?

sovietjet wrote:

Would the runway closures affect arrivals at all? I'm on a flight from ORD on Sep. 14th but would that get delayed at ORD because of the closures?

Absolutely. With one arrival runway gone, expect SFO’s arrival rate to be cut roughly in half. Current arrival rate is 54 aircraft per hour in good weather conditions. So I’d expect SFO to accept about 27 arrivals per hour, which would cause significant arrival delays. Even on foggy days at SFO, arrival rates are generally around 30-36 aircraft per hour. This is going to be a big problem.

UALifer wrote:

sovietjet wrote:

Would the runway closures affect arrivals at all? I'm on a flight from ORD on Sep. 14th but would that get delayed at ORD because of the closures?

Absolutely. With one arrival runway gone, expect SFO’s arrival rate to be cut roughly in half. Current arrival rate is 54 aircraft per hour in good weather conditions. So I’d expect SFO to accept about 27 arrivals per hour, which would cause significant arrival delays. Even on foggy days at SFO, arrival rates are generally around 30-36 aircraft per hour. This is going to be a big problem.

Ok, thanks. So how would they know who/what to delay beforehand given my 4+ hour flight time to SFO? I mean, once we take off from ORD we kind of have to land somewhere

sovietjet wrote:

UALifer wrote:

sovietjet wrote:

Would the runway closures affect arrivals at all? I'm on a flight from ORD on Sep. 14th but would that get delayed at ORD because of the closures?

Absolutely. With one arrival runway gone, expect SFO’s arrival rate to be cut roughly in half. Current arrival rate is 54 aircraft per hour in good weather conditions. So I’d expect SFO to accept about 27 arrivals per hour, which would cause significant arrival delays. Even on foggy days at SFO, arrival rates are generally around 30-36 aircraft per hour. This is going to be a big problem.

Ok, thanks. So how would they know who/what to delay beforehand given my 4+ hour flight time to SFO? I mean, once we take off from ORD we kind of have to land somewhere

Well the way ground delay programs work is that the FAA will assign arrival slots before aircraft are in the air in order to meter aircraft into the airport. Then, based on expected flight time, the FAA will assign a new delayed departure time in order to meet that arrival slot at SFO.

The runway closure is starting off with a bang today! Even with reduced Saturday volume, average delays are over 3 hours!! Airport arrival rate is 25/hr. Of course, this is compounded by the low ceilings.

They started too early - in a usual year the morning overcast and broken stuff at 1000’ will be gone by the 2nd week of September.

A lot of cancellations on the UAX side, even on arrivals that were adjusted to arrive before 0700...maybe had to do with the weather too and/or not as full of a flight.

Today’s national program had an average 3
Hour delay.

Day 2

Average delay - 240 minutes



CTL ELEMENT: SFO
ELEMENT TYPE: APT
ADL TIME: 1238Z
DELAY ASSIGNMENT MODE: UDP
ARRIVALS ESTIMATED FOR: 08/1430Z - 09/0759Z
CUMULATIVE PROGRAM PERIOD: 08/1430Z - 09/0759Z
PROGRAM RATE: 25
FLT INCL: ALL CONTIGUOUS US DEP
DEP SCOPE: (ALL+CZV_AP) ZLA ZAU ZLC ZTL ZDC ZNY ZHU ZJX ZFW ZOB ZDV
ZOA ZSE ZBW ZMA ZKC ZME ZID ZAB ZMP
CANADIAN DEP ARPTS INCLUDED: CYEG CYVR CYYC
DELAY ASSIGNMENT TABLE APPLIES TO: ZOA
MAXIMUM DELAY: 438
AVERAGE DELAY: 240
IMPACTING CONDITION: RWY-TAXI / CONSTRUCTION
COMMENTS: ARR 28R. DPT 01L.

If you're flying a domestic flight, you might run into some delays or cancellations. International flights might just be delayed a few hours, but not cancelled.

LAXintl wrote:

Nearly 400 flights cancelled or delayed on first day of SFO runway closure
https://www.sfgate.com/travel/resources ... 423170.php

There were 272 flights delayed yesterday and 109 cancellations, according to an airport manager at SFO

It is what it is. Airlines probably could have reduced their schedules further during this period but other than that, not much they can do.

Day 3 = 225min average delays to start the morning off


CTL ELEMENT: SFO
ELEMENT TYPE: APT
ADL TIME: 1219Z
DELAY ASSIGNMENT MODE: UDP
ARRIVALS ESTIMATED FOR: 09/1400Z - 10/0759Z
CUMULATIVE PROGRAM PERIOD: 09/1400Z - 10/0759Z
PROGRAM RATE: 27/27/27/27/27/26/26/26/26/26/26/26/26/26/26/26/26/26
FLT INCL: ALL CONTIGUOUS US DEP
DEP SCOPE: (ALL+CZV_AP) ZLA ZAU ZLC ZTL ZDC ZNY ZHU ZJX ZFW ZOB ZDV
ZOA ZSE ZBW ZMA ZKC ZME ZID ZAB ZMP
CANADIAN DEP ARPTS INCLUDED: CYEG CYVR CYYC
DELAY ASSIGNMENT TABLE APPLIES TO: ZOA
MAXIMUM DELAY: 340
AVERAGE DELAY: 225
IMPACTING CONDITION: RWY-TAXI / CONSTRUCTION

UPlog wrote:

Day 3 = 225min average delays to start the morning off


CTL ELEMENT: SFO
ELEMENT TYPE: APT
ADL TIME: 1219Z
DELAY ASSIGNMENT MODE: UDP
ARRIVALS ESTIMATED FOR: 09/1400Z - 10/0759Z
CUMULATIVE PROGRAM PERIOD: 09/1400Z - 10/0759Z
PROGRAM RATE: 27/27/27/27/27/26/26/26/26/26/26/26/26/26/26/26/26/26
FLT INCL: ALL CONTIGUOUS US DEP
DEP SCOPE: (ALL+CZV_AP) ZLA ZAU ZLC ZTL ZDC ZNY ZHU ZJX ZFW ZOB ZDV
ZOA ZSE ZBW ZMA ZKC ZME ZID ZAB ZMP
CANADIAN DEP ARPTS INCLUDED: CYEG CYVR CYYC
DELAY ASSIGNMENT TABLE APPLIES TO: ZOA
MAXIMUM DELAY: 340
AVERAGE DELAY: 225
IMPACTING CONDITION: RWY-TAXI / CONSTRUCTION

It's going to be like this every day so really no need to post the program every day. They are never going to get an arrival rate higher than 27.

The UA hub operation and connections must be a mess.

I saw they are offering voluntary waivers to customers, but thousands still must transit SFO daily especially to many Pacific markets.

When a major construction event like this is going on - should airports actually force airline the airlines to cut schedules enough so the airport can handle what is ultimately scheduled?

If you are cutting 30% of capacity due to construction, then make each airline cut 30% of flights. If you are a major airline with lots of flights, pick some to cut, others to up-guage maybe. If you are a one-a day carrier, then you will have to pick some days to not fly (with different carries being cut different days). Seems like it might be easier to do this than create the mess that seems to be happening.

janders wrote:

The UA hub operation and connections must be a mess.
I saw they are offering voluntary waivers to customers, but thousands still must transit SFO daily especially to many Pacific markets.

SFO already had the highest missconnect rate for UA hubs, so this certainly will make it much worse for a few weeks. With only single daily longhaul services to many destinations, and potential limited recovery options it can be difficult to manage when things dont run well.

zuckie13 wrote:

When a major construction event like this is going on - should airports actually force airline the airlines to cut schedules enough so the airport can handle what is ultimately scheduled?

If you are cutting 30% of capacity due to construction, then make each airline cut 30% of flights. If you are a major airline with lots of flights, pick some to cut, others to up-guage maybe. If you are a one-a day carrier, then you will have to pick some days to not fly (with different carries being cut different days). Seems like it might be easier to do this than create the mess that seems to be happening.

Airlines did voluntarily cut schedules. I am not sure there is any legal mechanism to force schedule reductions, especially at a non-slot controlled airport.

UA trim something like 10% of mainline flying plus a bunch of express along with upgauged equipment when possible such as 777 down to LAX and back. Obviously not enough with 4-hour delays, but airlines knew this was coming and did trim to one degree or another.

Friends were flying BUR-DEN yesterday on 5797. The inbound CRJ was coming from SFO, with the inbound leg to SFO from Arcata. The plane ended up skipping the leg to SFO and flying directly from Arcata to Burbank. They ended up leaving BUR about an hour late.

I was scheduled on a flight to SFO (with connections) for a short weekend trip during the runway shutdown. When I received the same email about rescheduling, this part made no sense to me:
"If your plans are flexible, you might want to consider flying a day earlier or later"

A day earlier or later isn't going to make a difference in terms of delays as the next day will have the same issues. I figured that must be a misprint but when I called twice (hour each time waiting, the first person had english communication challenges), I was only offered the next day. I ended up canceling my trip and eating the change fees. United: wasting my time and my money.

I was booked on a WN flight from BUR-SFO last night (Sunday, Sep 8) . The 8pm departure showed as on time until about 3 hours before departure, then it immediate took a 4 hour delay. Luckily, WN was very willing to change the ticket to any LA area airport to any Bay Area airport. I was rebooked on a morning flight out of LAX to OAK since hotels were much less expensive at LAX and there were more flight options.

My original BUR-SFO ended up departing 5.5 hours late, arriving at SFO at 2:50am. For contrast, my flight LAX-OAK this morning arrived 10 minutes early. The $100 hotel room at LAX was definitely worth it. I'd avoid SFO at all cost until this is over.

flyrocoak wrote:

I was scheduled on a flight to SFO (with connections) for a short weekend trip during the runway shutdown. When I received the same email about rescheduling, this part made no sense to me:
"If your plans are flexible, you might want to consider flying a day earlier or later"

A day earlier or later isn't going to make a difference in terms of delays as the next day will have the same issues. I figured that must be a misprint but when I called twice (hour each time waiting, the first person had english communication challenges), I was only offered the next day. I ended up canceling my trip and eating the change fees. United: wasting my time and my money.

I didn't call in, but when I got the notification, I had no trouble rebooking from SFO to SJC on the website in about 2 minutes. Swapped F ticket for another F ticket to SJC for $0.

LAXintl wrote:

janders wrote:

The UA hub operation and connections must be a mess.
I saw they are offering voluntary waivers to customers, but thousands still must transit SFO daily especially to many Pacific markets.

SFO already had the highest missconnect rate for UA hubs, so this certainly will make it much worse for a few weeks. With only single daily longhaul services to many destinations, and potential limited recovery options it can be difficult to manage when things dont run well.

zuckie13 wrote:

When a major construction event like this is going on - should airports actually force airline the airlines to cut schedules enough so the airport can handle what is ultimately scheduled?

If you are cutting 30% of capacity due to construction, then make each airline cut 30% of flights. If you are a major airline with lots of flights, pick some to cut, others to up-guage maybe. If you are a one-a day carrier, then you will have to pick some days to not fly (with different carries being cut different days). Seems like it might be easier to do this than create the mess that seems to be happening.

Airlines did voluntarily cut schedules. I am not sure there is any legal mechanism to force schedule reductions, especially at a non-slot controlled airport.

UA trim something like 10% of mainline flying plus a bunch of express along with upgauged equipment when possible such as 777 down to LAX and back. Obviously not enough with 4-hour delays, but airlines knew this was coming and did trim to one degree or another.

Yeah, but they knew going in that the capacity hit was going to be waaaaaaay more than 10%. I'm not talking about what airlines volunteered to do, I'm talking about what the airport operator should be mandating airlines do.

I had 6 staff on the first HNL-SFO on United yesterday (Sunday 9/8) .. flight left on time, got in early. Now - their return is tomorrow, 9/10 at 610pm. That should be interesting.

zuckie13 wrote:

Yeah, but they knew going in that the capacity hit was going to be waaaaaaay more than 10%. I'm not talking about what airlines volunteered to do, I'm talking about what the airport operator should be mandating airlines do.

The airport does not have the authority to tell airlines they cant operate X% flights.

They can give airlines a heads up of the anticipated work then its up to the carriers to manage schedules as they see fit.

janders wrote:

The UA hub operation and connections must be a mess.

I saw they are offering voluntary waivers to customers, but thousands still must transit SFO daily especially to many Pacific markets.

Not to mention, ANA has lots of cancellations due to the typhoon

9/9/2019 B6 Flight 2136 LGB-SFO @13:00 is delayed 12 hours, ETD 23:59.

zuckie13 wrote:

Yeah, but they knew going in that the capacity hit was going to be waaaaaaay more than 10%. I'm not talking about what airlines volunteered to do, I'm talking about what the airport operator should be mandating airlines do.

As mentioned by UPlog, the airport is not in a legal position to dictate. Matter of fact it would be against Federal law to impede on interstate commerce by placing such restrictions.

Even at slot controlled airport like JFK, the PANYNJ and FAA were only able to garner reduced schedules for this years runway work by suspending the normal 80% slot utilization rules which allowed airlines like AA to pull significant schedule down without the fear of loss of slots.

UPlog wrote:

Day 3 = 225min average delays to start the morning off


CTL ELEMENT: SFO
ELEMENT TYPE: APT
ADL TIME: 1219Z
DELAY ASSIGNMENT MODE: UDP
ARRIVALS ESTIMATED FOR: 09/1400Z - 10/0759Z
CUMULATIVE PROGRAM PERIOD: 09/1400Z - 10/0759Z
PROGRAM RATE: 27/27/27/27/27/26/26/26/26/26/26/26/26/26/26/26/26/26
FLT INCL: ALL CONTIGUOUS US DEP
DEP SCOPE: (ALL+CZV_AP) ZLA ZAU ZLC ZTL ZDC ZNY ZHU ZJX ZFW ZOB ZDV
ZOA ZSE ZBW ZMA ZKC ZME ZID ZAB ZMP
CANADIAN DEP ARPTS INCLUDED: CYEG CYVR CYYC
DELAY ASSIGNMENT TABLE APPLIES TO: ZOA
MAXIMUM DELAY: 340
AVERAGE DELAY: 225
IMPACTING CONDITION: RWY-TAXI / CONSTRUCTION

Thanks for posting and I hope you continue to do so. Many pax are not going to be happy.....

Thanks everyone for posting updates .. I am scheduled to fly from Bozeman, MT (bzn) to SFO on Sept 20th on United 623 after staying in Yellowstone. For the last 2 days the flight would change to 2.5 hours delay during the day than depart with a 5 hours actual delay. It woukd really help if United would just change the schedule to 4 or 5 hours later departure since it seems consistent day to day.. But no everyone needs to sit in the airport 3 to 5 extra hours for 2 hour flight
And SFO just did this kind of work only 2 years ago. Whan can ordinary people do ?? Just pay the money than sit and take it, or if you voice displeasure - denied boarding, removal or beat down are coming

The answer is we can do nothing.
The airport can do nothing.
ATC can delay flights.

But nobody wants to actually find a way to prevent it.

Such construction projects aren't optional; given the amount of traffic at SFO, they need to ensure the runways can take the pounding day after day. It would take legislation or at least FAA rules changes do compel airlines to trim schedules to match the temporary capacity issues. However, when you have lots of airlines flying once or twice a day internationally. UA as the dominant carrier will selectively cancel flights to lessen the impact to their operations and will delay UAX as much as needed to ensure the larger aircraft come and go close to on time if they can.

People can opt to fly to the other convenient, reliable airports in the region. Doing so during this period means one would avoid the specific delays, and doing so other times would encourage airlines to offer more service there. Everyone wants to fly to SFO though, regardless of whether or not SJC/OAK might be similarly or more convenient, so 80% of the region's air service is crammed into one location.

ucdtim17 wrote:

People can opt to fly to the other convenient, reliable airports in the region. Doing so during this period means one would avoid the specific delays, and doing so other times would encourage airlines to offer more service there. Everyone wants to fly to SFO though, regardless of whether or not SJC/OAK might be similarly or more convenient, so 80% of the region's air service is crammed into one location.

Why is it so hard to market SJC/OAK as suitable alternatives for SF region travel when its so well know that SFO becomes an operational mess so often??

Seems each airport has historically enjoyed buildups inactivity(and even hub status) which a few years later fizzle away.

San Jose is difficult to get to if you live north of San Mateo on the Peninsula or Hayward in the East Bay, and Oakland is none of three legacy airlines had much of a presence in Oakland. Also, it's in Oakland.

Quit your bitching people. Airline pax inconvenienced? Pfft. I'm based at KSFO on a biz jet. Welcome to my world.

ucdtim17 wrote:

People can opt to fly to the other convenient, reliable airports in the region. Doing so during this period means one would avoid the specific delays, and doing so other times would encourage airlines to offer more service there. Everyone wants to fly to SFO though, regardless of whether or not SJC/OAK might be similarly or more convenient, so 80% of the region's air service is crammed into one location.

And if airlines were more honest up front, people would have. UA would have had to know about this months and months ago (I think I found an article from March mentioning it), but didn't warn customers when booking. I had booked a month and a half before they sent the message that caused me to start this thread. Imagine if a message like that popped up when you went to book a ticket. It's just a business doing whatever they want to make the most money they can.

While UA waived the change fee if I wanted to change, they did not offer to refund my non-refundable ticket. If they did, I might have changed to a WN flight to OAK or SJC or something.

skydiver76 wrote:

Thanks everyone for posting updates .. I am scheduled to fly from Bozeman, MT (bzn) to SFO on Sept 20th on United 623 after staying in Yellowstone. For the last 2 days the flight would change to 2.5 hours delay during the day than depart with a 5 hours actual delay. It woukd really help if United would just change the schedule to 4 or 5 hours later departure since it seems consistent day to day.. But no everyone needs to sit in the airport 3 to 5 extra hours for 2 hour flight
And SFO just did this kind of work only 2 years ago. Whan can ordinary people do ?? Just pay the money than sit and take it, or if you voice displeasure - denied boarding, removal or beat down are coming

If they do that, the way the system works, it will just depart late from the rescheduled time.