Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
Judge1310
Posts: 390
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:06 pm

jumbojet wrote:
and this is why I, and many others, prefer to connect in say, ICN, then SFO when going TPAC. After reading this thread, even on a normal day, your likely to miss your connection due to delayed/cancelled flights. Throw in a bit of bad weather and/or construction and your doomed. This by the way isnt necessarily aimed at UA, although they are the dominant carrier at SFO.



Ummm, okay, by all means, go ahead and *waste* your time making a triple (if not, quadruple connection) just to fly through ICN...
I also think that many folks feel that SFO is more delay-prone that it actually is. Yeah, in the winter time we can have some low cigs and reduced vis but that's typical up and down the West Coast (save for LAX and SAN). Throw in intersecting runways (a necessity due to prevailing winds in the area) and tight taxiways and concourse placement, it's actually a beautiful wonder to observe SFO ops when winds are light, vis is unlimited, and all runways are useable.
 
timz
Posts: 6582
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 1999 7:43 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:34 pm

Judge1310 wrote:
Throw in intersecting runways (a necessity due to prevailing winds in the area)

Doubt SFO's winds are anything special. Airliners at OAK and SJC manage with one-direction runways.
 
Judge1310
Posts: 390
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Fri Sep 13, 2019 7:44 pm

timz wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:
Throw in intersecting runways (a necessity due to prevailing winds in the area)

Doubt SFO's winds are anything special. Airliners at OAK and SJC manage with one-direction runways.


So we're just going to ignore the large foothills literally within 2 miles to the west and southwest of SFO airport, those same foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains that create microclimates along the SF Peninsula? Let me guess, you're probably not from around here (SFO) are ya? :roll:
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Fri Sep 13, 2019 8:52 pm

Judge1310 wrote:
timz wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:
Throw in intersecting runways (a necessity due to prevailing winds in the area)

Doubt SFO's winds are anything special. Airliners at OAK and SJC manage with one-direction runways.


So we're just going to ignore the large foothills literally within 2 miles to the west and southwest of SFO airport, those same foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains that create microclimates along the SF Peninsula? Let me guess, you're probably not from around here (SFO) are ya? :roll:


OAK is not so far from hills either and I’m sure SJC deals w the Santa Cruz mtns on approach as well.
 
Brucekn
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Jul 05, 2017 1:20 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:03 pm

I flew into SFO from DEN on Thursday 9/10. We were delayed by about 45 minutes at the DEN gate, and parked on a taxiway close to the 25 threshold for 10 minutes so we could get an accurate wheels up time. Both 28L and 01R were closed as the work is taking place at the intersection of the 01’s and the 28’s. They are alternating which 01 is closed, along with 28L. Exiting 28R and looking back at the aircraft approaching, saw 4 aircraft in trail, must have been 2-3 mile spacing on approach, great work by NorCal Approach. Our flight made many speed changes on descent, I wold think to synchronize for approach. Weather was fair at SFO, foggy in the City.
 
IADCA
Posts: 2161
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:24 pm

SFOtoORD wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:
timz wrote:
Doubt SFO's winds are anything special. Airliners at OAK and SJC manage with one-direction runways.


So we're just going to ignore the large foothills literally within 2 miles to the west and southwest of SFO airport, those same foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains that create microclimates along the SF Peninsula? Let me guess, you're probably not from around here (SFO) are ya? :roll:


OAK is not so far from hills either and I’m sure SJC deals w the Santa Cruz mtns on approach as well.


Those statements are both true but are also meaningless. The mountains have a much less dramatic effect on the weather immediately around SJC than the same range does at SFO because the Peninsula is so much narrower up by SFO. It's both much closer to the mountains and much closer to the ocean on the other side than is SJC, where the combination temperature gradient from the ocean water to land is what drives the weather near SFO (and notably not down near SJC - as anyone who's lived in the Bay Area will tell you and thus I presume you know, the weather up near SF tells you little about even what it'll be like in Menlo Park or Palo Alto, let alone Santa Clara or San Jose).
 
Judge1310
Posts: 390
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Fri Sep 13, 2019 9:35 pm

IADCA wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:

So we're just going to ignore the large foothills literally within 2 miles to the west and southwest of SFO airport, those same foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains that create microclimates along the SF Peninsula? Let me guess, you're probably not from around here (SFO) are ya? :roll:


OAK is not so far from hills either and I’m sure SJC deals w the Santa Cruz mtns on approach as well.


Those statements are both true but are also meaningless. The mountains have a much less dramatic effect on the weather immediately around SJC than the same range does at SFO because the Peninsula is so much narrower up by SFO. It's both much closer to the mountains and much closer to the ocean on the other side than is SJC, where the combination temperature gradient from the ocean water to land is what drives the weather near SFO (and notably not down near SJC - as anyone who's lived in the Bay Area will tell you and thus I presume you know, the weather up near SF tells you little about even what it'll be like in Menlo Park or Palo Alto, let alone Santa Clara or San Jose).


I'm a little confused, how is my statement 'meaningless'? Maybe I'm misinterpreting your reply (?), because it seems that you've correctly expounded on what I posted. As someone who lives in the SF area I can be going southbound on 280 @ Westborough and be in deep fog/mist and vis <0.25mi and, in less than a mile (nearing the Sneath Ln exit), I can already be below the aforementioned conditions and have glaring sunshine right in my eyes with dry conditions at that level. That type of weather is absolutely specific to the presence of the hills around SFO.
 
babastud
Posts: 272
Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2016 1:38 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Sat Sep 14, 2019 12:32 am

Judge1310 wrote:
jumbojet wrote:
and this is why I, and many others, prefer to connect in say, ICN, then SFO when going TPAC. After reading this thread, even on a normal day, your likely to miss your connection due to delayed/cancelled flights. Throw in a bit of bad weather and/or construction and your doomed. This by the way isnt necessarily aimed at UA, although they are the dominant carrier at SFO.



Ummm, okay, by all means, go ahead and *waste* your time making a triple (if not, quadruple connection) just to fly through ICN...
I also think that many folks feel that SFO is more delay-prone that it actually is. Yeah, in the winter time we can have some low cigs and reduced vis but that's typical up and down the West Coast (save for LAX and SAN). Throw in intersecting runways (a necessity due to prevailing winds in the area) and tight taxiways and concourse placement, it's actually a beautiful wonder to observe SFO ops when winds are light, vis is unlimited, and all runways are useable.



I think Jumbo Jet is being a little over dramatic! For starters International flights have priority into SFO and tend to be delayed in and outgoing less then domestic. I have rarely had too many issues outside of the usual things that could occur at any airport, and I've flown a lot out of SFO. UA connections can sometimes be an issue onto international, although that may not be due to SFO just backlog from other hubs, flights etc. Granted SFO has many challenges, and I'm not excusing the area for not building new runways 20 years ago, which would have solved most of this. But Jumbo Jet is being absurd in his statements, as many prefer to transit SFO more then many other airports especially west coast one's, such as LAX. SEA has much smaller international ops, so if something goes wrong which is happening a lot their lately your much more up the ships creek when it comes to getting another flight, or seat, etc. SFO has a lot of options and it's a great place for food and drink if you have to kill a few extra hours.
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Sat Sep 14, 2019 4:37 pm

IADCA wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
Judge1310 wrote:

So we're just going to ignore the large foothills literally within 2 miles to the west and southwest of SFO airport, those same foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains that create microclimates along the SF Peninsula? Let me guess, you're probably not from around here (SFO) are ya? :roll:


OAK is not so far from hills either and I’m sure SJC deals w the Santa Cruz mtns on approach as well.


Those statements are both true but are also meaningless. The mountains have a much less dramatic effect on the weather immediately around SJC than the same range does at SFO because the Peninsula is so much narrower up by SFO. It's both much closer to the mountains and much closer to the ocean on the other side than is SJC, where the combination temperature gradient from the ocean water to land is what drives the weather near SFO (and notably not down near SJC - as anyone who's lived in the Bay Area will tell you and thus I presume you know, the weather up near SF tells you little about even what it'll be like in Menlo Park or Palo Alto, let alone Santa Clara or San Jose).


OAK is a mirror of SFO from a landscape perspective, but it doesn’t have the nearly the volume or intersecting runways. Maybe tone down the unsubstantiated commentary.
 
Judge1310
Posts: 390
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 10:55 pm

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Sat Sep 14, 2019 9:53 pm

SFOtoORD wrote:
IADCA wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:

OAK is not so far from hills either and I’m sure SJC deals w the Santa Cruz mtns on approach as well.


Those statements are both true but are also meaningless. The mountains have a much less dramatic effect on the weather immediately around SJC than the same range does at SFO because the Peninsula is so much narrower up by SFO. It's both much closer to the mountains and much closer to the ocean on the other side than is SJC, where the combination temperature gradient from the ocean water to land is what drives the weather near SFO (and notably not down near SJC - as anyone who's lived in the Bay Area will tell you and thus I presume you know, the weather up near SF tells you little about even what it'll be like in Menlo Park or Palo Alto, let alone Santa Clara or San Jose).


OAK is a mirror of SFO from a landscape perspective, but it doesn’t have the nearly the volume or intersecting runways. Maybe tone down the unsubstantiated commentary.


Hey SFOtoORD, are you referencing me? If not, please clarify to whom you're responding...
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Sat Sep 14, 2019 10:12 pm

Judge1310 wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
IADCA wrote:

Those statements are both true but are also meaningless. The mountains have a much less dramatic effect on the weather immediately around SJC than the same range does at SFO because the Peninsula is so much narrower up by SFO. It's both much closer to the mountains and much closer to the ocean on the other side than is SJC, where the combination temperature gradient from the ocean water to land is what drives the weather near SFO (and notably not down near SJC - as anyone who's lived in the Bay Area will tell you and thus I presume you know, the weather up near SF tells you little about even what it'll be like in Menlo Park or Palo Alto, let alone Santa Clara or San Jose).


OAK is a mirror of SFO from a landscape perspective, but it doesn’t have the nearly the volume or intersecting runways. Maybe tone down the unsubstantiated commentary.


Hey SFOtoORD, are you referencing me? If not, please clarify to whom you're responding...


The post immediately preceding mine that is a response to mine. They are threaded.
 
IADCA
Posts: 2161
Joined: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:24 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:47 am

SFOtoORD wrote:
IADCA wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:

OAK is not so far from hills either and I’m sure SJC deals w the Santa Cruz mtns on approach as well.


Those statements are both true but are also meaningless. The mountains have a much less dramatic effect on the weather immediately around SJC than the same range does at SFO because the Peninsula is so much narrower up by SFO. It's both much closer to the mountains and much closer to the ocean on the other side than is SJC, where the combination temperature gradient from the ocean water to land is what drives the weather near SFO (and notably not down near SJC - as anyone who's lived in the Bay Area will tell you and thus I presume you know, the weather up near SF tells you little about even what it'll be like in Menlo Park or Palo Alto, let alone Santa Clara or San Jose).


OAK is a mirror of SFO from a landscape perspective, but it doesn’t have the nearly the volume or intersecting runways. Maybe tone down the unsubstantiated commentary.


It's not really a mirror. The terrain on the SF side is closer to the field than it is on the Oakland side, and the direction of prevailing winds means they (and the weather patterns they interact with and create) affect field operations less than the hills near SFO do. But you're right about the intersecting runways being an issue.
 
User avatar
UPlog
Posts: 558
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:45 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Sun Sep 15, 2019 1:20 am

Pretty bad for Saturday. Average delay of 2:28


CTL ELEMENT: SFO
ELEMENT TYPE: APT
ADL TIME: 0108Z
DELAY ASSIGNMENT MODE: UDP
ARRIVALS ESTIMATED FOR: 15/0200Z - 15/0659Z
CUMULATIVE PROGRAM PERIOD: 14/1500Z - 15/0659Z
PROGRAM RATE: 30
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: 863
AVERAGE DELAY: 148
IMPACTING CONDITION: RWY-TAXI / CONSTRUCTION
COMMENTS: ARR 28R DEP 01R
I fly your boxes
 
SFOtoORD
Posts: 1208
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:26 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:02 am

IADCA wrote:
SFOtoORD wrote:
IADCA wrote:

Those statements are both true but are also meaningless. The mountains have a much less dramatic effect on the weather immediately around SJC than the same range does at SFO because the Peninsula is so much narrower up by SFO. It's both much closer to the mountains and much closer to the ocean on the other side than is SJC, where the combination temperature gradient from the ocean water to land is what drives the weather near SFO (and notably not down near SJC - as anyone who's lived in the Bay Area will tell you and thus I presume you know, the weather up near SF tells you little about even what it'll be like in Menlo Park or Palo Alto, let alone Santa Clara or San Jose).


OAK is a mirror of SFO from a landscape perspective, but it doesn’t have the nearly the volume or intersecting runways. Maybe tone down the unsubstantiated commentary.


It's not really a mirror. The terrain on the SF side is closer to the field than it is on the Oakland side, and the direction of prevailing winds means they (and the weather patterns they interact with and create) affect field operations less than the hills near SFO do. But you're right about the intersecting runways being an issue.


It’s pretty similar. Maybe instead of 3 miles to the hills it’s 5. OAK doesn’t get the same fog, but the way the fog rolls through the GG Bridge is funky and less predictable. But ultimately less traffic makes it simpler.
 
jetwet1
Posts: 3175
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2007 4:42 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Sun Sep 15, 2019 2:34 am

UPlog wrote:
Pretty bad for Saturday. Average delay of 2:28


CTL ELEMENT: SFO
ELEMENT TYPE: APT
ADL TIME: 0108Z
DELAY ASSIGNMENT MODE: UDP
ARRIVALS ESTIMATED FOR: 15/0200Z - 15/0659Z
CUMULATIVE PROGRAM PERIOD: 14/1500Z - 15/0659Z
PROGRAM RATE: 30
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: 863
AVERAGE DELAY: 148
IMPACTING CONDITION: RWY-TAXI / CONSTRUCTION
COMMENTS: ARR 28R DEP 01R



I just flew SFO-LAS on AS leaving at 16:45, we were in the air by 16:50, guess I got lucky.
 
virage
Posts: 50
Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2010 11:59 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:21 pm

SFO is simply a badly placed and badly designed airport:

- Traffic over the bay is a bad idea, affecting SJC and OAK.
- The crossing runway layout is another bad idea.

San Francisco needs a new airport similar to LAX: ocean facing with a parallel runway pair layout.
 
26point2
Posts: 1097
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2010 6:01 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Sun Sep 15, 2019 12:34 pm

jetwet1 wrote:
UPlog wrote:
Pretty bad for Saturday. Average delay of 2:28


CTL ELEMENT: SFO
ELEMENT TYPE: APT
ADL TIME: 0108Z
DELAY ASSIGNMENT MODE: UDP
ARRIVALS ESTIMATED FOR: 15/0200Z - 15/0659Z
CUMULATIVE PROGRAM PERIOD: 14/1500Z - 15/0659Z
PROGRAM RATE: 30
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: 863
AVERAGE DELAY: 148
IMPACTING CONDITION: RWY-TAXI / CONSTRUCTION
COMMENTS: ARR 28R DEP 01R



I just flew SFO-LAS on AS leaving at 16:45, we were in the air by 16:50, guess I got lucky.


It’s the arrivals that are delayed...not departures. Check back here after you return to SFO and let us know how it went.
 
User avatar
UPlog
Posts: 558
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:45 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Sun Sep 15, 2019 4:44 pm

Nearly 3-hour average delay for Sunday


CTL ELEMENT: SFO
ELEMENT TYPE: APT
ADL TIME: 1249Z
DELAY ASSIGNMENT MODE: UDP
ARRIVALS ESTIMATED FOR: 15/1400Z - 16/0759Z
CUMULATIVE PROGRAM PERIOD: 15/1400Z - 16/0759Z
PROGRAM RATE: 27/27/27/27/27/30/30/30/30/30/30/30/30/30/30/30/30/30
FLT INCL: ALL CONTIGUOUS US DEP
DEP SCOPE: (MANUAL) 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: 298
AVERAGE DELAY: 176
IMPACTING CONDITION: RWY-TAXI / CONSTRUCTION
I fly your boxes
 
User avatar
UPlog
Posts: 558
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:45 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:07 pm

3+ hour average delays on Monday


CTL ELEMENT: SFO
ELEMENT TYPE: APT
ADL TIME: 1243Z
DELAY ASSIGNMENT MODE: UDP
ARRIVALS ESTIMATED FOR: 16/1400Z - 17/0759Z
CUMULATIVE PROGRAM PERIOD: 16/1400Z - 17/0759Z
PROGRAM RATE: 27/27/27/27/27/27/27/30/30/30/30/30/30/30/30/30/30/30
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: 308
AVERAGE DELAY: 190
IMPACTING CONDITION: RWY-TAXI / CONSTRUCTION
I fly your boxes
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24515
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Mon Sep 16, 2019 11:10 pm

From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
User avatar
UPlog
Posts: 558
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:45 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:02 pm

Near 3 hour average delays today

CTL ELEMENT: SFO
ELEMENT TYPE: APT
ADL TIME: 1251Z
DELAY ASSIGNMENT MODE: UDP
ARRIVALS ESTIMATED FOR: 18/1400Z - 19/0759Z
CUMULATIVE PROGRAM PERIOD: 18/1400Z - 19/0759Z
PROGRAM RATE: 27/27/27/27/27/27/27/27/30/30/30/30/30/30/30/30/30/30
FLT INCL: ALL CONTIGUOUS US DEP
DEP SCOPE: (MANUAL) 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 CYYJ CYLW
MAXIMUM DELAY: 299
AVERAGE DELAY: 177
IMPACTING CONDITION: RWY-TAXI / CONSTRUCTION
I fly your boxes
 
User avatar
janders
Moderator
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:27 pm

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:08 pm

A story about United added a Burbank-LAX flight on A319 to move an aircraft and passengers due to extensive delays on original planned BUR-SFO route.

https://liveandletsfly.boardingarea.com ... ax-flight/
https://simpleflying.com/united-airline ... s-express/
"We make war that we may live in peace." -- Aristotle
 
User avatar
KLMatSJC
Posts: 670
Joined: Sat Oct 02, 2010 1:16 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Wed Sep 18, 2019 3:18 pm

All runways are set to open tomorrow at 21:00L, more than a week early.
A318/19/20/21/21N A332/3 A343/5 A388 B712 B722 B732/3/4/7/8/9/9ER B744/4M B752/3 B762ER/3/3ER/4ER B772/E/L/W B788 CRJ2/7/9 Q400 EMB-120 ERJ-135/140/145/145XR/175 DC-10-10 MD-82/83/88/90

Long Live the Tulip, Cactus, and Redwood
 
UALifer
Posts: 80
Joined: Sat Jan 20, 2018 3:35 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Wed Sep 18, 2019 5:25 pm

KLMatSJC wrote:
All runways are set to open tomorrow at 21:00L, more than a week early.


Airport press release: https://www.flysfo.com/media/press-rele ... d-schedule
 
User avatar
UPlog
Posts: 558
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2018 5:45 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:43 pm

Everything open, but 4+ hour average delays today, one of the busiest travel days of the year.



[i]CTL ELEMENT: SFO
ELEMENT TYPE: APT
ADL TIME: 1440Z
DELAY ASSIGNMENT MODE: UDP
ARRIVALS ESTIMATED FOR: 01/1700Z - 02/0759Z
CUMULATIVE PROGRAM PERIOD: 01/1700Z - 02/0759Z
PROGRAM RATE: 28
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: 414
AVERAGE DELAY: 272
IMPACTING CONDITION: WEATHER / WIND
I fly your boxes
 
User avatar
janders
Moderator
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Dec 11, 2017 4:27 pm

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Sun Dec 01, 2019 9:51 pm

SFGate has article today on SFO weather delays and why the airport is one of the worst in the nation when it comes to delays. Some interesting graphics

https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/S ... 20(Desktop)&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral
"We make war that we may live in peace." -- Aristotle
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5645
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:06 pm

So building the whole damned airport on fill was just fine, but adding a runway condemns the whole bay into extinction? Got it.

GF
 
747megatop
Posts: 1785
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:25 pm

janders wrote:
SFGate has article today on SFO weather delays and why the airport is one of the worst in the nation when it comes to delays. Some interesting graphics

https://www.sfgate.com/travel/article/S ... 20(Desktop)&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

I really down't know how UA maintains a hub operation out of there without pissing off a lot of transit passengers due to misconnects. I think UA is better off building a larger transit hub at LAX and scaling down operations at SFO to concentrate just on niche O&D traffic routes. SFO can be easily pushed over the edge with the slightest of bad weather and runway/taxiway closures compared to LAX,
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24515
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Sun Dec 01, 2019 10:47 pm

Well today, UA does not have the footprint to grow LAX much. Once T-9 comes along there will be additional capacity but still impossible to replicate SFO size operation here.

In regards to SFO transit experience, at an employee event a couple of years ago, it was mentioned SFO had the companies highest misconnect rate and the fact that many international routes are only operated once per day made reaccommadation difficult and costly.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
Scarebus34
Posts: 523
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 10:54 pm

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:19 pm

UA is in a dilemma much like they are at EWR. They over schedule to maintain capacity and market share, but it comes at a great cost when the weather doesn’t cooperate.
 
GoSharks
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:23 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:43 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
So building the whole damned airport on fill was just fine, but adding a runway condemns the whole bay into extinction? Got it.

GF

Does this really need explaining? The Bay Area in the early-mid twentieth century is a much different place than California today. Very very few people would support landfill in the bay these days. The focus now is restoration, not destruction. Locally, there is nobody asking for SFO to be expanded in land area.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/ar ... 450900.php
 
747-600X
Posts: 2553
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2000 3:11 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Sun Dec 01, 2019 11:57 pm

GoSharks wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
So building the whole damned airport on fill was just fine, but adding a runway condemns the whole bay into extinction? Got it.

GF

Does this really need explaining? The Bay Area in the early-mid twentieth century is a much different place than California today. Very very few people would support landfill in the bay these days. The focus now is restoration, not destruction. Locally, there is nobody asking for SFO to be expanded in land area.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/ar ... 450900.php


It definitely needs explaining. Airports like SFO with its closely-spaced runways and LGA with its short and crossing runways would do well to have footprint expansions, and there is no reason for which adding more shoreline to the Bay and changing its shape has to be (or even *should be*) environmentally destructive. THe same soils and silt which make up the seabed and shorelines can be contoured however needed, and pushing the airport's footprint further into the bay would increase shoreline area, which might be beneficial to species in the region. The same is true of LGA and JFK, for that matter, among many others. So, yes; it needs explaining.
 
User avatar
jetblastdubai
Posts: 1948
Joined: Sun Aug 18, 2013 10:23 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:01 am

Scarebus34 wrote:
UA is in a dilemma much like they are at EWR. They over schedule to maintain capacity and market share, but it comes at a great cost when the weather doesn’t cooperate.


Present day SFO and EWR are much like ORD in the pre-reconfiguration days. The airport ARRIVAL rate is totally dependent on either ceiling, visibility and/or runway conditions. The reason they fall apart when any combination of these 3 factors reduce the arrival capacity is that the airports are in high demand and therefore scheduled to their optimum conditions capacity.

If UA reduced their schedule to a worst-case scenario number, so that there'd be no major delays when conditions go south, they'd be throwing away potential capacity in good weather conditions. Not to mention that since SFO/EWR are not technically slot-controlled, there'd be nothing from stopping any competitor from adding flights and thereby negating any gains from the voluntary schedule reduction by UA. It's a "lose-lose" for UA. They might as well schedule what they want and have a major contingency plan when things turn bad.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5645
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:31 am

GoSharks wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
So building the whole damned airport on fill was just fine, but adding a runway condemns the whole bay into extinction? Got it.

GF

Does this really need explaining? The Bay Area in the early-mid twentieth century is a much different place than California today. Very very few people would support landfill in the bay these days. The focus now is restoration, not destruction. Locally, there is nobody asking for SFO to be expanded in land area.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/ar ... 450900.php


The politics have changed, not the Bay Area.
 
GoSharks
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:23 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 12:38 am

747-600X wrote:
GoSharks wrote:
GalaxyFlyer wrote:
So building the whole damned airport on fill was just fine, but adding a runway condemns the whole bay into extinction? Got it.

GF

Does this really need explaining? The Bay Area in the early-mid twentieth century is a much different place than California today. Very very few people would support landfill in the bay these days. The focus now is restoration, not destruction. Locally, there is nobody asking for SFO to be expanded in land area.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/ar ... 450900.php


It definitely needs explaining. Airports like SFO with its closely-spaced runways and LGA with its short and crossing runways would do well to have footprint expansions, and there is no reason for which adding more shoreline to the Bay and changing its shape has to be (or even *should be*) environmentally destructive. THe same soils and silt which make up the seabed and shorelines can be contoured however needed, and pushing the airport's footprint further into the bay would increase shoreline area, which might be beneficial to species in the region. The same is true of LGA and JFK, for that matter, among many others. So, yes; it needs explaining.

1. You are literally destroying the natural environment to do what you propose. It goes against everything the Bay Area stands for, and conservation/preservation in general.
2. Why are outsiders/the minority trying to dictate what happens with the bay and SFO?

69% of voters here here voted to pay for Bay restoration and preservation. https://abag.ca.gov/news/san-francisco- ... er-support

Nobody that lives here really cares that SFO gets delayed.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
The politics have changed, not the Bay Area.

Obviously that's what I meant.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 5645
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 4:42 am

Then, just restore the bay by removing the inefficient airport and go back to sailing ships. It’s the 21st century, if SFO wants to be an international city, it needs an efficient, safe airport, build it. The bay will adjust fine like it did after all the previous fill developments.

BTW, I couldn’t care what you do, but don’t complain about airport delays AND refuse to address them,

GF
 
Chemist
Posts: 734
Joined: Tue Oct 20, 2015 4:46 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:30 am

The Bay Area get its water from the Hetch-Hetchy Valley in Yosemite. This is a valley that rivaled the beauty of Yosemite valley, but was dammed up to form a reservoir for San Francisco. A few years ago a referendum was on the ballot to tear down the dam and get the water from further downstream instead, thereby starting the restoration of the Valley. That ballot measure did not pass.

So while SFO wants to protect the Bay, they are pretty hypocritical since they don't care about what they did to Yosemite National Park. What was done to Yosemite is far worse than what an airport expansion would do to SFO Bay.
 
User avatar
NOLAWildcat
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 6:14 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 6:14 am

As an Oakland resident, I think it’s idiotic that local politics prevents the construction of another Runway 28 at SFO. You essentially need to fill in a 10000’ by 1000’ rectangular section of bay to the immediate north of the ends of the 19s. There’re plenty of salt ponds down in the southern part of the Bay near the Dumbarton Bridge that could be restored to wetlands or open water to make up the area of the Bay lost to the new runway. I like the fact that the Bay Area has plenty of green spaces within minutes of SF and Oakland, and I have the environmental lobby to thank for much of that, but a new runway at SFO is a no-brainer.
 
GoSharks
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:23 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 7:42 am

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Then, just restore the bay by removing the inefficient airport and go back to sailing ships. It’s the 21st century, if SFO wants to be an international city, it needs an efficient, safe airport, build it. The bay will adjust fine like it did after all the previous fill developments.

BTW, I couldn’t care what you do, but don’t complain about airport delays AND refuse to address them,

GF

There is a huge difference between doing restoration/preservation and destruction of additional bay. In fact, they are exact opposites.

The Bay Area has an airport that works just fine for the local economy. San Francisco is and has been an international city. Why do we need to expand SFO? It works for us now and there is still excellent international connectivity. Most people that live here are completely unaffected by Sfo weather operations.

BTW, where have I complained about delays?

Re hetch hetchy, the fact that people don't want to spend billions of dollars to move the reservoir doesn't mean that people are hypocritical when it comes to Sfo. Hetch hetchy is a done deal and already exists, same as how SFO already exists. People here are proposing that the bay is destroyed - the equivalent would be the expansion of hetch hetchy. It would only be hypocritical if people agree to hetch hetchy expansion but not Sfo expansion. That has not happened.

Moving hetch hetchy would be akin to moving Sfo. Those actions would be consistent with each other. Saying that not supporting hetch hetchy relocation while not supporting Sfo expansion is hypocritical is completely incorrect.
 
Georgetown
Posts: 425
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 12:50 pm

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 2:01 pm

GoSharks wrote:

Nobody that lives here really cares that SFO gets delayed.



That’s far from the truth. Many, many do - tremendously so. Myself included. What is true is that landfill as a solution is a political non-starter. Won’t happen. The region likely would be willing to spend a commensurate amount on a technological solution - the rate limiter there starts to get into infrastructure under federal oversight.
Let's go Hoyas!
 
GoSharks
Posts: 150
Joined: Mon Nov 02, 2015 3:23 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 3:27 pm

Georgetown wrote:
GoSharks wrote:

Nobody that lives here really cares that SFO gets delayed.



That’s far from the truth. Many, many do - tremendously so. Myself included. What is true is that landfill as a solution is a political non-starter. Won’t happen. The region likely would be willing to spend a commensurate amount on a technological solution - the rate limiter there starts to get into infrastructure under federal oversight.

Well, that's exactly what I mean when I say nobody really cares. We would rather deal with the delays than fill in the bay.
 
ucdtim17
Posts: 618
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:38 pm

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 5:29 pm

It would be a stupendous – 10-to-11 digit – waste of money. There already exists a perfectly good, under-utilized airport across the bay that is equally or more convenient for 80+% of SFO’s market, that has space for new terminals and runway capacity for decades of growth. The only reason we’re having this conversation is because we don’t have a regional agency managing capacity in a rational way. So we have a tragedy of the commons situation, where it’s in every airline’s individual interest to maximize their footprint at SFO and we end up with far more capacity than can be handled anytime weather conditions are less than ideal. Just add a cap at SFO and let the market adjust. Some CRJ-200 flights would end, some traffic would gradually shift to OAK (and SJC) and everything would be fine.
 
User avatar
NOLAWildcat
Posts: 75
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 6:14 am

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:03 pm

ucdtim17 wrote:
It would be a stupendous – 10-to-11 digit – waste of money. There already exists a perfectly good, under-utilized airport across the bay that is equally or more convenient for 80+% of SFO’s market, that has space for new terminals and runway capacity for decades of growth. The only reason we’re having this conversation is because we don’t have a regional agency managing capacity in a rational way. So we have a tragedy of the commons situation, where it’s in every airline’s individual interest to maximize their footprint at SFO and we end up with far more capacity than can be handled anytime weather conditions are less than ideal. Just add a cap at SFO and let the market adjust. Some CRJ-200 flights would end, some traffic would gradually shift to OAK (and SJC) and everything would be fine.


I love flying out of Oakland, but I’m dubious an expansion of OAK or SJC (either via a flight cap or as championed by a joint airport authority) is going to fix the issues at SFO short of a government decree forcing certain airlines to use OAK rather than SFO a la Beijing’s new Daxing airport (which obviously won’t happen).

OAK is much easier to get to downtown SF than it used to be with the newish AirTrain, but it’s still a pain to get to from the Peninsula—which is booming with tech construction as the center of Silicon Valley tech continues to shift north as tech companies build out new facilities on the Peninsula and in SF itself. That same shift northward also impacts SJC’s prospects for expansion (despite its impressive growth over the past few years).

The bulk of the high yielding passengers are still closer to SFO than OAK. And SJC is just as hard to get to on 101 for much of the Peninsula as SFO is. The airlines are chasing deep-pocketed tech workers in Palo Alto, SF, and pricey suburbs like Hillsborough, not the (relatively) middle class folks living in Concord and Morgan Hill. Your proposed cap will help expand service at OAK and SJC, but the airlines are still going to put as much service as possible into SFO as they can because that’s where the money is.

And even if a cap forces a large chunk of domestic SFO traffic across the Bay or down south (and AA, Alaska, and Delta aren’t going to let UA further strengthen their hub without a fight), you’ve still got some of the same issues with runway restrictions at both OAK and SJC. They have plenty of capacity now, but OAK would need to realign the northern complex to give themselves two real parallel runways (and fill in wetlands) if they wanted to host a true competitor to SFO while SJC is hemmed in by highways and development. Expanded terminals at these airports would go a long way to taking strain off SFO’s future growth, as would better mass transit connecting the airports to the outlying parts of the Bay, but it would be expensive if not politically impossible to reconfigure those airfields to make either one into a true competitor to SFO.

Best case, I’d expect OAK and SJC to absorb some of SFO’s projected growth while SFO remains the cluster it is when low ceilings force it into a single approach airport.

And with regards to some of the comments in this thread asserting locals don’t care whether SFO is a disaster area whenever weather rolls in, what a ridiculous take. Plenty of Bay Area residents like me would prefer our travel plans (and the US air transportation network as a whole) not get disrupted every time there’s a rain shower in Millbrae.
 
ucdtim17
Posts: 618
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2016 6:38 pm

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 10:51 pm

NOLAWildcat wrote:
And even if a cap forces a large chunk of domestic SFO traffic across the Bay or down south (and AA, Alaska, and Delta aren’t going to let UA further strengthen their hub without a fight), you’ve still got some of the same issues with runway restrictions at both OAK and SJC. They have plenty of capacity now, but OAK would need to realign the northern complex to give themselves two real parallel runways (and fill in wetlands) if they wanted to host a true competitor to SFO while SJC is hemmed in by highways and development. Expanded terminals at these airports would go a long way to taking strain off SFO’s future growth, as would better mass transit connecting the airports to the outlying parts of the Bay, but it would be expensive if not politically impossible to reconfigure those airfields to make either one into a true competitor to SFO.


Obviously if you have to do a significant fill operation at OAK, that reduces the benefit of any re-balancing plan. I'm looking at the now-15 year old OAK Master Plan (https://www.oaklandairport.com/developm ... documents/). In 2005 runway 11-29 (at the time) was operating at ~80% of capacity; it's likely in the same ballpark today. The Plan discusses options for a new South Field runway envisioned in the 2015-2025 window but doesn't make a recommendation. It seems to me the obvious answer if OAK ever needs more runway capacity is to move more arrivals to the 27s at North Field (as is done today when 12-30 is unavailable). San Leandro residents won't like it, but that's a much simpler/cheaper problem to deal with than building new multi-billion dollar runways on bay fill at either airport. I don't know why that isn't considered the logical plan for when 12-30 reaches capacity.
 
User avatar
LAXintl
Posts: 24515
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

Re: SFO Runway 28L closure - How Bad?

Mon Dec 02, 2019 11:07 pm

Until such time FAA implements slot system at SFO which would forcibly limit traffic volume, airlines will continue to over-schedule at the airport and won't create the market incentives for airlines to look at shifting more activity to OAK and SJC.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos