Planned Diversions From SFO to OAK/SJC
Jun 3, 2018, 4:09 pm
#166
Join Date: May 2006
Location: TUS/PDX
Programs: WN CP/A-List, AS MVPG75K
Posts: 5,798
I don’t think the AARs have changed much since 2010. What has changed are some of the procedures like CSPR, which allows closer offset approaches in lower ceilings. SFO has 1nm spacing requirements and the other airports with CSPR approaches (like SEA), have to use 1.5nm. At least with CSPR they can bring things a bit higher than the ~30 AAR they used to get when the evil clouds moved in.
Another thing that has changed at SFO since 2010 is traffic volume. If they start bumping up to the 60 aircraft/hour limit earlier and for longer periods of time, delays just get worse and worse and can’t clear once the evil clouds move in. There was SFO flow control at 7a when I got on my flight the other morning. Ramp space issues are also causing issues, but that might be more of a WN thing than AS since the construction is over in T1.
The three things that’ll fix this are the FAA making it a level 3 slot airport (like JFK/LGA/DCA) or a new runway (very unlikely) or NextGen.
Jun 3, 2018, 4:12 pm
#167
Join Date: Jun 2011
Posts: 93
When there is flow control at SFO, I would much rather take a planned diversion to OAK or SJC than have my flight delayed. If I am departing from SFO, I would also much rather go to OAK or SJC for my flight than to wait at SFO.
AS believes most of its (potential) customers agree with me.
AS believes most of its (potential) customers agree with me.
Jun 3, 2018, 4:17 pm
#168
Join Date: May 2006
Location: TUS/PDX
Programs: WN CP/A-List, AS MVPG75K
Posts: 5,798
Also, don’t invalidate my iPhone BP after the city change.
Jun 3, 2018, 5:26 pm
#169
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
I'm not quite sure what departures and arrivals board you're looking at over @ UA @sfo on a "weather day" but the one that I see has plenty of not only delays, but cancellations.
I don’t think the AARs have changed much since 2010. What has changed are some of the procedures like CSPR, which allows closer offset approaches in lower ceilings. SFO has 1nm spacing requirements and the other airports with CSPR approaches (like SEA), have to use 1.5nm. At least with CSPR they can bring things a bit higher than the ~30 AAR they used to get when the evil clouds moved in.
Another thing that has changed at SFO since 2010 is traffic volume. If they start bumping up to the 60 aircraft/hour limit earlier and for longer periods of time, delays just get worse and worse and can’t clear once the evil clouds move in. There was SFO flow control at 7a when I got on my flight the other morning. Ramp space issues are also causing issues, but that might be more of a WN thing than AS since the construction is over in T1.
The three things that’ll fix this are the FAA making it a level 3 slot airport (like JFK/LGA/DCA) or a new runway (very unlikely) or NextGen.
Another thing that has changed at SFO since 2010 is traffic volume. If they start bumping up to the 60 aircraft/hour limit earlier and for longer periods of time, delays just get worse and worse and can’t clear once the evil clouds move in. There was SFO flow control at 7a when I got on my flight the other morning. Ramp space issues are also causing issues, but that might be more of a WN thing than AS since the construction is over in T1.
The three things that’ll fix this are the FAA making it a level 3 slot airport (like JFK/LGA/DCA) or a new runway (very unlikely) or NextGen.
Jun 3, 2018, 5:31 pm
#170
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
I am commenting on the SEA-SFO and LAX-SFO routes only. those flights - other than very rarely on UA - get cancelled, they - other than with AS - go to rolling "flow control" delay. I fly these routes nearly weekly, they rarely (other than the scattered LAX-SFO on UA) get cancelled. UA does cut some UX routes, but I am unaware of any pattern I have ever seen on cutting UA routes due to flow-control.
Just because YOU don’t see it on the board doesn’t make it so...
Jun 3, 2018, 6:37 pm
#171
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
SFO prepares for slots as more flights crowd in
If, or when, SFO reaches runway capacity (the number of take-offs and landings that can be accommodated in any given day), it could become the next big U.S. airport to become slot-controlled.
"We are preparing for a future that acknowledges the runway constraints that currently exist," said Airport spokesman Doug Yakel.
"We are preparing for a future that acknowledges the runway constraints that currently exist," said Airport spokesman Doug Yakel.
Jun 4, 2018, 1:01 pm
#172
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
Did you see the article in the San Francisco Chronicle this week that forecasts slot control may be on the way in a few years?
SFO prepares for slots as more flights crowd in
SFO prepares for slots as more flights crowd in
No way!!!I actually think this supports what I said. The spokesperson talks about slot control in 2024-2025 if the number of scheduled take-offs and landings keeps going up, and about how the airport is urging the use of larger planes.
Slot control would only apply if (a) schedualed take-offs/landings exceeded 60/hour, and (b) Next Gen did not address the issue. When the new T1 is done (I think in 2021 or so) then the available gates will exceed the run-way capacity at peak times, and there may be an issue, but its not the same issue as flow control.
p.s. While I know next-gen will fix the weather issue (since VFR spacing will not be needed) does anyone know if it will allow less spacing between planes than the current 2 minutes or so? I.e. will Next-gen allow tighter spacing than is currently allowed in clear weather?
Jun 4, 2018, 3:08 pm
#173
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Bay Area, CA
Programs: UA Plat 2MM; AS MVP Gold 75K
Posts: 35,068
They are choosing to do business at a delayed airport. The solution is to figure out how to do business as they've advertised rather than substituting a non-equivalent option.
Jun 4, 2018, 3:30 pm
#174
Join Date: May 2003
Location: SFO, mostly
Posts: 2,204
I wonder how many remote stand or Int'l Gates they have access to at SFO? On two recent flights, we were left sitting on the tarmac twice for about 25 minutes after landing at SFO in late evening hours because of "no gate available" in T2. In both cases, it wasn't because of pending departures, but because they hadn't yet managed to tow an aircraft that had arrived earlier in the evening over to remote parking for the night so we could pull into the gate and deplane. I would have much rather they just parked us at the Int'l gates and let us deplane there instead of leaving us sitting on the plane.
Jun 4, 2018, 3:41 pm
#175
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: 6 year GS, now 2MM Jeff-ugee, *wood LTPlt, SkyPeso PLT
Posts: 6,526
I wonder how many remote stand or Int'l Gates they have access to at SFO? On two recent flights, we were left sitting on the tarmac twice for about 25 minutes after landing at SFO in late evening hours because of "no gate available" in T2. In both cases, it wasn't because of pending departures, but because they hadn't yet managed to tow an aircraft that had arrived earlier in the evening over to remote parking for the night so we could pull into the gate and deplane. I would have much rather they just parked us at the Int'l gates and let us deplane there instead of leaving us sitting on the plane.
This is fixable, but AS would have to spend more $$$ to use extra gates
Jun 4, 2018, 4:05 pm
#176
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: SJC / DPS
Programs: AS G75K, UA Silver
Posts: 1,757
I wonder how many remote stand or Int'l Gates they have access to at SFO? On two recent flights, we were left sitting on the tarmac twice for about 25 minutes after landing at SFO in late evening hours because of "no gate available" in T2. In both cases, it wasn't because of pending departures, but because they hadn't yet managed to tow an aircraft that had arrived earlier in the evening over to remote parking for the night so we could pull into the gate and deplane. I would have much rather they just parked us at the Int'l gates and let us deplane there instead of leaving us sitting on the plane.
Jun 4, 2018, 4:59 pm
#177
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
What unique operating constraints does AS face that its competitors do not? AS has a remote stand/bus operation at SFO that gives it even more gate flexibility than other carriers. Plus it has overflow gates at the INTL A terminal.
They are choosing to do business at a delayed airport. The solution is to figure out how to do business as they've advertised rather than substituting a non-equivalent option.
They are choosing to do business at a delayed airport. The solution is to figure out how to do business as they've advertised rather than substituting a non-equivalent option.
Other airlines with smaller operations at SFO cancel flights, disrupting passengers.
It is possible to disrupt fewer passengers by under-utilizing gates on an on-going basis, providing more operating flexibility during flow control. Of course, there will still be delays. You'll also pay more for your ticket, since it costs $$$ to have committed infrastructure.
Basically, passengers will be disrupted when there's flow control. I recognize that some passengers would prefer to be disrupted in different ways. I'm sure that Alaska appreciates your disruption and will work to deliver it in the safest, most reliable way possible.
Jun 4, 2018, 6:01 pm
#178
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2001
Programs: DL 1 million, AA 1 mil, HH lapsed Diamond, Marriott Plat
Posts: 28,190
A flight that is not a new flight will be assigned the on-time performance code calculated for the flight that it replaces, even if the two flights do not have the same flight number. DOT Technical Directive dated 8/15/17
New flight means a flight added to a carrier's schedule to operate in a specific origin-destination city pair and not scheduled to depart within 30 minutes of any discontinued flight that was contained in the carrier's published schedules for the same city pair during the previous month. 14 CFR 234.2
Jun 4, 2018, 6:54 pm
#179
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: SFO
Programs: AS, UA, WN, IHG Diamond Elite, Hyatt Globalist, Hilton Gold, CET 7*
Posts: 3,300
I'm also thrilled that this thread continues to thrive. Really interesting stuff about CSPR and NextGen, of which I wasn't familiar.
Jun 4, 2018, 7:07 pm
#180
Join Date: May 2013
Posts: 3,361
The beauty of the internet is that I have no idea if this is sarcasm or not, but it's seriously the funniest thing I've read on Flyertalk today.
I'm also thrilled that this thread continues to thrive. Really interesting stuff about CSPR and NextGen, of which I wasn't familiar.
I'm also thrilled that this thread continues to thrive. Really interesting stuff about CSPR and NextGen, of which I wasn't familiar.
