Is SFO Doomed?
May 20, 2019, 2:58 pm
#46
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 38,582
My point is that the airports are so close to each other (as the bird, or plane, flies) that if it is raining near one, as a matter of geography, it is raining near the other one.
May 20, 2019, 3:06 pm
#47
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,637
And the same weather that creates delays at SFO does not create delays at SJC/OAK. The reason delays exist at SFO is inbound traffic has to be reduced; the quantity of traffic at SJC/OAK is never enough to require any delay program.
May 20, 2019, 3:13 pm
#48
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Over the Bay Bridge, CA
Programs: Jumbo mas
Posts: 38,582
OAK and SJC do not have the parallel runway situation. And not only do SFO arrivals need to be cut in half, but departures are usually cut from 4 runways to 2.
May 20, 2019, 3:33 pm
#49
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
There's been studies over the years to space the runways at SFO further apart so they don't have to reduce takeoffs and landing during inclement weather. They never go anywhere, though, because it would involve filling the Bay and expanding the airport, and that just isn't going to happen with an environmentally conscious Bay Area. Part of living here is knowing that SFO will have reduced capacity when the weather is bad. It's part of the cost we pay for living in the Bay Area.
Tom in Cairns
Tom in Cairns
May 20, 2019, 3:44 pm
#50
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 17,386
Many people who live near airports are not at all interested in airport expansion. I lived in Burbank and watched the airport lose the battle for more gates, a new two level terminal, and jetways. And it wasn't only Burbank. Residents of Studio City, directly in the main takeoff flight path, were against it as well. The opposition is really only environmentally driven in terms of jet noise. Though of course advocates always try to expand their arguments to carbon footprints, etc. The issue was jet noise.
May 22, 2019, 12:27 pm
#51
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: San Francisco
Programs: All-Around Kettle
Posts: 3,287
Many people who live near airports are not at all interested in airport expansion. I lived in Burbank and watched the airport lose the battle for more gates, a new two level terminal, and jetways. And it wasn't only Burbank. Residents of Studio City, directly in the main takeoff flight path, were against it as well. The opposition is really only environmentally driven in terms of jet noise. Though of course advocates always try to expand their arguments to carbon footprints, etc. The issue was jet noise.
The current "plan" is to use technology to make more landings possible in bad weather, and to some degree that has occurred, but we have a very long way to go.
May 22, 2019, 6:20 pm
#53
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Danville, CA, USA;
Programs: UA 1MM, WN CP, Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Gold, IC Plat
Posts: 15,709
There's been studies over the years to space the runways at SFO further apart so they don't have to reduce takeoffs and landing during inclement weather. They never go anywhere, though, because it would involve filling the Bay and expanding the airport, and that just isn't going to happen with an environmentally conscious Bay Area. Part of living here is knowing that SFO will have reduced capacity when the weather is bad. It's part of the cost we pay for living in the Bay Area.
May 22, 2019, 9:13 pm
#54
Moderator: Hyatt; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: WAS
Programs: :rolleyes:, DL DM, Mlife Plat, Caesars Diam, Marriott Tit, UA Gold, Hyatt Glob, invol FT beta tester
Posts: 18,877
Although...
Palo Alto Moves Closer To Suing FAA Over Jets
https://kcbsradio.radio.com/blogs/ma...over-jet-noise
Palo Alto Moves Closer To Suing FAA Over Jets
https://kcbsradio.radio.com/blogs/ma...over-jet-noise
May 22, 2019, 9:14 pm
#55
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
Save the Bay has a piece on their website about SFO:
In 1998, SFO reversed a decade of denials and announced it would build runways farther into San Francisco Bay by launching a $75 million public relations campaign to sell the public on the largest proposed Bay fill project since the 1960s. SFO’s media blitzes and paid opposition research instead strengthened a deep regional consensus against paving over more of our Bay, which has already been shrunk by one-third.
Save The Bay mobilized region-wide opposition to the project, culminating in overwhelming passage by San Francisco voters of Proposition D in 2001. That ballot measure changed the city charter to prohibit large Bay fill projects without a voter approval. A subsequent city audit of SFO found the airport had pushed the runway project instead of studying alternatives, discounted public input, skirted contracting regulations, and spent huge sums on consultants and vendors.
After four years of intense public scrutiny and Save The Bay advocacy, and with the airport more than $4 billion in debt, SFO shelved its plans and the Board of Supervisors prohibited any further spending on runway expansion into the Bay. Finally, in 2008, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution that no additional fill should be placed in San Francisco Bay for new or reconfigured runways at San Francisco International Airport, ending a nearly decade-long battle.
https://savesfbay.org/impact/prevented-bay-fill
In 1998, SFO reversed a decade of denials and announced it would build runways farther into San Francisco Bay by launching a $75 million public relations campaign to sell the public on the largest proposed Bay fill project since the 1960s. SFO’s media blitzes and paid opposition research instead strengthened a deep regional consensus against paving over more of our Bay, which has already been shrunk by one-third.
Save The Bay mobilized region-wide opposition to the project, culminating in overwhelming passage by San Francisco voters of Proposition D in 2001. That ballot measure changed the city charter to prohibit large Bay fill projects without a voter approval. A subsequent city audit of SFO found the airport had pushed the runway project instead of studying alternatives, discounted public input, skirted contracting regulations, and spent huge sums on consultants and vendors.
After four years of intense public scrutiny and Save The Bay advocacy, and with the airport more than $4 billion in debt, SFO shelved its plans and the Board of Supervisors prohibited any further spending on runway expansion into the Bay. Finally, in 2008, the San Francisco Board of Supervisors passed a resolution that no additional fill should be placed in San Francisco Bay for new or reconfigured runways at San Francisco International Airport, ending a nearly decade-long battle.
Jun 1, 2021, 3:49 pm
#56
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: San Francisco
Programs: All-Around Kettle
Posts: 3,287
Looks like SFO's GBAS installation is proceeding. Although not directly mentioned in this press release, I was under the impression that one of the system's benefits would be an increased landing rate in bad weather -- by allowing better use of both parallel runways -- thereby reducing SFO's notorious weather delays. Hopefully that does come to pass.
https://www.honeywell.com/us/en/pres...ntation-system
https://www.honeywell.com/us/en/pres...ntation-system
Jun 1, 2021, 4:31 pm
#57
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Berkeley, CA USA
Programs: Piggly Wiggly "Shop the Pig!" Preferred Shopper
Posts: 57,022
Looks like SFO's GBAS installation is proceeding. Although not directly mentioned in this press release, I was under the impression that one of the system's benefits would be an increased landing rate in bad weather -- by allowing better use of both parallel runways -- thereby reducing SFO's notorious weather delays. Hopefully that does come to pass.
https://www.honeywell.com/us/en/pres...ntation-system
https://www.honeywell.com/us/en/pres...ntation-system
Jun 2, 2021, 5:03 pm
#58
Join Date: Nov 2016
Programs: Nectar Card
Posts: 1,092
The problem in the bay area is the tribalism and the fragmented management of the infrastructure - not just airport infrastructure. In a perfect world, OAK and SFO would be connected by a 20-25-min ferry, which would allow for the two airports to operate as an airport system. Given how the current management practices are set up, that won't happen any time in the future.
All we've gotten instead (passengers, airlines, etc.) is monopolistic behavior such as generally high landing fees, and comparatively poorly maintained facilities.
Jun 8, 2021, 8:43 pm
#59
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: SFO
Programs: AS 75K (OW), SK Silver (*A), UR, MR
Posts: 3,328
Is SFO really the only airport with an open lounge still? So not all that doomed. 
+
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/08/san-francisco-covid-herd-immunity
+
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/08/san-francisco-covid-herd-immunity
Jun 21, 2021, 3:30 pm
#60
Suspended
Join Date: Feb 2009
Programs: DL, UA, AA, VS
Posts: 5,226
First time in SFO in about 18 months.
I checked my bag in (UA ticket but Lh counter was great, no complaint about 25-26 kilos and interlinked it to a separate ticket AF flight). Then went outside since I had a couple of hours. There is no enforcement of drop off cars at the Intl terminal. One airport person and she let people park, go inside with people they dropped off, then come back out.
when did they loosen up those rules or has covid overtaken security concerns?
then a big bottleneck in the TSA Pre line. The guy took my passport and two boarding passes and returned one, didn’t notice until later. Turns out he gave my boarding pass, with the baggage claim ticket interlinked through th separate AF flight, to another part.
most of the shops are closed down. UC club is closed, would have to go to Terminal 3, wherever that is. Polaris lounge lights seemed on but not open.
I guess also f you wer going to do a last minute test, you’d b out of luck in the International Terminal, because I didn’t see anything.
are there domestic destinations requiring tests? You’d think people going to international destinations, through you know the International Terminal, would née the last minute tests.
terrace by gate 7/8 is nice.
I checked my bag in (UA ticket but Lh counter was great, no complaint about 25-26 kilos and interlinked it to a separate ticket AF flight). Then went outside since I had a couple of hours. There is no enforcement of drop off cars at the Intl terminal. One airport person and she let people park, go inside with people they dropped off, then come back out.
when did they loosen up those rules or has covid overtaken security concerns?
then a big bottleneck in the TSA Pre line. The guy took my passport and two boarding passes and returned one, didn’t notice until later. Turns out he gave my boarding pass, with the baggage claim ticket interlinked through th separate AF flight, to another part.
most of the shops are closed down. UC club is closed, would have to go to Terminal 3, wherever that is. Polaris lounge lights seemed on but not open.
I guess also f you wer going to do a last minute test, you’d b out of luck in the International Terminal, because I didn’t see anything.
are there domestic destinations requiring tests? You’d think people going to international destinations, through you know the International Terminal, would née the last minute tests.
terrace by gate 7/8 is nice.
