SFO's 5th runway idea

javier787 · Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:18 am

First time posting on this site, after quietly reading from the sidelines; feel's like a giant leap.

Anyways, SFO is my hometown airport, and, like the many of us who have flown there, the runway configuration is far from ideal. Thanks to advances in technology, the effects of this configuration have been reduced, as SFO is a master at perfectly timed parallel take offs, and landings.

The still prominent issue with this configuration, is that when weather becomes poor, and visability is reduced, parallel landings can no longer occur on 28L and 28R, the primary landing runways. As a result, the airport gets plagued with delays, as only one aircraft can land at a time.

For years, the idea of adding runways to SFO has been something that has never left the proposal stage. There are various reasons for this but, among them are the environmental impacts of land fill required to support a new runway, (something that's very important to conservationists in this area, as at one point, the Bay Area was planned to be filled in.)

So, my proposal, taking all mentioned above into consideration includes: a new 7,300 ft runway, separated far enough from 28L to allow for parallel landings in poor conditions. It would also allow for new regular procedures, such as using the new runway in tandem with 28R for landings, freeing 28L for departures. The new runway would use in upwards of 80% of existing land, and would see the private jet parking, along with the overnight stands/hangar offset to the north to accommodate the new runway.

Proposal:

link if image doesn't embed within post http://imgur.com/a/znAGz
Feedback is welcome and appreciated, I'm no expert, which is why I'm posting here.

VirginFlyer · Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:26 am

javier787 wrote:

link if image doesn't embed within post http://imgur.com/a/znAGz
Feedback is welcome and appreciated, I'm no expert, which is why I'm posting here.

Hi Javier787 welcome to the forum! To post an image, you need to give the address of the actual image, rather than the page where the image is. In this case:

[img]http://i.imgur.com/8qgEqfd.jpg[/img]

You can edit your original post (using the button which looks like a pencil in the bar at the top of your post, to the left of the report button (exclamation mark), quote button (quote marks) and post number) to fix this up

V/F

VirginFlyer · Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:42 am

Interesting concept - so effectively you're seeing this new 10L/28R and the existing 10R/28L being used for parallel approaches for low visibility parallel runway operations?

I'm not too familiar with the operational configurations of SFO, but one thing that jumps out here is if your reduced visibility capacity is predicated on the spacing of 10L/28R and 10R/28L, and the wind conditions require the use of the 1/19s, then you take a capacity hit. I don't know what percent of the time the weather would conspire to give you low visibility requiring the wider spacing and the need to use 1/19s, so it may or may not be an overwhelming concern.

I also wonder whether further advances in technology, in particular GNSS-based precision approaches, may mean that closely spaced runways like this may in the future be able to handle parallel approaches and landings in reduced visibility conditions, eliminating the need for a more widely spaced runway.

You may also want to check out this thread from a while ago: New San Francisco International Airport (hypothetical)

V/F

KiloRomeoDelta · Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:14 am

Two questions-

1) Why stop at 7,300 feet which will not allow widebodies to use it? Why not extend it all the way to the end of existing 28L/28R? They are already on a landfill, so the third one can also go on similar landfill

2) If you put a 5th runway there, what happens to United's maintenance and storage facilities and everything else that currently resides in that space? Will all of that be "involuntarily reaccommodated"?

I have said this in the past and worth repeating here- building a 5th runway at SFO is almost impossible in tight squeeze, a better option for low-weather ops would be to build a 2nd runway at OAK and an underwater tunnel linking the two airports, or a cheaper option a fleet of high-speed ferries with post-security jetties at both airports. Then when the weather is bad, divert half the flights to OAK and move the passengers across with a swift 10 minute ferry/tunnel ride.

VirginFlyer · Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:26 am

KiloRomeoDelta wrote:
a cheaper option a fleet of high-speed ferries with post-security jetties at both airports

Check out this thread about the hovercraft operation that used to exist between SFO and OAK: Where did hovercraft go at SFO-OAK?

V/F

OA940 · Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:32 am

Since you are from SF, do they ever use 1L/19R and 1R/19L? Like ever?

SFOA380 · Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:47 am

Here is what's on the horizon after the T-1 project wraps up:

http://www.flysfo.com/about-sfo/sfo-tom ... 68lC6.dpbs

Lots to look at here... there is no alteration to the runways in this plan and passenger count maxes out at 71M. Technology will certainly play a role as will OAK and SJC. These two are already experiencing high growth, both domestic and international. Together they are nearing the 25M mark. Both should push past the million mark internationally very soon if they haven't already. Should be fun to watch it all unfold in the coming decades!!!!

KrustyTheKlown · Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:50 am

I think that to allow parallel landings in all weather conditions the runways have to be further apart.

The separation between 28L and 28R in your proposal is around 400 m/1,200 feet while (as far as I can remember) they need to be separated by 1.5 km/5,000 ft.

airbazar · Mon Jun 26, 2017 12:26 pm

Not enough separation.
The current runway separation at SFO and many airports around the country is allowed due to grandfathering laws. Anything new needs to follow the new rules which requires a minimum of 3,000ft between center lines for simultaneous IFR operations.

ucdtim17 · Mon Jun 26, 2017 3:56 pm

KiloRomeoDelta wrote:
I have said this in the past and worth repeating here- building a 5th runway at SFO is almost impossible in tight squeeze, a better option for low-weather ops would be to build a 2nd runway at OAK and an underwater tunnel linking the two airports, or a cheaper option a fleet of high-speed ferries with post-security jetties at both airports. Then when the weather is bad, divert half the flights to OAK and move the passengers across with a swift 10 minute ferry/tunnel ride.

OAK already has 28L/R that are underutilized now. If future growth ever necessitated their regular use for commercial traffic, most arrivals could use those while departures head out on 30. I think the main NIMBY concerns are departures from the 28s over Bay Farm Island/Alameda, so arrivals wouldn't affect that. Building a new runway on new fill at OAK would be just as politically and financially difficult as one at SFO, so it's not happening; nor is any tunnel connecting the two airports as it would be fantastically expensive while the region is going to have to muster all the political and financial will to build a new BART tunnel between downtown Oakland and SF.

KiloRomeoDelta · Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:06 pm

OA940 wrote:
Since you are from SF, do they ever use 1L/19R and 1R/19L? Like ever?

Yes. Like always. Almost all domestic narrowbodies and some lighter widebodies use 1L and 1R for takeoffs.

When weather is bad, SFO changes arrival pattern and all landings happen on 19L and 19R. Very very rarely when winds and weather are both bad, there can be landings on 1L and 1R but that involves making a Kai-Tak like last minute turn to avoid terrain and is not very favored (except by avgeeks!).

javier787 · Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:07 pm

1) Why stop at 7,300 feet which will not allow widebodies to use it? Why not extend it all the way to the end of existing 28L/28R? They are already on a landfill, so the third one can also go on similar landfill

I wanted to keep the runway within the existing land that the airport currently has. A 7,300ft runway should be plenty for all narrow-bodies, and some wide-bodies (767, 787, possibly 777, im not sure)

If you put a 5th runway there, what happens to United's maintenance and storage facilities and everything else that currently resides in that space? Will all of that be "involuntarily reaccommodated"?

United maintenance hangars are unaffected as the runway stops short of the taxi way that by-passes the current 10's - 28's. The private jet parking/additional maintenance parking would have to be shifted over to accommodate the new runway. So yes, perhaps an involuntary reaccommodation

, but for a project of this scale, something is bound to be affected, and I tried to keep the disturbance as low as possible.

javier787 · Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:11 pm

Not enough separation.The current runway separation at SFO and many airports around the country is allowed due to grandfathering laws. Anything new needs to follow the new rules which requires a minimum of 3,000ft between center lines for simultaneous IFR operations.

Is horizontal separation the only thing that counts? Because, if we consider vertical separation, the thresholds are displaced by several thousand feet, so the approach paths would be very different, thus the spacing between aircraft would be much greater than how it is now.

javier787 · Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:15 pm

You can edit your original post (using the button which looks like a pencil in the bar at the top of your post, to the left of the report button (exclamation mark), quote button (quote marks) and post number) to fix this up

Hello, thanks for the help! But my pencil has vanished. Does that mean that one only has an hour or so to edit a post after its been posted?

CriticalPoint · Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:19 pm

OA940 wrote:
Since you are from SF, do they ever use 1L/19R and 1R/19L? Like ever?

They are used nearly every single day. If they aren't departing the 1s they are landing on the 19s.

ucdtim17 · Mon Jun 26, 2017 4:24 pm

KiloRomeoDelta wrote:
OA940 wrote:
Since you are from SF, do they ever use 1L/19R and 1R/19L? Like ever?

Yes. Like always. Almost all domestic narrowbodies and some lighter widebodies use 1L and 1R for takeoffs.

When weather is bad, SFO changes arrival pattern and all landings happen on 19L and 19R. Very very rarely when winds and weather are both bad, there can be landings on 1L and 1R but that involves making a Kai-Tak like last minute turn to avoid terrain and is not very favored (except by avgeeks!).

Last week I saw BA A380 depart from one of the ones. I had seen KLM 747s depart from there but never before an A380. So even the biggest planes can depart from the ones (probably not the EK A380 though)

Edit: Tuesday and Wednesday last week http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW2 ... /KSFO/EGLL

timz · Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:08 pm

airbazar wrote:
Anything new needs to follow the new rules which requires a minimum of 3,000ft between center lines for simultaneous IFR operations.

Offhand guess: anything old has to follow current rules too. What old airport doesn't follow current rules?

Do simultaneous independent IFR arrivals still require 4300 ft between parallels, in the US?

CantbeGrounded · Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:15 pm

It's not just environmentalists, NIMBYS, dollars, etc that make any Bay fill out of the question.

The City itself opposes:

http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/ ... 069-08.pdf

KiloRomeoDelta · Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:25 pm

ucdtim17 wrote:
KiloRomeoDelta wrote:
OA940 wrote:
Since you are from SF, do they ever use 1L/19R and 1R/19L? Like ever?

Last week I saw BA A380 depart from one of the ones. I had seen KLM 747s depart from there but never before an A380. So even the biggest planes can depart from the ones (probably not the EK A380 though)
Edit: Tuesday and Wednesday last week http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW2 ... /KSFO/EGLL

Oh what the hell! I have spotted at SFO tons of times and never seen anything bigger than a KLM 787 and UA domestic 772 use 1L/1R for takeoffs. Seeing a Super do that would be an awesome sight!

I've seen BA Super land on 19R though, that was quite dramatic too.

VirginFlyer · Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:48 pm

javier787 wrote:
You can edit your original post (using the button which looks like a pencil in the bar at the top of your post, to the left of the report button (exclamation mark), quote button (quote marks) and post number) to fix this up

Hello, thanks for the help! But my pencil has vanished. Does that mean that one only has an hour or so to edit a post after its been posted?

You're welcome :-)

Yes, I think the edit function only lasts for about an hour after you make your post. Another tip - if you keep the name in the quote, it will make it a little easier to follow, and it also gives that user a notification that they have been quoted. So like this:

[quote="javier787"]text[/quote]

If you use the quote button (next to the report post button), it will generate this automatically.

V/F

V/F

aeromoe · Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:55 pm

KiloRomeoDelta wrote:
ucdtim17 wrote:
KiloRomeoDelta wrote:
Last week I saw BA A380 depart from one of the ones. I had seen KLM 747s depart from there but never before an A380. So even the biggest planes can depart from the ones (probably not the EK A380 though)
Edit: Tuesday and Wednesday last week http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW2 ... /KSFO/EGLL

Oh what the hell! I have spotted at SFO tons of times and never seen anything bigger than a KLM 787 and UA domestic 772 use 1L/1R for takeoffs. Seeing a Super do that would be an awesome sight!

I've seen BA Super land on 19R though, that was quite dramatic too.

Often times the foreign 747 freighters will go out on the 1s if they're only going to LAX or other relatively short distance. Witnessed it many times myself. I've also seen many UA 747s of all their marks (100/200/400/SP) go out on the 1s...most likely domestic destinations.

Moe

LeaderOne · Mon Jun 26, 2017 5:56 pm

timz wrote:
airbazar wrote:

Do simultaneous independent IFR arrivals still require 4300 ft between parallels, in the US?

4300 ft separation for ILS, 3400 ft separation for PRM, and 3000 ft if one ILS is offset by a few degrees (I think 3 degrees, but I can't remember offhand).

timz · Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:07 pm

KiloRomeoDelta wrote:
I've seen BA Super land on 19R

19L, you mean?

SFOA380 · Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:41 pm

CantbeGrounded wrote:
It's not just environmentalists, NIMBYS, dollars, etc that make any Bay fill out of the question.

The City itself opposes:

http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/ ... 069-08.pdf

...and so do 90% of us who live here.

KiloRomeoDelta · Mon Jun 26, 2017 6:48 pm

timz wrote:
KiloRomeoDelta wrote:
I've seen BA Super land on 19R

19L, you mean?

Yea, whichever is the longer one. I always forget.

jetblueguy22 · Mon Jun 26, 2017 7:21 pm

SFOA380 wrote:
CantbeGrounded wrote:
It's not just environmentalists, NIMBYS, dollars, etc that make any Bay fill out of the question.

The City itself opposes:

http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/ ... 069-08.pdf

...and so do 90% of us who live here.

Then enjoy the delays. Tough to feel bad for a people who don't even want to help themselves.

77H · Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:14 pm

SFOA380 wrote:
CantbeGrounded wrote:
It's not just environmentalists, NIMBYS, dollars, etc that make any Bay fill out of the question.

The City itself opposes:

http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/ ... 069-08.pdf

...and so do 90% of us who live here.

What is the reason that 90% of the people in the bay area oppose making the airport more efficient and safer?

Like most major international airports around the world, I imagine that SFO is an economic powerhouse for the Bay Area both directly and indirectly. There will certainly come a time where SFO will be unable to grow which will inevitably hinder economic growth in the Bay Area. OAK and SJC are ill-equipped to take on an appreciable amount of SFO spill as both have unique restrictions of their own. I don't presume to say that if SFO is not expanded the Bay Area will go into ruin but it will have negative impacts on the economy. For a locale with such a high cost of living I would logically assume those living in the area would want to see the local economy be a strong as it can be. But than again, logic oft goes out the window when it comes to NIMBY rhetoric.

While I understand the importance of and agree with being good stewards of the natural environment around us, can anyone on this forum that is local to the bay area detail what the exact environmental impacts would be for filling in part of the Bay around SFO for an additional runway? Instead of fill, is there a way to build the runway on stilts, similar to part HND's new runway ? Could this reduce environmental impacts?

What about building a new airport on the salt flats in the south bay, in the vicinity of Moffett Airfield? Moffett could be razed and rebuilt for commerical purposes. As salt is one of the most abundant resources on the planet, there must be better locales that could be used for salt harvesting allowing for that area to be repurposed? I am unfamiliar with the intricacies of the Bay Area, just looking at the satellite maps there looks to be decent enough space to build an airport there.

77H

irelayer · Mon Jun 26, 2017 10:39 pm

77H wrote:
SFOA380 wrote:
CantbeGrounded wrote:
It's not just environmentalists, NIMBYS, dollars, etc that make any Bay fill out of the question.

The City itself opposes:

http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/ ... 069-08.pdf

...and so do 90% of us who live here.

What is the reason that 90% of the people in the bay area oppose making the airport more efficient and safer?

I am unfamiliar with the intricacies of the Bay Area, just looking at the satellite maps there looks to be decent enough space to build an airport there.

77H

I think you managed to ask and answer your own question...and since you are unfamiliar, just looking at a map doesn't really give you the answer you want. Just because there is space, doesn't mean it's usable space.

-IR

timz · Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:28 pm

If you asked everyone in the Bay Area

"Should San Francisco Airport build another runway or two to increase capacity and reduce bad-weather delays?"

A majority would say yes, the airport should. If you asked

"Should San Francisco Airport fill X acres of the bay to build another runway or two to..."

The percentage would drop sharply-- maybe to 30-40%? Not to 10%, of course, unless X was 20000.

77H · Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:38 pm

irelayer wrote:
77H wrote:
SFOA380 wrote:

...and so do 90% of us who live here.

What is the reason that 90% of the people in the bay area oppose making the airport more efficient and safer?

I am unfamiliar with the intricacies of the Bay Area, just looking at the satellite maps there looks to be decent enough space to build an airport there.

77H

I think you managed to ask and answer your own question...and since you are unfamiliar, just looking at a map doesn't really give you the answer you want. Just because there is space, doesn't mean it's usable space.

-IR

Which is precisely why I asked the questions I did. In your response you have failed to answer why 90% of Bay Area residents are against adding a runway in the Bay @SFO nor why the space near Moffett in the salt flats is unusable. Because I am not from the Bay Area and don't know the intricacies is why I asked. For people from there on this forum to enlighten me and anyone else who may be wondering. In every thread on SFO expansion Bay Area posters always say it wouldn't pass, no body wants it, etc but I have yet to hear the exact reasoning behind that rhetoric. I am curious. I am also curious about the specifics behind those reasonings. For example, if the primary reasoning is environmental, I am looking for someone more in the know to explain what exactly the environmental impacts are that create the opposition. It is one thing to say you oppose something, it is another to explain the reasoning behind the opposition. That, and that alone is what I am asking.

There could be a number of reasons why the residents of the Bay Area oppose it and that has been unanswered in the thread so far. It could be for environmental reasons, could be for noise, could be due to cost or it could be because adding another runway = more people coming to the Bay Area which residents may not want. Any before you or anyone writes off my last possible reasoning as ridiculous, it is one of the major reasons residents of Maui oppose lengthening the runway @OGG so there is precedence in that reasoning.

77H

Samrnpage · Mon Jun 26, 2017 11:41 pm

Everytime I look at SFO's layout, I just think "Poor ATC". They must be one of the highest paid ATC's in the country. SFO is crying out for a new airport, that one is just a logistical nightmare!

flyPIT · Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:27 am

Just because a new runway would be in the bay does not mean it can only be built on landfill.

HND:

LGA:

NichCage · Tue Jun 27, 2017 12:42 am

I see SFO struggling in the future. Sure, new runways may be discussed, but would never actually be built. At some point, the SFO will not be able to add any new gates to increase capacity. Passengers numbers are growing and sometime in the future, SFO will handle more than 71 Million passengers. San Francisco needs an new airport but it would never actually happen.

atcpeter · Tue Jun 27, 2017 1:50 am

77H wrote:
In your response you have failed to answer why 90% of Bay Area residents are against adding a runway in the Bay @SFO nor why the space near Moffett in the salt flats is unusable. Because I am not from the Bay Area and don't know the intricacies is why I asked. For people from there on this forum to enlighten me and anyone else who may be wondering.

I can't speak to the environmental opposition, but the Bay Conservation and Development Commission (BCDC) has hefty say over anything that touches the shores of the Bay. Most likely, to fill in more land around SFO, the airport would have to fund an equal amount of bay marsh restoration work somewhere else in the region. So the costs are two-fold: filling in the bay shallows and constructing a runway to current seismic standards; and restoring marshland somewhere else, which would probably require soil/silt dredging, salt decontamination, etc.

[url="http://www.bcdc.ca.gov/permits/require-permit-approval.html"]Check out this link for a bit more[/url]. The BCDC must issue its own permits (in addition to normal building permits), which requires public hearings. That said, it "may" approve fill for "Airport terminals and runways if the growth in air traffic cannot be accommodated in any other way."

As to improving technology... Later this year we will start doing closely-spaced parallel dependent approaches (7110.308 separation standard) with 1 nautical mile between aircraft in the pair. Current minima is 1.5NM. Not sure what the corresponding bump in arrival rate will be. That's for landing 28L/28R down to CAT I mins. Probably will have that ability for landing 19L/19R next year. (BTW we land the 28s about 80% of the time throughout the year)

The "future" requires ADS-B Out in the lead aircraft and ADS-B In on the trailing aircraft in a pair to exchange speed (realtime IAS and Vref) and for the trailing aircraft FMS to adjust speed and self-separate to much closer spacing. Realistically a 5-year horizon before we see that. Not enough U.S. carriers have the necessary ADS-B equipage yet to even test it outside of simulators.

GoSharks · Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:14 am

77H wrote:
SFOA380 wrote:
CantbeGrounded wrote:

While I understand the importance of and agree with being good stewards of the natural environment around us, can anyone on this forum that is local to the bay area detail what the exact environmental impacts would be for filling in part of the Bay around SFO for an additional runway? Instead of fill, is there a way to build the runway on stilts, similar to part HND's new runway ? Could this reduce environmental impacts?

What about building a new airport on the salt flats in the south bay, in the vicinity of Moffett Airfield? Moffett could be razed and rebuilt for commerical purposes. As salt is one of the most abundant resources on the planet, there must be better locales that could be used for salt harvesting allowing for that area to be repurposed? I am unfamiliar with the intricacies of the Bay Area, just looking at the satellite maps there looks to be decent enough space to build an airport there.

77H

Bay Area native here. People love parks here and much of the past 20 years has been spent renovating the former salt flats into natural wetland/parkland. Most of the South Bay is a National Wildlife Refuge. There is no chance that Moffett expands. 0.

A runway on stilts is not going to be any different in the eyes of the voters compared to landfill.

SFO isn't really a problem for locals. You just deal with and expect the occasional delay.

GoSharks · Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:18 am

KiloRomeoDelta wrote:
ucdtim17 wrote:
KiloRomeoDelta wrote:
Last week I saw BA A380 depart from one of the ones. I had seen KLM 747s depart from there but never before an A380. So even the biggest planes can depart from the ones (probably not the EK A380 though)
Edit: Tuesday and Wednesday last week http://flightaware.com/live/flight/BAW2 ... /KSFO/EGLL

Oh what the hell! I have spotted at SFO tons of times and never seen anything bigger than a KLM 787 and UA domestic 772 use 1L/1R for takeoffs. Seeing a Super do that would be an awesome sight!

I've seen BA Super land on 19R though, that was quite dramatic too.

KLM's 747 went out on 1 today. My office overlooks the departure path.

atypical · Tue Jun 27, 2017 2:39 am

SFO's biggest disadvantage is that it is an enclave of the city/county of San Francisco surrounded by San Mateo county. SFO was built prior to the creation of San Mateo county and became separated now is 5 miles separate from the rest of the city/county. That leave the airport only with fill as the way to gain land area. So even if SFO wanted to pay top dollar for surrounding real estate it still could not develop the area. Even if the landholders are paid the land San Mateo is not going to allow San Francisco to annex taxable real estate. In all likelihood there isn't any means for this to happen from a legal standpoint either. The only way something will change is if the airport becomes a joint (San Francisco/San Mateo) or regional entity where San Mateo is given a stake.

The conversion of salt evaporators to airport is certainly an interesting idea (if you don't think about it too much) however there isn't enough room by Moffett. The evaporators south of either 92 or 84 near Newark would have sufficient area to build a major airport. SJC or OAK (or both) would be a causality. The problems would be worse than adding fill for SFO. Environmentally those areas are wetlands that will eventually be restored. In today's climate building an airport instead would be as good as destroying existing wetlands. The construction costs would be enormous and then OAK and/or SJC will be abandoned. Ultimately that project will make filling in the bay around SFO look both cheap and easy.

Eventually fill is what will happen since there isn't a real alternative. The SFO commission is much happier waiting for external pressure to force the issue rather than trying to drive it with no community support.

SFOtoORD · Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:10 am

jetblueguy22 wrote:
SFOA380 wrote:
CantbeGrounded wrote:
It's not just environmentalists, NIMBYS, dollars, etc that make any Bay fill out of the question.

The City itself opposes:

http://www.sfbos.org/ftp/uploadedfiles/ ... 069-08.pdf

...and so do 90% of us who live here.

Then enjoy the delays. Tough to feel bad for a people who don't even want to help themselves.

What's it to you? It's nice to live in a place where the residents take an active role in crafting the place's future. It's a very well run airport and generally residents prefer it. Some don't, but I know plenty of people who fly SFO from the East Bay, South Bay and Marin. I suspect they'll continue to look to technology to improve flow and at some point the runway on landfill or piers could come to be once really needed.

theSFOspotter · Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:37 am

Had a meet and greet with SFO's COO today and they have no intention what so ever to build an extra runway or have the money. (Currently plan on spending $6 billion over the next 5 years for expansion/renovations/on airport hotel) As long as the bay area is run by the lefty environmentalists, the bay will never be touched for such a thing.

theSFOspotter · Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:40 am

NichCage wrote:
I see SFO struggling in the future. Sure, new runways may be discussed, but would never actually be built. At some point, the SFO will not be able to add any new gates to increase capacity. Passengers numbers are growing and sometime in the future, SFO will handle more than 71 Million passengers. San Francisco needs an new airport but it would never actually happen.

Currently they are building a new T1 which when done, will have 20 gates and 6 gates with FIS. In a couple years the buildings behind G will be torn down and a concourse H will be built with 3-4 international gates and at the end (towards west field road) will have RJ gates.

Here's a link and a quick read:

http://www.flysfo.com/about-sfo/sfo-tom ... nf4QE.dpbs

intotheair · Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:49 am

What a lot of people seem to dismiss on here is the growth potential at OAK. There's plenty of room (and plans) for expansion over there. Traffic is starting to pick up again there, and now that it's fully connected to the BART system, it takes about the same amount of time to get to Montgomery Station from OAK as it does from SFO. What SFO is to JFK, OAK could become the Bay Area's EWR. And that's before even talking about SJC and further growth potential at STS and CCR.

Those reasons, along with ATC improvements and other tech innovations to make it possible to land more planes in fog at SFO, mean that we have plenty of options for increasing air traffic in the region before having to fill in the bay with runways.

77H · Tue Jun 27, 2017 3:53 am

atypical wrote:
SFO's biggest disadvantage is that it is an enclave of the city/county of San Francisco surrounded by San Mateo county. SFO was built prior to the creation of San Mateo county and became separated now is 5 miles separate from the rest of the city/county. That leave the airport only with fill as the way to gain land area. So even if SFO wanted to pay top dollar for surrounding real estate it still could not develop the area. Even if the landholders are paid the land San Mateo is not going to allow San Francisco to annex taxable real estate. In all likelihood there isn't any means for this to happen from a legal standpoint either. The only way something will change is if the airport becomes a joint (San Francisco/San Mateo) or regional entity where San Mateo is given a stake.

The conversion of salt evaporators to airport is certainly an interesting idea (if you don't think about it too much) however there isn't enough room by Moffett. The evaporators south of either 92 or 84 near Newark would have sufficient area to build a major airport. SJC or OAK (or both) would be a causality. The problems would be worse than adding fill for SFO. Environmentally those areas are wetlands that will eventually be restored. In today's climate building an airport instead would be as good as destroying existing wetlands. The construction costs would be enormous and then OAK and/or SJC will be abandoned. Ultimately that project will make filling in the bay around SFO look both cheap and easy.

Eventually fill is what will happen since there isn't a real alternative. The SFO commission is much happier waiting for external pressure to force the issue rather than trying to drive it with no community support.

To expand on your post, in a hypothetical world where the salt evaporators turned into essentially a "mega-airport" of sorts to serve the entire bay area, SFO and OAK could be shuttered and turned into Coastal/Wetland habitats. I understand there would need to be significant clean up of oil, fuel other fluids, but can be done. SJC could be turned into a large inner city park a la Central Park. In this scenario you essentially gain 3 separate green spaces for the price of one large one located on land already used for "industial" purposes.

The issue with waiting for external pressures is that unfortunately, as is often the case in aviation, that external pressure often comes after a significant loss of life. After reading the BUR expansion thread a few months back I exited the thread thinking, its only a matter of time before an aircraft with a steering failure or blown tire veers off the runway and right into the terminal building. The same goes for LAX and the decision to not build a center line taxiway on the North Complex. LAX leads the country (with the exception of HNL evidently) in the number of runway incursions. Will it take another accident before those that oppose the safety related expansion of our country's airports pull their heads out of their empennage? Aviation, even with all its technological advances is not infallible. By the time many people realize it, its too late.

77H

SFOA380 · Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:14 am

I always love reading all the various opinions and observations from those who live outside our corner of the world... everybody seems to have an opinion and many dismiss us as lefty nimby nutjobs... I'll remind everyone that our formula works quite well. We are absolutely business minded. By nearly every measure we lead the world economically. Our population is, for the most part, engaged... sometimes overly engaged. It's expensive here for a reason. I'm pretty sure anyone reading this is doing so because of technology that was born here. If you don't like the way things are done here, connect elsewhere. If you live here there are many options if you choose to avoid SFO...

GoSharks · Tue Jun 27, 2017 4:51 am

77H wrote:
To expand on your post, in a hypothetical world where the salt evaporators turned into essentially a "mega-airport" of sorts to serve the entire bay area, SFO and OAK could be shuttered and turned into Coastal/Wetland habitats. I understand there would need to be significant clean up of oil, fuel other fluids, but can be done. SJC could be turned into a large inner city park a la Central Park. In this scenario you essentially gain 3 separate green spaces for the price of one large one located on land already used for "industial" purposes.

Environmental issues aside, that's not something feasible I would say even the next 40-50 years. The traffic is already horrible in that area and a mega-airport that replaces SFO/OAK/SJC would require substantial investment in mass transit system that covers the entire Bay Area. Part of the reason why the Bay Area has 3 major airports is because of the traffic situation.

AAIRLINERS · Tue Jun 27, 2017 7:05 am

I have been based out of SFO with two carriers for the last forty years. I was also born and raised in the bay area the last sixty years. I guess you never can say never, but I highly doubt there will be any changes in my life time. As previous posters have pointed out OAK and SJC still have plenty of potential. At University in San Jose during the mid seventies we were already studying relief airport scenarios for the area and already came to the conclusion that a built out SFO was not the answer. Now with BART running farther and farther into the central valley it might be wise to develop out there for the future. Stockton comes to mind. Plenty of space and one long runway already exists. Interstate 580 from the west and 99 and 5 from the north south give adequate access. I must admit I left the area 10 years ago so I may be behind with the current status of the area. One more thing. I think SFO will eventually have to prioritize their traffic to mainly International (sorry United and Virgin). I see that in JFK and LAX as well. Jack up the landing fees like LHR and those small domestic regional flights will have to
go IMO.

r2rho · Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:17 am

Interesting idea, but as others have said, not enough separation for full independent ops, so the improvement would not be equivalent to the full value of an independent runway. Vertical separation also counts, and thanks to the displaced threshold, staggered ops like in FRA would be possible, providing a bit of improvement.

Personally, I think San Francisco Bay should get a new parallel independent runway - but at OAK. without the need to fill in the bay, as the land is there but would require some rearrangements, and sacrificing some parts of the golf courses (gasp!). And absolutley no need to link the two airports airside, as they would cater to different markets and have negligible connections in between them, like LHR and LGW, CDG and ORY, etc. It would be sufficient to provide a one-seat BART ride landside (not the current take-a-train-to-take-a-train people mover) between both.

77H · Tue Jun 27, 2017 9:21 am

SFOA380 wrote:
I always love reading all the various opinions and observations from those who live outside our corner of the world... everybody seems to have an opinion and many dismiss us as lefty nimby nutjobs... I'll remind everyone that our formula works quite well. We are absolutely business minded. By nearly every measure we lead the world economically. Our population is, for the most part, engaged... sometimes overly engaged. It's expensive here for a reason. I'm pretty sure anyone reading this is doing so because of technology that was born here. If you don't like the way things are done here, connect elsewhere. If you live here there are many options if you choose to avoid SFO...

Again, can you answer the very simple questions I asked? I don't have much interest in Bay Area Formulas, how the Bay Area leads the World and by what metrics. There are a lot of expensive zip codes all over the planet. I am aware of many of the technologies that have come about in the Bay Area. I never said I cared one way or the other about the way things are done in the Bay Area or how engaged the populace is. I quite enjoy connecting in SFO. Its a great airport though there are other great airports. None of that is really relevant. You made the assertion that 90% of the Bay Area populace don't approve of any expansion to SFO. I simply asked what the reasonings for that opposition was. My question after that, which admittedly was a bit more difficult was to elaborate on the opposition. For example, if the opposition was due to environmental factors, what specific environmental impacts are the people concerned about? I asked because I was genuinely curious, not to attack you or Bay Area residents and your way of life.

77H

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net