It is called bad weather.

Is this the norm at SFO?

http://www.fly.faa.gov/flyfaa/flyfaaind ... PT=SFO&p=0

Rainstorms all day in the Bay Area. Not unusual for this time of the year.

I'm in the DL SC in DTW - they announced another delay, 2462 now dept. at 9 rather than 6.

Happy first day of spring

Yup lol

Hourly rate is down to 28 planes. Even crappy LGA today with snow and ice is managing rate of 35.

Anthonyg96 wrote:

Happy first day of spring

Honestly lol

Thanks to their terrible runway configuration, this is a completely normal occurrence at SFO...

SonomaFlyer wrote:

Runway separation issues limit arrivals. It happens with rain storms with low clouds/fog which is the case now. Someday, technology will eliminate these issues but who knows when that will happen.

They do, it is called CSPR.

Runway separation issues limit arrivals. It happens with rain storms with low clouds/fog which is the case now. Someday, technology will eliminate these issues but who knows when that will happen.

As a regional pilot, I dreaded flying to SFO due to the day after day of delay programs. Must be even worse for passengers.

Thankfully with my current job have not touched SFO for a few years now. Both OAK and SJC are so much better options operationally for Bay Area.

This is why I try to avoid connecting in SFO.

legacyins wrote:

SonomaFlyer wrote:

Runway separation issues limit arrivals. It happens with rain storms with low clouds/fog which is the case now. Someday, technology will eliminate these issues but who knows when that will happen.

They do, it is called CSPR.

or choosing OAK when visiting sf

SFO is an embarrassment and there is no one here who will stand up and say what we all know and that is that we need a new runway in the worst way. But the environmental-whacko’s run this place and no one dares take them on

UPlog wrote:

As a regional pilot, I dreaded flying to SFO due to the day after day of delay programs. Must be even worse for passengers.

Thankfully with my current job have not touched SFO for a few years now. Both OAK and SJC are so much better options operationally for Bay Area.

Yet another reason why I may seem like a cheerleader for SJC over SFO.

UPlog wrote:

As a regional pilot, I dreaded flying to SFO due to the day after day of delay programs. Must be even worse for passengers.

Thankfully with my current job have not touched SFO for a few years now. Both OAK and SJC are so much better options operationally for Bay Area.

Serious, everyone should avoid flying through a mega hub if they can.

My question is why are we always saying the same stuff over and over again regarding runways and delays due to weather. There is no doubt SFO will not miss the six or so people on this site who always complain.

dc10lover wrote:

UPlog wrote:

As a regional pilot, I dreaded flying to SFO due to the day after day of delay programs. Must be even worse for passengers.

Thankfully with my current job have not touched SFO for a few years now. Both OAK and SJC are so much better options operationally for Bay Area.

Serious, everyone should avoid flying through a mega hub if they can.

But yet, SFO traffic still grew at 5% last year. At least the airport is open, unlike some of the East Coast airports last week.

San Francisco Intl (KSFO) is currently experiencing:
departure delays an average of 32 minutes
inbound flights delayed at their origin an average of 3 hours 46 minutes due to wind

https://flightaware.com/live/airport/KSFO

legacyins wrote:

My question is why are we always saying the same stuff over and over again regarding runways and delays due to weather. There is no doubt SFO will not miss the six or so people on this site who always complain.

Look at the international growth at OAK and San Jose—something you did not see coming so do not get too smug

n471wn wrote:

legacyins wrote:

My question is why are we always saying the same stuff over and over again regarding runways and delays due to weather. There is no doubt SFO will not miss the six or so people on this site who always complain.

Look at the international growth at OAK and San Jose—something you did not see coming so do not get too smug

I’m not being smug dude, just pointing out that these silly threads pop up every time SFO goes into flow control. Nothing new and all talked about before.

OAk and SJC grew because SFO was limited. Wait for a recession or event that causes traffic to drop at these airports and these flights will be pulled.

Here is a thread even you said pretty much the same thing.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1361161&p=19493975&hilit=Sfo+flow+control+Sfo+delays#p19493975

n471wn wrote:

legacyins wrote:

My question is why are we always saying the same stuff over and over again regarding runways and delays due to weather. There is no doubt SFO will not miss the six or so people on this site who always complain.

Look at the international growth at OAK and San Jose—something you did not see coming so do not get too smug

Let me know when a handful of A380s per day show up at OAK or SJC.

Winds are southeasterly forcing departures off the 10s and landings on 19L...One at a time, with spacing for departures on the crossing runways in between. Ceilings and vis are fine. It’s all about the wind and the abnormal runway configuration tonight.

I posted this about two weeks ago ( https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1388115&p=20228525#p20228525 ). My idea was to substitute vertical separation in place of lateral separation. There would be a grassy area or runway safety area separating the beginning and end of the runways. I would like to know if this would work.

Here is my paste:

The proposal that has not been explored, that I would like to suggest is to apply Concorde pilot Jock Lowe's Heathrow proposal (that was not adopted) to SFO. It would involve extending the north-south runway to 4.5 miles, and extending the east-west runways to roughly 3.5 miles, with buffer zones in between. These would in effect be 2 runways each that are strung together, but there would be runway safety areas in the middle boundaries of the runways.

Once these runway extensions are built, SFO could give back land into the bay for the freed up space from two disused runways. Here is the proposal as presented for LHR:

http://www.heathrowhub.com/our-proposal.aspx
alternate link in case of link rot: https://web.archive.org/web/20180304043 ... posal.aspx

Here is one (actually my) interpretation of Jock Lowe's LHR 4.5 mile proposal superimposed on SFO's runway. (Hope this image link works):



A few notes:
● The extended runway segments are shown in green.
● The runways have been re-numbered with north/south or east/west markings.
● The removed runways are shown in white outline, with a red "X" marking. Runway removal will guard against excessive traffic growth.
● The runway safety areas + EMAS between the two runways are not drawn to scale, but you get the idea.
● I haven't bothered to draw the taxiways, but you get the idea.
● These are assumed to be floating runways and taxiways to limit environmental impact.

This make the 750 ft lateral separation problem go away. Does anyone know the FAA's vertical separation requirement (as aircraft approach the runway threshold)?

A few other asides:
● 28N and 28S could just as easily be renumbered 28 and 29
● 10N and 10S could just as easily be renumbered 10 and 11
● 19W and 19E could just as easily be renumbered 19 and 20
● 1W and 1E could just as easily be renumbered 1 and 2

739er wrote:

Winds are southeasterly forcing departures off the 10s and landings on 19L...One at a time, with spacing for departures on the crossing runways in between. Ceilings and vis are fine. It’s all about the wind and the abnormal runway configuration tonight.

Yeah, that's I'm seeing on FR24 as well.

739er wrote:

Winds are southeasterly forcing departures off the 10s and landings on 19L...One at a time, with spacing for departures on the crossing runways in between. Ceilings and vis are fine. It’s all about the wind and the abnormal runway configuration tonight.

Why does this configuration have less capacity than departures on the 1s and landings on the 28s? I thought you had to go 1 at a time on the 28s in reduced visibility due to the close proximity of the runways. Is it any different on the 19s? Basically what I am asking is isn't it two departure runways intersecting with one arrival runway in any low visibility configuration? Any info you have would be appreciated.

TW870 wrote:

739er wrote:

Winds are southeasterly forcing departures off the 10s and landings on 19L...One at a time, with spacing for departures on the crossing runways in between. Ceilings and vis are fine. It’s all about the wind and the abnormal runway configuration tonight.

Why does this configuration have less capacity than departures on the 1s and landings on the 28s? I thought you had to go 1 at a time on the 28s in reduced visibility due to the close proximity of the runways. Is it any different on the 19s? Basically what I am asking is isn't it two departure runways intersecting with one arrival runway in any low visibility configuration? Any info you have would be appreciated.

You are correct. In low vis/ceilings with landings on the 28s it is also just 1 aircraft at a time on the approach...The difference is that in the 28 landing configuration, SFO has more options for departures, which is important at a severely gate constrained airport such as SFO. The Heavys can depart from 28L while an aircraft is landing on 28R and narrowbodies can launch from the 1s in between arrivals. Also, importantly, from the 1s SFO can launch simultaneous departures because there are published departure procedures that immediately diverge after takeoff. That is not the case for departures from the 10s or 28s. So in effect, even in low vis with a 28R ILS approach in use, SFO has both 1s and 28L available for departures. But, In an ILS 19L landing configuration, only 1 departure at a time is available from the 10s. There are occasions, though rare, when departures can launch from 19R. It’s rather sporty though, as you are pointed directly at the hillside in Burlingame and requires an immediate left turn.

legacyins wrote:

My question is why are we always saying the same stuff over and over again regarding runways and delays due to weather. There is no doubt SFO will not miss the six or so people on this site who always complain.
...
I’m not being smug dude, just pointing out that these silly threads pop up every time SFO goes into flow control. Nothing new and all talked about before.

Completely agree, there are a handful of members on here that keep the "SFO is a mess" threads alive while never really transiting through our airport. OAK and SJC have their place in the Bay Area, and have strong benefits for some based on your living location or routing needs. But SFO always has, and always will work for the majority of us, while maintaining a strong operational hub that keeps growing. We have restrictions during irregular operations and we are used to them. The delays affect me personally maybe during 3-5% of my flights out of the airport. Not bad at all, just be smart about flight planning when you have options for flight times. Due to where I live in SF, OAK is an option only as an absolute last resort. SJC I've flown out of once in my life in the 25 years of living here.

While doing prep for my own flight, I noted yet again FAA has a delay program for SFO today - with delays averaging 248min (as of 0645am Pacific) based on mere 28 flights/hourly rate.

With the networks highest misconnect rate, look for United to spread out its SFO ops farther away from its historic noon peak, including shifting to more nighttime departures.

LAXintl wrote:

With the networks highest misconnect rate, look for United to spread out its SFO ops farther away from its historic noon peak, including shifting to more nighttime departures.

Good. They should have a full midnight bank to Asia.

brian415 wrote:

I posted this about two weeks ago ( https://www.airliners.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1388115&p=20228525#p20228525 ). My idea was to substitute vertical separation in place of lateral separation. There would be a grassy area or runway safety area separating the beginning and end of the runways. I would like to know if this would work.

Here is my paste:

The proposal that has not been explored, that I would like to suggest is to apply Concorde pilot Jock Lowe's Heathrow proposal (that was not adopted) to SFO. It would involve extending the north-south runway to 4.5 miles, and extending the east-west runways to roughly 3.5 miles, with buffer zones in between. These would in effect be 2 runways each that are strung together, but there would be runway safety areas in the middle boundaries of the runways.

Once these runway extensions are built, SFO could give back land into the bay for the freed up space from two disused runways. Here is the proposal as presented for LHR:

http://www.heathrowhub.com/our-proposal.aspx
alternate link in case of link rot: https://web.archive.org/web/20180304043 ... posal.aspx

Here is one (actually my) interpretation of Jock Lowe's LHR 4.5 mile proposal superimposed on SFO's runway. (Hope this image link works):



A few notes:
● The extended runway segments are shown in green.
● The runways have been re-numbered with north/south or east/west markings.
● The removed runways are shown in white outline, with a red "X" marking. Runway removal will guard against excessive traffic growth.
● The runway safety areas + EMAS between the two runways are not drawn to scale, but you get the idea.
● I haven't bothered to draw the taxiways, but you get the idea.
● These are assumed to be floating runways and taxiways to limit environmental impact.

This make the 750 ft lateral separation problem go away. Does anyone know the FAA's vertical separation requirement (as aircraft approach the runway threshold)?

A few other asides:
● 28N and 28S could just as easily be renumbered 28 and 29
● 10N and 10S could just as easily be renumbered 10 and 11
● 19W and 19E could just as easily be renumbered 19 and 20
● 1W and 1E could just as easily be renumbered 1 and 2

There is not a chance in the world this, or any other runway reconfiguration will ever happen. The cost would be prohibitive. The environmental impact would be huge. SFO used to be my home airport, and I personally think it runs well the vast majority of the time. I've experienced much worse at the New York area airports and a few others. Continually complaining about SFO seems to be a sport on a.net.

Austin787 wrote:

This is why I try to avoid connecting in SFO.

Me too. I am forced to connect there in a few weeks. I'm allowing 7 hours from Reno. If things are terrible I can switch to WN to OAK, then take BART.

739er wrote:

TW870 wrote:

739er wrote:

Winds are southeasterly forcing departures off the 10s and landings on 19L...One at a time, with spacing for departures on the crossing runways in between. Ceilings and vis are fine. It’s all about the wind and the abnormal runway configuration tonight.

Why does this configuration have less capacity than departures on the 1s and landings on the 28s? I thought you had to go 1 at a time on the 28s in reduced visibility due to the close proximity of the runways. Is it any different on the 19s? Basically what I am asking is isn't it two departure runways intersecting with one arrival runway in any low visibility configuration? Any info you have would be appreciated.

You are correct. In low vis/ceilings with landings on the 28s it is also just 1 aircraft at a time on the approach...The difference is that in the 28 landing configuration, SFO has more options for departures, which is important at a severely gate constrained airport such as SFO. The Heavys can depart from 28L while an aircraft is landing on 28R and narrowbodies can launch from the 1s in between arrivals. Also, importantly, from the 1s SFO can launch simultaneous departures because there are published departure procedures that immediately diverge after takeoff. That is not the case for departures from the 10s or 28s. So in effect, even in low vis with a 28R ILS approach in use, SFO has both 1s and 28L available for departures. But, In an ILS 19L landing configuration, only 1 departure at a time is available from the 10s. There are occasions, though rare, when departures can launch from 19R. It’s rather sporty though, as you are pointed directly at the hillside in Burlingame and requires an immediate left turn.

Thanks so much for the informative reply. That makes complete sense now that I think about it, since terrain prevents a right turn at low level after takeoff from 10R, which in turn prevents simultaneous takeoffs on the 10s. The same is true for the 28s, as I believe that terrain prevents either a right or left turn at low level. As far as 19R departures go, my guess is that takeoff weight and climb profile make it difficult for narrowbodies on longer trips to be able to clear the hillside in Burlingame. I am just thinking that the 31L departure at JFK has a very low level left turn to avoid LGA airspace and both narrowbodies and heavies can make it. But there are not terrain restrictions that further limit the number of aircraft that can do it.

Ok, Brian, I’ll take shot. If a plane is landing on 28S and a departure on 28N, how does ATC protect the missed approach for the 28S plane?

GF

SFOtoORD wrote:

n471wn wrote:

legacyins wrote:

My question is why are we always saying the same stuff over and over again regarding runways and delays due to weather. There is no doubt SFO will not miss the six or so people on this site who always complain.

Look at the international growth at OAK and San Jose—something you did not see coming so do not get too smug

Let me know when a handful of A380s per day show up at OAK or SJC.

Two flaws to your argument...

1. The A380 is selling poorly

2. What percentage of medium to large airports have A380 service?

Hardly a good metric.

legacyins wrote:

n471wn wrote:

legacyins wrote:

My question is why are we always saying the same stuff over and over again regarding runways and delays due to weather. There is no doubt SFO will not miss the six or so people on this site who always complain.

Look at the international growth at OAK and San Jose—something you did not see coming so do not get too smug

I’m not being smug dude, just pointing out that these silly threads pop up every time SFO goes into flow control. Nothing new and all talked about before.

OAk and SJC grew because SFO was limited. Wait for a recession or event that causes traffic to drop at these airports and these flights will be pulled.

Here is a thread even you said pretty much the same thing.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1361161&p=19493975&hilit=Sfo+flow+control+Sfo+delays#p19493975

As if SFO is recession proof?

AirFiero wrote:

legacyins wrote:

n471wn wrote:

Look at the international growth at OAK and San Jose—something you did not see coming so do not get too smug

I’m not being smug dude, just pointing out that these silly threads pop up every time SFO goes into flow control. Nothing new and all talked about before.

OAk and SJC grew because SFO was limited. Wait for a recession or event that causes traffic to drop at these airports and these flights will be pulled.

Here is a thread even you said pretty much the same thing.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1361161&p=19493975&hilit=Sfo+flow+control+Sfo+delays#p19493975

As if SFO is recession proof?

No, it is not but all you have to do is look after 9/11. Air Carriers retreated from OAK and SJC back to SFO for their Bay Area operations. If an event happens that causes a drop in air travel, you can bet the flights that get cut first will be from SJC and OAK before SFO.

Oh, by thew way, a sizable storm is coming in tonight and all day tomorrow so expect delays at SFO. Let the courus begin.

AirFiero wrote:

legacyins wrote:

n471wn wrote:

Look at the international growth at OAK and San Jose—something you did not see coming so do not get too smug

I’m not being smug dude, just pointing out that these silly threads pop up every time SFO goes into flow control. Nothing new and all talked about before.

OAk and SJC grew because SFO was limited. Wait for a recession or event that causes traffic to drop at these airports and these flights will be pulled.

Here is a thread even you said pretty much the same thing.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1361161&p=19493975&hilit=Sfo+flow+control+Sfo+delays#p19493975

As if SFO is recession proof?

His point is that the international yields at SJC and OAK are likely marginal and thus in a tough economy many of the flights may go. There is a reason SFO has as much intl traffic as it does.

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Ok, Brian, I’ll take shot. If a plane is landing on 28S and a departure on 28N, how does ATC protect the missed approach for the 28S plane?

GF

What? There is no 28N or 28S. It’s 28L/R. Smh.

legacyins wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

legacyins wrote:

I’m not being smug dude, just pointing out that these silly threads pop up every time SFO goes into flow control. Nothing new and all talked about before.

OAk and SJC grew because SFO was limited. Wait for a recession or event that causes traffic to drop at these airports and these flights will be pulled.

Here is a thread even you said pretty much the same thing.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1361161&p=19493975&hilit=Sfo+flow+control+Sfo+delays#p19493975

As if SFO is recession proof?

No, it is not but all you have to do is look after 9/11. Air Carriers retreated from OAK and SJC back to SFO for their Bay Area operations. If an event happens that causes a drop in air travel, you can bet the flights that get cut first will be from SJC and OAK before SFO.

Oh, by thew way, a sizable storm is coming in tonight and all day tomorrow so expect delays at SFO. Let the courus begin.

9\11 was an exceptional event, not a typical downturn. Were NO flights downguaged or cut at SFO?

As for the weather...if you want to be on time, fly SJC.

AirFiero wrote:

legacyins wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

As if SFO is recession proof?

No, it is not but all you have to do is look after 9/11. Air Carriers retreated from OAK and SJC back to SFO for their Bay Area operations. If an event happens that causes a drop in air travel, you can bet the flights that get cut first will be from SJC and OAK before SFO.

Oh, by thew way, a sizable storm is coming in tonight and all day tomorrow so expect delays at SFO. Let the courus begin.

9\11 was an exceptional event, not a typical downturn. Were NO flights downguaged or cut at SFO?

As for the weather...if you want to be on time, fly SJC.

Of the top of my head, International wise, AZ and SR cut their flights.

I’m a *A flier so SJC is not an option for me, weather or not.

flyguy84 wrote:

GalaxyFlyer wrote:

Ok, Brian, I’ll take shot. If a plane is landing on 28S and a departure on 28N, how does ATC protect the missed approach for the 28S plane?

GF

What? There is no 28N or 28S. It’s 28L/R. Smh.

Pretty sure that was a question in response to Brian's proposal to a new runway layout at SFO, which in the image Brian posted, included runway 28N and 28S.

legacyins wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

legacyins wrote:

No, it is not but all you have to do is look after 9/11. Air Carriers retreated from OAK and SJC back to SFO for their Bay Area operations. If an event happens that causes a drop in air travel, you can bet the flights that get cut first will be from SJC and OAK before SFO.

Oh, by thew way, a sizable storm is coming in tonight and all day tomorrow so expect delays at SFO. Let the courus begin.

9\11 was an exceptional event, not a typical downturn. Were NO flights downguaged or cut at SFO?

As for the weather...if you want to be on time, fly SJC.

Of the top of my head, International wise, AZ and SR cut their flights.

I’m a *A flier so SJC is not an option for me, weather or not.

I’m AAdvantage, grew up in San Jose and now live south of San Jose. SFO has always been a pain for me. It’s refreshing to have an alternative that is closer.

legacyins wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

legacyins wrote:

No, it is not but all you have to do is look after 9/11. Air Carriers retreated from OAK and SJC back to SFO for their Bay Area operations. If an event happens that causes a drop in air travel, you can bet the flights that get cut first will be from SJC and OAK before SFO.

Oh, by thew way, a sizable storm is coming in tonight and all day tomorrow so expect delays at SFO. Let the courus begin.

9\11 was an exceptional event, not a typical downturn. Were NO flights downguaged or cut at SFO?

As for the weather...if you want to be on time, fly SJC.

Of the top of my head, International wise, AZ and SR cut their flights.

I’m a *A flier so SJC is not an option for me, weather or not.

Oh, and an FYI, LH is restarting seasonal SJC-FRA on 3-25, 5x weekly, with an A340. So much for the naysayers predict it wouldn’t come back.

AirFiero wrote:

legacyins wrote:

AirFiero wrote:

9\11 was an exceptional event, not a typical downturn. Were NO flights downguaged or cut at SFO?

As for the weather...if you want to be on time, fly SJC.

Of the top of my head, International wise, AZ and SR cut their flights.

I’m a *A flier so SJC is not an option for me, weather or not.

Oh, and an FYI, LH is restarting seasonal SJC-FRA on 3-25, 5x weekly, with an A340. So much for the naysayers predict it wouldn’t come back.

BA and LH were both dumping super cheap fares all of last summer on their SJC routes. I hope they stay, but it is clear the yields are far lower in SJC.

SFOtoORD wrote:

n471wn wrote:

legacyins wrote:

My question is why are we always saying the same stuff over and over again regarding runways and delays due to weather. There is no doubt SFO will not miss the six or so people on this site who always complain.

Look at the international growth at OAK and San Jose—something you did not see coming so do not get too smug

Let me know when a handful of A380s per day show up at OAK or SJC.

It's already happened - I have the pictures to prove it.

And can you guess why? That's right - diversions from SFO.

Ironic isn't it?

Unless I'm flying international (even that is changing), I avoid SFO like the plague.