Permanent arrival rate reductions at SFO

Subscribe
1  2  3 
Page 2 of 3
Go to
Today | 03:16 PM
  #11  
Quote: The locals will continue to whine and complain, while at the same time refusing to allow the airport to expand.
You got that right... 🤬 That ship sailed in the 1960s, though.

Honest question though... When was the last time a net-new runway was added to a US airport with 121 service? I can't think of one new runway since I started 121 flying in 2014. Runway lengthening maybe, but a new one?

Reply 0
Today | 03:18 PM
  #12  
Quote: The safety issue DOES exist. I’ve had two RAs on the same approach. That shouldn’t happen.
No kidding… had a third world airline try to kill us a few months ago and had to go around landing on the 28s. Just one of many tales reading the safety summaries. Any reduction is entirely deserved until they can figure out a better way of maintaining separation other than visually.
Reply 0
Today | 03:23 PM
  #13  
Quote: You got that right... 🤬 That ship sailed in the 1960s, though.

Honest question though... When was the last time a net-new runway was added to a US airport with 121 service? I can't think of one new runway since I started 121 flying in 2014. Runway lengthening maybe, but a new one?
O’Hare?
Went from 3 sets of parallel runways (27/09L&R, 32/14L&R and 22/4L&R) to 8 runways today….
Reply 2
Today | 03:27 PM
  #14  
Quote: Agreed. It definitely (subjectively) feels like there’s a genuine safety risk there. I’ve had at least 2-3 RAs there. It’s going to suck for the operation there, but I’m glad they are dealing with it for once before a catastrophic event.
Was this with the new FMS bridge visual?
Reply 0
Today | 03:41 PM
  #15  
I don’t see how they can avoid slot controls at SFO if the highest arrival rate will be 36 an hour.
Reply 0
Today | 04:09 PM
  #16  
Quote: O’Hare?
Went from 3 sets of parallel runways (27/09L&R, 32/14L&R and 22/4L&R) to 8 runways today….
Ok right yes they added 27C/9C in 2020. I can't think of any others off the top of my head, though.
Reply 0
Today | 04:11 PM
  #17  
Quote: You got that right... 🤬 That ship sailed in the 1960s, though.

Honest question though... When was the last time a net-new runway was added to a US airport with 121 service? I can't think of one new runway since I started 121 flying in 2014. Runway lengthening maybe, but a new one?
Chicago added new runways in 2020, 2015, 2013, and 2008.

Though they did close 14L/R in the 2010s and the barely used 18 in 2003.

GSO opened a new runway in 2009.

IAD added a new one in 2008.

DEN added a new one in 2003.

It is well past time to pave the bay in SFO.
Reply 0
Today | 04:13 PM
  #18  
Quote: I don’t see how they can avoid slot controls at SFO if the highest arrival rate will be 36 an hour.
Yup. Even at the 54 rate, which I believe is the highest it ever gets at SFO, there's still flow control at peak hours. You would think the Feds could have waited until the 1R construction project is done (end October of this year) to pop this on us. UA is gonna have to reduce aircraft movements significantly in order to keep to any kind of on-time performance. Hopefully that starts with the RJs. But still. Just lousy news.
Reply 0
Today | 04:15 PM
  #19  
Quote:
It is well past time to pave the bay in SFO.
You can hardly remove a single dollop of mud from the Bay without being sued by the local environmental interest groups. Adding the landfill and pavement for a new runway in SFO will *never* happen, alas.
Reply 0
Today | 04:15 PM
  #20  
Quote: Yup. Even at the 54 rate, which I believe is the highest it ever gets at SFO, there's still flow control at peak hours. You would think the Feds could have waited until the 1R construction project is done (end October of this year) to pop this on us. UA is gonna have to reduce aircraft movements significantly in order to keep to any kind of on-time performance. Hopefully that starts with the RJs. But still. Just lousy news.
Are there any RJs left at SFO?
Reply 0
1  2  3 
Page 2 of 3
Go to