Talk:San Francisco International Airport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Aviation, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles related to aviation. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.	Aviation Portal
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale. (comments)
Additional information: Airports WikiProject

	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

	This article is within the scope of the San Francisco Bay Area WikiProject, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of San Francisco and the Bay Area. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-class on the quality scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

San Francisco International Airport has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.

	Architecture Portal This article covers subjects of relevance to Architecture. To participate, visit the Wikipedia:WikiProject Architecture for more information. The current monthly improvement drive is Castle.
GA	This article has been rated as GA-Class on the assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the assessment scale.

San Francisco International Airport has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Contents 1 Routunda A 2 Restoring baylands 3 SFO part of San Francisco or San Mateo? 4 SFO Bus Staging Area 5 Direct/Connecting Service 6 Parentheses for gate numbers 7 Air China Service 8 SFO really is in San Mateo County. Honest. 9 Pictures in Infobox 10 SFO-MSP 11 Skybus Airlines 12 SFO-CUN service 13 GA nominee 14 Incidents 15 Terminal 2 16 A380 gates 17 Air Canada Jazz 18 SFO Size 19 Importance assessment in WP: California 20 United Express to Aspen 21 MDW-SFO 22 Jet Airways service to BOM via PVG 23 Fortress hub?

[edit] Routunda A

Routunda A has been closed for demolition. US Airways has moved to America West gates. Does anybody know when Terminal 2 will open?

Terminal 2 should be open in late 2006 when Virgin America starts operations from SFO. Bucs2004 03:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no date has been posted, locally or otherwise. That is why the Terminal 2 (Boarding Area D) section is said to be undergoing "indefinite renovation." Like what Bucs2004 said, Virgin America is expected to occupy the terminal when it launches service after FAA has given its approval. Physicq210 00:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Restoring baylands

Regarding this edit about restoring baylands and its removal, here are some references from the San Francisco Chronicle:

• Article 1, see paragraph 6
• Article 2, see 3rd to last paragraph
• Article 3, see "Airport officials have noted..."

In sum, it's necessary by law to restore/reclaim/preserve wetlands somewhere else in the Bay Area to offset the area lost due to fill. Perhaps the sentence should have been worded more carefully. --Minesweeper 00:45, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

The new edit is much clearer on this point. Nice work. - Sekicho 02:03, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

What would be nice is if boarding areas were indented. Kinda like this:

Terminal 1

Rotunda A

B.Area B

B.Area C

Terminal 2

B.Area D

Terminal 3

B.Area E

B.Area F

Int'l Terminal

B.Area A

B.Area G

-- Jigen III 14:38, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SFO part of San Francisco or San Mateo?

I think SFO is part of the City of San Francisco since it is administrated by the city. City boundary doesn't have to be interconnected. It even has its own zip code that belongs to San Francisco --Will74205 08:44, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't hae to be interconnected, true, but the city can still own and administer land that is not under the city's jurisdiction. If you look at county maps of California, SFO is never portrayed as separate from San Mateo county. The matter mertis some research, I admit. I believe that the airport is patrolled by SF police officers as well. --Jfruh 12:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

I guess someone should e-mail SFO or the city for this. From SFO's website, its address is San Francisco International Airport P.O. Box 8097 San Francisco, CA 94128. I think this is a confusing matter: the airport is patrolled by SFPD, its commission members are appointed by the mayor of San Francisco, it has a San Francisco zip code, its revenue goes to the city, but on maps it is not portrayed as separate from San Mateo county. Maybe we should look at when San Mateo county was found. I think San Mateo county, at least the northern part, was originally part of San Francisco. --Will74205 16:09, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The City and County of San Francisco are coextensive, and the airport is clearly in San Mateo County. I know of a couple of examples of counties that have exclaves (Arapahoe County, Colorado and Norfolk County, Massachusetts), but San Francisco is not one of them. ZIP codes can provide clues about what is part of a city and what is not, but they can never be trusted by themselves. Why? The U.S. Postal Service is, of course, primarily concerned with efficient mail delivery, not with affirming municipal boundaries. It is very common that areas outside the city limits of a certain city have that city's ZIP codes, as is the case with SFO. The USPS always assigns the name of a city (not a county) to every post office, even if the post office is outside that city. When ZIP codes were being set up, the USPS could have assigned the city names "Millbrae" or "San Bruno" to the ZIP code serving SFO (those being the closest actual cities), but probably to avoid confusion (again, to facilitate efficient mail delivery), the city name "San Francisco" was assigned. ZIP code boundaries quite often do not match city boundaries, and it is also very common that smaller cities near a larger city do not have "their own" ZIP codes, resulting in the impression that the smaller cities are actually part of the larger cities. It is also not unusual for places that are not cities to have "their own" ZIP codes; and conversely, there are many cities (especially newly incorporated ones) that do not have "their own" ZIP codes. The bottom line: ZIP codes are not a reliable determinant of city boundaries. Denvoran 16:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

My ZIP code argument is based on that the 941XX zip code belongs to San Francisco and 940XX belongs to San Mateo county. My another argument is that if SFO is part of San Mateo county, San Mateo county law and code should apply to SFO; obviously this is not the case, San Francisco law and code applys in SFO. Besides, by saying that SFO is in unincorporated San Mateo that also means San Mateo county Sheriff is in charge of law enforcement but this is not the case. I guess someone should try to break the law in SFO and see which jail or courthouse he/she got sent to :) --Will74205 16:39, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It is not a standard that the first three digits of ZIP codes correlate to county boundaries. Off the top of my head, there are both 840XX and 841XX ZIP codes in Salt Lake County, Utah - and this, even though Salt Lake City is a much smaller urban area than San Francisco and the Peninsula. Regarding the last argument, *if* what you wrote is true, I would suppose that a special agreement has been made between the City & County San Francisco and the County of San Mateo, to the effect that the C&C SF has law enforcement jurisdiction on SFO property. The airport, like unto a city of its own itself, has to have security forces to match - if the airport is owned and operated by the C&C SF, why should the County of San Mateo use its resources to provide law enforcement for such a large entity? Thus, I imagine, an intergovernmental agreement was struck. Bottom line - SFO lies in San Mateo county; it could only become part of the City and County of San Francisco if county boundaries were changed, and this would require action at the state level. It would probably be complicated or costly to make a change in county boundaries; as a result, things are just left as-is, even if it creates a somewhat confusing situation and requires certain intergovernmental agreements. Not lying within any incorporated city, SFO is then of course an unincorporated part of San Mateo County. 205.162.34.253 17:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

It seems that SFO is indeeded in San Mateo county but under San Francisco control. Anyone knows any background info on how this came to be? Thanks. --Will74205 20:51, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Just as detailed above, it is a matter of intergovernmental agreement between C&C of SF and the San Mateo County Board of Supervisors. Such agreements are not at all uncommon in California, especially as to law enforcement. Some incorporated cities contract with their county sheriff's office for police services; some cities/counties contract with the CHP for police services (in remote rural areas). The most important areas of cooperation are in land use planning and in noise abatement, as well as some offsets of tax revenue. (As noted above, the USPS designation and ZIP code has nothing to do with boundaries and jurisdiction.) MCB 00:42, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

Well ZIP Codes have to do with USPS boundaries and jurisdiction, and since international mail operations are handled through the San Francisco post office, it's not surprising they have postal jurisdiction over a facility through which a lot of mail passes through.

I should also point out that law enforcement officers in California (and presumably in other states) derive their authority from the state constitution, meaning that they have police powers throughout the state of California, not just their assigned jurisdictions. Any division of law enforcement jurisdiction is purely a matter of courtesy and smooth functioning, not a requirement: legally, San Mateo County sheriff's deputies -- or LAPD officers, for that matter -- can can exercise police powers at SFO, though if they did so without notification and/or co-operation from the SFPD there'd be a LOT of friction.--Calton | Talk 00:58, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the land SFO is on was annexed by the city. Also, based on SFO's website, there is some evidence there that it is regulated by the city as well. TheCharlie 21:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Counties cannot annex portions of other counties. As far as I know, the California state legislature would have to approve any boundary change between counties, which might also be subject to the popular vote of the counties in question or even a statewide referendum. As discussed previously here, there are arrangements where one jurisdiction owns property and manages affairs within another jurisdiction, without annexations or boundary changes. Consider how countries set up embassies in foreign capitals; the property the embassy buildings stand on does not become the territory of the country they represent. U.S. military bases in other countries are not U.S. territories, even though the local government may have limited say or control over what goes on inside the bases. The land occupied by SFO is part of San Mateo County, and thus cannot be part of the City and County of San Francisco.

Denvoran 21:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

However, according to USGS topographic maps of the airport, it lies in San Francisco City and County, not in San Mateo. Map source - [www.TopoZone.com] -Check-Six

[edit] SFO Bus Staging Area

I'm curious if there is any solid information out there on the closing of the staging area at the south end of the airport, or any efforts to reopen it. I think it was closed down shortly after 9/11 because it would be a good terrorist attack point or something like that, but I know a lot of locals are disappointed because it was a good place to watch planes. TheCharlie 21:27, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't look good. Local spotters have made requests for an update, but they typically go unanswered. On the other hand, the path from Bayside Park in the direction of the airport was extended (a year or two ago) quite close to the edge of that area, and it affords a great view of Runway 1R departures, and the rest of Bayside Park and the Bay Path gives a good view of Runway 28L/28R arrivals and departures. I was just there today. MCB 02:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Direct/Connecting Service

Recently I have been adding (and subtracting) destinations from the United Airlines domestic and international lists after searching through SFO's and United's websites for destinations. However, it seems that while Bangkok (plane change at Tokyo-Narita) is included, Brussels (plane change at Washington-Dulles) and Munich (plane change at Chicago-O'Hare) are not. Also, service to Ho Chi Minh City has a stop at Hong Kong. Is there a standard for inclusion or exclusion? If there is, what is it? Thanks. Physicq210 03:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I understand it, one does not list a destination if it changes planes on a hub. So the SFO-IAD-BRU is not listed because it passes thru another hub, namely, IAD, then proceeds to BRU. Now, SGN is included because HKG is not a UA hub. Correct me if I am wrong. Elektrik Blue 82 10:42, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Whether or not the airport is a hub is irrelevant. It's whether or not the flight involves a plane change. If the service is direct (not the plane-change faux direct that airlines frequently use) then it should be listed. Other examples include NRT under Denver (stop at SEA) and ICN under Kennedy (stop at NRT). Dbinder 12:28, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think this only applied to international flights, since domestic direct flights change too frequently for the information to be reliable. Dbinder 12:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that direct flights to international destinations that require a change of aircraft should be listed. For example MUC (with a stop at ORD) require change of aircraft and gate at ORD. "Direct" flights means that the flight makes a stop at that airport but does not change planes or gate. Bucs2004 22:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parentheses for gate numbers

Please leave parentheses around the gate numbers in the subheadings for terminals/boarding areas. There is no formal style standard for this, but I have not seen hyphens used in any other airport articles, and the only other article I could find with gate number ranges (Philadelphia International Airport) uses parentheses, as do other articles with explanatory material after the terminal name or number, e.g., John F. Kennedy International Airport and Charles de Gaulle International Airport. I don't see any with hyphens. MCB 04:15, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Air China Service

Please stop adding Shanghai-Pudong to the list of destinations under Air China. Air China does NOT have direct service from SFO to Shanghai-Pudong. Therefore, this destination is not worth mentioning, per WikiProject Airports guidelines. --Physicq210 02:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i agree with you! According to the schedule of SFO's webpage, CA DOES NOT make ANY stops at Shanghai-Pudong. Yesterday, a user still listed Shanghai-Pudong as a destination under Air China!! I suggest that user should read the talk pages and research for schedule before making any edits! Bucs2004 00:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SFO really is in San Mateo County. Honest.

This question has come up before, and there is a lengthy discussion above. However, as someone who lived in San Mateo County from 1971-1973 and 1981-87, it was well known locally (and the subject of newspaper stories, hearings, political developments, etc.) that the airport, while owned and operated by San Francisco, is in fact located in San Mateo County. This was noted in the article for most of its existence. However, Wikipedia policy requires citation to reliable sources, and I was unable to locate an online source to confirm this until recently. I didn't see any place to refer to it in the article and pretty much forgot about it until the article was changed.

The source is an official publication of the County of San Mateo, the County Profile 2006-07 (PDF document), which states: "The San Francisco International Airport (SFO) is located in an unincorporated area of the County. [...] Although SFO is owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco, it plays a very significant part in the economy of the County." Elsewhere in the document, in a list of the largest employers in the County, it shows United Airlines with 10,328 employees, and the airport itself with 1,179 employees.

I reverted the assertion that SFO is "an enclave of San Mateo County" (which I believe is not quite what the author intended; that should have been "an enclave in San Mateo County" or "an exclave of San Francisco"; see enclave and exclave). I'm not sure why the USGS map would say otherwise; it may be out of date, or else a simple error. In any case I would consider the County's own publication authoritative. --MCB 04:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not going to revert the article over the matter, but the link here clearly shows on current USGS maps that SFO is an enclave, and surveyed as such.

However, in the search to find yet another citable source, I located the Rules and Regs for the airport, as written by the City and County of San Francisco. Under "Definitions"...

1.1.5 "Airport" means all land and improvements located within the geographical boundaries of the San Francisco International Airport, San Mateo County, California, exclusive of U.S. Coast Guard Air Station.

Henceforth, I cede the point... --Check-Six 05:34, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Check-Six... good find on that source! --MCB 06:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures in Infobox

Is it necessary to have two pictures of SFO in the infobox? The first was OK, but the second one is not as good as the first one (in my point of view). However, I did not delete it lest an edit war be started over this. Any suggestions? --Physicq210 23:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Since they both show pretty much the same thing (the front of the International Terminal), I'd recommend moving one of them down to the International Terminal section, perhaps below the terminal diagram. I think it's OK to have more than one picture in the infobox, but they should probably be significantly different from each other, like one groundside and one airside, or one terminal exterior and one terminal interior, or something like that. --MCB 00:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the second (smaller) one is better, but I agree as to the main point - the info box doesn't need two of them. --Jumbo 00:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the SFO logo, now that I've changed it to an SVG, the logo's transparent background doesn't fit with the blue background. Is there any way we could have it on very light gray, like with the photo below it? My idea was to model the infobox after the LAX example. Gordeonbleu 05:25, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SFO-MSP

Can anyone confirm that United Airlines has nonstop service between SFO and MSP (Minneapolis/St. Paul)? According to the wikipedia-MSP page, United does not offer SFO-MSP service. However, on airline route maps.com, SFO does fly to MSP. I've tried placing MSP under United Airlines destinations, but something keeps taking it off. Can anyone verify this route? July 18, 2006

Those route maps are outdated and not particularly authoritative. There is no non-stop United Airlines service from SFO to MSP. I suggest using the airline's own PDF timetable or the OAG timetables to get accurate, up-to-date service information - http://timetable.oag.com/sfo - replace sfo with any three-letter airport code to check into that airport's service. FCYTravis 18:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Expedia, non-stop service between SFO and MSP exists, but not from United. Sun Country Airlines and Northwest Airlines offer nonstop service. lensovet 19:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Skybus Airlines

Dpes anyone know if the new Columbus-based Skybus Airlines is planning on flying to SFO. An ultra-low cost carrier is really needed since niether Southwest Airlines or Jetblue Airways serve SFO.

Nobody knows if Skybus Airlines is ever going to get off the ground, so speculating as to where they're going to fly is a bit premature. FCYTravis 18:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SFO-CUN service

This is getting ridiculous. User:24.3.225.234 has constantly added Cancun as a destination for United Airlines, despite constant reverts and numerous warnings on his/her talk page. WikiProject Airports guidelines state:

List non-stop and direct flights only. (emphasis added)

Using www.flysfo.com, united.com, or any similar website will show that Cancun does not fit the above description, hence are not worth mentioning. Please, do NOT add Cancun as a destination until United Airlines does have direct flights from SFO to Cancun (which, as of now, it does not). --physicq210 04:51, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually it does. Look at United's website, and you'll see that there's a weekly SFO-CUN flight (Saturdays). It's also listed on the OAG timetables site. Dbinder (talk) 13:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, i have checked united.com; there are NO flights from SFO-CUN, all have to connect in another city so UA DOES NOT fly to CUN from SFO so it is not worth mentioning. I have deleted Cancun from UA listed of destinations again under the international terminal listings. Please check united.com and www.flysfo.com!!! Bucs2004 18:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And I'm restoring it again. You obviously didn't look up anything. The following is copied directly from United EasySchedule...

Depart: San Francisco, CA (SFO)
Arrive: Cancun, Mexico (CUN)
Distance: 2408mi / 3852km
Duration: 5h20m
Date: July 22, 2006

Leg 1 - United Airlines 1087
Departure San Francisco, CA (SFO)
Departure Time 08:35
Arrival Cancun, Mexico (CUN)
Arrival Time 15:55
Aircraft Type 752
Meal Food for Purchase
Distance 2408mi / 3852km
Duration 5h20m
Operated By United Airlines

Dbinder (talk) 18:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, according to united.com, there is SFO-CUN service on Saturday only. I apologize for my mistake. --physicq210 19:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And the same apology from me. Although I must say that it would have been nice if User:24.3.225.234 had either mentioned the flight number (etc.) in an edit summary, or responded to one of the messages posted here and on his/her talk page; it helps when we all work together. --MCB 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I mentioned that to the user; hopefully he or she will get the point and avoid creating problems like this again. Dbinder (talk) 11:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i do apologize! There is SFO-CUN service on Saturdays only. I only looked up the flight status of the flight. I do apologize for my mistake! But I will never make any edits to this again cause we're all dumb!!! Bucs2004 00:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

No big deal. However, for future reference, I'd recommend looking up the printed timetables for an airline when trying to verify a route. While it won't be able to confirm or refute a seasonal flight (since the schedules usually only cover a 3-month period), it will show flights that don't run every day. It will also show at a glance flights that are operated by multiple units of a carrier (eg. United mainline/Express/Ted or Continental mainline/Express/Connection). Most major carriers have their printed schedules in PDF format available somewhere on their websites. Dbinder (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA nominee

This article has come along nicely (even has a featured picture!). However, the references are very light, and this could be a problem. External links can be deleted at will, but references are permanent as long as the information that they are referencing remain in the article. Hence the "Further Reading" section is pretty much the extent of the references, and that is not sufficient. I turned one in-line link into an inline notation for starters, but this needs to be expanded. Particular atention needs to be given to statistics, quotes and specific events (especially on the individual aircraft incidents). For more information on how to improve in this area, see "How and where to cite sources".

On another point, statements like this:

"As such, San Francisco International Airport will probably remain popular but stagnant while its two neighbor airports (Oakland International Airport in Oakland and San Jose International Airport in San Jose) will continue to grow for the time being"

are highly opinionated/crystal ballish, and need to either substatiated by a reputable outside source, written in a neutral tone or removed. Like "This reputable source has predicted that SFO will..." or "This such and such report showed that since 2002, SFOs traffice has decreased 62%." But, great job so far.--Esprit15d 13:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed the paragraph. I'm still working on the citing of sources though. --physicq210 00:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Great strides have been made in this article. There has been the addition of many more references. It is also a little less crystal ballish (although a little spotty still with unsubstantiated predictions. But since this is only going for "good article," I think it is good enough.) Still some issues with the references. Anything very specific needs a reference. Some things aren't a big deal - things that are easily verifiable. For example, if I say "Dionne Warwick won a Grammy in 1975" (I have no clue) any fool can find out if that is true or not in seconds. But if I say "Dionne Warwick checked into a rehab facility on March 6, 1998" (again, madeup) that needs to be somehow referenced. I add several "^{[citation needed]}

" tags to the major offenders (more than is recommended, but since this article is actively being workied on, I figured they'll be gone soon). Meanwhile, I'm adding it to the Good articles that only lack sources list. This might help out some, since some people volunteer to bring these articles up to speed. OK, one more thing: many of the references you have now probably can verify many of the facts already there. Don't forget (whomever is ready this) that is you put "name=XYZ" in the ref tag, that you can quickly use <ref name=XYZ/> to verify several statements with a single reference.--Esprit15d 18:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incidents

What happened to the articles about Alaska Airlines Flight 261 and PSA Flight 1771. They were there one minute and gone the next. Since both flights were headed to SFO, I think they should be included. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.6.251.241 (talk • contribs).

The edit summary was, "remove incidents only tangentially related to SFO". I didn't make the edit, but I agree: none of the incidents removed really had anything to do with SFO except that the flights were headed there; they were not near or in any way connected to the airport itself. --MCB 00:42, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I made the edit for the reason User:MCB notes above. The accidents really had no connection with the airport. However, here is an accident SLICK AIR 1963 that does have something to do with the airport and should probably be included. --Paul 01:29, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

What about this one? [1] --Wspencer11 (talk to me...) 13:12, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terminal 2

I recieived this email form a customer service agent from SFO per my question about Terminal 2: "We are currently studying the possiblity of remodling or completely rebuilding the terminal. To my knowledge nothing has been decided at this time and any construction project is years away."

Regardless, they've evidently begun planning a remodel a while ago, given the gate number placards placed on the exterior. Those placards have been there for over a year now. No construction has started, though, as far as I can tell, as the jetway doors are still in the same location as they used to be, and the placards look like they're placed for gate spaces sized for narrowbodied aircraft, like the Airbus A320 that Virgin America will be using. --butterfly0fdoom

I think all the gate information for terminal 2 is speculation, as SFO has not released any confirmed plans. Also, I don't think the gate placecards mean anything. If they are at the same places as the old jetways, how can one say they are for smaller aircrafts, while terminal 2 previously hosted 747 size aircrafts? So I suggest remove this info from the article. Please note that newest topic is at the bottom and please sign your messages. --Will74205 10:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The placards are not in the same place as the old jetways-- the jetway doors are still unchanged, suggesting that some change has been planned, but not implemented (in other words, the placards are misaligned against the jetway doors, and there are more placards than there are doors). Regardless of whether or not the placards fit with the current naming scheme, they're there. Next time you're there, go see for yourself while the airplane taxis. I doubt they would spend money in placards that would end up being discarded. Besides, if Boarding Area D really ends up with 14 gates, then E and F will need to be re-numbered, as well; a new numbering schmeme is possible.--butterfly0fdoom

As much as it is true, we cannot put the information here because it needs to be sourced. Verifiability, not truth. --physicq210 02:16, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that B and C need to be renumbered. There are gaps in numbering sequences for the south side of the concourse. A goes 1-12, B goes 20-36, and C goes 40-48. Also, I saw the placards over Boarding Area D as D1, D2, D3, etc. Starcity ai 23:39, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You should've taken a picture; then there'd be evidence. But at least now I know I wasn't hallucinating. Assuming that SFO doesn't make any official announcements before the next time I go to Taiwan, I'll get a picture of the placards. --butterfly0fdoom 01:37, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A380 gates

An anon inserted the following text (along with a reference) into the International Terminal section:

All the gates in this terminal have two jetway bridges for use by Boeing 747 aircraft, which are frequent visitors to the terminal, as it is a major transpacific gateway. Six of these gates are capable of handling the Airbus A380, making SFO one of the first airports in the world to be able to accomodate the plane.

In point of fact, the A380 has much the same dimensions as the Boeing 747, apart from wings that are a little longer. Singapore Airlines plans to fly 475-seat versions, not that much different to a B747's capacity (and in fact well below the maximum for a B747). Unless a gate is built to extremely tight specs (such as some of those at LAX, T4 for example) an A380 will be able to use the gate with no problems. Heavier and larger aircraft regularly use commercial airport runways and facilities. I am prepared to say that the gates were intended for extremely large aircraft, but it is incorrect to say that A380s will not be able to use regular gates. --Jumbo 22:46, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

It's well-documented that the A380 requires gate modifications due to its longer wingspan compared to the B747 - the gates must be spaced apart as to not hit adjacent aircraft. You just said yourself that this is the case at LAX. Also, existing jet bridges must be modified to reach the upper deck door, which of course doesn't exist on the B747. See the A380 article for this. If it was the case that the plane could use existing B747 gates, why are airports all over the world scrambling to renovate their gates to handle it? This is particularly happening at LAX where they are stuck with having it be serviced at remote gates until some A380-capable gates are made available. KLIA, SIN, JFK, they're all having to modify their gates.

The A380 rarely needs special gates. It doesn't need two-level gates to handle the passenger, who are as capable of climbing a staircase inside the aircraft as they are of climbing a staircase at the beginning of a two-level gate. Gate spacing only affects terminals where access is cramped. Even at LAX T4 where the gates along the side require special handling for B747s, A380 aircraft can use those at the end of the terminal with no difficulty. Airports may issue press-releases saying that they are A380-compatible, but that doesn't mean that they are actually doing anything. The bottom line is that if a B747 can use a gate, so too can an A380 in all but a few cases. We may say that gates are being specifically configured for A380 operation, but we cannot say that they need new or special gates, because in most cases they can use existing facilities quite happily. Looking at the A380 article we read, "The terminal gate... may also provide multiple jetway bridges for simultaneous boarding on both decks." My italics. --Jumbo 23:22, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

SFO is ready now, and issued a press release for it, because an A380 could land, park at the gate, and deplane from their six gates, which is something that no other airport could do at the time. Sure, you can find all sorts of creative ways to deplane with any gate, but that doesn't mean you are "ready" for an A380. They landed an A380 in Iqaluit, Nunavut - does this really mean that YFB is ready for an A380? There's a reason why they say LAX isn't ready - Singapore Airlines and Virgin have stated they'll probably fly to SFO with the A380 until LAX makes the gate modifications so that people don't have to be bussed to the terminal. Nevertheless, I changed the wording to reflect your point.

Thanks! Excellent choice of words. However, my point is that an A380 can use a normal gate. If A B747 could use it, then an A380 can. This applies to almost every airport in the world. --Jumbo 00:16, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, no, Airbus wants there to be an upper deck jetway and a lower deck jetway, as well as a larger holding room, before a gate can be considered A380-ready. --butterfly0fdoom 03:44, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

That's as may be. The fact is that an A380 can use a normal gate. It's just another airliner, and not all that much bigger than a B747. Perhaps the biggest compatibility issue will turn out to be finding catering trucks to service the upper deck. --Jumbo 06:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The upper deck jetway is optional. Signapore Airlines wants it so the passengers can have an easy access to the First Class on the upper deck. Starcity ai 23:43, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Air Canada Jazz

(unverified)According to the Air Canada Jazz website, AC Jazz has service to SFO from Vancouver.

-This is true they serve 1 flight on Saturday, good catch! --63.202.190.242 00:38, Sep 26, 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SFO Size

From the article: "San Francisco is the largest airport in the San Francisco Bay Area". Isn't it the largest in Northern California? Or are we suggesting that Sacramento's is larger (area vs. traffic)? Gordeonbleu 05:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Importance assessment in WP: California

This is an airport. Yes, it has the second highest traffic volume in California, but it is still just an airport. There are thousands of articles that are more significant to the topic of California in general than this one. Does this article "define and determine the subject of the California WikiProject?" I think not. Gentgeen 06:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I noticed the mini-edit-war and am glad it was brought up here. I think of this article of being of "high" importance -- certainly not "top", which would to my mind be reserved for things like Los Angeles, San Francisco, Yosemite National Park, or Government of California, but certainly above the "mid" level, which would be middle-sized cities or agencies, geographic features, or historical events. --MCB 06:50, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree. FCYTravis 06:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] United Express to Aspen

According to the fall update on SFO's website, United Express will begin seasonal SFO-Aspen service 3 times a week.

[edit] MDW-SFO

I was just looking on NWA's website an found this...

NWA flight#369

Departs: Chicago-Midway Int'l, IL ( MDW ) Arrives: Minneapolis/St. Paul-Int'l, MN (MSP) Gate: A5 Gate: C13 Scheduled: 12:15PM Scheduled: 1:40PM Actual: Aircraft: A320 Status: On Schedule

Departs: Minneapolis/St. Paul-Int'l, MN (MSP) Arrives: San Francisco-Int'l, CA (SFO) Gate: C13 Gate: 45B Scheduled: 2:40PM Scheduled: 4:38PM Actual: Aircraft: A320 Status: On Schedule

Since it's the same plane, and doesn't change gates in MSP, should it be listed?

[edit] Jet Airways service to BOM via PVG

Not sure if we are using inline cites for route announcements, but the Jet Airways source is Reuters India, Jet Airways to add Bangkok, U.S. routes, January 9, 2007. --MCB 21:46, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fortress hub?

I suggest that we need to figure out a definition of "fortress hub" and then cite and source it. Without question, places like CVG/DL and MSP/NW are fortresses, but I would question SFO's status when under 50 percent of the traffic is United. Perhaps this should be taken up at WP:AIRPORTS for more input. FCYTravis 07:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)