SFO not capable of handling A380?

[maxmin]

In a post on Flyertalk, a rumour is propagated that SFO had told SQ that it is "not ready" for the A380....

Has anyone heard anything about this?

[SQflyergirl]

Does the rumour say when they might be ready?

[maxmin]

Alas, no. That's a good point and one that crossed my mind too. Perhaps not being ready now is irrelevant?

Personally (selfishly, greedily, covetingly) I just hope the 380 goes from SFO by Feb 2009, when I need to travel to SGN from here.

[SQflyergirl]

Personally (selfishly, greedily, covetingly) I just hope the 380 goes from SFO by Feb 2009, when I need to travel to SGN from here.

That all depends on what SQ does with the 6th aircraft due in September.

[maxmin]

Wouldn't they need two more planes to sustain a daily route to SFO, given that it takes about 19 hours each way?

[SQflyergirl]

Wouldn't they need two more planes to sustain a daily route to SFO, given that it takes about 19 hours each way?

Yes, they would - but only if they wanted to make it daily. one aircraft can do 3x a week

[HUGE AL]

SFO did accommodate the takeoff and landing of the A380 when it was on tour of the US. That said, there are no jet bridges that can handle the plane's height. Furthermore, the main runway (there is only one long one), while long enough to handle the A380 under NORMAL conditions, is a bit too short for anything else.

A salt company owns the rights to the land around the airport and will not budge on selling. Eminent Domain has been tried here, but I think it's tied up in litigation and by environmentalists. There was agreement to the floating runway idea (similar to an aircraft carrier out on The Bay), but I think that got torpedoed.

Finally, when they built the new International Terminal, they went waaaaaaaaay over budget and charged airlines retarded gate fees. This led to WN pulling out for many years. Even though the flying economy is doing better, SFO has had to lure carriers back with incentives -- see B6 and VX in International Terminal A and WN eventually getting it's own concourse.

A majority of the blame can be put on former mayor, Willie Brown, for screwing up the entire thing.

[joemac]

Actually, the International Terminal was built with 6 gates designed for the A380 back in 2000, making it one of the first 380-ready terminals in the world (quoting Wikipedia here). They each have two jetbridges one for the upper deck and one for the lower deck.

The 380 is designed to take off and land on any runway that can accommodate a 747, which SFO has dozens of takeoffs / landings daily.

The "land" around the airport is either built up neighboring cities of San Bruno, Millbrae, and South San Francisco or the bay itself. No salt companies "own" the water around the runways. I think you are confusing a proposal floated some 6 years ago where the airport would be able to move runways into the bay. In exchange for this landfill, the airport would buy salt evaporators many miles away in the South Bay and convert them back to wetlands. The salt companies that owns those were opposed. This runway realignment had nothing to do with extending runways but instead was to separate the 28's to the required 4,000 ft separation for simultaneous takeoffs and landings in foul weather.

And finally, the International Terminal came in 1.8% under budget. WN left SFO in 2001 citing high cost and delays - neither of which were caused by the International Terminal.

[maxmin]

Thanks for the clarification, Joemac (if you are to be believed )

[taipeiflyer]

Actually, the International Terminal was built with 6 gates designed for the A380 back in 2000, making it one of the first 380-ready terminals in the world (quoting Wikipedia here). They each have two jetbridges one for the upper deck and one for the lower deck.

The 380 is designed to take off and land on any runway that can accommodate a 747, which SFO has dozens of takeoffs / landings daily.

The "land" around the airport is either built up neighboring cities of San Bruno, Millbrae, and South San Francisco or the bay itself. No salt companies "own" the water around the runways. I think you are confusing a proposal floated some 6 years ago where the airport would be able to move runways into the bay. In exchange for this landfill, the airport would buy salt evaporators many miles away in the South Bay and convert them back to wetlands. The salt companies that owns those were opposed. This runway realignment had nothing to do with extending runways but instead was to separate the 28's to the required 4,000 ft separation for simultaneous takeoffs and landings in foul weather.

And finally, the International Terminal came in 1.8% under budget. WN left SFO in 2001 citing high cost and delays - neither of which were caused by the International Terminal.

sorry, but the fact that you quoted wikipedia in your first sentence makes me suspicious of everything else you have written. i would put strong credence in HugeAL's words... he is very, very knowledgeable about the inner workings of SFO.

[HUGE AL]

Actually, the International Terminal was built with 6 gates designed for the A380 back in 2000, making it one of the first 380-ready terminals in the world (quoting Wikipedia here). They each have two jetbridges one for the upper deck and one for the lower deck.

In thinking this through, I may stand corrected...kind of... While there is no one gating config that can handle the A380 (unless you renumber an area), the two tiered floor plan may be able to accommodate this.

The 380 is designed to take off and land on any runway that can accommodate a 747, which SFO has dozens of takeoffs / landings daily.

And dozens of daily delays because of the shortage of runways that can handle said aircraft. (According to Wiki...unless someone edited it recently.)

And finally, the International Terminal came in 1.8% under budget. WN left SFO in 2001 citing high cost and delays - neither of which were caused by the International Terminal.

I saw this in Wiki as well. Question is: WHICH budget are they referring to, the last revision? If so, then they are correct. WN's high cost was comprised of the rise in gate fees to supplement the cost overruns of the expansion.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled program...

[greg99]

When the A380 visited SFO in October 2007, they had jetways going to both decks.

See, e.g., http://crave.cnet.com/8300-1_105-1.html?search=airbus (scroll down).

I saw it myself, as well.

Greg

[Tanandika]

Hmm, that's actually very interesting...

There are 3 jetways on the photo... If it was indeed San Francisco, then I guess SFO is A380 ready in terms of boarding-area structure...

[crazycrab955]

And dozens of daily delays because of the shortage of runways that can handle said aircraft. (According to Wiki...unless someone edited it recently.)

Huge Al, your information is entirely wrong.

The delays are because the two parallel runways are too close together, not because they are not of sufficient length. The runways do not allow for simultaneous ILS approaches (instrument landings in poor visibility conditions), because they are not of enough distance apart from one another to provide safe separation of side-by-side aircraft landing on the ILS. During normal visual operations, side-by-side landings are possible and somewhat common.

Both 28L and 28R are of more than sufficient length for A380 operations. When the prevailing wind shifts during storms (usually during winter), landings on 19L should also be no issue.

And as other posters have mentioned, the international terminal at SFO was designed in part for compatibility with the A380. SFO was one of the first (if not the first) airports worldwide to be officially able to accomodate the A380. A 2005 article in the San Francisco Chronicle confirms this:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...type=printable

If there are any snafus or delays in putting the A380 on SQ1/2, it's not the fault of SFO -- it would be SQ's sole decision.

[crazycrab955]

Finally, when they built the new International Terminal, they went waaaaaaaaay over budget and charged airlines retarded gate fees. This led to WN pulling out for many years. Even though the flying economy is doing better, SFO has had to lure carriers back with incentives -- see B6 and VX in International Terminal A and WN eventually getting it's own concourse.

A majority of the blame can be put on former mayor, Willie Brown, for screwing up the entire thing.

Interesting opinion. Do you have a source (not Wikipedia, please)?