Talk:San Francisco International Airport

Template:AirportProject

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 "" 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)

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.6.251.241 (talk)

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)