Talk:San Francisco International Airport/Archive 1

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)

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)

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 • 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)

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)

What airlines did Terminal 2 used to serve? Did all UA international arrivals and departures occur there, for instance?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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.

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?

I think most Wikipedia airport pages do not list destinations as nonstop if through a hub airport.

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)

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)

Former routes removed

I removed the former routes section due to the following conversations on WikiProject Airports Talk and SeaTac's Talk Page. I don't mean to offend. Thanks --Matt 23:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Inetpup, please discuss here before reverting again - there has to be a first article, so I'm not singling out SFO, it's just the only one with this information on my watchlist. Thanks, Matt --Matt 01:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

In that case, please take the time to apply the same standard to DFW, LAX, RDU. The fact that you haven't touched those articles reinforces the case for reverting the SFO article. It may not have been on your watchlist, but now you know about them, so it was only fair to use that excuse initially. Thanks. --Inetpup 02:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The "You haven't done it to the n-1 articles with it" argument is a pretty poor argument - there has to be a first (well in this case, at least second) article for it, so reverting just because I haven't done that to them is pretty odd. -Matt 11:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

For discussion: I believe the Former routes section is particularly relevant for the SFO article because the airport has been in flux (more so than other hub airports), since the early 2000's, including the dot-com boom-bust, 9/11, the opening of the International Terminal and the startup of BART service. Also, the position of SFO, relative to LAX (the only other major west coast gateway), has shifted such that SFO is gaining traffic (as a percentage of revenue seats), while LAX is experiencing the opposite scenario. It is notable to know how SFO is recovering, and while it is possible to view former routes by viewing edit history and viewing historical records, it is cumbersome. Please add your comments to this thread. Thanks.--Inetpup 04:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I see many problems:

* Does not assert notability - it doesn't explain why former routes are important

* Difficult to verify - where does one find old routes? If it's just memory, then that's original research and unverifiable.

* What does the starting up of BART service have to do with old routes?

* I do not believe it is encyclopediadic.

This should probably be brought back to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports, although it seemed like a done deal last time. --Matt 13:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Let's deprecate the talk on this page and get this all hashed out at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports#Former routes. --Matt 15:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Former Airlines and Routes of San Francisco International Airport is related to here. Tinlinkin 10:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Fate of Terminal 2

If Virgin America plans to operate from the International Terminal, then what will happen to Terminal 2? Bucs2004 01:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• They won't have enough aircraft movements initially to take advantage of T2 in its entirety. Who knows what the future will bring. --Inetpup 05:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Use of International Terminal for domestic flights

Please post your comments. Thanks.--Inetpup 06:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(For those curious what Inetpup is asking about, note the text removed in this diff).

The problem with the edits that say there's a problem with domestic flights in the international terminal is there's no citation that it's true and there's no assertion that it's notable. A few passengers reading the wrong signs or going the wrong way doesn't merit mention here. If it's been covered in the news then maybe it could be re-included. --Matt 14:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen or heard of a "controversy" about Canada flights using a domestic terminal while Mexico flights use the International Terminal. As FCYTravis explained, it's because of the preclearance system which permits Canada flights to arrive at domestic terminals in the U.S. That is true for practically all U.S. airports with Canada flights, and is not unique to SFO, nor at all controversial. (If my edits seemed a bit confusing, it was because I used Twinkle's "Restore This Version" to a version previous to Inetpup's edit, which had the effect of reverting FCYTravis, which was not my intention. Rollback would have caught that but Restore doesn't check. Sorry.) --MCB 06:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Boarding Areas

Can anyone explain what is notable about listing all the airlines by boarding area, this is Wikipedia not a travel guide. Airlines are normally listed just by Terminals, this gives the reader an idea and scope about each terminals services. They do not need to know from an encylopedia what gate to use! MilborneOne 21:50, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Airlines are generally listed by terminals and concourses. A "Boarding Area" is the SFO equivalent of a concourse. FCYTravis 22:05, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Cathay Pacific Focus City??

There has been an ongoing discussion on the Cathay Pacific talk page on whether or not SFO is qualified as a focus city for CX. After reading many comments made by other editors, I don't think that SFO is a focus city for CX. What are your suggestions? Bucs2004 23:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Cathay Pacific only flies from SFO to Hong Kong, and they only do it one time a day as far as I can tell. Doesn't sound like a focus city to me. --Matt 23:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I emailed Cathay Pacific and they said they are planning on adding at least one additional round trip flight between SFO and HKG this fall as well as adding round trip flights from SFO to Singapore and Taipei City by next year. -Robert25

If and when that happens, and if the airline itself decides to call it a focus city, we can consider the change. FCYTravis 02:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

At the time being, SFO is not a focus city for CX. Bucs2004 15:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

SFO-BKK on UA

Why is Bangkok not a direct flight from San Francisco? It runs under the same flight number (UA837/838) and an anon user keeps adding San Francisco as a destination for UA on the BKK article. Bucs2004 04:44, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I removed it about a month ago because UA837 changes planes at NRT. However, on the pdf timetable it looks like it will be direct on UA853 starting 12/14. I'll add it now. V-train 05:55, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

I just downloaded Dec 07 timetable and checked ual.com. There is NO direct flight from SFO to BKK. First per the timetable (pg148), 12/14-1/1 UA853 777 has one stop which is noted by the "1" on the 5th column. Second, the 777-200ER has range of 7,700NM and per UA timetable, SFO to BKK is 7,924mi. Masonng (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Seperation of domestic/international destinations (International Terminal)

Why are anon IPs keep seperating domestic and international operations for the International Terminal Boarding Area A section. Wasn't this discussed before? 19:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Corsairfly resuming services?

Corsairfly (Paris-Orly) (Service may restart in 2008/pending govt. approval)[2]

In a nutshell, corsairfly states intrest in resuming the San Fran-Orly Route. Also, they state intrests in doing so on theri desinations page corsairfly destinations

i tried putting that on the page but some people had some problems with it=) just trying to be helpful, and then someone put it as vandalism.

It is always appreciated to put that on but it needs to be an official announcement (preferably by the airline itself) of starting up service. If it is of interest than it is not official, because they might or might not start up this service, they're only looking in to it. When it becomes official that Corsairfly or any other airlines will start service to SFO you can put it on. SFOetthekid (talk) 21:58, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, the reason that SFO is listed on corsairfly destinations, is because another didn't understand it has to be official no just interest.SFOetthekid (talk) 22:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

"It is often referred to as SFO"

The reason for including this is a good one; unlike all but a handful of airports in the world (perhaps only SFO, LAX, and JFK, maybe also DFW, in the United States), it is most commonly referred to by its three-letter IATA code, as an initialism, by travelers and the general public. (In Chicago, you wouldn't tell a taxi driver to take you to O.R.D.) Removing the sentence because the code appears in the lead and the infobox is inapposite; it's there as a name or nickname for the airport rather than merely as a code. --MCB (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Victoria (YYJ)

United Express/SkyWest is going to launch SFO-YYJ in June.

• 1. Should YYJ's city name be "Victoria (BC)" to disambiguate from Texas?
• 2. YYJ has no US pre-clearance, and should be the only Canadian arrival into SFO which requires CBP inspections. Need to find a way to rephrase quite a few places in the article. HkCaGu (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

HKCG, I think we should move this to the international terminal section. Since flights from YYJ will have to go through customs. --Inetpup (talk) 21:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As i have said below, many trans-border flights are operated from domestic terminals, and YYJ DOES have preclearancing anyway, so keep it where it is! (have a look at the article if you don't beleive me)Duhhitsminerva (talk) 02:25, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

No, YYJ does NOT have pre-clearance. (It's in the plan--which might take years, and the only Victoria pre-clearance currently is at the harbour.) SkyWest's YYJ-SFO flight will become the ONLY Canada flight into SFO that needs CBP inspection. HkCaGu (talk) 02:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

International arrival baggage carousels

A little history lesson: A few months back two editors were fighting on whether there was one or two carousels for domestic/pre-cleared arrivals. I sort of settled it with "let's not worry about the numbers" and it seemed everybody was happy. It's enough details telling that arrivals are separated. The exact carousel numbering is too much. HkCaGu (talk) 21:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Can someone explain why this information is important for the article? --Matt (talk) 06:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps mentioning Carousel 9 and 12 specifically is too much info. But maybe it should be mentioned that there are two carousels that are segregated and will always be available for domestic use.--Inetpup (talk) 06:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

We don't talk about how many carousels there are in other terminals, so I don't feel it's appropriate here, just because it's a shared international-domestic terminal. I think the paragraph that's there sufficiently meets the needs of what people are looking for. --Matt (talk) 06:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, but it's not worth my additional energy arguing about ... As you so often say, 'Cheers'! --Inetpup (talk) 06:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

DL SFO-HNL

Does Delta still fly that route? I couldn't find any flights on their schedules that reflect this. It was recently added. Audude08 (talk) 04:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I fear that this is untrue, seeing as Delta and Northwest are both in the Skyteam alliance, and Northwest flies the same route nonstop from SFO, it seems as if it is a codeshare flight. It is also possibly this route it operated by United, but less likely due to both Delta and Northwest being in Skyteam. I did my research and found that Delta Airlines operates NO nonstops out of SFO to HNL, but i cannot add it as a souce because it was a booking page, and they expire periodically due to the airline's fare changes.Duhhitsminerva (talk) 05:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Air Canada in Boarding Area G

I would have to disagree with mentioning Air Canada anywhere in the Boarding Area A section since AC doesn't operate in the International Terminal.

--Limaindia (talk) 00:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

i think it is necessary to let people know that it does not operate out of there. i just fixed an edit saying that it operates out of T3 Boarding area E. i think it it necessary because many canadian flights operate out of domestic terminals, and this is just simply stating so.Duhhitsminerva (talk) 02:17, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I second that, it’s a useful nugget of information to know that Canada operates out of domestic.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 07:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Taipei Services Ending...from SFO?

It says on the Narita International Airport page that United Airlines will be discontinuing services as of March 29, 2008. Can anyone find a reference or clarify this? I can't find anything.Duhhitsminerva (talk) 07:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

It's NRT-TPE that will be ending. HkCaGu (talk) 07:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but is the SFO-TPE flight direct or does it connect through Narita? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duhhitsminerva (talk • contribs) 19:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

There is nonstop SFO-TPE service now. FCYTravis (talk) 19:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, Taipei service ends March 29 on the O'Hare International Airport since UA's schedules do not show direct ORD-TPE after March 29. Audude08 (talk) 22:27, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

SFO-CAN

It says on this article that the start date for Guangzhou on UA has been changed from "June 18, 2008" to "June 18, 2009". Is this true/correct? Will they still begins flights in June of this year? On United's website, I can still book flights to CAN from SFO on June 18, 2008. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 23:35, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

The linked article says they've *applied* to push back the start date up to June 30, 2009. Hasn't been approved yet. So the article doesn't have full information.--Matt (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

SF Chinese newspapers reported on the application to delay services and the puzzling ability to book. From reading the article, I don't think it implies the new date will be exactly 2009-06-18. I think it's better to put just "June 2009" in CAN, SFO, UA pages. HkCaGu (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Terminal 3

I edited T3 section to say most UA domestic flights leave from T3. "All" is incorrect as there are a few flights that leave from the international terminal because the aircraft arrived from an international source (usually an A319 or A320 from Mexico) and they do not want to take the time to reposition it. 69.12.151.50 (talk) 05:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I was set to revert that until I read this, but do you have any info on what flights does not leave from T3?SFOetthekid (talk) 18:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

SAS dropping Copenhagen-SFO service

• According to discussion on http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/general_aviation/read.main/3960481/, there was a news link at the beginning of discussion but it apperently was written in Danish. However, according to the person who started that discussion thread on airliners.net (assuming that the person understood what the article was saying), it appears as though SAS is going through alot of hard times financially (like most other airlines), and had to make alot of cuts, and cancel the launch of the Copenhagan-SFO flights that were to occur in late 2008. Hopefully, there can be an article that reports this in English. But for now, it seems as though SAS is cancelling the launch of this flight.SFOetthekid (talk) 06:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Now according to a SAS press release, and futher discussion says that it was only postponed because they can't get the 12th A340 that was to operate on Copenhagen-SFO, Copenhagan-New Delhi. So, yeah my mistake.SFOetthekid (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• Found an article from May 6, 2008: http://en.btbtravel.com/s/Editorial-Airlines-And-Airports.asp?ReportID=290042&_Type=Editorial-Airlines-Airports&_Title=Scandinavian-Airlines-To-Launch-San-Francisco-Route

SFO-BKK

• Are we putting connected destinations on here? Because if we are...we're missing a lot more airports than just BKK. Banpei (talk) 01:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I see that this has been an issue previously with other anons putting it up. Banpei (talk) 02:18, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • The destinations listed here are direct flights w/ no change of aircraft. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
      • Which is why the original change that you had tried to revert was correct. Banpei (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Banpei, you may want to read up on what a direct flight is and what is to be included in airport articles. Otherwise, UA BKK is tricky because SFO-BKK is direct, but BKK-SFO is not. What happens is that there are two daily SFO-NRT flights, one B747 and one B777. The SFO-BKK flight number has no change of aircraft type through NRT, but the BKK-SFO flight number does, therefore excluding it from inclusion on the BKK article. HkCaGu (talk) 08:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

HkCaGu - I'm searching on United.com on July 15 for the direct flights and I'm not finding one with the same flight number. I'm not finding it - is the direct flight 7 days a week? --Matt (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

United's schedule software is sometimes broken. I downloaded EasySchedule, and the ANA codeshare which is 15 minutes earlier took all the spotlight. I found, separately, UA853 SFO-NRT B777 and UA853 NRT-BKK B777. "Week" option shows it's 7/week. HkCaGu (talk) 17:30, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah...Ok I see *one* flight with the same flight #, no plane change halfway down the flight schedule. My apologies. Banpei (talk) 08:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I have removed San Francisco from the BKK page. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Kingfisher Airlines

Is the airline still planning on flying to SFO? 74.183.173.237 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:49, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

A news search shows that the last information published in reliable sources was that permission had been obtained and that service would start on the dates indicated. One story in an Indian business journal reported that Kingfisher was considering postponing the start of service, and would make an official announcement (either way) soon. Until then, the article should retain the last announced information. --MCB (talk) 04:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

United Airlines 1920s and 1930s

Old timetables of United (I'm looking at 1935) have airplanes going both to Mills Field and Oakland, so this statement from the article would seem to be incorrect: "After the war, United Airlines took up residence at SFO." -- From the 1935 timetable "All United Air Lines planes in Coast-to-Coast and Coastwise service arrive and depart from both San Francisco (Mills Field) and Oakland Municipal Airports, thus eliminating cross Bay ferry trip." JoeD80 (talk) 21:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

City jurisdiction of San Francisco International Airport

The Airport's zip code is officially considered to be 94128 as stated on their website. Therefore, the airport should be classified as within the city and county of San Francisco, CA and NOT unincorporated San Mateo county. Windows live local also states that the Airport is WITHIN and INSIDE the city limits on San Francisco. Also, city-data.com states that the zip code 94128 is NOT considered to be unincorporated San Mateo county. Therefore information on the article about the location of the airport has been INCORRECT this entire time. Please advise on correcting the article by revising the location, thank you.

City data link: http://www.city-data.com/zips/94128.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.152.220 (talk) 00:22, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I refer you to here and here. —kurykh 01:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I also refer you to here, written by the City and County of San Francisco, who should be more authoritative on this matter than city-data.com. —kurykh 01:04, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

See also here, by the United States Geological Survey. —kurykh 01:07, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• The airport is indeed within unincorporated San Mateo County. The airport is owned and operated by the City and County of San Francisco. The boundaries of California's counties are defined in the California Government Code. The airport is located in San Mateo County, see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=23001-24000&file=23100-23158 and look for section 23138. The California Revenue and Taxation Code specifies that sales tax on jet fuel at SFO is split between the counties of San Francisco (the owner of the airport) and San Mateo (the county which the airport is located in). See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=rtc&group=07001-08000&file=7200-7212 and look for section 7204.03. Ikluft (talk) 01:35, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
• Also, in addition to the above, note that zip codes and post office names have nothing to do with city or county boundaries and are assigned for the convenience of the Postal Service. There are many, many cases where a post office name and zip code do not correspond to the "correct" jurisdiction: one example is the community of Kensington, California, an unincorporated census-designated place in Contra Costa County. It uses the postal designation "Berkeley, CA 94708" but Berkeley (and the rest of 94708) are in Alameda County. --MCB (talk) 02:14, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• I simply ask then, why according to USGS topographic maps of the airport, does it say that the airport lies in San Francisco City and County, not in San Mateo? Map source - [www.TopoZone.com] -Check-Six

You mean to tell me that the USGS themselves are "simply just plain wrong?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.152.220 (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

No, because you're not even using the official USGS maps. TopoZone is not USGS. If you actually read the evidence above, I linked to you the USGS website already, which clearly states that it is in San Mateo County. —kurykh 07:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

• How can you explain this: http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?v=2&cp=37.618889~-122.375&style=r&lvl=14&sp=Point.37.618889_-122.375_San_Francisco_International_Airport___

The airport is clearly labeled SF from this link. How can this be explained? Also, I mean no disrespect when arguing against registered users here. I am only 21 years of age after all, but I carefully monitor city jurisdictions of many areas in California with precision. And I will continue to remain firm with my beliefs about the city jurisdiction of this airport until I am fully convinced otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.37.152.220 (talk) 08:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You keep using private websites. We're using official government sources, from all levels of government and the airport itself. Are you now saying that Microsoft and other private websites are more authoritative than the government on government's own administrative boundaries? —kurykh 16:31, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Jet Airways service ending?

When did Jet Airways announced that they are ending its SFO-PVG-BOM flight? I still found flights after that date on their website. Cashier freak (talk) 05:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen any announcement of dropping the SFO route, and I also checked their web site, Google news, and the most authoritative site on route plans, ATW Daily News Online [3]. There was no confirmation of dropping the route, so I removed "ends January 15". --MCB (talk) 05:44, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

UA SFO-CAN still happening??

Is United still planning on flying to CAN? They have delayed the flight for 1 year due to the rising of oil prices so i am not seure we should removed CAN from the list or leave it as Guangzhou [begins June 2009]? Cashier freak (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Tables

What's with the tables, every airport has it now. I know it is accepted by wikipedia, but personally, I think the old way looked better and seemed a bit more organized. I could be mistaken though. Any thoughts would be appreciated. RK-SFO November 11, 2008

A discussion was started here [4] at WP:AIRPORTS on why it was changed to a table format. Cashier freak (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Is 710 N McDonnell Road considered to be on the airport grounds?

Singapore Airlines says its San Francisco City Office is at 710 N McDonnell Road. http://www.singaporeair.com/saa/en_UK/content/company_info/contact.jsp Is this on the airport grounds? WhisperToMe (talk) 13:11, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is. Search on Google Maps and you'll see who else is there--airport authority and other airlines' offices. HkCaGu (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Dublin route

For the moment, Aer Lingus are only cutting the Winter schedule. Although it was said that there was "no absolute guarantee" that they will operate the summer schedule next year, for the moment it is operational as it hasn't been cut. Therefore a "seasonal" tag is the best indication. FF3000 (talk) 21:49, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I do not see this flight appearing again so i am denotating the flight as "seasonal; ends October 12" since i don't the flight returning any time soon. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 19:37, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

But that is confusing as the route hasn't been seasonal up to now. FF3000 · talk 19:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Now its been been changed to just "ends October 24" without the seasonal tag. 74.183.173.237 (talk) 01:13, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:San Francisco International Airport/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject San Francisco Bay Area, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Architecture, FCYTravis (talk · contribs), Butterfly0fdoom (talk · contribs), Elektrik blue 82 (talk · contribs), HkCaGu (talk · contribs), MLRoach (talk · contribs), SFOetthekid (talk · contribs), Liederliebhaber (talk · contribs)--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Delist--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:34, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I am reviewing this article for GA Sweeps. Comments forthcoming.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This article is in serious danger of losing its GA-class rating for the following reasons:

• There are a few problematic references.
• There are numerous paragraphs of claims without any citations. This is by far the most likely cause for the article to be delisted. Without citing the fact to reliable sources, they are not useful to the reader because he/she can not confirm them. The current standard of WP:WIAGA requires facts to be both attributable and verifiable.
• Could a single unifying hatnote be used. Three lines of hatnotes is disconcerting.

• Two lines is better than three.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

• WP:ALT text needs to be added to the images.

  Done, double check my wording if you have the time. -Optigan13 (talk) 23:39, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• It seems that you missed one according to the text checker. If the template is not yet Alt text compatible, leave a note on the talk page at WP:ALT and they will almost surely clean it up within 24 hours.

Would an unknowing viewer see "The building of an airport at night with a large central building with several lit spokes of the terminals." I doubt anyone would know it is an airport and the adjoining buildings are terminals. I think all of the alt text should be rewritten with Wikipedia:Alternative_text_for_images#What_not_to_specify in mind.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure, I'll just leave it to someone more familiar with alt text on any future development. I've left a note on {{Infobox Airport}} to adjust for alt text, I didn't see anything in the documentation for it. I'm done working on this article for the time being. Can you please re-rate it according to general 1.0 standards when you close this. -Optigan13 (talk) 02:02, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• The article includes lots of text in the form of bulletpoints and one-line paragraphs. This information should be expanded and/or merged into other text.
• I am currently unable to check the disambiguation links for problems due to what is probably a temporary glitch, but this should also be checked and addressed as needed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 01:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

• Refs - I've corrected all the dead links and formatted the ciations. I'm not sure where to get United Airlines timetables from the 1930s for the history section so I've left that alone, maybe a more convenient reference could be used. The line about the June 28, 2008 Cargo plane fire in Accidents and Incidents is dated and needs updating. I'll see if can get to some of the other issues later. -Optigan13 (talk) 01:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've added references for the timetables, using images hosted by www.timetableimages.com. I suspect those images were the original sources for the article prose since the only full scans of United Airlines timetables for the 30s at that site correspond exactly with the dates in this article. Elsewhere in the article I ran into a broken link that apparently was working only a month ago based on the Retrieved date of Aug 2009, so I tagged it until I have time to find out where the moved paged is. I also added a few references in the Accidents and Incidents section. --Itsfullofstars (talk) 20:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Covenant Aviation Security is not "Team SFO"

The article states that the security screening contractor is Covenant Aviation Security, which is correct. However, it also says that CAS is nicknamed "Team SFO." This is not quite correct. ALL SFO employees, contractors, volunteers, etc., are part of Team SFO, which refers to all of the people who are part of SFO, regardless of whether they work for the airport or a contractor. The idea is that all of us have a role in the security of the airport. A lot of people (especially on flyertalk.com) think that the CSA folks are called Team SFO because they had a "Team SFO" embroidered on their previous white TSA-style uniforms. However, I do not work for CAS and I have nothing *directly* to do with security at SFO, but I have a "Team SFO" lanyard that holds my SFO badge, and I have a bunch of other Team SFO swag. As SFO's 2005 annual report (http://www.flysfo.com/web/export/sites/default/download/about/reports/pdf/SFO_Annual_Year_Review_2005.pdf) states: "Team SFO consists of more than 18,000 employees committed to keeping the Airport safe and secure. Of these, 1050 are Covenant Aviation Security employees...." In other words, "Team SFO" is much larger (and somewhat more amorphous) than CAS.

67.169.97.194 (talk) 08:17, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Accidents and incidents

An SFO incident that I remember clearly from my youth was the landing of Japan Airlines Flight 2 in the Bay, well short of the runway. It could certainly be added; I'll leave it for someone more familiar with the article's style. -- BPMullins | Talk 05:58, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

SFO-SGN

before adding SGN as a destination, anyone know if either leg involves a plane change? SFO remains as a destination on the SGN page, just for your consideration. --HXL 何献龙 03:53, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

At HKG, two B744s arrive (SIN, SGN) and depart (ORD, SFO) during the day, and in the evening two B744s arrive (ORD, SFO) and depart (SIN, SGN). Judging by the gate numbers, sometimes the aircraft follow the flight numbers (ORD-HKG-SIN, SFO-HKG-SGN) and sometimes they swap. I don't know what to tell you! HkCaGu (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

based on what you said, why not add SGN for now and add an asterisk at the bottom of the table noting this? --HXL 何献龙 12:55, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I would add it. For direct flights, we don't list the desination if the flight stops at a hub or focus city for the airline and since HKG is neither a hub nor a focus city it should be listed as a destination. Snoozlepet (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

well I know that, so what do you think of HkCaGu's issue of concern here? --HXL 何献龙 14:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'd say if the plane doesn't change some of the days, that's good enough to list it. (Many other routes around the world are just once a week!) HkCaGu (talk) 20:05, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

ok I consider this deal closed after the participation of two knowledgeable editors and after checking timetables. --HXL 何献龙 21:06, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

United flight to Lima via IAH

I am very confused on where should Lima be listed. However a direct United international destination, it makes a stop in Houston-Interncontinental then continuing on to Lima. I checked the flight status of UA854/855 on United.com and the flight departs/arrives from Boarding Area F and not the international terminal. I suggesting putting Lima in the domestic section but with a footnote saying that hence an int'l destinations it departs from Boarding Area F instead of G. Snoozlepet (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

SFO Enterprises, Inc.

Hello. I added the last sentence about SFO Enterprises, Inc. Amazing there's not much information about this private corporation and how their connection to Honduras' airports. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RadioColtrane (talk • contribs) 07:02, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned references in San Francisco International Airport

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of San Francisco International Airport's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Route Map":

• From Virgin Atlantic destinations: "Virgin Atlantic-Route Map". Retrieved 2008-10-13.
• From Emirates destinations: Emirates Destinations
• From Singapore Airlines destinations: "Singapore Airlines Route Map". Singapore Airlines. Retrieved 30 November 2011.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 13:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated "Incidents"

There is no reason to include accidents which occurred on flights which happened to be destined for SFO. It does not relate to the operation or history of the airport. 70.36.212.48 (talk) 18:12, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

See WP:AIRCRASH. WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 21:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

That article says nothing about the inclusion of incidents which did not occur near, and had no impact on the relevant airport. To do so is indiscriminate. Wikipedia:DISCRIMINATE 70.36.212.48 (talk) 23:04, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

But it includes those that involves fatalities or hull losses. Ones like the 9/11 incident have fatalities, so most all of them should stay. Let me look. WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 23:39, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

See the new discussion (and my links to previous discussions) on the project talk page. Thanks. SempreVolando (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Source Removal

Why would you want to remove that source on San Francisco International Airport? --JetBlast (talk) 20:26, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

What? I restored it, didn't I? I said to keep it up, right? Even so, most new services have the citations deleted eventually, although if it needs more references, it would be good to keep up. I think it should stay up for now, but eventually be deleted, since eventually everyone will know of such a service. Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 20:28, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

No references should not be removed. Its should be kept there and should only be removed if the service is stopped. --JetBlast (talk) 20:31, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Mhm. That is really good thinking there. Alrighty, it won't be removed, but that said, no new citations for destinations that are currently serving are needed, as most service can be proven by the airline(s)' websites. Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 20:34, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Well not really good thinking, its the first rule of wiki, sourcing... If destinations are not currently sourced it needs to be..... --JetBlast (talk) 20:38, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

You might have missed what I was trying to say. The reason none of them have a visible Wikipedia citation like new services or upcoming services is because it is assumed that if it is a destination, that the airline's website acts as the source. Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 23:56, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

But it should all be sourced like any other part of the article is sourced. There is no special arrangement for designation tables. --JetBlast (talk) 09:13, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Preventing removal of "sources" of current destinations has always been considered disruptive in WP:AIRPORT. Bring this there if you disagree. We can't ref every single destination. Unless you have a valid challenge. HkCaGu (talk) 09:20, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Anything to backup these claims? --JetBlast (talk) 09:40, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Here we go. HkCaGu is correct on this one. On Page Content, go to #'s 10-11 on the Body section of Page Content. It states.

• 10.For current destinations, the implicit reference is the airline's published timetable. If the flight is in the timetable and not challenged, an explicit reference is not normally included.
• 11.For future destinations, add: "(begins date service begins)" - after the destination. Starting dates must be provided with full date including the year[3] and references should be provided.

I hope this helps. However, JetBlast, you are correct in stating that more citaions is better. I hope this helps. Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{Did I mess up?} 13:10, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

A little late to this, but I added point 10 relatively recently putting in writing my understanding of common and longstanding practice. The guideline certainly doesn't prohibit keeping references, and (even though I wrote it) it's not clear to me that the guideline really meets WP:V. (I actually think current, constantly updated destination lists don't really belong on Wikipedia per a number of policies, but that's a losing battle I'm not willing to fight.) I see no good reason to remove a ref if there is one there, but this is a general WP:AIRPORT topic, not an SFO-specific one. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Class B airport

There have been several edits back and forth re calling SFO a "class B international airport". While its technically true that class B is a designation of airspace, not an airport, class B airspace exists primarily around large airports, as indicated in Airspace class (United States)#Class B and List of Class B airports in the United States. Calling SFO a class B airport is, I think, a useful and unambiguous shorthand to express that it's a major airport (ie major enough to warrant class B airspace), much better than the subjective word "major" which was rightly removed from the opening sentence a day or two ago. Thus, the insistence that "class B" applies to airspace, not airports, is just being pedantic, in my opinion.

That said, I'm not sure it's necessary for other reasons. Class B is a jargon term that probably doesn't mean much to most readers, and the I portable of the airport is probably better conveyed by the traffic statistics in the next paragraph. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 22:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Anyone who reads "Class B international airport" will take that to mean "Class B international airport" until he learns better (if he learns better, which likely he won't). He'll think international airports are categorized somehow or other by someone or other, and he'll wonder why SFO doesn't qualify for Class A, and maybe he'll wonder what airport is Class A. It will never occur to him that the writer is referring to the first few thousand feet of airspace directly above the airport; 95%? 98%? of the article's readers have never heard of Class B airspace.

I've heard of Class B airspace, but when I first read "class B international airport" I read it like everyone else-- as a categorization of the airport by ICAO or FAA or somebody. Other readers would do the same. You say everyone knows what you're trying to get across, so no need to say it clearly-- but the vast majority of readers wouldn't know what you're trying to say.

If you want to mention the Class B airspace somewhere go ahead, but leave it out of the lead paragraph and tell the folks Class B categorizes airspace, not the airport. Tim Zukas (talk) 23:54, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with everything stated here. As a reader, I wasn't sure what "class B airport" meant, so I clicked the wikilink, and it was entirely obvious in the first sentence; based on that, I think the fact that the airport merits class B airspace is a useful indicator of its importance. I guess I'm not "anyone". By the way, you should request a move or deletion of List of Class B airports in the United States if this is how you feel. (For the other reasons I stated, I'm not entirely convinced that including this in the opening sentence is for the best, so this is somewhat academic.) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 00:15, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Whether Wuhan and Qingdao should be listed as China Eastern destinations

This issue has been brought up in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Airports#.22Directness.22 of beyond-hub flights by Mainland Chinese airlines. Please discuss there. HkCaGu (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Notability of new services, up-/downgauges

I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Airports. HkCaGu (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Xi'an

We should be putting Xi'an under United Airlines destinations as "pending government approval" People need to know that UA will be flying there. Most of the time, service is granted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max.wz.goetz (talk • contribs) 22:20, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

Applications to China are intrinsically unpredictable. We must wait for more solid sources such as further announcements or flights actually appearing on booking systems. "People need to know..." is not a justifiable reason for a destination to be listed. HkCaGu (talk) 23:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on San Francisco International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080706164119/http://www.flysfo.com/web/export/sites/default/download/about/news/update/pdf/SFOUpdateSpring2007.pdf to http://www.flysfo.com/web/export/sites/default/download/about/news/update/pdf/SFOUpdateSpring2007.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on San Francisco International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://blog.sfgate.com/cmcginnis/2014/11/19/new-secret-passageway-at-sfo/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:04, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on San Francisco International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://travelskills.com/2014/11/12/new-options-sfo-delta-flyers/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121014001300/http://www.flysfo.com/assets/downloads/reports/CapPlanFY1011.pdf to http://www.flysfo.com/assets/downloads/reports/CapPlanFY1011.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090521030004/http://www.flysfo.com:80/web/export/sites/default/download/about/news/pressres/fact-sheet/pdf/International_Terminal_Fact_Sheet.pdf to http://www.flysfo.com/web/export/sites/default/download/about/news/pressres/fact-sheet/pdf/International_Terminal_Fact_Sheet.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141025231606/http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/local/boeing-777-crashes-while-landing-sfo/nYfcx/ to http://www.ktvu.com/news/news/local/boeing-777-crashes-while-landing-sfo/nYfcx/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on San Francisco International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120912194712/http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065929229&pu=1&rd=janes_com to http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065929229&pu=1&rd=janes_com#
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140125104802/http://notice.flyasiana.com/darksite/main/mainDetail.do?CMNo=T13-04&siteLanguage=US&menuId=104&boardId=110&searchWord=&openFlag=&page=1 to http://notice.flyasiana.com/darksite/main/mainDetail.do?CMNo=T13-04&siteLanguage=US&menuId=104&boardId=110&searchWord=&openFlag=&page=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Trying to delete obsolete references, but someone keeps putting them back

On the SFO page and other airport pages, what typically happens when an airline announces it will start service to another city is that the name of the city, the start date in parenthesis, and a reference to an article announcing the new service are added. For example, if an airline announces it will start service to Manchester, the following gets added in an airline's listing of flights - Manchester (UK) (begins May 14, 2017)[94]. Once service begins, the start date and reference are removed.

China Eastern announced and eventually started service to two new cities - Kunming and Qingdao. I noticed the start dates were removed, but the references to the articles announcing the new service were still there. I tried to remove the references, but someone restored them. I tried it again, and they were restored again. In asking the person who did this what was going on, he declared that references should be maintained.

That's not very consistent.

If you look at the listings for currently operating flights, you'll see no references to articles about their start date.

Shouldn't we be consistent here and do what's always been done after a new flight starts, which is remove the start date and reference to the article announcing the start date?

I'm going to try to remove the references and see if they get restored.

Ssinai (talk) 08:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

If you had checked your own Talk page, you would have seen the initial reasoning behind the restoration of the references: 1:That the flights had only just started. 2: That you initially gave no reason for the deletion. 3: On both of those basis, you were reverted by two experienced editors. Now that the services are established, the references can be deleted. You also emailed me, rather than taking-up the issue on this Talk page. My email address is not for your use in querying deletions/restorations. It is about time you initiated a User page, rather than hiding behind a redlink. David J Johnson (talk) 10:50, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Earthquake resilience: airport columns stand on 5-foot diameter steel balls

According to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ball_(bearing)#Atypical_uses , the columns of the airport building stand on enormous steel balls sitting between concave dishes. In the event of an earthquake the ground can move 20" horizontally in any direction but the columns will stay more or less stationary. Could someone mention that or add a link to the page? Thanks! UBJ 43X (talk) 13:26, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Air Canada incident

Regarding the Air Canada incident ...

There seems to be some disagreement regarding discussing the Air Canada incident. Technically one can argue it does not yet meet WP:AIRCRASH since there was no actual crash and no policies or procedures have yet been changed. Nevertheless, IMHO

• It was a major incident that deserves coverage, certainly at least a brief mention.
• I have to believe that the incident will spark some kind of change in the aviation industry. But that will take time. I would argue that it is reasonable to argue that it should be provisionally considered to meet WP:AIRCRASH given that it seems impossible to believe that such a change will not occur (how much of a change obviously one cannot know at this time).

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately What you believe might happen does not matter - WP:CRYSTAL, WP:NOTNEWS, are also pertenant here - there is no hurry on Wikipedia we can and should wait until this does or does not fit WP:AIRCRASH. The entry is sensationalist - in reality this was an incident where the checks and balances in Aviation thankfully worked, much of the media reaction is hype and we should let that settle down before making a decision on inclusion.Andrewgprout (talk) 01:51, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll acknowledge that it is a gray area. To be frank though, one could extend your argument to say that current or recent events should never be covered in Wikipedia because the facts reported early on may not be entirely accurate and one cannot fully gauge the long-term notability of a topic until there is some distance from the event. However, this is clearly not WP's philosophy or policy. Certainly not every newsworthy event should be covered by WP, but if an emerging topic is deemed to be significantly notable, even if secondary coverage in currently limited, it is normally covered in Wikipedia (e.g. there is lots of WP coverage on the Trump presidency even though all of that is very recent).

-- MC — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.131.2.3 (talk) 17:47, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on San Francisco International Airport. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.uatimetable.com/ua.exe
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://sfgov.org/arts/sites/sfgov.org.arts/files/SFO_T1_Presentation_031615.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141129114417/http://www.auerbachconsultants.com/pdf/l.institutional.pdf to http://www.auerbachconsultants.com/pdf/l.institutional.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.janes.com/products/janes/defence-security-report.aspx?ID=1065929229&pu=1&rd=janes_com
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www9.passur.com/sfo_docs/sfopdf4.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090823071431/http://live.airportnetwork.com/sfo/flights.asp to http://live.airportnetwork.com/sfo/flights.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• San Francisco International Airport passenger destinations.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:39, 6 January 2019 (UTC)