X-OldHeader: From TPierce@goldengate.org-DeleteThis.com Fri Jun 8 06:29:21 2001 Return-Path: <TPierce@goldengate.org-DeleteThis.com> Received: from opus.labs.agilent.com (root@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com [130.29.244.179]) by jr.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs Workstation) with ESMTP id GAA23326 for <wind_talk_ls@jr.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 06:29:21 -0700 (PDT) Received: from msgbas1.cos.agilent.com (msgbas1.cos.agilent.com [130.29.152.58]) by opus.labs.agilent.com (8.9.3 (PHNE_18979)/8.9.3 AgilentLabs Workstation) with ESMTP id GAA03485 for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 06:29:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ggexsf.golderngate.org (unknown [199.88.74.119]) by msgbas1.cos.agilent.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A366C18B5 for <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com>; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 07:29:19 -0600 (MDT) Received: by GGEXSF with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19) id <LW28KQQW>; Fri, 8 Jun 2001 06:29:09 -0700 Message-ID: <87372ECCA42DD3118E3200508B2E11466979CB@GGEXSF> From: Tracy Pierce <TPierce@goldengate.org-DeleteThis.com> To: "'wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com'" <wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com> Subject: RE: [SFBAeNetwork] Save The Bay phones 6/11-12 re SFO Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2001 06:29:08 -0700 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
Peter, thanks for the link to the FAA reports. I've read only the Executive
Summary so far, but judging from that, the only hope for beating SFO's wish
to fill the bay is to sell the idea of better airport locations! The FAA
says new technology could improve poor weather landing rates by 3%. I
noticed that OAK doesn't even make it onto the list of frequent-delay
airports (while HON does?!), and OAK sure seems to be a lot more centrally
located where the bay area at large is concerned, so that would be my
choice. I wish it were my choice!
Curiously, the concentration of flights near 10:00am is said to be a
positive thing with benefits mentioned, to the effect of providing
flexibility. That sure shoots the idea of 'always on time' down the tubes,
though! So the 'factual numbers' we see in the news are virtually always
just whatever numbers are needed to support the writer's opinion, right?
Keep up your great work, Peter!
Tracy
> -----Original Message-----
> From: wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com
> [mailto:wind_talk@opus.labs.agilent.com-DeleteThis.com]On Behalf Of Eyes4Hire@aol.com-DeleteThis.com
> Sent: Thursday, June 07, 2001 10:37 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list WIND_TALK
> Subject: Re: [SFBAeNetwork] Save The Bay phones 6/11-12 re SFO
>
>
>
> In a message dated 6/7/2001 7:43:14 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> TPierce@goldengate.org-DeleteThis.com writes:
>
> > While the overall hourly landing average looks very nice compared to the
> > peak foul weather landing rate, that's apples vs oranges. What's the
peak
> > landing rate in good weather?
>
> For the 15 peak hours the hourly rates run from 19 to 45 with three hours
> over 40 and 12 hours at 36 or less. It's apples and oranges unless they
put
> on some controls to sread the demand out. The airport claims the clear
> weather capacity for arrivals is 60/hour but FAA found that 50/hour is the
> real world answer.
>
> The really interesting issue comes out when you look at 15 minute
segments.
> There are 20 planes scheduled to arrive between 9:45 and 10:00 a.m. even
> though the maximum arrivals is 12.5 per 15 minutes. There is only one
plane
> scheduled to arrive between 10:30 and 10:45.
>
> The FAA report is available at: http://www.faa.gov/events/benchmarks/
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 07 2002 - 02:10:13 PST