The comments ignore that there are intersecting runways at SFO, and they land inbound across the Bay and depart on the other runway to the north. United was inbound over the Bay with a landing clearance from the Tower controller. Meantime, Southwest got a prior taxi clearance from Ground frequency to taxi to the active and the "Line up and wait" was a modification of the prior clearance. Understand, there are two frequencies here -- Tower and Ground. Southwest is listening to Ground, not Tower. Southwest would change to Tower once off the taxiway and onto the active departure runway. This was a controller error, but media made it sound like a Southwest pilot error.

(Written on 06/02/2023)(Permalink)

This was a go-around, a common procedure and was not dangerous. We do go-arounds for a variety of reasons, NBC4 pumped this up as a close encounter, but it was no big deal. It's a shame that media lies to us. How about the QRON4 report this week about "Plane crash at county airport! Two people on board and their condition is unknown!". The truth was that a Comanche 260 had a gear collapse on Runway 31L at Reid Hillview and the plane came to a stop on the runway and the occupants climbed out. But the QRON 4 article showed a drawing of the airport and the location of the plane coming down in the middle of the maintenance / tie down area. They lied! Yes, the media lied. I called the station and requested a correction and the junior male who spoke with me said they relied on FAA information and "Thanks for the call". What a prick! They lied and refused to make a correction. The point is -- these media outlets lie for ratings .... don't believe them.

(Written on 02/25/2023)(Permalink)

The frequency is so busy / congested tha it’s often too time consuming to do a full co-sign etc. but, you are correct. Usually a quick response is adequate but when there is a problem (like this one), the sloppy pilots get burned

(Written on 01/28/2023)(Permalink)

Ordinarily they would have wheels down 1,000' in from the threshold. A gust of wind would shorten that but a thousand feet is a generous safety margin.

(Written on 01/20/2023)(Permalink)

That's the point. Their flight had been cancelled so the ticket / boarding pass they held was no longer valid. The unfortunate passengers were trying to rebook, yet security wanted them back out in the check in area while an agent sought a remedy. The experience sucked -- but the weather is an act of God and while it's easy to criticize Southwest this is actually a TSA issue, not the airline.

(Written on 12/30/2022)(Permalink)

I looked at the Delta website ...... what I saw in late October was that it is a code share on Air France with Air France being the operator on a 777 200 Fares are confusing .... they offer a teaser at $750 return in Y but the regular coach fare is $2500

(Written on 08/12/2022)(Permalink)

Could be a code share??

(Written on 08/12/2022)(Permalink)

I am corporate flight crew. I did a flight to Papeete in January and our organizer put me on Air Tahiti Nui, and it was horrible. The flight left at midnight, food was a verge rolled tortilla. Plane was a 787 with nine across where the plane was designed for eight across, and to accommodate the carriers' requests for nine across Boeing took about 1 1/2" out of the seat width. Because the organizer bought the flight on line Air Tahiti Nui didnot pay miles, despite being a Star Alliance member. I flat out won't fly with Air Tahiti Nui again. It was just horrible. Air France has a 7 am flight, and that's better. Delta will provide some competition which is good. There is no way Delta could be worse than Air Tahiti Nui.

(Written on 08/12/2022)(Permalink)

Back when the DC10 was designed, I visited a couple of buildings off the airport area where they had a hundred engineers designing/drawing components. My opinion is that the DC10 was built to meet or exceed design standards that applied at that time, but there is no question that the Boeing product was better quality than the DC10. In other words, it met the standard, but could have been better.

(Written on 06/03/2022)(Permalink)

Rob, the issue of modifying an existing airframe (737) versus an entirely new design was discussed decades ago --- Boeing lacked the resources to do a totally different design, so the market niche could be satisfied by stretching the 737 platform at a manageable cost. The argument seemed to make sense. Another aspect is/was the forecast of demand. Back when the Boeing 737 debate was ongoing the forecast of air travel demand was way less than the actual that we see today, so the analysis of new versus stretch an existing platform had a different view. Had the demand picture been accurate the choice of new versus stretch might have been different. In the end the accountants and capital risk always seem to rule.

(Written on 04/29/2022)(Permalink)