SFO is gettinga new tower

Cool. I was just there in the "new" modern bathrooms. That place is really going through a makeover. There was even a yellow taildragger (full size) hung over an escalator on display.
 
I imagine its money brought to the district by the dragon, er, well thats the best I got, lady, Bella Pelosi. . . .
 
Maybe one of these days, SFO will figure out how to unload baggage from an aircraft in less than 45 minutes.

That's MUCH more important than the pretty artwork displays or even the revamped Terminal 2, IMO.
 
MAKG1 said:
Maybe one of these days, SFO will figure out how to unload baggage from an aircraft in less than 45 minutes.

That's MUCH more important than the pretty artwork displays or even the revamped Terminal 2, IMO.
Click to expand...

I'm not holding my breath for that.
 
I'm sure SFO Tower is open weekends.

I'd like to see a real tower myself. All I've seen is the Future Flight Central simulation of LAX. But I suspect SJC may be a bit easier to swing.

I've been to Oakland Center (both the ARTCC and the Oceanic FIR) and it was a stunning eye-opener. It's in a nondescript residential neighborhood in Fremont.
 
MAKG1 said:
I'm sure SFO Tower is open weekends.

I'd like to see a real tower myself. All I've seen is the Future Flight Central simulation of LAX. But I suspect SJC may be a bit easier to swing.

I've been to Oakland Center (both the ARTCC and the Oceanic FIR) and it was a stunning eye-opener. It's in a nondescript residential neighborhood in Fremont.
Click to expand...

Fremont is pretty far for me to drive, but I do want to go to Oakland Center one day. I got to see Travis AFB (tower and TRACON) with the 99s. We even climbed into a C-5.
 
kimberlyanne546 said:
I so want to go with you. I normally have a tough time getting a day off work but if you tell me in advance I could probably manage. How are you going to get yourself a tour?
Click to expand...

If I ever figure out how, I'll let you know. My impression is it helps to know the right people, but maybe you can just call them up.
 
chucky said:
If I ever figure out how, I'll let you know. My impression is it helps to know the right people, but maybe you can just call them up.
Click to expand...

If you give me the number, I will call. You'd be amazed what I can do via telephone.
 
Wait a minute, I just realized I flew with a guy the other day (I helped him with an Angel Flight).

He said he was an SFO controller for 10 years in the tower. Let me email him. Standby.
 
OK that did not work at all.

The reply:

"They are going to build a new tower but it won't be open for about 4 years or so. I haven't been up in the tower for about 25 years. The one in place now was not the one I worked at. I think if you Call the tower number any time. Probably not at night cause the office is closed and the controllers are snoozing!"
 
Well, weather and fundraising politicians permitting, I'm meeting a new CFI and going flying for the first time in months this weekend. I'll mention it to him. Failing that, I believe the A/FD has phone numbers for most large facilities. I don't know if that's the right number to call, but I guess it's unlikely to hurt. Bay Area POA field trip?
 
chucky said:
Well, weather and fundraising politicians permitting, I'm meeting a new CFI and going flying for the first time in months this weekend. I'll mention it to him. Failing that, I believe the A/FD has phone numbers for most large facilities. I don't know if that's the right number to call, but I guess it's unlikely to hurt. Bay Area POA field trip?
Click to expand...

Totally. Speaking of Bay Area POA you should all come to the overnight in August (camping or hotel, or just come for the day):

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showthread.php?t=50629
 
Hmmm. This is a lot of numbers. Where should I start?

(From AirNav):

Ownership: Publicly-ownedOwner: CITY & COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
PO BOX 8097
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94128
Phone 650-821-5000
GLENN BROTMAN: AIRFIELD OPERATIONS PHONE 650-821-3349 AND FAX 650-821-4670. DENNIS REED: AIRPORT OPS COORDINATOR PHONE 650-821-3341.Manager: JOHN L. MARTIN
PO BOX 8097
SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94128
Phone 650-821-5000
DRAKE POSTON: AIRFIELD OPNS SERVICES MGR PHONE 650-821-3348.
 
The new tower will be a twin to the new Oakland tower. The new Oakland tower will combine the controllers from the north and south field into one tower. The tower is finished but I think it's not going to be used for a year.I think some thing over funding. The yahoo flyout group based out of SQL/PAO has SFO tower tours, NorCal, oakland center tours on a regular basis they did have hyperbaric chamber experiences to untill Beal quit doing them.
 
The tower is a federal facility, and I think it's more or less completely separate from airport operations and management, which is what you've got here. In the back of the A/FD (download the supplementary info off of Aeronav, if you don't have a paper copy) there's a list of telephone numbers for all the major FAA facilities. There is one for SFO - I don't generally like to post emails or phone numbers on web boards just as a matter of principle, even though this one is publicly available, but I can PM it to you, if you want to give it a try. There are people on this board who know a great deal more about the ATC system than I who might chime in and say if that's the right place to start or not.
 
Just curious: How can a bankrupt state that is paying contractors with IOUs afford a new, aluminum-clad control tower that looks like a torch?
 
willywildes said:
The new tower will be a twin to the new Oakland tower. The new Oakland tower will combine the controllers from the north and south field into one tower. The tower is finished but I think it's not going to be used for a year.I think some thing over funding. The yahoo flyout group based out of SQL/PAO has SFO tower tours, NorCal, oakland center tours on a regular basis they did have hyperbaric chamber experiences to untill Beal quit doing them.
Click to expand...

Oh, right, I've been meaning to put myself on their list.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Just curious: How can a bankrupt state that is paying contractors with IOUs afford a new, aluminum-clad control tower that looks like a torch?
Click to expand...

Well, the state isn't actually bankrupt, but that's neither here nor there. If the numbers in the article are accurate, the FAA is paying about 70%, and the airport is covering the rest. The airport is owned and operated by the city of San Francisco - I'm sure there's state money involved, but likely not all that much.

Edit: Here's what SFO's webpage has to say about how SFO is funded. Not a whole lot of information. I wouldn't be surprised if there are state grants involved for the new tower, though.
 
Last edited:
chucky said:
The tower is a federal facility, and I think it's more or less completely separate from airport operations and management, which is what you've got here. In the back of the A/FD (download the supplementary info off of Aeronav, if you don't have a paper copy) there's a list of telephone numbers for all the major FAA facilities. There is one for SFO - I don't generally like to post emails or phone numbers on web boards just as a matter of principle, even though this one is publicly available, but I can PM it to you, if you want to give it a try. There are people on this board who know a great deal more about the ATC system than I who might chime in and say if that's the right place to start or not.
Click to expand...

Please PM me. I have now contacted two local pilots. Yes, I have a paper copy, somewhere.
 
Yep, that's the one in the A/FD.
 
chucky said:
Well, the state isn't actually bankrupt, but that's neither here nor there. If the numbers in the article are accurate, the FAA is paying about 70%, and the airport is covering the rest. The airport is owned and operated by the city of San Francisco - I'm sure there's state money involved, but likely not all that much.

Edit: Here's what SFO's webpage has to say about how SFO is funded. Not a whole lot of information. I wouldn't be surprised if there are state grants involved for the new tower, though.
Click to expand...

Hmmm. I thought in May Gov. Brown announced that CA was $17 billion in debt, with no way to pay it back? Did I dream that?

As far as getting the money from the FAA, well, that's silly, too -- since the U.S. itself is also bankrupt. Well, unless you believe that borrowing $3 million more per MINUTE puts us on sound fiscal footing. :rolleyes:

That leaves the airport itself as the only legitimate entity to fund a $100 million dollar aluminum-clad, torch-shaped control tower. Wow.

Sounds like someone in San Francisco has a serious disconnect from reality.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Hmmm. I thought in May Gov. Brown announced that CA was $17 billion in debt, with no way to pay it back? Did I dream that?

As far as getting the money from the FAA, well, that's silly, too -- since the U.S. itself is also bankrupt. Well, unless you believe that borrowing $3 million more per MINUTE puts us on sound fiscal footing. :rolleyes:

That leaves the airport itself as the only legitimate entity to fund a $100 million dollar aluminum-clad, torch-shaped control tower. Wow.

Sounds like someone in San Francisco has a serious disconnect from reality.
Click to expand...
The airport fees at KSFO are pretty high so I don't doubt they can afford it. :rofl:
 
Jay Honeck said:
Hmmm. I thought in May Gov. Brown announced that CA was $17 billion in debt, with no way to pay it back? Did I dream that?
Click to expand...

Fifteen point something is the deficit number (not the debt) I've been hearing the last few days. Brown signed a budget yesterday that is supposed to make that up through a combination of cuts and tax increases, but the tax increases have to be approved by the voters in November. So California's in a spot of trouble, certainly, but not bankrupt. Yet.

Is this the way to the Spin Zone? :wink2:

Anyway, according to SFO's webpage (the one I linked above), their annual budget is just a bit over $780 million. Out of that, the $30 million or so for the tower that they're responsible for isn't so unbelievable.
 
chucky said:
Fifteen point something is the deficit number (not the debt) I've been hearing the last few days. Brown signed a budget yesterday that is supposed to make that up through a combination of cuts and tax increases, but the tax increases have to be approved by the voters in November. So California's in a spot of trouble, certainly, but not bankrupt. Yet.

Is this the way to the Spin Zone? :wink2:

Anyway, according to SFO's webpage (the one I linked above), their annual budget is just a bit over $780 million. Out of that, the $30 million or so for the tower that they're responsible for isn't so unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Discussing airport finances has become so partisan that it risks getting sent to the Spin Zone? Gosh, I hope not!

Sounds to me like SFO has more than enough income to cover the expense of a tower without further burdening their beleaguered state.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Discussing airport finances has become so partisan that it risks getting sent to the Spin Zone? Gosh, I hope not!
Click to expand...

No, no. But discussing the budget of the state of California.... :D

Jay Honeck said:
OMG -- I was off exponentially in my estimate of California's debt.

It's not $17 billion -- it's $391 billion! http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-california-debt-clock.html

A "spot of trouble", indeed! Yikes!
Click to expand...

The $17 billion you heard was undoubtedly the budget deficit, not the debt. I'm not sure the debt figure alone is indicative of the problems California faces - after all, the state GDP was $1.9 trillion last year - but, yes, there are problems.

But on topic, I think it's a pretty design, whether or not it's responsibly paid for.
 
Everskyward said:
SFO is owned by the City and County of San Francisco, not the state. If anyone really cares about their budget it is here.

http://www.flysfo.com/downloads/reports/FY1011AOB.pdf

And their capital plan.

http://www.flysfo.com/downloads/reports/CapPlanFY1011.pdf
Click to expand...

Are state and federal funds going to the tower? That's the way it usually works.

For example, in Iowa City they got the Feds and State to pay something like 90% of their new $6 million dollar runways, even though the airport (by their own estimates) brought in something like $12 million annually to the citizens of Johnson County.

I was amazed, and appalled, and grateful -- all at the same time.
 
Jay Honeck said:
Are state and federal funds going to the tower? That's the way it usually works.
Click to expand...
From the original article.

Working within these constraints - and given a site that will be far more prominent from the Bayshore Freeway than the current control tower - the architects sought to enliven the tower without exceeding the budget set beforehand by the FAA, which will pay $69 million of the cost, with the balance covered by the airport.
Click to expand...
You would think the FAA would pay a good portion, it is in fact an FAA control tower.
 
From the capital plan document posted above:

Funding Sources Amount Percentage
Revenue Bonds $519.8 67.7 %
Grants $209.9 27.3 %
Passenger Facility Charges $38.5 5.0 %
Total Sources $768.2 100.0 %

So not much shy of a third comes from grants (they don't specify, but I've skimmed through the document and all the grants I noticed were federal). As for the new tower, the document says that they anticipate all of the cost of the construction of the tower will come from federal funds. The costs to the airport involve demolishing the old one after the new one is operational. It doesn't look like anything for the tower will come from the state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top