Narrative:

In recent weeks of flying to sfo, ATC seems to be rerouting many flts coming in originally on the modesto two arrival to the golden gate four arrival by way of the mustang (fmg) transition. This usually results in an added 15-20 mins and an additional burn of 2000 pounds in an airbus A320. Departing out of las vegas to san francisco, the fpf showed extra fuel being boarded for a possible reroute to the golden gate 4 arrival written in the comments section. Sure enough, each time that month, we were given the reroute and added time and burn to our flight. What happened to slot times or some other means of reducing the delays we are experiencing more frequently in recent weeks. On nov/mon/03, I was plting flight XXX from ord-sfo on a beautiful clear day. In ZLC airspace we were given the reroute as stated above prior to lcu and subsequently had to accept the reroute for 'ATC flow as per oakland's request.' we had no reason to expect this reroute and hadn't planned for it by taking the extra 2000 pounds. Within 5 mins I mentioned to ZLC that in the future, I would rather accept holding versus the reroute and they said they would pass it along. In another 5 mins we were cleared direct to modesto for the modesto 2 arrival and to expect holding. Our flight proceeded on the modesto 2 arrival for an RNAV visual approach to runway 28R and was told by ZOA upon first call up to 'keep the speed up, 310 KTS when able.' we made it to the gate on time and without any holding or additional delays. I would like to have an explanation of the rational behind the reroutes and why holding isn't the tool of choice to meter traffic into the sfo airport efficiently. As the winter flying is now upon us, flts from places on the east coast will not have the luxury of being able to take extra fuel as we will already have the maximum fuel the aircraft can hold to fight the winds and plan for our alternates and expected holding. It is now nov/tue/03, and my flight today was given the same reroute. Before accepting the reroute, I asked if we could remain on course and would accept holding if needed. In a couple of mins the controller reclred us to direct MVA, modesto and the modesto 2 arrival. There was no further delays and we were again asked to keep our speed up. I had taken on an extra 1200 pounds of fuel for the possible reroute and also for the turbulence reports. I still don't understand why this is so prevalent and other pilots on the frequency were questioning the reroutes.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A320 FLT CREW IS FRUSTRATED WITH TFC MGMNT REROUTING PROCS INTO SFO.

Narrative: IN RECENT WKS OF FLYING TO SFO, ATC SEEMS TO BE REROUTING MANY FLTS COMING IN ORIGINALLY ON THE MODESTO TWO ARR TO THE GOLDEN GATE FOUR ARR BY WAY OF THE MUSTANG (FMG) TRANSITION. THIS USUALLY RESULTS IN AN ADDED 15-20 MINS AND AN ADDITIONAL BURN OF 2000 LBS IN AN AIRBUS A320. DEPARTING OUT OF LAS VEGAS TO SAN FRANCISCO, THE FPF SHOWED EXTRA FUEL BEING BOARDED FOR A POSSIBLE REROUTE TO THE GOLDEN GATE 4 ARR WRITTEN IN THE COMMENTS SECTION. SURE ENOUGH, EACH TIME THAT MONTH, WE WERE GIVEN THE REROUTE AND ADDED TIME AND BURN TO OUR FLT. WHAT HAPPENED TO SLOT TIMES OR SOME OTHER MEANS OF REDUCING THE DELAYS WE ARE EXPERIENCING MORE FREQUENTLY IN RECENT WKS. ON NOV/MON/03, I WAS PLTING FLT XXX FROM ORD-SFO ON A BEAUTIFUL CLR DAY. IN ZLC AIRSPACE WE WERE GIVEN THE REROUTE AS STATED ABOVE PRIOR TO LCU AND SUBSEQUENTLY HAD TO ACCEPT THE REROUTE FOR 'ATC FLOW AS PER OAKLAND'S REQUEST.' WE HAD NO REASON TO EXPECT THIS REROUTE AND HADN'T PLANNED FOR IT BY TAKING THE EXTRA 2000 LBS. WITHIN 5 MINS I MENTIONED TO ZLC THAT IN THE FUTURE, I WOULD RATHER ACCEPT HOLDING VERSUS THE REROUTE AND THEY SAID THEY WOULD PASS IT ALONG. IN ANOTHER 5 MINS WE WERE CLRED DIRECT TO MODESTO FOR THE MODESTO 2 ARR AND TO EXPECT HOLDING. OUR FLT PROCEEDED ON THE MODESTO 2 ARR FOR AN RNAV VISUAL APCH TO RWY 28R AND WAS TOLD BY ZOA UPON FIRST CALL UP TO 'KEEP THE SPD UP, 310 KTS WHEN ABLE.' WE MADE IT TO THE GATE ON TIME AND WITHOUT ANY HOLDING OR ADDITIONAL DELAYS. I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AN EXPLANATION OF THE RATIONAL BEHIND THE REROUTES AND WHY HOLDING ISN'T THE TOOL OF CHOICE TO METER TFC INTO THE SFO ARPT EFFICIENTLY. AS THE WINTER FLYING IS NOW UPON US, FLTS FROM PLACES ON THE EAST COAST WILL NOT HAVE THE LUXURY OF BEING ABLE TO TAKE EXTRA FUEL AS WE WILL ALREADY HAVE THE MAX FUEL THE ACFT CAN HOLD TO FIGHT THE WINDS AND PLAN FOR OUR ALTERNATES AND EXPECTED HOLDING. IT IS NOW NOV/TUE/03, AND MY FLT TODAY WAS GIVEN THE SAME REROUTE. BEFORE ACCEPTING THE REROUTE, I ASKED IF WE COULD REMAIN ON COURSE AND WOULD ACCEPT HOLDING IF NEEDED. IN A COUPLE OF MINS THE CTLR RECLRED US TO DIRECT MVA, MODESTO AND THE MODESTO 2 ARR. THERE WAS NO FURTHER DELAYS AND WE WERE AGAIN ASKED TO KEEP OUR SPD UP. I HAD TAKEN ON AN EXTRA 1200 LBS OF FUEL FOR THE POSSIBLE REROUTE AND ALSO FOR THE TURB RPTS. I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THIS IS SO PREVALENT AND OTHER PLTS ON THE FREQ WERE QUESTIONING THE REROUTES.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.