Large Transport
Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Multiengine
Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness
ATC Issue All Types; Conflict Airborne Conflict; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Flight Crew Took Evasive Action
Airport; Human Factors; Procedure; Weather
We had been monitoring the wind event and ATIS wind changes enroute from ZZZ to SFO. Wind changed from a headwind for Runway 28 to 020 [at] 10 kts. Crossing ZZZZZ at 11;000 feet we were assigned the visual to 28R. On a vector we were reassigned the ILS 28L and completed all the change triangles and reviewed the clearance. NorCal reported traffic of Aircraft Y across the bay at 1 o'clock [same] altitude. We reported traffic in sight on base and were told they were 'paired' with us and to maintain visual contact with that traffic and 180 to the bridge. Winds were 020 [at] 35 kts from 6;000 feet to 1;000 feet. Aircraft Y was assigned a visual to 28R. We were [the same] altitude and both high; and it appeared that Aircraft Y was not flying the charted visual but a visual to 28R and being blown into our path. I maintained visual from the left seat as PM (Pilot Monitoring) and the FO (First Officer) was PF (Pilot Flying); Aircraft Y was alarmingly close and was joined on us in a right echelon formation. The FO deviated left of the localizer as Aircraft Y continued to encroach. We were on glide path inbound left of course when we had an RA to descend.[I recommend] extra vigilance from both crews; NorCal and Tower; when paired arrivals in high crosswinds. While Tower reported 020 [at] 12 kts; ATIS [reported] 020 [at] 10 kts; winds from 1;000 feet - 6;000 feet were 35 kts. Unsure that crews are assigned the charted visual to 28R and follow those procedures when paired with an aircraft on 28L ILS.
Air carrier Captain reported deviating from final approach due to proximity of aircraft approaching parallel runway at SFO airport.