News

Atherton: Crowd tells county they've had enough of Surf Air

 

San Mateo County got an earful from a standing-room only crowd of about 185 people who packed a meeting room in Atherton Tuesday night to talk about how Surf Air has affected their lives.

Speakers included a doctor who said medical literature shows noise increases heart disease risks, a mother who said she has to run a white noise machine to get her toddler to sleep, and residents who urged civil disobedience as well as others who urged the county to stop worrying about being sued over its actions at the airport.

"This is war," said Phil Wasserstein, a Menlo Park resident and a neurologist. Dr. Wasserstein said he reviewed medical literature and found studies linking noise to increased cardiovascular disease risk.

"I think it's a fundamental problem having a commercial airline flying into the San Carlos Airport," he said. "You represent the people of this county, and you should represent those people rather than making a compromise for fear of a lawsuit," he told Supervisor Don Horsley, who hosted the meeting in Atherton's Holbrook-Palmer Park.

Attendees included representatives of Surf Air, the airline that started using the San Carlos Airport in June 2013 and now schedules up to 44 flights a day for customers who pay a monthly fee for unlimited flights within California and to Las Vegas.

"We understand the elephant in the room," said Surf Air CEO Jeff Potter. "That would be us." Mr. Potter said Surf Air understands "the sensitivities, we understand the effects."

But speakers questioned that. "You don't understand," said Rosemary Murphy. "You only hear us, but you don't know what it's like to live under this noise. I'm outside and I'm trying to have a nice dinner party and what do I hear? Planes, planes, planes. Am I angry? I am furious."

Several speakers made the point that Surf Air's planes carry only a maximum of nine people, yet are affecting 40,000 people with their noise, saying the business is an example of something that benefits only the few at the expense of the many.

"Surf Air is doing business to make a profit and earn returns for their investors," said Wally Sleeth.

Supervisor Horsley said Surf Air's initial move into the San Carlos Airport "really caught us off guard." What was once three round trips a day is now 22, he said.

The county has done a number of things to try to control the noise problems, including forming a working group of local officials and residents, consulting with the Federal Aviation Administration and, most recently, starting a study and hiring consultants to look at possible actions.

He said the county has taken some concrete actions, including bulldozing the building that Surf Air used for its passengers before and after flights and putting restrictions on airport parking. They hired a mediator to try to get the airline to cut flights back to eight round trips a day, but were not successful, he said.

One action which both sides had hoped might cut back noise complaints is a new route the airline may use in good weather, when air traffic allows, that takes the planes over the Bay instead of the Peninsula.

A six-month test of that route was approved by the FAA and began July 5, but foggy weather and air traffic have allowed it to be used just a little more than 67 percent of the time. Residents say early morning flights continue to go over their homes most of the time.

"I still have more flights going over me per day than I did two-and-a-half years ago," said North Fair Oaks resident Joe Stratton. He said he spent two weeks tracking Surf Air flights from 7 a.m. to 10 a.m., and not one used the new Bay route.

Supervisor Horsley said the number of flights able to use the Bay route "is not as optimistic as we originally thought."

Airport Manager Gretchen Kelly said that Surf Air flights to the San Carlos Airport affect 40,000 people under their flight path, 37,000 of them in San Mateo County.

Some of the 3,000 people in Santa Clara County who live under the new Bay flight path came to the meeting to express their unhappiness with the new route, which they said has re-routed planes over their homes. Ms. Kelly said Surf Air flights have always flown over Sunnyvale, but now they are flying over a different part of the city.

"A solution to airplane noise should not be to move the noise from one neighborhood to another," said Sunnyvale resident Shannon Morgan.

The county has promised to work with Sunnyvale on the problem.

A resident of Palmer Lane in North Fair Oaks said that the airline's departing flights are also a noise problem. "Why (are they) allowed to do what they're doing at the expense of all of us?" she asked. "Shame on you," she said to Mr. Potter. "I'm so disgusted."

"These planes fly overhead morning, noon and night" said Julie Horvath of Menlo Park. "I can't sit outside and have a conversation."

Marina Rose, who lives near the airport, asked the county "to get control of the airport." "We really need to take some unprecedented action," she said. "We need some radical response soon."

Allied Arts resident John Warrace said he had a suggestion: he might just run out of gas on the road accessing the airport one morning, blocking the access of the Surf Air pilots and passengers. "If there's enough of us, it's going to cause a problem," he said. "Our local government, the people who are supposed to take care of us, are not doing it anymore.

Only one speaker, who said her son wants to be a commercial pilot and needs to work for Surf Air before moving up to a larger airline, was supportive of Surf Air. "We've got a serious pilot shortage," said the Redwood City resident.

Menlo Park resident James Courtney said he wants to make sure any new regulations do not hurt other users of the airport, including him. "My concern is that the frustration and sweeping generalizations ... have the potential to hurt a lot of people" if regulations that affect other airport users are adopted, he said.

Other residents urged those bothered by the noise to file complaints. Lindenwood resident Larry Sweeney said that he has a method to automate the complaint form which can relieve the complainant of filling out the same information multiple times.

Surf Air officials did not hear all the comments directed their way, because at 7:30, about an hour before the public comments ended, Mr. Potter announced they had to leave. "We have travel plans," Mr. Potter said. As they were leaving a voice from the audience shouted out: "See you in court."

Another public meeting on the subject will be held in Redwood City on Wednesday, Sept. 14 at 6:30 p.m. in the Fair Oaks Community Center, 2600 Middlefield Road. In October, the Board of Supervisors is scheduled to hear back from the consultants who have been studying the issue.

Comments

14 people like this
Posted by Calypso41
a resident of another community
on Aug 18, 2016 at 12:36 pm

Calypso41 is a registered user.

I live in Redwood City, and I am also annoyed by the increasing number of flights at all hours, with really loud planes!


44 people like this
Posted by Really?
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Aug 18, 2016 at 12:45 pm

How necessary is this airport? Seems like it would be better for the county to shut it down and turn the land into affordable housing.


39 people like this
Posted by Scholar
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Aug 18, 2016 at 1:19 pm

Wondering why this company does not use either San Jose or San Francisco main airports.


3 people like this
Posted by PlaneSense
a resident of another community
on Aug 18, 2016 at 1:36 pm

It's not fair for residents to demand that the county take action to limit the airport with federal jurisdiction. Would you demand that the county restrict cars from driving on 101? Why not? The county owns the land that 101 is located on. What's the difference? The residents and Calm the Sky should be suing the FAA, not the county.


39 people like this
Posted by Realist
a resident of another community
on Aug 18, 2016 at 1:53 pm

FAA funds to the San Carlos Airport need to be refused so that the local community will be able to control the airport. It would give the ability to shut the airport down if need be.

People have the right to the quiet enjoyment of their homes. They have the right to sleep. There is no equivalent right to fly on demand.


11 people like this
Posted by My2Bits
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 18, 2016 at 2:05 pm

San Carlos airport is an accident waiting to happen. Move Surf Air to the Palo Alto airport? Not really an option - but SFO and San Jose are close by as well. Once again, quality of life for many, including middle class families, is given over to profit and convenience for a few in the 0.01%. 3 trips a day is very different from the current level of 20+. Pull the aviation permit and yes please to affordable housing.


11 people like this
Posted by PlaneSense
a resident of another community
on Aug 18, 2016 at 2:24 pm

65% reduction in flights on the GPS in the first month that the new approach was used, and you people still aren't happy? I didn't hear a single airplane fly over during the 3hour meeting.


19 people like this
Posted by John
a resident of Woodside: Mountain Home Road
on Aug 18, 2016 at 2:26 pm

Did everyone bring their pitchforks to the meeting? How about painting a scarlet "S" on SurfAir planes?

Only in the richest county in America can people become so emotional about having their dinner parties interrupted for 20 seconds... and single out one company when clearly there are dozens of others flying the same routes. Somehow those guys are ok?

There are real issues going on in the world that demand our urgent attention. This is not one of them.


11 people like this
Posted by MenloSpike
a resident of Menlo-Atherton High School
on Aug 18, 2016 at 2:41 pm

I thought I read of a compromise where Surf Air incoming flights were to take a new fight path out over the bay. Instead, it seems like nothing changed and flights continued to buzz right over the old route. I accept the SFO traffic because of the convenience of having a major airport close by. Plus, it seems to me that surf air approach traffic is lower, louder, and faster than the SFO approach traffic - similar to average car traffic vs. hopped up motorcycle traffic. (not trying to offend motorcycle riders)


16 people like this
Posted by cowgirl in the city
a resident of Portola Valley: Los Trancos Woods/Vista Verde
on Aug 18, 2016 at 2:50 pm

That cute little airport in San Carlos..... should only allow cute little airplanes! These are big noisy jets and there is no getting around that fact! People DO have the right to fight for a quiet and peaceful hometown. Something has to change with this noise pollution - the fact that it is so constant and so loud and so annoying is what makes this such a big deal. We have to complain louder than the jet engines and not stop until these planes find another place be!!


1 person likes this
Posted by Barbara Wood
Almanac staff writer
on Aug 18, 2016 at 3:13 pm

Barbara Wood is a registered user.

I've added this information which I just received to the story:

Other residents urged those bothered by the noise to Web Link file complaints. Lindenwood resident Larry Sweeney said that he has a method to Web Link automate the complaint form which can relieve the complainant of filling out the same information multiple times.


17 people like this
Posted by San Carlos neighbor
a resident of another community
on Aug 18, 2016 at 3:23 pm

I can hear those planes fly over my house while I am inside with windows and doors closed. Sometimes, it is an unnerving sound.


1 person likes this
Posted by PlaneSense
a resident of another community
on Aug 18, 2016 at 3:27 pm

WHY are people filing noise complaints during the six month test of the new approach? Won't a lot of complaints make the FAA think that the new approach is UNsuccessful?


10 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Aug 18, 2016 at 4:20 pm

Question: what percentage of Surf Air customers are San Mateo County residents? Is the list of customers available to the public?

If residents just boycotted this company, then the problem would go away, right? The problem isn't the company, it is the customers, who are your neighbors.


13 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 18, 2016 at 4:45 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

resident is right. The only people that can afford to fly Surfair are wealthy or nearly so. And where do they live?


10 people like this
Posted by John
a resident of Woodside: Mountain Home Road
on Aug 18, 2016 at 8:38 pm

Cowgirl,

I'm afraid you are woefully uneducated about the situation. There are no jets flying into San Carlos. they are "cute little airplanes" just like you described.

And there are lots of other pilots flying all over our airspace.

Just proves my point that people are buying into the hysteria just because they have nothing better to do. Shameful.


5 people like this
Posted by John
a resident of Woodside: Mountain Home Road
on Aug 18, 2016 at 8:42 pm

Menlo Spike:

You're correct. There is a compromise -- which SurfAir proactively reached with the FAA -- to fly approaches out over the bay until the last second. However, they cannot fly that approach in fog and certain weather conditions.

Of course, that's not enough for the NIMBY people. They probably think SurfAir is behind the persistent fog that comes to our area...


7 people like this
Posted by John
a resident of Woodside: Mountain Home Road
on Aug 18, 2016 at 8:48 pm

Barbara Wood:

So let me see if I have this right: you claim you're "helping" people by providing access to an automated web complaint bot? For what purpose? To make it easier to skew numbers and make it seem like many more "victims", right?

Excuse me for asking, but how does that qualify as balanced reporting? Why not come out and just state your bias?

BTW -- I agree that there are far too many planes in the air. I wish the FAA would take a long hard look at the ATC patterns. But it's completely unfair -- and journalistically unethical -- to single out one carrier and simply ignore any efforts they've made to mitigate.


6 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 18, 2016 at 8:53 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

John:

agree. Let's make it easier for the 700 or 800 people (out of hundreds of thousands) to make complaints. It's ridiculous.


6 people like this
Posted by Linda
a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Aug 18, 2016 at 9:04 pm

I live directly beneath the original SA flight path. They still use it often on completely clear days. Flying quite low. They came on our scene with a unnerving, intense ambiance. Not like the typical aircraft that inhabits that airport historically sensitive to noise effects on residents (with their own self oversight). It feels scary loud over head also as planes do and have crashed over the years. These commercial pilots / planes are not under the scrupulous purview as other companies. Also, IMO San Carlos airport should not be taking federal funding as it compromises what citizens of this region can regulate. Surf Air case in point.


Like this comment
Posted by Michael Stogner
a resident of another community
on Aug 18, 2016 at 9:47 pm

John says there are. No jets flying into San Carlos Airport.

Yes there are jets flying in and out of San Carlos Airport, not a lot, but it does happen.


6 people like this
Posted by John
a resident of Woodside: Mountain Home Road
on Aug 18, 2016 at 10:56 pm

Michael S:

You make a good point. Let me clarify my previous email. While there ARE a few Jets flying into SQL, none of them are SurfAir. SurfAir only flies single-engine Pilatus. And I think Cowgirl was referring to large commercial jets and is totally wrong to blame SA.

The main point is still quite valid: people are hysterical over jets and air traffic -- but unfairly singling out SurfAir, which is literally a drop in the bucket of air traffic flying over our homes.

I live here too. I think there are far too many planes in our airspace. But is is disingenuous at best to pin it all on one carrier -- the only ones who have actually tried to get the FAA to change their patterns.


1 person likes this
Posted by another San Carlos neighbor
a resident of another community
on Aug 18, 2016 at 11:42 pm

It would seem to lower property values in the affected areas? Having considered a charming house for sale in NFO, the noise situation made it an untenable option.

Having lived directly under the flight path of a national airport in Florida, the small and private planes were absolutely the worst, high pitched, ear splitting offenders.

The airport paid to replace home owners' windows with triple pane glass that did block out much of the noise...only when they were doors and windows were closed, tho.


Posted by Name hidden
a resident of Menlo Park: Belle Haven

on Aug 19, 2016 at 8:10 am

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?


1 person likes this
Posted by cowgirl in the city
a resident of Portola Valley: Los Trancos Woods/Vista Verde
on Aug 19, 2016 at 9:00 am

Dear John,
Back in the 1970's my brother was an instructor at the San Carlos Airport. It was such fun to fly those "cute little airplanes" (Cessna aircraft) from San Carlos over to HMB airport to practice landing and practice some spins and falls over the beautiful blue pacific. I was referring to a time when the aircraft in and out of San Carlos was smaller and quieter. Things have changed in the world this is true.
I was not trying to infer that United Airlines was now using the airport.


8 people like this
Posted by Tyler
a resident of another community
on Aug 19, 2016 at 10:51 am

This airport was built during World War I. Before any of you were even alive. The definition of airport is "a complex of runways and buildings for the takeoff, landing, and maintenance of civil aircraft, with facilities for passengers". So with that, it's pretty clear you knew what it was and where it was before you ever moved to or built a house in the vicinity of the airport. In other words, if you don't like airplanes landing, maybe you shouldn't live by an airport.


12 people like this
Posted by Ace Macfarley
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 19, 2016 at 11:11 am

Surf Air provides an GREAT service to its members as well as jobs to the community. The view must be crystal clear up there on your pedestal making these demands so you can have a dinner party.
They are more then willing to work with the community and have gone above and beyond to listen to your concerns.
Stand strong Surf Air!


11 people like this
Posted by Bill
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 19, 2016 at 11:25 am

I live under the flight path for these planes and I seriously think everyone is overreacting. You chose to live in the Bay Area. There are many airports here. Airplanes make noise. Tune it out, live with it, or move.


5 people like this
Posted by Chuck wagon
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Aug 19, 2016 at 11:25 am

[Post removed; don't use multiple names on the same thread.]


10 people like this
Posted by Bill
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 19, 2016 at 11:37 am

I am sitting in my kitchen. What's that sound?? Oh my, an airplane. Hurry, run, grab the hearing protectors. Dive under the table in case it flies too low. Form a whiny committee to see if we can stop this atrocity.

I used to live near an Army base where there was a constant barrage of artillery fire and A10 20mm cannon fire. Also F16 fighter aerial combat practice. You over-privileged complainers have not heard noise if you think SurfAir is loud.


13 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 19, 2016 at 12:31 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

Right on Bill! I used to live under the flight path of Moffett back when they were still flying P3's. The noise was almost constant all day long and often into the evenings. Now that was noise. Surfair is 20 seconds of noise 22 times a day. Wow.


8 people like this
Posted by Roy Thiele-Sardi�a
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Aug 19, 2016 at 12:40 pm

Roy Thiele-Sardi�a is a registered user.

Just so we are clear. If you complain to the FAA that means that you feel there is a nuisance in the occupation of your house. That would REQUIRE you to DISCLOSE that nuisance to all prospective buyers.....I am not a real estate person, but I can NOT imagine that disclosure raising the value of your house.

This scenario played out in SJC in the late 80's. the AOPA and Airport Authority filed an amendment to all the deeds of the prolific nuisance letter writers.

Be careful what you ask for.

Roy Thiele-Sardina


7 people like this
Posted by resident
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Aug 19, 2016 at 1:24 pm

We are talking about homes in Atherton, right? How much far have their property values dropped since Surf Air started their business in 2013? Demand for homes in Atherton has sure plummeted since then.


10 people like this
Posted by MP Resident
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Aug 19, 2016 at 1:46 pm

Nothing quite like watching whiny wealthy NIMBYs vs whiny wealthy surf air customers.

If you really can't stand a few turboprops legally using an airport and flying the approaches outlined by the FAA, perhaps you should move. That way you can make room for people who aren't quite so hypersensitive - after all, if Surf Air is such a big deal - how can you stand the noise from trucks on 101 or El Camino?


19 people like this
Posted by Realist
a resident of another community
on Aug 19, 2016 at 3:32 pm

I've noticed the arguments against those who are calling for less noise from aviation (whether specifically about Surf Air or about the greater problem) have become rather repetitive:
- people are hypersensitive
- people should move
- the airport was there before the people who are complaining bought their homes
- the Bay Area is busy

Hypersensitivity: numerous studies have shown the negative health effects of aircraft noise, which significantly increases risk of heart disease. Statistically significant health effects start at average sound levels as low as 40db. I would not consider someone who wants to protect their health as "hypersensitive." Remember, those who say they are not bothered by the sound suffer the same negative health effects.

People should move: I'm sure this argument has been used when communities have addressed all kinds of pollutants. Since the issue being addressed is a public health one, the wronged party should not be the one to have to move.

Airport there first: This is a false argument - if my neighbors start doing something that harms my health I have a right to demand that they stop. It doesn't matter which of us bought our home first.

Busy area: Yes, and it was a busy area a few years ago before the sudden increase in aircraft noise.


5 people like this
Posted by User
a resident of another community
on Aug 19, 2016 at 8:32 pm

It worries me that I'm reading an article written by a journalist who posts articles without even enough proof-reading to acknowledge that she has the CEO's name wrong. Great work all around.


8 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 19, 2016 at 8:49 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

"Airport there first: This is a false argument - if my neighbors start doing something that harms my health I have a right to demand that they stop. It doesn't matter which of us bought our home first."

Not a false argument. It would only be false if they were doing something other than what their property was originally intended. The airport has always been an airport. Planes land and planes take off. They still do. No change other than what planes are taking off and landing. That is a distinction without a difference.


10 people like this
Posted by Maslow
a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Aug 19, 2016 at 9:37 pm

Hello, Maslow here. It is clear that the NIMBY's have satisfied their hierarchy of needs to the point where they expect the world to stop in their presence. I see that they need a new hierarchy of needs which starts with : My needs always come first. No one else's needs shall supercede my needs, nothing may be allowed to disturb me even a little bit. I get my way no matter how unrealistic or unreasonable I may be, and finally, I am the only person who matters.


9 people like this
Posted by loves_peace_and_quiet
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 19, 2016 at 10:31 pm

You dimwits claiming NIMBY do not get the point. That, or you are the ones flying Surf Air.

False Argument 1: Only wealthy citizens are affected or complaining

There are plenty of low income families who are negatively affected by the constant noise. NFO has traditionally been a haven to middle class to starving artists. So, it's a healthy balance of income levels - but yes, many folks who work two or three jobs could not be at the meeting. Such comments are ignorant and un american - probably rooted in some level of jealousy for those who've "made it".

False Argument 2: You live near an airport, get used to it

Right. A small airport that wasn't designed for heavy commercial use. There are several commercial airlines flying out of KSQL. They are fine as they respect the surrounding community by maintaining a balance. There was a sudden increase in volume and frequency back in 2013 - exactly when Surf Air came on the scene.

Surf AIr is kicking sand in your neighbor's faces. It's all well for your say say "What's a little bit of sand? Suck it up!". You guys are the ones who need to move - you don't deserve to live in a wonderfully progressive place where folks stand up for and protect their rights and support their neighbors.


4 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 20, 2016 at 7:57 am

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

"a wonderfully progressive place where folks stand up for and protect their rights and support their neighbors."

Excuse me, it's only a small minority of people complaining. It would be one thing if tens of thousands of people were complaining, but it's only several hundred. So who's "rights" are you protecting other than a tiny minority?


6 people like this
Posted by John
a resident of Woodside: Mountain Home Road
on Aug 20, 2016 at 8:48 am

Loves Peace And Quiet:

How is SurfAir kicking sand in anyone's face? They're operating completely within the law, providing local jobs and a great service for customers (who far outnumber the "victims"), and have gone to extraordinary lengths to accommodate residents. They even worked with the FAA to devise different approaches to alleviate some, but not all of the noise - even though they're under zero obligation to do so.

Did you or any of the complainers make even the slightest effort to compromise? Did you work with SurfAir or the FAA to actually make a plan? Of course not - because that wouldn't fit within your convenient narrative of evil corporate greed.

But forget all that for a second - the real problem with your argument is that you single out SurfAir as if they're the only ones flying in our airspace. They are a drop in the bucket compared to all the private pilots and charter carriers flying all over the place. But somehow all of those other planes are OK to you? Why? This is where you lose all credibility.

As I've said many times before, we are blessed to live in an area where the biggest social problem is airplane noise. Think about that for a moment.


3 people like this
Posted by SteveC
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Aug 20, 2016 at 3:11 pm

SteveC is a registered user.

The complainers were a bit testy during the meeting telling Surf air "see you in court". Really!!!


3 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 20, 2016 at 5:07 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

"see you in court"

They can knock themselves out. Won't change a thing. Surfair has already bent over backwards to satisfy the whiners.


7 people like this
Posted by Tired of Cronyism
a resident of another community
on Aug 21, 2016 at 7:51 pm


TOO LOW, TOO LOUD, TOO MANY. Keep fighting. Those who attack people fighting the 24/7 air, noise, and visual pollution resort over and over to personal attacks. Aviation is bent on expansion no matter the cost to human health and the environment.

Information that may be of interest...

Santa Monica Airport Litigation:
Web Link

Arguments Heard in East Hampton Airport Curfew Appeal link:
Web Link

Congress taking away communities’ ability to control their own airports – see following summaries of key legislation.
“Regulatory: When it comes to airport noise regulation, ‘Big Brother’ is watching you” by Barbara Lichman (Inside Counsel)
Web Link

“Regulatory: FAA Reauthorization Act exempts next-gen airspace redesign projects from environmental review: Claims the exemptions are to streamline and reduce waste” by Barbara Lichman (Inside Counsel)
Web Link

Airport Noise & Capacity Act 1990
Web Link


15 people like this
Posted by Bob
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Aug 22, 2016 at 10:09 am

The planes are too loud, the train's whistle is bothering us, there's too much traffic noise from 101, can we change the SFO flight path, the sirens bother us, there's too much traffic, etc. etc. We want a quiet and serene community with all the conveniences but not impacting or effecting our lives.

Let me know if you find that place.....


7 people like this
Posted by RWCtoo
a resident of another community
on Aug 22, 2016 at 1:33 pm

Maslow - You've just perfectly described the Surf Air shareholders, execs and patrons. Thanks!


4 people like this
Posted by MPer
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Aug 22, 2016 at 1:41 pm

Bob - you are my new favorite commenter


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 22, 2016 at 6:00 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

"Maslow - You've just perfectly described the Surf Air shareholders, execs and patrons. "

Actually, Surfair shareholders, execs and patrons are decidedly NOT the ones whining.


5 people like this
Posted by No Surf Air,
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 22, 2016 at 7:17 pm

Definitely more Surf Air flights since the meeting, Many on clear beautiful VFR days, What happened, Revenge of the Potter's?

What date is the next meeting?

I understand the airport needs to welcome all comers since they took Federal money. When does that commitment expire. If Surf Air can't be stopped now, Suggest we just wait it out and close down the whole damn airport.


7 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 22, 2016 at 7:43 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

no surf air:

shall we close SFO, SJC and OAK while we're at it? Not to mention PAO and a variety of other small local airports? So you can continue with the fantasy that you live in the countryside somewhere? Shall we dismantle CAltrain? Shall we outlaw sirens? Shall we demand that your neighbors never make any noise that disturbs you? And if so, you better not do anything to disturb them. Where does this self entitled nonsense end?


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 22, 2016 at 7:45 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

"Definitely more Surf Air flights since the meeting, Many on clear beautiful VFR days, What happened, Revenge of the Potter's? "

Suggest you call them and ask them. Given that they are bringing on additional aircraft they are bringing on additional pilots. All of whom must be trained and given check flights flying the IFR routes. Just a guess, but hey you could actually pick up a phone and ASK instead of making some negative inference.


7 people like this
Posted by Noise
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 23, 2016 at 2:26 am

Those that say noise doesn't bother them simply have been already damaged and their opinion that children should grow up listening to rich people's planes is clear evidence that the damage reached their brains.
Get help get cured and fight against pollution.

Nobody is against airplanes, they just need to use them without impacting thousands of others. One life is one life.


7 people like this
Posted by RWCtoo
a resident of another community
on Aug 23, 2016 at 7:26 am

MP Voter -
"Actually, Surfair shareholders, execs and patrons are decidedly NOT the ones whining."
You're right, they're not. Because they have exactly what THEY want.


4 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 23, 2016 at 7:33 am

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

RWCtoo:

and Surfair hasn't compromised or worked to change their flight path or anything have they? Nope, just kept flying the same old route ignoring the complaints of the whiners.

They've worked to lessen their noise footprint, but that's not enough for the entitled whiners. As I've said before it's becoming perfectly clear this isn't about the noise.


10 people like this
Posted by Realist
a resident of another community
on Aug 23, 2016 at 10:06 am

I find the accusations that those asking for quiet are entitled rather amusing. The San Carlos airport received 2.5 million dollars in federal grants the last few years for improvements that benefit a tiny minority of people in the area. And before anyone makes a claim regarding those grants being paid for by aviation related taxes and fees, the FAA is not a self-funding entity.

A small number of people want to fly over residential communities, subjecting people to noise, air pollution, and risk all for their profits and/or enjoyment, but they aren't the entitled ones? Give me a break.


2 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 23, 2016 at 12:35 pm


Aprrox. 10 Surf Air, this morning on a vfr day.

When they announced the new flight path over the bay traffic slowed to 2 or 3 a day. I guess that was just window dressing,

Suggest options to restrict or close the airport be investigated.


4 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 23, 2016 at 12:44 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

realist:

the airport doesn't benefit a "tiny minority" of people. the benefits of general aviation and general aviation extend far beyond those of pilots.

The tiny minority are the several hundred people that are complaining. VS the tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, that are being flown over and aren't complaining. Ya, the complainers are entitled.


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 23, 2016 at 12:46 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

resident:

as I suggested above, Surfair is bringing on new planes which means they are bringing on new pilots. Those pilots have to be trained and checked out while flying the instrument approach. My guess is that is what is going on. If you actually want to know as opposed to hurling accusations, I suggest you call and ask them.


8 people like this
Posted by Noble Defender
a resident of Menlo Park: Sharon Heights
on Aug 23, 2016 at 12:48 pm

The most interesting thing about this comment section is the defenders of Surf Air. Why are they defending Surf Air? Because their own companies have a contract with Surf Air, I would hazard a guess. Because they use the service provided by Surf Air...because they can afford it.

Surf Air is simply a CONVENIENCE for the people that can afford it. These are the ones who simply don't want to deal with the hassle of flying commercially, out of SJC or SFO. The ones who are SO important that they cannot bear to fly with the masses. Surf Air could not have picked a more perfect area; loads and loads of super-wealthy VCs and high tech firms, and the wealthy employees thereof. Of COURSE people like Mountain Home Road John are defending Surf Air. For them, it's handy, and yet their company or companies don't have to support a private jet.

As for the arguments of "Move away if you don't like it," how dare you? You are the people who simply ignore community rules (tree cutting, size of home, lack of set-backs, etc) and go ahead and do what you want to do, because you can easily afford to pay the fines? It's good to be the king, huh?

Why should people have to move away from an area that was quiet, or at least quieter, when they moved there? Air traffic in general has quadrupled in this area; SFO was never meant to support so much air traffic, that's for sure. San Carlos Airport was meant to support the Cessnas, etc. and provide flying lessons. Running a private business like this out of an airport at all should be against the law.


12 people like this
Posted by Local Pilot
a resident of Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Aug 23, 2016 at 12:51 pm

First the PC-12's are known to be very loud (over the ground) compared to other turbo-planes such as King Airs. Also, know that turbo-props are essentially jet engines married to propellers, so there noise from both the engine and propeller, giving both jet and small plane type noise wrapped up in one. They are significantly louder than almost every other plane that comes in/out of KSQL.

The big issue here is that SA isn't making a genuine effort to work with the community. Despite much lip-service, they've done little in either their piloting technique or flight path choice to reduce their impact to the community: both of which are things they can do with tiny to no impact to their bottom line. On clear weather days they often fly the GPS approach unnecessarily. And they come in fast, hot, and loud despite being able to adjust their descent angle and power levels.

As a small plane pilot, I am abhorred and embarrassed by their indifference to the local community as they can make small changes in their practices that will make huge changes for those below them, all the while preserving their bottom line, but they simply aren't interested.


6 people like this
Posted by Tired of Cronyism
a resident of another community
on Aug 23, 2016 at 1:06 pm

Since Congress passed the FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012 which ushered in the FAA NextGen program, the aviation industry has taken the gloves off throughout our entire country (aircraft of every kind are flying low over communities: commercial, GA, military, drones...).

This industry is acting like a tyrant because its been empowered to do so by our Congress. The FAA, under the control of our Congress, is also acting like a tyrant because it too has been empowered to do so. So, ultimately Congress is answerable for the 24/7 noise, air, and visual pollution. Congress allowed the FAA to redesign the airspace and to do this with no basis in reality, no real on the ground pre-implentation studies, to declare no significant impact to the human environment for these relentless nationwide low altitude flight paths. The FAA itself admits noise is not its concern in this redesign. Safety and efficiency it says, because we all know these low altitude flight paths with little to no margin for error are so safe (would anyone be able to tell if 9/11 was happening again?), and these flight paths are anything but concentrated, efficient, in the sense that they are everywhere, or "vectored" as the FAA says and only concentrated in the sense that each path will have more and more aircraft packed in them at greater and greater frequency over time because CAPACITY is the end and low altitudes the means.

In all the battles ensuing across our country over this change, in all the minor media coverage, and a little bit here and there from major media, the word ALTITUDE is conspicuously absent most of the time and yet it is THE cause of the noise misery. But if aviation doesn't get these low altitude flight paths crammed down our throats out of the gate it doesn't get its capacity goals and therefore profit goals year on year achieved.

With Congress ultimately acting as a captured agency, seizing through acts of Congress local communities' right to control their airports, with its agency the FAA doing its dirty work and equally captured by this industry, communities will have to go NIMBY. Not in my backyard is effective when people refuse to put it in another backyard.

California is blessed with many groups fighting this injustice Congress has unleashed. Unfortunately, too many in these groups argue that this area or that area is uniquely noise burdened for this or that reason. Get out more. Look around. Do some homework on the Internet. This is national, this is global. This is rural, suburban, urban. And NO ONE should go through this wherever they live.

Surf Air and the like are going to keep playing games with communities, wearing them down, discrediting groups with non-solutions if allowed. Only under pressure by citizens was a voluntary, weather permitting, blah, blah, path implemented with the FAA's blessing of course. Non-solution already. But, altitude anyone? It doesn't matter where these paths are put if the glaring, number 1 issue of altitude isn't tackled. Similarly, a committee was formed to address noise concerns in Santa Cruz County, and after much delay, after telling citizen groups to come up with solutions (Really? That right there is a red flag!), the FAA is taking three years to consider moving a flight path without any commitment to ensuring, if a path is indeed moved, that the noise, read altitude issue, will be resolved and not merely shifted or intensified elsewhere. And that is what U.S. Reps Eshoo, Farr, Speier apparently consider to be representation. Of course, while these non-solutions are being dragged out (election season playing a part too?), if citizens take legal action, complain to elected officials and the airports about the ongoing aerial assault they're impatient, ungrateful for all they're trying to do. Because now, studies are really so, so important.

Groups in California have a unique opportunity, but first they need to identify who the real enemy is and band together. Forget their grievances against each other which have been stoked on purpose by elected officials and the FAA. Band together, and be unstoppable, impossible to ignore and play games with. This industry is not playing nice. The FAA is not playing nice. Most importantly our elected officials are effectively not playing nice. Not all, but far too many. Don't let them play these games. TOO LOUD, TOO LOW, TOO MANY. Don't stop until this stops.


4 people like this
Posted by Resident
a resident of Atherton: other
on Aug 23, 2016 at 2:07 pm


MV,

I have lived here for over 40 years, Never complained, never heard a complaint, never seen anything like the uproar Surf Air has caused.

You would have to be dumb to not agree that Surf Air is not holding up to it's reputation of being a "Disruptor". I've never seen so many people complain so much over any one business in my life.

Suggest you go to one of the public meetings to see just how "pissed" off (excuse my french) regular folks are that probably are not normal complainers.

So I took your suggestion and called SA directly, I was put through to new members line, Danny wouldn't let me talk to anyone. I asked for operations, management, even Potter, anyone to discuss recent heavy traffic since the meeting and why they are not using the new approach over the bay, He kept repeating like a robot call the noise hotline.
Ameby flights have increased significantly since the meeting. Why? I don't buy the train new pilots baloney, When they first announced w/ great political Fanfare, like we won the lottery they were flying the new over the bay route for a few weeks, We're now back to the old numbers of flights and constant noise.

Any more suggestions?

I suggest people call the Airport directly along with your elected officials directly, along w/ the the noise hotline, and suggest everyone show up at the small claims appeal hearing and flood the courtroom to show support for the person who filed and won in small claims court over the noise.


2 people like this
Posted by Downtowner
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Aug 23, 2016 at 2:07 pm

There are many sources of noise which affect different neighborhoods. The hoopla over Surf Air is a bore.

Let's start with something else, like the 101 traffic roar which makes outdoor conversation impossible in many parts of Flood Triangle area, the helicopters over west Menlo Park,(only a few of which are Life Flights) and the small planes sputtering low over MP & Atherton while giving flying lessons early on Saturday & Sunday mornings. Commercial jets roar in, Palo Alto airport has had more accidents, some fatal.

Yes, it would be nice if Surf Air's next planes were quieter. The business obviously has many local subscribers. To those who so hate SA, maybe reconsider allowing construction of more commercial office parks. Do you want to bet that the new projects will add to SA's customer base? Lobbying for restricted office development might do more to prevent SA's growth than complaining to the wrong agencies.


Like this comment
Posted by SteveC
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Aug 23, 2016 at 2:36 pm

SteveC is a registered user.

Menlo Voter: Have you heard anything about Surf Air telling Atherton that they have had enough of them??


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 23, 2016 at 3:47 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

"The most interesting thing about this comment section is the defenders of Surf Air. Why are they defending Surf Air? Because their own companies have a contract with Surf Air, I would hazard a guess. Because they use the service provided by Surf Air...because they can afford it. "

In my case you are absolutely incorrect on both counts.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 23, 2016 at 3:51 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

SteveC:

No, I haven't.


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 23, 2016 at 8:52 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

"Palo Alto airport has had more accidents, some fatal. "

Do you have something to back up this statement? Between Jan 1 2015 and today there has been exactly ONE non-fatal incident at PAO. Care to clarify?


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 23, 2016 at 8:56 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

going back to 2012 I only find one other non-fatal incident.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 23, 2016 at 9:01 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

according to the NTSB database, since 1997 there have been 21 non-fatal incidents and 1 fatal to date.


6 people like this
Posted by John
a resident of Woodside: Mountain Home Road
on Aug 23, 2016 at 11:00 pm

Noble Defender:

The reason why some people are defending SurfAir has nothing to do with our affiliations; it has everything to do with facts over hysteria. Your sweeping generalization that defenders "must all have contracts with SurfAir, or be customers, or be rich" is completely ludicrous and just proves the point about your real intentions.

SurfAir is being wrongly and unfairly singled out by a vocal, tiny minority of people. SurfAir has proactively worked with the FAA to develop alternate approaches, when they had no obligation to do that. On some days they do not use that approach, and it's not up to them it's up to the FAA.

You and the other complainers have done nothing proactive or positive to try to find solutions. You've just pounded your fists on the table and screamed like my 5-year-old son used to do.

Meanwhile you're fine with the hundreds of other flights, dozens of trains, and millions of cars on our roads. No problem there.

So yeah, there are plenty of other reasons to defend SurfAir.


Like this comment
Posted by SteveC
a resident of Menlo Park: Downtown
on Aug 24, 2016 at 12:58 pm

SteveC is a registered user.

editor: Enough already.


Like this comment
Posted by Tired of Cronyism
a resident of another community
on Aug 24, 2016 at 3:11 pm


FBOs/Tenants

CA: Angry Crowd Rips Surf Air at Town Hall Meeting
John Orr On Aug 18, 2016

Link to article with fuller coverage of this meeting:
Web Link


"The county was told, Horsley said, that not only were there no regulations stopping Surf Air from operating out of San Carlos Airport, but that there are federal regulations that make it so the county can't stop Surf Air, at least not while it is receiving federal transportation grant money."

"Atherton Mayor Elizabeth Lewis also spoke to the crowd, noting that Surf Air executives, including CEO Jeff Potter, have come to some of the meetings of the working group of county and municipal leaders to discuss the issue, but that even as they attended the sessions, they continued to grow the numbers of flights."


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 24, 2016 at 6:51 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

tired:

and?


Like this comment
Posted by Downtowner
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Aug 25, 2016 at 12:04 am

There was a fatal crash @ PA airport in 1979 - several deaths, including Jack Chapple. Another plane crashed in EPA more recently, after taking off from PA. Lots of ink as 1 of the victims was a noted local businessman.


Like this comment
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 25, 2016 at 7:09 am

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

I didn't go back to 1979. Interestingly enough the second crash you mention doesn't show up on the NTSB database. Strange.


Like this comment
Posted by Tired of Cronyism
a resident of another community
on Aug 26, 2016 at 8:51 am

Tue, Aug 9, 2016, 10:03 am

Airport noise: Mass filings of small claims lawsuits have won concessions in the past


by Barbara Wood / Almanac

Web Link


Like this comment
Posted by Tired of Cronyism
a resident of another community
on Aug 26, 2016 at 4:47 pm

Aviation expansion goals with respect to municipal airports and FBOs. See this Boston Globe 8/26/16 article on New Bedford (MA) Regional Airport as one of countless examples, as this is going on US-wide:

"New Bedford Regional Airport courts international corporate travelers, domestic flights"
Web Link

BTW, Cape Air's CEO is MA Senator Dan Wolf.

The article mentions a "five-year $30 million face lift." This municipal received the following FAA grants for "airport improvement":

2010: 900K
2011: 5.8M
2012: 3.4M
2013: 11.5M
2014: 700K
2015: 4.2M

So 26.5M in federal money. Who's driving whose economy? This is corporate welfare run amok.

But you know for the common good its austerity, austerity... Public education, infrastructure, healthcare, etc. Sorry folks. Tough times ya know, got to tighten the belt. The 99% can rot in the "free market." There's no Adam Smith laissez faire going on. It's regulation to the hilt for private profit and deregulation to the hilt for the common good's degradation.

Is aviation more important than the public good? Really?

It boggles the mind... Members of Congress, where is your shame?


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 26, 2016 at 4:52 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

tired:

if the demand wasn't there the airlines wouldn't be interested in expanding.


Like this comment
Posted by Realist
a resident of another community
on Aug 26, 2016 at 8:50 pm

August 26, 2016
Guest Opinion: Unhealthy racket: Support city efforts to quiet our skies
by Rachel Kellerman
Web Link

Kellerman states: "Citizen advocacy has accomplished a tremendous amount so far."


No, it hasn't, because as she states, there has been no noise reduction or the promise of any reduction. These meetings let the FAA know that people are angry, but they don't accomplish anything tangible.

As she points out, the EPA's Office of Noise Abatement and Control was killed under Reagan. In 1990 the Congress took away the ability for local communities to control their own airports. This was all part of the aviation industry's plan for massive expansion irrespective of our health and the environment. NextGen, which is still being rolled out, is part of that expansion. The increase in general aviation is also part of it.

Keeping pressure on our representatives is good, but local politicians have no control over the airports unless the airports start refusing federal funds. Pressure must also be kept on the aviation industry itself through a boycott and legal action - hurt their profits and they will listen.

-Demand a curfew
-Demand day-time noise limits that protect our health
-Set a minimum altitude that ensures communities are not exposed to noise, pollution, or the safety risk we currently experience
-Demand that GA use unleaded fuel
-Add a substantial tax to all types of aviation fuel that is used to fund greener modes of transportation
-Reduce numbers of flights; expansion is not sustainable
-Institute a scaling tax based on how much people fly to discourage frequent flyers


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 26, 2016 at 9:09 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

realist:

keep tilting at windmills.


Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Aug 27, 2016 at 12:55 am


Anybody attend the small claims court appeal hearing.


Like this comment
Posted by Barbara Wood
Almanac staff writer
on Aug 27, 2016 at 9:09 am

Barbara Wood is a registered user.

San Mateo County won the appeal, on the grounds that Mr. Ullman did not prove that he was uniquely affected by the noise, so could not prove he should get damages. However, the judge repeatedly said that Mr. Ulllman and his neighbors should file in Superior Court for an injunction to stop the nuisance, because such relief is not available in small claims court. He said that normally the losing party in such a case would be ordered to pay the winning party's court costs, but the judge ordered each side pay their own costs in this case.

A story will be posted soon, but probably not until Sunday.


Like this comment
Posted by Tired of Cronyism
a resident of another community
on Aug 27, 2016 at 9:45 am

I would be surprised if Mr. Ullman argued in his case that he was "uniquely" affected, as in more than others overflown by Surf Air's aircraft. He's affected by the noise nuisance like countless others being overflown; that everyone affected hasn't taken legal action shouldn't prevent Mr. Ullman's case from being treated as part of that larger injustice.

Thank you for your post Ms. Wood. Awaiting your article on this...


Like this comment
Posted by Tired of Cronyism
a resident of another community
on Aug 27, 2016 at 11:38 am

If the courts are going to be just another branch of government, like our Congress and its agency the FAA, working to benefit private profits over the public good then people are going to need to consider the following if they want the incessant low-flying aircraft blighting our entire country to stop:

1. file one noise complaint per day with the airport via a tracked method (# of households filing is more important than number of complaints per person; not that they care what's happening to us, but the metrics need to say something)

2. send a letter once a month to your elected officials at every level of govt and don't let them shirk their duty to represent by saying "federal jurisdiction" etc. - just keep sending it; the millions affected doing this would flood them

3. Boycott flying if you can; second best, avoid flying and shipping by air as much as you possibly can; this more than anything (since money is more important to this industry than human health and the environment)will get results; currently, more people are flying every year despite aviation blatantly degrading our quality of life with low altitudes in order to achieve capacity/profit goals.

Bottom line, it's hypocritical to say we care about our health and the environment and then be an on demand user of this industry. Aviation wagered the people would take the abuse of low altitudes because they would value flying over health and the environment and so far aviation, and our elected officials doing its bidding, have wagered correctly. People are angry, but obviously not enough. Profits will plummet when people get angry enough. No need to take to the streets, no need to sue. Just change our behavior...and don't give our elected officials a moment's peace and don't vote for any that don't do something about this.


2 people like this
Posted by Tired of Cronyism
a resident of another community
on Aug 27, 2016 at 12:10 pm

The 3-step strategy I previously advocated is for dealing with the NextGen changes that officially began in 2012 at major airports.

Clearly, these municipal airport/FBO dealings are catering to an exclusive clientele and that minority benefitting intends to dig its heels in and not give an inch, so communities are going to have to take extreme measures if necessary like Santa Monica and East Hampton (stop those FAA grants and contracts with FBOs that bind communities for decades in which the community's rights get trampled):

"Santa Monica votes to close its airport even thought he FAA says it can't" (LA Curbed article 8/25/16)
Web Link

"Anti-noise activists want East Hampton Town Airport shut down" (NY CBS Local 8/24/16)
Web Link


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 27, 2016 at 4:21 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

tired:

you keep saying this is about the profits of the airlines. It's not. It's about expanding air service due to increased DEMAND. Demand from the flying public, many of whom I'd bet, are bitching about the increased noise that comes from increased flights due to their increased demand for flights.

The airlines don't exist in a vacuum. If there wasn't an increasing demand there would be no need for Nexgen. But, you keep griping about it, while the 99% of the population go on with their lives occasionally looking up at the aircraft passing by overhead. As they've always done.


Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Woodside: Mountain Home Road
on Aug 27, 2016 at 4:45 pm

Barbara Wood:

When will you publish your next editorial - I mean, "article" - advocating more tricks to game the system?

You should come clean and just state your personal bias already.


Like this comment
Posted by resident
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 27, 2016 at 5:17 pm


Keep up the good work Barbara. We need a competent source of information about this issue.

I find it odd that people don't recognize the fact that there were no or relatively few complaints about airport noise until Surf Air showed up. Now there is discussion of shutting down the whole airport.

Speaking of hilliary, when can we expect those e-mails, vm's, faxes, etc. between Surf Air co. and individual employees/investors to any employees/staff/ management of San Carlos airpot and County supes', staff/ other employees on county payroll and the FAA etc. to become public?

Hope they don't get bleached.


Like this comment
Posted by Tired of Cronyism
a resident of another community
on Aug 28, 2016 at 2:31 pm

"Surf Air Founders Jet To The East Coast With New Private Flight Service Beacon" Feb 10, 2015 by Sarah Buhr:
Web Link

"Former Surf Air CEO Wade Eyerly and his co-founders have started a very similar private flight startup to their last venture. But this time it’s on the East Coast and it’s called Beacon."

"Eyerly will most likely face some backlash from his former startup over the new endeavor. Though on opposites sides of the country, the two are very similar. Eyerly maintains this won’t be an issue because he never signed a non-compete."

Spreading the love and making big bucks for investors...


2 people like this
Posted by Menlo Voter.
a resident of Menlo Park: other
on Aug 28, 2016 at 3:39 pm

Menlo Voter. is a registered user.

"making big bucks for investors."

Imagine that. Doing exactly what he and every other CEO in the country is hired to do; TURN A PROFIT AND MAKE A RETURN ON INVESTORS' MONEY. Who knew? Tired: have you ever owned a business? Do you have any investments? If you do, do you not care whether or not you make a return on that investment?


2 people like this
Posted by UnQuiet Skies
a resident of another community
on Sep 3, 2016 at 10:53 am

Dear Residents. I feel your pain. I live in North Scottsdale, Arizona and the community is experiencing the same thing. Hundreds and hundreds of planes a day. You hear them from inside the house, you can't escape the constant noise pollution coming from the Scottsdale Airport. It was NEVER like this when I moved into the area 2 years ago. It all started since the FAA made the change.


Like this comment
Posted by Tired of Cronyism
a resident of another community
on Sep 6, 2016 at 12:55 pm

"Calling noise a nuisance is like calling smog an inconvenience. Noise must be considered a hazard to the health of people everywhere."

Former U.S. Surgeon General
William H. Stewart, 1978


Like this comment
Posted by Tired of Cronyism
a resident of another community
on Sep 6, 2016 at 1:47 pm

Residents dealing with East Hampton Airport incessant low altitude air traffic...

Quiet Skies Coalition, Ltd., Wainscott, NY Facebook page:

Web Link#

And website:

Web Link


4 people like this
Posted by PlaneSense
a resident of another community
on Sep 26, 2016 at 7:52 am

Hey Realist: might want to check the 1958 Federal Aviation Act regarding the (surf air members) "equivalent right to fly".


4 people like this
Posted by JustMatt
a resident of another community
on Nov 15, 2016 at 10:35 pm

That airport sort of sprung up out of NOWHERE and started landing airplanes, didn't it? You KNEW the airport has been there since 1952. Take your sorry NIMBY attitudes back home.


Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Hotel restaurant to open in Mountain View
By Elena Kadvany | 3 comments | 3,413 views

Climate Friendly Cuisine Conference
By Laura Stec | 22 comments | 1,411 views

Couples: Wanting, Yet Missing One Another
By Chandrama Anderson | 0 comments | 943 views