News

San Carlos Airport noise solutions prove elusive

Residents and county employees are frustrated by noisy aircraft

More than a year after San Mateo County started a study meant to figure out how to address the noise complaints pouring in about San Carlos Airport -- mostly with regard to Surf Air -- a solution remains elusive.

Those who live under the flight path of Surf Air's noisy turboprop commuter aircraft are so upset about the county's lack of progress that they have scheduled a protest march at the San Carlos Airport for Saturday, June 17.

On the NextDoor social media site, residents are suggesting replacing county supervisors and crafting a restrictive ballot measure aimed at the airport.

Complaints about airport-related noise began pouring in soon after Surf Air began using San Carlos Airport for scheduled flights in June 2013. The airline offers customers unlimited flights for a monthly fee and has had as many as 45 scheduled flights a day to or from the airport.

Because Surf Air's Pilatus PC-12s carry fewer than nine passengers, under FAA regulations they may operate out of the San Carlos Airport even though it is a general aviation not a commercial airport. The airport is considered a "reliever airport," keeping small planes out of busy regional airports such as San Jose, San Francisco International and Oakland.

What's local journalism worth to you?

Support Almanac Online for as little as $5/month.

Join

The county's growing number of employees who are addressing the airport problems say they are also frustrated, but a solution may still be more than a year away. Later this month the Board of Supervisors plans to consider spending more on the search for a solution by:

• Hiring a full-time airport communication specialist to work with the public and airport users, attend industry conferences and neighborhood meetings, and educate airport users about voluntary noise abatement procedures.

• Hiring a consultant to determine if there is a flight route that will let aircraft use the San Carlos Airport while avoiding residential areas, both in good weather and bad.

• Purchasing an automated system to track planes near the airport, so county employees no longer need to spend 10 to 20 minutes per noise complaint figuring out which aircraft was involved. (Gretchen Kelly, the airport's manager, says in the past 90 days 6,492 noise complaints were filed from 193 households. About 40 percent are about aircraft not using San Carlos Airport, she said.)

Curfew?

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

Stay informed

Get the latest local news and information sent straight to your inbox.

In the meantime, the county's work on a possible curfew on noisy planes, limiting hours and numbers of flights for certain aircraft, has moved to the background while the county investigates other possible solutions.

The issue was muddied when the San Carlos Airport Association, representing some of the 25 businesses and the pilots operating out of the airport, issued a press release on May 18. The statement said the county, Encompass Aviation (a subcontractor that took over Surf Air's flight operations on May 15) and the airport association had reached an agreement "in principal" that included a county promise "to drop any further discussion of the proposed curfew ordinance, entirely and permanently."

Assistant County Manager Mike Callagy said, however, "there is no agreement." A curfew, he said, "is still on the table" and the county will continue considering it.

Deputy county counsel Brian Wong said lawyers have "looked really closely" at a proposed curfew ordinance and believe they can craft one that will stand up to legal challenges which could come from the federal government, Surf Air or other airport users. "We want to be careful," Mr. Wong said, and to explore other possible solutions.

Mr. Callagy said if an alternative route can keep aircraft from residential areas, the curfew won't be needed. However, if a consultant finds such a route, the necessary FAA approval process could take as long as two years, industry experts say.

Who's running Surf Air?

The issue has also been muddied by a management change at Surf Air.

County officials say they were told by Surf Air workers that CEO Jeff Potter and senior vice president of operations Jim Sullivan have left the company. An email to Mr. Potter received an auto-reply: "I have transitioned from my role as President and CEO of Surf Air" with a new email address. He did not reply to an email to the new address.

Jim Sullivan told the Almanac he left Surf Air amicably, after leading the planned transition to an outside operator for flights.

County officials say they have no idea who is currently running Surf Air and they have been communicating with Encompass employees.

This has resulted in some head-scratching situations including Surf Air's May 18 announcement that it is adding 12 round-trip flights to San Carlos, which Encompass said they knew nothing about.

Protest details

The protest march will be held on Saturday, June 17, from 9 a.m. to noon at Surf Air's San Carlos terminal, 701 Skyway Road, San Carlos, a date and location the organizers arranged with airport management. Parking will be available at 795 Skyway Road, and there will be restrooms and shade.

"The purpose of the protest is to encourage Surf Air to significantly curtail the disruptive noise disturbances their planes create or to cease San Carlos Airport operations completely," said organizer Aidan Yeaw, a resident of North Fair Oaks who worked with the CalmTheSkies group to organize the protest.

The Fair Oaks Beautification Association (FOBA) will also discuss the Surf Air noise disturbances and possible involvement at its next monthly meeting at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, June 13.

Check FOBAneighbors.org, or NextDoor for the location, which may be changed from the usual meeting space at the Riekes Center on Edison Way in Menlo Park to allow for more attendees.

The study of "aircraft disturbance" at the San Carlos Airport was approved by county supervisors in March 2016. It was originally scheduled to be completed by that June, but the county has repeatedly delayed presenting the results of the study.

Some information from the study is available on the county's website.

--

A front row seat to local high school sports.

Check out our new newsletter, the Playbook.

Follow AlmanacNews.com and The Almanac on Twitter @almanacnews, Facebook and on Instagram @almanacnews for breaking news, local events, photos, videos and more.

San Carlos Airport noise solutions prove elusive

Residents and county employees are frustrated by noisy aircraft

by / Almanac

Uploaded: Tue, Jun 6, 2017, 11:05 am

More than a year after San Mateo County started a study meant to figure out how to address the noise complaints pouring in about San Carlos Airport -- mostly with regard to Surf Air -- a solution remains elusive.

Those who live under the flight path of Surf Air's noisy turboprop commuter aircraft are so upset about the county's lack of progress that they have scheduled a protest march at the San Carlos Airport for Saturday, June 17.

On the NextDoor social media site, residents are suggesting replacing county supervisors and crafting a restrictive ballot measure aimed at the airport.

Complaints about airport-related noise began pouring in soon after Surf Air began using San Carlos Airport for scheduled flights in June 2013. The airline offers customers unlimited flights for a monthly fee and has had as many as 45 scheduled flights a day to or from the airport.

Because Surf Air's Pilatus PC-12s carry fewer than nine passengers, under FAA regulations they may operate out of the San Carlos Airport even though it is a general aviation not a commercial airport. The airport is considered a "reliever airport," keeping small planes out of busy regional airports such as San Jose, San Francisco International and Oakland.

The county's growing number of employees who are addressing the airport problems say they are also frustrated, but a solution may still be more than a year away. Later this month the Board of Supervisors plans to consider spending more on the search for a solution by:

• Hiring a full-time airport communication specialist to work with the public and airport users, attend industry conferences and neighborhood meetings, and educate airport users about voluntary noise abatement procedures.

• Hiring a consultant to determine if there is a flight route that will let aircraft use the San Carlos Airport while avoiding residential areas, both in good weather and bad.

• Purchasing an automated system to track planes near the airport, so county employees no longer need to spend 10 to 20 minutes per noise complaint figuring out which aircraft was involved. (Gretchen Kelly, the airport's manager, says in the past 90 days 6,492 noise complaints were filed from 193 households. About 40 percent are about aircraft not using San Carlos Airport, she said.)

Curfew?

In the meantime, the county's work on a possible curfew on noisy planes, limiting hours and numbers of flights for certain aircraft, has moved to the background while the county investigates other possible solutions.

The issue was muddied when the San Carlos Airport Association, representing some of the 25 businesses and the pilots operating out of the airport, issued a press release on May 18. The statement said the county, Encompass Aviation (a subcontractor that took over Surf Air's flight operations on May 15) and the airport association had reached an agreement "in principal" that included a county promise "to drop any further discussion of the proposed curfew ordinance, entirely and permanently."

Assistant County Manager Mike Callagy said, however, "there is no agreement." A curfew, he said, "is still on the table" and the county will continue considering it.

Deputy county counsel Brian Wong said lawyers have "looked really closely" at a proposed curfew ordinance and believe they can craft one that will stand up to legal challenges which could come from the federal government, Surf Air or other airport users. "We want to be careful," Mr. Wong said, and to explore other possible solutions.

Mr. Callagy said if an alternative route can keep aircraft from residential areas, the curfew won't be needed. However, if a consultant finds such a route, the necessary FAA approval process could take as long as two years, industry experts say.

Who's running Surf Air?

The issue has also been muddied by a management change at Surf Air.

County officials say they were told by Surf Air workers that CEO Jeff Potter and senior vice president of operations Jim Sullivan have left the company. An email to Mr. Potter received an auto-reply: "I have transitioned from my role as President and CEO of Surf Air" with a new email address. He did not reply to an email to the new address.

Jim Sullivan told the Almanac he left Surf Air amicably, after leading the planned transition to an outside operator for flights.

County officials say they have no idea who is currently running Surf Air and they have been communicating with Encompass employees.

This has resulted in some head-scratching situations including Surf Air's May 18 announcement that it is adding 12 round-trip flights to San Carlos, which Encompass said they knew nothing about.

Protest details

The protest march will be held on Saturday, June 17, from 9 a.m. to noon at Surf Air's San Carlos terminal, 701 Skyway Road, San Carlos, a date and location the organizers arranged with airport management. Parking will be available at 795 Skyway Road, and there will be restrooms and shade.

"The purpose of the protest is to encourage Surf Air to significantly curtail the disruptive noise disturbances their planes create or to cease San Carlos Airport operations completely," said organizer Aidan Yeaw, a resident of North Fair Oaks who worked with the CalmTheSkies group to organize the protest.

The Fair Oaks Beautification Association (FOBA) will also discuss the Surf Air noise disturbances and possible involvement at its next monthly meeting at 6:30 p.m. Tuesday, June 13.

Check FOBAneighbors.org, or NextDoor for the location, which may be changed from the usual meeting space at the Riekes Center on Edison Way in Menlo Park to allow for more attendees.

The study of "aircraft disturbance" at the San Carlos Airport was approved by county supervisors in March 2016. It was originally scheduled to be completed by that June, but the county has repeatedly delayed presenting the results of the study.

Some information from the study is available on the county's website.

--

Comments

Gwen
Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jun 6, 2017 at 12:24 pm
Gwen, Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jun 6, 2017 at 12:24 pm

We have had many San Carlos airport pilots attend our community meetings and testify that they fly Pilatus and have NEVER received complaints on noise. Surf Air is the culprit and many of the pilots we've engaged resent the negative attention drawn to the airport by Surf Air. Join the protest!


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jun 6, 2017 at 12:43 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jun 6, 2017 at 12:43 pm

Hopefully someone will wake up and realize the Federal preemption precludes almost anything that the County or the residents want to do.

But people don't seem to want to be bothered with the facts.


Christine
Atherton: other
on Jun 6, 2017 at 1:24 pm
Christine, Atherton: other
on Jun 6, 2017 at 1:24 pm

I only wish we had known about this protest sooner as we would have gladly joined. Though we will not be present we want to thank those who will attend and those who continue to organize us to show our growing, undying frustration with this change to our overall living environment through Surf Air's contribution to noise pollution. We live directly under their flight path and it has drastically altered our use of our outdoor space. It seems completely unfair that any commercial organization has the right to effect our quality of living through the introduction of constant noise. We have rules regarding noise abatement on the ground surrounding our homes. Why not in the air above our homes? Please continue to fight this issue. I promise we will as well.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jun 6, 2017 at 1:34 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jun 6, 2017 at 1:34 pm

The movement and sound levels of all aircraft when flying are controlled exclusively by the Federal government - its has been a massive con to encourage local residents to think that your local governments could do anything about this.


NIMBY Lookout
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jun 6, 2017 at 1:53 pm
NIMBY Lookout, Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jun 6, 2017 at 1:53 pm

is anyone else bothered by the fact that 193 households have filed all the complaints? that they have filed an average of one complaint every 70 hours?

my assumption is that in actuality a handful of complainers (NIMBY) filed most of the 6400 complaints. Really people you think this is going to change San Carlos Airport?

You should talk to all of the people who tried that in San Jose and had the AOPA force them to put a noise disclosure declaration on their property deeds. when you go to sell that home that is SO SEVERELY impacted by aircraft noise, you WILL HAVE to disclose it.....be careful what you wish for.


Barbara Wood
Registered user
Almanac staff writer
on Jun 6, 2017 at 2:56 pm
Barbara Wood, Almanac staff writer
Registered user
on Jun 6, 2017 at 2:56 pm

I have changed the story to say: "The issue was muddied when the San Carlos Airport Association, representing some of the 25 businesses and the pilots operating out of the airport, issued a press release...
Carol Ford did not tell me that SCARPA represents all of the businesses and pilots at the airport, and I am sorry that I worded this sentence to make it appear that she had.


Robert Franklin
Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jun 6, 2017 at 3:09 pm
Robert Franklin, Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jun 6, 2017 at 3:09 pm

God bless Carol Ford and Rich Newman. As a pilot and long term friend of San Carlos Airport, I'm very glad that SCAPA (and Rich and Carol) are representing my interests.

Surf Air, on the other hand, is a different matter. The sooner they shut down and leave San Carlos the better. They caused all these difficulties and could care less about the folks who live near the airport.


Barbara Wood
Registered user
Almanac staff writer
on Jun 6, 2017 at 6:39 pm
Barbara Wood, Almanac staff writer
Registered user
on Jun 6, 2017 at 6:39 pm

According to the San Carlos Airport Association website, the organization has more than 300 members and was founded in 1986. It has a 9-member board of directors and members say that it includes many businesses not at the airport, but does not represent all businesses at the airport.

Web Link


Private Pilot
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jun 7, 2017 at 3:28 am
Private Pilot, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 3:28 am


There is a very simple solution to the Surf Air problem.

Take the six thousand complaints made to the airport and instead call Surf Airs office directly to file a complaint

Whoever answers the phone make the complaint to the highest level bereuacat that will take your call.

A thousand a day should do the job.

Surf Air has negotiated in bad faith from the beginning. I remember when one of the principals said they would cap their flights at 13,

While the airport would prefer you go online and file a complaint with public works, these complaints for all practical purposes go in the circular file. Surf Air has not negotiated in good faith. They lied about the number of flights, times of flights, noise etc.

Surf Air is a private co. making money off our public facilities, I think they have a responsibility to act in good faith. Even so any person affected by excessive coming from any business has the right to call and complain.

Call day and night, any time a flight disturbs you peace. If it's after hours leave a message. Summer is upon us and we look forward to some quiet time in the yard with friends, neighbors and kids,

1,000 a day would be nice but probably 500 a day would work. They have the right to make noise and you have the right to complain

Call today. It's your right


Aidan
Registered user
Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:18 am
Aidan, Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:18 am

Is it NIMBYism when the Menlo-Atherton Little League Opening Day celebration at Burgess Park has its speakers interrupted every 5 minutes due to Surf Air overflights? is it NIMBYism when volunteer coaches for soccer and baseball at Encinal School's fields have to pause their instructions to the kids? How about when people gather at Courthouse Square in Redwood City to have their conversations interrupted by the Surf Air arriving overflights? Pay attention when you are out and about how these flights are impacting life under the Surf Air flights. It will surprise you and should concern you.

If NIMBYism is about the most frustrated neighbors taking action to decrease the noise disturbances that impact us all (even subtly) then fine, call it NIMBYism.


David
Registered user
Atherton: other
on Jun 7, 2017 at 9:08 am
David, Atherton: other
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 9:08 am

@NIMBY Lookout, careful on spreading FUD. A very large densely populated area of San Mateo County (Hillsborough to Menlo Park, east side of 280) is considered an impacted noise area because of San Carlos airport (KSQL). This is clearly communicated in the Comprehensive Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan For the Environs of San Carlos Airport.

A Real Estate Agent should include the language below for impacted homes.

State law says: Effective as of January 1, 2004, California state statutes (Business and Professional Code Section 11010 and Civil Code Sections 1102.6, 1103.4, and 1353) mandate that sellers or lessors of real property must disclose information regarding whether their property is situated within an airport influence area.

Language to be included:

NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY
This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason, the property may be subject to some of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example: noise, vibration, or odors). Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person. You may wish to consider what airport annoyances, if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you.


MPer
Registered user
Menlo Park: Downtown
on Jun 7, 2017 at 1:54 pm
MPer, Menlo Park: Downtown
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 1:54 pm

@Aiden

your comment is far from factual.

1. surf air doesn't have flight going over burgess park every 5 minutes. maybe 1 or 2 an hour at most
2. most surf air flight don't even fly over burgess park
3. they fly over is at most 30 seconds
4. never has ANY aircraft flying over head so been so loud that i couldn't hear the person i was speaking with
5. beyond large jets I find the private turbo props flying in circles on a weekend afternoon way louder and more annoying then surf air.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jun 7, 2017 at 2:22 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 2:22 pm

There has been a lot of effort by our local elected officials wasted on a problem that impacts very few people and for which those local elected officials have no statutory authority.

It would be nice if our local elected officials better understood their statutory authority and stopped wasting our tax dollars on things over which they have no control.


Private Pilot
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jun 7, 2017 at 3:32 pm
Private Pilot, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 3:32 pm


Peter,

Over 1,000 people have gone through the trouble to sign a petition.

As you and I both know for every thousand that sign up there are probably 5 times that many that are bothered but don't wish to have their private information disclosed.

That is not a "very few people"


Roy Thiele-Sardiña
Registered user
Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
on Jun 7, 2017 at 3:41 pm
Roy Thiele-Sardiña, Menlo Park: Central Menlo Park
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 3:41 pm

@David

Seeing that statement on a real estate disclosure would certainly make me rethink an investment in a home.

is that currently required? i had not heard that.

Roy Thiele-Sardina
SEL, MEL, Instrument Pilot


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jun 7, 2017 at 3:54 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 3:54 pm

Even 5000 people in an area that has a population of over 500,000 is a very small number.


Private Pilot
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jun 7, 2017 at 5:04 pm
Private Pilot, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 5:04 pm


Not sure where you are getting the 500,000 number, it has nothing to do with anything, it's total arbitrary, I'm using actual numbers,

You could use 40 million, the population of ca. please use numbers in context


as for those on the petition

it is not your position to speak for them,


Peggy Olson
Registered user
Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jun 7, 2017 at 5:49 pm
Peggy Olson, Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 5:49 pm

I enjoy living here because it's a vibrant urban area with opportunities for every facet of life from family to professional to recreational. Yes, I don't like loud noises either but I'm not so hypocritical that I would say that the sources of those noises should be outlawed. After all, I enjoy the fact that I can easily go to San Francisco airport or hop on Caltrain anytime I want, yet I hear train whistles at night and see planes fly over my house. Any responsible adult should realize that these are the prices we must pay for living in a major metropolitan area.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jun 7, 2017 at 7:27 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 7:27 pm

500,000 is the approximate number of people living under the AMBEY approach to San Carlos - of whom about a 1000 have signed a petition.


Richard Arrigo
Registered user
Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:16 pm
Richard Arrigo, Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:16 pm

I agree with Peggy. All this noise is annoying but we must all realize we don't live in a bubble. Jeez, my neighbor was cutting his grass at 8am a few days ago. What the heck???

After thinking about this whole mess, it occurs to me that many of us are being taken for stooges by rich folks in Atherton who can afford to be home during the day lounging by their pools while the rest of us are out there working hard trying to make a living. Personally, I'm not bothered by airplanes. They help make America great!!!

Bring it on Surf Air!!! Your noise is the sound of jobs being created for the working man!!!


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:17 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:17 pm

This is the same nonsense that went on when the residents of Redwood Shores decided they didn't want aircraft flying over their homes even though they knew there was an airport there when they purchased their homes. Same hew and cry. Same gnashing of teeth by a small minority of people. Same posturing and pandering by politicians. And what happened? Zero. Because the FAA has the say over what happens with the airport and air traffic, NOT the politicians. ZERO is exactly what will come from this.

A whole 1000 people signed a petition? So what? 1000 people out of 500,000 people affected by Surfair flights. Meaning 499,000 people didn't. Even if there are 10,000 that agree with the 1000 that is a ridiculously tiny minority trying to dictate what happens over the heads of 500,000 people, MOST of whom couldn't care less.


David
Registered user
Atherton: other
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:19 pm
David, Atherton: other
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:19 pm

@peter carpenter, you are referencing 500K for what purpose? 500K is irrelevant - there is little or no data from those residents that suggest anything about their preferences regarding this topic. Put another way, how many of those 500K have signed a petition in favor of KSQL or Surf Air? I suspect zero. Therefore, using your logic, it would be easy to conclude that of the 500K persons, nobody supports KSQL or Surf AIr. That certainly would be a flawed conclusion and points out why 500K is irrelevant.

It is significantly more relevant to say 1,108 have signed a petition against Surf Air vs zero that have signed a petition in favor.

And it’s AMEBY, not AMBEY.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:23 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:23 pm

David:

no one is circulating a petition in favor of Surfair. It's your logic that is flawed.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:34 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:34 pm

"It is significantly more relevant to say 1,108 have signed a petition against Surf Air vs zero that have signed a petition in favor. "

Surf Air has probably served 10,000 customers who voted with both their feet and their dollars for SurfAir.

The 1,108 people who signed a petition spent zero.


Richard Arrigo
Registered user
Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:36 pm
Richard Arrigo, Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:36 pm

Menlo Voter: you talk a lot of sense. All this fuss and tons of money spent to satisfy a handful of crybabies. Give me a break.


David
Registered user
Atherton: other
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:42 pm
David, Atherton: other
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:42 pm

@menlo voter. Thanks for the helpful clarification. You are right, there is no known document or petition from our communities that supports Surf Air. There is only a petition that measures who doesn't support them.


David
Registered user
Atherton: other
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:44 pm
David, Atherton: other
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:44 pm

@peter carpenter, are you saying 10K Surf Customers live in the impacted area?


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:44 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:44 pm

" there is no known document or petition from our communities that supports Surf Air."

Wrong. Surf Air has probably served 10,000 customers who voted with both their feet and their dollars for SurfAir.


David
Registered user
Atherton: other
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:52 pm
David, Atherton: other
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:52 pm

@peter carpenter I stand by my statement. There is no known document or petition from our community that supports Surf Air.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:53 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:53 pm

" There is no known document or petition from our community that supports Surf Air."

There are probably 10,000 plus tickets purchased by SurfAir customers = 10, 000 plus "documents".


David
Registered user
Atherton: other
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:58 pm
David, Atherton: other
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 8:58 pm

@peter carpenter, you are thrashing. First you said 10K customers. Now you say 10K tickets. Which is it, customers or tickets?


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jun 7, 2017 at 9:19 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 9:19 pm

"There is only a petition that measures who doesn't support them."

In an area of 500,000 what does that tell you? Given that people are far more likely to complain than they are to complement or support.


Private Pilot
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jun 7, 2017 at 10:23 pm
Private Pilot, Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 10:23 pm

Gwen,

on Jun 6, 2017 at 12:24 pm
"We have had many San Carlos airport pilots attend our community meetings and testify that they fly Pilatus and have NEVER received complaints on noise. Surf Air is the culprit and many of the pilots we've engaged resent the negative attention drawn to the airport by Surf Air. Join the protest!"

Thank you Gwen for including the GA pilots in this conversation, It speaks volumes,

I am a GA pilot and never complained about any GA Airport, charter co. or any other Airport business, locally, or otherwise. Surf Air is causing havoc and bringing undue attention to SQL and hence the Airport businesses. Most people didn't even know SQL was there until a scheduled airline showed up. As it stands there is no limit to the number of flights SA can bring in and that goes for any other Airlines using the same type of aircraft. It appears their business model is successful, so why not another dozen companies flying in hundreds of flights.

As to Peter your random numbers are all over the place, and again it is not Your position to tell other people how they should feel about SA.

Again I suggest people call SA directly to complain.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jun 7, 2017 at 10:53 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jun 7, 2017 at 10:53 pm

"it is not Your position to tell other people how they should feel about SA. "

By that standard neither is it your position to tell other people how they should feel about SA.

Andt note - the "Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information and opinion"


Don't miss out on the discussion!
Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Post a comment

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