News

Surf Air flights down by 85 percent, but noisy legal fight continues

Commuter airline responds to suit claiming it owes former operator millions

The skies over the Midpeninsula may have become quieter in the weeks since Surf Air, a commuter airline that uses the county-owned San Carlos Airport, announced it had changed the company operating its planes. But there's a noisy fight going on behind the scenes.

County officials say the number of Surf Air flights going in or out of the San Carlos Airport fell by 85 percent after Surf Air replaced Encompass Aviation LLC with Advanced Aviation LLC as its flight operator in mid-June.

County spokeswoman Michelle Durand said that between June 17, when Advanced took over the flights, and July 5, Surf Air had only 51 arrivals or departures. In comparison, between May 17 and June 5, Surf Air had 338 arrivals and departures, Durand said.

An attorney representing the airline, Louis R. "Skip" Miller of the Los Angeles firm Miller Barondess LLP, said the airline will be back to its full schedule at San Carlos as soon as it gets its PC-12 turboprop planes back from Encompass, which has sued Surf Air claiming $3.1 million in unpaid bills. In the meantime, Miller said, Surf Air used the Moffett Federal Airfield for a short time but is now using the San Jose and Oakland airports for Bay Area flights that can't land at San Carlos. The San Carlos runway is too short for most of the planes Advanced uses.

On July 5, Surf Air filed a response to the Encompass lawsuit, claiming Encompass has not returned its planes and owes Surf Air over $10 million.

What's local journalism worth to you?

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

Learn more

Encompass isn't the only one dunning Surf Air over allegedly unpaid bills. The federal government says Surf Air owes $2.33 million in taxes, and San Mateo County says Surf Air owes it $131,371 for 2017 taxes and may owe more for 2015 and 2016.

Miller said that "the taxes are being paid."

The Encompass lawsuit, filed on June 19 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, says in the last six months of 2017 Surf "continued to demand full performance from Encompass in exchange for little to no payments." The lawsuit says, "Surf made and broke promises over and over again, and imposed on Encompass to be patient and allow, among other things, Surf to grow its cash balances to make its business seem more profitable."

The July 5 Surf Air response to the lawsuit states that Surf Air ended the agreement with Encompass because it "proved to be a subpar operator. Encompass demanded payments far in excess of the proposed contract rates, failed to provide full transparency for financial and operating data, and demonstrated an inability to handle managerial aspects of the business."

"In June 2018, Surf Air discovered that Encompass had conjured a plan to oust management and take over Surf Air for itself," Surf Air's legal filing says.

Stay informed

Get daily headlines sent straight to your inbox.

Sign up

The document states that Encompass tried to get two of Surf Air's partners, key financial backer Partners for Growth and Stonebriar Commercial Finance, which leases Surf Air its planes, to replace Surf Air's management with Encompass. "Out of concern for the business, (Partners For Growth) reached out to Surf Air and told management what Encompass was scheming. In the process, PFG reiterated its commitment to Surf Air," the legal filing says.

"Given this treachery and intentional interference by Encompass with two of Surf Air's key financial partners, and because of ongoing poor management of services and lack of financial transparency, Surf Air decided to, and did, terminate Encompass," the filing says.

Soon after Surf Air began using San Carlos for scheduled flights in June 2013, complaints about the noise from its turboprop planes began to flood in. The airline offers unlimited flights for a monthly fee and has had as many as 45 scheduled flights a day using the airport.

Because Surf Air's planes carry fewer than nine passengers, under FAA regulations the company 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.

--

Craving a new voice in Peninsula dining?

Sign up for the Peninsula Foodist newsletter.

Sign up now

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

Surf Air flights down by 85 percent, but noisy legal fight continues

Commuter airline responds to suit claiming it owes former operator millions

by / Almanac

Uploaded: Tue, Jul 10, 2018, 9:28 am

The skies over the Midpeninsula may have become quieter in the weeks since Surf Air, a commuter airline that uses the county-owned San Carlos Airport, announced it had changed the company operating its planes. But there's a noisy fight going on behind the scenes.

County officials say the number of Surf Air flights going in or out of the San Carlos Airport fell by 85 percent after Surf Air replaced Encompass Aviation LLC with Advanced Aviation LLC as its flight operator in mid-June.

County spokeswoman Michelle Durand said that between June 17, when Advanced took over the flights, and July 5, Surf Air had only 51 arrivals or departures. In comparison, between May 17 and June 5, Surf Air had 338 arrivals and departures, Durand said.

An attorney representing the airline, Louis R. "Skip" Miller of the Los Angeles firm Miller Barondess LLP, said the airline will be back to its full schedule at San Carlos as soon as it gets its PC-12 turboprop planes back from Encompass, which has sued Surf Air claiming $3.1 million in unpaid bills. In the meantime, Miller said, Surf Air used the Moffett Federal Airfield for a short time but is now using the San Jose and Oakland airports for Bay Area flights that can't land at San Carlos. The San Carlos runway is too short for most of the planes Advanced uses.

On July 5, Surf Air filed a response to the Encompass lawsuit, claiming Encompass has not returned its planes and owes Surf Air over $10 million.

Encompass isn't the only one dunning Surf Air over allegedly unpaid bills. The federal government says Surf Air owes $2.33 million in taxes, and San Mateo County says Surf Air owes it $131,371 for 2017 taxes and may owe more for 2015 and 2016.

Miller said that "the taxes are being paid."

The Encompass lawsuit, filed on June 19 in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, says in the last six months of 2017 Surf "continued to demand full performance from Encompass in exchange for little to no payments." The lawsuit says, "Surf made and broke promises over and over again, and imposed on Encompass to be patient and allow, among other things, Surf to grow its cash balances to make its business seem more profitable."

The July 5 Surf Air response to the lawsuit states that Surf Air ended the agreement with Encompass because it "proved to be a subpar operator. Encompass demanded payments far in excess of the proposed contract rates, failed to provide full transparency for financial and operating data, and demonstrated an inability to handle managerial aspects of the business."

"In June 2018, Surf Air discovered that Encompass had conjured a plan to oust management and take over Surf Air for itself," Surf Air's legal filing says.

The document states that Encompass tried to get two of Surf Air's partners, key financial backer Partners for Growth and Stonebriar Commercial Finance, which leases Surf Air its planes, to replace Surf Air's management with Encompass. "Out of concern for the business, (Partners For Growth) reached out to Surf Air and told management what Encompass was scheming. In the process, PFG reiterated its commitment to Surf Air," the legal filing says.

"Given this treachery and intentional interference by Encompass with two of Surf Air's key financial partners, and because of ongoing poor management of services and lack of financial transparency, Surf Air decided to, and did, terminate Encompass," the filing says.

Soon after Surf Air began using San Carlos for scheduled flights in June 2013, complaints about the noise from its turboprop planes began to flood in. The airline offers unlimited flights for a monthly fee and has had as many as 45 scheduled flights a day using the airport.

Because Surf Air's planes carry fewer than nine passengers, under FAA regulations the company 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.

--

• See earlier stories

Will Surf Air soon stop flying?

County asks Federal Transportation Department to investigate Surf Air

Surf Air founder sues airline and backers for $125 million

-

Comments

flights down complaints up
another community
on Jul 10, 2018 at 10:12 am
flights down complaints up, another community
on Jul 10, 2018 at 10:12 am
9 people like this

I called San Carlos Airport and asked if noise complaints had stopped or slowed. They said complaints have increased since Surf stopped flying. Was Surf the problem? Maybe neighbors the problem.


Barbara Wood
Registered user
Almanac staff writer
on Jul 10, 2018 at 10:31 am
Barbara Wood, Almanac staff writer
Registered user
on Jul 10, 2018 at 10:31 am
25 people like this

According to Davi Howard at the San Carlos Airport, the comment above is untrue. Complaints about noise at the airport were reduced after the number of flights fell, he said. There are still complaints, he said, and Surf Air is still using the airport.


HitTheMoney
another community
on Jul 10, 2018 at 10:36 am
HitTheMoney, another community
on Jul 10, 2018 at 10:36 am
14 people like this

Surf Air is one part of the FAA's NextGen program which amounts to anything goes aviation: Commercial, cargo, GA, private jets, chartered, military, flight schools, air tourism, skydiving outfits, you name it--if it flies, the FAA has unleashed with congressional mandate endless low-altitude flying 24/7 throughout our country. Investment is heavy in aviation right now and it's expanding like mad, globally, robbing people of sleep at night and any semblance of peace in the day. Until Congress rights the wrong it unleashed in 2012 with the categorical exclusion of the human environment for this program's low altitude procedures and capacity goals at the expense of humans on the ground and the environment this insanity won't end.

Cut flying and shipping by air to the barest minimum you can. Throughout history, if you want to send an industry a message, you have to hit the money. If they gave one rip about what's being inflicted on humans, from infants to the elderly, to the sick and dying as well as the formerly healthy, this industry and its cronies at every level of govt from local to the federal wouldn't have permitted this program's agenda in the first place.

Hit the money, instead of letting these cronies eat up your time, money, and scarce energy with their endless talk and studies. It's all diversion and the NextGen program rages on low over our heads day and bloody night! They are literally killing us, just slowly, one plane at a time every 1 to 3 mins instead of one bullet to the head.

Does flying and shipping by air on demand for every whim matter more? Over 340 million of us... Come on!


SurfSucks
Atherton: other
on Jul 10, 2018 at 12:07 pm
SurfSucks, Atherton: other
on Jul 10, 2018 at 12:07 pm
24 people like this

Classic Surf Air. Distorting the truth to further their message that all is ok. Right from the beginning, every management team they have had has blatantly lied about what they were doing, how they would reduce noise, and how much they cared about the community. All BS.

The number of actual arrivals speaks volumes and it's clear you can't believe anything Surf management says. Ever.


Just the Facts
Registered user
Atherton: West Atherton
on Jul 10, 2018 at 12:43 pm
Just the Facts, Atherton: West Atherton
Registered user
on Jul 10, 2018 at 12:43 pm
19 people like this

Looks like Surf Air is going to auger into the ground due to mendacious and incompetent management. Before another flying company forms to take its place the County should work to make San Carlos airport inhospitable to commercial air services. If this cannot be done, then close the airport and convert the 110 acre site to housing. This was done with the old Hamilton Field in Marin County.


MaryAnnMP
Registered user
Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jul 10, 2018 at 12:46 pm
MaryAnnMP, Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
Registered user
on Jul 10, 2018 at 12:46 pm
13 people like this

How and Why is it okay for these companies to fly loud and low over residential areas when other airports exist for proper commercial use?? (Rhetorical question. Not looking for an answer actually....read on)

It is NOT okay for this to be going on - and those few individuals who are supporting these companies likely either a) have a financial stake in them, b) do not experience the same level of disruption (ie they do not work from home or don't care about it) or both.

Either way, statistics about the uptick of noise and disruption OVER THE LAST FOUR YEARS is there for the reviewing. The FAA did a study, others did studies and most importantly, those of us who live DIRECTLY BELOW the activities and have lived here for 20 years or approximate - know quite personally (from direct experience) that this level of disruption is unreasonable and unsustainable. Our tax dollars are being co-opted here. Call your representatives and continue to report noise at early (7am) and late (12midnight) hours to San Carlos airport.

I'm calling BS.

USE COMMERCIAL AIRPORTS FOR COMMERCIAL AIRLINE TRAFFIC. Full stop.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jul 10, 2018 at 1:21 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jul 10, 2018 at 1:21 pm
5 people like this

Just the facts:

The county can't close the airport. they took money from the FAA and one of the provisions was the airport stays open for at least another 20 years.

MaryAnnMP:

I have zero financial stake in Surfair. I have their flights passing over my house on a regular basis. It doesn't bother me. The FAA allows this type of activity at San Carlos and any other reliever airport. If you want that changed you need to complain to them. They're the only one's that can make the change.


Just the Facts
Registered user
Atherton: West Atherton
on Jul 10, 2018 at 1:54 pm
Just the Facts, Atherton: West Atherton
Registered user
on Jul 10, 2018 at 1:54 pm
10 people like this

Menlo Voter: When did the County accept funds from FAA? Use that date, add 20 years and close the airport on that date. The quality of life of those under the flight path is worth far more than the easy access now enjoyed by a few joy riding pilots to their private planes. Santa Monica decided last year to close their airport in 2028 due to quality of life issues. It can be done. Web Link

The land it sits on is far more valuable as housing than as a playpen for recreational aviators. There are many, many suitable locations for a general aviation airport to the east and south of San Carlos. Sorry, you might have to drive a little further but the lives of many thousands of residents will be improved.

Close the San Carlos Airport.


Liz
Portola Valley: Ladera
on Jul 10, 2018 at 2:05 pm
Liz, Portola Valley: Ladera
on Jul 10, 2018 at 2:05 pm
9 people like this

Lucky 'Menlo voter" that the noise doesn't bother you. However, others are greatly bothered and they too matter.
I have a friend in Brisbane who was looking to move to San Carlos; now, after becoming aware of this noise nuisance, she is looking elsewhere. Brisbane does get SFO plane traffic but my friend says it is less than the loud noise she hears in San Carlos.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jul 10, 2018 at 2:25 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jul 10, 2018 at 2:25 pm
Like this comment

Just the facts:

I'd have to do a little research, but my recollection is that it was about three years ago.


Clint
Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Jul 10, 2018 at 2:25 pm
Clint, Menlo Park: Suburban Park/Lorelei Manor/Flood Park Triangle
on Jul 10, 2018 at 2:25 pm
8 people like this

I live near Flood Park and Surf Air flights are heard for 15 to 20 seconds as they fly over.
On some days gardeners do three to four neighbors lawns on one day. The terrible buzzing of the leaf blowers and lawn mowers lasts for more than an hour. Even shutting my door and windows does not help make peace.

Any one that allows a leaf blower or gas lawn mower on their property has no right to complain about Surf Air.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jul 10, 2018 at 2:32 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jul 10, 2018 at 2:32 pm
5 people like this

Liz:

for a year I worked in Burlingame right off the end of Runways 1L and 1R. Now THAT was loud. Surfair's planes are mosquitoes by comparison. I also work up and down the peninsula at various job sites. I here aircraft noise everywhere.


Jetman
another community
on Jul 10, 2018 at 4:06 pm
Jetman, another community
on Jul 10, 2018 at 4:06 pm
10 people like this

The FAA thinks long term, so you don't have to wait 20 years to make the FAA start worrying about SQL's fate. The FAA moves so slowly that 20 years from now is like next week to the FAA.

The FAA actually like to give AIP grants because the funds can only be used for things that further the FAA's plans for the airport, and every time they give a grant it buys them another 20 years of legal protection from closure.

Stop taking FAA AIP grant funds now and put a stop to the FAA's plans to expand SQL's capacity and put the FAA on notice that if they don't clean up their act, SQL can be shut down in a mere 20 years.


HitTheMoney
another community
on Jul 10, 2018 at 4:51 pm
HitTheMoney, another community
on Jul 10, 2018 at 4:51 pm
7 people like this

Hit the money AND vote the NextGen program's enablers (passive and active) out of office. If the enablers of this human rights and environmental crime on a national scale are the only ones on the ballot then don't vote for any of them, don't legitimize this corruption. An analogous situation in terms of elected officials ultimately playing deaf to a travesty is Oklahoma's public school situation K-12, despicable conditions, and from the local to the federal, Republicans and Democrats, Republicrats and Democans, are doing all the same tactics and strategies we're seeing used to drain the blood of outrage from NextGen victims. BUT, people of all political persuasions are waking up to the fact that common interests such as these require collective, non-partisan action. Everyone needs sleep, everyone needs peaceful enjoyment of their home and the outdoors. Most people desire a healthy and happy life. Anyone think NextGen's incessant low-altitude barrage constitutes a healthy, happy life, at least on the ground?

Get people in office who intend to fight, not kick the ball endlessly down the road with talk and studies. The CDC's listed effects of sleep deprivation alone should have never let this program come to pass.


Dan
another community
on Jul 10, 2018 at 8:43 pm
Dan, another community
on Jul 10, 2018 at 8:43 pm
4 people like this

Close that damn airport!!!!


Justice
another community
on Jul 11, 2018 at 12:08 am
Justice, another community
on Jul 11, 2018 at 12:08 am
3 people like this

Curious if there is a way to class sue FAA for corruption and class sue Surf air for taking advantage of the loophole unlimitedly.


Menlo Voter
Menlo Park: other
on Jul 11, 2018 at 8:04 am
Menlo Voter, Menlo Park: other
on Jul 11, 2018 at 8:04 am
4 people like this

Justice:

Anyone can sue for anything. The bigger question is will you win. The answer is no.


MaryAnnMP
Registered user
Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
on Jul 11, 2018 at 8:34 am
MaryAnnMP, Menlo Park: Fair Oaks
Registered user
on Jul 11, 2018 at 8:34 am
1 person likes this

Menlo Voter: FYI I have been closely involved with the effort to disagree with Surf Air's traffic over our neighborhoods for over two years. I am well aware of the venues and methods for affecting change. I also vote, and I'm a Democrat. See ya.


Cazh
another community
on Jul 11, 2018 at 8:46 am
Cazh, another community
on Jul 11, 2018 at 8:46 am
3 people like this

To Liz, above, with the friend who complained about noise in San Carlos. I've lived here 15 years and have been unaffected by SurfAir noise. We need to be careful flinging around "facts" like this. I am, in fact, much more bothered by jumbo jets flying presumably on TransPacific flights to Asia from SFO. But this is part of urban life, like noise from 280 and 101 and tailgaters and traffic .... nobody is untouchable, even wealthy residents in upscale zip codes.


whatever
another community
on Jul 11, 2018 at 2:21 pm
whatever, another community
on Jul 11, 2018 at 2:21 pm
5 people like this

SQL was there a long time before any of these people, and it will be there a long time after they're gone.

And as long as Surf Air is providing a service people want to pay for, it (or its successors) will continue as well.


Whatever2
another community
on Jul 11, 2018 at 5:48 pm
Whatever2, another community
on Jul 11, 2018 at 5:48 pm
1 person likes this

To whatever:

Based on your logic, as long as Durgs is providing something people wan to pay for, it (or its successor) will continue as well.

North Korea has been there a long time before any of us, and it will be there a long time after they’re gone. So, we should let them do whatever they want?


Brad
another community
on Jul 12, 2018 at 12:14 am
Brad, another community
on Jul 12, 2018 at 12:14 am
1 person likes this

San Carlos airport is like a tumour in bay area. Time for surgery.


Winston C.
another community
on Jul 12, 2018 at 2:11 am
Winston C., another community
on Jul 12, 2018 at 2:11 am
5 people like this

As a courtesy, if anyone is curious who flew over them, let me know the date, approximate time, and neighborhood. I can possibly pinpoint the plane. There are several air charter companies, companies, and private individuals that operate various turboprops in and out of San Carlos. I believe in making decisions based on facts and complete data. Surf Air actually takes the blame for other planes.

For example, a local company flew their PC-12 into San Carlos around 5AM then took off again a little after 6AM. The departure was toward the east with a tailwind directly over Friendly Acres RWC, Atherton, and Menlo Park at between 1200 and 2000ft. The more courteous option would be a westbound departure into the wind, gain altitude, and turn back south.


Surfs Up,
Menlo Park: Downtown
on Jul 13, 2018 at 3:24 pm
Surfs Up, , Menlo Park: Downtown
on Jul 13, 2018 at 3:24 pm
7 people like this

Menlo Voter

At what Altitude and how far are you from the airport as the crow flies?

No hedging now....


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jul 13, 2018 at 5:34 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jul 13, 2018 at 5:34 pm
4 people like this

surfs up:

I'm on Buckthorn Way near ECR in Menlo Park. It is approximately the same distance from the airport as those that live in Lindenwood that complain about the noise. I also worked in Redwood City for awhile even closer to the airport and the Surfair traffic was even more frequent there than at my home. Didn't bother me there either. I also wasn't bothered by the MUCH louder noise I experienced working in Burlingame right near the end of the primary take off runways. And, no, I'm not deaf. I just understand that noise is part of living in an urban environment.

If I didn't want aircraft overhead "disturbing" me, I'd move somewhere it didn't exist. I think it's extremely entitled to think that others should modify their business and activities in a HUGE urban environment so as not to disturb them. There will ALWAYS be something or someone that disturbs them.


Vincent
another community
on Jul 14, 2018 at 5:55 pm
Vincent, another community
on Jul 14, 2018 at 5:55 pm
4 people like this

Menlo Voter:


I have 90% confidence to say that you are financially tied to the airport or surf-air, because you have been trying your best to discourage everyone from taking any possible (legal) actions towards the evil business in almost all of the previous surf air related posts.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jul 14, 2018 at 7:18 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jul 14, 2018 at 7:18 pm
3 people like this

I can assure you that Menlo Voter has zero financial ties to Surf Air.

He simply has a habit of stating the truths which some people prefer not to hear.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jul 14, 2018 at 7:29 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jul 14, 2018 at 7:29 pm
4 people like this

Vincent:

Please provide actual facts that prove I have financial interest in Surfair. I wish I had that kind of money. I just believe in facts. The anti-Surfair crowd are low on facts and high on hyperbole.


Vincent
another community
on Jul 14, 2018 at 9:58 pm
Vincent, another community
on Jul 14, 2018 at 9:58 pm
3 people like this

"He simply has a habit of stating the truths which some people prefer not to hear."

REALLY? That's ridiculous. All of those hundreds of thousands noise complaints are not facts. But what you two (or one) said is fact.

Read this "Soon after Surf Air began using San Carlos for scheduled flights in June 2013, complaints about the noise from its turboprop planes began to flood in."

You mean these complaints are not facts?


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jul 15, 2018 at 9:06 am
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2018 at 9:06 am
4 people like this

Vincent:

The FACT is that the vast majority of the complaints received come from approximately 1000 people. 1000 people out of hundreds of thousands of people that Surfair flies over every day. That's a very small percentage of those affected. So you have a very small minority of people making a lot of noise about something that effects hundreds or thousands of times more people aren't bothered by it. And that tiny little percentage demands that a business shut down and in some cases an airport shut down to satisfy their entitled need to not be disturbed in an urban environment filled with noise. That's the FACT Vincent.

Here's another fact for you Vincent. It's recently become obvious that those complaining about "Surfair" seem to assume that any Pilatus PC-12 flying in or out of SQL is a "Surfair" aircraft. Here's a FACT for you, there's at least two or three other operators of the same aircraft that frequently fly in and out of SQL and the people complaining either can't tell the difference or can't be bothered to figure it out. Again, because they feel entitled to stop others from doing something because it "bothers" them.

Another FACT Vincent. The airport has been there since the fifties. I'd hazard a guess that most of those complaining about noise haven't lived there that long. So, they bought a house in the flight path of an airport (probably paid less for it because of that), then expected that nothing would ever change with the volume or type of aircraft using that airport. That was a gamble. A foolish one. There is one constant in the world, especially in this area and that's CHANGE.


Vincent
another community
on Jul 15, 2018 at 1:12 pm
Vincent, another community
on Jul 15, 2018 at 1:12 pm
4 people like this

Menlo Voter:

Let me tell you more facts!!!

Fact 1, not all people in bay area knows how to file a complain. They didn't even know a website. At least, in my neighborhood, almost all of the family hated the airport. We ARE NOT in their regular flight path. But those flight don't really follow their pre-set path pretty often.

Fact 2, after surf air's flights have been cut recently, it has been much more quiet than before. WE ARE NOT COMPLAINING ABOUT NORMAL USAGE OF THE AIRPORT!!!!!

Another fact, Menlo Voter, most of the people bought the house when SQL was not noisy. It is the change that makes people sick. World is changing. true. but not the noise. this is like environment pollution. Everyone has the responsility to maintain a good living environoment. No one could put his own profit on top of the sacrifice of millions of others!!!! Anyone who resist the good livings of the majority of others is rubbish!!


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jul 15, 2018 at 1:14 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2018 at 1:14 pm
5 people like this

Vincent - put the matter before the voters. I doubt that you could get enough certified signatures to get the matter on the ballot.


Vincent
another community
on Jul 15, 2018 at 1:19 pm
Vincent, another community
on Jul 15, 2018 at 1:19 pm
3 people like this

Peter Carpenter or Menlo Voter:

I doubt it. Majority of people either didn't know where those flights were from or too lazy to file a complain (I only googled then found that complain website). With proper propaganda and these negative news circles, we can wait and see.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jul 15, 2018 at 7:07 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2018 at 7:07 pm
2 people like this

Vincent:

go ahead. Get a petition going and see what happens. Prove us wrong.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jul 15, 2018 at 7:10 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2018 at 7:10 pm
2 people like this

One other thing Vincent. Even if you do get a whole bunch more people to complain than have actually complained now, it won't change anything. Surfair is using the airport legally. The FAA isn't going to stop Surfair from using the airport. The airport can't be closed because the county has taken federal funds which require the county to keep the airport open. Good luck!


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jul 15, 2018 at 7:16 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2018 at 7:16 pm
3 people like this

Menlo Voter - As usual you are correct.

However Vincent could start collecting signatures to put an advisory vote on the ballot calling for the Supervisors to deny access to SurfAir by paying the FAA back all the money it has given the County, plus interest, under the Airport Improvement Grant Program over the last 17 years.

We live in a democracy -let's see what the voters think.


Vincent
another community
on Jul 15, 2018 at 8:49 pm
Vincent, another community
on Jul 15, 2018 at 8:49 pm
2 people like this

Menlo Voter/Peter Carpenter:

Menlo Voter, Peter Carpenter -- as usual, you two (or just one person) disgust me.

Dont' assume how people are gonna approach this. No one said it is a easy job. But we got to get start early. Yeah. We live in a democracy. That's how the Santa Monica airport was closed as posted by "Just the Facts", right?

Web Link
Web Link

This was just a start!!


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jul 15, 2018 at 9:33 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jul 15, 2018 at 9:33 pm
Like this comment

Vincent:

I'm not Peter and Peter isn't me.

SQL went through the same thing years ago when the people of Redwood Shores decided the airport needed to go because they were being "disturbed". Of course, they all knew the airport was there when they purchased their homes. Suggest you look into it. It went exactly as this is going. A bunch of entitled whiners complain, the board of supervisors pretend to "do something", there's lots of "we're going to sue" and "we're going to file petitions". Guess what? The airport is still there and still operating. But, go ahead, waste your time. It's yours to waste.


Winston C.
another community
on Jul 16, 2018 at 10:40 am
Winston C., another community
on Jul 16, 2018 at 10:40 am
1 person likes this

Hi Folks,
Noticed something interesting. One person asked me about a flight they perceived as noisy and asked I do some research. Turns out the plane in question actually flew into Oakland. The approach was up the peninsula using the same flight path as a plane landing at San Carlos. Once over SQL, the PC-12 turned north and landed at OAK.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jul 16, 2018 at 2:46 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jul 16, 2018 at 2:46 pm
1 person likes this

"The approach was up the peninsula using the same flight path as a plane landing at San Carlos. Once over SQL, the PC-12 turned north and landed at OAK."

This is a great way to avoid higher level controlled air space.
From SQL to Oakland they fly under the Class B and simply use a tower enroute clearance.


Surs Up
Menlo Park: Downtown
on Jul 16, 2018 at 3:53 pm
Surs Up, Menlo Park: Downtown
on Jul 16, 2018 at 3:53 pm
Like this comment


They would have had to have gone through the approach into SFO to get from SQL to OAK

At what altitude


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jul 16, 2018 at 5:32 pm
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jul 16, 2018 at 5:32 pm
Like this comment

"They would have had to have gone through the approach into SFO to get from SQL to OAK"

No, at 1500 ft they are below the Class B SFO airspace and never communicate have to with the SFO tower.


HitTheMoney
another community
on Jul 18, 2018 at 11:16 am
HitTheMoney, another community
on Jul 18, 2018 at 11:16 am
Like this comment

See recent developments for Santa Monica. It can be done. When the interests of an airport overreach to the point of sacrificing the quality of life in communities rather than serving communities then that airport no longer has a right to exist. It can be done. And if the anything-goes-aviation lobby keeps up the extremism: we'll fly as low as we like, at any hour we like, with as many aircraft as we like and so on then an extreme solution will be required. The anything-goes-aviation lobby attacks those standing up to this not because they believe reigning this in to the point of shutting airports down if necessary isn't possible but because they know it's possible and they know people are not sucking this up, they're getting angrier and a reset of this overreach without a conscience is coming. People put up with a lot, but when the overreach gets to the point where people can't even enjoy a movie in their home, a conversation, a BBQ in the backyard with family and friends, a walk with their dog, a good night's sleep, a nap to refresh, and so on, the most basic of things assaulted, they will rally eventually. It's a question of when and how bad people will allow it to get before they rally. It's shocking how bad it is already, but again, history shows, people put up with a lot.

But if a community is united, like Santa Monica, and there are people in office representing that community, it can be done: a community can be valued over an airport. See "Legal Challenge to Agreement to Close Santa Monica Airport Dismissed" in the Los Angeles Business Journal, July 11, 2018. Here’s a link to the article:
Web Link

"A local pilot's legal challenge to the agreement the city of Santa Monica reached to close Santa Monica Airport has been dismissed"

"Santa Monica Mayor Pro Tem Gleam Davis said in the city's announcement. 'Despite frivolous legal challenges over the past year, the city kept on course to improve the lives of residents by shortening the runway and reducing large jets flying over our neighborhoods by over 80 percent.'"

So, not only will it be shut down, but in the meantime measures are being taken to alleviate the burden this airport became on this community. It can be done, and a lot can be done until an airport is shut. Get out in your immediate community and get united about what you want to do about San Carlos Airport's extremist stance toward people on the ground, and get officials in office who represent and respect communities over airports.

And again, as individuals, cut your flying and air shipments to the barest minimum you can. Money talks, that's why our elected officials have sold out countless communities across our country to the investor interests behind the NextGen program.


Peter Carpenter
Registered user
Atherton: Lindenwood
on Jul 18, 2018 at 11:20 am
Peter Carpenter, Atherton: Lindenwood
Registered user
on Jul 18, 2018 at 11:20 am
Like this comment

"But if a community is united,"

That is the key and this community is not united on this issue because most people don't even care about this issue.


Reality Check
Registered user
another community
on Jul 19, 2018 at 4:19 am
Reality Check, another community
Registered user
on Jul 19, 2018 at 4:19 am
Like this comment

Ha! "Menlo Voter" should tell his Stone Pine Lane and Felton Gables Caltrain/HSR NIMBY neighbors the same thing he's saying about SQL and the airplane noise "whiners". The railroad has been there since 1863 and things can, do, and will change with more trains following electrification and the later arrival of HSR in "blended" operations with Caltrain on the same right of way and tracks. Stop whining and deal with it.


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jul 19, 2018 at 8:00 am
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jul 19, 2018 at 8:00 am
2 people like this

Reality Check:

I say exactly that about the train noise. I knew it was there when I bought my house. You won't hear me whining about train noise increasing.

I am against HSR. Not because of noise. I'm against it because it is a boondoggle.


Reality Check
Registered user
another community
on Jul 19, 2018 at 9:47 am
Reality Check, another community
Registered user
on Jul 19, 2018 at 9:47 am
Like this comment

As CA HSR-neighbors-to-be have demonstrated, one can endlessly quibble/litigate about whether HSR is a "boondoggle", or not being managed or implemented optimally, or that, laughably, we cannot afford it, etc. ... but shhhhhh! just don't tell Turkey and Morocco, a couple of the latest countries to join the HSR "club".

California and Morocco both started their HSR projects in 2008. While (thanks in no small part to NIMBY lawsuits) California is many years away from service and still stuck doing property acquisitions and environmental studies for Phase 1 at an estimated cost of over $150m per mile, it's full-steam ahead in Morocco with 320 km/h (~200 mph) service to set to begin this year with an actual cost of about $9m per mile:

Morocoo, Africa’s first HSR to begin service by end of this year:
Web Link

LIst of existing HSR lines / countries: Web Link

List of planned HSR lines / countries: Web Link


Reality Check
Registered user
another community
on Jul 19, 2018 at 9:48 am
Reality Check, another community
Registered user
on Jul 19, 2018 at 9:48 am
Like this comment

As CA HSR-neighbors-to-be have demonstrated, one can endlessly quibble/litigate about whether HSR is a "boondoggle", or not being managed or implemented optimally, or that, laughably, we cannot afford it, etc. ... but shhhhhh! just don't tell Turkey and Morocco, a couple of the latest countries to join the HSR "club".

California and Morocco both started their HSR projects in 2008. While (thanks in no small part to NIMBY lawsuits) California is many years away from service and still stuck doing property acquisitions and environmental studies for Phase 1 at an estimated cost of over $150m per mile, it's full-steam ahead in Morocco with 320 km/h (~200 mph) service to set to begin this year with an actual cost of about $9m per mile:

Morocoo, Africa’s first HSR to begin service by end of this year:
Web Link

LIst of existing HSR lines / countries: Web Link


Menlo Voter.
Registered user
Menlo Park: other
on Jul 19, 2018 at 12:55 pm
Menlo Voter., Menlo Park: other
Registered user
on Jul 19, 2018 at 12:55 pm
2 people like this

Good for Turkey. It will never deliver what was promised here. NIMBY lawsuits or otherwise. It's medium speed train at best because to the blended system. It can't run fast than 79mph on the Caltrain tracks.

The entire thing is based upon a pack of lies. It will take longer to get from SF to LA. It will cost much more for a ticket than we were told. It will be VASTLY more expensive to build than we were told. There is ZERO private interest in being involved in HSR (MSR). I could go on, but, those are just a few of the reasons HSR will probably never be built.


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.