|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Surf Air, the controversial commuter airline behind thousands of residents’ noise complaints to the San Carlos Airport, has stopped using the airport, county officials say.
Gretchen Kelly, the manager of the San Mateo County-owned airport, said that the last record the airport has of a Surf Air plane landing at the airport is June 29, but added that workers affiliated with the company say it may be back in October.
A startup airline that began using the San Carlos Airport in June 2013, Surf Air offered unlimited flights for a monthly fee and scheduled as many as 45 flights a day in and out of the airport.
In mid-June, however, Surf Air replaced Encompass Aviation LLC with Advanced Aviation LLC as its flight operator. Days later Encompass sued Surf Air, claiming $3.1 million in unpaid bills. In addition, 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.
Surf Air has since filed a counterclaim to the Encompass lawsuit, asking that Encompass return the PC-12 turboprop planes it has subleased from Surf Air and claiming at least $10 million in damages. Surf Air has also requested a jury trial.
Court filings show the trial, filed in the Southern District of New York, wouldn’t take place for at least six months, with pre-trial motions due by Feb. 11.
After the change in flight operators, the airport recorded only 51 arrivals or departures by Surf Air before the flights stopped altogether.
Some residents say they have seen and heard Surf Air’s distinctive blue-bottomed planes over their homes recently, but Kelly said many privately owned Pilatus aircraft use the San Carlos Airport and that “blue and white is a common paint scheme for the Pilatus.”
Kelly said that no one from Surf Air officially notified the airport that the flights would be discontinued, but that the company’s ground crew said flights would be discontinued through the end of September. Surf Air no longer includes San Carlos as a destination on its website, but is still flying some planes into and out of the Oakland and San Jose airports.
In the meantime, former operator Encompass has renamed itself Roam. Its new website says Roam uses the San Carlos Airport, but Kelly said the company has not actually landed any flights there.
Surf Air accuses Encompass in its counterclaim of continuing to use Surf Air’s planes.
Neither Surf Air’s attorney nor its spokeswoman acknowledged The Almanac’s requests for comment.
Burning Man traffic increase
Traffic at the airport also traditionally is heavy during the annual Burning Man festival in Nevada’s Black Rock Desert. County spokeswoman Michelle Durand said charter flights will be going to and from the Black Rock City Airport during Burning Man, which this year is Aug. 26 to Sept. 3.
Kelly, the airport manager, said airport employees have worked with festival staff “to emphasize the importance of using the quietest arrival and departure settings possible when operating into and out of the San Carlos Airport.”
All charter aircraft operators pay a $75 landing fee at the San Carlos Airport. The airport does not have any available overnight vehicle parking for charter passengers due to ongoing construction projects.
—
See previous stories:
• Will Surf Air soon stop flying?
• Surf Air flights down by 85 percent but noisy legal fight continues
—
Or show your support for local journalism by subscribing.
West Menlo Park schools end lockdown, authorities say suspect died of self-inflicted gunshot woundDecember 16, 2025 1:31 pm
People are still complaining about airplane noise, so was the problem really Surf Air to begin with?
“People are still complaining about airplane noise, so was the problem really Surf Air to begin with?”
No
It depends on the volume of complaints. If they’ve gone down in correlation with the reduction in Surf Air flights, then it’s likely Surf Air was a large source of the problem, though they may not have been the only problem.
Surfair: good-bye and good riddance.
Noticeably fewer aircraft (read much less noise) during July.
Thank you.
But recently a few more flights over the ECR – Middlefield corridor.
White bellied monsters.
Maybe different carrier with same type of aircraft (Pilatus) and Surf Air’s pilots.
I saw a plane identical to the type Surf Air flies go over North Fair Oaks (very low altitude, maybe 1800′) only three days ago.
So – what’s up with the “not flying anymore”. Is it another carrier?
Far less noise lately. Can once again sleep with window open.
MaryAnnMP:
as has been previously noted, there are multiple operators of Pilatus PC-12 aircraft at SQL. Unfortunately, the folks complaining don’t know the difference and/or can’t be bothered to find out, so they blame the convenient target.
Well I’m still seeing and hearing the same blue Pilatus pc-12s flying the same flight pattern as Surf Air albeit fewer flights than before. So some operator is still flying so even it’s not Surf Air. If so, am I the only concerned that the county airport officials don’t seem to know who is flying these flights?
RE Menlo Voter & resident- if you live directly under the landing path, you might reconsider your response. We had five years of nonstop jet like noise, its been a relief.
Hard to understand WHY the County supes would allow Surf Air ‘partner’ new operator to land again IF they owe the county money. San Mateo County says Surf Air owes it $131,371 for 2017 taxes and may owe more for 2015 and 2016. The supes are looking out for their citizens? Not so much if they allow ROAM to return back to San Carlos..
Its been a wonderful few months to be able to again go outside without being dive bombed by a Pilatus.
I’ve noticed much less noise. If surf air is really gone then good riddance. A few noisy flights are fine but it’s no longer every 20 minutes. Good news
gwen:
I both live and work under the approach to SQL. I happen to understand and care to look to see what aircraft are passing over. You, it seems, don’t care as long as what you THINK supports your opinion. Clearly, Surfair are not the only operators of Pilatus PC-12 aircraft and CLEARLY there are those like YOU that can’t be bothered to tell the difference. It’s all about blaming “someone” for your supposed “disturbance”.
If you actually read the article you would understand that no one is “partnering” with Surfair. THERE ARE OTHER OPERATORS OF PILATUS AIRCRAFT. AIRCRAFT THAT YOU CAN’T TELL THE DIFFERENCE, NOR CAN BE BOTHERED TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AIRCRAFT BEING OPERATED BY SURFAIR. SURFAIR HASN’T LANDED ANY AIRCRAFT SINCE THE END OF JUNE. WHAT ABOUT THAT DON’T YOU UNDERSTAND????????
I was never bothered by Surfair planes & didn’t hear them, although I see a few. An incoming flight which I thought was Surfair is visible from my home most nights around 11 pm as recently as last week. I do have windows open & don’t hear plane noise, just cars & trains.
Does anyone know if there’s another regularly scheduled airline? Otherwise, I guess it’s a corporate or private plane – always on the same flight path, diagonally over El Camino @ what might be the Atherton -Redwood City border.
downtowner:
there are several operators of PC-12’s at SQL. Since Surfair hasn’t been operating there since the end of June you most likely saw one of those operators.
I have posted on previous articles regarding Surf Air with a hypothesis that Surf Air often takes the blame for noise. Data was gathered and presented to show that many low flying planes were operated by other charter carriers, companies, and private individuals. Complaints about late night and early morning noise were usually air ambulance, medivac, or other emergency service aircraft. Some planes identified as Pilatus PC-12s were actually similar looking Socata TBMs.
I can confirm menlo voter is correct. No Surf Air or Surf Air affiliated planes have operated in weeks.
WKC:
Thank you. Those complaining about Surfair don’t even know or bother to find out if Surfair aircraft are the aircraft flying over them. Surfair is just an easy target. They can’t or won’t understand that not ALL PC-12’s flying over them are Surfair aircraft.
And, people LOVE to complain about Surfair. Get ready folks, the county is allowing flights in and out for the Burning Man event coming shortly.
I can tell that the noise has been cut a lot for the past month and haven’t filed a single complaint. From time to time, I could still see a few flights. But that is largely fine. Much better than before.
This is great news! Get out, Surf air!
Totally understand that the number of complaints won’t drop to zero because there are still some other flights in and out of SQL. Where can we see the stat data on the trend of complaints? Simply match that with surf air’s operations and check the correlation.
MaryAnnMP,
Sunday, August 19th has several PC-12s fly into SQL. None were owned or operated by Surf Air. A quick query of information I gathered indicates they were operated by air charter operators, privates businesses (specifically a venture capital firm and a vineyard), and private individuals. I have not done a deep dive but I suspect planes with similar P&W Canada PT6 engines also flew into the airport. The sound and visual appearance are similar to PC-12s.
To WKC,
Can you access the complaint database and share the number of complaints for the past few months before and after surf air stopped operati N in SQL.
No one could derive the no guilty conclusion without seeing the correlation between number of complaints and Surf air’s operation. The number of complaints will never drop to zero as long as SQL is there. But the current air traffic seems to be fine to me. At least, in our neighborhood, we could finally enjoy the outdoor recently.
Hi Surf air,
Just realized I posted in the past using a different name (Winston C.). Afraid I do not have access to the FAA complaint database. The data I have is gathered independently as part of a personal project and correlated with public information. I have no opinion of Surf Air either way and simply want to present objective information for those to draw their own conclusions.
My curiosity came from several neighbors complaining about early morning and late evening flights alleged to be flown by Surf Air. A check of my data showed it was actually a PC-12 operated by a local construction company. This included several flights between 5AM and 6AM in the morning and late evening flights past 9PM.
Public flight tracking information is not always complete and may not show VFR (visual flight rule) operations without a flight plan. IFR flight plans can also be incomplete. For example, a flight may be filed for Hayward Executive to Hawthorne (Los Angeles Area). What it does not show is an intermediate stop at San Carlos. I believe I showed this in a previous comment for an article on the same topic.
For those that are curious, the PC-12 that flew over us a few minutes ago is owned by Harris Ranch. Hope they are bringing steaks for everyone. 🙂
As an FYI,
A PC-12 is scheduled to land at SQL around 6:40AM on Sunday, August 26th. The flight plan has been filed but that is always subject to change. The operator is a Northern California air charter operation. This company is not affiliated with Surf Air.
All goes to show ya, San Carlos airport was just a sleepy little airport that din’t bother anybody
Surf Air shows up to much ado ,lots of complaints, multiple meetings, lots of bad press, taking precious time away from controllers, airport staff having to institute new regulations, people calling to shut down the airport, private pilots who had a great thing going stressing out, etc.
What a mess, Surf Air arrogance about their rights, Sounds like bad karma whats happening now,
Go back to the way it was and the calls to close the airport will go away and all will be well.
One solution is to enable a no fly zone. I believe Portola Valley has instituted this on routes over town and I haven’t noticed much noice recently
Res,
Cities and towns do not have the legal authority to declare no fly zones. There are still plenty of planes that fly over Portola Valley, I just tracked two Cessna 172s, Diamond DA40, and a Skywest (United Express) CRJ-200 fly over the area in the last 5 minutes.
A WOW Air flight is over Portola Valley at this exact moment.
Those in Portola Valley can look up right now and see a Southwest 737.
WKC:
Thanks for the info. Don’t think that any of the whiners bitching about Surfair will acknowledge this. None of them can be bothered to actually determine what aircraft passing overhead are actually Surfair aircraft. And since the end of June, NONE should be Surfair planes. Would love to see how many people continue to complain about “Surfair” overflights that NEVER happened.
I actually just tracked a plane may be Surf Air affiliated operating near San Carlos. Nothing confirmed because I do need to check my data.
Menlo Voter,
Yes I do agree that Surf Air does take the blame when a flight is operated by someone not affiliated with the company.
The plane I tracked was operated by Encompass Aviation. They are the ones that operated on behalf of Surf Air using subleased PC-12s. Both companies have filed lawsuits against each other for a number of claims. Whether the flight into San Carlos was for Surf Air or not I cannot say.
And the plane just flew out of San Carlos departing from runway 12.
After combing through some data, it appears the flight operated by Encompass was NOT on behalf of Surf Air. While Surf Air and Encompass are suing and counter suing each other, Encompass appears to have retained Surf Air’s planes. Surf Air alleges that Encompass has made unauthorized flights on the subleased PC-12s. This appears to have have been one of those flights Encompass has been accused of operating.
I know a few years back a group of Portola Valley residents sued the FAA because new flight paths were created over our town. Has there been any update on this? I have certainly noticed a change for the better but maybe the reporter should look into it.
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Peninsula-Residents-Sue-FAA-Over-Noise-From-Low-Flying-Planes-320368501.html
Potentially communities affected by The San Carlos Airport could take matters to court.
Golden Hills,
I think you might be confusing two issues. My understanding is the main complaint Portola Valley residents has was not with Surf Air flying into San Carlos but the SERFR ONE arrival procedure. This is the standard route planes approaching from the south fly into SFO. Earlier in the year, a new SERFR THREE route was implemented with more flights being vectored over East Palo Alto. Altitudes were also raised for planes flew when crossing certain waypoints. As always, air traffic control can deviate from the routes for reasons including traffic management, safety, and emergencies.
Apologies to Golden Hills, my previous comment was meant for res.
check here: https://www.smdailyjournal.com/news/local/surf-air-slows-operations-at-san-carlos-airport-to-a/article_f6718fee-acbe-11e8-893b-873c5032440b.html
“Howard reported the airport received 493 noise complaints in August of 2017, a figure that rose to 1,220 complaints received in May. As of Aug. 24, 460 noise complaints were logged for the month.”
Of course, surf air shouldn’t take the blame for the 460 complaints. But they should take the 1220 – 460 = 760 blames.
But it is likely that this pig airline will be back in mid Oct to screw the bay area again, and they lie to themselves and public “work extensively with the airport and community” and “all is well”: https://www.sfgate.com/chris-mcginnis/article/Members-only-Surf-Air-plans-return-to-San-Carlos-13210738.php
“Surf Air, the California-based members-only airline, said it hopes to resume service in and out of San Carlos Airport sometime in October after shifting its flights across the bay to Oakland International Airport.”
“We’ve worked extensively with the airport and community on this front and will continue to do so if necessary,” said Hudson Andrews, Surf Air’s Marketing Director. “But all is well!”
Surf air critic:
Surfair shouldn’t take blame for ANY flights in August. They HAVEN’T flown into SQL since the end of June. What part of “they haven’t flown into SQL since the end of June” don’t you understand? The morons complaining about Surfair since the end of June are to lazy to or too ignorant to figure out that the aircraft they are complaining about AREN’T Surfair aircraft. What we have is a bunch of entitled, ignorant people that are too lazy to pay attention to the news (where the stoppage of Surfair flights was announced) and are too lazy to take the few seconds to look at the available online data to inform themselves as to what actual aircraft have “disturbed” them. Instead, they choose to attack the easy target, Surfair, which since June, hasn’t even been “disturbing” them. We’re supposed to take their complaints seriously because???
To Menlo Voter:
I suggest you to read my comment again and more carefully. It is an elementary school math problem.
Surf air SHOULD NOT take the blame for Aug, which was 460 complains. But in May, when Surf air was operating at SQL, SQL received 1220 complains.
It means that with Surf air operating, # of complains will go up by two times at least, and Surf air SHOULD BE responsible for the 1220 – 460 = 760 blames each month WHEN IT OPERATES (NOT IN AUG). IT IS AN APPROXIMATION! You could see the strong correlation between Surf Air operation and the surge of complains.
For the san mateo county noise reporting website, I have no idea why San Mateo County couldn’t just release the data (monthly number of complains) somewhere online. Every time when you file a complain, it simply says “we are working on it and will get back to you soon”. But in reality, they never reach back to you or do anything. It is pretty discouraging for people reporting noise.