5 ms·
Deal would bring Google jets, millions of dollars to San Jose airport
- cleverjake 14y agoFor the lay - could someone explain the benefit of a private airport (as opposed to a fleet of private planes)? The speed at which you can get through security can't be worth that much - can it?
- Evbn 14y agoThat's a half hour savings at leat.
- jasonjei 14y agoDon't you still have to go through TSA even to board your own private plane? I could be mistaken...
- ratsbane 14y agoNo.
- balbaugh 14y agoFrom my very limited experience of flying on private planes, I have never gone through any security or undergone any form of inspection by TSA.
- neurotech1 14y agoFrom what I understand, its at the discretion of the Captain or owner/operator of the jet, and what their FAA Air Operators Certificate allows. For charter flights with vetted/verified clients, that is very minimal security, and rarely by the TSA. Technically speaking, TSA, who are not federal agents, have to be invited onto an aircraft by the Captain.
- saraid216 14y agoEr. I'm a bit confused. How is the TSA not a federal agency? I know there are state transit authorities, but the TSA is federal, no?
- icebraining 14y agoA government agent or a federal agent is an agent of a federal law enforcement agency. They're a federal agency, but not of law enforcement (AFAIK).
- roc 14y agoI wonder where the TSA VIPR teams land on that axis. As I understand it, they can be comprised of actual law enforcement personnel, including federal. But don't necessarily. And even if a VIPR team included federal law enforcement personnel, it's not clear that they're necessarily acting with federal law enforcement authority. As if the TSA wasn't a confusing-enough bureaucratic monstrosity.
- neurotech1 14y agoNot sure.. but my comment was referring to TSA Screeners, which despite labels to the contrary are not federal agents or (sworn) federal officers. My guess (IANAL etc) they can be refused permission to search a private aircraft without probable cause or invitation by the Captain, same deal for any federal agent.
- roc 14y agoRight. But screeners can also be on VIPR teams. And as the VIPR program falls under the TSA's law enforcement office, it seems an open question whether random TSA gate goons gain federal law enforcement authority in those situations. The old rules are simply not something I'd be confident applies. In the trivial case, sure, a gate agent isn't a federal officer. But if a TSA agent were to appear at a private aircraft, that would be out of the ordinary. And once you start talking about out-of-the-ordinary set-ups, it's worth noting that even a random TSA gate rapist may have out-of-the-ordinary legal authority in some situations. To say nothing of what law enforcement officers may be operating under the TSA's purview in said out-of-the-ordinary set-ups.
- jasonjei 14y agohttp://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/private-plane-public-menace/308335/ http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2011/01/private-...
- theorique 14y agoPrivate flights (aka "general aviation") have to take off from somewhere. I don't know if there are currently private flights taking off from SJC - I think the Google executive planes take off and land at the nearby military base.
- newhouseb 14y agoYou mean at Moffett Field, which is operated by NASA. For what it's worth, there's already a Signature terminal near SFO that private jets can fly in and out of, so Google is just saving the 10 extra minutes it takes to get to SFO by lobbying for a Signature terminal at SJC.
- ecspike 14y ago10 minutes by air but the on-ground transit time difference from SFO and SJC to the Googleplex is significant.
- prostoalex 14y agoThere are quite a few jets parked in SJC by Coleman Rd, both marked and unmarked (SJSU and San Jose Sharks have their own jets), so yes.
- neurotech1 14y agoMoffett Field (a NASA-run federal airfield, and former Naval Air Station) has significant operating restrictions for Google, and there is probably strict limits on what aircraft they can base there, and how often they takeoff and land there.
- theorique 14y agoThat's the one. Not military - my mistake.
- eroded 14y agoTo be fair, this isn't a private airport, it's really just a private terminal at San Jose International (SJC). Don't get me wrong, that's pretty darn cool, though really no different to, say, Lufthansa's dedicated First Class Terminal at Frankfurt. Well, apart from the private Google planes, of course :-)
- rst 14y agoI'm pretty sure Lufthansa owns their own planes as well. Not so different, really. :-)
- cowsandmilk 14y agoThis seems like a downgrade from their current arrangement[1]. I'm surprised TechCrunch did not mention this agreement with Moffett Field, which is much closer to Google HQ and much more private. [1] http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/tech/150386125.html http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/tech/150386125.html
- prostoalex 14y agoThe company that wants to build the terminal is Signature Flight. Currently Google is their own client, but the terminal would be accessible to other private aviation clients.
- avolcano 14y agoApparently, they're likely to get kicked out, with the government wanting to cut the facility: http://mv-voice.com/news/show_story.php?id=6626 http://mv-voice.com/news/show_story.php?id=6626
- ChuckMcM 14y agoGoogle's attempts at buying Moffett field and taking it private have been unsuccessful. The 'take measurements when we fly in' was a nice hack to get around stipulations about all aircraft must be working on research but at the end of the day both Sunnyvale and Mountain View have made it clear they do not want Moffett turned into a General Aviation airport and once the Naval armory got Lockheed moved it has become only a matter of time before the Military wants out. NASA doesn't have the budget to run the airport facilities. It has been the topic of quite a number of spirited debates at both city halls.
- EwanG 14y agoDoes it occur to anyone that the folks who are working on driverless cars might have a reason to want a place to work on pilotless planes? While the current autopilot in many commercial planes can handle a lot of the flying, there are some decent savings available if you could reduce the number of pilots. Especially if you can make the solutions small and cheap enough for 2-4 seat planes.
- Retric 14y agoAirplanes are already capable of operating without pilots much better than cars. The only remaining issue is listening to flight controllers, but that's a bloody difficult problem.
- protomyth 14y agoThe expense and arguments over a next generation of airplane tracking and control are probably going to go on for a while longer.
- seanmcdirmid 14y agoIsn't that the easy part though? The onboard pilots will automatically listen to flight controllers. But honestly, don't you see the solution here? You have a room full of pilots in Tulsa Oklahoma (or wherever) or are providing manual intervention when necessary. Just like how we manage millitary drones today.
- neurotech1 14y agoDrones are managed very poorly in busy airspace, and tend to crash if there is a link failure. Currently, I think that airline Captains have to specifically set the auto-pilot to fly the final approach and landing, and be ready for a manual go-around if required. Typically pilots use "preset" auto-pilot only for enroute flying to initial hold point, then sometimes use fixed-rate decent with heading hold mode after that, until they turn onto final approach.
- jacquesm 14y ago
- tosseraccount 14y agoOh what lengths people will go through to bypass the TSA.
- pmorici 14y agoChrome says that site had malware on it... "Content from us.bernerverein.ch, a known malware distributor, has been inserted into this web page. Visiting this page now is very likely to infect your computer with malware."
- tedivm 14y agoThis actually looks like a false positive (I'm not 100% sure though, still waiting on confirmation from my researchers). Earlier today the Mercury News reported on Chrome blocking a number of websites, including Youtube, for distributing malware. The article specifically mentioned the malicious server ( us.bernerverein.ch ) that google is claiming is present on that site, and I think they got it from the article itself. http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_22556675/google-chrome-browser-blocks-websites-malware-warnings-including http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_22556675/google-chrom... It's also possible that there's an advertising network that's compromised and pushing malware (as seems to be the case quite often).
- eropple 14y agoA number of news sites, including SB Nation, have had some weird malware warnings go on today. Wonder if one (or more) providers have been compromised.
- rashomon 14y agoI hate to point you back to OP's link but if you read the headline, it's in response to the exploits that have taken place at the New York Times and others. http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_22515730/malware-warning-citing-netseer-blocks-google-chrome-users http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_22515730/malware-warn...
- OGinparadise 14y agofrom a Prius to save the world from Global Warming http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3666241.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/3666241.stm to 8 planes for 3 people. (I'd probably have even more planes, just pointing out the upgrade)
- joonix 14y agoNumber of planes per person seems irrelevant because you can only be in one plane (and thus emitting carbon) at a time.