This is something that all airlines do, and it's perfectly legal. Lets hope that SurfAir countersues for a SLAP suit.

As a resident living under Surf Air's flight path, I am heartened by the County addressing this issue.

Surf Air is exhibiting a clear avoidance of transparency about their expansion intentions. And, won't talk about it. Sorry, that is not good enough.

Allowing "shell" companies which have permissions and approvals that they do not possess (and refusing to talk about it) treats San Mateo County (at minimum) disrespectfully. This applies to County officials themselves and of course, to the residents below their flight paths, including Atherton, North Fair Oaks - and even Sunnyvale, when they fly over the bay approach.

If they wish to operate in this County, they must do so lawfully and honestly, as must any other business.

Thank you county lawyers for putting light on this issue. Please stay on it.

Surf Air is turning San Carlos airport into a commercial facility, which is something that was never intended. Who cares if they have found a way to beat the regulatory system or not. That doesn't make it right. Furthermore, Surf Air hurts the many for the benefit of the few... the very rich few (customers like Pete). [Part removed.] I hope they eventually get shut down or go under. They offer nothing the greater community needs.

This is certainly an appropriate question for the County to address to the FAA.

The response will depend on the facts of the case and the relevant laws and regulation - not on someones opinion.

LMAO, what a joke.

Which airport will SurfAir use when San Carlos Airport is closed?

@my Ears Hurt: The airport is not closing - yet. But this is a classic example of an escalating situation because many in the aviation community keep falling back on 'the laws are on our side' rather than being part of a community supported solution. Surf Air has shown bad behavior from day one. Lies, cocky attitude, bad management, indifference, lack of community support, etc, etc... If this situation isn't resolved amicably, constructively and orderly, the Sups (current or newly elected) will be reviewing a 20 year plan to close the airport. And that would be very sad for all airport users.

@GoAwaySurf: well said. Santa Monica Airport will be closing in 2028 due to community pressure over noise and pollution issues. Like most people, I do not object to San Carlos as a general aviation airport. It is the obtrusive nature of Surf Air I object to. Santa Monica Airport has been open for a century and dates back to the early days of aviation in Southern California. San Carlos does not share this longevity or history and could be closed if commercial users persist in ignoring the needs of the community it serves.

While I do not fly for Surf Air, I fly as a corporate pilot out of Palo Alto and Hayward and fly for fun out of SQL. Personally this new angle is a waste of money by the county.

Newsflash everyone, Surf Air as an operation does not technically exist anymore. They were bought wholly by Encompass. This includes the Surf Air OPSPEC issued by the FAA and the callsign (they now call themselves "Roam"). While the airplanes are still painted as Surf Air and they use the branding, its is still Encompass Aviation. Go look at Wheels Up; their planes and selling front is "Wheels Up," but the aircraft are owned and operated by Gamma Aviation.

"Personally this new angle is a waste of money by the county."

Agreed. Just more political theater. The county just took more FAA money and have no say about what aircraft can or cannot operate out of SQL.

funny no one comments that they are supposed to be over 2000 ft within 3 miles. not even close you can see them smile as they go by. and the original flight path was basically approaching over bay front freeway and making the turn at 101

"they are supposed to be over 2000 ft within 3 miles"

Wrong.

The IFR approach plate calls for planes being at 2000 ft at 6 miles from the runway threshold which would put the altitude at 3 miles at 1000 ft.

Web Link

It's about time the county showed some muscle...appreciate their getting more involved.

Pilots and aviation enthusiasts had a good thing going at San Carlos Airport before Surfair came in and pooped in the punch bowl.

As a former employee of both SurfAir and Encompass, this is laughable. Nothing here is illegal, immoral, or otherwise wrong. SurfAir was unable to operate outside California due to restrictions based on foreign investor funding. Encompass came in, bought the operational side of the company, made the funding majority domestic, and filed for the interstate carrier permit. There is no front, the planes carry an Encompass logo, and y'all who live near an airport chose to live there. Planes are loud. Stop blaming pilots, airports, and operators for your poor choice of housing.

It is a well known fact that airports in heavily populated areas cause issues.
TurboMX : You misunderstand how capitalism works. If SurfAir Encompass does not like noise complaints they are free to buy up the land under their flight paths. When we bought the land Surf Air did not exist. So Surf air and their failure to buy the necessary land is the problem not the current land owners whose property value has been reduced. SurfAir is also costing the county Millions in lost property taxes as the land values go down. One can see a clear deterioration of values as we get into airport noise zone. Ultimately Santa Monica shows the way. All these little airports have been already shut down in Europe's populated areas and unless the FAA agrees to noise regulations for small planes this airport has to go.

" One can see a clear deterioration of values as we get into airport noise zone"

Do you have any data to support this assertion?

Have any of these properties requested and received an assessment reduction from the County Assessor?