If you want to know what a healthy night of sleep is again, if you want peaceful enjoyment of your home (inside and outside), and peace in the outdoors then you'll need to hit this industry in the only place it cares about: it's profits. When a ticket carrying passenger was dragged off a United flight, bleeding and unconscious, United said too bad that's our policy. Then the video led to a PR nightmare and the value of its stocks began to plummet. Instant policy change; we won't do that anymore. And our brave Congress, after the fact, has added a "protection" to this summer's FAA reauthorization bill to ensure it doesn't happen again; way to show your courage Congress, go in the direction the industry you serve is already going.

TOO LOW, TOO LOUD, TOO MANY 24/7 nationwide would change over night if the profits of the airlines plummeted because people chose to make a temporary sacrifice for a long-term gain. Don't fly or ship by air unless absolutely necessary.

The only state in the U.S. I've found where people refuse to go down the rabbit hole of shift the burden to citizens to come up with solutions (to wear them down and divide and conquer while buying time to continue with the NextGen program's full implementation agenda) is Maryland.

Credit has to be given to elected officials in that state who have shown the basic human decency of calling the NextGen program's impact exactly what it is "completely unacceptable," a program that makes citizens "pay a human cost with their health and emotional well-being" for the financial benefit of the airline industry.

Link to Maryland Governor Hogan's letter to FAA Administrator Michael Huerta:
Web Link

Not surprisingly, the lie of no significant impact remains the FAA's position and by extension Congress since it directs and controls it. "FAA Says Study Found No Significant Noise Impacts..." article link:
Web Link

Also, anyone see the SFGate 7/30/17 article with the misleading title "Change coming for neighborhoods plagued by noisy SFO flight paths"? Link:
Web Link

Notice the FAA's it could take 18 to 24 months to implement any changes. Conditional language AND up to 2 years away. Wow. It must be nice to get paid to go to all these meetings, sit on committees, etc. just to string people along. Not so nice for citizens doing this pro bono. War of attrition. This program's official implementation timeline is 2012 to 2025. They're almost there.

The solutions to aircraft noise are quite simple: set real noise limits that protect the health of communities and the environment, based on per instance maximums, not averages. Set a curfew between 11pm and 7am. Establish minimum approach and departure angles; approach needs to be at least 5 degrees, departures need to be steeper.

Aviation is the most polluting form of transportation. It is hypocritical to claim we care about the environment while expanding aviation. Policies need to be put in place to reduce air traffic, such as: a high tax on all types of aviation fuels, a ban on frequent-flyer programs, fees that increase based on how often a passenger has flown during a year, restoration of airports to local control, etc.

tired of noise:

Yes, let's reduce the choices of the VAST MAJORITY of people that choose to use air travel. Just so a tiny minority aren't disturbed. Choke the economy. That's a great idea!

The new noisy "nextgen" flight paths aren't just causing problems in Atherton, or Palo Alto, or even the Bay Area. The problems with the new noisy "nextgen" flight paths are nation wide.

"FAA's new flight paths spark noise complaints"
CBS This Morning ~ January 30, 2015 Web Link

"The new noisy "nextgen" flight paths aren't just causing problems in Atherton, or Palo Alto, or even the Bay Area. The problems with the new noisy "nextgen" flight paths are nation wide."

And?

Menlo Voter:
This isn't about ensuring that a "tiny minority aren't disturbed" and arguments about the economy are false. It is the minority who fly the most and who benefit from the increases in air traffic. The majority fly less and do not benefit from any economic gains from aviation. They only suffer the consequences. The aviation industry is heavily subsidized. It is an economic burden for the benefit of the minority.

Air travel is the most polluting form of transportation. If I were to travel from the Bay Area to New York, I would create fewer emissions if I drove by myself in my compact car (not even a hybrid) than if I flew, and short flights, like the constant flights between SF and LA, are even worse.

This is not about annoyance, but about health. Aircraft noise, and other human made mechanical noise, is like smoking; it's bad for you, whether or not you like it.

@Menlo,

Did you watch the video of the CBS report? The posted link will take you directly to a video of the CBS report. It is only 4:00 minutes long.

"FAA's new flight paths spark noise complaints"
CBS This Morning ~ January 30, 2015 Web Link

tired of noise:

then I guess you'd better move to the countryside. In case you haven't noticed you're living in a large, noisy, urban environment.

I actually kind of like my 5am dual alarm clock of the heavies descending and throttling back aligned with the Caltrain horn. :0

Menlo Voter:
Most of the Bay Area hardly qualifies as urban, and the area had little aircraft noise until recently. Airports are there to serve the communities that use them, not the other way around.

There is no justification for either the low altitude arrival and departure procedures or the expansion of aviation that is being carried out.

"There is no justification for either the low altitude arrival and departure procedures or the expansion of aviation that is being carried out."

If there wasn't demand there wouldn't be "expansion." So, clearly, there is "justification."

Menlo Voter:
If demand was justification, then nothing would be illegal.

tired of noise:

are you suggesting air travel be made illegal? Your argument is a straw man. No one is going to outlaw air travel. As demand increases so too will noise. It comes with the territory.

And guess what? Marijuana used to be illegal, but so many people wanted to use it, eventually it was legalized in this state. So, I guess some demand is ok. Huh. Who knew.

The vast majority of people in the bay area don't care about your noise complaints. Don't worry about saving us from ourselves. If we choose to live with noise to our health detriment, it's OUR decision. NOT yours. We won't be held hostage by the unreasonable demands of a tiny minority.

Lived in Menlo over 50 years, family has been here closer to 100. The airplanes (from SFO, San Carlos and Palo Alto) have been flying over my house as long as I can remember and I am willing to bet before 99% of the people complaining and demanding changes, have lived here. Same with CalTrain. Let's face it people, you bought knowing you were in a metropolitan area that comes with a level of noise from airplanes, traffic and trains. If you were not willing to accept that you should not have bought here. I love the fact that we have easy access to international travel and trains, etc. and I am willing to accept a little noise for that benefit. If it is noisy inside, upgrade your windows. What is the next complaint going to be, the birds make too much noise?

@DWTN,

I don't think anyone is going to complain about the birds making too much noise anymore. You can't hear them over the jet noise.

If you care to be informed about how a recent change by the FAA called "nextgen" dramatically increased ground-level aircraft noise nationwide, check out the video link below.

"FAA's new flight paths spark noise complaints"
CBS This Morning ~ January 30, 2015 Web Link