Landing fees approved for San Carlos and Half Moon Bay airports

Thank you to the County Supervisors for their actions and for the Almanac's reporting.

Finally the Supervisors have stepped up to our suggestions, happy to see this change. I understand the skeptics who assume the county will enjoy the additional revenue and not take steps to modify the Surf Air Disruption.
It's a start toward gaining back the bucolic neighborhood we once knew and loved.

Glad to see action, but the fee will not deter Surf Air. They will simply pass the cost along to their customers. Given most of the Surf Air flyers are probably subscribed via business expense, it won't stop them from using the service. Now that the county has a new revenue stream, how likely are they to want to stop Surf Air from their continued nuisance flights over our homes?

I fail to see any victory here for those of us who have these noisy planes wake us up early every day, can't have conversations in our homes due to high noise levels, and keep us awake at night with their late night landings. Now the County will have no incentive to limit their flights since the County will now benefit from the new fees. I have never seen a government official who would take the side on the citizens over the revenue. Money is just going to be like crack cocaine to the County and I think we have just lost our battle. Surf Air will certainly opt to pay the fees and pass it on to their clients. I personally think we need to clean out the County Supervisors and replace them with more citizen friendly group.

@Common Sense

Actually, it is a win for your side.

Higher costs means flights with less demand are now more likely to be eliminated. Those flights tend to be late evening or very early morning (i.e. the ones residents complain they are woken up by).

Moreover, the county now has a revenue source to pay for staff time to make San Carlos less hospitable for SA....uh, I mean to work on airport affairs.

And who says this will be the final increase. Next year, the supervisors will find costs have increased. Time for another increase. And another.

It's the slow turn of the screw.

At some point, SA may find another airport, such as Palo Alto, more welcoming of its business and just get out of San Carlos.

"At some point, SA may find another airport, such as Palo Alto, more welcoming of its business and just get out of San Carlos."

Not PAO. Runnway isn't long enough.

Just great. The County Supervisors take steps to make sure these two County owned and operated enterprises are compensated for the increased cost associated with Surfair's operations, but nothing for the citizens that are suffering from the noise.

These are the same County Supervisors that created the problem in the first place by selling their rights and responsibility to regulate these airports to the FAA.

And people thank them! Please sir can I have another one?

Actually, PAO is long enough. PC-12's fly out of there all the time.

Yet another example of people commenting on these they don't know about.

Also, mean time between failure for a PT6 engine is about 300,000 hours. You're more likely to get hurt or killed by getting the mail than by an airplane overflying your house.

A PC-12 with the number of passengers being carried and fuel loads required for the destinations that it serves is at a gross takeoff weight which requires a longer runway than is available at Palo Alto airport.

PC-12s flying in and out of PAO are no fully loaded with either passengers or fuel.

Know the facts:

Peter beat me to it. Agree with you regarding the PT-6. Also the PC-12 is the safest single engine aircraft in the world.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?