

Deal would bring Google jets, millions of dollars to San Jose airport - pixelcort
http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_22546083/deal-would-bring-google-millions-dollars-mineta-through

======
eroded
To 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
I'm pretty sure Lufthansa owns their own planes as well. Not so different,
really. :-)

------
pmorici
Chrome 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
This 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-
chrom...](http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_22556675/google-chrome-
browser-blocks-websites-malware-warnings-including)

It's also possible that there's an advertising network that's compromised and
pushing malware (as seems to be the case quite often).

------
EwanG
Does 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.

~~~
Cowen
My understanding of modern airlines is that unless your plane is in the
process of taking off, landing, or crashing, it's already essentially
pilotless.

There's always been too much at stake in the airline industry to allow a lot
of room for human error. Combined with the huge leaps that fly-by-wire planes
have made in the last few decades, that made for some very powerful incentives
on everyone's part (engineers, regulators, and companies) to advance autopilot
as far as they possibly could.

~~~
rst
In normal conditions, yes. But when things go wrong (your "or crashing",
perhaps), the pilot is suddenly very much involved, and screwups can be fatal.

Take, for example, Qantas flight 32, an A380 that was successfully landed
after one of the engines more or less blew up, damaging several other systems.
Truly pilotless operation would require automated systems that could do as
well --- and hopefully better than the pilots of Air France 447, the
transatlantic flight that was lost due to recoverable pilot error.

~~~
tedunangst
Yes. The failure/recovery mode for "speedometer is reporting inconsistent
speeds" is stop the engine and coast to a stop. That doesn't work as well with
planes.

Then again, human pilots are fallible, and lots of crashes would be avoided if
they paid more attention to instruments and less to instinct (where's that
horizon again?), so maybe programming planes to just blindly follow the
instruments would result in a net reduction in crashes.

------
cowsandmilk
This 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>

~~~
ChuckMcM
Google'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.

------
cleverjake
For 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?

~~~
theorique
Private 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.

~~~
neurotech1
Moffett 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
That's the one. Not military - my mistake.

------
tosseraccount
Oh what lengths people will go through to bypass the TSA.

------
OGinparadise
from a Prius to save the world from Global Warming
<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
Number of planes per person seems irrelevant because you can only be in one
plane (and thus emitting carbon) at a time.

