Gh123 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 9918 times:
Google has reached an agreement with NASA to park their 767 at Moffett Field.
Quote: "Downside, they wanted to park it conveniently near their Silicone Valley headquarters but the only airport nearby, Moffett Field, has a strict policy against civilian aircraft. Now wait a minute, the boys said, what if we pay you $1.3 million a year tiedown fee and let you use the jet occasionally for hauling around scientists and equipment?"
NwAflyer07 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9840 times:
A 17 billion dollar bank account? Each? Shoot, with all that money id buy a freakin 787 rather than that 767. I'm sure they could pay Boeing a significant amount of money to get them one asap. lol Heck, i'd probably buy an entire airline. With 17 billion in the bank, it'd be chump change for me. wow..
BHMBAGLOCK From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 2698 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9825 times:
STLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8977 posts, RR: 28 Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9711 times:
Quoting OceansWorld (Reply 3): Sure, but the 767 was available well before the first 787 delivery...
it'll be a nice trade in in a few years.
the first 787 with a full Starbucks on board. i can see the Jeannie Moss story now.
Eternal darkness we all should dread. It's hard to party when you're dead.
MCOflyer From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 8552 posts, RR: 14 Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9684 times:
Holly Toledo. This is pretty interesting. Anyone know what trips the a/c will be making? In the end it is a great bargain.
FlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 15 Reply 7, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9659 times:
What 767 does Google own? A -200 or a -300? Is the aircraft a new BBJ, or a pre-owned job? Anyone know any details on the aircraft?
Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
STLGph From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 8977 posts, RR: 28 Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9629 times:
Dalb777 From United States of America, joined May 2005, 2192 posts, RR: 0 Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9612 times:
Quoting FlagshipAZ (Reply 7): Is the aircraft a new BBJ, or a pre-owned job?
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 9593 times:
Quoting Gh123 (Thread starter): Moffett Field, has a strict policy against civilian aircraft.
How can that be? All NASA aircraft are in fact civilian, check their regestrations.
FlagshipAZ From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 3419 posts, RR: 15 Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 9512 times:
Gh123...indeed I was typing as you were posting. Our posts are only a minute 8 seconds apart.
Thanks for sharing that information with us.
STLGph (reply 8)...now why didn't I think of that? Google the aircraft should have been the obvious thing I'd done.
But I use dogpile.com as my primary search engine anyway.
Regards.
"Beer is living proof that God loves us and wants us to be happy." --Ben Franklin
474218 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6340 posts, RR: 10 Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 9251 times:
Quoting Gh123 (Reply 12): N1 (FAA Gulfstream) for example is still a government plane and not civillian.
NASA is the United States Civilian Space Agency. Its has its own budget that is separate from the military budget. In the United States, government does not mean military. In fact the Secretary of Defence, by law must be a civilian.
C680 From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 531 posts, RR: 0 Reply 16, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8617 times:
Quoting NA (Reply 16): Rich guys often have follies. Some are just blind for this world. To pay such money just for a little convenience is nothing but immensely immoral
No champagne or caviar for you this Christmas! Only bread and beer!
Seriously, think about it: they are paying $1.3mm to the U.S. Government - that's the same as paying an extra $1.3mm in taxes to all of their fellow citizens. That's $1.3mm that the rest of us *do not* have to pay. Fine with me.
Now burning enough Jet-A to send two guys aloft in a 767 when something *much* smaller (Gulfstream? Falcon? Challenger?) would do with 1/4 of the carbon? *That's* immoral.
Nucsh From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 238 posts, RR: 0 Reply 17, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 8559 times:
Quoting C680 (Reply 16): Seriously, think about it: they are paying $1.3mm to the U.S. Government - that's the same as paying an extra $1.3mm in taxes to all of their fellow citizens. That's $1.3mm that the rest of us *do not* have to pay. Fine with me.
Not only that, but it goes to NASA (presumably), which means more money to get the CEV up to the moon sooner.
If landing is about "kissing" the ground, you just about raped it.
EMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9286 posts, RR: 13 Reply 19, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6259 times:
Jawake From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 257 posts, RR: 0 Reply 20, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 6101 times:
2 Questions:
1. The article says a recently acquired 767, I thought they had it for awhile? Am I wrong?
2. Where have they been parking the 767? SFO ? SJC?
PYP757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 148 posts, RR: 0 Reply 21, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2311 times:
Well not really. This is ust a case a bad reporting, once again! 17 billions is what they both would get if they were to sell all their shares in the company today. But then they would not own Google anymore, and probably would not need that corporate plane anymore. It's money on paper, not in the bank!
Continental From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5476 posts, RR: 21 Reply 22, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 2173 times:
I read about this in the NY Times several weeks ago. Worked out to be an excellent deal for them, I'd say.
Tdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 81 Reply 24, posted (5 years 6 months 3 weeks 5 days 11 hours ago) and read 1482 times:
Quoting Jawake (Reply 20):
1. The article says a recently acquired 767, I thought they had it for awhile? Am I wrong?
They got another one, I believe.
Quoting PYP757 (Reply 21): This is ust a case a bad reporting, once again! 17 billions is what they both would get if they were to sell all their shares in the company today.
They wouldn't even get that...you couldn't dump $17 billion of Google stock into the market and not depress the stock price before you finished the sale. They're still worth billions but it's not even as much as it looks on paper.
Sponsor Message: 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Germany, joined Dec 1999, 9603 posts, 
From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
