wedgetail737 From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 5534 posts, RR: 5 Reply 2, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 7469 times:
There's plenty of room for a large hangar for Google.
Humanitarian From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 83 posts, RR: 0 Reply 4, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 7303 times:
Quoting COSPN (Reply 3): Why would google want to put planes at SJC when they can operate 24/7 at Moffet Field or someplace else ??
Because they are likely to be asked to leave Moffett sometime in the future. Also, the aircraft owners and Google go to great lengths to say these aircraft having nothing to do with Google. They are privately owned by the two founders and former CEO of Google. Btw, I believe these three guys still own the majority of Google stock.
26point2 From United States of America, joined Mar 2010, 666 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4914 times:
Google made a pitch to pay for refurbishment of the iconic old Moffett Field dirigible hangar built to house the US Navy Macon airship. In return Google would lease part of hangar for their fleet. Evidently terms could not be agreed to so Google looked elsewhere for a secure long term lease. Seems things where difficult partly because Moffett is a US Government/NASA facility who wouldn't commit to a long term solution.
Signature is building a new FBO at KSJC and the Google folks are joining that venture.
eclipseflight7 From Somalia, joined Apr 2004, 516 posts, RR: 2 Reply 10, posted (3 months 2 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 4648 times:
San Jose's development came at the right time with Moffett's relatively hostile response to infrastructure development. That's some significant capital going into SJC, and it's creating value for SJC, Google, and Signature, more than the empty lots had before. The losers are the lease holders of Blue City Holdings current facilities, and Atlantic also loses a sole source location.
warden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 427 posts, RR: 0 Reply 11, posted (3 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2903 times:
Quoting b764 (Reply 8): Besides the 767, anyone know the makeup of the Google fleet? I know in the past there were a few G-Vs.
I can't say how I know this, but they have one Boeing 767 and one Boeing 757. I don't know about the rest of their fleet.
Quoting 26point2 (Reply 9): Signature is building a new FBO at KSJC and the Google folks are joining that venture.
I heard something about this on the news last night, but they didn't say where on the field Signature's FBO's going to be. Does anyone know for sure? I'm hoping it's going to be on the west side somewhere near Atlantic...
71Zulu From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2736 posts, RR: 0 Reply 12, posted (3 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2827 times:
Quoting as739x (Reply 5): Very, very loose curfew rules. There are minimal issue's arriving after curfew and I believe a small fine to depart after curfew.
Would the 49ers be able to get around the curfew? I have seen them use SFO in the wee hours of the morning but then last night this AS flight landed at 1:45am. Is it because the AS flight was running late?
warden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 427 posts, RR: 0 Reply 13, posted (3 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2792 times:
Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 12): last night this AS flight landed at 1:45am. Is it because the AS flight was running late?
In my experience, it's not uncommon to see a delayed flight landing past curfew. OTOH, I've also seen short flights that were running late and ended up being cancelled because they were going to land after curfew (a US PHX-SJC flight I was waiting for a few years back comes to mind). I would venture to guess that the distance of the flight has an effect i.e. a Hawaii or a transcon (one of the few that's left) that's projecting to land after curfew will still take off, whereas a short flight will just cancel instead.
eclipseflight7 From Somalia, joined Apr 2004, 516 posts, RR: 2 Reply 14, posted (3 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2734 times:
Quoting warden145 (Reply 11): I heard something about this on the news last night, but they didn't say where on the field Signature's FBO's going to be. Does anyone know for sure? I'm hoping it's going to be on the west side somewhere near Atlantic..
SJC put up two sections for bid, the area north of Atlantic and the area south of Atlantic and the other hangar complex that would've demolished the area where the GA aircraft hangars are now. Based on the designs shown and the scope of the project, Signature are taking the area north of Atlantic. There is another parcel farther north that I believe is being reserved for future development.
warden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 427 posts, RR: 0 Reply 15, posted (3 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2585 times:
Quoting eclipseflight7 (Reply 14): SJC put up two sections for bid, the area north of Atlantic and the area south of Atlantic and the other hangar complex that would've demolished the area where the GA aircraft hangars are now. Based on the designs shown and the scope of the project, Signature are taking the area north of Atlantic. There is another parcel farther north that I believe is being reserved for future development.
Thank you! I'm guessing the two parcels you're talking about are the two old long-term lots (AFAIK they're not being used anymore) along Martin north of Brokaw? I wonder if they'll extend Aviation to connect it to the Martin/Brokaw intersection while they're at it?
Thank you for the file...HOLY MARY, they're getting ambitious! This will put Signature's SFO ops to shame...are they going to run the two stations concurrently, or are they thinking of ditching SFO in favor of SJC? (it would surprise me if they ditched SFO, but given how big this operation's proposed to be, I can't help but wonder)
As long as the SJC station has fresh-baked chocolate chip cookies like SFO usually does...
Quoting JetBlueGuy2006 (Reply 16): Bummer -- they could practically bike from their homes to Moffett, now they have to take 101, which sucks when there's traffic.
There's always Central Expressway or the 280...for that matter, depending on where they live, the 280 might be a better bet in any event...
COSPN From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Oct 2001, 1475 posts, RR: 0 Reply 19, posted (3 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1811 times:
So what was all the fuss about Oracle CEO Larry Ellison flying in late to SJC and paying huge fines or denided landing and having to go elsewhere??
from wikipedia.org
Ellison is a licensed pilot who has owned several aircraft. He was cited by the City of San Jose, California, for violating its limits on late-night takeoffs and landings from San Jose Mineta International Airport by planes weighing more than 75,000 pounds (34 019 kg). In January 2000, Ellison sued over the interpretation of the airport rule, contending that his Gulfstream V "plane is certified by the manufacturer to fly at two weights: 75,000 pounds, and at 90,000 pounds, for heavier loads or long flights requiring more fuel. But the pilot only lands the plane in San Jose when it weighs 75,000 pounds or less, and has the logs to prove it..."[39] U.S. District Judge Jeremy Fogel ruled over the matter in June 2001, calling for a waiver for Ellison's jet, but did not invalidate the curfew.[40]
I just remeber in my mind "ok add SJU to the NIMBY list like BUR"
DiamondFlyer From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 1294 posts, RR: 3 Reply 20, posted (3 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 1758 times:
Quoting 26point2 (Reply 9): Google made a pitch to pay for refurbishment of the iconic old Moffett Field dirigible hangar built to house the US Navy Macon airship. In return Google would lease part of hangar for their fleet. Evidently terms could not be agreed to so Google looked elsewhere for a secure long term lease. Seems things where difficult partly because Moffett is a US Government/NASA facility who wouldn't commit to a long term solution.
This is probably the beginning of the end for Moffett. Which is a shame, because that airship hangar could be valuable in the future. Yes, they still have the wooden airship hangars, but the rigid hangar is resource that once gone, will never come back. And without some external covering, I don't see it lasting much longer.
eclipseflight7 From Somalia, joined Apr 2004, 516 posts, RR: 2 Reply 21, posted (3 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 1641 times:
Quoting warden145 (Reply 15): Thank you! I'm guessing the two parcels you're talking about are the two old long-term lots (AFAIK they're not being used anymore) along Martin north of Brokaw? I wonder if they'll extend Aviation to connect it to the Martin/Brokaw intersection while they're at it?
I didn't see street names, but those were the areas clearly marked in the RFP. I think this is taking another 1/3 of the west side of the airport, but I know it was adjacent to Atlanic.
Quoting warden145 (Reply 18): Thank you for the file...HOLY MARY, they're getting ambitious! This will put Signature's SFO ops to shame...are they going to run the two stations concurrently, or are they thinking of ditching SFO in favor of SJC? (it would surprise me if they ditched SFO, but given how big this operation's proposed to be, I can't help but wonder)
As long as the SJC station has fresh-baked chocolate chip cookies like SFO usually does
If you want to see ambitious, look at Signatures renderings for the new Luton. SFO isn't going anywhere, because network matters, and no company will willingly give up a sole source location at a major airport.
Those cookies are at every location, and they're baked after lunch daily. Although they might catch your game if you happen to wander in for desert everyday.
as739x From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 5820 posts, RR: 23 Reply 23, posted (3 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 1352 times:
Quoting 71Zulu (Reply 12): Would the 49ers be able to get around the curfew? I have seen them use SFO in the wee hours of the morning but then last night this AS flight landed at 1:45am. Is it because the AS flight was running late?
Yes, there were no issues this season when the Niners returned from late East coast games. The only issue I could see is coming back from playing the rare International game. Years back, the Niners returned from MEX (2005 I believe) and needed to use SFO due to Customs.
As you can see in your example with the AS flight there are no real issues arriving after curfew.
"Some pilots avoid storm cells and some play connect the dots!"
warden145 From United States of America, joined Aug 2010, 427 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (3 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 1265 times:
Quoting eclipseflight7 (Reply 21): If you want to see ambitious, look at Signatures renderings for the new Luton. SFO isn't going anywhere, because network matters, and no company will willingly give up a sole source location at a major airport.
Those cookies are at every location, and they're baked after lunch daily. Although they might catch your game if you happen to wander in for desert everyday.
Like I said, I would be surprised if they were to leave SFO, particularly considering that for all practical purposes they're the only FBO at SFO...just, with plans for such a large station so close by, the question had to be asked.
Re: the cookies, I don't go to Signature unless I'm picking someone up there (however, given the nature of my work, that's a fairly regular occurrence). Depending on who's on duty at the front desk at SFO, sometimes I get dirty looks, but when a plane gets delayed and I'm required to be on location, it's a much better place to wait than Terminal 3-F
bthebest From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 432 posts, RR: 0 Reply 25, posted (3 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 884 times:
OP is a bit misleading. Google aren't building the hanger, SJC are and have given the contract to Signature. Operations won't be limited to Google jets - although they will clearly be a prime customer.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Dec 2011, 320 posts, 
From Northern Mariana Islands, joined Oct 2001, 1475 posts, 
From Japan, joined Mar 2012, 4981 posts, 
From Somalia, joined Apr 2004, 516 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2008, 432 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
