Google wants to build it own private airport

[3Green 80]

Looks like Google wants to build a private airport in San Jose, California at a cost of 82 million. Let's hope they have a interest in aviation and build us a new flight sim for 82 bucks or so. :rolleyes:

 

Wondering how big this airport might be (runway size), lead me to look up the aircraft Google owns. It appears they don't own aircraft but operate the aircraft fleet through a LLC (limited liability company) called H211. They fly a 757, 767, two Gulfstreams and one Dornier Alpha fighter jet. So the size maybe significant.

 

A Dornier Alpha fighter jet? Really?

 

RJ

[Wizard-Bob 9]

"Presumably no attacks on Microsoft are planned at this time."

 

LOL!

[Mijitman 147]

Hey the ICAO KGOG is free.

[Mean Aerodynamic Chord 269]

Hey the ICAO KGOG is free.

LOL

[Air France 19]

hahahhaa

[Rations 102]

Cool concept!

 

. . . but isn't spending on such grossly unnecessary luxuries overly materialistic, somewhat selfish, and wasteful, considering that there are many charities, individuals, and institutions that could benefit from financial support?

[Matthew Kane 1,343]

The cost of 82 million plus considering the land investment would probably save them money long term compared to paying for the space to use private airport and landing fees, etc.

 

Land is always a good investment over the long term anyways so I see this working out for Google....And yes KGOG sounds good to me too :LMAO:

[BMG50 9]

Cool concept!

 

. . . but isn't spending on such grossly unnecessary luxuries overly materialistic, somewhat selfish, and wasteful, considering that there are many charities, individuals, and institutions that could benefit from financial support?

And who decides what is "grossly unnecerrary" for someone else???...And what or who gives them that right?? And would you be offended if I decided how you should spend your money??..And why does it have to be "necessay"???..Why not just because you want it and YOU worked for and earned the money to buy it because YOU "WANT" it?...Just asking

[Rations 102]

And who decides what is "grossly unnecerrary" for someone else???...And what or who gives them that right?? And would you be offended if I decided how you should spend your money??..And why does it have to be "necessay"???..Why not just because you want it and YOU worked for and earned the money to buy it because YOU "WANT" it?...Just asking

I did not "decide" how Google should spend, nor did I say that it can not pursue such a project. You will probably agree that, while one is generally free to choose how he or she spends his or her money, certain usages will inevitably be frowned upon: the person who buys his or her way out of trouble, the person who funds ambitious projects when people are starving in his country, etc.

 

Not all purchases must be "necessary" (especially considering the spending involved in our hobby), but have you considered how much larger the scale of a personal airport is—is it really necessary?

[japascoe 98]

Not all purchases must be "necessary" (especially considering the spending involved in our hobby), but have you considered how much larger the scale of a personal airport is—is it really necessary?

 

Depends how much money you can save by not having to pay landing rights, hangar rental fees, etc, how much money you can earn off other people using your airport, and how much more conveniently you can locate the new airport. The field they're using now is operated mainly by NASA and the military, so it probably doesn't offer much by the way of useful facilities.

Google is a multinational company so they regularly need to move people around the world. Using private jets means they don't have to worry about airline seats filling up, or about airline schedules. Company owned business jets can quickly become more efficient than always booking airline tickets.

 

Regarding the Alpha Jet, it's mainly going to be used by NASA. It's also not clear whether it will be used for Google at all, it's just owned by the company that also operates the Google business jet fleet.

[goates 576]

I did not "decide" how Google should spend, nor did I say that it can not pursue such a project. You will probably agree that, while one is generally free to choose how he or she spends his or her money, certain usages will inevitably be frowned upon: the person who buys his or her way out of trouble, the person who funds ambitious projects when people are starving in his country, etc.

 

You should do a search on Google and charities.

 

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57561455-93/how-google-turned-employees-into-philanthropists-in-2012/

 

http://thenextweb.com/google/2011/12/15/in-2011-google-gave-back-100-million-to-various-charitable-organizations/

 

http://www.google.com/giving/

 

As for what's necessary? How much money is spent at Starbucks around the world everyday (they made $3.8 billion last quarter)? Is that really necessary? It may not be one single expenditure, but it's a lot more than what Google is spending here. When it comes to something like this, you are correct, perception matters.

[Douglas Westfall_286797 0]

I did a quick icao search, and it looks like: KGGL is available as well.

FKA: Karbon

[tttocs 301]

. . . but isn't spending on such grossly unnecessary luxuries overly materialistic, somewhat selfish, and wasteful, considering that there are many charities, individuals, and institutions that could benefit from financial support?

 

In what way and based on what set of criteria? How have you decided that it's "grossly uneccessary luxuries" and "overly materialistic" and so on? At what point would you suggest that not investing in infrastructure to support the company gives greater overall benefit than making such an investment. And that's leaving aside the fact that such a project would create rewarding, good paying jobs, potentially benefiting a broad range of individuals in and of itself.

 

At the risk of sounding a bit hard, this sounds like an awfully shallow analysis you've made.

 

Scott

[gizmosellsbunnys 106]

The Airport it will need 300 environmental reviews in California alone lololololol. The Ceo of google could be in nursing home before the first bulldozer gets rolling.

[Rations 102]

The word choice in my original post does now seem stronger than I intended. Hopefully it is clear that these were my personal thoughts (not yet firm opinions), and were not intended to be offensive.

 

Good discussion. We all occasionally need some input to evaluate our thoughts.