Slashdot Mirror
Google Founders' Jets Caught On WSJ's Radar
theodp writes "Via an FOIA request, the Wall Street Journal acquired records of every private aircraft flight recorded in the FAA's air-traffic management system for 2007 through 2010, using them to build a private jet tracker database. Among the high fliers who found their records unblocked were Google founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin, whose 767 and Gulfstream reportedly burned an estimated 52,000 gallons of aviation fuel and $430,000 on two round-trips from the U.S. mainland to Tahiti to catch last summer's total eclipse of the sun. A Google spokeswoman confirmed the pair's jaunt, but added that Page and Brin mitigated the greenhouse gas emissions from their aircraft usage by purchasing an even greater amount of carbon offsets. Tech-boom billionaire Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban seemed unfazed by the prospect of his past plane movements becoming public: 'I have a plane,' Cuban quipped. 'I bought it so I could use it. Shocking, isn't it?'"
More to the point, this is a private person doing something privately with their earned fortune, its none of the WSJs business.
So who of us would not fly every now and then on a private plane in order to travel through the world? Isn't this also the case for many polititians, especially "important" ones?
Honestly, I would do it.
True its none of our business. But since its out, if they were concerned enough to buy carbon offsets couldn't they have also "flight pooled"?
They could have flown commercially if they were "concerned". But as Mark Cuban says, they bought a plane, why shouldn't they use it?
Mr. Cuban, I will probably never even desire my own jet, and I feel like that if you are flying you really should use commercial. But I appreciate the fact that you call it like you see it. I'm glad to see you just own it and go with it.
I'm not as big a fan of the "carbon credits." I understand that these credits go towards promoting carbon reduction, but the system pretty much dictates "I'm rich, so I can buy my morality. See, when you have enough money, you don't need to reduce usage. You just pay others to clean up for you."
I mean, the rich have privacy rights, too. Why the hell should everywhere they fly be made public?
You don't need to get groped at the airport if you have your own private charter flight. That's got to be worth the cost of the plane right there.
They are probably not allowed to flight pool per Google policy. Many businesses have policies regarding key employees traveling together. This is in case of a crash or or other unfortunate event causing the death of the travelers on board. If the policy is written well, they probably aren't supposed to be in the same car train or bus either as those forms of transportation aren't as safe.
It sounds like these private planes are an ideal weapon for terrorists! Ban them!
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
... but if Google's founders can't fly to Tahiti to watch an astronomical event, then who can?
Google (as a company) is doing quite a lot for the development and implementation of sustainable energy, and the guys (as private persons) even seem to plant some trees (or something) to compensate for the fuel they burn.
I think that if you want to accuse Google of something evil, it has to be on the privacy front, not the pollution part. So, I think it's reasonable to be apologetic.
Ageer, this represents a serious breach of privacy. What would you think if your car location data would be publicly available? So anyone can basically know when/where you went? I have no problem if this you authorize to publish your data but not like this.
They bought their indulgences (carbon credits) from The Church of Global Warming. Their sins are forgiven.
Look, stupid new religions based on politics and pseudo-half-science I can abide, but I won't tolerate hypocrisy: if the Google boys put sufficient money in the collection plate, they should be cut sufficient slack. The consequences of indiscretion, today as in the Middle Ages, should only be for the poor...
The carbon-containing pollutant you're thinking of is jet exhaust. You burn jet fuel, and carbon from the hydrocarbons in the fuel combines with oxygen.
"Breathing" does not take carbon sequestered in the earth and vent it into the atmosphere. Burning petroleum, however, does do this.
That said, I agree that carbon indulgences are bullshit. If you actually give a shit, then consume less. If you don't actually give a shit, then man up and say so, like Mark Cuban did.
And this is why you can do private air flights even if you are an out of touch with reality filthy rich person...
For the price of a commercial 1st class flight you can hop a ride on a charter corporate return flight. Detroit metro to JFK in 50 minutes on a learjet and it took me 15 minutes at the airport without getting groped.
Smart flyers know how to find these kinds of deals and get around the TSA garbage. And the TSA would not dare to try and enforce their abuses at corporate hangars..
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Don't worry, they're trying. I don't know how far it's gotten but I recall hearing something a while back about the TSA and or Homeland Security trying to throw up all kinds of roadblocks to private aviation. One of them was requiring that every passenger on every private plane/jet (even two seater prop driven) have some kind of background check ran on them before every flight. It should be noted that the aviation fuel tax on small aircraft PAYS for a good chunk of the air traffic control system, which they don't massively use. However commercial aviation, which pays no fuel tax, uses the system intensely.
And if you have your own private 767, you can get groped on the plane.
If you catch my drift.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I work in aviation and privacy is a big concern for some of our customers. Sometimes its for security concerns (the richer you are, the more people who want to make a mask with your face) and other times its for PR reasons (it doesn't look good when a company fires a few thousand employees in the name of cutting costs and then turns around and picks up a few new G550s - even though the new aircraft will save them money in the long run).
What these guys usually do is operate under a pseudonym. I don't know the full mechanics of it, but we regularly have customers with bogus names operating under bogus corporations. They get paint schemes totally devoid of any company logos or color schemes and doing a tail number search yields meaningless results. We know who they are, but on lookers, like in this case, will be totally in the dark.
Famous people usually don't care. While most celebrities can't even afford to look at a private jet, those that can often get their names painted all over the side of their aircraft as if saying 'look at the size of my penis!' The point being, if they want to be private, they can, but it seems these guys just don't care.
Now that isn't to say that they should have to go out of their way to maintain privacy. The FAA logs and keeps way too much information on these guys to the point it is downright scary. Of course, the relative safety of air travel has a lot to do with the strict controls of the FAA, but none the less, they need to be more concerned with privacy - if not for the sake of the VIPs, then for the safety of the couple dozen technicians and crew members maintaining and operating the aircraft.
This is just another news item for the tabloids.
Sad that the WSJ has fallen from far-right-but-respectable to tabloid so quickly.
If they were concerned about the carbon footprint couldn't they have just bought the offsets and stayed home? Actually the whole idea of carbon offsets is just bullshit. I wonder if they worry about a new era Martin Luther who will show what a mockery their Indulgences really are?
Even more to the point, how exactly is their whereabouts being tracked this way any different than their effort of tracking and selling the activities of every single person who ever uses the internet? Seems perfectly fine to me for them to have their travels publicized and mocked as appropriate.