Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google's Lease of NASA Airfield Criticized By Consumer Group

Posted by samzenpus on from the no-sir-I-don't-like-it dept.

Spy Handler writes Yesterday's announcement that Google will lease Moffett Field from NASA for 60 years drew criticism from a group called Consumer Watchdog, which stated "This is like giving the keys to your car to the guy who has been siphoning gas from your tank. It is unfairly rewarding unethical and wrongful behavior. These Google guys seem to think they can do whatever they want and get away with it – and, sadly, it looks like that is true.”

3 of 138 comments (clear)

  1. Jealous? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Sounds like this so-called consumer group is jealous... They may not be a "consumer" group, probably more like an astro-turf group pretending to be for the lowly "consumer". Hard to tell these days.

  2. Stick to your field by duck_rifted · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A NASA airfield is not a consumer product or service. Google's leasing it has no immediate impact upon anything related to consumers directly. A "consumer watchdog" chiming in on this is like Gordon Ramsey engaging Stephen Hawking in a debate about black holes.

  3. Re:what? by jeffmeden · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't think this was "excess jet fuel".

    Google was previously located out of Moffett. The private company which operates Google's planes got the benefit of buying discounted fuel which NASA had purchased.

    In other words, the taxpayer subsidized the fuel price Google was paying for its private aircraft.

    So, are you OK with a multi-billion dollar corporation, owned by multi-billionaires, getting cut rate jet fuel from the government because they fly their aircraft out of a federal facility?

    Because that sounds kind of insane to me. Even if it is only a "few million", why is Google being given this gift?

    There was no gift at all. RTFA puts it this way: "While this arrangement did not cause an economic loss to NASA or DLA-Energy, it did result in considerable savings for H211 and engendered a sense of unfairness and a perception of favoritism toward H211 and its owners."

    So, they are pissed that a perfectly legal "arrangement" between Google and NASA where the latter sold the former some jet fuel for *what they paid for it*, is now an official one that apparently will save NASA about $6 million a year. I wonder if anyone else actually tried to ask NASA to sell them fuel and got turned down? Or, is this "consumer protection" group just pissed that Google had the balls and they didn't? We may never know.