If the airlines are claiming to be ENVIRONMENTALLY CONSCIOUS in this matter, I call [Portion removed due to offensive language]. If this has nothing to do with recreational drones like the ones that interferred with the firefighting efforts in last week's big southern California fire, then it is simply about the greedy airlines NOT wanting to have their planes FLY OVER THE OCEAN while awaiting permission to land at SFO or Oakland. The profits of the airlines have been ASTRONOMICAL, so I say let the airlines keep their planes airborn over the OCEAN instead of bothering the citizenry by flying OVER OUR HEADS to allow the airlines to minimize their fuel costs. This is PROFITS vs. PUBLIC RIGHTS. However, I also read that the FAA recently changed the overflight patterns in order to accommodate private/recreational DRONE flights in the area of northern Santa Clara County extending up the Peninsula all the way to the Golden Gate Bridge. Personally, I consider drones (as well as GoogleGlass) to be secretive and invasive of my privacy and I will take whatever actions necessary in attempting to neutralize these invasive devices. I will react to these devices as if they were hand-held recording devices invading my private space and asking to be eliminated.

The airports were around long before the dense population areas. If you do your homework and apply a little common sense when moving to an area you would expect noise of different types. I get all kinds of noise where I live and it makes aircraft seem quiet. The flights in question go over me as well, but I understand the nature of aviation and choose to not let it worry me.

Personal opinion but I think the noise from the trains sounding their horns is a much more noisy and annoying than the planes.

@mark airline profit margins in 2014 were 2.6%. [Portion removed due to disrespectful comment or offensive language]

NextGen system is expected to save the airlines millions of gallons of fuel annually. (Lobbying) money talks, in every way.


Web Link

... "Airlines are expected to post a collective global net profit in 2014 of some $19.9 billion (up from the $18.0 billion projected in June). This looks set to rise to $25.0 billion in 2015." ... "The expected $25 billion net post-tax profit represents a 3.2% margin. On a per passenger basis, airlines will make a net profit of $7.08 in 2015. That is up on the $6.02 earned in 2014 and more than double the $3.38 earnings per passenger achieved in 2013."

OMGoodness you ppl have gotten way to spoiled. Born and raised in the Bay Area but had move out b/c of that nonsense attitude. Get real and get grateful :-)

@KittyJane,

If you are not presently living in the area, then I doubt you understand the kind of noise that is being discussed. This isn't the gentle sound a a plane or two drifting overhead a few times a day. This is the ROAR of dozens & dozens of jets descending directly over homes on *NEW* flight paths and at VERY low altitudes. Have you ever heard the sounds of a 747 flying over your home at 6AM or whenever at under 6,000FT dozens of times daily? Trust me, the people who are complaining about THAT kind of noise do not have a "nonsense attitude".

Web Link

Saving fuel isn't just about saving money. Less fuel burned means less pollution/carbon emissions. That benefits us all.

Dear moderator,

If you are going to censor my comments for being offensive or disrespectful, then I ask that you be consistent and also censor folks who call others greedy - that is certainly as disrespectful as requesting someone to think

Thank you

"Less fuel burned means less pollution/carbon emissions."

Yes, I am sure the airlines getting onboard with landing routes that save fuel are first and foremost concerned about the environment and NOT their profit margins. It's the $25 BILLION DOLLAR POST TAX PROFIT airline industry, and it's SUPER environmentally friendly.

BTW, excessive noise has a quantifiable negative impact on the human part of the environment, too.

We have a big aircraft noise problem in Mountain View, not just Palo Alto.

We have the issue in Los Altos too.

There has always been airplane noise, and that's not the problem. Neither is saving money for airlines.

Surely they could save just as much flying above 6000 ft. The change which has been made is to concentrate all the noise on a limited number of flight paths, rather than spreading it out, and to consistently fly at lower altitudes farther way from the airport than before.

This whole system could be better designed NOT TO HAVE increased the already noticeable noise from planes. The motivating factor or a greater number of planes in a given time interval is only an issue because so many planes schedule for the same time. This "rush hour" scheduling causes a lot of looping and wasted fuel by itself, even with the new changes. The new changes just shave say 10% off the fuel wasted waiting for rush hour landings.

At other times when there are fewer planes per hour, there has been Zero improvement, but this is most of the hour of the day. Yet we still have monstrous planes flying at 4000 feet 35 miles away from the airport, while making various turns to be sure to annoy the same houses as all the other planes.

Please!

@Steve: If someone thinks airlines are greedy, that's an opinion they can express that doesn't violate Town Square's terms of use. Engaging in personal attacks against your fellow posters, on the other hand, is a violation.

The planes flying over our area seems really close. I've lived here for 10 years and don't remember seeing them so low and so often. I don't think this is going to be sustainable.

I completely agree with Sam. The cal train noise coming in usually Mondays, around 12-2am is waking me up every time. Its at least 7 honks in a row.Can't sleep with windows open at all.

@Andrea Gemmet

Thank you for your time and clarification. I would like to point out that I do not believe the rule against personal attacks is being applied evenly across the forum. Perhaps it is due to different moderators moderating at different times. Specifically I (and others) have had personal attacks directed against me (please see HRC thread) without moderator intervention. Personally I don't have an issue with it, as I am happy to defend myself; however, I would respectfully suggest that the rules should be applied as even handedly and consistently as possible across the forum.

I also commit to personally do my very best in the future to not offend or upset the sensibilities of anyone on this forum. Upon further reflection, I recognize my mistake and realize rhat what I said was terribly offensive. How could I have written what I did? How thoughtless of me! I apologize for my insensitivity to anyone who might have been adversely affected. It was absolutely wrong of me to say what I said, and to be honest, I've not been sleeping very well because of it. I have even thought about getting some counselling, but my Obamacare plan doesn't cover it - it's the bronze plan. Not that I'm complaining about Obamacare because I think it's great. But I digress. I'll close by saying that I'm really not a bad person, and I hope people will forgive me, and give me a second chance. I think you'll find that I will be very compliant from now on, and I hope I can earn acceptance... Not right away of course, but in the distant future... Thank you for your time :-)