Google's Lease of NASA Airfield Criticized By Consumer Group
samzenpus posted 2 days ago | from the no-sir-I-don't-like-it dept.
138
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.”
Jealous? (5, Interesting)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372123)
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.
Re:Jealous? (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372429)
+2 for what? Arguing about the content of the complaint? Nope, none of there here. The only thing I see is an ad hominem backed be speculation on motives.
Re:Jealous? (3, Insightful)
NatasRevol (731260) | 2 days ago | (#48372907)
The complaint is literally "they got cheaper gas" probably because they were big customers & looking for a place to live long term.
It's exactly like typical business negotiations.
Oh, and the cheaper gas was roughly 1% of this deal.
In other words, Consumer Watchdog is a whiny fucking bitch.
Re:Jealous? (1)
neoritter (3021561) | 2 days ago | (#48373313)
They got cheaper gas they were entitled to. They didn't get a deal for cheaper gas. They essentially stole cheaper gas.
Re:Jealous? (1)
ganjadude (952775) | 2 days ago | (#48372527)
Re:Jealous? (3, Funny)
ganjadude (952775) | 2 days ago | (#48373213)
Re: Jealous? (1)
Redbehrend (3654433) | 2 days ago | (#48373531)
Re: Jealous? (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372783)
I dunno, man. They have a car analogy, so their complaint must really drive the point home.
Re:Jealous? (1)
phantomfive (622387) | 2 days ago | (#48374087)
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
You can find out [wikipedia.org] . We have an internet now.
They are an older organization, not really astro-turfing, associated with Ralph Nader. They seem to be against whatever they consider to be big business excesses.
Money talks (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372129)
Eric Schmidt walks
Eric Schmidt walks (2)
Chas (5144) | 2 days ago | (#48372515)
No he doesn't! Haven't you been paying attention to the articles about planes, rockets and self-driving cars?
In a couple years, Eric Schmidt is going to forget what his legs are for...
Mars Needs Megabits (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372131)
This is just the first step to get Google Fiber to Mars.
what? (4, Insightful)
DoomSprinkles (1933266) | 2 days ago | (#48372145)
Re:what? (4, Informative)
i kan reed (749298) | 2 days ago | (#48372211)
They allege, and I don't know how rightly, that all of the following are true:
1. Google has received a discounted rate on jet fuel from NASA.
2. This means that Google is underpaying on the lease since they'll get their jet fuel cheap???????
The problem with that logic, which the group acknowledges and, in spite of that, persists is that NASA doesn't actually take a loss on the fuel they sell Google.
It's not about taking a loss... (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372251)
It is about unfairly advamtaging gogle over everybody else. Now if they got a 5-10 year lease while repairing it, I might accept that, but they are getting a rate *for 60 years* that is a drop in the bucket compared to what that airfields commercial value is worth.
Re:It's not about taking a loss... (2)
Teancum (67324) | 2 days ago | (#48373199)
How much should they have paid for the property in your opinion? How did you arrive at that figure?
Keep in mind Google needs to maintain the capacity of the field as an air strip, maintain Hanger One as a historical building, and other factors that make this more than just ordinary commercial real estate. In the end, Google still doesn't own the property and when that lease comes up in 60 years a whole lot of things could change with regards to Silicon Valley and the state of industry there. Either it will turn into the next armpit of America and resemble Detroit or perhaps the land will become even more valuable.
Anybody else could have also put a bid for the air field, even though you can legitimately argue perhaps that notification of such a lease opportunity may not have been as widely advertised as you might like. If it really was such a steal of a deal, it sounds more like you missed a golden opportunity yourself by not starting a Kickstarter campaign to raise the funds and flip the property to make some money or make a huge windfall to a charity of your choice. I really doubt you could have made much money by trying to outbid Google and in turn offering the land to other companies instead.
Re:what? (2)
iggymanz (596061) | 2 days ago | (#48372275)
well I just hope in the future NASA does the ethical thing with its excess jet fuel and dumps it into the water table rather than selling at discount to large corporations
Re:what? (1)
gstoddart (321705) | 2 days ago | (#48372379)
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?
Re:what? (3, Insightful)
MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | 2 days ago | (#48372485)
If as other posters claim, the government was paid more for the fuel then they paid for it, I would can it win-win.
Re:what? (4, Insightful)
AcidPenguin9873 (911493) | 2 days ago | (#48372537)
Re:what? (1)
ganjadude (952775) | 2 days ago | (#48372565)
Re:what? (5, Interesting)
jeffmeden (135043) | 2 days ago | (#48372619)
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.
Re:what? (3, Insightful)
Drathos (1092) | 2 days ago | (#48372683)
Google got that fuel at discounted prices by using those planes to do work for NASA. It's not like they just showed up and said 'fill 'er up!' out of the blue.
Re:what? (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372983)
The report by the auditor clearly indicated that this was an INTERNAL NASA/DLA-Energy mistake, Google had nothing to do with it, I'm sure they would have been happy (as anyone would be) paying the price that NASA should have charged. Don't blame Google for paying the bill put in front of them, it's not up to Google to say "I don't think you charged me enough here, do you want to go back & check?" It's not like a freakin' meal at a Diner where you might be able to tell if you were over or undercharged!
Re:what? (3, Informative)
cheater512 (783349) | 2 days ago | (#48373931)
NASA isn't losing any money so there is no subsidy.
NASA uses a lot of jet fuel, thus gets a cheaper rate.
NASA sells the cheaper fuel at a profit to Google.
Google gets it cheaper than they could if they bought it directly.
Its just smart business, not ripping off the tax payer at all.
Didn't google allow NASA (1)
publiclurker (952615) | 2 days ago | (#48374355)
Re:what? (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372433)
Really ??. I want a piece of the action. If NASA have extra fuel it should be sold at the market price , right ?
Re:what? (2)
Chas (5144) | 2 days ago | (#48372545)
All you have to do is get your plane down to a NASA facility. Legally.
Re:what? (1)
i kan reed (749298) | 2 days ago | (#48372689)
If it's sold at cost, to the people who are using the facility, it's really not that amazing.
Honestly, if I'm renting my restaurant out to a wedding party, the fact that I'm only selling my wine to the wedding party is perfectly fine. Selling at cost even makes sense if I got a good enough deal on the party itself.
Re:what? (1)
rogoshen1 (2922505) | 2 days ago | (#48372775)
if you're a for-profit restaurant, then by all means -- do whatever you wish.
However if you're a tax payer funded entity, handing out a lease like that with no bidding and a term of 60 years, AND selling any of your (again, tax payer purchased assets) below market rate -- how is that not playing favorites?
Re:what? (1)
i kan reed (749298) | 2 days ago | (#48372829)
Did they say it was a no bid lease?
Because that would be actual malfeasance, and I saw no sign of it in either article.
Re:what? (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48373459)
Even if it wasn't put out for bids, that's not necessarily improper.
If I was Google I'd *want* it put out for bids. If you don't competitively bid it, you bring in the Truth In Negotiations Act (TINA). Which basically means you have to document every nail you buy, how much you paid for it, how much the subcontractor made on the deal, etc. And then you have to keep all that paperwork until 2 years after the completion of the contract.
Which is why hammers cost $1500 when done on non-competitive contracts- because there's 50 hours of paperwork for each one.
When you make it a competitive bid, that requirement goes away (or at least mostly so).
Re:what? (1)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48373029)
Where's any evidence that there was no bidding or other offers? It's only a valid criticism if it's true & there's no evidence that what you say is true...and that is NOT what the 'Consumer Watchdog group' was even mad about anyway...heck it should be an easy thing for a 'Consumer Watchdog' group to submit an 'access for information' request to get the details of the process used to lease the land...once they have that THAN maybe they could find something to bitch about but they are just bitching for bitching's sake right now.
Re:what? (1)
rtb61 (674572) | 2 days ago | (#48373513)
Well if you marked up the rental price enough to cover the loss for wine bought (including management assessment and evaluation costs), transport, storage and cleaning bottles, serving and supplying of glasses, as well as cleaning said glasses and disposal of empty bottles. What is really happening is there seems to be a scammy deal with a no bid lease not open to the public purview and discounted fuel to boot (ignoring all costs associated with the distribution of fuel). Google seems to be doing evil all over the place with with many lobbyists.
Re:what? (5, Insightful)
Matheus (586080) | 2 days ago | (#48372315)
Consumer Watchdog wants to complain about something... trying to make a name for themselves? (Naming themselves after what they consider themselves to be wasn't good enough?)
The primary complaint they have against Google: Google got cheap gas from the US Gov't while leasing hangar space at this airfield. Boo Freaking Hoo. It is specifically mentioned that no loss of money occurred so they weren't even selling the gas below cost they were just selling the gas at below retail which they are more than entitled to do (When there are $5M of *savings I can only guess what the total bill was anyway!)
Reality of the world: When you have a lot of money you pay very little per unit than everyone else because you can afford to buy a LOT of whatever "it" is. Simple economics (Economy of Scale).
As far as this deal going forward: NASA gets a lot of money they need and gets to take a not insignificant amount of maintenance cost of their balance sheet at a time when their budgets are not exactly glamorous. If the $1.16B is even spread over time that's $19.4 M per year income plus $6.3M in savings = $25.7M net gain per year for giving up use of something they are not using. (Oh yeah and $200M in renovations of property they'd still own too)
I really don't like organizations that make noise for no reason when there are plenty of worthy causes in the world.
Re:what? (1)
DoomSprinkles (1933266) | 2 days ago | (#48372531)
Two links (3)
just_another_sean (919159) | 2 days ago | (#48372147)
I very rarely complain about the editors and stay out of the beta discussions (but beta does suck) but I am getting as tired as everyone else with some of the submissions these days. If there are two articles that link to the exact same content but on different sites jut pick one and use it. Having two links just wastes the time of the users that actually RTFA...
* Yes, I occasionally RTFA, I'll turn in my /. ID on my way out now...
Re:Two links (1)
alexander_686 (957440) | 2 days ago | (#48372235)
I will second that. Would it really be that hard to link to the primary source? Linking to an article is often helpful, but this article sounds like it is just regurgitating a press release.
Re:Two links (4, Informative)
Spy Handler (822350) | 2 days ago | (#48372249)
Submitter here. I only linked one article (the parabolicarc.com one). The editor added the second CNBC article (which I didn't know about). To be honest, the CNBC article has more info so it wasn't a bad call. Maybe what they should've done is replace my link with the CNBC link, or just reject my submission and write a new one.
Re:Two links (1)
just_another_sean (919159) | 2 days ago | (#48372495)
Thanks, and for the record I automatically thought it was the editors, not sure in hindsight why that was my gut reaction but it was... Definitely not trying to pick on submitters! Even a poorly written (not yours, in general) but interesting submission should be displayed to us as a very well written submission, period, every time. That's what editors are for!
Re:Two links (1)
Richy_T (111409) | 2 days ago | (#48373103)
Don't worry, this is Slashdot. There will be a new one along shortly.
Obama is a Traitor (0, Troll)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372163)
Everything is For Sale. Including your Liberty.
Google is a government spy.
Obama is a traitor. Obama runs a baby-Stalin dictatorial regime. Obama is an imperial president. Obama and his regime are the enemies within. Obama and his regime are the enemies of faith, freedom, family and liberty. Obama has bought our LEOs and Military with Pay and Pension with Printed Fake Federal Reserve Notes. LEOs and Military should note that those FRNs are paper, but our freedom costs much blood. We need to end thus regime and most of the government needs to be re-chained as the Constitution wanted. All of the acolytes of Alinsky, Cloward and Piven should be arrested and imprisoned for their sedition, for their treason, for their utter evil.
Debt is Wealth. Ignorance is Strength. Freedom is Slavery. War is Peace. Cold is Warm.
Arrest Obama. Now. Or you are a traitor a liar and thief
Re:Obama is a Traitor (2)
gcnaddict (841664) | 2 days ago | (#48372223)
Glad to see someone can appreciate all he's done for us.
Re:Obama is a Traitor (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372377)
Heheheh! Not all of us Canadians want him. Seriously, the guy lied to the American people, bailed out big banks, increased spying on citizens, and is now (re)starting a war in the middle-east. We really don't want him and we don't want our prime minister licking his boots.
I said the same thing about Bush... (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372305)
The traitors run this country and unless you're planning to put them all up against a wall, you're not going to see 'their own' prosecuting them unless it is to the benefit of their own political goals.
Re:Obama is a Traitor (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372329)
Instead of name-calling, try stating facts. That is what intelligent people do. Cant think of any facts? Then stop name-calling. It doesnt offer any information to anyone. Maybe the post is more for yourself than the benefit of everyone?
Re:Obama is a Traitor (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372457)
> Instead of name-calling, try stating facts. That is what intelligent people do.
Oh, ok. Uranium has a specific energy of over 1 million MJ/kg, while coal has a specific energy of less than 82 MJ/kg. Obama is 53 years old. 82 times 53 is less than 1 million. Have I proved my point?
Stick to your field (4, Interesting)
duck_rifted (3480715) | 2 days ago | (#48372197)
Stick to your field (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372253)
Which one has more gravitas?
Re:Stick to your field (2, Informative)
chemicaldave (1776600) | 2 days ago | (#48372313)
Consumer Watchdog is a nonprofit organization dedicated to providing an effective voice for taxpayers and consumers in an era when special interests dominate public discourse, government and politics.
Criticizing a company for getting steep discounts worth millions of dollars on jet fuel from the government and then getting a large lease from that same government seems in line with their mission.
Re:Stick to your field (1)
ganjadude (952775) | 2 days ago | (#48372615)
Re:Stick to your field (3, Informative)
CrimsonAvenger (580665) | 2 days ago | (#48373159)
Citation? I didn't notice any mention of "steep discounts".
"Getting a large lease"? Is that the same thing as "paying the government a lot of money"?
Wrong analogy (4, Insightful)
AaronLS (1804210) | 2 days ago | (#48372225)
Their gripe is based on a previous case of Google being given discounts on fuel purchases, which the watchdog group themselves admits did not negatively impact the government or NASA. Google didn't steal this fuel or commit fraud to get these discounts. Their opinion is simply that it was unfair preference shown to Google(which, if anything, is misconduct on the part of NASA). So comparing this to stealing gas is unfair on the part of the watchdog group.
"These Google guys seem to think they can do whatever they want and get away with it"
So because Google was given got some fuel at a discount, "these Google guys" shouldn't be allowed to do anything at all anymore? What are they getting away with? Oh god they've leased some land and given the government some money for something that would have otherwise depreciated in value unused! The atrocity!
Re:Wrong analogy (2)
Spy Handler (822350) | 2 days ago | (#48372519)
Two things. Yes, NASA selling cheap fuel to Google may not illegal but it's unethical to some observers. Can you or I buy fuel cheap fuel from NASA? No. It's favoritism, pure and simple.
Second, a 60 year lease is basically forever. Everyone currently working at NASA or Google will be long dead when the lease is over. So NASA is basically saying they don't need the land anymore. What would've been a more transparent action for a government agency? A. partition off the few buildings they want preserved as a museum and sell/lease the remainder of the 1000 acres in a public auction, or B. give it to the same guys that some have accused you of giving preferential treatment in what seems to be a sweetheart deal (995 acres in Silicon Valley is pretty pricey).
It doesn't help that Google has been flying NASA execs to gala events and seen hobnobbing with them. Replace Google with Monsanto or Microsoft and the same situation would likely provoke a different response from Slashdot readers.
Re:Wrong analogy (2)
Matheus (586080) | 2 days ago | (#48372817)
No.
The term of the lease is a bit excessive, yes BUT the U.S. Gov't really doesn't like selling ANY of their land. "What's our is ours forever" so the Google getting a "seemingly forever" lease on the land if about as close as the Gov't is going to go. I'll add that the specific use case for a big chunk of it (starting a space program it seems) requires a LOT of time especially if they go commercial with it so this is appropriate. That use case also falls in line with NASA's purvey these days "Get the easy stuff in corporate hands that have money so we can spend our less and less money on cool stuff"
Google wants to enter the space race and NASA is A-O-K with that.
As far as the gas? I guarantee if you were leasing space from NASA and buying 1.2 Million Gallons of fuel a year you'd get a discount too. Business not favoritism.
Re:Wrong analogy (1)
bigpat (158134) | 2 days ago | (#48372905)
A. partition off the few buildings they want preserved as a museum and sell/lease the remainder of the 1000 acres in a public auction, or B. give it to the same guys that some have accused you of giving preferential treatment in what seems to be a sweetheart deal (995 acres in Silicon Valley is pretty pricey).
Really another museum to our past while we turn our future into a Mall? That is your plan A!?
You forgot the part of option B that really matters... maintain an operational airfield and flight facilities that may be of unique and great value in the future. More valuable (to some) than yet another condo development with a golf courses or some such. Sometimes divvying something up that has more value when kept whole just to appease everyone isn't always the way to go.
Keeping the airfield and facilities whole means that the US gets to keep a fairly unique facility in tact and in fact restored by private dollars. This evokes a different response because this actually seems like a good outcome. If it was NASA and Google conspiring to convert an airfield into something else so they could maximize private profits for a short term gain and long term mediocrity, something more like your "plan A" which would see a national asset squandered, then sure I'd be pissed. But beyond the private jet thing, it really does sound like Google will be doing some R&D there and the US gets to keep and restore a facility which would be hard to imagine being built from scratch except maybe once in a hundred years.
Re:Wrong analogy (2)
Eristone (146133) | 2 days ago | (#48373241)
Yes, but it would cost NASA a fortune to clean up the site before it could be auctioned off. El Toro Marine Base was just taken off the Superfund list after 24 years and $165 million dollars to clean up the land after the base closed. Considering Moffet Field has been an experimental site as well as a military base, you can use the El Toro cleanup as a baseline - so instead of leasing the land to Google, making NASA money on the deal and also getting maintenance paid for, the suggestion is to spend $200 million and leave the land useless for the next 20 years or so while the cleanup takes place.
Re:Wrong analogy (1)
arcade (16638) | 2 days ago | (#48374239)
I'm rather annoyed that you think I'll be dead before I'm 95. I was planning to live until at least 100.
Rephrased: There'll be plenty of current google and nasa employees still alive in 60 years.
Re:Wrong analogy (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374291)
Yes, NASA selling cheap fuel to Google may not illegal but it's unethical to some observers. Can you or I buy fuel cheap fuel from NASA? No. It's favoritism, pure and simple.
Do you have enough money to purchase enough quantity such that it doesn't cause NASA to go through tones of work selling it to you? Because if that answer is "yes", then yes you can buy cheap fuel from NASA.
Second, a 60 year lease is basically forever. Everyone currently working at NASA or Google will be long dead when the lease is over.
I bet the English felt the same way about Hong Kong.
Who? (1)
Dereck1701 (1922824) | 2 days ago | (#48372239)
Who are these nuts, their one complaint seems to be that Google was purchasing fuel from a government airfield while flying their planes out of it. They talk about "Up To" $5.3 million without offering any context or pointing out how they arrived at that number. Did Google even know it was improper? Does this have something to do with the idiotic aviation fuel tax which taxes private aircraft who use the traffic control system minimally (where the money is supposed to go) while giving the commercial airline industry a free ride despite their heavy reliance on the system?
Don't Understand the Complaint (4, Insightful)
crmanriq (63162) | 2 days ago | (#48372265)
"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 nobody lost money. It sounds like Google found a way to save money (thus being good stewards of corporate cash).
In 2011 Google offered to pay a big chunk of restoration costs for the hanger, and NASA instead decided to sell or lease it. It was used for Star Trek in 2009, but other than that it seems to have sat empty.
So instead of an empty unused hanger, NASA is getting 6.3 million per year for the next 60 years.
I really don't see who is losing anything here.
Re:Don't Understand the Complaint (1)
crmanriq (63162) | 2 days ago | (#48372309)
Oops. NASA isn't getting 6.3 Million in rent per year, they are saving 6.3 million in Maintenance costs per year. They are getting something like 16M/year in rent.
Yeah. That's a hardship.
Re:Don't Understand the Complaint (1)
Obfuscant (592200) | 2 days ago | (#48372917)
So nobody lost money.
That's not what was said. Neither NASA nor DLA-Energy lost money, but all the companies that would have sold the jet fuel to Google at a profit did. The government acted in competition with private enterprise to fuel private enterprise aircraft.
Some people think that government competition (with huge bulk price discounts and endlessly deep pockets to cover losses) with commercial ventures is bad.
Re:Don't Understand the Complaint (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48373059)
Government should not be in competition with private enterprises as it undermines competition and has potential to affect policy making (i.e. favoritism).
Re:Don't Understand the Complaint (1)
AcidPenguin9873 (911493) | 2 days ago | (#48373495)
all the companies that would have sold the jet fuel to Google at a profit did. The government acted in competition with private enterprise to fuel private enterprise aircraft.
You're ignoring the fact that extra jet fuel was simply available at a discount, because NASA had already bought it. What should NASA have done with that extra jet fuel? Sold it to a private jet-fuel company? Let's say that they did that. They would have had to sell it at a discount (maybe the same discount) because the jet fuel was located at an otherwise-unused airfield and would have to be transported elsewhere, which is not free.
Oh, you say, they could have sold it to the same private jet-fuel company that Google has contracted to fuel its planes! That way no one has to transport it - it's already in the perfect location! Knowing this, NASA should definitely ask for more money for the same jet fuel, because NASA has basically already paid the cost to transport and store the jet fuel exactly where the jet-fuel company needs it. Jet fuel company buys that fuel and sells it to Google at market rate (since Google would otherwise just buy different jet fuel from one of jet-fuel company's competitors.) I don't see how the private jet-fuel company would make any more money than normal. They saved on transport/storage cost but had to pay that savings for the fuel (because NASA knew they were saving). That is, unless you expect NASA to give the jet-fuel company the same sweetheart deal on the jet fuel that it gave Google. And if NASA did that, then it would be giving a private company a taxpayer-subsidized advantage, the very thing you were just complaining about.
NASA was not continuing to buy jet fuel at its government-discounted rate for the sole purpose of fueling Google's planes - the fuel already existed, and the question was what to do with it. NASA either gives someone a deal on it and someone gets a taxpayer subsidy, or doesn't give anyone a deal and all private-company costs and profits are identical to what they would be if NASA's fuel wasn't there at all. NASA comes out ahead in the latter scenario, but that's not what you complained about.
Re:Don't Understand the Complaint (1)
Obfuscant (592200) | 2 days ago | (#48374005)
You're ignoring the fact that extra jet fuel was simply available at a discount, because NASA had already bought it.
Huh? Of course NASA had the fuel because NASA bought it. They wouldn't have had it otherwise, would they?
What should NASA have done with that extra jet fuel? Sold it to a private jet-fuel company?
Gee, I don't know. It's not like the government owns any jets that it could have been used in. I think the FAA uses floobydust in their jets. I doubt that even the National Aeronautics and Space Administration owns anything as complicated as a jet or anything. You're right, selling at cost in direct competition with commercial dealers was the only thing they could have done.
Oh, you say, they could have sold it to the same private jet-fuel company that Google has contracted to fuel its planes!
No, I don't think you've ever seen me say anything even remotely like that. But since you want to make up what I've said, you can make up the answers, too.
Re:Don't Understand the Complaint (1)
Teancum (67324) | 2 days ago | (#48373515)
That is companies who sold fuel at other airports, perhaps in that region, potentially lost money because Google executives didn't buy their fuel at those other airports first and then flew the planes into Moffett Field. That sounds like a major inconvenience and a waste of time as well. It isn't as if there were other fuel providers at this particular airfield.
It really is a baseless complaint.
Re:Don't Understand the Complaint (1)
Obfuscant (592200) | 2 days ago | (#48374089)
That sounds like a major inconvenience and a waste of time as well.
Do you understand why companies have corporate jets? It isn't so the pilots can go out to "fly around the patch" for fun. It is so the people who ride in them can go other places. Those "other places" are called "airports". Unless the CEO or CFO or whatever likes to take the corporate jet to his vacation cabin out in Bumfart, ND, those planes aren't going to be spending much time at an airport that doesn't have an FBO that sells Jet-A.
And it's not difficult to fuel up. They'll come right to the plane and fill it up for you! It's not like driving a car where you have to look for the gas station and then drive up to the pumps. They bring the pump to you at the same place you've just parked. And someone buying a plane-full of jet-A isn't going to get "self service" treatment once the truck arrives.
It may be a small thing in the land of large government excess and other problems, but it is a thing nonetheless, and it is acceptable for people to be upset when the government acts to hinder private enterprise. My goodness, man. This is a place where the government is routinely flamed for preventing a second cable company from entering a local market (when the only prevention is economic and not legal), and here we've got the government actively competing with a large number of private businesses but it is peachy keen and no problem at all.
Tell this group to sit down and shut up. (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372323)
More California liberal pussies whining. that a big bad corporation is going to use the airfield to actually invent something useful unlike NASA which cant do crap anymore because of all the government bureaucracy regulating them.
Not for free (3, Insightful)
jamesl (106902) | 2 days ago | (#48372325)
Not for free is Google getting Moffett.
"In fact the lease gives Google unprecedented control of a federal facility to use as its own playground," said John M. Simpson, director of Consumer Watchdog's Privacy Project.
In fact the lease gives Google control of a federal white elephant in exchange for $19.3 million per year plus taxpayer savings of $6.3 million per year. Total $25.6 million to the good for taxpayers.
Ah... (1)
Charliemopps (1157495) | 2 days ago | (#48372365)
Ah yes... another group that feels its your patriotic duty to give the government our money. And to what glorious end should will the government put googles money? The NSA? The 3rd war in Iraq? Propping up yet another 3rd world dictator to keep the price of some commodity down? No thanks.
boo hoo (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372463)
since 2007, google has paid the government $9.1 million to park their jets at moffett airfield. in that time, google has saved maybe $5.3 million in fuel costs through preferential treatment. boo fucking hoo.
now, google will lease moffett for $19 million a year, plus maybe $6 million a year in maintenance costs. google will then throw in $200 million to renovate the place and restore hangar one. but, they will save under $1 million in fuel costs through preferential treatment. or maybe over. who cares? it's so unfair. : (
Re:boo hoo (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372559)
but, they will save under $1 million in fuel costs through preferential treatment.
per year.
boo hoo (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48373379)
And somehow, Google is the evil one for receiving a discount? They're likened to someone steeling gas? I wonder how many of these whiners refuse to enter their loyalty card number at the pump so as not to under-pay.
I'd say this smacks of Daniel Brandt... (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372501)
... but their website doesn't look like it was designed in 1994.
Consumer Watchdog (4, Informative)
jratcliffe (208809) | 2 days ago | (#48372535)
The group clearly has a bee in their bonnet about Google. Pretty much every month, they put out a big press release attacking something the company does.
http://insidegoogle.com/ [insidegoogle.com]
Follow the money (1)
phorm (591458) | 2 days ago | (#48372635)
So who's "sponsoring" this group? My guess is one (or many) of MS, Apple, and/or perhaps Oracle.
Re:Follow the money (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372903)
No. Probably Bing.
Why guess when you can use the company that is renting the airfield? ... “and to hold Google accountable for” ... for exhibiting its monopolistic power in dangerous ways.”
Or LMWTFY [wikipedia.org] , where the first sentence states, “Funded by the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment, Consumer Watchdog's "Inside Google" is an initiative which aims to educate”
So, I guess the answer is not Bing. Unless Bing funds the Rose Foundation. But I carried this ball so far; I'll let others use available tools if they care for this ball to go any farther.
I'm sure that Microsoft and Apple do similar behaviors, so they seem like less likely sponsors for this group that attacks these types of actions.
Re:Follow the money (1)
swillden (191260) | 2 days ago | (#48373253)
No. Probably Bing.
Well, Bing is MS.
Unless Bing funds the Rose Foundation. But I carried this ball so far; I'll let others use available tools if they care for this ball to go any farther.
They're not likely to get far. The Rose Foundation says it's committed to protecting the privacy of its donors. http://rosefdn.org/privacy-pol... [rosefdn.org]
Assuming it is MS or Apple (which I'm not claiming; I have no idea), you might be able to find their donations to the Rose Foundation in their filings, but even that wouldn't be any sort of proof, because the foundation does a lot of different things. And you might not find it, because the money might first pass through one or two other foundations. "Donor-directed" programs (like the Rose Foundation provides), are kind of like Tor nodes for technically-charitable donations. The donor gives the money and directs how the foundation spends it, but neither the donor nor the foundation have to disclose the directives. So a company could give a million dollars to Rose and observers have no way of knowing whether that money was to fund an anti-Google campaign or to attract better teachers to inner-city schools, or any of a thousand other things... or many of them.
And if that doesn't provide enough deniability, the donor can route the money through multiple nodes, directing each to apply some of the money to other things so each donation is a different amount. With a little care they could probably even arrange for some of the downstream donations to occur before the upstream donations.
Interesting choice of words, CNBC... (1)
cream wobbly (1102689) | 2 days ago | (#48372579)
From the CNBC article:
Google has said it plans to test its driverless cars at Moffett, which would enable it to escape California regulations requiring that such vehicles must have a driver capable of taking over control.
They're seriously covering the use of a non-public test track as "escap[ing] California regulations"? What next? NASCAR plans to have its competitors drive at Sonoma Speedway, which would enable it to escape California regulations requiring that such vehicles do not travel above 85 mph.
Re:Interesting choice of words, CNBC... (1)
caferace (442) | 2 days ago | (#48373037)
luddites (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372621)
Luddites. Can't live with em, can't take their tech toys away from them so they shut up.
Just Landed on a comet and... (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372629)
What's up with /.? ESA just successfully landed a probe on a comet! And the top /. threads are echocolate and an airfield lease??? /. is dead to me from now on... It has proven too late and irrelevant one too many times.
RTFA (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372639)
It says Google's been getting private jet fuel at government negotiated costs.
Jeezus people. Read.
They're a company guys (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372661)
How much of Larry Page and Sergey Brin are really left in that company. I remember that day very well for some reason. I was working as a tester. A french guy I worked with told how awesome it was that Googles shares would be valued at the golden ratio, and I told him what I though - that they had sold out. That was mean of me. They were just doing what they had to - probably pressure by the IPO. But the fact remains. They're a spiritless publicly traded company now. If you try to contact either of them, their robotic avatars probably screen their mail. I'm sure they're nice guys really by they are not Google now, not really. You are, like any shareholder and how much do you care? You just want a good ROI on your shares.
Dishonest summary (1)
Garfong (1815272) | 2 days ago | (#48372681)
The report [nasa.gov] they are drawing their findings from found no wrongdoing on Google's part:
"We found that Ames officials accurately reported H211’s relationship with the Center to DLA-Energy but DLA-Energy believed H211 was performing only NASA-related missions and therefore was entitled to fuel at the cost-plus-surcharge rate. We found that a misunderstanding between Ames and DLA-Energy personnel rather than intentional misconduct led to H211 receiving the discounted fuel rate for flights that had no NASA-related mission." (emphasis mine).
So more like buying gas from a gas station which had accidentally listed the wholesale price than siphoning gas from a friend.
This is hardly new. (1)
Mal-2 (675116) | 2 days ago | (#48372693)
Defense contractors have been leasing parts of Moffett for ages, there's nothing new about this. Google probably wants a nice, big, pre-paved space to test their driverless cars.
To hell with it (1)
AndyKron (937105) | 2 days ago | (#48372779)
I don't get it... (1)
Zalbik (308903) | 2 days ago | (#48372785)
So based on this,the story is basically as follows: [consumerwatchdog.org]
- Google decides to lease an airfield from NASA for corporate jets
- NASA agrees to sell Google fuel at discounted rates (no state or local tax) in exchange for Google planes collecting climate data
- After 6 years of this, a NASA auditor notices ALL Google planes receive the discount, not just those carrying out NASA experiments.
- NASA stops selling them discounted fuel in September of 2013.
- Google now wants to renew the lease (without the discounted fuel)
- ???
- Therefore, evil!
I seem to be missing a step in Consumer Watchdog's logic here. Anyone able to fill me in?
If NASA was inappropriately selling discounted fuel, that is NASA's fault, not Google's. It should have nothing to do with renewing the lease now.
Re:I don't get it... (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48373127)
In the future you'll read that NASA auditor noticing that Google has not only made use of leased hangar but also used other NASA infrastructure.
Re:I don't get it... (1)
xaotikdesigns (2662531) | 2 days ago | (#48374067)
Two different issues (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48372861)
So because Google got away with not being charged full price for fuel for Jetliners this is reason NOT to lease out government land at a profit? Seriously? Those two things have nothing to do with each other...the metaphor used is entirely wrong...it's like agreeing to lease your car at a profit to someone who wasn't paying for gas when they 'borrowed' your car. Google didn't 'steal' anything, it's up to government to price their services accordingly. If anyone is going to question the deal then the only question should be "were there any other bidders for leasing the land?" in other words "Did the government go with the highest price offer?"...
Maybe of NASA had decent funding... (1)
gatkinso (15975) | 2 days ago | (#48373003)
...this sort of thing would not happen.
Re:Maybe of NASA had decent funding... (1)
xaotikdesigns (2662531) | 2 days ago | (#48374081)
News for Nerds. (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48373055)
I'm a nerd and this doesn't remotely qualify as news. Posts like these are why people make fun of slashdot.
And who else would rent it? (3, Informative)
dbc (135354) | 2 days ago | (#48373115)
The Moffat authority has to be the worst landlord in Silicon Valley. I was involved in trying to find space for an educational non-profit (I am on the board). We looked at some space the Moffat authority had -- what they offered and the prices and terms they put forth were pure, unadultrated lifetime-government-employee unhingedness. It didn't even pass the giggle test. We snorted and moved on. Also... I have some friends at the Carnegie-Melon Silicon Valley campus, which rents from the Moffat authority. What they have to go through is goofy -- the rents are high, it takes forever to get permission to do anything, in part because Moffat has historic status. Hanger 1, in particular, is listed separately on the national register of historic buildings. So not only do you have to find a tennant who actually wants that behemouth space, you need to find a tennant that finds doing business with a capricious, narcissictic, and unhinged landlord entertaining. Good luck.
Looking Forward (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48373613)
Some of you might not remember, but I remember a world without Google. I look forward to those days returning in the future.
after RTFA (1)
xaotikdesigns (2662531) | 2 days ago | (#48374045)
If that's the case, then charge them what the audit finds was used incorrectly and then set up something to mon
If the lease states that they can use the fuel, then what's the problem?
Hanger use (1)
xbytor (215790) | 2 days ago | (#48374121)
Are the Myth Busters going to have to find another giant hangar for their large scale experiments?
This matters much more than Google getting a price break on some jet fuel.
And this is new how? (0)
Anonymous Coward | 2 days ago | (#48374267)
"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.
I may be part of the unelite and not-super-rich, but the above statement fails to describe how this is different from the actions of these groups of folks:
1) politicians --lie, cheat, steal, embezzel, dont file taxes and waste our money
2) sports stars --do all sorts of crimes from assaults to rape without prosecution
3) the other rich folks -- write a check and you can do whatever you want because for Republicans, money is the key to the kingdom
Until there's some better demonstration of how what Google is doing is wrong, Consumer Watchdog (and anyone else) can sod right off until the day Google asks THEM to pay their bills ( game ticket sales, voting, pay taxes, support the products of the "other" rich).