
Surf Air: Unlimited Flights for $1k/mo - callmeed
http://www.surfair.com
======
abalashov
Whatever the commercial viability of this particular idea, I hope that
pressure from such ventures, whether delusional or otherwise, can inspire
greater democratisation and fare transparency in air travel.  For instance, I
would be willing to pay an airline some amount of monthly recurring fees
(though perhaps not $1k) to option certain seats on a large selection of
flights at low prices.  The monthly recurring revenue could, in theory, offset
the impact of my unpredictability as a passenger on booking calculations. 

Edit: On the other hand, I'd much rather the money go into some sort of
vaguely 21st century high-speed rail infrastructure, particularly for short to
medium inter-city trips.  The absence of such makes us the laughingstock of
Europe and Asia. 

~~~
robomartin
> I'd much rather the money go into some sort of vaguely 21st century high-
> speed rail infrastructure, particularly for short to medium inter-city
> trips. 

Yikes!  No!  This is a complete waste of money.  Our cities are just not built to
make use of something like this.  The various stake holders (environmental
groups, politicians, industry, unions, etc.)  all but make sure that these
projects will cost ten times more than they should and end-up in exactly the
wrong places.  And, because of this, not enough people will use them. 

Take the proposal that was floating around a while ago (maybe still is) to
build a high-speed rail connection between Los Angeles and Las Vegas.  Maybe it
is a good idea, I don't know.  Here's the problem.  The start point in LA is
Central Station.  That's Downtown Los Angeles.  In other words, an hour to two
hours away from this great mass of people living in the area.  That is, if you
even want to consider going Downtown (it ain't like Downtown San Francisco).  I
know I have absolutely zero interest in driving 50 miles to get on a train. 
Heck, I avoid LAX like the plague. 

Don't get me wrong.  I'd love to see mass transportation akin to what they have
in Europe.  On my most recent trip I took the train from Amsterdam to Munich.  I
was great.  I think that Europe evolved into this infrastructure while we
evolved into something else. 

Take a city like Amsterdam and look at the light rail going everywhere.  And
take a look at the tens of thousands of bikes running around.  That bike
parking lot in Dam Square across from Central Station is simply amazing.  Their
culture and way of life have evolved around these ideas.  Try to bring
something like that into a megalopolis like Los Angeles and you'll fail.  The
place simply was not built with this kind of thinking in the first place. 
Heck, I drive 60 miles a day just picking up my kids from school! 

I would like to see a transition to something more sensible than what we are
doing today.  I really would.  I just don't think that high-speed rail is the
way to do it and, therefore, think that investing in it would be a complete
waste of money and resources. 

If you want to feed money into something that has the potential to make great
changes given our way of life and culture, send your monthly check to
companies like Tesla.  We desperately need to move away from these horrible,
polluting and inefficient gasoline engines into something that provides
greater options in terms of where energy might come from and could just be
better for the environment. 

When in Europe do as the Europeans.  Here in the US.  Well. 

~~~
Groxx
High speed rails rarely go directly to suburbs.  That's the realm of supporting
transit - busses, subways, light rail, etc.  They're _far_ more valuable going
directly between commerce centers, where there are reasons for people to
travel, and where supporting transit will actually be used to get to/from the
center (since nobody actually _lives_ there). 

If the high-speed rail were put in, and that great mass of people would use
it, there would be money in providing transit between the rail and the great
mass of people.  So it could be built, and problem solved.  But I don't see how
going to great mass X (instead of Y, Z, etc) is better than great(est)
commerce center A.

As to those locations specifically - I have no idea if they're suitable.  But
high speed transit goes to city centers, not fringes, basically everywhere in
the world, and this should be no different. 

~~~
homosaur
In St. Louis, the suburbs have actively petitioned against and succeeded in
blocking light rail service from the city.  They are convinced that somehow
evil city dwellers (mostly black, let's be honest) are going to come out to
rob everything they own.  Only in the last few years did the rail service even
extend to the near western suburbs near the fancy malls, which if St Louis
wasn't gerrymandered to shreds, would probably be part of the city limits. 

It turned out the nightmare scenario came to pass and lots of young, black,
lower income residents from East St Louis started showing up to the mall.  A
strange thing happened though, instead of destroying the area, they mostly
just brought a lot of money and purchased things. 

Seems obvious to me, but rich white folks be crazy sometimes and mostly they
write the checks when it comes to city planning. 

~~~
temphn
What do you think about this article? 

[http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2008-08-20/news/out-of-
contro...](http://www.riverfronttimes.com/2008-08-20/news/out-of-control-
shoplifting-at-the-st-louis-galleria-violent-attacks-in-the-delmar-loop-is-
metrolink-a-vehicle-for-crime/)

    
    
      Ask virtually any store manager at the Saint Louis 
      Galleria about shoplifting, and you'll invariably get two 
      responses: One, it's out of control; and two, it's gotten 
      exceedingly worse since August 2006, when MetroLink opened 
      a stop just 500 yards from the high-end shopping center. 
    
      In the first six months of this year, Richmond Heights 
      police made 345 arrests at the mall.  That's nearly double 
      the number of arrests made in all of 2005, before 
      MetroLink opened its Shrewsbury line. 
    
      More alarming are the numbers of juveniles (kids under the 
      age of seventeen) arrested at the mall.  This year police 
      are on pace to take 276 juveniles into custody for 
      shoplifting and other offenses — a sevenfold increase over 
      the 39 kids arrested at the Galleria in 2005. 
    
      "I know it's not politically correct, but how else do you 
      explain it?"  comments a frustrated Galleria store manager 
      who, like many Galleria shopkeepers interviewed by 
      Riverfront Times, says her employer prohibits her from 
      officially speaking for the company. 
    
      "Anyone can see all these people crossing Brentwood 
      Boulevard from the MetroLink station," the manager 
      continues. " Most of them aren't here to shop.  They're here 
      to hang out and cause trouble." 
    

These statistics appear to support the supposition that the MetroLink
connection did indeed increase crime at the malls.  Do you have any data to
support the alternative hypothesis that "rich white folks be crazy"? 

~~~
fleitz
The real key is the bottom line for the shop, if theft has doubled and sales
have doubled then the shop should be making more money. 

That isn't addressed, all the article says is that theft is up. 

~~~
temphn
Well, be Bayesian about it. 

The incidents described in the full article include huge violent fistfights
that led to curfews.  Low income people are unlikely to spend lots of money. 
Lots of theft and violence is accompanied by lots of broken windows behavior
that may not rise to the level of a criminal offense, but does scare away
higher income people (example: screaming at the screen in a movie theater). 
And very few retail shops operate at 100% margins such that a doubling of
revenue would exactly compensate for a doubling in theft. 

All in all, it is highly likely that events transpired as predicted by the
project's critics.  No doubt the proponents like homosaur did not sell the
project as "violence will increase, thefts will double, and your previous
patrons like Johnny Fields will leave, but...".  They instead tried to
insinuate that "rich white people be crazy" to think something like this might
happen. 

~~~
fleitz
Violent fistfights are what make news.  Just because something is news doesn't
mean there is an underlying statistical basis to justify the conclusion of the
article.  Articles in papers are anecdotal in nature. 

Actually low income people spend HUGE amounts of money, if you study economics
you'd know that poor people pay more for almost any good than do the rich. 
What I mean by this is that the poor will by 500mL of milk rather than 4L, and
so in a year when you look at the costs of milk for the poor they are more
than the rich.  Similarly, the poor shop at convenience stores and the rich
shop at warehouse stores further exacerbating the price differential. 

~~~
homosaur
I will say, in rich white folks' defense, that the particular incident that is
discussed in that article was pretty shocking; it wasn't just a couple of
fistfights, it was a mini-riot.  We're talking about 50 kids fighting here. 

The issue of violence amongst teens has not been solved yet in St. Louis, even
if the Galleria figured it out.  The Delmar Loop, the other area talked about
there, still has a major problem with petty crime and even had a shooting
related to the spontaneous gathering of urban teenagers quite recently.  The
businesses can't have this both ways.  They want all the increased business but
they don't want to deal with paying for security.  SLPD cannot solve these
problems on their own and the Loop has dropped the ball on security and people
are well aware of it now. 

~~~
temphn
> They want all the increased business

Don't think it has yet been shown that their business actually increased due
to these kids.  The quotes from the article indicate otherwise: high income
residents and middle lass kids were driven away by the violence and then the
curfew.  The mall owners aren't conflicted here, things transpired just as they
had predicted. 

~~~
homosaur
That just isn't accurate though.  That's not what happened at all.  Yes, there
was a period of about a year where they did not increase security or have a
curfew or parental supervision policy in place where there were several
incidents and a higher crime rate.  That IMMEDIATELY plummeted over 25% after
the parental supervision policy went in to place and by 2010 had dropped to
levels that were essentially the same rate as existed before the metro stop
was built. 

You can't judge this from an outdated article about 2007.  That was from that
time period when it was a security free for all out there.  The people who want
to cause trouble certainly know they are not welcome at that mall anymore and
will be arrested if they cause any trouble. 

I'm guessing the Nordstroms, which is a very high end designer-centric dept. 
store with $200 silk ties and the like didn't move a 2 story store last year
because the high income residents stopped coming.  In fact, I'm sure the
complete opposite is true. 

------
rdl
Wow, this looks really interesting.  Palo Alto to Monterey is definitely within
driving distance for me, but if I had any reason to go to LA or SB at all
frequently, this would rock. 

If they'd cover NV, this would be a great way to save a lot of money on taxes
-- live in the Reno area, have a NV residence, and fly to the Bay Area 1-2
times/week for meetings.  You then only pay income tax on income earned in
California, but not on capital gains, and not on any work you do outside
California.  That could easily be a savings of more than $1k/mo. 

~~~
daniel-cussen
Yeah, but you'd have to live in Reno. 

~~~
Homunculiheaded
As someone who moved from Boston to Reno I'm really surprised by all the hate
this little city gets.  I've always said that it has 80% of what I like about
larger cities but only 20% of what I hate.  There's a surprising amount of good
food, a growing and active hacker community, it's a short drive to tahoe, and
SF is just a day trip when you need it, and coming from the northeast the
weather is fantastic. 

At the same time people here think a 20 minute commute is outrageous, the cost
of living is insanely cheap, and the majority of the city is extremely safe. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm never going to argue that, as a city, Reno competes
with any larger US cities.  But imho it beats that hell out of anywhere that
has a similar cost of living.  Most people I know in larger cities tend to move
an hour or two into the suburbs as they get older and end up making time to
get into the city very rarely, I'd definitely take Reno over that. 

I don't think Reno is the greatest place on earth, but I can never understand
why people despise it so much more than anywhere else. 

~~~
rdl
For my lifestyle (I like guns, and a fairly remote, large house), I'd
basically prefer to live in NV to living in the Bay Area.  But realistically
the "commute to SF" lifestyle might work for a consultant or an employee at a
late stage company, but not for a startup founder. 

I really hope Tony Hsieh's Downtown Las Vegas stuff works out well. 

~~~
colinloretz
Not to get completely off the OP, but I would be interested to hear your
reasons for not thinking Reno would be good for a startup founder and
specifically how Las Vegas would be different. 

I don't disagree with you, just looking for an outside perspective.  I've lived
in both Reno and Las Vegas and have been working to build up the Reno startup
community through Reno Collective coworking, Ignite Reno, WordCamp, Hack4Reno,
etc.  We've pulled off a lot of things and seen a lot of growth in the last few
years but we know there is still a long way to go. 

~~~
rdl
Either would be fine; Reno is closer to SF by car.  Las Vegas has a bigger
stock of houses (cheap), and a better airport -- being able to fly non-stop to
basically anywhere is a big plus for b2b.  Also, conferences happen in Vegas,
so having a house there to use just for conferences and frontsight trips would
make some sense.  Las Vegas is a much bigger city, so all the other
infrastructure is more likely to exist.  I prefer the environment around Reno
(well, the Tahoe area), and I hate Clark County laws vs. everywhere else in
NV. 

Neither one is ideal now, and neither has an "anchor tech company".  Zappos
isn't really enough of a tech company to be that.  Hsieh's thing might be able
to accomplish that, though.  Having a pool of people familiar with startups to
hire from would be great, but realistically you'd be recruiting people to
relocate in either case. 

------
citricsquid
This is an absolutely wonderful idea, I just don't see how it can scale into
being a workable long term business.  I would absolutely pay for this (if I was
on the route) but the plane looks very small[1], if there's minimal room and
reservations are important (you can't just turn up and fly) the "unlimited" is
going to become "your reservation amount" very _very_ fast.  The value in being
a subscriber would be the flexibility. 

[1] "that will fly just below the TSA’s radar – using 9-person planes to dodge
under their screening of any plane carrying over 10 passengers." -- 
<http://www.forbes.com/sites/edzitron/2011/06/29/planered/>

~~~
w1ntermute
> you can't just turn up and fly

I bet a lot of people (mostly business(wo)men) would be willing to pay through
the nose for a subscription service where:

a) You can just turn up and fly

b) You get _true_ first-class service and food (à la Pan Am in its heyday),
not what they pass off as first-class these days

c) Comfortable chairs with lots of legroom (they're most of the way there on
this right now with first-class)

d) "Volume" subscriptions (just like with software) available for large
companies

e) Relaxed luggage size/weight requirements

f) Good wifi and cell phone service (support for all major carriers) on-board

g) No children allowed

h) Frequent departures, using small planes

i) You don't have to go through all the TSA crap, both the screening as well
as restrictions on what you can bring on-board

j) No silly restrictions on electronic device usage, including during takeoff
and landing

The last two would obviously be near impossible thanks to the government, but
the others are definitely doable. 

~~~
_delirium
Once you add up the cost of satisfying all those requirements simultaneously,
aren't we basically into the corporate-jet-rental price range?  You've got
stuff like NetJets serving that market. 

~~~
w1ntermute
I've never heard of NetJets before, but it looks like it's for big business
only (since you have to own a fraction of the jet).  I was thinking of
primarily appealing to the individual businessperson market and use economies
of scale to drive the prices down. 

~~~
cdibona
Flight Options is within the realm of the small (yet successful) business
person. ( <http://www.flightoptions.com>)

~~~
tptacek
$4,000 an hour?  You'd need to be pretty successful indeed. 

~~~
piotrSikora
But that's pretty much the minimum price for any "show up and fly" program to
be profitable.  Also, keep in mind that this is price per plane, not per seat. 

~~~
tptacek
Sure; just saying, those aren't small business numbers. 

------
jamesbressi
I wish we could get this on the East Coast.  D.C. -> Philadelphia -> NYC ->
Boston

I would easily pay $1000 to $1500 a month. 

It would as affordable as an Amtrak pass and just as convenient. 

The possibilities for those who don't want to move to another city for work
but want to broaden their options (or course if your salary range allows--but
if you are making 100k or more it is brilliant). 

~~~
melling
D.C. to Philly is 140 miles.  Philly to NYC is 90 miles.  NYC to Boston is 220
miles.  Is it really necessary to spend $1000-$1500 a month to go that short of
a distance?  There's 50 year old technology that went into commercial use
before man stepped foot on the moon.  This is insane. 

At some point America is going to realize that it needs a 21st century
infrastructure.  It's going to cost a lot more in 20-30 years, of course. 

~~~
equark
Amtrak Acela, Boston - NYC is $173 one-way and takes 3 hours and 30 minutes. 
That quickly adds up. 

~~~
a3camero
That's almost exactly the distance between Shinjuku (Tokyo) and Sendai, Japan. 
$40 cheaper + an hour faster by train.  I think that's the alternative.  High
speed rail. 

If you happen to live by Omiya's station (about 30mi closer to Sendai), you'd
be there in under 2 hours. 

~~~
excuse-me
London Paris is 60mi further but under 3hours - and there is a sea in the way,

If even the English can do public projects better than you, you have a
problem! 

~~~
DougWebb
There aren't tens of millions of people living in the Channel blocking the
path the train needs to take; digging the Channel tunnel was simple compared
to putting straight rail lines between Boston, NYC, Philly, and DC. 

~~~
justincormack
Dig a tunnel under the people if you think it is easier then. 

~~~
DougWebb
Boston's Big Dig project was an incredibly expensive tunnel project.  I'm not
sure how much of the cost overrun was due to the terrain they were digging
through.  I think it'll be a long time before another major tunnel project will
be approved though. 

NYC always has several big tunnel projects going on.  The problem here is the
very hard granite and the depth of existing infrastructure.  New tunnels have
to be very deep.  At the moment I believe there is a large east-side subway
project and a water main project.  There was supposed to be a new west side
tunnel for Amtrak and NJ Transit trains coming into Penn Station from NJ, but
unfortunately NJ's a __hole governor killed the project. 

I'm not familiar with tunnelling projects in Philly and DC, or the areas
between them.  I suspect the terrain is a lot more varied than below the
Channel though.  It'd be challenging to tunnel the whole way. 

~~~
icegreentea
Just to build on this a bit, the Channel Tunnel's current location was chosen
because this way nearly its entire length runs through continuous chalk, which
is incredibly easy (especially compared to granite, or wet silt) to tunnel
through.  It's soft enough to cut through without too much problem, but it's
still rigid and dry enough that you don't have to worry too much about
collapses. 

------
latch
I think I have a weird perspective on this, but here goes..

I keep meaning to write about "why I refuse to move to the valley", and
transportation and the negative impact it has on housing, is one of them.  They
are solving a real problem, but if you've lived abroad (or in a few NA cities
like NY), you know that it isn't an efficient solution.  It also isn't
accessible to most. 

Some of the comments in this thread have, for the first time, made this
capitalist associate himself with the 99% movement. 

~~~
eob
I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted.  Maybe for the final 99% thing you
threw in? 

I agree 100% with your sentiments about transportation in the West.  I get that
the weather is great and world-class outdoor activities are only a few hours
drive away. 

...But your groceries are also a drive away.  And your friends.  And your job. 
And your restaurant. 

I live in Cambridge, MA and walk everywhere: to the lab, to the store, to
friend's houses, to eat.  For people used to it, walkability of a place is a
huge, huge living quality factor. 

~~~
ahupp
In San Francisco I can walk, bike, or take the train to most places I care to
go.  I realize other places (particularly SoCal) aren't like that though. 

~~~
zem
forget socal, just look at the south bay! 

------
twoodfin
This sounds almost too good to be true.  I think, though, they'll hit the same
problem as many other "unlimited" services: Those customers most likely to buy
it are the ones most likely to use it to excess.  How do they make money with
their "best" customers flying a dozen times a month or more, not only
consuming jet fuel, but also potentially blocking out the guy who books twice
a month? 

------
pacaro
If you had Boeing field in Seattle, to Palo Alto, then I would probably use
this to live in the Bay Area (which my wife would prefer) and work in Redmond
- it would take a lifestyle adjustment, but not a huge one. 

~~~
ericabiz
If you're used to living in Washington, remember that California will take an
additional ~10% of your income over $47,000 to state taxes.  That starts to add
up in a HUGE way--it's one reason why people are leaving the state in droves
[1]. ( Housing prices are the other big issue.) 

[1]: [http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/27/local/la-me-
californ...](http://articles.latimes.com/2011/nov/27/local/la-me-california-
move-20111127)

------
pranjalv123
The problem with this seems that the only people who will buy this are the
people who spend more than $1k/mo on flights, so they'll end up having a
really hard time making money.  But I'd love to be proven wrong. 

~~~
botolo
Well, I think the target customer is not the one who buys commercial flights
but maybe the one who usually reserve private jets to fly to the Bay Area from
LA.  $1,000 for this kind of customer could be extremely interesting. 

~~~
sliverstorm
Yea, it's hard to imagine many private individuals would rack up $1,000 every
month flying from Palo Alto to LA and back.  I've seen $80 specials to fly Bay
Area to LA, so you'd have to be making something like 5 round trips a month. 

~~~
latchkey
The difference being that for $80 you're flying with the masses, dealing with
TSA, etc...

~~~
sliverstorm
Of course, I'm just contemplating whether or not they would get many customers
who would fly so much as to lose the company money. 

------
venturebros
I would love the option to pay for unlimited air travel.  The "All You Can Jet"
pass from JetBlue hit the sweet spot at $599 with a 3 month window and many
destinations.  I would like to see a company offer that again even if it means
a no frills military transport style plane. 

~~~
stfu
Love the military transport style plane idea.  If they were using an actual
military cargo plane, I would be all up for that, just for the experience. 

------
prostoalex
It seems that a customer has no control about specific departure day or time? 
So it's less of a "fly to Santa Monica on Tuesday, come back on Thursday", and
more of "give me the next available flight to Santa Monica, whenever it comes
up, which could be a week from now"? 

------
polshaw
* between Palo Alto/Monterey/Santa Barbara/LA. 

pretty huge caveat there! 

~~~
Aaronontheweb
LA -> Palo Alto is a route I have to make 2-3 times a month (4-6 flights
including both legs.)  Not a bad MVP to start with for a service like this
IMHO. 

------
Julianhearn
This is a terrible idea.  Why do people still need to do vast amounts of air
travel when we have the Internet, Skype, gotomeeting, etc.  air travel involves
a lot of wasted time and a LOT of carbon emissions.  We should be encouraging
less travel not more. 

~~~
Nrsolis
Sales is still a very person to person thing.  To date, there is no substitute
for direct personal interaction when it comes to relationship building. 

Which would you rather have:

Dinner with $FAVORITE_CELEBRITY or the equivalent Skype session? 

------
Flemlord
Lots of comments about not being able to "just turn up and fly."  My wife and I
are in a boat club that's structured the same way--one flat annual fee and you
can reserve a boat any time you want.  Only one reservation at a time. 

Never once have we been unable to reserve a boat, even on a holiday with only
a few hours notice.  I assume the same level of availability would be possible
in a flying club, dependent of course on the ratio of travelers to planes. 

~~~
piotrSikora
What you describe is "franctional ownership" for owner-pilots and there are
already equivalents of that in the airspace (i.e. AirShare Elite -
<http://www.airshareselite.com/>). 

The difference between SurfAir and fractional ownership is that the latter
usually have a fleet of semi-identical vehicles (boats, planes, whatever) that
are available at your disposal and that you are able to operate them... With
SurfAir, it seems like there is only one plane with a pilot, which greatly
limits flexibility and availability of the program. 

------
cjensen
I'm thinking that I work close to the Palo Alto airport, and houses are a lot
cheaper near Monterey.  I could easily see this working out for me.  Then a
whole bunch of other people will have the same idea as me, and then it won't
work out well. 

Of course, I also notice they think it will take 15 minutes to get from Palo
Alto to Monterey (60 miles straight plus departure/approach navigation) which
is unpossible. 

~~~
_delirium
> houses are a lot cheaper near Monterey

If by "near" you mean Salinas, then yes, but then East Palo Alto is pretty
cheap too.  Monterey itself (and vicinity like Pacific Grove) is absurdly
expensive! 

~~~
cjensen
I was think more of Seaside or Marina.  Not as interesting as Pacific Grove,
and not as pricey. 

------
dangero
One thing that wasn't clear to me was how much in advance you will need to
book your flights.  Was that explained somewhere?  It's really a question of how
many members they allow per plane.  The ability to reserve more spaces seems to
indicate that you have to plan in advance. 

------
phamilton
Add Mammoth Lakes, Tahoe and San Diego and I could see this really catching
on.  LA to Mammoth is 5 hours and yet it is the ski area of choice for most of
southern california.  I even had a season pass and would drive up for one day
trips if the snow was good. 

------
huhtenberg
Keep in mind -- NO TSA. 

------
lutorm
Interesting idea, but I can't quite figure out how it would work.  Do they have
set departures or can you tell them to go whereever as long as no one else has
booked it? 

I'm moving to a job in Hawthorne (LA), and since I hate sitting in traffic,
I'm strongly considering commuting by air.  I'd fly myself though, even with a
low-end general aviation plane you can comfortably get out of LA in 45
minutes.  Apparently it's done:
<http://www.aopa.org/learntofly/whyfly/commute.html> :)

------
stfu
Very interesting idea.  Looks like some form of NetJets on a budget. 

------
teyc
Over on NPR Planet Money, there was an episode that suggested that looking at
how much money airlines have lost, cheap flights are a function of shareholder
largess.  it is one commodity that hasn't made their investors much money. 
Timeshare is an interesting business model, especially if they can achieve
required scale, upon which they become defensible. 

------
annon
I know they're adding Vegas soon, but adding NYC would be absolutely killer.  I
would sign up immediately for LA-Vegas-NYC. 

~~~
piotrSikora
They would need to either: add stopovers or buy a lot more expensive airplane
to fly such long range. 

------
callmeed
Anyone know what type of plane they're using (in the photos) and how many
passengers it can hold? 

~~~
mbell
I'm guessing based on the picture alone but I believe its a Pilatus PC-12:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pilatus_PC-12>

------
underwater
I'm surprised there is no Vegas on that list of destinations. 

~~~
latch
"with expanded service to Las Vegas, San Diego, Lake Tahoe and other
destinations following soon." 

------
sargun
I wonder if you could resell your reservations. 

Additionally, I would love to support a little airline like this even by
buying an occasional single round-trip. 

------
sjasmin
Congrats to the team.  I have been on some planning calls and they are truly
disrupting the airline space! 

~~~
jaysonelliot
I wouldn't call a service that is only of use to people that regularly spend
more than $1,000/month traveling between four California cities "disrupting
the airline space." 

Not every company with a slightly different business model is "disruptive." 

~~~
homosaur
Yeah, but if you're taking four regional flights a month, you are probably
spending as much or more than this and you're paying to do it either in a
cattle car or for a 300% first class markup.  It does have a limited market
now, but what happens when they get a little cash and start buying slightly
larger planes?  What about if this drops to $500 a month?  How about $300?  I'm
guessing businesses would be all over it.  Think about buying a plan for an
entire business, not just a single traveler. 

------
polynomial
Their business may be ready for takeoff, however their website has already
crashed. 

------
alphang
What's new about this?  Other airlines also have vouchers and unlimited plans. 

~~~
Blackavar
No TSA, which is almost worth it by itself. 

~~~
homosaur
I wouldn't count on that scenario lasting if that is even the case at all. 

------
AndyNemmity
PHX -> Palo Alto would be perfect.  Alas, no Phx. :( 

------
dotmatrix22
Haha, this is awesome.  What can't be done? 

------
sokrates
Wait, is that a flight startup? 

------
loverobots
Someone with private jet cost knowledge should be able to run some numbers
really quick:

they have 9 seat jets that cost a certain amount to buy /lease /fuel /service. 
Assume that all nine passengers travel just once a month and then move to 1.5
times a month, then twice a month and so on.  My layman guess is that this is
introductory pricing and they might to revise it pretty soon. 

*I pay $50 in gas to travel 250 miles with my full size sedan car, so jet fuel alone must be a lot.  Another major deal breaker is wait time.  Do I have to make reservations 4 months in advance or can I call the same day? 

~~~
aaroneous
It's unlikely to be a jet for such short distances. 

From their website it looks like the Pilatus PC-12 (single engine turboprop). 
Those burn around 65 gallons per hour @ ~$5.50/gal for Jet-A and cruise at
somewhere north of 300mph. 

------
carguy1983
This looks like a lite-corporate charter plan.  Although this wouldn't make
sense on my personal finance schedule, for my business this would be an
amazing value. 

But - what airport in LA does this service fly to?  Please say Santa Monica. :) 

LAX, JW, LB, or Burbank would be much less convenient...

~~~
lisper
Don't forget Van Nuys.  That's actually the busiest general aviation airport in
the world by a wide margin. 

~~~
carguy1983
Sure, Van Nuys.  That would also be much less convenient than SM ;)

------
its_so_on
let's bring some context to this. 

the age of the microtransistor has ushered in an era where any businessmale or
woman can conduct business or find entertainment anywhere in the world with a
delay measured not in hours but in milliseconds, at a cost measured not in the
thousands of dollars per month but in the dozens.  With unlimited transmission
capacity for documents, moving pictures, radio and television broadcasts and
recodings, gramophones, and telefacsimiles, equivalent to a Boeing 747's
carrying capacity as measured in typewritten pages every fraction of a second,
and truly unlimited.  All for a modest monthly sum. 

Sounds too good to be true?  Well...thee is one thing.  In this age 'truly
unlimited' doesn't mean anything anymore, so as to how much you're actually
getting or paying, you'll have to see. 

I guess I'm saying, nice marketing Surf Air - nick it from a telco?