Nate C. Hindman
GET UPDATES FROM Nate:

Surf Air, Silicon Valley's Newest Airline, Caters To Wealthy Entrepreneurs, Investors

Posted: 04/ 6/2012 9:51 am Updated: 04/ 6/2012 11:52 am

When David Eyerly earned a partial scholarship to attend a California flight school, he asked his older brother Wade for some advice. Pilot jobs were tough to come by and David didn't see the payoff. But Wade, 32, wanted his brother to stick with flying and asked what it would take to keep him in the air. David, 27, joked that Wade could just buy a plane, start an airline and hire him.

"I took him more serious than he intended," says the older Eyerly, who on Thursday launched Surf Air, a new membership-based travel service that lets clients fly as many as 11 times each month between six California destinations for $990 a month.

Surf Air's members drive right up to an eight-person aircraft, where valet parks their car and takes their luggage, much like a private jet. Except the cost is drastically less than that of a private plane. Marquis Jet, one of the cheaper carriers in the industry, locks fliers in for at least 25 hours of flight time at $119,000 plus taxes and fees, according to its site. Surf Air's 500 current members are only required to make a three-month commitment ($2,970 total), after which they pay on a month-by-month basis.

Commercial flights between the destinations that Surf Air serves run around $250 round-trip, which makes Surf Air a cheaper option for business people who fly at least four times a month. Eyerly expects its members to average between five and nine one-way flights a month.

On top of the reduced price, Surf Air flights operate out of small regional airports, where Surf Air members don't have to deal with security or the hustle and bustle of major airports, which is part of the problem the startup aims to solve.

"Half of America's regional airports operate at less than 10 percent capacity and yet for some reason we keep flying through the same 29 overburdened airports in this country," says Eyerly, who used to fly 27 days out of most months as a member of Vice President Biden's advance press team.

2012-04-06-198086_48(Pictured left: Wade Eyerly.)

Passengers of Surf Air can reserve at most six flights at one time. That could pose problems for ultra frequent travelers, such as those who fly three times a week, PandoDaily notes. "Passengers can't book their next trip until they're already back from the last one, and chances are the next flight they would want that week would already be booked."

Surf Air, which says it's paying around $700,000 a month to lease and operate two planes, wants to prove the model works before it expands its fleet or accepts new members.

"Once we can show the pay-off for our members and successfully demonstrate the model," Eyerly says, "it's a whole lot easier to walk into a venture capital firm and ask for $25 million to buy 30 planes."

So far, the company has funded itself -- including the cost of leasing the planes and some hefty lawyer fees to ensure it is abiding by regulations -- with personal funds and money from angel investors.

One of those investors, Paige Craige, who is the founder and CEO of Los Angeles-based startup Betterworks, and who often travels back and forth between Los Angeles and Silicon Valley, is just the type of customer Surf Air is targeting. Indeed, Silicon Valley and its surrounding areas are rife with wealthy entrepreneurs, venture capitalists and attorneys whom Surf Air says make up the lion's share of its first 500 members.

Mark Zuckerberg, founder and CEO of Silicon Valley-based Facebook, spent $700,000 last year for costs related to private plane use, according to papers filed for the company's initial public offering.

Perhaps Facebook's newest shareholders might appreciate Zuck cutting costs and instead flying Surf Air when its service launches mid-Summer.

FOLLOW SMALL BUSINESS

When David Eyerly earned a partial scholarship to attend a California flight school, he asked his older brother Wade for some advice. Pilot jobs were tough to come by and David didn't see the payoff. ...
When David Eyerly earned a partial scholarship to attend a California flight school, he asked his older brother Wade for some advice. Pilot jobs were tough to come by and David didn't see the payoff. ...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 61
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2  Next ›  Last »  (2 total)
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cadawa
12:29 PM on 04/09/2012
Great idea that seems to be well executed. Sounds like they are fully capable of ironing out the wrinkles. Just being able to avoid the nightmarish major aiports is worth the price.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mPowerServices
People are fickle...fanned today, gone 2morrow
04:39 AM on 04/09/2012
I would join in heartbeat...if I could afford to :-)
photo
KevinFletcherTweedy
seriously approaching curmudgeon-ness
12:12 AM on 04/09/2012
One word for flying to meetings: SKYPE! (And don't fly.)
12:08 AM on 04/09/2012
Great idea. I hope all goes well.

And to all of those people complaining - you're just jealous you didn't think of the idea or you're angry you can't afford it.
11:23 PM on 04/08/2012
The Santa Monica Airport is in a densely populated area that was never meant for and should not be used for jet air travel or commuter travel. The runway is 700' too short and has been grandfathered in by the FAA. The routes require long hold times on the ground waiting for clearance for LAX while pummeling adjacent neighborhoods, home and schools with toxic exhaust. The exhaust contains ultrafine particles, the dangers of which are rapidly surfacing. Flying is one of the least "green" things you can do,. In this time of reducing our carbon footprint, why would one possibly create an airline to fly you up and down the California coast. I cannot think of a less worthy endeavor. Hopefully this never gets off the ground literally and figuratively.
12:11 AM on 04/09/2012
Once known as Clover Field, SMO was first flown out of in the 1920s. So unless you were there before it, MOVE!

General Aviation and Commercial Aviation serve people's lives beyond what your puny brain can imagine.
12:23 AM on 04/09/2012
Its amazing to me how limited the vocabulary of the pro aviation crowd is. It seems to be limited to name calling. If you want to return SMO to the state it was in during the 1920s with no jets and no flight schools, then it can stay. If not, then your tired old argument doesn't hold water. Unless you live in this area or at least in Santa Monica, you don't deserve a voice in this discussion. The arrogance of you pilots to tell people to just move just drives another nail into the coffin of SMO. And mark my words, it is going whether by fact of the non renewal of the leases in 2015 or by litigation from those adversely affected. By the way, I am not against commercial aviation in general but I am opposed to it in a general aviation airport that has a too short runway and no buffet zone between the jet exhaust and the homes. I am also against flight schools training students over densely populated areas. I don't know a lot of driving schools that start on densely populated freeways.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jcadams
03:36 PM on 04/09/2012
Your input on landing requirements is flawed. The Santa Monica Airport --- the WWII site for Douglas Aircraft’s bomber production --- has a 4973 ft. runway. And the Pilatus PC-12 aircraft pictured has a takeoff distance of 2300 ft. and a landing distance of 1830 ft. --- both over a 50 ft. obstacle. (Source: Wikipedia.) Temperature and loading may increase those requirements slightly. Sound characteristics should be less for this newer Pilatus aircraft than other turboprops --- and turboprops are already a substantial part of this airport's traffic. Moreover Santa Monica Airport is listed as a "relief airport" for LAX by the FAA. You apparently have a strong NIMBY agenda.
05:30 PM on 04/09/2012
I definitely don't want SMO in my backyard as it is now, especially since it is a Santa Monica endeavor and I am a West LA resident. So yes, NIMBY and I wouldn't want it in anyone else's backyard either. The jet fuel that your turbo prop planes fly causes black carbon, hazardous air pollution and ultrafine particles. Are you interested in knowing the effects these planes will have on the neighbors? If so, go to jetairpollution.com and look at the results of the recent Senatorial hearing on the pollution caused by SMO. As for my comments about the runway, they do apply to Class C and D jets but my comments were directed to the overall inappropriateness of SMO where it is and all that happens there. By the way, we have it on good authority from an air traffic controller at LAX that is SMO were to close it would not in any way affect the traffic around LAX. Do you have a single example of a reroute from LAX to SMO?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
LeslieTS1
Common Sense Person That Doesn't Read Replies
04:27 PM on 04/08/2012
Many things/companies only cater or give deals to the wealthy.
photo
o0oooooo0o
I snowboard in a bikini, so, yeah.. I'm important.
06:59 PM on 04/09/2012
Yeah.. it's called "servicing a market". Something we do in the free world. But hey, don't worry, it's okay.. I'm sure that Obama will find SOME way to require this new air service to accept food stamps for fares.
10:52 AM on 04/08/2012
(continued) than maybe someone will buy your idea and you`ll get rich. Then you can buy an airplane that will fly people on solar power.
I enjoyed this article. Score one for corporate/general aviation!
rkeeeballs
rock and a hard place
10:43 AM on 04/08/2012
Jealous ? yup !.....If I could..$ $....I would !
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
IndependentRule
There are two many Parties in Washington..
11:59 PM on 04/07/2012
I applaud any one nowadays with Entrepreneurial Spirit and investors who will take a risk on them. Many jobs may be created in this niche business. BRAVO and great choice of aircraft if the Pilatis PC-12 NG pictured is indeed the ticket.
09:28 PM on 04/07/2012
I guess the Silicon slickers don't want to fly with the little people.
08:45 AM on 04/08/2012
Did you read the article? They are getting a bargain in both time and money. Where's the downside?
12:19 PM on 04/07/2012
Is your company informing clients your flights will be dumping toxins into thousands of family homes! FAA is currently being sued and SMO remains the focus of several organizations that will not rest until the airport and it's constituents, are held to current, not grandfathered in, FAA standards and higher more current pollution standards.

Santa Monica fancies itself as "green & forward thinking.” Laws include the banning of plastic bags, smoking in public places and lawn blowers, yet they allow jets and prop plains to dump toxic fumes & lead over their own residents & neighbors. UCLA has a study that puts the airport at the epicenter of a toxic dumpling ground. Yet, SMO contends that they operate under "current air standards". The FAA set these standards decades ago and have no intention in looking at current studies that point out the immense effect "ultra fine particles" have on children!

Leaded fuel was banned in 1986. Lead in paint 1977! Yet prop planes fly overhead, over millions of people across the US with leaded fuel!

If you are a resident near a local airport, contacting your local councilmen and ask them, why are they not protecting you and your family from theses toxins? Please think about bringing a business that will only increase pollution to my family's home!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Johnangry
Outrageous statements spark good convo!!
02:23 PM on 04/07/2012
Well, when you get in your car this evening think about this:

You are keeping the anti-alternative fuel media machine alive. You want fossil fuels to go away? Stop buying gas no matter how much it hurts.

The usual excuse people give is that they have kids or come up with some other stuff. And then they scream, go to the pump, scream some more, pay, scream as they leave, go back and scream & pay again. People need to put up or shut up when it comes to the environment.
03:57 PM on 04/07/2012
Johnangry,

What are you personally doing to wean you and your family from the fossil fuel treadmill?
I took a full NABCEP accredited course for design and installation to push the movement to rid us from fossil fuesl. My truck is a diesel, And I purchased B99 until EPA band and pulled it from public purchase at the pump. (I get 19 mpg in town)
My wife's car is a hybrid and she has a home office so there is no commute. Not that it is of any of your business but we are avid cyclist that bike to stores as much as possible.
So again, what are YOU DOING? Other than using old tired out arguments. There is nothing you or anyone else for that matter that can justify polluting thousands of children and families for your hobbies!
08:46 AM on 04/08/2012
How many PPM are you talking about? The impact is negligible.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
01:14 AM on 04/07/2012
Seems really intelligent. I heard one of the main Silicon Valley campuses down there flies in employees, maybe Intel, Google, ?? The trend of people buying houses farther and farther out manifested in the 90s, and I guess the economics of this works out some how.
06:15 PM on 04/06/2012
Socially responsible or just humanly decent investors won't fly into Santa Monica Airport. All government and medical research studies of the environmental pollution caused only by SMO air traffic make the single runway airport a constantly increasing health hazard to those who live both nearby and miles away under the plumes. It is a single runway airport with homes across the streets bordering it. Other regional airports don't pose the dangers SMO does. If simple common sense human decency doesn't disincline people from adding to the dangers SMO presents now, perhaps Surf Air and it's clients might consider being on the business end of a class action law suit for deliberate negligence waiting to happen.

Art Eisenson
08:40 PM on 04/06/2012
You must live in the area of the airport. Being the airport opening in 1917 you must have been aware of the airport when you located into the area. The studies are a ruse by the city of Santa Monica to close it. It is really fortunate that the taxpayer dollars that have been used to improve it require that it stay open. If you are worried about pollution don’t drive your car and better yet move to an area where you can be mostly free of pollution like Antarctica. Are you really going to try to convince us that the 100 or so flights into Santa Monica have any impact compared to all the auto traffic within a 5 Sq. mile radius of the airport or all the flights into LAX just a few miles away, REALLY?
I am really tired of people twisting the facts and reality for their own selfish needs or desires. The facts speak for themselves.
11:34 PM on 04/08/2012
I am so tired of the tired old argument that you knew you moved near an airport. If we want to go back to the airport of 1917 then we will have no issues. No jets, works for me. By the way, cars no longer used leaded gas and yes, you uneducated fool, the jets do have a FAR greater impact than the cars. And the jets are used by less than 1% of the population whereas cars are used by many. Further the 1% have lots of options - LAX, Burbank, Aqua Dolce, etc etc etc. Where exactly do you live?
01:08 AM on 04/07/2012
So where were you when the airport community reached out with public meetings and study sessions? Hardly anyone showed up to voice the concerns you are raising here. Santa Monica is a quality facility with a rich aviation history and significant economic benefit to the local community. Social responsibility includes supporting working Americans and filtering out the inane ravings of solitary disgruntled malcontents.
09:03 AM on 04/07/2012
Art wouldnt it be cheaper for you to move than close down an entire airport.
11:38 PM on 04/08/2012
I attended the vision workshop and I know many people who think the airport should leave that also attended these workshops. Further CASMAT has been conducting studies for the past several months and have evidence to support that of the 1,000 people they interviewed 80% want airport operations drastically reduced and over 50% want SMO eliminated. Check it out for yourself. https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_xmzTNXnK13VTZhMjJrbnVTSU9yZUFHX0xNdVhpUQ/edit?pli=1 these findings will be presented to the April Airport Commission Visioning Workshop (April 23, 7:30 PM in the City Hall Council Chambers).
01:29 PM on 04/06/2012
700K for 2 single engine airplanes? A typo or overpaying by a factor of 10.

And have they actually launched, dear writer, or just announced? They aren't actually flying today. Fact check, anyone?
photo
Irishjac
Making lemonade as fast as I can.....
07:24 PM on 04/06/2012
I saw this on our local news last night. They didn't have too much more info, but here is a link to a tad more:

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/travel/2017919221_websurfair05.html

It says that it will start flying in May.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
IndependentRule
There are two many Parties in Washington..
11:57 PM on 04/07/2012
Pilatus pc12 ng are 3.3 Mil each....VERY nice plane with no real direct competition. A very fast, pressurized short field or rough field aircraft that has a HUGE cabin (larger than a Lear) Think Beech King Air B200, TWIN turbo
01:19 PM on 04/06/2012
Marquis Jets being cheap? Is that a joke? They are the most costly jet card program in the industry, about twice the hourly rate of standard charter?