Wall Street Journal Article on Private Jets

The WSJ used the Freedom of Information Act to get the records of ALL private jets since 2007 to 2010 - including Blocked jets, and put it on a database. Not current, but interesting none the less.

Database: http://projects.wsj.com/jettracker

Article: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703551304576260870733410758.html?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories

I can’t access the WSJ site but it sounds like what JetNet and Amstat do already. Any differences (other than the obvious question as to why WSJ would want to compile this type of information)?

First the corporate owners put themselves in the news, first by the BARR program, then flying to Washington for free money in their Gulfstreams.

I think the general public are both intrigued and disgusted by the use and misuse of private jets and public bail outs.

As much as I love corporate jets - loan over 3 trillion dollars - some got billions with less than 0.01 percent interest - and many of the loans were made to NON USA companies???

Then add the fact these companies hide ownerships, and block tail numbers - leave many to wonder what and where they are hiding.

huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/2 … ?ir=Canada

Don’t automatically assume that all corporate jet owners are hiding anything. Our flight department blocked our tail numbers strictly for personal security and competitive reasons. Fact is we do nothing but business flights for our privately held company and if the owner wants to remain anonymous, it’s certainly well within his right. No Cabo, Maui or Paris here; we go to places like Woodward, OK; Newport, AR and Poplar Bluff, MO. In fact, if the WSJ wanted to present a more balanced view of business aviation, they should have mentioned other flight departments that do nothing but contribute to thousands of small communities around the country. Fact is, getting rid of BARR didn’t affect us at all, we applied for a callsign, totally indescript of our operation and it would take a considerable amount of research to figure out who we are.

Sadly, balanced journalism doesn’t sell newspapers.

What type of business is that requires blocking the number for security reason? I can see competitive reasons but personal security? Is it a despicable business such as lawyering or used car sales? :smiley:

Wow. In fact there are numerous examples of both privately and publicly held businesses whose CEOs require personal security. Do some research and you’ll find out why there are so many successful security firms out there. High net worth individuals aren’t the only ones using them. And no, we’re not in the legal or used car business.

Is it a despicable business such as lawyering or used car sales?

Lawyering is despicable??

Okay, I was a little harsh.

Bad lawyers: public defenders, music industry lawyers, district attorneys, assistant district attorneys, lawyers advertising on TV, lawyers filing frivolous suits, lawyers filing case action suits where they get 40%, 60%, or more of the award, divorce lawyers, lawyers who charge their full (highly inflated) fee yet have paralegals do most of the work, lawyers who run for elected offices, lawyers who use the technicalities of the law (i.e. what they do is legally right but morally wrong).

Good lawyers: lawyers working for non-profits that help people and a few corporate lawyers.

The first thing we do, let’s kill all the lawyers.
(2 Henry VI, 4.2.59), Butcher to Jack Cade


I understand Nassau is in the heart of the largest coal belt in the universe! :laughing:

I understand *some * may need security but how many of these CEOs see personal security as a status symbol rather than actually needing it? I can see if they are flying to countries like Colombia or Mexico but not within the USA.

The need for security is real. Imagine you are CEO of a huge corporation that employs thousands. One day you have to make the unpopular decision to lay off hundreds of workers. The next day you are getting on an airline flight with one of your former, and rather angry, employees.

Also, given the net worth many CEOs have, they and their families are targets for kidnappers and blackmail artists. It has happened…

I understand the need to block private aircraft entirely, my only wish is they could block the tail number, but still show the flight information. Very useful for airports and FBOs to know when an aircraft might be arriving, even if we don’t know the actual tail number.

That should be very simple. Just replace the N number with “Blocked”. Probably some regulation that says FA can’t.

I think the problem is when the FAA blocks an aircraft, they don’t release any information on it to FA. FA does not get a choice in the matter.

Wow, just wow!

It’s the operators choice - they can be excluded from the feed entirely, or be in the feed but blocked by the vendors (like FlightAware). Many operators choose the latter so they can use private flight tracking services, like our Selective Unblocking.

We offer this to verified FBOs - we block the ident and aircraft type but can disclose the origin/destination/departure time/arrival time. Contact FlightAware customer service if you’re an FBO to become verified - it’s free.

I don’t make fun of you for being a car salesman- Don’t knock a business that you don’t understand.

Everyone hates lawyers till they need one.

edit- sorry, RTFT

I hate lawyers even when I need one. It’s like taking bad tasting medicine, a necessary evil because the laws today - most written by lawyers - so complicated.

What the hell is wrong with this country that so f***ing many things do need a lawyer?

Is it possible to get this information as an airport operator, as I do not work for the FBO, but run the Operations Department for our airport.