Posted on 03/16/2008 6:44:56 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
British Airways has sparked an environmental row by flying a jumbo jet 6,000 miles to Hong Kong without a single passenger on board.
The Boeing 747 made the 11-hour trip manned by just four flightdeck crew, while all 300 seats behind them remained empty.
During its journey from Heathrow, BA Flight 0027 burned a massive 140 tons of fuel – the equivalent of filling 5,400 family-sized cars – and emitted 329 tons of CO2.
Passengers due to board the aircraft last Sunday were told by BA staff that not enough cabin crew were available for duty and they caught a later flight.
It is thought that scores more planes are being flown without passengers all over the world.
Today, another BA jumbo due to fly from Heathrow to Bombay in India is expected to have no passengers on both its outward and return journeys. The 9,000-mile round trip will burn at least 200 tons of fuel and emit 486 tons of CO2.
BA claims on its website that it is "leading the climate change debate" in the aviation industry to reduce the carbon footprint and that the "most senior people at British Airways are taking a leading role".
It adds: "Together, we promote technology that helps limit the impact of aircraft."
But Greenpeace climate campaigner Anna Jones said: "Aviation is now responsible for 13 per cent of the UK's impact on the climate, and this figure is rising fast.
"While the airlines tell us they desperately need new terminals and runways, they fly empty planes halfway across the world.
"Gordon Brown needs to get a grip on this industry before its wastefulness ruins our chances of tackling climate change."
And Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Peter Ainsworth said last night: "This is a stark example of the perverse way in which the aviation industry works.
"It is utterly ludicrous that at a time of growing public concern about aviation's contribution to climate change, British Airways is operating ghost flights in order to keep its take-off and landing slots at airports."
A BA spokesman said that although the flights did not have any passengers, they carried extra freight.
He added: "The flights would have flown as part of the schedule anyway, so no extra emissions are being created.
"This is about minimising customer inconvenience wherever possible and ensuring that as many flights in our schedule operate as planned."
Notify Priceline.Com...
If you want on or off this aerospace ping list, please contact Paleo Conservative or phantomworker by Freep mail.
I’m no eco-maniac, but this is inexcusable.
As a CONSERVative I agree it’s stupid and wastefull.
I bet the cargo holds were full.
They have a flight back from Hong Kong to London and needed to get the plane there to carry those passengers. Canceling the return leg, too, wouldn’t have solved anything - and would have made 300 people in Hong Kong boiling mad, since it might have taken several days to book them all on alternate flights.
I have lived way too long.
The more people on the plane the more fuel it uses the more co2 is in the air. If all jets flew empty we could save thousands of tons of emissions each year.
So, the eco terrorists will now regulate all
behavior. The fuel was paid. But now were whipped into hysteria over CO2?
Big deal! Whimpy.
Well, y’know, sometimes I drive my 15 passenger, gas-guzzling van to work, instead of my SUV, though it’s close enough to walk.
I own it, I buy the fuel, enviroweenies can bite me. Humans are NOT causing global warming, so screw it. If they want to fly an empty 747, can afford the fuel, GREAT! It’s their business.
No, it's not. It's called repositioning. The plane has to be where the schedule says it needs to be. British Airways paid for the fuel and lost revenue with empty seats. Capitalism can be cruel at times. It didn't cost the rest of us a dime. And as far as carbon in the atmosphere, I couldn't care less.
It amazes me that on the strength of a biased story, anyone without direct knowledge, would question business decisions in such a kneejerk fashion.
Today, another BA jumbo due to fly from Heathrow to Bombay in India is expected to have no passengers on both its outward and return journeys. The 9,000-mile round trip will burn at least 200 tons of fuel and emit 486 tons of CO2.
Too much million man math going on here. One plane will burn 140 tons of fuel, yet emit 329 tons of CO2. The other will burn 200 tons of fuel and emit 486 tons of CO2.
And I'm supposed to believe their calculations on global warming? I know, some scientists will be along to explain this math and when they're done, I'll still call it BS.
I heard that they had the Air conditioning of full with all the windows open, were smoking cigarettes, eating junk food and listening to Rush Limbaugh... O and the co-pilot was cleaning gun, which was a Dale Earnhardt signature springfield XD-9
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
When I’m on a really looooooonnnng flight I usually end up helping myself when I want a cup of tea etc...
There’s never enough crew for all the people on board...
I flew on BA years ago when it was BOAC
that flight had some of the nicest crew I’ve ever flown with...
How dare you interject facts for the envirowhackos.
So all the people who paid for a return ticket and are waiting at the other end of the segment can just go hang, eh? Route them home through Timbuktu a day and a half late?
I have an idea, whenever there is a deadhead from England to a pestilential Islamic sh*t-hole, why doesn't BA offer free one-way rides home to the denizens thereof?
-ccm
If I choose to drive my car across the country 5,000 times, with no passengers, while paying for my own fuel, it’s my business.
This kind of flight has to be an oddity else BA would go bankrupt. On average a 747 gets better mileage per passenger than a Toyota Prius and it does it traveling a direct route at 550mph. Also mileage has greatly improved over the years and is set to get better with carbon composite aircraft. Jet airliners are an amazing green technology.
What really is going on is the greens are green with envy that people are going on vacations and money making business trips and they aren't. A leftist cannot stand it if anyone anywhere has it better than they do. They make their happiness contingent on nobody being happier than them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.