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."
Every year, I see these trucks with trailers filled with empty cars going down the highway. ...And buses and subway trains with NO PASSENGERS leaving from the garage.
I am available to be a seat filler if it makes things look better.
Al Gore has put them in a bind. They can’t prove they are serious about “climate change” unless they waste a lot of fuel on pointless jet flights.
How much fuel does Al Gore use flying around talking about global warming?
I was somewhat shocked when a coworker told me (and then showed me the math) that a 747 gets about 5 mpg at cruise even when fully loaded. Getting up to cruise takes quite a bit more, but once it's up there, it really doesn't use that much fuel.
Compare that to my old Suburban that got 9 mpg dead empty (except the overweight driver). With a tailwind. Downhill.
I don't think they wanted to have to pay a cabin crew. They would be required to have at least one flight attendant for each 50 passenger seats installed regardless of the number of passengers on the flight. The BA 747 with 52 business class beds seats 329 passengers, so it would require 7 flight attendants if even one passenger were carried. Often aircraft are ferried to the far east just for maintenance. I bet the caro hold was full both ways.
Is that a no?
SO? It’s their airline, they can do what they want.
These Luddites need to get a grip.
Yes.
I have no idea, but it's clearly worth it. His audiences get to feel virtuous, and he gets richer. The only downside is that the cities he visits have added heating bills, since he always seems to bring unusually cold weather with him.
Are we now going against capitalism for the sake of
"touchy-feely now I can sleep at night" EnviroWackoConservatives?
Un freeking believable.
Keep in mind that fuel tax on international aviation is
zero.
Any complaints from the shareholders?
Sometimes even better. DFW has a jet fuel pipeline coming from a refinery in Corpus Christi located in a duty free zone. The fuel is refined from foreign crude oil then shipped via the pipeline to DFW. If it is used to fuel an aircraft that will fly internationally, no import fees are charged, because it is being re-exported.
I see lots of empty subway cars and buses at different times each day. Should we alert the Media and have public transportation officials arrested?
>>>>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.
I see the good drugs have kicked in!
:~)
Hopefully the shareholders are aware of contractual obligations to carry cargo, regardless of the passenger load.
If my thinking is wrong, someone please explain it in a way I can understand.
If this is inexcusable, then you are an eco-maniac.
So they flew a plane from point A to point B. Big deal. That’s part of the airline business, moving planes from one place to another.
Sure:
Human activity does not cause global warming. Don't even bother to argue the details of CO2 because the moment you do, you've admitted the absurd and untrue basis for their arguments.
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.