Outrage Over Airlines’ Empty ‘Ghost Flights’

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/18/7754/

Outrage Over Airlines’ Empty ‘Ghost Flights’
by Jonathan Brown

Airlines that run empty “ghost flights”, needlessly pumping hundreds of tonnes of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, should face heavy fines, environmentalists have demanded.



The Government was being urged to clamp down on the practice after it emerged that British Airways had flown three long-haul services between London, Hong Kong and Mumbai last week, even though staff illness meant there were no passengers on board.

It is estimated that between them the three Boeing 747-400s produced the equivalent amount of CO2 to that emitted by 200 to 300 motorists in a year. Tim Johnson, the director of the Aviation Environmental Federation, said the current system of levying air-passenger duty, which charges an environmental tax of up to £80 per ticket rather than a flat rate per aircraft, provided a “perverse incentive” for aircraft to fly empty. The system is due to change in November next year.

“Moving to an aircraft-based duty is an attempt to encourage airlines to a higher pay load factor, but in the interim a carbon penalty would make up for the shortfall there would otherwise be pending its introduction,” Mr Johnson said.

BA defended its decision to go ahead with the flights, saying they were carrying cargo loads and that it was the only way of preventing major knock-on disruption to passengers expecting to board return flights in India and the Far East, and of stopping delays to those aircraft awaiting fresh crew. “We operate an extremely small number of empty flights and, when we do so, we do it in order to minimise overall disruption. This is the least worst solution to a complex problem,” a BA spokesman said.

more...

http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/03/18/7754/

:shrug:

Can't they put mail, or parcels, or SOMETHING worthwhile on these flights so they aren't a *COMPLETE* waste of natural resources?

The OP clearly states that these flights were carring cargo.

Nothing was said about how much cargo. I doubt that they were packed to the hilt, and I didn't see anything about American in the OP.

when the passengers don't fill up?

is it somehow "better" that they fly people around instead of just planes? Usually they have reasons to re-position equipment from place to place to serve their other passengers better.

Charge the "carbon penalty" on EVERY gallon of jet fuel (and, while we are at it, every gallon of diesel, gasoline, natural gas, and every pound of coal). The cost should pay for sequestration of the CO2 equivalent.

tax the rich, first

:hi:

FWIW, I still agree with you on this subject!

If people are going to use the system you have to provide a consistent level of service for them. You can't just cancel somebodys flight and say screw your connections mr customer. You honor your schedule and if the aggregate average passengers per mile doesn't work out than you alter your schedule.

Take a look at any bus/subway system during off hours. You will find the same thing.

privitizing it. She screwed up the Red Cross to but no one wants to admit it.