Eco-Scandal! AA Plane Flies 5 Passengers From US To London

A major airline is under fire from environmentalists for flying an aircraft across the Atlantic with only five passengers on board.

The flight from Chicago to London meant that the plane, a Boeing 777, used 22,000 gallons of fuel.

Friends of the Earth said it was 'obscene' to waste so much fuel flying an almost empty plane

It led to American Airlines being accused of reckless behaviour by green lobby groups.

The latest "eco- scandal" flight took place on February 9 after American was forced to cancel one of its four daily services from Chicago to London.

While it was able to find places for nearly all the passengers on the fully-booked flight, five still had to be accommodated. Those who did fly were upgraded to the business class cabin.

But while they enjoyed lavish hospitality, the airline was accused of an "obscene waste of fuel" by Friends of the Earth.

Keep Reading

Comments

[tbail]

01:55 PM on 03/17/2008

Where is the outrage when Al Gore jets around the world on private planes encouraging the UN to steal trillions of dollars from American taxpayers through proposed carbon taxes? And what about all those celebrities and their private jets? We're still in the grips of the coldest winter on record globally and these climate change zealots just won't let it go.

[JerseyBob]

12:21 PM on 03/08/2008

Waste not!
Huge domes will capture the tremendous amount of gas coming from the Democratic and Republican national conventions. This gas will then be used to provide us with energy for four years.

[idontthinkthisishelping]

04:07 PM on 03/07/2008

AA? What about those egocentric selfish "not-green" passengers? Why couldn't they walk? Sure, they bought tickets for a transatlantic flight, but I bet they didn't have any pressing need to be there by a certain time on a certain date -- that's why tickets don't have times and dates on them! Many people like to fly coach just because it's an opportunity to meet those people sitting on your lap that you otherwise wouldn't and, often, free water! -- so I guess the joke's on them!

How many here would refuse the flight and go standby for God knows how long? Do you have any idea how much energy your computer is costing the rest of us conscience "progressive" "greens?"

If AA schedules a Chicago --> London flight on a daily basis that can only accommodate 5 passengers, I would be the first to say that's just senseless, and hopefully the third or so to get a seat. Assuming I got there before you all did.

Could you who obviously know better than everyone else at all times about everything please print me out a list of everything you prohibit? But on a manual printer, which I suppose would be your hand -- but not on or with anything that came from the carcass of a tree, so maybe coal (hermetically sealed) on a wall. Don't bother shipping it; I'll come to you. On foot.

That'll show those airlines who are only in business to waste jet fuel because they're in bed with the a-rabs and neocons so they don't have to pay for it...

[edinmaine]

03:50 PM on 03/07/2008

I consider myself to be a strong environmentalist. I am also a retired pilot.

This kind of silliness is what gives environmentalists a bad name. This flight was essentially a repositioning (ferry) flight. Sure, only five passengers flew on this flight (because they failed to place them on other flights) but the aircraft would have flown empty otherwise. The reason ... the aircraft had to be repositioned to London to pickup over 400 passengers who had booked tickets on the return flight.

In spite of what some people may think, aircraft are not manufactured at the airport. They have to be brought in. In some rare cases, they have to be flown in empty.

The airlines have dramatically improved fuel efficiency over recent years, by operating more fuel-efficient aircraft, and by operating at higher average load factors. A single exceptional flight does not alter that successful record.

Now, about those empty car seats we see every day commuting to work?

[tbail]

07:03 PM on 03/18/2008

Since you are a retired pilot you might have already heard about this: I heard that within the next two years the FAA is going to convert its traffic system from radar to GPS. This will save time and fuel since jets will be able to fly from point A to point B without having to enter a "highway in the sky" before starting the main part of the flight." It will also reduce the miles planes need to stay away from each other in flight since GPS has a larger margin for error in avoiding mid-air collisions.

[Arghangel]

02:16 PM on 03/07/2008

Truly a sad commentary on our profit-driven, waste-ridden, capitalist juggernaut lifestyle... but just think of all those pound and euro-laden Brits flooding back on the return flight to buy all those,... those fantastic Chinese imported goods we have to offer here in the States!

It would be nice though if we could all just learn to STAY HOME AND BE HAPPY!

America... GET A GRIP ON THYSELF!!

[barriosbabe]

02:03 PM on 03/07/2008

I think it is an important story if it gets people talking. We are all so remiss on stopping global warming. Just look at all the trash from Costco, their apples come in gigantic plastic containers.

[hoopesaz]

01:29 PM on 03/07/2008

Wouldn't it be funny if there some screwed up union rule requiring the flight crew to fly the plane back, with or without passengers. Or if not, some excessive overtime compensation that made profitable to waste all of the fuel instead of paying employees to site on the ground.

I don't know, but it wouldn't suprise me. My father worked for the railroads for years and the union rules regarding the train crews were ASTONISHING.

[evilcarbon]

11:09 AM on 03/07/2008

If AA wanted to fly the plane empty, I see no problem with that... unless I own their stock!

Global Warming alarmist beware... www. EvilCarbon.com

[RMasters]

09:58 AM on 03/07/2008

Gee, people just don't have any clue what's going on.

Almost 15 years ago, I already flew with only 2 other passengers (that adds up to 3 in total) from Europe to Chicago.
In 2000, my buddy and I flew with others, totaling up to less than 10 (don't remember the exact number) from Europe to Newark. Nobody ever complained about that..

Respect and Credit to Environmental Agencies who try to help our Nature, as I do as well. Another blame to the News, which only report to get another headline, but don't keep up with details.

[Earl]

09:03 AM on 03/07/2008

That's Al Gore plus four other people. No, scratch that. That's Al Gore plus three other people.

[pkafin]

02:17 PM on 03/07/2008

An Al gore fat joke? I think you missed the point of the article.

[Jethro212]

11:56 PM on 03/07/2008

Haha, yes, I also loved Edwards talking about Global Warming when he was leasing a Boeing Buisness jet (737) for him and his staff.

Guess us ole peasants shall till the land so thine lord can fly!

[OilWarsDotCom]

11:17 PM on 03/06/2008

American Airlines is so poorly run, it is no wonder shit like this happens - They treat passengers like dirt - ALL USA carriers could take a lesson from Air France as far as passenger service. Let's face it, Americans working service jobs on cruise ships and airlines etc., sucks. You know it an I know it. We are just superior to the rest of the human race, they all need to kiss our asses!
PS
And these are the jerk offs who are going to charge us $25 for an extra bag. When the airlines were deregulated that is when the bottom line became more important than the customer - you can thank Ronnie Reagan for that - the rest has been down hill.

[WLA]

02:00 AM on 03/07/2008

Air Canada is pretty good too.

United sucks my balls. On an empty flight, they wanted me to pay $50 extra for an empty seat that had legroom. There was PLENTY of upgraded seats available for everyone on board. Yet, they insisted on principle that we must sit elbow-to-elbow. I won't fly United ever again.

[sparkandy]

05:37 AM on 03/07/2008

I fly AA all the time. When I'm in an empty plane and don't like my seat, I just get up and move to a better one. I though everyone did it. Once the plane's in the air, unless you're trying to go from coach to business or first, the flight attendants couldn't care less where you sit.

[Americanabroad]

09:08 AM on 03/07/2008

Air France, British Airways, Lufthansa. Yeah, they are all good, until they pull a wild cat strike. Then you are completely f****d. We hit Heathrow during an unannounced work slowdown. Used to be able to check baggage directly from Billund, Denmark to the States, when going by way of London. The route was Billund-Gatwick- bus tranfer-Heathrow-US. But since 9/11, you have to pick up your luggage in Gatwick (It can't be trucked over to Heathrow because there is no fool-proof way to control security and access while the bags are in transit) and then re-check in Heathrow.

We hit the international terminal at Heathrow during a work slowdown. A couple of 1000 people were in line, only 3 of about 30 gates open. After checking each passager, the personnel would then have a friendly 2-minute chat with them before calling the next person to be checked. There were about a dozen staff milling around behind the counters doing nothing except occasionally interrupting the 3 who were working to have a little chat.

I am usually quite passive and peaceful, but airports can certainly give me the urge to commit bloody mayhem.

BAs personnel are good when they decide to work, but if they want to make your life hell, they can and will. The same goes for Air France.

[RuthlessDictator]

10:02 PM on 03/06/2008

This is the same BS I have to go through explaining why the city bus is running with no passengers.

Maybe the bus is at the end of it's route and has dropped off all of it's passengers and is turning around to go back the other way but hasn't picked up anybody yet.

[thomasomalley]

09:37 PM on 03/06/2008

Your god is larger than the earth? Must be eating at macdonalds. And I agree with diamndpeace, should have given the tickets to standby folk. Or maybe strapped your god to it like athe shuttle. ANd who in the world really rates tom cruise or any of those hacks. It's all temporary. Love to see you and your gargantuan god driving around in a golfcart, oh and your lapdog too. Happy trails. I'm just off to tiffany's to browse.

[4pragmatism]

09:32 PM on 03/06/2008

I've struggled to understand the mathematical and physics "concepts" used each time an article like this provides the total tonnage of CO2 "produced". The article stated: "It is estimated that each passenger produced 43 tons of CO2 – consuming enough fuel to carry a Ford Mondeo around the world five times." Thus, the total CO2 produced by the 5 passengers, according to the "estimates" stated in the article, would appear to be 215 tons.
Keep up and follow me now...
The article said the jet burned 22,000 gallons of fuel. The density of jet fuel (at 60F) is about 0.84 kg/L (or 7.4 lbs/gal). This means the jet burned a total of 162,800 pounds of fuel. That's about 81.4 tons of total fuel.
Is it really possible to produce 215 tons of CO2 from only 81.4 tons of fuel? Is it really possible to produce CO2 at a mass 2.6 times more than the fuel it came from? It defies physics.
The most fundamental concept in chemistry is the "law of conservation of mass/matter", which states that there is no detectable change in the quantity of matter during an ordinary chemical reaction (such as burning jet fuel). An equivalent statement is that matter cannot be created/destroyed, although it may be rearranged. This implies that for any chemical process the mass of the reactants must equal the mass of the products.
Can someone help the rest of us better understand the math and logic used by the global warming alarmists? Besides redefining the causes of climate change, are they now also re-writing the books on physics, mass, and matter? And, what does this really say about the validity of information they repeatedly bombard us with? Regards.

[WLA]

01:55 AM on 03/07/2008

It's entirely possible that the equation contains more than the mass of fuel alone. For example, in the reaction, perhaps oxygen binds with the carbon during burning (ah... CO2?). I'm no scientist either, but get off the "fake climate change" shit. There are thousands and thousands of scientists supporting it and a handful of scientists, pseudoscientists, industrialists, and just plain looney neocon jerkoffs trying to debunk it.

[Jethro212]

12:08 AM on 03/08/2008

Record cold this last year, reason? Solar production was lower. Haven't heard much about that in the media have we?

Remember, in science you constantly try to prove theories, not make some blind religious statement saying "the discussion is over". When that happens you sound like the Catholic Church in 1000 AD.

[tinytessa]

09:29 PM on 03/06/2008

Friends of the Earth.........shouldn't you be planting trees somewhere?????
You show your incredible ignorance of the airline industry with your rantings about flying the ariplane back with only 5 people aboard. IF you ONLY KNEW.............
Having flown for 32 years, I have been on MANY flights with zero passengers.........imagine that!?!?!
There is too much to go into about why it is done so, just go to your local nursery and get some trees and flowere and be a....................... Friend of the Earth..........