Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Trans-Atlantic Flight Arrives in London With Just Five Passengers on Board
Furious environmental campaigners have hit out at an airline that sent a plane on a 4,000-mile journey with just five passengers on board.
With enough room to fit 245 passengers, the American Airlines flight made the nine-hour trip on 22,000 gallons of fuel - a total of 4,400 gallons per passenger.
However, the lucky five passengers were treated to a luxury flight from Chicago to Heathrow when they were upgraded to business class and were waited on by two cabin staff each.
American Airlines came under criticism when the flew a Boeing 777 with just five passengers on board
But each passenger on the plane had a massive carbon footprint of 43.2 tonnes of CO2 and it has been branded one of the worst "environmental crimes".
The flight had been fully-booked, but an 11-hour delay due to a mechanical failure meant most passengers made other travel arrangements.
Richard Dyer, of Friends of the Earth, said: "Flying a virtually empty plane is an obscene waste of fuel.
"Through no fault of their own, each passenger's carbon footprint for this flight is about 45 times what it would have been if the plane had been full."
The average car would have to drive 123,000 miles to clock up the same carbon footprint or a British household would five years to use up the same amount in gas and electricity.
Environmentalists have reacted angrily to the airline's decision.
Campaigners said it was an obscene environmental crime and was the worst case of its kind they had come across.
Rather than cancel the near-empty flight AA90, American Airlines decided to go ahead with the controversial trip went ahead as more passengers were waiting at Heathrow for the plane to arrive.
Norman Baker MP, the Liberal Democrat spokesman for transport, said: "I have heard of planes flying at two thirds full before but this is the worst example I have come across.
"It is a climate change crime. It shows the ludicrous nature of the aviation industry.
"For an airline to think it sensible to fly aeroplanes which are virtually empty and where the crew outnumber the passengers is madness.
"I hate to think of the size of each passenger's carbon footprint on that flight.
"I understand the airline has a timetable to stick to and you can't leave people stranded but I can't believe there wasn't an alternative rather than fly a near-empty plane across the Atlantic."
Anita Goldsmith, for Greenpeace, accused the US airline of putting profit before the environment.
She said: "Aviation is the fastest growing source of climate changing emissions, yet here we have another example of the reckless approach the industry takes when it comes to a choice between profit and convenience over the environment and all our futures."
Environmentalists have been campaigning for the government to force airlines to pay for carbon offsetting rather than passing it on to passengers.
Mr Baker said: "This case shows the need for the aviation industry to pay its own tax on fuel rather than the passenger which would give companies the incentive to fill their planes."
Mr Dyer, of Friends of the Earth, added: "Governments must stop granting the aviation industry the unfair privileges that allow this to happen by taxing aviation fuel and including emissions from aviation in international agreements to tackle climate change."
Flight AA90 had been due to take off from Chicago's O'Hare International airport at 3.10pm on Friday, February 8.
It did not leave until after 5am the next day and arrived in London at 5pm.
Anneliese Morris, spokeswoman for American Airlines, said they thought long and hard about cancelling the flight but did not due to the number of passengers waiting in London.
She said: "This situation is very rare. Exceptional operational circumstances meant that we had to operate this flight from Chicago to London with just five passengers on board.
"The flight operated with a full complement of crew as they had to position in London to operate one of the flights back to the US.
"The decision to do so is never taken lightly, but we had to consider the knock-on impact cancelling this flight would have had on our schedule out of London on a weekend when all of the flights were extremely busy.
"Our goal is to operate our fleet as efficiently as possible to provide our customers with excellent service while being a responsible environmental citizen."
David Learmount, of Flight International magazine, said that had American Airlines cancelled flight AA90 it would have taken days to transfer the Heathrow passengers onto other planes.
He said: "The average load factor across the Atlantic is 88 per cent, that is every plane flying between the US and the UK is 88 per cent full.
"To transfer 250 passengers onto other planes would take days to clear the flight, because there will be five passengers on one plane here and 10 on another there.
"The bulk of the passengers will spend two or three days stuck in a hotel being paid for by the airline."
© 2008 The Daily Mail
40 Comments so far
Show AllMy God, maybe there is a job for Rush Limbaugh - oh sorry, thats only for hot air balloons
Geez, I'm happy enough when my occasional trans-Pacific flights back to America are so sparsely filled that I get an entire row to lay down in and sleep. 14 hours is a lot nicer...
You are right Matti. I'd like to see the derigables return. Everyone is first class and a nice two day trip to London, flying at low altitude, sleeping quarters and gormet meals with dancing girls and a cocktail lounge. But they would probably have craps and blackjack tables too.
Actually they make more $$ hauling cargo than passengers. If the passenger luggage bays were empty, they probably would have filled them with cargo. The profit margin on passengers is very low for intercontinal flights, or cross country flights with large airliners.
Correct Mr. Whitman, this article demonstrates a danger of "carbon-footprint" logic.
The people travelling across the Atlantic for pleasure would have a much better time on a Ship, and the true cost of their vacation would be better reflected in the price. They'd need more than 2 weeks "vacation time" to make the trip worth it, though.
The people travelling across the Atlantic for Business could mostly use communications technology instead. If it really needs to be face to face business, it's got enough money behind it to justify the time and expense of Sea Travel. Sovereign Governments could set the example here, they don't need to turn a profit.
Of course, there's no Passenger Ship Lines around anymore (yet), and they'd need to run on something other than coal. But it sounds like a better direction for our tech. development than yet another thing to do with a cellular phone, doesn't it?
The plane is the waste.
The problem is one of design philosophy and commercial purpose.
Talking about the fuel problem distracts us, and opens up the "alternative fuel" fairy-tale.
Until some radically different propulsion systems or vehicle designs hold sway, flying through the sky in machines for mundane purposes will remain wasteful and slightly stupid.
I'm not sure if everyone is grasping the size of the "refurbishing" job we have ahead of us to stay any kind of civilized in a Sustainable Future.
-matti
jeez, if its that bad, then NO flight should be taken lightly.
IT'S THE SAME DAMAGE WHETHER THE PLANE IS FULL OR NOT!
This is ridiculous. If AA flew a nearly empty plane 5000 miles, it's because they didn't have any other option. It cost them a bundle. After all, they have to pay for all that fuel that is burned, plus salaries, maintenance, etc.
ooops, that should be "thinking"
Right on Kem...I would say there is rampant altered thinging in government, but you don't have to be in the sky to see nice looking women.
Upgraded to business class? Hey, I'd have wanted my turn at the controls.
What most don't realize, is that airplane seating when "completely upright" for take-off/landings ISN'T anymore.
Some real turd, figured out that he could get another whole row of seats in - without changing the leg or hip room - by just tilting every seat backwards just a bit more.
If one thinks about it, there were days before the crowding got even worse, but one barely notices how many inches there is to the seat in front, as we're conditioned to be as well contained cows.
¿ Sir, can I please have more (inches) ?
Namaste
If the hidden (military, environmental) costs of fossil fuels were paid for by fuel consumers instead of the general taxpayer, airlines would redefine their concept of "efficiency".
At present, financial efficiency is achieved by flying the most passengers with the fewest number of aircraft and crews.
As fuel costs become a more significant factor, the airlines may decide that efficiency includes using more smaller aircraft, keeping spare aircraft and crews on standby, less rigid scheduling, and other ways to avoid the "domino effect" of one missed flight.
Eventually we're all going to have to practice less "efficient" travel, and budget more time to get from point A to point B, in the interest of conserving energy.
We have to work toward a less frenetic economy that gives people more free time... to take the bus to work, or to take a zeppelin to Europe.
An extra two inches sounds pretty good. I could handle that.
All of Congress must be on it FROGGY, or something better.
IN 1957, I had a flight out of San Francisco to Denver, a luxury DC-7. Back then every seat was first class. I was the only passenger. Had six stews to treat me. Gourmet meals and drinks were comped and they had to carry me off of the plane when we arrived in denver. I never saw so many georgous wemon all together at the same time. ___Up real Close anyway.
Yep, they lost my suitcase. But a uniformed man delivered it to my door the following day and also gave a free round trip ticket to anyplace in the US. Good for a year. How things have progressed since those years, wow.
I wonder if everyone at AA is on prozac?
The guy who wrote Silence of the Lambs started one of his other books in that series with this tidbit.
On the slave ships from Africa, each slave was alloted a space 18 inches wide in the hold of the ships. They typical modern airline seat is 20 inches wide. Enjoy your extra 2 inches!
Think not only that the plane might have been needed for another route from London, but also the flight crew and attendents. There's been many times I've been and have been told that might flight is delayed. There's a plane at the gate, and the weather is fine. But the airlines schedule was set such that they were waiting on the flight crew of another flight to take this one out. When that flight gets delayed coming in, then my flight out gets delayed because there's no one to fly the plane.
I wish I'd get that lucky. These days I'm usually the 6'5", 275 lb guy who's jammed into a middle seat in coach because the plane if full. :)
This happened to me back in 1988. Its was 8am on New Year's day, and I got to the airport early after a NYE concert the night before. I got on a 747 that was flying me home cross-country and there couldn't have been more than 20 people on the plane. And half of us were all deadheads who'd been at the same show next to Oakland airport the night before! They didn't give me an upgrade, but I still remember stretching out in luxury across a whole row of 5 seats in the middle of the plane that I had to myself.
That's so rare I still remember it 20 years later. Congrats to these lucky 5 who won the airline lottery. They'll be back to 'sardine' flights in what I call 'jockey class' (because the seats are apparently designed for people the size of horse racing jockeys) the next time.
God, I would've loved to have been one of the 5 passengers on that flight! Imagine the comfort and pleasantness!
On every flight I've taken over the past 7 years or so, they have ALL BEEN PACKED to where people were left off the the flight. Airlines routinely overbook flights and make people angry.
The "sardine effect" when flying today is pure misery. There's no leg room and there's always a crying baby or smelly or rude person to ruin the whole experience.
I say congrats to the "London 5" who had a once in a lifetime treat. It most likely won't happen again in a million more sardine flights.
There would not have been a load of people waiting for that "particular" tail number aircft to arrive in London. That aircraft would have been scheduled out the day after it arrived in London, even a few hours after arrival. It may then been scheduled for a flight to India, or South America or Tokyo. It just had to be there for a scheduled flight. ~Gimmethetruth~ nailed it. It just some hoop-ala due to ignorance.
Plans and scheduling is conducted weeks in advance. You have a major maintenance problem and the schedule must be revised. I'd bet they made more money on that flight carrying cargo in the luggage bins than hauling a load of passengers. The five pasengers got a lucky break.
actually, it's more simple than silly. just take away the subsidies to the airlines. funny, that word not even mentioned in the article or the posts that follow. boo-hoo to those waiting in london. catch a boat.
actually, it's more simple than silly. just take away the subsidies to the airlines. funny, that word not even mentioned in the article or the posts that follow. boo-hoo to those waiting in london. catch a boat.
so the people in london waited 11 hours for the plane to arrive? and what about their, presumably, connecting flights?
Well, this wasn't really about flying the passengers. It was about moving the plane to accommodate the passengers waiting in London.
If I were in London and were told I couldn't fly home because the plane over was canceled due to a carbon footprint, I'd be totally pissed.
Even if all the passengers had been put on other flights, they would still need to get the plane to London to pick up the passengers who were waiting there.
The funny thing is, if they had flown the plane empty, no one would have known and there's be no fuss.
Ah, the joys of winter flying. I agree with KIM, God made pencils with erasors for a reason.
In fact, if you think about it, all of the passnegers who were scheduled to fly on the original flight were squeezed onto other flights. In the end, the same number of planes flew across the Atlantic, and the same number of passengers flew across the Atlantic, as was originally scheduled, before the ten-hour delay. So the combined carbon footprint remained the same as if things had gone as originally planned.
No fuel was wasted.
I agree with Kem, and I'm glad to see that we on Common Dreams do have some Common Sense, in spite of our idealism. It's obviously not standard policy to fly such empty flights. Occasionally systems break down, and when they do there is waste. I think it was more important for the airline to get back on schedule in this case, than to try to micro-manage their fuel loss and income loss.
As a progressive, anti-corporate, environmentalist, etc...... I'm kind of embarrassed by the response of the environmental organizations.
well, so long as the saudis are getting their cut, american airlines were just being patriotic.
And the hotel rooms would have cost more than the fuel? I doubt it!
This actually is silly. It's just like a bus line, or a trucking company, sometimes you have to dead head, "go empty". That 777 was most likely scheduled to bring hundreds of passengers from England back to the US in a day or two. Because of maintence delay of eleven hours, it would have screwed up the plans and schedulng big time and so they dead headed the flight to England. It's not that uncommon. The airlines don't like it, unless they have enough cargo aboard they are losing money on a dead head flight. Sometimes it's just necessary. They were going to require a 777 in England on a certin day and that was the one available. They also may have hauled enough cargo instead of passenger luggage to pay for the flight. It's that simple.
American Airlines lost a ton of money because of this flight, everyone lost on this one, the environment and the airline.
Kem Patrick is right in on sense. The "no fly" plan could have created havoc for a lot of people waiting for the return flight and probably would have ended up costing the airline a bundle when they all switched over to different carriers.
However, in this day and age, there should be a means for inter-airline agreement that would have taken care of the people returning from overseas and removed the need for the near-empty flight. The airlines definitely should be able to do better than this!
This is ridiculous. As much as I hate wastage, this tend to happen every now and then but not very often. This time of the year is fairly slow but not by much. The typical load of an airline is usually about 80%, Higher for asian carriers and lower for american. This is just because the service provided by the US carriers is just plain atrocious..
Canceling a flight because of low load has a domino effect that the airlines can't afford.
This thing about carbon footprint is getting out of hand. It has become another buzzword.
Yeah, he wouldn't need the gas bottles that's for sure. ___ Funny, I can see him up there now.
I was on a DC-10 flight from SFO to ORD around 1990 that had only 5 people on board (coincidently). Due to a maintenance problem, this plane had to get to Chicago to make the multi-stop run the downed plane could not. It was a flight I will always remember.
This does happen. It's business and it makes business sense. It's amazing the press this receives versus the innumerable supersonic fighter and bomber jet flights over our country, not to mention other obscene energy waste in the military from our Department of Offense. I believe a little perspective is needed here.
Yes, whether all the Sturm und Drang here is sincere ignorance or informed demagoguery, it's nonsense. But it's actually worse than nonsense. There are real environmental problems that must be fixed or we'll all be in very bad shape. And as long as people think that the way to fix the problems is to bump people off (not one but two flights) the real problems won't be addressed, let alone solved. Would that it were as easy as these outraged cries imagine (or pretend to imagine).
Well of course KEM, when you say "Funny, I can see him up there now." ¿ Isn't he usually high as a kite ?
I believe he is Namaste. I'm not a doctor, but Rush Limboooo dispays the symptoms of "Semmelweis reflex", a brain disorder. That's an actual personality malady and one can read up on it by Googling ___ Semmelweis.
Excellent points ~Shanaza~.
this might not be the right forum but i do not understand the concept a 1 tonne of co2.
we got 22,000gal of fuel at 7 lbs/gal. That comes to 154,000 lbs of fuel. One tonne is about 2,200 lbs. if we divide the 154,000 lbs of fuel bt 2,200 i get 70 tonnes of fuel. The article states that each passenger had a footprint of 43 tonnes, the total for 5 passengers would be 215 tonnes, 3 times more than the total weight of the fuel. Kinda hard to grasp...
No one stated that American Airlines needed this plane at the other end to return the passengers from London. It seems a stupid waste of fuel, etc. Maybe in the future American or the people who report these stories could explain the entire situation. It was still a traversity of waste, but there was a reason for sending it almost enpty.
They could of taken a Small Jet, but the big one probably had a connection at it's destination.
Actually ~Barbara Boyer~, several bloggers did believe that people were waiting in London for that particular airplace. ~Lino~ for one.