chrisbl thank you for pointing out that I'd used the word 'site' versus 'cite' (
now corrected... such that you might rest you anxious brow). That said, some might say that it's a shame that you didn't elaborate on the subject matter of this thread; aside from using it as a medium to bash an innocent grammatical error.
Therein, in case it's escaped you, the facts of the matter are that the BBC (
a supposed public broadcaster with a duty of care for accuracy and truth) have concocted a story, citing 'facts' which, upon inspection, simply do not add up.
That flying via a Tango route adds 100 extra miles and uses more fuel is not in doubt.
But for the BBC to say:
"Airlines are deliberately flying longer routes over the Atlantic Ocean to avoid paying air traffic control charges"
is (imho) bordering on lying... and I've already proved that it doesn't save money overall.
The BBC quote some anonymous former Ops Dir as saying:
"taking ocean routes when there was no clear wind advantage to do so"
Duh, more consideration goes into using a Tango route than just the head / tail wind components, e.g. slot restrictions and / or maybe French ATC are in strike (
again!), etc?!
Therein please do not loose sight of the fact that the BBC are broadcasting a report, in the public domain, which a good many folks - whom are not associated with the facts - will think is the truth.
It's to be noted that all the airline sources the BBC have quoted remain anonymous (
oh what a surprise). But that the BBC have chosen to use a '
climate expert' (so called) whom has clear & publicly viewable links to a quasi-political 'green' lobbying group is no surprise!
I'm at loss as to how you might think that objecting to this tosh, i.e. by pointing out the very obvious iniquities of it, has "
degenerated into a childish exercise" [sic] ?!
I've just seen a TV advert saying that they're going to broadcast this tosh on the TV as part of the 'South East Today' evening news (
that's an audience of how many millions?)
