Phantom flight service grounded
 

Phantom flight service grounded

Dan Milmo
Monday March 12, 2007
The Guardian


The airline BMI is to scrap a phantom service after it emerged that the company is flying an empty passenger jet between Cardiff and Heathrow in order to retain valuable slots at the London airport. The 124-seat plane shuttles between the airports six times a week but carries no passengers and no tickets are sold. BMI operates the empty services because if it did not it would lose its take-off and landing slots under "use it or lose it" rules at Britain's biggest airport.
The flights are run by British Mediterranean Airways (BMed), a struggling carrier that operates as a British Airways franchise and runs services under the BA brand to destinations including Beirut and Tehran. It was taken over this year by BMI, which said yesterday the service would be dropped later this month, when the BMed flights switch to a new timetable.

"It is a BMed practice and it's not something that BMI does," BMI said. "It will come to an end at the end of the winter timetable on March 24."
An environmental group yesterday said BMed's strategy underlined the aviation sector's indifference to the fight against global warming. The group, Plane Stupid, said: "It is absolutely crazy that they are flying around these planes. It shows that airlines do not take climate change seriously. They have a free-for-all and they can do what they want." The 140-mile flight between Heathrow and Cardiff emits 5.2 tonnes of carbon dioxide.

Don't the greenies blow themselve out of the water spouting sh!t like this? The aircraft wouldnt burn 5.2 tons of fuel, so where does all this CO2 come from? A. Greenies hot air!

Carbon (from the fuel) atomic mass 12
Oxygen (from the air) atomic mass 16
So more than two thirds of the mass of the carbon dioxide comes from the air the fuel is burnt in.

If I've done the maths right, and making an assumption of jet fuel being C16H34 (heavy end of the range), 1.66 tonnes of fuel would give 5.2 tonnes of CO2.

"BMed service and something that bmi does not do..."

Bmed is bmi as of a few days ago....

Oh really! And why do we see bmi Regional Embraers on the November's so frequently...?

Spin...Spin...Spin!

You can fool some of the people, some of the time, ....

Maybe if the media stopped blowing so much carbon out of their mouths we would all benefit.

or just maybe we could have a bit of common sense whereby a flight like this didn't actually have to take place. it's happened before and it'll happen again.
although the last airline I remember doing this had the decency to use a small beech aircraft rather than a jet.

don't airlines care how they look in the media when carbon emissions are the hot topic in politics at the moment?

The flight is not being 'Scrapped'. If the media etc checked up on their facts they would have realised that the flights are due to end anyway when the summer 2007 season starts in a couple of weeks time, so BMI are not scrapping them! They would have stopped BMI or no BMI!!!!

Someone has to draw a line somewhere here. The greenies are all against air travel and the pollution but they have not looked further than the end of their very long noses; OK if we cut down on flights then will they mind at all if this costs jobs in the airline industry and in other connected industries as well as slowing down business and commerce?

If the greenies can be believed, does this now mean that the Royal Flight (to convey HRH and the politicians) will be grounded to save on the emissions but also saving the taxpayer money?

For those genuinely interested, the program on More4 last night 2200-2340 was illuminating and informative and sure to be repeated a few times in the coming weeks so please try and catch it.
It is interesting that it makes a few cogent points :
- that the early Medieval period was even warmer than the top end of predictions for the next 100 years. The polar bears are still with us.
- that 30 years ago we were informed that we were heading for a new ice age.
- that the green movement is loaded with a left wing anti globalisation agenda
- funding is being cut off for any scientist who dissents from the "accepted line" on global warming
- the developing world isn't going to develop with wind turbines
- the sun is at it's strongest in a great many years
See the program if you can and listen to the arguments chaps. And see the weasely grubby politicians for what they are. Ignorant, short term, one dimensional vote grabbers. Guess which party lost my vote this weekend Mr Cameron?

Beside all the guff about CO2 emissions etc., wouldn't it be better if airlines weren't allowed to do this and give up their unused slots (especially at LHR) to airlines that want to MAKE MONEY out of them? I thought that was what business was all about?

PS Nice one Outofsynch! How to make yourself look daft in one easy step....;)

It would be better if airlines were allowed to sell the slots they have. Of course, they can give them away for free, but clearly it makes (commercial) sense for an airline to operate an empty flight for half a year in order to keep the slots and use them later on. If BMed would have been allowed to sell the slot (or rent it out for half a year) I am sure they would rather have done that than to occur unnecessary costs.

Profit Max

Skipness - I also saw that program last week on Channel 4.
Every Govt Minister should have been forced to watch it. But you just know they're not interested in being presented with "facts" anyway.
The fundamentally important thing that was fairly conclusively proven by the University Professors who took part, was that CO2 has literally nothing to do with Climate change or Global warming. That is down to changes in the surface activity on the sun (as it has always been) - end of story!
So - why are politicians and the media clinging to this stupid bandwagon which threatens our livlihood and the lifestyles of millions of people, based on totally erroneous information provided by so called "experts" who have no real knowledge on the subject?
End of rant!!

This obsession with what comes out of a tailpipe of an aircraft engine really does miss the whole green issue regarding airlines I believe. Forget burning jet fuel it's the waste of food and resources providing an in-flight service which is the real green issue. When I think of all the food I've thrown away unused, plastic glasses, 1/4 wine bottles (many of them glass), gallons of wine spirits and minerals flown all over the world and not used. The co2 produced by production facilities must all make a contribution.

The big issue is not global warming it should really be about consumption of resources and being honest does anybody believe that airlines enjoy burning fuel. Scientists, airlines and governments should be working on research to increase further the efficiency of engines and aircraft rather than more research to prove their spurious argument, that's not going to help the planet.

Like most people here I'd like to believe that aviation is blameless and we can all fly as much as we want. It's very tempting to grab that programme as evidence that we are OK, and believe what we want to believe.
But it would be foolish to accept one TV programme that deliberately set out to be controversial, as justification. For every 'expert' saying that we have no effect on the planet, there are 10 'experts' saying that we do. Personally I think the jury is still out.

Sal

No one said we had no effect on climate, it's just that it isn't fully understood.
We now know that vapour trails from high flying aircraft keep the temperature DOWN, as the temperature events after the groundings of 9/11 showed.
I am getting a little scared of where this is going. The three main parties are now trying to out-green each other and I don't think any of them have much idea what they are wittering on about, it's all just chasing votes.
You know the world's going mad when I keep finding myself agreeing with Michael O'Leary! I said I'd never vote for Gordon Brown when he made me pay more tax on an airline ticket I'd already bought recently. Then at the weekend I saw Eton educated George Osbourne prattling on about "ordainary families" who get one holiday a year not being penalised as the Tories RAISE tax.
I am coming to HATE politicians and that is very worrying.

If politicians were genuinely concerned about reducing Carbon Dioxide (as opposed to attracting green votes) then the revenue raised from UK air travel would be returned to the Research and Development teams at Rolls-Royce and BAE Systems.

The truth is, it's a mixture of tax grab and enviro-posturing. Nothing more, nothing less. Will the extra tax stop people flying away on holiday? No. Will the tax revenues raised be ringfenced and used for direct environmental protection or research and development of better technologies for environmental protection? No. So the exchequer will keep (and subsequently waste) the money and the politicians can proclaim themselves eco-warriors.

One thing I rarely hear mentioned is that plants metabolise carbon dioxide. If you plant enough trees, you should be able to fly as many aircraft as you like, as long the carbon balances. Surely someone must have done the maths on this............

My view is that we should all, individuals or corporations, be making efforts to not burn fuel unnecessarily, whether the chosen scientists are right or wrong.

Equally, I am very uncertain that us plebs are being given the truth on just about any story today. Most ‘issues’ raised by politicians seem to end “so that’s why we need more and more money from you”. When did you last hear them say they will need less next year?

It’s easy to say things like: “For every 'expert' saying that we have no effect on the planet, there are 10 'experts' saying that we do.”, but where does that ‘fact’ come from?

I’m not wishing to antagonise, but where does the truth lie? (rhetorical Q)

The Global Warming programme mentioned above is on More4 again on Saturday night (17th Mar) at 2235hrs.

If the UK Daily Mail rag is to be believed, there was another ghost flight yesterday to fly a pair of shoes for a member of the royal family to Kuwait which had been forgotten in their packing. Of course there aren't any shops in Kuwait City and of course the UK taxpayer didn't mind the cost or the "environmental impact". Daft buggers really.

On this green lobby, I don't understand one thing-what is happening to the tax that is being collected for environmental issues? Where is it going? How will these taxes make things better?

Rant over....