Ghost flights

[yakker]

ITN news last night reported that BA are flying empty aircraft around the world (my wife did wonder how an empty aircraft could fly, "surely there must be someone onboard to fly it"). But I did not really understand what they were telling me. ITN reported flight BA... (cannot remember the number) flew empty to Los Angeles. If it had a BA flight number, was it a scheduled flight, if so how was it empty, did they not sell any tickets?
Or was it an unscheduled flight to reposition an aircraft? ITN suggested it was because no cabin crew were available for the flight, but an aircraft was.
So many questions, and typical of news reporting, it seemed to me it was a story about 'green' issues without much regard to what is actually happening.

[monkey lover]

And here's me thinking you were on about filing multiple flight plans to avoid ATC slot restrictions ????

[grimsdale]

Just a guess (I am not employed by BA and have no knowledge of their operations) - when preparing their C/C roster, BA discovered that they were a few bods short. So they offload all the pax for half a dozen flights onto alternatives, and operate the affected flights with cargo only. So all pax get to where they want to go, the aircraft are still operated with a payload (NOT empty as ITV News would have us believe), and British journalism reaches a new low.....

[Airbubba]

British Airways is shuttling dozens of empty planes across the Atlantic because it has a shortage of cabin crew, it has emerged.

The "phantom" services have been flying between Britain and Canada and the US over the past two weeks in order to retain valuable slots at London's airports.

Several BA passenger flights took off without a single passenger, using up thousands of tonnes of jet fuel.

The news emerged as the airline passed on the soaring cost of oil to customers by increasing its fuel surcharge on all flights.

Environmentalists accused the airline of "hypocrisy", saying the strategy underlined the aviation sector's indifference to the fight against global warming...


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/main.jhtml?xml=/travel/2007/11/13/et-ba-113.xml

[operationsair]

Positioning aircraft?? If an a/c went tech in say Manchester, and they had a spare, and standby crew in standstead, they will fly it empty known as positioning the aircraft, to fly that rotation from MAN.

Or if the a/c sold no tickets, but the return leg is full, then they will fly that a/c empty to fly the return leg, which has the profits.

If no cabin crew is avail, but there is one for the return leg, they will fly it empty to fly the return.

Most times is positioning a/c to fly return flights, some airport have strict closing times, if the a/c didn't make it in before the closing time, then early morning rotations may be unable to operate, so they will fly an empty a/c in.

Makes full sense. This is an example, happens everywhere, as stated.

And to keep slots active, I believe if an operator doesn’t use their runway slots for x amount of time, they will lose them slots, worth £thooousandssss.

To keep the slots, but meaning they fly empty, is more operationally beneficial.

[I Just Drive]

Ive been saying for years, the only sure way to improve the punctuality figures is to stop carrying passengers. On time everytime.

[operationsair]

BAW661
BAW661A
BAW661B
BAW661C

So true.

[Farrell]

As far as I can remember (maybe one of the long haulers can confirm it), it is a case of "use it or lose it" when it comes to slots at airports and routes.

If the LHR to JFK route is not used by an airline, it can be given to another carrier - therefore, even if there's no pax, the route still needs to be flown.

....I think. :confused:

[lotman1000]

Slots and routes are only linked when there's a PSO or similar, as a general rule.

The "use it or lose it" policy does not mean that every flight has to operate as per the schedule. The airline has to show that the slot is required for a scheduled service, and is not being held in case of future need or sale.

[gas path]

'Tis very true! Although they are not empty as such as they carry freight.

[anotherthing]

Seems perfectly reasonable to me, albeit I'm not a left wing pinko, for the flights to take place with cargo but without passengers because of a lack of cabin crew.
Hundreds of flights a day operate with cargo but without passengers because that is their line of business.... BA would be silly bumping the cargo onto another flight (more likely flights plural) because these other flights would pobably already have their, if not full then nearly full, quota of cargo.

So if the journalists really feel a need to report on this, surely the real (non) 'story' should have been 'BA unable to man all scheduled flights due to lack of manpower/poor planning/staff cutbacks/illness' (delete or insert another reason as applicable) or 'BA fulfill their commitment to transport cargo to the States despite lack of CC'.

However we have ended up with another easy to write, unresearched story jumping on the popular bandwagon of 'lets decry aviation as the major planet killing mode of transport' :ugh:

[747-436]

I see that the Telegraph article says that the 747's carry between 500 and 600 passengers? Are they talking about Japanese domestic 747's?!?!?

They also state that BMI operates as a BA Franchise, think they meant BMED! Nice journalism again I see.

The flights are empty one way but what it fails to mention is they pick up passengers at the other end. Not only does it protect the slot but it means that 300 pax on the aircrafts return leg are not disrupted.

[roll_over]

I heard that Simon Coulder bloke on 5Live, he seems like a complete idiot, far from a travel expert.

He was ranting on how BA were disgraceful and they should have cancelled the flights because:

.Its November and the flights are empty
.If a plane goes tech they cancel the flight (because it can't fly?:confused:)
.No other airline operates ghost flights


:ugh:

[chantalb]

ITN news last night reported that BA are flying empty aircraft....
I can understand that, because they still have a return flight to operate and combining with a later return flight may exceed the capacity (for example)

But
.....around the world
is just silly.

[corbulus]

it's been happening for several years at Ba...it is down to c/crew shortages and whilst it does protect the slots, it also gets the c/c in their correct position, as Ba c/c operate numerous 'back-to-back' rotations.ie 4 t/a sectors. If the crews 2nd sector is canx due lack of crew, they then are delayed a day making a 4 day slip and therefore knocking them off the 2nd part of the BTB, hence compounding the crew shortage, so they operate the a/c with nil pax and cargo only to get the c/c in the correct position to operate the next sector.

[J.O.]

it's been happening for several years at Ba...it is down to c/crew shortages and whilst it does protect the slots, it also gets the c/c in their correct position, as Ba c/c operate numerous 'back-to-back' rotations.ie 4 t/a sectors. If the crews 2nd sector is canx due lack of crew, they then are delayed a day making a 4 day slip and therefore knocking them off the 2nd part of the BTB, hence compounding the crew shortage, so they operate the a/c with nil pax and cargo only to get the c/c in the correct position to operate the next sector.


I can't believe what I'm reading. Who's in charge of this debacle? The cost of this is completely avoidable, with proper planning of course.

[fruitbat]

Some flights on longhaul are operating with no passengers or cabin crew. This is due to unavailability of cabin crew due to a miscalculation of part time contracts. It seems ridiculous but too many of them were given part time in one go, or too many were offered the same week off, and the company have found themselves short on some days.

The flights still operate with the max payload of cargo, up to 25 tonnes on a 747, and are making sure the return flight is in the right place to keep the schedule going. Yes it is unfortunate, and someone's head should roll in cabin crew scheduling, but it's better than cancelling both legs.

BMED flew an aircraft empty every day to cardiff last season just to keep open a slot, no-one kicked up such a fuss. It's the typical British tall poppy sydrome, have a go at the big boy, who by the way is still on course for a year end profit of close to £1 Billion :D

If you were wanting to get back from your holidays you might be glad BA still bothered to operate a service at a loss, just to have the plane ready to take you home. I call that customer service, can you imagine Ryanair bothering?

Yes it may be a waste of fuel, but that is a debate for the airline industry as a whole. Why should Roman or a rich Saudi Prince be allowed to pollute the atmosphere with an A380 just for their benefit. Greenpeace and ITN, go and knock on their door and see what response you get....

[cwatters]

I bet it goes down well with the passengers... "Sorry sir, the flights not actually cancelled you just can't go on it"...."No it's not overbooked"..

Sounds like a good time to bring in tax per flight rather than tax per passenger.

[Flightrider]

This isn't a slots issue - it is a staffing issue. In order to obtain grandfather rights to a particular slot, you need to operate at least 80% of the slots held on a given day. For example, if you have a 15:00 slot on a Monday for a 20 week operating season, you need to operate 80% of the 20 weeks to get the grandfather rights. You can therefore cancel up to four flights over the course of that season before you lose your slot for the next year.

My understanding is that manpower levels have been cocked up and so they cannot crew certain long-haul trips. What has been happening is, for example, that today's BA093 LHR-YYZ has been cancelled (as far as passengers are concerned) but actually flew empty with flight crew and cargo aboard. Today's BA092 YYZ-LHR return flight operates just fine; and tomorrow's BA092 YYZ-LHR (which the same crew was due to operate back) is cancelled. And so on. Not great, but you've only buggered up two lots of passengers instead of four. Fundamentally bad news for the environment though, and this type of thing really doesn't help the entire aviation industry in general when plastered all over the evening news.

[the_hawk]

Although they are not empty as such as they carry freight.

Just out of interest: is it much easier to properly plan ahead on freight than on cabin crew, because no humans involved with rights and contracts and such? In other words, how probable is it that BA doesn't have enough cargo to replace the pax in time and the flights go over the atlantic nearer to empty than we all would expect / wish / know of?

[AdrianDW]

I bet the "no cabin crew" wheeze has given Ryanair an idea though...
You watch, turn up at Stansted in a couple of months and the galley area will have coffee and sweetie vending machines.

Just think of the increased "revenues" to be made by laying off allthe c/c!:rolleyes:

[virginblue]

Well, if it was just for the slots, BA could have an operator doing a daily EMA-LHR run with a Shed instead of flying a 747 across the pond. I seem to remember that Virgin exactly did that at LGW and used a small operator to keep its slots warm by flying EXT-LGW.

So apparently these ghost flights are indeed more some kind of postioning flight as the return flights can be crewed as planned in the US.

[slingsby]

Ghost flights - apt and nearly true.... many BA flights on LHR movements as part of the T5 readiness program, so they have to run "live" but not actual flights to test the new systems. Or so I was told..... :)

[heli_port]

Planes ‘fly empty’ to keep slots at Heathrow (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/travel/news/article4340518.ece)


Britain’s third-largest airline, bmi, will fly near-empty aircraft while Flybe has advertised for actors to take its seats


:eek:

[HZ123]

The airport co-ordination slots team states that you must operate 80% of your alotted slots or risk losing them. It was predicted that there would be a 20% cutback so it appears to me that there is perhaps not as much panic as some thought. BA's AGM yesterday has reported a similar situation 'not cutting back on to many services'? The real issue here is just what happens with the bookings as we get well into the winter season.

Apart from all this once again to fly a/c almost empty for the sake of the slot reflects the stupudity of our industry and its total lack of flexibility. Airlines should be at least able to retain slots for a period despite canx services (perhaps the complete season).

[wingsofsteel]

wow, crazy read.

[boredcounter]

They all have the idea to charter a t/prop..........................

Have the airports got wise to that scam yet, or are we gonna see another A320 day-stop in CWL daily just to keep the slots?


Bored

[WHBM]

Peter Morrisroe, the managing director of Airport Coordination, the company that is responsible for the allocation of slots at British airports, said: “If an airline wants to retain the rights to its slots, it is essential it complies with the use-it-or-lose-it rule.”
With inflexible, do it my way or else bureaucrats like this in the industry, who needs enemies ?

It's like saying that if Asda find a downturn and don't use an aisle in the supermarket, it has to be offered up to Tesco or Sainsbury to use. And they would never get it back.

Every Heathrow user would love unrequired flights to be eliminated. Think of the reduction in holding.

[PAXboy]

A quiet news day. I recall this story appearing twice in the last year - if not more. My guess is that the problem stems from the deliberately confused way that slots are dealt with in the post privatisation of the UK airline world.

Amusingly, this paragraph is from near the end of The Times article:
BMI, which operates 1,700 flights per week over a network of 36 airports, later confirmed that it would not be operating “empty” flights in order to protect Heathrow slots.
So - does that mean that the headline is just there to grab attention and that it's all hot air? Surely not.

[Guest 112233]

The inflexability does seem economically stupid - lets not forget the winter peaks in Christmas & the new Year. BMI might use their ERJ's - and how about those Flybe ex Bacon ER's that are comming to the end of their lease's - Is it possible to statisticly predict demand during the lighter demand Mid day / afternoon periods and operate a pool system for A/C - The competition is best fundamentalists would not like it - tough ! - Peops get their freq of service and less fuel is burned.
Life in the ERJ's yet ? perhaps - I know about crewing validation probs as an igorant SLF,but some idea's please.

[Bat Fastard]

At the bottom of the article it quotes figures from the Times Database. They state the cost of a flight LHR to EDI as £60,000! Surely not right as for a 100 seat jet that's still £600 a seat for a 50 minute flight. No wonder this is such a pants business to be in.

[Guest 112233]

I once saw an article in the Gruniad that used a 747 cost as the basis of costs Lon to Prague - NB the jurno's would not know the context of how types are operated on a given route.

[VAFFPAX]

Well, FlyBE's been known to have wanted to use actors before... it caused a furore the last time I remember.

One airline ran a daily empty service between LHR and CWL for a while to keep its slots at LHR.

S.

[Wiggly Bob]

All this b*llocks - in an Airport that's already overstretched. Whats wrong with the airlines paying a retainer for the slots, for say a maximum of one season? Cheaper than flying fresh air around, less aircraft (one hopes = less delays) plus it would keep the greens happy. Never happen though! Why?. Because empty aircraft have no passengers on board who spend money in the terminal!

[Mr Flaps]

BBC NEWS | UK | Airline denies 'ghost' plane plan (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7509732.stm)

here is the link to the BBC story on this once again the media has twisted the story to suit.

And as for the green argument in the times. Please give it a rest when China, USA and India turn green I will stop flying on domestic flights and take the bus to heathrow but until then its called car and a flight between LHR - EDI.

[Dragon tracker]

Interesting concept.

who would you propose the retainer is paid to?

Airports would love this as they currently get nothing from slot trading.
This is all done between airlines.

Government would also love it, but the runway is not theirs to charge for the slot.

slot co-ordinators can't take it as that is an effective bribe and breaks all their rules.

the whole system is a joke.
the owners of the runway who pay for it's upkeep get very little say in the matter. maybe the system should be reviewed.

[PAXboy]

Please be careful in what you say Dragon tracker, as it sounds like you are dangerously close to talking common sense.

But you know very well that a plain, open and fair system of slot trading - where all parties can feel that they are well served by the process - is not possible as it would simply not be British. So, do pipe down, otherwise, we'll have to send the men in the Land-Rover and you know what that means ... :uhoh:

[Wiggly Bob]

Paxboy, I'm with you on the green issues. It's just that other people seem to lap it up so why not use it as a marketing tool to get results?

Like you said, in todays "Great" Briton. who needs common sense!:ugh:

[MarkD]

"a plain, open and fair system of slot trading ... is not possible as it would simply not be British."

And might not be legally riggable to sufficiently protect a certain Big Airline as the current one does...