Was it coincidence that all these flights were empty?

[Epsom Hold 2]

The loads were all extremely light - 45, 67 etc, highest count on one flight was 94. For a 767 or even a 757, these are light loads. This would have made it much easier to control the pax and get them to the back of the plane. Would have been much harder if there'd been 230 on board. Did the attackers have access to res systems to target these flights?

[Long Haul]

It would not surprise me at all if the terrorists had accomplices working at the airports or airlines involved. However, I think that the flights would have been chosen a long time ago. Their main considerations were probably to choose flights operated by 75-767s, as these were the types on which their pilots were trained, to choose early flights which had the greatest chance of departing on time due to the fact that the aircraft had remained overnight,so that they could strike in unison, and to choose long-duration flights so the aircraft would have a lot of fuel. Boston was probably convenient because New York lies on the flightpath between there and Cuba. Interestingly, I have read about a study that has been done showing that aircraft which end up crashing have a statistically significant higher number of "no-shows" than aircraft which don't; although I have never personally seen it.

[Abbeville]

I wonder what the outcome would have been had there been lo cloud cover or poor vis? Could it be that they had a wx dependent plan rather than date specific?

[scroggs]

I think the light loads were a function of the sharp slowdown in US domestic air travel. I cannot believe that those who planned to kill up to 50,000 in the WTC would give a damn about how many were in the aircraft. I expect weather was a factor, not least to ensure the most dramatic TV coverage - also probably a factor in deciding the 20 minutes between the two WTC attacks.

[Capt Homesick]

I wondered about this too- from a hijacker's point of view, the fewer pax there are, the easier to keep control of the cabin perhaps...

[spagiola]

I think Long Haul points to the right main criteria: long haul flights (ie lots of fuel), common types, and early morning (to minimize the risk of flight delays). That the flight loads were light may have helped them in the sense of making it easier to control passengers, but I suspect was most likely happenstance. I'm not sure that they needed some infiltrator on the ground (which doesn't mean they didn't have any). If all they brought one was knives and threats ("we have a bomb!") they could easily pass those through the detectors.

[Epsom Hold 2]

I guess their plans must have incorporated some flexibility to allow for weather, possibly this applied to loads as well but probably just coincidence. It's a horrible way of seeing how bad the US economy has been lately, despite Dubya's claims to the contrary.

Long haul, I have also heard that flights that meet with trouble have high no-show rates. The only example that immediately springs to mind is Lockerbie - four days before Christmas, popular flight cos it leaves at 6pm allowing a complete business / vacation day and still gets into JFK by 9. Every other flight around that period was booked solid but PA103 went out with 100 empty seats. Don't really believe it but it's interesting.