What a waste!

I was just looking at the a/c database and the flight history of a random a/c and the assumed flight history (in grey). Why would VS fly an a/c without pax to one of it's destinations? I know that it is the assumed flight history and so isnt certain but why fly an a/c with no pax, it seems to me like a waste of fuel and seats that could be filled.

Originally posted by adb
I was just looking at the a/c database and the flight history of a random a/c and the assumed flight history (in grey). Why would VS fly an a/c without pax to one of it's destinations? I know that it is the assumed flight history and so isnt certain but why fly an a/c with no pax, it seems to me like a waste of fuel and seats that could be filled.

ISTBC but I believe The grey highlights that no ACARS data was available for the leg so we do not know what time it took off etc. As a result the powers that be have been have looked at the movements from the previous and following days and guessed where it flew to, we cannot be 100% as Pete is not sat at LHR noting down the a/c registrations (unlike some: http://www.lhr-lgw.co.uk). For example if it flew in from MIA on Thursday morning it went to MIA on Wed.

Not sure where you got the idea of them flying empty from. It has carried passengers without a doubt. The only time a plane carries no passengers if it is what is known as a positioning flight. For example the a/c will position from LGW to GLA to operate the GLA-MCO route. Or will fly from Hong Kong to Manila to undergo maintenance.

Hope that makes sense.

oh I see now
thanks

I have no idea how accurate this report is, but I seem to recall reading a report last year that BA were actually flying empty planes. The logic was that it was cheaper to fly with no passengers (no cabin crew, no food, no ground crew rqd, less weight etc.) than to fly with a half empty plane. Apparently the empty flights went ahead with no passengers to ensure take off time slots were not lost.

Again, I have no idea of the accuracy of the report I read, but it was interesting reading.

[preiffer]

Well, positioning flights DO happen, from time to time. Where the airline simply needs a plane at a certain place, at a certain time. Whether it has passengers on the way there is irrelevant - as the financial implications of not having it there far outweigh the cost of the operation.

[fozzyo]

Originally posted by preiffer
Well, positioning flights DO happen, from time to time. Where the airline simply needs a plane at a certain place, at a certain time. Whether it has passengers on the way there is irrelevant - as the financial implications of not having it there far outweigh the cost of the operation.

Oh but think of the environment[:o)][}:)][B)]

Originally posted by baldbrit
I have no idea how accurate this report is, but I seem to recall reading a report last year that BA were actually flying empty planes. The logic was that it was cheaper to fly with no passengers (no cabin crew, no food, no ground crew rqd, less weight etc.) than to fly with a half empty plane. Apparently the empty flights went ahead with no passengers to ensure take off time slots were not lost.

Again, I have no idea of the accuracy of the report I read, but it was interesting reading.

Yeh that did happen but was only done by BA and once or twice. I believe the Daily Mail did its usual spin on how awful it was etc but the point was it was a financial decision. One which I am sure all of us armchair airline CEOs would have made.

VS seem to be very good at keeping repositioning flights down to a minimum. For example, the MAN-MCO flight is always changed at MCO rather than flying an a/c up from LGW to MAN each day.

Of course many flights fly empty each day as airlines send the a/c off for maintenance.

[Scrooge]

If I remember correctly as well, these BA flights were loaded with cargo, to the brim, just not pax, so it was really an empty flight.

I remember This making the local news a few months ago!

However BA to have a massive maintence hanger in Cardiff so may explain some of it.

So I presume nobody on here makes any wasteful journey's in their car then!

Avaition is an easy industry to pick on...... Get a grip

Iain

[preiffer]

Originally posted by iforres1
So I presume nobody on here makes any wasteful journey's in their car then!

Avaition is an easy industry to pick on...... Get a grip

Exactly.

I wonder...

The 'wasted' fuel in the aviation industry, every day transporting cargo that CONSUMERS have probably ordered, as well as positioning the aircraft in the right place to allow the airline to haul their lazy a$$es back across the water from sunburnt Tobago.

vs.

The 'used' fuel from millions and millions of parents all around the world who leave their (city bound) 4x4 engines running at school gates to drop off/pick up 'little Charlie' twice a day in their 4.2l gas-guzzler.




I know which one I'd bet on being the larger abuser of buried fossil fuel [:w]

So I presume nobody on here makes any wasteful journey's in their car then!

Avaition is an easy industry to pick on...... Get a grip

And how many of these 'Do gooders' travel by car to the airport for their long haul flights to Orlando/Thailand etc etc? Frustrates the hell outa me when you see these 'old farts prattling on'[:(!]
And how many also travel to their 'Green meetings' alone in the car?[V]
I feel better for that moan, thank you.
Ian