How many passengers can a Boeing 777 carry? If you answered about 300, then you must not fly on American Airlines. It recently operated a 777 from Chicago to London with only five passengers, an act that British environmentalists and lawmakers have called an “environmental crime.”
Reports of this “eco-scandal” first came to light this morning in the British newspaper the Telegraph.
Why would American run an almost-empty flight across the pond at a reported cost of 30,000 pounds? It all started when the carrier canceled one of its daily flights.
While it was able to find places for nearly all the passengers on the fully-booked flight, five still had to be accommodated. Those who did fly were upgraded to the business class cabin.
But while they enjoyed lavish hospitality, the airline was accused of an “obscene waste of fuel” by Friends of the Earth. It is estimated that each passenger produced 43 tons of CO2 – consuming enough fuel to carry a Ford Mondeo around the world five times.
“Flying virtually empty planes is an obscene waste of fuel,” said Friends of the Earth’s Richard Dyer. “Through no fault of their own, each passenger’s carbon footprint for this flight is about 45 times what it would have been if the plane had been full.”
American Airlines insists it couldn’t cancel the flight because the plane was needed in London. “The decision to do so is never taken lightly, but we had to consider the knock-on impact canceling this flight would have had on our schedule out of London on a weekend when all of the flights were extremely busy,” an airline spokeswoman said.
Anita Goldsmith of Greenpeace told the Daily Mail that American was putting profit before the environment. “Aviation is the fastest growing source of climate changing emissions,” she said, “Yet here we have another example of the reckless approach the industry takes when it comes to a choice between profit and convenience over the environment and all our futures.”
Government officials were not pleased with American’s decision to run a nearly-empty plane. “I have heard of planes flying at two thirds full before but this is the worst example I have come across,” said Norman Baker, a member of parliament. “It is a climate change crime. It shows the ludicrous nature of the aviation industry.”
Sign up for my 
{ 1 trackback }
{ 26 comments… read them below or add one }
A disappointing use of fuel? Yes.
An environmental travesty? No.
In order for the transportation network to work, there has to be some sense of reliability in scheduling. The critics of moving an essentially empty plane forget that the plane is needed to make a return flight back. If that plane isn’t there, there will be just as many members of Commons protesting the willy-nilly airline scheduling.
I dunno, how many were on the return flight? Europe has all kinds of laws and rules around airlines who fail to operate on schedule for internal reasons. AA would have had to compensate the entire flight, which would have likely cost more than operating the flight with 5 people on it. If Britain wants to stop ‘environmental travesties,’ then change their laws so that the airline can cancel the flight, accommodate the 278 people who would have flown on the return flight reasonably instead of refunding airfares and paying damages and all the other rules that Britain has in these situations.
I just hope that they upgraded all 5 people to First Class. Can you imagine if they left then in coach? THAT would have been a travesty. Business class is nothing compared to the fully flat seats in First.
We need to stop this environmental bs over global warming – Western US and New England have deepest snow pack in decades. Ice over the northern polar regions is thicker and further south than it has been in 2 decades. That is not being reported, instead, the press reports that last summer the ice retreated. Yep, in summer. Imagine that.
Well on the surface of this story, I’d have to commend AA for flying only 5 passengers on this flight! I’ve always wondered about what would happen if no one booked a ticket on a flight… would the airline actually still fly that leg?
The need to have the plane for the return passengers is really not that big of a deal… think about all the flights that get canceled because of other issues… wouldn’t that have an exponential effect on future schedules… I know it disrupts flight schedules as it is, but the Airlines have special software that helps them reschedule and get back on track. Truth be told, this probably happens all the time. Just the eco-bser’s don’t know about it.
It happened to me once from New York to London. Ten of us on board. That particular Jumbo had broken down in Chicago the day before but had to be flown back to London for the next day’s schedule. We were passengers who could have been stranded at New York until the next day, so we were allowed on to the otherwise empty ferry flight.
I always enjoy having space to spread out on a plane but that’s a little ridiculous. I have flown many years ago as a kid on a plane with 10 people. We were treated very well.
The airline is bit stuck in this case as they would have to cancel both the flight with 5 people and the return trip which may have been full.
Really not that big a deal. At least somebody was on the aircraft. When these positioning flights happen empty its called ferrying the aircraft. If AA had done that then nobody would have known or complained.
Too bad they didn’t realize it when they were re-routing everyone else. Instead of the other flights they were put on being fully packed like sardines, they could have put half of them on this flight and eveyone would have had a more comfortable trip all around. And, they wold have avoided the spotlight of the nearly empty flight.
I’m quite an environmentalist. We own a Prius, we buy wind power, and purchase carbon offsets for other aspects of our life. We’re as close to hippies as you can get while still having jobs.
That said, I have a hard time getting upset by this story. A plane was required somewhere, and it’s not clear to me that rescheduling dozens of flights to accomodate a missing plane would actually be a net benefit anyway. I’ve always assumed that planes were occasionally moved while either lightly loaded or completely empty, to handle these situations, and it turns out I was right.
What a silly and overblown proclamation. Frankly, as a strong environmentalist, I’m a little embarrassed by the idea that somebody might lump me in with this over-reactionary fellow.
Question:
If this was a British Airlines plane, would the reaction be the same?
I think not!
I agree with KDW. I also consider myself an environmentalist and when I read this story, all I thought was “how lucky those 5 people were not to have their legs cramped! I bet they didn’t share their seats with anyone else, either!” How sad that my first reaction was envy.
Empty jets fly around all the time. Many airlines have maintenance depots that are not located at large airports, and the planes are flown empty to and from the depot for regular overhauls.
I don’t see what the fuss is. If American had not shuttled over that empty plane, it would have had to find seats for those 300 people on other flights… it could have completely destroyed the vacation plans of dozens of families, depending on the availability of alternate flights.
SirWired
Would someone please explain the physics of a 62 ton fuel load creating a 178 ton waste load. i.e… 35.77 ton carbon foot print per passenger?
Tim,
I suspect it is because the Hydrocarbons that make up petrochemicals split off to heavier exhaust gasses during combustion. For instance, the Carbon in the fuel bonds to two Oxygen atoms (CO2), making the exhaust heavier than the fuel.
I’m too lazy to check the periodic table and the formulas for JET A, but it would kinda make sense.
SirWired
Burning hydrocarbons efficiently and stochiometrically generates CO2 and H20. 100% of the fuel is never burned, but its in the 95 % range, so, figure you get effectively whatever the range of carbon dioxide and water is as such pertains to the particular chemical bonds in the hydrocarbon.
Of course, water vapor absorbs 100 times more energy that CO2 and is a much more serious and meaningful greenhouse gas, but thats science. Global warming is about politics, not science.
There are many flights that get cancelled each day for various reasons. AA’s press release is very typical for a company that actually does not care about the environment.
They couldn’t care less about the emissions. On the other hand this story is also one of those that get mainstream media attention while other “institutional” issues are more devastating for our environment. As a poster said above, there are many depots that are not near the airports, and there is a lot of fuel consumed that way. We should always focus on institutional changes.
How many times are carriers taking empty planes to locations? More than we probably know. Planes have to be carted from one place to another somehow. Those flights don’t make the news.
A crew may have been needed out of London as well. And the passengers were not displaced.
Of course it’s a travesty! A little imagination and cross company co-operation could solve this ongoing problem easily. Perhaps two or more international carriers should form co-orperative agreements to cover these eventualities. After all fuel and labour charges are only going to become more and more prohibitive. Perhaps if the airlines were more proactive about promoting any efforts they are taking to be more eco-friendly then the public wouldn’t seize upon such stories as they do.
As for the rather pathetic comment over whether the complaints would have been made if it was a BA flight, get a life! Global warming is exactly that, GLOBAL. Any company that operates in such a wasteful manner will receive bad press, the reaction would have been worse if it had been a carrier based in the UK probably with the CEO being called to a House of Commons committee to explain why this happens…
‘Joe public’ here in the UK think all Americans stick their heads in the sand and hope global warming will just disappear. We think you love your gas guzzling Suvs, aircon and electircal toys far too much to save the planet. JF illustates the point banging on about ice over the northern polar regions being thicker than the last two decades, as if that means there is no real evidence of GW. What a load of tosh! Virtually no-one with a brain disputes the arguments that global warming is a very real and present threat to continued human existence on this planet, especially with our ever increasing population count. Don’t just believe me, take a look at Nasa’s websites concerning the ice pack: http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/greenland/index.html
However we know that certain states have fantastic ‘green’ credentials that we over here aspire to, e.g. California are streets ahead… The extremes of weather we see are very likely results of GW, we are even getting twisters in the UK these days, although luckily not as severe as in the US..yet.
All industries and individuals will need to take steps to work in a more sustainable way if we are to return to the percieved ‘ideal’ weather of the 19th Century. I regularly travel internationally for business conferences and holidays. If I had the choice I would certainly choose to use an airline that had good green credentials, and as it looks like we may be heading for personal carbon annual allowances in Europe over the next few years purchasing choices will involve sustainability in an ever more direct way.
We cannot be irresponsible with emissions and expect the rest of the world to take a different view. GW is your personal responsibility, just like it is mine.
Apparently lots of UN-frequent flyers have commented on this. ALL airlines fly empty or near-empty planes in order to get them where they are needed. Most are flying fewer planes than before (hence the reason there are, generally, fewer empty seats on flights). And I gurantee no airline is going to fly a plane with mostly empty seats if it’s more cost effective to cancel the flight(s). We’ve all read about stranded passengers whose flight which was cancelled due to “mechanical” or “weather” issues, but think it really was because it was not full enough.
In addition to all the comments about positioning, etc. The NY Times notes that the plan had a full load of cargo. I suppose that AA could have been environmentally correct by refusing to rebook passengers and making them wait until the plane was ready, so that it could fly with more passengers.
Having been in the travel industry for over 25 years, I believe this is a tempest in a teapot. Of course empty planes are flown all the time, for various reasons, as anyone familiar with the airline industry should know. The people in the U.K. are simply posturing for effect. I think KDW, above, said it best.
I kinda wonder how much cargo was in the hold of that “empty” 777. My guess is that it was crammed full, probably more full than usual because of the missing weight of passengers and their luggage.
Congratulations to AA for making a good good decision!!!! These crazy eco-terrorists are ruining the planet IMHO. So according to them, inconvenience the struggling passenger even more, as long as CO2 isnt released? Maybe a little less hot air from them all would lower the CO2 emissions they are so worried about.
Well done American, keep up the good work. And BTW, the plane DID carry a full load of cargo, and the 5 passengers WERE upgraded.
AA didnt actually loose money on the flight.
If AA had cancelled the flight and left a planefull of passengers stranded in London, I am just certain that all of the eco scandal mongers would have been explaining face to face to the passengers how there plight was a huge benefit to the environment.
Yea Right!
ROFLOL
Nothin’ quite as funny as watching the worshipers at the alter of Gore complain about something like this. Then watching them all get on their private jets to fly off to the latest tropical pardise for their next meeting, heh. And yeah, I’ve flown coast to coast on a 727 with 11 passengers.
The outcry shows a lack of logic. Back in the 70s planes were regularly flying half empty (or half full, take your pick.) Now planes are at capacity (e.g. being used more efficiently) failures have bigger consequences because there is less unused capacity to adjust for the failures.
Environmentalists should be congratulating airlines for running full flights, even if there is the occasional ferry flight, as a net it still is better than doubling the number of flights and halving the number of people carried on each flight. That would be an environmental travesty.
Thank American Airlines for showing the Eco Crazy people where to shove it.