Transatlantic 777 with only 5 PAX
Mar 5, 2008, 8:48 am
#16
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: NYC
Programs: Avis PP, Hertz 5*, HH Gold
Posts: 167
From the article:
A family car produces 2.5 times more CO2 per mile than a bus??? I find this hard to believe 
WHAT ELSE PRODUCES 43 TONS OF CO2?
* A family car travelling five times around the world, 123,000 miles.
* A bus travelling 300,000 miles.
* A family car travelling five times around the world, 123,000 miles.
* A bus travelling 300,000 miles.
Mar 5, 2008, 9:11 am
#17
Join Date: Mar 2007
Programs: AA 1MM
Posts: 3,182
A bit OT, but does anyone else find it strange that a bus can travel more than twice as many miles as a family car, and produce the same amount of CO2? Maybe I should trade my car for a bus. . .
Mar 5, 2008, 9:42 am
#19
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: All over
Programs: AA-LTP, HH-DIA, Marriott-LT+AMB, Hyatt-Globalist, Hertz-PC, UA-GS
Posts: 6,825
one of the rare times people got a free upgrade
Mar 5, 2008, 9:53 am
#20
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Exactly. It had been fully booked but the 14 hour delay caused massive defections. There were probably 245 passengers in London who were counting on this airplane showing up so they could fly to ORD with minimal disruptions.
I'm sorry - but this is a complete nonstory. The fringe group of this article simply doesn't understand what it takes to run a huge airline. As I read elsewhere, maybe AA can buy some indulgences (carbon offsets) from an Al Gore-controlled entity to try to appease the EW crowd.
American Airlines said the plane had been fully booked but a 14-hour delay meant most passengers were found other flights. It had considered cancelling the 8 February flight but had a duty to the remaining passengers.
Spokeswoman Anneliese Morris said: "We had to consider the knock-on impact it would have on our schedule."
Spokeswoman Anneliese Morris said: "We had to consider the knock-on impact it would have on our schedule."
Last edited by FWAAA; Mar 5, 2008 at 10:07 am
Mar 5, 2008, 10:02 am
#21
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Dallas/Orlando
Programs: AA EXP
Posts: 2,716
I for one would have been ticked that the upgrade was only to business. Especially if the aircraft didn't have NGBC. 
Mar 5, 2008, 11:06 am
#23
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: SFO
Programs: UA 1K, AA EXP, SPG Plat
Posts: 171
Mar 5, 2008, 11:19 am
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: PHL, NYC
Programs: AA PLT, DL SLV, UA SLV, MR LTT, HH DIA
Posts: 10,059
It annoys me to no end that the article didn't even cover the possibility that the flight was still operating at a profit (or near profit) from cargo. But why should we expect the media to be objective and try to get the whole story right.
Mar 5, 2008, 11:32 am
#25
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2001
Location: LAX; AA EXP, MM; HH Gold
Posts: 31,789
Operating the near empty flight is estimated as having cost American about Ł30,000. But a spokesman said it had no alternative.
"With such a small passenger load we did consider whether we could cancel the flight and re-accommodate the five remaining passengers on other flights.
"However, this would have left a plane load of west-bound passengers stranded in London Heathrow who were due to fly back to the US on the same aircraft.
"We sought alternative flights for the west-bound passengers but heavy loads out of London that day meant that this was not possible."
"With such a small passenger load we did consider whether we could cancel the flight and re-accommodate the five remaining passengers on other flights.
"However, this would have left a plane load of west-bound passengers stranded in London Heathrow who were due to fly back to the US on the same aircraft.
"We sought alternative flights for the west-bound passengers but heavy loads out of London that day meant that this was not possible."
I wouldn't expect the EW crowd to admit there was any reasonable basis for operating the flight.
Mar 5, 2008, 11:56 am
#26
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: DFW
Programs: AA EXP 4MM
Posts: 396
5 passangers and still no predeparture drink?!?
5 passangers were upgarded to J at no cost- Can I get my VIP back?
5 passangers were upgarded to J at no cost- Can I get my VIP back?
Mar 5, 2008, 11:59 am
#27
Join Date: Feb 2008
Programs: AA
Posts: 15
Carbon schmarbon.
Mar 6, 2008, 7:35 am
#28
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Homeless Nomad Wandering the Globe
Programs: Former AA EXP/2M Lifetime now Blackballed UA Premier Executive PWP Bronze
Posts: 5,938
further (although i have an equally low level of proof) i would think that some/most time-sensitive cargo would have been redistributed in a 14-hour delay situation
further (with still no proof) i would think that it is unlikely that the aircraft would have been used to proactively carry cargo from other flights subsequent to its delay (that cargo intended for other flights would have been reallocated to this flight in an effort to reduce load on other flights)
i do definitely agree with the honorable dmfriedman and others that cargo is overlooked by the critics, but i disagree that the flight might have still been profitable. however, as many have pointed out, the plane was necessary to accommodate the lhr-ord pax.
Mar 6, 2008, 7:56 am
#29
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Programs: AA EXP 3MM
Posts: 496
I fly JFK-SFO a lot, on a route which American has flights every couple of hours. Sometimes a round trip is canceled, "coincidentally" with light loads. Canceling a round trip means no problems with aircraft out of position for subsequent flights.
Mar 6, 2008, 8:09 am
#30
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: MSY (finally); previously NYC, BOS, AUH
Programs: AA EXP, 6MM; BA GLD
Posts: 17,230
my guess (although i have no evidence whatsoever) is that ord-lhr wouldn't necessarily be a big cargo route (relative to some of the more lucrative routes)
further (although i have an equally low level of proof) i would think that some/most time-sensitive cargo would have been redistributed in a 14-hour delay situation
further (with still no proof) i would think that it is unlikely that the aircraft would have been used to proactively carry cargo from other flights subsequent to its delay (that cargo intended for other flights would have been reallocated to this flight in an effort to reduce load on other flights)
i do definitely agree with the honorable dmfriedman and others that cargo is overlooked by the critics, but i disagree that the flight might have still been profitable. however, as many have pointed out, the plane was necessary to accommodate the lhr-ord pax.
further (although i have an equally low level of proof) i would think that some/most time-sensitive cargo would have been redistributed in a 14-hour delay situation
further (with still no proof) i would think that it is unlikely that the aircraft would have been used to proactively carry cargo from other flights subsequent to its delay (that cargo intended for other flights would have been reallocated to this flight in an effort to reduce load on other flights)
i do definitely agree with the honorable dmfriedman and others that cargo is overlooked by the critics, but i disagree that the flight might have still been profitable. however, as many have pointed out, the plane was necessary to accommodate the lhr-ord pax.
That's far too simplistic of a view. But if it makes you feel better to think that that's why flights get cancelled, go for it.
