Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
MOL: FR Emissions Claim Was Wrong  
User currently offlineBuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 2915 posts, RR: 3
Posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 1444 times:

Ryanair has retracted a claim that it had cut emissions of carbon dioxide by half over the past five years. The airline's chief executive, Michael O'Leary, has admitted that his statement was "an error".

His comments followed an investigation by BBC Newsnight, which demonstrated that the claim could not be true. Ryanair had initially threatened the programme with legal action if it aired the report. Ryanair describes itself as Europe's greenest, cleanest airline. The airline has now conceded its fuel use has increased eight-fold between 1998 and 2006. Experts says this means Ryanair emissions of carbon dioxide will have also risen eight-fold over the same period.

Jeff Gazzard of pressure group Green Skies Alliance [...] said that Ryanair had been "caught out", adding that "this must be the first example of Michael O'Leary admitting he is wrong". But Mr Gazzard also had some praise for the company. "If this is a move to honest reporting of company emissions, then credit to Mr O'Leary for owning up."

Mr O'Leary originally made the claim that Ryanair had cut carbon dioxide emissions by half at a press conference on 10 January 2007. When challenged to provide the figure to back up these claims, Ryanair said it did not have the information.

A BBC enquiry demonstrated that the airline had originally planned to make a different claim, that it had cut carbon dioxide emissions by half, per passenger. The words "per passenger" were subsequently removed by the company.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6310571.stm


I scratch my head, therefore I am.
4 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinePrebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6539 posts, RR: 54
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1408 times:

MOL never thinks before he talks.

Or maybe that's exactly what he does. Free advertisement is his speciality.

That said, very likely he is indeed running the greenest airline in the world.

He operated exclusively what is probably the most fuel efficient airliner in the world.

He cramps in the absolutely maximum legal number of seats.

He excluded unnecessary weight from his planes such as reclining seats, window shades, EFI systems.

His yield management system guarantees a load factor very close to 100%.

He limits checked baggage to 15 kg - and charges horrible amounts for overweight baggage. That urges pax to minimize their baggage.

Which airline can match that?



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlineFlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 1392 times:

In likelihood, per passenger, I doubt any airline can compete with Ryanair, though by half, I don't know. If he said by half per passenger, i'd believe it, given they just switched over from 737-200s....


"Let the world change you, and you can change the world"
User currently offlineEGNR From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 513 posts, RR: 0
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1360 times:

Maybe MOL mean that the carbon dioxide emissions of his current 738s is half of that produced by his earlier 732s? Possibly a case of him not clarifying his statement properly?

Obviously, Ryanair cannot have cut is overall carbon dioxide emissions by half over the last 5 years because Ryanair continues to expand rapidly. More aircraft = more carbon dioxide.



7late7, A3latey, Sukhoi Superlate... what's going on?
User currently offlineBrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 3929 posts, RR: 9
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 5 days ago) and read 1353 times:

Im by no means a fan of FR or MOL, but I think what actually meant in the statement was that the 732s were nowhere near as effecient as the 738s are. But considering that FR had a fleet of around 25 732s Vs over a hundres 738s clearly there will be more CO2.

i.e. IF FR had a fleet of 100 732s then the CO2 output WOULD be twice what it is with the fleet of 738s.

Typical treehuggers and eco-warriers spurred by ignorant reporters.



Next flights: MAN-ORK-LHR(EI)-MAN(BD); MAN-LHR(BD)-ORK (EI); DUB-ZRH-LAX (LX) LAX-YYZ (AC) YYZ-YHZ-LHR(AC)-DUB(BD)
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
What Was Wrong With The A342? posted Fri Mar 31 2006 03:11:55 by YULWinterSkies
CLE Over CAK - I Was Wrong! posted Wed Aug 31 2005 02:46:05 by Jetpixx
CN-235: What Was Wrong With It? posted Thu Apr 22 2004 07:07:22 by LVZXV
Now Eating Crow (or, I Was Wrong About B6) posted Mon Apr 12 2004 18:57:18 by N844AA
DCA, What Was Wrong posted Sun Mar 2 2003 21:44:33 by Hamad
What Was Wrong With The 747-300? posted Sat Feb 16 2002 20:00:15 by Airplanetire
Was I Wrong? Rude? Or Right As A Flight Attendant posted Fri Dec 28 2001 10:33:06 by Fly_emirates
Optimistic (wrong!) PW Claim About The A330 posted Fri Oct 14 2005 14:44:24 by PM
What Was So Wrong With 757 And 767? posted Wed Dec 15 2004 23:50:50 by A380900
Was The Delta Agent Wrong? posted Sun Nov 21 2004 01:36:01 by Bustraveler