BuyantUkhaa From Mongolia, joined May 2004, 3014 posts, RR: 3 Posted (9 years 2 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 1692 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Mr O'Leary originally made the claim that Ryanair had cut carbon dioxide emissions by half at a press conference on 10 January 2007.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.
FlyDreamliner From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 2759 posts, RR: 14
Reply 2, posted (9 years 2 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 1640 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"
BrianDromey From Ireland, joined Dec 2006, 4113 posts, RR: 10
Reply 4, posted (9 years 2 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 1601 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)