AJMIA From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 739 posts, RR: 15
Reply 2, posted (8 years 2 months 11 hours ago) and read 25696 times:
I consider myself to be pretty green, but if AA cancelled flights due to low bookings there would be a revolt among passengers. As Robert Crandall once said at a President's Conference in Hartford that I attended, "A deal is a deal." and he would not cancel a flight due to low bookings.
If you have an aircraft go out of service then it makes sense to cancel the flight that has the lowest number of bookings and most alternatives to reaccommodate passengers, but to cancel a flight simply because it is not heavily booked would be wrong.
Also when you are talking about the overall load of the flight you need to examine passengers and cargo on both the outbound and return legs.
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 4287 posts, RR: 4
Reply 5, posted (8 years 2 months 11 hours ago) and read 25558 times:
This article doesn't read quite right. Its states that "AA were forced to cancel one out of 4 daily flights". I think "forced" is the wrong choice of word. It sounds more like AA due to low demand on that day, attempted to operate the flight as cargo only, but it didn't quite come off.
Turk223 From Barbados, joined Aug 2003, 440 posts, RR: 1
Reply 11, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 25228 times:
When I worked with AA back inthe late 80s, I remeber DC-10s POP-SJU with less than 10 passengers....
And I'll never forget when I worked at DFW with AA, I was the gate agent for a DFW-SBA flight with 3 passengers. We could have boarded each passebger by name!: "Mr. Jones, you're welcome to board at this time..."
The F/As looked so gloomy knowing they had over 3 hours with nothing to do...
Falcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 25120 times:
Quoting B757capt (Reply 6): What about the pax on the other end of pond coming back?
Exactly. Good bet the return flight wasn't empty, I'd wager. People tend to forget that when their plane arrives somewhere, it doesn't just fall off the face of the earth, but has to take care of other customers going the other direction.
UAL747 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 25096 times:
What I cannot understand is why the "Greenies" always pick on airline travel. Do they not realize, that other than electric rail, (and that's a big if, because we use coal for electricity), flying to your destination via an airline is the most economical and most environmentally friendly way to travel. Do they not look at the amount of fuel per passenger mile that these high-tech planes use? I mean, if you are going to be mean about it, go after the auto industry and demand that they produce better gas mileage engines, or blow up and burn all the SUV's that you can, but I still cannot understand their "beef" with airlines!? It makes no sense whatsoever.
EXAAUADL From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 25017 times:
Quoting Commavia (Reply 7): With each passing day, I find myself more and more wishing these environuts would just go away.
Especially in the UK eco is like a religion, i mean with a leader like rowan williams can you really blame them for abandoning christianity? But it is become a fascist religion
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 14): What I cannot understand is why the "Greenies" always pick on airline travel
Cuz airtravel supports the global capitalistic system.
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 14): Do they not realize, that other than electric rail, (and that's a big if, because we use coal for electricity), flying to your destination via an airline is the most economical and most environmentally friendly way to travel.
They realize it, they dont care. You assume that the environment is their number one concern. When in fact they are at heart, haters of the human race.
WA707atMSP From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 2521 posts, RR: 8
Reply 17, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 24977 times:
What makes me most upset about the environmental movement is that they are focusing their anger at commercial aviation, not biz jets.
Business aircraft make far more "positioning" flights with no seats occupied than commercial aircraft do. This makes them far less efficient on a seat occupied basis.
If the environmental lobby really wants to make a difference, they should try to encourage pop stars to fly commercial airlines, instead of chartering a biz jet to take them from New York to the Caribbean, having the biz jet fly empty back to New York, then flying the route in reverse when their holiday ends. Changing this sort of behavior would save much more energy than making a father feel guilty about buying tickets on Jet Blue to take his children to Disney World would.
Bongodog1964 From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2006, 4287 posts, RR: 4
Reply 18, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 24975 times:
Quoting UAL747 (Reply 14): What I cannot understand is why the "Greenies" always pick on airline travel.
It is somewhat ironic that they regularly pick on air travel "because the planes don't fly full" when the industry average load factor is probably about 75% Here in the UK you can regularly see buses and trains at off peak times where the load factor is way below 10%. This is worse than their other favourite obsession, single occupancy cars; where the load factor is 20%
Sampa737 From Brazil, joined May 2005, 637 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 24864 times:
Last June my Delta flight was cancelled out of GRU to ATL. They got most passengers out on a Continental flight. The DL plane with problems was grounded and was rescheduled for the following day. I got the word from DL before I left my home so I had no idea DL was rebooking on CO only cancelling. When I went to the airport the next day, it was cancelled again. I was told it was an engine problem and they would not be able to get the 767 repaired til the next day when their folks from Atlanta could fly down. However, me and the other 4 did get on that night's DL flight. DL had a "spare" plane in Sao Paulo for 3 days.
I was told had the plane been ready, it would have been me, the 4 others and the crew. I prayed so hard!
Killjoy From Finland, joined Dec 1999, 646 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 24715 times:
The reason they don't pick on lightly loaded buses and trains is that public transportation is required if we want to minimize the number of cars on the roads. I guess they figure you have to take the good with the bad.
Too bad they don't apply that same logic to anything else! Air travel is clearly necessary, because it's one of the few completely critical parts of our modern society, alongside electricity. Guess what people will start ignoring first if the economy tanks? That's right, environmental concerns.
We should start punishing people for being wasteful when there are alternatives, not when there aren't any.
Edit: ah, who am I kidding. They probably don't protest buses because the government pays for their tickets, whereas the social security handout isn't large enough to let them enjoy life in Thailand.
AndyEastMids From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2001, 1102 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (8 years 2 months 10 hours ago) and read 24603 times:
Quote from said article: "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."
The so-called environmentalists are complete muppets - only chosing to see half of the picture! If they had an east-bound flight with 5 pax on board and a return westbound flight that was full, the overall load factor over the two segments was just over 50%. That's not too bad at all in off-season, in my opinion!
: Probably because the Airline Industry is an easy target. You can target a specific airline and its known that airlines use alot of fuel. Its obvious
: There was a 777 at LHR on standby on the day in question. AA cancels low capacity flights and rebooks passengers on same route flights all the time.
: Then you ought not build a new home in the Seattle area
: These environmentalists should contribute their part in saving the world by closing thier big mouths and stop releasing CO2 in the air. This should sa
: Listen, it's really simple. AA is a business. They may choose to do whatever they want. As soon as the government starts telling businesses what they