A major US airline has been attacked by environmental campaigners for flying empty planes across the Atlantic to be disinfected.
Delta Air Lines has admitted running "ghost" flights from the US to Heathrow to meet Australian quarantine regulations. Authorities in Australia require inbound aeroplanes to be sprayed with insecticide to ward off malaria and dengue fever. Delta is not allowed to carry out the treatment in the US and the nearest airport with facilities sanctioned by the Australian quarantine and inspection service (AQIS) is Heathrow, requiring the carrier to make a number of trips to the airport over the past two months.
Delta is planning to stop its disinfection trips to Heathrow at the end of the month, but is expected to switch to a Chinese airport.
Flying empty 777's across the pond, and soon the pacific. How much is that gonna add to their US-Australia bill? How do other carriers like UA do that?
" The European consumer would crawl naked over broken glass to get low fares." Michael O'Leary
Carfield From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 1727 posts, RR: 9 Reply 3, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 34487 times:
United does the spray when the plane is in Asia during the long layover!
United 747-400s spent overnight at various airports in Asia, such as Seoul, Taipei, Singapore, and Ho Chi Minh City. The SFO to ICN flight indeed spends the night at Seoul before returning to SFO the next morning. I believe that the spraying takes place then. Delta unfortunately does not have that luxury.
I understand the environmental concern, but am sure that Delta does not like these ghost flights too, but there are regulations to follow. Now the plane is flying further and the whole situation has just been made worst. So instead of a short eight hours to London, the plane has to fly all the way to one of the major Chinese cities!
However, I wonder if Delta can find a better way to handle it... maybe when the JFK to NRT is changing into 77L in the winter and with the plane overnighting at NRT, they can perhaps ferry the plane to Seoul or Shanghai or Hong Kong to carry out the spray. Any insider information!
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 21228 posts, RR: 19 Reply 4, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 34468 times:
From the article...
Quote: The Campaign for Better Transport, an environmental group, said the round-trip taken by Delta's Boeing 777 jets operating the Los Angeles to Sydney route summed up the "wanton" attitude of airlines towards global warming.
If the article is accurate, their beef is with the U.S. government, not with Delta. Delta is doing what they need to do to serve Australia.
I can't decide whether I miss the tulip or the bowling shoe more
Yes. DL could ferry the aircraft from ATL to Australia and have it sprayed there. But that is further and more costly than ferrying to LHR to be sprayed. But DL cannot operate a passenger carrying flight to Australia with an aircraft that has not already been sprayed. So the cheaper option is London.
Once an aircraft has been sprayed (at LHR) then it can carry passengers to Australia. Provided that it can stay on the ground in Australia for six or more hours it can be resprayed there. It has to be resprayed once every six months.
BA From United States of America, joined May 2000, 11135 posts, RR: 61 Reply 17, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 33827 times:
Quoting Phoenix9 (Reply 13): What kind of rule exists that allows the aircraft to be sprayed in other places around the world but not in the US?
A rule that treats the rest of the world as America's garbage dump.
I hope legislation is introduced to change this.
Quote: A Delta spokeswoman said: "Materials used for this process are approved and available for use in the United States; however, according to US regulations, these treatments must be carried out at designated AQIS locations outside the United States."
"Generosity is giving more than you can, and pride is taking less than you need." - Khalil Gibran
Phoenix9 From Canada, joined Aug 2007, 2546 posts, RR: 8 Reply 18, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 20 hours ago) and read 33712 times:
Quoting BA (Reply 17): Quote:
A Delta spokeswoman said: "Materials used for this process are approved and available for use in the United States; however, according to US regulations, these treatments must be carried out at designated AQIS locations outside the United States."
That just does not make any sense. There are far more dangerous chemicals produced and used all over everyday.
Due to the concentration of compounds involved, a household can of Raid can be considered more dangerous than what they use in aircrafts. I bet Delta can save a lot of money if they just start spraying their planes with Raid
Life only makes sense when you look at it backwards.
Gemuser From Australia, joined Nov 2003, 5217 posts, RR: 6 Reply 19, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 33545 times:
Quoting Carfield (Reply 5):
Here is a thread addressing the ferry flights back in June:
DL9904 Delta 77L To LHR (by BA319-131 Jul 24 2009 in Civil Aviation)
From reply 8 in the above thread:
"The Australian Quarantine & Inspection Service (AQIS) requires that cabins and cargo bins on all flights arriving into Australia be treated with insecticide. To satisfy the AQIS requirement, de-insection of Delta's 777-LR aircraft is performed every 8 weeks using a diluted permethrin solution. Although products such as permethrin are approved and available in the U.S., permethrin is currently not a registered EPA chemical for use in disinsecting commercial aircraft in the U.S. Consequently, treatment must be performed during layovers in countries outside the U.S."
The disinfection cannot be done in the USA until "someone" gets US EPA approval to use permethrin to disinfect commerical aircraft in the USA AND then gets Australian AQIS approval of that facility.
Also from that thread UA gets QF to perform the work in SYD as UA have at least a six hour layover, the minimum needed, DL have less than a three hour layover, so can't get it done in SYD.
FlyDeltaJets87 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 23, posted (3 years 8 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 33333 times:
Quoting Lxmd11 (Reply 15): Wouldn't it just be cheaper to sub it in for a 764 on ATL - LHR because if I'm not mistaken that is where the LAX - SYD flight originates.
The plane may not have a long layover in LHR. You'd still have to fly two planes to LHR, because one would be needed for the flight back to ATL. (I'm guessing slots and gate availability play a factor here). This is all speculation, of course. I'm sure someone at Delta thought about this before someone on A.net did.