By “Eco-Scandal”, we mean “cheesy, unscientific preying on public incomprehension”
Friends of the Earth convinced the press to make a big deal last week out of a very routine thing — a major airline having to fly a jet only partially full. In this particular case, a Boeing 777 flew its regular hop from Chicago to London, but there were only five passengers on board. The FotE was certainly correct in pointing out the wastefulness of this flight, but they mislead the public (and more importantly mislead a major newspaper, its editor, and millions of readers) by ignoring significant factors.
1) The airline was contractually bound to fly that airplane.
2) The airplane was scheduled to make a return flight the next day, in which it could (and generally does) carry hundreds of passengers.
3) The flight lost a lot of money for the airline.
The last point above is particularly important with regard to the FotE’s complaint about the environment. Why? Because it demonstrates that this is, ultimately, a self-correcting problem. It doesn’t require any intervention or effort whatsoever to fix this problem, because if the line continues to be unprofitable then the carrier will stop flying it!
But even worse is the fact that this complaint comes a time when carriers are routinely setting records for percentage of seats filled! When combined with newer engine designs (the plane they complained about is brand spanking new!) means that air travel is more fuel-efficient than its ever been before.
Aren’t we supposed to WANT more efficient mass transit? I don’t hear FotE complaining about that empty bus my local transit authority sends down Martin Luther King Blvd during mid-day, week-day hours when everyone is already at work. What’s the difference?
Some scandal!
The story:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/news/2008/03/05/nplane105.xml
The play-up on the Huffington Post:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/05/ecoscandal-aa-plane-fli_n_90032.html
global RSS feed.