Bmed flies an empty Airbus

My opinion is that this is not the fault of BMED, but its the fault of a very greedy BAA.

I understand that BAA is a buisness and that profits is all that matters to them, but they are wholy to blame for this fiasco, and kind of argument could be avoided, if they just let that slot be, if BMED owns it.

And the Airbus is not running empty by the way…….you have to have at least two flying the thing :D:D

Complete claptrap. Please tell me how thw world went into and out of ice ages in prehistory then. What about the coal powered power stations being built in China….what do you think adds more to CO2. A 12 empty flights a week between LHR and CWL operating for 5 months or somerthing that’ll be producing energy and by-products for decades.

If you want to have a go at empty positioners, please take a look at BACitiExpress/BAConnect and the number of times that they’ve positioned an aircraft to MAN (either one of their own or a sub-charter) as anything up to 3 of the based MAN fleet has gone tech. Not timetabled but they exist. Do you want to inform the press of those flights?

I’m not suggesting that the Bmed flight is the biggest contribution to CO2 emmisions, however taking the attitude that ‘lets just leave it, China are contributing more with their Power Stations’ is not a positive and pro-active way of thinking towards the conservation of the earth. If everyone thought ‘I wont turn the TV off it doesnt make that much difference’, or ‘i’m not giving up the car, nobody else is’ then we wouldnt get anywhere.
Only if we clear up our own acts can we apply the pressure to China/India and other NED countries to reduce emissions.

that such practises do contribute to climate change and if such a practise was banned it would make a difference, every little helps.

Complete claptrap. Please tell me how thw world went into and out of ice ages in prehistory then. What about the coal powered power stations being built in China….what do you think adds more to CO2. A 12 empty flights a week between LHR and CWL operating for 5 months or somerthing that’ll be producing energy and by-products for decades.

If you want to have a go at empty positioners, please take a look at BACitiExpress/BAConnect and the number of times that they’ve positioned an aircraft to MAN (either one of their own or a sub-charter) as anything up to 3 of the based MAN fleet has gone tech. Not timetabled but they exist. Do you want to inform the press of those flights?

Quite right. We must tell BMed to stop doing these flights and magically climate change is stopped :rolleyes: Not forgetting how infantessilmily small UK Aviation is contributing to CO2 emissions, and low ludicrously small the ACTUAL CO2 emissions in the aviation industry are compared to the hot air being made about the emissions

You’ve misinterpreted what Cloud 9 has said. Where did he say that if Bmed stops flying climate change will stop. He just claimed that BMed are unnecessarily pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and that such practises do contribute to climate change and if such a practise was banned it would make a difference, every little helps.

What I do not quite like is the fact that such a flight is unecessarily pumping tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and contributing to climate change.

Quite right. We must tell BMed to stop doing these flights and magically climate change is stopped :rolleyes: Not forgetting how infantessilmily small UK Aviation is contributing to CO2 emissions, and low ludicrously small the ACTUAL CO2 emissions in the aviation industry are compared to the hot air being made about the emissions

Maybe they are going to CWL for maint.

I can understand this decision in some respect because it is clearly a good enough slot time for the airline to want to keep it, and it would be stupid for them to let another airline use it…What I do not quite like is the fact that such a flight is unecessarily pumping tonnes of CO2 into the atmosphere and contributing to climate change. It is in this case that I feel the airline should have to pay some form of tax on the fuel that it uses, or it should be forced to pay the amount it costs to offset the emissions.

However if Bmed knew that they were seasonally dropping Tashkent in October, provisions to lease it out could be taken months before. Off season or not certain destinations are popular year round and i’m sure many would bit their arm off for a slot at Heathrow regardless of time of year.

It wasn’t a seasonal drop – it was suspended at short notice due to Civil unrest in Uzbekistan – hence the lack of notice, and the notes above.

The lead in time for any service would probably wipe out this teory.

The Tashkent service was suspended in in October, to work out a tender and agreement may take what, a month minimum, that’s November – plus your lead in time for sales, and marketing – we’re into January – what to operate a service for 3 months at short notice – out of season as well?

However if Bmed knew that they were seasonally dropping Tashkent in October, provisions to lease it out could be taken months before. Off season or not certain destinations are popular year round and i’m sure many would bit their arm off for a slot at Heathrow regardless of time of year.

Would it not be possible for them to ‘lease’ the slot out to another carrier for the duration of time they have no intenion of using it.
Surely this would make, environmental, sense and potentially economic sense as this way they would be makng money as opposed to losing it and the environmentalists would be happier as planes would be operating with passengers and purpose

The lead in time for any service would probably wipe out this teory.

The Tashkent service was suspended in in October, to work out a tender and agreement may take what, a month minimum, that’s November – plus your lead in time for sales, and marketing – we’re into January – what to operate a service for 3 months at short notice – out of season as well?

Would it not be possible for them to ‘lease’ the slot out to another carrier for the duration of time they have no intenion of using it.
Surely this would make, environmental, sense and potentially economic sense as this way they would be makng money as opposed to losing it and the environmentalists would be happier as planes would be operating with passengers and purpose

The CAA aren’t very happy about the use of light twins for slot preservation and these days expect an airline to use its own equipment. A few years back I flew an empty 757 from Gatwick to Luton, parked it up and went to McDonalds for a couple of hours. I then flew it back to Gatwick, empty again and went home. No maintenance or anything else was done to the aeroplane, it was purely slot preservation. I don’t know of anyone else who has made a more ludicrous trip for a McDonalds!

or BAA and the London council could just bite the bullet and approve a third operational runway now, or draft in plans for a new mega London hub! that would solve slot problems….:dev2:

This is nothing new, just highlights some of the issues surrounding slots.

One airline used to lease a light twin, which operated into and out of LHR to protect slots.

Another airline used to lease a 146 to operate MAN-LHR for slot protection purposes. Initially the flights were operated empty, although they were later opened up to pax.

Other airlines have used ‘free’ slots to increase frequencies on certain routes.

The value of these slots and the EU regulations with regards to slot allocations, will mean that these practices will continue, in one form or another. Maybe the attention should be directed to the EU, for them to review/revise the slot allocation regulations?

nice waste of money when some people are crying out for help

regards
corky:confused:

Who crying out for help?:confused:

James

Forgive my ignorance but isn’t it Open Skys across Europe or would this not be covered :confused:

If someone doesn’t provide an answer, I’ll dig out some of my coursework as I’m studying International Aviation Regulations at the moment. I know it is open skies with full traffic rights on any EU route for a carrier that is part of the EU, but I’m not too sure whether they could carry any fare paying passengers.

bmed

nice waste of money when some people are crying out for help

regards
corky:confused:

Also Andrew, they won’t have traffic rights, therefore wouldn’t be able to carry pax.

1L.

Forgive my ignorance but isn’t it Open Skys across Europe or would this not be covered :confused:

Don’t let the Green Campaigners hear about this. A plane being flown with no passengers just to keep the slots at LHR.

Richard

Also Andrew, they won’t have traffic rights, therefore wouldn’t be able to carry pax.

1L.