[Viros throw hissy fit as] Plane flies five passengers from US to LON

[Capitalism Forever]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml...5/nplane105.xml

A major airline is under fire from environmentalists for flying an aircraft across the Atlantic with only five passengers on board.

The flight from Chicago to London meant that the plane, a Boeing 777, used 22,000 gallons of fuel.

It led to American Airlines being accused of reckless behaviour by green lobby groups.

The viros in this country are really getting out of control. And notice that, from all airlines in the world, they had to choose an American one to pick on. Needless to say, I don't expect them to criticize Al Gore or any of his fellow travelers for "needlessly" flying their jets around the world. Nor to raise a peep about those trains and buses that constantly travel with utilization rates much lower than this plane had on this single flight...

[D'kian]

A factor to consider is that the plane flew along with the passengers. This seems obvious to the point of irrelevancy, but it's not. That plane probably had a scheduled flight from London back to chicago or on to somewhere else, and very likely that one was more solidly booked. So the plane had to be in London regardless of how many passengers flew.

A colleague just last month flew as the sole passenger in a commercial flight for that same reason. I once flew a London to Houston flight with only 50 passengers for the same reason. It's not an every day occurrence, but it's common.

[Capitalism Forever]

That plane probably had a scheduled flight from London back to chicago or on to somewhere else, and very likely that one was more solidly booked.

Of course--the article even quotes the airline's spokesman on that. But even if that weren't so--what the hell do these cretins think, maligning an airline just for carrying the passengers who already had tickets for a flight? In effect, AA was simply keeping a promise it had made to the passengers--you're not even supposed to do that now?! I mean, it's one thing (and despicable enough) to say "You're a bad person if you book a flight" and "You're an evil corporation because you offer flights"--but to say "You're evil because you didn't leave these people stranded at the airport," that's a new low on their part.

They are feeling emboldened and getting closer and closer to stating explicitly their real message: "You're evil unless you stop breathing and drop dead right now, where you are."

[KevinDW78]

You're evil unless you stop breathing and drop dead right now, where you are.

Well... after all - isn't that the ONLY way nature can exist and flourish? Without the intervention of man and their constant raping of the earth?

[D'kian]

Of course--the article even quotes the airline's spokesman on that. But even if that weren't so--what the hell do these cretins think, maligning an airline just for carrying the passengers who already had tickets for a flight?

Not that I disagree, but I think the issue is more along the lines of maligning a company for using its property as it sees fit.

On a side-note, airlines do cancel flights sometimes. Often the issue is weather-related, or it involves mechanical difficulties of some sort. But sometimes it's due to a lack of passengers. In either case, the airline has an obligation to help you reach your destination is as timely a manner as possible. Usually this means booking you in another flight, but it may involve doing so on a different airline (that happened to me once; I wound up on a Pan Am 747 rather than a Texas International DC-9, lovely trip). And if the substiute flight leaves later enough, they also have an obligation to pay for lodging and meals as may be necessary (they do this even on long delays).

They are feeling emboldened and getting closer and closer to stating explicitly their real message: "You're evil unless you stop breathing and drop dead right now, where you are."

I wish they did come out and say so openly. Then all their support among the average person would evaporate within hours.