Slashdot Mirror
Why London's Heathrow Airport Sometimes Hosts 'Ghost Flights' With No One on Them (jalopnik.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Six times per week, an empty plane used to fly from London's Heathrow Airport to Cardiff, Wales. The next day, the plane would make the return trip without a single passenger. Half As Interesting, the second channel from Planelopnik-approved Wendover Productions, details why ghost flights like this sometimes operate from Britain's biggest airport in his new video. Despite being one of the most crowded airports in the world, Heathrow operates with only two runways. As a result, it's extremely difficult to get a "slot pair" -- rights for airlines to land and take off at a certain time. Only 650 slot pairs exist per day, so airlines are prepared to drop massive cash in order to get prime slot pairs. And they can trade and sell them, too. [...] Should an airline fail to use their slot at least 80 percent of the time, Heathrow will reassign it to the next company on the waiting list.
Want to bet that we'll see this pop up in some chemtrail conspiracy video within a day?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Please explain to me again how Capitalism organizes the economy for the most efficient use of resources.
HA! Trick question. All isms suck.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The actual reason is because of identity politics. There are people in UK who identify as Ghosts, and therefore there need to be ghost flights to satisfy the politics of inclusion.
I hear Zombie flights are also coming up, and also Attack Helicopter flights, and also special planes outfitted with fake grass flooring, wood walls, and plenty of greenery for treesexuals.
Saw that on Sherlock. Still waiting for S4 reshow.
Typical British bureaucratic nonsense. The way to stop this is to change the rule so that, to keep a time slot, an airline needs to have a flight that is open to the public: Either as a passenger flight, or as a mail carrier flight. The flight needs to be reasonably priced (so we can't keep an airplane empty by charging $2000 for a seat to Cadriff).
Problem solved.
Either that, or allow airplanes to pay a $100,000 per month retainer to keep a time slot if they are not using.
Notice the lack of a question mark in the summary? That means it wasn't a question.
A question would be: "Why Does London's Heathrow Airport Sometimes Hosts 'Ghost Flights' With No One on Them?"
No sig today...
Wouldn't it be easier to get a "slot pair" if they weren't filled with useless "ghost planes"?
So you didn't even read to the end of the summary?
Then don't count empty flights as valid flights. That would put an end to that habit.
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
The editors added that after I made my comment.
Amazing that the carbon footprint of unnecessary jet fuel expenditures isn't even brought into question.
Or build more runways.
Want to bet that we'll see this pop up in some chemtrail conspiracy video within a day?
See, the Deep State has been using them to fool all of us into thinking that there's plenty of air traffic and subsequently the economy is doing great. Of course, add in the bogus unemployment figures too boost people's confidence in the economy.
Now, exactly who does benefit from an un realistic view of the economy? Yeah, retailers and consumer durable makers like washing machines.
But WHO exactly NEEDS to have a confident buying public? WHO needs folks to throw caution to the wind and buy their product.?
There is only one answer and one answer only. The Girl Scouts of America. They need us to buy their cookies. People have to think, "The economy is great. I can get an expensive gym membership so the money and calories for these cookies don't matter squat!"
The Girl Scouts of America IS the Deep State!!
Trump thinks the Deep State is after him but the fact of the matter is, no the girls aren't - or are they? The Girl Scouts are girls and are going to be women one day. And Trump's misogynist attitudes do not go over well with them.
Trump pissed off the Girls Scouts and they're out for him!!
And who else they have in their pocket? Yep! Vladmir Putin!
I suspect that the problem with building more runways is acquiring the land from the people who live or have businesses on the land. that could get expensive
So you gave an answer to a question that was never asked?
Why is this on slashdot?
captcha: nonsense
Then don't count empty flights as valid flights. That would put an end to that habit.
No it would just lead to as many people being paid to ride along as necessary, further increasing the waste (i.e. extra fuel cost). The cost of holding on the slot will ultimately be covered by the sale of the slot to another airline (or the money saved by not needing to buy the slot from another airline when you need the slot for a directly profitable flight.
It's ridiculous that Slashdot allows summary edits but still not post edits.
Correct. I am being proactive.
Then they could do the opposite and get rid of a runway.
I suspect that the problem with building more runways is acquiring the land from the people who live or have businesses on the land. that could get expensive
There's currently a fight going on over the construction of a 3rd runway. The House of Commons last month voted approval but local officials including London's mayor are contesting it and asking for a judicial review.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Passengers aren't required on some flights... they just move letters and shipments. Also, if a population is moving, sometimes there's nobody on the return flight for months... think Boston to Florida.
So, we've got half a story here.. this must be a SlowNewsDay.
Incentivizing flying empty planes to earn $$$ trading slots!
650 slot pairs exist per day, so airlines are prepared to drop massive cash in order to get prime slot pairs. And they can trade and sell them, too. [...] Should an airline fail to use their slot at least 80 percent of the time...
So why not recover more revenue from users? Add some additional rules to prevent congestion by empty planes: Should an airline fail to use their slot at least 80 percent of the time not counted as used when the passenger or cargo weight loaded is less than 30% of maximum for that plane.
If an airline intends to use its slot, then it must give notice at least 24 hours ahead of time --- if no timely notice is received then for that day the slot is up for grabs - after giving notice, it will be liable to pay an additional $5000 fee ("slot confirmation charge").
"Business does things for business reasons that would be kind of probably inexplicable if done by hobbyists, or something"
Cardiff airport also has a large BA servicing facility.
According to betteridge's law the answer is "No"
love is just extroverted narcissism
Or at least seriously suboptimal. Instead of flying empty planes, Heathrow should charge a "non-usage fee" which is a few thousand dollars less than the "ghost flight" costs.
More or less cost neutral to the airline; raises some income for Heathrow ... and saves the jet fuel, wear and tear ...
A whole bunch of stuff copied from the article - but it leave out the use it or lose it part... The reader has to guess or go to the other article.
so they sell the right take off and land at certain times, a slot pair, but why are they flying empty planes?
Make them outrageously high. But discount the actual landing fee by dividing it--or somehow scale it down--by the number of "souls" on-board. Eventually some bean counter will wonder if it's actually worth it to be hanging on to those slots that are not being used by actual fare-paying passengers. Perhaps the airports could do the same with jet fuel and make fuel cost more when it's used to fly an empty aircraft. It's seems to me to be the height of stupidity to burn up fuel--fuel that the airlines are constantly complaining is too expensive--to fly empty planes.
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
True capitalism would have the airport auction off EVERY departure time on the schedule on a daily basis, thank you very much. Actual economies have "friction" which render them sub-optimal. And yes, government bureaucracy is a huge source of friction.
You are correct. True Capitalism would encourage one or two companies to purchase all the slots, and gouge travelers once it had a monopoly on the airport. Unregulated capitalism that only considers pure supply and demand generates its own friction. (In this case in the form of resistance to true competition) I could probably make a pretty solid claim that every sort of economic model has similar levels of overall friction, and that one of the interesting ways of comparing systems would be to analyze where that friction would lay.
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
I seem to remember reading or watching a program that described this happening elsewhere. Maybe Hong-Kong. Apparently there's politics involved too with those who own the slots and renting them out. The airport has lost control over who lands in a slot. There were a bunch of small private jets that wanted to gain access and are having issues - but the slots are being sold to the highest bidder. Plus have a long lead time.
Who-knows-how-much jet fuel being wasted, adding to the price of tickets... CO2 being generated... And I'm getting bitched at for wanting a fucking straw.
I had a sucky sig.
There are quite a number of ways to measure efficiency, and you're only focusing on one.
1) Given the Rules, this is efficient. The rules may be dumb, but that doesn't negate them.
2) Price stability is another form of efficiency. Given #1) this helps provide efficient pricing model.
3) I'm sure there is a great deal of pressure for more runways, but I am equally sure there are all sorts of rules and pressure preventing additional runways from being built. Likewise, Additional Alternate Airports are not likely due to competing needs and limited (finite) resources.
The more rules and regulations there are, the greater the likelihood of inefficiencies in the micro-economic system. The question we rarely ask ourselves as we draft rules and regulations should attempt to quantify the values of those rules and regulations; "Is it worth it"
I'll give a quick example of a question I would like to ask: "Would you (John/Joan Q Public) be willing to forgo TSA Grope N Feel / Naked Scan inspections, if instead the TSA Ticket Fees were cut in half, the remainder going into an "insurance" fund to pay out upon a fatal air traffic accident or terrorist event?"
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Or just too proud to admit a mistake. Just like when someone brings up Trump around you.
Yet another YouTube video that tries make clever little jokes all over the place, and instead falls on its face.
Betteridge's corollary of headlines: if the headline doesn't ask a question, then you have to make up your own question, and then answer it with no.
Q: Why Does London's Heathrow Airport Sometimes Hosts 'Ghost Flights' With No One on Them?
A: No.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Straws are for sissies. Lift your drink like a man. When did it become such a wonderful thing to suck fluid out of cup from a small tube?
I am sure the inventor of straws said if I can get pretty girl in ads sucking drinks through these straws, I can make a billion dollars.
Or build more runways.
That's exactly the plan, despite the fact that they'll destroy two villages and displace residents.
A junior trade minister resigned over this because he represents the residents.
No it would just lead to as many people being paid to ride along as necessary, further increasing the waste (i.e. extra fuel cost)
Since a full plane covers not just overhead but per-passenger fuel costs with ticket sales, even one (paid-ticket) person on the plane would be a net gain for fuel costs. Having to staff the plane with anyone but a pilot would raise costs - that's the likely reason. It's almost certain that there would be buyers on these flights if tickets were offered.
Even our ultra secret conspiracies are done half-assed.
The Majestic 12 (or MJ-12) was originally supposed to have twelve on the committee, but one guy dropped out and rather than redoing all the letter heads they stuck with an eleven man committee (sorry, no women on the committee, it was the 1940's after all)
It's amazing we can disassemble downed UFOs at all. Especially considering the officer's lounge at every secret military base can't manage to order a proper ratio of coffee grounds to coffee cups.
To answer your question: "The oldest drinking straw in existence, found in a Sumerian tomb dated 3,000 B.C.E., was a gold tube inlaid with the precious blue stone lapis lazuli.[1]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_straw
And here to save you the trouble of looking it up is the referenced source article: https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/11/the-amazing-history-and-the-strange-invention-of-the-bendy-straw/248923/
Now let's get back to the subject of why these airlines are permitted to waste jet fuel and needlessly pollute the air just to hold onto their airport slots. It's ecologically unsound and should be illegal. The slots should be rescinded just for doing this.
Let us install some sensors as well. Atmospheric, environmental, geophysical sciences, civil engineering, city planning and security services thank you.
Time for Heathrow to overbook the slot pairs then, just in case some airlines don't really use them. Airlines ought to appreciate the treatment, considering how familiar they are with the process!
If you can't have some sort of planning (and make no mistake auctioning of the slot would make some airline unavailable some days) would be utterly nightmare stuff for traveler. Sometimes what you call friction *do* actually provide stability which is required for societies to function, while "friction-less" leaves you , just like physical items, in a state of unstable equilibrium at best, in constant disequilibrium at worst.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Weight and balance system which helps stating how to make the take off taking into account cargo, and then the staff programming those , or the staff entering data for those which would have to be silent on this (as somebody being in that industry that would make me part of the conspiracy). And then take into account the fact that those chemtrail in summer would be bombarded to heavy UV, not a good thing for most chemicals, a lot would decompose, and then from 30000 foot the amount diluting and coming onto the ground would be ridiculously small per square meter.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
And I'm getting bitched at for wanting a fucking straw
And so you should. I hope you also get bitched at for conflating two very different problems with very different consequences and very different solutions under the banner of "pollution".
This video is interesting until it gets preachy about climate change enviromentalism tell other people what to do with their planes bullshit.
Hey, why build a an airplane set for a movie when you can just get on a ghost flight! You would have to of course do the cost benefit analysis to see if the price for the tickets for each cast/crew member was worth it vs building the set.
It seems the easy solution would be if the airline isn't using enough of their slot, but is close enough, allow them to pay a fee that would let them keep the slot. Set the cost of the fee to be slightly below the cost of running a ghost flight. Use the money to fund infrastructure improvements.