Topic: What is the sense in forcing planes to fly without passengers (Read 344 times)

In any case, the industry will suffer losses.

Aviation fuel may range in the USA from 3$ to 7$ per gallon, in Europe it can be much, much higher. No way 36k gallons is 62,000 US$ or Euro$.

Air companies might be getting money from this activity.
even if the flights are empty from passengers they will be getting money about making flights.
Or another reason might be a contract that needs to be fulfilled.

a 747 uses 36,000 gallons on a 10 hour flight. =~$62k fuel

a first class seat for a 10hour flight is ~$4k
they only need 12 first class passengers to cover the fuel.

put this into prospective

Right! Just keeping the engine bearings lubed while they are not running is hard enough.

and what is about the infrastructure? did you ever looked at the costs to keep an a380 flying?

keeping routine infrastructure intact,

plane flight network have developed over decades getting them back will be extremly costly

Cargo planes.     

to answer your questions
1. for decades now, there has always been a agency that pretty much 'auctions' off the slots under a yearly licence.
there is an international agency and also each country has domestic agencys.
its not about 'profit' its about if they stop flying for a month.. they lose the other 10 months of flying ability. so its just balancing the books of paying for ful for 0 passengers. and then knowing they can keep the slots for the other working year to make the money flying passengers then.. by not flying at all.. they would have been fined. and lost slots. so it would have cost them alot.

2. governments are not forcing routes to stay open or offering tax credits.. the airlines asked the agencies that in the event of a pandemic they can just stop flying without any penalty or slot licence loss.

3. governements didnt force them to keep flying. it was the airlines in january/february that thought that the cost of not flying was more than flying empty... but now that the flight coordination agencies agreed there will be no penalty. the planes ont have to fly purely to keep the slots.

....
as a separate thing. some airports are allowing flights. and airlines end up charging passenger stupid ticket prices. and as a separage thing. governments are 'hiring' commercial planes to 'repatriate' vacationers.

but airlines are not getting tax credits just for empty 'ghost' flights

Two regulatory reasons:

1. Holding the slot between the two terminals so no one else is able to have it. I'm assuming they've signed agreements with the terminals in question that they're going to fly X amounts of flights per X amount of time or they're going to lose the route. They're probably just making a bit of a profit with these routes and they're happy keeping it on. Plus they keep a presence in certain airports which is free advertising if done right.

2. Government forcing certain routes to stay open for some reason, or providing some sort of tax credit to companies to keep it open. I'm assuming this is done to ensure that rural areas are services properly. Or at least to have some sort of rural hub.

I didn't think there are too many flights in the air now though. Seems like airlines are cancelling a good deal of service. They may be told to keep paying people if they want federal money / stimulus money though.

Look. We have a new 9/11 thread in this section - https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/university-study-finds-fire-did-not-cause-building-7s-collapse-on-911-5236144. And your question is, "What is the sense in forcing planes to fly without passengers?"

The only answer I can see is so there isn't as much loss of life. Your choice in how you want to take the answer.

nah.
they just are not fined for holding a slot and not using it
they are fined for also being late.
after so  many times they just lose the slot for the rest of the year. which can end up costing them even more.

but as i said earlier. by declaring a pandemic, it then triggers a clause to be allowed not to fly without repurcussions

Some companies get a kickback for number of planes in flight in certain states/countries. Just like they do with amount of souls on board.

9-11 only affects most domestic flights in area's of new york. thus it was a local manageable problem.

but the auctioning/legal contract process for international flights is a whole different system

During the emergency that stupid rule about the slots should be suspended.

Did any airline lose their slots in American airports during the 9-11 no flight period?

This should be no different. It is incredibly stupid to keep running empty or nearly empty planes in fear of losing their slots.

What is the sense in forcing planes to fly without passengers?

They gotta keep spraying the chemtrails.

Why not fly some small private planes instead just to keep the slots filled? It would be much cheaper!

old news
month ago it was declared a pandemic. so airlines could legally shutdown flights without losing their slots/being fined.

maybe manufacturers can use this time to repair/upgrade the plane fleet to be more efficient and better in the future (last sentance was satire, coz i bet they wont)

I will focus on the part where you said that flying less planes will be good for the enviromement. It is not like all the planes around the world will stop flying. A few planes not flying will not do any good to the environment. Pollution started very many years back when locomotive were made. All attempts to stop it has just been a hoax. Global warming is coming to whether we want it or not. Vehicles, trains, ships, factories are the things we need to stop all together but no one is willing to do that. All the attempts of going green are just reducing the rate at which the world is destroyed not helping it.

what you dont realise is alot of mail doesnt go through dedicated mail planes. but gets carried along with luggage area of normal passenger flights.
its only large freight like cars and kitchen appliances that need special freight planes. the usual 'parcel' sized stuff is transported by passenger flights. and they are still getting delivered

if you do some math. say if a normal A4 envelope cost £0.70 regionally and £3.50 internationally. thats ~£2+ going just for the flight.
if you imagine how many envelopes can fit into a certain area, you start to realise that the area of a human passenger(should they put themselves in the luggage area) would be worth more money in parcel form than in human or luggage form.
..
also by not taking parcels the flights can be fined/penalised by the UPU for late deliveries. so its in their interest to keep taking mail and keep flying around even if not all the passenger seats are occupied
(again the flight might only get ~£2 for a large thick envelope. but could be penalised by the entire £3.50 for not delivering)