By "Eco-Scandal", we mean "cheesy, unscientific preying on public incomprehension"

[Pangloss]

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

[swansont]

OMG. Yes, very myopic to be focusing on the statistical anomaly instead of the overall picture.

[Pangloss]

Why yes, it is, and it's too bad we can't say the same about criticism of the modern environmental movement.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-qu_0KlMvw

[iNow]

Oh, for the love of Thor, Penn and Teller... again?

[Dak]

iirc, they generally take cargo (stuff like airmail) when they're running under-passengered, so they possably saved another plane making the same journey anyhow.

[jryan]

Why yes, it is, and it's too bad we can't say the same about criticism of the modern environmental movement.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1-qu_0KlMvw

 

 

Heh, I remember Penn Jillette telling a story about when he finally called it quits with the environmental movement. He was set to give a speech at some rally, and they gave him the talking points. He sat and read them through so as not to stumble... and to his surprise he was picking up mathematical errors in the statistics he was given.

 

Penn is the first to admit that math isn't a strong suit of his, so that he caught these errors struck him with dread. He went and found one of the organizers and asked if he could sit with them and corrected the typos in the speech. The organizer refused happily saying that the numbers didn't matter, just the message.

 

He gathered his things and left the building.