Brussels Airlines Operates 3,000 Empty Flights To Keep Airport Slots (independent.co.uk) 59
Brussels Airlines has operated 3,000 flights without passengers this winter to avoid losing take-off and landing slots. From a report: The airline's parent company, Lufthansa Group, confirmed that 18,000 flights had been flown empty, including 3,000 Brussels Airlines services, reports The Bulletin. EU rules require that airlines operate a certain percentage of scheduled flights to keep their slots at major airports. Under these "use it or lose it" regulations, prior to the pandemic carriers had to utilise at least 80 per cent of their scheduled take-off and landing slots. This was revised to 50 per cent as coronavirus saw travel become increasingly difficult -- but airlines are still struggling to hit this target. As a result of Lufthansa Group's latest figures, the Belgian federal government has written to the European Commission, calling for a change to the rules on maintaining slots. It follows the news that European airlines are slashing their winter schedules amid a dampening of demand due to Omicron travel restrictions. Lufthansa Group, which owns the carriers Lufthansa, Swiss International Airlines, Austrian Airlines, and Eurowings in addition to Brussels Airlines, has already axed 33,000 flights in January and February.
Stupid and Wasteful (Score:5, Insightful)
I get the point of the regulations... but wouldn't it have made sense to simply suspend this particular requirement for the duration of the emergency?
Re:Stupid and Wasteful (Score:5, Insightful)
I get the point of the regulations... but wouldn't it have made sense to simply suspend this particular requirement for the duration of the emergency?
There should be such a directive, especially when put in the context of the EU trying to hit its environmental targets.
Re:Stupid and Wasteful (Score:5, Informative)
Even worse, we knew about it for years.
There have been airlines that fly empty as a matter of course, because they lease out slots to much wanted airports like Heathrow (worth a TON of money). They fly out empty twice a day every day, just to keep the slot so they can lease it to someone who needs a twice a day out of Heathrow slot and will pay good money for it. When they no longer need it, the resume flying empty planes.
The problem became more acute in 2020 when it was revealed that most planes flying out of those places were empty. I don't think much was done because it's obviously still happening.
I get why it's done - airports like Heathrow are basically at 100% capacity - there is no more space available to take another flight in or out (this is due to a combination of both airport capacity and air traffic control capacity - and ATC capacity is finite and often a lot of delays are caused by ATC being full - you have to schedule your flight into the system, and if you miss your ATC slot, the next one can be hours away, making for strong incentive to leave on time).
But I'm sure it's possible during these days, air traffic is nowhere near close to capacity, and who needs the slot system in the case if airports have plenty of spare capacity. Once demand picks up again and airports and ATC get more busy, the resume the practice. No need to suspend, just see how busy it is now.
Re: (Score:2)
The requirement should not be suspended. It should be permanently eliminated.
Instead, the slots should be auctioned.
You want a slot? Pay the market price.
The current system is a subsidy to incumbent airlines at taxpayer expense.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is airlines need certainty over pricing so that they can sell tickets many months in advance.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is airlines need certainty over pricing so that they can sell tickets many months in advance.
The obvious solution is to auction the slots many months in advance.
Re: (Score:2)
It would need to be years in advance. They need to acquire aircraft and set up regular routes.
Re: Stupid and Wasteful (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I get the point of the regulations... but wouldn't it have made sense to simply suspend this particular requirement for the duration of the emergency?
There should be such a directive, especially when put in the context of the EU trying to hit its environmental targets.
The thing is, for a lot of the major airports in Europe the "use it or lose it" rule is something they want, they were the ones that lobbied for it in the first place and now the UK is out of the EU, individual airports are enforcing it. Even going as far to write to the UK's transport minister to get it written into UK law.
If airports wanted to ignore the regulation in the EU they can, they could simply by saying "you can keep the slots as long as you keep paying for them, at least until business picks
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
The problem is that it requires a DECISION and a formal PROCESS. And the "leaders" had better things to do, such as organizing FFP2 mask deals for their buddies and earning a million or two for themselves in the process, or campaigning in the next election, or maybe fucking the secretary, or whatever else was higher up on their agenda than DOING THEIR JOB.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes.
The problem is that it requires a DECISION and a formal PROCESS. And the "leaders" had better things to do, such as organizing FFP2 mask deals for their buddies and earning a million or two for themselves in the process, or campaigning in the next election, or maybe fucking the secretary, or whatever else was higher up on their agenda than DOING THEIR JOB.
. . .or worrying about the environmental impact of iPhones requiring a Lightning charger cable.
Just what do you think the carbon footprint is of an empty Airbus or ten flying around European skies?
The EU is criminally incompetent.
Re: (Score:2)
The EU is criminally incompetent.
It's not the EU.
It's the whole class of leadership we have these days. They're all the same. All members of the same clubs, trained in the same programs, etc. - it's a very short list, and party membership doesn't seem to matter much (e.g. one of the new Green Party ministers in Germany was trained in the same leadership program as the previous Conservative Party chancelorix).
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Oh, you think this emergency is going to have a duration? COVID is not going away.
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe it's easier to put a stop to it by bringing the airlines to court.
There are always some legislation that you can use.
Re: (Score:2)
I get the point of the regulations... but wouldn't it have made sense to simply suspend this particular requirement for the duration of the emergency?
That would require some common sense and sympathy for the environment.
Both are anathema to these people.
Re: (Score:2)
I get the point of the regulations... but wouldn't it have made sense to simply suspend this particular requirement for the duration of the emergency?
The problem is the alternative. You suspend the regulations and many airlines stop flying. But what about standard business continuity? Do you now have a government granted monopoly on flights as the mechanism through which flight slots are granted cannot be modified due to a suspension?
I get it the idea is stupid to keep running during the pandemic, but it's not an isolated idea. It's one regulation that forms a large part of overall air movement regulations throughout Europe. Simply suspending it has domi
Re: Stupid and Wasteful (Score:2)
So I have to leave my a/c off and not drive... (Score:5, Interesting)
So I have to keep my a/c off and not drive so that a tiny amount of carbon can be saved.
Meanwhile we have airplanes flying around fucking empty to fulfil some requirement...
Here is an idea. Park the empty planes and leave my car alone...
Re: (Score:1)
Maybe, and I'm not saying it's true, but consider for a moment, the possibility that it's entirely not unreasonable to deduce that... this is about compliance NOT about carbon.
Re: (Score:2)
The planet and the environment only cares about the carbon emissions, the compliance is a fake human-made problem that does not exist. They're wasting fuel, they're polluting and they're losing money.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Surely just paying for the slots and not having to fly would be preferable to both parties at this point...
PS: If you read the summary, you will notice this is an EU directive, not the airport's.
U go Greta (Score:2)
Re:So I have to leave my a/c off and not drive... (Score:4, Interesting)
The real reason is that airports cannot charge them $$$ if they don't fly.
Why not?
If the airline is willing to pay the cost of flying an empty plane, then they are obviously willing to pay at least that much to keep the slot.
They don't want their artificially high prices for slots dropping.
If the airline is willing to pay the prices, and apparently other airlines are eager to pay even more, then the prices are not "artificially high". They are artificially low.
Re: (Score:2)
Because the airlines right now have to fly empty planes anyway, both for keeping the pilots current and for repositioning reasons.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed - outside of moving planes for passenger logistics, airports can charge takeoff fees + a bit over the top to the airline *not* to fly the plane. The receiving airport now has an empty berth, and can similarly charge the landing fees + a bit extra for the empty slot. Airports make plenty, airlines spend less.
Of course, the fuel companies won't make their money with this plan. Thus, it'll never happen :-(
Re: (Score:2)
all alone in the cosmos because reasons (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:all alone in the cosmos because reasons (Score:5, Insightful)
We know fossil fuels are a limited resources that our civilization is totally dependent on, yet we waste vast quantities flying empty planes to game regulatory rules. We know CO2 emissions are contributing to the destruction of our planet, and yet emit vast quantities for said empty places. The aliens don't want to know us for same reason someone might not want to bother getting into a Netflix series that's been cancelled the day after it was released.
A simple change could fix it (Score:2)
Make the percentage of flights relative to the other carriers so that if (like currently) air travel is down in general nobody gets penalized and then crippled when business picks back up. Also make flying empty to keep a slot count as two or three unused slots to prevent this sort of waste.
Re: (Score:1)
No airline should have the monopoly of their own slots, if they want them, they should pay for them and use them, else free them for another airline that is interested in using them. When airlines do this they show more the lack of empathy they have had during this pandemic dedicating billions of pro
Great! Cheap Flights to Germany (Score:1)
Oh, wait. Never mind. Germany. New European home to brainless, anti-science right wing groups... and oddly enough, anti-science left wing groups. Shut down another nuclear reactor and complain some more about greenhouse gases and climate change.
Why not ... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
They certainly fly with belly cargo, but the seats are empty.
Re: (Score:2)
So your solution is human-shaped cargo that can be transported in the seats?
You're weird, dude.
Re: (Score:2)
human-shaped cargo
Referred to in the industry as "self loading freight".
Re: (Score:2)
My solution is to the seats altogether. Some airlines did exactly that last year. This takes time and manpower though, both removing the seats and installing them back again when air travel gets better again, not to speak of some temporary storage facility requirements for the seats.
someone should disable the aircraft (Score:1)
Blindly following (Score:3)
This is what happens when you blindly follow/enforce rules despite the fact that the circumstances have changed so significantly that the rule has become highly damaging and unfit for purpose.
political incompetence (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just one of the many examples showing how our ruling class (politicians, management consultants, bureaucrats, etc.) are incompetent and incapable of acting in a crisis. Too many years of stuffing your pockets and focussing only on the next electing and your public image.
It should literally be a 10 minute discussion to suspend these nonsense rules, given the Corona and the climate crisis situation.
Same as with daylight savings time, which has been shown to be harmful and yet...
Same as with dozens if not hundreds of other, less bright, examples.
Our "leaders" are failung us left, right and center. Not just in democratic countries. While the issue is possibly the worst in our democracies, where "there's always an election somewhere" is the basic principle, we see it at the higher (multi-national) level such as the UN as well.
Re: (Score:2)
It should literally be a 10 minute discussion to suspend these nonsense rules, given the Corona and the climate crisis situation.
I'm sure it was a 10min discussion and at the end of the 10 minutes they likely established that the knock on effects to a large regulatory framework would be unworkable if simply suspended.
It's kind of like the rules which prevent landlords from evicting someone during the crisis. That's all good and fine, but did the simple suspension of eviction terms take into account the landlord's financial situation? Are they now forced to sell a house they can't pay the mortgage on because they are forced to not tak
Re: (Score:2)
The slot rules are part of a large regulatory framework which governs competition between airlines. You can't simply suspend part of it and expect no knock on effects in the wider industry.
I call bullshit.
"For the next six months, slots shall be considered "in use" if at least 10% of the planned flights for this slot are actually flown and the remaining slot fees are paid for as if they had been used."
Sure, some competitors will cry that they were eying those slots and waiting for them to go unused yada yada. Heck, add a rule that says they can rent those slots for those six months (without acquiring a right to them) so if they really want them so much... what, not interested anymore? Thought
Re: (Score:2)
"For the next six months, slots shall be considered "in use" if at least 10% of the planned flights for this slot are actually flown and the remaining slot fees are paid for as if they had been used."
Cool you came up with the same solution Brussels did. You just picked a lower number more leaning towards the very problems I alluded to around the allocation system and said fuck you to members of the industry, and they picked a higher one avoiding the situation leading to some extra flights.
We already have knock on effects in pretty much every other industry. You think restaurants and cinemas didn't cause ripples when they shut down during the lockdowns?
Of course. Also domestic violence is a thing, so I assume you're okay with me punching you in the face and will even excuse my behaviour? Or maybe rather than condoning my violence you should see the very real effort g
Re: (Score:2)
The number obviously is just a number. I'd put it close to the actual number of flights actually happening so that no or almost no empty flights are needed.
Of course. Also domestic violence is a thing, so I assume you're okay with me punching you in the face and will even excuse my behaviour?
Please read again. I didn't write "is a thing", I wrote "we're apparently ok with it". That's the crucial difference to your attempt of an argument. :-)
We're in a pandemic. Things aren't normal. The environment can take a small back seat.
No, it can't and it won't. Our CO2 budget doesn't magically get a pandemic bonus. The laws of physics aren't suspend just because humans got a virus.
You're not saving the world by eliminating a bunch of flights which normally would be fully scheduled and utilised anyway
True, it wouldn't save the world. But it WOULD extend o
Sensitivity Testing (Score:2)
A little sensitivity testing on new laws should be standard practice. And why didn't Lufthansa appeal *before* flying 18K flights? What a waste of energy and pollution with no benefit to show for it. Ugh.
Pilot training (Score:2)
Don't the pilots need practice? I'm pretty sure they do. It's like a requirement or something to keep their license. They have to have so many hours flying, so many takeoffs and landings. The planes have to cycle at a certain rate so that when people do want to travel there are pilots experienced in flying so that flying remains safe.
No, a simulator is not sufficient. No simulator will get everything right. Most of all no simulator will kill the pilot if they screw up. Nothing focuses the mind like k
Re: (Score:3)
And what you don't seem to understand is that most people here are saying that the cost (in money, ressources, pollution, etc) is not warranted for the little benefit it does.
Maybe we don't need that many pilots, that many planes, that many flights. Maybe we should be using more trains and boats which are a lot less ressource-intensive and less polluting when comparing the ressources required per weight ratio. The only thing is that they're slower so it requires better planning.
Don't look up. (Score:2)
A single roundtrip transatlantic flight averages 1.6 tonnes [iop.org] of CO2e per passenger.
Don't look up.
Re: (Score:1)
3000 empty flight not actually happened yet (Score:2)
The original narrative in the Belgian press was different a couple of days ago. Looks like it got mis-interpreted along the way.
https://www.vrt.be/vrtnws/nl/2022/01/05/duizenden-nutteloze-vluchten-door-strenge-europese-regels-ecol/
The article says the government is applying to the EU to ease regulation, to avoid all these empty flights.
Sounds like (Score:5, Insightful)
Proof of work for a non-fungible token.
Can't they just pay for the slot... (Score:2)
It may be a consumer protection rule though, because otherwise airlines may choose to cancel a plane if it's not filled at least 30% for example.
Shortage of a/f capacity (Score:2)
Let's also note that for 14 months now, there has been a global crippling shortage of a/f cargo capacity.
(And no, it's not as easy as using these same flights for cargo - gates, and their reservations - are for passengers, and the logistics of bringing a plane in, bringing it into a gate, "using" that gate to an extent that confirms the contract terms, then moving it over to a completely separate cargo terminal, at any meaningful scale...all would likely cut the entire efficiency of the airport by 30% or mo
I guess the rules are not green yet (Score:3)
Like in lots of other places.
I assume... (Score:2)
I assume that in accord with all EU policies, those flights are being fueled with wind-power energy.
Small Planes? (Score:1)
If the airlines just had to use their take-off/landing slots they'd likely be using much smaller aircraft since they're already planning for the flight to be empty. Fuel consumption for a small plane like a Cessna 172 is measured in gallons or liters per hour,
Commission? (Score:1)
> Belgian federal government has written to the European Commission,
And people wonder why Brexit happened? Why the hell should the commission decide. They should TELL the commission what to do, or have the council do so, or even the parliament.