The ‘ghost flights’ maintained by airlines even when almost empty

Why would a plane that carries no one take off?

Why would an airline pay the pilot and crew, fill a commercial airliner’s tank with fuel, and take off without carrying enough cargo or passengers to justify the expense?

Does this really happen?

Yes, every month in Europe dozens of planes take off that are basically empty or with less than 10% of their capacity – and what are known as “ghost flights”.

For years, the phenomenon — which does not occur in Latin America or the Caribbean — has been a reality, but with the arrival of the Covid-19 pandemic and restrictions on travel, the problem has become more pressing.

Many airports require airlines to perform at least 80% of scheduled flights to maintain their take-off and landing rights at certain times (slots).

This leaves companies with a 20% cancellation margin.

If their operations do not meet these percentages, they are forced to operate empty planes to maintain their slots or, the following year, they risk missing the best business hours.

Taking off from London at 6am is not the same as taking off at 8am or 9am.

Nor is it the same to land in Madrid at 5 pm and 1 am, when the metro has already closed and transport connections with the city center are more complicated.

The price is also not the same.

‘Use it or lose it’

That is why, in the most congested airports, and to organize all air traffic, the European Commission and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) of the United States apply the rule “use [o slot] or lose”.

“Ghost flights are defined as those operated voluntarily by airlines solely to preserve historic rights to their slots,” explains the Airports Council International (ACI).

The entity, which represents the interests of airports before governments, adds that “ghost flights are not offered for sale, do not carry passengers and do not generate revenue for airlines”.

Many believe that ghost flights benefit no one — and that it is an unnecessary and wasteful practice.

Others believe that the coordinated allocation of slots at airports that are at their maximum possible capacity ensures competition between airlines and benefits consumers.

“These are flights that, a priori, do not make economic sense, let alone environmental ones. A lot of kerosene is burned, which has a clear impact on climate change”, says Diego R. González, president of the World Association of Airport Lawyers.

Traditional and ‘low cost’ airlines

The key is precisely in the commercial aspect.

“The slots are those times or shifts assigned. If they don’t use them, they are penalized. The following year, the airport authority gives it to another company, and to the airlines, it is a way of losing market”, says González.

For the lawyer, there is a dispute between traditional airlines and newcomers to the market, which encourages carriers to do their utmost to comply with the regulation, even if flying empty.

“The airlines that dominate the market do this because they have the best schedules, which are the most expensive. These are the routes that arrive at the airports at the central time in terms of convenience”, he explains.

“As there is a dominant carrier that has no competition on a route at a certain time, what happens is that it does not lower prices. There is a problem of competition between airlines that fight for a scarce resource, such as airport infrastructure,” he adds. .

Willie Walsh, director of the International Air Transport Association, argues that this business model encourages airlines to fly at low capacity or empty to keep slots.

“If you fly between two airports with regulated capacity, you need to have the permission of both not to fly. Otherwise, you have to operate”, explained the director in a video, while saying that he does not believe that there are any airlines adopting this practice deliberately.

Airlines ask for greater flexibility in the rule.

But the industry also points out that before flying an empty plane, the affected airline could lower prices in an attempt to lure travelers on the problem flight.

A rare policy to see.

environmental damage

This fragile balance of the aviation industry is compounded by environmental damage.

Aviation is responsible for around 2% of global CO2 emissions, but the sector as a whole accounts for around 3.5% of global warming due to human activity.

And it is a sector that will continue to grow.

Since 2000, emissions have increased by about 50%, and the industry is expected to grow by more than 4% each year over the next two decades, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

The environmental damage from “ghost flights in Europe”, according to Greenpeace, is “equivalent to the annual emissions of more than 1.4 million cars”.

And all this at a time when the aviation industry has committed to net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

It doesn’t happen in Latin America

The situation in Latin America and the Caribbean is different.

It should be borne in mind that the slot system is in effect at airports with capacity at the limit.

“Obviously there are congested airports in some countries like Brazil or Mexico and at certain times in Peru and Colombia, but in the region this is not happening because the capacity of the airports has not reached a point where they need restrictions”, says González.

It is that, although after the pandemic the volume of passengers is recovering, the number of aircraft movements is not so representative as to force airports to take measures.

“Europe is suffering, among other things, with a latent demand. That is, people who were waiting for everything to open to travel. Also with the rescued flights that were not made during the pandemic. reopen”, says Rafael Echevarne, ICA Director General for Latin America and the Caribbean.

This text was originally published here.