If they knew this was the situation a few days in advance they should have offered $99 (or even $59) one-way seats and I'll bet they would have filled the plane and made back enough to cover fuel costs and made many people happy. Last minute budget tickets for remaining seats should become the norm rather than the exception...

Posted By Z on March 7, 2008, 6:34 PM

meh, then people will wait until until the last minute because they know the airlines will get desperate

Posted By A on March 8, 2008, 7:15 PM

I read that AA had cancelled other flights and stuffed people on full planes and were left with these people. Why did they stuff the other planes instead splitting up the full flights into less full flights? This would not have made the news then. Also, doesn't the plane have to fly anyway empty so why not have some pax on the plane.

Posted By jennifer on March 9, 2008, 12:39 AM

There is always someone out there who has too much time on their hands and perpetually unhappy. While it is important to be conscious about our environment making a huge issue out of this flight is like trying to empty out a lake with a teaspoon. I would rather focus on larger, more meaningful issues that can have an impact rather than the day to day minor incidents.

Posted By Alnoor Ramji on March 9, 2008, 8:36 AM

I think it would be in best interest of AA to cancel the flight, since saving that much gas would help their profits. But then what about the passengers on the return flight? And what about the full cargo on the flight? If you were flying back from London, and if the airline cancelled the flight, would you like to stay in London 3 or even more days to get back?

Posted By Abhi on March 10, 2008, 1:20 PM

One thing you don't state is...how much freight and mail was on that flight? There are more reasons to fly an aircraft than passengers.

Posted By Stan on March 10, 2008, 1:47 PM

I believe the public would be best served if there was a minimum number of passengers (50),?, on any flight- regardless of future connections/flights using the same equipment.
This also brings up the point of penalties imposed whenever a passenger finds it necessary. I believe each case should be handled on a 'case by case' basis. (e.g., sickness, death in the family, accidents, etc).

Posted By henry on March 10, 2008, 1:55 PM

Did the critics consider what freight that airplane might have been carrying? In many cases, freight revenues can more than equal those from passengers.

Posted By David Cobb on March 10, 2008, 2:45 PM

My pilot friends have told me that on some routes, particularly international ones, that passengers' fares are an added bonus, that the key item they're carrying and making money from is cargo. Add to that the 300 people who need an aircraft to return (plus the freight on that aircraft), and it was probably an easy decision.

Posted By TAP on March 10, 2008, 4:01 PM

I am almost always in support of environmentalist causes. Those groups are out of line here though. Clearly the plane is needed for the return trip, and points above allude to the fact that the plane could be carrying many tonnes of freight.

American has a vested interest in keeping its fuel costs down - as has been pointed out elsewhere, keeping full maintenance facilities in every airport is cost-prohibitive. They know the tradeoffs, and I'm sure made a better decision than a bunch of know-nothing dumbasses preening as environmentalists do about their own business.

Posted By Kevin on March 10, 2008, 5:23 PM

I am now watching 10 flights, all of which I will be taking. The 3 airlines on each of my routes think I am stupid enough to pay $450 PP for a trip of 1100 miles, and they want me to connect at inconvenient places.
I count seats available, write the total down and check them every week. Then I look at the fare. Most of these flights for the last two months have no one on them, and the fare is grossly overpriced based on mileage to be traveled. Come on you airline people, knock off $100 pp, and you might fill your plane, Otherwise we will go with the cheapest at the last minute and the other two airlines lose out because of price scalping. Time is not that critical 20 days before our departure date when most hotel rooms are not available until 4 p.m.
We haven't stayed home yet. Whether we leave at 8 a.m. arrive 1 p.m., or leave 11 a.m. and arrive at 3 p.m. dosen't make any difference to me. $100 PP each way does when I know I'm being screwed to start with. Nancy in FL

Posted By Nancy on March 10, 2008, 7:26 PM

If so many people are being screwed, why aren't the arilines making huge profits? For that matter why do so many clueless people think they know someone elses industry so much better than the insiders?

Posted By Rick on March 11, 2008, 10:26 AM

I've read a few tidbits about this, and there are a couple major factors to consider (touched upon previously):

1. Repositioning the aircraft--if I recall correctly, there was a time when it was far more common for airlines to fly just a skeleton crew to another location. Only in the last decade or two of intense price competition has the need arisen to keep all legs full at all times.

2. Cargo--Passengers often aren't the profitable (or important!) part of the flight. Don't forget the belly full of important cargo that customers have paid for. What do you tell them when it doesn't arrive?

The complain has some merit, but is shortsighted (just like the more rabid element of the "climate change" brigade)

Posted By Ash78 on March 11, 2008, 12:31 PM

The logistics of the having to get the plane to London meant it had to go but they should try harder, i.e. discount tickets, to try to fill the plain up. It is quite wasteful! Shame on American Airlines!

Posted By Andre Corkum on March 11, 2008, 2:53 PM

American Airlines has a habit of cancelling two half full flights that are within an hour or two in departure times and then cramming everyone onto a full flight. This is acceptable given the costs of fuel except for the fact that their ancient but commonly used MD/S 80 aircraft does not then have enough overhead space to store even one carry on/per passenger on full flights. The result is confusion, lots of people involuntarily stuck in middle seats and the need to check in bags at the last minute is inconvenient and time wasting for the passengers. This coupled with very mediocre and minimal in flight service has led me to not fly them if there is any alternative. GO VIRGIN AND JET BLUE.

Posted By Dick Kruger on March 11, 2008, 5:48 PM

The "environmentalists" should mine their own business. If it were not a sound business decision to fly the plane with only 5 person on board, then AA would have cancelled the flight. They are in the best position to assess that.

Posted By Tom on March 11, 2008, 6:37 PM

There are so many people who would love to travel if they could just afford the flights. I know my family lives fifteen hundred miles away and believe me, if there was a plane that had seats at the last minute...for a discounted price I would drop everything and be ON IT. If all airlines had websites that you could sign up for like AirTran in which you receive announcements about discounted and sale flights, you could be alerted about those empty flights. In one day it could be full. I don't think its right to cancel the flight for those who purchased tickets and showed up. I DO think it's economical to say hey we have a flight for $59 or $99 available tomorrow! I sometimes wonder who on earth is running these airlines; they aren't very bright I can tell you that.

Posted By Suzanne Deneuve on March 14, 2008, 11:03 AM