Lamborghini owner loads his car on plane and send it 6,500 miles for an oil change
07-31-2008, 09:16 AM
#1
Lamborghini owner loads his car on plane and send it 6,500 miles for an oil change
Sheikh flies Lamborghini 6,500 miles to Britain for oil change
A RICH Arab sent his Lamborghini on a 6,500-mile round trip to Britain for a service. The £190,000 supercar was put on a scheduled flight from Qatar to Heathrow – then flown BACK after the oil check.
Money was no object as the flight would have cost the owner – thought to be a Sheikh – around £20,000. The move sparked fury from green campaigners.
An airport worker said: “This car doesn’t have a carbon footprint – more of a crater.” The overall cost of sending the Lamborghini to London for the oil change would have cost more than £23,000.
His black-and-gold supercar costs £3,552 to service at an approved dealer – on top of the £20,000 to freight from Qatar to Britain. The Murciélago LP640 – driven by Batman in movie The Dark Knight – arrived from the Middle Eastern country on Friday.
It cleared customs and was trucked to specialist mechanics in London for the service. On Monday it was flown back 3,250 miles to the oil-rich state where it was collected by the owner.
A cargo handler at Heathrow blasted the car’s environmental damage. He said: “It would have been far more efficient to fly mechanics out there.”
And Jenny Evans, of pressure group Plane Stupid, said: “This horrifies me. It is another example of how rich people exploit and pollute the planet because of their money.”
She said the role of the super-wealthy in climate change was not properly recognised – while poor people were rapped for going on holiday. Friends of the Earth’s transport campaigner Richard Dyer said: “Flying a car thousands of miles for a service is ludicrous when planes are one of the most polluting ways to transport goods. We urge the individual to get their car serviced closer to home.”
But David Price, of Lamborghini Club UK, said: “If an owner wants to service his car in that way, it is his choice. “I’m not surprised. Thankfully the age of excess in some areas continues.”
Lamborghini UK spokeswoman Juliet Jarvis said there could be “kudos” for a Middle Eastern owner in servicing a car in London. She said the exclusive Italian brand had a network of authorised dealers around the world – and most cars were looked after in the country where they were bought.
But she added: “This sort of thing is not unheard of.”
Qatar Airways confirmed it carried the Lamborghini. The cars are popular with celebs including Rod Stewart and David Beckham.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...cle1493291.ece
A RICH Arab sent his Lamborghini on a 6,500-mile round trip to Britain for a service. The £190,000 supercar was put on a scheduled flight from Qatar to Heathrow – then flown BACK after the oil check.
Money was no object as the flight would have cost the owner – thought to be a Sheikh – around £20,000. The move sparked fury from green campaigners.
An airport worker said: “This car doesn’t have a carbon footprint – more of a crater.” The overall cost of sending the Lamborghini to London for the oil change would have cost more than £23,000.
His black-and-gold supercar costs £3,552 to service at an approved dealer – on top of the £20,000 to freight from Qatar to Britain. The Murciélago LP640 – driven by Batman in movie The Dark Knight – arrived from the Middle Eastern country on Friday.
It cleared customs and was trucked to specialist mechanics in London for the service. On Monday it was flown back 3,250 miles to the oil-rich state where it was collected by the owner.
A cargo handler at Heathrow blasted the car’s environmental damage. He said: “It would have been far more efficient to fly mechanics out there.”
And Jenny Evans, of pressure group Plane Stupid, said: “This horrifies me. It is another example of how rich people exploit and pollute the planet because of their money.”
She said the role of the super-wealthy in climate change was not properly recognised – while poor people were rapped for going on holiday. Friends of the Earth’s transport campaigner Richard Dyer said: “Flying a car thousands of miles for a service is ludicrous when planes are one of the most polluting ways to transport goods. We urge the individual to get their car serviced closer to home.”
But David Price, of Lamborghini Club UK, said: “If an owner wants to service his car in that way, it is his choice. “I’m not surprised. Thankfully the age of excess in some areas continues.”
Lamborghini UK spokeswoman Juliet Jarvis said there could be “kudos” for a Middle Eastern owner in servicing a car in London. She said the exclusive Italian brand had a network of authorised dealers around the world – and most cars were looked after in the country where they were bought.
But she added: “This sort of thing is not unheard of.”
Qatar Airways confirmed it carried the Lamborghini. The cars are popular with celebs including Rod Stewart and David Beckham.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage...cle1493291.ece
07-31-2008, 09:51 AM
#6
dɐɹɔ ǝɥʇ ʇɐɥʍ
Originally Posted by Bdog
It was on a scheduled flight... what's the big deal, the plane was going there anyways!
07-31-2008, 10:34 AM
#7
Disinformation Terminator
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NorCal
Age: 55
Posts: 1,930
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh boy, an article from The Sun 
.....the British equivalent of the Enquirer, and I'm being nice.
I have some spare time this morning, so I'm going to blow a bunch of holes in this sensationalized article for pure fun and learning. All calculations below are general at best, and cliff notes are at the bottom.
As Bdog noted, this was not a charter flight, and nobody knows what kind of arrangement the guy may have had with Qatar Airlines as far as usage is concerned. Perhaps a monthly leasing or cargospace agreement?
Not only that, but who is to say there wasn't something else being looked at, or someone in London wanted to use the car, etc. etc. etc.
Sure, its wasteful on aircraft fuel, but one would have to calculate exactly how much extra fuel it took to move an additional 3,700lbs. on an aircraft that already weighs 17 tons at maximum takeoff weight.
Boeing 767's have a fuel capacity of 24,000 gallons. Assuming $3.00 a gallon (a general estimate for scheduled flight fuel cost), that's $72,000 per fill-up.....or 36,400 British Pounds.
A 747-200 (a plane much larger and with worse fuel consumption than the plane pictured in the photograph) gets approximately 7 gallons to the mile in overall fuel consumption over the duration of flight. That's 45,000 gallons used on the roundtrip flight, so two fillups at $136500 per.; or $273,000 in fuel cost....for the entire 747-200.....a plane much less fuel efficient than the 767 that looks like its pictured.
CLIFFS NOTES: So even if the 767 got fuel mileage as bad as a 747-200 (which it doesn't), would an extra 3,700lbs. (1%) added to a 350,000lb. aircraft cost $39,000 in fuel cost?
The answer is NO. This is how sensational articles are written, and now some crazed environmentalists portray things. The article reads like it cost 20,000 British Pounds in fuel, or carbon footprint, or whatever. Sorry, no chance.
Trucking it back and forth from the airport likely cost as much in fuel as the extra fuel used on that huge aircraft.
Moral of the story here? The REAL crime is the horrifying colors that Murcielago is painted in, that hideous black and gold custom paint scheme.
Boringly yours,
-Mirror
.....the British equivalent of the Enquirer, and I'm being nice.I have some spare time this morning, so I'm going to blow a bunch of holes in this sensationalized article for pure fun and learning. All calculations below are general at best, and cliff notes are at the bottom.
As Bdog noted, this was not a charter flight, and nobody knows what kind of arrangement the guy may have had with Qatar Airlines as far as usage is concerned. Perhaps a monthly leasing or cargospace agreement?
Not only that, but who is to say there wasn't something else being looked at, or someone in London wanted to use the car, etc. etc. etc.
Sure, its wasteful on aircraft fuel, but one would have to calculate exactly how much extra fuel it took to move an additional 3,700lbs. on an aircraft that already weighs 17 tons at maximum takeoff weight.
Boeing 767's have a fuel capacity of 24,000 gallons. Assuming $3.00 a gallon (a general estimate for scheduled flight fuel cost), that's $72,000 per fill-up.....or 36,400 British Pounds.
A 747-200 (a plane much larger and with worse fuel consumption than the plane pictured in the photograph) gets approximately 7 gallons to the mile in overall fuel consumption over the duration of flight. That's 45,000 gallons used on the roundtrip flight, so two fillups at $136500 per.; or $273,000 in fuel cost....for the entire 747-200.....a plane much less fuel efficient than the 767 that looks like its pictured.
CLIFFS NOTES: So even if the 767 got fuel mileage as bad as a 747-200 (which it doesn't), would an extra 3,700lbs. (1%) added to a 350,000lb. aircraft cost $39,000 in fuel cost?
The answer is NO. This is how sensational articles are written, and now some crazed environmentalists portray things. The article reads like it cost 20,000 British Pounds in fuel, or carbon footprint, or whatever. Sorry, no chance.
Trucking it back and forth from the airport likely cost as much in fuel as the extra fuel used on that huge aircraft.
Moral of the story here? The REAL crime is the horrifying colors that Murcielago is painted in, that hideous black and gold custom paint scheme.
Boringly yours,
-Mirror
Last edited by TheMirror; 07-31-2008 at 10:39 AM.
Trending Topics
07-31-2008, 11:05 AM
#8
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Age: 41
Posts: 36,474
Received 249 Likes
on
175 Posts
Originally Posted by iTimmy
That said they still added roughly 3500lbs of extra cargo weight which burned extra fuel. Its not my money, and I think the tree huggers have a very skewed version of reality, but this does seem a little irresponsible. Then again it is not my money, so who am I to say
Seems to me like people are simply a bit jealous.
07-31-2008, 12:58 PM
#11
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Age: 45
Posts: 2,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrsteve
But who's to say that if the car didn't take up those 3,500lbs of cargo that someone else's 3,500lbs of cargo wouldn't be in it's place?
Originally Posted by mrsteve
Seems to me like people are simply a bit jealous.
07-31-2008, 01:10 PM
#14
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Age: 45
Posts: 2,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by TheMirror
CLIFFS NOTES: So even if the 767 got fuel mileage as bad as a 747-200 (which it doesn't), would an extra 3,700lbs. (1%) added to a 350,000lb. aircraft cost $39,000 in fuel cost?
The answer is NO. This is how sensational articles are written, and now some crazed environmentalists portray things. The article reads like it cost 20,000 British Pounds in fuel, or carbon footprint, or whatever. Sorry, no chance.
The answer is NO. This is how sensational articles are written, and now some crazed environmentalists portray things. The article reads like it cost 20,000 British Pounds in fuel, or carbon footprint, or whatever. Sorry, no chance.
Personally I think the Arab just wants some bragging rights for his next cocktail party and now he has a news article to prove he actually did it.
07-31-2008, 01:26 PM
#16
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Charlotte(home) /Raleigh (school), NC
Age: 35
Posts: 11,395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by RaviNJCLs
I would have gladly drove it there for him.
07-31-2008, 01:44 PM
#17
While I don't agree with what he did, there are thousands of planes flying around at any given hour of the day. Adding 3500lbs to one of those multiton cargo planes isn't going to destroy the planet.
07-31-2008, 02:49 PM
#19
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Charlotte(home) /Raleigh (school), NC
Age: 35
Posts: 11,395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wackura
^^^ red necks
07-31-2008, 03:07 PM
#20
The Designer
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: CT
Age: 46
Posts: 873
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see anything wrong with it. Instead of drive the 1.5hrs to New York City, I prefer to drive 40 minutes to the airport near me and fly into NYC and instead of traveling light I take advantage of the 50lbs I'm allowed by checking a bag of rocks.
07-31-2008, 03:16 PM
#21
me,gill,and tl-s
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: bay area
Age: 40
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrsteve
Environmentalists are wackos.
Fuck Hippies.
07-31-2008, 03:18 PM
#22
Disinformation Terminator
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NorCal
Age: 55
Posts: 1,930
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wackura
The shock isn't so much over the cost but the fact that he used up any amount of jet fuel for something as seemingly trivial as an oil change. If he had shipped it there for some sort of actual repair this wouldn't have made the news.
Personally I think the Arab just wants some bragging rights for his next cocktail party and now he has a news article to prove he actually did it.
Personally I think the Arab just wants some bragging rights for his next cocktail party and now he has a news article to prove he actually did it.
Its like throwing 35lbs. of clothes into the trunk of a TSX and trying to calculate the mileage penalty over a 650 mile trip.
I'm also not convinced it was a simple oil change; it could very well have been a scheduled service which can total thousands of dollars. The Sun could easily "forget" to print that part of it.
One thing is for sure, I wholeheartedly agree it was partially done so Sheik dude could have some bragging rights at his next get-together.
Cheers,
-Mirror
07-31-2008, 03:27 PM
#24
Disinformation Terminator
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NorCal
Age: 55
Posts: 1,930
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrproul
I am stuck with the damn hippies trying to protect non native trees in berkeley.
Fuck Hippies.
Fuck Hippies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkele...er_controversy
I am definitely no neo-con or even a Republican. But for a city which supposedly stands for freedom of expression for all people, this is hypocracy beyond all measure.
Sorry gang, back to your previously scheduled thread. Hijacking done.
-M
07-31-2008, 03:33 PM
#25
Disinformation Terminator
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: NorCal
Age: 55
Posts: 1,930
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by invisiblewar
is there not a lamborghini dealership by where this guy resides?
Maybe they got his car dirty last time and made him mad?
07-31-2008, 03:42 PM
#27
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Age: 41
Posts: 36,474
Received 249 Likes
on
175 Posts
Originally Posted by wackura
Are you saying some imaginary person cancelled their plans to haul something indefinately because there was a Lamborghini in the way?
People who care about the environment are jealous? All those people who recycle, plant little trees, drive hybrids, bike to work, install solar cells on their roofs and buy green products are merely expressing resentment towards the rich? Wow I had no idea.
07-31-2008, 03:57 PM
#28
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Age: 45
Posts: 2,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrsteve
adding ~3,500 pounds to a cargo jet isn't going to burn any measurable amount of additional jet fuel.
07-31-2008, 04:01 PM
#29
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Age: 45
Posts: 2,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not an eco freak but some of you clearly discount the signficance of ait polution simply because you can't see it. If only air pollution had a bright neon glow, maybe then it would get through to you.
07-31-2008, 04:09 PM
#30
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Charlotte(home) /Raleigh (school), NC
Age: 35
Posts: 11,395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrproul
I am stuck with the damn hippies trying to protect non native trees in berkeley.
Fuck Hippies.
Fuck Hippies.
07-31-2008, 04:17 PM
#32
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Age: 41
Posts: 36,474
Received 249 Likes
on
175 Posts
Originally Posted by wackura
That's the most idiotic statement ever made with a straight face.
3,500lbs is less than 9% of the capacity of a 727 cargo jet.
When you increase the weight of your TSX by 9% (driver plus 2 passengers) do you notice a measurable difference in fuel economy versus driving solo?
07-31-2008, 04:20 PM
#33
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Charlotte(home) /Raleigh (school), NC
Age: 35
Posts: 11,395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wackura
I'm not an eco freak but some of you clearly discount the signficance of ait polution simply because you can't see it. If only air pollution had a bright neon glow, maybe then it would get through to you.
07-31-2008, 04:30 PM
#34
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Age: 45
Posts: 2,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrsteve
3,500lbs is less than 9% of the capacity of a 727 cargo jet.
When you increase the weight of your TSX by 9% (driver plus 2 passengers) do you notice a measurable difference in fuel economy versus driving solo?
When you increase the weight of your TSX by 9% (driver plus 2 passengers) do you notice a measurable difference in fuel economy versus driving solo?
Which brings us to the heart of your fail, you don't think something can be a problem unless you notice it.
07-31-2008, 04:36 PM
#36
Moderator Alumnus
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: CRY, CRY SOME MORE!
Age: 49
Posts: 11,829
Likes: 0
Received 3 Likes
on
1 Post
Originally Posted by wackura
I'm not an eco freak but some of you clearly discount the signficance of ait polution simply because you can't see it. If only air pollution had a bright neon glow, maybe then it would get through to you.
I drive a 13mpg SUV on the weekends, hope that made you cry.
07-31-2008, 04:38 PM
#37
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Charlotte(home) /Raleigh (school), NC
Age: 35
Posts: 11,395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by wackura
^^^ red necks
07-31-2008, 04:41 PM
#38
Team Owner
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Leesburg, Virginia
Age: 41
Posts: 36,474
Received 249 Likes
on
175 Posts
Originally Posted by wackura
Wether you notice it or not is irrelevant, it actualy takes more work (buring fuel) to move more weight (the car) the same distance (airport to airport). Another victory for science!
Which brings us to the heart of your fail, you don't think something can be a problem unless you notice it.
Which brings us to the heart of your fail, you don't think something can be a problem unless you notice it.
If you can't notice it how is it science? It's simply your theory. If it is completely unquantifiable it isn't science.
07-31-2008, 04:54 PM
#39
Race Director
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Charlotte(home) /Raleigh (school), NC
Age: 35
Posts: 11,395
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mrsteve
If you can't notice it how is it science? It's simply your theory. If it is completely unquantifiable it isn't science.
07-31-2008, 04:59 PM
#40
Banned
Join Date: Apr 2007
Age: 45
Posts: 2,573
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know you all believe that global warming is occuring, but that you can't admit it because you have hang-ups and insecurities about being told what you should or shouldn't do. It's OK, I understand. The ego is a powerful motivator.