Another argument for extended oil change intervals

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/article1493291.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.”

Horrifies 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

The car does not have a carbon footprint, more of a crater...

I love this line.

I'm so berkeleying sick of this carbon footprint BS.

Bloody hell! £3,552 for a service. I'd love to know exactly what that entails.

Luke wrote: Bloody hell! £3,552 for a service. I'd love to know exactly what that entails.

Specialized equipment for strip mining bank accounts.

DILYSI Dave wrote: I'm so berkeleying sick of this carbon footprint BS.

I am to. Its a stupid sounding phrase. But, the point is this guy wasted alot of resources just to get his car worked on.

These are not exact, and the airplane that carried the Lambo was not a 747, but allegedly a 747 uses 5 gallons of fuel per mile. So, a one way trip from Baghdad to London is 2556miles. Round trip, say 5100 miles. Times 5 gallons per mile. Thats 25500 gallons of fuel.

Thats a pretty big waste, and negates probably all the efforts of us doing any hypermiling...

Joey

Don't get me wrong, I like Lamborghinis and all, but this color combination is berkeleying awful. This is just an example of how money doesn't equal taste.

If that baggage handler at Heathrow is so concerned about being green it seems like he's in the wrong line of business.

Reminds me of the story about Paul McCartney a couple months ago, where Lexus gave him a hybrid luxury car and they delivered it to him directly from Japan by jet airplane.

i'm not sure how just because the guy spent an assload of money makes him wasteful. i'd venture a guess that that plane was going to make the flight to london with a load of cargo, whether it had that car on it or not. now, if he had chartered the plane just to fly his car there and back, that would be a different thing.

It's our money he's spending, so if he wants to spend it on having the car serviced at his favorite shop, WTF? Maybe they wash it for him before the let it out the door, or maybe they have really cool paper seat covers or something. I mean, come on. If someone walked up to you and gave you ten billion dollars for breathing, who wouldn't buy some Italian cars and ship them to their favorite shop for service? Think of all the people you're helping along the way: Baggage handlers, forklift operators, pilots, refinery workers, etc. He's doing the world a service here.

Sometimes those coupons for a free oil change are really not worth it.

Wouldn't flying the car on the 747 use just about the exact same amount of fuel that would get used by flying a mechanic on a 747? Really all he did was displace some cargo, and since they charge you extra for checked luggage these days the hold might have even had more room to spare than the cabin.

Heck, depending on the full/empty status of the plane, shipping the car might have less impact than shipping a person.

I was just surprised he flew it to London. He probably could have sent it right back to Lambo in less time.

When you got it, flaunt it!

Some numbnuts in the article wrote: He said: “It would have been far more efficient to fly mechanics out there.”

Umm, how? A plane flight is a plane flight!

J

Wall-e wrote: I was just surprised he flew it to London. He probably could have sent it right back to Lambo in less time.

I would think sending the car "home" for work would have been much cooler

If I had the money and the choice, I would also send my Lambo to the country proud of its ability to queue up. He probably had it back that afternoon.

Am I the only one thinking Sheihk AhmasendmahlambotoLondon might have actually -made- money on the deal? That plane had to fuel up twice.

lol, the whole story is based upon the premise that the flight was made only to transport the vehicle. Yet at no time does the reporter actually state the flight was for the sole purpose of transporting the car and nothing else. In other words, it is a complete blow up of bullspit as the aircraft was probably making the flight as a scheduled regular flight and ZERO gallons of extra fuel were used.

My 0.02c, and I also have no facts to back my statements up

aussiesmg wrote: ... probably making the flight as a scheduled regular flight and ZERO gallons of extra fuel were used....

Adding weight to a plane will burn more fuel, so yes there would be an additional cost. Your general statement about them overstating the facts and ignoring reality though I am sure it entirely true...

aircooled wrote:

aussiesmg wrote: ... probably making the flight as a scheduled regular flight and ZERO gallons of extra fuel were used....

Adding weight to a plane will burn more fuel, so yes there would be an additional cost. Your general statement about them overstating the facts and ignoring reality though I am sure it entirely true...

the article said it was put on a scheduled flight, which, we could presume was already supposed to carry cargo. the car was the cargo.

aircooled wrote:

aussiesmg wrote: ... probably making the flight as a scheduled regular flight and ZERO gallons of extra fuel were used....

Adding weight to a plane will burn more fuel, so yes there would be an additional cost. Your general statement about them overstating the facts and ignoring reality though I am sure it entirely true...

So you think that the space the vehicle took up would have been empty? in actual fact I wouldn't be surprised if the car weighed less than the equivalent amount of cargo they would have loaded.

scotaku wrote: Am I the only one thinking Sheihk AhmasendmahlambotoLondon might have actually -made- money on the deal? That plane had to fuel up twice.

This is probly true

aussiesmg wrote: So you think that the space the vehicle took up would have been empty? in actual fact I wouldn't be surprised if the car weighed less than the equivalent amount of cargo they would have loaded.

I am not sure what the argument is here. If the car weighs something, it will cost fuel to fly it on the plane, even if that weight would normally not have been used otherwise. The cost (approximately) would be the percentage of the cargo that it represented multiplied by the cost of the flight. To put it another way, if you fly that flight with the car it costs x, if you fly the same flight without the car, it will cost less than x (assuming you leave that space / weight empty).

It would have cost more to fly the mechanic AND his tools AND the shop. Just saying. I would have done the same thing, twice.