I know this thread is a few weeks old, but the subject is directly related to my question, so I don't mean to hijack this thread, but since you're an air traffic controller (OP), maybe you can shed some light on what I'm missing here.
The flight path you just outlined above would not work on the flat earth map, obviously, without taking a huge detour. At least not with the current flat earth models. In fact, I believe that flight path is strong evidence (if not a proof) of a globe earth.
What I'm currently struggling to find an answer to is why it appears that there are no flights that go directly over Antarctica, despite the fact that in some cases a flight directly over Antarctica would be the shortest possible flight. If the flights do exist, I can't find any.
The most-obvious path for this example I think would be Western Australia to southeast South America. The largest international airports, if I'm not mistaken, in each of those continents are Perth, Australia (PER) and Buenos Aires, Argentina (EZE). If we search for a direct flight from PER to EZE, it would look like this, going directly over the center of Antarctica. This flight below, I believe is only theoretical since I could not find any actual flights like this. This flight, if it exists, would be about 7800 miles (6800 nautical miles) and last about 15.25 hours.
(http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y474/JargonXJ/Flat%20Earth%20Theory/f2fe2e8b-879d-4edc-bb93-5c71cf7a192e_zpsyycbuqzw.png)
On a globe, it would be more-or-less like this.
(http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y474/JargonXJ/Flat%20Earth%20Theory/04276275-668c-46c1-8c14-5f7a39ac730c_zpshpvhnuv8.png)
The problem is, it seems no flights ever go over Antarctica this way. I tried searching for any flights that go from anywhere in Western Australia to anywhere in South America. All flights either go to South Africa first, or to Eastern Australia first before flying to South America. Some flights from Eastern Australia to South America do fly over Antarctica, but only the edges, which of course would still be possible on a flat earth map.
This doesn't prove that the earth if flat, obviously. But to me it just raises suspicion. Actually, if one could confirm that there are flights that take this route over the South Pole, it would prove that the earth is a globe, right? But I think the actual, defined polar routes (as in the image below, from Wiki) agree with the my search that no flights ever go over the center of Antarctica.
(http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y474/JargonXJ/Flat%20Earth%20Theory/91c04e3e-1315-47f2-9d15-7dcce2e84309_zps1hd3hssn.png)
The flight path's shown above are possible on a flat earth map, although it would require you to essentially fly around the outer edge of the earth, which would not be the fastest route.
This problem does not exist on the North Pole, however. There are plenty of flights that regularly go right over the Arctic center and in fact. The flight from Los Angeles (LAX) to Dubai (DXB) takes this flight of 8300 miles (7200 nautical miles) and lasts over 16 hours.
(http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y474/JargonXJ/Flat%20Earth%20Theory/5bd1cebc-110c-49b7-b854-d2bca1048023_zpsvszcurij.png)
And there are plenty of other "polar routes" that go right over the pole.
(http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y474/JargonXJ/Flat%20Earth%20Theory/4b83861f-e83d-40d9-b8ee-f9e3e417eaec_zpsfmnriubv.png)
So the question is: Why? Why do no flights go over the center of Antarctica? It's suspicious that going over the North Pole is common, but going over the South Pole seems non-existent, and it seems unlikely that there would be no demand to fly directly from WA to South America. And if there are flights that do, why is the flat earth debate even a thing?
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .You've been caught by the "Photobucket Ransom Demand" as I and many others have.
The most-obvious path for this example I think would be Western Australia to southeast South America. The largest international airports, if I'm not mistaken, in each of those continents are Perth, Australia (PER) and Buenos Aires, Argentina (EZE). If we search for a direct flight from PER to EZE, it would look like this, going directly over the center of Antarctica. This flight below, I believe is only theoretical since I could not find any actual flights like this. This flight, if it exists, would be about 7800 miles (6800 nautical miles) and last about 15.25 hours.Code: [Select][img]http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y474/JargonXJ/Flat%20Earth%20Theory/f2fe2e8b-879d-4edc-bb93-5c71cf7a192e_zpsyycbuqzw.png[/img]
On a globe, it would be more-or-less like this.Code: [Select][img]http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y474/JargonXJ/Flat%20Earth%20Theory/04276275-668c-46c1-8c14-5f7a39ac730c_zpshpvhnuv8.png[/img]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
it would prove that the earth is a globe, right? But I think the actual, defined polar routes (as in the image below, from Wiki) agree with the my search that no flights ever go over the center of Antarctica.Code: [Select][img]http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y474/JargonXJ/Flat%20Earth%20Theory/91c04e3e-1315-47f2-9d15-7dcce2e84309_zps1hd3hssn.png[/img]. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This problem does not exist on the North Pole, however. There are plenty of flights that regularly go right over the Arctic center and in fact. The flight from Los Angeles (LAX) to Dubai (DXB) takes this flight of 8300 miles (7200 nautical miles) and lasts over 16 hours.Code: [Select][img]http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y474/JargonXJ/Flat%20Earth%20Theory/5bd1cebc-110c-49b7-b854-d2bca1048023_zpsvszcurij.png[/img]
And there are plenty of other "polar routes" that go right over the pole.Code: [Select][img]http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y474/JargonXJ/Flat%20Earth%20Theory/4b83861f-e83d-40d9-b8ee-f9e3e417eaec_zpsfmnriubv.png[/img]
So the question is: Why? Why do no flights go over the center of Antarctica? It's suspicious that going over the North Pole is common, but going over the South Pole seems non-existent, and it seems unlikely that there would be no demand to fly directly from WA to South America. And if there are flights that do, why is the flat earth debate even a thing?
One major reason the "no flights go over the center of Antarctica" is that there are simply not enough commercial reasons for any.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
So the question is: Why? Why do no flights go over the center of Antarctica? It's suspicious that going over the North Pole is common, but going over the South Pole seems non-existent, and it seems unlikely that there would be no demand to fly directly from WA to South America. And if there are flights that do, why is the flat earth debate even a thing?
(https://www.metabunk.org/data/avatars/l/0/472.jpg?1390205097) TWCobra (https://www.metabunk.org/members/twcobra.472/) | Quote from: TWCobra
Quote from: TWCobra
|
What I'm currently struggling to find an answer to is why it appears that there are no flights that go directly over Antarctica, despite the fact that in some cases a flight directly over Antarctica would be the shortest possible flight. If the flights do exist, I can't find any.I know the thread is old, but I felt like answering anyway.
The most-obvious path for this example I think would be Western Australia to southeast South America. The largest international airports, if I'm not mistaken, in each of those continents are Perth, Australia (PER) and Buenos Aires, Argentina (EZE). If we search for a direct flight from PER to EZE, it would look like this, going directly over the center of Antarctica. This flight below, I believe is only theoretical since I could not find any actual flights like this. This flight, if it exists, would be about 7800 miles (6800 nautical miles) and last about 15.25 hours.
And the fact the weather at the North Pole is so dramatically different from that of the supposed South Pole is the number one reason to call bullshit on the globe thing.The fact that the structure of the 2 are so dramatically different is the number one reason to call bullshit on that argument.
The reality is the outermost reaches of the Flat Earth on which we live receive little to NO Sun at all and it is cold as fuck and will always remain cold as fuck.No, the reality is that the 2 poles receive similar amounts of light.
I call bull shit on the whole flightradar tracking thing presented in the OP.Then show a problem with it. Until you do, you are just calling BS.
There is not one independently documented instance of flightradar tracking a supposed non-stop Australia to South America (or South Africa) for the entire length of the claimed flight.Then go track it yourself.
And the fact the weather at the North Pole is so dramatically different from that of the supposed South Pole is the number one reason to call bullshit on the globe thing.Rubbish! The reason for the huge difference is simple that the North Pole region is all ocean and Antarctica is elevated land.
An equal amount of sun year in an and year out would result in climates that are more similar to each other, yet that is not the reality of the Flat Earth on which we live.
The reality is the outermost reaches of the Flat Earth on which we live receive little to NO Sun at all and it is cold as fuck and will always remain cold as fuck.You haven't the slightest idea of what your are talking about because most aircraft tracking is not by radar, but by ADS-B and similar services.
I call bull shit on the whole flightradar tracking thing presented in the OP.
There is not one independently documented instance of flightradar tracking a supposed non-stop Australia to South America (or South Africa) for the entire length of the claimed flight.
Go pound sand.While you bury your head in the sand, because you simply don't have the nouse to face reality!
Anybody can draw lines on a map and claim the lines were generated by some other software.TWCobra is a Captain on the QANTAS QF27,QF28 flights Sydney to/from Santiago. See what he has to say!
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Try that on your Pizza Planet map!
TWCobra, Senior Member, Metabunk might have a very good idea, Mr TotallyLacking (in credibility), because he is the pilot on this Flight QF28.Quote from: TWCobraA Flight over the Antarctic Sea Ice From Chile to Australia (QF28)You might also :P enjoy reading :P Flat Earth Theory Debunked by Short Flights (QF27 & QF28) From Australia to South America. (https://www.metabunk.org/flat-earth-theory-debunked-by-short-flights-qf27-qf28-from-australia-to-south-america.t6483/)(https://www.dropbox.com/s/dzn39dx960bpe3o/TWCobra%2C%20Senior%20Member%2C%20Metabunk%20-%20Mercator%20Map%2C%2020161210-152703-oepxr.jpg?dl=1)[Nov 18 2016] For anyone interested, in a couple of hours I'll be heading out of Santiago heading for Sydney on the QF28. The flight plan has us spending quite a bit of time at 71'30" South and the cloud forecast at the moment shows not a lot of cloud! Lucky I brought 2 GoPros with me!
QF28, Route on Mercator's Projection
Fingers crossed for a good time-lapse video of the ice pack!
The pic above shows the route. I've been meaning to post something explaining great circle routes and why they are faster. This map will help once I compare it to the Google Earth representation of the track.
In the meantime we will be taking off around 1700 GMT and landing about 14 hours later. Only around 5% of the flight will be visible on FR24 as there is just nobody to pick up our ADSB signals.
Main Flight plan has just arrived with 13:25 as the flight time which should have us in Sydney on schedule at 0645 UTC. Here is what the flight looks like in the Nav software.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/326pwdxphsy74mq/TWCobra%2C%20Senior%20Member%2C%20Metabunk%20-%20Polar%20Map%2C%20upload_2016-12-10_14-58-56.png?dl=1)[UPDATE: Nov 19, 2016]
QF28, Route on Polar Projection
Just got in. We had 30 minutes with an awesome view of the ice.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Read the rest in: A Flight over the Antarctic Sea Ice From Chile to Australia (QF28) (https://www.metabunk.org/a-flight-over-the-antarctic-sea-ice-from-chile-to-australia-qf28.t8235/)
And the fact the weather at the North Pole is so dramatically different from that of the supposed South Pole is the number one reason to call bullshit on the globe thing.What is the reason for not flying directly over the south pole other than temperature/weather conditions?
And the fact the weather at the North Pole is so dramatically different from that of the supposed South Pole is the number one reason to call bullshit on the globe thing.I did not say that! Totally Crabby said that. I'll assume it was a simp,e mistake.
What is the reason for not flying directly over the south pole other than temperature/weather conditions?Here are a few:
So, basically, they can't fly over the Antarctic because it is much too cold for the most efficient altitudes for the planes?And the fact the weather at the North Pole is so dramatically different from that of the supposed South Pole is the number one reason to call bullshit on the globe thing.I did not say that! Totally Crabby said that. I'll assume it was a simp,e mistake.Quote from: AltSpaceWhat is the reason for not flying directly over the south pole other than temperature/weather conditions?Here are a few:
Under IFR rules commercial must not fly over regions without adequately mapped terrain.
In the event of a depressurisation the plane must descend asap to 14,000 ft then to 10,000 ft when the passenger's oxygen runs out.
There are sections with low enough elevation for this to be no problem, nevertheless flying at 10,000 ft uses much more fuel.
Flying anywhere over the Antarctic requires a certain minimum number of polar environment suits.
Aircraft must always carry enough reserve fuel to reach designated emergency diversion airports at all points along the route.
Then at high altitude the air temperature can freeze the usual Jet A fuel (kerosene) and the more expensive Jet A-1 or Jet B (kerosene+naphtha) might be needed.
These restraints apply to commercial passenger flights everywhere, it's just that all affect Antarctic flights.
Of course there are sight seeing flights and tourist flight's directly the South Pole. About 25% of Antarctica is quite unrestricted
The North Pole has many more diversion airports and far less extreme weather conditions.
In any case there is no reason for the Sydney to/from Santiago to fly over the South Pole. Here is the Great Circle route:(https://www.dropbox.com/s/qpyi22n7tofunwr/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20Great%20Circle%20-%20Google%20Earth.png?dl=1)
PS I hope this turns out OK. I had cataract surgery (itself a piece-of-cake) a couple of hours ago and
I can't even get my glasses on properly over my uncovered eye. Well, that's my excuse for any typos.
So, basically, they can't fly over the Antarctic because it is much too cold for the most efficient altitudes for the planes?Commercial passenger planes are not permitted fly in 75% of Antarctica because of the numerous IFR rules I gave above.
What is the reason for not flying directly over the south pole other than temperature/weather conditions?That has already been addressed.
That has already been addressed.Well, Rabinoz explained it well enough I guess.
There are no routes that people want to fly (that is that have any serious demand and would be economically viable) which go over the south pole.You mean with the different fuel and equipment that goes along with it?
Why should they go over the south pole?If all else were equal, then why not with the shortest route? They've done it with the Sydney-Santiago, it could get quite straight with a flight route.
No, I just mean commercially viable routes.Quote from: JackBlackThere are no routes that people want to fly (that is that have any serious demand and would be economically viable) which go over the south pole.You mean with the different fuel and equipment that goes along with it?
If all else were equal, then why not with the shortest route?Not all else is equal.
No, I just mean commercially viable routes.Why? Even if it is a once in 20 years flight, why not fly the shortest route over the south pole?
The only routes you would want to fly are those which will receive significant traffic.
Sydney is a major international airport, in part due to it being in the most populous city in Australia. As such, it makes the most sense for international flights to come from here.
Meanwhile Perth is basically nothing.
The shortest routes which are economically viable don't go over the south pole.If it was a flight from Perth to Santiago, why would the fact that it is smaller than Sydney make it a less viable path?
So even ignoring the weather, there is no reason to go there.
If all else were equal, then why not with the shortest route? They've done it with the Sydney-Santiago, it could get quite straight with a flight route.No, the shortest Sydney-Santiago route does not overfly the South Pole.
In any case there is no reason for the Sydney to/from Santiago to fly over the South Pole. Here is the Great Circle route:The line labelled "Sydney to Santiago 11,400 km", touching 60°S is the great circle route on the Globe - the geodesic.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/qpyi22n7tofunwr/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20Great%20Circle%20-%20Google%20Earth.png?dl=1)
But if the fuel could freeze, I wouldn't go over the south pole of course.If planes must fly in that region they use low temperature fuel, which is more expensive and hazardous - easier ignition from static arcs etc.
If it was a flight from Perth to Santiago, why would the fact that it is smaller than Sydney make it a less viable path?There are fewer passengers from Perth and it is further than from Sydney, so naturally QANTAS made the decision to fly from Sydney.
No, the shortest Sydney-Santiago route does not overfly the South Pole.In any case there is no reason for the Sydney to/from Santiago to fly over the South Pole. Here is the Great Circle route:The line labelled "Sydney to Santiago 11,400 km", touching 60°S is the great circle route on the Globe - the geodesic.(https://www.dropbox.com/s/qpyi22n7tofunwr/Sydney%20to%20Santiago%20Great%20Circle%20-%20Google%20Earth.png?dl=1)
The Santiago to Sydney flight with Captain TWCobra flew a lot further south, down below 70°S, to avoid headwinds.
So they flew a longer course, but achieved a better ground speed. They overflew a lot of ice, but did not touch Antarctica.
A Perth to Santiago route would fly over the pole., but as far as I know it has not been flown commercially - there's no reason to.Why not? Never enough in that area to make a flight? If they did, then what is wrong with the shortest route?
If planes must fly in that region they use low temperature fuel, which is more expensive and hazardous - easier ignition from static arcs etc.Is it really that much more spendy?
There are fewer passengers from Perth and it is further than from Sydney, so naturally QANTAS made the decision to fly from Sydney.So since few passengers from Perth go to Santiago by flight, they stop by Sydney every-time? Is that why it isn't viable?
The smaller number of passengers fly Perth-Sydney-Santiago. No great problem.
Of course were they fly from Perth they would have to divert around part of Antarctica anyway.And my question is, ignoring temp. and weather conditions, why is the shorter path less viable?
There seems to be a lot of ignorant debate concerning HUGE flight times between Australia and South America.
But really there is nothing unusual about these flight at all.
I have seen quite a bit of rubbish concerning direct flights routing via North America?
WTF would these direct flights need to route this way?
The 3 pictures below illustrate exactly how these flights route, and it's usually either via overhead New Zealand or south of, depending on the direction of the upper winds, and best routing to avoid any headwinds.
As an air traffic controller in Christchurch, New Zealand, I have a direct knowledge of the routing that these flights take, and to provide actual backup to these routings, I have taken 2 screenshots from the Flightradar24 website that monitors and displays controlled flights around the world. The screenshots are that of a direct Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia flight, QANTAS 28, which took place around a week ago.
As the most direct route is overhead Christchurch, I have personally witnessed this flight on many occasions, travelling in either direction, dependant on departure point and destination.
The route is a curved line, due to the display of the 3D flight path onto a 2D world map.
The 3rd picture is from Google Earth, and illustrates how this 2D curved route, would actually appear as a straight line on the 3D globe.
(http://s23.postimg.org/3ohok8zjf/QF28.png)
(http://s17.postimg.org/i108kkkun/MID_TASMAN.png)
(http://s21.postimg.org/9anutiybb/ball.png)
Why? Even if it is a once in 20 years flight, why not fly the shortest route over the south pole?A once in 20 year flight would make no sense at all.
It seems you are saying that even without the differing conditions, the shortest route is not economically viableIt can be interpreted that way.
If it was a flight from Perth to Santiago, why would the fact that it is smaller than Sydney make it a less viable path?Why would people go to Perth just to catch a flight to Santiago?
So since few passengers from Perth go to Santiago by flight, they stop by Sydney every-time? Is that why it isn't viable?Pretty much.
I call bull shit on the whole flightradar tracking thing presented in the OP.However, the flight schedules are published. If the flights don't exist, where are the complaints about never being able to book on them? If they exist, but take much longer than scheduled, then where are the complaints about the excessive and persistent delays? The most likely answer is that the flights exist, and take about as long as advertised, and that's a problem for the flat earth theory.
There is not one independently documented instance of flightradar tracking a supposed non-stop Australia to South America (or South Africa) for the entire length of the claimed flight.
Go pound sand.
Anybody can draw lines on a map and claim the lines were generated by some other software.
I call bull shit on the whole flightradar tracking thing presented in the OP.However, the flight schedules are published. If the flights don't exist, where are the complaints about never being able to book on them? If they exist, but take much longer than scheduled, then where are the complaints about the excessive and persistent delays? The most likely answer is that the flights exist, and take about as long as advertised, and that's a problem for the flat earth theory.
There is not one independently documented instance of flightradar tracking a supposed non-stop Australia to South America (or South Africa) for the entire length of the claimed flight.
Go pound sand.
Anybody can draw lines on a map and claim the lines were generated by some other software.
Source for your numbers of travellers, believers etc. please.I call bull shit on the whole flightradar tracking thing presented in the OP.However, the flight schedules are published. If the flights don't exist, where are the complaints about never being able to book on them? If they exist, but take much longer than scheduled, then where are the complaints about the excessive and persistent delays? The most likely answer is that the flights exist, and take about as long as advertised, and that's a problem for the flat earth theory.
There is not one independently documented instance of flightradar tracking a supposed non-stop Australia to South America (or South Africa) for the entire length of the claimed flight.
Go pound sand.
Anybody can draw lines on a map and claim the lines were generated by some other software.
Nope.
The problem is;
There is more than 100.000.000 flat earth believer and about 500.000 of them are living in Australia. About 10 times more flat earth believers in Brasil. But neither in Brasil, nor in Australia a flat earth believer flown to the other continent.
All the claims made as "we flight Santiago from Sydney" all are rounders. So all of them are suspicious. This is main problem.
Rounders always say "hey man, go, run to Santiago, cmoooonn". But none of us have done it. Because it is not exist.
Think, if you are deceiving people and gathering more than 20 billion $'s for per year, so you may set many dishonest people say lie like "comoooonn we gone to Santiago, hey comooon we did it". They have not gone to Santiago from Sydney, nor the opposite route. They are nothing but a bunch of dishonest people!
If you say you are travelling the moon every day and returning every night, do we have to believe your lie? Or do we have to believe a lie that depends on a route written on a paper? No, we have not.
Prove it. Absent. I watched many full time videos between other routes but never, never and never a flight between Santiago and Sydney. There is nothing like this. This is completely a hoax. Who says to done it, he is the most one of the liar and dishonest one of the world.
Nowadays the interest to the flat earth theory is increased again. About all over the world, especially Australia.
And I wondered which city in Chile most interest to the FE?
In this image:
(https://i.hizliresim.com/A1LJR7.png)
Img taken from this link and this view today is reliable.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=CL&q=flat%20earth,nasa
Did you see? The most interest to "Flat Earth" in Chile is in the Santiago. This city that globists constany claim they are travelling between Australia! And whats happen? This claim, I mean rounders say "we travel between Santiago and Sydney" incrases the interest in Santiago to the FE theory. Because they know this travel is impossible, absent so there must be a problem!
Pineapple gets 50/day.Nowadays the interest to the flat earth theory is increased again. About all over the world, especially Australia.
And I wondered which city in Chile most interest to the FE?
In this image:
(https://i.hizliresim.com/A1LJR7.png)
Img taken from this link and this view today is reliable.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=CL&q=flat%20earth,nasa
Did you see? The most interest to "Flat Earth" in Chile is in the Santiago. This city that globists constany claim they are travelling between Australia! And whats happen? This claim, I mean rounders say "we travel between Santiago and Sydney" incrases the interest in Santiago to the FE theory. Because they know this travel is impossible, absent so there must be a problem!
Santiago is by far the most inhabited city in Chile, as well as the capital of the country. So of course it is the "most interested in FE theory", as far as the number of interested people go. I'd wager it is also the most interested in pineapples and tap dancing. That doesn't prove anything (except your dishonesty).
Nope.It's easy to claim that all contradicting evidence is lies (although defamation proceedings might arise). But it doesn't address the point I raised.
The problem is;
All the claims made as "we flight Santiago from Sydney" all are rounders. So all of them are suspicious. This is main problem.
The problem is;Rubbish! Anyone living in Australia knows that Australia does not:
There is more than 100.000.000 flat earth believer and about 500.000 of them are living in Australia. About 10 times more flat earth believers in Brasil. But neither in Brasil, nor in Australia a flat earth believer flown to the other continent.
| look like this: (https://www.dropbox.com/s/s2jticzebvugd03/FE%20Ice%20Wall%20Map%20-%20Australia.jpg?dl=1) | or like this: (https://www.dropbox.com/s/ml81k5ee2ltcpx6/Bi-polar%20map%20-%20Australia.png?dl=1) |
All the claims made as "we flight Santiago from Sydney" all are rounders. So all of them are suspicious. This is main problem.More rubbish!
If it was a flight from Perth to Santiago, why would the fact that it is smaller than Sydney make it a less viable path?It means the number of passengers would be lower. That's a problem for a route that's not suitable for twin-engined aircraft under the current rules, because the four engined aircraft in commerical service capable of flying that distance are all large, with the smallest being the a340-300, carrying 277 passengers.
I don't know of any passenger flights from Perth to South America. For a start there would be great difficulty meeting safety requirements in case of diversion due to engine failure or decompression.If it was a flight from Perth to Santiago, why would the fact that it is smaller than Sydney make it a less viable path?It means the number of passengers would be lower. That's a problem for a route that's not suitable for twin-engined aircraft under the current rules, because the four engined aircraft in commerical service capable of flying that distance are all large, with the smallest being the a340-300, carrying 277 passengers.
The problem is;Rubbish! Anyone living in Australia knows that Australia does not:
There is more than 100.000.000 flat earth believer and about 500.000 of them are living in Australia. About 10 times more flat earth believers in Brasil. But neither in Brasil, nor in Australia a flat earth believer flown to the other continent.You talk nonsense Mr Brotherhood of the Dome.
look like this:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/s2jticzebvugd03/FE%20Ice%20Wall%20Map%20-%20Australia.jpg?dl=1)or like this:
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/ml81k5ee2ltcpx6/Bi-polar%20map%20-%20Australia.png?dl=1)Quote from: brotherhood of the domeAll the claims made as "we flight Santiago from Sydney" all are rounders. So all of them are suspicious. This is main problem.More rubbish!
I don't care if Mr Brotherhood of the Dome thinks they are suspicious,they still flyat least six flights a week in each direction!
Nowadays the interest to the flat earth theory is increased again. About all over the world, especially Australia.
And I wondered which city in Chile most interest to the FE?
In this image:
(https://i.hizliresim.com/A1LJR7.png)
Img taken from this link and this view today is reliable.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=CL&q=flat%20earth,nasa
Did you see? The most interest to "Flat Earth" in Chile is in the Santiago. This city that globists constany claim they are travelling between Australia! And whats happen? This claim, I mean rounders say "we travel between Santiago and Sydney" incrases the interest in Santiago to the FE theory. Because they know this travel is impossible, absent so there must be a problem!
Santiago is by far the most inhabited city in Chile, as well as the capital of the country. So of course it is the "most interested in FE theory", as far as the number of interested people go. I'd wager it is also the most interested in pineapples and tap dancing. That doesn't prove anything (except your dishonesty).
Source for your numbers of travellers, believers etc. please.I call bull shit on the whole flightradar tracking thing presented in the OP.However, the flight schedules are published. If the flights don't exist, where are the complaints about never being able to book on them? If they exist, but take much longer than scheduled, then where are the complaints about the excessive and persistent delays? The most likely answer is that the flights exist, and take about as long as advertised, and that's a problem for the flat earth theory.
There is not one independently documented instance of flightradar tracking a supposed non-stop Australia to South America (or South Africa) for the entire length of the claimed flight.
Go pound sand.
Anybody can draw lines on a map and claim the lines were generated by some other software.
Nope.
The problem is;
There is more than 100.000.000 flat earth believer and about 500.000 of them are living in Australia. About 10 times more flat earth believers in Brasil. But neither in Brasil, nor in Australia a flat earth believer flown to the other continent.
All the claims made as "we flight Santiago from Sydney" all are rounders. So all of them are suspicious. This is main problem.
Rounders always say "hey man, go, run to Santiago, cmoooonn". But none of us have done it. Because it is not exist.
Think, if you are deceiving people and gathering more than 20 billion $'s for per year, so you may set many dishonest people say lie like "comoooonn we gone to Santiago, hey comooon we did it". They have not gone to Santiago from Sydney, nor the opposite route. They are nothing but a bunch of dishonest people!
If you say you are travelling the moon every day and returning every night, do we have to believe your lie? Or do we have to believe a lie that depends on a route written on a paper? No, we have not.
Prove it. Absent. I watched many full time videos between other routes but never, never and never a flight between Santiago and Sydney. There is nothing like this. This is completely a hoax. Who says to done it, he is the most one of the liar and dishonest one of the world.
Nowadays the interest to the flat earth theory is increased again. About all over the world, especially Australia.
And I wondered which city in Chile most interest to the FE?
In this image:
(https://i.hizliresim.com/A1LJR7.png)
Img taken from this link and this view today is reliable.
https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=CL&q=flat%20earth,nasa
Did you see? The most interest to "Flat Earth" in Chile is in the Santiago. This city that globists constany claim they are travelling between Australia! And whats happen? This claim, I mean rounders say "we travel between Santiago and Sydney" incrases the interest in Santiago to the FE theory. Because they know this travel is impossible, absent so there must be a problem!
Santiago is by far the most inhabited city in Chile, as well as the capital of the country. So of course it is the "most interested in FE theory", as far as the number of interested people go. I'd wager it is also the most interested in pineapples and tap dancing. That doesn't prove anything (except your dishonesty).
The interest ratio related with ratio of people interest, not the number of people. For example, if there is two cities and one of them is 10 millions and the other is 10.000; but interest is same; trends give you as "50-50" result, not 100 to zero.
So you are proved your dishonesty. I'm the most honored one here.
There seems to be a lot of ignorant debate concerning HUGE flight times between Australia and South America.1) I call bullshit on your claim you are a flight controller for anything other than a flight of fancy.
But really there is nothing unusual about these flight at all.
I have seen quite a bit of rubbish concerning direct flights routing via North America?
WTF would these direct flights need to route this way?
The 3 pictures below illustrate exactly how these flights route, and it's usually either via overhead New Zealand or south of, depending on the direction of the upper winds, and best routing to avoid any headwinds.
As an air traffic controller in Christchurch, New Zealand, I have a direct knowledge of the routing that these flights take, and to provide actual backup to these routings, I have taken 2 screenshots from the Flightradar24 website that monitors and displays controlled flights around the world. The screenshots are that of a direct Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia flight, QANTAS 28, which took place around a week ago.
As the most direct route is overhead Christchurch, I have personally witnessed this flight on many occasions, travelling in either direction, dependant on departure point and destination.
The route is a curved line, due to the display of the 3D flight path onto a 2D world map.
The 3rd picture is from Google Earth, and illustrates how this 2D curved route, would actually appear as a straight line on the 3D globe.
(http://s23.postimg.org/3ohok8zjf/QF28.png)
(http://s17.postimg.org/i108kkkun/MID_TASMAN.png)
(http://s21.postimg.org/9anutiybb/ball.png)
There seems to be a lot of ignorant debate concerning HUGE flight times between Australia and South America.1) I call bullshit on your claim you are a flight controller for anything other than a flight of fancy.
But really there is nothing unusual about these flight at all.
I have seen quite a bit of rubbish concerning direct flights routing via North America?
WTF would these direct flights need to route this way?
The 3 pictures below illustrate exactly how these flights route, and it's usually either via overhead New Zealand or south of, depending on the direction of the upper winds, and best routing to avoid any headwinds.
As an air traffic controller in Christchurch, New Zealand, I have a direct knowledge of the routing that these flights take, and to provide actual backup to these routings, I have taken 2 screenshots from the Flightradar24 website that monitors and displays controlled flights around the world. The screenshots are that of a direct Santiago, Chile to Sydney, Australia flight, QANTAS 28, which took place around a week ago.
As the most direct route is overhead Christchurch, I have personally witnessed this flight on many occasions, travelling in either direction, dependant on departure point and destination.
The route is a curved line, due to the display of the 3D flight path onto a 2D world map.
The 3rd picture is from Google Earth, and illustrates how this 2D curved route, would actually appear as a straight line on the 3D globe.
(http://s23.postimg.org/3ohok8zjf/QF28.png)
(http://s17.postimg.org/i108kkkun/MID_TASMAN.png)
(http://s21.postimg.org/9anutiybb/ball.png)
2) A person can try to book a direct flight from Australia to South America all they want. Those flights do not take place on a daily basis (I see Petey on here stating they offer six flights a week...I bet none of those actually go fulfilled).If you do book the flight, be prepared to not only lose the cost of the deposit, but also be prepared to be placed on a two or three stop flight due to any myriad of airline related foul ups.
3) Take your FLIGHT AWARE and shove it up your keister. Tracking flights SOUTH of the the Equator is nigh impossible and anyone can draw a fucking red line on a fucking map.
You can verify it yourself by booking the flight and indeed taking the flight.Which part of "non-refundable," eluded your pea-brain?
What does "non-refundable" have to do with taking the flight?You can verify it yourself by booking the flight and indeed taking the flight.Which part of "non-refundable," eluded your pea-brain?
Only non-refundable when booking through third party sites for the cheapest seats. I just checked Qantas.com and they have refundable options there.You can verify it yourself by booking the flight and indeed taking the flight.Which part of "non-refundable," eluded your pea-brain?
Non-refundable has a lot to do with it if one was doing a study on whether or not these flights actually exist.What does "non-refundable" have to do with taking the flight?You can verify it yourself by booking the flight and indeed taking the flight.Which part of "non-refundable," eluded your pea-brain?
Mike
Like frenat said, you can book through Qantas it's fully refundable if you cancel before departure. I just looked it up. There's a direct flight from Sydney to Santiago next Saturday.Non-refundable has a lot to do with it if one was doing a study on whether or not these flights actually exist.What does "non-refundable" have to do with taking the flight?You can verify it yourself by booking the flight and indeed taking the flight.Which part of "non-refundable," eluded your pea-brain?
Mike
I do plan on on saving enough money to take a trip down under in the future and it would include a week in Australia and a week in Chile.
That takes money (about 6 weeks salary for the airfare alone) and I cannot afford to waste it booking the flight and then losing the money just because...
2) A person can try to book a direct flight from Australia to South America all they want. Those flights do not take place on a daily basis (I see Petey on here stating they offer six flights a week...I bet none of those actually go fulfilled).If you do book the flight, be prepared to not only lose the cost of the deposit, but also be prepared to be placed on a two or three stop flight due to any myriad of airline related foul ups.It seems an act of complete desperation to argue that airlines are advertising and offering flights that either don't exist, or take multiples of the advertised time, with multiple stops. Where are all the complaints from severely annoyed passengers, or would-be passengers? Why would the airlines do something that's only going to cause them trouble? In the case where the flight takes longer, and multiple stops, why would the airlines offer something that would inevitably lose them money? If the Earth really were flat, such that the direct flights were impossible, why wouldn't the airlines simply claim that the direct routes were uneconomic, and not offer them?
I am a passenger and I want to go from Australia to Chile.2) A person can try to book a direct flight from Australia to South America all they want. Those flights do not take place on a daily basis (I see Petey on here stating they offer six flights a week...I bet none of those actually go fulfilled).If you do book the flight, be prepared to not only lose the cost of the deposit, but also be prepared to be placed on a two or three stop flight due to any myriad of airline related foul ups.It seems an act of complete desperation to argue that airlines are advertising and offering flights that either don't exist, or take multiples of the advertised time, with multiple stops. Where are all the complaints from severely annoyed passengers, or would-be passengers? Why would the airlines do something that's only going to cause them trouble? In the case where the flight takes longer, and multiple stops, why would the airlines offer something that would inevitably lose them money? If the Earth really were flat, such that the direct flights were impossible, why wouldn't the airlines simply claim that the direct routes were uneconomic, and not offer them?
While it may be possible, do you have anything to support your supposition?I am a passenger and I want to go from Australia to Chile.2) A person can try to book a direct flight from Australia to South America all they want. Those flights do not take place on a daily basis (I see Petey on here stating they offer six flights a week...I bet none of those actually go fulfilled).If you do book the flight, be prepared to not only lose the cost of the deposit, but also be prepared to be placed on a two or three stop flight due to any myriad of airline related foul ups.It seems an act of complete desperation to argue that airlines are advertising and offering flights that either don't exist, or take multiples of the advertised time, with multiple stops. Where are all the complaints from severely annoyed passengers, or would-be passengers? Why would the airlines do something that's only going to cause them trouble? In the case where the flight takes longer, and multiple stops, why would the airlines offer something that would inevitably lose them money? If the Earth really were flat, such that the direct flights were impossible, why wouldn't the airlines simply claim that the direct routes were uneconomic, and not offer them?
I book one of the direct flights.
I arrive at the airport that very day and when I arrive, a customer service agent states to me:
"Sir, we are very sorry but the direct flight has been cancelled because of rules prohibiting pilot operating hours; however, we are have made these alternate arrangements for you."
If I complain a lot (probably not) the agent offers a voucher for 50 bucks off my next flight...
Not too big a deal...
Who is going to argue against caps on pilot operating hours?
Nobody.
Airlines make more money off multiple stops.
I am a passenger and I want to go from Australia to Chile.Many passengers would be aware that there are plenty of non-stop flights that exceed twelve and half hours (I've been on such flights myself, multiple times, Sydney to Los Angeles, Singapore to London), and that the pilot hours issue is managed by having additional pilots on board so that no pilot has to work the entire flight. So they'd find this excuse less than plausible. They'd also point out that in any case, the airline would have know about the problem in advance, but still offered the non-stop flight. There's no way that an airline could get away with doing this over and over again.
I book one of the direct flights.
I arrive at the airport that very day and when I arrive, a customer service agent states to me:
"Sir, we are very sorry but the direct flight has been cancelled because of rules prohibiting pilot operating hours; however, we are have made these alternate arrangements for you."
If I complain a lot (probably not) the agent offers a voucher for 50 bucks off my next flight...
Not too big a deal...
Who is going to argue against caps on pilot operating hours?
Nobody.
Airlines make more money off multiple stops.
You can verify it yourself by booking the flight and indeed taking the flight.Which part of "non-refundable," eluded your pea-brain?
Yes, the reality of caps on pilot operating hours.While it may be possible, do you have anything to support your supposition?I am a passenger and I want to go from Australia to Chile.2) A person can try to book a direct flight from Australia to South America all they want. Those flights do not take place on a daily basis (I see Petey on here stating they offer six flights a week...I bet none of those actually go fulfilled).If you do book the flight, be prepared to not only lose the cost of the deposit, but also be prepared to be placed on a two or three stop flight due to any myriad of airline related foul ups.It seems an act of complete desperation to argue that airlines are advertising and offering flights that either don't exist, or take multiples of the advertised time, with multiple stops. Where are all the complaints from severely annoyed passengers, or would-be passengers? Why would the airlines do something that's only going to cause them trouble? In the case where the flight takes longer, and multiple stops, why would the airlines offer something that would inevitably lose them money? If the Earth really were flat, such that the direct flights were impossible, why wouldn't the airlines simply claim that the direct routes were uneconomic, and not offer them?
I book one of the direct flights.
I arrive at the airport that very day and when I arrive, a customer service agent states to me:
"Sir, we are very sorry but the direct flight has been cancelled because of rules prohibiting pilot operating hours; however, we are have made these alternate arrangements for you."
If I complain a lot (probably not) the agent offers a voucher for 50 bucks off my next flight...
Not too big a deal...
Who is going to argue against caps on pilot operating hours?
Nobody.
Airlines make more money off multiple stops.
Mike
It seems Qantas (I have not verified this for a fact) is offering refunds on these supposed flights.You can verify it yourself by booking the flight and indeed taking the flight.Which part of "non-refundable," eluded your pea-brain?
The fact that it can be refunded perhaps.
Many passengers would be aware that there are plenty of non-stop flights that exceed twelve and half hours (I've been on such flights myself, multiple times, Sydney to Los Angeles, Singapore to London), and that the pilot hours issue is managed by having additional pilots on board so that no pilot has to work the entire flight.Easier written than done.
So they'd find this excuse less than plausible. They'd also point out that in any case, the airline would have know about the problem in advance, but still offered the non-stop flight. There's no way that an airline could get away with doing this over and over again.Once I get more data in as far as how many of these flights actually take off and do not get re-routed, we shall see.
As for making more money off multiple stops, this would only work if the airline tried to get the passenger to pay the extra. If the airline engaged in such a practice on a regular basis, it would certainly be subject to sanctions from consumer protection agencies, because bait and switch is not allowed.Ah, Jesus...
I am a passenger and I want to go from Australia to Chile.
I book one of the direct flights.
I arrive at the airport that very day and....."
If I complain a lot (probably not)...
Not too big a deal...
Who is going to argue against caps on pilot operating hours?
Nobody.
Many passengers would be aware that there are plenty of non-stop flights that exceed twelve and half hours (I've been on such flights myself, multiple times, Sydney to Los Angeles, Singapore to London), and that the pilot hours issue is managed by having additional pilots on board so that no pilot has to work the entire flight.Easier written than done.So they'd find this excuse less than plausible. They'd also point out that in any case, the airline would have know about the problem in advance, but still offered the non-stop flight. There's no way that an airline could get away with doing this over and over again.Once I get more data in as far as how many of these flights actually take off and do not get re-routed, we shall see.As for making more money off multiple stops, this would only work if the airline tried to get the passenger to pay the extra. If the airline engaged in such a practice on a regular basis, it would certainly be subject to sanctions from consumer protection agencies, because bait and switch is not allowed.Ah, Jesus...
The extra money is not charged to the individual passenger.
The extra money comes from having a plane closer to full capacity.
Lots of people. People with deadlines. People with connecting flights. People that just want to pass on their frustrations on the next person.Whatever Copernicus...
Ever heard any of such people say they were treated such on the Sydney-Santiago or Sydney-Jo'burg routes?
Even if Aussies are so damn nice they don't complain (which I seriously doubt thanks to Rabinoz), what of the South Africans or even South Americans with all that passionate Latin blood?
Lots of people. People with deadlines. People with connecting flights. People that just want to pass on their frustrations on the next person.Whatever Copernicus...
Ever heard any of such people say they were treated such on the Sydney-Santiago or Sydney-Jo'burg routes?
Even if Aussies are so damn nice they don't complain (which I seriously doubt thanks to Rabinoz), what of the South Africans or even South Americans with all that passionate Latin blood?
Lots of people my ass...
80/20 rule...
80 percent of the world's people live their life looking simply to get to the next fucking day and would not utter a word...
Then we have 20 percent...made up of:
Thinking people who exercise sensibility and would not make too much of a fuss, especially in an airport, boarding on an intercontinental flight, mostly for business purposes.
RE-tards like you, who spend their lives somewhat aimlessly, finding themselves frequenting flat earth websites as part of their daily chores who have never been to an airport, let alone going to fly on a plane...
Other RE-tards too stupid to not control themselves and who think the entire world is just like them...
WTF is wrong with you?
Most people would not argue the issue of a cap on pilot operating hours and I guarantee if you tried to make a big scene out of it at an airport, you would certainly not like the result...
I actually meant that it's what happens to these flights.Yes, the reality of caps on pilot operating hours.While it may be possible, do you have anything to support your supposition?I am a passenger and I want to go from Australia to Chile.2) A person can try to book a direct flight from Australia to South America all they want. Those flights do not take place on a daily basis (I see Petey on here stating they offer six flights a week...I bet none of those actually go fulfilled).If you do book the flight, be prepared to not only lose the cost of the deposit, but also be prepared to be placed on a two or three stop flight due to any myriad of airline related foul ups.It seems an act of complete desperation to argue that airlines are advertising and offering flights that either don't exist, or take multiples of the advertised time, with multiple stops. Where are all the complaints from severely annoyed passengers, or would-be passengers? Why would the airlines do something that's only going to cause them trouble? In the case where the flight takes longer, and multiple stops, why would the airlines offer something that would inevitably lose them money? If the Earth really were flat, such that the direct flights were impossible, why wouldn't the airlines simply claim that the direct routes were uneconomic, and not offer them?
I book one of the direct flights.
I arrive at the airport that very day and when I arrive, a customer service agent states to me:
"Sir, we are very sorry but the direct flight has been cancelled because of rules prohibiting pilot operating hours; however, we are have made these alternate arrangements for you."
If I complain a lot (probably not) the agent offers a voucher for 50 bucks off my next flight...
Not too big a deal...
Who is going to argue against caps on pilot operating hours?
Nobody.
Airlines make more money off multiple stops.
Mike
Only non-refundable when booking through third party sites for the cheapest seats. I just checked Qantas.com and they have refundable options there.This appears to be untrue.
Only non-refundable when booking through third party sites for the cheapest seats. I just checked Qantas.com and they have refundable options there.This appears to be untrue.
First flight I tried was subject to 200 USD cancellation fere and then other charges simply to switch itinerary.
Only non-refundable when booking through third party sites for the cheapest seats. I just checked Qantas.com and they have refundable options there.This appears to be untrue.
First flight I tried was subject to 200 USD cancellation fere and then other charges simply to switch itinerary.
I know someone personally who claims to have been to the Santiago and Austria so I can ask any questions of them you want. I still do not know if the person can be trusted but it could be interesting to ask.
Only non-refundable when booking through third party sites for the cheapest seats. I just checked Qantas.com and they have refundable options there.This appears to be untrue.
First flight I tried was subject to 200 USD cancellation fere and then other charges simply to switch itinerary.
I know someone personally who claims to have been to the Santiago and Austria so I can ask any questions of them you want. I still do not know if the person can be trusted but it could be interesting to ask.
If this person claims to have been on this flight then of course he can not be trusted. Duh.
[/flatterlogic]
check farther out. I looked for some in May and there were option listed with no cancellation fee.Only non-refundable when booking through third party sites for the cheapest seats. I just checked Qantas.com and they have refundable options there.This appears to be untrue.
First flight I tried was subject to 200 USD cancellation fere and then other charges simply to switch itinerary.
When I did this on Qantas' site yesterday it displayed the policy a full refund is you cancel before the day departure and a no show or the day of departure it $500/person. I don't remember seeing $200. I'll have to look again when I get home tonight.Only non-refundable when booking through third party sites for the cheapest seats. I just checked Qantas.com and they have refundable options there.This appears to be untrue.
First flight I tried was subject to 200 USD cancellation fere and then other charges simply to switch itinerary.
There is more than 100.000.000 flat earth believer and about 500.000 of them are living in Australia.Citation needed.
But neither in Brasil, nor in Australia a flat earth believer flown to the other continent.I wonder why?
All the claims made as "we flight Santiago from Sydney" all are rounders. So all of them are suspicious. This is main problem.Yes, this is your main problem. Any evidence which contradicts you, you dismiss as suspicious.
Rounders always say "hey man, go, run to Santiago, cmoooonn". But none of us have done it. Because it is not exist.Really? Now you are claiming a city doesn't exist?
Non-refundable has a lot to do with it if one was doing a study on whether or not these flights actually exist.No it doesn't.
I do plan on on saving enough money to take a trip down under in the future and it would include a week in Australia and a week in Chile.But you would be taking the flight regardless? So why would you lose the money?
That takes money (about 6 weeks salary for the airfare alone) and I cannot afford to waste it booking the flight and then losing the money just because...
I arrive at the airport that very day and when I arrive, a customer service agent states to me:If that was the case they wouldn't have the flight pretend to fly with tracking and flight details on sights like flightaware or flightradar.
"Sir, we are very sorry but the direct flight has been cancelled because of rules prohibiting pilot operating hours; however, we have made these alternate arrangements for you."
Airlines make more money off multiple stops.Airlines make more money off of routes which are flown by lots of people.
Most people would not argue the issue of a cap on pilot operating hoursNo, they would argue the issue of the airline being too incompetent to have enough employees to be able to fulfil all their flights.
Once I get more data in as far as how many of these flights actually take off and do not get re-routed, we shall see.How do you intend to get this data? On the face of it, you'd only believe it if you boarded such a plane, and it didn't get re-routed.