So, imagine you are at pole of Earth. Now you enter airplane and fly to equator. So, at 0 km/h rotation of Earth to 1600 km/h. So, in first scenario Earth has atmosphere. So, why didn't you pick up 1600 km/h wind form rotation?
You aren't just magically teleporting to the equator, instead you fly from the pole to the equator.
That means you have the wind be a very small constant which continues to accelerate the aircraft to keep it flying in the atmosphere.
That also address what in reality stops it from happening, but for a satellite, it does have that ~1600 km/hr ground speed at the equator.
That is why a polar orbit passes over different points on Earth each pass.
The Coriolis effect is the way of explaining it from the POV of someone on the rotating Earth.
If there is supposedly no atmosphere so high up then no high altitude plane/vehicle should burn up or heat up, at any high mph.
Who says there is no atmosphere there?
Also, what price do you put on a human life? What REtard would gamble with their life like that? If re-entry disintegrates a hulking asteroid, then what chance does a small plane have?
Apparently NASA. Look at Columbia, which disintegrated during reentry, because the technology designed to stop that failed.
Your line of reasoning is quite stupid. It is like asking why do planes use air brakes or otherwise use the air/drag to slow them down, rather than having engines which are mounted backwards to slow them down.
Why do cars use brakes instead of just sticking it into reverse.
Especially when your idea basically has them stop, still in space, which would require quite a significant acceleration, to then have them fall back down to Earth reaching quite a large speed yet again.
So it isn't a case of a small amount of fuel, it would be quite a lot (a lot of highly flammable fuel so if something went wrong with it it would likely be quite catastrophic) to ensure a safe, slow landing, likely comparable to the amount required to get them up there in the first place.