Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 20610
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Thu Sep 17, 2020 9:44 pm

raylee67 wrote:
Because many governments are de-facto operating on war footing. All other priorities are rescinded. Immediate problems need to be resolved first. If the enterprises cannot survive and thousands become jobless, that's not an acceptable proposition for those governments and for those people.

Not only this, but fuel consumption is way down. There is a scramble to store the refined diesel and JetA.

https://gcaptain.com/demand-to-store-a- ... sing-fast/

To others:
I get that we are concerned about the environment. But if one flight mattered, we would have seen a sharp drop in temperature.

A year from now, we will have enough jobless, sadly that might be the only concern.

I wouldn't take a flight to nowhere, but the pilots need their hours anyway...

Lightsaber
Winter is coming.
 
TW870
Posts: 1249
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:01 am

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:06 pm

These flights are not about pilot currency. These type of flights are extremely inefficient for keeping pilots current, as it is takeoffs and landings - not block hours - that are necessary for currency. One nowhere flight is only 1/3 of the 90-day currency requirement. Thus, the simulator is for currency. You just won't get the volume for these gigs to have any impact on operations.

I have flown twice for work in the last six months for necessary work, and would fly much more but I want to avoid making the pandemic worse by accidentally spreading the disease. The issue for these flights, though, is that the real fun part of flying - like a nice meal in business - makes the flights more COVID risky. Right now on ordinary flights, people keep their masks on for basically the whole flight which makes it pretty safe. We haven't seen big COVID outbreaks among crew, for example. But the tradeoff is you don't get the fun parts of flying - drinking, talking with friends, having a nice dinner. If you do those things, you are much more likely to spread the disease. Thus, I'm waiting it out and extremely hopeful that we get to jump back into things next year.
 
johns624
Posts: 2888
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Thu Sep 17, 2020 11:20 pm

PM wrote:
johns624 wrote:
This is really unnecessary and pointless from an environmental point of view.

Who cares?


That's the spirit, Donald. Screw the environment! :roll:
You sure don't know me. Nice personal attack, though.
 
umichman
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Apr 07, 2019 2:42 am

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Fri Sep 18, 2020 2:04 am

oxonrow wrote:
johns624 wrote:
DiegoSS02 wrote:
While it could be a much needed extra income, this is really unnecessary and pointless from an environmental point of view.
Who cares? Sometimes you just want to relax and have fun.


This. In 2020. Head shakes.


Millions of tons in reduced emissions due to Covid, but yes, let's fret about a handful of leisure flights to nowhere. Why not just ban all leisure travel and unnecessary business travel? You want to save the planet, don't you?
 
User avatar
hongkongflyer
Posts: 828
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:23 am

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:19 am

BNEFlyer wrote:
QF is doing one in October SYD-SYD on the 787. It'll be $787 in Y; $1,787 in W and $3,787 in J. They don't mention how long it goes for, but looking at the route it will be at least 9 hours. And only 134 seats will be sold.


It will last for 7 hours and flying low in certain times to allow people sightseeing the famous landmarks.
 
User avatar
hongkongflyer
Posts: 828
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2014 8:23 am

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Fri Sep 18, 2020 3:23 am

ScottB wrote:
9Patch wrote:
I saw this on MarketWatch and thought is was a joke at first. The flights included Wi-Fi text messaging service on board as well as a meal service, and the option of upgrading to business class. I can't believe people would actually pay money for this. It's not cheap, $780 for coach.


Why would any government that's a signatory to the Paris Agreement even allow this?


Pilots/FA need flying to maintain their currency. Planes need to fly once within a certain period to avoid major maintenance check after storage,
so basically there have to be some flights flying around empty just for these purposes.
A lot of costs are sunk( hedged fuel; onboard meals and materials already purchased which will be expired etc.)
Adding passengers onboard won't costs too much as long as the additional costs can be covered.
And at this stage, I believe it must be at lease generating some net cash inflow otherwise airlines won't considered to do so.
 
Westerwaelder
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:27 pm

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:56 am

umichman wrote:
oxonrow wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Who cares? Sometimes you just want to relax and have fun.

K
This. In 2020. Head shakes.


Millions of tons in reduced emissions due to Covid, but yes, let's fret about a handful of leisure flights to nowhere. Why not just ban all leisure travel and unnecessary business travel? You want to save the planet, don't you?


It's the principal lack of grasping the problem that causes heads to shake. The cited reduction in CO2 is nowhere near enough to reverse a change in climate patterns.

If the planes have to fly anyway because of maintenance/recency requirements, it's understandable. If it's additional movements it shows how aviation fails to grasp the problem. Closing your eyes and believing "it will get cooler" is not going to change that.
 
LLA001
Posts: 218
Joined: Sun May 08, 2005 7:36 am

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Fri Sep 18, 2020 5:27 am

I think this is brilliant, all bloggers, influencers and other social media users who were deprived of posting from an airplane for the past six months will finally provide their followers with much needed airplane window photos.
 
MartijnNL
Posts: 999
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2017 11:44 am

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Fri Sep 18, 2020 8:23 am

hongkongflyer wrote:
BNEFlyer wrote:
QF is doing one in October SYD-SYD on the 787. It'll be $787 in Y; $1,787 in W and $3,787 in J. (...)

It will last for 7 hours and flying low in certain times to allow people sightseeing the famous landmarks.

Sold out in ten minutes. More flights to follow.

https://nos.nl/artikel/2348822-australi ... kocht.html

https://www.executivetraveller.com/news ... to-nowhere

Despite prices ranging from $3,787 in business class to $787 in economy, all 149 seats on the Boeing 787-9 Dreamliner were snapped up in ten minutes – a rate of one seat every four seconds, making this what a Qantas spokesperson described as "probably the fastest selling flight in Qantas' history."
 
Farsight
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2019 8:20 pm

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:01 pm

Interesting. How low would the planes fly? Doesn't low flying have an impact on airframe fatigue?
 
btfarrwm
Posts: 107
Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:50 am

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Fri Sep 18, 2020 1:57 pm

I could see a better option...a one-stop flight between two hubs that includes a meal in the airport lounge. Still not necessarily environmentally friendly, but it would add an extra landing/takeoff for the pilots, could be routed to be done with one crew and give passengers an experience that is worth paying for. I don't do a lot of international flying, so I've never been on an A350, A380 B748 or B787. I certainly wouldn't pay big $$$ to do it on a 737 or A32x.

As far as the "flight to nowhere" is concerned, people in America still go on Sunday drives just to get out of the house. This is essentially the same but on a bigger scale.
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6524
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Fri Sep 18, 2020 2:31 pm

Farsight wrote:
Interesting. How low would the planes fly? Doesn't low flying have an impact on airframe fatigue?


Fatigue is an issue, IF it’s a B-52 down at 500’ in turbulence, a 787 at 12,000’ not so much.
 
Farsight
Posts: 28
Joined: Wed Feb 27, 2019 8:20 pm

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Fri Sep 18, 2020 4:37 pm

GalaxyFlyer wrote:
Farsight wrote:
Interesting. How low would the planes fly? Doesn't low flying have an impact on airframe fatigue?


Fatigue is an issue, IF it’s a B-52 down at 500’ in turbulence, a 787 at 12,000’ not so much.


Thanks and where did you get the 12,000ft figure from? Would a 787 be permitted to fly around at 3000ft 'sightseeing' or is there a minimum FAA mandated altitude for these types of flights?
 
GalaxyFlyer
Posts: 6524
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2016 4:44 am

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Fri Sep 18, 2020 9:39 pm

Just a guess of an altitude that might be used, it just not gonna be where fatigue is an issue.

In the US, FAR 91.119 says it all for minimum altitudes, now air carriers must fly on an IFR flight plan, so minimum IFR altitude would apply for the location of the flight. I believe Alaska is only carrier with OpsSpecs for VFR lights and only specific city-pairs in the Southeast.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4686
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Sat Sep 19, 2020 12:40 am

Westerwaelder wrote:
umichman wrote:
oxonrow wrote:
K
This. In 2020. Head shakes.


Millions of tons in reduced emissions due to Covid, but yes, let's fret about a handful of leisure flights to nowhere. Why not just ban all leisure travel and unnecessary business travel? You want to save the planet, don't you?


It's the principal lack of grasping the problem that causes heads to shake. The cited reduction in CO2 is nowhere near enough to reverse a change in climate patterns.

If the planes have to fly anyway because of maintenance/recency requirements, it's understandable. If it's additional movements it shows how aviation fails to grasp the problem. Closing your eyes and believing "it will get cooler" is not going to change that.

Do you know that emission from these flights are just tiny percent of usual leisure flight and cruise emission? The combined emission of all the flights by different airlines mentioned in this thread is probably less than what a single regular day's flight to Hawaii carrying leisure travellers would enit
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
(≧▽≦) Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
(≧▽≦) Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
Westerwaelder
Posts: 292
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2020 12:27 pm

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:41 pm

c933103 wrote:
Westerwaelder wrote:
umichman wrote:

Millions of tons in reduced emissions due to Covid, but yes, let's fret about a handful of leisure flights to nowhere. Why not just ban all leisure travel and unnecessary business travel? You want to save the planet, don't you?


It's the principal lack of grasping the problem that causes heads to shake. The cited reduction in CO2 is nowhere near enough to reverse a change in climate patterns.

If the planes have to fly anyway because of maintenance/recency requirements, it's understandable. If it's additional movements it shows how aviation fails to grasp the problem. Closing your eyes and believing "it will get cooler" is not going to change that.

Do you know that emission from these flights are just tiny percent of usual leisure flight and cruise emission? The combined emission of all the flights by different airlines mentioned in this thread is probably less than what a single regular day's flight to Hawaii carrying leisure travellers would enit


That reply is exactly why progress on climate change is so tedious. This is not about pointing fingers at others and at their emissions. This is about taking responsibility for your own actions. If you think it's OK to burn fossil fuels "just because" or it's OK because someone else burns more, then there is nothing more I can add.
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4686
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Sat Sep 19, 2020 1:46 pm

Westerwaelder wrote:
c933103 wrote:
Westerwaelder wrote:

It's the principal lack of grasping the problem that causes heads to shake. The cited reduction in CO2 is nowhere near enough to reverse a change in climate patterns.

If the planes have to fly anyway because of maintenance/recency requirements, it's understandable. If it's additional movements it shows how aviation fails to grasp the problem. Closing your eyes and believing "it will get cooler" is not going to change that.

Do you know that emission from these flights are just tiny percent of usual leisure flight and cruise emission? The combined emission of all the flights by different airlines mentioned in this thread is probably less than what a single regular day's flight to Hawaii carrying leisure travellers would enit


That reply is exactly why progress on climate change is so tedious. This is not about pointing fingers at others and at their emissions. This is about taking responsibility for your own actions. If you think it's OK to burn fossil fuels "just because" or it's OK because someone else burns more, then there is nothing more I can add.

You mean progress against climate change? Anyway, I am not talking about "others". Those leisure travellers who would take flight to Hawaii are the exact same type of people that would take these flights to nowhere. I am comparing emissions caused by action of same type of individuals/enetities and the same type of actions.
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
(≧▽≦) Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
(≧▽≦) Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
AEROFAN
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 9:47 am

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Sat Sep 19, 2020 2:55 pm

johns624 wrote:
DiegoSS02 wrote:
While it could be a much needed extra income, this is really unnecessary and pointless from an environmental point of view.
Who cares? Sometimes you just want to relax and have fun.


How is this fun or relaxing? Don't you have to clear security and all the other crap to then sit in an uncomfortable seat trapped in a metal tube, breathing stale air to nowhere?
Some people are weird. :banghead:
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” ~Harlan Ellison~
 
User avatar
Web500sjc
Posts: 862
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:23 am

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Sat Sep 19, 2020 3:34 pm

AEROFAN wrote:
johns624 wrote:
DiegoSS02 wrote:
While it could be a much needed extra income, this is really unnecessary and pointless from an environmental point of view.
Who cares? Sometimes you just want to relax and have fun.


How is this fun or relaxing? Don't you have to clear security and all the other crap to then sit in an uncomfortable seat trapped in a metal tube, breathing stale air to nowhere?
Some people are weird. :banghead:



Could ask the same question about going to a sports game. Got to clear security, sit in an uncomfortable seat next to 30,000 of the loudest people in the world, yell encouragement at athletes with no visble effect, buying overpriced beer and snacks.

I agree, people are weird, but to each their own.
Boiler Up!
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 635
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Sat Sep 19, 2020 5:32 pm

These flights to "nowhere" are anything but. They are dire calls to open up economies and what better proof than people wanting to travel on such flights. Wear a mask, distance yourself and stay away from the vulnerable is the name of the game. Respect Covid-19, yes, but that can be done without much government control as we further understand it more. Flights to nowhere, you say? This is going somewhere. Governments take heed!
 
User avatar
c933103
Posts: 4686
Joined: Wed May 18, 2016 7:23 pm

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Sat Sep 19, 2020 6:12 pm

TYWoolman wrote:
These flights to "nowhere" are anything but. They are dire calls to open up economies and what better proof than people wanting to travel on such flights. Wear a mask, distance yourself and stay away from the vulnerable is the name of the game. Respect Covid-19, yes, but that can be done without much government control as we further understand it more. Flights to nowhere, you say? This is going somewhere. Governments take heed!

I think most people on such flight are on such flight because they understand the reality won't be as they desired and it is for the good of everyone which is why they're willing to take compromises
It's pointless to attempt winning internet debate. 求同存異. よく見て・よく聞いて・よく考える
(≧▽≦) Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan! Nyan!
(≧▽≦) Meow Meow Meow! Meow Meow Meow Meow!
 
AEROFAN
Posts: 1870
Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 9:47 am

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:24 pm

Web500sjc wrote:
AEROFAN wrote:
johns624 wrote:
Who cares? Sometimes you just want to relax and have fun.


How is this fun or relaxing? Don't you have to clear security and all the other crap to then sit in an uncomfortable seat trapped in a metal tube, breathing stale air to nowhere?
Some people are weird. :banghead:



Could ask the same question about going to a sports game. Got to clear security, sit in an uncomfortable seat next to 30,000 of the loudest people in the world, yell encouragement at athletes with no visble effect, buying overpriced beer and snacks.

I agree, people are weird, but to each their own.


The fact that you would ask something like this screams your reality :banghead: These flights to nowhere are ridiculous waste of time and resources and will die a quick death.
“You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.” ~Harlan Ellison~
 
wedgetail737
Posts: 5287
Joined: Mon Aug 04, 2003 8:44 am

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Sat Sep 19, 2020 10:38 pm

I remember back in the late 1980's, the Air France Concorde did the flight to nowhere from OAK for about three or weeks. It flew out of OAK to about halfway to HI and back. They would get up to Mach 2 and serve caviar, then return to OAK. They did that 2X per day.
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 635
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:16 pm

c933103 wrote:
TYWoolman wrote:
These flights to "nowhere" are anything but. They are dire calls to open up economies and what better proof than people wanting to travel on such flights. Wear a mask, distance yourself and stay away from the vulnerable is the name of the game. Respect Covid-19, yes, but that can be done without much government control as we further understand it more. Flights to nowhere, you say? This is going somewhere. Governments take heed!

I think most people on such flight are on such flight because they understand the reality won't be as they desired and it is for the good of everyone which is why they're willing to take compromises


That's part of it. Kind of having fun with it. But it also showcases people's willingness to fly. Masks and distancing isn't really compromising anymore. It's the way to do it. It's part of the traveling equation and experience and can be done safely.
 
TYWoolman
Posts: 635
Joined: Sat Jun 24, 2017 8:24 pm

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:19 pm

AEROFAN wrote:
Web500sjc wrote:
AEROFAN wrote:

How is this fun or relaxing? Don't you have to clear security and all the other crap to then sit in an uncomfortable seat trapped in a metal tube, breathing stale air to nowhere?
Some people are weird. :banghead:



Could ask the same question about going to a sports game. Got to clear security, sit in an uncomfortable seat next to 30,000 of the loudest people in the world, yell encouragement at athletes with no visble effect, buying overpriced beer and snacks.

I agree, people are weird, but to each their own.


The fact that you would ask something like this screams your reality :banghead: These flights to nowhere are ridiculous waste of time and resources and will die a quick death.


I hope not. I think they are great and a token of perseverance: making do with what you got. Some people are true fans of everything "air."
 
User avatar
aemoreira1981
Posts: 3641
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:17 am

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:02 am

I know that Air New Zealand had he TE901 tragedy in 1979, but would they ever consider Antarctica sightseeing flights again? At least in the USA, there aren't entire series idled that are expected to return to service (for UA, the B764s are parked, but pilots can keep current on the B763s).

As for QF, I get why they are doing this...as indicated in post 20, since those B789s aren't going to be doing regular service until at least NS21, with most of the fleet sent off for storage at LAX or VCV.
 
johns624
Posts: 2888
Joined: Mon Jul 07, 2008 11:09 pm

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Sun Sep 20, 2020 12:26 am

AEROFAN wrote:
johns624 wrote:
DiegoSS02 wrote:
While it could be a much needed extra income, this is really unnecessary and pointless from an environmental point of view.
Who cares? Sometimes you just want to relax and have fun.


How is this fun or relaxing? Don't you have to clear security and all the other crap to then sit in an uncomfortable seat trapped in a metal tube, breathing stale air to nowhere?
Some people are weird. :banghead:
Coming from a 16 year member with a username of "Aerofan", this is priceless. Let's make a deal, I don't tell you what to do with your life and money and you don't tell others how to live theirs?
How is this any different from me going out to YIP to the YAF and getting a ride in their B17. You take off, fly around for awhile and come back and land at the same place you started?
PS--Stale air? I think you need to read up on airliner air circulation.
 
BNEFlyer
Posts: 266
Joined: Fri Oct 27, 2006 6:41 am

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Sun Sep 20, 2020 11:21 pm

aemoreira1981 wrote:
I know that Air New Zealand had he TE901 tragedy in 1979, but would they ever consider Antarctica sightseeing flights again? At least in the USA, there aren't entire series idled that are expected to return to service (for UA, the B764s are parked, but pilots can keep current on the B763s).

As for QF, I get why they are doing this...as indicated in post 20, since those B789s aren't going to be doing regular service until at least NS21, with most of the fleet sent off for storage at LAX or VCV.

The ones that QF operate are very popular and by accounts were usually always booked out, and that was on the 747. They'll be using the 787 for them this year, so there's no technical reason NZ couldn't use their 787 either, but it would have to depend on the demand.
 
User avatar
ua900
Moderator
Posts: 1607
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 7:14 am

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Wed Oct 14, 2020 10:44 pm

9Patch wrote:
ua900 wrote:
Let's bear in mind that most of the travel downturn is the result of CDC (and local equivalent) "travel recommendations" that have gotten insurers so nervous that companies fear the liability of sending employees on a trip, have resulted in mass cancellations for tour operators, and have discouraged individual travelers with quarantines and associated hurdles. If these "recommendations" were rescinded tomorrow, we'd see a nice uptick in travel again.

But wouldn't we also see a nice uptick in covid infections and deaths?
That's what's discouraging me from traveling.


I've cut my travel in half this year, but haven't stopped flying. To me and my family, the brave new world of "working from anywhere" means just that. In my view, airlines have gone on the offensive plenty of times to explain how older measures (e.g. Hepa filters) work together with more recent initiatives (increased cleaning, passing out wipes and water bottles in lieu of the pre-departure beverage) to create an environment that is much safer than many on-ground experiences (say a movie theatre or indoor in-person training even though distancing and capacity controls are there).

Examples:

https://news.aa.com/news/news-details/2 ... 0s-FLT-06/
https://www.united.com/ual/en/us/fly/tr ... nplus.html
https://news.delta.com/delivering-new-c ... ery-flight

I was at a recent government provided indoor training (mandatory) and one person tested positive afterward. Everyone else at that training has to provide negative tests to be reallowed into government facilities. Much higher risk apparently since none of my flight-related tests ever turned out positive. I know it's anecdotal, but I also think that one can't sit in isolation forever, especially when the airlines are making such a huge effort to be proactive about it. Many of my former non-stops are now 1 or even 2 stops with 4-5 hour connections. If we don't fly, the airlines will turn into daily flights into flights that only operate every other day or 1-2 a week on some of these routes. I decided that the current situation is bad enough as it is, and do my share to keep the airlines afloat. I respect everyone who isn't comfortable flying (or leaving their house) at this time and hope that consumer confidence will return as quickly as possible.

RDUDDJI wrote:
DiegoSS02 wrote:
While it could be a much needed extra income, this is really unnecessary and pointless from an environmental point of view.


One could make the same argument about just about any man made technology and most human practices.

Including but not limited to:
Electricity
Wood
Metal
Plastic
Going on vacation. Surely it hurts the environment to travel, unless you're bicycling there. Oh but wait, that bicycle is made from metal and rubber...scratch that

For perspective, aviation made up about 3.5% of greenhouse gas emissions pre-covid. It's likely near a third of that now. A handful of "flights to nowhere" won't even be noticeable compared to the other ~40,000 commercial flights every day (It was over 100,000 pre-covid).


:checkmark: Economic activity keeps the lights on for many people. Whether it's a flight, a hotel, a rental car, the motor fuel for that rental car, the restaurants on trips, the parking lot at the airport, there's a lot of money and a lot of livelihoods attached to transportation and other sectors. If we all went home and stopped supporting businesses, things would be a hundred times worse for most of us, as our own jobs would likely be affected by that eventually.

UALFAson wrote:
I don't understand why you would pay to just fly around for a bit and then land where you took off from? At that point, why don't you just book a regular flight and actually go somewhere.

I'm not flying right now not because I'm scared of the flight itself, but from all the contact I would potentially have with other people standing in line at TSA, aerosol in the restrooms, crowding around the gate area, standing in line in the jet bridge, etc.


Maybe I should take pictures on my international UA flights, or perhaps your parent can if they're still flying. On too many flights, it's basically like being on a plane that RONs, except you are in the air in broad daylight. You can walk past rows and rows of empty seats if you want to go to the bathroom or just do yoga in the back for 5 minutes.

There's no line at the TSA, restrooms are mostly empty and cleaned all the time now, gates don't crowd when your flight has 30 passengers for a plane that holds 350, you won't spend much time in the jet bridge either, and onboard people wear masks so religiously that newspaper articles are written when someone doesn't. The hotels sit empty, good for upgrades I guess. At many car rental lots, you can take your pick. Of course that only works until they turn in more excess cars to the lessor, until more hotels shut down, and until more airline flights get axed to meet whatever demand is left for a given product.

Even for domestic flights that are more full, people don't dare cough or sneeze for the most part, just because people are on the edge when it comes to that. As someone who traveled for years in the winter and is used to half the plane coughing then, and maybe 10% of people doing that non-stop, I have to say it has become very quiet now and people are a lot more polite now when it comes to coughing and sneezing because no one wants to be turned in.
2020: AMS | BRU | DEN | DFW | EWR | FRA | GUA | IAH | LAX | LIM | MCO | MUC | ORD | PTY | SAL | SCL | SFO | TXL
 
ryan78
Posts: 361
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2010 1:29 am

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Wed Oct 14, 2020 11:40 pm

ua900 wrote:
UALFAson wrote:
I don't understand why you would pay to just fly around for a bit and then land where you took off from? At that point, why don't you just book a regular flight and actually go somewhere.

I'm not flying right now not because I'm scared of the flight itself, but from all the contact I would potentially have with other people standing in line at TSA, aerosol in the restrooms, crowding around the gate area, standing in line in the jet bridge, etc.


Maybe I should take pictures on my international UA flights, or perhaps your parent can if they're still flying. On too many flights, it's basically like being on a plane that RONs, except you are in the air in broad daylight. You can walk past rows and rows of empty seats if you want to go to the bathroom or just do yoga in the back for 5 minutes.

There's no line at the TSA, restrooms are mostly empty and cleaned all the time now, gates don't crowd when your flight has 30 passengers for a plane that holds 350, you won't spend much time in the jet bridge either, and onboard people wear masks so religiously that newspaper articles are written when someone doesn't. The hotels sit empty, good for upgrades I guess. At many car rental lots, you can take your pick. Of course that only works until they turn in more excess cars to the lessor, until more hotels shut down, and until more airline flights get axed to meet whatever demand is left for a given product.

Even for domestic flights that are more full, people don't dare cough or sneeze for the most part, just because people are on the edge when it comes to that. As someone who traveled for years in the winter and is used to half the plane coughing then, and maybe 10% of people doing that non-stop, I have to say it has become very quiet now and people are a lot more polite now when it comes to coughing and sneezing because no one wants to be turned in.


Reading that just gave me so much envy! I work in the industry and utilise my standby benefits as often as I can, I usually do about 10-15 trips per year and this year I've done 1 before Covid locked everything down. Canada has a 14 day mandatory quarantine for all international travellers arriving home and my wife's work is forcing a 14 day unpaid quarantine if she's come into close contact with anyone who's travelled outside the province... I'm grounded for a while! :cry: Luckily I still have a job, but the closest I can get to actually flying right now is doing maintenance on aircraft in the hangar. Hopefully one day soon I can return to the skies, for now, please enjoy them for me!
 
TARTRESED
Posts: 35
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2018 12:21 am

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Thu Oct 15, 2020 3:43 am

I have taken flights to "nowhere", but it sure wouldn't be on an Airbus or a Boeing jet. A DC-3/C-47, a Ford Trimotor, or a WWII era aircraft, yes.
 
AB330
Posts: 89
Joined: Tue Jul 16, 2019 4:02 am

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Thu Oct 15, 2020 10:26 am

Looks like PAL wants a bight on the action. There planning to lauched "Scenic Flights" over the Philippines for 3 hours using the Airbus A321neo (ACT) only 108 seats will be made available though.

https://www.aviationupdatesph.com/2020/ ... h.html?m=1
 
User avatar
Devilfish
Posts: 7170
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2006 7:52 am

Re: Airlines launch ‘flights to nowhere’

Thu Oct 15, 2020 9:22 pm

Was this one of those flights to nowhere :confused: I must say those were mighty robust landing gears...and huge props to the pilot for his superb flying skills and to the OEMs for the OEI takeoff :rotfl:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYU09BSZ7J4
"Everyone is entitled to my opinion." - Garfield

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos