The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Investigations => Topic started by: RobCraggs on March 31, 2022, 01:29:09 AM
-
Hi everyone, I'm a first timer here and have been enjoying honing up on a different look at where we might and might not be, and what our Earth might and might not look like. I've just come across a website that debunks FE theory by comparing the flight path from Sydney to Santiago. Not too sure if it's been addressed here before, but here's the web link: https://flatearth.ws/sydney-santiago
This is a situation where the global earth seems to fit better with the flight path, rather than as shown on a FE map. If this has been addressed, can someone please point me to where; greatly appreciated. Cheers!
-
To be fair I've never seen any flightpath that doesn't make sense on the globe, when one considers all the factors used in flight planning and route selection.
-
Try to actually book a ticket OP. You'll see that they will always want to take you along a route that makes sense on a flat earth and no sense on a globe.
See my thread below for:
Perth (Australia) ---------> Buenos Aires (Argentina)
Auckland (New Zealand) ---------> Cape town (Africa)
forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19211.0
-
Try to actually book a ticket OP. You'll see that they will always want to take you along a route that makes sense on a flat earth and no sense on a globe.
See my thread below for:
Perth (Australia) ---------> Buenos Aires (Argentina)
Auckland (New Zealand) ---------> Cape town (Africa)
forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19211.0
It's unfortunate that the consumer demand and commercial viability/profit doesn't currently exist for airlines to have direct service between Perth/Beunos Aires & Auckland/Cape Town. Perhaps one day, when demand increases, they will.
In the meantime, there's a non-stop from Sydney to Johannesburg which doesn't seem to fit reality from a monopole perspective - Why is that?
(https://i.imgur.com/hpJhN28.jpg)
As well, you can check out this list of longest flights currently in existence and see how well they line up on various maps:
(https://i.imgur.com/QQvveCa.png)
-
Try to actually book a ticket OP. You'll see that they will always want to take you along a route that makes sense on a flat earth and no sense on a globe.
See my thread below for:
Perth (Australia) ---------> Buenos Aires (Argentina)
Auckland (New Zealand) ---------> Cape town (Africa)
forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19211.0
You can currently book Auckland - Santiago direct with LATAM, as well as Sydney to Jo'burg as stack says.
-
Auckland - Santiago direct with LATAM:
(https://i.imgur.com/xJ7a1ez.png)(https://i.imgur.com/EDkcOCo.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/dwfM1QE.jpg)
-
Try to actually book a ticket OP. You'll see that they will always want to take you along a route that makes sense on a flat earth and no sense on a globe.
See my thread below for:
Perth (Australia) ---------> Buenos Aires (Argentina)
Auckland (New Zealand) ---------> Cape town (Africa)
forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=19211.0
This implies an accurate and agreed map and model of the earth that shows it is flat. Where is it? What about WGS83?
-
Auckland - Santiago direct with LATAM:
(https://i.imgur.com/xJ7a1ez.png)
In regards to compass directions as seen on these flights, it seems that these flights make more sense on a Monopole model.
Max Igan reports (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6t6LbZXXPM) that, according to his compass, when traveling between Chile and Australia that after takeoff the plane left Chile traveling towards the North-West and then towards the end of the flight it approached Australia from the South-West, despite his passenger terminal map displaying the RE directions. His experience regarding directions is what should generally occur if the flight were traveling on a Flat Earth Monopole Model.
On an RE the flight should leave Chile from the South West and arrive from the North West:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/f/fa/Direction-Anomaly-1.png/900px-Direction-Anomaly-1.png)
On a Flat Earth Monopole Model the flight would leave Chile from the North West and approach Australia from the South West:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/8/8e/Direction-Anomaly-2.png/700px-Direction-Anomaly-2.png)
I don't think the plane is necessarily taking a straight line directly over the US, or always makes straight line paths in FE models, but we can clearly see that the compass directions experienced align more with the Monopole Model.
The excuse for this is "magnetic declination", but is is quite curious that it happens to agree with the Monopole model in both areas.
-
Auckland - Santiago direct with LATAM:
(https://i.imgur.com/xJ7a1ez.png)
In regards to compass directions as seen on these flights, these flights make more sense on a Monopole model.
Max Igan reports (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6t6LbZXXPM) that, according to his compass, when traveling between Chile and Australia that after takeoff the plane left Chile traveling towards the North-West and then towards the end of the flight it approached Australia from the South-West, despite his passenger terminal map displaying the RE directions. His experience is what should generally occur if the flight were traveling on a Flat Earth Monopole Model.
On an RE the flight should leave Chile from the South West and arrive from the North West:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/f/fa/Direction-Anomaly-1.png/900px-Direction-Anomaly-1.png)
On a Flat Earth Monopole Model the flight would leave Chile from the North West and approach Australia from the South West:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/8/8e/Direction-Anomaly-2.png/700px-Direction-Anomaly-2.png)
I don't think the plane is necessarily taking a straight line directly over the US, but we can clearly see that the compass directions experienced align more with the Monopole Model.
The excuse for this is "magnetic declination", but is is quite curious that it happens to agree with the Monopole model.
What does that video from Igan have to do with this? It seems to be about life origins or something.
In any case, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?
Why would the flight on your monopole fly over the US, or, as you conjured, it went way out of the way? Why? What are the kilometers (miles) in your suspected non-straight line path on the monopole?
Here's your monopole straight-line path on a globe:
(https://i.imgur.com/Ul2o6Xo.png)
And you're not taking into account the obvious: The path and distance flown as reported.
-
Try going to a flight booking site and looking at the flights from Santiago, Chile (SCL) to Sydney Australia (SYD) which DO have stops. The stops they make are quite curious:
https://www.cheapoair.com/air/listing?&d1=SCL&r1=SYD&dt1=04/11/2022&d2=SYD&r2=SCL&dt2=04/16/2022&triptype=ROUNDTRIP&cl=ECONOMY&ad=1&se=0&ch=0&infs=0&infl=0
(https://i.imgur.com/4fIMpQT.png)
-
Why make stops in the USA when there are islands with international airports between South America and Australia?
(https://i.imgur.com/TeZHD2M.jpg)
https://www.travelonline.com/cook-islands/airports
(https://i.imgur.com/U68GReA.png)
This site says that this Cook Island airport can handle aircraft up to Boeing B789's and B747's:
https://dlca.logcluster.org/plugins/viewsource/viewpagesrc.action?pageId=15138862
"Rarotonga International Airport is capable of handling aircraft up to Boeing B789’s and B747’s."
It's a giant airport:
(https://i.imgur.com/5WO9Igp.jpg)
It is modern and one of the largest airports of Oceania:
https://airportsbase.org/Cook_Islands/all/Rarotonga/Rarotonga_International_Airport
(https://i.imgur.com/G0AvlXA.png)
The plane in your example which supposedly traveled across the South Pacific was a Boeing 787:
(https://i.imgur.com/JFHBU8v.png)
Boeing 787:
https://modernairliners.com/boeing-787-dreamliner/boeing-787-dreamliner-specs/
Seating - 242
Range - 13,620 km
Boeing 789/C-FRSA:
https://www.planemapper.com/aircrafts/C-FRSA
Seating - 290
Range - 14,140 km
And obviously if planes were a problem they would just use appropriate planes or upgrade the airport.
-
Why make stops in the USA when there are islands with international airports between South America and Australia?
(https://i.imgur.com/TeZHD2M.jpg)
https://www.travelonline.com/cook-islands/airports
(https://i.imgur.com/U68GReA.png)
This site says that this Cook Island airport can handle aircraft up to Boeing B789's and B747's:
https://dlca.logcluster.org/plugins/viewsource/viewpagesrc.action?pageId=15138862
"Rarotonga International Airport is capable of handling aircraft up to Boeing B789’s and B747’s."
It's a giant airport:
(https://i.imgur.com/5WO9Igp.jpg)
It is modern and one of the largest airports of Oceania:
https://airportsbase.org/Cook_Islands/all/Rarotonga/Rarotonga_International_Airport
(https://i.imgur.com/G0AvlXA.png)
The plane in your example which supposedly traveled across the South Pacific was a Boeing 787:
(https://i.imgur.com/JFHBU8v.png)
Boeing 787:
https://modernairliners.com/boeing-787-dreamliner/boeing-787-dreamliner-specs/
Seating - 242
Range - 13,620 km
Boeing 789/C-FRSA:
https://www.planemapper.com/aircrafts/C-FRSA
Seating - 290
Range - 14140 km
And obviously if planes were a problem they would just use appropriate planes or upgrade the airport.
Irrelevant. We're talking about a direct flight. United (American company), may have their reasons: hubs, economics, passenger counts, etc. not to have a direct flight. Call them up and ask why they don't have a direct between Aukland and Santiago. Call up any airline and ask them why they don't have a direct flight between X and Y cities. I'm pretty sure the answer won't be, "Oh, because it doesn't make sense on the monopole flat earth model..."
Not to mention I don't think the Cook Islands are necessarily a hot destination for United. Looks like only two airlines even utilize the airport:
(https://i.imgur.com/2AYEcmQ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/2baCXNF.png)
You still haven't answered the question, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?
-
United (American company), may have their reasons: hubs, economics, passenger counts, etc. not to have a direct flight.
Anywhere can be a hub though. This:
(https://i.imgur.com/5JkUPRD.jpg)
Makes more sense than this:
(https://i.imgur.com/2irmky2.jpg)
It is certainly possible that no one thought about using the South Pacific airports as a hub to service New Zealand, Australia and South America. But it's just another one of those coincidences that happens to coincide with an FE model.
-
You still haven't answered the question, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?
Fight Radar also said that the True Airspeed of a flight between Santiago and Sydney was switching between N/A and breaking the sound barrier. Not sure that you can know what occurred there.
https://youtu.be/GKKHY72x3ZU?t=5519 (https://youtu.be/GKKHY72x3ZU?t=5519)
(https://i.imgur.com/Fz056z9.png)
-
United (American company), may have their reasons: hubs, economics, passenger counts, etc. not to have a direct flight.
Anywhere can be a hub though. This:
(https://i.imgur.com/5JkUPRD.jpg)
Makes more sense than this:
(https://i.imgur.com/2irmky2.jpg)
It is certainly possible that no one thought about putting a hub in the South Pacific to service New Zealand, Australia and South America. But it's just another one of those coincidences that happens to coincide with FET.
What's coincidental about it? Airlines have hubs. By your argument why don't all airlines have hubs everywhere there is a suitable airport?
Here's United's hubs:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/United_Hubs.gif)
Why doesn't United have a hub in Miami? Seattle? Portland?
Hubs and Spokes (https://science.howstuffworks.com/transport/flight/modern/airline3.htm)
Most of the 12 major U.S. passenger airlines in operation as of 2001 use a hub-and-spoke network to route their plane traffic. The words "hub" and "spoke" create a pretty vivid image of how this system works. A hub is a central airport that flights are routed through, and spokes are the routes that planes take out of the hub airport. Most major airlines have multiple hubs. They claim that hubs allow them to offer more flights for passengers.
The purpose of the hub-and-spoke system is to save airlines money and give passengers better routes to destinations. Airplanes are an airline's most valuable commodity, and every flight has certain set costs. Each seat on the plane represents a portion of the total flight cost. For each seat that is filled by a passenger, an airline lowers its break-even price, which is the seat price at which an airline stops losing money and begins to show a profit on the flight.
As far as "coincidence" goes, if your non-direct flights comport with a monopole why do many others not? As well:
- Why are they not direct flights?
- Why did they stop at those airports along the way?
- Why isn't there a direct flight that follows your straight-line route on a monopole without stopping?
- Why does the radar tracking show a completely different route than what you made up?
- And why haven't you still answered the question, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?
You're monopole straight-line route you made up for the direct flight from Aukland to Santiago looks like it comes out to 21,647 km (13,450 miles) on google maps. That's quite a difference from the reported 6011 miles. How do you reconcile that? More than twice the distance would mean more than twice the duration, that's 10 hours 30 minutes actual versus 21 hours in the air for your monopole route? How do you reconcile that discrepancy? The longest nonstop commercial flight in the world is scheduled at 17 hours and 50 minutes - This route from Los Angeles to Singapore serviced by United Airlines. Why are you claiming a 21 hour flight exists?
-
You still haven't answered the question, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?
Fight Radar also said that the True Airspeed of a flight between Santiago and Sydney was switching between N/A and breaking the sound barrier. Not sure that you can know what occurred there.
https://youtu.be/GKKHY72x3ZU?t=5519 (https://youtu.be/GKKHY72x3ZU?t=5519)
(https://i.imgur.com/Fz056z9.png)
Because Jeran is an idiot and apparently doesn't know jack about airplanes or aviation:
Airspeed vs. Ground Speed (https://knaviation.net/airspeed-and-ground-speed/)
As mentioned above, true airspeed is simply the speed at which an aircraft is moving relative to the air it is flying in. As such, it’s also the speed at which the air is flowing around the aircraft’s wings.
Ground speed, on the other hand, is the aircraft’s speed relative to the ground. One thing that should be noted here is that it’s its horizontal rather than vertical speed – an aircraft climbing completely vertically would have a ground speed of zero.
In other words, while airspeed is what determines whether there is enough airflow around an aircraft to make it fly, ground speed is what determines how fast an aircraft will get to its destination.
-
You still haven't answered the question, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?
Fight Radar also said that the True Airspeed of a flight between Santiago and Sydney was switching between N/A and breaking the sound barrier. Not sure that you can know what occurred there.
https://youtu.be/GKKHY72x3ZU?t=5519 (https://youtu.be/GKKHY72x3ZU?t=5519)
(https://i.imgur.com/Fz056z9.png)
Because Jeran is an idiot and apparently doesn't know jack about airplanes or aviation:
Airspeed vs. Ground Speed (https://knaviation.net/airspeed-and-ground-speed/)
As mentioned above, true airspeed is simply the speed at which an aircraft is moving relative to the air it is flying in. As such, it’s also the speed at which the air is flowing around the aircraft’s wings.
Ground speed, on the other hand, is the aircraft’s speed relative to the ground. One thing that should be noted here is that it’s its horizontal rather than vertical speed – an aircraft climbing completely vertically would have a ground speed of zero.
In other words, while airspeed is what determines whether there is enough airflow around an aircraft to make it fly, ground speed is what determines how fast an aircraft will get to its destination.
Actually it says from your link:
"While ground speed is the airplane’s speed relative to the surface of the Earth, airspeed – at least true airspeed – is its speed relative to the air it is flying in."
So the plane thought it was going much faster through the air than it thought it was traveling along the ground.
-
Here's United's hubs:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/United_Hubs.gif)
Why doesn't United have a hub in Miami? Seattle? Portland?
Yes, because airliners never, ever, make agreements with other airports or airlines to optimally route their flights.
-
You still haven't answered the question, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?
Fight Radar also said that the True Airspeed of a flight between Santiago and Sydney was switching between N/A and breaking the sound barrier. Not sure that you can know what occurred there.
https://youtu.be/GKKHY72x3ZU?t=5519 (https://youtu.be/GKKHY72x3ZU?t=5519)
(https://i.imgur.com/Fz056z9.png)
Because Jeran is an idiot and apparently doesn't know jack about airplanes or aviation:
Airspeed vs. Ground Speed (https://knaviation.net/airspeed-and-ground-speed/)
As mentioned above, true airspeed is simply the speed at which an aircraft is moving relative to the air it is flying in. As such, it’s also the speed at which the air is flowing around the aircraft’s wings.
Ground speed, on the other hand, is the aircraft’s speed relative to the ground. One thing that should be noted here is that it’s its horizontal rather than vertical speed – an aircraft climbing completely vertically would have a ground speed of zero.
In other words, while airspeed is what determines whether there is enough airflow around an aircraft to make it fly, ground speed is what determines how fast an aircraft will get to its destination.
Actually it says from your link:
"While ground speed is the airplane’s speed relative to the surface of the Earth, airspeed – at least true airspeed – is its speed relative to the air it is flying in."
So the plane thought it was going much faster through the air than it thought it was traveling along the ground.
Planes aren't sentient.
Do some reading. Obviously, Jeran didn't:
https://skybrary.aero/articles/ground-speed
-
Here's United's hubs:
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a7/United_Hubs.gif)
Why doesn't United have a hub in Miami? Seattle? Portland?
Yes, because airliners never, ever, make agreements with other airports or airlines to optimally route their flights.
You seemed to miss almost the entirety of my post:
As far as "coincidence" goes, if your non-direct flights comport with a monopole why do many others not? As well:
- Why are they not direct flights?
- Why did they stop at those airports along the way?
- Why isn't there a direct flight that follows your straight-line route on a monopole without stopping?
- Why does the radar tracking show a completely different route than what you made up?
- And why haven't you still answered the question, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?
You're monopole straight-line route you made up for the direct flight from Aukland to Santiago looks like it comes out to 21,647 km (13,450 miles) on google maps. That's quite a difference from the reported 6011 miles. How do you reconcile that? More than twice the distance would mean more than twice the duration, that's 10 hours 30 minutes actual versus 21 hours in the air for your monopole route? How do you reconcile that discrepancy? The longest nonstop commercial flight in the world is scheduled at 17 hours and 50 minutes - This route from Los Angeles to Singapore serviced by United Airlines. Why are you claiming a 21 hour flight exists?
-
Here is Air China operating an Air Canada itinerary through airports where Air Canada doesn't have "hubs".
(https://i.imgur.com/7y9shkr.png)
-
Auckland - Santiago direct with LATAM:
(https://i.imgur.com/xJ7a1ez.png)
In regards to compass directions as seen on these flights, it seems that these flights make more sense on a Monopole model.
Max Igan reports (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6t6LbZXXPM) that, according to his compass, when traveling between Chile and Australia that after takeoff the plane left Chile traveling towards the North-West and then towards the end of the flight it approached Australia from the South-West, despite his passenger terminal map displaying the RE directions. His experience regarding directions is what should generally occur if the flight were traveling on a Flat Earth Monopole Model.
On an RE the flight should leave Chile from the South West and arrive from the North West:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/f/fa/Direction-Anomaly-1.png/900px-Direction-Anomaly-1.png)
On a Flat Earth Monopole Model the flight would leave Chile from the North West and approach Australia from the South West:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/8/8e/Direction-Anomaly-2.png/700px-Direction-Anomaly-2.png)
I don't think the plane is necessarily taking a straight line directly over the US, or always makes straight line paths in FE models, but we can clearly see that the compass directions experienced align more with the Monopole Model.
The excuse for this is "magnetic declination", but is is quite curious that it happens to agree with the Monopole model in both areas.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but according to the FE monopole map that you posted wouldn't the plane approach Australia from the North East rather than the South West? That's what the black line on your map shows.
-
Here is Air China operating an Air Canada itinerary through airports where Air Canada doesn't have "hubs".
(https://i.imgur.com/7y9shkr.png)
So what? I never said planes don't stop in non-hub cities. If there is a need and economics work out favorably, then planes stop wherever it is in their best interest, you know, like filling a plane with paying passengers rather than an empty one. It's called capitalism, supply and demand economics. Give Air Canada and/or China Air a call and ask them why they hopped to Vancouver instead of a direct flight. I'm sure they'll be glad to fill you in.
In any case, you've completely abandoned where you started out. Aukland to Santiago, straight-line flight on a monopole:
As far as "coincidence" goes, if your non-direct flights comport with a monopole why do many others not? As well:
- Why are they not direct flights?
- Why did they stop at those airports along the way?
- Why isn't there a direct flight that follows your straight-line route on a monopole without stopping?
- Why does the radar tracking show a completely different route than what you made up?
- And why haven't you still answered the question, the flight radar says the flight path along a great circle was 9674KM (6011MI). How many kilometers (miles) in your straight-line path on the monopole map?
You're monopole straight-line route you made up for the direct flight from Aukland to Santiago looks like it comes out to 21,647 km (13,450 miles) on google maps. That's quite a difference from the reported 6011 miles. How do you reconcile that? More than twice the distance would mean more than twice the duration, that's 10 hours 30 minutes actual versus 21 hours in the air for your monopole route? How do you reconcile that discrepancy? The longest nonstop commercial flight in the world is scheduled at 17 hours and 50 minutes - This route from Los Angeles to Singapore serviced by United Airlines. Why are you claiming a 21 hour flight exists?
-
In regards to compass directions as seen on these flights, it seems that these flights make more sense on a Monopole model.
Max Igan reports (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r6t6LbZXXPM) that, according to his compass, when traveling between Chile and Australia that after takeoff the plane left Chile traveling towards the North-West and then towards the end of the flight it approached Australia from the South-West, despite his passenger terminal map displaying the RE directions. His experience regarding directions is what should generally occur if the flight were traveling on a Flat Earth Monopole Model.
On an RE the flight should leave Chile from the South West and arrive from the North West:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/f/fa/Direction-Anomaly-1.png/900px-Direction-Anomaly-1.png)
On a Flat Earth Monopole Model the flight would leave Chile from the North West and approach Australia from the South West:
(https://wiki.tfes.org/images/thumb/8/8e/Direction-Anomaly-2.png/700px-Direction-Anomaly-2.png)
I don't think the plane is necessarily taking a straight line directly over the US, or always makes straight line paths in FE models, but we can clearly see that the compass directions experienced align more with the Monopole Model.
The excuse for this is "magnetic declination", but is is quite curious that it happens to agree with the Monopole model in both areas.
We've been round this before Tom; another thread where you stopped engaging once the questions got tricky - https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18502.msg246537#msg246537 (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=18502.msg246537#msg246537)
As with many of the videos you link to, this one has many layers of wrongness to sift through. Firstly, as many have pointed out, using a hand held magnetic compass on an aircraft will rarely give good results, as there is so much going on in terms of metal and electronics that you get large amounts of interference - aircraft magnetic compass systems tend to rely on remote magnetic sensors that are deliberately located as far away as possible from interfering electronics etc, and they are also carefully calibrated to remove any errors. So whilst we can discuss his readings, we should bear in mind that we might be discussing 'stopped clock' accuracy, as it were. Occasionally right, but for all the wrong reasons.
That said, his compass does appear, in the sections of the video that I looked at, to be indicating roughly what you would expect a compass to show for the direction of travel at the time and declination in that area, which is quite large. You started a vague argument implying that the entire concept of declination was an ad hoc correction for a failed model, thereby ignoring the fact that declination is an observed fact, and therefore would be present, and changing (hence my point about changing runway titles at airfields), even if the world was flat, as you claim.
You have to pick a horse here - either declination isn't real, or it is. If you are claiming it isn't, then you're up against a mountain of data to the contrary. If you are agreeing that it is real, then you have to apply it to any magnetic headings you are using in your arguments. And when you do that, you realise that our intrepid video maker has in fact undermined his own argument.
So which is it, Tom - is mag declination real, or not? Does it change over time as it is observed to? Was it present in the manner that every declination calculator shows it to be when that video was made? If not, why not?
-
Tom,
Magnetic Declination is the reason. not the excuse. Magnetic Declination is well-understood by in aviation and maritme industries, especially in the polar areas where the declination is significant.
Within ICAO there is a debate as to whether to swap to true compass rather than magnetic compass as the navigational reference.
Max Igan reports that, according to his compass, when traveling between Chile and Australia that after takeoff the plane left Chile traveling towards the North-West and then towards the end of the flight it approached Australia from the South-West, despite his passenger terminal map displaying the RE directions. His experience regarding directions is what should generally occur if the flight were traveling on a Flat Earth Monopole Model.
Sorry, you mean he thinks he flew from Chile, and then approached Australia from the SW of it? i.e. flew all the way around it? Or do you mean he was heading SW towards Australia?
Why don't United fly direct from SCL to SYD?
There are many reasons. One that doesn't seem to have been mentioned is that this would be an ICAO Fifth Freedom flight, in that an airline from state A (United/USA) would be flying from state B (Chile) to state C (Australia). These flights require international air services agreements between all the participating states (in this case USA, Chile and Australia), and negotiations are often protracted. The example you cite (United flying SCL-IAH-LAX-SYD does not require fifth freedom rights, as the whole journey would be covered by the more basic four freedoms (basically 2x state A to state B pairings, Chile to USA and then USA to Australia).
That's of course on top of the massive ecomonic argument against United flying direct SCL-SYD. I'm sure you appreciate this already, but a direct SCL-SYD flight would requitre, let's say, 150 passengers wanting to fly on that route. By flying SCL-IAH/LAX-SYD United can fill the SCL-IAH flight with a load of passengers, some who wish to fly SCL-IAH-JFK, some who wish to fly SCL-IAH-YVR, some SCL-IAH-DFW, SCL-IAH-SEA, SCL-IAH-FRA, SCL-IAH-LHR etc etc etc, and the same applies heading to SYD, United can fill the LAX-SYD with, yes, the ten people who departed SCL and want to go to SYD, but also people who have flown SEA-LAX-SYD, JFK-LAX-SYB, BOS-LAX-SYD, MIA-LAX-SYD etc etc. That's how hub and spoke operations work. If United were to open up a direct route they would see a significant increase in cost in terms of hotel accommodation for crews. Crews would fly IAH-SCL, then have one night in SCL, then fly SCL-SYD (this would no doubt require 4x pilots due to crew rest on this long leg, whereas IAH-SCL would only require 2 - so you're already adding up the cost). When the flight arrives in SYD, they'd need maybe 2 or 3 nights minimum rest, before coming back to SCL for another night or two before flying back to IAH. 10-12 days away from home base (IAH) would certainly mean quite an increased requirement for days off after this long duty period, reducing staff productivity further, and this might trigger union agrements for increased payments/allowances.
This is why the middle east airlines (Emirates, Etihad etc) have grown so much over the past two decades on the Europe-Asia/Australasia market. By being based in the 'middle', they can fly Europe-Middle East and connect passengers on to Middle East-Asia flights. European and Australiasian-based airlines have a disadvantage in terms of cost. British Airways used to fly London to Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Auckland etc (all via Hong Kong or Singapore), but now only fly to Sydney. In those days the Auckland trip was a 12 or 13 day trip. Very expensive in terms of staffing. This is why QANTAS has been trying to move towards direct flights to Europe with the 787.
Anyhwere can be a hub though
No. Hub and spoke operations are based on passenger (and cargo) flow and demand, and economics, not primarily on geography. Fuel stops (or tech stops as they're called) mostly went out of use in the late 80s early 90s. The same arguments I outline above apply (even more so) to any remote Pacific island as a 'hub'.
Supersonic flight
Your post of the FR24 screenshot looks like a data glitch. Notice the altitude, 13,000ft? A third of the way into the flight from AKL-SCL, but the map seems to have it over AKL? Having examined this sort of data for my job, I say it's a data glitch. Notice in that video how there is only very occaisonally a populated True Airspeed field?
Vmo (Max operating speed) for a 787 is just under 600mph. At 1000mph the wings are coming off and the aircraft will disintegrate.
Air Canada/Air China
Both these operators are in the Star Alliance, so they will be codesharing on many flights (basically this means you can buy tickets for Air China flights from Air Canada, and vice versa). All I see from that screenshot is an Air China flight bewteen two of its hubs in China, then a flight from an Air China hub to an Air Canada hub. Simple.
Having done a quick search for SCL-SYD routes:
Delta
SCL-ATL(Delta hub)-LAX (Delta hub)-SYD
American Airlines/QANTAS
SCL-DFW(AA Hub)-YVR-SYD (this demonstrates the value of airline codesharing/alliances. YVR is neither an AA hub nor a QANTAS hub, but because the two airlines both serve it from their own hubs passengers can easily connect.
American Airlines/QANTAS
SCL-MIA(AA hub)-LAX(AA hub)-SYD (same again)
It all makes sense when you think about it.
-
Magnetic declination - This is merely an assertion that there is a physical phenomenon causing this coincidence, not an explanation for why the coincidence should be seen as it was in both areas.
Hubs - It is easy to search for "layover in Hawaii" and find that the Hawaiian islands are being used as hubs for international flights. The argument that the Cook Islands can't be used is just nonsense.
-
Have a look at the populations of the Hawaiian islands v the Cook islands, the value of tourism and tourist numbers for the Hawaiian Islands v the Cook islands.
I'll wait.
Quite happy to agree that HNL is a hub (for Hawaiian Airlines - there's a coincidence for you). I really don't think you get airline economics. On what basis would the Cook Islands become a hub? For whom?
-
Magnetic declination - This is merely an assertion that there is a physical phenomenon causing this coincidence, not an explanation for why the coincidence should be seen as it was in both areas.
What would you expect the declination to be in those areas? Zero, or something? And, if 'something', then what? If you agree with the declination figures as generally provided by widely available information sources, then if you accept his heading measurements as being correct, then you are actually accepting that he has, in fact, directly contradicted the very point he was trying to make.
Hubs - It is easy to search for "layover in Hawaii" and find that Hawaiian Islands are being used as hubs for international flights. The argument that the Cook Islands can't be used is just nonsense.
Might have something to do with Hawaii being a state of the USA and having a population of 1.5 million, compared to the Island's 17,000?
-
In 2019 170,000 people visited the Cook Islands which has a permanent population of just 17,000. It's already just a large air travel and hospitality and tourism industry. They clearly have infrastructure. 17,000 also doesn't include the people who travel seasonally or temporarily for work.
Resources come from other islands and international commercial development. They aren't alone. The concept of transportation and travel exists.
May as well claim that a small town in the middle of the US is so small and primitive that it couldnt possibly be a hub for vehicle fuel and overnight stays. ::)
-
In 2019 170,000 thousand people visited the Cook Islands which has a permanent population of just 17,000. It's already just a large air travel and hospitality and tourism industry. They clearly have infrastructure.
Resources come from other islands and international commercial development. They aren't alone. The current population is almost meaninless. The concept of travel exists.
May as well claim that a small town in the middle of the US is so primitive and remote from civilization and couldnt possibly be a hub for fuel and overnight stays. ::)
So thats an average of, what, 470 ish a day?
Whereas the Hawaiian archiplegao has about, what, 26,000 per day?
You're not understanding the issue. It's not about remoteness, it's not about fuel (we know long haul aircraft operate SCL-AKL direct so why would they need to stop for fuel???), or runway length or primitiveness, it's about the economics. Why would an airline set up a hub in the Cook Islands?
Have a look at who operates into Raratonga, and have a think about why that's the case.
-
Has anyone tried holding a string or elastic band to the surface of a standard desktop or educational globe, such that it traces the shortest path between Santiago and Sydney, then compared that to the projected imagery shown above?
-
Hubs - It is easy to search for "layover in Hawaii" and find that Hawaiian Islands are being used as hubs for international flights. The argument that the Cook Islands can't be used is just nonsense.
Zero people have made an argument that the Cook Islands "can't" be used. It's whether it's viable for an airline to need to use the Cook Islands as has been explained many times now.
Why won't you answer the questions about the scenario you yourself brought up? You're monopole straight-line route you made up for the direct flight from Aukland to Santiago looks like it comes out to 21,647 km (13,450 miles) on google maps. That's quite a difference from the reported 6011 miles. How do you reconcile that? More than twice the distance would mean more than twice the duration, that's 10 hours 30 minutes actual versus 21 hours in the air for your monopole route? How do you reconcile that discrepancy? The longest nonstop commercial flight in the world is scheduled at 17 hours and 50 minutes - This route from Los Angeles to Singapore serviced by United Airlines. Why are you claiming a 21 hour flight exists?
If you believe it "works" on a monopole then you need to reconcile the above. Otherwise, it doesn't work as you claim.
-
Has anyone tried holding a string or elastic band to the surface of a standard desktop or educational globe, such that it traces the shortest path between Santiago and Sydney, then compared that to the projected imagery shown above?
I hadn’t till you mentioned it, but I had a go.
Pretty much matches the flight path I’ve seen advertised.
-
In 2019 170,000 thousand people visited the Cook Islands which has a permanent population of just 17,000. It's already just a large air travel and hospitality and tourism industry. They clearly have infrastructure. 17,000 also doesn't include the people who travel seasonally or temporarily for work.
Resources come from other islands and international commercial development. They aren't alone. The concept of transportation and travel exists.
May as well claim that a small town in the middle of the US is so small and primitive that it couldnt possibly be a hub for vehicle fuel and overnight stays. ::)
From your own source, Tom;
"Rarotonga International Airport is capable of handling aircraft up to Boeing B789’s and B747’s. The Terminal has two gates that can accommodate two international aircraft at a time. The apron can be congested at times but apron can accommodate up to 3 internationals provided two aircraft are of medium category and the other a heavy category aircraft. Because the Terminal is small, there can be congestion at the check-in area if there are 3 international airlines checking in at the same time and at screening".
Hmmm.
Probably needs a little investment in the infrastructure to be a DXB challenger, doesn't it? Shame it can't find the zillions of petro-dollars that the middle-east could lay its hands on. And cheap aviation fuel would also help, like Dubai has it oozing up through the sand. And then, of course, there's the real estate; lovely map, and it does indeed have a good runway, but there isn't really much more than that is there. Where is it going to expand into? Demolish that town, raze the forest, drain the swamp, flatten the mountain or landfill the lagoon?
Plus, the Santiago-Auckland service doesn't actually need to stop there, does it?
Really, the only thing in its favour is the marketing - "Don't just book it; Cook it!"
-
Magnetic declination - This is merely an assertion that there is a physical phenomenon causing this coincidence, not an explanation for why the coincidence should be seen as it was in both areas.
What would you expect the declination to be in those areas? Zero, or something? And, if 'something', then what? If you agree with the declination figures as generally provided by widely available information sources, then if you accept his heading measurements as being correct, then you are actually accepting that he has, in fact, directly contradicted the very point he was trying to make.
Which is it, Tom? Do you accept the magnetic declination figures for the area(s) in question, or not? If not, why not? If you do, do you accept that this completely defeats the argument made in that video?
-
Can I raise another interesting flight path? I want to raise two routes to the same destination: to Amundsen-Scott South Pole Base.
It is about an 8-hour flight from Christchurch, New Zealand to the South Pole. http://www.submm.caltech.edu/~cdd/yu_4th_grade/yu_4th_grade.html
Similarly, it is about an 8.5-hour flight from Punta Arenas, Chile to the South Pole. https://www.polar-quest.com/trips/antarctica/fly-to-the-south-pole-20212022
Represented on the Flat Earth is obviously impossible, as the South Pole is infinitely smeared across the circumference of the Earth.
(https://i.imgur.com/XNpAtS1.png)
On a globe it is simple enough.
(https://i.imgur.com/6qGimTp.png)
-
In 2019 170,000 people visited the Cook Islands which has a permanent population of just 17,000. It's already just a large air travel and hospitality and tourism industry. They clearly have infrastructure. 17,000 also doesn't include the people who travel seasonally or temporarily for work.
Resources come from other islands and international commercial development. They aren't alone. The concept of transportation and travel exists.
May as well claim that a small town in the middle of the US is so small and primitive that it couldnt possibly be a hub for vehicle fuel and overnight stays. ::)
I'll accept your number of 170,000 people visiting the Cook Islands in 2019. In the same year Hawaii had a whopping 10 million visits, or nearly 59 times more than Cook Islands. https://www.usatoday.com/story/travel/destinations/2021/07/31/hawaii-to-reduce-number-visitors-oahu-tourism-cap/5443732001/
These are visits, not stopovers. Therefore, airlines have a substantial interest in layovers there because there is already a large number of people going to and from there anyway. So for efficiency sake it will become a natural hub for many airline routes. Not so with Cook Islands.