Singapore Airlines expected to launch flights to nowhere by end October, concerns on unnecessary carbon emissions

Yes. We all miss travel. Airlines are coming up with many methods to bring in some revenue, and Singapore Airlines is one of them.

Singapore Airlines is looking to launch flights to nowhere by end October 2020 that will depart and land back at Singapore Changi Airport.

Sources told The Straits Times that the national carrier is working towards launching this option for domestic passengers - dubbed “flights to nowhere” - by end-October.

They said SIA also plans to explore a partnership with the Singapore Tourism Board to allow interested passengers to partially pay for such flights with tourism credits that will be given out by the government.

Each flight is expected to take 3 hours and the A350-900 is likely to be the aircraft that will be used for these flights. Such flights may be bundled up with staycation packages, limousines to the airport and shopping vouchers at the Jewel Changi Airport.

A number of airlines, such as Qantas, ANA, EVA Air and Starlux has come up with similar concepts.

For example, EVA Air, recently operated a celebratory flight last month for Father’s Day. The particular flight, which took passengers around Taiwan (before making a thumbs up shape in the sky), was serviced by EVA Air’s popular Hello Kitty A330-300.

Another example is ANA, which operated a 1.5 hour scenic flight around Tokyo, Japan with it’s Flying Honu Airbus A380-800 aircraft (this aircraft only operates flights to Hawaii!).

On the other hand, Qantas today launched a 7 hour scenic flight operated by it’s Boeing 787 aircraft over Australia’s Outback and Great Barrier Reef. Tickets was sold out within 10 minutes.


There were mixed reactions on such flights and a number of concerns were on how environmentally friendly such flights would be.

image image image

As seen in the images above, people have expressed concern about citing unnecessary carbon emissions and its contributions to the ongoing climate crisis as the main points of contention.

I personally am not against airlines launching such flights and I’m all for it as I see this as a chance for airlines to generate some revenue while bringing its aircraft out in the air, and for pilots to be able to fly aircrafts again instead of spending time flying in a simulator. After all, though such flights may not be environmentally friendly, aircraft cannot simply stay on the ground as it is meant for the air and not the ground. Aircraft staying put on the ground also need to be maintained in good shape until it is ready to fly again and that costs money too… Pilots cannot be taking no pay leave forever, and airlines cannot survive without revenue.

What do you think? Would you be interested in paying for such flights? Let me know below :)


Ok, then look this


If the environment is so important, then also stop using your car and your electricity!


I personally do agree with those people. Like yes, flying is fun but the environment is more important…


Lmao ask them don’t fly again, swim to their destination btr


Here’s my thoughts!

After all, though such flights may not be environmentally friendly, aircraft cannot simply stay on the ground as it is meant for the air and not the ground. Aircraft staying put on the ground also need to be maintained in good shape until it is ready to fly again and that costs money too… Pilots cannot be taking no pay leave forever, and airlines cannot survive without revenue.


I must admit I somewhat agree with @Philippe_Gilbert here. While it’s not a major impact, the industry has also to think about how such flights look from a marketing perspective. You can’t say „We do all for the environment.“ while just flying around for nothing but the experience.


An important point here would be if these flights are necessary anyways (aircrafts in short term parking have to be flown every 90 days per manufacturer guidance as far as I am aware), as this would reduce the unnecessary environmental impact quite a bit.
Still it’s a marketing nightmare in my opinion, probably not in not so environmental focused areas (I am honestly not aware how much environmental awareness is a topic in Asia in the moment.) but at least in Europe it would be.


Sure, it’s “unnecessary” for the environment, but the amount of flights in the world right now is around what? 60% compared to 2019 levels? Emissions are much lower compared to last year, so these flights aren’t contributing much.

Though at least Qantas will pay to offset carbon emissions on their flight to nowhere.

Like you said, some aircraft can’t stay on the ground forever and pilots need to keep certification. Airlines have been operating flights to nowhere (such as Asiana’s A380 ICN-ICN to keep pilots current) but now they’ll add passenger revenue to it, which could be used towards reducing emissions in the long run.


Less normal air travel = less carbon emissions

4 extra flights = a little more carbon emissions

Together, they are probably the same as a normal year. Maybe less.

1 Like

Even the global shutdown as a result of the pandemic and the associated drop in emissions has not significantly altered us from the current climate change predictions. Need I say more…

1 Like

I mean look at the older aircraft. They left trails of smoke. I think our aircraft today are doing a pretty good job keeping CO2 emissions lower.

Plus, I’m a Californian, so trust me when I say that the fires we have release more CO2 than the cities here ever have. We have had over 5 million acres burn this year. So I don’t think airplanes are the problem.


I think these flight to “nowhere” are a good idea to keep airlines and their planes flying. It costs money to not use planes and have pilots off the job. Now if you’re flying those planes, with paying customers on board, airlines can start to come back, even if those flights are to “nowhere.” Not to mention, it would mean keeping pilots on the job and keeping them current (to avoid costly training flights and check-rides without paying passengers).

And while I do believe the world is important, these few planes would have a tiny effect on emissions. Look at the charts @AvioesEJogos posted, it’s no lie that aviation contributes a minuscule amount compared to other factors. There are many factors in the weather and climate, natural causes, emissions, etc. But I don’t think these few planes on relatively short flights will have much of an effect at all on emissions and the climate.

And yes, I would fly on one of these flights. If airlines from North America decide to do these flights to “nowhere.” I think it is a good idea to keep the airlines alive, bring in much needed revenue, keep their planes flying, and their pilots current and on the job.


I thought this was a joke 😂

Nah, this is real. Many Asian airlines are coming up with such methods to generate some revenue…


This the dumbest thing I’ve seen in a minute lmao.
Who df would pay for this???

I will. I see this as a way to support the airline especially during this ongoing pandemic where they are losing funds.


Shouldn’t airlines be trying not to fly to save on fuel costs and such? Maintenance costs will still exist, but I can’t imagine that it offsets the costs of cleaning, catering, fuel, etc…

And that’s where you’re wrong. Maintaing aircraft grounded costs. And quite a lot. Sure there isn’t the fuel cost, but not doing those would mean no revenue while still having costs: bankruptcy in the long term

To add on, the prices for oil fuel has dropped significantly too.


It just seems like a waste to me. Every time those planes are pressurized, their lifespan decreases. So this seems like a short-term solution that might actually hurt them in the long term. Although, I guess now with the current climate in the aviation industry, short term solutions might be necessary…

This is exactly them saying something like smoking is bad for health but proceeds to eat instant noodles daily and junk foods everyday.