Flights over Antartica from $1199 Economy, Feb-Dec (Includes NYE) from Mel/Syd/Per/Bris/Adl on Qantas @ AntarcticFlights

beatthatflight on 13/08/2020 - 10:57 antarcticaflights.com.au (444 clicks)
Last edited 13/08/2020 - 11:15 by 1 other user

Might be our only opportunity to fly 'overseas' this year :/

And it's on the Qantas Dreamliner!

From the site:

The flight provides a full day of Antarctic experience. Our flight from Australia ranges between 9,500 – 10,500 kms round trip (approximately 12.5 hours) depending on your departure city. Expert Antarctic expeditioners are onboard to talk on the polar environment and its history while video screenings depict life on the ground.

Approximately three hours south of Australia, passengers will usually see the first scattered ice followed by dozens of icebergs and ice floes. We then cross the South Magnetic Pole where you will start to view the rugged mountainous topography of the Antarctic mainland.

Whilst we will be over the Antarctica Treaty area for around 4 hours, approximately 3 - 4 hours will be spent flying over the Antarctic continent.

In planning our route, considerable time is taken to select the most spectacular area of Antarctica within aircrafts range. The selected area will be chosen from 19 different flight plans,taking into account:

Maximum viewing potential from both sides of the aircraft
Maximum penetration over Antarctica
Maximum variety in land mass scenery, including high mountains, glaciers, ice plateau and coastline
The best possibility for viewing should weather conditions be adverse

Flights:

Melbourne: 15 Nov 2020
Sydney: 22 Nov 2020
Melbourne New Year's Eve: 31 Dec 2020
Perth Australia Day: 26 Jan 2021
Brisbane: 7 Feb 2021
Adelaide Valentine's Day: 14 Feb 2021
Sydney: 21 Feb 2021

While this is on a Qantas plane, it's a charter flight so points/status credits are not earned.

Travel Airfare Antarctica Qantas

31 Dec 2020

Related Stores

antarcticaflights.com.au

Qantas

closed Comments

waterbottled on 13/08/2020 - 10:58

+7

yeah nah, fighting to look through a tiny porthole with a plane full of other people doesn't seem appealing to me.
- jv on 13/08/2020 - 10:59
  
  -2
  
  Maximum penetration over Antarctica
  
  That sounds enticing…
  - PainToad on 13/08/2020 - 11:17
    
    +5
    
    That sounds enticing…
    
    I think you mean ent-ice-ing
  - Yamai on 13/08/2020 - 14:45
    
    Slippery when wet
- chrismor on 13/08/2020 - 11:01
  
  +2
  
  wondering what kind of experience do you get if you are NOT sitting by the window
  - HardQuiz on 13/08/2020 - 11:11
    
    +3
    
    You get to sit on someone’s lap
  - odysseus on 13/08/2020 - 11:21
    
    +2
    
    For 1199 you get to stand in the aisle and common areas peering over others to see through the window.
- MS Paint on 13/08/2020 - 11:06
  
  +3
  
  tiny porthole
  
  Actually….
  
  https://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a25052/why-the-dream…
  
  As a result, the Dreamliner's windows can be much larger than previous models, allowing you to get a better view as you fly.
- 51ngh on 13/08/2020 - 12:05
  
  The idea of fighting to look through a tiny porthole with a plane full of other people might not personally sound appealing to you, but is that a valid reason to neg the deal ?
  https://www.ozbargain.com.au/wiki/help:voting_guidelines
  - waterbottled on 13/08/2020 - 12:35
    
    Negged coz paying over a thousand dollars to do so is not a deal in.
jv on 13/08/2020 - 10:58

-6

Do you need a passport for these flights?
- MS Paint on 13/08/2020 - 11:04
  
  No
- mopo on 13/08/2020 - 11:04
  
  if you bothered to read the link, you would see that you do not as it is counted as s domestic flight.
  - waterbottled on 13/08/2020 - 11:14
    
    +8
    
    smart people don't read, they get others to do it for them.
    
    /s
    - 31mop on 13/08/2020 - 13:43
      
      Can someone read what waterbottled said and tell me please.
- Calvin27 on 13/08/2020 - 11:17
  
  No we own a huge chunk of Antarctica. Let's never give that up haha!
  - jv on 13/08/2020 - 11:27
    
    -2
    
    No we own a huge chunk of Antarctica.
    
    But you need to leave Australia to get there.
    
    Also, doesn't this leave from the international terminal so you need to go through customs?
    - adrianhughes1998 on 13/08/2020 - 11:51
      
      Do you think the same applies when travelling to Christmas Island?
      - jv on 13/08/2020 - 11:53
        
        -1
        
        @adrianhughes1998: Does this flight go there too?
pingualien on 13/08/2020 - 11:00

+7

Thanks op im going to buy a middle seat so i cant see anything
popsiee on 13/08/2020 - 11:00

+3

Are they carbon neutral ?
- wfdTamar on 13/08/2020 - 11:14
  
  Yes, kinda ironic going to view something that's disappearing in one of the biggest causes of it only to view it through one kind of window when the 4k one you might have at home isn't good enough.
hellwolf on 13/08/2020 - 11:01

Is a 14 day hotel quarantine needed after coming back from one of these flights?
- jv on 13/08/2020 - 11:02
  
  -8
  
  Apparently…
- beatthatflight on 13/08/2020 - 11:03
  
  no, you haven't been anywhere. It's a 'domestic' flight for all intents and purpose.
  - odysseus on 13/08/2020 - 11:22
    
    +2
    
    Even for domestic flights into Sydney, you need quarantine.
    
    Only intrastate flights don't. Which this qualifies for since you return to the same city. But it's not about being "domestic."
    - beatthatflight on 13/08/2020 - 11:27
      
      fair, but the point stands, you don't need 14 days quarantine.
      - jv on 13/08/2020 - 11:54
        
        -2
        
        @beatthatflight:
        
        you don't need 14 days quarantine.
        
        proof ?
- DashCam AKA Rolts on 13/08/2020 - 11:23
  
  You beat me to it. I was going to add /s.
naman8913 on 13/08/2020 - 11:04

+3

So the only time you might have unobstructed views for half the flight time (due to rotation) is when you pay $3,199 for Superior Economy Class. Nope.
Nuclearvodka on 13/08/2020 - 11:14

+8

Great way to keep polluting for absolutely no valid reason whatsoever.
- fantombloo on 13/08/2020 - 11:15
  
  Do you eat hamburgers?
  - Nuclearvodka on 13/08/2020 - 11:17
    
    +6
    
    I do, but flying for 12 hours just to peek over the ice seems like a nice way to burn kerosene for no reason.
    Neg all you want, it's just ridiculous
    - fantombloo on 13/08/2020 - 11:21
      
      -8
      
      I didn't neg.
      
      But eating hamburgers and other meat makes more of a contribution to greenhouse gases than all flights and driving for the overwhelming majority of people. And like this flight is not at all necessary.
      
      Picking on this flight while eating hamburgers seems a bit arbitrary to me.
      - DashCam AKA Rolts on 13/08/2020 - 11:24
        
        +10
        
        @fantombloo: Gotta eat, don't gotta fly on a scenic flight.
        
        fantombloo on 13/08/2020 - 11:24
        
        -1
        
        @DashCam AKA Rolts: Don't gotta eat hamburgers.
        
        jv on 13/08/2020 - 11:57
        
        +2
        
        @fantombloo:
        
        Don't gotta eat hamburgers.
        
        Maybe you don't, but I do !!!
      - [Deactivated] on 13/08/2020 - 11:27
        
        +7
        
        @fantombloo: I think that's a bit of an unfair comparison. You're averaging out something not everyone uses. Someone taking this one trip is probably equivalent to someone eating hamburgers for years. Flying is one of the most inefficient modes of transportation and produces large amounts of CO2. Not even just flying, tourism in general. Expeditions to Antartica or to see polar bears in Canada actually makes the environment worse for them and reduces their health. I can send you peer reviewed articles if you like which show cases this evidence. What's worse is that a survey showed that these people knew but still decided to go just because they wanted to see polar bears. You're talking about someones diet, their source of protein and nutrients vs someone seeing ice for a few hours then averaging it out over the entire population. Lab grown meat is not far off yet green flying is decades and even if we manage to make it more efficient, it won't meet the demands which was expected to reach 15% of CO2 output by 2050 (again, I can send peer reviewed articles). Ultimately most of it is for leisure which is the worst part. Just leisure and taking instagram photos.
        
        fantombloo on 13/08/2020 - 11:31
        
        -1
        
        @[Deactivated]: I don't think this trip is a good idea.
        
        I just think the selective badgering of various things is a worse idea. You know, glass houses and stuff.
        
        What's worse is that a survey showed that these people knew but still decided to go just because they wanted to see polar bears.
        
        Here. You and everyone else can now know too. Buy I am expecting most will decided to go eat hamburgers just because they wanted to.
        
        [Deactivated] on 13/08/2020 - 11:42
        
        +1
        
        @fantombloo: So what then, because you eat hamburgers, trying to reduce your carbon footprint some other way is meaningless?
        
        fantombloo on 13/08/2020 - 11:44
        
        -4
        
        @[Deactivated]: Imagine driving at 100km/h through a school zone and telling someone else off for going through a stop sign when you smash into them.
        
        [Deactivated] on 13/08/2020 - 11:59
        
        @fantombloo: I'm guessing your completely carbon neutral then? My question to you is, I eat meat, should I fly or shouldn't I fly?
        
        fantombloo on 13/08/2020 - 12:05
        
        -1
        
        @[Deactivated]: I made no such claim.
        
        I'm not telling you to not fly, nor to not eat meat so as to protect the natural environment, or anything else. (I will say not consuming animals for their own sake is a decent thing that decent people would consider.)
        
        I am suggesting that a standard Australian meat consumer talking about the deleterious environmental effects of flying is the height of hypocrisy.
        
        [Deactivated] on 13/08/2020 - 12:17
        
        +3
        
        @fantombloo: You're right, just like scientist flying for conferences to discuss climate change, like billionaires discussing solutions to wealth inequality, because you produce CO2, talking about facts like the environmental effects of flying is hypocrisy as long as you are not carbon neutral and hence should not talk about it. Is it not overall still better to be self-conscious? What's the alternative? I still don't think it's a fair comparison. As I said earlier, one change is far, far easier than the other. One is utilized by entire countries, cultures and nations, the other serves a small rich population globally for what purpose really whilst producing disproportionally large amounts of CO2.
        
        tunzafun001 on 13/08/2020 - 12:36
        
        @[Deactivated]: NASA flew to the moon decades ago with ships that predominantly produce water as their waste. We have the means now to change our shipping, cars and aircraft with fuel cells and electric motors to be almost carbon neutral. We ju$t don't want to…
        
        P.S. I drive an EV charged off my solar. But I offset that by smashing a good burger!
        
        [Deactivated] on 13/08/2020 - 14:20
        
        @tunzafun001: yeah but it's goddamn expensive and they won't make money off it haha. That's what government is for right, well supposed to be.
      - Nuclearvodka on 13/08/2020 - 11:31
        
        +6
        
        @fantombloo: Well, we eat burgers to feed ourselves.
        While I agree we could reduce our meat intake, I don't see how flying nowhere for 12 hours is anywhere near as important as eating meat.
        
        fantombloo on 13/08/2020 - 11:31
        
        -5
        
        @Nuclearvodka: Because you do one every single day, usually 3 times, and that adds up. The other is an exceptional event. That's how.
        
        Because one is normalised by continued repetition, the other is marginalised because it is less common. That's also how.
      - popsiee on 13/08/2020 - 11:34
        
        +2
        
        @fantombloo: I didn't neg.
        
        I did :)
      - jv on 13/08/2020 - 11:55
        
        +1
        
        @fantombloo:
        
        I didn't neg.
        
        I did…
  - jimboner on 13/08/2020 - 11:38
    
    +3
    
    Stop being a troll… It's about reducing your impact as much as you can. Not stopping doing everything that has an impact on the environment
    
    Besides, one year of being vegan is basically equivalent to taking one international flight, so you're not exactly comparing apples here
    - fantombloo on 13/08/2020 - 11:46
      
      It's about reducing your impact as much as you can
      
      Except the bits you don't want to yet make the single biggest difference right?
      
      Besides, one year of being vegan is basically equivalent to taking one international flight, so you're not exactly comparing apples here
      
      By your own metric, which I suggest is only a glimpse of the bigger picture if you care to look into it, I am comparing equivalent apples here.
      - [Deactivated] on 13/08/2020 - 12:02
        
        @fantombloo: Let's take it one step further!
        
        If we're talking about change, what's easier, not going a flight once a year or changing your entire diet? I'd argue for the easiest change but most impact, it's definitely flying. Our country is the biggest exporter of coal. That's where a lot of our wealth, that funds your lifestyle comes from. You want to talk about hypocrisy and making single biggest changes? Yeah meat probably isn't even the best. So it just comes down to what we can do, small or big, that can contribute regardless of our situation.
        
        fantombloo on 13/08/2020 - 12:30
        
        @[Deactivated]: Slave traders made similar arguments a couple hundred years ago.
        
        [Deactivated] on 13/08/2020 - 13:00
        
        @fantombloo: Which is what?
        
        fantombloo on 13/08/2020 - 13:20
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        That's where a lot of our wealth, that funds your lifestyle comes from.
        
        That argument is now used for coal, meat, and really anything anyone wants to justify on the basis of it being right just because it's the done thing.
        
        BTW - "Just 100 companies responsible for 71% of global emissions, study says" - these companies don't do anything we don't pay them for.
        
        single biggest changes? Yeah meat probably isn't even the best.
        
        It is absolutely the single biggest, no cost option most people within a developed society can take to reduce negative consequences on the natural environment.
        
        Developed societies would have to adapt massively without flying, yet apart from affecting people's taste buds cutting out meat would arguably provide numerous positives for society. You say flying is an easier change? I disagree - I've not knowingly eaten any animal products for many years and find that less of an imposition than not being able to fly. That's just me, you'll be you, and we'll each find our own versions of ease and difficulty, but the bare fact outside of subjective valuations remains that meat consumption contributes more to deleterious environmental effects than flying and most other things for most people.
        
        The meat-eating-anti-flying hoard, who most often will still fly when they "have to" go on a holiday somewhere that's not Antarctica, is basically just a circle jerk.
        
        [Deactivated] on 13/08/2020 - 14:09
        
        @fantombloo:
        
        The meat-eating-anti-flying hoard, who most often will still fly when they "have to" go on a holiday somewhere that's not Antarctica, is basically just a circle jerk.
        
        I'm not just talking about Antartica
        
        That argument is now used for coal, meat, and really anything anyone wants to justify on the basis of it being right just because it's the done thing.
        
        I never said it was right. I simply made a statement that if people stopped flying, then we can reduce our carbon footprint by quite an amount. Then you said I can't make claims like that because I eat meat, that it's hypocritical, like you can't do one without the other. EITHER one you do will be good and better than nothing.
        
        these companies don't do anything we don't pay them for.
        
        Exactly, that's my point. I'm just saying, there's bigger fish to fry but that was hardly what I was getting at with my statement. I was merely stating facts and figures that show the effects of flying. Then you say I can't do that because I eat meat, so now I'm saying YOU can't do that because you rely on coal whilst I can take the moral high ground of using solar power hence you are being hypocritical and should not tell anyone not to eat meat or reduce their carbon footprint. (obviously I'm being sarcastic and you can/should keep informing people about the impacts of meat. I admire that you have gone vegan, that you continue to try to inform the world and that you're willing to have a discussion hypocritical or not)
        
        less of an imposition than not being able to fly.
        
        Why is that? Work? Family? Long term change you adapt to anything, even not being able to fly. Hell, for most of humanity we didn't fly but we still ate meat. Stop flying just means I don't plan holidays, no 'imposition'. Eating vegan means I have to start changing how I cook, ingredients I buy, look for other food sources where I can obtain the same nutrients. Most meat alternatives contain large amounts of sodium. Maybe to you, who's privileged enough to go on holidays are willing to sacrifice meat but what about 90% of the population or 60% of Australians who's never gone overseas? Is the majority supposed to give up meat so a small percentage of the population, including yourself, can go on holiday? Food is a big part of culture for many people and societies. I understand it is subjective but I'm looking at the majority here, maybe step out of your bubble for a bit?
        
        Developed societies would have to adapt massively without flying
        
        In what way? Around 50% of flights is leisure. Meaning instead of going to Singapore I go camping or stay home, not a huge adaptation. Leisure and relaxation doesn't depend on where I am, it's what I do and how I use my time
        
        but the bare fact outside of subjective valuations remains that meat consumption contributes more to deleterious environmental effects than flying and most other things for most people.
        
        I understand but again, you're missing the point. The post was about a flight to Antartica. Not a hamburger post. No one is refuting you. I don't even know who or what you're arguing against. I was surprised to see comments like this one on here (pointing out the pollution of this flight), normally people don't care. It was a good comment that demonstrated people are becoming more aware of their environmental impact then you come sweeping in out of nowhere 'do you eat hamburgers?' like what the hell? So, I'm addressing your points anyway. Even the article you posted, someone changing their diet will having a larger impact because NOT AS MANY PEOPLE FLY. Take someone who goes overseas once or twice a year then compare what percentage cutting out flying will do. It's not a fair analysis. I'm saying, IF you fly, THEN the impact of cutting it out is probably much greater than your article suggests. If someone fly's twice (or maybe even once depending on the numbers) a year, they're not going to reduce their CO2 output by 72% by not eating meat.
        
        Meat agriculture is responsible for 13-18% of greenhouse gasses yet feed like what, NINETY-NINE PERCENT of the population? Flying is 5% of emissions not considering other direct effects yet only FIVE TO TEN PERCENT of people fly. How do you not make that comparison? Do you not see how hugely disproportionate the comparison you make is?
        
        Let me ask you a question, tourism and flying has the potential and was on its way to reach meat production level pollution. What will you argue then and why is it different to now?
        
        fantombloo on 13/08/2020 - 15:01
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        Then you said ~~I can't make claims like that because I eat meat,~~ that it's hypocritical, ~~like you can't do one without the other.~~
        
        Fixed it for you.
        
        Driving EVs, having solar panels, not flying, and using metal straws while consuming meat is like fiddling while Rome burns. If you want to fiddle that's your business. I will continue to make it my business to call out fiddlers.
        
        [Deactivated] on 13/08/2020 - 15:13
        
        @fantombloo: After all that, that's all you've got to say? Not even going to answer any explicit questions I asked you when I've tried to address your points?
        
        Driving EVs, having solar panels, not flying, and using metal straws while consuming meat is like fiddling while Rome burns.
        
        I disagree and I've tried to make my point across to you. Someone could eat meat and not fly but produce less CO2 than someone who's vegan yet goes on holidays every year. What numbers and figures are you actually looking at here? Just whatever supports your beliefs?
        
        Let's say the world went vegan but now 30% of people fly every year. The net difference is in CO2 output is zero so how can you just simply say eating meat is significantly worse than flying when in my scenario, 100% of the population has to sacrifice what they do on a daily basis for an additional 20% to go on holiday?
        
        If someone eats any amount meat, drives EV, has solar panels, doesn't fly they're probably doing better than you are to be honest but yet their fiddlers. I support your view on meat and I agree that everyone needs to reduce consumption but I'm starting to think you don't care about pollution at all. I'm using YOUR numbers here so what gives? What did I say that was incorrect?
        
        Is it because you looked at raw numbers and I looked at those numbers relative to the number of people who contribute? Are you going to pull a Donald Trump and say I can't do that?
        
        fantombloo on 13/08/2020 - 15:20
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        I support your view on meat and I agree that everyone needs to reduce consumption
        
        No you don't, because if you did it would be your priority to support this most effective and no cost change above the other, many high cost, less effective changes you have put forward. Your support is rhetorical.
        
        [Deactivated] on 13/08/2020 - 15:29
        
        @fantombloo: Not travelling is high cost? How? You clearly have some cognitive dissonance and unable to accept facts and statements that don't support your belief hence your constant cherry picking of what to respond to and what to avoid. Your intentions are something else, something much deeper seeded and more personal that is masked as saving the environment because reading your previous comment, you don't care about numbers and facts at all. As long as we cut that 13% worth of emissions from meat agriculture rather than 1) Aim for larger companies that do most of the polluting if biggest change is your goal 2) Cut out one of the largest polluters in your life which is flying. You said so yourself, you don't care if someone fly's as long as they don't eat meat, that person to you is worthy of spreading the environmental message despite having a larger CO2 contribution. In that regard, you're no better than anti vaxxers, Donald Trump supporters or flat earthers.
        
        Reading your comments, it's clear you try to impose on the world what you think is right and what makes you sleep better at night. Maybe the figures show it's not that bad, maybe you travel often and to accept what I say is to accept that you are worse than meat eaters, maybe it just makes you feel better about yourself, that you're some SJW creating worldwide change targeting individual eating habits rather than massive polluters. Whatever it is, it is not for the environment and you know it. Ultimately, at the end of the day, you're the biggest hypocrite and selfish of all. Enjoy doing the companies biddings or as you call it, calling out fiddlers.
        
        fantombloo on 13/08/2020 - 16:12
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        Not travelling is high cost?
        
        I think my words make sense in context.
        
        other, many high cost,
        
        You also keep putting words in my mouth:
        
        You said so yourself, you don't care if someone fly's as long as they don't eat meat,
        
        Really? Where?
        
        13%
        
        Try again.
        
        Seven billion individual eating habits rather than a hundred massive polluters only giving seven billion people what they want
        
        Fixed that for you again.
        So I think I'm done stirring up trouble here. Cheers.
        
        [Deactivated] on 13/08/2020 - 16:21
        
        @fantombloo:
        
        Really? Where?
        
        Driving EVs, having solar panels, not flying, and using metal straws while consuming meat is like fiddling while Rome burns.
        
        Try again.
        
        Want to provide a statistic then?
        
        So I think I'm done stirring up trouble here. Cheers.
        
        More like you have nothing else to add, nothing to respond with and you're starting to realise the faults in your arguments
        
        fantombloo on 13/08/2020 - 18:31
        
        @[Deactivated]:
        
        Really? Where?
        
        Driving EVs, having solar panels, not flying, and using metal straws while consuming meat is like fiddling while Rome burns.
        
        I think fiddling is fine, great even, never said I don't care (again, where?), just that it's fiddling, and nothing more than fiddling, and there are much better things to do than fiddling while Rome burns, and I will keep saying that if someone says we should fiddle.
        
        This time I am done. Cheers.
        
        [Deactivated] on 13/08/2020 - 19:01
        
        @fantombloo: Oh cool, great you're supporting the consumption of meat now, thanks :) that's always great to hear especially coming from a vegan
        
        popsiee on 13/08/2020 - 19:03
        
        @fantombloo: Still going on , sorry Bud I don’t have time to read all of that . Crazy though The time some of us have . 🤪
        
        [Deactivated] on 13/08/2020 - 19:15
        
        @popsiee: Well I save 2 hours a day on travel with this lockdown stuff and at least try to engage in discussion to progress as humans unless people are so locked in a belief, that they refuse to consider anything else which is unfortunately most of the time.
  - jv on 13/08/2020 - 11:59
    
    +3
    
    All this talk about food has made me hungry…
    
    Going out to get a couple of Big Macs… and a thick shake…
    
    Yum !!!!
    - popsiee on 13/08/2020 - 12:02
      
      +2
      
      Tks jv for reminding me checked my Macca's app 20% off $10 + spend not bad :)
      - jv on 13/08/2020 - 12:15
        
        +2
        
        @popsiee: Oh cheers… I've got that too…
        
        I'll use the savings to add a few slices of bacon…
fantombloo on 13/08/2020 - 11:14

Can't breathe in the unadulterated local air, feel the chill, freely mingle with fellow travelers, see anything you can't see on a documentary on a much bigger screen, touch anything.

I don't see the point. I'm sure some others do. What?
- [Deactivated] on 13/08/2020 - 19:11
  
  I am suggesting that a standard Australian ~~meat consumer~~ traveller talking about the deleterious environmental effects of ~~flying~~ meat eating is the height of hypocrisy. (Fixed that for you). Imagine driving at 100km/h through a school zone and telling someone else off for going through a stop sign when you smash into them.
  
  Hey looks like my guess above was right, you weren't defending your stance on meat eating or the environment, you were just trying to justify your notion of travelling hence ignoring the disproportionate amount travellers have on the environment so you can do it without feeling guilty. It was nothing but utter selfishness, hypocrisy and selfishness guised in fighting climate change :D
Indomietable on 13/08/2020 - 11:17

Just hope that its not foggy!
capslock on 13/08/2020 - 11:22

+5

You have to endure 12.5 hours in economy class just to end up where you started? No thanks.
odysseus on 13/08/2020 - 11:25

+5

Can't see how this is a 'bargain'.

At ~6 hours each way, standard pricing for such a trip is usually around the $700 mark.

While this is to a 'destination' for $1199 you don't even get a window seat and have to peer from standing up in the aisle, so doesn't seem a bargain in any context.
- sharkfan12 on 13/08/2020 - 12:14
  
  You're paying a premium not to quarantine when you return. :-)
Sileeme on 13/08/2020 - 11:28

+1

Google maps is good enough for me
Chicken Kyiv on 13/08/2020 - 11:31

+1

this is really really really really cool
GG57 on 13/08/2020 - 11:42

+1

I'm not usually pessimistic, and am a good flyer, but there is an awful lot of water and nothing else for the majority of this flight. If, your god forbid, anything were to happen, the only option might be an ice airstrip on Antarctica. Hopefully you would survive that and only have to put up with extremely limited facilities in a very harsh environment, albeit in Summer, until you could be evacuated.

I know Australia is proposing building a concrete runway, but that won't be there for these flights.

The flights are totally pointless in my view.
- BillyG687 on 13/08/2020 - 12:40
  
  You've never flown to the US? It's all water once you leave the East Coast for 12hours.
  - waterbottled on 13/08/2020 - 13:34
    
    at least you get to land somewhere that's not where you spent 12 hours leaving.
  - GG57 on 13/08/2020 - 13:47
    
    I have, and there is a lot of water, but there are also numerous airports where that flight could land if required to.
    Nothing heading south though.
Elias11 on 13/08/2020 - 11:45

-1

If you read the website, it clearly states all seats are swapped half way so everyone gets time on the window.
12.5 hours return = roughly is 4 hours to get there, 3-4 hours over the Antarctic (seat swapping) , 4 hours return.
- odysseus on 14/08/2020 - 02:30
  
  +1
  
  If you read the website, you'll see it clearly states NOT all seats are swapped halfway through.
  
  The cheapest class where "everyone gets time on the window" is business class - at $6499.
  
  In this deal at $1199, there is no seat change at all. If you read my posts above, you'll see what the view arrangement is like.
jimboner on 13/08/2020 - 11:48

+8
Not a bargain

An extremely selfish expedition just to go and see something that, by going, you know you are contributing to its destruction.

Being stuck in an economy seat of a plane for 12 hours to then land in the exact same place is not fun
- jupy on 13/08/2020 - 12:42
  
  +1
  
  Agreed, not a bargain.
Benoffie on 13/08/2020 - 11:49

+1

I haven't negd but this isn't a deal. These flights and prices are the same as always.
prisonmike on 13/08/2020 - 12:00

How much baggage is allowed ?
- jv on 13/08/2020 - 12:01
  
  +3
  
  Yes, you can take your ex-wife…
sharkfan12 on 13/08/2020 - 12:17

In flight WiFi? so I can look at pictures of Antarctica on Instagram during the flight
PurpleClover on 13/08/2020 - 12:24

+5

What is the original price of this? Otherwise not a bargain.

Is this really an essential activity during pandemic?
- odysseus on 14/08/2020 - 02:32
  
  This is their regular price.
  
  And yes, the covid-19 issue is another negative aspect to it. Unlike other flights, with the seat swapping during the flight in most cases, the risk will be much greater than any other flight at the moment.
TiLLiCoMe on 13/08/2020 - 14:15

Is the price for one way or return?
Nomoneynotalk on 14/08/2020 - 23:00

Maybe it’s the only time to see Antarctica before China claim as its own.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABHk8fE5HlY&feature=share

This was posted 4 years 4 months 10 days ago, and might be an out-dated deal.

Flights over Antartica from $1199 Economy, Feb-Dec (Includes NYE) from Mel/Syd/Per/Bris/Adl on Qantas @ AntarcticFlights

Related Stores

closed Comments

Top Deals

New Deals