Yes, while not smoking gun evidence, these are very compelling.  In an emergency, they can't continue to feign the flight path they're taking and their location.  Also, for some reason, the "flight tracker" software does not function in the Southern "hemisphere".

I heard an interview with a pilot whose main route was between Australia and California.  He could never figure out why his path took him near Alaska, as he could always see Alaska on his route.  The he saw the FE map (well, the Gleasons approximation) and became a Flat Earther.

I skimmed over this PDF, and the first thing that jumped out at me, is that the closest path from one point to the other on a globe, is not necessarily east-to-west, or north-to-south, but a straight line.  I'm sure anyone here knows this, but if you take a piece of string, put your thumb down on Point A, then pull the string taut to Point B, your string will track a route that, depending upon where Point A and Point B are, goes over the North Pole, passes Alaska, passes Iceland or Greenland, and so on.  And as counter-intuitive as it seems, the closest point to Africa in the Lower 48 is not Florida, not Cape Hatteras, but... the coast of Maine.  

And airliners stay within a few hundred miles of land if at all possible, even if it deviates a bit from a "great circle" path, to-wit, again, flying in an arc over Greenland and Iceland.  I've done it twenty times myself (ten trips to Europe, round-trip).  When you look down over Greenland, all you see is whiteness, no way whatsoever to tell distance.

Granted, flat-earth models centered on the North Pole would return similar findings.

Yes, while not smoking gun evidence, these are very compelling.  In an emergency, they can't continue to feign the flight path they're taking and their location.  Also, for some reason, the "flight tracker" software does not function in the Southern "hemisphere".

I heard an interview with a pilot whose main route was between Australia and California.  He could never figure out why his path took him near Alaska, as he could always see Alaska on his route.  The he saw the FE map (well, the Gleasons approximation) and became a Flat Earther.

We once flew from New York to London. I never understood why we took the "Artic Route." We flew over ice for hours.

We once flew from New York to London. I never understood why we took the "Artic Route." We flew over ice for hours.

Was it truly "Arctic", or did it just go near Greenland and Iceland?

Here's what New York to London would be, assuming a global earth.  Note that you end up over open ocean for about 2000 miles.  That's not good if you get out there and get in trouble.  A kind of arc that goes over Labrador, Greenland, and Iceland keeps you fairly near land at all times.  If a plane gets up there and gets in trouble, it would be better to land on ice and snow in Greenland, than to do an ocean landing, and rescue crews could be there, and on terra firma (relatively speaking), in short order, from Thule, Reykjavik, Gander, or wherever.  Better that, than trying to rescue passengers floating in vests in the ocean.

If a plane gets up there and gets in trouble, it would be better to land on ice and snow in Greenland, than to do an ocean landing, and rescue crews could be there, and on terra firma (relatively speaking), in short order, from Thule, Reykjavik, Gander, or wherever.  Better that, than trying to rescue passengers floating in vests in the ocean.

We flew direct from Cleveland to Hungary and went out of our way to Gander, and this is in fact the stock explanation for it, staying near land, but I don't buy it as there's no such concerns when flying across the Pacific, etc.  There's no regulation along those lines, and the airlines are not going to incur the extra costs in fuel and travel times (lower customer satisfaction) for a once-in-a-blue-moon event like a plane crash over water.  When's the last time we hear of a plane crash over the Ocean where passengers were being plucked out of the water?  Whether a plane goes down onto land or onto water, in both cases the likelihood of survival is pretty slim.

Over the Pacific, you don't have the luxury of being near dry land, as you do when you cross the North Atlantic.  Assuming the airlines' explanation is true, it might be a case of "don't borrow trouble", IOW, why say "we don't have dry land near us when we're crossing the Pacific, so even if dry land would be nearby along a bit longer course in the North Atlantic, we won't use it"?  And I'm referring to emergency landings, not crashes, where all they need is someplace to land relatively safely.  With a crash, you're ****ed no matter where the plane comes down.

FWIW, even FE maps centered on the North Pole show basically the same trajectory.  The closer you get to the North Pole, whether FE or GE, the less variable such point-to-point lines would be.

Well, I'm not buying the "near land" explanation for the Northern routes.  In either case, however, this doesn't come close to explaining the Emergency Stops described in that book ... many of which were in fact over the Pacific, nor the retired pilot who couldn't figure out why he could see Alaska on his Australia to California route ... until he saw an FE "map" and became a Flat Earther himself.

Well, I'm not buying the "near land" explanation for the Northern routes.  In either case, however, this doesn't come close to explaining the Emergency Stops described in that book ... many of which were in fact over the Pacific, nor the retired pilot who couldn't figure out why he could see Alaska on his Australia to California route ... until he saw an FE "map" and became a Flat Earther himself.

Did he pay attention to the compass? That should indicate no surprise if they see Alaska. Otherwise they could tell that they are following the lines of latitude. Maybe the airlines do what they do either as part of government safety regulation, or as an excuse to charge more, or maybe they pay the gov to make such regulations so they can charge more for certain destinations. If you had a little bit of imagination you can easily see how very widely the arc flight path to various destinations around a globe can vary a lot. Tilt the arc one way or another and it goes from a straight shot to following coastlines. Cali to Brazil is a much safer flight path than straight from Australia. It may also have to do with layover times and what flights are available and quickest, or what is most efficient for the airlines to connect the most people with certain destinations.

Look into AKL to SCL. It's 6000mi according to google. At 500mph it would take 12hrs, one flight advertises 11hrs. It is a straight shot across the Pacific.