Reader Comments (rss)

(Flattened / Threaded)

1. 

   minijedimaster, Mar 31st, 2009 @ 5:42pm

   
   

   Price and Convenience is king

   It's always been sort of a mystery why so many people indicate so much demand for in-flight internet, but then not enough actual paying customers materialize to keep the services afloat.

   
   

   What's the mystery? Everyone would like to have internet while travelling, but no one is willing to pay some outrageous fee for it. Plus there needs to be convenience .

   If I'm buying my airline tickets they need to offer right up front, would you like to pay a $10 fee for in flight internet access? And then give me some sort of code to input into my wireless settings for it to work.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

2. 

   Ryan, Mar 31st, 2009 @ 5:54pm

   
   

   right

   the problem is all the addon fees. If they just added all of that crap into the ticket price I'd be fine with it.
   
   I'm perfectly happy paying an extra $20 up front to book on an airline that has WIFI, it's the extra $20 on the plane that day that makes me say "screw that i'll just watch a DVD instead"

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

3. 

   Anonymous Coward, Mar 31st, 2009 @ 5:58pm

   
   

   But you risk TSA breakage or confiscation.
   Soon there will be laptops provided to you, like earbuds today. The only prob - do not divulge personal info.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

4. 

   Christopher Froehlich, Mar 31st, 2009 @ 6:18pm

   
   

   Conflict?

   Doesn't this (slightly) conflict with the earlier story of 10,000 successful in-flight phone calls in Europe? The principle demand is the same: connect point A to B, while point A is in motion on a plane. In the case of digital phone communication, you're talking about voice traffic. In the case of WiFi Internet communication, you're talking about data traffic and voice over data traffic. Suddenly, voice traffic is demanded and required without dispute but data without voice is a superfluous traffic that no one wants?

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

5. 

   Matt, Mar 31st, 2009 @ 7:10pm

   
   

   It's because before, when airlines were trying to offer in-flight internet, the only wifi capable devices people routinely carried were laptops, and it's a pain in the ass to use those on a plane. Now, everybody and their dog has a blackberry/iphone/palm/other smartphone with wifi, and it's as simple to use inflight as pulling it out of your pocket and sticking it into airplane mode. I'm guessing they'll eventually offer it as an amenity; wifi is seriously starting to get too cheap to meter (expensive hotels and airports notwithstanding).

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

6. 

   Brian, Mar 31st, 2009 @ 8:47pm

   
   

   What about competition from Row 44

   Carlo, you didn't mention that Southwest is trialing a similar service using Row 44, a satellite-based provider that offers much more bandwidth to the plane than Aircell, as well as over-water access during international flights.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

7. 

   Ryan, Mar 31st, 2009 @ 9:12pm

   
   

   the real reason

   the real reason most planes don't offer voice is for the passengers. As a frequent flier, I'd hate sitting next to somebody who's talking on the phone for 5 hours. It would be annoying as hell - especially on those red-eye flights where i try to sleep.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

8. 

   Weird Harold, Mar 31st, 2009 @ 9:58pm

   
   

   At $20 for use during a flight, it just isn't worth it. It's the same problem I have with many airport wi-fe setups. If you aren't a member of that network already, the price to use it for the 1 hour or so you are sitting in the airport is insane. The price just doesn't scale.
   
   Taking a 2 or 3 hour flight and paying that price is also just as silly, unless you have something totally important to do that just can't wait. Otherwise, you would work offline and connect at your next stop.
   
   I think if they shifted it over to either being included with the ticket or on a very small service charge, they might get takeup on the offer - but with the high price, it's just like those seatback phones - nobody used them unless they were truly desperate.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

9. 

   Kaiser, Apr 1st, 2009 @ 2:09am

   
   

   Satellite Is Cost-Competitive

   Who is it who makes the assertion that a dedicated ground based tower system has better economics than Satellite? I doubt if they have any idea of the cost breakdown. As it turns out the infrastructure costs are not significantly different between the two methods. What is questionable is the ability of ground-based systems to handle congested skies around major cities. No such questions hang over the satellite solutions. Further, Satellite based systems can BROADCAST television with no penalty, whereas no tower based system can have this ability without decimating its ability to handle TCP/IP (i.e. Internet) traffic. I do think ground-based systems make sense for small aircraft, though, since their needs are less, and a satellite antenna is large to carry on a business jet.

   [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

10. 

    Gene Cavanaugh, Apr 1st, 2009 @ 4:36pm

    
    

    Inflight internet

    Agreed, Carlo. I looked for inflight telephones and internet with great anticipation, when I was flying out (virtually every week), but the implementation was lousy - too expensive, and not all that convenient.
    They have a long way to go, but it would be quite popular if they could make it reasonable (though with free WiFi, it would tend to go against the grain to pay, and if you have internet, you have a telephone connection without an inflight telephone).

    [ reply to this | link to this | view in thread ]

Add Your Comment