American Airlines To Offer Wi-Fi In Planes 303
Firmafest writes "In USA Today there's a scoop that American Airlines will offer Wi-Fi on domestic flights. Price is approx. $10 to get connected. Being a frequent international flyer I hope this will catch on. The LA Times reports that the cost is about $100,000 to equip a plane. While that number seems high, it will probably be worth it. If I had a choice between two flights both equally good, I'd pick the Wi-Fi enabled one." The article also says that JetBlue and Southwest Airlines are at least experimenting with Wi-Fi access aboard, while Delta already offers it.
Filtering will be in place (Score:5, Insightful)
Backelin said the Internet access will be filtered to block pornographic sites -- the airline at first said it wouldn't do that, but relented after hearing complaints from customers and flight attendants. And American won't allow voice-over-Internet phone service, to keep chattering to a minimum.
DANGER DANGER (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Please turn on your electronics? (Score:5, Insightful)
If it pays for itself within a few months, then good. Profitable airlines == more competition, and less nickel and diming for snacks and hydration.
So, suddenly it seems... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Are you that addicted to the internet? (Score:5, Insightful)
That you can't be without it for a few hours?
Never been on a plane, huh? Let me enlighten you:
People on a plane will do anything to distract themselves from the cramped space, uncomfortable seats, stale air, stale body odor, and bad food. Including paying out the nose for booze, headphones to listen to a movie, or internet access.
Re:Are you that addicted to the internet? (Score:3, Insightful)
Read a magazine? Oh, that's right, printed words cause a severe allergic reaction in most people nowadays. I forgot, sorry.
Re:DANGER DANGER (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't recall the FAA ever saying that electronic devices WILL cause a crash, only that the planes have not been certified with the devices. So, if you have not done the certification testing (expensive), the prudent thing to do is say don't use the devices. Since, as you pointed out, they can make money on it now, it makes sense to spend the money on the certifications and allow some devices.
Also, while the FAA is concerned about cell phones for the same reason as above, the FCC is more concerned. Having thousands of cell phones hop from tower to tower at 500 MPH is not something the system was designed to do.
Not everything is some conspiracy to infringe on your rights.
Re:DANGER DANGER (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Please turn on your electronics? (Score:5, Insightful)
I've just stopped going to America.
Good solution, because we're the only [slashdot.org] country [slashdot.org] to spy [slashdot.org] on their [slashdot.org] own citizens [slashdot.org] or internet users.
Re:Please turn on your electronics? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Please turn on your electronics? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Filtering will be in place (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Avoid American Airlines (Score:3, Insightful)
I understand that historically bundled services are replaced with fees that it is upsetting, however I really have enjoyed knowing that when you load up to 100lbs (50lbs weight limit per bag) that it is paid for while I carry on my only luggage (which I have done for up to 7 day trips easily).
Since I have yet to see an airline that weighs carry-on luggage, I can see why you would like this policy. The only real criteria for the carry-on is that you must be able to fit it in an overhead bin and be able to lift it there.
Flying now, it is quite obvious there is a lot more carry-on luggage, and much of it is often at the very limit of size to fit in the overhead bins (with no hope of fitting under a seat). Basically, people have just stopped checking luggage because it costs more, but the airplane has exactly the same amount of luggage as it would have before the charges started.
I'd much rather see the airline charge $2-5 per hour of flight time more for the flight and not charge for the first checked bag. Among other things, it would speed loading and unloading of the plane, as I wouldn't have to wait for the people who can just barely navigate their max-size carry-on while inside the plane.
Re:$100,000 For A Wireless Router????? (Score:2, Insightful)
FAA regulations dictate a more stringent set of requirements for equipment for use on aircraft. Hell, even the service carts have to be certified. Above that there's significant testing and product development that has to go into this kind of deployment.
As an example, ARINC qualified ethernet connectors run about $80 apiece.
There's also onboard servers to provide credit card support services, localized content so it's not just a Wireless Router solution.
Re:DANGER DANGER (Score:5, Insightful)
That was a VOR they used. Mythbuster's test was completely invalid. All pilots/engineers who watched that test were banging their head on their remotes with frustration. Also, at the end of the show even the Mythbusters mention their errors were brought to their attention and point out their test may not have been accurate because their VOR WAS BROKEN IN THE FIRST PLACE.
The simple fact is, hundreds, if not thousands of planes fly every day with cell phones turned on. The truth of the matter is, cell phones in flight place a higher demand on a carrier's network. This has always been a political issue and has never been a safety issue.
Lastly, AFAIK, there has never been been a substantiated claim a cell phone interfered with the safe operation of a plane in flight. Furthermore, all of the reports which received significant news coverage were later determined to have absolutely nothing to do with passenger electronic devices.
Re:DANGER DANGER (Score:3, Insightful)
The ban on electronics in flight preexsits cell phones (late 1980's). So, while cell hopping is a real problem for the phone company, it's not the cause of the ban. The ban is simpley because they have know idea what you might be bringing aboard, so they blanket forbid everything.
We have found that if you go to the pilot and discover (s)he is a ham, you can usually get permission to operate a 2m rig.
Re:Implications (Score:3, Insightful)
How is AA going to prevent me from setting up my Meraki repeater once I'm aboard and start re-selling their service for a lower price?
The fact that if you start hocking your nerdly wares up and down the aisle, someone is going to alert a flight attendant. It's the same reason you don't have people selling you non-internet goods on the airplane.
If you just repeat it to your 2 co-workers no one is going to care, it will just make you look cheap.
Societal pressure will do wonders for stopping shitty behavior in the real world. It works double plus good when everyone has spent at several hundred dollars to enter a confined space. This is why you DO have people hocking wares in the terminal, but not on the plane.
Re:Please turn on your electronics? (Score:5, Insightful)
I was estimating around 3-4 flights per plane, per day (domestic), which, with your figures, would make it between 50-66 days to start being profitable given ideal circumstances.
Even assuming less than ideal circumstances it's still a very short time to get a 100% ROI.
Re:Please turn on your electronics? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Please turn on your electronics? (Score:3, Insightful)
Turning off electronics has never been about interfereance with the plane, if that were the case you wouldn't be allowed to bring items onboard at all.
Consider this: Your electronics are just as electromagnetically dangerous left switched on in your pocket as they are in your hand and all the airlines verify is that you're not holding any electronics, not that they're turned off.
Re:laptops? on planes? (Score:5, Insightful)
Lose a few pounds.
Re:DANGER DANGER (Score:3, Insightful)
That is not the claim. Were it so, it would be trivial to disprove for a specific case.
The claim is that it CAN cause interference, and yes, it can. Not every time. Not with every electronic device. I'm a pilot and I've seen it happen. But trying to figure out why there is interference and where it is coming from is enough of a distraction to flying the plane that the chance should be avoided. Is your "right" to call your girlfriend and say "guess where I'm calling you from" more important than the pilot not having to track down where the interference you are creating comes from?
Oh, what about those awful radio towers with kilowatts of power aircraft fly over? The last time I looked those were bolted to the ground and operating 24/7 or some significant proportion of that time. It is easy to know in advance that flying over a certain spot will result in interference in the instruments and that it will go away in a minute or two. (One of the standard instrument departures for Syracuse NY goes right over major FM station. Keep the wings level for one minute and the interference it causes goes away -- and every pilot who flys out of that airport knows it.) It is not so easy to identify interference coming from inside the plane that moves with the aircraft and thus won't naturally go away in a minute or two.
Oh, what about this new Wi-Fi equipment? Guess what the pilot has in the cockpit -- the "OFF" switch. If he suspects interference from that system, he can turn it off instantly to see if the problem goes away. That's a lot less distraction than having to remind all the passengers to turn their phones off. The same goes for any installed radio system in the plane. Not only is it fixed in place (so it won't wander around the cabin and maybe wind up someplace it will interfere), it's tested heavily.
And the final consideration is that the airline is willing to accept the risk for the known radio gear that it has installed itself, but not for every bit of cruft the passengers decide they want to bring along and fire up.