Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
AA Will Test In-flight Wi-fi  
User currently offlineCollin260 From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 21 posts, RR: 0
Posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2942 times:

Next year, American Airlines will offer wireless broadband internet access on its 767-200s. A company called AirCell will be in charge of the internet access. However, AirCell says the service only works in the continental U.S. Anyone think this service will be popular on AA?


The approximate flight time today will be 6 hours in First Class and 12 hours in Economy.
15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineN62NA From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 4482 posts, RR: 7
Reply 1, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 2925 times:

Would be great - I hope it succeeds and they add it to the 757s too.

As it stands right now, the majority of people who will get to try it are people on the JFK-LAX/SFO runs, as those are the primary routes for that aircraft type.

Lucky for me, they still use a 762 MIA-JFK, though, so I look forward to trying it out!


User currently offlinePlanemannyc From United States of America, joined Aug 2003, 1008 posts, RR: 8
Reply 2, posted (7 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 2903 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting Collin260 (Thread starter):
However, AirCell says the service only works in the continental U.S. Anyone think this service will be popular on AA?

Depends mainly on the price, I think, but also on the sector length. I think the on-board telephones never took off that well because the price point was too high. If I have to pay $10 for a transcon flight, I would get it. At $20, I may balk. Business Class customers would probably be ok with that fee if their companies pay for it -- bb is far more useful in today's world than having phone access (and you can skype a call as well  Smile ). I would probably not get the bb service for short flights (NYC-DC) as the time you can have bb service would be limited (30 mins or so), but then again, if the price was right, I would go for it.

My $0.02 (bill it towards the bb fee!)

Best,

Wasim / Planemannyc


User currently offlineCha747 From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 785 posts, RR: 6
Reply 3, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2733 times:

Here is the info from AA's site:

The AA Press Release On Inflight Broadband

My question is, if they are going to be using a CELLULAR signal, then doesn't that put the kybosh on the theory that cell phones cause interference with navigational equipment?



You land a million planes safely, then you have one little mid-air and you never hear the end of it - Pushing Tin
User currently offlineLHRBlueSkies From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 4, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 2720 times:

Wi-Fi has had a lot of bad press here in the UK, as it's being linked to a increase in the number of children being off school with headaches and associated illnesses.

Makes you think, a) do we really need this installed in aircraft, and b) how can one be sure the technology is safe?



flying is the safest form of transport - until humans get involved!
User currently offlineAisak From Spain, joined Aug 2005, 763 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2720 times:

Quoting Cha747 (Reply 3):
My question is, if they are going to be using a CELLULAR signal, then doesn't that put the kybosh on the theory that cell phones cause interference with navigational equipment?

1) Cellular means the transceiver creates a coverage area which has the shape of a cell. There are serveral cells, one next to another, to create a greater coverage area. It has nothing to do with cellular phones.
2) Cellular phones are dangerous (or might be) aboard because and only because they are set at maximum power trying desperately to find a land base station. This is also applicable no any radio technology, the power of transmitions is gradually shifted until response is received from another device or station. If the response comes from inside the aircraft the power is less than using your cellphone at home.


User currently offlineInnocuousFox From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2805 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 5 hours ago) and read 2689 times:

Quoting LHRBlueSkies (Reply 4):
Wi-Fi has had a lot of bad press here in the UK, as it's being linked to a increase in the number of children being off school with headaches and associated illnesses.

That's not because of the signal itself but because they are up until 3AM playing WoW.



Dave Mark - Intrinsic Algorithm - Reducing the world to mathematical equations!
User currently offlineAzhobo From United States of America, joined Jun 2007, 348 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2656 times:

Quoting LHRBlueSkies (Reply 4):
Wi-Fi has had a lot of bad press here in the UK, as it's being linked to a increase in the number of children being off school with headaches and associated illnesses.

Makes you think, a) do we really need this installed in aircraft, and b) how can one be sure the technology is safe?

I am not sure how WIFI on AA flying US routes could possibly keep UK children out of school with headaches and associated illnesses?

HOBO


User currently offlineLHRBlueSkies From United Kingdom, joined Jan 2007, 493 posts, RR: 2
Reply 8, posted (7 years 1 month 2 weeks 3 hours ago) and read 2620 times:

Quoting InnocuousFox (Reply 6):
because they are up until 3AM playing WoW.

Funny!!

Quoting Azhobo (Reply 7):
how WIFI on AA flying US routes could possibly keep UK children out of school with headaches and associated illnesses?

Err, not saying it will, but the principle & effects of Wi-Fi maybe needs more research?



flying is the safest form of transport - until humans get involved!
User currently offlineIaddca From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 286 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2507 times:

Quoting Cha747 (Reply 3):
My question is, if they are going to be using a CELLULAR signal, then doesn't that put the kybosh on the theory that cell phones cause interference with navigational equipment?

An excellent question. AirCell uses the same EV-DO technology Verizon and Sprint use for their wireless broadband services. The ban on cell phones is the result of lobbying from Airfone, cellular carriers, and some airlines in the 90s which were concerned about losing Airfone revenue. But their arguments were utter nonsense, especially with corporate jet owners using their cell phones so frequently while flying at a broad range of altitudes.

The lobbyists claimed that the issue on board aircraft was interference with cells on the ground. This is why the FCC initiated the ban, not the FAA. And 3 watt cell phones at 1.9 GHz are hardly a threat to ATC communications and on-board instruments at 120 MHz. The biggest issue now is concern that other passengers will be annoyed. From a technical and interference standpoint, there is no valid reason why you can't start dialing your phone next time you want to call someone while you're flying.

[Edited 2007-08-13 01:06:42]

User currently offlineIaddca From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 286 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 2493 times:

Quoting LHRBlueSkies (Reply 4):
Wi-Fi has had a lot of bad press here in the UK, as it's being linked to a increase in the number of children being off school with headaches and associated illnesses.

I thought the American media was unsurpassed in scaring people with nonsense, but clearly they have strong competition in Britain.

If a 2.4 GHz Wi-Fi signal was causing kids headaches, I'd hate to see what a TV station would say about the 12.7 GHz satellite signal over which its content is sent to DBS subscribers.


User currently offlineXJETFlyer From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 327 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2454 times:

I think Internet access is long over due. I think no phone service should be allowed. I can handle internet service which allows you to text and send emails. This would allow the businesses and small business guys to stay in touch no matter where they are. It only makes since.

User currently offlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8551 posts, RR: 2
Reply 12, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2418 times:

I have a friend associated with AirCell and it sounds like very interesting technology. They are using one of the big USA cell players (I think Verizon) as an internet provider. The aircraft then has its own "cellular modem" if you will, with a range of +/- 50 miles.

It is expected that this technology (based on the ground) will be far cheaper than sat-based internet. Think about it, the cell towers are already there. No word on pricing yet, but it stands to be a lot cheaper than yesterday's sat-based internet we all thought would rule the world.


User currently offlineJetJeanes From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 1431 posts, RR: 1
Reply 13, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 18 hours ago) and read 2388 times:

Heres a question.. since many controls are computer controled, servos etc, Do any of the controls or componets operate
on wireless systems... Could a pax hack into a planes systems???



i can see for 80 miles
User currently offlinePiedmontINT From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 376 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 16 hours ago) and read 2343 times:

My question would be if and when internet is implemented onboard, will sites for "mature audiences only" be blocked as well?

I can see it now: "Sir, please make sure to keep your seatbelt fastened and the buckle visible." And I'm not thinking the F/A's are necessarily talking about the seatbelt's buckle either..

Also, the topic of skype on planes as well could easily be just as irritating as a cell phone and I wonder if it would possibly be blocked as well.


User currently offlineInnocuousFox From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 2805 posts, RR: 14
Reply 15, posted (7 years 1 month 1 week 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2245 times:

Quoting JetJeanes (Reply 13):
Do any of the controls or componets operate
on wireless systems... Could a pax hack into a planes systems???

I would think that since planes must operate in high-altitudes where you could get much radio interference as well as in thunderstorms where you could get signal degredation that there is no way they would rely on a wireless signal to do anything at all. That's just asking for serious trouble.



Dave Mark - Intrinsic Algorithm - Reducing the world to mathematical equations!
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AA Accepting Credit Cards In Flight posted Mon Jun 5 2006 17:58:52 by SMUDFWFlyer
AA To Test EFBs In 777s posted Fri May 5 2006 18:23:54 by Qqflyboy
AA In-Flight Service posted Fri Feb 10 2006 05:41:34 by Ckfred
FAA: Ban Of In-Flight Cell Phone Use Will Remain posted Fri Jul 15 2005 18:00:52 by PHLBOS
Wi Fi In The US And Western Europe posted Sun Apr 10 2005 04:19:46 by Swisskloten
Drunk AA Pax LAX-JFK 3/18 Dies In Flight posted Sun Mar 20 2005 00:13:57 by LTBEWR
Will AirTran Have In-flight Movies On The 737's? posted Mon Sep 29 2003 09:04:46 by Azafata
HP To Test Selling In-Flight Meals posted Thu Jan 2 2003 18:08:48 by Sleekjet
AA Passenger Tries To Open Door In Flight posted Thu Mar 14 2002 13:26:57 by LoneStarMike
AA Fokker 100 In Landing Accident Will Be Retired posted Sat Jun 30 2001 02:33:11 by Tupolev154B2