RunwayGirl From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 38 posts, RR: 11 Posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2883 times:
Just learned that Row 44 has received permanent authority from the FCC for its high-speed Internet system (now being tested by Southwest and Alaska). This will give Aircell a bit of competition, but it also means carriers can again offer Internet on overseas flights (Row 44 is run over a Ku-band link). I wonder if Southwest will push forward with fleet-wide installs (it is a little preoccupied right now)...anyone have some insight?
QANTAS747-438 From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 1540 posts, RR: 0 Reply 1, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2608 times:
We are currently in the process of figuring out how much paxs are willing to charge. On our 4 test planes that actually have it installed right now, they're are offering it for $2-$12 depending on flight length. Once they figure out a good price point, then things will start moving forward.
I do think that WN is looking to do this fleetwide.
My posts/replies are strictly my opinion and not that of any company or organization.
FX772LRF From Luxembourg, joined Apr 2009, 675 posts, RR: 14 Reply 2, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2581 times:
This would definitely attract more passengers. I for one, would most definitely take WN if their fleet was outfitted with Wifi. I tried it on a recent FL flight, and it was probably the best thing since sliced bread.
And.........I can check A.net from FL300. How great would that be?
-FX772LRF
Cleared to IAH via CLL 076 radial/BAZBL/RIICE3, up to 3k, 7k in 10, departure on 134.3, squawk 4676, Colgan 9581.
FlyMIA From United States of America, joined Jun 2001, 5452 posts, RR: 6 Reply 3, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2569 times:
Quoting FX772LRF (Reply 2): And.........I can check A.net from FL300. How great would that be?
I really do not think I need to check my internet flying from MIA-DCA I can live with out A.Net for a few hours but it would be great on long haul flights and I must say checking Airliners.net at FL350 sounds pretty cool to me! I would not spend more than $10 on it.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
Cubsrule From United States of America, joined May 2004, 19201 posts, RR: 18 Reply 4, posted (2 years 6 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2480 times:
Quoting QANTAS747-438 (Reply 1): I do think that WN is looking to do this fleetwide.
There's not very much downside. Unlike PTVs, the installation is easy and the system doesn't add much weight. If people are willing to pay for it, they'd seemingly be foolish not to.
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1710 posts, RR: 15 Reply 5, posted (2 years 6 months 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1966 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Quoting FlyMIA (Reply 3): I really do not think I need to check my internet flying from MIA-DCA I can live with out A.Net for a few hours but it would be great on long haul flights and I must say checking Airliners.net at FL350 sounds pretty cool to me! I would not spend more than $10 on it.
I'm doing it right now on VX and it works very well. It's even fast enough for YouTube!
For BOS-LAX I would say $12 is reasonable (it's less than what most hotels charge these days), but for a short hop, not so much...
Lrdc9 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 605 posts, RR: 0 Reply 6, posted (2 years 6 months 5 days 18 hours ago) and read 1785 times:
Indeed I bought WiFi for my VX flight IAD-SFO. Im not sure whether I'd do it again however. The price seems a bit too high. It is however the best thing since I bought my shiny new laptop . The internet was also happily fast, with very few glitches even through heavy clouds, rain and turb.
Stitch From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 22936 posts, RR: 78 Reply 7, posted (2 years 6 months 5 days 17 hours ago) and read 1706 times:
So while Row 44 also uses Ku-band, it is not compatible with the Connexion by Boeing hardware? Though being some 80% lighter, I imagine airlines that had Connexion by Boeing would rip it out and replace it with this new system, anyway.
I used Connexion by Boeing extensively and have missed it on my long-haul travels. So I hope to see this new system be adopted by former Connexion by Boeing operators like SQ, LH and NH.
Silver1SWA From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3894 posts, RR: 31 Reply 8, posted (2 years 6 months 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 1430 times:
Quoting FX772LRF (Reply 2): I tried it on a recent FL flight, and it was probably the best thing since sliced bread.
I recently had the pleasure of flying on one of our test aircraft, and yes I would agree...very cool! I just had to share with my Facebook community that I was surfing the web at 39,000 feet ! And I NEVER use facebook anymore...says a lot. lol
ALL views, opinions expressed are mine ONLY and are NOT representative of those shared by Southwest Airlines Co.
Row 44's hardware is nowhere near as heavy as CBB. Its antennas, for example, are significantly smaller than the big MELCO antennas on CBB-equipped aircraft. Lufthansa wants to reignite its CBB service, and is in talks with Panasonic on a way to do that - and keep the MELCO - antennas, which are still on many of its aircraft.
Sponsor Message: 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2008, 38 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Apr 2009, 675 posts, 
. The internet was also happily fast, with very few glitches even through heavy clouds, rain and turb.
And I NEVER use facebook anymore...says a lot. lol
Printer friendly format 
