Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Qantas Drops Inflight Wifi - Lack Of Pax Interest  
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25780 posts, RR: 50
Posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9600 times:

Another airline is finding the inflight Wi-Fi model difficult to make work.


Qantas has since March has been offering inflight Wi-Fi connectivity on trial basis to passengers on its A380 services to London and Los Angeles is discontinuing the service.

The Wi-Fi access which allowed passengers to utilize their own personal electronic devices was utilized by "less than five percent" of customers according to the airline.

Due to the very low take up rate combined with the cost associated to provide the service, QF has elected to discontinue to offering at the end of November.

One interesting point brought up by the article was the nature of QF ops which are often longhaul nighttime flights in which customers preferred to sleep or relax, and not be connected to the web.


Story:
Qantas axes in-flight Internet after poor take-up
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stori...ific_business/view/1240958/1/.html

=


From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3217 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9586 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
One interesting point brought up by the article was the nature of QF ops which are often longhaul nighttime flights in which customers preferred to sleep or relax, and not be connected to the web.

bingo! its a different market. Asian airlines probably would have a higher take up due to the love of gadgets, and flights over continents, not water can connect to ground based 3 G networks rather than expensive satellite. Add in a night flight, and the desire to sleep on transpacific crossings, and i can see a very different market to say US transcon where everybody is awake and the ability to provide this service is much cheaper.


User currently offlineVCy From Cyprus, joined Dec 2012, 236 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9556 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Well if it was free everyone would use it. It's not a matter of expense, I just think that people are fed up with additional charges, especially if they paid what they paid for LHR-SYD OR LAX-SYD  

User currently offlineCXfirst From Norway, joined Jan 2007, 3075 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9517 times:

One problem I can think off is the lack of wifi across the network.

I didn't even know QF offered it on their A380's, and wouldn't have boarded (if I had flown with them) being prepared to connect or pay. Secondly, passengers on the A380 do have enough free entertainment to keep them engaged.

I think QF could have done better had it been across more of the network, made passengers more aware of the service. For instance, had it been on the PER-BNE sector on the 763 (which has less entertainment options than A380), I think there would be more uptake of the service.

Does anybody know the cost for QF to provide the service, and how much load the service could handle?

Reason I ask is to deduce the cost of offering it for free. Norwegian in Norway offer it for free, and I know of people who will choose to fly them for the free wifi. This could be used (if marketed right) as a way to steal back some Virgin passengers, but I fear the current system would not handle the larger loads, and hence problems will create negative publicity.

-CXfirst



From Norway, live in Australia
User currently offlineSCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1034 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9515 times:

Quote:
Cost was also likely a factor, with the price ranging from A$12.90 (US$13.45) to A$39.90 for various data packages.

THE factor is the cost. I wonder who is going to pay out of his own pocket up to US$ 40 to check their e-mails and a couple of websites in a flight (and that granted that the service is consistent). This is 2012 and Wi-Fi is free almost anywhere now (airports, coffee shops, hotels...) and your monthly home payment can be a fraction of that cost.

The longhaul nighttime looks like a bad excuse. An Australia-UK/US flight is a very long one and you certainly have time to watch a couple of movies, read, sleep, eat and get bored... many passengers (myself included) wouldn't mind to have Wi-Fi to check your e-mail/FB/preferred websites from time to time... but not willing to pay that amount of money for a service that you will likely have free just before or after the flight. Maybe rising the long-haul ticket prices just a bit (like $5-10) and being the first airline to offer long-haul free-wifi (yet in this case I wonder about bandwidth issues) would be a better marketing strategy.

[Edited 2012-12-04 07:09:13]

User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8493 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9424 times:

Quoting VCy (Reply 2):
Well if it was free everyone would use it. It's not a matter of expense, I just think that people are fed up with additional charges

Bingo! Wifi is a complimetary service not a pay service. Every fast food restaurant, bar and cafe, every bus station, and train, every cheap hotel offers it for free. People no longer expect to pay for it. The airlines don't seem to get that. I can save airlines thousands of $$$ with this little piece of advice: If you intend to charge for wi-fi, don't even bother setting it up. No one will pay for it.


User currently offlineLufthansa From Christmas Island, joined May 1999, 3217 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9392 times:

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 3):
eason I ask is to deduce the cost of offering it for free. Norwegian in Norway offer it for free, and I know of people who will choose to fly them for the free wifi. This could be used (if marketed right) as a way to steal back some Virgin passengers, but I fear the current system would not handle the larger loads, and hence problems will create negative publicity.

I'm assuming Norwegian use ground based systems like the US carriers do. That greatly reduces the cost. The problem with Australia, is that most of the country is desert, so, flying over it means no ground based system like in the US.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25780 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9359 times:

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 3):
Does anybody know the cost for QF to provide the service, and how much load the service could handle?

According to the story pricing started at A$12.90 (US$13.45)

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 3):
Reason I ask is to deduce the cost of offering it for free. Norwegian in Norway offer it for free,

Keep in mind the cost to provide the Norwegian and Qantas models are quite different.

Norwegian uses Row44 - same company Southwest has in the US - basically a end to end provider that specifically targets airline solutions in more narrow geographic areas.
Qantas because the nature of its operations had to go with something that has global reach and had to deal with a major commercial satellite provider Inmarsat for the bandwidth which is resold by SITA/Airbus.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 5):
Bingo! Wifi is a complimetary service not a pay service. Every fast food restaurant, bar and cafe, every bus station, and train, every cheap hotel offers it for free.

The cost to provide Wi-Fi on an aircraft is very different then a ground based solution.

Not only is their a huge initial equipment investment (can be several hundred thousand $$ per airliner), the monthly bandwidth cost can themselves can be huge especially for the satellite solutions from the providers, plus add in regular maintenance and upkeep.

This is not some $50 router and $25 monthly internet bill a restaurant might have to deal with.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineDTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 1683 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 5 hours ago) and read 9358 times:

Having flown for 38 years years I can count on one hand the number of pax that have asked about international wifi. I am not sure how well it is going domestically--people balk at paying for it. Remember seatback phones were supposed to be all the rage? Or that first generation of inflight phones that hung on the walls. Hope this does not wind up the same.


Qualified on Concorde/B707/B720/B727/B737/B747/B757/B767/B777/DC-8/DC-9/DC-10/A319/A320/A330/MD-88-90
User currently offlineycp81 From Singapore, joined Jun 2006, 437 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9305 times:

Looked like I was on one of the last flight that offered it. Was on QF1 SYD-SIN on 28 Nov last week, aircraft was VH-OQL, and wi-fi was still available.


My past and future travels - http://www.ba97.com/ba97/calendar/report.asp?handle=ycp81
User currently offlineSavannahMark From United States of America, joined Dec 2012, 45 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 4 hours ago) and read 9146 times:

Flew from Savannah to Philadelphia last month and had an opportunity to connect to the WiFi on the Republic Embraer 170 used on the route. Wanted to charge something like thirteen bucks to access the network for an hour and fifteen minute flight. No, airlines can keep their WiFi, I'll read a good book!

User currently offlinemah4546 From Sweden, joined Jan 2001, 33047 posts, RR: 71
Reply 11, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days 1 hour ago) and read 8874 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 5):
Bingo! Wifi is a complimetary service not a pay service. Every fast food restaurant, bar and cafe, every bus station, and train, every cheap hotel offers it for free. People no longer expect to pay for it. The airlines don't seem to get that. I can save airlines thousands of $$$ with this little piece of advice: If you intend to charge for wi-fi, don't even bother setting it up. No one will pay for it.

I pay for WiFi on domestic U.S. flights all the time. If it was free, everybody would use it, and the WiFi would be overloaded and not work.



a.
User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6927 posts, RR: 76
Reply 12, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 8628 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
The Wi-Fi access which allowed passengers to utilize their own personal electronic devices was utilized by "less than five percent" of customers according to the airline.

That is actually, higher than the average global uptake...
I am told, onboard GPRS service, has a better uptake on the biz pax... but that's different from WiFi...

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
One interesting point brought up by the article was the nature of QF ops which are often longhaul nighttime flights in which customers preferred to sleep or relax, and not be connected to the web.

Well, Emirates seems to disagree on that finding... their night flights, still have people connecting... the affecting factor is in the 'convenience' end...

To pay for WiFi separately, means "oh, it's an addition."... Postpaid GPRS on board means, "Oh, I'll pay for it later."

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 3):
I didn't even know QF offered it on their A380's, and wouldn't have boarded (if I had flown with them) being prepared to connect or pay. Secondly, passengers on the A380 do have enough free entertainment to keep them engaged.

THIS IS THE MAJOR PROBLEM! Many airlines that have had it on trial, did not effectively communicate that to the passengers or prospective passengers. Some airlines' crew (cabin crew, and cockpit crew), don't even realize that WiFi and/or GPRS onboard was available!

Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 1):
Asian airlines probably would have a higher take up due to the love of gadgets, and flights over continents, not water can connect to ground based 3 G networks rather than expensive satellite.

That's a regulatory nightmare on the telco side... and each country require their local operators to provide the service over their territory... Satellite, is the way to go. The 3G ground based network is cheap on the airplane, but not on the ground.

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 3):
Does anybody know the cost for QF to provide the service, and how much load the service could handle?

The Inmarsat SwiftBroadband? A couple of hundred thousand dollars for an aircraft... with only 432kbps per channel (up to 2 channels, if they bought 2 channels, unless they use 1 for cockpit services)... That's not much, that's why it's more suitable for GPRS service. How much load? go and figure with that bandwidth... (But there are ways to stretch that, if Qantas took up the option...)

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 3):
Reason I ask is to deduce the cost of offering it for free. Norwegian in Norway offer it for free, and I know of people who will choose to fly them for the free wifi. This could be used (if marketed right) as a way to steal back some Virgin passengers, but I fear the current system would not handle the larger loads, and hence problems will create negative publicity.
Quoting Lufthansa (Reply 6):
I'm assuming Norwegian use ground based systems like the US carriers do. That greatly reduces the cost. The problem with Australia, is that most of the country is desert, so, flying over it means no ground based system like in the US.

No, Norwegian use the Row44 system using a Ku-band satellite. The reason why they can provide it for free because Ku-band is relatively cheap. An airline like Norwegian can hire a (or a few) transponder(s) and pay a fixed monthly fee with a beam shot at a wide area such as a continent.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):
Qantas because the nature of its operations had to go with something that has global reach and had to deal with a major commercial satellite provider Inmarsat for the bandwidth which is resold by SITA/Airbus.

SITA/Airbus... I assume you mean OnAir as the service provider on the Inmarsat Swiftbroadband?

Yes, the global reach is a factor... plus, those flights go over the equator... which renders aircraft Ku-Band antennas useless for a few minutes in each crossing.

Then, there's the regulatory nightmare... each country has different rules with regards to being able to transmit the signal beams over its territory. To go LHR-SIN-SYD, the system officially has to be switched off over several countries... but we know some airlines and service providers would just love to ignore that. SYD-LAX, is a different story... you can switch it on until entering US territory (not airspace).

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):
This is not some $50 router and $25 monthly internet bill a restaurant might have to deal with.

Multiply it by 100 and you'll get near the number!    That's just the router...

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 8):
Having flown for 38 years years I can count on one hand the number of pax that have asked about international wifi. I am not sure how well it is going domestically--people balk at paying for it. Remember seatback phones were supposed to be all the rage? Or that first generation of inflight phones that hung on the walls. Hope this does not wind up the same.

The uptake in US Domestic is about 4% as well...
Anyways, airlines must realize that 'just providing WiFi' is bound to fail... unless you provide GPRS service.
For WiFi to succeed, airlines need to make passengers want to connect to an offline content server onboard, with several features requiring connectivity... and... for a fee. GoGo (who provides onboard WiFi using terrestrial systems in the US, and 'trying to provide satcom wifi outside the US while learning non-US telco regulations the hard way') finally resorted into providing offline content for free in addition to pay service... but not sure how that's going. There are several airlines who picked up early the realization that to make WiFi onboard a success, that they need to look at it from a 'content' point of view instead of a 'pipeline' point of view.

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6584 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 8606 times:

The anti-IFE crowd must be crying, since they actually think that Wi-Fi can completely replace IFE. Qantas doesn't seem to agree. If you make Wi-Fi free, yes more people would use it, but then many users will start hogging data and the service will become unusable for most people.


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlinempdpilot From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 994 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 4 days ago) and read 8560 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 12):
Anyways, airlines must realize that 'just providing WiFi' is bound to fail... unless you provide GPRS service.

pardon my ignorance, but what is GPRS service?



One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8493 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 8357 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 7):
The cost to provide Wi-Fi on an aircraft is very different then a ground based solution.

That's the airline's problem. As an individual I don't care. I expect to have it for free and won't pay for it. And apparently plenty other people share the same opinion.


User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3432 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8270 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 5):
Bingo! Wifi is a complimetary service not a pay service. Every fast food restaurant, bar and cafe, every bus station, and train, every cheap hotel offers it for free. People no longer expect to pay for it. The airlines don't seem to get that. I can save airlines thousands of $$$ with this little piece of advice: If you intend to charge for wi-fi, don't even bother setting it up. No one will pay for it.

Completely agree

Quoting mah4546 (Reply 11):
I pay for WiFi on domestic U.S. flights all the time. If it was free, everybody would use it, and the WiFi would be overloaded and not work.

Do you expense it as a business expense or do you fly frequently where one of their packages makes it a little more economical?

Quoting SavannahMark (Reply 10):
Flew from Savannah to Philadelphia last month and had an opportunity to connect to the WiFi on the Republic Embraer 170 used on the route. Wanted to charge something like thirteen bucks to access the network for an hour and fifteen minute flight. No, airlines can keep their WiFi, I'll read a good book!

The issue is (and I don't know the exact specifics) but it is not just the airlines that set the price, it is mostly the wifi provider. There was a report on the ny times or wsj that domestic US wifi usage on GoGo's network is extremely low, and what did GoGo do....they raised their prices. In my opinion they are now extremely inflated. My unlimited internet (well for the most part) at home is something like $40/month yet I'm going to pay $15 for a few hours....no thanks


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25780 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8205 times:

Quoting DTWPurserBoy (Reply 8):
Hope this does not wind up the same.

There is indeed a big question as to the economic viability of inflight internet.

The service providers continue to lose money, while airlines themselves have invest money without seeing adequate returns.

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 12):
SITA/Airbus... I assume you mean OnAir as the service provider on the Inmarsat Swiftbroadband?

Yes. Its a joint venture with Aibus & SITA.

Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 14):
pardon my ignorance, but what is GPRS service?

General Packet Radio Service

Some airlines (outside the US) also offer text messaging and cell phone use.

Probably a more useful item for many passengers than wi-fi internet.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 15):
That's the airline's problem. As an individual I don't care. I expect to have it for free and won't pay for it. And apparently plenty other people share the same opinion.

I'm certainly not one.

To me its a supplementary or convenience feature, I fully expect parties to earn money on it.
Frankly I don't ever expect free internet, whether on the ground or especially in the air. There is no God given right to being connected.

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 16):
The issue is (and I don't know the exact specifics) but it is not just the airlines that set the price, it is mostly the wifi provider. There was a report on the ny times or wsj that domestic US wifi usage on GoGo's network is extremely low, and what did GoGo do....they raised their prices.

Here is that article:
US Airlines: We Have Wi-Fi, But Few Pax Pay To Use (by LAXintl Sep 24 2012 in Civil Aviation)

Go-go says of 1,565 fitted aircraft the usage rate was 5.4%. Far below number needed to cover cost. (estimated to be 20% usage rate)

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 16):
In my opinion they are now extremely inflated. My unlimited internet (well for the most part) at home is something like $40/month yet I'm going to pay $15 for a few hours....no thanks

You realize you can by a monthly pass with go go for $45/mo.

You can also get a 24-hour day pass for mere $14 by buying before you fly.

Those are extremely good value compared to pricing on the ground, mindful of all the cost and complexity of providing it to you on a plane.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinebobloblaw From United States of America, joined Jan 2012, 1725 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8191 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Thread starter):
Qantas has since March has been offering inflight Wi-Fi connectivity on trial basis to passengers on its A380 services to London and Los Angeles is discontinuing the service.

I think there is the problem. People dont need WiFi on those long haul routes. It is business routes in Australia where they are needed. SYD-BNE/MEL might be too short as well as CBR-MEL, but SYD-PER, MEL-BNE, SYD-ADL should have good demand for REASONABLY priced WiFi.

Quoting SavannahMark (Reply 10):
Wanted to charge something like thirteen bucks to access the network for an hour and fifteen minute flight. No, airlines can keep their WiFi, I'll read a good book!

It is way way too pricey.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 13):
The anti-IFE crowd must be crying, since they actually think that Wi-Fi can completely replace IFE

WiFi is IFE, you mean AVOD. Weight is a big reason why it will. I still believe AVOD will be a thing of the past by 2015. The airline will have a entertainment database you connect to with your device and for a $2-$8 fee you can have music.movies/tv shows. On long flights it will be free.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 13):
If you make Wi-Fi free, yes more people would use it, but then many users will start hogging data and the service will become unusable for most people.

Sure in 2012, but in 2015???


User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4303 posts, RR: 1
Reply 19, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8171 times:

Well, there goes my entertainment on my flight next month to SYD. I will just have to download a few movies on to my laptop...wait I will just read a book.


Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineOB1504 From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 3392 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8084 times:

Quoting bobloblaw (Reply 18):
WiFi is IFE, you mean AVOD. Weight is a big reason why it will. I still believe AVOD will be a thing of the past by 2015. The airline will have a entertainment database you connect to with your device and for a $2-$8 fee you can have music.movies/tv shows. On long flights it will be free.

   In a few years, all most passengers will need in terms of IFE is a power outlet to connect their own personal devices to, and perhaps Wi-Fi. I wouldn't mind paying up to $20 for Wi-Fi depending on the length of the flight, but to each his own.


User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8493 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8084 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 17):

To me its a supplementary or convenience feature, I fully expect parties to earn money on it.
Frankly I don't ever expect free internet, whether on the ground or especially in the air. There is no God given right to being connected.

I expect Internet access to be complimentary, not free. Just as complimentary as the IFE, or bathroom access, or the drinking water they provide. It's up to the airline to figure out how to provide this service in a manner that is cost effective to them. Charging an anciliary fee is not the way to do it. It has never worked and it will never work. Especially when the airline already provides a huge variety of inflight entertainment that is complimentary. In this day and age not enough people are willing to pay for wi-fi.


User currently offlineusairways85 From United States of America, joined Nov 2001, 3432 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 22 hours ago) and read 8065 times:

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 17):
You realize you can by a monthly pass with go go for $45/mo.

You can also get a 24-hour day pass for mere $14 by buying before you fly.

Those are extremely good value compared to pricing on the ground, mindful of all the cost and complexity of providing it to you on a plane.

Yes, I referred to the montly pass in my previous post. I do not fly an airline that has installed gogo fleet wide so that doesn't benefit me, however I do agree it is a good value. Note that it appears to be $55/month now.

The 24 hour pass can help if you are connecting and thus will be on multiple flts, however I wouldn't exactly use "mere" to describe paying $14 for say 4 hours of wifi time on a 2 leg trip.

Also mind you these are prices for domestic US service. Qantas charged between $13-40 per flight based on the data package. And as we all know with the days of unlimited data almost gone, it doesn't take much surfing to eat up quite a bit of data.


User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25780 posts, RR: 50
Reply 23, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 8000 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 21):
I expect Internet access to be complimentary, not free.

I rather not burden every traveler with having to cover the cost of my internet.

Keep it simple. You want Wi-Fi pay for it. Why make airline figure out how to recover million dollars of cost from every ticket holder.

I guess this is a reason why I love the simplicity of carriers like Spirit, Ryanair. Pay for what you only utilize.

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 22):
Note that it appears to be $55/month now.

No its still $45/month.

$55 is if you want a pass across all airlines that have go-go.

https://www.gogoair.com/gogo/listAllProducts.do

Quoting usairways85 (Reply 22):
however I wouldn't exactly use "mere" to describe paying $14 for say 4 hours of wifi time on a 2 leg trip.

Each to his own. Depends how you value your time. In your analogy $14/4 = $3.50/hr. What else can you for $3.50?

The $14 is the price of a cocktail in a bar, cost to valet your car, a movie ticket, etc..

Not much money to be connected or entertained inflight for a few hours imo.



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2368 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (1 year 10 months 3 weeks 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 7671 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 12):
Anyways, airlines must realize that 'just providing WiFi' is bound to fail... unless you provide GPRS service.

Why would GPRS be critical? Most smartphones will connect to WiFi for data now, and I'd bet almost all will in another year or two.


25 DeltaMD90 : I am not calling you out, but why does this debate always seem to pop out? It's like many here have a personal, vested interest in one and hate the o
26 1337Delta764 : I'm not saying that if you support in-flight Wi-Fi that you must also hate IFE/AVOD. What I dislike is the mentality of some users who think that air
27 qf340500 : If you want Wi-Fi on a plane and you can't live without a internet connection (to tell the world that you are having a sandwich on a plane just now, w
28 qf002 : It should be noted that QF offered this service to F/J pax as a complimentary addition. That's the key target market, so if they are still getting poo
29 SCQ83 : For some business travelers, being disconnected for a long period (let's say 8-9 hours in a typical Trans Atlantic flight) might be an annoyance. Als
30 aerokiwi : Um, have you been to Australia lately? Or New Zealand? The wifi offering in these countries is far behind that offered even in some developing countr
31 GSPflyer : Not surprising, as anyone who has flown a QF A380 knows how much IFE there is. Doubt I would pay for it with that much entertainment available for no
32 Post contains images mandala499 : Why? You pay with your postpaid mobile service, get the bill at the end of the month... then you can pay for it or charge your employer for it. With
33 Post contains images LLA001 : In the old days at the check-in, they used to ask smoking or non-smoking? Now it should be wifi or non-wifi Wi-fi on the airplanes is really on it inf
34 qf002 : That is in part due to the fact that we have the second highest penetration of smartphones in the world (40%), and one of the highest number of mobil
35 Richcandy : Hi With regards to WIFI vs AVOD does it not depend on the sort of person you are and the duration of the flight? I don't watch movies and did't have a
36 SIA747Megatop : I don't think the price of the product is singlehandedly responsible for the cessation of WiFi in QF's fleet. I'm sure most of the people using the Wi
37 rwessel : Ah. You're misusing the term GPRS the same way many wireless carriers do. The billing aspect of packet switched service are not GPRS, but often show
38 pellegrine : Quoting the article: "Cost was also likely a factor, with the price ranging from A$12.90 (US$13.45) to A$39.90 for various data packages" I'd say cost
39 RyanairGuru : Yes, but it is isn't quite as drastic as you make it sound. Obviously McDonalds offers wifi, plus several other places, and from memory there's free
40 fanoftristars : I don't get all this doomsday predictions for WiFi. What is going on at Delta? Does anyone know the usage? I pay for the monthly fee and note that mos
41 airbazar : I don't think so. It will only take one of two high profile Asian carriers to start offering and everyone will follow, just like it happened with PTV
42 SCQ83 : True, but probably their companies (which are paying for those Biz tickets anyway) are happy to put them in a plane with wi-fi connectivity.
43 Post contains images mandala499 : Point taken... let's call it... 2G connection onboard! The onboard BTS can take the GSM and US equivalent... Not sure if it can operate on both stand
44 Post contains images airbazar : I can't. That's the beauty of technology and progress. You never know what's around the corner or what brilliant idea someone will have in the future
45 mandala499 : Hence I said, "Keep dreaming"... one day we might get there. In the meantime, expect the free internet onboard to be limited to certain regions (that
46 sankaps : I flew QF LHR-SIN-SYD last month on the A380. Asked the crew if they had wi-fi, they said they were not sure, and they'd get back to me. Came back aft
47 DTWPurserBoy : Personally, I do not have a need to be constantly online. My life is not that complicated and if it were I would slow it down. It is bad enough now th
48 spacecadet : Cost is definitely a huge factor. I use in-flight wifi for business and I still won't pay more than $10 or so - in fact, this is what I pay on Delta.
49 Post contains images qf002 : It was free for F/J! And yet QF has still found that very few people used the service. Many people flying F/J actively seek to turn off while they tr
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...
Lack Of Airport Capacity Costs UK £14bn posted Thu Nov 15 2012 04:33:10 by speedbird9
Walsh Resigned To Lack Of Extra Heathrow Capacity posted Fri Oct 5 2012 11:41:46 by speedbird9
Lack Of CRJ 1000 Orders posted Tue Jul 3 2012 16:09:40 by southwest737500
CNN: Majority Of Pax Too Cheap To Pay For Comfort posted Sat Jun 2 2012 10:18:02 by planemaker
AA Increases Flight Time Due To Lack Of Crew posted Wed May 9 2012 19:59:16 by miaami
AA To Reduce Flying Due To Lack Of Crew posted Wed May 9 2012 10:10:57 by MAH4546
Tarom Allowing Access Of Y Pax To Business Lounges posted Fri Apr 27 2012 15:11:51 by fpetrutiu
Report: Qantas Drops Plan To Create Asian Carrier posted Sun Nov 27 2011 15:33:59 by jetblueguy22
Lack Of Printable Timetables posted Tue Oct 5 2010 00:59:47 by BooDog
EXT Closed Due To Lack Of Fire Cover posted Mon Aug 16 2010 10:12:05 by PlymSpotter