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, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9754 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, 3224 posts, RR: 10
Reply 1, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9740 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 (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9710 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, 3090 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9671 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 onlineSCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9669 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, 8670 posts, RR: 10
Reply 5, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 9578 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, 3224 posts, RR: 10
Reply 6, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9546 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, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9513 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, 1801 posts, RR: 7
Reply 8, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9512 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, 450 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 9459 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 (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 9300 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, 33289 posts, RR: 71
Reply 11, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 9028 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, 6972 posts, RR: 76
Reply 12, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8782 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, 6652 posts, RR: 2
Reply 13, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8760 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, 1005 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 8714 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, 8670 posts, RR: 10
Reply 15, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8511 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, 3475 posts, RR: 7
Reply 16, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8424 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, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 17, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8359 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 (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8345 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, 4416 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 8325 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, 3448 posts, RR: 6
Reply 20, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8238 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, 8670 posts, RR: 10
Reply 21, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8238 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, 3475 posts, RR: 7
Reply 22, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8219 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, 26175 posts, RR: 50
Reply 23, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 8154 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, 2429 posts, RR: 2
Reply 24, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 7825 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.


User currently offlineDeltaMD90 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 7983 posts, RR: 51
Reply 25, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7980 times:

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

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 other one (for some reason)



Ironically I have never flown a Delta MD-90 :)
User currently offline1337Delta764 From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 6652 posts, RR: 2
Reply 26, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7873 times:

Quoting DeltaMD90 (Reply 25):
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 other one (for some reason)

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 airlines are installing Wi-Fi to replace IFE/AVOD, when this clearly isn't the case. Not sure about QF, however, DL is continuing to invest in AVOD for both the international and domestic fleets; the 753s are planned to get AVOD and the 739ERs will all come with AVOD from the factory. If there was no future for AVOD, DL wouldn't be spending all of their money on it just to remove it in three years. In fact, DL is even making improvements to its overhead IFE systems on the PMDL non-AVOD 752s, where the CRTs were replaced by LCDs.

[Edited 2012-12-04 16:39:41]


The Pink Delta 767-400ER - The most beautiful aircraft in the sky
User currently offlineqf340500 From Singapore, joined Oct 2011, 160 posts, RR: 0
Reply 27, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 9 hours ago) and read 7893 times:

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, wow!!!) than PAY for it, whatever the price may be.. simple as that. I dont need it, i dont want it and i will not pay for it, and i will NOT be very happy if this would be included (hidden, bild in) in the ticketprice somehow.. good move from QF

User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 3020 posts, RR: 2
Reply 28, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 8 hours ago) and read 7297 times:

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 poor results offering the service for free to the people who are most likely to pay for it after the trial then there's very little point from QF's perspective in continuing.

I don't understand why QF should offer it free to anybody on board. It's the same sort of service as the satellite phones that every airline seems to offer these days IMO. I think the better path to follow will be getting 3G/4G cellular services into aircraft, and allowing passengers to use their own systems to access to access the internet.


User currently onlineSCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 7 hours ago) and read 6809 times:

Quoting qf340500 (Reply 27):

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.

Also, there is no possible substitute for a NYC-LON (unless you cruise), but flights are increasingly competing with high-speed trains that offer wireless service (the likes of PEK-SHA, LON-PAR, MAD-BCN, TYO-OSA...)

[Edited 2012-12-04 19:20:55]

User currently offlineaerokiwi From New Zealand, joined Jul 2000, 2751 posts, RR: 4
Reply 30, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 6 hours ago) and read 6456 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.

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 countries. It's remarkable just how backward it is, but that's a reality. Australian airports charge through the tooth for it and good luck finding free wifi spots, even in the CBDs of major cities. It really is that bad.

Amazing that the journalist didn't even bother trying to find out what uptake was like for other airlines. Must just be a filler piece they don't really care about.


User currently offlineGSPflyer From United States of America, joined Jul 2010, 369 posts, RR: 0
Reply 31, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 5 hours ago) and read 6280 times:

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 additional cost.

On the other hand, LAX-DFW-CLT on an AA MD-80 with no other IFE? I think I paid $15 for the one day pass, I thought it was worth it.


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6972 posts, RR: 76
Reply 32, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 5811 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 24):
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.

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 WiFi, it's a separate charge... sure you can pay by credit card, but the fact that you have to pay for it on it's own, is a hurdle. GPRS onboard, the users will see the payment as part of their cellular service... less of a hurdle (even if it's more expensive than WiFi onboard).

Aeromobile (ARINC & Telenor, now with Panasonic too), offer GPRS onboard service via Inmarsat Swiftbroadband backhaul. Their largest customer is Emirates (but with Emirates, the A380 WiFI & GPRS is provided by OnAir).

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.

Feel free to dream. You can have it for free on Norwegian   
But, expect free service to be limited to certain regions... ie: short haul, because it can rely on Ku-Band satellites, on a single transponder per region per airline if it's cheap enough (and in Norwegian's case, it is).
Want to go medium to longhaul? Keep dreaming... (at least until airborne Ka-band arrives... but that's still an no go for tropical/equatorial regions).
Or, expect a new mobile satellite technology...

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 17):
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.

Proponents of onboard internet have been saying over the past 12 months, that providing 'just an internet access', does not, and will not make them money... the uptake is just too low... a lot of airlines grossly overestimate the expected demand, and, for the SwiftBroadband, got the most expensive satcom suite... while analytically, if you take 4%... even the cheap low gain system on the SwiftBroadband, would do... and the equipment is dirt cheap.

Further compounding the problem, is that for WiFi, OnAir share the losses with the airlines. The real cost is about $5-7 per megabyte, pull out all the compression tools etc, and they're still subsidizing the passenger at their current prices.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 17):
Probably a more useful item for many passengers than wi-fi internet.

Over 30 million Emirates passengers, seems to agree... and Aeromobile certainly agrees to that.

Quoting LAXintl (Reply 17):
I'm certainly not one.

Me neither.

Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 26):
What I dislike is the mentality of some users who think that airlines are installing Wi-Fi to replace IFE/AVOD
Quoting 1337Delta764 (Reply 13):
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.

LOL! You simply, cannot replace IFE with Internet on board... you can however, use WiFi to transform your IFE (with or without internet access).



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently onlineLLA001 From Turkey, joined May 2005, 107 posts, RR: 0
Reply 33, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5621 times:

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 infancy. I am sure in 3-5 years they will be able to find a better and faster way of getting internet on board. Till then each airline and each airplane will have their own way of dealing with the issue of wi-fi. It reminds me of the days where we had to pay for headphones.


User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 3020 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 5600 times:

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 30):
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 countries. It's remarkable just how backward it is, but that's a reality. Australian airports charge through the tooth for it and good luck finding free wifi spots, even in the CBDs of major cities. It really is that bad.

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 mobile services registered per capita (we have more services than we have people from memory) anywhere in the world.

There are quite a number of places you can get free wifi in Sydney if you know where they are. It's taking time, I agree, but I don't think we're that far behind other major cities (particularly Europe). But good luck finding anything outside McDonalds in the suburbs...

The wifi service at SYD is free and pretty good. QF added the service to T3 earlier this year as part of their Optus partnership, and offers excellent speeds (only a bit slower than upstairs in the lounges) and coverage (ie virtually all gates, cafes etc). BNE, ADL and DRW all offer free wifi, only MEL and PER charge for the service, and CBR sadly doesn't have anything.


User currently offlineRichcandy From UK - England, joined Aug 2001, 734 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5406 times:

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 TV for 5 years. The only feature of AVOD that I like is the map.

I do however spend a lot of time using the internet and would love to be able to use it on a flight. But would I pay for it? Well on a short haul sector I don't think so. On a long haul sector maybe but it would depend on the price and the user experience.

20 years ago we were able to use phone on aircraft and you would think by now we would be able to use our own cell/mobile phones onboard. The take up of systems like "on air" has been very slow.

Maybe free wifi and the ability to use your own phone onboard an aircraft will become standard in years to come.

Alex


User currently offlineSIA747Megatop From Singapore, joined Apr 2012, 335 posts, RR: 1
Reply 36, posted (2 years 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5152 times:

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 WiFi onboard service are businessmen/corporates that need to stay up to date with work. These people (especially in premium cabins) are the likely target audience for such a product. Many such people are able to claim WiFi charges as a company expense thus giving the airline a new form of easy revenue which is why I dont understand why QF would give it for free in Business and First.

I don't think the carriers that charge by data usage are targeting leisure travellers that usually load data heavy (bandwidth hogging) websites whereas business/corporate travellers are more likely to just be reading news, checking email and downloading presentations.



That's Mr. Bovine Joni to you.
User currently offlinerwessel From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 2429 posts, RR: 2
Reply 37, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 4589 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 32):
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 WiFi, it's a separate charge... sure you can pay by credit card, but the fact that you have to pay for it on it's own, is a hurdle. GPRS onboard, the users will see the payment as part of their cellular service... less of a hurdle (even if it's more expensive than WiFi onboard).

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 up that way on your phone bill. Data service on a 3G or 4G phone usually never uses GPRS (the transmission technology) at all.

But your point is taken, simple payment scheme to an existing account is a definite advantage.

OTOH, such schemes are under development for WiFi, and many devices that I might want to use on an airplane don't have any wireless connection other than WiFi. And as a practical matter, GPRS, its descendents, and non-GSM equivalents, would require a rather more complex base station to support all the different transmission technologies. WiFi is actually rather less complex than the multiplicity of wireless standards in that.


User currently offlinepellegrine From United States of America, joined Mar 2007, 2495 posts, RR: 8
Reply 38, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4062 times:

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 was the no. 1 factor. Most else is a non-point.

Who's paying $50 US for unlimited net for a single flight? Even in biz/first class. (where it should be free) Excuse me?



oh boy!!!
User currently offlineRyanairGuru From Australia, joined Oct 2006, 5954 posts, RR: 5
Reply 39, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 21 hours ago) and read 4033 times:

Quoting aerokiwi (Reply 30):

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 wifi in Brisbane CBD. And if anything it's quite refreshing going into a resteraunt and not being asked if you want the wifi password with your menu. As an Australian living here, I got a bit of a culture shock when I realized that all of us around a table of 8 were completely engrossed in the palm of our hands and not saying a word to each. At home conversation would have been flowing.

Quoting qf002 (Reply 28):

I think the fact that it was offered to F/J for free and still had low uptake is the biggest case against it. Clearly corporate travelers aren't asconcerened about it as some make them out to be.



Worked Hard, Flew Right
User currently offlinefanoftristars From United States of America, joined Jul 2000, 1615 posts, RR: 5
Reply 40, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3661 times:

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 most passengers in First or Economy Comfort seem to be using the Internet. Maybe it's the number of aircraft equipped? They're even expanding to their international fleet. Wouldn't make sense for them to do this if they had little uptake on their current domestic fleet.


"FLY DELTA JETS"
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8670 posts, RR: 10
Reply 41, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3582 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 32):
But, expect free service to be limited to certain regions... ie: short haul, because it can rely on Ku-Band satellites, on a single transponder per region per airline if it's cheap enough (and in Norwegian's case, it is).
Want to go medium to longhaul? Keep dreaming...

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's and AVOD. You used to have to pay to watch a movie on a plane too. Now you get 100's of free ondemand options such as movies, TV shows, video games, and music channels. Wi-fi is just the next step. Unless airlines figure out a way to incorporate it in the cost of IFE, and offer it as a complimentary service, it will never be popular. Some people will say they don't need wifi so they shouldn't pay for it. Well, a lot of us don't watch movies or eat on the plane and yet it's still included in the price. Every time I get on a long haul flight I have less leg room because of the stupid AVOD box under the seat in front of me, for a service I never use.

Quoting RyanairGuru (Reply 39):

I think the fact that it was offered to F/J for free and still had low uptake is the biggest case against it. Clearly corporate travelers aren't asconcerened about it as some make them out to be.

Business travelers are the ones that are less likely to use wi-fi (and want cell phone use), on board a plane. Most will tell you that the plane is one of the only places where they can get quiet time, and they value that a lot more.


User currently onlineSCQ83 From United States of America, joined Oct 2012, 1166 posts, RR: 0
Reply 42, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3324 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 41):
Business travelers are the ones that are less likely to use wi-fi (and want cell phone use), on board a plane. Most will tell you that the plane is one of the only places where they can get quiet time, and they value that a lot more.

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.


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6972 posts, RR: 76
Reply 43, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3166 times:

Quoting rwessel (Reply 37):
Data service on a 3G or 4G phone usually never uses GPRS (the transmission technology) at all.

Point taken... let's call it... 2G connection onboard!   

Quoting rwessel (Reply 37):
would require a rather more complex base station to support all the different transmission technologies.

The onboard BTS can take the GSM and US equivalent... Not sure if it can operate on both standards at the same time, need to ask the manufacturer...

Quoting airbazar (Reply 41):
Wi-fi is just the next step.

There's a difference, all those IFE stuff, can be contained onboard... 'current news' are 'texted' across the SATCOM and goes t the IFE. Then we have liveTV... again, that's just one way communication to the airplane. WiFi internet, is different... you now have to transmit stuff out of the airplane in some volume.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 41):
It will only take one of two high profile Asian carriers to start offering and everyone will follow, just like it happened with PTV's and AVOD.

Kiss terrestrial 3G out of the window for Asia. It's a telco regulatory nightmare. Even the SatCom is a nightmare.
Perhaps you could enlighten us how free wifi internet onboard will not be limited to certain regions...

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineairbazar From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 8670 posts, RR: 10
Reply 44, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3118 times:

Quoting mandala499 (Reply 43):

Kiss terrestrial 3G out of the window for Asia. It's a telco regulatory nightmare. Even the SatCom is a nightmare.
Perhaps you could enlighten us how free wifi internet onboard will not be limited to certain regions...

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. Just beause it can't be done today it doesn't mean it will never happen. Lucky for us there are plenty of brilliant people in this world who refuse to accept things are they are  


User currently offlinemandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6972 posts, RR: 76
Reply 45, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 15 hours ago) and read 3031 times:

Quoting airbazar (Reply 44):
I can't.

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 is reasonably integrated) or large country... The technology is there to provide for free internet over a wider region... But, the telco regulations aren't there yet... in fact, that is a long way to go in that aspect. You can switch the internet on over some countries, and you may have to switch it off over another country... why? We're not talking about safety services that's why.

The technology is actually there to provide global internet onboard for free... apart from the telco regulations nightmare, here's a question... why haven't they taken it up yet? Ironically, one of the proponents of a global Ku-band network that can enable free internet onboard around the world, Panasonic, bought a stake in Aeromobile, which is a SwiftBroadband provider... looks like even Panasonic thought the pay-per-use internet, is not necessarily the wrong way.

Regulations, Technology, and... Financial feasibility... so far, only the technology is there... the other two, haven't.



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlinesankaps From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 2255 posts, RR: 2
Reply 46, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 2949 times:

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 after 30 minutes and said "I think we do". Tried for myself, could not find a signal. It was on one of their newest A380s. So based on my experience, I do not think they did a very good job at all of marketing it.

User currently offlineDTWPurserBoy From United States of America, joined Feb 2010, 1801 posts, RR: 7
Reply 47, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 2818 times:

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 that crew scheduling can nail me inflight via ACARS that want my immediate attention. NEVER a good sign.

Many people can compose emails, proposals, etc. offline and then transmit when they land. I DEFINITELY am among those who do not want cell phone use on airplanes! If the person next to me screams "Guess where I am calling from" or "can you hear me now" I am liable to snap.

Perhaps as the technology improves prices will come down and you will be able to bundle inflight use into your home or office internet account with a minimal upcharge for inflight use.

I firmly agree that I default to a good book every time. Although I do love my new Nook Glowlight!

Inflight technology has moved forward so fast that by the time it is installed on the airplane it is already outdated. It will be interesting to see in the coming years what innovatons they can achieve.

I wonder if I can find one of those first generation inflight phones on eBay.....



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 offlinespacecadet From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 3675 posts, RR: 12
Reply 48, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 2697 times:

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. If someone tried to charge me more than that, I'd go without.

I can't live without connectivity forever but we're talking a few hours here - that's what the airlines need to understand. It's a nice thing to be able to connect to the net for the duration of a flight but it's not strictly necessary, so I'm perfectly ok to do without if the price is unreasonable.

Even if you can just expense your wifi charge, most people need to pay for it up front and then get reimbursed later, which at most companies is kind of a pain in the butt. You may even need to go in and talk to the finance people and explain to them why you needed wifi if it cost that much - it's not like it's just free regardless of what the airline charges for it. So even if I were planning to expense it (rather than using it for my own company, which is what I do), I'd probably just live without it if it was more than $10.

I have enjoyed it the few times I've been able to use it, on Delta and when it was free on ANA for a few flights (before they got rid of it too).



I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
User currently offlineqf002 From Australia, joined Jul 2011, 3020 posts, RR: 2
Reply 49, posted (2 years 3 weeks 2 days 6 hours ago) and read 2650 times:

Quoting pellegrine (Reply 38):
I'd say cost was the no. 1 factor. Most else is a non-point.

Who's paying $50 US for unlimited net for a single flight? Even in biz/first class. (where it should be free) Excuse me?

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 travel. My Dad, who commutes between Sydney and Hong Kong and regularly travels to his head office in the US, always uses the time on a daytime flight to read through papers, work on presentations etc because it is a rare block of time when there are no people around and no emails coming through to distract him.

I think you'd probably find many road warriors have similar preferences, particularly on long haul. The work at both ends is so stressful that the time when they are removed from their iPhone is a time that they enjoy.

Quoting airbazar (Reply 41):

     


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