UA Class Action Lawsuit Re: WiFi Deceit

wanderlustlax · Thu May 07, 2015 2:59 am

Forgive me if this has been posted already, but read this and couldn't help but think that she actually is on to something here.

http://gawker.com/woman-files-class-...-united-airlines-for-ly-1702710721

Sure, it may say something on their website about this, but for sure don't say anything on the flight itself about coverage expiring when you exit the country.

It's categorically misleading to offer a wifi product on a flight when you're only in the country where it's available for 10 minutes of the flight.

Another win for Smisek and crew. The good press continues to shine in their favor.

jetblue1965 · Thu May 07, 2015 3:05 am

The in flight magazine clearly shows the coverage area, which isn't 100% of the globe.

Should she also sue Verizon or Sprint if she paid for an unlimited plan but ran into a no signal area where she can't use her "unlimited" rights ?

United1 · Thu May 07, 2015 3:13 am

Quoting wanderlustlax (Thread starter):
Sure, it may say something on their website about this, but for sure don't say anything on the flight itself about coverage expiring when you exit the country.

Not only does Hemispheres show, and explain, where there is coverage and is not coverage the WiFi system also explains rather clearly coverage areas when you are purchasing the product onboard.....

rta · Thu May 07, 2015 3:22 am

That's not really the Same thing. The issue here is UA is advertising WiFi during flight but does not clearly state that it won't work over water or beyond the U.S., even though this may occur "during flight"

These circumstance should be clearly listed on the purchasing page if they aren't alteady.

wanderlustlax · Thu May 07, 2015 3:23 am

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 1):
The in flight magazine clearly shows the coverage area

So any unassuming person (not an a.netter) should know, when they board any plane, to first read the in-flight magazine in order to determine what the coverage areas of the WiFi on that plane are?

If the website and flight status for the flight lists the flight as "having WiFi"...then they really shouldn't assume that means they'll actually have WiFi for more than 10 minutes? ...that any, rational, educated person should know to *always* go read the in-flight magazine?

Sorry, but not following that logic.

jetblue1965 · Thu May 07, 2015 3:26 am

Quoting wanderlustlax (Reply 4):

It's the same logic as cell phone - when you place a call, does Verizon pop up and warn you you're close to dark spots and your call will drop in the middle ? Does Verizon place their coverage map on your phone, or simply available on their website ? Does Verizon prorate your plan if you live close to dark spots ? Same logic.

United1 · Thu May 07, 2015 3:27 am

Quoting rta (Reply 3):
These circumstance should be clearly listed on the purchasing page if they aren't alteady.

...it does list coverage areas on the purchasing page.

Quoting wanderlustlax (Reply 4):
that any, rational, educated person should know to *always* go read the in-flight magazine?

A rational educated person should also read on the purchase page when they are making the WiFi purchase onboard that the system on their aircraft does not work outside of the continental US or over water.

wanderlustlax · Thu May 07, 2015 3:42 am

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 5):
when you place a call, does Verizon pop up and warn you you're close to dark spots and your call will drop in the middle ?

Not the same. You pay Verizon a monthly fee for unlimited access with the assumption that throughout that month you may have dropped calls here and there.

WiFi access on a plane is session-based with the expectation of, by nature of it being offered as a service, coverage is for the duration of flight (pending signal strength).

A better comparison would be: Verizon allows you to sign up for unlimited access in Puerto Rico but then tells you, once you've signed up, they don't cover Puerto Rico, only the continental US. Sure, you can read the fine print, but one would argue not to offer a flat-fee service where it cannot be used.

I'm guessing that's the point of the lawsuit. It's about intentional deception, not 'is it in the fine print or not?'

FlyBTV · Thu May 07, 2015 3:43 am

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 5):

Quoting wanderlustlax (Reply 4):

It's the same logic as cell phone - when you place a call, does Verizon pop up and warn you you're close to dark spots and your call will drop in the middle ? Does Verizon place their coverage map on your phone, or simply available on their website ? Does Verizon prorate your plan if you live close to dark spots ? Same logic.

I would suggest it would be deceptive for Verizon to sell you a service plan if they knew cellular coversge dropped out beyond a 10 minute drive away from the store and did not return for hundreds of miles. This fact should be clearly mentioned during the purchase of a phone plan. Of course, carriers do allow you to cancel your plan and will prorate your service anytime in the first 15 or 30 days if you are not satisfied with coverage.

Generally I wouldn't expect fliers to know that WiFi used a cellular signal. Many probably assume it operates off satellite if they have given it any thought at all.

Now, I've ever used the WiFi on United so it is not clear to me what, if any, notice they provide when purchasing the service. A notice in the inflight magazine is hardly sufficent.

jetblue1965 · Thu May 07, 2015 3:51 am

Quoting wanderlustlax (Reply 7):

The 10 minute claim is fishy. If she chose to nap through most of the first part of the flight and only had 10mins of wifi coverage by the time she woke up and used it, that's not the airline problem.

Another example of people failing at basic responsibilities and expect a nanny state to hold their hand in everything.

Before you get anti UA with "SMISEK this SMISEK that", ask yourself : do other airlines give you a huge warning in the same situation ? If not, then your UA bias is showing.

wanderlustlax · Thu May 07, 2015 3:55 am

No bias. UA is still my carrier of choice (although, admittedly, that's not saying much). Doesn't mean I lose the right to be critical of them--especially because I hold them to a higher standard. I've also experienced first-hand many frustrations with their in-flight WiFi.

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 9):
ask yourself : do other airlines give you a huge warning in the same situation ?

Sure, but that's a straw man argument. The story was not about other airlines. It was about UA...and another stain on their reputation.

[Edited 2015-05-06 20:56:03]

jetblue1965 · Thu May 07, 2015 4:13 am

Quoting wanderlustlax (Reply 10):

It's just yet another frivolous lawsuit about someone who refuses to have any responsibilities in life. Nothing more.

Just as stupid as that other lawsuit for some guy suing to earn miles based on the actual path the plane flown.

United1 · Thu May 07, 2015 4:15 am

Quoting wanderlustlax (Reply 10):
It was about UA...and another stain on their reputation.

Not really....lawsuits are filed all the time against every major corporation. Some have merit and some are just outright laughable.

Just for the record AA lists WiFi as being available on all MIA-SJU flights tomorrow...AA uses the terrestrial version of GoGo on these flights. I am sure that they give the same warning UA does on its purchase page...will not work overwater.

wanderlustlax · Thu May 07, 2015 4:24 am

Quoting United1 (Reply 13):
Not really....lawsuits are filed all the time against every major corporation.

Sure, but, AGAIN, this lawsuit is about United. Is everyone guilty of this? Maybe. But the lawsuit was generated by a customer who felt deceived on a United flight. Are you suggesting the plantiff should've sued the entire domestic airline industry because of her experience on United? Please do elaborate on that...

Quoting United1 (Reply 13):
Not really

Your screen name gives no insight into your bent, really...

[Edited 2015-05-06 21:26:03]

United1 · Thu May 07, 2015 4:33 am

Quoting wanderlustlax (Reply 14):
Your screename gives no insight into your bent, really...

What is exactly that you are expecting out of this thread...or are you just planning on resorting to personal attacks or saying they are biased if someone disagrees with you or points out something that you don't like?

I have't said one way or another whether the person who filed this lawsuit should or should not have filed it....

I have however said that UA does notify people in several places about WiFi coverage, I have also said that lawsuits are a normal event for every corporation out there and are not really a reflection of how a business is run.

Quoting wanderlustlax (Reply 14):
But the lawsuit was generated by a customer who felt deceived on a United flight

Did she contact UA and ask for a refund? There is a channel to do just that...and I have done that in the past with sucess.

ikramerica · Thu May 07, 2015 4:46 am

She may have a point in that UA shouldn't be selling wifi based on flight length if the flight only actually has wifi for a fraction of the flight. Further, I didn't see where the flight originated. If it's EWR, depending on the day, the flight could have wifi for hours or minutes, depending on the flight path. This is even true for flights to Miami. Directv is different as it should work offshore for most of the flight to Puerto Rico.

Wifi should be sold by the 1/2 hour on international and flights that may fly over water and automatically stop charging once coverage is disconnected. My guess is it's too complicated to measure this. So it shouldn't be sold at all.

wanderlustlax · Thu May 07, 2015 5:16 am

Quoting United1 (Reply 15):
What is exactly that you are expecting out of this thread

A debate. Isn't that what we're doing?

Quoting United1 (Reply 15):
or are you just planning on resorting to personal attacks

I'm sorry. Did I attack you personally? You seem to be abjectly defensive about the subject. I merely pointed out that as a UA fan (enough to make your screen name about them) you have a particular bias. If you were a potential witness in court, your testimony probably wouldn't be taken into account for the same reason, no?

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 16):

My point exactly.

Signed,
Biased

TheFlyingDisk · Thu May 07, 2015 5:19 am

I don't think this lawsuit will go anywhere.

No offense but it's no wonder why everything comes with a disclaimer in America, even if the disclaimer is for something that should be bloody obvious.

[Edited 2015-05-06 22:21:52]

DocLightning · Thu May 07, 2015 5:24 am

Quoting jetblue1965 (Reply 9):
Before you get anti UA with "SMISEK this SMISEK that", ask yourself : do other airlines give you a huge warning in the same situation ? If not, then your UA bias is showing.

DL did when we flew to Hawaii. F/A came on while we were still on the ground and explained that while the WiFi would show as available during the flight, it would only work for a few minutes after take-off, if at all.

FWIW.

airportugal310 · Thu May 07, 2015 5:55 am

Quoting wanderlustlax (Reply 16):

So by your fantastic logic, a screen name reveals your bias?

When was the last time I flew TP or a TP A310? At least over 15 years ago. Well...I guess I'm biased against anti-TP comments on those threads by that metric

Just stop.

United1 · Thu May 07, 2015 6:26 am

Quoting wanderlustlax (Reply 16):
I'm sorry. Did I attack you personally? You seem to be abjectly defensive about the subject. I merely pointed out that as a UA fan (enough to make your screen name about them) you have a particular bias. If you were a potential witness in court, your testimony probably wouldn't be taken into account for the same reason, no?

You have no idea who I am or what biases I may or may not have and quite frankly you don't win a debate by attacking another person or going after their credibility.

As myself and others have pointed out to you:
UA discloses on their website both on flight status and on the in flight services page where exactly WiFi works...
UA discloses this same info in Hemispheres...
UA discloses the limitations of the WiFi system when you are purchasing it...

What sort of additional disclosure do you believe is required?

Looks like she took her flight in March from SJU-EWR...that flight is usually a 738 with the DirecTV WiFi system.

The exact disclosure from UAs website is:
"Wi-Fi, with coverage within the continental U.S., is available for purchase. DIRECTV® is also available for purchase and offers 100+ live TV channels within the continental U.S. Recorded movies and TV shows are available throughout the entire flight."

green12324 · Thu May 07, 2015 8:04 am

I find it hard to believe that United never disclosed the limitations of its service. I do believe, however, it was in the fine print or an otherwise typically ignored screen.
It seems to me that wifi should not be offered for sale if it won't be available for most the flight. To do otherwise either causes a hassle issuing refunds or, in this case, lands you a lawsuit and angry passengers. Unless your business plan is to get passengers' money in any and every deceptive way possible there is no reason to offer this "service."
Have these passengers requested a refund through United? If not this lawsuit is ridiculous, if they have and United refused I agree with them. What's next, selling wifi service on a Embraer 145 and when passengers ask how to connect you only then inform them the plane is not equipped?
Airlines should expect less of their passengers, passengers should read prompts if available.

jayunited · Thu May 07, 2015 11:58 am

The lawsuit the point of the lawsuit that has been filed is based solely upon the premise of fraud that UA is misleading customers once onboard because there is nothing onboard the aircraft telling customers this is where the coverage area ends.

“United sells these services to passengers on the flights and fails to disclose that the services will not work as advertised when the aircraft is outside the continental United States or is over water,” the United class action lawsuit alleges. “It is not until they have crossed U.S. borders or are over water, with no service, that customers learn that their DirecTV and/or Wi-Fi service will not work for all or part of the flight."

She admits that UA tells passenger on its website but fails to show them coverage areas once on board the aircraft that simply is not true like other have said the coverage areas can be found in the Hemispheres which customers can read before signing on and secondly customers can connect to United.com for free while onboard and see the coverage area before purchasing a WiFi. It is clearly marked on the coverage area page what the coverage area is for all DirecTV equipped 737's which for the time being are using a different WiFi system than the rest of the fleet.
Customers don't have to guess whether or not they are on a DirecTV equipped aircraft because the TV screens are right in front of their face what does this woman want UA to place laminated neon cards in the seat back pockets showing the coverage area. It isn't UA's fault if a customer is to lazy to look up or either forgot the coverage area for the DirecTV equipped 737's.

BC77008 · Thu May 07, 2015 2:33 pm

Quoting wanderlustlax (Reply 4):
So any unassuming person (not an a.netter) should know, when they board any plane, to first read the in-flight magazine in order to determine what the coverage areas of the WiFi on that plane are?

So you would just blindly buy a product without first discovering how it works?

wanderlustlax · Thu May 07, 2015 3:00 pm

Quoting BC77008 (Reply 25):
So you would just blindly buy a product without first discovering how it works?

Touché. When you go to an airport and log in to their WiFi network do you normally think before you log in, "Let me look at the coverage map and see what part of the terminal this WiFi covers?"

It seems logical to assume, since WiFi is an established "product" -- we all know what it does already -- that it covers the area you're signing up for it in. If you were to, say, sign up in the terminal and then move to another terminal, sure. But I don't think that's the issue in this particular case. It's like allowing you to sign up in the terminal and then cutting you off when you walk to your gate, saying "sorry, we said in the fine print we only cover the restaurant". Is it legal? Yes. Is it deceptive? Absolutely.

I'd hazard to guess that speed and session length are probably the biggest factors people investigate when initiating payment for WiFi in a single location.

CONTACREW · Thu May 07, 2015 3:35 pm

This is the message one sees when checking flight status for a flight with DirecTV & all 737 aircraft equipped with WiFi.

All 737 aircraft (excluding GUM based 737s) and 753 aircraft equipped with DirecTV

WiFi with coverage within the Continental U.S. is available for purchase. DirecTV is also available for purchase and offers 100+ LiveTV channels within the Continental U.S. Recorded movies and TV shows are available throughout the entire flight. Use the same credit card on three or more screens to receive a $2 group discount off each DirecTV purchase.

737 aircraft without DirecTV (excluding GUM based 737s)

WiFi with coverage within the Continental U.S. is available for purchase. Personal Device Entertainment is coming soon.

[Edited 2015-05-07 08:37:31]

PacificBeach · Thu May 07, 2015 4:38 pm

I think United should not sell a Wifi product if it is expected to work for only 10 minutes of the flight.

Yes, in cellular networks, there may be signal coverage gaps and occasional dropped calls but the service not working is kind of the exception to the usual available state. In this case, it is the other way around.

[Edited 2015-05-07 09:39:12]

fxramper · Thu May 07, 2015 5:27 pm

How many years have they been 'selling' their wifi product? The new commercial makes everything in flight related to their wifi 'product'. At best it works well 1/10 times. Have used in transcend, to the UK, India, etc. Doesn't really matter where you are. Still are issues with this 'beta' version they offer. The recent article of top 10 wifi posted on Anet, I would put UA outside of the top 10 even though I think it was 8 or 9.

Also, I'm still not on board with any US flag carrier charging for wifi in biz/first class.

futureorthopod · Thu May 07, 2015 5:41 pm

Crap just posted the same topic. I'll post the link to the actual filed lawsuit:

https://www.truthinadvertising.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/David-v-United-Continental-cmpt.pdf
http://www.app.com/story/money/busin.../united-airlines-directv/70940232/

Fox news is also running this story.

Jet Blue also offers flies to PR and offers Direct TV as well, correct? Have they had any issues?

I'll request the other post be closed.

[Edited 2015-05-07 10:46:29]

futureorthopod · Thu May 07, 2015 5:48 pm

I have also been curious as to what justifies such a large request for financial reimbursement. Perhaps she has a justifiable argument; however, should she (and her lawyers) be compensated that much or even anything close to that?

futureorthopod · Thu May 07, 2015 5:58 pm

Legal analysts seem doubtful of this lawsuit.

wanderlustlax · Thu May 07, 2015 6:02 pm

Quoting futureorthopod (Reply 32):
I have also been curious as to what justifies such a large request for financial reimbursement.

Well, as you noted in your other thread, being litigious is the de-facto knee-jerk reaction nowadays and lawyers just see dollar signs all over stuff like this.

Perhaps she is a nut-bag just after some cash, but her lawsuit definitely opens up a really interesting debate, IMHO.

I hope, at the very least, it starts a meaningful dialog about the potential for turning off payment-based services that cannot be accessed for the duration of payment.

ozark1 · Thu May 07, 2015 6:23 pm

It just shows the nature of our times for someone to sue over this. Very reflective of who we have become. The policy should be that the coverage info is displayed on the screen before you are able to purchase it.

JoeCanuck · Thu May 07, 2015 6:58 pm

Quoting wanderlustlax (Reply 26):
I don't think anyone's disputing the fact that UA covers it's a** by including coverage areas in their magazine or on their website, but, honestly, does a lay person look at that when they check-in online?

I think in some ways, this touches on something similar to what is dealt with on the United vs Skiplagged case. Both will have to deal with the degree of butt covering and power a disclaimer gives you.

With the Skiplagged case, United is asking for a judgment based on the spirit of what is in their disclaimer, not what is technically in the disclaimer, where the purchaser of the ticket is specifically mentioned but their suit is against an entity which is not.

With the wifi case, the plaintiff is asking for a judgement based on the spirit of the wifi agreement, not the literal interpretation, because of what the average user expects wifi service to be, rather than of the actual coverage area, supposedly specifically presented.

I think they both will be interesting battles. In the wifi case, I think United will eventually win,

adamblang · Thu May 07, 2015 8:20 pm

Quoting wanderlustlax (Reply 4):
If the website and flight status for the flight lists the flight as "having WiFi"...then they really shouldn't assume that means they'll actually have WiFi for more than 10 minutes? ...that any, rational, educated person should know to *always* go read the in-flight magazine?

From the flight status display on United.com:

Quote:
Wi-Fi, with coverage within the continental U.S., is available for purchase.

DocLightning · Thu May 07, 2015 9:19 pm

Quoting fxramper (Reply 30):
Also, I'm still not on board with any US flag carrier charging for wifi in biz/first class.

I agree, but logistically how do you expect that will work?

All I can think of is the airline hands out little slips with a code on it to each F/J passenger. They'd have to be changed each flight or each day or you could just hang on to it and then use it next time you're in Y. Admittedly, I suppose it could be included on the boarding pass.

kgaiflyer · Thu May 07, 2015 10:35 pm

Quoting United1 (Reply 20):
DIRECTV® is also available for purchase and offers 100+ live TV channels within the continental U.S. Recorded movies and TV shows are available throughout the entire flight."

Flying YYC-IAH a couple weeks ago, I was surprised that only five channels were available after boarding (since you can watch Spokane TV channels on Calgary cable). But *Wham!* as soon as you cross the border, all channels are available.

Hate to miss my daytime trashy television on the CW network.

rcair1 · Thu May 07, 2015 11:18 pm

Quoting jayunited (Reply 24):
class action lawsuit

Quoting futureorthopod (Reply 32):

I have also been curious as to what justifies such a large request for financial reimbursement. Perhaps she has a justifiable argument; however, should she (and her lawyers) be compensated that much or even anything close to that?

Common guys - class action lawsuits are about lawyers making money. Rarely do the members of the class receive anything but pennies.

fxramper · Thu May 07, 2015 11:42 pm

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 38):
All I can think of is the airline hands out little slips with a code on it to each F/J passenger. They'd have to be changed each flight or each day or you could just hang on to it and then use it next time you're in Y. Admittedly, I suppose it could be included on the boarding pass.

Back in the day F9 had flight attendants swipe a card when I was on DEN - MCI. Do that or have the units in premium cabins programed. Its so gross sitting in United Business so often and listening to passengers talk so much crap which is relevant about the airline. Its cool they are making money with all their cuts and secret squirrel deals and payments to employees but truly both airlines, CO & UA were so much better off for their frequent fliers before this forced merger.

777ord · Fri May 08, 2015 1:23 am

sorry.. this is a stupid case... YOu as the buyer should read what you are agreeing to. It states clearly it doesn't work in such and such areas... So why would you waste your own money then??

Sorry, she paid maybe $16 for the fee and it is worth $5million? Throw it and her out.

This claim is about a worthless as someone stating they bought a 10oz steak at a restaurant, but only got 8oz failing to realize its pre-cook weights that it goes by.... Maybe she's related to the McDonalds and hot coffee case.

futureorthopod · Fri May 08, 2015 1:35 am

Quoting rcair1 (Reply 40):
Common guys - class action lawsuits are about lawyers making money. Rarely do the members of the class receive anything but pennies.

Mmmmm...not always. They are also used to influence a modification of policies without financial gain. For instance, there is a group that specifically seeks out establishments neglecting an obligation to make it handicapped accessible without seeking financial compensation.

JoeCanuck · Fri May 08, 2015 2:43 am

Quoting futureorthopod (Reply 43):
Mmmmm...not always. They are also used to influence a modification of policies without financial gain. For instance, there is a group that specifically seeks out establishments neglecting an obligation to make it handicapped accessible without seeking financial compensation.

That kind of thing is probably used for situations slightly more serious, I imagine.

DocLightning · Fri May 08, 2015 3:47 am

Quoting fxramper (Reply 41):
Back in the day F9 had flight attendants swipe a card when I was on DEN - MCI.

Swipe a card...in your laptop?

We're talking about WiFi not IFE. The WiFi system does not know where each device is in the cabin, so the device must somehow identify itself as belonging to a premium passenger.

The simplest thing would be to offer each F/J passenger wifi access with a special code printed on the boarding pass or handed out by F/As.

Or each IFE set could display the code under some menu. That would reduce crew workload and potential for errors if it was just automated.

DAL763ER · Fri May 08, 2015 3:59 am

Flew SFO-HNL on DL last week. Flight was said to have wifi but then on board, in the first announcement the F/A made she said "WiFi is only available for the first 50 miles." I'm sure United makes similar mentions if passengers open their ears to hear the announcement. Otherwise GoGo or whoever will most likely specify that there's no coverage over water. Case is worthless.

wanderlustlax · Fri May 08, 2015 4:09 am

Quoting DAL763ER (Reply 46):
I'm sure United makes similar mentions

Sure from experience? Actually curious to know. In the hundreds of thousands of miles I've flown with them, I've never once heard them make an announcement about the projected coverage area. Granted, I try my best to avoid int'l flights with UA, so I'm not as exposed to this situation as much as others.

You're the second to mention Delta does. I'm hoping to hear someone here with experience of UA doing this. That would certainly work in their favor...at least in regards to the suit.

DAL763ER · Fri May 08, 2015 4:13 am

Quoting wanderlustlax (Reply 47):
Granted, I try my best to avoid int'l flights with UA, so I'm not as exposed to this situation as much as others.

So it depends on the plane and the system. I've flown LHR-SFO on UA on the 747 and that had wifi that worked all the way (even over the water). I used internet throughout the whole flight. Also, international flights on UA in premium cabins are nice. Coach, not so much, I agree.

ikramerica · Fri May 08, 2015 4:23 am

Sorry, caveat emptor may be the through line of this topic, but it doesn't excuse deceptive practices. UA (or any airline) should not be selling a product they can't actually offer, nor should they be charging customers a price based on a length of time and then not offer that actual length of time.

If wifi won't work on a flight, DON'T SELL IT. If it will only work for an hour, DON'T SELL IT BASED ON THE FLIGHT BEING 8 HOURS LONG. These are deceptive practices.

Fine print doesn't protect a vendor from deception or fraud. Fine print protects them from customers trying to back out of a deal entered into in good faith, or from claiming the quality wasn't what they expected even if it is what was promised. In this case, the fine print can't say "oh, by the way, we might sell you something for 8 hours, but it will only work for 15 minutes. And even though we know it will only work for 15 minutes, and we offer a different product for that situation, we won't offer that to you nor make it clear to you. Sucker."

I don't know if this lady will win because the case doesn't sound great nor do the lawyers sound like they are top notch, but it doesn't excuse deceptive practices, and if other plaintiffs are found, better lawyers might get involved who know what they are doing. Remember, this is interstate commerce and fraud and the possibility of over-billing, which potentially falls under RICO. It would depend on how widespread this really is and whether there is communication between GoGo and United (DL, whoever) that discusses this problem and where executives decide to "sell it anyway."

ASMVPGOLD · Fri May 08, 2015 6:56 am

Well I can certainly see some confusion and disappointment if passengers have been flying DL across the pond and enjoying GOGO the entire way to Europe or Asia then jump on a UA plane and losing a connection as soon as they leave the mainland. Absolutely love that DL is upgrading their planes and give the option to be connected.

United1 · Fri May 08, 2015 2:55 pm

Quoting ASMVPGOLD (Reply 49):
Well I can certainly see some confusion and disappointment if passengers have been flying DL across the pond and enjoying GOGO the entire way to Europe or Asia then jump on a UA plane and losing a connection as soon as they leave the mainland. Absolutely love that DL is upgrading their planes and give the option to be connected.

Actually UAs longhaul overseas aircraft are equipped with WiFi that works over-water...this particular flight was flown by a 737 offering the DirecTV version of WiFi that only works over the continental US. If you were on a DL 737 flying between SJU and EWR/JFK you would encounter the same issue...their system on that fleet type doesn't work overwater either.

UAs WiFi systems:

Worldwide WiFi...(Panasonic)
747
777
787
767
757 International

Continental US WiFi...(DirecTV WiFi, GoGo)
753
752 P.S.
737
E175/170
CRJ-700

packcheer · Fri May 08, 2015 4:21 pm

So I was just thinking of other flights where this problem may pop up....

How do the various airlines handle wifi (on aircraft equipped with this same/similar system) on the following routes?

MIA-NYC, MIA-BOS, MIA/TPA - IAH/HOU

All are within the continental US but Cover large areas of water if those airways are used. Is wifi sold on these flights, is it available the whole flight, and how far offshore (Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico) is the wifi srevive available.

I understand the limitations of the technology but that isn't to say that even with a disclaimer an average customer would.

(Personally I believe the airline has the obligation to either not offer, or make the clear the amount time wifi is available on the flight)

[Edited 2015-05-08 09:24:53]

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net