In-flight Broadband Internet Access Trial's Success 133
flash_cube writes "Boeing Co.'s 'Connexion' business unit finally demoed its in-flight WiFi (802.11b) service this weekend ... even as (noted in this previous /. article) struggling U.S. carriers pull out of the joint venture. Still Boeing promises availability on other airlines in 'early 2003.'"
SPAM at 35000 feet! (Score:5, Funny)
cost (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:cost (Score:3, Funny)
Re:cost (Score:3, Insightful)
So, if you want to frag in your Boeing, you'd better start a 30.000 feet high LAN party...
$25-35 for long-haul flights (Score:3, Informative)
Didn't think to read the article either, now did you?
Not cheap, but just might be worth it for a 12-hour stretch of terminal (har!) boredom... at least if there's AC power for the laptop as well. And the target audience is notCheers,
-j.
Cost is reasonable - $25 to $35 (Score:2, Informative)
According to this ZDNet article [zdnet.co.uk] costs are £15 - £21 ($25 to $35), which I'd pay for an 8 to 12 hour journey.
Only downside is that the article reports the service as being a bit slow and patchy - I guess they'll nail that in time.
Look at the Connexion Website (Score:1)
Congrats! (Score:2)
You got to use five seven five
Or it no worky
hmm (Score:1, Funny)
... right now they're removing phone service (Score:5, Insightful)
During boom times, airlines love to add all sorts of bells and whistles, just to have superior service. Then, at every downturn, they rip out the stuff that doesn't make them any money.
Now is certainly not the time to put WiFi in planes.
Re:... right now they're removing phone service (Score:5, Insightful)
Now is certainly not the time to put WiFi in planes.
How come? How can they know that the stuff does not make them any money if they don't try it?
Re:... right now they're removing phone service (Score:1)
It's called a business case. It's a pretty elementary concept in business.
Re:... right now they're removing phone service (Score:5, Insightful)
Give one argument why it is not a good idea. The noise won't hinder you from typing emails, and the cost is reasonable (I think Lufthansa wants to charge something like $30 flat for a one-way trip). It is an EXTREMELY attractive feature for business travellers, who will be able to actually use those flights for productive work, and it also has good entertainment value for those people who are not gonna work. Add in maybe some sort of in-flight portal with information and a shop system, the possibilities are endless. I am also sure the crew itself will use this (for work purposes), so making money off of it may be an added benefit.
That said of course there is always the chance that it will not be accepted by the majority of passengers, but I think you can hardly compare it to in-flight telephones.
(disclaimer, I work for a major airline right now, but am not involved in this topic. Ohyeah and my views are my own bla bla etc)
Re:... right now they're removing phone service (Score:5, Insightful)
It will be used even less than the in-flight phone system. What do passengers need to have with them to take advantage of the phones? Nothing. EVERYONE on those flights were potential customers of those phones, and hardly anyone used them (mostly because everyone knows how prohibitively expensive they are, and there is usually nothing so urgent that it can't wait till you get on the ground). Now, how many of those passengers are potential customers of the Wi-Fi system? Those with laptops. That is, a very small subset of the passengers. How many of those would pay for this Wi-Fi service? I'd venture, "not very many." Thus, it is not worth it and will be a money-loser.
The noise won't hinder you from typing emails
Maybe not, but the price sure will. For 30 bucks, my trivial little email to you can wait till I hit the ground.
It is an EXTREMELY attractive feature for business travellers, who will be able to actually use those flights for productive work
They made that exact same argument for the in-flight phones, and now they're tearing those out, because they're money losers. Why should we now believe that it will work this time, for an even more exclusive service (i.e., you need to have a laptop)? Speaking as an occassional business traveler myself, those flights are a short-term haven; a chance to relax for a couple of hours inbetween hectic meetings. A chance to get some friggin' rest - not an opportunity to try and cram even more work into my 16-hour day.
it also has good entertainment value for those people who are not gonna work
... assuming they have laptops and more money than brains. A $5 magazine will "entertain" me just as well for a couple of hours.
Add in maybe some sort of in-flight portal with information and a shop system
...that costs mucho-$$$ to set up, and that again, will only be accessible to those passengers with laptops. How many of those people would actually bother visiting such an in-flight trash-shop? How many would spend enough money to make it worth the startup/maintenance capital? Can you honestly not see why this will be a money-loser? Sure, it's neat and all and has all this potential, but the bottom line is, it won't make money if people don't use it.
I am also sure the crew itself will use this (for work purposes)
Then you're clearly not very familiar with how these businesses work. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." What the airlines have now for pre-/in-/ and post-flight procedures is working fine. Why would they change it, just to take advantage of some new tech that doesn't add any more value? Will using this system "for work purposes" save them any money? Think like a CFO. "Will using this system allow me to eliminate any staff?" That's the sad but true rationale for adopting new tech like this.
Re:... right now they're removing phone service (Score:2)
Large cost difference (Score:2)
Re:... right now they're removing phone service (Score:2, Interesting)
To fill this with entertainment from magazines would cost $140 at your rate of $5 per magazine every two hours.
If the 3 long haul trips cost $25 each way to get internet access I'd have paid around $150 - throw in two magazines for the recent European trip and you've got $160 worth of entertainment.
Personally I think I'd prefer the Internet based entertainment as it enables me to keep up to date with the news (More and more important these days) and would enable me to get on with more work.
Compared to in-flight phones which can be used once or twice by a few people throughout a flight to get across important information (I had to cancel a mobile phone from a flight once as I had it stolen in the Airport) Internet access is a feature that offers long term benefits throught the entire length of a flight.
I welcome it. And thankfully B.A. and Lufthansa - my favourite airlines - are rolling it out
Re:... right now they're removing phone service (Score:1)
Up front, I would very rarely do it.
If I could decide mid-air that I needed it, *that* would be great. "Shit, I forgot I needed to download that set of modules in order to get my work done. "
But in any case, keep in mind this is not so much intended for a little 3-hour flight from chicago to dc. If I'm spending 18 hours traveling, I may as well pay $30 for access during a 9 hour leg, rather than pay $10 at some internet cafe, to update the people picking me up on expected arrival times.
Re:... right now they're removing phone service (Score:2)
Being able to arrange, or re-arrange your rental car as you get closer to your destination might be nice; or making arrangements via the web for a cab to pick you up once you're 95% sure of what your arrival time would be. You might want to make reservations at a restaunt near by, or just start figuring out what you're going to do to satisfy your gut once you hit the ground.
You might want to let your client know a head of time you'll be 2 hours late -- because they found some play-doh in a guy's sneaker which delayed the flight.
If you're renting a car you might save some time on your journey by checking traffic reports a few minutes before touchdown, although that one's a little far out there.
In a business situation $30 is worth about a half an hour to maybe an hour of somebody's time; or about 15 minutes to me (perosnally*) when I'm off in a world I'm not entirely familiar with. If I can shave 10 minutes off my rental-car pickup time, 10 minutes hunting for a good burger, and present a more professional image to a client (or boss, whatever have you) by sending out a nice update that I'll be 2 hours late thanks to Mr. Play-Doh that's well worth $30 bucks to me.
I wouldn't want something like this so I could keep working and sending updates back to the company mid-flight -- I'd want to use it to make my arrival go as smooth as possible.
*: Being in an unfamiliar place and not knowing where to go, where I am, or what's going on is insanely frustrating for me when I've got somewhere to get to.
Lufthansa already has it (Score:5, Insightful)
The question remains: Why are cellphones forbidden while WiFi is obviously allowed in planes? Don't we all remember the englishman that got jailed for using his cell?
Re:Lufthansa already has it (Score:3, Informative)
Possibly because cell phones operate on completely different frequencies and can reach much higher power levels than Wi-Fi?
GSM 0.9 / 1.8 / 1.9 Ghz, Wifi 2.4 Ghz (Score:1)
Re:Lufthansa already has it (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as general interference is concerned, a slight frequency shift is not going to make any difference. Most digital cell phones nowadays actually transmit in the 2.4Ghz area, and while the frequencies are distinct, they are not significantly different from WiFi to create a different interference problem.
And as far as the power difference, cell phones automatically trim back their power when they are in favorable transmission conditions, such as, say, when you have direct line of sight with hundreds of towers from FL380. And on top of that- power/distance formula for electromagnetic waves will help you deduce that a 2.4872 Ghz carrier at 500mW (full power for every handheld phone I've owned in the past 5 years) will cause nearly identical interference to that of a 2.4025 Ghz carrier at 100mW. (common power for Wifi)
I've worked at quite a few companies that had radio controlled locomotives or overhead cranes, and many of them had a 'no cell phone on site' policy when cell phones first became popular. The claim was that they could interfere with equipment, creating a safety hazard (much like the airlines claim) After my supervisor asked me to research actual safety issues involved, and finding the protocols used for these digital radio control devices to be quite failsafe, it was determined by higher-ups that safety, in fact, wasn't an issue.
However, the no cell phone policy was redefined as 'except for business purposes' and the actual reasoning behind the original policy became obvious- they didn't want employees making personal calls during business hours. The policy was profit motivated, much as the airlines policy is. Yeah, they don't have in-seat phones on the little puddle jumpers- but they don't really want the customers to know what the motivation behind the policy is.
And before I get any responses about the FAA being the problem, not the airlines- remember, the government is a puppet of the corporations, and the FAA is definately NOT an exception.
Re:Lufthansa already has it (Score:3, Insightful)
GSM is 900Mhz, GSM-1800 is (amazingly) 1800Mhz. That covers everything in the world except US (GSM is 1900Mhz, don't know about others) and iMode in Japan. So where where are these "most" phones which run at 2.4Ghz?
Re:Lufthansa already has it (Score:2)
Takes battery off of currently held phone...
Yup.
Still in the 2.4 range...
Re:Lufthansa already has it (Score:2)
Takes battery off of currently held phone...
Yup.
Still in the 2.4 range...
I'm in the US, and I've never seen a 2.4Ghz cellular phone. Cordless phone, yes. I'm currently holding a 1900Mhz GSM phone. They do not make a 2.4Ghz GSM band. Period.
Here is some more info. [telestial.com]
Re:Lufthansa already has it (Score:1)
GSM is 900Mhz, GSM-1800 is (amazingly) 1800Mhz. That covers everything in the world except US (GSM is 1900Mhz, don't know about others) and iMode in Japan. So where where are these "most" phones which run at 2.4Ghz?
Maybe he's confused between mobile cell phones and cordless phones, many of which do [google.com] use 2.4GHz.
I'd be a silly confusion to make, maybe he's trying to impress chicks like I tried to fool my kid brother with a cordless handset: "like my new mobile?"
Re:Lufthansa already has it (Score:1)
Re:Lufthansa already has it (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Lufthansa already has it (Score:1)
While trying to access a ground based station the mobile phone would power up to its full transmitting power (~1W) trying to find a station thereby wreaking havoc with the control systems.
Re: Mobile phones vs 802.11b (Wi-Fi) or Bluetooth (Score:3, Informative)
Also, unlike mobile phones, both 802.11b (Wi-Fi) and Bluetooth technologies are operating in the unlicensed (ISM band) frequencies. These frequencies are free for everyone, even consumers, to use for wireless communication, without licenses. Mobile phones, on the other hand, use the frequency spectrum licensed by the mobile phone network (carrier).
Re:Lufthansa already has it (Score:2)
Wifi vs. Phone: I imagine that if nothing else, Wifi is a "known factor" that can be taken into account and compensated for. Also, the different wavelengths may have something to do with it. I am not an expert on the issue, but I have the utmost confidence in the people who do make these decisions. It's much better to err on the side of caution...
(disclaimer, I work for a major airline right now, this is my own opinion only)
Re:Lufthansa already has it (Score:5, Insightful)
If cell phones posed any threat at all, you'd be required to stow them in a faraday-caged box by the door.
It's not entirely impossible that the ban originally arose out of a desire to make large amounts of money on the massively overpriced phones. Having begun the process of removing the ridiculously underused contraptions, maybe we'll see business travelers wooed back to flights by offering cell phone shielding, probably even on-plane base stations. Think about it.
Yours Truly,
Dan Kaminsky
DoxPara Research
http://www.doxpara.com
I believe it's about the noise, not the threat. (Score:2)
Suppose passengers were permitted to use mobiles in flight: how easy would it be to have a conversation when 60% of the people on-board are shouting into their mobiles? How easy would it be to do ANYTHING when 60% of the people on-board are shouting into their mobiles? For some reason a lot of people think they need to TALK on their phones vice talk or even (talk). These people are annoying in public places; imagine sitting three feet away from six of them on a cross-country flight. Scary, eh?
Incidentally, I think this is the reason the airphones are so expensive: it's not that it costs so much to operate the service, but it is a deterrent to the dorks who would use it just for the novelty value. You know who you are.
Bingo! (Score:2)
Remember Deep Throat? Remember what he said? Whenever money is involved following it will generally lead to the truth.
When some rule or other just plain doesn't make sense any way you look at it you can damned well bet there's a profit, or a perceived profit, out there somewhere.
KFG
In air Cellphone usage (Score:1)
Re:In air Cellphone usage (Score:2)
Anyway, it wouldn't be hard to charge more to, or ban those individual phones that do more than n tower changes per minute, and it'd be particularly logical to place base stations and centralized retransmitters in each plane.
--Dan
Re:Lufthansa already has it (Score:3, Insightful)
A cell phone operating in analog transmit mode can see for a few miles. Three or four. The problem is, when you're on the ground, that means that maybe you'll see five or so cell towers, max.
This means you occupy one of a finite number of slots on each of five towers. No problem. But when you're way up in the air, you can see dozens of cell towers within a four mile as-the-crow-flies radius of yourself. Now you're using up about ten times more resources than you're supposed to, and effectively are DoSing the cell system. Furthermore, one of the most expensive parts of the cell phone network is the "handoff". (When one cell tower lets go of you, and another one picks you up.) When you are flying at 400 miles per hour, you cause handoffs to occur at a far higher rate, which racks up the costs to the cell phone companies far beyond what they'd planned on, too. (And there's no mechanism to pass the cost of those added handoffs back to you, so the cell company just loses out).
As for jail time? I'm not sure why. During takeoff/landing, there's a lot of sensitive electronics that need calibrating, so you're definitely not allowed to use one then. During flight? Well, people are paranoid these days. *shrug*
Re:Lufthansa already has it (Score:2)
Re:Lufthansa already has it (Score:2)
Assuming your reply wasn't sarcasm, do you get it now?
Re:Lufthansa already has it (Score:2)
What would be worse would be the fact that you enter a cell and leave it again before you've even got a proper lock-on. Hand-offs aren't supposed to happen every 10 seconds...
Re:Lufthansa already has it (Score:1)
(Not to mention that my phone was encased in a metal tube - a Boeing 777.)
Re:Lufthansa already has it (Score:2)
Cell phones are not much of a problem at 40,000 feet. Nor are they any problem over the ocean. You would simply get no reception at all, so it would make no sense to turn your phone on.
But if you're flying New York to Detroit, you're never gonna get above 20,000, because by the time you've risen, it's practically time to descend. In the mean time, you've consumed far more cell tower resources than you should've.
Re:Lufthansa already has it (Score:1)
The REAL reason is that a cell phone at altitude plays havoc with the cell phone network. Changing cells to fast, access to multiple cells with same frequency etc.
So instead of catching flak from the operators and to fell extra safe the airlines keep up the act.
sig: TCAP-Abort
Re:Lufthansa already has it (Score:1)
Re:Lufthansa already has it (Score:3, Informative)
The notion that this is a safety concern is a popular misconception. The law that forbids cell phone use aboard aircraft was created by the FCC, not the FAA.
The following information is second-hand; I can't promise its accuracy, and unfortunately, I can't track down the source anymore. I do know that it's from a private pilot who tried to use his phone while airborne and ended up with some insane roaming charges.
Cell phones are designed to be used on the ground, and really bizarre things can happen to them in the air. Cell towers radiate RF mostly horizontally and very little vertically. This means that in the air, your phone can't see the tower directly beneath you, but it can see towers hundreds of miles away. And it can see lots of them. Imagine your cell network doing a handoff from a tower in Chicago to one in Louisville, then to Dayton, Detroit, St. Louis, and Nashville. Now imagine it doing that over and over again, and it's easy to see why using a cell phone on a plane is a bad idea.
Why Cellphones are Nixed (Score:2)
Airborne cellphones don't bother the plane as much as they bother the network. From a mile in the air, there can be numerous base stations at the same distance from the handset, and they have a rough time deciding which one is going to carry the connection.
Can't wait to try it... (Score:5, Interesting)
This sounds like a great idea... I'd love ot try it. This sure would make flights (especially long flights) more productive for me and less boring.
porn on the plane (Score:4, Funny)
Mile High for Geeks? (Score:3, Funny)
*sob*
Hah, gotta love this coincedence: (Score:1, Funny)
Too bad there's still so much lag. (Score:5, Insightful)
Connexion executives said data transmission speeds for the demo should be about five megabits per second coming into the plane and 128 thousand bits per second when sending data off the plane. The speed, they said, was similar to digital subscriber line service people have at home, but some users complained it seemed slower.
My guess is that it's not slower, but has more lag (through a satelite link... bound to be laggy). If that is the case it's fine for browsing, but no good for games...
Not that it matters, but how cool would it be to play Quake 10 Km up in the air?
Re:Too bad there's still so much lag. (Score:1)
Not to be a downer, but how cool would it really be when you are playing quake online and get a message that says:
"Can't frag, Plane going down... What I wouldn't give for a cheat code right now..."
Re:Too bad there's still so much lag. (Score:3, Funny)
Thanks to the Patriot Act (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Thanks to the Patriot Act (Score:1)
Woudn't that be upload?
hehe
Will Airbus Implement Also... (Score:1)
"Bon jour, you cheese eating, surrender monkeys"
Re:Will Airbus Implement Also... (Score:1)
say this to Lafayette!
Re:Will Airbus Implement Also... (Score:1)
Re:Will Airbus Implement Also... (Score:2)
Re:Will Airbus Implement Also... (Score:1)
Any corrections appreciated.
Yeah but... (Score:4, Insightful)
If the airline is handing out the laptops to people without them, wifi is just an added cost and for those with them, when did you last see a laptop with wireless but without ethernet? (handhelds aside) Seriously, where is the benefit to having it, over and above ethernet via your chair?
Its pretty obvious why the American airlines (which one isn't going broke atm?) aren't too interested.
Re:Yeah but... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Yeah but... (Score:1)
Sound argument. The irony is that they're cabling up business and first class with Cat5 too [lufthansa.co.uk].
I guess that's less weight/cost than the whole plane but it seems odd given the rapid takeup of WiFi
Re:Yeah but... (Score:1)
I'd guess that this was the result of a previous project started when WiFi was not certain to be approved
Also, you can move the seats in passenger planes (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yeah but... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Weight of the cables, connecting every seat with regular ethernet cables is bound to add a lot of ekstra kilo's to the plane, thereby decreasing fuel-economy!
2. Convenience! No cables means less hassle when the passenger in the window-seat wants to go to the bathroom in the middle of your Pr0n surfing
3. Safety reasons, almost the same as above... No need to worry about tripping over a bunch of cables when trying to find the nearest exit!
4. Coolness factor!!!
I'm sure there are lots of other reasons out there, these were just the ones that popped in on me!
Re:Yeah but... (Score:2)
That all rather depends on where you're sitting while doing your pr0n surfing, doesn't it? :^P
Re:Yeah but... (Score:1)
Re:Yeah but... (Score:1)
Re:Yeah but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Also, one of the big concerns on aircraft is weight. I'd bet that all the Cat5 and the 200+ switch ports required for a 767-size airliner are going to weigh a heck of a lot more than 2 or 3 WAPs.
Re:Yeah but... (Score:2)
I'm looking at (and typing on) one right now... The Dell Inspiron 8000 came with a choice of either built-in 802.11b or built-in ethernet&modem. I went for the internal wireless, and have a Cardbus card for ethernet and modem, which isn't plugged in right now.
Re:Yeah but... (Score:1)
Re:Yeah but... (Score:4, Informative)
On an airliner WiFi wins over wired because:
Wires are heavy the few hundred meters of cable required hubs etc would weigh much more than a WiFi rig, every extra kilo costs fuel every time the plane flys. After fitting the WiFi hubs only users add weight (ie the adaptor cards)
WiFi is cheap to fit, just lob the boxes in and configure, wired installation would need to be done during a big refit and would require skilled fitters to string the wires (more cost!)
WiFi is cheap to remove (you really don't want deadweight on a airliner!)
I recall hearing that an 'airline' was playing with fuel numbers and found that if the crew did not wear shoes on their flights they could save $200,000/year in fuel, can anyone provide a source for that?
Doesn't solve the basic problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be nice to be able to work/surf/watch-DVDs on a long-haul flight without having to carry your body-weight in spare batteries.
Re:Doesn't solve the basic problem... (Score:2, Insightful)
I travel almost every week for business and it's rare to come across a plane that has power jacks. Most of the newer American Airlines planes I fly have them but I also fly Southwest, Delta, and Continental and I've yet to see a power jack in any of those planes. Even in AA's planes it's rare.
Maybe this is mostly intended for longer trans-atlantic flights and such but I'm on lots of 2.5+ hour flights. That's long enough to need a power connection if you want to watch a DVD.
Yeah but... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yeah but... (Score:1)
Sweet! (Score:3, Interesting)
In the future... (Score:4, Funny)
We'll have a new breed of webpage defacements that will come from groups with names like j4l, s4s, 44 and b031ng.
great
Re:In the future... (Score:2)
hmmm (Score:5, Interesting)
All it takes is one wisegeek per flight, and they'll find less paying customers than they expected. Oh well, nice while it lasted. My big worry is finding a way to keep running for those 12 hr. flights back to Asia.
Re:hmmm (Score:2)
How exactly do you recieve packets on eth0 and then route them back out through the same interface? unless
1) I am really missing something
2) you are pulling ethernet cables (crossover, no less) back to coach (yeah-right)
3) you are putting in ANOTHER wireless card so you can do the above (which is feasable but may god have mercy on your batteries)
I'm the one that missed something |') (Score:2)
We used to run appletalk cables around the cabin, with our Duo's. Private LAN @ 30k ft.
Another perspective. (Score:4, Interesting)
Also, on a slightly different topic, has anyone tried using a laptop on a plane lately? While it is fine in a First Class seat, using a laptop in coach seats is a royal pain. Unless you have a really small laptop, there simply isn't enough room. With the new bigger screens that laptops have today, it is virtually impossible to open the laptop to a position that it can be comfortably viewed, while in a coach seat. And, if the seat in front of you is reclined you can completely forget it. Inspite of this we are still force fed this marketing about the use of laptops on aircraft. Most recently is Yao and Mini-Me using an Apple laptop with a 17" screen. Great for first class front row, impossible in the majority of seats.
Re:Another perspective. (Score:2, Informative)
And, while we're on the subject, Yao Ming wouldn't fit very well in coach class anyway, would he?
That's why you get the 12" iBook... (Score:2)
As for the referenced article and the in-flight connectivity problems, from the picture I gather they were testing Windows laptops, and it has been my experience that Apple WiFi gear just plain Works Better. I was at a NASA conference in San Francisco in December. The hotel and a local networking firm brought WiFi up to our meeting rooms. The access points were Linksys, but only the Apple laptops connected up with no trouble - the Windows users had to try lots of different configurations and reboot a lot before any of them could connect. XP, NT, beginner, wizard, didn't matter.
Re:Another perspective. (Score:2)
It's crowded, but deal. I have a 15.1" screen, and I use my laptop on planes all the time. I'm also 6'1" and can still use it in coach. The trick is, when you aren't actively using it, fold it up and put it away. It's really quite simple, and if you have a vacant seat next to you, you have a whole tray. It's not the most comfortable solution but it works and it's a way to pass a few hours.
I get more pissed off about long (4+ hour) flights that don't have power jacks.
Dangers of In-Flight WiFi (Score:5, Funny)
BigMan69 I'm horny as hell and I'd love to get freaky with you but I'm on a flight right now
Sexxxychica: really? me too! I'm flying to Sydney. you?
BigMan69 Wow I'm on Qantas flight 609 from Honolulu to Sydney.
Sexxxychica: No joke? I'm in seat 15B! where are you??
Sexxxychica: You still there?
Previous message was not received by BigMan69 because of error: User BigMan69 is not available.
Airline Tickets: $800
In-Flight WiFi : $30
Being trapped on a long-ass flight sitting next to a man who knows you were pretending to be a woman and whom you just tried to have cybersex with: Priceless
The interactivity was the best part! (Score:2)
Please select one:
[1] Sexy nurse (with medicinal whip).
[2] Leather Goddess Of The Sky (with studded whip).
[3] Perky space cadet (with phaser whip).
[4] Pikachu.
I guess that last one is for more family oriented flights, because families are our Most Important (nay, Precious) Natural Resource according to our Trusted Politicians.
And then there was the in-flight pr0n. This led to the only glitch where the plane ran out of tissues. All passengers were given 1000 honorary frequent flyer miles in the Mile High Club.
I suppose in theory you could watch a live video stream of your own plane crashing.
Another mile high club! (Score:1)
Some info (Score:3, Informative)
LH418 - Frankfurt to Dulles (departs 1:10pm local time)
LH419 - Dulles to Frankfurt (departs 5:55pm local time)
Also, starting tomorrow, British Air will have a 90-day demo on 2 flights between Heathrow and JFK:
BA175 - London to JFK (departs 11:00am local time)
BA112 - JFK to London (departs 6:30pm local time)
Mobiles on planes. (Score:2, Insightful)
Saftey Hazzard (Score:1)
Better article with more technical details (Score:2, Informative)
Obvious porn reference (Score:2)
WiFi is OK but not GPS? (Score:2, Insightful)
even creepier... (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Wow! I can download porn at 35,000 ft??? (Score:1)
*sorry*
Re:Connexions is actually from Viasat (Score:2)