Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Businesses Toys

Qantas To Offer In-Flight Internet, Laptop Amenities 155

Posted by Zonk from the im-in-ur-sky-looking-at-ur-pr0n dept.
SlinkySausage writes "Australian international airline Qantas has just announced in-flight broadband will be available across all classes in its new fleet of A380s. Also on offer will be laptop power in economy and internet access in the seat-back entertainment system. They are retrofitting existing 747s with elements of the technology, and providing several ports for passengers with more expensive tickets: 'The USB ports will be used for "viewing of content" on the in-flight entertainment system, though Qantas wouldn't be drawn on whether that would include Divx video capability, or the ability to connect an iPod. It would also allow recharging of USB-powered devices. The Ethernet port is for laptops that don't have wireless, or for people who simply prefer an Ethernet connection over WiFi, which could potentially become congested in an aircraft if in-flight internet usage becomes popular.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Qantas To Offer In-Flight Internet, Laptop Amenities More

Qantas To Offer In-Flight Internet, Laptop Amenities

Comments Filter:

  • Internet access (Score:5, Interesting)

    by BWJones ( 18351 ) * on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @09:43AM (#19968809) Homepage Journal
    This is about time. If you are trying to accomplish work on long International flights, simple laptop accommodations are a necessity, even in coach. And given that more and more work is absolutely dependent upon Internet access, this is welcome indeed.

    I've found Qantas to be one of the most accommodating airlines as well as one of the most progressive. While my last flight [utah.edu] on Quantas was not all it could be (not the fault of Qantas), I would fly them in preference to just about any other carrier and most other carriers could learn from them. Even their international coach is most comfortable with more entertainment options than I've seen on other carriers and given their Internet access, upcoming trips to Japan and China will likely be on Qantas unless the other carriers can step up and offer Internet access.

    • Makes me wonder (Score:4, Funny)

      by benhocking ( 724439 ) <benjaminhocking@nOsPAm.yahoo.com> on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @09:58AM (#19968993) Homepage Journal
      If I should book my next flight from Charlottesville, Virginia to Atlanta, Georgia through Australia to take advantage of this...

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      This is about time. If you are trying to accomplish work on long International flights,

      In a sense it's not. Hear me out for a sec. What this is saying is that, you know what guys, the future is NOT shorter trips or flight times. THe future is extended security checks, socks-n-shoes off at some airports, and shrink-wrapped luggage before boarding. The future is extended parking at the airport tarmac, might as well make your phone calls in a phone booth shaped like an airplane kind of future, give you your in

    • Both of the major Japanese carriers, JAL and ANA, have given me excellent service. I fly ANA when I go back to the States (mostly because JAL doesn't fly NRT-IAD), and aside from the consistent professionalism of their employees, the flight amenities are good as well; they put seat TVs in coach several years back, and they had Boeing's Internet access service (Connexion, was it?) installed as well until it was discontinued. I've come to dread the rare occasions when I have to fly a domestic US route.

      I'l

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ashitaka ( 27544 )
        I'll second the vote on JAL for cabin crew professionalism and entertainment but don't you think their food has degraded to common in-flight crud in the past couple of years?

        They don't even serve zaru soba any more!

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by achurch ( 201270 )
          I haven't flown JAL in the last couple of years, so I wouldn't know, but I guess their troubles aren't limited to ignoring air traffic controllers. ANA, on the other hand, has been consistent for the 8 years I've used them. Consistently mediocre, that is, but growing up in the US, I learned to never count on the edibility of airline food anyway.
    • Boeing offered in-flight Internet in a service called Connexion [wikipedia.org]. Many European airlines bought it for their planes, but none of the U.S. airlines did. Boeing eventually discontinued it [slashdot.org] because of customer disinterest (customer = airlines).

      I got to use it once (for free!) on Lufthansa before they shut it down. The speed was about on par with using my 3G cell phone as a modem, maybe a bit faster. I VPN'ed into my company's network and printed out a page saying I was typing and printing this from 33,000 f

      • Boeing shelled out a lot of money to start Connexion and then another load of money to stop it. They had contracted with SES Americom to launch AMC-23 to support Connexion over the Pacific. When Boeing bailed out of Connexion, they had to pay out a huge termination clause to SES.

        And now AMC-23 sits pretty much unused and SES is having a fire sale on space segment to try to recoup some of the costs of running the bird.
    • unless you have a really tiny laptop - providing an internet connection still wont let you actually open the thing when the person in front reclines their seat - remember the cross-pacific flights QANTAS runs are largely overnight

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cute-boy ( 62961 )

      This is about time.

      Right. There is little enough space in cattle class (even with the extra leg room) without having the nerd next to you decide they are going to get the laptop out. Especially when clambering over each other to get to the toilet etc...

      They should leave the internet access and the PC power supply points for business and first class, where you can operate without disturbing the person next to you. If you want to work on a flight, you (or your boss) should be prepared to pay for that.

      I do a lot of long

  • QANTAS... (Score:3, Informative)

    by DavidpFitz ( 136265 ) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @09:44AM (#19968815) Homepage Journal
    It's QANTAS, not QANTIS.

    Queensland And Northern Territory Aerial Services.

    • Re: (Score:1, Offtopic)

      by DavidpFitz ( 136265 )
      Headline fixed by the editors. Must be a record for correcting a mistake?!

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      QANTIS

      Queensland And Northern Territory Internet Services

    • It's Quick And Nasty Typical Australian Service ;)

  • Worryingly, though, the report says that the broadband will be provided via Inmarsat's SwiftBroadband 432kbit/sec-per-channel service

    (yes, I RTFA)

    I doubt if one could do more than check e-mail - As they say in the article, if everyone logs on, the flight 'll probably end before one can do any worthwhile browsing/e-mail work..

    IMO, the power for laptops sounds more useful to me - on a long haul flight, it will allow me to finish more work in the flight itself..

    Hope the other airlines also start something like this soon...

  • Another rule (Score:2, Funny)

    by ATestR ( 1060586 )
    Internet connectivity is provided on our new flights, but personal electronic devices will henceforth be restricted due to security concerns...
  • this is long overdue and more importantly, would swing my preference. I would pay a bit more to fly Qantas with this service, it's just a shame they aren't allowed to fly domestically in the US

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by fbjon ( 692006 )
      Not allowed? Why is that?

      • Re:as a frequent traveller (Score:4, Interesting)

        by VJ42 ( 860241 ) * on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @11:20AM (#19970081)
        The US Airline industry is very protectionist; even the recent open skies agreement [bbc.co.uk] with EU airlines doesn't go as far as most Europian carriers wanted and was seen to be bias toward the US airlines. (Both EU and US air lines can now land in more destinations, but EU airlines can't fly from one destination in the US to another; however US carriers can fly from one EU destination to another, a side effect of the EU being made up of many countries)
        • See my sister comment [slashdot.org], but in short, there is at least one foreign domestic flight within the US.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by kimba ( 12893 )
            Qantas is not allowed to accept passengers just for the LAX-JFK route. The LAX is in effect a refueling stop, and you can only purchase tickets JFKSYD and LAXSYD, but not LAXJFK on QF.
            • In that case, I'd stand corrected. Admittedly, my understanding was from getting back on at LAX, and hearing "Welcome aboard the continuation of flight blah ... For those passengers joining us..." - but I guess that could be attributed to reading from memory/script, rather than an accurate portrayal of bookings.

              Would be interesting (well, in a 'useless trivia' sense as to whether they're allowed to standby/waitlist missed connections onto that flight out of LAX...

      • Foreign airlines are not allowed to fly domestically within the United States. I have no idea why, but they aren't. That's why you cannot hop on a British Airways flight from DC to LA.

        Deregulation helped the United States immensely. "The U.S. airline market was deregulated in 1978. The virtues of the move, though long debated, had become more than self-evident by the mid-1990s: With the government no longer dictating ticket prices and in-flight menus, airfares dropped 40 percent in real terms between 19
        • The very airline the article is talking about does exactly this.

          Qantas offers a flight SYD > LAX > JFK. The LAX-JFK leg is flown by Qantas, not codeshare.

          I think this is okay, because the actual flight origin is technically Sydney, not within the US. That being said, you are able to purchase tickets purely for the LAX > JFK leg, and thus fly a foreign airline entirely within the US.

          • I don't believe you're allowed to fly JFK-LAX only on the Qantas flight; the JFK service is purely to provide 1-stop service to Sydney. On the Qantas web site, you can't purchase a JFK-LAX flight. See wikipedia's cabotage [wikipedia.org] page. In fact, the asinine U. S. laws prohibit foreign carriers from offering domestic U. S. service even if it's connecting through a foreign country! That is, Air Canada can't offer service between two U. S. cities connecting through Toronto even though neither leg is a U. S. domestic fl

  • Definitely Qantas (Score:5, Funny)

    by smitty97 ( 995791 ) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @09:54AM (#19968927)
    Charlie: Ray, all airlines have crashed at one time or another, that doesn't mean that they are not safe.
    Raymond: QANTAS. QANTAS never crashed.
    Charlie: QANTAS?
    Raymond: Never crashed.
    Charlie: Oh that's gonna do me a lot of good because QANTAS doesn't fly to Los Angeles out of Cincinnati, you have to get to Melbourne! Melbourne, Australia in order to get the plane that flies to Los Angeles!
  • This reminds me off how QANTAS were going to (still going to?) offer the ability to send and receive text messages on board the plane. The "tower" had its own country code, and thus sending messages was sending them internationally, which costs a lot of course...

    This Internet access won't be free, in fact it will probably cost much more then the prices at the airport. Personally, I don't think I would use such a facility (unless it was free), if I have my laptop, well I have NetHack, lots of E-Books (though
    • Not true - they've never lost a jet airliner but have had 62 deaths.

      Ryanair, on the other hand, are the biggest international airline in the world, and have had 0 craft lost and 0 deaths.

      • Re:Of course, it won't be free (Score:4, Informative)

        by Achromatic1978 ( 916097 ) <robert@@@chromablue...net> on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @01:40PM (#19972393)
        Ryanair are the "biggest international airline" by a highly subjective, probably inaccurate measurement. They fly many domestic routes, which have been somehow counted. Far more likely is that they are number three or four at best, and Lufthansa is number one.

        It's also a little tenuous to suggest that an airline founded in 1985 with a fleet of 136 aircraft having no lost aircraft is comparable to an airline founded in 1920 with a fleet of 230 is comparable, especially when, as you note, both Qantas and Ryanair are at zero losses in the jet age.

        And on that jet age note, it's also rather important to point out that Qantas have ALSO had zero deaths since moving to into the jet age.

        So let's not start holding Ryanair as superior just yet.

  • I don't know this is a good idea. Right now flights between places like LA and OZ & NZ, there is not much to do except to sleep especially since it is an overnight flight. Bring in laptops and cell phones into the equation, no one will get much sleep due to someone talking or the glow from the laptop LCD. If it was a day flight, a different story.

    A good compromise would be to have a work area someplace in the plane where you can get thing accomplished without bothering anyone else. But space is mon
    • I like the idea of a "work" area... you certainly don't want me sleeping on a flight that you want to sleep on as well... too much LOUD snoring. Been known to scare small children.... so for someone like me, you really do want them to stay up and read, etc. all night long.

    • Re:Overnight Flights & sleeping (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jrumney ( 197329 ) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @10:33AM (#19969381)

      On the flight back, I had one a-hole nearby who thought it was good to read in the middle of the night. It would been better to go up into the galley area to read.

      On my last long distance flight (a proper long distance flight with two legs lasting 15 and 13 hours respectively), they handed out eyeshades so self-righteous pricks could sleep without worrying about what their neighbour whose bodyclock might be on who knows what timezone is doing. As for going to the galley, do you really think getting in the way of the staff is better than quietly enjoying the facilities that were put there for you at your own seat?

      • It always amazes me that people are to stupid to bring an eye shade and ear plugs when they plan on sleeping in a crowded room. What is with these jerks that think mass transit and a bedroom are the same thing?

        Of course these people certainly make a good argument for avoiding mass transit.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by eobanb ( 823187 )

          Of course these people certainly make a good argument for avoiding mass transit.
          Right, of course. Everyone should just contract a private jet. *rolls eyes*
    • Get one of those eye cover things and quit complaining. That guy would have been an "a-hole" if he walked into your bedroom one night, turned the light on and started reading. But he didn't. He was on a public airplane. I swear, some people have the most ridiculous sense of entitlement!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by fbjon ( 692006 )

      Here is my personal experience back this past winter, I did a trip between LAX and AKL (LA, CA & Auckland NZ). It was an overnite flight which takes ~12 hours. Qantas exceeds what we have got used to on domestic flights. Even though it is airline food, you get fed dinner and breakfast. As an added bonus, you get free alcohol.
      This is all pretty much standard operating procedure on any international long-haul flight.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by ashitaka ( 27544 )
        The free alcohol is the one thing that I don't understand. Is the intention to calm down nervous and irritated passengers? If so, it doesn't work well. Planes are dry places, alcohol dries you out even more making the alcohol take even more effect. End result: drunk, unruly passengers making life hell for flight attendants and other passengers and occasionally forcing the pilot to redirect the flight to kick the bum off.

        I've had to help tie down and isolate a drunk heroin addict who had already slugged

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by shplorb ( 24647 )
          Big deal. Sounds like he was going through heroin withdrawal more than not being able to hold his piss.

          David Boon, a famous Australian cricketer, is legendary and admired for one thing (and it's not the 'tash!): Drinking 52 cans of beer on a flight from Sydney to London.

          It's our god-given right as Aussies to sink piss on planes!

      • This is all pretty much standard operating procedure on any international long-haul flight.

        You'd think so, until I had the misfortune to have to endure United Melbourne - Sydney - San Francisco - Seattle. "One alcoholic beverage per passenger" (although it may have been "one free ..."). And not just policy, but enforced. I watched a guy ask, after getting wine from the attendant in his aisle, another attendant. She yelled down the aisle to the first attendant, "No, he's had his already". Bleh.

    • Noisy moving chairs & sleeping (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Scrameustache ( 459504 ) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @10:53AM (#19969689) Homepage Journal

      I don't know this is a good idea. Right now flights between places like LA and OZ & NZ, there is not much to do except to sleep
      Or read or draw or play cards or chat or etc.

      Some of us can't sleep in planes or trains, you know.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by truesaer ( 135079 )
      I've only flown on Quantas once (in coach), but they provided an eyeshade to every passenger. In fact they provided a nice little kit to everyone with eyeshade, headphones, snacks, bottled watter, blanket/pillow, and toothbrush and toothpaste.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by grrrl ( 110084 )
      Right now flights between places like LA and OZ & NZ, there is not much to do except to sleep especially since it is an overnight flight.

      Er, no. Last flight I flew SYD->LAX left Sydney at midday. Sure, after lunch they dimmed the lights to try and adjust people to the time difference, but I wasn't fooled.

      Flying LAX-> SYD I left at midday again, and arrived at Sydney 8.30pm at night. No overnight there! Actually it was a great flight, I was really adjusted when I got to Sydney - stayed up a few hou
    • Free alcohol is standard on non-US carrier international flights.

  • Okay, before anyone asks: (Score:5, Funny)

    by Penguinisto ( 415985 ) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @10:00AM (#19969007) Journal
    Since this is /. ...

    No, you cannot join the Mile High Club by taking your laptop with you to the bathroom and hitting the pr0n, no matter how much Cat5 you stuff into the carry-on for facilitating this.

    /P

    • "No, you cannot join the Mile High Club by taking your laptop with you to the bathroom and hitting the pr0n, no matter how much Cat5 you stuff into the carry-on for facilitating this."

      BATHROOM!! We'll that explains all of the grimacing faces around me.

    • No, you cannot join the Mile High Club by taking your laptop with you to the bathroom [...]

      We Australians don't even understand that. Who puts a bath on a plane?

  • This is fantastic news - a great leap forward. HOWEVER The cabin baggage weight limits are SO strict these days - I can only just take my 15" laptop + power brick + bag onto a flight, given the strict 7KG weight limit. They really need to return to the old days where it was "one carry on bag plus one Personal Item" such as hangbag, briefcase OR LAPTOP.
    • I'm always loaded down with my carry-ons. As long as it fits in the box outside the terminal they don't care. Even if it does not fit they rarely give me any fuss. Only airline that got pissy with me was some cheap shit China airline going from Shenzen to Beijing. They were cheap as hell. A whole $20 extra to check the luggage was fine by me.
    • Are you kidding me? I flew Qantas Melbourne LAX Seattle six months ago, carrying two backpacks. One 'smaller' 17" laptop backpack, with various stuff. Probably 10 lb. And one Lowepro Computrekker Plus AW [lowepro.com] - this bad boy is designed to hold multiple camera bodies, lenses, and a 17" laptop. This thing was closer to forty pounds with a 8lb laptop, camera body, four or five lenses, etc, etc.

      Noone batted an eye, except for the security explosives screener who laughed, "Seven kilograms?!?" Normally I hate this an

    • Why not have a total weight per person, including the person's weight? That seems more fair overall, and it would encourage overweight people to be more healthy.
    • In the old days when you could check in 20kgs and carry on anything (weight wise), some diving friends of mine would carry their lead weightbelts (10+ kgs) and save a significant chunk of their check-in allowance. But back then I never had problems carrying on a lock-blade knife with a 6-inch blade though at least 10 different airports in various countries.
  • IIRC, the airlines prefer to wireless over wired connection for several reasons. The same number of wireless access points as ethernet ports requires less wiring and saves weight (antenna overhead as opposed to running cable to every seat). Putting hardwired ports shows some real commitment by Quantas since they would have to retrofit seats (which I guess they are already if they are providing power).

    I hope the wireless catches on now that my cell phone is wi-fi VOIP (http://cincinnatibell.com/consumer [cincinnatibell.com]
  • Think of the profits:

    In flight Quantas internet $60
    Ticket to Australia $2000
    Your face when you work out the price of $0.15/MB over 200 mb of usage
    Priceless

    http://my.bigpond.com/internetplans/broadband/cabl e/plans/ [bigpond.com]

  • voice? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by conspirator57 ( 1123519 )
    VOIP on your laptop or perhaps iPhone, etc.? mmm... no more at&t/sprint airphone taunting me from the seatback in front of me.
    • Latency would kill VOIP on an airplane, case closed. And if the latency doesn't kill you, the person in the seat next to you who has to hear you blab for hours on end just might.

  • I gather Qantas are under a lot of pressure from Emirates [emirates.com] for popular Europe-Australia routes. Emirates have a young fleet with very good facilities - the best on-demand system I've seen anyway. Some people have complained that Emirates takes subsidies from the sheikhs of Dubai, although the Wikipedia page for Emirates [wikipedia.org] says that this is not the case.

    Peter

    • So what if they do?
      Delta took a subsidy from me when they wrote off all their common stock and re-issued "DAL New".
      Airbus get subsidies from the EU, Boeing gets them from the US, I'm sure there is some level of preferential treatment for Quantas in .AU .NZ compared to everyone else.
      It's the way of life, and if the sheikhs feel fit to give money then that's their business.
      If it is true, however, it's a bit shady to lie about it...
      -nB
  • Anyone know what kind of system they're using for connectivity? Guessing some sort of satellite system. Though I've heard they have a horrible uplink for obvious reasons. How can such a system handle requests from 50-100+ users and not freeze up because of request packet overflow.
    • by making costs real high that only a few people can pay for it.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by jzuska ( 65827 )
      Stop thinking about how you are going to play WoW on the plane. This will be used to check your stocks, read CNN, and email your Power Points.
  • So either the "interference issues" have been solved, or it has been an hoax since the beginning.
    • Newer planes == better avionics == less interference perhaps?
      • Actually, not 'better avionics', but rather 'avionics and wiring designed for'. Something that most aircraft currently flying were not designed or built for.
  • This is great news. But:

    Didn't one airline already offer this for a short while, but they abandoned it because they didn't want terrorists to be able to communicate with the ground, or colleagues on other planes?

    Also, why is Wi-Fi suddenly safe while we're not allowed to use cell phones on board?
    • Well, two things to think about. Cells use frequencies other than 2.4GHz and 5.1GHz for communications. But I don't believe that wireless communication devices are really a major threat to aircraft - they didn't take my phone away at the TSA checkpoint. If I was a malicious passenger, and wanted to take down an airline, do you think they'd let me through the gate with a device that will disrupt the plane's instrumentation if it's switched on? I've flown all over the place, and casually forgotten to turn my

      • Well, two things to think about. Cells use frequencies other than 2.4GHz and 5.1GHz for communications. But I don't believe that wireless communication devices are really a major threat to aircraft - they didn't take my phone away at the TSA checkpoint. If I was a malicious passenger, and wanted to take down an airline, do you think they'd let me through the gate with a device that will disrupt the plane's instrumentation if it's switched on? I've flown all over the place, and casually forgotten to turn my

        • I have no idea if you can from that height. What's the maximum line-of-sight range of a GSM mast?

          I believe 22km is the theoretical limit, so its certainly possible... but most calls on United Flight 93 were on the plane's built-in phones, and not cell phones... until the plane was at around 5,000ft, but they were flying over southeast PA, so maybe there were not many towers or they weren't transmitting with a lot of power...
    • Cellphones are more of a danger to the user who owns it than everyone else. Wi-Fi however is safe for the user, and everyone around them. If a cellphone goes off in flight the person whom it belongs to is in more danger than anything else of getting their ass kicked.

      Now...for the technical reason (since most people can't comprehend altitude). When your on the ground, your cellphone sees 3-5 towers MAYBE (just enough to make a voice call). When your on a plane your cellphone can see upwards of 20 towers. W

      • Hmmm. Some strange arguments here. It seems you're saying that the reason the airlines tell me to turn off my cell phone is because my battery would be drained too quickly, or the provider's network might be overloaded? That seems very unlikely. Surely that's my choice and/or the provider's business? Not to mention that I'm sure the GSM standard (or other cellular phone standard) has mechanisms to cope with situations like this without instantly overloading the entire network.

        You go on to imply that this

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by snarkh ( 118018 )

      Lufthansa was offering wireless on their long-haul flights for a while. Not sure if they are still doing it. The cost was around $30 per flight, which seemed a bit steep for the slow internet they offered.
  • For ages, "turn off your mobile phones and other electronic devices" has been the golden rule whilst in-flight, until of course the captain turns off the seatbelt sign so you can use approved electronics devices (listed in the back of your in-flight magazine).

    FTA:

    Qantas says it will offer wireless internet throughout the A380s -- even in economy -- as well as web and email access via seat-back inflight entertainment systems if you don't have a laptop with you.

    I can only wonder if, having been "educated" that a cell phone turned on while in flight can bring the entire plane crashing down in flames, some customers might feel a slight bit uneasy when they see everyone firing up their laptops and connect

    • Have you flown recently? Every flight I've been on in the past few years disallows electronic devices only during take-off and landing. For the vast majority of the flight, they're permitted.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Valdez ( 125966 )
        I'm sorry, next time I'll also demonstrate using this shorter version of a seatbelt. ;)

        ...until of course the captain turns off the seatbelt sign so you can use approved electronics devices (listed in the back of your in-flight magazine).
        I thought we could all start off on the same page with that one.
  • How is the speed, uptime, latencies, etc. on these flights? Is it like dial-up speed? I know on cruise ships, Internet really sucks. Worse than dial-up.

  • Internet and phone are the things I don't miss (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MosesJones ( 55544 ) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @11:38AM (#19970385) Homepage
    I travel alot, and a lack of internet access for 12 hours or so is one of the things I really don't miss. I do a hell a lot of work on flights and a major reason for that is that I have to plan in advance, make sure I've got all the info I need and then I'm away. If I was on the internet I'd be expected to connect back to base, read and respond to emails and basically get less actual work done as people sent emails like "have you landed yet".

    I like the fact that for 12 hours I'm out of communications and I can settle down and do what I want to do. I land, sync with the airport's WiFi and by the time I'm in the cab I'm responding to all those emails anyway, 30 minutes later I'm in the hotel and connected and the emails are all sent.

    Lufthansa tried this a few years ago and then cancelled it because simply put the folks in business class (who would pay for this stuff) preferred to drink the nice wine, have a nice meal and have a sleep rather than browse the internet and get their emails.
     

  • Lufthansa was using Boeing's Connexion service? (Score:3, Informative)

    by hughk ( 248126 ) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @11:42AM (#19970447) Journal

    I believe Lufthansa was happily using Boeing's Connexion service until it was withdrawn due to insufficient takeup [slashdot.org] by other carriers. Note that Lufthansa was quite happy with the service even though it cost almost a fortune to mod the 747-400. The service was slow but it provided web and email access from Angels 33 without problems. To those of us old enough to remember 33K modems and slower, the speed wasn't so much an issue (although some people's web design was).

    The thing is for short flights, it wasn't particularly interesting. Most people can afford to be off net for a few hours, so unless you were doing coast to coast in the US, it wasn't that interesting. Australia has some quite long distance flights inside the country, let alone to Asia, North America or Europe. That would make some money.

  • Your Own P2P Network (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @11:51AM (#19970631)
    There are enough passengers on an A380 to run your own filesharing network. Imagine hundreds of people all sharing music and videos around the plane's local network.

    Imagine the RIAA trying to figure out how to stop it.

    Not to mention chat with the lovely female in the next row up.

    • Imagine the RIAA trying to figure out how to stop it.

      Wouldn't be a problem for them, actually. The RIAA would just get Homeland Security to define "file sharing" as "terrorism", and then the TSA would have to search our laptop hard drives for any illegal songs.

  • International waters (Score:3, Interesting)

    by wiredlogic ( 135348 ) on Tuesday July 24, 2007 @12:17PM (#19971045)
    When the plane gets over international waters they should allow the passengers to have a p2p love-in, sharing all their media with each other while thumbing their noses at copyright law.

  • QoS (Score:2)

    by s31523 ( 926314 )
    As soon as airlines offer this service and charge more for a seat to have access to it, the question of Quality of Service becomes relevant. If I pay an extra $20, $30, whatever, for a seat that has service amenities like power for my laptop, internet access, etc. and this stuff doesn't work, or breaks my laptop (power surge?), the complaining will begin and refunds will have to be given out. I'd be sure to ask about what to expect for my extra dollar...

  • Leg Room (Score:2, Insightful)

    by martin1977 ( 866047 )

    Two problems with this in coach/economy:

    • getting the screen far enough open to read and type at the same time
    • crushed screen (and private parts) when the hulk in front decides to have a kip and reclines

    Emirates are my favourite airline - great service and entertainment system.

  • The Ethernet port is for laptops that don't have wireless, or for people who simply prefer an Ethernet connection over WiFi, which could potentially become congested in an aircraft if in-flight internet usage becomes popular.'"

    In my home the internet link is about 8 mbps, while my wireless is 54mbps. The same will hold in an airplane. Actually I doubt they will be able to get 8mpbs for the whole plane.

    So congestion will not happen, unless there is an inflight content-server that becomes popular, or people d
  • I guess the A380s must be less delayed than I had thought. ;)

Slashdot Top Deals

Saliva causes cancer, but only if swallowed in small amounts over a long period of time. -- George Carlin

Close