United To Offer Internet Access On Flights

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.rednova.com/news/stories/3/2003/06/17/story001.html">http://www.rednova.com/news/stories/3/2003/06/17/story001.html</a><br /><br />"Hoping to get a jump on the competition in the scramble for business travelers, United Airlines is set to announce Tuesday that it will be the first commercial carrier to offer two-way e-mail capability aboard all its domestic flights. By the end of the year, passengers on all flights will be able to plug their laptops into jacks on the Verizon Airfone handsets, which will use technology by Tenzing Communications to transmit e-mails."<br /><br />Yeah, that sounds good until you read the fine print. :deal: <br /><br />• It is $5.99 per flight for instant messaging<br />• $15.97 per flight for email access, including attachment capabilities<br />• $.10 for each KB once you reach 2KB of data.<br /><br />Yup. For a 250K Excel file, you will get dinged $40.77 ignoring the general overhead necessary for your client to negotiate with your email server. :roll: I can't wait until the first poor soul gets his laptop set up, enters his credit card number then proceeds to synchronize his Outlook inbox and gets hit for a few hundred dollars.

[rfischer]

That is so typical of a company that charges you $5.00 to watch an in-flight movie on a really small TV with a pair of "headphones" that deliver sound through kinked plastic tubes....

[kidA]

absolutely ridiculous. i would expect it to be expensive as with all things associated with air travel, but that's absolutely ridiculous. not only is it insanely expensive, but the whole structure of the plan is stupid. at first, upon seeing that they were going to offer internet access, i though, cool, it's about time. then i read the rest... :roll:

[Kati Compton]

Oh, what a tease. I just booked a European trip on United, and then I see this headline! I got so excited until I read the details.

STUPID STUPID STUPID.

They're only going to get emergency access, whereas if they made it anything like reasonable, they would have a TON of people paying them to get net access.

Oh well. Guess I'll keep to my usual technique of just trying to sleep as much as possible.

[spg]

Yes, I agree. 2 kilobytes and 10 cents a kilobyte after that!!?! Oh brother, that is absolutely incredible. While this might have been fine back in the days of "160k is enough for anyone" (like anyone would have a laptop then, much less on a place), it is absolutely ridiculous today. I was hopeful when I read the headline, but then you get the the fine print. I think it is about time airlines started providing access like this, but at that rate they aren't going to get many users. :roll:

As a side note - Don't tell me the "thoughts effect" crashed United's site as well? It seems to be down right now... 8O

[Kati Compton]

As a side note - Don't tell me the "thoughts effect" crashed United's site as well? It seems to be down right now... 8O
Hah! They deserve it. They were trying to charge me $300 more for the same flights I could get on Expedia.

[spaceman]

Connexion by Boeing (http://www.connexionbyboeing.com/main.cfm?nav=0) will offer broadband speeds for full Internet access. The United email service using Tenzing Communications is probably an order of magnitude slower. Also the Connexion by Boeing wil be flat fee for ~$25-$30 per flight. Boeing is looking into providing 802.11b access for easy connections for passengers with WiFe enabled laptops and PDAs.

Also see Seattle Times article (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/businesstechnology/135018912_webairshow18.html)

[ctmagnus]

passengers with WiFe enabled laptops and PDAs.

:confused totally: 0X :microwave: :eek: :twak:

[T-Will]

If I wasn't laughing so hard I would've voted for "Really Dumb" or "Outrageously Dumb", if there was an option for that.

[Reidar]

United is not getting a jump on the competition this way. The competition is already ahead. Lufthansa offered free wireless broadband access on its flights between Washington, DC and Frankfurt earlier this year on a pilot basis. I tried it on a couple of occasions; it was great. For those who didn't have wireless cards in their laptop the airline provided LAN cables -- which we could keep after using them. I am not sure what the pricing will be like after the pilot is over, but I understand it will be more liked a flat fee.

[danmanmayer]

Did you get that icon just for that post? I dont think i have seen it before and it is perfect. I really should have register for this site a long time ago... There should be an entire post for people like me to say they regretter not joining earlier so newbies have a good incentive to join... yeah probably a waste oh well they dont know what there missing best pocket stuff on the net. hehe

[szamot]

this is why I always say, that no one over the age of 40 should ever sit on any executive committee, simply because they are just out of touch with reality...as we know it.

[Jeff Rutledge]

They're only going to get emergency access

I'm not sure I agree. I know quite a few people that wouldn't think twice of racking up a couple hundred dollar Internet bill on a flight. I'm thinking of business travellers, especially those that are in a client-service industry (ie. lawyers, accountants, consultants). In many cases, they can charge this to the client. In others the ability to charge-out during this time offsets the "adminstrative" cost of the access. Some of these folks are charging hundreds per hour. So if they can stay in touch and contribute during a flight, it will likely offset the cost in their eyes.

PS: To clarify my point before the flames fly, I'm just showing another possible perspective. I voted Really Dumb. 0X

[cherring]

In my country it is still illegal to have a wifi hotspot at all. We have one telecommunications provider who has sole license to dispense that kind of access. You may use wifi in an office but only because there isn't specific legislation regarding it. Authorities tend to "look the other way." As soon as you put it up in a public space, like an airport or something that makes telkom think you are stepping on their turf, you have to take it down, or be criminally prosecuted. How rude. I don't have an access point but I plan to and share it with everyone else in my area when I get one.

[Pony99CA]

this is why I always say, that no one over the age of 40 should ever sit on any executive committee, simply because they are just out of touch with reality...as we know it.
You had better hope we don't have a poll like this about your comment. I'm over 40, and feel very in touch with technology. Care to disagree? ;-)

I think that pricing is ridiculous, too, but I also don't know what kind of costs United has to amortize. I imagine building the infrastructure into planes is very expensive, getting bandwidth probably isn't cheap, and I suspect there are regulatory issues (ensuring there's no interference with avionics and so on).

Regardless if the pricing is reasonable or not, calling anybody over 40 "out of touch with reality" is just stupid. You win my dumb comment of the day award. Congratulations. :-D

Steve

[thomas1973]

They're only going to get emergency access

I'm not sure I agree. I know quite a few people that wouldn't think twice of racking up a couple hundred dollar Internet bill on a flight. I'm thinking of business travellers, especially those that are in a client-service industry (ie. lawyers, accountants, consultants). In many cases, they can charge this to the client. In others the ability to charge-out during this time offsets the "adminstrative" cost of the access. Some of these folks are charging hundreds per hour. So if they can stay in touch and contribute during a flight, it will likely offset the cost in their eyes.
I agree with you! The connection isn't an offer to the weekend traveller, wanting to instant message and play games with friends over the net to pass time. Like most other things on planes/airports, it's buildt - and priced - for the business traveller. Too bad for us who just wanted to enjoy our flight... The only upside is, that most of these new features coming to business class eventually work their way down to cattle class, and on the way the pricing gets more reasonable.


Thomas.

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

I know quite a few people that wouldn't think twice of racking up a couple hundred dollar Internet bill on a flight. I'm thinking of business travellers, especially those that are in a client-service industry (ie. lawyers, accountants, consultants). In many cases, they can charge this to the client. In others the ability to charge-out during this time offsets the "adminstrative" cost of the access. Some of these folks are charging hundreds per hour. So if they can stay in touch and contribute during a flight, it will likely offset the cost in their eyes.
Well, that's definitely who United is targeting but having been a business consultant myself for many years (from one of the original "Big 6"), my feel is that this model might have worked 5 years ago when the economy was bubbling, but now with the downturn, consulting firms have had to try twice as hard in order to win business that we would have turned away previously.

This is so typical of United though. This is a company that should be making money up the wazoo. I've been flying them every month for the past 2+ years and have never been on a flight that wasn't jam-packed or near-jam-packed and yet they're still losing money. Too much overhead... too much greed... no efficiency.

[vetteguy]

I'm not sure why everyone thinks this is so unbelievable...haven't you ever seen how much it costs to make a phone call through one of their "sky phones" or whatever they're called? Isn't that like a minimum $20 connection fee plus several $/minute? True, this is outrageous gouging, but I don't think it should come as a great shock.

[pcause]

I used my cell phone connected to a PocketPC to get email at 14.4K speeds. PocketOutlook defaulted to only fetching the first 100 lines. I wasn't gettting messages. I looked at the raw messages. Email coming from Outlook/Exchange in HTML had more than 200 lines of HTML headers/style sheet info. Even if we assume 40 characters per line, that is over 8KB for the headers and you are not at the message.

A dumb plan. Then they'll wonder why no one signed up. No wonder these guys went bankrupt.

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

I'm not sure why everyone thinks this is so unbelievable...haven't you ever seen how much it costs to make a phone call through one of their "sky phones" or whatever they're called? Isn't that like a minimum $20 connection fee plus several $/minute? True, this is outrageous gouging, but I don't think it should come as a great shock.
You're right. These rates are pretty consistent with what they charge for their airphones. Having said that, it's a rare flight that I ever see anyone bother to dislodge that phone.

Perhaps at some point they'll learn that if they lower the costs, they'll get more business. Of course I'm speaking somewhat out of ignorance of what UA's cost is of maintaining these phones or what fees they incur per call that goes out. Nor do I know whether or not UA dictates those fees or if it's the carrier that dictates the fees. Perhaps someone knows?

[scottmag]

Email coming from Outlook/Exchange in HTML had more than 200 lines of HTML headers/style sheet info. Even if we assume 40 characters per line, that is over 8KB for the headers and you are not at the message.

WTF? 200 lines of formatting before the actual message starts??!! That's insane. Jihad on HTML-formatted email!

Is there a way to strip that crap off so plaintext can be accessed remotely?

Scott

[pdhenry]

That is so typical of a company that charges you $5.00 to watch an in-flight movie on a really small TV with a pair of "headphones" that deliver sound through kinked plastic tubes....For what it's worth, the headsets on all United flights are free (and they are electric).

[Kati Compton]

That is so typical of a company that charges you $5.00 to watch an in-flight movie on a really small TV with a pair of "headphones" that deliver sound through kinked plastic tubes....For what it's worth, the headsets on all United flights are free (and they are electric).
But they used to be as described by rfischer. I was very happy when they finally installed headphone jacks so I could use my *own* headphones.

[rfischer]

But they used to be as described by rfischer. I was very happy when they finally installed headphone jacks so I could use my *own* headphones.

I didn't realize that. Since I relocated to GA five years ago, I only fly Delta (which still uses the plastic tube headphones). Fortunately, I have noise-cancelling headphones with an adapter that plugs into their armrests. Sorry for straying off-topic.

:)

[danmanmayer]

take off that .10 per kb and instant messaging for 6 dollars a flight isn't that horrible. I mean bad yes but if you know someone is waiting to talk to you that is alot of conversation for only 6 bucks.... compare to the airphones.... yikes those are expensive.

[Kati Compton]

take off that .10 per kb and instant messaging for 6 dollars a flight isn't that horrible. I mean bad yes but if you know someone is waiting to talk to you that is alot of conversation for only 6 bucks.... compare to the airphones.... yikes those are expensive.

If it was $25 for unlimited text email and IM I'd go for it in a snap on transatlantic flights or even cross-US flights.

If they want to ensure you only do text-based stuff, or don't hog bandwidth with HTML graphics, they could always limit you to about 2400-9600 baud. ;)

[Mexico]

Regardless if the pricing is reasonable or not, calling anybody over 40 "out of touch with reality" is just stupid. You win my dumb comment of the day award. Congratulations. :-D

Pony99CA:
szamot's comment wasn't anything personal. You took it personal, and you made it personal. His intention wasn't to insult, but yours is. Bad Pony! :evil: Let's keep it positive, k? :sunny:

[Ed Hansberry]

szamot's comment wasn't anything personal. You took it personal, and you made it personal. His intention wasn't to insult, but yours is. Bad Pony! :evil: Let's keep it positive, k? :sunny:
Proof that those over 40 are curmudgeonly. :wink:

[klinux]

At least they should offer this for free to biz and F class passengers!

[Mexico]

At least they should offer this for free to biz and F class passengers!

Those are the ones with the mula. I'll settle for a bigger bag of peanuts. :wink:

[Kati Compton]

Those are the ones with the mula. I'll settle for a bigger bag of peanuts. :wink:
I'd settle for peanuts at all instead of the stupid pretzels. Bring back airline peanuts! Just include one of those warnings: "Warning: May contain peanuts or peanut pieces". I LOVE seeing that warning on a bag of peanuts.

[Pony99CA]

Regardless if the pricing is reasonable or not, calling anybody over 40 "out of touch with reality" is just stupid. You win my dumb comment of the day award. Congratulations. :-D
szamot's comment wasn't anything personal. You took it personal, and you made it personal. His intention wasn't to insult, but yours is.

I know it wasn't personal -- it was directed at all people over 40, not just me. That's called stereotyping and actually makes it worse.

I do wonder how you know szamot's intent (or mine), though. There were no smilies on his post. As for my intent, it was to point out, forcefully, how stupid that comment was. Notice that I did not say szamot himself was stupid, restricting my remarks to his comment, so it was not a personal attack.

Steve

[Pony99CA]

Proof that those over 40 are curmudgeonly. :wink:
You say that like it's a bad thing, Ed. :lol: (By the way, my Brighthand status tag says "Professional Curmudgeon".)

Steve

[Mexico]

"Against stupidity, the gods
themselves contend in vain."

Isaac Asimov

Let's move on, shall we?

[thomas1973]

Regardless if the pricing is reasonable or not, calling anybody over 40 "out of touch with reality" is just stupid. You win my dumb comment of the day award. Congratulations. :-D
szamot's comment wasn't anything personal. You took it personal, and you made it personal. His intention wasn't to insult, but yours is.

I know it wasn't personal -- it was directed at all people over 40, not just me. That's called stereotyping and actually makes it worse.

I do wonder how you know szamot's intent (or mine), though. There were no smilies on his post. As for my intent, it was to point out, forcefully, how stupid that comment was. Notice that I did not say szamot himself was stupid, restricting my remarks to his comment, so it was not a personal attack.

Steve
Splitting hairs, are we? You say you know it wasn't personal, but still you wonder how Mexico could know szamots intet? Well, how could you? Maybe by using some commen sense, we can all get a pretty close approximation of the intent behind that comment?

As for the calling a comment stupid, not the person... Well, I guess there's a point in there somewhere, but you could easily tell him the comment wasn't right, without calling it stupid, as that sort of reflects back on szamot, even if you're trying to argue it doesn't. However I agree with you szamots comment was pretty stupid :lol: No offence, szamot :D


Thomas. :hippy:

[idomolau]

This is a really good joke...let's submit it to Joke of the day! :lol: