Slashdot Mirror
Boeing Scraps In-flight Internet Access
Dreamwalkerofyore writes "According to the BBC, Boeing has recently announced that it has abandoned Connexion, its in-flight broadband service. Said Boeing CEO Jim McNerney: 'Regrettably, the market for this service has not materialized as had been expected. We believe this decision best balances the long-term interests of all parties with a stake in Connexion by Boeing.'"
Seeing as we won't be able to take our laptops or other gadgets on board aircraft for much longer.
If you can't bring your laptop on the flight, what did they expect!!? Psy Internet?.... Good going guys!! There is also no market for golf lessons on the flight either.
As evidenced by Sept. 11's Flight 93, cell phones work perfectly well at high altitudes. So as the broadband capability of these phones increases, it's obvious that dedicated services such as Connexion are targeting a redundant market.
I think they were overoptimistic at that price. There isn't a "market" for this service: rightly or wrongly, people expect it to be free of charge, like a seat, or in-flight meals on long-haul.
I think the real reason for their canning this was that they couldn't find the market for charging $50 for 5 minutes of broadband time on the flights!
You have to remember that anything in or around an airport costs as much as 2000 times its actual value. What made you think they wouldn't try this with broadband?
All content in this message is copyright (c) 2008. All rights reserved. RIAA is prohibited here.
I'm not so sure... Previously, the only way to communicate with anyone on a 14 hour flight was voice calls which are quite expensive as well. At least this way business travellers could get some extra work done, and not be completely out of touch with the world for a whole 14-hour period. Even hotels charge you for internet access (especially business-oriented ones).
... which is why I added "especially for business travellers". Some mainstream business-oriented hotels charge as high as $20/day for internet+VPN.
Speaking personally, if i'm on a flight under 3 hours then by the time you've gone up, had a drink and got your food out of the way, you're getting ready to land again.
Flights that are 4-5 hours, I usually watch the film, read the book or (if i'm really inclined to do some work) I'll fire up my laptop and work on something offline.
Flights that are over 5 hours, I'll generally try and catch some sleep so that I'm refreshed when I get there.
As such, there is only small chance that i'll even think about using a laptop and, even then, the requirement for internet is limited. It doesn't surprise me that this venture is not particually sucessful.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
the market for this service has not materialized as had been expected.
Translation: not nearly as many people are willing to get jacked for $35/hr for internet access as we had believed.
Though on a completely different angle, at the rate things are going now, soon we won't be able to get on a plane with anything short of our underwear, and will have to fed-ex our luggage to our destination. What happened to the good 'ol days when the people were more scared of the public than the government was?
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
Yeah... 27$ for a few hour flight is so ultra cheap.
Considering that most people pay about that much at home for a MONTH of broadband
And what about flight itself! It is so expensive! I can ride my bike for three hours almost for free, but for a flight I have to pay hundreds of euros. Why would anyone want that?
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
The real reason? I couldn't use it very well even if I wanted to pay.
Given how US airlines pack you in like sardines, I can't open up my notebook larger than 60 degrees. That's not enough to see the display properly. The last thing I'm gonna do in this configuration is connect to the Internet.
I think they were overoptimistic at that price. There isn't a "market" for this service: rightly or wrongly, people expect it to be free of charge, like a seat, or in-flight meals on long-haul.
That price isn't ridiculously more than T-Mobile or similar services-- which you have to pay for to get wireless access in almost every airport nowadays (excluding the terminals of a couple of generous airlines like JetBlue.) Not to mention every Starbucks and Kinkos. And I would think people would expect free wireless in a Starbucks before flying over the Atlantic on a 747.
If the service is a failure it's not because of the price. I don't think this is the sole reason, but I did fly an Austrian Air flight that was equipped with the service and I can tell you that they made no effort to let you know it existed (the stewardess didn't even have any idea it was there.) I only knew of it because my co-worker had used it before.
Cellphones, of course, don't work on flights as a general rule. They only work on flights THAT PASS OVER LOTS OF CELL PHONE CELLS. The Pacific, the Gobi, the Sahara, and Greenland are all good examples of places not rich in cell phone cells.
Of course, if by 'plane travel' you unconsciously mean 'plane travel within the continental United States', then sure, you can just use your cell phone.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Airlines love to advertise services like this or phones on planes when they first came out and then you discover that it's only slightly less expensive than a heroin habit. This is why airlines are winding down in flight phones - not because of cell phones or security but instead after the first few years of some yahoo calling "Woo Hoo guess what Cleetus I'm callin ya from tha plane!!!!!" the charm of a $40 phone call wears off.
The airlines aren't making shitloads of money these days and the infrastructure for sattelite broadband is expensive. It isn't difficult to imagine a more or less permanent ban on carry-on laptops on the northeast coriddor and North Atlantic runs.