American Airlines Expands Streaming In-Flight Movies

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

American Airlines Expands Streaming In-Flight Movies

Posted by samzenpus on Sunday May 22, 2011 @07:58AM from the stream-the-sky dept.

wolog writes "American began testing a wifi in-flight entertainment system last month on two wide-body jets and will expand the testing among customers this summer. If all goes well, American said, it will be the first domestic (US) airline to provide streaming service on all Wi-Fi-enabled planes, starting this fall. Of course, the airline industry offers in-flight entertainment not solely to keep passengers amused but also to generate revenue. I'm curious how such system works. Having 250+ wifi clients connected inside a long metallic cylinder and doing some video streaming seems a really big challenge."

143 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Interesting! by DWMorse · 2011-05-22 08:01 · Score: 2

And here I was always told that cell phones, laptop computers and personal electronics would crash the plane, if used in JUST the wrong, mysterious manner.
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/10/30/

--
There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
1. Re:Interesting! by creat3d · 2011-05-22 08:14 · Score: 0
  
  A flight attendant once got mad when she noticed my CD player was spinning, not too long before take-off. I'm still confused as to how that could've been a danger, unless she was worried I wouldn't hear emergency instructions or notice the oxygen masks dropping if we crashed. And it was AC/DC by the way, what a bitch!
  
  --
  Grammar nazis are to this community what excrements are to gold.
2. Re:Interesting! by metalmaster · 2011-05-22 08:16 · Score: 2
  
  Nowadays laptops come with a few different radios onboard. Theres nothing stopping a clever person from adding their own radio or maybe adding jamming functionality. In this highly unlikely scenario communications and possibly more important functions can be disrupted.
3. Re:Interesting! by purpledinoz · 2011-05-22 08:20 · Score: 2
  
  I once was asked to take off my head phones that wasn't connected to anything. I agree the airline regulation is overly cautious. But it's a lot easier telling the passengers to turn off everything rather than telling them to turn off any device that emits a radio signal. I can also understand why a flight attendant might get pissed, because she probably already told a hundred other people the same thing already that day.
4. Re:Interesting! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  fun bro time while away from my girlfriend
  WTF. Homoerotic flight attendants. Away from my wife I need a mistress, champagne or, better yet, a full blown orgy.
  BTW, people fly with AA instead of Emirates because it's cheaper. Same with the new Virgin transatlantic service. You'll learn when you pay it out from your own pocket, you parasitic piece of shit.
  I can get beer and a hot meal flying any fucking business class service in wherever company. German airliners seems neater, I do agree.
5. Re:Interesting! by captain+random · 2011-05-22 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Unless they're suicidal, how is that clever?
6. Re:Interesting! by ewanm89 · 2011-05-22 08:46 · Score: 2
  
  Your neurons technically emit an EM signal, so I guess we should turn our brains off too.
  It's like using a mobile phone in the petrol/gas station, there is just as much energy most of the time in the friction of the fuel moving down the pipes, that the EM from phone. And sparks off the battery, well, unless you are disassembling your phone at the petrol station with it turned on. Hospitals are validly different, they have rooms with extremely EM sensitive equipment, like nmr/MRI scanners.
  No, it's all because they don't want to test every possible device to add them to the insurance.
7. Re:Interesting! by ewanm89 · 2011-05-22 08:47 · Score: 1
  
  Always been able to do that, the problem is unless you are next to the aircraft's antenna, you'd need big enough batteries to generate a big enough power source.
8. Re:Interesting! by Firehed · 2011-05-22 08:50 · Score: 2
  
  I've been asked the same. It's not because of signal interference (despite what they will claim), but because the flight attendants want to be able to easily get your attention during takeoff and landing if it becomes necessary. Of course the noise canceling drowns out engines wonderfully while it tends to allow speech through quite well so it probably would have *helped* them get my attention, but they have no way of knowing that.
  
  --
  How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
9. Re:Interesting! by fermat1313 · 2011-05-22 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Nowadays laptops come with a few different radios onboard. Theres nothing stopping a clever person from adding their own radio or maybe adding jamming functionality. In this highly unlikely scenario communications and possibly more important functions can be disrupted.
  And you think that the flight attendant asking him to turn his equipment off is going to foil this plan?
10. Re:Interesting! by Firehed · 2011-05-22 09:02 · Score: 2
  
  There's really never been any problem. I need to do business flights many times a year and I usually fly with Emirates (United Arab Airlines). The first class private suites are truly awesome and come with your own minibar, adjustable ambient lighting, big tv and lots of movies and a la carte menu. Drinks are free too and theres showers and spa. I have no idea why anyone would fly with American Airlines when you can have service like that.
  
  Not everyone can get away with expensing an $19,000+ flight. Hell, the one time I flew first (it was the only opening available) at "only" ~5x the standard coach rate... yes, it was nice, but certainly not nice enough to justify the increase in price. 2-2.5x, maybe, but for the rest of the world without insane expense accounts, we'll just buy a new car instead.
  Yes, it's actually that much for a JFK-Dubai roundtrip (for the random days I picked in late June).
  
  --
  How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
11. Re:Interesting! by Nethead · 2011-05-22 09:12 · Score: 1
  
  Take-off and landing is the most dangerous part of a flight. They don't want you to be tripped up by a trailing headphone cable if you have to exit the plane quickly.
  
  --
  -- I have a private email server in my basement.
12. Re:Interesting! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  You are an ASSHAT TROLL. Seriously.
13. Re:Interesting! by metalmaster · 2011-05-22 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  American Airlines has announced that it is testing an in-flight video system that allows passengers to wirelessly stream movies and TV shows from an onboard library to their laptop computers and other electronic devices.
  This gives me the impression that, atleast on this flight, passengers are not required to turn off their gadgets
14. Re:Interesting! by CohibaVancouver · 2011-05-22 09:41 · Score: 1
  
  Explain to me how you fly nonstop from Miami to Barcelona on Emirates.
15. Re:Interesting! by LynnwoodRooster · 2011-05-22 09:54 · Score: 1
  
  Let's see... I fly back home to Shanghai in 10 days. It was $550 for one way with American Airlines, exit row. Decent enough for 12 hours on a plane. Emirates is around $13,000 for first class for the same flight. Yeah, that's a GREAT comparison!
  
  --
  Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
16. Re:Interesting! by cyberworm · 2011-05-22 10:17 · Score: 1
  
  I think the real deal behind this "regulation" isn't a problem with the equipment malfuncitoning. I personally think that they don't want to say "we would like for you to be un-encombered and alert in the event 'shit goes wrong'."
  
  Saying "you need to hear our instructions in case of a crash" isn't really confidence inspiring at takeoff and landing.
17. Re:Interesting! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 10:18 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, next time I fly Seattle-Chicago I'll definitely go first-class international.
18. Re:Interesting! by causality · 2011-05-22 10:22 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I've been asked the same. It's not because of signal interference (despite what they will claim)
  I agree and I note that the simple, well-understood term for this sort of behavior is: deception. I am rightly suspicious of people who use deception not as a last resort in a time of desperation, but as their very first preferred tactic. What would be so wrong with them saying, "takeoff and landing are the two most critical moments of the flight so we require as a condition of using our service that no one use devices known to cause distraction such as cellphones and headphones at these times". Without even trying it they immediately reject reason and honesty and use fear (of the plane crashing) as a tool of manipulation. Why do we tolerate that from people who are supposed to be serving us?
  Well that's actually a rhetorical question. I know the answer. It's because getting to the intended destination is much more important to us than taking a stand and refusing to do business with anyone who treats us this way. It's also because this has become so common and usual that I don't think many people appreciate the dehumanization it really represents. What would they use as a basis of comparison?
  
  but because the flight attendants want to be able to easily get your attention during takeoff and landing if it becomes necessary. Of course the noise canceling drowns out engines wonderfully while it tends to allow speech through quite well so it probably would have *helped* them get my attention, but they have no way of knowing that.
  What's wrong with an alarm (or alert) system then? Something unmistakeable and unambiguous for use only in a genuine emergency, like bright red lights and a very loud (100-110dB) PA system so that any emergency announcement will definitely be heard over engine noise, movies, passenger chatter, and the like. Then if they really have a genuine need to quickly get the attention of everyone at once, they can do it. This doesn't suffer from the weakness of counting on every single individual to conform to bureaucratic rules with flimsy justifications. It has the added strength of not requiring flight attendants to be headphone nazis who deceptively micromanage their paying customers.
  It's like we just insist on doing everything the hard way.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
19. Re:Interesting! by velkro · 2011-05-22 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  Correct. Provided the Aircraft has had EMI testing done, using WiFi isn't a hazard. Using your cellular radio is a waste of time, as you just drain the battery above about 10,000', but WiFi and Bluetooth work nicely. It's the same reason some airlines (I'm looking at you, Air Canada) now only allow earbud headphones connected to their IFE system during taxi/takeoff/landing. It's so they can get your attention if 'shut goes wrong'.
20. Re:Interesting! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  if that is you take on it, then you could say the same for airbags, seatbelts, emergency exits, firealarms, etc. etc.
  it is highly unlikely that cellphones, laptops etc. will do anything to an airplane but electronics and everything on airplanes are tested and certified to the extreme, all the stuff passengers carry on is not, so better safe than sorry
21. Re:Interesting! by ColdWetDog · 2011-05-22 11:01 · Score: 2
  
  Your neurons technically emit an EM signal, so I guess we should turn our brains off too.
  Shouldn't be hard for most people. From what I've seen, the average passenger has a built in "Airplane" mode that shuts higher functioning down as soon as they get across the jetway.
  
  --
  Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
22. Re:Interesting! by ScrewMaster · 2011-05-22 12:37 · Score: 1
  
  Take-off and landing is the most dangerous part of a flight. They don't want you to be tripped up by a trailing headphone cable if you have to exit the plane quickly.
  What cable? My headphones are bluetooth.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
23. Re:Interesting! by retchdog · 2011-05-22 13:14 · Score: 1
  
  the genuine emergency alarm system could induce panic which can be fatal. the crowd psychology seems to argue for the current set-up; no rights are being seriously infringed, and we can just be smug about things. this does seem like the easy way; teaching people is hard.
  
  --
  "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
24. Re:Interesting! by crankyspice · 2011-05-22 13:41 · Score: 1
  
  Not everyone can get away with expensing an $19,000+ flight. Hell, the one time I flew first (it was the only opening available) at "only" ~5x the standard coach rate... yes, it was nice, but certainly not nice enough to justify the increase in price.
  My experience has been the opposite, at least on American. In coach I can't get any work done, even on my MacBook Air. No room to move / mouse / etc., power plugs aren't guaranteed, etc. By paying the premium (about 3x coast-to-coast, U.S. domestic) for first class, I get enough screen / leg / (critically) elbow room to work throughout the flight, a guaranteed source of 12V power (less important with my newer Macs but back in the day of my first-gen C2D MacBook Pro, critical). At my normal billing rate, the flight more than pays for itself, and I arrive less stressed than if I'd wasted 4-6 hours... (There's a great old Palm Treo ad, it shows a harried professional, almost certainly a lawyer, getting into a cab in Manhattan. The caption reads: "It's 17 minutes to the airport. 17 billable minutes." Yeah.)
  
  --
  geek. lawyer.
25. Re:Interesting! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 14:12 · Score: 0
  
  You'll learn when you pay it out from your own pocket, you parasitic piece of shit.
  Wow. I think someone's mad.
  U mad bro?
26. Re:Interesting! by Khashishi · 2011-05-22 15:12 · Score: 1
  
  I just assumed it was just a historical artifact and a big misunderstanding that got propagated beyond it's usefulness.
27. Re:Interesting! by artor3 · 2011-05-22 15:38 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  If you're through feeling indignant, let me tell you that they are not deceiving you. The concern really is that the electrical interference could mess with the avionics. The IEEE has done studies in the past showing that it's possible. It is extremely unlikely, but it falls into the realm of better safe than sorry.
  They are not "dehumanizing" you by asking you to turn off your iPod for 15 minutes. You're just looking for something to be outraged over. Stick to the TSA, where the distrust and anger is actually warranted.
28. Re:Interesting! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 18:49 · Score: 0
  
  Hospitals are validly different, they have rooms with extremely EM sensitive equipment, like nmr/MRI scanners. and how much is going to get through the lead lined walls and leaded glass where these things are setup.
29. Re:Interesting! by AmiMoJo · 2011-05-22 22:23 · Score: 1
  
  What would be so wrong with them saying, "takeoff and landing are the two most critical moments of the flight so we require as a condition of using our service that no one use devices known to cause distraction such as cellphones and headphones at these times".
  I'm amazed you even have to ask this. An airline has thousands of passengers every day, and since these are critical safety issues they have to err on the side of caution and cater to the lowest common denominator. That means assuming people are idiots. It isn't just cell phones that could cause problems, you have to list computers with wifi, PDAs with wifi, tablets with 3G/wifi, MP3 players with wifi/bluetooth, cameras with wifi, headsets with bluetooth, walkie-talkies and I'm sure many more devices that I can't think of right now. Do you trust every single passenger to know what devices broadcast on radio frequencies and which don't? The only reasonable response is to ask for all electronic devices to be turned off or put in flight mode.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
30. Re:Interesting! by kannibal_klown · 2011-05-23 01:01 · Score: 1
  
  American Airlines has announced that it is testing an in-flight video system that allows passengers to wirelessly stream movies and TV shows from an onboard library to their laptop computers and other electronic devices.
  This gives me the impression that, atleast on this flight, passengers are not required to turn off their gadgets
  I don't fly that often, maybe once every 1-2 years. But my last time was only 2 months ago.
  Whenever I fly, they only ask that I turn off my devices during take-off and landing / final approach. I think during at least one of those flights they would also turn off the in-flight movies/TV and such.
  So my guess here is that they would do something similar, only let you watch after take-off and until maybe 10 minutes before landing.
31. Re:Interesting! by AF_Cheddar_Head · 2011-05-23 02:35 · Score: 1
  
  Even if there is no danger from your cell phone signal, I am glad the airlines have a prohibition against using cell phones on airplanes. I cannot imagine listening to some businessman seated next to me for four hours while he is conducting business or you talking to Aunt Bessie. It would be worse than the baby in set 27D having a bad day, at least the baby doesn't realize he is disturbing someone.
  Whereas you with your damn cell phone just doesn't give a damn.
32. Re:Interesting! by AF_Cheddar_Head · 2011-05-23 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  Bluetooth, really and I don't suppose bluetooth uses radio waves? Yeah Yeah I know it is all a scam but really bluetooth is EM and maybe not such a good idea.
33. Re:Interesting! by causality · 2011-05-23 04:08 · Score: 1
  
  I cannot imagine listening to some businessman seated next to me for four hours while he is conducting business or you talking to Aunt Bessie.
  You cannot imagine the inaudible (on a plane) tapping sound of fingers occasionally tapping on the keyboard or touch-screen? That's what both of those would sound like, assuming I had an Aunt Bessie.
  Far as *talking* on a cell phone, I never did understand why people have to be such inconsiderate morons about what is otherwise a really simple task. But you do realize a modern cell phone or netbook can do a lot more than carry voice signals. There's little or no reason to be shouting into a phone and disturbing everyone around you when other options are available.
  
  --
  It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
34. Re:Interesting! by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 05:29 · Score: 0
  
  Yes I realize you can use the text function, but in my experience not may teleconferences occur by text and I have experienced numerous executives participating in teleconferences at airports and somehow they never seem to be using their bluetooth so I get both sides of the teleconference. Can you say industrial espionage?
35. Re:Interesting! by DarwinSurvivor · 2011-05-25 21:33 · Score: 1
  
  teaching people is hard.
  Generally no. It is widely accepted that teaching most people anything relatively simple (basically below trig or calculus) is quite easy. The HARD part is getting them to *unlearn* what-ever BS was taught to them in the first place. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it's something like 7 repetitions to learn something and a couple hundred to UN-learn it.
Netflix + Altitude? by malus · 2011-05-22 08:05 · Score: 2

Forget it. I'm not watching movies when I fly. I'm drinking over-priced booze and groping flight attendants.
1. Re:Netflix + Altitude? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 08:14 · Score: 1
  
  Air hostesses, get it right!
2. Re:Netflix + Altitude? by DamonHD · 2011-05-22 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  Is that business class?
  Rgds
  Damon
  
  --
  http://m.earth.org.uk/
3. Re:Netflix + Altitude? by Teun · 2011-05-22 08:20 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah that's what's happening behind those curtains.
  
  --
  "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
4. Re:Netflix + Altitude? by MagicM · 2011-05-22 09:36 · Score: 1
  
  Forget it. I'm not watching movies when I fly. I'm drinking over-priced booze and groping flight attendants.
  Of course, captain.
5. Re:Netflix + Altitude? by ScrewMaster · 2011-05-22 12:40 · Score: 1
  
  Forget it. I'm not watching movies when I fly. I'm drinking over-priced booze and groping flight attendants.
  Of course, captain.
  Kirk.
  
  --
  The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
6. Re:Netflix + Altitude? by Corbets · 2011-05-22 15:40 · Score: 1
  
  Is that business class?
  Rgds
  Damon
  Yes. In first class, they grope us.
Pretty easy as far as I can see by bernywork · 2011-05-22 08:15 · Score: 2

Multicast and an Aruba / Cisco AP for every 10 seats? Can't be that hard can it? It would be interesting sniffing data on that plane...

--
Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
1. Re:Pretty easy as far as I can see by Richard_at_work · 2011-05-22 20:15 · Score: 1
  
  Multicast only works if the same movie is started at the same time by two or more people - the chances of that...?
  Multicast made sense for scheduled broadcasts, but not for on-demand.
2. Re:Pretty easy as far as I can see by bernywork · 2011-05-22 21:59 · Score: 1
  
  If you look at what they are doing on the A380s and the amount of channels streaming the same thing on a different time shift it looks like broadcast / multicast.
  
  --
  Curiosity was framed; ignorance killed the cat. -- Author unknown
Terrible airline. by purpledinoz · 2011-05-22 08:16 · Score: 1, Interesting

In my experiences, American Airlines is terrible compared to other non-US airlines. It would be nice if they invested more in edible food and better service. Not to mention, they will probably charge you for a movie (all US airlines seem to nickle and dime you). I don't see how this will be much of a benefit for the customer. I guess you'd have to bring your own iPad/Smart phone with you too. Good luck watching a whole movie on your phone before the battery runs out. On the other hand, Singapore Airlines has great service, decent food, and a personal entertainment system with a huge library of movies and shows which you can watch for free.
1. Re:Terrible airline. by MoonBuggy · 2011-05-22 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  I was wondering what the summary meant by IFE as a revenue generator - it seems a fairly sizeable step backwards to from free in-seat screens to paid movies that you have to bring your own laptop for, if that is indeed their plan. I guess as a retrofit for planes without LCDs it might work, but if I'm on a regional jet it'll only be for a few hours anyway; it'd just feel petty and unnecessary to pay for video if that's how long I need to occupy myself for.
  As a free service, it'd be a nice alternative to the systems they have now (which can be a bit clunky), but that "Of course, the airline industry offers in-flight entertainment not solely to keep passengers amused but also to generate revenue." sentence implies it's going to be another excuse for them to extract a few bucks from their customers.
2. Re:Terrible airline. by superposed · 2011-05-22 09:12 · Score: 2
  
  It would be nice if they invested more in edible food and better service."
  I used to wonder how shortchanging customers on food could possibly make a significant difference to the profit on a multi-hundred-dollar ticket. Then I realized that in a world where everyone chooses the cheapest ticket from Orbitz or Kayak, airlines have to get their ticket price as low as possible. If that means nickle-and-diming their customers, scrimping on food and service, then that's what they'll do. Because if they don't, a competitor will, and the competitor will be able to sell many more tickets for a few dollars less.
3. Re:Terrible airline. by WuphonsReach · 2011-05-22 09:16 · Score: 1
  
  I guess you'd have to bring your own iPad/Smart phone with you too. Good luck watching a whole movie on your phone before the battery runs out.
  
  Er, I don't know what smart phones you've been using, but watching 2-3 hours of video on a Blackberry Storm2 is well within the range of possible. I wouldn't expect it to last for a full 5 hour flight though (bring a 2nd battery). But you can definitely watch a 2-hour movie.
  
  When it comes to electronics with field replaceable batteries - pack a spare battery that is charged up and ready to go.
  
  --
  Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
4. Re:Terrible airline. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 09:42 · Score: 0
  
  Southwest, Jetblue or a foreign carrier. I don't bother with those other jokers if I can avoid it.
  Also the last Southwest flight I was on had WiFi for $5.
5. Re:Terrible airline. by ogre7299 · 2011-05-22 10:04 · Score: 1
  
  Not all of American's jets have in-seat entertainment. The entire 767 fleet does not have in-seat entertainment, merely the overhead screens. The 777 fleet does have the in-seat screens, but perhaps you would get different options, and your laptop screen is probably nicer to watch something off of than the small ones in the seat.
  As for American being a terrible airline, I have to disagree with you. Perhaps they're not a nice as some of the international carriers due to the cut-throat market in the US, but I have been quite happy with my experiences flying them for domestic and international purposes.
6. Re:Terrible airline. by h4rr4r · 2011-05-22 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  This is why when I use those services I exclude any tickets from US carriers. I have no problem paying $1300 instead of $1200 for tickets that give me a seat fit for my 5'7" frame and edible food. How bigger folks manage, I do not understand.
7. Re:Terrible airline. by zach_the_lizard · 2011-05-22 10:45 · Score: 1
  
  I'm 5'7" and haven't had a problem with the seats being too small in any airline I've flown in, American or Japanese.
  
  --
  SSC
8. Re:Terrible airline. by DerekLyons · 2011-05-22 11:10 · Score: 1
  
  In my experiences, American Airlines is terrible compared to other non-US airlines. It would be nice if they invested more in edible food and better service.
  When people start choosing airlines on the basis of service and food rather than because one flight is $.05 cheaper than the other, then the airlines will change. Not one second before.
9. Re:Terrible airline. by XManticore · 2011-05-22 11:51 · Score: 1
  
  I'm 192cm (pretty tall), but you don't have to pay extra –show up extra early to check in and ask to be put right at the front of the cabin. There aren't any seats in front of you, and there's loads of leg room. The disadvantage is, mothers with small babies often get put there as well, so you may have to put up with the smell of poo.
10. Re:Terrible airline. by MstrFool · 2011-05-22 12:07 · Score: 1
  
  I'm just under two meters, I find yoga helps quite a bit.
  
  --
  Question reality.
11. Re:Terrible airline. by bgat · 2011-05-22 14:22 · Score: 1
  
  As for American being a terrible airline, I have to disagree with you. Perhaps they're not a nice as some of the international carriers due to the cut-throat market in the US, but I have been quite happy with my experiences flying them for domestic and international purposes.
  Agreed. I have flown 600K miles with American over the years, and a few 100K's more with other USA airlines. I have found American to have consistently the best service of the USA carriers (I have flown them all). In particular, every time I fly a budget-priced alternative (I'm looking at you, Southwest), I always end up regretting it. A big part of this is the professionalism of the American flight crews, and another big part is that American's prices are generally a little higher than competitors, which seems to draw a slightly more professional clientele. I'm ok with that.
  None of the USA carriers can compete with the the international carriers for comfort on the long-haul, overwater flights, however. Singapore Air and Quantas are in leagues of their own--- and have the ticket prices to match. But if all you do is fly between Chicago and Singapore, you can really optimize for that experience--- including use of aircraft that are so highly optimized for that route that they aren't cost-effective to use elsewhere (747-400ER). None of the USA domestic carriers have that advantage.
  And besides, no domestic flight in the USA is longer than about five hours--- which really isn't all that long (this comes from someone who has done Chicago-Beijing and Chicago-Hong Kong, both of which can take upwards of 16 hours or more). Just deal with it.
  .
  
  --
  b.g.
12. Re:Terrible airline. by bgat · 2011-05-22 14:25 · Score: 1
  
  Most USA domestic flights are so short, there isn't any time to serve food. On top of that, it's really, really disruptive when I'm sitting there trying to get work done and having to pass trays back and forth. I think eliminating food is one of the positive things that the USA domestic carriers have done over the years.
  
  --
  b.g.
13. Re:Terrible airline. by aztracker1 · 2011-05-22 16:30 · Score: 1
  
  at over 6' last time I flew more than a couple hours was stuck in an inside row on the window... having my shoulder tucked in, with my knees up against my chest was perfectly comfortable... and why I only fly if I can get the isle front row, or in first class if it's much more than an hour flight.
  
  --
  Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
14. Re:Terrible airline. by AtomicJake · 2011-05-23 00:21 · Score: 1
  
  All US airlines are terrible compared to (most) non-US airlines.
15. Re:Terrible airline. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 01:43 · Score: 0
  
  Perhaps it's not the height of his 5'7" frame that is the issue. ;)
16. Re:Terrible airline. by cgenman · 2011-05-23 02:31 · Score: 1
  
  Most US airlines are terrible compared to non-US airlines. That's a big reason why international carriers are banned from the domestic market: If US Airways had to compete with British Airways or All Nippon Airlines, US Airways would just cease to be. Even Virgin, which slipped in through a separate subsidiary, has been around for all of five years and has come to be a major player in the hearts and minds of US air travelers. I know lots of travelers that will pay a $100 premium to fly Virgin.
  Sadly, this has prevented the market from taking full advantage of scale and knowledge transfers. We need international airlines domestically. Like the car industry, the longer we ignore the international competition, the more inbred and unable to compete our domestic market will become.
  
  --
  The ______ Agenda
17. Re:Terrible airline. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 03:56 · Score: 0
  
  you are average or below average for a man. these chairs are meant for you.
  i'm 6'4" and having the person in front of me not recline and the person to the side of me allow me some of his/her space and occupying 1/3 of the aisle with my feet is a must.
18. Re:Terrible airline. by h4rr4r · 2011-05-23 09:25 · Score: 1
  
  I weigh a 130lbs. So not a girth issue.
Seems a really big challenge by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 08:17 · Score: 1

Keeping a long metallic cylinder at 30k feet is a really big challenge.
Wi-fi streaming in said cylinder is a slightly smaller challenge.
1. Re:Seems a really big challenge by hedwards · 2011-05-22 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  I think the main concern was interference with the flight electronics. You know sort of the way modern cell phones interfere with speakers. I would think that it would be easily enough fixed, although it does get more complicated than usual as you can't just throw more shielding at the problem until it's definitely solved.
  I'm not sure why this would be a problem with older planes, the ones that were prior to the fly by wire innovations, those you'd just have to make sure the cockpit was shielded from the seating area whatever that's called. These days they have to worry about more than just the instrument panel getting funky.
2. Re:Seems a really big challenge by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  You know, the interference you'll hear on speakers is due to GSM 'time division transmitter', where rising edges creates high 'power / frequency' spikes.
  For Wifi, which is not time division technology, this 'interference' is far less and hardly causing any harm to any 'flight electronics'
Nothing really new. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 08:19 · Score: 0

They are just allowing you to stream from their server from a limited set of movies/shows. The only new concept here is now that you have to bring your own hardware instead of using the on board flight entertainment system (which have had streaming from servers for years.)
Its the cellphones that are the problem by SplashMyBandit · 2011-05-22 08:21 · Score: 2
Its the cellphones that were the real problem, for two principal reasons:
- * When the 700+ cellphones and devices pass near all the cellphone towers visible to the high-flying aircraft those towers can be overloaded, and
- * Having people jibber-jabbering on cellphones in close confines over longer flights will result in all sorts of social problems (conflicts, if someone can't stop talking really annoyingly over the entire flight).
Initially the 'navigation' angle was used as the effects were unknown, but pretty much that has been found to be a non-issue - but still a handy excuse to keep cellphone use down for the above reasons.
1. Re:Its the cellphones that are the problem by Lifyre · 2011-05-22 08:57 · Score: 1
  
  Man how many cell devices do you think I (much less a normal person) carry? Even the Airbus A380 doesn't carry that many passengers except in a single passenger class configuration. For the vast majority (pretty much every plane except that A380) of aircraft that would be close to 2+ (a few of the 747 variants would be closer to 1.5) devices per person.
  Other than that your points are spot on. I'm sure that the towers could be engineered to handle the transient loads but the social aspects would likely still be enough to make it a reasonable prohibition.
  
  --
  I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
2. Re:Its the cellphones that are the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 09:08 · Score: 0
  
  It's not the number of cellphone holders, it's the tower coverage.
  From where you are at your computer, your cellphone can probably see from 1 to 5 towers. Tower "hand-offs" happen only when you're roving around, which is never very fast.
  From 35,000 feet with relatively little atmospheric interference, each cellphone can see an order of magnitude more - or greater - number of cell towers. At 400mph they are constantly "handing off" over and over. A single cellphone switching between 30 towers at 400mph continuing in a trail 30 towers wide can wreak havoc on a network; 400 can be bad, and the constant air traffic everywhere over the US (you ignore it but it's there) would be impossible to handle.
3. Re:Its the cellphones that are the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 10:04 · Score: 0
  
  I'm sure that the towers could be engineered to handle the transient loads
  Well, actually, they're not. They're engineered to handle roaming on a 2D plane (pun intended), and not to take altitude into account.
  When you're on the ground, your phone can only register to a limited number of towers, ie. the ones it's close enough to send signal to, and which are not blocked by buildings, trees and whatnot. And that's good, because the carriers databases, which track your device, are based on the fact that you can't physically be several places at once, so they expect that you cell phone will only pop up in neighboring cells.
  But when you're some 10k feet up in the air, your Blackberry has pretty much direct, unblocked line-of-sight to a large number of towers, and your cellphone registers all over the place. The system is not supposed to handle that.
  That's why, lady and gentlemen, you have to shut down you cellphone during a flight. So that carriers don't have to rethink their databases and upgrade their networks.
4. Re:Its the cellphones that are the problem by Daniel_Staal · 2011-05-22 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  It would not surprise me if the average number of cellular devices per person on a plane is over 1. First off, everyone probably has their cell phone. Including at least half the kids. Then start adding in iPads, Kindles, Nooks, etc. that all have cellular connections for data. (Depending on model.) A few people in business and first class probably have cellular modems on their laptops, often as well as the above.
  I guessing the average traveler carries more cellular devices than you'd think. ;)
  
  --
  'Sensible' is a curse word.
5. Re:Its the cellphones that are the problem by Lifyre · 2011-05-22 10:51 · Score: 1
  
  I said could be. You pretty much backed up what I was saying.
  
  --
  I'll meet you at the intersection of "Should be" and "Reality"
6. Re:Its the cellphones that are the problem by isorox · 2011-05-22 11:17 · Score: 1
  * When the 700+ cellphones and devices pass near all the cellphone towers visible to the high-flying aircraft those towers can be overloaded, and
  
  Really? When I have my phone turned on on a plane I don't get a signal -- even at altitudes low enough to get GPS on an iphone.
  
  * Having people jibber-jabbering on cellphones in close confines over longer flights will result in all sorts of social problems (conflicts, if someone can't stop talking really annoyingly over the entire flight).
  First flight I travelled on which allowed cell phones was a pilot in July 2007, had two kids behind us with text messages beeping away which was slightly annoying. Since then I've travelled on a few flights (mainly EK) that allow phones, never noticed people using phones on them.
  In addition, all long haul flights I travel on have a phone in the seat. I've never seen anyone use it so I don't know if the system still works.
  Many airlines, like Qantas, are happy for you to turn your phone on after wheels down and taxiing. BA tell you to keep them off until engines are off -- very annoying as it takes my phone a few minutes to get a signal, and I like to check my email on landing to see if there's anything I need to sort before heading through a potential 90 minute queue at immigration.
7. Re:Its the cellphones that are the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 18:31 · Score: 0
  
  ....hence it is the FCC that bans the use of cell phones in the US, not the FAA or any other aviation-related body. If it is a city with a major airport, there would be a heck of a lot more than 700 cellular defices flying around, ding mass handoffs between hundreds of cell towers...
  Whilst I can see why the FCC needs to ban use of cellular devices in planes, and while I would probably want to kill and eat someone who struck a up a cellular conversation in the seat next to me, I also object strenuously to being lied to by the cabin crew every time I get into a plane.
8. Re:Its the cellphones that are the problem by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  You also need to consider the FCC regulations. Cell phones are ground to ground transmissions. When a cell phone is in the air it is now a air to ground transmission, which is highly regulated.
  I don't have the FCC rules on this, but I do have a helicopter pilot friend that when I go flying with him, he explicitly asks me to turn off my cell phone just for that reason, even though we don't fly much higher than 2000 feet.
"from an on-board library" by timeOday · 2011-05-22 08:21 · Score: 1

The streaming will be from an on-board library, an important caveat not mentioned in the summary.
1. Re:"from an on-board library" by jd2112 · 2011-05-22 10:44 · Score: 2
  
  Expect to pay $39.95 to watch a movie, and have a smaller and more out of date selection than your average Redbox kiosk.
  
  --
  Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
2. Re:"from an on-board library" by mjwx · 2011-05-22 13:47 · Score: 1
  
  The streaming will be from an on-board library, an important caveat not mentioned in the summary.
  So basically it's going to be like the wired system in the seat back except slower and more unreliable.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
3. Re:"from an on-board library" by aztracker1 · 2011-05-22 16:34 · Score: 1
  
  The funny thing is this would be an excellent captive audience for new releases at $30-40 a pop.. maybe second week. Also, would be interesting to get netflix involved...
  
  --
  Michael J. Ryan - tracker1.info
4. Re:"from an on-board library" by Alioth · 2011-05-22 21:39 · Score: 1
  
  Also probably pointless: if you're bringing along a device capable of streaming, then surely you will have preloaded it with what you want to watch during the flight, rather than gambling on there being something worth watching in the in-flight entertainment library?
  That's what I did on my last flight, although I knew there would be a reasonable selection on the Delta transatlantic flight, I just preloaded my laptop with stuff I knew I'd like to watch.
  
  --
  Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Inside a pringles can by Teun · 2011-05-22 08:23 · Score: 1

At least you don't have to worry about interference from the neighbours.

--
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
But what DEVICES? by markdavis · 2011-05-22 08:26 · Score: 0

And exactly what hardware, operating system, and client software are to be required for such a system of "streaming movies" to work?
MS-Windows XP laptop?
Xoom tablet?
Linux notebook?
iPad?
Android phone?
1. Re:But what DEVICES? by Technician · 2011-05-22 08:39 · Score: 1
  
  For the Linux netbook crowd, they are not the intended consumer. They (we) are the cheap ones who would bring their own movies and use the sneakernet with thumb drives to exchange movies in flight.
  The airlines are after the rich who can afford the latest tablet and not a sub $300 Costco special.
  
  --
  The truth shall set you free!
2. Re:But what DEVICES? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 12:27 · Score: 0
  
  Anyone who can afford to get on a plane flight is rich by my standards.
Tag this meaningless by damn_registrars · 2011-05-22 08:35 · Score: 2

If it is only for the largest planes, then it isn't all that helpful for a lot of travellers (myself included). Many people find the vast majority of their air travel is on small jets or turboprops. If this never trickles down to those - and likely it never will - then it doesn't matter. This reminds me of reading a Continental in-flight magazine that told me about the new full-recline sleeper seats that are in first class on the largest planes. Being as I was riding steerage class on an EmbraerJet - and all the other legs of my journey were the same - it had no value for my travel.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
1. Re:Tag this meaningless by 91degrees · 2011-05-22 08:43 · Score: 1
  
  It's not really a problem that needs to be solved for those though. Most of those are a couple of hours, so there's hardly even enough time to see a whole movie.
2. Re:Tag this meaningless by hedwards · 2011-05-22 09:04 · Score: 1
  
  No, but having a few TV shows available when you're leaving late would be nice. I liked flying Alaskan, but they did have a nasty habit of running late.
  Additionally, it would be nice to have TV available to watch when you're settling down after the pre-flight groping.
3. Re:Tag this meaningless by isorox · 2011-05-22 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  If it is only for the largest planes, then it isn't all that helpful for a lot of travellers (myself included).
  The largest of planes tend to fly on the longest of routes.I couldn't give a monkeys about on-board entertainment, or at-seat power, on a typical 2 hour jaunt around Europe, or even shorter flights like New York to Washington. A 14 hour flight to Singapore means I'll be watching at least 2 moives during that time, and the number onboard does seem to be quite restrictive after the 7th or 8th LH flight with the same selection.
  Of course, a few terrabytes of extra space with a large back catalog would do the trick nicely.
  
  Many people find the vast majority of their air travel is on small jets or turboprops.
  If you're flying more than 3 hours on a small jet, I'm sorry you can't find a better carrier.
  
  This reminds me of reading a Continental in-flight magazine that told me about the new full-recline sleeper seats that are in first class on the largest planes
  It's worse when you're on the same plane as the flat beds, but you're crammed in economy overnight. When I pay for my own overnight flights I'll stump up for business with the flat beds, but those are rare. I agree they're nice though!
  
  Being as I was riding steerage class on an EmbraerJet - and all the other legs of my journey were the same - it had no value for my travel.
  But how long was that flight? Maximum range is about 3h30 isn't it? It's barely worth lying down on short flights.
4. Re:Tag this meaningless by damn_registrars · 2011-05-22 13:50 · Score: 1
  
  It's not really a problem that needs to be solved for those though. Most of those are a couple of hours, so there's hardly even enough time to see a whole movie.
  Movie? I don't care much about whether I can watch a movie or not, I'd like to get some of the basic amenities that are supposedly "standard" on the large planes - like power for example. If I'm going to be a sardine stuffed in steerage class, I would at least like to be able to plug in my laptop so I can get some work done.
  
  I've had days where I have had 2 or more flights of 2+ hours each, with an hour or so layover in between, all on planes that are too small to have power available. Add in taxi time and other periods in between, and my laptop can't sleep that long and still have enough power to do useful work; hence I have to power down and then power back up. But of course with the power used to boot up, I have that much less battery available to do anything useful while on the flight; even going through presentation slides might not be doable.
  
  --
  Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
5. Re:Tag this meaningless by damn_registrars · 2011-05-22 13:58 · Score: 1
  
  Many people find the vast majority of their air travel is on small jets or turboprops.
  If you're flying more than 3 hours on a small jet, I'm sorry you can't find a better carrier.
  Some of us don't live close enough to airports that the major carriers consider to be important enough to send large jets to. I have had days where I have spent 5-6 hours or more in a single day seated in Embraers, Canadairs, or turboprops (or any combination thereof). It makes no difference what carrier I am on, they all put me through this.
  
  Hell some days I'm happy if I just have a connecting airport where I don't have to go through security again before I get to my next gate.
  
  Being as I was riding steerage class on an EmbraerJet - and all the other legs of my journey were the same - it had no value for my travel.
  But how long was that flight? Maximum range is about 3h30 isn't it? It's barely worth lying down on short flights.
  Range is somewhere in that neighborhood. But of course you're not including time spent on the runway and other wastes of time.
  
  Although I've found that most of the Embraers, Canadairs, Bombardiers, and Turboprops I have been on lately have seats that barely recline at all; regardless of where you are on the plane. Sitting straight up for 3 hours sucks. I'm not looking to lay down, I'm just looking to get some degree of comfort, and that is often on single-class planes where you couldn't get more legroom for any amount of money. Sometimes the airlines have tried to get me to pay more for priority boarding (as in, the front of the plane) but no extra legroom or ability to recline the seat.
  
  Although really I would be happy if I could even get power on my flights. When I spend 7-8 or more hours travelling in a single day, my laptop battery can't hold out if I want to do anything resembling useful work. Hell even going through my presentation slides may be enough to drain the battery before I reach the layover, and I may well not find any available power there - nor have enough time to charge during the layover anyways.
  
  --
  Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
6. Re:Tag this meaningless by mjwx · 2011-05-22 13:59 · Score: 1
  
  If it is only for the largest planes, then it isn't all that helpful for a lot of travellers (myself included). Many people find the vast majority of their air travel is on small jets or turboprops
  Depends on how you define "small jet". In Australia I hardly ever get on a prop driven plane. Most 1-2 hour hops are covered by B717, B737, A320 or ERJ jets. Between major cities you either get on a B737 NG (-700 or higher) or a widebody twinjet (A330, B777) when there are enough passengers. Out of all of those planes, only the B717 might be classified as a small plane, small planes were the F50 and BAe 146/Avro RJ (using seat count as a metric, small = less than 100 seats).
  
  Some airlines have seat back entertainment systems in B737's although most have a shared TV. Such a system may actually be useful for smaller aircraft which don't have the seat back entertainment system. In fact, given the congestion a wireless network like this is going to encounter it may only be useful on narrow body (under 200 seat) planes.
  
  --
  Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
7. Re:Tag this meaningless by AmiMoJo · 2011-05-22 22:28 · Score: 1
  
  The irony is that short haul is where wifi would be the most useful. On long flights it is generally better to try to sleep to avoid jetlag if possible.
  If you want to travel in comfort with wifi and in-seat power without it costing the earth then high speed rail is the answer. On Japanese shinkansen (bullet trains) even cattle class get descent leg room, a power socket and on some routes wifi. Okay, 300Kph isn't as fast as an aircraft but what you lose in speed you gain in being able to simply walk on without airport security or luggage limits.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
8. Re:Tag this meaningless by damn_registrars · 2011-05-22 22:58 · Score: 1
  
  If you want to travel in comfort with wifi and in-seat power without it costing the earth then high speed rail is the answer.
  
  It's too bad that doesn't exist in the US for most of us. I would love to be able to take a high speed train to where I fly most often, but instead my only rail option is AmTrak, which would take even longer than flying.
  
  On top of that, the rail system here is also hub-and-spoke, so for a lot of journeys you end up connecting somewhere and changing trains as well. That part, I'm not sure there is a solution for, but I thought I'd point it out.
  
  --
  Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
9. Re:Tag this meaningless by xaxa · 2011-05-23 00:09 · Score: 1
  
  On top of that, the rail system here is also hub-and-spoke, so for a lot of journeys you end up connecting somewhere and changing trains as well. That part, I'm not sure there is a solution for, but I thought I'd point it out.
  Most rail systems are hub and spoke, but with more hubs than in the US. (e.g. Britain [PDF] -- most trains will stop at all the 'big blob' places, but only some will stop at the small-blob ones.).
  Running a new direct service that isn't more-or-less already existing can require new track, new junctions (if running across existing lines would slow down existing trains too much), bigger stations, ... but it's a lot different here than in a big country, where you might reasonably spend over six hours on a train.
10. Re:Tag this meaningless by AmiMoJo · 2011-05-23 01:34 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, I should have said that it is the best solution except that it would require large up-front investment where as sticking another runway on an airport is relatively cheap in comparison and guaranteed to make a good return.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
11. Re:Tag this meaningless by damn_registrars · 2011-05-23 01:50 · Score: 1
  
  sticking another runway on an airport is relatively cheap in comparison and guaranteed to make a good return.
  I don't think I would say guaranteed. Maybe at really large, really busy airports you have a good chance. But some of the smaller spoke airports have scarcely used runways already - averaging 1 take-off/landing per hour or less in any 24 hour period - and adding another wouldn't really change that.
  
  Although on top of that, there are busy airports (I'm thinking EWR in particular here) that have runways that are scarcely used depending on the prevailing wind / weather conditions. I was once stuck in Newark overnight because high winds kept canceling my EmbraerJet flight; eventually they rescheduled me on a turboprop (to a different destination airport, but close enough) so I could at least get home before the end of all time.
  
  --
  Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
12. Re:Tag this meaningless by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 04:42 · Score: 0
  
  Agreed. I live in Chicago and tend to fly United everywhere. With Chicago being in the middle of the country and the RJs being able to fly 1000-1500 range, I am almost always flying a regional jet. The only time I get to fly a Boeing or Scarebus is going hub to hub. No, I do not fly international much.
wifi setup? by kipsate · 2011-05-22 08:39 · Score: 1

I can imagine a setup where for instance every couple of rows has its own wifi-network on its own channel. This way, bandwidth can be increased to levels which enable streaming video to more than just a few passengers simultaneously.

This would require multiple wifi hotspots in the plane, so some wiring is obviously still required.

--
My karma ran over your dogma
1. Re:wifi setup? by DarkOx · 2011-05-22 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  True but there are really only three channels that don't over lap. Doing very high density wifi is trouble.
  
  --
  Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
2. Re:wifi setup? by hedwards · 2011-05-22 09:06 · Score: 1
  
  In some ways, it always made more sense to me to just put wired connections in. It's not like you're going to be using your wireless devices to run all over the plane. And I'm curious just how much weight you're really saving by not having those wires. I suppose the answer is a lot more than I think it would take to do all that wiring.
3. Re:wifi setup? by cynyr · 2011-05-22 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  but what about the macbook air? it has no ethernet port.... /ducks...
  
  --
  All of the above was encrypted with a Quad ROT-13 method. Unauthorized decryption is in violation of the DMCA.
4. Re:wifi setup? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-23 00:16 · Score: 0
  
  This just in: You can buy ANYTHING as a usb device.
More leg room first ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 08:43 · Score: 0

Can we get more leg room in economy class first. With the tray table almost slicing my stomach, there isn't much fun watching a movie on my laptop.
Optomistic much? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 08:57 · Score: 0

250? You're as optimistic as their marketing folks. When's the last time you were on a plane and saw more than 5-10 people using the pricey internet/wireless service??
1. Re:Optomistic much? by Culture20 · 2011-05-22 09:01 · Score: 1
  
  Or the headphones for the in flight movie?
Re:what about power ports will there be ones in ea by hedwards · 2011-05-22 09:07 · Score: 1

I've heard of those, but the only time I've ever seen them was on the train. I don't think I've ever flown in a plane that actually had any of those amenities. I think the most recent innovation in that respect was when they went to TVs instead of the one screen and those silly head phone jacks over the older style ones.
Why wi fi? by Corse32 · 2011-05-22 09:28 · Score: 1

What is a wire not accomplishing here that radio signals are needed to overcome? Could it possibly be a lack of marketing buzz-word juice for the hussy? Albeit about 10 years behind the buzz... This plane is a literally a giant cloud app. How about that one.
1. Re:Why wi fi? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 09:47 · Score: 0
  
  Wires are heavy
2. Re:Why wi fi? by Corse32 · 2011-05-22 10:32 · Score: 1
  
  Good point, but surely some kind of copper is always going to make its way to every seat? Unless they power the reading lights remotely, which actually DOES sound like a recipe for serious control malfunctions :lol:
Delta has been doing this for years by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 09:28 · Score: 0

Why is this article even a big deal? Delta has been doing video on demand for years. Video on demand is on almost every international Delta flight I have been on in the last 3 years.
Don't Expect Much by Nikkos · 2011-05-22 09:35 · Score: 5, Interesting

I flew AA to Japan and back earlier this year. The in-flight entertainment systems were spotty and from what I could tell, at least 10% of them didn't work well if at all - including 2 of the 5 nearest me. Touchscreens didn't work, sound plugs didn't work, random resets in the middle of movies (with no recourse but to watch the whole movie over again) or devices that would do nothing but show static. The systems were so unbelievably crappy that it made me wonder how well the rest of the aircraft was serviced.
1. Re:Don't Expect Much by h4rr4r · 2011-05-22 10:11 · Score: 1
  
  Don't fly on AA, avoid United as well. Delta is the least bad US carrier, but they still suck compared to foreign carriers.
2. Re:Don't Expect Much by vu2lid · 2011-05-22 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  , random resets in the middle of movies (with no recourse but to watch the whole movie over again)
  That must be a really poorly designed system. I have experience using IFES of a number of non-US carriers - I found them to be really sophisticated and reliable applications (approaching the level of complexity of an operating system). At least in the case of ICE (Emirates) it is Linux (Redhat).
3. Re:Don't Expect Much by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 11:28 · Score: 0
  
  As said somewhere else in this thread, comparing Emirates to AA is really comparing apples to orange. AA is multiple times cheaper.
4. Re:Don't Expect Much by vu2lid · 2011-05-22 11:52 · Score: 1
  
  As said somewhere else in this thread, comparing Emirates to AA is really comparing apples to orange. AA is .
  This is incorrect. I KNOW that AA is not
  
  multiple times cheaper
  - at least for the routes I take. In fact even the actual paid ticket price is comparable (if you compare the maintenance, service, food, checked in charges it may turn out to be cheaper than AA).
5. Re:Don't Expect Much by dkf · 2011-05-22 12:30 · Score: 1
  
  Don't fly on AA, avoid United as well. Delta is the least bad US carrier, but they still suck compared to foreign carriers.
  
  It depends on the plane/route. I've flown a fair bit with Delta (especially transatlantic) and the ex-Northwest planes/routes tend to be much nicer than the "original" Delta ones. (Where I live is terrible for flying with either AA or United, but that's for reasons that are nothing to do with any US carrier.) I suspect a lot of this is linked to the age of the planes, especially in the US domestic market. Mind you, if the flight's only an hour or two it's hardly a big deal; a newspaper can cover that sort of timespan just fine.
  
  --
  "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
6. Re:Don't Expect Much by cthulhu11 · 2011-05-22 16:14 · Score: 1
  
  When I flew to NZ in 2007, the systems were much like you describe. If yours didn't happen to work, you were SOL. AA's streaming is likely to be absurdly expensive. I suggest that they put their resources into getting passengers' meals right instead.
7. Re:Don't Expect Much by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 23:50 · Score: 0
  
  As the other poster said, foreign airlines like Lufthansa, Emirates, Qatar, Sigapore, & Jet are way better than our American counter parts. And usually much cheaper with far better looking hosts. You travel foreign and it doesn't take long to figure out how backward the US really is in airline service and security.
  Our local carriers like Jetblue, & Airtran are pretty good, but our big guys are simply stoneage tech compared to the rest.
Why would you bother? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 09:36 · Score: 0

And how much will they charge for this?
$10 per movie?
$20 per movie?
Considering how much American Airlines charge for food and drink on their flights, I'm sure that they'll price it such that maybe 1 in 1000 actually use it.
More seriously, just how many of American's flights will this operate on? For domestic routes, pretty much only those that are east coast to west coast are long enough to make it worth your while - if the average movie is around 2 hours long, then factor in that airlines generally don't turn such things on for at least the first 15 minutes and everything is off again by the last 15, the minimum flight time will be 2 to 3 hours.
On international routes, the only reason I'd fly American is if I was penny pinching myself. Their in flight service to Europe is plain awful when compared with any European airline. It may be "luxurious" to Americans who've never flown a real airline but to anyone else, its something you experience because you have to, not because you want to.
Focus by theurge14 · 2011-05-22 10:11 · Score: 1

It's good to see AA is focusing on having their planes arrive on time instead of other seemingly unrelated ventures of air transportation.
Re:what about power ports will there be ones in ea by Daniel_Staal · 2011-05-22 10:12 · Score: 1

If you fly economy+ or better there will be power ports on just about all airlines these days. (It's a DC jack, not found anywhere on the ground, so you'll need a special adaptor.)
Give it at least ten years before it hits economy.

--
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Louis C.K. on wi-fi and the miracle of flight by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 10:14 · Score: 0

Some needed perspective on the matter:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8r1CZTLk-Gk&feature=player_detailpage#t=118s

P.S. I just flew American and yeah, their in-flight entertainment system sucks compared to, say, JetBlue.
1. Re:Louis C.K. on wi-fi and the miracle of flight by Corse32 · 2011-05-22 10:40 · Score: 2
  
  3 that guy, Legend.
Oops by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 10:30 · Score: 0

http://www.flickr.com/photos/erikcharlton/348280630/
Re:what about power ports will there be ones in ea by FooAtWFU · 2011-05-22 10:54 · Score: 1

I was actually just on a United jet that had 3-prong power cords under the seats (2 plugs per 3 seat unit). That was nice. On the other hand, I'm modestly surprised that they didn't try to charge me for the electricity. (They already have a credit-card swipe slot in each seat-back so you can pay $8 to watch DirecTV on your flight. Nickel-and-diming you is the United way.)

--
The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
Re:Burn the koran by c0lo · 2011-05-22 12:44 · Score: 0

Tho I agree about burning the Bible, the US flag and US constitution, Alabama and Texas state flags.
There, FTFY. Personally, I do not like it, but as a rhetorical argument seems good enough - but how do you like it?
Isn't any other way of reaching a point of "living together" other than by acts of destructions?

What I do hate is when one group, any group, thinks they are more important and more special than all the others, when they think even those who are not members of their group should conform to their group. Right now, that's US americans.
FTFY once again. Want arguments? Continue reading.

What they need is some systematic desensitization.
Conditioning and taming, you say? Like in Pavlov experiments, but with humans instead of dogs, yes?
Well, that's already happening, except that the shit fed down to our (and your) throat is made of:
1. the war on terror/DHS/body-scanners,
2. Guantanamo/AbuGhraib and "collateral murder"
3. high-ranked politicians promoting assassinations on national broadcasts
4. MAFIAA/software-patents/domain-name-seizes and 3-strike-laws and list-of-infamous-nations-not-accepting-Nazi-copyright-laws (with Canada on 3r or whatever position), etc - those are the main "cultural exports" from US for the last decade and it's not something I like.
I'm totally disgusted - not hateful, just disgusted. For the sake of understanding between people, can't US find better cultural values and ways of promoting them?

--
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
Bandwidth Limitations? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 12:49 · Score: 0

Does this mean other countries already do this?
The bandwidth is there, imagine what can be done if the FCC feed up more bandwidth than the small amount of bandwidth that it allows for Wifi?
1. Re:Bandwidth Limitations? by Corse32 · 2011-05-22 14:59 · Score: 1
  
  I'm missing something here, already do what? stream movies on a local wireless network? Yes believe they do. In a plane? no idea, and I'm not sure how the amount of spectrum available factors into that equation. I don't think bandwidth is the hurdle for many uses of any wireless networking, IME it's the necessarily huge latency (relatively) of most any flavour of wireless that makes it useless for doing lots of "cool shit"...
2. Re:Bandwidth Limitations? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 15:22 · Score: 0
  
  Meant to say if the FCC Freed up more bandwidth, not feed up. Sorry.
  "I don't think bandwidth is the hurdle for many uses of any wireless networking"
  But not having the FCC freeing up bandwidth limits how many people can stream different movies at once, especially high quality HD movies, and more importantly it limits how much simultaneous data transfer can occur at once among different devices to provide for better overall wireless communications.
3. Re:Bandwidth Limitations? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 15:48 · Score: 0
  
  Additionally, some of the latency is caused by the fact that different devices have to share the same bandwidth which adds to the overhead necessary to manage their simultaneous use. Devices have to wait for other devices to finish transmitting/receiving on a specific spectra before it can receive information on that spectra, that adds latency. Freeing up more spectra allows for more simultaneous use which will reduce latency.
4. Re:Bandwidth Limitations? by Corse32 · 2011-05-22 19:44 · Score: 1
  
  Gotcha, I was pretty ignorant of the wait for "clear air" aspect of it, I do think though that given the limited amount of bands, improvements will have to happen at the protocol and physical layers, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_802.11ac this has a lot of stuff over my head, but "downlink multi user MIMO" sounds like it might be beneficial for lots of people all streaming at once on the same network? I guess one good thing about having a wifi network in a plane is you're pretty much guaranteed to be the only access point(s) in the vicinity! :-)
What is the point? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-05-22 13:30 · Score: 0

When I can just put a few movies/episodes of a TV on my computer and use that during the flight instead?
It'll Suck... by Frankenshteen · 2011-05-22 13:35 · Score: 1

It'll take years to make right, but in the meantime - AA will make millions in fees from customers trying it for the first, second, third time.

--
"It's a doughnut stuffed with M&M's. That way when you finish the doughnut, you don't have to eat any M&M's."
Re:what about power ports will there be ones in ea by hedwards · 2011-05-22 16:08 · Score: 1

I assume by economy you mean coach. I don't fly much, I think I've flown 3 times in the last decade and won't be doing so domestically again, at least until the TSA decides to act within the laws of the US.
That wouldn't surprise me, airlines have gotten so cheap in recent years that paying for a seat doesn't guarantee that you'll get one that's size appropriate for an adult. Unless you're really diminutive in stature or a woman. As an individual of a healthy weight I should be able to buy a ticket and know that I'm going to be sold the entire seat rather than ridiculously small ones they sell now.
Why WiFi? by Lorens · 2011-05-22 17:51 · Score: 1

Is it just to avoid the weight of the cables?