Hacker News Reader

Comment by ghaff | Hacker News Reader

Sometimes I feel as if I'm the only person who genuinely doesn't care if I'm disconnected for some number of hours while I'm in a plane. I have reading material, downloaded video, and various apps. I almost appreciate flying time as an opportunity to catch up on various things without distraction.

View on HN

For a short-haul flight I agree. Wifi provides little benefit, and being disconnected can actually be a blessing.

A long-haul flight is so much more pleasant with wifi. There's only so many movies I can watch (for me, 1 or 2) before I get bored out of my mind.

It can get lonely on a plane if you are traveling alone. The people around you aren't always willing or able to talk (they may be asleep, don't speak English, or are preoccupied with a movie), so you may end up sitting for extended periods with nobody to talk to.

Being able to chat to friends while in the air makes the experience more comfortable than any seat ever could.

To each their own I guess. I have no problem spending a long flight without conversation. Some movies/TV shows/books/games and (preferably) a comfortable seat and I'm set. Give me the choice between a business class seat without WiFi and economy with WiFi and the former gets my vote every time.

Out of curiosity, how do you define a long flight? I've found that most Americans call a flight "long" if it's 4-5 hours. But in my circles -- London-based, doing business in Asia -- "long" means 9-13 hours. Which is qualitatively very different.

(Mind, in those circumstances, a choice between being able to stretch out in business class vs. having WiFi in coach would tilt even harder towards the former. But after about 8 hours in the air, I do find a lack of communications really starts to bite.)

I fly to both Europe and Asia from the US east coast. Yeah it's boring but mostly because I'm more or less stuck in a seat and not because I'm cut off from email, Facebook, and Twitter. Though, for context, I mostly work remotely so not having a real conversation over the course of a day isn't that unusual for me. The boredom of a long flight is more that I can't go outside and walk around or fiddle around in the kitchen than that I can't communicate with someone.

> There's only so many movies I can watch (for me, 1 or 2) before I get bored out of my mind.

How about downloading e.g. some tech talks? Or video lectures?

I agree entirely, it's hard to do much productive (or not productive) work without WiFi these days. If you're building a little side project you need access to third party APIs etc, or some documentation.

I agree with movies getting borinng after a while, but what about games (those with more complexity than solitaire)?

For example, there's plenty of RPGs of all flavors and settings that would have you exploring, conversing, and battling. Many don't have high system requirements, either, so could be comfortable to play on a netbook or tablet.

Edit to add another idea: I know some flights have games you can play with people in the seats next to you. Why not a plane-wide chatroom of some sort on a web portal? Then you could textually converse with many people without bothering anyone and without any bandwidth/latency restrictions.

You're not. The take rate on these services is pretty low. Single digit percentages of the passengers. That's part of the reason they aren't better.

> The take rate on these services is pretty low. Single digit percentages of the passengers.

In-flight WiFi and cellular were available on my last Etihad flight (Europe -> Bangkok via Abu Dhabi).

The charge was something like 25 EUR to share the 1MBit/128Kbit link with the rest of the plane.

So no wonder the uptake on this service is slow low. Business passengers will probably take it because the company pays (or it's included in the cost of their ticket) and for economy passengers it's too much to pay for a handicapped internet connection where they can't even Skype friends or browse Facebook because it's so slow.

They've all done experiments with different price points. The 25 EUR rate isn't likely an accident...it's what gains them the most revenue. The installation costs are very high (certification, aircraft downtime, etc), and for satellite based solutions, the bandwidth cost is high. I don't even think they are trying to make money, just offset as much cost as they can.

As far as I'm aware, they make most of the money on business jets; the commercial side, as far as I'm aware, operates more or less at marginal cost with lower QoS guarantees than the business jets get as a marketing exercise.

The providers (ViaSat, Panasonic, etc) make money. I'm saying the airlines don't make much money on it. They have to bear the installation costs, which are very high, and pay the providers the bandwidth charges. There's also lost revenue while the plane is out of service and a slight (but adds up across the fleet) rise in fuel burn due to the antenna bump. Whatever they charge passengers doesn't recoup it all.

The cell / ground based systems have a different model, and the installation costs, while high, aren't quite as high. But, the providers there, like GoGo, set the pricing, keep the branding, etc, and only share a commission back. I don't believe it's a net positive revenue for the airlines either, but I know less about that space.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com