Comment by amohr | Hacker News Reader

Comment by amohr | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

+1 for Virgin. I've never flown (I live in Chicago and they don't hit O'Hare) but I've heard almost exclusively good things. They are doing exactly what needs to be done in these giant, somewhat stagnant industries - introducing a brand with a customer-centric model, offering a "premium" service. Of course, in the world of air travel, it takes surprisingly little to distinguish yourself from the notoriously horrendous experience of dealing with other major lines.

Last year, there was a Wakefield/Wi-Fi Alliance study that found 76% of travelers would choose an airline based on wi-fi availability. (http://www.wi-fi.org/news_articles.php?f=media_news&news...) A number which, I can only imagine, has been increasing over time. And, as we've seen (re: Starbucks) there's a big difference between wi-fi and free wi-fi. As far as I can tell skimming a couple searches, there doesn't seem to be any line that offers free wifi... yet.

It seems like there's a coming sea-change, however. The going theory is that free wi-fi is going to be a standard check-box item by the middle of next year - with many assuming Virgin and SWA will likely be leading the way.

On a related note, I fly pretty much exclusively Southwest. I took my first flight at just over a week old and have flown pretty regularly ever since. About 6-7 years ago, I made the change to flying SWA whenever possible and haven't looked back. Last time I flew to SF, it took two different flights with a transfer in between - and I got a free drink on both.

Last year, there was a Wakefield/Wi-Fi Alliance study that found 76% of travelers would choose an airline based on wi-fi availability.

I'd imagine Wi-Fi Alliance might have some biases here.

Since in-flight wifi is just a satellite connection, I'm sure the overall available bandwidth is fairly limited. Charging for wifi is a good middle ground for airlines as a way to make a few extra dollars but also to keep usage to a level that the uplink can handle.

Are their any airlines that currently offer free wifi? I know that SWA did during their testing phase a while back (which only consisted of 3-4 equipped planes) but they eventually started charging for it like everyone else.

Yeah, IIRC Delta had free wifi while they were testing it and Virgin's was free during the holiday season.

And yes the wifi alliance has some biases, but Wakefield (http://www.wakefieldresearch.com/) is an independent research firm.

That's a good point, though about charging in order to throttle bandwidth concerns. But that comes at a potentially high cost in public perception points. All it takes is one airline to say "Everyone should have free wifi, so now we do!" and there will be a big jump in people complaining about having to pay for it.

I flew from Sacramento to Miami 2 weeks ago with Delta and they had complimentary wifi.

TANSTAAFL, or free wireless. Any time something is being offered for "free" you can be sure those that aren't using it are being ripped off for the benefit of those who are.

This is true, of course. But that doesn't mean the public won't buy the free wifi claim, and prefer that airline over the others.

The in-flight WiFi on Virgin America (and most domestic carriers as far as I know) is a cellular based system, not satellite.

http://www.gogoinflight.com/gogo/cms/work.do

Very interesting. Even with a cellular based system, I'm sure there isn't too much bandwidth available but much more than with a satellite connection I'd imagine.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com