You best anchor yourself to the ground... lest you drift away.
Do you have any source that shows that he's committing such fraud?
Suppose that a plane has 250 seats and makes 50 trans-con flights a month.
Airline A decides to advertise having fast internet access in their flight, and raises ticket prices by $2 a seat to fund it.
(250)(50)(2) = 25000
Airline B stays with slow barely usable internet.
Which ticket do you book?
Fast internet is something I would be willing to pay for on certain flights - either as part of the ticket price or as an add-on. Although most of the time I'm content to zone out to a movie or sleep.
Also, while I imagine the logistics of bouncing 350 MBps from satellite to satellite at 1000 km/h will impose significant overhead, a lot of the places where people will want this service the most (trans-Atlantic, trans-Pacific, Kansas cornfields etc) will have very few if any other users.
Also, to me free wifi sounds better than those laggy entertainment systems I never use.
Southwest is not providing free bags out of the goodness of their hearts. It’s purely a profit-oriented business decision.
- Free bags means fewer people putting carry on bags in the overhead bins.
- Fewer carry on bags means faster boarding.
- Faster boarding means less time spent at the gate.
- Less time spent at the gate means the plane is in the air for more time.
- More time the plane is in the air means more profit made (generally speaking, provided loads, schedule and routing allows)
I’m sure it still works out for them, but it’s far from obvious and probably depends on many passengers not maximizing their allowance.
Alternatively being able to work more means I don't have to burn as many vacation days just on the transiting parts of travel.
I didn’t realize how addicted to the internet I was until I did a 15 hour flight from Boston to Incheon in the spring. Never again. I’ll gladly fly Delta instead.
But yeah having internet would be even better.
But removing seat-back would be bold - 100 people using a shared 350 connection would probably not work well. 200-odd using it would kill it. Leaving your passengers with a very unhappy experience.
And on top of that all the major streaming services allow for download for offline viewing. I'm just going to download a bunch of stuff ahead of time to make sure I can watch what I want.
This just serves the folks who want to pay to access the rest of the Internet. And I don't see incentive for anyone to pay and try to use a streaming service. More useful for someone traveling on business needing to join a call or something.
Airlines still rely on those massive clunky boxes under each seat, plus a server rack which adds a fair bit of weight.
Swapping to an all-in-one system - essentially a smart tv built into each monitor that just provides a browser and basic apps for major streaming services would reduce the overall weight of the plane, fix the annoyance of that big box where your legs are supposed to go, and provide entertainment on board.
There's also the costs that airlines normally have for licensing content - those would go away completely if everyone can just log into their own netflix or prime account.
350 Mbps for the entire flight. You're looking at speeds in the 5 Mbps territory optimistically per person. No way can you remove a NAS serving video content with that.
When planes come to be refitted:
- You take out the IFE server rack - weight saving. - Replace the seatback tv's with essentially an all in one smart tv system with apps for major streaming services - Take out the underseat IFE box as its no longer needed - The airline no longer has to pay for tv/movie/music licensing
And that's for a standard narrow-body passenger jet, not the G650 etc. business jets that they're targeting.
This seems like a flex, not a tool.