September 2009 Archives

Technological innovation is leaping forward in the aircraft cabin, and it's not limited to in-flight entertainment and communications (IFEC).

Premier design consultancy Priestmangoode, for example, is the brainchild behind new, ultra-high-end aircraft seat control devices that "control all the things in the passenger environment" such as seat adjustments and settings, massage, lighting and even the 'do not disturb sign', notes co-founder Nigel Goode.

Check out the controllers designed by Priestmangoode for Kingfisher (above) and Swiss' new first-class product (below).

So here's my question - Can you easily combine a seat controller with the IFEC controller to save space and improve efficiency?

Getting all the seat controls and the IFE controls on the same handheld "is a nightmare", but it can be done, says Goode, noting that Priestmangoode has "done it in the past with one for Lufthansa but it's a very, very difficult thing".

Additionally, he says, "We're doing quite a lot with clients in developing the seat design and then we have to take a Thales or Panasonic unit [and incorporate that]. We are spending more time on the graphical user interface [GUI] of the airline as well because that's really important because there is a tendency for it to be quite boring - offering a menu and a few films - and it's not really thinking about how people really want to use this. We're spending quite a bit of time on that side."

 

I recently took a brief holiday to Florida. There, I drank beer in alligator-infested water and ventured to the local Dollar Store in the name of sociology. But I knew I couldn't get so close to JetBlue subsidiary LiveTV and not make a visit.

Boy, I am so glad I did. I saw the most amazing in-flight television at LiveTV's Melbourne, FL facility. 

The system is being rollled out across Continental Airlines' Boeing domestic fleet. Check it out!

 

Tomorrow's launch by British Airways (BA) of new business-class only Airbus A318 service between London City and JFK brings with it the transatlantic launch of OnAir's in-flight mobile connectivity services.

At the risk of sounding like my five-year old - That's, like, so cool!

OnAir's services are supported by SwiftBroadband, Inmarsat's higher-bandwidth satellite technology. Passengers aboard the BA A318 will be able to use their own mobile phones or smartphones (such as a BlackBerry device) for text messages, emails and Internet access.

 

However, the system will have to be shut down as soon as the A318 hits US airspace. Why? Because the US FCC and FAA still disallow the in-flight use of cell phones or, as BA consumer PR manager Michael Johnson noted in an interview with RWG this morning: "They do not allow the use of mini cell networks on aircraft."

 

Pulling from my five-year old's vocabulary once again - What a bummer!

 

We know all about this sad state of affairs in the USA, of course, but I think it's worth underscoring just how insane is US regulation on this matter and how lawmakers have used scare tactics to keep it that way.

 

Personally, I'd love to PICO into their brains to understand where these lawmakers are coming from (although there may be some light at the end of the tunnel).

 

BA will not allow the in-flight use of cell phones for voice calls, at least not initially. "We know that customer opinion has been sharply divided," says Johnson, noting that the carrier is "erring on the side of caution because we know it can be very divisive".   

 

With that said, however, BA will monitor customer feedback and if consumers show a willingness to have voice service, it's "something we'd consider".

 

For those passengers who think they can get around the rules by using Skype via OnAir, good luck to ya. "The bandwidth is limited in some respects," says Johnson, adding that it wouldn't be able to support Skype, or streaming video like YouTube.

Just because Boeing opted against wireless IFE solutions for its 787 doesn't mean airframers are not interested in making that sort of architecture available.

Take Airbus, for example. "In combination with our approach to connectivity we continue to study and research wireless IFE with industry players that have complementary offers to Airbus products in the value chain," Airbus Operations vice-president cabin design office, Jonathan Norris reveals.

"Whether you use portable, semi-embedded or fully embedded devices, if you have a 'connected aircraft' - and want to upload today's news, for instance - you've got a potential way of distributing that content throughout the aircraft."

There are a number of challenges with wireless IFE, such as identifying the location of a particular handheld PED or semi-embedded device. "You need to be able to tell the system that 'that film goes to that seat'. We believe that we can overcome those challenges," says Norris.

Well now, that's interesting, especially since Airbus is deciding what technology makes sense for offerability on its A350 (last year it commissioned Bluebox Avionics to provide a wireless IFE system for inclusion in the A380 demo mock-up in Hamburg).

But note Norris' comment - wireless IFE is being studied "in combination with our approach to connectivity". For those who haven't been paying attention as to what that approach entails, read on.

Says Norris:

"...our philosophy is to separate the connectivity system (Wi-Fi and/or GSM) from the choice of IFE system. We believe that the connectivity infrastructure should become part of the 'backbone' of the aircraft enabling a wider range of IFE and connectivity functionality than is available today to our customers.

"This separation would give our airline customers the option to choose between embedded 'classical' IFE systems, semi-embedded or fully portable IFE systems or even rely solely on passengers' own Portable Electronic Devices (PEDs) to bring entertainment content onto the aircraft.

"We believe that the customer should be free to put connectivity on the aircraft and then can choose what level of IFE they put on the aircraft, rather than saying 'you must have an embedded IFE system and with that you can choose connectivity'."

In the near term future, adds Norris, if you have a Wi-Fi/GSM system onboard there are some airline customers who may elect not to have an embedded IFE system.

But what does this sort of cabin mean for IFE manufacturers? Thales vice-president of sales and marketing Jeff Sare says that while some carriers may opt not to offer IFE monitors in coach class, he doesn't see embedded IFE going away in business and first class in part because of "the demands of the passengers paying to ride up there".

Even in a wireless IFE environment, Thales would still play an important role. "What most people are talking about today when saying 'wireless IFE' is the ability for a passenger to use their own device, whether that's rented or owned by the airline, or what they carry every day, to wirelessly connect to the entertainment network on the airplane," says Sare, noting that Thales would still provide the satcom unit and the server, and continue to acquire, collect, format and provide the content on those servers, as it does today.

As the conversation heats up about whether or not current in-flight Wi-Fi business models make sense, it's easy to forget just how jaw-droppingly cool - and entertaining and useful - it is to surf the web at 30,000ft. And while people like me (journa-bloggers always on deadline) may fall into the minority who are willing to pay $20 for unfettered access to airborne Internet, the number of folks who want connectivity - at least in some form - is growing fast.

For lack of a better word, the techies are spreading like a virus and soon we won't want to be disconnected for five or eight or 12 hours during flight (how we pay for the pleasure is another conversation entirely). Even JetBlue Airways subsidiary LiveTV, which believes wholeheartedly in free in-flight Wi-Fi, is exploring an ultra-high-speed Ka-band satellite solution.

That is one of the reasons why major in-flight entertainment (IFE) manufacturers are taking connectivity very seriously. Panasonic Avionics, for example, is readying to equip aircraft with highly-connected IFE systems. Executive director, corporate sales and product management Neil James in April gave a presentation at the WAEA meeting in Kuala Lumpur about Panasonic's "future view" for gadgets and gizmos, which factor strongly into the firm's vision for IFE&C (see below). Look very closely (i.e. click on the actual graphic).

If you think in-flight connectivity isn't here to stay, think again.

 

 

In that vein, here's hoping Aircell can figure a way forward because that company has done something that none other has ever managed to do (including Boeing) - equip a vast amount of aircraft in the USA with in-flight Wi-Fi. One of Aircell's customers, Virgin America, is already working to make its Panasonic-built IFE systems more connected via the Gogo link (we'll talk more about this later). But I'm sure Charles Ogilvie could tell us a thing or two about that. After all, it's all about connections.   

I wonder if Aircell's airline customers are tad peeved at the latest turn of events. The positive publicity they've enjoyed in the media - including on this blog - for bringing in-flight Internet to passengers is diminishing, as everybody and their brother questions the viability of the Gogo fee-for-service model, and as a growing number of consultants go on record to say that not only has Aircell been equipping aircraft for free (which we already surmised), but it has been giving airlines a slice of the early returns (yowers!).

Neither claim has been confirmed by Aircell or the airlines, by the way, but many folks are coming to the seemingly logical conclusion that if Aircell was getting a windfall of cash, it wouldn't need to initiate layoffs.

In the true American tradition of propping up celebrities only to tear them down, the Monday Morning Quarterbacks are now out in the full force with their "I told you so" mantra. Truth be told, a few of them actually did tell us so. One man on the right side of the argument all along has been Connexion by Boeing's former chief marketer David Friedman, who knows a thing or two about unsuccessful forays into the in-flight connectivity realm.

We highlighted some of Friedman's comments on this blog in the past, but two quotes are proving particularly haunting, and should give Aircell's customers pause today.

Said Friedman:

"We [initially] offered to give [Connexion] away as a trial for free but the airlines said, 'If this is successful, you want us to pay for all these antennas?' They were concerned that if customers were demanding it, it would put them [the airline] in a tenuous situation in terms of customer relations.

"So you have the cost of the system and cost of the infrastructure. You can offset that through a variety of ways, such as advertising. But sponsorship and advertising and direct fees is not enough! People believe, by the way, that they should have Internet for free because they are used to having Wi-Fi for free. Then couple that with the issue of power outlets. If an airline doesn't have enough power outlets on the plane, how are they going to charge a flat fee?"

If things are as bad for Aircell as some people claim, what should its airline customers do? A growing number of industry insiders believe these airlines might opt to help sustain the Gogo offering, or, as Friedman notes in a new IAG podcast - "What would have to happen is the airline would have to contribute more of the cost of the equipment."

Listen to the entire podcast in full at the following link: http://iagblog.podomatic.com/player/web/2009-09-22T13_54_52-07_00

For the record, Aircell says it recently received "substantial funding and commitments from existing and new investors and expect to add to those before the financing closes".

Also for the record, despite questions about the Gogo business model - and whether people will actually pay for in-flight Internet - one thing is certain: passengers, many armed with free promos, freaking LOVE the service. Check out what people are saying right now:

During the Paris air show in June, I broke the story that US Airways would launch the James Park Associates (JPA)-designed Cirrus seat on its new Airbus A330s. Some journalists tried to debunk my story, referencing vague quotes from US Airways that the seat RWG sat on in Paris was not the seat being selected by US Airways. Well I'm glad I held my ground (or rather, stayed seated). 

Last week, US Airways finally confirmed it has selected the signature JPA herringbone design for its new Envoy business class product, which is also being equipped with Panasonic's eX2 in-flight entertainment and communications (IFEC) system (note Panasonic's new reference to eX2 as IFEC!).

This morning, JPA released the following statement:

US Airways launches unique JPA-designed business class seat on A330-200s

London, September 2009: An innovative concept in aircraft seating design has just been unveiled as US Airways launches its new Envoy Suite, the airline's business class seat, designed by James Park Associates (JPA), the leading designers of aviation interiors.

The Envoy Suite, which is fitted to US Airways' new A330-200 aircraft, utilises a unique 'angled mini-suite' configuration, offering every passenger more space, greater privacy and direct aisle access. It is based on JPA's unique 'reverse herringbone' seating concept, which provides an imaginative, high quality, yet cost-effective seating system that can be tailored to meet the needs of individual airlines' wide-bodied aircraft.

Commenting on the launch of US Airways' new seat, JPA's managing director, James Park, says:

"We would like to congratulate US Airways on the launch of their brand new Envoy Suite. US Airways has led the way in bringing JPA's innovative seating system into commercial service, demonstrating their commitment to providing the best possible passenger experience, whilst also delivering great value for the company. We are sure US Airways' customers will be extremely impressed.

"The Envoy Suite is a fantastic illustration of the flexibility of JPA's system, and the opportunities it offers airlines for clear differentiation. Whilst its reverse herringbone configuration and ease of maintenance are core features, passenger density, seat pitch and width, surrounding furniture and upholstery can all be varied to meet different needs, preferences and corporate identities."

US Airways' new Envoy Suite is fitted in a four abreast 1-2-1 configuration, ensuring uninterrupted aisle access for each of the Envoy cabin's 20 business class customers. The seat is 20.5 inches wide between armrests and ranges from 76 to 80 inches in bed mode, depending on the Suite's location in the cabin. It is located within a fixed back shell and is upholstered in fabric, with leather-covered armrests and ottoman. The seat is fully adjustable, using a backlit passenger control unit, and has three pre-set positions: taxi, take-off and landing; relax (z-position) and; full-flat (bed position). A manually adjustable armrest, a large, sliding tray-table, immense personal stowage capacity and privacy dividers between central seats each help to put the passenger in control of their own environment. In addition, state-of-the art in-flight entertainment and telecommunications technology, including a USB port, 110-volt universal power outlet and audio/video on demand (AVOD), with a 12.1-inch fully adjustable video monitor, ensure that the passenger can work or relax and be entertained in the seat.

US Airways' Senior Vice President, Marketing and Planning, Andrew Nocella, says:

"We are pleased to be launching the Envoy Suite on our Transatlantic A330-200 aircraft. The concept that JPA has developed has given us a seat that offers increased comfort, privacy and convenience, together with a wealth of passenger amenities and technological features. Our business class customers will be pleased by what they experience and we look forward to delivering them to their destinations relaxed, refreshed and ready to do business."

This new concept is the latest in a line of elegant and innovative aviation interior designs from JPA. Their business class seat for the Singapore Airlines (SIA) A380 and B777s has won a range of awards since its launch in October 2007 and follows JPA's designs for SIA's B747 and B777 first class cabins. More recently, Japan Airlines launched the JPA-designed first class JAL Suite and Gulf Air appointed JPA to redesign its aircraft interiors, livery, uniforms and passenger lounges. Arik Air has also appointed JPA to design its B777 interiors, as well as advise on configuration and market positioning.

The news that Aircell has started reducing its staff has not come as a big surprise to many insiders and experts in the in-flight entertainment and connectivity (IFE&C)) industry.

Indeed, back in July, when Aircell's long-standing president and CEO Jack Blumenstein assumed chairmanship from Ron LeMay (pictured), who in turn took the role of president and CEO, I started receiving tips that Aircell was looking to trim its ranks. My conversation with Aircell went like this:

QUESTION FROM MARY: I'm writing an article about Aircell's new announcement that Jack is becoming chairman and LeMay is becoming prez and CEO. I know Jack has been working exceedingly hard for many years to bring Aircell to the position of dominance that it finds itself in today. Is today's announcement essentially saying that Jack is ready for someone else to take on the day-to-day operational challenges while he looks at the broader picture and plans strategy? I'm trying to wrap my head around it so any help would be appreciated.

In what may or may not be related, I do have another question (which may be a bit sensitive). I'm hearing that a shakeup is in the works at Aircell, which could stand to be a bit leaner (cutting costs while coming to terms with the fact that there are 300-plus people handling the commercial side and you really only need about 75). Can you comment?

ANSWER FROM AIRCELL: Just to quickly follow up our phone conversation yesterday, as you pointed out, Aircell has been through a period of extremely rapid expansion over the past few years. We are now entering a new phase of the company's lifecycle - transitioning from a start-up organization to an operating company. Ron's extensive experience with companies in high growth phases like Sprint Long Distance and Sprint PCS makes him the perfect fit for president and CEO.

And as I mentioned yesterday, I don't know who your source is or how they came up with those figures but how many rapidly growing companies do you know that could cut 75% of their staff and still be a going concern?  Ridiculous.

I am not suggesting that Aircell was misleading. But I am kicking myself for not phrasing my question to Aircell in a different way.

So what now for Aircell? As mentioned in my Flightglobal article, Aircell is not confirming the number of employees being let go, nor has it disclosed whether management is affected (guess we'll be checking LinkedIn profiles in the coming months).

However, the company has assured that it's got new financing coming in October. It has also applied for government stimulus funds.

But do the Aircell staff cuts spell a deeper problem in the industry? Some experts say many IFE&C firms are now suffering. We are, after all, in the midst of a global economic recession. Consultant Tim Farrar in his latest blog adds some of his own perspective. Here it is in full: 

In-flight broadband: follow the money

It seems that people are now coming round to the view, which we've expressed since 2006, that there won't be enough paying users of in-flight broadband for both network providers and airlines to make a profit on the costs of deploying equipment and running a network (as Boeing found out after spending somewhere between $1B and $2B on Connexion). Our view was that only airlines who are interested in offering a differentiated service would be able to justify the costs involved. However, to date the leading service providers (Aircell and Row44) have apparently not only been installing the equipment for free, but have also been offering a cut of revenues to the airline. Its no wonder that this "no lose" proposition has led to fleetwide installation commitments from most of the major US airlines. In comparison, installations of Inmarsat equipment for in-flight cellular services on aircraft in other parts of the world have slowed dramatically over the last 18 months, as most airlines no longer have the money to pay for fleetwide upgrades (with the possible exception of Ryanair, which we suspect may have a similarly attractive deal from OnAir).
Lost in the noise of Southwest's commitment to install Row44 service across its entire fleet of 540 aircraft was the footnote that there isn't "a solid timeframe for [installation]" because "certain specific details concerning the cost and financing of equipage are still being worked out". From what we've heard, Row44 needs to raise a lot more money very soon in order to move forward with full-scale deployment (pretty obviously, since fitting equipment on 500 planes at $250K+ each would cost $125M), and presumably Southwest's announcement was timed to help them secure that funding. However, with Southwest also demanding "control [over] the price point that our customer sees", it seems a pretty unpalatable deal for potential investors if Row44 must front the installation costs and pay for the network and then let Southwest set the pricing to maximize its own return (probably more dictated by customer loyalty) rather than Row44's revenues. Similarly unreasonable expectations appear to have been the reason why the oft-mentioned return of Connexion service on Lufthansa (who refused to provide any revenue guarantee to the network provider but wanted to make the provider liable for any future equipment deinstallations) has not happened to date.
What is the solution to achieving a sustainable business model for in-flight broadband? Whether it lies in airlines providing connectivity for free as a differentiator for their customers, or airlines using the link to the aircraft as a means to reduce their own operating costs, what we're ultimately going to have to see is a change in the direction that the money flows. Instead of airlines getting the equipment for free and receiving a share of the service revenues, the airline is going to have to pay for the equipment and maybe in some cases even offer a revenue guarantee to the network provider (particularly on long-haul international routes where the cost of providing Ku-band coverage is much greater).
How palatable will in-flight connectivity be then to airlines that are currently losing hundreds of millions of dollars a year? At the very least we'd expect them to be a lot more discriminating in deciding whether to provide connectivity or not (who needs it on a one hour shuttle flight?). Perhaps its only if one of the providers goes bust that we'll see a return to rationality in pricing (of course, it would be very unlikely for the service itself to disappear completely as Connexion did, because the costs of operating either Aircell or Row44's networks domestically aren't that high). Until that point is reached, expect airlines to continue to scramble to get something for nothing with their in-flight connectivity installations. In the meantime we'll be watching carefully to see if the discussions over "cost and financing of equipage" between Southwest and Row44 get resolved and if investors are willing to put more money into in-flight connectivity providers.

What is the biggest, baddest, best live satellite television system flying in the skies today? The answer, my friend, is JetBlue subsidiary LiveTV's LTV3 platform, which is being installed across Continental Airlines' Boeing domestic fleet.

I scooted on down to LiveTV's Melbourne, Florida-based facility last week to finally get some footage of LTV3, a bigger, better, and brighter system than that which is even flying on JetBlue.

Check out my initial snaps of the 80-channel system (which could offer as many as 90 channels when the World Airline Entertainment Association conference and exhibition gets kicked off early next month).

For the antenna lovers out there, I've uploaded some pics of the KVH Industries antenna that will be installed on Continental's -800s.

LiveTV hasn't replaced its long-time antenna supplier EMS (EMS antennas are now flying on Continental's -900ERs), but it did award a $20.1 million multi-year contract to KVH to design, develop and build cost-efficient antennas for narrowbodies.

 

 

My colleague Megan Kuhn travelled to Montreal this week to witness the groundbreaking of Bombardier's first CSeries facility, a training center called CIASTA - first revealed here - that will house a virtual CSeries aircraft.

While in Montreal, Megan asked Bombardier executives about the airframer's plans for IFE on the aircraft. You may recall that Bombardier is considering whether to bring wireless IFE to the CSeries. While there is no new news to report there, you'll see from Megan's story that a decision on IFE partners is expected in the near-term.

Manufacturers usually pick more than one IFE solution for offerablity on their aircraft. Airbus, for example, has preselected Thales and Panasonic and "may consider a third player" for the A350, which, like the CSeries, has an entry-into-service of 2013, Alan Pellegrini, general manager of Thales' California-based in-flight business, told me at the Paris air show.

With specific regard to the 110/130-seat, geared turbofan-powered CSeries, however, at least one IFE manufacturer seems to be already speaking Bombardier's language (i.e. connectivity isn't just about making passengers happy, it gives airlines the tools to improve operations on nearly every level).

Panasonic Avionics, which has already been selected to provide the CSeries' cabin management and passenger address system, believes the aircraft "is a kind of a game changer" from the prospective that Bombardier is positioning it as a widebody experience in a single-aisle aircraft.

"The CSeries will be a fun and interesting challenge for us, because there there will be a mix of airlines offering a premium in-seat solution at the higher end, and at the lower end, some will select connectivity-only solutions," says Panasonic director of corporate sales and marketing Neil James.

Speaking broadly about wireless IFE, James says it "comes in many flavors", noting that there is a wireless aspect of connectivity but there is "also the ability on board to use that same wireless access to distribute content from servers on board to passengers' own devices, and we've been experimenting with that".

Key quotes from James:

"There is a great deal of buzz around the passenger side of connectivity, and we absolutely believe in that, but the part that is underplayed is the airlines' operational business benefit that comes from connectivity. We are genuinely going to deliver the vision of what we refer to as a 'mission control concept' for airlines.

"We really see the aircraft as a node on the airline's IT network. We see ability to do real-time maintenance and diagnostics...from a mission control network on the ground through the global communications suite (GCS)."

This type of thinking must be music to Bombardier's ears. The airframer has said it is developing a centralized maintenance health monitoring system (CMHMS) for the CSeries that will provide real-time information about the entire aircraft to ensure enhanced diagnostics and prognostics. While still under development, the idea would be to make the system accessible by maintenance technicians via personal digital assistants.

Now then, if you know a bit of French, check out Bombardier's video from the CIASTA groundbreaking. 

 

One year ago, Panasonic revealed it was developing a "super remote control" for installed IFE that, well, to quote myself from last year, "is pretty darn super".

Karma will essentially let you to be your ambidextrous self. For instance, you can check your email or scan the Internet without ever letting your IFE system's programming skip a beat. Karma will do everything but cook you breakfast (although no doubt you'll be able to order your eggs via Karma).

The picture you see above is not the final look of the touch screen handset that will be flying next year. But it gives you a pretty good idea of what's coming down the pike. Below are some prototype images....nice!

Consider this blog post part of my new continuing series: "Embedded IFE is nowhere near dead." In fact, it's very much alive and kicking.

Portable in-flight entertainment (IFE) maker digEcor last week received the equivalent of a tongue lashing from a Utah district court.

The court dismissed with prejudice (i.e. permanently) all of digEcor's remaining claims against competitor - and former partner - e.Digital, and ordered that digEcor recover no damages or injunctive relief. But it also took some digEcor executives to task for their testimony.

In issuing its ruling, the court found:

...e.Digital's witnesses to be credible, while some witnesses offered by digEcor lacked credibility under the above criteria. Specifically, digEcor's president,
Brent Wood, offered self-serving testimony at trial that was often contradicted by his own past testimony or with his own private statements in the contemporaneous communications offered in evidence. At one point during the trial, Mr. Wood stated that his sworn testimony on a crucial issue (which did not align with digEcor's litigation position), given in the 30(b)(6) deposition of digEcor, was false. Further, while the court found digEcor vice president Chris Wood to be generally credible, documents introduced at trial demonstrate that he was less than candid with e.Digital about the purpose of the inspection performed by digEcor and the extent of the information digEcor learned.

The court says it incorporated these credibility determinations in reaching its findings.

I've written a news article about the ruling and posted it to the new IFE&C channel. But below you'll find the key quotes from e.Digital and digEcor. Note that they are both looking forward to the World Airline Entertainment Association conference and exhibition in Palm Springs next month. Guess what? So are we!  I'm envisioning a peace circle and a little Cat Stevens. What say you?

Robert Putnam, e.Digital senior vice-president, says: "We are pleased with the court's rulings and look forward to next month's World Airline Entertainment Association (WAEA) conference and exhibition, where we'll be meeting with current and prospective eVU portable IFE customers."

Brent Wood, CEO of digEcor, says: "Are we disappointed with the outcome? Sure. However, the suit was necessary to force e.Digital to perform on its last production contract with digEcor. The failure to prevail on some damages claims for late delivery doesn't change anything. It is almost moot. Who we are and what we do is no different today than yesterday. We continue to partner with airlines to find innovative solutions to IFE. We continue to develop programs that bring revenue to airlines enabling them to put high-quality entertainment and flexible devices in front of passengers.

"In fact, we invite everyone to come visit our booth at the WAEA show in a few weeks as we will be making several big announcements that will help propel digEcor and the IFE industry forward."

 

To all the naysayers out there who believe in-stalled in-flight entertainment (IFE) is becoming obsolete and will, like the Old South, find itself gone with the wind, I ask you to draw your attention to today's top story on Flight Global's new IFE&C channel, about new market player Lumexis.

The California-based company has secured a full-fleet customer for its fiber-to-the-screen (FTTS) IFE system, which offers an unlimited platform for entertainment, communication/connectivity, cached websites, commercial transaction/data transfer and cabin/aircraft data collection/distribution.

That an airline is opting for state-of-the-art IFE from a relative newcomer despite today's global economic recession is impressive in its own right. 

But the deal is important on a number of other levels too.

1) It underscores the important role that IFE continues to play - and will play in the future - especially as airlines seek new ways to personalize the travel experience for passengers while generating new ancillary revenue streams.

2) It brings a new player to the game of Duopoly. Panasonic and Thales have for years dominated the embedded IFE space, following Rockwell Collins' decision not to pursue IFE business on new generation widebodies (the Airbus A380 and Boeing 787); and,

3) It shows that there is still financing to be had for new IFE installs (i.e., the ever important moneymen, whoever they are, don't think the death knell has rung for installed IFE).

But while those in-seat and seat-back screens are here for the foreseeable future, their role is certainly changing, as airlines hear the siren call of in-flight connectivity.

"My sense is that 'connectivity' is a broad term encompassing quite different roles/requirements such as real time TV, Internet surfing, SMS messaging, etc. Our corporate charter has been to become the on-board network for every kind of application and communication source, but not to provide the "off-aircraft" links," Lumexis CEO Douglas Cline tells RWG.

"There is a plethora of diverse service providers including satellite and terrestrial channels of all flavors and we have committed to connect to any/all of them our airline customers want us to tie in, but not to compete with them. So, in a sense, we are the most 'connectable' of full-functionality IFE suppliers."

Perhaps more than anything it remains true that movies are more compelling to watch on a big screen versus a smartphone or other small-sized personal device.

Frankly, the thought of a tiny little Rhett bidding adieu to a tiny little Scarlett makes me actually give a damn about installed IFE.

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 appropriated $7.2 billion and directed the Department of Agriculture and the Department of Commerce to expand broadband access to unserved and underserved communities across the USA to "increase jobs, spur investments in technology and infrastructure and provide long-term economic benefits".

The result is the RUS Broadband Inititiatves Programme (BIP) and the NTIA Broadband Technology Opportunities Programme (BTOP).

According to the government's "Broadband USA" portal, Aircell is applying for over $65 million to "improve public safety and consumer access to in-flight Internet service in the largely unserved US airspace" via its air-to-ground broadband network. Here's a screen grab from the site. 

Well now, that's an interesting interpretation of "unserved" community. I wonder if Row 44 will also apply (Hughes has submitted a few apps but I can't see anything about in-flight broadband).

Thanks @broadbandtrends on Twitter for the info!

Korean Air (KAL) has released images of its new seating products and guess what is in the pics? The next generation of Thales' TopSeries in-flight entertainment (IFE) system!!!

Okay, this isn't the best view of the screen, but it's something.

So what makes this new IFE system so special? In February Thales VP media services Stuart Dunleavy gave me this key quote:

"From a media point of view, the architecture is becoming much more web-like in its implementation and that creates huge opportunities for my team to be innovative. Additionally, the server has a lot more horsepower, and can hold nearly a terabyte of storage. And the screens have much faster processing ability. They are essentially like mini-laptops."

KAL's latest seating and IFE upgrade project will cost $200 million and take two years to complete. It covers nine Boeing 777-200s, four Boeing 777-300s, three Airbus A330-200s, and 16 Airbus A330-300s.

The aircraft will be refurbished in KAL's hanger at Gimpo International Airport in Seoul.

With in-flight Internet, unless you can make money on it, why the heck would you provide it? If passengers aren't willing to pay for it, what's the point?

Ku-band connectivity is a great promise, loads of bandwidth - that's fantastic. But how many people on the aircraft are going to pay to use it?

If you look at the usage, I'll bet you'll have one, two, three or four high-end users who will use loads of bandwidth, while others will do a couple of emails. You won't have a lot of people doing streaming video and Skype because very few people actually do that. If you're an airline, why would you bolt on that [Ku-band] solution if you're going to have three to five users?

These are just some of the questions that Lars Ringertz would like to see answered.

You've no doubt heard of Ringertz, Inmarsat's head of marketing aeronautical business. He has been running the speaking circuit like nobody's business. From Vancouver to Hong Kong - and loads of places in between - the man has been getting the word out about Inmarsat's 432kbit/sec SwiftBroadband solution.

SwiftBroadband does not give passengers the same sort of high-speed Internet experience they're accustomed to having on the ground; rather it can support a 'lite' Internet experience, or managed Internet such as Arinc's Oi offering (which adds cached content for punch), while simultaneously supporting voice and data capabilities.

But do you really need to be the slickest kid on the block to get some action? And do carriers really need to offer high-speed Internet to passengers in order to keep them satisfied?

Ringertz doesn't think so (as you'd expect considering his title). During a cracking interview this week, Ringertz said: "We're not sexy and we're not possibly the flavour of the day but the certified avionics list is constantly getting longer. Nobody is paying these manufacturers to get type-approved on multiple aircraft. They are independent companies. They do it because this is the mainstream solution. In that respect it is business as usual for us," says Ringertz.

He suggests that it's very easy to get carried away with the discussion about in-flight Internet at the moment because air-to-ground (ATG)-based Aircell and Ku-band-based Row 44 "have been extremely successful with their announcements".

But the Inmarsat executive is not convinced that enough people will pay for Ku-band service to make it a viable business model in the near-term.
 
"Getting people to change their behaviour and start spending money in a different way is very difficult. Yes, you have road warriors whose behaviour is to pay for Internet in hotels and when they are out and about, and yes you might be able to do that, but when mom and pop are flying, it might not be part of their spending habits," he says.

So if passengers won't pay for Ku-band, who will? Says Ringertz: "At the end of the day, it's about who is putting the hand in their pocket, which is why new technology is fantastic but it has to be something very tangible as a benefit for you, the airline, to do it."

Fourteen months after Panasonic Avionics snatched up Charles Ogilvie from Virgin America to lead its Chinese adventures, the IFE giant has opened its China Region headquarters in Hong Kong (nicely timed with the Aircraft Interiors Expo in that illustrious city).

Panasonic has also revealed it is in advanced negotiations with a Chinese carrier for its Global Connectivity Suite (GCS), which is based on the firm's Ku-band-based connectivity system, eXConnect.

Charles, you've been a busy boy (and you manage to do it while looking pretty darn snazzy)!

Check out Flight Show Daily's article about the deal that will give Panasonic a six-strong portfolio of GCS customers.

When do we get to see the list, Panasonic? :)

And now for a little Men at Work

My recent blog about Design Q's preliminary concept for 'troop-type' seating has generated a lot of interest thanks in no small part to Fox News, which asked in a recent article: "Will Sideways Seating Be Future of Air Travel?"

But while some military folks saw sideways seating as 'no big deal', others were aghast at the mere mention of it and got their knickers well and truly knotted up over the whole business.

Yes, there are MANY safety and regulatory issues to consider. But of all aviation industry stakeholders, shouldn't designers be the ones to at least explore different aircraft interiors?

Why are we so afraid to think outside the box for inside the tube?

As the Aircraft Interiors Expo picks up steam in Hong Kong, I've asked Dr. Indi Rajasingham, inventor of the Air Sleeper, to write a guest blog about why Asia may be the launching ground for some of the more radical ideas out there, including his own seemingly radical concept - lie-flat sleeper seats for economy class. Here is Indi in his own words.

 

Asia's Business Travel Market  - The approaching market Tsunami
Ride it with new cabin technologies to wild success or drown with the old technologies
Indi Rajasingham, chairman MMILLENNIUMM GROUP

The sharp drops in the business travel market as the recession bites is a major concern, particularly in Asia where the falls in demand have been near catastrophic. Even the best performing airlines both in the region and worldwide have seen huge demand drop particularly in the top end of the market in first and business class. This compounded with the demand drop off in the cargo market as the recession advances has contributed to a very challenging time for airlines in the region.

There is of course no question that the recession has been the principal factor in the demand drop off. However the precipitous Asian business class drop off is an interesting manifestation of a fundamental shift in the commercial aviation market structure in the last decade.

Conventional wisdom is that business travel is a monolithic market segment. However while this was perhaps true till the 1980s, global economics has change this market fundamentally.

The rise in demand for business travel by businesses in the Asian region has fundamentally different economics to the industrialized countries. While potential demand in the Asian market, if enabled, is huge and growing, the market is not as price elastic as the business travel market in industrialized countries. 

The upshot of this is that business travel for enabling global business is a much larger part of the cost of doing business in Asian and other developing economies and therefore, as profitability falls, the critical price point at which business travel gets cut is much lower than in industrialized countries. Travel is then only for mission critical needs and excludes much of the discretionary travel.

This fundamental factor is bourn out in the recent precipitous collapse of the business class market in the Asian region as profitability in global business suffered from the recession. The critical price point for these markets was lower than the market offerings by the airlines.

Therefore airlines need to hone in on the critical price points and critical human factors for this huge and emerging business market. Most importantly offer these combinations at profitable operating costs. This will become even more critical as fuel prices begin to escalate.

The key factors for defining this as a sustainable market are:

• Define price points that are acceptable in this relatively inelastic market.

• Define human factors for this market - to effectively enable the business processes of passengers. Sleep is a critical factor.

• Ensure safety levels that meet or exceed conventional seats and engineering that is feasible.

• Ensure that the offering is within the parameters of a sustainable profitable operating plan for airlines.

It is no secret that there has been considerable interest in the "premium economy sector" which is the space that these offerings will inhabit. However, there are a wide variety of ideas on what to offer and how to build a cabin to meet this offering.

The principal constraint in design is the space in the "tube". Take away the aisle space required by regulation and there is a limited amount of 3-D space where the passenger accommodation needs to be created to best meet the human factors, the safety factors, and sound engineering and then have an operating cost low enough to enable the price points demanded by this market.

As floor space on the aircraft is limited and sleep is a critical human factor overnight for enabling the passenger's business process. There is a limit to the cost reduction possible with horizontal flat beds on a single tier. Therefore the recent interest in vertical space for efficient deployment of passengers to meet their requirements at a cost low enough to enable price points they will accept.

Vertical Space - the key to the solution

The use of vertical space to increase the number of passengers in the same 3-D space offers the opportunity to spread the operating cost of the aircraft over more passengers but with the advantage that the size of the seat and bed offerings do not have to be made uncomfortably small. However, this is a new paradigm that has many pitfalls and careful design is imperative.

The following are some of the show stoppers in using vertical space in tiered architectures that are not issues in a single level deployment.

SAFETY PITFALLS

• In upper levels of tiered architectures, shared leg room during a 90 second emergency evacuation can be disastrous as a locked mechanism on a seat will not allow middle passengers out. There is no adjacent floor to step onto while climbing over a seat.

• Shared ladders in a 90 second evacuation can be disastrous with handicapped or injured passengers on the ladder while others wait.

• Visibility of the lower tier in seeing the upper tier as they egress during a 90 second emergency evacuation, to ensure that they don't land on the top of passengers on the lower tier or making their way out of the lower tier.

• Sleep accommodation not designed for crash conditions and  far removed  from the seats will create a safety hazard.

UTILITY & COMFORT  PITFALLS

• Fully flat horizontal bed not possible.

• Aisle access for all passengers not easy.

• Position of passenger depends on other passenger positions.

• Communication with and service by cabin attendants are ergonomically efficient.

• Privacy when desired

Vertical space - market interest ?

So in theory there are reasons for the use of vertical space for creating a new cabin paradigm. However we at MMILLENNIUMM GROUP needed to have clear market corroboration that there will not be psychological factors that will prevent market acceptance.

We therefore conducted a Market Survey at Dulles International airport in Washington DC for long haul passengers travelling to different parts of the globe.

We asked them to consider 3 options - all using the same space and priced identically:

1. The Air Sleeper that is tiered with 3 steps to the upper tier.
2. A Premium economy seat with a pitch of 37"
3.  An economy seat with the option to sleep on time shared beds at a remote location in the aircraft when they become available.

77% chose the tiered Air Sleeper. 13% chose the conventional premium economy seats. 9% chose the conventional economy seat with the time shared bed.

Vertical space offering by the Air Sleeper

Air Sleepers are designed for markets all the way from economy and up. For this market our offerings in the premium economy can support a 6ft 3in lie-flat and horizontal  experience. It is very much like most Business Class standard seats now around the world with a comparable width, but with about 2 to 3 times the number of seats as in conventional Business Class, thereby reducing cost per seat for the airlines.  A Business Class type seat that takes up half the space can be priced at a little over half the conventional Business Class price and still make more money for the Airline.

This is the space where the emerging Asian Market Tsunami lies!

Notably however the Air Sleeper and more generally the tiered architectures that use vertical space are a complementary product class to the traditional Business Travel market and not substitutes. Excellent design of traditional Business Class seats will continue to cater for a different market.

MMILLENNIUMM GROUP has had significant interest from airlines with strong long haul capabilities from around the world. We have commenced doing LOPAs for interested parties.
for more information www.AirSleeper.Info.

Hindsight, as they say, is 20/20 but if former MAXjet Airways VP-international development John Wensveen could go back and reinvent the now-defunct, all premium carrier he'd buy modern, fuel-efficient aircraft and harness in-flight entertainment and connectivity (IFE&C) to its fullest extent. The latter, he reveals to Runway Girl, was actually part of MAXjet's original pitch to investors.

A member of MAXjet's founding team Wensveen says that when he and his colleagues were setting up MAXjet they wanted the transatlantic Boeing 767-200 operator "to be at the forefront of IFE&C" and use this technology to generate as much ancillary revenue as possible.

The original plan was to charge interested passengers for highly-connected portable in-flight entertainment (IFE) devices in advance of their trip. The airline would also take a deposit from the passengers' credit card and this would enable them to do everything from access movies and music to shop in real time for meals, duty free or trip 'add-ons' such as access to tourist attractions or rental cars.

The airline intended to have "interactive marketing agreements" with the rental car companies, restaurants, etc, and get a slice of each transaction made in-flight. "As a result, it would have been a win-win for everybody - the passenger can get a discounted rate, the airline would get revenue and the partner would get revenue," says Wensveen.

So MAXjet originally intended to provide a managed Internet experience in a walled environment via portable IFE players? Correct, says Wensveen. But the carrier also wanted to offer in-flight Internet and telephone capability, he says.

"We were selling sleep to the business travellers, and we wanted to create a menu. And it was all done in advance so if you wanted something, the airline already had your details, and could charge the credit card."

A portion of MAXjet's original plan did take flight, if only briefly. The carrier offered
digEcor's portable video devices to passengers, but didn't charge for the pleasure. The devices were not highly connected because MAXjet didn't have the money to invest in retrofitting its aircraft with an in-flight connectivity system. Likewise, in-flight Internet and telephone capabilities couldn't be exploited either.

"I can't remember the exact estimate, but at the time if we really wanted to go all out to do it the way we wanted to do it, you're looking at a million dollars an airplane. So basically you're installing high-speed satellite systems on your plane that have unlimited capabilities."

Securing financing for high-end connectivity systems also proved really difficult. "Those financing agreements were not there for a start-up carrier because we weren't well established. As a start-up, the risk is too heavy."

The business model ultimately implemented by MAXjet was not the exact same business model pitched to get the initial capital.

In December 2007 the carrier entered into Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection after failing to finalize a new round of financing. It blamed high fuel prices and "the resulting impact on the credit climate". The carrier began auctioning assets in February 2008.

Could an IFE&C-supported ancillary revenue strategy have kept the carrier from collapsing? Lord only knows, but if Wensveen was starting from scratch today, he'd "utilize modern, fuel-efficient aircraft that already have [in-flight connectivity] technology installed on the airplanes".

If you couldn't make it to the sizzling Aircraft Interiors Expo in Hong Kong this week, make sure to check out Flight Global's new IFE&C web channel as well as the Aircraft Interiors Expo landing page, where we're running all the latest IFE&C and interiors news, video and blogs from the event, including this video interview with Panasonic director of product marketing Cedric Rhoads.

>

It seems like everybody and their brother is now talking about how much - if anything - passengers are willing to pay for in-flight Wi-Fi. Scott McCartney in a recent Middle Seat Terminal article said tests show that usage drops off considerably when travellers must pay for in-flight Wi-Fi service.

Daniel Indiviglio of The Atlantic has gone as far as to create some charts to ascertain the shape of the Wi-Fi demand curve, discovering in the process (somewhat obviously) that a lot more people would be willing to use the service if it were cheaper.

The conversation about in-flight Wi-Fi is most active in the United States, where Aircell's air-to-ground (ATG)-based broadband system is finding itself on more and more domestic aircraft (well over 500 at this point, and counting), and where Row 44 recently announced a deal to bring its Ku-band connectivity offering to Southwest Airlines' fleet of 550-plus aircraft.

But perhaps the conversation should be less about what passengers will pay for in-flight Internet and more about WHEN passengers will pay. Does it make sense for a carrier to charge anything for in-flight Wi-Fi on a short-hop flight? That is a conversation that is definitely up for debate.

Check out the following chart from LiveTV. It shows that on an average flight of 2.5hr, passengers have a limited window of time to log on to the Internet (because rules prohibit any electronic action under 10,000ft). Let's call this "the space between" (starting at minute 50 may be a bit of a stretch, though).

 

Add in the fact that some airports are offering free Wi-Fi - and that many passengers are accessing the Internet through cellular networks via their iPhone and other smartphones as soon as they touch down - and it's plain to see why airlines might find it difficult to charge for in-flight Wi-Fi on short and even medium-haul routes.

Equally, however, it seems logical that, the longer an aircraft is in the air, the more likely it is that passengers will want to connect. That is, no doubt, one of the reasons why American Airlines first started offering Gogo on its transcontinental flights. 

So what is the way forward for carriers? It's clear, at least in the USA, that offering in-flight Wi-Fi is becoming the price of doing business even if the promise of massive windfalls of cash do not prove out.

To that end, Aircell appears very well-placed in the marketplace, having secured eight airline customers thus far. Will bandwidth be a problem for Aircell? Row 44 president Gregg Fialcowitz recently went for the jugular, claiming that ATG aircraft connectivity is currently limited "to a layer of 2.2 megabits" per second data rate and that once Aircell's ATG system becomes widely used, it will run into spectrum limitations and "require more spectrum". 

All I can say to that is that I'm on Twitter all day long and despite reports, including on this blog, that Aircell could be running into bandwidth limitations - or will in the future - Gogo users right now seem super happy with the service. And I mean SUPER happy.  

So here's my question - should Aircell stop all these discounts and promotions and start offering Gogo for free on flights under three hours duration - which would further wet passengers' appetites for the service - but keep the price really strong and steady on long-haul flights?

Would Southwest Airlines - which hasn't set its Wi-Fi pricing yet - be wise to do the same? Unlike Aircell, Row 44 hands pricing control over to its airline customers (that's one of the big reasons why Southwest opted for Row 44) so could Southwest really set a precedent with "free Wi-Fi" on short-haul and "pay-for-service Wi-Fi" on long-haul domestic service?

Getting the long-haul rates right is particularly crucial now as international carriers prepare to offer Ku-band connectivity on overseas flights. Expect some announcements about that in the near future.

When that happens the conversation about price could really heat up because suddenly we'll be dealing with a much broader space between...................which demands a little Dave Mathews.

 

Airlines have toyed with the idea of offering in-flight gambling for years. But regulatory and technological barriers coupled with financial risks have kept the vast majority of scheduled carriers out of the game.

Even the most aggressive pursuers of ancillary revenue, like Ryanair - which intends to eventually harness OnAir's mobile connectivity service to offer in-flight gambling - thinks the proposition is "probably three, four years away".

While industry stakeholders continue to explore ways to turn aircraft into virtual casinos in the sky, there is a low-stakes gaming answer in the cards for airlines.

Portable in-flight entertainment (IFE) device maker digEcor has teamed up with Los Angeles-based start-up Flight Deck Gaming to offer what they say will be memorable gaming experiences to passengers and fresh ancillary revenue streams for airlines.

Under a new exclusive partnership, Flight Deck Gaming is optimizing a range of casual, skill-based and casino-style games or 'games of chance' for play on digEcor's handheld IFE device known as the digEplayer.

"For us, this has been a partnership and relationship we've been searching for quite a while and [we] finally feel we've found the right team," says Brad Heckel, president of digEcor, which has traditionally offered gaming content on the digEplayer from gaming content provider DTI.

"We are in very specific conversations with probably half a dozen airlines, where Flight Deck Gaming is either already included in the contract or is part of the discussion for the offering, and I might add that the airlines have been very receptive to the concept and to what it is that Flight Deck Gaming can bring in terms of games and ancillary revenue."

According to statistical research from GrabStats, online gaming related revenue is expected to exceed $20 billion by 2012. In-Stat Research says revenue derived from various Wi-Fi enabled devices will surpass $1 billion by 2012. Getting a slice of this pie from airline passengers can be accomplished by capturing pre-flight, in-flight and post-flight revenue, says Flight Deck Gaming managing partner Howard Woods.

In addition to basic subscriptions, there are advertising opportunities - either alongside or actually embedded into the game itself - and sponsorship opportunities, which work particularly well with network and tournament type game play, says Woods. "All of those or any combination is embedded in the model we employ to create total revenue."

Flight Deck Gaming takes the position that airlines should not have to pay for games nor should passengers have to pay outright to play. "When you look at the entire business chain of the gaming industry, charging the passenger to play is an obsolete model," says Woods.

Under the Flight Deck Gaming/digEcor partnership, carriers that want to offer casino-style games, such as poker or virtual roulette, on portable players can do so but at "very little risk" to them, says Heckel, adding: "In essence, you have the same opportunities [as gambling] but it's a completely legal environment."

However, in jurisdictions where full-blown in-flight gambling is permitted, Flight Deck Gaming and digEcor "could make the same game available in a mode" that would facilitate that. "We can make that available, but whether we would do that would be determined by the particular carrier and that environment," says Woods.

The Flight Deck Gaming executive says two factors are coming together at once to make low-stakes in-flight gaming a viable proposition for airline revenue generation right now.

"There has probably never been a higher motivation for ancillary revenue in the airline industry, and, on the other hand, the gaming industry - which has typically been a couple generations ahead and bypassed the airline and transit industries - is sitting down and spending the effort to make the terrestrial gaming model scalable, in an industry that has [previously] taken a fragmented approach. The airline industry has never been hungrier for ancillary revenue."

Ohhhh, lookie here! Mane Aerospace is advertising in Flight magazine for 46 technicians to install Panasonic IFE on aircraft.

A full 20 techs will be stationed in Turkey, while the rest will be stationed in cities that all happen to be part of Turkish Airlines' network.

According to Flightglobal's ACAS database, Turkish holds orders for 12 Boeing 777-300ERs and seven Airbus A330-300s. Turkish is a customer for Panasonic's eXPhone solution.

The 777-300ERs they are getting from Boeing don't have a first class seat. As premium economy grows in prominence, there is some evidence that a death knell is being rung for first class, says Shashank Nigam, the CEO of SimpliFlying, a global airline marketing and branding consultancy. "Look at Turkish Airways. The 777ERs they are getting from Boeing have a three-class setting - business, premium economy and economy. It doesn't have a first class."

For details about Panasonic's IFE systems, go here.

Are you an airline that wants to offer high-density configurations on short-haul flights but doesn't want the media circus - and logistical headaches - of installing/certifying vertical seats? Well then premier UK-based consultancy Design Q may just have the answer for you.

The company, which was instrumental in the design of Virgin Atlantic's acclaimed "Upper Class" seats, envisages a solution that entails a row of inward facing seats on each side of the aircraft plus two back-to-back rows down the middle resulting in a configuration whereby passengers are facing each other.

Design Q's preliminary image, revealed to the world for the first time by Flight International and Runway Girl, "shows a generous gap between each of the seats, which could be reduced, but the centre seats are staggered to coincide with the gaps on the outboard seats", says Design Q co-founder Howard Guy.

Read all about this concept - and the plausibility of other new seating designs - in my latest Flight interiors feature.

Now, I know what you may be thinking - this looks not unlike the inside of an aircraft troop carrier. The new bit, of course, is that Design Q would be putting a back-to-back seat row down the middle "and of course we're looking at it from a commercial point of view", says Guy.

But if this general type of configuration is okay for the military, then why not for Joe Blow?

For reference, here is a pic of troop seats from the following site: www.baslerturbo.com/jumpseats.html)