December 2009 Archives

Following on from last year's "2008 top five", here is my list of the top five most important in-flight entertainment and connectivity (IFEC) moments of 2009. Please feel free to weigh in with your on thoughts on the matter.

1)    Southwest Airlines agrees to equip entire 500-plus aircraft fleet with Row 44's Ku-band satellite-based in-flight connectivity service. No matter how you feel about the Ku-band business model, Southwest's decision was HUGE. Largely considered to be one of the savviest airlines in the world, Southwest in 2009 opted not to follow its fellow US carriers in equipping its aircraft with Aircell's Gogo service. Instead, it intends to expand on its four-aircraft Row 44 trial and roll out the system fleet-wide beginning in the first quarter.

2)    Lufthansa agrees to reinstate its defunct Connexion by Boeing Ku-band broadband service under a deal with Panasonic Avionics. Although equipage of Panasonic's eXConnect service is not expected to occur until mid-2010, Lufthansa is going to set the bar for in-flight connectivity on overseas flights when its FlyNet-branded connectivity service is reinstated. Panasonic partner AeroMobile's in-flight mobile communications solution will also be offered by the German operator. (The deal is BIG for Panasonic too, as it has been working on a Ku-band solution since Connexion announced it was going out of business in 2006.)

3)    Continental Airlines inks deal with Aircell to equip 21 Boeing 757s with Gogo. This was significant on a number of counts. Firstly, it means that Aircell has secured agreements with every single US legacy carrier and cemented its role as the prominent provider of in-flight Wi-Fi in the USA. Continental is already installing LiveTV's amazing third generation live television product across its domestic fleet, so when Gogo is offered in tandem with live television on the carrier's 757s, passengers will be able to experience one of the best IFEC packages in the USA (this is not to discount Virgin America's current IFEC offering, which rocks!)

4)    Boeing issues request for information (RFI) for Inmarsat SwiftBroadband-based connectivity solution for the 787 twinjet. The RFI, first revealed by RWG, shows that Boeing is thinking along the same lines as Airbus, which considers SwiftBroadband the entry point into in-flight connectivity for carriers (and has made it standard on all its long-haul aircraft!) Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. It also indicates that Boeing is finally thinking again about connectivity for the 787 after Connexion's demise.

5)    Oman Air takes delivery of the first commercial widebody to offer both mobile and Internet connectivity. The new Airbus A330-300 was linefit with Airbus/SITA partnership OnAir's equipment, which uses SwiftBroadband. The service will go live in early 2010. In falling for connectivity hook, line and sinker, Oman has become a torch-bearer for other international carriers considering taking a leap into connectivity.

Honorable mention number 1: Two companies, Lumexis and Zodiac unit Sicma, are poised to inject some much-needed competition into the in-flight entertainment world, after securing customers for their innovative new systems in 2009. Nice work!

Honorable mention number 2: The Transportation Security Administration's (TSA's) recent decision to impose stricter in-flight security guidelines in the wake of a failed Christmas Day terrorist attack had many folks in the IFEC industry sitting on pins and needles. While the TSA later retracted most of the guidelines that pertained to in-flight entertainment, connectivity and electronics, the agency's knee-jerk reaction - and subsequent heavy-handed approach to dealing with the bloggers who leaked the security directive - is worrisome on so many levels. Something to keep an eye on as we learn about the TSA's ever-changing guidelines.

In the heat of all the action yesterday, I taped a podcast with aviation industry expert - and Jetwhine editor - Robert Mark about the TSA's PR debacle. Check it out.

I'd like to thank all the RWG readers out there who find value in this blog (or don't find value but still read, ahem :) Best of luck in the New Year. I'm certain 2010 is going to be a very interesting year for IFEC!    

Latest Update: The TSA has dropped its subpoenas of both travel writers, and I learned a big lesson in the power of social media this week.

Earlier this morning, photographer and travel specialist Steven Frischling received a second visit from federal agents in less than 24 hours. But this time, he says, they removed his computer from his home.

Frischling is one of two noted writers, including Christopher Elliot, who over the weekend published a Transportation Security Administration (TSA) security directive outlining the agency's new stricter security guidelines in the wake of a failed Christmas Day terrorist attack on Delta Air Lines flight 253.

Both men posted the directive as a means of public service to better inform a traveling public that was completely befuddled by the vague formal guidance being issued by the TSA. They were some of the few calm voices amidst the storm.

With tempers flaring over what appeared to many to be the TSA's misguided and knee-jerk reaction to the failed terrorist plot - and with confusion reigning in airports across the country -  the agency early this week did an about-face and eased its guidelines before today's deadline.

Nonetheless, Frischling and Elliot are now paying a steep price for posting the TSA security directive on their respective web sites. Both have been served subpoenas by TSA special agents. In short, the agency is trying to discover who leaked the directive to Frischling and Elliot. And they are not messing around.

According to Frishling, federal agents this morning removed his computer for forensics analysis. He says he didn't see any other recourse than to hand over the equipment. "It was 'give it to us voluntarily or we will take every computer, blackberry and iPhone out of your house'," Frischling tells RWG.

But the TSA's effort to uncover Frischling's source may well prove a waste of time not to mention taxpayer's money.

Says Frischling: "The email came to me via webmail [which was checked yesterday by the agents]. There is literally nothing on my computer they can look at. I didn't seek out the source. I don't know who my source is. It is not someone I know or have a relationship with or cultivated. It comes from a free email account. For me, once I received the document, read it, and saw that Chris Elliot had it, there was no doubt in my mind that it was a real document."

Elliot is a noted travel journalist, who also happens to be National Geographic Traveler's Reader Advocate, writes a regular column for The Washington Post, and produces a weekly segment for MSNBC.

Furthermore, says Frischling, it begs reason why the TSA would assume such a document wouldn't be published or distributed. "The document says nowhere in there that it's not to be published publicly. It was sent to thousands of people - all airports and airlines that fly into the USA. It went to the airport in Islamabad and Hong Kong, for instance. Pakistan Airlines flies to JFK. Plus the TSA has about 50,000 people in the agency."

The TSA has confirmed it is investigating how its security directive was leaked: "The Office of Inspection is investigating how the security directive was published by parties who shouldn't have been privy to the document," says a TSA spokeswoman.

Asked by RWG if the TSA gave any direction to airlines on how or if to divulge the details of the security directive to passengers (since some passengers are saying they heard the SD read before take-off), the TSA spokeswoman says: "I don't know what direction the airlines were given but certainly that's something we have to look into."

She adds: "Airlines have received security directives in the past. I can't answer why they read it aloud to passengers."

The TSA spokeswoman is trying to get me clarity on this point.

It is appropriate to mention that the security directive said the following:

"AIRCRAFT OPERATOR dissemination required: The aircraft operator must immediately pass the information and directives set forth in this SD to all stations affected, and provide written confirmation to its PSI, indicating that all stations affected have acknowledged receipt of the information and directives set forth in this SD. The aircraft operator must disseminate this information to its senior management personnel, ground security coordinators, and supervisory security personnel at all affected locations. All aircraft operator personnel implementing this SD must be briefed by the aircraft operator on its content and the restrictions governing dissemination. No other dissemination may be made without prior approval of the Assistant Secretary for the Transportation Security Administration. Unauthorized dissemination of this document or information contained herein is prohibited by 49 CFR Part 1520 (see 69 Fed. Reg. 28066 (May 18, 2004)."

However, keep in mind that the directive was sent to airlines and airports worldwide. Was it not their specific duty to follow the dissemination instructions?

Lest you wonder whether Frischling did his homework before posting the security directive, he says he did. "I contacted [TSA] public affairs multiple times via phone and text and they gave me absolutely nothing. I spoke to the TSA. They didn't call me back. Then I put something out on Twitter. I verified if off of [Chris Elliot's site]. I read the document. I'm not stupid. If the security directive was fake, they [federal agents] wouldn't be standing in my living room [last night and this morning]."

He also points out that several carriers, including Air Canada, provided more explicit details to passengers than even available on the TSA's own web site. (Personally, I found some carriers, like JetBlue and WestJet, to be extremely helpful and forthcoming, providing Twitter updates about the impact of the short-lived TSA guidelines on in-flight entertainment and connectivity.)

To read more about the drama unfolding around Frischling and Elliot, check out their blogs at http://boardingarea.com/blogs/flyingwithfish/ and http://www.elliott.org/, respectively.

Look what Airbus registered on 17 December at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. It's an image viewing system for passengers that could be placed in the communal 'relaxation' areas of the A380 (and other aircraft types).

Kind of funky, huh? Airbus describes its invention as follows:


So how might this system be displayed in a communal area? Below is an image of how the system would look if the internal partition is the floor (right next to what appears to be a bar...nice!)

But for other placement ideas, or if you want to view the various other images and iterations proposed by Airbus, the Canadian Intellectual Property Office has the whole shebang, including an internal diagram of the system (bless them).

UPDATE 5 (Final update for this thread): Well, I guess we have an answer to my initial question - is the TSA acting in a knee-jerk manner?

British Airways has just confirmed that OnAir in-flight connectivity, offered on its A318 service between London City and JFK, has been switched back on, and that all moving map functionality across its fleet is also back on, per the TSA's decision to ease its weekend restrictions! Crew are not permitted to discuss specific locations, but otherwise the IFEC community can breath a sigh of relief...for now.

Lufthansa is being less forthright, but it makes a good point. Says a Lufthansa spokesman: "We are following all directives of the respective authorities and are implementing additional measures on our own. Since all these measures are meant to heighten security standards, we prefer not to discuss them in detail in public. Secondly, as you mentioned below, the directives change frequently, so whatever I would tell you today could be false already the next day."

Happy Holidays!

Revisions have already been made to the TSA security directive, with the agency generally easing off on some of its original demands, although you wouldn't know that from reading the TSA's current online statement. The TSA blog is also far too vague.

So what do we know? Specific to in-flight entertainment and connectivity (IFEC), the TSA has stepped back from restricting IFE and electronics on US-bound flights, according to Delta partner KLM's blog.

The blog's author - and a man who has been on top of the TSA security directive story since he received a copy of the document over the weekend, Steven Frischling - provides additional perspective here.

Canadian operator WestJet, which offers JetBlue subsidiary LiveTV's live television system across its Boeing narrowbody fleet, has also confirmed the following: "You'll get to watch your show! The TSA has removed the restriction requiring us to turn off the LiveTV on flights over the US."

Today JetBlue provided clarity on moving map displays. The carrier says its moving map channel is available for viewing, but that it is "working closely with TSA" should the agency decide to change course. Additionally, says JetBlue, it is no longer mandatory for foreign carriers flying to the USA to shut down the moving map display. That decision is now at the discretion of the airline and crew, says JetBlue.

Original Blog:

Is the US Transportation Security Administration (TSA) acting in a knee-jerk, reactionary manner in the wake of a failed Christmas Day terrorist attack on Delta Air Lines flight 253? Or is the agency simply trying to play things ultra-safe while it has a good think about what to do?

Those are the questions that airlines, airframers, in-flight entertainment and connectivity (IFEC) firms and travelers will be asking in the coming days.

A TSA directive (which expires on 30 December), obtained by a number of esteemed journalists and bloggers, including Steven Frischling from Flying with Fish and Christopher Elliot of elliot.org, is a must read from start to finish, but for all stakeholders in IFEC, the key pars are as follows:

If you conduct scheduled and/or public charter flight operations under a Full Program under 49 CFR 1544.101(a) departing from any foreign location to the United States (including its territories and possessions), you must immediately implement all measures in this SD for each such flight.

During flight, the aircraft operator must ensure that the following procedures are followed:

1. Passengers must remain in seats beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.
2. Passenger access to carry-on baggage is prohibited beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.
3. Disable aircraft-integrated passenger communications systems and services (phone, internet access services, live television programming, global positioning systems) prior to boarding and during all phases of flight.
4. While over U.S. airspace, flight crew may not make any announcement to passengers concerning flight path or position over cities or landmarks.
5. Passengers may not have any blankets, pillows, or personal belongings on the lap beginning 1 hour prior to arrival at destination.

It goes without saying (but it must be said anyways) that this could have significant ramifications for the IFEC industry.
 
Questions that immediately come to mind (but there are many more, I'm sure):

Will this directive be extended past the expiration date?
How far will the TSA go? Could this eventually be extended to domestic service?
What does number 4 of the aforementioned list mean for moving map display firms in particular?
What does it mean for every US-bound aircraft that carries millions of dollars worth of IFEC equipment both now and in the future?
How strong or weak is US wiretapping protocol that they are suddenly concerned about "phone, internet access services" during flight?

If you feel strongly about this issue for one reason or another, please add your comments.

Raindrops on roses and whiskers on kittens are lovely, but this year some of my favourite things from the aviation world came via email or snail mail.

In the 'best Christmas card' category, we have a tie between Lumexis' very clever graphic of Santa seated in front of rather antiquated-looking in-flight technologies (I'm certain Lumexis would be happy to remedy that) and US Airways corporate communications team's funky sweater-wearing greeting (are these folks having too much fun or what?)

Ironically (well, depending on how you define irony), US Airways was the trial customer for Lumexis' first generation system. While the carrier ultimately didn't opt to equip its domestic narrowbodies with the system, the trial - and its flawless execution - helped Lumexis snag a 737 customer (no, it's not Southwest but nonetheless a good start for Lumexis).



 

Airbus and Boeing remain under pressure from airlines to define their narrowbody replacement plans. But with strong backlogs for the Airbus A320 and Boeing 737, neither airframer appears too terribly worried about would-be successors. Instead they have been developing their current programmes to improve efficiency. Airbus may even opt to re-engine the A320.

That is all fine and dandy but what about the cabin? With narrowbody replacement appearing to be pushed out beyond the next decade, doesn't the six-abreast cabin deserve a revamp too? (Sorry Boeing, the new 'Sky Interior' for the 737 is sweet but it is far from game-changing).

Might there be a way for current A320/737 operators to improve ground rotation capability (a major concern), satisfy passengers (by providing more comfort) and make in-flight service easier?

One chap with a possible answer is Morten Müller, an aircraft engineer who says he is a former member of the Airbus sales squad.

Müller has developed a cabin concept that would turn your average A320 or 737 into something decidedly more appealing than the traditional single-aisle (3+3) layout and yes, as the headline suggests, it involves a twin-aisle configuration.

In a paper prepared for the Crystal Cabin Awards Competition held at the Hamburg Aircraft Interiors Expo in April, Müller made the following argument for his design:

"Iconoclastic perhaps, but not exaggerated, A320/737 six-abreast single-aisle (3+3) cabins are user-unfriendly; unattractive to passengers; dreaded by cabin attendants; [and] a pain-in-the-neck to cabin cleaners!

"Quoting [former SAS Group chief executive] Jan Carlzon ("Moments of Truth", 1985) : 'How would I explain to our passengers that SAS shall invest hundreds of millions in the purchase of new 737 or A320 aircraft, if the only new feature is a line down the full length of the cabin only with middle seats in a triple, where nobody wants to sit?'

"Use the A320 trim-to-trim 146.4" cabin width to install something closer to Jan Carlzon's (2+2+2) "Passenger Pleasing Plane", e.g. five-abreast twin aisle HP3 (1+2+2) or HQR (1+3+1) seating? Amazingly, it works! ("QuickRotation" HQR (1+3+1) cabins may also be fitted in the 737)."

The picture directly above and below shows the A320 in (1+2+2) configuration, while the cross-section (far bottom of blog) shows the 737 (1+3+1) concept.


Quite obviously, in order to accomplish either new arrangement, a carrier would have to sacrifice some capacity (something the likes of Spring Airlines and Ryanair, which claim to be seriously studying stand-up seats, probably wouldn't get excited about).

But it would allow carriers that care to differentiate their product (yes, there are still some out there!) to do so in an innovative, crowd-pleasing way while waiting until 2020 or beyond for next-gen narrowbodies.

"Ticket yield leveraging is powerful: customers are informed, educated, selective; they will check, compare and vote, with assurance and autonomy, for the best product [and] making profit will be easier with [these designs]," says Müller.

That's a BIG claim. But I wonder if Müller isn't onto something here.

As a matter of interest, ILFC in 2008 notably advocated the development of twin-aisle narrowbody aircraft with seven-abreast seating (let's not talk about what ILFC might be advocating right now, ahem).

But has the time come to really do something about the interior of current-generation narrowbodies?

Whether charging you for beverages or bilking you on baggage, US 'legacy' carriers have sold their souls to the 'unbundle everything' business model.

The result, according to in-flight entertainment and communications (IFEC) expert Michael Planey, is that passengers truly resent any additional fees. In short, they are reaching a point of "fee fatigue", which is NOT GOOD for in-flight Wi-Fi.

The problem, says Planey, is that, unlike baggage or ticket fees, in-flight Wi-Fi is optional, and therefore, when prompted to plug in their credit card digits, passengers are taking a gulp (of their high-priced beverage)...and then deciding against the purchase.

Having increasing access to free Wi-Fi on the ground doesn't help. But coupled with "fee fatigue" the pay-for-service model for in-flight Wi-Fi just ain't gonna fly for passengers aboard short- and medium-haul flights, says Planey.

Key quote:

"The service is going to be free in less than two years," he predicts.

Long-haul travel, such as overseas flights, is a different story, he says.

[I know what you may be thinking: "I just received my Happy Holidays 'free Gogo promo' coupon from Aircell. Isn't in-flight Wi-Fi already, technically, free?" The answer is yes, right now, but the pay-for-service model is the centerpiece of Aircell's strategy. It wants to give you a taste of the service in hopes that you'll be willing to pay for it in the future. In other words - the holidays won't last forever. Nor will those promos (unless Google/Lexus/eBay start to feel really generous).]

So what does this mean for Aircell, the dominant provider of in-flight Wi-Fi in the USA, and a firm that has pulled off a huge feat in securing deals with EVERY US 'legacy' carrier, including, recently, the truly venerable Continental Airlines?

Is it chitty chitty bang bang for Aircell?

Not so fast. In order to keep the service alive, "airlines are going to pay because it's going to become the cost of doing business", says Planey.

Interesting!

That said, one wonders if airlines will have to start paying out-of-pocket to cover the cost of in-flight Wi-Fi sooner rather than later.

Here's why. A few months ago Southwest Airlines announced an agreement to equip its 500-plus Boeing 737 fleet with Row 44's Ku-band satellite-based in-flight Internet solution.

But the carrier has been very quiet about what it intends to ultimately charge passengers for Wi-Fi.

"The longer that they are taking to roll this out, the more I believe they are going to offer Wi-Fi for free," says Planey.

Just think about it. Southwest is enjoying great success with its 'Bags Fly Free' campaign. "They want to be the fee-free airline. This is the way they can differentiate themselves from the other airlines," he says.

Randy, a flight attendant from Southwest, says in the following YouTube video that he doesn't know how much management will charge "if they charge"...hmmm. Check out the video:



I must admit I now feel compelled to run LiveTV's chart about how folks want higher and higher bandwidth, but want it for free, so here it is:

Our fine friends in the in-flight connectivity world were busy in 2009. But, as we near the end of the year, it's clear that some are not as far along as they had originally planned.

Nevertheless, passengers are increasingly finding themselves on aircraft equipped with either in-flight mobile connectivity or airborne high-speed Internet (or mobile connectivity plus light Internet). And that's a big ole difference over 2008.

Do you want to see how reporters are covering the Boeing 787 first flight from all over the world? Then check out the live Twitter stream of this historic occasion (below). Give the screen a few seconds to load.

Also be sure to check out Flightglobal's 787 page, which is being constantly updated by Flightglobal journalist Flightblogger, who is on the ground in Everett (but wishes he was in the air in a few hours).

(This is my acknowledgment that not everyone follows Twitter...yet :) #787FF.

UPDATE: I heard from a trusted source this morning that Southwest Airlines' fleet plan, which lists all aircraft maintenance planned three months out, calls for a 737-700 to be equipped with Row 44 in January. This would be the fifth Southwest 737 equipped with Row 44.

Consultant Tim Farrar's latest blog about Row 44 is sure to get tongues wagging this week.

Farrar claims that the business case for Row 44's Ku-band service "looks even more questionable than we had suspected, and it faces a near term deadline (we understand January 2010) from Southwest to secure $100M+ of funding for its planned fleetwide rollout".

Key par (but do read the whole thing):

"We have been told that the Southwest-Row44 agreement calls for Southwest to pay Row44 a fee of $0.25 per passenger flown on each equipped aircraft, whether or not they use the service, and Southwest will then mostly likely give the connectivity away for free. With Southwest carrying about 170K passengers per plane per year, that would mean Row44 receiving just over $40K per plane per year (about $22M per year in total once fleetwide installation is complete), which it hopes to supplement with advertising revenue. However, we are doubtful that a dramatic increase could be realized from advertising: for example according to a recent article, in-flight magazines generate an average of about $1M per airline per year in gross advertising revenue, and a large airline such as Southwest would presumably therefore generate in the high single digit millions of dollars from its magazine. Given the lack of technology (and power outlets) required to read the magazine, then even if Southwest gives away the Row44 service for free, usage would be far less than the 80% of passengers that read the in-flight magazine, and we would view it as unlikely that advertising revenue could add more than a few million dollars to Row44's income."

Farrar goes on to question the sustainability of large-scale Ku-band passenger deployments in general, and even throws in an unconfirmed (as of 9pm Monday night) nugget about Inmarsat releasing an RFI for one or more Ka-band satellites, "which are likely to be part of its planned roadmap for future government and/or aero services".

Tim, have you no decency? I was watching Mary Poppins tonight for heavens sakes! :)

Having learned that Lumexis has secured a deal with a 737 operator for its fiber optics-based in-flight entertainment system, our friend Dan Webb over at Boarding Area blog "Things in the Sky" is hoping that the undisclosed carrier turns out to be Southwest Airlines.

Read his entire guest blog here. Do you agree with Dan?

I love Southwest Airlines for a few reasons. Southwest is the largest carrier out of my home airport (Providence - PVD), offering the largest number of nonstop destinations and a convenient schedule. But I also love the Dallas-based carrier because I think it provides some of the best customer service among its competitors. I say that both as a Southwest customer, and a blogger, as Southwest is one of the few airlines that is very responsive to those in the "new media."

When Lumexis announced that an airline with a 737 fleet had become the firm's first customer, I naturally began to hope that my airline of choice was the mystery airline. I have always hoped that Southwest would install some kind of entertainment system throughout its fleet. In fact, I resorted to pretending that was the case during a recent trip this summer!

While IFE would certainly be a marked change in Southwest's business model, I think it could be a fit for the airline. Southwest originally focused on shorter hauls, where the lack of entertainment didn't make as much of a difference. (Southwest co-founder Lamar Muse also noted that passengers seated in aisle seats would get a nice view thanks to flight attendants in hot pants.) But these days, Southwest has some pretty long trips, such as Providence to Las Vegas, which clocks in at 6:15.
 
Granted, that's one of the longest flights in the Southwest system, but based on the airline's latest traffic numbers, the average southwest flight is now 838 miles, about 14.5% longer than five years ago.

Southwest has emphasized of adding value for customers, and some kind of IFE would certainly be a way to do that. Southwest could certainly find it appealing if it were convinced that it would attract new customers, and if such a system could be used to increase ancillary revenue.

NOTE: Southwest has said it intends to offer Row 44's high-speed in-flight connectivity solution across its entire fleet, and that it believes this will meet the entertainment needs of passengers (as it will support streaming video, etc).  

Peter Hill is known for being a straight shooter. So, when the Oman Air CEO agreed to answer some of my questions for an Airline Business feature about the in-flight connectivity boon, it didn't surprise me that he came back with honest, forthright answers. It did make me feel very grateful, however. Peter, this is gold, and I thank you from the bottom of my heart.
 
Check out the news article now running on Flightglobal's IFEC channel about Oman's in-flight connectivity strategy for passengers, and then read on to learn what Peter thinks of the operational benefits of having a highly connected aircraft.
 
Question: From an operational standpoint, does Oman see ways in which it can harness SwiftBroadband (SBB) connectivity to improve operations, maintenance, etc?
 
Answer: There is no doubt that we are on the brink of a technological advance that will see benefits flow on to areas of operations that was originally unforeseen. I think that it is obvious that this revolution in in-flight connectivity will have the capacity to improve many other areas of an airline's operations.

Up to this point, it has been traditional for ground-to-air communications via Satcomm systems which can be expensive and restrictive.  The use of SBB could for example, could allow communications between cockpit crew and ground-based crew, for example to send in advanced, pending in-flight engineering maintenance issues to prepare Line Maintenance and hence reduce turn-around time.

SSB will also allow for an increase in the amount of data that can be sent back to our operation and engineering areas, allowing more engine data, fuel data and position reporting points to be fed back into our day to day flight watch, thereby increasing the safety level, security and efficiency of our operation.

Another example, is in-flight crew being able to communicate to ground-based crew about a whole range of operational matters, eg lost baggage, flight transfers, special "meet and greet" requirements, hotel arrangements, tour bookings etc.

It could also, for example be used to text or email on-board passengers, details of their connecting flights, departing gates and revised departure times, including the receipt of their next boarding pass, essentially offering a personalized customer service or one-to-one customer relationship management.

Question: Some carriers are viewing their connected aircraft as a node on their IT network. Does Oman see the benefit in this?
 
Answer: This is an area that is still under review. However, we are mindful that one of the developing technological trends is something referred to a "cloud computing".

Essentially, this phrase is used to describe the process whereby computing requirements (including applications, storage space etc) are provided via the Internet as a service, as opposed to using in-house IT infrastructure.

This concept is not new and many readers will be familiar with using Gmail, hotmail and yahoo mail as their personal email service, whereby the computing service is via the Internet.

From a user's perspective, all that is needed is a web browser (like Internet Explorer, Firefox, Google Chrome etc) and internet connectivity. This approach will dispense with the need to build and manage complicated IT infrastructure.

However, the key to cloud computing success is "availability" and "security" from both a privacy and integrity point of view.
 
Hence my original statement that this area is still under review, as there is obviously substantial benefit for the airline to allow users to access directly into the "Internet cloud" as opposed to via a node on the airline's IT network.

Question: Lufthansa is bringing Ku-band connectivity to its overseas flights. Other major carriers, including Emirates, have stepped up their studies in this regard. Could you envision doing the same for Oman, or do you believe the connectivity appetite of your passengers will be satiated with the OnAir solutions?

Answer: At the moment, Immarsat's SwiftBroadband (SBB) is the standard on all new Airbus long-range aircraft.

It supports data rates of about 432 kilobits per second which is sufficient for light Internet use and in-flight GSM/GPRS connectivity offered by OnAir.

By contrast, Ku-band connectivity is expected to support much faster data transfer rates.

Of course, such an increase in speed does sound attractive but the initial introduction of the OnAir product will allow Oman Air time to fully digest and review the uptake of this revolutionary service.

What do you do when a blog you've written about the joys of Virgin America's in-flight entertainment and Gogo connectivity service is viewed by a Virgin America passenger who uses his iPhone and said connectivity service to capture real-time Ustream video of his viewership of the blog aboard an Airbus narrowbody and then tweets about it in-flight?

Well, you write a blog about the Virgin America passenger, who used his iPhone to capture real-time Ustream video of his viewership of the blog aboard an Airbus narrowbody, and then you tweet about it to your own followers, that's what.

Here's the video. And the circle is now complete.

 

Woohoo! Virgin America, that funky, daring start-up carrier that gives you fully-loaded in-flight entertainment (Panasonic/CoKinetics) and connectivity (Aircell's Gogo) has just posted its first operating profit. Freaking A, that's great. Is robust IFEC paying off?

Key quote from Virgin America CEO David Cush:

"Despite an uncertain economic climate since our 2007 launch, we're pleased to report steady and strong financial performance and our first quarterly operating profit. At a time when flyers are more discerning than ever, it is clear that our low fares, award-winning guest service and innovative amenities continue to convert a growing network of loyal travelers.  We look forward to bringing our unique value proposition to more travelers as we grow in 2010 and beyond. "

Just read an article from It Wire about how Australia is gearing up to allow in-flight mobile phone use, although passengers will likely be limited to GPRS and SMS. Hey, that's a good start, Australia!

US lawmakers, do you still think your Hang-Up legislation is a good idea? Honestly? Come on. Think!!!

Some key pars from the story but please read the whole thing:

The ACMA is proposing new spectrum licensing rules that would enable airlines to offer mobile phone services in-flight, but these are likely to be limited to SMS and GPRS data - Australian airlines aren't keen to offer voice services.

In practice such a service would be implemented via a small cellular base station, a picocell, installed on board the aircraft along with a control unit. Communication with the outside world would be via a satellite link.

The control unit would block most of the frequencies normally used by mobile phones, preventing them from communications directly with terrestrial cellular networks and would force them to use one of a handful of specific bands to communicate with the picocell.

The ACMA has already amended prohibitions on the use of mobile phone jammers to allow for operation of the control unit and has now issued a discussion paper looking at various options for licensing the spectrum that an in-flight mobile service would use. Submissions are due by 29 January 2010.

A number of media outlets have already reported on this innovative laptop stand, which allows you to comfortably use your laptop on an aircraft seat-back tray table.

But for those of you who haven't yet seen the following video, it is worth a look, especially if you dread the thought of pulling out your laptop to access in-flight Internet (dread the hunching and discomfort, that is...not the in-flight Internet! We love that!)

I know what I want for Christmas. Santa, I promise to buy you the nicest chocolate chip cookies in the whole store.

I am a vocal opponent of Hang-Up legislation that would impose a permanent federal ban on the in-flight use of mobile phones. Why? Because I do not think it is the role of government to make such a decision. It is akin to "legislating manners" as Inmarsat's David Coiley says.

I believe in an airline's right to choose whether or not it wants to offer this service, which, when you strip away the rhetoric, is actually valuable to passengers.Strip away the voice, though, and the GSM/GPRS capability is still very valuable. And yet, the US does not permit that either. Your BlackBerry can only work on US carriers if it is Wi-Fi enabled (and the carrier offers in-flight Wi-Fi).

If you are interested in this topic, I urge you to read the following advisory from the Inflight Passenger Communication Coalition (IPCC) and join us on December 10 for a live video conference with leading security and aviation experts on the value of in-flight voice communications.

                                        Advisory
Wireless Voice Communications on U.S. Commercial Flights
 
Leading Aviation Professionals and Security Experts to Discuss Future of Inflight Voice Communications

Contacts:     Ernest Baynard (202) 550-1610; Ernest@meridian-hill.com
Ross Jacobs, (to schedule an interview) (770) 401-7162
ross.jacobs@focusfishmedia.com

WHAT: With the busiest travel season of the year in full swing, and all that entails, the use of mobile phones while inflight can be an invaluable asset. Currently, in-flight wireless voice service is available to more than 1.5 million passengers traveling each month on 20 international air carriers servicing 4 continents, but not in the United States. The Inflight Passenger Communication Coalition (IPCC) will be holding a live video conference with leading security and aviation experts about the value of inflight voice communications on commercial flights and its future in the U.S.

WHEN: Thursday, Dec. 10th  10 AM- 10:45 AM Conference call with live streaming video + Q &A.

WHO: Leading aviation professionals and security experts available to discuss the value of inflight voice communications on commercial flights include:

Carl Biersack, Executive Director of In-flight Passenger Communications Coalition (IPCC)
Stewart Baker, former first Assistant Secretary for Policy, Department of Homeland Security, security expert/partner Steptoe & Johnson LLP
Mr. Firas Aboudi, Director, In-Flight Systems & Procedures, Royal Jordanian Airlines
"Runway" Mary Kirby, Senior Editor, Flight International
Karen Kerrigan, President, Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council (SBEC).

How:  Please register online to receive your call-in phone number and PIN:  https://www.accuconference.com/customer/Registration/index.aspx?pkRegQG=b45c6924-6070-4e15-8c14-2eec25b51806

BACKGROUND: Inflight voice communications started in 2007, and now monthly over 1.5 million passengers experience in-flight voice communication services via their own mobile phone on one of 12,000 international flights going to the four corners of the globe and intersecting with a wide cultural diversity.  Yet there has not been one reported incident or problem.  In fact, 93% of these surveyed passengers want to fly on another aircraft equipped with in-flight communications to preserve their connectivity.

Earlier this year the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science & Transportation introduced and reported its FAA bill and there is no language supporting a ban in their bill. This re-opens the door for travelers to possibly use their wireless devices on U.S. flights. However, ban language is present within the House-passed version of the bill.  The differences between the two bills will eventually need to be resolved in Conference when the full Senate has completed its action on the FAA bill.

For more information on this issue go to www.passengercommunications.com

Will Oneworld alliance release a request for proposal (RFP) for flight deck communications at midnight? And may American be excluded? I don't know...it's all rumor at this point.

Right now a friend of mine is flying from London City to New York JFK aboard British Airways' new all-premium Airbus A318 service. Said friend is genuinely excited about his trip, and yet he has probably flown darn near every aircraft in darn near every configuration.

With such unbridled enthusiasm for the all-premium concept still alive and well, it might not come as a surprise that Bombardier believes there is a small but profitable market for an all-business-class CSeries cabin.

The Canadian airframer is working with interiors specialist and CSeries supplier C&D Zodiac to explore low-density configurations for the Pratt & Whitney PW1000G geared-turbofan-powered narrowbody.

"Several airlines are talking about using the CSeries in this way," says Bombardier commercial aircraft president Gary Scott. "It's not a large quantity of airplanes. It's not a large market, but it is very lucrative."

In standard iteration, the five-abreast 100- to 125-seat CSeries CS100 and larger 120- to 145-seat CS300 will accommodate 47cm (18.5in) window and aisle seating, and a bigger, 48.25cm (19in) middle seat.

"We optimised around five-abreast, but we built an airplane that's basically half a seat larger than the current five-abreast airplanes," says Scott, referring to the McDonnell Douglas DC-9, MD-80 and Boeing 717. "We are able to put these bigger seats in and put in a bigger aisle to give added comfort."

Making the CSeries cabin a crucial half-seat narrower than six-abreast aircraft "was a conscious decision that allowed us to be 10,000lb [4,535.9kg] lighter than [similar-sized] Boeing/Airbus products and we wanted to reap that advantage", says Scott. At the same time, it allowed Bombardier to offer a cabin better suited to all-premium configurations than six-abreast Airbus or Boeing narrowbodies which have "wasted space", he adds.

Bombardier has not yet detailed the premium seating arrangements being considered.

BA launched its transatlantic Airbus A318 service between London City and JFK in October. The 32-seat A318 makes a fuel stop at Shannon, Ireland on the westbound leg because the short runway at London City cannot accommodate an A318 with full fuel. Bombardier's CS100 is expected to be certified for London City.

But BA, which also operates the premium transatlantic OpenSkies brand, is by no means the only carrier to target the all-business market. CSeries customer Lufthansa's so-called "Lufthansa Business Jet" service is flown by Swiss operator PrivatAir and currently serves a number of routes with narrowbody aircraft, including the Frankfurt-Pune, India city pair.

Pune, a centre for the information technology, biochemistry and automotive industries, is fuelled by "demand from corporations" and is the type of market Bombardier should bank on for an all-premium CSeries, says Shashank Nigam, chief executive of global airline marketing and branding consultancy Simpliflying.

He suggests, for example, that Canadian start-up Enerjet "would be a very good client for an all-business-class offering by Bombardier". Enerjet mainly operates charters for Calgary-based Suncor Energy and Sands, which in late 2008 awarded the carrier a multi-year contract to shuttle its workers to oil sand development sites in remote parts of northern Canada.

The Boeing 737-700 operator "is flying to a lot of destinations where Air Canada does not operate, and this is where all the oil sands are being found", says Nigam, adding: "Merging the private jet concept, which represents niche demand, with sustained demand makes the all-premium CSeries concept feasible."

Bombardier is also confident the CSeries will attract budget and start-up carriers. Many of the major airlines in the Middle East region, for instance, are looking to expand their regional network, says Scott. "That is bringing a lot of interest to Bombardier."

But the airframer is not seeing an overwhelming push for ultra-high-density CSeries configurations from potential customers. "If anything, we're seeing trends that airlines are starting to maybe compete a little bit again on passenger comfort, with customers talking about new configurations," says Ben Boehm, Bombardier vice-president commercial aircraft programmes.

The airframer's seemingly minor decision to widen the middle seat could make an important impact on how passengers perceive the CSeries cabin.

"Passenger uneasiness is not generated by the people in front of you, separated by a wall of seat-backs, or to the back of you," says air transport consultant Morten Müller. "Uneasiness is generated by the lateral closeness of the person who is actually going to touch you, so the conclusion of some analysts and experts is that it makes no sense to give pitch to people. What you need is lateral freedom of space."

We'll have more from Müller a bit later. He has a fascinating idea for how Airbus and Boeing can compete with the CSeries!!!

The current five-abreast aircraft were built in the 1960s, says Bombardier's Scott, "so we're building for the 2020 to 2060 time period". Bombardier is planning to have the CS100 enter service in 2013.

Inmarsat's SwiftBroadband (SBB) aeronautical service is going to become standard on all new Airbus long-range aircraft and there is reason to believe that Boeing may follow Airbus' lead and make SBB standard on its 787 twinjet (paving the way for SBB to find a place on other Boeing widebodies, including the 747-8).

So why is there a perceived competition between L-band satellite-based SBB and Ku-band connectivity? What's all the fuss about?

There shouldn't be a fuss, according to Emirates vice-president for passenger communications Patrick Brannelly.

"That's the oddity [that] people are not realizing. SwiftBroadband is going to be a standard... the standard connectivity platform for an aircraft," he says, noting that SwiftBroadband and Ku "are very different products" and can't be compared simply because the word broadband is in the title.

SwiftBroadband, which will support data rates of about 432 kilobits per second (two channels), is good for in-flight GSM/GPRS connectivity offerings, such as those on offer from AeroMobile and OnAir, and light Internet use.

It is also great for keeping the cabin crew connected to the ground. "If you want to have just your cabin crew connected for operational reasons, you could probably get a lot of that done over [Inmarsat's] Swift64 but certainly over SwiftBroadband," says Brannelly.

As time goes by, SwiftBroadband is also expected to play an increasingly important role in the cockpit. By 2013, SBB customers will be allowed to install four SwiftBroadband channels, two for the cabin and two for the cockpit.

OnAir chief executive Benoit Debains says: "Passenger connectivity is nice to have but it's not critical. The cockpit communication is critical."

Airbus views SwiftBroadband as the entry-point to connectivity for its long-haul aircraft. Progress has been made on that front. An Airbus A330-300 being delivered to Oman Air will become the first commercial widebody to enter service with the airframer's ALNA v2 platform over SwiftBroadband.

Boeing's recent RFI shows it too is leaning in a similar direction. But when it comes down to brass tax, SwiftBroadband is at best a medium-band offering that does not support multiple heavy users of in-flight Internet. For that, at present, you need Ku.

"Let's say you have 20 passengers that want to connect to VPN. That uses up a lot of bandwidth, and you need to have a solution and Ku looks to be the only solution to for that but there are other things coming along in the future," says Brannelly, after revealing that the carrier has stepped up its studies of Ku-band connectivity.

Ku most definitely solves the bandwidth issue. But it doesn't solve the latency and congestion issues. If you're interested in a little light reading about the difference between latency and bandwidth with respect to satellite communications, check out the following links:

It's latency, stupid!

http://www.stuartcheshire.org/rants/Latency.html

Satellite communications in the Global Internet: Issues, Pitfalls, and Potential

http://www.isoc.org/inet97/proceedings/F5/F5_1.HTM?bcsi-ac-1F72BDE758CD6DC0=19D01EB300000003Txkp2H7GAtW5Ykin9Iu9vZ/gRw4JAgAAAwAAAGSMHgAQDgAAowAAABO1CQA=

Wikipedia - Comparison_of_latency_and_bandwidth

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_latency_and_bandwidth

ITU white paper on Latency

http://www.itu.int/ITU-D/asp/CMS/Events/2009/PacMinForum/doc/Theme-2_O3b_Latency_White_Paper.pdf

But back to the ever-newsworthy Patrick Brannelly. I asked the Emirates executive if the carrier would ever offer Ku-band connectivity via its in-flight entertainment systems?

After all, Emirates offers very high-end Panasonic IFE and Panasonic happens to be bringing its Ku-band eXConnect solution to market (a solution that is going to be launched by former Connexion customer Lufthansa).

Says Brannelly: "There is some synergy obviously with the Panasonic system, but I'm not sure many passengers would necessarily be surfing the Internet through the seat-back TV screens because it's a very unfamiliar interface. Some would. They'd want to get on and do their hotmail (or social media) [but] which they don't really need bandwidth for."

Okay, so I have one final question for Brannelly: If there isn't a war between SBB and Ku, what in the heck am I going to write about? :)

I should probably take off my stilettos and put them on the shelf. I'm done. Ruined. Destroyed.

Emirates gave me the ride of my life aboard its A380 from Dubai to Toronto and now I'll never be able to fly again without wistfully thinking about that experience (how on earth will I cope on US legacy domestic flights?)

I have to believe that everything will pale in comparison.

But while the Emirates A380 offers nearly every imaginable amenity, its crown jewel is its ultra-professional, ultra-stylish and ultra-fun staff (and ultra-cute! See pic to the right.)

I feel like Eliza Doolittle telling Professor Higgins: "Where am I to go? What am I to do? And what's to become of me?"

Emirates vice-president for passenger communications Patrick Brannelly, who gave me a private tour of the A380 before it left for Toronto, also dropped some news on my lap about the carrier's fresh study into Ku-band-based airborne Internet. See what he said and showed me in the following video. 

You'll understand why I'm forever spoiled by the Emirates A380.

We now know that Virgin Atlantic is considering offering in-flight connectivity on board its new-delivery aircraft from 2011, but just what type of connectivity will it offer?

Well, the carrier is clearly on the fence about that subject. Above is a snap of Virgin Atlantic's 'Question Five' to travelers via FaceBook.

But you can read all the questions, and all the answers, at the Virgin Atlantic FaceBook page.

Make sure to scroll down the page because there is a lot of noise (good noise) on there.

Also, if you want to chat with Chris Birch, you'll find him in the comment section of each question. And yes, he is giving some answers!

Here is a key comment from Birch about the aforementioned Question Five: