October 2010 Archives

Updated to note that Southwest Airlines is now saying it will charge $5 for Wi-Fi regardless of device or flight (holy moly...what will this mean for Gogo pricing?) And yes, this update means that I had to have one more word. Arghghgh. The grip of SM addiction!

BLOG

I'm jumping off the grid for about 10 days to disconnect and recharge my batteries, but before I do I feel compelled to write an in-flight connectivity news and speculation blog because - per usual - this part of the industry is HOT, HOT, HOT, and apparently I have an incurable sickness when it comes to the topic (which will make my pending disconnect all the more difficult! I'll let you know if I go into withdrawal.)

As I'm writing this blog, a major piece of news has just broken on Twitter. @FlyingPhotog, who is attending Southwest Airlines' media day, says the carrier - which is acquiring AirTran - has vowed to honor the IFE contracts currently in place at AirTran. This news is no doubt putting a smile on the faces of both Aircell and LiveTV, which provide AirTran's connectivity and XM satellite radio, respectively. What we don't know, however, is what the terms of those current contracts entail (meaning Southwest's decision might be an interim one until the contracts expire. Southwest is a customer of airborne high-speed Internet provider Row 44. The carrier is in a unique position in that it can test both the Aircell air-to-ground (ATG) system and Row 44's Ku system side-by-side, as @jbernie points out.)

Separately, Southwest recently showed signs that it liked the $7 pricepoint for its current Row 44-provided Internet. @Melissa808 received the email below from Southwest (hat tip to @curbcrusher for the heads up). However the carrier now says it will charge only $5 for Wi-Fi irrespective of device or flight. @FlyingPhotog broke the news on Twitter first and then Southwest issued this release. $5! El Cheapo!




Speaking of pricepoints, let's talk (again) about Oman Air, which is charging just under $30 for 26MB per flight for Internet. The carrier saw my recent blog about its Inmarsat SwiftBroadband-supported OnAir in-flight connectivity package - which was based on Oman executive Saurav Mukherjee's comments on LinkedIn - and thought I might be interested in some further information about passenger usage of cell phone and Wi-Fi connectivity.

AM I interested? Lordy yes!

Says Oman:

"Although I cannot share the data that has emerged since the first aircraft to offer connectivity came into service in March, I can say something about some of the general trends. After an initial surge in take-up at launch time in March - as the novelty of the world's first in-flight connectivity made itself felt - usage fell back to a lower level, as we expected it to after such a surge. Since then, the trend for usage has shown a steady increase and that increase appears to be ongoing.

"Mobile phone usage is greater than Wi-Fi usage and SMS messaging is used more than voice calls. Both mobile phone and Wi-Fi connectivity appear to be used more by business passengers than leisure passengers and this is reflected in the month-by-month patterns, ie noticeable increases in usage at the end of holiday periods, such as August and Eid. These trends are in line with Oman Air's initial projections and we anticipate continued steady growth, as awareness of the service increases and as in-flight connectivity becomes the norm for all carriers.

"Price points and charging models will continue to be kept under review to ensure ease of use and value for customers. As part of this process, the views of staff, customers and industry colleagues are being sought - Saurav's LinkedIn post was part of this process. The intention behind Oman Air's introduction of in-flight connectivity was always to add to the range of services we offer our customers and to increase the range of available choices - not to encourage every customer to make cell phone calls or log onto the internet. Passenger feedback to date has been extremely positive and it is clear that the connectivity choices we now offer are warmly welcomed."

Many thanks to Oman for the information. However, I wonder if other factors are at play with regard the pricing for Oman's Internet service. One high-level industry source says SwiftBroadband data rates from Inmarsat are at/around the $6 per MB rate (yet, $30 per 26MB is clearly significantly below this rate). The same source claims that providers, such as OnAir, could not get lower rates from Inmarsat because Inmarsat's primary consumers (outside aerospace) help set market rates and those rates are holding-up just fine. So, the questions are: Who is fronting this 'lower' $30/26MB rate? Did Inmarsat agree to a bulk purchase price to OnAir?  Did OnAir supplement? Did Oman Air supplement? Or, did Inmarsat change its rate structure?

I put these questions to Inmarsat's Lars Ringertz, and he says:

"Obviously we cannot comment on our pricing to our distribution partners, but the $6 figure that is circulating in the market does not reflect what a distribution partner would pay. We have been developing the SwiftBroadband service both technically and commercially to make it suitable for airline use. Anybody coming off the street wanting to buy 1MB will obviously pay more than anyone who is committed to consuming volumes of data because that's normal logic."

I'd imagine that when SwiftBroadband distribution partners add their own margins the pricing for the service can get into stupid figures. But even if we're super duper generous and say Inmarsat is charging half of what is claimed, somebody must be making up the difference between the cost of the service and what the passenger actually pays. It's not clear what OnAir/Oman Air may have done with respect to usage-averaging across multiple users. In other words, what's the average total use per passenger below the 26MB? That might balance the ratio out somewhat, but one must wonder if either OnAir or Oman are at risk with make-up payments to Inmarsat, or if Inmarsat actually cut a deal. Ho, hum, diddly dee. I'll ponder this conundrum on my holiday. NOT! Okay, maybe.

Visual relief alert - fun 'rubber ducky on holiday' snap is followed by even more text.



Meanwhile, we have yet to fully address the question of why former Connexion by Boeing (CBB) customer Singapore Airlines has opted for OnAir's SwiftBroadband-based solutions over the Ku-band satellite-based high-speed Internet solution on offer from the carrier's sole IFE supplier Panasonic. Could it be that SwiftBroadband pricing has well and truly come down to reasonable levels? Is SIA simply afraid of Ku, having been burned by Connexion? Does SIA see an urgent need to get basic connectivity on board its aircraft ASAP, including the A380 (where only OnAir is offerable)?

As I mentioned in the comment section of my Oman blog, Panasonic and its partner (OnAir rival) AeroMobile made some headway by gaining offerability for Ku on the Airbus A350 but only because Panasonic presumably refused to sign the in-flight entertainment portion of the deal unless Airbus relented. Airbus continues to deny linefit offerability to any connectivity solution except OnAir on all its current-gen twin-aisles. Perhaps, like Boeing with the 787, Airbus does not want anything (else) to stand in the way of delivery dates for its aircraft, most especially the A380. Meanwhile, SIA has seen all these announcements about carriers bringing in-flight connectivity to their aircraft (Cathay, Lufthansa, Turkish have all opted for Ku) and clearly SIA is feeling the competitive pressure, esp with the Cathay deal (and wants a piece of the headline action). Added to that, SIA is a former Connexion customer that was burned by CBB, and now - shite! - SIA is being burned by Koito too (the disgraced aircraft seat manufacturer). With two major partners falling by the wayside in the last few years, SIA may have wanted to go with what is no doubt being billed as the safe bet, a SwiftBroadband-supported solution that is linefit offerable on Airbus aircraft (including, substantially, the A380). Even Emirates, a carrier that was committed to offering AeroMobile's service across it's entire fleet, has gone with OnAir for the A380, after no doubt considering the time/expense associated with retrofitting A380s with another product.

I know that most consumers don't know the difference between SwiftBroadband and Ku-supported connectivity, which is why SIA can get away with saying it will replicate in the air the type of environment that its customers "have gotten used to on the ground" via OnAir's solution - and enjoy the news headlines that go along with that promise. But, in this instance, we need to call a spade a spade.

SwiftBroadband does a great many things - it is virtually global (minus the poles), has just one service provider (Inmarsat, which is handy dandy), and is excellent at supporting in-flight mobile connectivity. But, after having tried SwiftBroadband-based Wi-Fi at Thales' connectivity suite in London, I can tell you that SwiftBroadband does not support in-flight high-speed Internet, at least not how most regular Internet users define high-speed (for a definition of broadband go here).

SwiftBroadband does not replicate in the air what passengers receive on the ground. And it does not support TV over IP (which will be offered by Cathay and others via Ku). Additional SwiftBroadband channels will be added in the not too distant future, but SwiftBroadband is an entry point to connectivity. Even Inmarsat knows that (it is, after all, readying to launch a superfast Ka-band satelilte-based solution, Global Xpress in 2014, which gives the likes of SIA the promise of an upgrade path in terms of the commercial partner. System-wise, the on-board WLAN would remain, but the Ka-Band solution would require a new antenna, mount, and radome, antenna controller, power supplies, as well as a new modem.) 

Speaking of SwiftBroadband and pricing, some really interesting news broke at the recent NBAA show in Atlanta, but this time with respect to hardware. Cobham is among the in-flight connectivity hardware manufacturers building systems to support Inmarsat's new class of SwiftBroadband service - dubbed SB200 - for small-sized regional and business jets and turboprops. The manufacturer has launched its SB200 installation - which provides standard IP data up to 200kbps, circuit-switched voice telephony, and streaming IP data up to 16kbps - at a cost of just $32,000. The figure is far less than the $60,000 figure projected by Cobham in February. It is still a tad higher than the $25,000 figure that Inmarsat would like, but Cobham is getting darn close!

Indeed, in-flight connectivity - and the wondrous things you can do with it - was a major theme at the NBAA show.  During the show, I spoke to TrueNorth Avionics, which announced it has been chosen as the standard cabin telecommunications supplier by the Airbus Corporate Jet Centre (ACJC) of Toulouse to provide cabin telecommunications for Airbus corporate A320 and A319 aircraft. TrueNorth's Simphone OpenCabin system - with Wi-Fi, voice and high-speed data integration, corded and cordless handsets and a range of network products - will be offered on these VVIP aircraft. The Simphone OpenCabin system offers two channels of Iridium voice and integrates with other connectivity (such as SwiftBroadband, Ku or Ka) so it can be "upgraded indefinitely", says TrueNorth. ACJC says it will use SwiftBroadband (Airbus' connectivity of choice these days).

I also had a chance to talk to both EMS and Thrane & Thrane about their new SwiftBroadband-supported cabin handsets for business aircraft, and to Aircell, whose GogoBiz air-to-ground (ATG)-based solution is part of Nextant Aerospace's Hawker 400A/XP modernization programme. Check out Aircell's latest HotSpots eZine. (NOTE: Flightglobal  took some great video of all three companies with the intent of including the segments in our snazzy iFlight magazines, but time proved our enemy...i.e. we ran out of it. I'm hoping to wrestle the footage off of production before NBAA is a distant memory....hoping!)

Here are the links to all three iFlights:

Issue 1
http://cde.cerosmedia.com/1X4cc83cc85a1fe877.cde

Issue 2
http://cde.cerosmedia.com/1S4cc92fbe180a8140.cde

Issue 3
http://cde.cerosmedia.com/1E4cc93378db06a198.cde

And here is our show highlight video that did make deadline.


 
LiveTV, meanwhile, took the opportunity at NBAA to announce an expansion of its Blackberry on Board (BOB) product to include BlackBerry, iPhone, and iPad consumer hardware, under a catchy upgrade programme called "Pimp my Magnastar".

Speaking of LiveTV, let's jump back to the commercial sector to ponder how the JetBlue subsidiary might play its next hand. JetBlue recently announced that it is bringing Ka-band connectivity to its fleet via LiveTV and ViaSat (the latter has since bought Arinc's SKYLink for bizjets!!). I tapped LiveTV for additional info. Here are two of my questions:

1) Does LiveTV still plan to offer live television systems to all and sundry or are you taking things more in-house again (i.e. is Continental the last of legacies that will ever been offered live television?) Double i.e. - is the Eagle back in the Canary Cage?

2)  And, if so, are you guys happily tucked under JB's proverbial wing for years to come (i.e. no IPO)?

LiveTV declined comment. However, I remain super-curious about the topic. What is United Airlines going to do about connectivity and live television now that it has merged with Continental Airlines? Continental has been fitting its domestic fleet with LiveTV's latest generation LTV3 system, while United offers Aircell's Gogo service on a limited fleet.

United has a brilliant opportunity to offer - at least domestically - a killer combo comprising the best in-flight television via LiveTV coupled with high-speed Internet from either Aircell or ViaSat/LiveTV.

Incidentally, LiveTV brought a golf course to the recent APEX convention in Long Beach. I stumbled upon the course right at the time when United was winning the game (nice!). "United is right now in first but airlines can come play all they want and see who wins at the end," said Moeller (see below).

I cannot mention APEX without mentioning the 2-3 November technology committee meeting in Los Angeles, which will not be attended by yours truly (because of my holiday) but will be attended by Jonathan Norris, vice-president, cabin design office at Airbus (and a member of the APEX board).

Jonathan will be tweeting feverishly at the committee meeting so be sure to follow the hashtag #APEXTC10 or jump back to this blog post and check out the Twitter stream below. See you in 10 days!

EASA recently held a Koito briefing session in Cologne to help answer some of the myriad questions being asked by airlines. Koito seats are subject to both an EASA proposed AD and an FAA NPRM after the Japanese manufacturer falsified test data on 150,000 seats in the world fleet.

The 'question and answer summary' document published by EASA following the 14 October briefing is truly a page turner, and frankly the whole darn thing should be highlighted.

But I'd like to point out one of the key questions, number 19, which addresses why EASA wants all Koito seats removed within 10 years, even the seats that pass the tests in its proposed AD.I've italicized - and bolded - some of the most salient bits.

19. Why does EASA feel the need to put a maximum 10 year limit on continued service of seats even if they successfully passed testing for the other compliance time limits set in the AD?

"EASA has been unable to find a way to accept that seats which do not comply with appreciable parts of the applicable requirements remain in service indefinitely. Part 21, AMC 21A.3B(b) Unsafe Condition, paragraph (c), is part of the definition of an "Unsafe Condition", and reads; "(c) Design features intended to minimise the effects of survivable accidents are not performing their intended function."
 
The ten year limit in the AD applies to seats which have shown compliance to only an abbreviated (relative to the full set of applicable requirements) test programme. These seats will thus still be lacking proof of compliance to some requirements.
 
After consideration of the requirements in question, EASA believes that the associated reduced level of safety still constitutes an Unsafe Condition which must be handled by setting an upper limit on continued service of seats.
 
The figure of ten years was determined by taking an extreme optimistic view on the same accident data as used above. Assuming only one accident of those studied constituted a situation where occupant protection performance right up to the limit of that provided by the certification basis was essential, the accident rate to consider rate drops to 6.8E-9. Again, assuming a Catastrophic failure mode (multiple fatalities) and an aircraft life of 100,000 FH, this generates a compliance time of; Tc=100,000x0.025E-7/6.8E-9 = 36765 FH So, bearing in mind that this figure is the result of assuming only one accident was sufficiently severe to constitute a need for the full protection afforded by the certification basis, the choice of ten years is also to be seen as a generous allowance."

EASA says it is being "generous" with a 10-year allowance. If EASA is generous, how should one characterize the FAA's NPRM, which does not include a requirement that seats ultimately be permanently removed?

When an operator asks - in question 11 - why the NPRM didn't include HIC (or any of the other compliance criteria not included), EASA says:

"This is one area where the EASA and FAA ADs differ. The EASA AD does require compliance to be shown to all compliance criteria after a period of maximum 10 years. This is because of regulatory issues which place difference onuses on EASA and the FAA for the removal of an Unsafe Condition."

(Photo above from gordontarpley's Flickr photo stream)

Bizjet in-flight connectivity. Bizjet social media efforts. Bizjet industry upticks. Jon and I cover it all in our final wrap-up from NBAA. The sound quality of this video isn't stellar, but isn't that a nice hat?

The head of bmibaby, Julian Carr, recently agreed to answer questions posed to him on this blog and via Twitter.

Julian's answers are below (for the passenger experience crowd, note Julian's final answers).

Q. Being from BHX myself, what plans are there to expand your already decent sized operation there? #4Julian

A. We have three aircraft based at Birmingham Airport during the summer months, and two during the winter. This works well for us at the moment, although we do believe BHX is a very good airport with a large local population. Further evaluation of growth in the region is always ongoing. bmibaby will remain at current aircraft numbers in 2011, although there could be growth in 2012 subject to finding the right route opportunities.

Q. If flybmi were to start a sister subsidiary would they call it BMI Toddler? :) #4Julian

A. bmibaby is 8 years old now, so we've already passed the toddler stage!

Q. What is the timeframe for starting fleet renewal, and will this be linked with other airlines in LH group?

A. The B737 classic works well for us, though obviously will need to be replaced in the future. I can't see this happening in the next few years, as they are still relatively young compared to the expected lifespan of a modern day aircraft. However, longer term we shall be having such conversations, and being part of the Lufthansa group it makes sense that we develop such work in conjunction with the wider group.

Q. Does BMI Baby intend to ever explore the use of @FlyBMI's freq. flyer program? I see the lack of it as a detractor #4Julian

A. We are currently part of the bmi Diamond Club frequent flyer program. Passengers can earn and use Diamond Club miles on our services. This is a global program with miles redeemable across the Star Alliance network, so we're rather happy with it!

Q. Are there any planes in BMI Baby's future to convert the 737 fleet to A320s for fleet commonality with @FlyBMI? #4Julian

A. Mostly answered in question 3 already, though whether we would specifically switch to Airbus operations would be a decision for a few years time. No current plans for this.

Q. As @FlyBMI is 'absorbed' into the @Lufthansa_de way of doing things, will this impact how BMI Baby operates? #4Julian

A. The main benefit for us is the ability to tap into a huge amount of good industry experience. LH has been around for years and is renowned for being a very good operator. Being part of this family now presents us with the opportunity to develop synergies where appropriate and work with them strategically. However on a day to day basis we are very much our own business, operate under our own Air Operator Certificate (AOC), and make our own decisions. So while part of a bigger group, we retain the quick and easy dynamics of a small business. We have the best of both worlds!

Q. Previously BMI Baby used to fly some routes that competed with 'mainline' carriers, will the #airline return to this? #4Julian

A. That depends on the route - ultimately the low cost offering is very attractive to the travelling public nowadays, and should we see an opportunity for a route that is suited to our model, then we would consider competing if we believed it was right for us. However, our focus will remainon flying from the UK regions / midlands, as it is unlikely that we would want to venture into competing on trunk routes from the London market (if that is what you were implying!).

Q. To follow up my last question on BMI Baby's routes...I truly miss flying BMI Baby on the @HeathrowAirport - CDG route! #4Julian

A. See answer to question 7! You should fly on our East Midlands to Paris service instead (EMA is 90 mins by train from central London!)

Q. Are there plans for fleet renewal & any expansion @cardiffairport??

A. I've pretty much addressed the fleet renewal question, so see above for this. With respect to Cardiff, it is an airport and region that is very much part of our leisure routes focus. Most routes from Cardiff are to "The Sun" and this is what seems to be most demanded by our customers. I believe there are more opportunities at Cardiff though, and would very much like to expand from there. While this may not happen in 2011, like our evaluations of BHX noted above, we shall of course seek to follow up opportunities for growth if we see the market interest.

Q. In light of the recent #SMairlines conference, how will @bmibaby_com work to increase sales & presence through social media? #4Julian

A. We totally believe in the value of Social Media. As you know we have our company twitter feed, my personal feed (which is 100% done by just me - which is why it might not be that frequent!!), and also now our Facebook page. We'll continue to develop these channels and have lots of aspirations to do more in this space. Keep watching!

Q. While its impossible 4 @bmibaby_com 2 compete with easyJet & Ryanair, what kind of niche does bmibaby have that makes it different? #4Julian

A. Our strategy is quite simple: Be good at what we do, and be more than just another low cost airline. While we need to operate an 'a-la-carte' pricing philosophy (pay for what you use, don't pay for what you don't use - which genuinely is the backbone to being able to offer low fares), we are putting serious effort into developing our service offering. I want us to be an airline that people actually enjoy flying with, and come back again and again. We are working hard to enhance our sales process to ensure we are more transparent and therefore easier to select the options you want. We are also recruiting currently for a new Head of Cabin Services, who will be instantly tasked with enhancing our in-flight service proposition. We are a small airline, with a very good crew, and a new management team that genuinely cares about offering a good product. We won't always get it right, but we are doing our utmost to create a good airline for you. "Putting the fun back into flying, baby!" (...just to keep the marketing team happy!)

Q. Are we likely to see investment at Cardiff? I'm sure it is time to bring lost passengers back over the severn bridge?

A. Pretty much answered in question 9, although I do agree too many people go across that pesky bridge! In time we want to grow our network from Cardiff to offer a wider range of routes. However for 2011 we will focus on our current network, and do our best to entice people to fly from their local airport.

Q. Is @bmibaby_com going to build bases out of UK or will they focus on building up services from the current hubs/bases? #4Julian

A. The short term plan will be to focus on the current bases. However that doesn't mean that we wouldn't consider another UK base in the future, if the right opportunity presented itself.

Q. Will @bmibaby_com compete with its parent, @flybmi on any routes or will they take over unprofitable routes including bmi Regional? #4Julian

A. It makes no sense for us to compete with bmi or bmi regional. However as a group we need to ensure the most suited airline to the route is the one that operates. Such group collaboration and development of synergies will feature moving forward.

Q. When are we likely to receive some positive news for the Cardiff base? We have seen many promises and neglect and after a reduction in based units from 3-2 aircraft ti was believed that this winter was looking promising. However it now turns out that many flights have now been cancelled for W10. What is being done to bring passengers back over the Severn Bridge from Easyjet and Ryanair at Bristol?

A. I've pretty much covered this in earlier questions, though I do agree that we are losing too many people to Bristol. Cardiff is a great local airport and is quick and easy to use. We do find that most demand from the airport is for 'sunshine' routes, and as such our flights are orientated in this way. Because these sun routes are our main focus, it does mean there is less flying in the winter, although we will retain our core program during the winter months. I would like to grow from Cardiff in the future, and assuming we can find the right opportunities this could occur in 2012.

Q. Any plans for starting a connection from EMA-FRA or MUC? As a customer from Lincoln I currently have to drive two hours to get a flight from MAN or BHX.  

A. EMA-MUC (Munich) started on 17th September. We are starting EMA-CGN (Cologne) on 31st October. Frankfurt is not currently in the plans although that's not to say we wouldn't in the future if we felt the demand was there, and it fitted into our network well.

Q. Julian, there are suggestions that bmibaby is looking at developing charter operations to support independent tour operators in th UK. Is this is serious consideration or is it pure conjecture?

A. We currently work with a number of smaller (and larger) tour operators, where some seats are sold on our scheduled services to these partners. We are very much open to offering a full charter service (where the whole aircraft is sold to tour operators), and have done so in the past - for example we flew to Brescia in Italy all winter last year for a tour operator. We have good relations with the travel trade and intend to continue such. If you have some capacity needs then let's talk!

Q. Is bmibaby every going to make CWL a viable option to BRS? Although it is hard to compete with the likes of easyjet and Ryanair, the market for CWL definately exists! There are a number of routes currently not served from CWL which are multiple daily services from BRS. Passengers want to travel from CWL, however the options are just not there and never really have been. To make CWL a viable option and change customer's perception of the airport will certainly need a great deal of investment, so are you prepared to commit?

A. We are very much committed to Cardiff, and it's fair to say that we would like to be bigger in CWL than we already are. I do expect and intend that growth in Cardiff can and will occur over time. We have had to be prudent in our approach last year and this year, and had to contract slightly in CWL due to some fleet consolidation that we undertook. However this is not a sign of lack of desire for the Cardiff market, and at the moment we are focusing on flying the best network we can from Cardiff with the two aircraft we have there.

Q. How is bmibaby working to improve the passenger experience (from check-in until baggage claim)?

A. I spoke above about being focused on developing our customer service experience. This is a key priority of the new management team. We are improving our online sales steps to make it easier and simpler to book. We are working with our airport service teams to understand how we can improve the experience pre-flight. We are about to employ a new Head of Cabin services who will be tasked with developing our in-flight service offering. We have also increased the amount of time we dedicate to training our front line staff in customer service from this winter. Also, myself and the management team work on the shop floor on a routine basis to ensure we are seeing and experiencing first hand the service we offer. In all, we want to be an airline that our customers enjoy flying with. We are also very much focused on providing a good level of on time performance and reliability, which is one of the most important elements of the experience to the customer - in 2009 we were the UK's most punctual low cost carrier, something we will always strive to achieve.

Q. Does Julian envision offering in-flight entertainment and/or connectivity, and if so, what types are under study?

A. If we are talking about in-flight movies etc, then no. Ultimately such an offering is expensive to provide, and we need to keep our costs as low as possible to keep the fares low. I do not see much demand for this sort of offering on short European routes - our passengers prefer low fares. We do offer 'enterplanement' on occasion though, which is where we invite an artist / special guest to 'entertain' our customers - we have had in-flight massages, opera singers and comedians so far!

(Picture above from garland canon's Flickr photo stream)

Day 3 of Flightglobal's iFlight magazine from #NBAA10 is my favorite by far. Be sure to check my hall highlights video, including footage of the butt sketcher, who drew big crowds to the Jet Works Air Center booth.

Rockwell Collins is making a re-entry into the in-seat in-flight entertainment (IFE) game with what it's calling an "innovative seat-centric" solution for narrowbody aircraft, and says it is initially focusing on providing the solution for the Comac C919.

A long-time IFE hardware supplier to commercial carriers Rockwell Collins' profile in the sector diminished considerably in 2006 when the company quite famously opted not to develop IFE systems for the Airbus A380 and later the Boeing 787.

This took the manufacturer out of the twin-aisle market, and effectively reduced competition for new aircraft models to a Panasonic Avionics and Thales duopoly, although that duopoly now faces competition from the likes of Lumexis, which is bringing fiber optics-based IFE to market, and IMS, which is focusing on a seat-centric solution with no server boxes.

One year ago, Rockwell Collins revealed to RWG that it was considering getting back in the in-seat game with a new solution for single-aisle aircraft.

Those studies have obviously borne fruit with Rockwell Collins divulging some details about its new IFE system as part of a larger announcement today that China's Comac has selected Rockwell Collins to provide IFE systems for its C919 narrowbody.

Key par:

Rockwell Collins C919 IFE solution includes a variety of system configurations ranging from an high definition overhead video system to an innovative seat centric in-seat solution with independent control of individual media players. The available IFE options are derived from enhancements to the company's proven digital Programmable Audio Video Entertainment System (dPAVES) with high definition capability.

Rockwell Collins says it will team with Shanghai Aero Measurement-Controlling Research Institute (SAMRI) which is based in Shanghai. SAMRI will help design, develop and integrate the IFE system solution into the C919.

Asked if Rockwell Collins will offer its new seat-centric IFE to the widebody market, a company spokeswoman says: "We're focused on the narrowbody market."

IFE Services, the UK firm that is bringing PlayStation Portablies to a growing list of airlines also does a lot of other interesting things in the in-flight entertainment space. Check this out.

It's Friday and I'd love nothing better right now than to make some final preparations for the NBAA show and spend some time with my daughter. The very last thing I want to do is write a blog post about how OnAir CEO Ian Dawkins is back-pedaling on comments made to me at the recent APEX show in Long Beach.

Before I give RWG's fair readers a gentle reminder about what Dawkins said, however, I'd like to stress that this blog is not about OnAir or its joint venture partners Airbus and SITA.

It's also not about Boeing, Thales, Qatar, the 787, APEX, the APEX newsletter, bicycles or cycling performance tips.

Sadly, there is a hint of recycling to this blog, but it is borne out of the simple, yet unfortunate fact that the record apparently needs to be set straight again because Dawkins insists on trying to rewrite history, which is particularly difficult to do when you've been videotaped saying the very thing you deny saying. 

During the APEX show in Long Beach, Dawkins told me the connectivity hardware being installed on Qatar Airways' Boeing 787s "is not going to be an Airbus solution" and as such, OnAir is looking for alternative solutions.

Key quote:

"...I'm looking for alternative solutions. That is exactly what I'm doing because the market requires different solutions. And that's exactly what we're doing on here. It's a requirement from Qatar. It's a requirement from Boeing as well and I was asked if I would provide the service, which I fully supported."

In the world of in-flight entertainment and connectivity (IFEC), Dawkin's revelation was big news. And I reported just what he said. As we later found out, however, Dawkins was wrong and neither Boeing nor Qatar made any such requirement.

A simple "whoops a daisy, sorry, I misspoke", would have put the matter totally to rest. To date, I have not received a retraction from Dawkins.  

Instead, Dawkins told the APEX newsletter, issued today, that he was "misreported".

Says Dawkins:

"I have been misreported. Boeing and Qatar have no concerns whatsoever about Airbus's ALNA V2 onboard communications infrastructure, which supports our mobile phone and WiFi Internet access services on the Airbus widebodies."

Sigh, double sign, triple sigh with cherries on top.

I don't have an axe to grind. I am exercising an immense amount of restraint by not titling this blog - "OnAir CEO peddles backwards" (or something clever and easily scrapped up by aggregators). Peace, love, and "God bless us all, everyone," as young Tiny Tim would say.

But I am aware that many APEX readers are also readers of this blog, and deserve to hear the whole truth.

Dawkins was not misreported. But don't take my word for it. Here is Dawkins in his own words.

(Photo above from Peter Blanchard's Flickr photo stream)

The Airline Passenger Experience Association (APEX) - formerly known as the WAEA - recently announced that its 31st annual conference and exhibition in Long Beach drew record attendance.

More than 2,300 representatives of the world's top airlines and companies delivering in-flight entertainment, communications, connectivity, seats, cabin interiors and publishing attended the event, providing a treasure trove of news for us journalists (yes, there is still a lot more news to report from the show!)

"I'm pleased with the tremendous turnout at this year's annual conference and exhibition," says APEX president Patrick Brannelly in a statement. "It's a testament to the hard work, and quality education and innovative programs that we were able to produce a conference of this caliber."

APEX has every right to boast about the turnout - its conference was, by all accounts, fantastic - but the organization is (as expected) decidedly more modest about its philanthropic work.

APEX recently partnered with ORBIS International, a non-profit organization that fights to eliminate preventable blindness in children and adults. Attendees at the APEX exhibition heard from ORBIS president and CEO Jack McHale, who spoke about the amazing work being done by ORBIS in impoverished nations all over the world.

One such mission recently took place in Vietnam. ORBIS took its McDonnell Douglas DC-10 Flying Eye Hospital to Da Nang. Here is a video taken on that mission:
 

ORBIS associate director, communications Jennifer Berman (pictured above) took part in the Vietnam program and later ventured to the APEX exhibition to talk to people about her experience. She says she returned from Vietnam with a great deal of optimism because ORBIS' long-term program is making such a huge difference to people in that country.

Notes Berman:

"The ORBIS Flying Eye Hospital program in Vietnam, August of 2010 was a pinnacle event of the year, bringing together the best of ORBIS with a local partner that is exemplary of how ORBIS' programs can make a lasting difference. The Da Nang Eye Hospital, located in Central Vietnam, has been a partner of ORBIS for more than five years. ORBIS' work in Vietnam began in the late nineties and includes long-term partners in the North, South and Central regions of the country. In 2003, ORBIS established a permanent office in Hanoi were hundreds of programs have been launched to build capacity, strengthen human resources and treat thousands of patients."

Through its partnership with ORBIS, APEX has a wonderful opportunity to do great things for the blind and underprivileged, be it by sponsoring a mission or helping to support ORBIS' sustained programs.

I have no doubt in my mind that APEX - whose members have long cared about the passenger experience - will do everything in its power to improve the day-to-day living experience of people with curable blindness.

I received the following invite in my inbox today. Lufthansa Technik and Panasonic are partnering on "a fresh idea in the field of cabin management and in-flight entertainment systems". Now this looks interesting. I'm looking forward to learning more details at the press briefing.

I'm attending NBAA for the first time ever next week. Follow the Twitter hashtag #NBAA10 and be sure check out Flightglobal's special NBAA landing page for all the latest news, video, images, blogs, tweets and our snazzy interactive show dailies!

 

SAS is using FaceBook to break the news that it intends to offer in-flight mobile and Internet connectivity on both European and intercontinental routes.

There is no word yet on whether this former Connexion by Boeing customer has opted to offer OnAir's mobile and Wi-Fi solutions (which are supported by Inmarsat SwiftBroadband) or another offering from the likes of Panasonic Avionics/Aeromobile or Row 44 (via Ku band satellites).

SAS operates a mixed fleet of Airbus and Boeing aircraft. However its widebodies are Airbus-made, which makes me wonder if the carrier will offer OnAir's solutions (as OnAir is a joint venture between Airbus and SITA). 

One thing SAS has confirmed, however, is that the mobile connectivity will be limited to text and GPRS data. No voice calls yet!

Check out the entire FaceBook thread to stay abreast of what's going on. SAS is answering some questions.

Air New Zealand has unleashed "Rico" - the Love Popsicle - on the world.

He suggests that we touch her (the in-flight entertainment) lightly, ahem.

Is this pushing the limits? Well, it's Air New Zealand after all, the same carrier that brought us those racy, award-winning safety videos.

 

Singapore Airlines' (SIA) announcement this week that it is bringing OnAir-provided mobile connectivity and Wi-Fi to its aircraft is so interesting on so many levels that it deserves a blog all its own (and it will get one).

But before we can opine about why Panasonic Avionics mega-IFE customer SIA selected Airbus/SITA joint venture OnAir's SwiftBroadband-supported connectivity (which can support data rates of up to 432 kbps per channel) over Panasonic's Ku-band satellite-based high-speed Internet connectivity, let's first take a look at how Oman Air is fairing with its own connectivity offering.

Why Oman, RWG? Well, you may recall that Oman this spring became the first airline in the world to offer passengers both in-flight mobile and Internet, after switching on OnAir's solutions on Airbus A330-300 aircraft. Oman charges passengers $29.95 for 26 MB per flight for Internet. And, remarkably, Oman Air has dished the dirt on usage.

In a LinkedIn thread started 24 days ago by the 'In-flight Entertainment' group, Oman in-flight entertainment manager Saurav Mukherjee reveals the following:

We at Oman Air launched our inflight wi-fi services over six months back which has been a welcome move as well as a differentiator for us as we became first airline in the world to provide inflight wi-fi and mobile phone services together.

Our analysis after the first six months of operation doesn't show very high usage level despite being a technically stable product ...we have been promoting it inflight through IFE, magazines and promo material as well ATL advertising Our offering is $29.9 for 26 MB of bandwidth. Is pricing the main factor ?? Or the marketing efforts have been inadequate to change the perceptions ... If pricing then what is your opinion for an ideal price plan ....

Mukherjee asks if pricing is the factor. At just under $30 for 26 MB of bandwidth (and rumored to be $6 for every additional MB after that...to be confirmed) -  I think pricing is at least part of the issue.

So, I asked my fellow tweeps just how fast they could eat up 26 MB. Here are just some of the answers:

@inloworbit Lift Off
I can use 26MB in a hour or 2, depends on the time of day

@roblandon Rob Landon
The good news is, with that crappy of a connection, 26MB would last you awhile. You aren't going to watch video with it for sure

MarceloDeBiasi Marcelo F. De Biasi
...And we haven't even said anything about corporate users. Then 26 MB dies out in 24-48hs at the most. 26 MB is 'peanuts'... That's it I guess ;)

flightblogger Jon Ostrower
I can kill 26 MB in 20 minutes or less if I'm in the US. Can stretch it 2-3 days if I'm abroad.

CLlENTAV_N3O4TT Lee Six
How fast can you eat up 26 MB of bandwidth on your iPhone? < Most will not really know, like me???? <s>

MilitaryMatters Kevin Paterson
I suspect quicker than people probably realise.

adders Adam Tinworth
About 20 minutes, if I'm uploading pics and vids...

jerrytroll Lee
Uh..I'd say minutes. That's smaller than most App downloads.

2Stern4U Robert Stern
Well, rather quickly. Especially when a data intensive user like me runs Pandora, Twitter, 4square, and more at the same time.

esposimi Michael Esposito
Watching just one YouTube video can kill it.

Then I asked the question - would you pay $30 for 26 MB of bandwidth? Here are some answers:

MilitaryMatters Kevin Paterson
heck no. Wifi should be free everywhere you go in this day and age.

roblandon Rob Landon
Considering the speed, the only way I would pay that is if I was DESPERATE to stay connected for work. Short answer: No way.

rbertoli Rodrigo Bertoli
30 bucks on 26MB ? Personally, I won't. Only in case of emergency, maybe.

orionll Orion Lyau
No, definitely not.

user47 JL Johnson
Prob not... MAYBE just maybe if I was suuuupppeeerrr desperate. -OR- If an attractive female sans-a-band was sitting next to me.

MarceloDeBiasi Marcelo F. De Biasi
...Too expensive if compared to the amount I pay for my broadband intenet access at home and the amount I pay for my smartphone. I can live wo net 4 12hs...

jerrytroll Lee
Absolutely not. Way too much money, and I'd use more than 26mb if I was counting on my device for entertainment on a flight

ymerej Jeremy Greenidge
Final question - would you pay $30 for 26 MB of bandwidth on a long-haul flight? $6 for every 1 MB after that. < hell no!

zachvat Bill Lamb
Re: Final Question - No, I would not pay that. :-)

Hmmm. I think Oman should be posing this question on Twitter! But do read the LinkedIn thread for some great insight from industry experts.

The original photo for this blow (see below) showed an Oman A330 with two antennas. For clarification - the big boy is Oman's Ku antenna for live television and the little guy supports the carrier's SwiftBroadband solutions.



(To photo from Airbus. Bottom photo of Oman aircraft from Ugg Boy's Flickr photo stream)

Koito Industries, the Japanese firm that falsified test data on 150,000 aircraft seats in the world fleet, reportedly set aside only 3.6 billion yen ($44 million) for compensation last fiscal year and 3.3 billion yen in the fiscal year ending 31 March.

But with Thai Airways International now looking to sue Koito for up to $550 million for failing to deliver seats on its new Airbus A330s and A380s - and a Koito spokesman reportedly admitting that the company has received claims from a "number" of airlines - it's fair to say that Koito is going to need to set aside a lot more cash than that!

As reported here, both EASA and the FAA have issued proposed airworthiness directives to address the Koito problem (although the former agency is stricter in its AD than the latter). Many carriers are impacted by these ADs (see the list of all Koito operators here).

In the USA, it appears that Continental Airlines - now United Airlines - is the only operator affected, with some 278 aircraft in its fleet carrying Koito seats. I more than likely sat on Koito seats on my way to and from London last week via Continental's Newark hub (it was interesting to sit on a seat that could potentially be recalled...then again I drive a Toyota so the experience wasn't entirely new).

Continental, which suffered several 737 delays due to the Koito debacle, has already replaced some Koito seats and has tapped B/E Aerospace to supply seats for its new-build Boeing 737s. I've got to wonder if Continental is among the "number" of carriers now tabling claims to Koito.

Meanwhile, a rather shocking rumor is floating around that Koito hasn't entirely cleaned up all bad its practices. Again, this is just a rumor right now.

Koito, which also makes toilet seat covers, is the same firm that RUBBER STAMPED fake JCAB approvals on its test data paperwork.

When I started covering the Koito story in February, a number of interiors specialists and experts told me that the scandal was the biggest thing to hit the aircraft interiors world - ever!

While carriers all over the world are experiencing fallout from the mess (Singapore Airlines, I hear, has had a miserable time of it....can't this former Connexion by Boeing customer catch a break?), but most of them have not been as vocal as Thai, not even Eva Air, which has seen 777s parked at Everett for months!

Maybe that will change now that the legal ball is rolling. But if I was a carrier with Koito seats, I'd get my claim in fast! It appears I vastly underestimated the financial fall-out of this thing!

(Photo above from Urban Woodswalker's Flickr photo stream)

A couple months ago Aircell's business aviation division joined the Twitterverse and started tweeting under the handle @AircellBizav.

Using Twitter has been "a great experience", says Aircell, but the in-flight connectivity service provider laments that the vast majority of the business aviation community isn't using this valuable tool.

As such, Aircell has launched a Twitter crusade of sorts to convince the business aviation community to get a handle on Twitter.

Aircell's mission at the forthcoming NBAA show will be to expose flight departments to Twitter and work toward building  a true and full Twitter communication in business aviation.

"We think Twitter is the most underutilized communications tool in business aviation. The full magic of it won't come alive until a complete cross-section of the industry uses it - and we're not nearly there yet. The most notable absence is corporate aircraft operators - they make the industry go 'round, but precious few of them are using Twitter," says Aircell.

Check out the company's entire "Twitter for Business Aviation" technology brief, which provides valuable tips for jumping into the social media space.

AircellTechBrief105-TwitterForBizav.pdf

And be sure to check out @AircellBizAv 's action on Twitter:

Dear readers, I know what you must be wondering. Has Mary dropped off the planet earth or answered the siren call of a straight jacket and a padded room? Where are the latest blog posts?

Let me put your minds at ease. I have been traveling like a maniac lately. The upside to this is that I've got a bag of wondrous news to report about the passenger experience. The downside is that I'm only just now getting down to the business of reporting it. So apologies, etc, etc, etc.

Those of you who have been following the debate over whether the USA should allow passengers to use their cell phones during flight know that I've long been a proponent of dropping the current ban and stopping regulators from imposing a permanent ban via the Hang-Up Act (I'm particularly proud of my guest blog for Harrisburg International Airport - "Ban snoring while you're at it.")

My stance on the subject has proven quite unpopular with even my closest peeps and tweeps, who cannot understand why a seemingly nice girl like me would support something as seemingly heinous as in-flight mobile connectivity (perhaps she's really crazy, they secretly wonder!)

So, you can imagine my excitement when I learned that in-flight mobile connectivity received a ringing endorsement this week from the crankiest of fliers - none other than Brett Snyder of Cranky Flier fame.

Clearly benefiting from some key conversations at the recent Airline Passenger Experience Association's annual conference and exhibition in Long Beach, Cranky makes lots of great points in his blog post about why US passengers shouldn't be afraid of the service, including:

1) Use of these devices in the air is increasing worldwide, and the US is quickly becoming the only place around to still want to keep their use banned.

2) The reality is that it hasn't been much of a problem at all so far, and that's probably due to the rate structure.
 
3) Everyone's worst nightmare is getting stuck next to the valley girl who giggles and screams with her friend on the other line throughout the flight. That's just not happening and it's not likely to happen. (If it does, her parents will never let her out of the house again.) Yes, I'm sure that at some point this will happen, but social pressure and flight attendant intervention can solve that problem (along with determined staring at close range).

Cranky's latter point is most astute. I once sat beside a valley girl on a train to New York. Sure enough, she was yapping on her cell like a pampered pup and - shock - screaming obscenities at (presumably) her man slave. I consider myself a generally chill person, but I must admit that after two hours of valley's yap, yap, yap, I was entertaining all kinds of torturous remedies. Instead, I verbalized my unhappiness and valley, bless, finally shut it up.

Many people underestimate the power of the proverbial hairy eyeball or verbal demand when it comes to stopping mobile phone abusers. But, it is unlikely we'll need to employ such measures on board an aircraft. Here's why - the flight attendants have complete control!

Emirates provides an excellent case study in how social concerns are handled in-flight. The carrier is in the process of fitting its entire fleet with in-flight mobile connectivity (AeroMobile is equipping the lion's share of Emirates' current fleet, while OnAir is slated to equip the carrier's A380s).

I managed to get my hands on AeroMobile's cabin crew guide and, lo, it is a revelation!


 
Here are two things you should know about Emirates' procedures for mobile connectivity:

1) Flight attendants must stress that mobiles should be set to silent mode at all times as a courtesy to other passengers.

2) The AeroMobile Control Panel can be used by flight attendants to manually enable/disable several AeroMobile features including incoming and outgoing calls.

Here are a few pages taken directly from the pamphlet

:







Thus far, I have been unable to find a single reported altercation involving in-flight mobile connectivity. That's because procedures are in place to ensure that altercations don't occur.

Various lawmakers and news agencies would like to scare us all into believing that in-flight mobile connectivity is unsafe; that Americans are unable to control themselves in-flight; and that mass hysteria will result if the in-flight mobile connectivity ban is lifted.

Now that's crazy!