Row 44, which WN will be testing, promises "a data link that averages better than 30 Mbps" and "each passenger receives a true broadband experience." In announcing its WN testing, it promised "full access to the Internet including e-mail, music, shopping, and virtual private networks (VPN) via a high-speed connection." Time will tell how well the marketing matches reality, but that sounds like much more than "normal web surfing."
TalkBoard Member/Moderator: Southwest and JetBlue forums
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN CP & A-list, Interstate BBQ at MEM B17, CO Lifetime Presidents Club
Posts: 9,241
Quote:
Originally Posted by curbcrusher
Row 44, which WN will be testing, promises "a data link that averages better than 30 Mbps" and "each passenger receives a true broadband experience."
I don't believe the 30 Mbps number. Some of the technical challenges are described in this article. But even if the 30 Mbps is possible, you can't afford a satellite, or even one transponder, per aircraft in flight. A transponder rents for a few million dollars a year, amounting to $800 to $1000 per flight at 10 flights per day using the transponder. That's too high, and it doesn't even count the equipment. So you would need to share each transponder among multiple flights at a time, reducing the data rate proportionately. By the time you share that bit pipe enough to bring the cost down, it's a pretty small pipe. Certainly not enough for people to watch movies onboard.
This is not the kind of business where you can offer a product below cost to build the market and drive the cost down by a factor of 100. Satellite technology is quite mature (e.g., satellite TV), and costs will not come down much, if at all.
IMHO, satellite Internet on aircraft is a futuristic capability in the sense that it will not arrive at the capability to price ratio the public envisions now. Remember the flying cars in Popular Science?
No movie/IFE, opportunity for upgrade, meals opportunity (even for purchase).
Also lack of true non-stop flights...most (not all of course) trans-con routings have 2-3 stops in the middle of them.
Finally, with RR segment-based model, it de-values my reward benefits vs. legacies. For example, BWI-LAS flight = 2 RR credits, but it's 4200 FF miles round trip. So, 6 flights to gain a free domestic ticket on legacy vs. 8 trips on WN to gain free ticket.
Again, for what I consider to be their bread & butter, WN is fine. I just don't see them being a "one size fits all" airline for most people, IMO.
All these supposed advantages of legacies blow up in your face when they go mechanical on you (never again, UA!) and the flights are 95% full and you can't get to your destination for 1-3 days.
WN has NEVER let me down in this regard.
Perks, FF miles, lousy edited movies, crappy meals, etc. should be pretty far down the list, IMO, when it comes to making a decision which airline to fly.
Last edited by toomanybooks; Jun 6, 08 at 7:18 am.
Programs: WN A-List, IC Plat AMB. generic cheapskate
Posts: 637
I just got back from a conference in Florida, and on the return flight, I ended up traveling with my advisor on two legs (MCO-BWI-CLE). He's pretty much been exclusively a CO flyer (he flew WN a couple times several years ago and hated it), but with the new changes (like the power stations, the comfy chairs in certain cities [MCO, CLE], the slightly increased seat pitch, and the more orderly boarding process), I think he's seriously considering doing most of his allowable short-haul travel with WN. (He was a little confused about the whole drink coupons thing, which was more amusing than anything - he didn't know it was like the CO currency...except that it comes with every free ticket.
__________________
"I disapprove of what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire
All these supposed advantages of legacies blow up in your face when they go mechanical on you (never again, UA!) and the flights are 95% full and you can't get to your destination for 1-3 days.
WN has NEVER let me down in this regard.
Perks, FF miles, lousy edited movies, crappy meals, etc. should be pretty far down the list, IMO, when it comes to making a decision which airline to fly.
Agreed. The perks you do get at Southwest (less full planes = more open middles, on-time performance and, depending on your flights/car rentals, fewer BIS miles per free ticket) far outweigh the perks promised and *sometimes* delievered by UA.
It isn't much of a stretch to imagine Colleen Barrett, Gary Kelly and Herb K on a Southwest flight. Yet, they are major executives, their time is valuable and they are well paid, so I wouldn't deny them a flight in a private jet, if they feel it is justified. Certainly, now and then, they must need to go to a non-Southwest city (how else could that city become a Southwest city?), as well as want to vacation in Jackson, WY, Hawaii or Europe.
I wonder what airline they do take when they want to go to Hawaii or Europe? American?
For short hops, Arpey at American may fly his own twin engine airplane, as seen on CNBC's "A Week In The Life" show. For longer hops, I'd bet on the private jet (Warren Buffet's NetJets, for example). I would if I could!
Now I see that Southwest has 3 flights per day from DAL to IAD, but with two stops each and a plane change in MDW. I guess that would be a little too much "LUV" even for him! Personally, if I had his money, I'd go on AA in first as well! I wonder if he has status (GOLD/PLAT) on AA? Bought a coach ticket and upgraded with miles/certs?
