Originally Posted by
bse118
Sure, this is a matter of opinion. Me - i read a good old fashioned paper book. I spend my days in an office staring at a screen - don't need to do the same when I'm on a plane.
There's something of a fallacy here. On one hand you are suggesting that few people pay to watch DirectTv on pmCO planes ("150 screens in the seatbacks playing a very short loop of ads for six hours straight"). On the other you're arguing that it's "crap" to make people pay for IFE on their own device that they may not have.
Well if no-one's paying for IFE in the first place on pmCO 737 seatback screens, why does it matter if pmUA Airbi becomes on your-own device only? They're still not gonna pay for it - whether they have a device or not. In other words it doesn't matter if the pax doesn't have a tablet - if willingness to pay for the content is zero.*
(* Note: this is different of course from a discussion about whether the IFE in-general should be free or for-pay. Or why UA seems intent on maintaining such a disparity in IFE product across the fleet..)
Actually: continuing this line of reasoning suggests that on balance the removal of drop down screens, combined with no seatback screens, and for for pay-IFE requiring your own device, should result in overall less intrusive light pollution in the cabin from other passengers' entertainment.
I read newspapers and magazines on flights. That's been my MO for over 16 years. In fact, if I go a few weeks without flying, newspapers and magazines start to pile up at my house.
So, do I watch video? No, I don't. However, I do have peripheral vision, and do occasionally try and sleep on flights. So, the 150 screens that don't have an explicit on/off button means that the kettles leave them on the whole flight, generating lots of light pollution.
Now, regarding the wi-fi, my fault for mixing several arguments into one diatribe. While I do not watch videos, I do like channel 9. However, plenty of passengers do come on board who don't bring anything to read. Or they find it difficult to read on flights, with poor lighting and everything. The point being, not everyone comes on board with a tablet. So, taking the position that the airline will just charge for wi-fi and provide some content to those that have a tablet and wish to pay $6.99 is BETTER than just playing a movie and some TV programs on the overheads is incorrect. Yes, if it's a predominately business flight, where everyone is an experienced traveler, not having decent free audio/video is fine. We come on with stuff to read, with devices charged up and with content ready to roll, or we're prepared for sleeping for X hours. However, on flights with a lot of kettles, the free audio/video is fairly important, especially on 5-6 hour transcons.
The basic change is that something that is currently "free" - movies and TV shows played on dropdown screens - will no longer be available. You either get a screen in the seatback that the uninitiated don't explicitly know how to turn off that you have to pay to get content or watch an ad loop. Or, you don't have to worry about the screen, but in addition to the cash you may want to pay, you have to have a charged-up device that you can watch for the duration of the flight.
The best case scenario is the personal system like on pmUA 777s/767s. It's "free", and you can easily turn the screen off if you want to read, or sleep, or use your own device. The second best would be a seatback system that has maybe one channel "free", with paid options for those that choose it. With an explicit on/off button, and no freaking ads.