I think the wi-fi situation is a gamble by EK - I think the rationale is that if we offer it for free, it becomes a marketing point to everyone who flies it who can add to the image that EK has a very modern product which is a draw for many travellers - especially once a year VFR travellers. In the same way that EK pioneered in-seat entertainment with ICE perhaps in an attempt to both mollify customers ("sit down and be entertained!") as well as show-up other carriers for being behind the time, I think this is exactly in the same vein.

The gamble is making sure satellite providers start to bring more capacity online more quickly - I think they have been caught a bit on the back foot by this. After all, if you went back five years ago and said to say, Inmarsat, we need massive north pole broadband internet coverage, on the order of 100+meg, they would laugh in your face and tell you, who needs all that?! But that is what we are talking about now, with ME-USA routes flying over the poles in large numbers.

The usability of the system is a secondary concern at the moment - the primary motivation is to position the airline in consumer minds. By making it free or close to free makes people accept the fact that it is generally slow and intermittent (even when it only has say, one person using it) and not think too negatively of the airline. This gives the infrastructure providers time (and a business case) to deploy satellites into orbit by building a base of demand. Give it 5 years for additional satellite coverage and I think service will be acceptably fast to the point that EK has now forced all legacy carriers to offer it in their planes ("if EK can get me online on an A380 over the north pole, why can't BA get me online flying over the Alps!"), crimping their margins by making them spend more on cap-ex, increasing prices and therefore directing more business to EK. A long shot perhaps, but I think it is rational if you take the view that wi-fi on planes isn't being done directly for the travel experience.