Originally Posted by
blue2002
1) I don't think
smokie was suggesting AC should cancel flights in favour of installing WiFi faster.
2) I disagree with your "You do not need wifi on a flight". WiFi is not needed for the plane to get from A to B. That said, a lot of people use WiFi for
work. As WiFi is part of the offered service, passengers can rightfully expect it to be available. Of course, they would be wise to make contingencies in case it is not.
A nice touch in the interim would be for Ac to warn people the given airframe will not have WiFi. Even a few hours' heads-up can help.
See, this is a problem. While the announcement can be made, it still takes time to install, configure and test wifi systems. Few aircraft are delivered with wifi and it takes time to kit out a fleet. And as stated by
Stranger, the wifi could malfunction or not work. There could also be dead spots or restrictions (ala the GFWC) depending on the airline or where you might be over. And this goes for any airline, not just AC. A heads up that a given airframe having or not wifi is not really going to help someone if they fly through such places.
Originally Posted by
IronJuice
Agreed. When taking a flight advertised to have "wifi" only to find out otherwise in-flight would be bonkers.
I do know people pay for onboard wifi to answer time sensitive escalation emails. I once had a urgent case in Asia that requires immediate approval around 3am ET, my VP responded within 10 min.
So what happens if they're in a satellite dead zone? I know I'm not a regular case (at least not anymore), but when I take a TPAC flight, I assume I'm out of communication until I hit the destination and can find a coffee shop with wifi or a sim card (with data) to load into my phone (let's say 24 or hours). If I get wifi in between, great! But the assumption is that I won't be reachable while in transit.