Thorgils

Yes . . . although I'd place this in the latter half of the '80s. Several airlines provided an ATC audio channel, but AA outdid its competitors for a (brief) period by adding cameras in the back of the cockpit, with a lot of marketing ballyhoo. I did a good deal of commuting between BOS and ORD in the first half of 1987, frequently on the DC10s offered by both UA and AA (with full hot meal service in coach). My most vivid memory of the AA cockpit camera was on approach to Logan in a night-time storm, with a last-minute accelerate out for a go-around.

I'm very unhappy with any reduction in C9 availability, a further devaluing of UA's only remaining "unique selling proposition." Where there's been a choice I've been opting for the pmUA airbuses over the pmCO 737NGs (often flown transcon with no IFE at all) primarily because of the possibility of C9 (and because of no missing windows in E+). I guess there's no longer any good reason not to consider VX or B6 for transcon flights.

GregMM

Yes, it is true, or at least recommended by the FAA panel that has been studying this.

WSJ subscribers only:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...458388274.html

FAA Panel Endorses Wi-Fi as Safe
Report Suggests Lifting Restrictions on Hand-Held Devices Under 10,000 Feet

Free summary:
http://www.theverge.com/2013/10/2/47...nics-use-wi-fi

A special United States Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) panel has been discussing loosening in-flight electronics restrictions. ... the panel is now endorsing Wi-Fi use ... determined that Wi-Fi use is essentially safe regardless of ... the altitude of the plane.

"The vast majority" of aircraft "are going to be just fine," says Amazon's vice president of global public policy, Paul Misener, who is part of the committee. While there are recommendations to allow gate-to-gate use of devices, the panel doesn't specifically recommend Wi-Fi use during takeoff and landing. Instead, it recommends simpler testing of existing Wi-Fi solutions used by airlines. Cellular connections are still off limits,

REPUBLIC757

I was praying not to be on the new A320 this morning and thankfully, I wasn't but the a/c I was on had no IFE. It had leather seats, audio dials with power in place but once the F/A's did the safety demo manually I knew it was a bad sign. I went back to the galley for a cup of coffee and they said the screens got ripped out when the wifi was installed. There were only about a dozen people using the wifi on the flight this morning. One of the F/A's even commented "Someone is getting a big bonus check at the end of the year for this!" Both disagreed that ripping out IFE was a good move. They said they had numerous complaints from pax on a recent LAX-IAD flight.

I'm definitely complaining about this now that I've flown on one of the "IFE-less" 320s. I'll tell Jeff that I gave UA a chance over the last few years but I'm Delta from now on. It's too bad because the crews are good, but I don't see how paying for wifi is a perk over free IFE. It's a Doug Park US move circa 2005.

So now if you see a big bubble on the top of the A320, it means the IFE likely got ripped out. Avoid.

star_world

The very articles you quoted confirm the point I made above. The FAA panel concluded that there was likely no risk in allowing WiFi communications during any stage of a flight, but there is no planned change to allow the use of WiFi below 10,000ft - as I said above. The Verge article you quoted even says the following:

iluv2fly

Please limit the discussion to the topic of this thread.

The recent FAA discussion on the restrictions can take place in a different thread in a different forum.

iluv2fly
Moderator, UA

star_world

Well there are approx. 20 A320s with WiFi and overhead LCD monitors, and 14 with WiFi and the overhead monitors removed, so your last comment certainly isn't true (for now, anyway).

https://sites.google.com/site/united...fleet-tracking

And your argument above seems to say that the only IFE that will be available is pay WiFi, when UA has specifically stated that there will be a streaming-based IFE system installed on these aircraft. Misleading, to say the least. Unless your complaint above is based solely on the current, interim state (you didn't elaborate).

edcho

This was discussed OTOB (on sbm12's thread) about this but we don't know what UA will do with the "streaming part". They did leave language there to indicate that they will evaluate and potentially charge the streaming (video) content (which wouldn't surprise me). I guess I could see it as a rental streaming model -- like pay $10.00 to stream this movie on this device for the duration of the flight. However, we just don't know and I wouldn't jump to conclusions either way for awhile.

REPUBLIC757

Either way, it sucked. The captain was even confused. He said channel 9 was one even though channel 9 was ripped out.

And you know darn well they are going to charge for streaming content. Every single move in this merger has been for penny pinching reasons, only to please the bottom line. They had a perfectly decent product on the A320, now it's ruined.

harryhood

I think one of the biggest negatives about losing IFE in favor of WiFi-streamed content is that it is somewhat elitist -- only people who have laptops or wifi-capable mobile devices will be able to use it. Those who are less financially well off or are technological luddites or are simply older and still navigating their way through flip phones are SOL when it comes to IFE.

The in-seat music and overhead video are lifesavers for that segment of the populatiojn looking for distraction on TCON flights but who haven't the ability or the inclination to spring for an expensive laptop or mobile device.

Now as technology becames even more widely distributed and technology costs go down (As they inevitably will over time), this becomes less of an issue. But right now it just feels elitist to me.

star_world

They had an old, very poor quality video system (very limited viewing angles / impossible to see from many seats) with zero choice and bottom of the barrel content.

That's not a "perfectly decent product" to anyone but the most die-hard fan.

I have no opinion on their future offering since I haven't seen it yet, but I wouldn't be so quick to defend what they are getting rid of.

The biggest downside I can see is actually for the crew, who now have to do manual safety demos.

REPUBLIC757

I'm confused. How did the A319/A320 have limited viewing angles? You are getting confused with the 757, in which the CRTs aren't as visible from the window seats.

Besides, it was the same kind of LCD system that was featured on the CO 738 and 739, before the DTV binge. And I was just on a 753 on LAX-DEN and the A320 screens were larger in comparison. Although I'm sure it's only a matter of time before they rip those out too.

The bigger issue is that UA management thinks they are ahead of the curve by provided a PPV internet wifi program. As I said, today I only noticed about a dozen people in the cabin that paid for the wifi. And so they want to adapt this system to the 737 fleet as well? For a management team that was so anal about consistency at CO, this seems like an opposite move. To have pax go from AVOD 777 and 764 to PPV 737 and A320 is big step down. It's a cheap way out especially when those "flyer friendly" ad's show AVOD in Y.

sbm12

Lots of airlines do it, just none based in the USA. Has something to do with a lawsuit some years back after passengers watched their plane crash on the IFE and the damages being rather higher because of it.

halls120

Da*n lawyers ruin everything....

oliver2002

I had the pleasure of the padded BL3250 in E- last week from IAD-IAH and shortly after in F on IAH-SEA (same aircraft).

IAD-IAH in 32F:
For the seasoned LH short haul traveller the super padded seat looks strange (some fake padded sumo wrestler costume came to mind). The padding definitely takes the edge out of the extreme features you see in the LH NEK seat: it didn't transmit the backrub you usually get from the knees of the pax behind you, and the elements of the backrest frame could not be felt either. The flight was nearly 3 hours and I survived. Sitting in E- the general comments from fellow pax were pretty good. Purchased the wifi for 6.99$, which was decently priced compared to what Panasonic charges on LH Flynet for a longhaul flight. I didn't partake in the food offerings (I know subject of a different thread anyway). Wifi was fast, downloaded a 23 minute episode of TBBT in 3-4 minutes. Lots of people used the service back in the last 10-12 rows of E-, 60% of the cabin had some tablet/smart phone or laptop running with BYOIFE, another 10-20% had reading material of the paper kind with them (I know, gasp!). Shared my wifi after 2hours with my seat neighbour...

FAs really struggled with the inflight demo, strange considering they need to know it case the IFE system (on other aircraft) is inop.

IAH-SEA in 2A:
most of the travellers in F were either talking to each other or typing away on their laptops (merrily ignoring reminders about the 10000ft rule from FAs, BTW). Shame UA didn't put new seats in the F cabin, the old seats were really showing their age.

Missed channel 9. Don't miss the ancient CRT OH IFE though. Especially with the ancient headsets and the never working sockets.

SFO 1K

Today I flew on N460UA with the new seats, no IFE, working WiFi ^ and lived to tell about it.

First - I did not find any problem with the seat itself. This is of course subjective as we all know and YMMV. However, I wanted to provide as much visual information and some notes to enhance the level of knowledge and awareness of everyone on the board.

I sat in 7A, bulkhead window, and had been on 3 other A320s with the old seats this week so my ability to compare was rather fresh. The new seat is firmer, but a lot of that can be attributed to being new. It wasn't uncomfortable, it felt like a new car seat feels (and I just got a new car - so...). Width wise, it was comparable to 7A on the old seats - tray table in arm rest, etc. I was able to place my 15" Retina MacBook Pro on the tray table w/o issue and it was sturdy enough to handle the weight.

What I observed is that the bulkhead has been moved back slightly, increasing overall storage space behind Row 3. This means that everyone in Row 7 can store something under the bulkhead wall (there is no longer a retaining bracket on the floor, btw) and there is still room for the UA blanket bag and even crew bags. It also means Row 3 gets more/better recline. Row 7 loses about 1" overall, I would say - since my observation is that it used to get two full windows and now it gets 1 3/4 windows. My photos below show you what I'm talking about.

I'm also showing you Row 8 for relative comparison of the legroom compared to Row 7. Lastly, you can see how I was able to stretch my legs without issue.

One man's opinion, but for me, I would be fine on this plane for any flight on which it operates - as compared to the older seats on the same plane and route. Of course, I'd rather not be flying a narrowbody plane transcon, but that's a different discussion.

Row 7 DEF


Row 8 DEF


Row 8 DEF looking at backs of Row 7 DEF


Seat 7A Legroom


Seat 7A Window, note bulkhead placement slightly reducing one window