1353513636

After flying EWR-SFO (6.5 hrs) on an A320 (new one), I really wonder what was going through the heads of United when they designed that plane. What is the point of installing Wi-Fi if I can only use it for about 2-3 hours until I run out of battery because there is no power at any seat? I ended up just doing a bit of planning on united.com and then reading, because they were charging a price appropriate only for all 6.5 hours although one could effectively only get 2-3 from paying the cost.

Craig6z

When you say a "new" 320, does that mean it was recently updated? IIRC UA hasn't bought any 320's in a dozen years.

As to a device lasting only 2-3 hours on battery power, I'm not understanding why that should be much concern to the airline. Many people have mobile devices that can last a full flight, whether an iPad or a laptop (my Lenovo can go about 8 hours if I'm careful).

In fact why would the airline want every Wi-Fi user to be hooked up for a full 6 hour flight? There is only so many concurrent sessions that can exist. If people were connected non-stop take-off to landing I would think it would minimize revenue potential.

MiserHobbyist

Use an external battery. Just Google external laptop battery. I used to have one of those modular Dell laptops where you could pull out the optical drive and replace it with a second battery.

belynch

While that's one point, you could easily point out that UA installed power on their 737 fleet, most of which do not have WiFi (yet).

The reality is UA has opted not to put power on their Airbus fleet, when they had a perfect opportunity during the seat retrofits, because they're cheap.

Jflynn64

I've wondered the exact same thing. Why wouldn't they attempt to make it the most easy to use for the customer which would include power at the seat. I've found the United wifi completely useless while the gogo internet on other airlines great. I actually subscribe to their monthly plans even though I only fly them monthly.

mikelcf

I think the OP's point is if they are taking the plane out of service to update it anyway, why in world wouldn't they put in power, even if only in F. I agree. I wonder about that every time I am in one of the renovated ones.

Mike Jacoubowsky

I would suggest that many, perhaps most are using notebooks of various sorts or iPads and that the power limitation isn't quite as bad as you make it out to be. It's bad for you, and it's bad for me if I'm using my "normal" laptop... but not everybody needs (or is using) a battery-eating Ferrari. There area a lot of very nice, not-too-expensive laptops and notebooks with 6 hour+ battery life these days. And they weigh a lot less than my fire-eating dragon too.

Also, keep in mind there are few domestic flights longer than EWR-SFO, and that 6.5 hour time probably represents about 5.5 hours, if that, of "quality time with your laptop".

RandomBaritone

It's especially puzzling given that most planes had power in F via the old EmPower style plugs back in the freaking 90s. Many UA F seats even still have the old jack, but they've plugged it up, presumably to avoid paying a licensing fee after their deal with EmPower ended. Amazing.

Kacee

Pretty much every Apple device has sufficient battery to surf the internet for a full transcon. The new ones can probably run movies the whole time.

This is UA we're talking about.

Boo_Radley

The question "Why does UA have WiFi but no power on 6 hour flights when my battery only lasts 3" assumes that everyone else is in the same situation as you. They aren't; many people use devices that last longer than 3 hours, or carry enough power to last them their whole flight. Further, many people value 3 hours of WiFi connectivity over 6 hours of power.

Brattflyer

Let's bring this to another level. Flying in Y, ORD-HKG. No power and the internet on a 14+ hour flight is $17.00. My charged apple mini ran put of power after 9 hours. Sorry apologists, this is undefendable.

belynch

All of my devices (laptop, 2 iPhones, and an iPad) hold more than 6 hours of battery life.

The only time I step on a plane with all of those devices fully charged is a 6am flight.

I don't see wifi and in-seat power as a binary equation. Yes, I care more about working wifi (something that's elusive to United) than in-seat power, but if you're going to gut a plane and install new seats and fit the plane for wifi the reason you're not providing power at the seats is C H E A P.

The real question is does not having in-seat power influence purchase behavior? For me, no. Lack of wifi, if all else is close to equal, yes. But it doesn't matter because I value on-time performance far greater than anything else and UA doesn't win that metric.

aacharya

Honestly, that's a relative bargain. I just paid $12.99 for IAD-SMF.

But agree - no power for 14+ hours is awful if one doesn't sleep. I can't defend UA here, but personally, I'd have slept for a lot of that flight.

Kacee

Are we reading the same thread? Cause I'm not seeing any apologists here . . . .

ps. It's "indefensible."

Mike Jacoubowsky

That's not the OP's situation. You likely consider me an apologist in this thread, but I'd agree with you that power should be available on a TPAC or TATL. I just don't see it as the end of the world on a TCON.