Kacee

That blanket statement is not accurate. DL also has a streaming product. And WN uses exclusively a streaming product.

Not my experience the last year or so. No, it's not 100% reliable, but I would no longer describe as unreliable.

And the new UA systems are superior to gogo in both performance and pricing. Last time I was on ps, gogo was priced at $31.99 for the entire flight. On their own systems, UA will sell you a faster connection for half the price or less. The TPAC pricing, at $16.99, is particularly fair.

Yes quite a bit of confusion here.

UA has been way too slow with its installs, and the delays on the dark 739s are particularly galling, but I think their overall plan is sound. Execution, as usual, has been an issue.

JVPhoto

I have found pretty good reliability but sometimes the pricing structure I don't feel compelled.
$15 for MEL-LAX but $20 LHR-EWR
Maybe they're banking on more people with expense reports to submit on the LHR route.

mduell

Requiring the internet to work for wifi to be called "functional" is exactly the confusion I'm referring to. The wifi can work and the streaming device entertainment over the wifi can be working just fine on a plane with no internet connection at all or with a broken one. Wifi does not, and has not, mean a working internet connection.

They're testing different price points to see what works best for UA.

tyroner

Aer Lingus provides free wifi web browsing in trans-Atlantic J.

greg99

Well, that's certainly an interesting perspective on how passengers should construe the term wifi.

It's not how I would interpret it, and it's not how UA advertises it. Below is the text of an email I received before a flight last week, a flight on which I had no streaming entertainment (to be expected b/c it was an ERJ-175) or data connectivity.

Based on the email I received, I consider the latter to be a failure.

In UA's own vernacular, wifi means air-ground data, and streaming entertainment is different.

This is also supported by the fact that every time I've had the air-ground data connectivity fail mid-flight, I've gotten a refund for the full amount of the charges, regardless of the fact that streaming entertainment might work.

It's also not consistent with how the rest of the airline industry uses the term wifi, which is irrespective of whether there are on-board video servers.

Greg

mduell

UA is indeed doing a terrible job with the messaging that leads to conversations like:

"What IFE is available on my flight?"
>"Streaming device entertainment"
"How do I use that?"
>"Connect your personal device to the wifi network called "United_Wi-Fi"
"Oh it has wifi, I'll just entertain myself on facebook"
>"No, there's on internet access, just onboard content"
"But you said I connect to the wifi, which is how I get to facebook!"

So if we're going to discuss the various UA entertainment options (internet and streaming content) going forward, I think it's important that we differentiate what we're talking about.

In addition, your proposal that "wifi" means "internet" is inconsistent with the entire premise of the thread, which is titled "united wifi" but is concerned with the streaming content rather than the internet and starts with concern that IFE on wifi is free now (which internet is not) but may not be in the future.

sbm12

FI does, too.
TK charges in the back now. A friend flew it last night and had to pay. Not sure if it is free in biz or not.

JetBlue also has it for free, including allowing streaming from "real" internet services like NetFlix, Hulu or Amazon. But a much smaller footprint of coverage.

cruisr

But, but, but, I like Direct TV.

Plane-is-home

I am ok with just wifi streaming. But I hate that I have to enter all that information on sCO planes to just get to the free stuff (and even if it's flight status). Better solved on the sUA planes.

poverty.jet.set

for longer flights, if there aren't power outlets, the usability becomes rather restricted

channa

They can put different content packages in the streaming content based on where you're sitting.



The difference being that DL's new planes come with seatback TVs, AVOD, satellite TV, Internet and streaming content.

United's new planes come with none of that, and you may see streaing content or streaming content + Internet on them.

In fact, I don't think there's a single United plane out there with the same entertainment that DL puts on their new planes (satellite TV + AVOD + streaming + Internet). And I don't think they plan to do that.

Kacee

No, although the 744s come close, with wifi, streaming, and AVOD in J and F.

And DL's MD80s and much of the 757 fleet have no seatback screens.

Plus the UA wifi is better than DL's.

Although DL got its fleet outfitted with wifi much quicker and doesn't have a massive sub-fleet of new aircraft that's still basically dark (i.e., UA 739s).

channa

And so is the live TV (UA has more channels, though DL's is free).

The issue with the Internet is consistency. UA is a crapshoot, and you can't really plan for it. If you're a business traveler, that's a big deal. If you're a business owner and need (want) to stay connected, UA can be a problem.

Plus the pricing on UA is all over the place, and you have to pay per flight. With GoGo, you can buy a day pass, month pass, annual pass, etc. They get what frequent flyers need. UA has none of these offerings that appeal to very frequent flyers.

Kacee

You can count on it TPAC from SFO.

But we're really quibbling over details.

I agree consistency is UA's weak point. I also find it incredibly annoying to have to enter credit card info on most aircraft to purchase wifi, when they have the capability to simply charge a card linked to MP account.

But UA is catching up. The gap is not nearly so large as it was a year or two ago, and in some (important) respects UA is now superior.

Scott6067

I just used them and it was great. Sign in similiar to hotel, name and seat number.