# Airline Wi-Fi: Fee Or Free?



## WhoozOn1st (Sep 5, 2009)

"More than 70% of those surveyed would choose an airline with Wi-Fi over one that provided meal service, and 55% said they would shift their flight by one day if it meant getting the in-flight service, according to the survey.

"But so far, passengers are not using airborne Wi-Fi in such high percentages."

Airlines racing to install in-flight Wi-Fi service


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 5, 2009)

WhoozOn1st said:


> "More than 70% of those surveyed would choose an airline with Wi-Fi over one that provided meal service, and 55% said they would shift their flight by one day if it meant getting the in-flight service, according to the survey.
> "But so far, passengers are not using airborne Wi-Fi in such high percentages."
> 
> Airlines racing to install in-flight Wi-Fi service


Well Patrick,I understand that business travelers would want this service,especially if they dont have to pay for it!But if there are such things as foamers on airlines I can just picture their tweets or e-mails/trip reports: fought the circus @ the airport/took off late/here I am @ 30,000 feet looking @ nothing/

crammed in like cattle/may or may not be landing on time and where we are supposed to!We all know the problems for Amtrak,guess the metro Area trains will all have it eventually,but the Downeaster isnt exactly in NYC when it gets into Maine so who knows? :lol:


----------



## saxman (Sep 6, 2009)

I've tried the wi-fi thing on the plane on Delta. This past month in Atlanta, there have been Go-go Inflight Wireless guys handing out free passes to get online. Otherwise its something like $12 or $13. Kind of expensive I think. You can also pay for a monthly pass. Problem is you never know when you're going to get a plane with wi-fi installed on it right now.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Sep 6, 2009)

saxman66 said:


> Kind of expensive I think.


Seems pretty pricey to me, too, but I'm strictly a leisure traveler. It's easy to see that once the availability details get ironed out in-flight web access could prove valuable to business types, especially on long flights.


----------



## ALC Rail Writer (Sep 8, 2009)

In a related topic the last domino falls...

This isn't so bad compared to the rest of the airlines, but it seems to be a sign that fees are the future of airlines.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Sep 8, 2009)

ALC_Rail_Writer said:


> In a related topic the last domino falls...
> This isn't so bad compared to the rest of the airlines, but it seems to be a sign that fees are the future of airlines.


Damn,hope some bean counter @ Amtrak doesnt read this and say : "Boss,I got a wonderful idea how to increrase revenue without any additional cost!


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (Sep 10, 2009)

My flight from Houston to EWR was on a newer 757 it was pretty neat. It had touch screens for the entertanment. It also had stanard power outlets. It was ready for wi-fi they just haven't started the service I was impressed with all the technology considering the next plane had 0 on board enterntainment, or TV screens.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 16, 2009)

Its hard to justify Amtrak charging baggage check fees. Baggage is allowed, in huge quantity, to be carried on. The long distance trains offer checked baggage, in part, to reduce crowding in the coaches. If Amtrak wants more revenue, they'd be better off attempting to get UPS, FedEx, or USPS contracts. While I fully understand why David Gunn made a sweeping gesture to the (understandably) pissed off freight railroads in the form of a reversal of the ExpressTrak policies of the idiotic walking ego, George Warrington, the freights wouldn't mind Amtrak handling half a baggage car full of first class mail.

At that time, it was imperative to placate the freight roads in a big way, and killing the entire concept of Amtrak hauling freight by contract was probably the right answer. But now that its been five years since the last Amtrak freight train left the depot (the Kentucky Cardinal, Lake Country Limited, and Three Rivers were primarily freight trains, remember- sometimes not even carrying passenger cars!) I think it would be ok for Amtrak to regain the USPS contracts that they were specifically, by the Amtrak law, allowed to haul.

The problem, of course, is that in the ensuing years USPS has had massive financial problems, has reorganized, and quite a few of the facilities for handling railmail have closed.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 16, 2009)

All those trains you mentioned still carried passenger cars. There may not have been many passengers in a few of those cars, although the Pennsy had some very good ridership, but they still did have at least one coach.

And Gunn's cutting the Express-Trak had nothing to do with the loss of UPS, FedEx, or USPS contracts. They went away on their own and they were never part of Express-Trak.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 17, 2009)

AlanB said:


> All those trains you mentioned still carried passenger cars. There may not have been many passengers in a few of those cars, although the Pennsy had some very good ridership, but they still did have at least one coach.
> And Gunn's cutting the Express-Trak had nothing to do with the loss of UPS, FedEx, or USPS contracts. They went away on their own and they were never part of Express-Trak.


I'm not saying they weren't supposed to run with passenger cars. Of course they were. But the cars were bad-ordered, sometimes frequently.

As for the latter, the record stands that Gunn cancelled the USPS contracts ALONG WITH the Express Trak stuff.


----------



## AlanB (Sep 18, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > All those trains you mentioned still carried passenger cars. There may not have been many passengers in a few of those cars, although the Pennsy had some very good ridership, but they still did have at least one coach.
> ...


If you have proof that Amtrak ran one of those trains without even so much as one passenger car, please provide that proof. Because I've never seen such a thing and the host RR's wouldn't have permitted it. And short of the Lake City train, the others while perhaps never sold out, were far too popular for there to have not been an uproar if the train had gone out without any coaches.

And regarding the USPS, I never said that Gunn didn't cancel the contract. I said that it had nothing to do with Express-Trak. Mail was never part of the Express-Trak division and it never fell under their control. It was a seperate decision and it wasn't made because of the fact that he had killed Express-Trak.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Sep 25, 2009)

AlanB said:


> If you have proof that Amtrak ran one of those trains without even so much as one passenger car, please provide that proof. Because I've never seen such a thing and the host RR's wouldn't have permitted it. And short of the Lake City train, the others while perhaps never sold out, were far too popular for there to have not been an uproar if the train had gone out without any coaches.
> And regarding the USPS, I never said that Gunn didn't cancel the contract. I said that it had nothing to do with Express-Trak. Mail was never part of the Express-Trak division and it never fell under their control. It was a seperate decision and it wasn't made because of the fact that he had killed Express-Trak.


NS wrote a letter to Amtrak explaining their reasons for deciding not to allow the Skyline Connection. Among the reasons listed was observations of the Kentucky Cardinal and Lake Country Limited running without coaches. The letter is publicly available. I don't have a copy with me, but I have seen it. FOIA it if you want to see it. Beyond that, question NS's veracity.

The fact of the matter, it might have technically been different decisions, but they were made at the same time and for the same reasons.


----------

