| Different pricing model I think they need to get away from the per-flight pricing model they have. That might work OK for infrequent fliers, but frequent fliers, such as business travelers, aren't going to want to pay for every single flight. They need to offer a package that allows access for a specific period of time, possibly something like a year for $50.
And for those who counter that this price is too low, people can access the Internet at home, at work, and at wi-fi hotspots, and many airports have wi-fi. Add in the fact the you often get delayed at airports for long periods before your flight leaves, so if you have work that requires access, you've likely already finished it by the time the plane boards. By the time people board the plane, they usually just want to get where they're going. |
|
|
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | They do offer a few different options, but nothing close to $50/year. The fact that their plans are only good for a single airline indicates that the prices are relatively high because each airline is raking in a hefty portion of this fee. The airlines don't really want this to succeed. At least, it certainly doesn't seem like they do.
The link to the pricing is provided in the news article. |
|
 r81984Fair and BalancedPremium
join:2001-11-14
Katy, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
 ·AT&T DSL Service
 ·row44
| From what I read the airlines can either buy the equipment for $100K and then share its revenue, or allow aircell to install the equipment on their plane, but then Aircell keeps all the revenue.
The reason why you have to pay per airline is the money goes towards that airlines contract and can't be used towards another airlines contract.
I would imagine this will change in a few years after everyone makes enough to pay for all the equipment and installation.
--
Republicans: less fiscally conservative than that other party. |
|
