So i brought my PC to do some offline stuff while im flying over to spain.
To my surprise Norwiegian has started to bring free internet access on their new planes.
What is your thought of this?
Imo, it is just amazing.
So i brought my PC to do some offline stuff while im flying over to spain.
To my surprise Norwiegian has started to bring free internet access on their new planes.
What is your thought of this?
Imo, it is just amazing.
It's good for general web browsing... Not sure what the purpose of this thread is though lol
Free internet? I am amazed, seems like airlines absolutely love to add a fee to everything these days.
Quite a few large carriers in the U.S. provide this, but in my lone experience crossing the Pacific, Qantas did not. I'm assuming there's either licensing or technological issues that might prohibit such a measure for trans-Pacific flights, but they do quite a terrible job addressing it to consumers who are obviously curious why it doesn't exist in this day and age.
Be reasonable. You might be right, you could be wrong, but either way most people won't change their minds if you keep shouting at them.
"When once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always want to be."
it's a neat idea, but obviously geared towards the business man checking his stocks and emailing his associates, rather than us gamers. It's satellite internet, and that kind of internet has really high latency due to the amount of time it takes for the signals to bounce from one end to the other. So you can maybe farm in WoW with it, but that's all about I'd suggest doing with it
Also -- you should check the rates on the data. Some airlines charge you if you go over a certain "Fair-usage" limit.
I had a cool sig... then photobucket ate my pics and now its borked. :/ oh wells...
Becuase £400-650 to cross the atlantic in a seat thats **MAYBE** 16inches wide.... isn't extortion enough?
Not to mention that trans-atlantic flights are NEVER full.
To be honest, yes I agree... This is something that should have been added A LONG TIME AGO. And should have been made standard.
I gurantee you, people will fly more if they stop trying to sqeeze so many people into such a small space... I actually know about 10 people who litterally cannot fly becuase the toilet is soo small, and maybe 6 more that can't fly becuase the seats are too small. Most of these are people who would fly on a regular basis (7 or 8 times a year) but end up taking a cruise liner/ship instead.
Has it not occured to anyone that flying a plane at 10% capacity is WHY they're not making a profit?
And that was kind of the point I was making... Taking a Cruise/Ferry etc.. makes it almost not worth going due to the extended travel time.
And LoL I wish it was made up... the 8hr direct flight from London to California last week was torture as the guy sitting next to me couldn't get out of his seat without help, resulting in neither of us being able to use the toilet till we landed and everyone else had already departed. And even if you do "upgrade" to First or Business class, the toilets don't get bigger.... And this doesn't just apply to "large(r)" people, also people who find it difficult to walk. One guy who did manage to make it had to leave the door open so he could sit down, otherwise the steward trying to help him wouldn't have been able to help him back up onto his feet.
Regardless... this isn't the point of the thread... To which yes, I firmly belive this should have been made standard a long time ago, just like TV's in the back of the seats are now (and have been for the better part of 25 years...)
Are you referring to obese or claustrophobic people? My dad is very obese and he seems to manage, so unless we're talking morbidly here, or claustrophobia, then it's their fault for refusing to fly.
I don't know why you think more people will fly if they stop squeezing people on. That guarantee is pulled from nowhere?
If I were to make an educated guess from my experience, I'd wager that if they 'squeezed' less people on to flights, LESS people would want to fly as waiting times, delays and ticket prices would all go UP - in a business sense it's inefficient and the consumers would feel the pinch (financially) most of all. Heck, oil is running out. Even kerosone costs so damn much, in addition to the typical staffing and maintenance checks, etc, that taking reduced capacity is a ghastly thought for airlines - especially with the large amount of people who want to travel these days.
Ultimately the typical person will, when they have a strong desire to get from A to B, make the damn journey. Sure, economy may be cramped, but it's not THAT bad, unless you're either enormous or claustrophobic, or have some kind of fear of flying. Bear in mind that this would be referring to the minority. You buy cheap tickets for economy, you should know what you get. As for business+ passengers who can't use the loos, well like I said, minority.
10% capacity? Way to over-exaggerate to drive your point. I'm a seasoned flyer and I have been on graveyard flights with only a few seats filled, but that has happened to me VERY OCCASIONALLY. Most flights, especially prime routes, are damn busy!
Last edited by Will; 2011-06-22 at 01:02 PM.