Greedy Air NZ to allow calls, texts on new plane

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › Greedy Air NZ to allow calls, texts on new plane

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

6804 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3694

Lifetime subscriber

#436713 8-Feb-2011 10:37

nate: From Lance Wiggs' blog:

Air New Zealand is testing something which I view with grave concern.
They are testing a system that hijacks cell phones on their flights, and charging extortionate data rates along the way.

The proposal is to place a mini cell-site inside the aircraft, and have it connect to satellite. Any calls or data traffic made during the flight would attract roaming rates which are beyond the standard international extortion:

Calls will be $3.50 per minute

Inbound calls will be $2.00 per minute

Data will be $20,000 per Gigabyte

Texts will be 80 cents to send

Seems very excessive doesn't it?

I have a problem with you calling Air New Zealand greedy.
A quick web search shows the above charges are fairly normal compared to similar services offered by other airlines. The inbound and outbound call rates and text rates are equivalent to Vodafone's zone2/3 roaming charges. Vodafone's data roaming is roughly $10/Mb but that's using terrestrial cell links not satellite. Goodness knows where the satellite downlink is but more than likely somewhere like Singapore. Data rate will be measured in Kb/s (i.e. dial up speeds)
My phone has the ability to warn/prevent roaming, and I assume the pre-departure announcement will still include something about your phone being off for takeoff and landing. You don't have to turn it back on.
Having travelled quite extensively for work it still amazes me that people who have paid $30 to fly from Christchurch to Auckland will complain when additional services carry a levy. At the same time think nothing of paying $50 for a taxi to get to the airport.

As far as people doing voice calls in crowded (and confined) public places, they are always a PITA.

Edit: added dial speed comment

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

wellygary

8816 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 5300

#436721 8-Feb-2011 10:58

Dingbatt: Goodness knows where the satellite downlink is but more than likely somewhere like Singapore.

If they are using an Inmarsat solution it is possible that they are using the Stratos Global dishes in Albany

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 138

#436732 8-Feb-2011 11:20

From my time in CAA (some years back), I say the issue is more about liability.

Aviation is about risk avoidance. Aircraft manuals and pilot training focus on how to operate the aircraft within set limits (which can often be easily exceeded). If everyone follows the rules and the training and the procedures, flying is safe. Push any part of the envelope, and even if you just have a puckery near miss moment, the fault will fall clearly on the operator, the maintainers, the pilots or the authorities that didn't maintain ground based equipment and systems. This is why flying is as safe as it is, because people are generally well aware and accepting of their responsibilities.

Where, in say the Telecommunications industry, standards are set to help define product compatibility. It doesn't discourage innovation or bold experimentation as the risk is split with the development, manufacturing and even end users. The marketeers determine if they got it right or not.

Aviation has tendered to be (naturally) conservative. Standards are based around known good practices. Innovations are incremental because the liability to end user customers is always a consideration. Its a risk adverse environment, consumers may want the innovation but they want the operator to take the responsibility. So the operators spend time looking for the precedents within their standards that give them the confidence to be bold.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#436737 8-Feb-2011 11:33

oxnsox: From my time in CAA (some years back), I say the issue is more about liability.

Aviation is about risk avoidance. Aircraft manuals and pilot training focus on how to operate the aircraft within set limits (which can often be easily exceeded). If everyone follows the rules and the training and the procedures, flying is safe. Push any part of the envelope, and even if you just have a puckery near miss moment, the fault will fall clearly on the operator, the maintainers, the pilots or the authorities that didn't maintain ground based equipment and systems. This is why flying is as safe as it is, because people are generally well aware and accepting of their responsibilities.

Where, in say the Telecommunications industry, standards are set to help define product compatibility. It doesn't discourage innovation or bold experimentation as the risk is split with the development, manufacturing and even end users. The marketeers determine if they got it right or not.

Aviation has tendered to be (naturally) conservative. Standards are based around known good practices. Innovations are incremental because the liability to end user customers is always a consideration. Its a risk adverse environment, consumers may want the innovation but they want the operator to take the responsibility. So the operators spend time looking for the precedents within their standards that give them the confidence to be bold.

I agree completely, and I applaud the aviation industry for their multi layered approach to safety.

So why do they allow dangerous cellphones to remain in the hands of potential terrorists for the entire flight? If the phones are actually dangerous in use, surely they would ensure users are unable to turn them on or use them?

(Yes I exagerate for effect - but tell me my point is actually invalid)

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

geekiegeek

2513 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 625
Inactive user

#436748 8-Feb-2011 11:49

What about the poor person who forgets to switch thier smartphone off and it goes on to sync a bunch of emails and maybe some other apps while in the air, or would you have to chosse to connect to the system?

Dunnersfella

4100 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887

#436759 8-Feb-2011 12:02

I'm sure we'll see that 'poor person' appear on Campbell Live or similar, crying foul about a charge they can't afford...
Or some 'poor parent' who gave their iPhone to their child so they could play games, and in turn, downloaded apps after apps...
Bleeding hearts will cry foul, others will cringe at people who talk on the phone in crowded spaces.
Yet somehow, the world will continue to turn.

...somehow.

AliExpress

Shop now on AliExpress (affiliate link).

TinyTim

1058 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 167

Trusted

#436783 8-Feb-2011 12:50

Beccara:

There is currently no crash in aviation history where cellphone's have been attributed to the crash or even contributed to the crash. The closest thing to a link is a UK report stating that cellphone's (Of the AMPS kind I believe) operating near the flight deck could in theory affect DME beacon reception if the shielding on that system was not maintained correctly.

Even BOEING have said they have never been able to cause a fault/issue in an correctly operating aircraft with cellphones

The best anyone's able to have come up with is the old GSM speaker buzz in the pilot's headset if once again shielding on the electrical systems was not maintained correctly. I've got my PPL and have seen pilot's flying low alt on the phone for 10-20-30min's at a time often, No pilot I know has ever reported any adverse affect and it seems neither have plane makers!

There was legitimate fear back in the day that AMP's phone's could cause problems and it was mainly based around DME beacon's used for IFR that a cheap phone could cause RF bleed over into the DME bands which is one of the main reasons for the ban coming into affect, I think about 94 a new set of standards came out for EMF shielding on planes to counter this but as we've come alone we've found that new GSM phones and TDMA/CDMA didn't have the same issue's even with the old spec.

In short, please show me a JAA/CAA/NTSB report citing cellphone's as a factor in a crash or in even an in-flight incident, Because nobody I know has ever heard of it and google is only coming back with "theories" from those outside the industry

Perhaps not directly causing crashes, and it's not just phones either... check out this recent article from the NY Times:

Interfering with Flight?

"...please turn off all electronic devices. But some passengers invariably ignore the request, perhaps thinking that their iPods or e-books do not count. And really, does it matter if the devices are left on?

The answer, it turns out, is that sometimes it may." (emphasis added)

and

"Since 2000, there have been at least 10 voluntary reports [of passengers' devices affecting flight electronics] filed by pilots in the United States with the Aviation Safety Reporting System, administered by NASA. In 2007, one pilot recounted an instance when the navigational equipment on his Boeing 737 had failed after takeoff. A flight attendant told a passenger to turn off a hand-held GPS device and the problem on the flight deck went away."

I was on a flight in Europe about 10 years ago, using my laptop with a colleague. An attendant came up to me from up front and asked me if I was using a CD-ROM in the laptop. I told them I wasn't; she went away, only to come back a few minutes later and ask me to turn the laptop off. Then I discovered that there *was* a CD spinning in the drive, probably a music CD playing in the background unknown to me.

The point is, the pilots had obviously detected interference and suspected it was a CD player and asked the attendant to find it. Ok, not interference from a mobile phone transmission, and it didn't cause a crash (in this instance!). But it's their plane and my life; I'd rather they err on the side of caution.

Beccara

1473 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 517

ID Verified

#436785 8-Feb-2011 12:52

Seems I've derailed this thread! How about we start a new topic on Planes and Phones?

Most problems are the result of previous solutions...

All comment's I make are my own personal opinion and do not in any way, shape or form reflect the views of current or former employers unless specifically stated

bazzer

3438 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 267

Trusted

#436787 8-Feb-2011 12:53

geekiegeek: What about the poor person who forgets to switch thier smartphone off and it goes on to sync a bunch of emails and maybe some other apps while in the air, or would you have to chosse to connect to the system?

Who "forgets" to turn their phone off when they fly?!

wreck90

780 posts

Ultimate Geek
Inactive user

#436790 8-Feb-2011 12:56

Cellphone don't cause planes to crash.

THe airlines are just taking the cautious approach - but ,now they see a money making opportunity.

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#436798 8-Feb-2011 13:04

TinyTim: [big snip]

"Since 2000, there have been at least 10 voluntary reports [of passengers' devices affecting flight electronics] filed by pilots in the United States with the Aviation Safety Reporting System, administered by NASA. In 2007, one pilot recounted an instance when the navigational equipment on his Boeing 737 had failed after takeoff. A flight attendant told a passenger to turn off a hand-held GPS device and the problem on the flight deck went away."
[snip]

Yes I know many GPS units hav e Bluetooth, and I'm sure with the advent of phones, you could claim all sorts of things, but with the wording above, it sounds like a basic hand held GPS (They would have said phone if it was a smartphone)

GPS IS PASSIVE!!!!!

On an iPhone / android phone, when you put your phone in airplane mode, the GPS STAYS ON!!!

I'm afraid the incident above is nothing more than an anecdote. The fact a pilot "recounted" it, instead of "The incident report states" only goes to further point to the fact that anecdotes are being used to provide 'evidence' of electronic devices disrupting plane systems.

Why won't anyone point to the reproducible evidence rather than paste anecdotes? (Not getting at anyone in particular here - but it seems that there simply isn't any evidence)

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 138

#436817 8-Feb-2011 13:50

GPS units have Crystals in them.... therefore they can generate 'noise'.

These issues all relate back to the way aircraft are wired. In one sense it's a highly structured system in a complex loom. In another, its made up of a multitude of identical single cables...

Talkiet

4819 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3934

Trusted

#436819 8-Feb-2011 13:56

oxnsox: GPS units have Crystals in them.... therefore they can generate 'noise'.

These issues all relate back to the way aircraft are wired. In one sense it's a highly structured system in a complex loom. In another, its made up of a multitude of identical single cables...

So do watches.

However, why are phone manufacturers, even in the lovely litigious territories such as the US, happy to leave GPS enabled in flight mode? The only logical explanation is they are phenomenally sure of themselves that GPS isn't a danger.

Like beyond any reasonable persons definition of sure.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

oxnsox

1923 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 138

#436825 8-Feb-2011 14:15

Or haven't thought about it....

But you have a valid point

TinyTim

1058 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 167

Trusted

#436831 8-Feb-2011 14:45

Also it leads to the question, what is 'off'?

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6