Qantas axes inflight internet

[serfty]

Another Qantas FAIL with Joyce at the helm.

Good lord, how on Earth can you post that be a "fail" in a manner indicting the same level of many of the other criticisms of AJ?

Yes there can be degrees of "fail", and any such posting ignoring that can only serve to decrease the credibility of the poster.

Aside from that, yes, there was a fail, but that's why there was a Trial. Maybe at worst a failure in the technical aspects to make it fast enough for the bloated demands of contemporary website designers. How you can lay that in such a manner directly at the MD is rather breathtaking.

 

[moa999]

I have often wondered how a LCC like DY can offer it for free (though really only fast enough for mobile Facebook, etc), yet some legacy carriers charge a fortune for the same slow service.

Intra-US Internet is very different as it goes to grown based satellite (which you can do over land) which are much cheaper and have much more capacity compared to what you use over water.

 

[Must...Fly!]

Another Qantas FAIL with Joyce at the helm.

You'd like them to build a fleet of satellites to hover over the pacific, or install base stations in the ocean I suppose?

 

[defurax]

I think I am going to be a lone voice here, but I really enjoyed having access to emails on qf93-94. I paid for the 18 Mb allowance on my last three MEL-LAX flights. I thought it was there to stay...

Sent from my HTC Desire using AustFreqFly mobile app

 

[lovestotravel]

I would have liked it to continue and it's a fail of Qantas to be honest!

"Whilst customers who used the Wi-Fi service told us that they valued the option to connect in flight, overall the trial has demonstrated a lower than expected take-up of the service, particularly on overnight flights where sleep was their priority" explained a Qantas spokesperson.

Now you need to consider that Emirates have it and Singapore have it

Others are installing it

Emirates as a comparison

5MB of data for US$7.50
​

​

25MB of data for US$15
​

​

100MB of date for US$25

Singapore
10MB of data for US$10
30MB of data for US$25

Qantas
25MB of data for $29.90
35MB of data for $35.90

Yet again, Qantas were the most expensive, now of course that could be due to different costs of the satellites over the Pacific but still.......

Of interesting note "OnAir spokesman Aurelie Branchereau-Giles told Australian Business Traveller that "the bandwidth available will typically support 12 simultaneous users (and) our experience with in-service customers suggests that this is more than sufficient even for an A380."

​

​

 

[trippin_the_rift]

Such a shame.... for Qantas.

Factors probably never considered:-

- Price WAYYYYY too high.
- It's SLOW.
- Internet is NOT a profit center, it's a reason people book you over a direct competitor (see hotels for examples).
- You never knew if your aircraft would have internet. Emirates for example...now with 28 a380s, you know EVERY aircraft has it and you can rely on it being there.

My business partner will always pay MORE to fly Emirates because of internet. Last trip he was justifying a $3,000 premium to Europe in F to use internet.

Who will choose QF over EK now going to London? Bar & Lounge, Wifi, Shower, more IFE... yikes!

 

[lovestotravel]

My business partner will always pay MORE to fly Emirates because of internet. Last trip he was justifying a $3,000 premium to Europe in F to use internet.

Who will choose QF over EK now going to London? Bar & Lounge, Wifi, Shower, more IFE... yikes!

Yep and that's why QF will stop flying to Europe/Dubai in a few years, people will simply choose EK over QF

 

[amaroo]

I'd rather drink, eat & watch something different.......I love the fact that I can't do the every day normal things while flying.

 

[anat0l]

Good lord, how on Earth can you post that be a "fail" in a manner indicting the same level of many of the other criticisms of AJ?

Yes there can be degrees of "fail", and any such posting ignoring that can only serve to decrease the credibility of the poster.

Aside from that, yes, there was a fail, but that's why there was a Trial. Maybe at worst a failure in the technical aspects to make it fast enough for the bloated demands of contemporary website designers. How you can lay that in such a manner directly at the MD is rather breathtaking.

Careful serfty , you may be branded a blind and brainwashed Qantas apologist.


I think Qantas did this trial pretty blind and without enough due consideration. Did anyone even consider a domestic service? DJ is about to launch one; surely they are not building their own infrastructure, they have to be going to some provider. I'd think that the trans-continental would be a great market for this service, not to mention that a lot of the revenue will be courtesy of expense accounts.

For the trial, the price should have been much lower, or bandwidths increased. (Just put a huge notice saying that this is only a trial.) This really lets people actually try the service. If they get spooked from the price hurdle, then they won't try the product at all. At least after they try it, you could survey them to test whether they would be prepared to pay more or not.

And I'd think that the OnAir spokesperson has rocks in their bl**dy head. They were obviously focussed on their own bottom line rather than trying to actually achieve an equitable rate of return for both themselves and their client(s).


I think on-board internet will be inevitable. People say that they can do without it.... well, I can do without IFE / in-flight TV, but if I'm sure that if my suggestion were instituted across all carriers, I'll be 6 x 6 feet under the ground before you finish reading this post.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using AustFreqFly mobile app

 

[medhead]

Good lord, how on Earth can you post that be a "fail" in a manner indicting the same level of many of the other criticisms of AJ?

Yes there can be degrees of "fail", and any such posting ignoring that can only serve to decrease the credibility of the poster.

Aside from that, yes, there was a fail, but that's why there was a Trial. Maybe at worst a failure in the technical aspects to make it fast enough for the bloated demands of contemporary website designers. How you can lay that in such a manner directly at the MD is rather breathtaking.

Exactly, a fail would be to introduce it without a trial of any kind.

 

[Bundy Bear]

Careful serfty , you may be branded a blind and brainwashed Qantas apologist.


I think Qantas did this trial pretty blind and without enough due consideration. Did anyone even consider a domestic service? DJ is about to launch one; surely they are not building their own infrastructure, they have to be going to some provider. I'd think that the trans-continental would be a great market for this service, not to mention that a lot of the revenue will be courtesy of expense accounts.

For the trial, the price should have been much lower, or bandwidths increased. (Just put a huge notice saying that this is only a trial.) This really lets people actually try the service. If they get spooked from the price hurdle, then they won't try the product at all. At least after they try it, you could survey them to test whether they would be prepared to pay more or not.

And I'd think that the OnAir spokesperson has rocks in their bl**dy head. They were obviously focussed on their own bottom line rather than trying to actually achieve an equitable rate of return for both themselves and their client(s).


I think on-board internet will be inevitable. People say that they can do without it.... well, I can do without IFE / in-flight TV, but if I'm sure that if my suggestion were instituted across all carriers, I'll be 6 x 6 feet under the ground before you finish reading this post.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using AustFreqFly mobile app

Part of the problem is the Pacific, there is no way to have cheap internet across the Pacific.

Yes eventually internet will be available when the infrastructure and technology has caught up to make it cheaper.

 

[anat0l]

Exactly, a fail would be to introduce it without a trial of any kind.

I wouldn't say that...it's just that introduction without a trial increases the degree of fail if it flops.

Most people, for better or worse, do not perceive the risks or difficulties of technology, especially one they are so used to on the ground and which costs peanuts as well. Trials to many people appear to be companies dragging their feet - it is a waste of time if it so happened to work and implementation results, and an even larger waste of time when the trial does not lead to successful implementation.

Most people would only respect trials if they were to test safety, health / well-being or environmental concerns / boundaries. Hence drug trials are well understood, test flying aircraft is understood....but not technology testing / trials like this - they are often denounced as too passive.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using AustFreqFly mobile app

 

[defurax]

I have to admit that I'm flabbergasted by the cost argument. We have people on this forum admitting to buying First class tickets at the counter for $21,000 or J tickets for $15,000 and somehow 25-50$ for answering emails is too much?!? What about valet parking? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd like to think that 40-60% of the J and F cabins are filled with people who are going to a VERY important meeting and would enjoy email access... Is the whole QF fleet only carrying PAX on holiday JASA/FASA drinking Champagne and watching the latest flick?

 

[amaroo]

Is the whole QF fleet only carrying PAX on holiday JASA/FASA drinking Champagne and watching the latest flick?

That's me + another 3 seats these days FWIW that was me when I was flying solo for work. Always worked on the theory.....if you haven't got your gear sorted before the flight - the meeting is going to be a waste of time.

 

[straitman]

Is the whole QF fleet only carrying PAX on holiday JASA/FASA drinking Champagne and watching the latest flick?

That's me :!:

 

[Stoopidsteve]

have never flown on an aircraft that had it fitted but not really sure what I would do online, apart from AFF updates off course but you can't do that all the time en route to LHR...

You could transpacific from F http://www.australianfrequentflyer....rts-and-trip-photos/maiden-done4-40402-2.html...

It was reaaaaalllly sloooooooow and got it comp, so I wouldn't have paid for it, notwithstanding I could listen to a disappointing State of Origin

 

[Flying mermaid]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd like to think that 40-60% of the J and F cabins are filled with people who are going to a VERY important meeting and would enjoy email access... Is the whole QF fleet only carrying PAX on holiday JASA/FASA drinking Champagne and watching the latest flick?

and what is wrong with that. - born to holiday that's me.

 

[Mal Ware]

Good lord, how on Earth can you post that be a "fail" in a manner indicting the same level of many of the other criticisms of AJ?

Because he is in charge and it is one of many long line of failures.

Yes there can be degrees of "fail", and any such posting ignoring that can only serve to decrease the credibility of the poster.
.

If it was not a failure, would you call it a success then? As for credibility, I am posting my opinion on the matter, I am not trying to win any popularity competitions, that would be a fail.

I would have liked it to continue and it's a fail of Qantas to be honest!

:shock:

Such a shame.... for Qantas.

And its passengers.

Careful serfty , you may be branded a blind and brainwashed Qantas apologist.

No, that would be you and 3 or 4 of your sidekicks on here.

 

[trippin_the_rift]

I have to admit that I'm flabbergasted by the cost argument. We have people on this forum admitting to buying First class tickets at the counter for $21,000 or J tickets for $15,000 and somehow 25-50$ for answering emails is too much?!? What about valet parking? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd like to think that 40-60% of the J and F cabins are filled with people who are going to a VERY important meeting and would enjoy email access... Is the whole QF fleet only carrying PAX on holiday JASA/FASA drinking Champagne and watching the latest flick?

Ahh..pricing strategy!
J/F pricing is fairly consistent from carrier to carrier, so when you compare QF to SQ, AU-EU, $15-$20K for F is standard, accepted and there's no other option.

QF internet is *the most expensive in the world*, and is only just under the cost of international roaming. I don't know about you, but I don't know ANYONE with $$ who just goes ahead and burns through international roaming $$$ when they are personally paying for it.

So premium cabin pricing is nothing to do with it at all in reality. It's the value behind a product that people buy for, and QF wifi represented poor value. Simple.

 

[defurax]

Ahh..pricing strategy!


QF internet is *the most expensive in the world*, and is only just under the cost of international roaming. I don't know about you, but I don't know ANYONE with $$ who just goes ahead and burns through international roaming $$$ when they are personally paying for it.

I paid the $25 six times during the past 4 months on QF93 and QF94 for 18 Mb of access on my phone. I checked the option to stop connection at 18 Mb. This 18 Mb allowed me to receive and answer many emails. I think $25 out of pocket can easily be included in the travel per diem, same as a $12 orange juice in hotels and $75 breakfast in Switzerland.

I agree that the signal was very slow, but I was really happy to have the opportunity to receive/answer emails on a 14 hour "day" flight (QF93). I'm no expert in telecommunication and I don't know if Qantas used the best technology, best pricing, best model,...