Posted by Seth on December 23, 2009 under Flying, News | 
The weather last weekend from Washington, DC to Boston was pretty miserable for folks looking to fly. I had a blast watching the almost foot of snow pile up on the back deck and then wandering through Manhattan the following morning but I know that the airports, airlines and passengers didn’t fare so well. Just how badly they fared, however, is interesting to look at.
In Washington, DC, both United and Delta cancelled all of their flights in and out for the duration of the storm. They didn’t have much choice as the airports were shut down for several hours. United got back up and running pretty quickly while Delta was a bit slower to get started. It makes sense as Dulles is a major hub for United. Plus, Delta did send in a few extra planes late on Sunday to help move passengers around.
In New York City there were also a large number of flights canceled. Delta, United, jetBlue and Continental all had to cancel a number of flights. jetBlue seemed to keep operating the longest, running flights into JFK well after the others had stopped on Saturday night. Yes, it was still snowing, but the airport had their ground operations crews working hard to make sure that the runways were safe and jetBlue had just a few extra planeloads of passengers that they didn’t end up stranding. Again, it is a hub operation so it makes sense that they were focused on keeping things operating as much as possible.
JFK is also a hub for Delta, however, and they didn’t come out of the snow too well there. They canceled the vast majority of their transcontinental flights out of JFK on Sunday (only 2/11 flew) while the other carriers operated about 80% of their transcon routes. Delta didn’t send one single plane from JFK to Florida on Sunday. After the snow had stopped. They should have had crew available since those folks didn’t fly on Saturday. Ditto for aircraft. Yet they didn’t. Why not?
The icing on the cake for Delta, of course, is that with all the cancelations and the increased load factors in play right now – a function of the holiday travel season and significant capacity cuts in the industry – they aren’t able to get passengers rebooked very easily. This came to a head yesterday when police were called to handle passengers delayed 3 days trying to get back to Haiti. When the folks think that Haiti is better than the service and facilities you’re providing you know there are some serious issues. At least Delta finally stepped up and added a special flight for today to get those folks home.
Continental seemed to come out of the mess relatively unscathed. Sure, they canceled a bunch of flights just like everyone else, but they didn’t seem to have too many crises come out of the efforts. And they were able to get up and running on Sunday morning with a pretty full schedule operating.
US Airways proved true to form from a customer service perspective. They were boarding and upgrading non-revenue passengers rather than paying customers. They told standby passengers that flights were full and then sent the flights out with empty seats. Bad form.
And lest anyone think the troubles were isolated to the United States, folks over in Europe didn’t fare much better. Combining two package tour companies going out of business in the past week and some storms there and things are not good. Brussels was closed for several hours as were the London airports. Fortunately British Airways had some spare wide-body aircraft around to help cover for the cancellations but things aren’t pretty there either.
With predictions of a White Christmas in NYC this year we could be looking at a repeat performance again this weekend. I’m glad to be flying out on Thursday evening before the fun really starts.
Posted by Seth on December 21, 2009 under Flying |
Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood announced this morning that the Department of Transportation (DoT) has established a “Passenger Bill of Rights.” These new rules cover a number of things, from the amount of time – 3 hours – that passengers can be held on an airplane on the ground before the airline must permit them to deplane to ground service requirements and handling chronically delayed flights. Failure to comply will expose the airlines to a fine of $27,500 per passenger on board. The following is the meat of the DoT rule:
The final rule requires that each plan include, at a minimum, the following: (1) an assurance that, for domestic flights, the air carrier will not permit an aircraft to remain on the tarmac for more than three hours unless the pilot-in-command determines there is a safety-related or security-related impediment to deplaning passengers (e.g. weather, air traffic control, a directive from an appropriate government agency, etc.), or Air Traffic Control advises the pilot-in-command that returning to the gate or permitting passengers to disembark elsewhere would significantly disrupt airport operations; (2) for international flights that depart from or arrive at a U.S. airport, an assurance that the air carrier will not permit an aircraft to remain on the tarmac for more than a set number of hours, as determined by the carrier in its plan, before allowing passengers to deplane, unless the pilot-in-command determines there is a safety-related or security-related reason precluding the aircraft from doing so, or Air Traffic Control advises the pilot-in-command that returning to the gate or permitting passengers to disembark elsewhere would significantly disrupt airport operations; (3) for all flights, an assurance that the air carrier will provide adequate food and potable water no later than two hours after the aircraft leaves the gate (in the case of a departure) or touches down (in the case of an arrival) if the aircraft remains on the tarmac, unless the pilot-in-command determines that safety or security requirements preclude such service; (4) for all flights, an assurance of operable lavatory facilities, as well as adequate medical attention if needed, while the aircraft remains on the tarmac; (5) an assurance of sufficient resources to implement the plan; and (6) an assurance that the plan has been coordinated with airport authorities at all medium and large hub airports that the carrier serves, including medium and large hub diversion airports. Failure to do any of the above would be considered an unfair and deceptive practice within the meaning of 49 U.S.C. §41712 and subject to enforcement action, which could result in an order to cease and desist as well as the imposition of civil penalties.
Most interesting to me is that they have chosen to declare that any violation of this rule is “considered an unfair and deceptive practice.” That is the same rule that the DoT used when announcing fines against Continental, ExpressJet and Delta’s Mesaba subsidiary earlier this year, the first time they issued a fine related to a tarmac stranding event. Such an approach, while permitting the government to do something, seems to be a bit of a stretch in terms of “unfair and deceptive.” Still, the rules have now been filed in the Federal Register and will be going into effect 120 days from today, just in time for the Passover holiday travel rush.
The penalties defined above only apply between the carriers and the DoT. There is still the issue of how passengers will be compensated (or if they should be) in such cases. The DoT doesn’t specifically answer those questions but they do define the systems by which airlines will be required to hear complaints from customers and what the airlines must do in response.
In this regard, we agree with ATA that we need not require carriers to receive complaints by telephone. In reaching this conclusion, we do not mean to imply that carriers should not have in place some mechanism for resolving consumer problems in real time, and failure to do so may require us to revisit this decision in the future. We also do not see the necessity in requiring carriers to accept complaints by fax. As a result, this rule only requires carriers to provide passengers their email or web-form address and their mailing address.
We have decided to adopt a rule along the lines set forth in the NPRM. The Department believes that 30 days to acknowledge a complaint and 60 days to provide a passenger with a substantive response represent standard practice in the industry and should allow carriers adequate time to investigate and respond appropriately. By “substantive response” we mean a response that addresses the specific problems about which the consumer has complained. This type of response often results in a resolution of the complaint. We are also clarifying that by “complaint” we mean a specific written expression of dissatisfaction concerning a difficulty or problem which the person experienced when using or attempting to use an airline’s services and that contains sufficient information for the carrier to identify the passenger.
So the airlines don’t have to accept complaints via telephone (good for you, US Airways and United Airlines) but they do have to actually respond to them (watch out, Continental) and in a substantive way that actually addresses the problem. This should be good for consumers overall.
Another positive move from this action is that the airlines will be forced to publish not only the generic on-tie percentage of their flights but also the number of severe delays (> 30 minutes) and to highlight if that happens on more than half the monthly operations of a flight. The airlines will also be forced to publish if flights are canceled more than 5% of the time in the previous month.
…[T]he Department views the posting of the percentage of arrivals that were more than 30 minutes late as important because consumers are particularly interested in significant delays as these delays are the kind that are likely to result in missed connections and other serious problems. The Department is also requiring special highlighting of flights if they are late more than 30 minutes of scheduled arrival time more than 50 percent of the time to enable consumers to make more informed travel decisions.
So it is mostly a good thing. And there is still the great loophole for the airlines, “unless the pilot-in-command determines there is a safety-related or security-related impediment to deplaning passengers (e.g. weather, air traffic control, a directive from an appropriate government agency, etc.), or Air Traffic Control advises the pilot-in-command that returning to the gate or permitting passengers to disembark elsewhere would significantly disrupt airport operations.” There will still be plenty of opportunities for passengers to be stranded on the tarmac. And if they are then all the DoT will require is that the airline pay a fine to the government; there is still no requirement of compensation or accommodation to the customers for violations. Such an approach does not seem so great for the passengers on the surface.
I just hope that next time we’re number 4 for takeoff after a 3 hour hold no one turns the plane around and heads back to the gate. That guarantees a cancelation instead of a 3:15 delay and I know that the latter is worse. And now that the DoT has addressed this problem maybe they can get back to work at addressing the underlying source of the problem – the antiquated FAA Air Traffic Control system – and help create a system where the flights can actually operate on time rather than needing to worry about punishment for when they don’t. The ridiculous slot and flow control issues that the FAA and airports have today contribute more to the problems than any airlines’ operational desires. No airline WANTS to keep passengers out on the tarmac for hours. But when the system cannot handle the number of flights passing through it then the system has to be considered part of the problem.
Related Posts
Posted by Seth on December 21, 2009 under Trip Reports |
I’m rather proud of my ability to understand a VERY limited number of words and phrases in various (mostly Western European) languages. Being able to order a beer and find the bathroom, airport and train station are useful life skills, especially when you can do it in many places around the world. Like the weekend I spent in Belgium constantly trying to speak French when everyone there spoke perfect English, but what the heck. I was having fun.
After the crazy week in Germany last month for the Star MegaDo and other meetings I found myself in the business class cabin of Lufthansa’s Munich – Los Angeles non-stop flight. Damn, that is a long flight. But with the big comfy seat and plenty of booze available I figured to be quite fine. The flight attendants came through offering up beverages and I put my limited German to use. A glass of sekt to start would be lovely. Danke. And then, after takeoff, the drink cart. The weißwein, bitte. It really is delicious. And, if you wouldn’t mind, also some wasser mit gas. After all, I have to stay hydrated and the little bubbles are nice. So I’m 90 minutes or so into the flight and I’ve managed to only speak German with the crew. Not too shabby.
And then my little dream came crashing down around me in a hurry. They came out to offer dinner and the flight attendant addressed me in a flurry of German. Perhaps if she spoke slowly I had a chance but she assumed I actually spoke the language. I very much don’t. I actually found myself sitting there laughing quite a bit. I wasn’t really sure how else to respond. I explained that I actually don’t really speak German and she admitted that she thought I did. We switched to English and the rest of the flight was quite fine, though uneventful. And not nearly as entertaining as that first 90 minutes where I appeared to be quite accomplished in my knowledge of German.
As for the rest of the details about the flight, as I said, it was uneventful. The food was OK but nothing special. There are two sunsets, at least during the early winter months, so that is fun. And Lufthansa’s version of the A340-600 have the economy lavs downstairs in the back which is pretty cool. And the business class lav on the starboard side has a window in it. That’s rather awesome.
 |
 |
| Headed down to the coach lavs |
Looking out the window in the biz lav |
 |
| The glow of the second sunset we experienced during the flight shining on the engines |
But I wasn’t all that wowed by their business class service. It was very professional and very proper but not a ton of emotion in the service. It comes across as stiff and a bit standoffish, but lots of Germany appears that way. I’ll get over it. I enjoyed it much more than my recent United Airlines business class service but that is mostly because the seats are way better (no, I wasn’t in the new UA seats) and, more importantly, because the flight attendants didn’t yell at me because she spilled orange juice on another guy’s laptop. But I’m drifting off topic now.
Overall, the experience was probably around 3.5-4 stars out of 5. Quite proper and efficient but lacking the little personal touches that make me think “great” service.
Posted by Seth on December 18, 2009 under points |
American Express announced several months ago that they would be adding British Airways as a transfer partner for their Membership Rewards program by the end of the year. They pushed that “end of year” bit almost to the limit, but as of earlier this week they’ve finally opened up the partnership.
Even better, there is a bonus available for folks who make a transfer before the end of January 2010. It is 5,000 BAEC points for any transfer and the minimum transfer amount is 1,000 so that’s not too bad a deal.
Of course, they might be going out on strike over Christmas ruining travel plans. Or they might arbitrarily decide to cancel a ticket that you bought ruining travel plans. Or you might have to pay the exorbitant fees that they charge for fuel surcharges and taxes on reward flights. But if you can get over that stuff this seems like a decent deal.
Posted by Seth on December 18, 2009 under Screening Management SOP, TSA |
I must admit that being admonished by a Congressman has never been particularly high on my list of things to do. I’ve generally tried to stay under the radar of Congress. That all went out the window a couple weeks ago when the TSA’s Screening Management SOP document was published online with the supposedly redacted text still in the body. I’ve been in contact with a number of Congressional staffers since then and have been trying to help them understand that this wasn’t the case of crazy hackers acting maliciously. It is copy and paste. Really quite simple.
I sat through about 90 minutes of hearings from the Subcommittee on Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection on Wednesday, hoping to hear that the congressfolk were going to do something about this event. Instead I was treated to nuggets like this one from Congressman Charles Dent (R-PA):
To those who repost this security information on the internet you should share in the blame should security be breached as a result of this disclosure. In the future I would ask that you please, please use the whistleblower process congress has created for you. Call the department. call the inspector general. Call congress and its committees. But please do not circulate sensitive security documents. Rest assured that we will hold the department to account.
In essence he’s calling me out for sharing this document rather than using “internal” procedures to address the issue. While I can understand the Congressman’s point – ideally truly secret information should never be made public – I must respectfully disagree with his thoughts on this topic.
Many minutes were spent throughout the hearing listening to TSA Acting Director Gale Rossides explain to the Congressmen that she would not provide them with copies of the current version of the SOP document even though she is bound by law to do so when requested. She refused to provide a timeline under which such a delivery would be made. It is quite humorous that Congressman Dent feels Congress can “hold the department to account” when the Agency shows no signs of actually respecting the rule of law.
The published version of the SOP contains many sections that were redacted seemingly out of convenience rather than a need to legitimately hide information. Among other things, the Agency chose to hide the fact that their policies seem to be in violation of their own public policy on discrimination as well as international treaties and executive orders. Is that a matter of actual security or hiding legal wrongdoing?
The TSA continues to hide their policies behind the veil of SSI while refusing to be held accountable to anyone for their behavior. The Congressman may believe that the Agency can be controlled but all evidence thus far seems to prove otherwise. In the meantime, it seems completely reasonable to me to continue to share when the Agency misbehaves. Perhaps if more people did so they would actually be held accountable.
Related Posts
Posted by Seth on December 17, 2009 under News |
I’m not going too far, but I am making a move. As of this evening the Wandering Aramean blog is officially part of the BoardingArea.com travel blogger network. It is a very exciting move for me and I hope that it brings connections to more great stories and adventures.
We’ve done a ton of testing over the past couple weeks in an effort to make sure that everything works with the move. Still, there are a bunch of things that won’t. Such is life. If you come across a broken link you’ll just have to trust me that it was an incredibly engaging, witty and entertaining story full of beautiful photos. Or try searching for it. That might work, too.
Onward and upward!
Posted by Seth on December 16, 2009 under Screening Management SOP, TSA |
Nothing like calling the boss onto the mat in front of Congress to get some answers when a mess happens in government. Not that it is likely much will change – and certainly not quickly – but the Homeland Security Committee of the United States Congress held hearings this afternoon regarding the breach. The hearings are entitled “Has the TSA Breach Jeopardized National Security? An examination of What Happened and Why.” Sadly, there is virtually zero chance of actually getting an answer to the questions, and even less of a chance that real change will come out of this. Still, the government rolls slowly on.
After a full hour of testimony it does not appear that anyone – neither congressfolk nor TSA officials – actually understand the significance of what has happened. The hour of testimony featured a couple rather pointed questions and they went unanswered. I followed up with some public affairs folks regarding open inquiries I have and I was stonewalled. And the most pressing questions simply were not asked.
Why was the document published?
A rather significant chunk of the discussion was focused on why the document was public at all. Ignoring the redaction problems that came up that should be a non-issue. Having the SOP in public is a good thing for the traveling public. In fact, having all the screening SOPs out there is the only fair and reasonable way to treat the public. The current approach treats all potential passengers as criminals and leaves them at the whim of the TSO they interact with at any particular moment. Having the actual rules in the open would permit the public to actually know their rights and exercise them rather than be subjected to a power-tripping agent having a bad day. Acting TSA Administrator Gale Rossides acknowledged that there are a dozen other SOP documents that the TSA currently uses for passenger screening operations. All are considered SSI and therefore are more or less unknown to the public.
Despite media claims to the contrary the document is not a roadmap to anything. Sure, there are a couple things that probably didn’t need to be out in the open, but they are not creating an inherently more dangerous travel environment at all. Legitimate security doesn’t depend on the ignorance of those being policed. It depends on well-trained folks responding to legitimate threats and acting on real intelligence information. Sadly the TSA does not provide that and having this document out in public does not change that situation.
Moreover, the TSA has essentially committed to not using the Internet for dissemination of redacted documents in the future. Any SSI document that needs to be shared with potential contractors will likely be held in a “reading room” or other similar facility at a TSA office. This will increase the burden on the contractors trying to fill these contracts and provide no reasonable increase in security or any other palpable benefits to the American people.
Information lockdown
In a move that can only be described as knee-jerk and over-the-top Rossides testified that TSA has instituted a “full operational lockdown” regarding the further sharing of SSI information. This lockdown applies to all documents containing SSI data. Most troubling, this lockdown also includes a restriction on sharing the appropriate information with members of the Congressional committees that have oversight of the TSA. Not only do they not want the public to see the documents, they also will not allow the congressmen and women who have a direct responsibility to review and understand the operations access to the current version of the SOP documents.
The TSA has held briefings and information sessions with congressional staffers and provided “access” in that way but no real access. When pressed on this issue Rossides acknowledged that she was aware of the legal obligation the department was under to share such information but insisted that she could not do so at this time. Congressmen Dent (R-PA) pressed the Acting Director on this issue quite aggressively. He suggested that the TSA was not willing to share the information because they felt congressfolks were likely to leak it or for some other similar reason. He also noted that this is the first time such a request has not been affirmatively responded to in a timely manner. Why now? Why is this one different? Rossides wouldn’t say, but she was insistent that such action was necessary. Equally troubling was that Congresswoman Jackson-Lee (D-TX) – the chair of the subcommittee – was supportive of the Acting Director’s decision to not provide the document in a timely manner. It was not immediately clear why
Targeting the wrong issues
A significant portion of the testimony focused on the IDs that were published in the document and what changes, if any, would need to be made to the IDs or processes surrounding them. Sorry, Congresswoman Jackson-Lee, but you’re barking up the wrong tree on this one. The pictures in the document were nowhere close to detailed enough to allow someone to make passable fakes from them. And that isn’t even considering the part of the “layers of security” the TSA uses that never actually verifies that the person on the photo ID is really the person traveling or that the ticket is really valid. Quite simply, checking IDs isn’t providing any security and even if it did someone desiring a fake would have better luck on Canal Street in New York City than dealing with those images.
Another significant line of questioning was focused on the use of contractors in the handling of SSI data inside the TSA. Specifically, it seems that one of the folks at the heart of producing the document for publication was a contractor at the time it was posted online (he has since become a full-time employee). Congresswoman Jackson-Lee was rather caught up on the idea that somehow there is a difference between a contractor and a full-time employee. There didn’t seem to be much rhyme or reason behind that distinction but she was more than willing to make it. Several times. Indeed, we can expect to see legislation in the new year restricting the handling of SSI from contractors. So very, very unnecessary.
Who has the document?
Congressman James A. Himes (D-CT) was rather blunt in the one question he asked, “No organization doesn’t make mistakes. The question is how well an organization learns from the mistakes. Is anyone looking to see who has downloaded it?” That’s right…forget about how it got out there, let’s focus on who is reading it and what we can do about that. Other congressfolk have inquired about any potential legal recourse that can be pursued to force websites hosting the document to remove it. That horse has already left the barn, but there’s no reason Congress can’t go out and start shooting horses randomly on the plains, or something like that. Except that there is a VERY good reason they cannot. It is 44 U.S.C. 3506(d)(4)(B). It states:
With respect to information dissemination, each agency shall—
(4) not, except where specifically authorized by statute—
(B) restrict or regulate the use, resale, or redissemination of public information by the public;
That’s the truncated version of the code but it basically means that the neither the TSA nor anyone else can do anything about it once the document is out in the open. That hasn’t stopped the congressfolk from posturing but nothing will come of it.
In that same vein, the actual reply to Congressman Himes’s query was rather chilling. Acting Director Rossides stated that The Department of Homeland Security’s Inspector General office – the same folks conducting the inquiry into the TSA’s publication of the document – has compiled a list of who downloaded the document from the Commerce Department website and that they are working to reconcile that list against other lists they might have. They are also working on lists of who is hosting the document. It isn’t entirely clear what these lists will be used for since possession and distribution of the document is completely legal, but the DHS is compiling lists, just in case. This is a rather disturbing admission on the part of the TSA and DHS.
When asked what could be done about the copies of the document that are floating about the Acting Director offered the following suggestion: “I would hope out of their patriotic sense of duty to their fellow countrymen [people hosting copies] would take [the document] down. Good luck with that. Patriotism means acting for the good of the country, not for the good of a few folks who have made mistakes in running an organization which seeks to deny basic liberties covered by the Constitution when it is convenient for them.
Two useful questions
Lest the above make it seem that the hearing did not address anything useful it is worth noting one specific line of questioning that appeared to catch the Acting Director a bit off-guard and to really drive to the point of the charade that the TSA seems to be playing with this event. Congressman Emanuel Cleaver (D-MO) noted that, as is the case with any government document, the new versions build on the old versions. So the fact that there have been six revisions since the redaction mistake came out might not really be significant. The only reply that the Acting Director could muster is that the bulk of the information in the document is not SSI so that doesn’t really matter.
Congressman Cleaver also asked a very pointed question when Rossides noted that she felt the air travel system was safe. Specifically he asked if she would have actually admitted in an open session that she thought the answer was no. They parried a bit over words and there was never a “true” answer, but it definitely caught the Acting Director off-guard.
The Acting Director Responds
Acting Director Rossides made a couple statements during the hour-long session that suggested she might actually understand the gravity of the situation. That, or she’s been in Washington long enough to know what to say. Among the responses she offered:
I regret this occurred and take full responsibility for the mistake. Our response was swift, decisive and comprehensive. Passengers will fly safely…because of the layers of security in place.
We need better processes in place and tighter controls on how we handle sensitive information. We’re going to have to make sure that we have designated personnel…who are trained and really truly understand.
The actions of one or a few can … seriously impact the credibility of the agency.
Perhaps most significant because of what it implies about the previous behavior of the agency, the Acting Director offered up this nugget: the agency has asked the National Security Agency (NSA) to come in and work with them. The NSA has had documents published publicly for many years now explaining the importance of proper redaction and how to correctly accomplish it. Now that they’ve messed it up once the TSA has apparently decided to ask the NSA to come in and teach them how to do redaction correctly. It is great that they are finally (apparently) getting it right, but this has been a long time coming.
Ultimately the Congressional inquest does not appear to have had much affect on the behavior of the TSA. They’re still doing whatever they want and even when pressed on the issues they simply decline to answer. This is not good at all.
Related Posts
Posted by Seth on December 16, 2009 under Internet |
Continental Airlines intends to trial both the Kiteline service provided by jetBlue’s LiveTV subsidiary and also the gogo service provided by AirCell according to recent reports. This move marks the first time that a carrier has actually set up a competitive trial of multiple vendors in an effort to best serve their customers. Previous trials have been single vendor affairs, essentially determining if the system actually worked rather than figuring out if it was the correct product.
Continental has had the Kiteline product on their announced roadmap for several months now so that service isn’t much of a surprise. The decision to try out the gogo services is a new one, though one that incoming CEO Jeff Smisek intimated was possible several months ago. Smisek has stated that the carrier wanted to see if the gogo service had demonstrable financial upside before committing to a deployment. By putting both services in play at the same time it will be possible to reasonably evaluate just how much passengers like each product and the relative value of installing them fleet-wide.
As previously planned, the Kiteline service will be installed on approximately 30 of the 737-900ER (73E) aircraft. The gogo service will be installed on Continental’s 757-300 fleet which numbers approximately the same. Both systems are expected to be in service in the second quarter of 2010.
Having already used gogo a few times I’m still much more excited about the Kiteline service but having a true face-off between the two might just be the most exciting of all.
Related Posts
Posted by Seth on December 16, 2009 under Flying |
The wake-up calls most definitely suck, but sitting on a plane, watching the sun come up over the horizon might just be one of the most beautiful things to watch. It makes the lack of sleep completely tolerable.
I originally planned to sleep in the extra hour this morning and catch the 7am flight from New York City to Washington, DC. For some reason, however, I was laying in bed rather wide awake at 3:45am and so I made the decision to get up and catch a sunrise at 24,000 feet. Not too shabby.
Yes, the bright spot in the middle is Times Square.
Posted by Seth on December 15, 2009 under Internet |
More in-flight internet connectivity is always a fun topic to discuss. And there are some rumors floating around now that Aircell may have another customer lined up for their gogo service. In the United States there are only a couple carriers still out there without any announced plans for in-flight internet and this will take another one off that list. Any guesses as to which one it will be?
The current expectation is about 30 planes outfitted by next summer in a trial period before determining what to do with the rest of the fleet. I’m hoping to get confirmation early tomorrow on this one but it is looking quite nice.
