Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Rent an iPad For Inflight Entertainment

samzenpus posted more than 4 years ago | from the would-you-like-an-apple-product-with-your-meal? dept.

Transportation 198

OzPeter writes "Jetstar will start renting out of pre-loaded iPads as a form of inflight entertainment instead of the more typical seat back video system. No word in the article on how or if they will handle Wi-Fi connections, but interestingly it does mention that they will be usable during takeoff and landings — something that will be sure to spark lots of discussion regarding planes and modern electronics."

cancel ×

198 comments

Aircraft electronics (5, Informative)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417286)

Aircraft electrics have been WiFi/phone safe for decades, if they weren't then every lightning bolt with 100 miles would be a threat.

The reasons for not allowing those things aren't to do with safety.

Re:Aircraft electronics (4, Insightful)

EdZ (755139) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417306)

On commercial aircraft, yes. Light aircraft,however, especially older craft, are not shielded. Rather than test every aircraft with a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable, and then subclassify them by what devices you can use on what craft, it's a damn sight easier to go the 'Better Safe Than Sorry' approach and blanket-ban.

Re:Aircraft electronics (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32417396)

On commercial aircraft, yes. Light aircraft,however, especially older craft, are not shielded. Rather than test every aircraft with a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable, and then subclassify them by what devices you can use on what craft, it's a damn sight easier to go the 'Better Safe Than Sorry' approach and blanket-ban.

If anything, the older aircraft would be less subject to EM interference, since they'd have fewer electronics, and those electronics would probably be much hardier than modern IC-based gear. There's a reason they were never tested; it was inconceivable that anything short of a nuclear blast could possibly interfere with them.

As for "a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable"...are pilots really so superstitious that they think an iPad emits a different sort of aircraft-confounding rays than a ThinkPad or a Palmcorder?

Re:Aircraft electronics (3, Interesting)

arielCo (995647) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417832)

On commercial aircraft, yes. Light aircraft,however, especially older craft, are not shielded. Rather than test every aircraft with a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable, and then subclassify them by what devices you can use on what craft, it's a damn sight easier to go the 'Better Safe Than Sorry' approach and blanket-ban.

If anything, the older aircraft would be less subject to EM interference, since they'd have fewer electronics, and those electronics would probably be much hardier than modern IC-based gear.

I guess the GP meant "too old to be properly shielded, modern enough to have lots of electronics", not a DC-3 ;). The problem with electronic gizmos hit when planes already had a lot of electronic instruments. Indeed, Wikipedia tells me the Boeing 737-400 [wikipedia.org] started flying in 1985 and had a full glass cockpit.

those electronics would probably be much hardier than modern IC-based gear.

If anything, a PCB with discrete components has longer exposed copper (a requisite for EM induction) than an IC measuring 4x4 mm doing the same function. "They don't make them like they used to" is wholly untrue in this field.

There's a reason they were never tested; it was inconceivable that anything short of a nuclear blast could possibly interfere with them.

They're hard to mess with from outside the cigar tube; they weren't designed to deal with random EMF inside it, other than their own.

As for "a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable"...are pilots really so superstitious that they think an iPad emits a different sort of aircraft-confounding rays than a ThinkPad or a Palmcorder?

Of course they're revising their safety standards, and they start with a popular device. Just to nitpick, the switching DC-DC converter in a laptop and the little inverter for the CCFL backlight can be some noisy buggers.

Re:Aircraft electronics (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32417844)

As for "a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable"...are pilots really so superstitious that they think an iPad emits a different sort of aircraft-confounding rays than a ThinkPad or a Palmcorder?

Of course it does. Remember, the iPad is magic. The ThinkPad/Palmcorder aren't.

Very few airplanes are properly shielded against magic.

Re:Aircraft electronics (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32417940)

As for "a battery of EM tests for every device imaginable"...are pilots really so superstitious that they think an iPad emits a different sort of aircraft-confounding rays than a ThinkPad or a Palmcorder?

Of course it does. Remember, the iPad is magic. The ThinkPad/Palmcorder aren't.

Very few airplanes are properly shielded against magic.

just like very few civilizations are properly shielded against Jews. Fiat currency controlled by a private corporation? hah, you lose.

since most of you dont know this. most of the Jews who are fucking the world economy up the ass for the sake of their power, who are a fraction of a percent of the population yet an overwhelming majority of media ownership and college professors, are not actually Semetic at all. they are a people called the Khazars who converted to Judaism around 1000 AD. you cannot be anti-Semetic if you think their disproportionate control and power is fucking us up because they are not Semites.

Re:Aircraft electronics (5, Interesting)

vlm (69642) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417628)

On commercial aircraft, yes. Light aircraft,however, especially older craft, are not shielded.

Humorously, no. You inspect HV power lines with a Cessna or a helicopter, not a fully loaded 747.

No one takes low altitude sight seeing flights in a 747.

Its not like the high power radio transmitter towers to the east of timmerman and north of mitchell airport in Milwaukee somehow magically know they are supposed to interfere with the light planes but not the big planes. Theres no little eyeball on the top of the tower.

Light planes are pretty simple. You screw up the fuel management system on a major jetliner, you get big problems transferring fuel from tank 7 to tank 18 and weight and balance get all screwed up, now is engine 3 feeding out of tank 2 or is that cross connected to tank 9 again? In comparison, on the old 172 I flew in the 80s (eek) the fuel management system was an emergency shut off valve from the overhead tanks, a left/right/both tank selector switch, and an electric backup fuel pump with a circuit breaker and a switch. And a fuel gauge meter than was about 1/2 inch square and could not be read more accurately than "full, empty, or somewhere in between". It was so old it had a mechanical carb instead of a fuel injection system.

Re:Aircraft electronics (4, Informative)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417886)

Humorously, no. You inspect HV power lines with a Cessna or a helicopter, not a fully loaded 747.

You also are doing the inspection on VFR days, so if VOR gets screwed up it's not that big of a deal.

Re:Aircraft electronics (1)

Raven42rac (448205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417712)

So they monetized it on their own, probably after testing it.

Re:Aircraft electronics (2, Insightful)

fotbr (855184) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417330)

More accurately, they aren't to do with the plane's safety. There is still an argument that using electronic devices keeps you from paying attention to the flight attendants' instructions. I don't believe that one, but since most people under the age of 25 or so seem to have those stupid iBuds stuffed in their ears at all times, perhaps it has some merit.

Re:Aircraft electronics (2, Interesting)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417376)

It's not like there's any useful information there after the 7th time you've heard it and read the info card out of boredom. Video/speech is a very slow, ineffecient way of transferring information compared to vanilla text. I find it ver yfrustartaing to be presented with a video to teach/explain something when simple text would do. Maybe hte reason those damn young ones on your lawn don't pay attention is because there's nothing useful being expressed.

Cell phones can mess with ground towers due to the speeds at which the planes are moving which is a reason to turn them off[line] (not like you're going to get good reception in a plane anyway)

Re:Aircraft electronics (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417384)

I flew to Dubai on Emirates a few years ago, they had the seat-back screen entertainment systems with about 200 music albums, films and games loaded in.

It was the only flight I have ever been on where they didn't mind you sticking the headphones on during taxi once the safety briefings had finished - it was kind of cool having "Back In Black" by AC/DC at full volume in my ears during take off. :-)

Re:Aircraft electronics (3, Funny)

Altima(BoB) (602987) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417438)

And if you build your own flying combat suit (perhaps with a red and gold color scheme...) you can listen to it every time you take off!

Re:Aircraft electronics (1, Offtopic)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417548)

Stop with the Iron Man associations already!!!

The Iron Man movies weren't bad (from someone who's not really a fan of superhero movies except stuff written by Alan Moore) and it was kind of nice to see AC/DC get to do the soundtrack for IM 2 - but I'm in my 40s, not that much younger than Angus and the boys themselves, and really cannot be doing with standing amongst hordes of screaming kids with their parents at the next AC/DC concert just because they saw the movie.

Let's leave the kiddie metal to Metallicock, and leave us old duffers alone to enjoy the mighty AC/DC.

Re:Aircraft electronics (0, Offtopic)

kill -9 $$ (131324) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417866)

While I understand where you're coming from, I'm assuming that AC/DC wants those hoards screaming kids with their parents. To tap into a generation after generation years later means lots of residual $$.

Re:Aircraft electronics (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32418122)

Let's leave the kiddie metal to Metallicock, and leave us old duffers alone to enjoy the mighty AC/DC.

Wait, you make a comment like that and you claim that YOU are the mature one?

Re:Aircraft electronics (2, Insightful)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32418306)

I said "old", not "mature" - and Metallicock are "Mastered As Puppets" by their corporate lords... plus all their "music" sounds like each band member is racing to finish each song first.

There, out of my system now, switching back to "mature" mode...

Re:Aircraft electronics (1)

stakovahflow (1660677) | more than 4 years ago | (#32418288)

Keep your AC/DC (or Metallica, for that matter), give me KMFDM, Ministry, or Thrill Kill Kult...

But, really, what does this portion of the conversation have to do with aviation electronics? ...Oh, yeah... Iron Man...

--Back to the subject: --

I, personally, feel that, if you are in a small aircraft, maybe you shouldn't be using an ipod/ipad anyway...

Generally, small electronics are more a nuisance than an electrical risk, and should, as such, be banned from any aircraft smaller than 25 passengers, if only for annoyance purposes...

Just my $0.02...

--Stak

Re:Aircraft electronics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32418364)

Let's leave the kiddie metal to Metallicock, and leave us old duffers alone to enjoy the mighty AC/DC.

ROFL, metal? We call that shit hard rock, old man.

Re:Aircraft electronics (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417842)

I've never had a problem wearing headphones with the on-flight audio system on any flight I've been on, inside the US.

Re:Aircraft electronics (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32418046)

I think that's the difference - on UK flights, officially you can turn on MP3 players and computers when the seat belt lights go off after the aircraft has completed the steepest part of its climb. However, I normally start switching stuff on (without undoing my seatbelt) as soon as the attendants get up from their seats to start messing around with trolleys and none of them have ever said anything to me about it.

Re:Aircraft electronics (4, Insightful)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417402)

More accurately, they aren't to do with the plane's safety. There is still an argument that using electronic devices keeps you from paying attention to the flight attendants' instructions. I don't believe that one, but since most people under the age of 25 or so seem to have those stupid iBuds stuffed in their ears at all times, perhaps it has some merit.

Most earbuds block less sound than foam earplugs and they don't ask us to remove them.

If a flight attendant really needed our attention on a plane, chances are the situation would be quite evident. You are already supposed to be buckled up in case of sudden turbulence, and in the event of a emergency where you would have to leave your seat, people aren't going to be more distracted by their MP3s.

Re:Aircraft electronics (1)

fotbr (855184) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417480)

Yeah, that's why I don't believe it. It's a small space, if something was THAT wrong, you'd know.

Re:Aircraft electronics (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32418232)

Yeah, that's why I don't believe it. It's a small space, if something was THAT wrong, you'd know.

And if not, I'd want to know the name of the band that's so good that it can keep me distracted during a plane crash.

Re:Aircraft electronics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32418152)

What they ought to do is make fat lardasses pay for two seats the same way everyone else pays for extra luggage.

Re:Aircraft electronics (2, Insightful)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417414)

As if anyone these days needed the instructions: I'm pretty sure 99.999% of fliers are already familiar with the procedures, there's an illustrated card on the back of every seat, and people can pretty much rely on common sense.

Not that any of that is worth shit when the plane plows into the ground at 160 kmph, and you have lim(0) chance of survival with or without having listened through the lecture.

Re:Aircraft electronics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32417522)

As if anyone these days needed the instructions: I'm pretty sure 99.999% of fliers are already familiar with the procedures, there's an illustrated card on the back of every seat, and people can pretty much rely on common sense.

You seem to be making a number of unfounded assumptions.

Re:Aircraft electronics (4, Interesting)

geminidomino (614729) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417856)

Funny you should mention that card. I'm glad I already know the (not complicated) instructions since the completely wordless cards are actually harder to understand....

Re:Aircraft electronics (2, Interesting)

NoPantsJim (1149003) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417364)

Actually, in a roundabout way, it does have to do with safety.

Takeoff and landing are the times in flight most likely to result in an accident. If things do suddenly head sideways, people distracted by laptops and iPods are much less likely to react accordingly and survive.

Most people in the aviation business know this is the real reason.

Re:Aircraft electronics (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32417412)

Takeoff and landing are the times in flight most likely to result in an accident. If things do suddenly head sideways, people distracted by laptops and iPods are much less likely to react accordingly and survive.

What about magazines, books, and newspapers then? I know that I am paying closer attention to what is going on around me with my MP3 player running than if I'm nose-buried in a book.

Re:Aircraft electronics (2, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417484)

Well you are more willing to let go and drop a book or a news paper then a piece of expensive electronics. If the plane is going in to a hard landing and you need to brace yourself you are more likely to drop a book or a paper and brace yourself... For a laptop or an expensive device you may put it away or keep it safe while you should be protecting your own neck.

Re:Aircraft electronics (1)

NoPantsJim (1149003) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417508)

Really? Doesn't having music pumped into your ears kind of interfere with hearing audible safety instructions? Reading does not.

Re:Aircraft electronics (1)

butterflysrage (1066514) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417612)

[citation needed]

I'm able to pay quite a bit of attention to audio instructions with music playing... I have background music on damn near my whole waking day. While reading however I have to block out all my hearing so I don't get distracted from my book.

If you have any links to studies that show that people are more able to remember/process audio cues while reading than while listening to a song I would be quite interested in seeing it.

Re:Aircraft electronics (1)

NoPantsJim (1149003) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417906)

You're trying to claim that a person with music blasting in their ears can listen to a flight attendant more accurately and attentively than a person without music blasting in their ears?

Sounds like you're trying to pick an argument. It's a little early for that, and I'm not interested.

Re:Aircraft electronics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32418220)

Why is everyone trying to say this is about the safety briefing? The restriction isn't for the 2-3 minutes they're giving instructions! The restriction is for the entire taxi, takeoff, and a good portion of the climb... Then it repeats for the descent and landing (though oddly enough not the taxi to the gate).

If this was merely for paying attention during the safety briefing then a simple "all eyes up front" would be adequate. Instead you have 90% of the plane reading their newspaper and paying no attention whatsoever to the briefing.

In case of a crash... (2, Funny)

Alwin Henseler (640539) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417556)

If things do suddenly head sideways, people distracted by laptops and iPods are much less likely to react accordingly and survive.

Not important... the point is this: if your plane crashes and rescue workers are sorting through the debris & body parts, would you want to be found with an airplane seat stuck in your skull, or with an iPad stuck in your skull?

Keeping in mind that the reality distortion field surrounding an Apple product makes anyone look cooler, the choice is clear: you'll look better with a iPad stuck in your skull. That $10 premium looks like a small price to pay for the privilige, doesn't it? (Apple fanboy or not). On top of that: no worries on compensating the full iPad's price in case it gets damaged in such a crash - you just can't go wrong here!

Re:In case of a crash... (1)

oldspewey (1303305) | more than 4 years ago | (#32418050)

an iPad stuck in your skull

Is this some kind of Jobsian mindmeld?

Re:Aircraft electronics (5, Funny)

YouWantFriesWithThat (1123591) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417592)

i am not flying the plane.

there is no amount of concentration on my part that is going to help when the plane banks sharply on take off, slams into the ground, and begins cartwheeling through a cornfield spewing burning jet fuel while rows of seats tear off the floor and fall out of holes in the plane.

but if i could listen to music, at least i wouldn't have to hear everyone else screaming as i burned to death in an aluminum tube

Re:Aircraft electronics (1)

NoPantsJim (1149003) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417630)

Not all commercial aviation accidents rule out the possibility of survival.

Re:Aircraft electronics (1)

VendettaMF (629699) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417876)

I don't recall any recently (or indeed ever) where having earphones in and an mp3 player running at the time would have affected matters.

Survival in a commercial airliner accident comes from two things.
1. Pure dumb luck. Nothing else will have you alive and mobile after any significant incident.
2. Being willing and physically able to trample/force your way clear when the wreckage stops moving. If you don't need to do this then it wasn't a significant accident (or you're nine years old and Dutch(See aspect 1, above)).

Re:Aircraft electronics (4, Informative)

RedLeg (22564) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417524)

The reasons for not allowing those things aren't to do with safety.

The reasons have EVERYTHING to do with safety, just not the way most people think.

The airlines and the FAA don't want passengers to be distracted or rows and aisles to be encumbered. Passengers need to be alert enough take direction from the aircrew (pilots + flight attendants) and free to maneuver in times of emergency. The most likely times for emergencies are during takeoffs and landings, hence the ban.

It has nothing to with harmful interference with avionics, but with interrupting communications and encumbering maneuvering.

Consider trying to get up and use the head from a window seat when the passengers in the row ahead have their seats reclined, and those on your row have tables down and laptops out. Add earphones in ears impeding hearing, and you get a mess in an emergency.

Red

Re:Aircraft electronics (1)

icebrain (944107) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417780)

Plus, people are stupid, especially when faced with panic situations that they haven't trained for. Drivers reacting suddenly to a safety threat (like a person pulling out in front of them, road debris, etc.) will often distract themselves trying to save their drink or cellphone from flying off/out of whatever they're in rather than put both hands on the wheel and focus completely on the driving. People will run back into burning buildings or other dangerous areas to save common things. Airline passengers have been known to hold on to things or try and get their carryons with them during an evacuation.

You don't want anything distracting people when they're trying to evacuate, whether it's keeping them from hearing instructions or putting something into their hands that they'll worry about when they shouldn't. And as others mentioned, having objects flying about in the cabin is a Bad Thing during turbulence or hard/"unplanned" landings. If the devices are off and put away, they can't do that.

Re:Aircraft electronics (1)

e2d2 (115622) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417618)

You sounds like an authority on the subject. What is your FAA AMT/AMTE certification# by the way? An ICAO equal will work too. I'd like to cite your expertise when I pull out my iPhone on the flight deck and start playing field runners.

Re:Aircraft electronics (3, Insightful)

jittles (1613415) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417666)

That's not entirely true. They do not allow them during takeoff and landings because these are the most dangerous parts of the flight. If there is some sort of emergency the last thing they (and I) want is the guy in the emergency exit row to miss some important instruction because he was too busy watching a movie.

Sure these emergencies are rare and unlikely to happen but I don't mind reading the magazine in the seat pocket for 10-15 minutes just to be on the safe side.

Re:Aircraft electronics (1)

Skuld-Chan (302449) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417768)

Plus anything that runs on magic doesn't interfere with aviation electronics anyhow.

Re:Aircraft electronics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32417796)

This is somewhat true for most of the electronics and most of the time. However, a laptop that passes FCC certification at production may not pass after a few years of being thrown around and abused. The shielding in the laptop won't be tip-top and may leak. The body of an aircraft is basically one giant resonating chamber. One rogue device in exactly the right spot in the cabin can potentially cause problems.

Landing and take-off, particularly in IMC (instrument conditions) are demanding on electronic navigation systems. As an electrical engineer, I understand that most of these wireless devices won't affect such systems. But as a pilot, I'm glad the restrictions are in place. It doesn't take long for bad instrumentation to quickly send a flight into the ground. And it just takes that one person, with that one bad laptop, in that one particular seat, on one flight to make things go bad. There isn't time to send an attendant through the cabin to find out what's going on.

Commercial flights only spend a few minutes below 10,000 feet. It's a minor inconvenience.

Re:Aircraft electronics (1)

Lumpy (12016) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417924)

Light aircraft that is not 50 years old also dont have a problem. I have done AV work at several of the Aircraft shops around here. Every one of them have told me that the phone and wifi myths are just that. Myths..

Unless you are flying a 1958 Piper cub that has never had it's gear upgraded, you dont have a problem.

Hell I have installed WIFI in Learjets that are 40 years old to support the Crestron 6X touchpanel to deal with the in flight entertainment.

Their biggest gripe is Bluray players... needing a network connection for updates. The in flight 3G dont work at cruise altitude and they worry about a disc not playing because of updates needed.. Rich guys that own these are really whiney..

Re:Aircraft electronics (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32418014)

The reasons for not allowing those things aren't to do with safety.

Wrong - it is still about safety:
1. In the event of an 'incident' you don't want unsecured laptops, etc flying around the cabin like guided missiles.
2. Takeoff and landing are the most critical parts of the flight. Sit down, shut up and pay attention to the crew. You don't need to be watching the latest youtube video right then.

The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is sa (4, Insightful)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417298)

The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is safety as in they don't want stuff flying around if there is a hard landing.

Re:The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is (1)

ktappe (747125) | more than 4 years ago | (#32418044)

The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is safety as in they don't want stuff flying around if there is a hard landing.

BS. They allow you to hold heavy hardback books in your hands during takeoff/landing. Also if they didn't want these items flying around they'd be banned the whole flight because there is always a danger of turbulence.

Re:The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is (1)

dunezone (899268) | more than 4 years ago | (#32418074)

Not sure this is the reason for cell phone bans but as a result I don't have to hear the person next to me or somewhere in the cabin talk on the phone the whole flight.

Re:The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is (1)

berwiki (989827) | more than 4 years ago | (#32418124)

comeon, you gotta think bigger conspiracy than that!

you know, 'zomg the govt is trying to control us'
'how dare they take away my right to WiFi!'
etc...this is slashdot!

Re:The real reason for takeoff and landing bans is (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 4 years ago | (#32418276)

No, the real reason is that takeoff and landing is the most dangerous part of the flight and if something goes wrong, they dont want people distracted by gadgets.

I can see it so clearly now (0)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417308)

*phone rings* "yes"
"hi boss, my ipad crashed"
"so what? Reboot it idiot!"
"I can't, there is a plane on top of it"

Re:I can see it so clearly now (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32417850)

lmao

And will the standard rates apply? (1)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417336)

I just have to wonder if the standard rates for 'luxury-IT' will apply. You know the rates, they are so high that for physical items, you are reaching the point where you can just buy the item at retail and then sell it on Ebay and still do better. The price for 'consumable' services will be so high that even though they have scared off most of their potential customers, that one guy who either doesn't care, or has to buy it makes up the cost for the hundreds who were driven off by the price.

Yes, I'm also talking about you Marriott, and your $14/day internet access charges. For anything more than a week I could go buy a data card and plan from a cell carrier.

Perhaps I'm just a bit bitter, but I am getting damned tired of people pricing 'IT' services in the same tier as high end luxury goods.

Re:And will the standard rates apply? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32417354)

From TFA, it's $10. Slightly overpriced, but on a several hundred dollar flight, no that big a deal.

Re:And will the standard rates apply? (1)

pandrijeczko (588093) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417428)

It will be a problem when the kids start screaming because they cannot play the same Flash games on it that they can on their home PC!

Re:And will the standard rates apply? (1)

Cwix (1671282) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417916)

They got real upset when they tried to play their 360 games in the ps3. I think the point of the device is to be preloaded with games and the such, Im sure they could find something entertaining. Anyways, the ipad will be for daddy, the kids can read a damn book. BTW Im not an apple fanboi, ive just been on a few long flights, like nonstop from atlanta to anchorage. I would have gladly rented an ipad to keep me entertained on the long flights.

Re:And will the standard rates apply? (1)

calmofthestorm (1344385) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417390)

This is why I intend to get a smartphone with a cheap, low-throughput data plan and then tether for internet when traveling.

Re:And will the standard rates apply? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32417442)

Great plan. I'm sure you'll get a great cell signal at 30,000 feet over the middle of an ocean.

Re:And will the standard rates apply? (3, Funny)

IndustrialComplex (975015) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417978)

Great plan. I'm sure you'll get a great cell signal at 30,000 feet over the middle of an ocean.

What the hell kind of kickass hotel are you staying at that flys at 30k feet ASL?

Hint: He might have been planning an alternative to Marriott's high data rates.

Re:And will the standard rates apply? (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32418096)

On Sunday EasyJet offered to loan me a PSP for the flight -- I think it was about £8.

That wouldn't be unreasonable on a several-hundred-dollar flight (says the AC above, anyway), but when the flight is only £40 and a couple of hours I'll just doze or stare out of the window. (And look forward to food at home, since a sandwich was also £8.)

LOL (1)

rock_climbing_guy (630276) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417344)

I parsed that as

Rent an iPad For Infant Entertainment

Same poop, different bucket (1)

namdanog (448907) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417362)

Jetstar have been offering this kind of service for ages now, albeit on a rather more cumbersome piece of equipment than the swishy iPad. It's an interesting and effective way of monetising on-board entertainment services. The only problem is they don't have one for every passenger, so you might be out of luck if you're stuck at the back of the plane!

daily tampon story? (-1, Troll)

js3 (319268) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417380)

seriously enough with the tampon stories.

Re:daily tampon story? (5, Funny)

quantumplacet (1195335) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417468)

If you want to troll, try harder. Here's a hint, tampons aren't pads, they're cylindrical. You did however do a nice job of proving beyond any doubt that you've never had a girlfriend.

Re:daily tampon story? (3, Funny)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417644)

...they're cylindrical.

I guess he should've posted here [slashdot.org] then..

Re:daily tampon story? (1)

Adambomb (118938) | more than 4 years ago | (#32418094)

What he should have trolled with is "ipad with wings..."

Re:daily tampon story? (4, Interesting)

OzPeter (195038) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417566)

seriously enough with the tampon stories.

The funny thing is that I submitted this partly on the basis of seeing how fast an iStory would be accepted. My previous submissions have always seemed to languish around for a significant amount of time before being accepted or rejected (especially rejected), yet this one was accepted within 12 hours of submission.

Re:daily tampon story? (1, Troll)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417772)

Yeah, Slashdot is essentially a spamhost working for Apple these days. "News for nerds"? "Stuff that matters"? This story is neither. Not even the worst offenders among the fanboys can find it interesting at all. I can't imagine Apple doesn't pay Slashdot a significant amount for keeping their hype going.

Re:daily tampon story? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32418316)

Have you seen the financials for the parent company? They are horrendously losing money, are publicly traded an the stock price is in the crapper. If apple was paying them ANY money, they would be bazillionaires from all the iCrap related stories that are posted and my stock would be worth selling.

Not on UK airlines they won't (4, Insightful)

gb7djk (857694) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417416)

The UK airlines flatly ban *all* electronic equipment from being switched on during take off or landing. Although the official excuse is always "to protect the delicate navigation equipment", this is demonstrably rubbish as aircraft equipment is pretty well screened and filtered. It *is* true that in pre CE certification days, certain mobile equipment did have some unfortunate spurii, but CE testing got rid of all of them decades ago. Which means that we are left with either a) the cabin crew need to demonstrate who's boss or b) the airlines don't want equipment flying about if there is any nasty tail waving or bumps during take off or landing.

Re:Not on UK airlines they won't (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417634)

So does the US, afaik. I wonder how this will play with the "everything must be stowed during take off and landing to prevent your hiding a bomb in your lap" directive in the US.

Re:Not on UK airlines they won't (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417688)

The crew doesn't want to be caught on tape doing something stupid..

Re:Not on UK airlines they won't (1)

Chardish (529780) | more than 4 years ago | (#32418084)

"Delicate navigation equipment?" Yeah, right. Would you feel comfortable piloting an aircraft that could be turned around or taken down by an 8-year-old kid's Nintendo DS?

Re:Not on UK airlines they won't (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32418138)

The UK airlines flatly ban *all* electronic equipment from being switched on during take off or landing.

They also ban having the window blind shut, your seat tray table lowered, your seat reclined, talking during the safety demonstration, having the cabin lights on during take-off or landing when it's dark, and probably loads of other things that I'm not really aware of (as a passenger).

Not all safety considerations are technical.

Domestic flights only (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32417422)

"but interestingly it does mention that they will be usable during takeoff and landings — something that will be sure to spark lots of discussion regarding planes and modern electronics"

They realized that given the "size" of Americans today that there was ample shielding on domestic flights. considering current trends the ban should soon be lifted on European flights as well.

Already rent out entertainment units (1)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417426)

Jetstar (and other budget airlines) already rent out entertainment units rather than having in seat units.

I highly doubt that the devices will be used during take off and landing, not least because the cabin crew won't have time to distribute them until after take off and will collect them before landing.

I want a google-pad (0, Troll)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417460)

Since Jobs decided for all of us that watching porn is something very evil to do.

Re:I want a google-pad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32417580)

So when you fly you like to give "The Captain" a good pounding do you? Don't your fellow passengers ever object?

Re:I want a google-pad (1)

santax (1541065) | more than 4 years ago | (#32418004)

No mate, I am the Captain.

No WiFi? Not much to discuss then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32417470)

something that will be sure to spark lots of discussion regarding planes and modern electronics

I doubt it will even come close to my in depth demonstration and skill at my calculator watch, it always leave the hot stewardesses lust for me and fellow travelers speechless in awe.

Deathstar (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32417472)

Nice to know that Deathstar is spending money on the important things instead of replacing their duct-tape solutions (The literal kind) with real solutions in regards to aircraft maintenance.
When you have guys using electrical tape to tie down loose components the last thing anyone over there is discussing is the impact of wireless interference. Should note that it's mostly bullshit anyway but even if it were an actual problem with consumer devices, they still wouldn't give a damn.

Good marketing (1)

Petron (1771156) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417532)

This would put product in the hands of quite a few potential buyers, this would be a smart move by Apple. As for Wi-Fi, last two flights I've been on had in-flight Wi-Fi connections (Both with Delta/Norwest)

As for the ipad... I'm still waiting for somebody else. iPad seems to be much to limited for what I want it to do. I want a productivity/viewing device, not just a viewing device.

wait... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32417562)

how will they ever manage to purchase enough with apple's lifetime limit? will they hire homeless people to do the buying?

Just more stupid iHype (2, Insightful)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417678)

Airliners already have very robust inflight DVR systems that make something like a stuffed 500G Archos moot. Throwing an iPad into the mix doesn't really add anything. If this sort of rental would be seen as anything as redundant then the airline in question is already far behind the curve. I'm not sure I would trust them to get the content end of things right with the iPad.

This sounds like a lame marketing stunt.

Re:Just more stupid iHype (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 4 years ago | (#32418092)

Wait, are you that mythical person that actually LIKES the music and movie selection aboard airplanes? I suppose next you're going to tell us the food is fine cuisine and the seats are spacious!

Re:Just more stupid iHype (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 4 years ago | (#32418184)

Cheap airlines (round here, anyway) have as little equipment on the plane as necessary -- presumably to save weight (and hence money). There's no entertainment system. Ryanair doesn't even have an in-flight magazines, or a seat pocket -- the safety information is instead printed on a sticker on the seat in front.

Some (e.g. EasyJet) already rent out PSPs for games or films.

Re:Just more stupid iHype (0, Flamebait)

ktappe (747125) | more than 4 years ago | (#32418208)

This sounds like a lame marketing stunt.

Marketing stunt, perhaps. Lame, well, that's extraordinarily subjective. Kind of like the "icrap" tag you put on the story and all the other anti-iPad posts you've put up on Slashdot. If you don't like the iPad (even though odds are you've never used one), fine. But perhaps you could just let it exist and go read stories about things you do like.

oddball (1)

Beer_Smurf (700116) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417702)

Actually there is a reason.
No normal electronic device you would get at Best Buy will cause any problems for aircraft systems.
But, it is possible that some oddball, third world, home made one could.
Since the airline cannot take the time to inspect every gadget you bring on board, you get the current rules.

Re:oddball (2, Insightful)

ktappe (747125) | more than 4 years ago | (#32418262)

Actually there is a reason [for turning off electronics during takeoff & landing]
No normal electronic device you would get at Best Buy will cause any problems for aircraft systems.
But, it is possible that some oddball, third world, home made one could.
Since the airline cannot take the time to inspect every gadget you bring on board, you get the current rules.

Two problems with that theory:
1) Anyone able to afford an airline ticket is able to afford real electronics instead of homebrewing.
2) Anyone independent enough to homebrew a device is also independent enough to not turn it off during takeoff & landing.

Re:oddball (2, Insightful)

hotsauce (514237) | more than 4 years ago | (#32418268)

But, it is possible that some oddball, third world, home made one could.

You must have been under a rock for the last few decades. Every electronic device is made in the "third world". They've been handing us our collective asses, if you haven't noticed.

Non 3G (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32417766)

The 30 iPads (yes, 30 in total for all Jetstar flights at $10 a rent) are only WiFi models, not 3G, and will be loaded with as yet unspecified apps. Essentially useless. More a marketing idea to connect Jetstar with the iPad media frenzy in Australia right now

I'd rather have a netbook. iPad is a pain to hold. (1)

DirkDaring (91233) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417788)

Its a great machine and all, but I can't imagine trying to use it on a plane for any real length of time.

Re:I'd rather have a netbook. iPad is a pain to ho (1)

jdgreen7 (524066) | more than 4 years ago | (#32418148)

Its a great machine and all, but I can't imagine trying to use it on a plane for any real length of time.

That's why I bought a folio-style case with adjustable stand for mine so you can leave it propped up at a reasonable angle, making it a nice hands-free device while watching a movie or reading a book. The popular response to that is "Why not just get a netbook, since that stands up on its own already?!" Well, the iPad just does a lot of things very well that I want it to do, and with a 10+ hour battery life (generally much longer if just reading an ebook), I haven't found a better device yet. Plus, it comfortably fits on the fold-out tray on planes when the person in front of you leans back, unlike my 15" laptop.

Re:I'd rather have a netbook. iPad is a pain to ho (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32418254)

Surely a 10" notebook/netbook would be a better comparison than your 15" laptop? What with it then being the same screen size as the ipad, just with added keyboard and usefulness.

In AIR LAN Party anyone? (0)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417890)

I can just imagine restrictions being put on the type of games you can play, in the case of "In AIR LAN Parties", due to players being too aggressive and shouting this sort of thing shouted across the cabin: "You destroyed my f*@cking base, now I am going to drop a bomb on yours and kill everyone ... haha all your base are mine muahahaa.".

It is the law... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32418064)

Interestingly, in South Africa, it is LAW that all non essential electrical systems must be turned off for take-off and landing. Even if an airline wanted to allow something like this, they couldn't.

And as for phones not interfering with aircraft systems, put your phone next to a radio, and dial it. Hear that buzzing sound? That is exactly what the pilot hears on his headset. And it is very irritating, not to mention dangerous, when this happens while in busy or controlled airspace.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...