Maurice: <<Yes, the airline has to demonstrate that Globalstar phones won't crash 747s. Big deal! That should take about 10 minutes to prove. Get three 747 pilots to rev up the engines, turn on the radios and stuff, then fire up 20 Globalstar phones on board and see if the pilots can spot their fuel guage. . .>>
So, as you can see.. the airline would have to expend some amount of financial resources(after all, 747's, fuel, and flight crews don't come cheap).. And although your tarmac test seems plausible.. I really doubt that the FAA would be to impressed with the guidelines of such testing parameters.. I would ponder a guess that they (FAA) would probably want to have the planes actually flying!! No?? Government Agencies are like that you know.. Always mucking about, making a big deal out of nothing!! (I mean what are the chances of another metal strip on a runway, being hit by a Concord (there's only about a dozen of them left in the whole world), which would then "cut down a tyre" whose debris would then break a petrol line, that would then result in a crash of a Concord?? To think that a Government Aviation Agency would strip the entire fleet of it's "Air Worthiness Certification" for such a concept??
In addition, I believe that the FAA would want some inspectors on board to witness the results of these tests.. Instead of "taking the airlines "word" on the results of the test".So those FAA inspectors / testers don't come cheap! So the incremental cost of renting/letting out some 747's, flight crew, fuel, and associated maintenance costs, FAA inspectors etc.. Your looking at a hefty cost to some airline to absorb, just so that some passenger's can make a few phone calls, or get 9600kbs WWW access with out the airline getting a "cut of the action".. Now , in my view, that's "Progress before Profits". (Like those GSM operators lowering roaming costs just because they have so much free capacity on their GSM systems using the concept of Low Usage + High Prices < High Usage + Low Prices. Must be nice that they don't have to worry about those system capacity problems).
Maybe we should pass this "in-flight Sat Phone Calls Allowed" concept by some shareholders at the airline who will host/(pay) for this test?? Better yet!! Maybe you could "ring up" one of the Executives at Air New Zealand?? Pass the idea by them and see if they want to foot the bill??.. I am sure they will consider it a "financially lucrative" concept.
<<Giving customers cheap benefits is what business is about..>>
I believe that the airlines believe in this concept.. As long as they can make a dollar on it..
Let's look at magazines on Airlines.. Did you know that the magazine publishers actually PAY the airlines to provide the airlines' customers with the Free/Cheap Benefit of or reading their periodical?? Then of course the airline's don't stop there.. No, they then staple an outside cover on the magazine, in which they sell advertising space for additional revenue.
Greed and maximizing profits are the airlines priorities, even to the point where some will neglect necessary maintenance on aircraft..
Let me know what the executives at Air New Zealand think of the concept??
Best Regards,
PCSTEL |
