[mrduncan]

Last year, there was a Wakefield/Wi-Fi Alliance study that found 76% of travelers would choose an airline based on wi-fi availability.

I'd imagine Wi-Fi Alliance might have some biases here.

Since in-flight wifi is just a satellite connection, I'm sure the overall available bandwidth is fairly limited. Charging for wifi is a good middle ground for airlines as a way to make a few extra dollars but also to keep usage to a level that the uplink can handle.

Are their any airlines that currently offer free wifi? I know that SWA did during their testing phase a while back (which only consisted of 3-4 equipped planes) but they eventually started charging for it like everyone else.

[scotje]

The in-flight WiFi on Virgin America (and most domestic carriers as far as I know) is a cellular based system, not satellite.

http://www.gogoinflight.com/gogo/cms/work.do

[mrduncan]

Very interesting. Even with a cellular based system, I'm sure there isn't too much bandwidth available but much more than with a satellite connection I'd imagine.

[amohr]

Yeah, IIRC Delta had free wifi while they were testing it and Virgin's was free during the holiday season.

And yes the wifi alliance has some biases, but Wakefield (http://www.wakefieldresearch.com/) is an independent research firm.

That's a good point, though about charging in order to throttle bandwidth concerns. But that comes at a potentially high cost in public perception points. All it takes is one airline to say "Everyone should have free wifi, so now we do!" and there will be a big jump in people complaining about having to pay for it.

[rjett]

I flew from Sacramento to Miami 2 weeks ago with Delta and they had complimentary wifi.

[billswift]

TANSTAAFL, or free wireless. Any time something is being offered for "free" you can be sure those that aren't using it are being ripped off for the benefit of those who are.

[Psyonic]

This is true, of course. But that doesn't mean the public won't buy the free wifi claim, and prefer that airline over the others.