airlines – Techdirt (original) (raw)

Airline CEOs Freak Out Over 5G Despite Limited Evidence Of Real World Harm

from the everybody-take-it-easy dept

We’d already noted that the FAA had been pushing to impose limits on 5G deployments in certain bands due to safety concerns. The problem: the FCC, the agency with the expertise in spectrum interference, has repeatedly stated those concerns are unfounded based on the FCC’s own research. The whole feud has been fairly bizarre, with the FAA refusing to transparently “show its math” at several points, but taking the time to leak its scary claims to select press outlets.

More specifically: the FAA (and a big chunk of the airline industry) claims that deploying 5G in the 3.7 to 3.98 GHz “C-Band” will cause interference with certain radio altimeters. But the FCC has shown that more than 40 countries have deployed 5G in this band with no evidence of harm if you implement some fairly basic safety precautions (like limiting deployments immediately around airports, and utilizing a 220 MHz guard band that will remain unused as a buffer to prevent this theoretical interference).

The FCC says there’s not actually a problem here. And the wireless industry, having spent billions of dollars on middle band spectrum, obviously wants to move forward with deployment. Especially given criticism that U.S. 5G underperforms many overseas deployments thanks to a dearth of middleband spectrum. The U.S. has deployed substantial low band 5G spectrum (great range, lower speeds), and high band millimeter wave spectrum (poor range, poor building penetration, great speeds), but unlike many nations overseas, not much middle band (both good speeds and good range).

The whole C-band mess escalated significantly this week after the CEOs of several major airlines issued a public letter effectively proclaiming their businesses would grind to a halt if wireless carriers continue to deploy 5G in these spectrum ranges:

“The aviation industry faces ?catastrophic? disruption from the rollout of a new 5G service this week, airline leaders have warned. In a letter sent Monday to United States transportation and economic officials and obtained by NBC News, the CEOs of major carriers said that the launch could ground flights and leave “tens of thousands of Americans” stranded overseas.”

To be clear, evidence of actual harm here remains hard to come by. The FAA’s own recent memos (pdf) stated there was no “proven reports of harmful interference” with C-Band 5G deployments anywhere in the world. And wireless spectrum policy experts tell me there’s been absolutely no new studies that would justify this level of renewed freaking out by airline CEOs:

“We have seen no new evidence of anything,? Feld told Motherboard. ?No new studies. No lists of altimeter equipment with their sensitivity to potential harmful interference.”

When issues have popped up, they’ve proven relatively trivial to mitigate around the world. U.S. Wireless carriers have already agreed to limit deployment around at least 50 U.S. airports to reduce the chance of interference, and had agreed to a short delay to study harm before this week’s deployment. After some initial squabbling between the FCC and FAA, all sides seemed to have basically struck a deal on U.S. 5G deployment in these bands, including that 200Mhz buffer (double what companies like Boeing recommended) to further limit potential harm.

But the real reason for the chaos isn’t the actual interference. Some analysts suggest that, as usual, money is playing a role, and that the FAA, tightly wound up with the companies it regulates, wants to push the cost of any mitigation measures off to wireless carriers.

But Consumer groups, FCC sources, and wireless carriers all tell me the real problem is FAA procrastination, hubris and incompetence. Consumer groups and AT&T rarely agree on anything, but they both agree that the FAA didn’t respect the expertise of the FCC (who again already studied this problem before the C-band auction and found little need for concern), wasn’t willing to offer transparent evidence of their interference claims, didn’t bring any of its concerns up years ago during the investigation process, and has lagged on both certifying altimeters it deems safe to use around C-Band 5G–and setting up flight restrictions for planes that have altimeters that don’t qualify as safe under FAA guidance. AT&T was fairly blunt:

So it’s not really clear why the CEOs of major airlines have dropped a doomsday-esque letter like this into the mix this late in the game (literally a day before initial deployments), given what little safety issues that do exist have already been addressed by the FCC and others. Just like it wasn’t really clear why the FAA didn’t want to listen to the FCC when it said there wasn’t really an issue here that couldn’t be easily mitigated. Especially given this same technology has already been deployed in more than 40 countries (in some cases, like Japan, even closer to spectrum ranges used by avionics equipment) with absolutely no evidence of harm. There’s being adequately cautious out of respect for human safety, and then there’s just being difficult.

Filed Under: 5g, airlines, airplanes, airports, faa, fcc, interference

Broadband, Airline Industries Are Incredible Innovators — When It Comes To Giving You Less But Claiming It's More

from the nickel-and-dime-you-to-death dept

Wed, Jan 7th 2015 06:03am - Karl Bode

There are certainly some similarities between the airline and broadband industries. Both are pampered, uncompetitive markets suffering from regulatory capture that allows them to literally write the laws that govern their respective business segments. Both insist that constantly skyrocketing prices are justified by an ever-improving “customer experience,” while the actual customer experience continues to get worse as companies consolidate and competitors dwindle. Taking their cues from banking “innovations” in the 80s, both industries have also become obsessed with screwing over their customers via the use of increasingly sneaky fees.

This New Yorker article by neutrality godfather Tim Wu makes this rather clear, noting that the airline industry made 31billionlargelyfromfeesin2013,anumberthat’ssuretohaveskyrocketedin2014astheairlinesgetincreasingly“creative”inbelow−the−linechargesforbasicamenitiesthatusedtojustbepartofstandardservice.SomefriendsofminerecentlyrodeAllegiantAir,andtoldmethecompanychargeda31 billion largely from fees in 2013, a number that’s sure to have skyrocketed in 2014 as the airlines get increasingly “creative” in below-the-line charges for basic amenities that used to just be part of standard service. Some friends of mine recently rode Allegiant Air, and told me the company charged a 31billionlargelyfromfeesin2013,anumberthat’ssuretohaveskyrocketedin2014astheairlinesgetincreasingly“creative”inbelow−the−linechargesforbasicamenitiesthatusedtojustbepartofstandardservice.SomefriendsofminerecentlyrodeAllegiantAir,andtoldmethecompanychargeda5 fee just to print your boarding pass on top of the usual assortment of annoying fees (it’s worth noting their beverages, including water, also aren’t complimentary).

While the airlines like to frame this as an increase in consumer choice (hey, you can choose to not enjoy a pillow!), Wu aptly notes how this approach to price discrimination in less competitive markets consistently results in making your customers more miserable:

“But the fee model comes with systematic costs that are not immediately obvious. Here?s the thing: in order for fees to work, there needs be something worth paying to avoid. That necessitates, at some level, a strategy that can be described as ?calculated misery.? Basic service, without fees, must be sufficiently degraded in order to make people want to pay to escape it. And that?s where the suffering begins. The necessity of degrading basic service provides a partial explanation for the fact that, in the past decade, the major airlines have done what they can to make flying basic economy, particularly on longer flights, an intolerable experience.”

Earlier this year, Mike had already pointed out more than a few similarities between the broadband and airline industries, and how this behavior is closely tied to the net neutrality debate. Wu doesn’t even mention broadband, though both industries feature oligopolies that abuse the lack of competition to keep the bar at ankle height to cut costs, then enjoy charging consumers more if they’d like to be less miserable. The overall transaction costs (physical, mental and monetary) of such a model become absurdly high, reducing the utility of the service and incentivizing an approach where consumers have to pay to elevate themselves beyond intentionally poor or constrained service, resulting in the flying experiences most of us know and love today.

The broadband industry isn’t much different (something Stacey Higginbotham pointed out recently as well). That consumers are being given amazing new levels of choice and flexibility is AT&T’s justification for the company’s Sponsored Data effort, which erects entirely arbitrary consumer usage caps, then charges companies an extra fee if they’d like to bypass them. Likewise, T-Mobile argues that exempting only the biggest music services from the company’s usage caps delivers great benefits to the consumer (despite tilting the playing field against smaller operators). While the net neutrality conversation (and the feeble rules we’ve seen so far) focuses on outright blocking of websites or throttling of connections or services (even though even the worst-behaved ISPs now avoid both), the real danger at the moment is the all-too-clever efforts that constrain the user while pretending to offer greater freedom.

Like the airline industry, in regulatory conversation there’s a tendency to see these efforts as simple pricing creativity, when the only creative thing about them is in convincing consumers that less is more. Without meaningful network neutrality rules (in the stark absence of real competition), we’re creating a slippery slope of intentionally hamstrung services where your only option is to pay a steep premium if you’d like to be treated even remotely like a human being.

Filed Under: airlines, broadband, competition, fees, incentives, innovation, oligopolies, tim wu, tolls

DailyDirt: Unicorns, Santa, Comfortable Airline Seating…

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

It’s so easy to get frustrated waiting in an airplane, even though everything is amazing. At the same time, it’s vindicating to see reports that airlines actually do have some of the least comfortable seating, literally by design. Here are just a few links on the future of airline seating that may or may not surprise you.

If you’d like to read more awesome and interesting stuff, check out this unrelated (but not entirely random!) Techdirt post via StumbleUpon.

Filed Under: aeron chair, airlines, design, flotation device, middle seat, seating
Companies: airbus

Asiana Air Says It Will Sue Over Stupid News Program Broadcasting Offensive Joke Names Of Crash Pilots

from the damaged-whose-reputation? dept

By now you’ve probably already heard about how the local Fox affiliate here in the Bay Area of California last week broadcast what it apparently believed were the names of the four pilots on the Asiana Air plane that crashed on landing at San Franciso Airport a week ago.

Almost everyone I’ve spoken to about this is stunned that no one realized these were obviously fake, racist names. You could maybe see one of them getting through, but all four? And it’s not like this is in an area without a large Asian population. Nearly 25% of the population in this region is of Asian heritage. You’d think someone would have caught that these were fake before it went on air. But, no one did. If you haven’t seen the video of the newscaster reading out those names, it’s really quite incredible:

As you might imagine, KTVU quickly apologized, blaming the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) who it insisted had confirmed the names. At first the NTSB insisted that it had nothing to do with it, saying that “we do not release names” ever. However, a few hours later, the NTSB was forced to issue a statement apologizing, and saying that a summer intern, who was acting way, way, way outside the scope of his authority, had confirmed the names:

Earlier today, in response to an inquiry from a media outlet, a summer intern acted outside the scope of his authority when he erroneously confirmed the names of the flight crew on the aircraft.

The NTSB does not release or confirm the names of crewmembers or people involved in transportation accidents to the media. We work hard to ensure that only appropriate factual information regarding an investigation is released and deeply regret today’s incident.

Appropriate actions will be taken to ensure that such a serious error is not repeated.

Of course, the NTSB has also said that the names “originated” with KTVU and that the intern was “trying to be helpful.” Either way, the end result was pretty clear: KTVU (and, to some extent, the NTSB) were quickly mocked widely online.

I had figured the story would die down over the weekend but, apparently, Asiana Air is talking about potentially suing both KTVU and the NTSB over this incident, claiming that it harmed their reputation.

Asiana said Monday that it will sue a San Francisco TV station that damaged the airline’s reputation by using bogus and racially offensive names for four pilots on a plane that crashed earlier this month in San Francisco.

Yes, the use of those names was racist and offensive. And, yes, it was absolutely ridiculous that it made it on the air. But it’s almost as ridiculous to then file a lawsuit over such a thing. Asiana is going to have one hell of a time proving any “damage” to the airline’s reputation from that report, as opposed to, I don’t know, the actual crash landing. It seems that Asiana’s reputation is already hurt, but not because of any fake names, but rather for its inability to properly land an airplane.

The whole reason the names became a story was that basically everyone who didn’t work at KTVU knew they were fake and offensive names. No one actually thought that they were real. There was no damage done to Asiana from those names being used. The damage was to KTVU’s credibility (not to mention the credibility of whoever hires summer interns at the NTSB). KTVU and the NTSB have both apologized, and Asiana should focus on making sure its pilots can land their planes rather than suing over this.

Filed Under: airlines, crashes, ntsb, racist jokes, reputation
Companies: asiana air, ktvu

DailyDirt: On The Way, The Paper Bag Was On My Knee…

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

There doesn’t seem to be a “Black Friday” for getting good deals on booking flights. Maybe there is a single day of the year to buy really discounted plane tickets — if you know what day that is, please let everyone know in the comments. But technically, it probably takes more than a single day of ticket sales for the airline industry to get into the black for the year. In any case, here are some more stories about airlines and how they treat their customers.

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: airlines, fees, fines, flights, frequent flier miles
Companies: american airlines, southwest airlines, spirit airlines, virgin america

DailyDirt: People Are Stupid, So They Don't Question Sky Law…

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

If you’re traveling for the upcoming holidays, you might think that a “passenger bill of rights” is supposed to have kicked in already, so you don’t have to worry about being stuck on a plane sitting on the runway for more than 4 hours. That probably won’t happen, but if the weather is bad, be prepared to have your flight canceled instead. Here are just a few interesting links on airline operations.

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: airlines, customer service, traveling
Companies: american airlines, ryanair

Homeland Security Says Homeland Security Hasn't Abused Airline Passenger Info

from the doesn't-that-make-you-feel-safer dept

As there are continued concerns from the EU about US requirements to hand over passenger info to the US, where it will be stored for at least fifteen years, Homeland Security trotted out its own “chief privacy officer,” who insists that Homeland Security hasn’t abused the information. Somehow, trusting DHS to tell us DHS isn’t abusing the information DHS so desperately wants… isn’t particularly comforting.

Filed Under: airlines, dhs, eu, passenger info, privacy, us

Airline Threatens To Sue Betting Site For Taking Bets On When It Would Go Out Of Business

from the what's-illegal-about-that? dept

Apparently, a Scottish airline, Flyglobespan, has threatened to sue an online betting site because it was taking bets on what airline would be the next to go out of business, and had odds on Flyglobespan. The site did stop taking bets, but says it was due to a lack of interest, rather than the threat of a lawsuit. However, it’s not clear what law it would be breaking to offer such a bet. You can understand that the company is concerned that potential passengers might think the airline is at risk, but it’s not clear that’s enough to stop any such bets.

Filed Under: airlines, bets, failure, scotland
Companies: flyglobespan

Maybe Airlines Should Take A Page From Telcos: Pretend Extra Fees Are From The Government

from the oxygen-fee-anyone? dept

For years, we’ve pointed out how various telcos get away with adding extra fees to increase the price of service without technically “increasing the price.” The sneakiest of these add on those fees with names that make them sound like they’re required by the government — even though they rarely are. A few times, we’ve asked how those sorts of fees might be applied to other businesses. Of course, we did so as a joke, using it to show how ridiculous some of those fees really were. However, it appears that perhaps it wasn’t such a joke. Reading this NY Times article about all the new fees that airlines are charging passengers, it has to remind you of the sorts of fees seen on your telco bills lately. As far as I know, I haven’t seen any airlines disguising fees as gov’t taxes yet — though it may just be a matter of time. Of course, the airlines are doing their best to ignore the criticism of things like charging 7forapillowor7 for a pillow or 7forapillowor2 for some water — but as political cartoonists are noticing, it may not be long before people expect to be charged for oxygen masks or use of the bathroom.

Filed Under: airlines, fees

Airline Plans To Cancel All Flights Booked Through 3rd Party Websites

from the piss-off-your-customers-much? dept

And people wonder why airlines have so much trouble staying in business? We were already confused enough by American Airlines’ desire not to be listed on the sites where people search for airfare, and easyJet’s plan to sue the sites that send it customers, but Irish-based airline Ryanair is taking this all to a new level. Beyond just being upset about those 3rd party sites (i.e., sites that send it business!), it’s planning to cancel the flights for everyone who booked through one of those services (thanks to Sean for the link).

Yes, we understand that these airlines prefer people to purchase flights from the airlines directly, but it still seems bizarre to try to cut off a great promotional channel. People already know to go look at 3rd party sites for airfare, so actively working against having your flights promoted doesn’t make much sense. Then actively pissing off a bunch of your customers who booked through those sites by canceling their flights is even more braindead, as you’ve just formed a huge group of customers who will complain about your airline and spread the word about how you canceled their legitimately purchased flight for no reason other than spite and a confusion over business models. When Ryanair started promoting how some of its seats might come with sexual gratification, I’d bet many passengers didn’t realize it would end with them getting screwed.

Filed Under: aggregation, airlines, cancel, global distribution services, scraping, ticket prices
Companies: ryanair