3 ms·

Is Hipmunk's information on flights to Australia actually decent? I took a look at it a while back for Canada-Europe flights and the results were less than insp

• smiler 15y ago
  I don't think many (if any?) carriers are offering WiFi on trans-atlantic or trans-pacific flights
  • akavi 15y ago
    I'm pretty sure the current on-board WiFi tech uses cell towers for service, which rules out over-ocean access right now.
    • masklinn 15y ago
      In cars maybe, but in flight? At 4.5km above the towers? Not a chance. There are two main techs for on-board WiFi: * Air-to-ground radiotelephony (what AirFone[0] used to use), which works like cell phones except for the sky, and with not cell towers and on a different frequency band. So not really like cell towers. This is the technology of Aircell's Gogo (which seems to be Hipmunk's partner on there) and LiveTV's. Advantage is that it's pretty cheap (~100k/plane of equipment), but it will only work over land (as it's based on ground antennas) * Satellites, this is Row44's technology (via HughesNet), the tech is far more expensive to setup in planes but more flexible and works across oceans. As far as I know, Row44 is only being implemented by SouthWest and Norwegian Air Shuttle. Alaska Airlines tried it (and the trial was successful), but decided to go Aircell GoGo for cost reasons. [0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirFone http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AirFone
      • akavi 15y ago
        I dispute your characterization of air-to-ground telephony as "not really like cell towers". Aircel (the guys behind Gogo Inflight) themselves characterize it as such on their own website[0]. I was, however, unaware of the satellite tech. [0]http://www.gogoinflight.com/gogo/cms/work.do http://www.gogoinflight.com/gogo/cms/work.do
      • hugh3 15y ago
        As I understand it, HughesNet uses geostationary satellites parked above the US and Europe, so even that wouldn't be any use.
    • corin_ 15y ago
      I use Virgin Atlantic for all transatlantic flights, and they do offer internet access, just not WiFi. The screens in the backs of seats can be used to read a very limited number of news stories, and you can also send (and possibly receive, can't remember) emails. I rarely bother to use it, the interface is so bad, so I might be forgetting some features. So, communicating with the internet isn't the problem, they just don't offer a network for customers to join with their own devices (possibly for cost purposes, possibly they have bandwidth worries or possibly they just haven't got round to it yet.)
• elithrar 15y ago
  > Is Hipmunk's information on flights to Australia actually decent? I took a look at it a while back for Canada-Europe flights and the results were less than inspiring. I always found Hipmunk to be fairly average to-and-from Australia. In fact, as an example: to fly from Perth to Shanghai, the cheapest/least agonising flight is $1477. Direct via Singapore Airlines' website, with the same amount of agony (just the one transfer at Changi (Singapore)) is $1126, flying with the one airline the whole time (even better!). There's also the Cathay Pacific option at $1136 odd. Hipmunk is probably darned good in the US, by all accounts, but internationally it's a bit weak.
• kn0thing 15y ago
  We're growing our faredata outside of the US every day, but we started with the market we know best to make all of our carrier relationships. Keep checking back! In the meantime, if hipmunk doesn't provide you an awesome set of search results to/from Oz, do try http://adioso.com http://adioso.com