> The take rate on these services is pretty low. Single digit percentages of the passengers.
In-flight WiFi and cellular were available on my last Etihad flight (Europe -> Bangkok via Abu Dhabi).
The charge was something like 25 EUR to share the 1MBit/128Kbit link with the rest of the plane.
So no wonder the uptake on this service is slow low. Business passengers will probably take it because the company pays (or it's included in the cost of their ticket) and for economy passengers it's too much to pay for a handicapped internet connection where they can't even Skype friends or browse Facebook because it's so slow.
They've all done experiments with different price points. The 25 EUR rate isn't likely an accident...it's what gains them the most revenue. The installation costs are very high (certification, aircraft downtime, etc), and for satellite based solutions, the bandwidth cost is high. I don't even think they are trying to make money, just offset as much cost as they can.
As far as I'm aware, they make most of the money on business jets; the commercial side, as far as I'm aware, operates more or less at marginal cost with lower QoS guarantees than the business jets get as a marketing exercise.
The providers (ViaSat, Panasonic, etc) make money. I'm saying the airlines don't make much money on it. They have to bear the installation costs, which are very high, and pay the providers the bandwidth charges. There's also lost revenue while the plane is out of service and a slight (but adds up across the fleet) rise in fuel burn due to the antenna bump. Whatever they charge passengers doesn't recoup it all.
The cell / ground based systems have a different model, and the installation costs, while high, aren't quite as high. But, the providers there, like GoGo, set the pricing, keep the branding, etc, and only share a commission back. I don't believe it's a net positive revenue for the airlines either, but I know less about that space.
