Insight Community

Cell phones, especially Motorola's, can cause a buzzing sound over aviation VHF radios. This is also true of VOR frequencies. Cell phones also have trouble at higher altitudes reaching a single cell.

One solution is to rent cheap, FAA approved (possibly an oxymoron) cell phones to passengers. This could be done before taxiing, and passengers could forward their calls to the flight cell phone.

The flight cell phones would communicate with the plane's own relay system, and so could be lower power than traditional cell phones. The plane would relay its passengers' cellular traffic to ground-based stations. These might be attached to existing cell towers. These ground stations would integrate the plane's cellular traffic either with traditional cellular traffic or non-cellular traffic, whichever is easier.

Internet access could be provided through the same relay system. Ethernet may end up being easier (cheaper, and maybe even lighter) than wireless networking.

The technical issues which the airlines always have mooted as the main reason people are not allowed to make phone calls seems to be gone (the main reason was always the mobile operators wanting to limit the problem when people who are moving at 400 km per hour pass through the cells of the mobile network). Wireless networks in planes will not allow most people to make phone calls, so there will be GSM or 3G cells which work onboard, and connect through the sattelite connection to the ground. The users will have to pay dearly for the use of this service, of course, since roaming fees will likely be terrible (the people in the airplane will be the most captive customers ever....).

There is only one form or regulations which work for mobile phone calls, and that is self-regulation. There are two kinds: Monetary, and volontary. The monetary regulation is easy: While it will be horrendously expensive to make phone calls on planes, the airlines will not overcharge customers so much that they will stop making phone calls. But people who get a phone bill for a couple of hundred dollars soon start thinking about what they could do different next time, and that is what will happen with phone calls on planes from a financial perspective. Most people will not keep their phones on anyway, but the ones paid for by companies probably will. The companies will wise up on this after a while, and forbid people to make calls, which means they will only receive them.

The second question is exactly what you raise. The volontary regulation - or self-regulations by users. There is, unfortunately, only one answer to the question of use of mobiles in planes, and it is: It depends. Depends on where you are. 

Look at the current etiquette of using mobile phones in trains, which is probably a good guideline for what will happen. In Japan, people almost throw themselves off if they get a phone call. In China (and in most European countries), people merrily chat away. I think we can foresee the same development as on long-distance trains, everywhere but Japan (where people are more likely to take others into account): The creation of call-free zones, which will quickly get violated, and soon become meaningless and removed. There will be those who try to shush the loudest callers, and when enough people have blattered confidential information about their work to everyone sitting close, company security will get wise and issue memos, which will promptly be ignored.

The most durable consequence is most likely that there will be a lot of people who start understanding how they can use their mobile phones for mail and SMS, which will lead to a raise in the texting use of mobiles in the US. This because they will find it is both cheaper than making phone calls, and because they will find it to be more efficient in keeping in touch. 

Hope this helps

//Johan 

I'm more supportive of cell phones on airplanes than a lot of people seem to be. In my view, the ability to get useful work done during long flights far outweighs the minor annoyance of occasionally having to sit next to a chatty neighbor. After all, many people complain, with some justice, about drivers on cell phones, yet being able to talk on the phone while driving is so useful that a lot of people still do it. The same may be true of travelers. However, clearly a lot of people disagree, so it's important that an airline find ways to add value for the customers who want to be able to make phone calls in-flight while minimizing the annoyance of those who prefer silence.

Ultimately, the airlines will only discover how travelers feel by letting them vote with their dollars. Passengers who may support the ban in the abstract may discover that it's not as annoying as they expected, or that they value the opportunities to make calls in flight. So an airline considering rolling out a policy allowing in-flight calls should try a variety of options that give passengers more control over the policy on airlines. I suggest three strategies.

First, airlines should start with a small "cell phones allowed" section at the back of the airplane. This might be limited to three or four rows and pitched to passengers as an experiment. Passengers would be seated outside of this section unless they specifically requested to be in it. This would allow airlines to gauge the actual demand for phone-friendly flights. If demand for seating in that section is strong, then it could be expanded. If few passengers requested seating in the section, that would be a sign that customers really do prefer phone-free flights.

A related strategy for high-traffic routes would be to designate a few flights each week as phone-friendly. These would be clearly marked when customers purchased tickets, and so passengers would have the opportunity to select a different flight if they preferred. Again, airlines could gauge the actual demand for phone calls on airplanes by observing whether ticket sales were stronger or weaker on the phone-friendly flights.

Finally, an airline might establish designated times during a given flight when cell phone were allowed. For example, on a 3-hour flight, the pilot might allow a 15-minute window at the beginning and end of each flight for phone calls, with 2 hours of silence in between. That would allow people to check in with the office or their families or arrange rides home from the airport, but still ensure that the cabin was quiet for the bulk of the trip.

From a passenger standpoint, I enjoy the fact that airplanes are one of the few places I don't have to listen to someone elses conversations. If folks have to use their phones while in the air, it would be nice if there was some type of booth to make calls from. You're really close to your fellow passengers and opening up the calling area to the main part of the cabin will make for a much louder and frustrating trip.

ETIQUETTE

While travelers often dread ending up getting a seat next to a person of a bigger built which cramps their space, it is unavoidable and at the same time uneconomical for airlines to provide preferential treatment to certain passengers. With cell phone usage, one might take the same line of thinking and write it off as hard luck being stuck next to a noisy neighbor. This would allow for airlines to focus on other issues and let social dynamics take over to allow passengers to handle themselves.

Another point that must be made here is that passengers are free to converse on the cell phone just as they are free to converse with other passengers and as such, it might be best to let the passengers handle themselves.

TECHNICAL ISSUES

It is possible that cell phones may cause interference during takeoff and landing and as such airlines will probably continue to retain their existing policies of shutting off cell phones during that period.

SECURITY

There are obvious security concerns regarding cell phone usage to coordinate more intricate terrorist plots. An accomplice may land at the same airport 30 minutes prior and relay information regarding the security status quo at the airport.

ROLE OF THE AIRLINE

Airlines will potentially lose some whatever little revenue they receive from the in flight phones and for that reason alone they might choose to impose certain restrictions on cell phone usage.

While the airlines should strive to provide a pleasant journey and security of passengers, taking an active role in relaying passengers complaints about other talkative passengers might create friction and a negative experience for patrons who feel they are being picked on for cell phone usage which they consider non-disruptive. This might be particularly true for business class passengers who will feel that have the right to conduct their business over the phone while their fellow passengers might feel they have the right to a more quiet and pleasant environment.

REGULATION THROUGH JAMMERS

A convenient albeit potentially costly solution would be one where airlines use jammers to block cell phone signals altogether. This would allow them to regulate strict talking periods during the flight without creating any friction or cause for complaint while making regulatory enforcement a lot easier. Jammers may operate on a fixed time schedule or when the plane is in certain geographical location. Jammers may also come in handy during security threats.

REGULATION THROUGH ALTITUDE ADJUSTMENT

Pilots may choose to cross the minimum altitude threshold required for cell phones to lose signal, thereby regulating using a very low-jack solution. Making altitude adjustments, however, is very likely to incur increased fuel costs as planes rev up to gain altitude.

REGULATION THROUH POLICIES

While there are numerous interesting and arguable policies around cell phone usage the most effective route would be to pursue a strict policy and easy the restrictions on a time-tested, trial basis.

To being with, only certain areas of the plane may be designated for cell phone usage such as those between the cabins and near the toilets. Polite signs promoting passengers of talk time not exceeding say 5 minutes and suggesting a quiet conversation for the consideration of others might help prompt the proper etiquettes. Additionally, passengers may be informed of policies and considerate usage during the take-off and landing announcements. Passengers may also be barred from cell phone usage when lights are turned off.

Over time policies may be relaxed to allow passengers to talk freely during meal times or other such periods. Airlines should be careful, however, to relax policies over the span of a few months after having conduction passenger satisfaction surveys and agree on universal policies so the passengers can are accustomed to them and enforcement becomes easy.

SELF REGULATION

The airlines can take a back seat and allow passengers free reign on cell phone usage. Since cell phone usage is so ubiquitous it is likely that the outcome of such negligible regulation might be a boon to business.

In my personal opinion, it would serve airlines well to either invest in Jammers or allow cell phone usage only on certain flight paths to begin with and revisit their policies over a couple of months as this phenomenon takes off.

I think we're all well-enough informed here to agree that the reasons that phone calls are not allowed on airplanes in the USA is no longer an aircraft safety issue, but is now more a mix of these issues:

1 - A business model that suits the powerful stakeholders: Forget the customer for a moment (happens all the time), the powerful telecom lobbies want to make sure that the business model is highly lucrative for them. Simply using a repeater to contact towers on the ground and use your 'free' anytime minutes is not satisfactory to them. Of course, the airlines also want to make sure they get a cut of any telecom revenues, so the business model also has to compensate them. To come up with a convoluted business model that is designed to deliver value to the enablers, NOT the customers, is challenging, and is a barrier to rapid deployment.

2 - National Security Paranoia: If phone calls are allowed on planes, then the terrorists can use phone calls to coordinate synchronized hijacking schemes. Sure, they could also use a watch, but don't assume that Homeland Security isn't involved in the hold-up. In this Techdirt post, I list some of the onerous security requirements the government has of airplane phone services.

3 - Disruption of ground-based cellular networks has historically been the biggest reason that in-plane use of cellphones was prohibited, but all of the modern in-plane schemes use purpose-built microcells with directional repeaters or satellite backhaul designed not to interfere with ground-based cellular towers. Thus, the passenger's cell phone only connects to a base station inside the plane. This lowers the transmit power, and actually decreases the likelihood of navigation instrument interference. Today, this is a moot issue.

4 - But of course, the main reason we don't see cellular in airplanes in the USA is because we expect a public backlash at forcing people to be strapped in, trapped next to an annoying yakker chatting away the whole flight in a stream of mundane conversations at a 5th grade level. Of course this person will talk extra loud, and you will only be privy to half the conversation, which has been proven to be even more intrusive. We've all been next to this person at the airport, on the bus, the metro, etc... And we've all begun fuming wondering why the hell this person thinks the call is worth imposing on the whole bus, or even the person at the other end of the line! And why is he talking so loud?!? Of course, the bus ride is a matter of minutes. What if you're on a plane and those minutes turn to hours? Seriously, the result would be air rage, fights, and discord. On the ground, many people would choose to fly a different airline that didn't allow talking while flying. That's bad for business, and airlines know it.

So, the gist of your inquiry, then, is how do airlines that have overcome the first three problems above, solve the fourth?

What should consumers and airline passengers look forward to?

The most clear distinction is that, as passengers, we will notice a difference between silent activities and conversational activities. Thus, using email, SMS, IM, or other communications apps on the phone are likely to be permitted for the entire flight, except takeoff and approach, when all electronics are banned (for no good reason). Phone calls, of course, will be permitted under a set of rules made by the airlines. Governments will start to be less involved, since this is more about passenger comfort than safety.

Will there be mandatory phone etiquette rules during the flights?

There is a juxtaposition between your choice of words: mandatory and etiquette are mutually exclusive. Etiquette is a voluntary set of "manners" or mores that a culture promotes, and mandatory is a set of rules that would probably be handed down from the airlines. That said, both will exist.

Society will develop a set of mores for what is acceptable and unacceptable behavior for in-flight calling. But with these new technological breakthroughs, society often has to play catch-up. There are no existing mores for in-flight calling, so at first there will be an uncomfortable chaos until the culture settles on a social compact. This takes years, but not a decade. I think we have such a social compact for using phones in public locations. You can visibly see that we do if you are observant: just go to a public location (say a restaurant) and talk very loudly into your phone. Observe the faces around you - if there is sneering from many people, then they are in agreement that you are in violation of mores. That's how you know, because there rules aren't normally written down until Emily Post's son updates her book.

Of course, with mores, there are always a good number of people who were brought up poorly, who aren't in tune with others around them, who are selfish, or ignorant, and who will break the mores on a regular basis. These are the people who annoy us today with cell phones in public locations. There is every reason to believe they would continue to do so in the captive situation of flight. For these people, mores aren't enough, and mandatory rules will be imposed by the airlines. Next section please.

How might in-flight calls be regulated?

The airlines need to make this experiment work. They are counting on a revenue share from the phone calls, and don't want it to cost them lost customers in their core business. The rules they impose will be consistent with the way they already control behavior. My rules are partly speculation, partly a matter of record:

• You can only make calls while seated. This will be done for a mix of safety, security, and annoyance reasons. It may not have to be your seat - there may be flights with "office areas" on the new airbus. But they're not going to let you stroll around gabbing.
• You must not be overly loud, or annoy nearby passengers. A subjective rule, for sure, but having the rule in place gives the airline something to lean on when another passenger complains.
• No calls during take-off and landing. I don't' agree with this, but they will cite safety issues. In reality, during these periods, customers are very likely to be connected to terrestrial cell networks, which doesn't make the airline any money, so they would rather force you to speak while high in the air, where the price is high too (at least int'l roaming prices).
• They will not allow you to talk on the phone during the preflight safety speech by the stews.
• They will not allow you to talk on the phone during emergencies.
• Longer flights will have designated quiet times. These will be longer during night time flights. During these periods, only silent communications will be permitted (SMS, email, IM)

Those are the suggested regulations, but more directly addressing the question of HOW they will be regulated, well, the airline crew will control the micro base station. That means that they can tell you the rules, but they can also switch the base station to a mode that enforces the rules. Also, OnAir, a provider of in-plane communications solutions, has converted the unused "No Smoking" sign to "No Cellular". This provides the visual clue to passengers about the otherwise confusing scheduling of permitted calling.

Some customers may find ways around the rules that don't get them in trouble. In fact, I've seen an interesting product, that, although stupid-looking at first blush, might actually help the problem. It offers a Maxwell Smart-type "Cone of Silence" to contain the phone call and annoy neighbors less. The MFG suggests that airlines could provide this to passengers, or that passengers could bring their own. Having a few on the plane certainly gives the stews a way to politely suggest to passengers to "tone it down".

What role will the airlines play in developing the services?

A great deal, of course. They will set policy for safety reasons, operational reasons, passenger comfort reasons, and don't forget to maximise profit. All of the acceptable solutions require a micro base station in the plane, and the airline must install this. Therefore, they are in control. Think of the technology providers as the Lucents, and the airlines as the AT&Ts of this cellular network.

Most of my arguments in this entire post show rules, decisions, and business model considerations that involve the airlines.

Other Issues

How do solution providers manage people's cell phones to force them to connect to the microcell in the plane as opposed to terrestrial networks? In the air, most phones will auto-choose the microcell because it is the strongest signal at the lowest required power. Yet some people's phones will have a preference set for a particular terrestrial network, and most phones are equipped with a PRL (Preferred Roaming List), and customers can force their phones to connect to a different network. As an Orange subscriber, I could force my phone to use the Orange terrestrial network while flying over France, and not give the airline a cut! People will do this to avoid paying the high rates of in-flight service. It will be impossible for a stew to detect. For this reason, I think carriers will restrict calling to when the plane is at full altitude (30k ft.) so that connecting to terrestrial networks is less likely.

Mobile voice and data have become an integral part of the lives of most Americans. Therefore it is no surprise that airlines are now working hard to bring voice and data on to the airplane. Some have suggested this will create more trouble than convenience, turning the normal few hours of downtime into work hours and unleashing loud, rude, or obnoxious callers and web surfers in forced close quarters.

My take is the opposite. We are past due for this type of in flight service and the only challenge is that most callers may not have VOIP capabilities, so they'll only benefit from the data services and will still have to wait until touchdown to make cell calls.

What should consumers and airline passengers look forward to?

In terms of voice communications I do not think on board networking will involve much change because few phones will be able to make the VOIP calls and even those with VOIP phones or laptops may not want to configure them to the new network for the benefits of a few hours of call time. However for those that do have the capability this will offer a significant perk, especially on very long international flights.

I think the move to networking in flight will have very little effect in terms of distractions or inconveniences to other passengers. Even if voice calls become common in flight the number of rude and loud callers will be minimized by social forces and the fact people don't want to share their calls with others. Also, Airplane architecture tends to localize verbal noise to a few rows anyway. No big problems looming at all.

The major big "plus" of on-board networking will be the ability to catch up on email and surf while flying, turning a few boring hours of downtime into highly productive worktime. Also, since much travel is often to and from business events, flight time offers a good environment to process meetings and conferences, making notes or following up on contacts via voice and email.

Will there be mandatory phone etiquette rules during the flights?

I doubt there will be much need for any addtional rules, though perhaps Airlines will initially make the "suggestion" that on-board phone conversations be kept at a low volume. Even if you happen to be sitting next to a loud talker you'll have the option of using your own ear buds to screen out their noise.   

How might in-flight calls be regulated?

Although I don't think they will be regulated it's possible the airline will initially ask (or require via a networking timer) that the calls be brief. This would avoid what I see as the one likely annoyance for somebody sitting next to a compulsive caller with a loud voice.

What role will the airlines play in developing the services?

With on-board broadband likely to become a a major flight amenity I think the airlines will always want to maintain control over the services even if they subcontract for the networking itself.   I'd guess most airlines will partner with technology providers who will handle installations, maintentance, and perhaps even billing services with a revenue share to the airlines.    Initial roll out costs will be high while the ongoing costs are likely to be minimal.    Since airlines are in dire capital straights right now look for many creative partnerships to spring up in this space where Airlines trade potential profits from value added services or advertising in exchange for a network buildout for their airline.

Initially the airlines should be very sensitive to feedback and to making sure what is probably going to be a very small percentage of potentially loud and annoying callers be kept "in line" during the trial phases.  

Although I think it's unlikely there will be many problems, Airlines could add a seating category for those who will be making frequent calls, trying to confine the "chatty" flyers to certain parts of the plane, or at least putting talkers in the same rows during flights.     The only real annoyance for a fellow passenger I can see would be getting stuck beside (or worse, between) frequent and loud callers during a long flight.    However I think common courtesy and the likelihood that people are going to be using data services far more than voice makes this problem a likely minor concern for the airlines and for passengers.

Other Concerns:

Contrary to the naysayers on-board networking is almost all a good thing and the best path for passengers is to encourage the airlines to "bring it on-board!" 

A number of U.S. domestic airlines as well as some international carriers have recognized travelers desires to remain connected in-flight; therefore, they have announced that they will offer in-flight Internet and phone services. The ability to remain connected in the air comes with mixed blessings. Personally I like being disconnected because I now have uninterrupted time to complete work that requires deep thought or catch up on work without worrying about interruptions from phone calls or new e-mail messages. Alaska Airlines, American Airlines, JetBlue, and Virgin America are a few of the airlines that are trialing in-flight connectivity. Each one is offering a slightly different type of Internet and on-line service that the airlines hope to attract customers to spend an average of $10 per flight.

There is no definitive agreement on the type of on-line service that should be offered so the airlines are conducting trials to determine the services that customers want. Airlines question whether they should block access to certain sites or prevent certain applications such as voice that may cause disruption to other passengers. On the other hand, voice service will increase usage of the network which may mean the difference between the service being profitable. Voice services were a miserable failure the first time airlines tried them not because of the disruption to other passengers but because they were too expensive and the audio quality was frequently poor. The ubiquity of cell phones has made people comfortable with sharing their conversations with the public so airlines are concerned that voice services over their Internet access will disturb other passengers.

Passenger disruption and lack of understanding of their customers’ needs has spawned trials offering different types on on-line services. Some airlines are trialing only access for e-mail and web browsing, another limits access to just Yahoo!, some are blocking Skype and other voice services, other airlines are filtering pornographic and violent web sites, and others are leaving access open to see how customers use the service. American and Alaska Airlines plan to offer Internet access while blocking voice, and Virgin America will offer Internet access including voice. American and Alaska are blocking voice services because they believe that the density of passengers in the cabin will create a noisy environment which is the same reason that the FCC still bans the use of cell phones on planes. They are making the decision to regulate customers’ behavior. The same goes for Quantas that filters web sites for objectionable content. All of these airlines are opening themselves for discussions on net neutrality.

Personally I feel that the open access services will be the most popular and profitable. The market has always preferred choice which is why closed on-line communities failed. Trials are still in their early stages with no definite results on which service is more popular yet.

With this openness comes the potential for abuse by a select few. Every time a new technology is introduced to the public, it may impact how society behaves. Mores and rules are modified by society to adopt the new technology. Lately, too often we expect government to regulate the societal impact of technology because we do not have faith in our fellow citizens to take responsibility for their own actions. American and Alaska have taken the route to ban voice to avoid any confrontations. Virgin (funny that the Brits respect personal freedom than the Americans) has taken a wait-and-see approach. A seat mate chatting on the phone is no more annoying than the mate that will not stop talking, playing their iPod too loudly, pulling the back of your seat, or hitting you with their bag as they go down the aisle. We all have to be respectful of other passengers on the plane.

Frankly the environment in the plane is enough to regulate the use of phones. The noise level is too high to carry on a useful conversation. Also, I do not care to have other passengers hear my private business and personal conversations. Most passengers feel the same way. This self-regulating behavior will limit the use of voice on flights. Of course you will have the occasional passenger that wants to demonstrate how important they are by shouting their business over an in-flight call. This should be addressed by either a passenger or flight attendant asking them to keep their voice down. I have seen it done before takeoff when cell phone use is still permitted. Airlines should try common sense first before blocking the use of Skype, IM voice, and voice applications. Blocking particular sites or services will face the same net neutrality issues that Comcast is presently experiencing with Bittorrent. Asking the FCC to arbitrate this discussion will create a dilemma between open access that they are enforcing on wired networks against the cell phone ban on planes.

Open access wireless Internet service has great potential for business and personal travelers that want to stay connected in the air. Although it is one of the last bastions where we can go unwired, services could provide great utility as long as travelers can access the applications and sites they use. Limiting access and applications could limit that utility. Allowing voice applications has to be tempered with common sense. Airlines may need to remind passengers to be courteous of other passengers. This will allow for a pleasant traveling experience for all.

First off, I'm amazed that Alaska Airlines is only offering a choice of nine movies to their passengers, since the movies are stored locally. Why don't they offer passengers an entire library of digitized films? In fact, there's an even easier way to accomplish this. Apple has already lined up movie deals for iTunes with 11 major motion picture studios. It would be trivial for any airline to rig up an interface to the iTunes movie library. Even NetFlix has hundreds of "Watch Instantly" titles — which in theory means their hundreds of movies could be available to every passenger with a simple broadband connection to NetFlix.com.

And while Alaska Airlines is currently promising digital music, they're limiting it to just nine channels. There's very few technical hurdles stopping them from expanding that to the hundreds of choices that are available through satellite radio. Since it's already possible to tune into satellite radio on the web, the same channels could also be available through a simple broadband connection.

I'm sure Apple, NetFlix, and XM/Sirius would all appreciate the extra exposure to the airlines' high-end market segment: business travellers. The airlines could even try to charge them for the opportunity to reach this attractive (and captive) audience. But if there's any resistance, the airline could simply add the appropriate links on the home page of their in-flight web browsers. And there's another great entertainment option. Currently it's also possible to watch 56 first-run TV shows on the web (including four daytime soap operas). Since this requires nothing more than a broadband internet connection, the airlines could simply include a "TV Shows" link on the home page, linking passengers to the show's web sites! ABC is even offering high-definition versions of Lost and selected episodes of Desperate Housewives, Grey's Anatomy, Ugly Betty, and Dirty Sexy Money.

What's interesting is that in-flight email, messaging, and digital movies are actually less problematic than in-flight phone calls, where airlines have to worry about passengers annoying their neighbors by speaking too loudly (instead of sitting silently while consuming their digital entertainment!) I'm not sure it's the airline's responsibility to intervene — beyond a flight attendant whispering "shh" — but if it became a serious issue, the airlines could try limiting the duration of the calls. (Passengers might still annoy their neighbors, but only for five minutes!)

But another option would be to have a designated area for phone calls — maybe in the last two rows of seats. Or taking it one step further, a special walled area could even be created — like a larger version of the lavatory — where in-flight phone calls could be made in privacy.

Even the callers would appreciate that!

Many airlines are considering the use of mobile phones on planes, many in a limited way.  The latest iteration of wireless access on planes after the poor take up of Boeing's Connexion service could see the use of dual mode phones (GSM/CDMA and WiFi) for voice calls but limited browsing ability.

 This could lead to some very upset airline passengers as people get comfortable with making calls onboard.  For some reason people speak loudly on mobiles so how do you allow this to happen and not disturb other pasengers.

Many services will not be disruptive to fellow travellers and probably the largest take up will be on Blackberry and other Push Mail services.  This will be no more than the clicks that we hear from the onboard entertainment system.

The approach will be to see how much additional noise will be generated by the allowing people to use their phone in the seat.  I anticipate that people will get upset particularly on long haul flights where people have often developed techniques for sleeping and resting to fight jet lag.  Domestic and short haul flights between the UK and Europe will be easier as these flgiths are often full with inter country commuters and professionals travelling between meetings/projects and home.

What are the options?

1.  Use of mobiles in toilets only.  The anticipation is that you will only be able to use electronic devices after take off and before landing as today.  This means once the setabelt sign is off you can start to talk.  The typical pattern is people soon after this hit the toilet so this could be part of the solution.

2.  Rezone some areas to talk zones.  Some Airbus aircraft have what already looks like a telephone booth from where the entertainment system is controlled.  Make this be the phone room to help keep other passengers happy.

In addition some of the walkway and dead areas around the exits, around the toilets and towards the back of the plane could be modified with sound proofing and screens that could turn these into working zones.

3.  This could be a differentiator for the Airbus A380.  The extra deck space could allow for the creation of talk rooms where people could gather to make calls.

The answer will around peer pressure as there is little space to allow for much dedicated space for talk zones.  The airline business could learn from the Intercity trains in the UK.  There is usually a dedicated quiet carriage on trains from e.g. Edinburgh to London.  This could be a new class on planes where today we see Business, Premium Economy and Economy.  Maybe we'll see Quiet Economy and Quiet Business (Top deck on a 747?) that could even carry a premium to allow the airlines to generate more revenue to help offset the costs of the installation.