Mobile phones allowed on Ryanair

>> Looking at the FAQ
>> http://www.onair.aero/en/faq/faq_mobile_industry.pdf
>> it looks like I could set my mobile to not roam and get back on my own
>> network rather than helping Ryanair's profits.
>>
>> What do you folks think?
>>
>> Is there a signal at 36,000 feet?
>
>Why would a network waste kW of power pointing a signal up in the air
>where there's no-one there to use it? Of course there's not a signal at
>36,000

Didn't lots of calls come from one or more of the hijacked 9/11 planes?
How did they connect?
--
..

---

› See More: Mobile phones allowed on Ryanair

"." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Didn't lots of calls come from one or more of the hijacked 9/11 planes?
> How did they connect?

I think they were probably at significantly lower than 36,000 feet!

JW

[email protected] declared for all the world to hear...
> > In the normal course of events there is no reason to change away from
> > automatic. The only reason to do so might be to save a few pence while
> > abroad. Therefore that type of person would already know how to control
> > their device.
> >
> > The people that don't know how to are going to be the people that don't
> > ever need to.

> There's the case of people living at the border between the UK and the
> republic of Ireland (or any other border). If the phone is left to
> automatic, it will keep randomly switching to an Irish network. These
> people often had their kids or friend "tweak" the phone (that is set it to
> manual) to avoid that.

Good example, but that type of customer would still therefore know how
to control their device.
--
Regards
Jon

"." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>>> Looking at the FAQ
>>> http://www.onair.aero/en/faq/faq_mobile_industry.pdf
>>> it looks like I could set my mobile to not roam and get back on my own
>>> network rather than helping Ryanair's profits.
>>>
>>> What do you folks think?
>>>
>>> Is there a signal at 36,000 feet?
>>
>>Why would a network waste kW of power pointing a signal up in the air
>>where there's no-one there to use it? Of course there's not a signal at
>>36,000
>
> Didn't lots of calls come from one or more of the hijacked 9/11 planes?
> How did they connect?


almost certainly using the in flight phones rather than mobiles.

--
Tumbleweed

email replies not necessary but to contact use;
tumbleweednews at hotmail dot com

Tumbleweed wrote:
> "." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Didn't lots of calls come from one or more of the hijacked 9/11 planes?
> > How did they connect?
>
> almost certainly using the in flight phones rather than mobiles.

And even if they were mobiles then they would have definately been AMPS
phones as you would not have got any digital reception in the middle of
nowhere USA.

"bob_builder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Tumbleweed wrote:
> > "." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > > Didn't lots of calls come from one or more of the
> > > hijacked 9/11 planes? How did they connect?
> >
> > almost certainly using the in flight phones rather than
> > mobiles.
>
> And even if they were mobiles then they would have
> definately been AMPS phones as you would not have got any
> digital reception in the middle of nowhere USA.

NYC is nowhere USA..? Hmm, maybe...!

Remember that when the planes hit the towers they were below roof level
(obviously..!) and could well have picked up signals from the transmitters
on top of them and from others around the city.

Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:
> "bob_builder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]
> > Tumbleweed wrote:
> > > "." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > Didn't lots of calls come from one or more of the
> > > > hijacked 9/11 planes? How did they connect?
> > >
> > > almost certainly using the in flight phones rather than
> > > mobiles.
> >
> > And even if they were mobiles then they would have
> > definately been AMPS phones as you would not have got any
> > digital reception in the middle of nowhere USA.
>
> NYC is nowhere USA..? Hmm, maybe...!
>
> Remember that when the planes hit the towers they were below roof level
> (obviously..!) and could well have picked up signals from the transmitters
> on top of them and from others around the city.

I was not aware of any reported cell phone calls from the NYC planes. I
was refering to the reported "let's roll" calls from the plane that
crashed in a Pennsylvania field.

"bob_builder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Ivor Jones wrote:
> > "bob_builder" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]
> > > Tumbleweed wrote:
> > > > "." <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > > news:[email protected]...
> > > > > Didn't lots of calls come from one or more of the
> > > > > hijacked 9/11 planes? How did they connect?
> > > >
> > > > almost certainly using the in flight phones rather
> > > > than mobiles.
> > >
> > > And even if they were mobiles then they would have
> > > definately been AMPS phones as you would not have got
> > > any digital reception in the middle of nowhere USA.
> >
> > NYC is nowhere USA..? Hmm, maybe...!
> >
> > Remember that when the planes hit the towers they were
> > below roof level (obviously..!) and could well have
> > picked up signals from the transmitters on top of them
> > and from others around the city.
>

I was not aware of any reported cell phone calls from the
> NYC planes. I was refering to the reported "let's roll"
> calls from the plane that crashed in a Pennsylvania field.

Ok, well my memory is hazy, I could be wrong.

Ivor