Image via nicholaskralev.com

What do you think has been the biggest change in the airline passenger experience since you launched The Cranky Flier five years ago? Where do you see things headed five years down the line?

Aside from the amount of money that people need to shell out for tickets, it’s probably the Internet. The desire to have connectivity wherever you are has become an expectation and eventually I think that will just take over in general.

Airlines have already shifted from providing the entire package (in-seat systems plus content) to providing just content and an Internet connection. American Airlines has started testing this on their 767-200 series airplanes by providing streaming movies through Gogo, a service that allows fliers to get online during flight.

I think that’s where we’re headed in the long run, but I’m not sure when we’ll get there. It may be a five-year thing; it could be a 10-, 20-year thing. There are a lot of people who won’t adopt the technology quickly. The ability to provide this content wirelessly is still in its infancy.

You’ve mentioned on your site that you prefer to be disconnected while in flight, but as the Cranky Concierge you have to be connected at all times. Do you think we’re gaining or losing something with inflight connectivity?

You’re gaining choice in a way, but then there are a lot of people who still don’t have that choice.

Before the concierge service I would just completely zone out and watch TV. Now, depending on the flight, there’s the choice of Internet. But it’s not so much of a choice when I always feel the need to be connected so I can respond to our clients.

In your CNN column in April you suggested the future of IFE is in people’s own devices, not seatback systems. Do you think this is seen as a threat or opportunity in the IFE industry?

I don’t think airline people will fight against it, but the suppliers will. The airline people love it because it’s a less expensive solution. Essentially, you can just throw a router and hard drive on a plane and stream anything you want.

There’s obviously more to it than that, but to be able to provide that content and not have to deal with equipment costs and maintenance is huge.

On the other side you have the suppliers who have invested tons of money and built companies around providing this equipment. So that’s where I think you’ll find the most pushback.

In order to stay in the game, these suppliers will have to shift from focusing on hardware to focusing on content. You can control everything that the customer will see when they’re on that airplane; you can create the experience. The opportunity to succeed in this space is becoming more about providing a user experience.

The inflight industry is embracing the Android platform at the same time that Android is emerging as a dominant platform in the mobile world, with Google’s recent acquisition of Motorola. What are the implications of this for IFE?

There is certainly the potential of using existing Android apps and repurposing them for airplanes. Of course, there are a lot of things to consider; you can’t just say, “look, you can use any app.”

But the ability for increased compatibility between the two systems [mobile and inflight] is absolutely there. There is a lot of development going on for Android and iPhone iOS, so it makes a lot of sense. It’s the same thing when you look at social networks. You can create a new social network or you can link into an existing one like Facebook.

Anything that ties together with where people already are is a good way to go, and provides more opportunity for wide-ranging and better content.

In a post earlier this summer called “When Social Media Attacks,” you pointed to the false rumour that Delta had a “No Jews can fly” policy as an example of an airline forced on the defensive by social media. There’s also the Kevin Smith/Southwest example. Do you think most airlines are prepared to deal with their own social media crisis, manufactured or not?

I don’t think anyone can ever be completely prepared for these things. It’s still fairly early on in the life of social media, and it’s hard to know what’s going to catch on and when. There are so many variables and too few cases to base any actions on.

There are definitely certain airlines that are better prepared to respond than others. These airlines put more into having staff that’s monitoring these channels, creating a chain of command so they can solve problems quickly. But then again, Delta is one of those airlines. And they’ve still had their share of major problems. So it’s hard to predict these things.

Can you be an airline without a Twitter presence anymore?

There are still people who think it’s a fad. But airlines need to have a presence where, with any luck, the flier can reach them. Airlines also need an informal forum where they can respond to customers.

If brands are smart, they should be using that forum to proactively respond to problems, which makes for increased reactivity at a lower cost. I look at Twitter as a great customer service tool because it forces the customer to get to the point in 140 characters. On the airline side, you can have one customer service rep handling multiple people at a time, so there’s the ability to increase productivity.

Also, you can start proactively helping people on aircrafts that are WiFi-equipped. But there are still a lot of airlines who don’t get it, or who are afraid of it.

Your Cranky Concierge business is all about delivering “unique air travel assistance from a real human.” Why is there a need for such a hands-on service in an age where it’s easier than ever to do these things ourselves?

There are a lot of people who don’t want that personalized service. But there are certainly a lot of people who do. It could be for a variety of reasons: they aren’t as technologically savvy, or they have a very important event that they’re headed to like a wedding or meeting and they want someone to be on top of problems if need be.

No matter what airlines have offered through technology, the Internet still doesn’t give you that true creativity or the option of potentially involving another airline. There’s a lot that goes into an issue when it arises. It’s a relatively low price for people to pay to have peace of mind.

Earlier this year Sparksheet contributor Jay Vidyarthi reported on his experience at the TEDActive Travel Project. The project was focused on creating a “more human-centered” inflight experience, and the main takeaway was that passengers need to be given more control over their flying experience. Do you agree?

Yes, without question. When it comes to passenger experience the airlines have done more with choice. People complain about fees, but that’s exactly what a lot of the fees are about. Do you want more legroom? Do you want IFE? Do you want to check a bag?

The other part of that is information. Airlines have historically not liked to give a lot of information to people about what’s happening. People hate that!

A simple example of “I wish every other airline would do this” is Continental. When you go to their flight status they show you the tail number of the plane and where it’s coming from. Just giving someone that information makes the process more transparent.

In the article you wrote for Sparksheet last year you wrote that you’ve seen people pay $20 more for a ticket when they saw that the legroom was a couple inches better. How much more do you think people are willing to pay for better IFE?

There are people out there who self-select onto airlines with WiFi. It’s hard to know who those people are and how many there have been, but the fact that an airline like US Airways is looking at this means there’s something there. They have one of the sharpest eyes in the industry.

Ultimately, people still choose based on price and schedule, but it’s certainly a decision point and the longer the flight, the more important it becomes to people.