The in-flight mobile phone debate

Is it good to talk at 30,000 feet? Or does the thought of a plane full of mobile phone conversations fill you with horror?

The mobile phone debate divides air travelers into two separate camps: those who feel that losing their mobile service is like losing an arm, and those who look forward to the period between take-off and landing because for them it is one of the few remaining occasions in life when they can’t be contacted by the office — or anyone else. Ironically, it’s the anti-chatter camp who have been the most talkative since the news that the technology is now ready to enable travelers to make in-flight calls without affecting the cockpit’s communication and navigation systems. One UK newspaper launched a campaign against in-flight calls, and none of the several hundred readers who posted comments on its website was in favour of them. «No, no, no, no, no!» «I’d rather have smoking than mobiles.» «It’s enough to persuade me not to fly at all».  These were just three responses that represented their opinion that mobiles would cause a distraction to other travelers who prefer to read, sleep or simply switch off from the problems of the world.

But the angry posts don’t reflect the true picture. People who are against things tend to make more noise than those who accept that certain innovations are inevitable. Two published surveys suggest that four out of five air travelers are in favour of allowing in-flight calls — as long as they can be proved to be safe — and 54 per cent of business travelers think that they’ll use the service. «Who cares?» said management trainer Richard Parsons. «Sometimes being able to make a quick phone call could be extremely handy. And what happened to free speech?»Masayuki Kurihara, an interior designer, said: «We have to keep moving with technology and obviously some people will want to use a mobile even if the calls are expensive. How about a separate compartment for the chatterboxes?»

The system, developed by OnAir, was given the green light by the European Aviation Safety Agency in 2007. OnAir’s chief communications officer Graham Lake accepts the public’s concerns. «You probably wouldn’t want to sit next to someone who talked for the whole flight,» he says, «but the cabin crew have control over the system and can decide to de-activate it at night, for example.» Other possible compromises have been suggested, for example limiting mobile use to short-haul flights only and allowing «silent» communications only- texts and emails via laptops and hand-held devices.

Air France became the first airline to test the system on one of its Airbuses in December 2007, and in February 2009 the Irish no-frills airline Ryanair launched its in-flight mobile phone service on 20 aircraft, sharing the revenue from the calls with OnAir.

British Airways prefers to wait for customer feedback. «If you asked someone on a business flight to Brussels, he’d probably welcome the ability to check that his meeting was still on,» said a spokesman. «But if you asked the same question to the same person on a 12-hour flight to Hong Kong, he might tell you something very different.»

The fame game: why brands want celebrities

There are many benefits for brands that associate themselves with big celebrities; that’s why the future’s bright for stars, says Catherine Quinn.

Celebrity endorsement is big business. Whether it’s David Beckham with a Gillette razor, or the Sugababes in Pretty Polly tights, we’ve all got used to associating big names with big brands. For the celebs, the main benefits are obvious. Turn up for a few photo shoots, appear in an advert or two, and bring a truck to transport all the cash home. lf we’re talking facts and figures, the ex-footballer Gary Linekar was paid £1.5m for a five year contract with Walkers crisps, and the singer Charlotte Church recently became another crisp-crunching high earner, signing a £100,000 contract to star with him. Meanwhile, the celebrity chef Jamie Oliver apparently earns over a million a year from the supermarket chain Sainsburys — not bad for a few adverts a year.

However, despite the benefits of teaming a famous face to a brand, there are obvious disadvantages -celebrities are only human after all. «There are lots of different aspects to consider, but it is definitely advisable to drop a celebrity from an advertising campaign if they risk damaging the reputation of the brand,» says Stuart Whitwell of brand consultant Intangible Business. «Kate Moss’ drug use was nearly a disaster for the brands she was involved in. And there’s the possibility of celebrities being seen shopping at a rival store, or generally doing things which do not suit their image in relation to the brand.» Stuart also points out that many celebrities have a limited shelf life — in particular sports stars and athletes — and it is these who are, ironically, often favorite for a variety of lucrative endorsement