6. film in air airspace, in-flight entertainment

7/29/2019 6. Film in Air Airspace, In-Flight Entertainment

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/6-film-in-air-airspace-in-flight-entertainment 1/12

STEPHEN GROENING

Film in A ir : Airspace, In-Flight Entertainment, and

Nontheatrical Distribution

n 21 May 1932 Los Angeles radio station

KHJ transmitted a segment of a motion

picture as a television signal for five min-

utes to a W estern Air Express transport

plane nearly ten miles away Th e experiment was part of

a proposed plan to transmit weather information to planesusing the e mergent technology of television. In this early

application of in-flight screened entertain ment, the visual

communication technology was intended to further the

efficiency of transportation technologies. W ithout ac-

curate weather reports, goods (including human labor)

could not be delivered safely and in a timely manner.

However, if the experiment was simply to be used as a

weather information system, it is unclear why Western

Air Express and KHJ broadcast a feature-length film to

test the technology. This convergence of entertainment

and aviation technologies was a telling indication ofa

growing alliance between Hollywood and commercial

air travel. Alth ough the film (starring Loretta Young) was

broadcast without sound, the engineers told reporters,

who constituted the majority of those on the plane, that

it would require only a small adjustment to also transmit

sound, pointing toward th e possibility of entertainment

applications.'

The experiment demonstrated American technical

prowess within the ong oing modern project: to eliminate

barriers of physical distance and lay claim to the new kinds

of spaces createdby this

project.The televisionsignals

were

received on a moving vehicle, occupying the relatively

new spatial category of "airspace" (a term barely twenty

years old). As the plane itself defied the normal rules of

territorial contiguity, flying over Los Angeles but no t be ing

in Los Angeles, the transnational comm unication apparatus

of Hollywood became seemingly ethereal. Hollywood,

ever ready to take the spotlight for new advancements in

entertainment, now^ took flight to ensure its dominance

over the dispersal ofcultural content across new spatial

categories—the airspace above the world stage.

Th e in troduction of new screen technologies, such as

seatback screens on airplanes, has allowed Hollywood to

multiply its exhibition sites and circulate its product into

places and spaces it could not previously access. Film'sstanding as an essential part of contemporary culture

depends on the abuity of film exhibition technologies to

transform places into movie theaters (or approximations

thereof). Furthermore, the introduction of these new

exhibition technologies opens upadditional sources for

the fikn industry's revenue stream. In-flight entertainment

exemplifies the film industry's intent to create and reach

audiences rather than waiting for audiences to find the

industry's product. Th e film industry uses these new ex-

hibition spaces (fk)m which persons often find themselves

unable to exit) to pro mote, market, and sell produ ct. Film

is thus no longer part of a menu of entertainment and

leisure but a constant, sometimes distracting backgro und.

On many airplanes films appear on screens unbidden,

ready to become the central focus ofattention if a pas-

senger chooses to listen in via headpho nes.

Changes in the field of film studies indicate a grow ing

concern andawareness of this multiplicity of new cin-

ematic spaces: movies on television, films on computers,

portable DVD players, seatback screens inminivans, and

handheld digital media players. From the millennium issue

of the journalScreen

to the adoption of the initial "M "by the Society for C inema Studies in 2002, the discipline

has increasingly recognized that mo ving image culture is

no longer locatable in the movie theater oron the silver

screen. This can also be seen in the emergence ofPhD

programs, such as Moving Image Studies (Georgia State

University) and Screen Cultures (Northwestern Uni-

versity), that by their very names proclaim "fdm" to be a

limited and perhaps obsolete demarcation of the presence

The Velvet Light Trap, Number 62, Fall 2008 ©2 008 by the U niversity ofTexas Press, RO. Box 7819, Austln,TX 78713-7819



St epher ) G roen i ng

of mo ving pictures in contem pora ry culture. Alongside

this effort to find moti on pictures in myriad n ontheatrica l

places (a kind of "ambient cinema," to paraphrase Anna

McCarthy) is a turn toward "convergence culture" ( to

borrow from Henry Jenkins) , in which motion pictures

are seen as but one choice in a menu of digital entertain-ment options, a single facet of a franchised and remediated

property—or merely a piece of intellectual property that

converges vÁth othe r cultural comm odities in a single piece

of technology. Add to that nu mero us claims regarding th e

"en d o f cinema," the death of celluloid, and the downfall

of the movie theater, and it becomes an understatement

to say there is an ongoing debate over the definition of

cinema, the places it occupies, and the spaces it creates.

In-flight entertainment constitutes an apt case study for

exploring the issues—screens, convergence, remediation,

and the en d of cinema— that inform these debates. Th epractices of in-flight entertainment give rise to useful and

productive understandings o f trends in media technologies

and provide a convenient snapshot of reconfigured spatial

relations brought about by networks of rapid commu-

nication and rapid transportation technologies. In-flight

entertainment offers insight into the globalization of media

products. It constitutes yet anothe r venue for film culture,

exemplifying the fashion in which film finds an audi-

ence (rather than the other way around). In addition, the

seatback of an economy-class seat is rapidly be com ing the

cutting-edge site of media convergence. In what followsI focus on the passenger airplane as a revenue generator

for the film industry and how in-flight films are crucial

to Ho llywoo d's status as the icon of the film industry and

global film cu lture. I argue that distribution and e xhibition

practices—not simply content—are key to contempo rary

media culture.

Currently, for mem bers of the Mo tion Picture Associa-

tion of Am erica (MPA A), the revenue generated from in -

flight films reaches nearly $20 0 million an nually (Sharkey).

The payoff in cultural cachet is not as easily measured.

Form er M PAA president JackValenti has com men ted that

"widening the audience for a film through the increased

attendance that is on airplanes, that's growing rapidly, is

very good for our indu stry" (Wu). O ne indicator of the

value placed on in-flight exhibition is the willingness to

conform to the content guidelines set up by the World

Airline Ente rtainm ent Association.^ Som e studios view the

in-flight window as important enough to warrant shooting

separate scenes for films, such as an alternate ending for

the film Speed (Twentieth Ce ntu ry Fox, 1994), in whi ch

the bus does not crash into an airplane. Norm ally, cont ent

editing is performed by the distribution companies, which

act as mediators betw een the studios and airlines.This can

require a degree of cooperation on the part of a film's

producers. For instance,James Ivory spent two hours withthe hea d of Jaguar Dis tribution , a distributor of in-flight

films, editing A Room w ith a View (Merchant Ivory, 1985)

for airplane exhibition (Nichols).

But those inside Hollywood did not always hold in-

flight movies in such high regard. In 19 65, w he n regu-

larly scheduled in-flight films were in their infancy, Mark

Robson, the director of Von Ryan's Express (Twentieth

Ce ntu ry Fox, 1965), saw his film o n an airplane on a black -

and-white video system in 4:3 ratio instead of in DeLuxe

Co lor in 2.35:1 ratio. H e com plained that the bad word

of mouth from seeing films reformatted so inadequatelywo uld lead to depressed box-office sales. Robson suggested

that studios "hold back new pix from airlines until played

off in key money-making dates" ("Mark Robson") .^ Es-

sentially, R ob so n o utlin ed a plan to delay the in-flight

exh ibitio n until after the theatrica l release, arra ngin g the

release schedule of films by venue and format.

The division of a film's release schedule into discrete

units creates a range of revenue sources for the film indus-

try, kno wn as exhibition win dow s. Traditionally, the first

wind ow is the theatr ical exhibit ion window. Th e second,

known as the nontheatrical exhibition window, can bedivided into television transmission and home rental or

even further still into pay per view, satellite, cable, major

broadcast netw orks , and specialty cable channels."* For the

members of the MPAA, revenue is increasingly generated

in the domestic sphere rather than in theaters.^ In 2003

Disney, Paramount, Sony,Twentieth C entu ry Fox,Warner

Bros., and Universal actually lost money in the theatrical

category. W ith DV D sales the studios retain almost tw o-

thirds of the revenue as profit and retain almost 90 perc ent

wit h television deals. Because of this disparity in profit share

across platforms, for the fdni studios the theatrical release is

an investment in publicity to serve as a foundation for the

far more lucrative markets in the nontheatrical window.'

A N ew Space for N onthe atrical Exhibition

From this brief sketch it becomes clear how introducing

new screen technologies is key to the generation of revenue

for the film industry. Existing material can be reformatted



Film in A irand resold to different delivery systems (movie theaters,

television, home video) and thus more exhibition windows.

More exhibition panes decrease fmancial risk while further

spreading m oving images into our built environment.This

has a snowball effect: the more we use electronic media,

the m ore pervasive their deployment; the more we dependon electronic media, the more intrusive they become. By

relying on the reformatting of previously produced ma te-

rial, the film industry has found a way to rerun and spin

off movie and television properties at Httle cost, whue con-

sumer electronic co rporations foot the bill for researching

methods of distributing this newly formatted material. In

the case of in-flight entertainm ent, of the $2 billion spent

annually by the airline industry, over two-thirds is spent on

the display technology to show the reformatted content

produced by the film industry (Guha). Current changes

in in-flight entertainment systems, including video on

demand and Uve television, mean that planes are no longer

simply transportation vessels; they are flying multiplexes.

In order for the film industry to realize these new fi-

nancial opportunities, previously produced filmic products

must be repurposed into digitized material, and noncin-

ematic spaces must be repurposed into exhibition sites.

Nontheatrical exhibition is key to Hollywood's growth and

ubiquity.The nontheatrical departments of film studios are

charged with seUing product for in-flight venues (as well

as cruise ships, military bases, prisons, and other specialty

venues) .The in-flight film pane typically falls three monthsafter the theatrical release but before the DVD release. In

the year following 11 September 2001 airlines cu t spending

on in-flight m ovies by nearly a quarter and program med

films that were already available on DVD (and, in some

cases, on television). The library films were programmed

even though studios cut their new release rental prices for

in-flight exhibition in 2002.^ The studios, however, rarely

deal directly with the airlines. Instead, they release around

twenty-five films a month to distributors such as Pace

Comm unications and Jaguar D istribution, which broker

deals between the prod uction companies and the airlines.

These distributors also negotiate the deals between airlines

and television networks (Gräser; Glader; Guha).

Thro ugh in-flight entertainm ent airspace has become a

new space through w hich H ollywood films and Am erican

culture nowflow.Th e use of airplanes as nontheatrical ex-

hibition sites furthers the diffusion of Hollywo od practices

into a greater num ber of places.This strategy has effectively

transformed airspace into a new space of moving picture

entertainment. Transcontinental and transoceanic long-

haul flights have a duration that allows for th e exhibition

of feature-length films, and in-flight entertainment is

considered standard on these routes. Hollywood's distri-

bution practices thus take advantage of the stature and

international network of in-flight entertairmaent. In-flightentertainment is one of the film industry's methods for

creating market awareness by advertising product to a seg-

ment of the population with disproportionate purchasing

power and cultural influence. In addition, the passenger

cabin provides an audience for films that they m ight oth -

erwise not acquire: passengers may choose to see films in

a plane they would not pay to see in a theater or rent for

domestic consumption.

The trend toward media convergence has turned the

passenger cabins of major international commercial airlin-

ers into mobile media centers.^ The seats, particularly infirst-class cabins, enable passengers to pursue screen-based

entertainments with out interference from their neighbors.

Indeed, one seat can be a mobue business office and the

one next door a chud's gaming room, while across the

aisle a teenager watches music videos and gets fashion

tips. The preponderance of personal media technologies

has succeeded in atomizing private space so that each seat

on the airplane becomes a media apparatus isolated from

other seats, even as the electronic media connect airplane

passengers to a mediasphere supplied and administered by

commercial interests.In-flight entertainment as we currently experience

it is rooted in Hollywood's strategic responses to the as-

cendancy of domestic television. Television's ascendancy

in the Un ited States began soon after the end of World

War II. In 1946 television broadcasts reached only 0.02

percent of households in the U nited States. By 1955 it was

65 percent; by 1961, 89 percent (Murray 3 5-3 6; Spigel

32). The rise of the domestic television set is generally

assumed to be a major contributing factor to the decline

of box-office revenue for theatrically released films in

the United States. The threat of television forced severalreorganization strategies in Hollyw ood. After World War

II the film industry pursued audiences in domestic and

other nontheatrical spaces, sometimes through alliances

with television netw orks (Balio; Anderson ).

On e unexam ined consequence of this com petition w ith

television is the in-flight mov ie. W hile films on airplanes

have appeared sporadically since the 1920s, the first con-

tinuous and regular in-flight film programming began in



Stepheti Groenir)g

1 9 6 1 . This idea of regular in-flight film programming is

credited to a Me mp his, Tennessee, film ex hibitor nam ed

David Flexer, who blamed television for the decline in at-

tendance at his theaters and his subsequent loss of revenue.

Flexer decided to go after audiences where they were

rather than waiting for audiences to come to his theaters.He realized he could take advantage of the fact that travelers

could not leave a plane in midflight and so sought to bring

films to this captive audi ence . Flexer started tak ing his idea

to airline compan ies in 195 8. On ly Trans W orld Airlines

(TWA) was interested enough to let him use their planes

to perform an equipment test in front of their executives.

In May 196 1 L ockheed Aircraft Services signed a contract

with InFlight for exclusive manufacture o f the projection

systems. T h e first of these systems, wh ich projecte d a 16

mm film on a single screen in the first-class cabin and

required headsets to offset the airplane noise, was installed

into TW A planes.ByJuly 1961 TWA had commenced the

first regularly scheduled in-flight movie.'

Part of the reason forTWA's willingness to experiment

was that the airline industry was in the midst of a financial

crisis; in 1961 U.S. domestic airlines lost $13.5 million.

Flexer s system did improve the situation for some airlines:

a month after installing the system on United Airlines'

flights to Hawaii the company's passenger share went up

20 perce nt. Th e fdm system was particularly lucrative for

Flexer and InF light: that first year TW A s pent $2 million to

lease InFlight's equip me nt ($13.3 million in 2007 dollars).

The estimated profit for distributors from in-flight movies

in 19 65 was $2.5 million. By 1970 it was more than twice

Th e in-flight movie was quickly adapted for the speci-

ficity of airlines' needs a nd m oved bey ond jus t sticking any

reel of film or 8 mm cassette into a projector. By the end

of the 1 96 0sTW A ran magazine advertisements, declaring,

"T W A will show you all around Hawaii three hours before

you get there." TW A realized that they c ould advertise

Hawaii as a destination on the long-haul tourist flights

to Haw aii using in-flight film technology. These pretou r

"tours," currently referred to as destination guides, have

become ubiquitous.They have the advantage of providing

an additional revenue stream for the airlines by promoting

its partners in the tourist industry (which often belong to

the same "rewards" or frequent flyer programs), and, by

filling the films w ith po tentia l sights, they m ake sure tha t

some passengers will want to visit again and again. In this

way in-flight entertainment distracts the passenger from

the physical landscape miles below whue also replacing

the unseen landscape of the flight's destination, creating a

kind of window into the passenger's potential future. The

success of these fdms depends on the audience's ability to

project themselves into the scenery, sights, and places in

the film.Currently, these travel promotion programs are part of

synergistic ma rketi ng strategies. Th ese travel guides are

important to the tourism business of the cities featured.

T h e Denver Post declared that U nite d Air l ines' Thr ee

Perfect Days series "lifts Denver's image" and signifies

that D env er is on th e Hst of "2 4 w orld-class cities." T he

in-flight travel film aligns the financial interests of airlines,

the fikn industry, and tourist industries of the networked

cities. For th e passengers, even as they are isolated from t he

landscape and sights, these promotional travel programs,

wh ich each passenger watches on an individual screen, at-temp t to co nnect passengers to the w orld outside the plane.

United Airlines commissions these travel guides, paying

independent production companies to film destinations

in its network of routes.

In another attempt to "sell" a nodal city, in July 2003

United Airlines seized upon an opportunity for cross-

promotion and featured Miramax's fdm Chicago in-flight.

The city of Chicago is one of United Airhnes' hubs and

was the subject of their in-flight magazine's extensive

cover story that month. In addition to the feature film, a

behind-the-scenes documentary was also screened, andthe film was the subject of articles in the m agazine . Thi s

program was screened on every United Airlines flight in

the United States during that month.Thus, Chicago was

transformed from merely the midpoint in a journe y— a

space of waiting—into an exciting and glamorous hot

spot.

Some early in-flight movie systems tried to create a

direct replacement for the landscape. In 1964 American

Airlines bought an in-flight projection system from Sony

called Astrovision.This system, rather than the single large

screen used by TW A, featured several smaller m onito rs

throughout the cabin. Initially, the video system displayed

only in black and w hite. T he system co uld also receive

television signals, and Am erica n Airlines broadcast the 19 64

World Series on select flights." Astrovision also included

a camera mounted on the nose of the plane so that pas-

sengers could witness take-offs and landings via a closed

circuit video system.'^ This system m anaged to bot h call

passengers' attention to the fact of flight as well as distract



8 Film in Air

from it.The thrill of witnessing taking offand landing from

an optical perspective close to that of the pilots helped tur n

the most dangerous (and therefore exciting) part of pas-

senger air travel into a contained piece of entertainment,

a thrill to witness. Astrovision presented wh at am oun ted

to a poin t-of-vie w shot from the optical standpoint of the

pilot and thus encouraged a kind of disembodied gaze for

the passengers akin to "ride films" of amusem ent parks and

fairgrounds.These on-screen m om ents o f flight, presented

as safely con tained on the screen, distracted passengers from

the real danger they faced.'•'

In-Flight Media Convergence

The Boeing Company reaUzed that the race to install in-

flight mov ie systems in airplanes provided an opp ortun ity

for a new Une of aircraft designed specifically with in-flight

enterta inm ent systems in min d. R ath er than retrofitting

previously built aircraft, Boeing began to design passenger

planes as movie theaters. Introduc ed in 1970, the Bo eing

747 was the first plane to be designed with provisions

for an entertainment system already in place. From the

start, Boeing designed the 747 as a flying multiplex and

enterta inm ent center. Bo eing allowed for three different

types of entertainm ent systems to be installed in the jum bo

jet: a large-screen direct-projection system (like InFlight's

system), a continuous -reel system with m ultiple proje c-

tion viewers, and television sets suspended above the seats.

This flexibility allowed multiple airlines to purchase the

747 without having to renegotiate with their entertain-

me nt system suppliers or to design new systems ("There's

No thing ") .The 747 was also equipped with a secon d-story

cabin that was often turned into an entertainment lounge.

Am erican Airhnes installed pian o bars in som e o f its 747s,

and Frank Sinatra,Jr.,played on th e inaugural coast-to-coast

flight (Serling). In 1979 Boe ing reco nven ed its custo me rs

for a presentation of a new video system installed in the

747 that included video projectors and mo unte d television

sets. Prog ram min g inc luded television shows, films, and, in

som e cases, vide o gam es such as Pac-Man.'"*

By the early 1990s the emphasis for commercial car-

riers was on offering an array of in-flight entertaimnent

choices, including p hon e service, multiple video and audio

channels, and personal viewing screens.This period of in-

air media convergence was the result of what amounted

to a media systems race. O nc e o ne major international

airHne installed a system in its airplanes, othe r airlines felt

it necessary to follow suit (W ilson). As on e indus try e xpe rt

poin ted out at the time, to install personal viewin g screens

in economy-class seats would mean putting $1,500 worth

of equipm ent in a $1,400 seat, "w hic h m eans the seat es-

sentially becomes a video rack."'^

While manufacturers were w^üling to share installationcosts with the airlines, this media systems race meant that

the airlines were investing nearly $300 miUion annually to

stay competitive in the 1990s. Some of these costs could

be recouped through fees and increased ticket prices.

The industry concluded that the necessary revenue could

com e from advertising to the captive audience . This led

more airlines to install video-based shopping systems and

to include advertisements as part of the vid eo lineup. T he

inclusion of advertising in the video lineup stalled for U.S.

carriers in the late 1990s, even though carriers included

ads in their in-flight magazines, boarding passes, ticket

jackets, and other pr int media. Du ring the dow nturn in air

travel following 11 September 2001 airlines resumed the

inclusion of advertisements. Airhnes began to incorp orate

sponsors for their video lineups and include promotional

films for hotels and resorts. M or e recently, the l ow -cos t

air l ine Ryanair experimented with no-charge transport ,

offsetting costs wit h advertising through out the cabin and

pay-per-view entertainment systems.'^

Most major airlines now carry a range of choices geared

for children and adults. Even in cabins wit hou t a ch oice

of video channels the programming offers a variety ofgenres. After the safety anno unc em ent the television pr o-

grams are usually travel and tourism themed, assumed to

be appropriate for all audiences. In cabins with channel

selection, such as economy seats on British Airways, the

in-fhght entertainment could include a choice of films,

comedy channels running si tcoms, a travel channel, a

cartoo n ch annel, and a sports channel, all meant to appeal

to a heterogeneous audience.

Th e mixture of short programming w ith long program -

min g also allows passengers to pick and choo se w he n they

might engage in those aforem entioned travel games, read a

book, or nap. The typical first-class airline seat on a trans-

oceanic flight offers multiple film options, video games,

video shopping, television programming, Internet access,

power for a laptop, multiple audio options, and satellite

pho ne and fax services.The seatback system for S ingapore

Airlines offers tw enty-five films, twelve television c hannels,

interactive video games, and music in addition to being a

full-fledged computer that can run business applications



S t e p h e n G r o e n in g

such as word processing an d spreadsheet programs. Boeing

has boasted that the software required to run its current

in-f l ight enter ta inment system is more complex than the

software required to fly the plane. In-flight entertainment

systems can culminate in an additional four miles of wiring

to the plane and a substantia l amount of weight, Hmitingfuel efficiency and augmenting cost per flight for the air-

lines (StoUer) .The fact that airlines contin ue to install these

systems in their planes despite the accompanying financial

burden is a powerfijl demonstration of social expectations

that moving images can and perhaps should be anywhere

and everywhere.

In Februa ry 2000 JetBlue bega n offering live (real-time)

television in its passenger cabins.The programming, fi-om

a sateUite television service na me d LiveTV, includes sports

channels, t ravel and w ea ther cha nnels, and f inancia l n ews

channels. In 2002 JetBlue purchased LiveTV, making i tthe first U.S. carr ier to own a media distr ibution company.

This reversal of the standard financial a rrang ement between

firms complicates the relationships between airlines and

the film industry and affects interairline relations as well.

Frontier Airlines also uses the LiveTV service on its flights

and now pays another a ir l ine for in-f l ight enter ta inment.

JetBlue's strategy means that it can offset the cost of in-

f l ight enter ta inment system hardware by wholly owning

the distributor tha t supplies the co nten t, effectively cutting

in-flight entertainment costs by 25 percent.

Even though this a rrangement could be construed as a nexample of vertical integration, it remains puzzling as to

why other a irl ines have not purchased in-fl ight e nter ta in-

me nt distr ibution compa nies. Ma ny of these compa nies

have diversif ied into providing content to other nonthe-

a tr ica l venues, but a irplanes remain a pr ima ry pa r t of their

business. Airlines, on the o ther h a nd, have long reco gnized

that in-flight entertainment systems will never pay for

themselves an d prefer to think of in-flight entert a inm ent

as a loss leader that builds brand loyalty. W h e t h e r o r n o t

such customer loyalty actually exists has been the subject

of debate in trade pubhcations such as Airline Business,

Interavia Aerospace Review, a n d Air Transport World as we l l as

ma instream business publications such as th e FinandalTimes

a nd t he Wall Street Journal." Ma rk S mith, the director of

in-flight entertainment for American Airhnes, succinctly

summ arized this ambigu ous po sit ion for a ir lines: "O ur

research indicates that passengers don't make air-travel

choices based on enter ta inmen t options, but we k now

we ha ve to be com petit ive" (Day) . Th e JetBlue exam ple

demonstrates how the commercial air travel business has

b e c o m e as much an enter ta inment venture as a t ransporta-

tion industry.

The introduction of regular and continuous l ive tele-

vision in the passenger cabin has genera ted an enormous

a mo unt of publicity for JetBlue. Othe r low -cost a ir lineshave found the outlay for in-f l ight enter ta inment to be

prohibitive. Delta 's Song airline, for instance, created to

directly co mp ete w ith JetBlue by offering an array o f

in-flight entertainment, folded after less than two years

of opera t ion. S outhwest AirHnes, on the other ha nd, does

not offer in-flight entertainment, preferring to keep costs

down. In-f l ight enter ta inment would not have been fea-

sible at all for regional carriers without the introduction

of t e le vi s ion pr og r a m m i ng . S hor t - ha ul f l ights , w hi c h

constitute the majority of routes for regional airlines, do

no t have a viable dura tion for featu re-length films.S ingapore Airlines provides a useful co unterexa mple. For

reasons of geography, the majority of Singapore Airlines'

routes are lon g-ha ul interna tiona l flights.The direct flight

from S ingapore to New a rk is possibly the longest non stop

passenger jet flight, lasting a total of eighteen hour s . T h e

scale of Singapore Airlines' network of flights means that

in-flight entertainment is a h igh p riority. Singa pore Airlines

believes its in-flight entertainment to be a key factor in

custo mer c hoice a nd loyalty. As one indu stry a nalyst put it,

"Ify ou are going to fly a 12-ho ur f l ight to S ingapore, a l l

othe r things being equa l, you will probably fly with th e o neproviding [a choice of| 50 mov ies" (Guh a) .E nter ta inme nt

is an essential and integral part of these air transportation

networks. Ma king sure enter ta inm ent f lows between global

cit ies is of paramount importance for the commercia l a ir

industry. Th e fashion in w hich these cides are ne tworked

via air routes affects airlines' decision to install new in-fught

entertainment systems, the nature of those systems, and the

array of choices they offer.

The Space of Flows, In-Flight Movies, and

Cultural Globalization

Co mb inin g rapid jet t ravel with view ing motio n pictures

exemplifies a new spatial mo de, dubb ed the "space o f flows"

by M a nu e l Ca s t e ll s, in w hi c h ne t w or ks of c om m uni c a t i on

and transporta t ion take precedence over the terr i tor ies

they connec t. This netw ork has reconfigured the space

of places (the destinations that tourism transforms into

commodities) into the space of flows.'^The space of flows



10 Film in Air

is made of nodes and hubs and contains the com mu nica-

tion, transpo rtation, and informa tion netw orks. Airspace,

the spatial category necessary to air travel, constitutes an

imp orta nt p art of the space of flows.The passenger jet, by

transporting cultural commodities and forms of labor, is a

high-speed vehicle that moves through the channels of airroutes to network the nodal cities of the global economy.

Air routes tend to exemplify these standardized networks.

It is through this dominant spatial configuration that in-

flight films travel.T hus, the place of the passeng er je t ca bin

becom es a space of information flow Each flight transports

labor (in the form of business representatives or tourists),

goods, services, and culture along a network of air routes

between densely populated urban areas or global cities.

The exhibition of motion pictures takes place along the

same routes as their distribution; the space of flows enables

cultural transmission as much as financial transactions.

The passenger jet is important because it is a status

symbol: even though more goods are transported by ship

and railway, the possession of a robu st net wo rk of air routes

marks the ascendance of an urban region from a node to a

hu b in the global system. David Keeling has argued that "air

transport is the preferred m od e of inter-city mo vem ent for

the transnational capitalist class, migrants, tourists, and h ig h-

value, low -bulk goods; and airline links are an im por tant

co m po ne nt of a city's aspirations to wo rld city status" (118).

He introduces vivid, concrete examples of airline trans-

por tation as the key to a city's future. For instance, in theearly 1990s city officials of Pordand, Oregon, believed that

non stop flight service to Lond on or Frankfurt was vital to

the continu ed growth of their economy, while "Nashvil le

officials [touted] the city's recent successful bid for a non-

stop flight to London as a direct pipeline into the world

eco nom y" (Keeling 119). By 2005 the Nashville ch amber

of commerce claimed that, because of the airport's status

as a hub, "we 've actually h ad m ore success in rec ruiting

[corporate] headquarters in the last two years than probably

in the history of the city" (Priesmeyer). Evidently, inclusion

in the air transport ne two rk is vital to urban ec ono mies,

and the differences between number and type of routes

reaching a particular area are perceived as having a direct

effect on a city's status in the global capitalist economy.'^

Likewise, as previously noted, the inclusion of a film in

the l ineup of enter tainment choices on these international

flights, whose passengers have a disproportionate amount

of social and cultural capital, comprises an imp ortan t form

of publicity for the film industry.

Air travel does not make geography irrelevant; instead,

it emphasizes geography in n ew an d chan ging ways. Air-

planes traverse space and create airspace, a new form of

space that th e film in dus try seeks to exploit.^'' T he scale

and scope ofjet travel mea n these mob ile exhibition spaces

almost always traverse national borders. National bordersare not unimportant, but the fashion in which national

borders are overcome, negotiated, and transgressed is sig-

nificant. Indeed , it is doub tful that the travel indu stry w ants

to do away with national borders.Tourism's most valuable

com mo dity is, after all, the exotic, wh ich requires some

sort of barrier, real or imagin ed, to be ov ercom e.The space

conqu ered by network ed conn ections between global ci t-

ies is technologically underdeveloped and less financially

productive territory than th e global cities themselves.Thus,

transportation and communication networks themselves

create spaces of inequality by designating certain places asdestinations and endp oints, wh ile others are merely t ran-

sitory. Therefore, control of distribution takes precedence

over control of content in the generation of profit. In ad-

dition, the film indu stry utilizes transportation netwo rks as

exhibition spaces as ^veIl as conduits for product transmis-

sion.Thus, networks such as aviation routes reconfigure

global space so as to bin d o ne urban area to another, ig nor -

ing the intervening territory. In this fashion, in-flight en-

tertainm ent m ay eschew landscapes and com pel passengers

to ignore the "space of places" in favor of feature-lengthfilms. For the jet traveler the spatial relationship between

Ne w York and LosAngeles is not three thousand miles but

a safety announcement, two movies, snack service, and a

prom otion al travelogue. This furthers th e perceptio n of

global dominance by Hollyw ood: for the majority of the

world's wealthy, traveling internationa lly means jet travel,

which in turn means spending t ime with a selection of

f i lms f inanced and/or produced in the United States.

Th rou gh their ubiquity in the space of f lows, in the net -

works be twe en g lobal cities, mo vin g pictures increasingly

constitute th e exp erienc e o f travel. This may lead to th eimpression of cultural homogenization, the feared conse-

quence of cultural globalization.

Cultural globalization develops from an d enables finan-

cial and eco nom ic g lobalization. Th e logics of free trade

and copy right law, coup led w ith th e collapse of the N ew

World Information and Com mun ication Order , have led to

increased global traffic in cultural goods and communica-

tion technologies. Mass culture manages to both accentuate



Stephen Groen ing I I

and erase difference. The global capitalist system sells

whatev er people are willing to buy, wh eth er Ho llyw ood

action films, Bollywood musicals, or kung fu classics.This

requires netwo rks of centripetal flows of profits and cen -

trifugal flows of goods, often cente red at global cities such

as Ho ng Kong, L ondon, Tokyo, Ne w York, Los Angeles,and Ne w D elhi. Such networks require the te chnologi-

cal potentials of rapid communication and transportation

systems to compress space and time .Th e financial bu rden

of creating these networks is so great that only a handful

of conglomerates (with the assistance of governmental

subsidies) can afford to create an d ma intain t he m . Th us ,

it is maintaining and accessing distribution networks and

not producing films that is of paramount importance.^'

In-flight entertainment turns the distribution network

into an exhibition venue, generating additional revenue

from the space of flows by taking advantage of the new

spatial configuration necessary for maintenance of the

global economy.

Conclusion

Distribution is the key to ancillary markets such as home

viewing and other nontheatrical spaces, including airplanes.

The increasing control of a few distribution companies

over the ever-expanding range of media products, originat-

ing in some fashion from Hollywood, is crucial to the film

industry's survival and g row th, even as it provides p resum edevidence of Am ericanization or a "Global Hollywood." In

other words, managing the channels of distribution and

the flows of media takes precedence over the content of

those forms. For the film industry the scale of distribution

determines the scale and content of production.

Th e instru men ts of mass culture, be they cin ema ,

television, or other communication technologies, have

initiated new ways of dividing and connecting the world.

For Hollywood to continue controlling key financial and

distribution hubs , international law must continu e to cre-

ate spaces of inequality. Likewise, the travel industry needspolitical and geographic barriers to create a sense of the

exotic and strange, wh ich can then be accessed by a privi-

leged few thro ugh the use o f travel services. A n analysis of

in-flight entertainment demonstrates that the extraction

of surplus value necessitates regions of u nderde velopm ent,

overdevelopm ent, and the reconfiguration of space to suit

the imperatives of new econom ic and cultural orders rather

than a radically egalitarian (or "flat") globa lized w orld

in which every space and place is equally acceptable. In

order to continue its economic and cultural domination,

the film industry needs to continually pro duce new spaces

for exhibition and exploit new networks of distribution.

As the case of in-flight entertainment demonstrates, the

content and quality of films are secondary considerations.Nontheatrical exhibition spaces continue to be an im-

portant destination for theatrically released films. Because

non thea trical e xhib ition occu rs after theatrical release, it

wou ld appear to be a secondary consideration for the film

industry. How ever, since nontheatrica l e xhibition enables

ubiquity, it is actually the primary interest for the film

industry's continued growth.

Brought about by economic pressures in a changing

media and air travel industry, in-flight entertainment marks

a lasting partnership between the commercial aviation

industry and a f i lm industry dominated by Hollywood.Initially, airlines assumed that in-flight films wo uld serve to

pacify and occ upy passengers. Bu t the airlines' co m m i tm en t

to the technology has deepened to the point that, starting

with the Boeing 747, planes have been designed as movie

theater s, and the software used to ex hibit in-flight films

can be more complex than the software used to fly the

plane. Billions are spent each year by airlines on in-flight

entertainment, despite falling revenues and bankruptcies.

Air travel created an entirely ne w spatial category, airspace,

for the industry to use as part of the project to create and

reach new audien ces. T he in-flight m ovie exemplifiesthe film industry's efforts to open even more exhibition

windows, pardy in response to the rise of television.

The revenues generated from this window may be

small in comparison to network television deals or DVD

releases, but the market awareness and publicity generated

by screening films to a small, elite segment of the popu-

lation before these films reach the home rental or cable

television windows are incalculable. For the airlines, the

benefits of in-flight entertainment are less clear.The ability

of these systems to create customer loyalty is the subject

of debate within th e travel industry.The seatback in-flightentertainment technologies often cost more than the seat

itself, and the installation of these systems adds enormous

weight to the airplane and brings with it the potential for

electrical fires.

Even the ability of films to pacify passengers is ques-

tionable, given the recent surge in incidents of air rage

(Carey; Ha slam ).Th e fact that airlines contin ue to install

and upgrade these systems in their planes despite these



12 Film in Ai rproblems epitomizes th e widespread a nd deeply felt social

expectation that visual media should be a readily available

distraction.JetBlue's acquisition ofa distribution network

seems the only logical cost-cutting (and potentially profit-

making) m ove for airlines com mit ted to offering in-flight

ent erta inm ent. Give n these social and financial pressures, itappears likely that the transportation industry will continue

to look more and more like an extension of the film in-

dustry, raising the possibility of further exhib ition win dow s

for füm and furthering the proliferation of screens.

Notes

Research for this paper was conducted under the Graduate

Research Partnership Program and Harold Leonard Memorial Film

Fellowship from the University of Minnesota. I am grateful to the

numerous people who have offered insight and commentary on the

numerou s early drafts of this article: Andrea Christy, Zoe Druic k,Keya G anguly, Ron ald Greene, Eva Hu decova, Helga Lietner, Lindsey

Simms, and Haidee Wasson.

1. For accounts of this event see "Mo vie Sent to Plane"; Serling. I

have been unable to ascertain which film was shown. Loretta Young

appeared in over a dozen films in 1931 and 19 32.The NewYorkTimes

article remarks that th e film was "one of her latest," which is indicative

of the status of this experiment as a publicity stunt but not precise

enough to narrow the field of possibility.

2. "Inflight Editing Standards:Varies somewhat by airHne and by

region, bu t generally inflight editing standards (for main-screen e xhib i-

tion) are similar to, but more conservative than TV-editing standards.

N o a irline crash scenes or references to airline disasters; careful abo ut

terrorism or references to terrorism; no nud ity/sex scenes (U.S./Asia

more conservative than Europe); no profanity; no images of/referencesto other airKnes; no racist comments or denigrating references to

culture, religion, or nationality; careful about violence and bloodshed

(U.S./Asia less sensitive than E urop e); carefiil abo ut references to gun s,

drug abuse, physical abuse. Most ideal inflight film genres: comedy,

romantic-comedy, light adventure" (World Airline Entertainment

Association).

3. Thanks to Mark Frank and Haidee Wasson for bringing this

article to my attention . Given the description of the in-flight system

and the time period, it is Hkely that Robson saw his film on the

Astrovision system, described later in this article.

4. Some films skip windows. Films that have no theatrical release

are referred to as "straight to video"; many ofWalt Disney's sequels

to animated children's films follow this pattern. Occasionally, a filmwiU mov e in reverse, from nontheatrical to theatrical, such as The Last

Seduction (1995).

5. Since 1985 the revenue from the theatrical window has repre-

sented a quarter or less of total revenues, while revenues from selling

rights to free-to-view TV have exceeded box-office revenue. Since

1990 VHS/DVD sales (including rentals) have exceeded box-office

revenue (Epstein).

6. In 2003 profit from free-to-view TV was roughly $10 billion;

profit fk)m DV D/V HS sales and rental profit was $12 billion (Epstein;

see also Litman).

7. Worldw ide, airhnes cut spending on in-flight entertainm ent

about $500 million (Guha).

8. For a discussion of airplanes as the site of media convergence

see Freedman.

9. For accounts of this first see Friedlander, "Movies"; Serling;

"Transport New s: Movies in the Sky."

10. For supporting figures see Archer; Friedlander, "Airlines";

Friedlander, "Movies"; Serhng;"T.W .A. 707 Fhghts."

11. The system cost American $52,000 per plane ($350,000 in

2007 dollars), and the airline paid $1 million ($6.6 million in 2007

dollars) for the rights to fifty-two films ("Coffee").

12. For more on Astrovision see "Second Airline"; Serhng;"Trans-

port News: In-Flight Movies." Govil reports that this practice was

resumed for a time by Air New Zealand (245). For more on ride

films, IMAX, Hale's Tours, and immersion cinema see Rabinovitz.

13. In 1998 faulty wiring in the in-flight entertainm ent system of

a Swissair McDonnell Douglas 11 was determined to be a contrib-

uting factor to the crash of flight 111 ofï" the coast of Nova Scotia,

which resulted in the deaths of 229 people. Th e crash promp ted

Swissair to shut off entertainment systems in its planes in the fall of

1998 (Mathews).The in-flight entertainment system in question wasbanned a year later (StoUer). Between 1998 and 2 003 sixty incidents

of malfunctioning in-flight entertainment systems, including fires and

smoking wiring, were reported to the Federal Aviation Administra-

tion, prompting safety concerns (Donegan). In-flight entertainment

systems may add mo re than four miles of extra wiring to an airplane,

increasing the chances for electrical fires and system malfunctions

(not to mention extra weight).

14. "CurrentVisual Entertainment System Options 747 Standard

Detail Specification (D6-331 11 & D6-33191, Section 10)":"A com-

plete projection system, accommodating 8 mm BFE motion picture

projectors shall be installed at four locations in the main cabin, zones

A,B (SP Only), C,D and E (not on the 747SP).BFE projection units

shall conform to the requirements of the 'basic passenger m ovie system

equipment interface requirements.' . . . Seller Furnished Equipment

(SFE): Projector structural and wiring provisions, Screen provisions.

Projector electrical controls at attendant panels. Buyer Furnished

Equipment (BFE): Movie projector. Scree n... . 8 mm movie system:

Upper deck. Zone B 747-100/200. 16 mm Movie system: Upper

Deck, Zone B, Center Beam Instl-standard screen. Center Beam

Instl-raised screen" ("Introduction").

15. Marco Lanza, president of B /E Avionics, as quoted inWilson.

16. See accounts in"Flying for 'Free'";Hozee,"What Revenues";

"Inflight Shopp ing"; Paul; Pfanner; Seding.

17. See, for instance. Cook; Gräser; Guha; Hozee,"ln-Flight En -

tertainment"; Hozee, "W hat Revenues"; Sharkey.

18. According to Castells, the global information economy requires

networked homo geneity and standardized systems and regulations tofunction properly. Castells demonstrates that the information economy

carries with it a new spatial logic dom inant over the traditional "space

of places," a category correspond ing to stationary physical locations

with distinctive traits.The space of places relies on territorial contig u-

ity and nonnetworked heterogeneity.

19.The developm ent and m aintenance of airports were seen as key

factors in the establishment of a new system of core and peripheral

cities in Europe during the 1990s (Sutton).

20 . The term airspace has its origins in the Paris International

Conference of Air Navigation in 1910. See Butler.



Stephen Groenit)g 13

21.As Aksoy and Robins point out, one of the problems in sim-

ply counting the number and types of films produced is that such a

"horizontal network" thesis does not take into account box-office

revenue.This thesis, promoted by Christop herson and Storper, claims

greater heterogeneity and diversification in the film industry due to

an increase in the numb er of firms and films. Aksoy and Ro bins show

that even though the share of films produced by small firms increased,

the share of box-office revenue going to small firms actually shrank.

If one were to focus on the distribution of Hollywoo d prod uct rather

than its production, the dominance of large firms becomes readily

apparent. Global distribution requires a vast amo unt of resources that

only a large firm can provid e. As a result, the pressures of distrib ution

have led to the collapse of smaller firms. Aksoy and R obin s go on

to demonstrate that distribution is the financial center of the film

industry; financial investment firms, banks, and so on are attracted to

distributors, not to production companies.

Works Cited

Aksoy, Asu, and Kevin R obi ns. "Holly woo d for the 21st Ce ntury :Global Gompetition for Gritical Mass in Image Markets." Cam-

bridge Journal of Economics 16 (1992): 1-22.

Anderson, Ghristopher. HollywoodTV:The Studio System in the Fifties.

Austin: U ofTexas P, 1994.

Archer, Eugene. "T.W. A. Jet Films to B egin July 19." New York Times

24 May 1961.

Balio,Tino, ed. Hollywood in the Age of Television. Boston: Unwin Hy-

man, 1990.

Butler, David L. "Technogeo pohtics and the Struggle for G ontrol

ofWorld Air Routes, 1910-1928." Political Geography 20 (2001):

635-58.

Garey, Susan. "Granky Skies: Fliers Behave Badly Again as 9/11 Era

Fades." Wall Street Journal 12 Sept. 2007:A .l.

GasteUs, M anu el. The Rise of the Network Society. Oxford: Basil Black-well, 1996.

Ghristopherson, Susan, and Michael Storper. "The Gity as Studio;

the World as Back Lot: the Impact ofVertical Disintegration on

the Location of the Motion Picture Industry." Environment and

Planning D: Society and Space 4 (1986): 305 -20.

"Goffee,Tea or Doris Day." Time 16 Oct. 1964.

Gook , Andrew. "Entertaining Doubts."/4ir/ine Business Nov. 1993: 51 .

Day, Rebecca. "High-Tech Airline Appliances Make Flying Fun."

Popular Mechanics August 2000. http://www.popularmechanics.

com/technology/upgrade/1278211.html. Accessed 15 Jan. 2008.

Donegan, Lawrence. "Safety Fears over In-Flight Movies as Pilots

Report Electrical Fires." Observer News 20 July 2003: 18.

Epstein, Edward Jay. The Big Picture: Money an d Power in Hollywood.NewYork: Random House, 2006.

"Flying for 'Free' on Ryanair." BBC News Online. 13 May 2001

http://news.bbc.co.Uk/2/hi/business/1328597.stm.

Freedm an,Eric."No tes from Economy Glass." F W 6.5. http:// flow tv

.org/?p=713. Accessed 9 Aug. 2007.

Friedlander, Paul J.G."Airlines Weigh the Facts"The NewY ork Times

Nov. 19,1961.

."43Years of Gommercial Aviation." NewV&rfeTimes 6Aug. 1972.

. "Movies in the Air: The Rating Is $$." New York Times 28

Oct. 1973.

Glader, Paul. "R eru ns at 30,000 Feet." Wall Street Journal 9 May

2003:W6.

Goldsmith, Gharles. "New Airline Gameras Put All Passengers in

Window Seats." Wall Street Journal 24 June 1996: B l l .

Govil, Nitin. "Somethin g Spatial in the Air." MediaSpace: Place, Scale,

and Culture in a Media Age. Ed.Nick Gouldry and Anna McGarthy.

NewYork: Routledge, 2004.233-52 .

Gräser, Marc. "Blue Skies Ahead for In-Fhght Biz." Variety 4 Feb.

2002:11.

Guback,Thomas H."Hollywood's International Market." The American

Film Industry. Ed. Tin o Balio. Madison: U of Wisconsin P, 1976.

387-409.

. Th e International Film Industry: Western Europe and Americ

since 1945. Bloomington: Indiana UP, 1969.

Guha, Malini. "Tuck ing into the Pie in the Sky." Financial Times 5

Oct. 2004:14.

Haslam, Ghris."'Spy in the Sky' Gall to B eat Air-Rage BuUies." Sunday

Times (London) 16 Dec. 2007: 2

Hemispheres: The Magazine of United July 2003.

Hozee, Ernst L. "In-Flight Entertainment Boosts Airline Revenues."

Interavia Aerospace Review Sept. 1995: 36-38.. "Wha t Revenues from E ntertainment?" Interavia Aerospace

Review Nov. 1992: 60-62.

"Inflight Shopping Enters Domestic Markets." Ai r Transport World

Apr. 1987:83 -86.

"Introduction." 747-200 Visual Entertainment System, 8mm Movie

System. Boeing Archive, Everett, WA .

"JetBlue Airways to Acqu ire LiveTV, LLG, Provider of Airline's In-

flight SateUite TV Entertainment System." Business Wire 9 Sept.

2002:1.

Keehng, David J. "Transport and the World Gity Paradigm." World

Cities in a World-System. Ed. Paul L. Knox and Peter J. Taylor.

Gambridge: Gambridge UP, 1995.115-31.

Litman, Barry. The Motion Picture Mega-Industry. Boston: Allyn &

Bacon, 1998.

"Mark Robson Hits In-FHght'Size.'" Variety 27 Oct. 1965: 27 .

Mathews, Anna Wilde. "Swissair's In-Flight Film System Studied."

Wall StreetJournal 30 Oct. 1998: A3 .

Miller,Toby, Nitin Govil,John M cMu rria, and iljchard Maxwell. Glob-

al Hollywood. London: British Film Institute Publishing, 2001.

"Movie Sent to Plane in Flight by Television." New York Times 22

May 1932: N 2.

Murray, Matthew ."The Establishment of the USTelevision N etworks."

Th e Television History Book. Ed. Michelle Hilmes. London: BFI

Pubhshing, 2003.

Nicho ls, Peter M."Now Playing; 30,000 Feet up . Som e Variety." New

York Times 2 July 1995: H18.

Olson, Scott Rob ert. HollywoodPlanet: Global Media and the CompetitiAdvantage of Narrative Transparency. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates, 1999.

Paul, Pamela. "Advertisers Ghmb on Board." American Demographics

1 O ct. 2002:30.

Pfanner, Eric. "At 30,000 Feet, Finding a Gaptive Audience for Ad-

vertising." NewYork Times 27 Aug. 2007.

Priesmeyer, Molly. "Assume the Grash Position." City Pages (Min-

neapolis) 17 Aug. 2005:13.

Rabinovitz, Lauren. "More Than the Movies: A History of Somatic

Visual Gulture through Hale's Tours, IMAX , and Motion Simulation



14 Film in A irRide s." Memory Bytes: History, Technology, and Digital Culture. Durham,

N C : Duke University Press, 2004. 99-1 25.

"Second Airline Plans Movies on Planes." New York Times 30 June

1964: 66.

Serling, RobertJ."In-Flight Movies: How DidWe Do without Them ?"

Airliners-.The World's Airline Magazine Sept.-Oct. 2003: 66-69.

Sharkey, Joe. "Will B etter In-Fligh t M ovies Buy Brand Loyalty?"

International Herald Tribune 25 July 2006.

Sinisi, J. Sebastian. "Video Lifts Denver's Image." Denver Post 25 July

1999:A25.

Spigel,Lynn. Make RoomforTV'.Television and the Family Ideal in Postwar

America. Chicago: U of Chicago P, 1992.

Stoller, Gary. "In-Flight Entertainment Systems Linked to Scores of

Jet'Difficulties.'" USA Torfay 8 July 2003.

Sutton, Oliver. "Airports Boost Europe's Entrepreneurial Cities."

Interavia Aerospace Review Sept. 1993: 40-4 3.

"There's Nothing to Do up Here."P41419.Boeing Archive,Everett,

WA.

Thom pson, Kristin. Exporting Entertainment:America in the World Fi

Market /90 7-3 4. London: BFI Publishing, 1985.

"Transport News: In Flight Movies." NewYork Times 1 Feb. 1966.

"Transport News: In-Flight Movies." NewYork Times 2 Aug. 1964.

"Transport News: Movies in the Sky." NewYork Times 31 May 1961.

Trumpbour, John. Selling Hollywood to the World: U.S. and Europea

Struggles for Mastery of the Clobal Film Industry, Í920-1950. Cam

bridge: Camb ridge UP, 2002.

"T W A . 707 Flights Will Offer M ovies and Popcorn Aloft." NewYork

Times 15 Jan. 1961.

Wilson, J. R. "Interactive O ptions for Passenger Entertainm ent."

Interavia Aerospace Review Sept. 1992: 73-78.

World Airline Entertainment Association."Airline Inflight Entertain-

ment and Communications (IFE) Industry Fact Sheet." 23 Feb.

2007. http://www.waea.org/Press/latesttrends.pdf.

Wu, Annie . "Th e Art of Se lec t ion— In-Fl ight Movies ." Th eSavvy Traveler, h t tp : / / s avvy t rave le r .pub l i c rad io .o rg / s how/

features/1999/19990213/movies.shtml.

6. film in air airspace, in-flight entertainment

Documents