On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 22:05:03 +0000, "
wrote:

On 18/03/2012 15:47, Goalie of the Century wrote:
In message , "
writes

What ever happened with Ryanair's plans to do something like that, BTW?

http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/gen-en-300806

30.08.06
Ryanair, Europe’s largest low fares airline, and OnAir, the leading
onboard passenger communications provider, today (30th Aug) announced a
deal that will see Ryanair’s entire fleet of Boeing 737 aircraft fitted
with OnAir’s onboard mobile communications solution.

http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/launch-of-europe-s-1st-fleet-wide-inflight-mobile-phone-service


19.02.09
Ryanair, Europe’s largest low fares airline, today (19th Feb) launched
its in-flight mobile phone service initially onboard 20 of its (mainly)
Dublin based aircraft. This is the first step in fitting Ryanair’s
entire fleet of over 170 aircraft to allow all passengers to make and
receive mobile calls and texts on all Ryanair flights.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/onair-hangs-up-on-ryanair-mobile-phone-deal-340096/


1 Apr 2010
Disagreement on timing for a fleet roll-out, among other issues, led
OnAir to terminate its agreement to provide on-board to-fit mobile phone
service across budget carrier Ryanair's fleet.

http://www.ryanair.com/en/questions/can-i-use-my-mobile-phone-or-ped-onboard


The use of Mobile Phones is not permitted onboard any Ryanair aircraft.

Probably also because O'Leary tried to bid for the equipment at an
unrealistically low level and, when the equipment provider declined, he
became verbally abusive.

"Became" ?

In message , at 00:08:15 on
Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Charles Ellson remarked:
According to Wonkypaedia, all Solo and Electron transactions
require(d) authorisation :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solo_%28debit_card%29

Which, to get back on topic, is why they weren't accepted on trains and
at most railway stations.

What we haven't yet uncovered is what the equivalent mechanism is for
the under-18's VISA Debit cards which have replaced them.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 16:18:00 on Tue, 20 Mar
2012, Stephen Sprunk remarked:
Debit cards

These are only issued when linked to a bank or building society account,
usually a current account. As under-18s do not have the capacity to
enter into a contract, banks and building societies do not usually
permit this age group to have an overdraft. Some debit cards, such as
Solo or Visa Electron, require all transactions to be authorised against
money already in the account, which prevents the cardholder going
overdrawn.

How does the merchant know that any given card presented requires
authorization? Is this the floor that folks have mentioned recently
elsewhere in the thread, and is such encoded on the card itself?

For US cards, AFAIK there is no floor encoded on the card; the floor is
set by the card processor depending on the merchant's chargeback
rate--and never exceeds USD 50. The merchant is guaranteed to get at
least that much without having to authorize each transaction--even if
the issuing bank declines it. They will typically authorize any
transaction over that amount, though, which wouldn't work for totally
offline terminals.

I believe it's the same in the UK (although my impression is that some
merchant floor limits are well above the equivalent of $50).
--
Roland Perry

On Wed, 21 Mar 2012 06:01:11 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 00:08:15 on
Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Charles Ellson remarked:
According to Wonkypaedia, all Solo and Electron transactions
require(d) authorisation :-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solo_%28debit_card%29

Which, to get back on topic, is why they weren't accepted on trains and
at most railway stations.

What we haven't yet uncovered is what the equivalent mechanism is for
the under-18's VISA Debit cards which have replaced them.

A quick look round a few bank's websites suggests that if the
transaction is online then the money must be in the account. For
offline it would presumably be something in the card (if there
actually is something) which boils down to the chip, the magnetic
stripe or the card prefix; the first won't work outwith CnPland (and
the banks seem to allow the cards to be used there), the second was
discounted (?) but won't apply if the card does not get swiped and
(without going all the way back through the thread to check) the last
seems to be unproven but there ought to be a few offspring available
for a temporary confiscation of their cards to look at the prefixes. I
do have a sneaking suspicion that to some extent it might work by
making kids believe their cards can't go into the red but without any
certain method of enforcing that while the card is used away from any
communication with the bank.

In message , at 06:43:49 on
Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Charles Ellson remarked:
What we haven't yet uncovered is what the equivalent mechanism is for
the under-18's VISA Debit cards which have replaced them.

....

I do have a sneaking suspicion that to some extent it might work by
making kids believe their cards can't go into the red but without any
certain method of enforcing that while the card is used away from any
communication with the bank.

At least one bank *promises* them they can't. That's why we need to
understand the mechanism.
--
Roland Perry

On 21/03/2012 06:56, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 06:43:49 on
Wed, 21 Mar 2012, Charles Ellson remarked:

What we haven't yet uncovered is what the equivalent mechanism is for
the under-18's VISA Debit cards which have replaced them.

...

I do have a sneaking suspicion that to some extent it might work by
making kids believe their cards can't go into the red but without any
certain method of enforcing that while the card is used away from any
communication with the bank.

At least one bank *promises* them they can't. That's why we need to
understand the mechanism.

With such cards, I suggest that the card has a zero floor limit [1], and
will only work with online POS terminals (i.e. those that have to get a
real-time authorisation) - if the terminal is offline, the transaction
will be declined. I'm sure I've read something like that somewhere.
(This would make them functionally similar to Visa Electron cards, so
why the Electron brand has been deprecated in favour of Visa Debit I'm
not entirely clear on.)

-----
[1] Possibly the incorrect terminology.

In message , at 09:31:36 on Wed, 21 Mar
2012, Mizter T remarked:
What we haven't yet uncovered is what the equivalent mechanism is for
the under-18's VISA Debit cards which have replaced them.

I do have a sneaking suspicion that to some extent it might work by
making kids believe their cards can't go into the red but without any
certain method of enforcing that while the card is used away from any
communication with the bank.

At least one bank *promises* them they can't. That's why we need to
understand the mechanism.

With such cards, I suggest that the card has a zero floor limit [1],
and will only work with online POS terminals (i.e. those that have to
get a real-time authorisation) - if the terminal is offline, the
transaction will be declined. I'm sure I've read something like that
somewhere.

I know someone with such a card, and will attempt to persuade them to
make a test purchase.

(This would make them functionally similar to Visa Electron cards, so
why the Electron brand has been deprecated in favour of Visa Debit I'm
not entirely clear on.)

Especially as the Electron branding warns all concerned that the
transaction might not work. Have we really given these under-18's a card
they can't use to buy railway tickets, without warning them in advance?
--
Roland Perry

On 20-Mar-12 02:37, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:57:57 on Mon, 19 Mar
2012, Stephen Sprunk remarked:
(On another note, I flew Transatlantic with such an airline last year,
and did wonder how they cope with unaccompanied minors, who almost
certainly won't have any cards).

Just tell minors to use their cash to buy a gift card before they
board.

Eventually you may come to accept that gift cards like that are only
available in the USA. It's been mentioned half a dozen times already,
but maybe if we keep saying it you'll believe it.

They can buy the cards at the airport before they leave on an eastbound
transatlantic (or westbound transpacific) flight.

Some people start transatlantic trips from Europe. Strange, I know.

How long do you think it'll take until such cards are available at the
other end of those flights? It's not a difficult concept to grasp.

While a lot of US-invented financial initiatives do find there way over
here (even sub-prime mortgages) I'm not sure those giftcards will. It
seems to be important to the various stores that they are "tied" to a
particular outlet, or even a particular range of goods, and so the
current extensive (non-credit card) mag-stripe gift card scheme may
continue indefinitely.

That is how gift cards started here, and such are still available and
promoted by chain retailers. However, other retailers (particularly
convenience, drug and grocery stores) sell gift cards that work in
_other_ stores, originally a variety of store-branded cards and later
including Visa/AmEx cards.

Part of this is cultural: giving gift cards is easier and less stressful
than shopping for many people, and giving Visa/AmEx gift cards doesn't
require visiting multiple stores or even thinking about which stores
would be appropriate for each person: just buy a stack of cards and
stuff one in each envelope. A sad commentary, to be sure.

However, many people buy "gift cards" for their own use because they
don't have (and can't get) bank accounts at all thanks to the new
anti-immigrant^Wterrorist banking laws passed after 9/11, and not having
any sort of plastic can be rather inconvenient at times.

[Minors] who are flying regularly, particularly internationally, are
probably _most_ likely to have cards.

They are more likely, I agree, especially after they've been caught out
on the first trip.

My thought was that, simply due to the cost of int'l travel, said minors
likely come from more affluent families, where cards for teens seem to
be more common. That's where it started in the US, at least, though it
seems like nearly everyone has them now.

S

--
Stephen Sprunk "God does not play dice." --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723 "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking

On 21/03/2012 00:11, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 22:05:03 +0000, "
wrote:

On 18/03/2012 15:47, Goalie of the Century wrote:
In , "
writes

What ever happened with Ryanair's plans to do something like that, BTW?

http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/gen-en-300806

30.08.06
Ryanair, Europe’s largest low fares airline, and OnAir, the leading
onboard passenger communications provider, today (30th Aug) announced a
deal that will see Ryanair’s entire fleet of Boeing 737 aircraft fitted
with OnAir’s onboard mobile communications solution.

http://www.ryanair.com/en/news/launch-of-europe-s-1st-fleet-wide-inflight-mobile-phone-service


19.02.09
Ryanair, Europe’s largest low fares airline, today (19th Feb) launched
its in-flight mobile phone service initially onboard 20 of its (mainly)
Dublin based aircraft. This is the first step in fitting Ryanair’s
entire fleet of over 170 aircraft to allow all passengers to make and
receive mobile calls and texts on all Ryanair flights.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/onair-hangs-up-on-ryanair-mobile-phone-deal-340096/


1 Apr 2010
Disagreement on timing for a fleet roll-out, among other issues, led
OnAir to terminate its agreement to provide on-board to-fit mobile phone
service across budget carrier Ryanair's fleet.

http://www.ryanair.com/en/questions/can-i-use-my-mobile-phone-or-ped-onboard


The use of Mobile Phones is not permitted onboard any Ryanair aircraft.

Probably also because O'Leary tried to bid for the equipment at an
unrealistically low level and, when the equipment provider declined, he
became verbally abusive.

"Became" ?

Yes, you are right.

Became extremely verbally abusive.

" writes:
On 21/03/2012 00:11, Charles Ellson wrote:
On Tue, 20 Mar 2012 22:05:03 +0000, "
wrote:
Probably also because O'Leary tried to bid for the equipment at an
unrealistically low level and, when the equipment provider declined, he
became verbally abusive.

"Became" ?

Yes, you are right.

Became extremely verbally abusive.

I think Charles was saying that O'Leary is _always_ that way...

[I dunno whether that's true, though O'Leary does seem to be a
full-time douchebag.]

-miles

--
gravity a demanding master ... soft soft snow