The service will launch only on BA's business-class-only flights from the smaller London City airport to New York's JFK, so right now this is limited to banker types who can afford it. Also, the Telegraph does not hint at rates or service providers for the service. Other airlines like Emirates and BMI have implemented similar deals, and it seems like a pretty good compromise to the voice-calls-on-planes hubbub. No VoIP! [Telegraph via Mobile Burn]

As Mark said, there's something strangely anthropomorphic about a giant, slightly-cartoony helium aircraft balloon going up, seen here at Flughafen Zürich. I love this almost as much as I love the word flughafen. Bring it to the US! [Aleksandra Mir via Like Cool]

These delays are getting close to those Airbus saw with their A380 super jumbo—delays which nearly ruined the European consortium. The 787's most recent troubles are due to a 58-day machinist's strike at Boeing's plants here in the U.S. in September and October. The first test flight is now scheduled for second quarter 2009, with deliveries (first to Japan's ANA) beginning in 2010.[BBC, Photo: markjhandel/Flickr]

The Air Data Inertial Reference System, which supplies position and attitude information to the plane's electronic instrumentation system, starting producing bogus data due to an internal error, not external interference. As funny as the ideas of an A330-controlling iPhone app or an Autopilot-B-Gone are, the general consensus of experts that spoke on this issue is that commercial jets are unlikely to be affected at all by personal electronics, let alone driven into the ground. [ABC AU via Slashdot]

This wouldn't be the first time Qantas has blamed passengers' gadgets for an in-flight mishap; in July, a Bluetooth mouse was said to have resulted in a Qantas jet's autopilot being thrown off course. Passengers on Tuesday's ill-fated altitude drop will now be questioned regarding what electronics they may have been using at the time of the incident.

The issue of whether everyday personal electronics can actually cause any significant problems on board an airliner is clouded, to say the least. On one hand, it's hard to see how such common devices that meet FCC and UL interference standards can affect airliners that are designed to be able to withstand lightning strikes—critical components on a commercial jet are shielded to prevent any kind of interference getting through. On the other side, claims of the insulation degrading in older jets making them more susceptible to interference make sense. Then of course there is the perfectly rational "why chance it" argument.

This Wiki page delves into the issue in more detail, and Patrick from Ask the Pilot, one of my favorite online columns, gave the issue a characteristically sober and level-headed look earlier this year (verdict: interference technically possible but highly unlikely). So why Qantas would be making a push for this line of reasoning is kind of a mystery.

[UPDATE: Nick from Giz OZ has let us know that this story may be in fact a result of a misunderstanding—apparently a reporter got the jet's onboard computers (for navigation, etc) mixed up with the computers of actual passengers in his original report. The NTSB is still not ruling out interference from passenger gadgets, though.]

What about you guys? Do you heed the warnings to turn off everything, or fly in the face of danger with iPod blaring away during takeoff. Must admit I've been guilty of the latter, occasionally.

Gawker Media polls require Javascript; if you're viewing this in an RSS reader, click through to view in your Javascript-enabled web browser.

[NZ Herald via Slashdot, Photo: Daquella Manera/Flickr]

Officers already have what's known as the Silver Bullet—a small fleet of full-size trailers that can be loaded onto transport planes for officer travel, which the service claims is not sufficient for the amount of brass traversing the globe these days. What's got folks in Washington upset, however, is the diversion of over $16 million from the general "Global War on Terror" fund to build the pods, and ridiculous inefficiences like spending nearly $70,000 on subtle design tweaks like changing the color of the seat belts from brown to Air Force blue.

Granted, $16 million is pocket change for the Pentagon, and is anyone surprised that a government project is handling expenses inefficiently? When civilian first class gets more and more insane by the day, Air Force officers probably could stand a little in-flight R&R via SLICC.

[Washington Post via Danger Room]

Pictured: United first class pod, Onboard a C-130 transport