Starlink unlimited aviation plan to rise from $10k/month to $20k

https://www.corporatejetinvestor.com/news/starlink-price-rise-reckless-says-correnti/

by r2sk5t • 7 days ago

122 218 7 days ago

p-o• 7 days ago

Hard to not look at the crazy valuation of SpaceX and not see a correlation. At some point, something's gotta give.

Unfortunately, their valuation has almost nothing to do with starlink revenues. It’s almost entirely speculative oribital data centers that have not been invented yet. They could double their starlink revenues and it would have no impact on the valuation.

_doctor_love• 7 days ago

Wasn't it Jeff Skilling who once waxed poetical about hypothetical future value?

croes3• 7 days ago

Even if invented, what is the advantage of orbit data centers?

whatisthiseven• 7 days ago

Might as well base the valuation on SpaceX getting a colony to Alpha Centauri and then billions living there and needing regular SpaceX shuttle services from Sol.

Then we could properly value the IPO in the quadrillions. (I know you know this is ridiculous. But investors clearly are riding high on the tulip mania).

epistasis3• 7 days ago

In the meantime, until Musk comes up with the next big "idea" to switch to, all the current revenue levers need to be pushed to max to try to make it to that next stage, since public companies demand revenue every quarter.

A lot of their revenue is also from renting out GPUs to more productive AI companies, so depending on how long that game can keep on going (getting access to GPUs before other companies), it could last for a while too.

arijun2• 7 days ago

I disagree, but not for the reason you think. They need to fund R&D to justify their high valuation. A new stock issue would decrease the valuation, and they will have a difficult time borrowing the money with their poor bond valuations. So this will (maybe) slow the bleed.

Musk doesn't need to deliver to keep valuation up. We've seen him doing pretty well stringing people along indefinitely with "3 months maybe, 6 months definitely" self driving capabilities.

ZiiS• 7 days ago

It is possible they delayed this rise as they didn't want bad news in the run-up to going public; but the is absolutely no way this can touch their fundamental numbers.

BoppreH• 7 days ago

Note that this is for the "aviation plan" which already requires six-digits equipment.

vel0city4• 7 days ago

Yeah, for regular people they're just starting to suddenly charge $1,500 fees.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Starlink/comments/1uklz4q/starlink_...

r3trohack3r3• 7 days ago

He then reviewed my billing history and account details, confirmed that my service address had never actually changed, and determined that nothing had been moved. As a result, he issued a full refund.

cortesoft• 7 days ago

It sounds like this was a bug where slight updates to geolocation data (his address updated its physical location, probably to be more accurate) triggered a "location moved" process. Annoying, but not indicative of a new policy.

engineer_223• 7 days ago

Furnishing low-latency, broadband connectivity to private aircraft. The Challenger 350 noted in the article stickers north of $10M

engineer_223• 7 days ago

For comparison,

If you live in a $300,000 home and pay $100/month for internet you’re paying 0.4% per year for the service.

If you own a $15,000,000 jet and pay $20,000/month for internet you’re paying 1.6% per year for the service.

By this comparison, we might say private jet owners are paying 4x more for their internet on their plane.

toomuchtodo2• 7 days ago

They are attempting to juice revenue across all product cohorts, this is simply another datapoint. Customers are captive until there are more connectivity options.

nelsonic2• 7 days ago

“Juice?” As in they have the best product by a wide margin and are charging a totally fair price for it that reflects demand. Nobody flying private cares about the price of Starlink.

It’s worse if they are squeezing people in underserved rural areas… our monthly has gone down from €35 to €29 and still getting the same speed.

The second SpaceX offers direct-to-cell in our area we will switch to their service as we’ve never had any issues with it whereas the incumbent mobile/broadband providers regularly throttle even when we’re paying top tier prices.

Totally agree there needs to be more competition and preferably not from other billionaires … but until then, Starlink is great!

Rebelgecko• 7 days ago

They also recently doubled the price of the standby plan

throwitaway2223• 7 days ago

Starlink should probably reverse course on this however, it's one thing to pay 10k for up to 20 guests on a small private jet vs a company like Delta with a fleet of 747s. Charge Delta 20k, charge this guy 10k.

theturtletalks2• 7 days ago

Why would they not charge as much as possible? Who else is launching satellites? He’s got one of the biggest moats I’ve ever seen.

anvuong2• 7 days ago

That 20 guests on a PJ are probably worth more than a fully booked 747. Price has always been set based how much customers are willing pay, not based on the value it creates.

matwood2• 7 days ago

Starlink should probably reverse course on this

Why? Rich people flying private want to be connected and Starlink is the most reliable game in town. "Do you have Starlink?" is probably already being asked by those booking private.

ryandrake2• 7 days ago

Also, not everyone in "aviation" is either an airliner or a 20 seat private jet. Joe Piston flying his two seater Cessna that cost him about as much as a new Toyota is not ever going to be paying Starlink's aviation price.

They really need more price tiers and scale them by a better price differentiator: max gross weight or number of seats.

panative3• 7 days ago

Won’t somebody please think of the luxury private aviation consumers?

Finnucane• 7 days ago

Rich people are screwing over the slightly less rich, get out the silver pitchforks.

scottyah10• 7 days ago

I don't think spacex is rolling in cash. Their valuation has little bearing on cash reserves until they sell.

estearum3• 7 days ago

A lot of people on this forum actually have investments in SpaceX, directly or indirectly, and they're interested in this stuff as a signal of the health of the company.

Not everything has to be some little gripefest.

meristohm• 7 days ago

I reckon a lot of people on this forum have poorer health thanks to man-made pollution.

The more money a person has, the greater the chance they spend it in ways that increase environmental harm. (Travel is a big one, and buying large homes, remodeling homes, heating and cooling those homes, well beyond the private sufficiency that would be enough for us if we also supported public luxuries instead of playing Smaug)

Rather than corporate health I'm more concerned with ecosystem health (actual eco-system, as in interconnected living beings, not the word applied to software...), and care much more about investing in the performance of the ecosystems (based on land, water, and air) that sustain life in the region I have this tiny bit of influence on.

Corporations are fictions, a game we're playing. After they go up in smoke, the land will still be here.

panative3• 7 days ago

Won’t somebody please think of the poor SpaceX shareholders? (Not that the article was framed that way.)

behnamoh• 7 days ago

As I write this, I'm disputing a charge from Starlink because when I activated mine, they automatically started the free trial for me, but nowhere in the receipt or on their website did they say they would switch me to the most expensive plan after the free trial was over. And they made it extremely confusing to cancel my free trial. So I ended up being charged $120 for something that I had just opened out of the box. I disputed it twice through Apple Card and it still got rejected, even though I have the invoices. So I'm disputing it a third time, and I know one thing is clear: I am never going to purchase anything that Elon has made ever again. They also lied to me about the cost of keeping the Starlink. Their app said the satellite would need to stay "alive," and to do so I had to pay $5 a month. But then I recently realized that that was also a lie—you don't have to pay to keep the service or the satellite alive.

pfdietz• 7 days ago

As a matter of personal policy I never sign up for free trials, for just this sort of reason.

petilon4• 7 days ago

Apple Card aka Goldman Sachs is notoriously bad at handling disputes. They were fined $89 million for mishandling disputes, yet they continue to reject disputes offhand [1]. I no longer use Apple Card other than for Apple Store purchases.

[1] https://www.consumerfinance.gov/archive/newsroom/cfpb-orders...

inemesitaffia11• 6 days ago

He has a misconception of how Starlink billing works.

scottyah10• 7 days ago

Who's your target audience for this... misinformation? > charged $120 for something that I had just opened out of the box

It does not work out of the box, you need to install an app, add a payment method, and sign up for a plan, free trial or not.

you don't have to pay to keep the service or the satellite alive

Not sure what you mean by keeping a satellite alive, but you do need to pay for the service. There is no "Free" or "Pay as You Go" plan. Also, the Standby Mode $10/mo, not $5.

As for it being "extremely confusing", that's highly subjective so I won't comment, but it's definitely standard UI and I think it took me less than 8 clicks to first downgrade then cancel my plan.

inemesitaffia11• 4 days ago

I think he signed up with a referral link promising a month's service for free. But that kicks in in the second month.

inemesitaffia11• 6 days ago

This isn't how Starlink billing works.

delichon• 7 days ago

At the other end they recently doubled the cost of the Starlink Mini standby plan, from $60 to $120 per year.

rsyring• 7 days ago

I have a Starlink v2 dish and I pay $10 per month for a residential "standby" plan.

I only get 10G per month of bandwidth but I rarely use it since I have a fiber connection that is mostly reliable.

It might be a grandfathered plan because they don't list it anywhere I can see:

  - https://starlink.com/service-plans
  - https://starlink.com/roam

Edit: turns out this is a feature/mode and not a plan:

https://starlink.com/na/support/article/37bb3b47-9525-7224-5...

And, apparently, I now have to reactivate the service to one of the published plans if I want to use more than low-speed data. Previously, I still had high-speed bandwidth for $10 a month just not a lot of it.

They must have changed things recently. And, now that I'm thinking about it, I probably skimmed an email that said something about this a month or two ago but, since the charge was staying at $10 a month, didn't pay much attention to the details.

throwitaway2223• 7 days ago

I noticed this too, but decided to keep my mini because I downgraded my max plan (I was defaulted to this as a customer since they started) to a bitrate I still won't reach, and by doing so am saving $480 per year.

palmotea• 7 days ago

At the other end they recently doubled the cost of the Starlink Mini standby plan, from $60 to $120 per year.

I kinda wanted to get one of those for standby, but the price seemed too good to be true, so I figured they'd either eliminate it or raise the price.

kamranjon2• 7 days ago

I am traveling in Europe currently and got a Saily SIM card - 5g coverage is really good and seems to be expanding fast - a small village I visited 2 years ago that had no cell coverage at all I was getting 250mbps download, faster than than the wired internet at most of the places I was visiting. This prompted me to actually look into Starlink speeds and apparently 5g is generally faster than Starlink...

This made me wonder if Starlink is a much more niche product than I thought - I actually thought it was significantly faster than cell data - but it seems it's just for folks in super remote areas at this point?

esseph2• 7 days ago

but it seems it's just for folks in super remote areas at this point?

TBF that's like 70% of the US, large parts of the Southern Hemisphere in general, much of China, India, Russia, etc.

But yes, StarLink is best when it has some user density but not too much user density. It will be this way until... probably forever.

If I go camping? StarLink. Otherwise no cell/internet service.

kamranjon2• 7 days ago

70% seems a little extreme? Here is a helpful mobile coverage map: https://www.fcc.gov/BroadbandData/MobileMaps/mobile-map

A few years ago I actually traveled all around the US and worked remotely with a 4g unlimited data sim card and was pretty amazed at the coverage, only very few places was I left without coverage. I'm guessing it's even better now?

justapassenger3• 7 days ago

Remote areas of USA (and other third world countries when it comes to the communication infrastructure) + companies that operate in remote areas (logistic, resource extraction, etc) + military are main customer base.

croes3• 7 days ago

Just look at the price and you see it’s for those without other alternatives

gruez• 7 days ago

Presumably local telecoms would be able to sell it for cheaper? "travel esim" providers like saily are basically paying roaming rates for whatever carrier the customer is physically in, it's definitely not the cheapest price available.

wongarsu• 7 days ago

There are plenty of super remote areas in Europe as well. Even more in the US, where population is more clustered to population centers

But the big selling points of Starlink are either as a backup connection (which the consumer plan actively enables: in months where you use less than 10GB you pay $10/month) or as a connection for ships and airplanes

numpad0• 7 days ago

Theoretical max speed of 4G/5G are like 5Gbps down/1Gbps up, without going into mmWave. Actual link speeds of Starlink terminals don't seem to be published in the open, but it's at least throttled to up to 310Mbps down/44Mbps up for Priority plans. Looks like it's supposed to reach 1Gbps down with V3 sats, but then again, cellular is like up to 5Gbps yesterday, at least in the spec.

It's just that Starlink being a new thing and with zero users tended to be less congested, hence it tended to do better in somewhat of an unfair comparison in a remote cabin side by side against an LTE equipment. It was NEVER faster in theory compared to terrestrial cellular.

plqbfbv• 7 days ago

Actual link speeds of Starlink terminals don't seem to be published in the open, but it's at least throttled to up to 310Mbps down/44Mbps up for Priority plans.

I had it last year in the Canary Islands (where I assume subscription is way below max capacity - no priority plan) before my current provider placed fiber, and I was getting up to 430Mbps down/100Mbps up with a consistent no-bufferbloat ~70ms ping, which is really not bad.

I guess in populated areas it can only reduce in speed as subscriptions increase, but in sparsely populated ones where fiber is not an option and 5G is crappy and priced similarly to Starlink, it's a valid alternative with no contenders for now. Not to mention that the ISP infrastructure it relies on does not depend on ground infrastructure, so if you're off-grid, you also don't depend on cabling/5G towers/etc for internet access.

justapassenger3• 7 days ago

I’m pretty sure rest of starlink customers will get similar treatment in the future. Their potential customer base is limited and it’s only ISP that literately burns their backbone network every few years and has to replace to keep it running.

On top of that, their claims it’s profitable does some heavy lifting with how to account for the cost of launching rockets.

It’s extremely cool product and very useful for many customers. But sustainability of current pricing is very questionable.

mattmaroon2• 7 days ago

Their potential customer base is literally everybody because they are the only ISP that can cover the entire globe. Everybody’s potential customer base is technically limited because there are only so many humans, but they have the least limited potential customer base of anything that exists.

novafunc• 7 days ago

Yes, but the primary reason for Starlink is for areas with poor traditional ISPs.

If you had a choice between Fiber or Starlink, you’d choose Fiber.

So as traditional ISPs improve service and coverage, Starlink becomes less in demand.

justapassenger3• 7 days ago

For any dense populated area, starlink cost explodes exponentially to support customers there, while fiber/5G is linear.

You cannot just put more satellites on top of cities, as they aren’t geostationary (which is why they’re fast), so you need to add insane amount of satellites, that would do nothing most of the time, when they’re not on top of densely populated area.

kingleopold• 7 days ago

At some point in next decade they can literally be the biggest ISP by far, insane potential always. It's all about how long it takes to get there

ruszki• 7 days ago

First, they would need global coverage for that. Because looking at this map tells a different story: https://starlink.com/gb/map

It’s still the best option, but far from “global”. Also Iran is an obvious lie with that “coming soon” color, so god knows what else isn’t true on this.

bakies7• 7 days ago

if you're in a city (where most people live) it'll never be cheaper to get this than fiber

latchkey12• 7 days ago

it has already gone up in price two times since i got mine. i still happily pay for the convenience and safety of having internet on my campervan in the middle of a national forest. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

mauvehaus3• 7 days ago

What harm are you worried about coming to in the middle of a national forest that having the internet could possibly save you from? You're in a van, for heaven's sakes. You can roll up the windows, lock the doors, and/or drive off from most dangers save a breakdown or a wildfire, and the internet won't save you from a wildfire.

I've tent camped a lot on forest service land (and BLM land) both out west and in the east. Generally having arrived there by human power. Not once have I been confronted with a situation where the internet would've added to my safety in any way whatsoever.

grim_io6• 7 days ago

At some point, everyone becomes price-sensitive.

ForOldHack• 7 days ago

Surprise, surprise, surprise. Well, well well. The honeymoon is over. It's just so predictable.

epistasis3• 7 days ago

Gotta pay the massive coupons on SpaceX's bonds, whose yields are heading towards junk territory:

https://www.ft.com/content/3a023b95-66c3-41e1-b0ce-df752a499...

Having just flown some flights with Starlink internet connection, I really love the service, it's just amazing. But the rugpull here might actually break through the distortion field of Musk. It's really interesting to compare the reality distortion fields of Elon Musk and Steve Jobs. It took a looooooong time for Apple stock to get properly valued in the 2000s, after it was clear that they would take over consumer computing. Jobs' RDF worked amazingly well on aligning engineering towards consumer needs, and towards convincing consumers and (some) reviewers that they had created the right sort of products for the future. Elon Musk seems to have mastered RDF on investors plus consumers, and when you're chasing sky high valuations by always piling your prior failed "ideas" into your next big thing (i.e. next big gamble), it only takes a few bad gambles to bring down the entire house of cards.

scottyah10• 7 days ago

At the end of the day, there's the people who can make a vastly superior product time and time again, and they all like to work with other people who can do the same. They like to be pushed, they love solving hard problems, hate bureaucracy, and will find leaders that can accommodate all that. Elon provides that the same as Steve did.

ben_w5• 7 days ago

people who can make a vastly superior product time and time again, and they all like to work with other people who can do the same

These parts are likely pushing the best minds away from Musk these days. Not sure when that turned, perhaps Cybertruck?

jameskraus2• 7 days ago

It is an reckless business practice to not have the monthly price locked down, with strong contractual protections. Sounds like Correnti didn't negotiate well and are now finding out.

e_i_pi_2• 7 days ago

Agreed with this, and it also doesn't seem like this is the case but I'm generally a fan of charging B2B as high as possible to lower costs for regular consumers - other companies will generally pay a lot more even if it just includes the potential of getting better support, and that profit can be used to give access to more people at a lower price.

A lot of open source software uses this model - free for everyone, but if you're a company that wants support then you have to pay for it, and that covers the development for everyone

smt88• 7 days ago

The aviation pricing will be passed to consumers either way, as increased fares or in-flight fees.

w10-12• 7 days ago

Sounds like Correnti didn't negotiate well

Are you sure this is negotiable?

jameskraus2• 7 days ago

If price protection for something like this isn't negotiable it's a huge business risk, which would also be reckless to take on.

HarHarVeryFunny• 7 days ago

Everything is potentially negotiable.

Price on things like kitchen appliances, furniture often negotiable - you just have to ask.

My wife: (good customer) if I guy two pairs of shoes I want 2nd pair at 50% - them "ok"

My wife: what will you give me if I buy this (expensive briefcase)? - them "$100 gift card"

I got an extra $150 of a sheepskin coat at a going out of business sale just by asking

petilon4• 7 days ago

Blue Origin's Terawave [1] can't come soon enough.

[1] https://www.blueorigin.com/terawave

sucrosesucrose• 7 days ago

What we need is a public service constellation, not more billonaire ones.

petilon4• 7 days ago

You could say that about electricity, water supply, healthcare, AI, etc. These should all be public services, not run by for-profit corporations. But we decided against that approach long ago.

consumer4513• 7 days ago

Is it possible that you meant Amazon Leo? I thought Terawave was for terrestrial station backhaul.

petilon4• 6 days ago

Yes I meant Leo. But Terawave is also satellite based, it looks like.

khurs5• 7 days ago

There will be many price increases seeing as:

-SpaceX raised $75bn in the IPO which will only last so long for a loss making high capital requirements company.

-Then $25bn via bonds which have an annual interest rate repayment of $1.46 billion + repayment of the $25b (depending on bond length in years 2031,33,36,46 and 2056)

-Morgan Stanley said: "In our model, we estimate SpaceX raising an average of $72bn annually between 2027 and 2030 and then an average of $95bn annually between 2031 and 2034."[0]

So huge amounts needed continuously.

[0]https://www.ft.com/content/09a62ed4-16af-433c-adb7-c877d1975...

jerlam• 7 days ago

SpaceX stock has also dropped below their IPO price. It doesn't change their current financials but it may make it more difficult to raise money in the future.

khurs5• 7 days ago

Will be interesting to see if Elon regrets only floating 4% [0] of the company at the IPO and not more seeing as it was over subscribed.

[0] https://www.businessinsider.com/spacex-ipo-spcx-stock-free-f...

jamie_ca• 7 days ago

Yeah, up 50% over 5 days, back down to the starting line over the next 30 isn't a great outlook to my eye.

anvuong2• 7 days ago

Holy cow how can they raise over $70B every year for 8 years straight? Who is investing this much?

netdur• 7 days ago

basically investors interested in long term and see how spacex the only one in game

w10-12• 7 days ago

Note that the objection is as much to the abruptness as the scale of the price increase.

Large customers sinking millions into (here aviation) assets rightly expect that their vendors respect their market lifecycles.

Starlink's behavior creates a credibility gap that could drive such customers to the 2-3 upcoming competitors with poorer service and even higher costs, but perhaps more reliability as partners.

I'd see this as an opportunity.

huslage• 7 days ago

The "upcoming" is doing a lot of work. There is not currently a viable alternative to Starlink with the same capability, speed, or latency. Amazon Leo will be the next to go online and it won't be fully operational until sometime in 2028. No one in the aviation industry will want to wait for that.

consumer4513• 7 days ago

Delta and JetBlue appear to be waiting for Amazon Leo, and it seems to be coming online in 2027, not 2028.

khurs5• 7 days ago

Note that the objection is as much to the abruptness as the scale of the price increase.

When companies buy a service, they normally agree a bespoke contract for 5 years or so and a fixed price for additional units, often with an option of a further x years period too.

So sounds like there wasn't a bespoke contract as lawyers should have picked it up.

CamelCaseName• 7 days ago

This is so par for the course for Elon's companies.

He will extract as much as possible, whenever possible.

404mm• 7 days ago

He’s like the God. Always needs more money!

scottyah10• 7 days ago

And he will tell you beforehand, in clear manifestos, why and how it fits the mission.

grim_io6• 7 days ago

You don't get to be all of the USA's GDP without a buck or two more per month, you know?

khurs5• 7 days ago

SpaceX has also increased the price of its Starlink Aviation equipment to $200,000 per business aircraft, up from $145,000 last year.

ouch.

1234letshaveatw4• 7 days ago

Won't someone think of the aviators!!

TimTheTinker2• 7 days ago

Brand-new Cessna planes were selling for roughly 2x the US median annual income in the 1960s. Today that number is at around 5.5x.

I've always wanted to fly my wife & kids in a plane, but I just can't afford a high-maintenance luxury asset that costs as much as a house, and fuel costs are prohibitive as well.

so yeah, if someone could mass-manufacture an FAA MOSAIC-certified light-sport aircraft with >2 seats, that could bring the cost of fractional ownership and once-every-two-months weekend use down to my level. And if small local air strips could stop closing too, that'd be great.

---

All to say, aviation used to be semi-reachable as a middle class hobby for family people. Now, the only way to get a family in the air for people like me is to spend years building a kit plane from scratch or fixing up a cheap broken plane.

bakies7• 7 days ago

I wonder how this compares with non-starlink aircraft ISP? Was/Is Delta using something else? Their internet has been good for a while.

inemesitaffia11• 6 days ago

Most of the cost is in installation

theturtletalks2• 7 days ago

What’s even more concerning is that the current government changed their requirements for the rural broadband program so companies like StarLink can bid to bring internet to those remote areas instead of using wired or fiber connections. Not far-fetched that StarLink wins this contract and then squeezes those customers over time. ISPs will have little reason to expand in those underserved areas without government subsidies.

inemesitaffia11• 6 days ago

Amazon LEO was the primary beneficiary

hughes• 7 days ago

There is a nuance missed in the discussion so far - Starlink is creating a new product level, differentiating service between continental and intercontinental aviation connectivity. Previously these were a single category.

If you are operating in North America for example, your service is going from $10k to $12.5k. Still a 25% increase, which is not fun, but I think a lot of the customers affected by this will fit into this category. You only need the $20k plan if your aircraft travels between their roughly-continental regions.

Nicholas Air, quoted in the article, appears to have no need for the $20k plan and should not use it.

ck2• 7 days ago

isn't Amazon LEO now available or very soon at $60/month?

https://old.reddit.com/r/AmazonLeo/comments/1uupd3w

will they offer aviation suitable plans?

inemesitaffia11• 6 days ago

No it isn't, yes they will.

amluto• 7 days ago

This stinks.

On the one hand, sure, the unlimited aviation plans are targeting customers with lots of money. And they involve fancy, expensive-to-replace, FAA-approved hardware.

On the other hand, it’s sort of an easy market to target as such things go, and TAM is limited. In the areas where terrestrial radio for airplanes isn’t viable (rural areas and over water), there is a very low density of Internet user and satellite constellation that can cover the whole planet will have plenty of bandwidth.

Right now this is Starlink and, with MUCH lower available bandwidth and correspondingly lower pricing, Iridium. But Rocketlab is surely planning to grow Iridium and Amazon is planning to launch Leo soon. And there is still only so much aviation Internet money to go around.

So I think that SpaceX trying to juice profits on a small market that is only temporarily captive is a bad sign.

Antwan• 7 days ago

So private jets can no longer offer high speed internet to their customers. That’s so sad.

cameldrv• 7 days ago

Not a great move for SpaceX IMO. Things that get installed on airplanes are very expensive and people expect them to last 10+ years. If the equipment can only be used with a single service provider, and they have a track record of just doubling the price because they think they can get away with it, people are going to look for alternatives.

Starlink is clearly the best right now but there are competitors. In particular, these competitors may not have the capacity to service millions of households at $100/mo, but they definitely do for private planes at $10k/mo, especially when the service is only being used for maybe 40hr/mo.

r2sk5t• 7 days ago

General Aviation pilots are apoplectic and circulating a petition: https://www.flyingmag.com/starlinks-pricing-shift-a-bait-and...

inemesitaffia11• 6 days ago

That's a different matter entirely.

Starlink unlimited aviation plan to rise from $10k/month to $20k

Related Stories