IFC Strategy Is Too Important to Be Driven by Herd Mentality
Technology still matters in inflight connectivity, but strategic, operational, and commercial considerations now carry more weight in the decision. As new providers and architectures gain momentum, the industry narrative has fragmented, with airlines warned about the risks of depending on a single supplier while simultaneously being urged to simplify at all costs. Both positions represent extremes that miss important nuance. This article explores why IFC strategy is too important to be driven by herd mentality, and how both concentration and diversification create risks that airlines must consciously understand, accept, and actively manage.
The Problem with Binary Thinking
IFC decisions often get framed in black and white terms. One provider means simplicity and multiple means resilience. But like most things in IFEC, the reality is more complicated.
Yes, there is risk in giving your entire fleet to one vendor. That includes pricing power, flexibility, and future roadmap constraints. Those are real and valid concerns. As SES VP Enrique Villasenor noted in a recent Runway Girl Network article, airlines should be wary of “handing over the keys” to their entire IFC future.
But running multiple IFC providers is not a free insurance policy either. It adds operational weight and pressure, which can be useful but also harder to carry.
What Experience Taught Me
Over more than a decade working in IFEC at a global airline, I was involved in everything from RFPs and product development to SLA management, marketing, and billing. At one point, we had four IFC providers active across the fleet.
Looking back, the approach made sense. It aligned with broader business goals. Some platforms were better suited for long haul, others for narrowbody domestic routes. Some supported streaming, while others focused on basic browsing. The intent was to match capability with mission, but managing that level of variety took serious effort.
And it only worked because we had exceptional teams across IT, Tech Ops, Procurement, and Product Marketing. Everyone had to stay in sync. Contracts, integrations, development, testing, and cabin crew training all had to be thoughtfully coordinated.
Every provider had different timelines, systems, and standards. Supporting them meant more work, more internal coordination, and more complexity to deliver a consistent passenger experience. Risk was not eliminated, it was redistributed.
The Egg Basket Analogy Does Not Work Here
That is why I get cautious when I hear, “Don’t put all your eggs in one basket.” In IFC, that can easily turn into, “Now you have four baskets to maintain, monitor, and explain to your passengers.”
Passengers do not care which provider powers their connection. They care whether it works seamlessly and reliably. And when it doesn’t, they blame the airline, not the satellite.
Do Not Mistake Momentum for Strategy
Momentum adds pressure. When several big names adopt a solution, it starts to feel like the market has decided. It is easy to assume that if others are choosing a particular path, whether it is Starlink, Viasat, or a GEO-MEO-LEO blend, it must be the right one.
But herd mentality is not a strategy. What works for one airline’s network, routes, or brand promise will not necessarily work for another. Copying someone else’s solution might give you speed, but it can cost you fit.
Vendor Stories Need Context
Every vendor has a story. Some emphasize leverage and redundancy. Others lead with simplicity and speed. Some make bold promises about hardware, bandwidth, and coverage. None of them are wrong, but none of them tell the full story either.
IFC is not just about satellite networks. It is antennas, aircraft hardware, STCs, ground infrastructure, portals, digital platforms, app integrations, and the entire passenger journey. Anyone selling you a one-size-fits-all solution is solving for a business that is most likely not yours.
Ask the Right Questions
The best IFC strategies start by asking:
* What do your passengers actually value on each route?
* What complexity can your teams manage sustainably?
* Where does accountability sit when something breaks?
* How much flexibility will actually be used over the contract lifecycle?
* What level of redundancy is truly needed and where?
These questions shift the conversation away from ideology and toward practicality.
There Is No Perfect Answer, Only the Right One for You
Some airlines will thrive with one provider. Others will need a mix. Some will double down on embedded IFE, while others lean into streaming over Wi-Fi. What matters is alignment with passenger expectations, operational readiness, and long-term digital and passenger experience strategy.
Where IFC used to be a nice-to-have, today it is a core part of airline infrastructure. Not just a service, but a digital backbone connecting everything from passenger touchpoints to crew workflows and real-time flight data.
And like any infrastructure decision, it deserves clarity, context, and conviction.
Final Thought
It’s tempting to chase what’s trending or play it safe by following the pack. But the best outcomes come from doing the harder work, interrogating assumptions, aligning to business goals, and building for what you need, not what’s loudest in the market.
Disclaimer: This article reflects the independent perspective of Corinne Streichert and IFECtiv, informed by consulting work across the airline and IFEC industry and publicly available information. It is intended for general discussion and should not be interpreted as specific legal, financial, or technical advice. References to prior airline experience are included for context only, and the views shared should be considered in light of each airline’s individual circumstances.