Agreed. But when we get word of FAA approval of the embedded system, and we see no orders for same in the very near term following that announcement, and this is coupled with no new/follow-on orders for the portable version, then we may be in real trouble. Silence from Wencor since 12 Nov `04 is a bit un-nerving. While all understand that Wencor didn`t buy out APS because they had a charitable heart for the baggage handler, we do understand that there had to be much more in the offing, of major magnitude, to prompt their action (which, I might add, occurred shortly after the intro of the new embedded IFE).

The weakness (apparently) in the appeal to the airlines of the portable unit (perception based on relatively weak adoption) makes me suspect that, while the airlines desire a lighter-weight IFE system with broad content offerings and probable revenuue generation, they must also have concerns regarding the added burden to FAs (especially on short haul flights), method of payment (not only for use of IFE, but also for other pay-as-you-go passenger amenities), and theft (which, in spite of this concern only raised by O`Leary, whose words are always suspect, is a reasonable and logical concern none-the-less). (Went for longest sentence record there!). The logical solution to all these concerns is a comparitively very light weight, proven (a la portable version), content laden embedded IFE complete with (APS) at seat credit card reader. For this reason, I`m hanging my hat on this, and hanging my head in anticipation (as the PPS slides). The other very positive aspect of the embedded solution (for EDIG shareholders) is that it means a unit at every seat, not just 20-40 carry-ons for a 200+ seat plane.

Further thought here is that we`re encountering (arguably weak) competition for the portable version. While I`m not aware of anything happening with the ``Yes!`` Solo unit, we do see major promotion of the PEA on AA (much delayed) trials. It`s almost like IMS is trying to promote the PEA into adoption before trials take place/are completed (and wouldn`t it be ``funny`` if they performed miserably in trials and AA passed!) I think the EDIG detectives should probably start/continue focusing on our competition for a light-weight embedded system with the ``logical solution`` attributes described above. I think that`s the real battleground, as it is the ``logical solution`` and the volumes involved would ``way`` dwarf those for portables.

The big uncontrolable empediment to my way of thinking here is (as Kim frequently reminds me) the financial condition of the (domestic) carriers. My ``canned`` response is that IF we can supply an IFE system that saves money (fuel) and makes money, it is something airlines, regardless of financial position, can`t ignore. And they CAN afford it, if only because they can`t afford not to pusue this. But Kim`s reality check stands; along with the apparent ``goofy logic`` in which the (domestic) carrier management operates.

Still another thought which prompts my anxiousness to move from portable IFE to ultra-light-weight embedded, is that the portable A/V media device market may boom (though there are many critics). We already have stiff competition in that market (that we have yet to really enter), and ultimately those devices will be competition as passenger-owned portable IFE.

So hurry up FAA, and hope like heck that there are large orders en que for our embedded system. Forget Asian OEMs, Fusion, and Mouse Ears. Embedded IFE can be our salvation, and could bring about LL`s desired mid-`05 outcome. Nothing else that we KNOW about can....

Since almost all the above is only IMHO, I KNOW it to be true! Other than that, I KNOW nuttin`!

SGE