Commitments and Contingencies	12 Months Ended
Dec. 31, 2013
Commitments And Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	16. Commitments and Contingencies Contractual Commitments—One contract with one of our airline partners requires us to provide our airline partner with an annual cash rebate of $1.8 million and a reduction in certain charges in June of each year beginning in 2014 and continuing through 2023 if our service is available on a specified number of aircraft in such airline partner’s fleet on the December 31 preceding such date. We have an agreement with one of our airborne equipment vendors that committed us to purchase $26.0 million in satellite based antenna and radome systems as of December 31, 2013, of which $8.8 million remains to be paid. The remaining $8.8 million will become payable once the vendor has received Parts Manufacturing Authority, or PMA, from the Federal Aviation Authority and this product can be shipped to us. We have agreements with two different vendors to provide us with transponder and teleport satellite services. These agreements vary in length and amount and commit us to purchase transponder and teleport satellite services totaling approximately $27.8 million in 2014, $31.6 million in 2015, $32.9 million in 2016, $31.7 million in 2017, $15.6 million in 2018 and an amount less than $0.1 million in 2019. Damages and Penalties—Certain of our agreements with our airline partners may require us to incur additional obligations as a result of the occurrence of specified events, some of which may be out of our control. One contract covering the international fleet of one of our airline partners requires us to provide a credit or refund of up to $25 million to our airline partner if a competing airline installs satellite connectivity systems on a certain number of aircraft in its international fleet more quickly than we install our system on the same number of aircraft in our airline partner’s international fleet. The refund or credit will be eliminated in its entirety if we complete full installation of our airline partner’s international fleet by January 1, 2015, which date may be extended by up to six months as a result of certain excusable delays, and has been and will continue to be reduced proportionately from the maximum amount for every installation that we complete before the competitor achieves the target. The amount of any such refund or credit depends on a number of facts and circumstances, such as the pace at which we install satellite systems on aircraft delivered to us by our airline partner, as well as some that are not under our control, including, but not limited to, the number of installable aircraft made available to us from our airline partner’s international fleet, our competitor’s ability to install an equal or greater quantity of satellite systems on such competing airline’s international fleet and any current or future regulatory delays to the extent they are not excusable delays. Any refund or credit may only be applied toward the purchase of equipment or for a refund of amounts paid by the airline for previously purchased equipment. This contract also obligates us to pay our airline partner a one-time liquidated damages in the range of $1 million to $5 million if we fail to obtain certain regulatory approvals related to the provision of satellite-based services by specified deadlines. One contract with another of our airline partners obligates us to pay our airline partner up to $6 million in penalties and installation and other costs if we fail to receive certain regulatory approvals or fail to begin the installation of equipment related to the provision of satellite-based service by specified deadlines. We have entered into a number of agreements with our airline partners that require us to provide a credit or pay liquidated damages to our airline partners on a per aircraft, per day or per hour basis if we are unable to install our equipment on aircraft by specified timelines. The maximum amount of future credits or payments we could be required to make under these agreements is uncertain because the amount of future credits or payments is based on certain variable inputs, including the number of aircraft that are not installed on schedule, the length of time by which the installation is delayed, and the unit of time by which the delay is measured. Indemnifications and Guarantees—In accordance with Delaware law, we indemnify our officers and directors for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or was, serving at our request in such capacity. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under this indemnification is uncertain and may be unlimited, depending upon circumstances. However, our Directors’ and Officers’ insurance does provide coverage for certain of these losses. In the ordinary course of business we may occasionally enter into agreements pursuant to which we may be obligated to pay for the failure of performance of others, such as the use of corporate credit cards issued to employees. Based on historical experience, we believe that any material loss related to such guarantees is remote. We have entered into a number of agreements, including our agreements with commercial airlines, pursuant to which we indemnify the other party for losses and expenses suffered or incurred in connection with any patent, copyright, or trademark infringement or misappropriation claim asserted by a third party with respect to our equipment or services. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is uncertain and is typically not limited by the terms of the agreements. Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC Litigation—In May 2012, Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a number of defendants, including Delta Airlines and AirTran Airways, for alleged infringement of several patents in the field of wireless local area networking. AirTran and Delta have requested indemnification from us and under our contracts we are required to indemnify these airlines for defense costs and any damages arising from such litigation to the extent it relates to Gogo technology or services. We intend to seek indemnification, in turn, from certain of our equipment vendors. We have not accrued any liability related to this matter because, due to the early stage of the litigation, the strength of our defenses and a range of possible loss, if any, cannot be determined. The outcome of this matter is inherently uncertain and may have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Stewart Litigation—On October 4, 2012 by James Stewart against us filed suit against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of putative classes of national purchasers and a subclass of California purchasers of our service, alleging claims for monopolization and exclusive dealing under the federal antitrust laws and California state antitrust and unfair practices laws related to the Gogo service offered through our domestic commercial airline partners. In February 2014, the court denied our motion to dismiss the suit. We have not accrued any liability related to this matter because, due to the early stage of the litigation, the strength of our defenses and a range of possible loss, if any, cannot be determined. Based on currently available information, we believe that we have strong defenses and intend to continue to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but the outcome of this matter is inherently uncertain and may have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Go Go Tech, Inc. Litigation—On February 12, 2014, Go Go Techs, Inc. filed suit against us in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for alleged infringement of common law trademarks and alleged violations of federal and state unfair competition and other laws. The plaintiff seeks cancellation of our trademark registration for the mark “Gogo” as well as unspecified damages and injunctive relief. We have not accrued any liability related to this matter because, due to the early stage of the litigation, the strength of our defenses and a range of possible loss, if any, cannot be determined. Based on currently available information, we believe we have strong defenses and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but the outcome of this matter is inherently uncertain and may have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Carucel Investments, LP Litigation—On February 13, 2014, Carucel Investments, LP filed suit against us in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging infringement of several patents in the field of mobile communication systems and seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. We have not accrued any liability related to this matter because, due to the early stage of the litigation, the strength of our defenses and a range of possible loss, if any, cannot be determined. Based on currently available information, we believe we have strong defenses and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but the outcome of this matter is inherently uncertain and may have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows. Berkson Litigation—On February 25, 2014, Adam Berkson filed suit against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, on behalf of putative classes of national purchasers and a subclass of New York purchasers of our connectivity service, alleging claims that we violated New York and other consumer protection laws, as well as an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, by misleading consumers about recurring charges for our service. The suit seeks unspecified damages. We have not accrued any liability related to this matter because, due to the early stage of the litigation, the strength of our defenses and a range of possible loss, if any, cannot be determined. Based on currently available information, we believe we have strong defenses and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but the outcome of this matter is inherently uncertain and may have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

16. Commitments and Contingencies

Contractual Commitments—One contract with one of our airline partners requires us to provide our airline partner with an annual cash rebate of $1.8 million and a reduction in certain charges in June of each year beginning in 2014 and continuing through 2023 if our service is available on a specified number of aircraft in such airline partner’s fleet on the December 31 preceding such date.

We have an agreement with one of our airborne equipment vendors that committed us to purchase $26.0 million in satellite based antenna and radome systems as of December 31, 2013, of which $8.8 million remains to be paid. The remaining $8.8 million will become payable once the vendor has received Parts Manufacturing Authority, or PMA, from the Federal Aviation Authority and this product can be shipped to us.

We have agreements with two different vendors to provide us with transponder and teleport satellite services. These agreements vary in length and amount and commit us to purchase transponder and teleport satellite services totaling approximately $27.8 million in 2014, $31.6 million in 2015, $32.9 million in 2016, $31.7 million in 2017, $15.6 million in 2018 and an amount less than $0.1 million in 2019.

Damages and Penalties—Certain of our agreements with our airline partners may require us to incur additional obligations as a result of the occurrence of specified events, some of which may be out of our control. One contract covering the international fleet of one of our airline partners requires us to provide a credit or refund of up to $25 million to our airline partner if a competing airline installs satellite connectivity systems on a certain number of aircraft in its international fleet more quickly than we install our system on the same number of aircraft in our airline partner’s international fleet. The refund or credit will be eliminated in its entirety if we complete full installation of our airline partner’s international fleet by January 1, 2015, which date may be extended by up to six months as a result of certain excusable delays, and has been and will continue to be reduced proportionately from the maximum amount for every installation that we complete before the competitor achieves the target. The amount of any such refund or credit depends on a number of facts and circumstances, such as the pace at which we install satellite systems on aircraft delivered to us by our airline partner, as well as some that are not under our control, including, but not limited to, the number of installable aircraft made available to us from our airline partner’s international fleet, our competitor’s ability to install an equal or greater quantity of satellite systems on such competing airline’s international fleet and any current or future regulatory delays to the extent they are not excusable delays. Any refund or credit may only be applied toward the purchase of equipment or for a refund of amounts paid by the airline for previously purchased equipment. This contract also obligates us to pay our airline partner a one-time liquidated damages in the range of $1 million to $5 million if we fail to obtain certain regulatory approvals related to the provision of satellite-based services by specified deadlines. One contract with another of our airline partners obligates us to pay our airline partner up to $6 million in penalties and installation and other costs if we fail to receive certain regulatory approvals or fail to begin the installation of equipment related to the provision of satellite-based service by specified deadlines.

We have entered into a number of agreements with our airline partners that require us to provide a credit or pay liquidated damages to our airline partners on a per aircraft, per day or per hour basis if we are unable to install our equipment on aircraft by specified timelines. The maximum amount of future credits or payments we could be required to make under these agreements is uncertain because the amount of future credits or payments is based on certain variable inputs, including the number of aircraft that are not installed on schedule, the length of time by which the installation is delayed, and the unit of time by which the delay is measured.

Indemnifications and Guarantees—In accordance with Delaware law, we indemnify our officers and directors for certain events or occurrences while the officer or director is, or was, serving at our request in such capacity. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under this indemnification is uncertain and may be unlimited, depending upon circumstances. However, our Directors’ and Officers’ insurance does provide coverage for certain of these losses.

In the ordinary course of business we may occasionally enter into agreements pursuant to which we may be obligated to pay for the failure of performance of others, such as the use of corporate credit cards issued to employees. Based on historical experience, we believe that any material loss related to such guarantees is remote.

We have entered into a number of agreements, including our agreements with commercial airlines, pursuant to which we indemnify the other party for losses and expenses suffered or incurred in connection with any patent, copyright, or trademark infringement or misappropriation claim asserted by a third party with respect to our equipment or services. The maximum potential amount of future payments we could be required to make under these indemnification agreements is uncertain and is typically not limited by the terms of the agreements.

Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC Litigation—In May 2012, Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against a number of defendants, including Delta Airlines and AirTran Airways, for alleged infringement of several patents in the field of wireless local area networking. AirTran and Delta have requested indemnification from us and under our contracts we are required to indemnify these airlines for defense costs and any damages arising from such litigation to the extent it relates to Gogo technology or services. We intend to seek indemnification, in turn, from certain of our equipment vendors. We have not accrued any liability related to this matter because, due to the early stage of the litigation, the strength of our defenses and a range of possible loss, if any, cannot be determined. The outcome of this matter is inherently uncertain and may have a material effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

Stewart Litigation—On October 4, 2012 by James Stewart against us filed suit against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of putative classes of national purchasers and a subclass of California purchasers of our service, alleging claims for monopolization and exclusive dealing under the federal antitrust laws and California state antitrust and unfair practices laws related to the Gogo service offered through our domestic commercial airline partners. In February 2014, the court denied our motion to dismiss the suit. We have not accrued any liability related to this matter because, due to the early stage of the litigation, the strength of our defenses and a range of possible loss, if any, cannot be determined. Based on currently available information, we believe that we have strong defenses and intend to continue to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but the outcome of this matter is inherently uncertain and may have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

Go Go Tech, Inc. Litigation—On February 12, 2014, Go Go Techs, Inc. filed suit against us in the United States District Court for the Central District of California for alleged infringement of common law trademarks and alleged violations of federal and state unfair competition and other laws. The plaintiff seeks cancellation of our trademark registration for the mark “Gogo” as well as unspecified damages and injunctive relief. We have not accrued any liability related to this matter because, due to the early stage of the litigation, the strength of our defenses and a range of possible loss, if any, cannot be determined. Based on currently available information, we believe we have strong defenses and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but the outcome of this matter is inherently uncertain and may have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

Carucel Investments, LP Litigation—On February 13, 2014, Carucel Investments, LP filed suit against us in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida alleging infringement of several patents in the field of mobile communication systems and seeking unspecified damages and injunctive relief. We have not accrued any liability related to this matter because, due to the early stage of the litigation, the strength of our defenses and a range of possible loss, if any, cannot be determined. Based on currently available information, we believe we have strong defenses and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but the outcome of this matter is inherently uncertain and may have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.

Berkson Litigation—On February 25, 2014, Adam Berkson filed suit against us in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, on behalf of putative classes of national purchasers and a subclass of New York purchasers of our connectivity service, alleging claims that we violated New York and other consumer protection laws, as well as an implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, by misleading consumers about recurring charges for our service. The suit seeks unspecified damages. We have not accrued any liability related to this matter because, due to the early stage of the litigation, the strength of our defenses and a range of possible loss, if any, cannot be determined. Based on currently available information, we believe we have strong defenses and intend to defend this lawsuit vigorously, but the outcome of this matter is inherently uncertain and may have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations and cash flows.