Let's talk about the PilotEdge Expansion!

[Keith Smith]

Herb,

We just held the ABQ event over the w/end, so yes, the plans are still afoot Peter is building out the airspace for the data we have. We're just waiting on the remaining data. I've given up with time estimates because it's just too hard to say with the FAA.

As of a few days ago, Peter had built out as much as he can given the data we do have. Once we receive all of the data, I will have an estimate of when we can launch.

Between that time and the formal launch there will be a series of events to introduce and test out the airspace. The ABQ event was very successful.

[golfpilot]

I know it is way way way to late in the game for my input, but my image was something of the lines of
-Another full coverage area such as Northern California- Northwest - Badlands - etc
Subscriptions would be $20 a month for 1st choice $10 a month for each additional.
I would have 0 issues paying $30 a month to fly with pilotedge atc throughout the state of California.

I really don't understand why people want to sit in front of a computer in cruise for hours. A 1 hour jet flight allows someone to reach cruise, switch frequencies multiple times, and fly a full arrival.

[stealthbob]

I would agree with the long haul thing...anything past a hour in cruise is to much for me. The thing is there are only so many combinations of city pairs with KSFO/KLAS/KLAX/KSAN...one can get bored quickly. Sure there are other airports but the routes generally remain the same as the main 4 listed.

This expansion is more than incremental when looked at with the added diversity of the route options in mind. It resolves the main limiting fact for a lot of potential customers out there of which are mostly tubeliner folks. Also moving inland increases the opportunities to fly into low IFR..fun times flying down to minimums.

Basically any expansion is quite expensive and it has to pay for itself, I am sure Keith has done his homework on this one. His only variable is the dammed FAA, I am guessing even his worse case prediction was not this long.

[aschran]

Some premium options for Pilotedge (just like you can buy premium add-ons for Foreflight) sound like it could make sim pilot customers and the company happy.

[Keith Smith]

Some premium options for Pilotedge (just like you can buy premium add-ons for Foreflight) sound like it could make sim pilot customers and the company happy.

Yes, that is a natural evolution of the model. However, we have to be incredibly careful as to what we offer and how it's packaged because unlike most other subscription services, we have significant costs associated with the launch and upkeep of each service (unlike a software-only add-on which you write once and then sell as many times as you like).

Golfpilot, I generally feel the same way about longer haul flights, but we consistently hear that people want to engage in those longer flights. Even if you stick to 60-90 min flights, as pointed out earlier in the thread, you pretty much have to utilize either LAS or SFO one end of the trip if you're flying a fast moving jet within the PE service area today. Adding these other fields will allow for a much more interesting combination of city pairs (using the new fields plus the existing fields) while still doing 60-90 minute jet flights. That is the primary motivation behind the new coverage area. The 'bonus' fields are going to provide additional variety, concentration of traffic, and hopefully, opportunities for the piston/turboprop community to see some utility from the new coverage area, too.

Also, keep in mind, people enjoy simulation for different reasons. If you're there to train and learn things, then I completely agree, having a 3 hour enroute in LNAV/VNAV is a massive waste of time. However, if you enjoy seeing the world go by and feeling as though you've covered some significant distance, there is something to be said for it.

Regarding the model you proposed where you pick 2 coverage areas with the second one being 50% off, that has some issues when you consider that the _ongoing_ cost of supporting the 2nd area would be identical to the costs of operating the first area.

So, for that to work, we'd need twice as many customers to opt-in for the 2nd area as we'd need to just operate 1 area. Yes, there would be some additional signups by virtue of the fact that we're offering new airspace, but I have to be honest, we used to run ALL of Oakland ARTCC from every Fri-Sun in the early days of PilotEdge. The amount of traffic in ZOA was minimal. I see that you're located in NorCal, so it's not surprising that you'd want to fly in your home airspace. Everyone does

We have thought through expansion options in gruesome levels of detail, I promise. This next expansion provides the best bang for the buck. If we do another 'full coverage area' after this expansion, it's likely to be the east coast. There are not many people who say, "I would fly norcal, but not socal" but we have reason to believe that there are lots of people who want to fly in the NE and will not accept California as a substitute.

[Kyle.Sanders]

we have reason to believe that there are lots of people who want to fly in the NE and will not accept California as a substitute.

In my personal opinion, this is a shame. I completely believe in keep the PE area small and centralized. I live in Florida and I have yet to see any real applicable situation in another part of the country that you can't find in the PE coverage area of ZLA.

Names and locations of the airports do not change the procedure. You fly an RNAV approach into KJFK the same as you would it at KLAX. You transition a class B airspace VFR the same at KLAS as you do KATL. The exact turns and altitudes change but if you can fly it in ZLA, you can fly it anywhere.

Keeping the area small allows for ATC concentration in one area and keeps the cost low. Also keeps traffic in one area so I can deal with them enroute or in the pattern. Hearing my local airport name "Lakeland tower" isn't worth the trouble of the extra costs or time put into expanding.

Again... My opinion. I understand others want a variety in "jet" destinations and that is fine. That will be covered with this expansion. I see no reason to take it further than that.

[Herbumus]

Thanks, Keith.
Glad the expansion is still alive and well, even if the implementation is taking longer than anticipated. This probably isn't the first time a government agency has caused a delay.
I've been out of the cockpit as of late... trying to work on my golf game, which can be be just as challenging to master, if not more, than flying airplanes. Looking forward to the expansion when the time is right. Good things come to those who wait...
Herb

[golfpilot]

Some premium options for Pilotedge (just like you can buy premium add-ons for Foreflight) sound like it could make sim pilot customers and the company happy.

Yes, that is a natural evolution of the model. However, we have to be incredibly careful as to what we offer and how it's packaged because unlike most other subscription services, we have significant costs associated with the launch and upkeep of each service (unlike a software-only add-on which you write once and then sell as many times as you like).

Golfpilot, I generally feel the same way about longer haul flights, but we consistently hear that people want to engage in those longer flights. Even if you stick to 60-90 min flights, as pointed out earlier in the thread, you pretty much have to utilize either LAS or SFO one end of the trip if you're flying a fast moving jet within the PE service area today. Adding these other fields will allow for a much more interesting combination of city pairs (using the new fields plus the existing fields) while still doing 60-90 minute jet flights. That is the primary motivation behind the new coverage area. The 'bonus' fields are going to provide additional variety, concentration of traffic, and hopefully, opportunities for the piston/turboprop community to see some utility from the new coverage area, too.

Also, keep in mind, people enjoy simulation for different reasons. If you're there to train and learn things, then I completely agree, having a 3 hour enroute in LNAV/VNAV is a massive waste of time. However, if you enjoy seeing the world go by and feeling as though you've covered some significant distance, there is something to be said for it.

Regarding the model you proposed where you pick 2 coverage areas with the second one being 50% off, that has some issues when you consider that the _ongoing_ cost of supporting the 2nd area would be identical to the costs of operating the first area.

So, for that to work, we'd need twice as many customers to opt-in for the 2nd area as we'd need to just operate 1 area. Yes, there would be some additional signups by virtue of the fact that we're offering new airspace, but I have to be honest, we used to run ALL of Oakland ARTCC from every Fri-Sun in the early days of PilotEdge. The amount of traffic in ZOA was minimal. I see that you're located in NorCal, so it's not surprising that you'd want to fly in your home airspace. Everyone does

We have thought through expansion options in gruesome levels of detail, I promise. This next expansion provides the best bang for the buck. If we do another 'full coverage area' after this expansion, it's likely to be the east coast. There are not many people who say, "I would fly norcal, but not socal" but we have reason to believe that there are lots of people who want to fly in the NE and will not accept California as a substitute.

Thank you for the feedback! Your constant participation in these forums in the program really makes this program special. Keep it up!

[stevekirks]

we have reason to believe that there are lots of people who want to fly in the NE and will not accept California as a substitute.

In my personal opinion, this is a shame. I completely believe in keep the PE area small and centralized. I live in Florida and I have yet to see any real applicable situation in another part of the country that you can't find in the PE coverage area of ZLA.

Names and locations of the airports do not change the procedure. You fly an RNAV approach into KJFK the same as you would it at KLAX. You transition a class B airspace VFR the same at KLAS as you do KATL. The exact turns and altitudes change but if you can fly it in ZLA, you can fly it anywhere.

Keeping the area small allows for ATC concentration in one area and keeps the cost low. Also keeps traffic in one area so I can deal with them enroute or in the pattern. Hearing my local airport name "Lakeland tower" isn't worth the trouble of the extra costs or time put into expanding.

Again... My opinion. I understand others want a variety in "jet" destinations and that is fine. That will be covered with this expansion. I see no reason to take it further than that.

(I'm agreeing here with Kyle 100%, but the text below just kind of fell out of my head and on to the keyboard....)

I am looking at it from an airspace challenge standpoint, regarding a northeast mythical option. One of the hardest things I had to look past when I first joined was the fact that the airspace wasn't "local" and I used to think that was a downside. I see that differently now. Looking at it from a business standpoint, if Keith/PE had 100 potential customers and 50 of them were in the northeast, the chance at the greatest conversion rate would be to add the northeast area. Fragmenting traffic has been my concern as a user in the past. If you had the same user base and two geo-separate areas, the traffic from users would split across the two areas. It seems to be a Catch-22 sometimes--if you build the area and no one comes, you could sink the business -or- if you build the area and everyone comes (to the new area) you might have to shutdown the old area.

I like the idea of the expansion as it sits today because it would seem to give PE a chance to see where the traffic goes and possibly stays. Then (since the infrastructure is in place) Keith and the PE management could modify the access times, fees and even primary locations based on what users are really doing with the network. Overall, the hardest part seems to be serving two types of business drivers: motivating existing customers to stay and renew (steady cash flow) and adding new customers that then stay and renew.

Let's assume that each ARTCC is a business division, with a mandate to financially break even. If you sign up, you have to pick a home ARTCC and you can't fly with coverage outside your home. Set aside the logistics here--just focus on the business side. So now in this fantasy world, you have several business units with corresponding overhead, but now your installed base of customers want to fly cross country. How would you assign revenue to business units?

Conversations like this thread highlight the fundamental differences in customer types and how each customer type's needs work against the other. If the product's goal is strictly professional environment for IFR training, it's pointless to have more than one ARTCC. What if the goal was to serve long-haul virtual airline pilots and you had cross country center coverage? What part of the professionalism and accuracy would you have to degrade to make that happen? If you change the product in one direction, what percentage of users will you gain/lose in the short term and in the long term?

PilotEdge is described as a "simulation environment designed to support real-world pilot training and proficiency" (http://www.pilotedge.net/pages/sim-enthusiasts text at bottom) so it's hard to understand why adding any areas for reasons other than fun and boredom relief would meet company goals. The expansion product seems to hit the right sweet spot, with new destinations, limited availability and rotating variety. If it draws enough customers and revenue, PE would have the infrastructure in place to grow the network further, quicker because of this model.

Just my nickel's worth...

Steve

[Kyle.Sanders]

PilotEdge is described as a "simulation environment designed to support real-world pilot training and proficiency" (http://www.pilotedge.net/pages/sim-enthusiasts text at bottom) so it's hard to understand why adding any areas for reasons other than fun and boredom relief would meet company goals. The expansion product seems to hit the right sweet spot, with new destinations, limited availability and rotating variety. If it draws enough customers and revenue, PE would have the infrastructure in place to grow the network further, quicker because of this model.

Just my nickel's worth...

Steve

100% agree!