Let's talk about the PilotEdge Expansion!

[Keith Smith]

How would you assign revenue to business units?

Agreed. Any time you have a facility with its own cost structure (such as the 'western US expansion area'), it's important to attribute revenue to that facility. This is precisely why there will be a separate subscription charge for Western US. If/when we open in Europe, it'll be the same deal. If/when we open Florida or the northeast....same deal.

Steve & Kyle, I realize that you feel there is no objective need to open other airspace that is functionally identical to what we have in ZLA (as opposed to the Western US expansion which actually has a functional advantage for jet pilots), but there are two things to consider:
1) as someone who has been flying ZLA for all of PE's life and several years before that as a member of VATSIM ZLA, I am pretty darned tired of flying in the airspace. I have memorized a truckload of routes and approaches to the point where it's becoming harder to find 'new' situations. I doubt I'm on the only one.

2) many people in both the retail and commercial community aren't quite as objective as you guys when it comes to selection of airspace. I've been hammered on the NE issue for years now...there are many, many people who won't consider flying anywhere else. I don't agree with it, but I'd be silly to ignore it forever. When you start looking at high end sim centers (places like FlightSafety & CAE), JFK/LGA/TEB/PHL are very attractive airports for them. There is also the issue of the weather being considerably more challenging outside of Socal.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the split of traffic hurting the traffic density too much. I suspect there will be a sufficiently large influx of new customers when new airspace is opened up that it won't bring ZLA to its knees.

There is one other aspect of this which is market perception. If we don't expand, there will be a perception that the company isn't moving forward. It almost won't matter how many subscribers we have. Perception is reality, and I've had to deal with the repercussions of that in several of the market segments in which we participate. So, while I agree that from a training standpoint, it really shouldn't matter where you fly in the sim, but in terms of operating the business, the time will come where we are going to have to spread our wings. Western US is a great start, though. I'm personally pretty pumped about getting the 737 and Lear to hit these new airports! I also plan on using the MU-2 quite a bit with the bonus fields in conjunction with the new primary fields. That's not me trying to market the service, I'm genuinely excited as a PE user and a simmer to be able to start using those fields for a change of scenery.

[Kyle.Sanders]

I can see that. Thanks for the response Keith!

[stevekirks]

Steve & Kyle, I realize that you feel there is no objective need to open other airspace that is functionally identical to what we have in ZLA (as opposed to the Western US expansion which actually has a functional advantage for jet pilots), but there are two things to consider:
1) as someone who has been flying ZLA for all of PE's life and several years before that as a member of VATSIM ZLA, I am pretty darned tired of flying in the airspace. I have memorized a truckload of routes and approaches to the point where it's becoming harder to find 'new' situations. I doubt I'm on the only one.

2) many people in both the retail and commercial community aren't quite as objective as you guys when it comes to selection of airspace. I've been hammered on the NE issue for years now...there are many, many people who won't consider flying anywhere else. I don't agree with it, but I'd be silly to ignore it forever. When you start looking at high end sim centers (places like FlightSafety & CAE), JFK/LGA/TEB/PHL are very attractive airports for them. There is also the issue of the weather being considerably more challenging outside of Socal.

Have you considered the idea of just dropping SoCal and flipping to the northeast? Like a change in menus on a restaurant to match seasonal food, you could do SoCal in the fall/winter and the NE corridors in the spring/summer. I can already hear your voice "Well that's kind of like the expansion plan..." Don't get me wrong, I get bored with ZLA too, but I temper that with the fact that this is a training network. I don't want to sound like the kid that says he can't have fun playing anymore because all of his toys are old and used. If I woke up one day and PE had flipped to the northeast what would be the big deal? Do you think that SoCal users would leave much like the NE users would now come on board?

I wouldn't be too concerned about the split of traffic hurting the traffic density too much. I suspect there will be a sufficiently large influx of new customers when new airspace is opened up that it won't bring ZLA to its knees.

Got it...

There is one other aspect of this which is market perception. If we don't expand, there will be a perception that the company isn't moving forward. It almost won't matter how many subscribers we have. Perception is reality, and I've had to deal with the repercussions of that in several of the market segments in which we participate. So, while I agree that from a training standpoint, it really shouldn't matter where you fly in the sim, but in terms of operating the business, the time will come where we are going to have to spread our wings. Western US is a great start, though. I'm personally pretty pumped about getting the 737 and Lear to hit these new airports! I also plan on using the MU-2 quite a bit with the bonus fields in conjunction with the new primary fields. That's not me trying to market the service, I'm genuinely excited as a PE user and a simmer to be able to start using those fields for a change of scenery.

I can see your point on the market perception issue. I can only imagine the conversations in the virtual hallways and meetings--easy expansion if you took on less-capable controllers or put less detail into the sector files, faked clearances or even deny certain services. As someone who's been in technology and sales for 15 years, I've had to help customers do business justifications for new technology purchases and it can be sobering. "Cut this to get that--what if I don't the return by time X?" People's livelihoods are one the line for expansions (or contractions) of the product and they can't be easy decisions to make.

Good things:

*PMDG is building something for X-Plane and they are building commercial simulators.
*X-Plane is rapidly maturing and picking up new customers.
*There seems to be a large European market, but that's a huge can of imported worms to open

[Kyle.Sanders]

A season shift...
That would play hell on the controllers. These guys are already doing he job of hundreds of controllers, having the shift their "sectors" so often wouldn't be a smart idea in my opinion.

[Keith Smith]

If I woke up one day and PE had flipped to the northeast what would be the big deal?

Other than spending many months on the build-out, and retraining all of the controllers, rebuilding the pilot training programs, and explaining to our commercial customers why this is a Good Thing(tm) and how it won't be a big deal to reshape all their curriculum.....no big deal at all.

It's a small miracle that the controllers can keep the current airspace in their heads. Asking them to become fluent in another equally tricky set of airspace while still routinely working ZLA traffic (up until the night before the swap) is a non-starter.

If we open the northeast, it will be a separate facility staffed and managed by a separate crew. The number of people who will be cross trained will likely be minimal.

PE maneuvers like a supertanker, not a speed boat.

[stevekirks]

PE maneuvers like a supertanker, not a speed boat.

LOLs - piles and piles of LOLs

I didn't mean to suggest taking up a bunch of extra work to make an airspace change on a whim. I wrote that under the assumption that the supertanker captain had done a bunch of market research, secured new customers, planned in advance, added new infrastructure *then* switched. That last thing I would want is an Exxon Valdez episode.

Steve

[Tol3458]

Personally, I'm excited about the expansion--whatever area it includes. To be honest, I'm pretty happy with ZLA. It's got an incredible variety of airspace, airports, traffic and terrain. And though as an IFR pilot I often wish the weather was lousier, that's an easily solved problem by setting my own cloud cover and simply matching the altimeter setting with the real world setting. For VFR flying, there are a couple of great scenery packages covering the area.

For me, the biggest thing about PilotEdge is that it has cracked the nut of both adding an interactive element to flight simming while at the same time heightening the realism. I was at Oshkosh last summer and went to the EAA tent where PilotEdge had a bunch of terminals set up and users were given a couple of scenarios to fly with flight instructors looking over their shoulders and offering advice. And believe me, even for us real world pilots the situations led to some sweaty palms.

My hope is that this will help get more kids to take up flying and lapsed pilots to get back into the cockpit. According to Wikipedia, as of the end of 2014, in the US, there were an estimated 593,499 active certificated pilots, a number which has steadily declined from a high of over 827,000 pilots in 1980. More and more airports close each year, and what was a vital and vibrant part of American life is withering. Not only do we lose what is an essential part of our history and character, but something that really defines freedom.

[overload]

Re: "I often wish the weather was lousier, that's an easily solved problem by setting my own cloud cover and simply matching the altimeter setting with the real world setting."
There was a recent post about which altimeter setting to use when using custom weather - Stick with your custom weather settings, and ATC will see your altitudes correctly - quoting Kyle:
"If your sim altimeter is 30.04 for your area and your plane is set to 30.04... Your altitude will report correctly to the PE ATC. Even if the real world altimeter is something like 28.73. In other words, if you are cruising at 3,000ft, you will be seen by ATC at 3,000ft"
Full post here:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5930&p=39444&hilit= ... ing#p39444
Eugene

[davidspreckeriii]

Re: "I often wish the weather was lousier, that's an easily solved problem by setting my own cloud cover and simply matching the altimeter setting with the real world setting."
There was a recent post about which altimeter setting to use when using custom weather - Stick with your custom weather settings, and ATC will see your altitudes correctly - quoting Kyle:
"If your sim altimeter is 30.04 for your area and your plane is set to 30.04... Your altitude will report correctly to the PE ATC. Even if the real world altimeter is something like 28.73. In other words, if you are cruising at 3,000ft, you will be seen by ATC at 3,000ft"
Full post here:
viewtopic.php?f=5&t=5930&p=39444&hilit= ... ing#p39444
Eugene

I was thinking about this the other day, then suddenly you answer this here, good to know thanks!

[CB184184]

I'm excited about the expansion possibilities as well. I like the idea of maybe a fly-in every couple of months like the ABQ one to a different class B airport outside of the coverage area. Gives enough time for controllers to learn the procedures and build up some excitement for airliner guys. In terms of full coverage areas, the three ones I would like to see would be the NE Corridor, Pac NW, and Norcal. All of these areas combine beautiful scenery with challenging year round weather. I think the likely next coverage area will be the NE Corridor even though I feel like Norcal would do fine.

What I will say is that I'm not sure how much more I would be willing to pay on top of 19.99/month to get these extra coverage areas. I'm hoping that by the time the next coverage area is released, there will be more paying members so that the network doesn't feel like it has to jack up the price of the subscription to cover its costs.