Re: Satellite Radio to broadcast weather data

[James M. Knox]

"John Harlow" > wrote in
:

> Also, $50 / month (plus "activation" fee and equipment) is
> ridiculously high. I'm sure a competitor will easily beat that soon.
>
> Made me think twice about my current XM subscription.

It seems clear that the business model for most of these weather providers
is essentially that of the razor blade industry (only for "give away"
substitute "charge thousands of dollars" <G>). They see the perpetual
income stream that Jepps gets from every GPS and moving map sold, and want
in on it.

Trouble is, while $600 per year may not be bad for a corporate jet that
flies several times a week (or more) in virtually any weather, the rest of
GA is largely "fair weather" fliers. The weather information will be very
useful, potentially even life-saving, but may only really be needed a few
times per year. So you are talking about adding perhaps $150 to the cost
of each of those flights. Pretty steep.

Trouble is, a "per use" business model doesn't give you a sustaining (or
easily relied upon) income.

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

[Richard Kaplan]

"James M. Knox" > wrote in message
...

> Trouble is, a "per use" business model doesn't give you a sustaining (or
> easily relied upon) income.

Some of the other datalink vendors do indeed have a "per use" business
model.

The problem there is that there is an economic incentive to request the
least weather possible, which is not an idea I really like. If weather is
really out there then I would just as soon set up the box to download the
weather as often as it is available so I can monitor my progress.

It is sort of like the question of whether we would request weather
briefings less often if we had to pay per call to 1-800-WX-BRIEF.



--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[[email protected]]

"James M. Knox" wrote:

>
> Trouble is, while $600 per year may not be bad for a corporate jet that
> flies several times a week (or more) in virtually any weather, the rest of
> GA is largely "fair weather" fliers. The weather information will be very
> useful, potentially even life-saving, but may only really be needed a few
> times per year. So you are talking about adding perhaps $150 to the cost
> of each of those flights. Pretty steep.

The serious biz jet ranges in cost between $12 and $40 mil. So, the cost of
software is a drop in the pool of business costs and benefits. Also, the
mid-price and upwards, biz jets are serious flying machines, as much so as any
air carrier jet.

OTOH, the typical light aircraft is, relatively speaking, an expensive (albeit
nice, if used carefully) toy.

[Richard Kaplan]

> wrote in message ...

> OTOH, the typical light aircraft is, relatively speaking, an expensive
(albeit
> nice, if used carefully) toy.

Alternatively, you could say that a $1000 capital investment and $50 per
month in subscription fees can give a $50,000 GA airplane the same quality
weather information as is available to a $10,000,000 business jet -- that is
quite a value.

I am not saying that a piston single can ever match the weather dispatch
rate of a business jet. But when you consider the incremental improvement
that can be gained from weather datalink -- and especially from portable
weather dataillnk -- it is indeed an excellent value for those who use
piston airplanes for practical travel.

This is all very similar to the situational awareness advantage gained by
portable GPS systems -- a handheld Garmin 295 or 196 gives more situational
awareness than used to be available on steam-gauge airliners certified for
Cat III landings.


--
Richard Kaplan, CFII

www.flyimc.com

[[email protected]]

Richard Kaplan wrote:

>
> This is all very similar to the situational awareness advantage gained by
> portable GPS systems -- a handheld Garmin 295 or 196 gives more situational
> awareness than used to be available on steam-gauge airliners certified for
> Cat III landings.

No doubt about that!

Then again, the handhelds are no good for a CAT III autolanding. ;-)