AIRNAV not publishing fuel prices...

(Paulo Santos) writes:

One thing that several of you have figured out is that AirNav needs to
have a sufficient revenue stream to be viable. I don't think anybody
would deny us that. Even though we would very much like to provide
the service for free to everyone indefinitely, it is just not viable.
A revenue stream was absolutely necessary.

So...what would it take to convince you to just sell AirNav (or
at least the database)?

--kyler

"Gig Giacona" writes:

- Do you use AirNav?
- YES, all the time. I love it.
- What do you fly, how much?
- I fly a Baron, 250 hours a year.
- What does AirNav do for you?
- I use it everytime I go somewhere. I have saved thousands of
dollars by using AirNav. On this last trip alone I save $150 by
filling up for $1.85 at XYZ.
- Great. Would you pay $39/year to continue to use the service?
[ blank stare, followed by color disappearing from pilot's face ]
[ after regaining composure... ]
- Are you out of your mind??? Absolutely not. I would stop using it.


Who would have thought Baron drivers were that stupid?

I understand that it's fun to call others "irrational" and "stupid"
upon failure to understand their logic, but this decision sometimes
has nothing to do with cost so if you're stuck thinking in those
terms you're unlikely to understand what's happening.

I, for example, used AirNav from my phone last night. Is the data
worth $100/year to me? Sure. Is it worth $100/year if I have to
use JavaScript and cookies and whatever other garbage to get to it
(thus rendering it unusable on my phone and most of my other
browers) and can no longer post usable links to it? No way.

--kyler

Bob Noel writes:

or maybe let people post to rec.aviation.products, and provide
a focused "google". Did that make any sense?

I've thought on this more. I *really* would like something like
that and I think that my initial reaction was short-sighted.

If the quantitative data (fuel prices, services, ...) is
maintained separately, I think that handling the qualitative data
(user comments) through Usenet would be perfectly appropriate and
provide some great benefits.

The trick would be getting users to post comments that could be
reliably found. Most of us don't even use keywords for our
Usenet postings now, so I suspect this means putting indexing
info in the subject line. Getting the subject line just right is
the trick.

I'm going to think on it more. Thank you for the idea. I'm
sorry I didn't "see the light" sooner.

--kyler

What about a public/private model, where if an FBO et al, pay then they show
on the public, and if a "pilot" pays, then "everything" shows on the private
access. What about allowing a pilot to pay either, yearly, per need, or for
blocks of access.

Just random thoughts.

- Steve

"Paulo Santos" wrote in message
om...
Folks,

I normally don't follow Usene. It is fun, but I just don't have the
time. So pardon my late entry into this thread. [Thanks, Victor, for
telling me about the thread.]

I started AirNav in 1995 and am still involved in it, although I don't
run the whole show anymore.

First of all, let me thank all of you on Usenet for the support you
have been providing. You folks on rec.aviation.* are incredibly
supportive, and I hope you will continue to be after you read this.

And second, let me assure all of you that AirNav remains committed to
providing incredible value to the aviation community.

One thing that several of you have figured out is that AirNav needs to
have a sufficient revenue stream to be viable. I don't think anybody
would deny us that. Even though we would very much like to provide
the service for free to everyone indefinitely, it is just not viable.
A revenue stream was absolutely necessary.

So we started by introducing simple and useful revenue solutions that
we though would be well received by everyone. We looked at several
solutions, and rolled them out over time: quality non-annoying banner
ads, online hotel and car reservations, upgraded listings for FBOs
that wanted it. All the while, we were providing a free Basic
presence to every FBO and aviation business.

It turned out that those revenue streams still weren't enough to
support the site. Maybe if pilots had made more hotel reservations it
would have been sufficient. The reservations they make help, but that
is still not sufficient.

So we did some serious soul searching and looked for a viable revenue
model. Two alternatives: charge the users (pilots) or charge the
advertisers (FBOs). We though that charging the pilots made the most
sense, since they were the ones benefiting most directly from the
site. But we conducted some surveys, and got some viscious negative
reactions from the majority of pilots. It would go something like
this:
- Do you use AirNav?
- YES, all the time. I love it.
- What do you fly, how much?
- I fly a Baron, 250 hours a year.
- What does AirNav do for you?
- I use it everytime I go somewhere. I have saved thousands of
dollars by using AirNav. On this last trip alone I save $150 by
filling up for $1.85 at XYZ.
- Great. Would you pay $39/year to continue to use the service?
[ blank stare, followed by color disappearing from pilot's face ]
[ after regaining composure... ]
- Are you out of your mind??? Absolutely not. I would stop using it.

So, folks, there you have it, a tremendous irrational response. And
this wasn't one or two people that we interviwed, it was the vast
majority. Definitely something we were not expecting from the
community of pilots.

In asking the FBOs how they felt about being charged they were more
reasonable. Well, more of them anyway, but still not 100%. They have
more of a business-minded approach to it, and as long as the rates are
affordable, charging the FBOs is a reasonable thing.

So we implemented that. We charge very reasonable rates to make sure
that no aviation business is left out for lack of affordability. We
have different rates at different airports to give everyone a fair
chance. An FBO at Bubba Jones Cropdusting Strip is going to pay a lot
less than an FBO at Big City Executive Airport. Our rates start at
under $10/month at every airport except the nation's top 80 airports,
and can be as little as $10/year at Bubba Jones's Strip. We give
significant discounts to non-profits (flying clubs, etc.), and to
small businesses that just can't hope to have the volume of an FBO
(airport restaurants, etc.). Can any FBO or business claim not to be
able to afford it? Can they do it straight-faced?

So what are we doing to the businesses that don't pay? We typically
take out all their information, except their name, phone number, fuel
prices, and user comments. (To those business that order services
from us, promise to pay, and then fail to pay their bills, well, those
we remove altogether -- but you wouldn't want to do business with
those guys anyway.).

It is not our intention to diminish the value of the service we
provide to the aviation community, but unfortunately we have to
distinguish between the non-payers and those that believe in us and
the service we provide. Continuing with the old model was just not
viable because AirNav would disappear altogether, and that is no way
to provide a valuable service to the community.

What can you as pilots do? Tell our sponsoring FBOs that you
appreciate their sponsorship. The FBOs need feedback to tell them
that their advertising dollars are being well spent. And to those
FBOs that don't sponsor AirNav, you should make it clear to them that
you use AirNav, and that AirNav plays a role in your FBO selection
process. They'll get the message.

I will follow up to some of the others posts in this thread
separately.

Thanks for your support, and we look forward to your comments and
insight.

Paulo Santos
AirNav, LLC http://www.airnav.com/

On 30-Jan-2004, "Jay Honeck" wrote:

He said it didn't matter -- so I put him in our smallest suite for
awhopping $47.95.


Holy cow, Jay! Even in Iowa City a suite -- ANY suite -- for under 50 bucks
a night has got to be a great deal, especially with breakfast included.
What do you do, charge extra for the towels?
--
-Elliott Drucker

On 30-Jan-2004, (Paulo Santos) wrote:

So what are we doing to the businesses that don't pay? We typically
take out all their information, except their name, phone number, fuel
prices, and user comments.


Paulo,

First of all, I want to thank you for providing such a useful service to the
GA community. I've used it frequently with good results.

I believe that your fee structure, as you describe it, is very fair and
reasonable. But for users, I fail to see what the big deal is. If you
continue to list non-paying FBOs, along with their telephone numbers, fuel
prices, and user comments, you are still providing the majority of what
users want to see. The rest -- advertising and/or links to websites -- are
really more to the benefit of the business involved.

Keep up the good work!

--
-Elliott Drucker

Paulo,

First of all I would like to thank you once more on creating such a
great website. Second I would like to apologize if starting this
thread made you upset in any way. The reason I started this thread is
to raise your attention to something that could ultimately affect
AIRNAV.

As you can see from all the posts made by GA people, everybody
understand that AIRNAV needs funding. We do not need any other mirror
web site as long as AIRNAV continue providing a mechanism that all
pilots can help each other in selecting the FBO on an unknown airport.

The way AIRNAV created to fund the web site is kind of awkward. The
FBOs that have a high price and has money to invest in advertising
should not be to inclined on maintaining a web site that is been used
by pilots to find a cheaper source of fuel in the region. But I hope
this is giving good returns to AIRNAV.

The problem comes that FBOs that have the best prices are not to
willing to invest in advertising probably because their margins are
low or they belong to the City. This is easily proved on AIRNAV web
site doing a Long Format Great Deal Report. You will notice that more
than 50% of the FBOs in that report are not sponsoring AIRNAV. And
these are the FBOs that should have the greatest interest in
advertising their prices.

I do remember sometime ago when AIRNAV web site was down. You stated
that many pilots have contacted you asking to give financial support.
I am sure that if you included an easy way for pilots/owners that take
great advantage from the site to make donations, you could be
surprised. The same comes to Hotel and Car reservations, let the
pilots know that by doing these reservations through AIRNAV they are
helping support the website.

I do understand that you are charging from the FBOs prices from $20 to
$750 per year is really very cheap considering the revenue generated
by the FBOs. But some people are just lazy to send a check every year
or have to much paper work involved to make such payment.

What I ask of you is to publish just fuel prices for the FBOs that are
not able to make such payments. This is not happening; I know at least
two airports with new fuel service that the prices are not been
published. And also like to suggest include the prices charged for
tie-down and hanger, sometimes these charges surprise us pilots.

Personally I always mention AIRNAV to the FBOs I visit and will
continue to do so.

Rgds,

Victor

"John Galban" wrote in message
om...
"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:IQeSb.51817$U%5.286038@attbi_s03...

I feel for Paulo. He's operated this website full-time for a couple of
years, basically "on the house." Now that he's trying to actually make
a
buck, everyone is down his throat. I say if an FBO is too damned cheap
to
pay for their listing, that alone says enough to me that I will avoid
the
place.


Don't get me wrong. I think that Paulo has done an incredible job
with Airnav. I tell anyone who will listen that it is the best
aviation site on the web. I also think he should make a buck on this
venture (lots of them, actually). I just think that his current
strategy will degrade the quality of the site.

There are lots of good mom & pop FBOs that are run on a shoestring
and don't do any advertising. That doesn't make them bad. You might
be content to avoid anyone who does not pay for an Airnav listing, but
if half of the FBOs disappear from the site, will it be as useful as
it once was? I don't think so.

Recall that all FBO's are listed, even those that pay nothing. They don't an
elaborate link, but their base info and fuel prices are listed.

Ultimately, it's Paulo's call.
Personally, I'd be glad to pay an annual subscription fee to access
Airnav. It's a valuable resource to me.

I find no real fault at all with his plan.

"Kyler Laird" wrote in message
...
"Gig Giacona" writes:

- Do you use AirNav?
- YES, all the time. I love it.
- What do you fly, how much?
- I fly a Baron, 250 hours a year.
- What does AirNav do for you?
- I use it everytime I go somewhere. I have saved thousands of
dollars by using AirNav. On this last trip alone I save $150 by
filling up for $1.85 at XYZ.
- Great. Would you pay $39/year to continue to use the service?
[ blank stare, followed by color disappearing from pilot's face ]
[ after regaining composure... ]
- Are you out of your mind??? Absolutely not. I would stop using it.


Who would have thought Baron drivers were that stupid?

I understand that it's fun to call others "irrational" and "stupid"
upon failure to understand their logic, but this decision sometimes
has nothing to do with cost so if you're stuck thinking in those
terms you're unlikely to understand what's happening.

I, for example, used AirNav from my phone last night. Is the data
worth $100/year to me? Sure. Is it worth $100/year if I have to
use JavaScript and cookies and whatever other garbage to get to it
(thus rendering it unusable on my phone and most of my other
browers) and can no longer post usable links to it? No way.

S, it's not a matter of cost, it's the one in a thousand users like yourself
that have an issue under extreme circumstances?

Talk about validating the point about "irrational" and "stupid".

"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
ink.net...
Is Paulo liable for maintaining a forum where other people can post
unedited
comments?

Mike
MU-2

They are not unedited; they have to go through an approval process.
Likewise, a lot of positive comments are put in by employees and the FBO
owners.

Like anything, you have to take it with a grain of salt...sometimes

--
"He that would make his own liberty secure,
must guard even his enemy from oppression;
for if he violates this duty, he establishes
a precedent that will reach to himself." -- Thomas Paine lots of salt.