More stories of long FSS hold times and another issue

On Sat, 12 May 2007 08:03:11 -0500, Nathan Young
wrote in
:

I would be really ****ed if I was trying to get somewhere, especially
if I was IFR and needed a void time for a release. I suppose we can
write to the FAA to complain,

And after you fail to receive a satisfactory response from the FAA,
you can e-mail your Congressional representatives, and point out that
the AFSS contractor is accomplishing the exact opposite of what FAA,
at AOPAs urging, got LocMart to promise. Of course, that presumes
that you might want to see future FAA privatization contracts written
with financial penalty clauses in the event such promises/terms are
not met.

http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...60623afss.html
From the beginning, AOPA demanded performance standards to hold
Lockheed Martin accountable for the commitments they made to serve
pilots," said Melissa Rudinger, AOPA vice president of regulatory
affairs. "We want to make sure the modernization is done right,
and this Web site allows pilots to report what services are and
aren't working for them."

What customer service standards did Lockheed agree to?

The FAA didn't have performance standards, but Lockheed has set
the bar for high-quality services.

Your phone calls must be answered within 20 seconds and radio
calls within five seconds.

You must receive service from your radio call within 15 seconds.
Pilot reports (pireps) must be processed within 30 seconds and
within 15 seconds if they are urgent.

Briefers must have knowledge of the unique weather conditions in
your area.

They must live up to those standards whether it is a busy, clear
summer day or a slow, dreary day in the winter. And if Lockheed
doesn't live up to those standards, they will face financial
consequences.

"If your telephone or radio call isn't answered promptly, I would
be registering a complaint through their Web site," said Rudinger.
"If pilots report when and where they have service problems,
Lockheed will be able to address and correct those issues."

The modernization of FSS is expected to save taxpayers $1.7
billion over the next 10 years. The FAA initially estimated that
FSS modernization would save taxpayers $2.2 billion over 10 years,
but the agency later revised that cost savings estimate down to
$1.7 billion.



http://www.aopa.org/whatsnew/newsite...050201fss.html
FAA will pay Lockheed $1.9 billion over the course of the 10 years



And if you're unsatisfied with LocMart's AFSS privatization
performance now, how well do you think they might perform if awarded
the NextGen contract:


NEXT FOR LOCKHEED, THE NATIONAL AIRSPACE SYSTEM?
(http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archive...ll.html#192588)
If Lockheed Martin proves successful with the AFSS transition,
will the airspace system be next? The company recently teamed up
with Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University to create the "Airport
of the Future (http://erau.edu/research/erau_research_park.html),"
a technology test bed at Daytona Beach International Airport. This
"teaching airport" will demonstrate how to provide more
comprehensive data to air traffic controllers, airport operators,
security officials and airline dispatchers. "We believe that a
strong transportation infrastructure is critical to our nation's
economic well-being and our citizens' way of life," Judy Marks,
president of Lockheed Martin Transportation and Security
Solutions, said last week



http://sev.prnewswire.com/aerospace-...3062006-1.html)
Currently composed of over 500 certified airports, 35,000 daily
airline flights, 600,000 pilots, 300 sea ports, 2 million rail
cars, and 11 million trucks, the U.S. transportation system must
continuously evolve to safely meet the needs of more travel and
trade.