DUATS and LockMart

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:
I don't think the FAA has actually been granted the authority to
charge a fee for flight plans, yet.

The FAA wouldn't have to, LM would do it.


Please cite the document authorizing the FAA to collect such a fee.


Lockheed-Martin is not the FAA.



JKG

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 13:44:23 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
wrote in
:

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:
I don't think the FAA has actually been granted the authority to
charge a fee for flight plans, yet.

The FAA wouldn't have to, LM would do it.


Please cite the document authorizing the FAA to collect such a fee.


Lockheed-Martin is not the FAA.


So what's preventing Lockheed-Martin from charging for FSS services?

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:
Please cite the document authorizing the FAA to collect such a fee.


Lockheed-Martin is not the FAA.


So what's preventing Lockheed-Martin from charging for FSS services?

That's a great question. I have no idea what the contract with the FAA
specifies, or what restrictions are there. I have no idea whether LM is
prohibited from offering "extra" services on their own, but if not, I
could certainly see DUATS being pulled as a "free" service and being
offered as a "fee" service by LM.


JKG

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:
Please cite the document authorizing the FAA to collect such a fee.


Lockheed-Martin is not the FAA.


So what's preventing Lockheed-Martin from charging for FSS services?

That's a great question. I have no idea what the contract with the FAA
specifies, or what restrictions are there. I have no idea whether LM is
prohibited from offering "extra" services on their own, but if not, I
could certainly see DUATS being pulled as a "free" service and being
offered as a "fee" service by LM.


DUATS is currently paid for by the FAA on a per use basis. Is there any
evidence that if LM takes over the service from the companies now doing it
that it wouldn't be funded the same way?

Even if it isn't it has got to be cheaper for LM to provide the information
as DUATs now does than by a human on the phone.

In article ,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:
DUATS is currently paid for by the FAA on a per use basis. Is there any
evidence that if LM takes over the service from the companies now doing it
that it wouldn't be funded the same way?

Not the I'm aware of, other than the fact that the FAA has made no
secret of their desire to move toward a user fee-based funding system.
They could fund the LM contract for "free" and still permit LM to offer
"enhanced" services for a fee, unless there is some contractual language
that would prevent that; I have no idea how the LM contract was
negotiated nor what language is contained within.


Even if it isn't it has got to be cheaper for LM to provide the information
as DUATs now does than by a human on the phone.

Yes, but the government doesn't care about "cheaper." The least
expensive way to provide service is to permit competitive bidding, which
would be lost by handing the DUATS function to LM.



JKG

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:
DUATS is currently paid for by the FAA on a per use basis. Is there any
evidence that if LM takes over the service from the companies now doing
it
that it wouldn't be funded the same way?

Not the I'm aware of, other than the fact that the FAA has made no
secret of their desire to move toward a user fee-based funding system.
They could fund the LM contract for "free" and still permit LM to offer
"enhanced" services for a fee, unless there is some contractual language
that would prevent that; I have no idea how the LM contract was
negotiated nor what language is contained within.


Even if it isn't it has got to be cheaper for LM to provide the
information
as DUATs now does than by a human on the phone.

Yes, but the government doesn't care about "cheaper." The least
expensive way to provide service is to permit competitive bidding, which
would be lost by handing the DUATS function to LM.


But in the case of LM taking it over we aren't talking about the government
saving money we are talking about LM saving money. LM is paid X to give out
briefings. As I said it has to be cheaper for LM to give them via a DUATS
like system than by phone.

In article ,
"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATcox.net wrote:
Yes, but the government doesn't care about "cheaper." The least
expensive way to provide service is to permit competitive bidding, which
would be lost by handing the DUATS function to LM.


But in the case of LM taking it over we aren't talking about the government
saving money we are talking about LM saving money. LM is paid X to give out
briefings. As I said it has to be cheaper for LM to give them via a DUATS
like system than by phone.

Not necessarily. I'm not sure of the numbers, but I would guess that
DUATS only has a fraction of the volume of the live briefers. For me,
it's great because I know what I'm doing, can collect the required
information, make my own decisions, and file my IFR flight plan in the
time I would spend on hold waiting for a briefer at peak times.
However, I can't do this at most FBOs (at least those without WiFi), so
I still have to rely on a live person when I'm away from home.

There may not be much stopping LM from rolling out a fee-based DUATS
system, then forcing more folks onto it. A nice, slow, easy shift to
fee-based services.



JKG

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:17:55 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
wrote in
:

then forcing more folks onto it.


Umm.. Those would be the folks that wish to pay for a free service?

In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:17:55 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
wrote in
:

then forcing more folks onto it.


Umm.. Those would be the folks that wish to pay for a free service?


It won't be a free service. That's the point.



JKG

"Jonathan Goodish" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Larry Dighera wrote:

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 20:17:55 -0400, Jonathan Goodish
wrote in
:

then forcing more folks onto it.


Umm.. Those would be the folks that wish to pay for a free service?


It won't be a free service. That's the point.



Well almost. My point is why would LM push people from a service that costs
them less to provide (DUATS) to one that costs them more to provide (Live
Briefings)?