Dear NavCanada:

mcrit · Post by **mcrit** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:09 pm

I can't help but notice that you are always advertising for people to become controlers and specialists. I suspect this means that you are having trouble filling positions. I would like to offer you some advice for fixing this problem. You may be able to attract more and better candidates if you paid them to undergo training. You could even extend this idea to the application process and not charge potential candidates several hundred dollars to take your apptitude test. I realize that this may mean cutting back the profits for your 'stakeholders', but hey, we all have to make sacrifices to get the job done sometimes.
In the spirit of professional courtesy I will waive my customary consultation fee for the above advice, but if you should require further assistance I will be happy to discuss terms with you.

slowstream · Post by **slowstream** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:25 pm

Good Advice!

But you should charge them, send them the bill in the mail, they know that one

North Shore · Post by **North Shore** » Thu Sep 17, 2009 9:46 pm

See, NavCanada figures that all controllers are secretly wanna-be pilots, so they charge them for their 'ppc', just so they don't feel left out of the real flying world!

Bushav8er · Post by **Bushav8er** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 3:13 am

I can't help but notice that you are always advertising for people to become controlers and specialists. I suspect this means that you are having trouble filling positions.

And yet they keep closing towers and FSS sites, cutting services and charge fees for everything?? I wonder if its run by those that set up the LCBO and Gaming Commissions in Ontario

b00t · Post by **b00t** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 5:41 am

Funny you should mention fees...

I noticed that one of the managers from NavCanada stayed at the hotel I work at, and I happened to sneak a peak at his bill: $2,700. I guess when you've got the public footing your bill, in-room dining at a fancy hotel becomes a normal thing.

Rubberbiscuit · Post by **Rubberbiscuit** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:11 am

I don't agree with their methods either, but venture to guess the goal is weeding out the not so serious candidates. The failure rate is high. Maybe it is a desperate attempt to correct it? Like I said, I do not agree with it.

office_supply · Post by **office_supply** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:38 am

A few years ago I applied for an ATC/FSS and got sent to a testing session. It cost me 250 dollars to attend and in the end I wasnt select. We were about 30 that day, no idea how many they picked.

Their new method seems to be better. You perform an online pre-testing which combines aspects from the testing session I had previously done a few years ago. If you pass that online portion, then you have the chance of being selected for a testing session, again at about 250 bucks.

Yea they always say they're looking for people, but if they're going through the time/money consuming process, perhaps lowering their requirements a bit would help as well. I dont know how many applicants they get and what percentage of them actually get to Cornwall (or elsewhere?) for training but I dont think the issue is strickly a lack of interest on the part of the candidates.

Paid training would sure as heck be nice though.... +1 here!

the goal is soul · Post by **the goal is soul** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 6:52 am

Another perspective.

A lot of people invest tuition money into a university or college education at several times what it might cost for the VFR or IFR course. A degree will take someone 3-4 years to complete, then the individual has to find themselves a job. You could argue that a entry level job, post BA, might earn you 35K to start.

If you round off whatever tuition a person might pay to NavCanada at $3500 for the entire course, and assume that you have the same living expenses as the guy at university, and assume that you’ll complete your initial training in 6 months, before you get paid an on-the-job- training wage to cover your living expenses. Maybe 8 months later we could assume that they are qualified, and now make something in the high 50k range to start, in a unionized environment, before overtime.

Regardless of what the program used to offer, the ATC route still seems like minimum input for maximum output for those who are sharp enough to make it through.

I don’t work there though. Just my impression when I looked into it and did my own math.

the_professor · Post by **the_professor** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:14 am

mcrit wrote:I realize that this may mean cutting back the profits for your 'stakeholders', but hey, we all have to make sacrifices to get the job done sometimes.

If you knew what you were talking about, you would not have included a profit reference, nor the allusion to stakeholders benefiting from it. By law, Nav Canada cannot make a profit. It was created by an act of Parliament, and does not pay dividends to stakeholders in the way you imply.

The fees are there to discourage morons from wasting the company's time. The company is looking for serious candidates, and small fees are one way to ensure that. Someone's really going to complain about $250 for a test? You'd pay more than that to buy two shi*ty tickets to watch the Leafs lose a 60 min game, where a successful test score might pave the way to a career. So get over it.

So many clueless pilots, always barking up the wrong tree. Just makes you guys look like a bunch of uninformed crybabies.

mcrit · Post by **mcrit** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:39 am

the_professor wrote:If you knew what you were talking about, you would not have included a profit reference, nor the allusion to stakeholders benefiting from it.

So the people that set up and currently run NavCanada did and still do so for no financial reward? No wonder the system has problems, it's obviously run by twits!

kamikaze · Post by **kamikaze** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 7:56 am

I guess when you've got the public footing your bill

Wait, what? NavCanada still gets public dollars? Well OK I imagine they get *some*, but I thought they mostly raised their own revenue now?

GilletteNorth · Post by **GilletteNorth** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:27 am

I can't help but notice that you are always advertising for people to become control(l)ers and specialists. I suspect this means that you are having trouble filling positions.

Every company has workforce attrition due to several factors. Nav Canada is no different in having to replace it's workforce over time as well. The training is hard and there's lots of attrition in the trainees but the positions do get filled.

You may be able to attract more and better candidates if you paid them to undergo training.

On the other hand it might attract anyone wanting a paycheck while they look for 'a real job'. Serious applicants are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to get through the training without a paycheck because they know they will be compensated later with a well paying career. You talk about making sacrifices, well that's what it means.

I realize that this may mean cutting back the profits for your 'stakeholders', but hey, we all have to make sacrifices to get the job done sometimes.

As the Professor pointed out you don't seem to understand the finacial basis for Nav Canada so that leads to the last part...

In the spirit of professional courtesy I will waive my customary consultation fee for the above advice, but if you should require further assistance I will be happy to discuss terms with you.

I doubt Nav Canada would want to hire you as a consultant since you've demonstrated you don't know very much about the company. Most people wouldn't pay for bad advice. Also, how soon would you be complaining that service fees increased because Nav Canada is paying salary to people who dont complete the training?

Grrr, haven't had my coffee yet

mcrit · Post by **mcrit** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 8:39 am

GilletteNorth wrote:On the other hand it might attract anyone wanting a paycheck while they look for 'a real job'. Serious applicants are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to get through the training without a paycheck because they know they will be compensated later with a well paying career. You talk about making sacrifices, well that's what it means.

What a wonderful world it would be if more companies took that stance. Besides, you'd think that for $250 dollars the apptitude testing company would be able to winnow the 'serious' from the 'pay check hunters'. I'm pretty sure that I could do that job for that price, or better.

If NavCanada is not for profit, why does it have investors?

http://www.navcanada.ca/NavCanada.asp?L ... efault.xml

Don't get me wrong; I'm not griping at the rank and file controllers and specialists, I'm just not to impressed with the upper muck-mucks.

SkyWolfe · Post by **SkyWolfe** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:00 am

A. At least it is regionalized now - you are trained in the region you apply, and will most likely stay there.

B. You are not paid for basic training, but you are paid for on the job training. I think that is fair... I would agree it keeps the less serious people out.

It would appear to me that so far, Nav Canada is doing a better job of recruiting then SHL was. I guess as one of the first guinea pigs, we'll see what happens

Wolfie

GilletteNorth · Post by **GilletteNorth** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:08 am

I noticed that one of the managers from NavCanada stayed at the hotel I work at, and I happened to sneak a peak at his bill: $2,700. I guess when you've got the public footing your bill, in-room dining at a fancy hotel becomes a normal thing.

Several things, first, was the guy there for a few weeks? If so, a $2,700 bill comes into perspective. Second, Nav Canada has designated hotels that employees must stay at when travelling and as far as I know the hotels aren't the most posh places to be. Third, all employees have per-diem rates for meals and expenses so if this guy went above that it's out of his own pocket. Last, the 'public' doesn't foot the bill since Nav Canada is not a government entity.

Hedley · Post by **Hedley** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 9:53 am

*** edited ***

linecrew · Post by **linecrew** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 10:55 am

mcrit wrote:
the_professor wrote:If you knew what you were talking about, you would not have included a profit reference, nor the allusion to stakeholders benefiting from it.
So the people that set up and currently run NavCanada did and still do so for no financial reward? No wonder the system has problems, it's obviously run by twits!

I'm confused...so you're implying nobody should get a salary for working for NavCanada? They should run everything with loving hearts?

1prop2floats · Post by **1prop2floats** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:10 am

The 2008 financials show a $122 million loss in ABCP. But hey, it's not for profit.

mcrit · Post by **mcrit** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 11:14 am

linecrew wrote:I'm confused...so you're implying nobody should get a salary for working for NavCanada? They should run everything with loving hearts?

No, not at all. I started this thread tounge in cheek to poke fun at the upper muck-mucks at Nav Canada. I have no grudge with the rank and file (except when I get a penalty vector). I just think that it's a douchebag move to make people pay to apply for a job.

armchair · Post by **armchair** » Fri Sep 18, 2009 2:25 pm

the_professor wrote:The fees are there to discourage morons from wasting the company's time. The company is looking for serious candidates, and small fees are one way to ensure that. Someone's really going to complain about $250 for a test? You'd pay more than that to buy two shi*ty tickets to watch the Leafs lose a 60 min game, where a successful test score might pave the way to a career. So get over it.

So many clueless pilots, always barking up the wrong tree. Just makes you guys look like a bunch of uninformed crybabies.

Typical controller arrogance. Amusing considering 99% of controllers wanted to be pilots first. Being a jerk has its plusses... The pay is good. Think of the IFR controllers in Montreal (and elsewhere) in the 80's who were scamming TC with triple-overtime and Holiday scams and making 250K a year calling sick at the exact right time. It happenned, and to a certain degree it probably still does, although the ""company" was able to slow that nonsense.

Dear NavCanada:

Dear NavCanada:

Re: Dear NavCanada:

Re: Dear NavCanada:

Re: Dear NavCanada:

Re: Dear NavCanada:

Re: Dear NavCanada:

Re: Dear NavCanada:

Re: Dear NavCanada:

Re: Dear NavCanada:

Re: Dear NavCanada:

Re: Dear NavCanada:

Re: Dear NavCanada:

Re: Dear NavCanada:

Re: Dear NavCanada:

Re: Dear NavCanada:

Re: Dear NavCanada:

Re: Dear NavCanada:

Re: Dear NavCanada:

Re: Dear NavCanada:

Re: Dear NavCanada: