Ammunition for Canadas ATC trainees?

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 10:10 pm

Dear Colleagues,

I am pleased to announce that, effective October 29, air traffic control students attending the Mike Monroney Aeronautical Center Academy in Oklahoma City will begin receiving additional funds to help defray their daily expenses while they are in training at the Academy.

In response to feedback and concerns expressed over the past months, we took another look at our policy and concluded that this is an issue of fairness to the students. Accordingly, all air traffic control students attending the academy will receive training subsistence at the long-term rate. The long-term training subsistence for Oklahoma City is $79.20 which includes $48.60 per diem, $27.60 meal and incidental expenses, and $3 incidental costs. These payments will not be retroactive.

Travel banned will brief each class and provide the appropriate paperwork required to prepare travel vouchers.

The students of the FAA Academy are a valuable part of our team, and I am hopeful this will ease their financial burden and make their stay at the academy more fruitful as they prepare to become part of the world’s safest and largest air traffic system.

Sincerely,

xxxx xxxxxxx
xxxxxx
Air Traffic Organization

Braun · Post by **Braun** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 2:24 am

I don't think us trainees really know what we can do about it. I mean we aren't protected by any union so I don't know how it would go through if we complain about it too much. It sucks though, that's for sure. I can stand not being paid for my training, although it really doesn't make that much sense, what I can't stand is the fact that IFR training is much longer than VFR and FSS but we aren't housed or fed during our training and USUALLY VFR and FSS trainees will receive pay in a way less big timespan than IFR. Not saying IFR is better or anything but it's still a reality. Good for the FAA trainees though!

pokaroo · Post by **pokaroo** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:39 am

Can you post your source for this please.

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 7:22 am

https://employees.faa.gov/news/focusfaa ... wsId=53530

Any trainees reading this can at least be assured that those of us who are recently qualified have all made a very strong vocal opinion on the current method of training controllers in regards to the financial aspect.

pokaroo · Post by **pokaroo** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:30 am

cpl....

I don't think that's the point. I agree that IFR trainees know what they are getting into by signing up but that doesn't make the system right. If you want to look at the salary that an IFR controller makes over a 25 or 30 year period it's quite large. Why not throw another 30,000 on top of that and start paying them from day 1, the percentage would be minute. Or even give them 50 a day for commuting and food or whatever the case may be. I believe that the company is losing potential candidates and licenses because of the hardship the IFR training program creates. Not only that, I'm willing to bet people have been CT'd with a contributing factor being the added stress they have been under due to a lack of paycheck.

Alex YCV · Post by **Alex YCV** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:44 am

IMHO, I think that once you enter training, NC should be at least paying minimum wage (whatever is mandated by law).

cpl_atc, you are correct in many ways. The people going to IFR or VFR are going to make a pile over FSS. However, the lack of any salary for a year or more might put a bunch of people off. I am thinking particularly people who are already working another job and are looking to move up. It seems like a pretty overwhelming penalty to have to take a year plus without pay to get the job.

I suspect in the end it is another thing like SHL charging a fee for testing, it narrows the field down some and makes the selection process somewhat self-regulating.

bigfssguy · Post by **bigfssguy** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:46 am

I have to disagree cpl. Your point does make sense but on the other hand the check out rate is miles and miles different than FSS and VFR. I think the chance IFR trainees are taking is much larger than an FSS or VFR and that would negate any money differences they would have later on. It's hard to collect that salary if you are one of the 70-80(whatever it is) percent that get ct'd.

I really think IFR trainees should get some money while training. To expect someone to go a year or more without any income while not qualifying for student loans or other means is silly. Least of all when VFR and FSS get there housing covered over the course of there 4 month basic. I have no way of backing it up but i have to agree with the other folks in saying that NC is losing potentialy qualified trainees.

From my own experience when i went through 5 years ago i didn't have to pay to write the test and i was in the very last class of any discipline that didn't have to pay tuition. If NC had wanted me to pay test fees I wouldn't have been able to write the test, i was laid off at the time and on UI. If they had wanted tuition i'm not sure i would have been able to get that money together and that is only 1000$.

I see lately the company is trying to make a concentrated effort to improve management relationships. Well here is an opportunity to give there employees a more positive experience right from the start. Make them happy as possible right from the start by not driving them into debt right from the start. and yes thats a lot of starts!!!!!

kevenv · Post by **kevenv** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 12:50 pm

You guys are all debating an issue that has been flogged to death elsewhere. Of course the company is losing out on potential recruits with their training program. They don't care! There is no shortage of students willing to take the chance on making it through to the end, regardless of the costs or risks associated. If / when the day comes that the company cannot find sufficient numbers to train they will change the way they do things. Perhaps all you potential employees should all refuse IFR and go VFR or FSS only. Tough choice to make I have no doubt, but IMHO so long as there is someone willing to pay for the training, it will not change.

Alex YCV · Post by **Alex YCV** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 3:05 pm

I suspect it only matters if (a) the pool of potential candidates drops in size to where they have a hard time finding enough new people, or (b) that the quality of the pool of candidates drops such that either standards are lowered or not enough people are allowed into the program.

The current situation is either a reflection of too many qualified candidates for the job or management with their hands over their ears yelling "lalalalala I can't hear you".

killer84 · Post by **killer84** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 4:39 pm

I could understand people complaining about having to pay for tuition and not being paid while training, if these trainees didn't know exactly what they were getting into before.

Don't like that VFR or FSS get paid as soon as they're out of NCTI? Why did you choose IFR? Don't like that VFR or FSS get room and board? Why did you choose IFR? Don't like that IFR get to pick where they will train, and don't have to leave their families for 6 months while you live in a cardboard walled hotel, with the worst food known to man, in the middle of nowhere? Why did you pick VFR or FSS?

If you say that you didn't know all this before you got into it, then why are you making such a huge decision without finding out more info?

You made the choice. Nav Can could run a full course of IFR, VFR, or FSS whenever they want. Why would they do anything to entice more people?

renfley · Post by **renfley** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 5:24 pm

Maybe they should look into doing something like a training bond, I know a bunch or airlines are doing it for pilots, heck even Police Departments are doing it for potential recruits.

Not ideal but at least it's better than nothing!

invertedattitude · Post by **invertedattitude** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 8:36 pm

Does it make a difference? You're damn right it makes a difference.

I know for a fact there's many talented people out there who could stand a very good chance of doing this job, but they just simply can't afford to apply.

They're throwing away potentially excellent controllers to save a few bucks as controllers we should be gravely concerned about it, and should as a group fight for it. The problem being, those of us who are already through, it's hard to get motivated for something no longer personally affects you.

I didn't go to NCTI, and I've heard, and I believe I missed out on a lot of training opertunities that I didn't get doing it the "new" way.

I honestly don't think it's any easier however, considering many of us had to work while training as IFR controllers. 20-30 hours/week of study time, used working to keep the bills paid.

The meagre amount of money it would cost the company to pay the few IFR trainees at least a per diem since they don't provide accomodation would IMO greatly improve their success rates, and number of applicants.

However, so long as check-out rates remain the same (last I heard they've dropped at least a little bit from NCTI days) then why would the company change?

killer84 · Post by **killer84** » Wed Oct 31, 2007 9:26 pm

Some very rough math:

$70 per diem
30 trainees at each ACC
7 ACC's
250 Training days per year per student

equals $3.675 Million per year.

Add all the other expenses that are already present.

That's starting to add up to quite the expense. Then factor in the check out rate. Let's say that this method boosts check out's to 40%.

So that's 84 licences of our initial 210 students. $3.675 divided by 84 equals $43750 per student, just on per diem's.

I've got a few other things that I'd like my company to be spending close to 4 million bucks on, but hey, that's just me. I already paid my way through NCTI, so you're right, I don't care. Not about the money anyway. I talk to anybody that will listen about the poor testing and procedures in place when I went through. Not many people listen though....

Braun · Post by **Braun** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 2:14 am

You guys have got to be kidding. Obviously we know what we are getting into when we start training! Does it make it right just because we know? Explain to me how 3.6 million dollars for a multi-billion dollar company is such a huge deal, please i'm very interested to hear that reasoning. Also what is 3.whatever million to have a better selection in candidates and possibly higher quality of the trainees? It's a fact more people would apply, i'm sure there' a lot of people that hold back just because of the salary issue, or more the lack of one. So yeah, we know what we are getting into, but I don't really see your guys's points.

kevenv · Post by **kevenv** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 5:45 am

Welcome to NavCanada. They don't give a rats ass what you want, what you would like or what will make your life easier. Their sole goal is to train new controllers as cheaply as they possibly can. This has taken a two prong approach: first, make you pay for your training and second teach you as little as possible as quickly as possible, essentially dumbing down the job. Unfortunately what we are seeing is trainees hit the floor that have no idea what is happening around them. The world outside their small piece of airspace is a complete mystery. This translates into some qualified controllers that are unable to look outside the boundaries of what they were taught. I guess the company is hoping that if you check out you will eventually absorb the big picture through osmosis.

It all comes down to this: Invertedattitude and other recent checkouts have made it through and have told the company representatives exactly what the thought of the training process. They have done their part. Secondly, the harsh reality is this: So long as you are willing to go IFR they won't change. Why would they? Stop applying or only go VFR/FSS. I'd bet a years pay that they would quickly change their training program if no one wanted to go IFR.

One final point for Braun: I am a little confused by your post. What is it that you don't understand about the posts in this thread? It is pretty clearly brought down to a single reality. The company does not care that the best candidates no longer apply. They are saving money. Period. We can argue the realities till the cows come home. As I said in an earlier post: this issue has been flogged to death on Sqwuakident. No good reasoning, no good business sense, strictly money.

My apologies if I have come across a bit harsh, I'm sure if you ask Inverted, I am really a caring individual.

tesox2 · Post by **tesox2** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 7:02 am

Welcome to NavCanada. They don't give a rats ass what you want, what you would like or what will make your life easier

Have you ever worked at a "real" job or are you a direct entry from high school. NavCanada is an amazing company to work for. Get your head out of yer ass.

Alex YCV · Post by **Alex YCV** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 8:16 am

In a way I am with Braun on this one: I can't see at this point how 3.6 million dollars against the bottom line would be an issue, considering that the fees charged for navcan services has dropped the last couple of years. I gather this is an issue not just for trainees but for all controllers, as money that isn't in the system cannot be used to improve the system.

That being said, I know what I am getting into, I am in a position where a year off without pay wouldn't hurt me in the same way it might hurt others, so I am willing to go with the flow. But I also understand that this is exactly what NC wants. Oh well!

bigfssguy · Post by **bigfssguy** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:09 am

4 million is not chump change, but is it going to make NC keel over in bankruptcy due to it....i doubt it. It would be a great gesture towards possible candidates, not to mention those in the stream already. I wish they would do it but i am a simple FSS, doing my best to pay MY bills and not get eaten by polar bears.

Alex YCV · Post by **Alex YCV** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 9:51 am

Have you considered feeding the bills to the bears? it works in the NFL

kevenv · Post by **kevenv** » Thu Nov 01, 2007 10:40 am

tesox2 wrote:Have you ever worked at a "real" job or are you a direct entry from high school. NavCanada is an amazing company to work for. Get your head out of yer ass.

You are obviously not a longtime controller. Amazing company to work for? Speaking of heads in orifices..... No, I take that back, that's not fair. Everyone has their own perception of reality and you are most certainly entitled to yours.
Having said that, I am interested in hearing your thoughts on how you believe the company cares about the trainees/applicants. My post was directed towards how and why they do training the way they do not a commentary on working conditions or work environment. I suppose I could have found a better way to get the message across, perhaps finding less offensive words, but the message would be the same. What's your take on it? Why is our company doing it the way they are?

BTW, Not into this out of high school. But I have worked this job with NavCanada, Serco, Transport Canada and the military so I have a bit of experience when it comes to talkng about how different companies train and recruit. I have both taught and been an OJI so I am familiar with the short comings of the system. Where are you coming from in all of this?

Oh and I started in the Infantry out of high school, at the very bottom of the job ladder. How's that for a "real" job?