Dear NavCanada:

[the_professor]

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.

$250K a year?? Are you on glue? Jesus.

[the_professor]

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 feel for your ignorance. "The people" who set up Nav Canada was the Government of Canada.

You'd probably be less frustrated by your ignorance if you chose to inform yourself before making idiotic comments:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/Acts-Regulations/ac ... 0/menu.htm

[mcrit]

Hmmm..... I write a tongue in cheek post pointing out that making people pay to apply for a job, then expecting them to go through months of job specific training without pay is a bit of douchebaggery, and some people think that I'm off my rocker for it. So be it, it's a free world and if you guys are happy with the way it is then good on ya'. I will however point out that quite a number of really capable are not going to put up with that kind of crap, and NavCanada's unwillingness to fund a proper HR department may be part of the reason why I have a hard time getting practice approaches 4 out of 5 working days (Winnipeg centre not allowing training due to staff shortages) or why I can't get into Regina half the time (Regina tower only taking one a/c at a time due to....yep, you guessed it, staff shortages). Like I said before, rank and file NavCanada people please disregard this xmission, I know it's not your fault.

I feel for your ignorance. "The people" who set up Nav Canada was the Government of Canada.

Really? Is NavCanada a corporation? Does it not have a CEO and a board of directors like every other corporation? Do the aforementioned directors and CEO get paid? Do they get bonuses? Would paying out lots of salary and bonuses not be a really good way to make sure a company like NavCanada doesn't show a profit? Didn't the Liberals give birth to NavCanada? Aren't those the same Liberals that had that little problem with advertising money in Quebec?

[mcrit]

Totally Ironic.....everytime I pull up this thread the NavCanada recuitment Banner is at the top.

[kevenv]

NavCanada seems to be a hot topic on here...

Wonder what the NavCanada skies will look like in 5 years when GPS separation is up and going (current FAA project). Double/triple the aircraft movements and our radar rooms will probably still have the same controllers making $500/hr in overtime.

$500/hr??? You're not serious are you? Where did you come up with that number?

[GoinNowhereFast]

Why not just go into the military and work as a controller there. You would get paid for all your training.

[wannabepilot]

I agree that Nav Canada should not charge for testing; I do, however, agree with charging for training. It is a fairly nominal amount compared with obtaining a university degree, and in my opinion, the bang for your buck is a lot higher. In my time with the company, I have heard too many stories of people who, on day one of their ATC/FSS training, signed an agreement that says, "I, _____ _____, agree to go anywhere the company sends me upon successful completion of this course." Then, on graduation day, when they're told that somewhere is Yellowknife, or Fort McMurray, or wherever, they say "You mean I'm not being posted to CYVR, where all my friends are and I can live in my parent's basement for free? F**k that, I quit!" If paying a few thousand in tuition makes these people think twice about quitting, or even taking the course in the first place, great. The cost to the student only represents something like 2 or 3 percent of their total training cost, which I have heard from many people is in the 6 figure range. Not having to pay for those less than serious trainees would undoubtedly provide savings to the company, and ultimately the users.

It is my understanding that Nav Canada is considered a not for profit organization due to the fact that it is not publicly traded. There are no shares to buy, and no dividends paid. The money that Nav Canada brings in goes towards upgrading the air navigation system. Also, some of it gets put aside for a rainy day. Nav Canada, like many other aviation companies, operated in the red post Sept. 11. It is my understanding that the cost impact on the users was minimized due to the money that Nav Canada had put aside. Of course the CEO, VP's, etc. work for a salary; it isn't a charity. By the definition of some people on here, I guess not for profit means that the controllers and FSS should be working for free also.

With regards to delays, or not being able to get practice approaches approved, there are some units that have staffing issues for a variety of reasons. Nav Canada is continuously trying to staff all units appropriately, but the fact is not everyone that writes the test is going to pass, not everyone that passes the test will pass the classroom training, and not everyone that passes the classroom will qualify on the job. If someone has a complaint about the service being provided, they should direct those complaints to Nav Canada, not Av Canada. Fort McMurray is the perfect case of the squeaky wheel getting the grease. Continued input from the users led to the opening of a tower there. If the service being provided by certain ATC units is not acceptable, then the more input the users provide, the better the chance of improvement.

I am not in management or anything, and I have no links to charts, tables, or laws to back up anything I've said. I'm just someone who has worked a lot of crappy jobs, for crappy companies, for crappy pay. Nav Canada has provided me with a job I love, and a great quality of life. It's not perfect, but I will always step in and give my 2 cents to stick up for it. And to the pilots who complain about our service: if I have a bad experience flying your airline, I don't automatically assume that your airline is a bad operation. I usually realize that just like any company, there are some good apples and some bad, some ideas that work and others that don't, and unless we arrive at our destination in a smoking heap, I'll probably give you the benefit of the doubt. I realize that as pilots you have no choice but to deal with Nav Canada; just please don't assume that the operations of some parts of our company are representative of all parts.

Thanks for listening. Fly safe everyone!

[mcrit]

Hiya wannabepilot, I see where you are coming from, and if the training at NavCanada was easily xferrable to other employers I'd agree with you 100%.

[natej]

This thread cracks me up.

Love how no has mentioned the safety NavCanada brings to Canada's skys.

Airline safety among best in world: study
Nav Canada brings critical factor in near-misses, collisions to crucial low
By Ian MacLeod
Canada's airspace is one of the safest in the world based on the global benchmark for measuring airtraffic-
control safety.
Nav Canada, the private corporation that manages the country's airspace, reports "loss of separation"
incidents, in which specified separation distances between aircraft are breached, at a near-record low.
There were 86 such incidents in 2008, none in which pilots had to take evasive actions. That translates
to a rate of 0.74 incidents per 100,000 "aircraft movements," compared with about one per 100,000
movements in fiscal 2001.
The decline may appear to be minor, until one considers that it represents the elimination of potential
mid-air near-misses or collisions between radar-guided aircraft criss-crossing the country, including
huge commercial passenger jets.
In 1997, a year after Nav Canada assumed air-traffic control from Transport Canada, the rate was 1.36
per 100,000 movements, believed to be the highest ever. Nav Canada says its rate is now one of the
lowest in the aviation world.

http://www.navcanada.ca/ContentDefiniti ... 504_en.pdf

[IFRATC]

Siigghhhh!!!,
This thread has lost any point from lets say post three onward. The pilot "spindoctors" who have hijacked this thread with their ridiculously hyperbolized theories of accounting, economy, monopoly, business, corporate practices, dividends, bonds, and investments have become hypocritical to the topic!!!!
As I understand the original post had to do with attracting recruits by instituting a training incentive. While this practice used to be precedent it was terminated years ago as one method of "cost cutting measures" towards the balance sheet. Regionalizing training was then instituted to save costs, and NCTI's "free" space was then whored out to those companies that were/are willing to pay for its conference centre space. Again, an initiative to save cost. Although these measures may seem insignificant to you the user, nonetheless, decisions like this trickle down to fee structure paid by the user. This is exactly why fees post Sept. 11 along with contigency funds have NOT impacted the users in a detramental fashion. By the way, the board make up consists of a meneage of airlines which help institute the very practices YOU ALL complain about!!
Why then, those that bitch about the company agree or argue the fact that trainees should have or get a monetary incentive to train??? Getting more bodies into seats to fill positions has nothing to do with giving someone an allowance. It has everything to with pre-NAVCAN business practices under TC which we are all feeling the result of NOW. Things like wage freezes and hiring freezes while gov't money under TC was pissed away is what you are feeling in service today. NAVCAN is trying to play catch up both monetarily and through hiring practices. Unfortunately for the latter case the lag time in training is NOT keeping up with attrition from past practice of hiring freezes.
PAYING potential trainees allowances dips into the accounting books even further and is contradictory to ALL YOUR REMARKS ABOUT FISCAL POLICIES IN THE COMPANY!!! Remarks about salaries, overtime, etc, that ALL YOU HYPOCRITES PERCIEVE TO BE FINANCIALLY IRRESPONSIBLE (????), and completely retract any valid (if any) points you try and make.
Some of you make NO sense whatsoever!!

IFRATC

[Chuck Ellsworth]

IFRATC, I sympathize with your frustration, however you may think about the across the board IQ levels in the pilot group.

It would be interesting to see how many pilots have the intelligence to be controllers compared to how many controllers have the intelligence to be pilots.

My money goes on the controllers.

[nookie201]

Ya , so I happen to own a plane that's over 3 tonnes. so every time I squeeze the mic trigger I get charged $43 per day. they provide very little or no explanation why I get charged but a 172 does not. private airplane, same blib on radar.

As soon as I do a position report to accomodate traffic flow and safety (Lets say I fly 12500 over a larger airport with lots of arrivals/departures and just want to announce my presence (even though I'm not obligated) ding -dong...$43.00 + tax.

Plus - I love the paperwork they waste, including the 600 approach plates I don't need, over and over again.

They really should interview for free, they need all the help they can get.

-G

[Braun]

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!

Actually I strongly disagree where I work there are a few pilots but other than that a lot of people don't care about flying, they love THEIR job and they do it to their best ability. Anyways if we wanted to be pilots we could since we make SOOOOOOOOOO much money right?

[kevenv]

Anyways if we wanted to be pilots we could since we make SOOOOOOOOOO much money right?

[North Shore]

Sheesh, Braun - you can dish out the smilies, but can't take them in return I'm pretty sure that the wink that I appended meant that I was joking about the wannabe thing, but oh, well..

This whole Pilot/ATC/AME rivalry reminds me of the joke about the Captain of a ship and the Chief Engineer having an argument as to who was more valuable to the progress of the ship. The war of words rages for some time until one day they decide to swap jobs for the day to settle things once and for all. A few minutes later, the Captain phones the bridge from the engine room: "Chiefy, how in the heck do you get these things started?" is his question. The Engineer replies: "Cap'n, how the heck do you get us off these rocks?"

[GilletteNorth]

every time I squeeze the mic trigger I get charged $43 per day. they provide very little or no explanation why I get charged but a 172 does not. private airplane, same bli(p) on radar...
They really should interview for free, they need all the help they can get.

Users requested that general aviation aircraft not be charged at the same rates as commercial operators. Nav Canada listened and voila.

You say Nav Canada should interview for free even though the fee helps pay for at least some of the costs associated, yet are upset that ATS service charges are applied.

I suppose Nav Canada could go back to the method used by Transport Canada, holding interviews for anyone who applies even if they don't really have a chance to qualify (which sounds very similar to the way contestants apply for "American Idol", clueless as to how bad they really are) and do it for free. But you probably wouldn't like the fee increase that would result for ATS either.

[Braun]

Sheesh, Braun - you can dish out the smilies, but can't take them in return I'm pretty sure that the wink that I appended meant that I was joking about the wannabe thing, but oh, well..

This whole Pilot/ATC/AME rivalry reminds me of the joke about the Captain of a ship and the Chief Engineer having an argument as to who was more valuable to the progress of the ship. The war of words rages for some time until one day they decide to swap jobs for the day to settle things once and for all. A few minutes later, the Captain phones the bridge from the engine room: "Chiefy, how in the heck do you get these things started?" is his question. The Engineer replies: "Cap'n, how the heck do you get us off these rocks?"

I apologize if I misunderstood the meaning of your post, it is just something I hear often and makes me mad. They are two separate jobs with separate skill sets. While each relies on the other no comparison can truly be made i.e. one is not better than the other.

[the_professor]

Really? Is NavCanada a corporation? Does it not have a CEO and a board of directors like every other corporation? Do the aforementioned directors and CEO get paid? Do they get bonuses? Would paying out lots of salary and bonuses not be a really good way to make sure a company like NavCanada doesn't show a profit? Didn't the Liberals give birth to NavCanada? Aren't those the same Liberals that had that little problem with advertising money in Quebec?

They are a non-share corporation, they have a CEO and Board, and those people get paid. What's your point? The company's revenues are usually a little over a billion dollars, and senior management gets paid a couple hundred grand. So what? Nobody said NC's staff doesn't get paid.

Check the annual reports on-line if you wish to further research your wild-ass conspriracy theory.

[SierraPoppa]

I suppose Nav Canada could go back to the method used by Transport Canada, holding interviews for anyone who applies even if they don't really have a chance to qualify (which sounds very similar to the way contestants apply for "American Idol", clueless as to how bad they really are) and do it for free. But you probably wouldn't like the fee increase that would result for ATS either.

Just to clarify.

TC never at any time held "interviews" for anyone who applied. They always ran applicants through some testing (IQ and Time and distance) first in order to weed out most that didn't stand a chance.

[GilletteNorth]

Just to amend my post then.. "holding 'information sessions' across the country multiple times per year renting out huge halls to hold the hundreds of people who showed up for multiple sessions per day just so all the applicants who wouldn't qualify at Macdonalds could throw their hat into the ring". But I guess it was 'fair'.

I went to my 'information session' in Edmonton and over 200 people showed up. TC held 5 of these per day, Saturday and Sunday and did it at 5 cities in Alberta. Add in every province doing only 5 cities, with information sessions 2 or more times a year and you easily understand how it could only be afforded under the public purse.

The testing for both ATC and FSS was simplistic but probably did weed out the mentally challenged. TC still needed to interview people to make decisions on whether the people applying had a good attitude towards training and joining Transport, so I imagine the number of interviews still heavily outweighed the number that eventually made it into the training stream.

[the_professor]

$250K a year?? Are you on glue? Jesus.

The ATC had a strong union and that number quoted above was circulated as having been attained by a number of unscrupulous but quite creative controllers. Perhaps a bit high-end at a quarter mil but certainly above 200K. Quebec was notorious for such behaviour, in other industries as well such as government construction contracts, the biggest cash cow of them all. Cement trucks driving in circles around the under-construction Olympic Stadium and billing for no work (or cement), and sumptuous private lake-front cottages being built in the Laurentians by sub-contractors on that same 1976 Olympic bill. Controllers took advantage of extremenly generous overtime provisions and all the loopholes they could find, coordinating sick days with colleagues, Holidays, duty time , in order to maximize the payout . It was probably immoral, but it was not illegal. So pilots were happy flying but poor, but controllers were bunkered-up and looking at displays, but raking in tons of cash - and earning private pilot licenses in the process. Many controllers are pilots and COPA members, and they fly for fun!

Well, your number is total horsesh*t. ATC salaries have gone up significantly in the past ten years, after having been imprudently frozen along with all other civil service salaries in the mid-90's under Chretien/Martin, when ATC was still employed by Transport Canada. I don't care how much overtime someone worked back in the Transport days, it is impossible for them to have hit the numbers you're talking about. And location ("...I 'heard' it was the guys in Montreal...") is irrelevant, because controllers (IFR) are paid the same salaries country-wide, with minor adjustments for location. These adjustments account for, at most, about $15k per year from the lowest (Gander) to the highest (Toronto/Vancouver).

Even with that significant increase in the past decade, the only people making over $200k are a few people at the top of the 11-step pay scale, and/or supervisors in that role. And those people only crack $200k by working an obscene amount of overtime: some controllers are overtime whores, and will work the shifts that nobody else wants. Most controllers enjoy their time off, and like to see the sunshine once in a while, so they work a bit of overtime. Others, the aforementioned whores, will work the maximum number of hours permitted by the contract, and *might* break the $200k mark.

[GilletteNorth]

Makes me both laugh and cry, as FSS over the past 3 years I've had maybe 5 overtime shifts

[lilfssister]

me too GN.

[natej]

me too GN.

2 years in, probably done... 5?

[Braun]

hehe ouch I have had quite a few this summer almost 20 from May to july including one cycle of leave