Dear NavCanada:

[mcrit]

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]

Good Advice!

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

[North Shore]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

*** edited ***

[linecrew]

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]

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

[mcrit]

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]

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.

[ragbagflyer]

I just think that it's a douchebag move to make people pay to apply for a job.

Agreed, especially if you are trying to attract the best and the brightest, not the richest. Also, an allowance during training isn't too much to ask for considering if you wash out or decide it's not for you any knowledge/skill you've acquired isn't transferable like it would be from a typical college/university education.

[GilletteNorth]

NavCan used to be part of the government. By law it
has a monopoly, it has no competition, it can charge
whatever it wants, and the so-called customers have
no choice but to pay up, or simply stop flying in Canada.

If NavCan has any problems, you can bet that the government
will step in to assure it's continued smooth operation.

Wow. Nav Canada is not a part of the government and NEVER has been. Air traffic services were a part of the government under Transport Canada of course.

I have to believe you are attacking the idea of monopolies in general rather than NavCanada's ATS monopoly in particular... unless of course you think it would be better to have 20 or more ATS service providers all with different fees sending you multiple bills for your flights when you go flying. Imagine what a boondoggle that would be. If there were seperate ATS providers for every province and you flew only within one province, you'd feel like there was a 'monopoly' for that province as well. I guess it's a matter of perspective then. Just because Nav Canada has a monopoly for the whole country doesn't make it a bad thing. It is true that Nav Canada has no competition in providing ATS within Canada. I don't see how that is a bad thing when you compare the fee schedule it charges against the fees charged by service providers around the world. NAV Canada's fees are not the greedy immoral cash grab you imply just by saying they have a monopoly.
How would failure/refusal to pay for services by customers be any different under a multiple ATS provider scenario? Oh, I guess if you decided to stiff one service provider you'd still be able to fly in another part of the country. Nav Canada has had customers who have not paid their bills and have still been allowed to continue flying. I suppose you believe that if there were multiple ATS providers they would do nothing if some aviation companies decided to be deadbeats and not pay their fees.
Customers have input regarding fees under Nav Canada. In fact, serveral fees that were originally imposed have been reduced or recinded upon request from customers by Nav Canada.
Since Nav Canada is being run quite responsibly with direct input from the customer on all day to day operations and is doing it far cheaper than it was run under the federal governement, you'd better hope it never has serious enough problems for the federal government to decide to step back in. THAT would be the tragedy.

[ywgflyboy]

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.

[the_professor]

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?

They get none, and have not received public funds since the Air Transportation Tax, formerly charged by Transport Canada, was repealed in, I believe, 1998.

NC's operation is 100% funded via user fees.

[the_professor]

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

Nav Canada's "investors" are the bondholders (not to be confused with shareholders, as Nav Canada does not have any shareholders; it is a non-share corporation) who buy and sell the company's debt. At the time of its creation, NC paid the federal government $1.5B for the purchase of the ANS and its equipment. That $1.5B was raised via the issuance of bonds, which, of course, pay interest. Which, incidentally, is how every major corporation finances its debt.