"Duffey said the pace of operations at the airport — it handled 456,000 flights in 2016 — and the high cost of living in the Toronto area have been deterrents to attracting applicants to work at Pearson."
I'm wondering if the high cost of living causes the same type of issues at a place like Vancouver? Would some type of incentive program help attract people to apply at Pearson? And doesn't Nav Canada decide where to send people initially anyway? Or is it simply impossible for someone brand new to train successfully at a place like Pearson?
The high cost of living is a deterrent, especially with house prices these days in YYZ and YVR.
Nav Canada does determine where you get posted initially.
Incentives to work at Pearson would help but they would have to be enormous to have any real affect, I don't see that happening.
Its not impossible for new trainees to be successful as many have however the vast majority of new people would not qualify if sent directly to Pearson. There is a new transitional program in place to get people to go to a quieter unit first and then move on to YYZ when they have a little experience. This should create a better qualification percentage but will take a lot more time to fill the vacancies at Pearson.
One more small note, Pearson got some press on this issue but many places across the country are severely short staffed t the moment.
I can see how at face value your comment makes sense, but I'm afraid that it's not that simple.av8ts wrote:So if airlines have to compensate passengers when at fault for delayed/cancelled flights. Should Nav Canada have to do the same when they are at fault?
My understanding is that NAV Canada charges airlines per track mile for the flying they do. I believe that if the flight doesn't go, they don't charge for the service they didn't provide.
As has been discussed in other threads, more staffing at Pearson is required to run the "triple" due to the complications of that operation (better explained by someone who isn't me). The short staffing doesn't make the airport close. NavCanada isn't cancelling flights. The flights can still go, it just may take longer for them to get airborne and on course.
What's interesting about this conversation and story is that it reads like everyone is looking to blame someone for the delays/cancellations. The airlines blame the airport, the airport blames NAV Canada, NAV Canada blames the union.
Also, in accordance with their mandate, NAV Canada just reduced their rates and refunded carriers:
Maybe you should ask the airlines why they didn't pass that money onto you?(Ottawa, August 11, 2017) – NAV CANADA today announced it will proceed with its proposal to decrease existing base rates charged to its customers by an average of 3.5 per cent and also implement a temporary one-year rate reduction of 0.4 per cent. This effectively continues the temporary rate reduction that was implemented last year. The Company also announced its decision to reimburse its customers approximately $60 million in a one-time 4.6 per cent refund.
What about the fuel surcharge? Is that flowing back to the customers since (I think) fuel prices stabilized?
I'm hardly a spokesperson for NAV Canada (I have lots of awful things to say about the place), but there's some information available publicly that makes your suggestion of refunds from NAV Canada absurd.