Departure fees for small aircraft by Navcanada

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:23 pm

Is the fee waved if I just ignore tower and ground, taxi on my own and take off on my own, and come back on my own?

captain_v1.0 · Post by **captain_v1.0** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 3:30 pm

The fact remains it all adds up, if you're paying an annual fees, plus landing fees, and soon a departure fees it makes something that is already expensive to most prohibitive to many more.

I'd love to see their justification for this extra charge, it I depart an uncontrolled transit the YVR zone to another uncontrolled I've talked to the same guys and still used their services, so what difference does it make wether I departed directly from there?

After reading the post about Winnipeg controllers "practicing vectors" maybe we should start billing NavCanada 0.15 for each unnecessary vector or 0.08 per minute we spend below our flight planned cruise speed when the reduction is for control purposes?

I like one idea that was presented to me by a colleague near YYC. The airport charges him 10-20 to land a 172, even when he accepts a LAHSO. His new philosophy, "If I'm going to pay for the entire runway I'm going to USE THE ENTIRE RUNWAY." I don't blame him because he is partly right.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:15 pm

" My analogy would be, if you have to ask how much gas it burns, or how much it costs to insure, you shouldn't be driving (or flying) it. Surely someone who is put out by a $5 landing/to fee is in no position financially to be flying in the first place. "

Charlie_G, you are coming off here as either arrogant or ignorant..

I want to be able to afford to fly for some years yet, if more and more fees keep being levied and keep creeping up year after year well then I will find a way to fly without paying.

Cat

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 4:34 pm

charlie_g wrote: Surely someone who is put out by a $5 landing/to fee is in no position financially to be flying in the first place..

I agree.

If you are put off by feeding your family you should just shoot them.
If you complain about the PST, you should move to alberta or the US.
If you're put off for paying 80 cents for gas you shouldn't be driving...
If you're put off by the crappy service the TTC provides you should drive.

If you're put off by anything you should just go kill yourself, because something will always piss you off...

/copy and pastes for another time when he needs a good laugh.

Pygmie · Post by **Pygmie** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:06 pm

It seems to me this is being put in place to try and convice GA aircraft to use the GA airports that exist in these cities. From my understanding of the way it works now there is no difference from a cost perseptive to land at the Int'l airport vs. the GA airport that exists nearby. And if it doesn't cost any different, then there is no insentive to use the airports that are specifically designed for training and private operations.

To me this new charge makes perfect sense. Get the GA aircraft out of the major Int'l airports.

Jeeves · Post by **Jeeves** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:29 pm

If you owned a business, would you charge a fee for your service?

Like it, or not. NavCanada is a business.

Before anyone rants, if you don't like the idea that ATC was sold off by the government, you only have yourselves to blame.

The Canadian government is the way it is because the citizens of Canada - us - keep allowing them to be.

If we - as Canadians - had a little more back-bone and actually stood up to our government, maybe things would be different, however we don’t.

Until we do, Civil services will continue to be sold to private corporations, just as OUR natural resources, business, and assets are sold to the US.

Ace · Post by **Ace** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 5:58 pm

P Jeeves wrote:NavCanada is a private company. This is true. However, the idea of private companies charging for their services is nothing new. In fact, I’m surprised that Navcanada didn’t start sooner.

Anyone who has flown in Europe (Professionally or privately) is intimately familiar with EuroControl.

EuroControl is also a private company, and they charge for their ATC services.

An example of a charge calculation is as follows:

Departure aerodrome : ESSA (Stockholm)
Destination aerodrome : EHAM (Amsterdam)
Date of flight: 01 February 2000
Aircraft MTOW (Metric Tonnes): 61.2 (Weight Factor = 1.11) (Boeing 737, or DC9)

Route Profile (ATC points planned to be followed by the flight):
1. ESSA (Departure aerodrome)
2. DKR
3. SVD
4. NAROL
5. ALS
6. DEMIR
7. GOLEN
8. KUBAT
9. EEL
10. ARTIP
11. EHAM (Arrival aerodrome)

From the above route structure, the following distance factors (km) are established for the Contracting States shown:

Sweden
Distance: 505
Deduction: 20
Distance factor: 4.85

Denmark
Distance: 221
Deduction: -
Distance factor: 2.21

Germany
Distance: 250
Deduction: -
Distance factor: 2.50

Netherlands
Distance: 188
Deduction: 20
Distance factor: 1.68

Therefore, taking the elements that are now known the EuroControl charge may be calculated by multiplying these elements:

Sweden
Distance factor : 4.85
Weight factor : 1.11
Unit rate (Feb. 2000) : 44.83
Total charge : 241.34

Denmark
Distance factor : 2.21
Weight factor : 1.11
Unit rate (Feb. 2000) : 52.22
Total charge : 128.10

Germany
Distance factor : 2.50
Weight factor : 1.11
Unit rate (Feb. 2000) : 60.71
Total charge : 168.47

Netherlands
Distance factor : 1.68
Weight factor : 1.11
Unit rate (Feb. 2000) : 47.60
Total charge : 88.76

Total Charge : 626.67 ($857.00 Canadian Dollars, for a relatively short flight)

5 dollars doesn't seem so bad anymore...

buddy, you are a fucking loser.

captain_v1.0 · Post by **captain_v1.0** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:11 pm

try keep it classy ace, but yeah a little geeky there P Jeeves. If this is a matter of using a GA airport maybe GA airports should actually have some services open or at least asphalt leading up to them. Every "GA" field I've driven to begins where the pavement ends sorry guys but I'm just that whitecollar.

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 6:34 pm

P Jeeves wrote:If you owned a business, would you charge a fee for your service?

Like it, or not. NavCanada is a business.

Before anyone rants, if you don't like the idea that ATC was sold off by the government, you only have yourselves to blame..

They're not charging a fee for services. They're just charging... It's like you driving your car and being forced to pay 2 dollars to the transit system, which you already do through tax(the annual fee).

Secondly, it's not a business, it's a monopoly...

You're right, we're to blame, we should stop using Navcan and stop paying them. Like I said I'm not gonna talk to tower/ground.

linecrew · Post by **linecrew** » Fri Dec 09, 2005 8:57 pm

For what it's worth, there are no pilots working in the finance department over at NAVCANADA so no matter how much we complain to them it will always fall on deaf ears. They will never be able to sympathize with our point of view. Their sole agenda will always be to figure out ways to get more money out of anyone that leaves the ground, well those that do so on purpose anyway.

Jeeves · Post by **Jeeves** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:15 am

Ace, or whatever you decide to call yourself the next time. You have to move on. I told you a long time ago, that our relationship is over.

Following me from forum to forum, the little email notes, and the constant voicemails and hangup phonecalls is only further deepening my resentment towards you.

Regards.

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:58 am

Charlie g and Jeeves have misunderstood my point (go figure). I am not railing against user pay ethos. Although I could because there's a lot more to it than trying to get GA to pay their share, which to a large extent they don’t. However what I have an issue with is Nav Canada charging people who do not use the system, and still have to pay. The type of flying I do, both commercial and private, does not utilize the Nav Canada system. I cannot file flight plans, there are no weather services or ATC for any destination that I fly to or from. I cannot fly into airspace that is controlled since I have not got the txponder equipment (besides there is no controlled airspace below 12,000 ft where I fly, and certainly none at 1000 ft agl which is my normal cruising altitude) . Nav Canada does not have the capability to provide inflight info to me where I fly. The area forecasting sucks so bad where I am I might as well have Granny Clampett and her weather beetle provide a forecast for me. My weather analysis (in marginal conditions) consists of a “go and see” process, ... will Nav Canada pay for my gas and time?? . In addition, weather forecasting is paid for and funded by Environment Canada through tax dollars.

There are no services that nav Canada provides me. None that I want, and none that I could use if I did want to. WHY SHOULD I PAY for Bonanzas and 210s to fly around Toronto IFR when I can never use those resources???? And as for paying for Air Canada to go bankrupt every 10 years, I’m really pissed about that, because they are my last choice for an airline.

Jeeves · Post by **Jeeves** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:19 am

How did I miss the point? To the contrary, I think I understand it very well. Even Eurocontrol doesn't charge you if you don't directly use their services. NavCanada should only charge if you RECEIVE - directly - their services.

Interestingly, since I "...missed the point..." NavCanada is, in essence, a sub-contractor of ATC services. In fact, the overall controlling agency is the US system in Washington DC.

If you think I'm wrong, check it out. But, if you remember 911, you will recall that ALL traffic over North America was grounded. Do you think the Canadian government could have organized that manoeuvre in the short time that it happened? Again, check it out.

With that thought, where do you really think the "User Fees" are going? Probably the same place that our Lumber Tariffs and other resource tariffs go - South!

FamilyGuy · Post by **FamilyGuy** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 8:45 am

P Jeeves you are treading on very thin ice with that last comment.

Were you a controller during 9/11? Do you have the foggiest idea what you are talking about. I'd say no to both.

Frankly you guys are missing the big picture here. This is how it starts - if you don't at least try to stop it kiss GA goodbye. NC answers to the airlines. While NC may be operating "not-for-profit", the airlines clearly are trying to make profit. NC had an operating surplus of over 7 mil recently. That is in effect returned to the "users" (read airlines) in the form of reduced fees collected or a supposed freeze on increases. Now you are saying that the bill footed by GA is going up? Hmmm that doesn't add up now does it.
There is supposed to be a voice on the NC BOD to represent GA and CBA. Find it and use it.

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:02 pm

P Jeeves wrote: Even Eurocontrol doesn't charge you if you don't directly use their services. NavCanada should only charge if you RECEIVE - directly - their services.

Interestingly, since I "...missed the point..." NavCanada is, in essence, a sub-contractor of ATC services. In fact, the overall controlling agency is the US system in Washington DC.

If you think I'm wrong, check it out. But, if you remember 911, you will recall that ALL traffic over North America was grounded. Do you think the Canadian government could have organized that manoeuvre in the short time that it happened? Again, check it out.

With that thought, where do you really think the "User Fees" are going? Probably the same place that our Lumber Tariffs and other resource tariffs go - South!

Well I don't really understand your point, are you trying to suggest that I shouldn't be paying any fees to Nav Canada then since I don't get any of their services?? Well that's the problem really, ... they do charge me and I get SFA from them.

And "Nav Canada is a subcontractor to ATC Services"??? What are you talking about. They realize all their income from the users (and I use that term loosley since I am not a user yet still have to pay), and cover shortfalls from the public purse. Who is ATC Services anyway??

And NavCanada did not ground me on 9/11, I heard about it that evening on the news. I was flying customers that day, and did not stop flying 'till mid afternoon. So Nav Can informed only the people they were in contact with.

The user fees go directly to operate the system, and John Crichton's pocket.

Jeeves · Post by **Jeeves** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:14 pm

What's so difficult to understand? I'll make it easy for you...

Fact: NavCanada is charging for Airspace use.
My opinion: They should only charge for their "direct" services

Fact: Many other countries have private ATS companies that do the same.
My opinion: None

Fact: The US ATC system has overall control of Canadian Airspace. This was the explanation of an Air Traffic Control Manager in the Edmonton region during a seminar on ATS services several years ago.
My opinion: I'm not surprised; we've sold them everything else!

Fact: I'm not treading on this ice. I'm sitting next to the hotel pool on a layover, the temperature is about 30 C, and the only ice is in my glass!

Localizer · Post by **Localizer** » Sat Dec 10, 2005 7:23 pm

Im sure people wouldn't mind paying a navcanada fee ... IF YOU GOT SOME SERVICE!!! ... Who here has flown to Winnipeg in the last few weeks .. did you listen to the ATIS???? .. "Due to staffing issues .. Flow control is in effect for the Winnipeg control zone" .. Then enjoy your 20 mile vector for final .. Sweet geesus man .. a busy international airport having staffing issues?! NavCanada fees continue to rise .. and the services provided are on the decline ... How do they figure?!

Cha ching!

Loc

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:07 am

Jeeves wrote:What's so difficult to understand? I'll make it easy for you...

Fact: The US ATC system has overall control of Canadian Airspace. This was the explanation of an Air Traffic Control Manager in the Edmonton region during a seminar on ATS services several years ago.
My opinion: I'm not surprised; we've sold them everything else!

I'm a controller in Winnipeg, and I have no idea what the hell you're talking about there. The US has no control over Canadian airspace, with the exception of slivers of airspace that we have delegated to them for their control, and vice-versa. (airspace boundaries are not necessarily coincident with geographic boundaries, and this applies to both countries)

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:19 am

Cat Driver wrote:
Charlie_G, you are coming off here as either arrogant or ignorant..

Cat

Certainly not ignorant, as I have made my living from both behind the yoke (in the past) and now in front of a radar screen.

And I'm not trying to be arrogant; I'm trying to be a realist. I'm willing to listen to anyone who can make a rational, logical argument about why they shouldn't have to pay for the use of services provided by a company whose entire budget comes from the users of that system?

And as I have pointed out before, today's fees charged by Nav Canada are still lower than what Transport was charging a decade ago. While it may rub some of you the wrong way because those fees are now being redistributed more equitably, I dare you to take a poll of the airline passengers (that's right, the passengers, not the airlines) who have been paying more than their share of the fees in the past, and see how much sympathy you get.

(for those who want to bitch about fees for medicals or rule-making, you'll need to find a Transport Canada messageboard, because that has nothing to do with the ANS)

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:24 am

Localizer wrote:Im sure people wouldn't mind paying a navcanada fee ... IF YOU GOT SOME SERVICE!!! ... Who here has flown to Winnipeg in the last few weeks .. did you listen to the ATIS???? .. "Due to staffing issues .. Flow control is in effect for the Winnipeg control zone" .. Then enjoy your 20 mile vector for final .. Sweet geesus man .. a busy international airport having staffing issues?! NavCanada fees continue to rise .. and the services provided are on the decline ... How do they figure?!

Cha ching!

Loc

Since you're a pilot, presumably you would know that the "Winnipeg Control Zone" is refering to the tower's zone and has nothing to do with a 20 mile vector you might receive from the arrival/terminal controller.

The 20 mile vector might be totally unrelated to staffing at the tower. The tower will ask for increased spacing between arrivals during times when runway conditions are poor and aircraft take more time to clear.

charlie_g · Post by **charlie_g** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 2:32 am

hornblower wrote:And that'll be in addition to the ridiculous landing fees already charged by the airport authorities. Poor fuckin' private owners, flight schools and small charter operators have to pay for Air Canada's default of some $94,000,000 during their bankruptcy.

And of course Mr. Crichton needs his new Mercedez as previously mentioned. (not for profit company my ass)

Don't sweat it Blower, your stat was only off by about 208%. Hopefully you're more careful when calculating fuel burn and t/o distances...

"During the year, the Company recorded a bad debt expense in the amount of $45 million relating to unpaid charges for services to Air Canada and its affiliates up to April 1, 2003, the date of Air Canada's filing for protection from its creditors under the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act ("CCAA")."

Hornblower · Post by **Hornblower** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 6:25 am

Ok Charlie, I was off a little, I was going by memory (which I shouldn’t do at my age), but $45,000,000 is still a lot of money, and the amount is not really relevant to my argument. I am simply stating that GA is going to take it on the chin again , while AC (and others) get away with defaulting on huge amounts of money. If you owned your own airplane you maybe would understand how the fees for everything have gone through the roof over the last 10 years.

As for your comment “I’m willing to listen to anyone who can make a rational, logical argument about why they shouldn't have to pay for the use of services provided by a company whose entire budget comes from the users of that system?”
Having you listen won’t help since you don’t make the decisions, ... or do you?

You never see me on radar, you never handle a flight plan for me, you never provide me with inflight info, you never provide me with ATS, you never forecast weather for any destination or departure aerodrome that I do, or can, use. In short Nav Canada provides me with no services (quality as discussed by others notwithstanding). Now why should I pay?? Don’t forget I am not complaining about the new charges since I am not affected, although I do see them as another nail in the coffin of the poor 172 driver that has been overcharged by everyone from the manufacturer to the ANS provider, to the insurance companies.

When 75% of the operating budget of these light aircraft is consumed by non-technical, non-safety related expenses, there is no way that safety is not going to be negatively affected, at least until, as you seem to suggest would be desirable, they get out of the game.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 11:57 am

I dont have a problem with a "Cleared for takeoff" costing me five bucks when departing YYZ in my 150. It costs how much to park a friggen car in Toronto?? And I can have the pleasure of taking my sweet time, rolling down the runway....where else can you get that much entertainment value for your five bucks?? Up here, they want two hun and change for a trail pass for a stinking ski-doo!! If doing if feels good...it'll cost ya! Bear that in mind the next time you scratch your ass!

lilfssister · Post by **lilfssister** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 1:53 pm

hornblower, you must fly in some really out of the way spots if you don't even use the services of Community Aerodrome Radio Stations?

marktheone · Post by **marktheone** » Sun Dec 11, 2005 5:09 pm

Charlieg, if you're not paying attention to how costs add up then you're not working in aviation. We cannot accept a descent 150NM back of a destination for fuel burn reasons, as just one example. Right you are $5 won't break us. But do it 1000 times and it's adding up.

By the way for all the people that send checks to NAV CAN NEVER EVER pay the interest. They will write it off.