What really gets me worried about these subjects is pricks like this Charlie_G posting stuff this ignorant.
Quote Charlie_G:
"
I guess we will have to live with this attitude until the system rids itself of both pilots and controllers from the pre-Nav Canada days, who now think they're really hard-done-by by the big bad not-for-profit model. "
If I knew that this idiot was a controller I would be truly worried about safety, especially his, because someone just might punch his lights out.
Cat
Departure fees for small aircraft by Navcanada
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, I WAS Birddog
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
-
marktheone
- Rank 7
- Posts: 719
- Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2005 9:07 am
- Location: An airplane.
I am pretty sure that if the "account" was topped up we wouldn't ever see a rate decrease would we? Nav Can and all the airports are always telling us that there will be more traffic in the future, hence RVSM. Surely with more traffic talking to the roughly the same number of controllers (give or take a few) the rates should go down, right?charlie_g wrote:The company is required by legislation to maintain this account -- to *protect* the public purse, by the way. When the account is topped up, rates drop. If the account is empty, rates go up.
It sure would be nice if people would take the time to inform themselves about the items they are criticizing, instead of spewing completely inaccurate BS.
Hopefully I can raise some points without sounding arrogant.
I went to the COPA site and read the article you were quoting (Cat). I saw the $72 reference, but am wondering where the $1200+ figure came from? I'm guessing this is a hypothetical number based on some type of operation with an average number of movements?
In any event, I would expect COPA's complaint about the fuel tax to fall on deaf ears at NC, as NC does not see any of that money. If COPA can convince the government to redirect the fuel tax revenue to NC so that fees can be eliminated or reduced, so much the better.
-In 2002 NC announced $85M in cost cutting to deal with the 9/11 fallout, which included salary rollbacks at the executive level. That same year they sold $250M in bonds for extra financing.
-In 2003 NC sold a further $450M in bond to finance operations and enhancements.
-In 2004 NC they sold a further $250M in bonds.
That's $950M of debt taken on in three years. Companies don't sell interest-bearing bonds for fun, they do it out of necessity when operations cannot be financed solely through cash flow. The company has spent tens of millions (or hundreds, haven't added it all up) in the last few years building & upgrading towers, installing radar sites, and improving information technology for more efficient operations. How high would the fees need to be if the company actually set the fees to cover these costs on a present-day basis, instead of using debt to finance it? ANS is expensive and today's users, despite the fees, aren't even paying the full cost.
For those who truly fly outside the system, and never ever, ever (never say never?) use *any* type of NC service, I sympathize. But you will not convince me that "regular" GA should be exempt from paying for their fair share. I still don't know why GA would feel it should be entitled to a free ride.
I went to the COPA site and read the article you were quoting (Cat). I saw the $72 reference, but am wondering where the $1200+ figure came from? I'm guessing this is a hypothetical number based on some type of operation with an average number of movements?
In any event, I would expect COPA's complaint about the fuel tax to fall on deaf ears at NC, as NC does not see any of that money. If COPA can convince the government to redirect the fuel tax revenue to NC so that fees can be eliminated or reduced, so much the better.
-In 2002 NC announced $85M in cost cutting to deal with the 9/11 fallout, which included salary rollbacks at the executive level. That same year they sold $250M in bonds for extra financing.
-In 2003 NC sold a further $450M in bond to finance operations and enhancements.
-In 2004 NC they sold a further $250M in bonds.
That's $950M of debt taken on in three years. Companies don't sell interest-bearing bonds for fun, they do it out of necessity when operations cannot be financed solely through cash flow. The company has spent tens of millions (or hundreds, haven't added it all up) in the last few years building & upgrading towers, installing radar sites, and improving information technology for more efficient operations. How high would the fees need to be if the company actually set the fees to cover these costs on a present-day basis, instead of using debt to finance it? ANS is expensive and today's users, despite the fees, aren't even paying the full cost.
For those who truly fly outside the system, and never ever, ever (never say never?) use *any* type of NC service, I sympathize. But you will not convince me that "regular" GA should be exempt from paying for their fair share. I still don't know why GA would feel it should be entitled to a free ride.
-
split s
- Rank 4
- Posts: 256
- Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2004 6:05 pm
- Location: a few trailers over from Jaques Strappe!
Like I posted in another forum, This sight has got alot more interesting since other dynamics of aviation have started coming out of the woodwork and voicing opinions! 
Is the 90m dollar figure correct for what AC owed NC before bankruptcy? I have mixed feelings on charging fees to GA users, but, if it will eventually be the "straw" for GA then I would rather them get "a free ride". For most GA's it is a love of flying and not money that let's them justify owning an aircraft, take the love away in the form of more fees and the aircraft will be gone. It's sad! I would like to know how a dollar of avgas or jetB is broken down regarding taxes, it's probably like the road tax we get charged on gas for lawn mowers, sowmobiles and quads, you pay the tax but it helps you none!
Is the 90m dollar figure correct for what AC owed NC before bankruptcy? I have mixed feelings on charging fees to GA users, but, if it will eventually be the "straw" for GA then I would rather them get "a free ride". For most GA's it is a love of flying and not money that let's them justify owning an aircraft, take the love away in the form of more fees and the aircraft will be gone. It's sad! I would like to know how a dollar of avgas or jetB is broken down regarding taxes, it's probably like the road tax we get charged on gas for lawn mowers, sowmobiles and quads, you pay the tax but it helps you none!
Hey bubbles,get me some of those dressed all over chips!
charlie valid points. Yes you do sound arrogant. Maybe, it's just because the rest of us muck and scrabble to pay a mortgage, electricity and food, and don't have the option of telling our bosses to pay up or else.. If NC cannot properly budget there existing finances, maybe they should look at not incurring more debt. BTW you guys work for us the "Toll Payers" Most controllers I'm sure work their asses off. They are also better paid than 95% of the pilots out there. My .02$
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
rigpiggy, I see no reason to try and reason with this Charlie_G whoever he/ she might be.
To suggest that all us pre Nav Canada people in aviation need to be gone because we do not fit into their world is beyond arrogant. If I knew that I was talking to a controller with that attitude I would make a formal complaint to his/her supervisor.
Anyone with that attitude needs to get out of aviation if in fact they are in aviation.
Cat
To suggest that all us pre Nav Canada people in aviation need to be gone because we do not fit into their world is beyond arrogant. If I knew that I was talking to a controller with that attitude I would make a formal complaint to his/her supervisor.
Anyone with that attitude needs to get out of aviation if in fact they are in aviation.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Cat, I don't know why you bother to continue "contributing" to this thread if all you're going to do is call me arrogant and never address/counter any of the points I'm making? It's rather tedious.
If there is anyone else who agrees with Cat, how about presenting some reasoning why the ANS should be a "some users will pay, some won't" system?
If there is anyone else who agrees with Cat, how about presenting some reasoning why the ANS should be a "some users will pay, some won't" system?
Ever driven on the 407 or in the US? No, well, according to you and NavCan you should still send us your money to pay for them...charlie_g wrote:If there is anyone else who agrees with Cat, how about presenting some reasoning why the ANS should be a "some users will pay, some won't" system?
I'll accept paypal...
I will grant you that if you are like Hornblower, and never file a flight plan, never contact an FSS, never get a wx briefing, never touch controlled airspace in a relevant manner, never tune an AWOS, never file a position report, never do anything that requires any NC resource whatsoever, then you shouldn't have to pay anything.cyyz wrote:Ever driven on the 407 or in the US? No, well, according to you and NavCan you should still send us your money to pay for them...charlie_g wrote:If there is anyone else who agrees with Cat, how about presenting some reasoning why the ANS should be a "some users will pay, some won't" system?
I'll accept paypal...
However, this thread started because of a $5 departure fee, and that's what we should be discussing.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Hell cyyz, the easiest thing on earth would be to get yourself a complete set of forged documents, and soon it's going to be worth considering.
Cat
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Charlie G wrote:
If there is anyone else who agrees with Cat, how about presenting some reasoning why the ANS should be a "some users will pay, some won't" system?
We always paid user fees. They were called taxes. Now it seems that our good government grabbed the money and ran, and then allowed not-fo-profit, NavCanada to tax us again with "user fees" It is actually quite a brilliant strategy if you guys can continue to pull it off.
The problem Charlie old chap, is that it is not figures that lie, but liers that figure. Before you talk about fees why not explain where all the taxes we pay on airport property, land leases, fuel taxes (including GST) go....and then talk about fees.
Am I alone in this interpretation? No. There have been numerous court decisions and there are more before the court challanging this whole fraudulant "user fee" thing. It is , in reality a tax, and only the federal government can tax.While some have been successful, not one of your organizations is willing to do the right thing and drop them. Just keep quiet, keep charging, and make it last as long as possible.
Besides there is the little issue of us "stakeholders" having to cover the losses of Air Canada
If there is anyone else who agrees with Cat, how about presenting some reasoning why the ANS should be a "some users will pay, some won't" system?
We always paid user fees. They were called taxes. Now it seems that our good government grabbed the money and ran, and then allowed not-fo-profit, NavCanada to tax us again with "user fees" It is actually quite a brilliant strategy if you guys can continue to pull it off.
The problem Charlie old chap, is that it is not figures that lie, but liers that figure. Before you talk about fees why not explain where all the taxes we pay on airport property, land leases, fuel taxes (including GST) go....and then talk about fees.
Am I alone in this interpretation? No. There have been numerous court decisions and there are more before the court challanging this whole fraudulant "user fee" thing. It is , in reality a tax, and only the federal government can tax.While some have been successful, not one of your organizations is willing to do the right thing and drop them. Just keep quiet, keep charging, and make it last as long as possible.
Besides there is the little issue of us "stakeholders" having to cover the losses of Air Canada
Last edited by trey kule on Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Cat wrote:
Hell cyyz, the easiest thing on earth would be to get yourself a complete set of forged documents, and soon it's going to be worth considering
Cat, I am so disappointed with this comment. If you are goint to say things like this, the very least you could do is tell us how to go about getting a set of these document. Very unfair to tease us so.
Hell cyyz, the easiest thing on earth would be to get yourself a complete set of forged documents, and soon it's going to be worth considering
Cat, I am so disappointed with this comment. If you are goint to say things like this, the very least you could do is tell us how to go about getting a set of these document. Very unfair to tease us so.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
Trey, I feel that if there is nothing else I can do for my colleauges in aviation it is that I can give advice.
Hell one of the easiest set of forged documents on earth to get is Canadian ones.
Mainly because Canada is known world wide as a soft touch for criminals and illegal aliens.
Any kid with a good computer and printer can whip you up a set of forged aviation documents in no time.
There was a time when I would have been horrified to council others to flout the law, but after dealing with the top people in TC for several years I finally received a letter from the DGCA advising me that dishonesty within the top ranks of TC is quite satisfactory as far as he is concerned.
So based on that I see no reason why I can not conduct myself in the same manner.
I have given up trying to work within the system and fully intend to work any way that I have to..
Remember that old saying?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
So f.ck TC and the DGCA and all his minions, I will look after me from now on and as long as I do not risk my own or others safety they can wipe my ass with their rules.
Cat
Hell one of the easiest set of forged documents on earth to get is Canadian ones.
Mainly because Canada is known world wide as a soft touch for criminals and illegal aliens.
Any kid with a good computer and printer can whip you up a set of forged aviation documents in no time.
There was a time when I would have been horrified to council others to flout the law, but after dealing with the top people in TC for several years I finally received a letter from the DGCA advising me that dishonesty within the top ranks of TC is quite satisfactory as far as he is concerned.
So based on that I see no reason why I can not conduct myself in the same manner.
I have given up trying to work within the system and fully intend to work any way that I have to..
Remember that old saying?
What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
So f.ck TC and the DGCA and all his minions, I will look after me from now on and as long as I do not risk my own or others safety they can wipe my ass with their rules.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
Cat wrote:
Any kid with a good computer and printer can whip you up a set of forged aviation documents in no time.
I'll get right on it. If nothing else it will make a great albi for hanging around the school yards.
AND, Cat wrote:
dishonesty within the top ranks of TC is quite satisfactory
Satisfactory? I was under the impression that besides being ex-RMC it was a requirement
Any kid with a good computer and printer can whip you up a set of forged aviation documents in no time.
I'll get right on it. If nothing else it will make a great albi for hanging around the school yards.
AND, Cat wrote:
dishonesty within the top ranks of TC is quite satisfactory
Satisfactory? I was under the impression that besides being ex-RMC it was a requirement
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
It must be a requirement now under the present DGCA, because even after their own investigation showed beyond doubt his minions in Vancouver were dishonest and abused the power of their office he still stands by his statement.
I truly , actually , positively do have a letter from him, The DGCA, stating exactly what I have written.
That moral degenerate actually had the audacity to write me and say that and the dumb f.cker signed it..
...Incredible but true.
So like I said, screw TC and their rules, I'm going to do whatever I feel like with or without their blessing.
Cat
I truly , actually , positively do have a letter from him, The DGCA, stating exactly what I have written.
That moral degenerate actually had the audacity to write me and say that and the dumb f.cker signed it..
...Incredible but true.
So like I said, screw TC and their rules, I'm going to do whatever I feel like with or without their blessing.
Cat
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
Hornblower
- Rank 7
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sat Jan 08, 2005 6:58 am
Charlie G
Glad you agree that I shouldn't be paying any fees, however it's unfortunate that your masters don't see it that way. On this they are intractable, probably because they have no concept of GA.
As for the user fees, they will lead to a diminishing of the GA sector, fewer small aircraft at controlled airports, fewer opportunities to learn the system for the newbies, more (less safe) ultralights and homebuilts, fewer services available to those that do need them in the long run, fewer airports (in Toronto this may be thought of as a good thing).
If you had any notion if what it takes to run a private aircraft, you might have sympathies for the lower echelon. I not talking about the doctors and lawyers here, I'm talking about the grass roots, the weekend flyer, the sport flyer, the wage earner that has virtually everyone's hands in their shallow pockets. When there are only the Doctors and high tech execs and their new $400,000 SR22s and the VLJs, this will be a sad turn of events for the whole country. Of course I will still be flying, ... in the bush where I am not bothered by the pricks that run your company. Unless of course they seize my aircraft for unpaid NC fees (read: taxes applied by a private corporation).
I can hardly wait 'till Bell charges you satellite TV fees when you are on Rodgers cable. Nav Canada is setting the precedent.
Glad you agree that I shouldn't be paying any fees, however it's unfortunate that your masters don't see it that way. On this they are intractable, probably because they have no concept of GA.
As for the user fees, they will lead to a diminishing of the GA sector, fewer small aircraft at controlled airports, fewer opportunities to learn the system for the newbies, more (less safe) ultralights and homebuilts, fewer services available to those that do need them in the long run, fewer airports (in Toronto this may be thought of as a good thing).
If you had any notion if what it takes to run a private aircraft, you might have sympathies for the lower echelon. I not talking about the doctors and lawyers here, I'm talking about the grass roots, the weekend flyer, the sport flyer, the wage earner that has virtually everyone's hands in their shallow pockets. When there are only the Doctors and high tech execs and their new $400,000 SR22s and the VLJs, this will be a sad turn of events for the whole country. Of course I will still be flying, ... in the bush where I am not bothered by the pricks that run your company. Unless of course they seize my aircraft for unpaid NC fees (read: taxes applied by a private corporation).
I can hardly wait 'till Bell charges you satellite TV fees when you are on Rodgers cable. Nav Canada is setting the precedent.
I find it amusing that Cat Driver finds Charlie G's posts arrogant. Although I don't agree with Charlie G's opinion, compared with some of Cat Driver's posts on previous threads they are tame.
Cat Driver, if you are as much an ambassador for your profession as you seem to think, a little humility would go a long way in portraying that to others especially on a medium such as the internet.
Some of the most arrogant posts I have had the displeasure of reading have been from you.
I find it interesting that you are okay with people having their opinion as long as it doesn't differ from yours.
I look forward to your response with your typical belittling, since I obviously don't share your opinion.
Cat Driver, if you are as much an ambassador for your profession as you seem to think, a little humility would go a long way in portraying that to others especially on a medium such as the internet.
Some of the most arrogant posts I have had the displeasure of reading have been from you.
I find it interesting that you are okay with people having their opinion as long as it doesn't differ from yours.
I look forward to your response with your typical belittling, since I obviously don't share your opinion.
Show me the numbers that support that statement.cyyz wrote:Get rid of the annual fee and introduce user fees.. =) sounds good, but NavCan would lose lots of it's revenue.charlie_g wrote:However, this thread started because of a $5 departure fee, and that's what we should be discussing.
I guess the truth of the matter is no matter how much we bitch and moan at each other NC in the end will do what they feel they need to do. That's too bad because really in effect they are just driving another nail into GA's coffin!
Putting money into aviation is like wiping before you poop....it just don't make sense!
The problem itself is simple. The answer is complex. Monolistic capitalism working at its brilliance. The major airlines are the key stakeholders in this organization. They complain to the CEO of NC that user fees are too high, and can't pay. They make proposals to NC telling them that GA has been getting a free ride and needs to help finance the costs. The poor major airlines can't carry the burden ALL by themselves. NC and its operating officers listen to the airlines and agree. Surplus revenue is given back to the airlines. The loud voices are heard while the quiet ones will always be ignored. I simply can't see a fix to this problem until all stakeholders have equity in representation.
IFRATC
IFRATC
